Poonam Promoters And Developers Pvt. ... vs Assessee

ITA No.4064/Del/2013 ASSTT.YEAR: 2006-07 ITA No.1590/Del/2013 ASSTT.YEAR: 2006-07 ACIT, Central Circle-23, vs Poonam Promoters & Developers (P) Ltd., E-2, ARA Centre, M-11, Middle Circle, Connaught Circus, Jhandewalan Extension, New Delhi-110001 New Delhi-110055

ITA No.1763/Del/2013 ASSTT.YEAR: 2006-07 ITA No.4082/Del/2013 ASSTT.YEAR: 2006-07 Poonam Promoters & Developers (P) Ltd., vs ACIT, CC-23, New Delhi. New Delhi. (PAN No. AAACP6882G) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri Vivek Wadekar, CIT(DR) Respondent by: Shri V. S. Rastogi CA Date of Hearing: 24.06.2015 Date of Pronouncement: 30.6.2015 ORDER

PER C.M. GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER

These appeals have been preferred against the order of the CIT(A)-

XXXIII, New Delhi dated 28.03.2012 in Appeal No.508/09-10/297 for AY

2006-07.

1 ITA 4064, 1590/Del/2013 1763 & 4082/Del/2013

2. In Appeal No. 4082/D/2013, the assessee has raised as many as three

grounds but the ld. counsel of the assessee submitted that the assessee does not

want to press ground no. 2 & 3, therefore, the same are dismissed as not

pressed. Remaining grounds of assessee read as under:-

" 1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in upholding made the disallowance u/s 40A(3) of Rs.13,45,626/-.

1.1 That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in confirming the aforesaid disallowance despite that no deduction in respect thereof was claimed by the appellant.

1.2 That even on merit the disallowance was not justified. "

3. Apropos these grounds, ld. counsel of the assessee submitted that a

similar disallowance was made by the AO in the case of Westland Developers

Pvt. Ltd. (a group company of the assessee) and was confirmed by the CIT(A).

Ld. counsel further contended that in the assessee's appeal, the Tribunal dealt

with the matter at length and concluded thus in para 10.10 on page 29 of

assesse's paper book. The relevant operative part of the order of the Tribunal in

the case of M/s Westland Developers for AY 2006-07 dated 22.8.2014 reads as

under:-

"10.10. We have also taken ourselves through the judgement of the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs Industrial Engineering Projects Pvt. Ltd. (cited supra) which has been relied upon before us for the proposition that reimbursement of expenses cannot be treated to be a Revenue receipt. How the judgement of the Apex Court in Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilizers is applicable to the facts of the present case has not been set out in the order of the authorities nor has 2 ITA 4064, 1590/Del/2013 1763 & 4082/Del/2013

the Ld. DR been able to address the applicability of the said judgement to the issue at hand. We have taken ourselves through the said judgement and seen that it proceeds on entirety different facts and circumstances and has no applicability to the facts of the present case. Consequently, it is seen that from the ratio of the judgements relied upon before the CIT(A) and also before us which have been discussed in the earlier part of this order no arguments have been advanced by the Revenue so as to contend how they are not applicable to the case at hand, no distinguishing fact, circumstance or position of law has been relied upon so as to come to a contrary finding than the one arrived at. Accordingly on a consideration of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and the judgements relied upon considering the relevant provision of the Act namely Section 40A(3), we hold for the detailed reasons given hereinabove that Section 40A(3) of the Act has been wrongly invoked as admittedly no expenses relatable to the addition has been claimed and the assessee has successfully demonstrated that the payment were reimbursement made by CWPPL. Accordingly Ground No-4 is allowed."

4. In view of above, we are inclined to hold that in similar set of facts and

circumstances, the Tribunal in the case of assessee's group company M/s

Westland Developers Pvt. Ltd. categorically held that the assessee submitted

detailed reasons to demolish invocation of section 40A(3) of the Act and

admittedly no expenses relatable to the addition have been claimed and the

assessee has successfully demonstrated that the payments were reimbursement

made by CWPPL, therefore, there was no occasion to invoke section 40A(3) of

the Act. Respectfully following the conclusion of the Tribunal in the case of

M/s Westland Developers Pvt. Ltd. (supra) in the similar set of facts and

circumstances, we hold that the AO wrongly made impugned disallowance of

Rs.13,45,626 which was upheld by the CIT(A) on wrong assumption of facts

3 ITA 4064, 1590/Del/2013 1763 & 4082/Del/2013

and circumstances. Hence, addition made by the AO and confirmed by the

CIT(A) u/s 40A(3) of the Act is not found to be sustainable and we dismiss the

same. Accordingly, ground no. 1 to 1.2 are hereby allowed.

