Seven- Seas Fin- Cap Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi V. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 1987/DEL/2012

• Counselvise Citation: 198720114 RSA 2012
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-10-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 29-08-2012
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 30-04-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: Y S KAKKARDR
• Assessee Lawyers: D K KAPOORAR
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice; Rule of consistency; Commercial expediency
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI I & SMC BENCH BEFORE SHRI I.C. SUDHIR, JM & SHRI A.N. PAHUJA, A M ITA NO.1987/DEL/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 SEVEN-SEAS FIN-CAP PVT. LTD., 801, INTERNATIONAL TRADE TOWER, NEHRU PLACE, NEW DELHI-110019 V/S . INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD- 8(1), C.R.BUILDING, I.P.ESTATE, NEW DELHI-110002. [PAN : AABCS7640C] (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY SHRI D.K.KAPOOR,AR REVENUE BY MS. Y.S.KAKKAR,DR DATE OF HEARING 11-10-2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 26-10-2012 O R D E R A.N.PAHUJA:- THIS APPEAL FILED ON 30.04.2012 BY THE ASSESSEE AG AINST AN ORDER DATED 3 RD FEBRUARY, 2012 OF THE LD. CIT(A)-XI, NEW DELHI, R AISES THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS :- (1). THE AUTHORITIES BELOW ERRED ON FACTS AND CIRC UMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW IN DISALLOWING RENT EXPENSES OF ` .9 LACS CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT IN RESPECT OF THE LEASED PROPERTY USED WHOLLY AND E XCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSES OF ITS BUSINESS; GROSSLY IGNORING ALL EST ABLISHED FACTS AND MERITS OF THE CASE AND ALSO IGNORING THE PERTINENT FACT THAT SAME LEASED PROPERTY WAS CONTINUOUSLY USED BY THE APPELLANT FOR THE PURPOSES OF ITS BUSINESS SINCE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING YEAR RELEVANT TO THE AY 2007- 08; WHEREIN SAID RENT EXPENSES WAS DULY ACCEPTED AS SUCH U/S 143(3) AND T HERE IS NO CHANGE IN ANY FACTS, NATURE OF BUSINESS, MERITS AND CIRCUMSTA NCES OF THE CASE SINCE THEN. VARIOUS OBSERVATIONS MADE BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW IN THEIR RESPECTIVE ORDERS ARE ARBITRARY, INCORRECT, IRRELEVANT, UNTENA BLE AS WELL AS AGAINST THE SETTLED LEGAL POSITION AND THUS THE IMPUGNED ORDER, BEING PASSED WITH PREJUDICED VIEW AND IN AN OBSTINATE MANNER, IS PERV ERSE, BAD IN LAW, AGAINST THE LAW OF CONSISTENCY, IN VIOLATION OF RUDIMENTARY PRINCIPLES OF CONTEMPORARY JURISPRUDENCE AND IS LIABLE TO BE QUASHED. I.T.A .NO.1987/DEL./2012 2 (2) THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE ERRED IN ASSESSING T HE RENTAL INCOME FROM COVERED PARKING SPACES OWNED BY THE APPELLANT AS IN COME FROM OTHER SOURCE; IGNORING THE PERTINENT FACTS ON RECORDS THA T THE SAME ARE COVERED PARKING SPACES LOCATED IN BASEMENT OF COMMERCIAL CO MPLEX NAMELY DCM BUILDING, BARAKHAMBA ROAD, NEW DELHI AND THEREFORE THE FIXED MONTHLY RENTAL INCOME FROM SAID PARKING SPACES, BEING PROPE RTY CONSISTING OF BUILDINGS WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 22 OF THE I NCOME TAX ACT, 1961, DESERVE TO BE ASSESSED UNDER SPECIFIC HEAD-CHAPTER- IV-C, INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY AND THEREBY DEDUCTION U/S 24(A) AS C LAIMED BY THE APPELLANT DESERVES TO BE ALLOWED. VARIOUS OBSERVATIONS MADE BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW IN THEIR RESPECTIVE ORDERS ARE ARBITRARY, INCORRECT, IRRELEVANT, AGAINS T THE ESTABLISHED FACTS AND CONTRARY TO THE POSITION ACCEPTED BY THE REVENUE IN ALL EARLIER SCRUTINY ASSESSMENTS IN CASE OF ASSESSEE ON SAME FACTS AND C IRCUMSTANCES AND THE IMPUGNED ORDER THEREFORE IS PERVERSE, BAD IN LAW, A GAINST THE LAW OF CONSISTENCY, IN VIOLATION OF RUDIMENTARY PRINCIPLES OF CONTEMPORARY JURISPRUDENCE AND IS LIABLE TO BE QUASHED. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE, THE LD. CIT(A) FAIL ED TO ADDRESS THE PERTINENT FACT RAISED BEFORE HER THAT IMPUGNED ACTION WAS WIT HOUT GIVING ANY SHOW CAUSE NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE AND WITHOUT CONFRONTIN G THE SAID ISSUE AT ALL TO THE ASSESSEE AND THEREBY THE SAME NOT ONLY VIOLATED THE SPECIFIC PROVISIONS OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, BUT ALSO DISREGARDED T HE PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND THUS LIABLE TO BE QUASHED ON THIS GROUN D AS WELL. 3. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ALL ABOVE GROUNDS, FACTS, M ERITS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND THE SETTLED LEGAL POS ITION, THE LD. A.O COMPUTED THE IMPUGNED TOTAL INCOME WITHOUT APPRECIA TING THE RELEVANT FACTS AVAILABLE ON RECORDS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS BROUGHT FORWARD BUSINESS LOSSES OF MUCH MORE EXTENT THAN THE QUANTUM OF THE IMPUGNE D TOTAL INCOME COMPUTED BY LD. A.O AND THEREBY, AT ANY RATE WITHOU T PREJUDICE, THE TOTAL INCOME AS COMPUTED AND THE TAX DEMAND CREATED THERE UPON IS WRONG AND UNLAWFUL; BECAUSE HAD THE LD. A.O ADJUSTED AND SET- OFF BROUGHT FORWARD LOSSES AGAINST THE IMPUGNED TOTAL INCOME COMPUTED B Y HIM, THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN NO TAXABLE INCOME IN THE HAND OF THE ASSE SSEE FOR THIS YEAR AND THEREBY NO TAXES BECOME PAYABLE BY THE ASSESSEE. 4. THAT THE APPELLANT RESERVES ITS RIGHT TO ADD, A LTER, DELETE, AMEND, MODIFY, SUPPLEMENT OR WITHDRAW ANY GROUND OF APPEAL AT ANY TIME DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. 2. ADVERTING FIRST TO GROUND NO. 1 IN THE APPEAL, FACTS, IN BRIEF, AS PER RELEVANT ORDERS ARE THAT E-RETURN DECLARING LOSS OF ` .6,86,849/- FILED ON 04.09.2008 BY THE ASSESSEE, TRADING IN SHARES, WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY WITH T HE SERVICE OF A NOTICE U/S 143(2) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREIN AFTER REFER TO AS THE ACT) ISSUED IN 16.07.2009. DURING THE COURSE OF PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER[AO IN SHORT] NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE I.T.A .NO.1987/DEL./2012 3 DEBITED AN AMOUNT OF ` .9,00,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF OFFICE RENT, REPAIR & MAI NTENANCE AND THE SAID RENT WAS PAID @ RS.37,500/- PER MONTH TO EACH OF THE CO-OWNER MR. D.K.KAPUR AND SMT. SUSHMA KAPUR, DIRECTORS OF ASSESSEE COMPANY. TO A QUERY BY AO, SEEKING JUSTIFICATION FOR PAYMENT OF RENT FOR THE PREMISES IN MUMBAI, THE ASSESSEE REPLIED THAT SINCE THEY WERE ENGAGED IN BUSINESS OF TRADING AND DEALING IN LISTED SHARES AND DERIVATIVES THROUGH THE STOCK BROKERS AT MUMBAI, TH E ASSESSEE REQUIRED THE PREMISES FOR ITS GENUINE NEED AND BUSINESS EXPEDIENCY FOR CARRYI NG ON THE BUSINESS ACTIVITIES. THE PREMISES WAS TAKEN ON LEASE IN JANURAY,2007. WHILE ENCLOSING A COPY OF RENT AGREEMENT; COPIES OF BILLS FOR STATIONERY ; COPIES OF BILLS OF PCO OPERATOR AT BANDRA, MUMBAI AND COPIES OF CONVEYANCE BILLS FOR TRAVEL FR OM BANDRA, MUMBAI TO OFFICE PLACES OF STOCK BROKERS, THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT SINCE SH RI.D.K.KAPUR WAS A QUALIFIED CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT, WHO LOOKED AFTER THE BUSINES S OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY, HENCE NO EMPLOYEE WAS EMPLOYED AT MUMBAI. WHILE CONTENDI NG THAT RENT OF ` `75,000/- PER MONTH PAID BY THE ASSESSEE WAS VERY REASONABLE AND REALISTIC, THE ASSESSEE PLEADED THAT TAX HAS BEEN DEDUCTED AT SOURCE FROM THE RENT PAYM ENT .MOREOVER, THE PREMISES WAS VACATED IN APRIL,2008, THE ASSESSEE HAVING NOT COND UCTED ANY BUSINESS IN THE SUCCEEDING YEAR. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITT ED THAT DEDUCTION SHOULD BE ALLOWED FOR PAYMENT OF RENT. HOWEVER, THE AO DID NOT ACCEP T THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE WHILE HOLDING AS UNDER :- (A) THAT REGISTERED OFFICE OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS SITUATED AT 801, INTERNATIONAL TRADE TOWER, NEHRU PLACE, NEW DELHI A ND OFFICE OF THE BROKER M/S PEE DEE KAPUR STOCK & SECURITIES LTD, WHO IS TH E SISTER CONCERN OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY, THROUGH WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS CA RRIED OUT ALL THE ACTIVITIES OF TRADING OF SHARES, IS SITUATED AT 802 , INTERNATIONAL TRADE TOWER, NEHRU PLACE, NEW DELHI, WHICH IS ADJOINING PREMISE OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. THEREFORE, THERE IS NO FORCE IN THE SUBMI SSION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT BRANCH HAS BEEN OPENED IN ORDER TO MEET THE GE NUINE NEED AND BUSINESS EXPEDIENCY FOR CARRYING ON THE BUSINESS OF TRADING AND DEALING IN LISTED SHARE AND DERIVATIVES AT MUMBAI. (B) THAT ASSESSEE FURNISHED LEASE AND LICENSE AGREE MENT DATED 31.12.2006 VIDE LETTER DATED 09.12.2010. ON PERUSAL, IT HAS B EEN NOTICED THAT THE SAID STAMP PAPERS WERE PURCHASED BY SH. DEVENDRA K. KAPU R ON 13.01.2006, HOWEVER, SAID DEED WAS EXECUTED ON 31.12.2006 APPRO XIMATELY ONE YEAR I.T.A .NO.1987/DEL./2012 4 AFTER THE DATE OF PURCHASE. IT WAS NOTICED FROM TH E PERUSAL OF SAID AGREEMENT THAT MS. SAPNA KAPUR HAS SIGNED AS DIRECT OR OF THE ASSESSEE WHEREAS SHE IS NOT THE DIRECTOR OF THE ASSESSEE COM PANY. AS PER DETAILS DATED 09 TH SEPT. 2010 AND RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY THE ASSES SEE, SH.D.K.KAPUR AND SMT. SUSHMA KAPUR ARE THE ONLY DIR ECTORS. (C) THAT ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED PHOTOCOPIES OF PURC HASE BILLS OF STATIONERY ITEMS AND PCO BILLS TO PROVE THAT BUSINESS ACTIVITY HAS BEEN CARRIED OUT FROM SO CALLED MUMBAI OFFICE. IT IS VERY SURPRISIN G THAT A PREMISES WHICH HAS BEEN TAKEN ON A MONTHLY RENT OF ` .75,000/- PER MONTH FOR THE PURPOSE OF TRADING BUSINESS OF LISTED SHARES AND DERIVATIVES T HROUGH BROKER DOES NOT HAVE ANY PERMANENT TELECOMMUNICATION FACILITY IN TH E PRESENT ADVANCE TIME AND DIRECTOR, SINCE NO EMPLOYEE IS EMPLOYED, HAS TO GO TO THE PCO FOR MAKING PHONE CALLS. FURTHER ON PERUSAL OF THE BILL S ANNEXED WITH THE LETTER DATED 09.12.2010, AT SERIAL NO 21 TO 34. IT HAS BE EN OBSERVED THAT THE SAID BILLS DO NOT CONTAIN ANY CALL DETAILS/TELEPHONE NO. AS WELL AS DATE OF CALLS. FURTHER IT IS VERY SURPRISING THAT A PCO OPERATOR D OES NOT HAVE HIS OWN TELEPHONE CONNECTION SINCE NO TELEPHONE NO. IS MENT IONED IN THE ENCLOSED BILLS. FURTHER, ALL BILLS HAVE BEEN MADE THROUGH S AME HAND WRITING WITH SAME STYLE AND DO NOT CONTAIN ANY BILL NO. HENCE GE NUINENESS OF THESE BILLS ARE NOT ACCEPTABLE. (D) FURTHER ASSESSEE VIDE LETTER DATED 9.12.2010 S TATED THAT IN ORDER TO SAVE AVOIDABLE OVERHEADS THE ASSESSEE COMPANY DID NOT EM PLOY ANY EMPLOYEE DURING THE YEAR. THE SAID ARGUMENT OF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ACCEPTABLE BECAUSE COMPANY HAS PAID HUGE AMOUNT OF RENT TO ON E OF THE DIRECTOR AND HIS FAMILY MEMBER ON ONE SIDE AND ON THE OTHER SIDE COMPANY IS TAKING PLEA FOR NON EMPLOYMENT OF ANY EMPLOYEE TO SAVE EXT RA BURDEN OF THE COMPANY, WHICH IS CONTRADICTORY. THE ASSESSEE HAS A LSO SUBMITTED SIMILAR VIEW FOR NON-REIMBURSEMENT OF THE TRAVELLING EXPENS E WHICH IS NOT TENABLE AS MERE SUBMITTING A COPY OF BILL OF TRAVELLING DOE S NOT PROVE THAT THE PERSON TRAVELLED FOR THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY ONLY AS NO DETAILS WAS FILED OF BUSINESS ACTIVITY IN RELATION TO WHICH SAI D TRAVELLING WAS MADE. (E) THE ASSESSEE TRIED TO JUSTIFY THE RENT PAYMENT OF ` 9 LACS WITH THE AREA OF THE PREMISES I.E.64.28SQ. METER. THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT I.T.A .NO.1987/DEL./2012 5 CONSIDERABLE AS IN THE TRADING BUSINESS OF LISTED S HARES AND DERIVATIVES THE AREA OF OFFICE IS NOT IMPORTANT, BUT TURNOVER/VOLUM E..IN THE INSTANT CASE TOTAL TURNOVER DURING THE YEAR IS NOT EVEN TO THE EXTENT OF RENT PAID OF ` 9 LACS AS THE TOTAL TURNOVER FROM SHARES IS ` 6,80,607/- ONLY. (F) FURTHER THE ASSESSEES SUBMISSION THAT TDS HAS BEEN DEDUCTED U/S 194I ON THE RENT PAID OF ` 9 LACS DOES NOT PROVE WHETHER THE RENTED PREMISES HAS BEEN USED FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE BUSINESS OF THE AS SESSEE OR NOT. (G) THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE RENT PA YMENT WHICH WAS CLAIMED IN EARLIER YEAR WAS ALLOWED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER W HILE COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT IS NOT SUSTAINABLE AS THE VARIOUS JUDGME NTS OF DIFFERENT COURTS, WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT EVERY PROCEEDINGS AS WELL ASSESSMENT YEAR ARE DIFFERENT AND INDEPENDENT. HENCE, IT IS UNACCEPTABL E THAT EXPENDITURE WHICH WAS ALLOWED IN EARLIER YEAR CANNOT BE DISALLOWED IN SUCCEEDING YEAR. 2.1 IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID REASONS, THE AO DISA LLOWED THE CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION OF ` 9 LACS ON ACCOUNT OF RENT. 3. ON APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(A) UPHELD THE FINDINGS O F THE AO, HOLDING AS UNDER:- THE LEASE DEED IS SIGNED BETWEEN MS. SAPNA KAPUR R EPRESENTING THE APPELLANT AS ITS DIRECTOR AND MR. DEVENDRA KUMAR KA PUR AND MRS. SUSHMA KAPUR OWNERS OF THE PROPERTY. IT IS RELEVANT TO ME NTION HERE THAT AS PER THE IT RETURN THE DIRECTORS OF THE APPELLANT COMPANY AR E SUSHMA KAPUR AND MR. DEVENDRA KUMAR KAPUR. THE LEASE DEED WAS THEREFORE SIGNED BY MS. SAPNA KAPUR WAS NOT THE DIRECTOR OF THE COMPANY WIT H THE OWNERS OF THE LEASED PROPERTY WHO ARE THE DIRECTORS OF THE APPELL ANT COMPANY. THE OWNERS ALSO HAPPEN TO BE FAMILY MEMBERS OF MS. SAPN A KAPUR. THE APPELLANT HAS FURNISHED COPIES OF BILLS OF STAT IONARY ITEMS AND SHOWN BILLS OF PCO OPERATORS. FOR A FUNCTIONAL OFFICE TH IS AMOUNT APPEARS TOO PETTY. FURTHER IN ANY AGE OF INTERNET AND MOBILES IT IS DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND WHY THE SERVICES OF A PCO WERE BEING USED BY THE DI RECTOR OF THE COMPANY. THE CONVEYANCE EXPENSES PERTAIN TO ONLY A FEW DAYS IN THE WHOLE YEAR. FURTHER AS STATED BY THE APPELLANT, THERE WERE NO E MPLOYEES IN THE OFFICE AT MUMBAI AND ONLY THE DIRECTOR SH. DEVENDRA KUMAR KAP UR WAS MANAGING THE BUSINESS AT MUMBAI. AS PER BILLS ATTACHED SH.D .K.KAPUR WAS IN MUMBAI ON 9 TH JUNE, 14 TH JUNE, 15 TH JUNE, 27 TH , 28 TH & 29 TH NOVEMBER. IN MY VIEW NO PRUDENT BUSINESS MAN WOULD TAKE ON RENT AN OFFICE P REMISES FOR ` 9 LAKHS RENT AND VISIT MUMBAI FOR ONLY A FEW DAYS IN THE YE AR TO DO BUSINESS. THE TOTAL TURNOVER OF SHARES DURING THE YEAR WAS ` 680607 WHICH INCLUDED SALES FROM DELHI & MUMBAI. THE BUSINESS OF THE APP ELLANT OF SHARE TRADING I.T.A .NO.1987/DEL./2012 6 WAS CARRIED OUT BY ITS SISTER CONCERN M/S PEE DEE K APUR STOCK & SECURITIES LTD. A VERY SMALL PORTION OF BUSINESS WAS CARRIED OUT IN MUMBAI. THEREFORE THE RENTING OF OFFICE PREMISES FOR ` .9 LAKHS DOES NOT JUSTIFY BUSINESS EXPEDIENCY. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE OBSERVATION, I AM IN COMPLETE AGREEMENT WITH THE FINDINGS MADE BY THE AO AS UNDER :- THE MAIN ISSUE IS THAT THE RENT PAID FOR THE PROPE RTY AT MUMBAI WAS NOT FOR THE APPELLANT BUSINESS. THE RENT PAYMENT WAS A DEV ICE TO INFLATE EXPENSES. THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION WAS OWNED BY THE DIRECTORS OF THE APPELLANT COMPANY AND FROM THE FACTS STATED ABOVE IT IS APPAR ENT THAT IT WAS NOT USED FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS OF THE APPELLANT COMPAN Y. THE ADDITION OF ` .9LAKH MADE BY THE AO IS THEREFORE CONFIRMED. THES E GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE RULED AGAINST THE APPELLANT. 4. THE ASSESSEE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE US AGAINST THE AFORESAID FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A). THE LD. AR ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE CONTE NDED THAT IN THE PRECEDING YEAR SIMILAR CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION OF RENT HAD BEEN ALLOWE D IN SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT COMPLETED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT.IN THIS CONNECTION, THE LD. AR CI TED DECISIONS IN HA SHAH & CO.VS. CIT,30 ITR 618;RADHASOMI SATSANG VS. CIT,193 ITR 32 1(SC);CIT VS. AKJ SECURITY PRINTERS,264 ITR 276(DEL.);BERGER PAINTS INDIA LTD. VS. CIT,266 ITR 99(SC);UNION OF INDI VS. KAMUDINI NARAYN DALAL,249 ITR 219;UNION OF INDI A VS. SATISH PANALAL SHAH,249 ITR 221,& CIT VS. SHIVSAGAR ESTATE,257 ITR 59(SC). WHI LE REITERATING THEIR SUBMISSIONS BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), THE LD. AR VEHEMENTLY ARGUED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN UPHOLDING THE DISALLOWANCE, ESPECIALLY WHEN TAX WAS DEDUCTED AT SOURCE FROM PAYMENT OF RENT AND THE LEASE DEED WAS SIGNED BY MS. SAPNA KAP UR ON 31.12.2006,WHEN SHE WAS A DIRECTOR OF THE COMPANY. THE LD. AR ADDED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) DID NOT APPRECIATE THE NATURE AND MAGNITUDE OF BUSINESS ACTIVITIES , THE A SSESSEE HAVING A TURNOVER OF ` 2 CRORES IN THE PRECEDING YEAR & BEING TRADING IN EQUITY SHA RES AND DERIVATIVES AT MUMBAI, WHICH IS CONSIDERED AS FINANCIAL CAPITAL OF THE COMPANY, THE ASSESSEE DECIDED TO HAVE OFFICE IN MUMBAI. INTER ALIA, THE LD. AR REFERRED TO DECISION S IN CIT VS. WALCHAND & CO.(P) LTD.,65 ITR 381(SC);CIT VS. EDWARD KEVENTER(P) LTD.,86 ITR 370(CAL.) & L.VE VARIVAN CHETTIAR VS. CIT,72 ITR 114(MAD.) WHILE REFERRING TO TEST O F COMMERCIAL EXPEDIENCY & LEGITIMATE NEEDS OF BUSINESS. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR WH ILE RELYING UPON THE DECISION OF HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN KRISHAK BHARATI CO-OP ERATIVE LTD. VS DCIT, 2012-TIOL-515- HC-DEL-IT, CONTENDED THAT PRINCIPLES OF CONSISTENCY COULD NOT BE APPLIED IN THE INSTANT CASE ESPECIALLY WHEN NO QUERY WAS RAISED NOR THE A O APPLIED MIND IN THE PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR ON THIS ASPECT. WHILE REFERRING TO PAGES 54 & 71 TO 106 OF THE PAPER BOOK, THE LD. DR SUPPORTED THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A). IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT I.T.A .NO.1987/DEL./2012 7 EXPENDITURE ON CONVEYANCE HAD BEEN INCURRED WHEN NO NE OF THE DIRECTOR OF THE COMPANY WAS AT MUMBAI WHILE NO EMPLOYEE WAS CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN EMPLOYED .WHILE REFERRING TO DECISION IN CIT V. DURGA PRASAD MORE,82 ITR 540 (SC), THE LD.. DR VEHEMENTLY ARGUED THE AO WAS JUSTIFIED THE MAKING OF DISALLOWANCE OF RENT. 5. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND GONE THROUGH THE FACTS OF THE CASE. IN TERMS OF PROVISIONS OF SEC. 30 OF THE ACT, DEDUCTION FOR PAY MENT OF RENT IS ALLOWED ONLY IF THE PREMISES IS USED FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS OR PRO FESSION BY AN ASSESSEE. IN THE INSTANT CASE, IN TERMS OF LEAVE AND LICENSE AGREEMENT DATE D 31.12.2006 BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE THROUGH A DIRECTOR MS. SAPNA KAPUR AND DIRECTORS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY, WHO ARE CO- OWNERS OF THE PREMISES, SITUATE AT 1802,VASTU,BAND STAND,BANDRA WEST, BJ ROAD, MUMBAI, OBTAINED THE SAID PREMISES FOR THEIR USE. T HE LD. AR CLAIMED THAT MS. SAPNA KAPUR WAS DIRECTOR OF THE COMPANY AT THE TIME OF S IGNING OF THE AGREEMENT AND OWNERS OF THE PREMISES WERE DIRECTORS IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSI DERATION. THE AO DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION OF RENT FOR WANT OF EVIDENCE FOR USE O F THE SAID PREMISES FOR THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE COPIES OF BILLS FOR PURCHASE OF S TATIONERY AND CONVEYANCE BILLS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE IN EVIDENCE WERE DISCA RDED BY THE AO WHILE OBSERVING THAT THE PREMISES DID NOT HAVE ANY TELECOMMUNICATION FAC ILITIES FOR TRADING IN SHARES OR DERIVATIVES NOR ANY TELEPHONE OR ANY EMPLOYEE. TH E COPIES BILLS FOR STD CALLS FROM A PCO MADE BY THE DIRECTOR OF THE COMPANY ,WERE ALSO REJECTED SINCE THESE BILLS DID NOT CONTAIN ANY CALL DETAILS/TELEPHONE NO. OR DATE OF C ALLS NOR TELEPHONE NUMBER OF PCO WAS MENTIONED ON THE BILLS WHILE ALL THE BILLS WERE I N THE SAME HAND WRITING WITH SAME STYLE AND DID NOT CONTAIN ANY BILL NO.THE COPIES OF BILLS FOR CONVEYANCE BY SOME PERSON WERE ALSO REJECTED BY THE AO ON THE GROUND THAT THESE DI D NOT ESTABLISH THAT THE SAID PERSON TRAVELLED FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS OF THE ASSESS EE. THE AO ALSO CONCLUDED THAT DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE FROM RENT DID NOT ESTABL ISH USE OF THE PREMISES. THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE RENT PAYMENT WAS ALLOWED IN EARLIER YEAR WAS ALSO REJECTED SINCE, ACCORDING TO THE AO, PROCEEDINGS FOR EACH YE AR WERE INDEPENDENT. ON APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(A) UPHELD THE FINDINGS OF THE AO, INTER ALI A, ON THE GROUND THAT RENT PAYMENT WAS A DEVICE TO INFLATE EXPENSES. THE LD. AR ON BEHALF O F THE ASSESSEE, WHO IS ALSO A DIRECTOR OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY MERELY REITERATED THEIR SUB MISSIONS BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. THE COPIES OF MONTHLY BILLS FOR PURCHASE OF PEN, P ENCIL, FILES, ERASER OR FOR XEROS ETC. ,WHICH ARE NOT EVEN SERIALLY NUMBERED OR BILLS FOR STD CALLS, WHICH DO NOT REVEAL I.T.A .NO.1987/DEL./2012 8 TELEPHONE NO. OF PCO OPERATOR OR TO WHOM CALLS HAVE BEEN MADE AND ON WHICH NUMBER, DO NOT ,IN OUR OPINION, ESTABLISH USE OF THE PREMIS ES FOR TRADING IN SHARES OR DERIVATIVES. THE ASSESSEE IS NOT HAVING ANY EMPLOYEE AT MUMBAI . THE CONVEYANCE BILLS FOR TRAVEL ON 5.5.2007,8.5.2007,25.5.2007,22.7.2007,25.7.2007,3.3 .2008,5.3.2008 AND 7.3.2008 OF ONE MR. ARAN KR. PLACED ON PAGE101 TO 103 OF THE PA PER BOOK DO NOT ESTABLISH IN ANY MANNER AS TO HOW THE PREMISES WAS USED FOR THE BUSI NESS OF THE ASSESSEE, ESPECIALLY WHEN THE LD. CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT SHRI.D.K.KAPUR WA S IN MUMBAI ONLY ON 9 TH JUNE, 14 TH JUNE, 15 TH JUNE, 27 TH , 28 TH & 29 TH NOVEMBER,2007 .THE ONUS IS ON THE ASSESSEE, CLAIMI NG USE OF PREMISES TO ESTABLISH THAT THE RENTED PREMIS ES WAS INDEED USED FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THE CASE BEFORE US , P REMISES BELONGING TO DIRECTORS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WAS TAKEN ON LEAVE AND LICENSE BAS IS AT MUMBAI BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY, BASED IN DELHI .SO A ,VERY HEAVY ONUS IS P LACED ON THE ASSESSEE TO ESTABLISH THAT THE PREMISES WAS ,INDEED USED FOR THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE, TRADING IN SHARES AND DERIVATIVES. THERE HAS TO BE ACTUAL, EFFECTIVE AND REAL USER IN COMMERCIAL SENSE AND USER HAS TO BE SO LINKED WITH THE BUSINESS SO THAT IT IS ESTABLISHED THAT THERE IS IMMEDIATE NEXUS BETWEEN USER AND THE BUSINESS I.E. THE REAL BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE WORDS USED FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS OR PRO FESSION MEAN USED FOR THE PURPOSE OF ENABLING THE ASSESSEE TO CARRY ON BUSINESS OR PROFE SSION AND EARN PROFITS. IN THE INSTANT CASE BEFORE US, THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO ESTABLISH BE FORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES THAT THE PREMISES WAS INDEED USED FOR THE BUSINESS OF THE A SSESSEE, TRADING IN SHARES AND DERIVATIVES. EVEN BEFORE US, THE LD. AR DID NOTHING TO IMPROVE UPON ITS CASE EXCEPT REITERATING THEIR SUBMISSIONS BEFORE THE LOWER AUTH ORITIES. IN NUTSHELL, THE ASSESSEE HAS MISERABLY FAILED TO DISCHARGE ONUS LAID DOWN UPON I T THAT THE PREMISES TAKEN IN MUMBAI WAS INDEED USED FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS CARRIED ON BY THE ASSESSEE. AS REGARDS PRINCIPLES OF CONSISTENCY,, THE LD. DR RELIED UPON DECISION OF HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN KRISHAK BHARATI COOPERATIVE LTD VS DCIT, 2 012-TIOL-515-HC-DEL- IT,WHERE IN IT WAS HELD AS UNDER: 15. IT IS NOW NECESSARY TO TAKE UP THE SUBMISSION THAT THE TRIBUNAL ERRED IN DEPARTING FROM THE CONSISTENCY RULE. THIS IS BASED ON THE F ACT THAT FOR THE PERIOD OF ABOUT 15 YEARS, THE INCOME TAX AUTHORITIES HAD ACCEPTED THE ASSESSE S SUBMISSIONS AND PERMITTED ANNUAL AMORTIZATION OF THE INITIAL LEASE CONSIDERATION, AS ADVANCE RENT. THE ASSESSEE HERE RELIED ON THE CONSISTENCY RULE ENUNCIATED IN RADHASAOMI SATSANG (SUPRA). THE SUPREME COURT OBSERVED, IN THAT CASE THAT: I.T.A .NO.1987/DEL./2012 9 WHERE A FUNDAMENTAL ASPECT PERMEATING THROUGH THE DIFFERENT ASSESSMENT YEARS HAS BEEN FOUND AS A FACT ONE WAY OR THE OTHER AND PARTIES HA VE ALLOWED THAT POSITION TO BE SUSTAINED BY NOT CHALLENGING THE ORDER, IT WOULD NOT BE AT ALL APPRO PRIATE TO ALLOW THE POSITION TO BE CHANGED IN A SUBSEQUENT YEAR. 19. ON THESE REASONINGS IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY MATER IAL CHANGE JUSTIFYING THE REVENUE TO TAKE A DIFFERENT VIEW OF THE MATTER-AND IF THERE WAS NOT C HANGE IT WAS IN SUPPORT OF THE ASSESSES-WE DO NOT THINK THE QUESTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN REOPENED AN D CONTRARY TO WHAT HAD BEEN DECIDED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX IN THE EARLIER PROCEEDIN GS, A DIFFERENT AND CONTRADICTORY STAND SHOULD HAVE BEEN TAKEN. THIS COURT NOTICES THAT THERE CANNOT BE A WIDE APPL ICATION OF THE RULE OF CONSISTENCY. IN RADHASAOMI ITSELF, THE SUPREME COURT ACKNOWLEDGED T HAT THERE IS NO RES JUDICATA, AS REGARDS ASSESSMENT ORDERS, AND ASSESSMENTS FOR ONE YEAR MAY NOT BIND THE OFFICER FOR THE NEXT YEAR. THIS IS CONSISTENT WITH THE VIEW OF THE SUPREME COURT THAT 'THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS RES JUDICATA IN INCOME-TAX MATTERS' (VISHE SHWARA SINGH V. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AIR 1961 SC 1062). SIMILARLY, ERRONEOUS OR MISTAKEN VIEWS CANNOT FETTER THE AUTHORITIES INTO REPEATING THEM, BY APPLICATION OF A RULE SUCH AS ESTOPPEL, FOR THE REASON THAT BEING AN EQUITABLE PRINCIPLE, IT HAS TO YIELD TO THE MANDATE OF LAW. A DEEPER REFLECTION WOULD SHOW THAT BLIND ADHERENCE TO THE RULE OF CONS ISTENCY WOULD LEAD TO ANOMALOUS RESULTS, FOR THE REASON THAT IT WOULD ENGENDER THE UNEQUAL APPLICATION OF LAWS, AND DIRECT THE TAX AUTHORITIES TO ADOPT VARIED INTERPRETATIONS , TO SUIT INDIVIDUAL ASSESSES, SUBJECTIVE TO THEIR CONVENIENCE, - A RESULT AT ONCE DEBILITATING AND DESTRUCTIVE OF THE RULE OF LAW. A PREVIOUS DIVISION BENCH OF THIS COURT, IN ROHITASAV A CHAND V COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2008 (306) ITR 242(DEL) HAD HELD THAT THE RULE OF CONSISTENCY CANNOT BE OF INFLEXIBLE APPLICATION. 5.1 AS CONCLUDED BY THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIG H COURT, THERE IS NO RES JUDICATA, AS REGARDS ASSESSMENT ORDERS, AND ASSESSMENTS FOR ONE YEAR MAY NOT BIND THE OFFICER FOR THE NEXT YEAR. SINCE IN THE PRECEDING YEAR, NO SUCH FACTS ,AS HAVE BEEN REVEALED IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, EMERGE FROM THE ASSESSMEN T ORDER FOR THAT YEAR, CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE , ESPECIALLY WHEN THE LD. AR DID NOT PLACE BEFORE US ANY MATERIAL, CONTROVERTING THE AFO RESAID FINDINGS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES SO AS TO ENABLE US TO TAKE A DIFFERENT VIEW IN THE MATTER, WE ARE NOT INCLINED TO INTERFERE. THEREFORE, GROUND NO.1 IN THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 6. NEXT GROUND NO.2 RELATES TO ASSESSMENT OF INCOME FROM LEASING OUT OF PARKING SPACE IN THE BASEMENT OF DCM BUILDING, BARAKHAMBA R OAD, NEW DELHI. THE AO NOTICED DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THAT TH E ASSESSEE CLAIMED TO BE THE OWNER OF CAR PARKING SPACE AT DCM BUILDING, BARAKHAMBA RO AD, NEW DELHI AND RECEIVED A RENT OF ` .72,000/- REFLECTED UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOU SE PROPERTY. RELYING UPON THE DECISION OF HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF LIQUI DATOR OF MAHAMUDABAD PROPERTIES P. I.T.A .NO.1987/DEL./2012 10 LTD VS CIT,124 ITR 31(SC),THE AO ASSESSED THE INCOM E FROM PARKING SPACE UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES, THE PROPERTY BEIN G NOT IN HABITABLE CONDITION AND DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE FOR DEDUCTION OF R EPAIRS. 7. ON APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(A) UPHELD THE FINDINGS O F THE AO, HOLDING AS UNDER :- AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 , INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY IS THE ANNUAL VALUE OF A PROPERTY, CONSIST ING OF ANY BUILDING OR LANDS APPURTENANT THERETO OF WHICH APPELLANT IS THE OWNER . THE MAIN CONDITION FOR PROPERTY INCOME TO BE TAXABL E UNDER THIS HEAD IS THAT (1) THE PROPERTY SHOULD CONSIST OF BUILDINGS OR LAN D APPURTENANT THERETO.(2)THE APPELLANT SHOULD BE THE OWNER.(3)THE PROPERTY SHOULD NOT BE USED BY THE OWNER FOR THE PURPOSE OF ANY BUSINESS O R PROFESSION CARRIED ON BY HIM THE PROFITS OF WHICH ARE CHARGEABLE TO TAX. IT IS CLEAR FROM THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT THAT THE PROPERTY WHICH IS BEING REFERRED TO IN SECTION 2(22) IS BUILDING OR LAN DS APPURTENANT TO THE SAID BUILDING. A PARKING SPACE BY NO STRETCH OF IMAGINA TION CAN BE TERMED AS A BUILDING. IT CAN AT BEST BE LAND APPURTENANT TO A BUILDING. THE LAND APPURTENANT TO IS EXISTING BUT THERE IS NO BUILDING OF WHICH THE APPELLANT IS THE OWNER AND WHICH IS USING FOR HIS RESIDENTIAL PU RPOSES. THE INCOME OF RS.72,000/- OF THE APPELLANT IS THEREFORE TREATED A S INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. THE AO MAY CONSIDER REVIEW OF THE EARLIER YEARS ORDERS AS THE APPELLANT HAS INCORRECTLY CLAIMED RENT FROM PARKING SPACE UNDER THE HEAD HOUSE PROPERTY INCOME. THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO UNDER THIS HEAD IS CONFIRMED. THIS GROUND IS RULED AGAINST THE APPELL ANT. 8.. THE ASSESSEE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE US AGAINST THE AFORESAID FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A). THE LD. AR REITERATED THEIR SUBMISSIONS BE FORE THE LD. CIT(A) WHILE CONTENDING THAT INCOME HAS TO BE ASSESSED UNDER THE HEAD INCO ME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY AND RELIED UPON THE DECISION DATED 13-11-2010 IN ASHOK COMMERC IAL COMPLEX VS ACIT IN ITA NO.7406/MUM/2002 AND CIT VS CHENNAI PROPERTIES & IN VESTMENT LTD., 136 TAXMAN 202 (MADRAS). THE LD.. AR ARGUED THAT CAR PARKING SPAC E WAS LOCATED IN DCM BUILDING, BARKHAMBA ROAD ,NEW DELHI AND IS COVERED SPACE. TO A QUERY BY THE BENCH, THE LD. AR DID NOT SUBMIT ANY EVIDENCE THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS THE OWNER OF PARKING SPACE OR ANY FLAT IN THE BUILDING WHERE IN PARKING SPACE WAS RES ERVED FOR THE ASSESSEE. 9. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR RELIED UPON THE DE CISION OF GOWARDHAN DAS AND SONS V. CIT,288 ITR 481(P&H); 3 ITR(TRIB.) 311(MUM. ), E AST WEST HOTELS LTD. VS. DCIT,309 ITR 149(KAR.); & ORIENT HOSPITAL LTD VS. DCIT,315 ITR 422(MAD.),WHIL E SUPPORTING THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A). I.T.A .NO.1987/DEL./2012 11 10. IN HIS REJOINDER, LD. AR REITERATED THEIR EARL IER SUBMISSIONS. 11. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND GONE THROUGH THE FACTS OF THE CASE. INDISPUTABLY, THE ASSESSEE IS NOT THE OWNER OF ANY FLAT IN THE DCM BUILDING, CONNAUGHT PLACE NEW DELHI .RATHER, TO A QUERY BY THE BENCH, T HE LD. AR REPLIED THAT A SISTER CONCERN OF THE ASSESSEE IS HAVING A FLAT IN THE SAI D BUILDING AND THE ASSESSEE DID NOT HAVE ANY FLAT IN THE SAID BUILDING. IN TERMS OF AN AGREEMENT DATED 16.4.1990 BETWEEN RK TOWERS INDIA PVT. LTD. & ONE MRS. BIMLA RANI BAJAJ, CLAUSE 3 STIPULATES THAT PARKING SPACE IS PART FOR FLAT ALLOTTED TO THE BUYER AND COULD NO T BE TRANSFERRED /SOLD/LEASED TO ANY ONE AS A SEPARATE ENTITY. IN THIS SITUATION ,HOW THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED OWNERS HIP OF PARKING SPACE WITHOUT HAVING ANY FLAT IN THE BUILDING, HAS NOT BEEN EXPLAINED BEFORE US. SEC. 22 OF THE ACT HAS CREATED A CHARGE ON THE INCOME IN RESPE CT OF ANNUAL VALUE OF THE PROPERTY CONSISTING OF ANY BUILDINGS OR LANDS APPURTENANT TH ERETO OF WHICH THE ASSESSEE IS THE OWNER, OTHER THAN SUCH PORTIONS OF SUCH PROPERTY AS HE MAY OCCUPY FOR THE PURPOSES OF ANY BUSINESS OR PROFESSION CARRIED ON BY HIM THE PR OFITS OF WHICH ARE CHARGEABLE TO INCOME-TAX UNDER THE HEAD 'INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPER TY'. THE TERM BUILDING INCLUDES RESIDENTIAL HOUSES, BUNGALOWS, OFFICE BUILDINGS, WA REHOUSES, DOCKS, FACTORY BUILDINGS, MUSIC HALLS, LECTURE HALLS, AUDITORIUM ETC. THE APP URTENANT LANDS IN RESPECT OF A RESIDENTIAL BUILDING MAY BE IN THE FORM OF APPROACH ROADS TO AN D FROM PUBLIC STREETS, COMPOUNDS, COURTYARDS, BACKYARDS, PLAYGROUNDS, KITCHEN GARDEN, MOTOR GARAGE, STABLE OR COACH HOME, CATTLE-SHED ETC. ATTACHED TO AND FORMING PART OF THE BUILDING. IN RESPECT OF NON- RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS, THE APPURTENANT LANDS MAY BE IN THE FORM OF CAR-PARKING SPACES ETC.ON WHAT BASIS ,THE OWNERSHIP OF THE PARKING SP ACE IS BEING CLAIMED, HAS NOT BEEN EXPLAINED BEFORE US NOR ANY DOCUMENT ,EVIDENCING OW NERSHIP OF THE PARKING SPACE HAS BEEN PLACED BEFORE US. FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECTION 2 2 OF THE ACT, THE OWNER MUST BE THAT PERSON WHO CAN EXERCISE THE RIGHTS OF THE OWNER, NO T ON BEHALF OF THE OWNER BUT IN HIS OWN RIGHT. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) CONCLUDE D THAT A PARKING SPACE BY NO STRETCH OF IMAGINATION CAN BE TERMED AS A BUILDING; IT CAN AT BEST BE LAND APPURTENANT TO A BUILDING. THE LAND APPURTENANT TO IS EXISTING BUT THERE IS NO BUILDING OF WHICH THE ASSESSEE IS THE OWNER IN DCM BUILDING, THE LD. CIT(A) OBSERVED. EVE N THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT THE ASSESSEE CAN EXERCISE THE RIGHTS OF OWNER OF PARKI NG SPACE IN THE AFORESAID BUILDING WHILE THE LD. AR HAS ACCEPTED BEFORE US THAT THE AS SESSEE IS NOT THE OWNER OF ANY FLAT IN THE DCM BUILDING SITUATE AT BARAKHMBA ROAD, NEW DEL HI. THE TWO DECISIONS RELIED UPON I.T.A .NO.1987/DEL./2012 12 BY THE LD. AR WERE RENDERED ON ALTOGETHER DIFFERENT FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AND THE LD. AR DID NOT DEMONSTRATE BEFORE US AS TO HOW THESE DE CISIONS HELP THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING AND IN THE ABSEN CE OF ANY BASIS, WE ARE NOT INCLINED TO INTERFERE. THEREFORE, GROUND NO.2 IN THE APPEAL IS ALSO DISMISSED. 12. GROUND NO.3 IN THE APPEAL, BEING GENERAL IN NAT URE NOR ANY SUBMISSIONS HAVING BEEN MADE BEFORE US ON THIS GROUND, DOES NOT CALL F OR ANY SEPARATE ADJUDICATION WHILE NO ADDITIONAL GROUND HAVING BEEN RAISED BEFORE US IN T ERMS OF RESIDUARY GROUND NO.4 IN THE APPEAL, ACCORDINGLY, BOTH THESE GROUNDS ARE DISMISS ED. 13. NO OTHER PLEA OR ARGUMENT WAS MADE BEFORE U S. 14. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL IS DISMISSED. SD/- SD/- (I.C. SUDHIR) (A.N. PAHUJA) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) NS COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO :- 1. ASSESSEE 2. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,WARD 8 (1),NEW DELHI 3. CIT CONCERNED. 4. CIT(A)-XI, NEW DELHI. 5. DR, ITAT, I &SMC BENCH, NEW DELHI 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER, DEPUTY / ASSTT.REGISTRAR ITAT, DELHI ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT