M/s. Vaish Degree College Trust, Muzaffarnagar V. ACIT, Muzaffarnagar

ITA 4538/DEL/2011

• Counselvise Citation: 453820114 RSA 2011
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-09-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 23-08-2012
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 11-10-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SATPAL SINGH
• Keywords: Depreciation; Reason to believe; Reassessment proceedings; Ignorance of law
• Section: 12AA; 148; 144; 11

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S.V.MEHROTRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A .NOS.4538 TO 4543/DEL/2011 (ASSESSMENT YEARS-2003-04 TO 2008-09) VAISH DEGREE COLLEGE TRUST, VS ACIT, M.S.K.ROAD, RANGE-2, SHAMLI, MUZAFFARNAGAR. MUZAFFARNAGAR. PAN-AAATV5275E ( APPELLANT) (RES PONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SH. ANKIT GUPTA, ADV. RESPONDENT BY: SH.SATPAL SINGH, SR. DR. ORDER THESE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 21-07- 2011 OF THE LD. CIT(A), MUZAFFARNAGAR FOR AYS 2003 -04 TO 2008-09. 2. IN THESE APPEALS, THE ISSUE IS REGARDING PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C). EXCEPT FOR THE AMOUNT OF PENALTY, THE FACTS ARE IDENTICAL IN ALL THE AYS UNDER CONSIDERATION. THEREFORE, I REFER TO THE FACTS AS OBTAINING IN AY 2003-04 VIDE ITA NO. 4538/DEL/2011. 3. THE ASSESSEE IS A SOCIETY REGISTERED UNDER SOCIE TIES REGISTRATION ACT, 1860. IT WAS WAS RUNNING A COLLEGE KNOWN AS VAIS H INTER COLLEGE, MUZAFFARNAGAR. THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT FILED ANY RET URN FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS OBSERVED THAT DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS OF M/S SARTI DEVI RAJA RAM P UBLIC SCHOOL, IT WAS NOTICED THAT SH. RAMESH CHAND GUPTA WAS THE SECRETA RY OF THAT TRUST. THAT TRUST WAS NOT REGISTERED U/S 12AA OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 TILL I.T.A .NO.4538 TO 4543/DEL/2011 2 29.03.2006. THE EXEMPTION U/S 10(23C)(IIIAD) WAS A LSO DISALLOWED ON CERTAIN GROUNDS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THA T SH. RAMESH CHAND GUPTA WAS ALSO SECRETARY IN THE PRESENT TRUST. HE O BSERVED THAT BEFORE ANY NOTICE COULD BE ISSUED, THE ASSESSEE FILED A PETITI ON U/S 273A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT ON 06.04.2009 BEFORE THE CIT, MUZAFFARNAGAR , COPY OF WHICH WAS ALSO ENDORSED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESS ING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THE PETITION FILED BY THE CIT, MUZAFFARNAGAR WAS AL SO HAVING PHOTOCOPIES OF THE RETURN WHICH WAS NOT FILED IN REGULAR COURSE. THE INCOME DECLARED IN THE RETURN WAS RS. 2,11,070/- UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FRO M HOUSE PROPERTY. 4. SINCE THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FILE ANY RETURN, NOT ICE U/S 148 WAS ISSUED ON 03.08.2009, AFTER RECORDING FOLLOWING REASONS:- ASSESSEE, THE SOCIETY, FILED A PETITION U/S 273A O F THE INCOME TAX ACT REQUESTING THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX TO WA IVE THE PENALTY, IF ANY, LIVABLE OR PAYABLE. FROM THE PERU SAL OF THE PETITION THE FOLLOWING FACTORS GATHERED:- 1. THE VAISH COLLEGE, SHAMLI IS SOCIETY REGISTERED UNDER SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT, 1860 WAS RUNNING A COLL EGE KNOWN AS VAISH INTER COLLEGE AND WAS HAVING THE FOLLOWING PROPERTIES:- (A) 23 SHOPS (S.NO. 1 TO 23) WITH CHABUTRA ON SHAML I KAIRANA ROAD, SHAMLI. (B) 23 ROOMS ALONG WITH VARANDA ON THE BACK OF ABOV E SHOPS. (C) TWO SHOPS (NO. 24 & 25) WITH CHABUTAR ON SHAMLI KAIRANA ROAD, SHAMLI. 2. THE AFORESAID SOCIETY DONATED THE ABOVE PROPERTI ES TO A TRUST CONSISTED THE FOLLOWING TRUSTEE:- (I) LALA SUKHBIR SINGH (II) SH. RAMESHWAR DUTT (III) SH. SALEK CHAND SANGAL. 3. THE OBJECT OF THE TRUSTEE WAS DECLARED TO MAINTAIN B.A. CLASSES. I.T.A .NO.4538 TO 4543/DEL/2011 3 4. THE TERMS AND CONDITION PROVIDE THAT THE TRUSTEES O F THE TRUST SHELL MEET AT LEAST 6 ONCE IN EVERY YEAR FOR THE PURPOSE OF TRANSACTION THE BUSINESS OF THE SAID TRUST AND THE TRUSTEES MAY MAKE RULES AND REGULATION RELATION TO SUCH MEETING AND TO CONDUCT THEIR BUSINESS. 5. THE TRUSTEES ARE AUTHORIZED AT ANY TIME TO SELL THE PREMISES OR ITS PART AT ANY TIME FOR THE PURPOSE OF MAKING INVESTMENT OF SALE PROCEED ON MORE PROFITABLE SECURITIES. THE ABOVE TERMS AND CONDITION SHOWS THAT THE ASSESS EE IS NOT RUNNING ANY SUCH EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTE, WHICH I S SOLELY FOR EDUCATION AND NOT FOR PROFIT AS THE TRUSTEES WERE A UTHORIZED TO REGULATE THE BUSINESS AND ALSO TO SELL THE PROPERTI ES FOR MAKING INVESTMENT FOR MORE PROFIT. THUS, THE INCOME OF TH E TRUST IS NEITHER EXEMPT U/S 10(23C)(IIIAD) FOR WHICH THE INS TITUTION MUST BE WHOLLY FOR EDUCATION AND FOR PROFIT NOR EXEMPT U NDER SECTION 11 OF INCOME TAX ACT, AS THE OBJECT OF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT WHOLLY CHARITABLE AND IT IS NOT REGISTERED UNDER SECTION 1 2AA OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. THE ASSESSEE FILED THE INCOME AND EXPENDITURE ACCO UNT FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION IN WHICH THE SURPLUS I S SHOWN AT RS. 62,383/- ON PERUSAL OF THE INCOME AND EXPENDITURE I T IS NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS CLAIMING DEPRECIATION OF RS. 1 ,81,359/- MAINLY ON IMMOVABLE PROPERTIES, BEING ROOMS AND SHO P AND CAN NOT BE UTILIZE FOR BA CLASSES AND THEY ARE LET OUT. THAT THE DEPRECIATION IS NOT TRUST AS TAXABLE. THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN RS. 4,29,306/- AS RENT RECE IVED. AS NEITHER ANY RETURN IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE NOT ANY NOTICE REQUIRING THE ASSESSEE TO FILE THE RETURN IS ISSUED . I HAVE REASON TO BELIEVE THAT INCOME TO EXTENT OF RS. 4,29,306/- ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. 5. IN COMPLIANCE TO NOTICE U/S 148, THE ASSESSEE FI LED RETURN DECLARING INCOME OF RS. 2,13,256/-, UNDER PROTEST. AFTER DIS CUSSIONS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT AT THE RETURNED IN COME. IN THE BACK DROPS OF THESE FACTS, THE ASSESSING OFF ICER INITIATED PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271(1)(C). IN REPLY TO SHOW CAUSE NOTICE, THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT IT HAD FILED VOLUNTARY RETURN WITHOUT ANY DETE CTION BY THE ASSESSING I.T.A .NO.4538 TO 4543/DEL/2011 4 OFFICER ALONG WITH THE PETITION U/S 273A SUBMITTED BEFORE THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-2, MUZAFFARNAGAR. THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT ASSESSEE HAD FILED THE PETITI ON U/S 273A BEFORE CIT, MUZAFFARNAGAR AND NOT BEFORE HIM. HE, THEREFORE, CO NCLUDED THAT ASSESSEE HAD NOT FILED ANY VOLUNTARY RETURN BEFORE THE ASSES SING OFFICER. HE FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE RETURN FILED ALONG WITH THE PETIT ION U/S 273A BEFORE CIT, CANNOT BE TREATED AS RETURN FILED VOLUNTARILY. HE FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT ASSESSEE DID NOT FILE THE RETURN IN COMPLIANCE TO N OTICE U/S 148 WITHIN TIME ALLOWED IN THE NOTICE I.E 30 DAYS NOR ANY REPLY WAS FILED. HE, THEREFORE, CONCLUDED THAT THE RETURN WAS FILED AFTER DETECTION OF CONCEALMENT BY THE DEPARTMENT AND AFTER RECEIVING THE NOTICE U/S 148. HE FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS COULD NOT BE VACATED O R KEPT IN ABEYANCE ON THE GROUND OF PETITION U/S 273A OF THE ACT, BEING PENDI NG BEFORE THE CIT AND THE PROVISIONS OF EXPLANATION 1 OF SECTION 271(1)(C) WE RE ALSO ATTRACTED AS THE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE, WAS NOT SATISFAC TORY. 6. LD. CIT(A) DISMISSED THE ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR T HE FOLLOWING REASONS:- (1) FROM THE PETITION FILED U/S 273A BEFORE CIT, IT WAS EVIDENT THAT THE ASSESSEE FROM THE VERY BEGINNING, WAS QUIT E APPREHENSIVE THAT ITS ACTION OF FILING SO CALLED V OLUNTARY RETURNS COULD ATTRACT PENALTY. THEREFORE, THE PEN ALTY U/S 271(1)(C) WAS ATTRACTED. (2) THE PETITION U/S 273A WAS NOT FILED VOLUNTARILY BEC AUSE SH. RAMESH CHAND GUPTA, THE SECRETARY OF THE ASSESSEE T RUST HAD ALREADY FACED THE INCOME TAX PROCEEDINGS IN ANO THER I.T.A .NO.4538 TO 4543/DEL/2011 5 CASE NAMELY M/S SARTI DEVI RAJA RAM PUBLIC SCHOOL (BEING ITS SECRETARY ALSO) AND IT WAS INEVITABLE W ITH THE PRESENT CASE, WOULD HAVE FACED THE SIMILAR PROCEEDI NGS. (3) THE TRUST WAS AWARE THAT IT WAS DERIVING RENTAL INC OME SINCE BEGINNING AND IT DID NOT BOTHER TO FILE ITS R ETURN CITING IGNORANCE OF LAW WHICH IS NOT EXCUSABLE. (4) THE SO-CALLED RETURNS FILED ALONG WITH PETITION U/S 273A WERE NOT RETURNS BUT SIMPLY PIECE OF PAPER IN THE E YE OF LAW. THE ASSESSING OFFICER UTILIZED THE INFORMATIO N ON THESE PAPERS AND GOT REGULARIZED THE RETURNS. (5) THE ASSESSEES CONDUCT HAD NOT BEEN FAIR. JUST AFT ER RECEIVING THE NOTICE U/S 148, INSTEAD OF FILING TH E RETURN OR REQUESTING THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO TREAT THE RETUR N OF INCOME WHICH WAS ACCOMPANYING THE PETITION U/S 273A AS RETURN FILED IN COMPLIANCE TO NOTICE U/S 148, THE A PPELLANT PRESUMED IT AUTOMATIC AND FURTHER HAD CHOSEN TO FIL E THE FRESH RETURN AFTER FIVE MONTHS AFTER ISSUE OF NOTIC E U/S 148 UNDER PROTEST. (6) IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, THE ENTIRE ASSESSED INCOME A S DETERMINED BY ASSESSING OFFICER CONSTITUTES THE CON CEALED INCOME AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS FULLY JUSTIFIE D IN IMPOSING PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C). (7) THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT BOTHERED TO PURSUE ITS PETITIO N U/S 273A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. INSTEAD IT WAS SURPRIS ING TO NOTE THAT JUST AFTER RECEIVING THE PENALTY ORDER, T HE ASSESSEE HAD MOVED THE PETITION U/S 264 OF THE INCO ME TAX ACT, BEFORE THE CIT, MUZAFFARNAGAR WHICH HAD ALSO N OT BEEN PURSUED BY THE ASSESSEE AND PRESENT APPEAL HAD BEEN FILED. (8) ONCE THERE IS MATERIAL FOR DEEMED PARTICULAR AMOUNT AS CONCEALED INCOME, IMPOSITION OF PENALTY WAS AUTOMAT IC. (9) THE ASSESSEES ARGUMENT THAT VOLUNTARY RETURN WAS F ILED, HAD NO BASIS BECAUSE NO RETURN AT ALL WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER ANY SECTION OF THE ACT. (10) WHEN THE ASSESSEE APPROACHED CIT U/S 273A, HE DOES NOT DISPUTE HIS LIABILITY TO PAY THE PENALTY. ALL HE W ANTS IS A RELIEF. THE CONDUCT OF THE ASSESSEE RIGHT FROM FI LING OF APPLICATION U/S 273A OF THE ACT, HAD BEEN DOUBTFUL INASMUCH AS BEFORE FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME, THE ASSESSEE HAD APPROACHED THE CIT FOR WAIVER OF PENAL TY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. I.T.A .NO.4538 TO 4543/DEL/2011 6 (11) THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL AGAINST IMPOSITION OF PEN ALTY U/S 271(1)(C) WHEREIN IT DESIRES THE ADJUDICATING AUTHO RITY TO ALLOW RELIEF WHICH HAD NOT BEEN ALLOWED TILL DATE B Y THE CIT U/S 273A OR U/S 264 OF THE ACT, AS THE ASSESSEE S APPLICATIONS ARE PENDING. (12) THE ASSESSEES ASSERTION THAT PENALTY FOR CONCEALME NT OF INCOME SHOULD BE INITIATED FROM THE RETURN OF INCOM E ONLY IS ALSO HELD UNTENABLE FOR THE REASON THAT THERE AR E PLETHORA OF DECISIONS OF HONBLE COURTS WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD PENALTY FOR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME U/S 271 (1)(C) OF THE ACT CAN BE IMPOSED EVEN IF THE ASSESSMENT IS COMPLETED U/S 144 OF THE ACT. 7. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE RE-ITERATED THE FAC TS AND SUBMITTED THAT THE VERY BASIS OF PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) WAS THE PET ITION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE U/S 273A. LD. COUNSEL FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT NOTIC E U/S 148 WAS ISSUED ON THE BASIS OF PETITION U/S 273A. THEREFORE, THE ASS ESSEE HAD VOLUNTARILY RETURNED INCOME. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THERE I S NO VARIATION BETWEEN THE RETURNED INCOME IN RESPONSE TO SECTION 148 AND THE ASSESSMENT MADE U/S 143. THEREFORE, THERE WAS NO CONCEALMENT OF INCOME. HE SUBMITTED THAT WHILE PETITION U/S 273A WAS FILED ON 06.04.2009, THE PEN ALTY ORDER HAS BEEN PASSED ON 12.04.2010. HE SUBMITTED THAT NONE OF T HE CONDITIONS AS CONTEMPLATED IN EXPLANATION 1 TO SECTION 271(1)(C) HAVE BEEN FULFILLED. 8. LD. DR RELIED ON THE ORDER OF LOWER REVENUE AUTH ORITIES AND SUBMITTED THAT NOTHING WAS VOLUNTARY SINCE THE ASSESSEE DID N OT FILE RETURN OF INCOME. 9. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE PA RTIES AND HAVE PERUSED THE RECORDS OF THE CASE. FACTS ARE ADMITTE D. THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED PETITION U/S 273A ON 06.04.2009 ALONG WITH RETURN O F INCOME. A COPY OF THIS I.T.A .NO.4538 TO 4543/DEL/2011 7 PETITION WAS ALSO ENDORSED TO ASSESSING OFFICER. O N THE BASIS OF THIS PETITION, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED NOTICE U/S 1 48 ON 03.08.2009. THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME WITHOUT ANY VARIATI ON OF RETURNED INCOME AS FILED BEFORE CIT, MUZAFFARNAGAR ALONG WITH PETITION U/S 273A. THE ASSESSMENT HAD BEEN COMPLETED ON THE SAME AMOUNT. 10. IN THE BACK DROP OF THESE FACTS, IT IS TO BE EX AMINED WHETHER THE ASSESSEE HAD CONCEALED THE PARTICULARS OF HIS INCOM E OR FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF HIS INCOME. FURTHER IT IS TO BE EXA MINED WHETHER ASSESSEE HAD VOLUNTARILY DISCLOSED THE INCOME BEFORE ITS DETECTI ON BY THE DEPARTMENT. THE EXPRESSIONS CONCEALED THE PARTICULARS OF INCOME O R HAS FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME HAVE NOT BEEN DEF INED EITHER IN SECTION 271(1)(C) OR ELSEWHERE IN THE ACT. ONE THING IS CE RTAIN THAT THESE TWO CIRCUMSTANCES ARE NOT IDENTICAL IN DETAILS, ALTHOUG H THEY MAY LEAD TO THE SAME EFFECT, NAMELY, KEEPING OFF A CERTAIN PORTION OF INCOME. THE FORMER IS DIRECT AND THE LETTER MAY BE INDIRECT IN ITS EXECUT ION. THE WORD CONCEAL IMPLIES TO HIDE OR WITHDRAW FROM OBSERVATIONS; TO P REVENT THE DISCOVERING OF; TO WITHHOLD KNOW OF. THE OFFENCE OF CONCEALMENT IS THUS A DIRECT ATTEMP T TO HIDE AN INCOME OR A PORTION FROM THE KNOWLEDGE OF INCOME TAX AUTHO RITY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS CONCLUDED THAT ACTION OF ASSESSEE WAS N OT VOLUNTARY BECAUSE PETITION U/S 273A WAS FILED BY ASSESSEE ONLY AFTER ACTION HAD BEEN TAKEN IN I.T.A .NO.4538 TO 4543/DEL/2011 8 THE CASE OF M/S SARTI DEVI RAJA RAM PUBLIC SCHOOL. THE TRUSTEE, SH. RAMESH CHAND GUPTA, WAS COMMON IN BOTH THE TRUSTS. ADMITTEDLY, BOTH ARE DIFFERENT TRUSTS AND, THEREFORE, ONCE IN A PARTICUL AR TRUST, SOME DEFAULT CAME TO THE NOTICE OF A TRUSTEE MANAGING ITS AFFAIRS AND THE SAME TRUSTEE IS ALSO MANAGING THE AFFAIRS OF OTHER TRUST THEN, IF THE TR USTEE OF THE SECOND TRUST VOLUNTARILY COMES FORWARD BEFORE THE DEPARTMENT AND DISCLOSES MATERIAL FACTS, WHICH HAVE BEEN DULY ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTM ENT, THEN IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT ASSESSEES CONDUCT WAS NOT BONA FIDE OR V OLUNTARY. IT CAN BE SAID TO BE A CASE OF CONCEALMENT ONLY WHEN INCOME COMES TO THE NOTICE OF ASSESSEE BUT HE STILL WITHHOLDS THE SAME FROM DISCLOSING TO THE DEPARTMENT. 11. IN THE PRESENT CASE, SINCE ASSESSEE VOLUNTARI LY FILED THE PETITION U/S 273A WHICH ADMITTEDLY WAS NOT VERY LEGAL, AS NO PEN ALTY HAD BEEN IMPOSED, BUT, NEVERTHELESS WAS THE STARTING POINT FOR INITIA TION OF REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. SECTION 271(1)(C) CONTEMPLATES THE SATISFACTION OF ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE COURSE OF ANY PROCEEDINGS UNDER THIS ACT REG ARDING CONCEALMENT OF THE PARTICULARS OF HIS INCOME OR FURNISHING OF INACCURA TE PARTICULARS OF SUCH INCOME. THEREFORE, ASSESSING OFFICER SHOULD HAVE A RRIVED AT A SATISFACTION IN THE COURSE OF REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS REGARDING FULFILLMENT OF EITHER OF THESE TWIN CONDITIONS. THIS SATISFACTION HAD TO BE DERIVED FROM THE CONDUCT OF THE ASSESSEE. SINCE THE VERY BASIS FOR INITIATI ON OF REASSESSMENT I.T.A .NO.4538 TO 4543/DEL/2011 9 PROCEEDINGS WAS THE PETITION U/S 273A ALONG WITH WH ICH ASSESSEE HAD FILED RETURN OF INCOME AND THE SAME INCOME HAD BEEN RETUR NED IN CONSEQUENCE TO PROCEEDINGS U/S 148, THEREFORE, IT CANNOT BE HELD T HAT ASSESSING OFFICER HAD JUDICIOUSLY ACQUIRED THE SATISFACTION REGARDING FUL FILLMENT OF WITHER OF THESE TWIN CONDITIONS. IN MY OPINION, THE ASSESSEE TRUST VOLUNTARILY AND BONA FIDE BELIEF DECLARED ITS INCOME AND, THEREFORE, NO PENAL TY WAS TO BE LEVIED IN THE PECULIAR FACTS OF THIS CASE. 12. AS FAR AS APPLICABILITY OF EXPLANATION 1 TO SEC TION 271(1)(C) IS CONCERNED THE SAME, IS NOT APPLICABLE BECAUSE NO AM OUNT HAS BEEN ADDED OR DISALLOWED IN COMPUTING THE TOTAL INCOME OF ASSESSE E TRUST. PENALTY PROCEEDINGS ARE QUASI CRIMINAL IN NATURE AND, THERE FORE, TO NARROW OR TO TECHNICAL VIEW CANNOT BE TAKEN BUT THE OVERALL COND UCT OF ASSESSEE HAS TO BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION FOR DECIDING WHETHER THE A SSESSEE TRUST SHOULD BE SADDLED WITH PENALTY OR NOT. 13. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, THE ASSESSEES APPEALS ARE ALLOWED. 14. IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEES APPEALS ARE ALLOW ED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 28.09.2012. SD/- (S.V.MEHROTRA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 28/09/2012 *AMIT KUMAR* I.T.A .NO.4538 TO 4543/DEL/2011 10 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI