Shree Balaji Packaging, New Delhi V. CIT- X, New Delhi

ITA 2651/DEL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 81608 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-08-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Next Hearing Date: 07-07-2014
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 01-05-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAMESH CHANDRA
• Assessee Lawyers: DR RAM SAMUJH
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 143(3); 263

Judgement Text

ITA NO.2651/DEL/2014 ASSTT. YEAR: 2009-10 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH G NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S.V. MEHROTRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 2651/DEL/2014 ASSESSMENT Y EAR: 2009-10 SHREE BALAJI PACKAGING VS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX X, 5 A/8, ANSARI ROAD, NEW DELHI. DARYA GANJ, NEW DELHI 110 002. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: DR. RAM SAMUJH, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY: SHRI R AMESH CHANDRA, CIT(DR) O R D E R PER CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE AGA INST THE ORDER OF THE CIT, DELHI-X DATED 24.3.2014 FOR AY 2009-10 PASSED U/S 263 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUND IN THIS APPEAL: 1.THE LD. CIT IS ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS IN FA CTS IN CANCELLING THE ORDER PASSED U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1 961 AND IN REOPENING OF THE CASE. 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE ORDER PASSED U/S 263 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 BY THE LD. CIT-X IS BAD BOTH IN THE EYE OF LAW AND ON FACTS. HENCE THE ORDER PASSED IS LI ABLE TO BE SQUASHED. 3. THAT THE LD. CIT ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS FA CTS IN NOT PROVIDING THE PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. 4. THAT THE LD. CIT ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS F ACTS IN PASSING THE ORDER WITHOUT TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE REPLY SUBMI TTED BY THE APPELLANT. ITA NO.2651/DEL/2014 ASSTT. YEAR: 2009-10 2 3. BRIEFLY STATED THE FACTS GIVING RISE TO THIS APP EAL ARE THAT THE AO COMPLETED ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT AND FRAM ED THE ASSESSMENT AT RETURNED INCOME AS DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE. SUBSE QUENTLY, CIT, DELHI-X ISSUED A NOTICE U/S 263 OF THE ACT ON 24.10.2013 TO THE AS SESSEE FIXING DATE OF HEARING OF 6.11.2013 ASKING THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH NECESSA RY INFORMATION/ARGUMENTS IN ITS FAVOUR. THE CIT REJECTED THE EXPLANATION AND S UBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE AND HELD THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE AO IS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTI ON 263 OF THE ACT AND THE CIT CANCELED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 12.2.2011 AND D IRECTED THE AO TO MAKE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AFRESH AFTER THOROUGHLY EXAMINING THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ASSESSEES CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 80IC OF THE ACT. NOW, THE AGGRIEVED ASSESSEE IS BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL WITH THE GROUNDS AS REPRODU CED HEREINABOVE. 4. WE HAVE HEARD ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE SIDES AND CA REFULLY PERUSED RELEVANT MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD. LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE AO ALLOWED DEDUCTION U/S 80IC OF THE ACT AND FO R THE FIRST TIME IN AY 2006- 07 AND SUBSEQUENTLY IN AY 2007-08 AND 2008-09, THE SAME DEDUCTION WAS ALSO ALLOWED TO THE ASSESSEE. LD. COUNSEL HAS DRAWN OUR ATTENTION TOWARDS ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 02.12.2011 AND SUBMITTED THA T THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION IN THIS APPEAL WAS THE FOURTH A SSESSMENT YEAR IN CONTINUATION WHEREIN THE AO NOTICED THAT THE ASSESS EE HAS CLAIMED DEDUCTION FOR ITA NO.2651/DEL/2014 ASSTT. YEAR: 2009-10 3 THE FIRST TIME IN AY 2006-07 AND THE AO FOLLOWED TH E SAME STAND OF THE REVENUE WHICH WAS FOLLOWED BY HIS PREDECESSOR DURING EARLIE R THREE CONSECUTIVE ORDERS PERTAINING TO ASSTT. YEAR 2006-07, 2007-08 AND 2008 -09. 5. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE DRAWN OUR ATTEN TION TOWARDS IMPUGNED ORDER AND SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT HAS MERELY NOTED THAT TH ERE WAS A MISMATCH IN THE FIGURE OF DEDUCTION AS CLAIMED IN FORM NO. 10CCB (W HICH WAS CLAIMED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME) AND FORM NO. 3CD AND HELD THAT TH E AO HAD NOT APPLIED HIS MIND ABOUT THIS DISCREPANCY AND NOR IT IS THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ALLEGED REVISED REPORT WAS SUBMITTED BEFORE THE AO DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND CIT WRONGLY HOLD THAT THERE WAS A C OMPLETE FAILURE ON THE PART OF AO TO MAKE APPROPRIATE INQUIRY TO THE FACTS OF T HE CASE TO ASCERTAIN AND VERIFY THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ASSESSEES CLAIM OF DEDUCTIO N U/S 80IC OF THE ACT. THE LD. COUNSEL DRAWN OUR ATTENTION TOWARDS APPEAL FOLDER P AGE NO. 1 TO 10 AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED CAUSE OF DISC REPANCY AND ITS CLARIFICATION IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE OF THE CIT U/S 263 OF THE ACT. BUT THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS REJECTED WITHOUT ANY COGENT AND JU STIFIED REASONS AND FINDINGS IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSE SSEE PLACED RELIANCE ON VARIOUS DECISIONS OF HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH CO URT OF DELHI INCLUDING DECISION IN THE CASE OF ITO VS. DG HOUSING PROJECTS LTD. (20 12) 343 ITR 329 (DELHI) AND SUBMITTED THAT THE COMMISSIONER CANNOT REMIT THE MA TER FOR A FRESH DECISION TO THE AO TO CONDUCT FURTHER INQUIRY WITHOUT FINDING THAT THE ORDER OF T HE AO IS ERRONEOUS. ITA NO.2651/DEL/2014 ASSTT. YEAR: 2009-10 4 6. REPLYING TO THE ABOVE THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (DR) POINTED OUT THAT THE AO OUGHT TO HAVE NOTICED DISCREPANCY A ND MISMATCH IN THE FIGURE OF DEDUCTION AS CLAIMED IN FORM NO. 10CCB AND IN FORM NO. 3CD BUT THE AO PASSED A VERY BRIEF ORDER WITHOUT GIVING ANY FINDING ON T HIS MISMATCH AND DISCREPANCY THEREFORE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS ERRONEOUS. THE D R FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT SINCE THERE WAS A MAJOR DISCREPANCY AND MISMATCH IN THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AS OBSERVED BY CIT THAT IN FORM NO. 3CB THE ADMISSI BLE DEDUCTION WAS SHOWN AT RS. 14,17,940/- WHILE IN AUDITED REPORT IN FORM NO. 10CCB THE DEDUCTION U/S 80IC OF THE ACT HAS BEEN SHOWN AT RS. 30,44,968/-. THEREFORE THE ORDER WAS ALSO PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. THEREFO RE CIT RIGHTLY INVOKED PROVISIONS OF SECTION 263 OF THE ACT AND REMITTED T HE MATTER BACK TO THE AO FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION AFTER THROUGHOUT EXAMINATION TO THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ASSESSEES CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 80IC OF THE ACT. 7. ON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE ABOVE SUB MISSION AND CAREFUL PERUSAL OF THE RELEVANT MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD ESPECIALLY F ILE FOLDER AND PAPERS FILED UNDER INDEX SPREAD OVER 45 PAGES WE OBSERVE THAT TH E ASSESSEE VIDE ITS REPLY DATED 12.11.2013 (PAGE 1 TO 10 OF APPEAL FOLDER) TO THE NOTICE U/S 263 OF THE ACT HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE AMOUNT OF DEDUCTION UNDER C HAPTER VIA FOR ASSTT. YEAR 2009-10 AS MENTIONED IN THE TEXT AUDIT REPORT AT RS . 14,17,940/- JUST A CLERICAL MISTAKE AS THE SAME AMOUNT WAS CLAIMED IN ASSTT. YE AR 2008-09 AND THIS FIGURE ITA NO.2651/DEL/2014 ASSTT. YEAR: 2009-10 5 REMAINED UNCHANGED IN THE TEXT AUDIT REPORT OF ASST T. YEAR 2009-10. THE ASSESSEE ALSO SUBMITTED COPIES OF THE AUDIT REPORT FOR ASSTT. YEAR 2008-09 AS WELL AS COPIES OF THE AUDITOR REPORT DATED 12.12.2009 FO R ASSTT. YEAR 2008-09. FROM THE ASSTT. ORDER WE OBSERVE THAT THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED ON 21.2.2011 AND WE ALSO OBSERVE THAT THE EXPLANATION IN CLARIFI CATION SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE PERTAINING TO THE DISCREPANCY AND MISMATCH AS ALLEGED BY THE CIT IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS TENABLE AND ACCEPTABLE. HENCE WE REACH TO A CONCLUSION THAT THE CIT IGNORED THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSE E IN THE REPLY VIDE DATED 12.11.2013 AND REJECTED THE SAME WITHOUT ANY JUSTI FIED AND COGENT REASONS. 8. AT THIS JUNCTURE WE FIND APPROPRIATE TO RES PECTFULLY FOLLOW THE DECISION OF HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT OF DELHI IN THE C ASE OF ITO VS. DG HOUSING PROJECTS LTD. (SUPRA) WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT THE MATTER CANNOT BE REMITTED TO THE FILE OF THE AI FOR FRESH DECISION BY THE CIT WI THOUT RECORDING A FINDING THAT THE ORDER OF THE AO IS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE WHILE PASSING ORDER U/S 263 OF THE ACT. THE RELEVANT OBSE RVATIONS OF HONBLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI READS AS UNDER :- 16. THUS, IN CASES OF WRONG OPINION OR FINDING ON MERITS, THE CIT HAS TO COME TO THE CONCLUSION AND HIMSELF DECIDE THAT THE ORDER IS ERRONEOUS , BY CONDUCTING NECESSARY ENQUIRY, IF REQUIRED AND NECES SARY BEFORE THE ORDER UNDER SECTION 263 IS PASSED. IN SUCH CASES, THE ORD ER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WILL BE ERRONEOUS BECAUSE THE ORDER PASSED IS NOT S USTAINABLE IN LAW AND THE SAID FINDING MUST BE RECORDED. CIT CANNOT REMAND TH E MATTER TO THE ASSESSIGN OFFICER TO DECIDE WHETHER THE FINDINGS RECORDED ARE ERRONEOUS. IN CASES WHERE THERE IS INADEQUATE ENQUIRY BUT NOT LACK OF ENQUIRY , AGAIN THE CIT MUST GIVE AND RECORD A FINDING THAT THE ORDER / INQUIRY MADE IS ERRONEOUS. THIS CAN HAPPEN IF AN ENQUIRY AND VERIFICATION IS CONDUCTED BY THE CIT AND HE IS ABLE TO ITA NO.2651/DEL/2014 ASSTT. YEAR: 2009-10 6 ESTABLISH AND SHOW THE ERROR OR MISTAKE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, MAKING THE ORDER UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW. IN SOME CASES POSSI BLY THOUGH RARELY, THE CIT CAN ALSO SHOW AND ESTABLISH THAT THE FACTS ON RECOR D OR INFERENCES DRAWN FROM FACTS ON RECORD PER SE JUSTIFIED AND MANDATED FURTH ER ENQUIRY OR INVESTIGATION BUT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD ERRONEOUSLY NOT UNDER TAKEN THE SAME. HOWEVER, THE SAID FINDING MUST BE CLEAR, UNAMBIGUOUS AND NOT DEBATABLE. THE MATTER CANNOT BE REMITTED FOR A FRESH DECISION TO THE ASS ESSING OFFICER TO CONDUCT FURTHER ENQUIRES WITHOUT A FINDING THAT THE ORDER I S ERRONEOUS. FINDING THAT THE ORDER IS ERRONEOUS IS A CONDITION OR REQUIREMENT WH ICH MUST BE SATISFIED FOR EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE A CT. IN SUCH MATTERS, TO REMAND THE MATTER/ISSUE TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER WO ULD IMPLY AND MEAN THE CIT HAS NOT EXAMINED AND DECIDED WHETHER OR NOT THE ORDER IS ERRONEOUS BUT HAS DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DECIDE THE AS PECT/QUESTION. 17. THIS DISTINCTION MUST BE KEPT IN MIND BY THE CIT WHILE EXERCISING JURISDICTION UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT AND IN TH E ABSENCE OF THE FINDING THAT THE ORDER IS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTER EST OF REVENUE, EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION UNDER THE SAID SECTION IS NOT SUSTAINA BLE. IN MOST CASES OF ALLEGED INADEQUATE INVESTIGATION, IT WILL BE DIFFICULT TO HOLD THAT THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WHO HAD CONDUCTED ENQUIRIES AND HAD ACTED AS AN INVESTIGATOR, IS ERRONEOUS, WITHOUT CIT CONDUCTING VERIFICATION/INQUIRY. THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAY BE OR MAY NOT BE WRONG, CIT CANNOT DIRECT RECONSIDERATION ON THIS GROUND BUT ONLY WHEN THE OR DER IS ERRONEOUS. AN ORDER OF REMIT CANNOT BE PASSED BY THE CIT TO ASK THE ASS ESSING OFFICER TO DECIDE WHETHER THE ORDER WAS ERRONEOUS. THIS IS NOT PERMIS SIBLE. AN ORDER IS NOT ERRONEOUS, UNLESS THE CIT HOLD AND RECORDS REASONS WHY IT IS ERRONEOUS. AN ORDER WILL NOT BECOME ERRONEOUS BECAUSE ON REMIT, T HE ASSESSING OFFICER MAY DECIDE THAT THE ORDER IS ERRONEOUS. THEREFORE CIT M UST AFTER RECORDING REASONS HOLD THAT THE ORDER IS ERRONEOUS. THE JURISDICTIONA L PRECONDITION STIPULATED IS THAT THE CIT MUST COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE O RDER IS ERRONEOUS AND IS UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW. WE MAY NOTICE THAT THE MATERI AL WHICH THE CIT CAN RELY INCLUDES NOT ONLY THE RECORD AS IT STANDS AT THE TI ME WHEN THE ORDER IN QUESTION WAS PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BUT ALSO THE R ECORD AS IT STANDS AS THE TIME OF EXAMINATION BY THE CIT [SEE CIT VS. SHREE M ANJUNATHESWARE PACKING PRODUCTS, 231 ITR 53 (SC)]. NOTHING BARS/PROHIBITS THE CIT FROM COLLECTING AND RELYING UPON NEW/ADDITIONAL MATERIAL/EVIDENCE T O SHOW AND STATE THAT THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS ERRONEOUS. 18. IT IS IN THIS CONTEXT THAT THE SUPREME COURT I N MALABAR INDUSTRIAL CO. LTD. VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (2000) 243 ITR 83 ( SC), HAD OBSERVED THAT THE PHRASE PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE HAS TO BE READ IN CONJUNCTION WITH AN ERRONEOUS ORDER PASSED BY THE A SSESSING OFFICER. EVERY LOSS OF REVENUE AS A CONSEQUENCE OF AN ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER CANNOT ITA NO.2651/DEL/2014 ASSTT. YEAR: 2009-10 7 BE TREATED AS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENU E. THUS, WHEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD ADOPTED ONE OF THE COURSES PERMISSIBLE AND AVAILABLE TO HIM, AND THIS HAS RESULTED IN LOW TO REVENUE; OR TWO VIEWS W ERE POSSIBLE AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TAKEN ONE VIEW WITH WHICH THE CIT MAY NOT AGREE, THE SAID ORDERS CANNOT BE TREATED AS AN ERRONEOUS ORDER PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE UNLESS THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE ASSESSING O FFICER IS UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW. IN SUCH MATTERS, THE CIT MUST GIVE A FINDING THAT THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW AND , THE REFORE, THE ORDER IS ERRONEOUS. HE MUST ALSO SHOW THAT PREJUDICE IS CAUS ED TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. 9. IN VIEW OF ABOVE WE CLEARLY NOTE THAT THE DISTINCTION MUST BE KEPT IN MIND BY THE CIT WHILE EXERCISING JURISDICTION U/S 263 OF THE ACT BETWEEN THE CASES OF NO INQUIRY AND THE CASES OF LACK OF INQUIRY AND IN THE ABSENCE OF FINDINGS THAT THE ORDER IS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTER EST OF REVENUE THE EXERCISE OF THE JURISDICTION U/S 263 OF THE ACT IS NOT SUSTAINA BLE. WE FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE ORDER OF THE AO MAY BE OR MAY NOT BE WRONG BUT CIT CANNOT DIRECT CONSIDERATION OF THIS GROUND OF THE LACK OF INQUIRY BUT ONLY WHEN THE ORDER IS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENU E THE CIT CAN QUASH THE ASSTT. ORDER AND DIRECT THE AO TO REFRAME THE ASSESSMENT U /S 263 OF THE ACT. WE ARE INCLINED TO HOLD THAT THE ORDER CANNOT BE PASSED BY THE CIT U/S 263 OF THE ACT TO ASK THE AO TO DECIDE WHETHER THE ASSESSMENT ORDER W AS ERRONEOUS OR NOT . THE CIT MUST AFTER RECORDING REASONS HOLD THAT THE ORDE R IS ERRONEOUS THEN ONLY ASSESSMENT ORDER CAN BE QUASHED AND THE AO MAY BE D IRECTED TO PASS THE ASSTT. ORDER IN PURSUANT TO ORDER OF CIT U/S 263 OF THE AC T. ITA NO.2651/DEL/2014 ASSTT. YEAR: 2009-10 8 10. COMING THE FACTUAL MATRIX IN THE PRE SENT CASE, FROM CAREFUL PERUSAL OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER WE CLEARLY OBSERVE THAT THE CIT HAS STRESSED ON THE MISMATCH AND DISCREPANCY IN THE FORM NO.10CCB AND F ORM NO. 3CD. REPLYING TO THE NOTICE U/S 263 OF THE ACT THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTE D AUDITORS REPORT PERTAINING TO 2008-09 AND ASSTT. YEAR 2009-10 WHICH MAKE IT CL EAR THAT THE DISCREPANCY AND MISMATCH AROSE DUE TO TYPOGRAPHICAL AND CLERICAL MI STAKE AS THE ASSESSEE COMPANY CLAIMED U/S CHAPTER VI-A AMOUNTING TO RS. 14,17,940/- IN ASSTT. YEAR 2008-09 AND THIS FIGURE REMAINED UNCHANGED IN THE T EXT AUDITOR REPORT AND REPORT FOR THE ASSTT. YEAR 2009-10 WHICH IS CLEAR F ORM ANNEXURE 5 AND ANNEXURE 6 OF THE APPEAL FOLDER PAGES 32 TO 45 AND CIT REJECTE D OUR ABOVE EXPLANATION THRESHOLD WITHOUT ASSIGNING ANY REASON AND THE CIT WRONGLY HOLD THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO T HE INTEREST OF REVENUE. WE FURTHER HOLD THAT CIT WAS GROSSLY ERRED AND NOT JUS TIFIED IN REMITTING THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR FRESH CONSIDERATION AND A DJUDICATION AS THIS IS OUT OF AMBIT OF POWERS OF CIT U/S 263 OF THE ACT. 11. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF H ONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT OF DELHI IN THE CASE OF ITO VS. DG HOUSING PROJECT LTD. (SUPRA) WE REACH TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE ORDER PASSED U/S 263 OF THE ACT IS BAD ON FACTS AND IN LAW THEREFORE THE SAME DESERVE TO BE QUASHED AND WE QUA SH THE SAME. ITA NO.2651/DEL/2014 ASSTT. YEAR: 2009-10 9 12. IN THE RESULT GROUND NO. 1 TO 4 OF THE ASSES EE ARE ALLOWED AND CONSEQUENTLY APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED AS I NDICATED ABOVE. THE ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED ON CONCLUSION OF THE HEARING ON 22 ND .AUGUST, 2014. SD/- SD/- (S.V. MEHROTRA) (CHANDRA MOHAN GARG) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDI CIAL MEMBER DATED 22 ND .AUGUST, 2014 VEENA COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR BY ORDER ASSTT REGISTRAR, ITAT