M/s. Harish Chand Ram Kali Charitable Trust, Ghaziabad V. Addl. CIT, Ghaziabad

ITA 3076/DEL/2015

• Counselvise Citation: 307620114 RSA 2015
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-11-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC 2
• Next Hearing Date: 25-08-2015
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 15-05-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ANIMA BARNWAL
• Assessee Lawyers: SANJEEV AGGARWAL
• Keywords: Depreciation; Charitable institution; Benefit of exemption
• Section: 234B; 12A; 68; 12; 10; 11

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH SMC-1 NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI I.C. SUDHIR: HONBLE JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 3076/DEL/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 HARISH CHAND RAM KALI CHARITABLE TRUST, VS. ADDL. CIT, KF-91, KAVI NAGAR, RANGE-1, GHAZIABAD. GHAZIABAD. (PAN: AAATH3017G) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY: SHRI SANJEEV AGGARWAL, CA DEPARTMENT BY: SMT. ANIMA BARNWA L, JCIT DATE OF HEARING : 25.08.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 20 :11.2015 ORDER THE ASSESSEE HAS QUESTIONED FIRST APPELLATE ORDER ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: I) THAT HAVING REGARD TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES O F THE CASE, THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) ERRED IN BOTH IN FACTS AND IN LAW IN APPLYING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 115BC OF THE INC OME-TAX ACT, 1961 AND CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.1,21,25 0. II) THAT HAVING REGARD TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES O F THE CASE, THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE DONATION OF RS.5,00,000 RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE TRUST WERE ANO NYMOUS AND IDENTITY OF THE DONOR IS NOT PROVED. IN FACT THE DO NATIONS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE FROM IDENTIFIABLE PERS ON, DULY ASSESSED TO TAX AND THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL. 2 III) THAT HAVING REGARD TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES O F THE CASE, THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE ITAT IN APPEAL NO. 2428/DEL/2011 DATED 06.1 2.2012 FOR A.Y. 2007-08 IN CASE OF SUNDERDEEP EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY IS APPLICABLE ONLY TO THOSE CASES WHERE DONATIONS ARE NOT ANONYMOUS. 2. IN THE ABOVE GROUND, THE ASSESSEE HAS QUESTIONED APPLICATION OF SECTION 115BBC OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 AND CONF IRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.1,21,250 AS WELL AS THE FINDING THAT THE DONATIO N OF RS.5 LACS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE TRUST WERE ANONYMOUS AND IDENTITY OF T HE DONOR IS NOT PROVED. 3. THE CONTENTION OF THE LEARNED AR REMAINED THAT T HE ISSUE RAISED IS FULLY COVERED BY SEVERAL DECISIONS INCLUDING THE DE CISION OF DELHI BENCH OF THE ITAT IN THE CASE OF SUNDERDEEP EDUCATIONAL SOCI ETY VS. ACIT ITA NO. 2428/DEL/2011 (A.Y. 2007-09) ORDER DATED 06.1 2.2013, COPY OF WHICH HAS BEEN SUPPLIED. THE LEARNED AR SUBMITTED THAT IN FACT THE DONATIONS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE FROM IDENTIFIABLE PERS ONS, DULY ASSESSED TO TAX AND THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL. 4. THE LEARNED SENIOR DR OPPOSED THE APPEAL AND PLA CED RELIANCE ON THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. SHE SUBMITTED THAT THE CASE OF THE ITAT 3 RELIED UPON BY THE LEARNED AR HEREINABOVE HAVING DI STINGUISHABLE FACTS IS NOT RELEVANT IN THE PRESENT CASE. 5. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE SUBMISSION, I FIND THAT TH E ASSESSEE TRUST IS IMPARTING EDUCATION FOR BACHELOR DEGREE IN THE FIEL D OF ENGINEERING, PHARMACY, BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION AND HOTEL ADMINIS TRATION ETC. THE ASSESSEE TRUST HAD DECLARED GROSS RECEIPTS OF RS.4, 64,60,747 AND EXCESS OF EXPENDITURE OVER INCOME OF RS.1,78,93,487. IT HAD F URTHER REFLECTED DONATION FOR THE CORPUS FUND RECEIVED DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AMOUNTING TO RS.75,75,000 AND UNSECURED LOANS FROM BODY CORPO RATION AMOUNTING TO RS.23,58,337 AND RS.2,27,29,640 FROM OTHERS. DURIN G THE YEAR, IT WAS FOUND THAT OUT OF THESE DONATIONS, AN AMOUNT OF RS.5 LACS WAS RECEIVED FROM ONE COMPANY MA TALUKA BUILDCON PVT. LTD. ON THE BASIS O F ADDITION UNDER SEC. 68 MADE IN THE CASE OF M/S. SUNDERDEEP EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THAT THE DONOR MA TALUKA BUILDCON PVT. LTD. WHO WAS ALSO DONOR IN THE CASE OF SUNDERDEEP EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY WAS A BOGUS ENTITY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ACCORDINGLY MADE ADDITION OF RS.5 LACS SHOWN AS DONATION IN THE BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE EXPLANATION OF TH E ASSESSEE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER REGARDING THE DONATION IN QUESTIO N REMAINED THAT WHOLE OF THE AMOUNT RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE TRUST AS DONATI ON HAS BEEN UTILIZED FOR 4 THE OBJECTIVES OF THE TRUST. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTE D THAT THE DONATION IS A GENUINE DONATION FROM MA TALUKA BUILDCON PVT. LTD. AND THE ASSESSEE HAS NEITHER CONCEALED ANY PARTICULARS NOR FURNISHED ANY INACCURATE DOCUMENT IN SUPPORT. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE DONOR WAS NOT FO UND EXISTING ON THE GIVEN ADDRESS BY THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT MAKE DIFFERENCE AS THE ASSESSEE HAD APPLIED MORE THAN 80% OF THE INCOME OF THE TRUST DURING THE YEAR AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 11 OF THE ACT AND THE ASSESSEE H AD RECEIVED VOLUNTARILY DONATION COVERED BY THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 11 AND 1 2 OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED FURTHER THAT APPEAL OF M/S. SUND ERDEEP EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY (SUPRA) ON WHOSE INFORMATION THE CASE OF T HE ASSESSEE WAS REOPENED WAS ALLOWED BY THE ITAT HOLDING THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 115BC READ WITH SEC. 68/69 OF THE ACT ARE NOT APPLICABLE. IT W AS SUBMITTED THAT VOLUNTARY DONATION RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE HELD AS ANONYMOUS AS PER THE DEFINITION OF ANONYMOUS DONATION UNDER SEC. 115BC O F THE ACT AS THE ASSESSEE HAS MAINTAIN RECORDS OF THE IDENTITY INDIC ATING THE NAME AND ADDRESS OF THE DONOR AND THE SAME WERE SUBMITTED DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. 6. HAVING GONE THROUGH THE DECISION OF THE ITAT IN THE CASE OF SUNDERDEEP EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY (SUPRA), I FIND THAT AN IDENTICAL ISSUE UNDER 5 ALMOST SIMILAR FACTS HAS BEEN DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AFTER DETAILED DELIBERATION AND DISCUSSING SEVERAL DECISIONS CITED BEFORE IT. THE RELEVANT PARA NOS. 13 AND 14 OF THE DECISION OF THE ITAT IN THE CASE OF SUNDERDEEP EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY (SUPRA) ARE BEING REPRODUCED HE REUNDER: 13. IN THE JUDGMENT REFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE, A SI MILAR ISSUE WAS INVOLVED. THE ITAT IN THE CASE OF ST. VIVEKANAND ED UCATION & WELFARE SOCIETY HAS CONSIDERED THIS ASPECT. THE DIS CUSSION MADE BY THE ITAT READS AS UNDER: 7. HAVING GONE THROUGH THE DECISIONS RELIED UPON B Y THE LD. A.R., WE FIND THAT IN THE CASE OF DIT(E) VS KESHAV SOCIAL & CHARITABLE FOUNDATION (SUPRA), BEFORE THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH C OURT, THE CHARITABLE INSTITUTION MADE DISCLOSURE OF DONATIONS ALONG WITH LIST OF DONORS. THERE WAS NO DISPUTE THAT MORE THAN 75% OF THE DONATIONS WERE APPLIED FOR CHARITABLE PURPOSES. IT WAS HELD THAT THE FACTS THAT COMPLETE LIST OF DONORS WAS NOT FILED OR THAT THE D ONORS WERE NOT PRODUCED, DOES NOT NECESSARILY LEAD TO THE INFERENC E THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS TRYING TO INTRODUCE UNACCOUNTED MONEY BY WAY OF DONATION RECEIPTS AND SECTION 68 HAS NO APPLICATION TO THE F ACTS OF THE CASE AS THE ASSESSEE HAD IN FACT DISCLOSED THE DONATIONS AS INCOME. THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH CURT APPROVED THE DECISION OF TH E TRIBUNAL THAT ADDITION U/S 68 WAS NOT CORRECT AND EXEMPTION U/S 1 1 CANNOT BE DENIED. 8. AGAIN, IN THE CASE OF DIT(E) VS MOTIBAGH MUTUAL AID EDUCATION (SUPRA), BEFORE HONBLE HIGH COURT, THE A SSESSEE RECEIVED 6 GUPTDAAN WHICH WAS SHOWN AS UNSECURED LOAN BY MIS TAKE. SOME OTHER DONATIONS WERE ALSO THERE. THE DONATIONS WER E UTILIZED FOR CONSTRUCTION OF SCHOOL BUILDING. IT WAS HELD THAT WHEN THERE IS NO DEVIATION OF FUNDS THERE ARE MINOR CONTRADICTIONS O R DEVIATION IN THE ACCOUNTS, THIS BY ITSELF CANNOT SUBSTANTIATE THE AL LEGATION THAT THE ASSESSEE EXISTS FOR PROFIT MOTIVE, THEREFORE, EXEMP TION U/S 10(22) OF THE ACT CANNOT BE DENIED TO THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS H ELD THAT THE AMOUNT OF GUPTDAAN IS A RECEIPT AND NOT AN OUTFLOW FROM THE CORPUS OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THE QUESTION IN THIS REGARD I S WHETHER THE AMOUNT WAS RECEIVED BY WAS OF A LOAN OR BY WAY OF GUPTDAAN . IN EITHER CASE, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE AMOUNT WAS RECEIVED WITH A PROFIT MOTIVE, UNLESS IT WAS NOT MEANT FOR UTILIZATION FOR EDUCATI ONAL PURPOSE FOR WHICH THERE IS NO EVIDENCE ON RECORD. IT WAS HELD FURTHER THAT EVEN IF DONORS WERE NOT PRODUCED, IT WAS NOT NECESSARILY LE AD TO AN INFERENCE THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS TRYING TO INTRODUCE UNACCOUNT ED MONEY BY WAY OF DONATION RECEIPTS. THE DONATIONS WERE UTILIZED FOR CONSTRUCTION OF SCHOOL BUILDING, IS CLEARLY AN EDUCATIONAL /CHARITA BLE PURPOSE. BUT AT NO STRETCH OF IMAGINATION IT CAN BE SAID THAT THE D ONATIONS WERE RECEIVED WITH SOME PROFIT MOTIVE AS HELD BY HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT. 9. IN THE CASE OF DCIT(E) VS NEW ANAND EDUCATION SO CIETY (SUPRA) BEFORE DELHI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL, THE DIS PUTE WAS RAISED AGAINST THE DONATION RECEIPT OF RS.7,65,467/-. THE ASSESSEE TRUST DULY REGISTERED U/S 12A(A) OF THE ACT HAD FURNISHED DETA ILS OF DONATIONS RECEIVED. THE A.O. HELD THAT THESE WERE ONLY ACCOM MODATION ENTRIES AS PER THE REPORT OF THE INVESTIGATION WING. HE AC CORDINGLY SUBJECTED 7 THE SAID DONATION RECEIPTS FOR CHARGE OF TAX AT MAX IMUM MARGINAL RATE. LD CIT(A) DELETED THE SAME. THE TRIBUNAL UPHELD TH E FIRST APPELLATE ORDER ON THE ISSUE WITH THIS FINDING THAT TO OBTAIN BENEFIT OF EXEMPTION U/S 1`1, THE ASSESSEE IS REQUIRED TO SHOW THAT THE DONATIONS WERE VOLUNTARY. IT WAS OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD N OT ONLY DISCLOSED THE DONATIONS BUT HAD ALSO SUBMITTED LIST OF DONORS . IT WAS HELD FURTHER THAT THE FACT THAT COMPLETE LIST OF DONORS WERE NOT FILED AND THE DONORS WERE NOT PRODUCED, DOES NOT NECESSARILY LEAD TO THE INFERENCE THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS TRYING TO INTRODUCE UNACCOUNTED MONEY BY WAY OF DONATION RECEIPTS. THE TRIBUNAL RESPECTFULLY FOLL OWED THE ABOVE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CA SE OF KESHAV SOCIAL AND CHARITABLE FOUNDATION (SUPRA) DECLINED TO INTERFERE WITH THE FIRST APPELLATE ORDER ON THE ISSUE. 10. IN VIEW OF THE RATIO LAID DOWN IN THE ABOVE CIT ED DECISIONS OF HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT WHEN WE EXAMINED THE ORDER S OF AUTHORITIES BELOW, WE DO NOT FIND JUSTIFICATION IN THE ACTION I N SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF RS.140 LACS U/S 68 OF THE ACT, ONLY BEC AUSE MEMBERS OF THE DONORS COULD NOT BE VERIFIED WHEN THERE IS NO D ISPUTE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE DISCLOSURE OF DONATIONS ALONG WIT H LIST OF DONORS, AMOUNTS WERE PAID THROUGH BANKING CHANNELS AND DUE TO THIS NON- AVAILABILITY / NON EXISTENCE ON THEIR GIVEN ADDRESS ES THE AMOUNTS SO RECEIVED IN DONATIONS WERE APPLIED FOR CHARITABLE P URPOSES. IT IS PERTINENT TO MENTION OVER HERE THAT DURING THE YEAR , THE ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED CORPUS DONATIONS OF RS.1,99,86,101/- AND I T HAD COLLECTED RS.3,51,76,220/- AS PER INCOME AND EXPENDITURE ACCO UNT, THUS THE 8 TOTAL AMOUNT AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE FROM THESE TWO ACCOUNTS WAS RS.5,51,62,321`/- AGAINST WHICH IT HAD SPENT RS.4,0 3,76,796/- ON THE FIXED ASSETS AND RS.3,09,80,493/- ON RECURRING EXPE NSES. AFTER DEPRECIATION OF RS.63,08,433/-, THE TOTAL APPLICATI ON OF FUNDS COMES TO RS.6,50,48,856/-. THUS, WHEN THERE IS NO DISPUTE TH AT THE AMOUNT IN QUESTION WAS APPLIED FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES, THE FACT THAT THE DONATIONS REMAINED UNVERIFIABLE DUE TO NON AVAILABI LITY OF DONORS AT THE ADDRESSES GIVEN IN THEIR CONFIRMATIONS DOES NOT NECESSARILY LEAD TO THE INFERENCE THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS TRYING TO INTRO DUCE UNACCOUNTED MONEY BY WAY OF DONATION RECEIPTS. WE, THEREFORE, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF KESHAV SOCIAL & CHARITABLE FOUNDATION (SUPRA), HOLD THAT THE PROVISION OF SECTION 68 OF THE ACT HAS NO APPLICATI ON TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE WHEN LIST OF DONORS WITH SUPPORTIN G EVIDENCE WAS FILED, AMOUNTS WERE PAID THROUGH BANKING CHANNELS, THERE IS ALSO NO DISPUTE THAT THE OBJECTS AND ACTIVITIES OF THE ASSE SSEE WERE CHARITABLE IN NATURE AND IT WAS DULY REGISTERED UNDER THE PROV ISIONS OF SECTION 12A OF THE I. T. ACT, 1961. WE THUS DIRECT THE A.O . TO DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS.140 LACS MADE U/S 68 OF THE ACT IN QUESTION. SO FAR APPLICABILITY OF THE PROVISIONS UNDER SECTION 115BB C ARE CONCERNED, WE DO NOT FIND SUBSTANCE IN THE CONTENTION OF THE L D. DR AS THE DONATIONS IN QUESTION CAN NOT BE TURNED AS ANONYMOU S SINCE LIST OF THE DONORS WAS FILED AND UNDISPUTEDLY PAYMENTS HAVE BEE N THROUGH BANKING CHANNELS. THE GROUND NOS.1-10 INVOKING TH E ISSUE ARE THUS ALLOWED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. 9 14. THE ISSUE IN ALL OTHER JUDGMENTS REFERRED BY TH E ASSESSEE IS SIMILAR. THE ORDERS OF THE ITAT, DELHI ARE BASICALL Y BASED UPON THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF KESHAV TRUST. THE ORDER IN THE CASE OF HANSRAJ SMARAK SOCIETY HAS ALSO BEEN UPHELD BY THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT. RESPECTFULLY FOLLO WING THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT AND ORDERS OF THE CO- ORDINATE BENCH, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT BENEFIT OF SECTIONS 11 & 12 IN COMPUTING THE INCOME RECEIVED ON ACCOUNT OF DONATIO NS FROM IDENTIFIED DONORS CANNOT BE DENIED. CONSEQUENTLY, W E ALLOW THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE AND DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO VERIFY THE FACTS THAT ASSESSEE HAS APPLIED 85% OF ITS INCOME DURING THE YEAR INCLUDING THESE DONATIONS ON ITS OBJECTS. IF THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT IT HAS INCURRED AN EXPENDITURE OF RS.533,22,266 TOWARDS FU LFILLMENT OF ITS OBJECT DURING THE YEAR THEN ITS INCOME WOULD BE ASS ESSABLE AT NIL BECAUSE THE INCURRENCE OF THIS EXPENDITURE WOULD TA KE CARE THE ADDITIONS OF RS.192,35,000, RS. 30,00,000 AND RS.11 ,00,000. CHARGING OF INTEREST UNDER SEC. 234B AND 167B OF TH E INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 WOULD BE CONSEQUENTIAL. 7. THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) HAS UPHELD THE DISALLOW ANCE/ADDITION ON THE BASIS OF APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 115BBC OF THE ACT WITH THIS FINDING THAT IN THE PRESENT CASE DONATION IS ANONYMOUS AS THE ID ENTITY OF DONOR WAS NOT PROVED. THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) HAS, HOWEVER, FOLL OWING THE DECISION OF ITAT IN THE CASE OF SUNDERDEEP EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY VS. ACIT (SUPRA) HAS DELETED THE ADDITION ON THE BASIS THAT PROVISIONS L AID DOWN UNDER SEC. 68 OF 10 THE ACT ARE NOT APPLICABLE. I FIND THAT THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) HAS TRIED TO DISTINGUISH THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE WITH THIS OBSERVATION THAT IN THE CASE OF SUNDERDEEP EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY (SUPRA), THE DONA TIONS WERE NOT ANONYMOUS AND THE REVENUE AGAINST SUCH FINDING OF T HE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) HAD NOT PREFERRED ANY APPEAL BEFORE TH E ITAT. I, HOWEVER, DO NOT FIND SUBSTANCE IN THIS OBSERVATION OF THE LEARN ED CIT(APPEALS) AS MA TALUKA BUILDCON PVT. LTD. WAS A COMMON DONOR IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE AS WELL AS IN THE CASE OF SUNDERDEEP EDUCATIONAL SOCIE TY AND ON THE BASIS OF ADDITION MADE IN THIS REGARD IN THE CASE OF SUNDERD EEP EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD INITIATED REOPENING PROCE EDINGS IN THE CASE OF PRESENT ASSESSEE AND HAD ADDED RS. 5 LACS UNDER SEC . 68 READ WITH SECTION 115-BBC OF THE ACT. THUS, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT FA CTS IN THE CASE OF SUNDERDEEP EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY WERE DIFFERENT. THE ITAT IN THE CASE OF SUNDERDEEP EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY (SUPRA) HAS REFERRED THE DECISION OF THE ITAT IN THE CASE OF ST. VIVEKANAND EDUCATION & WELF ARE SOCIETY AND HAS REFERRED PARA NOS. 7 TO 10 THEREOF AND IN PARA NO. 10, A FINDING HAS BEEN RECORDED REGARDING THE APPLICABILITY OF THE PROVISI ONS UNDER SEC. 115BBC OF THE ACT, REPRODUCED HEREINABOVE. I THUS HOLD THAT P ROVISIONS OF SEC. 115- BBC OF THE ACT ARE NOT ATTRACTED IN THE PRESENT CAS E AS THE LIST OF DONORS WERE FILED AND PAYMENT HAS BEEN MADE THROUGH BANKING CHA NNELS. I THUS WHILE 11 SETTING THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS.1,21,250 UPHELD BY THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) BY APPLYING THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 115- BBC OF THE ACT. THE GROUNDS ARE ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED . 9. IN RESULT, THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 20.11.2015 SD/- ( I.C. SUD HIR ) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 20 /11/2015 MOHAN LAL COPY FORWARDED TO: 1) APPELLANT 2) RESPONDENT 3) CIT 4) CIT(APPEALS) 5) DR:ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR DATE DRAFT DICTATED ON COMPUTER 20.11.2015 DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 20.11.2015 DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS 20 .11.201 5 KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON 20.11.2015 FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK 20.11.2015 DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE AR DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER.