The Barmer Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., JODHPUR V. ACIT, BARMER

ITA 338/JODH/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 74921 (ITAT-JODHPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-03-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 11-12-2013
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 20-05-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: N A JOSHI
• Assessee Lawyers: U C JAIN SHRI GAUTAM BAID
• Keywords: Audit objection; Difference of opinion; Change of opinion
• Section: 143(3); 37(1); 147; 148; 37; 11

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. 338/JU/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 THE BARMER CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE VS. THE A.C.I.T. BANK LIMITED CIRCLE BARMER BARMER PAN NO. AAABT 2371 H (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI U.C. JAIN SHRI GAUTAM BAID DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI N.A JOSHI, DR DATE OF HEARING : 11.12.2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 04.03.2014 ORDER PER HARI OM MARATHA, J.M. THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAIN ST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), JODHPUR, DATED 20.03.2013 FOR A.Y 2007-2008. 2 2. BRIEFLY STATED, THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT T HE ASSESSEE IS A BANKING AOP WHO HAD FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME [ROI] FOR A.Y. 2007-08 ON 31.10.2007 DECLARI NG TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 3,89,69,650/-. THE ASSESSMENT W AS COMPLETED U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 [HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS 'THE ACT', FOR SHORT] O N 14.12.2009 DETERMINING TOTAL INCOME AT RS. 4,99,26, 330/-. THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) , JODHPUR WHO, VIDE HIS ORDER DATED 11.2.2010 CONFIRM ED THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE A.O. SUBSEQUENTLY, NOTICE U/ S 148 OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE ON 21.3.2011. THE ASSESSEE VIDE, ITS LETTER DATED 25.4.2011 STATED TH AT ORIGINAL RETURN FILED U/S 139(1) MAY BE TREATED AS RETURN FILED IN RESPONSE TO THIS NOTICE. THE A.O. HAD PRO CEEDED TO REOPEN THE ASSESSMENT ON THE REASONING THAT IN T HE ORDER DATED 14.12.2009 DID NOT PROPERLY DEAL WITH A PROVISION OF RS. 90 LAKHS MADE TOWARDS SALARY ETC. PERTAINING TO ASSESSEES HEAD OFFICE. ACCORDING TO THE A.O, ANY SUCH PROVISION IS NOT ALLOWABLE AS NO SUCH EXPENDITURE IS INCURRED IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR NOR TH E 3 AMOUNT COULD BE QUANTIFIED WITH REASONABLE CERTAINT Y. THEREFORE, AFTER RECORDING REASONS UNDER SECTION 14 8 OF THE ACT THAT INCOME OF RS. 90 LAKHS HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT AND INITIATED AND COMPLETED RE-ASSESSMEN T ORDER. DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE FILED FULL DETAILS OF PROVISIONS MADE TOTALING TO RS. 9 0 LAKHS TOWARDS SALARY ETC. IT WAS ALSO EXPLAINED AS TO HO W AND WHY SUCH A PROVISION BECOMES ALLOWABLE UNDER THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED VIDE LETTER DATED 13.9.2011, AS UNDER: (FROM AO'S ORDER) THE ORIGIN OF THE PROCEEDINGS, I SUBMIT IS TRACED TO THE AUDIT OBJECTION RAISED BY INTERNAL AUDIT PARTY OF T HE DEPARTMENT, WHEREIN THE PARTY HAS OBSERVED THAT THE ALLOWANCE OF RS.90,00,000/- HAS WRONGLY BEEN ALLOWE D TO THE ASSESSEE U/S 37(1) OF THE ACT. THE AMOUNT RE LATES TO PROVISION MADE FOR SALARY TO STAFF. THE AUDITOR HAS CLEARLY OBSERVED THE LEGAL POSITION PER WHICH ESTIM ATED PROVISIONS WITH REASONABLE CERTAINTY THROUGH TH E ACTUAL QUANTIFICATION AND DISCHARGED AT A FUTURE DA TE IS AN ALLOWABLE EXPENDITURE. 4 IT IS SUBMITTED THAT DURING THE COURSE OF DETAILED EXAMINATION OF BOOKS ETC. THE POINT HAD BEEN RAISED BY THE THEN ASSESSING AUTHORITY TO WHOM IT HAD BEEN EXPLAINED THAT THIS PROVISION IS FOR PAYMENT OF DEF INITE AMOUNT OF SALARY TO STAFF, AND AFTER DUE APPLICATIO N OF MIND, THE AUTHORITY HAD ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF DEDUCT ION, ELSE IT CANNOT BE THOUGHT OF THAT SUCH A HUGE AMOUN T WILL GO UNNOTICED. THERE, (SIC - THEREFORE), HAD BEEN SUBMISSION OF COMPLETE MATERIAL AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT AND NOW THE OPINION OF THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY CANNOT BE CHALLENGED UNDER THE GRAB OF EXERCISING POWERS VEST ED IN YOUR HONOUR BY THE VIRTUE OF PROVISIONS CONTAINE D IN SECTION 147 OF THE ACT. THE INITIATION AT THE VERY ROOT IS AN EXERCISE, WHICH IS BAD IN LAW, AND THE PROCEEDIN GS AS ALREADY SUBMITTED EARLIER NEEDS TO BE DROPPED SIR. THAT AS IS EVIDENT FROM RECORD, IT IS ESTABLISHED T HAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DISCLOSED FULLY AND TRULY ALL MATERIAL FACTS NECESSARY FOR ASSESSMENT FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-0 8 AND THEREFORE, THERE IS IN LAW, NO ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME, AND THE ACTION TAKEN U/S 147/148 IS THEREFO RE OF NO CONSEQUENCE OR LEGAL VALIDITY AND IS VOID AB- INITIO, AND THUS NEEDS TO BE DROPPED. 5 THAT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE FALLS UNDER NO PROVIS ION CONTAINED IN EXPLANATION 2 OF SECTION 147 AND THERE FORE, NO REASSESSMENT CAN BE DONE. MORESO, THE MATTER HAS GONE IN APPEAL, AND PRESENTL Y AN APPEAL BEFORE THE HON'BLE ITAT IS PENDING BEFORE THE BENCH, AND THUS NO ACTION IN RESPECT OF THIS YEAR I N LAW IS PERMISSIBLE. IT HAS BEEN HELD AND SO THE LAW HAS BEEN LAID DOWN BY HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF ITO VS LAKHMAN I MEWALDAS (1976) 103 ITR 437 THAT THE DUTY CAST ON T HE ASSESSEE TO MAKE TRUE AND FULL DISCLOSURE OF PRIMAR Y FACTS AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT I.E. ORIGINAL ASSES SMENT, AND WHERE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT ARE PRODUCED, DUTY OF TH E ASSESSEE DOES NOT EXTEND BEYOND THIS, AND THERE BEI NG NO FAULT OF ASSESSEE, AND THERE BEING TRUE DISCLOSU RE OF ALL MATERIAL FACTS, IF ACCOUNTS (SIC- ACCOUNTS ARE) DULY EXAMINED, THERE CANNOT BE REASSESSMENT. THAT THE INTERNAL AUDITY (SIC-AUDIT) HAS EXPRESSED ITS OPINION ON POINT OF LAW WHICH CANNOT BE REGARDED AS INFORMATION, OR REASON TO INITIATE PROCEEDINGS U/S 147 (INDIAN AND EXPRESS NEWSPAPER SOCIETY VS CIT (1979) 119 ITR 996 (SUPREME COURT) THE INITIATION OF ACTION 14 7 ON THE OBJECTION OF AUDIT THEREFORE IS ILLEGAL, AND TH E 6 PROCEEDINGS, SIR, NEEDS TO BE DROPPED. THE VIEW FINDS SUPPORT FROM THE DECISIONS IN THE CA SE OF BRIG B. LOLL VS WTO (1981) 127 ITR 308 (RAJASTHAN H IGH COURT). WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE LEGALITY NARRATED ABOVE AB OUT THE CORRECTNESS OF ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S 147/148 T HE ASSESSEE BEGS TO SEEK YOUR PERMISSION TO SUBMIT IN NUTSHELL THE POINTS CONCERNING THIS CASE, WHICH ARE : 1. THAT THERE HAD BEEN A LONG DISPUTE BETWEEN THE STAFF UNION OF THE BANK AND THE MANAGEMENT ABOUT TH E SCALE OF SALARIES ETC TO THE STAFF AND ITS REVISION , THE DISPUTE WAS BETWEEN THE ADMINISTRATOR (COLLECTO R BARMER, THE MANAGING DIRECTOR AND COOPERATIVE BANK OFFICER ASSOCIATION (BARMER UNIT). TO OVERCOME THE SITUATION, AND IN ORDER TO SEE THAT THE WORK OF THE BANK IS NOT DISTURBED BY ANY STRIKE, TH ERE WAS AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE REGISTRAR OF COOPERATI VE SOCIETIES, RAJASTHAN AND THE UNION THAT THE MATTER BE SETTLED DOWN AND ALL THE MATTERS RELATING TO SALARY AND ALLOWANCES TO THE STAFF OF THE BANK BE REDUCED IN WRITING IN THE FORM OF SAMJHOTA, WHICH SINCE WAS A TIME CONSUMING EXERCISE, IT WAS DEEMED NECESSARY THAT A 7 RESERVE BE MADE FOR PAYMENT OF SALARIES TO THE STAF F PER THE AGREED REVISED SCALES ETC. IT WAS THEREFORE AGR EED THAT AT THE END OF F.Y. 2006-07 A REASONABLE AMOUNT BE SET ASIDE IN THE FORM OF RESERVE AS THERE HAD ARISE N A SITUATION WHICH GAVE RISE TO REASONABLE CERTAINTY A BOUT THE PAYMENT I.E. ABOUT THE EXPENDITURE U/S 37 IN RESPECT OF A.Y. 2007-08 AND THE AMOUNT WAS THUS QUANTIFIED TO THE TUNE OF RS. 90,00,000/~ AND A RES ERVES WAS CREATED THIS EXPENDITURE IS THEREFORE ALLOWABLE AND WAS RIGHTLY ALLOWED U/S 37(1) OF THE ACT AT THE TIM E OF ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT AS THE ASSESSEE HAD PROVED THAT THE AMOUNT HAS BEEN EXPENDED AND PAID TO THE PERSONS OF STAFF AS PER THE SOMJHOTA (AGREEMENT) REACHED BETWE EN THE PARTIES, 2. I AM ENCLOSING A COPY OF THIS SAMJHOTA PATRA A GAIN, AS ONE COPY WAS FILED ALONG WITH LETTER DATED 23.03,2011 (ENCLOSED SAMJHOTO) 3. AS PER THIS SAMJHOTA WHICH WAS CALLED TEN/A SAMJHOTA WAS MADE APPLICABLE WITH EFFECT FROM 01.01.2004 TO 31.12.2008. 4. IN VIEW OF ABOVE, AND FURTHER IN VIEW OF THE D ETAILS FURNISHED ABOUT THE ACTUAL PAYMENT OF THIS YEAR I N THE FOLLOWING YEAR, IT IS PROVED THAT THE BANK HAS IN CURRED 8 THIS EXPENDITURE FOR THE PURPOSE OF ITS BUSINESS, A ND IT WAS INCURRED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE BUSINESS OF THE BANK, AND IS THUS ALLOWABLE, AN D WAS RIGHTLY ALLOWED, AND THE ORDER I.E. ORIGINAL ORDER IS LEGAL AND STATUS QUO ANTE, IT IS PRAYED ACTION U/S 147 BE DROPPED. IN VIEW OF ABOVE SUBMISSION, IT IS SUBMITTED THAT I F CONVENIENT THE PROCEEDINGS MAY BE FINALIZED AND OR IF NEEDED THE ASSESSEE SHALL FURTHER FURNISH ANY OTHER INFORMATION OR DOCUMENTS, IF ORDERED HOWEVER, THE A.O. HAS IGNORED THE ABOVE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE. HE HAS FOUND THAT IT IS NEITHER A CASE O F REOPENING BASED ON THE OBJECTION OF THE AUDIT NOR A CASE OF CHANGE OF OPINION, AS NO OPINION AT THE TIME OF PASSING THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT HAD BEEN FORMED AND NO DETA ILS IN RESPECT OF PROVISIONS OF SALARY TO STAFF ETC WAS CA LLED FROM THE ASSESSEE. HE HAS OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HA S NOT MADE SUCH A PROVISION IN THE CONSOLIDATED PROFIT AN D LOSS ACCOUNT BUT HAS MADE IT IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCO UNT OF THE HEAD OFFICE SITUATED IN THE CITY OF BARMER. TH EREFORE, 9 AFTER REJECTING THE ABOVE SUBMISSIONS, THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER HAS PROCEEDING TO MAKE A RE-ASSESSMENT ON T HIS ISSUE AND AFTER DISALLOWING PROVISION OF RS. 90 LAK HS. THIS IS A CASE OF REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FRAMED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT. 3. BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENG ED THE REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. BUT HE ALSO DID NOT FIND MERIT IN THIS GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE. BEFORE US, THE ASSESS EE HAS RAISED THIS LEGAL ISSUE AND HAS ALSO CHALLENGED THE ADDITION OF RS. 90 LAKHS MADE ON MERITS. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND HAVE CAR EFULLY PERUSED THE ENTIRE MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE LD. A.R . HAS REPEATED HIS ARGUMENTS IN RELATION TO THE REOPENING OF THE A SSESSMENT ON THE GROUND THAT WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAD DISCLOSED TRUE AN D FULL FACTS AT THE TIME OF THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND THERE BEING NO FAULT OF THE ASSESSEE, THIS ASSESSMENT ORDER CANNOT BE REOPENED AS IT WOULD AMOUNT TO A CHANGE OF OPINION AND ON THAT GROUND IT 10 CANNOT BE REOPENED. THEREFORE, THE REASSESSMENT CA NNOT SURVIVE IN THE EYES OF LAW. 5. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. D.R. HAS RELIED ON TH E ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND HAS JUSTIFIED THE REOPENING O F THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. 6. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, WE HAVE FOUND THAT EVEN AFTER THE AMENDMENT IN SECTION 147 OF THE ACT W.E.F. 01/04/1989 THE ASSESSING OFFICER CANNOT REOPEN THE ORDER ON THE BASIS OF CHANGE OF HIS OPINION. IT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE DEPARTMENT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT DISCLOSED FULL AND TRUE F ACTS OF THIS ISSUE IN QUESTION. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TAKEN A VIE W ON THAT ISSUE AND IT HAS TO BE PRESSED THAT HE HAD APPLIED HIS MI ND TO THIS ISSUE. IN THIS REGARD THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS ARE APPLICAB LE. 1) RAJ KUMAR AGARWAL VS. ITO PASSED BY ITAT, JODHP UR BENCH IN I.T.A.NO. 884/JU/2007 VIDE ORDER DATED 17/04/2009. 11 2) S. RANJITH REDDY VS. DCIT PASSED BY ITAT HYDERAB AD A BENCH IN I.T.A.NO. 292/HYD/2012 VIDE ORDER DATED 07/06/2013. THE REOPENING IN THIS CASE IS THUS, FOUND TO BE BAS ED ONLY ON THE CHANGE OF OPINION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. NO F URTHER MATERIAL HAS COME INTO HIS POSSESSION TO FORM HIS OPINION AB OUT THE ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX. HE MAY HAV E RELIED ON AUDIT REPORT OR NOT, BUT THERE IS NO NEW FACT WHICH CAN LEGALLY TRIGGER REOPENING OF A VALIDLY MADE ORDER. FOR REA DY REFERENCE, WE EXTRACT THE REASONS RECORDED TO REOPEN THE ASSESSME NT ORDER WHICH READ AS UNDER:- THE REOPENING WAS MADE ON THE GROUND THAT IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER UNDER SECTION 143(3) ON DATED 14/1 2/2009 AN AMOUNT OF RS. 90,00,000/- WAS ALLOWED ON ACCOUNT OF PROVISION MADE FOR SALARY AND ALLOWANCES TO STAFF O F THE HEAD OFFICE AND THE PROVISION OR RESERVE IS NOT ALLOWABL E AS NEITHER EXPENDITURE WAS INCURRED IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEV ANT TO THE A.Y. 2007-08 NOR THE AMOUNT WAS QUANTIFIED WITH REA SONABLE CERTAINTY. 12 7. THE VERY PERUSAL OF THE ABOVE REASONS MAKES IT A MPLY CLEAR THAT THERE ARE NO REASONS IN CONSONANCE WITH THE RE QUIREMENT OF SECTION 147 R.W.S. 48 OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSING OF FICER HAS INTENDED TO REVIEW HIS ORDER AND NOT TO REOPEN THE SAME UNDE R A VALID JURISDICTION ASSUMED UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT. THE INFORMATION WHICH WAS CONSIDERED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO RE OPEN THE ASSESSMENT WAS ALREADY ON RECORD. ALL THE MATERIAL FACTS RELEVANT FOR ASSESSING INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE WERE AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHEN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ORDE R UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT WAS COMPLETED. NO TANGIBLE MATER IAL, WORTH THE NAME OTHER THAN WHAT WAS AVAILABLE BEFORE THE ASSES SING OFFICER HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD. IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESS MENT ORDER DATED 14/12/2009 MADE UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALLOWED THIS PROVISION. THUS, IN OUR C ONSIDERED OPINION, THE NOTICE OF REOPENING IS BASED ONLY ON THE CHANGE OF OPINION WHICH IS NOT PERMISSIBLE IN LAW. ACCORDINGLY, WE H OLD THAT THE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT IS INVAL ID. 13 8. BEFORE PARTING, LET US EXAMINE AS TO WHAT DOES CHANGE OF OPINION MEANS AND WHEN IT IS TO BE SO TREATED IN T HE LIGHT OF THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, ESPECIALLY, IN THE LIGHT OF DIVE RGENT DECISIONS RELIED ON BY THE PARTIES. THE DEPARTMENTS CASE IS THAT THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS SUPPORT THE ACTION OF THE ASSES SING OFFICER IN TREATING REASONS OF ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME AS CORRECT AND THAT THERE IS A CHANGE OF HIS OPINION. THESE ARE THE FOLLOWIN G DECISIONS: 1) KALYANJI MANVJI & CO. VS. CIT (SC) 102 ITR 287 2) ESS KAY ENGINEERING CO. (P) LTD. VS. CIT (SC) 2 47 ITR 818 3) REVATHY C.P. EQUIPMENTS LTD. VS. DCIT & ORS. (MA D) 241 ITR 856 4) A.L.A. FIRM VS. CIT (MAD) 102 ITR 622 5) ITO VS. PURUSHOTTAM DAS BANGUR & ANR. (SC) 224 I TR 362 9. ON THE OTHER HAND THE LD. A.R. HAS PLACED RELIAN CE ON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS: 1) CHHUGAMAL RAJPAL VS. S.P. CHALIHA [79 ITR 603 (SC)] 2) ITO VS. LAKHMANI MEWAL DAS [103 ITR 437 (SC)] 3) SHEO NATH SINGH VS. APLPELLATE ACIT [82 ITR 147 (SC )] 14 4) INDIAN AND EASTERN NEWSPAPER SOCIETY VS. CIT [119 ITR 996 (SC)] 5) GANGA SARAN AND SONS P. LTD. VS. ITO [130 ITR 1 (SC )] 6) CIT VS. SHIV RATAN SONI [217 CTR (RAJ) 222] 7) E. HILL & CO (P) LTD. VS. CIT 122 ITR 630 (ALL)] 8) TRANSWORLD INTERNATIONAL INC. VS. JCIT [273 ITR 242 (DEL)] 9) DESAI BROTHERS VS. DCIT [240 ITR 121 (GUJ)] 10) NARANG BROTHERS VS. CIT [173 ITR 409 (PAT)] 10. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ABOVE JUDGMENTS. THE DECISIONS ON WHICH THE LD. D.R. HAS RELIED, NONE OF THEM IS DIRECTLY ON THE CHANGE OF OPINION. RATHER, THE ASS ESSEE HAS RELIED ON THE LATEST DECISION OF THE HON'BLE AP EX COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF ROTORK CONTROLS INDIA P. LT D VS. CIT REPORTED IN 314 ITR 62 [SC] AND THAT IN THE CAS E OF CIT VS. BHARAT HEAVY ELECTRICALS LTD. 352 ITR 88 [DEL]. THESE DECISIONS JUSTIFY ALLOWANCE OF PROVISIONS MADE U/S 37 OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, THE CUMULATIVE EFFECT OF THE A BOVE DISCUSSION IS THAT THE A.O. HA INITIATED ACTION U/S 147 R.W.S 148 ONLY ON THE BASIS OF THE CHANGE OF HIS OP INION. 15 THUS, THE ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION BY THE A.O. IS BASE ON INVALID REASON. WHEN THE ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTIO N IS INVALID, THE REASSESSMENT ORDER ITSELF BECOMES BAD IN LAW. ACCORDINGLY, WE QUASH THE REASSESSMENT ORDER. ACCORDINGLY, THE GROUND NO. 1 OF THIS APPEAL STANDS ALLOWED AND IN VIEW OF THIS FINDING, WE ARE NOT REQ UIRED TO DECIDE GROUND NO. 2 OF THIS APPEAL. 11. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS AL LOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 04.03.2014. SD/- SD/- (N.K.SAINI) [HARI OM MARATHA] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 04 TH MARCH, 2014 VL/- COPY TO: THE APPELLANT THE RESPONDENT THE CIT BY ORDER THE CIT(A) THE DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, JODHPUR