DCIT Central Cir-4, V. Rajni Constrction,

ITA 4143/DEL/2003

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 65420 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 year(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-08-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Next Hearing Date: 08-08-2012
• Assessment Year: 1997-1998
• Appeal Filed On: 28-08-2003
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAJIV RANKA SENIOR
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH E : NEW DELHI) SHRI U.B.S. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND BEFORE SHRI B.C. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.4143/DEL./2003 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 1999-00) DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4, VS. M/S. RAJNI CONSTRUCTI ON, NEW DELHI. VIPPS CENTRE, 2, LSC, MASJID MOTH, GREATER KAILASH II, NEW DELHI 110 048. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI AMITOSH MOITRA, CA REVENUE BY : SHRI RAJIV RANKA, SENIOR DR ORDER PER B.C. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE EMANATES FROM THE ORDER OF THE CIT (APPEALS)-III, NEW DELHI DATED 16.06.2003 FOR THE A SSESSMENT YEAR 1999-00. 2. THE ASSESSEE IS A FIRM ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS O F CONSTRUCTION. THE RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED ON 31.12.1999 DECLARING INCOME OF RS.8,77,410/-. ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) WAS COMPLETED ON 20.03.2002. AN ADDITION OF RS.17 LACS WAS MADE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE THE ADDITION BY HOLDING AS UNDER :- A PERUSAL OF DETAILS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE SHOWED THAT THIS PAYMENT WAS MADE FOR PROPERTY NO.E-15, PANCHSHEEL PARK, NEW DEL HI AS PER COL1ABORATION AGREEMENT. HOWEVER IT WAS SEEN THAT D URING THE YEAR NO RECEIPT PERTAINING TO THIS PREMISE HAD BEEN RECEIVE D BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. THE CONTRACT ACCOUNT WITH RESPECT TO THIS PROPERTY WAS CLOSED IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998-99 AND THE PROFIT WAS ACCOUNTE D FOR BY THE ASSESSEE IN AY 1998-99. THIS CONTRACT ACCOUNT DID NOT SHOW T HIS PAYMENT NOR ANY ITA NO.4143/DEL./2003 2 PROVISION FOR SAME WAS MADE. SINCE THE ASSESSEE WAS MAINTAINING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS ON MERCANTILE SYSTEM THE LIABILIT Y IF ANY SHOULD HAVE BEEN ACCOUNTED FOR IN AY 1998-99 ITSELF. AS IT WAS NOT DONE THE SAME CAN NOT BE CLAIMED DURING CURRENT YEAR. I AM ACCORDINGL Y DISALLOWING THIS EXPENDITURE OF RS.3 LACS AND ADDING IT TO ASSESSEE' S INCOME. ANOTHER PAYMENT OF RS.14 LACS ACCORDING TO ASSESSEE WAS MADE FOR PROPERTY NO.C-84, ANAND NIKETAN. A PERUSAL OF ASSES SEE'S BOOKS SHOWED THAT THE PAYMENT WAS NOT MADE DURING THE YEAR BUT W AS MADE IN THE FOLLOWING MANNER: 30-1-96 11 LAC CHEQUE NO.346546, CBI, GREATER KAIL ASH-I 6-7-96 3 LAC CHEQUE NO.344041, CBI, GREATER KAILASH-I NO INCOME PERTAINING TO CONTRACT FOR C-84, ANAND NI KETAN WAS SHOWN DURING THE YEAR. INFACT THE CONTRACT ACCOUNT WAS CL OSED IN AY 1998-99 AND THE PROFIT WAS ACCOUNTED FOR BY THE ASSESSEE WITH R EGARD TO THIS PROPERTY. SINCE THE PAYMENTS DO NOT PERTAIN TO THIS YEAR THE SAME ARE NOT ALLOWABLE. THE ASSESSEE IN HIS SUBMISSION HAS STATED THAT, TH E ASSESSEE SHOULD NOT BE PENALISED FOR AN ACCOUNTING OVER SIGHT ON PART OF A SSESSEE'. HOWEVER CONSIDERING THAT THE ASSESSEE IS MAINTAINING HIS BO OKS OF ACCOUNTS ON MERCANTILE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING AND THE PROJECT HAS BEEN COMPLETED IN THE EARLIER YEAR AND CONTRACT ACCOUNT WAS CLOSED THIS P AYMENT IS NOT ALLOWABLE. MOREOVER THE PAYMENT HAS NOT BEEN MADE DURING THE Y EAR AND ACCORDINGLY CAN NOT BE DEBITED IN THE P & L A/E FOR THE YEAR UN DER CONSIDERATION. ACCORDINGLY I AM DISALLOWING THIS EXPENDITURE OF RS .14 LACS AND ADDING IT BACK TO ASSESSEE INCOME. THE TOTAL DISALLOWANCE OUT OF OTHER EXPENSES COMES TO RS.17 LACS. AGAINST THIS ORDER OF THE AO, ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT (A). WHILE DECIDING THE APPEAL, THE LD. CIT (A) HAS DELETED TH E ADDITION BY HOLDING AS UNDER:- 6. THE A.O. VIDE LETTER DATED 26.11.2002 ISSUED BY MY PREDECESSOR WAS REQUIRED TO CHECK FROM THE DETAILS OF AGREEMENT S FILED DURING EARLIER YEARS ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AS TO WHETHER THE CLA USE RELATING TO NON- REFUNDABLE SECURITY IS A STANDARD CLAUSE AVAILABLE IN ALL SUCH AGREEMENTS. SHE WAS FURTHER REQUIRED TO FIND OUT AS TO WHETHER THIS IS A USUAL PRACTICE BEING FOLLOWING IN THE TRADE. ORAL AND WRITTEN SUB MISSIONS FILED BY THE APPELLANT WERE ALSO FORWARDED FOR AO'S COMMENTS AND OBSERVATIONS. REMAND REPORT RECEIVED VIDE LETTER DATED 23.12.2002 FROM THE A.O. READS AS UNDER :- AS PER AGREEMENT FILED IN THE EARLIER YEARS ASSES SMENT PROCEEDINGS, NON REFUNDABLE SECURITY IS A STANDARD CLAUSE IN THE AGREEMENT. THIS IS A USUAL PRACTICE OF THE ASSESSE E IN ITS TRADE AND ITA NO.4143/DEL./2003 3 NON-REFUNDABLE SECURITY IS ALLOWED IN THE YEAR N WH ICH THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE BUILDING IS COMPLETED. 7. THE REPLY OF THE APPELLANT AS WELL AS THE REMAND REPORT SO RECEIVED BY THE A.O. HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED IN VIEW O F OBSERVATIONS MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR MAKING SUCH ADDITION. AS IS EVIDENT FORM THE REMAND REPORT ITSELF, THAT NON-REFUNDABLE DEPOSITS IS ALLOWABLE EXPENDITURE, THERE APPEARS NO DOUBT IN THE MIND OF THE PRESENT A.O. AS REGARDS THE YEAR OF ADDITION, PERUSAL OF DETAILED E XPLANATIONS AND PLAIN READING OF CLAUSES OF AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO BY THE APPELLANT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDING, IT BECOMES APPARENT THAT THE CLAIM SO MADE IS ALLOWABLE IN THE PRESENT ASSESSMENT YEAR. THE CONT RACT IN QUESTION HAS BEEN COMPLETED IN TOTALITY DURING THE PRESENT YEAR AND, THEREFORE, THE SAME IS PAYABLE/ADJUSTABLE AND ACCORDINGLY PAID/ADJ USTED DURING THE PRESENT ASSESSMENT YEAR. ADDITION MADE TO THE EXTE NT I.E. RS.17,00,000/- IS, THEREFORE, DELETED AND RELIEF ALLOWED ACCORDING LY. 3. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE AS UNDER. THE ASSES SEE IS A FIRM. THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT ARE MAINTAINED ON THE BASIS OF MERCANTILE S YSTEM. ASSESSEE HAS DEBITED IN P&L ACCOUNT OF THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION A SUM O F RS.17 LACS UNDER THE HEAD OTHER EXPENSES. THE DETAILS OF THIS AMOUNT SHOW THAT RS.3 LACS WAS PERTAINING TO THE PROJECT AT E-15, PANCHSHEEL PARK, NEW DELHI AND RS.14 LACS WAS PERTAINING TO PROJECT AT C-84, ANAND NIKETAN, NEW DELHI. THE AMO UNT OF RS.3 LACS WAS PAID AS PER THE COLLABORATION AGREEMENT CLAUSE ON THE REGIS TRATION OF FIRST FLOOR. THE ASSESSEE IS FOLLOWING THE PROJECT COMPLETION METHOD . THE PROJECT AT E-15, PANCHSHEEL PARK WAS COMPLETED IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998-99. THE PROFITS OF THIS PROJECT WERE DECLARED AND ASSESSED AS INCOME IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998-99. THE PROFITS ARE OFFERED T O TAXATION ON THE COMPLETION OF THE PROJECT WORK. AS PER THE CLAUSE 5.2 OF PROPERT Y DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT IN RESPECT OF E-15, PANCHSHEEL PARK, NEW DELHI, THE AS SESSEE WAS TO PAY RS.35 LACS AS NON-REFUNDABLE SECURITY DEPOSIT TO THE OWNER OF THE PLOT AS DESCRIBE THEREIN. RS.5 LACS IS TO BE PAID IN EQUAL SHARES AT THE TIME OF E XECUTION OF SALE DEED IN RESPECT OF ITA NO.4143/DEL./2003 4 FIRST AND SECOND FLOORS IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE O R ITS NOMINEES. THE REGISTRATION OF FIRST FLOOR TOOK PLACE IN 30 TH APRIL, 1998. THE ASSESSEE HAS DEBITED RS.3 LACS A S EXPENDITURE DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR RELEVANT TO A SSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION BY TAKING HELP OF CLAUSE 5.2 OF PROPE RTY DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. ASSESSEE HAD ALSO CLAIMED EXPENDITURE OF RS.14 LACS IN RESPECT OF PROJECT AT C-84, ANAND NIKETAN, NEW DELHI. THE PAYMENT OF RS.14 LAC S WAS MADE ON TWO DATES, I.E. RS.11 LACS ON 31.03.1996 AND RS.3 LACS ON 06.07.199 6. THESE DATES DO NOT FALL IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDE R CONSIDERATION. THIS AMOUNT WAS CLAIMED TO BE PAID AS PER PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT IN RESPECT OF PROPERTY NO.C-84, ANAND NIKETAN, NEW DELHI. NO INC OME PERTAINING TO PROJECT AT C-84, ANAND NIKETAN HAS BEEN DECLARED IN THE ASSESS MENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THIS PROJECT WAS COMPLETED DURING T HE FINANCIAL YEAR RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998-99. THE PROFITS OF PROJECT WE RE ACCOUNTED FOR IN AY 1998- 99. THUS NEITHER THE PAYMENT MADE DURING THE FINAN CIAL YEAR RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION NOR THE INCOME OF THIS PROJECT WAS DECLARED IN THIS ASSESSMENT YEAR. AT EARLY STAGE, THE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO MADE A PLEA THAT ASSESSEE SHOULD NOT BE PENALIZED FOR AN ACCOUNTING OVERSIGHT ON ITS PART. WHILE PLEADING ON BEHALF OF ASSESSEE ON THE ISSUE OF THIS DEBIT OF RS.14 LACS, THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE AMOUNT WAS PAID AS PER CLAUSE 27 OF THE AGREEMENT OF BUILDING CONSTRUCTION WHERE THE ASSESSEE WAS TO PROVIDE ONE YEAR WARRANTY SUBSEQUENT TO THE EMPLOYER REGAINING PHYSICAL POSSESSION OF ENTIRE GR OUND FLOOR, FIRST FLOOR, BASEMENT AND FRONT AND REAR GARDEN. IN THE EVENTUALITY OF B UILDING LEAKAGES AGAINST WATER, SEWAGE AND DRAINAGE, ELECTRICAL DEFICIENCIES AND OT HER MATTERS NOT COVERED BUT ITA NO.4143/DEL./2003 5 CONNECTED WITH THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW BUILDING. THE CONTRACTOR WILL BEAR ALL EXPENSES TO REMEDY THESE DEFECTS. LD. AR ALSO RELI ED ON VARIOUS DECISIONS FOR THE PROPOSITION THAT THE DEDUCTION FOR AN EXPENSE ONLY ON THE CRYSTALLIZATION OF THE LIABILITY. THE CASE LAWS RELIED UPON ARE AS UNDER :- (I) CIT VS. SWADESHI COTTON & FLOUR MILLS PVT. LTD. 5 3 ITR 134 (SC); (II) SAURASHTA CEMENT & CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES LTD. VS . CIT 213 ITR 523 (GUJ.); (III) CIT VS. ASHOK IRON & STEEL ROLLING MILL 199 ITR 8 15 (ALL.); (IV) CIT VS. NATHMAL TOLARAM 88 ITR 231 (GUJ.); (V) CIT VS. GUJARAT MINERAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION 1 32 ITR 377 (GUJ.). 4. LD. DR RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFI CER AND ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS FOLLOWING THE MERCANTILE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING. ASSESSEE IS DECLARING INCOME ON PROJECTION COMPLETION METHOD. THE PROJECT INVOLVED IN DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN SHRI C.L. MEHTA AND A SSESSEE IN RESPECT OF E-15, PANCHSHEEL PARK COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY, PANCHS HEEL PARK, NEW DELHI - 110017 WAS COMPLETED DURING THE PERIOD RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998-99. THE INCOME OF THIS PROJECT WAS OFFERED FOR TAXATION IN THAT YEAR. SINCE THE ASSESSEE IS FOLLOWING MERCANTILE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING AND AL SO PROJECT COMPLETION METHOD, THE EXPENDITURE RELEVANT TO THIS PROJECT MUST HAVE BEEN CLAIMED IN THAT YEAR ONLY. SINCE THE PROJECT WAS COMPLETED PRIOR TO THE ASSESS MENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THERE CANNOT BE ANY EXPENSE PENDING FOR THIS YEAR. SUCH EXPENSES CANNOT BE ALLOWED IN THIS YEAR. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEES CL AIM OF RS.3 LACS DEBITED ON THE BASIS OF CLAUSE IN AGREEMENT IS UNJUSTIFIABLE. THE SALE DEED ON 30.04.1998 IN FAVOUR OF SHRI VIJAY KATHURIA, S/O LATE SHRI D.D.M. KATHUR IA SHALL NOT JUSTIFY THE CLAIM AS EXPENSE WAS ALREADY QUANTIFIED AND ACCRUED. IN RES PECT OF RS.14 LACS DEBITED RELATED TO PROJECT AT C-84, ANAND NIKETAN, NEW DELH I, LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THIS ITA NO.4143/DEL./2003 6 AMOUNT WAS PAID IN THE YEAR 1996, I.E. RS.11 LACS O N 30.01.1996 AND RS.3 LACS ON 06.07.1996. THE ASSESSEE IS FOLLOWING MERCANTILE S YSTEM OF ACCOUNTING AND PROJECT COMPLETION METHOD. THE PROJECT AT C-83, ANAND NIKE TAN, NEW DELHI WAS COMPLETED DURING THE PERIOD RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998-99, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEES CLAIM WAS COMPLETELY UNJUSTIFIED. INITI ALLY, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE SHOULD NOT BE PENALIZED FOR ACCOUNTING OVE RSIGHT ON PART OF THE ASSESSEE BUT LATER ON, THE LD. AR PLEADS THAT THERE WAS ONE YEAR WARRANTY TO THE EMPLOYER AFTER REGAINING PHYSICAL POSSESSION OF THE PORTION WHICH WAS GIVEN TO THE LAND OWNER AND AMOUNT WAS FOR THE SAME. THERE IS NO SUC H CLAUSE IN AGREEMENT ABOUT THE WARRANTY. 5. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES ON THE ISSUE. THE UNDISPUTED FACTS ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS FOLLOWING THE MERCANTILE SYSTEM OF ACCO UNTING AND ALSO PROJECT COMPLETION METHOD FOR DECLARING THE INCOME FOR A PA RTICULAR PROJECT. THE INCOME FROM BOTH PROJECTS ONE AT E-15, PANCHSHEEL PARK, NE W DELHI AND OTHER AT C-84, ANAND NIKETAN, WERE OFFERED TO TAXATION IN ASSESSME NT YEAR 1998-99. THE ASSESSEE HAD ENTERED INTO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS WI TH OWNERS OF THESE PLOTS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDING. AS PER THE AGREEMENT, AS SESSEE HAD TO PAY NON-REFUNDABLE SECURITY TO THE OWNER. PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT AGREEM ENT OF E-15, PANCHSHEEL PARK, NEW DELHI, PROVIDE FOR PAYMENT OF RS.35 LACS TO THE LAND OWNER AS NON-REFUNDABLE SECURITY. RS.5 LACS WERE TO BE PAID AT THE TIME OF REGISTRATION OF 1 ST & 2 ND FLOOR IN EQUAL AMOUNT. THE AMOUNT OF NON-REFUNDABLE SECURIT Y WAS QUANTIFIED IN THE AGREEMENT ITSELF WHICH ASSESSEE HAD TO PAY AT THE T IME OF REGISTRATION OF FLATS EITHER IN ASSESSEES NAME OR ITS NOMINEES NAME. THE ASSE SSEE HAD OFFERED THE INCOME ITA NO.4143/DEL./2003 7 RELATED TO THIS PROJECT IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998 -99 ON THE COMPLETION OF PROJECT. THUS, THE CORRESPONDING INCOME ACCRUED EARLIER TO T HE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. CLAIMING THE EXPENSE IN THE SUBSEQU ENT YEARS IS NOT PERMITTED IN MERCANTILE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING WHICH IS BEING FOLL OWED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE LIABILITY WAS QUANTIFIED AND CRYSTALLIZED AS PER AG REEMENT. THE PROJECT WAS COMPLETED DURING THE PERIOD RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998-99 AND INCOME OFFERED TO TAXES ON COMPLETION OF PROJECT IN ASSESS MENT YEAR 1998-99. THEREFORE, IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, ASSESSEE CANNOT CLAIM THIS EXPENSE IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. SUCH CLAIM IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN LA W. THEREFORE, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CIT (A) ON THIS ISSUE. ASSESSEE HAD ALSO DEBITED RS.14 LACS IN P&L ACCOUNT IN RESPECT OF C-84, ANAND NIKETAN. THE PROJECT AT C-84, ANAND NIKETAN WAS COMPLETED DURING FINANCIAL YEAR RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998-99. THE INCOME OF THIS PROJECT WAS ALSO OFFERED TO TAX IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998-99 ON COMPLETION OF PROJECT. THE CONTRACT ACCOUNT WAS CLOSED. THE NON-REFUNDABLE SE CURITY WAS PAID EVEN PRIOR TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR WHEN THE PROJECT WAS COMPLETE A ND INCOME WAS OFFERED FOR TAXATION. ASSESSEE CLAIMS THAT THE AMOUNT WAS TOWA RDS FULFILLMENT OF OBLIGATION AS PROVIDED IN CLAUSE 27 OF PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT AGREE MENT. BUT THERE IS NO EVIDENCE ON THE RECORD WHICH COULD SHOW THAT THIS A MOUNT WAS TOWARDS THE FULFILLMENT OF OBLIGATION UNDER CLAUSE 27 OF THE AG REEMENT OF BUILDING CONSTRUCTION BETWEEN OWNER OF C-84, ANAND NIKETAN, SMT. KRISHNA BUDHIRAJA AND ASSESSEE. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE ON RECORD THAT THIS AMOUNT WAS PAID IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE OBLIGATION ON ASSESSEE AS PER CLAUSE 27 OF THE AGRE EMENT OF BUILDING CONSTRUCTION. ITA NO.4143/DEL./2003 8 ASSESSEE HAD FILED COPY OF PART AGREEMENT IN PAPER BOOK. PAGE CONTAINING CLAUSES 10 TO 20 IS NOT FILED. ASSESSEE COMPLETELY FAILED TO JUSTIFY THE CLAIM IN THIS YEAR. THE LIABILITY WAS QUANTIFIED AND CRYSTALLIZED AS PE R AGREEMENT ON THE DATE OF AGREEMENT ITSELF. THE PAYMENT WAS MADE DURING THE RELEVANT PERIOD FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1996-97 RS.11 LACS AND 1997-98 RS.3 LACS. THU S, DURING THE PERIOD RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, NEITHER THE PA YMENT OF THE LIABILITY WAS MADE NOR THE RELATED INCOME WAS OFFERED FOR TAXATION. A SSESSEE FOLLOWS MERCANTILE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING. THE PROFIT WAS DECLARED IN T HE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998-99. DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, NEITHER THE LI ABILITY WAS DETERMINED NOR IT WAS CRYSTALLIZED. THE LIABILITY WAS DETERMINED IN EARL IER YEARS AND IT WAS ALSO CRYSTALLIZED IN THOSE YEARS ONLY. THEREFORE, IN OU R CONSIDERED VIEW, IT WAS EX-FACIE AN INADMISSIBLE DEBIT IN PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT DURI NG THIS YEAR. ASSESSEE COMPLETELY FAILED TO JUSTIFY THE CLAIM FOR THE YEAR. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS, THEREFORE, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) ON THIS ISSUE. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS ALLO WED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THIS 31 ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2012. SD/- SD/- (U.B.S. BEDI) (B.C. MEENA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED THE 31 ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2012/TS COPY FORWARDED TO: 1.APPELLANT 2.RESPONDENT 3.CIT 4.CIT(A)-III, NEW DELHI. 5.CIT(ITAT), NEW DELHI. AR, ITAT NEW DELHI.