ACIT(E)- CIRCLE- 1(1), NEW DELHI V. INDIAN BROADCASTING FOUNDATION, NEW DELHI

ITA 4194/DEL/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 110 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6589 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 2 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-09-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 23-06-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: JAGDEESH SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: S K AGARWAL CA SH ANISH MEHTA
• Keywords: Charitable institution; Application of stay; Benefit of exemption; Liquidation
• Section: 143(3); 12A; 12AA; 195; 250; 43; 13; 12

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: C NEW DELHI SHRI K.NARASIMHA CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.R.R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.4193 AND 4194/DEL/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14 & 2014-15 ACIT (E), CIRCLE 1(1), DELHI. VS INDIAN BROADCASTING FOUNDATION , B-304 3 RD FLOOR, ANSEL PLAZA, KHEL GOAN MARG, NEW DELHI-110049 AAACI7146J REVENUE BY S H. JAGDEESH SINGH SR. DR ASSESSEE BY SH. S.K.AGARWAL, CA SH.ANISH MEHTA, CA ORDER PER K. NARASIMHA CHARY, JM: AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER DATED 26/4/2017 IN APPEAL NU MBERS 321/15-16 AND 165/16-17 PASSED BY THE LEARNED COMMI SSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-40, DELHI (LD. CIT(A)), FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2013-14 AND 2014-15, IN THE CASE OF INDIAN BR OADCASTING FOUNDATION (THE ASSESSEE), REVENUE PREFERRED THES E TWO APPEALS ON IDENTICAL GROUNDS, BUT FOR THE CHANGE IN THE FIG URES. DATE OF HEARING 10/09/2020 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 14 /09/2020 2 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE, AS COULD BE CULLED OUT FROM THE RECORD AND THE CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES, ARE THAT THE AS SESSEE WAS INCORPORATED ON 27 SEPTEMBER 1999 AS A NOT - FOR -P ROFIT COMPANY U/S 25 OF THE COMPANIES ACT 1956, I.E., CURRENTLY S ECTION 8 COMPANY OF COMPANIES ACT, 2013 AND IS ALSO REGISTERED UNDER SECTION 12AA OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 AS A CHARITABLE INSTITUT ION; THAT IT IS AN ASSOCIATION OF BROADCASTERS ESTABLISHED WITH THE MA IN OBJECT OF PROTECTING THE INTEREST OF MEMBER BROADCASTERS IN T HE FIELD OF TELEVISION BROADCASTING, INCLUDING TELEVISION VIEWI NG AUDIENCES; THAT BEING THE INDUSTRY BODY OF TELEVISION COMPANIES, AS SESSEE HAS A RESPONSIBILITY FOR ENSURING AVAILABILITY OF RELIABL E, TIMELY, AND ACCURATE DATA OF VIEWERSHIP TO ITS MEMBERS, AS PER ITS OBJECTIVES LISTED IN ITS MEMORANDUM OF ASSOCIATION (MOA); TH AT IN ACCORDANCE WITH CENTRAL GOVERNMENT POLICY OF MINIST RY OF INFORMATION AND BROADCASTING (MIB) AND THE RECOMME NDATIONS OF TELECOM REGULATION AUTHORITY OF INDIA (TRAI), ASSES SEE PROMOTED AND REGISTERED BROADCAST AUDIENCE RESEARCH COUNCIL (BARC) UNDER SECTION 25 OF THE COMPANIES ACT 1956 AS A NOT FOR P ROFIT COMPANY IN FY 2010-11 BY DEPLOYING A TOTAL AMOUNT OF RS. 15,00 ,000 IN FY 2010- 11 AND FY 2011-12 AS SHARE CAPITAL AND IN FY 2012-1 3 AND FY 2013- 14, AN ADDITIONAL AMOUNT OF RS. 45,00,000 AND RS. 2 ,40,00,000 WERE RESPECTIVELY DEPLOYED AS SHARE APPLICATION MONEY IN BARC, WHICH WERE REFUNDED TO THE ASSESSEE IN FY 2015-16. AS PER THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT POLICY, THE MAIN OBJECTIVE OF BARC IS TO CONDUCT 3 MARKET RESEARCH AND STUDIES USING APPROPRIATE RESEA RCH METHODOLOGIES WITH A VIEW TO PROVIDE ACCURATE, UP T O DATE AND RELEVANT FINDINGS RELATING TO AUDIENCES OF TELEVISI ON, IN A COMPLETELY TRANSPARENT AND OBJECTIVE MANNER, THEREBY CREATING AN AWARENESS AMONG THE TELEVISION VIEWING AUDIENCES AND STAKEHOL DERS. ASSESSEE SHALL AT ALL TIMES RETAIN SHAREHOLDING OF 60% OF BA RC, WHILE 20% SHARES WOULD BE HELD BY INDIAN SOCIETY OF ADVERTISE RS (ISA) AND BALANCE 20% SHARES WOULD BE HELD BY ADVERTISING AGE NCIES ASSOCIATION OF INDIA (AAAI). 3. FOR THE AY 2013-14 AND 2014-15, THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING NIL INCOME BY CLAIMING E XEMPTION UNDER SECTION 11 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT) AND THE ASSESSMENT WAS CONCLUDED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF TH E ACT WHILE DENYING EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 11 AND 12 OF THE AC T BY INVOKING SECTION 13(1)(D) OF THE ACT, HOLDING THAT NEITHER T RAI NOR MIB EVER MANDATED THE ASSESSEE TO INCORPORATE BARC AS A SECT ION 25 COMPANY I.E., AS A NOT FOR PROFIT ORGANIZATION, AND ASSESSEE WAS NOT MANDATED TO GET REGISTERED UNDER SECTION 12A READ W ITH SECTION 12AA OF THE ACT; THAT THE ASSESSEE IN ITS OWN WISDO M CHOSE TO BE REGISTERED AS SUCH AND BE GOVERNED BY SECTION 11 AN D 12 OF THE ACT AND CLAIM EXEMPTION; AND THAT THE DECISION IN THE C ASE OF DIRECTOR OF INCOME - TAX VS. ALARIPPU (2000) 111 TAXMANN 511 (DELHI) AND DIRECTOR OF INCOME - TAX VS. ACME EDUCATIONAL SOCIE TY (2010) 326 ITR 4 146 (DELHI) ARE DISTINGUISHABLE ON FACTS RELIED BY THE ASSESSEE HAVE NO APPLICATION TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE. LD. ASSESS ING OFFICER FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT, OVERRIDE T HE RECOMMENDATIONS OF TRAI AND MIB WHICH THE ASSESSEE AGITATES THAT INVESTMENT IN BARC IS NOT IN VIOLATION OF SECTION 1 1(1)(5) READ WITH SECTION 13(1)(D) OF THE ACT. 4. LD. CIT(A), HOWEVER, IN APPEAL REVERSED THE FI NDINGS OF THE LD. AO, WHILE ACCEPTING THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSES SEE THAT THE AMOUNT DEPLOYED TOWARDS SHARE CAPITAL OF BARC PURSU ANT TO THE POLICY OF THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT AND TRAI RECOMMEND ATIONS IS NOT IN THE NATURE OF INVESTMENT, BUT IS APPLICATION OF INCOME TO MEET THE OBJECTIVES OF THE ASSESSEE ASSOCIATION. LD. CI T(A) FOLLOWED THE FINDINGS OF HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE W.P.(C) 2489/2017 TO THE EFFECT THAT THE AMOUNT DEPOSITED W ITH BARC WAS NOT BY WAY OF INVESTMENT OR BY CHOICE, BUT ON ACCOU NT OF GOVERNMENT POLICY. LD. CIT(A) ACCORDINGLY HELD THA T THE ASSESSEE CAN NOT BE SAID TO HAVE COMMITTED ANY VIOLATION WIT HIN THE MEANING OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 13(1)(D) BY MAKING AN INVESTMENT OF RS. 15,00,000 IN EQUITY SHARES AND INVESTMENT OF RS. 45 ,00,000 IN SHARE APPLICATION MONEY IN BARC. LD. CIT(A), THEREFORE, D IRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ALLOW THE BENEFIT OF EXEMPTION UNDER SECTIONS 11 AND 12 OF THE ACT. LD. CIT(A) ALSO ALLOWED THE C ONSEQUENTIAL PRAYERS OF THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF VARIOUS DISAL LOWANCES MADE BY 5 THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER PURSUANT TO HIS DISAL LOWANCE OF EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 11 AND 12 OF THE ACT. 5. AGGRIEVED BY SUCH FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A), FO R THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2013-14 AND 2014-15, REVENUE PREFE RRED THESE APPEALS ON IDENTICAL GROUNDS. IT IS THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD. DR THAT THE LD. CIT(A) MISSED THE POINT THAT WP (C) 2489/20 17 FILED BY THE ASSESSEE SEEKING STAY OF DEMAND, THE HONBLE COURT DID NOT DECIDE THE MATTER FINALLY BUT DIRECTED THE LD. CIT(A) TO D ECIDE THE MATTER. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE TRANSACTION OF PURCHA SING SHARES OF RS. 15 LAKHS OF THE BROADCASTING AUDIENCE RESEARCH COUNCIL AND RS. 45 LACS BY WAY OF A SHARE APPLICATION MONEY IN IT I S AN INVESTMENT AND CONSEQUENTLY THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER IS JUSTIFIABLE. 6. PER CONTRA, LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE QUESTION T HAT ARISES IN THESE APPEALS IS WHETHER OR NOT THE AMOUNT DEPLOYED IN BARC BY VIRTUE OF CENTRAL GOVERNMENT POLICY AND TRAI RECOMM ENDATION AND MIB IS IN THE NATURE OF INVESTMENT IN VIOLATION OF SECTION 11(5) READ WITH SECTION 13(1)(D) OF THE ACT. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE DEPOSIT IN BARC IS NOT IN VIOLATION OF SECTION 11(5) READ WITH SECTION 13(1)(D) OF THE ACT, BUT AN APPLICATION OF INCOME AND ACCORD INGLY, PROVISIONS OF SECTION 13(1)(D) DO NOT APPLY. BASING ON THE DEC ISIONS REPORTED IN CIT VS. UTTAR PRADESH COOPERATIVE FEDERATION LTD AI R 1989 SC 915, CIT V. SIR SOBHA SINGH PUBLIC CHARITABLE TRUST [200 1] 250 ITR 475 6 (DELHI), ANAND CHARITABLE TRUST V. COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH-TAX [2002] 123 TAXMAN 494 (DELHI), DIRECTOR OF INCOME T AX V. ALARIPPU (2000) 111 TAXMAN 511 (DELHI), DIRECTOR OF INCOME T AX V. ACME EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY (2010) 326 ITR 146 (DELHI), CIT V. ALOO INVESTMENT CO. PVT. LTD. [1979] 1 TAXMAN 433 (BOM.) , AND THIRD INCOME-TAX OFFICER V. JHAVERBHAI PATEL CH. TRUST [19 92] 43 ITD 195 (BOM.) HE ARGUED THAT IN ORDER TO CONCLUDE THAT THE DEPOSITS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN BARC IS IN THE NATURE OF INVESTM ENT, REGARD MUST BE HAD TO THE ELEMENT OF INTENTION TO EARN ANY PROF ITS WITHOUT WHICH SUCH DEPOSITS CANNOT BE HELD AS INVESTMENT, S O AS TO ATTRACT THE PROVISIONS UNDER SECTION 13 (1) (D) OF THE ACT. HE ALSO BROUGHT OUR ATTENTION TO RELEVANT PORTIONS OF TRAI RECOMMEN DATIONS, OBJECTIVES OF INCORPORATING THE BARC, THE RECOMMEND ATIONS OF THE STANDING COMMITTEE OF PARLIAMENT ON INFORMATION TEC HNOLOGY, THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF TRP COMMITTEE APPOINTED BY THE M INISTRY OF INFORMATION AND BROADCASTING, GUIDELINES FOR TELEVI SION RATING AGENCIES RECOMMENDED BY THE TRAI IN HIS ATTEMPT TO SHOW THAT IT IS ONLY PURSUANT TO THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE TRAI AN D THE POLICY OF THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT, BARC WAS ESTABLISHED AS AN INDUSTRY LED BODY AND PROMOTED BY THE ASSESSEE, AND AS A MATTER OF FACT NO INTENTION TO ANY PROFITS WAS INVOLVED IN DEPOSIT OF THE AMOUNTS IN QUESTION. 7. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE RECORD IN THE LIGHT OF THE 7 SUBMISSIONS MADE ON EITHER SIDE. IN HIS ORDER LD. C IT(A) CONSIDERED THE TRAI RECOMMENDATIONS, OBJECTIVES OF INCORPORATI NG THE BARC, THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE STANDING COMMITTEE OF PA RLIAMENT ON INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY, THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF TRP COMMITTEE APPOINTED BY THE MINISTRY OF INFORMATION AND BROADC ASTING, GUIDELINES FOR TELEVISION RATING AGENCIES RECOMMEND ED BY THE TRAI EXTENSIVELY IN THE LIGHT OF THE DECISIONS OF THE JU RISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX VS. ALA RIPPU (SUPRA) AND ALSO DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX VS. ACME EDUCATIONAL S OCIETY TO REACH THE CONCLUSION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DEPLOYED I TS FUNDS TOWARDS EQUITY OF BARC FOR SEEKING ANY INCOME, BUT TO FULFI L SOME OF ITS KEY OBJECTIVES AND IN ORDER TO COMPLYING WITH THE DIREC TIONS OF TRAI AND MIB; AND THAT AS A MATTER OF FACT, NO INCOME WAS EA RNED ON SUCH DEPLOYMENT OF FUNDS TOWARDS THE EQUITY CAPITAL OF B ARC. 8. LD. CIT(A) FURTHER HELD THAT EVEN IF IT IS ASSUM ED THAT PROVISIONS OF SECTION 13 (1) (D) OF THE ACT ARE ATT RACTED, STILL THE WITHDRAWAL OF EXEMPTION WILL HAVE TO BE RESTRICTED ONLY TO THE INCOME EARNED FROM THE INVESTMENT MADE IN CONTRAVEN TION OF SECTION 11 (5) OF THE ACT, AS BORNE OUT FROM PARAGR APH NO. 28.6 OF CBDT CIRCULAR NO. 387, DATED 6/7/1984. HAVING CONSI DERED ALL THESE THINGS, LD. CIT(A) REFERRED TO THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE AT THE STAGE OF S TAY OF DEMAND, TO THE EFFECT THAT THE AMOUNTS IN QUESTION WERE DEPOSI TED WITH THE 8 BARC NOT BY WAY OF INVESTMENT OR CHOICE, BUT ON ACC OUNT OF A CENTRAL GOVERNMENT POLICY. AS A RESULT OF CONSIDERA TION OF ALL THESE ASPECTS, LD. CIT(A) RETURNED A FINDING THAT THE ASS ESSEE CANNOT BE SAID TO HAVE COMMITTED ANY VIOLATION WITHIN THE MEA NING OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 11 (5) REA WITH SECTION 13 (1 ) (D) OF THE ACT BY MAKING THE DEPOSITS IN QUESTION AND CONSEQUENTLY LD . CIT(A) DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ALLOW THE BENEFIT OF ASSUMPTION UNDER SECTION 11 AND 12 OF THE ACT. 9. THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT BASING ON THE RECOMMEND ATIONS OF TRAI AND POLICY OF CENTRAL GOVERNMENT, BARC WAS REQ UIRED TO BE ESTABLISHED AS AN INDUSTRY LED BODY AND PROMOTED BY THE ASSESSEE; THAT BOTH ASSESSEE AND BARC ARE NOT FOR PROFIT COMPANIES SET UP FOR MEETING WIDER OBJECTIVES OF PU BLIC CHARITABLE NATURE, NAMELY, PROMOTION OF TELEVISION INDUSTRY AND VIEWERSHIP IN INDIA. THERE IS ALSO NO DISPUTE IN RE SPECT OF THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT, BEING AN INDUSTRY BODY, THE ASSESSEE REPRESENTS THE INTEREST OF ITS MEMBER TV BROADCASTE RS INCLUDING PUBLIC SECTOR BROADCASTER DOORDARSHAN. BARC WAS SET UP TO PROVIDE RELIABLE AND TRANSPARENT INFORMATION NEEDED BY THE MEMBERS AND VARIOUS STAKEHOLDERS OF ASSESSEE IN TAK ING VARIOUS CRUCIAL BUSINESS DECISIONS RELATING TO THEIR BUSINE SSES. 10. ON A CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE OBJECTS OF TH E BARC, WE HAVE NO HESITATION TO HOLD THAT THE BARC ENABLES AS SESSEE TO FULFIL 9 ITS OBJECTS INCIDENTAL OR ANCILLARY TO THE ATTAINM ENT OF THE MAIN OBJECTS, LIKE TO AFFILIATE, ADMIT TO MEMBERSHIP, A ID AND TO RECEIVE AID FROM ANY OTHER SOCIETY, ASSOCIATION, COMPANY, C ORPORATION FIRM, PARTNERSHIP OR PERSON PROMOTING OR FORMED OR INTENDING TO PROMOTE ANY OF THE OBJECTS OF COMPANY AND TO SUBSCR IBE TO OR AID ANY SUCH SOCIETY, ASSOCIATION, COMPANY, CORPORATION , FIRM, PARTNERSHIP OR PERSON WITH A VIEW TO OBTAIN ANY ADV ANTAGE OR BENEFIT FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE COMPANY AND TO SUBSC RIBE TO ANY FUND OR SOCIETY AS MAY BE CONSIDERED DESERVING FROM TIME TO TIME AND TO SUBSCRIBE TO, BECOME A MEMBER OF, CORPORATE OR COLLABORATE WITH ANY OTHER ASSOCIATION OR AGENCY WH OSE OBJECTS ARE ALTOGETHER OR IN PART SIMILAR TO THOSE OF THE C OMPANY AND TO PROCURE FROM OR COMMUNICATE WITH ANY SUCH BODY OR A SSOCIATION ANY USEFUL INFORMATION AS IS LIKELY TO FURTHER THE OBJECTS OF THE COMPANY. 11. FURTHER, BARC, BEING A NOT FOR PROFIT COMPANY U NDER SECTION 25 OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956, IS NOT PERMITTED TO DISTRIBUTE ANY DIVIDENDS OR PROFITS TO ITS SHAREHOLDERS. MORE SO, ON LIQUIDATION, ITS MOA PROVIDES THAT ANY SURPLUS LEFT SHALL BE TRANSFE RRED TO ANOTHER SECTION 25 COMPANY UNDERTAKING SIMILAR OBJECTIVES A ND CANNOT DISTRIBUTE ANY SUCH FUNDS TO ITS SHAREHOLDERS, WHIC H ESTABLISHES THAT THE DEPLOYMENT OF FUNDS IN BARC IS NOT FOR EARNING ANY INCOME OR PROFIT, RATHER ONLY TO MEET THE OBJECTIVES OF THE A SSESSEE. 10 12. FOR WANT OF ANY INTENTION TO EARN PROFIT BY SUC H DEPLOYMENT OF FUNDS, IN THE LIGHT OF THE DECISIONS RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE REPORTED IN CIT VS. UTTAR PRADESH COOPERATIVE FEDER ATION LTD AIR 1989 SC 915, CIT V. SIR SOBHA SINGH PUBLIC CHARITAB LE TRUST [2001] 250 ITR 475 (DELHI), ANAND CHARITABLE TRUST V. COMM ISSIONER OF WEALTH-TAX [2002] 123 TAXMAN 494 (DELHI), DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX V. ALARIPPU (2000) 111 TAXMAN 511 (DELHI), DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX V. ACME EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY (2010) 326 ITR 146 (DELHI) , CIT V. ALOO INVESTMENT CO. PVT. LTD. [1979] 1 TAXMAN 433 (BOM.) , AND THIRD INCOME-TAX OFFICER V. JHAVERBHAI PATEL CH. TRUST [19 92] 43 ITD 195 (BOM.) IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE ASSESSEE INVESTED THE AMOUNTS AND COMMITTED VIOLATION WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 1 3 (1) (D) OF THE ACT. FURTHER, WHATEVER MAY BE STAGE, THE OBSERVATI ONS OF THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE, TO THE EFFECT THAT THE AMOUNTS IN QUESTION WERE DEPOSITED WITH THE BAR C NOT BY WAY OF INVESTMENT OR CHOICE, BUT ON ACCOUNT OF A CENTRA L GOVERNMENT POLICY, CAN NOT BE IGNORED. 13. FOR THE REASONS RECORDED IN THE PRECEDING PARAG RAPHS, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) DO NOT SUFFER ANY ILLEGALITY OR IRREGULARITY SO AS TO INVI TE ANY INTERFERENCE BY THE TRIBUNAL. SINCE WE CONFIRM THE FINDING OF THE L D. CIT(A) THAT THERE WAS NO VIOLATION COMMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE WI THIN THE MEANING OF THE PROVISIONS UNDER SECTION 11 (5) OF T HE ACT READ WITH 11 SECTION 13 (1) (D) OF THE ACT WE DEEM IT NOT NECESS ARY TO REFER TO THE ALTERNATIVE PLEAS OF THE ASSESSEE. CONSEQUENTLY, WE DECLINED TO INTERFERE WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A). 14. INSOFAR AS THE OTHER GROUNDS ARE CONCERNED, UND OUBTEDLY, THEY ARE CONSEQUENTIAL IN NATURE AND IN VIEW OF OUR FINDING ON THE SUBSTANTIAL GROUND AS TO THE APPLICABILITY OF 11 (5 ) READ WITH SECTION13 (1) (D) OF THE ACT, WE FIND IT JUST AND N ECESSARY TO CONFIRM THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) ON THOSE GROUNDS ALS O. 15. IN THE RESULT, APPEALS OF THE REVENUE ARE DISMI SSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 14 .09.2020. SD/- SD/- (B.R.R. KUMAR) (K.NARASIMHA CHARY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 14 .09.2020.