DCIT, New Delhi V. M/s International cargo Carrier(P) Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 2151/DEL/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 134 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3746 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-06-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 06-06-2011
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 07-05-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MONA MOHANTY
• Assessee Lawyers: ARVIND SONDE
• Keywords: Depreciation; Double taxation relief; Reason to believe
• Section: 143(3); 194C; 147; 148; 139

Judgement Text

ITA NO. 2151/DEL/2010 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH C NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI I.P. BANSAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 2151/DEL/2010 A.Y. : 2000-01 DCIT, CIRCLE 11(1), N.D., CR BLDG., NEW DELHI-110002 VS. M/S INTERNATIONAL CARGO CARRIER (P) LTD., JET AIR HOUSE, 13, COMMUNITY CENTRE, YUSUF SARAI, NEW DELHI (PAN/GIR NO. : AAACI 0147B) (APPELLANT ) (APPELLANT ) (APPELLANT ) (APPELLANT ) (RESPONDENT ) (RESPONDENT ) (RESPONDENT ) (RESPONDENT ) ASSEESSEE BY : SH. ARVIND SONDE, ADV. DEPARTMENT BY : S MT. MONA MOHANTY, SR. D.R. ORDER ORDER ORDER ORDER PER SHAMIM YAHYA: AM PER SHAMIM YAHYA: AM PER SHAMIM YAHYA: AM PER SHAMIM YAHYA: AM THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST TH E ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) DATED 19.2.2 010 PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01. 2. ALTHOUGH THIS APPEAL IS BY THE REVENUE, BUT LD . AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED AN OBJEC TION BY STATING THAT REOPENING WAS BAD IN LAW. 3. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORDS. WE FIND THAT THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER IN THIS CAS E WAS PASSED U/S 143(3) OF THE IT ACT VIDE ORDER DATED 23.12.2002. NOTICE PERTAINING TO ITA NO. 2151/DEL/2010 2 REOPENING WAS ISSUED ON 30.7.2007. THE REASONS RE CORDED FOR REOPENING WERE AS UNDER:- THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED RETURN OF INCOME ON 30.11.2 000 DECLARING NIL INCOME AFTER SETTING OFF CURRENT YEARS INCOME OF ` 16,93,629/- WITH BROUGHT FORWARD LOSSES UNDER NORMAL PROVISIONS OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT) AND ` 3,95,626/- U/S 115JA OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSMENT U/ S 143(3) OF THE ACT WAS COMPLETED ON 23.12.2002 AT THE RETURN ED INCOME U/S. 115JA AND AT ` 17,43,629/- WHICH WAS SE T OFF AGAINST BROUGHT FORWARD LOSSES UNDER NORMAL PROVIS IONS OF THE ACT. EXAMINATION OF RECORDS REVEALS THAT A CLAI M OF ` 11,71,573/- HAS BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOU NT OF TDS. THE RECEIPTS ON WHICH THE TDS HAS BEEN CLAIMED INCLUDES INTEREST INCOME OF ` 46,97,730/- AND COMMIS SION INCOME OF ` 65,32,222/- WHEREAS THE ASSESSEE HAS SH OWN INCOMES IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT UNDER THESE HEAD OF ` 45.07 LACS AND ` 55.40 LACS RESPECTIVELY. A PERUSAL OF TDS CERTIFICATES REVEALS THAT THE DATE S OF PAYMENT /CREDIT FALLS WITHIN THE FINANCIAL YEAR 1999 -2000 I.E. RELEVANT TO A.Y. 2000-01. THUS, TOTAL RECEIPTS ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST AND COMMISSION SHOULD HAVE BEEN TAKEN AT ` ITA NO. 2151/DEL/2010 3 46,97,730/- AND ` 65,32,222/- INSTEAD OF ` 45.07 LA KHS AND ` 55.40 LAKHS RESPECTIVELY. I, THEREFORE, HAVE REASO NS TO BELIEVE THAT A SUM OF ` 11,82,952/- BEING THE DIFFER ENCE OF ` 1,12,29,952/- (46,97,730 + 65,32,222) AND ` 1,00,47 ,000/- (45,07,000 + 55,40,000) HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT WITH IN THE MEANING OF SECTION 147 EXPLANATION 2(C) OF THE A CT. 3.1 IT IS A CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT ALL THE NECE SSARY PARTICULARS WERE DULY DISCLOSED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. REASSESSMENT HAS BEEN MADE AFTER 4 YEARS FROM THE END OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR AND THERE IS NO FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO DISCLOSE FULLY AND TRULY ALL MATERIAL FACTS NECESSARY FOR THE ASSESSMEN T IN THIS REGARD. WE CAN GAINFULLY REFER HERE THE PROVISION OF SECTION 1 47 WHICH READ AS UNDER:- INCOME ESCAPING ASSESSMENT - 147. IF THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS REASON TO BELIEVE THAT ANY INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT FOR ANY ASSESSMENT YEAR, HE MAY, SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIONS 148 TO 153, ASSESS OR REASSE SS SUCH INCOME AND ALSO ANY OTHER INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX WHICH HAS E SCAPED ASSESSMENT AND WHICH COMES TO HIS NOTICE SUBSEQUENT LY IN THE COURSE OF THE PROCEEDINGS UNDER THIS SECTION, OR RECOMPUTE THE LOSS OR THE DEPRECIATION ALLOWANCE OR ANY OTHER ALLOWANCE, AS T HE CASE MAY BE, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR CONCERNED (HEREAFTER IN THI S SECTION AND IN SECTIONS 148 TO 153 REFERRED TO AS THE RELEVANT ASS ESSMENT YEAR). PROVIDED THAT WHERE AN ASSESSMENT UNDER SUB-SECTION (3) OF SECTION 143 OR THIS SECTION HAS BEEN MADE FOR THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR, NO ACTION SHALL BE TAKEN UNDER THIS SECTION AFTER T HE EXPIRY OF FOUR YEAR FROM THE END OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR, UNLESS ANY INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT FOR SUCH ASSESSMENT YEAR ITA NO. 2151/DEL/2010 4 BY REASON OF THE FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSE E TO MAKE A RETURN UNDER SECTION 139 OR IN RESPONSE TO A NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SUB- SECTION(1) OF SECTION 142 OR SECTION 148 OR TO DISC LOSE FULLY AND TRULY ALL MATERIAL FACTS NECESSARY FOR HIS ASSESSMENT, FO R THAT ASSESSMENT YEAR.' 3.2 WE FIND THAT IN THE REASONS FOR REOPENING ITSEL F, ASSESSING OFFICER HAS STATED THAT HE HAS FOUND SOME SHORTCOMINGS ON TH E PERUSAL OF TDS CERTIFICATES AND DETAILS WHICH WAS DULY DISCLOSED W ITH THE RETURN OF INCOME. HENCE, IT CAN BE SAID THAT THERE IS NO FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO DISCLOSE FULLY AND TRULY ALL MATERIA L FACTS NECESSARY FOR THE ASSESSMENT. HENCE REOPENING AFTER 4 YEARS FROM THE END OF RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR IS HIT BY THE PROVISO TO S ECTION 147. THERE IS ALSO NO ALLEGATION THAT THERE WAS ANY CONCEALMENT O F MATERIAL FACTS. THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER CANNOT BE SUST AINED. HENCE, WE HOLD THAT REOPENING WAS BAD IN THIS CASE AND HENCE, THE REASSESSMENT IS LIABLE TO BE QUASHED ON THIS ACCOUNT ITSELF. HE NCE, THIS GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 4. REVENUES APPEAL IS ON MERITS OF THE ADDITION AS FOLLOWS:- 5. THE FIRST ISSUE RAISED IN THE REVENUES APPEAL R EADS AS UNDER:- ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN D ELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF ` 1,90,730/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENT BETWEEN THE AMOUNT OF INTEREST AS SHOWN IN THE P&L ACCOUNT AND AS PER TDS CERTIFICATES SUBMITTED. 6. ON THIS ISSUE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THE RECEIPTS ON WHICH TDS HAS BEEN CLAIMED INCLUDES INTEREST INCOME OF ` 4697730/- WHEREAS THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN INCOME UNDER THIS H EAD AT ` 45.07 ITA NO. 2151/DEL/2010 5 LAKHS. THUS, AS PER ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE AMOUNT OF INTEREST INCOME AS SHOWN IN THE P&L A /C AND AS SHOWN IN THE TDS CERTIFICATE A SUM OF ` 190730/- WAS LIAB LE FOR ADDITION. 7. UPON ASSESSEES APPEAL LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) CONSIDERED THE ISSUE ELABORATELY AND HELD AS UNDER:- I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT, THE FINDINGS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE FACTS ON RECORD. AS REGARD TO THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER THAT SINCE THE APPELLANT IS FOLLOWING THE MERCANTILE SYS TEM OF ACCOUNTING, THE INCOME ON WHICH TDS HAS BEEN CLAIME D MUST BE OFFERED FOR TAXATION, IS NOT THE CORRECT VIE W THAT SINCE THE APPELLANT IS FOLLOWING HAD CORRECTLY FOLL OWED THE MERCANTILE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING IN THE RELEVANT ASSE SSMENT YEAR. AS PER THE MERCANTILE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING, INCOME AND EXPENSE ARE BOOKED AS AND WHEN THEY ACCRUE, I .E. REVENUES ARE RECOGNIZED AND EARNED WHEN THEY ARE RE ALIZED OR BECOME REALIZABLE IRRESPECTIVE OF WHEN THE CASH /FUNDS ARE RECEIVED. AS PER THIS SYSTEM, THE INTEREST INCOME ON FIXED DEPOSITS FOR A PARTICULAR FINANCIAL YEAR IS RE COGNIZED AND BOOKED AS AND WHEN IT ACCRUES, IRRESPECTIVE OF WHETHER THE SAME HAS BEEN PAID BY THE BANK OR NOT. ON TH E CONTRARY, THE BANKS HAD DEDUCTED TDS ON PAYMENT BASI S, I.E. TDS IS DEDUCTED WHEN THE INTEREST IS PAID/ PAY ABLE BY THE BANKS TO THE APPELLANT, IRRESPECTIVE OF THE FIN ANCIAL YEAR TO WHICH THE INTEREST BELONGS. THE INTEREST INCOME ON WHICH TDS HAS BEEN DEDUCTED BY THE BANKS INCLUDES INCOME OF THE PREVIOUS ASSESSM ENT ITA NO. 2151/DEL/2010 6 YEAR, WHICH WAS SHOWN BY THE APPELLANT AS INTEREST INCOME IN THAT YEAR, AS PER THE MERCANTILE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNT ING. FURTHER, NO TDS HAS BEEN DEDUCTED BY THE BANK ON THE ACCRUED INTEREST INCOME OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR WHICH HAS BEEN RECOGNIZED BY THE APPELLANT AS PER THE MERCANTILE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING. THE APPELLANT HAS SUBMITTED THE RECONCILIATION OF INTEREST INCOME AS PER THE TDS CERTIFICATE AND P&L A/C AS UNDER:- RECONCILIATION OF INTEREST INCOME AS PER TDS CERTIFIC ATE AND PROFIT AND LOSS A/C PARTICULARS AMOUNT REMARKS INTEREST INCOME AS PER TDS CERTIFICATES 4697730 AS PER THE TDS CERTIFICATES, INTEREST INCOME FROM BANKS IS ` 4676694/- AND FROM OTHER DEPOSITS IS ` 21036/-. LESS : INTEREST INCOME ON OTHER DEPOSITS AS PER TDS CERTIFICATES 21036 THE SAME WAS NETTED OFF WITH THE INTEREST EXPENSES PAYABLE BY THE APPELLANT. INTEREST INCOME FROM BANKS AS PER TDS CERTIFICATES 4676694 LESS : INTEREST INCOME ACCRUED BUT NOT DUE IN A.Y. 1999-2000 924124 TDS WAS DEDUCTED BY THE BANK IN A.Y. 2000- 01 BUT SINCE THE APPELLANT IS FOLLOWING MERCANTILE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING, THE SAME WAS+ ITA NO. 2151/DEL/2010 7 OFFERED FOR TAX IN A.Y. 1999-00. ADD : INTEREST INCOME ACCRUED BUT NOT DUE IN A.Y. 2000-01 570589 NO TDS WAS DEDUCTED BY THE BANK IN A.Y. 2000- 01 BUT SINCE THE APPELLANT IS FOLLOWING MERCANTILE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING, THE SAME WAS OFFERED FOR TAX IN A.Y. 2000-01. INTEREST INCOME FROM BANKS AS PER TDS CERTIFICATES ON THE BASIS FOR MERCANTILE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING 4323159 INTEREST INCOME FROM BANKS AS PER PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT 4337000 ADD: INTEREST INCOME FROM OTHER DEPOSITS AS PER PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT 170000 TOTAL INTEREST INCOME AS PER PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT 4507000 7.1 THE DETAILS OF THE RECONCILIATION SUBMITTED BY T HE APPELLANT SHOW THAT THE INTEREST INCOME HAS BEEN PROPERLY ACCOUNT ED FOR AS PER THE MERCANTILE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING FOLLOWED BY THE AP PELLANT. IN VIEW OF THE FINDINGS ABOVE THIS DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS FACTUALLY INCORRECT. THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A O IS DELETED. 8. AGAINST THIS ORDER THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFO RE US. 9. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORDS. WE FIND THAT LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS ) HAS DELETED THE ADDITION BY CORRECTLY APPRECIATING THE RECONC ILIATION IN THIS REGARD. ITA NO. 2151/DEL/2010 8 9.1 LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE COULD NOT CONT ROVERT THE SUBMISSIONS. 10. ACCORDINGLY, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AND UPHOLD THE SAME. 11. THE NEXT ISSUE RAISED IN THE REVENUES APPEAL R EADS AS UNDER:- ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND I N LAW, LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN DE LETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF ` 9,92,222/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE COMMISSION INCOME AS SHOWN IN THE P&L ACCOUNT AND AS PER TDS CERTIFICATES SUBMITT ED. 12. ON THIS ISSUE AS PER THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE TDS CERTIFICATES CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSEE HAS EARNED COMMI SSION INCOME OF ` 6532222/- DURING THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEA R WHEREAS AN AMOUNT OF ` 55,40,000/- WAS SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT AS COMMISSION INCOME. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS UNDERS TATED ITS COMMISSION INCOME OF ` 992222/- (` 6532222 MINUS ` 55 40000) BEING THE DIFFERENCE OF THE COMMISSION INCOME AS PER TDS CER TIFICATE AND AS PER THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT AND ADDED THE SAME TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 13. BEFORE THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS ) ASSESSEE SUBMITTED ELABORATELY, IT WAS CONTENDED THAT ASSE SSING OFFICER HAS NOT APPRECIATED THE PROPER FACTS OF THE CASE. AF TER DULY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION, LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEA LS) HELD AS UNDER:- ITA NO. 2151/DEL/2010 9 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT , THE FINDINGS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE FACTS ON RECORD. PERUSAL OF THE RECORD SHOW THAT THE TDS CERTIFICATE OF ` 138059/- W ERE CLAIMED IN RESPECT OF TDS DEDUCTED ON CONTRACTUAL RECEIPT U/ S 194C OF THE IT ACT, AND TDS CERTIFICATE OF ` 1033514/- WERE CLAIMED IN RESPECT OF TDS DEDUCTED ON INTEREST U/S 194A. THE A PPELLANT IS A GENERAL SALES AGENT FOR CARGO / FREIGHT OPERATION O F KUWAIT AIRWAYS. THE APPELLANT IN TURN HAS APPOINTED VARI OUS AGENTS ALL OVER THE COUNTRY FOR CARGO SALES AND THESE AGENTS D EAL WITH THE APPELLANT AND NOT WITH KUWAIT AIRLINES. THE ENTI RE CARGO SALES OF THE AIRLINES ARE ROUTED THROUGH THE APPELLANTS B ANK ACCOUNT. SINCE THE FOREIGN AIRLINE IS NOT TAXABLE IN INDIA B Y VIRTUE OF DTAA, HENCE, THE FOREIGN AIRLINE IS NOT LIABLE TO FILE TH E RETURN OF INCOME AND THEREFORE CANNOT CLAIM TDS. SINCE THE AGENTS ARE DEALING WITH THE APPELLANT WHO IS A GENERAL SALES AGENT AND NOT THE AIRLINES, THEREFORE, THE AGENTS DEDUCT TDS U/S 194C ON THE REMITTANCE MADE TO THE GENERAL SALES AGENT AND ISSUE THE TDS CERTIFICATE IN THE NAME OF THE GENERAL SALES AGENT. THE APPELLANT BEING THE GSA CLAIMED THE TDS IN ITS RETURN OF INCO ME. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS COMPARED THE COMMISSION INCOME E ARNED BY THE APPELLANT DURING THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEA R WITH THE CONTRACTUAL RECEIPT ON WHICH THE TDS WERE DEDUCTED U /S 194C AND SINCE THE CONTRACTUAL RECEIPT WAS MORE THAN THE COMMISSION INCOME OF THE APPELLANT BY ` 992222/-, THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER ADDED THE ABOVE TO THE APPELLANTS INCOME. THE ASSE SSING OFFICER HAS NOT APPRECIATED THE FACT THAT THE APPELLANT IS THE GSA AND SINCE THE ENTIRE SALES WHICH ARE ROUTED TO THE APPE LLANTS BANK ACCOUNT ARE REMITTED TO THE AIRLINES SO THEY WILL NO T BE REFLECTED ITA NO. 2151/DEL/2010 10 IN THE APPELLANTS P&L ACCOUNT. THUS THE CONTENTIO N OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT COMMISSION INCOME HAS BEEN U NDERSTATED ODES NOT HOLD GOODS. THE APPELLANT IS ENTITLED ON LY TO THE GSA COMMISSION ON THE SALES. IN VIEW OF THE DISCUSSI ON ABOVE THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF THE DIFFERENCE IN COMMISSION INCOME AS PER CONTRACTUAL R ECEIPT AND THE COMMISSION INCOME SHOWN IN THE P&L A/C IS NOT COR RECT. THE APPELLANT IS ENTITLED TO ONLY THE COMMISSION INCOME AN D NOT THE ENTIRE CONTRACTUAL RECEIPT. IN VIEW OF THE FINDING S ABOVE THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF ` 992222 /- ON ACCOUNT OF COMMISSION INCOME IS NOT CORRECT AND HENCE DELETED . 14. AGAINST THIS ORDER THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEF ORE US. 15. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORDS. WE AGREE WITH THE CONTENTION THAT ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT PROPERLY APPRECIATED THE FACTS ON THIS ISSUE. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS COMPARED THE COMMISSION INCOME EARNED BY THE APPEL LANT DURING THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR WITH THE CONTRACTUAL RECEIPT ON WHICH THE TDS WERE DEDUCTED U/S 194C AND SINCE THE CONTRAC TUAL RECEIPT WAS MORE THAN THE COMMISSION INCOME OF THE APPELLANT BY ` 992222/-, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ADDED THE ABOVE TO THE APPELLANT S INCOME. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT APPRECIATED THE FACT THA T THE APPELLANT IS THE GSA AND SINCE THE ENTIRE SALES WHICH ARE ROUTED TO THE APPELLANTS BANK ACCOUNT ARE REMITTED TO THE AIRLINES SO THEY WI LL NOT BE REFLECTED IN THE APPELLANTS P&L ACCOUNT. THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ITA NO. 2151/DEL/2010 11 (APPEALS) HAS PROPERLY APPRECIATED THE ISSUE AND MAD E AN APPROPRIATE ORDER. HENCE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE OR DER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AND HENCE, WE U PHOLD THE SAME. 16. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE STANDS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 10/6/2011. SD/- SD/- [ [[ [I.P. BANSAL I.P. BANSAL I.P. BANSAL I.P. BANSAL] ]] ] [SHAMIM [SHAMIM [SHAMIM [SHAMIM YAHYA] YAHYA] YAHYA] YAHYA] JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATE 10/6/2011 SRB COPY FORWARDED TO: COPY FORWARDED TO: COPY FORWARDED TO: COPY FORWARDED TO: - -- - 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, DELHI BENCHES