ITO, New Delhi V. Mr. Joginder Pal Singh, New Delhi

ITA 1942/DEL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3435 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-04-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 18-10-2016
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 02-04-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: UMESH CHAND DUBEY
• Assessee Lawyers: SACHIN JAIN RAJNISH SHARMA
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Income from undisclosed sources; Onus to prove
• Section: 68

Judgement Text

I.T.A. NO. 1942/DEL/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH D NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI N.K. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A .NO. 1942/DEL/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR-2009-10 ITO, WARD 6(4), NEW DELHI. (APPELLANT) VS MR. JOGINDER PAL SINGH, 4912, NEW DELUX CARRIERS PHOOTA ROAD, SADAR BAZAR, DELHI-110006 (PAN: AEFPS4746A) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SHRI UMESH CHAND DUBEY, SR. DR RESPONDENT BY S/SHRI SACHIN JAIN, RAJNISH SHARMA CA ORDER PER SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JM THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN PREFERRED BY THE DEPARTMENT AG AINST ORDER DATED 31/01/2014 PASSED BY THE LD. COMMISSION ER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IX, NEW DELHI AND PERTAINS T O ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-2010. 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED DECLARING AN INCOME OF RS. 2,22,210/-. THE CA SE WAS SUBSEQUENTLY SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND ASSESSMENT W AS I.T.A. NO. 1942/DEL/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 2 COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 143 (3) OF THE INCOME TAX A CT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER CALLED THE ACT) AT AN INCOME OF RS. 11,999,410/- WHICH INCLUDED ADDITION IN INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPER TY AMOUNTING TO RS. 2,77,200/- AND ADDITION UNDER SECT ION 68 AMOUNTING TO RUPEES 11,500,000/-. DURING THE COURS E OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE AO OBSERVED THAT THE AS SESSEE HAD PROPERTIES AT SAKET AND PANCHSHEEL PARK WHICH, ALTH OUGH REMAINED VACANT DURING THE YEAR, WERE READY TO LIVE IN. THE AO OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT INCLUDED THE ANN UAL RENTAL VALUE OF THESE PROPERTIES IN HIS COMPUTATION OF INC OME. THE AO RELIED ON INTERNET SEARCH AND BASED ON THE INFORMAT ION AVAILABLE ON THE WEB PORTAL 99 ACRES.COM, PROPERTY.COM ETC AS WELL AS IN THE CLASSIFIED PAGES OF VARIOUS NEWSPAPERS CONCLUDE D THAT THE FAIR RENTAL VALUE OF THE ASSESSEES PROPERTY IN SAKET WO ULD COME TO RS. 3,96,000/-. FURTHER, THE AO OBSERVED THAT THE ASSES SEE HAD SHOWN RECEIPT OF LOANS AGGREGATING TO RS. 21,471,14 3/- OUT OF WHICH LOANS OF RUPEES 11,500,000/- WERE RECEIVED FR OM 5 PARTIES. NOTICES UNDER SECTION 133 (6) OF THE ACT WERE ISSUE D TO THESE PARTIES WHICH, AS PER THE AO, WERE EITHER RECEIVED BACK OR WENT UN-COMPLIED WITH. ON BEING CONFRONTED WITH THIS FAC T, THE ASSESSEE FILED CONFIRMATIONS OF SOME OF THE PARTIES ALONG WITH I.T.A. NO. 1942/DEL/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 3 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS OF THEIR ITRS. THE AO OBSERVED THA T THE ONUS WAS ON THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THE IDENTITY OF THE CR EDITORS, THE CAPACITY OF THE CREDITORS TO ADVANCE MONEY AND THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS. THE AO ALSO OBSERVED THAT IN C ASE OF TWO COMPANIES NAMELY SAM BUILDWELL AND SEAGULL BUILDWEL L PRIVATE LIMITED, ON AN ENQUIRY BY THE INCOME TAX INSPECTOR, IT WAS FOUND THAT NO SUCH COMPANIES EXISTED AT THE ADDRESSES FUR NISHED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE AO HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FAI LED TO DISCHARGE HIS ONUS TO ESTABLISH THE CREDITWORTHINES S OF THE PARTIES AND THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS. TH E IMPUGNED AMOUNT WAS TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED CREDIT UNDER SECT ION 68 OF THE ACT AND ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AS INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES. 2.1 AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEF ORE THE LD. CIT (APPEALS) WHEREIN THE LD. CIT (APPEALS) REDUCED THE NOTIONAL RENT TO RS. 12,000 PER MONTH INSTEAD OF RS. 22,000 PER MONTH AS CONSIDERED BY THE AO. ON THE ISSUE OF ADDITION UNDE R SECTION 68 OF THE ACT, THE LD. CIT (APPEALS) ACCEPTED THE ASSE SSEES ARGUMENTS AND DELETED THE ENTIRE ADDITION. I.T.A. NO. 1942/DEL/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 4 2.2 AGGRIEVED THE DEPARTMENT HAS NOW APPROACHED THE ITAT AND HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL 1. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE & IN LAW, THE LD. CIT (A) ERRED IN DIRECTING THE A.O. TO LEVY A NOTIONAL RENT OF RS. 12,000/- PER MONTH AGAINST THE NOTIONAL MONTHLY RENT OF RS.22,000/- PER MONTH ADOP TED BY THE A.O. 2. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE & IN LAW, THE LD. CIT (A) IS ARBITRARY AND UNREASONAB LE AS THE A.O. HAD ADOPTED THE NOTIONAL RENT AFTER CONDUC TING EXHAUSTIVE INQUIRIES WHEREAS THE DECISION OF CIT (A ) IS NOT BASIS ON ANY INQUIRY. 3. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE & IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITI ON OF RS. 1,15,00,000/- MADE U/S 68 BY THE A.O. BY TREATING T HE UNSECURED LOANS FROM FOUR PERSONS AS UNEXPLAINED CA SH CREDIT, BY COMPLETELY IGNORING THE FINDINGS GIVEN B Y THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN CASES LIKE CIT V. NOVA PROMOTERS 342 ITR 169, CIT V.NR PORTFOLIO (2013) 29 TAXMANN.COM 291(DELHI, CIT V. N.TARIKA PROPERTIES(I TA NO. 2080/2010, DATED 28.11.2013) ETC. WHEREIN THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT HAS CLEARLY HELD THAT THE ONUS IS ON THE ASSESSEE TO ESTABLISH IDENTITY & CREDITWORTH INESS OF CREDITORS AND GENUINENESS OF TRANSACTIONS. 4. THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (A) IS ERRONEOUS AND IS NOT TENABLE ON FACTS AND IN LAW. 5. THAT THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE WITHOUT PREJUDI CE TO EACH OTHER. 6. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER, A MEND OR FORGO ANY GROUNDS(S) OF APPEAL EITHER BEFORE OR AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL. 3. ON THE ISSUE OF REDUCING THE FAIR RENTAL VALUE F ROM RS. 22,000/- TO RS. 12,000/- BY THE LD. CIT (APPEALS), THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT I.T.A. NO. 1942/DEL/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 5 (APPEALS) HAD NOT GIVEN ANY BASIS FOR REDUCING THE FAIR RENTAL VALUE. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE APPRAISAL AND THE APPROACH OF THE AO WAS VERY REASONABLE AND IT WAS VEHEMENTLY AR GUED THAT THE SAME SHOULD BE RESTORED. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT PREFERRED ANY APPEAL AGAINST THE O RDER OF THE AO IN RESPECT OF THE FAIR RENTAL VALUE AND AS SUCH IT UNDERLINED THE CORRECTNESS OF APPROACH OF THE AO. 3.1 ON THE ISSUE OF DELETION OF ADDITION MADE UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT, THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUB MITTED THAT THE PRIMARY ONUS RESTED ON THE ASSESSEE BUT THE SAM E WAS NOT DISCHARGED BY THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTE D THAT THE NOTICES ISSUED UNDER SECTION 133 (6) OF THE ACT WER E EITHER RETURNED UN-SERVED OR WERE NOT COMPLIED WITH. IT WA S ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE AO HAD MADE ADEQUATE ENQUIRIES B EFORE MAKING THE ADDITION AND THE LD. CIT (APPEALS) HAD E RRED IN IGNORING THE FINDINGS OF THE AO IN THIS REGARD. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDITION ON THIS ACCOUNT SHOULD ALSO BE RE STORED. 4. IN RESPONSE, THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE S UBMITTED THAT THE ADDITION IN RESPECT OF FAIR RENTAL VALUE W AS MADE ON THE BASIS OF WEBSITE AND ADVERTISEMENTS AND THE ADDITIO N WAS MADE I.T.A. NO. 1942/DEL/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 6 WITHOUT ISSUE OF ANY SHOW CAUSE NOTICE AND ON THE B ASIS OF THE DOCUMENTS COLLECTED AT THE BACK OF THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT IT WAS UNDISPUTED THAT THE PROPERTY HAD REMAINED VACANT DURING THE YEAR AND THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIO N 23 (1) (C) OF THE ACT WOULD, THEREFORE, APPLY IN THIS CASE. IT WA S FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT GIVEN ANY OPPOR TUNITY TO COUNTER THE CLAIM OF THE AO. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE RATES AS MENTIONED IN THE WEBSITE AND THE ADVERTISEMENTS WERE NOT AUTHENTIC AND THAT THE ACTUAL POSITION ALWAYS DEFER RED FROM THAT SHOWN IN THE ADVERTISEMENTS OR THE WEBSITES. 4.1 ON THE ISSUE OF ADDITION UNDER SECTION 68 OF TH E INCOME TAX ACT, THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED TH AT THE ALLEGATION OF THE AO THAT THE NOTICES UNDER SECTION 133 (6) WERE NOT COMPLIED WITH WAS INCORRECT AS THE NOTICES WERE DULY COMPLIED WITH, NOT ONCE BUT TWICE, ON 14/12/2011 AN D 24/12/2012 RESPECTIVELY. ON THE ALLEGATION OF THE A O THAT THE CONFIRMATIONS WERE EITHER NOT COMPLETE OR WERE IDEN TICALLY WORDED, THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE CONFIRMATIONS WERE DULY SIGNED AND THE PERMANENT ACCOUNT NUMBERS WERE DULY MENTIONED. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE CONFIRMATIONS WERE I.T.A. NO. 1942/DEL/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 7 IDENTICALLY WORDED BECAUSE THE SAME PROFESSIONAL WA S ENGAGED. ON THE OBSERVATION OF THE AO THAT IT WAS UNBELIEVAB LE THAT SO MANY PERSONS HAD GIVEN INTEREST FREE LOANS, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT IT WAS A MATTER OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN TWO PARTIES AN D THE AO CANNOT STEP INTO THE SHOES OF THE BUSINESSMAN TO DE CIDE WHETHER A LOAN HAS TO BE GIVEN OR NOT. THE LD. AR ALSO REF UTED THE ALLEGATION OF THE AO THAT ONLY SKETCHY DETAILS WERE FILED AND SUBMITTED THAT ALL RELEVANT DETAILS WERE FILED WHIC H INCLUDED PAN, CONFIRMATIONS, COPIES OF ITRS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS, BAN K STATEMENTS, COPIES OF INTIMATIONS UNDER SECTION 143 (1) AND AUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS. ON THE ISSUE OF TWO C OMPANIES HAVING NOT BEEN FOUND BY THE INSPECTOR AT THE GIVEN IDDRESS, THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT TH E INSPECTORS REPORT WAS NOT ADMISSIBLE AS IT WAS A SELF SERVING DOCUMENT. THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE ALSO RELIED ON THE OR DER OF THE LD. CIT (APPEALS) AND SUBMITTED THAT IN VIEW OF THE DET AILED FINDINGS CONTAINED IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER THE DELETION BE UPH ELD. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND HAVE PER USED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. AS FAR AS THE ISSUE OF NOTIONAL FAIR RENTAL VALUE IS CONCERNED, IT IS SEEN THAT THE AO H AD TAKEN THE I.T.A. NO. 1942/DEL/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 8 RENT QUOTED BY THE REAL ESTATE AGENCIES IN THE WEBS ITE, THE LD. CIT (APPEALS) REDUCED IT TO RS. 12,000/- PER MONTH. THE LD. CIT (APPEALS) HAS OBSERVED THAT THE AO HAD TAKEN THE MA RKET RENT FROM THE WEBSITE ON 28/07/2011 WHEREAS THE ASSESSME NT ORDER WAS PASSED ON 30/12/2011 AND THUS THERE WAS ALMOST A PERIOD OF 6 MONTHS BETWEEN THE DATE THE INFORMATION WAS OB TAINED FROM THE WEBSITE AND THE DATE ON WHICH THE ASSESSMENT OR DER WAS PASSED. THE LD. CIT (APPEALS) HAS FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE AO SHOULD HAVE INTIMATED THE PROPOSED ADOPTION OF NOTI ONAL RENT TO THE ASSESSEE AND THAT THE AO WAS NOT RIGHT IN MAKIN G ADDITION BEHIND THE BACK OF THE ASSESSEE UNDER ASSUMED CIRCU MSTANCES. THE LD. CIT (APPEALS) PROCEEDED TO ADOPT A NOTIONAL RENT OF RS. 12,000/- PER MONTH INSTEAD OF RS. 22,000/- PER MONT H AS ADOPTED BY THE AO. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THE A O WAS PATENTLY WRONG IN ADOPTING A FIGURE OF NOTIONAL FAI R RENTAL VALUE WITHOUT CONFRONTING THE ASSESSEE WITH THE SAME AND AS SUCH THE ENTIRE ADDITION IS LIABLE TO BE DELETED. HOWEVER, S INCE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT CHALLENGED THE ACTION OF THE LD. CIT (APPEA LS) IN UPHOLDING THE COMPUTATION OF NOTIONAL RENT TO THE E XTENT OF RS. 12,000/- PER MONTH, WE CANNOT GRANT ANY FURTHER REL IEF TO THE ASSESSEE BUT DEEM IT FIT TO DISMISS GROUND NUMBERS 1 AND 2 OF I.T.A. NO. 1942/DEL/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 9 THE DEPARTMENTS APPEAL. THESE GROUNDS, ACCORDINGLY , STAND DISMISSED. 5.1 AS FAR AS THE ISSUE OF DELETION OF ADDITION UND ER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT IS CONCERNED, IT IS SEEN THAT THE LD. CI T (APPEALS) HAS OBSERVED IN PARA 6.3 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER THAT THE RECORDS AVAILABLE INDICATE THAT THE FINDINGS OF THE AO WERE SELF- CONTRADICTORY. THE LD. CIT (APPEALS) HAS OBSERVED T HAT THE AO HAS MENTIONED THAT THE NOTICES UNDER SECTION 133 (6 ) WERE NOT SERVED ON THE CREDITORS DUE TO NON-AVAILABILITY OF ANY PERSON AND ON THE OTHER HAND, LETTER DATED 28/08/2013 ISSUED B Y THE AO TO THE PRINCIPAL OFFICER OF M/S COLOUR BUILDWELL PRIVA TE LIMITED WAS SERVED ON THE SAME ADDRESS BY THE POSTAL DEPARTMENT . THE LD. CIT (APPEALS) HAS FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE REPORT OF THE INSPECTOR REGARDING VISIT TO THE ADDRESSES DOES NOT CARRY ANY EVIDENCE OF PRESENCE OF INDEPENDENT WITNESS AND THA T THE SIMPLE LETTER GIVEN BY THE INSPECTOR WAS OF SELF-SERVING N ATURE. THE LD. CIT (APPEALS) HAS FURTHER HELD THAT NO PROPER PROCE DURE WAS FOLLOWED IN VERIFICATION OF THE ADDRESSES AND ALSO THAT THE PRESENCE OF AND THE IDENTITY OF THE CREDITORS COULD NOT BE DENIED JUST BECAUSE OF SOME SIMILARITIES IN THE FORMAT IN WRITING STYLE OF I.T.A. NO. 1942/DEL/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 10 THE CONFIRMATION LETTER. THE LD. CIT (APPEALS) ALSO OBSERVED THAT FROM THE RELEVANT RECORDS IT WAS EVIDENT THAT M/S S ANJAY PLASTICS IS A PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERN OF MR SANJAY SAHANI, M/ S KATYAYNI CONSTRUCTION IS A PARTNERSHIP FIRM OF SH. SANJAY SA HANI AND SMT. VINDO SAHANI, M/S SEAGULL BUILDEWELL PRIVATE LIMITE D AND SAM BUILDWELL PRIVATE LIMITED WERE COMPANIES AND ALL OF THEM WERE TAXABLE ENTITIES. THE LD. CIT (APPEALS) OBSERVED TH AT IN ALL THE CASES THE ASSESSEE HAD SUBMITTED ALL POSSIBLE EVIDE NCES AND THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE ON RECORD WHICH MAY PROVE THA T ASSESSEE HAD GIVEN CASH FOR RECEIVING ADVANCES. THE LD. CIT (APPEALS) HAS FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DULY DISCHAR GED HIS BURDEN OF PROOF WHICH A PERSON OF ORDINARY PRUDENCE WOULD DISCHARGE UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT AND THAT ONCE THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCHARGED HIS PRIMARY ONUS, THE BURDEN SHIFTS TO THE AO TO PROVE THAT THE TRANSACTION OF ADVANCE WAS NOT GENUI NE. THE LD. CIT (APPEALS) HAS RELIED ON THE JUDGEMENT OF THE HO NBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VERSUS VALUE CAPITAL SERVICES LTD. REPORTED IN 307 ITR 334 FOR THE PROPOSITION THAT TH E BURDEN WAS ON THE AO TO SHOW THAT THE MONEY RECEIVED ORIGINATE D FROM THE COFFERS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. THE LD. CIT (APPE ALS) HAS FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE AO HAS NOT SPECIFICALLY B ROUGHT ANY I.T.A. NO. 1942/DEL/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 11 EVIDENCE TO CONTRARY TO SHOW THAT THE TRANSACTION W AS NOT GENUINE AND THAT THE CIRCUMSTANTIAL PROBABILITY DIS CUSSED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS NOT SUFFICIENT TO CONTRADICT T HE TRANSACTION THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL. THE LD. CIT (APPEALS) ALSO RELIED ON THE JUDGEMENT OF THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN TH E CASE OF CIT VERSUS DIVINE LEASING AND FINANCE LTD REPORTED IN 2 99 ITR 268 FOR THE PROPOSITION THAT THE BURDEN OF PROOF CAN SE LDOM BE DISCHARGED TO THE HILT BY THE ASSESSEE AND IF THE A O HARBOURS DOUBT OF LEGITIMACY TO ANY SUBSCRIPTION, HE IS EMPO WERED TO CARRY OUT THOROUGH INVESTIGATIONS BUT IF THE AO FAILS TO UNEARTH ANY WRONG OR ILLEGAL DEALINGS, HE CANNOT ADHERE TO HIS SUSPICIONS AND TREAT THE SUBSCRIBED CAPITAL AS THE UNDISCLOSED INC OME OF THE COMPANY. 5.2 THESE FINDINGS OF FACT AS RECORDED BY THE LD. C IT (APPEALS), THOUGH CHALLENGED BY THE DEPARTMENT, COULD NOT BE N EGATED BY THE ARGUMENTS OF THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIV E. IN THE COURSE OF ARGUMENTS BEFORE US, THE DEPARTMENT COULD NOT POINT OUT ANY FACTUAL CONTRADICTION IN THE FINDINGS OF FA CT AS RECORDED BY THE LD. CIT (APPEALS). NO FURTHER EVIDENCE WAS F ORTHCOMING TO BUTTRESS THE DEPARTMENTS STAND THAT THE LD. CIT (A PPEALS) WAS I.T.A. NO. 1942/DEL/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 12 ERRONEOUS IN RECORDING HIS FINDINGS AND THAT THE CO NCLUSIONS AS REACHED BY HIM WERE PATENTLY WRONG. THEREFORE, WE F IND NO REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CI T (APPEALS) ON THIS ISSUE AND WE, ACCORDINGLY, UPHOLD THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT (APPEALS) AND THE CONSEQUENTIAL DELETION OF THE ADD ITION MADE UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT. THUS, GROUND NO. 3 OF THE DEPARTMENTS APPEAL STANDS DISMISSED. 6. IN THE FINAL RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE DEPARTMENT STANDS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 11 TH APRIL, 2017. SD/- SD/- (N. K. SAINI) (SUDHANSHU SRIVAST AVA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 11TH APRIL 2017 GS COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR ASSTT. REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI