Ratnagiri Gas & Power Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi V. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 1249/DEL/2012

• Counselvise Citation: 124920114 RSA 2012
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-04-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Next Hearing Date: 13-02-2014
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 14-03-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Onus to prove; Revenue expenditure

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: F NEW DELHI BEFORE SMT DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI T.S.KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A .NO.-1249/DEL/2012 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2008-09) RATNAGIRI GAS & POWER PVT. LTD., NTPC BHAWAN, CORE-7, INSTITUTIONAL AREA, LODHI ROAD, NEW DELHI-110003. PAN-AADCR1375F (APPELLANT) VS ACIT, CIRCLE-15(1), NEW DELHI. (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SH.VED JAIN & MS. RANO JAIN, CA RESPONDENT BY: MS. MEENAKSHI VOHRA, SR. DR ORDER PER DIVA SINGH, JM THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST TH E ORDER DATED 08.02.2012 OF CIT(A)-XVIII, NEW DELHI PERTAINING TO 2008-09 ASSE SSMENT YEAR ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE ORD ER PASSED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) [CIT(A)] CONFI RMING PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) IS BAD BOTH IN THE EYE OF LAW & O N FACTS. 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LEA RNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED BOTH ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN CONFIRMING PENALTY OF R S.1,02,51,384/- UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) LEVIED BY THE A.O. ON THE DISALLO WANCE ON ACCOUNT OF DEFERRED REVENUE EXPENDITURE. 3. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LEA RNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED BOTH ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN REJECTING THE CONTENTIO N OF THE APPELLANT THAT THERE WAS A BONAFIDE INADVERTENT OMISSION IN NOT AD DING THE BOOK AMOUNT IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME AND FACTS RELATING TO SAME HAVE BEEN FULLY DISCLOSED. 4. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LEA RNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED BOTH ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN CONFIRMING PENALTY DESP ITE THE FACT THAT THE 2 I.T.A .NO.-1249/DEL/2012 ASSESSEE BEING A PUBLIC SECTOR UNDERTAKING ITSELF H AS DISCLOSED ALL THE FACTS AND FIGURES AND AS SUCH THERE WAS NO CONCEALMENT OF INCOME ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE. 5. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LEA RNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED BOTH ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN CONFIRMING PENALTY REJE CTING THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE APPELLANT HAS SUBMITTED EXPLA NATION IN SUPPORT OF ITS CONTENTION THAT THERE IS NEITHER CONCEALMENT NOR FU RNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. 6. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LEA RNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED BOTH ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN CONFIRMING PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) LEVIED BY THE A.O. AS NO FINDING HAS BEEN GIVEN ON MERIT REGARDIN G CONCEALMENT IN THE ORDER PASSED BY THE A.O. 7. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND OR ALTER A NY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 2. THE RELEVANT FACTS AS BORNE OUT FROM THE ASSESSM ENT ORDER ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF GENERAT ION OF POWER AND REGASIFICATION OF LNG DECLARED A LOSS OF RS.49,44,8 0,721/- . QUA THE ISSUE PERTAINING TO THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS THE FACTS ARE FOUND RECORDED IN PARA 2 & 3 IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. A PERUSAL OF THE SAME SHOWS THAT THE AO IN THE SCRUTINY PROCEEDINGS OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAD DEBITED A SUM AMOUNTING TO RS.3 CRORE AS DEFERRED EXPENSES WRITTEN OFF. THE D ETAILS OF THE SAID EXPENSES WERE CALLED FOR BY HIM AND IN RESPONSE TO WHICH THE FOL LOWING INFORMATION WAS PLACED BY THE ASSESSEE:- RATNAGIRI POWER PRIVATE LIMITED DETAILS OF MISCELLANEOUS EXPENDITURE (TO THE EXTENT NOT WRITTEN OFF OR ADJUSTED) S.NO. HEAD OF EXPENDITURE/DETAILS RS. IN MILLIONS RS. IN MILLIONS A LEGAL & (OTHER EXPENSES) 1. SERVICE CHARGES TO IDBI FOR HYPOTHECATION OF ASSETS 0.72 2. SERVICE OF SOLICITORS 0.24 3. LEGAL SERVICES FROM ADVOCATES 1.80 4. OTHER LEGAL EXPENSES RELATED TO TRANSFER OF ASSETS/FUEL ARRANGEMENTS 2.52 5.28 B RECRUITMENT EXPENSES 1. ADVERTISEMENT FOR RECRUITMENT 0.87 2. 2. RECRUITMENT EXPENSES PAID TO NTPC 1.39 2.26 C EXPENDITURE ON SECRETARIAL WORKS 1. PAYMENT TO REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES FOR 19.99 3 I.T.A .NO.-1249/DEL/2012 ENHANCEMENT OF SHARE CAPITAL 2. STAMP DUTY FOR ENHANCEMENT OF SHARE CAPITAL 2.50 3. PAYMENT TO REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES FOR ENHANCEMENT OF SHARE CAPITAL 0.13 22.62 TOTAL: 30.16 2.1. CONSIDERING THE ASSESSEES SUBMISSION ADVANCED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE THE SUM AND THE SUBSTANCE OF WHICH WAS THAT THE EXP ENSES HAD BEEN INCURRED IN THE 2006-07 FINANCIAL YEAR, THE AO REQUIRED THE ASSESSE E TO EXPLAIN WHY THEY SHOULD NOT BE DISALLOWED. IN RESPONSE TO THE SAME, THE F OLLOWING EXPLANATION WAS OFFERED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE:- AS PER THE ACCOUNTING STANDARDS ACCOUNTS FOR THE F INANCIAL YEAR 2006-07 AND 2007-08 WERE PREPARED. WHILE PREPARING THE ACCOUNTS DEFERRED REVENUE EXPENDITURE OF RS.30.17 MILLIONS WERE SHOWN UNDER MISCELLANEOUS EXPENDITURE (TO THE EXTENT NO WRITTEN OFF OR ADJUST ED) IN THE BALANCE SHEET OF 2006-07 AND SAME HAS BEEN DEBITED TO THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT OF THE YEAR 2008-09. HOWEVER, WHILE FILING THE INCOME TAX RETURN FOR TH E ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 SUCH DEFERRED REVENUE EXPENDITURE OF RS.30. 17 MILLIONS WAS INADVERTENTLY NOT ADDED BACK TO THE TAXABLE INCOME DUE TO OMISSION. SINCE OMISSION, AS STATED ABOVE, WAS UNINTENTIONAL AND NOT MEANT TO HIDE ANY FACTS, THEREFORE YOUR GOOD SELF IS REQUEST ED TO KINDLY CONSIDER THE ABOVE FACT WHILE FINALIZING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. 2.2. IN VIEW OF THE SAID POSITION THE AMOUNT OF RS. 3,01,60,000/- WAS ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AND PENALTY PROCEEDIN GS WERE INITIATED. THE REPLY OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS WAS NOT ACCEPTED BY THE AO WHO REJECTED THE SAME HOLDING AS UNDER:- 4. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSE E ON THE FACTS AND MERITS OF THE CASE. THE ASSESSEE HAS INCURRED THESE EXPEN SES IN THE F.Y.2006-07. IN ITS WRITTEN REPLY DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT P ROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSEE COMPANY SUBMITTED THAT WHILE PREPARING THE ACCOUNTS DEFERRED REVENUE EXPENDITURES OF RS.30.17 MILLIONS WERE SHOWN UNDER MISCELLANEOUS EXPENDITURE (TO THE EXTENT NO WRITTEN OFF OR ADJUSTED) IN THE B ALANCE SHEET OF 2006-07 AND SAME HAS BEEN DEBITED TO P&L ACCOUNT OF THE YEAR 20 08-09. HOWEVER, WHILE FILING THE IT RETURN FOR A.Y.2008-09 SUCH DEFERRED REVENUE EXPENDITURE OF RS.30.17 MILLIONS WAS INADVERTENTLY NOT ADDED BACK TO THE TAXABLE INCOME DUE TO OMISSION. IT IS NOT EXPECTED FROM THE ASSESSEE TO FILE RETURN OF INCOME IN 4 I.T.A .NO.-1249/DEL/2012 SUCH A CASUAL WAY AND WITHOUT OBSERVING THE PROVISI ONS OF LAW. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS FILED INACCURATE PARTICULARS BY NOT ADD ING BACK THE DEFERRED REVENUE EXPENDITURE. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY NEITHER AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS NOR AT THE TIME OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS COULD PRODUCE ANY COGENT REPLY/EVIDENCE OR TO JUSTIFY NOT ADDING BACK RS.3,0 1,60,000/- TO THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME. THE ABOVE MISTAKE WAS NOTICE D BY THE ASSESSING OFFICERS DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING S. THIS MISTAKE WOULD HAVE GONE UNNOTICED IF THE CASE WAS NOT SELECTED WAS SCR UTINY. AFTER INTRODUCTION OF EXPLANATION TO SECTION 271(1)(C) THE ONUS TO PROVE THAT AS TO WHY PENALTY SHOULD NOT BE LEVIED IS ON THE ASSESSEE. 2.3. HE FURTHER HELD THAT HIS VIEW WAS FORTIFIED BY JUDGEMENT DATED 24.05.2010 IN THE CASE OF CIT VS ZOOM COMMUNICATIONS PVT. LTD. R ENDERED BY THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT. 3. AGGRIEVED BY THIS THE ASSESSEE CAME IN APPEAL BE FORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. THE PENALTY ORDER WAS ASSAILED RAISING ARGUMENTS THAT NEITHER THE ASSESSEE HAD CONCEALED ANY PORTION OF HIS INCOME NO R HAS THE ASSESSEE FURNISH ANY INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF HIS INCOME AS SUCH IT WAS CLAIMED THAT THE PENALTY ORDER SHOULD BE QUASHED. THE RECORD SHOWS THAT FOLLOWIN G FACTS WERE BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE CIT(A) IN SUPPORT OF THE SAID CLAIM. THESE ARE EXTRACTED FROM PAGE 3 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER HEREUNDER FOR READY-REFERENCE :- FACTS OF THE CASE 1. THE ASSESSEE IS A PUBLIC SECTOR UNDERTAKING ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF GENERATION OF POWER AND REGASIFICATION LNG. 2. THE RETURN FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 WAS FILED ON 30.09.2008 DECLARING A LOSS OF RS.49,44,80,721/-. 3. THE RETURN WAS PROCESSED U/S 143(1) ON 08.01.2010. THEREAFTER NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) WAS ISSUED AND THE CASE WAS TA KEN UP FOR SCRUTINY. 4. DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION APPELLANT DEBIT ED AN AMOUNT OF RS.3,01,60,000/- TO THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT ON ACCOUNT OF DEFERRED REVENUE EXPENSES WRITTEN OFF. 5. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE LD. AO ASKED THE APPELLANT TO JUSTIFY THE ALLOWABILITY OF THE SAME. 6. THE APPELLANT VIDE ITS REPLY DATED 07.12.2010 FILED ON 10.12.2010 BEFORE THE AO STATED THAT THE SAID AMOUNT WAS NOT ADDED BA CK TO THE INCOME FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WHILE PREPARING THE CO MPUTATION OF INCOME DUE TO SOME INADVERTENT OMISSION. 5 I.T.A .NO.-1249/DEL/2012 7. SINCE THE SAID OMISSION WAS UNINTENTIONAL AND NOT M EANT TO HIDE ANY FACTS, THEREFORE THE APPELLANT REQUEST THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER TO ADD THE SAME TO THE GROSS TOTAL INCOME. 8. THE LD. AO PASSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ASSESSING TH E LOSS AT RS.46,43,17,170/- THEREBY ADDING AN AMOUNT OF RS.3, 01,63,555/- 9. THE LD. AO IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE APPELLANT IS A PUBLIC SECTOR UNDERTAKING AND INSPITE OF SPECIFIC DISCLOSURE BY T HE APPELLANT THAT THE MISTAKE OF NOT ADDING BACK THE EXPENDITURE CLAIMED ON ACCOUNT OF DEFERRED EXPENSES WRITTEN OFF WAS DUE TO SOME INADVERTENT OM ISSION INITIATED THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. 10. THEREAFTER THE LD.AO VIDE HIS NOTICE UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) FIXED THE CASE FOR HEARING. IN RESPONSE TO THE SAME THE APPELLANT VIDE ITS LETTER DATED 13.06.2011 REQUESTED THE AO TO DROP THE PENALTY PRO CEEDING. 11. THE LD. AO IGNORING THE REPLY FILED BY THE APPELLAN T AND IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE APPELLANT IS A PUBLIC SECTOR UNDERTAKING A ND THE MISTAKE IS BONAFIDE I.E DUE TO SOME INADVERTENT OMISSION LEVIE D A PENALTY OF RS.1,02,51,384/-. 12. THE SAID ACTION OF THE AO WAS IGNORING THE FACT THA T NEITHER ANY PORTION OF INCOME WAS CONCEALED BY THE APPELLANT NOR IT HAD SU BMITTED ANY INACCURATE PARTICULARS, LEVIED THE PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF TH E ACT. 3.1. APART FROM THE ABOVE FACTUAL POSITION, RELIANC E WAS PLACED UPON CIT VS ESCORTS FINANCE LTD. (2009) 28 DTR 293; DENA BANK V S IAC (1997) 25 ITD 109 (BOM.); CIT VS RELIANCE PETRO PRODUCTS 322 ITR 158 (SC); CIT VS MTNL IN ITA NO-626/2011. 3.2. NOT CONVINCED WITH THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSE SSEE, THE CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE PENALTY ORDER. AGGRIEVED BY THIS, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 4. IN THE ABOVE BACKGROUND, LD. AR INVITING ATTENTI ON TO THE ASSESSMENT ORDER SUBMITTED THAT ON ACCOUNT OF INADVERTENT ERROR DEFE RRED REVENUE EXPENSES WERE INCORRECTLY CLAIMED AND AS SOON AS THE MISTAKE WAS POINTED OUT BY THE AO, THE ASSESSEE ACCEPTED THE SAME. IT WAS ARGUED THAT IT IS A MATTER OF RECORD THAT NO INACCURATE PARTICULARS WERE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE A ND NOR HAD THE ASSESSEE CONCEALED ANY PARTICULARS OF ITS INCOME AS FULL AND COMPLETE DISCLOSURE ON FACTS WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. THE RETURN FILED IT WAS SUBMITTED WAS ACCOMPANIED WITH COMPUTATION OF INCOME DULY AUDITED BALANCE SH EET AND P&L ACCOUNT. IT WAS EMPHASIZED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A PUBLIC SECTOR UND ERTAKING AND THE SAME HAS TO BE 6 I.T.A .NO.-1249/DEL/2012 TREATED ON A DIFFERENT FOOTING AS HAS BEEN HELD BY THE MUMBAI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF DENA BANK U/S 1AC (1997) 2 5 ITD 109 (BOM.). IN THE CASE OF A PUBLIC SECTOR COMPANY THERE CAN BE NO PER SONAL INTEREST, THE MISTAKE WAS A BONA FIDE MISTAKE AND WHICH AS SOON AS IT WAS PO INTED WAS IMMEDIATELY ACCEPTED AND CORRECTED. ATTENTION WAS INVITED TO PAPER BOOK PAGE NO-11 WHICH CONTAINS COPY OF THE P&L ACCOUNT FILED WHEREIN REFERENCE IS MADE TO SCHEDULE T WHICH CONTAINS THE DETAILS OF OTHER GENERATION AND ADMIN ISTRATION EXPENSES CLAIMED AT RS.221 MILLION THE BREAK UP OF WHICH IS PROVIDED AT PAPER BOOK PAGE 32 WHICH CONTAINS THE DETAILS OF SCHEDULE T. A PERUSAL OF THE SAME IT WAS POINTED OUT SPECIFICALLY MAKES A MENTION THAT THE SAID AMOUNT H AS BEEN REFLECTED AS DEFERRED EXPENSES WRITTEN OFF THE AMOUNT IS SPECIFICALLY ME NTIONED, THE NARRATION IS CLEAR AND THE FACTS ARE FULLY DISCLOSED. IT WAS HIS ARGU MENTS THAT THE FULL DISCLOSURE HAS BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESSEE AND ONLY DUE TO INADVERTE NT ERROR THE MISTAKE HAS OCCURRED. ACCORDINGLY APPLYING THE PRINCIPLE LAID DOWN BY THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF PRICE WATER COOPER (P.) LTD. VS CIT 348 ITR 306 (SC) RENDERED BY THE APEX COURT THE PENALTY IT WAS SUBMITTED DESERVES TO BE QUASHED. RELIANCE WAS ALSO PLACED ON THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF CIT VS E SCORTS FINANCE LTD. (2009) 28 DTR 293 AND THE JUDGEMENT OF THE APEX COURT AND CI T VS RELIANCE PETRO PRODUCTS (CITED SUPRA) WHICH HAS TAKEN INTO CONSIDE RATION THE JUDGEMENT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF ZOOM COMMUNICATION PVT. LTD. FURTHE R RELIANCE WAS PLACED UPON THE DECISION OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN TH E CASE OF CIT VS CIT VS DHANABAL (2008) 12 DTR (DEL) 337; CIT VS CIT VS SOC IETEX (2012) 82 CCH 069 (DEL HC); AND ALSO SYNOPSIS FILED IN THE COURT. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. ON A CONSIDERATION OF THE ENTIRE FACTUAL M ATTER IT IS SEEN THERE IS NO DISPUTE ON THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE MADE AN INCORRECT CLA IM IN ITS RETURN. IT IS ALSO A MATTER OF RECORD THAT THE ASSESSEE WHO IS A PUBLIC SECTION UNDERTAKING WHO ON BEING CALLED 7 I.T.A .NO.-1249/DEL/2012 FORTH TO EXPLAIN ITS CLAIM AFTER OFFERING ITS EXPLA NATION ACCEPTED THAT A MISTAKE HAD CREPT INTO ITS CLAIM WHICH WAS DULY ACCEPTED LEADIN G TO THE ADDITION BEING MADE. IN THE SAID FACTUAL BACKGROUND THE PRINCIPLE LAID D OWN BY THE APEX COURT IN RELIANCE PETROPRODUCTS (CITED SUPRA) HAS BEEN PRESS ED INTO ACTION CLAIMING RELIEF ON THE GROUND THAT MAKING INCORRECT CLAIM PER SE DOES NOT CONSTITUTE FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. IT IS NOT IN DIS PUTE THAT ALL RELEVANT FACTS QUA THE AMOUNT NAMELY THE NARRATION IN THE ACCOUNTS ARE FU LLY DISCLOSED. THUS IN THE FACTS WHERE ALL NECESSARY FACTS ARE DISCLOSED MERELY BECA USE AN INCORRECT CLAIM HAS BEEN MADE CONSIDERING THE PRINCIPLE CITED IN THE CAS E OF RELIANCE PETROPRODUCTS, WE DO NOT FIND HOW THE ACTION OF THE CIT(A) IN UPHOLDI NG THE ACTION OF THE AO CAN BE UPHELD. IT IS SEEN THAT THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE IS A BONA FIDE EXPLANATION WHICH IN THE ABSENCE OF ANYTHING TO THE CONTRARY OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED. THE VIEW TAKEN IS FURTHER FORTIFIED BY T HE JUDGEMENT OF THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF PRICE WATER HOUSE COOPER (P.) LTD. ( CITED SUPRA) WHEREIN PENALTY ORDER HAS BEEN STRUCK DOWN ACCEPTING THE ERROR TO BE AS INADVERTENT BONAFIDE ERROR WHERE SUCH AN ERROR WAS HELD AS A HUMAN ERROR WHIC H WE ARE ALL PRONE TO MAKE. THIS FINDING HAS BEEN GIVEN IN THE FACTS OF AN ACCO UNTING FIRM OF INTERNATIONAL REPUTE AND THE HONBLE APEX COURT HELD THEREIN THAT THE CALIBER AND EXPERTISE OF THE ASSESSEE HAS LITTLE OR NOTHING TO DO WITH INADV ERTENT ERROR. 6. ACCORDINGLY FOR THE REASONS GIVEN HEREIN WE DIRE CT THAT THE PENALTY ORDER BE QUASHED SETTING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER. 7. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLO WED. THE ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 04 TH OF APRIL 2014. SD/- SD/- (T.S.KAPOOR) (DIVA SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEM BER DATED: 04/04/2014 *AMIT KUMAR* 8 I.T.A .NO.-1249/DEL/2012 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT RE GISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI