Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Amritsar
Gurdass Garg,, Bathinda vs Department Of Income Tax on 22 January, 2014
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
AMRITSAR BENCH; AMRITSAR.
BEFORE SH. H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER
AND SH. B.P.JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
I.T.A. No.456(Asr)/2013
Assessment year:2009-10
PAN :ADUPG2359M
Deputy Commissioner of Income tax, vs. Sh. Gurdas Garg,
Circle-1, Bathinda. Amrik Singh Road,
Bathinda.
(Appellant) (Respondent)
Appellant by:Sh. Mahavir Singh, DR
Respondent by:Sh.Vineet Krishan, Advocate
Date of hearing: 22/01/2014
Date of pronouncement:28/02/2014
ORDER
PER BENCH ;
This appeal of the Revenue arises from the order of CIT(A), Bathinda dated 19.03.2013 for the assessment year 2009-10.The Revenue has raised following grounds of appeal:
"1. The CIT(A) erred both in law and facts in deleting the disallowance of interest paid to banks when no interest was being charged on non-business advances, proportionately at Rs.7,76,043/- and in not appreciating that the advances were not being made in "commercial expediency" and the fact that these advances were made to such persons as had no business 2 ITA No.456(Asr)/2013 dealings with the assessee, noticeably for short periods during the year, so that the advances were all squared up during the year and did not find any placed in the asset side of the balance sheet of the assessee, so that it can be reasonably construed that the assessee lent the moneyes for benefits which can only be called personal and the want of funds for business due to such adhoc lending, has obviously been met out of interest being loans (Over Drafts) which were utilized even during the period the same funds were lent out of the cash kitty of the business of the assessee.
2. The CIT(A) erred both in law and facts in deleting the disallowance u/s 40A(3) made at Rs.33,71,275/- by failing to appreciate that the assessee had made payment of Rs.33,71,275/- in cash for purchase of property which was his stock in trade, and was thus struck by the provisions of section 40A(3) of the Act and that the assessee cannot take shelter of the proviso to section 40A(3) which provides that no disallowance is to be made where the expenditure has been under "considerations of business expediency and other relevant factors.." by mis-interpreting the provisions of section 40A(3) in so far as it mandates that it is not that any "business expediency" would be sufficient to circumvent the rigors of section 40A(3) as only the prescribed cases and circumstances were to be treated as "business expediency" as mandated only in Rule 6DD (a) to 6DD(I) of the I.T. Rules, 1962 while the case or circumstance of the assessee's impugned transaction is not found covered in any of the instances clearly detailed in Rule 6DD(a) to (I)."
2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is doing business of trading in properties in his individual name and trading of clothes under the name and style of M/s. Gurdas Exports as proprietory concern. During the course of assessment proceedings, it was noticed that the assessee was availing limit/loan facility from Allahabad Bank of Rs.10,00,000/- and from 3 ITA No.456(Asr)/2013 Indiabulls Financial Services Limited of Rs.61,00,000/- by pledging immovable assets. The loan/limit facility has been availed by paying interest @ 15.75% from Allahabad Bank and @ 22.25% from Indiabulls Financial Services Ltd. During the year, interest payments have been made to the tune of Rs.14,19,629/- in trading of real estate business and Rs.2,41,996/- in cloth trading business but interestingly the assessee did not charge any interest on the following loans advanced:
Sl.No. Name of the person Amount Date of Date on which advance payment was received back
1. Sh.Sunil Kumar Bansal 18,00,000 03.12.2008 24.03.2009 S/o Sh. Girdhari Lal, Bathinda, 27,00,000 04.12.2008 24.03.2009
2. Sh. Subhash Goyal C/o 11,00,000 05.09.2008 30.03.2009 M/s. Subhash Auto Home, Bathinda 3 M/s. Neha Enterprises 5,00,000 01.04.2008 16.04.2008 Prop. Sh. Tarlochan Kumar S/o Sh.Raj Kumar, Bathinda.
4. Smt. Seema Mittal 5,00,000 15.09.2008 19.03.2009
5. Smt. Anu 1,79,200/- 01.04.2008 06.03.2009
6. M/s. Saree Palace 30,00,000/- 01.04.2008 06.03.2009 The assessee was show cause vide letters dated 13.09.2011 and 10.10.2011 as to why the ratio of judgment in the case of CIT vs. Abhishek Industries Ltd. 286 ITR 1 and judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S. A. Builders Ltd. vs. CIT 288 ITR 1 be not applied and deduction claimed towards interest payment is disallowed proportionately. 4 ITA No.456(Asr)/2013
The assessee filed reply on 19.10.2011 which is reproduced in AO's order at pages 2 to 5. The AO observed that the reply of the assessee is not tenable as the assessee has failed to establish business relation with the debtors. Therefore, the issue under examination has been decided by banking upon the verdict of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S.A. Builders vs. CIT and another (SC) [2007] 288 ITR 1 wherein it was held that interest on borrowed capital can be proportionately disallowed in case interest free loans are given to the persons without commercial expediency . The APEX court has made a reference of the case of Madhav Parsad Jantia vs. CIT UP reported in AIR 1979 SC 1291 where it was held that the expression " for the purpose of business" occurring under the provision is wider in scope than the expression " for the purpose of earning income, profits or gains, And this has been the consistent view of the court. It is, therefore, extremely important that the borrowed amount is advanced to any person including a sister concern for the purpose of business. Further, the Court has held that the element of commercial expediency is of paramount importance and if there is no business connection or no transactional connection with the person to whom the loan has been advanced without charging any interest, it cannot be said that the assessee has used the borrowed funds for the purpose of business. The interest paid to the person 5 ITA No.456(Asr)/2013 from whom the loans were borrowed cannot be treated as an expenditure for the purpose of business being on a weak footing. In the instant case the assessee took loans from Allahabad Bank (Rs.10 lacs) and India Bulls Financial Services Ltd. (Rs.61 lacs ) and paid interest @ 15.75% and 22.25% respectively. Out of this money and the money available with the assessee, he advanced loans to such persons with whom he did not have regular business connection nor there was anything to show the commercial expediency or urgency. The Apex Court has stressed on the term "
Commercial Expediency" which has to be understood in common parlance. The word "Commerce" relates to some adventure of exchange of goods for a price where an element of profit is embedded. If there is no motive to earn profit, the word commerce loses its meaning. The second word used by the Apex court is "expediency" which means that there was an urgency or necessity in the direction of promotion of trade to earn profits as well as to proliferate the activities of business. The assessee had pledged his assets by paying huge interest but did not charge any money on such money which is not easy to procure from banks. The assessee also runs a great risk of losing all the pledged assets in case the loan fails. It is, therefore, incomprehensible that the assessee is not earning any money by using this money and did not charge interest from them. This is a 6 ITA No.456(Asr)/2013 strange conduct of a business where he seems to be doing charity instead of business. Similar in the ratio of judgment of Hon'ble P & H in the case of M/s. Abhishek Industries, 286 ITR 1 (P&H) read with judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S.A. Builders Ltd. vs. CIT (supra) In the instant case, the assessee has failed to prove whether there was any commercial expediency in advancing the interest free loans. In fact, the assessee has not even claimed that the aforesaid loans were given for the purpose of business or that there was any commercial expediency in advancing the same. It is also noticed that the assessee has taken amounts of secured loan from banks and other parties on which heavy interest was paid i.e. upto 22.25% per annum and immovable assets were pledged. Therefore, applying the ratio of judgment in the case of M/s. Abhishek Industries 286 ITR 1 (P&H) read with judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S.A. Builders vs. CIT (supra) an amount of Rs.7,76,043/- has been disallowed as expenditure. The working of interest @ 15.75% on the loans given without any commercial expediency is given below. The interest rate has been calculated at the minimum rate of interest paid to the banking institutions on the loans advanced in the interest of natural justice.:
S.No. Name of the Date Debit Date of Credit Interest
person balance credit amount @
15.875%
7 ITA No.456(Asr)/2013
1. Sh.Sunil Kumar 3.12.2008 18,00,000 24.3.2009 1,800,000 212.625
Bansal S/o Sh.
Girdhari Lal 04.12.2008 27,00,000 24.3.2009 2,700,00
Bhatinda
2. Sh.Subhash Goyal 05.09.2008 1,100,000 10.03.2009 1,00,000 97,694
C/o M/s. Subhash
Auto Home,
Bathinda
3. M/s. Neha 01.04.2008 500,000 16.04.2008 500,000 3.281
Enterprises Prop.
Sh Tirlochan
Kumar S/o Sh. Rai
Kumar Bathinda
4. Smt. Seema Mittal 500.000 1.094
5. Smt. Anu 179.200 28.224
6. M/s. Saree Palace 01`04.2008 3,000,000 06.03.2009 3,00,000 433.133
776,043
Going by above mentioned facts, it was held that the profits have been compromised by not charging of interest from loans advanced to different debtors which have no business expediency and heavy interest have been paid to the bank and other financial institutions. The facts and circumstances of the cases mentioned in the plea of the counsel in his reply are entirely distinguishable and not relevant to the circumstances of the present case. The reply of the assessee was not found plausible. The ratio of the judgment in the case of CIT vs. Abhishek Industries Ltd. 286 ITR 1 read with judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S.A. Builders Ltd. vs. CIT (Appeal) and others (288 ITR 1) is squarely applicable in this case. In 8 ITA No.456(Asr)/2013 view of above, an addition of Rs.7,76,043/- was made on account of non charging of interest from debtors.
3. As regards the second addition made by the AO, the facts of the case are that during the course of assessment proceedings the detail of closing stock as on 31.03.2009 along with sales/purchase during the year was obtained from assessee and placed on record. It was noticed that the entire purchases in respect of properties were made in cash and title deeds were registered with registrar of Revenue Department except purchase of one property amounting to Rs.8,86,175/- which was made through demand draft. The payment of cash in the purchase of stock in trade attracts provisions of section 40A(3) of the Act and such payments are liable to be disallowed. Supreme Court of India has vide its decision dated 07.08.1991 in the case of Attar Singh Gurmukh Sigh Vs. ITO (SC) 191 ITR 667 (SC), 97 CTR 251 (SC) has held that all such expenses shall be disallowed where there were no exigent reasons to make payment otherwise than a crossed cheque or bank draft. The title deeds were registered at a place i.e. Bathinda, which is well served by the banking facilities. The strength of Rule 6DD also does not provide support as both buyer and sellers are well versed with local banking conditions and there is nothing to show any emergent need to executed the deeds for such big amounts. The Hon'ble Supreme Court said "it will be 9 ITA No.456(Asr)/2013 clear from the provisions of section 40A(3) and rule 6DD that they are intended to regulate the business transactions and to prevent the use of unaccounted money or reduce the chances to use black money for business transactions . In Mudiam oil Company vs. ITO (1973) 92 ITR 519 A.P. If the payment is made by a crossed cheque drawn on a bank or a crossed bank draft then it will be easier to ascertain, when deduction is claimed, whether the payment was genuine and whether it was out of the income from disclosed sources. In interpreting a taxing statute the Court cannot be oblivious of the proliferation of black money which is under circulation in our country. Any restrain intended to curb the chances and opportunities to use or create black money should not be regarded as curtailing the freedom of trade or business." The closing stock of properties has been shown as stock in trade as is evident from balance sheet which has duly been attested by the Chartered Accountant The opportunity of being heard was afforded to the assessee vide letter dated 13.09.2011.
4. The assessee submitted the reply which is available at pages 8 to 14 of AO's order. The AO considered the reply of the assessee and submitted that it is correct that payment of Rs.1,78,150/- has been made to the government on account of purchase of stamp papers for registration of such title deeds of the said properties but no evidence regarding payment to the Arji Navis 10 ITA No.456(Asr)/2013 for drafting/writing the registration deeds has been furnished. Hence, the value of Rs.1,78,150/- made on account of purchase of stamp duty papers is liable to be deducted from the value of stock by considering the contravention of violation of section 40A(3) has no weightage as the assessee is maintaining many number of bank accounts and most of the title deeds have been registered with the Registrar, Bathinda which is the place where his office as well as residence is situated. Moreover, the sellers of the land/properties are also residents of Bathinda. Hence there is no possibility of emergency or business difficulty by preparing and issuing demand drafts to the sellers. These days everyone is maintaining bank accounts and no one can deny to receive the demand draft, nor he may have any complication or difficulty in preparing or encashment of the instrument. No hardship seems to be there in purchasing of demand draft or making payment order etc. Hence, the plea taken by the assessee is devoid of logical force. The assessee has brought nothing on record to show that he made slightest of efforts to convince the sellers to accept the payments by cheque/demand draft nor he could produce any evidence that the sellers of land refused to accept cheques/demand drafts. The real estates deals are such that it normally takes 2-3 months to complete a deal and there is hardly any emergency of any sort with such a long time available with the assessee. Bank drafts can 11 ITA No.456(Asr)/2013 be easily prepared. There might be a chance of a cheque getting bounced but a demand draft is as good as cash and can be credited to the bank a/c of seller in one day. The conduct of both buyer and sellers is not above suspicion and the circumstances clearly indicate that no effort was made to convince the sellers of land to accept crossed cheques/demand drafts nor anything has been brought on record by the assessee to substantiate his claim. It is for the assessee to prove that there were "EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES" to make cash payment to purchase stock-in-trade.
The case laws referred to by the assessee are distinguishable with the facts of the present case and these are not applicable in the circumstances of the case. The ratio of judgment of Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Attar Singh Gurmukh Singh vs. ITO (supra) is applicable in this case. Hence, the expenditure made by way of cash payment in purchase of stock in trade was disallowed and addition of Rs.33,71,275/- (Rs.35,49,425/- minus Rs.1,78,150/-) was made on this account.
5. The Ld. CIT(A) accepted the explanation of the assessee and deleted both the additions made by the AO vide order dated 19.03.2013.
6. The Ld. DR argued that the AO found that while the assessee was paying interest to banks and some other parties, no interest had been charged by him on loans to some persons. Relying on the ratio of the judgment of the 12 ITA No.456(Asr)/2013 jurisdictional High Court in the case of Abhishek Industries 286 ITR 1 he disallowed the claim of interest expenses proportionately at Rs.7,76,043/-. Also reliance was placed on the judgment of Apex Court in the case of S.A. Builders 288 ITR 1, in so far as it is clear that the advances were not made in "commercial expediency". The Ld. CIT(A) noted that though the assessee had foregone interest on some of the interest free advances he had made to some persons, he had also not paid interest to many of the persons from whom he had availed of interest free loans. Thus, he was having enough of interest free borrowings at its disposal. He accepted a submission of the assessee showing deemed interest not paid on interest free loans at Rs.10,20,360/- vis-à-vis foregone interest on interest free advances given at Rs.6,30,380/-. It was accordingly held by him that the assessee had enough of interest free borrowings as its disposal. The facts have not been correctly appreciated by the ld. CIT(A). It is a fact that these advances were made to such perons as had no business dealings with the assessee for a short periods during the year, so that the advances were all squared up during the year and did not find any place in the asset side of the balance sheet of the assessee. The assessee lent the moneys for benefits which can only be called personal and the want of funds for business due to such adhoc lending has obviously been met out of interest bearing loans which were utilized even 13 ITA No.456(Asr)/2013 during the period the same funds were lent out of the cash kitty of the business of the assessee. The contentions of the assessee tat it has substantial amount of interest free borrowings on which no interest had been charged by him, is true. However, this fact does not help the case of the assessee, because despite such interest free unsecured loans that it had been enjoying during the year, it did have bank loans on which it had to pay interest and also because the lending of interest free short term advances to persons who had no business dealings with the assessee, cannot be said to the in "commercial expediency".
6.1. As regards the disallowance u/s 40A(3) for RS.33,71,275/-, the ld. counsel argued that the AO found that the assessee had made the said payment in cash for purchase of property which was his stock in trade and was thus struck by the provisions of sec. 40A(3) of the Act. The assessee tried to take shelter of the proviso to section 40A(3) which provides that no disallowance is to be made where the expenditure has been under consideration of business expediency and other relevant factors...". The assessee took the stand that the transactions were genuine and duly recorded in the books as well as supported by the registration deeds made before the Sub-Registrar. The Ld. CIT(A) accepted the grounds of the assessee and held that "After all, the object is not to deprive the assessee of 14 ITA No.456(Asr)/2013 the deduction to which he is otherwise entitled to claim, where the amount was paid in cash or received in cash. The AO has to find out whether the transaction is genuine or not, and if he finds that the transaction is genuine, he should allow the deduction. He has also held that "In the present case the identity of the payee is proved, the genuineness of the transaction is duly documented by the sale deed instrument and the amount of transaction is also certified by the Stamp Registration Authority by way of Circle Rates etc. Thus, all the three ingredients of the genuineness and correctness of the transaction and also the identity of the payee are established. In such circumstances, the provisions of section 40A(3) are not attracted. The CIT(A) has got the interpretation of the said proviso to sec. 40A(3) all wrong. It is not that the any "business expediency" would be sufficient to circumvent the rigors of section 40A(3). Only the prescribed cases and circumstances were to be treated as "business expediency" by the AO. And the prescribed "cases" and "circumstances" are mandated only in Rule 6DD(a) to 6DD(I) of the I.T. Rules, 1962. Moreover, sec. 40A(3) has got hardly anything to do with the three ingredients of the genuineness and correctness of the transaction and also the identity of the payee, as quoted from the CIT(a)'s order. Rather, only where the so called "three ingredients"
are present, can the assessee still be struck by the provisions of sec. 15 ITA No.456(Asr)/2013 40A(3).If the so called three ingredients were not present, the entire transaction becomes a sham and the entire credit/debit is liable to be treated to be treated as deemed income in terms of sections 68, 69A, 69B and 69C of the Act, as the case may be. The rigors of section 40A(3) are only applicable where the genuineness of the transaction and the parties entering into the transaction is established and where nevertheless, cash is used for payments in place of the banking routes, unless protected by the express instances as laid down in Rule 6DD(a) to (I) of the I.T.Rules, 1962. The case of the assessee's impugned transaction is not covered in any of the instances clearly detailed in Rule 6DD(a) to 6DD(I). In determining expediency, the AO is obliged to remain within the parameters specified in Rule 6DD and cannot go beyond the Rules on any grounds, including the grounds of equity. The plea of the assessee that (a) the assessee was stranger to the person from whom the property were purchased (b) the respective sellers insisted for cash payment (c) the nature of the transaction was such that it was necessary for expeditious settlement of the deal, which it is claimed had to be settled because (d) the prices of the properties were unexpectedly shooting up on a day to day basis during the period, are no where covered in the various clauses and sub clauses of Rule 6DD. 16 ITA No.456(Asr)/2013 6.2. The Ld. DR further stated that the purchase of land is not exactly an ordinarily mundane purchase of daily routine. It requires various kinds of evaluations, bargaining, comparisons etc. That the seller and purchaser were strangers is not a relevant point at all, for that is quite normal. Section 40A(3) has no provision for relief on the grounds that the sellers insisted for cash. The claim of the assessee that the nature of the transaction was such that it was necessary for expeditious settlement of the deal which it is claimed had to be settled because the prices of the properties were unexpectedly shooting up on a day to day basis during that period is mere ruse. Land is not a perishable commodity. However, expeditious the need may be, there is no reason payment cannot be made through a bank draft, if not a cheque. The provisions of section 40A(3) are quasi penal in nature. They are not directly related to computation of the total income of an assessee. They have been mandated only and only to be in the nature of persuasion so that old habits about cash transactions are gradually changed, in the interest of creation of a more transparent commercial regime, so that the widespread prevalence of unaccounted black money is checked. It would be against the spirit of law if a very strict interpretation were not adopted of this sub-section, on any grounds, including equity. Once it is seen from the facts of the case that a violation in terms of section 40A(3) is made out, 17 ITA No.456(Asr)/2013 which is not carved out in the exceptions as in Rule 6DD, there is no scope for any allowance to the assessee, on any grounds, including the grounds of genuineness of transaction. However, genuine the transaction may be, once it is struck by the provisions of section 40A(3), the same has to be disallowed and no relief can therefore, be granted to the assessee on this account either.
7. The Ld. counsel for the assessee, relied upon the submissions made before the AO and the ld. CIT(A) and argued that the assessee was having enough interest free fund borrowings at his disposal and therefore, the order of the ld. CIT(A) is correct order and prayed to uphold the same with regard to ground No.1 of the Revenue.
7.1. He further argued with regard to the disallowance u/s 40A(3) of the Act that the transaction is genuine and once the transaction is genuine deduction should be allowed, especially when the identity of the payee is proved and genuineness of transaction is duly documented by sale deed instrument and all the three ingredients of the genuineness and transaction are proved and therefore, the provisions of section 40A(3) are not attracted. He relied upon the decisions of various courts of law placed in the paper book in this regard.
18 ITA No.456(Asr)/2013
8. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the facts of the case. As regards the interest paid to various persons i.e. Sh. Sunil Kumar, Sh. Subhash Goyal, M/s. Neha Enterprises, Smt. Seema Mittal, Smt. Anu and M/s. Saree Palace, nothing has been brought on record how the interest free funds which have been claimed to have been available for advancing these loans to various persons were actually available for advancing to these persons. No part of the paper book has been pointed out to us how the interest free funds available were advanced to these persons. The Ld. CIT(A) has not looked into this aspect and has accepted the submission and argument of the assessee that interest free funds are available, which are advanced to various persons mentioned hereinabove.
8.1. Secondly, the ld. counsel for the assessee, relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S.A. Builders reported in 288 ITR
1. In this regard, nothing has been brought on record by the assessee and the ld. CIT(A) while deleting the addition that the advances have been made free of interest on the ground of commercial expediency. Nothing has been brought on record by the assessee or by the ld. CIT(A) with regard to the purpose for which the various persons to whom money has been advanced has actually used the money. The advances given mostly are to the persons in their personal capacity and in the absence of any material or cogent 19 ITA No.456(Asr)/2013 explanation on record, the same have to be treated to have been advanced for personal benefit of such persons. The Ld. CIT(A) is therefore, not justified in disapproving the order of the AO and not further justified in deleting the disallowance made by the A.O. Accordingly, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is reversed and the order of the AO on the issue is restored. Thus, ground No.1 of the Revenue is allowed.
9. As regards ground No.2, there is no dispute that in trading of propertes, the cash has been paid and the provisions of section 40A(3) are attracted. The explanation of the assessee in this regard is that the assessee were stranger to each other and there was boom in the prices of immovable properties during the period when the impugned properties had been purchased and for expeditious settlement of deals, the sellers of impugned properties insisted for quick and cash payment and deals could not be postponed in the interest of business and the assessee had to yield before the terms and conditions of the sellers. The amendment by the Finance Act,2008 in section 40A(3) w.e.f. 1.4.2009 by insertion of the proviso was relied upon which reads as under:
"Provided that no disallowance shall be made and no payment shall be deemed to be the profits and gains of business or profession under sub-section (3) and this sub-section where a payment or aggregate of payments made to a person in a day, otherwise than by an account payee cheque drawn on a bank or account payee bank draft, exceeds twenty thousand rupees, in such cases and under such circumstances 20 ITA No.456(Asr)/2013 as may be prescribed, having regard to the nature and extent of banking facilities available, considerations of business expediency and other relevant factors :]"
9.1. The Ld. CIT(A) accepted this contention of the assessee and deleted the addition. At the outset, in the proviso to section 40A(3) of the Act, the exceptions are prescribed under Rule 6DD of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. In our view, these exceptions have been prescribed under Rule 6DD, having regard to the nature and extent of banking facilities available for consideration of business expediency and other relevant factors. The said provisions have to be read together but not separately as suits to the assessee. There is no intention of the legislature to make a list of nature and extent of banking facilities available and other factors to be drafted by the assesse at their whims and fancies and as suits to the assessee. Therefore Rules have been prescribed which are Rule 6DD of I.T.Rules, 1962 and nothing beyond that. The case laws relied upon by the assessee and the Ld. CIT(A) are the cases before the said amendment and even before the said amendment, facts remain the same. The Ld. CIT(A) has not taken the said proviso in the right spirit and has just accepted the submissions and arguments made by the assessee and has deleted the addition, which is against the facts of the case and against the provisions of law. Accordingly, 21 ITA No.456(Asr)/2013 the order of the ld. CIT(A) is reversed and that of the A.O. is restored. Thus, ground No.2 of the Revenue is allowed.
10. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No.456(Asr)/2013 is allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 28th February, 2014.
Sd/- Sd/-
(H.S. SIDHU) (B.P. JAIN)
JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Dated: 28th February, 2014
/SKR/
Copy of the order forwarded to:
1. The Assessee:Sh.Gurdas Garg, Bathinda.
2. The DCIT, Cir. 1 Bathinda.
3. The CIT(A)
4. The CIT
5. The SR DR, ITAT, Amritsar.
True copy
By order
(Assistant Registrar)
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal,
Amritsar Bench: Amritsar