Sanjeev Sabherwal, New Delhi V. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 1012/DEL/2010

• Counselvise Citation: 101220114 RSA 2010
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 6 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-09-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Next Hearing Date: 12-08-2011
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 09-03-2010
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S MOHANTY
• Assessee Lawyers: K R MANJANI
• Keywords: Depreciation; Onus to prove
• Section: 40A(3); 143(3); 133(6); 131

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH G DELHI) BEFORE SHRI G.E. VEERABHADRAPPA, HONBLE VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI A.D. JAIN ITA NO. 1012(DEL)2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2004-05 SANJEEV SABHERWAL, INCOME TAX OFFICER, C-8/8584, VASANT KUNJ, NEW DELHI. V. WARD 24 (4), NEW DELHI. (APPELLANT) (RES PONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SHRI K.R. MANJANI, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY: SMT. S. MOHANTY, DR ORDER PER A.D. JAIN, J.M. THIS IS ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004- 05, TAKING THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- 1. THE LD. CIT(A) IS ERRED UNDER THE LAW WHILE CON FIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OUT OF DEBT COLLECTION CHARGES AS MADE BY THE AO IN THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT IN VIEW OF FOLLOWING REASONS:- A) THE APPELLANT HAS MADE SUFFICIENT COMPLIANCE BY PRO DUCING 84 DEBT COLLECTORS OUT OF 96 IN COMPLIANCE TO THE SUMM ON U/S 131 ISSUED BY THE AO DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. A DMITTEDLY, THE DEBT COLLECTORS WERE WORKING ON FREE-LANCE BASI S. B) THE HONBLE CIT(A) HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT AS SESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS FOR THE I MMEDIATE PRECEDING YEARS, I.E. ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03 WERE COMPLETED ITA 1012(DEL)2010 2 IN THE ABSENCE OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND ON THE BASI S OF AFFIDAVITS FILED BY VARIOUS DEBT COLLECTORS ONLY. C) THE DEBT COLLECTORS HAVE SENT THEIR CONFIRMATION OF PAYMENT BEING RECEIVED IN CASH AGAINST DEBT COLLECTION SERV ICES RENDERED TO THE APPELLANT DURING THE YEAR. D) THE LD. AO DID NOT EXERCISE HIS POWER U/S 131/133 O F THE ACT IN SPITE OF WRITTEN REQUEST MADE BY THE APPELLANT DURI NG THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WELL ON TIME TO VERIFY TH E GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS. 2. THE LD. CIT(A) IS ERRED UNDER LAW WHILE CONFIRMING DISALLOWANCE U/S 40A(3) OF THE ACT IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY INFIRMI TY IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS ALONG WITH VOUCHERS MAINTAINED BY THE APPE LLANT IN THE REGULAR COURSE OF BUSINESS CONFIRMING CASH PAYMENT AS PER LAW, COUPLED WITH CONFIRMATIONS OF THE DEBT COLLECTORS. 3. THE LD. CIT(A) IS PATENTLY WRONG WHILE CONFIRMING T HE DISALLOWANCE OUT OF VEHICLE MAINTENANCE AND DEPRECI ATION THEREON IS CONCERNED RELYING UPON THE OBSERVATION OF THE LD . CIT(A) FOR THE IMMEDIATE PRECEDING YEARS IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE APPELLANT COULD NOT PRODUCE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT IN THAT YEAR WHE REAS, ADMITTEDLY, THE APPELLANT HAS PRODUCED BOOKS OF ACC OUNT ALONG WITH VOUCHERS FOR VERIFICATION OF THE AO FOR THE YE AR UNDER REVIEW AND THE AO HAS MADE DISALLOWANCE ONLY ON ESTIMATE B ASIS WITHOUT BRINGING ANY ENTRY OR EVIDENCE ON RECORD WHICH MAY SUGGEST OTHERWISE. THEREFORE, IT IS PRAYED AS UNDER:- 1. THAT DISALLOWANCE OUT OF DEBT COLLECTION CHARGES MA Y PLEASE BE DELETED. 2. THAT CASH EXPENDITURE AS CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT S HOULD BE ALLOWED IN FULL AS THE APPELLANT HAS NOT VIOLATED T HE PROVISIONS CONTAINED U/S 40A(3) OF THE ACT. ITA 1012(DEL)2010 3 3. THAT DISALLOWANCE OUT OF VEHICLE MAINTENANCE AND DEPRECIATION THEREON EITHER MAY PLEASE BE DELETED O R MAY SUITABLY REDUCED. 2. APROPOS GROUND NO.1, THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE PAYME NTS UNDER THE HEAD OF DEBT COLLECTION CHARGES TO VARIOUS PERSONS STATED TO BE ENGAGED BY HIM FOR COLLECTION OF DEBT ON COMMISSION BASIS. T HE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF DEBT COLLECTION ON BEHALF OF THE BA NKS. THE AO ISSUED NOTICES U/S 133(6) OF THE I.T. ACT TO 96 RECIPIENTS OF THE DEBT COLLECTION CHARGES. HOWEVER, MOST OF THEM DID NOT REPLY. A S SUCH, THE AO REQUIRED THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE THESE 96 PERSONS TO VERIFY THE IDENTITY AND GENUINENESS. OUT OF THE 96 PERSONS, 12 PERSONS COU LD NOT BE PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE. IN THIS REGARD, THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT THE SAID 12 PERSONS HAD LEFT SERVICE AND HE COULD NOT PRODUCE THEM. NOTICI NG THAT THE PAYMENTS HAD BEEN MADE IN CASH, THE AO WAS OF THE OPINION THAT T HE ONUS TO PROVE THE IDENTITY AND GENUINENESS OF THESE PERSONS WAS ON TH E ASSESSEE, WHICH HAD NOT BEEN DISCHARGED. THE AO OBSERVED THAT THE CLAIM O F THE ASSESSEE UNDER THE HEAD OF DEBT COLLECTION CHARGES WAS OF 80.01% OF TH E GROSS RECEIPT, COMPARED TO THAT OF 76% IN THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDIN G ASSESSMENT YEAR. HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT BEEN ABLE TO JUST IFY THE EXCESS CLAIM, THE ASSESSEE MADE AN ADDITION OF ` 16,29,760/-. ITA 1012(DEL)2010 4 3. BY VIRTUE OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER, THE LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ADDITION. 4. CHALLENGING THE IMPUGNED ORDER, THE LEARNED COUN SEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT PAGE 21 OF THE ASSESSEES PAPER BOOK (APB FOR SHORT) IS THE LIST OF THE 12 PERSONS WHICH WERE NOT PRODUCED; THAT THIS ISSUE WAS ALSO BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03; TH AT THE TRIBUNAL, VIDE ORDER DATED 28.11.2008, (COPY PLACED ON RECORD), HE LD 52% OF THE GROSS RECEIPTS TO BE REASONABLE; THAT HOWEVER, THE FACTS ARE DIFFERENT THIS YEAR, SINCE FOR THAT YEAR, THE ASSESSEES ACCOUNTANT DID NOT MA INTAIN ANY VOUCHERS, WHEREAS FOR THIS YEAR, COMPLETE RECORD HAS BEEN KEP T; THAT AS PER THE COMPARATIVE PROFIT CHART FILED ALONG WITH THE APPEA L, THE GROSS RECEIPT FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 WAS OF ` 2,60,55,772/-, THE NET PROFIT WAS ` 12,27,439/- AND THE PERCENTAGE OF NET INCOME WAS 4. 71%; THAT FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05, I.E., THE YEAR UNDER CONSI DERATION, THE GROSS RECEIPT WAS OF ` 4,15,94,841/-, THE NET PROFIT WAS OF ` 23,96,858/- AND THE PERCENTAGE OF NET INCOME WAS 5.76%; THAT FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2 005-06, THE GROSS RECEIPT WAS OF ` 4,74,21,497.88, THE NET PROFIT WAS OF ` 26,40,224.49 AND THE PERCENTAGE OF NET INCOME WAS 5.56%; THAT FOR THE YE AR UNDER CONSIDERATION, ALL THE VOUCHERS WERE PRODUCED BEFORE THE AO AND NO DISCREPANCY WAS FOUND THEREIN. THE ASSESSEE HAS RELIED ON SHEKHAWATI A RT PALACE V. ACIT 116 ITA 1012(DEL)2010 5 TTJ (JP) 552, WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT EVEN I F THE ASSESSEES BOOKS ARE RIGHTLY REJECTED AS IT DID NOT MAINTAIN QUANTITATIV E RECORD, SINCE IT HAD SHOWN SIMILAR G.P. RATE AS IN THE EARLIER YEAR AND EVEN B ETTER NET PROFIT, NO LUMP-SUM ADDITION WAS CALLED FOR. REGARDING THE MERITS OF THE 12 RECIPIENTS OF DEBT COLLECTION CHARGES WHO COULD NOT BE PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS DRAWN ATTENTION TO APB 21, WHICH CONTAINS THE ADDRESSES AND PANS OF THE SAID 12 PERSONS. ATTENT ION HAS ALSO BEEN DRAWN TO APB 22 TO 30, WHICH ARE CONFIRMATIONS OF 5 OUT O F THE SAID 12 PERSONS, I.E., ASHISH KAPOOR, VINOD AHUJA, GAGAN CHAWLA, KIS HAN BHATIA AND SUDHA BHASKAR BASU. FURTHER, IT HAS BEEN BROUGHT TO OU R NOTICE THAT APB 31 TO 35 CONTAINS THE COPY OF ACCOUNT OF RAKESH KUMAR JAGGI , SANJAY SETHI AND SANJAY JAGGI, WHEREAS APB 36 TO 42 ARE COPIES OF ST ATEMENTS OF SANJAY SETHI, SANJAY JAGGI AND RAKESH JAGGI. IT IS POINT ED OUT THAT APB 6 CONTAINS A TABLE SHOWING THAT 7 DEBT COLLECTORS HAD BEEN REN DERING SERVICES TO THE ASSESSEE DURING ASSESSMENT YEARS 2002-03 AND 2003-0 4 ALSO. THESE PERSONS ARE GAGAN CHAWLA, HEMANT ARORA, KISHAN BHATIA, MANI SH SABHERWAL, NARENDER TEWARI, PRATEEK MATHUR AND TAJ MOHMAD. IN THIS MANNER, IT HAS BEEN CONTENDED THAT THE ADDITION MADE BE DELETED. 5. THE LD. DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, HAS STRONGLY RELI ED ON THE IMPUGNED ORDER REGARDING THIS ISSUE. IT HAS BEEN CONTENDED THAT UNDISPUTEDLY, THE ITA 1012(DEL)2010 6 ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE THAT THE SAID 12 PERSONS HAD RENDERED ANY SERVICES FOR THE ASSESSEE, JUSTIF YING THE PAYMENT OF COMMISSION TO DEBT COLLECTION CHARGES AMOUNTING TO ` 16,29,760/-; THAT THE CONFIRMATIONS FILED ALSO DO NOT STATE ANYTHING ABOU T RENDERING OF ANY SERVICES BY THESE PERSONS TO THE ASSESSEE; THAT TH EREFORE, THERE IS NO MERIT IN THE ASSESSEES CONTENTION; THAT THE PAYMENT WAS MAD E IN CASH; THAT THE PAYMENT WAS 81.01% OF THE GROSS RECEIPTS COMPARED T O THAT OF 76% IN THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR; THAT THIS H AS NOT BEEN EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE; THAT PERTINENTLY, FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03, THE TRIBUNAL HAD TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION THIS HIKE; AND THAT THEREF ORE, THERE BEING NO MERIT THEREIN, GROUND NO.1 BE REJECTED. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES AND HAVE PERUSED THE M ATERIAL ON RECORD. IT IS SEEN THAT THE PERCENTAGE OF NET INCOME FOR THE Y EAR UNDER CONSIDERATION IS 5.76% AS AGAINST THAT OF 4.71% FOR THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR. THEREBY, THE PERCENTAGE OF NET INCOME HAS G ONE UP BY 1.05%. THERE HAS BEEN NO REBUTTAL TO THE ASSESSEES CONTENTION T HAT THE RECIPIENTS OF THE DEBT COLLECTION CHARGES WERE FREELANCERS WORKING F OR THE ASSESSEE AND HAD LEFT THE SERVICE OF THE ASSESSEE, WHICH WAS THE FAC T DUE TO WHICH THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE THEM. THE CONFIRMATIONS OF ASHI SH KAPOOR, VINOD AHUJA, GAGAN CHAWLA, KISHAN BHATIA AND SUDHA BHASKA R BASU ARE ON RECORD ITA 1012(DEL)2010 7 (APB 21 TO 30). BESIDES, COPIES OF ACCOUNT OF RAK ESH KUMAR JAGGI, SANJAY SETHI AND SANJAY JAGGI ARE AT APB 31 TO 35. ALS O, APB 36 TO 42 CONTAIN THE STATEMENT OF RAKESH KUMAR JAGGI, SANJAY SETHI A ND SANJAY JAGGI. THESE PERSONS HAVE CONFIRMED THE COLLECTION OF MONE Y FOR THE CUSTOMERS AND THAT THEY RECEIVED COMMISSION FROM THE ASSESSEE. THE DEPONENTS HAVE STATED TO COLLECT MONEY FROM THE PERSONS ALLOCATED TO THEM BY THE ASSESSEE FOR COLLECTION OF DEBTS FOR THE DEFAULTERS. THE P AYMENT OF COMMISSION HAS BEEN STATED TO BE IN CASH. IN THESE STATEMENTS, P AYMENT HAS NOT BEEN STATED TO BE OF MORE THAN ` 20,000/-. THE LEDGER ACCOUNTS OF RAKESH KUMAR JA GGI WERE FILED BEFORE THE AO IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDI NGS. THESE ACCOUNTS ALSO DID NOT SHOW ANY PAYMENT IN CASH HAVING BEEN M ADE OVER ` 20,000/-. THESE 3 PERSONS STATED THAT THEY HAD RECEIVED PAYME NT AFTER SIGNING THE STAMP VOUCHERS, SHOWING THAT THE PAYMENTS HAD BEEN RECEIVED AS PER THE LEDGER ACCOUNT. 7. IN SHEKHAWATI ART PALACE(SUPRA), IT HAS BEEN H ELD THAT EVEN THOUGH THE ASSESSEES BOOKS HAVE BEEN RIGHTLY REJECTED SIN CE THE ASSESSEE DID NOT MAINTAIN QUANTITATIVE RECORD, NO LUMP-SUM ADDITION WAS CALLED FOR BECAUSE OF THE ASSESSEE HAVING SHOWN SIMILAR RATES IN THE E ARLIER YEAR AND EVEN BETTER NET PROFIT RATE. HEREIN, AS OBSERVED ABOVE, THE N ET PROFIT RATE HAS INCREASED BY 1.04% OVER THAT OF THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING ASS ESSMENT YEAR. THE ITA 1012(DEL)2010 8 RECIPIENTS OF THE DEBT COLLECTION CHARGES BEING FRE ELANCERS, COULD NOT BE PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE TAXING AUTHORIT IES. HOWEVER, THAT, IN ITSELF, CANNOT LEAD TO THE ADDITION AS MADE BY THE AO AND CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(A), PARTICULARLY WHEN NO PAYMENT WAS OF MORE TH AN ` 20,000/-. MOREOVER, DESPITE WRITTEN REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE, POWER UNDER SECTIONS 133/133(1) OF THE ACT WAS NOT EXERCISED IN TIME BY THE AO TO VERIFY THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION. 8. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSES SEE IN THIS REGARD, BY WAY OF GROUND NO.1, IS ACCEPTED. 9. APROPOS GROUND NO.2, THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE PAYME NTS EXCEEDING ` 20,000/- IN CASH TO THE DEBT COLLECTORS. THE ASSE SSEE WAS ASKED BY THE AO TO EXPLAIN AS TO WHY 20% OF SUCH PAYMENTS BE NOT DI SALLOWED U/S 40A(3) OF THE ACT. THE PAYMENTS WERE OF ` 3,18,348/- TO SANJAY JAGGI, ` 1,21,269/- TO RAKESH KUMAR JAGGI AND ` 63,095/- TO SANJAY SETHI. THE ASSESSEE REPLIED THAT NONE OF THE PAYMENTS EXCEEDED ` 20,000/- OR MORE IN CASH ON ONE OCCASION. THE STATEMENTS (SUPRA) OF THESE 3 PERSO NS WERE FILED. THEY CONFIRMED HAVING RECEIVED COMMISSION IN CASH ONCE A MONTH. THE AO, OBSERVING THAT THE PAYMENT WAS MADE ONCE IN A MONTH , DISALLOWED 20% OF THE AMOUNT. THIS CAME TO ` 1,00,542/-. ITA 1012(DEL)2010 9 10. THE LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE DISALLOWANCE. 11. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS, AS CO NSIDERED EARLIER, DRAWN ATTENTION TO APB 36 TO 42, COMPRISING THE STATEMENT S OF RAKESH KUMAR JAGGI AND SANJAY JAGGI, STATING THAT ALL THE PAYMENTS WER E BELOW ` 20,000/-. 12. THE LD. DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, HAS STRONGLY SUP PORTED THE IMPUGNED ORDER. IT HAS BEEN CONTENDED THAT AS CORRECTLY NOT ED BY THE LD. CIT(A), GURPREET SINGH WAS ONE OF THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTA TIVES OF THE ASSESSEE; THAT IT WAS HE WHO VALIDATED THE STATEMENTS RECORDE D, WHEREIN, IT WAS STATED THAT THE PAYMENTS HAD BEEN MADE TO THE 3 DEBT COLL ECTORS IN CASH; THAT THE SAID PAYMENTS WERE MADE ONCE IN A MONTH AND WERE NO T PIECEMEAL PAYMENTS; THAT THE ASSESSEE VOLUNTARILY DID NOT OPT TO CROSS EXAMINE THE DEBT COLLECTORS; AND THAT THEREFORE, IT WAS CORRECTLY CO NCLUDED THAT EACH OF THE PAYMENTS MADE TO THE 3 DEBT COLLECTORS WERE OF ` 20,000/-. 13. REGARDING THIS ISSUE, IT IS SEEN THAT IN THE ST ATEMENTS OF THE 3 RECIPIENTS, (APB 37 TO 42), RAKESH KUMAR JAGGI, SAN JAY SETHI AND SANJAY JAGGI HAVE ADMITTED HAVING SIGNED THE VOUCHERS. T HEY ACCEPTED RECEIPT OF PAYMENT IN CASH AGAINST SERVICES RENDERED. THEY D ID NOT STATE HAVING RECEIVED ANY AMOUNT OVER ` 20,000/-. BESIDES, THE LEDGER ACCOUNT COPIES OF THESE 3 PERSONS WERE SUBMITTED IN THE ASSESSMENT PR OCEEDINGS. AS PER THESE LEDGER ACCOUNTS ALSO, NO PAYMENT IN CASH OF OVER ` 20,000/- WAS EVER MADE. ITA 1012(DEL)2010 10 ON THE AOS SPECIFIC QUERY TOO, THEY STATED HAVING RECEIVED THE AMOUNT AFTER SIGNING THE STAMP VOUCHERS, SHOWING THAT THEY HAD R ECEIVED THE PAYMENT AS PER THE LEDGER ACCOUNT AFTER SIGNING THE PAYMENT VO UCHERS. THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AS ALSO THE VOUCHERS WERE VERIFIED BY THE A O, AS AVAILABLE FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER TOO. 14. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE ASSESSEE IS NOT SHOWN TO HAVE VIOLATED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40A(3) OF THE ACT. THEREFOR E, THE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD IS JUSTIFIED. ACCORDINGLY , GROUND NO.2 IS ACCEPTED. 15. COMING TO GROUND NO.3, THE AO DISALLOWED AN AMO UNT OF ` 59,387/- TOWARDS VEHICLE EXPENSES INCLUDING DEPRECIATION, FO LLOWING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03. THE LD. CIT(A) UPHELD THE DISALLOWANCE FOLLOWING THE FIRST APPELLATE ORDER FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03. 16. BEFORE US, ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE, IT HAS BE EN CONTENDED, AS BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW, THAT THE CARS WERE USED PRIM ARILY BY THE STAFF MEMBERS AND THE ASSESSEE TO VISIT DEFAULTERS AND OT HERS; THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MANY CARS AND DRIVERS; AND THAT IN ANY CASE, THE DI SALLOWANCE IS EXCESSIVE. 17. THE LEARNED DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, HAS STRONGLY RELIED ON THE IMPUGNED ORDER. 18. THE DISALLOWANCE HAS BEEN MADE ON ACCOUNT OF PE RSONAL USER OF THE CARS BY THE ASSESSEE. UNDENIABLY, PERSONAL USER C ANNOT BE RULED OUT. OTHER ITA 1012(DEL)2010 11 THAN CONTENDING THAT THE CARS WERE USED PRIMARILY B Y THE STAFF MEMBERS AND THE ASSESSEE TO VISIT DEFAULTERS AND OTHERS, NOTHIN G HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD. THE STAND TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE IS TOO GE NERAL AND VAGUE. PERSONAL USER OF THE CARS CANNOT BE RULED OUT. THE DISALLO WANCE OF ` 59,387/- IS, AS SUCH, NOT FOUND TO BE UNREASONABLE. ACCORDINGLY, T HIS DISALLOWANCE IS CONFIRMED, REJECTING GROUND NO.3. 19. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PA RTLY ALLOWED, AS INDICATED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 23.09.2011. SD/- SD/- (G.E. VEERABHADRAPPA) (A.D. JAIN) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 23.09.2011 *RM COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR TRUE COPY BY ORDER DEPUTY REGISTRAR