Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi
Bina Kedia,, vs Assessee on 30 January, 2003
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
DELHI BENCH `F': NEW DELHI
BEFORE SHRI U.B.S. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND
SHRI K.D. RANJAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
I.T. A. No.1872/Del/2004
Assessment Year : 2000-01
Smt. Bina Kedia, Income-tax Officer,
E-281, greater Kailash-II, Vs. Ward 23(2), New Delhi.
New Delhi.
PAN/GIR No. AALPK1803C
I.T. A. No.2861/Del/2004
Assessment Year : 2000-01
Income-tax Officer, Smt. Bina Kedia,
Ward 23(2), New Delhi. Vs. E-281, Greater Kailash-II,
New Delhi.
(Appellants) (Respondents)
Assessee by : Shri Amit Goel, AR.
Department by : Shri C.B. Singh, Sr. DR.
ORDER
PER K.D. RANJAN, ACCOUNTAT MEMBER:
These cross appeals by the assessee and Revenue for Assessment Year 2000-01 arise out of the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-XVII, New Delhi. During the course of hearing the assessee filed concise grounds of appeal which are reproduced as under:-2
"1. On the facts & circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of assessing officer of treating the salary income of Rs.60000/- as income from other sources and disallowing standard deduction u/s 16(1) amounting to Rs.20000/-.
2.a On the facts & circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the appellant was not entitled to exemption u/s 54F of the Income Tax Act.
b. In the return of income, the appellant has claimed deduction/ exemption of Rs.808034/- u/s 54F of Income Tax Act, 1961 and on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of assessing officer of denial of deduction u/s 54F of Income Tax Act.
c. The reasons and grounds given by the assessing officer as well as Ld. CIT(A) for denial of exemption u/s 54F are incorrect & erroneous and not sustainable.
3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.114103/- made by assessing officer as under valuation of closing stock of shares.
4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.200000/- made by assessing officer under section 68 of Income Tax Act on account of Sunil Sharma.
5. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.17000/- made by assessing officer under section 68 of Income Tax Act on account of Sunila Kedia.
6. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.40000/- (Rs.20000 + Rs.20000) made by assessing officer under section 68 of Income Tax Act on account of Meera Aggarwal & Neeru Kanodia."3
2. The grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue are reproduced as under:-
"On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in :
(a) The assessee has not produced evidence in the form of purchase bills in respect of said shares at any point of time.
(b) The alleged transactions were made through an entity which is closely related to the assessee.
(c) Such large transactions were shown to made off the exchange floor.
(d) No money had been actually transferred at the time of purchase.
(e) The rate of hsare of M/s. Rajdhani Securities has been taken at Rs.17.50 only on the strength only 50 shares of this company traded at D.S.E. during the entire year.
(f) That section 68 talks of credit of any sum in the books of account and it does not mention that only on the physical transfer of money it comes into the picture as held by the Ld. CIT(A)."
3. Ground No.1 raised by the assessee relates to confirming the action of the Assessing Officer of treating the salary income of Rs.60,000/- as income from other sources and disallowing standard deduction under sec. 16(1) amounting to Rs.20,000/-. During the course of hearing, this ground of appeal was not pressed. Therefore, this ground raised by the assessee is dismissed as not pressed.
4. Second issue for consideration relates to disallowing the claim of exemption u/s 54F of the Act. The facts of the case stated in brief are that the assessee in the return of income had shown long-term capital gains of 4 Rs.8,08,034/-. The assessee sold 66,200 shares of Rajdhani Securities for a sum of Rs.11,55,190/-. The assessee after reducing the cost of acquisition at Rs.3,94,000/- determined the capital gains of Rs.7,61,190/-. Another sale of shares was in respect of 125 shares of Castrol for a sum of Rs.53,108/-. The cost of acquisition was at Rs.6,264/-. The capital gain on account of sale of 125 shares of Castrol was Rs.46,844/-. The assessee thus earned long term capital gain of Rs.8,08,034/- which was claimed as deduction u/s 54F of the Act. The AO in order to verify the contention of the assessee required the assessee to produce copies of bills in respect of sale and cost of shares of Rajdhani Securities and Castrol. As to this query the assessee vide letter dated 30th January, 2003 filed copies of sale bills of M/s. Rajdhani Securities and Castrol but copies of purchase bills were not filed. The assessee was again requested to produce copies of purchase bills of M/s. Rajdhani Securities and Castrol vide questionnaire dated 14.2.2003 but no compliance was made in this regard. The assessee did not file copies of purchase bills in respect of shares. The AO in order to verify the genuineness of transactions issued summons to Shree Balaji Share Trading Company, the share broker calling for details in respect of shares sold. The said summons was received back. The AO again issued summons at the new address traced out but the share broker did not produce the complete details as to further sale of shares 5 of M/s. Rajdhani Securities purchased from Smt. Bina Kedia. The stock register was also not produced. However, the AO referred to quotation list of DSE as of 12.02.2000. On perusal of the same it was seen that on 20.09.1999 only 50 shares of M/s. Rajdhani Securities have been undertaken at Delhi Stock Exchange. The Assessing Officer therefore, came to the conclusion that only transaction of 50 shares might have been taken place. He was therefore, of the view that the thin trading of shares would not reflect the true market value of shares. The same are only artificial rates as per the design and scheme of the management. The rate of Rs.17.50 had been based on trading of only 50 shares. He also observed that intrinsic value of shares of M/s. Rajdhani Securities Ltd. would be much less than the declared value of Rs.17.50 on 20.09.1999. He further referred to the report of the DDIT (Investigation), Gurgaon dated 17.3.2003 wherein it was mentioned that M/s. Rajdhani Securities Ltd. had taken accommodation entries/bogus capital gain entries of M/s. R.K. Aggarwal & Co. on various dates amounting to more than Rs.40,00,000/-. The AO further noted that no money transaction had taken place between the assessee and Shree Balaji Share Trading Co. Therefore, the transactions between the assessee and said concern were doubtful. The AO therefore, concluded that the assessee had arranged bogus capital gain in respect of shares of M/s. Rajdhani Securities 6 Ltd. with the help of concerns which are in direct/indirect control of the assessee. Therefore, credit entries amounting to Rs.11,55,190/- as to the shares of M/s. Rajdhani Securities Ltd. was treated as unexplained entries in the books of the assessee. As regards sale of shares of Castrol since the assessee had not furnished the purchase bills, the sale consideration of Rs.53,108/- was treated as income from other sources. Since the AO treated the profits on sale of shares as bogus transactions, he disallowed the claim for deduction under sec.54F of the Act. The AO also observed that as on the date of sale the assessee was owner of a DDA flat which was reflected in the balance-sheet, and therefore, as per Proviso to sec. 54F deduction was not allowable to the assessee. The AO accordingly, disallowed the claim of the assessee for deduction under sec. 54F of the Act.
5. Before CIT(A) the assessee reiterated similar arguments. The ld. CIT(A) decided the matter in favour of the assessee by holding that no addition can be made by the AO on account of sale proceeds of shares of M/s. Rajdhani Securities Ltd. and M/s. Castrol India. While deciding this issue in favour of the assessee the learned CIT(A) held as under:-
"3.2.1The AO in his comments on the appellants submission has almost reiterated the issues raised in the assessment order. I have considered the reasoning given by the AO and the submissions made by the appellant carefully. The appellant has filed before the AO as well as before me the details of shares of Rajdhani Securities held by the appellant and these shares were 7 purchased prior to 31-3-96 are recorded in the balance sheet starting from 1993-94 to 1999-2000 wherein the additions made were also disclosed. The rate of purchase of such shares can be verified from the details of investment attached with these balance sheets. Thus, merely that the appellant has not produced the purchase bill, it cannot be said that the appellant was not owning such shares and that the cost of acquisition cannot be ascertained because in the balance sheets the cost of acquisition is being reflected and it is the same cost which the appellant has claimed as the cost of acquisition. This fact has been confirmed by M/s. Rajdhani Securities Ltd. that the appellant was holding 76200 shares of Rajdhani Securities Ltd. as on 31-3-1999. The details are provided since 31-3-1994. The appellant has adduced reasonable e3vidence to show the ownership of shares and also the cost of acquisition of shares.
