JCIT, Meerut V. M/s. Meerut Development Authority, Meerut

ITA 897/DEL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5478 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 1 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-04-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Next Hearing Date: 15-06-2017
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 17-02-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Depreciation; Charitable institution; Capital expenditure
• Section: 143(3); 12A; 12; 11

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH E NEW DELHI BEFORE MR. G.D. AGRA WAL , PRESIDENT AND MR. KUL BHARAT , JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA N O. 897 /DEL/ 2014 A SSESSMENT YEAR: 20 09 - 10 JCIT RANGE - 1, MEERUT VS. MEERUT DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, VIKAS BH AWAN, CIVIL LINES, MEERUT PAN: AAALM0124D (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) O R D E R PER KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER . : APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - MEERUT DATED 27 TH NOVEMBER, 2013 PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10 . 2. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: - I. WHETHER IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) , WAS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 2,00,00,000/ - MADE BY THE AO TOWARDS SUCH RECEIPTS THAT HAD BEEN COLLECTED BY THE MDA BU T NOT SHOWN IN ITS INCOME AS THOSE PROPERTIES HAD BEEN REGISTERED IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FURNISH ANY LIST OF CASES WHERE COLLECTION WERE MADE BUT THE INCOME WAS NOT BOOKED DUE TO NON EXECUTION OF REGISTRY ? II. WHETHER IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), WAS JUSTIFIED IN DIRECTING THE AO TO DISALLOW DEPRECIATION ONLY IN RESPECT OF ASSETS ACQUIRED FOR THE YEAR IN WHICH BENEFIT DEPARTMENT BY SH. S.R. SENAPATI, SR. DR ASSESSEE BY SH. SH. KAPIL GOEL, ADVOCATE DATE OF HEARING 03 .0 4 .2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 04 .04 .2018 2 ITA NO . 897 /DEL/201 4 OF SECTION 12A HAD FIRST BEEN AVAILED BY THE ASSESSEE A ND THE SUBSEQUENT YEARS IGNORING THE FACT THAT DEPRECIATION CANNOT BE ALLOWED ON ASSETS WHOSE COST HAS ALREADY BEEN ALLOWED AS APPLICATION OF FUNDS? II I . WHETHER IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), WAS JUSTIFIED IN ALLOWING EXCESS APPLICATION OF INCOME FOR CHARITABLE PURPOSES TO BE CARRIED FORWARD IGNORING THE FACT THAT NO SUCH CARRY FORWARD OF EXCESS APPLICATION IS ALLOWABLE AS PER THE PROVISIONS U/S 11 OF I.T. ACT, 1961?. IV. WHETHER IN THE FACTS AN D CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) WAS JUSTIFIED IN ALLOWING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 16,95,46,061/ - MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF EXPENSES WHICH CANNOT BE TREATED AS APPLICATION OF INCOME ? V. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVE S LEAVE TO ADD, MODIFY AND / OR DELETE ANY GROUND(S) OF APPEAL. VI. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), MEERUT, MAY BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE AO RESTORED. 3. THE FACTS GIVING RISE TO THE APPEAL ARE THAT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS FIXED UP FOR SCRUTINY AND THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO THE AS THE ACT ) WAS COMPLETED VIDE ORDER DATED 29 TH DECEMBER, 2011 / 30 TH DECEMBER, 2011 PERT AINING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 09. WHILE FRAMING THE ASSESSMENT, THE AO MADE ADDITION OF RS. 4,67,10,428/ - . BY DISALLOWING THE CLAIM OF CAPITALIZATION OF THE EXPENSES, ADDITION OF RS. 83,37,115/ - AND RS. 12,70,76,891/ - ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF FRE E HOLD CHARGES AND STAMP DUTY. FURTHER, THE AO MADE THE ADDITION OF RS. 2,00,00,000/ - IN RESPECT OF THE AMOUNT RECEIVED AGAINST SALE OF THE PROPERTY. FURTHER, THE AO DISALLOWED THE DEPRECIATION OF RS. 33,1,291/ - AND FURTHER MADE ADDITION OF RS. 16,95,46,06 1/ - IN RESPECT OF THE CHEQUE PRESENTED BUT NOT CLEARED. AGAINST THIS , THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED THE APPEAL BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) 3 ITA NO . 897 /DEL/201 4 WHO AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS PARTLY ALLOWED THE APPEAL WHEREBY HE DELETED THE ADDITION OF RS. 2,00,00,000/ - MADE IN R ESPECT OF AND ALSO ADDITION OF RS. 16,95,46,061/ - APART FROM ALLOWING THE DEPRECIATION. AGAINST THIS ORDER, THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL. 4. GROUND NO. 1 IS AGAINST DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS. 2,00,00,000/ - MADE TOWARDS RECEIPTS COLLECTED BUT NOT SHOWN AS INCOME. THE LEAR NED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AO AND STATED THAT LEARNED CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE SAME. ON THE CONTRARY, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT (A) AND SUBMITTED THAT THE RECEIPTS CAN BE OFFERED ONLY UPON THE REGISTRATION OF THE PROPERTY. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS, PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE IN PARA 5.3 IS AS UNDER: - 5.3. THE FACTS OF THE CA SE HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED. A SIMILAR ISSUE HAD A REASON IN APPEAL NO. 18/2013 - 14 IN THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT ITSELF FOR AY 2010 - 11 AND HAD BEEN DEALT WITH IN THE ORDER PASSED IN THAT CASE DATED 31.07.2013. IN THAT ORDER, IT WAS HELD THAT IT WAS WELL ESTABLI SHED THAT FOR IMMOVABLE PROPERTY, OWNERSHIP PASSES ON THE EXECUTION OF REGISTRATION ACCORDING TO THE TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT. IF THE ASSESSEE FOLLOWS THIS PRINCIPLE IN RECOGNITION OF SALE, THERE WAS NOTHING IMPROPER ABOUT THIS SYSTEM. IT WAS NOTED THAT AC CORDING TO THE TERMS OF ALLOTMENT OF LAND / PROPERTY, THE BUYER HAD A CLEAR OPTION THAT HE CAN WITHDRAW FROM THE CONTACT AT ANY TIME BEFORE THE REGISTRATION OF THE PROPERTY. MERE PAYMENT OF INSTALLMENT BY THE BUYER DOES NOT CREATE ANY TITLE / RIGHTS OVER T HE PROPERTY AND THEREFORE THE RECOGNITION OF SALE IS ONLY WHEN THE PROPERTY IS REGISTERED. TILL SUCH TIME THE CONVEYANCE IS NOT EXECUTED IN FAVOUR OF THE ALLOTTEE, THE LATTER HAS THE OPTION TO WITHDRAW FROM THE PURCHASE SUBJECT TO THE FORFEITURE OF A SPECI FIED AMOUNT. THEREFORE, THE SYSTEM FOLLOWED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT INCOME IS RECOGNIZED WHEN SALE DEED IS EXECUTED CANNOT BE FAULTED WITH. MOREOVER, IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE AO HAS MADE AN ADHOC ADDITION. NO BASIS HAS BEEN SPECIFIED FOR THE QUANT UM SUCH ADDITION. IT IS ALSO NOTED THAT NEITHER HAS THE AO MENTIONED ANY DEFICIENCY IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE NOR HAVE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS BEING REJECTED UNDER SECTI ON 145. UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, TH E ADDITION CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. 4 ITA NO . 897 /DEL/201 4 5 . A DMITTEDLY , THE ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE ON ADHOC BASIS , THE BASIS OF MAKING ADDITION IS NOT SPECIFIED BY THE AO THEREFORE, WE DO NOT SEE ANY REASON TO INTERFERE IN THE FINDING OF THE LEARNED CIT(A ). THE SAME IS HEREBY DISMISSED. THE GROUND OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 6. GROUND NO. 2 IS AGAINST THE DIRECTION OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) TO DISALLOW THE DEPRECIATION ONLY IN RESPECT OF ASSETS ACQUIRED FOR THE YEAR IN WHICH BENEFIT OF SECTION 12A HAS BEEN AVAILED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE LEARNED DR SUPPORTED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. ON THE CONTRARY, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE FINDING OF THE LEARNED CIT(A). WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTION AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE IN PARA 6.3 AS UNDER: - 6.3 THE FACTS OF T HE CASE HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED. IN THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF TINY TOTS EDUCATION SOCIETY, RELIANCE HAS BEEN PLACED ON ANOTHER DECISION OF THE SAME COURT IN THE CASE OF MARKET COMMITTEE, PIPLI (330 ITR 16). - IN THIS DECISION, THE HONORABLE COURT HELD THAT IT WAS NOT A CASE OF DOUBLE DEDUCTION. THE INCOME OF AN ASSESSEE BEING EXEMPT, THE ASSESSEE IS ONLY CLAIMING THAT DEPRECIATION SHOULD BE REDUCED FROM THE INCOME FOR DETERMINING THE PERCENTAGE OF FUNDS WHICH HAVE TWO BE APPLIED FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE TRUST. THE JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF ESCORTS LTD (199 ITR 43) IN WHICH IT WAS HELD THAT AN ASSESSEE WHICH HAD CLAIMED DEDUCTION ON ACCOUNT OF CAPITAL EXPENDITURE ON SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH CANNOT CLAIM DEPRECIATION THEREON, WAS DISTINGUISHED. OBVIO USLY, THAT WAS A CASE WHERE DEDUCTION HAD BEEN CLAIMED IN RESPECT OF THE COST OF AN ASSET AND. IT WAS HELD THAT DEDUCTION, ONCE AGAIN, FOR DEPRECIATION ON SUCH COST WAS NOT PERMISSIBLE. IN THE CASES OF EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 12A, THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ALLOW ED ANY DEDUCTION OF THE CAPITAL COST OF AN ASSET BUT THE CAPITAL COST OF THE ASSET IS TREATED AS AN APPLICATION OF INCOME. IN SUCH CASE, TO ARRIVE AT THE INCOME WHICH HAS TO BE APPLIED FOR CHARITABLE PURPOSES, COMMERCIAL PRINCIPLES OF INCOME HAVE TO BE FOL LOWED WHICH INCLUDES GRANTING OF DEPRECIATION. REFERENCES ALSO MADE TO THE DECISION OF THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF INSTITUTE OF BANKING PERSONNEL SELECTION (264 ITR 110) WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT DEPRECIATION IS ALLOWABLE ON ASSETS, THE COST O F WHICH HAS BEEN FULLY ALLOWED AS APPLICATION OF INCOME UNDER SECTION 11 IN THE PAST YEARS. INCOME OF ART TRUST IS REQUIRED TO BE COMPUTED UNDER SECTION 11 ON COMMERCIAL PRINCIPLES AFTER PROVIDING FOR ALLOWANCE FOR NORMAL DEPRECIATION AND DEDUCTION THEREOF FROM GROSS INCOME OF THE TRUST. HOWEVER, IN THE CASE OF LISSIE MEDICAL INSTITUTION (348 ITR, 344), THE KERALA. HIGH COURT HAS CONSIDERED ALL THE AFORESAID DECISION IS - AND HAS COME TO A CONCLUSION THAT WHERE AN ASSESSEE ACQUIRES AN ASSET THROUGH APPLICATIO N OF INCOME AND ALSO CLAIMS THAT AMOUNT AS EXPENDITURE IN ITS INCOME AND EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT, 5 ITA NO . 897 /DEL/201 4 DEPRECIATION ON SUCH ASSET WOULD NOT BE ALLOWABLE TO THE ASSESSEE. NOTIONAL STATUTORY DEDUCTIONS LIKE DEPRECIATION, IF CLAIMED AS DEDUCTION WHILE COMPUTING THE IN COME OF THE PROPERLY HELD UNDER TRUST UNDER THE RELEVANT HEAD OF INCOME, IS REQUIRED TO BE ADDED BACK WHILE COMPUTING THE INCOME FOR THE PURPOS ES OF APPLICATION IN THE INCOME AND EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT. THUS, DEPRECIATION CLAIM IN RESPECT OF ASSETS WHICH HAD BEEN CLAIMED AS APPLICATION OF INCOME IN ANY PRIOR YEAR, WILL NOT BE ADMISSIBLE TO THE ASSESSEE. NEVER THE LESS, AS STATED BY THE LD AR OF THE ASSESSEE DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE CONTENTION OF THE AO THAT THE COST OF THE ASSET - IN RESPECT OF WHIC H DEPRECIATION HAD BEEN CLAIMED, HAD BEEN ALLOWED IN PRIOR YEARS, WAS FACTUALLY INCORRECT. ONLY THAT PORTION OF THE COST OF ASSET, WHICH HAD BEEN ACQUIRED DURING THE YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION AFTER THE GRANT OF REGISTRATION, HAD ACTUALLY BEEN ALLOWED AS AP PLICATION OF INCOME. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE - DISCUSSION, THE AO IS DIRECTED TO DISALLOW DEPRECIATION ONLY IN RESPECT OF ASSETS ACQUIRED FOR THE YEAR IN WHICH BENEFIT OF SECTION 12 A HAD FIRST BEEN AVAILED BY THE APPELLANT AND THE SUBSEQUENT YEARS . 7. THE ABOV E FINDING OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) CANNOT BE INTERFERED WITH AS THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY DIRECTED THE AO TO DISALLOW THE DEPRECIATION ONLY IN RESPECT OF THE ASSETS ACQUIRED FOR THE YEAR IN WHICH BENEFIT OF SECTION 12A OF THE ACT HAD BEEN FIRST AVAILED B Y THE ASSESSEE. THERE IS NO DISPUTE WITH REGARD TO THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE WOULD BE ENTITLED FOR DEPRECIATION IF HE IS NOT GETTING BENEFIT OF SECTION 12A OF THE ACT. UNDER THIS FACT, THERE IS NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) . THE SAME IS HEREBY DISMISSED. THE GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS AFFIRMED. THE GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 8. GROUND NO. 3 IS AGAINST ALLOWING EXCESS APPLICATION OF INCOME FOR CHARITABLE PURPOSES TO BE CARRIED FORWARD. LEARNED DR SUPPORTED THE ORDERS O F THE AO AND SUBMITTED THAT L EARNED CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN ALLOWING THE CARRY FORWARD EXCESS APPLICATION OF INCOME . ON THE CONTRARY, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE SUCH CARRY FORWARD IS A LLOWABLE . 6 ITA NO . 897 /DEL/201 4 9. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE CONTENTION OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE SIMILAR ISSUE CAME UP FOR HEARING AND WAS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AUTHORITY. WE FIND THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS FOLLOWED THE JUDGMENT OF HON BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF RAGHUVANSHI CHARITABLE TRUST & ORS (44 DTR 223). THE REVENUE HAS NOT BROUGHT ANY OTHER BINDING PRECEDENT, THEREFORE, WE DO NOT SEE ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH TH E FINDING OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) AND THE SAME IS AFFIRMED. 10. GROUND NO. 4 IS AGAINST THE DELETION OF DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 16,95,46,061/ - MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF EXPENSES WHICH CANNOT BE TREATED AS APPLICATION OF MIND. LEARNED DR SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AO AND SUBMITTED THAT LEARNED CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION. ON THE CONTRARY, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO WHISPER IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THE ADDITION IS MADE ONLY IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME. THE AO HAS NOT GIVEN ANY BASIS AS ON WHAT BASIS SUCH ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE. LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN US THROUGH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE FINDING OF THE LEARNED CIT(A). 11. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MA TERIAL ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT LEARNED CIT(A) HAS CATEGORICALLY GIVEN A FINDING IN PARA 8.2 AS UNDER: - 8.2 IT IS NOTED THAT THERE IS NO DISCUSSION IN THE BODY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER REGARD ING THE AFORESAID DISALLOWANCE. HOWEVER, AN ADDITION HAS BEEN M ADE IN THE COMPUTATION AT THE END OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND A NARRATION HAS BEEN GIVEN CHEQUES PRESENTED, BUT NOT - CLEARED AND HENCE, SUCH EXPENSES CANNOT BE TREATED AS APPLICATION OF INCOME . AT THE APPELLATE STAGE, IT WAS CLARIFIED THAT AT RIB POINT IN TIME WAS THE APPELLANT EVER CONFRONTED WITH THE SAID 7 ITA NO . 897 /DEL/201 4 DISALLOWANCE. MOREOVER, THE ISSUE SOUGHT TO BE RAISED, BY THE AO WAS PURELY LEGAL IN NATURE WHICH DID NOT REQUIRE ANY FRESH INVESTIGATION/ENQUIRY. THEREFORE, IT WAS PLEADED THAT THE ADDITIONAL GROUND BE ADMITTED. CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND IN VIEW OF THE RATIO OF DECISIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT IN T HE CASES OF NTPC (229 ITR 383) AND JUTE CORPORATION OF INDIA (187 ITR 688), THE ADDITIONAL - GR OUND OF APPEAL IS ADMITTED. IN THE SUBMISSIO NS FILED DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, IT WAS CLARIFIED THAT THE DISALLOWANCE HAD APPARENTLY BEEN MADE IN RESPECT OF CHEQUES ISSUED BY THE APPELLANT WHICH HAD - NOT BEEN PRESENTED FOR PAYMENT. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE IS REGULARLY AND CONSISTENTLY FOLLOWING A MERCANTILE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING IN WHICH DEBIT/CREDITS ARE MADE ON THE - RECEI.PT/ISSUE OF CHEQUES. EXPENSES INCURRED BUT NOT YET PAID ARE DEBITED TO THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT AND A LIABILITY IN THIS REGARD IS ENTERED ON THE LIABILITY SIDE OF THE BALA NCE SHEET. L I KEWISE, IN CASE THERE ARE CERTAIN UNREALISED INCOME, THESE ARE ENTERED ON THE CREDIT SIDE OF THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT AND CORRESPONDINGLY, THEY ARE SHOWN AS. AN ASSET IN. THE BALANCE SHEET. NO SUCH DISALLOWANCE HAD EVER BEEN MADE, EITHER IN THE PAST OR IN SUBSEQUENT YEARS. THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED BANK RECONCILIATION STATEMENT. IT WAS STATED THA T ALL SUCH CHEQUES HAD ACTUALLY BEEN ISSUED AND TAX HAD BEEN DEDUCTED AT SOURCE WHEREVER, APPLICABLE: IT IS NOTED THAT NO SPECIFIC COMMENT HAS BEEN GIVEN ON THIS ISSUE IN THE REMAND REPORT. THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO IS AGAINST THE ACCEPTED MERCANTILE PRINCIPLES OF ACCOUNTING. THEREFORE, THE DISALLOWANCE CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. 1 2 . WE ALSO FIND THAT THERE IS NO DISCUSSION ON THIS ADDITION IN THE A SSESSMENT ORDER. THE AO HAS MERELY MADE ADDITION WITHOUT SPECIFYING GROUND ON WHICH THE ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE. UNDER THIS FACT, SUCH APPROACH OF THE AO CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. MOREOVER, LEARNED CIT(A) HAS CALLED A REMAND REPORT FROM THE AO AND NO ADVERSE MAT ERIAL WAS PLACED BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A). THEREFORE , WE DO NOT SEE ANY MERIT IN THIS GROUND OF THE REVENUE HENCE THE SAME IS REJECTED. 13 . GROUND NOS. 5 AND 6 ARE GENERAL IN NATURE AND NEEDS NO ADJUDICATION. 1 4 . IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS D ISMISSED. ( OR DER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 4 . 0 4 .2018. ) SD/ - SD/ - ( G.D. AGRA WAL ) ( KUL BHARAT ) PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER DT. 04 . 0 4 .2018 SH 8 ITA NO . 897 /DEL/201 4 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1 . APPELLANT 2 . RESPONDENT 3 . CIT 4 . CIT(APPEALS) 5 . DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR , ITAT NEW DELHI DATE 1. DRAFT DICTATED ON PS 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR . 4 . 201 8 PS 3. DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER JM/AM 4. DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER. JM/AM 5. APPRO VED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS . 4 . 201 8 PS/PS 6. KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON PS 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK . 4 .201 8 PS 8. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE AR 9. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK. 10. DATE OF DISPATCH OF OR DER.