Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Kanpur V. M/s Sahyog Jankalyan Samiti, Kanpur

ITA 637/LKW/2013

• Counselvise Citation: 63723714 RSA 2013
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-08-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 14-07-2014
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 16-08-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ARE BEING DISPOSED OF
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Value adopted by valuation officer; Valuation report
• Section: 133A; 68; 69; 6; 12

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH B, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOS.637 & 638/LKW/2013 ASSESSMENT YEARS:2007 - 08 & 2008 - 09 & I.T.A. NO.115/LKW/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2009 - 2010 A.C.I.T. - 1, KANPUR. VS. M/S SAHYOG JANKALYAN SAMITI, 122/619, SHASTRI NAGAR, KANPUR. PAN:AABAS0743G (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) O R D E R PER A. K. GARODIA, A.M. ALL THESE APPEALS ARE FILED BY THE REVENUE, WHICH ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THREE SEPARATE ORDERS OF LEARNED CIT(A) - II, KANPUR DATED 09/05/2013 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 08 AND 2008 - 09 AND DATED 29/11/2013 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 2010. ALL THESE APPEALS WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY WAY OF THIS COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 2. FIRST WE TAKE UP THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE FOR ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2007 - 08 I.E. I.T.A. NO.637/LKW/2013. IN THIS APPEAL , THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - II, KANPUR HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS OF THE CASE IN APPELLANT BY SHRI AMIT NIGAM, D.R. RESPONDENT BY SHRI RAKESH GARG, ADVOCATE DATE OF HEARING 14/07/2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 2 2 /08/2014 2 DIRECTING TO TAX THE ANONYMOUS DONATION U /S 115BBC OF THE I.T. ACT AS AGAINST THE ADDITION OF RS.26,13,080/ - MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 68 OF THE I.T. ACT.1961 IN RESPECT OF WHICH, NUMBER OF DISCREPANCIES AND DEFECTS WERE BROUGHT ON RECORD BY HIM DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS . 2. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - II, KANPUR HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS OF THE CASE IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.71,13,745/ - MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT U/S 69 OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 WITHOUT A PPRECIATING THE FACTS BROUGHT ON THE RECORD BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT ON REFERENCE U/S 142A, THE DISTRICT VALUATION OFFICER HAS GIVEN HIS REPORT BY STATING NON - COOPERATION FROM THE ASSESSEE BY WAY OF NOT PROVIDING COPY OF BUILDING ACCOUNT AS WELL AS BI LLS/VOUCHERS AND OTHER DOCUMENTS PERTAINING TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE BUILDING. 3. THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (A) - II, KANPUR DATED 09.05.2013 NEEDS TO BE QUASHED AND THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER DATED 14.12.2009 BE RESTORED. 4. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO MODIFY ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL MENTIONED ABOVE AND/OR TO ADD ANY FRESH GROUNDS AS AND WHEN IT IS REQUIRED TO DO SO. 3. LEARNED D.R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHEREAS LEARNED A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTE D THE ORDER OF CIT(A). HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THIS ISSUE IS SQUARELY COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY A TRIBUNAL DECISION RENDERED IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005 - 06 IN I.T.A. NO.766/LKW/2008 DATED 28/11/2008. HE SUBMITTED A COPY OF T HIS TRIBUNAL DECISION. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE WAS DECIDED BY CIT(A) BY MAKING FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS ON PAGE NO. 10 3 & 11 OF HIS ORDER, WHICH ARE REPRODUCED BELOW FOR THE SAKE OF READY REFERENCE: I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, AS WELL AS THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FILED BY THE A.R. FROM THE PERUSAL OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, IT IS NOTICED THAT A.O. ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE IDENTITY AND TO FURNISH THE CONFIRMATIONS OF THE RESPECTIVE DONOR FROM WHOM THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED DONATIONS DURING THE YEAR. ASSESSEE FORWARDED HIS ARGUMENTS THAT THE RECEIPT BOOKS SEIZED DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY U/S 133A OF THE ACT ON 13 - 14/07/2007 AT THE ASSESSEE'S PREMISES, HAVE COMPLETE DETAILS OF THE DONORS THEREFORE NO SEPARATE CONFIRMATIONS ARE REQUIRED. HE PLACED RELIANCE ON THE CASE OF DIT EXEMPTION VS. KESHAV SOCIAL CHARITABLE FOUNDATION (2005) 278 ITR 152 (DELHI) AND DIT VS. HANSRAJ SMARAK SOCIETY (2012) TIOL 816 - SC - DELHI AND ALSO SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THE ADDITION MADE U/S. 68 OF THE ACT ON ACCOUNT OF ANONYMOUS DONATIONS IN A.Y. 2005 - 2006 WAS DELETED BY THE LD. CIT - I, KANPUR VIDE THEIR ORDER DATED 21/08/2008 AND HON'BLE ITAT, LUCKNOW ALSO CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF CIT(A) VIDE THEIR ORDER DATED 28/11/2008 I N I.T.A. NO. 766/LKW/08. THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE HAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE HON'BLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT HAS CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF HON'BLE ITAT, LUCKNOW (COPY OF ORDER DATED 30 - 04 - 2013 IS ALSO FILED). ARGUMENTS PLACED BY THE LD. A.R. ARE NOT ACCEPTABLE, BECAUSE THE CASE LAWS CITED (SUPRA) BY THE ASSESSEE ARE NOT APPLICABLE AFTER THE AMENDMENT IN SEC. 13 OF THE I.T. ACT. AFTER THE INSERTION OF SEC. 13(7) W.E.F. 01/04/2007 BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2006, ALL THE ANONYMOUS DONATIONS ARE TAXABLE AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 115BBC OF THE ACT, WHICH IS ALSO INSERTED BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2006 W.E.F. 01/04/2007. THE PROVISIONS UNDER SEC. 13(7) READS AS UNDER: 'NOTHING CONTAINED IN SEC. 11 OR SEC. 12 SHALL OPERATE SO AS TO EXCLUDE FROM THE TOTAL INCOME OF T HE PREVIOUS YEAR OF THE PERSON IN RECEIPT THEREOF, ANY ANONYMOUS DONATION REFERRED TO IN SEC. 115BBC ON WHICH TAX IS PAYABLE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THAT SECTION']. 4 IN VIEW OF THE CHANGED LEGAL POSITION, I HEREBY HOLD THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PROVE THE IDENTITY AND FURNISH CONFIRMATIONS OF THE DONORS IN RESPECT OF THE DONATIONS RECEIVED DURING THE YEAR, THE ADDITION OF RS.26,13,080/ - MADE U/S. 68 OF THE ACT BY THE A.O. IS JUSTIFIED. THE ANONYMOUS DONATION SHALL BE TAXED AS PER THE PRO VISIONS OF SEC. 115BBC OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY, THE ADDITION OF RS.26,13,080/ - IS HEREBY CONFIRMED. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 4.1 FROM THE ABOVE PARAS FROM THE ORDER OF CIT(A), WE FIND THAT THE CIT(A) HAS FOLLOWED THE TRIBUNAL DECISION RENDERED IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005 - 06. HE HAS ALSO NOTED THAT THIS TRIBUNAL DECISION HAS BEEN CONFIRMED BY HON'BLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT. 5. LEARNED D.R. OF THE REVENUE COULD NOT POINT OUT ANY DIFFEREN CE IN FACTS IN THE PRESENT YEAR. CONSIDERING ALL THESE FACTS, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO TAKE A CONTRARY VIEW IN THE PRESENT YEAR. HENCE, THIS ISSUE IS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND GR OUND NO. 1 OF THE REVENUE IS REJECTED. 6. REGARDING GROUND NO. 2 ALSO, WE FIND THAT ON THIS ASPECT, THE ISSUE WAS DECIDED BY CIT(A) BY FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS ON PAGE NO. 25 & 26 OF HIS ORDER, WHICH ARE REPRODUCED BELOW FOR THE SAKE OF READY REFERENCE: I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS AND ARGUMENTS PLACED BY THE LD. A.R, AND CONTENTS OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. APPELLANT IS MAINTAINING REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT ON MERCANTILE SYSTEM, WHICH ARE DULY AUDITED AND AUDITED ACCOUNTS (INCOME &. EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT & . BALANCE SHEET) WERE FILED WITH THE RETURN OF INCOME ALONG WITH AUDIT REPORT IN FORM 10B. BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE A.O. WERE DULY ACCEPTED BY HIM. IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF HON'BLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF SARGAM CINEMA 328 ITR 513, IT IS MANDATORY ON THE PART OF THE A.O. TO FIRST 5 REJECT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT IN TERMS OF SEC. 145(3) OF THE ACT FOR A REFERENCE TO VALUATION OFFICER U/S. 142A. SIMILAR VIEW HAS BEEN TAKEN BY THE HON'BLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF LUCKNOW PUBLIC EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY 199 TAXMAN 151. THEREFORE, THE REFERENCE U/S 142A OF THE ACT MADE BY THE A.O. IS WITHOUT JURISDICTION. HENCE, NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE ON THE BASIS OF THE DVO'S REPORT. ACCORDINGLY, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED . THE A.R. HAS ADVANCED EXHAUSTIVE SUBMISSIONS ON THE MERITS OF THE ADDITION ALSO. AS REGARDS ADDITION OF RS.71,13,745/ - MADE ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENCE IN THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION ON THE BASIS OF THE VALUATION REPORT, A.R. HAS ALSO FURNISHED COMPARATIVE CH ART, SHOWING THE DISCREPANCIES IN THE VALUATION REPORT. THIS ISSUE HAS BEEN CONSIDERED IN DETAIL BY ME, WHILE DECIDING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AND DELETING THE ADDITION IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003 - 04 AND 2004 - 05. ACCORDINGLY ON MERIT ALSO, THE ADDITION OF RS.71,13,745/ - IS HEREBY DELETED. 6.1 FROM THE ABOVE PARAS FROM THE ORDER OF CIT(A), WE FIND THAT A CLEAR FINDING IS GIVEN BY THE CIT(A) THAT THE REFERENCE MADE BY ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 142A TO THE D.V.O. IS WITHOUT JURISDICTION BECAUSE THE BOOKS WERE NOT REJECTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ON MERIT ALSO, CIT(A) HAS FOLLOWED HIS OWN ORDER FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003 - 04 AND 2004 - 05 AND HAS GIVEN A FINDING THAT THERE ARE DISCREPANCIES IN THE VALUATION REPORT. LEARNED DR OF THE REVENUE COULD NOT CONTROVERT THESE FINDINGS OF LEARNED CIT (A). CONSIDERING ALL THESE FACTS , WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A). GROUND NO. 2 IS ALSO REJECTED. 7. NOW WE TAKE UP THE APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 09 I.E. I.T.A. NO.638/LKW/2013. IN THIS APPEAL , THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - II, KANPUR HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS OF THE CASE IN DIRECTING TO TAX THE ANONYMOUS DONATION U/S 115BBC OF 6 THE L.T. ACT AS AGAINST THE ADDITION OF RS.36,50,901/ - MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 68 OF T HE I.T. ACT. 1961 IN RESPECT OF WHICH, NUMBER OF DISCREPANCIES AND DEFECTS WERE BROUGHT ON RECORD BY HER DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. 2. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - II, KANPUR HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS OF THE CASE IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS,79,48,812/ - MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT U/S 69 OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS BROUGHT ON THE RECORD BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT ON REFERENCE U/S 142A, THE DISTRIC T VALUATION OFFICER HAS GIVEN HIS REPORT BY STATING NON - COOPERATION FROM THE ASSESSEE BY WAY OF NOT PROVIDING COPY OF BUILDING ACCOUNT AS WELL AS BILLS/VOUCHERS AND OTHER DOCUMENTS PERTAINING TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE BUILDING. 3. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - II , KANPUR HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS OF THE CASE IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.60,000/ - MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF RENT PAID TO SMT. NIRMALA SINGH WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND MAT ERIAL BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO THE EFFECT THAT THE PREMISES WAS NOT USED BY THE SOCIETY FOR ITS OWN ACTIVITIES, BUT IT WAS USED FOR DISTRIBUTION OF LPG CYLINDERS BY ITS SECRETARY. 4. THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (A) - II, KANPUR DATED 09.05.2013 NEEDS TO BE QUASHED AND THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER DATED 30.12.2010 BE RESTORED . 5. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO MODIFY ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL MENTIONED ABOVE AND/OR TO ADD ANY FRESH GROUNDS AS AND WHEN IT IS REQUIRED TO DO SO. 8. REGARDING GROUND NO. 1 & 2, IT WAS AGREED BY BOTH THE SIDES THAT THE FACTS AND ISSUE INVOLVED IN THESE GROUNDS ARE IDENTICAL TO THE FACTS A N D ISSUES INVOLVED IN GROUNDS NO. 1 & 2 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 08 AND THEREFORE, THE SAME CAN BE D ECIDED ON SIMILAR LINE. SINCE IN THE 7 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 08 , BOTH THESE ISSUES WERE DE CIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE , IN THE PRESENT YEAR ALSO , BOTH THESE ISSUES ARE DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. GROUND NO. 1 & 2 ARE REJECTED. 9. REGARDING GROUND NO. 3, LEARNED D.R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHEREAS LEARNED A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A). 10. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIND THAT THIS ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED BY CIT(A) ON THE BASIS T HAT IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005 - 06, THE TRIBUNAL HAS DECIDED THIS ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND IT WAS HELD BY THE TRIBUNAL THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WILL VERIFY AS TO WHETHER AFTER MAKING THE ADDITION OF RS.42,000/ - IN THAT YEAR , APPLICATION OF INCOME / RECEIPT IS UP TO 85% OF THE TOTAL RECEIPTS IN TH AT YEAR. IF THERE IS SHORTFALL , ONLY THEN LEVY OF TAX WILL BE CALLED FOR. FOR THIS VERIFICATION AND COMPUTATION, THE MATTER WAS RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE CIT(A) HAS FURTHER NOTED T HAT IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005 - 06, THE ISSUE WAS EXAMINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND NO ADDITION WAS MADE. THE CIT(A) HAS ALSO NOTED THAT IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 08 ALSO , NO SUCH ADDITION WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IN THE PRESENT YEAR ALSO, WE HOL D ON SIMILAR LINE AS WAS HELD BY THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005 - 06 AS PER PARA 24 OF THE TRIBUNAL ORDER, WHICH IS REPRODUCED BELOW FOR THE SAKE OF READY REFERENCE: 24. HOWEVER, IN RESPECT OF ADDITION OF RS.42,000/ - , WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THERE IS NO MATERIAL ON RECORD WHICH WOULD SUGGEST THAT ASSES S EE HAS KEPT ANY MATERIAL OR GOODS IN THE PREMISES OWNED BY SMT . NIRMLA SINGH, A SPECIFIED PERSON TO WHOM THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY HAS PAID RENT. IT IS UNDISPUTED, FACT THAT A GAS AGENCY, OWNED BY THE SECRET ARY OF THE SOCIETY IS BEING RUN FROM THAT PREMISES AND NO MATERIAL WAS FOUND BELONGING TO THE SO CIETY AS KEPT IN THAT PREMISES. THEREFORE, PAYMENT OF RS.42,000 / - TOWARDS RENT TO SMT . 8 NIRMLA SINGH IS GRATUITOUS AND NOT FOR ANY SERVICES. THEREFORE, DISALLOW ANCE OF THIS EXPENDITURE IS CONFIRMED. ORDER OF THE LEARNED CTT(A) TO THIS EXTENT IS REVERSED. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WILL VERIFY WHETHER AFTER MAKING ADDITION OF RS.42,000/ - APPLICATION OF INCOME/RECEIPT IS UP TO 85% OF THE TOTAL RECEIPTS IN THE Y EAR. IF THERE IS SHORTFALL ONLY THEN LEVY OF TAX WILL BE CALLED FOR. FOR THIS VERIFICATION AND COMPUTATION, WE RESTORE THIS ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 11. ACCORDINGLY, IN THE PRESENT YEAR ALSO, WE RESTORE THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN ORDER TO ENABLE HIM TO VERIFY AS TO WHETHER AFTER MAKING ADDITION OF RS.60,000/ - , APPLICATION OF INCOME/RECEIPT IS UP TO 85% OF THE TOTAL RECEIPTS IN THE YEAR AND IF THERE IS SHORTFALL , ONLY THEN LEVY OF TAX WILL BE CALLED FOR. ACCORDINGLY, GROUND NO. 3 OF THE REVENUE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 12. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 13. NOW WE TAKE UP THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10 I.E. I.T.A. NO.115/LKW/2014. IN THIS APPEAL, THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - II, KANPUR HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS I N DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.67,16,162/ - MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT U/S 69 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT ON REFERENCE U/S 142A OF THE INCO ME TAX ACT,1961, THE DISTRICT VALUATION OFFICER HAS GIVEN HIS REPORT STATING THEREIN ABOUT NON COOPERATION FROM THE ASSESSEE BY WAY OF NOT PROVIDING COPY OF BUILDING ACCOUNT AS WELL AS BILLS / VOUCHERS AND OTHER DOCUMENTS PERTAINING TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE BUILDING. 9 2. THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) - II, KANPUR DATED 29.11.2013 NEEDS TO BE QUASHED AND THE ORDER DATED 23.12.2011 PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BE RESTORED. 3. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO MODIFY ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL MENTIONED ABOVE AND/OR TO ADD ANY FRESH GROUNDS AS AND WHEN IT IS REQUIRED TO DO SO. 14. IT WAS AGREED BY BOTH THE SIDES THAT THE FACTS AND ISSUE INVOLVED IN THIS YEAR ARE IDENTICAL TO THE FACTS AND ISSUE INVOLVED IN GROUND NO. 2 RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN BOTH THE EARLIER YEARS I.E. ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 08 AND 2008 - 09. IN BOTH THESE YEARS , THIS ISSUE WAS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND HENCE, ON SIMILAR LINE , IN THE PRESENT YEAR ALSO , THIS ISSUE IS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. 15. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE STANDS DISMISSED. 16. IN THE COMBINED RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 08 AND 200 9 - 10 ARE DISMISSED AND APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 09 IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. (ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONED ON THE CAPTION PAGE) SD/. SD/. (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) ( A. K. GARODIA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 2 2 /08/2014 *C.L.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 ASSTT. REGISTRAR