DCIT, New Delhi V. M/s. DCM Financial Services LTd., New Delhi

ITA 3560/DEL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 82027 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-11-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 05-11-2014
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 03-06-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PARWINDER KAUR
• Assessee Lawyers: SURESH ANANTHARAMAN
• Keywords: Business income; Depreciation; Earning of tax free income
• Section: 14A; 54

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES : B NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI J.SUDHAKAR RE DDY, AM AND SHRI C.M. GARG, JM ITA NO.3041/DEL/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 M/S. DCM FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD. VS. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, D-7/3, MEZZANINE FLOOR, CIRCLE 10(1), OKHLA INDUSTRIAL AREA, NEW DELHI. PHASE-II, NEW DELHI 110 020. (PAN AAACD0106F) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ITA NO.3560/DEL/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 DCIT VS. M/S. DCM FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD. CIRCLE-10 (1), 79, AMRIT NAGAR, NEW DELHI. NDSE-1 NEW DELHI 110 003. (PAN AAACD0106F) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY :- SHRI SURESH ANANTHARAMAN, CA DEPARTMENT BY:-SMT. PARWINDER KA UR, SR. DR O R D E R PER J.SUDHAKAR REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THESE ARE CROSS APPEALS AND ARE DIRECTED AG AINST COMMON ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A)-XIII AYAKAR BHAWAN, DELHI DATED 20.3.2013 FOR THE ASSTT. YEAR 2009-10. 2. THE FACTS IN BRIEF :-THE ASSESEE IS A NON BA NKING FINANCIAL COMPANY ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF LEASES/HIRE PURCHASE ASSETS, LENDIN G OF MONEY, DISCOUNTING OF BILLS OF ITA NOS. 3041,3560/D EL/2013 AYS 2009-10 PAGE 2 OF 9 EXCHANGE AND RENDERING FINANCIAL SERVICES, ADVISORY SERVICES TO VARIOUS COMPANY CONSTITUENTS SEEKING FURTHER CAPITAL OR LOANS. IT F ILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 29.9.2009 DECLARING NIL INCOME AFTER CLAIMING SET O FF OF BROUGHT FORWARD LOSSES. 3. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSE SSEE ARE AS FOLLOWS :- 1. THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE ERRED IN INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 14A OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO A S THE ACT) READ WITH RULE 8D OF THE INCOME-TAX RULES, 1962 (HEREINAFTER REFER RED TO AS THE RULES) 2. THE DISALLOWANCE OF A SUM OF RS. 72,105/- U/S 14A O F THE ACT READ WITH RULE 8D IS WRONG AND IS OPPOSED TO EVIDENCES ON RECORD. 3. THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE ERRED IN ASSESSING INTER EST INCOME (FROM FDRS PLACED WITH BANKS) UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OT HER SOURCES. 4. IT IS CONTENDED THAT INTEREST EARNED ON FIXED DEPOS ITS PLACED WITH BANKS IS ASSESSABLE UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER IV-D O F THE ACT, I.E. UNDER THE HEAD PROFITS AND GAINS OF BUSINESS OR PROFESSION. 4. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE ARE AS FOL LOWS :- I) WHETHER THE CIT(A) UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCE S OF THE CASE AND IN LAW WAS JUSTIFIED IN TREATING INCOME OF RS. 94,65,6 86/- AS INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY AS AGAINST INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCE S AS ASSESSED BY THE AO? II) WHETHER THE CIT(A) UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCE S OF THE CASE AND IN LAW WAS JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING THAT THE AO HAS WRONGL Y WORKED OUT THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME AND DIRECTED THE AO TO RE-WOR K OUT INCOME AFTER REDUCING THE FIGURES OF RS.1,44,84,868/- AND EXPEND ITURE OF RS. 1,77,85,048/-? III) WHEREAS THE AO RECLASSIFIED THE HEADS OF INCOME AND CORRECTLY COMPUTED THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE? IV) WHETHER THE LD. CIT(A) WAS CORRECT IN ADMITTING THE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL WITHOUT GRANTING OPPORTUNITY TO ASSESSING OF FICER OR CALLING ANY REPORT FROM ASSESSING OFFICER? 5. WE HAVE HEARD SMT. PARWINDER KAUR LD. SR. DR ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE AND SHRI SURESH ANANTHARAMAN , LD. COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. ITA NOS. 3041,3560/D EL/2013 AYS 2009-10 PAGE 3 OF 9 6. ON A CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE FACTS AN D CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND A PERUSAL OF THE PAPERS ON RECORD AND THE ORDERS OF T HE AUTHORITIES BELOW WE HOLD AS FOLLOWS :- 6.1. WE FIRST TAKE UP THE ASSESSEES APPEAL. GROUND N O. 1 AND 2 ARE ON DISALLOWANCE MADE U/S 14A. THE MAIN CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE THAT THERE IS NO FINDING BY THE AO THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS INCURRED INTEREST EXPENDITURE RELATABLE TO EARNING OF EXEMPT INCOME. HE ARGUED THAT IN THE ABS ENCE OF SUCH A FINDING, THE QUESTION OF DISALLOWANCE DOES NOT ARISE. HE DEMONST RATED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT MADE ANY FRESH INVESTMENTS DURING THE YEAR TO PROVE HIS CONTENTION THAT THE DISALLOWANCE IS BAD IN LAW. RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE DELHI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF RAJ SHIPPING AGENCIES LTD. MUMBAI V S. ASSESSEE 54 SOT 356. GROUND NO. 3 & 4 ARE ON THE ISSUE AS TO WHETHER THE INTER EST INCOME IN QUESTION HAS TO BE ASSESSED UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES OR UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM BUSINESS. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AR GUED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A NBFC AND IT WAS BURDENED BY COURT ORDERS AND THAT IT HAS A FINANCIAL CRUNCH. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD TO FOLLOW THE DIREC TIONS OF THE HONBLE COURT WITH RESPECT TO THE REPAYMENTS AND THAT THE FDRS ARE TEM PORARY DEPOSITS AND THAT THE INTEREST EARNED ON THE DEPOSITS IS TO BE TAXED AS B USINESS INCOME. HE SUBMITTED THAT CASH AND BANK BALANCES ARE STOCK IN TRADE OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE INTEREST EARNED IS INTRINSICALLY CONNECTED TO THE BUSINESS O F THE ASSESSEE. HE REITERATED THE CONTENTIONS RAISED BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHO RITY AS WELL AS THE AO. HE POINTED OUT THAT IN THE EARLIER THREE YEARS, SIMILAR INCOME WAS ASSESSED UNDER THE HEAD BUSINESS INCOME AND EVEN OF THE GROUND OF CONSISTEN CY, HE ARGUED THAT THE AO ITA NOS. 3041,3560/D EL/2013 AYS 2009-10 PAGE 4 OF 9 SHOULD NOT HAVE SHIFTED THE HEAD OF ACCOUNT. HE FUR THER SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO FINDING THAT THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESEE HAS STOPPE D. HE RELIED ON THE FOLLOWING CASE LAWS :- I) CIT VS. GOVIND CHAUDHARY & SONS 203 ITR 881 (S C) II) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, UTTAR PRADESH.V. N AINITAL BANK LIMITED. 55 ITR 707 III) RADHASOAMI SATSANG. V. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. 193 ITR 321 IV) CIT V. DALMIA PROMOTERS DEVELOPERS (P.) LTD. [2006] 281 ITR 346 (DEL) 7. LD. DR ON THE OTHER HAND RELIED ON PAGE 8 PA RA 8.4 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND SUBMITTED THAT THE DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A WAS RIG HTLY CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(A). HE ALSO RELIED ON THE FINDING OF THE FIRST APPELLAT E AUTHORITY AND SUBMITTED THAT THE BURDEN WAS ON THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THAT THE EXPEND ITURE IS INCURRED FOR EARNING TAX FREE INCOME. 8. ON THE 2 ND ISSUE, HE IS SUBMITTED THAT RES JUDICATA DOES NOT APPLY TO TAX PROCEEDINGS AND THAT IT IS NOT CLEAR WHETHER THE EA RLIER YEARS THE INTEREST IN QUESTION WAS EARNED FROM FDRS OR NOT. HE RELIED ON PAGE 15 OF THE CIT ORDER AND SUPPORTED THE SAME. HE ARGUED THAT INVESTMENT IN FDRS IS NOT THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE AND HENCE THE INTEREST THEREON IS TO BE ASSESSED AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES 9. AFTER HEARING RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND GOING THROUGH THE PAPERS ON RECORD AND THE CASE LAW CITED WE HOLD AS FOLLOWS:- 9.1. ON THE DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A READ WITH RULE 8D THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS THAT IT HAD INCURRED NO EXPENDITURE FOR EARNING DIVIDEND IN COME OF RS. 1,05,722/- DURING THE YEAR. THE AO DETERMINED THE EXPENDITURE UNDER R ULE 8D (2)(I) AT NIL. THUS ITA NOS. 3041,3560/D EL/2013 AYS 2009-10 PAGE 5 OF 9 THERE IS NO EXPENDITURE DIRECTLY RELATABLE TO EARNI NG OF INCOME, WHICH DOES NOT FORM PART OF TOTAL INCOME. 10. WE NOW CONSIDER RULE 8D (2)(II). THE CONT ENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE ASSESEE HAS NOT INCURRED ANY INTEREST EXPENDITURE. THERE IS NO CHARGE TO THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST. THE INVEST MENTS IN EQUITY SHARES WERE MADE IN THE EARLIER YEAR AND NOT DURING THE CURRENT YEAR. THERE IS NO FRESH INVESTMENT DURING THE YEAR. THE AO BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 8D HAS DISALLOWED INTEREST EXPENDITURE OF RS. 59,485/- UND ER RULE 8D(2)(II). AS ALREADY STATED THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT CLAIMED ANY EXPENDITURE UNDER THE HEAD INTEREST EXPENDITURE. WHEN THE AO COULD NOT DEMONSTRATE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS INCURRED INTEREST EXPENDITURE FOR EARNING INCOME WHICH DOES NOT FORM PART OF TOTAL INCOME, THE QUESTION OF APPLYING RULE 8D(2)(II) DOES NOT AR ISE. THUS THE DISALLOWANCE HAS TO BE NECESSARILY DELETED BY APPLYING THE PREPOSITION LAID DOWN BY JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF MAXOPP INVESTMENTS LTD. 247 CT R 162 (DEL). 11. AS REGARDS DISALLOWANCE COMPUTED UNDER RULE 8D (2)(III) ON ACCOUNT OF ADMINISTRATIVE CHARGES, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS UPHELD T HE COMPUTATION MADE BY THE AO. THE ARGUMENT OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE AO HAS NOT R ECORDED HIS SATISFACTION WHILE INVOKING RULE 8D IS NOT CORRECT. IN PARA 8 AT PAGE 3 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THE SATISFACTION IS DISCERNABLE. THUS THE DISALLOWANCE TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 72,000/- IS UPHELD. IN THE RESULT THIS GROUND IS ALLOWED IN PAR T. 12. THE NEXT ISSUE IS WHETHER THE INTEREST INCOM E IS TO BE ASSESSED UNDER THE HEAD OTHER SOURCES OR UNDER THE HEAD BUSINESS IN COME. ASSESSEES CASE IS THAT IT IS A NBFC AND DURING THE YEAR 2004 IT RAN INTO FIN ANCIAL CRUNCH AND CONSEQUENTLY COULD NOT MEET ITS FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS TOWARDS IT S CREDITORS, LENDERS, BANKS ETC. ITA NOS. 3041,3560/D EL/2013 AYS 2009-10 PAGE 6 OF 9 THERE WAS A FINANCIAL MISMATCH OF THE ASSESSEES CA SH INFLOWS AND CASH OUTFLOWS. CONSEQUENTLY THE ASSESSEE DEFAULTED IN THE REPAYMEN T OF INTEREST AND PRINCIPAL TO ITS FIXED DEPOSIT HOLDERS. ON A COMPLAINT FILED BEFORE THE COMPANY LAW BOARD CERTAIN DIRECTIONS WERE GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE REGARDING THE REPAYMENT OF INTEREST AND PRINCIPAL. THE RESERVE BANK OF INDIA PROHIBITED THE ASSESSEE FROM ACCEPTING PUBLIC DEPOSITS AND ALSO PROHIBITED THE ASSESSEE FROM ALIE NATING ITS ASSETS WITHOUT PRIOR PERMISSION. THE ASSESSEE WAS DIRECTED TO MAINTAIN L IQUID ASSETS. THE ASSESSEE FILED A RESTRUCTURING SCHEME BEFORE THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN SEPTEMBER 2004. THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT GAVE CERTAIN DIRECTIONS IN CLUDING A DIRECTION THAT THE ASSESSEE WILL NOT OPERATE THE BANK ACCOUNT EXCEPT W ITH THE PERMISSION OF THE COURT. THE ASSESSEE SOUGHT PERMISSION FROM THE COURT TO SE LL EQUITY SHARES HELD BY IT AND TO DISCHARGE SOME OF THE FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS FROM TH E SALE PROCEEDS. THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT PERMITTED THE ASSESSEE TO SELL EQU ITY SHARES BUT STIPULATED THAT THE PROCEEDS OF THESE SHARES SHOULD BE DEPOSITED WITH U TI BANK LTD. AND THAT THE SAME SHALL NOT BE WITHDRAWN WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THIS C OURT. SIMILAR ORDERS WERE PASSED BY MUMBAI HIGH COURT AS REGARD THE SUIT FILED BY T HE CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA WHICH IS A TRUSTEE FOR THE DEBENTURE HOLDERS. BOTH THE ACCOU NTS IN WHICH MONEY WAS DEPOSITED, WERE NON INTEREST EARNING CURRENT ACCOUN TS. AS THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT OPERATE THESE ACCOUNTS WITHOUT THE PERMISSION OF TH E COURT, THE MONEYS WERE TRANSFERRED TO FIXED DEPOSITS FOR THE TEMPORARY PER IOD AS A MEASURE OF PRUDENCE AND BEST BUSINESS PRACTICES. THE INTEREST IN QUESTION WAS EARNED ON THIS FIXED DEPOSIT. 13. THE INTEREST IS NOT EARNED OUT OF SURPLUS MONEY. THE ASSESSEE HAD AN OBLIGATION TO REPAY ITS DEBENTURES HOLDERS ETC. AND WAS ACTING UNDER THE DIRECTIONS OF THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT AND HONBLE MUMBAI HIG H COURT IN THE PROCESS OF ITA NOS. 3041,3560/D EL/2013 AYS 2009-10 PAGE 7 OF 9 FULFILLING ITS FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS CERTAIN INTERE ST IS EARNED. ON THIS FACTUAL MATRIX IN OUR VIEW THE INTEREST IS ASSESSABLE ONLY UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM BUSINESS BUT NOT UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. THE ASSESSEE IS A NBFC AND MONEY IN ITS STOCK IN TRADE.INTEREST INCOME RECEIVE D FROM FIXED DEPOSITS, IS BUSINESS INCOME. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES WE UPHOLD THE CON TENTION OF THE ASSESSEE AND ALLOW THIS GROUND OF APPEAL. 14. IN THE RESULT BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE ASSES SEE ARE ALLOWED IN PART. 15. WE NOW TAKE UP THE REVENUE APPEAL IN ITA NO . 3560/DEL/13. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE ARE AS FOLLO WS :- I) WHETHER THE CIT(A) UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCE S OF THE CASE AND IN LAW WAS JUSTIFIED IN TREATING INCOME OF RS. 94,65,6 86/- AS INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY AS AGAINST INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCE S AS ASSESSED BY THE AO? II) WHETHER THE CIT(A) UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCE S OF THE CASE AND IN LAW WAS JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING THAT THE AO HAS WRONGL Y WORKED OUT THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME AND DIRECTED THE AO TO RE-WOR K OUT INCOME AFTER REDUCING THE FIGURES OF RS.1,44,84,868/- AND EXPEND ITURE OF RS. 1,77,85,048/-? III) WHEREAS THE AO RECLASSIFIED THE HEADS OF INCOME AND CORRECTLY COMPUTED THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE? IV) WHETHER THE LD. CIT(A) WAS CORRECT IN ADMITTING THE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL WITHOUT GRANTING OPPORTUNITY TO ASSESSING OF FICER OR CALLING ANY REPORT FROM ASSESSING OFFICER? 16. AFTER HEARING RIVAL CONTENTIONS, WE HOLD T HAT GROUND NO. 1 OF THE REVENUE HAS TO BE DISMISSED FOR THE REASON THAT, THE AO HAS ASS ESSED RENTAL INCOME UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES WITHOUT GIVING ANY REASON FOR DOING SO. THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS CORRECTED THIS MISTAKE. WE DO NOT SEE ANY REASON TO INTERFERE ITA NOS. 3041,3560/D EL/2013 AYS 2009-10 PAGE 8 OF 9 IN THIS FINDING OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. T HUS HE UPHOLD THE SAME AND DISMISS GROUND NO.1 OF THE REVENUE. 17. GROUND NO. 2 IS ON THE ISSUE OF COMPUTATI ON OF INCOME. THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY AT PARA 10.2 HELD AS FOLLOWS :- 10.2 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPEL LANT AND OBSERVATION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IT IS SEEN TH AT ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TAKEN PROFIT ON SALE OF INVESTMENT AT RS. 1,44, 84,868/- AND EXPENDITURE AT RS. 1,77,85,048/- WHILE COMPUTING TH E INCOME. IT IS SEEN FROM THE BALANCE SHEET THAT THERE ARE NO SUCH FIGURES AVAILABLE IN THE BALANCE SHEET OF THE APPELLANT, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS WRONGLY TAKEN THESE FIGURES IN THE COMPUTATION OF I NCOME AND HAS WORKED OUT BUSINESS INCOME WRONGLY. AS PER THE COMP UTATION OF INCOME FILED BY THE APPELLANT WHICH IS AVAILABLE AT PAGE 24 OF THE PAPER BOOK, IT IS SEEN THAT THE PROFIT AS PER PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT WAS RS. 1,80,33,346/-. AFTER ADDING VARIOUS DISALLOWANCES O F RS. 62,13,235/-, THE TOTAL BUSINESS INCOME WAS MADE AT RS. 2,42,46,5 81/-. FROM THIS FIGURE DEPRECIATION AND RENTAL INCOME WAS REDUCED W HICH WAS OF RS. 1,15,32,566/- AND THE BUSINESS INCOME WAS DETERMINE D FOR THE YEAR AT RS. 1,27,14,015/-. TO THIS BUSINESS INCOME, RENTAL INCOME OF RS. 1,92,56,141/-. ASSESSING OFFICER IS THEREFORE, DIRE CTED TO WORK OUT INCOME AFTER REDUCING THE FIGURES OF RS. 1,44,84,86 8/- AND EXPENDITURE OF RS. 1,77,85,048/-. WHILE WORKING OUT THE FRESH C OMPUTATION, THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHOULD TAKE OUT THE INTEREST INCO ME OF RS. 2,59,67,037/- FROM THE BUSINESS INCOME AS THE SAME HAS BEEN HELD AS INTEREST INCOME ASSESSABLE UNDER THE HEAD INCOME F ROM OTHER SOURCES. 18. COMPUTATION OF INCOME IS CONSEQUENTIAL TO OUR FIND ING IN THESE APPEALS. THE ISSUE OF COMPUTATION IS SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF TH E AO FOR FRESH CALCULATION DE NOVO. IN THE RESULT THIS GROUND IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICA L PURPOSES. 19. GROUND NO. 3 IS CONSEQUENTIAL TO GROUND NO . 2 AND DOES NOT REQUIRE SEPARATE ADJUDICATION. ITA NOS. 3041,3560/D EL/2013 AYS 2009-10 PAGE 9 OF 9 20. GROUND NO. 4 HAS TO BE DISMISSED FOR THE RE ASON THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ISSUED NOTICE TO THE AO TO BE PRESENT DURING THE CO URSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS AND UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES NO PLEA CAN BE TAKEN THAT NO OPPORTUNITY HAS BEEN GRANTED TO THE AO BY THE LD. CIT(A). WHAT WAS ADMIT TED AS AN ADDITIONAL GROUND BY THE LD. CIT(A) WAS A LEGAL ISSUE, NOT REQUIRING ANY FRESH INVESTIGATION IN TO FACTS. THUS GROUND DOES NOT SURVIVE. 21. IN THE RESULT APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED AND THAT OF REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 21 ST NOVEMBER, 2014. SD/- SD/- (C.M. GARG) (J. SUDHAKAR RED DY) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 21 ST NOVEMBER, 2014 *VEENA COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1.APPELLANT 2.RESPONDENT 3.CIT 4.CIT(A) 5.DR 6.GUARD FILE BY ORDER DEPUTY REGISTRAR