Pepsico India Holdings Private Ltd., New Delhi V. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 147/DEL/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2651 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 5 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-07-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Next Hearing Date: 03-07-2013
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 11-01-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SAMEER SHARMA
• Assessee Lawyers: RAVI MALL S
• Keywords: Bad and doubtful debts
• Section: 143(3); 148; 37

Judgement Text

ITA NO. 147/DEL/2010 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH F, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI U.B.S. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 147 /DEL/201 0 A.Y. : 2003-04 M/S PEPSICO INDIA HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED, LGF-54, WORLD TRADE CENTRE, BARAKHAMBA ROAD, NEW DELHI 110 001 (PAN: AAACP1272G) VS. DCIT , CIRCLE - 14(1) , NEW DELHI ( (( (APPELLANT) APPELLANT) APPELLANT) APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) (RESPONDENT) (RESPONDENT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : S/SH. C.S. AGGARWAL, SENIOR ADVOCATE, VISHAL KALRA & RAVI MALL, ADVOCATES DEPARTMENT BY : SH. SAMEER SHARMA, C.I.T.(D.R.) ORDER ORDER ORDER ORDER PER SHAMIM YAHYA: AM PER SHAMIM YAHYA: AM PER SHAMIM YAHYA: AM PER SHAMIM YAHYA: AM THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST T HE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-XVII, NEW DELHI DATED 30.10.2009 PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003 -04. 2. THE FIRST ISSUE RAISED IS THAT LD. COMMISSIONE R OF INCOME TAX (A) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER VAL IDLY INITIATED PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 147 OF THE ACT. ITA NO. 147/DEL/2010 2 3. ANOTHER ISSUE RAISED IS THAT LD. COMMISSIONER O F INCOME TAX (A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE ON ACCOUN T OF BAD DEBT AND ADVANCES WRITTEN OFF AMOUNTING TO RS. 10,118,849/-. 4. APROPOS ISSUE OF DISALLOWANCE ON ACCOUNT OF BAD DEBT AND ADVANCE WRITTEN OFF:- IN THIS CASE ASSESSMENT FOR THE YEAR 2003-04 WAS C OMPLETED ON 22.3.2006 U/S. 143(3) OF THE I.T. ACT. THE CASE WAS REOPENED U/S. 147 READ WITH SECTION 148 OF THE ACT. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT, ASSESSEE WAS INTER-ALIA ASKED TO EXPLAI N AS TO WHY THE BAD DEBT AND ADVANCES WRITTEN OFF SHOULD NOT BE DIS ALLOWED BEING CAPITAL IN NATURE. ASSESSEE RESPONDED AS UNDER:- DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR RELEVANT TO THE SUBJECT ASSESSMENT YEAR THE ASSESSEE HAS WRITTEN OFF RS. 10,118,849/- OF INTEREST ACCRUED BUT NOT DUE, AS TH E SAID AMOUNT WAS ACCRUED ON LOANS GIVEN TO DHILLION KOOL DRINKS AND BEVERAGES LIMITED AND HAS BEEN WAIVED OF F ON ACQUISITION OF HARYANA AND HIMACHAL PRADESH BUSI NESS OF M/S DHILLION KOOL DRINKS AND BEVERAGES LIMITED. THE SAID INTEREST WAS OFFERED TO TAX AS INCOME FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1999 - 2000. THE REMAINING AMOUNT OF RS. 2,306,379/- WRITTEN OFF AS BAD DEBTS REPRESENTS AN AMOUNT RECOVERABLE FROM M/S QUALITY BEVERAGES LIMITED ON ACCOUNT OF EXPORT TO G LASS BOTTLES. THE AMOUNT BECAME DISPUTED AS THE GOODS WE RE NOT AS PER THE SPECIFICATIONS OF THE IMPORTER AND H AS THEREFORE BEEN WRITTEN OFF AS BAD IN THE BOOKS OF T HE ASSESSEE. THE AMOUNT OF EXPORT WAS TAKEN INTO ACC OUNT ITA NO. 147/DEL/2010 3 WHILE COMPUTING THE TAXABLE INCOME FOR THE ASSESSME NT YEAR 2002-03. SECTION 36(1)(VII) OF THE ACT READ WITH SECTION 36( 2) PRESCRIBES THE FULFILLMENT OF FOLLOWING TWO CONDIT IONS FOR WRITING OFF AN AMOUNT AS BAD DEBT: - THE AMOUNT HAS BEEN WRITTEN OFF AS IRRECOVERABLE IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE; AND - THE DEBT OR PART THEREOF HAS BEEN TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT IN COMPUTING THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR IN WHICH THE AMOUNT OF SUCH DEBT OR PART THEREOF IS WRITTEN OFF OR OF AN EARLIE R PREVIOUS YEAR. IN THE PRESENT CASE, SINCE BOTH THE AFORESAID CONDITIONS ARE BEING SATISFIED THE SAID AMOUNT IS ALLOWABLE AS AN EXPENSE IN THE SUBJECT ASSESSMENT YEAR FROM ABOVE SUBMISSION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE, IT IS CLEAR THAT AS THE BAD DEBT AND ADVANCES WRITTEN OFF ARE OF REVENUE NATURE AND HAVE BEEN TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT IN COMPUTING THE INCOME OF EARLIER YEARS, NO DISALLOWANCE OF THE SAME BE MADE IN COMPUTING THE TAXABLE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE, ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THA T THE EXPLANATION IS NOT ACCEPTABLE. HE HELD THAT THE BAD DEBT AND ADVANCES WRITTEN OFF WERE OF CAPITAL IN NATURE AND HENCE DISALLOWED AND ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 5. UPON ASSESSEES APPEAL LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOM E TAX (A) DELETED THE DISALLOWANCE WITH REGARD TO AMOUNT OF R S. 2,306,379/-. ITA NO. 147/DEL/2010 4 LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) OBSERVED THAT TH E AMOUNT OF RS. 10,118,849/- REPRESENTED THE INTEREST ACCRUED ON L OANS GIVEN TO M/S DHILLON KOOL DRINKS AND BEVERAGES LIMITED. LD. COM MISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) OPINED THAT IT DOES NOT QUALIFY FOR BAD DEBT U/S. 36(1)(VII). SECTION 36(1)(VII) PROVIDES THAT THE D EBT MUST BE INCIDENTAL TO THE BUSINESS OR PROFESSION OF THE ASS ESSEE. THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT DOING THE BUSINESS OF MONEY LENDIN G. THAT ITS BUSINESS WAS TO MANUFACTURE AND SALE OF COLD DRINK S. THAT THE LOAN GIVEN TO M/S DHILLON KOOL DRINKS BEVERAGES LIMITED CANNOT BE SAID TO BE INCIDENTAL TO THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE. THAT DEBTS NOT CONNECTED WITH BUSINESS OR PROFESSION CARRIED ON BY THE ASSESSEE OR NOT ARISING OUT OF THE OPERATION OF BUSINESS OR PRO FESSION CARRIED ON BY THE ASSESSEE ARE NOT ADMISSIBLE AS BAD DEBTS EVE N IF OTHER CONDITION ARE SATISFIED. IN THIS REGARD, LD. COMMI SSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) REFERRED TO THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE MAD RAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF C.I.T. VS. DHANLAKSHMI CORPORATION (196 2) 46 ITR 1031 (MAD.) AND HONBLE APEX COURT DECISION IN THE CASE OF C.I.T. VS. ABDULLABHAI ABDULKADAR (1961) 41 ITR 545 (SC) FOR T HE ABOVE PROPOSITION. LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) CO NCLUDED AS UNDER:- THE INTEREST ACCRUED ON THE ADVANCES GIVEN TO M/S DHILLON KOOL DRINKS WAS TAXABLE UNDER THE HEAD INC OME FROM OTHER SOURCES. IT WAS NOT THE BUSINESS OF THE APPELLANT TO ADVANCE MONEY TO THEIR CLIENTS IN THE ORDINARY COURSE OF BUSINESS. THEREFORE, THE AMOUNT RECOVERABLE FROM M/S DHILLON KOOL DRINKS DOES NOT Q UALIFY FOR THE PURPOSE OF BAD DEBTS AS IT WAS NOT DEBT IN TERMS OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 36(1)(VII) OF THE I.T. ACT . CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND THE LEGAL POS ITION ON THE ISSUE, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSING O FFICER ITA NO. 147/DEL/2010 5 WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN MAKING DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 1,01,18,849/- WHICH REPRESENTS INTEREST ACCRUED ON LOANS GIVEN TO M/S DHILLON KOOL DRINKS AND BEVERAGES LIM ITED. I, THEREFORE, UPHOLD ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN RESPECT OF THE ADDITION OF RS. 1,01,18,849/-. 6. AGAINST THE ABOVE ORDER THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEA L BEFORE US. 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS IN LIGHT OF THE MATERIAL PRODUCED AND PRECEDENTS RELIED UPON. WE FIND THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS. 1,01,18,849/- REPRESENTED INTEREST ACCRUED ON LOANS GIVEN TO M/S DHILLON KOOL DRINKS AND BEVERAGES LIMITED. THE SAID AMOUNT WAS WAIVED OFF ON ACQUISITION OF HARYANA AND HIMACHAL P RADESH BUSINESS OF M/S DHILLON KOOL DRINKS AND BEVERAGES LIMITED. THE SAID INTEREST WAS OFFERED TO TAX AS INCOME TO THE FINANCIAL YEAR RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 1999-2000. ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THAT THE SAID AMOUNT WAS CAPITAL IN NATURE, HENCE, THE SAME WAS T O BE DISALLOWED. LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) ON T HE OTHER HAND, HELD THAT THE IMPUGNED AMOUNT WAS NOT INCIDENTAL TO THE BUSINESS OR THE PROFESSION OF THE ASSESSEE. HENCE, THE SAME WAS NOT ALLOWABLE. 8. WE CAN GAINFULLY REFER HERE THE PROVISIONS OF SE CTION 36(1)(VII) AND 36(2). 8.1 SECTION 36(1)(VII) PROVIDES THAT IN COMPUTING T HE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE, SUBJECT TO THE PROVISION OF SUB-SECTION ( 2), THE AMOUNT OF ANY BAD DEBT OR PART THEREOF WHICH IS WRITTEN OFF A S IRRECOVERABLE IN THE ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE PREVIOUS YEAR SHALL BE ALLOWED. 8.2 SECTION 36(2) READS AS UNDER:- (2) IN MAKING ANY DEDUCTION FOR A BAD DEBT OR PART THEREOF, THE FOLLOWING PROVISIONS SHALL APPLY ITA NO. 147/DEL/2010 6 [(I) NO SUCH DEDUCTION SHALL BE ALLOWED UNLESS SUC H DEBT OR PART THEREOF HAS BEEN TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT IN COMPUTI NG THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR IN WHIC H THE AMOUNT OF SUCH DEBT OR PART THEREOF IS WRITTEN OFF OR OF AN EARLIER PREVIOUS YEAR, OR REPRESENTS MONEY LENT IN THE ORDINARY COURSE OF THE BUSINESS OF BANKING OR MONEY - LENDING WHICH IS CARRIED ON BY THE ASSESSEE;] (II) IF THE AMOUNT ULTIMATELY RECOVERED ON ANY SUC H DEBT OR PART OF DEBT IS LESS THAN THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN TH E DEBT OR PART AND THE AMOUNT SO DEDUCTED, THE DEFICIENCY SHA LL BE DEDUCTIBLE IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR IN WHICH THE ULTIMA TE RECOVERY IS MADE; (III) ANY SUCH DEBT OR PART OF DEBT MAY BE DEDUCTE D IF IT HAS ALREADY BEEN WRITTEN OFF AS IRRECOVERABLE IN THE AC COUNTS OF AN EARLIER PREVIOUS YEAR [(BEING A PREVIOUS YEAR RE LEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR COMMENCING ON THE 1ST DAY OF AP RIL, 1988, OR ANY EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEAR)], BUT THE [AS SESSING] OFFICER HAD NOT ALLOWED IT TO BE DEDUCTED ON THE GR OUND THAT IT HAD NOT BEEN ESTABLISHED TO HAVE BECOME A B AD DEBT IN THAT YEAR; (IV) WHERE ANY SUCH DEBT OR PART OF DEBT IS WRITTE N OFF AS IRRECOVERABLE IN THE ACCOUNTS OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR [(BEING A PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR COMMENCING ON THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 1988, OR ANY EA RLIER ASSESSMENT YEAR)] AND THE [ASSESSING] OFFICER IS SA TISFIED THAT SUCH DEBT OR PART BECAME A BAD DEBT IN ANY EAR LIER PREVIOUS YEAR NOT FALLING BEYOND A PERIOD OF FOUR P REVIOUS YEARS IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING THE PREVIOUS YEAR IN WH ICH ITA NO. 147/DEL/2010 7 SUCH DEBT OR PART IS WRITTEN OFF, THE PROVISIONS OF SUB- SECTION (6) OF SECTION 155 SHALL APPLY; [(V) WHERE SUCH DEBT OR PART OF DEBT RELATES TO AD VANCES MADE BY AN ASSESSEE TO WHICH CLAUSE (VIIA) OF SUB-SECTIO N (1) APPLIES, NO SUCH DEDUCTION SHALL BE ALLOWED UNLESS THE ASSESSEE HAS DEBITED THE AMOUNT OF SUCH DEBT OR PAR T OF DEBT IN THAT PREVIOUS YEAR TO THE PROVISION FOR BAD AND DOUBTFUL DEBTS ACCOUNT MADE UNDER THAT CLAUSE.] 9. WE FIND THAT THE IMPORTANT ITEM OF CONSIDERATIO N IN THIS REGARD IS WHETHER OR NOT THE DEBT OR PART THEREOF HAS BEEN TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT IN COMPUTING THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. TH IS ASPECT HAS BEEN DULY COMPLIED WITH IN AS MUCH AS THE SAID INTE REST WAS OFFERED FOR TAXATION AS INCOME IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1999- 2000. 10. NOW WE HAVE TO EXAMINE WHETHER THE AMOUNT WRI TTEN OFF WAS INCIDENTAL / RELATED TO THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSE E. IN THIS REGARD, WE NOTE THAT THE IMPUGNED AMOUNT REPRESENTED INTERE ST ACCRUED, BUT NOT DUE ON THE LOAN GIVEN TO M/S DHILLON KOOL D RINKS AND BEVERAGES LIMITED. AS PER THE PAPER BOOK PAGE NO. 94 SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH IS A REPORT OF THE TAX AUDITO RS IN FORM 3-CD, IN ITEM NO. 8(A) REGARDING THE NATURE OF BUSINESS A ND PROFESSION FOLLOWING HAS BEEN MENTIONED:- 8(A) NATURE OF BUSINESS : MANUFACTURE AND SALE OF: & PROFESSION 1. AERATED AND NON AERATED BEVERAGE PRODUCTS. 2. EXPORTS OF TRADED AND OWN MANUFACTURED PRODUCTS. PROVIDING LOANS TO COMPANIES INVOLVED IN THE BUSINESS OF ITA NO. 147/DEL/2010 8 MANUFACTURE OF SOFT DRINK BEVERAGE. 11. FROM THE ABOVE, IT IS CLEAR THAT PROVIDING THE LOANS TO COMPANY INVOLVED IN THE BUSINESS AND MANUFACTURING OF SOFT DRINKS BEVERAGES WAS IN THE NATURE OF THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE, HENCE, THE SAME WAS INCIDENTAL TO THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE. T HE SAID AMOUNT OF LOAN WAS PROVIDED TO M/S DHILLON KOOL DRINKS AND BE VERAGES LIMITED. THUS, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE INTEREST ON THE LO AN AMOUNT PROVIDED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WAS NOT INCIDENTAL TO THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE. 12. THUS FROM THE ABOVE, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DULY COMPLIED WITH THE REQUISITE CONDITIONS FOR CLAIMING THE AMOUNT TO BE WRITTEN OFF. THE SAID INTEREST WAS OFFERED TO TAX AS INCOME IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 1999-200 0. IT IS UNDISPUTED THAT THE AMOUNT HAS BECOME BAD/IRRECOVER ABLE. FURTHERMORE, THE TRANSACTION WAS IN THE NATURE OF T HE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE I.E. IT WAS INCIDENTAL TO THE BUSINES S OF THE ASSESSEE. 13. THUS, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS M ADE THE DISALLOWANCE ON THE PREMISE THAT THE AMOUNT INVOLV ED WAS CAPITAL IN NATURE. FROM NO POINT OF VIEW, THIS OPINION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS SUSTAINABLE. LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOM E TAX (A) HAS HIMSELF NOT CONSIDERED THE DISALLOWANCE FROM THIS A NGLE. HENCE, THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NO COGENCY AND IS LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED. ITA NO. 147/DEL/2010 9 14. NOW THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) HAS CONFIRMED THE DISALLOWANCE OF THE AMOUNT ON THE PREMISE THAT THE SAID AMOUNT IS NOT INCIDENTAL TO THE BUSINESS OR PROFESSION OF THE ASSESSEE. A READING OF THE TAX AUDITORS REPORT AS MENTIONED ABO VE CLEARLY POINTS OUT THAT IT WAS IN THE NATURE OF THE BUSINE SS OF THE ASSESSEE TO PROVIDE THE LOANS TO COMPANY INVOLVED IN THE B USINESS OF MANUFACTURING OF SOFT DRINKS. HENCE, THE PREMISE T AKEN BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) IS ALSO NOT SUSTAI NABLE. 15. WE FURTHER FIND THAT THE AMOUNT OF ADVANCE GIVE N TO M/S DHILLON KOOL DRINKS AND BEVERAGES LIMITED WAS ADVAN CED IN THE COURSE OF BUSINESS. IT IS UNDISPUTED THAT THE ADVA NCES BECAME IRRECOVERABLE. IN SUCH SITUATION, AS PER THE RATIO EMANATING FROM THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT I N THE CASE OF MOHANMEAKIN LTD. VS. C.I.T. 348 ITR 109, IT IS NOT RELEVANT THAT THE AMOUNT WAS CLAIMED AS BAD DEBT. AS PER THE HONBLE HIGH COURT DECISION THE AMOUNT WAS DEDUCTIBLE AS BUSINESS LOS S U/S. 37 OF THE I.T. ACT. IN THIS CASE IT WAS HELD THAT CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION OF NON- RECOVERY OF TRADE ADVANCES WAS ALLOWABLE ON THE F ACTS OF THE CASE, MERELY BECAUSE THE BAD DEBT CLAIM WAS NOT MADE OUT UNDER ONE PARTICULAR PROVISION OF THE ACT, BUT WAS SO MADE OU T UNDER ANOTHER PROVISION OF LAW, ASSESSEE CANNOT BE DEPRIVED OF TH E BENEFIT OF DEDUCTION OF BAD DEBTS. 16. IN THE BACKGROUND OF THE AFORESAID DISCUSSIONS AND PRECEDENTS, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW A ND DECIDE THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, WE H OLD THAT ASSESSEE IS ELIGIBLE TO CLAIM DEDUCTION ON ACCOUNT OF WRITE OFF OF RS. 1,01,18,849/-. 17. ANOTHER ISSUE RAISED IN THIS APPEAL IS WHETHER ASSESSING OFFICER HAS VALIDLY INITIATED PROCEEDINGS U/S. 147 OF THE A CT OR NOT. ITA NO. 147/DEL/2010 10 18. WE FIND THAT ON THE MERITS OF THE CASE HEREIN ABOVE, WE HAVE ALREADY SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BEL OW AND DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. HENCE, IN OUR CON SIDERED OPINION, ADJUDICATION ON THE FACET OF VALIDITY OF REOPENING IS NOW OF ONLY ACADEMIC CONSIDERATION. HENCE, WE ARE NOT ADDRESSI NG THE SAME. 19. IN THE RESULT, THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSE E STANDS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 05/7/2013. SD/- SD/- [ [[ [U.B.S. BEDI U.B.S. BEDI U.B.S. BEDI U.B.S. BEDI] ]] ] [SHAMIM YAHYA] [SHAMIM YAHYA] [SHAMIM YAHYA] [SHAMIM YAHYA] JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATE 05/7/2013 SRBHATNAGAR SRBHATNAGAR SRBHATNAGAR SRBHATNAGAR COPY FORWARDED TO: COPY FORWARDED TO: COPY FORWARDED TO: COPY FORWARDED TO: - -- - 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, DELHI BENCHES ITA NO. 147/DEL/2010 11