DCIT (Exemption), Ghaziabad V. M/s. Lajpat Rai Educational Society, Ghaziabad

ITA 1928/DEL/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4688 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 1 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-05-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: H
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 11-04-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Business income; Depreciation; Charitable institution; Question of law
• Section: 11

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: B NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI N. K. BILLAIYA, ACCO UNTANT MEMBER & SHRI K. NARASIMHA CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO-1826/DEL/2016 ( ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12) LAJPAT RAI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY IMT CAMPUS, HAPUR ROAD GHAZIABAD PAN: AAATL1391H VS ADDL. CIT RANGE-1 GHAZIABAD ITA NO-1928/DEL/2016 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12) DCIT (EXEMPTION) ROOM NO. 105, 1 ST FLOOR, CGO-2, HAPUR ROAD GHAZIABAD VS LAJPAT RAI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY HAPUR ROAD GHAZIABAD PAN: AAATL1391H REVENUE BY SH. ABHISHEK KUMAR, SR. DR ASSESSEE BY SH. RAKESH GUPTA, ADV &SH. SOMIL AGGARWAL, ADV O R DORDER PER K. NARSIMHA CHARY, J.M. CHALLENGING THE ORDER DATED 22/1/2016 IN APPEAL NO. 629/2014- 15/GZB PASSED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)- GHAZIABAD (LD. CIT(A)) BOTH REVENUE AND ASSESSEE PREFERRED THESE APPEALS. DATE OF HEARING 14 .05.2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 16 .05.2019 ITA NO. 1928 & 1826/DEL/2016 2 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A SOCIETY, ENGAGED IN EDUCATIONAL ACTIVITIES AND ARE RUNNING THE EDUCA TIONAL INSTITUTIONS. FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12, THEY HAVE FILED TH EIR RETURN OF INCOME ON 21/7/2011 DECLARING NIL INCOME. BY ORDER DATED 2 8/2/2014, LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER ASSESSED THE INCOME OF THE ASSESS EE AT RS. 1,61,26,450/- BY MAKING CERTAIN ADDITIONS WHICH INC LUDES, FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS APPEAL IS OF RS. 1,98,64,393/-BY DI SALLOWING THE DEPRECIATION CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF THE ASSETS ACQUIRED BY THE ASSESSEE IN APPLICATION OF THE FUNDS, RS. 1, 57,47,296/- ON ACCOUNT OF SURPLUS OF HOSTEL RECEIPTS BY TREATING IT AS BUS INESS INCOME, AND ALSO A SUM OF RS. 3, 79, 156/- ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES INCURRED ON A TRAVEL BY THE TOP OFFICIAL AND OFFICE BEARER O F THE SOCIETY. 3. IN THE APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE LD. CIT( A) DELETED THE ADDITION OF RS. 1,98,64,393/- BASING ON THE DECISIO N OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF INDRAPRAST HA CANCER SOCIETY IN ITA NO. 240/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE HONBLE HIGH CO URT BY ORDER DATED 18/11/2014 AND OTHER DECISIONS. LD. CIT(A), THOUGH REJECTED THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE RUNNING OF HOST EL IS AN INTEGRAL TO EDUCATION, BUT REDUCED THE ADDITION FROM RS. 1,57,4 7,296/- TO RS.89,60,290/-AND THEREBY GRANTED RELIEF TO THE TUN E OF RS. 67, 87, 006/- ON THAT SCORE. IN RESPECT OF THE TRAVELLING EXPENSE OF RS. 3,79,156/- CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE, LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE F INDINGS OF THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER TO THE EFFECT THAT THE TR AVEL BY CHARTERED FLIGHT IS DEFINITELY UNREASONABLE EXPENDITURE PARTICULARLY BY AN ASSESSEE WHO ENJOYS TAX BENEFIT FOR CHARITABLE ACTIVITIES. ITA NO. 1928 & 1826/DEL/2016 3 4. REVENUE THEREFORE FILED ITA 1928 /DEL/ 2016 CHAL LENGING THE DELETION OF RS. 1,98,64,393/- ON ACCOUNT OF THE DEP RECIATION AND GRANTING RELIEF TO THE TUNE OF RS. 67,87,006/- ON A CCOUNT OF HOSTEL ACTIVITIES. AT THE SAME TIME, AGGRIEVED BY THE FIND ING OF THE LD. CIT(A) THAT THE SURPLUS FROM HOSTEL RUNNING ACTIVITY SHALL BE TREATED AS BUSINESS INCOME AND CONFIRMATION OF THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF THE TRAVEL EXPENSE, ASSESSEE PREFERRED ITA NO. 1826 /DEL/ 2016 . 5. INSOFAR AS THE FIRST ADDITION OF RS. 1,98,64,393 /- ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION IS CONCERNED, LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HAD DISALLOWED THE DEPRECIATION AS APPLICATION OF I NCOME BY FOLLOWING THE DECISIONS IN THE CASE OF ESCORTS LTD (SUPRA) AN D ALSO THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE KERALA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF LISSIE MEDICAL INSTITUTIONS VS. CIT 348 ITR 344 (KERALA). 6. LD. CIT(A), ON A CONSIDERATION OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, OBSERVED THAT THE DECISIONS OF THE HONBL E APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF ESCORTS LTD (SUPRA), THE DECISION OF THE KE RALA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF LISSIEMEDICAL INSTITUTES (SUPRA) AND ALSO T HE DECISION OF HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CHIRANJIVCHARITABLE TRUST IN ITA NO. 322- 323/2013, DATED 18/3/2014 WERE DISCUSSED BY THE HON BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF INDRAPRAST HA CANCER SOCIETY 229 TAXMANN 93 (DEL) AND ANSWERED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. 7. LD. AR ALSO BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE THAT RECENTLY IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. RAJASTHAN AND GUJARATI CHARITABLE FOUNDATION, P OONA (2018) 402 ITR 441 THE HONBLE APEX COURT HELD THAT NORMAL DEPRECI ATION COULD BE ITA NO. 1928 & 1826/DEL/2016 4 CONSIDERED AS LEGITIMATE DEDUCTION IN COMPUTING REA L INCOME OF ASSESSEE ON GENERAL PRINCIPLES OR UNDER SECTION 11 (1) (A) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT). 8. SINCE THE QUESTION OF LAW INVOLVED IN THIS ISSUE IS NO LONGER RES INTEGRA AND IN VIEW OF THE DECISIONS OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT AND THE HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASES OF IN DRAPRASTHA CANCER SOCIETY (SUPRA) AND RAJASTHAN AND GUJARATI CHARITAB LE FOUNDATION, POONA (SUPRA), WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THA T THERE IS NOTHING ILLEGALITY ARE REGULARITY IN THE FINDINGS RETURNED BY THE LD. CIT(A) WHILE DELETING THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF DEPRECIATI ON. WE, THEREFORE, FIND THE GROUND NO. 1 IN REVENUES APPEAL AS DEVOID OF MERITS AND ACCORDINGLY THE SAME IS DISMISSED. 9. NOW COMING TO THE 2 ND ISSUE OF SURPLUS OF HOSTEL RECEIPTS, IT IS ADMITTED FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN RUNNING TH E HOSTEL ALONG WITH THE EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION, WHICH ACTIVITY THE LEA RNED ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND TO BE A BUSINESS ACTIVITY AND NOT CHARITABLE ACTIVITY WITHIN THE DEFINITION OF SECTION 2 (15) OF THE ACT. LD. CIT(A) , ON THIS ASPECT, HELD THAT HOSTEL RUNNING AND GENERATING SURPLUS CANNOT B E TERMED AS EDUCATION AND THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE ON TH IS ASPECT ARE NOT TENABLE IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND ALSO IN VIEW OF THE LEGAL POSITION. LD. CIT(A) HOWEVER REDUCED THE DISALLOWANCE AS STATED ABOVE. 