GEBR Pfeiffer India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi V. Addl.CIT, Special Range-4, New Delhi

ITA 6902/DEL/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 108 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0950 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 7 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-07-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 16-11-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: APOORVA BHARDWAJ SRDR
• Keywords: Depreciation; Earning of tax free income; Rule 8D; Set aside
• Section: 143(3); 14A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH C: NEW DELHI (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING) BEFORE, SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A NO.6902/DEL/2017 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15) GEBR PFEIFFER (INDIA) PVT. LTD. F.NO.1B, 1001B, TENTH FLOOR, DISTRICT CENTRE VISHWADEEP JANAK PURI, NEW DELHI-110 058 PANAABCG 3002E VS. ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE-04, NEW DELHI-110002 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SH. MADHUR AGGARWAL, ADV. SH. ANIL MAKHIJA, ADV. RESPONDENT BY SH. APOORVA BHARDWAJ, SR-DR DATE OF HEARING 07.07.2021 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 07.07.2021 ORDER PER SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JM: THIS APPEAL IS PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST OR DER DATED 04.08.2017 PASSED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-35, NEW DELHI {CIT(A)} FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15 AND THE SOLE ISSUE BEING RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISALLOWANCE OF 2 ITA NO.6902/DEL/2017 GEBR PFEIFFER (INDIA) PVT. LTD. VS . ACIT RS.3,03,857/- U/S 14A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ( HEREIN AFTER CALLED THE ACT). 2.0 THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASS ESSEE COMPANY IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF ENGINEERING & SUPPLY OF GRINDING MACHINERY FOR CEMENT PLANTS. THE RETURN O F INCOME WAS FILED DECLARING AN INCOME OF RS.8,87,97,510/- AND T HE ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT WAS COMPLETED AT AN INCOME OF RS.8,91,01,367/- AFTER MAKING A DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 3,03,857/- U/S 14A OF THE ACT. WHILE MAKING THE DISALLOWANCE U/S 14 A OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER (AO) NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE INVESTMENTS IN MUTUAL FUNDS AT RS.3,47,28,114/- AND HAD EARNED DIVIDEND INCOME OF RS.28,53,014/- DURING THE YEAR U NDER CONSIDERATION. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT MADE ANY SUO MOTO DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A OF THE ACT IN RELATION TO EXPENDITURE PERTAINING TO EARNING TAX F REE INCOME. THE ASSESSEE WAS ISSUED A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE IN THIS REG ARD. IT WAS THE RESPONSE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE INVESTMENTS HAD B EEN MADE OUT OF INTEREST FREE FUNDS AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE COMP ANY AND FURTHER NO EXPENDITURE HAD BEEN INCURRED FOR EARNING ANY EX EMPT INCOME. 3 ITA NO.6902/DEL/2017 GEBR PFEIFFER (INDIA) PVT. LTD. VS . ACIT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS OF THE OPINION THAT THE AS SESSEES CLAIM OF NOT HAVING INCURRED ANY EXPENDITURE IN RESPECT OF M ANAGEMENT OF INVESTMENTS WAS NOT ACCEPTABLE. HE PROCEEDED TO DIS ALLOWED AN AMOUNT OF RS.3,03,857/- IN TERMS OF RULE-8D(III) OF THE INCOME TAX RULES, 1962. 2.1 THE ASSESSEES APPEAL BEFORE THE LD . CIT(A) WAS DISMISSED AND NOW THE ASSESSEE HAS APPROACHED THIS T RIBUNAL CHALLENGING THE UPHOLDING OF DISALLOWANCE BY RAISING THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 04.08.201Y RECEIVED ON 18.09.2017 IS BEING CHALLENGED ON THE FOLLOWING AMO NGST OTHER GROUND OF WHICH MAY BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION WHI LE ADJUDICATION THE SAID APPEAL. 1. THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEA LS) HAS GROSSLY ERRED BOTH ON FACTS AND LAW BEFORE PASS ING THE IMPUGNED ORDER. 2. THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEA LS) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION MADE B Y THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF RS.3,03,857/-BY INVOKING THE P ROVISIONS OF RULE 8D READ WITH SECTION 14A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT , 1961 WITH 4 ITA NO.6902/DEL/2017 GEBR PFEIFFER (INDIA) PVT. LTD. VS . ACIT RESPECT TO DIVIDEND INCOME EARNED DURING THE YEAR B Y THE APPELLANT COMPANY BY INVESTING IN MUTUAL FUND. 3. THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEA LS) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE PROVISION OF RULE 8D ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS AND CIRC UMSTANCES IN THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT AS THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT I NCURRED ANY EXPENSES FOR EARNING THE EXEMPT INCOME WHICH WAS PU RELY FROM DIVIDEND INCOME OUT OF INVESTMENT IN MUTUAL FUNDS A ND NO EXPENSES HAD BEEN INCURRED. 4. THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEA LS) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT BEFORE ANY DISALLOWANCE CAN BE MADE UNDER SECTION 14A THERE SH OULD BE NEXUS BETWEEN THE EXPENSES DEBITED AND THE EXEMPTED INCOME AND NO ADHOC DISALLOWANCE OF ANY EXPENSE WITHOUT NE XUS IS ALLOWED OR PERMISSIBLE AS PER SCHEME UNDER THE INDI AN INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 5. THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE INVESTMENTS IN MUTUAL FUNDS ARE MADE BY THE APPELLA TE ON THE BASIS OF SERVICES GIVEN BY DEUTCHE BANK (INVESTMENT ADVISORS) [FOR WHICH THERE IS NO CHARGE TO APPELLANT COMPANY] AND THE BANK RECEIVE A COMMISSION ON SALE OF MUTUAL FUND FR OM THE MUTUAL FUND COMPANY AND NOT FROM APPELLANT COMPANY. 5 ITA NO.6902/DEL/2017 GEBR PFEIFFER (INDIA) PVT. LTD. VS . ACIT 6. THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN READING AND INTERPRETING THE P ROVISIONS OF SECTION 14A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 TO THE EXTE NT THAT THE RECORDINGS OF SATISFACTION IS AN ESSENCE WITH RESPE CT TO CORRECTNESS OF THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AND SUCH R ECORDING OF SATISFACTION IS MISSING IN THE CASE OF THE APPELLAN T COMPANY NOR ANY STEPS WERE TAKEN DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDI NGS BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER THE PROVISIONS OF SEC TION 14A READ WITH RULE 8D OF THE INCOME TAX RULES, 1962 COU LD NOT HAVE BEEN INVOKED. 7. THAT THE APPELLANT SEEKS TO ALTER, MODIFY A ND ADD ANY OF THE GROUND AS THE CASE MAY BE. 3.0 THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE (AR ) SUBMITTED THAT IDENTICAL ISSUE HAS ARISEN IN ASSESSES OWN CASE IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 ALSO AND THE TRIBUNAL HAD ALLOWED THE ASSES SEES APPEAL ON THE ISSUE AND HAD DELETED THE DISALLOWANCE FOR THE R EASON THAT WHEN NO ACTUAL EXPENDITURE HAD BEEN INCURRED BY THE ASSE SSEE ON ACCOUNT OF ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES TO EARN INTEREST FREE DIVIDEND INCOME, NO DISALLOWANCE COULD HAVE BEEN MADE U/S 14A READ WITH RULE 8D. A COPY OF THE SAID ORDER WAS PLACED ON REC ORD. 6 ITA NO.6902/DEL/2017 GEBR PFEIFFER (INDIA) PVT. LTD. VS . ACIT 4.0 PER CONTRA, THE LD. SR. DEPARTMENTAL RE PRESENTATIVE (DR) PLACED RELIANCE ON THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITI ES. 5.0 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND HAVE A LSO PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. WE HAVE GONE THROUG H THE FINDINGS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THIS REGARD AND IT IS S EEN THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ONLY OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESS EES CLAIM THAT IT HAD NOT INCURRED ANY EXPENSES IN RESPECT OF MANAGEM ENT OF INVESTMENT AFFAIRS WAS NOT ACCEPTABLE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALSO OBSERVED THAT THE EARNING OF EXEMPT INCOME IS NOT IN NATURE OF PASSIVE ACTIVITY HAVING NO INPUT. THE RELEVANT OBSE RVATION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER ARE CONTAINED IN PARAGRAPH-5 OF T HE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHICH ARE REPRODUCED HEREIN UNDER: 5. THE SUBMISSIONS ADVANCED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAVE BEEN DULY CONSIDERED. THE ASSESSEES CLAIM THA T IT HAS NOT INCURRED ANY EXPENSES IN RESPECT OF MANAGEMENT OF I NVESTMENT AFFAIRS IS NOT ACCEPTABLE. THE EARNING OF EXEMPT IN COME IS NOT IN THE NATURE OF PASSIVE ACTIVITY HAVING NO INPUT. IN FACT, IN PRESENT SITUATION MAKING OF INVESTMENT, MAINTAINING OR CONT INUING INVESTMENT AND TIME OF EXIT FROM INVESTMENT ARE WEL L INFORMED AND WELL COORDINATED MANAGEMENT DECISIONS INVOLVING NOT ONLY INPUTS FROM VARIOUS SOURCES BUT ALSO ACUMEN OF SENI OR 7 ITA NO.6902/DEL/2017 GEBR PFEIFFER (INDIA) PVT. LTD. VS . ACIT MANAGEMENT FUNCTIONARIES. THEREFORE, COST IS INBUIL T INTO EVEN SO CALLED PASSIVE INVESTMENT. THERE ARE INCIDENTAL E XPENDITURE OF COLLECTION, TELEPHONE, FOLLOW UP ETC. IN ADDITION T O APPLICATION OF MIND, TIME AND ENERGY BY THE MANAGEMENT & CONCERNED PERSONS. SINCE IN THE PRESENT CASE, OUT OF TOTAL FU NDS AVAILABLE/ RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE, A SUBSTANTIAL PORTION OF IT AMOUNTING TO RS.3,47,28,114/- HAS BEEN INVESTED IN SHARES AND MU TUAL FUNDS, THEREFORE, IT CAN BE HELD THAT EXPENDITURE I N RELATION TO EARNING OF EXEMPT DIVIDEND INCOME ARE EMBEDDED IN I NDIRECT EXPENSES. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE HAS INCURRED HUGE P ERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES FOR MAINTENANCE OF BOOK S AND DAY TO DAY LOOK AFTER WORK REGARDING HUGE INVESTMENTS I N SHARES AND MUTUAL FUNDS. THUS, THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE T HAT NO EXPENSE HAS BEEN INCURRED IN CONNECTION TO EARN TAX FREE INCOME DOES NOT HAVE ANY SUBSTANCE. 5.1 IT WAS THE ASSESSEES SUBMISSION BEFORE THE ASS ESSING OFFICER THAT THE EXEMPT INCOME WAS ONLY IN THE FORM OF DIVIDEND FROM MUTUAL FUNDS AND FURTHER THAT THERE WAS NO BUY ING AND SELLING OF SUCH FUNDS FREQUENTLY OR ON REGULAR BASIS AND IT WAS ONLY ON MATURITY OF OLD FUNDS THAT NEW INVESTMENTS WERE MAD E. IT WAS ALSO THE ASSESSEES SUBMISSION BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFI CER THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAD MADE INVESTMENTS IN MUTUAL FUN DS ON THE 8 ITA NO.6902/DEL/2017 GEBR PFEIFFER (INDIA) PVT. LTD. VS . ACIT BASIS OF ADVISORY SERVICES GIVEN BY THE DEUTCHE BAN K INVESTMENT ADVISORS WHICH WAS OFFERED FREE OF COST TO ALL INSTIT UTIONAL BUYERS SINCE THEY RECEIVED A COMMISSION ON THE SALE OF MUT UAL FUNDS FROM THE MUTUAL FUND COMPANY. HOWEVER, AS REPRODUCED HER EIN ABOVE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER REJECTED THE SUBMISSION OF TH E ASSESSEE. 5.2 WE NOTE THAT AN IDENTICAL ISSUE HAD A RISEN BEFORE THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH IN THE CASE OF SH. VINAY BHASIN V S. JT. CIT IN ITA NO.5608/DEL/2015 VIDE ORDER DATED 15.11.2018 AND PE RTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 WHEREIN THE CO-ORDINATE BEN CH HAD DELETED THE DISALLOWANCE MADE U/S 14A BY OBSERVING A S UNDER: 8. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE FINDINGS OF THE LE ARNED ASSESSING OFFICER ON THIS ASPECT. LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER RECORDED THAT THE ASSESSEE MADE HEAVY INVESTMENTS F OR EARNING OF EXEMPT INCOME AND BEING A BUSY PROFESSIONAL, HE REQUIRES THE MANAGEMENT OF SUCH A PORTFOLIO BY INCURRING EXPENSE S, DIVERSION OF MANPOWER/STAFF FOR INDULGING IN INVESTMENT ACTIV ITIES TO VARIOUS ACTIVITIES LIKE VISITING BANKS, USE OF VEHI CLE AND TELEPHONE, USE OF INTERNET IF PORTFOLIO MANAGEMENT IS WEB-BASED, COST OF COMPUTER AND ITS DEPRECIATION, COMPUTER OPE RATOR, CONSEQUENT ELECTRICITY, USE OF OFFICE PREMISES, FEE CHARGED BY MUTUAL FUND AGENTS/BANKERS (ANNUAL FEE), PORTFOLIO RECORD 9 ITA NO.6902/DEL/2017 GEBR PFEIFFER (INDIA) PVT. LTD. VS . ACIT MAINTENANCE AND ITS TRACKING TO ENSURE TIMELY SALE/ PURCHASE OF MUTUAL FUND UNITS ETC. EXCEPT MAKING THIS STATEMENT AND READING ALL THE POSSIBLE EXPENSES THAT INVOLVE IN I NVESTMENT PROCESS, LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT SPECIFIC AS TO WHAT EXACTLY THE PROBABLE EXPENDITURE IN THIS MATTER THE ASSESSEE COULD HAVE INCURRED. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE THE INVESTMENT WAS MADE IN MUTUAL FUNDS AND THE EXPENSES WERE ALRE ADY DIRECTED BY THE OPERATORS AND A CERTIFICATE TO THAT EXTENT WAS SUBMITTED BEFORE THE LEARNER ASSESSING OFFICER. FUR THER, THE INSTRUCTIONS ARE THAT THE DIVIDEND INCOME WILL BE D IRECTLY CREDITED TO THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE SO THA T NO PROBABLE EXPENDITURE AT THE END OF THE ASSESSEE FOR DEPOSIT OF THE DIVIDEND IN BANK COULD HAVE OCCURRED. HAVING REGARD TO THIS SET OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES INVOLVED IN THIS MATTER, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT INSTEAD OF MAKING A SWEEPIN G ENUMERATION OF THE PROBABLE EXPENSES INVOLVED IN IN VESTMENT PROCESS, LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER COULD HAVE TAKEN LEGAL EXERCISE TO VERIFY THE CORRECTNESS OR OTHERWISE OF THE CERTIFICATE THAT WAS ISSUED BY THE ASSET MANAGEMENT COMPANIES O R THE CITIBANK IN THIS RESPECT. WE, THEREFORE, FIND THAT THERE IS NO PROPER RECORD OF SATISFACTION AS TO THE EXPENSES IN CURRED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR EARNING THE EXEMPT INCOME. BY FOLLOWIN G THE DECISION REPORTED IN CIT VERSUS TAIKISHA ENGINEERIN G INDIA LTD 275 CTR (DEL.) 316 AND JOINT INVESTMENTS (P) LTD VE RSUS CIT 372 ITR 694 (DEL), WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE AO AT THE FIRST 10 ITA NO.6902/DEL/2017 GEBR PFEIFFER (INDIA) PVT. LTD. VS . ACIT INSTANCE SHOULD HAVE EXAMINED THE CORRECTNESS OF TH E STATEMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE THAT NO EXPENSES WERE INCURRED FOR EARNING THE EXEMPT INCOME DURING THE YEAR AND IF AN D ONLY IF THE LEARNED AO IS NOT SATISFIED ON THIS ACCOUNT AFTER M AKING REFERENCE TO THE ACCOUNTS, HE IS ENTITLED TO ADOPT THE METHOD UNDER RULE 8D OF THE RULES. WE, THEREFORE, WHILE AL LOWING THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE DIRECT THE LEARNED ASSESSING O FFICER TO DELETE THE ADDITION MADE ON THIS SCORE ALSO. 5.3 SIMILARLY, WE ALSO NOTE THAT IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 IN ITA NO.4909/DEL/2015 VID E ORDER DATED 27.04.2018 DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A OF THE ACT HAD BEEN DELETED. THE RELEVANT OBSERVATION OF THE CO-ORDINAT E BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IS AS UNDER: 8. IT IS SETTLED PRINCIPLE OF LAW THAT WHEN NO ACTUAL EXPENSES HAVE BEEN INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE ON ACCO UNT OF ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES TO EARN THE INTEREST FREE D IVIDEND INCOME, NO DISALLOWANCE CAN BE MADE U/S 14A READ WI TH RULE 8D. RELIANCE IN THIS REGARD MAY BE PLACED ON THE DE CISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN CASE OF GODREJ & BOYCE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LTD. VS. DCIT 394 ITR 449 ( SC) AND THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT OBSERVED AS UNDER: 11 ITA NO.6902/DEL/2017 GEBR PFEIFFER (INDIA) PVT. LTD. VS . ACIT 37. WE DO NOT SEE HOW IN THE AFORESAID FACT SITUAT ION A DIFFERENT VIEW COULD HAVE BEEN TAKEN FOR THE ASSESS MENT YEAR 2002-2003. SUB-SECTIONS (2) AND (3) OF SECTION 14A OF THE ACT READ WITH RULE 8D OF THE RULES MERELY PRESC RIBE A FORMULA FOR DETERMINATION OF EXPENDITURE INCURRED I N RELATION TO INCOME WHICH DOES NOT FORM PART OF THE TOTAL INCOME UNDER THE ACT IN A SITUATION WHERE THE ASSES SING OFFICER IS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE CLAIM OF THE ASSE SSEE. WHETHER SUCH DETERMINATION IS TO BE MADE ON APPLICA TION OF THE FORMULA PRESCRIBED UNDER RULE 8D OR IN THE B EST JUDGMENT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WHAT THE LAW POS TULATES IS THE REQUIREMENT OF A SATISFACTION IN THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER THAT HAVING REGARD TO THE ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE, AS PLACED BEFORE HIM, IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO GENERATE T HE REQUISITE SATISFACTION WITH REGARD TO THE CORRECTNE SS OF THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. IT IS ONLY THEREAFTER THAT T HE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 14A(2) AND (3) READ WITH RULE 8D OF THE RULES OR A BEST JUDGMENT DETERMINATION, AS EARL IER PREVAILING, WOULD BECOME APPLICABLE. SO, FINDING NO ILLEGALITY OR PERVERSITY IN THE FIND INGS RETURNED BY THE LD. CIT(A), GROUND NO.1 RAISED BY THE REVENUE I S HEREBY DISMISSED . 5.4 THUS, ON THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, I T IS OUR CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER COULD NOT HAVE M ADE THE 12 ITA NO.6902/DEL/2017 GEBR PFEIFFER (INDIA) PVT. LTD. VS . ACIT IMPUGNED DISALLOWANCE WHEN IT WAS THE ASSESSEES CLAI M THAT NO EXPENDITURE HAD BEEN INCURRED IN RELATION TO EARNIN G OF EXEMPT INCOME SPECIALLY BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE HAD DULY EXPL AINED THAT NO EXPENDITURE WAS INCURRED IN MANAGING INVESTMENTS IN THE MUTUAL FUNDS WHICH WAS BASED ON FREE ADVICE GIVEN BY DEUTCHE BANK INVESTMENT ADVISOR. ACCORDINGLY, WE SET ASIDE THE OR DER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DELETE T HE IMPUGNED DISALLOWANCE. 6.0 IN THE FINAL RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSE E STANDS ALLOWED. ABOVE DECISION WAS ANNOUNCED ON CONCLUSION O F VIRTUAL HEARING ON 7 TH JULY, 2021 SD/- SD/- (ANIL CHATURVEDI) (SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED:07/07/2021 PK/PS COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT DEHRADUN