DCIT, New Delhi V. M/s. Escort Heart Institute & Research Centre Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 6674/DEL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3521 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 4 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-04-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 17-04-2017
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 18-12-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Capital asset; Depreciation; Charitable institution; Rule of consistency
• Section: 11

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES : D : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.6674/DEL/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09 DCIT, CIRCLE-11(1), NEW DELHI. VS. ESCORT HEART INSTITUTE & RESEARCH CENTRE LTD., OKHLA ROAD, NEW DELHI. PAN: AAACE8731F ASSESSEE BY : SHRI R.M. MEHTA, ADVOCATE DEPTT. BY : SHRI U.C. DUBEY, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 17.04.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 18.04.2017 ORDER PER R.S. SYAL, VP: THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE ARISES OUT OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A) ON 03.09.2013 IN RELATION TO THE ASSE SSMENT YEAR 2008-09. ITA NO.6674/DEL/2013 2 2. THE FIRST GROUND IS AGAINST THE DELETION OF DISA LLOWANCE OF RS.3,07,63,223/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON A CCOUNT OF INTEREST. 3. BRIEFLY STATED, THE FACTS OF THIS GROUND ARE THA T THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED DEDUCTION OF INTEREST AMOUNTING TO RS.7,08,87,603/-. ON PERUSAL OF THE DETAILS, IT WAS OBSERVED BY THE AO THAT A SUM OF RS.24,19,00,304/- WAS ADVANCED BY THE ASSESSEE TO ITS SUBSIDIARIES AS INTEREST FREE LOAN. APART FROM THAT, A SUM OF RS.2,84,59,890/- WAS ALSO GIVEN AS S HARE APPLICATION MONEY TO SUBSIDIARIES. ON BEING CALLED UPON TO EXPLAIN AS TO WHY THE DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST SHOU LD NOT BE MADE FOR GIVING SUCH AMOUNTS AS LOAN TO SUBSIDIARY COMPANIES WITHOUT INTEREST, THE ASSESSEE TENDERED AN EXPLANAT ION, WHOSE RELEVANT PART HAVE BEEN EXTRACTED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. NOT CONVINCED WITH THE SAME, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE PRO RATA DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST AMOUNTING TO RS.3,07,63,22 3/-. THE LD. ITA NO.6674/DEL/2013 3 CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION, AGAINST WHICH THE REVE NUE HAS COME UP IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 4. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES AND PERUSED THE REL EVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. THERE IS NO DISPUTE ON THE FAC T THAT A SUM OF RS.2.84 CRORE WAS GIVEN AS SHARE APPLICATION MON EY. THIS AMOUNT WAS GIVEN IN AN EARLIER YEAR AND FOR THIS YE AR, IT WAS AN OPENING BROUGHT FORWARD BALANCE. IT IS A MATTER OF RECORD THAT NO DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST HAS BEEN MADE IN ANY OF THE EARLIER YEARS ON SUCH MONEY GIVEN TO SUBSIDIARY COMPANIES. ONCE IT HAS BEEN ACCEPTED IN THE EARLIER YEARS THAT THIS MO NEY WAS NOT GIVEN OUT OF ANY INTEREST FREE FUNDS, A NEW CASE CANNOT BE SET UP IN THE INSTANT YEAR, AS IT WOULD IMPLIEDLY REVER SE THE SETTLED POSITION IN EARLIER YEARS IN THIS REGARD. GOING BY THE RULE OF CONSISTENCY, WE HOLD THAT NO DISALLOWANCE IS WARRAN TED TO THIS EXTENT. AS REGARDS THE MAJOR AMOUNT OF INTEREST FR EE LOAN OF RS.24.19 CRORE, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE OBTAINED FRESH LOAN AMOUNTING TO RS.32.78 CRORE DURING THE YEAR WHICH W AS ITA NO.6674/DEL/2013 4 UTILISED FOR SPECIFIC BUSINESS PURPOSE, NAMELY, ACQ UISITION OF FIXED ASSETS. AS AGAINST THE INTEREST FREE LOANS A MOUNTING TO RS.24.19 CRORE GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE TO ITS SUBSIDI ARY COMPANIES WITHOUT CHARGING ANY INTEREST, THE ASSESS EE HAD ITS OWN SHARE CAPITAL WITH RESERVES STANDING AT A WHOPP ING SUM OF RS.188.89 CRORE. SECTION 36(1)(III) PROVIDES FOR D EDUCTION OF INTEREST OF THE AMOUNT OF INTEREST PAID IN RESPECT OF CAPITAL BORROWED FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS OR PROFESSION. THE ESSENCE OF THIS PROVISION IS THAT THE INTEREST SHOU LD BE ALLOWED SO LONG AS THE CAPITAL BORROWED, ON WHICH SUCH INTE REST IS PAID, IS USED FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS OR PROFESSION. IF, HOWEVER, AN ASSESSEE IS HAVING ITS OWN INTEREST FREE SURPLUS FUNDS AND SUCH FUNDS ARE UTILISED AS INTEREST FREE ADVANCES E VEN FOR A NON-BUSINESS PURPOSE, THERE CANNOT BE ANY DISALLOWA NCE OF INTEREST PAID ON INTEREST BEARING LOANS. THE HON'B LE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN CIT VS. RELIANCE UTILITIES AND POWER LTD. (2001) 313 ITR 340 (BOM), HAS HELD THAT WHERE AN ASSESSEE POSSESSED SUFFICIENT INTEREST FREE FUNDS OF ITS OWN WHICH WER E GENERATED ITA NO.6674/DEL/2013 5 IN THE COURSE OF RELEVANT FINANCIAL YEAR, APART FRO M SUBSTANTIAL SHAREHOLDERS FUNDS, PRESUMPTION STANDS ESTABLISHED THAT THE INVESTMENTS IN SISTER CONCERNS WERE MADE BY THE ASS ESSEE OUT OF INTEREST FREE FUNDS AND, THEREFORE, NO PART OF I NTEREST ON BORROWINGS CAN BE DISALLOWED ON THE BASIS THAT THE INVESTMENTS WERE MADE OUT OF INTEREST BEARING FUNDS. IN THAT CA SE, THE AO RECORDED A FINDING THAT A SUM OF RS.213 CRORE WAS I NVESTED BY THE ASSESSEE OUT OF ITS OWN FUNDS AND RS.1.74 CRORE OUT OF BORROWED FUNDS. ACCORDINGLY, DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST WAS MADE TO T HE TUNE OF RS.2.40 CRORE. IT WAS ARGUED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE THAT NO PART OF INTEREST BEARING FUNDS HAD GONE INTO INVESTMENT IN THOSE TWO COMPANIES IN RESPECT OF WHICH THE AO MADE DISALLOWANCE OF INTERE ST. IT WAS ALSO ARGUED THAT INCOME FROM OPERATIONS OF THE COMPANY W AS RS.418.04 CRORE AND THE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO RAISED CAPITAL OF RS.7.90 CRORE, APART FROM RECEIVING INTEREST FREE DEPOSIT OF RS.10.03 CRORE. IT WAS, THEREFORE, SUBMITTED BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY THAT THE BALANCE-SHEET OF THE ASSESSEE ADEQUATELY DEPICTED THAT THERE WERE EN OUGH INTEREST FREE FUNDS AT ITS DISPOSAL FOR MAKING INVESTMENT. THE LD . CIT(A) GOT ITA NO.6674/DEL/2013 6 CONVINCED WITH THE ASSESSEES SUBMISSIONS AND DELET ED THE ADDITION. BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, IT WAS CONTENDED ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE THAT THE SHAREHOLDERS FUNDS WERE UTILIZED FOR THE PURCHASE OF ITS ASSETS AND HENCE THE ASSESSEE WAS LEFT WITH NO RESERVE OR OWN FUNDS FOR MAKING INVESTMENT IN THE SISTER CONCERN. THUS, IT WAS ARGU ED THAT THE BORROWED FUNDS HAD BEEN UTILIZED FOR THE PURPOSE OF MAKING I NVESTMENT IN THE SISTER CONCERN AND THE DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST WAS RIGHTLY CALLED FOR. THE TRIBUNAL, ON APPRECIATION OF FACTS, RECORDED A FINDING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SUFFICIENT FUNDS OF ITS OWN FOR MAKING INVESTMENT WITHOUT USING THE INTEREST BEARING FUNDS. ACCORDINGLY, THE ORDER OF CIT(A) WAS UPHELD. WHEN THE MATTER CAME UP BEFORE THE HONBLE HIGH COURT, IT WAS CONTENDED BY THE DEPARTMENT THAT THE SHAREHOLDERS FUNDS STOOD UTILIZED IN THE PURCHASE OF FIXED ASSETS AND HENCE COULD NOT BE CONSTRUED AS AVAILABLE FOR INVESTMENT IN SISTER CONCERN. REPELL ING THIS CONTENTION, THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OBSERVED THAT : IN OUR OPINION, THE VERY BASIS ON WHICH THE REVENUE HAD SOUGHT TO CONTEND OR ARGUE TH EIR CASE THAT THE SHAREHOLDERS FUND TO THE TUNE OF OVER RS.172 CRORE WAS UTILIZED FOR THE PURPOSE OF FIXED ASSETS IN TERMS OF THE BALANCE-SHE ET AS ON MARCH 31, ITA NO.6674/DEL/2013 7 1999, IS FALLACIOUS . IN UPHOLDING THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL, THE HON BLE HIGH COURT HELD THAT : IF THERE BE INTEREST FREE FUNDS AVAILABLE TO AN ASSESSEE SUFFICIENT TO MEET ITS INVESTMENT AND AT T HE SAME TIME THE ASSESSEE HAD RAISED A LOAN, IT CAN BE PRESUMED THAT THE INVESTMENTS WERE FROM THE INTEREST FREE FUNDS AVAILABLE . THEREAFTER, THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF EAST INDIA PHARMACEUTICAL WORKS LTD. VS. CIT (1997) 224 ITR 627 (SC) AND ALSO THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN WOOLCOMBERS OF INDIA LTD. VS. CIT (1981) 134 ITR 219 (CAL) WERE CONSIDERED. IT WAS FINALLY CONCLUDED THAT : THE PRINCIPLE, THEREFORE, WOULD BE THAT IF THERE AR E FUNDS AVAILABLE BOTH INTEREST FREE AND OVERDRAFT AND/OR L OANS TAKEN, THEN A PRESUMPTION WOULD ARISE THAT THE INVESTMENTS WOULD BE OUT OF INTEREST FREE FUNDS GENERATED OR AVAILABLE WITH THE COMPANY, IF THE INTEREST FREE FUNDS WERE SUFFICIENT TO MEET THE INVESTMENT . CONSEQUENTLY THE INTEREST WAS HELD TO BE DEDUCTIBLE IN FULL. FROM THE ABOVE J UDGMENT, IT IS MANIFEST THAT THERE CAN BE NO PRESUMPTION THAT THE SHAREHOLDERS FUND OF A COMPANY WAS UTILIZED FOR THE PURCHASE OF FIXED AS SETS. IF THE ASSESSEE HAS INTEREST FREE FUNDS AS WELL AS INTEREST BEARING FUNDS AT ITS DISPOSAL, ITA NO.6674/DEL/2013 8 THEN THE PRESUMPTION WOULD BE THAT INVESTMENTS WERE MADE FROM INTEREST FREE FUNDS AT THE DISPOSAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 5. SIMILAR VIEW HAS BEEN TAKEN BY THE HON'BLE JURIS DICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN CIT VS. TIN BOX COMPANY (2003) 260 ITR 637 (DEL), HOLDING THAT WHEN THE CAPITAL AND INTEREST FREE UNSECURED L OAN WITH THE ASSESSEE FAR EXCEEDED THE INTEREST FREE LOAN ADVANCED TO THE SISTER CONCERN, DISALLOWANCE OF PART OF INTEREST OUT OF TOTAL INTER EST PAID BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE BANK WAS NOT JUSTIFIED. 6. ADVERTING TO THE FACTS OF THE INSTANT CASE, WE F IND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ITS OWN SHARE CAPITAL AND RESERVES AMOUNTING TO RS.188.89 CRORE. AS AGAINST THAT, ONLY SUM OF RS.24.19 CRORE WAS GIVEN AS INTEREST FREE LOAN TO SUBSIDIARY COMPANIES. THE AMOUNT OF SHARE CAPIT AL AND RESERVES IS MANY TIMES HIGHER THAN THE AMOUNT OF INTEREST FREE LOAN GIVEN TO SUBSIDIARY COMPANIES. GUIDED BY THE RATIO LAID DOW N BY THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN TIN BOX COMPANY AND THAT OF THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN RELIANCE UTILITIES AND POWER LTD ., WE HOLD THAT THE LD. CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THIS DISALLOWANCE. ITA NO.6674/DEL/2013 9 7. RELIANCE OF THE LD. DR ON THE DECISION OF THE DELHI TRIBUNAL IN ACIT VS. SAMRAT RICE MILLS (P) LTD. (2012) 23 TAXMANN.CO M 350 (DEHI) IS NOT RELEVANT IN VIEW OF THE FACT THE ADDITION HAS BEEN INSTANTLY DELETED BECAUSE OF THE AVAILABILITY OF SURPLUS INTEREST FRE E FUNDS AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE AND NOT ON ACCOUNT OF THE USER OF FUND S FOR BUSINESS OR NON- BUSINESS PURPOSE. 8. THE ONLY OTHER GROUND RAISED IN THIS APPEAL IS A GAINST THE DELETION OF DISALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION AMOUNTING TO RS.1,0 0,30,472/- ON ASSETS WHICH WERE RECEIVED WITHOUT ANY CONSIDERATION. THE FACTS APROPOS THIS GROUND ARE THAT A SOCIETY IN THE NAME OF ESCORTS HE ART INSTITUTE AND RESEARCH CENTRE WAS FORMED AT DELHI ON 21.10.1981. ANOTHER SOCIETY WITH THE SAME NAME WAS FORMED AT CHANDIGARH ON 11.1 1.1999. WHEREAS THE DELHI SOCIETY HAD CHARITABLE OBJECTS AND ITS IN COME WAS EXEMPT U/S 10(21), THE CHANDIGARH SOCIETY DID NOT HAVE THE OBJ ECT OF RELIEF TO THE POOR. BOTH THE SOCIETIES MERGED ON 01.04.2000. ON 30.05.2000 CHANDIGARH SOCIETY WAS REGISTERED AS A COMPANY, NA MELY, ESCORTS HEART INSTITUTE AND RESEARCH CENTRE LTD. UPON SUCH CONVE RSION, THE ASSETS OF ITA NO.6674/DEL/2013 10 THE ERSTWHILE CHANDIGARH AND DELHI SOCIETIES CAME T O BE CONSIDERED AS THE ASSETS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. THE ASSESSEE C LAIMED DEPRECIATION, INTER ALIA, ON THE ASSETS ACQUIRED FROM DELHI SOCIETY. THE ASS ESSING OFFICER OPINED THAT SINCE FULL DEDUCTION OF THE COS T OF THESE ASSETS WAS ALLOWED AS APPLICATION OF INCOME U/S 11 OF THE ACT, THE WRITTEN DOWN VALUE OF THIS ASSET IN THE HANDS OF THE SOCIETY WAS ONLY A NOTIONAL BOOK VALUE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER CANVASSED A VIEW THAT BY TAKING OVER OF THE ASSETS AND LIABILITIES OF THE SOCIETY ON THE BO OK VALUE OF THESE ASSETS, AN ARTIFICIAL ENHANCED VALUE OF THESE ASSETS WAS SH OWN BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY ON WHICH THE DEPRECIATION COULD NOT BE ALLO WED. THE LD. CIT(A) OVERTURNED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ON THIS POIN T. THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL ON THIS ISSUE. 9. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE VIEW POINT OF THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER IS THAT THE ACTUAL WRITTEN DOWN VALUE OF THE ASSETS IN THE HAND S OF THE SOCIETY WAS NOT THE BOOK VALUE ASSIGNED TO IT. THE BOOK VALUE WAS ONLY A NOTIONAL OR ARTIFICIAL VALUE AND THE REAL COST WAS ACTUALLY NIL BECAUSE THE COST OF ITA NO.6674/DEL/2013 11 THOSE ASSETS HAD BEEN ALLOWED AS DEDUCTION TO THE S OCIETY AS APPLICATION OF INCOME U/S 11 OF THE ACT. THUS, THE SHORT CONTR OVERSY BEFORE US IS TO DECIDE IF DEPRECIATION CAN BE ALLOWED ON ASSETS FOR WHICH DEDUCTION HAS BEEN ALLOWED AS APPLICATION OF INCOME U/S 11. 10. AT THIS STAGE, IT IS RELEVANT TO NOTE THAT S UB-SECTION (6) HAS BEEN INSERTED TO SECTION 11 BY THE FINANCE (NO.2) ACT, 2 014 W.E.F. 01.04.2015 WHICH READS AS UNDER:- `IN THIS SECTION WHERE ANY INCOME IS REQUIRED TO BE APPLIED OR ACCUMULATED OR SET APART FOR APPLICATION, THEN, FOR SUCH PURPOSES THE INCOME SHALL BE DETERMINED WITHOUT ANY DEDUCTION OR ALLOWANCE BY WAY OF DEPRECIATION OR OTHERWISE IN RESPECT OF ANY ASSE T, ACQUISITION OF WHICH HAS BEEN CLAIMED AS AN APPLICATION OF INCOME UNDER THIS SECTION IN THE SAME OR ANY OTHER PREVIOUS YEAR. 11. A BARE PERUSAL OF THE ABOVE PROVISION INDICATES THAT WHERE ANY INCOME HAS BEEN APPLIED FOR THE PURCHASE OF ASSETS ON WHICH EXEMPTION HAS BEEN GRANTED, THEN, NO SEPARATE CLAIM BY WAY OF DEPRECIATION IN RESPECT OF SUCH ASSETS CAN BE ALLOWED IN THE SAME O R ANY OTHER YEAR. IN FACT, THIS IS THE VIEW POINT CANVASSED BY THE ASSES SING OFFICER IN DISALLOWING THE CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION. HOWEVER, IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE ITA NO.6674/DEL/2013 12 THAT SUB-SECTION (6) HAS BEEN INSERTED TO SECTION 1 1 W.E.F. 01.04.2015. THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN DIT (E) VS. INDRAPRASTHA CANCER SOCIETY (2015) 53 TAXMANN.COM 463 (DEL), HAS HELD THAT INSERTION OF SUB- SECTION (6) TO SECTION 11 IS PROSPECTIVE AND, HENCE , NO DISALLOWANCE ON ACCOUNT OF DEPRECIATION CAN BE MADE IN YEARS PRIOR TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2015-16. 12. IT IS NOTICED THAT THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH C OURT IN AN EARLIER CASE IN DIT (EXEMPTION) VS. CHARANJIV CHARITABLE TRUST (201 4) 267 CTR 305 (DEL) VIDE ITS JUDGMENT DATED 18TH MARCH, 2014 HAS HELD T HAT DEPRECIATION IS NOT ALLOWABLE IN RESPECT OF ASSETS, COST OF WHICH WAS EARLIER ALLOWED AS DEDUCTION AS APPLICATION OF INCO ME OF TRUST. HOWEVER, THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT VIDE ITS LATER JUDGMEN T DATED 18TH NOVEMBER, 2014 IN INDRAPRASTHA CANCER SOCIETY (SUPRA) HAS HELD THAT CAPITAL ASSETS PURCHASED BY CHARITABLE INSTITUTION AND TREATED AMOUNT SPENT ON PURCHASE OF CAPITAL ASSET AS APPLICATION O F INCOME, WERE ENTITLED TO CLAIM DEPRECIATION ON SAME CAPITAL ASSET UTILISE D FOR BUSINESS. THUS, THE JUDGMENT IN INDRAPRASTHA CANCER SOCIETY (SUPRA) , BEING LATEST IN THE ITA NO.6674/DEL/2013 13 POINT OF TIME AND ALSO CONSIDERING AMENDMENT TO SEC TION 11(6), HAS MORE BINDING FORCE. AS THE ASSESSMENT YEAR BEFORE U S IS 2008-09, THE RATIO OF THE DECISION IN THE INDRAPRASTHA CANCER SOCIETY (SUPRA) WOULD APPLY ENABLING THE ASSESSEE TO CLAIM DEPRECIATION O N SUCH ASSETS. 13. IT HAS ALSO BEEN BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE THAT THOUGH THE ASSETS WERE ACQUIRED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IN AN EARLIER YEAR , BUT, THE DISALLOWANCE ON ACCOUNT OF DEPRECIATION WAS NEVER M ADE IN THE PAST. IT WAS ALSO STATED THAT THE ASSESSMENTS FOR THE ASSESS MENT YEARS 2004-05 TO 2007-08 WERE REOPENED BUT THE LD. CIT(A) QUASHED TH E REOPENING. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE QUASHING OF REASSESSMENT BY THE LD. CIT(A) HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE REVENUE AND NO FURTHER APP EAL WAS FILED TO THE TRIBUNAL. THIS CONTENTION HAS NOT BEEN CONTROVERTE D BY THE LD. DR. THIS SHOWS THAT SUCH DEPRECIATION HAS BEEN ALLOWED TO TH E ASSESSEE IN ALL EARLIER YEARS. 14. THE LD. DR RELIED ON CERTAIN ORDERS OF THE CHENNAI AND COCHIN TRIBUNAL TO BUTTRESS HIS POINT OF VIEW OF NOT ALLOW ING DEPRECIATION ON ASSETS WHOSE COST WAS ALLOWED U/S 11. THESE DECISI ONS WILL NOT SUPPORT ITA NO.6674/DEL/2013 14 THE CASE OF THE REVENUE IN VIEW OF THE DIRECT JUDGM ENT OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT ON THE POINT, GRANTING DE PRECIATION IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES. IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING DISCUSSION , WE ARE SATISFIED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE DISALL OWANCE. 15. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE STANDS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 18.04.2017. SD/- SD/- [SUCHITRA KAMBLE] [R.S. SYAL] JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT DATED, 18 TH APRIL, 2017. DK COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT AR, ITAT, NEW DELHI.