DCM Ltd., New Delhi V. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 5977/DEL/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5590 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 6 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-05-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 02-11-2015
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VIJAY KUMAR JIWANI
• Assessee Lawyers: V K GUPTA
• Keywords: Earning of tax free income; Initiation of penalty proceedings; Notional interest
• Section: 14A; 12; 10; 11

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH B , NEW DELHI BEFORE S H. R. K. PANDA , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE , JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO S . 6476 & 6477 /DEL/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR S : 20 1 1 - 12 & 2012 - 13 DCIT CIRCLE 7 (1), ROOM NO. 403, C. R. BUILDING, I. P. ESTATE, NEW DELHI PAN AAACD1012E VS DCM LTD. 6 TH FLOOR, VIKRANT TOWER, RAJENDRA PLACE NEW DELHI - 110008 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ITA NOS.5977/DEL/2015 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2011 - 12 DCM LTD. 6 TH FLOOR, VIKRANT TOWER, RAJENDRA PLACE NEW DELHI - 110008 VS DCIT CIRCLE 7 (1), ROOM NO. 403, C. R. BUILDING, I. P. ESTATE, NEW DELHI PAN AAACD1012E (APPELLANT) (RE SPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SHRI V. K. GUPTA, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY SMT. VIJAY KUMAR JIWANI, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING: 0 3 /0 5 /2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 22/ 0 5 /2018 ITA NO. 6477 /DE L/20 1 5 ITA NO.6476/D/2015 2 ORDER PER R.K. PANDA, AM: ITA NO.5977 /DEL/2015 FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND 6477/DEL/2015 FILED BY THE REVENUE ARE CROSS APPEALS AND ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 16.09.2015 OF THE CIT (A) - III, NEW DELHI RELATING TO A. Y. 2011 - 12 ITA NO. 6477/DEL/2015 FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 10.09.2015 OF T HE CIT (A) - 3 , NEW DELHI RELATING TO AY 2012 - 13 . F OR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE A LL THESE APPEALS WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY THIS COMMON ORDER. ITA NO. 5977/DEL/2015 (ASSESSEE) ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011 - 12 2. GROUND OF APPEAL NO. 1 BY THE ASSESSEE READS AS UNDER . THAT THE CIT(A) ERRED IN DISALLOWING ALTERNATE CLAIM MADE BY THE APPELLANT ON ACTUAL PAYMENT BASIS IN RESPECT OF OBTAINING APPROVAL/ PERMISSION EXPENSES INCURRED IN RELATION TO REAL ESTATE PROJECT WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT CLAI M HAD BEEN MADE BY THE APPELLANT FOR THE REASON THAT DEPARTMENT HAS NOT ACCEPTED ALLOWABILITY OF EXPENSES ON ACCRUAL BASIS AND APPEALS IN RESPECT THEREOF ARE PENDING FOR ADJUDICATION BEFORE DELHI HIGH COURT. 2.1 THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AT T HE OUTSET SUBMITTED THAT THIS GROUND IS DECIDED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE BY THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEE S OWN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 - 11. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE ND IN ABSENCE OF ANY OBJECTION FROM THE SIDE OF THE LD. DR, THE ABOVE GROUND RAISE D BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 3. GROUND OF APPEAL NO. 2 READS AS UNDER . ITA NO. 6477 /DE L/20 1 5 ITA NO.6476/D/2015 3 THAT THE CIT(A) ERRED IS UPHOLDING THE INITIATION OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271 (1) (C) OF THE ACT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE APPELLANT. 3.1 SINCE THE ABOVE GROUND IS PREMATURE AT THIS JUNCTURE , THEREFORE, THE SAME IS DISMISSED. 4. GROUND NO. 3 AND 4 BEING GENERAL IN NATURE ARE DISMISSED. ITA NO. 6476/DEL/2015 ( BY REVENUE ( A.Y. 2011 - 12) 5. GROUND NO. 1 READS AS UNDER . WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMST ANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE INTEREST ON INTEREST FEE ADVANCE OF RS.22,32,000/ - MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 5.1 FACTS OF THE CASE , IN BRIEF , ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY FIELD ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 2 8 .09.2011 DECLARING NIL INCOME AFTER ADJUSTING BROUGHT FORWARD LOSSES AGAINST CURRENT YEAR BUSINESS PROFIT OF RS.26 , 1 8, 55 , 407/ - . THE ASSESSING OFFICER , FOLLOWING THE ORDERS FOR EARLIER YEARS IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE , DISALLOWED AN AMOUNT OF RS. 22,32,000/ - BEING INTEREST FREE ADVANCES GIVEN TO DCM EMPLOYEES WELFARE TRUST . W HILE DOING SO HE OBSERVED THAT ALTHOUGH SUCH DISALLOWANCE HAS BEEN DELETED BY CIT (A) /ITAT IN EARLIER YEARS , HOWEVER , THE DEPARTMENT HAS NOT ACCEPTED THE SAME . H E ACCORDINGLY MADE ADDITION OF RS.22,32,000/ - BEING INTEREST @ 8% ON THE OUTSTANDING BALANCE OF ADVANCE/ LOAN OF RS.2.79 CRORES . 5.2 IN APPEAL T HE LD. CIT (A) , FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEE S OWN CASE FOR A. Y. 2006 - 07 , DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER. A GGRIEVED WITH SUCH ORDER OF THE CIT(A) THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 5.3 WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL ARGUMENTS MADE BY THE BOTH THE SIDES. WE FIND IDENTICAL ISSUE HAD COME UP BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEE S OWN ITA NO. 6477 /DE L/20 1 5 ITA NO.6476/D/2015 4 CASE FOR A. Y. 2010 - 11 . THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ITA NO. 1237/DEL /2014 AND ITA 1511/DEL /2014 ORDER DATED 29.07.2016 HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND DISMISSED T HE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE BY OBSERVING AS UNDER : - 14 . GROUND NO . 1 OF THE DEPARTMENT S A PPEAL RELATES TO NOTIONAL DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO IN RESPECT OF LOAN GIVEN TO DCM EMPLOYEES WELFARE TRUST. SIMILAR DISALLOWANCE HAD BEEN MADE BY THE AO IN EARLIER YEARS AND WAS SUBSEQUENTLY DELETED BY CIT (A) AND ITAT. ACCORDINGLY, THIS GROUND IS COVER ED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. WE FIND THAT ITAT IN ASSESSEE S OWN CASE FOR AY 2006 - 07 IN I T A NO. 314/DEL/2010 HAD ADJUDICATED THE MATTER AS UNDER: 2.2 IN REGARD TO NOTIONAL INTEREST, THE FINDING OF THE TRIBUNAL HAS BEEN AS UNDER: IN REGARD TO THE ISSUE O F DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST ON THE LOANS OU TSTANDING FROM MS/ DCM EMPLOYEES WELFARE TRUST, IT IS NOTICED THAT THE ISSUE IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE DECISION OF THE C OORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE ASSESSEE S OWN CASE FOR THE AY 2003 - 04 REFERRED TO SU PRA AND CONSEQUENTLY RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE ASSESSEE S OWN CASE FOR THE AY 2003 - 04, THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT (A) ON THIS ISSUE STAND UPHELD. ACCORDINGLY, THIS GROUND OF THE DEPARTMENT S APPE AL IS DISMISSED. 6. RESPECTIVELY FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEE S OWN CASE FOR THE PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR AND IN ABSENCE OF ANY CONTRARY MATERIAL BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE WE DISMISS THE GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE ON THIS ISSUE. 7. GR OUND OF APPEAL NO.2 BY THE REVENUE READS AS UNDER : - ITA NO. 6477 /DE L/20 1 5 ITA NO.6476/D/2015 5 WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF U/S 14A READ WITH RULE 8D OF RS.2,44,53,000/ - MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 8. FACTS OF THE CASE, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT DU RING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED TAX FREE DIVIDEND INCOME OF RS. 1,70,096/ - ON LONG TERM TRADE INVESTMENT AND CLAIMED THE SAME AS EXEMPTION U/ S 10 (34) OF THE IT ACT . F ROM THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME , T HE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT ASSESSEE HIMSELF HAS DISALLOWED AN AMOUNT OF RS.2,50,000/ - U/S. 14A OF THE IT ACT. HE THEREFORE, ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN AS TO WHY THE TOTAL INTEREST OF RS. 173.33 LACS AS PER THE P & L ACCOUNT SHOULD NOT BE TAKEN FOR THE PURPOSE OF ALLOCATION INST EAD OF RS. NIL AND WHY INVESTMENT ACQUIRED UNDER THE SCHEME AMOUNTING TO RS.4200 CRORES SHOULD NOT BE MADE PART OF THE TOTAL INVESTMENT FOR C ALCULATION OF DISALLOWA NCE AS PER PROVISION U/S 14A R/W RULE 8D . REJECTING THE VARIOUS EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.244 . 53 LACS U/S 14A RULE 8D. 8.1 IN APPEAL THE LD. CIT(A) DELET ED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER B Y OBSERVING AS UNDER : - I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE COUNSEL OF THE APPELLANT. THE ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED DIVIDEND INCOME OF RS. 1.70 LACS DURING THE YEAR WHICH HAS BEEN CLAIMED AS EXEMPT U/S 10(34) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITHOUT RECORDING ANY DISSATISFACTION REGARDING THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE COMPANY WORKED OUT THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.247.03 LACS U/S 14A READ WITH RULE 8D OF THE INCOME TAX RULES. THE COMPANY HAS MADE THE SUOMOTO DISALLOWA NCE OF RS. 2.50 LACS WHICH IS E Q UAL TO 50% OF THE ANNUAL SALARY OF THE EXECUTIVE WHO WAS ATTENDING THE ACTIVITIES O F THE INVESTMENT APART FROM OTHER REGULAR DUTIES. THE HON'BLE ITAT 'C' BENCH, NEW DELHI ITA NO.3768/DEL/2013 VIDE ORDER DATED 29.04.2015 IN T HE CASE OF INDUS VALLEY INVESTMENT & FINANCE PVT.LTD. VS. ITA NO. 6477 /DE L/20 1 5 ITA NO.6476/D/2015 6 DCIT HELD 'WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE TOTAL EXEMPT INCOME EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE IS TO THE TUNE OF RS.25.38 LAC, AGAINST WHICH AN ADDITION OF RS.1.05 CRORE HAS BEEN MADE. THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN JOINT INVESTMENT PVT.LTD. VS. CIT, VIDE ITS JUDGEMENT DATED 25.2.2015, HAS HELD THAT THE DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A CANNOT EXCEED THE AMOUNT OF EXEMPT INCOME. THE HON'BLE DELHI HI GH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. HOLCIM INDIA PVT.LTD. (20.143) 90 CCH 081 - DEL - HC, HAS HELD THAT THERE CAN BE NO DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EXEMPT \ INCOME. THE RATIONALE BEHIND THESE JUDGEMENTS IS THAT THE AMOUNT OF \ DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A S HOULD NOT EXCEED THE EXEMPT INCOME. SINCE THE TOTAL \ EXEMPT INCOME IN THE INSTANT CASE IS RS 25,38,020/ - , WE DIRECT THAT THE DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A BE RESTRICTED TO RS.18,01,968/ - (RS.25,38,020 - RS.7,36,052). THE REMAINING AMOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE IS DIRECTED TO BE DELETED.' IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE IT IS HELD THAT THE APPELLANT HAS RECEIVED DIVIDEND INCOME OF RS.1,70,000/ - DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND SUOMOTO MADE THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.2.5 LACS WHICH IS MORE THAN THE INCOME EXEMPT FROM TAX. THE DISALLO WANCE IS THEREFORE, RESTRICTED TO RS.2,50,000/ - WHICH IS ALREADY MADE BY M/S DCM LIMITED A.NO.14/2014 - 15, A.Y.2011 - 12 THE ASSESSEE IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO MODIFY THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT ACCORDINGLY. 9. AGGRIEVED WITH SUCH ORDER OF THE CIT(A) THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 10. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL ARGUMENTS MADE BY BOTH THE SIDES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD . I T IS AN ADMITTED FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE IN THE INSTANT CASE HAS R ECEIVED DIVIDEND INCOME OF RS. 1,70,096/ - AND HAS SUOMOTO DISALLOWED AN AMOUNT OF RS. 2.50 LACS UNDER PROVISION OF SECTION 14A . W E FIND THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED AN AMOUNT OF RS. 244 . 53 LAKHS BY INVOKING PROVISIONS OF SECTION 14A R/W RULE 8D. WE FI ND THE LD. CIT (A) RESTRICTED THE DISALLOWANCE T O RS. 2.50 LACS AS DISALLOWED BY THE ASSESSEE ITSELF. WHILE DOING SO HE RELIED ON THE DECISION OF HON BLE DELHI ITA NO. 6477 /DE L/20 1 5 ITA NO.6476/D/2015 7 HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF MAXXOP INVESTMENT LTD AND OTHERS VS. CIT REPORTED IN 247 CTR 1 62 AND C HEMINVEST LTD. VS. CIT AND VARIOUS OTHER DECISIONS. 10.1 W E FIND IDENTICAL ISSUE HAD COME UP BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEE S OWN CASE IN THE IMMEDIAT ELY PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR. THE TRIBUNAL VIDE PARA 15 OF THE ORDER H AS DISCUSSED THE ISSUE AND DISMIS SED THE GROUND RAISED BY REVENUE ON THIS ISSUE BY OBSERVING AS UNDER : - AS FAR AS GROUND NO. 2 OF ASSESSEE S APPEAL REGARDING DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A OF THE ACT IS CONCERNE D, IT IS SEEN THAT THIS GROUND CORRESPOND TO GROUND NO. 2 OF DEPARTMENT S APPEAL. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAD RECEIVED DIVIDEND INCOME OF RS. 70,088/ - DURING THE YEAR WHICH WAS CLAIMED AS EXEMPT U/S 10(34) OF THE ACT AND IT HAD SUO MOTO MADE A DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 21.87 LACS. IT IS ALSO SEEN THAT THE AO HAS NOT EXAMINED THE CALCULATION AS SUBM ITTED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IN THIS REGARD AND HAS ALSO NOT RECORDED ANY SATISFACTION TO THE EFFECT THAT THE DISALLOWANCE OFFERED WAS NOT CORRECT. HE PROCEEDED TO MAKE A FURTHER DISALLOWANCE OF 143.39 LACS BY APPLYING PROVISIONS OF RULE 8D. WE FIND FORCE IN THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. AR THAT THE AO HAS NEITHER RECORDED HIS SATISFACTION NOR GIVING ANY REASON AS TO HOW THE CLAIM OF EXPENDITURE IN RELATION TO TAX FREE INCOME HAS NOT BEEN CORRECTLY MADE BY THE ASSESSEE AS ENVISAGED U/S 14A AND THE AO HAS PROCE EDED TO MECHANICALLY INVOKE RULE 8D. WE ALSO FIND THAT THE AO HAS NOT ESTABLISHED ANY NEXUS BETWEEN THE INVESTMENT MADE AND THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED UNDER INTEREST EXPENDITURE AND ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES BEFORE DISREGARDING THE SUO MOTO DISALLOWANCE MADE B Y THE ASSESSEE VIS - A - VIS THE DIVIDEND INCOME OF RS. 70,088/ - . THE HON BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF JOINT INVESTMENT P. LTD. VS. CIT (SUPRA) HAS HELD THAT DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A CANNOT EXCEED THE AMOUNT OF EXEMPT INCOME. THE HON BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF HOLCIM INDIA P. LTD. (SUPRA) HELD THAT IN ABSENCE OF ANY EXEMPT INCOME, THERE CAN BE NO ITA NO. 6477 /DE L/20 1 5 ITA NO.6476/D/2015 8 DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A. WE ALSO FIND THAT THE ITAT IN ASSESSEE S OWN CASE FOR AY 2009 - 10, ON IDENTICAL SET OF FACTS, HAD RESTRICTED THE DISALLOWANCE TO THE E XTENT OF DIVIDEND INCOME RECEIVED DURING THE YEAR. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE SAME, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE AND DIRECT THE AO TO RESTRICT THE DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A TO RS. 70, 088/ - . IN THE RESULT, THE ADDITIONAL GROUND OF THE AS SESSEE IS ALLOWED AND GROUND NO. 2 OF THE DEPARTMENT IS DISMISSED. GROUND NO. 2 OF THE ASSESSEE S APPEAL NEEDS NO FURTHER ADJUDICATION . 11. SINCE, IN THE INSTANT CASE ALSO THE ASSESSEE ITSELF HAS DISALLOWED AN AMOUNT OF RS. 2.50 AS AGAINST ACTUAL DIVIDEN D OF RS. 1,70,096/ - THEREFORE, FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEE S OWN CASE IN THE IMMEDIATE LY PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR WHICH ARE IN CONSONANCE WITH THE DECISION S OF HON BLE DELHI HIGH COURT , WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT( A). ACCORDINGLY THE SAME IS UPHELD AND THE GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 12. IN GROUND NO.3 BEING GENERAL IN NATURE AND THEREFORE, DISMISSED. ITA NO. 6477/DEL/2015 13. GROUND OF APPEAL NO.1 BY REVENUE READS AS UNDER . WHETHER ON THE FAC TS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.22.32 LACS IN RESPECT OF DISALLOWANCE ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST REFERABLE TO INTEREST FREE LOAN GIVEN TO DCM EMPLOYEES WELFARE TRUST. 13.1 AFTER HEARING BOTH THE SIDES WE FIND THE ABOVE GROUND IS IDENTICAL TO GROUND OF APPEAL NO. 1 IN THE REVENUE S APPEAL FOR A.Y. 2011 - 12. WE HAVE ALREADY DECIDED THE ISSUE AND THE GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE HAS BEEN ITA NO. 6477 /DE L/20 1 5 ITA NO.6476/D/2015 9 DISMISSED. FOLLOWING SIMILAR REASONINGS , THIS GROUND BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 14. GROUND OF APPEAL NO. 2 BY REVENUE READS AS UNDER . WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN RESTRICTING THE DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A FROM AN AMOUNT OF RS. 333.76 LACS T O RS.3.50 LACS . 14.1 AFTER HEARING BOTH THE SIDES WE FIND THE ABOVE GROUND IS IDENTICAL TO GROUND OF APPEAL NO.2 IN ITA NO.6476/DEL/2015 FOR A.Y 2011 - 12. WE HAVE ALREADY DECIDED THE ISSUE AND THE GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE HAS BEEN DISMISSED. FOLLOWIN G SIMILAR REASONING THIS GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 15. GROUND NO. 3 BEING GENERAL IN NATURE IS DISMISSED. 16. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS THE APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 22 . 05 .2018. SD/ - SD/ - ( SUCHITRA KAMBLE) ( R.K. PANDA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER *NEHA * DATE: - 22 . 0 5 .201 8 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1 . APPELLANT 2 . RESPONDENT 3 . CIT 4 . CIT(APPEALS) 5 . DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI ITA NO. 6477 /DE L/20 1 5 ITA NO.6476/D/2015 10 DATE 1. DRAFT DICTATED ON 0 2 .0 5 .2018 PS 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 0 3 .0 5 .2018 PS 3. DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER JM/AM 4. DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVE D BY SECOND MEMBER. 2 2 .0 5 .2018 JM/AM 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS 22 .0 5 .2018 PS/PS 6. KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON 22 .0 5 .2018 PS 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK 22 .0 5 .2018 PS 8. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE AR 9. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK. 10. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER.