ITO, New Delhi V. M/s Vartman Secutities & Services P. Ltd, New Delhi

ITA 1809/DEL/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7509 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 7 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-12-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: H
• Next Hearing Date: 24-11-2014
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 20-04-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: GAURAV MITTAL
• Assessee Lawyers: J P CHANDRAKAR
• Keywords: Business income; Speculation loss
• Section: 143(3); 68

Judgement Text

ITA NO. 1809/DEL/2010 ASSTT.YEAR: 2004-05 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES H NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI N.K. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI CHANDRAMOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 1809/DEL/2010 ASSTT.YEAR: 2004-05 INCOME TAX OFFICER, VS VAR TMAN SECURITIES & SERVICES P. LTD., WARD 17(1), ROOM NO. 225A, 1212, KAILA SH BUILDING, C R BUILDING, I.P..ESTATE, K.G. MARG, NEW DELH I. NEW DELHI. (PAN: AABCV0947H) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SHRI GAURAV MITTAL, C.A. RESPONDENT BY: SHRI J.P. CHANDRAKAR, SR. DR O R D E R PER CHANDRAMOHAN GARG, J.M. THIS APPEAL HAVE BEEN FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A)-XIX, NEW DELHI DATED 01.02.2010 IN APPEAL NO . 207/2007-08 FOR AY 2004-05. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS IN THIS APPEAL:- 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE, ID. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN DIRECTING THE AO TO ALLOW SET OFF OF B/F SPECULATION LOSSES OF RS.12,82,930/- AGAINST THE IN COME FOR THE A. Y .2004-05 UNDER REFERENCE, TREATING THE INCOME ARISING FROM PURCHASE AND SALE OF SHARES AS SPECULATION IN COME AS AGAINST THE REGULAR BUSINESS (NON SPECULATION) INCO ME TREATED BY THE AO. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E, ID. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.5 LACS MADE U/S 68 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ESPECIALLY WHEN THE ASS ESSEE DID ITA NO. 1809/DEL/2010 ASSTT.YEAR: 2004-05 2 NOT DISCHARGE ITS ONUS TO ESTABLISH THE IDENTITY & CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE PARTIES CONTRIBUTING SHARE APPLICATION MONEY AND GENUINENESS OF TRANSACTION, SATISFACTORIL Y. 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE, ID. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN ADMITTING FRESH EVIDENCE SUCH AS B ANK STATEMENT AND CONFIRMATION ETC. IN CONTRAVENTION OF RULE 46A OF THE INCOME TAX RULES, 1962. 4. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE, ID. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.5 1ACS , INTER ALIA, BY MISPLACING RELIANCE ON THE JUDGEMENT OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF M/S LOVELY EXPORTS P.LTD., 216 CTR 195 ESPECIALLY WHEN THE VERY IDENTITY OF THE PARTIES SU BSCRIBING SHARE APPLICATION MONEY, COULD NOT BE ESTABLISHED. 2. BRIEFLY STATED, THE FACTS GIVING RISE TO THIS AP PEAL ARE THAT DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT, THE A O DENIED SET OFF OF BROUGHT FORWARD SPECULATION LOSSES OF RS.12,82,930. THE AO ALSO MADE THE ADDITION U/S 68 OF THE ACT OF RS. 5 LAKH BY HOLDING THAT THE ASS ESSEE FAILED TO DISCHARGE ITS ONUS TO SUBSTANTIATE SHARE APPLICATION MONEY RECEIV ED FROM VARIOUS SHARE APPLICANTS. THE AGGRIEVED ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN AP PEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) WHICH WAS PARTLY ALLOWED ON AFOREMENTIONED BOTH THE ISSUES. NOW, THE AGGRIEVED REVENUE IS BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL WITH THE GROUNDS AS REPRODUCED HEREINABOVE. GROUND NO.3 3. APROPOS GROUND NO.3, ON SPECIFIC QUERY FROM THE BENCH, LD. DR FAIRLY ACCEPTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT PRODUCED ANY ADD ITIONAL EVIDENCE DURING FIRST APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. ACCORDINGLY, GROUND NO. 3 O F THE REVENUE HAVING NO SUBSTANCE AND BEING DEVOID OF MERITS IS DISMISSED. ITA NO. 1809/DEL/2010 ASSTT.YEAR: 2004-05 3 GROUND NO.1 4. APROPOS GROUND NO.1, WE HAVE HEARD ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE SIDES AND CAREFULLY PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL PLACED ON R ECORD, INTER ALIA ASSESSMENT ORDER AND IMPUGNED ORDER. LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT TH E AO RIGHTLY OBSERVED THAT THE BUSINESS OF PURCHASE AND SALE OF SHARES IS NOT A SPECULATIVE BUSINESS BUT THE SAME IS A REGULAR BUSINESS AND THE INCOME FROM PURC HASE AND SALE OF SHARES EXCLUDING JOBBING INCOME WAS RIGHTLY TREATED AS REG ULAR BUSINESS INCOME. THE DR FURTHER CONTENDED THAT THE SET OFF OF BROUGHT FO RWARD SPECULATIVE LOSSES AGAINST THE INCOME FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WAS NOT ALLOWABLE BUT THE CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN DIRECTING THE AO TO ALL OW THE SAME TREATING THE INCOME ARISING FROM PURCHASE AND SALE OF SHARES AS SPECULATIVE INCOME AS AGAINST THE NON-SPECULATIVE REGULAR BUSINESS INCOME . 5. REPLYING TO THE ABOVE, LD. AR HAS DRAWN OUR ATTE NTION TOWARDS PARA 7.1 TO 7.5 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND SUBMITTED THAT AS PER EXPLANATION ATTACHED TO SECTION 73 OF THE ACT, THE INCOME/LOSS DERIVED BY T HE ASSESSEE FROM SPECULATION BUSINESS WHICH WAS ACCEPTED IN THE EARLIER YEARS, T HEN WHERE THERE IS NO CHANGE OF FACTS DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE S ET OFF OF BROUGHT FORWARD SPECULATIVE LOSSES CANNOT BE DENIED. 6. ON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF ABOVE SUBMISSIONS AN D ON PERUSAL OF RELEVANT PART OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER, WE OBSERVE THAT THE CIT (A) GRANTED RELIEF FOR THE ASSESSEE WITH FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS AND CONCLUSION :- ITA NO. 1809/DEL/2010 ASSTT.YEAR: 2004-05 4 THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN CARRYING ON THE SAME ACTIVIT Y. THE SAID LOSS HAS BEEN ADJUSTED OVER A PERIOD OF TI ME AND DURING THE YEAR CARRIED FORWARD LOSS OF RS. 12,82,9 30/- WAS SET OFF AGAINST THE CURRENT YEAR PROFIT OF RS.14,52,360 /-. THE ASSESSEE IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS EX PLAINED THE REASONS FOR SETTING OFF OF BROUGHT FORWARD LOSSES V IDE EXPLANATION DATED 07.07.2006 WHICH ARE AS UNDER: '12. DETAILS OF BROUGHT FORWARD LOSSES: THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS CLAIMED A BROUGHT FORWARD LOSS OF RS. 12,82,930/- IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FIL ED FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WAS LAST ASSESSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) FOR AY 2001-02. A COPY OF THE ORDER U/S 143(3) HAS BEEN ENCLOSED HEREWITH. AS PER ORDER, CO MPANY HAS BEEN GRANTED A SPECULATION LOSS OF RS. 18,46,458/- ALONGWITH A BUSINESS LOSS OF RS. 1,87,58/-. SINCE THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY CONSISTS OF ONLY SALE/PURCHASE OF EQUITY SHARES, THE SAME HAS TO BE TREATED AS SPECULATIVE BUSINESS IN VIEW OF THE EXPL ANATION TO SECTION 73, THE BROUGHT FORWARD SPECULATIVE LOSS HAS BEEN SET-OFF AGAINST CURRENT Y EAR'S INCOME. A PHOTOCOPY OF THE RELEVANT PART OF SECTION 73 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 HAS BEEN ENCLOSED HEREWITH FOR YOUR READY REFERENCE.' 7.4 THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NEGATIVED ON THE GROUND THAT THE CURRENT YEAR INCOME IS TO BE TREATED AS REGULAR BUSINESS INCOME. EXPLANATION TO SECTION 73 READS AS UNDER: 'WHERE ANY PART OF THE BUSINESS OF A COMPANY (OTHER THAN A COMPANY WHOSE GROSS TOTAL INCOME CONSISTS MAINLY OF INCOME WHICH IS CHARGEABLE UNDER THE HEADS 'INTEREST ON SE CURITIES', 'INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY', 'CAPITAL GAINS' AND ' INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES', OR A COMPANY THE PRINCIPAL BUS INESS OF WHICH IS THE BUSINESS OF BANKING ON THE GRANTING OF LOANS AND ADVANCES) CONSISTS IN THE PURCHASE AND SALE OF SHAR ES OF OTHER COMPANIES, SUCH COMPANY SHALL, FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION, BE DEEMED TO BE CARRYING ON A SPECULATION BUSINESS TO THE EXTENT TO WHICH THE BUSINESS CONSISTS OF THE PU RCHASE AND SALE OF SUCH SHARES.' 7.5 FROM THE ABOVE PROVISIONS IT IS VERY CLEAR THAT INCOME/LOSS DERIVED BY THE ASSESSEE IS FROM SPECULATION BUSINES S WHICH WAS ITA NO. 1809/DEL/2010 ASSTT.YEAR: 2004-05 5 ACCEPTED IN EARLIER YEAR / S. THERE IS NO CHANGE OF FACTS IN THE IMPUGNED YEAR. THE ACTION OF THE AO IS UNJUSTIFIED, THE AO IS HEREBY DIRECTED TO ALLOW SET OFF OF LOSS AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, GROUND NO. 2 IS ALLOWED. 7. IN VIEW OF ABOVE, WE OBSERVE THAT THE AO DENIED SET OFF OF SPECULATIVE LOSSES OF EARLIER YEARS BY HOLDING THAT THE BUSINES S OF PURCHASE AND SALE OF SHARES IS NOT SPECULATIVE BUSINESS BUT ITS REGULAR BUSINESS AND THE INCOME FROM PURCHASE AND SALE OF SHARES EXCLUDING JOBBING INCOM E OR SPECULATIVE INCOME SHOULD BE TREATED AS REGULAR BUSINESS INCOME AND TH E AO DENIED SET OFF OF BROUGHT FORWARD SPECULATIVE LOSSES. AT THE SAME TI ME, FROM EXPLANATION ATTACHED TO SECTION 73 OF THE ACT, WE OBSERVE THAT THE EXPLANATION CLARIFIES THAT WHERE ANY PART OF BUSINESS OF A COMPANY CONSISTS O F PURCHASE AND SALE OF SHARES OF OTHER COMPANIES, THEN SUCH COMPANY SHALL FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECTION 73 OF THE ACT BE DEEMED TO BE CARRYING ON SPECULATI ON BUSINESS TO THE EXTENT TO WHICH THE BUSINESS CONSISTS OF THE PURCHASE AND SAL E OF SUCH SHARES. ACCORDINGLY, WE ARE IN AGREEMENT WITH THE CONCLUSIO N OF THE CIT(A) THAT THE INCOME OR LOSS DERIVED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS F ROM SPECULATION BUSINESS WHICH WAS ACCEPTED BY THE AO IN THE EARLIER YEARS A ND IF THERE IS NO CHANGE OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR UNDE R CONSIDERATION, THEN THE SET OFF OF BROUGHT FORWARD SPECULATIVE LOSSES CANNOT BE DENIED FOR THE ASSESSEE. THE ACTION OF THE AO WAS NOT SUSTAINABLE WHICH WAS RIGH TLY SET ASIDE BY THE CIT(A) DIRECTING THE AO TO ALLOW SET OFF OF LOSS AS CLAIME D BY THE ASSESSEE. HENCE, WE ARE UNABLE TO SEE ANY VALID REASON TO INTERFERE WIT H THE IMPUGNED ORDER ON THIS ITA NO. 1809/DEL/2010 ASSTT.YEAR: 2004-05 6 ISSUE AND WE UPHOLD THE SAME. ACCORDINGLY, GROUND NO. 1 OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. GROUND NO. 2 & 4 8. APROPOS THESE GROUNDS, LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.5 LAKH WHICH WAS MADE B Y THE AO U/S 68 OF THE ACT. LD. DR VEHEMENTLY CONTENDED THAT WHEN THE ASSESSEE DID NOT DISCHARGE ITS ONUS TO ESTABLISH THE IDENTITY AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF T HE PARTIES CONTRIBUTING SHARE APPLICATION MONEY AND THE GENUINENESS OF TRANSACTIO N SATISFACTORILY, THEN THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS NOT SUSTAINABLE. THE DR FURTHER CONTENDED THAT THE CIT(A) GROSSLY ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO BY MISPLACING RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF M/S LOVELY EXP ORTS PVT. LTD. 216 CTR 195 SPECIALLY WHEN THE ACCEPTABLE IDENTITY OF THE PARTIES/ENTITIES CONTRIBUTING SHARE APPLICATION MON EY COULD NOT BE ESTABLISHED. THE DR PRAYED THAT IMPUGNED ORDER MAY BE SET ASIDE BY RESTORING THAT OF THE AO ON THIS ISSUE. 9. REPLYING TO THE ABOVE, LD. AR PLACING RELIANCE O N THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF LOVELY EXPORTS (SUPRA) AND THE DECISION OF HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT OF DELHI IN THE C ASE OF CIT VS DIVINE LEASING & FINANCE LTD. 207 CTR 38(DEL) AND SUBMITTED THAT WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS PROVIDED NECESSARY DETAILS INCLUDING T HE WARD/CIRCLE WHERE THE SHARE APPLICANTS WERE ASSESSED TO INCOME TAX AND PR OPERLY DISCHARGED THE ONUS ITA NO. 1809/DEL/2010 ASSTT.YEAR: 2004-05 7 CAST BY THE ACT ON THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AND IN THE LIGHT OF PECULIAR FACT WHEN THE SHARE APPLICANTS WERE ALSO ALLOTTED SHARES BY T HE ASSESSEE COMPANY, THEN ADDITION U/S 68 OF THE ACT IS NOT SUSTAINABLE. THE AR VEHEMENTLY CONTENDED THAT THE AO HAS NOT BROUGHT OUT ANYTHING ADVERSE ON RECORD TO DISPUTE OR DISCARD THE FACTS, DETAILS AND EXPLANATION SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE, THEN WITHOUT ANY FURTHER VERIFICATION AND EXAMINATION BY THE AO, SIM PLY RELYING ON SURMISES AND CONJECTURES, THE ADDITION U/S 68 OF THE ACT IS NOT SUSTAINABLE. 10. ON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF ABOVE SUBMISSIONS A ND CONTENTIONS AND VIGILANT PERUSAL OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER, WE OBSERVE THAT THE CIT(A) GRANTED RELIEF FOR THE ASSESSEE BY PLACING RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF LOVELY EXPORTS (SUPRA) AND THE DECISION OF HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT OF DELHI IN THE CASE OF C IT VS DIVINE LEASING & FINANCE LTD.(SUPRA). THE RELEVANT OPERATIVE PART O F THE IMPUGNED ORDER WHICH GRANTED RELIEF FOR THE ASSESSEE READS AS UNDER:- 15. I HAVE NO HESITATION TO CONCLUDE THAT THE ASSE SSEE HAS PROVIDED NECESSARY DETAILS INCLUDING THE WARD/ CIRC LE WHERE THE SHARE APPLICANTS WERE ASSESSED TO INCOME TAX AND DI SCHARGED THE ONUS CAST ON IT. THE SHARE APPLICANTS WERE ALSO ALL OTTED SHARES. THE AO HAS NOT BROUGHT ANYTHING ON RECORD TO DISPUT E THE FACTS/ DETAILS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE. 16. THE LAW OF EVIDENCE MANDATES THAT IF THE BEST E VIDENCE IS NOT PLACED BEFORE THE COURT, AN ADVERSE INFERENCE CAN B E DRAWN AS AGAINST THE PERSON WHO OUGHT TO HAVE PRODUCED IT. A S STATED ABOVE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PRODUCED POSSIBLE/BEST EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT ITS CLAIM. ITA NO. 1809/DEL/2010 ASSTT.YEAR: 2004-05 8 17. IT IS SETTLED PRINCIPLE OF LAW THAT NO ADDITION / DISALLOWANCE CAN BE MADE ON SUSPICION, SURMISES AND CONJECTURES AS HELD BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE FOLLOWING CASES. A) DHIRAJLA1 GIRDHARILAL V CIT 26 ITR 736 B) OMAR SALAY MOHAMMED SAIT V CIT 37ITR151 C) DHAKESHWARI COTTON MILLS LTD. V CIT 26 ITR 775 D) LALCHAND BHAGAT AMBICA RAM V CIT 37 ITR 288 18. IN THE CASE OF ACCHYALAL SHAW V. ITO (2009) 30 SOT 44 (KOL.) (URO), THE HON'BLE ITAT OBSERVED AS UNDER: 'SUSPICION CANNOT REPLACE EVIDENTIAL DOCUMENT. SIMP LE ARGUMENT OR ALLEGATION OF MANIPULATION IS NOT SUFFICIENT WIT HOUT PROPER EVIDENCE.' 19. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AN D AVAILABLE LEGAL POSITION, THE SHARE CAPITAL TO THE EXTENT OF RS.5,00,000/- STANDS EXPLAINED. ACCORDINGLY, GROUND NO. 3 IS ALL OWED. 11. COMING TO THE FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE PRESENT CA SE, WE OBSERVE THAT THE AO MADE IMPUGNED ADDITION BY OBSERVING THAT THE ASSESS EE HAS NOT GIVEN DETAIL WHETHER THE SHARE APPLICATION MONEY WAS RECEIVED BY WAY OF CHEQUE OR DRAFT NOR ANY COPIES OF THE INCOME TAX RETURNS (FOR THE R ELEVANT AY 2004-05) WERE FILED IN RESPECT OF SHARE APPLICATION MONEY CONTRIB UTORS TO ASCERTAIN THEIR CREDITWORTHINESS. THE AR DURING THE ARGUMENTS HAS DRAWN OUR ATTENTION TOWARDS PAPER BOOK SPREAD OVER 110 PAGES WHEREIN IT HAS BEE N MENTIONED THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED COPIES OF THE CONFIRMATION, BANK STA TEMENTS, INCOME TAX RETURNS ALONG WITH COMPUTATION OF INCOME FROM 2000-01 TO 20 03-04 OF THE INVESTORS OF THE SHARE APPLICATION MONEY BEFORE THE AO AND THE C IT(A). WE ALSO OBSERVE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS BEF ORE THE AO DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ON 07.07.2006, 20.11.2006 AND 06.12.200 6 WHICH ARE AVAILABLE ITA NO. 1809/DEL/2010 ASSTT.YEAR: 2004-05 9 FROM PAGE NO. 102 TO 110 OF THE PAPER BOOK, HENCE, OBSERVATION AND CONCLUSION OF THE AO ABOUT NON-FURNISHING OF REQUIRED DETAIL I S NOT SUSTAINABLE. 12. FROM CAREFUL READING OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, W E ALSO OBSERVE THAT THE AO PROCEEDED TO MAKE ADDITION U/S 68 OF THE ACT WIT HOUT ANY FURTHER EXAMINATION AND VERIFICATION OF THE DETAILS, CONFIR MATIONS, INCOME TAX RETURNS, BANK ACCOUNTS OF THE ALLEGED INVESTORS WHO CONTRIBU TED SHARE APPLICATION MONEY SIMPLY KEEPING ASIDE THE SAME. IN THESE PECULIAR F ACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE ARE INCLINED TO APPROVE THE IMPUGNED ORDER IN THE LIGHT OF RATIO OF THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF LO VELY EXPORT (SUPRA) AND RATIO OF THE DECISION OF HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIG H COURT OF DELHI IN THE CASE OF DIVINE LEASING (SUPRA). IN THE CASE OF LOVELY EXPO RT (SUPRA), THE HONBLE APEX COURT HELD THAT IF THE SHARE APPLICATION IS RECEIVE D BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY FROM ALLEGED BOGUS SHAREHOLDERS WHOSE NAMES ARE GIVEN TO THE AO, THEN THE DEPARTMENT IS FREE TO PROCEED TO REOPEN THEIR INDIV IDUAL ASSESSMENTS OF RESPECTIVE SHARE APPLICATION MONEY CONTRIBUTING INV ESTORS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW BUT THE AMOUNT OF SHARE APPLICATION MONEY CANNO T BE REGARDED OR CONSIDERED UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE U/S 68 OF THE AC T. THUS, WE ARE UNABLE TO SEE ANY AMBIGUITY OR PERVERSITY IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER A ND WE UPHOLD THE SAME. RESULTANTLY, GROUND NO. 2 AND 4 OF THE REVENUE ARE ALSO DISMISSED. 13. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE HAVING NO SUBSTANCE IS DISMISSED. ITA NO. 1809/DEL/2010 ASSTT.YEAR: 2004-05 10 ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 11.12.2014. SD/- SD/- (N.K. SAINI) (CHANDRAMOHA N GARG) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DT. 11 TH DECEMBER, 2014 GS COPY FORWARDED TO:- 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. C.I.T.(A) 4. C.I.T. 5. DR BY ORDER AS STT. REGISTRAR