M/s Hotel Raj Residency, Harda V. The ACIT 1 (2),

ITA 119/IND/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2009] 115 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1485 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-10-2009
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 27-10-2009
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 06-03-2009
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: APARNA KARAN
• Assessee Lawyers: S S DESH
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Valuation report
• Section: 69B; 131; 144

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, JM & SHRI M.L. GUSIA, A M ITA NO.524/IND/2007 AY: 2004-05 (PAN AABCH 1395 R) ACIT-1(2), BHOPAL APPELLANT VS. M/S. HOTEL RAJ RESIDENCY (HARDA) PVT. LTD., STATION ROAD, HARDA RESPONDENT ITA NO.119/IND/2009 AY: 2005-06 M/S. HOTEL RAJ RESIDENCY (HARDA) PVT. LTD., STATION ROAD, HARDA APPELLANT VS. ACIT-1(2), BHOPAL RESPONDENT DEPARTMENT BY SMT. APARNA KARAN, DR ASSESSEE BY SHRI S.S. DESHPANDE, CA O R D E R PER SHRI M.L. GUSIA, AM THE ABOVE APPEALS OF THE DEPARTMENT AND ASSESSEE A RE FILED AGAINST THE DIFFERENT ORDERS OF LD. CIT(A)-I, BHOPA L DATED 2.8.2007 FOR THE AY 2004-05 AND DATED 16.12.2008 FOR THE AY 2005 -06 RESPECTIVELY. 2. WE HAVE HEARD LD. REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH THE PARTI ES AND HAVE GONE THROUGH THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. 2 ITA NO.524/IND/2007 (APPEAL OF THE REVENUE) 3. THE FIRST GROUND OF APPEAL IS THAT THE LD. CIT(A) E RRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO ON THE BASIS O F DVOS REPORT THOUGH THE REFERENCE TO THE DVO WAS RIGHTLY MADE BY THE AO U/S 142A. 4. FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE AO NOTED THAT THE AS SESSEE CO. CAME INTO EXISTENCE ON 16.9.99. SINCE FY 2001-02, I T STARTED CONSTRUCTION OF HOTEL BUILDING AT HARDA WHICH WAS C OMPLETED IN THE FY 2004-05. IN THE FY UNDER CONSIDERATION, NO B USINESS WAS CARRIED OUT AS THE BUILDING OF THE HOTEL WAS UNDER CONSTRUCTION. TILL THE END OF THIS YEAR, TOTAL INVESTMENT IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE HOTEL BUILDING WAS DECLARED AT RS.34,38,530/-. TILL COMPLETION, INVESTMENT IN THE ABOVE BUILDING WAS SH OWN TO HAVE BEEN MADE TO THE TUNE OF AN AMOUNT OF RS.40,44 ,196/-. THE AO FURTHER OBSERVED THAT IN THE FIRST YEAR OF T HE CONSTRUCTION, THE ASSESSEE HAS DECLARED INVESTMENT IN BUILDING MATERIAL AT RS.4,91,477/-, WHEREAS, PAYMENT OF LABO UR WAS DECLARED AT RS.10,000/- ONLY. IN THE THIRD YEAR OF CONSTRUCTION I.E. THE YEAR UNDER DISCUSSION, TOTAL MATERIAL WAS PURCHASED TO THE TUNE OF RS.16,78,659/-, WHEREAS, LABOUR PAYMENT AMOUNTED TO THE TUNE OF RS.2,66,000/- (CORRECT AMOUNT IS RS .4,35,000/-) ONLY. THUS, ACCORDING TO THE AO, THE PROPORTIONATE OF LABOUR 3 PAYMENT AND MATERIAL USED WAS FOUND TO BE QUITE IN LOWER SIDE AND AGAIN IN THE LAST YEAR OF CONSTRUCTION, I.E. FY 2004-05, WHEN THE HOTEL BUSINESS ALSO COMMENCED, THERE WAS PURCHA SE OF STEEL AND SAND, WHEREAS IN THE LAST YEAR, USUALLY FINISHI NG WORK ONLY TAKES PLACE. LOOKING TO THE ABOVE INCONSISTENCY, TH E MATTER WAS REFERRED TO THE DVO FOR EVALUATING THE CORRECT COST OF CONSTRUCTION OF THE HOTEL BUILDING. THE MATTER WAS REFERRED TO THE DVO AS PER PROVISIONS OF SEC. 142A OF THE ACT V IDE AOS OFFICE LETTER DATED 13.10.2006 ASKING THE DVO TO FU RNISH THE VALUATION REPORT BY 15.11.2006 AS THE CASE WAS GETT ING TIME- BARRED BY 31.12.2006. WHILE THE DVO FURNISHED HIS R EPORT TO THE AO ON 27.12.2006 WHICH ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE WA S TIME- BARRED ON WHICH NO ACTION SHOULD BE TAKEN BY THE AO . THE DVO ESTIMATED TOTAL COST OF CONSTRUCTION AT AN AMOUNT O F RS.64,48,000/-. THE LD. AR CONTENDED THAT AO ON INC ORRECT PRESUMPTION REFERRED THE CASE TO THE DVO. THE LABOU R PAYMENT IN 2002-03 WAS RS.10,000/- ONLY, SINCE THE CONSTRUC TION WORK WAS STOPPED FOR ABOUT 15 MONTHS OR SO. DURING THAT PERIOD, THE LABOUR PAYMENT IN FIRST YEAR WAS RS.10,000/- ONLY A ND ENTIRE MATERIAL WAS DUMPED DUE TO CANCELLATION OF PERMISSI ON, YET MATERIAL HAS TO BE PURCHASED AS PER OLD ORDERS ALRE ADY GIVEN. IN AY 2004-05, THE ACTUAL LABOUR PAYMENT WAS RS.4,35,0 00/- 4 INSTEAD OF RS.2,66,000/- MENTIONED IN THE ASSESSMEN T ORDER. IT IS FURTHER CONTENDED BY THE LD. AR THAT IN ASSESSME NT ORDER, THE AO HAS MENTIONED THAT THE PURCHASE OF STEEL AND SAN D WAS MADE DURING THE YEAR OF COMMENCEMENT OF HOTEL BUSIN ESS. HOWEVER, HE FAILED TO SEE THAT THE BOUNDARY WALL AN D FRONT GATE ETC. ARE GENERALLY CONSTRUCTED AFTER COMPLETION OF THE BUILDING. THE ASSESSEE CO. WAS IN A HURRY TO START THE HOTEL BUSINESS FIRST. THUS, THE AO WAS NOT CORRECT AND HAS NOT GIVEN ANY SOLID REASON FOR REFERRING THE MATTER FOR VALUATION TO THE DVO A ND THAT TOO WITHOUT POINTING OUT ANY DEFECT IN THE BOOKS OF ACC OUNT. THE AO DID NOT REJECT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, THEREFORE, WIT HOUT REJECTING THE BOOKS, REFERENCE TO THE DVO WAS ILLEG AL AND IN SUPPORT OF THIS CONTENTION, THE LD. AR PLACED RELIA NCE IN THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT IN THE CAS E OF CIT VS. PRATAP SINGH AMRO SINGH (1993) 200 ITR 788. 5. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE SUBMISSION, THE LD. CIT(A) HE LD THAT REFERENCE TO THE DVO WITHOUT REJECTING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT IS ILLEGAL AND CONSEQUENTLY ADDITION MADE WHICH BASED ON THE VALUATION REPORT OF THE DVO CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. 6. DURING THE COURSE OF THE HEARING, THE LD. DR CONTEN DED THAT THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT RELIED UPON BY THE LD. CIT(A) IS UNDER THE OLD PROVISIONS WHEN REF ERENCE WAS 5 MADE TO THE DVO U/S 131 OF THE ACT WHILE IN THE REC ENT JUDGMENT OF HONBLE UTTRAKHAND HIGH COURT IN THE CA SE OF CIT VS. BHAWANI SHANKAR VYAS (2009) 311 ITR 8, IT IS HE LD THAT THE AO NEED NOT REJECT ACCOUNTS BEFORE MAKING REFERENCE U/S 131(1)(D) OR CALLING FOR A REPORT OF VALUER U/S 14 2A. IT IS FURTHER HELD THAT UNDER THE NEW PROVISIONS OF SEC. 142A OF THE ACT, FULL POWERS HAVE BEEN GIVEN TO THE AO TO CALL A REPORT F ROM A VALUATION OFFICER. IT IS ALSO OBSERVED BY THE HONB LE HIGH COURT THAT A PERUSAL OF SEC. 144 R.W. SEC. 145, 142A AND 131(1)(D) MAKE IT CLEAR THAT IT IS NOT MANDATORY FOR THE AO T O REJECT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT FIRST BEFORE MAKING REFERENCE U/S 131(1)(D) OR CALLING FOR A REPORT OF THE VALUER U/S 142A OF THE ACT. HOWEVER, THE LD. AR RELIED UPON THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE RAJA STHAN HIGH COURT AND CONTENDED THAT THE REJECTION OF THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT BEFORE MAKING ANY REFERENCE TO THE DVO IS MANDATORY . 7. AFTER HEARING RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND GOING THROUGH T HE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AND UTTRAKHAND HIGH COURT REFERRED ABOVE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE JUDGMEN T OF UTTRAKHAND HIGH COURT WAS RECENTLY GIVEN IN THE YEA R 2009 WHEREIN PROVISIONS OF SEC. 142A WAS FULLY CONSIDERE D. THE JUDGMENT DELIVERED BY HONBLE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT IN THE YEAR 1992, THE EXISTENCE OF SEC. 142A WAS NOT IN STATUTE . THEREFORE, 6 RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE JUDGMENT OF UTTRAKHAND H IGH COURT, IT IS HOLD THAT REFERENCE TO THE DVO BY THE AO WITH OUT REJECTING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT IS VALID AND LAWFUL. HENCE, TH IS GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALLOWED. 8. SECOND GROUND OF APPEAL IS THAT THE LD. CIT(A) ERRE D IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.11,55,873/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF U NEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF HOTEL. 9. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE AO HAS REL IED ON THE REPORT OF THE DVO WHO HAS ESTIMATED THE COST OF CON STRUCTION AT RS.64,48,000/- IN PLACE OF RS.40,44,196/- SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE. THE DIFFERENCE OF RS.21,41,380/-, DISTRI BUTED ACCORDING TO THE PROPORTION SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE. THE DIFFERENCE IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSTRUCTION COMES TO RS.11,55,873/- AND ADDED AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT AND ADDING THE SAME TO THE TOTAL INCOME WHILE FINALIZIN G THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE REPORT OF THE REGISTERED VALUER WHO HAD ALSO GIVEN COST OF CO NSTRUCTION, WHICH WAS APPROXIMATELY THE SAME AS DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE AO DID NOT CONSIDER THE REPORT OF THE REGISTERE D VALUER. HOWEVER, HE MADE THE ADDITION OF DIFFERENCE OF THE AMOUNT DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE AND ESTIMATED BY THE DVO O N PROPORTIONATE BASIS. IT IS MENTIONED IN THE ORDER O F THE LD. 7 CIT(A) THAT THE DVO FURNISHED HIS REPORT TO THE AO ON 27.12.2006 AND AO HAS SUPPLIED THE COPY OF THE DVO S REPORT TO THE ASSESSEE ON 28.12.2006 AT 5:00 PM AT HARDA AND CALLED THE COMMENTS TO BE SUBMITTED WITHIN 12 HOURS ON 29.12.2 006 AND PASSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ON 29.12.2006 ITSELF. H ENCE, NO PROPER OPPORTUNITY HAS BEEN GIVEN. THE DVO HAS NOT SUBMITTED HIS REPORT WITHIN THE TIME DIRECTED BY THE AO REFER RED IN THE FOREGOING PARAGRAPHS, AND THUS, THE REPORT OF THE D VO IS INVALID. IT IS CONTENDED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) BY THE ASSESS EE THAT THE REPORT OF THE DVO IS BASED ON CPWD RATES. THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION VARIES TO CITY TO CITY AND COST OF CON STRUCTION OF SMALL TOWN LIKE HARDA WAS CERTAINLY LOWER. SINCE TH E COST OF CONSTRUCTION IN DELHI IS MORE, A DEDUCTION OF AT LE AST 30% SHOULD BE GIVEN IN CPWD RATES. IT WAS FURTHER CONTENDED BE FORE LD. CIT(A) THAT ALL THE THREE DIRECTORS OF THE ASSESSEE CO. WERE FULL TIME BUSY IN SUPERVISING CONSTRUCTION WORK TO THE H OTEL AND THEY HAVE NO OTHER BUSINESS. THE PROVISION FOR SELF SUPE RVISION AND DEDUCTION FROM VALUATION TO THE EXTENT OF 5% WAS IN ADEQUATE BECAUSE ALL THE THREE DIRECTORS WERE FULLY ENGAGED IN SUPERVISION AND WERE ABLE TO EFFECT SAVINGS OF AT L EAST 15% OF THE VALUE. IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION, RELIANCE H AS BEEN PLACED ON THE DECISION OF THIS BENCH IN THE CASE OF SMT. SUNITA 8 GUPTA VS. ACIT (2006) 6 ITJ 647 WHEREIN IT IS HELD THAT ONLY 75% OF THE VALUE COULD BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION WHER E CPWD RATES HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED. RELIANCE HAS ALSO BEEN PLACED ON THE ORDER OF THE ITAT, JODHPUR BENCH IN THE CASE OF ITO VS. SAMTA CHAVI GRAH PRATAP GHAR (2007) 8 ITJ 522, WHER EIN, IT IS HELD THAT FOR GIVING RELIEF FOR HIGHER RATES OF CPW D, DELHI, REDUCTION BETWEEN TO 20% TOP 30% HAS TO BE MADE AND FURTHER REDUCTION FOR SELF SUPERVISION TO BE GIVEN BETWEEN 5% TO 15%. IT IS FURTHER CONTENDED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) THAT AFT ER ALLOWING PROPER DEDUCTION FOR SELF SUPERVISION AND DEDUCTION FOR HIGHER RATE OF CPWD, DELHI, THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION HAS B EEN MORE OR LESS TO THE SAME TUNE AS SHOWN IN THE BOOKS OF ACCO UNT AND ALSO AS VALUED BY THE AVO. 10. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE SUBMISSION, THE LD. CIT(A) HE LD THAT THE AO SHOULD HAVE GIVEN DEDUCTION BETWEEN 20% TO 30% O N CPWD, DELHI RATES AND ALSO DEDUCTION FOR SELF SUPERVISION BETWEEN 5% TO 15% AND AFTER ALLOWING SUCH DEDUCTION, THERE WOU LD NOT BE ANY DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE BOOK VALUE AND DETERMINE D BY THE DVO. THE LD. CIT(A) RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THIS B ENCH AND JODHPUR BENCH AS REFERRED ABOVE. HE, THEREFORE, DEL ETED THE ADDITION OF RS.11,55,873/- 9 11. DURING THE COURSE OF THE HEARING BEFORE US, THE LD. DR INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO THE VALUATION REPORT OF THE DVO WH ICH IS PLACED AT PAGE 22 TO 38. SHE SPECIFICALLY INVITED OUR ATTE NTION TO PAGE 29 WHEREIN IT IS MENTIONED BY THE DVO THAT CI, HARD A WAS NOT AVAILABLE, HENCE, CI OF NEARER CITY OF KHANDWA WAS TAKEN. ACCORDINGLY, THE DVO HAS TAKEN COST OF CONSTRUCTION @RS.5336 PER SQ. METER WHICH COMES TO RS.533 PER SQ. FT. AND THE SAME WAS ADOPTED BY THE DVO WHILE VALUED COST OF CONSTRU CTION OF THE BUILDING. THEREFORE, THE DVO HAS RIGHTLY VALUED THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, CONTENTION OF T HE ASSESSEE THAT FURTHER DEDUCTION OF 30% BETWEEN CPWD RATES AT DELHI AND THE RATES AT HARDA SHOULD BE ALLOWED HAS NO MERIT. THE DEDUCTION ON ACCOUNT OF SELF SUPERVISION @5% HAS AL READY BEEN GIVEN BY THE DVO, THEREFORE, NO FURTHER DEDUCTION S HOULD BE ALLOWED. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ARGUED THAT THE ITAT, INDORE BENCH IN THE CASE OF M /S. CLASSIC BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS, 86, SHRINAGAR MAIN, INDORE I N ITA NO.316/IND/2003 DATED 21.7.2004 HAS CONSIDERED COST OF CONSTRUCTION @RS.328 PER SQ. FT. IN THE YEAR 99-00 WHILE IN THE CASE UNDER DISCUSSION, THE DVO HAS ADOPTED THE RATE OF RS.533 PER SQ. FT. WHICH IS VERY HIGH IN THE AY 2004-05. T HE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FILED A COPY OF AGREEMENT DATED 10 26.8.2003 BETWEEN V.V. VARSINE AND SHIKSHAN VIKAS S AMITI, HARDA, WHEREIN, IT IS AGREED UPON TO MAKE PAYMENT O F CONSTRUCTION @RS.215 PER SQ. FT. THE ITAT, INDORE B ENCH IN THE CASE OF JAGMOHAN JAISWAL, INDORE VS. ITO, 10 ITJ 18 7 HAS HELD THAT DEDUCTION FOR SELF SUPERVISION, FOR ADOPTING PWD RATES INSTEAD OF CPWD RATES AND FOR MATERIAL DIRECTLY PUR CHASED BY THE ASSESSEE, 40% DEDUCTION SHOULD BE ALLOWED WHILE ESTIMATING THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION. IT IS FURTHER CONTENDED THAT ALL THE THREE DIRECTORS OF THE CO. HAS NO OTHER WORK EXCEPT TO SUPERVISE THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE HOTEL BUILDING. THEREFORE, FURTHER DEDUCTION OF 15% FOR SELF SUPERVISION SHOULD BE ALL OWED AS HELD BY THE ITAT, JODHPUR BENCH. 12. AFTER HEARING RIVAL CONTENTIONS, WE NOTED THAT THE DVO HAS ESTIMATED THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION AT VERY HIGH RAT E I.E. @RS.533 PER SQ. FT. WHILE IT HAS BEEN AGREED UPON I N THE YEAR 2003 BETWEEN SHRI V.V. VARSINE AND SHIKSHAN VIKAS S AMITI @RS.215 PER SQ. FT. WE ALSO NOTED THAT THE DEDUCTIO N FOR SELF SUPERVISION @5% IS VERY LOW WHILE ALL THE THREE DIR ECTORS OF THE CO. WERE ENGAGED IN SUPERVISING THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE HOTEL BUILDING. THEREFORE, DEDUCTION @15% SHOULD HAVE BEE N ALLOWED AS HELD BY THE ITAT, JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR IN THE CASE REFERRED ABOVE. THUS, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER 11 OF LD. CIT(A) AND THUS, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF TH E REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 13. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ITA NO.119/IND/2009 (APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE) 14. THE ONLY GROUND OF APPEAL IS THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HA S ERRED, ON FACTS AND LAW, BY CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.9,8 5,507/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT IN THE CONSTRU CTION OF HOTEL BUILDING U/S 69B WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE SUBM ISSIONS MADE BEFORE HIM. 15. FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE SUCCESSOR LD. CIT(A) IN THE YEAR UNDER DISCUSSION DID NOT AGREE WITH HIS PREDECESSOR AND DIFFER ON THE ISSUE THAT REFERENCE TO THE DVO WITHOUT REJE CTING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT IS ILLEGAL AS DISCUSSED IN THE APP EAL OF THE PRECEDING YEAR IN THE FOREGOING PARAGRAPHS. ACCORDI NG TO THE LD. CIT(A), THE DVO IS A QUALIFIED ENGINEER AND ASSESSE D THE VALUE OF THE HOTEL BUILDING ON THE BASIS OF TECHNICAL PAR AMETERS AND THE RATES AVAILABLE. THEREFORE, HE UPHELD THE PROPO RTIONATE ADDITION OF RS.9,85,507/- FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSID ERATION. WE NOTED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) DID NOT DISCUSS THE VARIO US SUBMISSIONS AND CONTENTIONS MADE BEFORE HIM AND WITHOUT DISCUSS ING THE QUANTUM OF ADDITION ON MERITS, THE LD. CIT(A) SUSTA INED THE ADDITION OF RS.9,85,507/-. 12 16. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE AS WELL AS THE LD. DR BOTH REPEATED THEIR ARGUMENTS MADE IN REGARD TO THE ADDITION IN T HE PRECEDING YEAR DISCUSSED IN THE FOREGOING PARAGRAPHS. 17. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE SIDES AND HELD THAT NO ADDITION IS CALLED FOR, FOR THE RE ASON THAT THE DVO HAS ADOPTED THE CPWD RATES PREVAILING AT DELHI WHILE THE HOTEL BUILDING WAS CONSTRUCTED AT HARDA. FURTHER, T HE DVO HAS FAILED TO GIVE DEDUCTION OF SELF SUPERVISION @15%. BOTH THE ISSUES ARE DISCUSSED IN DETAIL WHILE DECIDING THE A PPEAL FOR THE AY 2004-05 IN THE FOREGOING PARAGRAPHS. FOR THE REA SONS MENTIONED THEREIN, THE ADDITION MADE AT RS.9,85,507 /- IS DELETED. THUS, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWE D. 18. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS PARTLY ALLO WED AND APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 19. THIS ORDER HAS BEEN PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30 .10.2009. SD/- SD/- (JOGINDER SINGH) (M.L. GUSIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 30.10.2009 {VYAS}