Mrs. Natasha Chopra, New Delhi V. Pr. CIT- 6, New Delhi

ITA 4000/DEL/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6496 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-12-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Next Hearing Date: 01-12-2016
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 12-07-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: JAYANT DIDDI
• Keywords: Double taxation relief; Assessment record
• Section: 143(3); 142(1); 263; 90

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH E, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI L. P. SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA A. PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 4000/DEL/2016 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13) NATASHA CHOPRA, 192/40, GROUND FLOOR, CHITTRANJAN PARK, NEW DELHI. GIR / PAN : ADPPC2225D (APPELLANT) VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX WARD 6, (4), NEW DELHI. ..(RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : MR. SATISH AGGARWAL, CA RESPONDENT BY : MR. JAYANT DIDDI, CIT, DR. DATE OF HEARING : 01.12.016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 16.12.2016 ORDER PER BEENA A. PILLAI, JM: 1. THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST ORDER DATED 21.03.2016 PASSED BY PR.CIT-6, NEW DELHI, UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT, ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 2 I.T.A. NO. 4000/DEL/2015 (1) THE ORDER PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6, NEW DELHI IS ARBITRARY, BIASED AND BAD IN LAW AND IN FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. (2) THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-06 HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN ASSUMING JURISDICTION UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT WITHOUT ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BEING ERRONEOUS AND PRE-JUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE. (3) THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-06 HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY OF THE APPELLANT FROM PROPERTIES OWNED BY HER IN AUSTRALIA AND ENGLAND WAS TO BE INCLUDED IN HER INDIAN RETURN OF INCOME. (4) THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN ASSUMING JURISDICTION UNDER SECTIO N 263 IGNORING THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD ADOPTED A POSSIBLE VIEW IN THE MATTER IN VIEW OF WHICH PROVISIONS OF SECTION 263 COULD NOT BE INVOKED. (5) THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN DISREGARDING THE PROVISIONS OF DOUBLE TAXATION AVOIDANCE AGREEMENT (DTAA) BETWEEN INDIA AND AUSTRALIA AND INDIA AND UK TO DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO RE-EXAMINE THE ISSU E OF TAXABILITY OF INCOME FROM PROPERTIES HELD IN AUSTRALIA AND ENGLAND. (6) THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER OR DELETE THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL AT THE TIME OF HEARING. 3 I.T.A. NO. 4000/DEL/2015 2. ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL AND HAD FILED HER RETURN OF INCOME ON 31.08.2012 DECLARING A TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 2,55,38,539/-. THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY A ND NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED, WHICH WAS SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE. NOTICE UNDER SECTION 142(1) ALONG WITH DETAILED QUESTIONNAIRE WAS SENT T O THE ASSESSEE SUBSEQUENTLY. IN COMPLIANCE TO VARIOUS NOT ICES ISSUED REPRESENTATIVE OF ASSESSEE ATTENDED ASSESSME NT PROCEEDINGS FROM TIME TO TIME AND FILED REPLIES/DET AILS AS CALLED FOR DURING THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. 3. THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT ASSESSEE IS A DIRECTOR IN M/S N & N CHOPRA CONSULTANTS PVT. LTD., AND WAS DERIVING SALARY AND RENTAL INCOME FROM THIS COMPANY. IT HAS BEEN OBSERVED BY LD.AO THAT DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION ASSESSEE HAS ALSO EARN ED INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY AND INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES BEING BANK INTEREST. 4. AFTER CONSIDERING ALL THE DETAILS AS CALLED FOR, ASSESSING OFFICER COMPLETED ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT ON 31.03.2015. THE LD. PR. CIT ISSUED SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ON 16.12.2015 UNDE R SECTION 263 OF THE ACT, TO REVISE ASSESSEES INCOME UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY. THE NOTI CE ISSUED BY LD. PR.CIT IS REPRODUCED HEREIN BELOW: 4 I.T.A. NO. 4000/DEL/2015 THE INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT RECORDS IN YOUR CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 WERE CALLED FOR AND EXAMINE D. I HAVE NOTICED THAT IN YOUR CASE THE ASSESSING OFFI CER, CIRCLE-18(2), NEW DELHI WHILE COMPUTING INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY HAS NOT TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT THE LET O UT VALUE OF THE THREE PROPERTIES WHICH WERE OWNED BY Y OU AND SITUATED IN U.K. AND AUSTRALIA WHICH IS IN VIOL ATION TO PROVISIONS OF SECTION 5 READ WITH SECTION 22 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 AND THE PROVISIONS OF DOUBLE TAXATION AVOIDANCE AGREEMENT BETWEEN REPUBLIC OF INDIA AND T HE GOVERNMENT OF AUSTRALIA AS WELL AS THE REPUBLIC OF INDIA AND THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND. IN VIEW OF THIS, THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 143(3) OF THE A CT ON 31.03.2015 IS NOT ONLY ERRONEOUS IN LAW BUT ALSO PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE. I, THEREFORE, INTEND TO EXERCISE THE POWERS VESTED WITH ME UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 19 61 TO PASS AN APPROPRIATE ORDER. YOU ARE HEREBY REQUIRED TO SHOW CAUSE WHY AN ORDER UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 SHOULD NOT BE PASSED TO REVISE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCL E 18(2), NEW DELHI ON 31.03.2015 UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE I.T, ACT 1961, FOR THIS PURPOSE, YOU MAY ATTEND MY OFFICE AT THE ABOVE GIVEN ADDRESS ON 30.12.2015 AT 10.30 AM FOR PERSONAL HEARING. 5. IT WAS SUBMITTED BEFORE LD. PR. CIT THAT ALL THE RELEVANT DETAILS REGARDING THE INCOME EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM HOUSE PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN UK AND 5 I.T.A. NO. 4000/DEL/2015 AUSTRALIA HAVE BEEN DECLARED IN THE INCOME TAX RETU RNS FILED BY HER IN THE RESPECTIVE STATES. ON A SPECIFI C QUERY BEING RAISED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, ASSESSEE FIL ED REPLIES DATED 15.01.2016 AND 03.02.2016 WHEREIN IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT ALL THE DETAILS RELATING TO THE INCOME RECEIVED BY ASSESSEE FROM IMMOVABLE PROPERTIES LOCA TED IN UK AND AUSTRALIA ALONG WITH THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED IN THE RESPECTIVE STATES WERE SUBMITTED BEFOR E THE LD. AO. 6. LD. PR. CIT REJECTED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY ASSESSEE AND HELD AS UNDER: 15. FOR AFORE STATED REASONS, IT IS CONCLUDED THA T INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY OF THE ASSESSEE FROM HER PROPERTIES LOCATED IN AUSTRALIA AS WELL AS UNITED K INGDOM WAS TAXABLE UNDER SECTION 5(1)(C) R.W.S. 22 AND 23 OF THE ACT DURING YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND INDIA HAD R IGHT TO TAX THE INCOME AS PROVIDED UNDER SECTION 90(3) A ND NOTIFICATION NO. 91/2008 ISSUED U/S 90(3} READ WITH EXPLANATION 3 TO SECTION 90 OF THE ACT. SINCE, INCO ME FROM THE HOUSE PROPERTY IS NOT TAXED UNDER INCOME TAX AC T OF THE RESPECTIVE COUNTRIES AND THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT P AID ANY TAXES, THE PROVISIONS OF THE DTAA ARE NOT APPLI CABLE TO TAXATION OF THE INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY OF TH E ASSESSEE AND THE RIGHT TO TAX THE INCOME FROM THE H OUSE PROPERTIES OF THE ASSESSEE LOCATED IN AUSTRALIA AND 6 I.T.A. NO. 4000/DEL/2015 UNITED KINGDOM IS WITH INDIA AS PROVIDED IN NOTIFIC ATION NO. 91/2008 DATED 28.08.2008 ISSUED U/S 90(3) READ WITH EXPLANATION 3 TO SECTION 90 OF THE ACT THE ASS ESSEE HAS OBJECTED TO THE REVISION U/S 263 OF THE ACT, OF ORDER PASSED BY THE AO U/S 143(3) DATED 31.03.2015. IN SUPPORT OF ITS CLAIM, THE ASSESSEE HAS RELIED UPON VARIOUS JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS OF DIFFERENT COURTS WHICH H AVE BEEN CONSIDERED. IN VIEW OF THE DISCUSSION IN PRECE DING PARAGRAPHS OF THIS ORDER IT IS CLEARLY ESTABLISHED THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE AO U/S 143(3) DATED 31.03.2015 IS NOT ONLY ERRONEOUS IN LAW AND BUT ALSO PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE AND FALLS UNDER THE PURVIEW OF THE SECTION 263 OF THE IT ACT, 1961. 7. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER PASSED BY LD. PR.CIT, ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US NOW. 8. THE LD.AR SUBMITTED THAT LD. PR. CIT HAS ERRED IN OBSERVING THAT ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALLOWED THE CL AIM OF ASSESSEE WITHOUT VERIFYING WHETHER INCOME FROM HOUS E PROPERTY FROM AFORESAID PROPERTIES WAS ACTUALLY TAX ED IN THE CONTRACTING STATES AND WITHOUT EXAMINING THE RELEVANT LEGAL PROVISIONS THAT GAVE THE OPTION TO T HE ASSESSEE TO CHOOSE THE COUNTRY OF TAXATION. HE FURT HER SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSING OFFICER WAS FURNISHED WITH THE COPIES OF THE INCOME TAX RETURNS FILED BY THE ASSES SEE IN THESE CONTRACTING STATES (PLACED AT PAGE 3 TO 38 OF PAPER 7 I.T.A. NO. 4000/DEL/2015 BOOK), AND HAD SUBMITTED EXPLANATION FOR NOT INCLUD ING SUCH INCOME OF PROPERTIES HELD OUTSIDE INDIA IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY ASSESSEE FOR THE YEAR UND ER CONSIDERATION IN INDIA. HE SUBMITTED THAT VIDE LETT ER DATED 27/03/2015, ALL THESE DETAILS WERE PROVIDED T O LD.AO, WHICH IS PLACED AT PAGE 39 TO 41 OF THE PAPE R BOOK. 9. LD. AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT ARTICLE 6 OF DTAA BETWEEN INDIA AND UK AND INDIA AND AUSTRALIA PERMIT S THE COUNTRY WHERE PROPERTY IS SITUATED, TO TAX THE INCOME FROM SUCH PROPERTY. THE PHRASE MAY BE TAXED , ITSELF SUGGESTS THAT ASSESSEE HAS AN OPTION TO INCL UDE SUCH INCOME RECEIVED FROM PROPERTIES LOCATED IN THE OTHER CONTRACTING STATE, IN THE TAX RETURNS FILED T HEREIN. LD.AR SUBMITS THAT LANGUAGE OF TREATY IN CLAUSE (1) OF ARTICLE 6, USES PHRASE MAY BE TAXED , WHICH ALSO MEANS THAT ONCE THE INCOME IS TAXED IN A PARTICULAR STATE, THERE IS AN AUTOMATIC EXCLUSION FOR TAXING T HE SAME INCOME IN THE OTHER CONTRACTING STATE. HE REFE RRED TO AND RELIED UPON VARIOUS DECISIONS OF HONBLE SUP REME COURT AND HIGH COURTS, WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN LAID DOW N THAT WHILE REFERRING TO AN OBVIOUS POSITION, SUCH ENABLING LANGUAGE HAS TO BE LIBERALLY USED AND THE SAME CANNOT BE TAKEN ADVANTAGE OF BY THE REVENUE TO CLAI M 8 I.T.A. NO. 4000/DEL/2015 FOR IT A RIGHT TO BRING TO ASSESSMENT SUCH INCOME COVERED UNDER SUCH CLAUSES IN THE AGREEMENT. 10. LD. AR PLACED IS RELIANCE UPON THE DECISION OF HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF NTPC LTD. V S. CIT REPORTED IN (2014) 106 DTR 0073, WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT: 22. THE EXPRESSION ERROR OF LAW RESULTING IN PRE JUDICE TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE ARE NOT TO BE GIVEN WIDE CONNOTATION, AS IS SOUGHT TO BE URGED BY THE REVENU E HERE. WHERE TWO VIEWS ARE POSSIBLE, THE COMMISSIONE R SHOULD NOT EXERCISE HIS POWER UNDER SECTION 263; LEISURE WEAR (SUPRA) APTLY SUMMARIZES THIS POWER AS NOT ENABLING A REVISIONAL INTERDICT ON THE MERE EXISTEN CE OF ANOTHER VIEW WHICH CONFLICTS WITH WHAT WAS ADOPTED BY THE INCOME TAX OFFICER; SO LONG AS THE LATTERS OPI NION IS A PLAUSIBLE ONE, EXERCISE OF POWER WOULD BE UNWARRANT ED. THE FULFILLMENT OF BOTH PRECONDITIONS, I.E. ERROR O F LAW, AND PREJUDICE TO REVENUE IS ESSENTIAL, ELSE THE REVENUE WOULD HAVE WIDE RANGING POWERS TO OVERSEE AND RE-OPEN ALM OST EVERY ASSESSMENT ORDER. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE CO URT IS SATISFIED THAT THE AOS ORDER WAS MADE AFTER APPROP RIATE INQUIRY; THE ABSENCE OF DISCUSSION REGARDING DOWNWA RD REVISION OF SALES FIGURES IN THIS CASE DID NOT MAKE IT ANY LESS VULNERABLE TO CORRECTION UNDER SECTION 263. TH E VIEW TAKEN BY HIM IS ONE WHICH IS ENDORSED BY LAW, AS TH E CERC REGULATIONS LEFT THE NTPC WITH LITTLE CHOICE T O MAKE SUCH REVISION AWAITING A FINAL DETERMINATION IN REG ARD TO THE WHOLE PERIOD AFTER THE EXPIRY OF THE ASSESSMENT IN THAT INSTANCE. 11. LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF MALABAR INDUSTRIAL CO. LTD., REPORTED I N 243 9 I.T.A. NO. 4000/DEL/2015 ITR 83, HAS HELD THAT ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION UN DER SECTION 263 IS VALID ONLY WHERE THE ORDER OF ASSESS ING OFFICER IS ERRONEOUS AS WELL AS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUES. HE ALSO REFERRED TO AND RELIED UPON T HE DECISION OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE O F CIT VS. GABRIEL INDIA LTD., REPORTED IN 203 ITR 108 , WHEREIN HONBLE COURT HELD THAT, CIT CANNOT REVISE ORDER MERELY BECAUSE HE DISAGREES WITH THE CONCLUSI ON ARRIVED AT BY AO. 12. ON THE CONTRARY, LD. DR CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSEE BEING A RESIDENT IN INDIA, HIS INCOME FROM WHATEVER SOURCE IS LIABLE TO BE TAXED INDIA. HE SUBMITTED THAT AS PER SUBSECTION (3) AND SECTION 90 , ANY TERM THAT HAS BEEN USED BUT NOT DEFINED IN THIS ACT OR IN THE AGREEMENT REFERRED TO IN SUBSECTION (1) S HALL UNLESS THE CONTEXT OTHERWISE REQUIRES, AND IS NOT INCONSISTENT WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT OR AGREEMENT, HAVE THE SAME MEANING AS ASSIGNED TO IT IN THE NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY CENTRAL GOVERNMENT IN TH E OFFICIAL GAZETTE ON THIS BEHALF. LD. DR RELIED UPON NOTIFICATION NO. 91/2008 DATED 28/08/2008. HE SUBMITTED THAT CBDT WHY THIS NOTIFICATION HAD DEFIN ED THE TERM MAY BE TAXED TO MEAN THAT ANY INCOME ARISING FROM ANOTHER CONTRACTING STATE WOULD BE TAX ABLE IN INDIA. 10 I.T.A. NO. 4000/DEL/2015 LD. DR RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF LD. PR. CIT. 13. WE HAVE PERUSED THE ARGUMENTS AND SUBMISSIONS ADVANCED BY BOTH THE PARTIES IN THE LIGHT OF THE RE CORDS PLACED BEFORE US. THERE IS NO DISPUTE WITH REFEREN CE TO THE FACT THAT ASSESSEE IS RECEIVING INCOME FROM REN TALS FROM PROPERTIES SITUATED AT AUSTRALIA AND UK. IT IS FURTHER NOT BEEN DISPUTED BY THE AUTHORITIES THAT S UCH INCOME FROM RENTALS HAVE BEEN OFFERED TO TAX IN THE COUNTRY WHERE IT IS SITUATED. IT WAS ACCORDINGLY AS SESSED BY A.O. LD.ITO IN THIS CASE HAD MADE ENQUIRIES REGARDING TO THE NATURE OF INCOME EARNED BY ASSESSE E FROM IMMOVABLE PROPERTY LOCATED IN UK AND AUSTRALIA . ASSESSEE HAD GIVEN EXPLANATION, IN WRITING ALONG WI TH THE PROOF OF TAXES BEING PAID ON SUCH RENTAL INCOME IN THE OTHER CONTRACTING STATE. ALL THESE ARE PART OF CASE RECORDS. EVIDENTLY, THE CLAIM WAS ALLOWED BY LD.AO, ON BEING SATISFIED WITH THE EXPLANATION OF ASSESSEE. S UCH DECISION OF LD.AO CANNOT BE HELD TO BE ' ERRONEOUS '. MOREOVER, IN THE INSTANT CASE LD.PR.CIT HIMSELF, EV EN AFTER INITIATING PROCEEDINGS FOR REVISION AND HEARI NG ASSESSEE, COULD NOT SAY THAT ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO PAY ANY TAXES IN THE OTHER CONTRACTING STATE. FURTHER T HERE IS NO APPREHENSION REGARDING THE DISCLOSURE MADE. FURTHER ARTICLE 6 OF INDIA UK AND INDIA AUSTRALI A DTAA READS AS UNDER; 11 I.T.A. NO. 4000/DEL/2015 INCOME FROM IMMOVABLE PROPERTY MAY BE TAXED IN THE CONTRACTING STATE IN WHICH SUCH PROPERTY IS SITUATE D. RESULT OF CLAUSE 1 OF ART. 6 OF DOUBLE TAXATION AVOIDANCE AGREEMENT BETWEEN INDIA UK AND INDIA AUSTRALIA AGREEMENT IS THAT THE INCOME FROM IMMOVAB LE PROPERTY IN THESE CONTRACTING STATES, MAY BE TAXED IN THE CONTRACTING STATE IN WHICH IT IS SITUATED. THE AGREEMENT THUS OPERATES AS A BAR ON THE POWER OF TH E INDIAN GOVERNMENT IN THE INSTANT CASE. THE POWER OF SUO MOTU REVISION UNDER SUB-S. (1) OF S. 263 IS IN THE NATURE OF SUPERVISORY JURISDICTION AN D THE SAME CAN BE EXERCISED ONLY IF THE CIRCUMSTANCES SPECIFIED THEREIN EXIST. TWO CIRCUMSTANCES MUST EXI ST TO ENABLE THE COMMISSIONER TO EXERCISE POWER OF REVISI ON UNDER THIS SUB-SECTION, VIZ., (I) THE ORDER IS ERRO NEOUS; (II) BY VIRTUE OF THE ORDER BEING ERRONEOUS PREJUDI CE HAS BEEN CAUSED TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. IT HAS, THEREFORE, TO BE CONSIDERED FIRSTLY AS TO WHEN AN O RDER CAN BE SAID TO BE ERRONEOUS. AN ORDER CANNOT BE TER MED AS ERRONEOUS UNLESS IT IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LA W. 14. EVEN ON MERITS, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE ORDER OF A.O. IS NEITHER ERRONEOUS NOR PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF REVENUE SO AS TO REVISE THE SAME UNDER SECTION 263. ASSESSEE HAS OFFERED TO TAX THE RENTAL 12 I.T.A. NO. 4000/DEL/2015 INCOMES FROM THE PROPERTYS SITUATED OUTSIDE INDIA IN THE OTHER CONTRACTING STATE. AS PER THE DTAA AGREEM ENT WITH BOTH THESE COUNTRIES, INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPER TY MAY BE TAXED IN THE COUNTRY WHERE THE PROPERTIES AR E SITUATED. ACCORDINGLY, WE ARE INCLINED TO SET ASIDE AND QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY LD. PR. CIT. 15. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 16 TH DECEMBER, 2016. (L. P.SAHU) (BEENA A. PILLAI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATE: 16.12.2016 @M!T COPY FORWARDED TO:- 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT (A)-, NEW DELHI. 5. THE DR, ITAT, LOKNAYAK BHAWAN, KHAN MARKET, NEW DELHI. TRUE COPY. BY ORDER (ITAT, NEW DELHI)