ACIT, Circle- 31(1), New Delhi V. IFFCO Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 7367/DEL/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 109 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7879 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-01-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 08-12-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Double taxation relief; Opportunity of being heard; Earning of tax free income; Permanent establishment; Assessment record; Rule 8D
• Section: 143(3); 14A; 90

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: C NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER [THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING] ITA NO.7367/DEL./2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 ACIT, CIRCLE-31(1), NEW DELHI VS. IFFCO LTD., IFFCO SADAN, C-1 DISTT. CENTRE, SAKET PLACE, NEW DELHI PAN :AAAAI0050M (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ORDER PER O.P. KANT, AM: THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE REVENUE BEING AGG RIEVED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 21/09/2017 PASSED BY THE LD . CIT(APPEALS)-31, NEW DELHI [IN SHORT THE LD. CIT(A )] FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08, RAISING FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW, LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE DISALLOWA NCE OF AN AMOUNT OF RS.835.9 LAKHS (910.16 74.26) LAKHS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 14A, AS THE ASSESS EE HAS CLAIMED DEDUCTION OF EXPENSES IN RELATING TO IN COME WHICH IS EXEMPT FROM TAX. APPELLANT BY SHRI GURMEL SINGH, SR.DR RESPONDENT BY SHRI TARANDEEP SINGH, CA DATE OF HEARING 06.01.2021 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 06.01.2021 2 ITA NO.7367/DEL./2017 2. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER OR AMEN D THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE OR DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE HONBLE ITAT. 2. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THIS IS A SECOND- ROUND PROCEEDING. ORIGINALLY, THE ORDER OF ASSESSME NT DATED 24/12/2010 WAS PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDE R SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE A CT) MAKING A DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14A OF THE ACT 4,21,43,45,000/- INVOKING PROVISIONS OF RULE 8D OF INCOME-TAX RULES, 1962 (IN SHORT THE RULES). THE MATTER TRAVELED TO INCOME T AX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (IN SHORT THE TRIBUNAL). THE TRIBUNAL IN ITS ORDER DATED 24/09/2014 PASSED IN ITA NO. 2238 & 2320/DEL./2012, OBSERVING THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT HAVING BENEFIT OF THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT I N THE CASE OF MAXOPP INVESTMENT VS CIT (2012) 347 ITR 272 (DEL), A ND THEREFORE, RESTORED THE MATTER BACK TO THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER FOR PASSING A SPEAKING ORDER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. TH E RELEVANT FINDING OF THE TRIBUNAL IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER: 2. THE LD. AR INVITING ATTENTION TO THE GROUNDS RA ISED IN ASSESSEES APPEAL SUBMITTED THAT THE GROUND WHICH H E WOULD BE RELYING UPON IS GROUND NO-3 AND THE OTHER GROUNDS M AY BE TREATED AS ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT OF THE SAID GROUND. IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE IT WAS A COMMON STAND OF THE PARTIES T HAT THE ISSUE HAS TO GO BACK TO THE AO AS HIS SATISFACTION IN TER MS OF THE DECISION OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF MAX OPP INVESTMENT. VS CIT [2012] 347 ITR 272 (DEL) HAS NOT BEEN RECORD ED. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, GROUND NOS.-13 & 14 RAISED WOULD BECOME INFRUCTUOUS. 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE ISSUE IT IS SEEN HAS BEEN DISCUSSED BY THE AO IN PAGE 11-15 OF HIS ORDER AND THE CIT(A) RELYING UPON THE PAST HISTORY OF THE ASSESSEE CONSIDERED THE SAME IN PARA 7 TO PARA 7.3 OF HIS ORDER. A PERUSAL OF THE SAME SHOWS THAT THE BENEFIT OF THE DECISION OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CA SE OF MAXOPP INVESTMENT WAS NOT AVAILABLE TO THE AO. IN VIEW OF THE SAME, 3 ITA NO.7367/DEL./2017 CONSIDERING THE REQUEST OF THE PARTIES ON RECORD WE DEEM IT APPROPRIATE TO RESTORE THE ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE O F THE AO WITH THE DIRECTION TO PASS A SPEAKING ORDER CONSIDERING THE MANDATE OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT IN MAXOPP INVESTMENT. NEEDLESS T O SAY THAT BEFORE PASSING OF THE ORDER HE SHALL GIVE A REASONA BLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE OF BEING HEARD. THE DECISION IT IS SEE N IS FORTIFIED BY THE DECISION OF THE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ASS ESSEE ITSELF WHEREIN THEIR LORDSHIPS CLARIFIED THEIR EARLIER ORD ER DATED 02.02.2012 IN ITA NO.L293/DEL/2011VIDE THEIR ORDER DATED 17.04.2012 BY STATING THAT THE NECESSARY WORKING AN D COMPUTATION OF THE DEDUCTION U/S 14A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 196 1 AND THE APPEAL EFFECT HAS TO BE GIVEN/UNDERTAKEN BY THE AO FOLLOWING MAXOPP INVESTMENT LTD. VS CIT IN ITA NO-687/2009. A CCORDINGLY THE AO IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DIRECTION SHALL PASS A SPEA KING ORDER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER GIVING THE ASSESSEE A REA SONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. 2.1 CONSEQUENTLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED ON 31/03/2015 MADE DISALLOWANCE ON PROPORTIO NATE BASIS UNDER SECTION 14A OF THE ACT, AMOUNTING TO 9,10,16,000/-. THE WORKING OF THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO IS SUMMA RIZED AS UNDER: A. TOTAL REVENUE RS.1132877.00 LAKHS B. EXPENSES INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE (RELATABLE TO EARNING DIVIDEND INCOME) RS.83163.00 LAKHS C. EXEMPT DIVIDEND INCOME RS.12398.56 DISALLOWANCE B X C A THUS: 83163 X 12398.56 = 910.16 LAKHS 1132877 THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO IS 910.16 LAKHS. 2.2 WHILE WORKING OUT THE ABOVE DISALLOWANCE, THE ASSES SING OFFICER HAS INCLUDED DIVIDEND INCOME OF 113,86,96,340/- FROM ITS JOINT-VENTURE OMIFCO-OMAN IN EXEMPTED INCOME. D IVIDEND INCOME FROM CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, FOR WHICH DEDUC TION UNDER 4 ITA NO.7367/DEL./2017 SECTION 80P(2)(D) OF THE ACT IS AVAILABLE TO THE AS SESSEE, WAS NOT INCLUDED IN DIVIDEND INCOME FOR DISALLOWANCE IN VIE W OF THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE ASS ESSEES CASE IN ITA NO. 444/2011. 2.3 ON FURTHER APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(A) EXCLUDED THE DIVI DEND INCOME FROM OVERSEAS JOINT-VENTURE OMIFCO-OMAN FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTATION OF DISALLOWANCE IN TERMS OF SECTION 14A OF THE ACT. THE COMPUTATION OF DISALLOWANCE OF 74.26 LAKHS BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) IS AS FOLLOWS: A TOTAL REVENUE RS. 1132877.00 LAKHS B COMMON EXPENSES INCURRED RELATABLE TO BOTH EXEMPTED AND NON-EXEMPTED INCOME RS. 83163.00 LAKHS C EXEMPTED DIVIDEND INCOME RS. 10,11,59,945/- DISALLOWANCE = B XC A = 83163 LAKHS X 1011.59945 LAKHS 1132877 LAKHS = RS. 74.26 LAKHS. 2.4 THE DETAILS OF COMMON EXPENSES AMOUNTING TO 831.63 CRORES HAS BEEN REPRODUCED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IN PARA 4.3.3 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER. 2.5 AGAINST THE RELIEF ALLOWED BY THE LD. CIT(A), THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL RAISING THE GROUNDS A S REPRODUCED ABOVE. 3. BEFORE US, THE PARTIES APPEARED THROUGH VIDEO CONF ERENCING FACILITY. THE ASSESSEE FILED A PAPER-BOOK ELECTRONI CALLY CONTAINING ORDERS OF THE TRIBUNAL AND HIGH COURT. 5 ITA NO.7367/DEL./2017 4. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE LEARNED COUNSEL OF THE ASSE SSEE AND LEARNED DR. THE SOLE ISSUE SURVIVING NOW FOR CO NSIDERATION BEFORE US IS WHETHER THE DIVIDEND INCOME EARNED FRO M OVERSEAS JOINT-VENTURE OMIFCO-OMAN CAN BE SUBJECTED TO DISAL LOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14A OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE HAD RECE IVED DIVIDEND INCOME OF 113,86,96,340/- FROM ITS OVERSEAS JOINT-VENTURE OMIFCO-OMAN. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER, TH E ASSESSEE IS EFFECTIVELY NOT PAYING ANY TAX ON THIS INCOME EI THER IN THE SOURCE COUNTRY OR IN INDIA AND THUS DIVIDEND INCOME FOR ALL PURPOSES IS EXEMPTED FROM TAX. THE RELEVANT FINDING OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER: THE SUBMISSION OF ASSESSEE IS CONSIDERED IN LIGHT OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE. FROM THE ASSESSMENT RECORD OF THE ASSE SSEE IT IS PURSUED THAT THE DIVIDEND AND ALSO LONG TERM CAPITA L GAIN WHICH SUFFERS DDT / STT ARE FULLY EXEMPT IN THE HANDS OF TAXPAYER. THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED DIVIDEND INCOME OF RS. 113,86 ,96,340/- FROM ITS OVERSEAS JOINT VENTURE OMIFCO-OMAN. AS REGARD, THE DIVIDEND INCOME FROM JOINT VENTURE WITH OMIFCO, OMAN, THE AS SESSEE IS EFFECTIVELY NOT PAYING ANY TAX ON THIS INCOME EITHE R IN THE SOURCE COUNTRY OR IN INDIA. AS PER THE OMAN TAX LAWS, ANY PE (PERMANENT ESTABLISHMENT) IN OMAN WHICH IS SUPPORTED BY FOREIG N COMPANY OR ESTABLISHMENT BECOMES TAXABLE ENTITY UNDER OMAN TAX LAWS. FLOWEVER, THE ARTICLE 8(BIS) EXEMPTS THE TAXATION O F DIVIDEND INCOME OF COMPANIES IN OMAN. IN SUBSEQUENT YEAR ALSO, THE DIVIDEND INCOME RECEIVED FROM OVERSEAS JOINT VENTURE OMIFCO OMAN HA S BEEN SHOWN IN THE INCOME-TAX RETURN OF PE IN OMAN, BUT NO TAX HAS ACTUALLY BEEN PAID ON THE AMOUNT OF SUCH DIVIDEND IN VIEW OF THE EXEMPTION PROVIDED IN ACCORDANCE TO THE ARTICLE 8 (BIS) OF TH E INCOME-TAX LAW IN OMAN. EFFECTIVELY, DIVIDEND FROM OMIFCO, OMAN IS EX EMPT IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE IN VIEW OF THE DTAA AGREEMENT. IT IS ADMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO CLA IM RELIEF U/S 90 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 READ WITH DTAA WITH OMAN @ 30% ON DIVIDEND INCOME RECEIVED BY PE FROM OMIFCO-OMAN. THE NET EFFECT IS THAT THE INCOME WHATEVER & WHENEVER ACCRU E, WILL BE EXEMPT OR THE ASSESSEE SHALL NOT BE REQUIRED TO PAY ANY TAX ON THIS INCOME. THE TAX INFACT IS NOT REQUIRED TO BE PAID I N REALITY EITHER IN OMAN OR IN INDIA. IN SULTANATE OF OMAN, THE TAX ON DIVIDEND 6 ITA NO.7367/DEL./2017 APPLICABLE AT THE RATE OF 30% IS EXEMPT AS PER ARTI CLE 8(BIS) OF OMAN INCOME-TAX LAW PROVISION WHEREAS IN INDIA, THE DIVI DEND AMOUNT IS EFFECTIVELY NOT TAXED ON ACCOUNT OF THE RELIEF CLAI MED BY ASSESSEE U/S 90 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. INFACT, AS PER DTAA AND ALSO APPLICABLE TAXATION PROVISION IN OMAN, THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ONLY REQUIRED TO NOT TO PAY ANY TAX ON THE DIVIDEND INCO ME RECEIVED FROM OMIFCO OMAN BUT ALSO IS ENTITLE TO CLAIM THE CREDIT AND ALSO REFUND ON ACCOUNT OF SUCH TAX PAYABLE ON THIS DIVIDEND. IN FACT, IT IS IMMATERIAL AS TO WHAT RATE OF TAX IS APPLICABLE ON DIVIDEND FROM OMIFCO IN OMAN SINCE THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO CL AIM RELIEF U/S 90 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 WHICH IS IN ACCORDAN CE TO THE PROVISION OF THE DTAA, THE REFUND IS ALSO ALLOWABLE TO ASSESSEE. BUT THIS CONFIRM THAT IN EFFECT, NO TAX HAS BEEN PAID B Y THE ASSESSEE ON THE DIVIDEND INCOME RECEIVED FROM OMIFCO, OMAN AND FOR ALL PURPOSE, THIS DIVIDEND IS EXEMPT FROM TAX. 4.1 THE LD. CIT(A) IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER HAS FOLLOWED FINDING OF HIS PREDECESSOR IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07, WHEREIN HE HELD THAT INVESTMENT IN ASSESSEES PE IN OMAN WAS HELD T AXABLE BY HIM IN INDIA AND, THEREFORE, IT WAS NOT IN THE CATE GORY OF THE EXEMPT INCOME INVESTMENT TO BE CONSIDERED FOR COMPU TATION OF THE DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14A OF THE ACT. THE PREDECESSOR OF LD. CIT(A) ALSO CONSIDERED HIS DECISION FOR ASSESSM ENT YEARS 2008-09 AND 2009-10 AND DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFI CER TO RE- COMPUTE THE DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14A OF THE A CT BY EXCLUDING THE DIVIDEND INCOME FROM OMIFCO-OMAN. 4.2 BEFORE US, THE LEARNED COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE HAS DRAWN OUR ATTENTION TO THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE C ASE OF THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2008-09 IN ITA NO. 23 94 AND 3012/DEL/2013, WHEREIN THE TRIBUNAL HAS DECIDED TO EXCLUDE THE INVESTMENT IN OMIFCO-OMAN FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE CO MPUTING DISALLOWANCE IN TERMS OF RULE 8D(2)(III) OF THE RUL ES. THE RELEVANT FINDING IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER: 7 ITA NO.7367/DEL./2017 5.7 IT IS THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE INVESTMENT WHICH HAS NOT YIELDED INCOME DURING THE YEAR SHOULD NOT B E INCLUDED FOR THE PURPOSE OF DISALLOWANCE UNDER RULE 8D(2)(III). ON THIS ISSUE I.E. WHETHER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 14A CAN BE INVOKE D AND DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENDITURE BE MADE EVEN IF THERE W AS NO DIVIDEND INCOME, THERE IS A PLETHORA OF CASE LAWS DIRECTLY O N THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THE HONBLE PUNJAB & HARYAN A HIGH COURT IN CIT, FARIDABAD VS. M/S. LAKHANI MARKETING INC., IN ITA NO. 970/2008 MADE REFERENCE TO THE TWO EARLIER DECISION S OF THE SAME COURT IN CIT VS. HERO CYCLES LIMITED, 323 ITR 518 A ND CIT VS. WINSOME TEXTILE INDUSTRIES LIMITED, 319 ITR 204 TO HOLD THAT SECTION 14A CANNOT BE INVOKED WHEN NO EXEMPT INCOME WAS EAR NED. THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN CIT VS. CORRTECH ENER GY PVT. LIMITED, 223 TAXMAN 130 AND THE HONBLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN CIT (II), KANPUR VS. M/S. SHIVAM MOTORS PVT. LIMITED IN ITA N O. 88 OF 2014 ALSO HELD THE SAME VIEW. THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COU RT IN CIT VS. HOLCIM INDIA PVT. LIMITED IN ITA NOS. 486 AND 299/2 014 HAVE REFERRED TO THE AFORESAID JUDGMENTS OF THE HONBLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT AND ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT AND HAV E ALSO HELD A SIMILAR VIEW. THEREFORE, THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSE SSEE THAT THE AVERAGE INVESTMENTS TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT FOR AP PLICATION FOR RULE 8D WOULD ONLY BE THOSE INVESTMENTS WHICH HAVE ACTUA LLY YIELDED EXEMPT INCOME OUGHT TO SUCCEED. IT IS THE ASSESSEE S SUBMISSION THAT THE FOLLOWING INVESTMENT SHOULD BE EXCLUDED WH ILE COMPUTING THE DISALLOWANCE UNDER RULE 14A VIZ. (1) INVESTMENT S ON WHICH NO DIVIDEND INCOME HAS BEEN EARNED, (2) FOREIGN INVEST MENT IN OMIFCO, OMAN AND (3) INVESTMENTS IN COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES. AS FAR AS THE EXCLUSION OF INVESTMENTS ON WHICH NO DIVIDEND INCOM E HAS BEEN EARNED IS CONCERNED THE ISSUE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE VARIOUS JUDGMENTS OF THE DIFFERENT HONBLE H IGH COURTS AS DISCUSSED AFORESAID. AS FAR AS THE ISSUE OF INVESTM ENT IN OMIFCO, OMAN IS CONCERNED, IT IS SEEN THAT THE DIVIDEND REC EIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM OMIFCO, OMAN IS CHARGEABLE TO TAX IN INDIA UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES AND FORMS PART OF THE TOTAL INCOME. IT IS SEEN THAT THE SAME IS INCLUDED IN THE TAXABLE INCOME IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND IS AVAILABLE ON PAPER-BOOK. THEREAFTER, REBATE OF TAX HAS BEEN ALLO WED TO THE ASSESSEE FROM THE TOTAL TAXES IN TERMS OF SECTION 9 0(2) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT READ WITH ARTICLE 25 OF THE INDO OMAN, DTAA AND THUS, THE DIVIDEND EARNED CAN BE SAID TO BE EXEMPT FROM TAX A ND, THEREFORE, THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 14A WOULD NOT BE ATTRACTE D IN THIS CASE ALSO. AS FAR AS THE DIVIDEND EARNED ON INVESTMENTS MADE IN COOPERATIVES IS CONCERNED, IT IS SEEN THAT THE HON BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. KRIBHCO 349 ITR 618 H AS HELD THAT DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A COULD BE MADE ONLY IN RESPECT OF THOSE EXEMPT INCOME FALLING UNDER CHAPTER III AND COULD NOT BE A PPLIED IN THE SITUATION WHERE THE INCOME THOUGH INCLUDED IN THE C OMPUTATION OF INCOME WAS EXCLUDED BECAUSE OF OTHER DEDUCTIONS CON TAINED IN OTHER 8 ITA NO.7367/DEL./2017 PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT HAS HELD THAT NO DISALLOWANCE COULD BE MADE AGAINST INCOME WHICH WAS NOT SPECIFICALLY EXEMPT UNDER THE ACT AND FOR THIS REAS ON THE INCOME FROM INVESTMENT IN COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES ALSO NEEDS TO BE EXCLUDED. 4.3 THOUGH THE ABOVE DECISION IS IN RESPECT OF COMPUTA TION IN TERMS OF RULE 8D OF THE RULES, WHICH IS EFFECTIVE F ROM ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 AND NOT IN THE INSTANT ASSESSMENT YEAR , BUT IN VIEW OF THE RATIO THAT DIVIDEND INCOME FROM M/S OMIFCO-O MAN IS NOT IN THE NATURE OF THE EXEMPTED INCOME, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE FINDING OF THE TRIBUNAL, WE UPHOLD THE FINDING OF T HE LD. CIT(A) OF COMPUTING DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14A OF THE ACT AFTER EXCLUDING THE DIVIDEND INCOME FROM M/S OMIFCO-OMAN. WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) ON THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE, AND ACCORDINGLY, WE UPHOLD THE SA ME. THE GROUND OF THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISS ED ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 6 TH JANUARY, 2021. SD/- SD/- ( AMIT SHUKLA ) ( O.P. KANT ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 6 TH JANUARY, 2021. RK/- (D.T.D.S.) COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR ASST. REGISTRAR, ITAT, NEW DELHI