ACIT, UDAIPUR V. Shri Abhay Singh Shaktawat, BHILWARA

ITA 62/JODH/2014

• Counselvise Citation: 6223314 RSA 2014
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-07-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 03-02-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: N A JOSHI
• Assessee Lawyers: NIL
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Presumptive income; Business income; Additional evidence
• Section: 44AD; 80C; 68

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELALTE TRIBUNAL : JODHPUR BENCH : JODHPUR BEFORE SHRI HARI OM MARATHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI N.K. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. ITA NO. 62 /J ODH /2014 (A.Y. 200 9 - 1 0 ) THE ACIT , CIRCLE - 1, VS. SHRI ABHAY SINGH SHAKTAWAT , UDAIPUR. BHAWANI GRAH, JODHAKHERA, BORELA ASIND, BHILWARA . PAN NO. AKUPS 2963 A (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : NIL DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI N.A. JOSHI - D.R. DATE OF HEARING : 01 / 0 5 /201 4 . DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 17 /0 7 /201 4 . O R D E R PER N.K. SAINI, A.M TH IS IS AN APPEAL BY THE DEPARTMENT AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 2 6 /1 1 /201 3 OF L D . CIT(A), UDAIPUR . THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS HAVE BEEN RAISED IN THIS APPEAL : - ON THE FACTS AND IN THE PRESENT CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN 1. RESTRICTING THE ADDITION MADE FROM RS. 10,27,576/ - TO RS. 1,13,273/ - BY REDUCING N.P. FROM 8% TO 3.5% AFTER INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 145(3) OF THE I.T. ACT DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE ADMITTEDLY FAILED TO PRODUCE ANY BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS , STOCK - REGISTER OR 2 BILLS AND VOUCHERS BEFORE THE AO OR EVEN BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND IN SUCH SITUATION EARLIER YEARS RESULT ARE IRRE LEVANT AND N.P. @ 8% IN JUSTIFIED. 2. DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 96,258/ - MADE U/S 68 OF THE I.T. ACT ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CREDITORS AND RESTRIC T I N G THE DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION U/S 80C OF THE I.T. ACT OF RS. 1,00,000/ - TO RS. 32,332/ - BY IGNORING THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 46A(1) OF THE I.T. RULES WITHOUT GIVING ANY OPPORTUNITY TO AO TO REBUT THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES TO ADD, AMEND, ALTER, DELETE OR MODIFY ANY OR ALL THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE OR AT THE TIME OF HEARING. 2 FIRST ISSUE VIDE GROUND NO. 1 OF THIS APPEAL RELATES TO THE RESTRICTI ON OF THE ADDITION TO RS. 1,13,273/ - FROM RS. 10,27,576/ - MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 145(3) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT IN SHORT) . 3. FACTS RELATING TO THIS ISSUE, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME ON 29/09/2009 DECLARING AN INCOME OF RS. 4,97, 850/ - . THE ASSESSEE WAS HAVING TWO PROPRIETARY CONCERNS I.E. M/S. MAA BHAWANI ENTERPRISES AND M/S. AASTHA EARTHMOVERS . D URING THE YEAR , THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN CONTRACT RECEIPTS OF RS. 1,11,61,253/ - IN M/S. MAA BHAWANI ENTERPRISES AND RS. 91,56,571/ - IN M/S. AASTHA EARTHMOVERS . THE NET PROFIT WAS SHOWN AT RS. 5,97,850/ - I.E. @ 2.94% . THE ASSESSING OFFICER INVOKED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 145(3) OF THE ACT AND REJECTED THE BOOK RESULTS OF THE ASSESSEE . HE APPLIED NET PROFIT OF 8% AND MADE TRADING ADDITION OF RS. 10,27,576/ - . 3 4. BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER TO THE LD. CIT(A) AND SUBMITTED AS UNDER: - 2.1 THE LD ASSESSING OFFICER HAS PRESUMED THE NET PROFIT @ 8% OVER THE GROSS RECEIPTS BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 145(3) OF THE ACT. IT IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITS THAT THE NET PROFIT RATE @ 8% IS BEEN PRESCRIBED U/S 44AD OF THE ACT UNDER THE PRESUMPTIVE TAXATION SCHEME, PARTICULARLY WHERE TURNOVER DOESN'T EXCEEDS RS. 40 LACS. THEREFORE, THE NET PROFIT RATE @ 8% COULD BE APPLIED WHERE THE TURNOVER WAS LESS THAN RS. 40 LACS. 2.2 THE LD ASSESSING OFFICER HAS GIVEN THE FINDING IN THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT 'KEEPING IN VIEW OF THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE AND OVERALL FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE' AND 'ON THE BASIS OF MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD', HE HAS ARBITRARILY ESTIMATED NET PROFIT @8%. 2.3 IT IS ADMITTED FACT THAT LD ASS ESSING OFFICER HAS FAILED TO PLACE ON RECORD ANY MATERIAL OR EVIDENCE CONTRARY TO THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT AND ALSO FAILED TO PROVIDE ANY COMPARABLE CASE BEFORE ADOPTION OF UNREALISTIC AND IMAGINARY FIGURE OF NET PROFIT @ 8%. 2.4 IT IS WORTHWHILE TO SUB MIT THAT, BEING THE QUASI JUDICIAL AUTHORITY, WHENEVER THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TO USE THE POWER OF ESTIMATING NET PROFIT HE HAS TO BE JUDICIOUS AND IT SHOULD BE BASED ON THE PAST RESULTS OF THE BUSINESS. IT IS SETTLED POSITION THAT WHERE THE PAST RESULTS OF THE SAME ASSESSEE ARE AVAILABLE, ASSESSING OFFICER CANNOT IMAGINE AND EVEN COMPARE RESULTS OF OTHER SIMILAR BUSINESS ENTITY. WHEREAS, IN THE PRESENT CASE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS INTENTIONALLY MADE THE FURIOUS AND BASELESS ESTIMATION, WHICH IS NOT ONL Y ILLEGAL BUT AGAINST THE SETTLED POSITION OF THE VARIOUS COURTS OF LAW. 2.5 THE APPELLANT WAS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF WORKS CONTRACT FOR ROAD CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF EARTHMOVING MACHINES. DURING THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL HE HAS TAKEN MOST OF WORK ON SUB CONTRACT BASIS. LT IS ALSO ARGUED THAT OUT OF TOTAL TURNOVER OF RS.203 LACS, SHARE OF SUB CONTRACT REVENUE WAS RS. 157 LACS AWARDED FROM M/S LARSEN AND 4 TUBRO AND M/S RAJU ASSOCIATES. LN TERMS OF PERCENTAGE THE REVENUE FROM SUB CONTRACT BUSINESS WAS 77 .34%. 2.3 IT IS PERTINENT TO MENTION HERE THAT WHEN A CONTRACT FOR WORKS IS BEEN AWARDED TO SUB CONTRACTOR FROM THE MAIN CONTRACTOR, IT IS OBVIOUS THAT PROFIT FROM SUCH ASSIGNMENT WOULD HAVE TO SHARE AMONGST MAIN AND SUB CONTRACTOR. IN THE APPELLANT'S CA SE, MORE THAN THREE FOURTH REVENUE CAME FROM THE SUB CONTRACT BUSINESS. 2.4 HE MUST HAVE CONSIDER THE PREVIOUS YEARS OF THE ASSESSEE AND ESTIMATE THE INCOME IN LINE WITH THEM. MOREOVER, WHEN THERE IS FIRST YEAR OF THE BUSINESS THEN ALSO HE SHOULD HAVE CON SIDER THE RESULTS OF THE SIMILAR TRADE AND THEREAFTER ESTIMATE THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 2.5 THE DETAILED COMPARISON OF RESULTS OF THESE BUSINESSES ARE AS UNDER: ASTT YEARS 2009 - 10 2008 - 09 2007 - 08 GROSS RECEIPTS FROM CONTRACT BUSINESS 203,17,824/ - 150,53,995/ - 131,51,156/ - GROSS PROFIT 18,91,593/ - 11,70,753/ - 11,54,676/ - GROSS PROFIT % 9.31% 7.78% 8.78% NET PROFIT 5 , 97,850/ - 4 , 25,450/ - 2 , 81,458/ - NET PROFIT% 2.94% 2.83% 2.14% THE AFOREMENTIONED COMPARISON CHART REVEALS THAT THE GROSS PROFIT AND NET PROFIT PERCENTAGE WAS INCREASED NOT ONLY FROM EARLIER YEARS BUT THESE ARE HIGHEST AMONGST THREE YEARS. THE COPY OF CONTRACT AND PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNTS FOR ALL THREE ASSESSMENT YEARS A RE ENCLOSED HEREWITH. 2.6 I N THE PRESENT CASE, THE LD ASSESSING OFFICER HAS FAILED TO PROVE WITH MATERIAL AND COGENT EVIDENCE HOW THE NET PROFIT CAN BE INCREASED FROM 2% - 3% TO 8% AS COMPARED TO ESTABLISHED SET OF RESULTS OF PREVIOUS YEARS. THUS, HE MERE LY UNDER ASSUMPTION AND PRESUMPTION, BASED ON PURE GUESS, ARBITRARILY IMAGINED THE NET PROFIT PERCENTAGE AGAINST THE DECLARED ONE. 5 2.7 IT IS BEEN SETTLED POSITION OF THE LAW THAT AFTER REJECTING THE BOOK RESULTS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DOES NOT GET FETTERE D POWERS TO MAKE ASSESSMENT AT ANY INCOME, HE IS SUPPOSED TO BE GUIDED EITHER BY PREVIOUS RESULTS OF THE ASSESSEE OR SOME COMPARABLE CASE. THE APPELLANT'S VIEWS ARE SUPPORTED BY THE JURISDICTIONAL ITAT IN CASE OF SRIRAM JANWARLAL V ITO (2005) 98 TTJ 639. I N THE INSTANT CASE THE LD ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT TAKEN CARE OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR, BOOK RESULTS, WHICH ARE AVAILABLE BEFORE HIM. 2.8 THEREFORE, THE FAIR COMPARISON STRAIGHT AWAY PROVED THAT NET PROFIT PERCENTAGE FOR THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL WAS HIGHER THAN IMMEDIATE PREVIOUS YEARS. THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT AND HIS CASE IS COVERED BY THE ORDER OF JURISDICTIONAL TRIBUNAL IN CASE OF ITO V HITESH KUMAR PANCHORI (2008) 113 TTJ 357 (JODH.) WHEREIN, IT WAS HELD THAT PROFIT RATE DECLARED IN CURRENT YEAR IS BETTER THAN PREVIOUS YEAR, NO FURTHER ADDITION CAN BE MADE IN THE DECLARED RESULTS. 2.9 THE ESTIMATION OF THE PROFIT MUST BE FAIR AND HONEST WHEREVER IT IS REQUIRED, IT IS BEEN HELD BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT, IN CASE OF BRIJBHUSHAN LAL PARADUMAN KU MAR V CIT (1978) 115 ITR 524. WHEREAS, IN THE PRESENT CASE THE ESTIMATES ADOPTED BY THE LD ASSESSING OFFICER ARE NOT FAIR AND HONEST. 2.10 IN CASE OF PRAKASH AUTOMOBILES V CIT (2010) 322 ITR 435 (KER) IT IS HELD THAT ESTIMATE HAS TO BE ON A RATIONAL BASI S, IN THE PRESENT CASE THERE WAS ABSOLUTELY NO BASIS FOR ESTIMATE THE INCOME. 2.11 I N OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, IT IS A CASE WHERE ADDITION WAS MADE ON SURMISES, CONJECTURES AND SUSPICION AND IT IS SETTLED LAW THAT NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE ON THE BASIS OF SURMISES, SUSPICION AND CONJECTURES. RELIANCE FOR THIS PROPOSITION IS PLACED ON UMACHARAN SHAW & BROS. CIT ( 1959 ) 37 ITR 271 (SC). IT HAS BEEN FURTHER HELD IN THE FOLLOWING CASES: (A) OMAR SALAY MOHAMED SAIF V. CIT (1 959 ) 37 ITR 151 (SC); (B) DHIRAJTAL GIRDHARILAL V. CIT [1954] 20 ITR 736 (SC); (C) DHAKESWAR I COTTON MILLS LTD. V. CIT [195 4] 2O ITR 775 (SC); (D) LALCHAND BHAGAT AMBICA RAM V. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 288 (SC). 6 2.12 LOOKING TO THE AFORE - STATED COMPARATIVE DETAILS OF BUSINESS RECEIPTS AND NET PROFIT, IT CAN BE SAFELY SAID THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT INTERESTED IN THE FAIR ESTIMATION OF INCOME RATHER CONCERN WITH HIS PREDETERMINED INTENTION OF MAKING HUGE ADDITI ON. 2.13 IN VIEW OF FORGOING ARGUMENTS, JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS AND SETTLED POSITION OF THE LAW, THE APPELLANT PRAYS YOUR HONOUR TO KINDLY DELETE BAS ELESS ADDITION OF RS. 10,27,570/ - . 5. THE LEARNED CIT(A), AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, UPHELD THE INVO CATION OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 145(3) OF THE ACT. HE FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD NOT FOUND ANYTHING ADVERSE IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, BUT SIMPLY MAD E AN ADDITION ON LUMP SUM BASIS. HE ALSO OBSERVED THAT THE COMPARATIVE CHART FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE REVEALED THAT THE GROSS PROFIT AND NET PROFIT PERCENTAGE INCREASED NOT ONLY FROM EARLIER YEARS, BUT THESE WE RE HIGHEST AMONGST THREE YEARS . LD. CIT(A) CONSIDERED IT REASONABLE AND JUSTIFIED IF THE NET PROFIT RATE WAS TAKEN @ 3.5% INSTEAD OF 8%. NOW THE DEPARTMENT IS IN APPEAL. 6 . LEARNED D.R. STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND REITERATED THE OBSERVATIONS MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 07/12/2011 . 7 7 . IN HIS RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, LEARNED COUNSEL F OR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELO W AND STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE IMPUGNED ORDER PA S SED BY THE LD. CIT(A) . 8 . WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IN THE PRESENT CASE, IT IS NOTICED THAT THE TURNOVER , GROSS PROFIT RATE AND NET PROFIT RATE SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE IN COMPARISON TO THE EARLIER YEAR S W ERE PROGRESSIVE AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE APPLYING THE NET PROFIT RATE OF 8% , HAD NOT CITED ANY COMPARABLE CASE OF SIMILAR NATURE . THEREFORE, THE NET PROFIT RATE OF 8% APPLIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT JUSTIFIED. AT THE SAME TIME, I N THE PRESENT CASE, CERTAIN DEFECTS WERE THERE IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE , T HEREFORE, THE BOOK RESULTS DEC L ARED BY THE ASSESSEE WERE REJECTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER . IN SUCH TYPE OF CASES WHEN THE BOOKS ARE REJECTED , THE ONLY WAY TO WORK OUT THE PROFIT IS APPLICATION OF GP / NP RATE. IN THE PRESENT CASE , THE ASSESSEE HAD DECLARED NET PROFIT RATE OF 2.94% FOR THE YEAR U NDER CONSIDERATION . IN OUR OPINION, THE NET PROFIT RATE OF 3.5% APPLIED BY THE LD. CIT(A) WAS FAIR AND REASONABLE TO COVER UP THE LEAKAGE OF REVENUE , IF ANY . WE DO NOT SEE ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE. 8 9 THE NEXT ISSUE VIDE GROUND NO. 2 RELATES TO THE DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS. 96,258/ - MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 68 OF THE ACT AND RESTRICTING THE DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION U/S 80C OF THE ACT TO RS. 32,332/ - FROM RS. 1,00,000/ - . 10. FACTS RELATING TO THIS ISSUE, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE THE ADDITION OF RS. 96,258/ - FOR THE REASON THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT FURNISHED THE CONFIRMATION FROM ONE OF THE CREDITORS NAMELY M/S. SHO BHAV PETROL PUMP . THE ASSESSEE CARRIED TH E MATTER TO THE LD. CIT(A) AND SUBMITTED AS UNDER: - 3.1 I T IS RESPECTFULLY STATES THAT THERE WAS SUNDRY CREDITORS OF RS. 30,90,668/ - AND UNSECURED LOANS OF RS. 8,05,580/ - AS ON 31/03/2009, THE APPELLANT HAS PROVED ALL OF THEM EXCEPT A CREDITOR FOR RS. 96, 258/ - WHERE HE WAS NOT ABLE TO COLLECT AND SUBMIT A CONFIRMATION DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING. 3.2 WHILE WE GO THROUGH THE TOTAL VERIFICATION OF CREDITORS, WE FOUND THAT 97.53 % WERE PROPERLY VERIFIED AND ACCEPTED BY THE LD ASSESSING OFFICER. IT WAS A SINGLE CREDITOR OF RS. 96,258/ - (2.47% OF TOTAL CREDITORS), WHERE HE COULD NOT FURNISH A CONFIRMATION. THERE MAY BE THOUSANDS OF REASONS FOR NON FURNISHING OF A CONFIRMATION AMONGST MANY MORE. 3.3 THE APPELLANT HAS NOW GOT THE CERTIFICATE FROM CREDITOR CONTAINING THE PAN AND ADDRESS IN CONFIRMATION OF OUTSTANDING BALANCE AS ON 31/03/2009 AND ENCLOSED HEREWITH FOR YOUR KIND PERUSAL, NOW APPELLANT HAS GOT CONFIRMATION OF 100% CREDITORS. 3.4 IN VIEW OF FOREGOING CONFIRMATION AND ARGUMENTS, THE APPELLANT REQUEST TO KINDLY DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS. 96,258/ - AND ALLOW THE GROUND OF APPEAL. 9 11 LD. CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, DELETED THE IMPUGNED ADDITION BY OBSERVING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SUBMITTED THE CERTIFICATE FROM THE CR EDITOR CONTAINING PAN AND ADDRESS ALONG WITH CONFIRMATION OF THE OUTSTANDING BALANCE AS ON 31/03/ 2009 . NOW THE DEPARTMENT IS IN APPEAL . 12 WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IN THE PRESENT CASE , IT IS NOTICED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE IMPUGNED ADDITION WHEN THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED THE CONFIRMATION OF THE OUT STANDING BALANCE FROM THE CREDITOR ALONG WITH PAN AND ADDRESS. THEREFORE, THE DELETION OF ADDITION WAS JUSTIFIED WHEN THE CREDITOR WAS GENUINE. W E DO NOT SEE ANY MERIT IN THE APPEAL OF THE DEPARTMENT ON THIS ISSUE. 13. FACTS RELATING TO THE ISSUE OF DISALLOWANCE U/S 80C OF THE ACT ARE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER REJECTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR DEDUCTION OF RS. 1,00,000/ - UNDER CHAPTER - VIA OF THE ACT ON ACCOUNT OF NON - SUBMISSION OF RECEIPTS OF ELIGIBLE PAYMENTS. THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER TO THE LD. CIT(A) AND SUBMITTED AS UNDER: - A. THE APPELLANT HAS FOUND A RECEIPT OF RS. 67,668/ - OUT OF THE TOTAL CLAIM OF RS. 1,00,000/ - AND ENCLOSED HEREWITH FOR YOUR KIND CONSIDERATION. 10 B. IN VIEW OF EXPLANATION AND EVIDENCE IN FORM OF RECEIPT, THE APPELLANT REQUEST TO KINDLY DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS. 1,00,000/ - AND ALLOW THE GROUND OF APPEAL. THE LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 67,668/ - BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED THE RECEIPT OF LIC FOR THE PAYMENT OF SAID AMOUNT. NOW THE DEPARTMENT IS IN APPEAL. 14 WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IN THE PRESENT CASE , IT APPEARS THAT THE DISALLOWANCE WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICE R BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT FURNISH THE RECEIPT OF THE PAYMENTS WHILE CLAIMING THE DEDUCTION U/S 80C OF THE ACT. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED THE RECEIPTS FOR PAYMENT OF LIC AMOUNTING TO RS. 67, 668/ - BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). THEREFORE, THE CLAIM TO THE SAID EXTENT WAS RIGHTLY DIRECTED TO BE ALLOWED BY THE LD. CIT(A) , W E DO NOT SEE ANY MERIT IN THIS APPEAL OF THE DEPARTMENT ON THE SAID ISSUE. 15. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE DEPARTMENT IS DISMISSED . ( ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 17 TH JULY , 201 4) . SD/ - SD/ - ( HARI OM MARATHA ) (N.K.SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 17 TH JULY , 201 4 . 11 VR/ - COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE LD. CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE D.R ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, JODHPUR .