ACIT, New Delhi V. M/s Glorious Club Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 4148/DEL/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 74396 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 7 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-03-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 13-03-2014
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 01-08-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R S GILL
• Keywords: Unexplained expenditure; Depreciation; Income from undisclosed sources; Search and seizure; Validity of assessment
• Section: 69C; 153A; 132

Judgement Text

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH C : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI B.C.MEENA , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI A. T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 4147/DEL/2012 TO 4152 /DEL/ 2012 (ASSESSMENT YEAR S : 200 3 - 04 TO 2008 - 09 ) ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE - 21 NEW DELHI VS. GLORIOUS CLUB PVT. LTD., M - 78/A, BASEMENT, MALVIYA NAGAR, NEW DELHI PAN: AACCG4639E (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) C. O. NO. 355 - 360/DEL/2012 (IN ITA NO. 4147/DEL/2012 TO 4152 /DEL/ 2012) (ASSESSMENT YEAR S : 2003 - 04 TO 2008 - 09 ) GLORIOUS CLUB PVT. LTD., M - 78/A, BASEMENT, MALVIYA NAGAR, NEW DELHI PAN: AACCG4639E VS. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE - 21 NEW DELHI (RESPONDENT) (APPELLANT) APPELLANT BY : R. S. GILL, CIT DR RESPONDENT BY : ANIL JAIN, ADV O R D E R PER A. T. VARKEY , JUDICIAL MEMBER THESE APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE AND THE CORRESPONDING CROSS - OBJECTIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD CIT(A) - II, DELHI FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2003 - 04 TO 2008 - 09. 2. THE GROUND OF APPEAL IN ALL THE ASSESSMENT YEARS ARE SAME, SO, WE ARE REPRODUCING THE GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE YEAR I.E. ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002 - 03. 3. THE GROUND S OF THE APPEALS IN ITA NO. 4147/DEL/2012 ARE AS UNDER: - 1. THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS OF THE CASE IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 8,03,063/ - MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED PURCHASES U/S 69C OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 2. THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS OF THE CASE IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 2,08,002/ - MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY WAY OF DISALLOWANCE OF 100% OF EXPENDITURE AND DEPRECIATION CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. PAGE NO. 2 3. (A) THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IS ERRONEOUS AND NOT TENABLE IN LAW AND ON FACTS. (B) THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER OR AMEND ANY/ ALL OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE OR DURING THE COURSE OF THE HEARING OF THE APPEAL. 4 . COMMON GROUND S OF THE CROSS OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE IN C.O. NOS. 355 - 360/DEL/2012 ARE AS UNDER : - 1. THAT IN VIEW OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN NOT HOLDING THAT THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 153C AND THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S 153C/ 14 3(3) ARE ILLEGAL, BAD IN LAW, WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND BARRED BY TIME LIMITATION. 2. THAT THE DOCUMENTS FOUND DURING SEARCH PROCEEDINGS, AS REFERRED TO IN THE SATISFACTION NOTE, DO NOT BELONG TO ASSESSEE AS THE SAME WERE PART OF WORKING PAPER OF THE C.A. SH. B.K. DHINGRA IN WHOSE OFFICE THE SEARCH WAS CONDUCTED. HENCE, THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 153C, BASED ON SAID DOCUMENTS, IS ILLEGAL, BAD IN LAW AND WITHOUT JURISDICTION. 3. THAT ADMITTEDLY, AS RECORDED IN THE SATISFACTION NOTE, NO SEIZED DOCUMENT RELATED TO THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR WAS FOUND AND THE SEIZED PAPER REFERRED IN THE SAID SATISFACTION NOTE WERE DULY REFLECTED IN THE REGULAR BOOKS OF A/C AND NO INCRIMINATING MAT ERIAL WAS FOUND. 4. THAT IN VIEW OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN FRAMED IN CONFORMITY WITH STATUTORY PROVISION OF SECTION 153C R/W SECTION 153A OF THE ACT. 5. THA T IN VIEW OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN FACTS AND ON LAW IN UPHOLDING THE VALIDITY OF ASSESSMENT PARTICULARLY WHEN THE ASSESSMENT HAD BEEN MADE WITHOUT COMPLYING WITH THE LAW AND THE ADDITIONS MADE ARE ILLEGAL, BAD IN L AW & WITHOUT JURISDICTION. 6. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND THE PROVISIONS OF THE LAW, THE LD CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING FOR THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL WAS NOT PENDING ON THE DATE OF THE RE CORDING OF SATISFACTION U/S 153C OF THE ACT AND ACCORDINGLY THE SAME DID NOT ABATE FOR THE PURPOSE OF INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS U/S 153C AND AS SUCH THE ASSESSMENT BEING BAD IN LAW DESERVES TO BE QUASHED. 5 . APROPOS GROUND NO. 1 AND 2 WHICH ARE THE COMMON GROUND S OF APPEAL IN ALL THE APPEALS OF REVENUE , WHICH ARE IN RESPECT OF DELETION OF ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED PURCHASES U/S 69C OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREIN AFTER THE ACT) AND DELETION OF ADDITION OF DISALLOWANCE OF 100% ON E XPENDITURE AND DEPRECIATION CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. 6 . BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION U/S 132 OF THE ACT WAS CONDUCTED IN THE PREMISES OF SHRI B. K. DHINGRA, CA, SMT. POONAM DHINGRA AND M/S. MADHUSUDAN BUILCON PVT. LTD. ON 20 TH OCTOBER, 2008. DURING THE COURSE OF THE SEARCH AT RESIDENTIAL PREMISES AT F - 6/5, VASANT VIHAR, NEW DELHI, CERTAIN DOCUMENTS BELONGING TO THE ASSESSEE WERE SEIZED. CONSEQUENTLY, IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S 153C READ WITH SECTION 153A OF THE ACT, ASSESSEE FILED THE FOLLOWING RETURNED INCOME FOR THE AFORESAID SIX ASSESSMENT YEARS. PAGE NO. 3 7 . THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED PURCHASE S, DISALLOWANCE ON EXPENDITURE, AMONG OTHER ADDITIONS/ DISALLOWANCES. THE LD CIT(A) IN HIS IMPUGNED ORDER HAS DELETED THESE ADDITIONS ON MERITS. AGGRIEVED BY THE SAID ORDER OF THE LD CIT(A) THE REVENUE IN BEF ORE US. 8 . AT THE OUTSET OF THE HEARING, THE LD AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE RAISED IN APPEAL BY REVENUE RAISED IN GROUND NOS. 1 & 2 ARE COVERED IN FAVOR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THREE DECISIONS OF THE CO - ORDINATE BENCHES OF THE ITAT, DELHI BENCH . ACCORDING TO T HE LD AR, THESE DECIDED CASES ALSO STEMMED OUT FROM THE VERY SAME SEARCH CONDUCTED ON THE AFORESAID PREMISES , WHICH TRIGGERED THE 153C PROCEEDING IN ASSESSEES CASE. IN THOSE CASES ALSO THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS OF THE CENTRAL CIRCLE 21 AND THE APPELLATE A UTHORITY LD CIT(A) - II WAS ALSO THE SAME. ACCORDING TO THE LD AR , LIKE IN THOSE CASES DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE LD CIT(A) ARE SAME IN ASSESSEES CASE. THE LD AR SUBMITTED THAT LIKE IN THOSE CASES, THE IMPUGNED ADDITIONS WERE ALSO MADE ON ACCOUNT OF THE VERY SAME REASONING AND FINDINGS ; AND CONCLUSIONS AS ARRIVED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN ASSESSEE S CASE. IN ALL THESE CASES, THE TRADE WAS TEXTILE ; AND BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND REGISTERS FILED WERE NOT REJECTED. IDENTICAL IS THE CASE O F THE ASSESSEE. LD AR MADE AVAILABLE THE COPIES OF THESE THREE DECISIONS OF ITAT IN THE CASE OF ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE21, NEW DELHI VS. BLUE LUXURY IMPLEX PVT. LTD. IN ITA NO. 5495 TO 5500/DEL/2011, ACIT VS. ANUPAMA LINKS PVT. LTD., ACIT VS AA TESTRONICS SOL UTIONS PVT. LTD. 9 . WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES AND CAREFULLY PERUSED THE RECORDS AND THE CASE LAWS CITED BY BOTH THE PARTIES. WE FIND THAT SIMILAR ISSUE WHICH WAS DECIDED BY THE SAME ASSESSING OFFICER AND LD CIT(A) STEMMING OUT OF THE SAME SEARCH AND SE IZURE PROCEEDINGS HAD COME UP BEFORE A BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 21 VS. BLUE LUXURY INDEX PVT. LTD. IN ITA NOS. 5495 - 5500/DEL/2011 WITH CO. NOS. 31 - 36/DEL/2011 ORDER DATED 13.06.2012. BOTH PARTIES AGREE THAT THE FINDIN G OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF M/S. BLUE LUXURY INDEX PVT. LTD. (SUPRA) COVER THE ISSUE IN HAND. 10 . THE TRIBUNAL AT PARA 6TO PARA 8 OF THE ORDER IN ITA NO. 5495 - 5500/DEL/2011HAS HELD AS FOLLOWS: - 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE LEARNED DR AND HAVE GONE THROUGH THE FACTS OF THE CASE. INDISPUTABLY & AS POINTED OUT BY THE LD CIT(A), THE ENTIRE PURCHASES ADDED BY THE A.Y. RETURNED INCOME 2003 - 04 NIL 2004 - 05 RS. 1,040/ - 2005 - 06 RS. 3,420/ - 2006 - 07 RS. 12,220/ - 2007 - 08 RS. 23,990/ - 2008 - 09 RS. 23,190/ - PAGE NO. 4 ASSESSING OFFICER ARE ACCOUNTED FOR THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WITHOUT REJECTING T HE BOOKS RESULTS ADDED THE ENTIRE PURCHASES, SOURCE OF WHICH, ACCORDING TO THE LEARNED CIT(A), WAS DULY EXPLAINED. LIKEWISE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) FOUND THAT SALES HAD BEEN MADE BY ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES AND DULY REFLECTED IN STOCK REGISTERS AND SUPPORTED BY S ALE AND PURCHASE VOUCHERS. THE LD CIT(A) ITA NO. 5495 - 5500/DEL/2011 & CO NOS. 31 TO 36/DEL/2011 ALSO FOUND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN HIS REMAND REPORT DID NOT COMMENT ADVERSELY ON THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF PURCHASES AND SALES. ACCOR DINGLY, THE LD CIT(A) DELETED THE AFORESAID ADDITIONS IN THESE SIX ASSESSMENT YEARS. WHILE INTERPRETING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 69C OF THE ACT, HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN RADHIKA CREATION (SUPRA) HELD THAT THE FOCUS OF SECTION 69C IS ON THE SO URCE OF SUCH EXPENDITURE AND NOT ON THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE EXPENDITURE ITSELF. IN THAT CASE ALSO IT WAS AN ADMITTED POSITION THAT THE EXPENDITURE WAS SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND IT WAS BECAUSE OF THIS REASON THAT THE ITAT O BSERVED AS UNDER: - AS THE EXPENDITURE WAS ACCOUNTED IN THE REGULAR BOOKS, THE SOURCE IS OBVIOUSLY EXPLAINED . THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 69C ARE NOT APPLICABLE AS THERE AS NO UNACCOUNTED EXPENDITURE. (EMPHASIS SUPPLIED) 6.1 HONBLE HIGH COURT, ACCORDINGLY, HELD THAT SECTION 69C REFERS TO THE SOURCE OF THE EXPENDITURE AND NOT TO BE EXPENDITURE ITSELF. CONSEQUENTLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS CLEARLY WRONG IN TREATING THE SAID EXPENDITURE AS UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE UNDER SECTION 69C OF THE SAID ACT AND THE L OWER APPELLATE AUTHORITIES WERE RIGHT IN THEIR CONCLUSIONS IN DELETING THE SAID ADDITIONS, HONBLE COURT CONCLUDED. 6.2 IN THE INSTANT CASE BEFORE US, INDISPUTABLY, THE PURCHASES AND SALES ARE ACCOUNTED FOR IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. THUS, SOURCE OF THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED IN PURCHASES IS OBVIOUSLY EXPLAINED. IN THE LIGHT OF THE VIEW TAKEN IN THEIR AFORESAID DECISION BY THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT, ESPECIALLY WHEN THE REVENUE DID NOT PLACE ANY MATERIAL BEFORE US, CONTROVERTING THE AFORESAID FIN DINGS OF FACTS RECORDED BY THE LD CIT(A) SO AS TO ENABLE US TO TAKE A DIFFERENT VIEW IN THE MATTER, WE HAVE NO BASIS TO INTERFERE. IN VIEW THEREOF, GROUND NOS. 1 & 2 IN THE APPEAL ARE DISMISSED. 7. AS REGARDS DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES IN THESE SIX ASSESSMEN T YEARS, THE LD CIT(A) FOUND THAT IN THE ASSESSMENT OF THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002 - 03, NO DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES WAS MADE WHILE THE ASSESSING OFFICER, IN THE YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION, DID NOT POINT OUT ANY ITEM OF EXPENDITURE, WARRANTING DISAL LOWANCE. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, AND IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY BASIS, WHEN THE REVENUE DID NOT EVEN IDENTIFY ANY SPECIFIC AMOUNT OF EXPENDITURE, WHICH WAS NOT RELATED TO THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE, WE ARE NOT INCLINED TO INTERFERE. THEREFORE, GROUND NO. 3 I N THESE APPEALS IS ALSO DISMISSED. 8. IN VIEW OF OUR AFORESAID FINDINGS, REJECTING THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE, THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THEIR COS BECOME PURELY ACADEMIC AND THEREFORE, DO NOT SURVIVE FOR OUR ADJUDICATION. 11 . THIS DECISION WA S FOLLOWED BY THE ITAT IN THE CASE OF ANUPMA LINKS PVT. LTD. IN ITA NO. 4135 - 4140/DEL/2011 ORDER DATED 12.10.2012 AS WELL AS IN THE CASE OF AA TESTRONICS SOLUTIONS IN ITA NO. 4233 - 4228/DEL/2010 ORDER DATED 20.10.2012 AND WAS FOLLOWED BY THE ITAT DELHI BENC H IN ITA NOS. 1068 - 1073/DEL/2012 AND CO NOS. 173 - 178/DEL/2012 BY ORDER DATED 31.10.2012 . HENCE ON MERIT THE ISSUE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. PAGE NO. 5 12 . THE ITAT IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS. AA TESTRONICS SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD, CITED HAS HELD AS UNDER: - 8. HAVING CONSIDERED THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION FILED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE CONTENTIONS OF THE LD DR, IT IS SEEN THAT THE MATTER IS INDEED COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY ANUPAMA LINKS PVT. LTD (SUPRA). THE FIRST AND FOREMOST, THE SEARCH IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THE SAME AS THAT IN ANUPAMA LINKS PVT. LTD.. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE TWO CASES IS ALSO THE SAME. THE TRADE OF BOTH THE ASSESSEE IS ONE AND THE SAME I.E., TRADE OF TEXTILES . THEN, IN BOTH CASES, BOOKS AND STOCK REGISTER WERE FILED AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT REJECT THE SAME. THE LD CIT(A) HAS, AS NOTED HEREINABOVE, TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT THE FACT THAT ALL THE SALES MADE BY THE ASSESSEE STOOD RECORDED IN THE ASSESSEES BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, WHICH INCLUDED THE SALES AND PURCHASE V OUCHERS AND STOCK REGISTERS MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE ON A DAY - TO - DAY BASIS. THESE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WERE DULY PRODUCED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER EXAMINED THEM, ON EXAMINATION, NO NEGATIVE OBSERVATION THEREAGAINST WAS RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. COMPLETE NAMES AND ADDRESS OF THE PARTIES TO WHOM THE GOODS WERE SOLD WERE AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER. MOST OF THE CUSTOMERS WERE ASSESSED TO INCOME - TAX. SALES WERE MADE AGAINST THE OPENING STOCK. THE PURCHASES MADE DURI NG THE YEAR AND THE SALES WERE BUT CONVERSION OF STOCK. THE PROFIT THEREFROM HAD ALREADY BEEN TAXED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT BRING ANYTHING ON RECORD TO INDICATE THAT THE SALE PROCEEDS REPRESENTED THE ASSESSEES INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES. THE S ALE TRANSACTIONS WITH M/S. MICRON TEXTILES WERE NOT CONFIRMED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON A TEST CHECK BASIS. NO MORE INQUIRIES WERE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THEREAFTER. THE ASSESSEES BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WERE AUDITED BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THE TAX AUDIT REPO RT WAS ON RECORD. THE AUDITORS HAD NOT MADE ANY NEGATIVE OBSERVATIONS THEREIN. ALL THESE FACTS WERE DULY TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION BY THE LD CIT(A) AND IT WAS THEREUPON THAT THE ISSUE WAS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. 9. SO FAR AS IT REGARDS ANUPAMA LINKS PVT. LTD. (SUPRA), UNDER SIMILAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, THE TRIBUNAL FOLLOWING CIT VS. M/S. RADHIKA CREATION, A JUDGMENT DATED 30.04.2010, RENDERED BY THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT, HELD THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 69C OF THE ACT TO BE NOT APPLICABLE. FURTHER, THE MATTER IS ALSO COVERED BY BANULAL C. BORANA, 282 ITR 251 (BOM), WHICH IS ON SIMILAR LINES. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY ERROR IN THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE LD CIT(A) AND , ACCORDINGLY, THE SAME ARE CONFIRMED. THE GRIEVANCE RAISED BY THE DEPARTMENT BY WAY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL TAKEN IS, THEREFORE, REJECTED. 13 . SINCE THE FACTS INVOLVE D ARE SIMILAR, AND SINCE REVENUE DID NOT PLACE ANY MATERIAL BEFORE US TO CONTROVERT THE FINDING OF THE FACTS RECO RDED BY THE LD CIT(A), SO AS TO ENABLE US TO TAKE A DIFFERENT VIEW IN THE MATTER, WE HAVE NO BASIS TO INTERFERE WITH THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LD CIT(A), THEREFORE RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT AND ALSO THE DECISI ONS OF CO - ORDINATE BENCH, WE DISMISS THE REVENUES APPEAL BOTH THE GROUNDS AND CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE LD CIT(A). 14 . ON THE LEGAL ISSUE, RAISED IN C.O. BY THE ASSESSEE, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD RAISED THESE VERY SAME OBJECTION IN THE C.O.S FILED IN THE AFORESAID THREE APPEALS DEC IDED BY THE CO - ORDINATE BENCHES, HOWEVER, THESE GROUNDS WERE NOT PRESSED BEFORE IT AND THEREFORE IT WAS DISMISSED ; AND THE FACT REMAINS THAT AFTER RELIEF HAVE BEEN GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE ON MERITS , THE SAID G ROUNDS RAISED IN THE C.O. WOULD BECOME ACADEMIC AND AN PAGE NO. 6 EXERCISE IN FUTILITY, HENCE FOLLOWING THE CO - ORDINATE BENCH ORDER (SUPRA), WE DISMISS THE GROUND S OF THE ASSESSEE . 15 . IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE AS WELL AS CROSS OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 28 . 03 .2014. - SD/ - - SD/ - ( B.C.MEENA ) (A. T. VARKEY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED :28 / 03 / 2014 A K KEOT COPY FORWARDED TO 1. APPLICANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR:ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI