Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chandigarh
Renaisance Buildcon Company (P) Ltd., ... vs Dcit Central Circle-1, Chandigarh on 26 September, 2017
1
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
CHANDIGARH BENCHES, 'B' CHANDIGARH
BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER &
Dr. B.R.R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
ITA No. 610 to 614/Chd/2016
Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13
M/s Renaissance Buildcon Company (P) Ltd., Vs. The DCIT,
Chandigarh CC-1,
Chandigarh
PAN No. AACCR9784R
(Appellant) (Respondent)
ITA No. 612/Chd/2016
Assessment Yeas: 2010-11
M/s Renaissance Buildcon Company (P) Ltd., Vs. The DCIT,
Chandigarh CC-1,
Chandigarh
PAN No. AACCR9784R
(Appellant) (Respondent)
Appellant By : Sh. P.N. Monga & Sh. Manu Monga
Respondent By : Sh. Ravi Sarangal
Date of hearing : 20.09.2017
Date of Pronouncement : 26.09.2017
ORDER
Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member:
The above captioned appeals relating to the same assessee for different assessment years have arisen from the separate orders of the Commissioner 2 of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, [hereinafter referred to as CIT(A)], Gurgaon dated 29.02.2016 which are in relation to the assessment proceedings carried out in respect of issuance of notice u/s 153A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act').
2. As per the Assessing officer, a search action u/s 132(1) of the Act was conducted on Chinar Group of cases on 08.09.2011 by the Investigation Wing (Income Tax), Chandigarh. Since the assessee was also one of the concerns covered under the said search action u/s 132 of the Act, hence, the assessee was also asked to file its return u/s 153A of the Act for the years falling within six assessment years immediately preceding the assessment year relevant to previous year in which search action was carried out. The assessee filed objections against the said notices issued u/s 153A of the Act by the Assessing officer stating therein that no search action was ever carried out in the premises of the assessee u/s 132 of the Act. However, only a survey action u/s 133A of the Act was carried out. Since the provisions of section 153A are applicable only in respect of search action u/s 132 of the Act, hence, the assessee was not covered and, therefore, the notice was liable to be vacated. Since the Assessing officer did not withdraw the notices u/s 153A of the Act, the assessee filed its return of income. The Assessing officer carried out the assessment proceedings and made additions. The main addition made by the Assessing officer was in respect of the interest income by treating the same as 'income from other sources' as against the business income declared by the assessee.
3. Mr. Monga, Ld. Counsel for the assessee at the outset has raised three main contentions:-
3
i) That no search action u/s 132 of the Act has been carried out at the premises of the assessee, hence, the assessment carried out u/s 153A of the Act was illegal and void abinitio.
ii) Since no incriminating material was found during the search action, hence, no additions were warranted u/s 153A of the Act.
iii) The interest income from FDRs has rightly been offered by the assessee as its business income and there was no merit in the action of the Assessing officer in treating the said income as 'income from other sources'.
4. Firstly we take up the legal issues raised by the counsel for the assessee. For the sake of convenience, ITA No. 610/Chd/2016 for assessment year 2009-10 is taken as the lead case.
(i) Whether any search action u/s 132 of the Act was carried out at the premises of the assessee.
5. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee has invited our attention to the opening lines of the assessment order dated 28.3.2014 wherein it has been mentioned that a search u/s 132(1) of the Act was conducted at Chinar Group of cases on 8.9.2011 by the Investigation Wing (Income tax), Chandigarh. He thereafter has invited our attention to the paper book pages 1 to 5. Pages No.1 & 2 constitutes, a letter dated 18.11.2016 addressed by the Dy. CIT to the Ld. CIT (DR-1) which reveals that an information was sought by the Ld. DR from the concerned Assessing officer as to whether any search action u/s 132(1) was carried out in the premises of the assessee and whether an y 4 incriminating material was found during the search action?. In reply to the said letter, the Assessing officer sent a letter dated 18.11.2016 alongwith copies of warrants of authorization u/s 132 (1), Panchnama drawn in the case of the assessee along with appraisal report and assessment records for assessment years 2009-10 to 2012-13. It has been stated therein that from the above documents, it was clear that the assessee company was also covered in search action carried out u/s 132(1) of the Act. In respect of second query, it has been stated that as per the provisions of section 153A of the Act, the Assessing officer can assess and re-assess the total income of six assessment years immediately preceding the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which search was conducted and that a search was conducted at the business premises of the assessee and various incriminating evidences were found.
6. Now coming to the documents relied upon by the Assessing officer, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee has invited our attention to the authorization letter dated 8.9.2011 wherein the name of three persons have been mentioned i.e. Sanjay Gambir, Reena Gambir and M/s Renaissance Buildcon Company Pvt. Ltd.(assessee). The address of the place where the search action has to be / has been carried out is mentioned as "N-56, Panchsheel Park, New Delhi". The next document is copy of Panchnama dated 4.10.2011 related to the aforesaid search, wherein, the name of the searched persons and address of the persons searched is same as mentioned above. The third document is copy of the authorization u/s 132(1) of the Act wherein the name of the searched persons have been mentioned as B.C.L. Homes Ltd, M/s Renaissance Buildcon Company Pvt. Ltd.(assessee) and N.K. Gupta Builders Pvt Ltd. The address of the premises to be search is mentioned as 5 'Kishanpura, adjoining Sector 20, Panchkula. The next document is the Panchnama related to the aforesaid search action which is in the name of M/s BCL Homes Ltd, Kishanpura adjoining Sector 20, Panchkula. The name of the assessee is missing in the said Panchnama dated 9.9.2011. The next document is again an authorization letter dated 6.9.2011 u/s 132(1) of the Act which is in the Name of Baldev Chand Bansal, Tarjinder Bansal, BCL Homes Ltd and M/s Renaissance Buildcon Company Pvt. Ltd.(assessee) and the place of search has been mentioned as H. No. 253, Sector 7, Panchkula. Thereafter is placed a copy of the Panchnama dated 16.9.2011 related to be above stated search action which is in the name of Shri Baldev Chand Bansal, H.No. 253, Sector 7, Panchkula. Thereafter is placed a copy of authorization letter dated 7.9.2011 u/s 133A of the Act which is in the name of the assessee company M/s Renaissance Buildcon Company Pvt. Ltd. and M/s DDS Glohat Capital Ltd. Pursuant to which a survey action u/s 133A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') was carried out at the premises of the assessee. The address of the assessee in the said authorization u/s 133A of the Act has been mentioned as "F-1/9, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-1, New Delhi'.
7. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee at this stage has invited our attention to the various letters issued by the Assessing officer to the assessee including the notice issued u/s 153A of the Act, which have been placed at pages 5 to 12 of the paper book filed by the assessee. In the aforesaid notice dated 3.9.2013 issued u/s 153A of the Act to the assesse, the address of the assessee has neem mentioned as under:-
"M/s Renaissanace Buildcon Company Pvt Ltd., F-1/9, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-1, New Delhi "6
The Ld. Counsel for the assessee has further explained that the address mentioned in the first Authorization and Panchnama as discussed above i.e. 'N-56, Pacnhsheel Park, New Delhi' is the residential address of the directors of the assessee company namely Sanjay Gambhir and Renna Gambhir. The Ld. Counsel submitted that none of the documents relied upon by the Department shows the factum of any search action carried out at the business premises of the assessee which is at 'F-1/9, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-1, New Delhi' The only document in this respect is the survey action u/s 133A of the Act. At this stage, we deem it appropriate to mention here that during the earlier hearing, the Ld. DR had requested for an adjournment so as to verif y from the assessment record and other material on record as to whether any search action was carried out at the business premises of the assessee. On being asked as to whether the Ld. DR has got access to assessment records?; he has stated that the assessment records have been available with him. The Ld. DR could not point out from the records an y evidence to show that the address of the premises of the assessee was not that of 'Okhla Industrial Area, New Delhi' but was the one which has been mentioned in any of the authorization letter / Panchnama etc. relied upon by the Revenue. From the above evidences on the file, it has been proved beyond doubt that no search action u/s 132(1) of the Act has ever been carried out in the preemies of the assessee at 'F-1/9, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase -1, New Delhi'. It is also pertinent to mention here that the assessee also filed objections pursuant to the issue of notice u/s 153A of the Act stating that no search action was carried out at it premises, but the Assessing officer conveniently ignored the said objections and proceeded to frame the assessment u/s 153A of the Act. The Assessing officer even has not discussed 7 in the assessment order about the aforesaid objections raised by the assessee vide his letter dated 16.9.2013. The Assessing officer, however, playing smart, mentioned the address of the assessee company in the assessment order as 'N-56, Panchsheel Park, New Delhi'. When asked to explain, the Ld. DR could not substantiate that the address of the assessee was that of 'N-56, Panchsheel Park, New Delhi' rather, the address of the assessee was confirmed to be that of 'F-1/9, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-1 New Delhi'. Since no search action u/s 132 of the Act has been carried out at the business premises of the assessee, only a survey action u/s 133A of the Act was carried out, hence, the assessment carried out in the case of the assessee u/s 153A of the Act was illegal and void abinitio. Thus, issue is accordingl y decided in favour of the assessee.
(ii) No incriminating material found during search action
8. Though, as discussed above, we have already held that no search action was carried out at the premises of the assessee, yet the Ld. counsel for the assessee has submitted that assuming, for the sake of arguments, that a search action was carried out in the case of assessee, still the Revenue has not pointed out any incriminating material found during the search action. He has further submitted that the original assessment proceedings for the assessment year under consideration had already attained finality as on the date of search. That even the limitation period for issuance of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act for initiation of scrutiny assessment proceedings had expired and further that since no incriminating material was found during the search action, hence, no additions were warranted u/s 153A of the Act. He in this respect has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High 8 Court in the case of "All Cargo Global Logistics Ltd." 120 DTR 89 and of the Delhi High Court in the case of "CIT Vs. Kabul Chawla" 234 Taxman 300 ( Delhi) and in the case of "Principal CIT Vs. Meeta Gutgutia Prop M/s Ferns 'N' Petals", ITA 306/2017 and others decided vide order dated 25.5.2017.
9. The Ld. D.R., in rebuttal to this legal plea has submitted that the original assessment proceedings in this case were not completed under section 143(3) of the Act rather the returns filed by the assessee were processed under section 143(1) of the Act and under the circumstances the AO was empowered to examine and look into the issues as the same were not looked into while processing the return under section 143(1) of the Act.
10. We have considered the rival contentions. The Ld. AR has submitted that the issue relating to the validity of assessment made under section 153A without having any incriminating material found during the search action u/s 132 of the Act in case of completed assessments, even where the original return was processed under section 143(1) of the Act, has come into consideration before the co-ordinate Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of "The ACIT Cent. Cir. 33, Mumbai vs. Shri Jayendra P. Jhaveri" ITA Nos.2141, 2142, 2143 & 2144/M/2012 & CO Nos.248, 249, 250 & 251/M/2013 decided on 20.02.2014 (One of us being party to that order). The Tribunal has discussed the issue in detail and has made the following observations:
"8. The learned DR has also filed written submissions. To stress his point that the return processed u/s. 143(1) cannot be said to be an assessment but a mere intimation, he has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers P. Ltd." (2007) 291 ITR 500 (SC). His contention has been that in the case in hand the assessment was 9 not done originally u/s. 143(3) hence the estimation in question has been rightly made u/s. 153A of the Act by the AO. He has further contended that the principal laid down by the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of "All Cargo Global Logistics Ltd." 137 ITD 287 can be applied to the case where the original assessment was completed u/s. 143(3) of the Act and not to the case where the return was processed u/s. 143(1) of the Act.
9. We have considered the submissions of the learned DR. So far so the reliance placed by him in the case of "Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers P. Ltd." (supra) is concerned, we may observe that the issue before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in that case was regarding the reopening of the assessment u/s. 147 of the Act. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the proposition of law laid down by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of "Adani Exports v. Deputy CIT", (1999) 240 ITR 224 (Guj) was not applicable in that case. In the case of "Adani Exports" (supra), where the assessment was made u/s. 143(3) of the Act, and the AO did not hold any belief that income had escaped assessment on account of erroneous computation, the re-opening u/s. 147 made merely on the basis of audit objections was held to be bad in law by the Hon'ble High Court. In the case of "Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers P. Ltd." (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court while interpreting the provisions of section 143(1) and section 143(3) (as were in force during the relevant time period) has held that in case of assessment made u/s. 143(3), the assessment is made by the AO by applying his mind whereas in case of processing of return u/s. 143(1) of the Act, there is no application of mind by the AO and as such, if a new material comes into the knowledge of the AO and the requirements of section 147 of the Act are fulfilled, the AO is free to initiate proceedings u/s. 147 and the failure to take steps u/s. 143(3) will not render the AO powerless to initiate re-assessment proceedings even when intimation u/s. 143(1) had been issued. So the proposition of law laid down in the case of "Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers P. Ltd." (supra) relates to the powers of the AO for re-opening of assessment u/s. 147in relation to the assessment proceedings conducted under section 143(1) viz-a-viz u/s 143(3) of the Act. (as were in force during the relevant period, since section 143 has been further amended vide Finance Act 2008 w.e.f 01.04.2008.) It is to be noted that powers of the AO to re-open an assessment u/s. 147 is subject to limitation of time period as prescribed u/s. 149 of the Act. So the reasonable conclusion will be that whether the return was processed u/s. 143(1) or u/s. 143(3), if the AO has a reason to believe that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment, he can re-open the assessment u/s. 147 by issuing 10 notice u/s. 148 but within the time limit as prescribed u/s. 149 of the Act.
10. So far so, the question as to the processing of return u/s. 143(1) viz-a-viz assessment made u/s. 143(3) is concerned, it may further be observed that after processing of return u/s. 143(1) the same can be assessed u/s. 143(3) by issue of notice u/s. 143(2) subject to its issuance within the limitation period of 12 months from the end of the month in which return is furnished as per the proviso to clause (ii) of section 143(2) [as was existing at the time of relevant assessment year] . Once the limitation period as prescribed vide proviso to clause (ii) of sub section (2) of section 143 is expired, it is not open to the AO to assess the income u/s. 143(3) of the Act and the return filed by the assessee u/s. 139 is deemed to be accepted, which however, can be re-opened u/s. 147 of the Act subject to the fulfillment of ingredients of section 147 and within the time period as prescribed u/s. 149 of the Act, as discussed in the preceding para. So under such circumstances if the return is processed u/s. 143(1) and not u/s. 143(3) and after the prescribed period of limitation, the same cannot be assessed u/s. 143(3) though it may be interpreted as mere intimation assessment or otherwise, but the same shall be deemed to be accepted by the AO and it will not have any different colour other than the return which is processed u/s. 143(3) of the Act. The only distinguishing feature as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers P. Ltd." (supra), would be that if to a set of facts and circumstances, the AO has applied his mind and he was of the belief that there was no escapement of income then for invoking the provisions of section 147 of the Act, he is precluded, on the basis of same facts and circumstances, to say that he has reason to believe that income of the assessee has escaped assessment. Whereas in case of returns processed u/s. 143(1), since the AO does not apply his mind, such a defense is not available to the assessee. However, that proposition of law does not help the revenue in the present case which is a case of assessment/re-assessment u/s. 153A of the Act.
11. Admittedly, in the case in hand, the return was processed u/s. 143(1) of the Act but the same has attained finality due to the expiry of limitation period of twelve months from the end of the month in which the return was filed. Hence, the assessment is deemed to be completed and not pending on the date of search on 14.08.2008. Admittedly, no incriminating material was found from the premises of the assessee during the search u/s. 132 of the Act. The Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of "All Cargo Global Logistics Ltd."(supra), has held that assessment u/s. 153A can be made on the basis of incriminating material 11 found during the search. The Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of "Jai Steel (India) v. ACIT" (2013) 259 CTR 281 has held that in case nothing incriminating is found on account of search or requisition, the question of reassessment of the concluded assessment does not arise. Under such circumstances, it is not open to the assessee to seek deduction or claim expenditure which has not been claimed in the original and already concluded assessment, in the case of assessment u/s. 153A in pursuance of search action. Hon'ble High Court rejected the argument of the learned counsel for assessee to the effect that once the notice u/s. 153A is issued, the assessments for six years are at large both for the AO and the assessee. It has been further held by the Hon'ble High Court that the provisions of section 153A to 153C cannot be interpreted to be further innings to the AO and/or assessee beyond the provisions of section 139(return of income), 139(5) (revised return of income), 147 (income escaping assessment) and 263(revision of orders) of the Act. The Hon'ble High Court has further observed that the words "assess"
or "re-assess" have been used at more than one place in the section and a harmonious construction of the entire provision would lead to an irresistible conclusion that the word 'assess' has been used in the context of abated proceedings and 'reassess' has been used for completed assessment proceedings, which would not abate as they are not pending on the date of initiation of the search or making of requisition and which would also necessarily support the interpretation that for the completed assessments, the same can be tinkered only on the basis of the incriminating material found during the course of search or requisition of documents. The Hon'ble High Court while reproducing the proposition of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "K P Varghese v. ITO" (1981) 24 CTR 358 "that it is recognized rule of construction that a statutory proviso must be so construed, if possible, that absurdity and mischief may be avoided" has observed that if the argument of the counsel for the assessee was to be accepted, it would mean that even in case where the appeal arises out of the completed assessment has been decided by the CIT(A) or Tribunal and the High Court, on a notice issues u/s. 153A of the Act, the AO would have power to undo what has been concluded by the High Court. Any interpretation which leads to such conclusion has to be repelled and/or avoided as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K P Varghese (supra).
Almost similar proposition of law has been laid down by the co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal Bench of the Tribunal in the case of "M/s Deepa Restaurant & Bar P. Ltd." in ITA 12 No.1336/M/2012 decided on 05.02.2014 (one of us being the party of the said order) wherein, it has been observed that where the scrutiny assessment order u/s. 143(3) of the Act was set aside by the higher authorities that, itself, cannot be a ground for re- opening the assessment u/s. 147 of the Act on the plea that since scrutiny assessment has been annulled on the legality of notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act and the case has not been heard at any of the stage hence, there was a reason to believe that the income assessed in this case has escaped assessment. The co-ordinate Bench in the above said case has further held that such an action cannot be allowed under the law as it may amount to defeating one of the statutory provisions in the grab of acting under other provisions of the statute. Once assessment u/s. 143(3) had been annulled by higher authorities on the ground of legality of notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act, re-opening u/s. 147 on that very ground would mean nothing else but the abuse of process of law. Hence, the contention of the learned DR that as the return was processed u/s. 143(1) and it was a mere intimation hence, the AO had reason to believe that income had escaped assessment and it was open to the AO to reassess the income u/s. 153A, even without any incriminating material found during the search action, is not tenable."
11. The above decision has also been followed by another co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal in the case of Atul Barot (HUF) vs. DCIT" in ITA No.2889/M/2011 & ors. decided on 26.02.2014. Further, the Special Bench Decision in the case of "All Cargo Global Logistics Ltd." (supra) has now been approved by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the cases of 'All Cargo Logistics' ITA No.1969 of 2013 and 'Continental Warehousing Corporation' ITA No. 523 of 2013 reported in (2015) 279 CTR 0389 (Bombay) decided by common order, wherein, it has been held that in relation to the assessments which have already been concluded, the AO was precluded from making additions on any other issue except relating or concerning to the incriminating material found during the search action. The AO cannot disturb the assessment order or reassessment order which has attained finality, unless the material gathered in the course of proceedings 13 u/s 153A of the Act establishes that relief granted under the final assessment/reassessment was contrary to the fact unearthed during the course of 153A proceedings. Identical view has been taken by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Murli Agro Products Ltd. ITA No.36 of 2009 decided vide order dated 29-10-2010 and by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the recent decision in the case of "Principal CIT Vs. Meeta Gutgutia Prop M/s Ferns 'N' Petals (supra)". We may mention here that the Hon'ble Delhi High Court has also discussed and distinguished the case of "Smt. Dayawanti Vs. CIT" in ITA 357/2015 & others dated 27.10.2016, which authority has been relied upon by the Ld. DR. It has been held that in the case of Smt. Dayawanti Vs. CIT", incriminating material was found during the search action, however, in the case of "Principal CIT Vs. Meeta Gutgutia Prop M/s Ferns 'N' Petals (supra)", no incriminating material was found during the search action, hence, the additions made by the Assessing officer were not justified.
Though we have already held that no search action u/s 132 of the Act was carried out at the premises of the assessee, however, even if it is assumed for the sake of arguments that a search action was carried out in the case of assessee, still the Revenue has not pointed out any incriminating material found during the search action. In view of the above discussion, this issue is also found covered in favour of the assessee by the various decisions of the High Courts of Bombay & Delhi as discussed above, and is decided accordingly.
12. Since not only the assessment proceedings carried out u/s 153 of the Act has been held illegal and void abinitio but also the additions made are held to be not justified in view of our adjudication on the second legal issue 14 raised by the assessee, hence, we do not deem it fit it necessary to adjudicate on the merits of the issue as to whether the interest income earned by the assessee was rightly offered by the assessee as business income or the same is to be assessed as income from other sources as has been done by the Assessing officer, the same being rendered only academic in nature.
In view of our observations made above, the appeals for assessment years 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13 are allowed in favour of the assessee.
ITA No. 612/Chd/2016 (assessment year 2010-11)
13. This appeal preferred by the assessee is in relation to the additions made by the Assessing officer pursuant to the rectification order dated 12.2.2015 passed u/s 154 of the Act. The Assessing officer observed from the records that as per the Form 26AS, the assessee during the year had received interest of Rs. 1,83,21,384/- from the bank and interest of Rs. 20,39,960/- from M/s Jagat Overseas. In this way total interest received by the assessee stood at Rs. 2,03,61,344/-. However, the assessee had shown in its return of income the total interest of Rs. 1,64,97,624/-. The Assessing officer added the balance amount of Rs. 38,63,720/- into the income of the assessee.
14. Before Ld. CIT(A), the assessee submitted that in fact the assessee had received the total interest from the bank of Rs. 1,44,57,664/- and from the Jagat Overseas of Rs. 20,39,960/-. The bank had deducted charges on pre-mature encashment of FDR at Rs. 38,63,720/-. It has bene submitted that as per the prevailing practice of the bank, the interest accrued was credited in full to the FDR account and charges are deducted in payments. Thus, the 15 different of Rs. 38,63,720/- was explained. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee however, observed that the bank charges deducted of Rs. 36,83,720/- against pre mature withdrawal of the FDRs partakes the character of expenses. We do not agree with the above findings of the Ld. CIT(A). The income tax authorities have to assess the real income of the assessee. If the assessee had got pre-mature withdrawals of its FDRs, the bank charges deducted out of the interest on such withdrawals are to be set off and only the actual interest income of the assessee is required to be assessed. However, since we have already set aside the assessment proceedings carried out u/s 153 A of the Act pertaining to the assessment year under consideration also and have also ordered the deletion of the addition made in the assessment carried out u/s 153A of the Act, hence, accordingly any addition made by the Assessing officer in the rectification order passed u/s 154 of the Act in relation to the assessment order passed u/s 153A of the Act has no legs to stand and the same is accordingly deleted.
15. In the result, this appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed.
Order pronounced in the Open Court on 26.09.2017
Sd/- Sd/-
(Dr. B.R.R. KUMAR) (SANJAY GARG)
ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
Dated : 26 .09.2017
Rkk
Copy to:
1. The Appellant
2. The Respondent
3. The CIT
4. The CIT(A)
5. The DR
16