Naveen Kumar Tyagi,S/o Shri Rameshwar Dayal Tyagi, Noida V. ITO, Noida

ITA 5004/DEL/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3311 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-03-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 21-09-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Gift; Bonafide belief
• Section: 142(1)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH E NEW DELHI BEFORE MR. BHAVNESH SAINI , JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MR. WASEE M AHMED , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA N O. 5004 /DEL/201 6 A SSESSMENT YEAR: 20 12 - 13 NAVEEN KUMAR TYAGI S/O SH. RAMESHWER DAYAL TYAGI, 1/1, TYAGI HOUSE, VILLAGE - BHANGEL, BEGAMPUR, PHASE - II, NODIA - 201301, DISTT. GAUTAMBUDDH NAGAR, U.P. VS. ITO WARD - 2(3), AAYKAR BHAWAN, A - 2D SECTOR - 24, NOIDA PAN : AAYPT1649J (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) O R D E R PER WAS EE M AHMED , AM . : THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: - 1 . THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INC OME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WHICH IS BAD IN LAW AND WITHOUT JURISDICTION. 2 . THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN TREATING THE A SSESSEE AS AN INDIVIDUAL FOR INCOME OF THE JOINT HINDU FAMILY OF WHICH HE IS THE KARTA. 3 . THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN NOT ACCEPTING THAT THE IMPUGNED AGRICULTURAL LAND WAS ANCESTRAL COPARCENARY PRO PERTY PASSED ON FROM SHRI GHISA TO THE JOINT FAMILIES OF FATEH SINGH (SON), RAMESHWER DAYAL (GRAND SON) AND NAVEEN KUMAR (GREAT GRAND SON) BY SURVIVORSHIP TO THE HUF OF SHRI APPELLANT BY SH. K.P. GARG, C.A. RESPO NDENT BY SH. S.R. SENAPATI, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING 05.03.2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT .03.2018 2 ITA NO . 5004 /DEL/201 6 NAVEEN KUMAR TYAGI, INCORRECTLY RELYING ON S. 18 OF THE UP ZAMIDARI ABOLITION AND LAND REFORMS ACT, 1950, IGNORING S.37, WHICH CLEARLY PROVIDES FOR TREATING THE JT. HINDU FAMILY AS A SEPARATE UNIT. 4 . THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN FAILING TO CONSIDER THAT THE HINDU SUCCESSION ACT, 1 956 HAS NOT ABOLISHED THE STRUCTURE OF A JOINT - HINDU MITAKSHARA FAMILY, IT IN FACT ENLARGES THE CONCEPT, BY SUBSTITUTING S.6 TO BRING THE DAUGHTER AT PAR WITH A SON, MAKING HER A COPARCENER, SO THAT NOW EVERY SON AND DAUGHTER ACQUIRES BY BIRTH A COPARCENAR Y INTEREST IN THE ANCESTRAL PROPERTY. 5 . THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DISMISSING THE CLAIM OF THE HUF, MERELY ON THE GROUND THAT THE BIGGER FAMILY RAMESHWER DAYAL TYAGI (HUF), WHO RECEIVED THE COMPEN SATION ON ACCOUNT OF ACQUISITION OF FAMILY AGRICULTURE LAND BY THE STATE GOVT, DID NOT FILE ANY RETURN OF INCOME UNDER THE ACT, IGNORING THAT AGRICULTURAL INCOME WAS NOT LIABLE TO TAX UNDER SECTION 10(37) OF I. T. ACT, 1961 AND THE FAMILY HAD NO OTHER INCO ME. 6 . THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS THAT ON ACCOUNT OF DEATH OF RAMESHWER DAYAL TYAGI ON 17TH OCTOBER, 2007, THREE SMALLER HUFS CAME INTO EXISTENCE THAT OF HIS THREE SONS VIZ. ASHWANI KUMAR, NAVEEN KUMAR AND RAJEEV KUMAR AND THE INTEREST ON DELAYED PAYMENT OF COMPENSATION OF RAMESHWER DAYAL TYAGI (HUF) WAS RELEASED/DISTRIBUTED/PAID TO THE THREE SMALLER HUFS (COPARCENARIES). 7 . THAT BOTH THE ID AO AND THE ID. CIT(A) HAVE IGNORED THAT THE ORDER OF PARTITION O F A JOINT HINDU FAMILY CA N BE PASSED BY AN ASSESSING OFFI CER ONLY WHERE THE HUF IS ASSESSED T O INCOME TAX, AND WHERE THE FAMIL Y HAS ONLY AGRICULTURAL INCOME AND NOT LIA BLE TO INCOME TAX, NO SUCH ORDER CAN BE PASSED U/S. 171 OF THE ACT. 8 . THAT THE LEARNED AO HAS ERRED ON FACTS IN LAW IN BRINGING TO TAX IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE INDIVIDUAL A SUM OF RS.32,98,322/ - (NET OF DEDUCTION U/S.57(IV)), GROSS AMOUNT OF INTEREST ON DELAYED PAYMENT OF COMPENSATION AS ALLOCATED TO THE NAVEEN KUMAR TYAGI, HUF, MERELY B ECAUSE THE BIGGER HUF OF SHRI RAMESHWAR DAYAL TYAGI HAVE NOT FILED THEIR RETURN UNDER THE INCOME TAX ACT FOR THE AY 2009 - 10 AND THEREAFTER THE RELEVANT SMALLER HUFS HAVE ALSO NOT FILED THEIR RETURNS UNDER THE ACT. 9 . THAT THE LEARNED AO HAS ERRED ON FACTS AN D IN LAW AND THE ID. CIT(A) IN CONFIRMING HIS ORDER, IN BRINGING TO TAX IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE INDIVIDUAL A SUM OF 15,67,099/ - ON ACCOUNT OF SHARE OF CAPITAL GAINS OF THE BIGGER HUF AMOUNTING TO RS.62,68,394/ - ARISING FROM THE SALE OF ANCESTRAL COPARC ENARY PROPERTY, WHICH ON ACCOUNT OF DEATH HAD DEVOLVED ON THE THREE SMALL HUFS, MERELY BECAUSE THE BIGGER HUF OF SHRI RAMESHWAR DAYAL TYAGI HAVE NOT FILED THEIR RETURN UNDER THE INCOME TAX FOR THE AY 2009 - 10 AND THEREAFTER THE RELEVANT SMALLER HUFS HAVE AL SO NOT FILED THEIR RETURNS UNDER THE ACT. 3 ITA NO . 5004 /DEL/201 6 2. THE SOLITARY ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ALL THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL IS THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN ALLOCATING INTEREST INCOME AND CAPITAL GAIN IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE THOUGH THE SAME BELONGS TO T HE HUF. BRIEFLY STATED THE FACTS, ARE THAT, THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT CASE IS AN INDIVIDUAL AND DECLARED HIS INCOME UNDER THE HEAD OF HOUSE PROPERTY. THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN RENTAL INCOME FROM PNB, LIC, SHARDA HOSPITAL AND MANNAPURAM GOLD FOR RS. 2,97,730 / - ONLY . AGAINST THE IMPUGNED INCOME, ASSESSEE CLAIMED CREDIT OF TDS FOR RS. 23411/ - AND ACCORDINGLY A REFUND OF RS. 11,285/ - WAS CLAIMED BY HIM IN THE RETURN OF INCOME . 3. THERE WAS AN ANCESTRAL PROPERTY LOCATED IN BHANGEL NOIDA IN THE NAME OF SHRI RAMES HWAR DAYAL TYAGI WHICH WAS ACQUIRED BY NEW OKHLA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY IN THE YEAR 1989. ACCORDINGLY, THE COMPENSATION RECEIVED WAS INVESTED IN VARIOUS ASSETS. 4. SHRI. RAMESHWAR DAYAL TYAGI DIED IN THE YEAR 2007. ACCORDINGLY THE SON S OF SHRI RAMESHWAR DAYAL TYAGI NAMELY SHRI ASHWANI KUMAR TYAGI (HUF), SHRI NAVEEN KUMAR TYAGI (HUF) AND SHRI RAJEEV TAYAGI (HUF) BECAME THE OWNER OF VARIOUS ASSETS ACQUIRED OUT OF THE COMPENSATION RECEIVED FROM NOIDA A UTHORITY. THUS THE COMPENSATION RECEIVED ON THE ACQUISITION OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY AND INTEREST THEREON BELONGS TO THE HUF. 5. HOWEVER, THE AO, DURING THE PROCEEDINGS OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS IN RECEIPT OF INTEREST AND RENTAL INCOME AMOUNTING TO RS. 51,52,957/ - 4 ITA NO . 5004 /DEL/201 6 ONLY. THE INFORMATION OF SUCH INCOM E WAS REVEALED ON THE BASIS OF 26AS STATEMENT GENERATED BY THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT WHEREIN AN AMOUNT OF TDS FOR RS. 4,99,977/ - WAS SHOWN AGAINST THE INCOME OF RS. 51,52,957/ - . THUS THE AO OBSERVED THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE INCOME S SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE IN HIS RETURN OF INCOME VIZ A VIZ., INCOME SHOWN IN FORM 26AS STATEMENT. ACCORDINGLY, A CLARIFICATION WAS SOUGHT BY THE AO BY WAY OF NOTICE DATED 18 TH DECEMBER, 2014 ISSUED UNDER SECTION 142(1) OF THE ACT. THE CONTENTS OF THE NOTICE STANDS AS UNDER: - (I) PLEASE FURNISH STATEMENT OF YOUR ALL BANK ACCOUNTS FOR THE PERIOD FROM 01.04.2011 TO 31.03.2012 . (II) PLEASE FURNISH THE DETAILS OF PROPERTIES PURCHASED AND SOLD BY YOU IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2011 - 12 RELEVANT TO THE AY 2012 - 13. (III) PLEASE EXPLAIN THAT AS PER 26 AS THE TOTAL RECEIPT WAS SHOWN RS. 4405956/ - AND THE TDS OF RS. 440596/ - WAS DEDUCTED. BUT YOU HAVE NOT SHOWN THESE AMOUNTS IN YOUR ITR FOR AY 2012 - 13. (IV) AS PER AIR INFORMATION YOU HAVE DEPOSIT RS. 6573500/ - IN PNB BHANGEL, NOIDA, PLEASE EX PLAIN THE SOURCE OF TRANSACTION. (V) YOU HAVE SOLD PROPERTY FOR RS. 64,17,000/ - BUT CAPITAL GAIN INCOME WAS NOT SHOWN BY YOU IN ITR FOR AY 2012 - 13. (VI) AS PER CERTIFICATE FILED WITH YOUR REPLY DATED 31.10.2014 A PAYMENT OF RS. 5,15,42,483/ - PAID AND TD S WAS DEDUCTED BY DEDUCTOR BUT YOU HAVE NOT SHOWN THIS IN YOUR ITR FOR AY 2012 - 13, PLEASE EXPLAIN. (VII) YOU HAVE SHOWN VARIOUS FIXED ASSETS IN YOUR BALANCE SHEET, BUT YOU HAVE NOT SHOWN THEIR PROPER VALUE IN BALANCE SHEET, PLEASE EXPLAIN. (VIII) PLEASE FILE THE COPY OF WEALTH TAX RETURN, IF ANY FILED BY YOU. (IX) PLEASE FILE YOUR STATEMENT OF AFFAIRS FOR AY 2012 - 13 I.E. F.Y. 2011 - 12. 6. THE ASSESSEE, IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE SUBMITTED THAT THE INTEREST INCOME AND CAPITAL GAIN BELONGS TO THE HUF AND ACCORDINGLY IT SHOULD BE CHARGEABLE IN THE HANDS OF THE HUF. HOWEVER, THE AO DISREGARDED THE 5 ITA NO . 5004 /DEL/201 6 CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE BY OBSERVING THAT THE INTEREST INCOME OF RS. 32,98,322/ - AND LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN OF RS. 15,67,099/ - AND UNEXPLAINED INCOME OF RS. 16 ,15,478/ - IS TAXABLE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY , THE AO MADE THE ADDITION TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. AGGR IEVED, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL TO LEARNED CIT(A) WHO HAS CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE AO BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: - ARGUA BLY THE ALIBI OF HUF IS AN AFTERTHOUGHT . EVEN IF THE FINE DISTINCTION MADE BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT THAT THE FATHER OF THE APPELLANT HAVING BEEN BORNE PRIOR TO ENACTMENT OF THE U.P. ZAMINDARI ABOLITION AND LAND REFORMS ACT, 1950 WHICH IS A QUESTION OF FACT IS ACCEPTED, THE APPELLANT GETS NO HELP AS THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT PRIOR OF ENACTMENT OF THIS ACT THE RAMESHWAR DAYAL TYAGI HUF HAS COME INTO BEING. THERE IS ALSO NO EVIDENCE THAT SH. RAMESHWAR DAYAL TYAGI OWNED THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AS K ARTA OF A HUF AS LAND REVENUE RECORDS AND THE REGISTRATION RECORDS TO THAT EFFECT ARE NOT THERE. IN VIEW OF THESE MATERIAL FACTS THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN LAW. THE PROPERTY UNDER CONSIDERATION WAS INHERITED BY SH. RAMESHWAR DAYA L TYAGI UNDER THE MITAKSHAR SCHOOL WHICH APPLIED TO THE PART OF THE COUNTRY WHERE HE WAS BORN AND RESIDED AND THE SAID PROPERTY DEVOLVED UPON THE APPELLANT AND OTHER LEGAL HEIRS ON THE EVENT OF THE DEATH OF SH. RAMESHWAR DAYAL TAYGI UNDER THE PROVISION OF HINDU SUCCESSION ACT, 1955. NEITHER WAS THERE ANY HUF NOR WAS THERE ANY HUF PROPERTY. IN VIEW OF THESE MATERIAL FACTS THERE IS NO GROUND TO INTERFERE WITH THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDERS. THE SAME IS THEREFORE CONFIRMED. THE APPEAL OF THE APPELLANT FAILS AN D IS DISMISSED. 7 . BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A) ASSESSEE IS IN SECOND APPEAL BEFORE US. THE LEARNED AR BEFORE US SUBMITTED THAT IN THE IDENTICAL FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES IN THE CASE OF SHRI ASHWANI KUMAR TYAGI VS ITO, BROTHER OF THE ASSE SSEE IN ITA NO. 3 745/DEL/2017 PERTAINING TO THE AY 201 - 13 , T HE HON BLE ITAT HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. ON THE OTHER HAND, LEARNED DR VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW . 6 ITA NO . 5004 /DEL/201 6 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTION AND PER USED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. AT THE OUTSET, WE FIND THAT THE IMPUGNED ISSUE HAS ALREADY BEEN DECIDED IN THE CASE OF SHRI ASHWANI KUMAR TYAGI (SUPRA) , BROTHER OF THE ASSESSEE IN HIS FAVOUR IN ITA NO. 3745/DEL/2017 VIDE ORDER DATED 18 TH OCTOBER, 20 17 . THE RELEVANT CONTENT OF THE ORDER IS REPRODUCED BELOW: - I HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE ONLY ISSUE INVOLVED IN THIS APPEAL IS WHETHER THE IMPUGNED AGRICULTURAL LAND WAS ANCESTRAL COPARCENARY PROPERTY PASSED ON FROM SHRI GHISA TO THE JOINT FAMILIES OF FATEH SINGH (SON), RAMESHWAR DAYAL (GRAND SON) AND NAVEEN KUMAR (GREAT GRAND SON) BY SURVIVORSHIP TO THE HUF OF SHRI NAVEEN KUMAR TYAGI, INCORRECTLY, RELYING ON S. 18 OF THE UP ZAMIDARI ABOLITION AND LAND REFORM S ACT, 1950, IGNORING S. 37, WHICH CLEARLY PROVIDES FOR TREATING THE JT. HINDU FAMILY AS A SEPARATE UNIT. THE MAIN CRUX OF THE CASE LAY IN THE FACT ON NON - PAYMENT OF TAX BY THE HUF, WHICH HAS NOW BEEN PAID UNDER THE IDS, LEAVING NO GROUND LEFT FOR SUSTA INING THE ADDITION ON ANY ACCOUNT. NONE OF THE HUFS, HAVING ONLY AGRICULTURAL INCOME WAS FILING ANY RETURN OF INCOME UNDER THE INCOME TAX ACT AND WAS NEVER ASSESSED TO TAX, BEING NOT LIABLE TO TAX. THUS THE QUESTION OF ANY ITO PASSING ANY ORDER U/S. 171 OF THE ACT DOES NOT ARISE, NOR IS APPLICABLE TO AGRICULTURAL FAMILIES, HAVING NO INCOME UNDER THE INCOME TAX ACT. NON FILING OF RETURNS UNDER THE INCOME TAX ACT BY THE HUF WAS BONAFIDE BELIEF THAT AGRICULTURAL INCOME WAS NOT LIABLE TO TAX UNDER THE INCOME TA X ACT . WHAT HAS BEEN IGNORED / OMITTED IS THE FACT THAT INTEREST ON ENHANCED COMPENSATION WAS TAXABLE AND THE HUF SHOULD HAVE FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR AY 2012 - 13 , SHOWING INCOME FROM INTEREST ON ENHANCED COMPENSATION. THE BELIEF IS BONAFIDE AND CANNO T IN ANY MANNER BE ATTRIBUTED TO ANY MALAFIDE, MERELY BECAUSE THE INDIVIDUALS HAVING THEIR INDEPENDENT INCOME FROM SELF ACQUIRED PROPERTIES OR OTHER ACTIVITIES, HAD NOT INCLUDED THE INCOME OF THE HUF IN THEIR RETURN OF INCOME, WHICH PERE SE IS CONTRARY TO LAW. NO INDIVIDUAL/KARTA IS AUTHORIZED TO APPROPRIATE AND SHOW THE INCOME OF THE HUF IN HIS HANDS, DEBARRING THE OTHER COPARCENERS OF THEIR RIGHT CLAIM TO THE SHARE OF HUF PROPERTIES/ASSETS/INCOME. THIS FACT IS CLEAR FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER OF THE INDI VIDUAL ASSESSEE, PARA - 2. THE SAME IS DISCUSSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IN THE CASE OF SHRI NAVEEN KUMAR, BROTHER OF THE ASSESSEE, WHOSE ORDER HAS BEEN FOLLOWED IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE, VIDE PARA - 3 AT PAGES 24, PARA - 5 PAGE - 25, PARA - 8 PAGE 26 OF THE PAPER BOOK AND HIS CONCLUSION IN PARA 9, 10 AND 11. THE CRUX OF HIS ARGUMENTS IS THAT AN HUF UNDER THE INCOME TAX ACT COULD BE CREATED ONLY BY A GIFT OF 7 ITA NO . 5004 /DEL/201 6 PROPERTY AND NOT BY INHERITANCE/SUCCESSION TO THE PROPERTY OF THE BIGGER HUF, WHICH IS CONTRARY TO HINDU LAW AS W ELL AS THE INCOME TAX ACT. THE BACKGROUND BEING THE FACT THAT NONE OF THE CLAIMED HUFS WERE EVER ASSESSED TO TAX, WHICH IS AGAIN ERRONEOUS. ACCORDING TO HIM, IF THE HUF HAD FILED ITS RETURN SHOWING THE INCOME FROM INTEREST ON ENHANCED COMPENSATION, WOULD H AVE RENDERED A FOOT PROOF EVIDENCE OF EXISTENCE OF HUF UNDER THE INCOME TAX ACT AND COPARCENARY PROPERTY UNDER THE HINDU LAW. NOW THE QUESTION WAS HOW THE HUF COULD NOW DECLARE ITS INCOME AND FILE THE RETURN, AS THE ACT PROHIBITS THE SAME. EFFORT WAS THU S MADE BY THE ASSESSEE TO TAX THE HUF U/S. 144A, BUT WAS DECLINED BY THE LD. JCT. LUCKILY THE IDS CAME INTO OPERATION TAKING ADVANTAGE OF THE SAME , THE TWO HUFS FILED A DECLARATION BEFORE THE COMMISSION OF INCOME TAX, NOIDA DECLARING THE INTEREST ON ENHANC ED COMPENSATION AND PAID THE TAX AS PER PAGES 11 - 23 OF THE PAPER BOOK. OBVIOUSLY THIS EVIDENCE BEING SUBSEQUENT COULD NOT BE FILED EITHER BEFORE THE AO OR THE LD. CIT, ALTHOUGH THE FACT OF OFFER MADE BEFORE THE JCIT U/S. 144A HAS DULY BEEN DISCUSSED BY BOT H. THUS THE FACTUAL REASON TO DISALLOW THE CLAIM OF THE HUF IS THAT NO SUCH RETURN WAS FILED AND NO SUCH TAX HAD BEEN PAID BY THE HUF. THE ISSUE GETS SETTLED BY THE PAYMENT OF TAXES BY THE HUF THROUGH THE DECLARATION MADE BEFORE THE PR. CIT UNDER IDS, WHIC H HAS BEEN ACCEPTED, AS ALL TAXES HAVE BEEN PAID. THEREFORE, IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, AND FACTS OF THE CASE, SINCE THE HUF HAS ALREADY PAID TAX DUE ALONGWITH INTEREST, ETC AND CORRECT SHARE HAD BEEN DECLARED AT RS. 27,79,279/ - AS AGAINST LESSER AMOUNT OF RS. 22,50,413/ - TAKEN BY BOTH THE AUTHORITIES BELOW, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO DELETE THE ADDITION SO MADE. THUS, THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED. 8 . AS THE FACTS & CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E IN HAND ARE EXACTLY IDENTICA L TO THE CASE OF ASHWANI KUMAR TYAGI (SUPRA), THEREFORE R ESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE SAME, WE REVERSE THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. HENCE, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 9 . IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ( ORDER PRONOUNCED IN T HE OPEN ON 08. 03.2018. ) SD/ - SD/ - ( BHAVNESH SAINI ) ( WAS EE M AHMED ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DT. 08 . 0 3 .2018 SH 8 ITA NO . 5004 /DEL/201 6 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1 . APPELLANT 2 . RESPONDENT 3 . CIT 4 . CIT(APPEALS) 5 . DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR , ITAT NEW DELHI DATE 1. DRAFT DICTATED ON PS 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 3. 201 8 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 3 . 2 01 8 PS/PS 6. KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON PS 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK 3 .201 8 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.