Arun Kochhar, New Delhi V. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 3247/DEL/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4793 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 year(s) 2 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-08-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 06-06-2017
• Assessment Year: 2002-2003
• Appeal Filed On: 16-06-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Residential status; Period of limitation; Time period of passing order
• Section: 143(3); 148; 6

Judgement Text

ITA NO. 3247/DEL/2011 ASSESSMENT Y EAR: 2002 - 03 PAGE 1 OF 10 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH A BENCH NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI L.P. SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I N ITA NO. 3247 /DEL/201 1 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 20 0 2 - 0 3 ARUN KOCHHAR, C/O VINOD KUMAR BINDAL & CO. CA, SHIV SUSHIL BHAWAN, D - 219, VIVEK VIHAR, PHASE - 1, DELHI VS. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE - 19, NEW DELHI (APPLICANT) (RESPONDENT) (PAN: A VWPK4468T ) ASSESSEE BY: SMT. SWEETY KOTHARI, ADVOCATE REVENUE BY: SHRI ANUP SINGH, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING 17 / 0 8 /201 7 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 2 2 / 0 8 /201 7 ORDER PER AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THE AFORESAID APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ABOVE NAMED APPELLANT AGAINST IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 1 0 . 0 5 .20 1 1 , PASSED BY THE LD. CIT (APPEALS) - III , NEW DELHI , FOR THE QUANTUM OF ASSESSMENT PASSED U/S 143(3) FOR THE A.Y. 2002 - 03. IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS: - 1. THAT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES AND ON FACTS OF THE APPELLANT THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 148 OF THE ACT IS BAD IN LAW AS IT WAS JUST BASED ON PRESUMPTIONS. THUS, THE SAME SHOULD BE QUASHED. PAGE 2 OF 10 2. THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS BAD IN LAW AND ON FACTS AS THE SAME WAS FRAMED WITHOUT DISPOSI NG OFF THE OBJECTIONS FILED AGAINST THESE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS INITIATED U/SS 147/148 OF THE ACT, CONTRARY TO LAW LAID DOWN BY THE APEX COURT IN GKN DRIVESHAFTS INDIA LTD VS. ITO'(2003) 259 ITR 19'(SC). THUS, THE SAME NEEDS TO BE QUASHED. 3. THE CIT(A) E RRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS BY NOT FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF HARYANA ACRYLIC MANUFACTURING CO. VS. CIT (2009) 308 ITR 38 (DELHI) FOR QUASHING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AS TIME BARRED. THEREFORE, THE SAME SHOULD BE QU ASHED. 4. THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS BAD IN LAW AND ON FACTS AS IT HAS BEEN FRAMED - A) WITHOUT PROPER ENQUIRY AS PER OBJECTIONS RAISED DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS TO BRING ON RECORD THE HIDDEN FACTS, AND B) WITHOUT CONFRONTING THE MANNER AND SOURCE OF RECEIPT OF THE ALLEGED INFORMATION AND MATERIAL GATHERED AT THE BACK OF THE APPELLANT. THUS, THE SAME NEEDS TO BE QUASHED. 5. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE RESIDENTIAL STATUS OF THE APPELLANT, BEING AN AMERICAN CITIZEN, AS A RESIDENT BUT ORDINARILY RESIDENT (R&OR) BUT HE WAS NOT IN INDIA DURING THE RELEVANT FINANCIAL YEAR FOR A PERIOD EXCEEDING 60 DAYS. THUS, HE SHOULD BE ASSESSED AS A NON RESIDENT AS PER SECTION 6 OF THE ACT. 6. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN CONFIRMING AN ADDITION OF RS. 3,42,020/ - (US$ 7,000/ - ) FOR THE DEPOSITS MADE IN THE BANK ACCOUNT # 5 - 04/939 - 003 WITH CITIBANK ON 30/04/2001 IGNORING THE THEN PREVALENT BAGGAGE RULES. THUS, THE ADDITION MADE MUST BE DELETED. 7. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN CONFIRMING AN ADDITION OF RS. 8,77,23,967/ - (US$ 17,95,414.84) FOR THE BALANCE LYING AS ON 31/12/01 IN LGT BANK ACCOUNT IN TIECHTENSTEIN IN THE NAME OF URVASHI FOUNDATION 9490 VADUZ, LIECHTENSTEIN (AN INDEPENDENT ENTITY) IGNORING TH AT THE FUNDS WERE NEITHER DEPOSITED IN THE SAID BANK DURING THE RELEVANT PAGE 3 OF 10 PERIOD AND NOR BY THE APPELLANT ANY TIME. THUS, THE ADDITION SO MADE MUST BE DELETED. 8. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE CONVERSION RATE @ RS. 48.86 PER USD ERRONEOUSLY AS THE AVERAGE RATE FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2001 - 02 WITHOUT GIVING ANY BASIS OR EVIDENCE OF THE SAME IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND ALSO WITHOUT CONFRONTING THE SAME TO THE APPELLANT. THUS, THE ADDITION MADE ON THE BASIS OF SAID CONVERSION RAT E MUST BE DELETED. 9. THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ALONG WITH THE NOTICE OF DEMAND IS VOID AH INITIO AS IT IS TIME BARRED NOT FRAMED BEFORE THE LIMITATION PERIOD AND IS BEYOND THE AUTHORITY OF LAW AS PRESCRIBED U/S 292BB OF THE ACT. THUS, THE SAME SHOULD BE QUASHED. 10. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE APPELLANT, THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER FRAMED ON SURMISES AND CONJECTURES IS ILLEGAL WHICH DESERVES TO BE QUASHED AND THE DEMAND RAISED BY THE ALLEGED ASSESSMENT O 'ER MUST BE CANCELLED. 11. THE APPELLANT CRAVES THE LEAVE TO ADD, SUBSTITUTE, MODIFY, DELETE OR AMEND ALL OR ANY GROUND OF APPEAL EITHER BEFORE OR AT THE TIME OF HEARING. 2. BEFORE US THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AT THE OUTSET SUBMITTED THAT ON THE LAST DATE OF HEARING I.E., ON 6.6.2017, THE TRIBUNAL HAS DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO SUBMIT A REMAND REPORT AFTER VERIFYING THE ORIGINAL PASSPORT OF THE ASSESSEE , ABOUT THE NUMBER OF DAYS THE ASSESSEE WAS PRESENT IN INDIA IN THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR. IN PURSUANCE THEREOF, THE A SSESSING OFFICER HAS SUBMITTED HIS REMAND REPORT THE COPY OF WHICH HAS ALSO BEEN PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE. IN THE SAID REMAND REPORT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS CLEARLY AD MITTED THAT DURING THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR ASSESSEE WAS IN INDIA FOR 31 DAYS . ON THI S BACKGROUND LD. COUNSEL PAGE 4 OF 10 ARGUED THAT W HEN THE ASSESSEE IS AN NRI AND A CITIZEN OF USA, THEN THE ADDITION WHICH HAS BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER COULD NOT BE HELD TO BE TAXABLE IN INDIA IN VIEW OF THE SECTION 6 OF THE I NCOME TAX ACT AS THE THRESHOLD PERIOD FOR TAXING NON - RESIDENT HAS NOT BEEN FULFILLED . HERE, IN THIS CASE THE ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE ON ACCOUNT OF DEPOSITS APPEARING IN LGT BANK , LIECHTESTEIN FOR SUMS AGGREGATING TO RS. 8,77,23,967/ - AND SUM OF RS. 3,42,020/ - WHICH WAS DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT IN ICICI BANK IN INDIA ON 30.4.2001 WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAD VISITED INDIA . WHENCE THE ASSESSEE IS NOT LIABLE TO BE TAXED IN INDIA IN TERMS OF SECTION 6 BEING A NON - RESIDENT INDIAN , THEN NO SUCH AMOUNT CAN BE TAXED IN THE HANDS O F THE ASSESSEE. THE REMAND REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER CLEARLY POINTS OUT THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT RESIDENT IN INDIA DURING THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR , T HEREFORE, THERE IS NO QUESTION OF MAKING ANY ADDITION IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. 3. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR STRONGLY RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) AND ASSESSING OFFICER. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT FINDINGS GIVEN IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER AS WELL AS MATERIALS REFERRED TO BEFORE US. FROM THE RECORDS IT IS SEEN THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN AMERICAN CITIZEN SINCE YEAR 1999 AND IS A US PASSPORT HOLDER . HE HAS BEEN LIVING IN USA SINCE YEAR 1974. THUS, T HE ASSESSEE W AS NEITHER FILING HIS RETURN OF INCOME IN INDIA N NOR WAS REQUIRED TO FILE TO. AN INFORMATION THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS BENEFICIARY OF THE BANK PAGE 5 OF 10 ACCOUNTS OPENED IN THE NAME OF M/S. URVASHI FOUNDATION, VADUZ IN LGT BANK, LIECHTENSTEIN IN WHICH AN AMOUNT OF $17,95,414.84/ - (RS. 8,77,23,967/ - @ RS. 48.86 PER $ AT THE AVERAGE RATE FOR FIN ANCIAL YEAR 2001 - 02 ) WAS DEPOSITED. SINCE THE AMOUNT DEPOSITED IN THE BANK AND THE INTEREST ACCRUED THEREON WAS NOT DECLARED AND NO RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN INDIA, THEREFORE, T HE ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED NOTICE U/S 148 (DATED 26.3.2009 ) ON SOME LAST KNOWN ADDRESS OF THE ASSESSEE IN DELHI. THE ASSESSEE S CLAIM THROUGHOUT HAD BEEN THAT , SINCE HE WAS AN NRI HAVING NO TAXABLE INCOME IN INDIA , THEREFORE, HE WAS NOT LIABLE TO FILE ANY RETURN OF INCOME IN INDIA. THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER HAS R EJECTED TH IS CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT , SIMPLY BY OBTAINING A FOREIGN PASSPORT ONE CANNOT BECOME NON - RESIDENT AND IN ORDER TO BE AN NRI ASSESSEE NEEDS TO FULFILL ANY OF THE TWO BASIC CONDITIONS PRESCRIBED IN SECTION 6. FIRSTLY, HE SHOUL D BE PRESENT IN INDIA FOR A PERIOD AMOUNTING IN ALL 182 DAYS OR MORE; AND SECONDLY, HE HAVING WITHIN THE 4 YEARS PRECEDING THAT YEAR BEEN IN INDIA FOR A PERIOD OR PERIODS AMOUNTING IN ALL 365 DAYS OR MORE, IS IN INDIA FOR A PERIODS AMOUNTING IN ALL 60 DAYS OR MORE IN THAT YEAR. HE WANTED TO ASCERTAIN RESIDENTIAL STATUS OF THE ASSESSEE RIGHT FROM THE FINANCIAL YEAR 1 997 - 98 TO 2000 - 01 . HOWEVER, AS PER THE ASSESSING OFFICER NO INFORMATION IN THIS REGARD WAS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE AND ACCORDINGLY, HE REJECTE D THE ASSESSEE S CLAIM THAT H E WAS AN NRI ASSESSEE COULD NOT ESTABLISHED (HIS STATUS). THUS, H E TAXED THE ENTIRE DEPOSITS LYING IN THE FOREIGN BANK ACCOUNT AGGREGATING TO RS. 8,77,23,967/ - AND ALSO US $ 7,000 DEPOSITED IN I C ICI BANK WHICH AGGREGATED TO RS. 3,42,020/ - . SUCH A FINDING OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO PROVE HIS NON - RESIDENT STATUS HAS BEEN PAGE 6 OF 10 CONFIRMED BY THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) ALSO. THE FINDINGS OF THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) IN THIS REGARDS READS AS UNDER: - IN THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS THAT APPELLANT HAS SUBMITTED THAT APPELLANT LEFT INDIA IN DECEMBER 1974 AND HAS BEEN HOLDING AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP SINCE 14.09.1999. IT HAS BEEN STATED THAT IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION THE APPELLANT WAS IN INDI A FOR 27 DAYS AND IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001 - 02 FOR 43 DAYS AND, ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000 - 01 FOR 29 DAYS. A PHOTOCOPY OF THE PASSPORT HAS BEEN ENCLOSED IN THE PAPER BOOK. HOWEVER, NEITHER IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND NOR IN THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE ORI GINAL PASSPORT WAS PRODUCED DESPITE SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IT IS ALSO STATED THAT, IN THIS CASE, EVEN THE APPELLANT HIMSELF HAS NOT BEEN PRODUCED FOR DEPOSITION. THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE PASSPORT AS FILED IN THE PAPER BOOK DO NOT IN AN Y MANNER SUPPORT THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT THAT HIS PERIOD OF STAY IN INDIA WAS 27 DAYS IN THE INSTANT YEAR. IN FACT, A BARE LOOK AT THE PHOTOCOPY PLACED WOULD SHOW THAT IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO VERIFY THE CLAIM IN ABSENCE OF ORIGINAL PASSPORT. HENCE, IT HAS T O BE HELD THAT, SINCE ALL THE DOCUMENTS PERTAINING TO ASSESSEE S PRESENCE IN INDIA RELEVANT TO THIS PERIOD ARE AVAILABLE WITH HIM ONLY, THE NON - PRODUCTION OF THE BEST EVIDENCE IN THE SHAPE OF ORIGINAL PASSPORT INDICATES THAT HE IS DELIBERATELY NOT PRODUCIN G THEM AS THE SAME WOULD CREATE DOUBTS ABOUT HIS RESIDENTIAL STATUS. IN ABSENCE OF ANY PROOF BEING FURNISHED BY ASSESSEE, AND ON THE BASIS OF CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, I CONFIRM THE STATUS OF THE ASSESSEE AS RESIDENT AND, ORDINARY RESIDENT FOR THE PERIOD RE LEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002 - 03. I AM IN AGREEMENT WITH THE CONCLUSION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT BY SIMPLY OBTAINING A PASSPORT OF A FOREIGN COUNTRY, ONE CANNOT BECOME NON - RESIDENT. IN ORDER TO BE A NON - RESIDENT, IT WAS NECESSARY THAT ASSESSEE DID NO T FULFILL ANY OF THE TWO BASIC CONDITIONS PRESCRIBED U/S 6 OF THE ACT. THUS, IN ORDER TO ASCERTAIN THE RESIDENTIAL STATUS OF THE ASSESSEE, HIS STAY IN INDIA WAS REQUIRED TO BE VERIFIED FOR T]JE FINANCIAL YEARS 1997 - 98, 1998 - 99, 1999 - 00, AND 2000 - 01 AND, E VEN THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2001 - 02 RELEVANT TO THE INSTANT YEAR. ON THE FACTS OF THE APPELLANT, THE PERIOD, OF STAY BEING UN - VERIFIABLE, THEREFORE THE GROUND RAISED IS DISMISSED. PAGE 7 OF 10 4. TO ASCERTAIN THE CORRECT FACTS DU RING THE PENDENCY OF THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE TH IS TRIBUNAL , A REMAND REPORT WAS CALLED UPON FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER VERIFYING THE ORIGINAL PASSPORT OF THE ASSESSEE AND TO ASCERTAIN THE NUMBER OF DAYS THE ASSESSEE WAS PRESENT IN INDIA. IN RESPONSE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS SUBMITTED F OLLOWING REMAND REPORT VIDE HIS LETTER DATED 11.8.2017. SUB: - REMAND REPORT IN THE CASE OF SHRL ARUN KOCHHAR FOR VERIFYING THE RESIDENTIAL STATUS IN THE A.Y. 2002 - 03 - REGARDING KINDLY REFER TO THE ABOVE MENTIONED SUBJECT. AN APPLICATION ALONGWITH COPY OF ORDER SHEET ENTRY (IN ORIGINAL) OF HON'BLE ITAT DATED 06.06.2017 HAS BEEN FILED BY THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE ON 07.07.2017, IN WHICH THE AR HAS SUBMITTED THAT VERIFICATION OF ORIGINAL PASSPORT OF ABOVE SAID ASSESSEE IS REQUIRED TO BE MADE BY AO AS MENTIONE D IN ORDER SHEET ENTRY DATED 06,06.2017. SINCE THE COMPLIANCE OF ABOVE DIRECTION OF ITAT HAS TO BE SUBMITTED BY THE AO. I HAVE ASKED THE AR TO PRODUCE PASSPORT IN ORIGINAL TO VERIFY THE SAME, IN RESPONSE MS, SWEETY KOTHARI, AR OF SH. ARUN KOCHHAR APPEARED ALONGWITH PASSPORT IN ORIGINAL WHICH HAS BEEN EXAMINED AND FOLLOWING POSITION EMERGED ON VERIFICATION : - S. NO. AY PLACE DATE OF ARRIVAL DATE OF DEPARTURE NO. OF DAY PAGE NO. OF PASSPORT FOR ARRIVAL PAGE NO. OF PASSPORT FOR DEPARTURE A. 2002 - 03 CHENNAI 15.04.2001 17.04.2011 3 10 68 2002 - 03 DELHI 30.04.2001 15.05.2001 16 70 70 2002 - 03 DELHI 27.07.2001 01,08.2001 6 11 71 2002 - 03 DELHI 08.11.2001 13.11.2001 6 79 79 31 PAGE 8 OF 10 ON THE BASIS OF ABOVE TABLE THE STAY IN INDIA BY ABOVE SAID ASSESSEE COMES AT 31 DAYS ONLY. SINCE THIS OFFICE HAS NOT RECEIVED ANY SUCH DIRECTION OF ORDER S HEET IN ORIGINAL FROM ITAT. I AM SUBMITTING THIS REPORT IN COMPLIANCE TO ORDER SHEET DATED 06.06.2017 AS PROVIDED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ORIGINAL(COPY ENCLOSED). YOURS FAITHFULLY, (JANARAAN DAS) DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE - 31, NEW DELHI 6 . FROM THE AFORESAID REPORT IT IS EVIDENTLY CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE S PRESENCE IN INDIA WAS ONLY FOR 31 DAYS IN THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR. WHENCE, THE ASSESSEE WHO IS AN U.S.A. CITIZEN SINCE 14.9.1999 ; AND IS LIVING IN USA SINCE 1974 ; AND HIS PRESENCE IN INDIA DURING THE RELEVANT PREV IOUS YEAR IS LESS THAN 182 DAYS , THEN IN TERMS OF SECTION 6, THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE HELD TO BE RESIDENT IN INDIA. THE FINDINGS OF THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) AS WELL AS THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE WAKE OF REMAND REPORT ITSELF GETS VITIATED. NOW IT IS A MATTER OF FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT A RESIDENT IN INDIA IN TERMS OF SECTION 6 AND WAS THEREFORE, NEITHER REQUIRED TOFILE ANY RETURN OF INCOME IN INDIA NOT ANY INCOME CAN BE BROUGHT TO TAX IN INDIA. THEREFORE, THE DEPOSITS MADE IN THE FOREIGN BANK A CCOUNT CANNOT BE HELD TO BE INCLUDE D AS TAXABLE INCOME IN INDI A . 7. SIMILARLY, WITH REGARD TO THE ADDITION OF RS. 3,42,020/ - WHICH REPRESENTED DEPOSITS OF US $ 7,000/ - IN ICICI BANK, NEW DELHI , WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE BEING AN NRI WAS ENTITLED TO BRING US $ PAGE 9 OF 10 10,000 WITHO UT ANY DECLARATION IN TERMS OF B AGGAGE R ULES AS GIVEN UNDER FEMA. THUS THE ASSESSEE BEING AN AMERICAN CITIZEN WHO IS OTHERWISE PERMITTED TO CONVEY US $ 10,000 IN INDIA WITHOUT ANY EXPLANATION THEN THE SAME CANNOT BE TAXED IN INDIA. OTHERWISE ALSO, TO BE TAXABLE IN INDIA, ASSESSEE HAS TO BE RESIDENT OF INDIA WITHIN THE SCOPE AND MEANING OF SECTION 6. THUS, ON THE MERITS WE HOLD THAT THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND SUSTAINED BY THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) CANNOT BE UPHELD FOR THE REASON THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NEITHER LIABLE TO FILE RETURN OF INCOME IN INDIA NOR ANY INCOME CAN BE HELD TO BE CHARGEABLE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE AS HE WAS NOT RESIDENT OF IN INDIA IN TE RMS OF SECTION 6. ACCORDINGLY, THE ADDITIONS SUSTAINED BY THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) IS DELETED. 8. IN VIEW OF TH E AFORESAID FINDINGS, THE ISSUE RELATING TO VALIDITY OF NOTICE U/S 148 BECOMES PURELY ACADEMIC , HENCE SAME IS DISMISSED. ACCORDINGLY, THE APPE AL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER P RONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 2 2 . 0 8 .201 7. S D / - S D / - ( L.P. SAHU ) (AMIT SHUKLA) ( ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) DATED: 2 2 . 0 8 .2017 NARENDER COPY FORWARDED TO: 1) APPELLANT PAGE 10 OF 10 2) RESPONDENT 3) CIT 4) CIT (APPEALS) 5) DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR DATE DRAFT DICTATED ON 1 7 .0 8 .2017 DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 1 8 . 0 8 .2017 DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS 2 2 . 8 .2017 KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON 2 2 . 8 .2017 FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK 2 2 . 8 .2017 DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE AR DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER.