Income Tax Officer-2(1), Lucknow V. Shri Arun Buxi, Lucknow

ITA 481/LKW/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1094 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 6 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-02-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 19-08-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Value adopted by valuation officer; Question of law; Cost of acquisition; Fair market value
• Section: 50C; 147

Judgement Text

I.T.A. NO.481/LKW/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2012-13 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH A, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI T. S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO.481/LKW/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2012-13 INCOME TAX OFFICER-2(1), LUCKNOW. VS. SHRI ARUN BUXI, 14-D, JOPLING ROAD, LUCKNOW. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) O R D E R PER T. S. KAPOOR, A.M. THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A) DATED 27/05/2016. THE ONLY EFFECTIVE GROUND TAKEN BY THE REVENUE IS REPRODUCED BELOW: 1. UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE C1T(A) ERRED IN LAW WHILE COMPUTING THE LONG TERM C APITAL GAIN SHARE FOR THE YEAR AT RS.67,350/- IN AS MUCH A S THE PROVISION OF SECTION 55(2)(B)(I) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1 961 FOR EXERCISING OPTION WERE NOT APPLICABLE TO THE ASSESS EE AS ORIGINAL COST OF PREVIOUS OWNER I.E. BHAGYODAY BRIC K FIELD WAS NOT ASCERTAINABLE AND MOREOVER THE ASSETS OF TH E DISSOLVED FIRM, IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE WAS A PARTNER , WERE PUT THE USE ONLY IN 1985. THE CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIA TE THAT PROVISION OF SECTION 552(2)(B)(II) OF THE ACT WOULD BE APPLICABLE ONLY WHEN BOTH THE FIGURES OF ORIGINAL C OST OF ASSET APPELLANT BY SMT. MANJU THAKUR, D.R. RESPONDENT BY SHRI D. D. CHOPRA, ADVOCATE DATE OF HEARING 26/02/2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 26/02/2018 I.T.A. NO.481/LKW/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2012-13 2 OF PREVIOUS OWNER AND THE F.M.V. WAS ASCERTAINABLE AND ALSO WHEN DISTRIBUTION OF ASSETS OF THE FIRM HAD TAKEN P LACE AT ANY TIME BEFORE THE 1 ST DAY OF APRIL, 1987 AS PER PROVISION OF SECTION 49(1) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. FURTHER, THE C IT(A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN ALLOWING COST OF IMPROVEMENT AT RS.57,65,500/- AS 50% PAID TO RAINBOW MALL MAKERS P VT. LTD. WITHOUT EXAMINE THE ACCOUNTS OF THE ALLEGED PARTY T O SUBSTANTIATE THE GENUINENESS OF THE EXPENSES INCURR ED AND CLAIMED. THUS THE CIT(A) ERRED IN COMPUTING THE CAP ITAL GAIN AT RS.67,350/-AGAINST ASSESSED AT RS.88,76,128/- ON SURMISE & CONJECTURE AND AGAINST THE PROVISION OF LAW. 2. AT THE OUTSET, LEARNED A. R. STATED THAT THIS IS A COVERED ISSUED BY THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE I TSELF AND IT WAS STATED THAT HON'BLE TRIBUNAL VIDE ORDER DATED 22/04/2016 HAS DE CIDED SIMILAR ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND HON'BLE ALLAHABAD HIGH C OURT VIDE ORDER DATED 18/10/2016 HAS ALSO DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE REV ENUE AND IN THIS RESPECT OUR ATTENTION WAS INVITED TO PAGES 58 TO 81 OF THE PAPER BOOK WHERE COPIES OF THE ORDERS OF THE TRIBUNAL HON'BLE HIGH C OURT WERE PLACED. 3. LEARNED D. R. FAIRLY CONCEDED THAT THE ISSUE WAS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. 4. THE BRIEF FACTS, AS NOTED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDE R, ARE THAT THE ASSESSMENT OF THE ASSESSEE WAS COMPLETED U/S 147 OF THE ACT AND LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN WAS ASSESSED AT RS.88,76,128/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS CALCULATED THE CAPITAL GAIN AFTER APPLYING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C FOR A LAND EQUIVALENT TO 15% OF THE TOTAL LAND WHIC H WAS SOLD DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. AGGRIEVED WITH THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE LEARNED CIT(A) WHO DELETED THE ADDITION RELYING ON THE TRIBUNAL ORDER DATED 08/04/2016. TH E FINDINGS OF THE CIT(A) ARE REPRODUCED BELOW: I.T.A. NO.481/LKW/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2012-13 3 5. I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE WRITTEN SUBMIS SIONS FILED BY THE APPELLANT, FINDING GIVEN BY THE AO IN THE AS SESSMENT ORDER AND PERUSED THE RECORDS. THE ENTIRE CASE WAS DISCUSSED WITH SHRI SURENDRA KOHLI ADVOCATE AT LENGTH AND IT HAS BEEN SPECIFICALLY POINTED OUT THAT WHILE 21 PLOTS WERE S OLD DURING THE JUST PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12, THE REMAINI NG 18 PLOTS WERE SOLD DURING THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL. THE LEARNED COUNSEL SHRI SURENDRA KOHLI DREW MY ATTENTION TO THE FACT T HAT THE ACTION OF THE A.O. WAS ENTIRELY UNJUSTIFIED IN MAKI NG A REPETITION AND FOLLOWING THE DECISIONS OF HIS PREDECESSOR'S AS SESSMENT ORDERS PASSED ON 28-03-2014 FOR THE A.Y. 2011-12 AN D WRONGLY IGNORED THE APPELLATE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT (A) O N 24-09- 2015 SIMPLY ON THE GROUND THAT THE DEPARTMENT WAS I N SECOND APPEAL FILED BEFORE THE ITAT. THE LEARNED COUNSEL A RGUED THAT THE SAID SECOND APPEAL FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT WAS FINALLY HEARD BY THE HON'BLE ITAT 'B' BENCH LUCKNOW ON 08-0 4-2016 AND FURTHER SUBMITTED A COPY OF THE ITAT'S ORDER PA SSED IN ITA NO.702 & 767/LKW/2015 DATED 22-04-2016 WHICH HAS BE EN SERVED AND FILED A COPY OF THE APPELLATE ORDER DURI NG THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS FOR THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL. A PERUSAL OF THE TRIBUNAL ORDER CLEARLY DENOTES THAT THE DEPARTM ENTAL APPEAL HAS BEEN RIGHTLY DISMISSED CONFIRMING THEREWITH THE FINDINGS OF THE CIT (A) IN FAVOUR OF THE APPELLANT. 5.1 FURTHER I FIND THAT THE ISSUES IN THE PRESENT APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS ARE JUST IDENTICAL AND SIMILAR TO THE C ASE FOR THE A.Y 2011-12 EXCEPT THE FIGURES OF SALE CONSIDERATIONS, COST OF ACQUISITION, COST OF IMPROVEMENT / DEVELOPMENT WHIC H WAS TO THE EXTENT OF 16.4% DURING THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL FU LLY APPROVED BY THE CIT(A)/ITAT. THEREFORE, I HAVE NO H ESITATION IN RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE FINDINGS AND DERIDING THE PRESENT APPEAL IN FAVOUR OF THE APPELLANT ON ALL THE SCORES AND HOLD THAT IN THE PRESENT ASSESSMENT YEAR THE CASE FULLY STAND S DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE APPELLANT. THE AO IS DIRECTED TO COMP UTE THE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT IN THE FOLLOWING MANNER:- COMPUTATION OF CAPITAL GAINS IN THE CASE OF ARUN BU XI & OTHERS 14 D JOPLING ROAD LUCKNOW RELATING TO A.Y 2012-13 SALE CONSIDERATION AS PER DVO REPORT RS16192150/- DETERMINING FMV OF 17 PLOTS UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C EVALUATED BY THE D.V.O. I.T.A. NO.481/LKW/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2012-13 4 ACLD: VALUATION OF 1 PLOT NO.21 MINZUMLA KHASRA RS9 20100/- NO.81-A SITUATED AT FARIDI NAGAR LUCKNOW AT SR.NO.22 RELATING TO MR. RAJESH KUMAR CHAURASIA SALE CONSIDERATION FOR THE YEAR UNDER ----------- ------ CONSIDERATION FOR THE A.Y.2012-13 FOR 18 PLOTS RS17 112250 LESS:INDEXED COST OF ACQUISITION AS PER ASSESSEE'S APPROVED VALUER AS ON 1/4/1981 OF 18 PLOTS. INDEXED COST OF LAND INCLUDING ADDITION PRIOR TO 01-04-1981 RS9977350/ - LESS : BROKERAGE RS3700000/- (--) BROKERAGE CONSIDERED DURING A.Y. 2011-12 RS2600000/- RS1100000 LESS:COST OF IMPROVEMENT/DEVELOPMENT (16.4%) RELATES TO SALE OF 18 PLOTS AT RS.11531000 OUT OF WHICH 50% PAID TO M/S RAINBOW MALL MAKERS PVT. LTD. AS PER AGREEMENT DATED 08-07-2010 RS576 5500 LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS RS.269400/- 4.1 WE FIND THAT HON'BLE TRIBUNAL HAS DECIDED THE I SSUE OF ENTIRE LAND VIDE PARA 8.1, WHICH FOR THE SAKE OF COMPLETENESS IS REP RODUCED BELOW: 8.1 FROM THE ABOVE PARAS REPRODUCED FROM THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A), WE FIND THAT IT IS NOTED BY CIT(A) THAT THE LAND IN QUESTION OF 3.60 LAC SQ. FT. WAS IN FACT OWNED BY M/S BHAGYODAY BRICK FIELD AND THIS FIRM WAS DISSOLVED AND THE LAND WAS DISTRIBUTED TO THE EXISTING SEVEN PARTNERS INCLUDING THE ASSESSEE. THE PRESENT ASSESSEE GOT 25% SHARE I.E. 90,000 SQ. FT. AND HIS WIFE GOT 20% SHARE I.E. 70,000 SQ. FT. IT IS ALSO NOTED BY CIT(A) THAT THE LAND IN QUESTION WAS SUBJECT TO PROCEEDINGS IN THE NAGAR NIGAM BY THE INDIVIDUAL CO-OWNERS TO THE EXTENT OF THEIR RESPECTIVE SHARE AND REMAINED IDLE FOR A SUFFICIENT PERIOD OF TIME AND IN THE MEANTIME A SMALL PORTION WAS TRESPASSED BY ONE MR. QURBAN ALI AND THE CIMAP UNDER THE FOREST DEPT. BUI LT THEIR BOUNDARY WALL AND THAT IT BECAME A LAND LOCKED LAND . I.T.A. NO.481/LKW/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2012-13 5 THEREAFTER, THE ASSESSEE AND THE CO-OWNERS ENTERED INTO REGISTERED AGREEMENT WITH M/S RAINBOW MALLS MAKERS PVT. LTD., LUCKNOW THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR SYED MOHD. QADIR ALI A ND SHRI ARUN AGARWAL WHICH WAS REGISTERED BEFORE THE SUB-RE GISTRAR- III, LUCKNOW ON 28/09/2006 AS PER WHICH SALE OF APA RTMENTS ON SHARING BASIS WAS AGREED IN THE PROPORTION OF 26% & 74% BETWEEN CO-OWNERS AND BUILDERS RESPECTIVELY AND THE ENTIRE EXPENDITURE WAS TO BE BORNE BY THE BUILDERS. SINCE THE LAND WAS NOT HAVING ANY ENTRANCE, THE DEVELOPMENT DID NO T TAKE PLACE AND THE VALIDITY OF THIS AGREEMENT DATED 28/0 9/2006 WAS TO EXPIRE AFTER FOUR YEARS. UNDER THESE FACTS, THE RE WAS A FRESH PROPOSAL BY M/S RAINBOW MALLS MAKERS PVT. LTD. BEFO RE THE ASSESSEE AND CO-OWNERS AND THEY ENTERED INTO A CONS EQUENTIAL AGREEMENT ON 08/07/2010 FOR PLOTTING OF THE LAND AN D SALE THEREOF AFTER MAKING FULL DEVELOPMENT OF THE SAID L AND WITH A SPECIFIC UNDERSTANDING THAT ENTIRE DEVELOPMENT EXPE NSES WOULD BE BORNE BY THE DEVELOPER M/S RAINBOW MALL MAKERS P VT. LTD. EXCLUSIVELY AND THAT 50% OF THE SALE CONSIDERATION OF PLOTS WILL GO TO M/S RAINPOW MALL MAKERS PVT. LTD. WHICH WAS A GREED BY THE ASSESSEE AND CO-OWNERS LEADING TO THE PRESENT S ITUATION. A COPY OF THE SAID AGREEMENT DATED 08/07/2010 HAS BEE N FURNISHED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND CIT(A) AND T HE COPY IS AVAILABLE BEFORE US ALSO ON PAGES 69 TO 73 OF THE P APER BOOK. THIS IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE LAND WAS NOT OWNED BY THE PARTNERSHIP FIRM M/S BHAGYODAY BRICK FIELD AND THE ASSESSEE BECAME OWNER OF 25% OF SUCH LAND ON DISSOLUTION OF THE SAID FIRM. HENCE, IT CANNOT BE DISPUTED THAT THE ASSESS EE IS OWNER OF ONLY 25% OF LAND AND NOT OF THE ENTIRE LAND. TH IS IS ALSO SEEN THAT THE ORIGINAL AGREEMENT OF 2006 WAS REGIST ERED AGREEMENT WITH M/S RAINBOW MALLS MAKERS PVT. LTD. W HICH HAD VALIDITY PERIOD OF FOUR YEARS AND SECOND AGREEMENT OF JULY 2010 IS A CONSEQUENTIAL AGREEMENT BECAUSE THE ORIGINAL A GREEMENT COULD NOT BE GIVEN EFFECT BECAUSE THE LAND WAS LAND LOCKED. WE ALSO FIND THAT THERE IS NO DISPUTE REGARDING THE AMOUNT OF SALE PROCEEDS BECAUSE CIT(A) HAS CONSIDERED THE SAL E PROCEEDS OF THE LAND AT RS.738.19 LAC IN THE PRESENT YEAR WH EREAS THE ASSESSING OFFICER CONSIDERED THE SALE PROCEEDS IN P RESENT YEAR AT RS.747.39 LAC AND THE DIFFERENCE OF RS.9 LAC IS NOT MATERIAL BECAUSE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS CONSIDERED THE SA LE CONSIDERATION AS PER D.V.O. REPORT AND THE CIT(A) H AS CONSIDERED ACTUAL SALE CONSIDERATION ON THE BASIS O F FAIR MARKET VALUE. REGARDING THE INDEX COST OF ACQUISITION CON SIDERED BY I.T.A. NO.481/LKW/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2012-13 6 CIT(A) AT RS.4,60,65,609/- ALSO, THERE IS NO GRIEVA NCE RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BEFORE US AND SIMILARLY REGARDING BROKERAGE ALLOWED BY CIT(A) OF RS.6 LAC, NO SPECIFIC GRIEVANCE HAS BEEN RAISED BY THE REVENUE B EFORE US. REGARDING THE COST OF IMPROVEMENT RELATING TO SALE OF 21 PLOTS AT RS.4,32,24,600/- OUT OF WHICH 50% WAS PAID BY TH E ASSESSEE TO M/S RAINBOW MALLS MAKERS PVT. LTD. AS PER AGREEM ENT DATED 08/07/2010, THIS IS THE OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THIS AGREEMENT IS NOT VALID BECAUSE THIS WAS NEITHE R REGISTERED NOR NOTARIZED. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THE CONS EQUENTIAL AGREEMENT ON 08/07/2010 IS IN CONTINUATION OF THE O RIGINAL AGREEMENT AND THEREFORE, MERELY ON THIS BASIS THAT IT WAS NOT REGISTERED OR NOTARIZED, THE AGREEMENT CANNOT BE DO UBTED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS CONSIDERED THE COST OF IMPROV EMENT AS PER D.V.O. REPORT BUT WHEN THE COST IS NOT INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE BUT BY M/S RAINBOW MALLS MAKERS PVT. LTD. AND AS PER THE AGREEMENT THE SAID PARTY WAS TO RECEIVE 50% OF SALE PROCEEDS FROM THE ASSESSEE AS COST OF DEVELOPMENT, THE AMOUNT OF ACTUAL COST INCURRED IS MATERIAL AND THE AMOUNT PAID BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE DEVELOPER IS AS PER AGREEMEN T HAS TO BE CONSIDERED AND SIMILARLY WHEN THE COST OF DEVELOPME NT WAS INCURRED BY M/S RAINBOW MALLS MAKERS PVT. LTD., THE RE CANNOT BE ANY ADDITION IN THE HANDS OF THE PRESENT ASSESSE E ON THE BASIS THAT THERE IS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT BY THE A SSESSEE ON COST OF DEVELOPMENT. CONSIDERING THESE FACTS, WE F IND NO REASON TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE ALSO. THE CIT(A) HAS CONSIDERED ALL THE FACTS IN DETAIL A ND HE HAS WORKED OUT THE TOTAL LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN IN THE PRESENT YEAR AT RS.33,91,310/- AND THE ASSESSEES SHARE HAS BEEN WORKED OUT TO THE EXTENT OF 25% THEREOF AT RS.8,47,827.50 AS AGAINST ASSESSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AT RS.3,94,05,489 /-. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THE SHARE OF THE ASSESSEE IS ON LY 25% AS HAS BEEN CONSIDERED BY CIT(A) AS PER THE DISSOLUTIO N DEED OF THE SAID PARTNERSHIP FIRM M/S BHAGYODAY BRICK FIELD AND COST OF IMPROVEMENT IS RIGHTLY CONSIDERED BY CIT(A) AT RS.2,17,62,300/- AS PER THE AGREEMENT DATED 08/07/2 010. HENCE, ON THIS ISSUE, WE DECLINE TO INTERFERE IN TH E ORDER OF CIT(A). ACCORDINGLY, GROUND NO. 2 & 3 OF THE REVEN UE ARE REJECTED. 4.2 WE FURTHER FIND THAT HON'BLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COU RT VIDE JUDGMENT DATED 18/10/2016 HAS DISMISSED THE APPEAL FILED BY REVENUE AGAINST THE I.T.A. NO.481/LKW/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2012-13 7 TRIBUNAL ORDER DATED 08/04/2016. FOR THE SAKE OF C ONVENIENCE THE FINDINGS OF THE COURT ARE REPRODUCED BELOW: THIS APPEAL QUESTIONS THE CORRECTNESS OF THE APPEL LATE ORDER AND ITS AFFIRMANCE BY THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIB UNAL IN RESPECT OF ADDITION OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENTS, UNE XPLAINED CREDIT ENTRY, CAPITAL GAINS AND BROUGHT FORWARD LOS SES. SRI GHAN SHYAM CHAUDHARY, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE A PPELLANT DEPARTMENT SUBMITS THAT THE TRIBUNAL WAS NOT JUSTIF IED IN UPHOLDING THE APPELLATE ORDER AND HAS INCORRECTLY C OMPUTED THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN SHARE INASMUCH AS, THE PROVI SIONS OF SECTION 55 (2) (B) (II) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 FOR EXERCISING OPTIONS WERE NOT APPLICABLE TO THE ASSES SEE. THE PERIOD TO WHICH THE ASSETS OF THE DISSOLVED FIRM WE RE PUT TO USE AND THE COST WAS NOT EVEN ASCERTAINABLE. WHAT WE FIND FROM THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICE R IS THAT HE HAD PROCEEDED TO DISBELIEVE THE AGREEMENT, WHICH WA S UNREGISTERED AND UNAUTHENTIC AND ACCORDINGLY HAS DI SALLOWED THE CLAIM SOUGHT BY THE ASSESSEE. SINCE THE SAID FA CT WAS THE BASIS OF THE ISSUE RELATING TO LONG TERM CAPITAL GA INS, THE SAME WAS GONE EXTENSIVELY BY THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY THA T HAS ARRIVED AT A FINDING OF FACT, AFFIRMED BY THE TRIBUNAL. THESE FINDINGS ARE IN PARAGRAPH-14 TO 21 OF THE APP ELLATE ORDER DATED 28.03.2014. WE ARE NOT REPRODUCING THE SAME B UT ON A PERUSAL THEREOF, WE FIND THAT THE FINDINGS RECORDED BY THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY THAT WERE TAKEN UP IN APPEAL BE FORE THE TRIBUNAL, HAVE BEEN RIGHTLY AFFIRMED VIDE ORDER DAT ED 22.04.2016. THE AFORESAID FINDINGS THAT HAVE BEEN R ECORDED IN THE APPELLATE ORDER AND AFFIRMED BY THE TRIBUNAL AR E FINDINGS OF FACTS BASED ON MATERIAL ON RECORD AND IN THE ABSENC E OF ANY MATERIAL TO THE CONTRARY WE DO NOT FIND ANY PERVERS ITY SO AS TO LOCATE ANY SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW. THE TRANSAC TIONS WERE FOUND TO BE VALID AND SO WAS THE AGREEMENT WHICH HA D BEEN INCORRECTLY ASSUMED TO BE UNAUTHENTIC BY THE ASSESS ING OFFICER. CONSEQUENTLY, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY SUBSTANTIAL QUE STION OF LAW ARISING, WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THE APPEAL WHI CH IS HEREBY DISMISSED. I.T.A. NO.481/LKW/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2012-13 8 4.3 KEEPING IN VIEW THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANC ES AND THE JUDICIAL DECISION, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A) THEREFORE, THE SAME IS CONFIRMED AND THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISM ISSED. (ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 26/02 /2018) SD/. SD/. (PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY) ( T. S. KAPOOR ) JUDICIAL MEMBER A CCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED:26/02/2018 *SINGH COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. CONCERNED CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. D.R., I.T.A.T., LUCKNOW