Ms. Somya Salwan, New Delhi V. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 774/DEL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: 77420114 RSA 2014
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-07-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 22-06-2015
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 11-02-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ROBIN RAWAL
• Assessee Lawyers: S K CHATURVEDI
• Keywords: Salary income

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH SMC NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S.V. MEHROTRA : ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 774 /DEL/2014 ASSTT. YR: 2009-10 SOMYA SALWAN VS. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, 114, JOR BAGH, NEW DELHI. WARD 31(4), NEW DELHI. PAN: AAEPG 8593 J AND ITA NO. 775 /DEL/2014 ASSTT. YR: 2009-10 ABHISHEK GOVIL VS. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, 114, JOR BAGH, NEW DELHI. WARD 31(4), NEW DELHI. PAN: AAHPG 3483 G ( APPELLANT ) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI S.K. CHATURVEDI CA RESPONDENT BY : SHRI ROBIN RAWAL JCIT DATE OF HEARING : 26/06/2015. DATE OF ORDER : 23/07/2015. O R D E R PER S.V. MEHROTRA, A.M.. : THESE APPEALS, PREFERRED BY SEPARATE ASSESSEES, A RE DIRECTED AGAINST CIT(A)S SEPARATE ORDERS DATED 25-01-2012 PASSED IN APPEAL NO. 382/2011- 12 AND 383/2011-12,RESPECTIVELY, RELATING TO A.Y. 2008-09. SINCE COMMON ISSUES ARE INVOLVED FOR CONSIDERATION, BOTH THE APP EALS WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY THIS COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 2 ITA 774 & 775/DEL/2014 SOMYA SALWAN VS. ITO ITA NO. 774/DEL/2012 (SOMYA SALWAN): 2. THE ASSESSEE, AN INDIVIDUAL, IN THE RELEVANT ASS ESSMENT YEAR, DERIVED SALARY INCOME FROM THREE COMPANIES, NAMELY, M/S A.K. GOVIL & COMPANY, M/S GPPL AND M/S STEM INFRA. BESIDES, THE ASSESSEE HAD RENT AL INCOME FROM BUSINESS AND OTHER SOURCES. SHE HAD FILED HER RETURN THROUGH E-F ILING DECLARING A LOSS OF RS. 6,48,890/- THE AO OBSERVED THAT AIR INFORMATION HAD BEEN GENERATED IN RESPECT OF THE ASSESSEE AS UNDER: (I) RENTAL INCOME RS. 950000/- FROM STEM INFRA SERVICES PVT. LTD. (II) CONTRACTOR RECEIPT AMOUNTING TO RS. 550000/- FROM S TEM INFRA SERVICES PVT. LTD. 3. THE AO NOTICED FROM THE COMPUTATION OF ASSESSEE THAT ASSESSEE HAD NOT SHOWN THE CONTRACTUAL RECEIPTS AGGREGATING TO RS. 5 ,50,000/- AND, THEREFORE, REQUIRED THE ASSESSEES EXPLANATION ON THIS COUNT. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED AS UNDER: '10. RECONCILIATION OF RENT RECEIVED AND CONTRACTOR S CHARGES RECD FROM TENANT: THE ASSESSEE HAS REED A SUM OF RS. 15.5 LACS AS REN T AND RS. 5.5 LAKHS AS MAINTENANCE CHARGES AND SHOWN 01/ THESE AM OUNT AS RENTAL INCOME AS IT WAS DERIVED FROM USAGE OF THE P ROPERTY. THE RECONCILIATION OF THE RECEIPT IS AS FOLLOWS: RENT INCOME: NET OF TDS - RS,. 311269/- + 311269 + 83010 + 83010 ( TDS -16.6% - 161452) CONTRACTOR INCOME: RS. 268878 + 268878 + 586404 ( T DS - 12464 + 13496 ) ' 4. AFTER CONSIDERING THE AFOREMENTIONED REPLY, THE AO OBSERVED AS UNDER: 3 ITA 774 & 775/DEL/2014 SOMYA SALWAN VS. ITO ON GOING THROUGH THE REPLY OF THE ASSESSEE, IT IS NOTICED THAT REPLY OF THE ASSESSEE IS CONFUSING AND CONTRADICTOR Y ITSELF. ON THE ONE HAND, THE ASSESSEE SAYS THAT SHE HAD RECEIV ED RS. 15.5 LACS AS RENT AND RS. 5.50 LAKHS AS MAINT. CHARGE WH ICH HAS BEEN SHOWN AS RENTAL INCOME BUT ON THE OTHER HAND SHE GI VES DETAILS OF RENTAL INCOME OF RS. 9,50,000/- AND CONTRACT REC EIPTS FOR RS. 11,50,000/-. HOWEVER. THERE IS NO DENIAL OF HAVING RECEIVED RS. 21,00,000/- DURING THE YEAR AS RENTAL INCOME AND MA INTENANCE CHARGE FROM M/S STEM INFRA SERVICES PVT. LIMITED. 4.2 ON GOING THROUGH THE TDS CERTIFICATES IT IS NOT ICED THAT THE RATE OF DEDUCTION OF RECEIPT OF RS. 9,50,000/ SHOWN AS RENT IS NEARLY 16.6 % WHEREAS THE TDS ON RS. 11,50,000/- SH OWN AS CONTRACTS RECEIPT IS 2% ONLY. THEREFORE, THE RECEIP TS OF RS. 11,50,000/- CANNOT BE TAXABLE UNDER THE HEAD OF INC OME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY AND HENCE, THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ENTIT LED TO RECEIVE THE DEDUCTIONS ALLOWABLE U/S 24 OF INCOME TAX ACT. IN VIEW OF THIS, THE CONTRACT RECEIPT OF RS. 11,50,000/- ARE D EDUCTED FROM THE INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY AND ARE BEING ASSESS ED UNDER INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. 5. THE AO, ACCORDINGLY, ASSESSED THE CONTRACTUAL RE CEIPTS OF RS. 11,50,000/- AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES AND NOT AS INCOME FROM HO USE PROPERTY AS CLAIMED BY ASSESSEE. LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE AOS ACTION. BEI NG AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE ME AND HAS TAKEN FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: LD. CIT(A)-XXVI, NEW DELHI HAS ERRED BY PASSING EX -PARTE ORDER U/S 250(6) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 WITHOU T EXTENDING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO APPELLANT. LD. CIT(A)-XXVI, NEW DELHI HAS ERRED BY CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF ASSESSING OFFICER BY ASSESSING THE AMOUNT OF MAINTENANCE AT RS. 11,50,000/- AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES INSTEAD OF INCOME UNDER THE HEAD HOUSE PROPERTY ALO NG WITH THE AMOUNT OF RENT AT RS. 9,50,000/-. 4 ITA 774 & 775/DEL/2014 SOMYA SALWAN VS. ITO 6. THE SOLE ISSUE IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS WHETHER THE SUM OF RS. 11,50,000/- REALIZED BY ASSESSEE AS CONTRACT RECEIPT IS TO BE T AXED AS RENTAL INCOME UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY AS CLAIMED BY ASS ESSEE OR TO BE TREATED AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES AS HELD BY LOWER REVENUE AUTHORITIES. 7. THE SUBMISSION OF LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS DERIVING THE RECEIPT FROM M/S STEM INFRA SERVICES P VT. LTD. AS RENTAL INCOME AND W.E.F. 1-4-2008 ANNUAL RENT WAS ENHANCED WHICH WAS REALIZED BY ASSESSEE AS MAINTENANCE AND SERVICE CHARGES. 8. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE LEASE DEED WAS EXECUTED BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND M/S NE & MI CONSULTANTS & ENGG. PVT. LTD. ON 26-12- 2006. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE PREMISES, BEING THE ENT IRE BLOCK C&D 14(A), FACTORY ROAD, SOUTH OF RING ROAD, NEAR SAFDARJUNG HOSPITAL, NEW DELHI, EXCLUDING TERRACE, WAS LEASED OUT AT A MONTHLY RENT OF RS. 3, 75,000/- AS PER COVENANT 13 OF THE LEASE-DEED. HE POINTED OUT THAT THIS LEASE-DEED WAS EXECUTED BY THREE LESSORS, NAMELY, ABHISHEK GOVIL (ASSESSEE), MRS. PARUL GOVI L AND MRS. SOMYA SALWAN (ASSESSEE). HE SUBMITTED THAT W.E.F. BY ADDENDUM DA TED 1-4-2008 TO LEASE DEED DATED 6-12-2006 , CLAUSE 13 WAS SUBSTITUTED AS FOL LOWS: TO TAKE ON LEASE THE DEMISED PREMISES ON A MONTHLY RENT OF RS. 525000/- (RS. FIVE LACS AND TWENTY FIVE THOUSAN DS ONLY). AND THIS AMOUNT SHALL BE DIVIDED INTO TWO COMPONENT S NAMELY LEASE CHARGES RS. 237500/- AND MAINTENANCE CHARGE S RS. 287500/-. EACH OF THE LESSOR SHALL BE ENTERING INT O SEPARATE MAINTENANCE AGREEMENTS WITH THE LESSEE. 5 ITA 774 & 775/DEL/2014 SOMYA SALWAN VS. ITO 9. HE, THEREFORE, SUBMITTED THAT MERE NOMENCLATURE WAS GIVEN TO THE ENHANCED RENT AS MAINTENANCE AND SERVICE CHARGES. 10. LD. COUNSEL HAS ALSO REFERRED TO THE DECISION O F ITAT IN THE CASE OF SUGUNA KAUR VS. ACIT (ITA NO. 4117/DEL/2012), WHEREIN THE ITAT , INTER ALIA, HAS OBSERVED AS UNDER:- IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, CHARACTER OF INCOME CAN NOT BE CHANGED EITHER BY ENTERING TWO AGREEMENTS OR BY MAK ING OTHER EVIDENCE. THE AMOUNT OF LICENSE FEE EARNED BY ASSES SEE ON ACCOUNT OF TWO AGREEMENTS IN FACT IS ON ACCOUNT OF PROPERTY GIVEN ON LICENSE AND THE ENTIRE INCOME OF THE PRO PERTY, IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, HAS TO BE TREATED AS INCOME FROM H OUSE PROPERTY AND NOT INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES WHICH IS TREATED BY ASSESSING OFFICER . FOR THE REASON THAT A SEPARATE AGREEMENT HAS BEEN ENTERED ON ACCOUNT OF AMENITIES PROVIDED BY AS SESSEE. . . 8. HOWEVER, IN THE PRESENT CASE, IT IS SEEN THAT BO TH THE AGREEMENTS RELATE TO ONE PROPERTY WITHOUT PROVIDING ANY AMENITIES. PROVIDING AN ELECTRICITY . CONNECTION, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT IN REGULAR SERVICES, HAS BEEN PROVIDED BY THE@ ASSESSEE. CHARGES OF ELECTRICITY HAS BEEN PAID BY L ICENSEE AND NOT BY ASSESSEE. 11. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE P ARTIES AND HAVE PERUSED THE RECORD OF THE CASE. AS PER THE DECISION OF HONBLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. KANAK INVESTMENTS (PVT.) LTD. (1974) 95 ITR 419(CAL), WHERE COMPOSITE RENT IS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM ITS TENANTS IT SHOULD BE SPLIT UP AND THE AMOUNT ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE BUILDING ONLY SHOULD BE COMPUTED UNDER SECTION 9(1) OF THE INDIAN INCOME-TAX ACT, 1922, WHILE THE AMOUN T ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE AMENITIES PROVIDED BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE TENANTS SHOULD BE A SSESSED U/S 12 OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, IN ORDER TO FIND OUT THE TRUE NATURE OF RECEIPT RECEIVED BY ASSESSEE AS MAINTENANCE AND SERVICE CHARGES, AGREEMENT DATED 26 -12-2006 AS AMENDED BY 6 ITA 774 & 775/DEL/2014 SOMYA SALWAN VS. ITO ADDENDUM DATED 1-4-2008 HAS TO BE CONSIDERED IN ENT IRETY. AS REGARDS THE MAINTENANCE AND SERVICE CHARGES, CLAUSES 16 & 17 O F AGREEMENT DATED 26-12-2006 READ AS UNDER: 16. TO PAY ACTUAL MAINTENANCE AND SERVICE CHARGES IN RESPECT OF THE ABOVE PREMISES DIRECTLY TO THE MAINTENANCE S OCIETY OF THE BUILDING (IN ADDITION OF THE MONTHLY RENT). 'SUCH P AYMENTS SHALL BE DEEMED FULL SETTLEMENT OF THE LESSEE'S OBLIGATIO N -TOWARDS ANY CHARGES OR COMMON FACILITIES LIKE RUNNING COST OF LIFTS, LIGHTING, COMMON SPACE, STAIRCASE, GROUND CLEANING, MAINTENANCE OF LAWNS OR PARKING ETC. ANY ENHANCEMEN T OF THE SAME SHALL BE BORNE BY LESSEE. 17. THE SAID MAINTENANCE CHARGES SHALL BE PAID ON T HE BASIS OF THE ACTUAL AMOUNT DEMANDED BY THE SOCIETY AND TH E SAME SHALL BE PAID DIRECTLY BY THE LESSEE TO THE CONCERN ED AUTHORITY. 12. IN THE AMENDED AGREEMENT DATED 1-4-2008, THE LE SSOR TOOK A THE RESPONSIBILITY TO PROVIDE THE MAINTENANCE AND OTHER REGULAR SERVICE TO THE SECOND PARTY, WHICH IS EVIDENT FROM THE FOLLOWING COVENANT : THE FIRST PARTY AGREES AND UNDERTAKES TO PROVIDE T HE MAINTENANCE AND OTHER REGULAR SERVICES TO THE SECON D PARRY WITH RESPECT TO THE DEMISED PREMISES IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING TERMS: 01. THE FIRST PARTY SHALL CARRY OUT THE WORK CONNEC TED WITH THE GENERAL MAINTENANCE CLEANLINESS AND UPKEEP OF T HE ENTIRE BUILDING IN THE DEMISED PREMISES INCLUDING, STAIRCA SES, CORRIDORS PASSAGES ETC. ON A DAILY BASIS AND ENSURE THAT THE DEMISED PREMISES IS IN GOOD CONDITION AT ALL TIMES DURING THE TERM OF THE LEASE DEED . 02. THE FIRST PARTY SHALL REPAIR AND RENEW AND SO F AR AS APPROPRIATE, PAINT, WHITEWASH AND COLOR THE BUILDIN G IN THE DEMISED PREMISES. 03. THE FIRST PARRY SHALL KEEP THE DEMISED PREMISES FURNISHED AS IT IS AT THE TIME OF HANDING OVER POSSESSION AT ALL TIMES DURING 7 ITA 774 & 775/DEL/2014 SOMYA SALWAN VS. ITO THE TERM OF THE LEASE DEED. THE FIRST PARTY HEREBY AGREES TO MAINTAIN THE FITTING AND FIXTURE. 04. PAYMENT OF MAINTENANCE AND SERVICE CHARGES THE SECOND PARTY SHALL PAY TO THE FIRST PARTY QUARTERLY CHARGE S OF RS. 287500/- 05. IN THE EVENT OF ANY DISPUTE ARISING BETWEEN THE PARTIES ONLY THE COMPETENT COURTS OF DELHI SHALL HAVE EXCL USIVE JURISDICTION TO TRY SUCH DISPUTES . 13. FROM THE ABOVE COVENANTS IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE RE IS MARKED CHANGE IN THE TERMS OF AGREEMENT AND, THEREFORE, IT CANNOT BE HEL D THAT THE ENTIRE RECEIPTS WERE TOWARDS RENT. IN THE ORIGINAL AGREEMENT AS PER CLA USE 16, THE MAINTENANCE CHARES WERE PAID TO THE SOCIETY OF THE BUILDING HIRED BY L ESSEE WHICH WAS IN FULL SETTLEMENT OF THE LESSEES OBLIGATION TOWARDS ANY CHARGES FOR COMMON FACILITIES RUNNING COST OF LIFTS, LIGHTING, COMMON SPACE, STAIRCASE, GROUND CLEANING, MAINTENANCE OF LAWNS OR PARKING ETC. ANY ENHANCEMENT OF THE SAME WAS TO BE BORNE BY LESSEE. HOWEVER, IN THE AMENDED AGREEMENT THE LESSOR TOOK THE RESPON SIBILITY FOR REPAIR AND RENEW, PAINT, WHITEWASH AND COLOUR THE BUILDING IN THE DEM ISED PREMISES. EARLIER ALSO THE MAINTENANCE AND SERVICE CHARGES PAID TO THE SOCIETY WERE NOT PART OF RENT AND, THEREFORE, THE SUBMISSION OF LD. COUNSEL CANNOT BE ACCEPTED. LD. COUNSEL HAS RELIED ON THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF SUGUNA KAUR VS. ACIT (ITA NO. 4117/DEL/2012), WHEREIN THE FACTS WERE AS UNDER:- 3. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER NOTED THAT ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN RENTAL INCOME OF RS. 1 ,56, 48~0001-,. ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED THE PROPERTY UNIT 1 & 2, GROUND FLOOR , LOWER PAREL, 8 ITA 774 & 775/DEL/2014 SOMYA SALWAN VS. ITO MUMBAI IN MAY, 2008 AND 'LET IT OUT TO THE ICICI PR UDENTIAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. ASSESSEE HAS, MADE TWO SEPARATE AGREEM ENTS FOR LEASING OUT OF THE PROPERTY. FIRST AGREEMENT 'IS FOR THE LEASIN G OUT OF THE HOUSE AND SECOND AGREEMENT IS FOR 'PROVISION OF AMENITIES AND SERVICES'. THE COMPANY HAS TO PAY TO THE ASSESSEE A SUM OF RSA,50, 0001- PER MONTH FOR THE PROVISIONS OF AMENITIES AND SERVICES AND A SUM OF RS.3,20,0001- @ PER MONTH FOR THE RENT OF THE PROPERTY. ORIGINAL COMPUT ATION OF INCOME FROM MUMBAI PROPERTY AS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AS BELOW :- INCOME FROM LETTING OUT OF MUMBAI PROPERTY RS. 6 9,54,667/- INCOME FROM SERVICES RS. 86,93,333/- TOTAL RS. 1,56,48,000/- LESS: 30% DEDUCTION RS. 46,94,400/- INTEREST U/S 24 RS. 97,13,931/- ASSESSED HOUSE PROPERTY INCOME FROM MUMBAI PROPERTY RS. 12,39,668/- ASSESSEE IS EARNING INCOME FROM PROVISIONS OF SERVI CES AND AMENITIES. AS THIS IS A SERVICE AGREEMENT AND NOT RELATED TO LETT ING OUT OF THE PROPERTY, THIS INCOME SHOULD BE INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES AND '30% STATUTORY DEDUCTION CLAIMED U/S 24(A) SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED F ROM INCOME FROM PROVISION OF AMENITIES AND SERVICES. THEREFORE, VID E ORDER SHEET ENTRY DATED 01.12.2011, COUNSEL WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN:- 'E XPLAIN WHY THE INCOME FROM 'SERVICE AGREEMENT' FOR MUMBAI PROPERTY SHOULD NOT BE TREATED AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES AND THEREFORE 30% STATUTORY DEDUCTION SHOULD BE DISALLOWED. ' 13.1. THE ASSESSEES SUBMISSION WAS THAT BOTH AGREE MENTS WERE INEXTRICABLY INTER RELATED AND, THEREFORE, THE ENTIRE SUM RECEIV ED WAS TO BE TREATED AS INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY, WHICH PLEA WAS NOT ACCE PTED BY DEPARTMENT. TRIBUNAL AFTER CONSIDERING THE ENTIRE FACTS OBSERVE D AS UNDER: IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, CHARACTER OF INCOME CANNOT BE CHANGED EITHER BY ENTERING TWO AGREEMENTS OR BY MAKING OTHE R EVIDENCE. THE AMOUNT OF LICENSE FEE EARNED BY ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF TWO 9 ITA 774 & 775/DEL/2014 SOMYA SALWAN VS. ITO AGREEMENTS IN FACT IS ON ACCOUNT OF PROPERTY GIVEN ON LICENSE AND THE ENTIRE INCOME OF THE PROPERTY, IN OUR CONSIDERED VI EW, HAS TO BE TREATED AS INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY AND NOT INCOM E FROM OTHER SOURCES WHICH IS TREATED BY ASSESSING OFFICER FOR T HE REASON THAT A SEPARATE AGREEMENT HAS BEEN ENTERED ON ACCOUNT OF A MENITIES PROVIDED BY ASSESSEE. .. . 8. HOWEVER, IN THE PRESENT CASE, IT IS SEEN THAT BO TH THE A REEMENTS RELATE TO ONE PROPERTY WITHOUT PROVIDING ANY AMENIT IES. PROVIDING AN ELECTRICITY CONNECTION, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT IN R EGULAR SERVICES, HAS BEEN PROVIDED BY THE ASSESSEE. CHARGES OF ELECTRICI TY HAS BEEN PAID BY LICENSEE AND NOT BY ASSESSEE. 13.2. THUS, IT IS EVIDENT THAT FACTS IN THE PRESENT CASE ARE ENTIRELY ON DIFFERENT FOOTING. IN VIEW OF ABOVE DISCUSSION, I CONFIRM TH E ORDER OF LD. CIT(A). 14. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. ITA NO. 775/DEL/2014 (ABHISHEK GOVIL) : 15. SOLE EFFECTIVE GROUND TAKEN IN THIS APPEAL IS A S UNDER: LD. CIT(A)-XXVI, NEW DELHI HAS ERRED BY CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF ASSESSING OFFICER BY ASSESSING THE AMOUNT OF MAINTENANCE AT RS. 11,50,000/- AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES INSTEAD OF INCOME UNDER THE HEAD HOUSE PROPERTY ALO NG WITH THE AMOUNT OF RENT AT RS. 9,50,000/-. 16. FACTS IN THE CASE OF SHRI ABHISHEK GOVIL ( A SSESSEE ), ARE IDENTICAL AS CASE OF CO-OWNER SOMYA SALWAN (SUPRA). THEREFORE, FOR T HE REASONS GIVEN BY US IN THE CASE OF SOMYA SALWAN, WE UPHOLD THE ACTION OF LD. C IT(A) ON THE ISSUE IN QUESTION. 10 ITA 774 & 775/DEL/2014 SOMYA SALWAN VS. ITO 17. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS FILED BY THE AS SESSES ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 23/07/2015.. SD/- (S.V. MEHROTRA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 23/07/2015. *MP* COPY OF ORDER TO: 1. ASSESSEE 2. AO 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, NEW DELHI.