M/s Syntans & Colloids, Kanpur V. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax-II, Kanpur

MA 110/LKW/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4808 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 31-08-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 12-08-2016
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 18-09-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 44AD; 133(6)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH A , LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI. P . K. BANSAL , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ABY T VARKEY , JUDICIAL MEMBER M.A. NO.110/LKW/2015 [ARISING OUT OF ITA NO. 624/LKW/2013) ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010 - 11 M/S SYNTANS & C OLLOIDS C - 18, UDYOG KUNJ, PANKI SITE - V, KANPUR V. DCIT - II KANPUR T AN /PAN : ABGFS6240R (APP LIC ANT) (RESPONDENT) APP LIC ANT BY: SHRI RAKESH GARG, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY: SHRI AMIT NIGAM, D.R. DATE OF HEARING: 12 08 2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 31 08 20 16 PER ABY T VARKEY, J.M : O R D E R THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION IS PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 26.6.2015 IN ITA NO.624/LKW/2013 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 - 11. 2 . AT THE OUTSET ITSELF, THE LD. A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE , SHRI RAKESH GARG, ADVOCATE TOOK OUR ATTENTION TO PARA 6 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL WHEREIN THE T RIBUNAL HAS HELD AS UNDER: - 6. HAVING CAREFULLY EXAMINED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES IN THE LIGHT OF THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND THE EVIDENC E FILED BEFORE US, WE FIND THAT EXCEPT THE APPOINTMENT LETTERS, NO OTHER EVIDENCE WAS FILED BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES TO JUSTIFY THE PAYMENT OF COMMISSION. EVEN FROM THE PERUSAL OF APPOINTMENT LETTERS, WE FIND THAT THESE LETTERS WERE PREPARED DURING TH E COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. WHENEVER A PERSON IS APPOINTED AS COMMISSION AGENT, AN AGREEMENT OR APPOINTMENT LETTER IS ISSUED AT THE TIME OF APPOINTMENT, BUT NOTHING WAS PLACED ON RECORD TO [ M.A. NO.110/LKW /2015 ] 2 ESTABLISH THAT PROPER COMMISSION AGENT WAS APPOINTED TO PR OMOTE THE SALES OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT HE HAS DEDUCTED TDS ON THE PAYMENT, THEREFORE, THE PAYMENT OF COMMISSION SHOULD BE ALLOWED. WE FIND NO FORCE IN THIS ARGUMENT, AS THE PAYMENT OF COMMISSION IS NOT SACROS ANCT AND THE ONUS IS UPON THE ASSESSEE TO ESTABLISH THAT THE COMMISSION WAS PAID FOR THE SERVICES RENDERED BY THE COMMISSION AGENT FOR THE ASSESSEE. IF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ABLE TO PROVE THAT THE ALLEGED SERVICES WERE RENDERED BY THE COMMISSION AGENT FOR T HE ASSESSEE, THE EXPENDITURE CLAIMED BY IT CANNOT BE ALLOWED. IN THE INSTANT CASE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY EVIDENCE ON RECORD WHEREFROM IT CAN BE INFERRED THAT THE COMMISSION AGENTS HAVE EVER RENDERED ANY SERVICE FOR THE ASSESSEE. MERE PAYMENT WOULD NOT SUFFI CE TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE PAYMENT OF COMMISSION. ON A CAREFUL PERUSAL OF THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), WE FIND THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT EXAMINED THE NATURE OF SERVICES RENDERED BY THE COMMISSION AGENT. IN FEW LINES, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ALLOWED THE COMMISSION PAYMENT, HAVING OBSERVED THAT IT IS PROVED BEYOND DOUBT THAT THE PAYMENT OF COMMISSION HAS BEEN MADE FOR THE SERVICES RENDERED BY THE PARTIES. SINCE THE FINDING OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS WITHOUT ANY BASIS, WE ARE NOT INCLINED TO APPROVE THE SAME . ACCORDINGLY WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND RESTORE THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 3 . THE LD. A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE TOOK OUR SPECIFIC ATTENTION TO THE LAST FEW LINES IN THE AFORESAID PARAGRAPH WHEREIN THE TRIBUNAL HELD THAT ON A CAREFUL PERUS AL OF THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), WE FIND THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT EXAMINED THE NATURE OF SERVICES RENDERED BY THE COMMISSION AGENT. IN FEW LINES, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ALLOWED THE COMMISSION PAYMENT, HAVING OBSERVED THAT IT IS PROVED BEYOND DOUBT THAT TH E PAYMENT OF COMMISSION HAS BEEN MADE FOR THE SERVICES RENDERED BY THE PARTIES. SINCE THE FINDING OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS WITHOUT ANY BASIS, WE ARE NOT INCLINED TO APPROVE THE SAME. THE LD. A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT THIS IS AN ERRONEOUS FINDING O F THE TRIBUNAL BECAUSE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS CLEARLY TAKEN NOTE OF THE EVIDENCES THAT HAVE BEEN PLACED BEFORE HIM AND TOOK OUR ATTENTION TO PAGE 3 OF THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) WHEREIN THE LD. CIT(A) HAS HELD AS UNDER: - [ M.A. NO.110/LKW /2015 ] 3 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS AND ARGUMENTS OF THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE AND THE CONTENTS OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE PAYMENTS OF COMMISSION HAS BEEN EXPLAINED WITH REQUIRED DETAILS AND EVIDENCES. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE FOLLOWING DETAILS WERE SUBMITTED BY TH E ASSESSEE: - 1. PARTYWISE DETAILS OF PAYMENT OF COMMISSION WITH THEIR CONFIRMATIONS AND RATE OF COMMISSION 2. COPY OF RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY THOSE PARTIES THE ABOVE DETAILS CLEARLY BRING OUT THE FACTS THAT THE PAYMENTS ARE MADE FOR THE PURPOSE SERV ICES RENDERED BY THESE PARTIES. DURING THE APPEAL PROCEEDINGS ALSO, THE A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THE FOLLOWING DETAILS: - 1. BILLWISE DETAILS OF PAYMENTS OF COMMISSION OF EACH PARTIES. 2. COPY OF RETURN OF INCOME OF THESE PARTIES. 3. PAYMENT S OF COMMISSION ARE SUBJECTED TO TDS AND THE DEDUCTED TDS IS DULY DEPOSITED TO GOVT. ACCOUNT. 4. RATE OF COMMISSION AND COPY OF CONFIRMATION LETTERS OF EACH PARTIES. FROM THE ABOVE DETAILS, IT IS PROVED BEYOND DOUBT THAT THE PAYMENTS OF COMMISSION HAS BE EN MADE FOR THE SERVICES RENDERED BY THESE PARTIES. THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCHARGED HIS :TJS BY SUBMITTING THE REQUIRED DETAILS AND EVIDENCES. THE RELIANCE IS PLACED ON THE - FLOWING DECISION IN THIS REGARD - 1. CIT VS. DWARKADHISH INVESTMENT (P) LTD., 330 ITR 298 (DEL.), 2011 2. LDK SHARES & SECURITIES (P) LTD., 71 DTR 371 (ALL), 2012 3. CIT VS. ARUN KUMAR KOTHARI, 254 CTR 648 (RAJ), 2012 4. CIT VS. SHRI ABDUL AZIZ, 2012 - TIOL - 180 - H.C. - CHATTISGARH. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCHARGED HIS ONUS AND HAS SUBSTANTIATED THAT THE PAYMENTS OF COMMISSION HAS BEEN MADE FOR THE SERVICES RENDERED. 4 . WE TAKE NOTE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) PARTY - WISE DETAILS OF PAYMENT OF COMMISSION WITH THEIR CONFIRMATIONS [ M.A. NO.110/LKW /2015 ] 4 AND RATE OF COMMISSION. THE ASSESSE E HAS FILED COPIES OF RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY THESE COMMISSION AGENTS. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO PRODUCED BILL - WISE DETAILS OF PAYMENT OF COMMISSION OF EACH COMMISSION AGENTS AND ALSO TOOK INTO CONSIDERATION THE TDS SO DEDUCTED ON THE COMMISSION PAID TO THE COMMISSION AGENTS AND DULY DEPOSITED IT IN THE GOVERNMENT TREASURY. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ALSO TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT THE RATES OF COMMISSION AND COPY OF THE CONFIRMATION LETTERS OF EACH PARTIES AND THUS HAS COME TO A FIND ING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCHARGED TH E ONUS WHICH LAYS ON IT TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE PAYMENT OF COMMISSION. WE HAVE ALSO GONE THROUGH THE PAPER BOOK FILED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WHICH HAVE BEEN FILED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IN THE FIRST ROUND. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A PARTNERSHIP F IRM CARRYING ON THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURE AND SALE OF CHEMICALS USED IN LEATHER AND TEXTILE INDUSTRIES. THE ASSESSEE IS MAINTAINING REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WHICH ARE DULY AUDITED BY THE CHARTERED ACCOUNTS AS PER PROVISIONS OF SECTION 44AD OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS DISALLOWED RS.24,15,036/ - ON ACCOUNT OF COMMISSION ON SALE PAID TO DIFFERENT PERSONS ON THE GROUND THAT THE LETTERS APPOINTING THESE AGENTS WERE DATED 2.3.2010 MEANING THAT THE SAID LETTERS OF APPOINTMENTS WERE MADE AFTER THE DATE OF APPOINT MENT I.E. FOR A PERIOD FROM 1.4.2009 TO 31.3.2010. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS SIMPLY BRUSHED ASIDE ALL OTHER EVIDENCE THAT HAS BEEN PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE BY STATING THAT LETTER OF APPOINTMENT HAS BEEN MADE AFTER APRIL 2010 AND NOT BEFORE 1.4. 2010. 5 . IN APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS TAKEN NOTE OF THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED LIST OF COMMISSION AGENTS, DETAILS OF PAYMENTS MADE THROUGH CHEQUE AFTER DEDUCTING TDS AND RATES OF COMMISSION WAS ALSO TAKEN NOTE AND COPY OF RETURN OF INCOME FILED B Y ALL THE COMMISSION AGENTS AND THUS WAS OF THE OPINION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCHARGED [ M.A. NO.110/LKW /2015 ] 5 THE ONUS WHICH LAYS ON IT TO PRIMA FACIE PROVE THAT THE COM MISSION PAYMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE TO THESE INDIVIDUALS FOR THE PURPOSES OF BUSINESS. 6 . WE HAVE ALSO GONE THROUGH THE PAPER BOOK FILED AND WE NOTE THAT FOR 8 COMMISSION AGENTS PAYMENTS WERE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE . FROM A PERUSAL OF PAGE 36 OF THE PAPER BOOK, W E TAKE NOTE THAT M/S ASHOK KUMAR PATHAK WAS GIVEN THE TERRITORY OF JALANDHAR CITY FOR SALE AND WAS GIVEN 15% C OMMISSION ON THE TOTAL NET T SALES. FROM A PERUSAL OF PAGE 4 OF THE PAPER BOOK REVEALS THAT M/S R. D. TYAGI (HUF) WAS GIVEN THE TERRITORY OF CHENNAI, KOLKATA AND KANPUR CITY AND THE COMMISSION WAS FIXED AT 10% ON TOTAL GROSS SALES. FROM A PERUSAL OF PAGE 8 OF THE PAPER BOOK REVEALS THAT M/S NAVINDRA DEVI TYAGI WAS GIVEN THE TERRITORY OF RANIPET CITY FOR SALE AND THE COMMISSION WAS FIXED AT 5% ON TOTAL GROSS SALES. FROM A PERUSAL OF PAGE 41 OF THE PAPER BOOK REVEALS THAT M/S BHAWNA JOSHI WAS GIVEN THE TERRI TORY OF JALANDHAR CITY ONLY FOR SALE AND COMMISSION WAS FIXED AT 10.5% ON TOTAL NETT SALES. FROM A PERUSAL OF PAGE 30 OF THE PAPER BOOK REVEALS THAT M /S B.S. TYAGI PAGE WAS GIVEN TERRIT ORY OF NEPAL, DHAKA, TAIWAN AND CHINA CITY ONLY FOR SALE AND PERCENTAG E OF COMMISSION WAS 7% ON TOTAL NETT SALES. FROM A PERUSAL OF PAGE 26 OF THE PAPER BOOK REVEALS THAT M/S KRITIKA TYAGI WAS GIVEN THE TERRITORY OF PANIPAT AND JALANDHAR CITY ONLY AND THE COMMISSION WAS 10% ON TOTAL GROSS SALES . FROM A PERUSAL OF PAGE 21 O F THE PAPER BOOK REVEALS THAT M/S ANJU SHRIVASTAVA WAS GIVEN THE TERRITORY OF KANPUR CITY ONLY FOR SALE AND THE PERCENTAGE OF COMMISSION WAS 1.5% ON TOTAL GROSS SALES. 7 . WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ENCLOSED DATE - WISE DETAILS OF PAYMENT OF COMMISSION, INV OICE NUMBER AS WELL AS COMMISSION PAID FROM 1.4.2009 TO 30.3.2010 OF EACH PARTIES ON RECORD. THE ENTIRE PAYMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE BY CHEQUE AND TDS HAVE BEEN DULY [ M.A. NO.110/LKW /2015 ] 6 DEDUCTED AND DEPOSITED IN THE GOVERNMENT ACCOUNT. IN THE LIGHT OF THESE EVIDENCES ON RECORD A ND THE FACT THAT THE BUSINESS OF THE FIRM INCREASED MANY FOLD AS COMPARED TO THE PREVIOUS YEAR, THE TOTAL SALE AT THE YEAR ENDING ON 31.3.2009 WAS RS.3,73,29,810/ - WHEN COMPARED WITH THE TOTAL SALE AT THE Y EAR ENDING ON 31.3.2010 AT RS.5,21,33,073/ - , THERE BY SHOWING INCREASE IN SALES OF MORE THAN 30 % . COPIES OF ALL THE RETURNS, TAX DEDUCTED AT SOURCE AND ITRS OF ALL THESE COMMISSION AGENTS HAVE BEEN PLACED ON RECORD AND HAS BEEN PERUSED. THE LD. CIT(A) , IN THE LIGHT OF THESE EVIDENCES , HAS RIGHTLY COME TO A FINDING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCHARGED THE ONUS WHICH LAYS ON IT TO PROVE THAT THE COMMISSION HAS BEEN PAID TO THE COMMISSION AGENTS. THE TRIBUNAL IN THE LIGHT OF THESE EVIDENCES BEFORE IT, ERRED IN NOT TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE SE EVIDENCES THAT HAS BEEN RIGHTLY RELIED ON BY THE LD. CIT(A) TO DELETE THE ADDITION AND THE TRIBUNAL ERRED IN MAKING A FINDING THAT THERE WAS NO BASIS FOR DELETING THE ADDITION, WHEN THERE WAS EVIDENCES BEFORE THE LD CIT(A) AND BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AS AFORESTATED . 8 . MERELY ON THE REASON THAT THE LETTER OF APPOINTMENT OF THESE COMMISSION AGENTS WERE DATED APRIL, 2010 CANNOT BE THE REASON TO BRUSH ASIDE ALL OTHER EVIDENCES THAT WERE PLACED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS CASE THAT COMMISSION HAS BEEN PAID BY THE ASSESSEE. THE DATE PRINTED ON THE APPOINTMENT LETTER CAN BE ERRONEOUS FOR VARIOUS REASONS , LIKE IT CAN BE BE A TYPOGRAPHICAL MISTAKE , WHICH CANNOT OVER TURN THE OTHER EVIDENCES PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS CLAIM . IN THIS CASE THE ASSE SSING OFFICER HAD THE LIST OF COMMISSION AGENTS, THEIR ADDRESSES, PAN, COPY OF INCOME TAX RETURNS AND IN CASE HE DOUBTED THE VERACITY OF THESE DOCUMENTS PRODUCED BEFORE HIM, NOTHING PREVENTED HIM FROM ENQUIRING ABOUT IT. WE TAKE NOTE THAT T HE ASSESSING OF FICER HAS FAILED TO USE HIS POWERS VESTED UNDER SECTION 133(6) OR 131 OF THE ACT TO ENQUIR E ABOUT THE VERACITY OF [ M.A. NO.110/LKW /2015 ] 7 THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ONLY ON THE BASIS THAT THE APPOINTMENT LETTERS WERE DATED APRIL, 2010 OUGHT NOT TO HAVE DISC ARDED ALL OTHER EVIDENCES PRODUCED BEFORE HIM AND FASTENED LIABILITY ON THE ASSESSEE WHICH IS NOT IN CONSONANCE WITH THE DISCHARGE OF QUASI JUDICIAL FUNCTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 9 . THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF HONDA SIEL POWER PRODUCTS LTD. VS. CIT, 295 ITR 466 HAS HELD AS UNDER: - THE PURPOSE BEHIND THE ENACTMENT OF SECTION 254(2) OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT, 1961,DEALING WITH THE POWER OF THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL TO AMEND ANY ORDER PASSED BY IT UNDER SUB - SECTION (1), IF ANY MISTAKE APPARENT FROM TH E RECORD IS BROUGHT TO ITS NOTICE, IS BASED ON THE FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE THAT NO PARTY APPEARING BEFORE THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BE IT AN ASSESSEE OR THE DEPARTMENT, SHOULD SUFFER ON ACCOUNT OF ANY MISTAKE COMMITTED BY THE TRIBUNAL. THIS FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIP LE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE INHERENT POWERS OF THE TRIBUNAL. IF PREJUDICE HAS RESULTED TO THE PARTY, WHICH PREJUDICE IS ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE TRIBUNALS MISTAKE, ERROR OR OMISSION, AND WHICH ERROR IS A MANIFEST ERROR, THEN THE TRIBUNAL WOULD BE JUSTIFIED I N RECTIFYING ITS MISTAKE. WHEN PREJUDICE RESULTS FROM AN ORDER ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE TRIBUNALS MISTAKE, ERROR OR OMISSION, THEN IT IS THE DUTY OF THE TRIBUNAL TO SET IT RIGHT. ATONEMENT TO THE WRONGED PARTY BY THE COURT OR THE TRIBUNAL FOR THE WRONG COMMIT TED BY IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE CONCEPT OF INHERENT POWER OF REVIEW. 10 . IN THE LIGHT OF THE AFORESAID BINDING PRECEDENTS OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT, WE F IND THAT THERE IS AN ERROR APPARENT ON THE FACE OF REC ORD WHICH NEEDS TO BE RECTIFIED. THEREFORE, WE ARE INCLINED TO RECTIFY THE MISTAKE APPARENT ON THE FACE OF RECORD AND SO PARA NO.6 OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 26.6.2015 IN ITA NO.624/LKW/2013, W HICH IS REPRODUCED HEREINABOVE IN PARA 2 OF THIS ORDER WILL BE SUBSTITUTED TO READ AS UNDER: - WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ENCLOSED DATE - WISE DETAILS OF PAYMENT OF COMMISSION, INVOICE NUMBER AS WELL AS COMMISSION PAID FROM 1.4.2009 TO 30.3.2010 OF EACH PARTIES ON RECORD. THE [ M.A. NO.110/LKW /2015 ] 8 ENTIRE PAYMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE BY CHEQUE AND TDS HAVE BEEN DULY DEDUCTED AN D DEPOSITED IN THE GOVERNMENT ACCOUNT. IN THE LIGHT OF THESE EVIDENCES ON RECORD AND THE FACT THAT THE BUSINESS OF THE FIRM INCREASED MANY FOLD AS COMPARED TO THE PREVIOUS YEAR, THE TOTAL SALE AT THE YEAR ENDING ON 31.3.2009 WAS RS.3,73,29,810/ - WHEN COMP ARED WITH THE TOTAL SALE AT THE YEAR ENDING ON 31.3.2010 AT RS.5,21,33,073/ - , THEREBY SHOWING INCREASE IN SALES OF MORE THAN 30%. COPIES OF ALL THE RETURNS, TAX DEDUCTED AT SOURCE AND ITRS OF ALL THESE COMMISSION AGENTS HAVE BEEN PLACED ON RECORD AND HAS BEEN PERUSED. THE LD. CIT(A), IN THE LIGHT OF THESE EVIDENCES, HAS RIGHTLY COME TO A FINDING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCHARGED THE ONUS WHICH LAYS ON IT TO PROVE THAT THE COMMISSION HAS BEEN PAID TO THE COMMI SSION AGENTS AND THEREFORE WE UPHOLD THE ORDER O F THE LD. CIT(A). 11 . ACCORDINGLY THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 26.6.2015 IN ITA NO .624/LKW/2013 WILL STAND RECTIFI ED ACCORDINGLY AND , THEREFORE , THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IN ITA NO.624/LKW/2013 STANDS DISMISSED. 12 . IN THE RESULT, THE MISCELLANEOUS AP PLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 31.8.2016. SD/ - SD/ - [P. K. BANSAL ] [ ABY T VARKEY ] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 31 ST 1 . APPELLANT AUGUST , 2016 JJ: 17 08 COPY FORWARDED TO: 2 . RESPONDENT 3 . CIT(A ) 4 . CIT 5 . DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR