M/s Indian Road Construction Corpn. Ltd., New Delhi V. DCIT, New Delhi

CO 61/DEL/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 122 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5735 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 14-03-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 08-03-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: K R MANJANI
• Assessee Lawyers: SANJAY PURI
• Keywords: Difference of opinion; Condonation of delay; Change of opinion
• Section: 147; 148

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : C : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI I.P. BANSAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.45/DEL/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2003-04 DCIT, CIRCLE 11 (1), ROOM NO.312, CR BUILDING, NEW DELHI. VS. INDIAN ROAD CONSTRUCTION CORPN. LTD., CORE-6, FLOOR-2, SCOPE COMPLEX, 7 LODHI ROAD, NEW DELHI. PAN : AAAC10728A C.O. NO.61/DEL/2011 (ITA NO.45/DEL/2011) ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2003-04 INDIAN ROAD CONSTRUCTION CORPN. LTD., CORE-6, FLOOR-2, SCOPE COMPLEX, 7 LODHI ROAD, NEW DELHI. PAN : AAAC10728A VS. DCIT, CIRCLE 11 (1), ROOM NO.312, CR BUILDING, NEW DELHI. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI SANJAY PURI, CIT, DR REVENUE BY : SHRI K.R. MANJANI, ADVOCATE ORDER PER I.P. BANSAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER THE APPEAL IS FILED BY THE REVENUE AND THE CROSS OBJE CTIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. THEY ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER PA SSED BY THE CIT (A) DATED 21.10.2010 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE AS UNDER:- ITA NO.45/DEL/2011 CO NO.61/DEL/2011 2 1. THE ORDER OF LD. CIT (A) IS WRONG, PERVERSE, IL LEGAL AND AGAINST THE PROVISIONS OF LAW, LIABLE TO BE SET ASIDE. 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN L AW, THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.54,57,00,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST INCOME ACCRUE D TO THE ASSESSEE. 3. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER OR AMEND A NY GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED ABOVE AT THE TIME OF HEARING. 2. GROUNDS OF CROSS OBJECTIONS READ AS UNDER:- 1. THAT PROCEEDINGS U/S 147 AND NOTICE U/S 148 ARE BA D IN LAW, ILLEGAL AND AGAINST THE PROVISIONS OF INCOME TAX ACT, BECAUSE: A) NO REASONS HAVE BEEN SUPPLIED IN SPITE OF REQUEST FOR THE SAME VIDE LETTER DATED 28.4.2008, LEADING TO PRESUMPTION S THAT NO REASONS WERE RECORDED WHICH IS MANDATORY. B) ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S 143 (3) AND THIS IS A CASE OF MERE CHANGE OF OPINION. C) NOTICE U/S 148 HAD NOT BEEN ISSUED AND SERVED IN TH E NAME OF LIQUIDATOR WHICH IS MANDATORY. D) LEARNED A.O. HAS NOT SHOWN ANY ESCAPEMENT WARRANTIN G ISSUE OF 148. 2. THAT THE LEARNED CIT (A) HAS ERRED ON FACTS AS WELL AS IN LAW IN NOT ADJUDICATING THE LEGAL GROUNDS AS TO THE VALIDITY OF PROCEEDINGS U/S 147/148 AND THEREBY TREATING THE SAME A S DISMISSED, WITHOUT PASSING A SPEAKING ORDER. 3. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES THE LEAVE TO ADD, SUBSTITUTE, MODIFY, DELETE OR AMEND ALL OR ANY GROUNDS OF APPEAL EITHER BEFORE OR AT THE TIME OF HEARING. 3. AT THE OUTSET, IT MAY BE MENTIONED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A PUBLIC SECTOR UNDERTAKING. AN ISSUE REGARDING PERMISSION OF C OD WAS RAISED DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, BUT LEARNED AR HAS RELI ED UPON FIVE-JUDGE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF ELEC TRONICS CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD. VS. UOI 238 CTR 353 (SC) W HEREIN THEIR LORDSHIPS OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT HAVE RECALLED THEI R EARLIER ITA NO.45/DEL/2011 CO NO.61/DEL/2011 3 DECISIONS WHEREBY THE COD PERMISSION WAS STATED TO BE NEC ESSARY FOR CONTESTING THESE APPEALS. ACCORDINGLY, THESE APPEALS WE RE PROCEEDED TO BE HEARD. 4. THE CROSS OBJECTIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS BELATED ON E AND HAS BEEN FILED BY A DELAY OF 26 DAYS. AN APPLICATION HAS BEEN FILED BY THE LIQUIDATOR OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY AND THE REASON STATED FOR DELAY IS THAT THE LIQUIDATOR WAS UNDER A BONA FIDE BELIEF THAT LIMITATION FOR FILING CROSS OBJECTIONS WAS 60 DAYS AND THERE WAS A CHANGE OF THE COUNSEL WHICH REQUIRED APPROVAL A ND SHIFTING OF RECORDS AND DOCUMENTS. 5. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES, THE DELAY BEING A SMALL ONE AND KEEPING IN VIEW THE REASONS GIVEN, WE CONDONE THE DEL AY. 6. THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT IS FRAMED U/S 143 (3) READ WIT H SECTION 147 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT). THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN ASSESSED AT ` 45,30,95,800/- BY MAKING THE IMPUGNED ADDITION OF ` 54,57,00,000/- BY WHICH LOSS D ECLARED AT ` 9,26,04,200/- HAS BEEN REDUCED. 7. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT A SUM OF ` 54.57 CRORE WAS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE AS INTEREST FROM NATIONAL BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CORPOR ATION LTD. (NBCC). THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO SHOW CAUSE AS TO WHY THE SAID AMOUNT SHOULD NOT BE ADDED BACK TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. IN RESPONSE, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT A CONTRACT FOR CONSTRUCT ION OF ROADS IN 25 DIFFERENT HOUSING COMPLEX SITES AT BENEVALID, LIBYA WAS SIGNED ON 2 ND APRIL, 1980 BETWEEN NBCC AND THE ASSESSEE. THE NBCC W AS THE MAIN CONTRACTOR TO THE GOVERNMENT OF LIBYA AND THE ASSESSEE WAS THE SUB-CONTRACTOR OF NBCC IN RESPECT OF INTERNAL ROADS OF VARYING WIDTHS AND SPECIFICATIONS AS PART OF UTILITY SERVICES IN THE HO USING COMPLEX. ITA NO.45/DEL/2011 CO NO.61/DEL/2011 4 THE GROSS VALUE OF THE WORK DONE BY THE ASSESSEE WAS WORKE D OUT TO 15,69,325 LIBYAN DINAR AND THE SAID WORK WAS COMPLETE D BY THE ASSESSEE AND WAS HANDED OVER TO NBCC IN DECEMBER, 1982. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT CONSIDER THE EXPLANATION OF TH E ASSESSEE SATISFACTORY. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE CL AIM OF THE ASSESSEE OF 54.57 CRORE ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST FROM NBC C WAS REQUIRED TO BE ASSESSED AS INCOME IN ACCORDANCE WITH MER CANTILE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING AND, IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE SAID SUM WAS ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE VIDE AFOREMENTIONED ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 29 TH OCTOBER, 2009. 8. IN THE APPEAL FILED BEFORE THE CIT (A), THE ASSESSEE , APART FROM CONTESTING THE VALIDITY OR OTHERWISE OF INITIATION OF RE-ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, HAD ALSO CONTESTED THE ADDITION. ON MERI TS, IT WAS THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE SAID AMOUNT COULD NOT BE ASSE SSED AS INCOME AS THE SAID AMOUNT HAS NEVER ACCRUED TO THE ASSESSE E AND IT BECAME NEVER DUE AND WAS NEVER RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE. ALTERNATIVELY, IT IS THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE IN TEREST, IF ANY, PERTAINED TO THE PERIOD FROM 1 ST JANUARY, 1984 TO 31 ST DECEMBER, 2001 WHICH PERIOD DOES NOT FALL WITHIN THE AMBIT OF THE P RESENT ASSESSMENT YEAR. THE DISPUTE REGARDING AMOUNT PAYABLE TO THE A SSESSEE BY NBCC HAS ALREADY BEEN RESOLVED BY THE COMMITTEE ON DISPUTES ON 25 TH JANUARY, 2005 WHEN THE ENTIRE AMOUNT RECEIVABLE FRO M NBCC WAS WRITTEN OFF EXCEPT A SUM OF ` 47.60 LACS (EQUIVALENT TO LIBYAN DINAR 1,40,000). AGAINST THE TOTAL CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE OF L IBYAN DINAR 4,79,516 REPRESENTING THE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT (EXCLUDIN G INTEREST) AND, IN THIS MANNER, OUT OF PRINCIPAL AND INTEREST SHOWN TO BE RECEIVABLE BY THE ASSESSEE I.E., AN AMOUNT OF ` 61.18 LAC (EQUIVALENT TO LIBYAN DINAR 1,88,101.54) WAS WRITTEN OFF. ALL THESE FACTS ARE STAT ED IN THE STATEMENT OF FACTS FILED BEFORE CIT (A). ITA NO.45/DEL/2011 CO NO.61/DEL/2011 5 9. ON THE BASIS OF AFOREMENTIONED FACTS, LEARNED CIT ( A) HAS ACCEPTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE ON MERITS WITH THE FO LLOWING OBSERVATIONS:- 9. I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FILED B Y THE LEARNED COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE. I HAVE ALSO GONE THR OUGH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S 147 WHICH IS THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THIS APPEAL AS ALSO THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U NDER SECTION 143(3). I HAVE BEEN TAKEN THROUGH THE VOLUMINO US PAPER BOOK BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL, PARTICULARLY THE STA TEMENT OF CLAIM FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE COD, THE MINUTES OF SETTLEMENT ARRIVED AT BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND THE NBCC LTD . THROUGH THE GOOD OFFICES OF THE ADDL. SECRETARY, MINISTR Y OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT WHO HAD BEEN APPOINTED BY THE COD TO SETTLE THE DISPUTE AND THE NOTES TO THE BALANCE SHEET. I HA VE ALSO HEARD AT LENGTH THE COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE. 10. AFTER CONSIDERING THE WHOLE ISSUE IN A HOLISTI C MANNER, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT THE GROUNDS TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE ON MER ITS ARE UNASSAILABLE AND IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, THE LEG AL GROUNDS TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE (GROUND NO.1 TO 6) NEED NOT BE ADJUDICATED. THESE ARE THEREFORE TREATED AS DISMISSED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 11. SO FAR AS THE GROUNDS ON MERITS ARE CONCERNED , I AM IN AGREEMENT WITH THE LEARNED COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE THAT FICTITIOUS OR HYPOTHETICAL INCOME CANNOT BE BROUGHT TO TAX ON ACCRUAL BASIS. THERE CAN BE NO TAX IF NO INCOME HAS RESULTED AS HELD BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN GODHRA ELECTRICITY CO. LTD. VS. CIT [1997] 225 ITR 746 (SC). IT IS BEYOND COMPR EHENSION THAT WHEN THE DISPUTE BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND NBCC LTD. H AD BEEN SETTLED WAY BACK ON 07.01.2005 BY THE COMMITTEE ON DISPUTES IN THE CABINET SECRETARIAT IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT AWARDED EVEN THE FULL AMOUNT OF PRINCIPAL AMOUNT A ND THE A.O. HAD ALLOWED THE IRRECOVERABLE AMOUNT AS BAD DEBT IN SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT FOR A.Y. 2005-06, HOW COULD THE AS SESSMENT FOR A.Y. 2003-04 BE REOPENED ON 31.03.2008 TO TAX A H UGE AMOUNT OF RS.54.57 CRORES WHICH WAS NEVER AWARDED TO THE ASSESSEE BY THE COD AND FURTHER HOW COULD THE ADDITION OF SUCH A NON EXISTENT INCOME BE MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT WITHOUT E VEN DISCUSSING THE TERMS OF SETTLEMENT ARRIVED AT THROUGH COD. THE ASSESSMENT ORDER SUFFERS FROM TOTAL NON APPLICATION OF MIND. THE ADDITION OF RS.54.57 CRORES TOWARDS ACCRUED INTERE ST MADE BY THE A.O. IS THEREFORE DELETED. 12. THERE IS SUBSTANTIAL FORCE IN THE ALTERNATIVE GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE ALSO. IT IS APPARENT FROM THE STATEMENT OF CLAI M MADE BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE COD THAT THE UNILATERAL CLAIM OF INTEREST OF RS.54.57 CRORES MADE BY THE ASSESSEE (WHIC H WAS NEVER ACCEPTED BY NBCC LTD.) PERTAINED TO THE PERIOD ITA NO.45/DEL/2011 CO NO.61/DEL/2011 6 01.01.1984 TO 31.12.2001. HENCE, THE SAME WAS IN ANY WAY NOT TAXABLE IN A.Y. 2003-04. 10. ONE OF THE OBJECTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR CONTESTING THE VALIDITY OF RE-ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WAS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER D ID NOT SUPPLY REASONS TO THE ASSESSEE FOR REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT AND SUCH CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN RECORDED BY THE CIT (A) IN PARA 6.3 WHICH IS AS FOLLOWS:- 6.3 THE NEXT CONTENTION OF SH. KOCHAR WAS SINCE THE A. O. DID NOT FURNISH THE REASONS RECORDED U/S 148(2), THE ASSES SMENT WAS LIABLE TO BE SET ASIDE AS THE A.O. DID NOT FOLLOW THE PR OCEDURE PRESCRIBED BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN GKN DRIVES HAFTS (INDIA) LTD. VS. ITO (2003) 259 ITR 19. 11. AT THE OUTSET, IT WAS ARGUED BY LEARNED COUNSEL TH AT ACCORDING TO THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF GKN DRIVE SHAFT 259 ITR 19, THE SUPPLY OF REASON WAS A CONDITION PRECE DENT FOR VALIDITY OF RE-ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. HE CONTENDED THAT IT IS TH E SPECIFIC GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NO T SUPPLY THE REASON TO THE ASSESSEE DESPITE THE REQUEST MADE BY THE ASSESSE E VIDE LETTER DATED 28 TH APRIL, 2008. HE SUBMITTED THAT LEARNED CIT (A) HAS WRONGLY IGNORED THIS ASPECT OF THE MATTER AND HAS DECI DED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE ON MERITS. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS VERY MUCH INTERESTED IN PURSUING THE ISSUE REGARDING VA LIDITY OR OTHERWISE OF RE-ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THEREFORE, HE PL EADED THAT IT WILL BE NECESSARY TO DETERMINE THIS ISSUE. AS THE ASSESSEE H AS NOT BEEN PROVIDED WITH THE COPY OF REASONS FOR INITIATION OF RE-ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE MATTER SHOULD BE RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER WITH A DIRECTION TO PROVIDE THE COPY OF THE REASONS AND, THEN, GIVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO FILE THE OBJECTION AGAINST THE SAME AND, THEN, TO RE-ADJUDICATE THE ISSUE AS PER PROVISIONS OF LAW. ITA NO.45/DEL/2011 CO NO.61/DEL/2011 7 12. ON THE OTHER HAND, IT HAS BEEN THE CONTENTION OF LEARNED DR THAT THE ISSUE HAS WRONGLY BEEN DECIDED BY THE LEARNED CIT (A) IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THE AMOUNT OF ` 54.57 CRORE WAS SHOWN BY T HE ASSESSEE AS INTEREST RECEIVABLE FROM NBCC AND, HENCE, THE SAID AMOUNT WAS RIGHTLY ADDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE SAID ADDITION HAS WRONGLY BEEN DELETED. 13. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES. THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS A STRONG CASE ON MERITS, THE LEARNED AR WANTED THAT THE ISSUE REGARDING VALIDITY OF RE-ASSESSMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SETTLED BY LEA RNED CIT (A). IT IS THE CASE OF LEARNED AR THAT REASONS WHICH WERE ASK ED TO BE SUPPLIED DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS VIDE LETTER DATED 28 TH APRIL, 2008 HAVE NOT BEEN SUPPLIED. IT WAS THE SPECI FIC GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE LEARNED CIT (A). IF T HE ISSUE REGARDING VALIDITY IS ALSO CHALLENGED ALONG WITH THE MERITS, THEN, IT WILL BE APPROPRIATE TO FIRST DECIDE THE ISSUE GOING TO THE ROOT OF THE MATTER WHICH IS THE VALIDITY OR OTHERWISE OF RE-ASSESSMENT PROCE EDINGS. IF THE VALIDITY OF RE-ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IS STRUCK DOWN, THEN , NO ADDITION WHATSOEVER CAN SURVIVE AS THE VERY BASIS OF FRAMING THE ASSESSMENT IS NOT THERE. THEREFORE, IN OUR VIEW, IF THE ASSESSEE IS C ONTESTING THE LEGAL GROUND, THEN, THE SAME IS REQUIRED TO BE DECIDE D FIRST UNLESS LEGAL GROUND IS FORGONE BY THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, WE ARE O F THE OPINION THAT THE LEGAL ISSUE COULD NOT BE LEFT TO BE UNADJUDI CATED BY THE LEARNED CIT (A) AS HAS BEEN DONE BY HIM AND HIS OBSERVA TIONS IN PARA 10 OF HIS ORDER ARE ALSO REPRODUCED IN THE ABOVE PART OF THIS ORDER. ACCORDING TO THE WELL SETTLED LAW LAID DOWN BY HONB LE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF GKN DRIVE SHAFT (SUPRA), WHEN A NOTICE IS ISSUED U/S 148, THE PROPER COURSE OF ACTION TO THE NOTICEE IS TO FILE THE RETURN AND IF HE SO DESIRES, TO SEEK REASONS FOR ISSUE OF NOTICE AND ON RECE IPT THEREOF, TO FILE OBJECTION TO ISSUE OF NOTICE. IN THE PRESENT CASE, IT HAS BEEN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE REASONS SHOULD BE GIVEN TO HI M WHICH ITA NO.45/DEL/2011 CO NO.61/DEL/2011 8 HAVE NOT BEEN SHOWN TO BE GIVEN. THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE MATTER REQUIRES TO BE RESTORED BACK TO THE F ILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER WITH A DIRECTION TO FIRST SUPPLY THE COPY OF THE REASONS TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE IF SO DESIRE CAN FILE THE OBJECTIONS A GAINST THOSE REASONS AND THOSE OBJECTIONS ARE REQUIRED TO BE DI SPOSED OF BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY WAY OF A SPEAKING ORDER. AFTER DECIDING THE ISSUE OF OBJECTIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER WILL RE- FRAME THE ASSESSMENT DENOVO AFTER GIVING THE ASSESSEE A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING. THE ORDER PASSED BY LEARNED CIT (A) IS SET ASIDE. THE OBSERVATIONS MADE THEREIN REGARDING THE ME RITS WILL NOT BE TAKEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS A GUIDE POINT TO DECID E THE ISSUE ON MERITS IN A CASE WHERE HE REJECT THE OBJECTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AGAINST INITIATION OF RE-ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AS THE MATTER WIL L BE FRESHLY DECIDED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW AFTER GIVING THE REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE WITH REGARD TO T HE MERITS. WITH THESE DIRECTIONS, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AND CROSS OBJECTIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BOTH ARE DECIDED. 14. IN THE RESULT, FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AND THE CROSS OBJECTIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BO TH ARE ALLOWED IN THE MANNER AFORESAID. THE ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 14.03.20 11. SD/- SD/- [A.K. GARODIA] [I.P. BANSAL] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED, 14.03.2011. DK ITA NO.45/DEL/2011 CO NO.61/DEL/2011 9 COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER, DEPUTY REGISTRAR, ITAT, DELHI BENCHES