M/s Hubert Ebner (I) (P) Ltd., New Delhi V. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 1663/DEL/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 97297 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 5 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-09-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 25-08-2015
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 06-04-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: T VASANTHAN
• Assessee Lawyers: DR SH RAKESH GUPTA
• Keywords: Business income; Depreciation; Opportunity of being heard; Fair market value; Revenue expenditure
• Section: 234B

Judgement Text

1 ITA NO. 1663/DEL/11 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: C NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI N. K. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT SUCHITRA KAMBLE , JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A .NO.- 1663/DEL/2011 (ASSESSMENT YEA R-2006-07) M/S HUBERT EBNER(I) (P) LTD. C/O M/S RRA TAXINDA D-28, SOUTH EXTENSION, PART-1 NEW DELHI AABCH0536Q (APPELLANT) VS ITO WARD-12(4) NEW DELHI (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY DR. SH. RAKESH GUPTA, ADV RESPONDENT BY SH.T. VASANTHAN, SR. DR ORDER PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JM THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST ORDER DATED 28/02/2011 PASSED BY CIT(A)XV, NEW DELHI. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAIS ED HEREIN, IS AS FOLLOWS:- 1. THAT HAVING REGARD TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES O F THE CASE, LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN SUSTAINING THE DIS ALLOWANCE OF RS.1,60,000/- MADE BY LD. AO, BEING THE PAYMENT MAD E TO MR. M. H. PANDEY ON ACCOUNT OF LEGAL AND PROFESSIONAL CHARGES UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40A(2) (B) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 2. THAT HAVING REGARD TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCE S OF THE CASE, LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE ACT ION OF LD. AO IN DISALLOWING A SUM OF RS.1,80,000/- OUT OF RENT PAID BY THE APPELLANT. 3. THAT HAVING REGARD TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCE S OF THE CASE, LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE ACT ION OF LD. AO IN DISALLOWING A SUM OF RS.15,00,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF P HOTO FILMS AND SOFTWARE EXPENSES BY TREATING IT AS CAPITAL EXPENDI TURE, WHEREAS ASSESSEE COMPANY CLAIMED IT AS REVENUE EXPENSES. DATE OF HEARING 25.08.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 16.08.2015 2 ITA NO. 1663/DEL/11 4. THAT HAVING REGARD TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCE S OF THE CASE, LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE ACT ION OF LD. AO IN MAKING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.40,782/- ON ACCOUNT O F SUBSCRIPTION EXPENSES. 5. THAT HAVING REGARD TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCE S OF THE CASE, LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE ACT ION OF LD. AO IN TREATING THE INCOME OF RS.33,46,469/- AS INCOME FRO M OTHER SOURCES INSTEAD OF BUSINESS INCOME AS CLAIMED THE ASSESSEE. 6. THAT HAVING REGARD TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCE S OF THE CASE, LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN NOT REVERSING THE ACTION OF LD. AO IN CHARGING INTEREST U/S 234B AND 234C OF THE INCOME T AX ACT, 1961. 2. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WAS ENGAGED IN PROVIDING PO ST LICENSES DRIVERS TRAINING COURSES TO EDUCATE USER OF MOTOR VEHICLE O N ALL ASPECT OF SHAPE AND DEFENSIVE DRIVING AND SALE OF SAFE DRIVING MANUAL, SAFE DRIVING EQUIPMENTS, EDUCATION BOOKS AND EQUIPMENT FOR DRIVING. 3. AS REGARDS GROUND NO. 1, THE ASSESSING OFFICER O BSERVED THAT AS PER PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT OF THE COMPANY, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED LEGAL AND PROFESSIONAL CHARGES OF RS.2,60,000/- WHICH WERE ST ATED TO BE GIVEN TO MR. SANJAY VERMA AND RS.1,60,000/- WERE GIVEN TO MR. M. H. PANDEY (WRONGLY MENTIONED AS M/S MUKESH AGGARWAL & CO.). WHEN THE A R OF THE ASSESSES WAS CONFRONTED IN THIS REGARD FOR FURNISHING OF JUS TIFICATION AND EVIDENCES FOR DEDUCTION OF TAX ON SOURCES, THE AR OF THE ASSESSE E COULD NOT FURNISH ANY JUSTIFICATION AND EVIDENCES FOR DEDUCTION OF TAX ON SOURCE. THE LEGAL AND PROFESSIONAL CHARGES CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE EXTENT OF RS.4,20,000/- (RS.2,60,000+1,60,000) WAS DISALLOWED AND ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 4. THE CIT(A) HELD THAT THE AO HAS ALSO DISALLOWED AN AMOUNT OF RS.1,60,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF PAYMENT MADE TO MR. M. H. PANDEY, ONE OF THE DIRECTORS OF THE COMPANY FOR SERVICES RENDERED BY H IM. THE ABOVE PAYMENT IS COVERED BY THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40A (2) (B) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED AS THE ACT), SINCE THE PAYMEN T HAS BEEN MADE TO A DIRECTOR OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. NO DETAILS HAVE BEEN FILE D BY THE ASSESSEE REGARDING 3 ITA NO. 1663/DEL/11 THE NATURE OF SERVICES RENDERED BY MR. PANDEY FOR W HICH THE ABOVE PAYMENT OF RS.160000/- HAS BEEN MADE TO HIM. IN THE ABSENCE O F ANY DETAILS ABOUT THE NATURE OF SERVICES RENDERED BY MR. PANDEY THE EXPEN DITURE INCURRED IS UNREASONABLE AND THEREFORE, NOT ALLOWABLE UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40A(2) (B) OF THE ACT. THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY TH E AO OUT OF LEGAL AND PROFESSIONAL SERVICES TO THE EXTENT OF RS.160000/- ON ACCOUNT OF PAYMENT MADE TO MR. PANDEY WAS UPHELD BY THE CIT(A). 5. THE AR SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSING OFFICER HAS INCO RRECTLY MENTIONED MR. MUKESH AGARWAL INSTEAD OF MR. M. H. PANDEY WHOM THE ASSESSEE COMPANY PAID RS. 1,60,000/- TOWARDS LEGAL AND PROFESSIONAL CHAR GES FOR A.Y. 06-07 (RS.20,000/- PER MONTH). THE DETAILS WERE MENTIONED IN THE PAPER BOOK FILED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BEFORE THE CIT(A). THE AR FUR THER SUBMITTED THAT SECTION 40A(2)(B) OF THE ACT IS NOT APPLICABLE IN THE PRESE NT CASE AS THE SAID AMOUNT PAID TOWARDS THE LEGAL AND PROFESSIONAL CHARGES TO MR. M. H. PANDEY. 6. THE DR SUBMITTED THAT DETAILS WERE NOT SUBMITTED BEFORE THE AO AND THUS THE ONUS IS ON THE ASSESSEE. THE DR ALSO RELIED UPO N THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AS WELL AS CIT(A)S ORDER. 7. WE HAVE PERUSED ALL RECORDS AND HEARD THE ARGUME NTS OF BOTH THE SIDES, AS MR. M. H. PANDEY HIMSELF IS THE DIRECTOR OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY, THUS SECTION 40A(2)(B) OF THE ACT IS CORRECTLY APPLIED B Y THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS THE CIT(A). IN THIS CASE THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HA S NOT GIVEN ANY DETAILS IN RESPECT OF NATURE OF SERVICE IN THE BILLS AS WELL A S IN THE TDS CERTIFICATES SHOWN BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES. IN RESULT GROUND NO. 1 OF T HE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 4 ITA NO. 1663/DEL/11 8. AS REGARDS TO GROUND NO. 2, THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER HELD THAT DURING THE PERIOD FROM AUG., 2005 TO DEC., 2005, THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAD PAID RENT @ RS.15,000/-P.M. TO ONE MRS. RANJANA PANDEY BUT IN J AN., 2006 A LUMPSUM PAYMENT OF 1,20,000/- WAS PAID TO THE SAME LAND LAD Y AND THEREAFTER FOR FEB., 2006, IT WAS PAID @ RS.50,000/-P.M. AND FOR MARCH 2 006 TO SAME LANDLORD @ RS.55,000/-. THE AR OF ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO FURNI SH JUSTIFICATION FOR VARIATION FOR THE ABNORMALITY IN INCREASE OF RENT TO ABOVE ME NTIONED LANDLADY. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY COULD NOT FURNISH ANY JUSTIFICATIO N AND EVIDENCES INCLUDING LEASE AGREEMENT IN SUPPORT OF SUBSTANTIAL INCREASE IN RENT FOR JAN., 2006 TO MARCH, 2006 TO THE SAME LANDLADY. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED EXCESSIVE RENT OF THE PREMISES FOR THE MONTH OF JAN, 2006 TO MARCH 2006. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE RENT FOR J AN, 2006 TO MARCH, 2006 WAS RESTRICTED TO RS.15,000/- P.M. AND BALANCE EXCE SSIVE RENT CLAIMED BY ASSESSEE AMOUNTING TO RS.1,80,000/- WAS DISALLOWED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 9. THE CIT(A) HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD TAKEN THE PREMISES ON RENT FROM MRS. RANJANA PANDEY WHO WAS THE WIFE OF MR. MIKE PA NDEY ONE OF THE DIRECTORS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. SINCE THE ABOVE PAYMENT HA D BEEN MADE TO THE WIFE OF DIRECTOR, THEREFORE, THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40A (2) (B) ARE APPLICABLE IN THIS CASE. THE ONUS IS ON THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THAT TH E EXPENDITURE IS NOT EXCESSIVE OR UNREASONABLE AS COMPARED TO THE FAIR MARKET VALU E OF THE SERVICES OR FACILITIES FOR WHICH THE PAYMENT HAS BEEN MADE. IN THE INSTAN T CASE IT IS SEEN THAT NO EVIDENCES REGARDING THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE AB OVE PREMISES WHICH WERE TAKEN ON RENT WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE AO. MOREOVER, NO COPY OF LEASE AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO FOR TAKING THE PREMISE S ON RENT WAS FILED BEFORE THE AO. DESPITE OPPORTUNITY PROVIDED BY THE AO NO JUST IFICATION FOR INCREASE PAYMENT OF RENT WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE TH E AO. IN VIEW OF THE FINDINGS ABOVE CIT(A) UPHELD THE VIEWS OF THE AO REGARDING T HE DISALLOWANCE OF RENT OF RS.180000/- ON ACCOUNT OF THE RENT BEING EXCESSIVE AND UNREASONABLE AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40A(2) (B) OF THE ACT AND DISMISSED THIS GROUND. 5 ITA NO. 1663/DEL/11 10. THE AR SUBMITTED THAT THE AGREEMENT CLEARLY STA TED THAT LEASE RENT OF RS. 50,000/- BE PAID TO MRS. RANJANA PANDEY W.E.F. 1.08 .2005. THERE ARE TWO SEPARATE AGREEMENTS, ONE IS FOR ENTIRE 2 ND FLOOR AND THE OTHER FOR PART OF PORTION OF FIRST FLOOR. THUS, THERE IS NO EXCESSIVE PAYMENT MADE TO HER BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. 11. THE DR SUBMITTED THAT RENT IS ON HIGHER SIDE AN D NO DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFI CER. THUS THE SAME CANNOT BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT AS THE AO HAS RIGHTLY INVOKED SECTION 40A(2)(B) OF THE ACT. 12. WE HAVE PERUSED ALL THE RECORDS INCLUDING LEASE AGREEMENTS AS WELL AS THE ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE PARTIES. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS SHOWN THE LEASE AGREEMENT BUT ASSESSEE COULD NOT ESTABLISH THAT ON WHAT BASIS THE RENT FOR THE RESIDENTIAL PREMISES WAS CALCULATED AND DETERMINED TO MR. RANJANA DESAI. THE PREMISES WHICH WERE TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY W AS NOT OF COMMERCIAL NATURE AND THIS FACT WAS NOTED BY THE AO AND AFTER TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION ALL THESE FACTS HAS CORRECTLY DISALLOWED THIS DEDUCTION . BESIDES THAT MRS. RANJANA PANDEY IS WIFE OF MR. M. H. PANDEY, THE DIRECTOR OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY THUS THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS CORRECTLY APPLIED SECTION 40A(2)(B) WHICH IS CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(A). IN RESULT GROUND NO. 2 OF THE ASSESS EES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 13. COMING TO GROUND NO. 3, THE ASSESSING OFFICER H ELD THAT DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE COMPANY UNDER THE HEAD ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES HAD DEBITED RS.15.00 LACS IN RESPECT OF P HOTO FILMS AND SOFTWARE EXPENSES. THE DETAIL OF PAYMENT WERE GIVEN WHICH I NTER ALIA INCLUDES RS.7,50,000/- PAID TO RIVER BANK, RS.4,00,000 TO R. E RECORD AND 6 ITA NO. 1663/DEL/11 RS.3,50,000/- PAID TO DOLPHIN COMMUNICATION. ALL T HESE EXPENSES ARE BEING DEBITED IN MARCH 2006 I.E. AT THE FAG END OF THE YE AR. BESIDE THESE DETAILS, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FURNISH ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES IN SUPPORT THEREOF AND ALSO NOT FURNISH ANY JUSTIFIABLE REASON FOR ITS ALL OWABILITY. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE EXPENSES DEBITED IN THE MONTH OF MARCH AMOUNTING TO RS.15,00,000/- WAS DISALLOWED IN THE ABSENCE OF SUP PORTING EVIDENCES AND JUSTIFICATION AND ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESS EE. 14. THE CIT(A) HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED A N EXPENDITURE OF RS.15.00 LAKHS ON ACCOUNT OF MAKING 3 FILMS ON TRAFFIC EDUCA TION ON BEHALF OF M/S HUBERT EBNOR GAMBH, AUSTRIA. THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED THE ABOVE EXPENDITURE AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE BUT THE AO DISALLOWED THE ABOVE EXPENDITURE, IN VIEW OF THE FACTS THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT SUBMIT ANY EVIDEN CES IN SUPPORT OF THE ABOVE EXPENDITURE. THE AO DISALLOWED THE ABOVE EXPENDITU RE OF RS.15.00 LAKHS BUT HOWEVER, ALLOWED DEPRECIATION @ 60% ON THE ABOVE P HOTO FILM AND SOFTWARE AMOUNTING TO RS.4.50 LAKHS THUS RESULTING IN A NET DISALLOWANCE OF RS.10.50 LAKHS. THE EXPENDITURE CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF MAKING FILMS AND SOFTWARE IS CLEARLY IN THE NATURE OF CAPITAL EX PENDITURE. SINCE NO EVIDENCES WERE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE REGARDING THE ABOVE EXPE NDITURE AND ALSO IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE ABOVE EXPENDITURE WAS NOT IN THE NATURE OF REVENUE EXPENDITURE, THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO IS AS PER LAW AND DISMISSED THIS GROUND OF THE APPEAL. 15. THE AR SUBMITTED THAT DETAILS IN RESPECT OF ADM INISTRATIVE EXPENSE ARE TO BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION. THE REVENUE THEMSELVES WERE ALLOWING DEPRECIATION AND THESE EXPENDITURE DOES NOT BELONG TO ASSESSEE. 7 ITA NO. 1663/DEL/11 16. THE DR RELIED UPON THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AS WELL AS THE CIT(A)S ORDER. 17. WE HAVE PERUSED THE RECORDS AND HEARD THE ARGUM ENTS OF BOTH THE COUNSEL, IT CAN BE SEEN THAT THE EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BEFORE THE AO WAS INSUFFICIENT IN RESPECT OF ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES. THE AR HAS POINTED OUT CERTAIN DOCUMENTS WHICH HAS TO BE LOOKED UPON. THER EFORE IN THIS RESPECT THE MATTER IS REMANDED BACK TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER. GROUND NO. 3 IS REMANDED BACK TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 18. AS REGARDS GROUND NO. 4 THE AR DID NOT URGED, H ENCE THIS GROUND IS DISMISSED. 19. AS REGARDS GROUND NO. 5 ON PERUSAL OF THE INCOM E DETAILS, IT WAS NOTICED THAT THE COMPANY DECLARED INCOME AMOUNTING TO RS.33 ,46,469/- AS REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENDITURES FOR THE FIRST TIME. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT FURNISH ANY DETAILS ABO UT NOMENCLATURE OF ABOVE MENTIONED INCOME ON ACCOUNT OF REIMBURSEMENT ON THE EXPENDITURE. THE COMPANY ALSO COULD NOT FURNISH ANY DETAILS THEREOF AND ANY AGREEMENT WHEREBY IT CAN BE PROVED AS REIMBURSEMENT OF THE EXPENSES. DETAILS OF EXPENSES WHICH WERE REIMBURSED WERE ALSO NOT FILED. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE ALSO FAILED TO ESTABLISH NEXUS BETWEEN INCURRING OF EXPENSES AND R EIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENDITURE. SINCE THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT FURNISH DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES IN SUPPORT OF REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENDITURE, THE NATURE OF INCOME HAS BEEN CHANGED AND TREATED AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES INSTEAD OF BUSINESS INCOME. 20. THE CIT(A) HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED T HAT THE INCOME OF RS.3346469/- WAS RECEIVED ON ACCOUNT OF MAKING OF F ILMS AND SOFTWARE 8 ITA NO. 1663/DEL/11 PROGRAMME FOR M/S HUBERT EBNER GAMBH, AUSTRIA AND W AS THEREFORE, BUSINESS INCOME. THE PRIMARY BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE IS TO PROVE DRIVER TRAINING COURSES TO EDUCATE THE USERS IN ALL ASPECT OF SAFE DRIVING. THE MAKING OF FILMS IS NOT THE PRIMARY BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE. MOREOVER , THE ASSESSEE ALSO COULD NOT SUBMIT ANY EVIDENCES BEFORE THE AO THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS.3346469/- WAS RECEIVED ON ACCOUNT OF REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENDITURE . NO COPY OF AGREEMENT REGARDING THE MAKING OF FILMS AND ALSO GETTING REIM BURSEMENT OF EXPENDITURE FOR THE ABOVE PURPOSE WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE AO. IN VIEW OF THE FINDINGS ABOVE THE ACTION OF THE AO IN ASSESSING TH E ABOVE INCOME AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES WAS UPHELD BY THE LD. CIT(A). NOW THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL. 21. THE AR SUBMITTED THAT A LUMP SUM AMOUNT WAS PRE PAID EARLIER AND THUS THE SAID EXPENSES HAS TO BE TREATED AS EXPENSES IN THIS YEAR. 22. THE DR SUBMITTED THAT THE SAME CAPITAL EXPENDIT URE AND REIMBURSEMENT CANNOT BE INTERLINKED WITH THE SAME. 23. WE HAVE PERUSED THE RECORDS AND HEARD THE ARGUM ENTS OF BOTH THE PARTIES, IN THE PRESENT CASE IT APPEARS THAT NEITHE R THE AO NOR THE LD. CIT(A) EXAMINED THIS FACT THAT THE EXPENSES WERE PAID IN E ARLIER YEAR BUT PERTAINED TO THIS YEAR. THE ASSESSEE ALSO DID NOT FURNISH THE R ELEVANT MATERIAL TO ESTABLISH THAT IT WAS THE REIMBURSEMENT OF THE EXPENSES. WE THEREFORE IN THE ABSENCE OF THE CLEAR FACTS ON RECORD, DEEM IT APPROPRIATE TO R EMAND THIS ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO TO BE ADJUDICATED AFRESH, IN ACCORDA NCE WITH LAW AFTER PROVIDING DUE AND REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO TH E ASSESSEE. 24. GROUND NO. 6 WAS NOT URGED BY THE AR AND HENCE THE SAME IS DISMISSED. 9 ITA NO. 1663/DEL/11 25. IN RESULT, THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED IN RESPECT O F GROUND NO. 1, 2, 4, 6 AND GROUNDS NO. 3 & 5 ARE REMANDED BACK TO THE ASSESS ING OFFICER. THE ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 16 TH OF SEPTEMBER 2015. SD/- SD/- ( N. K. SAINI) (SUCHITRA KAMBLE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 16 /09/2015 *R. NAHEED* COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI DATE 1. DRAFT DICTATED ON 26.08.2015 PS 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 27.08.2015 PS 3. DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER 30.08.2015 JM/AM 4. DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER. 15/09/2015 JM/AM 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS 16.09.2015 PS/PS 6. KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON PS 10 ITA NO. 1663/DEL/11 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK 16.09.2015 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.