ACIT, Faridabad V. M/s. Pawan Kumar Malhotra, Prop., Faridabad

ITA 5556/DEL/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8098 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 4 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-04-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Next Hearing Date: 08-02-2016
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 09-12-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: N J SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: DR RAKESH GUPTA
• Keywords: Share purchase agreement; Question of law
• Section: 260A; 68

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH F NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI N.K. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 5556/DEL/2011 AY: 20 05-06 ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INOME TAX, VS SHRI PA WAN KUMAR MALHOTRA, CIRCLE I, BLOCK I-B, M/S NEUMANN ENGINEERI NG NEW CGO COMPLEX, WORK, 16/4, MATHURA ROAD, FARIDABAD. FARIDABAD. H.NO. 1506, SECTOR-15, FARIDABAD. (APPELLANT) (RESP ONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI N.J. SINGH, SR. DR RESPONDENT BY : DR. RAKESH GUPTA & SH. SOMIL AGRAWAL, ADV. DATE OF HEARING: 08.02.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 29.04.2016 ORDER PER SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER THE PRESENT APPEAL IS PREFERRED BY THE DEPARTMENT AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 27.09.2011 PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) , FARIDABAD DELETING THE PENALTY AMOUNTING TO RS. 29,04,614/- I MPOSED U/S 271(1)( C) OF THE ACT FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. 2. THE FACTS IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING INCOME OF RS.4,84,980/- ON 27.10.2 005, WHICH WAS PROCESSED U/S 143(1) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE I S PROPRIETOR OF M/S NEUMANN ENGINEERING WORKS AND ENGAGED IN THE BU SINESS I.T.A. NO. 5556/DEL/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 2 OF MANUFACTURING OF SHEET METAL COMPONENTS. IN THE RETURN OF INCOME, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED EXEMPTION OF RS.80,31, 540/- U/S 10(38) OF THE ACT ON ACCOUNT OF SALE OF 50000 SHARE S OF M/S. QUALITY SYNTHETIC INDUSTRIES LTD. (HEREINAFTER REFE RRED TO AS QSIL) DURING THE F.Y. 2004-05, AS LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN. THE SHARES WERE PURCHASED IN F.Y. 2003-04 FOR RS. 1,40,800/-. THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED ON 20.12.2009, WHEREIN THE AO DISPUTED THE CLAIM OF LO NG TERM CAPITAL GAINS ON SALE OF SHARES AND MADE ADDITIONS OF RS.81,72,340/-, BEING SALE PROCEEDS OF SHARES, AS I NCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES AND FURTHER ADDITION OF RS.4,08 ,615/-, BEING COMMISSION PAID @ 5% ON PROCURING ACCOMMODATION ENT RIES IN THE WAKE OF SALE OF SHARES BY HOLDING THE TRANSACTI ON AS SHAM AND COLOURABLE DEVICE RELYING UPON THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF ME DOWELL 85 CO. VS. C TO (154 ITR 148). THE AO INITIATED PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271 (L)(C) OF THE ACT FOR CONCEALMENT OF PARTICULARS OF INCOME AND FO R FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME AND ISSUED NOTICE U/S 274 R.W.S. 271(L)(C) OF THE ACT DATED 20.12.2007. THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL AGAINST THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE LD. CIT (APPEALS), FARIDABAD VIDE ORDER DATED 06.10.2008 IN APPEAL NO. 229/2007- I.T.A. NO. 5556/DEL/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 3 08 DELETED THE ADDITIONS OF RS.81,72,615/- AND RS.4 ,08,615/-. ON FURTHER APPEAL PREFERRED BY DEPARTMENT, THE ITAT REVERSED THE ORDER OF LD. CIT (APPEALS) AND UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE AO. CONSEQUENTLY, THE AO ISSUED A FURTHER SHOW-CAUSE NO TICE DATED 19.03.2010 IN RESPONSE TO WHICH THE ASSESSEE FILED WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS CONTENDING MAINLY THAT THERE WAS NEITHE R CONCEALMENT OF ANY PARTICULARS OF INCOME NOR FURNIS HING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS. THE ADDITION WAS MADE ON AC COUNT OF DISAGREEMENT OF THE AO ABOUT THE SHARE TRANSACTIONS . THE AO, AFTER CONSIDERING THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS OF THE AS SESSEE AND HOLDING THAT THE SELLER OF SHARES TO THE ASSESSEE C OULD NOT GIVE SATISFACTORY REPLY; THE CREDENTIALS OF QSIL WERE NO T KNOW; THE PURCHASES OF SHARES BY THE ASSESSEE WERE NOT SHOWN IN THE RETURN OF INCOME OF PRECEDING YEAR AND THE COMPANIE S TO WHOM SHARES WERE SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT BE ULTIM ATELY TRACED PASSED PENALTY ORDER U/S 271(L)(C) OF THE ACT IMPOS ING PENALTY OF RS.29,04,614/-, BEING 100% OF AMOUNT OF TAX SOUGHT TO BE EVADED, FOR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF IN COME. 3. ON APPEAL BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY , THE LD. CIT(A) WHILE DELETING THE PENALTY OBSERVED IN PAGES 23 AND 24 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER AS UNDER:- I.T.A. NO. 5556/DEL/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 4 THERE IS NO DISPUTE TO THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DISCLOSED ALL THE MATERIAL FACTS RELATING TO HIS C LAIM OF EXEMPTION U/S 10(38) ON ACCOUNT OF LONG TERM CAPIT AL GAINS ON SALE OF SHARES IN THE RETURN OF INCOME AND BEFORE THE AO. THE APPELLANT HAD OFFERED EXPLANATION BACKE D BY AMPLE EVIDENCES INCLUDING CAPITAL ACCOUNTS FOR A.Y. 2003- 04 SHOWING WITHDRAWALS IN CASH TO ESTABLISH THE PURCHASES OF SHARES, THOUGH DISBELIEVED BY THE AO. THE ADMITTED FACT REMAINS THAT NEITHER THE SALE PRICES OF SHARES CONFIRMED BY KOLKATA STOCK EXCHANGE IN THE M ONTH OF MARCH 2005 NOR THE CONTRACT NOTES RAISED BY SHAR E BROKER SHRI SUNIL KUMAR JHUNJHUNWALA NOR THE SHARE CERTIFICATES PRODUCED BY THE APPELLANT NOR THE CONF IRMATION SUBMITTED BY QSIL HAVE BEEN CONTROVERTED BY THE AO OR OTHERWISE ESTABLISHED TO BE FALSE. THE ITO (INV.) K OLKATA HAS SIMPLY OPINED THAT THE TRANSACTION OF SALE OF S HARES THE APPELLANT WERE SHAM WITHOUT ESTABLISHING ANY TR UTH OF TRANSACTIONS. IT IS CORRECT THAT DEGREE OF APPRECIA TION OF FACTS AND MATERIAL EVIDENCES MAY VARY AT DIFFERENT APPELLATE LEVELS, AS IN THE PRESENT CASE, WHERE THE ADDITIONS WERE DELETED BY LD. CIT (APPEALS) BUT CON FIRMED BY HONBLE ITAT LEADING TO INFERENCE AS TO THE CHAN GE OF OPINION. THE ADDITIONS HAVE BEEN SUSTAINED BY THE H ONBLE ITAT ON THE BASIS OF THEORY OF PREPONDERANCE OF HUM AN PROBABILITY AND SURROUNDING CIRCUMSTANCES. HOWEVER, MERE CONFIRMING THE ADDITIONS DOES NOT BECOME CONCL USIVE FACTOR FOR THE PURPOSE OF LEVYING PENALTY, AS PER T HE RATIONALE LAID DOWN IN LARGE NUMBER OF DECISIONS OF HONBLE COURTS CITED SUPRA. FROM THE FACTS OF THE CASE, IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE AO HAS NOT MADE OUT ANY CONCLUSIVE CASE OF EITHER CONCEALMENT OF PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME WHILE MAKING THE A DDITION OF RS.81,72,340/-. HENCE, NO PENALTY IS EXIGIBLE ON SUCH ADDITION. AS REGARDS PENALTY ON THE ADDITION OF RS.4,08,615/- MADE BY THE AO BY ESTIMATING THE ALLE GED COMMISSION @ 5 %, THE SAME ADDITION IS BASED PURELY ON ESTIMATION BASIS AND NO PENALTY IS LEVIABLE IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF HONBLE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT I N THE CASE OF CIT VS. AJAIB SINGH (253 ITR 628). IN THE L IGHT OF RATIONALE LAID DOWN IN THE ABOVE JUDICIAL RULINGS A ND FACTS OF THE APPELLANTS CASE, I HOLD THAT THE APPELLANT CANNOT BE HELD TO HAVE EITHER CONCEALED THE PARTICULARS OF IN COME OR I.T.A. NO. 5556/DEL/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 5 FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME FOR IMPO SING PENALTY. THEREFORE, THE PENALTY ORDER PASSED BY THE AO LEVYING PENALTY 29,04,614/- U/S 271(L)(C) OF THE AC T IS CANCELLED. 4. THE REVENUE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE US AND HAS RAIS ED DETAILED AND ARGUMENTATIVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL, THE S UM AND SUBSTANCE OF WHICH IS THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN CANCELLING THE PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF TH E INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 5. THE LD. DR PLACED HEAVY RELIANCE ON THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND EMPHASIZED THAT IN THE QUANTU M PROCEEDINGS, THE ITAT HAD RESTORED THE DISALLOWANCE S/ADDITIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND IN VIEW OF UPHOLD ING OF ADDITIONS/DISALLOWANCES BY THE ITAT, THE PENALTY HA S BEEN WRONGLY CANCELLED BY THE LD. CIT (A). 6. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PREFE RRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE HON'BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COU RT AGAINST THE DECISION OF THE ITAT IN THE QUANTUM APPEAL WHIC H HAS BEEN ADMITTED FOR HEARING BY THE HON'BLE PUNJAB & HARYAN A HIGH COURT (WHICH IS THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT OF TH E ASSESSEE) FOR CONSIDERATION OF THE FOLLOWING SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION S OF LAW:- I.T.A. NO. 5556/DEL/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 6 WHETHER THE TRIBUNAL WAS LEGALLY CORRECT IN RESTOR ING THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING, OFFICER WITHOUT REVERSI NG THE FINDINGS RECORDED BY THE CIT (A) WHICH WERE DULY BA SED ON THE MATERIAL AND EVIDENCE ON RECORD, THEREBY PERVERSELY SUSTAINING THE ADDITION UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961? 2. WHETHER ON AN APPLICATION OF THE CORRECT PRINCI PLES OF LAW, WAS THE TRIBUNAL LEGALLY CORRECT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, IN UPHOLDING THE ORD ER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY APPLYING THE TEST OF HUMAN PROBABILITY EVOLVED IN THE CASE OF SUMATI DAYAL V. CIT (1995) 214 ITR 801 (SC)? 3. WHETHER THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNA L REVERSING THE ORDER OF CIT (A) THEREBY HAVING THE E FFECT OF SUSTAINING THE ADDITION UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. 1961 IS BASED ON IRRELEVANT FINDING S, ILLEGAL, PERVERSE AND A RESULT OF WHOLLY ERRONEOUS APPROACH NOT PERMITTED BY LAW? ADMITTED. 7. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT IN VIEW OF THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE HAVING BEEN ADMITTED BY THE HON'BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT ON THE QUANTUM ADDITION, IT IS EVIDENT T HAT THE ISSUE IS DEBATABLE AND IS SUBJECT TO INTERPRETATION. HE PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT- II VS LIQUID INVESTMENT & TRADING CO. IN I.T.A. NO. 240/2009 AND SUBMITTED THAT IN VIEW OF THE ISSUE BEING A DEBATAB LE ONE, THE PENALTY WAS NOT SUSTAINABLE AND AS SUCH THE SAME SH OULD BE CANCELLED. I.T.A. NO. 5556/DEL/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 7 8. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. IT IS SEEN FROM THE RECORDS THA T ITAT F BENCH HAD EARLIER CONFIRMED THE PENALTY IMPOSED IN ITS OR DER DATED 8.3.2013 IN I.T.A. NO. 5556/DEL/2013. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED A MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FOR THE RECAL L OF THE ORDER ON THE GROUND THAT THE APPEAL AGAINST THE QUANTUM CASE STOOD ADMITTED BEFORE THE HON'BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH C OURT AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ITAT. THIS MISCELL ANEOUS APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ACCEPTED AND THE OR DER OF RECALL WAS PASSED ON 9.3.2015 VIDE M.A. NO. 113/DEL/2013 A ND THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN HEARD SUBSEQUENT TO THIS OR DER OF RECALL AS AFORESAID. IT IS SETTLED LEGAL POSITION THAT NO PENALTY IS LEVIABLE WHERE TWO VIEWS ARE POSSIBLE OR WHERE THERE ARE DEB ATABLE ISSUES SPECIALLY WHERE A QUESTION OF LAW HAS BEEN FRAMED A ND ADMITTED BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT AS HELD IN THE CASE OF CI T-II VS LIQUID INVESTMENT AND TRADING CO. (ITA 240/2009) (DEL.) (H C). 9. THE ISSUE ALSO AROSE BEFORE THE HONBLE BOMBAY H IGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. NAYAN BUILDERS, 368 ITR 722 WHEREIN THE COURT FOUND THAT THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE/DEPARTME NT COULD NOT BE ENTERTAINED AS IT DID NOT RAISE ANY SUBSTANT IAL QUESTION OF I.T.A. NO. 5556/DEL/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 8 LAW. IN THE SAID CASE THE ADDITION OF INCOME OF RS. 1,04,76,050 AND DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES OF RS.10,79,221 ON BRO KERAGE AND RS. 2,00,000 ON LEGAL FEES MADE BY THE AO WERE SUST AINED BY THE TRIBUNAL AND THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE U/S. 260A W AS ADMITTED BY THE HIGH COURT ON GROUND THAT THE SAID ADDITION AND THE DISALLOWANCES REPRESENTED A SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW. THE AO, PENDING THE DISPOSAL OF THE APPEAL BY THE HONBLE H IGH COURT, HAD LEVIED A PENALTY OF RS. 37,32,777 U/S. 271(1)(C ) OF THE ACT WHICH WAS CONFIRMED BY THE COMMISSIONER(APPEALS). O N A FURTHER APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE TRIBUNAL, CHALLENGING THE LEVY OF THE PENALTY, THE TRIBUNAL HELD THAT, WHEN THE HIGH COUR T ADMITTED A SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW ON THE MERITS OF AN ADDITION/DISALLOWANCE, IT BECAME APPARENT THAT THE ISSUE UNDER CONSIDERATION ON THE BASIS OF WHICH PENALTY WAS LEV IED, WAS DEBATABLE. IT HELD THAT THE ADMISSION BY THE HIGH C OURT LENT CREDENCE TO THE BONA FIDES OF THE ASSESSEE IN CLAIM ING DEDUCTION. IT HELD THAT THE MERE FACT OF CONFIRMATION OF AN ADDITION/DISALLOWANCE WOULD NOT PER SE LEAD TO THE IMPOSITION OF PENALTY, ONCE IT TURNED OUT THAT CLAIM OF THE ASSES SEE COULD HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED BY A PERSON PROPERLY INSTRUCTED IN LAW AND WAS NOT COMPLETELY DEBARRED IN LAW. RELYING ON THE DECI SIONS IN THE I.T.A. NO. 5556/DEL/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 9 CASES OF RUPAM MERCANTILE LTD. VS. DCIT, 91 ITD 237 (AHD.) (TM) AND SMT. RAMILABEN RATILAL SHAH VS. ACIT, 60 TTJ 17 1(AHD.), THE TRIBUNAL HELD THAT NO PENALTY WAS EXIGIBLE U/S. 271 (1) (C), ONCE THE HIGH COURT HAD HELD THAT THE ISSUE OF ADDITION/ DISALLOWANCE REPRESENTED A SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW. ON AN AP PEAL BY THE REVENUE, THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT HELD THAT TH E IMPOSITION OF THE PENALTY WAS NOT JUSTIFIED. THE CO URT NOTED THAT THE TRIBUNAL, AS A PROOF THAT THE PENALTY WAS DEBAT ABLE AND INVOLVED AN ARGUABLE ISSUE, HAD REFERRED TO THE ORD ER OF THE COURT PASSED IN THE ASSESSEE'S APPEAL IN QUANTUM PROCEEDI NGS AND HAD ALSO REFERRED TO THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW W HICH HAD BEEN FRAMED THEREIN. IT HELD THAT WHERE THE HIGH COURT A DMITTED AN APPEAL ON THE GROUND THAT IT INVOLVED A SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW, IN RESPECT OF WHICH PENALTY WAS LEVIED, IMPUGN ED ORDER OF PENALTY WAS TO BE QUASHED. IT HELD THAT THE APPEAL CHALLENGING THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL PASSED FOR DELETING THE P ENALTY LEVIED, RAISED NO SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW AND AS A CONS EQUENCE DISMISSED IT WITH NO ORDER AS TO COSTS. 10. AN APPEAL U/S 260A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 LIES TO THE HIGH COURT FROM AN ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL ONLY W HERE THE HIGH COURT IS SATISFIED THAT THE CASE INVOLVES A SUBSTAN TIAL QUESTION OF I.T.A. NO. 5556/DEL/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 10 LAW. A FULL BENCH OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN T HE CASE OF SANTOSH HAZARI VS. PURSHOTTAM, 251 ITR 84 (SC) HELD THAT TO BE A SUBSTANTIAL, A QUESTION OF LAW MUST BE DEBATABLE, N OT PREVIOUSLY SETTLED BY LAW OF THE LAND OR A BINDING PRECEDENT . ..THAT IT WAS NOT FREE FROM DIFFICULTY OR THAT IT CALLED FOR A DISCUS SION FOR AN ALTERNATE VIEW. IT FURTHER HELD THAT THE WORD 'SUBS TANTIAL' QUALIFYING 'QUESTION OF LAW' MEANT HAVING SUBSTANCE , ESSENTIAL, REAL, OF SOUND WORTH, IMPORTANT OR CONSIDERABLE. RE CENTLY, THE HONBLE PATNA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF DCIT VS. SU LABH INTEMATIONAL SOCIAL SERVICE ORGANISATION, 350 ITR 1 89 (PATNA) HAS HELD THAT A SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW MUST BE ONE WHICH WAS DEBATABLE AND NOT PREVIOUSLY SETTLED UNDER THE LAW OF THE LAND OR A BINDING PRECEDENT. 11. IN THE CONTEXT OF THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE W E ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE ISSUE ON HAND IS DEBATA BLE, OPEN AND CAPABLE OF HAVING AN ALTERNATE VIEW AS THE SAME IS HELD TO BE REPRESENTING A SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW BY THE J URISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT AT THE TIME OF ADMISSION OF APPEAL. ACCO RDINGLY, IT IS APPROPRIATE FOR US TO HOLD, THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS U NDER A BONA FIDE BELIEF FOR STAKING ITS CLAIM AND IN THE PRESEN CE OF THESE FACTORS, NO PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C ) IS LEV IABLE. THE I.T.A. NO. 5556/DEL/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 11 HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. LIQ UID INVESTMENT LIMITED (I.T.A.NO. 240/2009 VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 5. 10.2010) HAS CLEARLY HELD THAT WHERE HIGH COURT HAS ACCEPTED SUB STANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW U/S 260A, THIS ITSELF SHOWS THAT IS SUE IS DEBATABLE AND IN SUCH A CASE NO PENALTY WAS IMPOSAB LE U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. IN VIEW OF T HE ABOVE, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE PROPOSITION LAID DOWN BY HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT AND HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT, AS NARRAT ED ABOVE, WE CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (A). HENCE, TH E APPEAL OF THE DEPARTMENT IS DISMISSED. 12. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE DEPARTMENT IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 29 TH APRIL, 2016. SD/- SD/- (N.K. SAINI) (SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICI AL MEMBER DATED: THE 29TH OF APRIL, 2016 GS I.T.A. NO. 5556/DEL/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 12 COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 4. DR, ITAT BY ORDER ASSTT. REGISTRAR