Riviera Home Furnishings Pvt. Ltd., Delhi V. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 3516/DEL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5019 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 2 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-08-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Next Hearing Date: 22-08-2016
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 03-06-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: ASHISH GOEL S; SSH VED JAI N
• Keywords: Depreciation; Unabsorbed depreciation
• Section: 80HHC; 14A; 10B

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : I - 2 , NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. H.S. SIDHU , JUDICIAL M EMBER AND SH. O.P. KANT , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 3516 /DE L/ 2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009 - 10 RIVIERA HOME FURNISHINGS PVT. L TD., 501, 5 TH FLOOR, AGGARWAL COPORATE HEIGHTS, NETAJI SUBHASH PLACE, DISTRICT CENTRE, WAZIRPUR, DELHI VS. ACIT, RANGE - 15, NEW DELHI PAN : AAACR4448J (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY S/SH. VED JAIN & ASHISH GOEL, ADVOCATES DEPARTMENT BY SH. SANJAY KUMAR YADAV, SR.DR DATE OF HEARING 28.07.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 25.08.2017 ORDER PER O.P. KANT , A. M. : ORIGINAL APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE HAVING ITA NO. 3516/DEL/2013 WAS HEARD AND DISPOSED OF F ON 21/10/2016 ALONGWITH APPEAL OF THE R EVENUE IN ITA NO. 4112/DEL/2013, WHEREIN THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS PARTLY ALLOWED. SUBSEQUENTLY , THE ASSESSEE FILED MISCELLANEOUS A PPLICATION REQUESTING FOR RECTIFICATION IN ORDER PASSED IN ITA NO. 3516/DEL/2013 ON TWO GROUNDS, WHICH HAS BEEN PARTLY ALLOWED AND PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. ON THE ISSUE WHETHER THE SECTION 10B OF THE I NC OME T AX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT ) IS AN EXE MPTION PRO VISION OR A DEDUCTION PROVISION , THE TRIBUNAL RECALLED ITS ORDER DATED 21/10/2016 ON GROUND NO. 3. OF THE 2 ITA NO. 3516/DEL/2013 APPEAL AND ALSO HEARD ARGUMENTS OF BOTH PARTIES ON THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE AFTER RECALLING THE ORDER. THE GROUND NO. 3 OF THE APPEAL READS AS U NDER: 3. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED BOTH ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN REJECTING THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT PROVISIONS OF SECTION 14A ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO INVESTMENT MADE TO EOU COVERED UNDER THE PROVISION S OF SECTION 10B OF THE ACT. 2. BEFORE US , THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT GROUND NO. 3 OF THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL AGAINST THE ASSESSEE FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. TEI TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED (2014) 361 ITR 36(DEL ), WHICH HAS BEEN SUBSEQUENTLY REVERSED BY THE HON BLE SUPREME COURT ON 16/12/2016 HOLDING THAT SECTION 10B OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT ) IS A DEDUCTION PROVISION AND NOT AN EXEMPTION PROVISION . 3. T HE LD. S ENIOR DR , ON THE OTHER HAND , SUBMITTED TO DECIDE T HE ISSUE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW . 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE GROUND N O . 3 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE APPEAL I S AS UNDER: 3. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED BOTH ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN REJECTING THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT PROVISIONS OF SECTION 14A ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO INVESTMENT MADE TO EOU COVERED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 10B OF THE ACT. 5. T HE TRIBUNAL HAS RECALLE D ITS ORDER DATED 21/10/2016 ON GROUND NO. 3 ONLY . THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE IN GROUND NO. 3 WAS DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL AS UNDER: 3 ITA NO. 3516/DEL/2013 5.5 HOWEVER, WE FIND FROM THE IMPUGNED ORDER THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX (APPEALS) HAS RELIED ON THE DECISION O F THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. TEI TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED (SUPRA), WHEREIN THE HON BLE HIGH COURT HAS TAKEN NOTE OF THE DECISION OF THE HON BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF HINDUSTAN UNILIVER LTD AND HELD THAT SECTION 10A IS A PROVISION EXEMPTING PARTICULAR KIND OF INCOME EVEN AFTER THE AMENDMENTS BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2000 W.E.F. 01/04/2001. THE RELEVANT FINDING OF THE HON BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER: IN INTERPRETING SUB - SECTION (1) OF SECTION 10A AFTER THE AMENDMENT MADE BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2000 W. E. F. 01.04.2001, ONE CANNOT DENY THAT THERE IS AMBIGUITY OR DOUBT, BECAUSE OF THE LANGUAGE USED, AS TO WHETHER THE SUB - SECTION PROVIDES FOR AN EXEMPTION OR A DEDUCTION. WE HAVE EARLIER REFERRED TO THE DIFFICULTY CAUSED BY THE LANGUAGE WHICH SAYS THAT THE DEDUCTION SHALL BE MADE FROM THE TOTAL INCOME, WHEN THE ACT CONTAINS NO PROVISION TO ALLOW ANY DEDUCTIONS FROM THE TOTAL INCOME. THE SECTION HAS BEEN INTERPRETED BY THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT (SUPRA) AS AN EXEMPTIO N PROVISION WHEREAS THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT HAS UNDERSTOOD THE SAME AS A DEDUCTION SECTION, THOUGH THE ULTIMATE RESULT DID NOT MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE TO THE ASSESSEE'S CLAIM IN BLACK & VEATCH CONSULTING (SUPRA). THEREFORE, IT CANNOT BE DENIED THAT THERE IS UNCE RTAINTY AND LACK OF CLARITY OR PRECISION IN THE LANGUAGE EMPLOYED IN SUB - SECTION (1). IT IS, THEREFORE, NOT IMPERMISSIBLE TO RELY ON THE HEADING OR TITLE OF CHAPTER III AND INTERPRET THE SECTION AS PROVIDING FOR AN EXEMPTION RATHER THAN A DEDUCTION. 29. T HE KEY TO THE PROBLEM SEEMS TO LIE IN APPRECIATING THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A PROVISION WHICH EXEMPTS AN INCOME AND A PROVISION WHICH PROVIDES FOR A DEDUCTION OF THE INCOME OR A PART THEREOF IN COMPUTING THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. WE HAVE ATTEMPTED TO OUTLINE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO KINDS OF PROVISIONS IN THE LIGHT OF THE AUTHORITIES CITED ABOVE. THE MATTER IS NOT ALTOGETHER FREE FROM DIFFICULTY. HOWEVER, AS S. RANGANATHAN, J. (AS HE THEN WAS) HAS POINTED OUT IN CIT V. DALMIA CEMENT (BHARAT) LTD . (SUPRA): - 4 ITA NO. 3516/DEL/2013 'IN THE PROCESS OF JUDICIAL ASSESSMENT OF SUCH CONFLICTING INTERPRETATIONS, THERE IS NO SENSITIVE BALANCE WITH WHICH TO WEIGH THE PROS AND CONS AND DETERMINE WITH SCIENTIFIC ACCURACY WHICH SIDE IS THE WEIGHTIER AND, PERHAPS IN THE DRAWING OF THE ULTIMATE INFERENCE ONE WAY OR THE OTHER, THE SUBJECTIVE ELEMENT IS NOT ALTOGETHER EXCLUDED.' 30. WITH THIS CAUTION OR DISCLAIMER IN MIND WE ARE INCLINED TO HOLD THAT SECTION 10A IS A PROVISION EXEMPTING A PARTICULAR KIND OF INCOME EVEN IN ITS PRESENT FORM, THAT IS TO SAY, EVEN AFTER BEING AMENDED BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2000 W.E.F. 01.04.2001. WE ARE INCLINED, WITH RESPECT, TO AGREE WITH THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. YOKOGAVA (SUPRA). AS NOTICED, THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT RE ACHED IN THE CASE OF CIT V. YOKOGAVA (SUPRA), IN ITS JUDGMENTS IN HINDUSTAN UNILEVER LTD. (SUPRA) AND CIT V. BLACK & VEATCH CONSULTING PVT. LTD. (SUPRA), DESPITE TAKING THE VIEW THAT THE SECTION PROVIDES FOR A DEDUCTION AND NOT AN EXEMPTION. WE HAVE ALREAD Y SEEN THAT SECTION 10A, AS IT PRESENTLY STANDS, THOUGH WORDED AS DEDUCTION PROVISION, IS ESSENTIALLY AND IN SUBSTANCE AN EXEMPTION PROVISION. WE HAVE ALSO HELD THAT THE IMPLICATION OF AN EXEMPTION PROVISION IS THAT THE PARTICULAR INCOME WHICH IS EXEMPT F ROM TAX DOES NOT ENTER THE FIELD OF TAXATION AND IS NOT SUBJECT TO ANY COMPUTATION. THE COMPUTATION PROVISIONS OF THE ACT DO NOT GET ATTRACTED AT ALL TO THE EXEMPTED INCOME. 5.6 FOLLOWING THE ABOVE DECISION OF THE HON BLE DELHI HIGH COURT, THE LEARNED C OMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), HELD AS UNDER: THUS, THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT HAS HELD THAT FROM THE LANGUAGE OF THE HEADING OF CHAPTER III, IT IS CLEAR THAT INCOME AS CONTEMPLATED UNDER SECTION 10B IS OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF TOTAL INCOME AND HAS NO RELEVANCE WITH THE GROSS TOTAL INCOME. IT IS, THEREFORE, A SECTION WHICH PROVIDES FOR EXEMPTION OF INCOME AND NOT FOR DEDUCTION. IT IS FURTHER IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT PROVISIONS OF SECTION 14A ARE APPLICABLE IN RELATION TO INCOME WHICH DOES NOT FORM PART OF TOTAL INCOME . THIS VERY PHRASE IS THE HEADING FOR CHAPTER III UNDER WHICH THE SECTION 10B AND ALSO SECTION 10(33) LIES. THIS M AKES IT 5 ITA NO. 3516/DEL/2013 VERY APPARENT AND CONCLUSIVE THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 14A ARE CLEARLY APPLICABLE TO THE INVESTMENT MADE IN A EOU COVERED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 10B. THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT THAT SECTION 14A IS NOT APPLICABLE TO INVESTMENT MADE IN AN EOU COVERED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 10B IS, THEREFORE, NOT ACCEPTED. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS, THEREFORE, DISMISSED. 5.7 RESPECTFULLY, FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT, WE UPHOLD THE FINDING OF LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF I NCOME TAX (APPEALS) ON THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE. THE GROUND NO. 3 OF THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ACCORDINGLY, DISMISSED. 6. WE FIND THAT THE HON BLE SUPREME COURT IN CIT VERSUS TEI TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED (CIVIL A PPEAL NO. 8923 - 8924 OF 2013 DECIDED O N 16/12/2016) REPORTED AS CIT & A NOTHER VERSUS M/S YOKOGAVA INDIA LTD (2016) 391 ITR 274 (CIVIL A PPEAL NO. 8498 DATED 16/12/2016) HAS HELD THAT SECTION 10A IS A PROVISION FOR DEDUCTION AND NOT EXEMPTION. THE RELEVANT FINDING OF THE HON BLE SUPREME COURT IS R EPRODUCED AS UNDER: 13. THE RETENTION OF SECTION 10A IN CHAPTER III OF THE ACT AFTER THE AMENDMENT MADE BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2000 WOULD BE MERELY SUGGESTIVE AND NOT DETERMINATIVE OF WHAT IS PROVIDED BY THE SECTION AS AMENDED, IN CONTRAST TO WHAT WAS PROVIDED BY THE UN - AMENDED SECTION . THE TRUE AND CORRECT PURPORT AND EFFECT OF THE AMENDED SECTION WILL HAVE TO BE CONSTRUED FROM THE LANGUAGE USED AND NOT MERELY FROM THE FACT THAT IT HAS BEEN RETAINED IN CHAPTER III. THE INTRODUCTION OF THE WORD DEDUCTION IN SECTION 10A BY THE AMENDMEN T, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY CONTRARY MATERIAL, AND IN VIEW OF THE SCOPE OF THE DEDUCTIONS CONTEMPLATED BY SECTION 10A AS ALREADY DISCUSSED, IT HAS TO BE UNDERSTOOD THAT THE SECTION EMBODIES A CLEAR ENUNCIATION OF THE LEGISLATIVE DECISION TO ALTER ITS NATURE F ROM ONE PROVIDING FOR EXEMPTION TO ONE PROVIDING FOR DEDUCTIONS. 6 ITA NO. 3516/DEL/2013 14. THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO EXPRESSIONS EXEMPTION AND DEDUCTION , THOUGH BROADLY MAY APPEAR TO BE THE SAME I.E. IMMUNITY FROM TAXATION, THE PRACTICAL EFFECT OF IT IN THE LIGHT OF T HE SPECIFIC PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN DIFFERENT PARTS OF THE ACT WOULD BE WHOLLY DIFFERENT. THE ABOVE IMPLICATIONS CANNOT BE MORE OBVIOUS THAN FROM THE CASE OF CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 8563/2013, 8564/2013 AND CIVIL APPEAL ARISING OUT OF SLP(C) NO. 18157/2015, WHIC H HAVE BEEN FILED BY LOSS MAKING ELIGIBLE UNITS AND/OR BY NON - ELIGIBLE ASSESSEES SEEKING THE BENEFIT OF ADJUSTMENT OF LOSSES AGAINST PROFITS MADE BY ELIGIBLE UNITS. 15. SUB - SECTION 4 OF SECTION 10A WHICH PROVIDES FOR PRO RATA EXEMPTION, NECESSARILY INVOLV ING DEDUCTION OF THE PROFITS ARISING OUT OF DOMESTIC SALES, IS ONE INSTANCE OF DEDUCTION PROVIDED BY THE AMENDMENT. PROFITS OF AN ELIGIBLE UNIT PERTAINING TO DOMESTIC SALES WOULD HAVE TO ENTER INTO THE COMPUTATION UNDER THE HEAD PROFITS AND GAINS FROM BUS INESS IN CHAPTER IV AND DENIED THE BENEFIT OF DEDUCTION. THE PROVISIONS OF SUB - SECTION 6 OF SECTION 10A, AS AMENDED BY THE FINANCE ACT OF 2003, GRANTING THE BENEFIT OF ADJUSTMENT OF LOSSES AND UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION ETC. COMMENCING FROM THE YEAR 2001 - 02 ON COMPLETION OF THE PERIOD OF TAX HOLIDAY ALSO VIRTUALLY WORKS AS A DEDUCTION WHICH HAS TO BE WORKED OUT AT A FUTURE POINT OF TIME, NAMELY, AFTER THE EXPIRY OF PERIOD OF TAX HOLIDAY. THE ABSENCE OF ANY REFERENCE TO DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10A IN CHAPTER V I OF THE ACT CAN BE UNDERSTAND BY ACKNOWLEDGING THAT ANY SUCH REFERENCE OR MENTION WOULD HAVE BEEN A REPETITION OF WHAT HAS ALREADY BEEN PROVIDED IN SECTION 10A. THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIONS 80HHC AND 80HHE OF THE ACT PROVIDING FOR SOMEWHAT SIMILAR DEDUCTION S WOULD BE WHOLLY IRRELEVANT AND REDUNDANT IF DEDUCTIONS UNDER SECTION 10A WERE TO BE MADE AT THE STAGE OF OPERATION OF CHAPTER VI OF THE ACT. THE RETENTION OF THE SAID PROVISIONS OF THE ACT I.E. SECTION 80FIHC AND 80HF1E, DESPITE THE AMENDMENT OF SECTION 10A, IN OUR VIEW, INDICATES THAT SOME ADDITIONAL BENEFITS TO ELIGIBLE SECTION 10A UNITS, NOT CONTEMPLATED BY SECTIONS 80HHC AND 80HHE, WAS INTENDED BY THE LEGISLATURE. SUCH A BENEFIT CAN ONLY BE UNDERSTOOD BY A LEGISLATIVE MANDATE TO UNDERSTAND THAT THE ST AGES FOR WORKING OUT THE DEDUCTIONS UNDER SECTION 10A AND 80HHC AND 80FIHE ARE SUBSTANTIALLY DIFFERENT. THIS IS THE NEXT ASPECT OF THE CASE WHICH WE WOULD NOW LIKE TO TURN TO. 16. FROM A READING OF THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF SECTION 10A IT IS MORE THAN CL EAR TO US THAT THE DEDUCTIONS CONTEMPLATED THEREIN IS QUA THE ELIGIBLE UNDERTAKING OF AN ASSESSEE STANDING ON ITS OWN AND WITHOUT REFERENCE TO THE OTHER ELIGIBLE OR NON - ELIGIBLE UNITS OR 7 ITA NO. 3516/DEL/2013 UNDERTAKINGS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE BENEFIT OF DEDUCTION IS GIVEN BY TH E ACT TO THE INDIVIDUAL UNDERTAKING AND RESULTANTLY FLOWS TO THE ASSESSEE. THIS IS ALSO MORE THAN CLEAR FROM THE CONTEMPORANEOUS CIRCULAR NO. 794 DATED 9.8.2000 WHICH STATES IN PARAGRAPH 15.6 THAT, THE EXPORT TURNOVER AND THE TOTAL TURNOVER FOR THE PURPO SES OF SECTIONS 10A AND 10B SHALL BE OF THE UNDERTAKING LOCATED IN SPECIFIED ZONES OR 100% EXPORT ORIENTED UNDERTAKINGS, AS THE CASE MAY BE, AND THIS SHALL NOT HAVE ANY MATERIAL RELATIONSHIP WITH THE OTHER BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE OUTSIDE THESE ZONES OR UN ITS FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS PROVISION. 17. IF THE SPECIFIC PROVISIONS OF THE ACT PROVIDE [FIRST PROVISO TO SECTIONS 10A(1); 10A (1A) AND 10A (4)] THAT THE UNIT THAT IS CONTEMPLATED FOR GRANT OF BENEFIT OF DEDUCTION IS THE ELIGIBLE UNDERTAKING AND THAT IS ALSO HOW THE CONTEMPORANEOUS CIRCULAR OF THE DEPARTMENT (NO.794 DATED 09.08.2000) UNDERSTOOD THE SITUATION, IT IS ONLY LOGICAL AND NATURAL THAT THE STAGE OF DEDUCTION OF THE PROFITS AND GAINS OF THE BUSINESS OF AN ELIGIBLE UNDERTAKING HAS TO BE MADE IND EPENDENTLY AND, THEREFORE, IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE STAGE OF DETERMINATION OF ITS PROFITS AND GAINS. AT THAT STAGE THE AGGREGATE OF THE INCOMES UNDER OTHER HEADS AND THE PROVISIONS FOR SET OFF AND CARRY FORWARD CONTAINED IN SECTIONS 70, 72 AND 74 OF THE ACT W OULD BE PREMATURE FOR APPLICATION. THE DEDUCTIONS UNDER SECTION 10A THEREFORE WOULD BE PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE EXERCISE TO BE UNDERTAKEN UNDER CHAPTER VI OF THE ACT FOR ARRIVING AT THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FROM THE GROSS TOTAL INCOME. THE SOMEWHAT DISCORDANT USE OF THE EXPRESSION TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE IN SECTION 10A HAS ALREADY BEEN DEALT WITH EARLIER AND IN THE OVERALL SCENARIO UNFOLDED BY THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 10A THE AFORESAID DISCORD CAN BE RECONCILED BY UNDERSTANDING THE E XPRESSION TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE IN SECTION 10A AS TOTAL INCOME OF THE UNDERTAKING . 18. FOR THE AFORESAID REASONS WE ANSWER THE APPEALS AND THE QUESTIONS ARISING THEREIN, AS FORMULATED AT THE OUTSET OF THIS ORDER, BY HOLDING THAT THOUGH SECTION 10A, AS AMENDED, IS A PROVISION FOR DEDUCTION, THE STAGE OF DEDUCTION WOULD BE WHILE COMPUTING THE GROSS TOTAL INCOME OF THE ELIGIBLE UNDERTAKING UNDER CHAPTER IV OF THE ACT AND NOT AT THE STAGE OF COMPUTATION OF THE TOTAL INCOME UNDER CHAPTER VI. ALL THE APPEALS SHALL STAND DISPOSED OF ACCORDINGLY. 8 ITA NO. 3516/DEL/2013 7. AS THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 10B ARE P ARI MATERIA WITH SECTION 10A OF THE ACT, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ABOVE DECISIONS OF THE HON BLE SUPREME COURT, WE HOLD THAT SECTION 10B IS A PROVISION DEALING WITH DEDUCTION AND NOT EXEMPTION. SINCE SECTION 14A OF THE ACT DEALS WITH THE EXEMPTED INCOME , ACCORDINGLY, THE SECTION 14A OF THE ACT IS NOT APPLICABLE ON THE INVESTMENT MADE IN THE EOU COVER ED BY THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 10B OF THE ACT. WE DECIDE ACCORDINGLY. THE GROUND NO. 3 OF THE ASSESSEE S APPEAL IS ALLOWED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL RECALLED ON THE GROUND NO. 3 , IS ALLOWED. THE DECISION IS PRONOUN CED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 2 5 T H AUGUST , 201 7 . S D / - S D / - ( H.S. SIDHU ) ( O.P. KANT ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 2 5 T H AUGUST , 201 7 . RK / - (D.T.D) COPY FORWARDED TO: 1 . APPELLANT 2 . RESPONDENT 3 . CIT 4 . CIT(A) 5 . DR ASST. REGISTRAR, ITAT, NEW DELHI