ACIT, CHITTORGARH V. Shri Vikram Anjana, PRATAPGARH

ITA 452/JODH/2013

• Counselvise Citation: 45223314 RSA 2013
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-05-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 08-04-2014
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 09-09-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: N A JOSHI
• Keywords: Business income; Proportionate interest; Notional interest; Commercial expediency
• Section: 68

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR BEFORE SHRI HARI OM MARATHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI N.K.SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 452/JODH/2014 (A.Y. 2010-11) THE A.C.I.T VS. SHRI VIKRAM ANJANA CIRCLE S/O SHRI MANOHAR LAL ANJANA CHITTORGARH VILLAGE KESUNDA, TEHSIL CHHOTI SADRI, PRATAPGARH PAN NO. AFHOA 0575 R (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI G.K. GARGIEYA SHRI DINESH SHRIMALI DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI N.A. JOSHI, DR. DATE OF HEARING : 08.04.2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 22.05.2014 ORDER PER HARI OM MARATHA, J.M. THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE REVENUE FOR A.Y 2009-10 AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), UDAIPUR, D ATED 18.06.2013. 2 2. BRIEFLY STATED, THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT T HE ASSESSEE IS PROPRIETOR OF M/S U.B. INVESTMENT AND FOR A.Y. 2009 -10, HE FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME (ROI) ON 30.09.2009 DECLARING TOTA L INCOME OF RS. 54,87,130/-. DURING THE RELEVANT PERIOD, THE ASSES SEE DERIVED SHARE INCOME FROM TWO FIRMS NAMELY, M/S NAREDI PETROLEUM AND M/S ANJANA WAREHOUSING CORPORATION. HE IS ALSO THE PRO PRIETOR OF U.B. INVESTMENT AND M/S VIKRAM CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPE RS. IN THE M/S U.B. INVESTMENT, THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN CARRYING ON MONEY LENDING BUSINESS AND IN THE SECOND FIRM HE HAS BEEN DOING REAL ESTATE BUSINESS OF PURCHASE AND SALE OF LAND. IN M /S VIKRAM CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPERS, THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN NET PROFIT OF RS. 40,31,000/-. IT WAS NOTICED THAT DURING THE Y EAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, ONE PROPERTY WAS SOLD BY THIS ASSESS EE FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS. 80,31,000/-. THIS PROPERTY WA S PURCHASED FOR RS. 37,80,000/-. THE PROFIT ON SALE COMES TO RS. 4 2,51,000/- BUT THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN IT AT RS. 40,31,000/-. THER EFORE, THE A.O. HAS ADDED RS. 2,20,000/- BEING THE DIFFERENTIAL AMO UNT. FURTHER, DURING THE RELEVANT ACCOUNTING PERIOD, THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN INTEREST PAYMENT TO SHRI CHANDRESH ANJANA OF RS. 1, 46,918/- @ 12%. ON PERUSAL OF THE DETAILS OF INTEREST PAID. IT WAS NOTICED THAT THE 3 ASSESSEE HAS PAID INTEREST TO ALL OTHER PARTIES @ 1 0%, BUT HAS PAID INTEREST @ 11% TO 12% TO ABOVE TWO PARTIES. THEREF ORE, THE A.O. HAS INVOKED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40A(2)(B) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 ['THE ACT', FOR SHORT] AND HAS ASKED HIM TO EXPLAIN WHY HIGHER RATE OF INTEREST WAS PAID TO THESE TWO FAMIL Y CONCERNS. BUT WHEN NO SATISFACTORY EXPLANATION CAME FORTH, THE A. O. FOUND THAT SHRI CHANDRESH ANJANA, IS A CLOSE RELATIVE OF THE A SSESSEE WHEREAS CHETAK ENTERPRISES IS HIS FAMILY BUSINESS. THE A.O . HAS WORKED OUT EXCESS INTEREST PAID AND IN THE CASE OF SHRI CHANDR ESH ANJANA, IT WAS WORKED OUT AT RS. 13,356/- AND IN THE CASE OF C HETAK ENTERPRISES AT RS. 9,68,911/-. THEREFORE, INTEREST PAYMENT TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 9,82,267/- [13,356 + 9,68,911/-] HAS BEEN HELD AS UNREASONABLE AND ACCORDINGLY HAS DISALLOWED THE SAM E AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40A(2)(B) OF THE ACT AND HAS BEEN ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE OF THE YEAR. THE A.O. HAS ALSO ADDED RS. 86 LAKHS U/S 68 OF THE ACT. FINALLY, THE A.O. HAS COMPUTED TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AT RS. 1,84,9 5,097/-. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE FILED FIRST APPEAL AND THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GIVEN PART RELIEF. CONSEQUENTLY, THE REVENUE IS AGG RIEVED AND HAS FILED THIS APPEAL BY RAISING THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 4 ON THE FACTS AND IN THE PRESENT CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE CASE, THE LEARNED CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN 1. DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST OF RS. 9,82,267/- MADE BY THE AO BY INVOKING THE PROVISION S OF SECTION 40A(2)(B) OF THE IT. ACT. IGNORING THE FACT S THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE PAYMENT OF INTEREST @ 11% AND 12% TO SHRI CHANDRESH ANJANA AND CHETAK ENTERPRISES , RESPECTIVELY WHEREAS THE ASSESSEE PAID INTEREST TO ALL OTHER PARTIES @ 10% AND MONEY WAS AVAILABLE @ 10% I N OPEN MARKET WHICH SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS UNREASONABLY MADE THE EXCESS PAYMENT OF INTEREST TO RELATED PARTIES. 1.1 DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST OF RS. 9,82,267/- MADE BY THE AO BY INVOKING THE PROVISION S OF SECTION 40A(2)(B) OF THE IT. ACT. IGNORING THE FACT S THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE EXCESS PAYMENT OF INTEREST OF RS. 9,82,267/- TO SHRI CHANDRESH ANJANA AND CHETAK ENTERPRISES WHICH ARE RELATED PARTIES AND THE ASSES SEE HAS FAILED TO FURNISH ANY JUSTIFICATION FOR PAYMENT OF INTEREST ON HIGHER RATE TO THE SAID PARTIES. 2. DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST AMO UNTING TO RS. 25,86,930/- IGNORING THE FACTS THAT DESPITE THE ASSESSEE PAYING INTEREST ON LOANS TAKEN FOR THE PUR POSE 5 OF HIS FINANCE BUSINESS, THE ASSESSEE HAD GIVEN INT EREST FREE ADVANCES TO M/S ANJANA CONSTRUCTION, SHRI PURA N MAI ANJANA AND M/S SHIV PUJA CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. TOTALING TO RS. 5,53,50,000/- WITHOUT ANY BUSINESS PURPOSE. 2.1 DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST ON THE GR OUND THAT SUBSTANTIAL INTEREST, INCOME HAS BEEN SHOWN WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT ASSESSEE IS BEIN G ENGAGED IN FINANCE BUSINESS WOULD NATURALLY HAVE INTEREST INCOME AND' ALSO IGNORING THE FACT THAT TH E LOAN SO TAKEN ATLEAST TO THE EXTENT OF INTEREST FREE ADV ANCES HAS NOT BEEN UTILIZED IN THE BUSINESS OF FINANCE AN D THEREBY THE CORRESPONDING INTEREST IS RIGHTLY DISAL LOWED BY THE AO. 3. DELETING THE ADDITIONS OF RS. 88,00,000/- MADE O N ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED 26 CASH CREDITORS U/S 68 OF THE IT. ACT BY IGNORING THE FACT THAT ASSESSEE COULD NO T PROVE THE CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THESE CREDITORS 3.1 DELETING ENTIRE ADDITIONS IN RESPECT OF 26 CRED ITORS WITHOUT CONTROVERTING FINDING OF AO IN RESPECT OF E ACH OF THE 26 CREDITORS AND BY GIVING HIS OBSERVATION I N RESPECT OF SIGNATURE IN TWO CASES OUT OF 10 SUCH CA SES. 6 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND HAVE CAR EFULLY PERUSED THE ENTIRE MATERIAL ON RECORD. FIRST GROUN D IS IN RELATION TO DELETION OF DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST AMOUNTING TO R S. 9,82,267/- MADE BY THE A.O. BY INVOKING PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40A(2)(B) OF THE ACT. 4. FACTS OF THIS ISSUE HAVE BEEN NARRATED IN DETAIL IN THE ABOVE PARAS. BEFORE US BOTH THE PARTIES HAVE REITERATED THEIR EARLIER ARGUMENTS. WE HAVE FOUND THAT THE REVENUE CANNOT I NSIST UPON THE ASSESSEE TO BORROW FUNDS FROM PARTICULAR PERSONS/PA RTIES AND AT A FIXED RATE OF INTEREST. THE ASSESSEE HAS TO CONSID ER VARIOUS ASPECTS OF HIS BUSINESS WHICH INCLUDE LONG TERM ASSOCIATION GIVING RISE TO LONG TERM BENEFITS. HOWEVER, THE A.O. HAS NOT BROU GHT ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD TO SUGGEST THAT THE RATE OF INTE REST CHARGED FROM THIRD PARTIES OR PAID TO OTHERS ARE SUBSTANTIALLY D IFFERENT. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE ON RECORD TO ESTABLISH THAT THE ASSESSE E PAID INTEREST TO PERSONS COVERED U/S 40A(2)(B) OF THE ACT AT A HIGHE R RATE THAN PREVAILING MARKET RATE AT THE GIVEN POINT OF TIME. ACCORDINGLY, WHEN NO SUCH EXERCISE HAS BEEN DONE BY THE A.O., IM PUGNED INTEREST PAID CANNOT BE DISALLOWED. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS RELIED ON AN 7 ORDER OF THE ITAT AHMADABAD-A BENCH IN ITA NO. 2370 /AHD/2010 ORDER DATED 4.1.2013. WE HAVE ALSO FOUND THAT THE RELIANCE ON THIS ORDER IS NOT MISPLACED. ACCORDINGLY, IN VIEW OF TH E ABOVE MENTIONED DISCUSSION, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE IN THE IMPUGNED FINDING AND THEREFORE, CANNOT DEVIATE FROM THE FINDING OF THE LD. CIT(A). ACCORDINGLY, WE DISMISS GROUND NO. 1 AND 1.1 OF THIS APPEAL. 5. FACTS APROPOS GROUND NO. 2 AND 2.1 ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED INTEREST PAYMENT OF RS. 2,51,42,116/- TO TH E UNSECURED CREDITORS WHEREAS HE HAS GIVEN INTEREST FREE ADVANC ES/LOANS TO THE FOLLOWING CONCERNS/PARTIES: S. NO. NAME OF THE CREDITORS/ASSESSEE HAVING CLOSING BALANCE AS ON 31.03.2009 1. M/S ANJANA CONSTRUCTIONS, CHHOTTI SADARI RS. 3,07,50,000/ - 2. SHRI PURAN MAL ANJANA, VILLAGE KESUNDA, CHOTTI SADARI RS. 0,03,00,000/ - 3. M/S SHIV PUJA CONSTR UCITON (P) LTD. RS. 2,43,00,000/ - 8 DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WHEN THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN THE REASONS FOR NOT CHARGING INTEREST ON TH E ABOVE MENTIONED DEBTORS AND SHOW-CAUSED TO EXPLAIN AS TO WHY PROPORTIONATE INTEREST MAY NOT BE DISALLOWED, IT WA S SUBMITTED THAT AS PER SCHEDULE XI OF THE AUDITED BALANCE SHEET AND PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT RECEIPT OF INTEREST INCOME IS OF RS. 2,66,2 0,542/- AGAINST WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID INTEREST AMOUNTING TO R S. 2,51,79,783/- AND HAS OFFERED SURPLUS AMOUNT OF INTEREST OF RS. 14,30,750/- FOR TAX. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE A.O. IS NOT AUTHORI ZED TO CHARGE NOTIONAL INTEREST. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ALSO OBSERVED THAT LAW DOES NOT PERMIT OR AUTHORIZE THE A.O. TO CHARGE INTEREST AND TO DIRECT THE SPECIFIC RATE OF INTEREST BECAUSE IT IS ONLY THE AS SESSEES COMMERCIAL EXPEDIENCY WHICH IS RELEVANT TO DECIDE WHETHER TO C HARGE OR NOT TO CHARGE INTEREST BY TAKING INTO ACCOUNT VARIOUS ASPE CTS OF BUSINESS. ACCORDING TO THE A.O., THE ABOVE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE NOT ACCEPTABLE BECAUSE HAD SUCH HUGE ADVANCES BEEN NOT GIVEN WITHOUT INTEREST, THE SAME WOULD HAVE BEEN UTILIZED FOR REPAYING LOANS TO HIS CREDITORS AND IN THAT EVENTUALITY THE ASSESSEE WOULD HAVE INCURRED INTEREST EXPENSES LESS BY RS. 25,86,9 33/-. THUS THE 9 A.O. HAS DISALLOWED A SUM RS. 25,86,933/- OUT OF IN TEREST EXPENSES AND HAS ADDED IN HIS HANDS. 6. BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE MADE THE FOL LOWING SUBMISSIONS: SO FAR GROUND NO. 4 ADDITION OF RS. 25,86,,933/- W ERE MADE BY CHARGING NOTIONAL INTEREST IGNORING THE FAC T THAT A HAS SHOWN OVER ALL INTEREST INCOME THE A.O . OBSERVATION THAT INTEREST FREE LOAN PROVIDED TO SHR I ANJANA CONSTRUCTION, CHOTI SADARI, PURAN MALL ANJAN A & SHRI POOJA CONSTRUCTION COMPANY IN FACT HAD NOT BEE N GIVEN AND THE SAME WOULD HAVE BEEN UTILIZED FOR THE REPAYMENT OF LOAN TO THE CREDITORS THE ASSESSEE SAV E INTEREST INCOME TO THE TUNE OF RS. 25,86,933/-. SI R, LAW DOES NOT PERMIT TO CHARGE NOTIONAL INTEREST NEITHER LAW PERMIT TO ASSESSING AUTHORITY TO SIT ON THE CHAIR O F MANAGEMENT OF THE BUSINESS AND TO DECIDE WHAT ACTIO N A BUSINESSMAN IS REQUIRED TO BE TAKEN AND WHEN IT REQUIRED TO BE TAKEN IT IS THE ASSESSEE WHO IS THE BETTER JUDGE HOW TO HANDLE ITS BUSINESS AFFAIRS, HE HAS TO CONSIDER COMMERCIAL EXPEDIENCY FUTURE PROSPECTUS OF THE BUSINESS AND NUMBER OF SEEN OR UNSEEN ASPECT. SIR, WHILE MAKING ADDITION THE A.O. NOT INVOKE THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 36(1)(III) OF THE ACT, NEITHE R IT IS A CASE OF A THAT BORROWED FUND HAS BEEN DIVERTED. 10 7. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND THE FINDING OF THE A.O GIVEN IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR MAKING TH IS SUBSTANTIAL DISALLOWANCE. THE A.O. HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO ESTABL ISH DIRECT NEXUS BETWEEN INTEREST BEARING FUNDS TAKEN BY THE ASSESSE E AND INTEREST FREE ADVANCES/LOANS GIVEN TO THE ABOVE PARTIES, AS IT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE A.O. THAT THERE WAS NO SURPLUS FUNDS AVAILAB LE WITH THE ASSESSEE TO ADVANCE INTEREST FREE LOANS. THE LD. C IT(A) HAS OBSERVED THAT THE A.O. CANNOT DICTATE THE ASSESSEE THE MANNER IN WHICH HE SHOULD RUN HIS BUSINESS AND IT IS UPON THE ASSESSEE TO MANAGE HIS BUSINESS AFFAIRS. AS PER THE A.O., INTE REST FREE FUNDS HAVE BEEN UTILIZED FOR REPAYMENT OF INTEREST BEARIN G LOANS TAKEN. WHEREAS THE ASSESSEE COULD UTILIZE THIS FUND IN REP AYMENT OF INTEREST BEARING LOAN TAKEN, BUT WE HAVE FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ULTIMATELY DISCLOSED SUBSTANTIAL INTEREST INCOM E IN HIS RETURN AND IT IS NOT A CASE WHERE THE A.O. HAS DEDUCTED TH E INTEREST FROM BUSINESS INCOME ASSESSABLE AND DUE TO SUCH A CLAIM THERE IS A LOSS OF REVENUE. ADMITTEDLY, IT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE REV ENUE THAT THE INTEREST PAYMENT CLAIMED ARE NOT GENUINE. IT IS TH E ASSESSEE WHO HAS TO TAKE HIS BUSINESS DECISIONS. THEREFORE, WE HAVE FOUND THAT THE REVENUE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO ESTABLISH THE NEXU S BETWEEN THE 11 INTEREST ADVANCES AND INTEREST FREE ADVANCES MADE. ACCORDINGLY, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DELETED THE ADDITION OF RS. 25,8 6,930/-. RESULTANTLY, WE DISMISS GROUND NO. 2 AND 2.1 OF REV ENUES APPEAL. 8. GROUND NO. 3 AND 3.1 OF REVENUES APPEAL IS IN R ELATION TO ADDITION OF RS. 88 LAKHS ADDED ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPL AINED CASH CREDITORS U/S 68 OF THE ACT. 8.1 FACTS LEADING TO THIS GROUND ARE THAT THE ASSES SEE OBTAINED UNSECURED LOANS TOTALING TO RS. 2,42,50,903/- FROM VARIOUS PERSONS. THE A.O. PUT THE ASSESSEE TO ESTABLISH AND PROVE TH E IDENTITY AND CREDIT WORTHINESS OF THE ALL THE NEW CASH CREDITORS AND SO ALSO THE GENUINITY OF THE TRANSACTIONS. THE ASSESSEE HAS RA ISED LOANS FROM 26 PARTIES WHICH ARE MENTIONED AT PAGES 12 TO 15 OF TH E APPELLATE ORDER. THE ASSESSEE FILED CONFIRMATIONS IN RESPECT OF MOST OF THEM AND ALSO TRIED TO PROVE THEIR CREDIT WORTHINESS WIT H THE HELP OF EVIDENCE BUT THE A.O. WAS NOT SATISFIED. DURING TH E YEAR, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FRESH LOANS THROUGH BROKERS FRO M DIFFERENT PARTIES. THEREFORE, HE HAS MADE ADDITION OF RS. 88 LAKHS WHICH HAS BEEN DELETED BY THE LD. CIT(A). 12 8.2 BEFORE US, BOTH THE PARTIES HAVE REITERATED THE IR ORIGINAL STAND. 8.3 AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS WE HAVE FOUND THAT ALL THE CREDITORS ARE ASSESSED TO INCOME TAX AND THEIR COMPLETE DETAILS INCLUDING PAN/GIR, DESIGNATIONS OF A.OS ALONGWITH W ITH COMPLETE ADDRESSES OF CREDITORS HAVE BEEN FILED. THE ASSESS EE DEDUCTED TDS FROM INTEREST PAYMENT MADE TO CREDITORS AND HAS DUL Y DEPOSITED THE SAME AS PER LAW. ALL THE CREDITS HAVE BEEN OBTAINE D THROUGH ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES OR DRAFT. REPAYMENTS TO SOME OF THE CREDITORS HAVE BEEN MADE THROUGH ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQ UES OR DEMAND DRAFTS IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEARS. WE WERE APP RISED THAT THERE IS A GENERAL PRACTICE PREVALENT IN THE AREA O F OBTAINING LOANS THROUGH BROKERS. IN SUCH CASES, COMPLETE ADDRESSES OF THE BROKERS WERE ALSO GIVEN. CERTAIN LOANS FROM RELATIVES/FRIE NDS ARE ALSO PROVED AS PER REQUIREMENT OF LAW. THE REASONS GIVE N BY THE A.O. FOR NOT ACCEPTING THE CONFIRMATIONS FILED ARE NOT S UFFICIENT ENOUGH TO DISPROVE THE GENUINITY OF THESE LOANS. THE SO C ALLED DIFFERENCE IN SIGNATURES WHICH THE A.O. HAS REFERRED TO CANNOT BE OF SUBSTANCE BECAUSE HE HAS NOT REFERRED THESE TO THE FINGER PRI NT EXPERTS. THE 13 ASSESSEE HAS ALSO EXPLAINED THE SOURCE OF THESE LOA NS. THE CREDITORS HAVE CONFIRMED THEIR LOANS HAVING BEEN GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID INTEREST AFTER DEDUCTING PROPER T AX AT SOURCE AND RESPECTIVE CREDITORS HAVE CLAIMED CREDIT/REFUND AS THE CASE MAYBE OF THE TDS AMOUNT MADE FROM THE INTEREST PAID/CREDI TED AND ALL OTHER LOANS WERE SHOWN IN THEIR RETURNS FILED WITH THE CONCERNED A.O. THE A.O. CANNOT DEMAND FROM THE ASSESSEE TO PR OVE THE SOURCE OF THE SOURCE OF THE CREDITORS IN THE HANDS OF THE CREDITORS AND LAW IS VERY MUCH SETTLED ON THIS ASPECT. THE A.O. HAS NOT BROUGHT ANY CONTRARY EVIDENCE ON RECORD TO ESTABLISH THAT THE A SSESSEE HAS PASSED ON HIS CONCEALED INCOME TO THE ABOVE MENTION ED CREDITORS WHO HAVE CHEQUES IN RETURN FOR THE SAME AMOUNT. TH US, THE ASSESSEE HAS DULY DISCHARGED THE ONUS CAST BY PRECI NCTS OF SECTION 68 OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDER ED OPINION THAT THE IMPUGNED DELETION IS QUITE IN ORDER AND NO INTE RFERENCE IS WARRANTED AT OUR END. ACCORDINGLY, WE DISMISS GROU ND NO. 3 AND 3.1. 14 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE STANDS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 22 ND MAY, 2014. SD/- SD/- (N.K.SAINI) [HARI OM MARATHA] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 22 ND MAY, 2014 VL/- COPY TO: THE APPELLANT THE RESPONDENT THE CIT BY ORDER THE CIT(A) THE DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, JODHPUR