The AO has not doubted the sale of 10000 shares of Rajdhani Securities from which the appellant has shown short term capital gains while the sale rate is almost the same i.e. Rs.17.45 per share and the sale is made through the same broker i.e. Shree Balaji Share Trading Company. The AO has also not brought any evidence on record to show that the intrinsic value of shares of Rajdhani Securities was less than the sale rate shown by the appellant while the appellant has produced the copy of return filed by M/s. Rajdhani Securities showing a positive taxable income. The appellant has adduced reasonable evidence to show that the shares were sold through a broker which ahs been confirmed by the broker and the physical delivery has been given. The distinctive no. of shares has also been mentioned. The copy of account of the appellant in the books of broker is also filed. Merely that the sale proceeds have actually not been paid during the year by the broker does not lead to proving the transaction as sham transaction. The broker has not disputed the liability to pay the money to the appellant and the appellant has shown the sale proceeds as receivable. The appellant is not supposed to bring evidence to as to whom the broker has sold the shares after purchasing the same from the appellant. The AO has also not brought any evidence to prove that the same shares have retraced back to the appellant by quoting the distinctive nos.8
etc. and by making the enquiry from Rajdhani Securities. Merely that the appellant was a director in the company M/s Rajdhani Securities does not lead to the sale of shares of Rajdhani by the appellant as a sham transaction. The AO has not quoted any reference from the investigation report whether the transaction made by the appellant through M/s Shree Balaji Share Trading Co. was found to be sham or bogus and in case any enquiry was made against M/s Rajdhani Securities the same itself does not prove that all transaction of sale and purchase of Rajdhani Securities are sham. In view of the above detailed facts, I find considerable force in the arguments of the appellant that the transaction of sale of shares of Rajdhani Securities cannot be treated as bogus or sham and the findings given by the AO cannot be upheld. Accordingly, the AO is directed to compute the capital gains from the sale of shares of Rajdhani Securities. Similar is the position in the case of sale of shares of Castor India because that is a reputed and a regularly quoted company. The cost of acquisition has been proved by the appellant from the cost of acquisition shown in the Balance Sheet. There is nothing to doubt the transaction and the AO is directed to compute the capital gains from the sale of shares of Castrol India. Accordingly, no addition made by the AO on account of sale proceeds of shares of Rajdhani Securities and Castro India can be sustained and the same is deleted."
6. Coming to claim of deduction u/s 54F the learned CIT(A) observed that the assessee was owner of another house on the date of investment of capital gains in the purchase of a house. He further observed that possession of DDA flat was given to the assessee in Assessment Year 2001-02 but he assessee had applied for flat much earlier and the allotment has been made in favour of the assessee prior to purchase of new property. Once an allotment letter was issued the assessee became owner of the property. The assessee's 9 case was also covered under Proviso (a)(ii) to section 54F according to which exemption could not be allowed if the assessee purchases any residential hosue other than a new asset within a period of one year after the date of transfer of a capital asset (because even as per assessee's own version the possession of DDA flat was allotted within a period of one year). He further noted that it was irrelevant whether provisions of section 22 or 23 could be applied for considering any claim for exemption from capital gains on account of investment as per provision of Sec.54F(1) of the Act. The learned CIT(A) accordingly upheld the stand of the AO that the assessee was not eligible for deduction u/s 54F of the Act.
7. Before us the learned AR of the assessee submitted that the possession of the flat was given in July, 2001. The property purchased was capable of let out and the income was chargeable to tax u/s 22 of the Act. The assessee had transferred shares in September and October, 1999. Therefore, as on the date of transfer of shares, the assessee was not owner of any house property. He placed reliance on the decision of Bombay High Court in the case of Shri Nirmal Commercial Ltd. vs. CIT, 193 ITR 694, for the proposition that property owned by the assessee should be capable of being let out in order to decide whether the assessee was owner of the property on the date of 10 transfer of capital asset. On the other hand, the learned Sr. DR supported the order of the CIT(A).
8. We have heard both the parties and gone through the material available on record. The assessee was allotted flat No.261 on 5th Floor, Sector-19, Dwarka vide letter dated 28th June, 2001, and possession thereof was given to the assessee on 21.07.2001. U/s 54F in a case capital gain arising on transfer of any long term capital asset, not being a residential house, shall be exempt from tax if the assessee has within a period of one year before or two years after the date on which the transfer took place purchased, or has within a period of three years after that date constructed, a residential house, if the cost of new asset is not less than the net consideration in respect of original asset. However, no deduction under sec. 54F will be available in a case where the assessee owns on the date of transfer of original asset or purchases within a period of one year after such date or constructs, within the period of three years after such date any residential house, the income from which is chargeable to tax under the head "Income from house property", other than the new asset. The learned CIT(A) has mentioned that as on the date of transfer the assessee was owner of another house and hence benefit of sec.54F was not available. We find that the flat in Dwarka was allotted on 28.06.2001 (possession taken on 11 21.07.2001). Thus the assessee was not owner of any house on the date of transfer of capital assets. Ld. CIT(A) has also held that benefit of sec. 54F cannot be granted as the assessee had purchased residential house other than the new asset within the period of one year after the date of transfer of capital asset as DDA flat was acquired by her within one year. In this case the assessee sold 125 shares of Castrol on 21.08.1999 for a sum of Rs.53,108.75 and 66200 shares of Rajdhani Securities on 4.10.1999 for a sum of Rs.11,55,190 through Shree Balaji Share Trading Company. Therefore, the DDA flat was not acquired within one year from the date of transfer of capital asset. Hence proviso to section 54F is not applicable in the case of assessee. The Assessing Officer had accepted short term capital gain in respect of sale of shares of Rajdhani Securities (10,000 shares) through Shree Balaji Share Trading Co. Shree Balaji Share Trading Co. was not a registered member of stock exchange. Therefore, these shares have not been traded through stock exchange. The assessee was one of the directors of Rajdhani Securities Ltd. It is also a fact that the assessing officer received information from DDIT stating therein that Rajdhani Securities Ltd. was engaged in taking bogus/accommodation entries through M/s. R.K. Aggarwal & Co. Since Shree Balaji Share Trading Co. is not a registered share broker, it is not understood as to how the shares were purchased and 12 sold by it. The assessing officer had also observed that Shree Balaji Share Trading Co. could not tell the name of the parties to whom shares of Rajdhani Securities Ltd. were sold. Thus the issue of share trading through an unregistered share broker becomes doubtful. We therefore, set aside the matter to the file of the assessing officer with the directions to investigate the matter further and determine whether sale transactions of share were genuine. The assessing officer shall provide opportunity of being heard to the assessee. In case share transactions are found to be genuine, the assessee will be eligible for deduction u/s 54F of the Act. In the light of above discussion we set aside the matter to the file of the assessing officer for deciding the issue afresh.
9. Next issue for consideration relates to confirming the addition of Rs.1,14,103/- made by the AO as under valuation of closing stock. The AO made addition on the ground that the assessee was holding 260 shares of M/s. Pentasoft Media valuing at Rs.3,28,797/- and during the year 150 bonus shares were allotted which were sold by the assessee. The closing stock of 260 shares was valued by the assessee at Rs.2,14,694/- by taking the average cost of 410 shares (260 original shares + 150 bonus shares), which the AO did not accept on the ground that the cost of bonus shares was `Nil'. 13 The AO therefore, valued the shares at original cost and made addition of Rs.1,14,013/-.
10. On appeal, it was argued by the assessee that shares of M/s. Pentasoft Media were part of stock-in-trade and was not capital asset. Hence, the AO was not justified in disturbing the cost of closing stock worked out by the assessee by spreading the cost of original shares over bonus shares. It was also claimed that the provisions of sec. 55(2) of the Act were not applicable to the case of the assessee. Accordingly, the cost of bonus shares was taken at `Nil' because the profit from sale of shares of M/s. Pentasoft Media was treated as business income. The learned CIT(A) after considering the submissions made by the assessee observed that the shares sold out of stock were identifiable because as per the assessee's own version, it was bonus shares which were allotted during the year and sold. Therefore, it was admitted fact that bonus shares were allotted during the year without any consideration. In such a situation, the assessee could not reduce cost of balance shares after the sale of bonus shares because even for working out the income from business or profession, only purchase cost of the stock could be allowed to the assessee against the sales of that particular stock and it would not disturb the cost of balance stock. The learned CIT(A) accordingly upheld the stand taken by the AO.
14
11. Before us the learned AR of the assessee submitted that shares of M/s. Pentasoft Media formed part of trading portfolio, the assessee had applied average cost of acquisition for the purpose of valuation of closing stock by including the bonus shares. The Assessing Officer had made addition in respect of valuation of closing stock of Pentasoft Media. However, he has accepted valuation of closing stock in other shares at average rate. On the other hand, the learned Sr. DR supported the order of the CIT(A).
12. We have heard both the parties and gone through the material available on record. There is no dispute about the fact that during the year under consideration the assessee had sold 150 bonus shares allotted to her. Therefore, on the last date of accounting year the assessee was having 260 original shares of M/s. Pentasoft Media. These shares were held as stock-in- trade. The learned AR of the assessee had relied on the decision of Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Sant Ram Mangat Ram, 275 ITR 312, for the proposition that where the assessee had adopted the same method of valuation from year to year, the AO cannot change the method of valuation. This decision is not applicable to the facts of the assessee's case. From above facts it is clear that the assessee was holding shares of M/s. Pentasoft Media under trading portfolio. As on the last date of accounting year the bonus shares were not available. The assessee had 15 not incurred any cost for acquisition of bonus shares. At the time of sale of bonus shares entire sale proceeds has been credited in the profit & loss account. It is not the case of the assessee that she had debited the P&L account by the average cost of bonus shares. Therefore, the closing stock of original shares will be valued either at the cost price or market price whichever is lower. Accordingly, in our considered opinion when the assessee was holding original shares as on the last date of the accounting year, the AO was justified in taking the value at cost price or market price, whichever is lower. Average cost of shares cannot be taken for the valuation of shares as on the last date of accounting year. Hence, we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the learned CIT(A) upholding the stand of the AO.
13. Next issue for consideration relates to confirming the addition of Rs.2,00,000/-made by the AO u/s 68 of the Act. The facts relating to this ground are that in the statement of affairs as on 31st March, 2000 on the liability side a sum of Rs.2 lakh has been shown against the name of Shri Sunil Sharma. The assessee was asked to furnish confirmation. In response to the query raised a confirmation of Shri Sunil Sharma was filed stating therein that he had given a stamp papers of Rs.2 lakh to Mrs. Bina Kedia when she purchased flat at E-281, Greater Kailash-II, New Delhi during the 16 financial year 1999-2000. This contention of the assessee was rejected by the AO on the ground that stamp papers are always purchased on cash basis. The AO issued summons u/s 131 to Shri Sunil Sharma but he had not responded. This fact was brought to the notice of the assessee. The AO again issued summons u/s 131 which remained un-complied with. In view of above facts the AO made addition of Rs.2 lakh.
14. Before the learned CIT(A) it was contended that the amount of Rs.2,00,000/- was payable to Shri Sunil Sharma who made a purchase of stamp papers on credit. Shri Sunil Sharma was broker. However, this contention of the assessee was rejected on the ground that it was not possible to accept the contention of assessee that stamp papers were purchased on credit, particularly when assessee had purchased property worth Rs.25 lakhs. This fact was not substantiated by any corroborative evidence. The learned CIT(A) accordingly upheld the stand of the AO.
15. Before us, the learned AR of the assessee reiterated the similar arguments. It was also submitted that matter may be set aside to the file of the AO so that further enquiry could be made by the AO. On the other hand, the learned Sr. DR strongly opposed the request for setting aside the issue to the file of the AO. He supported the order of the CIT(A).
17
16. We have heard both the parties and gone through the material available on record. Shri Sunil Sharma is property dealer. In case of purchase of properties, the duty of a broker/property dealer is to get the deals finalized between the purchaser and seller. He walks away with commission agreed to between the parties. Under no circumstances, it is the duty of property dealer to purchase stamp paper on behalf of purchaser of the property. Moreover, no documentary evidence has been brought on record to suggest that Shri Sunil Sharma has in fact purchased the stamp papers on behalf of the assessee. Shri Sunil Sharma had not appeared before the assessing officer even when he had issued summons two times. In the absence of any evidence to corroborate the contention of the assessee, in our considered opinion, the learned CIT(A) has rightly upheld the stand of the AO on the issue.
17. Next issue for consideration relates to confirming the addition of Rs.17,000/- made by the AO u/s 68 of the Act. The facts relating to this ground of appeal are that the assessee received Rs.17,000/- from Ms. Sunila Kedia. The AO noted that the creditor had not filed return of income for Assessment Year 2000-01. As per assessee's version the return of income was not filed as the income of the alleged creditor was less than the exemption limit. The AO also noted that there was difference in signatures. 18 The AO added the amount on the ground that the creditworthiness of the creditor was not proved.
18. Before the CIT(A) it was submitted that Mrs. Sunila Kedia was sister- in-law of the assessee who advanced money for purchase of shares and hence it was not a cash credit. It was also claimed that difference in signatures was on account of subsequent marriage of Mrs. Sunila Kedia due to which the surname of the husband was added. Since the identity and creditworthiness of the creditor and genuineness of the transaction was proved, no addition was required to be made in the hands of the assessee. The learned CIT(A) however, rejected the contention of the assessee that since Mrs. Sunila Kedia was maintaining bank account in more than three banks but still she had given the loan in cash. Moreover, the genuineness of transaction remained unproved. The learned CIT(A) further observed that it was a cover-up situation because while preparing the accounts when the assessee had found that investments were exceeding the sources accounted for that such advances were allegedly shown as receipt in the back date and subsequently squared up against the alleged sale of shares. The learned CIT(A) accordingly upheld the addition made by the AO.
19. Before us the learned AR of the assessee could not adduce any evidence in support of his contention that amount of Rs.17,000/- was 19 received from Smt. Sunila Kedia though it has been stated that Mrs. Sunia Kedia was sister-in-law of the assessee. However, since no evidence was adduced to prove genuineness of the transaction and the source of transaction of the creditor, in our considered opinion, the learned CIT(A) was justified in upholding the addition.
20. The last issue for consideration relates to confirming the addition of Rs.40,000/- made u/s 68 of the Act in respect of Meera Devi and Neeru Kanodia. During the course of assessment proceedings the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee had shown to have received amounts of Rs.20,000/- each in cash from Meera Devi and Neeru Kanodia. During the course of assessment proceedings it was explained that the assessee had received advances against purchase of shares. The assessee filed copy of account of these persons for F.Y. 2000-01. From the copies of accounts of these persons it was found that both the accounts were squared up in April, 2000 by making journal entries as to sale of shares to these parties. The evidence as to the sale of shares was also not brought on record. The AO also noted that one of the alleged creditors was of Mathura and the other of Jharkhand. The reason what prompted them to buy shares from the assessee who was not even sub-broker, was not known. Since the identity and 20 creditworthiness of the creditors and genuineness of the transactions were not established, the AO disallowed the amount of Rs.40,000/-.
21. The learned CIT(A) upheld the addition as the assessee could not give any evidence to prove the genuineness of the transaction.
22. When the case came up for hearing before us the assessee could not file any evidence to prove the genuineness of the transaction and creditworthiness and identity of the creditors. In the absence of any such evidence in our considered opinion, the learned CIT(A) was justified in confirming the addition. Accordingly, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) confirming the addition of Rs.40,000/-.
23. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.
24. Now, coming to the ground of appeal raised by the Revenue. The only issue for consideration relates to the deletion of addition made by the AO on account of long term capital gains in respect of shares of M/s. Rajdhani Securities Ltd. Since we have set aside the issue to the file of the assessing officer to examine sale of shares of Rajdhani Securities Ltd. afresh the appeal filed by Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes.
25. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes.
21
ITA Nos.1872 & 2861/Del/2004
26. To sum appeal, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and that of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes.
27. This decision is pronounced in the Open Court on 18th May, 2012.
Sd/- Sd/-
(U.B.S. BEDI) (K.D. RANJAN)
JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Dated: 18th May, 2012.
Copy of the order forwarded to:-
1. Appellant
2. Respondent
3. CIT
4. CIT(A)
5. DR
By Order
*mg Deputy Registrar, ITAT.