5. In ITA No. 4064/Del/2013, the revenue has raised sole ground which

reads as under:-

"On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.16,85,489/- made by the AO in view of the provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on account of deemed dividend."

6. Apropos aforementioned ground of the revenue, ld. DR submitted that the

CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.16,85,489/- made by the AO in

view of the provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on

account of deemed dividend. Ld. DR submitted that the impugned order may

be set aside by restoring that of the AO on this issue. Ld. counsel of the

assessee supporting the impugned order submitted that to invoke provisions of

section 2(22)(e) of the Act, it is mandatory for the AO to establish that the

assessee is a registered shareholder of payer company, then the impugned

amount cannot be taxed in the hands of the assessee u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act. Ld.

counsel placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court

of Delhi in the case of Ankitech (P) Ltd. (2011) 11 taxman.com 100 (Delhi)

and submitted that the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by this

judgement of Hon'ble High Court.

4 ITA 4064, 1590/Del/2013 1763 & 4082/Del/2013

7. On careful consideration of above submissions, we note that the CIT(A)

granted relief to the assessee with following observations and conclusion:-

"The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT vs. Ankitech (P) Ltd. [20 11] 11taxman.com 100 (Delhi) has held as under in para 25 of the judgment. "Further, it is an admitted case that under normal circumstances, such a loan or advance given to the shareholders or to a concern, would not qualify as dividend. It has been made so by legal fiction created under section 2(22) (e) of the Act. We have to keep in mind that this legal provision relates to 'dividend'. Thus by a deeming provision, it is the definition of dividend which is enlarged. Legal fiction does not extend to 'shareholder'. When we keep in mind this aspect, the conclusion would be obvious, viz, loan or advance given under the conditions specified under section 2(22) (e) of the Act would also be treated as dividend. The fiction has to stop here and is not to be extended further for broadening the concept of shareholders by way legal fiction. It is a common use that any company is supposed to distribute the profits in the form of dividend to its shareholder /members and such dividend cannot be given to non- members. The second category specified under section 2(22) (e) of the Act. Viz, a concern (like the assessee herein), which is given the loan or advance is admittedly not a shareholder/member of the payer company. Therefore, under no circumstance, it could be treated as shareholder/member receiving dividend. If the intention of the Legislature as to tax such loan or advance as deemed dividend at the hands of deeming shareholder' then the Legislature would have inserted deeming provision in respect of shareholder as well, that has not happened. Most of the arguments of the learned counsels for the revenue would stand answered, once we look into the matter from this perspective'. In pare no. 28; the Hon'ble High Court has observed that "Insofar as reliance upon Circular No. 495 dated 22-09-1997 issued by Central Board of Direct Taxes is concerned, we are inclined to agree with the observations of the Mumbai bench decision in Bhaumik Colour (P) Ltd's case (supra) that such observations are not binding on the Courts. Once it is found that such loan or advance cannot be treated as deemed dividend at the hands of such concerns which is not a shareholder, and that affording to us is the correct legal position, such a circular

5 ITA 4064, 1590/Del/2013 1763 & 4082/Del/2013

would be of no avail. "Further, in para no. 30, the Hon'ble High Court has observed that "Before we part with, some comments are to be necessarily made by us. As pointed out above, it is not in dispute that the conditions stipulated in section 2(22) (e) of the Act treating the loan and advance as deemed dividend are established in these cases. Therefore, it would always be open to the revenue to take corrective measure by treating this dividend income at the hands of the shareholders and tax them accordingly. As otherwise, it would amount to escapement of income at the hands of those shareholders. "

"The Hon'ble Delhi High Court has followed the decision in the case of Ankitech (supra) in the following recent judgment dated 21.11.2011:

I. CIT vs. Navyug Promoters Pvt. Ltd. (2011) 16 Taxmann.com 292 (Delhi)

2. CIT vs. MCC Marketing Pvt. Ltd. (2011 )16 Taxmann.com 411 (Delhi) The gist of the above judgment is that deemed dividend u/s 2(22) (e) can be taxed only in the hands of the person who is a shareholder/member of the, payer company.

3.7 Respectively following the decisions of the jurisdictional High Court cited supra, it is held that the amount of Rs. 16, 85,489/- is not taxable as deemed dividend in the hands of the appellant u/s 2(22) (e) as the appellant is not a shareholder or member of M/s Payor Companies. Therefore this ground is allowed and the said addition is deleted."

8. In view of above, we note that in the present case, the AO could not bring

any allegation against the assessee that the asessee is a shareholder/member of

M/s Payor Companies, therefore, provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Act

cannot be invoked and the AO was not correct in making impugned addition and

the same was rightly deleted by the CIT(A) following the decision of Hon'ble

Jurisdictional High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT vs Ankitech (supra).

6 ITA 4064, 1590/Del/2013 1763 & 4082/Del/2013

9. The issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the judgment of

Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and we are unable to see any infirmity or any other

valid reason to interfere with the impugned order and we uphold the same.

Accordingly, sole ground of the revenue being devoid of merits is dismissed.

10. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and appeal of the

revenue is dismissed.

ITA No. 1763/D/2013 & 1590/D/2013

11. Ld. counsel of the assessee in assessee's appeal no. 1763/Del/2013

submitted that the assessee does not want to press ground no. 1, 2, 2.1. 4, 5, 6

and 7 and the same are dismissed as not pressed.

12. Ld. counsel of the assessee further submitted that the assessee also does

not want to press ground no. 3, 3.1 and 3.2 as the CIT(A) has granted relief for

the assessee on this issue against which the revenue has filed appeal in ITA

No.1590/Del/2013. Therefore, the assessee's ground no. 3, 3.1 & 3.2 are also

dismissed as not pressed. Finally, ITA No. 1763/Del/Del/2013 of the assessee is

dismissed as not pressed.

Revenue's appeal in ITA No. 1590/Del/2013

13. The main grounds raised by the revenue in this appeal read as under:-

"1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 25,69,253/-,

7 ITA 4064, 1590/Del/2013 1763 & 4082/Del/2013

made by the Assessing Officer on account of interest on PDCs paid out of books of account.

2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,60,32,683/- made by the Assessing Officer in view of the provisions of Section 37(1) of the Income tax Act, 1961 on account of additional payment in violation of Stamp Duty Act, 1899."

Ground No. 1 of the Revenue

14. We have heard arguments of both the sides and carefully perused the

relevant material placed on record. At the very outset, ld. counsel of the

assessee has drawn our attention towards order of the ITAT Delhi 'C' Bench

dated 9.1.2015 in ITA No. 2542/Del/2013 for AY 2008-09 in the case of ACIT

vs M/s Precision Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. and submitted that in similar set of facts

and circumstances in the case of group company of the assessee, the issue of

post dated cheques (PDC) was decided in favour of the assessee, therefore, the

issue is squarely covered and CIT(A) was right in granting relief for the

assessee. Ld. DR strongly supported the assessment order and the observations

made by the AO. However, ld. DR could not show us any order or other facts to

show that the order of the Tribunal (supra) in the case of Precision Infrastructure

Pvt. Ltd. has been modified or set aside.

15. From the order of the CIT(A), we observe that the CIT(A) granted relief

for the assessee with following conclusion:-

"Learned AR has been maintaining all along that interest is not paid as all the receipts are only memorandum only. Analysis of these above seized document reveals that these seized 8 ITA 4064, 1590/Del/2013 1763 & 4082/Del/2013

documents definitely proves that interest is paid on PDCs. Various voucher in seized documents conclusively proves that the recipient has signed on voucher for receipt of the interest. Ld AR's contention that these are only working of interest claimed by seller for putting up before senior management does not appear to be convincing. In case of claim, the receiver will not sign the voucher as recipient. Amounts are specific and calculation is 15% per annum. Therefore, Ld AR without conceding that the interest is paid on roes has taken the stand that in none of the seized material, i.e. even in receipt seized, the interest is from date of issue of PDCs. Now issue arises whether interest on PDCs are paid from date of issue or for extension of PDCs. Documents discussed above where there is clear evidence of receipt of inter t is for extension of period of PDCs. Ld. AR's arguments that calculation of interest on PDCs has been considered while entering into agreement holds some logic. But when dates of PDCs are extended, the recipient will definitely ask and settle for some additional compensation in form of interest.

There is no evidence which proves that interest is paid from the date of sale to date of encashment of post dated cheques. However, there is concrete evidence in form of seized material to show that interest is paid and received by seller on the extension of PDC s as discussed above while analyzing the seized document. Therefore, in my view where ever the dates of PDCs are extended interest is paid 15% per annum in cash out of Book of accounts, which are evident from seized material. Therefore, interest on PDCs to the extent of extension period appears to quite reasonable and logical. Accordingly, interest on PDCs either a sale consideration or additional payment may be recomputed to the extent of extended period of PDCs by the A.O. and to that extent addition is confirmed. The above formulae will apply to all group companies under the management of BPTP i.e.( M/s BPTP and Associate companies) including the appellant company as evidence is found in respect of various companies of BPTP and some seized paper could not be related to specific company. Therefore, it is proper to apply this formula for all companies under the common management of BPTP Group headed by Shri Kabul Chawla.

All these companies are closely linked. Some companies purchase land and transfer the same to MI BPTP Ltd, or countrywide Promoter (P) Ltd. for Housing or commercial projects are ultimately developed and sold by M/s BPTP Ltd and Countrywide Promoters Ltd. or in stray case by some other companies. Assessing Officer has applied the case of 9 ITA 4064, 1590/Del/2013 1763 & 4082/Del/2013

Eusuf Ali for applying interest on PDCs for all companies of BPTP Group for all Assessment Year under consideration. Ld AR has tried to differentiate the above cited case on facts. In my view, as interest payment on extension of period of PDCs are established on numerous seized document. A trend is established for the group as the overall management is controlled by one person Shri Kabul Chawla and activities of all companies are interrelated.

If it is not possible to work out the extension of PDCs in each case then A.O. is directed to recompute interest on PO s after ix months from date of issue of PDCs i.e. date of sale, as six months is taken a reasonable period for giving PDCs a per sale deed. This view is formed on the basis of the statement of Sh. Chhotu Ram which says that normally PDCs are given for 8 to 10 months. Further Ld AR has also submitted few Sale Deed in respect of some of seized record in the case of Ramvati Beero etc where the interest working is made after 9/ 15 months.

Taking these facts into consideration. It would be proper to compute interest after 6 months from date of sale on conservative side. Accordingly this ground is partly allowed."

16. From the order of the Tribunal in the case of Precision Infrastructure Pvt.

Ltd. (supra), we note that the similar issue was decided in favour of the assessee

with following observations and conclusion:-

"7. We have considered the submissions of both the parties and carefully gone through the material available on the record. It is noticed that the facts of the present case are identical to the facts involved in the case of M/s IAG Promoters and Developers Pvt. Ltd. (supra). The said company is a sister concerns of the assessee and belonged to the same group companies of BPTP Group to which the assessee belongs. In the said case vide order dated 31.10.2014 the ITAT Bench 'C', New Delhi in ITA Nos. 1674/Del/2013 & 1765/Del/2013 for the assessment year 2008-09 observed in para 5 as under:

"5. We have heard the arguments of both the sides and perused relevant material placed before us. At the outset, the ground raised by the Revenue is misconceived because learned 10 ITA 4064, 1590/Del/2013 1763 & 4082/Del/2013

CIT(A) has not deleted the addition of Rs. 5,06,625/- but has only directed to recalculate the interest. We have carefully gone through the order of the learned CIT(A) and also the submissions of both the parties and we do not find any infirmity in the order of the learned CIT(A). After examining the loose papers seized at the time of search at the assessee's premises, it was noticed that interest is paid on the PDCs only during the period of extension of PDCs and, therefore, he directed the Assessing Officer to recompute the interest on PDCs at the time of extension of the PDCs. He has further observed that if it is not possible to work out the extension of PDCs in each case, then the Assessing Officer is directed to recompute interest on PDCs after six months from the date of issue of the PDCs. Therefore, the ground of appeal of the Revenue that the CIT(A) deleted the addition of Rs. 5,06,625/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of interest on PDCs is factually incorrect and contrary to the order of the CIT(A). The CIT(A) directed to recalculate the interest on PDCs and there was a sound logic for such direction. His direction is based on material found and seized at the time of search. In view of the above, we do not find any justification to interfere with the order of learned CIT(A) in this regard and accordingly, we reject ground No. 1 of the Revenue's appeal"

8. Since, the facts of the present case are similar to the facts involved in the aforesaid referred to the case. So, respectfully ITA No. 2542/Del/2013 Precision Infrastructure (P) Ltd. 11 following the order dated 31.10.2014 in ITA Nos. 1674/Del/2013 & 1765/Del/2013 for the assessment year 2008- 09 in the case of sister concern of the assessee viz. M/s IAG Promoters and Developers Pvt. Ltd., we do not see any valid ground to interfere with the findings given by the ld. CIT(A) and accordingly do not see merit in this appeal of the department."

17. In view of above, we observe that the facts and circumstances of the

present case are quite similar to the facts involved in the case of Precision

Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (supra), therefore, respectfully following the order of

the Tribunal dated 9.1.2015 in the case of Precision Infrastructure (supra), we

are unable to see any infirmity, perversity or any other valid reason to interfere

11 ITA 4064, 1590/Del/2013 1763 & 4082/Del/2013

with the conclusion of the CIT(A) and hence ground no.1 of the revenue being

devoid of merits is dismissed.

Ground No. 2

18. Apropos ground no.2, we have heard arguments of both the sides and

carefully perused the material placed on record. Ground No.2 is related to the

disallowance and addition made by the AO of Rs.1,60,32,683 in view of

provisions of section 37(1) of the Act on account of additional payment in

violation of stamp duty. Ld. DR supporting the impugned order submitted that

the AO was right in making addition in this regard as the additional payment

made to the farmers was a made up affair and the payments were not genuine

and thus it was inadmissible. Ld. DR further contended that the CIT(A) was not

justified in deleting the impugned addition, therefore, the impugned order may

be set aside by restoring that of the AO. Ld. counsel of the assessee replied that

the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the various orders of

the Tribunal including recent judgment of ITAT 'C' Bench Delhi in the case of

ACIT vs M/s ISG Estate Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No. 1756/Del/2013 for AY 2006-07

dated 23.1.2015. Ld. counsel vehemently contended that the AO made addition

which was rightly deleted by the CIT(A). Additional payment made to the

farmers was required in order to avoid potential dispute between the claimants

of the land holding which have been passed through the land owners from

generation to generation. Ld. counsel further pointed out that the fact remains

12 ITA 4064, 1590/Del/2013 1763 & 4082/Del/2013

that there is no dispute as the expenditure was not claimed as an expense by the

assessee and consequently the same was not routed through Profit & loss

account, therefore, the disallowance and addition made by the AO is not

sustainable.

19. On careful consideration of above rival submissions of both the sides, we

note that in similar set of facts and circumstances, ITAT Delhi Bench in the case

of M/s ISG Estate Pvt. Ltd. (supra), decided the issue in favour of the assessee

with following observations and conclusion:-

"7. With regard to ground No. 4, 4.1, 4.2 & 4.3 raised by the assessee. Ld. Counsel of the assessee has submitted that the AO had made a disallowance of Rs.20,09,701/- u/s 37 on account of additional payments for the purchase of land. The assessee had challenged before the CIT(A) that the deduction of the purchase of land having not been claimed by the appellant, no disallowance could be made. The CIT(A) did not accept this contention viz., that the assessee having not claimed the deduction no disallowance could be made. He however, gave certain directions to quantify the disallowance to be made. As per these directions while giving appeal effect the entire claim of Rs.20,09,701/- is to be allowed.

7.1 He further submitted that the contention in Ground No. 4 however, is that the assessee having not claimed the expenditure, the same cannot be disallowed. Similar disallowance was made in the case of Westland Developers Pvt. Ltd for the AY 2006-07 and was partly confirmed by the CIT(A). The Hon'ble Tribunal vide order referred to supra deleted the addition vide para 13 passed in ITA No.1752/Del2/013 in the case of Westland Developers Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT (Page 67 of the Paper Book). Copy of the ITAT order is at page 34-68 of the PB. For the sake of convenience ITA NOS.1532 & 1756/Del/2013 6 the issue raised in Ground No. 3 and finding of the Tribunal in Para 13 of the said order is reproduced as under:-

13 ITA 4064, 1590/Del/2013 1763 & 4082/Del/2013

"13. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The case law relied upon by the parties has been taken into consideration. On a consideration of the same we are of the view that since in the facts of the present case the material issue is that the said expenditure was never claimed as assessee's business expenditure the occasion to make a disallowance of the same does not arise. On this fact there is no dispute as admittedly the expenditure was not claimed as an expense by the assessee and consequently has not been routed through its P&L A/c. In the circumstances, the occasion to make an addition of the same by way of a disallowance in these peculiar facts and circumstances of the case does not arise. The reasoning and finding given while considering the arguments qua Ground No-4 would fully apply here also. The difference that here the entire amount is added u/s 37 as opposed to part of the expenditure disallowed U/S 40A(3) is not so material as the finding is arrived at taking cognizance of the material fact that herein also no such claim of expenditure has been made. The fact that the additional payments were warranted in order to avoid potential disputes amongst the claimants of the land holding which have been passed through to the land holders from generation to generation wherein there may be informal arrangements of ownership and or the payments were for commercial expediency to facilitate peaceful possession and registration of the land holding; where by the time Registry was made the landholders felt a higher payment was necessitated due to increase in value are issues which are not required to be addressed in the present proceedings. Ground No-3 on the facts available on record considering the judicial precedent referred to in detail while deciding Ground No-4 has to be decided in favour of the assessee."

7.2 Ld. Counsel of the assessee further submitted that since the facts in the present case are identical to the facts in the case of M/s Westland Developers Pvt. Ltd., he prayed that no disallowance could be made u/s. 37 as no expenditure was claimed and Ground no. 4 may be allowed.

7.3 Ld. Counsel of the assesee further submitted that another case of a group company viz. M/s Glitz Builders and Promoters Pvt. Ltd. similar disallowance has been deleted by 14 ITA 4064, 1590/Del/2013 1763 & 4082/Del/2013

the ITAT vide order dated 2.12.2015 in ITA No. 1747/Del/2013 vide para no. 10. (copy at pages 138-143).

8. Ld. DR did not have any raised any objection to the aforesaid proposition of the ld. Counsel of the assessee.

9. We have heard the both parties and perused the relevant record available with us specially the impugned order passed by the Revenue Authorities; Paper Book filed by the assessee, we find considerable cogency in the contention of the ld. Counsel of the assessee that the issue raised in ground no. 4 is squarely covered by the Order dated 22.8.2014 of the ITAT, Delhi 'H' Bench passed in ITA No. 1752/Del/2013 (A.Y. 2006-07) in the case of M/s Westland Developers Pvt. Ltd., vs. ACIT wherein the Tribunal held that "Ground No. 3 on the facts available on record considering the judicial precedent referred to in detail wile deciding Ground NO. 4 has to be decided in favor of the assessee." Respectfully following the precedent as aforesaid, we allow this ground of the assessee."

20. In view of above, respectfully following the order of the Tribunal (supra),

we are inclined to hold that the CIT(A) was justified in granting relief to the

assessee and we are unable to see any infirmity, perversity or any other valid

reason to interfere in the order of the CIT(A). Accordingly, ground no. 2 is

dismissed.

21. In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No. 1590/D/2013 & ITA

No. 4064/Del/2013 are dismissed and appeal of the assessee in 1763/D/2013 is

dismissed and appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 4082/Del/2013 is partly

allowed.

15 ITA 4064, 1590/Del/2013 1763 & 4082/Del/2013

Order pronounced in the open court on 30.06.2015.

Sd/- Sd/-

(J.S. REDDY) (CHANDRAMOHAN GARG) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

DT. 30th JUNE 2015 'GS'

Copy forwarded to:-

1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. C.I.T.(A) 4. C.I.T. 5. DR By Order

Asstt. Registrar

16