ITO, New Delhi V. Sh. Manoj Garg, New Delhi

ITA 3091/DEL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 90956 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 11 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-04-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Next Hearing Date: 15-04-2015
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 16-05-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VIKRAM SAHAY
• Assessee Lawyers: D C AGARWAL
• Keywords: Assessment record; Notional interest
• Section: 143(3); 133(6); 68

Judgement Text

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH E: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI A. T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.3091/DEL/2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2002 - 03) ITO, WARD - 1609, E - 2, CIVIC CENTRE, NEW DELHI MANOJ KUMAR GARG, D - 100, 1 ST FLOOR, MAYA PURI FHASE - II, NEW DELHI, PAN NO - AWQPG5123C (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY :SHRI VIKRAM SAHAY SR. DR RESPONDENT BY :SHRI D C AGARWAL ADV. DATE OF HEARING 15.04.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 30 .04.2015 ORDER PER A. T. VARKEY , JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 26 . 2 .201 3 PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) - XXVI , NEW DELHI PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10 . 2. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS IN ITS APPEAL: - (1) THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING ADDITION OF RS. 2,11,04,386/ - ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF UNVERIFIED PURCHASES. (2) THE CIT( A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 22,52,891/ - ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF UNVERIFIED SUNDRY CREDITORS. (3) THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING ADDITION OF RS. 16,00,000/ - ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSIT IN BANK ACCOUNT WITHOUT APPRECIATI NG THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT SUBMIT COPY OF CASH BOOK TO SUBSTANTIATE AVAILABILITY OF CASH. (4) THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING ADDITION OF RS. 1,97,012/ - ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF NOTIONAL INTEREST ON BORROWED FUNDS UTILIZED FOR NON BUSI NESS PURPOSES. 3 . THE FACTS IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE, AN INDIVIDUAL, IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF TRADING AND EXPORT IMPORT OF GARMENTS, FABRICS AND GARMENTS ACCESSORIES. THE ASSESSEE IS CARRYING ON THIS BUSINESS AS PROPRIETOR IN THE NAME OF ITA NO. 3091/ DEL/ 2013 2 M /S ARJ EXIM INDIA. THE ASSESSEE FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME ON 25.6.2.009 DECLARING A TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 3,89,630/ - . THE RETURN WAS PROCESSED U/S. 143(1) AND THEREAFTER THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY UNDER CASS. THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED IN TERMS OF ORDER U/S. 143(3) AT A TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 3,40,70,410/ - AS AGAINST THE RETURNED INCOME OF RS. 3,89,630/ - BY MAKING VARIOUS ADDITIONS VIDE HIS ORDER DATED 27.12.2011 . . 4. AGAINST THE AFORESAID ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER , ASSESSEE APPEALED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), WHO VIDE HIS ORDER DATED 2 6 . 2 .201 3 HAS PARTLY ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 5 . NOW THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 6. LD. DR RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE AO . 7. ON THE CONTRARY, LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE HAS RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND REQUESTED THAT THE SAME MAY BE UPHELD. 8 . WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE RECORDS. WITH REGARD TO GROUND NO. 1 REGARDING DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS. 2,11,04,386/ - ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF PURCHASES IS CONCERNED , W E FIND THAT THE DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE AO ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO FILE ORIGINAL BILLS AND VOUCHERS IN RESPECT OF PURCHASES MADE DURIN G THE YEAR. THE AO OBSERVED WHILE TAKING NOTE OF THE ORDER SHEET ENTR Y DATED 19.12.2011 WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN RECORDED THE ARS INABILITY TO P RODUCE ALL THE REQUIRED DETAILS TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS CLAIM. HE, THEREFORE, DISALLOWED THE ENTIRE PURCHASES MADE LOCALLY AS WELL AS THAT HAS BEEN IMPORTED BY THE ASSESSEE AMOUNTING TO R S. 2,11,04,386/ - AND ADDED THE SAME TO THE RETURNED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. WHILE ADJUDICATING THIS ISSUE THE LD. CIT (A) OBSERVED THAT T HE IMPUGNED ADDITION WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE GROUND THAT THE ORIGINAL BILLS AND VOUCHERS IN RESPECT OF PURCHASES WERE NOT PRODUCED. LD. CIT(A) FURTHER NOTED FROM THE RECORD THAT VIDE ORDER SHEET ENTRY DATED 19.12.2011, THE ASSESSING OFFICER REQUIRED THE ASSESSEES COUNSEL TO FI L E AS MANY AS 19 DETAILS INCLUDING THE ORIGINAL BILLS AND VOUCHERS IN RESPE CT OF ALL THE PURCHASES MADE DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. WHEN SUCH AN ORDER WAS PASSED, THE LD AR, PER FORCE WROTE ON ITA NO. 3091/ DEL/ 2013 3 THE ORDER SHEET THAT 'IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO FILE SUCH A WIDE DETAILS AND CONFIRMATIONS', YET IT HAS BEEN NOTED BY THE LD CIT (A), THAT THEREAFTER VID E HIS LETTER DATED 27.12.2011 LD AR FILED ALMOST ALL THE DETAILS INCLUDING PHOTOCOPIES OF BILLS AND VOUCHERS IN RESPE CT OF PURCHASES EXCEPT FOR SOME CONFIRMATIONS FOR WHICH HE HAD REQUESTED THE ASSES SING OFFICER TO OBTAIN THE SAME BY ISSUING NOTICE U/S. 133(6)OF THE ACT. ON A PERUSAL OF THE PARA 10 OF THE SAID LETTER DATED 27.12.2011, IT IS NOTED THAT THE AR, HAD CLEARLY MENTIONED THAT 'BILLS OF LOCAL PURCHASES AND IMPORT AND EXPORT ARE ATTACHED'. I N COMPLIANCE TO THE ORDER SHEET ENTRY DATED 19.12.2011, THE ASSESSEE FILED PHOTOCOPIES OF ALMOST ALL THE BILLS OF LOCAL AND IMPORT PURCHASES ON 27.12.2011 AND WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT ON THE SAME DAY I.E. ON 27.12.2011 IT SELF WITHOUT ANY FURTHER QUERY . NOWHERE IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THE AO HAS RECORDED A FINDING THAT THE PURCHASES MADE FROM THE DOMESTIC/ABROAD WERE NOT GENUINE. HE DISALLOW ED, ALL THE PURCHASES CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE MERELY BECAUSE THE ORIGINAL BILLS AND VOUCHE RS WERE NOT PRODUCED BEFORE HIM, THOUGH THE MATTER OF FACT WA S THAT THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE SAME WAS PRODUCED ON 27.12.2011. WE FIND THAT T HE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT REJECT THE AUDITED BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE BUT SIMPLY DISALLOWED THE ENTI RE PURCHASES AMOUNTING TO RS.2,11,04,386/ - FOR NON - PRODUCTION OF ORIGINAL BILLS AND VOUCHERS. WE ARE CURIOUS TO NOTE THAT THOUGH T HE AO REJECTED THE ENTIRE PURCHASES MADE BY THE ASSESSEE BUT HAS ACCEPTED THE SALES, THAT WERE DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE . THE LD CIT (A) HAS CLEARLY RECORDED A FINDING THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS MAINTAINING REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WH ICH WERE AUDITED AS PER THE REQUIREMENT OF SECTION 44AB OF THE ACT. THE LD CIT (A) HAS GONE THROUGH THE AUDITORS REPORT ALONG WITH THE AUDITED BALANCE S HEET AND P & L ACCOUNT WITH SCHEDULES / ANNEXURES AND HAS O BSERVED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD NOT FOUND ANYTHING ADVERSE IN THE AUDIT REPORT, AUDITED BALANCE SHEET AND P&L ACC OUNT WHICH WERE PREPARED AFTER AUDIT OF THE REGULAR BOOKS OF ACC OUNT MAINTAINE D BY THE ASSESSEE . WE FIND THAT NEITHER THE AO APPRECIATED THE EVIDENCE FILED BY THE A SSESSEE BEFORE HIM NOR BROUGHT ANY ADVERSE MATERIAL ON RECORD, TO JUSTIFY HIS ACTION TO DISALLOW THE ENTIRE PURCHASES . IN SUCH A SCENARIO, IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION THE A DDITION ON ACCOUNT OF PURCHASES WAS UNWARRANTED. ACCORDINGLY, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY ITA NO. 3091/ DEL/ 2013 4 DELETED THE ADDITION OF RS.2,11,04,386/ - MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF PURCHASES , WHICH DO ES NOT NEED ANY INTERFERENCE FROM OUR PART, HENCE, WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) ON THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE AND DISMISS THE GROUND NO. 1 RAISED BY THE REVENUE. 9. G ROUND N O. 2 IS REGARDING DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS. 22,52,891/ - ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OUT OF SUNDRY CREDITORS IS CONCERNED , W E FIND THAT IN THE COURSE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE AO NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN TOTAL SUNDRY CREDITORS TO THE T U NE OF RS. 1,55,75,204/ - . THE AO ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO FILE THE CONFIRMATIONS/ITRS/PAN OF THESE PARTIES. ACCORDIN G TO THE AO SINCE THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FILE ANY DETAILS IN RESPECT OF 4 PARTIES NAMELY (I) MTC OVERSEAS (RS. 16,06,136), (II) SHREE SAI FABS (RS. 5,374), (III) SOURCE INDIA IMPEX PVT. LTD. (RS. 5,50,000) AND (IV) ROXNA DYING (RS. 43,011) HE MADE THE IMPUG NED DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 22,52,891/ - AND ADDED THE SAME TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION . ON THE CONTRARY, WE FIND THAT THE LD CIT (A) AFTER PERUSAL OF THE ASSESSMENT RECORDS HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED CONFIRMED COPIES OF ACCOUNTS OF ALL THE SUNDRY CREDITORS INCLUDING SHREE SAI FABS, SOURCE INDIA IMPEX PVT. LTD. AND ROXNA DYING EXCEPT THAT OF MTC OVERSEAS (HONG KONG). AND THAT TOO BECAUSE THE SAID COMPANY WAS A FOREIGN ENTITY, SO THE ASSESSEE FILED COPY OF ACCOUNT OF T HE SAID ENTITY AS PER HIS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND ALSO THE PURCHASE BILLS AND OTHER DOCUMENTS TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE CREDIT APPEARING IN THE NAME OF THIS FOREIGN ENTITY . THOUGH THERE WERE SEVERAL SUNDRY CREDITS THE AO HAS CHOSEN ONLY FOUR PARTIES AS STATED ABOVE TO MAKE SUCH DISALLOWANCE FOR REASONS NOT DISCERNIBLE FROM THE ASSESSING ORDER . W HEN THE ASSESSEE HAS PRODUCED THE DOCUMENT S AS STATED ABOVE TO DISCHARGE HIS BURDEN IN RESPECT TO SUNDRY CREDITORS, THEN IN CASE AO IS STILL NOT SATIS FIED , THEN HE SHOULD HAVE CONDUCTED ENQUIRY OR ISSUED SUMMON U/S. 133(6) OR REQUIRED THE AS SESSEE TO PRODUCE THESE PARTIES. HOWEVER WE FIND AO NEITHER DID CONDUCT ANY ENQUIRY NOR CONSIDERED THE EVIDENCE PLACED ON RECORD BY THE ASSESSEE, BEFORE PROCEEDING TO MAKE THE IMPUGNED DISALLOWANCE. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE FIND THAT THE IMPUGNED ACTION OF THE AO WAS NOT JUSTIFIED, AND THEREFORE LD CIT (A) HAS RIGHTLY DELETED THE ADDITION OF ITA NO. 3091/ DEL/ 2013 5 RS. 22,52,891/ - MADE BY THE AO, WHICH DOES NOT NEED ANY INTERFERENCE ON O UR PART, HENCE, WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) ON THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE AND DISMISS THE GROUND NO. 2 RAISED BY THE REVENUE. 10. WITH REGARD TO GROUND NO. 3 REGARDING DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS. 16 LA CK S U/S. 68 OF THE ACT, ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINE D CASH DEPOSIT IN BANK ACCOUNT IS CONCERN ED, WE FIND THAT IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE AO ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO FILE DETAILS WITH DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IN RESPECT OF CASH DEPOSIT OF RS. 16 LACK IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT WITH ICICI BANK, KAROL BAGH , NEW DELHI. ACCORDING TO THE AO SINCE THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FILE ANY DETAILS IN RESPECT OF THE CASH DEPOSIT, THE SAME WAS TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED A ND WAS AD DED U/S. 68 OF THE ACT, TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. WE FURTHER FIND THAT IN THE COURSE OF ASSESS MENT PROCEEDINGS ITSELF , THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED THE COPY OF THE BANK STATEMENT, CASH BOOK AND THE CASH FLOW STATEMENT TO EXPLAIN THE CORRESPONDING WITHDRAWALS FROM SYNDICATE BANK. LD. CIT (A) HAS NOTED THAT AR OF THE ASSESSEE IN HIS LETTER DATED 27.12.20 11 HAD ALSO BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE AO REGARDING THE ABOVE DETAILS HAVING ALREADY BEEN FILED BEFORE HIM . HOWEVER, THE AO BRUSHED ASIDE ALL THE EVIDENCES ADDUCED BY THE ASSESSEE AND PROCEEDED TO MAKE AN ADDITION U/S. 68 REGARDING THE CASH DEPOSIT IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE, WHICH WERE EXPLAINED, BY THE ASSESSEE. WE NOTE THAT T HE ASSESSEE HAD AGA IN FILED BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A) THESE COPIES OF CASH FLOW STA TEMENTS AND COPIES OF THE BANK STATEMENTS OF ICIC I BANK AND SYNDICATE BANK WHICH DULY EXPLAINS THE CASH DEPOSITS IN THE ASSESSEES BANK ACCOUNT. THERE IS NOTHING IN THE HANDS OF T HE AO TO DISBELIEVE THE SAID DO CU MEN TS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE. IN THE REMAND REPORT TOO THE AO, SIMPLY BASE D HIS REASON ON SURMISES AND CONJECTURES WHICH CANNOT BE THE BASIS TO MAK E ADDITION IN THIS RESPECT. KEEPING IN VIEW THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, WE FIND THAT THERE WAS NO JUSTIFICATION FOR THE AO TO MAKE T HE IMPUGNED ADDITION, AC CORDINGLY, THE LD CIT (A) HAS RIGHTLY DELETED THE ADDITION OF RS. 16 LAK HS MADE BY THE AO U/S. 68 OF THE ACT, WHICH DO ES NOT NEED ANY INTERFERENCE FROM OUR PART, HENCE, WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (A) ON THE ISSUE IN DISPUT E AND DISMISS THE GROUND NO. 3 RAISED BY THE REVENUE. ITA NO. 3091/ DEL/ 2013 6 11. WITH REGARD TO GROUND NO. 4 REGARDING DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS. 1,97,012/ - ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF NOTIONAL INTEREST ON BORROWED FUNDS UTILIZED FOR NON BUSINESS PURPOSE IS CONCERNED, WE FIND THAT IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE AO , ON PERUSAL OF THE P&L ACCOUNT, NOTICED THAT ALTHOUGH THE ASSESSEE WAS PAYING INTEREST ON BORROWED FUNDS, HE DID NOT CHARGE ANY INTEREST ON LOANS AND ADVANCES LE NDED BY HIM TO THE TUNE OF RS. 99,75,146/ - THE LD AR, SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TAKEN OUTSTANDING BALANCE OF LOA NS AND ADVANCES AS APPEARING IN BALANCE SHEET WHICH DOES NOT REPRESENT THE LOANS AND ADVANCES GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR. ACCORDING TO HIM T HE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN LOANS AND ADVANCES OF RS.69,93,146/ - DURING THE YEAR, OUT OF THE WHICH RS. 56,00,000 / - WAS PURELY FOR BUSINESS PURPOSE AND THE ASSESSEE HAD TRANSACTIONS WITH THESE PARTIES IN SUBSEQUENT YEARS TOO . THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALSO MENTIONED IN HIS ORDER THAT ASSESS E E HAS DEBITED RS 6 , 48 , 899 / - AGAINST THE INTEREST TO THE BORROWED LOAN AND HAS NOT CHARGED INTEREST ON LOANS AND ADVANCES GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE TO VARIOUS PARTIES. THEREFORE THE AO HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DIVERTED INTEREST BEARING FUND FOR NON BUSINESS PURPOSE AND ACCORDINGLY CHA RGED INTEREST @ 12% ON THE LOANS AND ADVANCES WHICH HE WORKED AT RS 1,97,012 / - AND ADDED THE SAME TO INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE . THE LD AR SUBMITTED IN THIS REGARD THAT ASSESSEE HAS PAI D INTEREST ON OVERDRAFT LIMIT TAKEN FROM BANK. ACCORDING TO HIM, THE ASSESSE E HAS NOT USED THE INTEREST BEARING FUNDS FOR PAYMENT OF THESE LOANS AND ADVANCES RATHER HAS USED THE BUS I NESS PROCEEDS, UNSECURED LOANS ( ON WHICH NO INTEREST IS BEING PAID) AND ITS OWN CAP I TAL CONTRIBUTION FOR THE SAID PURPOSE. THE LD AR DREW O U R ATTENTION TO THE BAN K STATEMENTS ATTACHED ON PAGE 67 TO 94 OF THE PAPER BOOK, FROM WHICH THE SOURCE OF LOANS AND ADVANCES COULD BE SEEN EMANATING FROM BUSINESS SALE PROCEEDS. THUS ACCORDING TO THE LD AR, THERE IS NO NEXUS BETWEEN THE INTEREST BEARING FUN DS AND THE LOANS AND ADVANCE GIVEN. FURTHER IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT MOST OF THE LOANS AND AD VANCE ARE FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES AND THE ASSESSEE HAD BUSINESS TRA N SACTIONS IN SUBSEQUENT YEAR WITH THOSE PARTIES AND ADVANCES HAD BEEN ADJUSTED WITH THE BUSINESS TRAN SACTION. HOWEVER, AS ST A TED EARLIER , AO WAS NOT CONVINCED WITH THE AFORESAID EXPLANATION AND SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS AND ITA NO. 3091/ DEL/ 2013 7 ACCORDING TO HIM, THE ASSESSEE HAD DIVERTED INTEREST BEARING FUNDS FOR NON BUSINESS PURPOSES AND CHARGED INTEREST @12% ON THE LOANS AND AD VANCES WHICH HE WORKED OUT AT RS. 1,97,012/ - AND ADDED THE SAME TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THE LIGHT OF THE ASSESSEES EXPLANATION SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE W E FIND FORCE IN THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. AR THAT AO HAD MADE THE IMPUGNED ADDITION ONLY ON THE BASIS OF SURMISES AND NOT CONSIDER ED THE EVIDENCE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE TO BOLSTER HIS CLAIM . IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, W E FIND CONSIDERABLE COGENCY IN THE FINDING OF THE LD. CIT(A) THAT THE AO HAD NOT APPRECIATED THE NATURE OF FUNDS ON WHICH THE INTEREST WAS PAID AND ALSO THE NATURE OF LOANS AND ADVANCES, AND HE HAD MERELY PROCEEDED ON VAGUE OBSERVATIONS TO MAKE THE IMPUGNED ADDITION. NO ADVERSE MATERIAL HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD TO JUSTIFY THE ADDITIONS SO THE IMPUGNED ADDITION CANNOT BE SUSTAINED IN THE EYES OF LAW AND SO THE LD. CIT (A) HAS RIGHTLY DELETED THE ADDITION OF RS. 1,97,012 / - MADE BY THE AO U/S. 68 OF THE ACT, WHICH DOES NOT NEED ANY INTERFERENCE ON OUR PART, HENCE, WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) ON THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE AND DISMISS THE GROUND NO. 4 RAISED BY THE REVENUE. 1 2 . IN THE RESULT, THE REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30 .04.2015. - SD/ - - SD/ - (R.S. SYAL ) (A. T. VARKEY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED :30 /04/2015 A K KEOT COPY FORWARDED TO 1. APPLICANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR:ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI