The Income-tax Officer, Faridkot V. Smt. Gursharan Kaur Prop, Faridkot

ITA 419/ASR/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0755 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 9 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-05-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 17-05-2016
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 20-07-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: P N ARORA; PARSHOTAM SINGLA
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice; Reasonable cause
• Section: 40A(3); 273B; 27

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH; AMRITSAR BEFORE SH. A.D.JAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. T.S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A NOS.419 (ASR)/2011 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2007-08 INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-III (4), FARIDKOT VS. SMT. GURSHARAN KAUR PROP. M/S G.K. TRADERS, VILLAGE DEEP SINGH WALA, FARIDKOT. PAN: AGMPK8353N (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) I.T.A NO.420(ASR)/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-III(4), FARIDKOT. VS. SH. AMARJIT SINGH PROP. M/S AMARDEEP TRADERS, VILLAGE DEEP SINGH WALA, FARIDKOT. PAN: AAXPA3488P (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SH. UMESH TAKYAR (DR) RESPONDENT BY: SH. P.N.ARORA & SH. PARSHOTAM SINGLA (ADV.) DATE OF HEARING: 17.05.2016 DATE OF PRONO UNCEMENT:18.05.2016 ORDER PER BENCH: THESE ARE TWO APPEALS FILED BY REVENUE AGAINST THE SEPARATE ORDERS OF LEARNED CIT(A), BOTH DATED 4.05.2011 FOR ASST. YEAR : 2007-08. ITA NOS.419 & 420(ASR) 2011 ASS T. YEAR: 2007-08 2 2. THE REVENUE IN THESE APPEALS IS AGGRIEVED WITH T HE ACTION OF LEARNED CIT(A), BY WHICH HE HAD DELETED THE PENALTY IMPOSED BY ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 271D FOR VIOLATION OF PROVISI ONS OF SECTION 269SS OF THE ACT. 3. THE REVENUE HAS TAKEN SIMILAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL IN BOTH CASES. FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL T AKEN BY REVENUE IN ITA 419(ASR)/2011 ARE REPRODUCED BELOW. I) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE, THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED BOTH IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE PENA LTY IMPOSED ON THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 271D OF THE INCOME TAX, ACT, 1961 [THE ACT HENCEFORTH], READ WITH SECTION 269SS OF THE ACT BY MIS-INTERPRETING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIONS 271D AND 269SS OF THE ACT WH ICH BASICALLY DETERRENT IN NATURE AND NOT REMEDIAL IN NATURE SO THAT WHETHE R ANY ACTUAL LOSS OF REVENUE DID OCCUR IS NOT A RELEVANT FACT IN DETERMI NING PENAL LIABILITY UNDER THE SAID SECTIONS. II) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE, THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED BOTH IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE PENA LTY IMPOSED ON THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 271D OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 BY FAILING TO APPRECIATE THAT THE PENAL PROVISIONS AS CONTAINED I N SECTION 271D ARE CIVIL IN NATURE AND UNLESS THERE IS SOMETHING IN THE LANG UAGE OF THE STATUTE INDICATING THE NEED TO ESTABLISH THE ELEMENT OF MEN S REA IT IS GENERALLY SUFFICIENT TO PROVE THAT DEFAULT IN COMPLYING WITH THE STATUTE HAS OCCURRED FOR DETERMINING PENAL LIABILITY. III) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE, THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED BOTH IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE PENA LTY IMPOSED ON THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 271D OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 BY NOT APPRECIATING THAT THE ASSESSEE CAN ALSO NOT AVAIL O F THE LENIENCY F SECTION 273B OF THE ACT SHE HAVING FAILED TO PROVE THAT THE RE WAS REASONABLE CAUSE FOR THE INFRINGEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF SEC TION 271D. 4. THESE APPEALS WERE EARLIER DISMISSED BEING DEFEC TIVE VIDE SEPARATE ORDERS OF TRIBUNAL BOTH DATED 16.05.2013, HOWEVER, THE SAID TRIBUNAL ORDERS WERE RECALLED AND APPEALS WERE LISTED FOR HE ARING ON MERITS VIDE SEPARATE TRIBUNAL ORDERS DATED 11.04.2014 AND 15.01 .2014 RESPECTIVELY. ITA NOS.419 & 420(ASR) 2011 ASS T. YEAR: 2007-08 3 THESE APPEALS WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND, THEREFORE, F OR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE A COMMON AND CONSOLIDATED ORDER IS BEIN G PASSED. 5. AT THE OUTSET, THE LEARNED DR PLACED HIS RELIANC E ON THE ORDERS OF ASSESSING OFFICER WHEREAS THE LEARNED AR RELIED UPO N THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A). 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL PARTIES AND HAVE GONE TH ROUGH THE MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT ASSESSEES I N THESE CASES ARE IN THE BUSINESS OF COMMISSION AGENTS AND DURING ASSESS MENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD NOTED DOWN CERTAIN PAYMEN TS MADE BY THESE ASSESSEES IN VIOLATION OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 269 SS AND THEREFORE, THE PENALTY WAS IMPOSED U/S 271D OF THE ACT. THE LEARNE D CIT(A) HAS ALLOWED RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE BY HOLDING SIMILAR F INDINGS AND AFTER RELYING UPON CBDT CIRCULAR NO.556 DATED 23.02.1990. FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE THE FINDINGS OF LEARNED CIT(A) IN ITA N O.419(ASR)/2011 ARE REPRODUCED BELOW. I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE PENALTY ORDER AND THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS. I HAVE ALSO GONE THROUGH THE ASSESSMEN T ORDER MADE BY THE AO WHO REFERRED THE MATTER TO ADDL. CIT FOR IMPOSIT ION OF PENALTY. THE REASONS ADVANCED FOR LEVY OF PENALTY IS : (A) ON 31-03-2007 THE ASSESSEE HAD A CASH IN HAND OF RS . 36,757.88.EVEN THE CASH BALANCE IN BANK ACCOUNT WAS NOT MUCH. THIS SHOWED THAT CASH TAKEN BY ASSESSEE FROM THE AG RICULTURIST HAS BEEN UTILIZED FOR HIS BUSINESS PURPOSE AND WAS NOT KEPT AS CUSTODIAN. (B) IN A NUMBER OF CASES PAYMENTS TO THE PARTIES INVOL VED WERE MADE THROUGH CHEQUES AS THEY MAINTAINED THEIR BANK ACCOUNT. IT CAN BE SEEN THAT THERE IS NOT DISPUTE AS TO THE FACTS. THE ONLY ISSUE IS WHETHER THE ASSESSEE BEING A COMMISSION AG ENT (THIS FACT IS ALSO UNDISPUTED) CALLED KACHA ARHATIA IN LOCAL LANGUAG E, HAD TAKEN ANY LOAN ITA NOS.419 & 420(ASR) 2011 ASS T. YEAR: 2007-08 4 /DEPOSIT IN CONTRAVENTION OF SECTION 269SS OF I.T. ACT? ALSO WHETHER THERE WAS ANY REASONABLE CAUSE AS PER SECTION 273B OF I .T. ACT WHICH PRECLUDES LEVY OF PENALTY, IF PROVED AS SUCH. THE CASE FILED BY THE A/R OF ASSESSEE IN CASE OF M/ S HARPAL SINGH JASWANT DECIDED BY THE HON'BLE ITAT, AMRITSAR REPOR TED AT 51TTJ 383 IS ALSO IN RESPECT OF 'KACHA ARHATIAS' AND IN THAT CAS E THE PENALTY U/S 271D OF IT ACT WAS DELETED. THOUGH IN THAT CASE IT WAS O BSERVED THAT THE AGRICULTURISTS MIGHT NOT EVEN HAVE THE BANK ACCOUNT S, BUT IN THIS CASE THEY WERE HAVING BANK ACCOUNTS BUT AT SADIQ WHICH IS MOR E THAN 20 KMS AWAY FROM VILLAGE OR AT FARIDKOT WHICH IS 40 KMS FROM TH E VILLAGE. IT IS ALSO NOT THE CASE THAT ANY ONE WAS HAVING A BANK ACCOUNT AT THE VILLAGE WHERE NO BANKING FACILITIES WERE AVAILABLE. THIS IS ALSO NOT IN DISPUTE THAT ALL THE PERSONS WH O HAD KEPT THEIR AMOUNTS WITH ASSESSEE WERE AGRICULTURISTS. FURTHER, IT IS ALSO NOT DISPUTED THAT THEY WERE OF MEANS TO THE EXTENT OF THEIR AM OUNTS KEPT WITH ASSESSEE. THE AO ASSESSING THE CASE HAS NOT TREATED ANY OF THESE TRANSACTIONS AS NOT GENUINE AND IN THE ASSESSMENTS ALL THE AMOUNTS ARE ACCEPTED AS EXPLAINED IN RESPECTIVE HANDS. THE REAS ON FOR OPENING SOME OF THE FARMERS ACCOUNT AT FARIDKOT AS GIVEN IN THE SUB MISSIONS IS THAT AS PER GOVERNMENT POLICY THE PAYMENTS PERTAINING TO THE CR OPS HAD TO BE MADE THROUGH ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES. THE ANALOGY TO SECTI ON 40A(3) OF IT ACT IS ALSO HIGHLIGHTED BY THE A/R THAT RULE 6 DDJ OF IT R ULES PROVIDES THE EXCEPTION WHERE THE BUSINESS WAS CARRIED OUT IN A V ILLAGE OR TOWN WHERE THERE IS NO BANKING FACILITY ON THE DATE OF PAYMENT AND WHERE THE PAYMENT IS MADE. THIS ALSO APPLIES TO THIS CASE AS UNDISPUT EDLY NONE HAD A BANK ACCOUNT IN THE VILLAGE AS THERE WAS NO BANKING FACI LITY J AVAILABLE. FURTHER THE A/R HAS BROUGHT MY ATTENTION TO A CIRCU LAR OF CBDT IN RESPECT OF TREATMENT OF 'KUCHA ARHATIAS' AS FAR AS SECTION 269SS IS CONCERNED THOUGH CIRCULAR NUMBER IS NOT PROVIDED IN THE WRITT EN SUBMISSIONS. I FIND THERE IS A CIRCULAR NO. 556 DATED 23-02-1990 WHICH READS AS : 'AMOUNTS RECEIVED AS SALE PROCEEDS ON SALE MADE ON ACCOUNT OF A CLIENT IN HIS ROLE AS KACHA ARHATIA WILL NOT BE A D EPOSIT. EVEN THE BALANCE OUTSTANDING AFTER PAYMENT SHOULD NOT BE DEP OSIT, UNLESS HE REQUIRES IT TO BE KEPT AS A DEPOSIT. SUCH AMOUNTS P AID FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NOT FOR REPAYMENT IN CASH EX CEPT WHERE THE PURPOSE FOR WHICH IT IS GIVEN IS NOT SERVED IS NOT A DEPOSIT SIMPLICITER, SO AS TO BE COVERED U/S 269AA OR 269T. ' THE A/R OF THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FILED EXTRACTS OF CASE LAWS IN SUPPORT, AS FOLLOWING : ITA NOS.419 & 420(ASR) 2011 ASS T. YEAR: 2007-08 5 S. NO. NAME OF THE APPELLANT / RESPONDENT COURT / BENCH GIST 1 HARPAL SINGH JASWANT SINGH VS. ITO (1995) 51 TTJ 383 AMRITSAR THE PURPOSE OF THE PROVISIONS OF SS. 269SS AND 271D IS NOT TO PENALIZE PERSONS HAVING GENUINELY ACCEPTE D TRANSACTIONS, WHICH CANNOT EVEN ATTRACT SUSPICION O F BEING BOGUS MUCH LESS PROVIDING THESE AS FICTITIOUS . SECONDLY, AND WHICH IS INDEPENDE NT OF THE ABOVE, THE ASSESSEE ENTERTAINED BONA FIDE BELIEF IN THE PRESEN T CASE THAT IT BEING A KACHA ARHTIA AND ITS DEALING B EING WITH AGRICULTURISTS, IT COULD NOT BE HELD GUILTY OF VIOLATION OF S. 269SS IF CASH WAS KEPT BY HIM OF TH E CONSTITUENTS BECAUSE IF IT WAS TO PURCHASE AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE ITSELF CASH COULD HAVE BEEN PAID BECAUSE AGRICULTURISTS MAY NOT EVEN HAVE BANK ACCOUNTS AND IN SUCH CASE ALSO THERE WOULD BE NO VIOLATION OF S. 269SS. 2 ASST. DIRECTOR OF INSPECTION (INVESTIGATIO N) V. KUM. A.B. SHANTHI (2002) 255 ITR 258 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA THE UNDUE HARDSHIP OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 271 D, WHICH REPLACED SECTION 276DD PROVIDING FOR A PENALT Y, IS SUBSTANTIALLY MITIGATED BY THE INCLUSION OF SECT ION 273B PROVIDING THAT IF THERE WAS A GENUINE AND BONA FIDE TRANSACTION AND THE TAXPAYER COULD NOT GET A L OAN OR DEPOSIT BY ACCOUNT-PAYEE CHEQUE OR DEMAND DRAFT FOR SOME BONA FIDE REASONS, THE AUTHORITY VESTED WI TH THE POWER TO IMPOSE PENALTY HAS A DISCRETIONARY POWER NOT TO LEVY THE PENALTY. 3 CIT V. SAINI MEDICAL STORE (2005) 276 ITR 79 PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT HELD, THAT IN THE PRESENT CASE THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) IN HIS ORDER DATED JANUARY 18, 1999, WHEREBY THE PENALTY UNDER SECTION 27ID OF THE ACT WAS DELETED, HAD ACCEPTED THE VERSION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE THAT VIOLATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE AC T WAS UNDER BONA FIDE BELIEF OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE SAME WAS NOT WITH ANY INTENTION TO AVOID OR EVADE T HE TAX. THE FINDINGS OF THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) HAD BEEN CONFIRMED IN APPEAL BY THE TRIBUNAL. THE CANCELLATION OF PENALTY WAS VALID. ITA NOS.419 & 420(ASR) 2011 ASS T. YEAR: 2007-08 6 4 CIT V. SPEEDWAYS RUBBER PVT. LTD. (2010) 326 ITR 31 PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT THE ASSESSING OFFICER INITIATED PROCEEDINGS FOR THE VIOLATION OF SECTION 269SS OF THE INCOME- TAX ACT, 1961, INASMUCH AS THE ASSESSEE ACCEPTED SHARE APPLICATION MONEY OF RS. 20,000 IN CASH. THEREAFTER, PENALTY WA S IMPOSED. THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) UPHELD THE STAND OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE AMOUNT RECEIVED WAS NOT LOAN OR DEPOSIT AND NO INTEREST WAS PAYABLE THA T THE TRANSACTION WAS BONA FIDE, THAT THE DEFAULT WAS OF TECHNICAL NATURE AND THAT IN ANY CASE THE AMOUNT WAS RECEIVED FROM THE PUBLIC AND NOT FROM DIRECTORS OR SHARE HOLDERS. THE TRIBUNAL AFFIRMED THE VIEW. ON APPEAL: HELD, DISMISSING THE APPEAL, THAT IN VIEW OF THE FINDING TO T HE EFFECT THAT THE TRANSACTION WAS BONA FIDE AND THE DEFAULT WAS OF TECHNICAL NATURE THE CANCELLATION OF PENALTY WAS JUSTIFIED. 5 CIT VS. NATVARLAL PURSHOTTAMD AS PAREKH (2008) 303 ITR 5 GUJRAT HIGH COURT HELD, THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAD FOUND THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE LIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE ON RECORD THERE WA S NO VIOLATION OF EITHER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 269SS OR SECTION 269T OF THE ACT. THE TRIBUNAL HAD FURTHER FOUND THAT THERE WAS REASONABLE CAUSE, ASSUMING THAT THERE WAS ANY VIOLATION BY THE ASSESSEE. HENCE THE TRIBUNAL HAD RIGHTLY DELETED THE PENALTIES LEVI ED UNDER SECTION 271D AND 271E. 6 CITV. LAKSHMI TRUST CO. (2008) 303 ITR 99 MADRAS HIGH COURT HELD, DISMISSING THE APPEAL, THAT THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) AND THE TRIBUNAL HAD FOUND ON THE FACTS T H AT THE TRANSACTIONS WERE GENUINE AND THE IDENTITY OF T HE LENDERS WAS ESTABLISHED. THE TRIBUNAL ALSO UPHELD T HE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) THAT THERE WAS NO INTENTION ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO EVADE TAX. THE CANCELLATION OF PENALTY WAS VALID. ITA NOS.419 & 420(ASR) 2011 ASS T. YEAR: 2007-08 7 7 CIT V. BALAJI TRADERS (2008) 303 ITR 312 MADRAS HIGH COURT HELD, DISMISSING THE APPEAL, THAT THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) AND THE TRIBUNAL FOUND THAT (I) THERE WAS BUSINESS EXIGENCY FORCING THE ASSESSEE TO TAKE CASH LOANS FOR THE PURPOSE OF HONOURING THE COMMITMENT, VIZ., ISSUANCE OF CHEQUE ON A PARTICULAR DATE ; (II ) THE CREDITORS WERE GENUINE PERSONS AND THE TRANSACTIONS WERE NEVER DOUBTED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW ; AND ( III) THERE WAS NO REVENUE LOSS TO THE EXCHEQUER. THE AUTHORITIES HAD ALSO NOTICED THAT ALL THE TRANSACTI ONS WERE BROUGHT INTO THE ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE AND THERE WERE CORRESPONDING ENTRIES IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE RESPECTIVE PARTIES/CREDITORS WHICH SATISFIED THE TEST OF BUSINESS EXIGENCY. THE DELETI ON OF PENALTY WAS JUSTIFIED. 8 DY. CIT VS. EMESKAY FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD. (2010) 128 TTJ 474. VISAKHAPAT NA M BENCH AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF S. 273B, WHICH OVERRIDE TH E PROVISIONS OF SS. 271D AND 271E, NO PENALTY SHALL B E IMPOSABLE FOR ANY FAILURE REFERRED TO IN S. 271D/27 1E IF IT IS PROVED THAT THERE WAS REASONABLE CAUSE FOR THE SAID FAILURE. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE, IT IS SUBMITTED THA T THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ACTED IN A HASTY MANNER WITHOUT PROVIDING SUFFICIENT AND REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESS EE APPELLANT AS PENALTY PROCEEDINGS WERE INITIATED VIDE NOTICE DATED 09-06- 2010 SERVED ON 10-06- 2010 FIXING THE CASE FOR 18-06-2010 AND PENALTY ORD ER HAS BEEN PASSED ON 24-06-2010. IN VIEW OF THE SHORT SPAN OF TIME PROVI DED FOR EXPLAINING THE CASE BY THE ASSESSEE APPELLANT, THE PENALTY LEVIED IS WITHOUT PROVIDING SUFFICIENT AND REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY WHICH IS AGAI NST LAW AND NATURAL JUSTICE.' I HAVE ALSO GONE THROUGH THESE CASE LAWS AND FIND T HAT APART FROM THE CASE OF HARPAL SINGH JASWANT SINGH V/S ITO, 51 TTJ 383 DECIDED BY THE HON'BLE ITAT, AMRITSAR, THE CASES AT SR.NO. 3,5 ,6,7(II) FAVOURS THE CAUSE OF ASSESSEE. I ALSO FIND THAT IN CASE OF M/S DILLUA NE ENTERPRISE (P) LTD. 80 ITD 484 (HYD.) ALSO IT IS HELD THAT IF THE TRANSACT ION IS GENUINE AND HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH TAX EVASION OR CONCEALMENT OF IN COME, MERE TECHNICAL BREACH OF SECTION 269SS WILL NOT ATTRACT. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE CASE LAWS AND THE CIRCULAR NO .556 OF THE CBDT, I AM CONVINCED THAT THE PENALTY U/S 27 ID OF I.T. A CT IS TO BE DELETED, HENCE, DELETED. ITA NOS.419 & 420(ASR) 2011 ASS T. YEAR: 2007-08 8 FROM THE ABOVE FINDINGS OF LEARNED CIT(A), WE FIND THAT LEARNED CIT(A) HAS PASSED A WELL REASONED AND SPEAKING ORDE R AND LEARNED DR WAS NOT ABLE TO CONTROVERT ANY OF THE FINDINGS OF L EARNED CIT(A). THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS MADE A FINDING OF FACT THAT ASSE SSEES WERE DOING THE BUSINESS AS COMMISSION AGENTS. THE COMMISSION AGENT S ARE ALSO CALLED KACHHA ARHTIYAS. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ALSO MADE A FINDING OF FACT THAT THE PERSONS WHO HAD KEPT THEIR MONEYS WITH THE ASSE SSEES WERE AGRICULTURIST. AS PER BOARD CIRCULAR NO.556 DATED 2 3.12.1990, THE AMOUNTS KEPT BY AGRICULTURISTS WITH THE KACHHA ARHT IYAS CAN NOT BE TREATED AS DEPOSITS UNLESS SPECIFICALLY KEPT AS DEP OSITS THEREFORE, SUCH AMOUNTS KEPT WITH COMMISSION AGENTS ARE OUTSIDE THE PURVIEW OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 269SS OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A). 7. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE APPEALS FILED BY T HE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 18 TH MAY, 2016 . SD/- SD/- (A.D. JAIN) (T. S. KAPOOR) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 18.05.2016. /PK/PS. COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: (1) THE ASSESSEE: (2) THE (3) THE CIT(A), (4) THE CIT, (5) THE SR DR, I.T.A.T., TRUE COPY B Y ORDER