Buniyad Developers Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs Assessee

M/s Buniyad Developers Vs. Income Tax Officer, Pvt. Ltd, A-54/1, Naraina Ward-3(1), New Delhi Industrial Area, Phase-1, New Delhi. (PAN: AAACB1149A) (Appellant) (Respondent)

Appellant by : S/Sh. Rajiv Saxena & Sumangla Saxena, Advocates Respondent by: Smt. A. Mishra, CIT, DR

Date of hearing: 17.12.2014 Date of pronouncement: 10-03.2015

ORDER

PER I.C. SUDHIR, JM:

The assessee has questioned the first appellate order on the following

grounds:

1. That the order of the LD CIT (A) is bad in law and required to be quashed as legally not tenable on various grounds amongst the following because:

a) She did not follow the directions of her predecessor vide letter dated 22-04-2014 to the AO for making specific enquiry for calculating the motorable road distance of village Kishora from the then municipal limits of 1994 (when the central government notified in the official gazette issued under section 2 (14)(iii)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which was applicable on the facts of the case).

2 ITA No. 4201/Del /2014 Assessment Year: 2010-11

b) She has failed to understand that the Central Government can enter into the state subject i.e. agriculture only by way of bringing either notification or any law passed by the parliament as was done by it from time to time on 06-02-1973, 06-01-1994 and by Finance Act, 2013 mentioned in clause iii (b) of subsection 14 of section 2.

c) The appellant specifically sought time to inspect the assessment records and to obtain relevant documents collected by him during the inquiry as it was not clear from the remand report that specific enquiry was completed.

d) The appellant also applied to the municipal council seeking clarification by filing letter dated 23-07-2014 itself and duly informed the CIT (A) about the same and to receive copy thereof which she refused to accept and was sent by registered post.

e) She did not accept the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in the case of CIT vs Satinder Pal Singh 188 Taxmann 54 having jurisdiction on the agriculture land situated in Haryana itself and applied the provision brought by the legislature by Finance Act, 2013 which was applicable only w.e.f. 01-04-2014.

f) She has totally ignored the decision of the Hon'ble ITAT, Jaipur bench which was not only cited but was part of the paper book specifically analyzing the provisions of section 2 (14) and notifications issued thereon which was directly applicable on the facts of the case.

g) She has also ignored the statutory provisions of Income Tax Act of section 2 (lA) and section 2 (14) of the Income Tax Act.

h) She has totally ignored and failed to notice nor enquired from the assessment records where AO himself assessed agriculture income continuously for the last so many years and so he cannot take different stand in absence of any material contrary brought by him on record.

2. Ld CIT (A) has erred in law as well as on facts in confirming the long term capital gain of Rs 21,26,09,521/- computed by the AO by treating the agriculture land as capital asset under section 2 (14) of the IT Act .

3. Ld CIT(A) has also erred in law as well as on facts in confirming the disallowance of Rs 36,62,426/- claimed as business expense.

4. That LD CIT (A) has also erred in law as well as on facts in confirming the action of the AO in disallowing the agriculture income of Rs 3,28,534/-.

3 ITA No. 4201/Del /2014

Assessment Year: 2010-11

5. LD CIT (A) has also erred in law as well as on facts in confirming the action of the AO in computing the interest income of Rs 44,35,304/- under the head income from other sources as against business income.

2. We have heard and considered the arguments advanced by the

parties and have perused the orders of the authorities below, material available

on record and the decisions relied upon.

3. In ground no. 1, the issue raised is as to whether the assessee is

liable to pay tax only on the capital gain earned on the sale of its agricultural

land situated at village Kishora, Sonepat, Haryana, as the same being out of the

purview of definition of capital asset as per Section 2(14)(iii) of the Income-tax

Act, 1961 (for short "the Act").

3. 1 The Assessing Officer did not agree with the assessee on the

calculation of measurement of the distance of the land situated at village

Kishora, Sonepat, Haryana, from municipal limit, which, as per the assessee,

was more than 8 kilometers hence, it was out of the purview of Section 2(14)(iii)

of the Act. The Assessing Officer expressed his view keeping in mind the

amendment by Finance Act, 2013 to the effect that distance from municipal

limit shall be aerial distance. He relied upon the letter dated 14.03.2013 of the

District Town Planner, Sonepat, showing village Kishore, Distt. Sonepat, within

8 kms. limit of Municipal Council, Sonepat attaching with a map of Sonepat-

Kundli Multifunctional Urban Complex. The A.O. also noted that the village

Kishora falls within notified area vide notification dated 09.10.1986 of Haryana 4 ITA No. 4201/Del /2014 Assessment Year: 2010-11

Government being 5 kms. of limit. The assessee questioned the very basis of

calculation of the above distance and contended that by approach road the

distance is approx. 12 kms whereas the distance calculated by the District Town

Planner appears to be on the basis of straight line distance on horizontal plane as

per crow's flight, which was not permissible during the year. It was also

contended that notification of Government of Haryana is not applicable for the

purpose and the relevant is the notification no. 509447, dt. 06.01.1994 of the

Central Government specifying the notified area from the municipal limit for the

purpose. The learned CIT(A) has also upheld this action of the Assessing

Officer. Hence, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal on this issue.

3.2 The issue as to whether the assessee is liable to pay tax on the

capital gain earned raised in the ground no. 1, will depend upon the distance

between the land situated at village Kishora and municipal limit of the area.

3.3 At the outset of hearing, the learned AR submitted that the assessee

has moved application under Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules for filing additional

evidence in the shape of reply received under R.T.I. subsequent to the letter

dated 23.07.2014 written to Municipal Engineer, Municipal Council, Sonepat.

He submitted that during the course of hearing before the learned CIT(A), the

assessee had sought to allow the Google map, affidavit of farmer who was

cultivating the land on Batai and letter to J.E., Dept. of Town and Country

Planning and his reply dated 30.12.2013 to be allowed as additional evidence. 5 ITA No. 4201/Del /2014

Assessment Year: 2010-11

The learned CIT(A) called for remand report from the Assessing Officer on the

application for admission of additional evidence moved by the assessee. In

compliance, the Assessing Officer furnished its report on 01.04.2014 repeating

the same version as discussed in assessment order.

3.4 In reply to the remand report, the assessee explained the intricacies

to make necessary inquiry to calculate the distance as per notification of 1994 as

provided under Section 2(14) of the Act. It was explained that the amendment to

that notification was brought w.e.f. 01.04.2014 and before that notification of

1994 is applicable. The learned CIT(A) thereafter directed again to the

Assessing Officer to make necessary inquiry about the distance of motorable

road from the concerned authority to examine the facts as applicable in the year

1994 vide letter dated 22.04.2014.

3.5 The learned CIT(A) again fixed the hearing and asked to respond

her letter dated 09.07.2014. The assessee replied it vide its letter dated

10.07.2014 explaining the facts and also sought the necessary documents

supplied by the Assessing Officer. The learned CIT(A) vide letter dated

11.07.2014, enclosed the remand report dated 28.05.2014 showing the letter

dated 16.05.2014 received from Dept. of Town and Planning, Sonepat. In

response to which, reply dated 16.07.2014 received on 17.07.2014 was filed

highlighting certain documents not enclosed and also explained that the inquiry

sought by the predecessors CIT(A) was not made as per the notification dated 6 ITA No. 4201/Del /2014 Assessment Year: 2010-11

06.04.1994 and a suitable direction be given to the Assessing Officer to supply

the documents, if inquiry is completed as per her predecessors CIT(A) on the

same date. A letter to Assessing Officer was also filed for inspection of records

who asked to appear on 21.07.2014 and subsequently on 30.07.2014, which was

informed to the learned CIT(A). Two applications under RTI were also filed

before Executive Officer, Municipal Council, Sonepat. The learned CIT(A) was

again apprised about the letter dated 23.07.2014 addressed to Executive Officer,

Municipal Council, Sonepat and Municipal Engineer, Municipal Council,

Sonepat under R.T.I. duly received. These copies of letters dated 23.07.2014

were also sent through letter dated 24.07.2014 by Registered Post on 25.07.2014

to the learned CIT(A). Learned CIT(A) has, however, passed the order on

23.07.2014 i.e. before the receipt of the copies of the letter dated 23.07.2014

sent to him through Registered Post on 25.07.2014. The learned AR submitted

that the reply received under R.T.I. subsequent to the letter dated 23.07.2014

enclosed as additional evidence is very material to decide the issue and the same

may be considered after admitting them as additional evidence.

3.6 Learned DR objected the application with this submission that the

assessee was having sufficient opportunity before the authorities below to

furnish such type of information so that the same should have been verified by

the authorities below before considering the same.

7 ITA No. 4201/Del /2014

Assessment Year: 2010-11

3.7 After considering the above submissions, we concur with the

submission of the learned AR that the aforesaid documents issued by different

authorities like Tehsildar, Sonepat and Municipal Engineer, Municipal Council,

Sonepat, regarding the distance of the agricultural land of the assessee from the

limit of Municipal Council will be material for consideration to decide the issue

and these additional evidence could not be filed before the learned CIT(A) due

to sufficient reason as explained hereinabove by the learned AR. Of course,

there is some scope of doubt that letter stated to be dated 23.07.2014 seeking

information from Executive Officer and Municipal Engineer, Municipal

Council, Sonepat, might have been written after passing of the first appellate

order on 23.07.2014 but at the same time possibility of ignorance of the assessee

in this regard also cannot be ruled out. The urge of the jurisprudence is to meet

the ends of justice. It also remained matter of our concern that the assessee had

sought information from the Executing Officer and Municipal Engineer,

Municipal Council, Sonepat, vide letter dated 23.07.2014 and Council Engineer

responded on 29.09.2014 and in between the assessee also obtained a certificate

dated 26.08.2014 about the distance from the Tehsildar, Sonepat vide a different

letter. The District Town Planner, Sonepat, has also reported different distance

in their different letter and reply without mentioning the mode of measurement

either aerial or motorable road adopted by them for the purpose. The ultimate

inference, however, is that the assessee was trying hard to gather the required 8 ITA No. 4201/Del /2014 Assessment Year: 2010-11

information from the authorities concern about the correct distance. Even

otherwise, authorities like, Tehsildar of the area, Municipal Council, Sonepat

and District Town Planner, Sonepat are the concern authorities to ascertain the

distance. The learned AR also referred page nos. 61 to 129 of the paper book

which are correspondences with different authorities regarding ascertainment of

the distance of Kishora village from the Municipal limit of Sonepat. We, thus,

allow the application and admit the additional evidence in question for our

consideration to adjudicate upon the issue.

3.8 Now, the issue before our further consideration would be as to

which provision will be applicable in the case of the assessee falling in the A.Y.

2010-11. Undisputedly, the amendment brought by Finance Act, 2013 to the

effect that the distance from municipal limit shall be aerial distance was not

available during A.Y. 2010-11, nor has it any retrospective operation as per the

amendment. The A.O. has followed the amended provision and referred to

Haryana Government Notification dated 09.10.1986 as per which 'Urban Area'

is an area of land within the limits of Municipal Area or Faridabad complex or

situate within 5 kms. of limits. Before the learned CIT(A), the assessee had

filed Google map (showing the distance at 11.1 kms.), affidavit from farmer

who was cultivating the land on Batai and letter to J.E., District Town and

Country Planning and his reply dated 30.12.2013 as additional evidence in

support of its claim by the assessee that the land in question does not fall within 9 ITA No. 4201/Del /2014 Assessment Year: 2010-11

8 kilometers from the outer municipal limit. The decisions cited in support are

Smt. (Dr.) Subha Tripathi Vs. DCIT, 34 Taxmann.com 286 (Jaipur); ITO Vs.

Sh. Sukhlal, ITA No. 2420/D/2006 and CIT Vs. Satinder Pal Singh, 188

Taxmann.com 54 (P&H). The Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the

case of Satinder Pal Singh (supra) has been pleased to hold that distance of land

for purpose of Section 2(14)(iii) has to be taken in terms of approach by road

and not as per straight line distance on a horizontal place or as per crow's flight

distance. The Hon'ble High Court has also considered the Notification No. 9447

dated 06.01.1994 while adjudicating the issue. The Hon'ble High Court has been

pleased to observe that the reckoning of urbanization as a factor for prescribing

the distance is of significance with the statutory requirement of keeping in view

the extent of urbanization. Such a course would be illusory. It is pursuace of the

aforesaid provision that the Notification No. 9447 dated 06.01.1994 has been

issued by the Central Government, held the Hon'ble High Court.

3.9 In the case of Smt. (Dr.) Subha Tripathi Vs. DCTI (supra), the A.Y.

involved was 2008-09, the agriculture land in question though located beyond 8

kms. from municipal limits of Jaipur Municipality as on the date of impugned

CBDT Notification No. 9447, dated 06.01.1994 but subsequently it fell within

distance of 8 kms. from municipal limits due to expansion of municipal limit,

the Tribunal held that the said land would still be regarded as agricultural land 10 ITA No. 4201/Del /2014 Assessment Year: 2010-11

not falling in definition of capital asset in terms of Section 2(14)(iii)(b) of the

Act.

3.10 In view of the ratio laid down in the above cited decisions, we hold

that in the present case before us, when land in question has been sold during the

period falling in the A.Y. 2010-11, the Notification no. 9447, dated 06.01.1994

in operation will be applicable to compute the distance from the municipal limit.

3.11 Before us, the assessee has filed correspondences with the

Municipal Engineer and information gathered from them as well as Tehsildar,

Sonepat, as additional evidence which we have admitted to verify the actual

motorable distance of agricultural land in question from the outer municipal

limit. Copies of these correspondences and informations gathered from different

authorities concerned have been made available at page nos. 1 to 11 to the

application filed under Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules for additional evidence.

Among these correspondences, are the letter dated 26.08.2014 issued by

Tehsildar, Sonepat, stating that the land in question as on 06.01.1994 was more

than 8 kilometers from the municipal limit i.e. Truck Union, Sonepat. The

another letter is dated 19.02.2013 issued by Council Engineer, Municipal

Council, Sonepat, addressed to the Income Tax Officer, New Delhi, stating

therein that there is no any village Kishora within 8 kilometers from the limit of

Municipal Council, Sonepat. This letter has been issued by the Council Engineer

in response to the informations sought under Section 133(6) of the Act by the 11 ITA No. 4201/Del /2014 Assessment Year: 2010-11

I.T.O. It appears that SPIO-cum-District Town and Country Planner, Sonepat,

had forwarded the application of the assessee seeking the requisite information

to the E.O., Municipal Committee, Sonepat. In these entire correspondences, we

thus find that the letter dated 26.08.2014 issued by Tehsildar, Sonepat, to the

assessee and letter dated 19.02.2013 issued by the Council Engineer, Municipal

Council, Sonepat, addressed to the Assessing Officer in response to his seeking

of information sought under Section 133(6) of the I.T. Act, for the assessment

year under consideration are the relevant documents on the issue of distance of

the land in question from the municipal limit of Sonepat. We find that the A.O.

has relied upon the information dated 14.03.2013 of the District Town Planner,

Sonepat and the learned CIT(A) has also referred their letter dated 16.05.2014 in

this regard that village Kishora is within 8 kms. limits of Municipal Council,

Sonepat. This information has been contradicted by the District Town Planner,

Sonepat, vide its letter dated 30.12.2013 that village Kishora is more than 8 kms.

from the Municipality, Sonepat (page 106). We thus find that the District Town

Planner is not clear on their stand nor they have mentioned about the mode,

either aerial or motorable road adopted for the measurement of the distance.

We, therefore, in the interest of justice, set aside the matter to the file of the

Assessing Officer to examine the veracity of these two letters, one issued by

Tehsildar, Sonepat and the another by Council Engineer, Municipal Council,

Sonepat, as well as the mode i.e. aerial or motorable road for calculation of the 12 ITA No. 4201/Del /2014 Assessment Year: 2010-11

distance adopted by the District Town Planner, Sonepat, followed by the A.O.

as well as learned CIT(A) and decide the issue afresh about the distance in view

of above cited decisions, notification dated 06.01.1994 and our observations,

after affording opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The fate of issue

raised in ground no. 2 is depending upon the outcome of the above issue raised

in ground no. 1. Ground no. 2 is thus also set aside for fresh consideration to the

Assessing Officer in view of his finding on ground no. 1. The ground nos. 1 and

2 are thus allowed for statistical purposes.

4. The ground no. 3 is regarding disallowance of Rs. 36,62,426/-

claimed as business expenses.

4.1 In support of this ground, the learned AR submitted that the

Assessing Officer has disallowed the claim of the assessee on the basis that there

were no business receipts and the learned CIT(A) has simply stated that the

assessee did not make any specific submission, nor has pressed this issue before

her. He submitted that the authorities below have failed to take note of these

material facts that the assessee company is engaged in the business of

agriculture. The claim of administrative expenses in Schedule VII & VIII of the

balance-sheet filed in the paper book for the assessment years 2006-07 to 2009-

10 clearly shows that only small expenditure towards audit fee, salary etc. were

claimed and the bank charges and interest paid was claimed as a major

expenditure apart from insurance charges, rent and vehicle repair and 13 ITA No. 4201/Del /2014 Assessment Year: 2010-11

maintenance. All such expenses are very nominal. Salary and accountancy

charges claimed are only small amount, if divided in twelve months. Likewise,

rent and vehicle expenses are also very minor, if divided by twelve. The interest

charges are paid while interest income in various years is less than or more than

the interest paid as per business necessities as may be seen in the A.Y.s 2006-07

to 2008-09 while in A.Y. 2009-10, there was no interest expenditure claimed by

the assessee company. In the year under consideration, again interest income has

been declared and various expenditures under the different heads were claimed.

The learned AR accordingly submitted that the business results which were

regularly been accepted as declared and business expenditure was allowed to the

assessee company, the Assessing Officer cannot take different stand without

bringing any contrary material. He submitted that the assessee has claimed

business expenditure against the income earned and not such expenditure was

found fake or not relating to the business activities. He further submitted that

during the year, no such expenditure was found which was either capital or

personal in nature. There is nothing personal in nature once expenditure relates

to the assessee company.

4.2 Learned DR, on the other hand, placed reliance on the orders of

the authorities below in this regard.

4.3 Considering the above submissions, we concur with the above

contention of the learned AR that genuine expenditure incurred in the 14 ITA No. 4201/Del /2014 Assessment Year: 2010-11

business cannot be denied only on the basis that there was no business

receipts. The further contention of the learned AR remained that similar

expenditure was allowed to the assessee in the assessment years 2006-07 to

2008-09 while in the assessment year 2009-10, there was no interest

expenditure claimed by the assessee company. In the present year under

consideration, interest income has been declared and various expenditures

under the different heads was claimed. The further contention of the learned

AR remained that the business expenditure relates to business activities of the

assessee and during the year, no such expenditure was found which was

either capital or personal in nature and there is nothing personal in nature,

once expenditure relates to the assessee company. It was also submitted that

the assessee has declared not only business income from agricultural

activities but also earned interests on the funds kept in the bank. We find that

the AO has made disallowance merely on the basis that no business activities

were carried during the year, without examining the nexus between those

expenses and the purpose on which those were spent for. We thus set aside

the matter to the file of the A.O. to examine the claim and dispose of the issue

by passing a speaking order after hearing the assesse. The ground no. 3 is thus

allowed for statistical purposes.

15 ITA No. 4201/Del /2014

Assessment Year: 2010-11

5. Ground no. 4 is regarding the disallowance of agricultural

income of Rs. 3,28,534/-.

5.1 In support of this ground, the learned AR submitted that the

assessee company was formed to acquire land and engage in the agricultural

activities. It derives its income from agricultural activities, investment income

in the form of dividend, interest and profit/loss on sale of securities. He

submitted that copy of profile of company was submitted to the A.O. vide

letter dated 08.12.2012. The A.O. started the framing of assessment at the fag

end when it was becoming barred by limitation and has totally ignored his own

assessment record where agricultural income was regularly being declared and

accepted by him in the earlier years. The Assessing Officer did not make any

inquiry about the cultivation and only on presumption disallowed the claim.

The learned CIT(A) has also ignored the affidavit filed by the cultivator as

additional evidence under Rule 46A of the ITAT Rules which was provided to

the Assessing Officer but on the remand report submitted from time to time, he

has raised doubts on the documents of sale of agricultural produce. The

Assessing Officer also raised certain doubts on production of paddy which was

sold in the month of March, 2010 while the same is harvested in the beginning

of November. The authorities below have also ignored the submissions of the

assessee that the land was given on Batai and the assessee company is not

interested on various aspects but interested on the outcome received. The AR 16 ITA No. 4201/Del /2014 Assessment Year: 2010-11

further submitted that such declaration of agricultural income was also made in

earlier years and drew our attention to page nos. 80 to 99 of the paper book,

wherein a chart has been made available along with the balance-sheet, showing

the agricultural income declared was included in the gross receipts while

declaring the business income. He submitted that the expenditure incurred was

claimed from the declared receipts in each year as it is evident from the balance-

sheet, chart submitted for the assessment years 2006-07 to 2009-10 and the

Assessing Officer did not raise any doubts. The learned AR further submitted

that the authorities below have failed to appreciate that after giving the land on

Batai the expenditure relating to cultivation are incurred by the cultivator. The

assessee is only managing the land and look after that cultivator who is

growing the crops so that it can be assured of the income earned from the

land. The expenditure which was not incurred by the assessee is also not

claimed by it and so question of keeping such records does not arise. The

learned AR accordingly requested that the agricultural income declared as

business receipts be directed to be accepted.

5.2 Learned DR, on the other hand, placed reliance on the assessment

order, with this submission that since the assessee failed to establish the

genuineness of the claimed agricultural income the A.O. was justified in

disallowing the same.

17 ITA No. 4201/Del /2014

Assessment Year: 2010-11

5.3 Considering the above submission, we find that the issue raised

needs fresh consideration also keeping in mind that the assessee has not claimed

benefit of exemption of agricultural income and the affidavit of the farmer

confirming that the land was on batai filed as additional evidence before the

learned CIT(A) has remained to be examined. The Assessing Officer is thus

directed to decide the issue afresh after verifying the above submission of the

assessee as well as the affidavit filed before the learned CIT(A) and after

affording opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The ground no. 4 is

accordingly allowed for statistical purposes.

6. Ground no. 5 is regarding the treatment of interest income of Rs.

44,35,304/- under the head "income from other sources" as against business

income.

6.1 In support of this ground, the learned AR submitted that the

assessee was regularly declaring business income received from agricultural

activities and interest earned. The assessee was also claiming business

expenditure by way of interest expense and bank charges, which had duly been

assessed for the last so many years without any dispute. During the year, the

A.O., however, ignoring the past assessment records has assessed the income by

bifurcating receipts from interest under the head "income from other sources".

He has totally ignored that for the last so many years under the receipts interest

income was declared while under the expenditure, major expenditure relates to 18 ITA No. 4201/Del /2014 Assessment Year: 2010-11

payment of interest and bank charges. He submitted that in the assessment year

2006-07, the interest expenses were much more than the interest income shown

in the assessment year 2008-09. In the assessment year 2007-08, major

expenditure was in relation to interest charges. This practice was regularly

declared in the Income Tax Returns and was accepted without any dispute.

Learned AR submitted that the A.O. has not given any reason for deviating from

the past practice and assessed the interest income under the head "income from

other sources". The learned CIT(A) has also upheld the same without going

through the assessment records and the documents filed in the paper book

showing book results and past practice followed from year to year. He also

referred page no. 22 of the paper book i.e. copy of letter dated 08.12.2012 filed

before the Assessing Officer, to which the Assessing Officer had not raised any

objection. Learned AR submitted that even otherwise interest income has to be

assessed after deducting interest expenditure and if receipts are included under

the head "business receipts" and expenditure is claimed, the same is also

deductible under the head "income from other sources" and so there is no tax

implication.

6.2 Learned DR, on the other hand, tried to justify the orders of the

authorities below.

6.3 Considering the above submissions, we find substance in the

contention of learned AR that when interest income is part of assessee's 19 ITA No. 4201/Del /2014 Assessment Year: 2010-11

business activities and regularly been assessed, the action of the A.O. in making

assessment under the head "income from other sources" cannot be justified. We

also find substance in the alternative contention of the learned AR that even

otherwise interest income has to be assessed after deducting interest expenditure.

We thus set aside the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer to verify the

above claim of the assessee and decide the issue afresh, after affording

opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Ground No. 5 is accordingly allowed

for statistical purposes

7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

purposes.

The decision is pronounced in the open court on 10th March, 2015.

Sd/- Sd/- (T.S. Kapoor) (I.C. Sudhir) Accountant Member Judicial Member

Dated: 10th March, 2015. RK/- Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi