ACIT, New Delhi V. M/s. Anand & Anand, New Delhi

ITA 742/DEL/2012

• Counselvise Citation: 74220114 RSA 2012
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-10-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 29-08-2012
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 14-02-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PIRTHI LAL
• Assessee Lawyers: B K ANANDAR
• Keywords: Depreciation; Tax effect; Revenue expenditure; Capital expenditure
• Section: 201(1); 37

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI A BENC H BEFORE SHRI HARI OM MARATHA , JM & SHRI A.N. PAHU JA, AM ITA NO.742/DEL/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09 A.C.I.T.,CIRCLE 37(1), ROOM NO.401, N-BLOCK, VIKAS BHAWAN, I.P. ESTATE, NEW DELHI V/S . ANAND & ANAND B-41, NIZAMUDDIN EAST, NEW DELHI [PAN :AAAFA 0186 F] ITA NO.887/DEL/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09 ANAND & ANAND B-41, NIZAMUDDIN EAST, NEW DELHI V/S . J.C.I.T.,CIRCLE 37(1), NEW DELHI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY SHRI B.K. ANAND,AR REVENUE BY SHRI PIRTHI LAL, DR DATE OF HEARING 29-08-2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 15-10-2012 O R D E R A.N. PAHUJA:- THESE CROSS APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE ON 14-02- 2012 AND BY THE ASSESSEE ON 22.02.2012 AGAINST AN ORDER DATE D 27 TH DECEMBER, 2011 OF THE LD. CIT(A)-XXI, NEW DELHI ,RAISE THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: I.T.A. NO.742/DEL./2012[REVENUE] 1. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF ` `26,75,176/- MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST EXPENSES DEBITED IN P&L ACCOUNT, IN VIEW OF THE FACTS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ITA NOS.742&8 87/DEL./2012 2 2 MADE HUGE INTEREST FREE ADVANCES FOR UNRELATED ACTIVITIES. 2. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCES OF INTEREST EXPENSES DESPI TE THE FACT THAT NO FURTHER APPEAL WAS RECOMMENDED IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 ON THE SIMILAR ISSUE ON ACCOUNT OF LOW TAX EFFECT AND NOT ON MERITS OF THE ISSUE. 3. THE APPELLANT CRAVES TO ADD, AMEND OR MODIFY THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL AT ANY TIME. I.T.A. NO.887/DEL./2012[ASSESSEE] 1. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE CASE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOW ANCE OF ` `29,857/- REIMBURSED BY THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF PAYMENT MADE TO NETWORK SOLUTIONS BY ONE SHRI GURJO T SINGH. 2. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E CASE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOW ANCE OF ` ` 10,96,704/- BEING THE AMOUNT OUT OF THE PURCHASE AND INSTALLATION COST OF A NEW TRANSFORMER REPLACIN G THE EXISTING TRANSFORMER ON THE PROPERTY TAKEN ON LEASE BY THE ASSESSEE AT NOIDA. 3. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E CASE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF ` `3,37,500/- BEING THE AMOUNT OF LIABILITY DUE BY TH E ASSESSEE TO PRAVIN ANAND & PARTNERS TOWARDS REIMBURSEMENT OF A CAPITAL ACCOUNT TRANSACTION OF A N EARSTWHILE PARTNER AND FURTHER ERRED IN HOLDING THA T THERE COULD BE NO LIABILITY ON CAPITAL ACCOUNT IN CASH SY STEM OF ACCOUNTING. 4. THAT THE ORDERS OF THE LEARNED AUTHORITIES BELOW BEING CONTRARY TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE APPEAL BE ALLOWED. ITA NOS.742&8 87/DEL./2012 3 3 2. ADVERTING FIRST TO GROUND NOS.1 AND 2 IN THE AP PEAL OF THE REVENUE FACTS, IN BRIEF, AS PER RELEVANT ORDERS ARE THAT AS SESSEE FILED E-RETURN DECLARING INCOME OF ` `5,73,75,030/- FILED ON 26.09.2008 BY THE ASSESSEE, A FIRM OF ADVOCATES, WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY WITH THE SERVI CE OF A NOTICE U/S 143(2) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS TH E ACT), ISSUED ON 13.08.2009. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE AS SESSING OFFICER (A.O. IN SHORT) NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE DEBITED AN AMOUNT OF ` `26,75,176/- ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST ON SECURED LOAN. TO A QUERY BY THE AO, SEEKING JUSTIFICATION FOR PAYMENT OF INTEREST IN VIEW OF INTEREST FREE ADVAN CES, THE ASSESSEE REPLIED THAT ADVANCES TO M/S ANAND AND ANAND, A FIRM, IN WHICH S OME OF THE PARTNERS OF THE ASSESSEE WERE INTERESTED AS PARTNERS, COMPRISED OL D BALANCE BROUGHT FORWARD. THESE ADVANCES HAD ARISEN OUT OF PROFESSIONAL DEALI NGS WITH THAT FIRM, WHICH WAS RENDERING SUPPORTING PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AT MUMBA I. SINCE THE AMOUNT WAS PAID OUT OF EARNINGS OF THE FIRM AND NO PART OF L OAN FROM CITY BANK FOR THEIR NOIDA OFFICE, WAS UTILIZED AS ADVANCE TO ASSOCIATES , INTEREST PAID TO BANK COULD NOT BE ATTRIBUTED TO INTEREST FREE ADVANCES. INTER ALIA, THE ASSESSEE RELIED UPON THE FINDINGS OF LEARNED CIT(A) IN THE AY 2007-08. HOWEVER, THE AO DID NOT ACCEPT THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUN D THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FURNISH A DETAILED REPLY, ESPECIALLY WHEN THE ASSES SEE MADE INTEREST FREE ADVANCES TO M/S ANAND & ANAND ASSOCIATES AND MADE HUGE INVESTMENTS OF ` 1,40,28,150/-. ACCORDINGLY, WHILE RELYING UPON DEC ISIONS IN CIT VS. M.M. NAGALINGA NADAR SONS, 222 CTR 518 (KER.); GANPATI A SSOCIATES VS. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, MEERUT CAMP, 121 TTJ 545 ITAT (ASR.); PUNJ AB STAINLESS STEEL INDS. VS. CIT, 324 ITR 396 (DEL) AND VIVEK N. JAJODIA VS. INC OME-TAX OFFICER, 123 ITD 136 (MUMBAI), THE AO DISALLOWED INTEREST @12% OF ADVANC ES OF ` ` 1,76,71,667/- OUT OF INTEREST PAID TO THE BANK. 3. ON APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE DISALLOWA NCE, FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF HIS PREDECESSOR IN THE AY 2007-08 IN TH E ASSESSEES OWN CASE, IN THE FOLLOWING TERMS:- ITA NOS.742&8 87/DEL./2012 4 4 3.2 IN SUPPORT OF HIS CLAIM LEARNED AR OF THE APP ELLANT ALSO FILED A COPY OF APPELLATE ORDER PASSED BY MY P REDECESSOR, CIT(A) XXVIII. MEW DELHI, FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 7-08 VIDE ORDER DATED 26.7.2010, WHEREIN, SIMILAR KIND OF ADD ITION HAS BEEN DELETED. RESPECTFULLY, RELYING ON THE ORDER OF MY PREDECESSOR FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 AND ALSO PUTTING MY RELIANC E OF THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SUSHMA KAPOOR, REPORTED AT 188 TAXMAN 24, HONBLE D ELHI HIGH COURT HAS HELD THAT LOANS WERE RAISED SUBSEQUENT TO THE DEBIT IN THE ACCOUNT OF SISTER CONCERN IS A FINDING OF ACT AND N O DISALLOWANCE OUT OF INTEREST PAID FOR THE REASONS THAT SUCH OLD DEBI TS EXISTED PRIOR TO RAISING OF LOAN. ACCORDINGLY, HONBLE DELHI HIGH C OURT HAS DISMISSED DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL. THE JUDGMENT OF HON BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IS CLEARLY ATTRACTED IN THE INSTANT CASE . HENCE GROUNDS NO.1 TO 3 OF THE APPELLANT ARE ALLOWED. 4. THE REVENUE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE US AGAINST THE AFORESAID FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A).THE LD.DR SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE AO WHILE THE LD. AR ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE RELIED UPON THE FINDI NGS IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER. INTER ALIA, THE LD. AR RELIED UPON DECISION OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. H.B. STOCK HOLDINGS LTD. (20 09) 184 TAXMAN 352 (DELHI). 5. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND GONE THROUGH THE FACTS OF THE CASE. INDISPUTABLY, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT DIVERT BO RROWED FUNDS TO M/S ANAND AND ANAND ASSOCIATES AND THE AMOUNT OF ` `36,43,517/- WAS OUTSTANDING ON ACCOUNT OF PROFESSIONAL SUPPORT SERVICES. THE LD. C IT(A) FOUND IN THE PRECEDING YEAR THAT BALANCE OF ` 35,81,537/- WAS BROUGHT FORWARD AS ON 1.4.2006. IN FACT BALANCE AS ON 1.4.2003 - ` 30,31,333/- , INCREASED TO ` 36,05,517/- AS ON 1.4.2007.ON THE OTHER HAND , LOANS OF ` 2,29,60,000+ ` 20,40,000 WERE RAISED FORM CITI BANK ON 12.10.2006 AND UTILIZED TOWARDS ADDITI ON TO FIXED ASSETS AND PURCHASE OF STAMP PAPERS AND SECURITY DEPOSITS BESI DES PAYMENT OF ADVANCE RENT. TOTAL AMOUNT UTILIZED WAS ` 2,82,71,768/-.IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE LD. CIT(A) CONCLUDED IN THE PRECEDING YEAR THAT BORROWE D FUNDS WERE NOT UTILIZED TOWARDS ADVANCES TO SISTER CONCERN AND DELETED THE DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST. FOLLOWING HIS DECISION IN THE PRECEDING YEAR, DISAL LOWANCE OF INTEREST HAS BEEN DELETED IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. HONBLE KA RNATAKA HIGH COURT IN BIT TUL ITA NOS.742&8 87/DEL./2012 5 5 (P.) LTD. V. CIT (ITRC 141 OF 1977 DATED 29-7-1980) HELD THAT THERE SHOULD BE MATERIAL TO JUSTIFY THE CONCLUSION THAT ANY BORROWE D MONEY BY THE ASSESSEE IN A YEAR TO WHICH INTEREST HAD BEEN PAID HAD BEEN DIVER TED FOR NON-BUSINESS PURPOSE BEFORE MAKING ANY DISALLOWANCE. NO SUCH MATERIAL WA S FOUND IN THE INSTANT CASE BY THE LD. CIT(A) NOR HAS BEEN PLACED BEFORE US. TH E LD. DR DID NOT BRING TO OUR NOTICE ANY MATERIAL, ESTABLISHING NEXUS OF THE BO RROWED FUNDS WITH THE AFORESAID AMOUNT OUTSTANDING. IN H.B. STOCK HOLDINGS LTD. (S UPRA) HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT FOUND THAT LOAN WAS GIVEN TO A SISTER CO NCERN BEFORE THE LOAN WAS TAKEN FROM THE BANK, WHILE SUFFICIENT INTEREST FREE FUNDS AND SURPLUS IN THE FORM OF SHARE PREMIUM MONEY WAS AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE . IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, HONBLE HIGH COURT UPHELD THE FINDINGS OF THE ITAT , DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST IN RELATION TO ADVANCES TO SIST ER CONCERN. SIMILAR IS THE POSITION IN CIT VS. MS. SUSHMA KAPOOR,188 TAXMAN 24 (DEL.). IN THE LIGHT OF VIEW TAKEN IN THESE DECISIONS AND IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY NEXUS OF BORROWED FUNDS WITH INTEREST FREE ADVANCES TO SISTER CONCERN, WE ARE NO T INCLINED TO INTERFERE WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A).THEREFORE, GROUND NOS. 1 & 2 IN THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. 6. COMING NOW TO GROUND NO.1 IN THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE, WHICH RELATES TO DISALLOWANCE OF ` ` 29,857/- REIMBURSED BY THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF PAYMENT MADE TO NETWORK SOLUTIONS BY ONE SHRI GURJO T SINGH, THE AO NOTICED DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THAT TH E ASSESSEE DID NOT DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE FROM PAYMENT OF ` ` 29,857/- MADE TO NETWORK SOLUTIONS. TO A QUERY BY THE AO, THE ASSESSEE REPLIED THAT THE ASSESSEE E NGAGED ONE SHRI GURJOT SINGH, A QUALIFIED ENGINEER ON COMPUTER TECHNOLOGY SYSTEMS, WHO INCURRED EXPENSES ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM. SINCE TH E EXPENDITURE WAS INCURRED BY SHRI GURJOT SINGH WITH HIS CREDIT CARD & THE ASSESS EE REIMBURSED THE EXPENSES, , NO TAX WAS DEDUCTED FROM THESE AMOUNTS. HOWEVER, T HE AO DID NOT ACCEPT THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT THE CHARGES OF ` `29,857/- WERE PAID TO NETWORK SOLUTIONS TOWARDS SOFTWARE/WEB CHAR GES AND SINCE TAX REQUIRED TO BE DEDUCTED IN TERMS OF PROVISIONS OF SEC. 194J OF THE ACT, WAS NOT DEDUCTED, ITA NOS.742&8 87/DEL./2012 6 6 DEDUCTION FOR THE AMOUNT HAD TO BE DISALLOWED..ACCO RDINGLY, THE AO DISALLOWED THE AMOUNT IN TERMS OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A)( IA). 7. ON APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(A) UPHELD THE DISALLOWAN CE, HOLDING AS UNDER:- 5.2 I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE FINDING OF THE ASSESS ING OFFICER IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND WRITTEN SUBMISSION OF THE LEARNED AR. RELIANCE ON THE JUDGMENT OF THE MUMBAI ITAT IN THE CASE OF NATIONAL AVIATION COMPANY OF INDIA VS. DCIT, TDS, C IRCLE-1, MUMBAI IS DISTINGUISHABLE ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE BECAUSE IN THAT CASE ISSUE AHS BEEN FOUND TO BE PERTAINING TO LEVY OF INTEREST U/S 201(1) NOT TO SECTION 40(A)(IA) AS HAS BEEN ATTRACT ED BY ASSESSING OFFICER. FURTHERMORE, IT HAS NOT BEEN DISPUTED THA T TDS HAS NOT BEEN MADE ON PAYMENT OF ` ` 29,857/-. THE LEARNED AR OF THE APPELLANT HAS ONLY SUBMITTED THAT THERE WERE CIRCUM STANCES UNDER WHICH TDS COULD NOT BE DEDUCTED AND IT IS A REIMBUR SEMENT OF EXPENDITURE. IN MY CONSIDERED OPINION ACTION OF TH E ASSESSING OFFICER INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A)(IA ) IS FOUND TO BE TOTALLY REASONABLE AS NO TDS HAS BEEN DEDUCTED ON P AYMENT MADE TO NETWORK SOLUTIONS. MAKING THE PAYMENT BY CREDIT CARD DO NOT GET ANY IMMUNITY FROM TDS. SO, GROUND NO.5 OF THE APPE LLANT IS DISMISSED.S 8. THE ASSESSEE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE US AGAINST THE AFORESAID FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A).THE LD. AR ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE WHILE CARRYING US THROUGH THEIR SUBMISSIONS BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) CON TENDED THAT SINCE THE AMOUNT WAS MERELY REIMBURSED, NO TAX WAS REQUIRED TO BE DE DUCTED AT SOURCE. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR SUPPORTED THE FINDINGS IN TH E IMPUGNED ORDER. 9.. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND GONE THROUG H THE FACTS OF THE CASE. INDISPUTABLY, PAYMENT OF ` ` 29,857/- HAS BEEN MADE TO M/S NETWORK SOLUTIONS FOR DOWNLOADING SOFTWARE AND PROVISIONS O F SEC. 194J OF THE ACT ARE ATTRACTED. THE PROVISIONS OF SAID SEC. 194J LAY DOW N THAT ANY PERSON, NOT BEING AN INDIVIDUAL OR A HINDU UNDIVIDED FAMILY, WHO IS R ESPONSIBLE FOR PAYING TO A RESIDENT ANY SUM BY WAY OF (A) FEES FOR PROFESSIONA L SERVICES, OR (B) FEES FOR TECHNICAL SERVICES, OR (C) ROYALTY, OR (D) ANY SUM REFERRED TO IN CLAUSE (VA) OF ITA NOS.742&8 87/DEL./2012 7 7 SECTION 28,SHALL, AT THE TIME OF CREDIT OF SUCH SUM TO THE ACCOUNT OF THE PAYEE OR AT THE TIME OF PAYMENT THEREOF IN CASH OR BY ISSUE OF A CHEQUE OF DRAFT OR BY ANY OTHER MODE , WHICHEVER IS EARLIER, DEDUCT AN AMOUNT EQUAL TO T EN PER CENT. OF SUCH SUM AS INCOME-TAX ON INCOME COMPRISED THEREIN. THE LD. AR ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE DID NOT DENY THAT TAX WAS REQUIRED TO BE DEDUCTED AT SOURCE IN TERMS OF THE SAID PROVISIONS, BUT COULD NOT BE DEDU CTED, PAYMENT HAVING BEEN MADE THROUGH THE CREDIT CARD BY ONE SHRI GUNJIT SIN GH. AS IS APPARENT FROM THE AFORESAID PROVISIONS, MODE OF PAYMENT IS IMMATERIAL . IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WHEN THE LD. AR DID NOT DENY THE APPLICABILITY OF P ROVISIONS OF SEC. 194J OF THE ACT, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE LD. CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN UPHOLDING THE DISALLOWANCE IN TERMS OF PROVISIONS OF SEC. 40A(IA) OF THE ACT, TDS HAVING NOT BEEN DEDUCTED ON PAYMENT MADE TO NETWORK SOLUTIONS. THEREFORE, GROUND NO.1 IN THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 10. GROUND NO.2 IN THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE RELA TES TO DISALLOWANCE OF ` ` 10,96,704/- ON ACCOUNT OF PURCHASE AND INSTALLATION OF A NEW TRANSFORMER.. THE AO NOTICED DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROC EEDINGS A BILL DATED 13.8.2007 RAISED BY M/S KIRSUN ENGINEERING LTD., RE GARDING PURCHASE AND INSTALLATION OF A NEW TRANSFORMER. TO A QUERY BY T HE AO, THE ASSESSEE REPLIED THAT AMOUNT OF ` `25,66,721/- INCLUDED UNDER THE HEAD REPAIR AND MAI NTENANCE WAS ON ACCOUNT OF PAYMENT TO M/S KIRSUN ENGINEERING LTD. FOR REPLACEMENT OF THE HT PANELS AND TRANSFORMERS WITH THE LT TRANSFORMER AND PANELS, AS LOAD OUTPUT FACTOR FOR OFFICE WAS LOWER THAN THAT IN A STUDIO. THE REPLACEMENT OF EXISTING TRANSFORMER FOR BETTER AND EFFICIENT RUNNING OF ASS ESSEES OFFICE AS LAW FIRM WAS CLAIMED TO BE REVENUE IN NATURE IN VIEW OF JUDGMENT OF HONBLE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT IN CIT VS. UDAIPUR DISTILLARY COMPANY LTD. ,1 43 TAXMAN 616. HOWEVER, THE AO DID NOT ACCEPT THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESS EE ON THE GROUND THAT PERUSAL OF LEDGER ACCOUNT REVEALED TWO ENTRIES DATE D 18.6.07 OF ` `5 LACS EACH TOWARDS REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE OF EXISTING PENAL AN D TRANSFORMERS AT NOIDA OFFICE WHILE REMAINING ENTRIES OF ` `15,66,721/- RELATED TO INSTALLATION OF PURELY ITA NOS.742&8 87/DEL./2012 8 8 NEW TRANSFORMERS AND THE SAME SHOULD HAVE BEEN CAPI TALIZED AS FIXED ASSET UNDER THE HEAD OFFICE EQUIPMENT, ACCORDING TO THE AO. ACCORDINGLY, THE AO TREATED THE AMOUNT AS CAPITAL IN NATURE AND DISALL OWED THE AMOUNT OF ` 10,96,704 AFTER ALLOWING DEPRECIATION @15% AMOUNTING TO 2,35 ,2008/-. [THE AMOUNT ` `10,96,704+ 2,35,008 WORKS OUT TO ` 13,31,712 AND HAS NOT BEEN RECONCILED BEFORE US WITH ` 15,66,721] 11. ON APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(A) UPHELD THE DISALLOWA NCE, HOLDING AS UNDER:- 7.2 I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE FINDING OF THE ASSESS ING OFFICER IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND WRITTEN SUBMISS ION OF THE LEARNED AR. IN THIS REGARD ASSESSING OFFICER HAS D ISCUSSED IN THE BODY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT IT RELATES TO PURCHAS E AND INSTALLATION OF NEW TRANSFORMERS. ASSESSING OFFICER HAS QUOTED ASSESSEES LETTER DATED 14.12.2010, WHEREIN, IT HAS BEEN MENTI ONED THAT AMOUNT OF ` ` 25,66,721/- INCLUDED UNDER THE HEAD REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE EXPENSES PAID TO KIRSUN ENGINEERING PVT . LTD. PERTAINS TO REPLACEMENT OF EXISTING TRANSFORMER. I T WAS ASSESSEES OWN SUBMISSION THAT IT WAS PURCHASE OF NEW TRANSFOR MER AS REPLACEMENT OF EXISTING TRANSFORMER. SO, ASSESSING OFFICER HAS CONCLUDED IN PARA 7.2 OF ORDER THAT AS ` ` 10,00,000/- PAID ON 18.06.2007 RELATES TO COST TOWARDS REPAIR AND MAINT ENANCE OF EXISTING PENAL AND ` ` 15,66,721/- PERTAINS TO INSTALLATION OF PURELY NEW TRANSFORMERS AT NOIDA OFFICE. SO, ASSESSING O FFICER HAS RIGHTLY ALLOWED `10 LAKH UNDER REPAIR AND MAINTENAN CE EXPENSES AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE AND AMOUNT OF ` `15,66,721/- PERTAINING TO PURCHASE OF NEW TRANSFORMER WAS RIGHTLY CAPITALIZED BY HIM BY ALLOWING DEPRECIATION @15% AMOUNTING TO ` ` 2,35,008/-. THUS, ADDITION OF ` ` 10,96,704/- IS FULLY JUSTIFIED. ASSESSING OFFICER HAS /ADOPTED A VERY JUDICIOUS APPROACH IN THIS REGARD, WHEREIN, HE HAS FOUND THAT AMOUNT OF ` ` 25,66,721/- INCLUDED UNDER THE HEAD REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE EXPENSES HAS CERTAIN NEW ITEMS IN T HE FORM OF NEW TRANSFORMER PURCHASED AMOUNTS TO ` `15,66,721/- WHICH WAS CAPITALIZED BY HIM AND REMAINING AMOUNT OF ` ` 10 LAKH HAS RIGHTLY BEEN ALLOWED BY ASSESSING OFFICER AS REVENUE EXPEND ITURE. I DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ACTION OF ASSESSING O FFICER RATHER I APPRECIATE THE ACTION OF ASSESSING OFFICER AS VERY JUDICIOUS AND RIGHT APPROACH. THUS, MAKING DISALLOWANCE OF ` ` 10,96,704/- DESERVES TO BE CONFIRMED. THE REPLY OF LEARNED AR OF THE APPELLANT HAS BEEN CONSIDERED AND IT IS FOUND THAT STAND TAKE N BY LEARNED AR ITA NOS.742&8 87/DEL./2012 9 9 HAS NO LEG TO STAND. THE CASE LAW RELIED UPON BY L EARNED AR OF THE APPELLANT IS DISTINGUISHABLE ON FACTS BECAUSE OF TH E FACT THAT ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALREADY ALLOWED A SUM OF `10 LAKHS AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE OUT OF TOTAL EXPENDITURE OF ` ` 25,66,721/-. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION GROUND NO.7 OF THE APP ELLANT IS DISMISSED. 12. THE ASSESSEE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE US AGAIN ST THE AFORESAID FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A). THE LD. AR ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THEIR SUBMISSIONS BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WHILE RELYING UPO N DECISION IN CIT VS.. UDAIPUR DISTILLARY COMPANY LTD 143 TAXMAN 616 (RAJASTHAN) A ND HINDUSTAN TIMES LTD. VS. CIT (1980) 4 TAXMAN 91 (DELHI).ON THE OTHER HAN D, THE LD. DR SUPPORTED THE FINDINGS IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). 13. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND GONE THROU GH THE FACTS OF THE CASE AS ALSO THE DECISIONS RELIED UPON BY THE LD. A R ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. AS IS APPARENT FROM THE FACTS NARRATED ABOVE, THE A SSESSEE INCURRED EXPENSES TOWARDS PURCHASE OF A NEW TRANSFORMER INSTALLED IN THE PREMISES TAKEN ON LEASE, CONTENDING REPLACEMENT OF EXISTING HT TRANSFORMERS AND RELATED PANELS BY A NEW LT TRANSFORMER, SINCE THE PREMISES PRIOR TO ACCOMMO DATION WAS USED AS STUDIO AND THE ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS WORN OUT WERE INADEQUA TE FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THA T SINCE IT WAS NOT THE OWNER OF THE PREMISES WHERE THESE ASSETS WERE FIXED AND H AD ONLY A LIMITED PERIOD OF TENANCY RIGHTS, THE ENTIRE EXPENDITURE WAS REVENUE IN NATURE. THE PURCHASE OF A NEW TRANSFORMER DOES NOT HAVE ANY APPARENT RELATIO N WITH LEASE OR OTHERWISE OF THE PREMISES. WHETHER THE TRANSFORMER IS INSTALLE D IN OWN BUILDING OR LEASED PREMISES IS IMMATERIAL NOR THE LD. AR ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE PLACED ANY MATERIAL BEFORE US AS TO HOW THIS EXPENDITURE ON PURCHASE/INSTALLATION OF TRANSFORMER HAS ANY RELATION WITH LEASE OF THE PREM ISES. IN ANY CASE, THERE IS NOTHING TO SUGGEST THAT THIS EXPENDITURE HAS BEEN INCURRED BY WAY OF REPAIRS OR RENOVATION OF ANY ASSET. WHETHER OR NOT EXPENDITUR E IS ON REPAIRS, THE FOLLOWING TEST WAS FORMULATED BY SHRI CHAGLA C J. IN THE CAS E OF NEW SHORROCK SPINNING AND MANUFACTURING CO. LTD. V. CIT [1956] 30 ITR 338 (BOM),OBSERVED AS FOLLOWS: ITA NOS.742&8 87/DEL./2012 10 10 'THE SIMPLE TEST THAT MUST BE CONSTANTLY BORNE IN M IND IS THAT AS A RESULT OF THE EXPENDITURE WHICH IS CLAIMED AS AN EXPENDITURE FOR REPAIRS WHAT IS REALLY BEING DONE IS TO PRESERVE AND MAINTAIN AN ALREADY EXISTIN G ASSET. THE OBJECT OF THE EXPENDITURE IS NOT TO BRING A NEW ASSET INTO EXISTE NCE, NOR IS ITS OBJECT THE OBTAINING OF A NEW OR FRESH ADVANTAGE. THIS CAN BE THE ONLY DEFINITION OF 'REPAIRS' BECAUSE IT IS ONLY BY REASON OF THIS DEFINITION OF REPAIRS THAT THE EXPENDITURE IS A REVENUE EXPENDITURE. IF THE AMOUNT SPENT WAS FOR THE PURPOSE OF BRINGING INTO EXISTENCE A NEW ASSET OR OBTAINING A NEW ADVANTAGE, THEN OBVIOUSLY SUCH AN E XPENDITURE WOULD NOT BE AN EXPENDITURE OF A REVENUE NATURE BUT IT WOULD BE A C APITAL EXPENDITURE, AND IT IS CLEAR THAT THE DEDUCTION WHICH THE LEGISLATURE HAS PERMITTED UNDER SECTION 10(2)(V) IS A DEDUCTION WHERE THE EXPENDITURE IS A REVENUE EXPENDITURE AND NOT A CAPITAL EXPENDITURE.' 13.1 HONBLE APEX COURT IN BALIMAL NAVAL KISHO RE (SUPRA) IN THE CONTEXT OF CURRENT REPAIRS WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 10( 2)(V), APPROVED THE AFORESAID TEST EVOLVED BY CHAGLA C. J., AS THE MOST APPROPRIA TE ONE HAVING REGARD TO THE CONTEXT IN WHICH THE SAID EXPRESSION OCCURS. IT HAS ALSO BEEN FOLLOWED BY A MAJORITY OF THE HIGH COURTS IN INDIA. 13.2 UNDER SECTION 37, A PARTICULAR ITEM OF EX PENDITURE MAY BE DEDUCTIBLE IF THE EXPENDITURE DOES NOT FALL WITHIN SECTIONS 30 TO 36 ; THAT IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN INCURRED IN THE ACCOUNTING YEAR; THAT IT SHOULD BE IN RESPECT OF A BUSINESS CARRIED ON BY THE ASSESSEE; THAT IT SHOULD NOT BE ON PERSON AL ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE; THAT IT SHOULD NOT BE IN THE NATURE OF CAPITAL EXPE NDITURE AND THAT IT SHOULD BE SPENT WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR BUSINESS. WHETHER EXPENDITURE IS 'REVENUE' OR 'CAPITAL IN NATURE' WOULD DEPEND UPON SEVERAL FACTO RS, NAMELY, NATURE OF THE EXPENDITURE, NATURE OF BUSINESS ACTIVITY ETC..IN TH E INSTANT CASE, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT THE PREMISES IN WHICH THE EXPENDITURE IN QUESTION HAD BEEN INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT IN THEIR OWNERSHIP BUT TAKE N ON LEASE .. HERE WE MAY REFER TO FOLLOWING EXPLANATION 1 TO SEC.32(1) OF TH E ACT, INSERTED BY THE TAXATION LAWS (AMENDMENT AND MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) ACT, 1986, W.E.F. 1ST APRIL, 1988: EXPLANATION 1. : WHERE THE BUSINESS OR PROFESSION O F THE ASSESSEE IS CARRIED ON IN A BUILDING NOT OWNED BY HIM BUT IN RESPECT OF WH ICH THE ASSESSEE HOLDS A ITA NOS.742&8 87/DEL./2012 11 11 LEASE OR OTHER RIGHT OF OCCUPANCY AND ANY CAPITAL E XPENDITURE IS INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE BUSINESS OR PROFES SION ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF ANY STRUCTURE OR DOING OF ANY WORK IN OR IN RELATIO N TO, AND BY WAY OF RENOVATION OR EXTENSION OF, OR IMPROVEMENT TO, THE BUILDING, THEN , THE PROVISIONS OF THIS CLAUSE SHALL APPLY AS IF THE SAID STRUCTURE OR WORK IS A B UILDING OWNED BY THE ASSESSEE. 13.3 PRIOR TO INSERTION OF AFORESAID EXPLN. 1 W.E. F. 1ST APRIL, 1988 THE ACT CONTAINED PROVISIONS OF SECTION 32(1A) TO THE SAME EFFECT THAT WERE INSERTED BY THE TAXATION LAWS (AMENDMENT) ACT, 1970 W.E.F. 1ST APRIL, 1971 AND OMITTED BY THE TAXATION LAWS (AMENDMENT AND MISCELLANEOUS PROV ISIONS) ACT, 1986 W.E.F. 1ST APRIL, 1988. THUS, THE FACT THAT PREMISES ARE LEASEHOLD PREMISES IS NOT OF MUCH SIGNIFICANCE. IN RAJDEV SINGH & CO. V. CIT,181 ITR 38(DEL.) ,HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT HAVE CLEARLY DECLARED THAT THE EARLIER J UDGMENT IN THE CASE OF INSTALMENT SUPPLY (P) LTD. V. CIT [1984] 149 ITR 5 2 (DELHI), IS NOT APPLICABLE AFTER INSERTION OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 32(1A) WHICH PROVISIONS ARE NOW IN THE ACT BY WAY OF EXPLN. 1 TO SECTION 32(1). HON'BLE HI GH COURT, APPLYING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 32(1A) HELD THAT ANY EXPENDIT URE IN THE NATURE OF A CAPITAL EXPENDITURE EVEN IF INCURRED BY A TENANT ON THE LEA SED PREMISES WILL AMOUNT TO CAPITAL EXPENDITURE. THERE IS, THUS, NO DOUBT THAT FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINATION OF THE NATURE OF EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE ASSESS EE, THE FACT THAT THE PREMISES ARE LEASEHOLD MUST BE IGNORED AND IT SHOULD BE ASSU MED THAT THE PREMISES BELONGED TO THE ASSESSEE. AT ANY RATE, THE RATIO OF THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF RAJDEV SINGH & CO. IS QUI TE CLEAR. FACT OF THE MATTER IS THAT FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINATION OF THE NATURE OF EXPENDITURE UNDER CONSIDERATION BEFORE US, THE FACT THAT THE PREMISES ARE LEASE-HOLD MUST BE IGNORED AND IT SHOULD BE ASSUMED THAT THE PREMISES BELONGED TO THE ASSESSEE. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, EXPEND ITURE INCURRED TOWARDS PURCHASE OF ALTOGETHER NEW TRANSFORMER IN A NEWLY L EASED PREMISES IS DEFINITELY CAPITAL EXPENDITURE, THE EXPENDITURE HAVING BROUGHT A NEW ADVANTAGE AND ENDURING BENEFIT TO THE ASSESSEE. IN UDAIPUR DISTIL LARY COMPANY LTD(SUPRA), THE ISSUE DID NOT RELATE RO ANY EXPENDITURE ON REPAIRS WHILE IN HINDUSTAN TIMES(SUPRA) IT RELATED TO LAYING OF CABLES WHICH W ERE PROPERTY OF THE NDMC. SUCH ARE NOT THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES IN THE IN STANT CASE. WE HAVE GONE ITA NOS.742&8 87/DEL./2012 12 12 THROUGH THESE TWO DECISIONS AND FIND THAT FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES IN THESE TWO DECISIONS ARE TOTALLY DIFFERENT FROM THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES IN THE INSTANT CASE BEFORE US. IN ULLAL DINKAR RAO V. N. RATNA BAI, AIR 1958 77 MYS, THE HONBLE MYSORE HIGH COURT WAS CONSIDERING THE EXPRESSION 'R EPAIR'. IN THAT CASE THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE COURT WAS THAT 'WHEN WE THINK OF REPAI R OF THE ORIGINAL EQUIPMENT AS SUCH IS TO SET RIGHT THE OLD EQUIPMENT AND IT IS RE STORED BACK TO ITS ORIGINAL UTILITY, THE REPAIR DOES NOT CONTEMPLATE LARGE SCALE ALTERAT ION OF THE EXISTING STRUCTURE OR EQUIPMENT AS THE CASE MAY BE.' SIMILAR IS THE VIEW EXPRESSED BY THE DECISION OF THE ALLAHABAD COURT IN GIRDHARI DASS AND SONS V. CI T [1976] 105 ITR 339 , WHEREIN T HEIR LORDSHIPS HAVE EXPRESSED THAT REPAIR SHOULD B E CURRENT REPAIRS AND NOT THE TOTAL REPLACEMENT OF THE WHOLE EQUIPMEN T. IF THE WHOLE EQUIPMENT IS TOTALLY REPLACED, ONE CANNOT SAY THAT THERE IS A CU RRENT REPAIR. THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 31 AS WELL AS SEC. 37 OF THE ACT ALLOW CLAIMS FOR EXPENDITURE WHICH ARE NOT OF CAPITAL NATURE. IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, ES PECIALLY WHEN THE LD. AR DID NOT PLACE ANY MATERIAL BEFORE US ,CONTROVERTING THE AFO RESAID FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) SO AS TO ENABLE US TO TAKE A DIFFERENT VIEW IN THE MATTER, WE ARE NOT INCLINED TO INTERFERE WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A),TREATING THE AMOUNT INCURRED ON PURCHASE OF NEW TRANSFORMER AS CAPITAL EXPENDITURE. THEREFORE, GROUND NO.2 IN THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMIS SED. 14.. GROUND NO.3 IN THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE REL ATES TO DISALLOWANCE OF ` `3,37,500/- ON ACCOUNT OF LIABILITY IN THE NAME OF PRAVIN ANAND AND PARTNERS TOWARDS REIMBURSEMENT OF A CAPITAL ACCOUNT TRANSACT ION OF AN ERSTWHILE PARTNER. SINCE THE ASSESSEE FOLLOWED CASH SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTI NG, THE AO ASKED THE REASONS FOR OUTSTANDING LIABILITY OF ` ` 3,37,500/- IN THE NAME OF RELATED CONCERN M/S PRAVIN ANAND AND PARTNERS. IN THE ABSENCE OF A NY DETAILS, THE AO WAS OF THE OPINION THAT THE AMOUNT WAS NOT ALLOWABLE UNDER CAS H SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING AND ADDED BACK THE AMOUNT. 15. ON APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(A) UPHELD THE FINDINGS OF THE AO, HOLDING AS UNDER:- ITA NOS.742&8 87/DEL./2012 13 13 8.1 ASSESSEE HAS ALSO RELIED ON LETTER DATED 24.1 2.2010. IN FACT ASSESSING OFFICER HAS DISCUSSED IN THE RELE VANT PARAGRAPH THE ABOVE REPLY DATED 24.12.2010. IN THE INSTANT C ASE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS GOT A STRONG CASE BECAUSE IT IS A FINDI NG OF THE FACT THE ASSESSEE IS FOLLOWING CASH SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING, SO , QUESTION OF HAVING LIABILITIES SHOULD NOT ARISE. THE REPLY FIL ED VIDE LETTER DATED 24.12.2010 WAS CONSIDERED BY ASSESSING OFFICER AND I AM IN AGREEMENT WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THIS REGARD THAT IN CASH SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING THERE IS NO SCOPE OF SHOWING L IABILITY. SO, ACTION OF ASSESSING OFFICER MAKING ADDITION OF `3,3 7,500/- IS FOUND TO BE FULLY JUSTIFIED. GROUND NO.8 OF THE APPELLAN T IS DISMISSED. 16. THE ASSESSEE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE US AGAINS T THE AFORESAID FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A).THE LD. AR ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT THE AMOUNT WAS NOT DEBITED TO PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOU NT NOR WAS CLAIMED IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME, AS THE LIABILITY WAS SHOWN I N THE BALANCE SHEET. WHILE REITERATING THEIR SUBMISSIONS BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) THAT ONE OF THE PARTNERS RETIRED FROM THE ASSESSEE FIRM AS WELL AS FIRM PRAVIN ANAND & PARTNERS AND THE LATTER FIRM MADE PAYMENT TO THE SAID PARTNER AND THEREFOR E, THE ASSESSEE HAD TO ADJUST THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT OF THE SAID PARTNER IN ITS BOOK S. ACCORDINGLY, CAPITAL ACCOUNT OF THE SAID PARTNER STOOD REDUCED AND AMOUNT WAS PA YABLE TO PRAVIN ANAND & PARTNERS. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THERE WAS NO JUS TIFICATION FOR DISALLOWANCE OF THE AMOUNT, THE LD. AR ARGUED. ON THE OTHER HAND, T HE LD. DR SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). 17. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND GONE THROUG H THE FACTS OF THE CASE. AS IS APPARENT FROM A MERE GLANCE ON THE IMPUGNED O RDER , NEITHER THE AO NOR THE LD. CIT(A) RECORDED ANY FINDINGS ON THE SUBMISS IONS OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE AMOUNT WAS NOT CLAIMED IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOU NT AND THAT ONE OF THE PARTNERS HAVING RETIRED FROM THE ASSESSEE FIRM AS W ELL AS FIRM PRAVIN ANAND & PARTNERS AND THE LATTER FIRM HAVING MADE PAYMENT TO THE SAID PARTNER, THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO ADJUST THE CAPITAL ACCOUN T OF THE SAID PARTNER IN ITS BOOKS. IN NET EFFECT, THE TRANSACTION REPRESENTED REDUCTION OF CAPITAL ACCOUNT OF THE PARTNER . IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY FINDINGS ON THE SE STATEMENTS MADE ON BEHALF ITA NOS.742&8 87/DEL./2012 14 14 OF THE ASSESSEE, EITHER BY THE AO OR BY THE LD. CIT (A), WE CONSIDER IT FAIR AND APPROPRIATE TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A ) AND RESTORE THE MATTER TO HIS FILE FOR READJUDICATING THE ISSUE WITH THE DIRECT IONS TO RECORD HIS FINDINGS ON THE AFORESAID SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE A SSESSEE BEFORE HIM AND THEREAFTER, PASS APPROPRIATE ORDERS IN ACCO RDANCE WITH LAW, AFTER ALLOWING SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY TO BOTH THE P ARTIES. NEEDLESS TO SAY THAT WHILE REDECIDING THE APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(A ) SHALL PASS A SPEAKING ORDER, KEEPING IN MIND, INTER ALIA, THE MA NDATE OF PROVISIONS OF SEC. 250(6) OF THE ACT. WITH THESE DI RECTIONS, GROUND NO.3 IN THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISPOSED OF. 18. NO ADDITIONAL GROUND HAVING BEEN RAISED BEFORE US IN TERMS OF RESIDUARY GROUND NO.3 IN THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE WHILE GROUND NO.4 IN THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE BEING GENERAL IN NATURE, DOE S NOT REQUIRE ANY ADJUDICATION, THEREFORE, THESE GROUNDS ARE DISMISS ED. 19. NO OTHER PLEA OR ARGUMENT WAS MADE BEFORE US. 20. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISS ED WHILE THAT OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. SD/- SD/- ( HARI OM MARATHA) (A.N. PAHUJA) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) NS COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO :- 1 ASSESSEE 2. A.C.I.T.,CIRCLE 37(1), ROOM NO.401, N-BLOCK, VIKAS BHAWAN, I.P. ESTATE,NEW DELHI. 3. CIT CONCERNED 4.CIT(A)-XXI, NEW DELHI 5. DR, ITAT,A BENCH, NEW DELHI 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER, DEPUTY / ASSTT.REGISTRAR ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT