DCIT, New Delhi V. M/s. Medsave Healthcare (TPA) Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 5897/DEL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: 589720114 RSA 2013
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 6 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-05-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 01-11-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P DAM KANUNJNA
• Assessee Lawyers: SANJAY J OSHI
• Keywords: Depreciation; Rule of consistency; Question of law; Non-deduction of tax; Difference of opinion
• Section: 194C

Judgement Text

THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN (DELHI BENCH E NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI N.K.SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 5897 /DEL/2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11) DCIT VS. MEDSAVE HEALTHCARE (TPA) LTD. CIRCLE 6(1), ROOM NO. 413, F- 701A, L ADO SARAI, C.R.BUILDING, I.P.ESTATE MEHRAU LI I NEW DELHI NEW DELHI PAN : AABCS8148M PIN : 110030 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDEN T) APPELLANT BY : SH. P.DAM KANUNJNA, SR. DR RESPONDENT BY : SH. SANJAY JOSHI, CA DATE OF HEARING : 27/05/2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 29 /05/2015 ORDER PER N.K.SAINI, A. M. : THIS APPEAL BY THE DEPARTMENT IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 22/08/2013 OF CIT(A)- IX, NEW DELHI. ITA NO. 5897 / DEL/2013 2 2. FIRST ISSUE IN THIS APPEAL VIDE GROUND NO. 1 RELATES TO THE DELETION OF DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 2,16,000/- MADE BY THE AO U/ S 40(A) (IA) OF THE ACT . THE FACTS RELATED TO THIS ISSUE IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE AO DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS NOTICED THAT THE A SSESSEE HAD CLAIMED GENERATOR HIRE CHARGES OF RS. 1,80,000/- AN D VEHICLE HIRE CHARGES OF RS. 90,000/- IN THE P & L ACCOUNT BUT HA D NOT DEDUCTED TDS ON THE SAID PAYMENTS AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF S ECTION 194 (I) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO A S THE ACT). HE THEREFORE MADE THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 2,16,000/- B Y INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A) (IA) OF THE ACT. 3. BEING AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MAT TER TO THE LD. CIT(A) AND SUBMITTED AS UNDER :- THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40 (A) (IA) OF THE ACT H AS TWO LIMBS, ONE IS WHERE, INTER ALIA, ASSESSEE HAS TO DE DUCT TAX AND SECOND WHERE AFTER DEDUCTING TAX, INTER ALIA, T HE ASSESSEE HAS TO PAY INTO GOVERNMENT ACCOUNT. IT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE AO THAT TAX HAS NOT BEEN DEPOSITED AFTE R DEDUCTION HAS BEEN MADE AND THEREFORE THE SECOND LI MB OF THE SECTION IS NOT APPLICABLE IN THE PRESENT CASE. THERE IS NOTHING IN THE SAID SECTION TO TREAT, INTER ALIA, T HE ASSESSEE AS DEFAULTER WHERE THERE IS SHORTFALL IN DEDUCTION. SECTION 40(A) (IA) OF THE ACT REFERS ONLY TO THE DUTY TO DE DUCT TAX AND PAY TO GOVERNMENT ACCOUNT. IF THERE IS ANY SHOR TFALL THE ASSESSEE CAN BE DECLARED TO BE AN ASSESSEE IN D EFAULT U/S 201 OF THE ACT AND NO DISALLOWANCE CAN BE MADE BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A) (IA) OF TH E ACT. THIS ITA NO. 5897 / DEL/2013 3 IS COVERED BY THE DECISION OF THE CALCUTTA HIGH COU RT IN THE CIT, KOLKATA XI, VS. M/S S.K. TEKRIWAL [ ITAT NO. 183 OF 2012 : GA NO. 2069 OF 2012] AND BY THE DECISION OF ITAT, DELHI-BENCH H IN THE CASE OF UE TRADE CORPORATION ( INDIA) LTD. VS. DCIT, CIRCLE 18(1) IN ITA NO. 2303/DEL/201 1. IN CASE OF THE APPELLANT FOR THE A.Y. 2009-10, ON S IMILAR FACTS AND GROUNDS ADDITIONS HAVE BEEN DELETED BY TH E LD. (CIT(A) IX IN APPEAL NO. 44/11-12 ORDER DATED 08.03.2013. 4. THE LD. C.I.T. (A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBM ISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE DELETED THE ADDITION BY OBSERVING IN PARA 4.2 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER AS UNDER :- ON THE AMOUNT PAID AS THE GENERATOR HIRE CHARGE S AND VEHICLE HIRE CHARGES, THE APPELLANT MADE TDS AT THE RATE OF 2% + EDUCATION CESS INSTEAD OF 10% + EDUCATION CESS . ACCORDING TO AO, THE DEDUCTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN AT THE RATE OF 10% AND THE SHORT DEDUCTION OF TDS ATTRACTS THE PROVISION OF SECTION 40(A) (IA) AND HENCE THE EXPENSE IS NOT ALLOWABLE. AGAINST THE SAME GROUND OF APPEAL BY THE APPELLANT IN THE EARLIER YEAR (2009-10) RELYING ON THE DECISION LAID DOWN IN THE CASE AS CITED BY APPELLANT, MY LD. PREDECESSOR HAS DECIDED THAT IF THERE IS ANY SHORTFALL THE ASSESSEE CAN BE DECLARED TO BE AN ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT U/S 201 OF THE ACT AND NO DISALLOWANCE CAN BE MADE BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A) (IA) OF THE ACT. I AGREE WITH THE DE CISION OF MY LD. PREDECESSOR AND HENCE THE ADDITION OF RS. 2,16, 000/- IS DELETED. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALLOWED. 5. NOW, THE DEPARTMENT IS IN APPEAL, THE LD. D R SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE AO AND REITERATED THE OBSERVATIONS MAD E IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 14.12.2012. IN HIS RIVAL SUB MISSIONS, LD. ITA NO. 5897 / DEL/2013 4 COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE IS SUE UNDER CONSIDERATION IS SQUARELY COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE VIDE ORDER DATED 9 TH JANUARY, 2015 OF THE ITAT, DELHI BENCH B, NEW DELH I IN ITA NO. 751/DEL./2013FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 9-10 IN THE CASE OF ADIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION VS. EXPRESS DRILLIN G SYSTEMS LLC. 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS BOTH THE PARTIES AND CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON TH E RECORD. IN THE PRESENT CASE, IT IS AN ADMITTED FACT THAT THE LD. C IT(A) DELETED THIS ADDITION BY FOLLOWING THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE K OLKATA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF M/S. S.K.TEKRIWAL IN ITA NO. 183 O F 2012 AND ALSO ON THIS BASIS THAT HIS PREDECESSORS HAS DELETED THE A DDITION IN THE PRECEDING YEAR VIDE ORDER DATED 08.03.2013. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE STATED AT THE BAR THAT THE SAID ORDER DATE D 08.03.2013 WAS NOT CHALLENGED BY THE DEPARTMENT. THEREFORE, ON THE BASIS OF PRINCIPLE OF CONSISTENCY THE ISSUE MAY BE DECIDED IN FAVOUR O F THE ASSESSEE. THE SAID CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT CONTROV ERTED BY THE LD. D.R. IT IS ALSO NOTICED THAT THE IDENTICAL ISSUE HA S BEEN DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE VIDE ORDER DATED 9 TH JANUARY, 2015 IN THE CASE OF ADIT INTERNATIONAL TAXATION VS. EXPRESS DRILLING SYSTEMS LLC ITA NO. 5897 / DEL/2013 5 (SUPRA) WHERE IN RELEVANT FINDINGS HAS BEEN GIVEN I N PARA 6 AND 6.1 IS READS AS UNDER :- 6. WE FIND THAT DELETION OF DISALLOWANCE IS CH ALLENGED BEFORE US ON THE GROUND THAT TDS IS NOT MADE AT THE CORRECT RATE AS PER THE S. 194J. THIS ISSUE IS NO MORE RES INTEGRA. THIS BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ITS ORDER IN ITA NO. 2429/DEL/2011 FOR AY 2008-09 IN THE CASE OF M/S SOL UTIONS INFORSYSTEMS PVT. LTD. VIDE ORDER DT. 12.12.2013, A T PARA 9 HAS HELD AS 9. IN GROUND NO. 2 THE ISSUE IS WHETHE R DEDUCTION U/S 40 (A) (IA) CAN BE MADE WHEN TAX HAS BEEN DEDUC TED AT SOURCE U/S 194C INSTEAD OF 194J. THIS BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF HERO MOTORCORP FOLLOWED THE DECISION OF HONBLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT AND ELD AS FOLLOWS. THE HONBLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. S.K.TEKRIWAL (ITA NO. 183 OF 2012 HAS HELD AS FOLLO WS : WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A) (IA) OF THE ACT HAS TWO LIMBS ONE IS WHERE, INTER ALIA, ASS ESSEE HAS TO DEDUCT TAX AND THE SECOND WHERE AFTER DEDUCTING TAX, INTER ALIA, THE ASSESSEE HAS TO PAY INTO GOVERNMENT ACCOU NT. THERE IS NOTHING IN THE SAID SECTION TO TREAT, INTE R ALIA, THE ASSESSEE AS DEFAULTER WHERE THERE IS A SHORT FALL I N DEDUCTION. WITH REGARD TO THE SHORT FALL, IT CANNOT BE ASSUMED THAT THERE IS A DEFAULT AS THE DEDUCTION IS NOT AS REQUIRED BY OR UNDER THE ACT, BUT THE FACTS IS THAT THIS EXPRESSION, ON WHICH TAX IS DEDUCTIBLE AT SOURCE UNDER CHAPTER XVII-B AND SUCH TAX HAS NOT BEEN DEDUCTED OR, AFTER DEDUCTION HAS NOT BEEN PAID ON OR BEFORE THE DUE DATE SPECIFIED IN SUB SECTION (A) OF SECTION139. THIS SECTION 40(A) (IA) OF THE ACT REFE RS ONLY TO THE DUTY TO DEDUCT TAX AND PAY TO GOVERNMENT ACCOUNT. I F THERE IS ANY SHORTFALL DUE TO ANY DIFFERENCE OF OPINION AS T O THE TAXABILITY OF ANY ITEM OR THE NATURE OF PAYMENTS FA LLING UNDER VARIOUS TDS PROVISIONS, THE ASSESSEE CAN BE DECLARE D TO BE AN ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT U/S 201 OF THE ACT AND NO DISALLOWANCE CAN BE MADE BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A) (IA) OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY, WE CONFIRM THE ORDER OF CIT(A) ALLOWIN G THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE AND THIS ISSUE OF REVENUES APPEA L IS DISMISSED. ITA NO. 5897 / DEL/2013 6 WE FIND NO SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW IS INVOLVED IN THIS CASE AND THEREFORE, WE REFUSE TO ADMIT THE APPEAL. ACCOR DINGLY, THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER RELIED ON THE FOLLOWING DECISI ONS: DCIT VS. CHANDABHOY & JOSSOBHOY (ITA NO. 20/MUM/201 0 (MUM.) UE TRADE CORPORATION (INDIA) LTD. V. DCIT 28 TAXMAN N.COM 77 (DEL.) AND OTHER CASES. AS THIS IS NOT A CASE OF NON-DEDUCTION OF TAX BUT A CASE WHERE TAX HAS BEEN DEDUCTED AT A LOWER RATE THAT TOO UNDE R THE BONA FIDE BELIEF THAT DEDUCTION WAS PROPERLY MADE, WE ACCEPT THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOW ING THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF S.K. TEKRISAL (SUPRA) THIS GROUND IS ALLOWED DELETI NG THE DISALLOWANCE MADE U/S 40(A) (IA). 9.1. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING WE ALLOW GROUND NO. 2 . 6.1. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE SAME WE UPHOLD TH E ORDER OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY AND DISMISS THIS GROU ND OF THE REVENUE. 7. SINCE THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE ARE SIMIL AR TO THE FACTS INVOLVED IN THE AFORESAID REFERRED TO CASE OF M/S E XPRESS DRILLING SYSTEMS LLC, THEREFORE, BY FOLLOWING THE SAID ORDER DATED 9 TH JANUARY, 2015. WE DO NOT SEE ANY INFIRMITY IN THE O RDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE. 8. THE NEXT ISSUE VIDE GROUND NO. 2 RELATES TO TH E DELETION OF DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 15,83,875/- MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF DEPRECIATION. 9. THE FACTS RELATED TO THIS ISSUE IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE AO DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS NOTICED THAT THE A SSESSEE ITA NO. 5897 / DEL/2013 7 PURCHASED PRINTERS , SCANNERS & UPS AND HAD CLAIMED DEPRECIATION @ 60% AS AGAINST 15% ALLOWABLE. THE AO DISALLOWED A SUM OF RS. 15,83,875/- AND ADDED THE SAME IN THE INCOME OF TH E ASSESSEE. 10. BEING AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MAT TER TO THE LD. CIT(A) AND SUBMITTED AS UNDER :- A. A COMPUTER SYSTEM PER SE CONSISTS O F MULTIPLE PARTS AND DEVICES SUCH, DESKTOP, CPU, UPS, STORAGE DEVICE , PRINTERS, SCANNERS, KEYBOARDS, PRINTERS, VISUAL DIS PLAY UNITS, DISK DRIVES, MAGNETIC TAPE DRIVES ETC. A COMPUTER AS AN ELECTRONIC DATA PROCESSING DEVICE IS CAPABLE OF REC EIVING INPUT, STORING SETS OF INSTRUCTIONS FOR SOLVING PRO BLEMS AND GENERATING OUTPUT WITH HIGH SPEED AND ACCURACY, PRI NTERS, SCANNERS, NT SERVER, ETC., FORM AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE COMPUTER AND THE SAME, THEREFORE, SHOULD BE PLACED UNDER THE COMPUTER BASKET. ALSO IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE T HAT UPS IS AN INTEGRAL PART OF DESKTOPS. UPS BY THE UNINTERRUP TED POWER SUPPLY PREVENTS LOSS OF DATA DUE TO POWER FAILURE A S WELL AS UNABLES THE SYSTEM TO FUNCTION AT HIGH SPEED AND AC CURACY. HAD IT NOT BEEN FOR COMPUTERS, UPS WOULD HAVE NEVER BEEN PURCHASED. THEIR USE IS CONFINED TO A COMPUTER SYST EM. SUCH INSTALLATION THEREFORE REMAINS A PART OF COMPUTER O NLY. FURTHER, UPS ARE CONNECTED TO LAN, PCS, SERVERS ETC . HENCE THEY FORM AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE COMPUTER SYSTEM. CONSIDERING THAT THEY ARE CONNECTED TO THE COMPUTER SYSTEM AND ARE NOT USED FOR ANY OTHER PURPOSE AND THE FURT HER FACT THAT THE COMPUTERS COULD NOT HAVE FUNCTIONED PROPER LY WITHOUT SUPPORT FROM UPS, THEY ARE CONSIDERED AS INTEGRAL P ART OF COMPUTER. AS IN A LAPTOP A BATTERY FORM ITS INTEGRA L PART, THE SAME IS THE POSITION WITH UPS. THE DIFFERENCE BEING THAT ONE IS INTERNALLY FITTED WHEREAS THE OTHER IS AN EXTERN AL DEVICE. A UPS SERVES AS A SUPPORT FUNCTION TO THE COMPUTER FO R ITS EFFICIENT WORKING AND CANNOT BE CONSTRUED TO HAVE I TS INDIVIDUAL IDENTITY OTHER THAN THAT OF COMPUTERS. T HUS COMPUTER PERIPHERALS PRINTERS, SCANNERS, NT SERVER, UPS ETC. ONLY SERVING THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTERS CAN ONLY BE ITA NO. 5897 / DEL/2013 8 CONSIDERED TO BE PART OF COMPUTERS AND NO OTHER ITE M OF ASSETS. B. THE KOLKATA BENCH IN INCOME TAX OFFICER VS. SAMIRAN MAJUMDAR (2006) 280 ITR 74 IN DEALING WITH THE DEFI NITION OF COMPUTER ALSO RELYING ON THE DECISION OF THE APEX C OURT IN KARNATAKA POWER CORPORATION (SUPRA) HELD THAT PRINT ER AND SCANNER COULD NOT BE USED WITHOUT THE COMPUTER SO T HAT IT HELD THAT THE TWO WOULD FORM AN INTEGRAL PART OF TH E COMPUTER SYSTEM. IN THE LIKE MANNER AN UNINTERRUPTED POWER S YSTEMS ARE ALSO TO BE USED ONLY WITH A COMPUTER HENCE THEY ARE TO BE TREATED AS COMPUTER FOR THE PURPOSE OF ALLOWING HIGHER RATE OF DEPRECIATION @ 60% ONLY. THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FOLLOWED BY THE DELHI BENCH IN CONTAINER CORPORATIO N OF INDIA LTD. VS. ASSTT. CIT IN ITA NO.S 2851 & 3680/DEL/200 7. C. THE DELHI HIGH COURT IN CIT VS. ORIENT CERAMICS & INDUSTRIES LTD. (2011) 56DTR397 HELD THAT UPS WOULD FORM PART OF COMPUTER PERIPHERALS AND ACCESSORIES AND AC CORDINGLY WILL DEPRECIATE AT 60%RATE. THE PREVIOUS DECISION I N CIT VS. BSES YAMUNA POWER LTD. IN ITA NO. 1267 DATED 31.08. 2010 DID LEND FAVOUR HERE WHERE THERE WAS REFERENCE TO U SE OF THE TERMS COMPUTER PERIPHERALS AND ACCESSORIES VIZ. PRI NTERS, SCANNERS, SERVER ETC. THE COURT WENT BY THE REASONING THAT COMPUTER ACCESSORIES AND PERIPHERALS CANNOT BE USED WITHOUT THE COMPUTER HENCE THESE WOULD FORM PART OF COMPUTER ONLY. LIKEWISE UP S USE IS CONFINED TO A COMPUTER SYSTEM HENCE SUCH INSTALLATI ON TOO THEREFORE REMAIN A PART OF COMPUTER ONLY AS HELD BY DELHI HIGH COURT. D. THE DELHI BENCH IN ACIT, NEW DELHI VS. HCL COMNET LTD., ITA NOS. 322 AND 2583, ITA NO. 2239 WHEREIN I T HAS BEEN OBSERVED THAT THIS ISSUE HAS BEEN DISCUSSED AN D DECIDED IN A NUMBER OF CASE BY THE JURISDICTIONAL I TAT AS WELL AS DELHI HIGH COURT, WHERE IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT TH E COMPUTER ACCESSORIES AND PERIPHERALS, PRINTERS AND SCANNER, UPS ETC. ARE ENTITLED TO HIGHER RATE DEPRECIATION @ 60% ON THE GROUND THAT SUCH ACCESSORIES AND PERIPHERAL FOR M AN ESSENTIAL PART OF THE COMPUTER SYSTEM AND THE SAME CANNOT BE USED WITHOUT THE COMPUTER. THE AO WAS THEREFORE DIRECTED TO ALLOW DEPRECIATION ON UPS, PRINTER AND SCANNER E TC @ 60% AS CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT. ITA NO. 5897 / DEL/2013 9 E. THE IMPUGNED ORDER DISALLOWING THE CLA IM OF THE APPELLANT FOR DEPRECIATION @60% ON PRINTERS, SCANNE RS AND UPS THUS IS BAD IN LAW AND NEEDS TO BE STRUCK DOWN. 11. THE LD. CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND BY FOLLOWING THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE AFORESAID REFERRED TO CASES I.E. CIT VS. CERAMICS & INDUSTRIES LTD. ETC. DIRECTED THE A.O. TO ALLOW T HE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. NOW THE DEPARTMENT IS IN APPEAL. 12. THE LD. DR SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE AO AND THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, IN HIS RIVAL SUBMISSIONS REITERAT ED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND STRONGLY SUPPORTED T HE IMPUGNED ORDER. 13. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON TH E RECORD. IT IS NOTICED THAT THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. CERAMICS & INDUSTRIES LTD. (SUPRA) HELD THAT UPS IS A PART OF THE COMPUTER PERIPHERALS & ACCESSORIES AND ACCORDINGLY DEPRECIATED @ 60%. SINCE THE IDENTICAL ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED BY THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE AFORESAID REFERRE D TO CASE BY HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO HIGHER RATE OF DEP RECIATION @ 60% AND THE LD. CIT HAS FOLLOWED THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE ITA NO. 5897 / DEL/2013 10 JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT, THEREFORE, WE DO NOT SEE ANY MERIT IN THE APPEAL OF THE DEPARTMENT ON THIS ISSUE. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE DEPARTMENT IS D ISMISSED. (ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 29 TH MAY, 2015.) SD/- SD/- (DIVA SINGH) (N.K.SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACC OUNTANT MEMBER DATED 29 TH MAY, 2015 B.RUKHAIYAR COPY FORWARDED TO 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. CIT (ITAT), NEW DELHI. AR, ITAT N. DELHI ITA NO. 5897 / DEL/2013 11