ACIT, Meerut V. Sh. Jitendra Kumar Gupta, Meerut

ITA 3936/DEL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 98087 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-12-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC 1
• Next Hearing Date: 30-11-2015
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 09-07-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VED PRAKASH MISHRA
• Keywords: Fair market value; Valuation report
• Section: 143(3); 142(1)

Judgement Text

1 ITA NOS. 1538 & 3936/DEL/2014 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: F NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI N.K. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT ME MBER & SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A .NOS. 1538 & 3936 /DEL/2014 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2004- 05) ACIT, CIRCLE-1, MEERUT. VS JITENDRA KUMAR GUPTA, 219, RAILWAY ROAD, MEERUT. AARPG5507B APPELLANT BY SH. VED PRAKASH MISHRA, SR. DR RESPONDENT BY SH. SANJIV SAPRA, ADV. ORDER PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THESE ARE THE APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE LD. CIT(A)-MEERUT, VIDE HIS ORDER DATED 10/12/2013 FOR A.Y. 2004-05, IN QUANTUM APPEAL, AND PENALTY APPEAL FILED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 25/02/2014 BY LD. CIT(A)-MUZAFFARNAGAR FOR A.Y. 200 4-05 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: GROUNDS OF ITA NO. 1538/D/14 QUANTUM APPEAL : 1. WHETHER IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE , THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) IS JUSTIFIED IN ALLOWING THE LONG TERM CAPITAL LOSS OF RS. 45,69,287/- ON THE SALE OF 5,800 SHARES OF M/S R.B. CREDIT (P) LTD. IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE SHA RES HAVING FACE VALUE OF RS. 10/- WERE ACQUIRED BY THE ASSESSE E IN DATE OF HEARING 03.12.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 11.12.2015 2 ITA NOS. 1538 & 3936/DEL/2014 MARCH, 2000 AND JANUARY 2002 AT A PREMIUM OF RS. 40 /- (50,000 SHARES) AND RS. 240/- (8,000 SHARES) BUT TH E SALE WAS EFFECTED BY THE ASSESSEE AT THE FACE VALUE OF R S. 10/- ONLY ON 29/09/2013 AND 20/10/2013 RESPECTIVELY. 2. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, MODIFY AND/ OR DELETE ANY GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 3. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE ORD ER OF THE CIT(A), MEERUT MAY BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE ASS ESSING OFFICER RESTORED. GROUNDS OF ITA NO. 3936/D/14 PENALTY APPEAL : 1. WHETHER IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE, THE LD. CIT(A) IS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE PENALTY OF RS. 1005243/- IMPOSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE GROUND THAT THE ADDITIONS ON THE BASIS OF WHICH PEN ALTY IS IMPOSED, HAVE BEEN DELETED BY THE LD. CIT(A), WITHO UT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE SAID ORDER OF LD. CI T(A), DELETING THE ADDITIONS, HAS NOT BEEN ACCEPTED BY TH E DEPARTMENT AND DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL AGAINST THE SAID ORDER IS PENDING BEFORE LD. ITAT, NEW DELHI. 2. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, MODIFY AND/ OR DELETE ANY GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 3. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE ORD ER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), MEERUT, MAY B E SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER RESTORED. 2. WE FIRST TAKE UP ITA NO. 1538/D/2014, BEING THE QUANTUM APPEAL: THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE AS UNDER: THE ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) WAS COMPLETED BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER VIDE ORDER DATED 29/12/2006 AT AN INCOME OF RS. 77,55,375/- AFTER REJECTING THE LONG TERM CAPITAL L OSS OF RS. 45,69,287/-. 2.1. DURING THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING S THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER HAD DISALLOWED THE LONG TERM CAPI TAL LOSS WHICH 3 ITA NOS. 1538 & 3936/DEL/2014 WAS INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE ON SALE AND PURCHASE O F SHARES. THE LD. CIT(A), MEERUT VIDE HIS ORDER DATED 07/01/09 CO NFIRMED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 2.2. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) THE A SSESSEE HAD FILED APPEAL BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL BEING ITA NO. 1540/D/20 08. THIS TRIBUNAL VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 30/12/09 DIRECTED THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER TO EXAMINE THE MATTER AFRESH VIDE PARA 16 O F THE ORDER, WHICH IS REPRODUCED BELOW: AFTER CONSIDERING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AS WELL AS ORDER OF CIT(A), WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT NO MATE RIAL HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE ASSESSEE TO JUSTI FY THAT THE PURCHASE PRICE GIVEN BY HIM FOR THE SHARES WAS A JUSTIFIED PRICE AND SIMILAR IS THE POSITION W ITH REGARD TO SALE PRICE. THERE IS NO MATERIAL ON RECO RD TO SHOW ALSO THAT THE SHARES PURCHASED AND SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE WERE NOT BELONGING TO THE FAMILY CONCERN. THERE IS LACK OF MATERIAL EITHER IN THE ORDER OF CI T(A) OR IN THE ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER. THOUGH THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS OBSERVED THAT THE VALUE OF SHARES AS ON THE DATE OF PURCHASE CANNOT BE TAKEN A T RS. 50/- AND RS. 250/- PER SHARE BUT HE HAS ALSO NO T GIVEN ANY FINDING THAT WHAT COULD BE AN APPROPRIATE RATE OF PURCHASE AND WHETHER THE SALE SHOWN RATE SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE WAS JUSTIFIED. ALL THESE ASPECTS HAVE NOT BEEN MADE CLEAR. THEREFORE, WE AR E OF THE OPINION THAT THIS MATTER IS REQUIRED TO BE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER FOR GIVIN G APPROPRIATE FINDINGS ON THE PURCHASE AND THE SALE O F SHARES ON WHICH SUCH LONG TERM CAPITAL LOSS HAS BEE N CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. AFTER GIVING A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER WILL RE-DECIDE THIS ISSUE IN ACCORDANCE WIT H LAW. WE, DIRECT ACCORDINGLY. 4 ITA NOS. 1538 & 3936/DEL/2014 2.3. FOLLOWING THE DIRECTIONS OF THIS TRIBUNAL, THE ASSESSEE WAS CALLED UPON VIDE LETTER DATED 01/11/2010 BY THE LD. AO. 2.4. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSEE FILED CERTAIN REPLY ON 10/11/2010. THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED NOTICE U/S 142(1) AS THE FACTS WERE INSUFFICIENT TO RECONSIDER THE ISSUE AS PER THE DIR ECTIONS OF THIS TRIBUNAL. THE LD. AR DID NOT APPEAR ON THE DATE FI XED. THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER, THEREFORE, RELYING UPON THE FIND INGS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, COMPLETE D THE ASSESSMENT ON THE TOTAL INCOME AT RS. 10,48,550/-. 3. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE FILED AN AFFIDAVIT STATING THAT, THE ASSES SEE HAD NOT RECEIVED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE NOTICE OF DEM AND, AND IT WAS ONLY AFTER THE RECEIPT OF THE ORDER PASSED U/S 271( 1)(C) OF THE ACT DATED 29/06/2011, THAT THE ASSESSEE GATHERED REGARD ING THE ASSESSMENT BEING COMPLETED. 3.1. IT WAS NOTED BY THE LD. CIT(A) THAT THE ASSESS EE HAD CLAIMED A LONG TERM CAPITAL LOSS OF RS. 45,69,287/- ON THE SA LE OF 58,000 SHARES OF M/S R.B. CREDIT PVT. LTD. HAVING FACE VAL UE OF RS. 10/- WHICH WERE ACQUIRED BY THE ASSESSEE IN MARCH, 2000 AND JANUARY, 2002 AT A PREMIUM OF RS. 40/- (5,000 SHARES) AND RS . 240/- (8,000 SHARES) RESPECTIVELY. AFTER INDEXING THE COST OF A CQUISITION, THE RESULTANT LONG TERM CAPITAL LOSS WAS WORKED OUT AT RS. 45,69,287/-. THE LD.CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD DETERMINED THE NET ASSET VALUE AT RS. 34.49 PER SHARES OF M/S R.B. CREDIT PVT. 5 ITA NOS. 1538 & 3936/DEL/2014 LTD., AS ON 31/03/2004 AND CONCLUDED THAT THE PURCH ASE PRICE SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE AMOUNTING TO RS. 50/- AND RS. 250/- PER SHARE CANNOT BE ACCEPTED. THE LD. CIT(A) FURTHER R ECORDED THAT WITHOUT MAKING ANY FURTHER COMMENT THE ASSESSING OF FICER REJECTED THE LOSS AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. HE ALSO OBSER VED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE PROCEEDINGS U/S 254 HA S MERELY REPEATED WHAT HAS BEEN STATED IN THE ORIGINAL ASSES SMENT ORDER AND HAS NOT BROUGHT ANY NEW FACTS ON RECORD. 3.2. THE LD. CIT(A) AFTER GOING INTO THE SUBMISSION S OF THE ASSESSEE HELD THAT THE ACTIONS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER COUL D NOT BE SUSTAINED AS THE PURCHASES AND THE SALES OF THE SHARES HAVE B EEN SETTLED THROUGH BANKING CHANNELS AND NOTHING HAS BEEN BROUG HT ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT SUCH SALES OR PURCHASES WERE IN THE NA TURE OF COLLUSIVE TRANSACTIONS. 4. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) THE ASS ESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 4.1. THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE SHARES WERE NOT QUOTED AT THE MARKET VALUE AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS RIGHT IN WORKING OUT THE SALE PRICE ON THE BASIS OF BOOK VALUE THEREBY MAKIN G A DISALLOWANCE WHILE WORKING OUT THE CAPITAL GAIN. 4.2. THE LD.DR RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER. 5. ON THE CONTRARY, THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE I SSUE UNDER CONSIDERATION IS SQUARELY COVERED VIDE ORDER DATED 27/02/2015 IN THE CASE OF ACIT, CIRCLE (1), MEERUT VS. SHRI ADITY A GUPTA IN ITA NO. 4938/D/2011 FOR A.Y. 2002-03 (COPY OF THE SAID ORDE R WAS FURNISHED WHICH IS PLACED ON RECORD). IT IS SUBMIT TED BY THE LD. AR 6 ITA NOS. 1538 & 3936/DEL/2014 THAT SHRI ASHISH GUPTA IS THE BROTHER OF ASSESSEE H EREIN, AND THE TRANSACTIONS IN SHARES WERE SIMILAR IN BOTH THESE C ASES AND THAT THIS TRIBUNAL HAS DISMISSED THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS. SHRI. ASHISH GUPTA IN ITA NO.225/D /2012 VIDE ORDER DATED 9.08.2012 AND ACIT VS. SH. ADITYA GUPTA IN ITA NO. 4938/D/2011 FOR ASST.YR.2002-03, VIDE ORDER DATED 0 2.2015 . 5.1. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE LONG TERM CAPITA L GAIN OR LOSS IS TO BE COMPUTED IN THE MANNER AS LAID DOWN IN SECTIO N 48 OF THE ACT AS IN THE SECTION THE EXPRESSION USED IS FULL VALU E OF CONSIDERATION RECEIVED OR ACCRUED, MEANING THEREBY THERE IS NO S COPE OF ANY FAIR MARKET VALUE OR ESTIMATION. 5.2. IT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED BEFORE US THAT THERE IS NO MATERIAL ON RECORD ON THE BASIS OF WHICH IT CAN BE SAID THAT TH E ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED OVER AND ABOVE THE AGREED CONSIDERATION. THE LD.AR SUBMITTED THAT, IT IS A WELL SETTLED POSITION IN LA W THAT, IN A CASE OF SALE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NO POWER TO REPLACE THE VALUE OF CONSIDERATION AGREED BETWEEN THE PARTIES. IN SUPPO RT OF THIS PROPOSITION RELIANCE HAS BEEN PLACED ON THE FOLLOWI NG DECISION: I. NILOFAR SINGH 309 ITR 233 (DEL.); II. GEORGE HANORSON 66 ITR 622 (SC); III. GILLANDERS ARBUTHONOT 87 ITR 407 (SC). 5.3. THE LD. AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER HAS ACCEPTED THE SALE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED BY THE ASS ESSEE AS GENUINE, AS IT IS EVIDENT FROM THE FACT THAT WHILE COMPUTING THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS AD OPTED THE NET 7 ITA NOS. 1538 & 3936/DEL/2014 FIGURE OF LOSS AS COMPUTED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS C OMPUTATION AND NO SEPARATE ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE. 6. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED A LONG TERM CAPITAL LOSS OF RS. 45,69,287/- THE ASSESSEE HAD CL AIMED A LONG TERM CAPITAL LOSS OF RS. 45,69,287/- ON THE SALE OF 58,000 SHARES OF M/S R.B. CREDIT PVT. LTD. HAVING FACE VALUE OF RS. 10/- WHICH WERE ACQUIRED BY THE ASSESSEE IN MARCH, 2000 AND JANUARY , 2002 AT A PREMIUM OF RS. 40/- (5,000 SHARES) AND RS. 240/- (8 ,000 SHARES) RESPECTIVELY. AFTER INDEXING THE COST OF ACQUISITI ON, THE RESULTANT LONG TERM CAPITAL LOSS WAS WORKED OUT AT RS. 45,69, 287/-. 6.1. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE SUBMISSION BY BOTH THE P ARTIES, WE FIND THAT, DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION THE ASSES SING OFFICER HAS ACCEPTED THE CLAIMED LOSS REGARDING THE SHARES, BUT HAS DOUBTED THE GENUINENESS OF THE CLAIM ON THE BASIS THAT, THE SHARES HAVE NOT BEEN VALUED AT MARKET PRICE. IT HAS BEEN CONTENDED THAT THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE OVERLOOKED THAT THE SHARES W ERE DULY TRANSFERRED IN THE NAME OF THE OTHER PARTY, AND THE CONSIDERATION WAS RECEIVED BY CHEQUE. 6.2. BESIDES THE FACTUAL CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE , THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN OR LOSS IS TO BE COMPUTED IN THE MANNE R, AS LAID DOWN IN SECTION 48 OF THE ACT, WHEREIN EXPRESSION USED I S FULL VALUE OF CONSIDERATION RECEIVED OR ACCRUED. THE MAIN THRUST BEHIND THIS CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT THERE IS NO SCO PE OF ANY FAIR MARKET VALUE OR ESTIMATION, AND IN THE CASE OF SALE OF SHARES THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NO POWER TO REPLACE THE VALUE OF THE SALE CONSIDERATION AGREED BETWEEN THE PARTIES. 8 ITA NOS. 1538 & 3936/DEL/2014 6.3. WE FIND SUBSTANCE IN THE ABOVE CONTENTION OF T HE ASSESSEE, IN RESPECT OF THIS SETTLED POSITION IN LAW. IN THIS R EGARD, WE FIND STRENGTH FROM THE ABOVE CITED DECISION OF HONBLE D ELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF NILOFAR SINGH (SUPRA) HOLDING THAT T HE EXPRESSION FULL VALUE OF CONSIDERATION USED IN SECTION 48 OF THE A CT DOES NOT HAVE ANY REFERENCE TO MARKET VALUE. SIMILAR VIEW HAS BE EN EXPRESSED IN OTHER DECISION, CITED HEREINABOVE, BY THE LD. AR. 6.4. SIMILAR WAS THE SITUATION IN THE CASE OF SHRI ASHISH GUPTA (SUPRA) AND ADITYA GUPTA (SUPRA), BROTHERS OF ASSES SEE. THIS TRIBUNAL IN PARA 7 OF THE ORDER HAD ADJUDICATED IDE NTICAL ISSUE IN ADITYA GUPTA(SUPRA), BY RELYING ON THE ORDER OF ASH ISH GUPTA (SUPRA) AS UNDER: 8. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH T HE PARTIES AND HAVE GONE THROUGH THE MATERIAL AVAILABL E ON RECORD. WE HAVE OBSERVED THAT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE HAD TRAVELED UPTO THE STAGE OF ITAT AND HONBLE ITAT VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 16.12.2010 HAD REMANDED BACK TO THE OFFICE OF LD. CIT(A) BEING A N ON- SPEAKING ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) AND AGAIN IN THE SECON D ROUND OF APPEAL THE CASE HAS REACHED BEFORE US. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE LD. CIT(AS ORDER AND ORDER OF THE HONBLE ITAT, WE HAV E NOTED THAT SALE AND PURCHASE OF SHARE WAS DONE THROUGH CHEQUES AND TRANSFER OF SHARES WAS PROPERLY SUPPORTED BY THE TRANSFER DEEDS AND COMPLETE FORMALITIES WERE DONE BY THE ISSUING COMPANY IN RESPECT OF ALLOTMENT OF SHARES AND TRANSFER OF SHAR ES. NOTHING ADVERSE WAS BROUGHT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICE R EXCEPT HIS BELIEF THAT ASSESSEE IS NOT EXPECTED TO SELL SHARES BELOW THE BOOK VALUE SECTION 48 CLEARLY STAT ES THAT FOR THE PURPOSE OF CALCULATION OF CAPITAL GAIN OF SHARES, IT IS ONLY THE SUM RECEIVED WHICH CAN BE 9 ITA NOS. 1538 & 3936/DEL/2014 CONSIDERED FOR CALCULATION OF CAPITAL GAIN. IN VIE W OF THE ABOVE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT TH E LD. CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY CONSIDERED THE LOSS DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE DO NOT SEE ANY REASON TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). 6.5. IN VIEW OF THE FINDINGS IN THE ABOVE CITED DE CISIONS THAT THE EXPRESSION FULL VALUE OF CONSIDERATION USED I N SECTION 48 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 DOES NOT HAVE ANY REFER ENCE TO MARKET VALUE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS HAVING NO POWER TO REPLACE THE VALUE OF THE CON SIDERATION AGREED BETWEEN THE PARTIES WITH ANY FAIR MARKET VAL UE OR ESTIMATION. ONLY BECAUSE THE PIONEER LTD. HAD SHOW N THE BOOK VALUE OF SHARES AT THE RATE OF RS. 40/- (50,00 0 SHARES) AND RS. 240/- (8,000 SHARES), THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT JUSTIFIED TO IGNORE THE PRICE AGREED BETWEEN THE PA RTIES AND TO DOUBT THE GENUINENESS OF THE CLAIMED LOSS, EVEN IGN ORING THE VALUATION REPORT. 6.6. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, ON MERITS AS WELL AS THE FINDINGS OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SHRI ADITYA GUPTA (SUPRA) BROTHER OF THE ASSESSEE, WE DO NOT SEE ANY MERIT IN THE APPEAL FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT. 6.7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 7. NOW WE TAKE UP THE APPEAL NO. 3936/D/2014, BEING THE PENALTY APPEAL. 7.1. THIS PENALTY APPEAL IS AGAINST THE ADDITION TH AT HAS BEEN DELETED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IN THE QUANTUM APPEAL. A S WE HAVE 10 ITA NOS. 1538 & 3936/DEL/2014 DECIDED THE QUANTUM APPEAL DISCUSSED HEREINABOVE, I N FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE, THE PENALTY APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE REVEN UE DOES NOT SURVIVE. 7.2. THE PENALTY APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS HER EBY DISMISSED. THE ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 11.12.2015 SD/- SD/- (N.K. SAINI) (BEENA PILLAI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 11.12.2015 *KAVITA, P.S. COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI 11 ITA NOS. 1538 & 3936/DEL/2014 DATE 1. DRAFT DICTATED ON 08.12.15 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 09.12.15 3. DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER 4. DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER. 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS 6. KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK 8. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE AR 9. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK. 10. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER.