Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Lucknow V. Shri Sanjeev Malhotra, Lucknow

ITA 625/LKW/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1165 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-01-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 16-01-2018
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 28-10-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Revision of order
• Section: 263

Judgement Text

I.T.A. NOS.625 & 626/LKW/2016 ASSESSMENT YEARS:2012-13 & 13-14 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH A, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI T. S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NOS.625 & 626/LKW/2016 ASSESSMENT YEARS:2012-13 & 2013-14 DY.C.I.T., RANGE-4, LUCKNOW. VS. SHRI SANJEEV MALHOTRA, PROP. INTERNATIONAL SUBSCRIPTION AGENCY, FLAT NO. 2, NIRALA MARKET, NIRALA NAGAR, LUCKNOW. PAN:ADZPM 9271 D (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) O R D E R PER T. S. KAPOOR, A.M. THESE ARE TWO APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE SEPARATE ORDERS OF CIT(A) DATED 24/08/2016 AND 17/08/2016. SIMILAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL HAVE BEEN TAKEN IN BOTH THE APPEALS WHICH WE RE HEARD TOGETHER AND THEREFORE, FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE, A COMMON AN D CONSOLIDATED ORDER IS BEING PASSED. FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE, THE GRO UNDS OF APPEAL TAKEN BY THE REVENUE IN I.T.A. NO.626/LKW/2016 ARE REPRODUCE D BELOW: 1. THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DE LETING THE ADDITION OF RS.1,63,44,333/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF DIS ALLOWANCE OF PROVISION OF EXPENSES WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE F ACTS THAT THE METHOD OF ACCOUNTING ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSEE IS NOT RECOGNIZED ON SETTLED PRINCIPLE OF ACCOUNTING. APPELLANT BY SHRI R. K. VISHWAKARMA, D.R. RESPONDENT BY SHRI ROHIT BHALLA, C.A. DATE OF HEARING 16/01/2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 18 / 01 /201 8 I.T.A. NOS.625 & 626/LKW/2016 ASSESSMENT YEARS:2012-13 & 13-14 2 2. THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DEL ETING THE ADDITION OF RS.7,71,736/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF CREDIT CARD PAYMENT WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE ADDI TION WAS MADE IN ABSENCE OF THE DETAILS OF THE NATURE OF PAY MENT. 3. THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DEL ETING THE ADDITION OF RS.2,90,304/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT T HE ADDITION WERE MADE IN ABSENCE OF ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE RE GARDING THE STATUS OF THE PROPERTIES. 2. AT THE OUTSET, LEARNED A. R. SUBMITTED THAT ALL THE THREE ISSUES INVOLVED IN THESE APPEALS ARE COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE ITSELF FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011- 12 AND OUR ATTENTION WAS INVITED TO PAGES 141 TO 15 0 OF THE PAPER BOOK WHERE AN ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 06/12/2017, DI SPOSING OF SIMILAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL TAKEN BY THE REVENUE, WAS PLACED. 3. LEARNED D. R. FAIRLY ACCEPTED THAT THE ISSUES IN VOLVED ARE SQUARELY COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL PARTIES AND HAVE GONE T HROUGH THE MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT THE FIRST ISSUE IS RELATING TO DELETION OF ADDITION WHICH WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF PROVISION OF EXPENSES. WE FIND THA T THE TRIBUNAL HAS ALREADY DEALT WITH THIS ISSUE IN ITS ORDER DATED 06 /12/2017. THE FINDINGS OF THE TRIBUNAL ARE CONTAINED IN PARA 5 TO 5.2. FOR T HE SAKE OF COMPLETENESS, THE FINDINGS OF THE TRIBUNAL ARE REPRODUCED BELOW: 5. COMING TO GROUND NO. 2 ON ACCOUNT OF DELETION O F DISALLOWANCE OF PROVISION OF EXPENSES, WE FIND THAT ASSESSEE HAS BEEN FOLLOWING THIS SYSTEM OF DECLARING A PART OF GROSS PROFIT IN SUBSEQUENT YEAR FOR THE LAST MORE THAN 10 YEARS AND CIT(A), VIDE PARA 5.3.6, HAS NOTED THESE FACTS AND HAS NOTED THAT PROVISION WAS DEBITED IN VARIOUS YEARS AND HAS ALSO NOTED THAT EARLIER YEAR PROVISION HAS BEEN TAKEN AS INCOM E IN THE NEXT I.T.A. NOS.625 & 626/LKW/2016 ASSESSMENT YEARS:2012-13 & 13-14 3 YEAR. FOR THE SAKE OF COMPLETENESS, PARA 5.3.6 IS REPRODUCED BELOW: 5.3.6 THE IMPUGNED SUM, THEREFORE, CANNOT BE REG ARDED AS 'CONTINGENT LIABILITY' BECAUSE THE SUM TAKEN AS EXP ENDITURE IN THE CURRENT FINANCIAL YEAR WAS TAKEN INTO THE RECEI PTS OF THE 'TRADING ACCOUNT' OF THE NEXT FINANCIAL YEAR AS PER THE CONSISTENT PRACTICE BEING FOLLOWED BY THE APPELLANT AS FOLLOWS: ASSESSMENT YEAR FINANCIAL YEAR SALES PROVISION CREDITED (REVERSE OF EARLIER YEAR) PROVISION DEBITED (CREATED FOR 9 MONTHS) 2002- 03 2001-02 3,76,55,766 34,40454 38,50,901 2003-04 2002-03 4,89,82,510 38,50,901 22,56,523 2004-05 2003-04 3,85,79,187 22,56,523 20,33,613 2005-06 2004-05 4,52,23,195 20,33,613 35,83,150 2006-07 2005-06 4,93,58,829 35,83,150 20,25,033 2007-08 2006-07 6,14,23,977 20,25,033 42,74,368 2008-09 2007-08 6,96,39,434 42,74,368 27,75,727 2009-10 2008-09 11,12,23,820 27,75,727 67,18,935 2010-11 2009-10 11,03,85,949 67,15,935 24,10,604 2011-12 2010-11 15,97,37,774 -24,10,604 1,10,60,533 IF THE 'PROVISION OF EXPENSES' AMOUNTING TO RS.1,10 ,60,533/- WERE TO BE OMITTED FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTATION O F TOTAL INCOME) FROM THE LIABILITIES SIDE AS ON 31/03/2011 , THE OPENING PROVISION OF RS.24,10,604/- WOULD ALSO HAV E TO BE OMITTED, RESULTING THEREBY IN AN IMMEDIATE REDUCTIO N IN THE ASSESSED INCOME BY RS.24,10,604/-. FURTHER, THE LD. AO WAS ALSO REQUIRED TO REVERSE THE SALES FOR THE PERIOD 1 0.4.2011 TO 31.12.2011, AND RECOMPUTE THE PROFITS ACCORDINGLY, WHICH HAS NOT BEEN DONE. THE ENTIRE EXERCISE, THEREFORE, WOUL D BE REVENUE NEUTRAL AND ACADEMIC AS THE TAXES APPLICABL E TO THE APPELLANT HAS ALWAYS BEEN ON THE HIGHEST SLAB APPLI CABLE FOR INDIVIDUALS. I.T.A. NOS.625 & 626/LKW/2016 ASSESSMENT YEARS:2012-13 & 13-14 4 5.1 WE FIND THAT THIS IS A NORMAL PRACTICE BEING FO LLOWED BY THE ASSESSEE AND IN NONE OF THE YEARS THE REVENUE H AD CHALLENGED THE METHOD OF WORKING OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THE PRESENT YEAR, THE ASSESSEE CREATED PROVISION AGAINS T EXPENSES TO THE EXTENT OF RS.1,10,60,533/- BY REDUCING IT FR OM THE GROSS PROFIT AND ADDED TO THE GROSS PROFIT THE PROVISION FOR EXPENSES RELATING TO EARLIER YEAR AMOUNTING TO RS.24,10,604/ -. THE FINDINGS OF THE CIT(A) IN THIS REGARD ARE REPRODUCE D BELOW: 5.3 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE O RDER OF THE AO AND THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE AR AND I FIND TH AT THE APPELLANT WAS A SUBSCRIPTION AGENCY ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF SUBSCRIBING FOREIGN JOURNALS, MAGAZINES, PERIODICAL S FOR GOVERNMENT LIBRARIES AND RESEARCH INSTITUTIONS OF N ATIONAL REPUTE FOR WHICH HE HAD BEEN GRANTED PERMISSION BY THE RES ERVE BANK OF INDIA VIDE PERMISSION NO. EC. DEL TP-173/35/86/8 7 DATED 17 TH NOVEMBER, 1989. IT IS NOT DISPUTED THAT THE SUBSCR IPTION PERIOD OF FOREIGN JOURNALS, MAGAZINES AND PERIODICA LS WAS FOR THE CALENDAR YEAR NAMELY JANUARY TO DECEMBER AND TH E SUPPLIES OF JOURNALS ETC., COMMENCED ONLY AFTER REC EIPT OF FULL PAYMENT IN ADVANCE BY THE PUBLISHERS AND ACCORDINGL Y ALL HIS CLIENTS HAD TO PAY THE FULL AMOUNT OF SUBSCRIPTION IN ADVANCE. IN ORDER TO COMPLETE HIS SUPPLIES FOR THE FULL CALENDA R YEAR (THOUGH PAYMENTS WERE RECEIVED AND MADE INITIALLY), THE APP ELLANT WAS LIABLE TO INCUR EXPENSES AND INCUR COMPLETION OF SU PPLIES FOR THE PERIOD OF FULL CALENDAR YEAR. SINCE BOOKS OF ACCOUN TS WERE CLOSED ON 31 ST MARCH EVERY YEAR, PROVISION FOR THE PERIOD APRIL TO DECEMBER AND APPORTIONING OF THE GROSS PROFIT HA D TO BE MADE ON PRO RATA BASIS AS FOLLOWS: SALES - PURCHASES FREIGHT BINDING CHARGE = GROSS PR OFIT 25% OF THE ABOVE GP WAS RETAINED PRO RATA AND THE R EST WAS TAKEN FOR THE NEXT FINANCIAL YEAR. FOR THE YEAR UND ER CONSIDERATION, THE COMPUTATION WORKED OUT AS FOLLOW S: SALES RS.15,97,37,773.93 LESS:PURCHASES (-) RS.14,41,50,060.81 BALANCE AMOUNT RS. 1,55,87,713.12 LESS DIRECT EXPENSES BINDING CHARGES OF THE JOURNALS (-) RS. 2,99,6 10.00 CONSIGNMENT HANDLING CHARGES (-) RS. 2,66,722. 90 FREIGHT, CARTAGE & CLEARANCE EXPS.(-) RS. 2,74,002.00 I.T.A. NOS.625 & 626/LKW/2016 ASSESSMENT YEARS:2012-13 & 13-14 5 TOTAL LESS: RS. 8,40,334.90 BALANCE AMOUNT RS.1,47,47,378.22 - 9 MONTH PROVISION TO BE MADE FOR EXPENSES OF NEXT FINANCIAL YEAR RS.1,10,60,533.00 - 3 MONTH PROFIT DURING THE YEAR RS. 24,10,604.00 ADD:LAST YEARS PROVISION FOR EXPENSES RS. 24,10, 604.00 TOTAL GROSS PROFIT FOR F.Y. 2010-11 RS. 60,97,44 9.22 5.3.1 IT IS ALSO NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THIS METHOD HA S BEEN FOLLOWED BY THE APPELLANT SINCE THE VERY INCEPTION OF HIS BUSINESS WITHOUT ANY DEVIATION AS EVIDENT FROM THE COPIES OF THE ORDERS FILED. FOR A.Y. 2001-02, IN THE CASE OF M/S INTERNA TIONAL SUBSCRIPTION AGENCY, THE LD. AO, IN -FACT, HAD ACCE PTED THE AFORESAID METHOD AFTER EXAMINATION, BY OBSERVING AS FOLLOWS: ON A PERUSAL OF THE ASSESSEE'S REPLY AND THE PAST HISTORY OF THE CASE IT IS APPARENT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS A PECULIAR NATURE OF BUSINESS AND ON THESE CIRCUMSTANCES! THE METHOD FOLLOWED BY THE ASSESSEE CONSTANTLY APPEARS TO BE ACCEPTABLE. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES THE ASSESSEE'S M ETHOD OF ACCOUNTING IS NO BEING DISTURBED. 5.3.2. IT IS ALSO A MATTER OF RECORD THAT IN A.Y 20 08-09, THE THEN CIT-2, LUCKNOW SET ASIDE THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 263 ON THIS VERY GROUND, I.E., THE AO HAD W RONGLY ACCEPTED THIS METHOD. THIS ORDER UNDER SECTION 263, HOWEVER, WAS SET ASIDE BY THE ITAT IN ITA NO. 603/LKW/2012 DTD 20.02.2015, BY OBSERVING AS FOLLOW S: '18. THEREFORE, IN THE LIGHT OF THE AFORESAID VARIOUS JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE A PROPER ENQUIRY WITH REGARD TO THE DEBIT ENTRY OF RS.27,75,722/- IN TRADING ACCOUNT FOR THE YEAR ENDING ON 31.03.2008 UNDER THE HEAD 'PROVISIONS TO BE MADE FOR EXPENSES IN CURRENT YEAR' AND CREDIT CARD PAYMENTS. THEREFORE, ON THESE TWO ISSUES, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER CANNOT BE CALLED TO BE ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. WE ACCORDINGLY SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX ON THESE TWO ISSUES. I.T.A. NOS.625 & 626/LKW/2016 ASSESSMENT YEARS:2012-13 & 13-14 6 19. ......... 20. ACCORDINGLY, THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX IS SET ASIDE ON TWO ISSUES (1) DEBIT ENTRY OF RS.27,75,722/- IN THE TRADING ACCOUNT FOR THE YEAR ENDING ON 31.03.2008 UNDER THE HEAD 'PROVISIONS TO BE MADE FOR EXPENSES IN CURRENT YEAR' AND (2) CREDIT CARD PAYMENTS. 21. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE STANDS PARTLY ALLOWED.' 5.3.2 THUS, THE ARGUMENT OF THE LD AR IS WELL TAKEN THAT A SYSTEM CONSISTENTLY FOLLOWED BY THE APPELLANT AND A CCEPTED BY THE REVENUE THROUGHOUT FOR SEVERAL YEARS IN SUMMARY AS WELL AS SCRUTINY ASSESSMENTS, CANNOT BE CHANGED BY THE REVE NUE UNLESS THERE WAS AN ERROR IN THE METHOD OF ACCOUNTING CONS ISTENTLY FOLLOWED, RESULTING IN UNDERESTIMATION OF PROFITS. 5.2 WE FURTHER FIND THAT SIMILAR ISSUE HAD COME UP BEFORE HON'BLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN INCOME TAX APPEAL N O. 40 OF 2016, THOUGH IN A DIFFERENT CONTEXT, WHEREBY REVENU E HAD CHALLENGED THE QUASHING OF THE ORDER PASSED BY CIT U/S 263 OF THE ACT. IN THAT YEAR ALSO THE ASSESSING OFFICER H AD CARRIED OUT SUFFICIENT INQUIRIES RELATING TO DEBIT ON ACCOUNT O F PROVISIONS FOR EXPENSES AND IN THAT YEAR ALSO THE ASSESSING OFFICE R HAD NOT MADE ANY ADDITION AND THAT IS WHY THE CIT HAD PASSE D ORDER U/S 263 WHICH ULTIMATELY WAS QUASHED BY THE TRIBUNA L AND WAS UPHELD BY HON'BLE HIGH COURT. IN VIEW OF THESE FAC TS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A) TO THIS EXTENT AND THEREFORE, DISMISS GROUND NO. 2 OF THE REVENUE. IN THE PRESENT YEARS ALSO THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS AL LOWED RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE BY RECORDING SIMILAR FINDINGS AND BY REPRO DUCING PART OF THE PROVISION CREATED AND PROVISION DEBITED DURING THE YEAR. THEREFORE, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE EARLIER ORDER OF THE TRI BUNAL, GROUND NO. 1 IN BOTH THE APPEALS IS DISMISSED. 4.1 AS REGARDS GROUND NO. 2 REGARDING DELETION OF A DDITION, WHICH THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD MADE BY DISALLOWING A PART OU T OF CREDIT CARD I.T.A. NOS.625 & 626/LKW/2016 ASSESSMENT YEARS:2012-13 & 13-14 7 PAYMENT, WE FIND THAT THIS ISSUE ALSO HAS BEEN DECI DED BY THE TRIBUNAL. THE FINDING OF THE TRIBUNAL ARE CONTAINED IN PARA 4, WH ICH FOR THE SAKE OF COMPLETENESS IS REPRODUCED BELOW: 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL PARTIES AND HAVE GONE THROUGH THE MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT ASSESS ING OFFICER HAS MADE THE DISALLOWANCE OUT OF CREDIT CARD PAYMEN TS TO THE EXTENT OF 25% BY HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT EXPLAINED THE NATURE OF PURCHASES AND THE ENTIRE AMOUNT CANNO T BE CONSIDERED TO BE DONE FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES. THE C IT(A) HOWEVER, HAS PASSED A REASONED AND SPEAKING ORDER W HEREBY HE HAS HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE, IN A DETAILED EXCEL SHEET, HAD EXPLAINED THE NATURE OF HEAD OF EXPENSES VIZ. PURCH ASE, TRAVEL, INSURANCE, BANK CHARGES, PERSONAL EXPENSES, MOBILE EXPENSES ETC. AND HE HAS GIVEN A FINDING OF FACT THAT THE PE RSONAL EXPENSES SPENT THROUGH CREDIT CARD HAVE BEEN APPROP RIATELY DEBITED TO CAPITAL ACCOUNT AND FURTHER HE HAS HELD THAT MORE THAN 95% EXPENDITURE THROUGH CREDIT CARD WAS MADE F OR PURCHASE OF SCIENTIFIC BOOKS AND JOURNALS WHICH ARE TRADABLE GOODS FOR THE ASSESSEE. HE HAS FURTHER HELD THAT T HE ENTIRE PAYMENTS FIND MENTION IN BANK STATEMENT OF THE ASSE SSEE AND THEREFORE, HE HAS RIGHTLY ALLOWED THE RELIEF. WE A LSO FIND THAT IN INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 40 OF 2016, HON'BLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT VIDE ORDER DATED 21/03/2017 HAD DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL PASSE D AGAINST CIT ORDER U/S 263 OF THE ACT. IN THAT ORDER, THE C IT HAD HELD, THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, TO BE ER RONEOUS ON ACCOUNT OF THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD NOT EXAMINED THE CREDIT CARD PAYMENTS. HON'BLE TRIBUNAL HAD HEL D THAT ASSESSING OFFICER HAD CONDUCTED SUFFICIENT INQUIRIE S. FROM THE ABOVE ORDER WE FIND THAT SIMILAR PAYMENTS WERE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE DURING EARLIER YEAR ALSO ON WHICH ASSESSIN G OFFICER HAD NOT MADE ANY ADDITION AND AGAINST WHICH CIT HAD PAS SED ORDER U/S 263 OF THE ACT AND WHICH WAS QUASHED BY THE TRI BUNAL AND WAS FURTHER CONFIRMED BY HON'BLE HIGH COURT. THERE FORE, KEEPING IN VIEW ALL THESE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, WE FIND THAT CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY DELETED THE ADDITION. IN VIEW O F ABOVE, GROUND NO. 1 IS DISMISSED. FINDING THE ISSUES SIMILAR IN THESE YEARS, WE DISMI SS GROUND NO. 2 IN BOTH THE YEARS TAKEN BY THE REVENUE. I.T.A. NOS.625 & 626/LKW/2016 ASSESSMENT YEARS:2012-13 & 13-14 8 4.2 AS REGARDS GROUND NO. 3, THE SAME HAS ALSO BEEN DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 06/12/2017. THE FIND INGS OF THE TRIBUNAL ARE CONTAINED IN PARA 5.4, WHICH FOR THE SAKE OF COMPLE TENESS IS REPRODUCED BELOW: 5.4 AS REGARDS THE PROPERTY SITUATED AT RAJENDRA N AGAR, NEW DELHI, THE ASSESSEE, AGAIN VIDE LETTER DATED 24/02/ 2014, PLACED AT PAGES 249 TO 255 OF THE PAPER BOOK, HAD EXPLAINE D TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE SAID PROPERTY WAS BEING USED AS BUSINESS ASSET FOR HIS BUSINESS PURPOSES AND HAD FI LED SUFFICIENT DOCUMENTS TO PROVE THAT THE SAME WAS BEING UTILIZED FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD WRONGLY IGNORED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY HELD ON THE BASIS OF DOCUMENTS THAT THE PROPERTY WAS BEING UTILIZED FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES. BEFORE U S ALSO, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED VOLUMINOUS PAPER BOOK RUNNING FR OM PAGES 450 TO 525 PERTAINING TO BUSINESS USE OF THE PROPER TY SITUATED AT RAJENDRA NAGAR, NEW DELHI. WE, THEREFORE, DO NO T FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A). ACCORDINGLY, GRO UND NO. 3 IS ALSO DISMISSED. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, GROUND NO. 3 TAKEN BY THE REV ENUE IN BOTH THE YEARS, IS ALSO DISMISSED. 5. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE A RE DISMISSED. (ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 18/01/2018) SD/. SD/. (PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY) ( T. S. KAPOOR ) JUDICIAL MEMBER A CCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED:18/01/2018 *SINGH COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. CONCERNED CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. D.R., I.T.A.T., LUCKNOW