10. IT IS THE SUBMISSION OF LD. AR THAT THIS ISSUE ALSO IS NO LONGER RES INTEGRA IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE KARN ATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. KARNATAKA LINGAYAT EDUCATION SO CIETY IN ITA NO. ITA NO. 1928 & 1826/DEL/2016 5 5004/2012 DATED 15/10/2014 FOLLOWED BY THE COORDINA TE BENCHES OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN A NUMBER OF MATTERS. HE BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE COORDINATE BENCHES OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF DELHI PUBLIC SCHOOL VS. ACIT IN ITA NO. 3593/DEL/2015 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 AND ALSO IN M/S FRIENDS CHARITABLE SOCIETY VS. ACIT ITA NO. 3298/DEL/2015 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. 11. IN ITA NO. 3593 /DEL/ 2015, THE COORDINATE BENC H OF THIS TRIBUNAL HELD AS FOLLOWS:- ..IN THE CASE OF KRISHNA CHARITABLE SOCIETY VS. AD DL CIT IN ITA NO. 4639/DEL/2015 FOR AY 2011-12 DATED 15.09.2017, A SIM ILAR QUESTION HAD ARISEN. VIDE PARA NO.11, A COORDINATE BENCH OF T HIS TRIBUNAL HELD THAT TRANSPORT AND HOSTEL FACILITY SURPLUS CANNOT BE CONS IDERED AS BUSINESS INCOME OF THE SOCIETY AS THESE ACTIVITIES ARE INCIDENTAL TO THE MAIN OBJECT OF THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY OF EDUCATION. RE LEVANT OBSERVATIONS ON THIS ASPECT ARE AS UNDER:- 11. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTI ONS AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND OTHER J UDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENT PLACED BEFORE US. IN THE GROUNDS NO. 1 3 ASSESSEE IS CONTESTING THAT ADDITION MADE BY THE LD. AS SESSING OFFICER TREATING HOSTEL PLACES PROVIDED TO COLLEGE STU DENT AS BUSINESS OF THE SOCIETY AND TEXT THE ALLEGED SURPLUS O F RS. 9887873/ AS BUSINESS INCOME OF THE APPELLANT. IT WAS NOT THE CASE OF THE REVENUE THAT ASSESSEE HAS RENTED OUT THESE HOSTELS TO THE STUDENTS WHO ARE NOT PARTED EDUCATION IN THE ABOVE INSTITUTES. IT WAS ALSO NOT THE CASE OF REVENUE THAT ASS ESSEE IS PRIMARILY ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF PROVIDING HOST EL FACILITIES TO THE STUDENTS. THE ABOVE ISSUE IS NO MORE RES INTEGRA IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN C IT VERSUS KARNATAKA LINGAYAT EDUCATION SOCIETY IN ITA NO. 5004/ 2012 DATED 15/10/2014 WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT PROVI DING HOSTEL TO THE STUDENTS/STAFF WORKING FOR THE SOCIETYS INCIDENTAL TO ACHIEVE THE OBJECT OF PROVIDING EDUCATION, NAMELY T HE OBJECT OF THE SOCIETY. IN VIEW OF THIS WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT PROVIDING OF HOSTEL FACILITIES AND TRANSPORT FACILITIES TO THE ITA NO. 1928 & 1826/DEL/2016 6 STUDENT AND STAFF MEMBER OF THE EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTE CAN NOT BE CONSIDERED AS BUSINESS ACTIVITY BUT IS SUBSERVIENT TO TH E OBJECT OF EDUCATIONAL ACTIVITIES PERFORMED BY THE SOCIETY. WE ARE ALSO SUPPORTED BY OUR VIEW BY THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN IIT VERSUS STATE OF UP, (1976) 38 STC 4 28 (ALL) WHEREIN QUESTION AROSE IN INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNO LOGY V. STATE OF U.P. (1976) 38 STC 428 (ALL) WITH RESPECT TO THE VI SITORS' HOSTEL MAINTAINED BY THE INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY WHER E LODGING AND BOARDING FACILITIES WERE PROVIDED TO PERSONS WHO WOULD COME TO THE INSTITUTE IN CONNECTION WITH EDUCATION AN D THE ACADEMIC ACTIVITIES OF THE INSTITUTE. IT WAS OBSERVED THAT THE STATUTORY OBLIGATION OF MAINTENANCE OF THE HOSTEL, WHI CH INVOLVED SUPPLY, AND SALE OF FOOD WAS AN INTEGRAL P ART OF THE OBJECTS OF THE INSTITUTE NOR COULD THE RUNNING OF THE HOSTEL BE TREATED AS THE PRINCIPAL ACTIVITY OF THE INSTITUTE. THE I NSTITUTE COULD NOT BE HELD TO BE DOING BUSINESS. FURTHER MEALS BEING SUPPLIED IN A HOSTEL TO THE SCHOLARS, VISITORS, GUEST FACULTY ETC. CAN NOT BE EXIGIBLE TO SALES TAX WHERE MAIN ACTIVITY IS ACADEMICS AS HELD IN SCHOLARS HOME SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL 42 VST 530. FURTHER, THE RELIANCE PLACED BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIE S ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN CASE O F DCIT VERSUS WELLINGTON CHARITABLE TRUST IS ALSO MISPLACED BECAUSE IN THAT CASE, THE ONLY ACTIVITY OF THAT PARTICULAR TRUST WAS REN TING OUT OF THE PROPERTY AND NOT EDUCATION. WE ARE ALSO NOT AVERS E TO CONSIDERING THE LATEST LEGAL DEVELOPMENTS TOO WHERE IN THE RECENTLY INTRODUCED NEW LEGISLATION OF GOODS AND SE RVICE TAX IT IS PROVIDED THAT NO GST WOULD BE CHARGEABLE ON THE HOSTE L FEES ETC RECOVERED FROM THE STUDENTS , FACULTIES AND OTHER ST AFF FOR LODGING AND BOARDING AS THEY ARE ENGAGED IN EDUCATI ON ACTIVITIES . THEREFORE WE REVERSE THE FINDING OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND HELD THAT TRANSPORT AND HOSTEL FACILITIES SURPLUS CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS BUSINESS INCOME OF THE ASSES SEE SOCIETY WHICH IS MAINLY ENGAGED IN BUSINESS ACTIVITIES AND THESE ACTIVITIES ARE SUBSERVIENT TO THE MAIN OBJECT OF EDUCATI ON OF THE TRUST. 11. IN KANHA CHARITABLE TRUST VS. ACIT ITA NOS.3297 & 5987/DEL/2015, WHILE PLACING RELIANCE ON ITS EARLIER DECISION IN THE CASE OF KRISHNA CHARITABLE SOCIETY VS. ACIT IT WAS HE LD THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY CLINCHING EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT THE H OSTEL FACILITIES AND TRANSPORT FACILITIES WERE PROVIDED TO ANYBODY OTHER THAN STUDENTS AND ITA NO. 1928 & 1826/DEL/2016 7 STAFF OF THE TRUST. THE TRANSPORT AND HOSTEL FACILITIES P ROVIDED BY THE EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION SHALL BE CONSTRUED TO BE THE INTRINSIC PART OF THE EDUCATIONAL ACTIVITIES OF THE ASSESSEE AND THEY CA NNOT BE CONSIDERED DIFFERENT THAN ACTIVITIES OF THE SOCIETY OF EDUCATI ON. THE HOSTEL AND TRANSPORT FACILITIES ARE INCIDENTAL TO ACHIEVE THE OBJ ECT OF PROVIDING EDUCATION AS PER OBJECT OF THE TRUST. 12. FURTHER, IN MALLIKARJUN SCHOOL SOCIETY VS.CCIT ( 2018) 90 TAXMANN.COM 160 (UTTARAKHAND), THE HONBLE HIGH COU RT HELD THAT AN EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION WILL NOT CEASE TO BE ONE EXIS TING SOLELY FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES SINCE THE OBJECT IS NOT TO MAKE PROFIT AND THE DECISIVE OR AS A TEST AS OBSERVED BY THE HONBLE APEX COURT IS WHETHER ON AN OVERALL VIEW OF THE MATTER THE OBJECT IS TO MAKE PROFIT AND ONE SHOULD BEAR IN MIND THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE CORPU S, THE OBJECTS AND THE POWERS OF THE CONCERNED ENTITY. 12. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE VIEW TAKEN BY THE COORDINA TE BENCHES UNDER IDENTICAL CIRCUMSTANCES, FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF KARNATAKA LINGAYAT EDUCAT ION SOCIETY (SUPRA) WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE FINDINGS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW THAT THE RUNNING OF HOSTEL FACILITY AMOUNTS T O BUSINESS ACTIVITY OR THAT THE SURPLUS GENERATED HAS TO BE CONSIDERED AS BUSINESS INCOME, CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. WE THEREFORE ALLOW THE CLAIM O F THE ASSESSEE AND DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DELETE THE ADDITION MADE ON THIS SCORE. 13. LASTLY, TURNING TO THE ADDITION RELATING TO THE TRAVEL EXPENSE, IT REMAINS AN ADMITTED FACT THAT THESE EXPENSES RELATE TO THE AIR TRAVEL BY THE OFFICIAL AND OFFICE BEARER OF THE SOCIETY BY WA Y OF NON-SCHEDULED FLIGHT (CHAPTERED FLIGHT). BOTH THE AUTHORITIES BEL OW HELD THAT THE TRAVEL BY CHARTERED FLIGHT IS AN UNREASONABLE EXPENDITURE PARTICULARLY BY AN ASSESSEE WHO ENJOYS TAX BENEFIT FOR CHARITABLE ACTI VITIES AND SUCH AN ITA NO. 1928 & 1826/DEL/2016 8 EXPENSE BY THE OFFICE BEARER CANNOT RELATE TO CHARI TABLE ACTIVITIES/OBJECTIVES OF THE SOCIETY. 14. LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT UNLESS AND UNTIL THE AUTH ORITIES BELOW RETURN A FINDING THAT THE EXPENDITURE IS BOGUS OR T HAT IT HAS NO NEXUS WITH THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE, IT CANNOT BE SAI D THAT SUCH AN EXPENSE IS NOT ALLOWABLE. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE PUR POSE OF TRAVEL WAS TO JOIN A MEETING WITH INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT, HYD ERABAD AND OTHER INSTITUTES TO MEET WITH THE REQUIREMENT OF SMOOTH/A FFECTIVE RUNNING OF INSTITUTE FOR BETTER ACADEMIC AND ADMINISTRATIVE MA TTERS, AND SINCE THIS MEETING WAS CONVENED AT A SHORT NOTICE, THE OFFICIA L WAS FORCED TO GO BY A CHARTERED FLIGHT. LD. AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE 85% OF THE TOTAL RECEIPT OF RS. 49,37,48,941/- FOR APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 11 COMES ONLY RS. 41,96,86,599/- WHEREAS THE TOTAL SUM UTILISED B Y THE ASSESSEE WAS RS. 48,01,53,736/-MUCH MORE THAN THE STATUTORY REQU IREMENT AND THEREFORE THE DISALLOWANCE OF THIS TRAVEL EXPENSE D OES NOT IMPACT THE ASSESSEE AT ALL. 15. IT COULD BE SEEN FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, LEA RNED ASSESSING OFFICER RECORDED THAT DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSME NT PROCEEDINGS, THE AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT S HOWN HOW THE SAID NON-SCHEDULED FLIGHTS WERE MADE EXCLUSIVE FOR BUSIN ESS PURPOSE. NEITHER THE IMPUGNED ORDER NOR THE ASSESSMENT ORDER SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD JUSTIFIED THE CLAIM WITH ANY EVIDENCE TO SHOW THE PURPOSE OF TRAVEL OR THE CIRCUMSTANCES FORCING THE OFFICIAL OF THE ASSESSEE TO TRAVEL BY CHARTERED FLIGHT. FOR WANT OF EVIDENCE WE FIND IT DIFFICULT TO TAKE A DIFFERENT VIEW FROM THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE AU THORITIES BELOW. WE ITA NO. 1928 & 1826/DEL/2016 9 THEREFORE CONFIRM THE SAME AND DISMISS THE RELEVANT GROUND OF ASSESSEES APPEAL. HOWEVER, AS CONTENDED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE 85% OF THE TOTAL RECEIPT OF RS. 49,37,48,9 41/- FOR APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 11 COMES ONLY RS. 41,96,86,599/- WHEREAS TH E TOTAL SUM UTILISED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS RS. 48,01,53,736/- MUCH MORE TH AN THE STATUTORY REQUIREMENT, THE DISALLOWANCE OF THIS TRAVEL EXPENS E DOES NOT IMPACT THE ASSESSEE AT ALL. 16. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISS ED AND THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED IN PART. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 16.05.2019 SD/- SD/- (N. K. BILLAIYA) (K. NARSIMHA CHARY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 16.05.2019 R.N ITA NO. 1928 & 1826/DEL/2016 10 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI DATE OF DICTATION 15.05.2019 DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 16.05.2019 DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE OTHER MEMBER DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. P S/PS DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE D ICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR. PS/PS 20.05.2019 DATE ON WHICH THE FINAL ORDER IS UPLOADED ON THE WE BSITE OF ITAT 20.05.2019 DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 20.0 5.2019 DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT RE GISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER DATE OF DISPATCH OF THE ORDER