ITO, Meerut v. Smt. Bina Gupta, Bangalore

ITA 4074/DEL/2012 | 2009-2010
Pronouncement Date: 18-10-2013 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 407420114 RSA 2012
Assessee PAN AARPG1168Q
Bench Delhi
Appeal Number ITA 4074/DEL/2012
Duration Of Justice 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 17 day(s)
Appellant ITO, Meerut
Respondent Smt. Bina Gupta, Bangalore
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 18-10-2013
Appeal Filed By Department
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted A
Tribunal Order Date 18-10-2013
Date Of Final Hearing 07-10-2013
Next Hearing Date 07-10-2013
Assessment Year 2009-2010
Appeal Filed On 31-07-2012
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: A NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.S.SYAL ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT DIVA SINGH JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A .NO.-4074/DEL/2012 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2009-10) ITO VS SMT. BINA GUPTA WARD-1(1) AAYAKAR BHAWAN D-208 PURVA PARK 53 MSO COLONY BHAINSALI GROUND MEERUT. JEEVANAHALLI MAIN ROAD COX TOWN BANGLORE. P AN-AARPG1168Q (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SMT. ANURADHA MISRA CIT DR RESPONDENT BY: SH. O.P.SAPRA ADV. ORDER PER DIVA SINGH JM THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 07.05.2012 OF CIT(A) MEERUT PERTAINING TO 2009-10 ASSESSMENT YEA R ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- (1) WHETHER IN FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE ON A/C O F LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN OF RS. 36 40 283/- BY ACCEPTING ADDITI ONAL EVIDENCES IN THE FORM OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN ASSESSEE 'S BUILDER AND FINANCER AND ALSO THE COMMUNICATION BETWEEN ASS ESSEE AND BUILDER IN COMPLETE VIOLATION OF SUB- RULES (1) (2 ) & (3) OF RULE 46A OF IT RULES 1962. (2) WHETHER IN FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND FACT IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE ON A/C OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN OF RS. 36 40 283/-IN RELYING UPON THE ABOVE SAID AGREEMENT AND COMMUNICATION WHEREIN ONLY THE PROBABLE DATE OF GIVING POSSESSION WAS MENTIONED BU T NO POSSESSION WAS GIVEN. (3) WHETHER IN FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE ON A/C O F LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN OF RS. 36 40 283/- IN EXTENDING THE RA TIO LAID DOWN IN THE CASE LAWS CITED BY THE ASSESSEE REGARDING CO NDONATION OF DELAY IN TAKING POSSESSION WITH REFERENCE TO SECTIO N 54 & 54F OF IT ACT TO THIS CASE AS WELL WHERE NO POSSESSION WAS TAKEN TILL DATE. (4) WHETHER IN FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE ON A/C O F LONG TERM I.T.A .NO.-4074/DEL/2012 2 CAPITAL GAIN OF RS. 36 40 283/- IN EXTENDING THE ME ANING OF CO- OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETIES LIKE DDA AS MENTIONED I N CBDT CIRCULARS NO. 471 DATED 15.10.1986 AND 672 DATED 16.12.1993TOTHEBUILDERSAND DEVELOPERS AS WELL TO WH ICH THESE CIRCULARS ARE NOT APPLICABLE. (5) WHETHER IN FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE ON A/C O F LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN OF RS. 36 40 283/- BY HOLDING THAT ANY PERCEIVED REASONABLE CAUSE CAN DO AWAY THE BASIC REQUIREMENT OF ACQUISITION OF RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY AS PROVIDED IN SECTIONS 54 & 54F OF IT ACT 1961 WHEREAS THERE IS NO SUCH PROVIS ION IN THESE SECTIONS. (6) WHETHER IN FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE ON A/C O F LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN OF RS. 36 40 283/- BY HOLDING THAT AO HAS NOT PROVED ANY CONNIVANCE BETWEEN ASSESSEE AND HER BUIL DER WHEREAS NO SUCH ONUS LIES UPON THE AO WHILE EXAMINI NG THE EXEMPTION U/S 54 & 54F OF IT ACT 1961. (7) THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD MODI FY AND /OR DELETE ANY GROUND(S) OF APPEAL. (8) IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE T HE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) MAY BE SET ASI DE AND THAT OF THE AO RESTORED. 2. THE RELEVANT FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT IN THE C ASE OF THE ASSESSEE WHO HAS SHOWN INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY BUSINESS AND OTH ER SOURCES RETURN WAS FILED DISCLOSING AN INCOME OF RS.5 64 970/-. THE CASE WA S PICKED UP FOR SCRUTINY. THE UNDISPUTED FACTS ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE SOLD HOUSE A T KONARK MEERUT ON 13.06.2008 FOR RS.51 00 000/- ON WHICH LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN WAS SHOWN AT RS.31 00 369/-. DEDUCTION U/S 54 WAS CLAIMED FOR ENTIRE CAPITAL GAI N ON A/C OF INVESTMENT IN HOUSE AT BANGLORE. ASSESSEE HAS ALSO SOLD A PLOT AT SRAD HAPURI MEERUT ON 10.11.2008 THROUGH TWO SALE DEEDS FOR A TOTAL SALE CONSIDERATI ON OF RS.24 81 000/-. LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN IS SHOWN AT RS.19 89 914/-. DEDUCTION U/S 54F HAS BEEN CLAIMED FOR THIS ENTIRE AMOUNT ON A/C OF INVESTMENT IN THE SAME HOUSE AT BANGLORE AS MENTIONED ABOVE. THUS TOTAL CAPITAL GAIN WAS AS UN DER :- 1. ON SALE OF HOUSE 3100369 (SALE CONSIDERATION RS. 5400000) 2. ON SALE OF PLOTS 1989914 (SALE CONSIDERATION RS.2481000) 5090283 ASSESSEE HAS MADE INVESTMENT IN HOUSE AT BANGLORE A S UNDER :- ADVANCE TO BUILDER FOR HOUSE 4250000 I.T.A .NO.-4074/DEL/2012 3 DEPOSIT IN CAPITAL GAIN SCHEME A/C 1450000 5700000 3. THE AO TAKING NOTE OF THE FACT THE ORIGINAL ASS ETS WERE SOLD ON 13.06.2008 AND 10.11.2008 WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE HOUSE MUST HAVE BEEN PURCHASED BY 12.06.2010 FOR GETTING DEDUCTION U/S 54 OF THE ACT ON SALE OF HOUSE AT KONARK AND BY 09.11.2010 FOR DEDUCTION U/S 54F ON SALE OF SRAD HAPURI AS THE SECTIONS REQUIRED THAT THE ASSESSEE MUST HAVE PURCHASED HOUSE WITHIN 2 YEARS OF SALE OF THE ORIGINAL ASSETS. HOWEVER THE AO FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HA D ADVANCED MONIES TO THE BUILDER ON AGREEMENT AND DEPOSITED MONEY IN CAPITAL GAINS SCHEME. SINCE NO HOUSE HAD BEEN PURCHASED TILL THE DATE OF ASSESSMEN T ORDER AS TWO YEARS PERIOD HAD LAPSED THE AO REQUIRED THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN WHY DEDUCTION U/S 54 AND 54F ON ACCOUNT OF PAYMENT MADE TO THE BUILDER M/S GOLDEN G ATE PROPERTIES LTD. BANGLORE BE STILL ALLOWED. 3.1. THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED AN EXPLANATION STATING THAT IT HAD ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT TO PURCHASE A FLAT AT BANGLORE FROM M/S G OLDEN GATE PROPERTIES LTD. BANGLORE ON 18.12.2008 FOR RS.60 19 380/- AND HAD P AID A TOTAL SUM OF RS.42 50 000/- ON DIFFERENT DATES BETWEEN 31.05.200 8 TO 31.12.2008 TO THE BUILDER AND THE AMOUNT OF RS.14 50 000/- WAS DEPOSITED IN S EPARATE CAPITAL GAIN A/C IN JULY 2009 WITH BANK OF BARODA. RELIANCE WAS PLACED UPON CIT VS R.L. SOOD (2000) 108 TAXMAN 227 (DELHI) 245 ITR 727. 3.2. NOT CONVINCED BY THE EXPLANATION AND HOLDING T HE DECISION TO BE DISTINGUISHABLE THE AO ALLOWED DEDUCTION TO THE EXT ENT OF RS.14 50 000/- ON ACCOUNT OF DEPOSIT IN THE CAPITAL GAIN A/C AGAINST THE LONG-TERM CAPITAL GAIN OF RS.50 90 283/- AND THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS.36 40 2 83/- WAS HELD AS TAXABLE. 4. AGGRIEVED BY THIS THE ASSESSEE CAME IN APPEAL BE FORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. THE DETAILED SUBMISSIONS ADVANCED ON BE HALF OF THE ASSESSEE ARE FOUND REPRODUCED AT PAGE 4-8 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER. A PE RUSAL OF THE SAME SHOWS THAT THE SUBMISSIONS ADVANCED ON FACTS BEFORE THE AO WER E REITERATED AT GREAT LENGTH. RELYING UPON THE AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND THE GOLDEN I.T.A .NO.-4074/DEL/2012 4 GATE PROPERTIES LTD BANGLORE IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT PART PAYMENT OF RS.28 50 000/- WAS MADE BEFORE DATE OF EXECUTION OF THE SAID AGREE MENT AND THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS.42 26 030/- WAS PAYABLE ON FIXED DATES THEREA FTER . APART FROM THAT IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE ALSO MADE A PAYMENT OF RS.14 00 000/- VIDE DD DATED 31.12.2008 AND THE TOTAL PAYMENT DURING THE YEAR WA S RS.42 50 000/-. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE BUILDER AGREED TO ALLOW POSSESSI ON OF THE SAID FLAT ON OR BEFORE 30.09.2009 I.E WITHIN A PERIOD OF 15-16 MONTHS OF T HE DATE OF TRANSFER OF THE ORIGINAL ASSETS ON OF WHICH WAS RESIDENTIAL HOUSE AT KONARK COLONY AND THE OTHER A PLOT AT SHRADHAPURI MEERUT. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT BEFORE THE AO IT WAS ALSO EMPHASIZED THAT AS FAR AS THE ASSESSEE IS CONCERNED IT HAD MADE THE INVESTMENT IN THE SAID PROPERTY AND THE FAULT OF NON-COMPLETION W AS ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE BUILDER AND NOT THE ASSESSEE. IN THIS CONTEXT RELIANCE HA S BEEN PLACED UPON THE JUDGEMENT OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS R.L .SOOD (2000) 245 ITR 727 (DEL.); CIT VS SARDRMAL KOTHARI & ANOTHER 302 ITR 2 86; THE JUDGEMENT OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT DATED 15.02.2012 IN THE CASE O F CIT VS SRI SAMBANDAM UDAYKUMAR IN IT APPEAL NO.175/2012; MRS. SEETHA SUB RAMANIAN VS ACIT 56 TTJ (MAD.) 417 AND SATISH CHANDRA GUPTA VS ASSESSING OF FICER (1995) 54 ITD 508 (DEL.). IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO REL ATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND THE BUILDER AS SUCH THERE CAN BE NO OCCASION TO CON SIDER ANY CONNIVANCE. MOREOVER THE BUILDER IT WAS SUBMITTED ENTERED INTO FINANCIAL ARRANGEMENT WITH M/S J.M. FINANCIAL ASSET RECONSTRUCTION CO. P. LTD. WHO HAD COMMITTED FUNDS TO THE BUILDERS AND THE BUILDER HAD COMMUNICATED THAT THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE FLAT ALLOTTED WAS UNDER PROGRESS AND THE DATE OF POSSESSION COMMU NICATED BY THEM WAS DECEMBER 2012 AND THE BUILDERS HAD FURTHER DEMANDED FUNDS OF RS.14 17 352/ VIDE E-MAIL DATED 10.03.2012 AND THE ASSESSEE WAS I N THE PROCESS OF ARRANGING THE FINANCE. 4.1. CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS THE CIT(A) CAME TO THE FOLLOWING CONCLUSIONS:- I.T.A .NO.-4074/DEL/2012 5 I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE FACTS OF THE CASE FINDING S OF THE A.O. AND SUBMISSIONS OF THE AR AND HAVE TAKEN NOTE OF THE FO LLOWING FACTS ON RECORD:- THAT THE APPELLANT INVESTED A SUM OF RS.42 50 000/- FOR THE PURCHASE OF RESIDENTIAL FLAT BY MAKING ADVANCE TO THE BUILDE RS WITHIN PERIOD OF FIVE TO SIX MONTHS FROM THE DATES OF SALE OF RESIDE NTIAL HOUSE AND PLOT YIELDING CAPITAL GAINS. AN AGREEMENT WAS EXECUTED ON 18.12.2008 AND IT WAS AGREED THAT THE BUILDERS SHALL COMPLETE THE FLAT AND ALLOW POSSESSION THEREOF ON OR BEFORE 30.09.2009 I.E WITH IN A PERIOD OF 15 MONTHS OR SO FROM THE TRANSFER OF ORIGINAL ASSETS(S ). THE BUILDERS DID NOT COMPLETE THE CONSTRUCTION AND THEREFORE DID NOT ALLOW POSSESSION OF THE FLAT WITHIN THE STIPULATED PERIOD OF 3 YEARS FROM THE DATE OF TRANSFER OF ORIGINAL ASSET. THE AO DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF RS.42.5 LACS AND MADE ADDITION OF CAPITAL GAINS OF RS.36 40 283/-. ON THE OTHER HAND THE APPELLANTS CLAIM IS THAT SUBSTANTI AL COMPLIANCE IN ORDER TO GET RESIDENTIAL HOUSE COMPLETED WITHIN THR EE YEARS AS STIPULATED IN SEC.54/54F HAS BEEN MADE AND THAT IT IS ONLY ON ACCOUNT OF FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE BUILDERS THAT THE CON STRUCTION OF THE FLAT IS DELAYED AND POSSESSION THEREOF COULD NOT BE ALLOWED TILL DATE. THE APPELLANT HAS PLACED RELIANCE ON VARIOUS JUDICIAL P RONOUNCEMENTS AS CITED HEREIN ABOVE. ON THE FACTS THERE IS CRYSTALLIZED JUDICIAL POSITIO N IN FAVOUR OF THE APPELLANT AS IT HAS BEEN OBSERVED BY THE VARIOUS C OURTS THAT FOR GETTING BENEFIT U/S 54/54F THE ASSESSEE NEED NOT CO MPLETE THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE HOUSE AND OCCUPY THE SAME. IT WAS ENOUGH IF THE ASSESSEE ESTABLISHES THAT THE INVESTMENT OF THE ENT IRE REQUIRED FUNDS HAS BEEN MADE IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF HOME WITH THE STIPULATED PERIOD. THE COURTS HAVE REFERRED TO THE CBDT CIRCULARS NO.- 471 DATED 15.10.1986 NO.667 OCTOBER 1993 AND CIRCULAR NO-67 2 DATED 16.12.1993. DURING APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS THE APPE LLANT HAS ALSO FILED COMMUNICATIONS WITH THE BUILDERS AND THEIR FI NANCIAL PARTNERS THAT THE CONSTRUCTION WORK AT SITE WAS IN ITS FULL PACE AND POSSESSION OF THE FLAT WILL BE GIVEN TENTATIVELY BY DECEMBER 2012 . THE BUILDER HAS RAISED DEMAND FOR PAYMENT OF THE REMAINING AMOUNT A ND THE APPELLANT HAS BEEN ARRANGING TO MAKE THE PAYMENT TH EREOF. NO CONNIVANCE IN BETWEEN THE APPELLANT AND THE BUILDER S HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD AND THE PAYMENT OF ADVANCE AMOUNT OF RS.42.5 LACS HAS NOT BEEN DOUBTED BY THE AO. AFTER CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS AND RES PECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS AS REFERRED TO HEREIN A BOVE I HOLD THAT THE APPELLANT IS ELIGIBLE TO GET THE BENEFIT U/S 54 /54F AS CLAIMED AND THE AO IS NOT LEGALLY CORRECT IN WITHDRAWING THE BE NEFIT FOR THE DEFAULT I.T.A .NO.-4074/DEL/2012 6 OF BUILDERS NOT TO ALLOW POSSESSION OF THE RESIDENT IAL FLAT WITHIN STIPULATED TIME. I THEREFORE DIRECT THE A.O TO A LLOW THE DEDUCTION U/S 54/54F AS CLAIMED. 5. AGGRIEVED BY THIS THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFOR E THE TRIBUNAL. THE LD. CIT DR PLACED HEAVY RELIANCE UPON THE ASSESSMENT OR DER. ON QUERY SHE STATED THAT THE FACTUM OF PAYMENT HAS NOT BEEN DOUBTED BY THE DEPARTMENT AND THE ONLY GRIEVANCE OF THE REVENUE AS SET OUT IN THE ASSESSME NT ORDER IS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN GIVE ANY POSSESSION OF THE FLAT OR A HOUSE AS PER THE REQUIREMENT OF THE STATUTE AND SINCE THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ACT ARE N OT FULFILLED THE IMPUGNED ORDER DESERVES TO BE SET ASIDE AND THE ASSESSMENT ORDER B E UPHELD. 5.1. LD. AR ON THE OTHER HAND RELYING UPON THE IMPU GNED ORDER SUBMITTED THAT THE BUILDER IS NOT KNOWN TO THE ASSESSEE AND THE AR RANGEMENT IS AT ARMS LENGTH AS SUCH THERE CAN BE NO CONNIVANCE PRESUMED OF THE ASS ESSEE WITH THE BUILDER. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT WHATEVER THE ASSESSEE COULD HAVE DON E HAD BEEN DONE AND IF FOR REASONS BEYOND THE CONTROL OF THE ASSESSEE THE BUIL DER HAS NOT COMPLETED THE CONSTRUCTION THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE PENALIZED FOR THE FAULT OF THE BUILDER. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THESE ARGUMENTS HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED ON FACTS WHILE PASSING THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND THEY HAVE NOT BEEN DEMONSTRATED OR ASSAILED TO BE FALSE. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT IN THIS CONTEXT VARIOUS JUDGEME NTS OF THE DELHI HIGH COURT HAD BEEN REFERRED TO BEFORE THE AO AND THEREAFTER A LSO TO THE CIT(A) WHICH HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED. ON QUERY IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT NO FRESH DOCUMENTS HAD BEEN FILED BEFORE THE CIT(A) AND THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ITSELF W OULD SHOW THAT THE REFERENCE HAS BEEN MADE TO THE ASSESSEES AGREEMENT WITH M/S GOLDEN GATE PROPERTIES LTD. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE COPY OF THE SAID AGREEMEN T IS PLACED AT PAGES 5-23 AND THE DATE OF AGREEMENT IS 18.12.2008 AND A PERUSAL OF CL AUSE 4 FOUND AT PAGE 10 OF THE PAPER BOOK WOULD SHOW THAT THE DELIVERY DATE WAS CO NTEMPLATED AS ON OR BEFORE 30.09.2009. ACCORDINGLY IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES IT WAS HIS SUBMISSION THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER DESERVES TO BE UPHELD. RELIANCE WAS PLACED UPON THE FOLLOWING JUDGEMENTS:- I.T.A .NO.-4074/DEL/2012 7 (I) CIT VS. R.L. SOOD 245 ITR 727 (DELHI); (II) CIT VS SARDARMAL KOTHARI 302 ITR 286; (III) CIT VS SAMBANDAM UDAY KUMAR 345 ITR 389 (KARNATAKA HIGH COURT); AND (IV) MRS. SITA SUBHRAMANIAM VS ACIT 56 TTJ (MADRAS ITAT ) 417. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT IS SEEN THAT GROUND NO-1 OF THE DEPARTM ENT IS MISPLACED AS NO EVIDENCE HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE CIT(A). NOT ONLY THE FACTS RELATABLE TO THE SAID AGREEMENT ARE FOUND RECORDED AT PAGE 2-3 O F THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IT IS ALSO SEEN THAT THE CERTIFICATE GIVEN BY THE ASSESSE E HAS NOT BEEN DISPUTED BY THE REVENUE DESPITE A SPECIFIC QUERY. AS SUCH WE HOLD THAT GROUND NO-1 DESERVES TO BE REJECTED. CONSIDERING THE GROUNDS AGITATED BY T HE REVENUE ON MERIT WE FIND NO SUBSTANCE IN THEM AS ADMITTEDLY THE PAYMENTS WERE M ADE BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE SPECIFIC DATES PURSUANT TO THE AGREEMENT ENTERED WI TH M/S GOLDEN GATE PROPERTIES LTD BANGLORE ON 18.12.2008 I.E WITHIN THE SPECIFIE D TIME AND THE DELIVERY WAS SCHEDULED TO TAKE PLACE BEFORE 30.09.2009 I.E VERY MUCH WITHIN THE STIPULATED TIME. THE FACT THAT THERE WAS NO RELATIONSHIP BETW EEN THE ASSESSEE AND THE BUILDER HAS NOT BEEN ASSAILED BY THE REVENUE AS SUCH NO CON NIVANCE OR COLLUSION CAN BE READ INTO THE AGREEMENT. IN THESE PECULIAR CIRCUMST ANCES LOOKING AT THE SETTLED LEGAL POSITION ON THE SAID ISSUE AS CONSIDERED BY T HE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT AMONGST OTHERS WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE IMPUGNE D ORDER. ACCORDINGLY BEING SATISFIED WITH THE REASONING AND FINDING THE DEPAR TMENTAL GROUNDS ARE DISMISSED. 7. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMI SSED. THE ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 18 TH OF OCTOBER 2013. SD/- SD/- (R.S.SYAL) (DIVA SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEM BER DATED:18/10/2013 *AMIT KUMAR* I.T.A .NO.-4074/DEL/2012 8 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI