DCIT, New Delhi V. M/s. Grohe India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon

ITA 1441/DEL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5457 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-02-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 06-01-2014
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 11-03-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SATPAL SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: SHRUTI SINHA
• Keywords: Capital asset; Business income; Revenue expenditure

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH C NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI U. B. S. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI R. S. SYAL , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 1441 /DEL/2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10) ACIT, CIRCLE 12(1), VS. M/S. GROHE INDIA PVT. LTD ., NEW DELHI 14 TH FLOOR, DLF BUILDING NO.5, TOWER A, DLF CIBER CITY, PHASE III, GURGAON PAN/GIR NO.: AACCG6062B (APPELLANTS) (RESPONDENTS) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI DEEPAK CHOPRA, ADV. & MS. SHRUTI SINHA, ADV. DEPARTMENT BY: SHRI SATPAL SINGH, SR. DR ORDER PER U B S BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THIS APPEAL OF THE DEPARTMENT IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY LD. CIT(A) XV, NEW DELHI DATED 31.12.2012 RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 WHEREIN FOLLOWING TWO EFFECTIVE ROUNDS HAVE BEEN RAISED: 1) ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF AD VERTISEMENT EXPENSES OF RS.2,77,87,896/- HOLDING THE SAME AS RE VENUE EXPENDITURE. 2) ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND I N LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.82, 83,024/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF SHORTAGE OF CLOSING STOCK OF 3558 ITEMS REPORTED IN THE TAX AUDIT REPORT. I.T.A. NO. 1441/DEL/2013 2 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT DURING THE COUR SE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE A.O. ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN AS TO WHY THE ADVERTISING EXPENSES OF RS,3,47,34,870/- MAY NOT BE CAPITALIZED AS IN HIS VIEW SUCH EXPENSES APPEARED TO BE FOR BRAND BUILDING. THE RE PLY BY THE ASSESSEE THAT SUCH EXPENSES WERE FOR SALES PROMOTION AND WERE IN THE FORM OF ADVERTISEMENT AND MAGAZINES, POSTERS ETC. AND WERE ROUTINE OPERATIONAL EXPENSES, WHICH DID NOT LEAD TO CREATION OF ANY CAP ITAL ASSETS BY THE COMPANY OR MAY HAVE RESULTED IN BENEFIT OF ENDURING NATURE, WAS NOT CONCEDED BY THE A.O. WHO AFTER APPLYING THE DECISIO N CITED AT 275 ITR 155, (CALCUTTA) AND 225 ITR 802(S.C.) TREATED SUCH EXPEN SES AS CAPITAL IN NATURE ON WHICH 1/5 TH ALLOWANCE WAS GIVEN DURING THE CURRENT YEAR. THE SECOND GROUND OF ADDITION WAS IN RESPECT OF SHORTAGE IN ST OCK QUANTITY AS PER THE OBSERVATION MADE BY THE A.O. FROM DETAILS OF STOCK AND PURCHASE AND SALES FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE A.O. THE ASSE SSEE EXPLANATION THAT THE DIFFERENCES IN THE QUANTITY OF CLOSING STOCK WAS DU E TO LOSS, TRANSIT, PILFERAGE, GOODS ISSUED BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE DISTRIBUTORS/DE ALERS FOR DISPLAY AT THEIR PREMISES AND FOR THE GOODS ISSUED TO THE DISTRIBUTO RS/DEALERS FOR BRANDING PURPOSES WAS NOT FOUND JUSTIFIED BY THE A.O., WHO T REATED THE DIFFERENCE IN RESPECT OF 3,558 NUMBER OF ITEMS AS HAVING BEING SO LD OUT OF THE BOOKS ON WHICH AVERAGE SALE PRICE OF RS.2,328/- WAS APPLIED AND ACCORDINGLY AN ADDITION OF RS.82,83,024/- ON THIS ACCOUNT WAS MADE . 4. THE ASSESSEE TOOK UP THE MATTER IN APPEAL AND IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED ON ADVERTISEMENT AND SALES PROMOTION ACTIVITIES DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WAS P RIMARILY IN NATURE OF ADVERTISEMENT IN MAGAZINE, MEDIA, DESIGNING AND PRI NTING CHARTS FOR POSTERS I.T.A. NO. 1441/DEL/2013 3 BANNERS, CATALOGUES PARTICIPATION IN EXHIBITION, DI SPLAY AT SHOWROOMS EVENT MANAGEMENT AND SO ON. THE DETAILED NATURE AND BREA KUP OF THIS EXPENDITURE WAS ALSO SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS FURTHE R CONTENDED THAT THE A.O. HAD FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE EXPENDITURE INCUR RED ON ADVERTISEMENT AND SALES PROMOTION ARE ROUTINE OPERATIONAL EXPENSES, W HICH HAS BEEN INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE WITH THE SOLE INTENTION TO CREATE T HE AWARENESS OF THE PRODUCTS OFFERED BY THE COMPANY IN ORDER TO BOOST I TS SALE AND TO EARN BETTER MARGINS. THIS EXPENDITURE ON ADVERTISEMENT AND SAL ES PROMOTION HAS NEITHER LED TO CREATION OR ACQUISITION OF ANY CAPITAL ASSET NOR RESULTED IN ANY BENEFIT OF ENDURING NATURE. THIS EXPENDITURE HAS BEEN INCU RRED BY THE ASSESSEE ONLY TO CARRY OUT ITS BUSINESS EFFICIENTLY AND EFFECTIVE LY. IT WAS ALSO INFORMED THAT H EXPENDITURE ON ADVERTISEMENT AND SALES PROMOTION IS INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE ON YEARS TO YEAR BASIS. THE DETAILS OF EX PENDITURE ON ADVERTISEMENT AND SALES PROMOTION AND SALES DURING THE FOLLOWING TWO YEARS WERE TABULATED AS UNDER: LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE DREW ATTENTION TO FOLL OWING CASES: I) CASIO INDIA COMPANY PVT. LTD. (335 ITR 196) (JUR ISDICTIONAL DELHI HIGH COURT. II) CIT VS CITI FINANCIAL CONSUMER FIN. LTD. (I.T.A . NO. 1820 OF 2010) (JURISDICTIONAL DELHI HIGH COURT) III) SWATCH GROUP (INDIA) (I.T.A. NO. 871/DEL/2011) (JURISDICTIONAL DELHI HIGH COURT) FY ADVERTISEMENT AND SALES PROMOTION EXPENSES (RS.) SALES (RS.) 2008-09 3,47,34,870 31,93,49,701 2009-10 4,06,17,095 49,34,41,222 2010-11 9,13,82,290 1,36,91,57,822 I.T.A. NO. 1441/DEL/2013 4 IV) ITO VS SPICE COMMUNICATIONS LTD. (I.T.A. NO. 2073/2074/2039) (JURISDICTIONAL DELHI TRIBUNAL) IV) ACIT VS SAMTEL INDIA LTD. (I.T.A. NO. 3168/DEL/ 2005 AND I.T.A. NO. 2361/DEL/2006) (JURISDICTIONAL DELHI TRI BUNAL) IN VIEW OF ABOVE, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE PLEADED THAT THE ADVERTISEMENT INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE ON YEAR TO Y EAR BASIS AS A ROUTINE OPERATIONAL EXPENDITURE WHICH HAD DIRECTLY CONTRIBU TED TO THE INCREASE IN SALES OF THE ASSESSEE AND SINCE THERE IS NO CONCEPT OF DEFERRED REVENUE EXPENDITURE UNDER THE ACT, THE A.O. WAS NOT JUSTIFI ED IN DISALLOWING 4/5 TH OF SUCH EXPENDITURE. REGARDING THE SECOND GROUND OF A PPEAL, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE INFORMED THAT IN THE AUDITED FINAN CIAL STATEMENTS AND IN THE TAX AUDIT REPORT, THE ASSESSEE HAD REPORTED THAT TH ERE WAS SHORTAGE OF 3,558/- UNITS IN THE CLOSING STOCK, WHICH WAS DUE TO GOODS ISSUED TO DISTRIBUTORS FOR DISPLAY ON FREE OF COST BASIS OR ON ACCOUNT OF GOOD S DAMAGED OR LOST IN THE NORMAL COURSE OF BUSINESS. IT WAS INFORMED THAT TH IS EXPLANATION WAS DULY GIVEN TO THE A.O. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING ALSO. BEFORE ME, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE SHORTAG E REPORTED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS FINANCIAL STATEMENT WAS PART OF ITS INTERNAL CONTROL PROCESS. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY FURNISHED THE FURTHER BREAKUP OF T HE ITEMS HELD AS SHORT AS UNDER: S.NO. PARTICULARS NO. OF UNITS 1 GOODS ISSUED TO DISTRIBUTORS FOR TRAINING AND DISPLAY PURPOSES 3,394 2 GOODS DAMAGED OR LOST IN NORMAL COURSE OF BUSINESS AND IDENTIFIED ON PHYSICAL VERIFICATION OF THE CLOSING STOCK 164 TOTAL 3,558 I.T.A. NO. 1441/DEL/2013 5 LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE PLEADED THAT ISSUE OF GOODS TO THE DISTRIBUTORS FOR DISPLAY IN THEIR SHOWROOMS IS A ROUTINE BUSINES S ACTIVITY IN THE SANITARY- WARE INDUSTRY, WHERE THE PRODUCTS SUCH AS BATH FITT INGS, TAPS ETC. ARE REQUIRED TO BE PROMINENTLY DISPLAYED. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR T HE ASSESSEE ALSO FURNISHED ITEM-WISE BREAKUP OF GOODS ISSUED TO THE DISTRIBUTORS/DEALERS FOR DISPLAY PURPOSE. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT AFTER EXCLUDING 3,394 ITEMS OF GOODS ISSUED FOR DISPLAY/TRAINING TO THE DISTRIBUTO RS, THE ACTUAL SHORTAGE WAS OF ONLY 164 ITEMS, WHICH WERE EITHER DAMAGED OR LOS T IN THE NORMAL COURSE OF BUSINESS, WHICH WERE IDENTIFIED ON PHYSICAL VERIFIC ATION OF THE CLOSING STOCK. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE BASED ON THE ACTUA L COST OF SUCH GOODS VALUED THE 164 ITEMS, WHICH WERE DAMAGED/LOST AT RS .3,15,716/-. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT SUCH LOSS, WHICH WAS BARELY 0.12% OF TOTAL SALES OF ITEMS WAS MINIMAL AND WAS A NORMAL BUSINESS LOSS IN THE BUSIN ESS OF SANITARY WARE. FURTHER RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON (I) CIT VS NAINITAL BANK LTD. (55 ITR 707) (S.C.); (II) CIT VS SNASA ANNAMALAI CHETTIAR (86 IT R 607) S.C.; (III) CIT VS OBEROI TEXTILE (P) LTD. (195 CTSR 431) P&H HIGH COURT. 5. LD. CIT(A) WHILE CONSIDERING THE ISSUE INVOLVED AND THE ARGUMENTS OF LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, HAS CONCLUDED TO DELE TE BOTH THE ADDITIONS AS PER PARA 6.2 AND 6.3 OF HIS ORDER. 6. AGGRIEVED BY THIS ORDER OF LD. CIT(A), DEPARTMEN T HAS COME UP IN APPEAL AND WHILE RELYING UPON THE ORDER OF THE A.O. , IT WAS PLEADED FOR SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) AND RESTORING THAT OF THE A.OS ORDER. 7. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE WHILE RELYING UPON THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) HAS PLEADED FOR ITS CONFIRMATION AS JUST AND APPROPRIATE VIEW HAS BEEN TAKEN BY LD. CIT(A) IN THE LIGHT OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AND I.T.A. NO. 1441/DEL/2013 6 MATERIAL ON RECORD. NEITHER ANY CONTRARY MATERIAL HAS BEEN PLACED ON RECORD NOR GIVEN IN THE APPEAL PAPERS. IT WAS THUS PLEADE D FOR CONFIRMATION OF IMPUGNED ORDER. 8. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES AND CONSIDERED MATE RIAL ON RECORD AND FIND THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS DISCUSSED AND CONCLUDED TH E ISSUE NO.1 & 2 IN PARA 6.2 AND 6.3 OF HIS ORDER WHICH READ AS UNDER: REGARDING THE FIRST GROUND OF APPEAL, I FIND THAT THE APPELLANT HAS INCURRED AN AMOUNT OF RS.3,47,34,870/- IN RESPECT O F ADVERTISEMENT AND SALES PROMOTION EXPENSES DURING THE CURRENT YEA R. AS AGAINST THIS, THE APPELLANT AS SHOWN SALES OF RS.31,93,49,701/-. THESE EXPENSES COMPRISE OF VARIOUS EXPENSES INCLUDING EXPENDITURE ON ADVERTISEMENT PUBLISHED IN THE MAGAZINE, MEDIA, DESIGNING AND PRI NTING CHARGES OF POSTERS, BANNERS, CATALOGUES EXPENDITURE INCURRED F OR PARTICIPATION IN EXHIBITION AND BRANDING AT DISTRIBUTORS AND DEALERS SHOWROOMS ETC. THE DETAILS OF EACH INVOICE ALONGWITH THE PURPOSE F OR SUCH EXPENDITURE WAS FURNISHED BEFORE ME. I FIND THAT IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEARS ALSO, THE APPELLANT COMPANY HAS INCURRED SIMI LAR EXPENSES AND IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2009-10 AN AMOUNT OF RS4,06,1 7,095/- WAS INCURRED, WHICH LED TO INCREASE IN SALES OF RS49,34 ,41,222/. FURTHER, IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2010-11 SUCH EXPENSES AMOUNTING TO RS.9,13,82,290/- WERE INCURRED, WHICH LED TO STEEP RISE IN SALES TO RS.136,91,57,822/-. ON CAREFUL PERUSAL OF EACH SUCH ITEM INCURRED DURING THE YEAR, I FIND THAT SUCH EXPENSES WERE ROU TINE OPERATIONAL EXPENSES FOR THE PURPOSE OF SALE PROMOTION. NONE OF THESE EXPENDITURE COULD BE HELD TO BE INSTRUMENTAL IN CREATING PERMAN ENT ASSETS OR ENDURING BENEFITS TO THE APPELLANT COMPANY. THE JUS TIFICATION OF THESE EXPENDITURE COULD BE GAUGED BY THE FACT THAT COMPAN Y'S TURNOVER ROSE FROM RS.31.9 CRORES IN THE CURRENT YEAR TO RS.136.9 1 CRORES WITHIN 2 YEARS, DURING WHICH PERIOD ALSO SIMILAR FURTHER EXP ENDITURE WAS INCURRED. THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF M/S CASIO INDIA LTD. (ITA NO.10 OF 2011) AND CIT VS CIT I FINANCIAL CONSUMER FIN. LTD. (ITA NO.1S20 OF 2010) HAS HELD T HAT THE EXPENDITURE ON PUBLICITY AND ADVERTISEMENT IS TO BE TREATED AS REVENUE NATURE ALLOWABLE FULLY IN THE YEAR, IN WHICH IT WAS INCURRED. KEEPING IN VIEW THE USEFUL TEST LAID BY THE HON'BLE HIGH CO URT IN THE CASE OF I.T.A. NO. 1441/DEL/2013 7 M/S EMPIRE JUTE CO. LTD. VS. CIT (124 ITR 1), I HEL D THAT IN INCURRING THE ABOVE REFERRED ADVERTISEMENT AND SALES PROMOTIO N EXPENSES, THE APPELLANT HAS NOT OBTAINED ADVANTAGE OF ENDURING BE NEFIT AND HENCE THE ABOVE EXPENDITURE ARE HELD TO BE REVENUE IN NAT URE, WHICH ARE ALLOWABLE DURING THE CURRENT YEAR. THE LD. AO HAD D ISALLOWED 4/STH OF THE ABOVE EXPENDITURE, HOWEVER THERE IS NO CONCE PT OF DEFERRED REVENUE EXPENDITURE IN THE INCOME TAX ACT AND AN EX PENSE IS TO BE TREATED EITHER AS CAPITA OR REVENUE IN NATURE. KEEP ING IN VIEW THE ABOVE, THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O. IS LIABLE TO B E DELETED. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSEE GETS FULL RELIEF IN THE M ATTER. REGARDING THE SECOND GROUND OF APPEAL RELATING TO S HORTAGE OF STOCK, I FIND THAT THE SHORTAGE IN RESPECT OF 3,558 UNITS OF ITEMS IN THE CLOSING STOCK WAS DULY REPORTED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE TAX AUDIT REPORT AND IN THE RETURN OF INCOME, WHICH WAS THE ONLY SOURCE OF OBSERVATION BY THE A.O. THE ONLY GROUND ON WHICH THE A.O. HAS HELD TH AT SUCH SHORTAGE WAS IN THE NATURE OF SALE OF GOODS OUT OF THE BOOKS WAS ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE BY THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF CONTENTION, WHICH IN THE VIEW OF A.O. SHOULD HAVE BEEN IN THE FORM OF A REGISTER OF SUCH LOSS / DAMAGES. THE LD. APPELLANT COUNSEL FURNISHED DETAI LS OF SHORTAGE OF SUCH 3,558 UNITS OF ITEMS AND INFORMED THAT OUT OF SUCH SHORT ITEMS, 3394 ITEMS WERE ISSUED TO THE DISTRIBUTORS ON FREE OF COST BASIS FOR DISPLAY AND TRAINING PURPOSE. THE APPELLANT COMPANY ALSO FURNISHED DETAILS WITH NAME AND ADDRESS WITH LOCATION OF ITS DISTRIBUTORS ACROSS THE COUNTRY, NUMBERING 94 IN ALL. IN THE BUSINESS O F SANITARY-WARE, IT IS A COMMON PRACTICE TO DISPLAY SANITARY-WARE ITEMS, B ATH FITTINGS, BATH TAPS ETC. PROMINENTLY IN THE SHOWROOMS, TO ATTRACT THE ATTENTION OF THE POTENTIAL CUSTOMERS. SINCE, THE ABOVE 94 DEALERS/DI STRIBUTORS OF THE COMPANY ARE ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF SALES OF SAN ITARY-WARE MANUFACTURED BY THE APPELLANT COMPANY, WHICH IS A W ELL-KNOWN INTERNATIONAL BRAND, IT IS IN THE BUSINESS INTEREST OF THE COMPANY TO PROVIDE A FEW ITEMS TO THE DEALERS/DISTRIBUTORS FOR DISPLAY/TRAINING PURPOSE. THE APPELLANT HAS FURNISHED PROPER ITEM-WI SE RECORD OF SUCH ITEMS WHICH WERE PROVIDED TO THE DEALERS FOR DISPLA Y/TRAINING. KEEPING IN VIEW THE SAME, THE EXPENDITURE IN RELATION TO TH E ABOVE REFERRED 3394 ITEMS FOR DISPLAY/TRAINING IS CLEARLY HELD TO BE FOR THE BUSINESS PURPOSE OF THE APPELLANT COMPANY AND HENCE HELD TO BE ALLOWABLE. REGARDING THE BALANCE 164 ITEMS, THE DETAILS OF WHI CH WERE ALSO I.T.A. NO. 1441/DEL/2013 8 FURNISHED BEFORE ME, COMPRISE OFF VARIOUS SANITARY- WARE ITEMS WHOSE PRICE RANGES BETWEEN RS.56 TO RS.14018/-, DEPENDING UPON THE ITEMS. THE APPELLANT HAS CLAIMED THAT SUCH ITEMS WERE EITH ER DAMAGED OR LOST DURING THE TRANSIT TO THE DEALERS, WHICH IN ITS VIE W WAS IN THE NORMAL COURSE OF BUSINESS. I FIND THAT THE APPELLANT HAD S OLD RS.1,37,185/- UNITS DURING THE YEAR AGAINST WHICH THE ITEMS THAT WERE DAMAGED OR LOST WERE MERELY 164 IN NUMBER WHICH IS AROUND 0.12 % OF TOTAL UNITS SOLD. SINCE, THE COMPANY HAS 94 DISTRIBUTORS ACROSS THE COUNTRY, IT IS NOT UNLIKELY THAT SOME OF THE ITEMS MAY HAVE BEEN D AMAGED OR LOST DURING TRANSIT, THEREFORE SUCH A SHORTAGE DUE TO DA MAGE OR LOSS IS NOT CONSIDERED REASONABLE KEEPING IN VIEW THE MAGNITUDE OF SUCH SHORTAGE, BEING 0.12% OF THE TOTAL SALES AND HENCE CANNOT IT BE HELD AS AN UNUSUAL LOSS. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, I HOLD THE S HORTAGE OF 164 UNITS ON ACCOUNT OF DAMAGED OR LOST ITEMS AS A NORMAL LOS S IN THE COURSE OF BUSINESS OF TRADING OF SANITARY-WARE ITEMS ACROSS I NDIA TO VARIOUS DISTRIBUTORS. FURTHER, THE LD. AO HAD GATHERED NO E VIDENCE, WHATSOEVER, IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION THAT SUCH ITEMS WERE SOLD OUTSIDE THE BOOKS. IN VIEW OF THE SAME, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALSO DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE APPELLANT COMPANY. 9. SINCE, NO CONTRARY MATERIAL HAS BEEN FOUND OR PL ACED ON RECORD BY THE LD. D.R. AND OTHERWISE THE CONCLUSION DRAWN BY LD. CIT(A) IS FOUND TO BE JUST AND APPROPRIATE. THEREFORE CONCURRING WITH TH E FINDINGS OF LD. CIT(A), WE UPHOLD HIS ORDER AND DISMISS THE APPEAL OF THE R EVENUE. 10. AS A RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED . 11. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT 21 ST FEB., 2014. SD./- SD./- (R. S. SYAL) (U.B.S.BEDI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATE: 21 ST FEB., 2014. SP. I.T.A. NO. 1441/DEL/2013 9 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A)-XXV, NEW DELHI AR, ITAT, 5. CIT(ITAT), NEW DELHI NEW DELHI