ACIT, New Delhi V. Sh. Sunil Kumar Madan, New Delhi

ITA 866/DEL/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7559 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 9 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-12-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Next Hearing Date: 29-10-2014
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 21-02-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B R R KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: J P GULATI
• Keywords: Bogus purchase; Business expenditure; Earning of tax free income; Additional evidence; Fair market value; Valuation report
• Section: 143(3); 142(1); 14A; 69; 37; 263; 10

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH G, NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI H. S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI T.S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO.866 /DEL/2012 & 341/DEL/2013 ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2003-04 & 2008-09 ACIT, CIRCLE 33(1), VS. SUNIL KUMAR MADAN, NEW DELHI 16/665, FAIZ ROAD, KAROL BAGH, NEW DELHI. GIR / PAN: AAAPM2789C (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI BRR KUMAR, SR. DR RESPONDENT BY : SHRI J.P. GULATI, ADV. ORDER PER T.S. KAPOOR, AM: THESE ARE TWO APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) DATED 17.11.2011` AND 23.10.2012 FOR ASSESSM ENT YEARS 2003-04 AND 2008-09 RESPECTIVELY. THESE APPEALS WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND THEREFORE, FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE, A COMMON AND CONSOLIDA TED ORDER IS BEING PASSED. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL TAKEN IN I.T.A. NO. 866/DEL/2012 ARE AS UNDER: I. 'WHETHER IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE, THE CIT(A)S ORDER HOLDING THAT THE DVOS REPORT AND HIS ESTIMATE OF FMV IS IMAGINARY, ARBITRARY AND BASED ON SURMISE AND CO NJECTURE ( ON THE GROUND THAT THE DVO HAS IGNORED THE SALE INSTANCES OF FLATS ON GROUND FLOOR AND 3RD FLOOR) IS PERVERSE WHEN IT IS FACT THAT IT WAS NOTED BY THE DVO THAT THE SALE DEED OF ASSESSEE AND PURCHASERS OF THE GROUND AND HIGHER FLOOR WAS EXECUTED WITH THE SAME SELLER/VENDOR AND THE SAID SALE DEEDS WERE APPARENTLY EXECUTED AT LOW ER CONSIDERATION ITA NOS.866/DEL/2012 I.T.A.NO. 341/DEL/2013 2 AMOUNT AND CANNOT BE CONSIDERED FOR WORKING OUT THE FAIR MARKET VALUE AND THE SAME WAS CONSIDERED BY THE AO.' 2. ' WHETHER IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE CIT(A)S ORDER HOLDING THAT THE DVOS REPORT AND HIS ESTIMATE OF FMV IS IMAGINARY, ARBITRARY AND BASED ON SURMISE AND CONJE CTURE ( ON THE GROUND THAT THE DVO HAS ADMITTED THAT PLOT NO. 201 IS FACING THE GRAVEYARD AND NOT LOCATED IN POSH LOCALITY VIS A VI S PLOT NO. 204) IS PERVERSE WHEN IT IS A FACT THAT DVO ADEQUATELY CONS IDERED THE DISADVANTAGE OF THE PROPERTY LOCATION BY ADJUSTING AND REDUCING THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY BY COMMENSURATE PERCENTAGE IN HIS VALUATION REPORT AND THE SAME WAS CONSIDERED BY THE A.O. 3. WHETHER IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE, THE CIT(A)S ORDER HOLDING THAT THE AO PASSED THE ASSESSMENT ORD ER WITHOUT CONFRONTING THE REPORT OF THE DVO TO THE ASSESSEE I S ERRONEOUS SINCE AS IS EVIDENT FROM THE RECORD AND ORDER SHEET THAT UPON RECEIPT OF REPLY FORM DVO ON 11.10.2010, AO GAVE A HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE AND DISCUSSED THE CASE WITH HIM HOWEVER, NO FURTHER OBJECTIONS WERE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE.' 4. 'WITHOUT PREJUDICE, WHETHER IN THE FACTS AND CIR CUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, CIT CA),S ORDER HOLDING THAT NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE SOLELY ON THE BASIS OF THE REPORT OF DVO IS ERRONEOUS SINCE T HE HON'BLE IT AT HAS ALREADY ADJUDICATED ON THE ISSUE AND HELD IN IT S ORDER DATED 28.08.2009 (VIDE WHICH THE CASE SET ASIDE) THAT SEC TION 142 A PROVIDES THAT AN ESTIMATE OF THE VALUE OF ANY INVESTMENT REF ERRED TO IN SECTION 69 OR SECTION 69B OF THE VALUE OF ANY BULLION, JEWE LLERY OR OTHER VALUABLE ARTICLES REFERRED TO IN SECTION 69A OR SEC TION 69B IS REQUIRED TO BE MADE, THE AO MAY REQUIRE THE VO TO MAKE AN ES TIMATE OF SUCH VALUE AND REPORT THE SAME TO HIM, AND THE HON'BLE I TAT HAS ALSO ALREADY HELD THAT THE AO FOR THE PURPOSE OF MAKING ASSESSMENT UNDER THE ACT REQUIRED TO ESTIMATE THE VALUE OF SUCH INVE STMENT AND THEREFORE MADE A REFERENCE TO THE DVO AND THAT THE JUDGMENT OF K P VARGHESE DOES NOT APPLY TO THE MATTER.' 5. WITHOUT PREJUDICE, WHETHER IN THE FACTS AND CIRC UMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE CIT (A)'S ORDER HOLDING THAT NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE SOLELY ON THE BASIS OF THE REPORT OF THE DVO IS ERRONEOUS SINCE HE SAID PROPERTY WAS ALREADY ON RENT TO MIS SONY INDIA AT R S. 1 LACS PER AMOUNT OR RS. 12 LACS PER ANNUM AT THE TIME OF PURC HASE AND IF RECOURSE WERE TAKEN TO SCHEDULE III OF THE WEALTH T AX RULES AND VALUE OF THE PROPERTY CALCULATED IN WOULD COME TO A FIGUR E MORE THAN DOUBLE ITA NOS.866/DEL/2012 I.T.A.NO. 341/DEL/2013 3 THE PURCHASE PRICE AND IT WAS IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCE THAT AO REFERRED THE VALUATION TO THE VALUATION CELL.' 6. ' THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER OR AM END ANY/ALL THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE OR DURING THE COURSE OF HE ARING OF THE APPEAL.' 2. GROUNDS RAISED IN I.T.A. NO. 341/DEL/2013 ARE AS UNDER: 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE, THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.1,05,05,058/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF BOGUS P URCHASES. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E, THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN ADMITTING ADDITIONAL E VIDENCES IN VIOLATION OF RULE 46A OF THE I.T. RULES 1962 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E, THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.98,077/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 14A READ WITH RULE 8D OF THE INCOME TAX RULES 1962. 4. THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IS ERRONEOUS AND IS NOT TENABLE ON FACTS AND IN LAW. 3. AT THE OUTSET, LD. D.R. IN RESPECT OF ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09, HEAVILY RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF A.O. WHEREAS LD. A .R. RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A). HOWEVER, IN RESPECT OF ASSESSMENT YE AR 2003-04, LD. D.R. SUBMITTED THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT PASSED A SPEAKING ORDER AND THEREFORE, IT SHOULD BE REMITTED BACK FOR READJUDICATION WHEREAS LD. A.R. OBJECTED TO THE CONTENTION OF LD. D.R. AND SUBMITTED THAT LD. CIT(A ) HAS SPECIFICALLY EXAMINED THE COMPLETE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E CASE AND HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE ON MERITS. 4. WE HAVE HARD RIVAL PARTIES AND HAVE GONE THROUGH THE MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD. FIRST, WE TAKE UP THE APPEAL FOR ASSESS MENT YEAR 2003-04. IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04, THE A.O. COMPLETED THE ASS ESSMENT VIDE ORDER ITA NOS.866/DEL/2012 I.T.A.NO. 341/DEL/2013 4 DATED 15.10.2010 BY MAKING ADDITION U/S 69B OF THE ACT. THE OPERATIVE PART OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS REPRODUCED BELOW: THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S 143(3) READ WITH U/S 263 AT THE INCOME OF RS.49.76,820/-. THE ASSESSEE HAD PURCHASE D THE PROPERTY NO.210. JOR BAGH. NEW DELHI FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS,42,00,000/-- WHICH HAS AN AREA OF 374 SQ. YARDS AND THE PAYMENT OF THE LAND WAS MADE BY OBTAINING ADVANCE RENT. THIS PROPERTY WAS A LREADY ON RENT FOR 1 LAKH PER MONTH. THE AO REFERRED THE CASE TO V ALUATION CELL U/S 142A ON 31.08.2007. THE VALUATION CELL ASSESSED THE VALUE OF PROPERTY AT RS.64,35.300/-. AS AGAINST THE VALUATION REPORT OF THE DVO, THE ASS ESSEE SUBMITTED A VALUATION REPORT FROM APPROVED VALUER SUGGESTING TH E ESTIMATED VALUE OF THE SAME PROPERTY AT RS.43,00,000/-. BUT THE AO RELIED ON THE REPORT OF THE DVO AND ADDED BACK THE EXCESS AMO UNT OF RS.22,35,300/- TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AND PASSED THE ORDER U/S 143(3) READ WITH SECTION 263. AGAINST THIS ORDER THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEF ORE THE LD.CIT(A)- XXVI, NEW DELHI. THE LD.CIT(A) CONSIDERED THE POINT OF THE AO AND FELT THAT THE AO SHOULD HAVE ALLOWED MORE BENEFITS ON A/C OF THE OBJECTION RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE AND DIRECTED THE A O THAT AN AMOUNT OF RS.55,00,000/- SHOULD HAVE BEEN THE PROPER VALUE OF THE FLAT UNDER CONSIDERATION. BUT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT SATISFIED B Y THE OPINION OF THE LD.CIT(A) AND PREFERRED TO FILE AN APPEAL BEFORE TH E HON'BLE IT AT. THE HON'BLE ITAT VIDE ITS ITA NO.111/0E1/2009 DATED 28.08.2009 HAS STATED THAT 'THERE IS NO CLINCHING EVIDENCE ON THE RECORD IN SUPPORT OF RESPECTIVE CLAIM. THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS THE ASSES SING OFFICER IS HARPING UPON THE OPINION OF TWO EXPERTS. IN SUCH SI TUATION, IT IS QUITE DIFFICULT TO GIVE WEIGHTAGE TO ANYONE OF THEM FOR D ETERMINING THE TRUE VALUE. THEREFORE, WE DEEM IT FIT TO SET ASIDE THE I SSUE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FURTHER INVESTIGATION AND REA DJUDICATION. THE TWO DOCUMENTS I. E. SALE DEED OF GROUND FLOOR AND 2 ND FLOOR ARE ALSO THE MATERIAL PIECE OF EVIDENCE. THESE COULD NOT BE FILED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOR THE D VO BEFORE DETERMINING T HE VALUE TOOLS SUCH FACTORS INTO CONSIDERATION. THIS IS ALSO ONE M ORE REASON TO SET ASIDE THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICE R. ' ITA NOS.866/DEL/2012 I.T.A.NO. 341/DEL/2013 5 THE AO REFERRED THE SAME TO THE VALUATION CELL ON 2 1.09.2010. IN RESPONSE TO THIS LETTER THE DVO GAVE HIS REPORT THA T 'THE FMV OF THE SAID PROPERTY OF RS.43,00,000/- AS ON 30.04.2002 PR EPARED BY GOVT. REGD. VALUE IS SUFFERING FROM MANY DEFICIENCIES, SU CH AS THAT THE BASIS OF LRDO RATES CANNOT BE CONSIDERED FOR WORKING OUT THE FMV BUT THESE RATES ARE ONLY FOR CALCULATING THE VEL. THE R EGISTERED VALUER HAS NOT SUBMITTED ANY REFERENCE OF SALE INSTANCE AND AR BITRARILY ADOPTED THE PREVAILING MARKET RATES OF RS. 40, 0001- PER SQ . YDS. FOR WORKING OUT THE LAND VALUE OF THE SAID PROPERTY THE SALE IN STANCE OF PLOT NO. 224, JOR BAGH, NEW DELHI IS CLEARED BY AAI. TAX DEP ARTMENT, NEW DELHI VIDE NOR-7293 DATED 28.03.2002 IS ADOPTED BY THIS OFFICE IS THE MOST PROXIMUS SALE INSTANCE COST OF STRUCTURE AS ON DATE OF VALUATION HAS BEEN WORKED OUT BY ADOPTING CBOT APPROVED PLINT H AREA MATTER. ACCORDINGLY, THE FMV WORKED BUT BY THIS OFFICE OF R S.64.35,3001- AS ON 30.04.2002 (DVO) OF THE 2ND FLOOR, PLOT NO.2901 JOR BAGH, NEW DELHI IS FAIR AND JUST' 5. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE LD . CIT(A) AND LD. CIT(A) HAS GIVEN RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE BY HOLDING AS UNDER: 5. I HAVE GONE CAREFULLY THROUGH THE ORDER OF THE ITAT SETTING ASIDE THE EARLIER ASSESSMENT ORDER, ASSESSMENT ORDER DATE D 25.11.2010, VALUATION REPORTS OF THE DVO AND REGISTERED VALUATI ON OFFICER, WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS AND SYNOPSIS OF THE FACTS AND HEARD THE AR OF THE APPELLANT, AT LENGTH. IT IS NOTICED THAT THE HON'BL E ITAT HAS RESTORED THE MATTER BACK TO ASSESSING OFFICER VIDE ORDER DAT ED 28.08.2009, BUT ASSESSING OFFICER TOOK UP REASSESSMENT AT THE FAG E ND OF THE TIME BARRING LIMIT AND ISSUED NOTICE U/S 142(1) ON 7.7.2 010. THE APPELLANT THEN SUBMITTED LETTER DATED 31.08.2010 WITH AN EXPL ANATION IN SUPPORT OF COST OF FLAT AT RS.42 LAKHS AND ALSO SUBMITTED C OPIES OF SALE DEED OF FLATS ON THE GROUND FLOOR EXECUTED FOR RS.42 LAKHS AND FOR 3RD FLOOR AT RS.44 LAKHS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER THEN WROTE A LETTER DATED 21.09.2010 TO THE DVO ASKING HIM TO SEND A QUICK RE PORT AS IT WAS TIME BARRING MATTER. THE DVO THEN SUBMITTED A LETTE R DATED 7.10.2010 AND STATED THAT THE SALE INSTANCES OF FLATS ON GROU ND FLOOR AND 3RD FLOOR ON PLOT NO. 201 SEEM TO BE EXECUTED AT A LOWE R CONSIDERATION AND IT CANNOT BE CONSIDERED FOR WORKING THE FMV OF FLAT ON 2ND FLOOR, AND THE FMV WORKED OUT AT RS.64,35,000/- IS FAIR AN D JUST. THE ITA NOS.866/DEL/2012 I.T.A.NO. 341/DEL/2013 6 ASSESSING OFFICER THEN, PASSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ON 15.10.2010 WITHOUT CONFRONTING THE REPORT OF THE DVO TO THE AP PELLANT AND ALSO DID NOT SAY ANYTHING ABOUT THE SALE INSTANCES RELIE D UPON BY THE APPELLANT AND HE DID NOT DISCUSS THE VARIOUS OBJECT IONS/EXPLANATIONS SUBMITTED BY THE APPELLANT. IT IS THUS EVIDENT THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TOOK THE ASSESSMENT WHEN IT WAS GETTING TIME BARRED AND PASSED THE ORDER HURRIEDLY, WITHOUT APPLYING HIS JUDICIAL MIND TO THE FINDINGS/OBSERVATIONS RECORDED BY THE HON'BLE IT AT , WHILE SETTING ASIDE THE MATTER BACK TO HIM. 6. I HAVE ALSO PERUSED THE REPORTS OF THE DVO FOR V ALUATION MADE AT RS.64,35,300/- AND THE GOVT. REGISTERED VALUER AND FIND THAT THERE IS A VARIATION BETWEEN THE REPORT OF THE DVO AND REGISTE RED GOVT. VALUER WHICH IS MAINLY ON ACCOUNT OF VALUE OF LAND ESTIMAT ED. THE DVO HAS WORKED OUT LAND RATES BY RELYING ON THE SALE OF PLO T NO. 224 (WHICH MEASURED 526.34 SQ.M) AND APPLIED IT TO THE PLOT NO .201 (WHICH MEASURED 375 SQ. YD) AND ALSO REDUCED IT AT 5% WITH THE OBSERVATION THAT PLOT NO.224 IS FACING PARK AND FURTHER, AT 10% WITH THE OBSERVATION THAT PLOT NO.201 IS FACING GRAVEYARD AC ROSS THE ROAD AND IN LESS POSH LOCALITY. THE AR HAS CONTENDED THAT TH E ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT PROVIDED HIM A COPY OF THE SALE DEED OF PLO T NO.224 DESPITE REPEATED REQUESTS MADE IN THIS BEHALF AND IT IS NOT ASCERTAINABLE AS TO WHAT IS THE STATUS OF SALE OF BUILDING/ PLOT NO.224 . IN MY CONSIDERED OPINION, WHEN THE DVO HAS ADMITTED THAT PLOT NO.201 IS FACING THE GRAVEYARD AND NOT LOCATED IN POSH LOCALITY VIS-A-VI S PLOT NO.224, HIS ESTIMATE OF FMV OF LAND FOR PLOT NO.201 IS IMAGINAR Y, ARBITRARY AND BASED ON SURMISE AND CONJECTURE AND PURELY A GUESS WORK AND IGNORED THE SALE INSTANCES OF FLATS ON GROUND FLOOR AND 3RD FLOOR, WHICH ARE OF THE SIMILAR AMOUNTS, AS THAT OF FLAT P URCHASED BY THE APPELLANT. 7. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE THE ADDITION OF RS.22,35,300/- EXCLUSIVELY ON THE BASIS OF THE REPORT OF THE DVO A ND DID NOT MAKE ANY WORTHWHILE ENQUIRY TO ADJUDICATE THE ISSUE EVEN WHEN IT WAS RESTORED BACK TO HIM BY THE HON'BLE ITAT. THE JURIS DICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN (I) CIT VS. SURAJ DEVI 197 TAXMAN, 173, (I I) CIT VS. BAJRANG LAL BANSAL 335 ITR 572 (III) CIT VS. PUNEET SABHARW AL 338 ITR 485 HAVE REPEATEDLY HELD THAT NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE S OLELY ON THE BASIS OF THE REPORT OF THE DVO. IN MY CONSIDERED OPINION, THE ADDITION MADE ITA NOS.866/DEL/2012 I.T.A.NO. 341/DEL/2013 7 AT RS.22,35,300/- IS CONTRARY TO THE FACTS AND CANN OT BE SUSTAINED IN LAW. I, THEREFORE, DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS.22,3 5,300/-. 6. WE FIND THAT LD. CIT(A) AFTER EXAMINING THE ENTI RE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE AND WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE SAME. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, REVEN UES APPEAL IN I.T.A. NO. 866/DEL/2012 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 IS DISMISS ED. 7. NOW, COMING TO I.T.A. NO. 341/DEL/2013 FOR ASSES SMENT YEAR 2008- 09, THE A.O. HAS PASSED ASSESSMENT ORDER ON 24.12.2 010 AND HAS MADE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF BOGUS PURCHASES AMOUNTING TO RS.1,05,05,058/- BY HOLDING AS UNDER: DURING THE YEAR THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE PURCHASES OF RS. 2,40,56,243/- AND ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO SUBMIT DETAILS WITH NAME & AD DRESSES OF THE PARTIES FORM WHOM THE PURCHASES WERE MADE. IN RESPONSE TO Q UERY THE ASSESSEE FILED DETAILS OF W.R.T PURCHASES MADE DURING THE YEAR FRO M 304 PARTIES. TO TEST CHECK THE CREDIT WORTHINESS OF THE PARTIES INFORMAT ION U/S 133(6} DATED 18/11/2010 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 WERE SENT TO FOLLOWING PARTIES:- SR. NO. NAME OF THE PARTIES AMOUNT OF AMOUNT AS P ER DIFFERRENCE/ADDITION PURCHASE CONFIRMATION 1 RAKESH HANDICRAFTS RS. 2,35,950/- NO REPLY RECE IVED RS. 2,35,950/- 2 RAJU ARTS RS. 2,69,468/- RECEIVED UNSERVED R S. 2,69,468/- 3 PREM KUMAR RS. 94,122/- RECEIVED UNSERVED RS . 94,122/- 4 PRAVEEN HANDICRAFTS RS. 3,08,503/- NO REPLY RE CEIVED RS. 3,08,503/- 5 PRAMOD KUMAR JAIN RS. 1,42,216/- NO REPLY RECE IVED RS. 1,42,216/- 6 ORIENT HANDICRAFTS RS. 3,31,614/- NO REPLY REC EIVED RS. 3,31,614/- 7 MOHD. TALIB RS. 2,29,240/- NO REPLY RECEIVED RS. 2,29,240/- 8 MOHD. SHAFIQ RS. 3,34,002/- NO REPLY RECEIVED RS. 3,34,002/- 9 MOHD. NADEEM RS. 2,35,856/- NO REPLY RECEIVED RS. 2,35,856/- 10 MEHTAB ZARI WORKS RS. 6,47,962/- NO REPLY REC EIVED RS. 6,47,962/- 11 MOHD. YUSUF KHAN RS. 1,38,140/- NO REPLY RECE IVED RS. 1,38,140/- 12 MOHD. 8ASHIR KHAN RS. 5,20,642/- NO REPLY R ECEIVED RS. 5,20,642/- ZARI HOUSE 13 MOHD. ARIF '. RS. 3,51,230/- NO REPLY RECEIV ED RS. 3,51,230/- 14 MOHD. AKHTAR SALEEM RS. 3,24,792/- NO REPLY REC EIVED RS. 3,24,792/- 15 MARQOOB AHMAD RS. 1,36,850/- NO REPLY RECEIVE D RS. 1,36,850/- 16 MANSI CRAFTS RS. 2,41,062/- NO REPLY RECEIVE D RS. 2,41,062/- . 17 MAKSUD ALI RS. 1,81,550/- RS. 1,81,550/- CONFIRMED ITA NOS.866/DEL/2012 I.T.A.NO. 341/DEL/2013 8 18 MAHIPAL HANDICRAFTS RS. 1,00,800/- NO REPLY R ECEIVED RS. 1,00,800/- 19 MAHESH HANDICRAFTS RS. 3,52,559/- NO REPLY RE CEIVED RS. 3,52,559/- 20 MAHEK HANDICRAFTS RS. 4,13,744/- RS. 4,13,744 /- CONFIRMED 21 KRISHNA HANDICRAFTS . RS. 4,66,116/- NO REPLY RECEIVED RS. 4,66,116/- 22 K. D. HANDICRAFTS RS; 300,452/- NO REPLY REC EIVED RS. 3,00,452/- 23 KAILASR, CHNADRA RS. 3,24,107/-NO REPLY RECEIV ED RS.3,24,107/- HANDICRAFTS 24 JEEVAN CRAFTS RS. 2,49,366/- NO REPLY RECEIV ED RS. 2,49,366/- 25 JACDISH KUMAR RS. 69,550/- NO REPLY RECEIVED RS. 69,550/- 26 ISLAMUDIN RS.13,02,6471- NO REPLY RECEIVED R S. 13,02,647/- 27 INDAR HANDICRAFTS RS. 3,95,772/- NO REPLY REC EIVED RS. 3,95,772/- 28 HARUN INTERNATIONAL RS. 5,00,895/- NO REPLY R ECEIVED RS. 5,00,895/- . 29 GUMAN HANDICRAFTS RS. 1,03,276/-. NO REPLY R ECEIVED RS. 1,03,276/- 30 GANQA HANDICRAFTS RS. 2,95,791/- NO REPLY REC EIVED RS. 2,95,791/- 31 DEEPAK HANDICRAFTS RS. 3,30,622/- RECEIVED UN SERVED RS. 3,30,622/- 32 BONE CRAFTS INTERNATIONAL RS.3,19,044/- NO REPL Y RECEIVED RS. 3,19,044/- 33 BHUVAN ART RS. 2,75,454/- NO REPLY RECEIVED RS. 2,75,454/- 34 SHURE LAL RS. 2,92,450/- NO REPLY RECEIVED RS. 2,92,450/- 35 AKHLAW HUSSAIN RS. 2,84,508/- RECEIVED UNSERV ED RS. 2,84,508/- TOTAL RS. 1,05,05,058/- IN THE AFORE MENTIONED PARTIES NO WRITTEN SUBMISSIO N/CONFIRMATION WAS RECEIVED IN THIS OFFICE TILL DATE. THEREFORE, THE A SSESSEE FAILED TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE PURCHASERS IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY CONFIRMATION W.R.T. PURCHASES MADE DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2007-2008. ' AN AMOUNT OF RS. 1,05,05,058/- IS TREATED AS BOGUS PURCHASES AND THE SAME IS ADDED BACK TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. (ADDITION RS. 1,05,05,058/-) 8. THE A.O. ALSO DISALLOWED AN AMOUNT OF RS.98,077/ - U/S 14A BY HOLDING AS UNDER: DURING THE RELEVANT AY UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE AS SESSEE HAS SHOWN DIVIDEND INCOME OF RS.69,704/- AND INCOME FROM LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN EXEMPT U/S 10 AMOUNTING TO RS.8,71,195/- AS EX EMPT INCOME. HOWEVER THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT CLAIMED ANY EXPENDITUR E CORRESPONDING TO THIS TAX FREE INCOME. CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT NO EXPENDITURE HAS BEEN INCURRED IN RESPECT OF TAX FREE INCOME CANNOT BE ACCEPTED ES PECIALLY IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE TAX FREE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE C ONSTITUTES SUBSTANTIAL ITA NOS.866/DEL/2012 I.T.A.NO. 341/DEL/2013 9 PART OF HIS TOTAL INCOME FOR THE AY 2008-09. THUS, THIS IS A CASE WHERE SUB-SECTIONS (2) & (3) OF SECTION 14A ARE CLEARLY A PPLICABLE. THIS IS SO BECAUSE NEITHER THE AO IS SATISFIED WITH THE CORREC TNESS OF THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF EXPENDITURE RELATING TO INCOME WHICH DOES NOT FORM PART OF THE TOTAL INCOME, NOR IS THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT NO EXPENDITURE HAS BEEN INCURRED TO EARN SUCH EXEMP T INCOME ACCEPTABLE. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENDITURE H AS TO BE WORKED OUT IN TERMS OF RULE 8D OF THE INCOME-TAX RULES AND IN THIS SCENARIO, CLAUSE (II) AND (III) OF SUB-RULE (2) OF RULE 8D OF THE INCOME-TAX RULES WOULD DEFINITELY BE APPLICABLE. THE DISALLOWA NCE OF EXPENDITURE WOULD BE MADE FROM THE BUSINESS EXPENDITURE DEBITED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE P&L ACCOUNT. ACCORDINGLY, THE DISALLOWANCE O F EXPENDITURE IN TERMS OF SECTION 14A AND RULE 8D IS COMPUTED AS-FOL LOWS: 1. DIRECT EXPENSES CLAIMED AGAINST LTCG (EXEMPT) 29.993/- 2. INVESTMENT AS ON 01-04-2007 35,76,691/- INVESTMENT AS ON 31-03-2008 1,54,30,680/- AVERAGE INVESTMENT DURING THE YEAR 95,03,686/- 0.5% OF AVERAGE INVESTMENT 45,518/- DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENDITURE TO BE MADE ON ACCOUNT OF SECTION14A READ WITH RULE 8D(2)(II) 45,518/- 3. TOTAL ASSETS AS ON 01-04-2007 3,84,17,863/- TOTAL ASSETS AS ON 31-03-2008 4,16,31,583/- AVERAGE ASSETS DURING THE YEAR (C) 4,00,24,723/- TOTAL INTEREST EXPENDITURE (A) 95,037/- DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENDITURE TO BE MADE ON ACCOUNT OF SECTION 14A READ WITH RULE 8D (2)(II) (A) X (8)/ (C) 22,566/- TOTAL EXPENDITURE DISALLOWED ON EXEMPT INCOME AS PE R RULE 8D(1 +2+3) = RS.1,70,548/- (ADDITION RS.98,077/-) 9. AGGRIEVED WITH THE ADDITION ASSESSEE FILED APPEA L BEFORE LD. CIT(A) AND LD. CIT(A) HAS ALLOWED RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE I N RESPECT OF TWO ADDITIONS BY HOLDING AS UNDER: 7.4 I HAVE CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS, REMAND REPORT DATED, 12.9.2012, AND RE JOINDER DATED ITA NOS.866/DEL/2012 I.T.A.NO. 341/DEL/2013 10 16.10.2012 AND OTHER DETAILS SUBMITTED BY THE APPEL LANT IN THE PAPER BOOK AND CONSIDERED THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. ON PERUSAL OF THE MATERIAL ON RECORD, IT IS OBSERVED T HAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT OFFER ANY COMMENTS PERTAINING TO TH E ADDITION OF RS.1, 05,05,058/- MADE AS 'BOGUS PURCHASES' TO THE RETURN ED INCOME IN HIS REMAND REPORT. HOWEVER, THE AR OF THE APPELLANT SUP PLEMENTED THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS AND FURNISHED THE AFFIDAVITS FR OM VARIOUS PARTIES CONFIRMING THE TRANSACTIONS AND ACCOUNTS IN SUPPORT OF THE GENUINENESS OF PURCHASES MADE FROM THEM DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, AND ALSO STATED THAT SUCH PURCHASES WERE MADE IN THE EARLIER YEARS AND ALSO IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEARS. IN RESPECT OF FIVE PARTIES THE APPELLANT STATED THAT SINCE, HE DID NOT MAKE ANY PURCHASE FROM THEM IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR HE COULD NOT CONTA CT THEM TO OBTAIN CONFIRMATION / AFFIDAVIT BUT SHOWED EACH ITEM OF PU RCHASE MADE FROM THEM FOR EXPORT AND THE EXPORT SALES FROM THE THEM WERE SHOWN AT RS.18, 12,751/- AS AGAINST THE PURCHASE OF RS.15,35 ,607/-. WITHOUT MAKE ANY ENQUIRY INDEPENDENTLY WITHIN US SPECIFIED TIME IN THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS OR WHEN THE CASE WAS ON REMAND IN THE COURSE OF THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, IT IS SEEN THA T THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT GIVE A CATEGORICAL FINDING TO DETER MINE THAT THE PURCHASES WERE BOGUS. THIS FINDING WAS NOT GIVEN AS TO WHICH PURCHASE WAS BOGUS OVER AND ABOVE THE ONES WHICH WE RE FOUND RECORDED BY THE APPELLANT OR WHICH WERE FOUND BOGUS FROM THE PURCHASE RECORDED BY THE APPELLANT, AS THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER TEST CHECKED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE APPELLANT AND A CCEPTED THE SALES DONE BY HIM AS BEING CORRECT. THIS IS EVIDENT BECAU SE THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT REJECT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS NOR FO UND ANY DEFECTS IN THE PURCHASES RECORDED BY HIM. ON PERUSAL ON THE MA TERIAL ON RECORD IT IS ALSO SEEN THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN MAKING AN ADDITION OF RS.1 ,05,05,058/- ON THE FOLLOWING GROU NDS:- A) THE: AO DID NOT REBUT ANY FACTS STATED IN THE WR ITTEN SUBMISSIONS RELEVANT TO EACH PURCHASE PERTAINING TO 33 PARTIES AND TOTALING TO RS.1 ,05,05,058/-. B) THE AO DID NOT FIND ANY DEFECT IN THE BOOKS OF A CCOUNT WHICH WERE AUDITED BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND WHICH WERE VERIFI ED AND EXAMINED BY HIM IN THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. HE DID NOT RAISE ANY DOUBT ON THE CORRECTNESS OR COMPLETENESS OF THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND ALSO DID NOT INVOKE THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 1 45(3) OF THE ACT. ITA NOS.866/DEL/2012 I.T.A.NO. 341/DEL/2013 11 C) IT IS ALSO SEEN THAT 28 PARTIES SUBMISSIONS, THA T THE SAID TRANSACTIONS/ACCOUNTS IN SUPPORT OF THE GENUINENESS OF THE PURCHASES MADE FROM THEM DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND ALSO THAT SUCH PURCHASES WERE MADE IN THE EARLIER YEARS AND S UBSEQUENT YEAR(S). HOWEVER, IN RESPECT OF OTHER 5 PARTIES, TH E APPELLANT STATED THAT SINCE HE DID NOT MAKE ANY PURCHASES IN THE SUB SEQUENT YEAR, HE COULD CONTACT HIM TO OBTAIN CONFIRMATION/AFFIDAVIT BUT SHOWED EACH ITEM OF PURCHASE MADE FROM THEM FOR EXPORT AND EXPO RT SALES WERE SHOWN AT RS.18, 12,751/- AS AGAINST THE PURCHASE OF RS.15,35,607/- FROM THEM. D) IN THE COURSE OF THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE AR OF THE APPELLANT FURNISHED QUANTITY WISE DETAILS OF EACH ITEM OF PUR CHASE WITH THE NAME OF THE PARTY FROM WHOM SUCH PURCHASES WERE MADE AND ITS SALES WERE ACCOUNTED FOR IN THE EXPORT SALES AS PER THE DETAIL S MAINTAINED IN THE STOCK REGISTER. THE SAID DETAILS ARE MENTIONED FROM PAGES 67 -110 OF THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE, WHICH ARE FOUND TALLYING W ITH THE DETAILS FURNISHED IN THE AUDIT REPORT. KEEPING IN VIEW THE ABOVE STATED FACTS AND DISCUSSI ON, AND RELYING ON THE JUDGEMENT OF GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. KASHIRAM TEXTILES MILLS (P) LTD. (2006) 284 ITR 61 (GUJ) AND IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY MATERIAL BEING BROUGHT OUT BY THE ASSESSING OFF ICER CONTRARY TO THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT, I HOLD THAT THE AO WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN MAKING THE ADDITION OF RS.1,05,05,058/- ON ACCOUNT OF BOGUS PURCHASES. THEREFORE, THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSE SSING OFFICER AMOUNTING TO RS.1 ,05,05,058/- IS HEREBY DELETED. REGARDING DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A: 8.6 I HAVE CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE ASSESSMENT OR DER, WRITTEN SUBMISSION, REMAND REPORT OF THE AO, REJOINDER FILE D BY THE APPELLANT AND HEARD THE AR OF THE APPELLANT AT LENGTH WITH RE GARD TO THE DISALLOWANCE MADE AT RS.29,993/-. THE AR OF THE APP ELLANT VEHEMENTLY ARGUED THAT THE DETAILS OF EXPENSES INCU RRED PERTAIN TO THE AMOUNT DEDUCTED BY THE BROKERS FROM THE SALE CONSID ERATION AMOUNTING TO RSAO,91, 155/-, WHICH RESULTED INTO WO RKING OF CAPITAL GAINS OF RS.8,71, 149/- WHICH IS TO BE EXCLUDED FRO M THE TOTAL INCOME BEING AN EXEMPT INCOME. IN MY VIEW, THE PRINCIPLE O F INCLUSION IN THE TOTAL INCOME, I.E. EITHER TAXABLE OR EXEMPT HAS TO BE CONSIDERED AFTER ITA NOS.866/DEL/2012 I.T.A.NO. 341/DEL/2013 12 TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE AMOUNT DEBITED TO EARN ANY INCOME AND EXPENDITURE REFERRED IN SECTION 30 TO 37 CAN ONLY B E CONSIDERED TO BE DISALLOWED PERTAINING TO NET EXEMPT INCOME WHICH IS NOT INCLUDED IN TOTAL INCOME. I, THEREFORE, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOW THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE JUDGEMENT OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF C IT VS. W.ALFORT SHARE AND STOCK BROKER PVT. LTD. (2010) 326 ITR 1 ( HON'BLE SUPREME COURT) HOLD THAT THE AO WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN MAKING A DISALLOWANCE OF RS.29,993/- AND ACCORDINGLY THE ADDITION MADE AMOUN TING TO RS.29,993/- IS HEREBY DELETED. 8.7 IT IS ALSO OBSER VED THAT IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, AN AMOUNT OF RS.22,566/- WAS DISA LLOWED ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST EXPENSE TAKEN AT RS.95,037/-. B UT IN THE REMAND REPORT, THE DISALLOWANCE WAS WORKED AT RS.91 ,016/- TAKING THE INTEREST EXPENSE AT RS.2,51, 170/-. IT IS EVIDENT ' FROM THE ABOVE THAT THE INTEREST FIGURE TAKEN IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER W AS INCORRECT. FURTHER, THE DISALLOWANCE WORKED OUT IN THE REMAND REPORT WAS ON THE BASIS OF INTEREST OF RS.2,51, 170/-, BUT THE P & L ACCOUNT PERTAINING TO THE EXPORT BUSINESS SHOWED THAT THIS AMOUNT WAS ON ACCOUNT OF BANK CHARGES AND INTEREST. ON PERUSAL OF THE BANK STATEM ENT FILED BY THE APPELLANT VIDE HIS LETTER DATED 10.8.2010, THE BANK INTEREST WAS SHOWN AT RS.7,496/- WHICH MEANS THAT THE BALANCE AMOUNT O F RS.2,43,675/- WAS ON ACCOUNT OF BANK CHARGES INCURRED IN THE EXPO RT BUSINESS. IT WAS ALSO CLARIFIED BY THE APPELLANT IN HIS REJOINDE R THAT THIS AMOUNT REPRESENTS THE BANK CHARGES BY THE FOREIGN BANKS AN D THE APPELLANT'S BANKER IN THE PROCESS OF REMITTANCE OF SALE PROCEED S. THEREFORE, IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE AO DID NOT BIFURCATE THE BANK CHAR GES AND BANK INTEREST AND TOOK THE INTEREST EXPENSE AT RS.2,51, 179/-. FURTHER, IT IS SEEN THAT DISALLOWANCE UNDER RULE 8D(2)(II) CAN BE MADE FROM INTEREST, ONLY WHEN IT IS NOT DIRECTLY ATTRIBUTABLE TO ANY PARTICULAR INCOME OR RECEIPT, AND BANK INTEREST WAS ONLY RS.7, 496/- WHICH IS DIRECTLY RELATED TO TAXABLE EXPORT INCOME. THEREFOR E, SUCH BANK INTEREST DOES NOT HAVE ANY NEXUS OR CONNECTION WITH EARNING OF EXEMPT INCOME AND HENCE IT IS TO BE EXCLUDED FROM THE TOTA L INCOME. IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE AO NEITHER HAD EXAMINED THE CORREC T FACTS NOR LOOKED INTO THE LEGAL POSITION AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT, NOR WHILE SUBMITTING THE REMAND REPORT. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, I THEREFORE, HOLD THAT THE AO WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN MAKING THE ADDITIO N OF RS.22,566/- WHILE COMPUTING THE TOTAL INCOME IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS.22,566/-. ITA NOS.866/DEL/2012 I.T.A.NO. 341/DEL/2013 13 8.8. IN THE REMAND REPORT THE DISALLOWANCE UNDER RU LE 8D(2)(II) WAS REPORTED AT RS.91 ,016/-, WHEREAS IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 24.12.2010, IT WAS SHOWN AT RS.45,518/-. ON PERUSAL OF THE MATERIAL ON RECORD, IT IS SEEN THAT THE DIFFERENCE AROSE DUE TO THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD TAKEN THE INVESTMENTS AS ON 1 .4.2007 AT RS.35,76,691/- AS AGAINST THE INVESTMENT SHOWN AT R S.1,35,76,691/- AND THE AVERAGE INVESTMENT DURING THE YEAR WAS WRON GLY WORKED OUT AT RS.95,03,686/- AS AGAINST RS.1,45,03,685/- SHOWN IN THE REMAND REPORT. IT SEEMS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT CORRECTLY INTERPRETED RULE 8D(2)(II) WHICH CLEARLY LAYS DOWN, THAT AVERAGE OF THE VALUE OF INVESTMENT HAS TO BE WORKED OUT ONLY W HICH HAS NEXUS WITH THE INCOME WHICH DOES NOT SHALL NOT FORM PART OF THE TOTAL INCOME. ON PERUSAL OF PAGE 3 OF THE PAPER BOOK, IT IS NOTED THAT INVESTMENT IN SHARES AND MUTUAL FUNDS WERE RS.31,90 ,665/- AND THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS REGARDING THE SAME WERE CLA IMED EXEMPT AT RS.8,71, 195/-. IT IS ALSO SEEN THAT OTHER INVESTME NTS AND MUTUAL FUNDS AS ON 1.4.2007 AND 31.3.2008 DID NOT PERTAIN TO THE INCOME CLAIMED AS EXEMPT, WHEREAS THE SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAINS SHOWN AT RS.25,89,802/- WAS INCLUDED IN THE TOTAL INCOME. THE AUDIT REPORT FURNISHED BY THE APPELLANT SHOWED ENORMOUS DETAILS OF SHARES AND MUT UAL FUNDS, WHICH ARE NOT SUBJECTED TO SALES EITHER FOR LONG TERM CAP ITAL GAINS OR SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAINS DURING THE YEAR. THEREFORE, IT IS EVIDENT THAT WHEN SUCH INVESTMENTS DID NOT YIELD ANY EXEMPTED INCOME, SUCH INVESTMENTS CANNOT BE ACCOUNTED FOR WORKING DISALLOWANCE UNDER RULE 80(2)(II) AND IT IS RESTRICTED ONLY TO SUCH INVESTMENT WHICH YIELD EXEMPTED INCOME. THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE THE DISALLOWANCE UNDER RULE 8D(2)(II) WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS AND LEGAL POSITION IN WORKING OUT A DISALLOWANCE OF RS.45,518/- AND SUBSEQUENTLY IN THE REMAND REPORT PROPOSING THE SAME AS A DISALLOWANCE OF RS.9 1 ,016/-. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, THE ADDITION MADE VIDE ORD ER 24.12.2010 AMOUNTING TO RS.45,518/- IS HEREBY DELETED. IN A NU T SHELL, IN VIEW OF THE DETAILED DISCUSSION BASED ON EVIDENCE FURNISHED BY THE APPELLANT THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AMOUNTIN G TO RS.98,077/- UNDER RULE 8D CORRESPONDING TO PROVISIONS UNDER SEC TION 14A IS HEREBY DELETED. ITA NOS.866/DEL/2012 I.T.A.NO. 341/DEL/2013 14 10. FROM THE ABOVE FINDINGS OF LD. CIT(A), WE OBSER VE THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS PASSED A SPEAKING AND WELL REASONED ORDER WHERE IN WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY. 11. IN VIEW OF ABOVE, BOTH THE APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. 12. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 12 TH DEC., 2014. SD./- SD./- (H. S. SIDHU ) (T.S. KAP OOR) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATE: 12 TH DEC., 2014 SP COPY FORWARDED TO:- 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT (A)-, NEW DELHI. 5. THE DR, ITAT, LOKNAYAK BHAWAN, KHAN MARKET, NEW DEL HI. TRUE COPY. BY ORDER (ITAT, NEW DELHI). S.NO. DETAILS DATE INITIALS DESIGNATION 1 DRAFT DICTATED ON SR. PS/PS 2 DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR SR. PS/PS 3 DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER JM/AM 4 DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER AM/AM 5 APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. PS/PS SR. PS/PS 6 KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT SR. PS/PS 7 FILE SENT TO BENCH CLERK SR. PS/PS 8 DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO HEAD CLERK 9 DATE ON WHICH FI LE GOES TO A.R. 10 DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER