Opus Reality Development Ltd., Delhi V. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 225/DEL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7610 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 4 month(s) 30 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-06-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Next Hearing Date: 21-04-2016
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 10-01-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P DAM KANUNJNA
• Keywords: Capital asset; Rectification of order
• Section: 143(3); 14A

Judgement Text

1 ITA NO. 225/DEL/2014 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: E NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G. D. AGRAWAL, VICE P RESIDENT AND SMT SUCHITRA KAMBLE , JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A .NO.-225/DEL/2014 (ASSESSM ENT YEAR-2009-10) OPUS REALITY DEVELOPMENT LTD. 404, ROOTS TOWER, DISTRICT CENTRE, LAXMI NAGAR DELHI AAACO9775H (APPELLANT) VS ACIT CIRCLE-13(1) NEW DELHI (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SH. VINAY KUMAR, CA RESPONDENT BY SH. P. DAM. KANUNJNA, SR. DR ORDER PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JM THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE OR DER DATED 10/10/2013 PASSED BY CIT(A)-XVI, NEW DELHI. 2. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE AS UNDER:- 1. THE LEARNED ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME T AX, CIRCLE 13(1), NEW DELHI HAS ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON FACTS OF THE CASE WHILE ALLOWING THE ADJUSTMENT OF BUSINESS LOSS AGAINST THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS O NLY, DATE OF HEARING 21.04.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 09.06.2016 2 ITA NO. 225/DEL/2014 AS AGAINST THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY F OR ADJUSTMENT OF BUSINESS LOSS FIRST AGAINST THE INTER EST INCOME AND THEN AGAINST THE LONG TERM CAPITAL, THER EBY LEAVING ONLY LTGC TO BE TAXED AT 20% AS APPLICABLE ON IT. 2. IT IS PRAYED THAT THE AFORESAID ADJUSTMENT SO MA DE IN THE RECTIFICATION ORDER BE REVISED AS PER APPLICABLE LA W AND THE EXCESS TAX LIABILITY OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY BE DEL ETED. 3. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS IN THE BUSINESS OF PROPE RTY DEVELOPMENT AND SHARE TRADING, BESIDE THIS ASSESSEE COMPANY ALSO EARNED INTEREST INCOME UNDER THE INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING RS. 1,12, 19,604/-. THE ASSESSEE DECLARED LOSS FROM BUSINESS AMOUNTING TO R S. 70,32,63,487/-, INCOME FROM LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS OF RS. 70,43,33,287/- AND INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES IN THE FORM OF INTEREST RECEIVED ON FDR OF RS. 1,01,49804/- IN HIS RETURN OF INCOME. ASSESSMENT IN THIS CASE FOR THE A.Y. 2009-2 010 WAS MADE ON 15.12.2011 U/S 143(3) OF ACT AT TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 2,20,27,670/- AFTER MAKING DISALLOWANCE U/S. 14A FO R RS. 7,68,500/- AND DISALLOWANCE OF PROFESSIONAL FEE FOR RS. 1,00,39,564/-. 4. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THAT BUSINESS LOSS HA S TO BE SET OFF AGAINST LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN FIRST AND THE REMAIN ING LOSS, IF ANY, CAN THEN BE SET OFF AGAINST INTEREST INCOME. THUS I NCOME COMPUTED AND ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER SET OFF OF BUSINESS LOS S AGAINST LTCG, THE HELD THAT NET RESULT REMAINS IS LONG TERM CAPIT AL GAINS OF RS. 1,18,77,864/- WHICH HAS TO BE TAXED @20% PLUS APPLI CABLE 3 ITA NO. 225/DEL/2014 SURCHARGE AND EDUCATION CESS AND THE INTEREST INCOM E OF RS. 1,01,49,804/- IS TO BE TAXED AT NORMAL RATE. 5. THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) ON T HE GROUND THAT AO ERRED WHILE ALLOWING THE ADJUSTMENT OF BUSINESS LOSS AGAINST THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS ONLY, AS AGAINST THE CONTEN TION OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY FOR ADJUSTMENT OF BUSINESS LOSS FI RST AGAINST THE INTEREST INCOME AND THEN AGAINST THE LONG TERM CAPI TAL, THEREBY LEAVING ONLY LTGC TO BE TAXED AT 20% AS APPLICABLE ON IT. THE CIT (A) HELD THAT THE AO IS JUSTIFIED IN ALLOWING THE S ET OFF OF BUSINESS LOSS AGAINST LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN FIRST AND THE R EMAINING LOSS, IF ANY, AGAINST INTEREST INCOME. 6. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT IN VIEW OF SECTION 71 OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO SET OFF OF BUSINESS LOSS AG AINST ITS LONG-TERM CAPITAL GAINS AND AS THE ASSESSEE CARRIED ON BUSINE SS DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION IT WAS ENTITLED TO THE SET OFF OF THE BUSINESS LOSS AGAINST ITS OTHER INCOME. THE LD. A R FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE BUSINESS LOSS SHOULD HAVE BEEN A DJUSTED FIRST, BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 7. THE LD. DR RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) AND ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S 153(3) AS WELL AS RECTIFICATIO N ORDER U/S 154. 8. WE HAVE PERUSED ALL THE RECORDS AND HEARD BOTH T HE PARTIES. SECTION 71(2) MAKES IT CLEAR THAT IN RESPECT OF ANY ASSESSMENT YEAR, WHEN THE NET RESULT OF THE COMPUTATION UNDER ANY HE AD OF INCOME, OTHER THAN CAPITAL GAINS, IS A LOSS AND THE ASSES SEES INCOME IS 4 ITA NO. 225/DEL/2014 ASSESSABLE UNDER THE HEAD CAPITAL GAINS, THE ASSE SSEE WOULD BE ENTITLED TO THE SET OFF SUCH LOSS AGAINST HIS INCOM E, ASSESSABLE FOR THAT ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER ANY OTHER HEAD INCLUDING INCOME ASSESSABLE UNDER THE HEAD CAPITAL GAINS. THE SECTI ON DOES NOT STATES THAT THE BUSINESS LOSS HAS TO BE ADJUSTED FI RST WITH PARTICULAR HEAD OF INCOME. IN RESPECT OF ANY ASSESSMENT YEAR, WHEN THE NET RESULT OF THE COMPUTATION UNDER ANY HEAD OF INCOME, OTHER THAN CAPITAL GAINS, IS A LOSS AND THE ASSESSEES INCOM E IS ASSESSABLE UNDER THE HEAD CAPITAL GAINS, THE ASSESSEE WOULD BE ENTITLED TO SET OFF SUCH LOSS AGAINST HIS INCOME WHICH IS ASSESSABL E FOR THAT ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER ANY OTHER HEAD INCLUDING INCO ME ASSESSABLE UNDER THE HEAD CAPITAL GAINS. THE LD. AR RELIED U PON THE ORDER OF THE ITAT, PUNE BENCH IN CASE OF COATED FABRICS (P.) LTD. VS. JCIT (2006) 101 ITD 297 (PUNE) BEFORE THE CIT (A) SUBMIT TING THAT THE SAID ORDER IS SQUARELY COVERING THE ISSUE BEFORE HA ND. THE ITAT HELD AS UNDER: 2. WE HAVE LOOKED INTO THE LEGAL ASPECT OF THIS ISS UE AND HAVE FOUND THAT AS FAR AS THE LANGUAGE OF SECTION 71(2) IS CONCERNE D, THERE IS NO SEQUENCE PRESCRIBED FOR SET OFF OF LOSS UNDER A PARTICULAR H EAD OF INCOME. FOR READY REFERENCE, RELEVANT SECTION IS REPRODUCED BELOW: 71.(2) WHERE IN RESPECT OF ANY ASSESSMENT YEAR, THE NET RESULT OF THE COMPUTATION UNDER ANY HEAD OF INCOME, OTHER THAN 'C APITAL GAINS', IS A LOSS AND THE ASSESSEE HAS INCOME ASSESSABLE UNDER T HE HEAD 'CAPITAL GAINS', SUCH LOSS MAY, SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THIS CHAPTER, BE SET OFF AGAINST HIS INCOME, IF ANY, ASSESSABLE FOR THAT ASS ESSMENT YEAR UNDER ANY HEAD OF INCOME INCLUDING THE HEAD 'CAPITAL GAINS' ( WHETHER RELATING TO SHORT-TERM CAPITAL ASSETS OR ANY OTHER CAPITAL ASSE TS). 5 ITA NO. 225/DEL/2014 AS THE HEADING OF THE SECTION INDICATES I E., 'SET OFF OF LOSS FROM ONE HEAD AGAINST INCOME FROM ANOTHER', THE OPTION IS LEFT OP EN AS FAR AS SUB-SECTION (2) IS CONCERNED. CONTRARY TO THIS, THE HEADING OF SECTION 70 IS RESTRICTIVE IN NATURE I.E., 'SET OFF OF LOSS FROM ONE SOURCE AGAIN ST INCOME FROM ANOTHER SOURCE UNDER THE SAME HEAD OF INCOME'. SO, THE FIRS T THING IS, IF THE LOSSES FROM ONE SOURCE CAN BE SET OFF AGAINST INCOME FROM ANOTHER SOURCE UNDER THE SAME HEAD OF INCOME FOR THE SAME ASSESSMENT YEA R, THE SET OFF IS TO BE MADE AS PRESCRIBED UNDER SECTION 70 OF INCOME-TAX ACT, IF, HOWEVER, SUCH LOSSES CANNOT BE SO SET OFF, THEN SECTION 71 COMES INTO OPERATION, WHICH PROVIDES FOR SET OFF OF LOSS AGAINST INCOME FOR THE SAME ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER ANY OTHER HEAD. HENCE, THE SET OFF AS PROVIDE D UNDER SECTION 70 APPEARS TO BE ITEMWISE OR SOURCEWISE WHEREAS THE S ET OFF OF THE LOSS UNDER SECTION 71 APPEARS TO BE HEADWISE. THIS IS THE BASIC PRINCIPL E LAID DOWN AS FAR AS SECTION 70 COMPARED WITH SECTION 71 IS CONCERNED. HOWEVER, AS FAR AS THE ISSUE IN HAND IS CONCERNED, WE ARE CONFINED TO SECTION 71 OF INCOME-LAX ACT. IF AT ALL, WE HAVE TO EXAMINE THE SEQUENCE, THEN THE GUIDING FACTOR IS INBUILT IN SECTION 71 ITSELF BECAUSE SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 71 SPECIFIES THAT IN RESPECT OF ANY ASSESSMENT YEAR, IF THE NET RESULT OF THE COMPUTATION UNDER ANY HEAD OF INC OME, OTHER THAN THE CAPITAL GAIN, IS A LOSS AND THE ASSESSEE HAS NO INC OME UNDER THE HEAD 'CAPITAL GAINS', HE SHALL BE ENTITLED TO HAVE THE A MOUNT OF SUCH LOSS SET OFF AGAINST HIS INCOME ASSESSABLE FOR THAT ASSESSMENT Y EAR UNDER ANY OTHER HEAD. SO, THE FIRST STEP IS THAT IN CASE ASSESSEE H AS NO INCOME UNDER THE HEAD 'CAPITAL GAINS', THEN A LOSS UNDER ANY HEAD OF INCOME IS SUBJECT TO SET OFF AGAINST INCOME UNDER ANY OTHER HEAD. NEXT COMES INTO OPERATION IS SUB- SECTION (2) WHICH IS APPLICABLE IN SUCH CASES WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAS INCOME ASSESSABLE UNDER THE HEAD 'CAPITAL GAINS'. I N THE PRESENT APPEAL, SUB-SECTION (2) IS APPLICABLE BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE HAS A POSITIVE INCOME UNDER THE HEAD 'CAPITAL GAINS'. ON CAREFUL READING OF SUB-SECTION (2) IT IS APPARENT THAT THERE IS NO SUCH RESTRICTION IMPOSED ON EXERCISING THE OPTION OF SETTING OFF OF BUSINESS LOSS AGAINST INCOME UNDE R ANY OTHER HEAD OTHER THAN INCOME UNDER THE HEAD 'CAPITAL GAINS'. THE EXP RESSION USED IN SUB- SECTION (2) SIMPLY ENABLES AN ASSESSEE TO SET OFF B USINESS LOSS UNDER ANY HEAD OF INCOME INCLUDING THE HEAD 'CAPITAL GAINS'. SO, IT APPEARS THAT THE LEGISLATURE HAS GIVEN A CHOICE TO A TAX PAYER IN RE SPECT OF LOSS ARISING FROM 6 ITA NO. 225/DEL/2014 ANY OTHER HEAD EXCEPT CAPITAL GAIN TO SET OFF THE S AME EITHER AGAINST THE INCOME UNDER ANY HEAD OF THE INCOME OR AGAINST THE INCOME UNDER THE HEAD 'CAPITAL GAINS' WHETHER RELATING TO SHORT-TERM CAPITAL ASSET OR ANY OTHER CAPITAL ASSET. IF WE FURTHER COMPARE ANOTHER SUB-SECTION OF SECTION 71 I.E., SUB-SECTION (3), IT IS EVIDENT THAT SIMILAR CHOICE WAS NOT MADE AVAILABLE TO AN ASSESSEE BECAUSE IN CASE THE NET RE SULT IS A LOSS UNDER THE HEAD 'CAPITAL GAINS', THE ASSESSEE SHALL NOT BE ENT ITLED TO HAVE SUCH LOSS SET OFF AGAINST INCOME UNDER THE OTHER HEAD. SUB-SE CTION (3) PROVIDES THAT, 'WHERE IN RESPECT OF ANY ASSESSMENT YEAR, THE NET R ESULT OF THE COMPUTATION UNDER THE HEAD 'CAPITAL GAINS' IS A LOS S AND THE ASSESSEE HAS INCOME ASSESSABLE UNDER ANY OTHER HEAD OF INCOME, T HE ASSESSEE SHALL NOT BE ENTITLED TO HAVE SUCH LOSS SET OFF AGAINST INCOM E UNDER THE OTHER HEAD'. SO, THE LEGISLATURE HAS MADE ITS INTENTION VERY MUC H CLEAR THAT WHEREVER A RESTRICTION WAS REQUIRED TO BE IMPOSED AGAINST SET OFF OF INCOME AGAINST A PARTICULAR HEAD OF INCOME, THE SAME WAS PRESCRIBED UNDER THE STATUTE. AS FAR AS APPLICATION OF SUB-SECTION (2) IS CONCERNED, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT AN ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO THE SET OFF OF BUSINESS LOSS AGAINST ANY HEAD OF INCOME AS ALSO AGAINST CAPITAL GAINS. 2.1 OUR VIEW IS FURTHER FORTIFIED BY AN OLD CIRCULA R NO. 26(LXXVI-3) [F.NO. 4(53)-IT)/54], DATED 7-7-1955 WHEREIN IT WAS PRESCR IBED HOW LOSS SUFFERED UNDER ONE HEAD COULD BE SET OFF AGAINST INCOME UNDE R ANY OTHER HEAD. THIS CIRCULAR WAS IN RESPECT OF OLD SECTION 24 OF 1922 ACT AND THE DIRECTIONS WERE THAT, QUOTE 'THE DEPARTMENT SHOULD ADOPT THAT MODE WHICH WILL GIVE ASSESSEE THE MAXIMUM BENEFIT' UNQUOTE, RELEVANT POR TION REPRODUCED: THERE IS NOTHING IN SECTION 24(1) TO INDICATE THAT A PARTICULAR MODE OF SET- OFF SHALL BE FOLLOWED. [IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY SUCH INDICATION, THE GENERAL RULE TO BE FOLLOWED IN ALL FISCAL ENACTMENTS IS THA T WHERE WORDS USED ARE NEUTRAL IN IMPORT, A CONSTRUCTION MOST BENEFICIAL T O THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE ADOPTED]. THE WORDS 'HE SHALL BE ENTITLED TO HAVE T HE AMOUNT OF LOSS SET- OFF' OCCURRING IN SECTION 24(1) , WOULD SEEM TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE CONFERMENT OF A BENEFIT ON THE ASSESSEE WHICH HE CA N CLAIM AS OF RIGHT. HENCE, IN THE ABOVE ILLUSTRATION, THE ASSESSEE'S CO NTENTION SHOULD PREVAIL 7 ITA NO. 225/DEL/2014 AND THE DEPARTMENT SHOULD ADOPT THAT MODE WHICH WIL L GIVE THE ASSESSEE THE MAXIMUM BENEFIT. 2.2 FURTHER, OUR VIEW IS STRENGTHENED BY A DECISION OF 1TAT BOMBAY BENCH IN THE CASE OF XYZ V. ITO [1982] 13 TTJ 93 WHEREIN THE SAID CIRCULAR NO. 26(LXXVI-3)[F.NO. 4(53)-IT/54] (SUPRA) WAS DULY CON SIDERED AND IT WAS FINALLY HELD THAT THE ABOVE CIRCULAR HAD GIVEN A CL UE THAT WHERE THERE IS AN AMBIGUITY IN THE MATTER OF SET OFF OF LOSS AGAINST INCOME UNDER VARIOUS HEADS, IT SHOULD BE DONE IN A MANNER WITHOUT DOING VIOLENCE TO THE LANGUAGE OF THE SECTION AND ALSO IN A MANNER WHICH GIVES MAXIMUM BENEFIT TO THE ASSESSEE. SO, IT WAS HELD BY THE TRI BUNAL THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD THE OPTION TO GET THE SHORT-TERM LOSS SET OFF E ITHER AGAINST THE CAPITAL GAIN OR AGAINST OTHER INCOME, SINCE THE ASSESSEE HA D CLAIMED SET OFF OF LOSS AGAINST INEOME UNDER THE OTHER HEAD; THE SAME WAS H ELD AS ACCEPTABLE. 2.3. HAVING REGARD TO THE PITH AND SUBSTANCE OF THE AFORE-CITED CIRCULAR FURTHER BUTTRESSED BY THE LANGUAGE OF SECTION 71(2) ITSELF AS ELABORATELY DISCUSSED HERE-IN-ABOVE, NO AMBIGUITY IS LEFT THAT THE OPTION IS AVAILABLE TO AN ASSESSEE FOR SET-OFF OF ANY HEAD OF LOSS AGAINST ANY HEAD OF INCOME INCLUDING THE CAPITAL GAIN ASSESSABLE FOR THAT ASSE SSMENT YEAR [ SECTION 71(2) ] OF INCOME-TAX ACT . HOWEVER, FOR THE SAKE OF COMPLETENESS, WE ALSO REFER THE DECISIONS IN THE CASES OF CIT V. PODAR CEMENT (P .) LTD. AND CIT V. VEGETABLE PRODUCTS LTD . AS CITED BY THE LEARNED A.R. ON THE PROPOSITION THAT INTERPRETATION OF A TAXING STATUTE SHOULD BE C ONSTRUED AS BENEFICIAL TO THE ASSESSEE. 3. TO SUM UP, WE HEREBY DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICE R TO FIRST SET OFF THE BUSINESS LOSS AGAINST THE INCOME UNDER THE HEAD 'OT HER SOURCES' AND IF BALANCE IS LEFT, THE SAME IS DIRECTED TO BE SET OFF AGAINST THE INCOME UNDER THE HEAD 'CAPITAL GAINS'. RESULTANTLY, THE GROUND R AISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS HEREBY ALLOWED. THE SAID ITAT DECISION IS APPLICABLE IN THE PRESENT CASE AS FACTS ARE SIMILAR IN BOTH THE MATTER AS RELATES TO WHETHER OP TION IS AVAILABLE TO AN ASSESSEE FOR SET OFF OF ANY HEAD OF LOSS AGAI NST ANY HEAD OF 8 ITA NO. 225/DEL/2014 INCOME INCLUDING CAPITAL GAIN ASSESSABLE FOR THAT A SSESSMENT YEAR. THE SAID QUESTION WAS ANSWERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASS ESSEE THEREIN. THE CIT(A) WHILE DISMISSING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSES SEE, MIS- INTERPRETED THE SAID ORDER OF THE APPELLATE TRIBUNA L WHICH IS BINDING ON THE CIT(A) AND HAS TO BE FOLLOWED BY THE CIT(A) BEING SUPERIOR APPELLATE AUTHORITY. THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SU PREME COURT IN THE CASE OF UOI VS. KAMLAKSHI FINANCE CORPORATION L TD (AIR 1992 SUPREME COURT 711, 712) 55 ELT 433 (S.C) RULED AS U NDER: IT CANNOT BE TOO VEHEMENTLY EMPHASIZED THAT IT IS OF U TMOST IMPORTANCE THAT, IN DISPOSING OF THE QUASI-JUDICIAL ISSUES BEF ORE THEM, REVENUE OFFICERS ARE BOUND BY THE DECISIONS OF APPELLATE AU THORITIES. THE ORDER OF THE APPELLATE COLLECTOR IS BINDING ON THE ASSIST ANT COLLECTORS WORKING WITHIN HIS JURISDICTION AND THE ORDER OF TH E TRIBUNAL IS BINDING UPON THE ASSISTANT COLLECTORS AND THE APPEL LATE COLLECTORS WHO FUNCTION UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF THE TRIBUNAL . THE PRINCIPLES OF JUDICIAL DISCIPLINE REQUIRE THAT THE ORDERS OF THE HIGHER APPELLATE AUTHORITIES SHOULD BE FOLLOWED UNRESERVEDLY BY THE SUBORDINATE AUTHORITIES. THE MERE FACT THAT THE ORDER OF THE AP PELLATE AUTHORITY IS NOT ACCEPTABLE TO THE DEPARTMENT IN ITSELF AN O BJECTIONABLE PHRASE AND IS THE SUBJECT MATTER OF AN APPEAL CAN FURNIS H NO GROUND FOR NOT FOLLOWING IT UNLESS ITS OPERATION HAS BEEN SUSPENDE D BY A COMPETENT COURT. IF THIS HEALTHY RULE IS NOT FOLLOWED, THE RE SULT WILL ONLY BE UNDUE HARASSMENT TO THE ASSESSEES AND CHAOS IN ADMINISTRA TION OF TAX LAWS . 9 ITA NO. 225/DEL/2014 9. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL IS ALLOWED. THE ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 09TH OF JUNE, 2016. SD/- SD/- (G. D. AGRAWAL) (SUC HITRA KAMBLE) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 09/06/2016 R. NAHEED * COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT R EGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI DATE 1. DRAFT DICTATED ON 21/04/2016 PS 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 22/04/2016 PS 3. DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER .2016 JM/AM 4. DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER. JM/AM 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS 09.06.2016 PS/PS 6. KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON PS 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK 0 9 .06.2016 PS 10 ITA NO. 225/DEL/2014 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.