MAC Overseas (P) Ltd.,, v. ITO, Ward-6(1),,

ITA 607/DEL/2004 | 2000-2001
Pronouncement Date: 30-11-2011 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 60720114 RSA 2004
Bench Delhi
Appeal Number ITA 607/DEL/2004
Duration Of Justice 7 year(s) 9 month(s) 20 day(s)
Appellant MAC Overseas (P) Ltd.,,
Respondent ITO, Ward-6(1),,
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 30-11-2011
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted F
Tribunal Order Date 30-11-2011
Date Of Final Hearing 27-09-2011
Next Hearing Date 27-09-2011
Assessment Year 2000-2001
Appeal Filed On 09-02-2004
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH F NEW DELHI) BEFORE U.B.S. BEDI JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.K. HALDAR ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO.607 & 2782/DEL/2004 & 2005 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2000-01 & 2002-03 M/S MAC OVERSEAS (P) LTD. ITO D-193 WARD-6(1) OKHLA INDL. AREA PHASE-I NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI. V. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI SALIL AGARWAL ADVOCATE & SHRI SAHILESH GUPTA C.A. RESPONDENT BY : SMT. PRATIMA KAUSHIK SR. DR. ORDER PER B.K. HALDAR AM: THESE ARE TWO APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE RESPECTIVE ORDERS OF LD CIT(A)-IX NEW DELHI DATED 27 .5.2003 & 14.3.2005 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01 & 2002-03. FOR TH E SAKE OF CONVENIENCE BOTH THESE APPEALS ARE BEING DISPOSED OFF BY THIS COMMON ORDER. I.T.A. NO.607/DEL/2004 (A.Y. 2000 I.T.A. NO.607/DEL/2004 (A.Y. 2000 I.T.A. NO.607/DEL/2004 (A.Y. 2000 I.T.A. NO.607/DEL/2004 (A.Y. 2000- -- -01): 01): 01): 01):- -- - 2. IN THIS APPEAL THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN FOLLOWING GROUN DS OF APPEALS:- ITA NO607 & 2782/DEL/04-05 2 1. THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEA LS) HAS GROSSLY ERRED BOTH ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN CONFIRMING T HE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT FRAMED BY THE LEARNED INCOME TAX OFFICER WA RD 6 (1) NEW DELHI AT AN INCOME OF RS. 12 29 094/- AS AG AINST DECLARED INCOME OF RS.2 70 640/-. 2. THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEA LS) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE FINDING RECORDED BY T HE LEARNED ITO THAT THE RENTAL INCOME RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FRO M LETTING OUT OF BUILDING LOCATED AT D-193 OKHLA INDUSTRIAL AREA PHASE-I NEW DELHI OF RS. 9 90 000/- WAS ASSESSABLE UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY AS AGAINST CLAIM OF THE ASSE SSEE THAT SUCH INCOME IS IN LAW AND ON FACTS OF THE CASE IS TO BE ASSESSED AS INCOME FROM_ BUSINESS OR PROFESSION. 2.1 THAT IN CONFIRMING THE AFORESAID FINDING THE L EARNED CIT (APPEALS) HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE FACTUAL SUBSTRAT UM OF THE CASE AND HAS PROCEEDED ON IRRELEVANT CONSIDERATIONS WHICH ARE UNSUBSTANTIATED AND UNSUPPORTED BY ANY MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD. 2.2 THAT THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) HAS FAILED TO APP RECIATE THE DETAILED SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND EVIDENCE PLACED O N RECORD ALONG WITH VARIOUS JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS TO SUPPORT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT SUCH INCOME IS TO BE ASSESSED AS INCOME FROM BUSINESS OR PROFESSION. 2.3 THAT THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) HAS ALSO FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE RENTAL INCOME RECEIVED FROM LETTING OUT OF BUILDING HAS BEEN CONSISTENTLY CLAIMED AND ASSESSED AS INCOME FROM ITA NO607 & 2782/DEL/04-05 3 BUSINESS OR PROFESSION AND THEREFORE THE FINDING OF THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) IS TOTALLY CONTRARY TO THE SETTLED LAW O F PRINCIPLE OF THE CONSISTENCY. 3.THAT THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) HAS FURTHER ERRED IN FAILING TO APPRECIATE THAT THE INCOME RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE COM PANY FROM HIRING FROM THE CENTRAL AIR CONDITIONING PLANT FURNITURE AND FIXTURES AND INCOME ON ACCOUNT OF REIMBURSEMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE AND MAINTENANCE EXPENSES OF RS. 29 02 50 0/- WAS ALSO TO BE ASSESSED AS INCOME FROM BUSINESS OR PROFESSION AND NOT INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. 3.1 THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS FAILED TO APPRECIAT E THAT AFORESAID INCOME WAS INSEPARABLE FROM THE INCOME FROM LETTING OUT OF BUILDING AND AS SUCH THE ENTIRE INCOME WAS TO BE ASSESSED AS INCOME FROM BUSINESS OR PROFESSION. 4.THAT THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) HAS FURTHER ERRED BO TH ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN RESTRICTING THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION OF RS. 4 13 419/- ON ACCOUNT OF REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE OF THE BUILDIN G AT RS. 97 500/- PARTICULARLY WHEN THE GENUINENESS OF THE EX PENDITURE WAS NEITHER DISPUTED AND NOR THE FACT THAT THE EXPEN DITURE HAD BEEN INCURRED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. 5.THAT THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) HAS FURTHER ERRED BO TH ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN FAILING TO APPRECIATE THAT THE DEDUCT ION OF RS. 6 LACS INCURRED ON ACCOUNT OF HOUSE TAX PAID WAS AN ELIG IBLE DEDUCTION UNDER THE HEAD BUSINESS OR PROFESSION. ITA NO607 & 2782/DEL/04-05 4 6. THAT THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) HAS ALSO ERRED BOTH ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTI ON OF BROKERAGE OF RS.65 000/- INCURRED BY THE APPELLANT COMPANY WHILE LEASING OUT THE PROPERTY AND AS SUCH THE SAME WA S A ELIGIBLE BUSINESS EXPENDITURE AND HAD TO BE ALLOWED U S AS SUCH. 7. THAT THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) HAS ALSO ERRED IN CO NFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION OF INTEREST PAID BY THE ASSE SSEE COMPANY OF RS.2 81 9501- ON THE AMOUNT OF SECURITY R ECEIVED FROM THE LESSEE. 7.1 THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS FAILED TO APPRECIA TE THAT SUCH EXPENDITURE WAS A GENUINE BUSINESS EXPENDITURE OF THE A SSESSEE COMPANY AND THEREFORE WAS AN ALLOWABLE DEDUCTION. 7.2 THAT IN THE ALTERNATIVE AND WITHOUT PREJUDICE SUCH DEDUCTION WAS ALLOWABLE AS DEDUCTION FROM INCOME ASSESSE D AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES SINCE SUCH INTEREST HAD BEEN P AID ON AMOUNT OF SECURITY RECEIVED ON HIRING OUT OF CENTRAL AIR CONDITIONING PLANT ETC. 8. THAT THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) HAS FURTHER ERRED B OTH ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN DISALLOWING THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION ON DEPRECIATION ON BUILDING OF RS. 8 24 6501-. 9. THAT THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) HAS FURTHER ERRED B OTH ON FACTS AND IN LAW TO CONFIRM THE ACTION OF THE LEARNED AO WHEREBY HE HAS NOT CARRIED FORWARD AND SET OFF THE BROUGHT FORWA RD LOSSES AND UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION AGAINST THE ASSESSED INCOME OF THE APPELLANT COMPANY. ITA NO607 & 2782/DEL/04-05 5 10.THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ALSO ERRED IN CONFIRMI NG THE LEVY OF INTEREST U/S 234B AND 234C OF THE ACT. IT IS THEREFORE PRAYED THAT THE ENTIRE INCOME RECEIV ED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY BE ASSESSED AS INCOME FROM BUSINESS OR PROFESSION AND THE VARIOUS DISALLOWANCES BE DELETED AN D THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE BE ALLOWED. 3. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT THE BUSINESS OF ASSESSEE COMPANY AS PER THE MAIN OBJECT IN MEMORANDUM OF ASSOCIATION WERE TRADING BRO KERAGE EXPORTER SUPPLIER OF ALL KIND OF MATERIAL COMMODIT IES GOODS GARMENTS TEXTILE SPORT GOODS ANTIQUE JEWELLERY ETC . AS ALSO TO CARRY ON BUSINESS OF AGENT CONSULTANT BUYERS SALE OF REP LIC ENSES IMPORT ENTITLEMENT AND TO ACT AS A EXPORT HOUSE. HOWEVER DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION THE ASSESSEE COMPANY RECEIVED AN IN COME OF `.38 92 500/- FROM LETTING OUT THE PROPERTY AT D19 3 OKHLA INDL. AREA PHASE-I NEW DELHI TOGETHER WITH AIR CONDITIONING PL ANT FURNITURE AND FIXTURE. THE ASSESSEE ENTERED INTO THREE AGREEMENTS WITH M/S STERLING INFOTECH LTD. ONE FOR LEASING OUT THE PREMISES ONE F OR HIRING OUT THE AIR CONDITIONING PLANT AND FURNITURE & FIXTURES AND ONE FOR SECURITY DEPOSIT. THE MONTHLY RENT FOR THE PROPERTY WAS FIXED AT `.1 10 000/- PER MONTH WHEREAS THE HIRE CHARGES FOR AIR-CONDITIONING P LANT AND FURNITURE & FIXTURE WAS `.3 02 500/- PER MONTH. THE ASSESSEE FUR THER RECEIVED `.20 000/- P.M. FOR ADMINISTRATIVE AND MAINTENANCE E XPENSES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER THEREFORE REQUIRED THE ASSESSEE TO SHOW CAUSE AS TO WHY SUCH INCOME RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE SHOULD NOT BE ASSE SSED AS INCOME UNDER THE HEAD HOUSE PROPERTY. THE ASSESSEE CONT ENDED THAT THOUGH SEPARATE AGREEMENTS HAVE BEEN ENTERED INTO FOR LEASING OUT OF THE PREMISES AND HIRING OUT OF AIR-CONDITIONING PLANT ETC. THE TWO ARE ITA NO607 & 2782/DEL/04-05 6 INTRICATELY CONNECTED TO ONE AND ANOTHER AND THUS TH E CASE SHOULD BE CONSIDERED AS COVERED U/S 56(2)(III) OF THE ACT. IF SUCH INCOME IS ASSESSED AS INCOME UNDER THE HEAD OTHER SOURCES ALLOWABLE EXPENSES AS PER SECTION 57(III) OF THE ACT SHOULD BE ALLOWED. T HE ASSESSEE ALSO CONTENDED THAT THE INCOME SHOULD BE TREATED AS BUSINESS INCOME AS THE DEPARTMENT IN EARLIER YEARS HAD TREATED SUCH INCO ME AS INCOME FROM BUSINESS. IT WAS CONTENDED THAT THE PROPERTY WAS G IVEN ON RENT ONLY TO REDUCE THE LOSSES INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY . 4. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HOWEVER DID NOT ACCEPT THE C ONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE. RELYING ON THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURTS DEC ISION IN THE CASE OF CIT V. CHUGAN DASS 55 ITR 17 IT WAS HELD BY HI M THAT THE INCOME RECEIVED BY WAY OF RENT FROM HOUSE PROPERTY W AS ASSESSABLE AS INCOME UNDER THE HEAD HOUSE PROPERTY. IT WAS ALSO HELD BY HIM THAT THE INCOME FROM HIRING OUT OF AIR-CONDITIONING PLAN T ETC AND PROVIDING SERVICES WAS ASSESSABLE AS INCOME UNDER THE HEAD OTHER SOURC ES. RELIANCE WAS PLACED BY HIM ON THE FOLLOWING CASE LAWS: - 1. NEW JAHANGIR VAKIL MILLS CO. LTD. V. CIT 49 ITR 137 (DEL.). 2. SG MERCANTILE CORPORATION PVT. LTD. V. CIT 83 ITR 7 00 (SC). 5. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED DEPRECIATION OF `.8 24 469/- ON BUILDING WHICH WAS GIVEN ON RENT. AS THE RENTAL INCOME FROM TH E PROPERTY WAS ASSESSED UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY THIS CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WAS DISALLOWED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. SIMILARLY THE REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE EXPENSES ON THE BUILDING AMOUNTING TO `.4 13 419/- WAS ALSO NOT ALLOWED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 6. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALLOWED EXPENSES AMOUNTING TO `.11 36 972/- AND DEPRECIATION OF `.8 28 934/- AGAI NST HIRE CHARGES AND ITA NO607 & 2782/DEL/04-05 7 ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH WAS ASSESSED BY HIM AS INCOME UNDER THE HEAD OTHER SOURCES. 7. THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE WAS COMPUTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS UNDER:- INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY RENT RECEIVED `.9 90 000/- LESS: HOUSE TAX PAID. `.6 00 000/- `.3 90 000/- LESS: 1/4 TH FOR REPAIR ETC. `. 97 500/- ` 2 92 500/- INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. HIRING CHARGES AND ADMN. EXPENSES RECEIVED. `.29 02 500/- LESS: EXPENSES ALLOWED UNDER ADMN. AND OTHER EXPENSES. `.11 36 972/- EXP. OF HOUSE TAX BROKERAGE REPAIR OF BLDG. INTEREST DISALLOWED AS DISCUSSED ABOVE REST OF EXPENSES BEING ALLOWED. LESS: DEPRECIATION CLAIMED `.16 53 403/- DEPRECIATION ON BLDG. `. 8 24 469/- DISALLOWED AS DISCUSSED. `.8 28 934/- `.936594/- --------------------- `.1229094/- -------------------- 8. AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE LD C IT(A). 9. BEFORE THE LD CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE TOOK THE FOLLOWIN G GROUNDS OF APPEALS:- 1(A) THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ERRED IN ASSESSING THE MONTHL Y RENTAL INCOME @ `.1 10 000/- FROM BUSINESS ASSET OF THE ITA NO607 & 2782/DEL/04-05 8 APPELLANT IN THE FORM OF BUILDING AT D-193 OKHLA I NDL. AREA PHASE-I NEW DELHI UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY. THE RENTAL INCOME FROM BUSINESS ASSET BEING ASSESSABLE UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM BUSINESS OF PROFESSIO N THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN ASSESSING IT UNDE R THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY BEING NOT IN ACCORDANC E WITH THE PROVISIONS OF LAW DESERVES TO BE CANCELLED. (B) THE RENTAL INCOME OF `.1 10 00/- PER MONTH FROM LETTING OUT OF BUSINESS ASSET OF THE APPELLANT IS LIABLE TO BE ASSESSED UN DER THE HEAD INCOME FROM BUSINESS. THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER IN ASSESSING ITS INCOME AS INCOME FROM HOUSE PROP ERTY BEING NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF LAW D ESERVES TO BE CANCELLED. 3. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ERRED IN NOT ALLOWING DEDUCTIO N ON ACCOUNT OF DEPRECIATION AMOUNTING TO `.8 21 469/- O N BUILDING WHICH WAS GIVEN ON RENT. THE RENTAL INCOME FROM THE BUSINESS ASSETS BEING ASSESSABLE UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM BUSINE SS OR PROFESSION AND THE BUILDING HAVING BEEN USED FOR T HE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS DEPRECIATION AMOUNTING TO `.8 24 460/- DESE RVES TO BE FULLY ALLOWED. 4. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ERRED IN DISALLOWING THE EXPENSE S OF `.4 13 419/- ON ACCOUNT OF REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE O F THE BUILDING. THESE EXPENSES HAVING BEEN INCURRED WHOLLY A ND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS I.E. FOR EARNIN G OF RENTAL INCOME OF BUSINESS ASSET DESERVES TO BE FULLY ALLOWED AS DEDUCTION. EVEN OTHERWISE THESE EXPENSES ARE ALLOWABLE AS DEDUCTION UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. ITA NO607 & 2782/DEL/04-05 9 5. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ERRED IN ALLOWING DEDUCTION OF `.6 LAKHS ON ACCOUNT OF HOUSE TAX PAID UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY. THIS EXPENSE OF `. 6LAKHS HAVING BEEN I NCURRED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS I.E. EARNING OF RENTAL INCOME FROM BUSINESS ASSET DESERVES TO BE ALLOWED A S DEDUCTION UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM BUSINESS OR PROF ESSION. 6. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ERRED IN NOT ALLOWING THE DEDU CTION OF `.65 000/- PAID FOR LEASING OUT OF PROPERTY. THE BRO KERAGE EXPENSES OF `.65 000/- HAVING BEEN PAID WHOLLY AND EX CLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF EARNING OF RENTAL INCOME FROM BUSI NESS ASSET DESERVES TO BE ALLOWED AS DEDUCTION. EVEN OTHERWISE THE SE EXPENSES ALLOWABLE AS DEDUCTION UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. 7. THE ASSESSMENT BEING NOT BASED ON FACTS IS BAD IN LAW DESERVES TO BE CANCELLED. 8. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD OR ALTER OR MOD IFY ANY GROUNDS OF APPEAL EITHER BEFORE AT THE TIME OF HEARI NG OF THE APPEAL. 10. IT WAS CONTENDED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ACTIVITY O F LEASING OUT OF BUSINESS ASSETS I.E. THE BUILDING WAS PERMISSIBLE UNDER T HE MEMORANDUM OF ASSOCIATION OF THE COMPANY AS PER THE AN CILLARY OBJECTS. INCOME FROM SUCH LEASING OUT WERE ACCEPTED AS BUSINESS INCOME BY THE DEPARTMENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1993- 94 TO 1995- 96. IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES IT WAS CONTENDED THAT THE A SSESSING OFFICER COULD NOT HAVE TAKEN A DIFFERENT VIEW ON SIMILAR SET OF FACTS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE FOLLOWING CASE LAWS:- 1. CIT V. DALMIA DADRI CEMENT LTD. 77 ITR 410 (PUNJ.) . ITA NO607 & 2782/DEL/04-05 10 2. RUSSEL PROPERTY PVT. LTD. V. ADDL. CIT 109 ITR 229 (C AL.). 3. CIT V. GIRISH MOHAN GANERIWALA V. CIT 260 ITR 417 (P &H). 4. CIT V. PALPHAHAR REFRACTORIES LTD. 128 ITR 610 (ORISSA ). 11. THE LD CIT(A) OPINED THAT AT NO STAGE OF THE PRO CEEDINGS I.E. NEITHER IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEALS NOR IN THE SUBMISSION MADE DURING THE PROCEEDINGS THE APPELLANT CHALLENGED THE ASSESSABIL ITY OF HIRE CHARGES AND ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES UNDER THE HEAD INCO ME FROM OTHER SOURCES. THUS THE ISSUE TO BE DECIDED BY HIM WAS AS TO WHETHER THE LEASED INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY COULD BE ASSESSED U NDER THE HEAD HOUSE PROPERTY INCOME. THE LD CIT(A) HELD THAT RES JUDICATA WAS NOT APPLICABLE TO INCOME TAX PROCEEDINGS. RELIANCE WAS PLACED BY HIM ON THE FOLLOWING CASE LAWS:- 1. ITO V. MURLIDHAR BHAGWAN DASS 52 ITR 335 (SC). 2. MM IPOH & OTHERS V. CIT 67 ITR 106 (SC). 3. CIT V. BRIJLAL LOHIA & OTHERS 84 ITR 273 (SC). 4. NEW JAHANGIR VAKIL MILLS CO. LTD. V. CIT 49 ITR 137 (SC). 12. PLACING FURTHER RELIANCE ON THE HON'BLE APEX CO URTS DECISION IN THE CASE OF DISTRIBUTORS (BARODA) PVT. LTD. 155 ITR 12 0 THE LD CIT(A) OPINED THAT IF THERE WAS AN ERROR COMMITTED EARLIER THE SAME SHOULD BE RECTIFIED AND SUCH RECTIFICATION WAS REQUIRED AS C OMPULSION OF THE JUDICIAL FUNCTION. APPROVING THE RELIANCE OF THE A SSESSING OFFICER ON THE CASE OF CHUGAN DASS (SUPRA) AND SG MERCANTILE CORPORATI ON LTD. (SUPRA) THE LD CIT(A) UPHELD HIS FINDING THAT THE RE NTAL INCOME FROM THE IMPUGNED PROPERTY WAS ASSESSABLE AS INCOME UNDER THE HEAD HOUSE PROPERTY. ITA NO607 & 2782/DEL/04-05 11 13. THE ASSESSEE ALSO ADVANCED THE ARGUMENTS THAT INCOME FROM LEASING OF BUSINESS ASSETS WAS ASSESSABLE AS INCOME FROM BUSINE SS. THE ASSESSEE INCURRED LOSSES IN ITS BUSINESS AND IT WAS DECIDED THAT IF THE BUSINESS ASSETS WERE LEASED OUT IT WILL BE MORE PROF ITABLE. ACCORDINGLY SUCH BUSINESS ASSETS WERE LEASED OUT. IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES IT WAS CONTENDED THAT INCOME FROM LEASIN G OUT SHOULD BE CONSIDERED AS BUSINESS INCOME. RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE FOLLOWING CASE LAWS:- 1. CIT LUCKNOW V. VIKRAM COTTON MILLS. 169 ITR 597 (SC ). 2. SG MERCANTILE CORPN. LTD. V. CIT 83 ITR 700 (SC). 3. CIT V. DELHI CLOTH & GENERAL MILLS LTD. 59 ITR 152 ( PUNJ.). 4. MAITEY & SONS OIL CO. (P) LTD. V. ITO 48ITD 72 (HYD. ). 5. ACIT V. KANODIA BROS. 50 ITD 125 (CAL.). 6. CIT V. GHAMBIR MAL PANDEY (P) LTD. 119 TAXMAN 25 (R AJ.). 7. CIT V. KONGARRAR SPINNERS PVT. LTD. 208 IYT 645 (MAD .). 8. CIT V. NEW INDIA MARTIME AGENCIES (P) LTD. 124 TAXMA N 801. 9. CIT V. AMORA CHEMICALS (P) LTD. 125 TAXMAN 225 (GUJ. ). 14. THE ABOVE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ACCEPTE D BY THE LD CIT(A) IN VIEW OF THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HON 'BLE APEX COURT IN THE FOLLOWING CASES:- 1. EAST INDIA HOUSING & LAND DEVELOPMENT TRUST LTD. V. CI T 42 ITR 49. 2. CIT V. CHUGAN DASS & CO. 55 ITR 17. 3. SG MERCANTILE CORPORATION PVT. LTD. V. CIT 83 ITR 7 00 THE LD CIT(A) FURTHER PLACED RELIANCE ON THE CASE OF CIT V. INDIAN WARE HOUSING INDUSTRIES LTD. 258 ITR 93 (MAD.). ITA NO607 & 2782/DEL/04-05 12 15. AS REGARDS THE DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE COMPUTING THE HOUSE PROPERTY INCOME THE LD CI T(A) UPHELD THE SAME. RELIANCE WAS PLACED BY HIM ON THE DECISION OF TH E JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. SG GUPTA & SONS 149 ITR 253. AS REGARDS THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSESSING O FFICER DID NOT ALLOW DEDUCTION ON ACCOUNT OF HOUSE TAX THE LD CIT(A) FOUND THAT WHILE COMPUTING THE HOUSE PROPERTY INCOME SUCH DEDUCT ION WAS INDEED ALLOWED BY HIM. THE LD CIT(A) THEREFORE D ISMISSED GROUND NO.1 TO 5 TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE. 16. WITH REGARDS TO COMPUTATION OF INCOME UNDER THE HEAD OTHER SOURCES THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED BEFORE THE LD CIT(A) THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER ERRED IN DISALLOWING THE INTEREST EXPEN SES OF `.2 81 950/- PAID ON ACCOUNT OF SECURITY OF `.25 LAK HS RECEIVED FROM THE LESSEE. FURTHER SUCH CLAIM WAS REDUCED TO `.2 20 274/- BEING THE AMOUNT WHICH WAS DEDUCTED BY THE LESSEE TOWARDS THE INT EREST PAYABLE OUT OF LEASE RENT/HIRE CHARGES. THE LD CIT(A ) HELD THAT SUCH EXPENDITURE COULD NEITHER BE ALLOWED AS AN EXPENDITU RE WHILE COMPUTING THE INCOME UNDER THE HEAD HOUSE PROPERTY O R UNDER THE HEAD OTHER SOURCES AS THE EXPENDITURE WAS ON ACCOUNT OF CAPITAL FUND RECEIVED BY THE COMPANY AND WAS NOT INCIDENTAL TO EARNING THE INCOME FROM OTHER SOUR CES. THUS THE LD CIT(A) DISMISSED GROUND NO.6 TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE. AGGRIE VED THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 17. BEFORE US LD AR FOR THE ASSESSEE IN ADDITION TO REIT ERATING THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HIGHLIGHTE D THE FOLLOWING POINTS:- ITA NO607 & 2782/DEL/04-05 13 1) LEASING OUT OF THE BUILDING WAS IN THE NATURE OF UTIL IZATION OF COMMERCIAL ASSET AND THEREFORE THE SAME SHOULD RIGHTLY BE ASSESSED UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM BUSINESS OR PROFESSION. 2) AS UNDER SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES THE REVENUE HAS ASSESSED SUCH INCOME UNDER THE HEAD BUSINESS & PROFESSION IN ASSESSMENT YEARS 1993-94 TO 1995-96 IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION THE SAME SHOULD HAVE BEEN ASSESSED AS INCOME UNDER THE HEAD BUSINESS OR PROFESSION. RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE FOLLOWING CASE LAWS: 1. CIT V. NEO POLY PACL PVT. LTD. 245 ITR 492 (DEL.). 2. CIT V. DALMIA PROMOTERS & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. 281 IT R 346 (DEL.). 3. CIT V. JK CHARITABLE TRUST 308 ITR 161 (SC). 3. IN THE ALTERNATIVE RENTING OUT OF THE BUILDING W AS INSEPARABLE FROM HIRING OUT OF AIR CONDITIONING PLAN T FURNITURE & FIXTURE. THIS IS EVIDENCED FROM CLAUSE (2) OF THE HI RE AGREEMENT WHICH IS AVAILABLE ON ASSESSEES PAPER BOOK PAGES 45. THIS BEING THE CASE WHOLE OF THE INCOME SHO ULD BE ASSESSED UNDER THE HEAD OTHER SOURCES AND EXPENDITURE AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 57 OF THE ACT SHOULD BE A LLOWED. RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE FOLLOWING CASE LAWS:- 1. SULTAN BROS. PVT. LTD. V. CIT 51 ITR 353 (S C). 2. CIT V. ANDAL AMAL 177 TAXMAN 747 (CHENNAI H IGH COURT). 3. SHASHIKANT GUPTA V. ITO 14 ITR 270. 4. ORIENT HOTEL LTD. V. DCIT 315 ITR 422 (CHEN NAI). ITA NO607 & 2782/DEL/04-05 14 18. THE LD AR FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS CLARIFIED THAT FOR ASSE SSMENT YEAR 1996-97 TO 1999-2000 NO INCOME WAS OFFERED FROM THE IMPUGNED PREMISES OR AIR CONDITIONING PLANT ETC. HE HAS FURTHE R CLARIFIED THAT THE CASE OF ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02 WAS ACCEPTED BY THE REVEN UE U/S 143(1) OF THE ACT. 19. THE LD DR ON THE OTHER HAND IN ADDITION TO RE LYING ON THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS FACT UAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE EARLIER YEARS AND CURRENT YEAR. IN THE E ARLIER YEARS ON WHICH RELIANCE WAS PLACED BY THE LD AR FOR THE ASSESSEE THE ASSESSEE ONLY LEASED OUT THE BUILDING. IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 1995-9 6 THERE WAS SOME SALE PURCHASE OF SHARES. THE LEASE WAS ALSO GIVEN TO TWO SISTER CONCERNS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AND THE LEASED OUT AREA WAS DIFFERENT FROM THAT WHICH WAS LEASED OUT IN THE CURRE NT YEAR. THUS IT WAS CONTENDED BY HIM THAT THE FACTS OBTAINED IN THE Y EAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WERE QUITE DIFFERENT FROM THAT OF THE EARLIER YEARS. ON THIS BASIS AS WELL AS THE REASONS MENTIONED BY THE LD CI T(A) THE LD DR CONTENDED THAT THE RULE OF CONSISTENCY WAS NOT APPLICA BLE IN THE FACTS OF THE CASE. 20. IT WAS FURTHER CONTENDED BY THE LD DR THAT LEASIN G OUT OF THE PREMISES AND HIRING OUT OF AIR CONDITIONING PLANT FU RNITURE AND FIXTURE WERE NOT INTRINSICALLY CONNECTED TO EACH OTHER. THE RE WAS NO COMPOSITE LETTING OF PLANT AND MACHINERY ALONG WITH THE BUILDING. THERE BEING NO BUSINESS CARRIED ON BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION IT WAS CONTENDED BY HIM THAT REN TAL INCOME FROM THE PREMISES WAS ASSESSABLE UNDER THE HEAD HOUSE PROPERTY AS PER THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF SG MERCANTILE LTD. (SUPRA). AS THERE WAS NO COMPOSITE LET TING OF COMMERCIAL ASSETS THE CASE LAWS RELIED ON BY THE LD AR FOR THE ITA NO607 & 2782/DEL/04-05 15 ASSESSEE WERE NOT APPLICABLE IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. RELIANCE WAS PLACED BY HIM IN THE CASE OF BATRA GULATI HOTELS V . ITO 009 ITR 0345 (MUM). 21. IN THE REJOINDER THE LD AR FOR THE ASSESSEE REITER ATED HIS SUBMISSION THAT THE RULE OF CONSISTENCY WAS APPLICABLE IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. WITH REFERENCE TO FINDING OF THE LD CIT(A) THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT DISPUTE THE ASSESSABILITY OF HIRE CHARGES FR OM AIR CONDITIONING PLANT ETC. AND SERVICE CHARGES RECEIVED BY IT UNDER THE HEAD OTHER SOURCES IT WAS CONTENDED BY THE LD AR FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSESSEE CAN TAKE SUCH LEGAL PLEA WITHOUT THERE BEING ANY SPECIFIC GROUND ON THE SAME. RELIANCE WAS PLACED BY HI M ON THE DECISION OF HON'BLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. BHARAT INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD. 283 ITR 80 (SC). 22. WE HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE RECORD. WE HAVE ALSO GONE THROUGH THE CASE LAWS CITED BY BOTH THE PARTIES. DURING THE HEARING LD AR FOR THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO STATE THE NA TURE OF BUSINESS CARRIED ON BY THE ASSESSEE PRIOR TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 1993-94. HOWEVER HE WAS NOT ABLE TO SHED ANY LIGHT ON THE SAME . THUS THERE IS NOTHING ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT THE PREMISES AND THE ASSETS WHICH WERE HIRED OUT WERE COMMERCIAL ASSETS MEANING THEREB Y THAT THE ASSESSEE CARRIED ON THE BUSINESS WITH THE SAME AT SOME POINT OF TIME. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER WE DO NOT ACCEPT THE CON TENTION OF THE LD AR FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THE IMPUGNED ASSETS WERE COMMERCIAL ASSETS. 23. WE ALSO FIND THAT THERE ARE FACTUAL DIFFERENCES B ETWEEN ASSESSMENT YEAR 1993-94 TO 1995-96 AND THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. PRIOR TO THE CURRENT ASSESSMENT YEAR AS P ER THE ASSESSEES OWN SUBMISSION IT HAD DISCONTINUED ITS BUSINESS DURI NG THE ITA NO607 & 2782/DEL/04-05 16 ASSESSMENT YEARS 1996-97 TO 1999-00. AS SUCH THE LD AR F OR THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BROUGHT ON RECORD ANY EVIDENCE TO SHOW T HAT THE BUSINESS THAT WAS CARRIED ON BY THE ASSESSEE PRIOR TO ASSESSM ENT YEAR 1993-94 WAS INTENDED TO BE REVIVED BY THE ASSESSEE IN TH E NEAR FUTURE. THUS ON THIS ACCOUNT ALSO THE IMPUGNED RECEIPT CANNO T BE ASSESSED AS INCOME FROM BUSINESS. 24. WE ALSO FIND THAT HIRING OUT OF THE AIR CONDITIO NING PLANT FURNITURE AND FIXTURE WAS NOT INSEPARABLE FROM LEASING OUT OF TH E BUILDING PREMISES. THEY DO NOT CONSTITUTE COMPOSITE LETTING OF ASSETS WITH WHICH THE ASSESSEE WAS CARRYING ON ANY BUSINESS. THUS THE C ONTENTION OF THE LD AR FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT LEASING OUT OF THE PR EMISES WAS INSEPARABLE FROM HIRING OUT OF AIR CONDITIONING PLAN T FURNITURE AND FIXTURE IS ALSO NOT ACCEPTED BY US. 25. IN VIEW OF OUR FACTUAL FINDING AND TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE DETAILED DISCUSSION MADE BY THE LD CIT(A) WE HOLD THA T RENTAL INCOME FROM THE PREMISES WAS RIGHTLY ASSESSED UNDER THE HEAD HOUSE PROPERTY AND THE OTHER RECEIPTS WERE RIGHTLY ASSESSED UNDER THE H EAD OTHER SOURCES. 26. AS REGARDS THE DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST PAID ON THE SECURITY DEPOSIT AND BROKERAGE PAID FOR LEASING OUT OF THE PRO PERTY WE FIND THE SAME IS IN ORDER AS WE HAVE CONFIRMED THE HEADS OF INCO ME UNDER WHICH THE IMPUGNED RECEIPTS WERE ASSESSABLE. THE LD AR FOR THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT SHOWN US AS TO HOW THESE EXPENSES COULD BE A LLOWED WHILE COMPUTING INCOME UNDER THE HEAD HOUSE PROPERTY OR INCOME UNDER THE HEAD OTHER SOURCES. 27. IN THE RESULT ALL THE GROUNDS TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE ARE REJECTED. ITA NO607 & 2782/DEL/04-05 17 I.T.A. NO.2782/DEL/2005( ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2002 I.T.A. NO.2782/DEL/2005( ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2002 I.T.A. NO.2782/DEL/2005( ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2002 I.T.A. NO.2782/DEL/2005( ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2002- -- -03). 03). 03). 03). 28. IN THIS YEAR THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN FOLLOWING GROUND S OF APPEALS:- 1. THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEA LS) HAS GROSSLY ERRED BOTH ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN CONFIRMING T HE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT FRAMED BY THE LEARNED INCOME TAX OFFICER WA RD 6 (1) NEW DELHI AT AN INCOME OF RS. 26 93 110/- AS AGA INST NIL INCOME ASSESSED BY RS.37 920/-. 2. THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEA LS) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE FINDING RECORDED BY T HE LEARNED ITO THAT THE RENTAL INCOME RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FRO M LETTING OUT OF BUILDING LOCATED AT D-193 OKHLA INDUSTRIAL AREA PHASE-I NEW DELHI OF RS.13 20 000/- WAS ASSESSABLE UNDER THE HEA D INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY AS AGAINST CLAIM OF THE ASSE SSEE THAT SUCH INCOME IS IN LAW AND ON FACTS OF THE CASE IS TO BE ASSESSED AS INCOME FROM BUSINESS OR PROFESSION. 2.1 THAT IN CONFIRMING THE AFORESAID FINDING THE L EARNED CIT (APPEALS) HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE FACTUAL SUBSTRAT UM OF THE CASE AND HAS PROCEEDED ON IRRELEVANT CONSIDERATIONS WHICH ARE UNSUBSTANTIATED AND UNSUPPORTED BY ANY MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD. 2.2 THAT THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) HAS FAILED TO APP RECIATE THE DETAILED SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND EVIDENCE PLACED O N RECORD ALONG WITH VARIOUS JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS TO SUPPORT THE ITA NO607 & 2782/DEL/04-05 18 CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT SUCH INCOME IS TO BE ASSESSED AS INCOME FROM BUSINESS OR PROFESSION. 2.3 THAT THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) HAS ALSO FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE RENTAL INCOME RECEIVED FROM LETTING OUT OF BUILDING HAS BEEN CONSISTENTLY CLAIMED AND ASSESSED AS INCOME FROM BUSINESS OR PROFESSION AND THEREFORE THE FINDING OF TH E LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) IS TOTALLY CONTRARY TO THE SETTLED LAW O F PRINCIPLE OF THE CONSISTENCY. 3.THAT THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) HAS FURTHER ERRED IN FAILING TO APPRECIATE THAT THE INCOME RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE COM PANY FROM HIRING FROM THE CENTRAL AIR CONDITIONING PLANT FURNITURE AND FIXTURES AND INCOME ON ACCOUNT OF REIMBURSEMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE AND MAINTENANCE EXPENSES OF RS. 38 70 00 /- WAS ALSO TO BE ASSESSED AS INCOME FROM BUSINESS OR PROFESSION AND NOT INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. 3.1 THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS FAILED TO APPRECIAT E THAT AFORESAID INCOME WAS INSEPARABLE FROM THE INCOME FROM LETTING OUT OF BUILDING AND AS SUCH THE ENTIRE INCOME WAS TO BE ASSESSED AS INCOME FROM BUSINESS OR PROFESSION. 4.THAT THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) HAS FURTHER ERRED BO TH ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN RESTRICTING THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION OF RS.58 819/-ON ACCOUNT OF REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE OF THE BUILDING P ARTICULARLY WHEN THE GENUINENESS OF THE EXPENDITURE WAS NEITHER DI SPUTED AND NOR THE FACT THAT THE EXPENDITURE HAD BEEN INC URRED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. ITA NO607 & 2782/DEL/04-05 19 5.THAT THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) HAS FURTHER ERRED BO TH ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN FAILING TO APPRECIATE THAT THE DEDUCT ION OF RS.12 30 218/- INCURRED ON ACCOUNT OF HOUSE TAX PAID WAS AN ELIGIBLE DEDUCTION UNDER THE HEAD BUSINESS OR PROFESSION . 6. THAT THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) HAS ALSO ERRED BOTH ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTI ON OF INTEREST OF RS.3 48 696/- ON THE ACCOUNT OF SECURITY DEPOSIT RE CEIVED FROM THE LESSEE. 6.1. THAT THE LD CIT(A) HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THA T SUCH EXPENDITURE WAS A GENUINE BUSINESS EXPENDITURE OF THE A SSESSEE COMPANY AND THEREFORE WAS AN ALLOWABLE DEDUCTION. 6.2. THAT IN THE ALTERNATIVE AND WITHOUT PREJUDICE SUCH DEDUCTION WAS ALLOWABLE AS DEDUCTION FROM INCOME ASSESSED AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES SINCE SUCH INTEREST HAD BEEN PAID ON AMOUNT OF SECURITY RECEIVED ON HIRING OUT OF CENTRAL AIR CO NDITIONING PLANT ETC. 7. THAT THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) HAS ALSO ERRED IN LA W IN DISALLOWING THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION ON DEPRECIATION O N BUILDING OF RS.7 44 084/-. 8. THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS FURTHER ERRED IN UPYO LDING THE DISALLOWANCE OF CLAIM OF DEDUCTION OF RS.58 01 002/- BEING THE ADMINISTRATIVE AND OTHER EXPENSES CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. 8.1 THAT WHILE UPHOLDING THE AFORESAID DISALLOWANCE T HE LD CIT(A) HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE LD ASSESSING OFFICER H AD ITA NO607 & 2782/DEL/04-05 20 ACTUALLY ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT BUT ONL Y MADE AN COMPUTATION ERROR IN THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT. 8.2. THAT IN ANY CASE AND WITHOUT PREJUDICE THE LD CIT(A) HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THERE WAS NEITHER ANY BASIS AND NOR ANY MATERIAL TO MAKE THE DISALLOWANCE SO ALLEGEDLY MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 8.3. THAT OTHERWISE TOO THE JUSTIFICATION GIVEN BY T HE LD CIT(A) TO CONFIRM THE DISALLOWANCE IS BASED ON SUBJECTIVE SATISFACT ION AND MIS-APPRECIATION OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE OF APPELLANT COMPANY. 9.THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ALSO ERRED BOTH ON FACT S AND IN LAW IN ENHANCING THE TOTAL INCOME BY RS.37 920/- REPRESEN TING INTEREST ON BANK DEPOSIT AND INTEREST ON INCOME TAX RE FUND BY OBSERVING THAT THESE AMOUNTS WERE MISSED OUT WHILE CALC ULATING THE TOTAL INCOME IN ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT TOO BY WITH OUT ISSUING ANY ENHANCEMENT NOTICE WHICH IS MANDATORY PRECONDITION. 10. THAT THE LD CIT(A) HAS ALSO ERRED IN CONFIRMING T HE LEVY OF INTEREST U/S 234B AND 234C OF THE ACT. IT IS THEREFORE PRAYED THAT THE ENTIRE INCOME RECEIV ED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY BE ASSESSED AS INCOME FROM BUSINESS OR PROFESSION AND THE VARIOUS DISALLOWANCES BE DELETED AN D THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE BE ALLOWED. 29. IT IS THE COMMON CONTENTION OF BOTH THE PARTIES T HAT THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS YEAR ARE SIMILAR TO THAT OF ASSESSME NT YEAR 2000- ITA NO607 & 2782/DEL/04-05 21 01. THE SUBMISSIONS MADE FOR THAT YEAR WAS RELIED ON BY BOTH THE PARTIES. FOR THE REASONS MENTIONED IN THE APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01 WE DISMISS THE APPEAL OF THIS YEAR. 30. IN THE RESULT BOTH THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. 31. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE 30 TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2011. SD/- SD/- (UB.S. BEDI) (B.K. HALD AR) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DT. 30.11.2011. HMS COPY FORWARDED TO:- 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT (A)- NEW DELHI. 5. THE DR ITAT LOKNAYAK BHAWAN KHAN MARKET NEW DEL HI. TRUE COPY. BY ORDER (ITAT NEW DELHI). ITA NO607 & 2782/DEL/04-05 22