DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. KUSHAL INFRAPROJECT INDUSTRIES INDIA LTD., NEW DELHI

PER BHAVNESH SAINI, J.M.

The cross-appeals for A.Y. 2010-2011 are directed against

the Order of the Ld. CIT(A)-5, New Delhi, Dated 23.02.2015.

Cross-appeals for the A.Y. 2011-2012 are directed against the

Order of Ld. CIT(A)-5, New Delhi, Dated 03.06.2015.

parties and perused the material on record.

2.1. All the appeals were heard together being connected on

various issues, therefore, all appeals are decided issue-wise as

under.

ISSUE NO.1 :

the Order of the Ld. CIT(A) in deleting the disallowance made

on account of salaries paid to the relatives of Rs.7,80,355/-.

The A.O. observed that out of salary expenses claim of

Rs.18,97,443/- and amount of Rs.7,80,355/- represent salary

paid to relatives of the Director. The A.O. disallowed the same

holding that the assessee did not prove the business exigencies

to justify the payment of salary and that payment made remain

unverifiable.

3.1. The assessee challenged the above addition before

the Ld. CIT(A). Written submissions of the assessee are

reproduced in the appellate order in which the assessee briefly

explained that salary was paid to 05 persons and the actual

amount was Rs.8 lakhs. It was further submitted that out of

the 05 payees, one of them namely Smt. Veena Rana is not an

employee, but she is a Director of the company. Instead of

salary, Director’s remuneration in the shape of one-time

payment of Rs.2 Lakhs was made to her towards the end of the

accounting period considering prospects of good income of the

company and valuable contribution made by the said Director

towards the business of the company. This payment is duly

supported by Board’s resolutions. However, owing to an

inadvertent mistake on the part of the Accountant, this

payment was shown and accounted for as salary instead of

Director’s remuneration. It was a bona fide mistake which is

corrected. The same is an allowable expenditure. It was further

submitted that total salaries paid during the accounting period

2009-10 have been claimed at Rs.18,97,443/- only. Given the

size and turnover of the assessee company, the salary paid

cannot be termed as excessive. The assessee company

maintained proper records along with Attendance Register,

Leave Record, evidence of Payments to the employees, etc. All

the payments towards salary are well accounted for in the

books of account and are properly vouched. Payments are

made through cheque through banking channel, therefore,

correctness of the same cannot be doubted.The A.O. disallowed

the salary payment because the recipients are relative of the

Director Shri Kushal Rana. It was submitted that to engage

relatives for work and to pay them for the same is nowhere

banned or prohibited in the Income Tax Act. The payments are

made to Smt. Sheela Rana, Smt. Pankhi Rana, Shri Dalbir

Rana, Smt. Poonam Rana in a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- each and

Rs.2 lakhs was paid to Smt. Veena Rana. The salary paid them

is not excessive or unreasonable. Since they were all qualified,

intelligent, laborious and willing works and having adequate

educational qualification, therefore, considering their expertise

and education, salary is not excessive. These employees were

doing more work for the assessee company i.e., visiting various

sites of the company, attending various vendors from whom

material was purchased, handling cash and bank transactions

and doing documentation and also take care of day-to-day

running business. There is no violation of Section 40A(2) of the

I.T. Act, 1961. The salary paid to these employees is reflected

by them in their income tax returns which have been accepted

by the Department. The salary paid to the employees in a sum

of Rs.18,18,465/- in preceding A.Y. 2009-2010 have been

accepted by the Department including Rs.8 lakhs paid to these

05 employees. The TDS have been deducted on their salaries

which have been deposited in the Government Record. The

assessee relied upon several decisions of the Tribunal to show

that payments of salary are reasonable and should be allowed.

3.2. The Ld. CIT(A) considering the material and factual

position noted that the A.O. has nowhere in the assessment

order claimed that the said relatives did nothing for the

assessee company to earn salary or that payment of salary was

excessive and not commensurate with the work done by them.

The assessee filed all the details to show they were working for

the assessee company and looking after various job. The

assessee has also provided qualification of these employees

which are verifiable. The salary paid to them has been

disclosed. These employees show income in the income tax

return. The salary expenditure of the company which was less

than Rs.19 lakhs could not be considered as excessive as per

record maintained by assessee. The Ld. CIT(A), accordingly,

deleted the addition.

submitted that no details have been filed before A.O. and onus

is not discharged. All the employees were relative of the

Director.

reiterated the submissions made before the authorities below.

He has referred to PB-51 which is reply filed before A.O.

supported by documentary evidences and payment of salary.

PB-73 onwards is ledger account of the salary, on which, TDS

has ben deducted. PB-77 is another reply. He has submitted

that in earlier year similar salary have been allowed and there

is no finding by the authorities below that no services have

been rendered by these employees. Learned Counsel for the

Assessee, therefore, submitted that Ld. CIT(A) correctly allowed

the deduction of the salary.

any infirmity in the Order of the Ld. CIT(A) in deleting the

addition. Section 40A(2)(a) deals with incurring of the

expenditure in respect of which payment is made to the

relatives and in the opinion of the A.O. same is excessive and

unreasonable having regard to the fair market value of the

goods, services or facilities, for which payment is made. The

A.O. has not made any such case that payment made to the

relatives was on account of salary was excessive or

unreasonable having regard to the fair market value of the

goods, services or facilities, for which payment is made. The

assessee has explained before the authorities below, the

circumstances of which payments have been made to the

relatives and also expenditure as to what services they have

rendered for the assessee company along with their

qualification. In earlier year, similar salary have been allowed

deduction by the Revenue Department. There is nothing

unreasonable in this regard. In any case, even for applying the

provisions of Section 40A(2), it is for the A.O. to make-out a

case that the expenditure incurred is excessive or

unreasonable having regard to the fair market value of such

services. However, no efforts have been made by the A.O. in

this regard. Therefore, there were no justifications for the A.O.

to disallow the salary payment to the employees who are

relatives of the Director. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the

case of Upper India Publishing House Pvt. Ltd., 117 ITR 569

held that “before applying the provisions of Section 40A(2), A.O.

should have proved expenditure is excessive or unreasonable.”

In the absence of any such finding by the A.O, there was no

justification to disallow salary. The A.O. did not doubt the

salary paid to the employees which is paid through banking

channel and the employees have shown the same salary in

their return of income, on which, TDS also deducted.

Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the

case and earlier record of the assessee, we do not find any

justification to interfere with the Orders of the Ld. CIT(A) in

deleting the addition. Ground No.1 of appeal of Revenue is

dismissed.

Ld. CIT(A) in deleting the addition of Rs.7,80,000/- made by

the A.O. on account of salary paid to the relatives of the

Director. The Ld. CIT(A) found that this issue is same as have

been considered by him in A.Y. 2010-2011. Following the Order

for the A.Y. 2010-2011, the Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition.

Departmental Appeal, therefore, following the reasons for

decision, we dismiss Ground No.1 of appeal of the Revenue for

the A.Y. 2011-2012 as well.

both the assessment years is dismissed.

ISSUE NO.2 :

challenged the Order of Ld. CIT(A) in deleting the disallowance

of excess remuneration paid to the Directors amounting to

Rs.33,10,000/- during the year. The A.O. disallowed

Rs.33,10,000/- out of Director’s Remuneration paid to Shri

Kushal Rana, Director of the Assessee-Company at Rs.42

lakhs. The A.O. disallowed substantial portion of the payment

on the belief that for the immediately preceding A.Y. 2009-2010

payment of only Rs.2 lakhs had been made to Shri Kushal

Rana on this account and there was abnormal increase in

Director’s remuneration over the year. The assessee submitted

written submissions which is reproduced in the appellate order

in which the assessee submitted that Rs.42 lakhs have been

paid to the Director Shri Kushal Rana which is duly accounted

for in the books of account, on which, TDS has been deducted.

In preceding A.Y. 2009-2010 same amount of Rs.42 lakhs have

been paid to the Director which have been allowed by the

Department. The A.O, was therefore, not justified in making

any addition which is also double addition. The Ld. CIT(A)

found contention of assessee to be correct because in preceding

A.Y. 2009-2010, the Department has allowed the deduction of

Rs.42 lakhs as Director’s remuneration. The Ld. CIT(A),

accordingly, deleted the addition.

any justification to interfere with the Order of the Ld. CIT(A) in

deleting the addition. The Ld. D.R. merely relied upon the

Order of the A.O. but could not point-out any infirmity in his

order in deleting the addition. Since in preceding assessment

year same amount have been paid to the Director which have

been allowed by the Revenue Department, therefore, Ld. CIT(A)

following the Order for earlier year, correctly deleted the

addition. Ground No.2 of the appeal of Revenue is accordingly

dismissed.

challenged the Order of Ld. CIT(A) in deleting the addition of

Rs.42,71,000/- on account of Director’s remuneration. The

assessee filed detailed written submissions before the Ld.

CIT(A) which is incorporated in the appellate order. The

assessee pleaded that TDS have been deducted on the salary

and Director has shown the salary in his return of income. It

was also submitted that there is a slight enhancement in the

remuneration of the Director. Therefore, considering his

contribution towards business, small enhancement in the

salary is reasonable. The Ld. CIT(A) after examining the record

found that normal increase in Director’s salary is justified and

that in preceding A.Y. 2010-2011, he has allowed Director’s

remuneration of Rs.42 lakhs. The Director has offered the

same salary to the Income Tax Department and paid the taxes.

Considering the contribution of the Director for business

purposes, small increase in the salary was found justified. The

disallowance was deleted and this ground of the appeal of the

assessee was allowed.

any merit in this ground of appeal of the Revenue. This issue is

same as have been considered in A.Y. 2010-2011. In the

assessment year under appeal there is a slight increase in the

salary of the Director which is approved by the Company, on

which, TDS have been deducted and income have been offered

for tax by the Director. Therefore, considering the nature of

business of assessee and contribution of Director and following

order for A.Y. 2010-2011 in which we have dismissed the

departmental appeal, we do not find any justification to

interfere with the Order of the Ld. CIT(A) in deleting the

addition. Ground No.2 of the appeal of the Revenue for both

the assessment years i.e., 2010-2011 and 2011-2012 are

dismissed.

ISSUE No. 3 :

challenged the Order of the Ld. CIT(A) in deleting the

disallowance of Rs.36,66,75,500/- which was claimed as

exempt under section 2(14) of the I.T. Act by the assessee. The

A.O. made this addition rejecting the claim of assessee by

treating profit on sale of Pooth Khurd village land to be exempt

under section 2(14) of the I.T. Act, being agricultural lands not

falling in the definition of “Capital Asset”. The assessee had

claimed profit on sale of the lands to be exempt on the ground

that lands sold by it were agricultural land since agricultural

operations were being carried on the said lands by the farmer

which fell 9 KM outside local limits of Municipal Committee as

on 06.01.1994 which is the date of CBDT’s latest Notification of

jurisdiction of Municipal Committees/Corporations. The A.O.

for holding that impugned lands are not agricultural lands

relied upon the report of Deputy Commissioner, Narela Zone,

North Delhi Municipal Corporation, as per which, the lands in

question fell within the municipal limits of Ward-27, Begumpur

of North Delhi Municipal Corporation. While making the

addition the A.O. rejected the Certificate issued by the

Consolidation Officer regarding location, position and nature of

the impugned lands. The A.O. also noted that holding of land

in the hands of the assessee was of very small period. He

denied to consider the impugned land to be falling in Section

2(14) and accounted for the profit on sale on the said land as

business receipt and taxable income treating the same as

Urban Land falling within the municipal limits of North Delhi

Municipal Corporation. The A.O. while rejecting the claim of

assessee noted that as per provisions of Section 2(14)(iii) of the

Act, any land situated within a distance of 8 KM from the local

limits of any Municipal Corporation will be treated as Urban

Land for the purpose of Income Tax Act and the letter Dated

13.02.2013 received from the O/o. Assistant Commissioner,

Narela Zone proved that all these land properties fall in

Municipal Ward-27, Begumpur. Hence, agricultural land in

question cannot be held to be agricultural land. The A.O. also

noted that the lands have been sold by the assessee generally

within four days of entering into agreement. In three numbers

of cases, the number of days that the right has been held is 77

days and that too only in one case. The A.O. accordingly made

the addition of Rs.36,66,75,500/-.

CIT(A). Detailed written submissions of the assessee are

reproduced in the appellate order. The assessee issue-wise

explained the matter before the Ld. CIT(A). It is explained that

the findings of the A.O. are based on information furnished by

an Officer of the North Delhi Municipal Corporation, the origin

of which Municipality dates back to merely 3-4 years back.

Apparently, it talks of present position of the land whereas

relevant portion of the land is one which existed on 06.01.1994

that is the date on which latest Notification about the

jurisdiction of the Municipalities of India was got published by

the CBDT. The name of North Delhi Municipal Corporation is

not mentioned in the said Notification. Hence, the information

provided by its functionary is not relevant for this purpose. As

per the period for which the position of the impugned land is to

be taken into reckoning, even the A.O. has not disputed in his

remand report that the period/date for their purpose is

06.01.1994 and not the present position or that which was

obtaining on the date of sale of the lands. It was further

submitted that limits for this Section 2(14)(iii) from Notified

Municipalities have to be seen as they existed on the date on

which such Notification was published in the Official Gazette.

This is clearly stated in the Explanation-2 to the said

Notification No. 9447 itself which is reproduced in the

submissions in which it is clarified that reference to the

Municipal limits or the limits of Cantonment Board in the

Schedule of this Notification is to the limits as existing on the

date on which Notification is published in the Official Gazette.

The assessee relied upon several decisions in support of the

same proposition about the reference and relevance of the

CBDT Notification in the matter. The assessee also relied upon

decision of Jaipur Bench in the case of Dr. Subha Tripathi 34

taxmann.com 286 in which it was held that “distance of 8 KM

had to be taken into account in terms of Notification Dated

06.01.1994 for the purpose whether the land in question fell

under mischief of sub-clause (b) of Section 2(14)(iii) of the I.T.

Act”. It was further submitted that similarly the most

Appropriate Authority to determine the position of the land is

Tehsildar of the Land Revenue Department who has

categorically stated in his Certificate that the lands in question

are situated at a distance of 9 KM from the local limits of

Municipal Corporation of the Delhi as the position was existing

as on 06.01.1994. It was further to be confirmed that name of

the Municipal Corporation of the Delhi finds place in CBDT

Notificiation Dated 06.01.1994 and not North Delhi Municipal

Corporation which is later on created. There are several

decisions to hold that Tehsildar is only an Appropriate

Authority to issue such Certificate and the names of the case

Law are reproduced in the submissions. The Certificate Dated

06.05.2014 issued by Tehsildar, Narela-Alipur Delhi has

clinched the issue squarely in favour of the assessee company

by certifying that the lands in question are situated at 9 KM

away from local limits of Municipal Corporation of Delhi. In this

view of the matter, the impugned lands are agricultural lands

which do not fall in the definition of “Capital Asset” under

section 2(14) of the I.T. Act, 1961.

15.1. The assessee also explained the issue with regard to

small period holding of the land in the hands of the assessee

and it is consequence. It was submitted that the A.O. took the

view against the assessee because the land was held for a short

period. The A.O. took an adverse view of the same and held

that since the beginning the mentality of the assessee company

was that of purchasing the lands for selling them for profit,

rather than retaining for own purposes. The assessee

submitted that A.O. has failed to appreciate that period of

holding as seen from the sale agreement is deceptive. The

assessee does not deal in sale or purchase of lands, properties.

It is an infrastructure developer. The agricultural lands in

question were purchased with an intention to use them for own

purposes. The A.O. failed to see that lot of effort and time was

consumed before reaching stage of signing of the agreements.

Before entering into agreements with different Farmers for

purchase of their respective lands, assessee had undertaken

huge spade work for preparing them to part with their lands,

for negotiating the price of the land, for verifying genuineness

of these vendors, for examining and verifying the ownership

paper to ensure very clear title to the land, for ensuring that

lands in question are free from any dispute legal etc.,

ownership, for negotiating payment terms and for determining

the settlements of these transactions. After going through of

these processes, assessee had entered into an agreement with

the sellers of the lands. The A.O. conveniently overlooked and

ignored the hidden period between initiation of purchase

process and date of signing of the agreements with various

vendors/agriculturists. The A.O. failed to appreciate the

agricultural lands were intended to be purchased by the

assessee company for the purpose of investment and the said

purchase was essentially in the nature of investment and for

keeping the same as fixed asset with an intention of retaining

the same and holding the lands for wealth or otherwise

enjoying or using it. It was never treated as stock-in-trade.

However, as a matter of chance, some developers and builder

parties contacted the assessee during the period. Assessee was

making negotiations for purchasing the lands and offer to

purchase of land at the high rate. This offer changed the mind

of the assessee and it happened to be immediate reason for the

sale of the fixed assets within short period of its purchase.

There was no intention on the part of the assessee to do

business of trading of the land. There was no pre-planning.

There was no pre-thought of sale/purchase of the lands was

not with any sale motive. The entire history of the assessee

company right from its incorporation bears testimony to it that

assessee company never entered into sale/purchase of lands as

a business proposition. It was submitted that period of holding

is not a parameter for determining either the nature of the

impugned lands or that of the transaction of sale thereof. The

assessee relied upon decision of Hyderabad Tribunal in the

case of Tulla Veerender vs., Addl. CIT, Range-6 [2013] 144 ITD

440 (Hyderabad-Trib.) in which it was held that “where

intention of assessee from inception was to carry on agricultural

operation on the lands in question, the gain from the sale could

not be taxed as profit arising from adventure in nature of trade

merely because of the short period of holding.” It was further

submitted that the character of the land in question of the

assessee has not changed. There is no material on record to

show that assessee carried on business activities. The assessee

was engaged in the agricultural operation and never converted

to non-agricultural land. Since the lands in question were

agricultural lands, upon which, agriculture has been carried

out on the said land, therefore, it was exempt from tax. It was

further submitted that the impugned land is governed by the

provisions of Delhi Land Reforms Act, according to which, the

concept of ownership of the land has been done away with

those which were in possession of the land were recognized as

tenure-holder with the nomenclature Bhumidhar. The land

could not be converted into non-agricultural land because it

was subjected to restriction since it was agricultural land and

there is no provision under the Delhi Land Reforms Act to

change its land use from ‘agriculture to residential’ or

‘commercial’ with the result that there is no scope of its

development, urbanization, commercialization and

colonization. Therefore, it could not be subjected to commercial

exploitation. It is, therefore, not a capital asset to be taxed. It

was further submitted that main Director of the assessee

company is Shri Kushal Rana who is from agriculturist family.

In purchase of these agricultural lands his initial intention is to

retain it in the custody of the assessee company and to use it

for agricultural purposes. However, he and other member of

Management of the Company were deep in negotiation and

everything was settling down regarding purchase of the land,

certain party approached the assessee for purchase of the land,

therefore, land was sold. The comments of the A.O. were called

for on the explanation of assessee. The assessee further

submitted that the facts would clearly disclosed there was no

business transaction. There was no intention of the assessee to

purchase the land for any business purposes. The land is

essential agricultural land and on sale of the same, the same is

totally exempt from tax. It was further reiterated that the land

was situated beyond 8 KM from the local Municipal limits. The

assessee had not taken or applied for permission from the

Government for making plots of the land for development for

any commercial purpose. No hoardings were raised to promote

land for sale. It was own agricultural land of the assessee. The

history of the assessee also supports the explanation of the

assessee that assessee never entered into any business

transaction in lands. Therefore, assessee was not indulged in

any adventure in the nature of trade and surplus earned by it

on transfer of the agricultural land and amount received was

pure and simple tax free receipt. Several case Law in support of

the same were relied. The assessee further explained regarding

status of Poot Khurd land. The transaction on the said land

was made during the period 2009-2010 when its status in the

record of the Revenue Authorities was, agricultural land and

agricultural operations were being carried out which is

confirmed by the Department of Land Revenue, Government of

Delhi and still status of the land is agricultural land. The

Tehsildar has issued Certificate confirming the land in question

is agricultural land and beyond Municipal limit. The assessee

ultimately explained that the finding of the fact recorded by the

A.O. are incorrect and are liable to be set aside. The Ld. CIT(A)

considering the material on record in the light of various case

Laws held that the land in question is agricultural land and

profit earned on sale of the said land is a capital receipt. The

addition was accordingly deleted. The findings of the Ld. CIT(A)

are reproduced as under :

MY FINDINGS:

“I have perused the assessment order, written submissions and disused the matter with the AR very carefully. The evidences, remand report of AO were also discussed with them.

The remand proceedings and opportunities given to ARs are described below: -

(Stat) 0121B. As per this notification, “This notification shall have effect on and from the date of its publication in the Official Gazette. (2) The reference to municipal limits or the limit of Cantonment Board in the schedule to this notification is to the limits as existing on the date on which limit as existing on the date on which the notification is published in the Official Gazette.” So, the position of lands as is obtained as on 06.01.1994 rather than the present position is to be taken into account. The case laws on this point also support the above position. The ITAT, Jaipur held in the case of Smt. (DR) Subha Tripathi, vs. DCIT (12013) 34 taxmann.com 289 that “if agricultural land fell beyond 8 kms. of municipal limits on the date of publication of relevant CBDT notification but feel within 8 kms. on the date of sale of land, it would still fall outside the term ‘Capital Asset’.”

In this view of the matter, only the certificate issued by the Tehsildar, Narela Sub-Division, Alipur, Delhi is the evidence to be taken into consideration as North Delhi Municipal Corporation, which came into existence on trifurcation of MCD, of which Assistant Commissioner, Narela Zone and the Nigam Parshad are authorities, did not exist as on 06.01.1994 and name of this municipality does not figure in the said

notification. The said municipality is not a notified municipality for the purposes of section 2(14) of the I.T. Act, 1961. The reports of these two authorities of North Delhi Municipal Corporation state the present position of the impugned lands whereas certificate of Tehsildar describes its position as on the date on which CBDT notification was published in the Official Gazette. So, going by the report of the Tehsildar, the lands at Pooth Khurd Village from Mustil No. 70 to 105 are held as agricultural lands, which do not fall in the definition of ‘capital asset’, as provided in Section 2(14)(iii)(b) of the Act.

It is further stated that though the period of holding is small, it does not affect the nature and position of the lands, in question. Period of holding is not one of the parameters to determine the nature of lands.

The AO has further stated that the transactions of the appellant in the Pooth Khurd lands are in the nature of trade. The appellant has pleaded that the assessee company is not doing any business of sale purchase of lands, be it agricultural land or urban residential/commercial estate dealer. It further pleaded that the lands, in question, were being purchased for own use but in the meantime some buyer contacted the appellant and they offered handsome amount and that the appellant deemed it

feasible to sell the agricultural lands. He relinquished his ‘right to obtain conveyance’ vested in it by virtue of the ‘Agreement to sell’ undertaken with the farmers. Relinquishment of ‘right’ would amount to ‘tranfer’ within the meaning assigned to the term under the provisions of sec. 2(47) of the Act. As per the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of J.K. Kashyap vs. ACIT (2008) 302 ITR 255 (Delhi), “interest was ultimately relinquished by him in favour of a new vendee by virtue of agreement dated 26.09.1995 and the consideration received by him for relinquishing his rights in the property, thus attracted the provisions of sec. 45(1) making him liable to capital gains tax” this decision was re-emphasized by the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Simka Hotels & Resorts vs. DCIT (2013) Taxman 482 (Delhi) by holding that “Even when as assessee becomes entitled to an undefined and undivided share in a property, though an agreement, which he later relinquishes, the gain has to be assessed as income from capital gain, and not as income from other sources.”

The appellant has also cited the following decisions, wherein it was held that right to obtain a conveyance of immovable property falls within the expression ‘property of any kind’ used in sec. 2(14) and amount

received in connection therewith is liable to capital gains tax:

i. CIT vs. Teleservices Ltd. (1980) 122 ITR 594 (Bombay) ii. Hochat Kizhakke Madathil Venkateswara Aiyar vs. Kallor Illath Raman Nambudhri, AIR 1917 Mad. 358. iii. CIT vs. H. Anil Kumar (2011) 242 CTR 537 (Karnataka) iv. CIT vs. Vijay Flexible Containers (1990) 186 ITR 693 (Bom.) v. CIT vs. Smt. Laxmidevi Ratani & Others (2008) 296 ITR 363 (MP) vi. K.R. Srinath vs. ACIT (2004) 268 ITR 436.

Ld. AR of the appellant contended that merely because of the fact that the land was sold for profit, it cannot be held that income arising from the said transaction would be taxable as ‘business income’ citing the case of Constructions Co. vs. ITO, Ward 4(2) [2013] 39 taxmann.com 181 (Hyderabad-Trib). Ld. AR cited another case of Hyderabad ITAT i.e. of Harnkis Park (P) Ltd. vs. ITO, Ward 2(2) (2014) 62 SOT 15, wherein it was held that the profit earned on sale of a land wherein agricultural operations were being carried out and which was also classified as agricultural land in revenue records, is agricultural income of the assessee.

It is also observed that the lands were sold by the assessee, as it is, since no plotting was done, no development activity was made on the lands, no providing of roads and other facilities were created. It is further seen that no advertisement for the sale of land was made. The character of the land in the hands of the appellant company has not changed. The agricultural land was sold by the appellant in acreage and not by making plots. The land in question is classified in the revenue records as agricultural land and actual cultivation has been carried out on this land as per revenue records. The AO has not brought on record any evidence to show that the agricultural land was used for non- agricultural purposes. Further, he has brought no material on record to show that the appellant carried on activities of buying and selling of land in a systematic manner so as to justify the action of the AO.

submitted that the land was within the municipal area / limit.

PB-370 is agreement to sale to purchase land in Pooth Khurd,

Delhi, Dated 15.11.2009. It is in Narela Zone, MCD. Ph-377 is

assignment agreement dated 16.11.2009 by assessee. PB-362

to 369 are details of properties. The Learned D.R. referred to

PB-81 to 82 (Departmental paper book) which is Delhi

Municipal Corporation Amendment Act to show that the same

extend only to Delhi and that Delhi means entire area of Union

Territory of Delhi except New Delhi and Delhi Cantonment.

The Learned D.R. therefore submitted that entire Delhi

Municipal Corporation Act is applicable to entire Delhi. The

learned D.R. relied upon Judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High

Court in the case of CIT vs., Surjan Singh 125 taxman 1075

(Del.) in which it was held that capital gain arising on transfer

of agricultural land in village Nangal Dewat, Delhi is

chargeable to tax. It has been held that it is the population of

the Municipality as a whole and not of any part of the area of

it, that has to be taken into account for the purpose of section

2(14)(iii)(a) to determine, whether property in the particular

area is exigible to capital gains. The learned D.R. also relied

upon Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of

G.M. Omerkhan vs. Addl. CIT 196 ITR 269 in which also

similarly held that it is the population of the Municipality

which is so to be taken into account for the purpose of Section

2(14)(iii)(a) and not population of any area within the

Municipality. The learned D.R. also relied upon Judgment of

Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs., Deep Chand 257 ITR

756 in which it was held that capital asset, whether capital

gain arising on transfer of agricultural land situated in village

Nangal Dewat, Delhi is chargeable to capital gain tax – Held “

Yes”. The learned D.R. therefore submitted that since it falls in

Delhi Municipal Corporation Area so it is capital asset. The

learned CIT(A) did not appreciate the case of assessee. The

Learned Departmental Representative submitted that Section

2(14)(iii)(a) apply to the facts of the case. There is no need to go

to Section 2(14)(iii)(b) of the I.T. Act. Only part payment was

made to the seller and rest of the payment was made by

further purchaser to the seller directly. The assessee assigned

the land interest. Assessee had not intended to hold the land.

Therefore, it was business activity of the assessee. The

Learned D.R. relied upon the Judgment of the Delhi High

Court in the case of Vardan Buildcon Vs. ACIT [2012] 21

taxmann.com 446 (Del.) in which it was held that where real

estate developer purchased the land to develop the same and

sold the same within a short span of year or so, income on

sale of the land would be assessed as business income and not

capital gains. The learned D.R. relied upon the Order of ITAT,

Hyderabad Bench in the case of G.K. Properties Pvt. Ltd., vs.,

ITO 25 taxmann.com 197 in which it was held that purchase

of agricultural land with sole motive to sell the same for

earning profit to be treated as business income and no capital

gain. The learned D.R. also relied upon Judgment of the

Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of N.A. Baby Vs. DCIT

[2016] 383 ITR 585 in which it was held that where assessee

having purchased agricultural land, converted the same into

barren land and thereupon sold it within a short period of

purchase, the said activity was to be regarded as an adventure

in nature of trade and consequently profit earned on sale of

land was to be taxed as business income. The learned D.R.

submitted notification Dated January, 1994 is with regard to

section 2(14)(iii)(b) of the I.T. Act and not with Section

2(14)(iii)(a) of the I.T. Act. He has submitted that area is in

Municipal Corporation of Delhi, no Revenue Certificate is

relevant. The CBDT Circular could not apply the certificate

given by Assistant Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of

Delhi [“MCD” ] that the land in question fall in MCD area,

therefore, provisions of DMC Act would apply.

reiterated the submissions made before the authorities below.

He has submitted that Section 2(14) of the I.T. Act for the

assessment year under appeal was amended in 2014. No

further notifications have been issued. PB-203 is Certificate of

the Tehsildar in which he has certified that the land in

question is agricultural land and agricultural operations were

being conducted on the said land by the Farmers and the said

agricultural lands are situated at a distance of 9 KM from the

local municipal limits as these limits existed on or prior to

06.01.1994 of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi. He has

referred to PB-268 which is notification of the CBDT dated

06.01.1994 which is also reported in 205 Statute 121B which

is issued under Section 2(14)(iii)(b) of the I.T. Act which

specified the scope of urbanisation of the area concerned and

other relevant consideration and the lands fallen outside

municipal limits. Learned Counsel for the Assessee referred to

PB-273 to show that in Delhi areas up-to distance of 8 KM

from the limits of Municipal Corporation in all directions

falling outside the local limits of Municipality. He has

submitted that thereafter no further notifications have been

issued. The North Municipal Corporation of Delhi has been

created in the year 2011. The Certificate of the North

Municipal Corporation of Delhi Dated 13.12.2013 [PB-348]

have been issued subsequently in which also it is mentioned

that map of the ward is not available with this office. This

North Municipal Corporation was thus not in existence in

assessment year under appeal. Learned Counsel for the

Assessee referred to Pages 1 and 2 which are Certificate of the

Halka Patwari who have confirmed that the land in question is

outside approximately 10 KM from the municipal limits and

the population of village is around 7000 in the area. Learned

Counsel for the Assessee relied upon following propositions in

various decisions:

I. Patwari is the designated officer and is the competent authority that is authorized to issue certificates measuring distance from the municipal limits 1. ACIT 33(1), Mumbai Vs. Alkesh Kantilal Patel, Mumbai on 3 April, 2017/ITA No. 4270/Mum/2015 2. Income-tax Officer 5(1), Indore Vs. Ashok Shukla [2012] 139 ITD 666 (Indore) 3. Commissioner of Income-tax, Faridabad Vs. Lal Singh [2010] 325 ITR 588 (Punjab & Haryana) 4. Commissioner of Income-tax, Coimbatore Vs. KRN Prabhakaran (HUF) [2017] 393 ITR 175 (Madras) II. Agricultural land would fall outside term ‘capital asset’ if it fell beyond 8 kms of municipal limits on date of publication of relevant CBDT notification: 5. Satya Dev Sharma Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 5(2), Jaipur [2014] 46 taxmann.com 149 (Jaipur – Trib.) 6. Smt. (Dr.) Subha Tripathi Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle – 6, Jaipur [2013] 34 taxmann.com 286 (Jaipur – Trib.) 7. Dinesh Kumar Jain Vs. ITO, Ward 6(1), Jaipur [2017] 78 taxmann.com 53 (Jaipur – Trib.) 8. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 8, Kolkata Vs. Arijit Mitra [2011] 16 taxmann.com 66 (Kol.) 9. Capital Local Area Bank Ltd. Vs. ACIT-III, Jalandhar [2017] 82 taxmann.com 387 (Amtritsar – Trib.) III. Income from agricultural land was not business income 10. Marigold Merchandise (P) Ltd. Vs. DCIt [2015] 55 taxmann.com 358 (Delhi – Trib.) 11. Goutham Constructions Co. Vs. ITO, Ward 4(2), Hyderabad [2013] 39 taxmann.com 181 (Hyderabad – Trib.) 12. Hindustan Industrial Resources Ltd. Vs. ACIT [2011] 335 ITR 77 (Delhi)

is out of 8 KM from DMC area, therefore, notification of 1994

would apply. He has submitted that the learned D.R. cited old

decisions when notification of 1994 was not in force. Since the

assessee sold the agricultural land as it is, so, no business

activity has been conducted by assessee and no business

income has been earned. PB-164 is the remand report filed by

A.O. supported by letter Dated 28.06.2014 of Sub-Divisional

Magistrate, North Delhi in which information to A.O. under

section 133(6) have been supplied in respect of the subject

matter in which it is clearly certified that the land in question

is situated at a distance of 9 KM from local municipal limits

which is supported by copy of the certificate. Learned Counsel

for the Assessee submitted that notification dated 06.01.1994

was issued as per the Act. The learned DR filed copy of MCD.

However, CBDT circular is relevant to prove the land holding,

therefore, MCD record is not relevant. The assessee shows that

it has made investment in agricultural land. No business

activity in land has been done. Sale of agricultural land is not

taxable. So period of holding is not relevant. Nature and

Character of land shall have to be seen. Learned Counsel for

the Assessee, therefore, submitted that Ld. CIT(A) correctly

deleted the addition.

dispute that Tehsildar, Revenue Department and Patwari,

Revenue Department have certified that the lands in question

falls more than 8 KM from the Municipal limits. Since it is also

not disputed that the lands in question at the time of purchase

by assessee was agricultural land, therefore, it is governed by

Delhi Land Reforms Act. The assessee did nothing in the

agricultural land. The assessee did not make any request for

conversion of the land use and did not made plotting in the

said land. The assessee with great efforts purchased the lands

in question from several Farmers and after making these efforts

during the long period purchased the land and since some

other party approached the assessee for purchase of the lands

in question at a higher rate, the assessee has sold the lands to

other party. Therefore, there is no question of assessee doing

any business activity in the agricultural land. The Revenue

Authorities have also certified that at the time of purchase by

assessee, the land was cultivated as agricultural land by the

Farmers. Therefore, land use was agricultural land only. No

land use was changed at any point of time. The CBDT has

issued notification dated 06.01.1994 under section 2(14)(iii)(b)

of the I.T. Act regarding urbanisation of area. This notification

has clarified the area which have fall outside the local limits of

Municipality and as regards Delhi, it is explained that the area

up to the distance of 8 KM from the limits of Municipal

Corporation in all directions shall have to be excluded. No

other notification has been issued by CBDT thereafter.

Therefore, issue shall have to be considered in the light of

aforesaid circular. Section 2(14) deals with the capital asset

and exception is provided in sub-clause (iii) of Section 2(14) of

the I.T. Act. It has two parts of agricultural land in India not

being lands situated:

“2(14)(iii) (b) in any area within such distance, not being more than eight kilometers, from the local limits of any municipality or cantonment board referred to in item (a), as the Central Government may, having regard to the extent of and scope for, urbanization of that area and other relevant considerations, specify in this behalf by notification in the Official Gazette.”

would fall in Section 2(14)(iii)(a) of the I.T. Act. However, while

applying the aforesaid provision it has to be proved that

population of that area was more than 10000 as per the last

preceding Census. Further, no such case has been made-up

by the A.O. The AO has not brought any material on record to

satisfy if the said provision is applicable to the case of the

assessee and what is the population of that area where the

land in question is situated. Therefore, contention of Learned

D.R is rejected that provisions of Section 2(14)(iii)(b) of the I.T.

Act are not applicable. It is specified in section 2(14)(iii)(b)

that the agricultural land which is situated beyond 8 KM from

the local limits of the Municipality were referred to in item (a)

(supra) as the Central Government may having regard to

extend of and scope of urbanising of that area and other

relevant factors specified in this behalf by the Notification in

the Official Gazette. Therefore, sub-clause (a) to Section

2(14)(iii) is excluded by sub-clause (b) of the aforesaid Section

by issuing notification by the CBDT. It is well settled Law that

the CBDT instructions are binding on Income Tax Authorities.

According to the Notification Dated 06.01.1994 if the land in

question is situated outside 8 KM from the Municipal limits, it

would be agricultural land and would not fall within the

definition of “capital asset”. No other notification has been

issued by the CBDT. Therefore, the case of the assessee is

supported by Certificate of Patwari as well as Tehsildar and

Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Delhi in which it is clarified that

the land in question is situated more than 9 KM from the

municipal limit and the population of the area is about 7000

only. Therefore, contention of the Learned D.R. is rejected. It

may also be noted here that Amendment in the Act is made in

the year 2014 which is not relevant to the matter in issue. The

North Municipal Corporation Delhi is created in the year 2011

and they have issued certificate in the year 2013. Since it was

not in existence in assessment year under appeal, therefore,

such notification issued by North Municipal Corporation Delhi

is not relevant. The assessee has admittedly sold the

agricultural land as it is so there were no intention to do any

business activity, therefore, period of holding would not be

relevant. The intention of the assessee is therefore clear that

assessee purchased the agricultural land and sold the

agricultural land as it is. The assessee never treated the said

agricultural land as stock in trade and never converted into

non agricultural land. The assessee did not create any plot in

the said land and no developmental activities have been done

and no facilities have been provided. The assessee did not

make any advertisement for sale of the land. The character of

the land in the hands of assessee as agricultural land has not

changed. The agricultural land in question is classified in

revenue record as agricultural land and actual cultivation was

done as per the record. The AO has not produced any evidence

on record to show agricultural land was used for non-

agricultural purposes. The AO has also not brought

information/evidence on record. The assessee had been

carried on activities of buying and selling of the land in a

systematic and regular manner. It is well settled Law that

Certificate of the Tehsildar and Patwari who are the designated

Officers and is Competent Authority and are authorised to

issue Certificate measuring distance from Municipal Limits

which relevant. The ITAT, Jaipur Bench in the case of Satya

Dev Sharma Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 5(2), Jaipur 46

taxmann.com 149 (supra) held as under:

“IT : For purpose of application of item (b) of sub-clause (iii) of section 2(14) and to measure KMs from radius of Municipal Corporation, relevant date would be date of notification and not date of sale of land in question”

Tripathi Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Cirle-6,

Jaipur 34 taxmann.com 286 held as under:

“IT : If agricultural land fell beyond 8 kms of municipal limits on date of publication of relevant CBDT notification but fell within 8 kms on date of sale of land, it would still fall outside term ‘capital asset’.”

Jain Vs. Income-tax Officer, Ward 6(1), Jaipur 78

taxmann.com 53 held as under:

“IT : Amendment to section 2(14) by Finance Act, 2013 cannot apply for assessment year 2011-12; for this year distance of agricultural land from nearest municipality was to be measured by approach road.”

Act and nothing is brought on record of violation of the

aforesaid provisions and the Competent Authority under the

Delhi Land Reforms Act, Certified that the lands in question

falls beyond 8 KM from the Municipal Limits, therefore, there is

nothing wrong in the findings of the Ld CIT(A) in holding that

land in question is agricultural land and amount earned on

sale of the land to be capital receipt. The decisions relied upon

by the Learned D.R. would not support the case of the

Revenue. Considering the totality of the facts and

circumstances, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the

Learned CIT(A) in allowing the claim of assessee. We, therefore,

do not find any merit in the departmental appeal on this

ground and the same is dismissed accordingly. In the result,

Ground No.3 of the appeal of the Revenue for the A.Y. 2010-

2011 is dismissed.

challenged the Order of the Ld. CIT(A) in deleting the addition

of Rs.18,03,84,934/- on account of exemption claimed under

section 2(14) of the I.T Act. The Ld. CIT(A) reproduced the facts

and submissions of the parties in the appellate order and noted

that he has decided the similar issue in A.Y. 2010-2011 and

following the same, he has deleted the addition. Learned

Representatives of both the parties submitted that the issue is

same as have been considered in A.Y. 2010-2011 (supra).

Following the same reasons for decision, we dismiss this

ground of appeal of the Revenue.

for the AY 2011-2012 is dismissed.

ISSUE NO.4 :

the Order of the Ld. CIT(A) in directing the AO to allow 1/5th of

ROC fees of Rs.6,50,000/- and balance in four years. The

Assessee on Ground No.4 in its appeal for AY 2010-11 has

challenged the Order of the Ld. CIT(A) in allowing part relief.

assessee company has increased from Rs.10 lakhs to Rs.51

crores. The assessee was asked to file details of the same and

why the fees on this increase should not be disallowed being

capital in nature. The assessee submitted that ROC fees paid

for increase in authorised share capital has been shown in

preliminary expenses it has also furnished copy of the

preliminary expenses in which total amount of Rs.32,50,000/-

have been booked, out of which, an amount of Rs.6,50,000/-

has been written off and debited in the P & L Account on

account of preliminary expenses written off. The AO, therefore,

noted that it is crystal clear that the amount of Rs.6,50,000/.-

claimed by assessee company being preliminary expenses

written off under section 35D of the Act is related to the

increase in authorised share capital, therefore, the expenditure

incurred on the increase of authorised share capital is not

allowable under section 35D of the I.T. Act. The claim of

assessee was accordingly rejected and addition was accordingly

made. The Ld CIT(A), however, noted that as per Section 35D

only 1/5th of the expenses could be allowed in each 05 years

and was accordingly directed to disallow the whole amount of

Rs.6,50,000/- and allow 1/5th of the expenses i.e.,

Rs1,30,000/- in assessment year in appeal and balance in four

years.

27.1 The learned DR relied upon the Order of the AO and

contended that ROC fees was paid for increase of share capital

which was capital expenses only. The Learned DR relied upon

the Judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT

vs., Hindustan Insecticides Ltd., 116 Taxman 406 in which

following the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case

of Punjab State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. Vs.

CIT, 225 ITR 792 and Brooke Bond India 225 ITR 798, the

Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that since expenses incurred in

connection with the issue of shares with a view to increase its

share capital was directly related to expenditure expansion of

capital base of the company was capital expenditure even

though it might incidentally help in company’s business. The

issue was decided against the assessee. Ld Counsel for the

Assessee did not dispute the above legal proposition.

year under appeal the assessee company has increased its

authorised share capital. The assessee paid ROC fees. The

issue is, therefore, covered by the Judgment of the Hon’ble

Supreme Court in the case of Punjab State Industrial

Development Corporation Limited and Brooke Bond India

Limited (supra) against the assessee, in which it was held that

fees paid to the Registrar of Companies for enhancement of

capital is capital expenditure. In this view of the matter, we set

aside the Order of the ld. CIT(A) and restore the Order of the

AO as no deduction is permissible and Section 35D would not

be applicable.

for the AY 2010-2011 is allowed and Ground No.4 of the appeal

of Assessee for the AY 2010-2011 is dismissed.

ISSUE No. 5 :

2010-2011 the assessee challenged the Order of the Ld. CIT(A)

in confirming the addition of Rs.4 crores made under section

51 of the I.T. Act on account of treating the forfeiture of

advance paid for acquisition of property as capital loss without

considering the facts and circumstances of the case.

directed against the addition of Rs.4 crores made on account of

non-allowing of loss of purchase of property which occurred on

account of forfeiture of advance by seller. The AO did not allow

the loss on the transaction stating that purchase agreement in

respect of property was neither Registered nor Notarised and

that property in question is of residential property and,

therefore, transaction of purchase of the same was not

business transaction which was capital in nature therefore,

such loss suffered was not allowable. The assessee filed

detailed submissions before Ld CIT(A). It was replied that

assessee company has entered into an agreement to purchase

the constructed property bearing M-15, NDMC Part-2, New

Delhi for which advance at Rs.4 crores was paid at the time of

making the agreement to sell/ purchase. The deal was for

Rs.30 crores and balance Rs.26 crores was agreed to be paid

within next 15 days and to get sale deed registered. The

assessee company eventually failed to keep its promise of

payment of the balance amount to the seller on account of

having not been able to arrange the money in given time.

Therefore, seller has forfeited the amount which is business

loss. The objections of the AO about agreement to sell is not

registered is not valid. The agreement is made on non-judicial

stamp paper and duly singed by both the parties and two

independent witnesses. There is no legal requirement that

agreement should be registered or should be notarised. The

advance/earnest money was paid through account payee

cheques and has been encashed by the seller. The genuineness

of the transaction could not be doubted. AO without

considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the

case and without considering the entire transaction, rejected

the claim of assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) however, dismissed this

ground of appeal of assessee. Learned Counsel for Assessee

submitted that no information was confronted to the assessee

and the authorities below without considering the issue in

proper perspective have confirmed the addition. He has,

therefore, prayed that the matter may be sent back to the AO

for reconsideration. The Ld DR has also suggested that the

matter could be remanded to the AO for fresh consideration.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and

nature of business of assessee that assessee is engaged in the

business of infrastructure, purchase, manufacturing, trading,

import and export of construction material, mining extracts

etc., we are of the view that the matter have not been

appreciated by the authorities below in accordance with the

Law. Since both the parties have suggested that the matter

may be remanded to the file of AO, therefore, in the interest of

justice, we set aside the Orders of the authorities below and

restore this issue to the file of AO with a direction to re-decide

this issue in accordance with Law, by giving reasonable,

sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

Assessee for the AY 2010-2011 are allowed for statistical

purposes.

ISSUE NO.6 :

challenged the addition of Rs.2,51,000/- on account of

disallowance of TDS default.

assessee has committed short deduction of TDS on certain

payments. The addition was accordingly made. The Ld CIT(A)

confirmed the addition.

has not claimed such amount as expenses in P & L A/c,

therefore, matter requires reconsideration.

the authorities below and restore this issue to the file of AO

with a direction to verify the record and in case no expenses

have been claimed by assessee in P & L A/c, then, no addition

could be made on account of non-deduction of TDS, otherwise,

it would amount to double addition. The AO shall give

reasonable, sufficient opportunity of being heard to the

assessee.

the AY 2011-2012 is allowed for statistical purposes.

ISSUE NO.7 :

2012, the assessee challenged the disallowance of

Rs.11,11,000/- under section 37 of the I.T. Act.

has claimed deduction under section 80G of Rs.11,11,000/-,

but, it failed to produce any proof, therefore, it was disallowed

under section 37 of the I.T. Act, 1961.

in question were directly paid to the construction material

supplier M/s. Siddhi Vinayaka Steel for purchase of iron and

steel which material was donated to an old and dilapidated

temple for its renovation at the prayer of its employees who

happened to regularly visiting the temple existing close to their

work site. The bills were drawn in the name of assessee

company. The Temple Trust has acknowledged the receipt of

donation made for renovation of the Temple. The assessee

claimed it to be business expenditure. The Ld CIT(A), however,

noted that the receipt issued by the Trust based no information

whether Trust has obtained approval of CIT under section 80G

of the I.T. Act. Therefore, this ground of the assessee was

dismissed.

Order of the AO and has not produced any approval under

section 80G of the I.T. Act of the Temple, whether the said

Temple was authorised to collect donation? Further, as per

Explanaion-5 to Section 80G of he I.T Act, no deduction shall

be allowed under this Section of any donation unless such

donation is of a sum of money. Therefore, claim of assessee

could not be allowed. This ground of appeal of Assesse is

dismissed.

the AY 2011-2012 is dismissed.

ISSUE No.8 :

2011-2012, assessee challenged the Order of the Ld CIT(A) in

disallowing Rs.41,000/- on account of tour and travel

expenses. The AO disallowed the above amount because the

same did not pertain to assessment year under appeal because

that was of dated 02.04.2011. The ld CIT(A) also noted that the

expenditure pertain to subsequent AY 2012-2013, therefore,

this ground was dismissed.

merit in this ground of appeal of assessee. Since the bill

submitted by assessee of the expenditure do not pertain to the

assessment year under appeal, therefore, there is no infirmity

in the Order of the Ld CIT(A) in dismissing this ground of

appeal of assessee. Ground No.4 of the appeal of Assessee for

the AY 2011-2012 is dismissed.

To sum-up,

(1) The Departmental Appeal for the AY 2010-2011

is partly allowed and the Departmental Appeal for

the AY 2011-2012 is dismissed.

(2) The Assessee’s appeals for the AYs 2010-2011

and 2011-2012 are partly allowed for statistical

purposes.

Order pronounced in the open Court.

Sd/- Sd/- (B.R.R. KUMAR) (BHAVNESH SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Delhi, Dated 30th December, 2019 VBP/- Copy to 1. The appellant 2. The respondent 3. CIT(A) concerned 4. CIT concerned 5. D.R. ITAT ‘G’ Bench, Delhi 6. Guard File. // BY Order //

Assistant Registrar : ITAT Delhi Benches : Delhi