ITO, New Delhi V. Shri Kewal Krishan Bajaj, New Delhi

ITA 5069/DEL/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 69624 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-11-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 30-09-2013
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 14-11-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Additional evidence; Competent authority
• Section: 54F; 142(1); 54

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH D NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI U. B. S. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B. C. MEENA , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 5069 / DEL/ 2011 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 ) ITO, WARD 25(1), VS. SHRI KEWAL KRISHAN BAJAJ NEW DELHI 57, FURNITURE BLOCK, KIRTI NAGAR, NEW DELHI. PAN : ABNPB5123F (APPELLANTS) (RESPONDENTS) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI VIVEK KUMAR, DR DEPARTMENT BY: SHRI RAHUL KHARE, ADV ORDER PER U B S BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THIS APPEAL OF THE DEPARTMENT IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY LD. CIT(A) - XXIV, NEW DELHI DATED 15.09.2011 RELAT ING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 WHEREIN THE FOLLOWING FOUR EFFECTIVE G ROUNDS HAVE BEEN RAISED: I) ON THE ACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.1,37,33,209/- MADE ON A CCOUNT OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN AFTER DISALLOWING EXEMPTION CLAIM ED U/S 54F OF THE I. T. ACT, 1961. II) ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, TH E CIT(A) ERRED IN ACCEPTING SELF SERVING DOCUMENTS NOT CORROBORATED O R EXAMINED DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. III) ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, T HE CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT ALLOWING THE A.O. TO EXAMINE THE ADDITIONAL EVI DENCES, VIZ, DETAILS REGARDING CONSTRUCTION OF PROPERTY ADMITTED BY HIM, AS PER PROVISIONS U/S 46A(3) OF THE I T RULES. IV) SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND RESTORE THE MATTER BACK TO THE A.O. TO RE EXAMINE FRESH EVIDENCES IN HOLISTIC MANNER. I.T.A. NO. 5069/DEL/2011 2 2. THE ASSESSEE FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME DECLARIN G INCOME OF RS.1,38,100/- ON 13.03.2009. THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND NOTICE U/S 143(2) WAS ISSUED AND SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE TH ROUGH SPEED POST. SUBSEQUENTLY NOTICES U/S 142(1) AND 143(2) ALONG WI TH DETAILED QUESTIONNAIRE WERE ALSO SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE. TH E A.O. NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN CAPITAL GAINS ON SALE OF PROPERT Y BEARING NO.57, FURNITURE BLOC, KIRTI NAGAR, NEW DELHI. THE PROPER TY WAS SOLD FOR RS.1,65,00,000/- AND AFTER CLAIMING INDEXED COST OF PROPERTY AT RS.27,66,791/-, THE NET CAPITAL GAINS AMOUNTING TO RS.1,37,33,209/- WAS DISCLOSED IN THE RETURN. EXEMPTION U/S 54F WAS CLA IMED FOR AN AMOUNT OF RS.1,37,80,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF INVESTMENT IN ANOTHE R RESIDENTIAL HOUSE. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO GIVE COMPLETE DETAILS OF THE TRANSACTIONS. THE A.O. FOUND THAT ASSESSEE SOLD THE KIRTI NAGAR PROPERTY F OR RS.1,65,00,000/- AND RECEIVED ADVANCE PAYMENT OF RS.1,50,00,000/- IN DEC EMBER, 2007. HE UTILIZED THIS AMOUNT OF PURCHASE OF VACANT PLOT AT B-125, NARAINA VIHAR, NEW DELHI. THE VENDORS SHARE IN THIS PLOT WAS 50% , WHICH WAS SOLD BY HIM TO THE ASSESSEE FOR RS.1,30,00,000/- ON WHICH S TAMP DUTY OF RS.7,80,000/- WAS PAID. SALE DEED WAS EXECUTED ON 09.01.2008. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED EXEMPTION U/S 54F TO THE EXTENT OF RS.1,37,80,000/-. THE A.O. DENIED THE EXEMPTION CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE O N TWO GROUNDS, NAMELY; A) THE PROPERTY PURCHASED WAS A VACANT PLOT AND NO EVIDENCE WAS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT HE CONSTRUCTED A RES IDENTIAL HOUSE ON THIS PLOT WITHIN THE STIPULATED TIME. B) THE A.O. HAS MADE A PRESUMPTION THAT THE SALE D EED OF OLD PROPERTY WAS DATED 24.03.2008, WHILE THE NEW PROPER TY WAS PURCHASED ON 09.01.2008 AND THEREFORE, THE WHOLE STORY HAS BEEN COOKED UP. I.T.A. NO. 5069/DEL/2011 3 3. THE ASSESSEE TOOK UP THE MATTER IN APPEAL WHEREB Y THE ACTION OF THE A.O. WAS CHALLENGED IN DISALLOWING DEDUCTION U/S 54 F OF THE I. T. ACT, 1961 THEREBY RESULTING THE ADDITION OF RS.1,37,80,000/- WHICH WAS STATED TO BE NOT ONLY ILLEGAL BUT ALSO AGAINST THE FACTS AND CIRCUMS TANCES OF THE CASE. 4. THE ASSESSEE MADE AN APPLICATION UNDER RULE 46A OF THE ITAT RULES 1962 FOR SUBMISSION OF THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE WHIC H WAS STATED TO BE CRUCIAL TO THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY THAT DURING THE COURS E OF ASSESSMENT PRSOCEEDINGS, THE A.O. DID NOT RAISE ANY QUERY REGA RDING SUBMISSION OF THESE DOCUMENTS AND NO DISCUSSION TOOK PLACE REGARDING TH E ISSUE RELATING TO CONSTRUCTION OF PROPERTY AND REBUILDING OF PROPERTY WITH REGARD TO CLAIM OF EXEMPTION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. REMAND REPORT WAS CALLED FOR BY LD. CIT(A) VIDE LETTER DATED 01.04.2011. IN RESPONSE T HERETO THE A.O. OBJECTED TO ADMISSION OF THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE ON THE GROU ND THAT SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY WAS PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE TO REPRESE NT HIS CASE DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. AS REGARDS THE M ERIT OF THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE, THE A.O. HAS COMMENTED AS UNDER: AS PER COPY OF SALE DEED FILED BY THE ASSESSEE DUR ING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE HAD PURCHASED VACANT PLOT, B- 125, NARAINA VIHAR, NEW DELHI ON 09.01.2008 FOR RS. 1,30,00,000/- AND PAID STAMP DUTY OF RS.7,80,000/-. NOW AS PER D ETAILS FILED DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSEE HAD STATED T HAT HE HAD RE- CONSTRUCTED THE PROPERTY AS PER RE-CONSTRUCTION OF PROPERTY SANCTION PLAN DATED 15.12.2007. THOUGH THE ASSESSEE CONSTRU CTED THE PROPERTY AS PER SANCTION PLAN BY THE MCD DATED 24.04.2008, N O DETAILS AND THE SOURCE OF THE AMOUNT SPENT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROEPRYT HAS BEEN FILED. NO EVIDENCE WITH REGARD TO THE CONSTRU CTION OF THE I.T.A. NO. 5069/DEL/2011 4 PROPERTY DURING THE PERIOD AS REQUIRED BY THE PROVI SION OF SECTION 54F HAS BEEN FURNISHED. SINCE, THE AMOUNT OF CAPITAL G AIN OF RS.,1,37,80,000/- HAS ONLY BEEN SPENT ON THE PURCHA SE OF PLOT, NO DEDUCTION U/S 54F IS ALLOWABLE. THE ASSESSEE HAS N OT FILED THE COMPLETION CERTIFICATE FORM THE MCD WHICH IS BASIC REQUIREMENT TO KNOW THAT THE CONSTRUCTION HAS BEEN COMPLETED. HOW EVER, THE OTHER DETAILS FILED WITH REGARD TO ELECTRIC CONNECTION, D ELHI JAL BOARD CONNECTION, THE PAYMENT OF HOUSE TAX MAY BE CONSIDE RED AT YOUR END. 5. LD. A.R. RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF ITAT IN THE CA SE OF ACIT VS JOGINDER SINGH IN I.T.A. NO. 2942/DEL/2011 ITAT DEL HI BENCH B AND LD. CIT(A) WHILE FOLLOWING SUCH ITAT DECISION HAS ADMIT TED ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE BY OBSERVING THAT IT IS CRUCIAL TO THE GRO UNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE AND EVEN THE A.O. HAS SUBMITTED IN HIS REM AND REPORT THAT THESE EVIDENCES MAY BE CONSIDERED BY LD. CIT(A) DURING TH E APPELLATE STAGE. 6. LD. CIT(A) WHILE CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE LIGHT OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AT PARA 4.2 AND 4.3 OF HIS ORDER, HAS CONCLUDED TO ALLOW THE DEDUCTION U/S 54F OF THE I. T. ACT, 1961. 7. AGGRIEVED BY THIS ORDER OF LD. CIT(A), THE DEPAR TMENT HAS COME UP IN APPEAL AND WHILE RELYING UPON THE A.O.S ORDER, IT WAS PLEADED FOR SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) AND RESTORING THAT OF THE A.O. IT WAS FURTHER PLEADED THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS SINCE ACCEPTED THE SELF SERVING DOCUMENTS WHICH WERE NOT CORROBORATED OR EXAMINED DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. SO ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE DETAILS REGARDING CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROPERTY ADMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ALLOWED TO BE EXAMINED BY LD. CIT(A). SO IT IS A C LEAR VIOLATION OF RULE 46A(3) OF THE IT RULES, THEREFORE, IN ALL FAIRNESS, THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) I.T.A. NO. 5069/DEL/2011 5 SHOULD BE SET ASIDE AND THE MATTER MAY BE RESTORED TO THE A.O. TO RE-EXAMINE FRESH EVIDENCE IN HOLISTIC MANNER. 8. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE WHILE REITERATING T HE SUBMISSIONS AS MADE BEFORE THE A.O., AS WELL AS BEFORE LD. CIT(A), HAS PLEADED FOR CONFIRMATION OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT I N FACT, THE A.O. DID NOT ASK FOR ANY DOCUMENTS OR DETAILS BUT WHILE PASSING THE ORDER, HE MADE THE DISALLOWANCE WHICH NECESSITATED THE ASSESSEE TO FIL E FURTHER MATERIAL AND DOCUMENTS BEFORE LD. CIT(A) AS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE WHICH WERE DULY SENT TO THE A.O. AND HIS REMAND REPORT WAS CALLED FOR AN D AFTER EXAMINING SUCH REPORT AND OBJECTIONS OF THE A.O. AND CONSIDERING T HE MATERIAL FILED BEFORE IT WHICH WAS DULY ADMITTED, RELIEF HAS BEEN GIVEN TO T HE ASSESSEE. LD. D.R. COULD NOT BE ABLE TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS PLEA ABOUT VI OLATION OF RULE 46A(3) WHEN HE HIMSELF ADMITTED IN THE REMAND REPORT THAT THIS MATERIAL AND EVIDENCE FILED AS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE MAY BE CONSIDERED BY LD. CIT(A) AT HIS LEVEL TO CONSIDER THE ISSUE INVOLVED. SO, IN NO WAY IT CAN BE SAID THAT THIS IS IN VIOLATION OF RULE 46A WHEN THE A.O. HAS HIMSELF CONCEDED BEFORE LD. CIT(A) IN REMAND REPORT THAT PA RT ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE WAS CONSIDERED AND APPROPRIATE VIEW SHOULD BE TAKEN . THEREFORE, IT WAS PLEADED FOR CONFIRMATION OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER. 9. LD. D.R., IN ORDER TO COUNTER THE SUBMISSIONS OF LD. A.R. HAS SUBMITTED THAT FROM THE DOCUMENTS FURNISHED, IT CAN NOT BE INFERRED THAT THERE EXISTED THE BUILDING IN THE PLOT OF LAND PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE TO CLAIM DEDUCTION U/S 54F OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALS O NOT FILED ANY COMPLETION CERTIFICATE FROM THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY. SO, THE CLAIM U/S 54F IS NOT JUSTIFIED WHICH HAS RIGHTLY BEEN DISALLOWED BY THE A.O. WHOSE ACTION SHOULD BE CONFIRMED AND HIS ORDER MAY BE RESTORED. I.T.A. NO. 5069/DEL/2011 6 10. AT THIS STAGE, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUB MITTED THAT IN DELHI, SOMETIMES COMPLETION CERTIFICATES ARE NOT ISSUED BU T ONE PERMISSION LETTER IS GIVEN ON THE BAISS OF WHICH ONE CAN HAVE ELECTRICIT Y CONNECTION AS WELL AS WATER CONNECTION AND ALL THESE DOCUMENTS RELATING T O WATER CONNECTION AND ELECTRICITY CONNECTION HAVE BEEN DULY FILED AS THE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED BEFORE LD. CIT(A), WHICH WAS FORWARDED TO THE A.O. SO, AT THIS STAGE IT IS NOT APPROPRIATE FOR LD. D.R. TO PLEAD T HAT THERE WAS NO COMPLETION CERTIFICATE. IT WAS THUS PLEADED FOR CONFIRMATION OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER. 11. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES, CONSIDERED THE MA TERIAL ON RECORD AS WELL AS DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE FURNISHED BEFORE LD. C IT(A), COPIES OF WHICH WERE SENT TO THE A.O. FROM WHOM REMAND REPORT WAS O BTAINED, WHICH HAS ALSO BEEN EXAMINED BY US AND FIND THAT LD. CIT(A) H AS DEALT WITH AND CONSIDERED THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FILED BEFORE HIM AND DRAWN HIS CONCLUSION IN PARAS 4.2 TO 4.5 OF HIS ORDER AS UNDE R: 4.2 THE APPELLANT HAS SUBMITTED THE PURCHASE DEED AND AGREEMENT TO SELL THE KIRTI NAGAR PROPERTY. THE PROPERTY WAS SOLD FOR RS.1,65,00,000/-. NO SALE DEED HAS BEEN REGISTERED AS YET FOR THIS PROPERTY. HOWEVER, TWO AGREEMENTS TO SELL WERE MAD E, THE FIRST DATED 15.12.2007, AS PER WHICH RS.1,50,00,000/- OUT OF RS .1,65,00,000/- WAS RECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT. THE SECOND AGREEMENT TO SELL WAS MADE ON 24.03.2008, AS PER WHICH THE BALANCE RS.15 LACS WAS ALSO RECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT. THE SECOND AGREEMENT TO SELL DATED 24.03.2008 IS A REGISTERED DOCUMENT AND IS PLACED ON RECORD. THE N EXUS BETWEEN THE MONEY RECEIVED FORM SALE OF THIS PROPERTY AND INVES TMENT MADE IN THE PURCHASE OF PROPERTY AT NARAINA VIHAR HAS BEEN EST ABLISHED BY THE APPELLANT. THE APPELLANT HAS ALSO SUBMITTED SUBSTA NTIAL EVIDENCES REGARDING CONSTRUCTION OF NEW PROPERTY AT B-125, NA RINA VIHAR, NEW DELHI. THE EVIDENCES SUBMITTED INCLUDE THE FOLLOWI NG: A) THE APPROVAL BUILDING PLAN OF THE RESIDENCE ON P LOT NO.125, BLOCK B, NARAINA VIHAR, NEW DELHI. B) B-1, SANCTION ISSUED BY MCD. C) PHOTOGRAPHIC EVIDENCE OF THE PROPERTY. I.T.A. NO. 5069/DEL/2011 7 D) PHOTOCOPY OF PROTOCOL SHEET FOR INSTALLATION OF NEW ELECTRICITY CONNECTION ON SECOND FLOOR OF THE SAID PROPERTY ALONG WITH SUBSEQUENT ELECTRICITY BILLS. E) PHOTOCOPY OF PROTOCOL SHEET FOR INSTALLATION OF NEW ELECTRICITY CONNECTION ON FIRST FLOOR OF THE SAID P ROPERTY ALONG WITH SUBSEQUENT ELECTRICITY BILLS. F) PERMISSION FOR WANT OF WATER CONNECTION FOR FIRS T AND SECOND FLOOR ALONG WITH WATER CHARGES BILL OF DELHI JAL BOARD. G) RECEIPT OF PROPERTY TAX PAID BY THE APPELLANT FO R THE SAID PROPERTY. 4.3 THE APPELLANT HAS SUBMITTED FURTHER THAT: THE QUESTION FOR CONSIDERATION IS WHETHER EXEMPTIO N ON CAPITAL GAINS COULD BE REFUSED TO THE ASSESSEE SIMPLY ON TH E GROUND THAT THE CONSTRUCTION HAD BEGUN BEFORE THE SALE OF THE H OUSE. THIS ISSUE WAS DEALT BY HONBLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS H. K. KAPOOR (DEED) 234 ITR 753 WHERE IN IT WAS HELD THAT IT WAS IMMATERIAL THAT HE CONSTRUCTION O F THE NEW BUILDING WAS STARTED BEFORE THE SALE OF THE OLD BUI LDING. WE FULLY AGREE WITH THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE KARNATKA HIGH COUR T. THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL WAS RIGHT IN HOLDING THAT CAPITA L GAINS ARISING FROM THE SALE OF THE GOLF LINK HOUSE TO THE EXTENT IT GOT INVESTED IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE SURYA NAGAR HOU SE, WILL BE EXEMPTED UNDER SECTION 54 OF THE ACT. SIMILAR QUESTION CAME UP FOR CONSIDERATION BEFORE T HE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. J.R. SUBRAMANYA BH AT (1987) 165 ITR 571. IN THE CASE BEFORE THE KARNATA KA HIGH COURT, THE DATE OF THE SALE OF THE OLD BUILDING WAS FEBRUARY 9, 1977. THE COMPLETION OF THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE NE W BUILDING WAS IN MARCH, 1977, ALTHOUGH THE COMMENCEMENT OF CONSTRUCTION STATED IN 1976. ON THESE FACTS, THE K ARNATAKA HIGH COURT HELD THAT IT WAS IMMATERIAL THAT HE CONSTRUCT ION OF THE NEW BUILDING WAS STARTED BEFORE THE SALE OF THE OLD BUI LDING. CAPITAL GAINS ARISING FROM THE SALE OF THE HOUSE TO THE EXT ENT IT GOT INVESTED IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE NEW HOUSE, WILL BE EXEMPTED UNDER SECTION 54 OF THE ACT. I.T.A. NO. 5069/DEL/2011 8 FURTHER WE ALSO RELY ON THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE DEL HI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ADDL. CIT VS VIDYA PRAKASH TAL WAR REPORTED IN 132 ITR 661. 4.4 IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING EVIDENCES PLACED ON RE CORD BY THE APPELLANT AND IN THE LIGHT OF CASE LAWS AND AUTHORI TIES QUOTED BY THE APPELLANT IN HIS FAVOUR, I AM OF THE CONSIDERED OPI NION THAT THE APPELLANT HAS BEEN ABLE TO PROVE HIS CASE BEYOND AN Y DOUBT. THE PROPERTY AT KIRTI NAGAR WAS SOLD BY HIM AND RS.1,50 ,00,000/- WAS RECEIVED BY HIM IN THE MONTH OF DECEMBER, 2007. HE INVESTED THIS MONEY IN PURCHASE OF THE PLOT OF LAND AT NARAINA VI HAR FOR RS.1,37,80,000/- AND CONSTRUCTED A RESIDENTIAL HOUS E ON THIS PLOT, WHICH HAS BEEN OCCUPIED BY THE APPELLANT AND HIS FA MILY. THE ELECTRICITY CONNECTIONS WERE GIVEN IN JUNE, 2010 AN D OCTOBE , 2010 AND THE WATER CONNECTIONS WERE GIVEN IN AUGUST AND SEPTEMBER, 2010. EVEN PHOTOGRAPHIC EVIDENCES HAVE BEEN PLACED ON REC ORD. 4.5 IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O. OF RS.1,37,98,000/- IS HEREBY DELETED AND THE A.O. IS DIRECTED TO ALLOW THE DEDUCTION TO THE APPELLANT. 12. ON PERUSAL OF THE CONCLUSION DRAWN BY LD. CIT(A ) IN THE LIGHT OF MATERIAL ON RECORD AND ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FURNISHE D AND ADMITTED BY HIM, WE FIND THAT JUST, APPROPRIATE AND CONVINCING VIEW HAS BEEN DRAWN BY LD. CIT(A) WHILE DEALING WITH THE ISSUE IN HAND IN A VE RY JUSTIFIED MANNER. NEITHER ANY INFIRMITY OR FLAW HAS BEEN NOTICED NOR ANY JUSTIFIABLE OBJECTION IN THIS REGARD, HAS BEEN POINTED OUT BY THE DEPARTM ENT. THEREFORE, WHILE CONCURRING WITH THE FINDING OF LD. CIT(A), WE UPHOL D HIS ORDER IN THIS REGARD AND DISMISS THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE BEING DEVOID OF ANY MERIT. 13. AS A RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE GETS DISMISS ED. 14. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 22 ND NOV., 2013. SD./- SD./- (B. C. MEENA) (U.B.S.BEDI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 22 ND NOV., 2013 SP. I.T.A. NO. 5069/DEL/2011 9 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A)-XXV, NEW DELHI AR, ITAT, 5. CIT(ITAT), NEW DELHI NEW DELHI