DCIT, UDAIPUR V. M/s. Surya Estate, UDAIPUR

ITA 323/JODH/2014

• Counselvise Citation: 32323314 RSA 2014
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-08-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 15-05-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 153A; 28

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR BEFORE SHRI HARI OM MARATHA , JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI N.K.SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 323 / JU/ 20 1 4 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 200 8 - 0 9 THE DY .C.I.T VS. M/S SURYA ESTATE CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1 98, INDRAPRASTHA COMPLEX UDAIPUR . DELHI GATE, UDAIPUR PAN NO. AAVFS 4003 N (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) A SSESSEE B Y : NONE DEPARTMENT B Y : SHRI O.P. MEENA DATE OF H EARING : 0 8 . 0 8 .201 4 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 13 . 0 8 . 201 4 ORDER PER HARI OM MARATHA , J .M. TH IS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED A GAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) , UDAIPUR DATED 17 . 0 2 .20 1 4 PERTAINING TO A.Y 200 8 - 20 0 9 . 2 2. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. CIT, D.R. AT LENGTH. SINCE DESPITE BEING DULY SE RVED WITH THE NOTICE OF HEARING, THE ASSESSEE - RESPONDENT HAS CHOSEN NOT TO APPEAR EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH HIS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE, THEREFORE, WE HAVE PROCEEDED EXPARTE AGAINST HIM, MORE SO BECAUSE THE ISSUE S INVOLVED IN THIS APPEAL STAND FULLY C OVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE LD. CIT(A) HAS FOLLOWED THE TRIBUNAL ORDER IN ARRIVING AT THE CONCLUSION. HOWEVER, T HE APPLICATION FILED FOR ADJOURNMENT WAS REJECTED BECAUSE OF THAT REASON ONLY. THE GROUNDS RAISED IN THIS APPEAL READ AS UNDER: 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE PRESENT CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE ID. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 13,07,893/ - BY REJECTING THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME DETERMINED ON THE BASIS OF AS - 9 AND AS - 7 WHICH WAS CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A), CENTRA L, JAIPUR IN OTHER A.YS. LIKE A.Y. 2004 - 05 TO A.Y. 2007 - 08 AND 2009 - 10. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN REJECTING THE APPLICATION OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 145(3) OF THE ACT WHICH WAS CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A), CENTRAL, JAIPUR IN OTHER A.YS LIKE A.Y. 2004 - 05 TO A.Y. 2007 - 08 AND 2009 - 10 . 3 3. THE FOLLOWING PORTION FROM THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) FROM WHICH FACTS AS WELL AS THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL ON WHICH THE LD. CIT(A) HAS RELIED WILL BECOME OBVIOUS: THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 24.11.2009 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME AT RS. 1,07,03,200/ - IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S 153A OF THE ACT . THE LD. AO HAS MADE ADDITION OF RS. 13,07,863/ - BY APPLYING AS - 7 AND REJECTING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS U/S 145(3) OF THE IT ACT. HENCE, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL. DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDING THE LD. AR SUBMITTED AS UNDER : - IT IS SUBMITTED THAT IN THE CASE OF ABOVE ASSESSEE ASST, WERE COMPLETED U/S 153A/143(3) FOR THE ASST, YEARS 2003 - 2004 TO 2009 - 2010 AND MADE HUGE ADDITION IN ALL THE YEARS BY MAKING APPLICATION OF AS - 7. THEREFORE ASSESSEE WAS IN APPEAL BEFORE YOUR HONOUR IN ALL THE YEARS I.E. ASST, YEAR 2003 - 2004 TO 2009 - 2010. THE ID. CIT(A), JAIPUR HAS DECIDED ALL THE APPEALS IN THE ABOVE CASE EXCEPT FOR THE ASST, YEAR 2008 - 2009 BY COMMON ORDER DT. 21/12/2011. THE ISSUES INVOLVED IN ALL THE CASES ARE SAME AND FURTHER HONBLE ITAT, JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR HAS DECIDED APPEALS OF ASSESSEE & OF THE DEPARTMENT BY COMMON ORDER DT. 12/12/2012 IN WHICH HONBLE BEN CH HAS ALLOWED ASSESSEES APPEAL & APPEAL OF THE REVENUE WERE DISMISSED. COPY OF ORDER OF ITAT, JODHPUR IS ENCLOSED FOR YOUR HONOUR KIND CONSIDERATION & RELIANCE. 4 THE HONBLE ITAT, JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR OBSERVED THAT GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ALL O THER APPEALS AS WELL AS GROUNDS RAIS ED BY THE REVENUE IN ALL OTHER APPEALS ARE ALMOST IDENTICAL AND, THEREFORE, WHATEVER DECISION IS TAKEN IN THIS APPEAL WILL ALSO APPLY MUTATIS M UTANDIS TO ALL OTHER APPEALS. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSION AND HAVE CA REFULLY PERUSED THE ENTIRE MATERIAL ON RECORD. IT WAS ARGUED BEFORE US BY THE ID. A.R. THAT THE MAIN AND SOLE DISPUTE IN ALL APPEALS IS REGARDING APPLICATION OF PERCENTAGE OF COMPLETION METHOD [POCM] WHICH HAS BEEN ADOPTED BY THE A.O. IN ARRIVING AT UNDI SCLOSED INCOME IN ALL THE YEARS UNDER APPEAL. IT WAS FURTHER ARGUED THAT IT IS FACT THAT PROFIT IN BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WERE NOT FOUND RECORDED AT THE TIME OF SEARCH AS THEY DID NOT INCLUDE ENTIRE RECEIPTS/EXPENDITURE BUT THE ASSESSEE HAD COMPLETED BOOKS OF AC COUNT LATER ON, ON THE BASIS OF EVIDENCE/DOCUMENT FOUND DURING SEARCH AND ON THAT BASIS RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED IN COMPLIANCE OF NOTICE ISSUED U/S 153A OF THE ACT. A FINANCIAL STATEMENT WAS ALSO PREPARED ON THE BASIS OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. HE ARGUED THAT AFTER INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS U/S 153A, ALL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S 153A, ALL OTHER ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IN VOGUE RELATING TO THESE VERY A. YS. WOULD NOT SURVIVE. IN THIS BACKGROUND, THE MAIN ARGUMENT ADVANCED BY THE ID. A.R. WAS THAT THE BOOKS ARE PREPARED ON THE BASIS OF DOCUMENTS FOUND DURING SEARCH/SURVEY HAVE TO BE RELIED AND CONSIDERED. SINCE NO SPECIFIC DEFECT, MUCH LESS ANY MATERIAL DEFECT, IS POINTED OUT BY THE DEPARTMENT IN THESE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, THERE IS NO 5 QUESTION OF THEIR REJECTION AND THE SAME HAVE TO BE ACCEPTED. IT WAS ALSO ARGUED THAT THERE IS NO DISPUTE IN RESPECT OF METHOD OF ALLOCATION OF PROFITS IN VARIOUS YEARS WHILE PREPARING ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT. HE EVEN SUGGESTED THAT IN BOTH SITUATIONS, WHEN PROFIT IS DETERMINED FOR V ARIOUS YEARS ON PROPORTIONATE BASIS AT VARIOUS STAGES OF PROJECT OR IN ONE GO IN A YEAR WHEN VARIOUS UNITS ARE HANDED OVER TO BUYERS AFTER THEIR COMPLETION ARE SUM AND EQUAL IN ALL RESPECTS. IT WILL NOT AFFECT THE PROFITABILITY AND WILL NOT BE A DISTORTED PICTURE OF INCOME OF THAT PARTICULAR YEAR[ S ] . HE FURTHER ARGUED THAT BASIC PRINCIPLE INVOLVED IN APPLICATION OF POCM FOR DETERMINING INCOME OF ANY ASSESSEE IS BASED ON SIGNIFICANT RISK AND REWARD OF ASSET WHICH ARE SUBJECT MATTER OF CONSTRUCTION AND SALE. WHEN RISK AND REWARD ARE TRANSFERRED, THE ASSESSEE CONTINUES TO WORK ON THEIR BEHALF. IN NUT - SHELL, THE CONTENTION OF THE ID. A.R. IS THREE - FRONGED - (I) THAT POCM IS NOT MANDATORY METHOD TO BE FOLLOWED BY REAL ESTATE DEVELOPERS IN TERMS OF VARIOUS GUIDELIN ES ISSUED BY ICAI WHICH ARE ALWAYS RECOMMENDATORY IN NATURE; (II) THE PRINCIPLES PROPOUNDED UNDER POCM ARE NOT MANDATORY TO BE FOLLOWED UNDER THE I. T. ACT, 1961, AND (HI) PRINCIPLES PROPOUNDED ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE ASSES SEES CASE. PER CONTRA, THE ID. CIT, DR HAS RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELO W. HE HAS REPEATED REASONS GIVEN BY THE A.O. AND THE ID. CIT(A) SUITING TO REVENUE BUT HAS CONTESTED THE FINDING OF ID. C IT (A) TO THE EXTENT THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL. 6 AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSION VIS - A - VIS THE ENTIRE EVIDENCE AVAILABLE ON RECORD IN THE LIGHT OF ORAL SUBMISSION OF THE PARTIES, WE HAVE FOUND IT FOR A FACT THAT LAND CONVERSION FROM AGRICULTURE OF NON - AGRICULTURE TOOK PLACE IN THE MONTH OF OCTOB ER, 2008 AND CONVERSION CHARGES WERE PAID BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH ARE ALSO RECORDED. SO, RISK AND REWARD IN THESE ASSETS WERE TRANSFERRED ONLY ON THOSE DATES OR THEREAFTER BUT NOT BEFORE THIS DATE. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, APPLICATION OF METHOD OF POCM IS NOT JUSTIFIED. THE ASSESSEE HAD TAKEN OVER PROJECT OF CONSTRUCTION OF BUNGALOW FOR SELLING THEM TO PROSPECTIVE BUYERS AND ALSO RECEIVED ADVANCE FROM THEM. THESE AMOUNTS ARE SHOWN AS LIABILITY IN ASSESSEES BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND FINANCIAL STATEMENTS. NO WRIT TEN AGREEMENTS WERE FOUND RELATING TO THESE TRANSACTIONS OF SALE OF BUNGALOWS WHICH WERE ADMITTEDLY UNDER CONSTRUCTION. WE HAVE NOTICED THAT POCM IS NOT MANDATORY METHOD TO BE FOLLOWED BY ANY REAL ESTATE DEVELOPER. GUIDANCE - NOTES ISSUED BY ICIA ARE ALWAYS RECOMMENDATORY IN NATURE AND THESE CANNOT BE MANDATORY. THEY DIFFER FROM THE ACCOUNTING STANDARD WHICH ARE MANDATORY IN NATURE AND ARE TO BE FOLLOWED BY ANY OF THE MEMBERS OF THE ICAI, AS PER THESE GUIDANCE - NOTES RECOGNITION OF REVENUE ON POCM ARISES ONLY IN CASES WHERE THERE IS A LEGALLY ENFORCEABLE CONTRACT HAVING EFFECT OF TRANSFERRING ALL SIGNIFICANT RISKS AND REWARDS. THUS, WE ARE SATISFIED THAT DEVELOPER/BUILDER WORKS LIKE A CONTRACTOR WHO PERFORMS CONSTRUCTION WORK ON BEHALF OF BUYERS ONLY. THIS INCO ME CAN BE RECOGNIZED IN THE MANNER PROVIDED IN AS - 7 WHICH APPLIES TO CONTRACTORS WHO DO NOT 7 TAKE UP CONSTRUCTION ON THEIR OWN BUT TAKE ON BEHALF OF THEIR PRINCIPAL. THE GUIDANCE - NOTE DOES NOT APPLY WHEN SELLER KEEPS NO EFFECTIVE CONTROL ON THE SOLD PROPERT Y. THUS, THE PRICE RISK IS ONE OF THE FACTORS WHICH IS RELEVANT FOR DETERMINING WHETHER THE BUILDER/DEVELOPER IS WORKING ON HIS OWN BEHALF OR ON BEHALF OF THE BUYER. OTHER RELEVANT FACTORS ARE (I) IF THE BUYER WOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR LOSSES BY NATURAL CAL AMITIES DURING CONSTRUCTION PERIOD?; (II) IF THE BUYER WOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR MAJOR COSTS ESCALATION DURING CONSTRUCTION PERIOD?, AND (HI) IF THE LAND IS LEGALLY TRANSFERRED IN THE NAME OF BUYER OR ONLY THIS CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY IS TAKEN UP. ADMITTEDLY, THERE IS NO WRITTEN AGREEMENT IN RESPECT OF THE TRANSACTIONS OF SALE OF BUNGALOWS WHICH WERE UNDER CONSTRUCTION. IT IS FOUND FOR A FACT THAT RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONVERSION OF LAND IS THAT THE ASSESSEE AND CONVERSION TOOK PLACE IN THE MONTH OF OCTOBER 20 08. OBVIOUSLY, RISK AND REWARD OF TRANSACTION WAS TRANSFERRED IN FAVOUR OF CUSTOMER ONLY AFTER THE CONVERSION OF LAND TITLE. TILL THEN, ENTIRE RISKS RELATING TO NON - CONVERSION, DAMAGES AND RISK OF GOVERNMENT ACQUISITION, TILL ITS POSSESSION IS HANDED OVER TO THE BUYER AND REGISTRATION IN THEIR FAVOUR ARE OF THE ASSESSEE. ANY ADVANCE MONEY RECEIVED OR SHOWN IN THE FINANCIAL STATEMENT HAS TO BE GIVEN BACK IF THE ASSESSEE FAILS TO GIVE POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY AND TRANSFER THE LEGAL TITLE. THUS, IT IS AMPLY CLEAR THAT ALL RISKS AND REWARDS IN THIS PROPERTY GETS TRANSFERRED ON TRANSFER OF POSSESSION OR WHEN POSSESSION IS HANDED OVER TO BUYER AND NOT BEFORE THAT. THUS, REVENUE RECOGNITION WOULD TAKE PLACE ONLY THEREAFTER. THE ID. A.R. HAS RELIED ON THE 8 DECISION OF THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MOTI LAI C. PATEL REPORTED IN 173 ITR 666, WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD AS UNDER: UNLESS AND UNTIL THE SALE IN FAVOUR OF THE SOCIETY WAS COMPLETED, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT HAVE CLAIMED ANY PART OF THE A MOUNT WHICH IT HAD RECEIVED BY WAY OF EARNEST MONEY AND TOWARDS THE PRICE AS ITS PROFIT. THE ASSESSEE WOULD HAVE EARNED PROFIT ONLY ON COMPLETION OF THE SALE IN FAVOUR OF THE SOCIETY. AFTER CORRECTLY APPRECIATING THE POSITION IN LAW AND HOLDING THAT THE ON LY RIGHT WHICH THE AGREEMENT FOR SALE CONFERS IS THE RIGHT TO OBTAIN ANOTHER DOCUMENT, NAMELY, THE SALE DEED, THE TRIBUNAL FELL INTO AN ERROR IN REACHING THE CONCLUSION THAT THE AMOUNT WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED IN S.Y. 2027 REPRESENTED ITS INCOME EAR NED IN THAT YEAR. SUCH A CONCLUSION COULD NOT HAVE BEEN REACHED WITHOUT FIRST DECIDING WHETHER THE SAID AMOUNT REPRESENTED PROFIT EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE IN S. Y. 2027. THE AMOUNT WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED IN S. Y. 2027, WERE AMOUNTS OR ADVANCES TOWAR DS THE PRICE OF THE LAND AND THEY WOULD NOT BECOME OR REPRESENT THE ASSESSEES PROFIT UNLESS AND UNTIL THE SALE TRANSACTION IN FAVOUR OF THE SOCIETY WAS COMPLETED AS PROVIDED IN THE AGREEMENT. THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED THE BALANCE OF THE SALE PRICE IN S. Y. 20 28 ON COMPLETION OF THE SALE, IT WAS ON COMPLETION OF THE SALE THAT THE AMOUNTS WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED IN S.Y. 2027 AND THE BALANCE BECAME THE PROFIT OF THE ASSESSEE. THE AMOUNTS WHICH THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED FROM THE SOCIETY AFTER DEDUCTING THE PRI CE 9 OF THE LAND REPRESENTED THE ASSESSEES PROFIT OR INCOME EARNED BY IT IN S. Y. 2028. THE ENTIRE AMOUNT WHICH INCLUDED THE SUM RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE IN S. Y. 2027, WAS THE INCOME EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE IN S.Y. 2028. THIS AMOUNT, REPRESENTS THE DIFFEREN CE BETWEEN THE PRICE PAID BY THE SOCIETY TO THE ASSESSEE AND THE PRICE PAID BY THE ASSESSEE. IN OTHER WORDS, THIS DIFFERENCE IS THE PROFIT WHICH THE ASSESSEE EARNED ON COMPLETION OF THE SALE TRANSACTION WITH THE SOCIETY. THE ITO AND THE AAC WERE, THEREFORE , RIGHT IN INCLUDING THE AMOUNT IN THE ASSESSEES TOTAL INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER REFERENCE . THE ABOVE DECISION SUPPORTS THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. WE ARE ALSO CONVINCED THAT TH E RE IS NO DEFECT, MUCH LESS ANY MATERIAL DEFECT, WHICH IS POINTED BY THE A.O. IN THE BOOKS AND ENTRIES WHICH WERE PREPARED ON THE BASIS OF DOCUMENTS FOUND DURING SEARCH. RECOGNITION OF REVENUE AND ITS BREAK - UP IS IN CONTROVERSY. IN THE BACKGROUND OF THESE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, IT HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED THAT REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND REJECTION OF METHOD OF ACCOUNTING APPLIED BY THE ASSESSEE TO DRAW ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT AND TOTAL INCOME FOR ALL THESE YEARS IS NOT JUSTIFIED AT ALL. WHEN ONCE REJECTION OF BOOKS IS FOUND TO BE NOT PROPER AND BOOK RES ULTS IS APPLIED, THE BOOK RESULTS HAS TO BE ACCEPTED BY THE A.O. THE A.O. HAS TO COMPUTE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE RELYING ON THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND TAKING INCOME ON THE BASIS OF POCM. ACCORDINGLY, NO ADDITION ON THE IMPUGNED BASIS CAN BE MADE OR S USTAINED IN ALL THESE YEARS. 10 WE ORDER ACCORDINGLY, OUR ABOVE CONCLUSION TAKES CARE OF OTHER GROUND OF APPEAL, EVEN RAISED BY THE REVENUE. WHEN THE CORRECTNESS OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT IS UPHELD, ANY FURTHER ADDITION MADE AFTER REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, WOULD NOT SU RVIVE. ALL FIVE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE WILL BECOME ACADEMIC NOW. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED WHEREAS ALL THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. THE DETAILED REPLIES IN ALL THE CASES HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED TO YOUR HONOUR WHILE DECIDING APPEALS VIDE ORDER DT. 21/12/2011. COPY OF ALL THE REPLIES & COPY OF ORDER DT. 21/12/2011 HAVE ALREADY BEEN SUBMITTED FOR YOUR HONOUR KIND PERUSAL. THEREFORE CONSIDERING OUR SUBMISSIONS, THE APPEAL UNDER CONSIDERATION IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE O RDER OF HONBLE ITAT, JODHPUR IN ASSESSEE CASE & WE REQUEST YOUR HONOUR TO PLEASE ALLOW THE RELIEF CLAIMED AND OBLIGE. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT AS WELL AS THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. AO. KEEPING INTO CONSIDERATION THE VARIOUS CASE L AWS OF THE HIGHER APPELLATE AUTHORITIES AND THE HONBLE COURTS I INCLINE TO AGREE WITH THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT THAT THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE APPELLANTS CASE ARE IDENTICAL TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE ASST. YEARS 2003 - 2004 TO 200 9 - 2010 AND THE HONBLE ITAT HAD DELETED THE ADDITIONS MADE BY APPLYING AS - 7 AND REJECTING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS U/S 145(3) OF THE IT ACT VIDE ITA NOS. 112 TO 116 /JU/2012 VIDE ITS ORDER DT. 12/12/2012. THE FACTS 11 AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE APPELLANTS CASE AR E SAME' AND IDENTICAL DURING THE YE A R UNDER CONSIDERATION HENCE, I HAVE NO REASON TO DEVIATE F ROM THE ABOVE DECISIONS IN THE AP PELLANTS OWN CASE. ACCORDINGLY , THE ADDITION OF RS. 13,07,863/ - BY APPLICATION OF AS - 7 AND REJECTING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS U/S 145(3) OF THE ACT IS DELETED. THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE ALLOWED. FROM THE ABOVE, IT BECOMES CLEARLY EVIDENT THAT THE ISSUES INVOLVED IN THIS APPEAL ARE SQUARELY COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE ABOVE TRIBUNAL ORDER. ACCORDINGLY, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER APPEALED AGAINST AND THEREFORE, DISMISS THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE. 4 . IN THE RESU LT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IN ITA NO. 323 /JU/2014 STANDS DISMISSED. ORDER PRON OUNCED IN THE COURT ON 13 TH AUGUST , 2014. S D/ - SD/ - (N.K.SAINI) [HARI OM MARATHA] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEM B ER DATED : 13 TH AUGUST , 201 4 VL/ - 12 COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT BY ORDER 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY ITAT, JODHPUR