Pratibha Paliwal, Panipat v. ACIT, Panipat

ITA 4194/DEL/2009 | 2006-2007
Pronouncement Date: 06-05-2010 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 419420114 RSA 2009
Bench Delhi
Appeal Number ITA 4194/DEL/2009
Duration Of Justice 6 month(s) 10 day(s)
Appellant Pratibha Paliwal, Panipat
Respondent ACIT, Panipat
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 06-05-2010
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted F
Tribunal Order Date 06-05-2010
Date Of Final Hearing 06-05-2010
Next Hearing Date 06-05-2010
Assessment Year 2006-2007
Appeal Filed On 26-10-2009
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : F NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A NO. 4194/DEL/09 ASSTT. YEAR 2006-07 PRATIBHA PALIWAL PALIWAL NAGAR G.T. ROAD PANIPAT VS. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX PANIPAT CIRCLE PANIPAT (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: NONE RESPONDENT BY: SHRI H.K. LAL SR. DR. ORDER PER RAJPAL YADAV JM: THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US AGAINST THE OR DER OF LD. CIT(A) DATED 31 ST AUGUST 2009 PASSED FOR ASSTT. YEAR 2006-07. 2. THE SOLITARY GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT L D. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST PAID ON BANK OVERDRAFT. THIS APPEAL WAS LISTED ON 3 RD MAY 2010. THE HUSBAND OF THE ASSESSEE SHRI V.P. PALIWAL APPEARED AND SOUGHT ADJOURNMENT. WE HA VE ADJOURNED THE HEARING FOR 6 TH MAY 2010. WE HAVE APPRISED SHRI V P PALIWAL THAT ITA NO. 4194/DEL/2009 ASSTT. YEAR 2006-07 2 APPEAL IN HIS CASE WAS HEARD AGAINST THE ORDER OF L D. CIT(A) DATED 31 ST AUGUST 2009. ISSUES ARE COMMON AND ORDER HAS ALRE ADY BEEN PRONOUNCED. THEREFORE WE WILL NOT GIVE A LONGER DAT E TO THE ASSESSEE. ON 6 TH MAY HOWEVER NO ONE HAS COME PRESENT ON BEHALF OF T HE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALREADY FILED THE PAPER BOOK AND PLACED ON RECORD COPY OF THE BANK ACCOUNT ETC. WITH THE ASSIS TANCE OF LD. DR WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE RECORD CAREFULLY. 3. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED HER RETURN OF INCOME ON 3 1 ST JULY 2006 DECLARING AN INCOME OF RS. 13 35 054. ON SCRUTINY O F THE RETURN LD. AO FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DECLARED INCOME AS UNDE R :- LONG-TERM CAPITAL GAIN RS. 25 69 359/- CLAIMED E XEMPT SHORT-TERM CAPITAL GAIN RS. 5 20 417/- INTEREST INCOME FROM FDRS. RS. 23 06 662/- OTHER INTEREST RS. 1 00 632/- 4. THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED DEDUCTION OF RS. 149265 7/- ON ACCOUNT OF AN INTEREST PAID TO CANARA BANK ON OVERDRAFT LIM IT TAKEN BY HER FOR DEALING IN SALE AND PURCHASE OF SHARES. THE AO ISSU ED A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE INVITING HER EXPLANATION AS TO WHY INTEREST PAID ON OVERDRAFT LIMIT AND CLAIMED AGAINST THE INTEREST IN COME ON FDR MAY NOT BE DISALLOWED IN VIEW OF THE SUPREME COURTS DECISI ON IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. DR. V.P.GOPINATHAN 248 ITR 449. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED A DETAILED ITA NO. 4194/DEL/2009 ASSTT. YEAR 2006-07 3 REPLY WHICH HAS BEEN REPRODUCED BY THE AO. LD. AO H OWEVER DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF INTEREST EXPENSES. APPEAL TO THE LD. C ITA() DID NOT BRING ANY RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE. LD. DR HAS POINTED OUT THAT AN IDENTICAL ISSUE HAS ARISEN IN THE CASE OF HER HUSBAND SHRI V.P. PAL IWAL WHEREIN THE TRIBUNAL HAS UPHELD THE DISALLOWANCE IN PRINCIPLE B UT HAS SET ASIDE THE ISSUES ON ONE ASPECT. ACCORDING TO THE TRIBUNAL ASS ESSEE HAS SHOWN SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN IN THAT CASE AND CLAIM OF I NTEREST EXPENDITURE AGAINST THIS INCOME COULD BE CONSIDERED IF ASSESSEE IS ABLE TO ESTABLISH THAT BORROWED FUNDS HAVE BEEN UTILIZED FOR MAKING I NVESTMENT IN THE SECURITIES OUT OF WHICH SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN HAS BEEN EARNED. MEANING THEREBY THIS ISSUE HAS TO BE REINVESTIGATED AT THE LEVEL OF AO. SHE PLACED ON RECORD COPY OF THE TRIBUNALS ORDER IN ITA NO. 4 194/DEL/2009. 5. WE HAVE DULY CONSIDERED THE CONTENTION OF LD. DR AND PERUSED THE RECORD CAREFULLY. THE APPEALS OF BOTH THE ASSES SEE HAVE BEEN DECIDED BY THE LD. CIT(A) SIMULTANEOUSLY THOUGH BY SEPARATE ORDERS OF EVEN DATE. THERE IS NO DISPARITY ON FACTS. EXPLANAT ION OF BOTH THE ASSESSEE ARE COMMON. THE TRIBUNAL HAS DISCUSSED THE FACTS AND THE CONTENTION OF ASSESSEE IN THE ORDER OF HER HUSBAND IN DETAIL. THE OBSERVATION OF THE TRIBUNAL READ AS UNDER :- ITA NO. 4194/DEL/2009 ASSTT. YEAR 2006-07 4 2. THE ONLY GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE RELATES TO DI SALLOWANCE ON BANK OVERDRAFT. 3. RIVAL CONTENTIONS HAVE BEEN HEARD AND RECORD PER USED. FACTS IN BRIEF ARE THAT IN THE RETURN OF INCOME THE ASSESSE E HAS OFFERED FOLLOWING INCOMES FOR TAXATION:- RENTAL INCOME RS.91 902/- LONG-TERM CAPITAL GAIN RS.9 77 189/- (CLAIMED EXE MPT) SHORT-TERM CAPITAL GAIN RS.4 31 725/- INTEREST INCOME FROM FDRS RS.23 06 066/- OTHER INTEREST RS.4 321/- 4. AGAINST THE INTEREST INCOME FROM FDRS THE ASSES SEE HAS CLAIMED DEDUCTION OF RS.18 15 393/- ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST PAID TO CA NARA BANK ON OVERDRAFT LIMIT TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE FOR DEALINGS IN SALE AND PURCHASE O F SHARES. VIDE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 26.5.2008 THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO S HOW CAUSE AS TO WHY INTEREST PAID TO THE EXTENT OF RS.18 15 393/- ON OVERDRAFT L IMIT AVAILABLE AGAINST THE FDRS SHOULD NOT BE DISALLOWED IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. DR.V.P.GOPINATHAN (2001) 248 ITR 44 9 WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT THAT GROSS INTEREST INCOM E IS TO BE ASSESSED AND NO DEDUCTION ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST PAID ON OVERDRAFT LIMIT IS TO BE ALLOWED OUT OF INTEREST INCOME EARNED FROM FDRS. THE INTEREST PAID CAN ONL Y BE ALLOWED DEDUCTION OUT OF THE BUSINESS INCOME EARNED FROM DEALINGS IN SHARES. AFTER CONSIDERING THE REPLY FILED BY THE ASSESSEE THE AO DISAGREED WITH THE SA ME AND BY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF DR.V.P.GOPINATHAN (SUPRA) HELD THAT NO DEDUCTION IS ALLOWABLE AGAINST THE INTEREST ITA NO. 4194/DEL/2009 ASSTT. YEAR 2006-07 5 INCOME EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE WHILE COMPUTING INCO ME EARNED FROM INTEREST. THE AO FURTHER HELD THAT INTEREST PAID ON OVERDRAFT LIM IT AGAINST SHORT-TERM/LONG-TERM CAPITAL GAIN ALSO CANNOT BE ALLOWED AS ASSESSEE HAS NOT DECLARED ANY BUSINESS INCOME FROM DEALINGS IN SALE AND PURCHASE OF SHARES . 5. AGGRIEVED BY THE ABOVE ORDER ASSESSEE FILED AN A PPEAL BUT WITHOUT ANY POSITIVE RESULTS SO HE IS IN FURTHER A PPEAL BEFORE US. 6. IT WAS CONTENDED BY THE LEARNED AR THAT THE KARTA OF THE ASSESSEE HUF SHRI VED PARKASH PALIWAL WHO WAS 73 YE ARS OLD IN THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR HAD TWO OPTIONS. ONE OPTION WAS TO GO THE BANK EVERY TIME THE HUF SOLD SOME SHARES TO GET THE SALE AMOUNT FIXED DEPOSITED AND THEN GETTING THE FD(S) ENCASHED/CANCE LLED EVERY TIME IT BOUGHT/APPLIED FOR SHARES. THE OTHER OPTION WAS TO AVAIL OVERDRAFT FACILITY TO AVOID THE INCONVENIENCE OF GETTING FD(S ) MADE AND ENCASHED/CANCELLED EVERY NOW AND THEN. THUS THE A RRANGEMENT TO AVAIL OVERDRAFT FACILITY WAS MADE FOR THE PURPOSE O F CONVENIENCE ONLY. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT DERIVE ANY BENEFIT OR ADVANTAG E SO FAR AS ITS TAX LIABILITY IS CONCERNED. EVEN A YOUNG PERSON WOULD HAVE FOUND IT VERY INCONVENIENT TO GO THE BANK EVERY NOW AND THEN ON/F OR EVERY SALE/PURCHASE OF SHARES. AND IN THE PRESENT CASE T HE KARTA WAS A 73 YEAR OLD MAN IN THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR. HE F URTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE FACTUAL POSITION IN DR.V.P.GOPINATHAN (SUP RA) WAS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD TAKEN CERTAIN LOANS FOR CONSTRUCTION O F A HOUSE. IN THE PRESENT CASE NO LOAN WAS TAKEN ONLY OVERDRAFT FAC ILITY AGAINST THE FD(S) WAS AVAILED. THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A LOAN A ND OVERDRAFT FACILITY IS COMMON KNOWLEDGE. IN LOAN A LUMP SUM AMOUNT IS LOANED TO THE BORROWED TO BE REPAID AS PER AGREEMENT AND IN T HE OVERDRAFT ITA NO. 4194/DEL/2009 ASSTT. YEAR 2006-07 6 FACILITY REGULAR DEBIT AND CREDIT OF AMOUNTS TAKE PLACE. THIS OVERDRAFT FACILITY WAS AVAILED TO AVOID FREQUENT INCONVENIENC E AS ABOVE EXPLAINED. THEREFORE FOR THE PURPOSE OF WORKING O UT THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE THE TWO ACCOUNTS VIZ. THE RESPECTIVE FD S AND THEIR CORRESPONDING OVERDRAFT A/CS MUST BE CONSIDERED AS SINGLE A/C AND ONLY THE REAL INCOME I.E. THE INTEREST INCOME FRO M FD AS REDUCED BY THE INTEREST PAID ON OVERDRAFT FACILITY SHOULD BE BROUGHT TO TAX. AFTER ALL IT WAS THE ASSESSEES MONEY THAT WAS LYING IN FDS WHICH HE WAS DRAWING. FOR ALL PRACTICAL PURPOSES BOTH ACCOUNTS (I.E. THE FD AND ITS CORRESPONDING OVERDRAFT A/C) WERE AN INTEGRATED ACC OUNT. THE INTEREST ON THE OTHER FD FOR RS.2 00 46 007.23 (MATURITY VAL UE RS.2 83 60 654.23) COULD NOT BE CREDITED BY THE BANK TO ITS CORRESPOND ING OVERDRAFT A/C AT REGULAR INTERVALS BECAUSE IN THIS FD THE ASSESS EE HAD OPTED FOR COMPOUNDED INTEREST AT QUARTERLY RESTS. THIS FAC T IS MENTIONED ON THE RELEVANT FDR. THIS FD WAS FOR RS.2 00 46 007.23 AN D ITS MATURITY VALUE WAS RS.2 83 60 654.23 THUS ANY CREDIT ENTRY IN THE CORRESPONDING OVERDRAFT A/C COULD BE MADE ONLY AT THE TIME OF MAT URITY OF THIS FD AND ON MATURITY THE MATURITY VALUE WAS CREDITED BY THE BANK TO THE CORRESPONDING OVERDRAFT A/C ONLY. THE ASSESSEE IS READY TO PRODUCE PROOF OF CREDIT OF THE MATURITY VALUE OF THIS FD TO THE CORRESPONDING OVERDRAFT A/C BY THE BANK IF SO DIRECTED BY THE BEN CH. IN RESPECT OF THE FD NO.FD/0233/2003 THE ASSESSEE HAD OPTED FOR SIM PLE INTEREST THAT IS WHY DEPOSIT AND THE MATURITY VALUE BOTH WERE AT RS. 1 35 00 000/-. THUS THE BANK HAS TREATED THE RELEVANT FDS AND THEIR COR RESPONDING OVERDRAFT A/CS AS ONE ACCOUNT THOUGH THEY MIGHT HAV E BEEN WRITTEN ON DIFFERENT SHEETS OF PAPER. IN CASE OF A LOAN FO R CONSTRUCTION OF HOUSE THE LOAN A/C AND THE FD A/C ARE ALTOGETHER D IFFERENT ACCOUNTS THIS IS COMMON KNOWLEDGE. ITA NO. 4194/DEL/2009 ASSTT. YEAR 2006-07 7 7. HE ALSO CITED THE DECISION OF HON'BLE GUJARAT HI GH COURT IN THE CASE REPORTED AT 172 ITR 680 WHEREIN IT WAS HELD A S FOLLOWS:- IF THE QUESTION OF DEDUCTION IS STRICTLY WITHIN TH E PREVIEW OF SECTION 57(III) OF THE ACT THE CONTENTION URGED ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE WOULD UNDOUBTEDLY HAVE TO BE UPHELD . H OWEVER SO FAR AS THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE ARE CONCERN ED IN REGARD TO THE INTEREST CLAIM .. WE ARE OF THE OPINION THA T THE CASE DOES NOT FALL STRICTLY WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF SECTION 57( III) OF THE ACT. IT IS INDEED TRUE THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS MAINTAINING THREE ACCOUNTS BUT THAT WAS BY WAY OF CONVENIENCE ONLY. IT IS NOT THE CONTENTION OF THE REVENUE THAT BY MAINTAINING THREE ACCOUNTS THE ASSESSEE HAD DERIVED ANY BENEFIT OR ADVANTAGE SO FA R AS HER TAX LIABILITY IS CONCERNED. FOR ALL PRACTICAL PURPOSES THEREFORE THE ACCOUNT . WAS A SINGLE ACCOUNT AND THEREFORE W E SEE FORCE IN THE CONTENTION . THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRC UMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT BE BOTH A DEBTOR A ND A CREDITOR OF M/S . AT ONE AND THE SAME TIME. IF THE ACC OUNT IS TAKEN AS ONE SINGLE COMPOSITE ACCOUNT THOUGH WRITT EN ON THREE DIFFERENT SHEETS OF PAPER CONTENTION . WOULD A PPEAR TO BE WELL-FOUNDED. .. THE AUTHORITIES BELOW DID NOT PERMIT THE DEDUCTION BECAUSE THEY DID NOT ACCEPT THE ASSESSEE S CONTENTION THAT ALL THE THREE ACCOUNTS .. CONSTITUTED A SIN GLE ACCOUNT AND THE ASSESSEE WAS ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION . WE AR E THEREFORE OF THE OPINION THAT HAVING REGARD TO THE PECULIAR F ACTS OF THIS CASE THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO ADJUSTMENT OF RS.5102.3 6. 8. ALTERNATIVE CONTENTION OF THE LEARNED AR WAS THAT THE INTEREST PAID ON OVERDRAFT MAY BE ALLOWED TO BE DEDUCTED U/S 57(III) WHILE CALCULATING NET INCOME UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES OUT OF DIVIDEND INCOME. AS DIVIDEND IS EXEMPT U/S 10(34) THE EFFECT OF DEDUCTION OF INTEREST U/S 57(III) SHALL BE REDUCTIO N OF INTEREST PAID ON OVERDRAFT FROM OTHER INCOMES UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 70(1). ITA NO. 4194/DEL/2009 ASSTT. YEAR 2006-07 8 9. ON THE OTHER HAND IT WAS CONTENDED BY THE LEARN ED DR SHRI CHAND THAT INTEREST ON FDR IS TAXABLE UNDER THE HEA D INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES AND IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT ASSESSE E HAS NOT OFFERED ANY BUSINESS INCOME NO INTEREST EXPENDITURE IS TO BE A LLOWED FOR THE OVERDRAFT LIMIT UTILIZED BY IT. HE FURTHER CONTEND ED THAT NO SEPARATE DETAILS OF EACH INVESTMENT AND SOURCE OF INVESTMENT HAS BEEN GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE. AS PER LEARNED DR DIVIDEND AND LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN ARE CLAIMED EXEMPT AND THEREFORE THE EXPENDITURE I N RELATION TO SUCH INVESTMENT IS NOT ALLOWABLE AS PER SECTION 14A ALSO. 10. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS CAREF ULLY GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND ALSO DELIBE RATED UPON THE CASE LAW CITED BY LEARNED AR AND LEARNED DR AND ALSO REFE RRED TO BY LOWER AUTHORITIES IN THEIR RESPECTIVE ORDERS IN THE CONT EXT OF FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE INSTANT CASE. FROM THE RECORD WE FOUND THAT A SSESSEE WAS HAVING INTEREST INCOME OUT OF FDRS. AGAINST THESE FDRS T HE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO TAKEN OVERDRAFT LIMIT WHICH HE HAS UTILIZED FOR SHA RES AND SECURITIES. THE INTEREST PAID ON THE OVERDRAFT LIMIT HAS BEEN CLAIM ED BY THE ASSESSEE OUT OF THE INTEREST INCOME EARNED ON THE FDRS. THE RE IS NO DISPUTE TO THE WELL SETTLED LEGAL PROPOSITION THAT EXPENDITURE ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST CAN BE ALLOWED ONLY AGAINST THE SOURCE OF INCOME OR EARNING OF WHICH THE BORROWED FUNDS HAVE BEEN UTILIZED. ME RELY BECAUSE OVERDRAFT HAS BEEN TAKEN AGAINST THE FDRS THE INTE REST EXPENDITURE ON OVERDRAFT CANNOT BE ALLOWED TO BE SET OFF AGAINST T HE INTEREST EARNED ON FDRS WHICH IS LIABLE TO BE TAXED UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES U/S 56 OF THE IT ACT. WHILE BRINGING TO TA X ANY INCOME UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES ONLY THE EXPE NDITURE WHICH IS ITA NO. 4194/DEL/2009 ASSTT. YEAR 2006-07 9 INCURRED FOR EARNING SUCH INCOME CAN BE ALLOWED. I N THE INSTANT CASE IF THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN OVERDRAFT FOR MAKING THE FDRS THEN ONLY THE INTEREST EXPENDITURE ON OVERDRAFT COULD HAVE BEEN C LAIMED AGAINST THE INTEREST EARNED ON THE FDRS. BUT SINCE THE ASSESSE E HAS NOT TAKEN THE OVERDRAFT FOR MAKING THE FDRS THERE IS NO REASON F OR ALLOWING SETTING OFF INTEREST EXPENDITURE ON OVERDRAFT AGAINST THE INTER EST INCOME EARNED ON FDRS. IN THE INSTANT CASE THE ASSESSEE HAS ADM ITTEDLY UTILIZED THE BORROWED FUNDS FOR MAKING INVESTMENT IN SHARES AND SECURITIES PROFIT OF WHICH WAS OFFERED TO TAX UNDER THE HEAD LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN AS WELL AS SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN. LONG TERM CAPIT AL GAIN HAS BEEN CLAIMED AS EXEMPT THEREFORE IN VIEW OF THE PROVISI ONS OF SECTION 14A NO EXPENDITURE IS TO BE ALLOWED OUT OF THE EXEMPT I NCOME. NOW WE ARE LEFT WITH THE SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN OF RS.4 3 1 725/- OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE AND WHICH HAS BEEN BROUGHT TO TAX NET BY T HE AO. FOR CLAIM OF INTEREST EXPENDITURE AGAINST THIS INCOME THE AS SESSEE HAS TO SHOW THAT BORROWED FUNDS HAVE BEEN UTILIZED FOR MAKING I NVESTMENT IN THE SECURITIES OUT OF WHICH SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN HAS BEEN EARNED. WE THEREFORE RESTORE THE ISSUE RELATING TO ALLOWABILIT Y OF INTEREST EXPENDITURE TO THE FILE OF THE AO WITH A DIRECTION TO THE AO TO V ERIFY UTILIZATION OF BORROWED FUNDS IN ACQUISITION OF SECURITIES OUT OF WHICH ASSESSEE HAS EARNED SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN AND TO ALLOW INTERE ST ATTRIBUTABLE TO SUCH BORROWED FUNDS OUT OF INCOME OFFERED UNDER TH E HEAD SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN. WE DIRECT ACCORDINGLY. 6. SINCE THERE IS NO DISPARITY ON FACTS THEREFORE R ESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEES HUSBAND WE ALLOW THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE PARTLY FOR STATISTICAL PURPO SES. IN THE PRESENT ITA NO. 4194/DEL/2009 ASSTT. YEAR 2006-07 10 CASE THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO SHOWN SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN OF RS. 5 20 417/-. THE AO SHALL EXAMINE THIS ISSUE IN ACCO RDANCE WITH THE DIRECTIONS ISSUED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF H ER HUSBAND EXTRACTED SUPRA. 7. IN THE RESULT APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY A LLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 6 TH MAY 2010. [SHAMIM YAHYA] [RAJPAL YADAV] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER VEENA DATED: COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER DEPUTY REGISTRAR ITAT