M/s. Apollo Interfab (P) Ltd., New Delhi V. DCIT, New Delhi

CO 256/DEL/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 122 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6193 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 24-06-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 16-06-2011
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 20-08-2010
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SUNIL BHATIA; G C SRIVASTAVE
• Assessee Lawyers: MRS MONA MOHANTY
• Keywords: Retraction
• Section: 133A; 131

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH A NEW DELHI) BEFORE I.P. BANSAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.K. HALDAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 3367/DEL/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08 DCIT, M/S APOLLO INTERFABS (P) LTD., CIRCLE-2 (1), S-93, OKHLA INDL. AREA, NEW DELHI. V. PHASE-II, NEW DELHI. AND C.O. NO.256/DEL/2010 IN I.T.A. NO.3367/DEL/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 M/S APOLLO INTERFABS (P) LTD., DCIT, S-93, OKHLA INDL. AREA, CIRCLE-2 (1), PHASE-II, N. DELHI. V. NEW DELHI. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN /GIR/NO. PAN /GIR/NO. PAN /GIR/NO. PAN /GIR/NO.AABCA AABCA AABCA AABCA- -- -1560 1560 1560 1560- -- -B BB B APPELLANT BY : MRS. MONA MOHANTY, SR. DR RESPONDENT BY : SHRI G.C. SRIVASTAVE, ADVOCATE & SHRI SUNIL BHATIA, C.A. ORDER PER B.K. HALDAR, AM: THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORD ER OF LD CIT(A) V, NEW DELHI DATED 22.4.2010 FOR ASSESSMENT YEA R 2007-08 AND THE CORRESPONDING CROSS OBJECTION TAKEN BY THE ASSESSE E. 2. IN THE REVENUES APPEAL, THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEALS HAVE BEEN TAKEN:- PAGE 2 OF 11 ITA NO3367 & CO 256./DEL/10 1. THE LD CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELET ING ADDITION OF `.1,50,65,340/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT I N STOCKS IGNORING THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT HAVE ANY MATERIAL E VIDENCE TO SUBSTANTIATE THAT THE STOCK PHYSICALLY AVAILABLE WHICH WAS IN EXCESS OF `.150.65 LAKHS WAS ACQUIRED ONLY OUT OF THE INCOME EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE EVEN AS THE SAME WAS NOT RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AT THE TIME OF THE SURVEY. 2. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEASE FOR RESERVING THE RIGHT T O AMEND, MODIFY, ALTER, ADD OR FOREGO ANY GROUND (S) OF APPEA L AT ANY TIME BEFORE OR DURING THE HEARING OF THIS APPEAL. 3. IN THIS CASE A SURVEY OPERATION U/S 133A OF THE ACT WAS CONDUCTED AT THE BUSINESS PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE ON 9.10.2 006 & 10.10.2006. DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY A PEN DRIVE CONTAINING DETAILS OF SALES AFFECTED BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH DID NOT FIND PLAC E IN THE REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS F OUND. THE PHYSICAL VERIFICATION OF STOCK WAS ALSO TAKEN AND TOT AL VALUATION OF THE STOCK WAS FOUND TO BE OF `.4,05,73,131/-. 4. DURING THE SURVEY A STATEMENT OF A DIRECTOR OF T HE ASSESSEE COMPANY NAMELY SHRI UMESH MOHAN WAS RECORDED U/S 131 O F THE ACT. THE SURVEY TEAM ALSO CONFRONTED THE ASSESSEE WITH THE SAL ES DETAILS NOT RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND THE EXCESS ST OCK FOUND IN THE BUSINESS PREMISES. THE ASSESSEE ADMITTED GROSS PROFIT AT 7% OF THE UN-RECORDED SALES FOR THE VARIOUS FINANCIAL YEAR A S UNDER:- FINANCIAL YEAR SALES GROSS PROFIT (NOT RECORDED IN BOOKS OF (@ 7% OF SALES AMOUNT ACCOUNTS IN `. LAKHS). AMOUNT IN `. LAKHS PAGE 3 OF 11 ITA NO3367 & CO 256./DEL/10 2004-05 161.45 11.30 2005-06 1691.10 118.38 2006-07 1253.08 87.72 TOTAL 217.40 5. THE EXCESS STOCK AMOUNTING TO `.1,50,65,314/- WAS AL SO ADMITTED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE SAME WAS ALSO OFFERED FOR TAXATION AS ADDITIONAL INCOME FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2006-07. 6. QUESTION NO.22 AND THE REPLY GIVEN BY THE SAID DIR ECTOR U/S 131 OF THE ACT ON THE DATE OF SURVEY IS REPRODUCED HEREUN DER:- QUESTION NO.22: IN REPLY TO Q. NO.10 YOU HAVE ADMIT TED TO HAVING MADE UNDISCLOSED SALE IN THE NAME OF M/S ABC ( A FICTIOUS ENTITY) PLEASE STATE WHY THE AMOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED SALES IN THE RESPECTIVE F/YS OR ALTERNATIVELY A PROPORTION THERE OF (ON A/C OF ROTATION) SHOULD NOT BE FURTHER ADDED AS UNDISCLOSED I NVESTMENT OUTSIDE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. ANS. 22: I WISH TO STATE CATEGORICALLY THAT WE HAVE NO T MADE ANY UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENTS IN THE SALES REFERRED TO ABOVE. T HE EXISTING STOCK IN THE BOOKS OF M/S APOLLO INTERFABS PVT. LTD. WAS SOLD IN THE NAME OF M/S ABC (OUTSIDE THE BOOKS) AND IMM EDIATELY PURCHASES WERE MADE TO REPLENISH THE DEFICIENT STOCK IN THE BOOKS OF M/S APOLLO INTERFABS PVT. LTD. NO ADDITIONAL INVESTMENT HAVE BEEN MADE BY US ON ACCOUNT OF THE UNDISCLOSED SAL ES IN THE NAME OF M/S ABC. PAGE 4 OF 11 ITA NO3367 & CO 256./DEL/10 7. THE VOLUNTARY STATEMENT OF THE SAID DIRECTOR ON 16 TH JUNE, 2010 I.E. 6 DAYS BEING THE DATE OF SURVEY WITH REFERENCE T O QUESTION NO.2 & 3 IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER:- Q. NO. 2 DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY OPERATION U/S 13 3A OF THE IT ACT, 1961 ON 9.10.2006 AT THE BUSINESS PREMISES OF YO UR COMPANY I.E. S-93, OKHLA INDL. AREA, PHAE-II, NEW D ELHI PF WHICH YOU ARE A DIRECTOR, YOU HAD SURRENDERED INCOME OF `.3,68,13,780/- (RUPEES THREE CRORES SIXTY EIGHT LAKH S THIRTEEN THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED EIGHTY ONLY).IN RESPONSE TO Q. NO.25 OF THE STATEMENT RECORDED DURING THE SURVEY OPERATION ON 9.10.2006, PLEASE STATE WHETHER THE SAID INCOME WAS SURRENDERED UNDER ANY PRESSURE, COERCION OR DURESS FROM ANYBODY OR IT HAS BEEN SURRENDERED VOLUNTARILY KNOWIN G ALL THE CONSEQUENCES THEREOF? ANS: I AM VERY MUCH CLEAR ABOUT THE INCOME SURRENDER ED BY ME MENTIONED ABOVE AS INCOME NOT DISCLOSED TO THE DEPARTM ENT FOR INCOME TAX PURPOSE AND THE CONSEQUENCES THEREON. AND I AGREE TO PAY THE TAXES ON THE SURRENDERED INCOME AS COMMITTE D. IN MY EARLIER STATEMENT RECORDED ON 9/10/2006 & 10/10/2006 AND RECORDED AGAIN TODAY I.E. 16.10.2006 WITH OUR UNDER STANDING THAT NO PENALTY ACTION OR PROSECUTION UNDER ANY SECTION OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 WILL BE INITIATED AGAINST ME & OTHER D IRECTORS OF THE COMPANY, BUT I AGREE TO PAY TAXES AS PER CHEQUES ALREA DY SUBSCRIBED TO YOU ALREADY DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY O PERATION. Q. NO.3. YOU ARE AGAIN BEING GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY T O GIVE A THOUGHT THAT YOU HAVE STATED ABOVE OR STATEMENT RECOR DED ON 9 TH PAGE 5 OF 11 ITA NO3367 & CO 256./DEL/10 & 10 TH OCTOBER, 2006 AND IF YOU WANT TO ADD ANYTHING BEFO RE SUMMING UP THIS STATEMENT. ANS: I HAVE GIVEN STATEMENT IN FULL SENSE AND I DO NOT WANT TO ADD ANYTHING. 8. CASH PAYMENT ON ACCOUNT OF RENT AMOUNTING TO `.90 00/- WAS ALSO FOUND WHICH WAS NOT RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. THUS, A TOTAL AMOUNT OF `.3,68,13,780/- (`.2,55,07,793/- PLUS `.1, 50,65,341/- PLUS `,9000/-) WAS VOLUNTARY SURRENDERED AS UNDISCLOSED INCO ME BY THE ASSESSEE ON 16.10.2006. THE DISCLOSURE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 WAS `,2,38,45,877/- (`.1,50,65,340/- PLUS `.87,71,537 /- PLUS `.9,000/-). 9. HOWEVER, IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED FOR ASSESSMEN T YEAR 2007- 08, THE ASSESSEE DISCLOSED AN ADDITIONAL INCOME OF `.45,1 5,340/- AS AGAINST DISCLOSURE DURING SURVEY AMOUNTING TO `.2,38,4 5,877/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THEREFORE, ISSUED A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE ASKING IT TO EXPLAIN AS TO WHY AN ADDITION OF `. 1,93,30,537/- SHOULD NOT BE MADE TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE ON THIS ACCOUNT. THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT THE EXC ESS STOCK OF `.1,50,65,340/- CAME OUT OF THE UNRECORDED INCOME D ISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE AMOUNTING TO `.1,64,03,000/-. IT WAS CONTENDED THAT ADDITION CANNOT BE MADE BOTH ON ACCOUNT OF INVENTORY/ASSETS AND ON THE BASIS OF INCOME. IT WAS ALSO CLAIMED THAT THE VALUE OF INV ENTORY WAS CALCULATED BY TAKING HIGHLY EXCESSIVE COST PRICE. ALSO A PART OF THE UNDISCLOSED SALE WAS INCORPORATED IN THE REGULAR BOOKS O F ACCOUNT AND INCOME THERE FROM WAS INCORRECTLY DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSE E. 10. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SUMMARIZED THE CONTENTIONS OF T HE ASSESSEE AS UNDER:- PAGE 6 OF 11 ITA NO3367 & CO 256./DEL/10 1. DISCLOSURE ON ACCOUNT OF GROSS PROFIT RATE OF UNDISCLOSED SALES EXPLAINS THE EXCESS STOCK. 2. OUT OF UNDISCLOSED SALES, SOME PART OF THE SALES WERE REC ORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. 11. THE ABOVE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE WERE NOT ACCEP TED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF THE FOLLOWING 1. THE ASSESSEE VOLUNTARILY SURRENDERED A TOTAL AMOUNT OF `.2,38,45,87/- FOR THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR DURING THE SURVEY OPERATION. 2. IN THE STATEMENT RECORDED U/S 131 OF THE ACT ON 16.6. 2010 I.E. SIX DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF SURVEY, THE MAIN DIRECTOR AND KEY PERSONS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY SHRI UMESH MOHAN PURDANI REITERATED THE DISCLOSURE MADE BY HIM DURING THE SURVE Y OPERATION. 12. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE FILED THE APPEAL BEFORE TH E LD CIT(A). DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE LD CIT(A ) FOLLOWING SUBMISSIONS WERE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE:- 1. A PETITION WAS FILED BEFORE THE ADIT (INV.), UNIT-6 ON 26.12.2006 WHEREIN IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT DURING THE SURVEY THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ASKED TO EXPLAIN HOW THE INCOME EARNED FROM U N- RECORDED SALES WAS UTILIZED AND HOW THE EXCESS STOCK WAS PROCURED. REAPPRAISAL OF THE SURVEY MATERIAL WAS ALSO SOUGHT. THE STOCK INVENTORY TAKEN BY THE SURVEY TEAM WAS FOR THREE DIFFERENT CONCERNS, ASSESSEE BEING ONE OF THEM. THIS MADE THE RECONCILIATION OF ACCOUNTS VERY COMPLEX, THE SAME COU LD NOT BE DONE IN SUCH A SHORT PERIOD AND THEREFORE THE DISCLOSU RE ON PAGE 7 OF 11 ITA NO3367 & CO 256./DEL/10 ACCOUNT OF EXCESS STOCK WAS WRONGLY MADE BY THE DIRECTO R OF THE COMPANY. IF ANY UNDISCLOSED INCOME WAS EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE, SHOULD BE CONSTRUED THAT THE SAME WAS INVESTED B Y THE ASSESSEE IN THE EXCESS STOCK. THE PETITION FILED BY T HE ASSESSEE WAS NOT CONSIDERED BY THE LD ADIT (INV.). 2. WHILE MAKING THE FINAL ACCOUNTS, THE ASSESSEE DULY ACCOU NTED EXCESS PROFIT OF `.45,15,340/- FOR FINANCIAL YEAR 200 6-07 AND PROFIT OF `.1,05,50,000/- FOR EARLIER PERIODS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT ACCEPT THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE FOR REAPP RAISAL OF SURVEY MATERIAL. EVEN THOUGH THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE O N THE BASIS OF WHICH IT COULD BE ASCERTAINED THAT THE EXCESS ST OCK OF 1.1,50,65,537/- CONSTITUTED UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE, THE SAME WAS ASSESSED AS SUCH BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 3. THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE WORKED O UT ON THE BASIS OF INCOME AS WELL AS ON THE BASIS OF INCREASE IN THE VALUE OF ASSETS AS THE SAME WOULD RESULT IN DOUBLE TAXAT ION. 4. THE LD ASSESSING OFFICER HAS WRONGLY HELD THAT THE ONUS W AS ON THE ASSESSEE TO ESTABLISH THAT THE EXCESS STOCK CAME OUT FRO M UNDISCLOSED INCOME. IT WAS WRONGLY IMPUTED THAT THE UN DISCLOSED INCOME COULD HAVE BEEN UTILIZED EVEN OTHERWISE AND T HE SAME WAS ONLY KNOWN TO THE ASSESSEE. THE RETRACTION FROM THE STATEMENT RECORDED DURING THE SURVEY OPERATION AND SUBSEQUENTLY ON 16.10.2006 WAS INCORRECTLY HELD TO BE ON THE BASIS OF PRESUMPTION AND SURMISES BY THE LD ASSESSING OFFICE R. 13. THE LD CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND CIR CUMSTANCES OF THE CASE HELD THAT IF THERE WAS LIKELIHOOD THAT THE U NDISCLOSED INCOME WAS UTILIZED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR ANY OTHER PURPOSE OTHER THAN INVESTING PAGE 8 OF 11 ITA NO3367 & CO 256./DEL/10 IN THE EXCESS STOCK, THE DEPARTMENT COULD HAVE CONVERT ED THE SURVEY OPERATION INTO A FULL-FLEDGED SEARCH OPERATION. HOWE VER, THE SAME WAS NOT DONE IN THE PRESENT CASE. THUS, IT CANNOT BE SAID T HAT THE ONUS WAS ON THE ASSESSEE TO ESTABLISH THAT THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME WA S INVESTED IN THE STOCK. AS SUCH IT SHOULD BE THE NORMAL CONCLUSIO N THAT THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME WAS INVESTED IN THE EXCESS STOCK. THE A SSESSEE HAS FILED AN EXPLANATION AND IF THE SAME WAS NOT ACCEP TABLE TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER, IT WAS FOR HIM TO SHOW HOW THE EXPLANA TION WAS NOT TRUE. THUS THE ONUS WAS ON THE REVENUE TO PROVE THAT THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME WAS NOT INVESTED IN THE STOCK. IN THE PRESENT C ASE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT BROUGHT ON RECORD ANY EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT CORRECT. 14. THE ASSESSEE HAS TIME AND AGAIN REQUESTED THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES FOR REAPPRAISAL OF THE DOCUMENTS IMPOUNDE D DURING THE SURVEY OPERATION. HOWEVER, THE SAME WAS NOT DONE. THE STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE U/S 133A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 CANNOT BE THE BASIS OF ADDITION UNLESS CORROBORATED BY EVIDENCE. IT HAS BE EN SO HELD IN THE FOLLOWING CASE LAWS:- 1. PAUL MATHEWS & SONS V. CIT 263 ITR 101 (KER.). 2. CIT V. S. KHADAR KHAN SON. 300 ITR 157 (MAD.). EVEN THE INSTRUCTION F. NO.286/2/2003-IT (INV.) OF C BDT DATED 10.3.2003 SUPPORTS THE ABOVE VIEW. THIS BEING THE CA SE AND AS THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCLOSED UNRECORDED INCOME OF MORE THAN THE VALUE OF STOCK FOUND DURING THE SURVEY, LD CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION OF `.1,50,65,340/-. PAGE 9 OF 11 ITA NO3367 & CO 256./DEL/10 15. THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD CIT(A) FAILED TO ESTABLISH AS TO HOW THE INCOME ON SALES NOT RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCO UNTS DURING THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR WAS REDUCED FROM `.88,71,537/- TO `.45,15,340/- ALSO THE ADDITION OF `.9,000/- WAS NOT DISPUTED BY THE ASSESSEE. THUS THE BALANCE ADDITION OF `.42,65,197/- WAS CONFIRMED BY THE LD CIT(A). 16. AGGRIEVED THE REVENUE HAS FILED APPEAL BEFORE US AND THE ASSESSEE IN ITS CROSS OBJECTION IS DISPUTING CONFIRMATION O F ADDITION OF `.42,65,197/- BY THE LD CIT(A). 17. BEFORE US LD DR HAS RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE ASSE SSING OFFICER WHEREAS LD AR FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS RELIED ON THE ORDER OF LD CIT(A) WITH REFERENCE TO REVENUES APPEAL. 18. WE HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE RECORD. THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED COPIES OF ASSESSMENT ORDERS FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2 005- 06 & 2006-07 TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS CLAIM THAT TOTAL UND ISCLOSED INCOME DECLARED BY IT DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06, 2006 -07 & 2007- 08 WAS MORE THAN `.1.5 CRORES. THE NOTES ON ACCOUNTS F OR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2006-07 ALSO SHOWS HOW THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME WAS UT ILIZED BY THE ASSESSEE. AS THE REVENUE HAS FAILED TO CONTRADICT THE FINDINGS OF THE LD CIT(A) ON THE ISSUE INVOLVED BY BRINGING ANY F ACTUAL OR LEGAL EVIDENCE ON RECORD, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INT ERFERE WITH THE DELETION OF ADDITION OF `.1.5 CRORES BY THE LD CIT(A ). THUS GROUND NO.1 TAKEN BY THE REVENUE IS REJECTED. C.O. NO.256/DEL/2011: C.O. NO.256/DEL/2011: C.O. NO.256/DEL/2011: C.O. NO.256/DEL/2011: 19. THE GROUND TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE CROSS OBJECTI ON IS AS UNDER:- PAGE 10 OF 11 ITA NO3367 & CO 256./DEL/10 THAT THE LD CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACTS IN CON FIRMING THE ADDITION OF `.42,56,197/- (`.87,71,537/- (-) `.45,1 5,340/-) ON ACCOUNT OF INCOME ON SALES NOT RECORDED IN THE BOOKS O F ACCOUNTS IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE LD ASSESSING OFFICER HAD FAILED TO DISCHARGE THE ONUS LAID UPON HIM, TO CORROBORATE T HE AMOUNT WITH ANY MATERIAL EVIDENCE COLLECTED EITHER DURING THE SURVEY OR DURING THE ASSESSMENT. 20. THE LD AR FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO SHOW HOW THE FINDING RECORDED BY THE LD CIT(A) IN PARA NO. 4 OF HIS ORDER REQUIRES MODIFICATION. NOTHING HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD OF THE TRIBUNAL TO SHOW THE BASIS FOR REDUCING THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME SURREN DERED DURING SEARCH ON ACCOUNT OF UNRECORDED SALES FROM `.87,71,537 /P TO `.45,15,340/-. WE, THEREFORE, DO NOT FIND ANY MERI T IN THE CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND DISMISS THE SAME. 21. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE REVENUES APPEAL AS WELL A S CROSS OBJECTION TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. 22. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE 24TH DAY OF JUNE, 2011. SD/- SD/- (I.P. BANSAL) (B.K. HAL DAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DT. 24.6.2011. HMS COPY FORWARDED TO:- 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT (A)-, NEW DELHI. 5. THE DR, ITAT, LOKNAYAK BHAWAN, KHAN MARKET, NEW DEL HI. TRUE COPY. (ITAT, NEW DELHI). PAGE 11 OF 11 ITA NO3367 & CO 256./DEL/10 DATE OF HEARING 16.6.2011 DATE OF DICTATION 21.6.2011 DATE OF ORDER SIGNED BY THE HON'BLE MEMBER. 24.6.2011 DATE OF ORDER SENT TO THE CONCERNED BENCH 24.6.2011