DDIT, New Delhi V. M/s Kalpana Yadav, New Delhi

ITA 879/DEL/2011

• Counselvise Citation: 87920114 RSA 2011
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-09-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 23-09-2011
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 14-02-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: N K CHAND
• Keywords: Capital asset; Gift; Cost of acquisition; Fair market value; Valuation report
• Section: 143(1)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH 'D' BEFORE SHRI C.L.SETHI,JM & SHRI A N PAHUJA,AM BEFORE SHRI C.L.SETHI,JM & SHRI A N PAHUJA,AM BEFORE SHRI C.L.SETHI,JM & SHRI A N PAHUJA,AM BEFORE SHRI C.L.SETHI,JM & SHRI A N PAHUJA,AM ITA NO.879/DEL/2011 (ASSESSMENT YEAR:-2005-06) DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-2(2), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, NEW DELHI V/S MS. KALPANA YADAV, B-7, MAHARANI BAGH, NEW DELHI PAN: AAQPY 3784 K AAQPY 3784 K AAQPY 3784 K AAQPY 3784 K [APPELLANT] [RESPONDENT] ASSESSEE BY :- MS. RANO JAIN, CA REVENUE BY:- SHRI N.K. CHAND, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING 28-09-2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 30-09-2011 O R D E R O R D E R O R D E R O R D E R A N PAHUJA: A N PAHUJA: A N PAHUJA: A N PAHUJA: THIS APPEAL BY REVENUE FILED ON 14.2.20 11 AGAINST AN ORDER DATED 24-11-2010 OF THE LD. CIT(AP PEALS)- XXIX, NEW DELHI, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06, RAISES THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- 1 ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, LEARNE D CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN APPLYING THE COST INFLATION INDEX WITH EFFECT FROM 01.04.1981 INSTEAD OF THE YEAR 1999-00, THE YEAR IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE INHERITED THE PROPERTY. 2 ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN APPLYING PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2(42A) FOR THE PURPOSE OF ALLOWING BENEFIT OF INDEXATION FOR COMPU TING COST OF ACQUISITION AND CAPITAL GAIN, DISREGARDING THE FACT THAT A SPECIFIC AND DIFFERENT CRITERIA FOR THIS PURPOSE IS INCORPORATED IN EXPLANATION (III) OF SECTION 48 OF THE INCOME-TA X ACT, 1961. 3 THE APPELLANT PRAYS FOR LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND, MODIFY OR ALTER ANY GROUNDS OF APPEAL AT THE TIME OF OR BEFORE HEAR ING OF THE APPEAL. 2. ADVERTING FIRST TO GROUND NOS.1 & 2 IN THE APPEA L, FACTS IN BRIEF, AS PER RELEVANT ORDERS ARE THAT RETURN DECLARING INCOME OF `3,95,710/- ITA NO.879 /DEL/2011 2 2 FILED ON 13 TH JULY, 2005 BY THE ASSESSEE, AFTER BEING PROCESSED ON 9.1.2006 U/S 143(1) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (HE REINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT), WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY WITH TH E SERVICE OF A NOTICE U/S 143(2) OF THE ACT. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESS MENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER (A.O. IN SHORT) NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE SOLD A PROPERTY NO.C-645, NEW FRIENDS COLONY, NEW DELHI ON 2.7.2004, GIFTED TO HER BY HER UNCLE SHRI RADHEY SHYAM CHOUDHARY ON 13 TH JANUARY, 2000. THE PROPERTY WAS OWNED BY HER UNCLE PRIOR TO 01.04.1981 AND THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE SAID PROPERTY AS ON 01 .04.1981 WAS `22,05,292/- AS PER THE REPORT OF THE REGISTERED VA LUER. WHILE DETERMINING CAPITAL GAINS ON SALE OF THE PROPERTY, THE AO WAS OF THE OPINION THAT IN TERMS OF EXPLANATION (III) TO SEC. 48 OF THE ACT, THE INDEXED COST OF ACQUISITION WAS TO BE TAKEN AT AN A MOUNT WHICH BEARS TO THE COST OF ACQUISITION , THE SAME PROPORTION AS THE COST INFLATION INDEX FOR THE YEAR IN WHICH THE ASSET WAS TRANSFER RED, BEARS TO COST INFLATION INDEX FOR THE FIRST YEAR IN WHICH ASSET W AS HELD BY THE ASSESSEE OR FOR THE YEAR BEGINNING ON 1.4.1981,WHIC H EVER IS LATER. TO A QUERY BY THE AO, THE ASSESSEE REPLIED VIDE LETTER DATED 20 TH DECEMBER, 2007 THAT THE DATE OF INDEXATION FOR THE PURPOSE OF CALCULATION OF CAPITAL GAIN IN CASE OF CIRCUMSTANCE S MENTIONED U/S 49(1)(II) AND 49(1)(III)(A) IS THE DATE WHEN THE PR EVIOUS OWNER ACQUIRED THE PROPERTY. IN THIS CONNECTION, ASSESSEE RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF THE CHANDIGARH BENCH OF THE ITAT IN THE CASE OF MRS . PUSHPA SOFAT VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, 81 ITD 1. HOWEVER, THE AO DID NOT ACCEPT THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND WHILE REFERRING TO PROVISIONS OF SECTIONS 48, 49 AND 55 OF THE ACT, ADOPTED COST OF ACQUISITION OF `27,21,183/- ON THE BASIS OF COST INFLATION INDEX FOR THE YEAR IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED THE PROPERTY BY WAY OF GIFT. INTER ALIA, THE AO OBSERVED THAT THERE WAS NO DISPUTE REGARDING COST O F ACQUISITION IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE WHICH HAS BEEN TAKEN AS THE FAIR MARKET VALUE AS ON 01.04.1981. HOWEVER, COST INFLATION INDEX WILL BE T AKEN FOR THE YEAR 1999-2000. ITA NO.879 /DEL/2011 3 3 3. ON APPEAL, THE LEARNED CIT(A) ALLOWED THE CL AIM OF THE ASSESSEE HOLDING AS UNDER:- 6. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELL ANT AND THE POINTS MADE BY THE AO IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE ONLY ISSUE INVOLVED IN THIS APPEAL IS ABOUT THE BAS E YEAR FOR CALCULATION OF INDEXED COST OF ACQUISITION OF THE P ROPERTY IN TERMS OF EXPLANATION-(III) TO SECTION 48 OF THE ACT , ACQUIRED BY THE APPELLANT BY WAY OF GIFT (ONE OF THE MODES S PECIFIED IN SECTION 49(1) OF THE ACT). WHILE THE APPELLANT H AS TAKEN THE BASE YEAR TO BE THE F. Y. 1981-82 AS THE PROPER TY WAS ACQUIRED BY THE PREVIOUS OWNER PRIOR TO 1.4.1981, T HE AO HAS HELD IT TO BE F. Y. 1999-2000, 'FIRST YEAR WHEN THE ASSET WAS HELD BY THE ASSESSEE'. 7. SECTION 48, EXPLANATION (III) PROVIDES FOR 'IND EXATION OF COST OF ACQUISITION' AND IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER FOR READY REFERENCE: (III) 'INDEXED COST OF ACQUISITION' MEANS AN AMOUN T WHICH BEARS TO THE COST OF ACQUISITION THE SAME PROPORTIO N AS COST INFLATION INDEX FOR THE YEAR IN WHICH THE ASSET IS TRANSFERRED BEARS TO THE COST INFLATION INDEX FOR THE FIRST YEA R IN WHICH THE ASSET WAS HELD BY THE ASSESSEE OR FOR THE YEAR BEGINNING ON THE LST DAY OF APRIL, 1981, WHICHEVER IS LATER: 8. REFERRING TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 48, EXPLA NATION (III), THE AO HELD THAT THE PROPERTY WAS FIRST HELD BY THE APPELLANT IN THE FY 1999-2000 I.E. AFTER IT WAS GIF TED TO HER BY HER UNCLE ON 13.01.2000 AND THEREFORE ACCORDING THE AO, CIT FOR THE FY 1999-2000 IS APPLICABLE FOR CALCULATING THE INDEXED COST OF ACQUISITION OF THE PROPERTY AND NOT FY 1981-82 AS APPLIED BY THE APPELLANT. 9. THIS ISSUE HAS BEEN DISCUSSED IN DETAIL IN VARI OUS ORDERS OF THE ITAT. FOLLOWING IS A LIST OF THE ITAT CASES DEALING WITH THIS ISSUE- S.NO. NAME OF THE CASE FAVOURING DATE 1. PUSHPA SOFAT VS. I.T.O., 81 ITD 1, ASSESSEE 4.7.2001 ITAT (CHD.) 2. DCIT VS. MEERA KHERA, 2 SOT 902 3. ITAT (MUM.) ASSESSEE 5.8.2003 4. KISHORE KANUNGO, 201 ITD 437, ITA NO.879 /DEL/2011 4 4 ITAT (MUM.) DEPARTMENT 27.10.05 5. MINA DEOGUN VS. I.T.O., 117 TTJ 121, ITAT (KOL.) ASSESSEE 3.8.2007 6. KAMAL MISHRA VS. I.T.O., 19 SOT 251 ITAT (DEL.) ASSESSEE 31.8.07 7. ARUN SHUNGLOO TRUST VS. CIT I.T.A.NO.1336/D/2005. DEPARTMENT 25.1.08 8. DCIT VS. MANJULA J. SHAH, 35 SOT 105, ITAT (MUM.)(SPL.BENCH) ASSESSEE 16.10.09 10. FROM THE ABOVE LIST OF IT AT CASES, IT IS SEEN THAT ONLY THE CASES OF KISHORE KANUNGO, ITAT (MUM.) AND ARUN SHUNGLOO TRUST (ITAT DELHI, RELIED ON KISHORE KANUN GO CASE) ARE IN FAVOUR OF THE DEPARTMENT WHEREAS ALL T HE OTHER CASES ARE IN FAVOUR OF THE APPELLANT. IN VIEW OF TW O CONFLICTING JUDGMENTS OF THE MUMBAI ITAT I.E. IN TH E CASE OF MEERA KHERA AND KISHORE KANUNGO, A SPECIAL BENCH OF THE MUMBAI ITAT WAS CONSTITUTED TO CONSIDER THIS ISSUE IN THE CASE OF MANJULA J. SHAH. THE HON'BLE SPECIAL BENCH OF MUMBAI ITAT IN THIS CASE HAS HELD THAT IT IS THE SC HEMATIC INTERPRETATION OF THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF COMPUT ATION OF CAPITAL GAINS, WHICH IS RELEVANT FOR CORRECT APPREC IATION OF THE PROVISIONS AND HAS OVERRULED THE KISHORE KANUNG O JUDGMENT. RELEVANT EXTRACTS OF THE JUDGMENT ARE REPRODUCED UNDER FOR READY REFERENCE- DCIT VS. MANJULA J. SHAH 318 ITR (AT) 417(MUMBAI, SB) 11 A COMBINED READING OF BOTH THE AFORESAID PROVISIONS, WHICH ARE RELEVANT IN THE PRESENT CONTE XT, CLEARLY SHOWS THAT IMPORTANCE IS ASSIGNED TO THE PE RIOD OF HOLDING OF THE CAPITAL ASSET IN AS MUCH AS EXPLANAT ION (III) TO SECTION 48 REFERS TO THE FIRST YEAR IN WHICH THE ASSET WAS HELD BY THE ASSESSEE WHEREAS EXPLANATION 1 (B) TO SECTION 2(42A) PROVIDES/OR INCLUSION OF THE PERIOD/OR WHICH THE ASSET WAS HELD BY THE PREVIOUS OWNER IN DETERMINING THE PERIOD FOR WHICH ANY CAPITAL ASSET IS HELD BY THE A SSESSEE. HAVING REGARD TO THIS ASPECT AS WELL AS KEEPING IN VIEW THAT THE DEFINITIONS GIVEN IN SECTION 2 ARE APPLICABLE F OR THE ENTIRE ACT, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE LEGISLATIVE INTENTION BEHIND ENACTING THESE PROVISIONS IS VERY CLEAR TO T REAT THE DATE AS WELL AS COST OF ACQUISITION OF CAPITAL ASSE T OF THE PREVIOUS OWNER TO BE THE DATE AND COST OF ACQUISITI ON OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING CAPITAL GAIN IN TERMS OF SECTION 48. THIS IS THE SCHEME OF THE ACT AS LAID OUT IN ITA NO.879 /DEL/2011 5 5 THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS AND THIS IS THE CONTEXT IN WHICH THE SAME HAS TO BE UNDERSTOOD AND APPRECIATED. AS RIGHT LY CONTENTED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, HAD IT NOT BEEN THE INTENTION OF THE LEGISLATURE, THE EXPRESSI ON USED IN EXPLANATION (III) TO SECTION 48 WOULD HAVE BEEN 'FOR THE FIRST YEAR IN WHICH THE CAPITAL ASSET BECAME THE PROPERTY OF THE ASSESSEE' AS USED IN SEC TION 49(1), 12. AS ALREADY OBSERVED THE TRANSACTION OF GIFT IS NOT REGARDED AS TRANSFER AND ACCORDINGLY CAPITAL GAIN A RISING FROM SUCH TRANSFER IS NOT MADE CHARGEABLE TO TAX U/ S. 45. HOWEVER, THIS CAPITAL GAIN BY IMPLICATION IS BROUGH T TO TAX AT SECOND STAGE WHEN CAPITAL ASSET BECOMING THE PRO PERTY OF THE ASSESSEE UNDER GIFT IS SUBSEQUENTLY TRANSFER RED BY HIM BY ADOPTING THE DATE AND COST OF ACQUISITION OF THE CAPITAL ASSET OF THE PREVIOUS OWNER AS THE DATE AND COST OF ACQUISITION OF THE ASSESSEE. THIS PRECISELY IS THE SCHEME OF THE ACT AS LAID OUT IN THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS AND IF EXPLANATION (III) TO SECTION 48 IS INTERPRETED IN THE WAY SOUGHT BY THE LD. D.R. BY TAKING THE DATE ON WHICH THE CAPITAL ASSET RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER A GIFT BECOMING HIS PROPERTY FOR THE PURPOSE OF WORKING OU T THE INDEXED COST OF ACQUISITION, IT WILL CERTAINLY NOT BE IN CONSONANCE WITH THE SCHEME. WE, THEREFORE, AGREE WI TH THE CONTENTION OF THE ID. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT ONE SHOULD NOT GO BY THE LITERAL MEANING OF THE WORDS O R BY THE GRAMMATICAL STRUCTURE OF THE SENTENCE WHILE INTERPR ETING THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF EXPLANATION (III) TO SEC TION 48. ON THE OTHER HAND, SCHEMATIC METHOD OF INTERPRETATION IS TO BE ADOPTED GOING BY THE DESIGN OR PURPOSE WHICH LIES B EHIND THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS KEEPING IN MIND THE SPIRIT AND NOT THE LETTER OF LEGISLATURE. THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS THUS ARE TO BE INTERPRETED SO AS TO PRODUCE THE DESIRED EFFECT, WHICH WAS SOUGHT TO BE ACHIEVED. IT IS THEREFORE NECESSAR Y IN SUCH A SITUATION TO AVOID THE LITERAL INTERPRETATION OF THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS. WE, THEREFORE, DO NOT AGREE WITH THE VI EW TAKEN BY THE DIVISION BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF KISHORE KANUNGO (SUPRA) WHILE DECIDING A SIMILAR ISSUE AGAI NST THE ASSESSEE BY ADOPTING SUCH LITERAL INTERPRETATION OF EXPLANATION (III) TO SECTION 48. IN OUR OPINION, IT IS AN APPROPRIATE SITUATION TO ASSIGN A SCHEMATIC INTERPR ETATION TO SAID EXPLANATION GOING BY THE DESIGN OR PURPOSE WHICH LIES BEHIND IT SO AS TO PRODUCE THE DESIRED EFFECT WHICH WAS SOUGHT TO BE ACHIEVED. IF IT IS SO DONE, THE ONLY V IEW POSSIBLE FROM THE INTERPRETATION OF RELEVANT PROVIS IONS IS THAT THE PERIOD FOR WHICH THE ASSET WAS HELD BY THE PREVIOUS OWNER IS TO BE INCLUDED IN DETERMINING THE PERIOD ITA NO.879 /DEL/2011 6 6 FOR WHICH THE ASSET WAS HELD BY THE ASSESSEE AS PRO VIDED IN EXPLANATION 1 (B) TO SECTION 2(42A) AND THIS POSITI ON IS APPLICABLE EVEN FOR WORKING OUT THE INDEXED COST OF ACQUISITION WITHIN THE MEANING OF EXPLANATION (III) TO SECTION 48. 16. IT IS ALSO NOTED THAT IF THE INTERPRETATION AS SOUG HT BY THE LEARNED D.R. IS ASSIGNED TO CLAUSE (III) OF EXPLANATION TO SECTION 48, IT WOULD LEAD TO SUCH WORKING OF IND EXED COST OF ACQUISITION IN SOME CASES WHICH IS TOTALLY ILLOG ICAL AND UNREASONABLE THE SITUATION, WILL THUS ARISE WHERE THE COST OF ACQUISITION OF CAPITAL ASSET WOULD BE TAKEN AS OF 1.4.1981 WHEREAS THE COST INFLATION INDEX FOR THE Y EAR 1987-88 WOULD BE APPLIED TO THE SAID COST TO WORK O UT THE INDEXED COST OF ACQUISITION. SUCH A WORKING WILL NO T STAND TO ANY REASONABILITY OR LOGIC AND WILL CERTAINLY DEFEA T THE VERY PURPOSE OF INDEXATION SCHEME AS EXPLAINED IN THE AF ORESAID CIRCULAR NO. 636 DATED 31.8.92. 17. FOR THE REASONS GIVEN ABOVE. WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN ARI SING FROM THE TRANSFER OF A WHICH HAD BECOME PROPERTY OF THE ASSESSEE UNDER GIFT, THE FIRST YEAR IN WHICH THE CA PITAL ASSET WAS HELD BY THE ASSESSEE HAS TO BE DETERMINED TO, W ORK OUT THE INDEXED COST OF ACQUISITION AS ENVISAGED IN EXPLANATION (III) TO SECTION 48 AFTER TAKING INTO A CCOUNT THE PERIOD FOR WHICH THE SAID CAPITAL ASSET WAS HELD BY THE PREVIOUS OWNER. IN THAT VIEW OF THE MATTER, WE HOL D THAT THE INDEXED COST OF ACQUISITION OF SUCH CAPITAL ASS ET HAS TO BE COMPUTED WITH REFERENCE TO THE YEAR IN WHICH THE PREVIOUS OWNER FIRST HELD THE ASSET. ACCORDINGLY, WE ANSWER THE QUESTION REFERRED TO US IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND UPHOLD THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LEARN ED CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE. 11., KEEPING IN VIEW THE FACTS AND DISCUSSION MADE ABOVE, IT IS HELD THAT THE BASE YEAR FOR CALCULATION OF IN DEXED COST OF ACQUISITION OF THE PROPERTY SOLD BY THE APPELLAN T SHOULD BE ADOPTED AT FINANCIAL YEAR 1981-82 AS ADOPTED BY THE APPELLANT IN HER RETURN OF INCOME, THE AO IS DIRECT ED ACCORDINGLY, ITA NO.879 /DEL/2011 7 7 4. THE REVENUE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE US AGAINST T HE AFORESAID FINDINGS OF LEARNED CIT(A).THE LD. DR POINTED OUT T HAT IN TERMS OF VALUATION REPORT DATED 13 TH JANUARY, 2000, VALUE OF THE SAID PROPERTY WAS DETERMINED AT `9,89,000/- FOR THE PURPOSE OF ST AMP DUTY WHILE AS PER REPORT DATED 18 TH JUNE, 2004 THE VALUE HAS BEEN DETERMINED AT `22,05,292/- AS ON 01.04.1981. ACCORDINGLY, THE LE ARNED DR ARGUED THAT MATTER MAY BE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE AO F OR ADOPTING CORRECT COST OF ACQUISITION AS ON 01.04.1981. ON THE OTHER HAND, LEARNED AR ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE OPPOSED THE SUBMISSIONS OF T HE LEARNED DR WHILE CONTENDING THAT THERE IS NO DISPUTE REGARDING VALUATION OF THE PROPERTY AS ON 01.04.1981 WHICH HAS BEEN CORRECTLY ADOPTED BY THE AO AND THE CIT(A). THE ONLY DISPUTE WAS ABOUT THE BAS E YEAR FOR CALCULATION OF INDEXED COST OF ACQUISITION OF THE P ROPERTY IN TERMS OF EXPLANATION (III) TO SECTION 48 OF THE ACT. 5. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND GONE THROUGH THE FACTS OF THE CASE. INDISPUTABLY, THE PROPERTY WAS GIFTED TO THE ASSESSEE BY HER UNCLE ON 13.01.2000 AND SOLD ON 2.7.2004. WHILE DE TERMINING CAPITAL GAIN, THE ASSESSEE ADOPTED COST OF ACQUISITION AS O N 1.4.1981 IN TERMS OF PROVISIONS OF SEC. 49(1)(II) OF THE ACT WHILE TH E AO DETERMINED INDEXED COST OF ACQUISITION IN TERMS OF EXPLANATION (III) TO SEC. 48 OF THE ACT. THERE IS NO DISPUTE ABOUT VALUATION OF THE PRO PERTY AS ON 1.4.1981. THE LD. CIT(A) WHILE FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF SPEC IAL BENCH MUMBAI IN DCIT VS. MANJULA J. SHAH, 318 ITR (AT) 417 (MUMBAI) (SB) , UPHELD THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES ,ESP ECIALLY WHEN THE LEARNED DR APPEARING BEFORE US DID NOT BRING TO OUR NOTICE ANY CONTRARY DECISION OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT NOR PLACED ANY M ATERIAL SO AS TO ENABLE US TO TAKE A DIFFERENT VIEW IN THE MATTER, W E HAVE NO HESITATION IN UPHOLDING THE FINDINGS OF LEARNED CIT(A),FOLLOWI NG THE AFORESAID DECISION OF THE SPECIAL BENCH. CONSEQUENTLY, GROUND NOS.1 AND 2 IN THE APPEAL ARE DISMISSED. ITA NO.879 /DEL/2011 8 8 3. NO ADDITIONAL GROUND HAS BEEN RAISED BEFORE US I N TERMS OF RESIDUARY GROUND NO.4 IN THE APPEAL, ACCORDINGLY, T HIS GROUND IS DISMISSED. 4. IN RESULT, APPEAL IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT SD/- SD/- (C.L.SETHI) (C.L.SETHI) (C.L.SETHI) (C.L.SETHI) JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER (A N PAHUJA) (A N PAHUJA) (A N PAHUJA) (A N PAHUJA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER NS COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. MS. KALPANA YADAV, B-7, MAHARANI BAGH, NEW DELHI 2. DDIT, CIRCLE-2(2), INTL. TAXATIFON, NEW DELHI. 3. CIT CONCERNED 4. CIT(A)-XXIX, NEW DELHI 5. DR, ITAT, DELHI BENCH-D, NEW DELHI 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER DEPUTY REGISTRAR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI