M/s. Ansal Properties & Infrastructure Ltd., New Delhi V. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 2005/DEL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2974 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 11 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-03-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 18-05-2017
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 05-04-2013
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: APARNA KARAN
• Assessee Lawyers: GARGI SETHIA
• Keywords: Depreciation; Deemed to accrue or arise in india; Revised return; Revenue expenditure; Capital expenditure
• Section: 142(1)

Judgement Text

1 ITA NO. 2005/DEL/2013 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: A NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G. D. AGRAWAL, PRESIDENT AND MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDI CIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 2005/DEL/201 3 ( A.Y 2009-10) ANSAL PROPERTIES & INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. 115-ANSAL BHAWAN, 16-K. G. KARG NEW DELHI AAACA0006D (APPELLANT) VS DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-20 NEW DELHI (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SH. SATYEN SETHI, ADV, ARTA TARANA PANDA, ADV & GARGI SETHIA, ADV RESPONDENT BY SMT. APARNA KARAN, CIT(DR) ORDER PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 05/02/2013 PASSED BY CIT(A)-XXXI, NEW DELHI. 2. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE AS UNDER:- 1.1 THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF NOTIONAL ANNUAL LETTING VALUE OF RS.5,19,11,202/- ON CLOSING STOCK OF FLATS / SPACES BY FOLLOWING THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURTS DECISION I N WHICH VARIOUS RELEVANT FACTS WERE NOT BROUGHT OUT BEFORE THEIR LORDSHIPS A ND NOT CONSIDERED BY THEM. DATE OF HEARING 05.02.2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 13.03.2018 2 ITA NO. 2005/DEL/2013 1.2 THAT WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE GROUND NO. 1.1 ABOVE, THE APPELLANT HAS FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE APEX COURT WHICH HAS BEEN ADMITTED AND IS PENDING FOR DECISION. 2. THAT WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE FOREGOING GROUND, THE DECISION RENDERED BY THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT RELATED TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1988-89 AND RENDERED IN THE CONTEXT OF THE PROVISIO NS OF SECTION 23 AS IT EXISTED PRIOR TO SUBSTITUTION BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2 001 W.E.F. 1.4.2002. THE LEARNED CIT(A) FAILED TO CONSIDER THE ISSUE IN THE LIGHT OF THE AMENDED PROVISIONS AS APPLICABLE TO THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL W HICH WERE SUBSTANTIALLY DIFFERENT. THE ISSUE SHOULD HAVE BEEN RECONSIDERED AND DECIDED IN THE LIGHT OF THE AMENDED PROVISIONS. 3. ON THE LAW, FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE CASE, THE LEARNED 2 IT A) HAS ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.4,68,000/- BEING I OF ADVANCE RENT/LEASE MONEY WHICH WAS FOR A PERIOD OF 18.5 YEARS IN RESPECT OF LAND FOR WIND POWER PROJECT IN GUJRAT ON THE ERRONEOUS GROUND THAT THE SAID EXPENDITURE WAS OF A CAPITAL NATURE. THE PAYMENT BEING IN THE NATURE OF PAYMENT OF ADVANCE RENT WAS ALLOWABLE FOR THE YEAR UNDER ASSESSMENT ON PROPORTIONATE BASIS. ADDITIONAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) MAY KINDLY BE DIRECTED TO DECIDE THE UNDECID ED GROUND NOS. 1.3 TO 1.34 OF THE APPEAL FILED BEFORE HIM REGARDING THE D ETERMINATION OF QUANTUM OF ALV OF THE PROPERTIES. 3. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY E-FILED RETURN OF INCOME ON 30.09.2009 SHOWING INCOME AT RS.39,04,29,465/- FROM BUSINESS AND PROFE SSION. SUBSEQUENTLY, 3 ITA NO. 2005/DEL/2013 RETURN OF INCOME WAS REVISED ON 31.03.2011 SHOWING REVISED RETURN OF INCOME AT RS.40,1981,401/-. THE RETURN WAS REVISED TO ENAB LE THE ASSESSEE COMPANY TO CLAIM EXPENSES PERTAINING TO THE FINANCIAL YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, WHICH WERE SHOWN AS PRIOR PERIOD EXPENSES IN THE BALANCE SHEET FOR THE YEAR ENDING 31.03.2010. THE RETURN OF INCOME WAS PROCESSED U/S 143(1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. NOTICE U/S. 143(2) OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED ON 27.08.2010 FIXING THE CASE FOR HEARING ON 14.09.2010. A DETAILED QUESTION NAIRE ALONGWITH NOTICES U/S 143(2) AND 142(1) OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED ON 12.010.2 011 FIXING THE CASE FOR HEARING ON 24.10.2011. IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE TH E AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVES APPEARED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER AND FILED NECESSARY DETAILS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THE AS SESSEE HAS CLAIMED 60% DEPRECIATION OF UPS, PRINTERS ETC. BY PUTTING THESE ITEMS UNDER THE HEAD COMPUTER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED THE EX CESS DEPRECIATION AMOUNTING TO RS.3,87,138/-. FURTHER AS RELATES TO I NCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITION OF RS.5,19,11,2 02/- TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 22 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 19 61 IN RESPECT OF ANNUAL LETTING VALUE (ALV) IN RESPECT OF VACANT COMMERCIAL /SELF-OCCUPIED ASSETS. IN RESPECT OF DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES ON COMPLETED PR OJECTS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITION OF RS.10,68,61,285/- AND ADDI TION OF RS.4,68,000/- IN RESPECT OF AMORTISED COST OF LAND IN RESPECT OF WIN D POWER PROJECT WHEREIN OBSERVED THAT IT CANNOT BE DENIED THAT THIS LEASE I S FOR ENDURING PERIOD AND IT IS A CAPITAL EXPENDITURE. 4. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASS ESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). THE CIT(A) PARTLY ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 5. THE LD. AR SUBMITS THAT AS RELATES TO GROUND IN RESPECT OF ADD ITION OF NOTIONAL ANNUAL LETTING VALUE-RS.5,19,11,202/-, AS FAR AS, LEGAL POSITION IS CORNERED, THE ISSUE IS COVERED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE BY JUDGMENT OF DELHI HIGH COURT IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN CIT VS. ANSAL HOUSI NG FINANCE & LEASING CO. LD. 92013) 354 ITR 180. THE LD. AR FURTHER SUBMITS THAT BEFORE THE CIT(A), THE 4 ITA NO. 2005/DEL/2013 ASSESSEE BESIDES RAISING LEGAL ISSUE (GROUNDS 1.1 & 1.2) THAT NOTIONAL ALV OF FLATS/SPACE LYING UNSOLD STOCK CANNOT BE ASSESSED A S INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY HAD ALSO RAISED ALTERNATE GROUND (GROUND 1 .3 TO 1.34) THAT RATES ADOPTED TO ASSESSEE ALV OF THE RESPECTIVE FLATS/SPA CE WAS ARBITRARY AND EXCESSIVE. THE CIT(A) BASED ON JUDGMENT OF HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN ANSAL HOUSING FINANCE AND LEASING CO. LTD. (SUPRA) SUSTAI NED THE ADDITION. HOWEVER, THE ALTERNATE GROUNDS WERE NOT ADJUDICATED UPON. IN THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2007-08 AND 2008-09, THIS TRIBUNAL HAS SET AS IDE THE IDENTICAL ISSUE TO THE CIT(A) [PARA 31-34, PAGE 30 & 31 OF ITAT ORDER DATED 17.08.2017 IN ITA NO. 5784/DEL/2010 & 5310/DEL/2012]. THE ONLY DIFFERENCE IS THAT THE APPEALS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2007-08 AND 2008-09 WERE DISPO SED OF BY THE CIT(A) PRIOR TO JUDGMENT IN ANSAL HOUSING FINANCE & LEASI NG CO. LTD (SUPRA). AS SUCH, BASED ON THE LEGAL SUBMISSIONS, THE ADDITIONS WERE DELETED. FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR IN QUESTION I.E. 2009-10, THE CIT(A ) DISPOSED OF THE APPEAL SUBSEQUENT TO THE JUDGMENT, HENCE, APPLYING THE LEG AL PRINCIPLES, THE ADDITION WAS SUSTAINED. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED ADDITIONAL GROUND TO THE EFFECT THAT THE CIT(A) MAY BE DIRECTED TO DECIDE THE ALTERNATE GROUND I.E. GROUND NO. 1.3 TO 1.34 RAISED IN FORM 35. ADDITIONAL GROUND RAISED I S NEITHER UNREASONABLE NOR LACKING BONAFIDE. THEREFORE, THE LD. AR PRAYED THAT NECESSARY DIRECTIONS MAY BE ISSUED TO THE CIT(A) TO DECIDE THE ALTERNATE GRO UNDS I.E. GROUND NO. 1.3 TO 1.34 RAISED IN RAISED IN FORM 35. 6. AS RELATES TO THE ISSUE OF DISALLOWANCE OF RS.4, 68,000/- BEING 1/20 TH OF ADVANCE RENT/LEASE MONEY AS CAPITAL EXPENSE FOR LAN D FOR WIND POWER PROJECT, THE LD. AR SUBMITS THAT THE CIT(A) UPHELD THE DISAL LOWANCE FOLLOWING THE ORDER FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09, THIS HONBLE TRIBUNAL HAS ALLOWED THE ASSESSEES APPEAL (PARA 46.1 TO 46.4, PAGE 45- 47 OF ITAT ORDER DATED 17.08.2017 IN ITA NO. 5310/D EL/2012]. 35. IN VIEW OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI IN ANSAL HOUSING & FINANCE & LEASING CO. LTD. (SUPRA), THE A PPEAL OF THE REVENUE IN 5 ITA NO. 2005/DEL/2013 RESPECT OF ADDITION OF ALV IS ALLOWED, HOWEVER, IT WOULD NOT BE FAIR NOT TO ALLOW THE APPELLANT AN OPPORTUNITY TO SHOW THAT THE RATES ADOPTED TO ASSESS THE ALV WERE EXCESSIVE. ACCORDINGLY, WHILE ADMITTING THE ADDITIONAL GROUND RAISED BY THE APPELLANT, WE DEEM IT PROPER TO DIRECT THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) TO LOOK INTO THE ASPECTS RAISED IN GROUND NOS. 6.3 TO 6.36 BEFORE HIM IN FORM 35. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE R EVENUE AND THE ADDITIONAL GROUND RAISED BY THE APPELLANT IS DISPOS ED OFF ACCORDINGLY. 7. THE LD. DR RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER AND THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). 8. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE M ATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORDS. THE CIT(A) HAS TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION DE CISION OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI IN CASE OF CIT VS. ANSAL HOUSING FIN ANCE & LEASING CO. LTD. 354 ITR 180 REGARDING ADDITION OF NOTIONAL ANNUAL LETTI NG VALUE OF RS.5,19,11,202/- ON CLOSING STOCK OF FLATS / SPACES . THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HELD AS UNDER: 13. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED I N BUILDING ACTIVITIES. IT ARGUES THAT FLATS ARE HELD AS PART OF ITS INVENTORY OF STOCK IN TRADE, AND ARE NOT LET OUT. THE FURTHER ARGUMENT IS THAT UNLIKE IN THE OTHER INSTANCES, WHERE SUCH BUILDERS LET OUT FLATS, HERE THERE IS NO LETTING OUT AND THAT DEEMED INCOME - WHICH IS THE BASIS FOR ASSESSMENT U NDER THE ALV METHOD, SHOULD NOT BE ATTRIBUTED. THIS COURT IS OF THE OPIN ION THAT THE ARGUMENT, THOUGH ATTRACTIVE, CANNOT BE ACCEPTED. AS REPEATEDL Y HELD, IN EAST INDIA, SULTAN, AND KARANPURA, THE LEVY OF INCOME TAX IN TH E CASE OF ONE HOLDING HOUSE PROPERTY IS PREMISED NOT ON WHETHER THE ASSES SEE CARRIES ON BUSINESS, AS LANDLORD, BUT ON THE OWNERSHIP. THE IN CIDENCE OF CHARGE IS BECAUSE OF THE FACT OF OWNERSHIP. UNDOUBTEDLY, THE DECISION IN VIKRAM COTTON INDICATES THAT IN EVERY CASE, THE COURT HAS TO DISCERN THE INTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE; IN THIS CASE THE INTENTION OF THE ASSESSE WAS TO HOLD THE PROPERTIES TILL THEY WERE SOLD. THE CAPACITY OF BEI NG AN OWNER WAS NOT DIMINISHED ONE WHIT, BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE CARRIED O N BUSINESS OF DEVELOPING, BUILDING AND SELLING FLATS IN HOUSING E STATES. THE ARGUMENT THAT INCOME TAX IS LEVIED NOT ON THE ACTUAL RECEIPT (WHICH NEVER AROSE IN THIS CASE) BUT ON A NOTIONAL BASIS, I.E. ALV AND TH AT IT IS THEREFORE NOT SANCTIONED BY LAW, IN THE OPINION OF THE COURT IS M ERITLESS. ALV IS A METHOD TO ARRIVE AT A FIGURE ON THE BASIS OF WHICH THE IMP OST IS TO BE EFFECTUATED. 6 ITA NO. 2005/DEL/2013 THE EXISTENCE OF AN ARTIFICIAL METHOD ITSELF WOULD NOT MEAN THAT LEVY IS IMPERMISSIBLE. PARLIAMENT HAS RESORTED TO SEVERAL O THER PRESUMPTIVE METHODS, FOR THE PURPOSE OF CALCULATION OF INCOME A ND COLLECTION OF TAX. FURTHERMORE, APPLICATION OF ALV TO DETERMINE THE TA X IS REGARDLESS OF WHETHER ACTUAL INCOME IS RECEIVED; IT IS PREMISED O N WHAT CONSTITUTES A REASONABLE LETTING VALUE, IF THE PROPERTY WERE TO B E LEASED OUT IN THE MARKETPLACE. IF THE ASSESSEE'S CONTENTION WERE TO B E ACCEPTED, THE LEVY OF INCOME TAX ON UNOCCUPIED HOUSES AND FLATS WOULD BE IMPERMISSIBLE - WHICH IS CLEARLY NOT THE CASE. 14. AS FAR AS THE ALTERNATIVE ARGUMENT THAT THE ASS ESSEE ITSELF IS OCCUPIER, BECAUSE IT HOLDS THE PROPERTY TILL IT IS SOLD, IS C ONCERNED, THE COURT DOES NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THIS SUBMISSION. WHILE THERE CAN BE NO QUARREL WITH THE PROPOSITION THAT 'OCCUPATION' CAN BE SYNONYMOUS WIT H PHYSICAL POSSESSION, IN LAW, WHEN PARLIAMENT INTENDED A PROP ERTY OCCUPIED BY ONE WHO IS CARRYING ON BUSINESS, TO BE EXEMPTED FROM TH E LEVY OF INCOME TAX WAS THAT SUCH PROPERTY SHOULD BE USED FOR THE PURPO SE OF BUSINESS. THE INTENTION OF THE LAWMAKERS, IN OTHER WORDS, WAS THA T OCCUPATION OF ONE'S OWN PROPERTY, IN THE COURSE OF BUSINESS, AND FOR TH E PURPOSE OF BUSINESS, I.E. AN ACTIVE USE OF THE PROPERTY, (INSTEAD OF MER E PASSIVE POSSESSION) QUALIFIES AS 'OWN' OCCUPATION FOR BUSINESS PURPOSE. THIS CONTENTION IS, THEREFORE, REJECTED. THUS, THIS QUESTION IS ANSWERE D IN FAVOUR OF THE REVENUE, AND AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. THUS, AS ON TODAY THE ISSUE IS DECIDED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE AND IN FAVOUR OF THE REVENUE. THEREFORE, GROUND NO. 1.1, 1.2 AND 2 OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 9. AS RELATES TO GROUND NO. 3, THIS ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE (M/S. ANSAL PROPERTIES AND I NFRASTRUCTURE LTD. VS ACIT ITA NOS. 5784 & 5663/DEL/2010 AND ITA NO. 5310 & 53 45/DEL/2012 DATED 17.08.2017). THE TRIBUNAL HELD AS UNDER: 46.3 WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE DISAL LOWANCE OF RS.2,46,411/- BEING 1/20 TH OF ADVANCE RENT/LEASE MONEY IN RESPECT OF THE LEASE WHICH WAS FOR A PERIOD OF 18.5 YEARS IN RESPE CT OF LAND FOR WING POWER PROJECT IN GUJARAT. THE SAME HAS BEEN UPHELD BY THE LD. CIT(APPEALS). THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE REMAIN ED THAT SINCE THIS LAND WAS FOR A LIMITED PERIOD OF LEASE AND NO SEPARATE R ENT WAS BEING PAID, THE LUMP SUM PAYMENT MADE WAS AMORTIZED IN THE ACCOUNTS OVER THE PERIOD OF LEASE AND WAS ALLOWABLE AS A REVENUE EXPENDITURE. T HE ASSESSING OFFICER 7 ITA NO. 2005/DEL/2013 DID NOT AGREE AND HELD THAT SINCE THE LEASE WAS FOR ENDURING PERIOD, IT WAS AN EXPENDITURE OF CAPITAL NATURE AND MADE THE DISAL LOWANCE. THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF DCIT VS. SUN PHAR MACEUTICALS INDS. LTD. (SUPRA) HELD AS UNDER: I FIND THAT HONBLE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT HAS ALLO WED ONE TIME PREMIUM OF RS. 48.02 LACS PAID IN RESPECT OF LAND T AKEN ON LEASE FROM GUJARAT INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AS REVEN UE EXPENDITURE EVEN THOUGH THE SAID COMPANY WAS PAYING RS.40 PER A NNUM AS ANNUAL RENT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TREATED THE AMOUNT PAID BY THE ASSESSEE AS PAID TOWARDS ACQUIRING A BENEFIT OF END URING NATURE. THE SAME CANNOT BE SUSTAINED DUE TO THE RATIO OF THE JU DGMENT OF HONBLE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT, WHICH ALSO RELATES TO A LAND TAKEN ON LEASE. THE LAND WAS TAKEN ON 99 YEARS LEASE IN THE SAID CASE O F SUN PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. (SUPRA), WHEREAS IN THE ASSESS EES CASE, THE LEASE PERIOD IS ONLY 20 YEARS. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE IS O NLY CLAIMING 1/20 TH OF THE AMOUNT, AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE EVERY YEAR. THE SAID DECISION OF HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT HAS BEEN RENDERED TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MADRAS AUTO SERVICE PVT. LTD. (1998) 233 ITR 46 8 (SC). CONSIDERING THESE FACTORS, THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.6,19,199/- IS HEREBY DELETED. 46.4 RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE RATIO OF THE ABOVE CITED DECISION, WE HOLD THAT THE AUTHORITIES BELOW WERE NOT JUSTIFIED IN MA KING AND UPHOLDING THE DISALLOWANCE IN QUESTION BEING CAPITAL IN NATURE, H ENCE IT IS DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. THE GROUND NO. 1 IS ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED. THUS, THE TRIBUNAL WHILE DECIDING THIS ISSUE IN FA VOUR OF THE ASSESSEE OBSERVED THAT THE AUTHORITYS BELOW WERE NOT JUSTIF IED IN MAKING AND UPHOLDING THE DISALLOWANCE IN QUESTION BEING CAPITAL IN NATUR E. HENCE, THIS GROUND OF ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 10. AS REGARDS ADDITIONAL GROUND, WHICH IS AN ALTER NATIVE GROUND, THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT GROUND NO. 1.3 TO 1.34 WERE NOT ADJU DICATED BY THE CIT (A). IN SUBMISSION BEFORE US, THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT IN IDENTICAL ISSUES FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2007-08 AND 2008-09 THE TRIBUNAL H AS SET ASIDE THIS ISSUE TO THE CIT (A). AFTER GOING THROUGH THE ORDER OF T HE CIT(A) IT CAN BE SEEN THAT THE CIT(A) HAS NOT AT ALL ADJUDICATED ON THE FACTUA L GROUNDS THAT OF GROUND NO. 8 ITA NO. 2005/DEL/2013 1.3 TO 1.34 SET OUT IN FORM 35 RAISED BEFORE HIM. T HEREFORE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) REGARDING DETERMIN ATION OF QUANTUM OF ALV OF PROPERTIES IS SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF CIT(A) FOR D ECIDING AFRESH IN LIGHT OF THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL FOR A.Y 2007-08 & 2008-09. 11. IN RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALL OWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 13TH MARCH, 2018 . SD/- SD/- (G. D. AGRAWAL) (SUCHITRA KAMBLE) PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 13/03/2018 R. NAHEED * COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI DATE 1. DRAFT DICTATED ON 06/02/2018 PS 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 06/02/2018 PS 3. DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER .2018 JM/AM 9 ITA NO. 2005/DEL/2013 4. DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER. JM/AM 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS 13.03.2018 PS/PS 6. KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON PS 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK 1 3 .03.2018 PS 8. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE AR 9. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK. 10. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER.