Universal Precision Screws, New Delhi V. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 2034/DEL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 86519 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 8 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-01-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: H
• Next Hearing Date: 05-01-2015
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 08-04-2013
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: J P CHANDRAKAR
• Assessee Lawyers: V MOHAN C AS
• Keywords: Business income; Revised return
• Section: 43B; 80HHC; 10B; 10

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES : H : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, AM AND SHRI A.T. VARKEY, JM ITA NO.2034/DEL/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 UNIVERSAL PRECISION SCREWS, 146, NEW CYCLE MARKET, JHANDEWALAN EXTN., NEW DELHI. PAN: AABFU6927B VS. ACIT, RANGE-39, NEW DELHI. ( APPELLANT ) ( RESPONDENT ) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI V ED JAIN, & SHRI V. MOHAN, CAS DEPARTMENT BY : S HRI J.P. CHANDRAKAR, SR.DR ORDER PER R.S. SYAL, AM: THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE ARISES OUT OF THE ORDE R PASSED BY THE CIT(A) ON 28.02.2013 IN RELATION TO THE ASSE SSMENT YEAR 2009-10. 2. THE FIRST ISSUE TAKEN UP BY THE LD. AR IS AGAINS T NOT CONSIDERING FOREIGN EXCHANGE DIFFERENCE AS PART OF EXPORT TURNOVER AND TOTAL TURNOVER. BRIEFLY STATED, THE F ACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S 10B BY, INTER ALIA , ITA NO.2034/DEL/2013 2 CONSIDERING FOREIGN EXCHANGE RATE DIFFERENCE OF `32 ,35,700/- AS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION. THE AO, GOING BY THE PHRAS EOLOGY USED IN SECTION 10B(1) BEING, PROFITS AND GAINS AS ARE DER IVED BY AN ELIGIBLE UNDERTAKING FROM EXPORT OF ELIGIBLE ARTICL ES, CAME TO HOLD THAT THE FOREIGN EXCHANGE DIFFERENCE COULD NOT BE I NCLUDED IN THE ELIGIBLE AMOUNT. HE, THEREFORE, HELD THAT SUCH AMOU NT OF `32.35 LAC WAS LIABLE TO BE INCLUDED IN THE DOMESTIC SALES . THE LD. CIT(A) APPROVED THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE AO ON THIS POINT. 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. THERE IS NO DISPUTE O N THE FACT THAT THE FOREIGN EXCHANGE DIFFERENCE AROSE ON ACCOUNT OF TRANSACTIONS OF EXPORT CARRIED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YE AR. THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN CIT VS. GEM PLUS JEWELLERY INDIA LTD. (2011) 330 ITR 175 (BOM) HAS HELD THAT GAIN FROM FOREIGN EXCHANGE FLUCTUATION REALIZED WITHIN STIPULATED PER IOD FORMS PART OF THE SALE PROCEEDS AND IS DIRECTLY RELATED WITH T HE EXPORT ACTIVITIES AND SUCH GAIN SHOULD BE CONSIDERED AS IN COME DERIVED FROM EXPORT ACTIVITIES ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION UNDER S. 10A OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER ALSO CALLED THE ACT)IN THE YEAR ITA NO.2034/DEL/2013 3 IN WHICH EXPORT TOOK PLACE. THE SPECIAL BENCH OF TH E TRIBUNAL IN ACIT VS. PRAKASH I. SHAH (2008) 118 TTJ (MUMBAI) (S B) 577 HAS ALSO HELD THAT THE GAIN DUE TO FLUCTUATION IN THE F OREIGN EXCHANGE RATE EMANATING FROM EXPORT IS ITS INTEGRAL PART AND CANNOT BE DIFFERENTIATED FROM THE EXPORT PROCEEDS SIMPLY ON T HE GROUND THAT THE RATE HAS INCREASED SUBSEQUENT TO SALE BUT PRIOR TO REALIZATION. EVENTUALLY IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT THE FOREIGN EXCHAN GE FLUCTUATION GAIN IS PART OF EXPORT TURNOVER FOR PURPOSES OF SEC TION 80HHC OF THE ACT. SINCE THE CONNOTATION OF EXPORT TURNOVER UNDER SECTION 10B IS NO DIFFERENT FROM THAT U/SS 10A OR 80HHC OF THE ACT, THE MEANING ASCRIBED TO EXPORT TURNOVER IN SUCH DECISIO NS WILL APPLY WITH FULL VIGOUR IN THE CONTEXT OF SECTION 10B AS W ELL. WE, THEREFORE, HOLD THAT SUCH FOREIGN EXCHANGE FLUCTU ATION DIFFERENCE HAS TO BE CONSIDERED AS PART OF EXPORT TURNOVER. AS THE INSTANT FOREIGN EXCHANGE FLUCTUATION DIFFERENCE FORMS PART OF THE EXPORT TURNOVER, THE TOTAL TURNOVER, IN THE DENOMINATOR WI LL ALSO INCLUDE THE EFFECT OF FOREIGN EXCHANGE FLUCTUATION DIFFEREN CE. WE, THEREFORE, SUM UP BY HOLDING THAT THE AMOUNT OF FOR EIGN EXCHANGE FLUCTUATION DIFFERENCE SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN THE E XPORT TURNOVER ITA NO.2034/DEL/2013 4 AND TOTAL TURNOVER AND IT SHOULD BE EXCLUDED FROM THE DOMESTIC TURNOVER AS WAS DONE BY THE AO. 4. THE SECOND ISSUE TAKEN UP BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGA INST THE TREATMENT OF SCRAP SALE AS DOMESTIC SALE. THE AO, WHILE COMPUTING DEDUCTION U/S 10B, CONSIDERED SCRAP SALE AMOUNTING TO `31,84,869/- AS PART OF DOMESTIC TURNOVER. THE LD. CIT(A) APPROVED THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE AO ON THIS POINT. 5. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERU SING THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT THIS ISSU E IS NO MORE RES INTEGRA IN VIEW OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COU RT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. PUNJAB STAINLESS STEEL INDUSTRIES (2014) 36 4 ITR 144 (SC), IN WHICH IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT THE SALE OF SCRAP IS NOT INCLUDIBLE IN THE TOTAL TURNOVER. WHILE DEAL ING WITH THE COMPUTATION OF DEDUCTION U/S 80HHC, THE HONBLE SUP REME COURT HELD THAT THE SALE OF SCRAP CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS PART OF TOTAL TURNOVER IN THE CASE OF AN ASSESSEE WHO IS NOT ENGA GED IN THE BUSINESS OF SCRAP. THE RATIO DECIDENDI OF THIS DECISION WILL APPLY WITH FULL FORCE HERE ALSO TO THE TREATMENT OF SCRAP SALES IN THE CONTEXT OF SECTION 10B OF THE ACT. AS THE ASSESSEE IN QUESTION IS ITA NO.2034/DEL/2013 5 ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING AND EXPORT OF FASTENERS, THE AMOUNT OF SALE OF SCRAP CANNOT BE IN CLUDED IN THE TOTAL TURNOVER OR DOMESTIC TURNOVER. RATHER, I T WOULD GO TO REDUCE THE COST OF PRODUCTION. WE, THEREFORE, SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER ON THIS ISSUE. 6. THE NEXT GROUND IS AGAINST THE TREATMENT OF INTE REST INCOME AS INELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 10B OF THE ACT. TH E ASSESSEE RECEIVED INTEREST ON FDRS AMOUNTING TO `16,01,196/- . ON BEING CALLED UPON TO EXPLAIN AS TO HOW THIS AMOUNT WAS EL IGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 10B, THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT THE INT EREST ON FDR WAS RECEIVED ON MARGIN KEPT IN THE BANK FOR UTILIZATION OF LETTER OF CREDIT (L/C) AND BANK GUARANTEE LIMITS FROM BANK . UNCONVINCED WITH THE ASSESSEES SUBMISSIONS, THE AO TREATED SUCH INTEREST AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES AND DID NOT ALLOW DEDUCTION U/S 10B ON IT. THE LD. CIT(A) ECHOED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ON THIS POINT. 7. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERU SING THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT THE AO HE LD INTEREST INCOME AS INELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10 B(1) AS IT WAS ITA NO.2034/DEL/2013 6 NOT DERIVED FROM THE ELIGIBLE BUSINESS. THE VIEW POINT OF THE AO WOULD HAVE BEEN CORRECT IF THERE HAD BEEN NO FURTHE R ELABORATION OF THE EXPRESSION SUCH PROFITS AND GAINS AS ARE D ERIVED BY A HUNDRED PER CENT EXPORT ORIENTED UNDERTAKING FROM T HE EXPORT OF ARTICLES OR THINGS.. THE POSITION UNDER CONSID ERATION IS NOT AKIN TO SOME OF THE SECTIONS EMPLOYING THIS EXPRES SION WITHOUT ANY FURTHER AMPLIFICATION OF THE SAME. SUB-SECTION (4) OF SECTION 10B GIVES MEANING TO THE EXPRESSION PROFITS DERIVE D FROM EXPORT OF ARTICLES OR THINGS .. TO MEAN THE AMOUNT WH ICH BEARS TO THE PROFITS OF THE BUSINESS OF THE UNDERTAKING TH E SAME PROPORTION AS THE EXPORT TURNOVER IN RESPECT OF SUC H ARTICLES OR THINGS, ETC., BEARS TO THE TOTAL TURNOVER OF THE BU SINESS CARRIED ON BY THE UNDERTAKING. A BARE PERUSAL OF SUB-SECTION ( 4) IN JUXTAPOSITION TO SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 10B TRA NSPIRES THAT THE EXPRESSION DERIVED BY USED IN SUB-SECTION (1) CA NNOT BE CONSTRUED IN ITS LITERAL SENSE TO MEAN ENCOMPASSING ONLY SUCH ITEMS OF INCOME WHICH HAVE DIRECT OR IMMEDIATE NEXU S WITH THE ELIGIBLE UNDERTAKING. THE MEANING GIVEN TO THIS EX PRESSION IN SUB-SECTION (4) AS REFERRING TO THE PROFITS OF THE BUSINESS MAKES THE EXPRESSION MORE LIBERAL TO COVER ANY INCOME WHI CH IS ITA NO.2034/DEL/2013 7 CONNECTED WITH THE BUSINESS AND SHOULD NOT BE NEC ESSARILY DERIVED FROM THE INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING ALONE. T URNING TO THE NATURE OF PRESENT INTEREST INCOME, BEING ARISING FR OM FDRS OBTAINED FOR MARGIN MONEY FOR THE PURPOSES OF AVAIL ING CREDIT LIMITS FROM BANKS, IT BECOMES VIVID THAT SUCH INTER EST BEARS THE REQUISITE CHARACTERISTICS OF A BUSINESS INCOME. THE MUMBAI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN LIVINGSTONES JEWELLERY (P) LTD. VS. DCIT (2009) 31 SOT 323 (MUM) HAS HELD THAT INTEREST DERIVED BY AN EXPORTER FROM FIXED DEPOSITS MADE WITH THE BANK FOR OBTAINING CREDIT LIMITS IS ELIGIBLE FOR THE BENEFIT U/S 10A. SIMILAR VIEW HAS BEEN EXPRESSED IN ACIT VS. MOTOROLA INDIA ELECTRICALS (P) LTD. (2008) 114 ITD 387 (BANG.) BY HOLDING THAT THE INTEREST INCOME HAVING CLOSE NEXUS WITH THE BUSINESS ACTIVITY OF TH E ASSESSEE IS ASSESSABLE AS INCOME FROM BUSINESS AND, HENCE, ELIG IBLE FOR THE BENEFIT U/S 10A AND SECTION 10B. IN VIEW OF THE AB OVE DISCUSSION, WE HOLD THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION U/S10B OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF THE INTEREST INCOME EARNED ON FDR S MADE FOR THE PURPOSES OF KEEPING MARGIN MONEY OR FOR AVAILING AN Y OTHER CREDIT FACILITY FROM BANKS. ITA NO.2034/DEL/2013 8 8. THE IMPUGNED ORDER ON THE ISSUE OF DEDUCTION U/S 10B IS SET ASIDE AND THE MATTER IS SENT BACK TO THE AO FOR COM PUTING DEDUCTION U/S 10B AFRESH IN CONFORMITY WITH OUR ABO VE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS. 9. THE NEXT GROUND IS AGAINST NOT ALLOWING OF DEDUC TION OF `14,53,153/- ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST U/S 24(B) OF TH E ACT. BRIEFLY STATED, THE FACTS APROPOS THIS GROUND ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED INTEREST ON TERM LOAN AMOUNTING TO `14.53 L AC AS DEDUCTION U/S 24(B) OF THE ACT IN THE REVISED RETUR N OF INCOME. THE AO OBSERVED THAT NO SUCH DEDUCTION WAS CLAIMED IN THE EARLIER YEARS AND EVEN FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERA TION, IT WAS CLAIMED ONLY BY MEANS OF THE REVISED RETURN. HE AC CEPTED THE FACT AS CORRECT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD TAKEN LOAN FR OM BANK AND HAD UTILIZED THE LOAN FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS, BUT, REFUSED TO ALLOW DEDUCTION AS IT WAS NOT ABLE TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS CLAIM THAT PART OF THE LOAN WAS UTILIZED FOR THE PURPOSE OF CO NSTRUCTION OF LET OUT PROPERTY FROM WHICH RENTAL INCOME ASSESSABLE AS INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY WAS EARNED. THE ASSESSEES C LAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 24(B) WAS ACCORDINGLY JETTISONED, WHI CH ACTION CAME TO BE UPHELD IN THE FIRST APPEAL. ITA NO.2034/DEL/2013 9 10. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PER USING THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD, IT IS OBSERVED THAT SE CTION 24(B) TALKS OF ALLOWING DEDUCTION FOR THE INTEREST PAYABLE BY T HE ASSESSEE WHERE PROPERTY HAS BEEN ACQUIRED, CONSTRUCTED, REPA IRED, RENEWED OR RECONSTRUCTED WITH BORROWED CAPITAL. TH E ASSESSEE HAS ADMITTEDLY SHOWN SOME INCOME FROM LET OUT PROPE RTY UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY. ONCE SOME T ERM LOAN HAS BEEN TAKEN FOR ACQUIRING OR CONSTRUCTING, ETC., THE PROPERTY, WHICH FETCHED INCOME UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HO USE PROPERTY, THEN, INTEREST ON SUCH LOAN HAS TO BE AL LOWED AS DEDUCTION U/S 24(B) OF THE ACT. THE VIEW POINT OF THE ASSESSEE TO THIS EXTENT IS ERGO ACCEPTED IN PRINCIPLE. HOWEVER, WE ARE UNABLE TO CALCULATE SUCH AMOUNT OF INTEREST WITH PRECISION . UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS SET ASIDE ON T HIS SCORE AND THE MATTER IS SENT BACK TO THE AO FOR VERIFYING AND ASCERTAINING THE AMOUNT OF LOAN UTILIZED FOR THE BUILDING IN RES PECT OF WHICH RENTAL INCOME ASSESSABLE UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FRO M HOUSE PROPERTY WAS EARNED AND, ACCORDINGLY, ALLOWING DED UCTION TOWARDS SUCH INTEREST U/S 24(B) OF THE ACT. NEEDLE SS TO SAY, THE ITA NO.2034/DEL/2013 10 ASSESSEE WILL BE ALLOWED A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY O F BEING HEARD IN SUCH DETERMINATION. 11. THE NEXT GROUND IS AGAINST THE AD HOC DISALLOWANCE OF `1 LAC. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED DEDUCTION OF `5.47 LAC F OR TRAINING, `3.67 LAC FOR MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES; `1.62 LAC FOR SHORT/EXCESS AND `5.59 LAC FOR GARDEN MAINTENANCE. IN THE ABSEN CE OF THE ASSESEE PRODUCING SUFFICIENT EXTERNAL DETAILS EXCEP T FOR INTERNAL VOUCHERS, THE AO DISALLOWED A SUM OF `1 LAC ON AD HOC BASIS. THE LD. CIT(A) UPHELD THE IMPUGNED ORDER ON THIS SCORE. 12. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PER USING THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD, IT IS OBSERVED AS AN U NDISPUTED FACT THAT SOME OF THE EXPENSES INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE WERE BACKED ONLY BY THE INTERNAL VOUCHERS. THIS VIEW POINT OF T HE AO HAS NOT BEEN CONTROVERTED BY THE LD. AR. IT IS BUT NATURAL THAT IF SOME OF THE EXPENSES ARE NOT PROPERLY SUBSTANTIATED WITH EV IDENCE, THEN DISALLOWANCE TO THAT EXTENT IS CALLED FOR. CONSIDER ING THE TOTALITY OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES PREVAILING IN THIS CASE AND TAKING A HOLISTIC VIEW OF THE MATTER, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDER ED OPINION THAT ITA NO.2034/DEL/2013 11 THE ENDS OF JUSTICE WOULD MEET ADEQUATELY IF THE DI SALLOWANCE IS REDUCED TO `50,000/-. WE ORDER ACCORDINGLY. 13. THE NEXT GROUND IS AGAINST DISALLOWANCE OF `86, 400/- ON ACCOUNT OF FESTIVAL EXPENSES. THE AO MADE THE DISA LLOWANCE ON THE GROUND THAT THERE WAS NO NECESSITY AND FURTHER PROPER BILLS WERE NOT AVAILABLE. THE LD. CIT(A) UPHELD THE ASSE SSMENT ORDER. 14. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PER USING THE RELEVANT RECORD, WE FIND THAT THE ASPECT OF NECESSI TY CONSIDERED BY THE AO IS OF NO SUBSTANCE. THE AO CANNOT STEP IN TO THE SHOES OF THE BUSINESSMAN TO DECIDE AS TO WHETHER A PARTIC ULAR EXPENDITURE IS NECESSARY OR NOT. HE IS SUPPOSED TO CONFINE HIMSELF ONLY IN DETERMINING THE DEDUCTIBILITY OF THE EXPENS ES INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE AS PER LAW. COMING TO THE SECOND ASPEC T ABOUT THE NON-AVAILABILITY OF BILLS, WE FIND THAT PAGES 72 AN D 73 OF THE PAPER BOOK ARE TWO INVOICES FOR `66,000/- AND `20,400/- I N RESPECT OF 110 PIECES OF PRESSURE COOKERS AND 120 PIECES OF GI FT BAGS. IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT COMPLETE DETAILS IN RESPECT O F DIWALI EXPENSES ARE AVAILABLE AND FURTHER THERE IS NO OTHE RWISE DISABILITY ITA NO.2034/DEL/2013 12 ON SUCH DEDUCTION, WE FIND NO REASON TO MAKE OR SUS TAIN ANY DISALLOWANCE IN THIS REGARD. THIS GROUND IS ALLOWE D. 15. THE NEXT GROUND IS AGAINST THE AD HOC DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES @ 10% ON ACCOUNT OF PERSONAL NATURE. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED DEDUCTION FOR SEVERAL EXPENSES INCLUDING EN TERTAINMENT, CONVEYANCE AND TELEPHONE EXPENSES. CONSIDERING THE PERSONAL ELEMENT IN SUCH EXPENSES, THE AO DISALLOWED 10% AND ADDED THE SAME TO THE TOTAL INCOME. THE LD. CIT(A) AFFIRMED THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE AO. 16. HAVING HEARD BOTH THE SIDES ON THIS POINT AND P ERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REA SON TO DISTURB THE FINDING OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW IN MAKING AND SUSTAINING THE DISALLOWANCE @ 10% OF THESE EXPENSES TOWARDS PERSON AL USE. THIS DISALLOWANCE, BEING REASONABLE, IS UPHELD. 17. THE LAST GROUND IS AGAINST THE CONFIRMATION OF DISALLOWANCE OF `1,111/- TOWARDS PAYMENT OF CONTRIBUTION TO ESI. THE ASSESSEE LATE DEPOSITED THE EMPLOYEES SHARE OF ESI FOR THE MONTH OF JUNE, 2008. CONSIDERING THE PROVISION OF SECTION 43B REA D WITH SECTION ITA NO.2034/DEL/2013 13 2(24)(X) AND 36(I)(VA), THE AO MADE THE DISALLOWANC E, WHICH WAS UPHELD IN THE FIRST APPEAL. 18. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES ON THIS POINT AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. THERE IS NO DOUBT ON THE FACT THAT THE EMPLOYEES SHARE OF ESI RELATING TO THE MONTH O F JUNE, 2008 WAS DEPOSITED WITHIN THE YEAR THOUGH BEYOND THE DUE DATE UNDER THE RESPECTIVE ACT. THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIG H COURT IN CIT VS. AIMIL LTD. & OTHERS, 321 ITR 508 (DEL), HAS HELD THAT IF THE EMPLOYEES SHARE OF CONTRIBUTION IS PAID BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF FILING THE RETURN U/S 139(1) OF THE ACT, THEN, NO D ISALLOWANCE CAN BE MADE. IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING DECISION, WHICH IS SQUARELY APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE INSTANT CASE, WE HOL D THAT THE ASSESSEE DESERVES AND IS HEREBY ALLOWED RELIEF ON T HIS ISSUE. THIS GROUND IS ALLOWED. 19. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED. THE ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 07.01.201 5. SD/- SD/- [ A.T. VARKEY ] [ R.S. SYAL ] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED, 07 TH JANUARY, 2015. ITA NO.2034/DEL/2013 14 DK COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT AR, ITAT, NEW DELHI.