ITO (TDS)-2, Chandigarh V. M/s Q C Residential Pvt. Ltd., Mohali

ITA 490/CHANDI/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5199 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-04-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Next Hearing Date: 03-01-2017
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 05-05-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAMAN AGGARWA
• Assessee Lawyers: S K MITTAL
• Keywords: Bonafide belief; Non-deduction of tax
• Section: 273B; 133A; 194C; 201(1); 6

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH,CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MS. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOS. 490 TO 493/CHD/2016 A.YS: 2006-07 TO 2009-10 THE ITO (TDS)-2, VS M/S QC RESIDENTIAL P. LTD., CHANDIGARH. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS M/S QUARK MEDIA HOUSE INDIA P.LTD. ), A-45, PHASE-VIII, INDL AREA, MOHALI. PAN: AAACQ0535F (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI RAMAN AGGARWA; RESPONDENT BY : SHRI S.K.MITTAL, DR DATE OF HEARING : 23.03.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 25.04.2017 O R D E R PER ANNAPURNA GUPTA,AM THE ABOVE MENTIONED APPEALS BY REVENUE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(APPEALS)-2 CHANDIGARH DATED 15.02.2016 FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2006-07 TO 2009-10. 2. SINCE THE FACTS AND ISSUES ARE SAME IN ALL THE APPEALS, THEREFORE, ALL THE APPEALS WERE HEARD TOGE THER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OFF BY THIS CONSOLIDATED ORD ER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE AND BREVITY. 3. AS THE ISSUES AND FACTS ARE IDENTICAL IN ALL THE APPEALS, THEREFORE, FACTS ARE TAKEN FROM ITA NO. 490/CHD/2016. 2 4. THE ONLY ISSUE IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS AGAINST THE DELETION OF PENALTY IMPOSED UNDER SECTION 271C OF INCOME TAX ACT,1961 ( IN SHORT THE ACT ) FOR NON DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE UNDER SECTION 201(1) OF THE ACT. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUND : THE LD. CIT (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN DELETING PENALTY IMPOSED UNDER SECTION 271C R.W.S. 274 OF THE IT ACT, 1961 FOR NON-DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE UNDER SECTION 201(1) IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS COMMITTEE DEFAULT TO DEDUCT THE TAX AT SOURCE AS REQUIRED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 201(1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT,1961. 5. THE BRIEF FACTS RELATING TO THE ISSUE ARE THAT T HE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF SOFT WARE DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES AND PROVIDES THE SAME TO ITS ASSOCIATE ENTERPRISES. A SURVEY UNDER SECTION 133A (1) OF THE ACT WAS CARRIED OUT AT THE BUSINESS PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE. DURING THIS TDS VERIFICATION, IT WAS OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD TAKEN ON LEASE A BUILDING ALONGWITH THE MAINTENANCE OF BUILDING AND OTHER FACILITIES FROM M/S QUARK CITY INDIA PVT. LTD . AS PER THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS MENTIONED IN THE LEASE AGREEMENT DATED 13.04.2005 EXECUTED BY M/S QUARK MEDIA HOUSE PVT. LTD. & M/S QUARK CITY INDIA PVT. L TD. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT AS PER PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194(1) OF THE ACT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WAS REQUIRED TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE @ 22.66% BY COMPUT ING LEASE RENT ALONGWITH BUILDING MAINTENANCE AND OTHER FACILITIES PROVIDED BY THE LESSOR. HOWEVER, HE FOU ND THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY DEDUCTED TDS ON MAINTENANCE 3 AND SERVICE CHARGES OF THE BUILDING @ 2.06% INSTEAD OF 22.66% UNDER SECTION 194(1) OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGL Y, THE ASSESSING OFFICER (TDS) PASSED AN ORDER UNDER SECTION 201(1)/201(1A) OF THE ACT WHEREIN THE ASSES SEE WAS NOT TREATED AS AN ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT SINCE T AXES HAD BEEN PAID BY THE PAYEE AND IN VIEW OF THE DECIS ION OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF HINDUST AN COCA COLA BEVERAGES PVT. LTD, HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE WAS HELD LIABLE FOR INTEREST UNDER SECTION 201(1A) AND A DEMAND OF RS. 6,35,960/- WAS RAISED. THEREAFTER, S HOW CAUSE NOTICE FOR LEVY OF PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271C WAS ISSUED IN RESPONSE TO WHICH ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT TAXES HAD BEEN PAID BY THE DEDUCTEE AND THEREFORE, PENALTY SHOULD NOT BE LEVIED. THE ASSESSING OFFICE R WAS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE A ND HELD THE ASSESSEE COMPANY LIABLE FOR PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271C OF THE ACT AND A PENALTY OF RS. 45,94, 195/- WAS LEVIED. 6. DURING APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE MADE DETAILED SUBMISSIONS REPRODUCED AT PARA 6.2 OF THE ORDER. BRIEFLY STATED THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE LEVY OF PENALTY ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS ; A) THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD NOT TREATED THE ASSESSEE AS AN ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND TAX LIABILITY WAS ZERO. B) THAT THERE WAS A BONAFIDE REASON WITH THE ASSESSEE FOR DEDUCTING TAX @ 2.06% ON THE MAINTENANCE AND SERVICE CHARGES SINCE IT HAD ACTED 4 ON THE ADVICE OF ITS TAX CONSULTANTS AND ALSO FOR THE REASON THAT THE LEASE AGREEMENT WAS NOT A COMPOSITE AGREEMENT BUT THERE WAS A SEPARATE AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO FOR MAINTENANCE AND SERVICE CONTRACT. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD ERRE D IN TREATING SUCH AGREEMENT AS A COMPOSITE AGREEMENT, THEREBY TREATING THE MAINTENANCE AND SERVICE CHARGES AS PART OF THE LEASE RENT AND THUS, HOLDING THE ASSESSEE LIABLE TO TAX DEDUCTION AT SOURCE UNDER SECTION 194(1) OF THE ACT. 6(I) THE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO CONTENDED THAT EVEN IF IT WAS A COMPOSITE AGREEMENT, THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS RELATING TO MAINTENANCE AND SERVICE CHARGES COULD N OT BE TREATED AS PARTAKING THE CHARACTER OF RENT. THE ASSESSEE REPRODUCED THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE CON TRACT RELATING TO MAINTENANCE AND SERVICE CHARGES AND ST ATED THAT IT WAS CLEAR THAT SEPARATE CHARGES WERE BEING PAID ON SAME AND THUS, COULD NOT BE TREATED AS PART OF T HE LEASE RENT. THE ASSESSEE ALSO CONTENDED THAT SEPAR ATE INVOICE FOR MAINTENANCE AND SERVICE CHARGES HAD BEE N RAISED AND SERVICE CHARGE UNDER THE SERVICE TAX LAW HAD BEEN MOVED ON IT ALSO. 7. THE CIT (APPEALS), AFTER CONSIDERING THE ASSESSE E'S SUBMISSIONS DELETED THE PENALTY LEVIED FOR THE REAS ON THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAD ACTED UNDER A BONAFID E BELIEF THAT SECTION 194(1) OF THE ACT DID NOT INCLU DE MAINTENANCE AND SERVICE CHARGES UNDER THE AMBIT OF DEFINITION OF RENT. THE RELEVANT FINDINGS OF THE C IT (APPEALS) AT PAGE 6.3 OF THE ORDER ARE AS UNDER : 5 6.3 THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT HAS BEEN CONS IDERED CAREFULLY. THE APPELLANT COMPANY HAS NOT BEEN HELD AS ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT BY THE A.O. AS THE TAXES DUE HAS BEEN PAID BY THE DEDUCTEE FOLLOWI NG THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF HINDUSTAN COCA COLA BEVERAGES PVT. LTD.(SUPRA). AO HELD THE ASSESSES ONLY LIABLE TO IN TEREST U/S 201(1A) FROM DUE DATE OF DEDUCTION TO THE DATE OF FILING OF RETURN. ON APPEAL BY THE APPELLANT FOR LIABILITY U/S 201(1 A) HON'BLE ITAT, CHD BENCH FOLL OWING THE DECISION OF ALLHABAD BANK VS. ITO (SUPRA) IN THE CASE OF THE AS SESSEE VIDE ORDER DATED 15.09.2014 IN ITA NO. 1286 TO 1289/CHD/2012 HELD TH E ASSESSEE NOT IN DEFAULT FOR INTEREST LIABILITY U/S 201(1 A) AS UNDE R : ' THE HIGHLIGHTED PORTION CLEARLY SHOWS THAT INTEREST IS OF COMPENSATORY NATURE AND IF RECIPIENT OF THE INCOME HAS NO TAX LIABILITY THEN THERE CANNOT BE ANY LIABILITY ON ACC OUNT OF INTEREST U/S 201(1 A). SIMILAR VIEW HAS BEEN TAKEN IN CASE OF CHHATTISGARH STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD VS. ITO (TDS) (SUPRA) AND IN CASE OF THOMAS MUTHOOT VS. DCIT(SUPR A). THEREFORE FOLLOWING THESE ORDERS WE HOLD THAT IF TH E RECIPIENT WAS NOT HAVING ANY TAX LIABILITY THEN INT EREST CANNOT BE CHARGED U/S 201(1 A). HOWEVER, SINCE THIS INFORM ATION WAS NOT AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER. WE SET AS IDE THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND REMIT THE MATTER BACK TO TH E FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER TO VERIFY WHETHER THE RECIPIENT H AS ANY CHARGEABLE INCOME OR NOT AND THEN DECIDE THE ISSUE IN THE LIGHT OF OUR OBSERVATIONS MADE ON THE BASIS OF THE DECISI ON OF ALLAHABAD BANK VS. ITO, 46 TAXMANN.COM 200(SUPRA).' A) IN THE INSTANT CASE THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS PAYI NG RENT FOR THE BUILDING AS WELL AS MAINTENANCE AND SERVICE CHARGES AS PER THE COMPOSITE AGREEMENT DATED 13.04.2015. SUBSEQUENTLY A SEPARATE AGREEMENT FOR MAINTENANCE CHARGES FOR VARIOUS FACILITIES USED WAS ENTERED INTO ON 14.04.2006 AND FROM THIS DATE ONWARD THERE ARE TWO SEPARATE AGREEMENTS FOR RENT AND MAINTENANCE CHARGES. THESE MAINTENANCE AND SERVICE CHARGES INCLUDES THE HOUSE KEEPING, GARDENING, SECURITY AND FOR EQUIPMENTS LIKE DG SETS, LIFT, FIRE FIGHTING ETC. THEREFORE IT IS CLEA R THAT AS PER THE COMPOSITE AGREEMENT AND ALSO AS PER THE SEPARATE AGREEMENTS M ADE SUBSEQUENTLY THE APPELLANT COMPANY HAD MADE PAYMENT FOR THE RENT OF THE BUILDING AND FOR THE MAINTENANCE AND SERVICE CHARGES. IT IS NOT THE CASE WHERE APPELLANT COMPANY HAS NOT DEDUCTED TDS ON THE MAINTENANCE SER VICE CHARGES BUT HAS DEDUCTED TDS UNDER DIFFERENT PROVISIONS I.E. U/S 19 4C. IN MY CONSIDERED OPINION THIS WAS DONE BY THE APPELLANT COMPANY UNDE R THE BONAFIDE BELIEF AS 6 SECTION 194 I DOES NOT INCLUDE MAINTENANCE AND SERV ICE CHARGES UNDER THE AMBIT OF THE DEFINITION OF RENT. THE ASSESSEE COMPA NY HAS ALSO ACTED FOR DEDUCTION OF IDS U/S 194C ON PAYMENT FOR MAINTENANC E AND SERVICE CHARGES UNDER THE ADVICE OF ITS TAX CONSULTANT. FOR LEVY OF PENALTY U/S 271C THE CONCERN AND OFFICER IS REQUIRED TO FIND OUT THAT EV EN IF THERE WAS ANY FAILURE TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE, THE SAME WAS WITHOUT REASO NABLE CAUSE. THERE IS NO SUCH FINDING BY THE AO IN THE PENALTY ORDER. FROM T HE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT COMPANY IT IS SEEN THAT RIGHT FROM THE BE GINNING THE APPELLANT WAS UNDER BONAFIDE BELIEF THAT MAINTENANCE AND SERVICE CHARGES ARE NOT THE PART OF THE RENT AND THEREFORE ARE SUBJECTED TO DIFFEREN T PROVISION RELATING TO DEDUCTION OF TDS. THEREFORE IT IS HELD THAT THE APP ELLANT HAS ACTED IN GENUINE AND BONAFIDE BELIEF AND PENALTY U/S 271C IS NOT JUSTIFIED. PENALTY LEVIED OF RS. 45,94,195/- IS DELETED. GROUND OF APP EAL NO 2 IS ALLOWED. 8. AGGRIEVED BY THE SAME, THE REVENUE HAS NOW COME UP IN APPEAL BEFORE US. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARIN G, LD. DR RELIED UPON ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND S TATED THAT THE ASSESSEE THOUGH, WAS LIABLE TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE ON THE MAINTENANCE OF SERVICE CHARGES PAID T O THE LESSOR @ 22.66%, HAD DONE SO @ 2.6% ONLY AND FO R THIS SHORT DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE, IT WAS LIABL E FOR PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271C OF THE ACT. THE LD. DR ARGUED THAT IT MADE NO DIFFERENCE FOR THE PURPOSE O F IMPOSITION OF PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271C THAT THE P AYEE HAD PAID TAXES ON THE IMPUGNED CHARGES AND NO LOSS HAD BEEN CAUSED TO THE REVENUE. THE LD. DR RELIED UPON ORDER OF THE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CI T VS BAREILLY DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY 299 ITR 394 WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT, PENALTY SHALL NOT CEASE TO BE LIABLE ON AN ASSESSEE MERELY FOR THE REASON THAT BEFORE LEVY OF PENALTY, TAX AND INTEREST HAD BEEN PAID BY THE DEDUCTOR/DEDUCTEE. 7 8(I) THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, ON THE OTHE R HAND, RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND FURTHER REITE RATED THE CONTENTIONS MADE BEFORE THE CIT (APPEALS) AND STATED THAT IT WAS UNDER A BONAFIDE BELIEF THAT TAX ON THE IMPUGNED CHARGES TO BE DEDUCTED UNDER SECTION 194C @ 2.6% AND NOT UNDER SECTION 194(1) @ 22.66%. IN SUPPORT OF THIS CONTENTION, LD. COUNSEL STATED THAT IT HAD TAKEN OPINION OF A TAX CONSULTANT IN THIS REGAR D. FURTHER, LD. COUNSEL DREW OUR ATTENTION TO THE RELE VANT PORTION OF THE AGREEMENT DEALING WITH MAINTENANCE A ND SERVICE CHARGES REPRODUCED IN THE CIT (APPEALS)S O RDER AND POINTED OUT THAT IT WAS A SEPARATE LEVY ON THE ASSESSEE AND WAS FOR THE MAINTENANCE AND SERVICE CHARGES AVAILED BY IT AND COULD NOT, THUS, BE TREAT ED AS PART OF THE RENT ONLY. LD. COUNSEL DREW OUR ATTENT ION TO THE FACT THAT SEPARATE BILL/INVOICE FOR MAINTENANCE AND SERVICE CHARGES HAD BEEN RAISED AND SERVICE TAX ALS O PAID ON THE SAME. THE LD. COUNSEL FURTHER STATED T HAT THERE WERE SEPARATE AGREEMENTS FOR RENT AND FOR MAINTENANCE AND SERVICE CHARGES AND NOT A COMPOSITE AGREEMENT. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE CONTEN DED THAT IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE ASSESSEE HAD HARBOUR ED REASONABLE BONAFIDE BELIEF THAT THE MAINTENANCE AND SERVICE CHARGES PAID WAS IN THE NATURE OF CONTRACT SERVICES LIABLE TO TAX DEDUCTION AT SOURCE UNDER SE CTION 194C @ 2.6% AND NOT IN THE NATURE OF RENT LIABLE FO R DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE UNDER SECTION 194(1) OF THE ACT @ 22.66%. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ALS O 8 STATED THAT IT HAD NOT BEEN HELD AS AN ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT UNDER SECTION 201(1) OF THE ACT AND FURTHER , NO INTEREST UNDER SECTION 201(1A) ALSO HAD BEEN COLLEC TED FROM IT. 9. WE HAVE HEARD THE CONTENTIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIE S AND GONE THROUGH THE EVIDENCE PRODUCED BEFORE US. WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF CIT (APPEALS). T HE UNDISPUTED FACTS IN THE PRESENT CASE ARE THAT PENA LTY UNDER SECTION 271C OF THE ACT HAS BEEN LEVIED FOR S HORT DEDUCTION OF TAX @ 2.6% INSTEAD OF 22.66% UNDER SECTION 194(1) ON ACCOUNT OF MAINTENANCE AND SERVIC E CHARGES PAID IN LIEU OF LEASE AGREEMENT ENTERED INT O BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND M/S QUARK CITY INDIA PVT. LTD. FURTHER THE ASSESSEE ,FOR THE AFORESTATED DEFAULT , HAS NEITHER BEEN TREATED AS A ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT U/S 2 01(1) OF THE ACT,NOR HAS INTEREST U/S 201(1A) BEEN LEVIED ON IT. 9(I) THE CIT (APPEALS), WE FIND, HAS RIGHTLY APPR ECIATED THE CONTENTIONS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN SUPPORT O F ITS ARGUMENT THAT IT HARBOURED A BONAFIDE BELIEF OF TAX DEDUCTION AT A LOWER RATE. THE COPY OF THE COMPOSIT E AGREEMENT DT.13-04-2015 AS WELL AS THE SEPARATE AGREEMENT DT.14-0416 ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND M/S QUARK CITY INDIA PVT. LTD. FOR MAINTENANCE AND SERVICE OF THE PREMISES LEASED INDICATING SEPARATE CHARGES FOR THE MAINTAINANCE SERVICES, THE SEPARATE BILL FOR THESE SERVICES RAIS ED BY 9 THE LESSOR AND THE LEVY OF SERVICE TAX ON THE SAME, THE OPINION OF TAX CONSULTANT CERTIFYING THAT TAX IS TO BE DEDUCTED ON THESE CHARGES UNDER SECTION 194C OF THE ACT, ALL OF THESE FACTS HAVE NOT BEEN CONTROVERTED BY THE LD. DR BEFORE US AND ALL THESE FACTS LEAD TO A REAS ONABLE AND BONAFIDE BELIEF THAT THE MAINTENANCE SERVICES RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE WERE SEPARATE FROM THE LEA SE AGREEMENT AND THE PAYMENT MADE IN LIEU THEREOF WAS FOR CARRYING OUT WORK WHICH REQUIRED TDS @ 2.6% BEI NG COVERED U/S 194C OF THE ACT.THE MAINTAINANCE CLAUSE IN THE AGREEMENT DT.13-04-05 REPRODUCED IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) CLEARLY SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD AGREED THAT SERVICES TO MAINTAIN THE COMMON AREA OF THE PREMISES LEASED INCLUDING HOUSEKEEPING, GARDENING, SECURITY AND MAINTAINANCE OF SEVERAL COMMON EQUIPMENTS LIKE DG SETS,LIFT ETC., W OULD BE RENDERED BY THE LESSOR M/S QUARKCITY WHO IN TURN WOULD BE PAID CHARGES @RS.11.40/- PER SQ.FT PER MON TH FOR THE SUPER AREA LEASED BY THE ASSESSEE.FURTHER T HE LESSOR WAS RAISING SEPARATE INVOICES FOR THE SAME A ND CHARGING SERVICE TAX THEREON. THE REVENUE HAS NOT DEMONSTRATED BEFORE US AS TO HOW IN VIEW OF THE ABO VE FACTS, THE ASSESSEE WAS CATEGORICALLY RESPONSIBLE F OR DEDUCTING TAX @ 22.66% ONLY AND HOW THE AFORESAID PAYMENT COULD BE UNEQUIVOCALLY CATEGORIZED AS A REN TAL PAYMENT ONLY. IN VIEW OF THE SAME, WE CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE CIT (APPEALS) THAT THERE WAS A REAS ONABLE CAUSE WITH THE ASSESSEE FOR DEDUCTING TAX AT LOWER RATE 10 AND IN VIEW OF THE SAME, CONSIDERING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 273B OF THE ACT, THERE WAS NO CASE FOR LEVY OF ANY PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271C OF THE ACT. THE ORD ER PASSED BY THE CIT (APPEALS) SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER IS, THEREFORE, CONFIRMED. 10. THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ITA NOS. 491 TO 493/CHD/2016 (A.YS : 2007-8 TO 2009 -10) 11. AS THE FACTS ARE IDENTICAL IN ITA NOS. 491 TO 493/CHD/2016 TO THAT OF ITA NO. 490/CHD/2016, THEREFORE, OUR DECISION IN ITA NO. 490/CHD/2016 WOU LD APPLY MUTATIS-MUTANDIS TO THESE APPEALS ALSO. 12. IN THE RESULT, ALL APPEALS OF THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- SD/- (BHAVNESH SAINI (ANNAPURNA GUPT A) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 25 TH APRIL,2017. POONAM COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A) 4. THE CIT,DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT/CHD