ACIT, New Delhi V. M/s Gyan Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 3211/DEL/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 58466 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-01-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 16-01-2012
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 14-06-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SALIL MISHRA
• Keywords: Business income; Cost of acquisition

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : C : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI I.P. BANSAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.3211/DEL/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08 ACIT, CIRCLE 12 (1), NEW DELHI. VS. GYAN ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD., 4 TH FLOOR, PUNJABI BHAWAN, 10, ROUSE AVENUE, NEW DELHI. PAN : AAACG0512G (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI GURJEET SINGH, CA REVENUE BY : SHRI SALIL MISHRA, SR.DR ORDER PER I.P. BANSAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE OR DER PASSED BY THE CIT (A) DATED 23 RD MARCH, 2011 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL READ AS UNDER:- 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN L AW, THE LEARNED CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF ` 81,96,555/- TREATED IT AS BUSINESS INCOME INSTEAD OF SH ORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN BY THE A.O. 2. THE APPELLANT RAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER OR AMEND AN Y GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED ABOVE AT THE TIME OF THE HEARING. 2. AT THE OUTSET, IT WAS PLEADED BY THE LEARNED AR TH AT THE ISSUE RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS SIMILAR TO THE ISSUE RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN RESPECT OF ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005- 06. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT ON THIS ISSUE WAS ITA NO.3211/DEL/2011 2 DECIDED BY THIS TRIBUNAL VIDE ORDER DATED 30 TH MAY, 2011 IN ITA NO.666/DEL/2010. HE HAS PRODUCED BEFORE US COPY OF T HE SAID ORDER BY WHICH THE TRIBUNAL HAS DECIDED THIS APPEAL OF THE REV ENUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND REVENUES APPEAL HAS BEEN DISMISSED. A COP Y OF THE SAID ORDER WAS ALSO GIVEN TO THE LEARNED DR. 3. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEARNED DR RELIED UPON TH E ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 4. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND THEIR CONTENTI ONS HAVE CAREFULLY BEEN CONSIDERED. IT IS SEEN THAT WHILE DECI DING THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE LEARNED CIT (A) HAS FOLLOWED THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) PASSED IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 5-06 AND THE RELEVANT OBSERVATIONS OF THE CIT (A) AS CONTAI NED IN PARA 6 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER ARE AS UNDER:- 6. THEREFORE, THE A.O. IS DIRECTED TO ASSESS THE PROFI TS ARISEN ON SALE OF SHARES HELD UNDER THE INVESTMENT PORTFOLIO U NDER THE HEAD CAPITAL GAIN WHETHER THE SHORT TERM OR LONG TERM DEPENDING UPON THE DURATION OF HOLDING OF SHARES. IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06, FOR THE FIRST TIME THE A.O. HAD TREATED THE SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN ON SALE OF SHARES AS BUSINE SS INCOME, BUT THE CIT (APPEALS) VIDE ORDER DATED 12 TH NOVEMBER, 2009 HAS ACCEPTED THE APPELLANTS CONTENTION AND DIRECTED TO ASSESS THE PROFIT ARISEN ON SALE OF SHARES HELD AS INVESTMENT A S SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN INSTEAD OF BUSINESS PROFIT. THIS DEC ISION WAS ALSO UPHELD IN THE APPELLANTS CASE FOR THE A.Y. 2006-0 7. 5. IT IS THE CONTENTION OF THE LEARNED AR THAT FOR A SSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) HAS BEEN UPHELD BY THE TRIBUNAL VIDE AFOREMENTIONED ORDER DATED 30 TH MAY, 2011. THEREFORE, THE ISSUE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. NO MATERIAL HAS BEEN PRODUCED ON RECORD BY THE REVENUE TO SHOW THAT THE FACTS OF THE P RESENT YEAR ARE DIFFERENT FROM THE FACTS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 . THEREFORE, THE ISSUE IS COVERED BY THE AFOREMENTIONED ORDER OF TH E TRIBUNAL. FOR ITA NO.3211/DEL/2011 3 THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE, THE AFOREMENTIONED ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 IS REPRODUCED BELOW:- THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE. IT I S DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY LD. CIT(A) DATED 12.11.20 09 FOR A.Y. 2005-06. GROUNDS OF APPEAL READ AS UNDER: - 1. THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS NOT CORRECT IN LAW AND FACTS. 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS IN HOLDING THAT THE INCOME GENERATED BY DEALING IN SHARES AND SECURITIES BY THE ASSESSEE WAS TO BE TREATED AS INCOME FROM CAPITAL GAIN AND NOT INCOME FROM BUSINESS AS WAS ASSESSED BY THE AO. 3. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER OR AME ND ANY/ALL OF THE GROUNDS OF THE APPEAL BEFORE OR DURI NG THE COURSE OF THE HEARING OF THE APPEAL. 2. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS RECOGNIZED BY THE RESERVE BANK OF INDIA AS NON-BANKING FINANCIAL CORPORATIO N. THE COMPANY IS HAVING AN INVESTMENT PORTFOLIO AND HAS HELD CERTAIN SHARES IN STOCK-IN-TRADE. DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION VIDE RESOLUTION DATED 22 ND APRIL, 2004 IT WAS RESOLVED THAT STOCK-IN-TRADE AMOUNTING TO RS. 79,73,293.1 5/- HELD BY THE COMPANY IN SHARES/ SECURITIES OF OTHER BODIES CORPORATE CONVERTED INTO INVESTMENT W.E.F. 1.04.2004, DETAILS OF THESE SHARES ARE AS UNDER: - S.NO. NAME OF THE COMPANY QUANTITY AMOUNT 1. ASSOCIATED CEMENT LTD. 2000 509300/- 2. BALAJI TELE FILMS LTD. 5000 362420/- 3. BALRAMPUR CHINI MILLS LTD. 1000 286250/- 4. BIOCON LTD. 1250 393750/- 5. GAS AUTHORITY OF INDIA 3874 825549/- 6. HDFC LTD. 400 245496/- 7. MORGAN STANLAY 5000 30000/- 8. NESTLE INDIA LTD. 500 297140/- 9. RADICO KHAITAN LTD. 5000 480525/- 10. RELIANCE INDUSTRIES 1000 305101/- 11. SUN PHARMA LTD. 450 293175/- 12. STATE BANK OF INDIA 500 289885/- 13. TATA POWER CO. LTD. 1250 471437/- 14. TV TODAY NETWORK LTD. 2500 237500/- 15. TATA TELE SERVICES LTD. 20000 324000/- ITA NO.3211/DEL/2011 4 16. TALBROS AUTOMOTIVE COMPONENTS LTD. 82143 2063843/- 17. VSNL LTD. 1600 285680/- 18. WIPRO LTD. 200 272240/- TOTAL 133667 7973293/- 3. THE VALUE OF ACQUISITION OF THESE SHARES W AS TAKEN TO BE THE MARKET VALUE AS ON 31.3.2004 AND AS PER SUBMI SSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PURCHASE PRICE OF THE SCRIPT AND THE MARKET VALUE AS ON 31.3.2004 WAS TAKEN INTO A CCOUNT WHILE WORKING OUT THE PROFITS OF THE YEAR ENDING AS ON 31.3.2004 AND THESE FINDINGS ARE RECORDED BY THE CONCLUSION DRA WN BY CIT(A) IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER IN PARA 5. IT IS FURTHER OBSERVED BY LD. CIT(A) THAT IT IS CLEAR FROM THE BALANCE SHEET FOR F.Y. 2003-04 THAT THE MARKET VALUE OF THESE SHARES AS ON 31.3 .2004 HAS BEEN TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT BY WORKING OUT OF THE CLOSIN G STOCK OF THE SHARES AND THIS HAS BEEN TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT FOR W ORKING OUT THE PROFITS FOR THAT YEAR. IT HAS BEEN FURTHER FOUN D BY THE LD. CIT(A) THAT THE MARKET VALUE AS ON 31.3.2004 HAS BEEN TAKEN AS THE COST OF ACQUISITION OF THESE SHARES AND THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN COST OF ACQUISITION AND THE SALE PRICE HAS BEEN OFFERED FOR TAXATION AS INCOME FROM SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN. ON THESE FACTS, LD. CIT(A) HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY FOLLOWING CERTAIN DEC ISION OF TRIBUNAL AND HAS HELD THAT THE GAIN OF THE ASSESSE E IS TO BE ASSESSED AS SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN IN PLACE O F BUSINESS INCOME TREATED BY THE AO. THE AO HAD HELD TH AT FREQUENT TRANSACTION OF PURCHASE AND SALE OF SHARES IN TERMS OF AMOUNT AND QUANTITY ASSUMED EXPLICITY THE CHARACTER OF BUSINESS AND HE TREATED THE GAIN THERE FROM AS BUSINE SS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 4. AT THE OUTSET IT WAS PLEADED BY LD. COUNSEL OF TH E ASSESSEE THAT ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE THE PROPOSITION IS DULY COVE RED BY THE DECISION OF TRIBUNAL IN ANOTHER CASE. HE IN THIS REGARD REFERRED TO THE DECISION OF TRIBUNAL DATED 18.2. 2011 IN THE CASE OF DCIT VS. M/S CHAUDHARY ASSOCIATES (IT A NO. 1241/DEL/2010), WHEREIN ON SIMILAR FACTS THE ORDER OF CIT(A) WAS UPHELD VIDE WHICH THE IMPUGNED RELIEF WAS GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE. HE HAS PRODUCED BEFORE US A COPY OF THE S AID ORDER. A COPY WAS ALSO GIVEN TO LD. DR. 5. HOWEVER, ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DR RELYING UPO N THE ORDER OF AO PLEADED THAT RELIEF HAS WRONGLY BEEN GIVEN BY L D. CIT(A) TO THE ASSESSEE AND THE ORDER OF CIT(A) SHOULD BE SET ASI DE AND THAT OF AO BE RESTORED. 6. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUB MISSIONS. WE HAVE ALSO CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AS WELL AS ORDER PASSED BY CIT(A). THE FINDING S OF FACT ITA NO.3211/DEL/2011 5 RECORDED BY LD. CIT(A) IT IS NARRATED ABOVE. THEREFORE, THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE AND THE AFOREMENTIONED CASE OF DCIT VS. M/S CHAUDHARY ASSOCIATES ARE IDENTICAL. THE FINDINGS OF FACT RECORDED BY LD. CIT(A) IN THE PRESEN T CASE HAVE NOT BEEN CONTROVERTED BY THE REVENUE. IN THIS VIEW OF TH E POSITION, THE RATIO LAID DOWN IN THE AFOREMENTIONED DECISION WILL BE APPLICABLE TO THE PRESENT CASE ALSO. FOR THE SAKE OF COMPLETENESS THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE SAID ORDER IS REPRODUCED BELOW: - 2. THE ISSUE RAISED IS THAT LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN DIRECTING TO TRE AT THE ASSESSEE AS INVESTOR IN SHARES AS AGAINST TREATMENT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF ASSESSEE AS A TRADE. 3. THE ASSESSEE IN THIS CASE HAS DECLARED INCOME FROM LONG TERM /SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAINS AND INCOME FROM BUSINESS AND PROFESSION. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THIS CASE OBSERVED THAT ASSESSEE WAS HOLDING SHARES MAINLY OF GROUP COMPANIES INCLUDING OF DABUR INDIA LTD. AS INVESTMENT SINCE LONG BACK. THE ASSESSEE WAS ALSO ENGAGED IN PURCHASE AND SALE OF SHARES AND MUTUAL FUNDS MOSTLY OF BLUE CHIP COMPANIES AS STOCK-IN-TRADE. DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION , ASSESSEE HAS TRANSFERRED THE SHARES OF CERTAIN COMPANY AS HELD IN STOCK-IN-TRADE UPTO 31.3.200 4 AT COST PRICE AS ON 1.4.2004 AS UNDER:- SL.NO. NAME OF THE COMPANY QUANTITY AMOUNT 1. MORGAIN STANLAY 5000 30000/- 2. NESTLE INDIA LTD. 500 303310/- 3. BIOCON LTD. 1250 393750/- 4. HDFC LTD. 400 245536/- TOTAL 7150 972596/- 4. ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER NOTED THAT APART F ROM THE SHARES OF THE FOUR COMPANIES TRANSFERRED TO INVESTMENT ACCOUNT AS ON 1.4.2004 FROM STOCK-IN-TRADE AS ON 31.3.2004, THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE PURCHASES SHARES/ MUTUAL FUNDS OF 51 COMPANIES. THEREAFTER, ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THAT CONSIDERING THE FAC TS AND JUDICIAL PRINCIPLES AND EXPLANATION RELATING TO TH E TREATMENT BY THE ASSESSEE WITH RESPECT TO THE GAIN DERIVED FROM SALE OF SHARES TRANSFERRED FROM STOCK IN TRADE TO THE INVESTMENT ACCOUNT AND FURTHER PURCHASE AND SALE OF SHARES DURING THE YEAR ON VOLUMINOUS SCALE IS BEREFT OF ANY PLAUSIBLE EXPLANATI ON AND NOT ACCEPTABLE. ITA NO.3211/DEL/2011 6 5. UPON ASSESSEES APPEAL LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ELABORATELY CONSIDERED THE ISSUE AND HELD AS UNDER:- I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE AO AND THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE COUNSEL OF THE APPELLANT. THE APPELLANT COMPANY IS RECOGNIZED BY THE RESERVE BANK OF INDIA AS NON-BANKING FINANCIAL CORPORATI ON. IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE COMPANY IS HAVING AN INVESTMENT PORTFOLIO AND ALSO HELD CERTAIN SHARES AS STOCK IN TRADE. THE MATTER WAS PUT BEFORE THE BOARD TO CONVERT THESE SHARES FROM STOCK IN TRADE INTO INVESTMENTS. THE RESOLUTION WAS APPROVED BY THE BOARD AND LATER ON THE APPELLANT HAS FOLLOWED THE SAME METHOD OF VALUATION AT COST PRICE ON PERMANENT BASIS. IT IS OBSERVED FROM THE DETAILS SUBMITTED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE SHARES HELD IN STOCK IN TRADE HAVE BEEN CONVERTED INTO INVESTMENTS W.E.F. 1ST OF APRIL, 2004. THE VALUE OF ACQUISITION HAS BEEN TAKEN TO BE THE MARKET VALUE AS ON 31ST OF MARCH, 2004. IT IS SUBMITTED BY THE COUNSEL OF THE APPELLANT THAT THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PURCHASE PRICE OF THE SCRIP AND THE MARKET VALUE AS ON 31ST OF MARCH, 2004 HAVE BEEN TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT WHILE WORKING OUT THE PROFITS FOR THE YEAR ENDING AS ON 31S T OF MARCH, 2004. IT IS CLEAR FROM THE BALANCE SHE ET FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2003-04 THAT THE MARKET VALUE OF THE SHARES AS ON 31 ST OF MARCH, 2004 HAS BEEN TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT BY WORKING OUT THE CLOSING STOCK OF SHARES AND THIS HAS BEEN TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT FOR WORKING OUT THE PROFITS FOR THAT YEAR. THE MARKET VALUE AS ON 31ST OF MARCH, 2004 HAS BEEN TAKEN AS THE COST OF ACQUISITION OF THESE SHARES AND THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN COST OF ACQUISITION AND THE SALE PRICE HAS BEEN OFFERED FOR TAXATION AS INCOM E FROM SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN. 5.1 LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) FURTHER REFERRED TO ITAT, LUCKNOW BENCH IN THE CASE OF M/S SARNATH INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. REPORTED IN 12 0 TTJ 216. CONSIDERING THE SAME THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) CONCLUDED AS UNDER:- ADVERTING BACK TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE, IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE APPELLANT WAS TRADING IN SHARES REGULARLY FOR THE LAST MANY YEARS. DURING THES E YEARS THE COMPANY WAS TRADING IN SHARES AS WELL AS HAVING AN INVESTMENT PORTFOLIO. THE SEPARATE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WERE MAINTAINED FOR TRADING AS ITA NO.3211/DEL/2011 7 WELL AS INVESTMENT PORTFOLIO. THE COMPANY DECIDED TO CONVERT THE SHARES HELD IN TRADING PORTFOLIO INTO INVESTMENTS. THE MATTE WAS PUT BEFORE THE BOARD IN THE ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING TO CONVERT THE SHARES FROM STOCK IN TRADE TO INVESTMENTS. THIS RESOLUTION WAS APPROVED BY TH E BOARD AND THE MARKET VALUE AS ON 31ST OF MARCH, 2004 WAS TAKEN AS THE COST OF ACQUISITION OF THESE SHARES WERE TRANSFERRED TO THE INVESTMENT PORTFOLIO. LATER ON THE APPELLANT HAD FOLLOWED THE SAME METHOD OF VALUATION AT COST PRICE ON PERMANENT BASIS. PART OF THESES SHARES WERE SOLD BY THE APPELLA NT DURING THE YEAR. THE APPELLANT HAD TAKEN THE CLOSING VALUE AS ON 31.3.2004 AS THE COST OF ACQUISITION AND WITHOUT TAKING THE BENEFIT OF INDEXATION, THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE SALE PRIC E AND THE COST OF ACQUISITION HAS BEEN OFFERED F OR TAXATION AS SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN. IT IS WORTH MENTIONING HERE THAT WHEREAS THE SHARES HELD BY THE COMPANY IN THE TRADING ACCOUNT WERE TRANSFERRED TO THE INVESTMENT PORTFOLIO, HOWEVER, THE TRADING IN MUTUAL FUNDS CONTINUES TO BE BUSINESS ACTIVITY OF THE COMPANY. IN VIEW OF THE FACTS DISCUSSED ABOVE AND DECISION OF THE HONBLE ITAT IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS. BRIGHT STAR INVESTMENT P VT. LTD. AND M/S SARNATH INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. IT IS HELD THAT THE APPELLANT IS A REGULAR INVESTOR AND UNDER NO STRETCH OF IMAGINATION, IT CAN BE TREATED AS TRADER IN SHARES. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS IN LIGH T OF THE MATERIAL PRODUCED AND PRECEDENT RELIED UPON. IT IS OBSERVED THAT FROM THE FACTS OF THE CASE SHARES WILL HELD IN STOCK IN TRADE WERE CONVERTED INTO INVESTMENTS W.E.F. 1.4.2004. THE VALUE OF ACQUISITION HAS BEEN TAKEN TO THE MARKET VALUE A S ON 31.3.2004. THE ASSESSEE HAS FURTHER CLARIF IED THAT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PURCHASE PRICE OF THE SCRIP AND THE MARKET VALUE AS ON 31.3.2004 HAVE BEEN TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT WHILE WORKING OUT THE PROFITS FOR THE YEAR ENDING AS ON 31 ST MARCH, 2004. THUS, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE DIFFERENCE IN VALUE ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE COST AND MARKET PRICE OF THESE SHARES HAVE ALREADY BEEN ACCOUNTED FOR BY THE ASSESSEE. ASSESSEE HAS ALSO BEEN MAINTAINED SEPARATE BOOKS FOR TRADING AND INVESTMENT PORTFOLIOS. THE COMPANY DECIDED TO CONVERT TRADING PORTFOLIO INTO INVESTMENTS VIDE RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD IN ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING TO CONVERT THE SHARES FROM STOCK IN TRADE TO INVESTMENTS. THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN THE MARKET VALUE ON 31.3.2004 AS THE COST OF THE ITA NO.3211/DEL/2011 8 ACQUISITION WITHOUT TAKING THE BENEFIT OF THE INDEXATION, THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE SALES PRICE AND THE COST OF ACQUISITION HAS BEEN OFFERED FO R TAXATION AS SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY OR ILLEGALITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AND WE UPHOLD THE SAME. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENU E STANDS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 18/02/2011. 7. IN THE AFOREMENTIONED DECISION, BOTH OF US ARE PARTY, THEREFORE, FOLLOWING THE AFOREMENTIONED DECISION, W E FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE RELIEF GIVEN BY THE LD. CIT(A). W E DECLINE TO INTERFERE. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS D ISMISSED. ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30.5.2011 6. IN THIS VIEW OF THE SITUATION, FOLLOWING THE AFORE MENTIONED DECISION, WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT (A) AND DISMISS THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. THE ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 20.01.20 12. SD/- SD/- [SHAMIM YAHYA] [I.P. BANSAL] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED, 20.01.2012. DK ITA NO.3211/DEL/2011 9 COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER, DEPUTY REGISTRAR, ITAT, DELHI BENCHES