ITO, WARD-16(3), NEW DELHI V. MAUVE STAR REALTORS P.LTD, NEW DELHI

ITA 6468/DEL/2017

AI Insights

The case involves the Income Tax Officer, Ward 16(3), New Delhi as the appellant and M/s Mauve Star Realtors Pvt. Ltd. as the respondent. The primary issues in the appeal were the disallowance of interest expenses claimed by the assessee on a loan and the deletion of additions made under the head 'Income from House Property' and 'unexplained cash credits' under section 68 of the Income Tax Act. The CIT(A) had allowed the assessee's appeal on these grounds, which the Revenue challenged in the Tribunal. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision on the interest expenses but remitted the issue of unexplained cash credits back to the AO for further examination.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 23623 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-01-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Other Referred Cases: CIT Vs Ansal Housing & Finance & Leasing Co. Pvt. Limited [2012], Chennai Properties & Investments Ltd.v.Commissioner of Income-tax, Central -III, Tamil Nadu, Ansal Housing & Construction Ltd.v.Commissioner of Income-tax-1
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: BALJEET KAUR
• Assessee Lawyers: VED JAIN
• Keywords: Additional evidence; Unexplained cash credit; Depreciation; Onus to prove; Commercial expediency; Source of fund; Competent authority; Deemed to accrue or arise in india
• Section: 143(3); 143(1); 68; 22; 13; 27

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘E’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.6468/Del/2017 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15) Income Tax Officer Ward 16(3), New Delhi Vs. M/s Mauve Star Realtors Pvt. Ltd. 39, Ground Floor, Hemkunt Colony, Greater Kailash, Part-I, New Delhi-110048 PAN:AAHCM2405M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Ved Jain, Adv. Shri. Aman Garg, CA Department by Ms. Baljeet Kaur, CIT-DR Date of Hearing 20/11/2024 Date of Pronouncement 29/01/2025 O R D E R PER BENCH: This appeal by Revenue is arising out of the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-6 Delhi in appeal No.188/2016-17 vide order dated 25/08/2017. Assessment was framed by Income Tax Officer, Ward-16(3), New Delhi for the relevant Asst. Year 2014-15 u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 2 ITA No. 6468/Del/2017 ITO vs. Mauve Star Realtors P. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) vide his order dated 22/12/2016. 2. The first issue in this appeal of Revenue is as regards to order of CIT(A) deleting the disallowance made by AO being interest expenses of loan taken from Punjab & Sind Bank u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Act. For this, Revenue has raised following grounds no. 1 & 2:- “1. Whether on facts and in circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) is legally justified in deleting disallowance of Rs. 16,16,297/- u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961(the Act) even when the assessee had not discharged its onus to prove that it had taken any short term or long term loan from Punjab & Sind Bank or from any entity? 2. Whether on facts and in circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) is legally justified in deleting disallowance of Rs.16,16,297/- u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961(the Act) even when the assessee had failed to prove the test of commercial expediency with regard to interest paid during the year under consideration?” 3. We have heard the rival contentions and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. We noted that the AO during the course of assessment proceedings, noticed that the assessee has claimed deduction of interest expenses u/s 16,16,297/-. The AO perused the balance sheet and noted that the assessee did not have any long term or short term borrowings. On specific query, the assessee informed that it is debiting interest on account of loan taken by Boulder Realcom Pvt. Limited from Punjab & Sind Bank. The assessee filed a letter from Boulder Realcom Pvt. Ltd. Clarifying that the interest of Rs.16,16,297/- is being debited to the amount of the assessee company as it was provided this loan taken from 3 ITA No. 6468/Del/2017 ITO vs. Mauve Star Realtors P. Ltd. Punjab and Sind Bank and further clarified that interest has been paid by the assessee company. According to AO the bank has not advanced any money or loan to the assessee company. But it was clarified that assessee was only a guarantor of loan provided to Boulder Relacon Pvt. Ltd. of 9.50 crores and the property bearing no. 403, 419, 325 in the name of Mauve Star Realtors Pvt. Ltd was kept as guarantee. The AO finally noted that the assessee’s claim of interest expenses to Boulder Realcon Pvt. Ltd. or Punjab & Sind Bank is not proved due to the following reasons:- 1) If the contention of the assessee is considered that it had taken a loan from PSB and advance the same to M/s Boulder Realcon P. Ltd. that contention was also not proved. The transaction with regard to M/s Boulder Realcom P. Ltd. were examined. The assessee vide its letter dated 14/12/2016 submitted the copy of account of M/s. Mauve Star Realtors Pvt. Ltd. as annexure \"B\", which reveals that the Opening Balance was Rs. 14,74,476/, Debits during the year were Rs. 14,99,476/- and credits were Rs. 16,44,684/-, leaving the closing balance of Rs. 19,684/ No details of debits and credits were provided by the assessee company. But the limited information provided by the assessee company is sufficient to nail the lies put forth by the assessee company 2) As per bank book submitted by the assessee vide letter dated 7.6.2016 it was observed that the assessee has received Rs. 25,000/- from M/s Boulder Realcon P. Ltd. on 29.04.2013 and paid Rs.14,99,476/ on 1.10.2013. But no entry of receipt of loan or advancement of loan is appearing in the bank statement of the assessee. This clearly indicates that the assessee has cooked up a story for justifying the interest expenses.” Accordingly, the AO disallowed this amount of Rs.16,16,297/-. Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A). 4. The CIT(A) after considering the submissions of assessee deleted the disallowance by observing in para 3.2.3 are as under:- 4 ITA No. 6468/Del/2017 ITO vs. Mauve Star Realtors P. Ltd. “3.2.3. The facts of the case and the submissions of the appellant have been carefully considered. The AO has made addition prima facie on the ground that Appellant has not taken loan as well fail to submit Loan documents etc. Whereas Appellant submitted that The Loan was under the Scheme of \"Rent Serutization \"where the assessee company also a party to it. The Loan was disbursed to one M/s Bolduer Realcon Pvt. Limited and M/s Boulder Realcon Pvt Limited debited the Interest portion of Appellant. The fact is on file. Appellant further stated that on various opportunity apprises the AO that the company had been sanctioned a loan from Punjab & Sindh Bank and on same, the assessee company has paid interest, and the loan agreement has been already submitted. The same loan has been used by the appellant company for business purpose hence, in view of future prospective view of business, interest expenses of Rs.16,16,297/- should be allowed.” Aggrieved, now Revenue is in appeal before us. 5. We have heard the rival contentions and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. We noted that the loan was taken by Bolduer Realcon Pvt. Limited from Punjab & Sind Bank under the scheme of “Rent Securitization” and to this “Rent Securitization”, assessee was also a party to it. Admittedly, Bolduer Realcon Pvt. Limited was sanctioned loan and assessee became a security holder for the same and ultimately the money was transferred to assessee i.e. the loan amount. Before us assessee filed copy of certificate regarding interest receipt by Bolduer Realcon Pvt. Limited from assessee for a sum of Rs.16,16,297/-. We noted that the assessee filed loan agreement with Punjab & Sind Bank, which was taken by Bolduer Realcon Pvt. Limited as representative of the whole of the consortium. Admittedly, the assessee filed copy of ledger account along with confirmation of Boulder Realcon Pvt. Limited forming receipt of sum of Rs.16,16,297/- and which was 5 ITA No. 6468/Del/2017 ITO vs. Mauve Star Realtors P. Ltd. included in the income of assessee of Bolduer Realcon Pvt. Ltd. We noted that the assessee has incurred this expenditure as it has paid this interest on loan of Punjab and Sind Bank through Bolduer Realcon Pvt. Limited. In view of the above, we find no infirmity in the order of CIT(A). Accordingly, we affirm the order of CIT)A) on this issue and Revenue appeal is dismissed. 6. Coming to next interconnected issues in this Revenue’s appeal is as regards to the order of CIT(A) deleting the disallowance of depreciation of residential flat amounting to Rs.8,78,750/- and also deleting the addition made by AO and income from house property on Rs.3,15,000/- u/s 23 of the Act. For this, assessee has raised following ground No. 3 & 4. “3. Whether on facts and in circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) is legally justified in deleting disallowance of Rs. 8,78,750/- on account of depreciation claimed on residential flat given on rent by ignoring the findings of the Assessing Officer that the assessee failed to prove that there was any composite rent agreement with the tenant and any kind of service was provided to the tenant during the year? 4. Whether on facts and in circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) is legally justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 3,15,000/- on account 'Income from House Property' u/s 23 of the Act in respect of residential flat [Pent House, Leela Homes, Plot No. 23, Sector-IV, Vaishali, Ghaziabad) given on rent without considering ratio decidendi as upheld by the Delhi High Court in case of CIT Vs Ansal Housing & Finance & Leasing Co. Pvt. Limited [2012]?” 7. The brief facts relating to this interconnected issues are that the assessee has declared returned income on account of renting of flat at Risikesh rented out to Moat Infracon Pvt. Ltd. Rs.2.20,000/- per month. He aggregates the rental income earned by assessee 6 ITA No. 6468/Del/2017 ITO vs. Mauve Star Realtors P. Ltd. during the relevant financial year 2013-14 relevant to this assessment year 2014-15 at Rs.26.40 lacs. The assessee has declared these flats as fixed asset and from all the flats declared at a value of Rs.1.85 Cr. in this balance sheet. This balance flats were given on 19 years lease to Moat Infracon Pvt. Ltd. from July, 2012. The assessee claimed deprecation on the above flats amounting to Rs.8,78,750/- and also claimed repair and maintenance at Rs.7.92 lacs. The Assessing Officer disallowed both and aggrieved assessee preferred appeal before Ld. CIT(A). 8. The CIT(A) deleting the disallowance of depreciation by holding that the assessee has disclosed rent received by assessee company under the head income from business, and, therefore, he allowed deprecation by observing in para. 3.3.3 as under:- “3.3.3 The facts of the case and the submission of Appellant have been carefully considered. The Appellant has arental Income which the Company has declared under the head \"Income from Business\". The AO hascontended that the income received by the assessee is rental income. The concept ofcompositerent does not exist in the case of assessee as the facts narratedby the assessee clearly point out that the income is purely a rental income which has to be assessed as income from House Property. However, Appellant has relied upon various judgment and on guideline of Income Tax Department that in case of Composite Rent the income may be assessed under the head “Income From Business.’ Hon'ble Apex Court ruled in case of Chennai Properties & Investments Ltd.v.Commissioner of Income-tax, Central -III, Tamil Nadu that where the Company has main business ofdealing in property, it may be treated as “Income From Business”. I find merit in the argument of Appellant that Income was disclosed as per law and well covered under various judicial pronouncements mentioned by AR. The Income from property must be treated as Composite Rent on facts and be assessed under the head Income from Business. I therefore allow 7 ITA No. 6468/Del/2017 ITO vs. Mauve Star Realtors P. Ltd. the Deprecation of Rs. 8,78,750/-. This ground of appeal is allowed on merit.” Similarly, the CIT(A) also allowed repair and maintenance expenses by observing in 3.4.3 as under: “3.4.3The facts of the case and the submission of Appellant have been carefully considered. The Appellant has purchased a residential flat - Pent House No-6, on 12th floor in Leela Homes, Plot No-23, Sec-IV, Vaishali Ghaziabad on 21.06.2013 for Rs. 2,14,78,100/- and declared the same as its inventory. AO has contended that as per provision of section 23 the annual value of any property shall be deemed to be- meaning by that the Act has introduced the concept of fictional income, whether arises on accrued to the assessee or not. The Appellant relied upon Hon'ble Apex Court judgment in case of Ansal Housing & Construction Ltd.v.Commissioner of Income-tax-1, where it was held that Section 22 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Income from house property - Chargeable as (Income from unsold flats) - Assessment year 1994-95 - Assessee was engaged in business of construction of house property - Many flats were lying unsold - High Court by impugned order held that provisions of sections 22 and 23 would be applicable and assessee would be liable to pay tax on annual letting value of unsold flats as income from house property- Whether Special LeavePetition filed against impugned order was to be granted - Held, yes . AR also contended that flat was not fit for letting out. AR further stated that In Union Budget-2017 has also incorporated provision that if any house property is held as stock in trade and such property is not let during the whole or part of the year, deemed annual value would be NIL for the period ofup to one' year from the end of financial year in which certificate of completion of construction or property obtained from the competent authority, hence assessing officer should not be allowed to charge deemed \"annual value as rental income for such unsold stock for at least one year i.e in case of Appellant tillJune 2015. In view of the above discussion, I find the argument of Appellant that Income was disclosed as per law acceptable and also well covered under various judgements mentioned by AR. The deemed Income from house property of Rs.3,15,000/- is, therefore, deleted. This ground of appeal is, therefore, allowed. Aggrieved against both, Revenue came in appeal before us. 9. We have heard the rival contentions and gone through the facts of the case. We noted that the assessee has received cash through flats rented out to Moat Infracon Pvt. Ltd. amounting to 8 ITA No. 6468/Del/2017 ITO vs. Mauve Star Realtors P. Ltd. Rs.26,40,000/- per annum. Admittedly this income from house property and it is a rental income, once it is income from house property deprecation cannot be allowed because income from house property has to be assessed under head income from house property under the provisions of section 22 to 27 of the Act. Hence, in our view the depreciation cannot be allowed. 10. Coming to this issue of maintenance and repair expenses, we are of the view that the assessee is entitled for claim of deduction of 30% of rent and, accordingly, the Assessing Officer will allow standard deduction in term of section 24(a) of the Act. The AO will re-compute the income, accordingly, will re-determine these incomes. Hence, this issue of the Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed in view of the above directions. 11. This next issue in this appeal of Revenue is as regards to order of CIT(A) deleting the addition of cash deposit in bank account amounting to Rs.10.29 Cr. u/s 68 of the Act by treating the same as unexplained cash credits. For this, Revenue has raised following grounds No.5, 6 & 7:- “5. Whether on facts and in circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) is legally justified in deleting addition of Rs. 10,29,00,000/- u/s 68 of the Act on account of cash deposits in bank account by admitting new claim under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 [the Rules] despite specific denial of the AO in his detailed remand report and even when the assessee had failed to discharge its initial onus to prove the genuineness of source of amount deposited in the bank during the course of assessment proceedings even after providing sufficient opportunities to the assessee? 9 ITA No. 6468/Del/2017 ITO vs. Mauve Star Realtors P. Ltd. 6. Whether on facts and in circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) is legally justified in deleting addition of Rs. 10,29,00,000/- u/s 68 of the Act on account of cash deposits during the year by ignoring the findings of the AO during assessment proceedings and remand proceedings as well that the assessee failed to prove the three basic conditions i.e. identity, creditworthiness of creditors and genuineness of transactions in this regard? 7. Whether on facts and in circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) is justified in allowing appeal by admitting new claim under Rule 46A of the Rules even when the case of assessee did not fall in clause (a) to (d) of Rule 46A of the Rules?” 12. We have heard the rival contentions and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. The AO, during the course of assessment proceedings noticed that the assessee has availed cash credits (Which are under dispute before us) from the following three parties:- (i) M/s Emtex Fabtrade Pvt. Ltd. Rs.3,00,00,000/- (ii) M/s Aerens Estates Pvt. Ltd. Rs.6,42,00,00/- (iii) Sh. Sachin Mittal Rs.87,00,000/- The Assessing Officer required the assessee to explain the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of transactions in terms of section 68 of the Act. The AO finally concluded that the assessee failed to prove all three ingredients in regard to these three cash credits and, therefore, he made addition of Rs.10,29,00,000/- being unexplained credit u/s 68 of the Act and finally concluded as under:- 10 ITA No. 6468/Del/2017 ITO vs. Mauve Star Realtors P. Ltd. “Conclusion:- From the discussion above the following conclusions appears:- i. The claim of the assessee prove false that it has received credits against the agricultural land ii. The assess failed to discharge its onus about the identity of and creditworthiness of the parties and genuineness of the transaction. iii The assessee failed to controvert the findings arrived at by the department. iv. In view of above discussion an amount of Rs. 3,00,00,000/-, Rs. 6,42,00,000/- and Rs. 87,00,000/- is treated as unexplained credits in the books of assessee of which the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source of the sum so credited, thus this amount of Rs. 10,29,00,000/- is treated as income of assessee u/s 68 of the Act. It is relevant to highlight the fact that as per balance sheet assessee has claimed receipt of credits of Rs. 6,62,94,684/, out of which Rs. 6,02,94,684/- on account of advance against rural agricultural land + 60,00,000/- from M/s Emtex Fabtrade Pvt. Itd. but in absence of details (which were the responsibility of assessee) sum of Rs. 10,29,00,000/- taken as the total credit received by the assessee during the year. The assessee has received total credit of Rs. 10,29,00,000/- during the year. As per break up provided by the assessee an amount of Rs. 6,02,94,684/- is advances against rural agricultural land, which includes Rs.87 Lakh received from Sh. Sachin Mittal, Rs. 16,44,684/- from M/s Boulder Realcon Pvt. Ltd. and Rs. 5,41,75,000/- from M/s Arenes Estates Pvt. Ltd.. However, it has already been established that the advances received/declared by the assessee are not genuine. Because the advances received from M/s Boulder Realcon Pvt. Ltd. is not against land. As per assessee's own submission it is interest to be paid, secondly the assessee is not in possession of any rural agricultural land. In view of above the receipt of Rs. 6,02,94,684/ is also treated as unexplained credit u/s 68 of the Act. However, the total addition is made of Rs. 10,29,00,000/- (6,42,00,000+3,00,00,000+87,00,000), which is the amount mentioned above. Therefore, total addition of Rs.10,29,00,000/- made as unexplained credit and added to the income of the assessee.” (Addition of Rs. 10,29,00,000/-)” Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A). 11 ITA No. 6468/Del/2017 ITO vs. Mauve Star Realtors P. Ltd. 13. The CIT(A) deleted the addition by observing in para.3.5.3 and finally deleted the addition by observing as under:- “3.5.3 The facts of the case and the submission of Appellant have been carefully considered. The AO's contention is based the Credit worthiness of lenders hence he was of the view that transactions are not genuine and made addition U/s 68 of the Income Tax act, 1961. AO also relied up on several judgments. On the other hand, the AR has submitted facts on record as evidence as well as relied up on various judgments. The main contention on facts of AR are that the copy ofaccounts and copy of Bank Statement have been submitted to prove that the appellant has received the credits through banking channel and also paid them back through banking channel. Further copy of Bank statement of M/s Aerens Estates Pvt. Ltd of HDFC Bank Flaying account no. 02000b4139871 fortheperiod 22.4.2014 to 28.3.2016 has been submitted to provethat, the same amount which has been taken earlier has been returned back in the upcoming financial years. The AO has not appreciated the facts correctly. This strengthens the view of applicant that the amount has been paid back to M/s Aerens Estates Pvt. Ltd (AEPL) and the same is not the income of the appellant. Further the AO sent inspector to visit the premises of M/s AEPL on 13.05.2017 i.e on second Saturday when even Income Tax department is closed. Office of M/s AEPL remains closed on Saturday and Sunday. Any statement by anonymous person (Sh. Satender Goyal)cannot be taken into note if his identity is not established. Merely his statement that he has never heard about M/s AEPL does not prove the non-existence of M/s AEPL. Also, the genuineness of transaction is proved as all the transactions are done through banking channel and no cash transaction is made between M/s AEPL and M/s Mauve Star Realtors Private Limited. Further the Copy of acknowledgement of Income Tax Return filed by M/s AEPL and copy of intimation u/s 143(1) received by M/s AEPL has been submitted to prove that the M/s AEPL is filing its Income Tax Return and an assessee to Income Tax Department who is filing its return regularly. Profit or loss as computed for income tax return also covers non-cash expenses such as depreciation, brought forward losses, etc. Creditworthiness cannot be estimated merely on the basis of profit or loss on the acknowledgment as availability of fund of the lender is a major aspect of creditworthiness. AR further stated that the AO must have called the appellant for detailed enquiry before making any adverse comment. It is well settled law that before framing any adverse order the appellant/assesse must be given a chance for a rebuttal. The AO did not even issue any notice to the lender whereas the genuineness of the 12 ITA No. 6468/Del/2017 ITO vs. Mauve Star Realtors P. Ltd. transaction is proved. It is imagination of AO that the company does not exist or is not a genuine transaction. AR further stated that the copy of bank statement of corporation Bank of appellant having account no. CBCA/01/000311 and copy of Bank statement of M/s Emtex Fabtrade Pvt. Ltd. Of HDFC Bank having account no. 13742320001332 for the period 02.04.2014 to 30.03.2016 has been submitted to prove that the same amount which has been taken earlier has been returned back in the upcoming financial years to the lender. The AO did not even issue any notice to the lender whereas M/s EFPL is having net worth of approx., of Rs.100 crores, is assessed to income tax, inspection is carried out by Reserve Bank of India time to time as per the law. The genuineness of the transaction is proved. It is imagination of AO that the company does not exist or it is not a genuine transaction. AR further stated that confirmation of accounts is duly signed by Sri Sachin Mittal and the AO raised baseless questions on the evidences. The genuineness of transaction is proved as all the transactions are done through banking channel and no cash transaction is made between parties and for proving the same, Bank statement- reflecting the transactions have been submitted as additional evidence. Also, no question was raised during the assessment proceedings that what is the source of fund to Sri Sachin Mittal. Also, neither the appellant Sachin Mittal was asked for such explanation. The address of Sri Sachin Mittal is duly reflected on confirmation of accounts. ******* Thus in my considered opinion based upon the position of law and facts as discussed above, the appellant has been able to discharge its onus and the AO’s action in making addition of the above said amount was contrary to law and facts of the case. Therefore, keeping in view the entire facts of the case and the position of law discussed above, this ground of appeal is decided in favour of appellant and the addition of Rs.10,29,00,000/- is hereby deleted. Ground No.5 of the appeal is, therefore, allowed. Aggrieved, now Revenue is in appeal before us. 14. We have heard the rival contentions and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. We noted that the assessee filed additional evidences like copy of accounts, bank statements 13 ITA No. 6468/Del/2017 ITO vs. Mauve Star Realtors P. Ltd. and try to prove that the credits are done through banking channel and also repaid them (back through banking channel), as there is findings of CIT(A) above in para 13 qua this, we noted that the AO deputed the Inspector for verification of the parties namely Emtex Fabtrade Pvt. Ltd. and Aerens State Pvt. Ltd. but as per the report of Inspector these parties do not exists. 15. Now Revenue’s contention is that these documents are fresh documents and produced for the first time before the CIT(A) and no opportunity was provided to the AO before admitting the new evidences. Revenue’s contention is that there is clear cut violation of Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, hence, it was requested that the documents filed by assessee in its paper book from pages 141 to 225 and from page 293 to 534 can be remitted back to the file of the AO, who will verify all the documents and will ascertaining the creditworthiness and genuineness of these parties. Needless to say that onus is assessee to provide all these details to the AO and he will discharge his initial onus by providing the correct details i.e. correct address, identity of the party and creditworthiness of the party and genuineness of transaction. AO will re-decide accordingly. In term of the above, this issue is remitted back to the file of the AO. 14 ITA No. 6468/Del/2017 ITO vs. Mauve Star Realtors P. Ltd. 16. In the result, the appeal filed by Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 29th January, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH) (MAHAVIR SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT Dated: 29/01/2025 Pk/sps Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI 1. Date of dictation of Tribunal Order 26.12.2024 2. Date on which the typed draft Tribunal Order is placed before the Dictation Member. 30.12.2024 3. Date on which the typed draft Tribunal Order is placed before the other Member. 4. Date on which the approved draft Tribunal Order comes to the Sr. P.S./P.S. 5. Date on which the fair Tribunal Order is placed before the Dictating Member for pronouncement. 6. Date on which the signed order comes back to the Sr. P.S./P.S. 7. Date on which the final Tribunal Order is uploaded by the Sr. P.S./P.S. on official website.. 8. Date on which the file goes to the Bench Clerk alongwith Tribunal Order. 9. Date of killing off the disposed of files on the judiSIS portal of ITAT by the Bench Clerks 10. Date on which the file goes to the Supervisor (Judicial) 11. The date on which the file goes to the Assistant Registrar for endorsement of the order. 12. Date of Despatch of the Order. "