JCIT, New Delhi V. M/s Video Electronics Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 2020/DEL/2011

• Counselvise Citation: 202020114 RSA 2011
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 4 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-09-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: H
• Next Hearing Date: 13-08-2013
• Assessment Year: 1996-1997
• Appeal Filed On: 21-04-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R S MEENA
• Keywords: Rectification of order; Opportunity of being heard; Difference of opinion; Revised return
• Section: 32; 54

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH H NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.P. TOLANI AND SHRI B.C. MEENA ITA NOS. 2020, 2021 & 2023/DEL/2011 ASSTT. YRS: 1996-97, 1997-98 & 1995-96 JCIT, CIRCLE 17(1), VS. M/S VIDEO ELECTRONICS PVT . LTD., NEW DELHI. E-45/7, OKHLA INDUSTRIAL AREA, PHASE-II, NEW DELHI. PAN: AAACV 0886 C AND ITA NOS. 3869 & 3870/DEL/2011 ASSTT. YRS: N1995-96 & 1996-97 M/S VIDEO ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD., VS. JCIT, CIRCLE 1 7(1), E-45/7, OKHLA INDUSTRIAL AREA, NEW DELHI. PHASE-II, NEW DELHI. ( APPELLANT ) ( RESPONDENT ) REVENUE BY : SHRI R.S. MEENA CIT (DR). ASSESSEE BY : SHRI GURJEET SINGH CA O R D E R PER R.P. TOLANI, J.M : THIS IS A SET OF APPEALS, COMPRISING OF TWO CROSS A PPEALS FOR A.Y. 1995-96 AND 1996-97 AND A REVENUES APPEAL FOR A.Y. 1997-98. ALL THESE APPEALS ARE HEARD TOGETHER AND DISPOSED OF BY A CO NSOLIDATED ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 2. COMMON GROUNDS RAISED IN ASSESSEES APPEALS ARE AS UNDER: 1. BECAUSE THE AO ORDER U/S 254/143(3) IS BEING CH ALLENGED ON FACTS & LAW AS IT HAS BEEN PASSED OVERLOOKING & IGNORING 2 THE DIRECTIONS OF CIT(A) AND TRIBUNAL WHICH BY THE HIGHER AUTHORITIES BAND BINDING IN NATURE AND NOT DISCRETI ONARY. 2. BECAUSE THE ACTION IS UNDER CHALLENGE FOR NOT DI SPOSING OFF THE DIRECTIONS OF TRIBUNAL ORDER DT. 17.2.2006 TO MAKE APPROPRIATE MODIFICATION OF ASSESSED INCOME RELATIN G TO SURRENDER OF WITHDRAWAL FOR AN AMOUNT OF RS. 94,95, 000/- FROM IDBI. 3. BECAUSE THE ACTION IS UNDER CHALLENGE ON CHARGI NG INTEREST U/S 234B, 234C OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. 2.1. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AT THE OUT SET CO NTENDS THAT ASSESSEES APPEALS ARE ONLY IN SUPPORT OF CIT(A)S ORDER, DO N OT RAISE ANY SPECIFIC GROUNDS AND THEY ARE NOT PRESSED. IN VIEW THEREOF THE ASSESSEES APPEALS ARE ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. 2.2. COMMON GROUNDS RAISED IN REVENUES APPEALS AR E AS UNDER: THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW BY NO T CONFIRMING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE AO ORDER 154 AN D BY ALLOWING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE U/S 32AB OF THE I.T. ACT, IGNORING THAT: 1. THE ACCRUED INCOME HAD BEEN ASSESSED BY THE AO AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES AND NOT AS PROFITS AND GA INS OF BUSINESS OR PROFESSION. 2. RECTIFICATION UNDER SECTION 154 CAN BE MADE ONLY WHEN A GLARING MISTAKE OF FACTS OR LAW COMMITTED BY THE AO BECOMES APPARENT FROM THE RECORD AND THE SECTION DOES NOT C OVER ANY MISTAKE WHICH MAY BE DISCOVERED BY A COMPLICATED PR OCESS OF INVESTIGATION, ARGUMENT OR PROOF. 3 3. BRIEF FACTS ARE: THE ASSESSEE ENTERED INTO LEASE AGREEMENTS WITH M/S MITTAL TUBES (P) LTD. (MTPL) AND M/S RINASU STEEL S PVT. LTD. (RSPL) ON 6-4-1994 FOR LEASING MACHINES WORTH RS. 69.25 LA CS AND RS. 25 LACS FOR A PERIOD OF 8 YEARS. THE LEASE ARRANGEMENT PROVIDED T HAT THE LESSEES WILL SELECT THE MACHINERY, SUPPLIERS AND THE PRICE, THE SAME WI LL BE PURCHASED IN THE NAME OF LESSOR/ ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE WILL PROVIDE THE CHEQUES IN THE NAMES OF THE SUPPLIERS WHICH WILL BE DELIVERED BY THE LES SEES TO THE MACHINERY SUPPLIERS. THE SUBJECT MATTER OF LEASE TRANSACTIONS I.E. MACHINERIES WILL BE USED BY THE LESSEES FOR WHICH LEASE RENTAL WILL BE PAID. THUS, THE LEASE AGREEMENTS PROVIDED THAT ASSESSEE WILL EARN LEASE R ENTALS AND THE MACHINERY WILL BE USED BY THE LESSEES. 3.1. THEREAFTER THE LEASE TRANSACTIONS CAME INTO TR OUBLE AS RSPL STOPPED PAYING THE INSTALMENTS STATING THAT THERE WAS SLUMP IN THE MARKET AND SHOWED ITS INABILITY TO PAY THE BALANCE AMOUNT. IT WAS REQUESTED THAT THE LEASE AGREEMENT BE CANCELLED AS THE LESSEE HAD NOT OBTAINED THE MACHINERY, STARTED THE MANUFACTURING ACTIVITIES AND THE ENTIRE LEASE AMOUNT BE TRANSFERRED TO ITS LOAN ACCOUNT AND THE LEASE MONEY RECEIVED BY THE COMPANY DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 1995-96 AND 1996-97 BE CREDITED TO THE SAID LOAN ACCOUNT ALONGWITH THE SECURITY AMOUNT. 4 3.2. IN THE CASE OF OTHER LESSEE MTPL, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT RECEIVE ANY INSTALMENT EXCEPT AN INITIAL AMOUNT OF RS. 21,000/- , THIS ARRANGEMENT WAS ALSO CANCELLED. 3.3. THE ASSESSEE ALSO VERIFIED THE FACT THAT BOTH THE LESSEES HAD NOT PURCHASED MACHINES AGAINST THE DRAFTS GIVEN TO THEM IN THE NAME OF SUPPLIERS SUGGESTED BY THEM TO ASSESSEE. CONSEQUENTLY, THE LE ASE TRANSACTIONS HAVING BEEN RESCINDED, THE ADVANCE LEASE RENT WAS REVERSE D IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1995-96 AND THE RETURN OF INCOME WAS REVISED IN VIE W OF THE DOUBTFUL RECOVERY OF LEASE RENT ALONG WITH WITHDRAWAL OF CLA IM U/S 32AB BY ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE ALSO FILED APPROPRIATE SUIT IN HONBL E DELHI HIGH COURT AGAINST MTPL FOR DAMAGES ON ACCOUNT OF DEFAULT. 3.4. FOR THE PURCHASE OF THE ABOVE MACHINERY THE AS SESSEE HAD WITHDRAWAN THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF RS. 94.25 LACS FOR LEASING FR OM THE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF INDIA DURING A.Y. 1995-96 DEPOS ITED U/S 32 AB IN EARLIER YEARS TO CLAIM DEDUCTION U/S 32AB. THE ASSE SSEE HAD CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S 32AB IN ORIGINAL RETURN AND IN VIEW O F THE ABOVE UNFORTUNATE DEVELOPMENTS, ASSESSEE HAD TO SURRENDER THE CLAIM O F DEDUCTION U/S 32AB AND CONSEQUENTLY REDUCTION OF INCOME BY WAY OF LEAS E RENTAL AS IT WAS NOT EARNED NOR ACCRUED DUE TO THE NON PURCHASE OF MACHI NERY AND TERMINATION OF LEASE TRANSACTION ITSELF BY THE LESSEES. THE ASSESS EE FILED A REVISED RETURN 5 ACCORDINGLY. WHILE FRAMING THE ASSESSMENT ON THE BA SIS OF REVISED RETURN ASSESSING OFFICER THOUGH ACCEPTED THE SURRENDER OF CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 32AB HOWEVER, HELD THAT ASSESSEE HAS EARNED THE LEA SE RENTAL INCOME AND BROUGHT THE SAME TO TAXATION. THUS ASSESSING OFFICE R MADE DOUBLE ADDITION I.E. ONE BY BRINGING TO TAX THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 32AB AND TAXING THE LEASE RENTAL INCOME ALTHOUGH IT NEITHER ACCRUED NOR IT WAS EARNED. 3.5. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEALS AND BEFO RE ITAT AGITATING THE ISSUE OF DOUBLE TAXATION I.E. BY WAY OF WITHDRAWAL OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 32AB AS PER THE REVISED RETURN FOR A.Y. 199 5-96 AND BY TAXING THE LEASE RENTALS FOR THE VARIOUS ASSESSMENT YEARS STARTING FROM 1995- 96, WHICH WERE NEITHER EARNED NOR ACCRUED. THE ITA T IN THE ORDER DATED 17.02.2006 IN ITA NO. 2988 (DEL)J99 FOR A.Y. 1995-96 AND ITA NO. 1645(DEL)/2000 FOR A.Y.1996- 97, DIRECTED THE A SSESSING OFFICER TO MAKE APPROPRIATE MODIFICATION OF ASSESSED INCOME BY FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS: 'DURING THE COURSE OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE AUTHOR ITY BELOW THE ASSESSEE PLEADED THAT ENTIRE WITHDRAWAL F ROM IDBI HAD BEEN ADDED BACK TO THE INCOME DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE. IT APPEARS THAT IN PAST THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED CERTAIN DEDUCTIONS U/S 32AB. AT ANY RATE, SURRENDER OF WITHDRAWAL FROM IDBI DOES NOT AFFECT THE ACCRUAL OF INCOME TO THE ASSESSEE IN RELATION TO ITS AGREEMENTS WITH LESSEES. THE ASSESSEE SHALL, HOWEVER, BE AT LIBERTY TO APPRO ACH THE ASSESSING OFFICER IF ANY ADJUSTMENT IN THIS BEHALF IS 6 REQUIRED, FOR WHICH THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER I S DIRECTED TO ALLOW THE ASSESSEE REASONABLE OPPORTUNI TY AND TO MAKE APPROPRIATE MODIFICATION OF ASSESSED INCOME .' 3.6. IN THE CONSEQUENTIAL SET ASIDE ASSESSMENT PROC EEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE BROUGHT THE ISSUE OF DOUBLE TAXATION TO TH E NOTICE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS TO HOW THE ASSESSEE WAS BEING TAXED TWICE ON THE SAME TRANSACTION OF LEASE INASMUCH AS THE DEDUCTION U/S 32AB WAS BEING DISALLOWED AS THE MACHINERY WAS NOT PURCHASED AND THE LEASE AGREEMENT DID NOT FRUCTIFY AND THE LEASE RENTAL QUA THE TRANSACTIONS WHICH WAS NEITHER EARNED NOR ACCRUED WERE ALSO BEIN G TAXED BY MISTAKE. ASSESSING OFFICER HOWEVER, DID NOT ADDRESS THE ISSUE AT ALL; WITHDREW THE CLAIM U/S 32AB AS WELL AS TAXED THE LE ASE RENTAL INCOME AND THUS FAILED TO EFFECTIVELY CARRY OUT THE DIRECT IONS OF THE ITAT TO MAKE APPROPRIATE MODIFICATION OF THE ASSESSED INCOM E. 3.7. THEREAFTER, ASSESSEE MOVED APPLICATIONS U/S 1 54 OF THE I.T. ACT FOR THE RECTIFICATION OF THIS MISTAKE FOR THE ASSE SSMENT YEARS 1995-96 TO 1998-99. THESE PETITIONS WERE REJECTED BY THE AO IN THE CONSOLIDATED ORDER DATED 05.03.2008 FOR THE A.YS. 1995-96 TO 199 8-99, BY FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS: IT IS EVIDENT FROM THE ABOVE DIRECTION OF THE ITA T THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED REASONABL E OPPORTUNITY TO CONSIDER THE ISSUE OF DEDUCTION U/S 32AB. . ON GOING THROUGH THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND ALSO DETAIL S THEREOF IT APPEARS THAT THERE IS NO MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECO RD WHILE 7 GIVING EFFECT TO THE ORDER OF THE HON'BLE ITAT. THE ISSUE INVOLVED DOES NOT COME WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF SECTION 154 AS THERE ARE DIFFERENCE OF OPINION AND THE ASSE SSEE COMPANY ALREADY BEFORE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT ON THESE ISSUES. HOWEVER, ASSESSMENT FOR THE AY. 95-96 WAS ALSO COMPLETED ULS 143(3)/254 ON 19.11.2007 AND THE ASSESSEE COMPANY DID NOT AVAIL OF OPPORTUNITY TO JU STIFY THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 32AB. AS THE CASE HAS ALREAD Y BEEN COMPLETED FOR A. Y. 95- 96 U/S 143(3)/254 AND IN OT HER ASSESSMENT YEARS THERE IS NO MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD AS DISCUSSED ABOVE, THE APPLICATION FOR RECTIFICATION IS HEREBY REJECTED FOR ALL THE ASSESSMENT YEARS. 3.8. AGGRIEVED, AGAINST THE ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFI CER, ASSESSEE FILED FIRST APPEAL. CIT(A) ALLOWED THE APPEALS BY FOLLOWING OBS ERVATIONS: I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE VARIOUS ORDERS BROUGHT ON RECORD FOR A.YS. 1995-96 TO 1998-99. THERE IS NO DISPUTE WITH REGARD TO SURRENDERING OF INCOME OF RS. 94.25 LACS WHICH WAS CLAIMED U/S 32AB. THE ITAT HAS GIVEN CLEAR DIRECTIONS FOR READ JUSTMENT OF INCOME. ALL THE FACTS ARE AVAILABLE ON THE RECORD. THERE IS NO LEGAL ISSUE INVOLVED. IT IS A QUESTION OF RECOMPUTA TION OF INCOME AS DIRECTED BY THE ITAT. THE AO REJECTED THE PETITI ONS U/S 154 ON THE GROUND THAT THERE IS DIFFERENCE OF OPINION W HICH IS NOT BASED ON ANY VALID REASON. AFTER CAREFUL CONSIDERAT ION OF THE FACTS BROUGHT ON RECORD, THE AMOUNT OF RS. 94.25 LA CS WAS TAXED TWICE. THE TAXABLE INCOME FOR VARIOUS ASSESSMENT YE ARS IS DETERMINED AS DETAILED BELOW: A.Y. 95-96 A.Y. 96-97 A.Y. 97-98 A.Y. 98-99 TAXABLE INCOME DETERMINED BEFORE RECTIFICATION ORDER 19,63,840 38,99,800 36,09,952 8,30,224 LESS: AMOUNT OF LEASE RENTALS (INCLUDING INTEREST PORTION) INCLUDED IN THE TAXABLE INCOME DETERMINED 25,28,784 37,97,218 32,75,184 32,75,184* 8 ABOVE. BALANCE (-) 5,64,994 1,02,582 3,34,768 (-) 24,44,594 ADD: INTEREST PORTION TO BE ADDED AS PER DIRECTIONS OF ITAT 2,66,062 3,44,594 3,44,594 3,44,594 TAXABLE INCOME (-) 2,98,882 4,47,176 6,79,362 (-) 21,00,366 *WRONGLY ADDED RS. 32,75,184/- INSTEAD OF RS. 11,1 0,246/- WHICH INCLUDED INTEREST PORTION OF RS. 3,44,594/-. GROUND NOS. 2 & 3 OF APPEAL FOR A.Y. 1995-96 AND GR OUND NO. 2 OF APPEALS FOR A.Y. 1996-97, 1997-98 AND 1998-99 AR E RELATED TO THE ISSUE OF DOUBLE TAXATION WHICH WAS ALLOWED A S INDICATED ABOVE. AGGRIEVED, REVENUE IS BEFORE US. 4. LD. DR CONTENDS THAT THE MISTAKE AS PROPOSED BY THE ASSESSEE IS NOT A MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD. SECTION 154 DOES NOT COVER A MISTAKE WHICH IS TO BE DISCOVERED BY A COMPLICATED PROCESS OF INVESTIGATION, ARGUMENT OR PROOF. IN THIS CASE ITAT GAVE A DIRECTI ON TO GIVE AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE WHICH HAS BEEN AFFOR DED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THEREAFTER IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT ASSESS EES LEASE INCOME WAS LIABLE TO BE TAXED UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOUR CES. CIT(A) ERRED IN REDUCING THE INCOME TAXED AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOUR CES AND NOT PROFIT AND GAINS OF BUSINESS AND FURTHER ERRED IN REDUCING THE LEASE RENTAL INCOME AN ISSUE WHICH WAS DEBATABLE IN NATURE, HOLDING IT TO BE A RECTIFIABLE MISTAKE. ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER IS RELIED ON. 5. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ON THE OTHER HAND C ONTENDS THAT: 9 (I) ASSESSING OFFICER HAS CONSIDERED THE ITAT DIRECTION IN A SELF CONVENIENT AND PEDANTIC MANNER. THE LAST LINE OF TH E ITAT DIRECTION HAS BEEN CONVENIENTLY IGNORED I.E. TO MA KE APPROPRIATE MODIFICATION OF ASSESSED INCOME. THE ASSESSING OFF ICER HAS FAILED TO MAKE ANY MODIFICATION AT ALL LEAVE APART FROM TH E APPROPRIATE MODIFICATION. (II) THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS THUS FAILED TO ABIDE BY T HE ITAT DIRECTION TO CONSIDER THE ISSUE OF DOUBLE TAXATION AND MAKE APPROPRIATE MODIFICATION OF ASSESSED INCOME. (III) THE DISPUTE IN QUESTION ABOUT TAXABILITY IS GLARING FROM THE RECORD. THE TAXATION AUTHORITIES CANNOT RECOURSE TO UNJUST ENRICHMENT BY TAXING THE INCOME IN A DOUBLE TAXATION MANNER QUA T HE SAME TRANSACTION. WHEN THE ASSESSEE OFFERED FOR WITHDRAW AL OF CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 32AB, CITING THE REASON OF CANCELLA TION OF LEASE ARRANGEMENT, THE OTHER SIDE OF THE COIN A NATURAL CONSEQUENCE IS THAT TRANSACTION HAVING NOT MATERIALIZED THE LEASE RENTAL IS NEITHER ACCRUED NOR EARNED. THIS IS FURTHER EVIDENT FROM TH E FACT THAT ASSESSEE HAS FILED A SUIT IN HONBLE DELHI HIGH COU RT IN THIS BEHALF. (IV) THE INCOME WHICH HAS NEITHER ACCRUED NOR EARNED CAN NOT BE BROUGHT TO TAX ON IPSE DIXIT MORE SO WHEN THE ITAT HAS ISSUED APPROPRIATE DIRECTIONS FOR CONSIDERATION. (V) THE MISTAKE SOUGHT TO BE RECTIFIED IS APPARENT FRO M THE RECORD, GLARING ONE AND DID NOT REQUIRE ANY COMPLICATED PRO CESS OF INVESTIGATION, ARGUMENTS OR PROOF. (VI) CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY HELD THE MISTAKE TO BE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD AND REDUCED IT FROM ASSESSED INCOME AND THE LEASE RENTAL 10 HAVING BEEN TAXED UNDER INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES MAKES NO DIFFERENCE AS WHAT IS TO BE REDUCED IS INCOME FROM ASSESSED INCOME. ORDER OF CIT(A) IS RELIED ON. 6. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS, PERUSED THE MAT ERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE FACTS HAVE BEEN NARRATED ABOVE. THE PRO POSED MISTAKE PERTAINS TO ASSESSEES CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 32AB MADE IN T HE ORIGINAL RETURN WITH CONSEQUENTIAL LEASE RENTAL INCOME. IT WAS FOUND THA T THE MACHINERIES, SUBJECT MATTER OF THE LEASE TRANSACTIONS WERE NOT PURCHASED BY THE LESSEES AND THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 32AB WAS SURRENDERED BY THE ASSESSEE BY A REVISED RETURN ALONG WITH REDUCTION ON NON ACCRUED RENTAL I NCOME. AS THE LEASE TRANSACTION DID NOT FRUCTIFY THE LEASE RENTAL INCOM E NEITHER ACCRUED NOR EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, A CONSEQUENTIAL CLAIM OF REDUCTION OF LEASE RENTAL WAS ALSO MADE. ITAT SET ASIDE THE ISSU E GIVING THE DIRECTION TO ASSESSING OFFICER TO MAKE APPROPRIATE MODIFICATION IN THE ASSESSED INCOME. THE CONDUCT OF THE ASSESSEE IS CORROBORATED BY THE FACT THAT THE CONTENTION ABOUT A SUIT FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST A LESSEE BEFORE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT HAS NOT BEEN DISPUTED BY THE DEPARTMENT. IN O UR CONSIDERED VIEW, THE WITHDRAWAL OF DEDUCTION U/S 32AB HAS A DIRECT CONSE QUENCE ON THE NON EARNING OF LEASE RENTAL. THUS, THE WITHDRAWAL OF D EDUCTION U/S 32AB AND TAXATION OF LEASE RENTAL CANNOT BE TAXED TOGETHER. IF ONE IS PRESENT, THEN AS A 11 NATURAL COROLLARY THE OTHER WILL NOT BE PRESENT. WH EN THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE U/S 32AB IS DISALLOWED, THE LEASE RENTAL INCOME IS NOT LIABLE TO BE TAXED. THIS IS WHAT THE ITAT IN MEANINGFUL TERMS DIRECTED THE A SSESSING OFFICER TO CONSIDER AND MODIFY THE ASSESSMENT IN AN APPROPRIAT E MANNER IN SET ASIDE ASSESSMENT. ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT GIVEN ANY CRE DENCE TO THIS ASPECT WHICH MAKES THE ORDER SUFFERING FROM A MISTAKE RECT IFIABLE U/S 154. IN VIEW THEREOF WE SEE NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A) WHICH IS UPHELD. REVENUES APPEALS ARE DISMISSED. 7. IN THE RESULT, APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE AND THAT OF REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 13-09-2013. SD/- SD/- ( B.C. MEENA ) ( R.P. TOLANI ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 13 TH SEPT. 2013. MP COPY TO : 1. ASSESSEE 2. AO 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR