Om Avtar (HUF), Bareilly V. ACIT, Bareilly

ITA 545/LKW/2010

• Counselvise Citation: 54523714 RSA 2010
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-04-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 04-04-2011
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 16-08-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P K B AJAJ
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Cost of acquisition; Valuation report; Competent authority
• Section: 147; 148

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH A : LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI H. L. KARWA, HONBLE VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI N. K. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO.545/LKW/10 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 06-07 OM AVTAR (HUF), VS. A.C.I.T., 13, CIVIL LINES, CIRCLE-2, BAREILLY. BAREILLY. PAN:AAAHO8030J (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) I.T.A. NO.575/LKW/10 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 06-07 A.C.I.T., VS. OM AVTAR (HUF) CIRCLE-2, BAREILLY. BAREILLY. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI ABHI NAV MEHROTRA, C. A. REVENUE BY : SHRI P. K . BAJAJ, D. R. O R D E R PER N. K. SAINI: THESE CROSS APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE DEPAR TMENT ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 07/05/2010 OF CIT(A), BAREI LLY. FIRST WE WILL DEAL WITH THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. IN ITS APPEAL THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. THE LD. C.L.T (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN LAW BY CON FIRMING THE ADDITION OF ` 973392/- IN CAPITAL GAIN THAT NO BUILDING WAS IN 2 EXISTENCE AS IN SALE DEED IT IS NOT MENTIONED AS SU CH QUESTION OF INDEXATION DOES NOT ARISE. 2. THE LD. C.I.T. (APPEALS) HAS ALSO NOT CONSIDERED THAT THE SAID BUILDING WAS U.P. HOME GUARD OFFICE AND ASSESS EE WAS ENJOYING RENTAL INCOME FROM ABOVE PROPERTY AND WAS REGULARLY SHOWING IN HIS INCOME TAX RETURN. 3. THE LD. C.I.T. (APPEALS) HAS ALSO NOT CONSIDERED THAT BUILDING WAS IN DEMOLISHED CONDITION I.E. MALVA AND IN SALE DEED AND ALSO IN ASSESSMENT ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER O N PAGE NO. 3. OF 5 IT IS MENTIONED THAT LAND WAS SOLD ALONG WITH MALWA I.E. BUILDING. 4. ANY OTHER GROUNDS MAY BE TAKEN AT THE TIME OF HE ARING OF APPEAL. 2. FROM THE ABOVE GROUNDS IT IS CLEAR THAT THE GRIE VANCE OF THE ASSESSEE RELATES TO THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF CAPITAL GAIN RELATING TO THE BUILDING. THE FACTS RELATED TO THIS ISSUE, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME ON 18/12/2006 DECLARING AN INCOME OF ` 11,45,810/- WHICH WAS PROCESSED U/S 143(1) OF THE I.T. ACT. WHILE PROCESSING THE SAID RETURN, CERTAIN DISCREPANCIES WERE NOTICED, THEREFORE, A NOTICE U/S 139(9) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT, THE ACT) WAS SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, NO COMPLIAN CE HAD BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE SAID NOTICE, THEREFORE, THE ACTION U/S 147 WAS INITIATED AND THE NOTICE DATED 28/03/2008 U/S 148 OF THE I.T. ACT WAS ISSUED. IN COMPLIANCE TO THE SAID NOTICE, THE ASSESSEE, VIDE LETTER DATED02/05/0 08 STATED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE RETURN ALREADY FILED ON 13/12/2006 MAY BE TREATED AS RETURN FILED IN COMPLIANCE OF NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE I.T. ACT. T HE ASSESSING OFFICER, DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE I N THE YEAR UNDER 3 CONSIDERATION DISPOSED OF THREE PROPERTIES FOR A SU M OF ` 45,50,000/-. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE THE SAID PROPERTIES WERE ACQUIRED B EFORE 01/04/81, THEREFORE, THE VALUE AS ON 01/04/81 WAS TAKEN ON THE BASIS OF VALU ATION AS DETERMINED BY GOVERNMENT APPROVED ARCHITECT. ACCORDING TO THE ASS ESSING OFFICER, THE APPROVED VALUER DID NOT REPORT ANY DOCUMENTARY EVID ENCE ON THE BASIS OF WHICH VALUATION OF LAND AND BUILDING HAD BEEN DETERMINED @250.58 PER SQ. YARD. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE VALUE OF TH E AREA IN WHICH THE LAND WAS SITUATED WAS ` 75/- TO ` 100/- PER SQ. YARD. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO OB SERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO PRODUCE THE CIRCLE R ATE OF THE LAND DETERMINED BY COMPETENT AUTHORITY I.E. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE AS ON 01/04/81 AND FINANCIAL YEAR 2005-2006, HOWEVER, NOTHING WAS PRODUCED BY THE ASS ESSEE. HE, THEREFORE, WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO ESTABLISH T HAT THE RATES DETERMINED BY THE ARCHITECT IN HIS CASE WERE JUSTIFIED. THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER ALSO POINTED OUT THAT IN THE DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY SOLD BY THE ASSESSE E, IT WAS NOT MENTIONED THAT THERE WAS A BUILDING, THEREFORE, THE EXISTENCE OF B UILDING DID NOT ARISE AND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD WRONGLY INCLUDED VALUE OF BUILDING IN THE COMPUTATION WHEREAS IT WAS NOT MENTIONED IN THE SALE DEED EXECUTED BY T HE SUB-REGISTRAR AND THE STAMP DUTY WAS ALSO NOT PAID AGAINST THE VALUE OF T HE OLD BUILDING. HE, ACCORDINGLY, DID NOT ACCEPT THIS CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT BUILDING WAS IN EXISTENCE ON THE SAID LAND. 4 3. THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER TO LEARNED CIT(A ) AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER ERRED IN LAW THAT NO BUILDING WAS IN EXISTENCE ON THE LAND IN QUESTION. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESS EE WAS HAVING A BUILDING CONSTRUCTED IN 1955 ON 2444 SQ. YARDS AND THE SAME BUILDING WAS GIVEN ON RENT TO U.P. HOME GUARD OFFICE. IT WAS STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ENJOYING PROPERTY INCOME FROM SUCH PROPERTY AND THE SAID INC OME WAS REGULARLY SHOWN IN THE INCOME TAX RETURN. THE ASSESSEE ALSO FURNISHED PHOTOCOPY OF LETTER FROM ZILA COMMANDANT OF U.P. HOME GUARD MENTIONING THAT THE B UILDING WAS ON RENT AND THE ZILA COMMANDANT HAD TO PAY RENT OF BUILDING. O N THE BASIS OF ABOVE DOCUMENTS, IT WAS CLAIMED THAT THE BUILDING WAS IN EXISTENCE ON THE LAND IN QUESTION AND WAS IN POSSESSION OF U.P. HOME GUARD O FFICE. THE ASSESSEE ALSO FURNISHED THE VALUATION OF APPROVED VALUER INDICATI NG THE VALUE OF BUILDING AT ` 3.681 LACS. IT WAS CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSING OF FICER HAD NOT GIVEN BENEFIT OF INDEXED COST OF ACQUISITION ON THE SAID BUILDING NO R REFERRED IT TO THE VALUATION CELL OF THE DEPARTMENT AND ARBITRARILY DECIDED THAT NO B UILDING WAS CONSTRUCTED ON THE LAND. IT WAS FURTHER STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS THE SELLER AND THE STAMP DUTY WAS TO BE PAID BY THE PURCHASER AND NOT THE ASSESSE E. IT WAS CONTENDED THAT JUST MENTIONING THAT STAMP DUTY WAS NOT PAID BY THE PURCHASER IT DID NOT MEAN THAT THE BUILDING WAS NOT IN EXISTENCE. IT WAS POI NTED OUT THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD MENTIONED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT THE LAND WAS SOLD ALONG WITH THE MALVA I.E. DEMOLISHED BUILDING TO MR. ASHOK KUM AR AGARWAL FOR ` 40,50,000/- 5 WHICH CLEARLY INDICATED THAT THE OLD BUILDING IN TH E SHAPE OF MARVA OR IN DEMOLISHED CONDITION WAS SOLD. 3.1 THE LEARNED CIT(A), AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMI SSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT RECEIVED ANY CON SIDERATION ON ACCOUNT OF SALE OF BUILDING AND THAT IN THE SALE AGREEMENT WIT H THE BUYERS OF THE SAID PROPERTY, THERE WAS NO MENTION OF BUILDING. HE ALS O POINTED THAT IN THE CONTENTS OF SALE DEED ENTERED WITH SHRI ASHOK KUMAR AGARWAL FOR AREA OF LAND ADMEASURING 2444 SQ. YARD, IT WAS MENTIONED THAT TH E CONSIDERATION OF ` 40,50,000/- WAS RECEIVED FOR LAND INCLUDING THE MAT ERIAL MENTIONED AS MALVA ONLY AND THAT IN THE DOCUMENTS REGISTERED WITH THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY OF THE STATE GOVERNMENT, NOTHING WAS MENTIONED INDICATING THE FACT THAT THE PROPERTY SOLD INCLUDED BUILDING ALSO. THE LEARNED CIT (A) A CCORDINGLY DISMISSED THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT CONSIDERATION FOR P ROPERTY INCLUDED VALUE OF BUILDING THEREON. NOW THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL. 4. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS RECEIVING THE RENT OF THE BUILDING FROM ZILA COMMAN DANT OF U.P. HOME GUARD AND THE RENT RECEIVED WAS SHOWN AS INCOME FROM HOUSE PR OPERTY IN THE INCOME TAX RETURNS REGULARLY FILED WITH THE DEPARTMENT, WHICH CLEARLY ESTABLISH THAT THE BUILDING WAS IN EXISTENCE BUT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT TAKEN ANY COGNIZANCE 6 TO THE ABOVE FACTS AND THE LEARNED CIT (A) ALSO ARB ITRARILY CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 5. IN HIS RIVAL SUBMISSIONS THE LEARNED D. R. STRON GLY SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IN THE SALE DEED NOTHING WAS MENTIONED REGARDING THE BUILDING WHICH CLEARLY SHOW S THAT THE BUILDING WAS NOT IN EXISTENCE. AS SUCH, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS JUST IFIED IN NOT ALLOWING THE BENEFIT OF COST OF BUILDING WHILE DETERMINING THE CAPITAL G AIN AND THE LEARNED CIT (A) WAS FULLY JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE ASS ESSING OFFICER. 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND CAR EFULLY GONE THROUGH THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON THE RECORD. IN THE PRESENT C ASE, IT IS NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED A CERTIFICATE FROM ZILA COMM ANDANT, U.P. HOME GUARD MENTIONING THEREIN THAT THE BUILDING WAS ON RENT. THE ASSESSEE ALSO CLAIMED THAT THE RENTAL INCOME FROM THE BUILDING WAS REGULARLY S HOWN IN THE INCOME TAX RETURNS, THEREFORE, THE BUILDING WAS IN EXISTENCE. ON THE OTHER HAND THE ASSESSING OFFICER DENIED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE REASON THAT IN THE SALE AGREEMENT NOTHING WAS MENTIONED REGARDING THE EXIST ENCE OF BUILDING, HOWEVER, HE ACCEPTED THAT THE LAND WAS SOLD ALONG WITH THE M ALVA, BUT IT IS NOT CLEAR WHETHER THE MALVA SOLD ALONG WITH THE LAND WAS RELA TING TO THE BUILDING, WHICH WAS ALREADY IN EXISTENCE. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE LEARNED CIT (A) HAVE NOT COMMENTED UPON THE SUBMISS IONS OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE RENT FROM THE BUILDING WAS SHOWN IN THE INCOME TAX RETURNS WHICH HAS BEEN 7 ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT. THEREFORE, THE FACTS A RE NOT CLEAR AND REQUIRE VERIFICATION FROM THE RECORD AT THE LEVEL OF THE AS SESSING OFFICER. WE, THEREFORE, CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS, DEEM IT APPR OPRIATE TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT (A) ON THIS ISSUE AND REMAND THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO BE DECIDED AFRESH AFTER PROPER VERIFICATION FROM THE RECORD ALREADY AVAILABLE WITH THE DEPARTME NT AND IF THE EXISTENCE OF THE BUILDING HAS BEEN ACCEPTED IN THE REGULAR RETURNS F ILED BY THE ASSESSEE, THEN THE BENEFIT FOR INCLUDING THE COST OF THE BUILDING IN T HE VALUE OF THE LAND CANNOT BE DENIED. ACCORDINGLY, THIS ISSUE IS REMANDED BACK T O THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH L AW AFTER PROVIDING A DUE AND REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESS EE. 7. NOW WE WILL DEAL WITH THE APPEAL OF THE DEPARTME NT. THE ONLY EFFECTIVE GROUND RAISED IN THIS APPEAL READS AS UNDER: 1. THAT THE CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS IN DIRECTING TO APPLY THE CIRCLE RATE OF THE PROPERTY @ `1 80/- PER SQ. YARD WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND THE MATERIAL BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER.` 8. THE FACTS RELATED TO THIS ISSUE, IN BRIEF, ARE T HAT THE ASSESSEE SOLD THREE PROPERTIES FOR A SUM OF ` 45,50,000/- AS PER FOLLOWING DETAILS: 1. 175 SQ. YARD TO MRS. NEENA AGARWAL ` 2,00,000 2. 261.19 SQ. YARD TO MR. LALIT AND GURMUKH PARWAN I ` 3,00,000 3. 2444 SQ. YARD TO MR. ASHOK KUMAR AGARWAL ` 40,50,000 8 8.1 THE ASSESSEE WORKED OUT THE CAPITAL GAIN BY CO NSIDERING THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AT ` 180/- PER SQ. YARDS AS ON 01/04/81 ON THE BASIS OF VALUATION REPORT OF THE GOVT. APPROVED ARCHITECT. THE ASSESSING OFF ICER, ON THE OTHER HAND, WORKED OUT THE VALUATION BY APPLYING THE RATE OF ` 75/- TO ` 100/- PER SQ. YARD BY STATING THAT THE RATE DETERMINED BY THE GOVT. APPRO VED VALUER WAS NOT JUSTIFIED SINCE THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FURNISH ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE FOR CIRCLE RATE ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE. 9. THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER TO LEARNED CIT(A ) AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE CALCULATED LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN ON SALE OF PROPERTY BY TAKING THE VALUE OF LAND ON 01/04/81 AND ` 180/- PER SQ. YARD. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE PROP ERTY WAS SITUATED AT 235A, ISAIN KI PULIA, MAIN SHAHJAHA NPUR ROAD, BAREILLY AND NOT AT KATRA CHAND KALA AS PER CERTIFICATE OF TEHSILDAR SADAR, BAREILLY BUT THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT CONSIDER THAT DOCUMENT AN D ARBITRARILY DECIDED THE RATE VALUE OF THE AREA FOR PROPERTY CONSIDERING THAT THE PROPERTY WAS SITUATED AT KATRA CHAND KHAN. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE GOVT . CIRCLE RATE OF THE PROPERTY FOR ISAIN KI PULIA WAS ` 125/- TO ` 150/- PER SQ. YARD AND ` 30/- PER SQ. YARD WAS CONSIDERED AS PREMIUM OF ABOVE PROPERTY, AND AS SUC H, THE GOVT. APPROVED ARCHITECT VALUED THE LAND @ ` 180/- PER SQ. YARD. IT WAS CONTENDED THAT THE RATE TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE WAS JUSTIFIED AND THERE WAS N O REASON TO REJECT THE VALUATION OF GOVT. APPROVED ARCHITECT. THE ASSESSE E FURNISHED A CERTIFICATE DATED 18/02/2009 OF TEHSILDAR (SADAR), BAREILLY TO PROVE HIS CONTENTION THAT THE 9 PROPERTY WAS LOCATED NEAR ISAIN KI PULIA WHICH WAS FALLING IN THE LAND REVENUE AREA OF TOWN HAFIZPUR. 9.1 THE LEARNED CIT(A), AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMI SSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT GIVE AN Y REFERENCE OF THE MATERIAL GATHERED BY HIM OR ANY EVIDENCE WHICH COULD ESTABLI SH THE BASIS OF HIS OBSERVATION THAT THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AS ON 01 /04/81 WAS BETWEEN ` 75/- TO ` 100/- PER SQ. YARD. HE FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE A SSESSING OFFICER HAD NOT GIVEN ANY BASIS OF HIS FINDING THAT THE VALUE CONSIDERED BY HIM WAS DETERMINED BY THE DEPARTMENT, THEREFORE, THE OBSERVATION OF THE ASSES SING OFFICER APPEAR TO BE BASED ON HIS SURMISES AND CONJECTURES. THE LEARNED CIT (A) CATEGORICALLY STATED THAT THERE WAS NOTHING IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHI CH SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ANY BASIS TO CONSIDER THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AS MENTIONED ABOVE. ACCORDING TO HIM, IF THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS DOUB T ABOUT THE VERACITY OF FACTS AND FIGURES SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE, IT WAS HIS D UTY TO ESTABLISH HIS DOUBT WITH COGENT EVIDENCE BUT IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSESS ING OFFICER ADOPTED THE RATE WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE IN HIS POSSESSION. THE LEARNE D CIT (A), THEREFORE, WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT JUSTIFI ED IN REJECTING THE RATE ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR ASCERTAINING THE VALUE OF THE L AND @ `180/- PER SQ. YARD. HE ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. NOW THE DEPARTMENT IS IN APPEAL. 10. THE LEARNED D. R. SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE AS SESSING OFFICER WHILE THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUB MISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE 10 LEARNED CIT (A) AND STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER PA SSED BY THE LEARNED CIT (A) ON THIS ISSUE. 11. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND CA REFULLY GONE THROUGH THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON THE RECORD. IN THE PRESENT C ASE IT APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER APPLIED THE RATE OF ` 100/- PER SQ. YARD AS ON 01/04/81 INSTEAD OF ` 180/- PER SQ. YARD ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE SA ID RATE WAS ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE BASIS OF THE VALUATION BY GOVT. APPROVED ARCHITECT WHO VALUED THE SAID PROPERTY ON THE BASIS OF CIRCLE RAT E OF THE AREA IN WHICH LAND WAS SITUATED. IT APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER AP PLIED THE RATE OF ` 100/- PER SQ. YARD AS ON 01/04/81 WITHOUT ANY BASIS. HE DID NOT MENTION IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER HOW THE VALUE CONSIDERED BY HIM WAS DETERMINE D BY THE DEPARTMENT. IN FACT THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT BRING ANY MATERI AL ON RECORD TO SUBSTANTIATE THAT THE RATE OF ` 180/- PER SQ. YARD ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT CORRECT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT GATHER ANY MATERIAL T O REBUT THE EXPLANATION AND THE INFORMATION FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING TH E ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THEREFORE, THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS BASED ON SURMISES AND CONJECTURES WHICH IS NOT TENABLE IN THE EYES OF THE LAW. THEREFORE, THE LEARNED CIT (A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN ALLOWING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AND DIRECTING THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ADOPT THE VALUE OF THE LAND @ `180/- PER SQ. YARD AS ON 11 01/04/81. IN THAT VIEW OF THE MATTER, WE DO NOT SE E ANY MERIT IN THIS APPEAL OF THE DEPARTMENT. 12. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS AL LOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES AND THAT OF THE DEPARTMENT IS DISMISSED. (ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 06/04/2011) SD/. SD/. ( H. L. KARWA ) ( N. K. SAINI ) VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 06/04/2011 *SINGH COPY FORWARDED TO THE: - 1. APPELLANT. 2. RESPONDENT. 3. CIT (A) 4. CIT 5. DR. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR