ITO, New Delhi V. Shri Mahtab Alam, New Delhi

ITA 3656/DEL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8058 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 10 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-04-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Next Hearing Date: 28-03-2016
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 07-06-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P DAM KANUNJA
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Unexplained investment; Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Capital asset; Retrospective amendment; Additional evidence
• Section: 50C; 68; 6

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH E, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G.D. AGRAWAL, HONBLE VICE PRESIDENT AND SMT. BEENA A PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 3656/DEL/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 ITO WARD 22(2), ROOM NO. 1001, 10 TH FLOOR, DR. SHYMA PRASAD MUKHERJI CIVIC CENTRE, NEW DELHI. VS MAHTAB ALAM, 24, ZAKIR BAGH, OKHLA ROAD, NEW DELHI. AESPA1934K (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY : SH. P. DAM KANUNJ A, SR. DR ASSESSEE BY : SH. KAPIL GOEL, ADV. DATE OF HEARING : 28.03.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 27.04.2016 ORDER PER BEENA A PILLAI, JM THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE DEPARTMENT AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 26.04.2013 OF CIT(A)-XXIII, NEW DELHI FOR A.Y. 2009-10 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN ACCEPTING THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IN VIOLATION OF RULE 46A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 50,64,575/- ON ACCOUNT OF PURCHASE OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY. I.T.A.NO. 3656/DEL/2013 2 3. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF RS. 10,00,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF LOAN U/S 68 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. 4. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER OR AMEND ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE OR DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL. 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE AS UNDER: THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE A.Y. 20 09-10 ON 11.03.2010 DISCLOSING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 5,32,170/ -. THE ASSESSEE DISCLOSED INCOME UNDER THE HEADS SALARY, B USINESS INCOME, INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY AND INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. DURING SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, T HE ASSESSING OFFICER VERIFIED THE DETAILS OF PURCHASE OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS. 40,00,000/-. T HE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT THE SALE DEED HAD BEEN REGISTERED FOR A VALUE OF RS. 40,00,000/- WHEREAS THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AS PER THE CIRCLE RATES HAD BEEN MENTIONED IN THE REGISTERED DEED AT RS. 90,64,575/-, AND THE ASSESSE E HAD PAID THE STAMP DUTY OF RS. 6,35,000/- AS PER THE CIRCLE RATES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER REQUIRED THE ASSESSEE TO SHOW CAU SE WHY THE FULL VALUE OF THE CONSIDERATION SHOULD NOT BE ADOPT ED AT THE VALUE ASSESSED BY THE STAMP DUTY AUTHORITIES AS PRO VIDED U/S 50C READ WITH SECTIONS 56(2)(VII) AND 2(24)(XV). T HE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE PROPERTY HAD BEEN BOOKED BY THE ASSESSEE IN MAY 2006, WHEN THE CIRCLE RATE WAS RS.14000 PER SQ. MTR., AND THE SALE WAS REGISTERED IN JULY, 2008, BY WHICH TIME THE CIRCLE RATE HAD BEEN REVISED BY THE GOVERNMENT TO R S.40000 PER SQ. MTR. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THAT THE A SSESSEE DID I.T.A.NO. 3656/DEL/2013 3 NOT FILE ANY EVIDENCE OF BOOKING OF THE COMMERCIAL SPACE OR OF PAYMENT OF ANY BOOKING AMOUNT IN THE YEAR 2006. TH E ASSESSING OFFICER APPLIED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C AND ADDED THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE VALUE AS PER THE C IRCLE RATES AND THE SALE CONSIDERATION AS PER THE SALE DEED, WH ICH WORKED OUT TO RS. 50,64,575/-. FURTHER THE ASSESSING OFFI CER FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD BORROWED AN AMOUNT OF RS. 10, 00,000/- FROM HIS FATHER WHICH HAD BEEN UTILIZED TOWARDS THE PURCHASE OF THE IMMOVABLE PROPERTY. THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO FILE CONFIRMATION, COPY OF BANK STATEMENT AND INCOME TAX RETURN OF THE LENDER. HENCE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER TREATE D THE LOAN OF RS. 10,00,000/- AS AN UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT U/S 6 8 OF THE ACT. 3. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). 3.1 THE LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITIONS BY OBSERVI NG AS UNDER: 4. THE ABOVE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE HAVE BEEN CAREFULLY CONSIDERED. I HAVE ALSO CAREFULLY PERUSED THE CASE LAWS RELIED UPON, AND GONE THROUGH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND REMAND REPORT. THE FIRST ISSUE IN APPEAL IS OF THE ADDITION OF RS. 50,64,575/- U/S 50C IN RESPECT OF PURCHASE OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS APPLIED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C TO HOLD THAT THE FULL VALUE OF THE CONSIDERATION PA ID FOR ACQUIRING THE PROPERTY SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE THE VALUE ASSESSED BY THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY AT THE TIME OF REGISTRATION OF THE SALE DEED. THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCLOSED THE PURCHASE CONSIDERATION OF RS. 40,00,000/-, BUT HAS PAID STAMP DUTY ON THE VALUE AS PER THE CIRCLE RATES WHICH WAS RS. 90,64,575/-. THE ASSESSING I.T.A.NO. 3656/DEL/2013 4 OFFICER HAS ALSO INVOKED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 56(2)(VII), WRONGLY WRITTEN AS SECTION 56(1)(VII), READ WITH SECTION 2(24)(XV). THE COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 50C ARE APPLICABLE ONLY FOR THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME FROM CAPITAL GAINS, AND CAN ONLY BE INVOKED WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAS TRANSFERRED A CAPITAL ASSET AND DISCLOSED SALE CONSIDERATION OF LESS THAN THE VALUE ADOPTED OR ASSESSED BY THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY. IT IS VEHEMENTLY ARGUED THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 50C CANNOT BE APPLIED TO THE BUYER OF THE CAPITAL ASSET, OR TO TH E PURCHASE CONSIDERATION. THE ASSESSEE HAS RELIED UPON THE JUDGMENT OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. KHOOBSURAT RESORTS P. LTD. (2012) 211 TAXMAN 510 WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT THE FICTION CREATED BY VIRTUE OF SECTION 50C APPLIES ONLY IN RESPECT OF THE ESCAPED INCOME OF THE SELLER, BUT CANNOT BE EXTENDED TO THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WHO ACQUIRES SUCH AN ASSET. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO RELIED UPON THE JUDGMENTS OF THE ITAT, DELHI, IN THE CASES OF ITO VS. FITWELL LOGIC SYSTEMS P. LTD. (2010) 1 ITR (TRIB) 286 AND ITO VS. SHYAM KUMAR AHUJA IN ITA NO. 3115/DEL/2007 DATED 27.02.2009 WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT THE SECTION 50C RELATES ONLY TO THE SELLE R OF THE PROPERTY AND NOT TO THE BUYER OF THE PROPERTY. RELIANCE HAS BEEN PLACED ON A NUMBER OF CASE LAWS INCLUDING THAT OF K.P. VARGHESE VS. ITO (1981) 131 ITR 597 (SC), TO ARGUE THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE BROUGHT ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD INVESTED MORE THAN THE PURCHASE CONSIDERATION DISCLOSED, ADDITION MADE FOR UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT COULD NOT BE SUSTAINED. IT IS SEEN THAT THE FACTS OF THE APPELLANTS CASE ARE SQUARELY COVERED BY THE JUDGMENTS OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT AND ITAT. IN THE CASE OF CIT, DELHI VS. KHOOBSURAT RESORTS P. LTD. (SUPRA), THE HONBLE COURT HAS HELD THAT THE DEEMING PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C ENABLING THE REVENUE TO TREAT THE VALUE DECLARED BY AN ASSESSEE FOR PAYMENT OF STAMP DUTY AS THE I.T.A.NO. 3656/DEL/2013 5 FULL VALUE OF CONSIDERATION, CANNOT BE A LEGITIMATE GROUND FOR CONCLUDING THAT THERE WAS UNDER VALUATION IN THE ACQUISITION OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY. IF THE PARLIAMENTARY INTENTION WAS TO ENABLE SUCH A FINDING, A PROVISION AKIN TO SECTION 50C WOULD HAVE BEEN INCLUDED IN THE STATUTE BOOK, TO ASSESS INCOME ON THE BASIS OF SIMILAR FICTION IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WHO ACQUIRES SUCH AN ASSET. IT IS HELD ACCORDINGLY THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C CANNOT BE APPLIED TO THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE, WHO IS THE BUYER OF THE ASSET IN QUESTION, AND NOT THE SELLER. 4.1 THE COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO POINTED OUT THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 56(2)(VI I) COULD NOT HAVE BEEN APPLIED IN THIS CASE AS THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS WERE INSERTED IN THE ACT BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2009, W.E.F. 01.10.2009, AND SUBSTITUTED BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2010, W.E.F. 01.10.2009. THE SUBSTITUTION WAS INTENDED TO REMOVE FROM ITS AMBIT, TRANSACTIONS INVOLVING CASES OF INADEQUATE CONSIDERATION IN RESPECT OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY, CONSIDERING THAT THERE MAY BE A TIME GAP BETWEEN THE BOOKING OF A PROPERTY AND THE RECEIPT OF SUCH PROPERTY ON REGISTRATION. HENCE, IT IS ARGUED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE, THAT TO ALL INTENTS AND PURPOSES, THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 56(2)(VII)(B)(II) HAVE BEEN WITHDRAWN FROM THE DATE OF ENACTMENT ITSELF. THIS CONTENTION IS ALSO FOUND TO BE CORRECT. SECTION 56(2)(VII)(B)(II ) WAS ON THE STATUTE ONLY BETWEEN THE FINANCE ACT OF 2009 AND 2010 AND HAS BEEN REMOVED FROM THE INCOME TAX ACT WITH RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT FROM THE DATE OF ITS INSERTION. HENCE THE ASSESSING OFFICERS RELIANCE ON SECTION 56(2)(VII) CANNOT BE UPHELD. 4.2 EVEN ON FACTS, IT IS FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE BOOKED THE PROPERTY BEARING NO. 3, GH5, AHINSA KHAND II, INDIRAPURAM, GHAZIABAD FROM M/S NIRALA DEVELOPERS P. LTD. ON 25.05.2006 BY PAYMENT OF RS. 1,50,000/- BY CHEQUE NO. 747453 FROM HIS BANK ACCOUNT WITH HDFC BANK, NEW FRIENDS COLONY, NEW DELHI. THE ASSESSEE HAS I.T.A.NO. 3656/DEL/2013 6 PRODUCED THE BOOKING LETTER DATED 29.05.2006 ISSUED BY M/S NIRALA DEVELOPERS WHICH SHOWS THAT THE UNIT WAS BOOKED FOR A PRICE OF RS. 40,00,000/-. THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS. 38,50,000/- DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO THE AY 2009-10 AND THE PURCHASE HAS BEEN REGISTERED ON 09.07.2008. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS DISBELIEVED THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE PROPERTY WAS BOOKED IN 2006, WHEN THE CIRCLE RATES WERE ONLY RS. 14,000/- PER SQ. MTR., AS AGAINST CIRCLE RATES OF RS. 40,000/- PER SQ. MTR. IN 2008, ON THE GROUNDS THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FILE EVIDENCE OF BOOKING OR OF PAYMENT IN 2006. CONSIDERING THE EVIDENCES FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE FORM OF BOOKING LETTER OF M/S NIRALA DEVELOPERS P. LTD., LEDGER ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE BOOKS OF THE DEVELOPER, AND BANK STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE OF THE YEAR 2006, THE ASSESSEE IS HELD TO HAVE PROVEN HIS CLAIM THAT THE PROPERTY WAS BOOKED AT A LOWER PRICE OF RS. 40,00,000/- IN 2006, BUT WHEN THE SALE WAS REGISTERED IN 2008, THE CIRCLE RATES HAD GONE UP RESULTING IN THE VALUATION BY THE STAMP DUTY AUTHORITY AT RS. 90,64,575/-. FOR ALL THE ABOVE REASONS, THE ADDITION MADE OF RS. 50,64,575/- STANDS DELETED. 5. THE SECOND ISSUE FOR ADJUDICATION IS REGARDING THE ADDITION OF RS. 10,00,000/- AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT U/S 68. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TREATED THE UNSECURED LOAN TAKEN FROM THE FATHER OF THE ASSESSEE AS UNEXPLAINED, AS THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO FILE CONFIRMATION SUPPORTED BY THE BANK STATEMENT AND RETURN OF INCOME OF THE LENDER. THE ASSESSEE HAS STATED THAT INADEQUATE TIME WAS ALLOWED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO OBTAIN THE BANK STATEMENT, HOWEVER, THE COPY OF BANK STATEMENT, RETURN OF INCOME, AND PAN CARD OF SHRI KHURSHID ALAM HAVE BEEN FILED DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. IN THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS STATED THAT DEPOSITS MADE IN THE BANK ACCOUNT IMMEDIATELY PRIOR TO GIVING THE LOAN TO THE ASSESSEE ARE I.T.A.NO. 3656/DEL/2013 7 SUSPICIOUS, AND HAS ALSO STATED THAT THE RETURN OF INCOME OF SHRI ALAM HAS BEEN PRODUCED FOR THE PERIOD SUBSEQUENT TO THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION IN REJOINDER, THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED THE COPY OF RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY SHRI ALAM FOR A.Y 2009-10, WITH COMPUTATION OF INCOME SHOWING THAT SHRI KHURSHID ALAM HAS SOLD AN IMMOVABLE PROPERTY DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2008-09 FOR RS. 42,50,000/-. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT TWO CHEQUES OF RS. 21,25,000/- EACH WERE DEPOSITED IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT, AS NOTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSEE WAS DIRECTED TO FILE THE COPY OF SALE DEED IN QUESTION, WHICH HAS BEEN VERIFIED, AND PROVES THE RECEIPT OF RS. 42,50,000/- BY SHRI KHURSHID ALAM ON 28.05.2008. A CONFIRMATION HAS BEEN FILED BY SHRI KHURSHID ALAM AFFIRMING THAT HE HAS GIVEN AN INTEREST FREE LOAN OF RS. 10,00,000/- TO HIS SON, AND ALSO STATING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SO FAR RETURNED RS. 4,00,000/- OUT OF THE LOAN OF RS. 10,00,000/-. AFTER CONSIDERING THE ABOVE EVIDENCES, THE LOAN OF RS. 10,00,000/- FROM SHRI KHURSHID ALAM IS HELD TO BE EXPLAINED AND THE ADDITION MADE U/S 68 IS DELETED. 3.2 THE LD. DR RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING O FFICER. 4. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE COUNSEL AND PERUSED THE R ECORDS. WE HAVE ALSO GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER A UTHORITIES AND THE CASE LAWS RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE. HERE IS A CASE IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED TO HAV E PURCHASED THE PROPERTY FOR A SUM OF RS. 40,00,000/- AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE ADDITION OF RS.90,64,575 /- ON THE BASIS OF DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE MARKET PRICE AND AP PARENT SALE CONSIDERATION. NO ATTEMPT HAS BEEN MADE FOR V ERIFYING THE PRICE FROM THE SELLER OF THE PROPERTY. IN OTHE R WORDS, THERE IS NO POSITIVE MATERIAL EVIDENCING THE MAKING OF AC TUAL INVESTMENT BY THE ASSESSEE OVER AND ABOVE RS.40,00, 000/-. I.T.A.NO. 3656/DEL/2013 8 UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, THERE CAN BE NO POINT IN MAKING ANY ADDITION TOWARDS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT U/S 69B OF THE ACT. 5. THE LD. AR RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL I N CASE OF DCIT VS. RAJIV CHAURASIA IN ITA 1729/D/2012, A C OPY OF WHICH HAS BEEN PLACED ON RECORD, WHERE IDENTICAL IS SUE AROSE. THE HONBLE TRIBUNAL DEALT WITH THE ISSUE AS UNDER: HERE IS A CASE IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED TO HAVE PURCHASED THE PROPERTY FOR A SUM OF RS.3.50 CRORE AND THE AO HAS MADE ADDITION OF RS.5,59,66,000/- LAC SIMPLY ON THE BASIS OF DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE DVOS REPORT AND APPARENT SALE CONSIDERATION. NO ATTEMPT HAS BEEN MADE FOR VERIFYING THE PRICE FROM THE SELLER OF THE PROPERTY . IN OTHER WORDS, THERE IS NO POSITIVE MATERIAL EVIDENCING THE MAKING OF ACTUAL INVESTMENT BY THE ASSESSEE OVER AND ABOVE RS.3.50 CRORE. UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, THERE CAN BE NO POINT IN MAKING ANY ADDITION TOWARDS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT U/S 69B OF THE ACT. IT IS RELEVANT TO MENTION THAT THE LEGISLATURE HAS CARRIED OUT AMENDMENT BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2013 W.E.F. 1.4.2014 BY SUBSTITUTING SECTION 56(2)(VII)(B) PROVIDING THAT WHERE AN INDIVIDUAL OR HUF RECEIVES ANY IMMOVABLE PROPERTY, INTER ALIA, FOR A CONSIDERATION WHICH IS LESS THAN THE STAMP DUTY VALUE OF THE PROPERTY BY AN AMOUNT EXCEEDING RS.50,000/-, THE STAMP DUTY VALUE OF SUCH PROPERTY AS EXCEEDED SUCH CONSIDERATION SHALL BE TAXED AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. THE LEGISLATURE HAS BROUGHT IN SECTION 56(2)(VII)(B) WI TH THE SOLE INTENTION OF BRINGING UNDER-HAND PAYMENT OF SALE CONSIDERATION OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY TO TAX. I.T.A.NO. 3656/DEL/2013 9 THIS PROVISION HAS BEEN ENSHRINED W.E.F. THE A.Y. 2014-15 AND IS NOT APPLICABLE RETROSPECTIVELY TO TH E A.Y. 2006-07 UNDER CONSIDERATION. SINCE THIS PROVISION IS PROSPECTIVE AND THERE IS NO OTHER AUTHENTIC EVIDENCE OF THE ASSESSEE HAVING ACTUALLY MADE ANY INVESTMENT OVER AND ABOVE THE DECLARED SALE CONSIDERATION, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE LD. CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN DELETI NG THE ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF RS.5,59,66,000/-. SIMILAR VIEW HAS BEEN TAKEN BY THE DELHI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF GAGAN KHOSLA VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 31.7.2015 IN ITA NO.208/DEL/2012. WE, THEREFORE, COUNTENANCE THE ACTION OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN DELETING THIS ADDITION. 5.1 LD. CIT(A) HAS DISCUSSED THE ISSUE UNDER CONSID ERATION IN DETAIL. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSIONS AND RE SPECTFULLY FOLLOWING RATIO LAID DOWN IN THE ORDER OF THIS TRIB UNAL IN DCIT VS. RAJIV CHAURASIA (SUPRA), WE CONFIRM THE ORDER O F THE LD. CIT(A). ACCORDINGLY THE GROUNDS RAISED IN REVENUE S APPEAL ARE DISMISSED. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL STANDS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 27.04.2016 SD./- SD./- (G.D. AGRAWAL) (BEENA A PILLAI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 27.04.2016 *KAVITA ARORA/SP. I.T.A.NO. 3656/DEL/2013 10 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR