MR. Shikhar Mahajan, New Delhi V. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 4975/DEL/2011

• Counselvise Citation: 497520114 RSA 2011
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 10 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-09-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Next Hearing Date: 18-08-2015
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 09-11-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: M P RASTOGI CA SH P N SHASTRI
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Value adopted by valuation officer; Retrospective amendment; Additional evidence; Cost of acquisition; Fair market value; Valuation report; Onus to prove
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH G, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH . H.S.SIDHU , JM AND SH. O.P.KANT , AM ITA NO.4975/DEL./2011 : ASSTT. YEAR : 2006 - 07 SHIKHAR MAHAJAN, 49 , RANI JHASI ROAD, NEW DELHI PAN:AHSPM8384L VS DCIT, CIRCLE - 39, NEW DELHI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SH. M.P. RASTOGI, CA SH. P. N. SHASTRI, CA RESPONDENT BY : SH. SUJIT KUMAR, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 18.08.2015 DATE O F PRONOUNCEMENT : 23 .09.2015 ORDER PER O.P.KANT, A.M. THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 16.09.2011 OF LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX (APPEALS) - X X VI II, NEW DELHI RAIS ING FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL : - 1. THE CIT [A] HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED AO MAKING AN ADDITION OF RS 1,43,26,000 AS UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT IN PROPERTY PURCHASED BY REFERRING TO DVO WITHOUT ANY MATERIAL TO SUBSTANTIATE MORE CONSIDERATION HAS PASSED BETWEEN THE PARTIES. 2 THE LEARNED C IT [A] HAS ERRED IN IGNORING THE JUDGMENTS OF THE COURTS INCLUDING JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT HOLDING THAT ADDITION FOR UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT IN PROPERTY PURCHASED CANNOT BE MADE PURELY ON THE BASIS OF DVO REPORT. PAGE 2 OF 10 ITA NO.4975/DEL./2011 3. THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN IGNORING THAT T HE VALUATION REPORT ON THE BASIS OF CIRCLE RATES AND THE DEFICIENCIES POINTED OUT IN THE VALUATION REPORT OF THE DVO. 4 THAT THE ABOVE GROUNDS ARE INDEPENDENT AND WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO EACH OTHER. 5 THAT THE APPELLANT SEEKS LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND, ALTER, ABAND ON OR SUBSTITUTE ANY OF THE ABOVE GROUNDS AT THE TIME OF HEAVY OF APPEAL. 2. IN GROUND NO S . 1 , 2 AND 3, THE ASSESSEE HAS CONTENDED THE ISSUE OF ADDITION OF RS.1,43,26,000/ - MADE BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER (IN SHORT LD. AO ) AGAINST UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT IN PROPERTY PURCHASED , BASED ON THE VALUATION REPORT OF THE DISTRICT VALUATION OFFICER (IN SHORT DVO) . THE GROUND NOS. 4 AND 5 OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL ARE BEING GENERAL IN NATURE, NO SPECIFIC ADJUDICATION IS REQUIRED 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THIS CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 31.10.2006 DECLARING INCOME OF RS.7,92,612/ - . DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSEE PURCHASED A PART OF THE HOUSE PROPERTY LOCATED AT NO.A - 6 WESTEND COLONY, NEW DELHI AGAINST A CONSI DERATION OF RS.3,25,00,000/ - IN ADDITION TO STAMP DUTY PAID ON THE SAID PURCHASE. THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND NOTICE U/S 143(2) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (FOR SHORT THE ACT) WAS ISSUED. IN THE COURSE OF SCRUTINY PROCEEDINGS , THE ASSESSEE FIL ED A VALUATION REPORT FROM APPROVED VALUER M/S. KEWA L K. SETH , VALUING THE PROPERTY AT RS.3,23,32,000/ - . THE LD. AO HAS STATED IN HIS ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT LOCAL ENQUIRIES WERE CONDUCTED THROUGH THE INSPECTOR OF HIS OFFICE PAGE 3 OF 10 ITA NO.4975/DEL./2011 WHEREIN VALUATION OF THE PROPERTY DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS FOUND ON LOWER SIDE AND , THEREFORE HE REFERRED THE PROPERTY FOR VALUATION TO THE D VO . THE DVO DETERMINED THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE AFORESAID PROPERTY AT RS.4,68,26,000/ - . BASED ON THE REPORT OF THE DVO, THE LD. AO PROPOSED TO THE ASSESSEE, DIFFERENCE IN VALUATION OF THE DVO AND THE VALUE DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE AS UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT IN TERMS OF SECTION 69B OF THE ACT. THE AO HAS FURTHER OBSERVED IN THIS ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE DID NOT GIVE ANY SUBMISSION EXCEPT THE COMMENT THAT THE DECLARED VALUE OF THE PROPERTY WAS CORRECT , AND THEREFORE, THE AO MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.1,43,26,000/ - BEING THE DIFFERENCE IN THE FAIR MARKET VALUE ESTIMATED BY THE DVO AND THE INVES TMENT DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE AS UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT AND COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT ON 22 ND DECEMBER , 2008 UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT . 4. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE AO , THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE L EARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX (APPEALS) [IN SHORT (CIT(A)] . BEFORE, THE LD. CIT(A), T HE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE PLEADED THAT NO OPPORTUNITY WAS PROVIDED TO COLLECT THE EVIDENCE S AND THEREFORE HE FILED ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE UNDER RULE 46A OF THE INCOME TAX RULES, 1962. THE L D . CIT(A) CALLED FOR A REMAND REPORT FROM THE AO , WHO , IN HIS REMAND REPORT SENT ON 07.07.2009 , OBJECTED TO THE ADMISSION OF THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES UNDER RULE 46A OF THE RULES . THE ASSESSEE AGAIN FILED ANOTHER VALUATION REPORT FROM M/S. K. D. KOHLI PAGE 4 OF 10 ITA NO.4975/DEL./2011 AND ASSOCIATES INCORPORATING COMMENTS ON THE REPORT OF THE DVO AND URG ED THAT THE VALUATION MADE BY THE DVO WAS SUFFERING FROM MANY DEFICI ENCIES AND DVO DID NOT TAKE IN TO ACCOUNT THE ADVERSE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PROPERTY OF THE ASSESSEE AS COMPARED TO THE COMPARABLE CASE OF SALE TRANSACTION TAKEN BY THE DVO. IN VIEW OF THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE , AGAIN A REMAND REPORT WAS CALLED FOR FROM THE LD. AO CALLING FOR HIS COMMENT. THE LD. AO FORWA RDED THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE TO THE DVO , WHO IN TURN GAVE HIS COMMENTS ON THE VARIOUS OBJECTIONS RAISED BY M/S. K.D. KOHLI AND ASSOCIATES AND FORWARDED A DETAILED REPORT TO THE LD AO. THE LD AO THEN SENT HIS REMAND REPORT TO THE LD CIT(A). BOTH THE REMAND REPORTS WERE PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE FOR HIS COMMENTS. IN HIS SUBMISSION BEFORE THE LD CIT(A) , THE ASSESSEE ALSO RAISED HIS LEGAL OBJECTIONS BY RELYING ON THE DECISION OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT AND OTHER HIGH COURTS. THE LD CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE , REMAND REPORTS OF THE AO AND REJOINDER THEREON OF THE ASSESSEE AND AFTER ANALYZING THE JUDGMENT S QUOTED BY THE ASSESSEE , HE DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AND CONFIRM ED THE ADDITION . 5. AGGRIEVED THE ASSES SEE IS BEFORE US. 6. AT THE TIME OF HEARING , THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE ( AR) OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE OR MATERIAL IN POSSESSION OF THE AO TO COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID EXTRA CONSIDERATION OVER AND ABOVE WHAT WAS STATED IN THE SALE PAGE 5 OF 10 ITA NO.4975/DEL./2011 DEEDS. IN SUPPORT OF THIS CONTENTIONS THE LD AR RELIED ON THE JUDGMENT OF THE JURISDICTION HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. PUNEET SABHARWAL (2011) 338 ITR 485(DELHI). HE FURTHER RELIED O N THE JUDGMENT OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. S.K. CONSTRUCTION CO. 167 TAXMANN 171 (DELHI) AND JUDGEMENT OF MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. S. KALAIVANI 296 ITR 505 , CONTENDING THAT THERE WAS NO MATERIAL OTHER THAN DVOS REPORT WITH THE AO FOR MAKING THE ADDITION . FURTHER, HE ALSO ARGUED THAT THE AO DID NOT CONSIDER THE OBJECTIONS RAISED BY THE ASSESS EE IN SUPPORT OF THE COMPARABLE CASE CHOSEN BY THE DVO . ON THE OTHER HAND, T HE LD SENIOR DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (DR) RELIED ON THE FINDINGS OF LOWER AUTHORITIES. 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSION S AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. IN GROUND N O.1 THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE ISSUE THAT ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE BY THE LD. AO WITHOUT ANY MATERIAL TO SUBSTANTIATE THAT M ORE CONSIDERATION HAS PASSED BETWEEN THE PARTIES. I N GROUND N O.2 THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THAT THE LD CIT(A) HAS IGNORED THE JUDGMENT OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT HOLDING THAT THE ADDITION FOR UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT IN PROPERTY PURCHASED CANNOT BE MADE PURELY ON THE BASIS OF THE DVOS REPORT. AS THE GROUND NO. 1 AND 2 ARE RELATED TO EACH OTHER, BOTH ARE DECIDED TOGETHER. 8. THE LD. AR HAS CITED THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH C OURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. PUNEET SABHARWAL (2011) 338 ITR 485 (DELHI) . IN THE SAID JUDGEMENT, THE HONBLE COURT HAS DISMISSED THE PAGE 6 OF 10 ITA NO.4975/DEL./2011 APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE HOLDING THAT THE AO HAD SOLELY RELIED UPON THE REPORT OF THE DISTRICT VALUA TION OFFICER AND APART FRO M THAT THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE OR MATERIAL IN THE POSSESSION OF THE AO TO COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PAID EXTRA CONSIDERATION OVER AND ABOVE THE AMOUNT STATED IN THE SALE DEED. IN THE INSTANT CASE ALSO THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAD NOT BROUGHT ANY EVIDENCE OR MATERIAL WHICH COULD CONCLUDE THAT THE ASSESSEE HA S PAID ANY EXTRA CONSIDERATION OVER AND ABOVE WHAT IS STATED IN THE SALE DEED. FURTHER IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SHAKUNTALA DEVI 316 ITR 46, THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT HAS DECIDED AS UNDER: - . IT HAS NOTED THAT THE DEPARTMENT HAS FAILED TO COLLECT ANY INFORMATION OR MATERIAL TO SHOW THAT ANY CONSIDERATION ABOVE AND BEYOND THE STATED SALE CONSIDERATION HAD CHANGED HANDS. IT APPLIED THE DICTUM IN KP VARGHESE VS. ITO, 131, IT597 (SC) WH ICH LAYS THE BURDEN TO ESTABLISH THE FACTUM OF THE ASSESSEE HAVING RECEIVED MORE THAN WHAT IS DECLARED OR DISCLOSED BY HIM AS A CONSIDERATION ON THE REVENUE. THE ITAT HAS OPINED THAT THE INVESTMENTS SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE STAND FULLY CORROBORATED BY DOCUMEN TARY EVIDENCE. WE FIND NO ERROR IN THE APPROACH OF THE ITAT. 9. THE ISSUE OF REFERENCE TO DVO U/S 142A OF THE ACT AND ADDITION MADE U/S 69B OF THE ACT THAT BASIS ALSO CAME UP BEFORE THE ITAT DELHI A BENCH IN THE CASE OF ACIT, CC - 5, DELHI VS. SH. ARVIND KHANNA IN ITA NO.1117/DEL/2017 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 - 07, WHEREIN THE TRIBUNAL AFTER CONSIDERING THE ARGUMENTS OF BOTH PARTIES ON THIS ISSUE HELD AS UNDER: - PAGE 7 OF 10 ITA NO.4975/DEL./2011 3. LD DR SUPPORTED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. IT IS ALSO SUBMITTED BY HER THAT AS PER THE PROVIS IONS OF SECTION I42A INSERTED BY THE FINANCE NO.2 ACT, 2004 WITH RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT FROM 15.11.1972, THE A.O, CAN REFER THE MATTER FOR VALUATION FOR MAKING ADDITION U/S 69, 69A AND 69B AND HENCE, THE ACTION OF THE AO OF REFERRING THE MATTER TO THE DVO IS JUSTIFIED AND AS PER LAW. 4. AS AGAINST THIS, THE LD. A.R. SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A). IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED BY HIM THAT AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 69B, THIS IS THE FIRST REQUIREMENT THAT THE A.O. FINDS THAT THE AMOUNT SPENT AND MAKING SUCH INVESTMENT EXCEED THE AMOUNT RECORDED IN THAT BEHALF IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS HIS SUBMISSION THAT IF SOME MATERIAL IS AVAILABLE WITH THE A.O. ON THE BASIS OF WHICH, IT IS FOUND BY HIM THAT THE ACTUAL PAYMENTS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IS MORE THAN THE DECLARED VALUE, THEN ONLY AN ADDITION CAN BE MADE U/S 69B AND FOR THAT PURPOSE, THE MATTER MAY BE REFERRED TO THE DVO ALSO U/S 142A. BUT IN THE PRESENT CASE, THERE IS NO MATERIAL AVAILABLE WITH THE A.O. TO SHOW THAT THE ACTUAL VAL UE OF THE SHARES PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE IS MORE THAN ITS DECLARED VALUE AND HENCE, NEITHER SECTION 69B NOR SECTION 142A IS ATTRACTED IN THE PRESENT CASE. 5. RELIANCE WAS PLACED BY HIM ON THE TRIBUNAL DECISION - RENDERED IN THE CASE OF DOT VS SHRI VINOD SI NGHAL IN I.T.A NO. NO. 3647 AND 3648/DEL/2008 DATED 08.05.2009. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY HIM THAT THE COPY OF THIS TRIBUNAL ORDER IS AVAILABLE PAGES 124 - 127 OF THE PAPER BOOK. IT IS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT IN THE PRESENT CASE ALSO, NO EVIDENCE/DOCUMENT HAS BEEN BRO UGHT ON RECORD BY THE AO TO SUGGEST/ESTABLISH THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE EXPENDITURE MORE THAN WHAT WAS DECLARED OR DISCLOSED BY HIM AS A CONSIDERATION TO PURCHASE THE; IMPUGNED SHARES. IT IS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE PURCHASE OF SHARES IN THE PRESENT CASE I S ALSO SUPPORTED BY AN AGREEMENT, COPY OF WHICH IS AVAILABLE ON PAGES 40 - 51 OF THE PAPER BOOK. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THIS TRIBUNAL DECISION IS SQUARELY APPLICABLE IN THE PRESENT CASE. RELIANCE WAS ALSO PLACED ON TWO JUDGMENTS OF HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI RENDERED IN THE CASE OF PAGE 8 OF 10 ITA NO.4975/DEL./2011 CIT VS. SHAKUNTALA DEVI AS REPORTED IN 316 ITR 46 AND IN THE CASE OF CIT VS SMT. SURAJ DEVI AS REPORTED IN 328 ITR 604. 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD, HAVE GONE T HROUGH THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW AND THE JUDGMENTS RUED BY LD A.R. AFTER GOING THROUGH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, WE FIND THAT THIS IS NOT THE CASE OF THE A.O. THAT ANY DOCUMENT OR ADVERSE MATERIAL WAS FOUND BY HIM SUGGESTING ANY EXTRA PAYMENT BY THE ASSESSEE OVER AND ABOVE THE DECLARED AMOUNT OF CONSIDERATION FOR PURCHASE OF SHARES IN QUESTION. AS PER THE A.O., THE MATTER WAS REFERRED TO THE VALUATION OFFICER : I.E. .DVO TO DETERMINE THE CORRECT VALUE OF THE PROPERTY WHICH WAS THE ONLY KNOWN ASSET OF THE COMPANY TDPL HENCE, IT IS APPARENT THAT THERE WAS NO ADVERSE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD TO ESTABLISH/ SUGGEST ANY EXTRA PAYMENT BY THE ASSESSEE TO ACQUIRE THESE SHARES. THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE ARE IDENTICAL TO THE TO THE FACT S IN THE CASE OF DCIT VS SHRI VINOD SINGHAL (SUPRA). IN THAT CASE ALSO, THE ASSESSEE PURCHASED A PROPERTY FOR CONSIDERATION OF RS.9.50 IACS WHICH WAS VALUED BY THE A0 AT RS.35.20 LACS ON THE BASIS OF VALUATION REPORT GIVEN BY THE DVO AND MADE ADDITION OF THIS DIFFERENCE AMOUNT. SUCH ADDITION WAS NOT FOUND SUSTAINABLE BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THAT CASE BECAUSE THERE WAS NO ADVERSE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD TO ESTABLISH/SUGGESTS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE EXPENDITURE MORE THAN WHAT WAS DECLARED AND DISCLOSED B Y HIM AS A CONSIDERATION TO PURCHASE THE SAID ASSET. HENCE, BY RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THIS TRIBUNAL DECISION, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) IN THE PRESENT CASE. 10. THE JUDGEMENTS RELIED ON BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. S.K. CONSTRUCTION CO. (SUPRA) AND CIT VS. KALAIVANI (SUPRA) ALSO SUPPORT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE AS THERE WAS NO COGENT MATERIAL AVAILABLE WITH THE LD. AO OTHER THAN DVOS REPORT, WHICH COULD LEAD TO PAGE 9 OF 10 ITA NO.4975/DEL./2011 INFERENCE THAT THE INVESTMENT DECLARED BY THE WAS UNDERSTATED . THE HONBLE JURISDICTION HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SURAJ DEVI 328 ITR 604 HAS HELD THAT IT IS SETTLED LAW THAT THE PRIMARY BURDEN OF PROOF TO PROVE UNDERSTATEMENT OR CONCEALMEN T OF INCOME IS ONE THE REVENUE AND IT IS ONLY WHEN SUCH BURDEN IS DISCHARGED THAT IT WOULD BE PERMISSIBLE TO REPLY UPON THE VALUATION GIVEN BY THE DVO. THE DVO HAS COMPUTED THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY WHICH IS MERELY AN INFORMATION AND CANNOT CON CLUSIVELY PROVE THE FACT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE REPORT O F THE INSPECTOR HAS ALSO NOWHERE INDICATED THAT EXTRA MONEY HAS PASSED HANDS. IT MERELY SAYS THAT VALUATION OF THE PROPERTY SHOWN WAS ON LOWER SIDE, DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE INSPECTOR IS NOT AN EXPERT IN VALUATION OF PROPERTIES . IN THE CASE OF CIT VS . PUNEET SABHARWAL ( SUPRA) ALSO THE AO EXPRESSED SAME VIEW THAT COST OF ACQUISITION WAS ON MUCH LOWER SIDE THAN THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTIES, HOWEVER, THE HON BLE COURT, DID NOT JUSTIFY THE ADDITION BASED ON DVOS REPORT. 11 . IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE , WE FIND THAT THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE OR MATERIAL TO SUGGEST THAT THE EXTRA CONSIDERATION HAS PASSED ON FROM THE ASSESSEE TO THE SELLER AND NO OTHER MATERIAL WAS AVAILABLE WITH THE AO EXCEPT DVOS REPORT FOR MAKING ADDITION UNDER SECTION 69B OF THE ACT . HENCE, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE JUDGMENT S OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. PUNEET SABHARWAL (SUPRA) AN D OTHER DECISIONS CITED, WE HOLD THAT NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE PAGE 10 OF 10 ITA NO.4975/DEL./2011 IN THIS CASE. ACCORDINGLY, G ROUND NO S .1 AND 2 OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL STANDS ALLOWED. 12 . SINCE GROUNDS NOS .1 AND 2 HAVE ALREADY BEEN ALLOWED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE ADJUDICATION ON THE GROUND NO.3 IS NOT REQUIRED. 13 . IN THE RESULT , THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 2 3 / 09 /2015 . - S D / - - S D / - (H.S. SIDHU) ( O.P.KANT ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 2 3 / 09/2015 *AJAY* COPY FORWARDED TO: 1 . APPELLANT 2 . RESPONDENT 3 . CIT 4 . CIT(APPEALS) 5 . DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR DELHI BENCHES, NEW DELHI