Krishan Kumar Thakral, Hisar V. ITO, Hisar

ITA 1220/DEL/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4129 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-11-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC 1
• Next Hearing Date: 01-09-2016
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 07-03-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: F R MEENA
• Keywords: Benefit of exemption
• Section: 10(10AA)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: SMC-1 NEW DELHI BEFORE SMT DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A .NO.-1220/DEL/2016 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2008-09) KRISHAN KUMAR THAKRAL, 198, RAM KUNJ, LAJPAT NAGAR, HISAR-125001. PAN-ABQPT3908B ( APPELLANT) VS ITO, WARD-2, HISAR. (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY SH.K.SAMPATH, ADV. REVENUE BY SH.F.R.MEENA, SR.DR ORDER THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE A SSAILING THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER DATED 23.12.2015 OF THE CIT(A), HISAR PERTAINING TO 2010-11 AY ON VARIOUS GROUNDS. HOWEVER, THE LD.AR AT THE TIME OF HEARING SUBMITTED THAT THE JURISDICTIONAL ISSUES ARE NOT BEING CONTESTED AND ONLY GROUND NOS. (IV) AND (V) ARE BEING ARGUED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL. THE SAME READ AS UNDER:- (IV) MAKING AN ADDITION OF RS.6,50,000/- ON ACCOUN T OF ARREAR OF GRATUITY RECEIVED FROM THE STATE GOVERNMENT AFTER R ETIREMENT BY RESTRICTING THE EXEMPTION CLAIMED U/S 10(10)(I) OF THE ACT TO R S.3,50,000/-. (V) MAKING AN ADDITION OF RS.2,01,170/- ON ACCOUNT OF ARREAR OF LEAVE ENCASHMENT RECEIVED FROM THE STATE GOVERNMENT AFTER RETIREMENT BY RESTRICTING THE EXEMPTION CLAIMED U/S 10(10AA) OF T HE ACT. 2. INVITING ATTENTION TO THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND T HE IMPUGNED ORDER, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. AR THAT THE ISSUES ARE COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY VIRTUE OF THE CONSISTENT ORDERS OF THE ITAT WHEREIN THEY HAVE BEEN DISCUSSED IN THE CASES OF VARIOUS EMPLOYEES OF CHAUDHARY CHARAN SINGH HAU WHO CAME BEFORE THE ITAT ON IDENTICAL ISSUES. INVITING ATTE NTION TO THE ORDER DATED 15.06.2016 IN THE CASE OF RAM KANWAR RANA VS ITO IN ITA NO.1307/DEL/2016, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT CONSIDERING AN IDENTICALLY INIT IATED RE-ASSESSMENT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE PREMISES THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD WRONGLY CLAIMED DATE OF HEARING 01.09.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 17.11.2016 I.T.A .NO.-1220/DEL/2016 PAGE 2 OF 6 EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 10(10) IN RESPECT OF ARREAR S OF GRATUITY AND ARREARS OF LEAVE ENCASHMENT. IT WAS HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE WA S NOT A HOLDER OF CIVIL POST UNDER THE STATE GOVERNMENT AND HENCE NOT ELIGIBLE F OR EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 10(10)(I) AND ALSO NOT COVERED UNDER SECTION 10(10) (II) AS THE EMPLOYEE DID NOT RECEIVE ANY GRATUITY UNDER THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT 1972. THE SAID ORDER AS IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE HAD BEEN UPHELD BY T HE CIT(A). THE ITAT RELYING ON VARIOUS ORDERS CITED THEREON, CONCLUDED BOTH THE IS SUES IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THE SAID VIEW, IT WAS SUBMITTED HAS BEEN FOLLOWED C ONSISTENTLY BY THE ITAT IN THE FOLLOWING CASES:- (I) RAM KANWAR RAN VS ITO IN ITA NO.1307/DEL/2016 VIDE ORDER DATED 15.06.2016; (II) RAGHUBIR SINGH PANGHAL VS ITO IN ITA NO.1308/DEL/20 16 VIDE ORDER DATED 16.06.2016; (III) BHUP SINGH DHANKHAR VS ITO IN ITA NO.1221/DEL/2016 VIDE ORDER DATED 19.07.2016; (IV) RANJIT SINGH GREWAL VS ACIT IN ITA NO.1521/DEL/2016 VIDE ORDER DATED 21.07.2016; AND (V) RAM DHARI RANA VS ITO IN ITA NO.1360/DEL/2016 VIDE ORDER DATED 10.08.2016. 3. THE LD. SR. DR PLACED RELIANCE UPON THE IMPUGNED ORDER. NO DISTINGUISHING FACTS, CIRCUMSTANCES AND POSITION OF LAW WAS CITED IN ORDER TO CANVASS A CONTRARY VIEW. 3. I HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED T HE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. A PERUSAL OF THE RECORD SHOWS THAT A RETUR N DECLARING INCOME OF RS.3,20,860/- WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE SAID RETURN WAS PROCESSED UNDER SECTION 143(1). THE ASSESSEE ADMITTEDLY WAS AN EMP LOYEE OF CHAUDHARY CHARAN SINGH, HARYANA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY, HISAR AND R ETIRED FROM SERVICE BEFORE 24.05.2010 AND RECEIVED SALARY I.E. PENSION AND OTH ER PENSIONARY BENEFITS DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE ASSESSEE IN THE C OMPUTATION OF TOTAL INCOME ANNEXED WITH THE RETURN OF INCOME FURNISHED DETAILS OF RECEIPT OF ARREARS OF GRATUITY AMOUNTING TO RS.10,00,000/- AND ARREARS OF LEAVE ENCASHMENT AMOUNTED TO RS.2,01,170/- AND CLAIMED THE SAME AS E XEMPT U/S 10(10) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. THE AO BY AN ORDER U/S 147/1 43(3) AFTER SHOW CAUSING THE ASSESSEE AND CONSIDERING THE EXPLANATION COMPLE TED THE ASSESSMENT AT AN INCOME OF RS.11,72,030/- HOLDING THAT CCS HAU CANNO T BE TERMED AS GOVT. I.T.A .NO.-1220/DEL/2016 PAGE 3 OF 6 EMPLOYEE AS NEITHER THEY ARE UNDER THE CONTROL OF HARYANA G OVT. NOR THEIR PAY IS DEBITED TO THE CONSOLIDATED FUNDS OF THE STATE. AP PLICATION OF CSR VOL.II DOES NOT CONFER VICE-VERSA STATUS AS GOVT. EMPLOYEE UNDER AN Y RULE/AUTHORITY AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. HENCE, IT IS CLEAR THAT UNIVERSITY E MPLOYEES ARE COVERED U/S 10(10)(III) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 BECAUSE NEI THER SEC. 10(10)(III) APPLIES AS THEY ARE NOT RECEIVING GRATUITY UNDER THE PAYMENT O F GRATUITY ACT, 1972 NOR FROM THE GRATUITY FUNDS MENTIONED U/S 10(10)(I) OF THE ACT. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS, THE EXEMPTION ALLOWABLE TO THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF G RATUITY AND LEAVE ENCASHMENT IS ONLY RS.3.5 LACS AND RS.3,00,000/- RESPECTIVELY WHI CH HAS ALREADY BEEN CLAIMED/ALLOWED. THUS, THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE F OR EXEMPTION OF GRATUITY RECEIVED IN ARREAR OF RS.6,50,000/- AND ARREAR OF L EAVE ENCASHMENT OF RS.2,01,170/- IS NOT IN ORDER AND IS ADDED BACK TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 4. THE SAID ORDER WAS CONFIRMED IN APPEAL BY THE CI T(A). CONSIDERING THE CONSISTENT ORDER OF THE ITAT RELIED UPON BY THE LD. AR AND IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY DISTINGUISHING FACT OR ARGUMENT ADVANCE BY THE REVE NUE, I FIND THAT THE ISSUE IS FULLY COVERED IN FAOVUR OF THE ASSESSEE. RESPECTF ULLY FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH, THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED. THE RELE VANT EXTRACT FROM ITA NO.1307/DEL/2016 ORDER DATED 16.06.2016 IS REPRODUC ED HEREUNDER:- 4. I HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE CONTROVERSY IN THIS APPEAL CAN BE VIEW ED SEPARATELY IN RESPECT OF RECEIPT OF GRATUITY AMOUNT AND LEAVE ENCASHMENT. I N SO FAR AS THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF GRATUITY RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE AMOUNT ING TO RS.6,50,000/- IS CONCERNED, IT IS FOUND THAT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSE E IS THAT THIS AMOUNT FALLS U/S 10(10)(I) OF THE ACT. ON THE CONTRARY, THE REVENUE HAS TREATED IT AS A CASE FALLING U/S 10(10)(III). IN ORDER TO APPRECIATE TH E RIVAL CONTENTIONS IN RIGHT PERSPECTIVE, IT WILL BE APPOSITE TO SET OUT THE REL EVANT PARTS OF SECTION 10, AS UNDER :- `(10) (I) ANY DEATH-CUM-RETIREMENT GRATUITY RECEIVE D UNDER THE REVISED PENSION RULES OF THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT OR, AS THE CASE MAY BE, THE CENTRAL CIVIL SERVICES (PENSION) RULES, 1972, OR UN DER ANY SIMILAR SCHEME APPLICABLE TO THE MEMBERS OF THE CIVIL SERVI CES OF THE UNION OR HOLDERS OF POSTS CONNECTED WITH DEFENCE OR OF CIVIL POSTS UNDER THE UNION (SUCH MEMBERS OR HOLDERS BEING PERSONS NOT GOVERNED BY THE SAID RULES) OR TO THE MEMBERS OF THE ALL-INDIA SERVICES OR TO THE MEMBERS OF THE CIVIL SERVICES OF A STATE OR HOLDERS OF CIVIL POSTS UNDER A STATE OR TO THE EMPLOYEES OF A LOCAL AUTHORITY OR ANY PAYMENT O F RETIRING GRATUITY RECEIVED UNDER THE PENSION CODE OR REGULATIONS APPL ICABLE TO THE MEMBERS OF THE DEFENCE SERVICES ; (II).. (III) ANY OTHER GRATUITY RECEIVED BY AN EMPLOYEE ON HIS RETIREMENT OR ON HIS BECOMING INCAPACITATED PRIOR TO SUCH RETIREMENT OR ON TERMINATION OF I.T.A .NO.-1220/DEL/2016 PAGE 4 OF 6 HIS EMPLOYMENT, OR ANY GRATUITY RECEIVED BY HIS WID OW, CHILDREN OR DEPENDANTS ON HIS DEATH, TO THE EXTENT IT DOES NOT, IN EITHER CASE, EXCEED ONE-HALF MONTH'S SALARY FOR EACH YEAR OF COMPLETED SERVICE, CALCULATED ON THE BASIS OF THE AVERAGE SALARY FOR THE TEN MONT HS IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING THE MONTH IN WHICH ANY SUCH EVENT OCCURS, SUBJECT TO SUCH LIMIT AS THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT MAY, BY NOTIFICATIO N IN THE OFFICIAL GAZETTE, SPECIFY IN THIS BEHALF HAVING REGARD TO TH E LIMIT APPLICABLE IN THIS BEHALF TO THE EMPLOYEES OF THAT GOVERNMENT : .. PROVIDED FURTHER THAT WHERE ANY SUCH GRATUITY OR GR ATUITIES WAS OR WERE RECEIVED IN ANY ONE OR MORE EARLIER PREVIOUS YEARS ALSO AND THE WHOLE OR ANY PART OF THE AMOUNT OF SUCH GRATUITY OR GRATUITI ES WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE OF SUCH PREVIOUS Y EAR OR YEARS, THE AMOUNT EXEMPT FROM INCOME-TAX UNDER THIS CLAUSE SHA LL NOT EXCEED THE LIMIT SO SPECIFIED AS REDUCED BY THE AMOUNT OR, AS THE CASE MAY BE, THE AGGREGATE AMOUNT NOT INCLUDED IN THE TOTAL INCOME O F ANY SUCH PREVIOUS YEAR OR YEARS. 5. A CAREFUL PERUSAL OF THE ABOVE PROVISION INDICAT ES THAT IF A CASE FALLS UNDER CLAUSE (I) OF SECTION 10(10), THE ENTIRE AMOU NT OF DEATH-CUM-RETIREMENT GRATUITY BECOMES EXEMPT. AU CONTRAIRE, IF A CASE F ALLS UNDER SUB-CLAUSE (III) OF SECTION 10(10), THEN, THE EXEMPTION IS LIMITED TO T HE AMOUNT AS THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT MAY NOTIFY IN OFFICIAL GAZETTE. IT IS A N ACCEPTED POSITION THAT THE NOTIFICATION U/S 10(10)(III) ISSUED ON 24.5.2010 RA ISED THE CEILING OF EXEMPTION FROM RS.3,50,000/- TO RS.10 LAC. SINCE THE ORIGINA L AMOUNT WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE CURRENCY OF AN EARLIER YEAR ON HIS RETIREMENT, THE EXEMPTION LIMIT PREVALENT AT THAT TIME AT RS.3,50,000/- WAS U SED BY THE ASSESSEE. IT IS NOBODYS CASE THAT THE EXTENDED LIMIT OF EXEMPTION CAN BE APPLIED TO THE ASSESSEE, BECAUSE OF HIS RETIREMENT WHICH TOOK PLAC E MUCH BEFORE THE CUT-OFF DATE. TO BE MORE SPECIFIC, THE QUESTION IS AS TO WH ETHER THE EXTANT CASE FALLS UNDER CLAUSE (I) OR CLAUSE (III) OF SECTION 10(10). IF A CASE DOES NOT FALL UNDER CLAUSE (I), IT WILL AUTOMATICALLY GO TO CLAUSE (III ). ON A SPECIFIC QUERY FROM THE BENCH, THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE CASE OF THE AS SESSEE SHOULD BE CONSIDERED UNDER SUB-CLAUSE (I) OF SECTION 10(10) AS A HOLDER OF CIVIL POST UNDER A STATE. IN ORDER TO CONSTRUE ANY PERSON AS A HOLDER OF CIVIL P OST UNDER A STATE, TWO REQUIREMENTS MUST BE FULFILLED VIZ., FIRST THAT THE EMPLOYEE SHOULD BE HOLDING A CIVIL POST AND, SECOND, SUCH CIVIL POST MUST BE UND ER A STATE. 6. THE FIRST CONDITION IS THAT THE EMPLOYEE SH OULD BE HOLDING A CIVIL POST. THE ASSESSEE WAS APPOINTED AS A RESEARCH ASSISTANT IN D ECEMBER, 1971, WHO EVENTUALLY ROSE TO THE POST OF HEAD OF DEPARTMENT, PLANT BREEDING DEPARTMENT AT THE TIME OF HIS RETIREMENT. PAGE 32 OF THE PAPE R BOOK IS COPY OF THE ASSESSEES PENSION PAYMENT ORDER, WHICH DEPICTS THE ASSESSEES DESIGNATION AS SR. SCIENTIST, DEPARTMENT OF PLANT BREEDING. ON THE PENSIONERS PORTION OF THIS DOCUMENT, THERE IS A REFERENCE TO RULE 10, 11 AND NOTE THEREUNDER OF CIVIL SERVICES RULES (CSR) V.II. AS THE ASSESSEES PENSIO N HAS BEEN COMPUTED UNDER CIVIL SERVICES RULE, IT GOES TO SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS HOLDING A CIVIL POST AT THE TIME OF HIS RETIREMENT. NO OTHER CONTR ARY MATERIAL HAS BEEN PLACED ON RECORD BY THE LD. DR TO SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEE W AS HOLDING A POST OTHER THAN CIVIL POST. 7. THE SECOND REQUIREMENT IS THAT SUCH CIVIL PO ST MUST BE UNDER A STATE. PAGE 20 OF THE PAPER BOOK IS A COPY OF HARYANA AND PUNJAB AGRICULTURAL I.T.A .NO.-1220/DEL/2016 PAGE 5 OF 6 UNIVERSITY ACT, 1970, WHICH WAS PASSED BY THE PARLI AMENT AND RECEIVED THE ASSENT OF THE PRESIDENT ON 2 ND APRIL, 1970. UNDER THIS ACT OF PARLIAMENT, TWO INDEPENDENT AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITIES IN PLACE OF T HE HITHERTO PUNJAB AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY, WERE ESTABLISHED. SECTION 5 OF THIS AC T SETS OUT THE NAME OF CCSU AS THE AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY TO FUNCTION WITHIN THE TERRITORIES OF STATE OF HARYANA. THIS PROVES THAT THE CCSU WAS ESTABLISHED BY AN ACT OF PARLIAMENT. PAGE 29 OF THE PAPER BOOK IS A DOCUMENT WHICH SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A STATE UNIVERSITY COVERED UNDER UNIVERSITY GRANTS CO MMISSION (UGC). IT IS UNDISPUTED THAT THE ENTIRE FUNDING OF THE CCSU IS D ONE BY THE STATE GOVERNMENT. PAGE 25 IS A COPY OF NOTIFICATION ISSU ED BY THE HARYANA GOVERNMENT INCREASING THE MAXIMUM LIMIT OF DEATH-CU M-RETIREMENT GRATUITY AT RS.10 LAC, UNDER WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED T HE ARREARS OF RETIREMENT GRATUITY UNDER THIS SCHEME ONLY. THE ABOVE FACTS A MPLY DEMONSTRATE THAT CCSU IS COVERED UNDER THE EXPRESSION STATE. THIS IS FURTHER CORROBORATED FROM ARTICLE 12 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA WHICH STATE S THAT: IN THIS PART, UNLESS THE CONTEXT OTHERWISE REQUIRES, THE STATE INCLUDES TH E GOVERNMENT AND PARLIAMENT OF INDIA AND THE GOVERNMENT AND THE LEGISLATURE OF EACH OF THE STATES EITHER LOCAL OR OTHER AUTHORITIES WITHIN THE TERRITORY OF INDIA OR UNDER THE CONTROL OF THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA. THE EXPRESSION OTHER AUTHORI TIES HAS BEEN INTERPRETED IN UMESH V. SINGH A 1967 PAT. 3(9) F.B. AS INCLUDING: A BOARD, A UNIVERSITY, THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF A HIGH COURT, HAVING THE POWER TO ISSUE RULES, BYLAWS OR REGULATIONS HAVING THE FORCE OF LAW. THE ABOVE DIS CUSSION MANIFESTS THAT CCSU IS COVERED WITHIN THE MEANING OF STATE. 8. AS THE ASSESSEE IS FOUND TO BE AN EMPLOYEE HOLDING A CIVIL POST UNDER A STATE, IN MY CONSIDERED OPINION, THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 10(10)(I) ARE FULLY ATTRACTED IN THIS CASE ENTITLING HIM TO EXEMPTION F OR THE AMOUNT UNDER CONSIDERATION. ONCE A CASE FALLS UNDER CLAUSE (I) O F SECTION 10(10), THE SAME CANNOT BE BROUGHT WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF CLAUSE (III ) OF SECTION 10(10). I, THEREFORE, HOLD THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO EX EMPTION U/S 10(10)(I) IN RESPECT OF GRATUITY AMOUNT RECEIVED IN TOTAL UPTO RS.10 LAC , WHICH COVERS A SUM OF RS.6,50,000/- RECEIVED DURING THE YEAR. OVERTURNIN G THE IMPUGNED ORDER ON THIS SCORE, I ALLOW EXEMPTION U/S 10(10)(I) TO THE ARREA RS OF GRATUITY RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE AT RS.6,50,000/- DURING THE INSTANT YEAR. 9. AS REGARDS THE SECOND AMOUNT OF RS.1,88,720/- RE CEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR TOWARDS THE ARREARS OF LEA VE ENCASHMENT, IT IS NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED EXEMPTION U/S 10(10AA)(I) WHICH WAS REFUSED BY THE AO BY HOLDING THE CASE TO BE COVERED UNDER SUB-CLAU SE (II) OF SECTION 10(10AA). THE LD. CIT(A) AFFIRMED THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE AO ON THIS POINT, THEREBY DENYING THE BENEFIT OF EXEMPTION IN RESPECT OF THE ARREARS OF LEAVE ENCASHMENT RECEIVED DURING THE YEAR. 10. I HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NOT MUCH DIFFERENCE IN THE LANGUAGE OF SECTION 10(10)(I) AND 10(10AA)(I) AND THE VIEW TAKE N IN RESPECT OF ARREARS OF GRATUITY U/S 10(10) SHOULD BE FOLLOWED FOR ARREARS OF LEAVE ENCASHMENT U/S 10(10AA). THE LD. DR SUPPORTED THIS PROPOSITION. AS BOTH THE SIDES ARE CONSENSUS AD IDEM ON THE POSITION THAT THE VIEW TA KEN IN THE CONTEXT OF SECTION 10(10) AS APPLICABLE TO LEAVE GRATUITY BE FOLLOWED HERE IN THE CONTEXT OF SECTION 10(10AA) IN THE CONTEXT OF LEAVE ENCASHMENT, I AM D ESISTING FROM INDEPENDENTLY EXAMINING THE LATER PROVISION. IN VIEW OF THE FAC T THAT I HAVE HELD THE ASSESSEE TO BE ENTITLED TO EXEMPTION U/S 10(10)(I) IN RESPEC T OF ARREARS OF GRATUITY, I.T.A .NO.-1220/DEL/2016 PAGE 6 OF 6 FOLLOWING THE SAME, I EXTEND THE BENEFIT OF EXEMPTI ON U/S 10(10AA)(I) IN RESPECT OF ARREARS OF LEAVE ENCASHMENT. THIS GROUND IS ALL OWED. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED. THE ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 1 7 TH OF NOVEMBER, 2016. SD/- (DIVA SINGH) JUDI CIAL MEMBER *AMIT KUMAR* COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSIST ANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI