M/s. Luxmi Rice Mills, Karnal V. ITO, Karnal

ITA 1497/DEL/2015

• Counselvise Citation: 149720114 RSA 2015
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-10-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC 1
• Next Hearing Date: 19-08-2015
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 16-03-2015
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: K K JAISWAL
• Assessee Lawyers: PERMIL GOEL
• Keywords: Bonafide belief
• Section: 194C; 10

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH SMC NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI N.K. SAINI: ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 1497/DEL/2015 ASSTT. YRS: 2010-11 LUXMI RICE MILLS, VS. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, C/O DHARAM PAL GUPTA, ADV. WARD-4, KARNAL. 7-RAILWAY ROAD, KARNAL. PAN: AAAFL 2868 D ( APPELLANT ) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI PERMIL GOEL ADV. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI K.K. JAISWAL, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 19/08/2015. DATE OF ORDER : 29/10/2015. O R D E R THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 13-03-2014 OF LD. CIT(APPEALS)-KARNAL. ONLY EFFECTIVE GROUND R AISED IN THIS APPEAL READS AS UNDER: AO ERRED IN LAW & FACT IN DISALLOWING RENT RS. 5,1 6,808/- TO WAREHOUSE + CONTRACT PAYMENT OF RS. 2,37,757/- TO N BHC PAID DURING YEAR BY APPLYING SECTION 40(A)(IA), WHICH IS APPLICABLE ONLY TO AMOUNTS PAYABLE AS ON 31/3/2010 & 40(A)(IA) IS NOT APPLICABLE TO AMOUNTS PAID DURING THE YEAR. 2. FACTS OF THE CASE, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT ASSESSEE W AS ENGAGED IN THE MANUFACTURING OF RICE AND ITS BYE-PRODUCTS AND FILE D THE RETURN OF INCOME ON 2 ITA 1497/DEL/2015 23-9-2010, DECLARING AN INCOME OF RS. 1,04,790/-, W HICH WAS PROCESSED U/S 143(1) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REF ERRED TO AS THE ACT IN SHORT), ON 22-4-2011. LATER ON, THE CASE WAS SELECT ED FOR SCRUTINY. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE AO NOTICED THA T THE ASSESSEE HAD DEBITED WAREHOUSE PADDY RENT TO THE TUNE OF RS. 5,7 6,808/-, WHICH COMPRISED OF RS. 60,000/- PAID TO M/S HANUMAN RICE MILLS ON 2 8-11-2009 AND RS. 5,16,808/- PAID TO HARYANA WAREHOUSING CORPORATION AND CENTRAL WAREHOUSING CORPORATION. THE AO WAS OF THE VIEW THA T THE ASSESSEE WAS UNDER OBLIGATION TO DEDUCT THE TAX ON THE RENT PAYM ENT OF RS. 5,16,808/- U/S 194-I OF THE ACT, WHICH HAD NOT BEEN DONE BY THE AS SESSEE. HE ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN AS TO WHY THE TDS ON RENT PAYME NT HAD NOT BEEN DEDUCTED. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THE REN T HAD BEEN PAID TO THE STATE GOVERNMENT AND CENTRAL GOVERNMENT, NO TDS WAS DEDUCTIBLE. THE ASSESSEE ALSO FURNISHED THE COPY OF CIRCULAR NO. 6 99 DATED 30-1-1995 ISSUED BY THE CBDT. THE AO DID NOT FIND MERIT IN THE SUBMI SSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND MADE THE ADDITION OF RS. 5,16,808/-. THE AO ALS O NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED NBHC BANK GUARD PAY TO THE TUN E OF RS. 2,37,757/- AND NO TDS WAS DEDUCTED AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SE CTION 194C OF THE ACT. THE SAID AMOUNT WAS ALSO DISALLOWED U/S 40A(IA) OF THE ACT AND ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 3. BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER TO THE LD. CIT(A) AND FURNISHED THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS, WHICH READ AS UN DER: 'THE LD.ITO MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.516808/ - WHICH WAS RENT PAID FOR GODOWNS AS WAREHOUSING CHARGES. THE GODOWN S ARE OWNED AND CONTROLLED EXCLUSIVELY BY THE SATE GOVT. AND CENTRAL GOVT. IN THE INTEREST OF THE NATION. TDS AS PER LAW WAS NOT DEDUCTED ON SUCH PAYMENTS OF RENT. THE APPELLANT SU BMITTED 3 ITA 1497/DEL/2015 LETTERS, CIRCULARS AND CERTIFICATE FROM THE CWC AND HWC AND A CERTIFICATE FROM. THE ASSESSEE WERE FILED TO PROVE THAT TDS IS NOT REQUIRED TO BE DEDUCTED FROM THE STATE GOVT. AND TH E CENTRAL GOVT. CORPORATIONS.' 4. THE ASSESSEE ALSO FURNISHED THE COPY OF THE CIRC ULAR NO. 699 DATED 30- 1-1995 ISSUED BY THE CBDT. 5. THE LD. CIT(A) ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE EVI DENCE THAT THE HARYANA WAREHOUSING CORPORATION AND CENTRAL WAREHOU SING CORPORATION WERE ENTITIES, WHICH WERE GOVERNMENT AND STATUTORY AUTHORITIES OR LOCAL AUTHORITIES COVERED U/S 10(20) OR 10(20A) OF THE AC T. 6. IN RESPONSE, THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS, WHICH READ AS UNDER: THAT FOR NON DEDUCTION OF TDS FROM RENT PAID TO CE NTRAL WAREHOUSING CORPORATION OF RS. 206452/- AND RS.3103 56/- TO STATE WAREHOUSING CORPORATION THE EXPENSES HAVE BEE N DISALLOWED AND ADDED AS INCOME. THE BARE READING OF SECTION 194-I IS CLEAR- THE PAY EE IS THE GOVERNMENT AND UNDER THIS BONAFIDE IMPRESSION THE A SSESSEE DID NOT DEDUCT TDS. SIMILARLY TDS ON PAYMENT OF RS.237757/- TO NBHC A B ANKING CONCERN WAS NOT REQUIRED AS PER OUR BONAFIDE AND CO MMON MAN FEELINGS. THIS ADDITION IS ALSO WRONG. IN OUR OPINION THESE ARE DIRECTLY GOVERNMENT CONCE RNS AND CANNOT BE CALLED LOCAL AUTHORITIES AS NO LOCAL OR A UTHORITY IS INVOLVED. AS REGARDS OBTAINING ANY CERTIFICATES REQUIRED UNDE R CLAUSE 20 OR 20A OF SECTION 10 WE COULD NOT OBTAIN SUCH CERTI FICATE OF TAX EXEMPTION STATUS OF THESE GOVT. DEPTT. AND THESE DA YS NO OFFICER 4 ITA 1497/DEL/2015 LIKES TO WRITE ANY SUCH LETTER OR CERTIFICATE. THE SAME CAN BE OBTAINED AT YOUR HONOURS LEVEL.' 7. LD. CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PRODUCE ANY DO CUMENT IN SUPPORT OF ITS CONTENTION THAT IT IS COVERED U/S 10(20) OR 10(20A ) OF THE ACT, ON THE BASIS OF WHICH IT IS CLAIMING EXEMPTION FROM THE PROVISIO NS OF SECTION 194-I OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY, THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 5,16,808 /-, MADE BY THE AO U/S 40A(IA) OF THE ACT, WAS UPHELD. 8. LD. CIT(A) ALSO OBSERVED THAT THE AO PROVIDED NU MEROUS OPPORTUNITIES TO THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. HE, THEREFORE, DISMISSED THIS CONTENTION OF THE ASS ESSEE THAT THE AO HAD PASSED THE ORDER IN HURRY AND WITHOUT GIVING PROPER OPPORTUNITY. 9. AS REGARDS TO ANOTHER DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 2,37,7 57/-, THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WAS AS UNDER: ANOTHER ADDITION OF RS.237757/- MADE U/S 194-C OF THE ACT BY DISALLOWING U/ S 40 A(IA) OF THE ACT, PAID TO NBHC FOR GUARDING AND SUPERVISORY WORK. THE CONTRACT IS EFFECTED BETW EEN THE BANK AND NBHC. THE BANK ALSO MAKES CERTAIN PAYMENTS OUT OF THE INTEREST EARNED TO THE NBHC(NATIONAL BULK HANDL ING CORPORATION)THE ASSESSEE HAS TO PAY AS PER BANK DI RECTIONS. AS THERE NO CONTRACT BETWEEN THE APPELLANT AND NBHC NO TDS WAS MADE. FURTHER PAYMENT OF SALARY TO TWO GUARDS A ND SUPERVISOR ARE FINALIZED BY THE BANK AND GUARDS ARE ALSO CHANGED FROM TIME TO TIME THUS TDS WAS NOT REQUIRED . 10. THE LD. CIT(A), AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIO NS OF THE ASSESSEE, OBSERVED THAT IF THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS CONSIDERED TO BE TRUE THAT THE CONTRACT WAS BETWEEN THE BANK AND NBHC AND THAT THE PAYMENT ON 5 ITA 1497/DEL/2015 GUARDS AND SUPERVISORS WERE FINALIZED BY THE BANK A ND THE GUARDS WERE CHANGED FROM TIME TO TIME BY THE BANK, THEN WHY THE ASSESSEE WAS PAYING MONEY TO NBHC BANK GUARD. ACCORDINGLY, THE CONTENT ION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS CONSIDERED TO BE FUTILE AND BASELESS. ACCORDING TO LD. CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE WAS LIABLE TO DEDUCT TDS U/S 194C OF THE A CT, AS THE PAYMENT WAS CONTRACTUAL IN NATURE. HE, THEREFORE, HELD THAT THE AO RIGHTLY MADE THE DISALLOWANCE U/S 40A(IA) OF THE ACT. NOW, THE ASSES SEE IS IN APPEAL. 11. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUB MISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT TH E ASSESSEE PAID WAREHOUSE RENT TO CENTRAL WAREHOUSING CORPORATION AND HARYANA WAREHOUSING CORPORATION AND IT WAS UNDER A BONAFIDE BELIEF THAT NO TAX WAS TO BE DEDUCTED AT SOURCE U/S 194-I ON RENT PAID TO THE GO VERNMENT OF INDIA/ HARYANA, AMOUNTING TO RS. 2,06,452/- AND RS. 3,10,3 56/- RESPECTIVELY AND SIMILARLY, THE ASSESSEE WAS ALSO UNDER BONAFIDE BEL IEF THAT NO TAX WAS TO BE DEDUCTED AT SOURCE U/S 194C ON GUARDS SALARY REIMB URSED TO BANK AMOUNTING TO RS. 2,37,757/-. IT WAS FURTHER STATED THAT IN THE TAX AUDIT REPORT ALSO IN FORM NO. 3CB IN PART-B AT SL. NO. 27(A), TH E AUDITOR HAD MENTIONED YES IN RESPONSE TO THE QUERY OF TDS COMPLIANCE AN D HAD ALSO MENTIONED IN CLAUSE (B) NIL IN RESPONSE TO QUERY OF TDS NON -COMPLIANCE. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT NOTHING WAS PAYABLE AS ON 31 ST MARCH, THEREFORE, DISALLOWANCE U/S 40A(IA), MADE BY THE AO, WAS NOT J USTIFIED. RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE DECISION OF THE ITAT VISAKHAPATNAM, S PECIAL BENCH IN THE CASE OF MERILYN SHIPPING & TRANSPORT VS. JCIT AND T HE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. VECTOR SHIPPING SERVICES PVT. LTD. 357 ITR 642. RELIANCE WAS ALSO P LACED ON THE FOLLOWING CASE LAWS: 6 ITA 1497/DEL/2015 - HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. M/S DLF COMMERCIAL PROJECT CORPORATION (ITA NOS. 627/2012 & 507/2013 DATED 15-7-2015); - ITAT MUMBAI BENCH J IN THE CASE OF SHRI JITEND RA MANSUKHLAL SHAH VS. DCIT (ITA NOS. 2293 & 2294/MUM/ 2013 ORDER DATED 4-3-2015). 12. IN HIS RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, LD. SR. DR REITERATED THE OBSERVATIONS MADE BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT PAYABLE DOES NOT MEAN PAYABLE AT THE END OF THE YEAR AND THAT THE AMOUNT CAN BE PAYABLE ON DAY TO DAY BASIS. HE STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A). 13. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE P ARTIES AND CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON THE RECORD. IN THE PRESENT CASE, IT IS AN ADMITTED FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE REIMBURSED THE SALA RY TO THE GUARDS OF THE BANK AND THERE WAS NO CONTRACT IN BETWEEN THE ASSES SEE AND NBHC. GUARDS WERE DEPUTED BY THE BANK, BUT THE EXPENSES WERE REI MBURSED BY THE ASSESSEE. ON A SIMILAR ISSUE, THE HONBLE DELHI HIG H COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. DLF COMMERCIAL PROJECT CORPORATION IN ITA 6 27/2012 AND 507/2013 VIDE ORDER DATED 15-7-2015, WHILE DECIDING THE ISSUE RELATING TO REIMBURSEMENT OF SERVICE CHARGES VIS A VIS NON-DEDU CTION OF TDS, OBSERVED IN PARAS 17 TO 21 AS UNDER: 17. THE AO DISALLOWED THE AMOUNT OF RS. 19,69,83,2 36/- AS DEDUCTION FOR THE REASON THAT THE ASSESSEE DEDUCTED TDS ONLY ON THE SERVICE CHARGES PAID BY IT TO M/S DLF LAND LTD. ACC ORDING TO THE AO, TDS OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN DEDUCTED UNDER THE AMOUN T PAID BY THE ASSESSEE TOWARDS REIMBURSEMENT EXPENSES TO M/S DLF LAND LTD. THIS COURT HOLDS THAT THE CIT(A) AND THE ITAT RIGHT LY SET ASIDE THE AOS ORDER, RULING THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT REQUIR ED TO DEDUCT TDS ON REIMBURSEMENT EXPENSES PAID TO M/S DLF LAND LTD. 7 ITA 1497/DEL/2015 18. THE ASSESSEE HAS CORRECTLY RELIED UPON THIS COU RTS RULING IN INDUSTRIAL ENGINEERING PROJECTS PVT. LTD., (SUPRA). A DIVISION BENCH OF THIS COURT IN THAT CASE SPECIFICALLY HELD THAT ' REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES CAN, UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES, BE REGARDED A S REVENUE RECEIPT' AND THEREFORE, IT IS NOT LIABLE TO INCOME TAX. THE COURT RELIED UPON THE SUPREME COURT'S DECISION IN CIT V. TEJAJI FARASRAM KHARAWALLA LTD., [1968] 67 ITR 95 (SC), WHERE THE C OURT HAD HELD THAT IT IS ONLY THE AMOUNT THAT EXCEEDS THE EXPENDI TURE INCURRED BY THE AGENT THAT WOULD BE LIABLE TO TAX. MORE RECENTL Y, THIS COURT IN FORTIS HEALTH CARE LTD. (SUPRA) HAS ALSO HELD THAT AMOUNT RECEIVED TOWARDS REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES IS NOT TAXABLE UN DER THE ACT. 19. IN THE INSTANT CASE, IT IS UNDISPUTED THAT M/S DLF LAND LTD. HAD DEDUCTED TDS ON THE PAYMENTS MADE BY IT UNDER VARIO US HEADS ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. FURTHER, IT IS ALSO NOT DIS PUTED THAT THE ASSESSEE DEDUCTED TDS ON THE SERVICE CHARGE PAID BY IT TO M/S DLF LAND LTD. ON THE REIMBURSEMENT EXPENSES. IN SUCH CI RCUMSTANCES, THIS COURT HOLDS THAT THE ENTIRE AMOUNT PAID BY THE ASSESSEE TO M/S DLF LAND LTD. IS ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION AS EXPENDITU RE. 20. IN ARRIVING AT THE AFORESAID CONCLUSION, THIS C OURT DERIVES SUPPORT FROM THE GUJARAT HIGH COURTS DECISION IN C OMMISSIOENR OF INCOME TAX-III V. GUJARAT NARMADA VALLEY FERTILIZER S CO. LTD. (IN TAX APPEAL NO. 315 OF 2013, DECIDED ON 25-06-2013), WHERE THE FACTS WERE SIMILAR TO THOSE IN THE PRESENT CASE. TH E COURT THEREIN REJECTED THE REVENUES CONTENTION THAT NON DEDUCTIO N OF TDS ON REIMBURSEMENT EXPENSES WOULD LEAD TO DISALLOWANCE O F SUCH REIMBURSEMENT EXPENDITURE. THE COURT NOTED THAT THE PAYEE THEREIN HAD ALREADY DEDUCTED TAX ON THE VARIOUS PAYMENTS MA DE BY IT TO THIRD PARTIES (SUCH AS TOWARDS TRANSPORT CHARGES AN D OTHER CHARGES). SINCE THE PAYMENTS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE THEREIN WER E ONLY FOR THE REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES INCURRED BY THE PAYEE ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE, THE COURT HELD THAT NO TDS WAS REQUIRED T O BE DEDUCTED BY THE ASSESSEE. A SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION PREFERRED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE HIGH COURT'S DECISION WAS DISMISSED BY THE SUPREME COURT ON 17.01.2014 (IN SLC CC NO. 175 OF 2014). TH IS COURT IS ALSO SUPPORTED IN ITS REASONING BY THE TEXT OF SECT ION 194C (TDS FOR 'WORK') AND SECTION 194J (TDS OF INCOME FROM 'PROFE SSIONAL 8 ITA 1497/DEL/2015 SERVICES' - THE LATTER EXPRESSION DEFINED EXPANSIVE LY BY SECTION 194J (3) EXPLANATION (A)). NEITHER PROVISION OBLIGES THE PERSON MAKING THE PAYMENT TO DEDUCT ANYTHING FROM CONTRACTUAL PAY MENTS SUCH AS THOSE MADE FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES, OTHER THA N WHAT IS DEFINED AS 'INCOME'. THE LAW THUS OBLIGES ONLY AMOU NTS WHICH FULFILL THE CHARACTER OF 'INCOME' TO BE SUBJECT TO TDS IN S UCH CASES; FOR OTHER PAYMENTS TOWARDS EXPENSES, THE DEDUCTION TO T HOSE ENTITLED (TO BE MADE BY THE PAYEEE) THE OBLIGATION TO CARRY OUT TDS IS UPON THE RECIPIENT OR PAYEE OF THE AMOUNTS. 21. THE FACTS OF THIS CASE ARE IDENTICAL TO THOSE I N GUJARAT NARMADA VALLEY (SUPRA) AND FOR THE REASONS STATED ABOVE, TH IS COURT DOES NOT FIND ANY COMPELLING GROUND TO ARRIVE AT A DIFFERENT CONCLUSION. THUS, THE ITAT'S RULING IN THIS REGARD IS UPHELD. 14. IN THE PRESENT CASE ALSO, THE ASSESSEE REIMBURS ED THE EXPENSES TO THE BANK AND THE BANK OUGHT TO HAVE DEDUCTED THE TDS WH EN THERE WAS A CONTRACT IN BETWEEN THE BANK AND THE NBHC, BUT THER E WAS NO CONTRACT BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND NBHC. THEREFORE, PROVISION S OF SECTION 40A(IA) WERE WRONGLY APPLIED BY THE LD. AO, AS THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT REQUIRED TO DEDUCT TDS U/S 194C OF THE ACT ON THE REIMBURSEMENT OF THE EXPENSES. IN THAT VIEW OF THE MATTER, ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF DIS ALLOWANCE OF RS. 2,37,757/- IS DELETED. 15. AS REGARDS TO THE OTHER ISSUE RELATING TO THE P AYMENT OF RENT PAID TO THE WAREHOUSING CORPORATION, THE LD. CIT(A) CATEGORICAL LY OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO PRODUCE EVIDENCE THAT THE HAR YANA WAREHOUSING CORPORATION AND CENTRAL WAREHOUSING CORPORATION ARE ENTITIES WHICH ARE GOVERNMENT AND STATUTORY AUTHORITIES OR LOCAL AUTH ORITIES COVERED U/S 10(20) OR 10(20A) OF THE ACT, BUT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT IN A POSITION TO PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE. 9 ITA 1497/DEL/2015 16. IT IS WELL SETTLED THAT WHEN ANY ASSESSEE CLAIM S ANY BENEFIT OR EXEMPTION UNDER ANY PROVISION OF THE STATUTE, IT IS FOR THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE THE RELEVANT DOCUMENTS OR EVIDENCE, ON THE BASIS OF WHICH IT IS CLAIMING SUCH A BENEFIT OR EXEMPTION. HOWEVER, IN THE PRESENT CAS E, IT IS NOTICED THAT THE AO IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER NOWHERE STATED THAT HE A SKED THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE SUCH AN EVIDENCE. I, THEREFORE, DEEM IT APP ROPRIATE TO SET ASIDE THIS ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF AO, TO BE DECIDED AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, AFTER PROVIDING DUE AND REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF B EING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 17. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 29/10/2015. SD/- (N.K. SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 29/10/2015. *MP* COPY OF ORDER TO: 1. ASSESSEE 2. AO 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, NEW DELHI. 10 ITA 1497/DEL/2015 -+ DATE INITIAL 1. DRAFT DICTATED ON 28-102015 PS 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 29 .10.2015 PS 3. DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER JM/AM 4. DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER. JM/ AM 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS PS/PS 6. KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON PS 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK PS 8. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE AR 9. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK. 10. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER.