Viren Investments Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi V. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 5591/DEL/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 69291 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-09-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 14-08-2013
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 05-11-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: Y KAKKAR
• Assessee Lawyers: V K AGGRAWAL
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice; Earning of tax free income
• Section: 14A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH SMC NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI U. B. S. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.5591 / DEL/ 2012 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10) M/S, VIREN INVESTMENTS PVT. LTD., VS. ACIT, CIRCLE 17(1), 21D, FRIENDS COLONY (WEST), NEW DELHI NEW DELHI PAN : AAACV2034N (APPELLANTS) (RESPONDENTS) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI V K AGGRAWAL, AR DEPARTMENT BY: MS. Y KAKKAR, SR. DR ORDER PER U B S BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST TH E ORDER PASSED BY LD. CIT(A) XIX, NEW DELHI DATED 28.09.2012 RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009- 10. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING FOUR EFF ECTIVE GROUNDS: 1. UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE APPELLATE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IS ILLEGAL BEING AGA INST THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND AGAINST THE PROVI SIONS OF I T ACT. 2. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED ON FACTS AS WELL A S IN LAW IN HOLDING THAT THE A.O. HAS RECORDED HIS DISSATISFACT ION BEFORE MAKING DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A. 3. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED ON FACTS AS WELL A S IN LAW IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.17,76,394/- U/S 1 4A OF THE I. T. ACT, 1961 IN ADDITION TO RS.4,95,411/- ALREADY D ISALLOWED BY THE APPELLANT. 4. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED ON FACTS AS WELL A S IN LAW IN IGNORING THE FACTS THAT DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A CANNOT EXCEED THE TOTAL EXPENDITURE CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. I.T.A. NO.5591 /DEL/2012 2 2. FROM THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL IT BECOMES AMPL Y CLEAR THAT ASSESSEE SEEKS TO GET DELETED THE DISALLOWANCE MADE U/S 14A MAINLY ON THE GROUND THAT SATISFACTION HAS NOT BEEN RECORDED BY T HE A.O. FOR RESORTING TO DISALLOWANCE, THE DISALLOWANCE MADE IS MUCH MORE TH AN THE EXPENDITURE CLAIMED FOR EARNING EXEMPT INCOME AND IT HAS BEEN P LEADED FOR DELETION OF DISALLOWANCE OF RS.17,765,394/- MADE U/S 14A OF THE I. T. ACT, 1961. LD. CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF HT ASSE SSEE AND MAKING REFERENCE TO CASE LAWS HAS CONCLUDED TO DISMISS ALL THE PLEA RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED FURTH ER APPEAL. 3. WHILE REITERATING THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE TH E AUTHORITIES BELOW, IT WAS CONTENDED TO DELETE THE IMPUGNED ADDITION. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE EXPENDITURE CLAIMED FOR DEDUCTION OF RS.19,94,5 97/- COMPRISING OF AUDITORS REMUNERATION, ENTERTAINMENT EXPENSES, FEE AND TAXES, INSURANCE, CLUB EXPENSES, TRAVELING, WATER AND ELECTRICITY EXP ENSES AND MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES ETC. SINCE SUCH EXPENDITURE CANT BE DISAL LOWED AS THEY HAVE TO BE INCURRED IRRESPECTIVE OF THE FACT WHETHER THE INCOM E DERIVED IS TAXABLE OR NOT. RELYING UPON THE DECISION OF HONBLE DELHI HIGH COU RT IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS SIL INVESTMENTS LTD. (2012) 73 DTR (DEL.) (TRIB. ) 233, IT WAS CONTENDED THAT IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE, SECTION 14A CANNO T BE INVOKED AND WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THIS DISALLOWANCE CANNOT EXCEED THE TOTAL EXPENDITURE CLAIMED. RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF M/S. GILLETTE GROUP INDIA PVT. LTD. VS ACIT , (2012) 16 ITR (TRIB.) 0057 DEL. AND M/S. MODERN INFOR TECHNOLOGY PVT. LTD . VS ITO, 2012-TIOL- 644-ITAT-DEL, THE A.O. DISALLOWED RS.17,76,394/- (2 2,70,905 4,94,511) AS AGAINST THE DEDUCTION CLAIMED AT RS.9,94,597/-. THEREFORE, IN THE WORST POSSIBLE SCENARIO, EVEN IF THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSE E REGARDING NON APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 14A(2) IS REJECTED, THE MA XIMUM DISALLOWANCE CAN I.T.A. NO.5591 /DEL/2012 3 BE 100% OF THE EXPENDITURE CLAIMED, I.E. RS.1,94,59 7/- BESIDES THE OTHER DISALLOWANCES ON ACCOUNT OF DONATION AND WEALTH TAX AS WELL AS U/S 14A(1) MADE BY THE ASSESSEE ITSELF. IT WAS, THEREFORE PLE ADED FOR DELETION OF THE SAME ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O. AND CONFIRMED BY LD. CIT(A). RELIANCE HAS ALSO BEEN PLACED ON THE CASE OF MAXOPP INVESTME NTS LTD. VS CIT 203 TAXMAN 364 (DEL.). 4. LD. D.R. STRONGLY OPPOSED THE PLEA OF THE ASSESS EE AND CONTENDED THAT SATISFACTION FOR DISALLOWANCE IS NOT REQUIRED TO BE RECORDED SPECIFICALLY AND IT SHOULD BE DISCERNIBLE FROM THE LANGUAGE USED. SO, RELYING UPON THE DECISION OF HONBLE KERALA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CATHOLI C SYRIAN BANK LTD. VS ADDL. CIT 349 ITR 569 (KER.), CIT VS DHANLAKSHMY B ANK LTD. 344 ITR 259 (KER.), DHANUKA & SONS VS CIT 339 ITR 319 (CAL. ) AND WHILE MAKING REFERENCE TO THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PAGE 2 AND A.O. O RDER AT PAGE 6 IT WAS PLEADED FOR CONFIRMATION OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT PARA 25 ON PAGE 12 OF MAXOPP CASE AND PARA 2 OF THE ASSE SSMENT ORDER SUPPORT THE CASE OF THE REVENUE. SO, REFERRING TO THE ORDE R OF LD. CIT(A) PAGE 5 PARA 3, LD. D.R. CONTENDED FOR ITS CONFIRMATION. 5. BOTH THE SIDES HAVE BEEN HEARD IN THE LIGHT OF T HE CASE LAW CITED BY THE RIVAL SIDES AND MATERIAL ON RECORD. IT IS FOUND TH AT LD. CIT(A) HAS CONSIDERED EACH AND EVERY ASPECT OF THE MATTER BY E LABORATELY DISCUSSING ALL THE ISSUES RAISED AS PER PARA 4.1 TO 4.2 OF HIS ORD ER AND CONCLUDED TO DISMISS THE GROUND IN PARA 4.4. PARA 4.1 TO 4.4 OF THE ORD ER OF LD. CIT(A) ARE REPRODUCED BELOW: 4.1 GROUND NO. 3 CHALLENGES THE DISALLOWANCE U/S 1 4A. THE APPELLANT ARGUED THAT BEFORE INVOKING SECTION 14A(2 ), THE A.O. IS REQUIRED TO RECORD THAT HE IS NOT SATISFIED WITH TH E CORRECTNESS OF THE ASSESSEE'S CLAIM THAT HE HAS INCURRED AN EXPENDITUR E OF ONLY RS.4,94,511J- FOR EARNING THE EXEMPT INCOME. THE AP PELLANT I.T.A. NO.5591 /DEL/2012 4 ARGUED THAT IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THE A.O. HAS NO T RECORDED THE DISSATISFACTION REQUIRED U/S L4A(2). 4.2 THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT AND THE FACTS HAVE BEEN CAREFULLY CONSIDERED. THE APPELLANT'S ARGUMENTS ARE NOT ACCEP TABLE FOR THE REASONS GIVEN BELOW: (I) THE APPELLANT'S CLAIM THAT IN THE ASSESSMENT OR DER, THE A.O. HAS NOT RECORDED HIS DISSATISFACTION WITH THE AMOUNT OF EXP ENSES DISALLOWED U/S 14A BY THE ASSESSEE, IS FACTUALLY INCORRECT. (A) IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER (PAGE 5), THE A.O. HA S STATED AS FOLLOWS: ( AFTER CONSIDERING THE AFORESAID REPLY OF THE ASSE SSEE, IT IS FOUND THAT THE REPLY FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE ISSUE UNDER CONSIDERATION DOES NOT FULFILL THE REQUIREMENTS LAID DOWN IN SECTION 1 4A OF THE ACT, R/W RULE 8D OF THE RULES. ON THE BASIS OF PRINCIPLES LA ID DOWN TO DETERMINE THE QUANTUM OF DISALLOWANCE ON THE ISSUE UNDER CONSIDERATION BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY I N THE CASE OF GODREJ & BOYCE MFG. CO. LTD. V. DCIT' (B) IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER (PAGE 6), THE A.O. HA S STATED AS FOLLOWS: SINCE THE WORKING GIVE VIDE LETTER DATED 01.11.2010 IS NOT ACCEPTABLE, GOING BY THE DECISION OF HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF MUMB AI AS DISCUSSED ABOVE AND AS PER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, I AM HAVE REASONS TO ARRIVE AT THE SATISFACTION FOR DISALLOWA NCE U/S 14A OF THE ACT, R/W RULE 8D OF THE RULES. IN VIEW OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, LEGAL POSITION ON THE ISSUE UNDER CONSIDERATION AND REASONS RECORDED IN THIS CASE, AS DISCUSSED ABOVE, DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A OF THE ACT, R /W RULE 8D OF THE RULES AS WORKED OUT AS UNDER IS BEING MADE AND TO T HE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE:- (A) AS PER RULE 8D(2)(I) THE EXPENSES DIRECTLY ATTR IBUTABLE TO THE EXEMPT INCOME IS NOT ALLOWABLE AS DEDUCTION. ON THE PERUSAL OF RECORDS IT IS INFERRED THAT 100% OF THE PORTFOLIO M ANAGEMENT FEE CAN BE SAID TO BE RELATABLE TO THE EXEMPT INCOME. HENCE , RS.143/ - IS DISALLOWED. (B) AN AMOUNT EQUAL TO ONE HALF PERCENT OF THE AVE RAGE OF THE VALUE OF INVESTMENT AS PER RULE 8D(2)(III) ON THE BASIS OF FOLLOWING WO RKING:- 0.5% OF OPENING INTEREST & CLOSING INVESTMENT = 0.5% OF 44,25,48,402/- [phone]/- 2 2 =22,70,905/ - I.T.A. NO.5591 /DEL/2012 5 THUS TOTAL DISALLOWANCE WORKOUT TO BE 22,70,905/ -. BUT SINCE THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS DISALLOWED ONLY 4,94,511/-. TH E DISALLOWANCE BEING DONE IS OF RS.17,76,394/. THE TOTAL DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A IS OF RS.17,76,S37/- (I.E. 143/- + 17,76,394/-) CONSEQUENTLY, I AM SATISFIED THAT TO T HE ABOVE EXTENT OF THE ASSESSEE HAS CONCEALED/FURNISHED INACCURATE PAR TICULARS OF ITS INCOME AND PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271 (L)(C) HAVE BEEN INITIATED SEPARATELY.' (II) IT IS SETTLED LAW THAT WHEN THERE IS NO PRESCR IBED FORMAT FOR RECORDING SATISFACTION/ DISSATISFACTION, THE OBSERV ATIONS MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER HAVE TO BE READ IN THEIR ENTIRETY TO SEE WHETHER SATISFACTION/ DISSATISFACTION IS DISCERNIBLE. THIS VIEW IS SUPPORTED BY THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN CIT V ECS LTD 336 ITR 162. IN THIS CASE, THE HON1JLE HIGH COURT HELD AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 271(1)( C ) HAS BEEN AMENDED RETROSPECTIVEL Y WITH EFFECT FROM 1-4-1989 VIDE FINANCE ACT, 2008 WHERE CLAUSE ( 1 B ) IN THE EXPLANATION TO SECTION 271 (1)( C ) HAS BEEN INSERT ED. AS PER THIS CLAUSE, IT IS NOT NECESSARY FOR THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER TO RECORD HIS SATISFACTION WHILE INITIATING PENALTY PROCEEDINGS. THE VIRES OF THIS PROVISION WERE CHALLENGED BY FILING A WRIT PETITION IN THE COURT. IN THE SAID CASE ENTITLED MADHUSHREE GUPTA V. UNION OF IND IA [2009] 317 ITR 107 / 183 TAXMAN 100 (DELHI), THE DIVISION BENC H, WHILE UPHOLDING THE VALIDITY OF THE AFORESAID AMENDMENT W AS OF THE OPINION THAT PROVISIONS ARE TO BE READ DOWN AND HELD THAT E VEN AFTER THE AMENDMENT IF THE SATISFACTION IS NOT DISCERNIBLE FR OM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, PENALTY CANNOT BE IMPOSED. THE NET EFFECT OF THE SAID JUDGMENT IS THAT EVEN WH EN THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT RECORDED HIS SATISFACTION IN EXPLIC IT TERMS, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER SHOULD INDICATE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD ARRIVED AT SUCH A SATISFACTION. THOUGH THE ASSESSME NT ORDER NEED NOT REFLECT EVERY ITEM, VIZ., ADDITION OR DISALLOWANCE, YET THE ORDER SHOULD BE COUCHED IN SUCH A MANNER THAT THE DISCUSSION THE REIN LEADS TOWARDS THE OPINION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT T HE ASSESSEE HAD CONCEALED PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR FURNISHED INACCU RATE PARTICULARS. THIS HAS TO BE DISCERNED FROM THE READING OF THE AS SESSMENT ORDER. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER IN THE INSTANT CASE, EXPENSES INCURRED IN INDIA WERE ENTERED WHILE COMPUTING I.T.A. NO.5591 /DEL/2012 6 DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80-0 AND MAJOR PART OF THE EXPENSES CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS DISALLOWED. ADMITTEDLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD NOT STATED TH AT HE WAS SATISFIED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CONCEALED PARTICULARS OF INCO ME OR HAD FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS. HOWEVER, IT SHOWE D THAT DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80-0 AT THE RAT E OF 50 PER CENT OF ITS GROSS INCOME EARNED IN FOREIGN EXCHANGE AND NOT AT THE RATE OF 50 PER CENT OF NET INCOME EARNED IN FOREIGN EXCHANGE. IN THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ASKED THE ASSE SSEE TO FURNISH DETAILS OF EXPENDITURE INCURRED TO EARN THE INCOME IN FOREIGN EXCHANGE BY GIVING SPECIFIC NOTICE. THE ASSESSEE, HOWEVER, R EFUSED TO DO SO EVEN WHEN THE CASE WAS ADJOURNED REPEATEDLY. UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES THE ASSESSING OFFICER ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN AS TO WHY THE EXPENDITURE RELATABLE TO THE ASSESSEE'S EARNING IN CONVERTIBLE FOREIGN EXCHANGE SHOULD NOT BE ESTIMATED. IN RESPONSE THE A SSESSEE CAME OUT WITH THE PLEA THAT THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED IN INDI A TO EARN FOREIGN EXCHANGE WAS NOT TO BE DEDUCTED. THE ASSESSING OFFI CER THEREAFTER DISCUSSED THE LEGAL POSITION RELATING TO THE DEDUCT IONS ADMISSIBLE UNDER SECTION 80-0 AND HELD THAT THE CORRECT POSITI ON OF LAW WAS THAT THE EXPENSES WERE TO BE DEDUCTED FROM SUCH INCOME I N FOREIGN EXCHANGE BEFORE CLAIMING DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80 -0. ACCORDING TO HIM, THE ASSESSEE NOT ONLY INTERPRETED THE LAW WRON GLY BUT ALSO DID NOT FURNISH THE DETAILS OF EXPENDITURE ATTRIBUTABLE TO SUCH FOREIGN INCOME AND IN THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES THE ONLY ALTERNATIVE WAS TO ARRIVE AT THE NET FOREIGN INCOME BY ESTIMATING SUCH EXPENDITURE I N THE RATIO OF PROPORTION OF FOREIGN INCOME TO THE TOTAL INCOME. T HEREAFTER, HE CALCULATED THE ELIGIBLE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80- 0 AND OBSERVED THAT THE PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271 (1)( C ) HAD BEEN INI TIATED. IT BECAME CLEAR FROM THE READING OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IN ITS ENTIRETY THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD BEEN INFLUE NCED BY THE CONSIDERATION THAT 'LOT ONLY THE ASSESSEE HAD INTER PRETED THE LAW WRONGLY BUT ALSO DID NOT FURNISH THE DETAILS OF EXP ENDITURE ATTRIBUTABLE TO SUCH FOREIGN INCOME BECAUSE OF WHICH PENALTY PRO CEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 271 (1)( C ) WERE INITIATED BY HIM. THUS, H IS PRIMA FACIE SATISFACTION ABOUT NON-FURNISHING OF PARTICULARS /I NACCURATE PARTICULARS WAS CLEARLY DISCERNIBLE. I.T.A. NO.5591 /DEL/2012 7 IN THE PRESENT CASE, A PERUSAL OF THE ASSTT. ORDER PARTICULARLY THE OBSERVATIONS CITED ABOVE, CLEARLY INDICATES THAT TH E A.O. WAS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE APPELLANT'S CLAIM THAT HE HAD IN CURRED ONLY RS.1,94,511/- FOR EARNING THE EXEMPT INCOME AND DIS ALLOWANCE U/S 14A SHOULD BE LIMITED TO THIS AMOUNT. THE A.O. HAS DISCUSSED THIS ISSUE IN CONSIDERABLE DETAIL AND HAS CONCLUDED THAT A HIGHER DISALLOWANCE IS NECESSARY IN ACCORDANCE WITH RULE 8 D. III) MOREOVER, IT IS SETTLED LAW THAT THE CIT(A) HA S ALL THE POWERS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THEREFORE, THE CIT(A) CAN EX AMINE THE FACTS AND RECORD A FINDING THAT THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE APPELLANT IS NOT SUFFICIENT. IN THE PRESENT CASE IT IS CLEAR THA T THE APPELLANT'S OF CLAIM OF HAVING INCURRED ONLY RS.4, 94,511 I - FOR EARNING THE EXEMPT INCOME, AND LIMITING DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A TO THIS A MOUNT, IS NOT CORRECT. AS PER DETAILS GIVEN BY THE APPELLANT, HE HAS EXEMPT INCOME OF RS.1,92,89,309/- CONSISTING OF R8.30,71,017J- FR OM LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS AND RS.L,62,18,292/- FROM DIVIDEND. I N THE ASSTT. ORDER, THE A.O. HAS POINTED OUT THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A FIN ANCE AND INVESTMENT COMPANY. INCOME CR. IN THE P&L A/C IS SHOWN AT RS.2 ,06,77,214J-. INTEREST INCOME IS SHOWN AT RS.3,12,123/-. THE REMA INING INCOME IS ENTIRELY FROM PROFIT ON SALE OF MUTUAL FUNDS & SHAR ES, AND DIVIDEND. TOTAL EXPENDITURE DR. TO P&.L A/C IS RS.27,02,914/- . IN THIS SITUATION, THE APPELLANT'S CLAIM THAT ONLY RS.4,94,511/- WAS P ENT TO ~AM EXEMPT INCOME, IS OBVIOUSLY INCORRECT. IT IS THEREFORE, EN TIRELY APPROPRIATE THAT DISALLOWANCE IS WORKED OUT U/S L4A READ WITH R ULE 3D. IT IS HELD ACCORDINGLY. 4.3 THE APPELLANT HAS REFERRED TO CERTAIN DECISIONS IN SUPPORT OF HIS ARGUMENTS HOWEVER, THEY ARE ON DIFFERENT FACTS. THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE A.O. IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN MAXOPP INVESTMENT LTD. VS.CIT [2011] 203 TAXMAN 364 (DEL.). THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT HAS C LEARLY HELD THAT RULE 8D IS APPLICABLE FOR HE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATI ON. RULE 8D PROVIDES A SET FORMULA AND THE A.O. IS OBLIGED TO F OLLOW THE FORMULA LAID DOWN. 4.4 IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, THE DISALLOWAN CE MADE BY THE A.O. U/S 14A IS JUSTIFIED AND IS UPHELD. THE GROUN D IS DISMISSED. 6. FROM THE DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION DRAWN BY LD. CIT(A) AS REPRODUCED ABOVE, IT IS FOUND THAT EACH AND EVERY A SPECT OF THE MATTER HAS I.T.A. NO.5591 /DEL/2012 8 BEEN CONSIDERED AND DISCUSSED BEFORE ARRIVING A THE CONCLUSION AFTER CONSIDERING RELEVANT CASE LAWS. NEITHER ANY INFIRM ITY OF LAW HAS BEEN POINTED OUT BY THE LD. A.R. NOR IT HAS BEEN NOTED B Y THIS BENCH, THEREFORE, NO REASONABLE BASE IS FOUND ON THE BASIS OF WHICH THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) CAN BE INTERFERED WITH. AS SUCH WHILE CONCURRING WITH THE CONCLUSION AND FINDING OF LD. CIT(A), HIS ORDER IS UPHELD AND APPE AL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED BEING DEVOID OF ANY MERIT. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE STANDS DISMISSED. 8. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 27 TH SEP., 2013. SD./- (U.B.S.BEDI) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 27 TH SEP., 2013 SP. COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A)-XXV, NEW DELHI AR, ITAT, 5. CIT(ITAT), NEW DELHI NEW DELHI