ACIT, New Delhi V. Ms. Sarla Jain, New Delhi

ITA 379/DEL/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 136 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3639 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-06-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Next Hearing Date: 24-06-2010
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 27-01-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: ANIL GOEL
• Keywords: Reopening of assessment; Business income; Depreciation; Search and seizure; Audit objection; Tangible material; Difference of opinion; Assessment record; Reason to believe; Change of opinion; Revenue expenditure; Reassessment proceedings; Capital expenditure
• Section: 143(3); 264; 147; 148; 154; 139

Judgement Text

ITA NO. 379/DEL/2010 A.Y. 2003-04 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH G NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 379/DEL/2010 A.Y. : 2003-04 ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VS. MS. SARLA JAIN, CIRCLE 23(1), ROOM NO. 190, 202, SAI PLAZA SANT NAGAR, C.R. BLDG., I.P. ESTATE, EAST OF KAILASH, NEW DELHI NEW DELHI (PAN: AAGPJ8419G) [APPELLANT] (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI ANIL GOEL, CA DEPARTMENT BY : MRS. LEENA SRIVASTAVA, D.R. PER SHAMIM YAHYA: AM THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONERS OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) DATED 04.11.2 009 PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04. 2. THE ISSUES RAISED READ AS UNDER:- ON THE FACTS AND ON THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE LD. C.I.T.(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN QUASHING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEED INGS COMPLETED U/S. 143(3)/147 OF THE ACT. ON THE FACTS AND ON THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. C.I.T.(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN HOLDING THAT THE ASSES SMENT CANNOT BE RE- OPENED ON THE BASIS OF AUDIT OBJECTION WHEN THE ASSE SSING HAD NOT INVESTIGATED THE ISSUE. ITA NO. 379/DEL/2010 A.Y. 2003-04 2 3. IN THIS CASE THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) WAS COMPLETED ON 10.3.2006. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE ASSESSMENT WAS REOPENE D FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS RECORDED:- ON EXAMINATION OF ASSESSMENT RECORDS, IT HAS BEEN NOTICED THAT TOOLS, DIES AND PRODUCT REGISTRATION CHARGES AMOUNTING TO RS. 3 5,50,304/- CHARGED TO PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT WAS ALLOWED TO ASSESSEE. A S THESE CHARGES PAID BY THE ASSESSEE WERE CAPITAL EXPENDITURE THE SAME SHOU LD HAVE BEEN CAPITALIZED. THE OMISSION TO DO SO RESULTED IN UN DER ASSESSMENT OF INCOME OF RS. 35,50,304/-. THE EXPENDITURE AMOUNTING RS. 35,50,304/- CANNOT BE CLAIMED AGAINST THE REGULAR BUSINESS INCOME AS THE SAME IS A CAPITAL EXPENDITURE. THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED EXPENDITURE OF RS. 35,50,3 04/- AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE WHICH IS NOT ALLOWABLE UNDER THE INCOM E TAX ACT, 1961. 3.1 ASSESSEE RESPONDED THAT EXPENDITURE WERE NOT OF CAPITAL NATURE. RATHER THE SAME WERE OF REVENUE NATURE. HOWEVER, THE ASSES SING OFFICER DID NOT AGREE WITH THESE AND HELD THAT THE EXPENDITURE WERE OF CA PITAL NATURE. ACCORDINGLY, ASSESSING OFFICER MADE THE ADDITION OF RS. 35,50,3 04/- AND ALSO ALLOWED DEPRECIATION @25%. 4. ASSESSEE APPEALED BEFORE THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) OBSERV ED THAT AFTER THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT FRAMED U/S 143(3) ON 10.3.2006. ON AN AU DIT OBJECTION DATED 15.3.2006, A NOTICE UNDER SECTION 154 OF THE ACT HA S BEEN ISSUED ON 6.6.2007. HOWEVER, ON 2.7.2007 THE SAME WAS DROPPED. HENCE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) OBSERVED THAT IT WAS CRYSTAL C LEAR THAT THE INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS U/S 147 OF THE ACT WAS DONE ON AN AUD IT OBJECTION WITH REGARD TO DEBITING OF RS. 35.50 LACS TO P&L ACCOUNT AS TOOL A ND DIES EXPENSES AND PRODUCT REGISTRATION CHARGES. LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME T AX (APPEALS) REFERRED TO THE ITA NO. 379/DEL/2010 A.Y. 2003-04 3 DECISION OF HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF JINDAL PHOTO FILMS LTD. VS. DCIT (1998) 234 ITR 170 FOR THE PROPOSITION THAT THE ASS ESSMENT CANNOT BE DONE MERELY ON CHANGE OF OPINION, IF THE ASSESSING OFFI CER DID NOT HAVE ANY FRESH MATERIAL OR INFORMATION. LD. COMMISSIONER OF INC OME TAX (APPEALS) FURTHER REFERRED THE FOLLOWING HONBLE HIGH COURT DECISION IN THE CASE OF C.I.T. VS. KELVINATOR OF INDIA LTD. (2002) 256 ITR 1 (DEL) (FB ); C.I.T. VS. JAGSON INTERNATONAL LTD. (2009) 18 DTR 144 & C.I.T. VS. EICHER LTD. 294 ITR 310 (DELHI). ON THE BASIS OF ABOVE DECISIONS LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APP EALS) HELD THAT ASSESSING OFFICER SHOULD HAVE RECEIVED SOME SPECIFIC MATERIA L OR INFORMATION WHICH WOULD SUGGEST THAT HE HAD REASONS TO BELIEVE THAT THE INC OME HAD ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. HE OBSERVED FROM THE APPRAISAL OF THE SATISFACTION NOTE, IT WAS EVIDENT THAT THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WERE INITIATED ON ACCOUNT OF RE-EXAMINATION/RE- APPRAISAL OF THE SAME SET OF FACTS. HENCE, THIS FAL L IN THE REALM OF CHANGE OF OPINION. 4.1 LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) FURTHE R REFERRED THAT THOUGH IT IS NOT MENTIONED IN THE SATISFACTION NOTE, THE PROCEED INGS WERE INITIATED ON AN AUDIT OBJECTION. IN THIS REGARD, LD. COMMISSIONER OF INC OME TAX (APPEALS) REFERRED THE DECISION OF THE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF TRA NSWORLD INTERNATIONAL INC. VS. JCIT (2005) 273 ITR 243 (DELHI). LD. COMMISSIONE R OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) FURTHER REFERRED THE DECISION OF THE MADRAS HIGH CO URT IN THE CASE OF C.I.T. VS. LUCAS TVS LTD. (1998) 234 ITR 296, WHEREIN IT HAS B EEN HELD THAT AN AUDIT OBJECTION IN REGARD TO APPLICATION OR INTERPRETATION OF LAW CANNOT BE TREATED AS INFORMATION FOR RE-OPENING OF ASSESSMENT. LD. COMM ISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THIS DECISION OF TH E MADRAS HIGH COURT HAS BEEN UPHELD BY THE HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE C.I.T. VS. LUCAS TVS LTD. (2001) 249 ITR ITA NO. 379/DEL/2010 A.Y. 2003-04 4 306 (SC). HENCE, LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A PPEALS) CONCLUDED THAT THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT THE PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 147 HAS BEEN INITIATED ON A DIFFERENCE OF OPINION ON THE INTERPRETATION OF LAW BETWEEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE REVENUE AUDIT ON THE SAME SETS OF FACT AND MATERIAL. HENCE FOLLOWING THE ABOVE SAID DECISION HE HELD THAT CONDITION FOR REOPENING OF ASSESSMENTS WERE MET. ACCORDINGLY, HE QUASHED THE ASSESSMENT V OID AB-INITIO. 5. AGAINST THIS ORDER THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEF ORE US. 6. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE COUNSEL AND PERUSED THE R ECORDS. LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT ON THE SAID ISSUE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT APPLIED HIS MIND IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER. HENCE IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THERE WAS ANY FORMATION OF THE OPINION MADE B Y THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THAT ISSUE. HENCE HE ARGUED THAT THERE IS NO QUES TION OF CHANGE OF OPINION AND UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES THE CASE LAW RELIED BY TH E LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) WOULD NOT APPLY. 6.1 LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE OTHER HAND R ELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AND PLEADE D THAT ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN COMPLETED U/S 143(3) AND THE REASSESSMENT WAS BASED UPON THE CHANGE OF OPINION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER . 6.2 WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS A ND GAINFULLY REFER TO PROVISION OF SECTION 147 OF THE IT ACT IN THIS REGA RD:- ITA NO. 379/DEL/2010 A.Y. 2003-04 5 INCOME ESCAPING ASSESSMENT - 147. IF THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER HAS REASON TO BELIEVE THAT ANY INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT FOR ANY ASSESSMENT YEAR, HE MAY, SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIONS 148 TO 153, ASSESS OR REASSE SS SUCH INCOME AND ALSO ANY OTHER INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX WHICH HAS E SCAPED ASSESSMENT AND WHICH COMES TO HIS NOTICE SUBSEQUENT LY IN THE COURSE OF THE PROCEEDINGS UNDER THIS SECTION, OR RECOMPUTE THE LOSS OR THE DEPRECIATION ALLOWANCE OR ANY OTHER ALLOWANCE, AS T HE CASE MAY BE, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR CONCERNED (HEREAFTER IN THI S SECTION AND IN SECTIONS 148 TO 153 REFERRED TO AS THE RELEVANT ASS ESSMENT YEAR). PROVIDED THAT WHERE AN ASSESSMENT UNDER SUB-SECTION (3) OF SECTION 143 OR THIS SECTION HAS BEEN MADE FOR THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR, NO ACTION SHALL BE TAKEN UNDER THIS SECTION AFTER T HE EXPIRY OF FOUR YEAR FROM THE END OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR, UNLESS ANY INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT FOR SUCH ASSESSMENT YEAR BY REASON OF THE FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSE E TO MAKE A RETURN UNDER SECTION 139 OR IN RESPONSE TO A NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SUB- SECTION(1) OF SECTION 142 OR SECTION 148 OR TO DISC LOSE FULLY AND TRULY ALL MATERIAL FACTS NECESSARY FOR HIS ASSESSMENT, FO R THAT ASSESSMENT YEAR.' 6.3 FROM THE ABOVE, IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER CAN MAKE REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT, IF HE HAS REASON TO BELIEV E THAT ANY INCOME HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT WHICH CAME TO HIS NOTICE SUBSEQU ENTLY. 6.4 RECENTLY HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF C.I .T. VS. KELVINATOR INDIA 320 ITR 561 HAVE AN OCCASION TO GO THROUGH ANALOGICAL ISSUE AND THE HONBLE APEX REFERRED TO THE PROVISION FO SECTION 147 AND THE CH ANGES MADE THEREIN AND HELD AS UNDER:- AFTER THE AMENDING ACT, 1989, SECTION 147 READS A S UNDER: INCOME ESCAPING ASSESSMENT - 147. IF THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS REASON TO BELIEVE THAT ANY INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAS ESCAPED ITA NO. 379/DEL/2010 A.Y. 2003-04 6 ASSESSMENT FOR ANY ASSESSMENT YEAR, HE MAY, SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIONS 148 TO 153, ASSESS OR REASSE SS SUCH INCOME AND ALSO ANY OTHER INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX WHICH HAS E SCAPED ASSESSMENT AND WHICH COMES TO HIS NOTICE SUBSEQUENT LY IN THE COURSE OF THE PROCEEDINGS UNDER THIS SECTION, OR RECOMPUTE THE LOSS OR THE DEPRECIATION ALLOWANCE OR ANY OTHER ALLOWANCE, AS T HE CASE MAY BE, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR CONCERNED (HEREAFTER IN THI S SECTION AND IN SECTIONS 148 TO 153 REFERRED TO AS THE RELEVANT ASS ESSMENT YEAR). ON GOING THROUGH THE CHANGES, QUOTED ABOVE, MADE T O SECTION 147 OF THE ACT, WE FIND THAT, PRIOR TO DIRECT TAX LAWS (AMENDMENT) ACT, 1987, RE- OPENING COULD BE DONE UNDER ABOVE TWO CONDITIONS AN D FULFILLMENT OF THE SAID CONDITIONS ALONE CONFERRED JURISDICTION ON THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO MAKE A BACK ASSESSMENT, BUT IN SECTION 147 OF THE ACT [W ITH EFFECT FROM 1ST APRIL, 1989], THEY ARE GIVEN A GO-BY AND ONLY ONE CONDITIO N HAS REMAINED, VIZ., THAT WHERE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS REASON TO BEL IEVE THAT INCOME HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT, CONFERS JURISDICTION TO REOPEN T HE ASSESSMENT. THEREFORE, POST-1ST APRIL, 1989, POWER TO RE-OPEN I S MUCH WIDER. HOWEVER, ONE NEEDS TO GIVE A SCHEMATIC INTERPRETATION TO THE WORDS REASON TO BELIEVE FAILING WHICH, WE ARE AFRAID, SECTION 147 WOULD GIVE ARBITRARY POWERS TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO RE-OPEN ASSESSME NTS ON THE BASIS OF MERE CHANGE OF OPINION, WHICH CANNOT BE PER SE RE ASON TO RE-OPEN. WE MUST ALSO KEEP IN MIND THE CONCEPTUAL DIFFERENCE BE TWEEN POWER TO REVIEW AND POWER TO RE-ASSESS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS N O POWER TO REVIEW; HE HAS THE POWER TO RE-ASSESS. BUT RE-ASSESSMENT HAS T O BE BASED ON FULFILLMENT OF CERTAIN PRE-CONDITION AND IF THE CONCEPT OF CHA NGE OF OPINION IS REMOVED, AS CONTENDED ON BEHALF OF THE DEPARTMENT, THEN, IN THE GARB OF RE- OPENING THE ASSESSMENT, REVIEW WOULD TAKE PLACE. ON E MUST TREAT THE CONCEPT OF CHANGE OF OPINION AS AN IN-BUILT TEST TO CHECK ABUSE OF POWER BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HENCE, AFTER 1ST APRIL, 1 989, ASSESSING OFFICER HAS POWER TO RE-OPEN, PROVIDED THERE IS TANGIBLE MATER IAL TO COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THERE IS ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME FROM ASSESSMENT. REASONS MUST HAVE A LIVE LINK WITH THE FORMATION OF THE BEL IEF. OUR VIEW GETS SUPPORT FROM THE CHANGES MADE TO SECTION 147 OF THE ACT, AS QUOTED HEREINABOVE. UNDER THE DIRECT TAX LAWS (AMENDMENT) ACT, 1987, PA RLIAMENT NOT ONLY DELETED THE WORDS REASON TO BELIEVE BUT ALSO INSE RTED THE WORD OPINION IN SECTION 147 OF THE ACT. HOWEVER, ON RECEIPT OF R EPRESENTATIONS FROM THE ITA NO. 379/DEL/2010 A.Y. 2003-04 7 COMPANIES AGAINST OMISSION OF THE WORDS REASON TO BELIEVE, PARLIAMENT RE-INTRODUCED THE SAID EXPRESSION AND DELETED THE W ORD OPINION ON THE GROUND THAT IT WOULD VEST ARBITRARY POWERS IN THE A SSESSING OFFICER. WE QUOTE HEREINBELOW THE RELEVANT PORTION OF CIRCULAR NO.549 DATED 31ST OCTOBER, 1989, WHICH READS AS FOLLOWS: 7.2 AMENDMENT MADE BY THE AMENDING ACT, 1989, TO REINTRODUCE THE EXPRESSION `REASON TO BELIEVE' IN S ECTION 147. A NUMBER OF REPRESENTATIONS WERE RECEIVED AGAINST T HE OMISSION OF THE WORDS `REASON TO BELIEVE' FROM SECT ION 147 AND THEIR SUBSTITUTION BY THE `OPINION' OF THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER. IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT THE MEANING OF THE EXPRESSION, `REASON TO BELIEVE' HAD BEEN EXPLAINED IN A NUMBER OF COURT RU LINGS IN THE PAST AND WAS WELL SETTLED AND ITS OMISSION FROM SEC TION 147 WOULD GIVE ARBITRARY POWERS TO THE ASSESSING OFFICE R TO REOPEN PAST ASSESSMENTS ON MERE CHANGE OF OPINION. TO ALLA Y THESE FEARS, THE AMENDING ACT, 1989, HAS AGAIN AMENDED SE CTION 147 TO REINTRODUCE THE EXPRESSION `HAS REASON TO BELIEV E' IN PLACE OF THE WORDS `FOR REASONS TO BE RECORDED BY HIM IN WRI TING, IS OF THE OPINION'. OTHER PROVISIONS OF THE NEW SECTION 1 47, HOWEVER, REMAIN THE SAME. FOR THE AFORE-STATED REASONS, WE SEE NO MERIT IN TH ESE CIVIL APPEALS FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT, HENCE, DISMISSED W ITH NO ORDER AS TO COSTS. 6.5 FROM THE ABOVE IT IS CLEAR THAT MERE CHANGE OF OPINION CANNOT BE A REASON FOR REOPENING. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NO POWER TO REVIEW, HE HAS POWER TO ASSESS. IN THE GARB OF REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT REV IEW CANNOT BE DONE. FURTHER THERE MUST BE TANGIBLE MATERIAL TO COME TO THE CONC LUSION THAT THERE IS ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME. ITA NO. 379/DEL/2010 A.Y. 2003-04 8 6.6 IN THE PRESENT CASE WE FIND THAT ASSESSEE HAS C LEARLY DEBITED THE IMPUGNED EXPENDITURE TO PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT. THE MATTER WAS CLEARLY BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHEN HE ASSESSED THE INCOME U/S 143(3). THE ISSUE IS TREATMENT OF TOOL, DIES AND PRODUCT REGISTRATION CH ARGES. IN THE REASSESSMENT ORDER ASSESSEE HAD REFERRED TO A CATENA OF CASE LAW S IN HIS FAVOUR AND ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO HAS CITED SEVERAL CASE LAWS. HENCE I T CANNOT BE SAID THAT ASSESSE S CLAIM WAS AB-INITIO LIABLE TO BE REJECTED. THE IMP UGNED ITEMS ARE NOT SUCH ITEMS ON WHICH THERE CANNOT BE TWO OPINIONS. HENCE IT C AN BE CONCLUDED THAT ASSESSING OFFICER HAS APPLIED HIS MIND AND FORMED AN OPINION IN THE ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3). MOREOVER THE REASON FOR REOPENING ARE BASED ON TH E MATERIALS WHICH WERE ALREADY ON RECORD. HENCE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS REV IEWED HIS EARLIER ASSESSMENT ORDER AS NO FRESH MATERIAL HAS COME TO THE NOTICE O F THE ASSESSING OFFICER . 6.7 UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, IT IS CLEAR THAT REOPE NING IS BASED UPON CHANGE OF OPINION AND REAPPRAISAL OF THE SAME MATERIAL, WHIC H HAS RESULTED IN REVIEW BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF HIS EARLIER ORDER. FRO M THE HONBLE APEX COURT DECISION CITED ABOVE, IT IS CLEAR THAT THIS IS NOT PERMISS IBLE. 6.8 FURTHER IN THE ABOVE DECISION THE HONBLE APEX COURT HAD AFFIRMED THE FULL BENCH DECISION OF HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF C.I.T. VS. KELVINATOR OF INDIA LTD. 256 ITR 1 WHEREIN IT WAS H ELD (AFTER CONSIDERING THE ITA NO. 379/DEL/2010 A.Y. 2003-04 9 DECISION OF HONBLE HIGH COURT OF GUJRAT IN 236 ITR 832) THAT MERE CHANGE OF OPINION OF ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT A GROUND FOR R EOPENING OF ASSESSMENT AND AMENDMENT OF SECTION 147 W.E.F. 1.4.1989 HAS NOT AL TERED THIS POSITION. 6.9 SIMILAR VIEW WAS EXPRESSED BY THE HONBLE APE X COURT IN THE CASE OF FORAMER FRANCE : 264 ITR 566 (SC) WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT REASSESSMENT IS NOT PERMISSIBLE ON THE BASIS OF MERE CHANGE OF OPINION. 6.10 IN THE BACKGROUND OF THE AFORESAID DISCUSSION AND PRECEDENTS, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY AND ILLEGALITY IN THE ORDER OF T HE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). ACCORDINGLY, WE UPHOLD THE SAME. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE I S DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30/06/2010. SD/- SD/- [RAJPAL YADAV] [SHAMIM YAHYA] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATE 30/06/2010 SRB COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER, DEPUTY REGISTRAR, ITAT, DELHI BENCHES*