Smt. Prem Jain, New Delhi V. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 2572/DEL/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2784 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 10 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-03-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 06-05-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S R SENAPATI
• Keywords: Business income; Corroborative evidences
• Section: 131

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH E, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA A. PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.2572/DEL/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12 SMT. PREM JAIN, 2683/85, GALI PATTEYWALI NAYA BAZAR, DELHI 110006. VS. ITO, WARD- 29(1), NEW DELHI. PAN : AAGPJ5074P (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI PIYUSH KAUSHIK, ADV. SHRI B. L. GUPTA, ADV. DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI S. R. SENAPATI, SR.DR DATE OF HEARING : 22-02-2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 22-03-2018 O R D E R PER R. K. PANDA, AM : THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAIN ST THE ORDER DATED 15.02.2016 OF THE CIT(A)- 16, NEW DELHI RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12. 2 ITA NO.2572/DEL/2016 2. FACTS OF THE CASE, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT THE ASSESS EE IS AN INDIVIDUAL AND DERIVES INCOME FROM CAPITAL GAIN AND OTHER SOURCES. SHE FILED HER RETURN OF INCOME ON 24.08.2011 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.8 ,60,074/-. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING, THE ASSESSING OFFI CER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SOLD SHARE OF M/S J.T. AGRO GOODS PVT. LTD. ON 10.06.2010 FOR RS.60,00,000/-. AGAINST THE SAID RECEIPT/SALE, THE ASSESSEE DECLARED NET PROFIT OF RS.26,00,000/- AFTER DEDUCTING PURCHASE C OST OF SHARES OF RS.3,00,000/- AND CLAIMING DEDUCTION U/S 35 AMOUNTI NG TO RS.54,75,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF DONATION MADE OF RS.31,00,000/- TOWAR DS SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH TO M/S HIMALAYA TRUST DEHRADUN. THE ASSESSEE ACCOR DINGLY DECLARED INCOME OF RS.8,60,074/-. 3. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO JUSTIFY THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTIO N U/S 35 OF THE I.T. ACT. THE ASSESSEE FILED HER REPLY ALONG WITH THE AUDIT R EPORT IN WHICH IT WAS MENTIONED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS TRADING IN LAND. THE ASSESSEE FILED ANOTHER AUDIT REPORT MENTIONING THEREIN THAT ACTUAL LY THE ASSESSEE IS TRADING IN SHARES AND NOT TRADING IN LAND AND IT WA S A CLERICAL MISTAKE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, ASKED THE 3 ITA NO.2572/DEL/2016 ASSESSEE TO FILE SUPPORTING EVIDENCES REGARDING THE BUSINESS ACTIVITIES AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. FROM THE VARIOUS DETAILS FURNISHED BY HER, HE OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE PURCHASED SHARES OF A PR IVATE LIMITED COMPANY M/S J.T. AGRO GOOD PVT. LTD. FOR RS.3,00,000/- ON 2 8.09.2009 AND SOLD THE SAME FOR RS.60,00,000/- ON 10.06.2010. THE ASSESSE E FILED THE CONFIRMATIONS ON SALE OF SHARES AND THE RELEVANT DE TAILS ALONG WITH THE AUDIT REPORT OF M/S J.T. AGRO GOOD PVT. LTD.. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO RECORDED THE STATEMENTS OF THE ASSESSEE WHO WAS SUM MONED U/S 131 OF THE I.T. ACT. FROM THE VARIOUS DETAILS FURNISHED BY TH E ASSESSEE, HE OBSERVED THAT 6,00,000 OF SHARES WERE PURCHASED AT THE RATE OF 0.50 PAISE PER SHARE FROM M/S BANWARI EXIM P. LTD. AND M/S PRABHASH MOTO R FINANCE P. LTD.. IN HER STATEMENT, SHE SUBMITTED THAT SHE HAS PURCHA SED THE SHARES OF THE ABOVE TWO COMPANIES ON THE ADVICES OF HER HUSBAND A ND SOLD THE SHARES FOR RS.60,00,000/- TO SHRI RAJ KUMAR GUPTA AND SHRI RAM LAL GUPTA FOR RS.30,00,000/- EACH. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED SUMMONS TO SHRI RAJ KUMAR GUPTA AND SHRI RAM LAL GUPTA TO ATTEND AND FI LE THE DETAILS OF M/S J.T. AGRO GOODS P. LTD. AND COPY OF BANK ACCOUNT IN WHICH THE AMOUNT OF PURCHASE OF SAID SHARES HAVE BEEN REFLECTED. SUBSE QUENTLY, THESE PERSONS 4 ITA NO.2572/DEL/2016 FILED THE RELEVANT DETAILS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THEREAFTER, ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN AS TO WHY THE INCOME CLAIMED AS BUSINESS INCOME SHOULD NOT BE TREATED AS INCOME FROM SHORT TERM CA PITAL GAIN AND THE DEDUCTION CLAIMED OF RS.54.75 LACS U/S 35 OF THE I. T. ACT SHOULD NOT BE DISALLOWED. IN ABSENCE OF ANY EXPLANATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND OBSERVING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT DECLARED IN THE PAST ANY BUSINESS INCOME AND THERE WAS NO OPENING OR CLOSING STOCK OF SHARES, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISBELIEVED THE BUSINESS INCOME ON ACCOUNT OF SALE OF SHARES AND TREATED THE SAME AS SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 35 OF THE I.T . ACT. 4. IN APPEAL, IN ABSENCE OF ANY NEW MATERIAL BROUGH T TO NOTICE OF THE LD. CIT(A) REGARDING THE BUSINESS ACTIVITY, HE UPHELD T HE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN TREATING THE BUSINESS INCOME F ROM SALE OF SHARES AS SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN. HE, HOWEVER, ALLOWED TH E CLAIM OF ALTERNATE DEDUCTION U/S 80GGA TO THE ASSESSEE AT RS.31,00,000 /- AS AGAINST THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 35 OF THE IT ACT BY THE ASSE SSEE. 5 ITA NO.2572/DEL/2016 5. AGGRIEVED WITH SUCH ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL BY RAISING THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL :- ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE CIT(A) WAS INCORRECT AND UNJUSTIFIED IN :- 1) NOT ALLOWING DEDUCTION AS CLAIMED U/S 35. 2) IN RESTRICTING THE DEDUCTION TO RS.31,00,000/- ONLY . 3) IN HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT CARRYING ON AN Y BUSINESS ACTIVITY. 4) HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO DEDUC TION U/S 35 IN THE ABSENCE OF BUSINESS INCOME. 5) HOLDING THAT THE SALE OF SHARES WAS NOT BUSINESS IN COME EVEN IF THE INTENTION WAS TO START ANY CARRY ON SUCH BUSINESS. 6. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AT THE OUTSET STRON GLY CHALLENGED THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). HE SUBMITTED THAT BUSINES S INCLUDES ANY TRADE, COMMERCE OR MANUFACTURE OR ANY ADVENTURE OR CONCERN IN THE NATURE OF TRADE, COMMERCE OR MANUFACTURE. REFERRING TO THE D ECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SUTLEJ COTTON MILLS SUPPLY AGENCY LTD. REPORTED IN 100 ITR 706, HE SUBMITTED THAT THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE SAID DECISION HAS HELD THAT A SINGLE T RANSACTION OF PURCHASE AND SALE OUTSIDE THE ASSESSEES LINE OF BUSINESS MAY CO NSTITUTE AN ADVENTURE IN 6 ITA NO.2572/DEL/2016 THE NATURE OF TRADE. IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO CONSTI TUTE TRADE THAT THERE SHOULD BE A SERIES OF TRANSACTIONS, BOTH OF PURCHASE AND S ALE. 7. REFERRING TO THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF G. VENKATASWAMI NAIDU & CO. VS. CIT REPORTED IN 35 ITR 594, HE SUBMITTED THAT THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE SAI D DECISION HAS HELD THAT IN CASES WHERE THE PURCHASE HAS BEEN MADE SOLE LY AND EXCLUSIVELY WITH THE INTENTION TO RESELL AT A PROFIT AND THE PU RCHASER HAS NO INTENTION OF HOLDING THE PROPERTY FOR HIMSELF OR OTHERWISE ENJOY ING OR USING IT, THE PRESENCE OF SUCH AN INTENTION IS A RELEVANT FACT AN D UNLESS IT IS OFFSET BY THE PRESENCE OF OTHER FACTORS IT WOULD RAISE A STRONG P RESUMPTION THAT THE TRANSACTION IS AN ADVENTURE IN THE NATURE OF TRADE. 8. REFERRING TO THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF SMT. INDRAMANI BAI VS. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER O F INCOME TAX REPORTED IN 200 ITR 594, HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSE SSEE IN THAT CASE HAD PURCHASED A PIECE OF LAND AND SHORTLY AFTER PURCHAS ING LAND THEY CARVED IT INTO FOUR PLOTS AND SOLD THEM INDIVIDUALLY. THE AS SESSING OFFICER BROUGHT THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN COMPENSATION RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE AND PRICE OF 7 ITA NO.2572/DEL/2016 LAND TO TAX TREATING TRANSACTION AS AN ADVENTURE IN NATURE OF TRADE. THE HONBLE APEX COURT HELD THAT SUCH TRANSACTION OF PU RCHASE AND SALE OF LAND BY THE ASSESSEE WAS AN ADVENTURE IN NATURE OF TRADE. 9. REFERRING TO THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE DELHI H IGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. D & M COMPONENTS LTD. REPORTED IN 3 64 ITR 179, HE SUBMITTED THAT THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE SAID DECISION HAS HELD THAT WHERE THERE WAS SHORT DURATION OF HOLDING OF S HARES AND LACK OF CLARITY IN ACCOUNT BOOKS, SALE AND PURCHASE OF SHARES WOULD LEAD TO BUSINESS INCOME AND NOT SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAINS. HE ALSO R ELIED ON FOLLOWING DECISIONS :- A. V. AMIRTHAM AMMAL VS. CIT, 74 ITR 739. B. LAXMI CO. VS. CIT, 43 ITR 415. C. PREMJI BHIMJI VS. CIT, 81 ITR 179. D. MANOJ KUMAR SAMDARIA VS. CIT IN ITA NO.97/2014 D ATED 12/03/14. E. EQUITY INTELLIGENCE INDIA (P.) LTD. VS. ACIT, 6 1 TAXMANN.COM 256. D. DILIP BATTU KARANJULE VS. ITO, 74 TAXMANN.COM 1 2. 10. HE ACCORDINGLY SUBMITTED THAT WHEN THE TRANSACT ION IS NOT IN DISPUTE AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ACCEPTED THE PURCHASE AND SALE TO BE 8 ITA NO.2572/DEL/2016 GENUINE, THEREFORE, MERELY BECAUSE ASSESSEE HAS HEL D THE SHARES FOR A SHORT PERIOD, THE SAME CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN AS AGAINST BUSINESS INCOME TREATED BY THE ASSESSEE. 11. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DENYING THE BENEFIT OF DEDUCTI ON U/S 35 OF THE I. T. ACT WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS FULFILLED THE REQUISITE CONDI TIONS. 12. LD. DR ON THE OTHER HAND HEAVILY RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). REFERRING TO THE DECISION OF THE MUMBAI BE NCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS. NARENDRA I. BHUVA REPORTED IN 90 ITD 174, HE SUBMITTED THAT THE TRIBUNAL IN THE SAID DECISION HA S HELD THAT FOR DETERMINING THE TRADE TRANSACTION AS ADVENTURE IN NATURE OF TRADE IT DEPENDS ON A NUMBER OF RELEVANT CIRCUMSTANCES SUCH AS (I) SUBJECT-MATTER OF TRANSACTION, (II) LENGTH OF PERIOD OF OWNERSHIP, (III) FREQUENCY OF NUMBER OF SIMILAR TRANSACTION BY SAME PERSON, (IV) SUPPLEM ENTARY WORK ON OR IN CONNECTION WITH PROPERTY REALIZED AND (V) CIRCUMSTA NCES THAT WERE RESPONSIBLE FOR REALIZATION AND MOTIVE. ACCORDINGL Y, IT WAS HELD THAT WHEN 9 ITA NO.2572/DEL/2016 THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT A TRADER OR BUSINESSMAN, PURCH ASE OF ANTIQUE CAR AND SALE OF THE SAME WAS NOT TO BE HELD TO BE ADVENTURE IN NATURE OF TRADE. 13. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL ARGUMENTS MADE BY BOTH THE SIDES, PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE LD. CIT(A) AND THE PAPER BOOK FILED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. WE HAV E ALSO CONSIDERED THE VARIOUS DECISIONS CITED BEFORE US. WE FIND THE ASS ESSEE IN THE INSTANT CASE HAS PURCHASED 6,00,000 SHARES OF M/S J.T. AGRO GOOD PVT. LTD. AT THE RATE OF 0.50 PAISE PER SHARE FROM M/S BANWARI EXIM P. LT D. AND M/S PRABHASH MOTOR FINANCE P. LTD.. THE ASSESSEE SUBSEQUENTLY S OLD THESE SHARES FOR RS.60,00,000/- TO SHRI RAJ KUMAR GUPTA AND SHRI RAM LAL GUPTA FOR RS.30,00,000/- EACH TOTALING TO RS.60,00,000/-. WE FIND THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE BASIS OF THE VARIOUS DOCUMENTS FILED AND THE STATEMENT RECORDED DID NOT DOUBT THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANS ACTIONS. HOWEVER, IN ABSENCE OF SUCH BUSINESS INCOME DECLARED ON ACCOUNT OF SALE OF SHARES IN THE PRECEDING YEAR AND IN ABSENCE OF ANY OPENING OR CLOSING STOCK OF SHARES, THE ASSESSING OFFICER TREATED THE PROFIT FR OM SALE OF SHARES AS SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN AS AGAINST BUSINESS INCOME DECLAR ED BY THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE SO-CALLED P URCHASE OF SHARES ARE 10 ITA NO.2572/DEL/2016 MANIPULATED ONLY TO CLAIM THE DEDUCTION U/S 35 OF T HE I.T. ACT OUT OF THE DONATION MADE OF RS.31,00,000/- AND EVADE THE TAX. 14. WE FIND, IN APPEAL THE LD. CIT(A) UPHELD THE AC TION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN CONSIDERING THE PROFIT FROM SALE OF SHAR ES AS SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN. HE, HOWEVER, ALLOWED THE ALTERNATE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE REGARDING THE DEDUCTION U/S 80GGA OF THE I.T. ACT AND ALLOWED SUCH DEDUCTION AT RS.31,00,000/- FOR WHICH THE REVENUE IS NOT IN APPE AL. IT IS THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT A SINGLE T RANSACTION OF PURCHASE AND SALE OF SHARES OUTSIDE THE ASSESSEES LINE OF BUSIN ESS MAY CONSTITUTE ADVENTURE IN NATURE OF TRADE. ACCORDING TO HIM, WHEN THE PURCHASE HAS BEEN MADE SOLELY AND EXCLUSIVELY WITH THE INTENTION TO RESELL IT AT A PROFIT AND THE ASSESSEE HAS NO INTENTION OF HOLDING THE PR OPERTY FOR HERSELF FOR A LONG PERIOD OR OTHERWISE ENJOYING AND USING IT, THE PRESENCE OF SUCH AN INTENTION IS A RELEVANT FACTOR AND MAY CONSTITUTE A N ADVENTURE IN NATURE OF TRADE. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE REASON FOR TREATING T HE PROFIT FROM SALE OF SUCH SHARES AS SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN AS AGAINST THE BU SINESS INCOME DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS TO DENY THE BENEFIT OF DEDUCTIO N U/S 35 OF THE I.T. ACT. 11 ITA NO.2572/DEL/2016 15. WE FIND SOME FORCE IN THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. IT IS AN UNDISPUTED FACT THAT THE AS SESSING OFFICER HAS NOT DISBELIEVED THE PURCHASE AND SALE OF SHARES ON THE BASIS OF THE VARIOUS DOCUMENTS FILED BEFORE HIM SINCE ULTIMATELY HE HAS TREATED THE PROFIT FROM SALE OF SHARES AS SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN. HIS GRI EVANCE IS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MANIPULATED THE SO-CALLED SHARES AND SO-CALLED TRANSACTION OF SHARES OF ONE PRIVATE COMPANY IS JUST TO CLAIM THE DEDUCTION U/S 35 OF THE I.T. ACT ON THE DONATION OF RS.31,00,000/-. THE DONATION HAS A LSO NOT BEEN DISBELIEVED. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE HAVE TO CONSIDER AS TO WHETHER THE PROFIT ON SALE OF SUCH SHARES WILL CONSTITUTE A N ADVENTURE IN NATURE OF TRADE AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE OR SHORT TERM CAPI TAL GAIN AS TREATED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND UPHELD BY THE LD. CIT(A). 16. WE FIND THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE O F SUTLEJ COTTON MILLS SUPPLY AGENCY LTD. (SUPRA) HAS HELD AS UNDER (SHORT NOTES) :- IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO CONSTITUTE TRADE THAT THERE SHOULD BE A SERIES OF TRANSACTIONS, BOTH OF PURCHASE AND OF SALE. A SING LE TRANSACTION OF PURCHASE AND SALE OUTSIDE THE ASSESSEES LINE OF BU SINESS MAY CONSTITUTE AN ADVENTURE IN THE NATURE OF TRADE. NEITHER REPET ITION NOR CONTINUITY OF SIMILAR TRANSACTIONS IS NECESSARY TO CONSTITUTE A T RANSACTION AN ADVENTURE IN THE NATURE OF TRADE. IF THERE IS REPLETION AND CONTINUITY, THE ASSESSEE 12 ITA NO.2572/DEL/2016 WOULD BE CARRYING ON A BUSINESS AND THE QUESTION WH ETHER THE ACTIVITY IS AN ADVENTURE IN THE NATURE OF TRADE CAN HARDLY ARIS E. A TRANSACTION MAY BE REGARDED AS ISOLATED ALTHOUGH A SIMILAR TRANSACT ION MAY HAVE TAKEN PLACE A FAIRLY LONG TIME BEFORE. 17. WE FIND THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE O F G. VENKATASWAMI NAIDU & CO. (SUPRA) HAS HELD AS UNDER (SHORT NOTES) :- IN CASES WHERE THE PURCHASE HAS BEEN MADE SOLELY A ND EXCLUSIVELY WITH THE INTENTION TO RESELL AT A PROFIT AND THE PURCHAS ER HAS NO INTENTION OF HOLDING THE PROPERTY FOR HIMSELF OR OTHERWISE ENJOY ING OR USING IT, THE PRESENCE OF SUCH AN INTENTION IS A RELEVANT FACTORY AND UNLESS IT IS OFFSET BY THE PRESENT OF OTHER FACTORS IT WOULD RAISE A ST RONG PRESUMPTION THAT THE TRANSACTION IS AN ADVENTURE IN THE NATURE OF TR ADE. 18. WE FIND THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CAS E OF D & M COMPONENTS LTD. (SUPRA) WHILE DECIDING A SOMEWHAT I DENTICAL ISSUE HAS HELD THAT WHERE THERE WAS SHORT DURATION OF HOLDING OF SHARES AND LACK OF CLARITY IN ACCOUNT BOOKS, SALE AND PURCHASE OF SHAR ES WOULD LEAD TO BUSINESS INCOME AND NOT SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAINS. THE VARIOUS OTHER DECISIONS RELIED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSE E ALSO SUPPORTS HIS CASE THAT THE PROFITS IN THE INSTANT CASE OF PURCHASE AN D SALE OF SHARES WOULD AMOUNT TO BUSINESS INCOME AND NOT SHORT TERM CAPITA L GAIN AS HELD BY THE 13 ITA NO.2572/DEL/2016 ASSESSING OFFICER. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, WE SET-ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ALLO W THE CLAIM OF BUSINESS INCOME ON ACCOUNT OF PROFIT ON SALE OF SUCH SHARES. SINCE THE ASSESSEE SUCCEEDS ON THIS ISSUE, THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE R EGARDING THE DEDUCTION U/S 35 OF THE I.T. ACT IS ALSO ALLOWED SUBJECT TO V ERIFICATION OF OTHER CONDITIONS IF ANY BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 19. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 22 ND MARCH, 2018. SD/- SD/- (BEENA A. PILLAI) (R. K. PANDA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 22-03-2018. SUJEET COPY OF ORDER TO: - 1) THE APPELLANT 2) THE RESPONDENT 3) THE CIT 4) THE CIT(A) 5) THE DR, I.T.A.T., NEW DELHI BY ORDER //TRUE COPY// ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI