DCIT, New Delhi V. M/s Diethelm Travel (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 2748/DEL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6163 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 year(s) 8 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-01-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 20-07-2017
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 06-05-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ASHIMA NEB
• Assessee Lawyers: HITESH AMBANI
• Keywords: Business income; Depreciation; Transfer pricing; Revenue expenditure

Judgement Text

1 ITA NO. 2748/DEL/2013 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: B NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI N. K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDI CIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 2748/DEL/20 13 (A.Y 2009-10) DCIT CIRCLE 10(1) NEW DELHI (APPELLANT) VS DIETHELM TRAVEL (INDIA) PVT. LTD. AB-1, 2 ND FLOOR, COMMUNITY CENTRE, SAFDARJUNG ENCLAVE NEW DELHI AACCD6610J (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY MS. ASHIMA NEB, SR. DR RESPONDENT BY SH. HITESH AMBANI, CA ORDER PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JM THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE OR DER DATED 27/02/2013 PASSED BY CIT(A)-XIII, NEW DELHI FOR ASSESSMENT YE AR 2009-10. 2. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE AS UNDER:- I) WHETHER THE CIT(A) UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCU MSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW WAS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION O F RS. 56,05,147/- ON ACCOUNT OF SALARY, WAGES, BONUS AND RENT PAID FOR T HE MANAGING DIRECTORS, MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. II) WHETHER THE CIT(A) UNDER THE FACTS ANDCIRCUMST ANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW WAS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF R S. 8,05,465/- MADE BY THE AO ON A/C OF TRAVELLING & CONVEYANCE EXPENSES. DATE OF HEARING 10.01.2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 24.01.2019 2 ITA NO. 2748/DEL/2013 III) WHETHER THE CIT(A) UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUM STANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW WAS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE DISALLOWAN CE OF RS. 24,41 JJ36/- MADE BY THE AO ON A/C OF CONSULTANCY EXPENSES. IV) WHETHER THE CIT(A) UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUM STANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW WAS] JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 11,08,596/- MADE BY THE AO ON A/C OF LEGAL & PROFESSIONAL CHARGES. V) WHETHER THE CIT(A) UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTA NCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW WAS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF R S. 29,63,625/- MADE BY THE AO ON A/C OF INTEREST & FINANCE CHARGES. VI) WHETHER THE CIT(A) UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMST ANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW WAS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF R S. 10,15,633/- MADE BY THE AO ON A/C OF FOREIGN EXCHANGE FLUCTUATION LOSS. 3. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS A SUBSIDIARY OF DIETHELM TRAVELS (THAILAND) LTD. IT WAS INCORPORATED IN INDIA IN THE F.Y. 2007- 08. THE COMPANY IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF ARRANGING INBOUND AND OU TBOUND PACKAGED TOURS AND OTHER CORRELATED INCIDENTAL BUSINESS ACTIVITIES INCLUDING BOOKING OF TICKETS ETC. THE COMPANY STARTED ITS COMMERCIAL ACT IVITY W.E.F. 16.08.2007. THE A.Y. 2009-10 WAS A SECOND YEAR OF ITS OPERATION . IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION THE A SSESSING OFFICER HAS DISALLOWED FOLLOWING EXPENSES ON THE GROUND THAT TH ERE WAS NO JUSTIFICATION FOR INCURRING MORE EXPENSES THAN INCOME:- A) DISALLOWANCE OF RENT PAID FOR : RS. 19,80,000/- ACCOMMODATION OF MANAGING DIRECTOR B) DISALLOWANCE OUT OF SALARY EXPENSES : RS. 36,2 5,147/- DISALLOWANCE OUT OF TRAVELLING & : RS. 8,05,465/- CONVEYANCE EXPENSES C) DISALLOWANCE OUT OF TRAVELLING & CONVEYANCE EXPENSES : RS.8,05,465/- 3 ITA NO. 2748/DEL/2013 D) DISALLOWANCE OF CONSULTANCY EXPENSES : RS.24,41,166/- E) DISALLOWANCE OF LEGAL & PROFESSIONAL : RS.11,08,5967- CHARGES F) DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST & FINANCE : RS.29,63,6257- CHARGES G) ADDITION OF FOREIGN EXCHANGE FLUCTUATION LOSS: RS. 10,15,6337- 4. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASS ESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). THE CIT(A) ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE A SSESSEE. 5. THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT(A) HAS TAKEN T HE NEW EVIDENCE ON RECORD. SINCE THE EVIDENCES WERE NOT BEFORE THE ASS ESSING OFFICER THE LD. DR REQUESTED TO REMAND BACK THIS MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 6. THE LD. AR RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE EVIDENCE WAS PRODUCED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THERE IS NO NEW EVIDENCE PRODUCED BEFORE THE CIT(A). 7. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE M ATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT NEW EVIDENCES WE RE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT BY THE CIT(A), BUT FROM THE PERUSAL OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, IT CAN BE SEEN THAT THE EVIDENCES WERE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL. THE CIT(A) HELD AS UNDER: 6.2 DECISION I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT AND OBSERVATION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IT IS SEEN THAT DURING THE YEAR APPELLANT HAS INCURRED RS.92,30,295/- UNDER THE HEAD SALARY, BONUS, WAGES AND RENT. FROM THIS EXPENDITURE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS SEPARATELY DISALL OWED THE RENT PAID FOR PROVIDING RENT FREE ACCOMMODATION TO MS. LILLI SAXE R, MANAGING DIRECTOR OF THE 4 ITA NO. 2748/DEL/2013 APPELLANT COMPANY. OUT OF THE SALARY OF RS. 72,50,2 95/- ASSESSING OFFICER HAS DISALLOWED 50% OF SUCH EXPENSES ON THE GROUND T HAT EXPENSES ARE EXCESSIVE AND THERE IS A HUGE INCREASE IN SALARY EX PENSES AS COMPARED TO LAST YEAR. IT IS SUBMITTED BY THE APPELLANT THAT RENT PA YMENT OF RS. 19,80,000/- WAS INCURRED ON PROVIDING RENT FREE ACCOMMODATION T O MS. LILLI SAXER WHO HAILED FROM THAILAND AND WAS PROVIDED RENT FREE ACC OMMODATION AS PER THE TERMS OF EMPLOYMENT. THIS RENT WAS PAID FOR HIRING ACCOMMODATION AT C-1/32, SAFDARJUNG DEVELOPMENT AREA, NEW DELHI AS PER THE R ENT AGREEMENT. IT IS ALSO SUBMITTED BY THE APPELLANT THAT THAT THE RENT FREE ACCOMMODATION HAS BEEN CALCULATED AS PERQUISITE IN THE HANDS OF MS. LILLI SAXER AND TDS HAS BEEN DEDUCTED FROM SALARY AS WELL AS PERQUISITES. SIMILA RLY, THE APPELLANT STATED THAT SALARY EXPENSES WERE PAID TO THE EMPLOYEES HIR ED BY THE APPELLANT DURING F.Y. 2007-08 AND DURING 2008-09. THE INCREAS E IN SALARY EXPENSES WAS ON ACCOUNT OF INCREMENTAL BENEFIT GIVEN TO THE OLD EMPLOYEES AND HIRING OF MORE MANPOWER DURING THE YEAR. THE APPELLANT FURTHE R SUBMITTED THAT IN THE F.Y. 2007-08 RELEVANT TO A.Y. 2008-09 THE SALARY PA YMENT EXPENSES WERE PERTAINING FOR SEVEN MONTHS ONLY WHEREAS IN THE F.Y . 2008-09 RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION THE EXPENSES AR E FOR 12 MONTHS, THEREFORE, THERE IS A INCREASE IN THE SALARY EXPENS ES AS COMPARED TO EARLIER YEARS. THE APPELLANT FURTHER CONTENDS THAT APPELLAN T IS NOT SETTING UP NEW BUSINESS. THE BUSINESS HAS ALREADY STARTED IN F.Y. 2007-08 AND THIS IS THE SECOND YEAR OF ITS BUSINESS AND HAS SHOWN RECEIPTS OF RS.1,42,48,470/-. THEREFORE, THE SALARY EXPENSES INCURRED ON RUNNING AND EXPANSION OF THE BUSINESS CANNOT BE CAPITALIZED AS DONE BY THE ASSES SING OFFICER. THE EXPENSES INCURRED BY THE APPELLANT ON PROVIDING REN T FREE ACCOMMODATION TO THE MANAGING DIRECTOR AND SALARY, WAGES PAID TO THE EMPLOYEES WERE FOR RUNNING THE BUSINESS SMOOTHLY AND WHOLLY AND EXCLUS IVELY FOR THE BUSINESS PURPOSES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT JUSTIFIED I N DISALLOWING THE RENT PAID FOR PROVIDING RENT FREE ACCOMMODATION TO THE MANAGI NG DIRECTOR AND DISALLOWING HALF OF THE EXPENSES FROM SALARY AND WA GES WITHOUT BRINGING ANY ADVERSE MATERIAL ON THE RECORD. THE EXPENSES ON SAL ARY, WAGES AND RENT FREE 5 ITA NO. 2748/DEL/2013 ACCOMMODATION WERE INCURRED FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES A ND PAYMENT OF SUCH SALARY AND WAGES TDS HAS BEEN DEDUCTED BY THE APPEL LANT AND DEPOSITED TO GOVT. ACCOUNT, THEREFORE, SUCH EXPENSES ARE FULLY A LLOWABLE. HENCE, THE DISALLOWANCE OF RENT PAYMENT AND HALF OF THE SALARY PAYMENT IS DELETED. 7.2 DECISION I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT AND OBSERVATION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IT IS SEEN THAT DURING THE YEAR THE APPELLANT HAD INCURRED AND EXPENDITURE OF RS. 16,10930/- ON ACCOUNT OF TRA VELLING AND CONVEYANCE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED 50% OF THIS EXPEND ITURE ON THE GROUND THAT BUSINESS OF THE APPELLANT WAS NOT STARTED FUNCTIONI NG AND IT WAS IN THE PROCESS OF SETTING UP OF ITS BUSINESS. IT IS SEEN T HAT THIS IS THE SECOND YEAR OF THE APPELLANTS BUSINESS AND APPELLANT HAS DECLARED RECEIPTS OF RS. 1,42,48,470/- DURING THE YEAR FROM THE BUSINESS CAR RIED OUT. THEREFORE, THE OBSERVATION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT APPELLANT WAS IN THE PROCESS OF SETTING UP OF ITS BUSINESS IS NOT CORRECT. THE APPE LLANTS BUSINESS HAS STARTED IN THE F.Y. 2007-08 RELEVANT TO A.Y. 2008-09. THE E XPENDITURE ON TRAVELING THE CONVEYANCE WAS INCURRED FOR THE PURPOSES OF EXPANDI NG THE BUSINESS OF THE APPELLANT. FOR THIS PURPOSES EMPLOYEES OF THE APPEL LANT COMPANY UNDERTOOK TRAVEL TO ABROAD AS WELL AS LOCALLY TO GARNER MORE AND MORE BUSINESS. THE EXPENDITURE WAS INCURRED PRIMARILY FOR EXPLORING TH E POSSIBILITIES OF EXPANSION OF APPELLANT BUSINESS. THEREFORE, THE EXPENDITURE W AS INCURRED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE BUSINESS PURPOSES OF THE APPELL ANT. HENCE THE DISALLOWANCE OF 50% EXPENSES FROM TRAVELLING AND CO NVEYANCE WAS NOT JUSTIFIED AND SAME IS DELETED... 8.2 DECISION I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT AND OBSERVATION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IT IS SEEN THAT THE APPELLANT CO MPANY IS A AFFILIATED COMPANY TO DIETHELM TRAVEL (THAILAND) LTD. IN THE M EMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING IT WAS MENTIONED THAT M/S DIETHELM TR AVEL GROUP WILL PROVIDE CONSULTING SERVICES TO THE APPELLANT COMPANY TO DEV ELOP THE PORTFOLIO OF CLIENTS. IN EXCHANGE OF THESE SERVICES M/S DIETHELM TRAVEL ( THAILAND) LTD. OR AN 6 ITA NO. 2748/DEL/2013 AFFILIATED COMPANY BELONGING TO DIETHELM TRAVEL GRO UP WILL BE PAID A CONSULTING FEE BY THE APPELLANT DURING THE PRIMARY TERM OF THE JOINT VENTURE. IT WAS AGREED THAT THE CONSULTING FEE WILL BE PAID QUA RTERLY IN EQUALLY INSTALLMENTS AFTER DEDUCTION OF WITHHOLDING TAX. TH E APPELLANT HAS PAID 49,170 US$ TO ITS PARENT COMPANY DURING F.Y. 2008-0 9 AND ON THAT WITHHOLDING TAX HAS BEEN DEDUCTED. SINCE THE CONSUL TING FEE IS PAID AS PER THE TERMS OF THE AGREEMENT FOR CONDUCTING BUSINESS IN I NDIA AND FOR DEVELOPING CLIENT PORTFOLIO, THEREFORE, SAME IS AN ALLOWABLE E XPENDITURE. HENCE, DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DELET ED. .. 9.2 DECISION I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT AND OBSERVATION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IT IS SEEN THAT APPELLANT HAS IN CURRED AN EXPENDITURE OF RS.11,08,596/- ON LEGAL AND PROFESSIONAL SERVICES D URING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. IT IS SUBMITTED BY THE AP PELLANT THAT PAYMENTS WERE MADE BY THE APPELLANT FOR HIRING THE SERVICES OF KH AITAN JAYAKAR SUD AND VOHRA FOR VARIOUS LEGAL ASSISTANCE TAKEN BY THE APP ELLANT FOR REGISTRATION AND INCORPORATION. THE APPELLANT HAS ALSO TAKEN SERVICE S OF M/S O.P. BAGLA AND CO. CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS FOR CONDUCTING INTERNAL A UDIT, TAX COMPLIANCES, REVIEW OF FINANCIAL MIS, PREPARATION AND FILING OF INCOME TAX RETURNS, TAX AUDIT, TRANSFER PRICING STUDY AND CERTIFICATION, IN COME TAX ASSESSMENTS, MAINTENANCE OF STATUTORY REGISTERS, FILING OF VARIO US PAPERS WITH REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES, FILING OF ANNUAL RETURNS WITH REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES ETC. THE APPELLANT HAS FILED COPY OF APPOINTMENT LETTER OF A PPOINTING M/S O. P. BAGLA AND CO. AS THEIR CONSULTANTS. THE APPELLANT CLAIMS THAT LEGAL AND PROFESSIONAL CHARGES WERE PAID FOR SMOOTH RUNNING AND FUNCTIONIN G OF THE BUSINESS OF THE APPELLANT. THEREFORE, THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT JUSTIFIED AND SAME IS DELETED.. 10.2 DECISION I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT AND OBSERVATION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IT IS SEEN THAT DURING THE YEAR APPELLANT HAS PAID INTEREST OF RS. 26,01,994/- AND FINANCE CHARGES OF RS. 3,61, 631/- FOR THE LOANS 7 ITA NO. 2748/DEL/2013 RAISED. THE APPELLANT HAS SUBMITTED THAT IT HAS RAI SED LOAN FROM FOLLOWING BANKS:- S. NO. PARTICULARS AMOUNT (RS.) 1. CALYON BANK OVERDRAFT FACILITIES 79,94,327/ - 2. CITI BANK C C 21,40,979/- 3. CITI BANK WORKING CAPITAL DEMAND LOAN (WCDL) 1,57,00,000/- TOTAL 2,58,35,306/- THESE LOANS WERE RAISED TO FINANCE THE WORKING CAP ITAL REQUIREMENTS AND TO MEET THE DAY TO DAY EXPENSES OF THE BUSINESS. TH E APPELLANT HAS FILED COPY OF THE RESOLUTION PASSED BY BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF T HE APPELLANT COMPANY FOR TAKING LOAN FROM CITI BANK FOR THE BUSINESS PURPOSE S. THE TOTAL LOAN WAS TAKEN TO THE TUNE OF RS.2 CRORE, HOWEVER, DURING TH E F.Y. 2008-09 THE LIMIT TO THE EXTENT OF RS.1,78,40,979/- WAS UTILIZED BY THE APPELLANT. THE APPELLANT HAS ALSO TAKEN DEMAND PROMISSORY NOT E OF RS.1 CRORE FROM CALYON BANK FOR REPAYMENT OF THE AMOUNT DUE UNDER O VERDRAFT FACILITY. THE APPELLANT HAS FILED THE SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS OF THE LOAN TAKEN. THIS OD LIMIT TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 27,94,327/- WAS UTILIZED FOR B USINESS PURPOSES. THE PROCESSING CHARGES OF RS. 3,61,631/- WAS PAID TO THE CITI BANK FOR PROCESSING THE LOAN. IT IS SEEN THAT LOAN WAS UTILI ZED FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES AND MEETING VARIOUS WORKING CAPITAL REQUIREMENTS. D URING THE YEAR THE APPELLANT HAS SHOWN BUSINESS RECEIPTS OF RS. 1,42,4 8,470/- AND BUSINESS OF THE APPELLANT WAS A GOING CONCERN DURING THE YEAR, THEREFORE, THE INTEREST AND PROCESSING CHARGES INCURRED BY THE APPELLANT WERE W HOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE BUSINESS PURPOSES OF THE APPELLANT. THEREFORE, THE SAME IS FULLY ALLOWABLE. HENCE, DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER I S DELETED. . 11.2 DECISION I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT AND OBSERVATION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IT IS SEEN THAT DURING THE YEAR APPELLANT HAS SUFFERED 8 ITA NO. 2748/DEL/2013 FOREIGN EXCHANGE FLUCTUATION LOSS OF RS.10,15,633/- . THIS LOSS HAS ARISEN BECAUSE THE APPELLANT RECEIVED ADVANCE PAYMENTS FRO M THE CUSTOMERS AND PARTIES FOR THE VARIOUS TOURS BOOKED BY THE APPELLA NT. BUT THE BILLS WERE RAISED ON A PARTICULAR TOUR DATE. SINCE THE DATE OF RECEIV ING OF ADVANCE PAYMENT AND DATE OF BILLING WERE DIFFERENT, THEREFORE, THERE EX IST A DIFFERENCE IN THE RATE OF FOREIGN EXCHANGE WHICH HAS RESULTED LOSS/PROFIT. DU RING THE YEAR APPELLANT HAS SUFFERED LOSS OF RS. 10,15,633/- WHICH HAS BEEN CLAIMED AS REVENUE LOSS. AS PER ACCOUNTING STANDARD-11, THE EXCHANGE DIFFERE NCE ON FOREIGN CURRENCY TRANSACTION HAS TO BE DEALT IN-ACCORDANCE TO PARA-9 , 10, AND 11 OF THE AS-11. THE SAME ARE REPRODUCED HEREUNDER:- THE FOREIGN EXCHANGE TRANSACTION OF THE APPELLANT W AS DONE ON REVENUE ACCOUNT. THE LOSS HAS ARISEN ON ACCOUNT OF ADVANCE PAYMENT RECEIVED AGAINST BOOKING AND SETTLEMENT OF THE SAME ON RAISING OF BI LLS, THEREFORE, THIS LOSS WAS ON REVENUE ACCOUNT. HENCE, THE SAME IS ALLOWABLE EX PENDITURE AS PER PARA -9 OF THE AS-11. IN THIS REGARDS RELIANCE IS PLACED ON THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. WOODWARD GOVERNOR INDIA PVT. LT D. 312 ITR 254 (SC) WHEREIN IT IS HELD THAT WHERE PROFIT OR LOSS ARISES TO AN ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF APPRECIATION OR DEPRECIATION IN THE VALUE OF FOREIG N CURRENCY HELD BY IT, ON CONVERSION INTO ANOTHER CURRENCY, SUCH PROFIT OR LO SS WOULD ORDINARILY BE TRADING PROFIT AND LOSS IF THE FOREIGN CURRENCY IS HELD BY THE ASSESSEE ON REVENUE ACCOUNT OR AS A TRADING ASSET OR AS PART OF CIRCULATING CAPITAL EMBARKED IN THE BUSINESS. THE FACT OF THE APPELLANTS CASE ARE IDENTICAL WITH THE ABOVE CITED JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS, THEREFORE, RATIO OF THE ABOVE JUDGM ENT IS SQUARELY APPLICABLE IN THE CASE OF APPELLANT. HENCE, THE FOREIGN EXCHAN GE FLUCTUATION LOSS IS ALLOWABLE AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE. THEREFORE, DISALL OWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DELETED. 9 ITA NO. 2748/DEL/2013 THE CIT(A) HAS GIVEN A DETAILED ORDER FOR EACH OF T HE GROUNDS CONTESTED BY THE REVENUE IN THE PRESENT APPEAL AND THE EVIDENCES WER E ALSO PRODUCED BEFORE THE CIT(A) WHICH WAS PROPERLY CONSIDERED BY THE CIT(A). THEREFORE, THERE IS NO NEED TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). TH E APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 8. IN RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSE D. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 24 TH JANUARY, 2019 . SD/- SD/- (N. K. BILLAIYA) (SUCHITRA KAMBLE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEM BER DATED: 24 /01/2019 R. NAHEED * COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI 10 ITA NO. 2748/DEL/2013 DATE OF DICTATION 21.01.2019 DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 21.01.2019 DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE OTHER MEMBER DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. PS/PS DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR. PS/PS 2 4 .01.2019 DATE ON WHICH THE FINAL ORDER IS UPLOADED ON THE WEBSITE OF ITAT 2 4 .01.2019 DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 2 4 .01.2019 DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK