ACIT, New Delhi V. M/s. Atria Partners, New Delhi

ITA 2490/DEL/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 74349 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 9 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-03-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 24-02-2014
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 23-05-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: Y KAKKAR
• Assessee Lawyers: R K KAPOOR
• Keywords: Business income; Depreciation; Earning of tax free income
• Section: 143(3); 14A

Judgement Text

ITA NO. 2490/DEL/ 2012 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH A, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI I.C. SUDHIR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 2490/DEL/2012 A.Y. : 2008-09 ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 3(1), CR BUILDING, I.P. ESTATE, NEW DELHI VS. M/S AT R IA PARTNERS, DLF CENTRE, SANSAD MARG, NEW DELHI (APPELLANT) (APPELLANT) (APPELLANT) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) (RESPONDENT) (RESPONDENT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SH. PRADEEP DINODIA & R.K. KAPOOR, CA DEPARTMENT BY : MS. Y. KAKKAR, DR . ORDER ORDER ORDER ORDER PER PER PER PER SHAMIM YAHYA: AM SHAMIM YAHYA: AM SHAMIM YAHYA: AM SHAMIM YAHYA: AM THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS-XVII, NEW D ELHI DATED 27.3.2012 PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. 2. THE FIRST ISSUE RAISED IS THAT LD. CIT(A) ERRE D IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 3,14,66,394/- BY TREATING INCOME FROM BUSINESS OF LETTING OUT OF PROPERTY AS RENTAL INCOME AND ALLOWI NG DEDUCTION U/S. 24(A). 3. ON THIS ISSUE AO NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DIS CLOSED INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY OF RS. 104,887,980/- AND CLAIM ED DEDUCTION U/S. 24(1) OF 30% THEREOF AMOUNTING TO RS. 3,14,66 ,394/-. AO NOTED THAT ASSESSEES FIRM WAS FORMED ON 25.3.2002 AND C ONSISTED OF TWO CORPORATE MEMBERS AND ONE TRUST OF DLF GROUP. THAT AS PER CLAUSE 8-A OF THE TAX AUDIT REPORT BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSE E WAS TRADING OF ITA NO. 2490/DEL/ 2012 2 SHARES WHEREAS AS PER THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT THE ASSESSEES MAIN SOURCE OF INCOME WAS ON ACCOUNT OF RENT RECEIP T. ON QUERY IN THIS REGARD, ASSESSEE SUBMITTED AS UNDER:- THE FIRM HAS RECEIVED RENTAL INCOME ON THE PLOT ADMEASURING ABOUT 0.79 HECTARES (I.E. ABOUT 1.95 ACRES) SITUATED ON GULMOHAR MARG, N-BLOCK, PHASE- II, DLF CITY, GURGAON. M/S DLF HAS BROUGHT SAID PLO T AND BUILDING CONSTRUCTED THEREON FOR RS. 19,65,00,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF BROUGHT ITS OWNERSHIP RIGHT, TITLE AND INTEREST IN THE SAID BUILDING IN T HE PARTNERSHIP FIRM AS CONTRIBUTION IN THE ASSESSEE FIRM AS PARTNER ON 25.3.2002. A COPY OF THE PARTNERSHIP DEED IS ENCLOSED FOR READY REFERENCE AND RECORD. 3.1 AO WAS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE ABOVE. AO HELD T HAT THE BUILDING IS VALUED ON RS. 20.24 CRORES AS PER THE BALANCE SH EET ON WHICH RENT OF RS. 10.48 CRORES HAVE BEEN SHOWN AS RENT. AO FOUND THAT THIS APPEARS TO BE DISPROPORTIONATE TO THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY. HE OPINED THAT SUCH HIGH INCOME CANNOT BE CATEGORIZED AS RENT. AO FOUND THAT ASSESSEES ACTION WAS MALAFIDE INTENTIO N TO SHOW THE BUSINESS INCOME AS RENTAL INCOME. AO REFERRED TO T HE DECISION FO THE HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF MC. DOWELL & CO. MC. DOWELL & CO. MC. DOWELL & CO. MC. DOWELL & CO. LIMITED. VS. LIMITED. VS. LIMITED. VS. LIMITED. VS. CTO 154 ITR 148 (SC) CTO 154 ITR 148 (SC) CTO 154 ITR 148 (SC) CTO 154 ITR 148 (SC). . . . ACCORDINGLY, AO HELD THAT THE RENTAL INCOME WAS TREATED AS BUSINESS INCOME AND DEDUCTION CLAIM OF RS. 31466394/-. U/S. 24(1) WAS NOT ALLOWABLE. 4. UPON ASSESSEES APPEAL, LD. CIT(A) NOTED THAT A SSESSEE HAS FILED SEPARATE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT, BALANCE SHE ET FOR THE BRANCH OFFICE OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE 44AB AUDIT REPORT PE RTAINS ONLY TO THE SEPARATE BUSINESS OF TRADING CARRIED OUT BY THI S BRANCH OFFICE. ITA NO. 2490/DEL/ 2012 3 LD. CIT(A) NOTED THAT ASSESSEE NEEDS TO FILE THE AU DIT REPORT AS PER 44AB ONLY REGARDING ITS BUSINESS INCOME AND NOT FO R ITS BUSINESS FROM HOUSE PROPERTY OR INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. LD. CIT(A) NOTED THAT OBSERVATION OF THE AO REGARDING COLUMN 8(A) IN TAX AUDIT REPORT IS DONE WITHOUT PROPER APPRECIATION O F FACTS. LD. CIT(A) FURTHER NOTED THAT IT IS NOT CLEAR FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AS TO HOW THE AO HAD COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT R ENT RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISPROPORTIONATE OF THE VALUE OF THE HOUSE PROPERTY. HE OBSERVED THAT IT IS NOT THE AOS CASE THAT ASS ESSEE HAS RECEIVED RENT FROM SISTER CONCERN NOR HE WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE RENT RECEIPT IS DISPROPORTIONATE TO MARKET RENT. LD. CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT RENTAL INCOME NEEDS TO BE TAXED AS INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY WHETHER SUCH RENTAL INCOME IS HIGH OR LOW. LD. CI T(A) CONCLUDED AS UNDER:- CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE APPELLANT HAS BEEN CONSISTENTLY SHOWING THIS RENTAL INCOME AS INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY FROM A.Y. 2003-04 ONWARDS AND ALSO T HE FACT THAT THE DEPARTMENT HAD ACCEPTED THIS POSITION IN SCRUTINY ASSESSMENTS IN THE PRECEDING TWO ASSESSMEN T YEARS, THERE IS NO REASON TO COME TO A DIFFERENT CONCLUSION FOR THIS YEAR THAT THE APPELLANT IS USIN G COLOURABLE DEVICE TO REDUCE ITS TAX LIABILITY. THE APPELLANT IS OWNER OF THE PROPERTY AND THE TDS CERTIFICATES CLEARLY INDICATE THAT THE APPELLANT HA D RECEIVED RENTAL INCOME. THUS THIS RENTAL INCOME IS ASSESSABLE AS INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY ONLY AND T HERE IS NOTHING ON RECORD FOR THE AO TO COME TO A CONCLU SION THAT THE APPELLANTS INCOME NEEDS TO BE CONSIDERED AS INCOME FROM BUSINESS. MOREOVER, THE APPELLANT HAS NOT SHOWN THIS PROPERTY AS ITS STOCK IN TRADE TO DRAW T HE ITA NO. 2490/DEL/ 2012 4 CONCLUSION THAT THE APPELLANTS INCOME IS INCOME FR OM BUSINESS AND NOT INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY. THEREF ORE, THE AOS RECLASSIFICATION OF RENTAL INCOME AS INCOM E FROM BUSINESS IS NOT SUSTAINABLE AT ALL AND THE APPELLAN T SUCCEEDS IN THIS GROUND OF APPEAL. 5. AGAINST THE ABOVE ORDER THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 6. LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT EXAMIN ED THE PARTNERSHIP DEED OF THE ASSESSEE. HE HAS NOT EXAMI NED THE OBJECT CLAUSE OF THE ASSESSEE. SHE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS PASSED THE ORDER WITHOUT PROPER EXAMINATION OF THE FACTS. HENCE, SHE CLAIMED THAT MATTER SHOULD BE REMITTED T O THE FILE OF THE AO FOR PROPER ADJUDICATION. SHE FURTHER CLAIMED T HAT THERE IS NO CONCEPT OF RES JUDICATA IN THE INCOME TAX PROCEEDI NGS. SHE FURTHER CLAIMED THAT ASSESSEE HAS ITSELF ACCEPTED THAT THE PROPERTY IS A COMMERCIAL PROPERTY. HENCE, SHE CLAIMED THAT THE I NCOME IN THIS REGARD CANNOT BE TREATED AS INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPE RTY. 6.1 LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE OTHER HAND R ELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). HE SUBMITTED THAT AS PER T HE INCOME TAX ACT THE INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY HAS TO BE TAXED AS I NCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY IRRESPECTIVE OF THE FACT THAT THE PR OPERTY IS COMMERCIAL PROPERTY OR OTHERWISE. HE SUBMITTED THA T THERE IS NO DISTINCTION BETWEEN COMMERCIAL PROPERTY OR OTHER PR OPERTY IN THE INCOME TAX ACT. IN THIS REGARD, HE REFERRED TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 22 & 23 OF THE I.T. ACT. HE FURTHER SUBMI TTED THAT THE AOS PRESUMPTION THAT RENTAL INCOME IS VERY HIGH IS NOT AT ALL THE REASON TO TREAT THE INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. HE FURTH ER SUBMITTED THAT THE ABOVE POSITION OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN ACCEPTE D BY THE REVENUE IN EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS IN SCRUTINY ASS ESSMENT. HENCE, HE SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO CHANGE IN THE FACTS A ND CIRCUMSTANCES ITA NO. 2490/DEL/ 2012 5 OF THE CASE TO WARRANT ANY CHANGE IN THE STAND. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT NO CASE HAS BEEN MADE OUT; THAT ASSE SSEE HAS BEEN PROVIDING OR RENDERING SERVICES SO AS TO TAKE THE I NCOME OUT OF THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY. 7. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE COUNSEL AND PERUSED THE RECORDS. WE FIND THAT ASSESSEES FIRM OWNS COMMERCIAL BUILDING NAMELY DLF ATRIA IN DLF CITY, PHASE-II, GURGAON. THIS BUILDING WAS GIVEN ON RENT TO M/S CONERGYS INDIA SERVICES (P) LTD. AND THE RENT AL INCOME RECEIVED WAS SHOWN AS INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY. ASSESSEE FIRM HAS A BRANCH OFFICE WHICH IS IN TRADING IN SHARES AND TH E INCOME OF WHICH WAS SHOWN AS BUSINESS INCOME. THIS RENT WAS SHOWN UNDER THE HEAD HOUSE PROPERTY FROM ASSTT. YEAR 2003-04 ONWAR DS AND THE ASSESSMENTS FOR THE A.Y. 2006-07 & 2007-08 WERE COM PLETED U/S. 143(3) ACCEPTING THE RENTAL INCOME AS INCOME FROM H OUSE PROPERTY. 7.1 AO HAS NOT DOUBTED THE OWNERSHIP OF THE ASSE SSEE OR THE FACT THAT PREMISES ARE GIVEN ON RENT. AOS OBSER VATION THAT RENTAL INCOME IS TOO HIGH IS NOT AT ALL A REASON TO TREAT THE INCOME AS INCOME FROM BUSINESS. AO HAS NOT MADE OUT ANY CA SE THAT ASSESSEE HAS BEEN PROVIDING SERVICES AND HENCE, THE CLAIM OF RENTAL INCOME IS TO BE DISALLOWED. WE AGREE WITH THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE INCOME TAX ACT DOES NOT MAKE ANY DISTINCTION BETWEEN COMMERCIAL PROPERTY AND OTHER PROPERTY FO R THE CLASSIFICATION OF INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, NOTHING HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD B Y THE AO TO SHOW THAT THE INCOME RETURNED AS HOUSE PROPERTY IS ACTUALLY INCOME FROM BUSINESS. 7.2 IN THIS REGARD, LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT IF THE RENTAL INCOME IS TREATED AS INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY AND PROFESSION, THEN ASSESSEE WOULD BE ENTITLED TO DEPRECIATION ON ITA NO. 2490/DEL/ 2012 6 BUILDING OF RS. 20.24 CRORES. THIS WOULD RESULT I N PROPORTIONATE REDUCTION IN THE INCOME EARNED IN THIS REGARD. 7.3 HENCE, WE AGREE THAT THERE IS NO LOGIC IN TREAT ING THE INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY AS INCOME FROM BUSINESS. WE HO LD THAT NOTHING HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE AO TO SHOW THAT T HE INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY IS ACTUAL INCOME FROM BUSINESS. 7.4 IN THIS REGARD, WE PLACE RELIANCE UPON THE HON BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. DALMIA PROMOTERS CIT VS. DALMIA PROMOTERS CIT VS. DALMIA PROMOTERS CIT VS. DALMIA PROMOTERS DEVELOPERS (P) LTD. 281 ITR 346 DEVELOPERS (P) LTD. 281 ITR 346 DEVELOPERS (P) LTD. 281 ITR 346 DEVELOPERS (P) LTD. 281 ITR 346 , WHEREIN IT WAS HAS HELD THAT FOR REJECTING THE VIEW TAKEN IN EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS, THERE MUST BE MATERIAL CHANGE IN THE FACT, SITUATION OR IN LAW. WE FIND THAT IN THIS CASE THERE IS NO CHANGE IN THE FACTS, SITUATIO N OR IN LAW. HENCE, THE REVENUE CANNOT BE ALLOWED TO ADOPT A DIFFERENT STAND. THIS IS ALSO REITERATED BY THE HONBLE APEX COURT DECISION IN CIT VS. EXCEL CIT VS. EXCEL CIT VS. EXCEL CIT VS. EXCEL INDUSTRIES LTD. IN C INDUSTRIES LTD. IN C INDUSTRIES LTD. IN C INDUSTRIES LTD. IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 125 OF 2013 VIDE ORDER DATED IVIL APPEAL NO. 125 OF 2013 VIDE ORDER DATED IVIL APPEAL NO. 125 OF 2013 VIDE ORDER DATED IVIL APPEAL NO. 125 OF 2013 VIDE ORDER DATED 08.10.2013. 08.10.2013. 08.10.2013. 08.10.2013. IN THIS CASE, IT WAS HELD THAT WHEN IN EARLIER AS STT. YEARS THE REVENUE ACCEPTED THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN FA VOUR OF THE ASSESSEE, THEN REVENUE CANNOT BE ALLOWED TO FLIP F LOP ON THE ISSUE AND IT OUGHT LET THE MATTER REST RATHER THAN SPEND THE TAX PAYERS MONEY IN PURSUING LITIGATION FOR THE SAKE OF IT. 8. IN THE BACKGROUND OF THE AFORESAID DISCUSSIONS A ND PRECEDENTS, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE L D. CIT(A). ACCORDINGLY, WE UPHOLD THE SAME. 9. ANOTHER ISSUE RAISED IS THAT LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN ALLOWING PART RELIEF OF RS. 1,07,238/- U/S. 57(III) UNDER THE HEA D INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES WHEN THE EXPENDITURE IS NOT PROVED TO BE LA ID OUT OR EXPENDED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF EARNING SUCH INCOME. ITA NO. 2490/DEL/ 2012 7 10. ON THIS ISSUE AO NOTED THAT ASSESSEE HAS ALSO D ECLARED INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES, AGAINST WHICH EXPENSES OF RS. 5 ,24,765/- HAS BEEN CLAIMED OUT OF WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS DISALLOW ED A SUM OF RS. 3,10,289/-. AO OPINED THAT ASSESSEE HAS NO GROUND T O CLAIM DEDUCTION OF RS. 2,14,476/- OUT OF INCOME FROM OTHE R SOURCES, CONSEQUENTLY THE SAME WAS DISALLOWED. 11. UPON ASSESSEES APPEAL LD. CIT(A) RESTRICTED TH E DISALLOWANCE TO 50% BY HOLDING AS UNDER:- THE APPELLANT HAS SHOWN RS. 29,76,582/- AS INCOME UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES AND THIS CONSISTS OF INTEREST RECEIVED OF RS. 29,56,629/- AN D MISCELLANEOUS INCOME OF RS. 20,223/-. AGAINST THIS INCOME, THE APPELLANT HAS CLAIMED AN EXPENDITURE OF RS. 2,14,476/- AFTER DISALLOWING PROPORTIONATE EXPENDITURE RS. 3,10,289/- ATTRIBUTABLE TO EXEMPT INCOME. IN OTHER WORDS, THE TOTAL EXPENDITURE DEDUCTED FORM INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES WAS RS. 5,24,765/- AND THE APPELLANT ITSELF DISALLOWED RS. 3,10,289/- FROM THIS EXPENSES AND ONLY THE BALANCE OF AMOUNT OF RS. 2,14,476/- WAS CLAIMED AS DEDUCTION FROM INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. HOWEVER, THE AO HAD DISALLOWED THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF RS. 2,14,476/- WITHOUT ASSIGNING ANY COGENT REASON. ACCORDING TO THE APPELLANTS AR, THIS ITA NO. 2490/DEL/ 2012 8 EXPENDITURE IS ADMISSIBLE AS PER SECTION 57(III) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. CONSIDERING THE NATURE OF THESE EXPENDITURE BEING LEGAL AND PROFESSIONAL EXPENSES, OFFICE MAINTENANCE CHARGES, SALARY PAID, CONVEYANCE EXPENSES. ETC., I RESTRICT THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO TO 50% OF RS. 2,14,476/- CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT. AS A RESULT, THE APPELLANT GETS A RELIEF OF RS. 1,07,238/- AND T HE ADDITION OF RS. 1,07,238/- MADE BY THE AO IS SUSTAINED. 12. AGAINST THE ABOVE ORDER REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BE FORE US. 13. LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) ON THIS IS SUE HAS GRANTED RELIEF WITHOUT PROPER EXAMINATION OF THE FACTS. HE NCE, SHE CLAIMED THAT THIS MATTER SHOULD ALSO BE REMITTED TO THE FIL E OF THE AO FOR FRESH EXAMINATION. LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD DRAW OUR ATTENTION TO THE PAPER BOOK PAGE NO. 20 WHERE T HE COMPUTATION OF INCOME WERE AS UNDER:- INCOME FROM OTHER SO INCOME FROM OTHER SO INCOME FROM OTHER SO INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES URCES URCES URCES - INTEREST RECEIVED 2,956,629 - MISC. INCOME 20,223 2,976,852 LESS: ADMIN LESS: ADMIN LESS: ADMIN LESS: ADMIN. .. . & OTHER EXPENSES & OTHER EXPENSES & OTHER EXPENSES & OTHER EXPENSES LEGAL AND PROFESSIONAL CHARGES SERVICES CHARGES OFFICE MTC. CONVEYANCE EXPENSES 5,000 80,813 28,835 ITA NO. 2490/DEL/ 2012 9 SALARY PAID OTHER EXPENSES 379,888 30,229 2,976,852 524,765 INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX 4,306,705 INCOME EXEMPTED 7,283,557 7,283,557 7,283,557 7,283,557 LESS: LESS: LESS: LESS: EXPENSES NOT CLAIMED U/S. 14A 310,289 ALLOWABLE EXPENSES (IN PROPORTION OF INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX AND EXEMPT INCOME) 214,476 2,762,376 13.1 FROM THE ABOVE, LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE S UBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS INCURRED GENUINE EXPENSES ON LEGAL AND PROFESSIONAL CHARGES, SERVICE CHARGE ON OFFICE MAI NTENANCE, CONVEYANCE EXPENSES, SALARY PAID OTHER EXPENSES TO TALING TO RS. 524,765/-. OUT OF THIS ASSESSEE HAS HIMSELF DISALL OWED RS. 310,289/- U/S. 14A AND ONLY THE BALANCE OF RS. 214,476/- WAS CLAIMED. ON THIS CLAIM LD. CIT(A) HAS FURTHER DISALLOWED 50% AGAINST WHICH THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT IN APPEAL. HENCE, LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTE D THAT THE LD. CIT(A)S ORDER IS REASONABLE AND FAIR AND SHOULD BE SUSTAINED. 14. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE COUNSEL AND PERUSED THE RECORDS. WE FIND THAT IN THE BACKGROUND OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUM STANCES NARRATED ABOVE, ASSESSEE HAS INCURRED EXPENDITURE OF RS. 5 24,765/- IN EARNING INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES OF RS. 2,976,852/ -. ASSESSEE HAS HIMSELF DISALLOWED RS. 310289/- U/S. 14A AND BALANC E OF RS. 214,476/- HAS BEEN CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. LD . CIT(A) HAS ITA NO. 2490/DEL/ 2012 10 ALLOWED 50% OF THIS EXPENDITURE. IT IS NOT THE CASE THAT THE EXPENSES HAVE BEEN FOUND TO BE BOGUS OR THE CONCERNED VOUCHE RS WERE LACKING. UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THERE IS NO INF IRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN THIS REGARD. ACCORDINGLY, WE UPHOLD THE SAME. 15. IN THE RESULT, THE REVENUES APPEAL STANDS DIS MISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 12/3/2014. SD/- SD/- [ [[ [I.C. SUDHIR I.C. SUDHIR I.C. SUDHIR I.C. SUDHIR] ]] ] [SHAMIM YAHYA] [SHAMIM YAHYA] [SHAMIM YAHYA] [SHAMIM YAHYA] JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATE 12/3/2014 SRBHATNAGAR SRBHATNAGAR SRBHATNAGAR SRBHATNAGAR COPY COPY COPY COPY FORWARDED TO: FORWARDED TO: FORWARDED TO: FORWARDED TO: - -- - 1. APPELLANT - 2. RESPONDENT - 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, DELHI BENCHES ITA NO. 2490/DEL/ 2012 11