DCIT, New Delhi V. M/s. Metso Minerals (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 1820/DEL/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 107 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8019 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 4 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-08-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 27-03-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Earning of tax free income; Commercial expediency
• Section: 143(3); 14A; 37

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: E NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI K.N. CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER [THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING] ITA NO.1820/DEL/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12 DCIT, CIRCLE-16(2), NEW DELHI VS. M/S. METSO MINERALS (INDIA) PVT. LTD., C-227, GROUND FLOOR, WESTERN MARG, NEAR GARDEN OF FIVE SENSES, PARYAVARAN COMPLEX, NEW DELHI PAN :AAACS3407L (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ORDER PER O.P. KANT, AM: THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST ORD ER DATED 18/01/2017 PASSED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF IN COME-TAX (APPEALS)-6, DELHI [IN SHORT THE LD. CIT(A)] FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 RAISING FOLLOWING GROUNDS: APPELLANT BY SH. VIPUL KASHYAP, SR.DR RESPONDENT BY MS. PREM LATA BANSAL, SR. ADV. SH. VINAY SAHNI, CA, MS. RACHNA SAHNI, ADV. SH. SHIVANG BANSAL, ADV DATE OF HEARING 10.08.2021 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 25.08.2021 2 ITA NO.1820/DEL/2017 1. WHETHER IN FACTS AND ON CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE, THE LD. CIT(A) IS LEGALLY JUSTIFIED IN DELETING DISALLOWANCE OF RS . 3,77,74.156/- U/S 37 (1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT (THE ACT) ON ACCOU NT OF EXPENDITURE CLAIMED IN PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT EVEN W HEN THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT DISCHARGED ITS INITIAL ONUS U/S 37 (1) OF THE ACT THAT EXPENDITURE WAS LAID OUT OR EXPANDED WHOLLY AN D EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE? 2. WHETHER IN FACTS AND ON CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE, THE LD. CIT(A) IS LEGALLY JUSTIFIED IN NOT UPHOLDING THE DISALLOWA NCE OF RS. 32,78,941/- U/S 14 A OF THE ACT BY IGNORING LEGISLA TIVE INTEND OF SECTION 14 A OF THE ACT THAT DISALLOWANCE U/S 14 A OF THE ACT IS NOT DEPENDENT UPON EARNING OF EXEMPT INCOME AS EXPL AINED VIDE CBDT CIRCULAR NO. 5/2014 DATED 10.02.2014? 3. WHETHER IN FACTS AND ON CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE, THE LD. CIT(A) IS LEGALLY JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE O F RS. 32,78,941/- U/S 14 A OF THE ACT WITHOUT CONSIDERING LEGAL PRINC IPLES THAT ALLOWABILITY OR DISALLOWABILITY OF EXPENDITURE UNDE R THE ACT IS NOT CONDITIONAL UPON THE EARNING OF THE INCOME AS UPHEL D BY HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN CASE OF CIT VS RAJENDRA PRASAD MOO DY (1978) 115 ITR 519? 4. WHETHER IN FACTS AND ON CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE, THE LD. CIT(A) IS LEGALLY JUSTIFIED IN DELETING DISALLOWANCE OF IN TEREST EXPENDITURE OF RS. 54,339/- RELATABLE TO INTEREST FREE ADVANCES U/S 36(1)(III) OF THE ACT EVEN WHEN THE ASSESSEE WAS MAKING HUGE PAYM ENT OF INTEREST ON LOAN AND THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT PROVED TE ST OF COMMERCIAL EXPEDIENCY WITH REGARD TO INTEREST FREE ADVANCE? 5. WHETHER IN FACTS AND ON CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE, THE LD. CIT(A) IS LEGALLY JUSTIFIED IN DELETING DISALLOWANCE OF IN TEREST EXPENDITURE OF RS. 54,339/- RELATABLE TO INTEREST FREE ADVANCES U/S 36(1)(III) OF THE ACT BY IGNORING A FACT THAT HAD THE ASSESSEE NO T ADVANCED INTEREST FREE LOAN TO RELATED PARTIES AND OTHERS, I T COULD HAVE REPAID A PART OF BANK LOAN REDUCING INTEREST BURDEN ON THE ASSESSEE? 6. WHETHER IN FACTS AND ON CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE, LD. CIT (A) IS LEGALLY JUSTIFIED IN ALLOWING RELIEF TO THE ASSESSE E ON THE BASIS OF EARLIER ORDERS IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE DESPITE T HE FACT THAT PRINCIPLE OF RES-JUDICATA IS NOT APPLICABLE TO INCO ME TAX PROCEEDINGS AS EACH ASSESSMENT YEAR IS A SEPARATE P ROCEEDINGS YEAR? 7. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND, ALTER OR FORGO ANY GROUND/(S) OF APPEAL EITHER BEFORE OR AT THE TIME O F HEARING OF THE APPEAL. 2. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSE SSEE WAS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF EQUIPMENT SUPPLY AND ENG INEERING SERVICES. FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ASS ESSEE FILED 3 ITA NO.1820/DEL/2017 RETURN OF INCOME ON 29/09/2011, DECLARING TOTAL INC OME OF 16,97,32,094/-. THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY THE A SSESSEE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT. IN THE ASSESSMENT COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (I N SHORT THE ACT) ON 16/03/2015, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE CER TAIN ADDITIONS/DISALLOWANCE AND ASSESSED TOTAL INCOME AT 21,13,65,650/-. ON FURTHER APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(A) D ELETED CERTAIN ADDITIONS/DISALLOWANCE. AGGRIEVED WITH DELETIONS OF ADDITIONS/DISALLOWANCE, THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BE FORE THE TRIBUNAL, RAISING THE GROUNDS AS REPRODUCED ABOVE. 3. THE PARTIES APPEARED BEFORE US THROUGH VIDEO CONFER ENCING FACILITY AND FILED PAPER-BOOK AND OTHER DOCUMENTS T HROUGH EMAIL. 4. THE GROUND NO.1 OF THE APPEAL RELATES TO DISALLOWA NCE OF 3,77,74,156/- UNDER SECTION 37 (1) OF THE ACT, WHIC H HAS BEEN DELETED BY THE LD. CIT(A) . 4.1 THE LEARNED DR RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AU THORITIES, WHEREAS THE LEARNED COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITT ED THAT IDENTICAL ISSUE OF DISALLOWANCE IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 HAS BEEN DELETED BY THE LD. CIT(A) AND ACTION OF THE LD . CIT(A) HAS BEEN UPHELD BY THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO. 6681/DEL/201 4. 4.2 WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSION OF THE PARTIES ON THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON REC ORD. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS DISALLOWED 10% OF THE EXPENSE S ON AD-HOC BASIS CLAIMED UNDER THE HEAD TELEPHONE EXPENSES, TRAVELLING EXPENSES AND STAFF WELFARE EXPENSES ON THE GROUN D THAT ELEMENT OF PERSONAL USE CANNOT BE OVERRULED AS NO LOGBOOK W AS MAINTAINED FOR VEHICLES, DETAILS OF PHONE CALLS WAS NOT MAINTAINED IN RESPECT OF TELEPHONES AND PROPER VOUC HERS OF TOUR 4 ITA NO.1820/DEL/2017 AND TRAVEL EXPENSES WERE NOT MAINTAINED. THE ASSESS EE MADE A DETAILED SUBMISSION BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) IN RESPEC T OF THE EXPENSES CLAIMED. THE LD. CIT(A) FOLLOWING HIS PRED ECESSOR, DELETED THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFI CER. THE TRIBUNAL (SUPRA) IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 HAS OBS ERVED AS UNDER: 12. HAVING GONE THROUGH THE AFORESAID FINDINGS AND ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WE FIND THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DONE GOOD REASONED ORDER WHICH DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY INTERFERE NCE. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DISCUSSED THE ENTIRE ISSUES IN DETAIL AF TER CONSIDERING THE DETAILED SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE HIM AND RELYING ON VARIOUS CASE LAWS. NO CONTRARY MATERIAL IS BROUGHT ON RECORD ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE TO DISCARD THE CONCLUSIONS ARRIVED AT IN TH E IMPUGNED ORDER. THEREFORE, FINDING NO INFIRMITY IN THE IMPUGNED ORD ER, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS FOUND DEVOID OF MERITS AND DESERVES TO FAIL. 4.3 IN OUR OPINION, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT JUSTI FIED IN MAKING AD-HOC DISALLOWANCE OUT OF EXPENSES WITHOUT POINTING OUT SPECIFIC ERROR OR ABSENCE OF PARTICULAR VOUCHER OF EXPENSES. FURTHER, THE TRIBUNAL IN IDENTICAL CIRCUMSTANCES HA S UPHELD THE DELETION OF SUCH DISALLOWANCE. RESPECTFULLY, FOLLOW ING THE FINDING OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IN IMME DIATELY PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR, WE UPHOLD THE FINDING OF THE LEARNED CIT(A). THE GROUND NO. 1 OF THE APPEAL OF THE REVEN UE IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. 5. THE GROUND NO. 2 & 3 OF THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE ARE RELATED TO DISALLOWANCE OF 32,78,941/- UNDER SECTION 14A OF THE ACT. 5.1 THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED INVESTMENT OF 7,22,91,759/- MADE IN THE SUBSIDIARY AND IN VIEW OF THE NO DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 14A OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE DISALLOWANCE OF 32,78,941/- FOR 5 ITA NO.1820/DEL/2017 INTEREST COST AND OTHER COST INCLUDING MANPOWER COS T. THE LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE DISALLOWANCE IN VIEW FINDING OF HIS PREDECESSOR AND NO EXEMPT INCOME EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE RE LEVANT FINDING OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) IS REPRODUCED AS UNDE R: 3.4.3 IN THE PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11, MY LEARNED PREDECESSOR HAS DELETED THIS ADDITION HOLDING AS UN DER: 'I HAVE CONSIDERED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FRAMED BY T HE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE A PPELLANT. IT IS AN ADMITTED FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE I NVESTMENT OF RS.7,22,91,759/- IN A SUBSIDIARY COMPANY LONG BA CK AND THIS INVESTMENT HAD BEEN DULY REFLECTED IN THE BALA NCE SHEET. IT IS ALSO AN ADMITTED FACT THAT IN THE FY 2002-03 RELEVANT TO AY 2003-04, APPELLANT HAD PROVIDED A SUM OF RS.7,22,91,758/- IN ITS PROFIT & LOSS A/C ON ACCOUN T OF DIMINUTION IN VALUE OF INVESTMENT. HOWEVER, THE SAI D PROVISION HAD BEEN OFFERED FOR TAXATION IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME AND THE SAME HAD BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFF ICER WHILE FRAMING ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) FOR THE SAID AY 2003- 04. THEREAFTER, APPELLANT IS REGULARLY SHOWING A SU M OF RS.L/- AS INVESTMENT IN ITS BALANCE SHEET SINCE AY 2003-04 AND IN NONE OF THE YEARS, PROVISIONS OF SECTION 14A HAVE B EEN INVOKED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IN MY OPINION, PROVISIONS OF SECTION 14A ARE NOT AT ALL ATTRACTED AS THE SAME ARE APPLICABLE WHEN THE ASSES SEE HAD CLAIMED DEDUCTION OF EXPENDITURE WHICH HAD BEEN INC URRED IN RELATION TO EXEMPTED INCOME, AGAINST THE TAXABLE IN COME. IN THE PRESENT CASE, ASSESSEE HAD NOT CLAIMED ANY INCO ME AS EXEMPT. EXPENDITURE INCURRED AND CLAIMED BY THE ASS ESSEE IS WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSES OF BUSINESS , INCOME OF WHICH HAS BEEN SHOWN AS PROFIT OF THE BUSINESS AND HAS OFFERED FOR TAXATION. THEREFORE, EXPENDITURE INCURR ED FOR EARNING SUCH INCOME HAS TO BE ALLOWED AS DEDUCTION. DIMINUTION IN VALUE OF INVESTMENT IS A CAPITAL LOSS , IT HAS NO EFFECT ON THE PROFIT & LOSS A/C OF THE ASSESSEE AND THEREFORE, NO EXPENDITURE CAN BE DISALLOWED INVOKING THE PROVI SIONS OF SECTION 14A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. HENCE, DISALLOWA NCE OF RS.26,12,024/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS HER EBY DELETED.' ON PERUSAL OF THE FACTS OF THE FACTS AND THE AUDITE D FINANCIAL STATEMENTS, IT IS SEEN THAT THE APPELLANT HAS NOT E ARNED ANY EXEMPT INCOME DURING THE YEAR. THE CONTROVERSY IN THIS CAS E IS THAT THE APPELLANT HAD NOT EARNED OR RECEIVED ANY DIVIDEND I N THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND, THEREFORE, NO DISALLOWANCE CAN B E MADE BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 14A OF THE ACT. THE SIMILAR 6 ITA NO.1820/DEL/2017 CONTROVERSY HAS BEEN ADDRESSED BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI IN THE CASE OF M/S CHEMINVEST LIMITED VS CIT-378 IT R 0033 WHEREIN THE COURT HAS ANALYSED THE MEANING OF EXEMPT INCOME AS ENUMERATED IN SEC 14A OF THE ACT. THE HON'BLE COURT HELD AS UNDER: 'THE QUESTION FRAMED BY HOLDING THAT THE EXPRESSION 'DOES NOT FORM PART OF THE TOTAL INCOME' IN SECTION 14A OF TH E ENVISAGES THAT THERE SHOULD BE AN ACTUAL RECEIPT OF INCOME, W HICH IS NOT INCLUDIBLE IN THE TOTAL INCOME, DURING THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR FOR THE PURPOSE OF DISALLOWING ANY EXPENDITURE INCURRED IN RELATION TO THE SAID INCOME. IN OTHER WORDS, SEC TION 14A WILL NOT APPLY IF NO EXEMPT INCOME IS RECEIVED OR RECEIV ABLE DURING THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR.' RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE JURISDIC TIONAL HIGH COURT I AM OF THE VIEW THAT THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT NEED S TO BE UPHELD. THE DISALLOWANCE U/S SEC 14A IS ACCORDINGLY DELETED . 5.2 WE FIND THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DELETED THE DISALL OWANCE RELYING ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH C OURT IN THE CASE OF CHEMINVEST LTD (SUPRA). WE DO NOT FIND ANY ERROR OR ILLEGALITY IN THE FINDING OF THE LD. CIT(A). ACCORDINGLY, THE GRO UNDS NO. 2 & 3 OF THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. 6. THE GROUNDS NO. 4, 5 & 6 OF THE APPEAL RELATE TO DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST EXPENDITURE OF 54,339/- RELATED TO INTEREST FREE ADVANCES UNDER SECTION 36(1)(III) OF THE ACT. 6.1 WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSION OF THE PARTIES ON T HE ISSUE IN DISPUTE AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON REC ORD. THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT BUILDING WAS PUT TO USE IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND INTEREST ON MONEY BORR OWED CORRESPONDING TO THE PERIOD FOR WHICH THE BUILDING WAS NOT PUT TO USE WAS COMPUTED TO 54,339/- . HE DISALLOWED THE SAID INTEREST ON THE GROUND THAT SAME SHOULD HAVE BEEN CAPITALIZE D BY THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. CIT(A) FOLLOWING THE FINDING OF H IS PREDECESSOR IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11, DELETED THE ADDITION OB SERVING AS UNDER: 7 ITA NO.1820/DEL/2017 3.5.3 IN THE PRECEDING AY 2010-11, MY LEARNED PRED ECESSOR HAS DELETED THE ADDITION OBSERVING AS UNDER: 'I HAVE CONSIDERED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AS WELL AS THE DETAILS FURNISHED BY THE APPELLANT ALONGWITH THE SUBMISSION S. THE DETAILS FILED BY THE APPELLANT REVEALS THAT THE ASS ESSEE HAS ALREADY CAPITALIZED INTEREST OF RS.2,48,87,306/- OU T OF TOTAL INTEREST PAID DURING THE YEAR AT RS.11,98,81,762/-. ASSESSEE HAD ALSO BROUGHT FORWARD INTEREST OF RS.83,57,260/- IN ITS PRE- OPERATIVE EXPENSES ACCOUNT PENDING ALLOCATION. THUS TOTAL INTEREST OF RS.3,32,44,566/- (RS.2,48,87,306 + RS.8 3,57,260) HAS BEEN TRANSFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE TO PREOPERATIV E EXPENSES AND TOTAL PREOPERATIVE EXPENSES OF RS.14,79,23,076/- HAS BEEN ALLOCATED TO FIXED ASSET S. ACCORDINGLY AMOUNT OF RS. 7,44,64,117/- HAS BEEN AL LOCATED TO BUILDING ACCOUNT OUT OF PREOPERATIVE EXPENSES OF RS.14,79,23,076/-. ASSESSING OFFICER HAS IGNORED THE FACTS PRODUCED BY THE APPELLANT AND HAS DISALLOWED INTEREST OF RS. 1,38,2 4,367/- OUT OF TOTAL INTEREST, INVOKING PROVISIONS OF SECTI ON 36(1)(3) OF THE ACT, WHICH AMOUNTS TO DOUBLE DISALLOWANCE. ONCE WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS TRANSFERRED INTEREST TO PREOPERATI VE EXPENSES AND AGAIN WHEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS M ADE DISALLOWANCE WHICH IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN LAW. IT IS TRUE THAT AS PER THE PROVISO TO SECTION 36(L) (III) OF THE ACT, ANY AMOUNT OF INTEREST PAID, IN RESPECT OF CAPITAL BORROWED FOR ACQUISITION OF AN ASSET FOR EXTENSION OF EXISTING B USINESS OR PROFESSION (WHETHER CAPITALIZED IN THE BOOKS OF ACC OUNTS OR NOT) FOR ANY PERIOD BEGINNING FROM THE DATE ON WHIC H THE CAPITAL WAS BORROWED TILL THE DATE ON WHICH SUCH AS SETS WAS FIRST PUT TO USE, SHALL NOT BE ALLOWED AS DEDUCTION . ASSESSEE HAD BORROWED THE AMOUNT BASICALLY FOR INVESTMENT IN ITS NEW CONSTRUCTED FACTORY AT ALWAR WHICH HAD BEEN PUT TO USE DURING THE YEAR. THE EXPENSES WHICH WERE DIRECTLY A LLOCABLE TO THE ASSET HAD BEEN DIRECTLY ALLOCATED TO THAT PARTI CULAR ASSET AND THE EXPENSES WHICH WERE NOT DIRECTLY ALLOCABLE, WERE GATHERED IN PRE-OPERATIVE EXPENSES AND ALLOCATED TO THE ASSETS WHEN THEY WERE FIRST PUT TO USE. FOR THIS PURPOSES, ASSESSEE HAS ADOPTED GUIDELINES ISSUED BY ICAIAS-10 & AS-6. NO FAULT IS FOUND BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ACCOUNTING POLICY ADOPTED BY THE APPELLANT. IN VIEW OF ABOVE DISCUSSION, DISALLOWANCE OF RS.1,3 8,24,367/- IS HEREBY DELETED'. 8 ITA NO.1820/DEL/2017 SINCE THERE IS NO CHANGE IN CIRCUMSTANCES, RESPECTF ULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF MY LEARNED PREDECESSOR, THE DISALLOWANC E OF RS. 54,339/- MADE BY THE AO U/S 36(L)(III) IS HEREBY DE LETED. THEREFORE, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALLOWED. 6.2 THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO. 6681/DEL/2014 FOR ASSESSME NT YEAR 2010-11 HAS UPHELD THE DELETION OF 1,38,24,367/- UNDER SECTION 36(1)(III) OF THE ACT, IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT ASS ESSEE HAS ALREADY TRANSFERRED THE INTEREST TO PREOPERATIVE EXPENSES W HICH HAS BEEN ALLOCATED TO FIXED ASSETS. THE FACTS IN THE YEAR UN DER CONSIDERATION ARE IDENTICAL TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 -11, THUS, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE FINDING OF THE TRIBUNAL (SUPRA), WE UPHOLD THE DELETION OF THE ADDITION BY THE LD. CIT( A). THE GROUND NO. 4 TO 6 OF THE APPEAL ARE ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. 7. THE GROUND NO. 7 BEING GENERAL IN NATURE, IT IS DI SMISSED AS INFRUCTUOUS. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMIS SED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 25TH AUGUST, 20 21. SD/- SD/- ( K.N. CHARY ) ( O.P. KANT ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 25 TH AUGUST, 2021. RK/- (DTDC) COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR ASST. REGISTRAR, ITAT, NEW DELHI