ACIT,, Meerut v. Smt. Sarabjeet Kaur, Meerut

ITSSA 52/DEL/2009 | misc
Pronouncement Date: 29-09-2016 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 5220116 RSA 2009
Assessee PAN AOCPK7550B
Bench Delhi
Appeal Number ITSSA 52/DEL/2009
Duration Of Justice 7 year(s) 3 month(s) 27 day(s)
Appellant ACIT,, Meerut
Respondent Smt. Sarabjeet Kaur, Meerut
Appeal Type Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
Pronouncement Date 29-09-2016
Appeal Filed By Department
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted G
Tribunal Order Date 29-09-2016
Date Of Final Hearing 19-09-2016
Next Hearing Date 19-09-2016
Assessment Year misc
Appeal Filed On 02-06-2009
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: G NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H. S. SIDHU JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P. KANT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.(SS)A. NO. 52/DEL/2009 BLOCK ASSESSMENT PERIOD 1997-98 TO 2003-04 (UPTO 23.12.2002) ACIT CIRCLE-2 VS. SMT. SARABJEET KAUR MEERUT 341 SOTI GANJ MEERUT (PAN: AOCPK7550B) (ASSESSEE) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SH. SANDEEP SAPRA ADV. REVENUE BY : SH. SATPAL GULATI CIT(DR) DATE OF HEARING ON : 19/09/2016 ORDER PRONOUNCED ON : 29/09/20 16 PER H.S. SIDHU JM ORDER THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 16.3.2009 PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A)-MEERUT RELATING TO BLOCK ASSESSMENT PERIOD (UPTO 23.12.2002) 1997-98 TO 2002-03 ON THE FOLLOW ING GROUNDS:- 1. WHETHER IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING AN ADDITION OF RS.1 08 75 000/- IGNORING THE EARLIER AGREEMENT FOR SALE OF PROPERTY FOUND DURING SEARCH. 2. WHETHER IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE CIT(APPEALS) WAS JUSTIFIED IN IGNORING THE EVIDENUA RY VALUE OF DOCUMENTS FOUND DURING SEARCH AND HOLDING THAT NO L EGAL VALUE ATTACHED TO SUCH DOCUMENTS. 3. WHETHER IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE CIT(APPEALS) WAS JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING THAT NO CONST RUCTIVE 2 EVIDENCE WAS BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE AO WHEREAS AGREEMENTS BETWEEN EARLIER PURCHASERS WERE FOUND DU RING SEARCH AT THE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE WHO WAS THE LAST PURCHASER. 4. WHETHER IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE CIT(APPEALS) ERRED IN NOT APPLYING THE RATIO DECIDE NDI OF THE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT IN ME DOWELL & CO. (1541TR 148) AND HOLDING THAT THE INSTANT TRANSACTION WAS A COLO URABLE ONE. 5. WHETHER IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE CIT(APPEALS) WAS JUSTIFIED IN ADMITTING ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IN RESPECT OF LOAN OF RS. 5 LAKH WHEREAS AMPLE OPPORT UNITY HAD BEEN GRANTED BY THE AO AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT. 6. WHETHER IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE CIT(APPEALS) WAS JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING AS GENUINE A LOAN OF RS.5 LAKH FROM A DECEASED PERSON ON THE BASIS OF THE AFF IDAVIT OF THE WIFE OF DECEASED WITHOUT ANY SUPPORTING EVIDENCE. 7. WHETHER IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE CIT(APPEALS) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.2 5 LAKHS WHEN THE CREDITOR COULD NOT EXPLAIN CASH DEPOSITS JUST P RIOR TO THE ADVANCEMENT OF LOAN. 8. IN THE FACT CIRCUMSTANCE OF THE CASE THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) MAY BE SET ASI DE AND THAT OF THE AO RESTORED. 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE IS THAT THE ASSE SSEE IS A HOUSEWIFE. AS FAR AS HER SOURCES OF INCOME DURING BLOCK PERIOD ARE CO NCERNED SHE HAD INCOME FROM M/S AVNEET HIRE & PURCHASE AND FINANCE CO. LTD. IN PURSUANCE OF WARRANT OF AUTHORIZATION UNDER SECTIO N 132 OF THE I.T. IN THE NAME OF SH. SURJEET SINGH GOLDY HUSBAND OF THE ASS ESSEE SH. DEVENDRA SINGH GOLDY BROTHER IN LAW OF THE ASSESSEE 5 PREM ISES WERE SEARCHED ON 3 23.12.2002 AND SEVERAL INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS RELA TED TO MRS. SARBJEET KAUR WERE FOUND AND SEIZED WHICH NEED INVESTIGATION AND VERIFICATION. HENCE A NOTICE U/S. 158BD DATED 16.9.2004 WAS SERV ED ON ASSESSEE ON 20.9.2004. IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE U/S. 158BD RET URN FOR BLOCK PERIOD WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 18.1.2005 AND DURING T HE BLOCK PERIOD ASSESSEE HAD FILED RETURNS FOR 1997-98 AND 1998-99 ONLY. THEREAFTER SHE HAD STOPPED FILING THE RETURN ON THE GROUND THAT H ER INCOME WAS NOT TAXABLE. NOTICE U/S. 143(2) DATED 2.1.2006 WAS SERV ED ON THE ASSESSEE ON 3.1.2006. NOTICES U/S. 142(1) DATED 22.5.2006 AND 2 2.8.2006 WERE SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE ON 3.1.2006 AND 25.8.2006 RESPECTIV ELY. IN RESPONSE THERETO ASSESSEES AR APPEARED AND FILED THE WRITT EN SUBMISSIONS. AO OBSERVED THAT COMPLIANCE FROM ASSESSEES SIDE WAS A DEQUATE. ACCORDINGLY AO PROCEEDED TO COMPLETE THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND ASSESSED THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AT RS. 1 52 03 360/- AND MAD E THE VARIOUS ADDITIONS VIDE HIS ORDER DATED 29.9.2006 PASSED U/S . 158BD/143(3) OF THE I.T. ACT 1961. 3. AGGRIEVED WITH THE AFORESAID ORDER ASSESSEE PR EFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WHO VIDE HIS IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 16.3.2009 HAS PARTLY ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 4. NOW THE REVENUE IS AGGRIEVED AGAINST THE IMPUGNE D ORDER AND FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 5. LD. DR RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE AO AND REITE RATED THE CONTENTIONS RAISED IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL AND RE QUESTED THAT THE ORDER 4 OF THE LD. CIT(A) MAY BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE AO BE RESTORED AND ACCORDINGLY THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE MAY BE ALLOW ED. 6. ON THE OTHER HAND LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE S TATED THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS PASSED A WELL REASONED ORDER WHICH DOES NOT NEED ANY INTERFERENCE ON OUR PART HENCE THE SAME MAY BE UP HELD AND APPEAL OF THE REVENUE MAY BE DISMISSED. IN ORDER TO SUPPORT THE ASSESSEES CASE HE RELIED UPON THE FOLLOWING CASES LAWS AND FILED I TS COPIES WITH THE PAPER BOOK:- - 288 ITR 498 CIT VS. RAJ PAL SINGH RAM AVTAR (JURISDICTIONAL ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT). - 98 ITR 280 CIT VS. DAYA CHAND JAIN VAIDYA (JURISDICTIONAL ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT) - 178 ITR 660 CIT VS. ROSHAN LAL SETH (P&H HIGH COU RT) - 82 ITD 85 (MUM) ITAT - SP GOYAL VS. DCIT - 87 ITR 349 CIT VS. DAULAT RAM RAWATMULL (SUPREME COURT) - 224 ITR 180 CIT VS. RAM NARAIN GOEL - 262 ITR 295 CIT VS. FAQIR CHAND CHAMAN LAL (P&H H IGH COURT) LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE ALSO FILED THE WRITTEN SYNOPSIS AND REQUESTED THAT THE SAME MAY BE CONSIDE RED. 5 7. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE RECORDS ESPECIALLY THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) AS WEL L AS THE WRITTEN SYNOPSIS FILED BY THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE A ND THE CASE LAWS REFERRED BY HIM. WE FIND THAT LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS ELABORATELY DISCUSSED THE ISSUES IN DISPUTE BY CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND ADJUDICATED THE ISSUES VIDE PARA NO. 9 AT PAGE NO. 36 TO 39 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER. THE SAID RELEVANT PARAS ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER:- ON ADDITION OF RS.1 08 75 000/-: IT IS VERY MUCH APPARENT ON RECORD THAT THE AGREEME NT DATED 21.03.2000 IS AN UNREGISTERED AGREEMENT IN BETWEEN SMT. SUNEETA JAIN AND DR. PUNEET KUMAR AND THAT THE SAME HAS BEEN ENTERED INTO AFTER THE EXECUTION OF SALE DEED OF THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION FROM SMT. SUNITA JAIN TO MR. R AJENDRA KUMAR SINGHAL AND MR. RAMESH CHAND GAEL VIDE SALE D EED DATED 7.3.2000 FOR A SUM OF RS.35 00 000/-- AND THA T THE SAID SALE DEED WAS NOT DISPUTED OR RESCINDED BY ANY OF T HE PARTIES THERETO. IT IS ALSO CLEAR FROM THIS FACT THAT MRS. SUNEETA JAIN WAS NOT THE LEGAL OWNER OF THE PROPERTY ON THE DATE OF THE IMPUGNED AGREEMENT DATED 21.3.2009. IN THE CIRCUMST ANCES NO LEGAL VALUE WAS ATTACHED TO THE SAID AGREEMENT. IT IS ALSO APPARENT ON RECORD THAT MR. SINGHAL & MR. GAEL HAVE EXECUTED AND REGISTERED A SALE DEED IN FAVOUR OF THE APPELLA NT ON 12.09.2001 AND THEREFORE THERE REMAINED N VALUE WHA TSOEVER TO ANY AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO IN RESPECT OF THE SA ID PROPERTY. IN THIS BACK GROUND THE POSSESSION OF THE UNREGIS TERED AGREEMENT DATED 21.3.2009 CANNOT BE CONSIDERED TO H AVE ANY 6 DOCUMENTARY AND / OR LEGAL ATTACHED TO THE SAME NECESSITATING THE SAFE PRESERVING THEREOF BY THE AP PELLANT AND THEREFORE IT MAY WELL BE CONCLUDED THAT THE SAME W AS FOUND WITH THE APPELLANT ONLY FOR THE REASON THAT THE SAM E WAS AVAILABLE WITH HER AND HER EXPLANATION REGARDING AV AILABILITY THEREOF WITH HERE DESERVE TO BE ACCEPTED. FURTHER T HE AO HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO BRING ON RECORD ANY FACT THAT ANY PAYMENT WHATSOEVER WAS MADE BY THE APPELLANT AGAINST THE SA ID AGREEMENT. THE ADDITION OF RS. 1 08 75 000/- HAS BE EN MADE BY THE AO ON THE BASIS OF LONG DRAWN INFERENCES BY ALLEGING A MODUS OPERANDI FOR PURCHASE OF PROPERTY IN QUESTION WITHOUT BRINGING ANY CONSTRUCTIVE SUPPORTING MATERIAL ON RE CORD. THE ESTIMATION OF COST OF CONSTRUCTION AT RS. 1.33 CROR ES BESIDES THE VALUE OF LAND ALSO DO NOT FIND SUPPORT FROM THE STAMP VALUATION FIXED BY THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITIES AND RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE IMPUGNED ADDITIO N ALSO DO NOT FIND ANY SUPPORT FROM THE SEIZED MATERIAL. IN VIEW OF ABOVE AND IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY PROOF ON RECORD IN THE SEIZED MATERIAL TO SUGGEST ANY UNACCOUNTED PAYM ENT BY THE APPELLANT THE IMPUGNED ADDITION OF RS.1 08 75 000/- CANNOT BE SUSTAINED AND THEREFORE IS HEREBY DELET ED. ON ADDITION OF RS.25 OO OOO/- BEING LOAN FROM SHRI JASJEET SINGH: - THE APPELLANT HAS PROVED THE IDENTITY OF THE DEPOSI TOR MR. JASJEET SINGH WHO IS A MAN OF MEANS HAVING TOTAL C APITAL OF RS.5 64 39 416/- AND THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSAC TIONS WHICH WERE THROUGH CROSSED BANK DRAFTS. THE DEPOSIT OR HAS CONFIRMED THE LOAN BY SENDING CONFIRMATORY LETTER A ND FAX BEFORE THE A.O. AS WELL AS BEFORE THE A.D.I. HE HAS FURTHER CONFIRMED THE ADVANCEMENT OF LOAN TO THE APPELLANT IN HIS STATEMENT ON OATH RECORDED ON 23.12.08. ALL THE THR EE BASIC 7 INGREDIENT FOR EXPLAINING THE CASH CREDIT HAVING BE EN COMPLIED WITH. THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O. CANNOT BE SUSTA INED IN VIEW OF THE JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS CITED BY THE LD . AR AND IS THEREFORE DELETED. ON ADDITION OF LOAN OF RS.5 OO OOO/- FROM SHRI SURE NDRA SINGH: - THE APPELLANT HAS PROVED THE IDENTITY OF THE DEPOSI TOR BY FILING PHOTOGRAPH AND THE DEATH CERTIFICATE AND HAS ALSO PROVED THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION BEING THROUGH BANKIN G CHANNEL. HOWEVER THE CREDIT WORTHINESS OF DEPOSITOR IS NOT PROVED BY THE DOCUMENTS ON RECORD INCLUDING THE AFF IDAVIT AND CONFIRMATION OF DEPOSITOR'S WIFE AND EVEN IF THE SA ME ARE ADMITTED AS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE THE CONFIRMATION L ETTER AFFIDAVIT AND P.A.NO. DO NOT PROVE THE CREDITWORTHI NESS OF A DEPOSITOR. I DO NOT AGREE WITH THE ALTERNATIVE SUBM ISSIONS OF THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE APPELLANT THAT THE APPELLANT IS A HOUSE LADY CARRYING ON NO BUSINESS AND THEREFORE NO ADDIT ION CAN BE MADE IN HER HANDS U/S 69/68 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 IN VIEW OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT I N P.K. NOORJAHAN'S CASE AS FACTS OF THIS CASE ARE QUITE DI FFERENT FROM THAT OF P.K NOORJAN. IN VIEW OF THIS THE ADDITION OF RS.5 00 000/- IS CONFIRMED. ON ADDITION OF LOAN OF RS.5 00 000/- FROM MR. PANKA J NARANG THE IDENTITY OF THIRD DEPOSITOR MR. PANKAJ NARANG S TANDS PROVED AS HE IS ASSESSED TO TAX WITH THE SAME AO. THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION IS ALSO PROVED BY FI LING BANK ACCOUNTS AND RECORDING OF CONFIRMATORY STATEMENT ON OATH. IN MY VIEW THE CREDIT WORTHINESS OF THE DEPOSIT CAN AL SO NOT BE DOUBTFUL IN VIEW OF BLOCK AT UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF RS 20 24 OOO/- IN DEPOSITORS HANDS. ALL THE THREE B ASIC 8 INGREDIENTS REQUIRED TO PROVE A CASH CREDIT HAVING BEEN PROVED THE ADDITION ON THIS ACCOUNT CANNOT BE UPHE LD AND IS THEREFORE DELETED . 7.1 AFTER GOING THROUGH THE FINDINGS OF THE LD.CIT( A) AS AFORESAID WITH REGARD TO DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS. 1 08 75000/- RAISED VIDE GROUND NO. 1 TO 4 IN THE REVENUES APPEAL IS CONCERNED WE FIN D THAT THE AGREEMENT DATED 21.03.2000 IS AN UNREGISTERED AGREEMENT IN BE TWEEN SMT. SUNEETA JAIN AND DR. PUNEET KUMAR AND THAT THE SAME HAS BEE N ENTERED INTO AFTER THE EXECUTION OF SALE DEED OF THE PROPERTY IN QUEST ION FROM SMT. SUNITA JAIN TO MR. RAJENDRA KUMAR SINGHAL AND MR. RAMESH C HAND GAEL VIDE SALE DEED DATED 7.3.2000 FOR A SUM OF RS.35 00 000/- AND THAT THE SAID SALE DEED WAS NOT DISPUTED OR RESCINDED BY ANY OF THE PA RTIES THERETO. IT IS ALSO CLEAR FROM THIS FACT THAT MRS. SUNEETA JAIN WA S NOT THE LEGAL OWNER OF THE PROPERTY ON THE DATE OF THE IMPUGNED AGREEMENT DATED 21.3.2009. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES NO LEGAL VALUE WAS ATTACHED TO TH E SAID AGREEMENT. IT IS ALSO APPARENT ON RECORD THAT MR. SINGHAL & MR. G AEL HAVE EXECUTED AND REGISTERED A SALE DEED IN FAVOUR OF THE APPELLANT O N 12.09.2001 AND THEREFORE THERE REMAINED N VALUE WHATSOEVER TO ANY AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO IN RESPECT OF THE SAID PROPERTY. IN THIS VIEW THE POSSESSION OF THE UNREGISTERED AGREEMENT DATED 21.3.2009 CANNOT BE CONSIDERED TO HAVE ANY DOCUMENT ARY AND / OR LEGAL ATTACHED TO THE SAME NECESSITATING THE SAFE PRESERV ING THEREOF BY THE APPELLANT AND THEREFORE IT MAY WELL BE CONCLUDED T HAT THE SAME WAS FOUND WITH THE APPELLANT ONLY FOR THE REASON THAT T HE SAME WAS AVAILABLE WITH HER AND HER EXPLANATION REGARDING AVAILABILITY THEREOF WITH HERE DESERVE TO BE ACCEPTED. WE FURTHER FIND THAT THE AO HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO BRING ON RECORD ANY FACT THAT ANY PAYMENT WHATSOEVE R WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE SAID AGREEMENT. THE ADDITION O F RS. 1 08 75 000/- HAS BEEN MADE BY THE AO ON THE BASIS OF LONG DRAWN INFERENCES BY ALLEGING A MODUS OPERANDI FOR PURCHASE OF PROPERTY IN QUESTION WITHOUT BRINGING ANY CONSTRUCTIVE SUPPORTING MATERIAL ON RE CORD. THE ESTIMATION OF 9 COST OF CONSTRUCTION AT RS. 1.33 CRORES BESIDES THE VALUE OF LAND ALSO DO NOT FIND SUPPORT FROM THE STAMP VALUATION FIXED BY THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITIES AND RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE I MPUGNED ADDITION ALSO DO NOT FIND ANY SUPPORT FROM THE SEIZED MATERIAL. IN VIEW OF ABOVE AND IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY PROOF ON RECORD IN THE SEIZED MA TERIAL TO SUGGEST ANY UNACCOUNTED PAYMENT BY THE ASSESSEE THE IMPUGNED A DDITION OF RS.1 08 75 000/- CANNOT BE SUSTAINED AND THEREFORE RIGHTLY BEEN DELETED BY THE LD. CIT(A). ACCORDINGLY WE ARE OF T HE VIEW THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS PASSED A WELL REASONED ORDER ON THE ISSU E IN DISPUTE WHICH DOES NOT NEED ANY INTERFERENCE ON OUR PART HENCE WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) ON THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE. ACCORDI NGLY THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE IS DECIDED AGAINST THE REVENUE. 7.2 WITH REGARD TO GROUND NO. 5 & 6 AGAINST THE AC TION OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN ADMITTING ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IN RESPECT OF LOAN OF RS. 5 LACS AND AGAINST THE DELETION OF THIS AMOUNT. WE FIND THAT THE AO HAD MADE THE ADDITION OF RS. 5 LACS ON ACCOUNT OF LOAN FROM SH. SURENDER SINGH WHICH HAD BEEN CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A) OF HIS APPELLA TE ORDER. THEREFORE BOTH THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE MISCONCEIVED HENCE DISMISSED AS SUCH. 7.3 WITH REGARD TO GROUND NO. 7 RELATING TO DELETI ON OF ADDITION OF RS. 25 LACS IS CONCERNED WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE H AS PROVED THE IDENTITY OF THE DEPOSITOR MR. JASJEET SINGH WHO IS A MAN O F MEANS HAVING TOTAL CAPITAL OF RS.5 64 39 416/- AND THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS WHICH WERE THROUGH CROSSED BANK DRAFTS. FURTHER THE DEPO SITOR HAS CONFIRMED THE LOAN BY SENDING CONFIRMATORY LETTER AND FAX BEF ORE THE A.O. AS WELL AS BEFORE THE A.D.I. HE HAS FURTHER CONFIRMED THE ADVA NCEMENT OF LOAN TO THE ASSESSEE IN HIS STATEMENT ON OATH RECORDED ON 2 3.12.08. ALL THE THREE BASIC INGREDIENT FOR EXPLAINING THE CASH CREDIT HAV ING BEEN COMPLIED WITH. THEREFORE LD. CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY HELD THAT THE ADD ITION MADE BY THE A.O. CANNOT BE SUSTAINED IN VIEW OF THE JUDICIAL PRONOUN CEMENTS CITED BY THE LD. AR AND IS THEREFORE DELETED. ACCORDINGLY WE A RE OF THE VIEW THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS PASSED A WELL REASONED ORDER ON THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE 10 WHICH DOES NOT NEED ANY INTERFERENCE ON OUR PART H ENCE WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) ON THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE. A CCORDINGLY THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE IS DECIDED AGAINST THE REVENUE. 8. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DIS MISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 29/09/201 6. SD/- SD/- [O.P. KANT] [H.S. SIDHU ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATE 29/09/2016 SRBHATNAGAR COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT - 2. RESPONDENT - 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT DELHI BENCHES