Appeal details
Counselvise Citation
[2015] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1014 (ITAT-NAGPUR)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
Duration Of Justice
1 year(s) 11 month(s) 23 day(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date
05-06-2015
Appeal Filed By
Department
Order Result
Dismissed
Bench Allotted
DB
Assessment Year
2005-2006
Appeal Filed On
12-06-2013
Judgement Text
1 ITA NO 269/NAG/2013. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. BEFORE SHRI MUKUL K. SHRAWAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. I.T.A. NO.269/NAG/2013 ASS ESSMENT YEAR : 2005-06 ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JAGJITSINGH JASWANTSINGH OBEROI. WARDHA CIRCLE, WARDHA. V/S. 5, AGRAWAL LAYOUT, WAGHAPUR ROAD, Y AVATMAL. PAN AAAPO 7356F . APPELLANT. RESPONDENT. APPELLANT BY : SHRI A.R. NINAWE. RESPONDENT BY : SH RI K.P. DEWANI. DATE OF HEARING -12-05-2015.- DATE OF ORDER 5 TH JUNE-2015 O R D E R PER SHRI MUKUL K. SHRAWAT, J.M. THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE ARISING FRO M THE ORDER OF CIT(APPEALS)-II, NAGPUR AND THE GROUNDS RAISED ARE AS FOLLOWS: 1. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF ` .70,26,663/- MADE BY THE A.O. ON THE GROUND THAT THE PROVISION OF SECTION 2(22)(E) ARE NOT ATTRACTE D IN HIS CASE. 2. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE CIT(A) ERRED IN THAT HE DID NOT CONSIDER THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSE ES SHAREHOLDING WAS MORE THAN 10% BOTH AT THE BEGINNING AND THE END OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR. 2 ITA NO 269/NAG/2013. 3. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE CIT(A) DID NOT APPRECIATE THE LEGISLATIVE INTENT OF SECTION 2(22) (E) WHICH IS PRONOUNCED IN EXPLANATION 3(B) TO SECTION 2(22)(E) WHERE THE WOR DS AT ANY TIME DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR ARE USED. 2. FROM THE SIDE OF THE REVENUE ADDITIONAL GROUND H AS ALSO BEEN RAISED WHICH IS REPRODUCED BELOW : ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND I N LAW, THE CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING THE COLORABLE DEVICE BY WHICH ASSE SSEE TO AVOID APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 2(22)(E) BY WHICH HE TRAN SFERRED 2500 SHARES ON 15.04.2004 TO HIS FATHER AND THEN OBTAINED 4900 SH ARES ON 30.05.2004 FROM MEMBERS JUST TO SHOW THAT LOAN IS OBTAINED FROM C OMPANY AT THE TIME WHEN HE HAS LESS THAN 10% VITO POWER. 3. A NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 WAS ISSUED ON THE GRO UND THAT A COMPANY, NAMELY JASWANTSINGH OBEROI CONSTRUCTION P. LTD. HAD GIVEN A LOAN OF ` .70,26,663/- TO A DIRECTOR, NAMELY, SHRI JASWANTSIN GH J. OBEROI, THE RESPONDENT ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS OF THE VIEW THA T THE LOAN WAS IN THE NATURE OF DEEMED DIVIDEND. THE ASSESSEE HAS OBJECTED THAT TH E SHARE HOLDING WAS LESS THAN THE PRESCRIBED LIMIT, THEREFORE, THE LOAN AMOU NT SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED AS DEEMED DIVIDEND IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. ON TH E OTHER HAND, THE ALLEGATION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS THAT THE COMPANY HAD I SSUED 21445 EQUITY SHARES OF ` .100/- EACH OUT OF WHICH THE ASSESSEE WAS HOLDING 3000 SHARES AS ON 31-03- 2004. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALSO NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD TRANSFERRED 2500 SHARES ON 15-04-2004 TO HIS FATHER. THEREAFTER 4900 SHARES WERE ALLOTTED TO THE ASSESSEE BY THE SAID COMPANY. ACCORDING TO THE ASSE SSING OFFICER DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2004-05 THE ASSESSEE WAS HOLDING 540 0 SHARES WHICH WERE NOT LESS THAN 10% OF THE VOTING POWER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE 3 ITA NO 269/NAG/2013. WAS A BENEFICIAL OWNER, HENCE THE LOAN WAS A DEEMED DIVIDEND. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE SHARE HOLDIN G PATTERN AS PER THE FOLLOWING REPLY : IN REPLY, DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEE DINGS THE ASSESSEE STATED, AS ON01-04-2004, I WAS HOLDING 3000 SHARE S OF JASWANTSINGH OBEROI CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. WHICH WAS 30% OF THE TOTAL SHARE CXAPITAL. I SOLD 2500 SHARES ON 15.04.2004, THUS, MY SHARE HO LDING IN THE COMPANY WENT DOWN TO 5% ON 15.04.2004. THE ADVANCES GIVEN TO ME BY THE COMPANY AS STATED BY YOU ARE AFTER 15.04.2004 I.E. WHEN MY SHARE HOLDING WAS BELOW 10% THEREFORE THE QUESTION OF TREATING T HE SAID AMOUNT AS DEEMED DIVIDEND DOES NOT ARISE. I FURTHER STATES T HAT AS PER MY RETURN OF INCOME FOR A.Y. 2005-06, I HAVE SHOWN CAPITAL GAIN OF ` .2,18,310/- AS THE SALE OF 2500 SHARES OF JASWANTSINGH OBEROI CONSTRU CTION PRIVATE LIMITED WHICH MEANS THE FACT THAT MY SHARES HOLDING WAS GO NE DOWN IS EVIDENT FROM RECORDS. NO NEW POINT HAS ARISEN FOR THE ISSU E OF NOTICE U/S. 148. IT IS THUS, REQUESTED TO CANCEL THE NOTICE AND ACCEPT MY RETURN AS FILED. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT CONVINCED AN D HELD THAT THE SHARE HOLDING WAS NOT LESS THAN 10% OF VOTING POWER. THEREFORE, T HE AMOUNT OF LOAN WAS IN THE NATURE OF DEEMED DIVIDEND, WHICH WAS TAXED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. 4. WHEN THE MATTER WAS CARRIED BEFORE THE FIRST APP ELLATE AUTHORITY, LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) HAS EXAMINED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIO N 2(22)(E) OF THE I.T. ACT AND ALSO DISCUSSED THE DECISION OF KERALA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SMT. PARVATHARANI AMMAL 219 ITR 661 )KER.). ON THE BASIS OF THE SAID JUDGMENT, LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) HAS HELD THAT ON THE DATE OF ADVANCE WHEN LOAN WAS GIVEN BY M/S JOCPL, THE PERCENTAGE OF VOTING POWER OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE S AID COMPANY WAS LESS THAN 10%. HE HAS HELD THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2(2 2)(E) WERE WRONGLY ATTRACTED, HENCE DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DELETE THE ADDITION. 4 ITA NO 269/NAG/2013. 5. FROM THE SIDE OF THE REVENUE, LEARNED D.R. MR. A .R. NINAWE HAS SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND PLEADED THAT IN TERMS OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2(22)(E) EXPLANATION 3(B) THE ASSESSEE WAS HAVING SUBSTANTIAL INTEREST IN THE COMPANY DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR, HENCE THE ASS ESSING OFFICER HAS RIGHTLY INVOKED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2(22)(E) OF THE I .T. ACT. LEARNED D.R. HAS CONTESTED THAT THE SHARE HOLDING PATTERN WAS TO BE EXAMINED AT ANY TIME DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR AND NOT ON A PARTICULAR DATE. THE REFORE, THE LOAN WAS RIGHTLY CONSIDERED AS DEEMED DIVIDEND. 6. ON THE OTHER SIDE, LEARNED A.R. MR. K.P. DEWANI HAS PLEADED THAT EXPLANATION 3(B) IS NOT IN RESPECT OF A COMPANY BUT IN RESPECT OF A CONCERN. THEREFORE, THE DEEMING PROVISION WAS WRONGLY INVOKE D. HE HAS PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE KERALA HIGH COURT PRONOUNC ED IN THE CASE OF H.K. MITTAL 219 ITR 420. 7. AFTER HEARING THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE SIDES AND IN THE LIGHT OF THE FACTS AS NARRATED ABOVE, WE HAVE NOTED THAT A LEGAL ISSUE HAS EMERGED THAT THE CONDITION QUALIFY UNDER EXPLANATION 3(B) ANNEXED TO SECTION 2(22)(E) REPRESENTS THE 2(22)(E)(I) OR (II) OF SECTION 2(22)(E) OF THE I.T. ACT. TO RESOLVE THIS ISSUE, AT FIRST THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS ARE NEEDED TO BE REPRODUCE D BELOW, AS UNDER : SECTION 2(22): (E) ANY PAYMENT BY A COMPANY NOT BEING A COMPANY, IN WHICH THE PUBLIC ARE SUBSTANTIALLY INTERESTED, OF ANY SUM (WHETHER AS REPRESENTING A PART OF THE ASSETS OF THE COMPANY OR OTHERWISE) [MANDATE A FTER THE 31 ST DAY OF MAY, 1987, BY WAY OF ADVANCE OR LOAN TO A SHAREHOL DER, BEING A PERSON WHO IS THE BENEFICIAL OWNER OF SHARES (NOT BEING SHARE S ENTITLED TO A FIXED RATE OF DIVIDEND WHETHER WITH OR WITHOUT A RIGHT TO PARTIC IPATE IN PROFITS) HOLDING NOT LESS THAN 10 PER CENT OF THE VOTING POWER, OR TO ANY CONCERN IN WHICH 5 ITA NO 269/NAG/2013. SUCH SHAREHOLDER IS A MEMBER OR A PARTNER AND IN W HICH HE HAS A SUBSTANTIAL INTEREST (HEREAFTER IN THIS CLAUSE REF ERRED TO AS THE SAID CONCERN) OR ANY PAYMENT BY ANY SUCH COMPANY ON BEHALF, OR F OR THE INDIVIDUAL BENEFIT, OF ANY SUCH SHAREHOLDER, TO THE EXTENT TO WHICH THE COMPANY IN EITHER CASE POSSESSES ACCUMULATED PROFITS ; BUT DIVIDEND DOES NOT INCLUDE- (I) A DISTRIBUTION MADE IN ACCORDANCE WITH SUB-CL AUSE (C) OR SUB-CLAUSE (D) IN RESPECT OF ANY SHARE ISSUED FOR FULL CASH CONSI DERATION, WHERE THE HOLDER OF THE SHARE IS NOT ENTITLED IN THE EVENT OF LIQUI DATION TO PARTICIPATE IN THE SURPLUS ASSETS. (IA) A DISTRIBUTION MADE IN ACCORDANCE WITH SUB-CL AUSE (C) OR SUB-CLAUSE (D) IN SO FAR AS SUCH DISTRIBUTION IS ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE CAPITALIZED PROFITS OF THE COMPANY REPRESENTING BONUS SHARES ALLOTTED TO ITS EQUITY SHARES AFTER THE 31 ST DAY OF MARCH, 1964, [AND BEFORE THE 1 ST DAY OF APRIL, 1965];] (II) ANY ADVANCE OR LOAN MADE TO SHAREHOLDER [OR T HE SAID CONCERN BY A COMPANY IN THE ORDINARY COURSE OF ITS BUSINESS, W HERE THE LENDING OF MONEY IS A SUBSTANTIAL PART OF THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY. ----------- ------------------------- ----------- ------------------------ [EXPLANATION 3.- FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS CLAUSE, - (A) CONCERN MEANS A HINDU UNDIVIDED FAMILY, OR A FIRM OR AN ASSOCIATION OF PERSONS OR A BODY OF INDIVIDUALS O R A COMPANY; (B) A PERSON SHALL BE DEEMED TO HAVE A SUBSTANTIA L INTEREST IN A CONCERN, OTHER THAN A COMPANY, IF HE IS, AT ANY T IME DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR, BENEFICIALLY ENTITLED TO NOT LESS THAN TWENTY PERCENT OF THE INCOME OF SUCH CONCERN;] 6 ITA NO 269/NAG/2013. 8. TO DEAL WITH THIS ISSUE, IT IS WORTH TO MENTION THAT UNDISPUTEDLY THE LEGISLATURE IS COMPETENT TO ENACT A DEEMING PROVISI ON FOR THE PURPOSE OF ASSUMING THE EXISTENCE OF FACT WHICH DOES NOT REALL Y EXIST. BY ENACTING SECTION 2(22)(E) THE LEGISLATURE HAS CREATED A FICTION. THE FICTION CREATED BY THESE PROVISIONS IS SO COMPREHENSIVE THAT SUBSTANTIAL SH AREHOLDERS WHO BORROWS FROM THE COMPANY WILL HAVE TO PAY TAX ON AN AMOUNT WHICH MIGHT FAR IN EXCESS OF WHAT HE WOULD OBTAIN BY WAY OF DIVIDEND. BUT SIDE BY SID E IT IS ALSO AN ESTABLISHED LAW THAT THE FICTION CANNOT BE EXTENDED FURTHER OR SO I NTERPRETED AS TO GO BEYOND THE LEGISLATURES INTENTION IN CREATING THE FICTION. TH IS IS SO, BECAUSE LEGAL FICTIONS ARE CREATED ONLY FOR A DEFINITE PURPOSE AND, THEREFORE, THEY ARE LIMITED TO THE PURPOSE FOR WHICH THEY ARE CREATED. NATURALLY A LEGAL FICTI ON IS TO BE CARRIED TO ITS LOGICAL CONCLUSION, HENCE THE ISSUE IN HAND IS TO BE DECIDE D KEEPING THIS IN MIND. 8.1 WE ALL ARE AWARE THAT DIVIDEND IN ITS ORDINA RY CONNOTATION MEANS THE SUM PAID TO OR RECEIVED BY A SHAREHOLDER PROPORTION ATE TO HIS SHARE HOLDING IN COMPANY OUT OF THE TOTAL SUM DISTRIBUTED. SO THE DI VIDEND DISTRIBUTED BY A COMPANY IS A SHARE OF ITS PROFITS DECLARED AS DISTR IBUTOR AMONG THE SHAREHOLDERS. AS, PAYMENT OF DIVIDEND IS RELATED TO A PROPORTIONA TE TO THE SHARE HELD BY SHAREHOLDERS, ANY PAYMENT MAY UNRELATED TO HIS SHAR ES CANNOT BE TREATED AS DIVIDEND UNDER THE GENERAL LAW. BUT BY THE CREATION OF THE FICTION VIDE SECTION 2(22)(E) ANY ADVANCE OR LOAN TO A SHAREHOLDER IS AL SO INCLUDED IN THE DEFINITION OF DIVIDEND, SUBJECT TO THE EXCEPTIONS PRESCRIBED UND ER THIS SUB-SECTION. THIS ARTIFICIAL DEFINITION DOES NOT CHECK WHETHER DIVI DEND IS ACTUALLY DECLARED OR RECEIVED. THE DIVIDEND TAKEN NOTE OF BY THAT PROV ISION IS A DEEMED DIVIDEND AND NOT A REAL DIVIDEND. THIS IS SO BECAUSE OF TH E REASON THAT THE LOAN GRANTED TO A SHAREHOLDER HAS TO BE RETURNED TO THE COMPANY. IT DOES NOT BECOME THE 7 ITA NO 269/NAG/2013. INCOME OF THE SHAREHOLDER. BUT FOR CERTAIN PURPOSES , AS DESCRIBED IN THIS SUB- SECTION, THE LEGISLATURE HAS DEEMED SUCH A LOAN AS DIVIDEND. 8.2 WITH THIS BACKGROUND, IF WE CONSIDER THE PROVIS IONS SO ENACTED, THEN WE HAVE FOUND THAT SECTION 2(22)(E) HAS THREE CATEGORI ES WHICH ARE CARVED OUT AS UNDER FROM SUB-SECTION (E) AS UNDER : (A) BY WAY OF LOAN OR ADVANCE TO A SHAREHOLDER HOL DING NOT LESS THAN 10% OF THE VOTING POWER. (B) BY WAY OF LOAN OR ADVANCE TO ANY CONCERN IN WH ICH SUCH SHAREHOLDER IS A MEMBER OR A PARTNER. (C) ANY PAYMENT BY ANY SUCH COMPANY ON BEHALF OF O R FOR THE INDIVIDUAL BENEFIT OF ANY SUCH SHAREHOLDER. 8.3 THIS SUB-SECTION, THEREFORE, HAS PRESCRIBED TH E THREE CATEGORIES OF TAX PAYERS WHO HAVE TAKEN ADVANCE OR LOAN EITHER AS A S HAREHOLDER, SECONDLY, AS A MEMBER/PARTNER OF A CONCERN OR THIRDLY, AS A BENEFI T TO AN INDIVIDUAL FOR AND ON BEHALF OF SHAREHOLDER. IT MAY NOT BE OUT OF PLACE T O MENTION THAT UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS EXCEPTION IS PRESCRIBED ACCORDING TO WHI CH CERTAIN TRANSACTION WOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED AS DEEMED DIVIDEND, FOR EXAMPLE , IF ADVANCE OR LOAN IS GIVEN IN THE ORDINARY COURSE OF THE BUSINESS. RIGHT NOW W E ARE NOT ON THE ISSUE OF THE EXCEPTIONS PRESCRIBED IN THIS SUB-SECTION. THE ISSU E BEFORE US IS REVOLVING AROUND THE INTERPRETATION OF EXPLANATION 3 ANNEXED TO THIS SUB-SECTION. 8.4 AS REPRODUCED ABOVE, EXPLANATION 3 HAS PRESCRIB ED TWO TYPES OF TAX PAYERS ON WHICH THE PROVISIONS OF SUB-SECTION (E) ARE TO B E APPLIED. FIRST CATEGORY IS A CONCERN WHICH MEANS A HINDU UNDIVIDED FAMILY OR A FIRM OR AN ASSOCIATION OF PERSONS OR A COMPANY. IN THE SECOND CATEGORY I.E. EXPLANATION 3(B) A PERSON SHALL BE DEEMED TO HAVE SUBSTANTIAL INTEREST IN A C ONCERN, OTHER THAN A COMPANY, 8 ITA NO 269/NAG/2013. IF HE IS AT ANY TIME DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR BENEF ICIALLY ENTITLED TO NOT LESS THAN 20% OF THE INCOME OF SUCH CONCERN. AS PER EXPLANAT ION 3(A), CONCERN MEANS A COMPANY ALSO, BUT FURTHER EXPLAINING THE INTENT OF THE SECTION VIDE EXPLANATION 3(B) IT IS PRESCRIBED THAT A PERSON SHALL BE DEEMED TO HAVE A SUBSTANTIAL INTEREST IN A CONCERN, OTHER THAN A COMPANY. THEREFORE, THE COM PANY IS EXCLUDED AND THE REMAINING ENTITIES SUCH AS HUF, FIRM, AOP OR BOI AR E LEFT IN VIEW OF EXPLANATION 3(B). THEREFORE, THE WORDS CAUGHT THE ATTENTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER I.E. AT ANY TIME DURING PREVIOUS YEAR, BELONG TO EXPLANATI ON 3(B) IN RESPECT OF CONCERN, NAMELY, HUF, FIRM, AOP OR BOI. THE PERCE NTAGE OF SHARE HOLDING AS PRESCRIBED IN THIS SECTION DO NOT APPLY TO THE COM PANY BECAUSE EXPLANATION 3(B) HAS PURPOSELY MENTIONED THAT FOR THE PURPOSE OF THI S CLAUSE OTHER THAN A COMPANY IS A CONCERN. HENCE THE PERCENTAGE OF SHARE HOLDING AT ANY TIME DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR IS REQUIRED TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCO UNT IN RESPECT OF A CONCERN AND NOT IN RESPECT OF ANY OTHER CATEGORY OF PERSONS DES CRIBED IN SECTION 2(22)(E) OF I.T. ACT. HOWEVER, AS PER THE FACTS OF THIS CASE, T HE ENTITY INVOLVED IS NOT A CONCERN BUT A COMPANY. BECAUSE OF THIS REASON, EVEN IF AT ANY TIME DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR THE SHARE HOLDING OF SHRI OBEROI HAS GONE UP, THEN ALSO NOT TO BE APPLIED BECAUSE THE TRANSACTION WAS NOT WITH A CONCERN BUT WITH A COMPANY. ALTHOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS TRANSFERRED 25 00 SHARES TO HIS FATHER AND AT THAT POINT OF TIME THE SHARE HOLDING WAS LESS TH AN THE PRESCRIBED LIMIT BUT THE ASSESSING OFFICER CANNOT EXTEND THE FICTION TO PRES UME THAT THE TRANSACTION HAS HAPPENED BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND A CONCERN. RATHER THE ADMITTED FACTUAL POSITION WAS THAT THE TRANSACTION WAS BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND A COMPANY. THEREFORE, THE CLAUSE ANY TIME DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR SHOULD NOT APPLY TO THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDING TO US, EXPLANATION 3(B) WHERE T HE TERM ANY TIME DURING THE 9 ITA NO 269/NAG/2013. PREVIOUS YEAR IS TO BE APPLIED ONLY IN RESPECT OF A CONCERN. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAD THE TRANSACTION WITH A COMPANY, NAMELY, JASVANT S. OBEROI P. LTD. CO., THEREFORE, THE LOAN GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE SHOULD NO T BE TREATED AS DEEMED DIVIDEND FOR THE PURPOSE OF INVOKING PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2(22)(E). 9. IN THE LIGHT OF THE REASONS ASSIGNED HEREIN ABOV E, WE HEREBY CONFIRM THE FINDING OF LEARNED CIT(APPEALS), ALTHOUGH GIVEN OTH ER REASONS FOR GRANTING RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE. LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) HAS PLACED RELIA NCE ON A DECISION OF HONBLE KERALA HIGH COURT PRONOUNCED IN THE CASE OF CIT V/S . SMT. S. PARVATHAVARTHINI AMMAL 219 ITR 661 (KER.). FINALLY THE RESULT IS THA T THE GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE HAS NO FORCE IN THE EYES OF LAW. HENCE DISM ISSED. 10. IN THE RESULT, THE REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSE D. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 5 TH JUNE, 2015. SD/- SD/- (SHAMIM YAHYA) (MUKUL K. SHRAWAT) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER. NAGPUR, DATED: 5 TH , 2015. 10 ITA NO 269/NAG/2013. COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE ASSESSEE. 2. REVENUE. 3. THE CIT(A) 4. THE CIT, NAGPUR. 5. THE D.R., ITAT, NAGPUR. 6. GUARD FILE. T RUE COPY. BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, WAKODE ITAT, NAGPUR
