Krishan Kumar Saraf, Bhiwani V. CIT, Hisar

ITA 4562/DEL/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 97307 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 11 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-09-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 07-09-2015
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 12-10-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SULEKHA VERMA
• Assessee Lawyers: NK JAIN
• Keywords: Capital asset; Business income; Revision of order; Question of law; Assessment record; Prejudicial to interest
• Section: 69; 263

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH D NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S.V. MEHROTRA : ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE : JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 4562/DEL/2011 ASSTT. YR: 2007-08 KRISHAN KUMAR SARAF, VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-T AX, S/0 SH. BRIJ LAL SARAF, HISSAR. BICHLA BAZAR, NEAR CITY POLICE STATIONJ, BHIWANI. PAN: AMQPS 3147J ( APPELLANT ) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI N.K. JAIN ADV. RESPONDENT BY : MS. SULEKHA VERMA CIT (DR) DATE OF HEARING : 07/09/2015. DATE OF ORDER : 24/09/2015. O R D E R PER S.V. MEHROTRA, A.M: THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE AGA INST THE ORDER DATED 10-08-2011 PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-T AX, HISAR U/S 263 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961, RELATING TO ASSTT. YEAR 2 007-08. 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE LD. COMMISS IONER CALLED FOR THE ASSESSMENT RECORD AND ON EXAMINATION OF THE ASSESSM ENT ORDER PASSED BY THE AO U/S 143(3), OBSERVED THAT THE SAID ORDER WAS ERR ONEOUS, IN SO FAR AS IT WAS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE FOR THE FOLL OWING REASONS: ON PERUSAL, IT IS NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ST ARTED NEW BUSINESS AND OPENING CAPITAL OF RS.2251672.32 HAS B EEN REFLECTED IN CAPITAL A/C, THE SOURCE OF WHICH SHOUL D HAVE BEEN 2 GOT EXPLAINED, HOWEVER, THE A.O. NEITHER PUT ANY QU ERY IN THIS REGARD NOR FURTHER SCRUTINIZED THE ISSUE. II. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED LAND MEASU RING 1 KANALS 13.6 MARLA ON 27.03.2001 AT RS.1,24,000/- AN D DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION SOLD VARIOUS SHOPS FOR RS.31 ,98,000/- CONSTRUCTED ON 381.04 SQ. YARD PORT ION OF THIS LAND. THE ASSESSEE HAS DECLARED LONG TERM CAPITAL G AIN AT RS.22,62,575/- FROM THIS TRANSACTION. IN VIEW OF PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT'S DECISION I N THE CASE OF HARBANS SINGH VS. CIT AMRITSAR-I (132 ITR 77 & 2 3 CTR 335) AND SUPREME COURT'S DECISION IN THE CASE OF RA JA J. RARNESHWAR RAO VS. CIT HYDRABAD CITED IN 42 ITR 179 ), THE INCOME EARNED FROM THE TRANSACTION OF PURCHASING PL OT OF LANDS, CONSTRUCTING SHOPS THEREON AND SELLING THOSE SHOPS SHOULD HAVE BEEN TREATED AS BUSINESS INCOME INSTEAD OF LONG TER M CAPITAL GAIN, BUT THE A.O. FAILED TO DO SO AND WITHOUT SCRU TINIZING THE ISSUE ACCEPTED LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. III. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE HAS DECLARED SHORT TERM CAPITAL LOSS AMOUNTING TO RS.35002/-. THE A.O. ACCEPTED THIS SHO RT TERM CAPITAL LOSS WITHOUT OBTAINING ANY DOCUMENTARY EVID ENCE IN SUPPORT OF THE ASSESSEE'S CLAIM 'OF SHORT TERM CAPI TAL LOSS. AS THE GENUINENESS OF LOSS HAS NOT BEEN SCRUTINIZED BY THE A.O., THE ORDER PASSED BY THE AO ON THIS ISSUE IS ALSO ERRONE OUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE. IV. THE ASSESSEE HAS CREDITED CAPITAL A/C WITH NSC INTEREST RECEIVED ON MATURITY AMOUNTING TO RS.21880/-. THE I NTEREST RELEVANT TO YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION SHOULD HAVE BE EN INCLUDED IN TOTAL INCOME BUT THE AO FAILED TO DO SO. 3 3. HE, THEREFORE, ISSUED NOTICE U/S 263(1) AND AFTE R CONSIDERING THE ASSESSEES SUBMISSIONS, SET ASIDE THE ASSESSMENT OR DER AND DIRECTED THE AO TO REFRAME THE ASSESSMENT AS PER THE DIRECTIONS GIV EN IN HIS ORDER. 4. BEING AGGRIEVED WITH THE ORDER OF LD. CIT, THE A SSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US AND HAS TAKEN FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL : THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT SETTING ASIDE THE AS SESSMENT ORDER U/S 263(1) BY CONSIDERING IT AS ERRONEOUS IN SO FAR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE IS AGAINST L AW & FACTS FOR THE ALLEGED REASON THAT :- (I) THE SALE OF PLOT OUT OF THE LAND IN WHICH MONEY WAS INVESTED TO ACQUIRED & HELD AS A CAPITAL ASSETS AS A TRADING ACTIVITY AND DIRECTING TO ASSESS THE INCOME THERE FROM AS BUSINESS INCOME IN VIEW OF JUDGMENT OF P&H HIGH COURT PASSED ON DIFFERENT FACTS BY IGNORING LA TER JUDGMENTS OF THE SAME HIGH COURT AND OF OTHER COURT S. (II) TO VERIFY THE SHORT TERM CAPITAL LOSS OF RS. 35002/ - DULY PROVED ON SALE OF SHOPS. (III) TO VERIFY THE RECEIPT OF INTEREST OF RS. 6188 AND C REDITED DIRECTLY TO CAPITAL ACCOUNT RECEIVED ON MATURITY OF NSC IGNORING THAT IT WAS ALREADY SHOWN AS INCOME ON ACC RUAL BASIS BY CONSIDERING IT AS INCOME FROM MIC INTT. AG AINST FACTS. (IV) TO VERIFY THE DETAIL OF EXPENSES INCURRED IN CONSTR UCTION OF SHOPS DULY VERIFIABLE AND ALREADY VERIFIED FROM THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND TO TAX THE UNEXPLAINED INVEST MENT. (V) IN TREATING SOURCE OF MARRIAGE EXPENSE TO THE EXTEN T OF RS. 244000+51000, AS UNEXPLAINED U/S 69 C OF I.T. A CT & TO ASSESS THE SAME AS INCOME AGAINST LAW. WITHOUT PROPERLY CONSIDERING THE MATERIAL ON RECOR D AND THE EXPLANATION SUBMITTED IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING AND ALSO BEFORE THE LD CIT WITHOUT SHOWING HOW THE ORDER IS ERRONEOUS & PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE MERELY BEC AUSE THE 4 ORDER OF THE AO WAS NOT IN THE LINES AS CONSIDERED BY THE LD CIT. 2. THE LD. CIT HAS INITIATED THE PROCEEDING WITHOUT FULFILLING THE REQUIREMENT OF SECT. 263 WHICH IS E SSENTIAL BEFORE PROCEEDING U/S 263(1) AND THEREFORE ALSO THE ORDER IS BAD IN LAW. 3. LD. CIT HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT N O NOTICE U/S 143(2) WAS SERVED BEFORE THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING WAS INITIATED WITHIN THE STATUTORY PERIOD WHICH IS A ST ATUTORY REQUIREMENT AND AS SUCH THE ENTIRE ASSESSMENT WAS W ITHOUT AUTHORITY OF LAW AND AS SUCH NO ORDER AS PASSED SHO ULD HAVE BEEN PASSED RATHER IT SHOULD HAVE CANCELLED INSTEAD OF SETTING IT ASIDE. 4. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD AMEND OR RESCI ND ANY OF THE GROUND AT THE TIME OF OR BEFORE HEARING OF A PPEAL. 5. AT THE OUTSET LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REFER RED TO GROUND NO. 3 NOTED ABOVE AND POINTED OUT THAT SINCE THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY AO WAS BAD IN LAW, THEREFORE, THE SAID ORDER COU LD NOT BE REVISED U/S 263 OF THE ACT. HE SUBMITTED THAT ORIGINAL RETURN FOR A Y 2007-08 WAS FILED ON 31-7-2007 AND THE NOTICE U/S 143(2), WHICH SHOULD H AVE BEEN ISSUED BEFORE 31-7-2008 WAS ADMITTEDLY ISSUED ON 5-9-2008 FIXING THE CASE FOR HEARING ON 17-9-2008. 6. LD. COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT THE LAW AS APPLICABLE ON THE DATE OF FILING OF RETURN WILL BE APPLICABLE AND ACCORDINGLY THE NO TICE U/S 143(2) SHOULD HAVE BEEN ISSUED WITHIN 12 MONTHS FROM THE END OF T HE MONTH IN WHICH THE RETURN WAS FURNISHED AND HENCE NOT AMENABLE TO REVI SION U/S 263. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED IN PURSUANCE TO THE SAI D NOTICE WAS WITHOUT JURISDICTION. 5 7. LD. COUNSEL REFERRED TO THE DECISION OF HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. GITSONS ENGINEERING CO. (2015) 370 ITR 87 (MAD.), WHEREIN THE HONBLE HIGH COURT, FOLLOWING THE DECIS ION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS. HOTEL BLUE MOON 321 ITR 362 (SC) HAS HELD THAT THE OBJECTION IN RELATION TO WRONG SERVICE OF NOTICE CONTEMPLATED U/S 143(2) OF THE ACT COULD BE TAKEN BEFORE THE ITAT AS IT WAS A LEGAL PLEA. 8. LD. COUNSEL FURTHER REFERRED TO THE DECISION OF HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT CENTRAL-I, VS. ESCORTS F ARMS PVT. LTD. 180 ITR 280, WHEREIN THE FACTS WERE AS UNDER: BRIEFLY STATED, THE FACTS ARE THAT IN RESPECT OF T HE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1973-74, THE INCOME TAX OFFICER MADE AN ASSESS MENT. AN APPEAL WAS TAKEN TO THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, WHO ALLOWED THE SAME. FURTHER APPEAL WAS FILED BY THE D EPARTMENT TO THE TRIBUNAL AND THE SAME WAS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE DEPARTMENT. THE ASSESSEE, THEREAFTER, MOVED AN APPLICATION UNDE R SECTION 254(2) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT IN WHICH IT WAS CONTEN DED THAT AT THE TIME OF THE HEARING OF THE MAIN APPEAL, THE ASS ESSEE'S COUNSEL HAD SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ITS ELF WAS BARRED BY TIME. THE SUBMISSION WAS THAT THIS CONTEN TION HAD NOT BEEN DEALT WITH BY THE TRIBUNAL. THE TRIBUNAL THEN PASSED AN ORDER UNDER SECTION 254(2) RECTIFYING ITS EARLIER O RDER. THE TRIBUNAL CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT SUCH A CONTENT ION HAD BEEN RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE AND IT DECIDED THAT CONTENTI ON IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL, THER EFORE, WAS THAT THE ASSESSMENT WAS BARRED BY TIME, BUT, AT THE SAME TIME, ON MERITS, THE TRIBUNAL HAD DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE D EPARTMENT. 6 AGAINST THE AFORESAID ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 25 4(2) OF THE ACT, THE DEPARTMENT FILED A REFERENCE APPLICATION U NDER SECTION 256(1), BUT THE SAID APPLICATION WAS DISMISSED. THE ASSESSEE THEN MOVED A SECOND MISCELLANEOUS APPL ICATION BEING NO. 14 OF 1986 IN WHICH IT PRAYED THAT THE TR IBUNAL SHOULD RECALL ITS ORDER PASSED IN THE MAIN APPEAL B EING ITA NO. 1325 OF 1983. THE TRIBUNAL OBSERVED, VIDE ITS ORDER DATED FEBRUARY 12, 1986, WHILE DISPOSING OF THE SECOND MI SCELLANEOUS APPLICATION, THAT THE EFFECT OF ITS ORDER PASSED IN M. A. NO.4 OF 1985, WAS THAT ALL SUBSEQUENT PROCEEDINGS BY WAY O F APPEAL BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND THE APPEL LATE TRIBUNAL WOULD LOSE EFFECT AND WOULD BECOME INFRUCT UOUS. AGAINST THE SAID DECISION, THE DEPARTMENT FILED AN APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 256(1)WHICH WAS DISMISSED AND NOW AN APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 256(2) HAS BEEN FILED SEE KING REFERENCE OF THE QUESTION OF LAW WHICH HAS BEEN REP RODUCED ABOVE. 9. ON THESE FACTS HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT HELD AS UNDER: IN OUR OPINION, THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IS COR RECT WHEN IT STATED THAT THE EFFECT OF HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSME NT WAS BARRED BY TIME IS THAT ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT TO THE SAID DECISION WOULD BE INFRUCTUOUS. THE INCOME TAX OFFIC ER GETS JURISDICTION TO PASS AN ASSESSMENT ORDER IF IT IS W ITHIN LIMITATION. IF THE ASSESSMENT IS BARRED BY TIME, THEN ANY DECIS ION ON MERITS WOULD BE OF NO CONSEQUENCE, AND FOR THE SAME REASON , THE DECISION, ON MERITS, BY THE APPELLATE AUTHORITIES W OULD ALSO BE OF NO CONSEQUENCE AND WOULD HAVE TO BE IGNORED. THI S IS EXACTLY WHAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS OBSERVED IN THE IMPUG NED ORDER. FOR, IF THE ASSESSMENT IS BARRED BY TIME, NO EFFECT CAN BE GIVEN TO THE OTHER DECISION ON MERITS. IF, HOWEVER, THE R EFERENCE OF THE DEPARTMENT AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED IN M. A. NO.4 O F 1985 7 SUCCEEDS, THEN THE DECISION ON MERITS OF THE VARIOU S APPELLATE AUTHORITIES WOULD AUTOMATICALLY REMAIN. 10. WITH REFERENCE TO ABOVE DECISIONS, LD. COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT THE OBJECTION REGARDING ASSESSMENT ORDER BEING BAD IN L AW CAN BE TAKEN AT ANY STAGE OF PROCEEDINGS AND SINCE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS BAD IN LAW, THEREFORE, ANY DECISION ON MERIT IS OF NO CONSEQUEN CE. 11. LD. COUNSEL FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE PROTECTI ON GIVEN U/S 292BB IS ALSO NOT AVAILABLE FOR THE PRESENT ASSESSMENT ORDE R AS THE SAID SECTION HAS BEEN HELD TO BE PROSPECTIVE. IN THIS REGARD HE RELI ED ON THE DECISION OF AMRITSAR BENCH OF THE ITAT IN THECA E OF DCIT VS. M ANGAT RAM 154 TTJ (ASR)(UO) 24. 12. LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE PLEA REGARDING INVALI DITY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, ON THE BASIS OF ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S 143(2 ), BEYOND ONE YEAR, CANNOT BE TAKEN IN THE PROCEEDINGS U/S 263 BECAUSE SECTION 263 IS FOR THE BENEFIT OF REVENUE IN REGARD TO ORDERS WHICH ARE PREJUDICIAL TO INTEREST OF REVENUE AND, THEREFORE, ASSESSEE CANNOT TAKE THE PLEA OF ASSESSM ENT ORDER BEING BAD IN LAW AT THIS STAGE. 13. LD. DR REFERRED TO THE DECISION OF HONBLE PUNJ AB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF HARBANS SINGH VS. CIT 132 ITR 77, IN WHICH, THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF R AJA J. RAMESHWAR RAO V. CIT 42 ITR 179 WAS FOLLOWED. THE PROPOSITION LAI D DOWN IN THESE TWO DECISIONS IS THAT WHEN A PERSON ACQUIRES LAND WITH A VIEW TO SELL IT LATER AFTER 8 DEVELOPING, HE IS CARRYING ON AN ACTIVITY RESULTING IN PROFIT AND THE ACTIVITY CAN ONLY BE DESCRIBED AS A BUSINESS VENTURE. 14. THE THIRD DECISION, RELIED UPON BY LD. CIT(DR) IS THAT OF HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IS IN THE CASE OF GEE VEE ENTERPRI SES V. ADDL. CIT 99 ITR 375, WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT A WRIT PETITION WOULD NOT LIE IF THE PETITIONER HAD NOT FILED ANY APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF COMMI SSIONER NOR HAD GIVEN ANY EXPLANATION AS TO WHY HE DID NOT FILE APPEAL AG AINST ORDER U/S 263 NOR ANY EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES WERE SHOWN TO EXIST. SHE SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE HAD NOT FILED ANY APPEAL AGAINST THE ASSES SMENT ORDER AND, THEREFORE, AT THIS JUNCTURE THIS PLEA CANNOT BE TAKEN. 15. SHE FURTHER REFERRED TO THE DECISION OF THE IT AT IN THE CASE OF KRISHNA SHRIRAM VS. CIT (ITA NO. 1649/DEL/2011 OR DER DATED 29-1-2014), WHEREIN 263 ORDER HAD BEEN UPHELD, FOLLOWING THE D ECISION OF HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF GEE VEE E NTERPRISES (SUPRA), BECAUSE AO HAD NOT CARRIED OUT ANY INQUIRY WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND HAVE PERUSED THE RECORD OF THE CASE . BEFORE WE COME TO THE MERITS OF THE CASE THE PRELIMINARY OBJECTION, RAISE D BY ASSESSEE VIDE GROUND NO. 3, NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED. 16. ADMITTEDLY THE NOTICE U/S 143(2) WAS ISSUED BEY OND TIME AND, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS BAD IN LAW. LD. CIT(DR)S SUBMISSION IS THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT CHALLENGED THE ASSESSME NT ORDER. HOWEVER, SINCE THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT AGGRIEVED WITH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THEREFORE, HE DID NOT CHALLENGE. HOWEVER, NOTHING TURNS ON THIS WHEN WE CONSIDER THE ISSUE IN THE BACKDROP OF PROCEEDINGS INITIATED U/S 263 BY LD . COMMISSIONER. THE 9 MOOT POINT FOR CONSIDERATION IS AS TO WHETHER THIS OBJECTION CAN BE ENTERTAINED AT THIS STAGE OF PROCEEDING OR NOT. IN THIS REGARD WE FIND THAT THE DECISION OF HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ESCORTS FARMS PVT. LTD. (SUPRA), WHICH WE HAVE EXTENSIVELY REPRODUCED EARLI ER, CLEARLY SUPPORTS THE ASSESSEES PLEA. 17. THERE IS NO QUARREL WITH THE PROPOSITION ADVANC ED BY LD. DR THAT THE PROCEEDINGS U/S 263 ARE FOR THE BENEFIT OF REVENUE AND NOT FOR ASSESSEE. 18. HOWEVER, U/S 263 THE LD. COMMISSIONER CANNOT RE VISE A NON EST ORDER IN THE EYE OF LAW. SINCE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS P ASSED IN PURSUANCE TO THE NOTICE U/S 143(2), WHICH WAS BEYOND TIME, THEREFORE , THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED IN PURSUANCE TO THE BARRED NOTICE HAD NO LEG S TO STAND AS THE SAME WAS NON EST IN THE EYES OF LAW. ALL PROCEEDINGS SUBSEQU ENT TO THE SAID NOTICE ARE OF NO CONSEQUENCE. FURTHER, THE DECISION OF HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. GITSONS ENGINEERING CO. 370 IT R 87 (MAD) CLEARLY HOLDS THAT THE OBJECTION IN RELATION TO NON SERVICE OF NOTICE COULD BE RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AS THE SAME WAS LEGAL, WHICH WENT TO THE ROOT OF THE MATTER. 19. WHILE EXERCISING POWERS U/S 263 LD. COMMISSIONE R CANNOT REVISE AN ASSESSMENT ORDER WHICH IS NON EST IN THE EYE OF LAW BECAUSE IT WOULD PREJUDICE THE RIGHT OF ASSESSEE WHICH HAS ACCRUED I N FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF ITS INCOME BEING DETERMINED. IF LD. COMM ISSIONER REVISES SUCH AN ASSESSMENT ORDER, THEN IT WOULD IMPLY EXTENDING/ GR ANTING FRESH LIMITATION FOR PASSING FRESH ASSESSMENT ORDER. IT IS SETTLED L AW THAT BY THE ACTION OF THE 10 AUTHORITIES THE LIMITATION CANNOT BE EXTENDED, BECA USE THE PROVISIONS OF LIMITATION ARE PROVIDED IN THE STATUTE. 20. IN VIEW OF ABOVE DISCUSSION, GROUND NO. 3 IS AL LOWED AND THE REVISIONAL ORDER PASSED U/S 263 IS QUASHED. 21. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 24/09/2015.. SD/- SD/- (SUCHITRA KAMBLE) (S.V. MEHROTRA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 24/09/2015. *MP* COPY OF ORDER TO: 1. ASSESSEE 2. AO 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, NEW DELHI. 11 - + DATE INITIAL 1. DRAFT DICTATED ON 23 - 09.2015 PS 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 24.09.2015 PS 3. DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER JM/AM 4. DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER. JM/AM 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS PS/PS 6. KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON PS 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK PS 8. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE AR 9. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK. 10. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER.