Addl. CIT, Noida V. M/s Vocational Education Foundation, Noida

ITA 1710/DEL/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 135 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6689 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-11-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: H
• Next Hearing Date: 01-11-2010
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 16-04-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: REENA S PURI
• Keywords: Capital asset; Depreciation; Charitable institution; Tax effect; Revenue expenditure; Capital expenditure; Set aside
• Section: 264; 32; 11

Judgement Text

I.T.A. NO.1708-11 /DEL/2010 1/8 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI, BENCH H BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A K GARODIA, ACCOUTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 1708, 1709, 1710, 1711/DEL/2010 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02, 2002-03, 2004-05& 2005-06 RESPECTIVELY) ADDL. CIT, VS.M/S. VOCAT IONAL EDUCATION FOUNDATION NOIDA RANGE 4, INDUSTRIAL AREA, NOIDA GREATER NOIDA, U.P. (APPELLANTS) (RESPONDENTS) PAN / GIR NO. AAATV0779R APPELLANT BY: SHRI REENA S. PURI, CIT DR RESPONDENT BY: NONE ORDER PER BENCH: 1. ALL THESE FOUR APPEALS BY THE REVENUE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST FOUR SEPARATE ORDERS OF LD. CIT(A), GHAZIABAD ALL D ATED 04.01.2010 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2001-02, 2002-0 3, 2004-05 & 2005-06 RESPECTIVELY. THE ISSUE INVOLVE D IS ONLY ONE IN ALL THESE FOUR APPEALS AND HENCE ALL TH ESE APPEALS WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY WAY OF THIS COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENC E. SINCE THE ISSUE INVOLVED IS COMMON, WE REPRODUCE TH E GROUNDS OF APPEAL FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02 I N I.T.A. NO. 1708/DEL/2010: THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW & ON FACTS BY HOLD INGS THAT DEPRECIATION OF `1,56,57,856/-, DEBITED TO INCOME & EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT, IS AN ALLOWABLE EXPENDITURE U/ S 11 OF THE I. T. ACT WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT DE PRECIATION IS NOT A REAL EXPENDITURE AND HENCE CANNOT BE ALLOW ED AS APPLICATION OF INCOME. THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) DESERVES TO BE SET ASIDE AND THE ORDER OF THE A.O. BE RESTOR ED. 2. IN THE REMAINING YEARS ALSO THE ISSUE INVOLVED I S COMMON EXCEPT DIFFERENCE IN AMOUNT. I.T.A. NO.1708-11 /DEL/2010 2/8 3. NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE IN SPITE OF NOTICE AND HENCE WE PROCEED TO DECIDE THESE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE EX PARTE QUA THE ASSESSEE. 4. LD. D.R. SUPPORTED THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS. IT WAS A LSO HER SUBMISSION THAT THE A.O. HAS FOLLOWED THE JUDGEMENT OF HONBLE APEX COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF ESCORTS LTD. VS UNION OF INDIA, AS REPORTED IN 199 ITR 43 AND HENCE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER SHOULD BE UPHELD. RELIANCE WAS AL SO PLACED ON THE TRIBUNAL DECISION RENDERED IN THE CASE OF M AHILA SIDH NIRMAN YOJNA VS IAC AS REPORTED IN 50 ITD 472 AND A LSO ON THE JUDGEMENT OF HONBLE APEX COURT RENDERED IN THE CAS E OF SOUTHERN TECHNOLOGIES LTD. VS JCIT AS REPORTED IN 3 20 ITR 527 (S.C.). 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. D.R. AND HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW, JUDGE MENTS CITED BY THE LD. D.R. AND ALSO THE JUDGEMENTS CITED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE LD. CIT(A). FIRST OF ALL WE WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT THAT IN ALL THE FOUR YEARS, EVEN AFTER EXCLUDIN G DEPRECIATION CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM REVENUE EXPENDITURE, I T HAS BEEN NOTED BY THE A.O. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS FOR ALL THESE FOUR YEARS THAT THE APPLICATION OF THE INCOME BY TH E ASSESSEE TRUST IS MORE THAN THE REQUIRED APPLICATION AS PER SECTION 11(2) OF THE I. T. ACT AND THE TAXABLE INCOME HAS B EEN ASSESSED BY THE A.O. AT `NIL EVEN AFTER DISALLOWI NG THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE REGARDING DEPRECATION. UNDER THESE FACTS, THE TAX EFFECT OF ALL THESE FOUR APPEALS OF THE REVENUE IS NIL AND FOR THIS REASON ALONE, THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE A RE NOT MAINTAINABLE BECAUSE THE TAX EFFECT IS LESS THAN `2 LACS. 6. ON MERIT ALSO, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFE RE IN THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A). WE FIND THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS D ULY CONSIDERED THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE APEX COURT RENDE RED IN THE CASE OF ESCORTS LTD. (SUPRA) AND THE FINDING IS GIVEN BY HIM THAT THIS DECISION HAS BEEN RENDERED BY HONBLE APE X COURT ON I.T.A. NO.1708-11 /DEL/2010 3/8 THE ISSUE OF EXPENDITURE INCURRED ON SCIENTIFIC RES EARCH WHICH IS ALLOWED U/S 35 OF THE I. T. ACT AND HENCE THIS J UDGMENT IS NOT DIRECTLY APPLICABLE TO THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE PR ESENT CASE WHEREAS THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE APEX COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF CIT VS PROGRAMME FOR COMMUNITY ORGANIZATION REPORTED IN 248 ITR 01 IS DIRECTLY ON THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE AND IN THAT CASE, IT HAS BEEN HELD BY THE HONBLE APEX COU RT THAT THE INCOME OF TRUST HAS TO BE COMPUTED IN NORMAL COMMER CIAL MANNER. WE ARE NOT IN AGREEMENT WITH LD. CIT(A) RE GARDING THIS OBSERVATION OF LD. CIT(A) THAT AS PER THE JUDG EMENT OF HONBLE APEX COURT, RENDERED IN THE CASE OF PROGRAM ME FOR COMMUNITY ORGANIZATION (SUPRA), IT HAS BEEN HELD BY THE HONBLE APEX COURT THAT THE INCOME OF A TRUST HAS T O BE COMPUTED IN NORMAL COMMERCIAL MANNER. IN OUR HUMBL E UNDERSTANDING, THIS IS NOT CORRECT. THE FACT OF TH AT CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE TRUST RECEIVED DONATION OF THE AG GREGATE SUM OF `2,57,376/-. IT APPLIED FOR ITS CHARITABLE PURPOSE AS AGGREGATE SUM OF `1,70,369/- LEAVING A BALANCE OF ` 87,010/-. THE DISPUTE BEFORE THE HONBLE APEX COURT WAS AS TO WHETHER THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO ACCUMULATE 25% OF `2,57 ,376/- AS CONTENDED BY THE ASSESSEE OR 25% OF `87,010/- AS CO NTENDED BY THE REVENUE AND UNDER THESE FACTS, IT WAS HELD B Y THE HONBLE APEX COURT THAT THE ASSESSEE TRUST IS ENTIT LED TO ACCUMULATE 25% OF ITS INCOME DERIVED FROM THE PROPE RTY HELD UNDER THE TRUST WHICH MEAN THAT THE ASSESSEE TRUST IS ELIGIBLE TO ACCUMULATE 25% OF AGGREGATE SUM OF DONATION OF `2,57,376/-. HENCE, THIS DISPUTE WAS NOT BEFORE TH E HONBLE APEX COURT IN THAT CASE THAT WHETHER DEPRECIATION H AS TO BE ALLOWED AS DEDUCTION OR NOT. 7. SIMILARLY, THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE APEX COURT RENDE RED IN THE CASE OF ESCORTS LTD. (SUPRA) IS NOT COVERING THE IS SUE IN DISPUTE BEFORE US. IN THAT CASE, THE ASSESSEE WAS CLAIMING DEDUCTION I.T.A. NO.1708-11 /DEL/2010 4/8 U/S 35(1) ON ACCOUNT OF EXPENDITURE INCURRED ON SCI ENTIFIC RESEARCH AND THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO CLAIMED DEDUCTIO N ON ACCOUNT OF DEPRECIATION ON THOSE VERY ASSETS U/S 32 . UNDER THESE FACTS, IT WAS HELD BY THE HONBLE APEX COURT IN THAT CASE THAT DOUBLE ALLOWANCE ON THE SAME ASSET CANNOT BE A LLOWED. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE FACTS ARE DIFFERENT. IN T HE PRESENT CASE, FIRSTLY, THE INCOME OF THE TRUST HAS TO BE CO MPUTED AND FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTATION OF INCOME OF THE TRU ST, DEDUCTION HAS TO BE ALLOWED OF ALL THE EXPENSES INC LUDING DEPRECATION AND THEREAFTER, OUT OF THE INCOME OF TH E ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSEE HAS TO APPLY 75%/85% OF THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE TRUST AND ONLY 25%/15% CAN BE ACCUMULATED BY THE ASSESSEE TRUST. FOR THE PURPOSE OF WORKING OUT THE FUNDS TO BE UTILIZED BY THE ASSESSEE TRUST FOR THE OBJECTS OF T HE ASSESSEE, EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE ON CAPITAL ASS ETS IS ALSO CONSIDERED AS AN APPLICATION OF INCOME AND BECAUSE OF THIS REASON, THE A.O. IS STATING THAT WHEN THE ACQUISITI ON OF AN ASSET WAS CONSIDERED AS APPLICATION OF INCOME, NO DEPRECIATION CAN BE ALLOWED ON SUCH ASSET. BUT, TH E JUDGEMENT OF THE HONBLE APEX COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF ESCORTS LTD. (SUPRA) IS NOT APPLICABLE IN THE PRESE NT CASE BECAUSE THE FACTS ARE DIFFERENT. IN THE PRESENT CA SE, THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED ON CAPITAL ASSET IS NOT CONSID ERED FOR THE PURPOSE OF WORKING OUT INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. IN FACT, IT IS CONSIDERED TO WORK OUT THE AMOUNT OF INCOME APPLIED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE PURPOSE OF TRUST AND HENCE, THIS J UDGEMENT IS NOT APPLICABLE IN THE PRESENT CASE. 8. IN ADDITION TO THE JUDGEMENT OF HONBLE APEX COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF PROGRAMME FOR COMMERCIAL ORGANIZATIO N (SUPRA), RELIANCE WAS PLACED BY LD. A.R. ON VARIOUS OTHER JUDGEMENTS ALSO OF VARIOUS HIGH COURTS WHICH ARE NO TED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IN PARA 11 OF HIS ORDER. THESE JUDG EMENTS ARE AS UNDER: I.T.A. NO.1708-11 /DEL/2010 5/8 A. CIT VS. SOCIETY OF SISTER OF ST. ANNE.-1984 146 ITR 28 (KAR) B. CIT VS RAO BAHADUR : CALAVALA CUNNAN SHEETY CHARITI ES (1982) 135 ITR 485 (MAD.) C. CIT VS RAIPUR PALLTOINE SOCIETY (1989) ITR 579 (MP) D. CIT VS BHORUK PUBLIC WELFARE TRUST (1999) 240 ITR 5 15 (CAL.) E. CIT VS SHETH MANILAL RANCHHOEEAS VISHRAM BHAWAN TRUST (1992) 198 ITR 599 (GUJ.) F. CIT VS INSTITUTE OF BANKING (2003) 264 ITR 110 (BOM .) G. EIGHT ITO VS TRUSTEES OF MARATHI MISSION AND VICE V ERSA 1 ITD 539 (BOM.) H. CIT VS PROGRAMME FOR COMMUNITY ORGANIZATION 228 ITR 620 (KER.) 9. IN THE COURSE OF ARGUMENTS BEFORE US, IT HAS BEEN S UBMITTED BY THE LD. D.R. THAT THE TRIBUNAL DECISION IN THE C ASE OF MAHILA SIDH NIRMAN YOJNA (SUPRA) IS ON THE BASIS OF JUDGEM ENT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF CIT VS SOCIETY OF SISTER ST. ANNE (SUPRA) AND ALSO AFTER CONSIDERING THE JUDGEMENT OF M.P. HIGH COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE O F CIT VS RAJPUR PALLOINE SOCIETY (SUPRA). BUT EVEN AFTER TH AT DATE, I.E. THE DATE OF THE TRIBUNAL DECISION I.E. 06.07.1994, THERE ARE VARIOUS SUBSEQUENT JUDGMENTS OF VARIOUS HIGH COURTS AS HAS BEEN NOTED BY THE LD. CIT(A) ON PAGE 11 OF HIS ORDE R AND AS HAS BEEN REPRODUCED BY US IN THE ABOVE PARA. THESE JUDGEMENTS ARE OF HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT AND AL SO OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT. IN THE CASE OF CIT VS I NSTITUTE OF BANKING (SUPRA), WHICH IS DATED 09.07.2003, THE INC OME OF THE ASSESSEE WAS EXEMPT U/S 11 OF THE I. T. ACT AND THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED DEPRECIATION WHICH WAS REJECTED BY THE A.O. ON THE GROUND THAT THE CAPITAL EXPENDITURE INCURRED DU RING THE ACCOUNTING YEAR WERE ALLOWED AS DEDUCTION FROM THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AND, THEREFORE, THE CLAIM OF THE AS SESSEE FOR DEPRECIATION ON BUILDING WAS DISALLOWED. UNDER TH ESE FACTS, IT WAS HELD BY HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT THAT INCOME O F A CHARITABLE TRUST DERIVED FROM BUILDING, PLANT & MAC HINERY AND FURNITURE WAS LIABLE TO BE COMPUTED IN A NORMAL COM MERCIAL I.T.A. NO.1708-11 /DEL/2010 6/8 MANNER ALTHOUGH THE TRUST MAY NOT BE CARRYING OUT A NY BUSINESS. THE RELEVANT PARA OF THE JUDGMENT OF BOM BAY HIGH COURT IS REPRODUCED HEREIN BELOW: FINDINGS: AS STATED ABOVE, THE FIRST QUESTION WHICH REQUIRES CONSIDERATION BY THIS COURT IS: WHETHER DEPRECIATIO N WAS ALLOWABLE ON THE ASSETS, THE COST OF WHICH HAS BEEN FULLY ALLOWED AS APPLICABLE OF INCOME UNDER SECTION 11 IN THE PAST YEARS: IN THE CASE OF CIT VS MUNISUVRAT JAIN ( 1994) TAX LR 1084 (BOM.), THE FACTS WERE AS FOLLOWS: THE ASSESSEE WAS A CHARITABLE TRUST. IT WAS REGISTERED AS A PUBLIC CHARITABLE TRUST. IT WAS ALSO REGISTERED WI TH THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE. THE ASSESSEE DERIVED INCOME FROM TEMPLE PROPERTY, WHICH WAS A TR UST PROPERTY. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDI NGS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 1977-78M 1978-79 AND 1979- 80, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED DEPRECIATION ON THE VALUE OF THE BUILDING AT 2 PER CENT AND THEY ALSO CLAIMED DEPRECIATION ON FURNITURE AT 5 PER CENT. THE QUEST ION WHICH AROSE BEFORE THE COURT FOR DETERMINATION WAS : WHETHER DEPRECIATION COULD BE DENIED TO THE ASSESSE E, AS EXPENDITURE ON ACQUISITION OF THE ASSETS HAD BEE N TREATED AS APPLICATION OF INCOME IN THE YEAR OF ACQUISITION? IT WAS HELD BY THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT THAT SECTION 11 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT MAKES A PROVISION IN RESPECT OF COMPUTATION OF INCOME OF THE TRUST FROM PROPERTY HELD FOR CHARITABLE OR RELIGIOUS PURPOSES AND IT ALSO PROVIDES FOR APPLICATION AND ACCUMULATION OF INCOME. ON THE OTHER HAND, SECTION 28 OF THE I. T. ACT DEALS WITH CHARGEABILITY OF INCOME FROM PROFITS AND GAINS OF BUSINESS AND SECTION 29 PROVIDES THAT INCOME FRO M PROFITS AND GAINS OF BUSINESS SHALL BE COMPUTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 30 OF SECTION 43C. THAT, SECTION 32(1) OF THE ACT PROVIDES FOR DEPRECIATION IN RESPECT OF BUILDING, PLANT AND MACHINERY OWNED BY T HE ASSESSEE AND USED FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES. IT FURTHE R PROVIDES FOR DEDUCTION SUBJECT TO SECTION 34. IN T HAT MATTER ALSO, A SIMILAR ARGUMENT, AS IN THE PRESENT CASE, WAS ADVANCED ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE, NAMELY, THAT DEPRECIATION CAN BE ALLOWED AS DEDUCTION ONLY UNDER SECTION 32 OF THE I. T. ACT AND NOT UNDER GENERAL PRINCIPLES. THE COURT REJECTED THIS ARGUMENT. IT WAS HELD THAT NORMAL DEPRECIATION CAN BE CONSIDERED AS A LEGITIMATE DEDUCTION IN COMPUTING THE REAL INCOME O F THE ASSESSEE ON GENERAL PRINCIPLES OR UNDER SECTION 11(1)(A) OF THE I. T. ACT. THE COURT REJECTED THE ARGUMENT ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE THAT SECTION 32 O F I.T.A. NO.1708-11 /DEL/2010 7/8 THE I. T. ACT WAS THE ONLY SECTION GRANTING BENEFIT OF DEDUCTION ON ACCOUNT OF DEPRECIATION. I WAS HELD T HATS INCOME OF A CHARITABLE TRUST DERIVED FROM BUILDING, PLANT AND MACHINERY AND FURNITURE WAS LIABLE TO BE COMPUT ED IN A NORMAL COMME4RCIAL MANNER ALTHOUGH THE TRUST M AY NOT BE CARRYING ON ANY BUSINESS AND THE ASSETS IN RESPECTS WHEREOF DEPRECIATION IS CLAIMED MAY NOT BE BUSINESS ASSETS. IN ALL SUCH CASES, SECTION 32 OF THE I. T. ACT PROVIDING FOR DEPRECIATION FOR COMPUTATION OF I NCOME DERIVED FROM BUSINESS OR PROFESSION IS NOT APPLICAB LE. HOWEVER, THE INCOME OF THE TRUST IS REQUIRED TO BE COMPUTED UNDER SECTION 11 ON COMMERCIAL PRINCIPLES AFTER PROVIDING FOR ALLOWANCE FOR NORMAL DEPRECIATI ON AND DEDUCTION THEREOF FROM GROSS INCOME OF THE TRUS T. IN VIEW OF THE AFORESTATED JUDGEMENT OF THE BOMBAY HIG H COURT, WE ANSWER QUESTION NO.1 IN THE AFFIRMATIVE, I.E. IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND AGAINST THE DEPARTMENT. 10. SINCE THE VERY DISPUTE, WHICH IS TO BE DECIDED BY U S IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THIS JUDGEMENT OF HONBLE BOMBA Y HIGH COURT, WE ARE INCLINED TO FOLLOW THE JUDGEMENT OF B OMBAY HIGH COURT IN PREFERENCE TO THE TRIBUNAL DECISION CITED BY LD. D.R. REGARDING THE JUDGMENT CITED BY LD. D.R. RENDERED B Y HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF SOUTHERN TECHNOLOGIES LTD . (SUPRA), WE FIND THAT RELIANCE ON THIS JUDGMENT IS MISPLACED BECAUSE THIS JUDGMENT IS RENDERED REGARDING THE CLAIM OF TH E ASSESSEE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 36(1)(VII) IN RESPECT O F THE PRO VISION FOR NON PERFORMING ASSETS DEBITED TO P & L ACCOUNT. IT IS A LSO NOTED BY THE HONBLE APEX COURT IN THAT CASE THAT SUCH PROVI SION WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE AS PER RESERVE BANK PRUDENTIAL NORMS BUT IN VIEW OF EXPLANATION TO SECTION 36(1)(VII) AS PER WHICH A PROVISION FOR DOUBTFUL DEBT IS KEPT OUT OF AMBIT OF BAD DEBT, WHICH IS WRITTEN OFF, IT WAS HELD THAT THIS EXPLANA TION TO SECTION 36(1)(VII) HAS TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTATION OF TOTAL INCOME UNDER THE I. T. ACT WITHOUT WHICH, ONE CANNOT ASCERTAIN REAL PROFIT. IT WAS HE LD BY THE HONBLE APEX COURT THAT PROVISION FOR NPA DEBITED T O P & L ACCOUNT UNDER RBI DIRECTIONS IS ONLY NOTIONAL EXPEN SES AND THEREFORE, IT SHOULD BE ADDED BACK TO THAT EXTENT I N THE I.T.A. NO.1708-11 /DEL/2010 8/8 COMPUTATION OF TOTAL INCOME UNDER THE I. T. ACT. T HE DISPUTE IN THE PRESENT CASE BEFORE US IS ALTOGETHER DIFFERENT AND, THEREFORE, THIS JUDGEMENT OF HONBLE APEX COURT IS OF NO HELP TO THE REVENUE IN THE PRESENT CASE. 11. IN VIEW OF ABOVE DISCUSSION, WE HAVE NOTED THAT THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE APEX COURT CITED BY LD. D.R. AND ALSO TH E JUDGEMENT OF HONBLE APEX COURT FOLLOWED BY THE A.O . ARE NOT APPLICABLE IN THE PRESENT CASE WHEREAS, THE ISSUE I N THE PRESENT CASE IS SQUARELY COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE A SSESSEE BY THE JUDGEMENT OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT AND HENC E, BY FOLLOWING THE SAME JUDGEMENT OF BOMBAY HIGH COURT I N PREFERENCE TO THE TRIBUNAL DECISION CITED BY LD. D. R., WE DECLINE TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A). 12. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE FOUR APPEAL OF THE REVENUE A RE DISMISSED. 13. THIS DECISION WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 1 9 TH NOV., 2010. SD./- SD./- (RAJPAL YADAV) (A K GARODIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED:19 TH NOV., 2010 SP. COPY FORWARDED TO 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT TRUE COPY: BY ORDER 4. CIT(A) 5. DR DY. REGISTRAR, ITAT, NEW DELHI