ACIT, New Delhi V. Smt. Sapna Dimri, New Delhi

ITA 151/DEL/2012

• Counselvise Citation: 15120114 RSA 2012
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-03-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 10-01-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S MOHANTHY
• Assessee Lawyers: RANJAN CHOPRAAR
• Keywords: Capital asset; Opportunity of being heard; Period of limitation; Cost of acquisition; Fair market value; Valuation report; Revised return
• Section: 45(2); 139; 54

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI G BENC H BEFORE SMT. DIVA SINGH, JM & SHRI A.N. PAHUJA, AM ITA NO.151/D/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 ACIT,CIRCLE 45(1), ROOM NO.311, MAYUR BHAWAN, NEW DELHI V/S . SMT. SAPNA DIMRI C-2/11, VASANT VIHAR, NEW DELHI [PAN:AEXPD 5808 G] (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY SHRI RANJAN CHOPRA,AR REVENUE BY MS. S. MOHANTHY, DR DATE OF HEARING 15-03-2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 15-03-2012 O R D E R A.N.PAHUJA:- THIS APPEAL FILED ON 10.01.2012 BY THE REVENUE AGAI NST AN ORDER DATED 31.10.2011 OF THE LD. CIT(A)-XXX, NEW DELHI, RAISES THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONS: 1 WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E, THE LEARNED CIT(A) IS JUSTIFIED IN DIRECTING THE AO TO TAKE THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY AS ON 01.04.1981 BY PLACING RELIANCE ON THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2(47) (VI) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT WHICH WERE INTRODUCED W.E.F. 01.04.1 988 AND AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSEE AS ON 06.02.1984 WHEN THE ACTUAL CONVEYANCE DEED WAS REGISTERED. 2 WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E, THE LEARNED CIT(A) IS JUSTIFIED IN ALLOWING EXEMPTION O F ` 64,36,667/- U/S 54 OF THE ACT WHEREAS THE ASSESSEE HAD NEITHER PURCHASED THE HOUSE NOR DEPOSITED THE AMOUN T IN THE CAPITAL GAIN SCHEME BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF FILI NG OF RETURN OF INCOME U/S 139(1). 3 WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E, THE LEARNED CIT(A) IS JUSTIFIED IN IGNORING THE SPECIFI C PROVISIONS OF SECTION 45(2) OF INCOME-TAX ACT WHEREIN IT IS ME NTIONED THAT SUM DEPOSIT BEING MADE IN ANY CASE NOT LATER THAN THE DUE DATE APPLICABLE IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE FOR ITA NO.151/DEL./2012 2 FURNISHING THE RETURN OF INCOME UNDER SUB-SECTION ( 1) OF SECTION 139 AND BY HOLDING THAT ASSESSEE HAD PURCH ASED THE NEW ASSET BEFORE FILING OF RETURN U/S 139 I.E. U/S 139(4) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT. 4 WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E, THE LEARNED CIT(A) IS JUSTIFIED IN JUSTIFIED IN NOT DEC IDING THE GROUND NO.4 OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE HIM. WHETHER THE ASSESSEE CAN REVISE THE INCOME THROUGH A REVISE D COMPUTATION OF INCOME ONLY AND THE REQUIREMENT OF F ILING REVISED RETURN IS NOT MANDATORY. 5 THE APPELLANT CRAVES THE RIGHT TO ALTER, AMEND, A DD OR SUBSTITUTE THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 2. FACTS, IN BRIEF, AS PER RELEVANT ORDERS ARE THA T RETURN DECLARING INCOME OF ` `7,08,754/-FILED ON 04.03.2009 BY THE ASSESSEE, AFT ER BEING PROCESSED U/S 143(1) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (H EREAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT), WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY WITH THE SERVICE OF A NOTICE ISSUED U/S 143(2) OF THE ACT. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDIN GS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER (A.O. IN SHORT) NOTICED THAT ONE SHRI PREM LAL BECA ME A MEMBER OF BURMA SHELL CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. IN THE YEAR 1951 BY ACQU IRING ONE SHARE OF ` `25/- OF THE SAID SOCIETY. ON HIS DEATH ON 19.01.1980, THE MEMBERSHIP OF THE SOCIETY WAS TRANSFERRED TO HIS WIFE SMT. KAMLA DEVI ON 31.0 8.1980. LATER, THE CONVEYANCE DEED OF PLOT NO.25, ARADHANA COLONY, R.K . PURAM, SECTOR-13, NEW DELHI, ADMEASURING 370 SQ. YARDS WAS EXECUTED BY TH E SOCIETY IN FAVOUR OF SMT. KAMLA DEVI ON 06.02.1984. ON HER DEATH ON 08.03.19 86, THE SAID PLOT WAS TRANSFERRED IN THE NAME OF HER TWO DAUGHTERS SMT. R AMA RANI MATHUR AND SMT. PRABHA CHANDRA. THESE TWO LADIES ENTRED INTO A COL LOBORATION AGREEMENT ON 10.04.1990 WITH M/S AHLUWALIA CONTRACTS (I) PVT. LT D. FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A HOUSE ON THE SAID PLOT. THE GROUND FLOOR AND BASEM ENT WAS TO BE GIVEN TO THE BUILDER WHEREAS 1 ST FLOOR AND 50% OF THE ROOF ABOVE 2 ND FLOOR TO SMT. RAMA RANI MATHUR AND THE 2 ND FLOOR AND 50% OF THE ROOF OVER SECOND FLOOR WAS GI VEN TO SMT. PRABHA CHANDRA. BESIDES, 50% SHARE IN THE LAND WA S GIVEN TO THE BUILDER AND 50% TO SMT. RAMA RANI MATHUR AND SMT. PRABHA CHANDR A. SMT. PRABHA CHANDRA DIED ON 28.11.1994, LEAVING BEHIND SH. BIPI N CHANDRA (HUSBAND) AND SMT. SAPNA DIMRI (DAUGHTER) AS HER CLASS ONE LEGAL HEIRS. SUBSEQUENTLY, ON SALE ITA NO.151/DEL./2012 3 OF THE SHARE INHERITED BY SHRI BIPIN CHANDRA AND SM T. SAPNA DIMRI, THE ASSESSEE REFLECTED 50% OF HER SHARE IN CAPITAL GAIN ON SALE OF SECOND FLOOR IN THE AFORESAID PROPERTY AT ` `3,04,094/- . THE WORKING OF THE CAPITAL GAIN AS EX TRACTED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS AS UNDER:- [IN ` ] SALE OF 50% SHARES IN ABOVE PROPERTY `75, 00,000 LESS: 50% SHARE IN COST PRICE OF ABOVE PROPERTY=`4,22,250/- (AS PER VALUATION REPORT AS ON 1.4.1981). INDEXED COST OF ABOVE PROPERTY 422250X551/100 `23,26,598 LESS: B) COST OF IMPROVEMENT OF `62,000/- INCURRED DURING F.Y 1989-90 50% SHARE IN COST OF IMPROVEMENT=31,000/- INDEXED COST OF IMPROVEMENT 31000X551/172 `99,308 `24,25,906 `50,74,094 LESS: EXEMPTION U/S 54 OF THE ACT `47 ,70,000 LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS ` 3,04,094 2.1 TO A QUERY BY THE AO, REGARDING COST OF ACQUISI TION ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSEE AS ON 01.04.1981, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED R EVISED COMPUTATION OF INCOME, COMPUTING LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS OF ` 6,83,781/- AS UNDER:- [IN ` ] INCOME FROM CAPITAL GAINS (LONG TERM) A) SALE OF 50% SHARES `75,00,000 LESS: 50% SHARE OF `4,83,839/- IN COST OF ACQUISITION OF PLOT=2,41,920/- . (AS PERREVISED VALUATION REPORT DT.25.11.2010 13,32,980 ITA NO.151/DEL./2012 4 LESS: B)COST OF CONSTRUCTION OF 2 ND FLOOR-471177 DURING FINANCIAL YEAR 1990-91 50% SHARE IN COST OF CONSTRUCTION= 235589 INDEXED COST OF ABOVE IS `235589X551/182 7,13,239 20,46,219 54,53,781 LESS: EXEMPTION U/S 54 OF THE I.T. ACT 47,70,000 LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS 6,83,78 1 2.2 HOWEVER, THE AO DID NOT ACCEPT THE AFORESAID C OMPUTATION, THE ASSESSEE HAVING NOT SUBMITTED EITHER COPY OF PURCHA SE DEED DATED 06.02.1984 OF THE LAND BY SMT. KAMLA DEVI FROM THE SOCIETY NO R COPY OF COLLABORATION AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO WITH THE BUILDER ON 10.04.19 90. ACCORDINGLY, THE AO RECOMPUTED THE CAPITAL GAIN BY ADOPTING COST OF ACQ UISITION OF THE LAND IN FINANCIAL YEAR 1983-84 AT ` 16,204/- AND ASSESSEES SHARE THEREIN AT ` 2,026/- AND COST OF CONSTRUCTION IN FINANCIAL YEAR 1992-93 AT ` 1,71,177/- AND THE ASSESSEES SHARE THEREIN AT ` 85,588/- WHILE DENYING EXEMPTION U/S 54 OF THE ACT, RESULTING IN ADDITION OF ` ` 69,74,808/-. 3. ON APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(A) WHILE REFERRING TO HI S FINDINGS IN THE CASE OF CO-OWNER LATE SHRI BIPIN CHANDRA, ACCEPTED THE C LAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE FOLLOWING TERMS:- I HAVE CONSIDERED THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS, ASSESSM ENT ORDER, GROUNDS OF APPEALS, AND ARGUMENTS OF THE AR VERY CA REFULLY. THE PROPERTY WAS ACQUIRED BY THE MATERIAL GRAND FATHER OF APPELLANT BEING A SOCIETY MEMBER OF BURMAH SHELL COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD IN 1951. THOUGH THERE WAS DISPUTE BETW EEN GOVT. OF DELHI AND SOCIETY, AND FINALLY WIFE OF LATE BIPIN C HANDRA GOT THE LAND REGISTERED BY THE SOCIETY IN HER NAME IN 1984 (06.0 2.1984). THE PORTION OF LAND HAD COME TO APPELLANTS SHARE DUE T O INHERITANCE. HENCE THE APPELLANT ON 1.4.1981 FOR COST INDEXATION PURPOSE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHOULD HAVE REFERRED THE MATTER T O DVO OR OBTAINED A CIRCLE RATE AS ON 1.4.1981 FROM CONCERNE D SUB- REGISTRARS OFFICE ON THAT DATE. SINCE, THESE TWO FIGURES ARE NOT WITH US, WE HAVE TO ACCEPT RVS REPORT FOR FMV AS ON 1.4 .1981. THE AR HAD GIVEN A REVISED COMPUTATION ENCLOSED TO THIS OR DER FOR READY REFERENCE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAY VERIFY THESE FIGURES AFTER GIVING APPELLANT AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD, BEF ORE GIVING APPEAL EFFECT TO THIS ORDER. ITA NO.151/DEL./2012 5 GROUND OF APPEAL NO.2: THAT THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ERRED IN REJ ECTING THE VALUATION REPORT OF GOVT. APPROVED VALUER AND THEREBY ASSESSI NG THE INDEXED COST OF CONSTRUCTION AT ` `85,558/- AGAINST ` `7,13,239/- CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT, WHICH IS THE INDEXED FMV OF THE COST OF CONSTRUCTIO N. THIS REJECTION IS AGAINST FACTS AND BAD IN LAW AND THE ASSESSING OFFI CER MAY KINDLY BE DIRECTED TO ALLOW THE INDEXED COST OF CONSTRUCTION AS CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT AND CAPITAL GAINS COMPUTED ACCORDINGLY. SUBMISSIONS: NOT PRESSED. NO DECISION REQUIRED IN THIS GROUND O F APPEAL. 3.1 AS REGARDS EXEMPTION U/S 54 OF THE ACT, THE LD. CIT(A) CONCLUDED AS UNDER: I HAVE CONSIDERED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, WRITTEN SU BMISSIONS AND CASE LAWS CITED BY AR. THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED EX EMPTION U/S 54 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT ON PURCHASE OF 1/3 RD SHARE IN RESIDENTIAL APARTMENT NO.802, 8 TH FLOOR, BLOCK F-1, VILLAGE SILOKHERA, TEHSIL AND DISTRICT GURGAON (HARYANA) IN HIS REVISED COMPUTATI ON OF CAPITAL GAIN ENCLOSED AS ANNEXURE TO THIS ORDER BEFORE THE COMPLETION OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS BEFORE ASSESSING OFFICER. T HE SECTION 54(2) SAYS THAT THE AMOUNT OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAI N SHOULD BE UTILIZED BY ASSESSEE FOR THE PURCHASE OR CONSTRUCTI ON OF NEW ASSET BEFORE THE DATE OF FURNISHING THE RETURN OF INCOME U/S 139 SHALL OR BE DEPOSITED BY HIM BEFORE FURNISHING SUCH RETURN ( SUCH DEPOSITS BEING MADE IN ANY CASE NOT LATER THAN DUE DATE APPL ICABLE IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE FOR FURNISHING OF RETURN OF IN COME U/S (1) OF SECTION 139. IN THE ASSESSEES CASE, THE CLAIM WAS MADE AFTER THE DUE DATE OF FILING RETURN U/S 139(1) AND IN A REVIS ED COMPUTATION, BEFORE COMPLETION OF ASSESSMENT. THE APPELLANT HAD SOLD HER SHARE OF PROPERTY ON 24. 7.2007 BY GPA TO MRS. HASHMI CHHABRA W/O SHRI VIJAY CHHABRA ON A SALE CONSIDERATION OF ` `1.50 CRORE. SHE PURCHASED ANOTHER PROPERTY OF GURGAON ON 11.10.2008 FOR A CONSIDERATION OF `1.35 CRORES FROM MR. ANIMESH NARANG VIDE SALE DEED STAMP CERTIFICATE NO. AND DATE =1515/13-10-2008. THUS THE DUE DATE OF FILING RETU RN FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 WAS 31.07.2008, BEFORE WHIC H THE APPELLANT SHOULD HAVE DEPOSITED MONEY IN HER CAPITA L GAIN ACCOUNTS SCHEME, 1988 IN BANK, WHICH SHE HAD NOT DO NE. ITA NO.151/DEL./2012 6 THE AR HAD ALSO GIVEN A RECENT JUDGMENT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA HC. DECIDED IN I.T.A. NO.176 OF 2011 DATED 3.10.2011 IN THE CASE OF MS. JAGRATI AGRATI AGRAWAL, WHICH IS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE. THE P&H CASE ABOVE IS SQUARELY COVERED IN ASSESSEE S OWN CASE. AS THE ASSESSEE HAD PURCHASED THE NEW ASSET BEFORE FILING OF RETURN U/S 139, I.E. U/S 139(4), THE INTERPRETATION BY PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT PREVAILS. THEREFORE, THE DEDUCT ION U/S 54(2) IS ALLOWED TO THE ASSESSEE. 4. THE REVENUE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE US AGAINST THE AFORESAID FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A). AT THE OUTSET, BOTH THE PARTIES AGREED THAT THE ISSUE IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE DECISION DATED 20 TH JANUARY, 2012 OF THE ITAT IN THE CASE OF CO-OWNER LATE SHRI BIPIN CHANDRA I.E. FATH ER OF THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO.4958/D/2011. 5. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND GONE THROUG H THE FACTS OF THE CASE AS ALSO THE AFORESAID DECISION OF THE ITAT. WE FIND THAT WHILE ADJUDICATING SIMILAR ISSUES IN THE CASE OF LATE SHRI BIPIN CHAND RA IN I.T.A. NO.4958/D/2011, A CO-ORDINATE BENCH REFERRED TO DECISIONS IN DCIT VS . MANJULA J SHAH,318 ITR(AT)417(MUMBAI)(SB);CIT VS. RAJESH KUMAR JALAN,2 86 ITR 274(GAUHATI) & CIT VS. JAGRITI AGGARWAL,339 ITR 610(P&H) AND CONCL UDED IN THEIR DECISION DATED 20.1.12 AS UNDER:- 8. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND GONE THROUGH THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THERE IS NO DISPUTE ABOUT THE FACTS THAT THE ASSESSEE BECAME OWNER OF THE PROPERTY ON T HE DEATH OF HIS WIFE WHO ACQUIRED PROPERTY FROM HER MOTHER. THE SA ID PROPERTY WAS ACQUIRED BY HER MOTHER BEFORE 1.4.1981. U/S 49 (1) WHERE THE CAPITAL ASSET BECOMES THE PROPERTY OF THE ASSESSEE UNDER THE MODES SPECIFIED THEREIN, THE COST OF ACQUISITION OF THE ASSET SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE THE COST FOR WHICH THE PREVIOUS OWNER OF THE PROPERTY ACQUIRED IT AS INCREASED BY .THE COST OF ANY IMPROV EMENT OF THE ASSET INCURRED OR BORNE BY THE PREVIOUS OWNER OR TH E ASSESSEE, AS THE CASE MAY BE. IN THE CASE BEFORE US, THE PREVIO US OWNER OF THE PROPERTY WAS HIS WIFE, WHO ACQUIRED THE PROPERTY BY WAY OF INHERITANCE. THE SAID PROPERTY WAS PURCHASED BY HE R MOTHER BEFORE 1.4.1981. IN THE CASE OF HIS WIFE COST OF A CQUISITION WILL BE TAKEN AS ON 1.4.1981. THEREFORE, THE COST OF PREVI OUS OWNER IN THE ITA NO.151/DEL./2012 7 HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE WILL BE THE COST IN THE HANDS OF HIS WIFE. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE COST OF A CQUISITION HAS TO BE TAKEN AS ON 1.4.1981. 9. NOW, COMING TO THE COST OF INDEXATION, IN THE CA SE OF PREVIOUS OWNER, THE COST OF ACQUISITION IS TO BE AS ON 1.4.1981, IT WILL BE ILLOGICAL TO APPLY THE COST INDEXATION WITH REFERENCE TO THE DATE ON WHICH THE ASSESSEE BECAME THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY. THEREFORE, COST OF INDEXATION HAS TO BE WITH EFFECT FROM 1.4.1981, THE DATE ON WHICH THE COST OF ACQUISITION WAS TAKEN IN THE HANDS OF THE PREVIOUS OWNER. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE DECISION OF LEARNED CIT(A). OUR V IEW IS SUPPORTED BY THE DECISION OF SPECIAL BENCH OF ITAT IN THE CASE O F DCIT VS. MANJULA J. SHAH (SUPRA). 10. NOW, COMING TO SECOND ISSUE, THE HONBLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MISS JAGR ITI (SUPRA) HAS HELD THAT SUB-SECTION (4) OF SECTION 139 PROVIDES T HE EXTENSION PERIOD OF LIMITATION AS AN EXCEPTION TO SUB-SEC. (1 ) OF SEC. 139 OF THE ACT. SUB-SEC. (4) WAS IN RELATION TO THE TIME ALLOWED TO AN ASSESSEE UNDER SUB-SEC. (1) TO FILE THE RETURN. TH EREFORE, SUCH PROVISION WAS NOT AN INDEPENDENT PROVISION, BUT REL ATES TO THE TIME CONTEMPLATED UNDER SUB-SEC.(1) OF SEC. 139. THEREF ORE, SUB- SEC.(4) HAS TO BE READ ALONG WITH SUB-SEC.(1). THE REFORE, THE DUE DATE FOR FURNISHING THE RETURN OF INCOME U/S 139 (1 ) OF THE ACT WAS SUBJECT TO EXTENDED PERIOD PROVIDED U/S 139 (4) OF THE ACT. SIMILAR VIEW WAS TAKEN BY HONBLE GUWAHATI HIGH COURT IN TH E CASE OF RAJESH KUMAR JALAN (SUPRA). DURING THE COURSE OF H EARING THE LEARNED SR. DR COULD NOT CITE A CONTRARY DECISION T O WHAT .HAS BEEN HELD BY THE HONBLE GUWAHATI HIGH COURT AND HONBLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DEC ISION OF HONBLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT, IT IS HELD THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAD INVESTED IN THE NEW PROPERTY WITHIN THE TIME AL LOWED U/S 139 (4) OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSEE WILL BE ENTITLED FOR EXEMP TION U/S 54 OF THE ACT TO THE EXTENT THE AMOUNT INVESTED IN THE NEW PR OPERTY. ACCORDINGLY, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE OR DER OF THE CIT(A) ALLOWING RELIEF IN RESPECT OF BOTH THE ISSUES. 6. IN THE LIGHT OF AFORESAID VIEW TAKEN BY A CO-OR DINATE BENCH IN THE CASE OF CO-OWNER ON SIMILAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AND THE REVENUE HAVING NOT PLACED BEFORE US ANY CONTRARY DECISION NOR ANY MATE RIAL SO AS TO ENABLE US TO TAKE A DIFFERENT VIEW IN THE MATTER, WE HAVE NO ALT ERNATIVE BUT TO REJECT GROUND NOS. 1 TO 3 IN THE APPEAL. ITA NO.151/DEL./2012 8 7. AS A COROLLARY GROUND NO.4 IN THE APPEAL DOES N OT SURVIVE FOR OUR ADJUDICATION, ADMITTEDLY THERE BEING NO FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) ON THE SAID ISSUE NOR THE ASSESSEE BEING IN APPEAL BEFORE US. ACCOR DINGLY, THIS GROUND IS DISMISSED. 8. NO OTHER SUBMISSIONS OR ARGUMENT WAS MADE BEF ORE US. 9. IN RESULT, APPEAL IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT SD/- SD/- (DIVA SINGH) (A.N. PAHUJA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER NS COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO :- 1. ACIT, CIRCLE 45(1), ROOM NO.311, MAYUR BHAWAN, N EW DELHI 2. SMT. SAPNA DIMRI, C-2/11, VASANT VIHAR, NEW DELH I 3. CIT (APPEALS)-XXX, NEW DELHI 4. THE CIT CONCERNED. 5. THE DR, ITAT,G BENCH, NEW DELHI 6. GUARD FILE. TRUE COPY BY ORDER, DEPUTY / ASSTT.REGISTRAR ITAT, DELH I