M/s. Shivalaya Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi V. Pr. CIT, New Delhi

ITA 2315/DEL/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5222 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 3 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-08-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 02-05-2017
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 20-04-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: NAVIN CHANDRA
• Keywords: Depreciation; Assessment record
• Section: 143(3); 32; 263

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH C : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI N.K. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.2315/DEL./2015 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11) M/S. SHIVALAYA CONSTRUCTION CO.PVT.LTD., VS. PR. CI T, DELHI-8, 9 10/3, IIIRD FLOOR, LAXMAN HOUSE, NEW DELHI. ASAF ALI ROAD, NEW DELHI 110 002. (PAN : AACCS2475A) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : S/SHRI R.S. SINGHVI & SATYAJIT GOEL, CA REVENUE BY : SHRI NAVIN CHANDRA, CIT DR DATE OF HEARING : 01.08.2017 DATE OF ORDER : 16.08.2017 O R D E R PER KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER : APPELLANT, M/S. SHIVALAYA CONSTRUCTION CO. PVT. LT D. (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ASSESSEE), BY FIL ING THE PRESENT APPEAL SOUGHT TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 30.03.2015 PASSED BY THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, DELHI -8, NEW DELHI, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 ON THE GROUN DS INTER ALIA THAT :- ITA NO.2315/DEL./2015 2 1(I). THAT THE ORDER U/S. 263 IS ILLEGAL, ARBITRAR Y AND WITHOUT JURISDICTION AS THE ISSUE OF CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION ON VEHICLES WAS DULY CONSIDERED AND ACCEPTED IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER. (II) THAT THE CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION WAS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LEGAL PRINCIPLES AND THERE IS NO GROUND OR BASIS TO DISPUTE THE CORRECTNESS OF THE CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION. (III) THAT THE CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION WAS IN RESPECT OF VEHICLES OWNED AND USED BY THE APPELLANT FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS AND MERELY BECAUSE THE VEHICLES WERE PURCHASED IN THE NAME OF DIRECTORS, THERE COULD BE NO PRESUMPTION THAT SAME WERE NOT USED FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS. 2. THAT ORDER U/S. 263 IS ILLEGAL, ARBITRARY AND SAME IS NOT SUSTAINABLE ON FACTS AND UNDER THE LAW. 2. BRIEFLY STATED THE FACTS NECESSARY FOR ADJUDICAT ION OF THE CONTROVERSY AT HAND ARE : ASSESSMENT IN THIS CASE W AS COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 143 (3) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 ( FOR SHORT THE ACT) AT RS.6,00,48,757/- AS AGAINST THE RETURNED I NCOME OF RS.5,95,60,830/-. CIT FINDING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ERRONEOUS INVOKED THE PROVISIONS CONTAINED U/S 263 OF THE ACT AND THEREBY ISSUED THE NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE THAT THE AO SHOUL D HAVE DISALLOWED THE DEPRECIATION CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR PURCHASING ITA NO.2315/DEL./2015 3 CARS / VEHICLES COSTING RS.65,76,687/- AS ALL THE V EHICLES HAVE BEEN PURCHASED IN THE INDIVIDUAL NAMES OF THE DIRECTORS OF THE COMPANY. CIT, BEING DIS-SATISFIED WITH THE EXPLANA TION RENDERED BY THE ASSESSEE, CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE AO HAS PASSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WITHOUT APPLYING HIS MIND AND HELD THE SAME TO BE ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE AND DIRECTED THE AO TO PASS FRESH ORDER IN ACCORDANCE W ITH LAW. 3. FEELING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE HAS COME UP BEFO RE THE TRIBUNAL BY WAY OF CHALLENGING THE IMPUGNED ORDER P ASSED BY LD. CIT. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PARTIES TO THE APPEAL, GONE THROUGH THE DOCUMENTS R ELIED UPON AND ORDERS PASSED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES BELOW IN T HE LIGHT OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 5. BEFORE PROCEEDING FURTHER, THE NOTICE ISSUED BY LD. CIT U/S 263 OF THE ACT IN ORDER TO REVIEW THE ASSESSMENT OR DER PASSED BY THE AO U/S 143 (3) IS REPRODUCED FOR READY PERUSAL AS UNDER :- NO.PR.CIT-8/SHOW CAUSE U/S 263/2014-15/813 DATED 0 2.03.2015 TO THE PRINCIPAL OFFICER, M/S. SHIVALAYA CONSTRUCTION CO. PVT. LTD., PLOT NO.51, POCKET C-8, SECTOR 17, DWARKA, NEW DELHI 110 045. SIR/MADAM, ITA NO.2315/DEL./2015 4 SUBJECT : SHOW CAUSE NOTICE U/S 263 OF INCOME TAX A CT, 1961 IN THE CASE OF M/S. SHIVALAYA CONSTRUCTION CO. PVT. LT D. FOR AY 2010-11 REGARDING. THE EXAMINATION OF THE ASSESSMENT RECORD OF YOUR CA SE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 REVEALS THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT PASSED ON 07.05.20 12 BY THE DCIT, CIRCLE 23 (1), NEW DELHI IS ERRONEOUS AS WELL AS PR EJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS :- PERUSAL OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER REVEALS THAT THE AS SESSING OFFICER COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) BY MAKING AN AD -HOC ADDITION OF RS.4,87,927/- WHEREIN 10% OF THE EXPENSES UNDER THE HEAD OF ADMINISTRATIVE AND SELLING EXPENSES WERE DISALLOWED ON AD-HOC BASIS. HOWEVER, DURING THE YEAR, THE ASSESSEE HAD PURCHASED CARS/VEHICLES COSTING RS.65,76,687/-. THE PERUSAL OF THE PURCHASE BILLS SHOWS THAT ALL THESE VEHICLES HAVE BEEN PURCH ASED IN THE INDIVIDUAL NAMES OF THE DIRECTORS OF THE ASSESSEE C OMPANY. THE VEHICLE WISE DETAILS ARE SUMMARIZED IN THE TABLE AS UNDER :- S.NO. NAME OF BUYER DATE OF PURCHASE MODE OF VEHICLE AMOUNT PAID (IN RS.) 1 MR. SHRIPAL AGGARWAL 09.03.2010 MAHINDRA BOLERO CAMPER E- IIWD 4,94,430/- 2 MR. SHRIPAL AGGARWAL 02.05.2009 MAHINDRA BOLERO LX BS2 75 TR 5,30,000/- 3 MR. SHRIPAL AGGARWAL 02.06.2009 MAHINDRA BOLERO CAMPER GOLD 5,30,000/- 4 MR. SHRIPAL AGGARWAL 14.04.2009 MAHINDRA BOLERO SLE BS - 3 5,40,000/- 5 MR. PARDEEP NANDAL 01.02.2010 MAHINDRA BOLERO SLX E- II 2WD 6,07,950/- 6 MR. SHRIPAL AGGARWAL 28.01.2010 TOYOTA INNOVA 2.5 11,50,595/- 7 MR. SHRIPAL AGGARWAL 27.07.2009 MAHINDRA SC - RF HWK 8,33,000/- 8 MR. SHRIPAL AGGARWAL 12.01.2010 MARUTI SWIFT 5,03,712/- 9 MR. SHRIPAL AGGARWAL 02.06.2009 MAHINDRA MAXI TRUCK 3,20,000/- ITA NO.2315/DEL./2015 5 10 MR. SHRIPAL AGGARWAL 14.04.2009 MAHINDRA SCORPIO LX 7,30,000/- THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHOULD HAVE DISALLOWED THE DEPRECIATION CLAIM IN THIS REGARD SINCE THE ASSESSE E COMPANY WAS NOT ELIGIBLE TO CLAIM DEPRECIATION ON THE ABOVE ASSETS AS THE SAME ARE NOT OWNED BY IT. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS ERRONEOUS AS WELL AS PREJUDICI AL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE. YOU ARE THEREFORE PROVIDED WITH AN OPPORTUNITY TO FILE YOUR EXPLANATION ON THE ABOVE. YOUR CASE IS FIXED FOR HEARING ON 11.03.2015 AT 11 .30 AM IN MY ROOM NO.397, C.R. BUILDING, I.P. ESTATE, NEW DEL HI 110002. 6. LD. CIT PURSUANT TO THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE, REFER RED TO ABOVE, RETURNED THE FINDINGS AS TO THE ISSUE OF CLAIMING D EPRECIATION BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE VEHICLES ALLEGEDLY USED FOR BUSINES S PURPOSE, TO THE FOLLOWING EFFECT :- 5. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE CAREFULLY. THE ASSESSEE'S CONTENTION THAT THIS ISSUE HAS BEEN EXAMINED DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND BENEFICIAL OWNERSHIP AND USE OF THE CAR HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE AO AFTER INVESTIGATION, IS NOT BORNE OUT BY THE DOCUMENTS AND CORRESPONDENCE PLACED IN THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT RECORD. A PERUSAL OF THE RECORDS SHOW THAT APART FROM PLACING THE BILLS IN THE ASSESSMENT FOLDER, NO INQUIRY HAS BEEN DONE BY THE A.O. AS TO WHETHER THESE VEHICLES ON WHICH DEPRECIATION WAS CLAIMED WERE ACTUALLY USED FOR THE PURPOSES OF ASSESSEE'S BUSINESS. THE RECORDS ALSO INDICATE MOST OF THESE MODELS OF VEHICLES ARE SUVS AND THUS, ARE MORE LIKELY TO BE PUT TO PERSONAL USE RATHER THAN BEING USED IN CONSTRUCTION BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE. 6. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS REQUISITIONED THE COPY OF BILLS OF THE NEW ITA NO.2315/DEL./2015 6 ASSETS BY A LETTER DATED 17.01.2012 AND THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THE BILLS BY HIS LETTER DATE D 16.04.2012 AND THE ORDER U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT HAS BEEN SUBSEQUENTLY PASSED ON 07.05.2012. A BARE PERUSAL OF SECTION 32 INDICATES THAT IN RESPECT OF THE DEPRECIATION OF BUILDINGS, MACHINERY, PLANT OR FURNITURE BEING TANGIBLE ASSETS AND WITH WHICH WE ARE CONCERNED, THE DEDUCTION IN SUB SECTION (1) OF SECTION 32 SHALL BE ALLOWED PROVIDED THESE ASSETS ARE OWNED WHOLLY OR PARTLY BY THE ASSESSEE AND USED FOR THE PURPOSE OF HIS BUSINESS OR PROFESSION. THUS, IT IMPOSES REQUIREMENT OF 'OWNERSHIP' AND 'USAGE FOR BUSINESS' FOR A SUCCESSFUL CLAIM U/S 32 OF THE ACT. IN THE PRESENT CASE THE VEHICLES ARE REGISTERED IN THE NAME OF THE DIRECTORS, AND THUS, PRIMA FACIE, THE OWNERSHIP OF THESE VEHICLES ARE VESTED IN THE DIRECTORS. THEREFORE, BEFORE CONSIDERING THE ISSUE OF ANY DEPRECIATION ALLOWANCE ON THESE VEHICLES, THE AO WAS UNDER AN OBLIGATION TO CONDUCT THOROUGH INQUIRY REGARDING THE USAGE OF THESE VEHICLES TO ASCERTAIN WHETHER THESE VEHICLES WERE USED FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. AS IS APPARENT, THE AO HAS CONCLUDED THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WITHOUT MAKING ANY EXAMINATION OF THE CLAIMS OF THE ASSESSEE. AS STATED ABOVE, THERE IS PRIMA FACIE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT TAX WHICH WAS LAWFULLY EXIGIBLE HAS NOT BEEN IMPOSED AND THERE IS NO APPLICATION OF MIND BY THE AO BEFORE ALLOWING THE CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ORDER OF THE AO IS, THEREFORE, NOT ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. 7. UNDISPUTEDLY, THE ASSESSEE HAD PURCHASED VEHICLE S DURING THE YEAR UNDER ASSESSMENT TO THE TUNE OF RS.65,76,6 87/- IN THE INDIVIDUAL NAMES OF THE DIRECTORS OF THE ASSESSEE C OMPANY. LD. CIT INVOKED THE PROVISIONS CONTAINED U/S 263 ON THE GROUNDS INTER ITA NO.2315/DEL./2015 7 ALIA THAT EXCEPT TAKING ON ASSESSMENT RECORD THE BI LLS OF THE VEHICLES, NO INQUIRY HAS BEEN CONDUCTED BY AO TO WO RK OUT IF THE VEHICLES IN QUESTION WERE ACTUALLY USED FOR THE PUR POSE OF ASSESSEES BUSINESS BEFORE ALLOWING DEPRECIATION; T HAT MOST OF THE VEHICLES IN QUESTION ARE SUVS AND ARE LIKELY TO BE PUT TO PERSONAL USE RATHER THAN BEING USED IN THE CONSTRUCTION BUSI NESS OF THE ASSESSEE; AND THAT THE DEPRECIATION ON TANGIBLE AS SETS CAN ONLY BE ALLOWED UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 32 OF THE ACT IF THE SAME ARE OWNED WHOLLY OR PARTLY BY THE ASSESSEE AND USED FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS. 8. NOW, COMING TO THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, UNDISPUTEDL Y THE BILLS OF THE VEHICLES, THOUGH IN THE NAMES OF THE DIRECTO RS OF THE COMPANY, ARE BROUGHT ON ASSESSMENT RECORD BY THE AS SESSEE. ASSESSEE IN REPLY TO THE NOTICE DATED 17.01.2012, A VAILABLE AT PAGES 24 TO 26 OF THE PAPER BOOK, ISSUED BY AO PLACED ON RECORD THE DETAILS OF THE FIXED ASSETS ALONG WITH COPIES OF BI LLS AND THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO BROUGHT ON RECORD DETAILS OF THE SECURED AND UNSECURED LOANS ALONG WITH CONFIRMATION FROM THE LE NDERS. 9. CLAUSE 18 & 19 OF NOTICE ISSUED BY AO AVAILABLE AT PAGES 24 TO 26 OF THE PAPER BOOK, APPARENTLY SHOWS THAT, THE AO HAD CALLED UPON THE DETAILS OF ADDITION OF FIXED ASSETS > 1000 00/- AND DELETION OF FIXED ASSETS > RS.50000. ALSO PRODUCE COPY OF T HE AFORESAID ITA NO.2315/DEL./2015 8 BILLS FOR VERIFICATION. ALSO GIVE DETAILS OF ASSET S PURCHASED / SOLD TO RELATED PARTIES. DETAILS OF DEPRECIATION AS PER IT ACT CLAIMED AND THE BASIS FOR THE RATE OF DEPRECIATION CLAIMED FOR VARIOUS ASSETS. 10. LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE DREW OUR ATTENTION TOWA RDS DOCUMENTS, AVAILABLE AT PAGES 49 TO 134 OF THE PAPE R BOOK, WHICH SHOW THAT ALL THE VEHICLES HAVE BEEN PURCHASED WITH LOANS SPECIFICALLY AVAILED IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE CO MPANY. IT IS ALSO SHOWN FROM THE DOCUMENTS AVAILABLE ON FILE THAT ALL THE VEHICLES HAVE BEEN PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY BY PASS ING RESOLUTION IN A BOARD MEETING OF THE DIRECTORS OF T HE ASSESSEE COMPANY. WHEN ALL THE VEHICLES HAVE BEEN PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY THOUGH REGISTERED IN THE NAMES OF THE DIRECTOR OF THE COMPANY, THE PRINCIPAL OF BENEFICIARY OWNER IS REQUIRED TO BE INVOKED. 11. FURTHERMORE, WHEN THE AO HAS ALLOWED THE INTERE ST CLAIMED AND EXPENSES INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY QUA V EHICLES IN QUESTION WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN QUESTIONED BY THE LD. CIT, THE QUESTION OF DISPUTING THE DEPRECIATION ALLOWED BY T HE AO DOES NOT ARISE. 12. SO FAR AS QUESTION OF USAGE OF THE VEHICLES IS CONCERNED, THE LD. CIT PROCEEDED MERELY ON CONJECTURES AND SURMISE S TO HOLD THAT MOST OF THE VEHICLES ARE SUVS AND ARE MORE LIKELY T O BE PUT TO ITA NO.2315/DEL./2015 9 PERSONAL USE. HOWEVER, WHEN WE PERUSE THE LIST OF THE VEHICLES PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY REPRODUCED BY LD. CIT ON PAGE 2, IT APPARENTLY SHOWS THAT EXCEPT ONE TOYOTA INNOV A, MARUTI SWIFT AND MAHINDRA SCORPIO, ALL OTHER VEHICLES ARE MULTI- UTILITY VEHICLES INVARIABLY USED FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES. FOR ARGUMEN T SAKE, EVEN IF IT IS ASSUMED THAT THE VEHICLES IN QUESTION ARE USE D BY THE DIRECTORS OF THE COMPANY FOR PERSONAL USE EVEN THEN THE DIREC TORS BEING FULL TIME DIRECTORS ARE PRESUMED TO WORK FOR THE ASSESSE E COMPANY. 13. IT IS SETTLED PRINCIPLE OF LAW THAT WHEN THE AO HAS COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT AFTER BEING DULY SATISFIED AFTER PER USING THE DOCUMENTS PRODUCED BEFORE HIM, WHICH ARE AVAILABLE AT PAGES 49 TO 134 OF THE PAPER BOOK, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER CANNOT BE SAID TO BE ERRONEOUS BY ANY STRETCH OF IMAGINATION AND THERE I S NO QUESTION OF INVOKING PROVISIONS CONTAINED U/S 263 OF THE ACT. RELIANCE IN THIS REGARD IS PLACED ON THE JUDGMENT CITED AS CIT, CENTRAL-III VS. NIRAV MODI (2016) 71 TAXMANN.COM 272 (BOMBAY) AND CIT VS. RELIANCE COMMUNICATION LTD. (2016) 69 TAXMANN.COM 103 (BOMBAY) AND SLP FILED BY THE REVENUE IN BOTH THE CASES, VI Z. CIT, CENTRAL-III VS. NIRAV MODI (2017) 77 TAXMANN .COM 15 (SC) AND CIT-10, MUMBAI VS. RELIANCE COMMUNICATION LTD. (2016) 76 TAXMANN.COM 226 (SC), HAVE BEEN DISMISSED. ITA NO.2315/DEL./2015 10 14. NOT ONLY THIS, HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN CIT VS. BASTI SUGAR MILLS CO. LTD. (2002) 257 ITR 88 (DEL.) WHILE DECIDING THE IDENTICAL ISSUE HELD THAT IN CASE OF VEHICLE OW NED AND USED BY THE ASSESSEE BUT NO REGISTRATION IN ITS NAME, ASSES SEE IS ENTITLED TO DEPRECIATION OF SUCH VEHICLES U/S 32 OF THE ACT BEC AUSE IN CASE OF MOVABLE ASSETS, RULE OF REGISTRATION OF PROPERTY IN THE NAME OF OWNER IS NOT STRICTLY FOLLOWED AS IN CASE OF IMMOVA BLE PROPERTY UNDER INDIAN REGISTRATION ACT. THE ISSUE AS TO THE NON-REGISTRATION OF VEHICLE IN QUESTION IN THE NAME OF ASSESSEE HAS ALSO BEEN DEALT WITH BY COORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN JUDGMEN T CITED AS ACIT, CIRCLE 7, PUNE, VS. TALERA MOTORS PVT. LTD. I N ITA NO.428/PN/2013 ORDER DATED 29.10.2013 WHEREIN IT IS OBSERVED THAT MERELY ON THE BASIS OF REGISTRATION OF VEHICLE BEING IN THE NAME OF DIRECTOR, THE BENEFIT OF DEPRECIATION CANNOT BE DENIED TO THE BENEFICIAL OWNER OF THE VEHICLE. 15. SO, WHEN UNDISPUTEDLY THE VEHICLES IN QUESTION HAVE BEEN PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AFTER PASSING THE BOARD RESOLUTION BY AVAILING OF THE LOANS WHICH ARE DULY RECORDED IN THE AUDITED BALANCE SHEET OF THE COMPANY, THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS CERTAINLY ENTITLED FOR DEPRECIATION ON THE VEHICLES IN QUESTION. 16. IN THE TOTALITY OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES DISCUSSED HEREIN BEFORE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THIS IS NOT A CA SE OF LACK OF ITA NO.2315/DEL./2015 11 INQUIRY ON THE PART OF THE AO RATHER COMPLETE INQUI RY HAS BEEN CONDUCTED ON THE BASIS OF DOCUMENTS PLACED BEFORE T HE AO ON THE BASIS OF WHICH DEPRECIATION HAS BEEN GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE. SO THERE WAS NOT AN IOTA OF MATERIAL ON RECORD BEFORE LD. CIT TO HOLD THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO T HE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. SO, IN VIEW OF WHAT HAS BEEN DISCUSSED AB OVE, PRESENT APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS HEREBY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THIS 16 TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2017. SD/- SD/- (N.K. SAINI) (KULDIP SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED THE 16 TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2017 TS COPY FORWARDED TO: 1.APPELLANT 2.RESPONDENT 3.CIT 4.CIT, DELHI-8, NEW DELHI. 5.CIT(ITAT), NEW DELHI. AR, ITAT NEW DELHI.