M/s Harsh International Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi V. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 2498/DEL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 74212 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-02-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 30-01-2014
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 29-04-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S C GUPTA
• Assessee Lawyers: MUKESH CHAND GUPTA
• Keywords: Depreciation
• Section: 142(1); 28

Judgement Text

ITA NO. 2498/DEL/2013 ASSTT.YEAR: 2009-10 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH `C NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S.V. MEHROTRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI CHANDRAMOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A.NO.2498/DEL/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 HARSH INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD., VS DY.COMM ISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, 11/2A, PUSA ROAD, C ENTRAL CIRCLE 8, NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI. (PAN:AABCH1511K) (APPELLANT) (RESPOND ENT) APPELLANT BY: SHRI MUKESH CHAND GUPTA RESPONDENT BY : SHRI S.C. GUPTA O R D E R PER CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAI NST THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(A)-XXXII, NEW DELHI DATE D 16.01.2013 FOR AY 2009-10. 2. GROUND NO. 3 OF THE ASSESSEE IS GENERAL IN NATUR E WHICH NEEDS NO ADJUDICATION. REMAINING GROUNDS OF THE ASSESSEE RE AD AS UNDER:- 1. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A)-XXVI, NEW DELHI HAS ERRED IN L AW AND ON FACTS IN ONLY ALLOWING EXPENDITURE TOTALING TO R S.13,450 INSTEAD OF ALLOWING THE ENTIRE BUSINESS LOSS AMOUNT ING TO RS.23,82,956/-. 2. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES O F THE CASE, THE LD. LOWER AUTHORITIES HAS GROSSLY ERRED I N LAW AND ITA NO. 2498/DEL/2013 ASSTT.YEAR: 2009-10 2 ON FACTS IN HOLDING THAT NO BUSINESS WAS CARRIED OU T BY THE ASSESSEE AS SUCH THE EXPENSE INCURRED INCLUDING DEPRECATION ETC. WERE NOT ALLOWABLE DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. 3. BRIEFLY STATED THE FACTS GIVING RISE TO THIS APP EAL ARE THAT DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSEE WAS ENGAGED IN MANUFACTURING AND TRADING OF TOBACCO PRODUCTS ETC. THE ASSESSEE FILE D RETURN OF INCOME ON 26.09.2009 SHOWING A LOSS OF RS.23,82,956. SINCE T HE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY, NOTICE U/S 142(1) AND 143(2) OF THE INCOM E TAX ACT, 1961 (FOR SHORT THE ACT) ALONG WITH QUESTIONNAIRE WERE SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THAT U/S 28 OF THE ACT, THE INCOME IS CHARGEABLE AS PROFIT OF THE BUSINESS ONLY IF THE BUSINESS IS CARR IED ON BY THE ASSESSEE AT ANY TIME DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR AND WHEN THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT CARRY ON BUSINESS AT ALL, THEN SECTION 28 OF THE ACT CANNOT BE APPLIED AND THE AMOUNT THAT ASSESSEE RECEIVES CANNOT BEAR THE CHARACTER OF PROFIT OF BUSINESS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER HELD THAT THE BUSINESS LO SS COMPUTED BY THE ASSESSEE AS PER RETURN IS NOT ALLOWABLE AND THE ASS ESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED THE SAME AND ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FO R THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE AGGRIEVED ASSESSEE FILED AN APP EAL BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(A) WHICH WAS PARTLY ALLO WED PERTAINING TO THE PRELIMINARY EXPENSES AND AUDITORS REMUNERATION TOT ALLING TO RS.13,450 BUT ITA NO. 2498/DEL/2013 ASSTT.YEAR: 2009-10 3 THE DISALLOWANCE OF THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS.23,69, 506 WAS UPHELD. NOW, THE EMPTY HANDED ASSESSEE IS AGAIN BEFORE THIS TRIB UNAL IN THIS SECOND APPEAL WITH THE GROUNDS AS MENTIONED HEREINABOVE. GROUND NO. 1 & 2 OF THE ASSESSEE 4. APROPOS BOTH GROUNDS, LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESS EE SUBMITTED THAT AS PER PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT FOR THE YEAR ENDING ON 31 .3.2009 (PAPER BOOK PAGE NO.13) AND SCHEDULE V ATTACHED TO THE FINAL AC COUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSEE HAD AN OPENING AND CLOSING BALANCE OF RAW MATERIAL AND PACKING MATERIAL AND ASSESSEE WAS MAINTAINING ENTIRE INFRAS TRUCTURE INCLUDING PLANT, MACHINERY, FURNITURE AND FIXTURES AND ASSESSEE WAS INTENDING TO CONTINUE WITH THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY AND THERE WAS NO I NTENTION TO SHUT DOWN BUSINESS. THE COUNSEL FURTHER POINTED OUT SCHEDULE VI OF THE FINAL ACCOUNTS AND SUBMITTED THAT A HUGE AMOUNT OF ASSESSEE WAS BL OCKED WITH UNSECURED DEBTORS AND AMOUNT COULD NOT BE RECOVERED DESPITE B EST EFFORTS, THEREFORE, DUE TO LACK OF CASH FLOW AND CAPITAL, THE ASSESSEE COMPANY COULD NOT CONDUCT ANY BUSINESS ACTIVITIES OF MANUFACTURING AND TRADIN G DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. BUT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAD ALWAYS AN INTENTION TO CONTINUE ITS BUSINESS WAITING FOR A FAVOURABLE F INANCIAL ATMOSPHERE. THE COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT PARA NO. 5 OF T HE IMPUGNED ORDER AND SUBMITTED THAT ALL CLAIM OF ASSESSEE PERTAINING TO THE EXPENSES AND ITA NO. 2498/DEL/2013 ASSTT.YEAR: 2009-10 4 DEPRECIATION ON PLANT AND MACHINERY IS UNAVOIDABLE AND NECESSARY TO MAINTAIN EXISTING ORGANIZATIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE OF THE COMPANY WITH THE INTENTION TO CONTINUE WITH THE BUSINESS OF THE COMP ANY. LD. COUNSEL VEHEMENTLY CONTENDED THAT WHEN DURING THE PRECEDING YEARS, THE ASSESSEE CONDUCTED BUSINESS ACTIVITIES AND EARNED PROFIT THE REON AND ALSO PAID TAX ON THE INCOME, THEN IF THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT CONDUCT ANY BUSINESS ACTIVITY DUE TO REASONS BEYOND THE CONTROL OF THE ASSESSEE, AND IF THE ASSESSEE HAS AN INTENTION TO CONTINUE WITH THE BUSINESS ACTIVITIES IN THE FUTURE, THEN BASIC EXPENDITURE ON MAINTENANCE, LEGAL OBLIGATIONS AND D EPRECIATION SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO THE ASSESSEE. 5. LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE PLACED RELIANCE ON T HE DECISION OF JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT OF DELHI IN THE CASE OF C OMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS NORTHERN INDIA IRON & STEEL CO. LTD. (1995) 211 ITR 370 (DEL) AND DECISION OF HONBLE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS KRITI RESORTS (P) LTD. (2011) 60 DTR 138 AND COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS SWARUP VEGETABLE PRODUCTS INDIA LTD. (2005) 277 ITR 60(ALL) . 6. LD. DR REPLIED THAT WHEN THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT C ARRY ON BUSINESS AT ALL DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR IN QUESTION, THEN THE PRO VISIONS OF SECTION 28 OF THE ACT CANNOT BE APPLIED AND THE AMOUNT THAT AN ASSESS EE RECEIVES, DOES NOT ITA NO. 2498/DEL/2013 ASSTT.YEAR: 2009-10 5 BEAR THE CHARACTER OF PROFIT OF THE BUSINESS. THE DR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IN ORDER TO SUSTAIN A CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION BY WAY OF BU SINESS EXPENDITURE, THE EXPENDITURE MUST HAVE BEEN INCURRED FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS WHICH WAS IN EXISTENCE DURING THE YEAR OF ACCOUNT AND THE PRO FITS ON WHICH ARE UNDER ASSESSMENT. THE DR ALSO CONTENDED THAT IF DURING T HE RELEVANT FINANCIAL PERIOD, NO BUSINESS WAS CARRIED ON BY THE ASSESSEE, THEN NO QUESTION OF COMPUTATION OF ITS INCOME AFTER DEDUCTION OF EXPENS ES CAN POSSIBLY ARISE. THE DR SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELO W AND SUBMITTED THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(A) WAS QUITE LIBERAL IN ALLOWING THE EXPENSES OF THE AUDITORS REMUNERATION AND PRELIMINARY EXPEN SES AND REMAINING DISALLOWANCE WAS RIGHTLY UPHELD BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(A). 7. ON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF ABOVE RIVAL SUBMISSI ONS, CONTENTIONS AND PERUSAL OF RECORD PLACED BEFORE US, INTER ALIA, LEG AL PROPOSITIONS AND CITATIONS RELIED BY BOTH THE PARTIES, AT THE OUTSET, WE OBSER VE THAT UNDISPUTEDLY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY CONDUCTED BUSINESS ACTIVITY DURING THE PRECEDING YEAR TO THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION ENDED ON 31.3.2008. F URTHER, FROM THE DECISION OF JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT OF DELHI IN THE CASE O F NORTHERN INDIA IRON & STEEL CO. LTD. (SUPRA) WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD THA T WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAS THE INTENTION TO TAKE UP MANUFACTURING ACTIVITY IN THE NEAR FUTURE, AN INFERENCE SHOULD BE DRAWN THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS AN INTENTION TO CONDUCT ITA NO. 2498/DEL/2013 ASSTT.YEAR: 2009-10 6 BUSINESS ACTIVITIES. IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER O F INCOME TAX VS SWARUP VEGETABLE PRODUCTS INDIA LTD. (SUPRA), THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD HELD THAT THE UNIT THOUGH ACTUALLY NOT USED WAS KEP T READY FOR USE BUT DESPITE ALL EFFORTS TO RESTORE IT, IT REMAINED UNDER SUSPEN SION DUE TO ADVERSE CIRCUMSTANCES, THEN DEPRECIATION IS ALLOWABLE. 8. IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS KRI TI RESORTS (P) LTD. HONBLE HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT HELD THAT THE A SSESSEE COMPANY DID NOT DO ANY HOTEL BUSINESS AFTER ITS HOTEL BUILDING WAS WASHED AWAY IN FLOODS. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE COMPANY BEING A JURISTIC ENTI TY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANYS ACT DID NOT CEASE TO EXIST. THE HON BLE HIGH COURT FURTHER HELD THAT SINCE THE COMPANY HAS TO FULFILL ITS OBLI GATIONS IMPOSED BY THE COMPANYS ACT TILL IT IS WOUND UP, SOME STAFF HAS T O BE MAINTAINED, THEREFORE, ONCE THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS IN EXISTENC E, THEN IT IS ENTITLED TO DEPRECIATION THOUGH IT HAS DISCONTINUED ITS BUSINES S. 9. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, THIS IS A SETTLED LEGAL PROPOSITION THAT THE INTENTION TO CONDUCT BUSINESS ACTIVITY IS A PARAMOU NT FACTOR FOR EXAMINING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IN REGARD TO EXPENSES AND DEPRECIATION. IN THE PRESENT CASE, ADMITTEDLY, THE ASSESSEE COMPANY DID NOT CARRY ON ANY BUSINESS ACTIVITY DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR UNDER CONSIDERAT ION BUT SINCE THE ASSESSEE COMPANY CONDUCTED BUSINESS ACTIVITIES DURING THE IM MEDIATELY PRECEDING ITA NO. 2498/DEL/2013 ASSTT.YEAR: 2009-10 7 YEAR TO THE FINANCIAL YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, AT THE SAME TIME THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS MAINTAINING CLOSING AND OPENING STOCK OF RAW MATERIAL AND PACKING MATERIAL WITH ENTIRE PLANT, MACHINERY, FURN ITURE ETC., THEN IT WILL BE PRESUMED THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS AN INTENTION TO CARRY ON BUSINESS ACTIVITIES. AT THE SAME TIME, WE ALSO OBSERVE THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAD A HUGE AMOUNT OF SUNDRY DEBTORS AT THE BEGINNING AN D END OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR WHICH CLEARLY SHOWS THAT HUGE AMOUNT OF ASSESS EE COMPANY WERE BLOCKED WITH SUNDRY DEBTORS. THEREFORE, IT IS OBVI OUS THAT THERE WAS LACK OF CASH FLOW AND FUNDS DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR AND T HE SAME CAUSE IS ACCEPTABLE AND COGENT REASON FOR NON-CONDUCTING OF ANY BUSINESS ACTIVITY DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. IN THIS SITUA TION WHEN THE ASSESSEE IS INTENDING TO CARRY ON BUSINESS ACTIVITY BUT DUE TO UNAVOIDABLE CIRCUMSTANCES BEYOND HIS CONTROL, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT CONDUCT BUSINESS ACTIVITY DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR, THEN ALSO THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS ENTITLED TO ALLOWANCE OF FIXED AND NECESSARY EXPENSES TO MAINTAIN BASIC INFR ASTRUCTURE OF THE COMPANY AND ALSO DEPRECIATION ON PLANT AND MACHINER Y ALTHOUGH THE SAME COULD NOT BE USED FOR MANUFACTURING ACTIVITY DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. 10. LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT WHEN THERE WAS NO MANUFAC TURING OR BUSINESS ACTIVITY DURING THE YEAR, THEN THE CLAIM IN REGARD TO POWER AND FUEL ITA NO. 2498/DEL/2013 ASSTT.YEAR: 2009-10 8 AMOUNTING TO RS.1,40,267 IS NOT ACCEPTABLE AND THE SAME IS AWAY FROM TRUTH. ON THIS CONTENTION OF THE REVENUE, LD. COUNSEL OF T HE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THERE ARE ALWAYS SOME BASIC CHARGES WHICH ARE COMPU LSORILY PAYABLE TO THE ELECTRICITY DEPARTMENT ON INDUSTRIAL CONNECTIONS, T HEREFORE, THE CLAIM OF POWER AND FUEL CHARGES IS GENUINE AND NECESSARY TO PROCURE ELECTRICITY CONNECTION INSTALLED IN THE FACTORY PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE. THE COUNSEL ALSO SUBMITTED THAT BEING A LEGAL JURISTIC ENTITY, THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS ALSO BOUND TO MAINTAIN ITS CORPORATE OFFICE AND ELECTRIC ITY AND POWER IS ALSO CONSUMED THEREIN, THEREFORE, THE CLAIM OF THE ASSES SEE IS GENUINE AND ALLOWABLE. 11. ON ABOVE RIVAL CONTENTIONS, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IN REGARD TO FUEL AND POWER CANNOT BE SAID TO BE BOGUS OR FALSE BECAUSE BASIC CHARGES TO PROCURE INDUSTRIAL CONNECT ION ARE COMPULSORILY PAYABLE AND AT THE SAME TIME, ELECTRICITY CONSUMED AND USED IN OFFICE PREMISES IS ALSO A NECESSARY PAYMENT. ACCORDINGLY, WE ACCEPT SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD. 12. LD. DR ALSO POINTED OUT THAT AS PER PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE (PB PAGE NO.13), THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED DEPRECIATION OF RS.1,13,814 AND AS PER DETAILS OF EXPENDITURE CLAIM ED, THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE A CLAIM IN REGARD TO DEPRECIATION ON PLANT AND MACH INERY AMOUNTING TO ITA NO. 2498/DEL/2013 ASSTT.YEAR: 2009-10 9 RS.20,08,959 AND AS PER CALCULATION OF DEPRECIATION SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING ARGUMENTS, THE CLAIM OF DEPRECIATIO N SOUGHT TO BE ALLOWED IS RS.19,52,110. THE DR SUBMITTED THAT THE CLAIM OF T HE ASSESSEE IN REGARD TO DEPRECIATION IS NOT ALLOWABLE AND SUSTAINABLE AND T HE SAME WAS RIGHTLY DISALLOWED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE DISALLO WANCE WAS RIGHTLY UPHELD BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(A). ON THESE CONT ENTIONS OF THE REVENUE, THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THERE ARE TWO TYPES OF CALCULATION OF DEPRECIATION, ONE AS PER COMPANYS A CT AND THE SECOND AS PER INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 AND THE ASSESSEE WAS ALLOWED C LAIM OF DEPRECIATION AS PER INCOME TAX ACT DURING THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING YEAR AND WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS AN INTENTION TO CONTINUE AND CARRY ON BUSINESS ACTIVITIES IN FUTURE, THEN THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE PERTAINING T O PLANT AND MACHINERY CANNOT BE DISALLOWED FOR AY 2009-10 I.E. YEAR UNDER APPEAL. 13. SINCE WE HAVE HELD THAT WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS A N INTENTION TO CONTINUE AND CARRY ON BUSINESS ACTIVITIES DURING THE YEAR AN D NEAR FUTURE, THEN DESPITE THE FACT THAT THERE WAS NO MANUFACTURING AND TRADIN G ACTIVITY DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THEN ALSO THE B ASIC EXPENSES TO MAINTAIN BUSINESS AND FACTORY PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE AND O THER LEGAL EXPENSES ARE ALSO ALLOWABLE AND DEPRECIATION ON THE PLANT AND MA CHINERY IS ALLOWABLE IN THE LIGHT OF THIS VERY FACT THAT DEPRECIATION ON PL ANT AND MACHINERY WAS ITA NO. 2498/DEL/2013 ASSTT.YEAR: 2009-10 10 ALLOWED BY THE REVENUE DURING THE PRECEDING FINANCI AL YEAR TO THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. 14. ON THE BASIS OF FOREGOING DISCUSSION, WE HOLD T HAT THE ASSESSEE HAS AN INTENTION TO CONDUCT BUSINESS AND MANUFACTURING ACT IVITY DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, HENCE, BASIC EXPENSES TO MAINTAIN OFFICE AND FACTORY PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWABLE AND LEGAL EXPENSES PERTAINING TO AUDITORS FEE ETC. ARE ALSO ALLOWABLE. AT THE S AME TIME, WE HOLD THAT SINCE THE PLANT AND MACHINERY WAS READY FOR USE IN MANUFA CTURING ACTIVITY, THEN OBVIOUSLY THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO ELIGIBLE FOR ALLOWAN CE OF DEPRECIATION ON PLANT AND MACHINERY FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. BU T THERE IS A CERTAIN DISCREPANCY, INCONSISTENCY IN THE AMOUNTS SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT AND COMPUTATION OF DEPRECIATION. THEREFORE, THE AMOUNT OF DEPRECIATION IS TO BE DETERMINED AT THE END OF ASSE SSING OFFICER AS PER PROVISIONS OF THE ACT AS WELL AS COMPANYS ACT IN T HE LIGHT OF AMOUNT OF DEPRECIATION WHICH WAS ALLOWED FOR THE ASSESSEE DUR ING THE PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR TO THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND AS PER WRITTEN DOWN VALUE BROUGHT FORWARD IN THE BEGINNING OF THE YEAR. 15. IN VIEW OF ABOVE, WE HOLD THAT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE PERTAINING TO EXPENSES AND DEPRECIATION IS ALLOWABLE AND WE SET A SIDE THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW WITH A DIRECTION TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE CLAIM OF ITA NO. 2498/DEL/2013 ASSTT.YEAR: 2009-10 11 THE ASSESSEE PERTAINING TO THE EXPENSES SHOULD BE A LLOWED AND DEPRECIATION ON PLANT AND MACHINERY SHOULD BE ALLOWED AS PER PRO VISIONS OF THE ACT AS WELL AS COMPANYS ACT 1956 AND ALSO IN THE LIGHT OF ALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION TO THE ASSESSEE WHICH WAS ALLOWED DURI NG THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING YEAR TO THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION I.E. AY 2008-09. ACCORDINGLY, GROUND NO. 1 AND 2 OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED. 16. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWE D IN THE MANNER AS INDICATED ABOVE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 14.02.2014. SD/- SD/- (S.V. MEHROTRA) (CHANDRAMOHAN GARG) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DT. 14TH FEBRUARY 2014 GS COPY FORWARDED TO:- 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. C.I.T.(A) 4. C.I.T. 5. DR BY ORDER ASSTT.REGISTRAR