Raj Kumar Kakrania, New Delhi V. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 1397/DEL/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5888 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 2 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-05-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 10-03-2015
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PARAMITA TRIPATHI
• Keywords: Search and seizure; Valuation report

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH F NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO.1397/DEL/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12 SHRI RAJ KUMAR KAKRANIA, H-1593, 2 ND FLOOR, C.R. PARK, NEW DELHI. VS. DCIT, CC-04, NEW DELHI. TAN/PAN: AAACP 1438L (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SHRI G.N. GUPTA, ADV. RESPONDENT BY: MS. PARAMITA TRIPATHI, CIT-DR DATE OF HEARING: 23 05 2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 30 05 2018 O R D E R PER AMIT SHUKLA, J.M.: THE AFORESAID APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 25.11.2014 PASSED BY LD. CIT (APPEALS)-XXX, NEW DELHI FOR THE QUANTUM OF ASS ESSMENT PASSED U/S.143(3)/153A FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011 -12. IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS. 1. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED: A) IN IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE JEWELLERY FOUND AT T HE TIME OF SEARCH ALSO BELONGS TO THE WIFE OF THE ASSESSEE AS PER THE WEALTH TAX RETURN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AS KARTA OF HUF, A ND WEALTH TAX I.T.A. NO.1397/DEL/2015 2 RETURNS FILED BY HIS WIFE UPTO THE SOME YEARS BACK. B) IN IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE LOCKER FROM WHERE TH E JEWELLERY WAS FOUND WAS IN THE JOINT NAME OF THE ASSESSEE AND HIS WIFE AND THE PLEA THAT JEWELLERY FOUND AT THE TIME OF SEARCH ALSO BELONGED TO HIS WIFE NOT CONSIDERED. C) IN IGNORING THE AFFIDAVIT THAT WAS FILED BEFORE TH E ID AO AND THE FACT THAT THE JEWELLERY ALSO BELONGED TO HIS WI FE AND THE SOURCE OF THE JEWELLERY THAT WAS EXPLAINED IN THE AFFIDAVI T. D) IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITIONS SO MADE BY THE ID AO E XCEPT DELETING THE ADDITION OF JEWELLERY OF 600 GRAMS IN WEIGHT. 2. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ADDITION SO MADE BY THE LD. AO ON ACCOUNT OF THE UNACCOUNTED CASH RS. 5,25, 000/- FOUND AND SEIZED BY THE DEPARTMENT IN SPITE OF THE FACT T HE SAME WAS DULY EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE THE SAME WAS LIABLE TO BE DELETED. 2. THE FACTS IN BRIEF ARE THAT A SEARCH AND SEIZ URE ACTION U/S.132 WAS CARRIED OUT ON 21.01.2011 IN DS GROUP O F CASES AND ASSESSEE HAS ALSO COVERED UNDER THE SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION. DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AT THE RESID ENCE OF THE ASSESSEE AND BANK LOCKER, JEWELLERY WAS FOUND IN TH E POSSESSION OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH WAS VALUED BY THE GOVERNMENT APPROVED VALUER AT RS.21,54,497/- ON THE JEWELLERY FOUND FROM THE RESIDENCE AND RS.15,63,395/ - ON THE JEWELLERY FOUND FROM THE LOCKER. THE TOTAL JEWELLERY FOUND FROM THE ASSESSEE WEIGHING 1383.90 GMS (WRONGLY TAKEN AS 1583.90 GMS BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER) WHICH WAS VAL UED AT RS.37,17,892/-. BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER, ASSES SEES CASE I.T.A. NO.1397/DEL/2015 3 WAS THAT FIRSTLY, THE BENEFIT OF CBDT CIRCULAR SHOU LD BE GIVEN; AND SECONDLY, THERE WAS A PARTIAL PARTITION OF BIGG ER HUF ON 01.04.1995 AND THE JEWELLERY HELD BY THE HUF WAS PA RTITIONED BETWEEN TWO BROTHERS AND OUT OF THE SAID PARTITION 683.10 GM WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE. AN AFFIDAVIT WAS ALSO FILED IN THIS REGARD. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THAT SINCE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED ANY WEALTH TAX RETURN AND AFFIDAVIT I S MERELY SELF SERVING STATEMENT, THEREFORE, HE ADDED THE ENTIRE JE WELLERY AMOUNTING TO RS.37,17,892/-. 3. APART FROM THAT, CASH AMOUNTING TO RS.5,25,000/- WAS FOUND TO WHICH ASSESSEE HAD EXPLAINED THAT IT WAS P IN MONEY OF HIS WIFE AND HIS SAVINGS FROM SALARY OVER A PERI OD OF TIME. HOWEVER, ASSESSING OFFICER REJECTED THIS CONTENTION AND ADDED THE AMOUNT OF RS.5,25,000/- AS UNEXPLAINED U/S.69A. 4. LD. CIT (A) PARTLY CONFIRMED THE INVESTMENT MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED JEWELLERY AFTER OBSERVING AN D HOLDING AS UNDER: DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, LD. AR ARGUED THA T BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE APPELLANT VIDE LETTER DT. 3. 12.2012 HAS FILED DETAILED EXPLANATION FOR JEWELLERY FOUND WHERE THE APPELLANT CLAIMED THAT ASSESSEE'S WIFE WAS FILING WEALTH TAX RETURN REGULARLY AND ALSO FILED VALUATION REPORT OF THE JEWELLERY AS ON 31.07.1976 IN ASSESSEES WIFES HAND. VIDE SAID LETTER, THE APPEL LANT HAS ALSO FILED COPY OF THE VALUATION REPORT FILED ALONGWITH THE WEALTH TAX RETURN OF RAJ KUMAR BINAY KUMAR KAKRANIA (HUF) AND CLAIMED THAT 683.1 GM OF GOLD WAS RECEIVED FROM PARTIAL PARTITIO N OF HUF BY THE APPELLANT. TOTAL JEWELLERY CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT AS EXPLAINED I.T.A. NO.1397/DEL/2015 4 WAS WEIGHING 1555.1 GRM (872.05 GM IN THE HANDS OF APPELLANT'S WIFE AND 683.1 GM ON ACCOUNT OF PARTIAL PARTITION O F HUF). DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, LD. AR HAS FILED COPY OF WEALTH TAX RETURN OF APPELLANT'S WIFE AS WELL HUF WHICH WAS FI LED BEFORE ASSESSING OFFICER, A PERUSAL OF THE COPY OF WEALTH TAX RETURN/ASSESSMENT ORDER WEALTH TAX RETURN ACT REVEA LS THAT IN THE APPELLANT'S WIFE SMT. BIMLA DEVI KAKRANIA HAD FILED WEALTH TAX RETURN TILL A.Y. 87-88. A COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER ASSESSING TOTAL WEALTH AT RS. 2,94,000/- U/S 16(1) WAS FILED IN THE CASE OF SMT. BIMLA DEVI ALONGWITH THE COMPUTATION OF WEALTH FOR A.Y 92-93. SUBSEQUENTLY, NO WEALTH TAX RETURN IS FILED. I HAVE PERUSED THE STATEMENT RECORDED U/S 132(4) OF FT. ACT. THE APPELLANT HAS EXPLAINED THE JEWELLERY BELONGED TO H IS FAMILY AND ANCESTRAL JEWELLERY. NOWHERE, THE APPELLANT HAS CLA IMED THAT WEALTH TAX RETURN WAS FILED. EVEN AFTER CONSIDERING THE EVIDENCE IN FORM OF WEALTH TAX RETURN FILED BY APPELLANTS WIFE , SMT. BIMLA DEVI KAKRANIA AND APPELLANTS HUF, IT IS DIFFICULT TO BE LIEVE THAT SAME JEWELLERY CONTINUED TILL THE DATE OF SEARCH AS LAST WEALTH TAX RETURNS WERE FILED FOR A.Y. 92-93 AND SEARCH TOOK PLACE ON 21.01.2011 AFTER THE LAPSE OF 19 YEARS. NEITHER THE APPELLANT'S WIFE , OR HIS HUF OR HE HIMSELF HAS WEALTH TAX RETURN SUBSEQUENTLY FOR 19 Y EARS. EVEN THE (AFFIDAVIT FILED IN SUPPORT OF PARTIAL PARTITION IS DATED 1.4.1995 (I.E. 16 YRS PRIOR TO DATE OF SEARCH). TOTAL JEWELLERY CL AIMED TO BELONG TO HIS WIFE AND INDIVIDUAL IS WEIGHING 872.05 GM & 683 .1 GMS RESPECTIVELY. VALUE OF SUCH JEWELLERY ALSO EXCEEDS MINIMUM NON TAXABLE WEALTH IN RECENT YEARS. THEREFORE, IN ABSEN CE OF FILING OF WEALTH TAX RETURN IN RECENT ASSESSMENT YEARS, IT DO ES NOT PROVE THAT THE JEWELLERY DECLARED IN 18- 19 YEARS BACK STILL E XISTS WITH THE APPELLANT AND HIS WIFE. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS FILING OF WEALTH TAX RET URN FILED 19-20 YEARS BACK DOES NOT EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF JEWELLERY FOUND. I.T.A. NO.1397/DEL/2015 5 HOWEVER, LD. AR'S CLAIM THAT AT LEAST TO THE EXTENT OF JEWELLERY AS PER INSTRUCTION NO. 1914 SHOULD BE TREATED AS EXPLA INED, IS ACCEPTABLE IN VIEW OF JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENT RELIED BY LD. AR. 1 ACCORDINGLY TREAT 100 GM GOLD JEWELLERY IN APPELLAN TS HAND AND 500 GOLD JEWELLERY IN HIS WIFES HAND EXPLAINED AS PER THE QUANTUM OF JEWELLERY MENTIONED INSTRUCTION NO.1914. THE ASS ESSMENT ORDER IS DIRECTED TO GIVE RELIEF FOR THE VALUE OF 600 GM OF JEWELLERY AND BALANCE ADDITION IS CONFIRMED. THE GROUNDS OF APPEA L ARE PARTLY ALLOWED. REGARDING CASH AMOUNT, THE LD. CIT (A) CONFIRMED TH E ENTIRE ADDITION IN THE FOLLOWING MANNER:- I HAVE CAREFULLY PERUSED THE ABOVE TABLE. THE APPE LLANT OR HIS WIFE IS NOT MAINTAINING ANY BOOK OF ACCOUNT IN SUPPORT O F CASH WITHDRAWAL OR CASH BOOK AS SUCH. SECONDLY, IN NONE OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR, TOTAL CASH WITHDRAWAL FROM THE BANK INCLUDING CASH INCOME OF THE APPELLANTS WIFE EXCEEDS EVEN RS. 2 LACS. HOUSE HOLD WITHDRAWAL WHOLE FINANCIAL YEAR FROM 2004-05 TO 201 0-11 IS RANGING FROM RS. 60,000/- TO RS. 98,895/-. THE MAXI MUM FIGURE OF HOUSEHOLD EXPENSE IS LESS THAN RS. 1 LAKH ANNUALLY APPROXIMATELY I.E RS. 8000 PER MONTH. A FAMILY RESIDING IN CHITAR ANJAN PARK CANNOT SUPPORT FAMILY WITH MEAGRE HOUSEHOLD WITHDRA WAL IN THE RANGE OF RS. 5000/- - RS. 8200/- PER MONTH. THEREFO RE, IN MY VIEW, SUCH CASH WITHDRAWAL FROM THE BANK AND CASH INCOME OF THE APPELLANTS ARE IN ANY CASE AT THE MOST, SUFFICIENT TO MEET HOUSEHOLD EXPENSE AND CANNOT EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF CASH FOUND. IN ANY CASE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS GIVEN CREDIT ON ACCOUNT OF PIN MONEY OR SMALL SAVING TO THE 24,000/- (CASH FOUND R S. 5,49.000/- - ADDITION OF CASH U/S 69 A RS. 5.25,000/-. 5. BEFORE US THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, MR. G.N. GUPTA, ADVOCATE SUBMITTED THAT FIRST OF ALL THE OBS ERVATION OF I.T.A. NO.1397/DEL/2015 6 THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT FIL ED WEALTH TAX RETURN IS NOT CORRECT, BECAUSE EARLIER THE ASSE SSEES WIFE WAS FILING REGULAR WEALTH TAX RETURN AND A VALUATIO N REPORT OF JEWELLERY HELD AS ON 31 ST JULY, 1976 IN ASSESSEES WIFE HAND WAS DULY DISCLOSED ALONG WITH WEALTH TAX RETURN. TH EREAFTER, SUCH WEALTH TAX RETURN WAS CONTINUED TO BE FILED TI LL THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1992-93. HOWEVER, AFTER INCREASE IN THE WEALTH TAX LIMIT, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FILE ANY WEA LTH TAX RETURN BECAUSE THE TOTAL VALUE OF THE JEWELLERY AVA ILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEES WIFE WAS LESS THAN THE SAID LIMIT. A PART FROM THAT, HE SUBMITTED THAT ONCE THE LOCKER WAS IN THE JOINT NAME AND IT WAS DULY SUBMITTED THAT THE JEWELLERY BELONG S TO THE WIFE THEN ENTIRE ADDITION COULD NOT HAVE BEEN MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. SO FAR AS THE JEWELLERY RECE IVED FROM BIGGER HUF AFTER SELF PARTIAL PARTITION, HE SUBMITT ED THAT ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE WEALTH TAX RETURN OF THE HUF SHOWING AVAILABILITY OF JEWELLERY; AND OUT OF THAT, JEWELLER Y OF 683.1 GM WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE. IN THIS MANNER, JEWEL LERY WEIGHING 872.05 GM BELONGS TO ASSESSEES WIFE; AND 683.1 GM WAS AVAILABLE ON ACCOUNT OF PARTIAL PARTITION OF HU F STOOD DULY DISCLOSED MUCH PRIOR TO DATE OF SEARCH. IN SUP PORT, HE ALSO DREW OUR ATTENTION TO VARIOUS WEALTH TAX RETUR NS AND VALUATION REPORT SUBMITTED IN THE CASE OF THE ASSES SEES WIFE AS WELL AS IN THE CASE OF BIGGER HUF, RAJ KUMAR BINA Y KUMAR KAKRANIA (HUF). IN VIEW OF THIS BACKGROUND, NOTHING SHOULD BE HELD AS UNEXPLAINED BECAUSE THE QUANTITY OF JEWEL LERY FOUND ALREADY STANDS DISCLOSED PRIOR TO THE DATE OF SEARCH. I.T.A. NO.1397/DEL/2015 7 6. ON THE OTHER HAND, LEARNED DEPARTMENT REPRESENTA TIVE STRONGLY RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (A). 7. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND ON PERUSAL OF THE RELEVANT FINDINGS GIVEN IN THE IMPUGNED ORDE RS AS WELL AS THE MATERIAL REFERRED TO BEFORE US, WE FIND THAT THE TOTAL QUANTITY OF JEWELLERY FOUND FROM THE RESIDENCE AND LOCKER AGGREGATED TO 1383.90 GM. OUT OF THE SAID QUANTITY OF JEWELLERY, 872.05 GM HAS BEEN STATED TO BELONGING TO HIS WIFE AND IN SUPPORT OF THAT, VALUATION REPORT OF JEWELLE RY AS ON 31 ST JULY, 1976 FILED ALONG WITH WEALTH TAX RETURN HAVE BEEN HEAVILY RELIED UPON. UPTILL ASSESSMENT YEAR 1992-93 HIS WIFE WAS FILING WEALTH TAX RETURN WHEREIN THIS MUCH QUAN TITY OF JEWELLERY WAS REGULARLY SHOWN AND THEREAFTER IT HAS NOT BEEN FILED FOR THE REASON THAT THE WEALTH TAX LIMIT WAS INCREASED AND HIS WIFE WAS NO LONGER REQUIRED TO SUBMIT THE W EALTH TAX RETURN. THE OTHER PART OF THE JEWELLERY WEIGHING 68 3.1 GM HAS BEEN STATED TO BE RECEIVED FROM BIGGER HUF AFTER PA RTIAL PARTITION AND IN SUPPORT OF WHICH, THE WEALTH TAX R ETURN IN THE CASE OF BIGGER HUF WAS FILED TO SHOW THAT THE BIGGE R HUF HAD THE JEWELLERY. THE JEWELLERY WAS DIVIDED AFTER THE PARTITION AND THIS MUCH OF JEWELLERY HAS BEEN STATED TO BE BEQUEA THED UPON THE ASSESSEE. THE REASON GIVEN BY THE LD. CIT (A) F OR NOT ACCEPTING THE ASSESSEES CONTENTION IS THAT, THE WE ALTH TAX RETURN WAS FILED 19 YEARS EARLIER AND IT IS DIFFICU LT TO BELIEVE THAT THE SAME JEWELLERY CONTINUED TILL THE DATE OF SEARCH. SUCH I.T.A. NO.1397/DEL/2015 8 REASON ALONE CANNOT BE HELD TO BE TENABLE WITHOUT A NY CONTRARY MATERIAL FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH , BECAUSE IF THE OVERALL QUANTITY OF JEWELLERY HAS BEEN SAID T O BE AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE AND HIS WIFE MUCH PRIOR TO THE DATE OF SEARCH AND THE SAME HAS BEEN DISCLOSED THEN PRESUMPTION IS THAT THE SAID JEWELLERY MUST BE IN T HE POSSESSION OF THE ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF SEARCH. B EFORE US, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FILED RECONCILIAT ION STATEMENT TO SHOW THAT MOST OF THE JEWELLERY AS WAS DISCLOSED EARLIER IN THE WEALTH TAX RETURN STILL CONTINUED TO BE IN POSSESSION AND SOME OF THEM WERE RECONVERTED OVER T HE PERIOD OF TIME. EVEN IF THERE WAS A RECONVERSION TH EN IF THE OVERALL QUANTITY OF JEWELLERY IS AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE, THEN PRESUMPTION GOES IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE THA T SAME QUANTITY WHICH STOOD DISCLOSED EARLIER IS AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE AND HENCE NOTHING CAN BE TREATED AS UNEXPL AINED. SIMILARLY WOULD BE IN CASE OF JEWELLERY BEQUEATHED UPON ASSESSEE AFTER PARTITION OF BIGGER HUF, BECAUSE BIG GER HUF HAD JEWELLERY WHICH WAS DULY DISCLOSED IN THE WEALT H TAX RETURN. THUS, AVAILABILITY OF JEWELLERY WITH HUF AL SO STANDS PROVED. ACCORDINGLY, THE ADDITION PARTLY SUSTAINED BY THE LD. CIT (A) STANDS DELETED. THUS, THE GROUND ON THIS PO INT STANDS ALLOWED. 8. REGARDING CASH FOUND, THE ASSESSEE HAD GIVEN TH E AVAILABILITY OF CASH OUT OF BANK WITHDRAWAL HOUSEHO LDS EXPENDITURE AND CASH AVAILABLE WITH HIS WIFE IN THE FOLLOWING MANNER:- I.T.A. NO.1397/DEL/2015 9 FINANCIAL YEAR BANK WITHDRAW ALS BY THE ASSESSEE FOR HOUSEHOLD HOUSEHOLD EXPENDITUR E (AS PER CHART ATTACHED AS ANNEXURE D) CONTRIBUTION BY WIFE (BALANCING FIGURE) CASH INCOME OF WIFE (AS PER CHART ATTACHED AS ANNEXURE D) RESIDUAL SURPLUS AT YEAR END OF ASSESSEE (AS PER ANNEXURE D) RESIDUAL SURPLUS AT YEAR END OF ASSESSEE S WIFE (AS PER ANNEXURE D) BALANCE IN HAND (A) (B) (B)-(A) OB- 35000 2004-05 52000 77000 25000 NIL NIL NIL 35000 2005-06 66200 81450 15250 45250 NIL 30000 65000 2006-07 76000* 98875 22875 62875 NIL 112800 177800 2007-08 94700* 94700 NIL NIL NIL 22000 199800 2008-09 60000 60000 NIL NIL NIL 146244 346044 2009-10 40000 80000 40000 120000 NIL 128500 474544 2010-11 60000 98895 38895 118895 NIL 80000 554544 9. LD. CIT (A) HELD THAT THE HOUSEHOLD SHOWN BY T HE ASSESSEE IS VERY LESS, AND THEREFORE, THE CASH WITH DRAWAL MADE FROM THE BANK AND THE CASH INCOME OF THE ASSES SEE IS ONLY SUFFICIENT TO MEET THE HOUSEHOLD EXPENSE. HE O NLY GAVE CREDIT OF RS.24,000/- ON ADHOC BASIS. ACCORDINGLY, THE ADDITION HAS BEEN REDUCED FROM 5,49,000/- TO 5,25,0 00/-. 10. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE PARTIES, WE FIND THAT THOUGH THERE IS NO PROPER EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE AS PER THE AVAILABILITY OF THE CASH, B ECAUSE THE BANK WITHDRAWAL AND HOUSEHOLD EXPENDITURE AND THE CONTRIBUTION MADE BY THE WIFE IS NOT SUBJECT TO PRO PER VERIFICATION. IN ANY CASE, SOME AVAILABILITY OF CAS H WITH HOUSE WIFE WITH OLD SAVINGS AND SOME WITH THE ASSESSEE CA NNOT BE RULED OUT. UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE HOLD THAT OUT OF 5,25,000/-, SUM OF RS.2,25,000/- M AY BE TREATED AS EXPLAINED IN VIEW OF CASH WITHDRAWALS AN D AVAILABILITY OF SOME CASH WITH HIS WIFE WHO IS ELDE RLY LADY. THUS, ASSESSEE GETS A PART RELIEF OF RS.2,25,000/- AND THE BALANCE IS RS.3 LACS IS CONFIRMED. I.T.A. NO.1397/DEL/2015 10 11. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PA RTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30 TH MAY, 2018. SD/- SD/- [O.P. KANT] [AMIT SHUKLA] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 30 TH MAY, 2018