IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
DELHI BENCH "D", NEW DELHI
BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER
AND
SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
I.T.A. No. 3823/Del/2014
A.Y. : 2005-06
DCIT, CIRCLE 25(1), VS. Smt. Usha Rani Talla,
NEW DELHI B-5, Near Durga Mandir,
Moti Nagar,
New Delhi 110 015
(PAN: AEBRP3546P)
(APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT)
AND
I.T.A. No. 3820/Del/2014
A.Y. : 2009-10
DCIT, CIRCLE 25(1), VS. Urvashi Talla,
NEW DELHI B-5, Near Durga Mandir,
Moti Nagar,
New Delhi 110 015
(PAN: ADTPT5304J)
(APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT)
Department by : Sh. R.K. Gupta, Addl. CIT(DR)
Assessee by : Sh. Nagesh Bahel, Advocate
ORDER
PER H.S. SIDHU : JM
These are the separate appeals filed by the Revenue emanate out of
the respective Orders passed by the Ld. CIT(A)-XXIV, New Delhi pertaining
1
to assessment years 2005-06 & 2009-10. Since the issues involved in
these appeals are common and identical, hence, the appeals were heard
together and are being decided by this common Order for the sake of
convenience, by dealing with ITA No. 3823/Del/2014 (AY 2005-06) and the
result thereof will apply mutatis mutandis to other Revenue's Appeal No.
3820/Del/2014 (AY 2009-10) DCIT vs. Urvashi Talla.
2. The grounds raised in the Revenue's Appeal No. 3823/Del/2014 (AY
2005-06) read as under:-
"On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law
CIT(A) has erred in:-
1. Deleting the addition of Rs. 3,40,89,000/- made by the AO
on account of explained income.
2. Admitting the additional evidence without giving the
opportunity to AO under Rule 46A.
3. Holding that the reference to DVO held as invalid.
4. The assessee craves the right to add, alter or demand any
ground of appeal."
3. The grounds raised in the Revenue's Appeal No. 3820/Del/2014 (AY
2009-10) read as under:-
"On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law
CIT(A) has erred in:-
1. Deleting the addition of Rs. 2,28,46,000/- made by the
AO on account of explained income.
2. Admitting the additional evidence without giving the
opportunity to AO under Rule 46A.
3. Holding that the reference to DVO held as invalid.
4. The assessee craves the right to add, alter or demand
any ground of appeal."
4. At the time of hearing, Ld. Counsel for the assessee stated that the
issues involved in these 02 appeals have already been adjudicated and
2
decided by the ITAT, Delhi `H' Bench, New Delhi vide its common order
dated 30.6.2015 passed in Revenue's appeal in ITA No. 5698/Del/2014 i.e.
ACIT vs. Smt. Usha Rani Talla and in Assessee's appeal being ITA No.
5974/Del/2014 (AY 2009-10) i.e. Smt. Usha Rani Talla. Vs. ITO. He specially
draw our attention towards the findings of the Tribunal on the issue in
dispute and requested that following the aforesaid ratio, the appeals filed
Revenue may be dismissed.
5. Ld. DR relied upon the order of the AO and reiterated the
contentions raised by the Revenue in the grounds of appeal.
6. We have heard both the parties and perused the impugned order of
the Ld. CIT(A) alongwith the order passed by the ITAT, `H' Bench New
Delhi vide its order 30.6.2015 in Revenue's appeal in ITA No.
5698/Del/2014 i.e. ACIT vs. Smt. Usha Rani Talla and in Assessee's appeal
being ITA No. 5974/Del/2014 (AY 2009-10) i.e. Smt. Usha Rani Talla. Vs.
ITO. For the sake of convenience, the relevant portion of the same is
reproduced as under:-
"9. We have heard both the parties and perused
the records, especially the orders of the revenue
authorities and the submissions and precedents
submitted by both the parties. We find
considerable cogency in the submissions of the Ld.
Counsel of the assessee and the judgment
rendered by Hon'ble Delhi High Court by which
issue involved in ground no. 1 in the Revenue's
appeal is squarely covered in favor of the Assessee
and against the Revenue.
10. We find that in the case CIT vs. Smt. Nilofer
I. Singh [2009] 176 TAXMANN 252 (Delhi), the
Hon'ble High Court has held "expression `full
value of consideration' used in section 48 does
3
not have any reference to market value but only to
consideration referred to in sale deeds as sale price
of assets which have been transferred.
10.1 We further find that in the case of - CIT vs. Aerens
Inrastructure & Technology Ltd. vs. DCIT [2011] 16
taxmann.com 400 (Delhi), the Hon'ble High Court
has confirmed the order of the ITAT wherein the
Tribunal deleted the addition of Rs. 48,68,774/-
made by the AO on account of difference between
the value determined by the DVO and the
purchase consideration shown by the assessee
holding that the reference made by the AO
invoking the provisions of Section 142A was
without jurisdiction and therefore, no addition
could have been made by the AO on the bass of
valuation made by the DVO.
10.2 We further find from the latest decision of the
Hon'ble High Court of Delhi passed in the ITA No.
340/2015 & CM No. 9241 / 2015 in the case of
Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Anil Arora decided
on 22.5.2014 wherein vide para no. 8 & 9 of the
said order the Court has observed as under:-
"8. Having heard the learned counsel for the
Revenue, we find the contentions urged in
the appeal to be wholly misplaced. It is fairly
concede (at bar) by the counsel for the
Revenue that the reference to DVO for
estimation of the market value of the
property in Punjabi Bagh was not based on
any material discovered' or seized during the
search operations. The counsel, however,
4
referred to the case of another property in
District Baddi (Himachal Pradesh), in respect
of which documentary evidence indicated
unaccounted consideration paid by the
assessee, referred to by the AO in para 4.3 of
his order. At the same time, learned counsel
also conceded that no addition to the tax
liability of the assessee on account of the
said other property has been made. There is
no nexus between the property in Baddi
(Himachal Pradesh) and the property in
Punjabi Bagh (West). There is undoubtedly
no material available to even remotely reflect
that consideration over and above what was
shown to be paid in the registered sale deed
of the West Punjabi Bagh property was made
over to the seller. In these circumstances, it
was not fair in the first place to refer the said
property for estimation of its market value by
DVO.
9. The assessment of the value by DVO
cannot hold primacy over the consideration
for which the property was actually acquired.
If there is any difference in the shares in
consideration borne by the four brothers, it
is matter of their inter se understanding.
Doubts as to the real value cannot arise from
such fact alone."
10.3 We further find that the assessee has
contested that the addition of Rs. 3,53,30,000/- on
account of unexplained income on the basis of
5
DVO's report is not as per law and is liable to be
deleted. It was further observed that during the
course of assessment proceedings vide her
submission dated 22.11.2012, and on being asked
to explain further source of deposits in the bank
account, the assessee explained the source of
investment in the aforesaid property as follows:-
S.No. Date Ch. Amount Name Particulars Bank
No. of the
party
1 5.5.2008 01790 44,30,000 Gagan J-1/161 Axis
3 Preet Rajouri Bank
Singh Garden Ltd.
New Delhi West
Punjabi
Bagh.
2 5.5.2008 01790 44,30,000 Rishi J-1/161 Axis
4 Preet Rajouri Bank
Singh Garden Ltd.
New Delhi West
Punjabi
Bagh.
3 19.5.2008 Paid Rs.3,54,400 Stamp J-1/161 BOI,
by duty Rajouri Kiriti
cash paid Garden Nagar,
New Delhi
Total 92,14,400
6
She further explained the source of the
deposits made in the aforesaid bank account as
follows:-
Source of Payment (Receipts in Bank)
S.No. Date Ch. No. Amount Name Nature Bank Property
1 5.5.2008 301651 85,00,000 Sale Sale of Axis J-1/161,
Consideration property Bank Rajouri
20- C/72, Ltd., Garden,
West West New Delhi
Punjabi Punjabi
Bagh Bagh,
2 6.5.2008 Cash 3,10,000 Cash Cash Axis J-1/161,
deposited in withdraw Bank Rajouri
Axis from BOI Ltd., Garden,
A/c West New Delhi
Punjabi
Bagh,
3 22.4.2008 000016 26,786 Rent Rent Axis J-1/161,
Recd. Bank Rajouri
From Ltd., Garden,
Care Zone West New Delhi
from DE- Punjabi
85, Bagh,
Tagore
Garden,
New
Delhi
4 26.4.2008 000005 26,739 Rent Rent Axis J-1/161,
Recd. Bank Rajouri
From Ltd., Garden,
Bharti West New Delhi
Celuler Punjabi
Ltd., from Bagh,
DE-85,
Tagore
Garden,
New
7
Delhi
5. 19.5.2008 3,50,000 Stamp Duty Cash BOI J-1/161,
withdrawn Kirit Rajouri
from BOI Nagar Garden,
A/c New Delhi
The assessee also submitted the copies of bank
statements of the BOI, Kirti Nagar and Axis Bank,
New Delhi
10.4 From the above chart, it is clear that the
assessee had made the investment in the aforesaid
properties through her bank accounts at Axis Bank,
West Kirti Nagar Branch, Delhi & Bank of India,
Kirti Nagar Branch, Delhi. It was explained that
during the relevant assessment year, the assessee
sold a property at 20C/72, West Punjabi Baqh, New
Delhi and utilized the sale proceeds for the
purchase of property at J-1/161, Rajouri Garden,
New Delhi. However, it seems that the Assessing
Officer has ignored all the explanations given by
the assessee during the course of assessment.
From the assessment order, it is also evident that
the Assessing Officer has not controverted the
explanation given by the assessee regarding the
investments made in the aforementioned property.
Further, no material has been brought on record
by the Assessing Officer to show that the assessee
has made any excess investments in the aforesaid
property over and above the value recorded in the
sale deed. Therefore, we are of the view that the
Assessing Officer has grossly erred in making
addition of RS.3,53,30,OOO/- on account of
8
investment in the properties at J-1/161, Rajouri
Garden, New Delhi and Ld. CIT(A) has rightly
appreciated all the evidences filed by the Assessee
before AO. The AO without bringing any evidence
on record of excess investment in the properties at
J-1/161, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi over and above
the value of investment shown in the sale deed at
Rs. 88,59,420/- has referred the matter to the
District Valuation officer for estimation of the value
of the property. Even no opportunity of being
heard or a show cause notice was given to the
assessee before referring the matter to the DVO
for the estimation of the value of investment in the
aforesaid properties at J- 1/161, Rajouri Garden,
New Delhi. In our considered opinion, without
bringing any adverse material on record or any
evidence of excess investment the Assessing
Officer had no power to refer the matter to the
DVO and Ld. CIT(A) has rightly deleted the addition
in dispute.
10.5 We further observed that the assessee had
submitted her books of accounts explaining the
sources of investment in the aforesaid property
and the Assessing Officer has given no comment
or even rejected the books of accounts before
making a reference to the DVO for ascertaining the
actual investment in the aforesaid property. The
Assessing Officer has not even recorded any
reason for referring the matter to the DVO for the
estimation of the value of property. The Ld. First
Appellate Authority has rightly appreciated the
9
provisions of law. The relevant provision sub-
section-t of Sec.142A reads as under:-
"142A (1) For the purposes of making an
assessment or reassessment under this Act, where
an estimate of the value of any investment referred
to in section 69 or section 69B or the value of any
bullion, jewellery or other valuable article referred
to in section 69A or Section 698 is required to be
made, the Assessing Officer may require the
Valuation Officer to make an estimate of such
value and report the same to him."
10.6 We further find that the words mentioned in
the above mentioned section "where an estimate
of the value of any investment referred to in Sec.
69 ...... is required to be made . ... " means that a
reference to the DVO be made only when a
requirement is felt by the Assessing Officer for
making such reference. Requirement would arise or
could be felt only when there is some material with
the AO to show that whatever amount the
assessee has shown is not correct or not reliable.
The use of the word "require" is not superfluous
but signifies a definite meaning whereby some
preliminary formation of mind by the AO is
necessary which requires him to make a reference
to DVO uls 142A. In other words, it is only during
the course of pendency of the assessment that the
AO can frame his mind to refer the property to
DVO. Such mind can be framed if there is a basis
to think that the assessee may have understated
the cost of construction or whatever is declared by
10
him in this regard is not believable. Ld. CIT(A) has
rightly appreciated the all evidences as well as
provisions of law and decided the issue in favor of
the assessee.
10.7 On perusal of the assessment order, we find
that there was no reference whatsoever made by
the AO to any material/evidence/information on
the basis of which it could be said that the said
that the investment shown by the appellant was
understated and that anything above what was
disclosed by the appellant. Thus, the condition
precedent for making reference to the DVO by
invoking the provisions of Sec. 142A was not
satisfied in the present case. Moreover, on perusal
of the assessment order, it is noted that nowhere
the AO has mentioned that what are the mistakes
and unreliability has been found out by the AO in
the books of accounts of the appellant. Thus, the
AO has not pointed out any defects in the books
as far as related to the investment made by the
appellant. In my humble opinion, the provisions of
Sec. 142A cannot be read in isolation to Sec.145. In
other words, if books of account are found to be
correct and complete in all respect and :10 defect
is pointed out therein and the investment is
recorded therein, then the addition on account of
difference in investment could not be made even if
a report is obtained within the meaning of
Sec.142A from the DVO. It is because the use of
the report of the DVO obtained u/s. 142A is not
mandatory but is discretionary as the word used is
11
'may' therein. Accordingly, in the present case
when AO has not rejected the books of account by
pointing out any defects reference to the DVO will
not be valid and, therefore, DVO's report could
not be utilized for framing assessment even if such
a report is considered to be obtained u/s 142A.
Since reference to DVO being held as invalid, the
assessment/reassessment framed thereafter would
also be invalid. Reliance in this regard was placed
on the decision of ITAT Delhi, in the case of Aerens
Infrastructure & Technology Ltd. v. Deputy
Commissioner of Income-tax [2010] 3 ITR (TRIB.)
344 (DELHI) which has been approved by Hon'ble
Delhi HC In the case of Commissioner of Income-
tax Delhi-I, New Delhi v. Aerens Infrastructure &
Technology Ltd. [2011] 16 taxmann.com 400
(Delhi). It has been held that :-
"Where Assessing Officer made reference to
Valuation Officer in respect of a property
purchased by assessee and though there was no
finding by Assessing Officer that assessee had
incurred any expenditure in excess of what had
been declared but he had referred issue of
valuation to DVO only on basis of speculation
alleging information in form of newspaper report
about enhanced property prices in area, reference
to Assessing Officer and addition based on his
report were not justified."
10.8 On going through the records, we note
that the assessee-company had during the relevant
assessment year purchased a property in Delhi for
12
a consideration of Rs. 11,84,926. The Assessing
Officer invoked the provisions of section 142A and
sent the issue to the DVO for valuation of the
property at the fair market value. On the basis of
report of the Valuation Officer valuing the
property at Rs. 60,53,700 the Assessing Officer had
treated the difference between the purchase
consideration shown by the assessee and the fair
market value as on the date of purchase
determined by the ova as unexplained money paid
by the assessee for the purchase or the property.
10.9 We further note that there was no finding by
the Assessing Officer that the assessee had
incurred any expenditure in excess of what had
been declared but he had referred the issue of
valuation to the ova only on the basis of
speculation alleging information in the form of
newspaper report about enhanced property prices
in the area. In these circumstances, the reference
made by the Assessing Officer by invoking the
provisions of section 142A was without justification
and, consequently, no addition could be made on
the basis of valuation made by the DVO.
10.10To support our finding, we place reliance on
the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India in the case of Sargam Cinema vs. CIT [2011]
197 Taxman 203 (SC) wherein it was held as
under:-
"4. In the present case, we find that the Tribunal
decided the matter rightly in favour of the assessee
inasmuch as the Tribunal came to the conclusion
13
that the assessing, authority could not have
referred the matter to the Departmental Valuation
Officer (DVO) without the books of account being
rejected. In the present case, a categorical finding
is recorded by the Tribunal that the books were
never rejected. This aspect has not been
considered by the High Court. In the
circumstances, reliance placed on the report of the
DVO was misconceived.
5. For the above reasons, the impugned judgment
of the High Court is set aside and the order passed
by the Tribunal stands restored to the file.
Accordingly, the assessee succeeds."
10.11We further place reliance in another case of
ITO vs. Rajeshwar Nath Gupta dated 4.5.2008 in ITA
no. 4295/D.eI.l2005,The ITAT, Delhi in the context
of provisions of sec. 142A of the Act, held as
follows:
"15. A perusal of the aforesaid provisions shows
that section 142A is attracted, inter alia, where the
assessee is found to have made investment outside
the books of account or where any such
investment made by him is not fully disclosed in
the books of account. The condition precedent for
making the reference by invoking the provisions of
section 142A thus is that there should be
something on record to show that the assessee in
the first place has made such investment outside
the books or the investment so made by him is
not fully disclosed in the books of account and
once this condition is satisfied, the quantum of
14
such investment made can be ascertained by the
Assessing Officer by making a reference under
section 142A in order to make the addition under
section 69 or 69B, whichever is applicable. In the
present case, the relevant property was purchased
by the assessee during the year under
consideration for Rs. 15 lakhs and the amount of
the said consideration was paid out of its
disclosed sources as accepted even by the
Assessing Officer in the assessment. A perusal of
the assessment order, however, shows that there
was no reference whatsoever made by the AO to
any material / evidence / information on the
basis of which it could be said that the said
consideration shown by the assessee had actually
been paid as consideration. The condition
precedent for making a reference to the DVO by
invoking the provisions of section 142A thus was
not satisfied in the present case and neither the
said reference nor the addition made on the basis
of report obtained from the DVO in response to
the said reference, in our opinion, was sustainable
in Jaw as rightly held by the learned Commissioner
of Income-tax tax (Appeals)."
10.12 We further find that similar views were
taken in the cases of Commissioner of Income-tax
v. Ambience Developers and Infrastructure(P.) Ltd,
[2012] 25 taxmann.com 210 (Delhi), CIT vs Gulshan
Kumar [2002] 257 ITR 703 (Delhi), CIT v. P .V.
Kalyanasundaram [2007] 294 ITR 49 (SC) Subhash
Chand Chopra v. Asst. CIT [2005] 92 TTJ (Delhi)
15
1087) and K.P Varghese. v. ITO [1981] 131 ITR 597
(SC).
10.13 Under these circumstances, We are of the
opinion that the Assessing Officer has erred in
referring the matter to the DVO and consequently
the DVO's report on the value of investment in the
property cannot replace the actual purchase value
shown in the purchase deed of the aforesaid
property at J-1/161, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi.
Hence, the Assessing Officer has erred in adopting
the value of the property at J-1/161, Rajouri
Garden, New Delhi estimated by the DVO by
replacing the value shown in the purchase deed.
Ld. First Appellate Authority has rightly appreciated
the all evidences as well as the relevant provisions
of law and deleted the addition in dispute. It is
further observed that even after the receipt of the
valuation report from the DVO, the Assessing
Officer had given only one day time to the
appellant to explain the difference in the value of
the property as estimated by the DVO and the
value shown by her in the purchase deed. This is
against the principle of natural justice. In this
regard it is seen that the AO had issued a show
cause notice dated 21-03-2013 for submitting reply
on 22-03-2013 i.e. immediately next date,
Therefore, assessing officer has not given sufficient
opportunity of being heard to the assessee. It
cannot be said that by giving opportunity of being
heard for hearing immediately one day assessing
officer has discharged his obligation of giving
16
opportunity of being heard. In the case of Sahara
India (Firm) v. Commissioner of Income-tax,
Central-I [2008] 169 Taxman 328 (SC) Supreme
Court of India has held as under:-
"It is trite that unless a statutory provision either
specifically or by necessary implication excludes the
application of principles of natural justice, because
in that event the Court would not ignore the
legislative mandate, the requirement of giving a
reasonable opportunity of being heard before an
order is made, is generally read into the provisions
of a statute, particularly when the order can have
adverse civil consequences for the party likely to
be affected."
9.14 In an another case title as Assistant Director
of Income-tax, Circle 1 (2), International Taxation,
New Delhi v. Ranjay Gulati, [2011] 14 taxmann.com
161 (Delhi) ITAT Delhi has held as under:-
"Section 50C, read with sections 45 and 48, of the
Income-tax Act, 1961 - Capital gains Special
provision for full value of consideration in certain
cases -Assessment year 2007-08 - Assessee sold an
industrial plot for a sum of Rs. 2.90 crores -
Assessing Officer made a reference to District
Valuation Officer (DVO) to ascertain fair market
value of plot on date of sale who arrived at a
valuation of Rs. 5.36 crores - Assessing Officer
without giving an opportunity of being heard to
assessee, adopted valuation made by ova and,
accordingly, enhanced amount of capital gain liable
to tax - On appeal, Commissioner (Appeals)
17
deleted addition made by Assessing Officer - It
was noted from records that value of assessee's
property as per circle rates was Rs. 2 crores as
against sale consideration of Rs. 2.90 crores
admitted by assessee - Further, there was nothing
on record to suggest that assessee had received
more than what was stated in sale deed - Whether
in aforesaid circumstances, Assessing Officer had to
adopt amount received by assessee as full value of
sale consideration for calculating capital gain liable
to tax - Held, yes - Whether even otherwise,
adoption of report of ova without providing an
opportunity of being heard to assessee was against
principles of natural justice - Held, yes - Whether,
consequently, impugned addition made by
Assessing Officer was rightly deleted - Held, yes"
10.15In the background of the aforesaid
discussions and respectfully following the
precedents as aforesaid, we are of the considered
view that the Ld. CIT(A) was right in observing that
the AO has erred in making the addition Rs.
3,53,30,000/- on account of unexplained income of
the assessee and accordingly rightly directed the
AO to delete the addition in dispute, which in our
opinion, does not need any interference on our
part, hence, we uphold the same. Accordingly, the
Ground no. 1 raised by the Revenue stands
dismissed.
11. With regard to ground no. 2 regarding
admitting the additional evidence without giving
the opportunity to AO under Rule 46A is
18
concerned, we find that no additional evidence
have been filed by the Assessee before the Ld.
CIT(A), which required to be sent to the AO under
Rule 46A and also in the Ld. CIT(A)'s order there
was no mention about the admission of additional
evidence, hence, the ground no. 2 in dispute in
the Revenue's Appeal is dismissed as such.
12. Apropos ground no. 3 regarding directing
the AO consider the claim of assessee u/s. 54 of
the I.T. Act, 1961 is concerned, we find that during
the relevant assessment year, the assessee has sold
a property at 20C/72, West Punjabi Nagar, New
Delhi for the consideration of Rs. 95,00,000/- as
per the registered value of the property (whereas
during the course of survey, the same property was
found to be valued at Rs. 3,87,00,000/- by a
registered valuer). The assessee has claimed that
the sale proceed of the aforesaid property at
20C/72, West Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi was
invested in the purchase of property in the same
assessment year at J-1/161, Rajouri Garden, New
Delhi. We observed that the assessee was entitled
for deduction u/s. 54 of the I.T. Act in respect of
capital gain on the sale of property at 20C/72,
West Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi. We further note
that the assessee has also relied upon the decision
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case
of National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. vs. CIT 229 ITR
383. The AO has not considered the claim of
exemption of the assessee u/s. 54 in respect of
the capital gain arose in respect of the sale of
19
property at 20C/72, West Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi.
In view of the above, in our considered opinion,
the Ld. CIT(A) rightly directed the AO to consider
the aforesaid claim of the assessee of exemption
u/s 54 of the I.T. Act, while computing the income
of the assessee. We also find considerable
cogency in the assessee's counsel that Ld. DR
itself was saying that the assessee has sold one
property and purchased another, then there is no
question why exemption u/s. 54 should not be
given. In view above, we find that the CIT(A) has
given a well reasoned finding on the issue in
dispute, which does not need any interference on
our part, hence, we uphold the same and decide
the issue no. 3 against the Revenue.
In the result the Revenue's appeal is
dismissed."
7. We have gone through the order passed by the Tribunal dated
30.6.2015 in assessee's own case and we are of the view that the issue in
dispute has already been adjudicated and decided in favour of the
assessee by the Tribunal by upholding the impugned order of the Ld.
CIT(A). We also find that no contrary decision has been brought to our
notice by the Ld. DR. Therefore, no interference is called for in the well
reasoned impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A). Hence, respectfully following
the ITAT `H' Bench order dated 30.6.2015 passed in Revenue's appeal in
ITA No. 5698/Del/2014 i.e. ACIT vs. Smt. Usha Rani Talla and in Assessee's
appeal being ITA No. 5974/Del/2014 (AY 2009-10) i.e. Smt. Usha Rani Talla.
Vs. ITO, we uphold the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue in dispute and
reject the grounds raised by the Revenue by dismissing the appeal of the
Revenue.
20
8. In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue stand dismissed.
Order pronounced on 24-02-2020
Sd/- Sd/-
[PRASHANT MAHARISHI [H.S. SIDHU]
ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
Date 24/02/2020
Copy to: -
1. Assessee-
2. Respondent -
3. CIT
4. CIT (A) TRUE COPY
By Order,
Assistant Registrar,
ITAT, Delhi Benches
21
|
