M/s Hermanos Zubadi Investment Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi V. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 1586/DEL/2011

• Counselvise Citation: 158620114 RSA 2011
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-08-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 20-07-2011
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 01-04-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SALIL MISHRA
• Assessee Lawyers: SALIL AGGARWAL
• Keywords: Speculation loss
• Section: 10; 154; 15; 143(3); 80HHC; 234B; 43(5)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH C DELHI BEFORE SHRI C.L. SETHI AND SHRI K.G. BANSAL ITA NO. 1586(DEL)/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2005-06 M/S HERMANOS ZUBADI INVESTMENT IN COME-TAX OFFICER, PVT. LTD., 5-E, LOCAL SHOPPING VS. WARD 12(3), NEW DELHI. CENTRE, MASJID MOTH, GK-II, NEW DELHI-110048. PAN-AAACH1952P (APPELLANT) (RESPONDEN T) APPELLANT BY : SHRI SALIL AGGARWAL, ADV OCATE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SALIL MISHRA, SR. DR ORDER PER K.G. BANSAL : AM THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE HA D FILED ITS RETURN ON 31.10.2005 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 6,41,01 0/-. THE ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) WAS COMPLETED ON 07.12.2007 AT THE SAME INCOME. THEREAFTER, THE ORDER WAS RECTIFIED U/S 154 ON 03.07.2008, IN W HICH LOSS OF RS. 12,99,783/- ON FUTURE/OPTION TRADING TRANSACTION S WAS ADDED TO THE INCOME BY MENTIONING THAT SUCH LOSS IS FROM THE S PECULATION BUSINESS. THE TOTAL INCOME WAS ASSESSED AT RS. 13,29,990/- IN THIS ORDER. IT WAS INTER- ALIA MENTIONED THAT A NOTICE U/S 154 WAS ISSUED FIXING THE CASE ON 27.6.2008 DIRECTING THE ASSESSEE TO FILE ITS E XPLANATION ON THE AFORESAID ITA NO. 1586(DEL)/2011 2 ISSUE. THIS NOTICE WAS NOT ATTENDED TO, NOR A NY ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION WAS FILED. THEREFORE, IT WAS HELD THAT THE ASSE SSEE HAD NO OBJECTION TO THE ADDITION OF RS. 12,99,783/- TO THE LAST ASSESSE D INCOME. THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THIS ORDER WAS DISPOSED OFF BY T HE CIT(APPEALS)-XV, NEW DELHI, ON 03.11.2010, IN WHICH THE ORDER WAS UP HELD. IT WAS MENTIONED THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FILE ANY OBJECTIO N OR EVIDENCE IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE U/S 154 ISSUED BY THE AO, THEREFORE, TH E ORDER PASSED BY THE AO CANNOT BE HELD TO BE BAD IN LAW, AS THERE WAS A MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD IN THE ORDER. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED APP EAL BEFORE US, IN WHICH FIVE GROUNDS HAVE BEEN TAKEN. THESE GROUNDS RELATE TO VALIDITY OF ORDER U/S 154 AND CHARGING OF INTEREST U/S 234B. HOWEVE R, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ARGUED GROUNDS ONLY RELATING TO THE ME RITS OF THE CASE AND IT WAS SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED THAT OTHER GROUNDS ARE NO T PRESSED. ACCORDINGLY, THE APPEAL IS DECIDED ON THE BASIS OF SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE LD. COUNSEL AND THE LD. DR. 2. THE LD. COUNSEL DREW OUR ATTENTION TOWARDS S OME OF THE PAPERS PLACED IN THE PAPER BOOK. PAGE NO. 6 IS THE PROFI T AND LOSS ACCOUNT FOR THIS YEAR WHICH SHOWS NET LOSS OF RS. 12,99,783/- INC URRED ON SALE OF SHARES UNDER FUTURE/OPTION TRADING. PAGE NOS. 11 TO 13 ARE THE WRITTEN ITA NO. 1586(DEL)/2011 3 SUBMISSIONS DATED 25.08.2006, MADE BEFORE THE A O IN THE COURSE OF ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. IN RESPONSE TO THE QUERY FROM THE AO, DETAILS OF NET LOSS ON SHARE TRADING UNDER FUTUR E/OPTION WERE FILED ALONG WITH A SUMMARY OF PROFIT EARNED, THE LOSS INCURRE D AND THE COMPUTATION LEADING TO NET LOSS OF RS. 12,99,783/-. PAGE N OS. 35 AND 36 ARE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE NOTICE OF DEMAND DATED 07.12.2007 ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE. PAGE NO. 33 IS THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 154 ON 23.06.2008 IN WHICH IT IS MENTIONED THAT NET LOSS ON SALE OF SHAR ES UNDER FUTURE/OPTION TRADING OF RS. 12,99,783/- DEBITED TO PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT, IS A LOSS FROM SPECULATION BUSINESS, WHICH SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISALLOWED AND ADDED TO THE INCOME. 2.1 THE CASE OF THE LD. COUNSEL IS THAT THE ISSU E WHETHER LOSS ON FUTURE/OPTION TRANSACTIONS IS SPECULATION LOSS WA S A MATTER OF DEBATE AND DISCUSSION WHEN ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PASSED U/S 143(3) ON 07.12.2007. THEREFORE, THE MISTAKE COULD NOT HAVE BEEN TERM ED AS A MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD AS UNDERSTOOD U/S 154 OF THE ACT. IN THIS CONNECTION, OUR ATTENTION WAS DRAWN TOWARDS THE DECISION O F J BENCH OF MUMBAI TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF DCIT VS. SSKI INVESTORS SERVICES (P) LTD., (2008) 113 TTJ 511. IT HAS BEEN MENTIONED IN THIS O RDER THAT THE CIT(APPEALS) ITA NO. 1586(DEL)/2011 4 FOUND THAT THE LOSS WAS INCURRED ON ACCOUNT OF DERIVATIVE TRADING IN ASSESSEES OWN ACCOUNT. THE DERIVATIVE SEGMENT ARE ALL FUTURE TRADES BUT STRICTLY SPEAKING BY DEFINITION OF SPECULATIVE TRANSACTION, THERE HAS TO BE PURCHASE AND SALE OF ANY COMMODITY INCLUDING STOC K AND SHARE. AS DERIVATIVE TRADING DOES NOT INVOLVE ANY PURCHASE AND SALE OF SHARES, THE LOSS ON ACCOUNT OF DERIVATIVE CANNOT BE TREATED AS SPECULATION LOSS. THE TRIBUNAL HELD THAT THE ISSUE HERE IS REGARDING TRA DING IN DERIVATIVES, WHICH IS A SEPARATE KIND OF TRANSACTION, WITHOUT FORCE OF LAW. IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO HOLD THAT THE TRANSACTION WAS SPECULATIVE IN N ATURE. THUS, THE FINDING OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) HAD BEEN UPHELD. THIS DECISI ON WAS FOLLOWED BY B BENCH OF MUMBAI TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF R.B.K.SE CURITIES (P) LTD. VS. ITO, (2008) 118 TTJ 465. IN PARAGRAPH NO.4 OF TH IS ORDER, IT HAS BEEN MENTIONED THAT THE ISSUE STANDS COVERED BY THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF SSKI INVESTORS SERVICES (P) LTD., AND C. BHARAT H KUMAR VS. DEPUTY CIT, (2005) 4 SOT 593 (BANGALORE). IT HAS BEEN FAIRL Y SUBMITTED THAT THESE DECISIONS STAND REVERSED BY THE DECISION OF S PECIAL BENCH OF KOLKATA TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SHREE CAPITAL SERVICES LT D. VS. ACIT, (2009) 318 ITR (AT) 1. HOWEVER, THIS DECISION WAS RENDER ED ON 31.07.2009, AFTER PASSING THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER ON 07.12. 2007, WHILE THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF SSKI INVESTORS SERVICES (P) LTD., WAS RENDERED ON ITA NO. 1586(DEL)/2011 5 25.09.2007, BEFORE THE PASSING OF THE ORDER. THER EFORE, IT CAN BE SAID THAT A CONTROVERSY EXISTED AT THE TIME OF PASSING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AS TO WHETHER THE LOSS, AS AFORESAID, IS SPECULATIVE LOSS OR NOT. THE SUBSISTENCE OF THE CONTROVERSY LEADS TO AN INFERENCE THAT T HE ORDER CANNOT LATER BE RECTIFIED BY INVOKING THE PROVISION CONTAINED IN SECTION 154 OF THE ACT. IN THIS CONNECTION, RELIANCE HAS BEEN PLACED ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF T.S. BALARAM, INCOME -TAX OFFICER, BOMBAY VS. VOLKART BROTHERS & OTHERS, (1971) 82 ITR 50. THE ISSUE IN THIS CASE WAS WHETHER THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM WAS CA UGHT WITHIN THE MISCHIEF OF SECTION 17(1) OF THE 1922 ACT, WHICH CONTAINS THE FOLLOWING PROVISION:- WHERE A PERSON IS NOT RESIDENT IN THE TAXABLE TERRITORIES AND IS NOT A COMPANY, THE TAX, INCLUDING SUPER-TAX, PAYABLE BY HIM OR ON HIS BEHALF ON HIS TOTAL INCOME SHALL BE AN AMOU NT EQUAL TO- (A) THE INCOME-TAX WHICH WOULD BE PAYABLE ON HIS T OTAL INCOME AT THE MAXIMUM RATE, PLUS (B) EITHER THE SUPER-TAX WHICH WOULD BE PAYABLE ON HIS TOTAL INCOME AT THE RATE OF NINETEEN PER CENT OR THE SUPER-TAX WHICH WOULD BE PAYABLE ON HIS TOTAL INCOME IF IT WERE THE TOT AL INCOME OF A PERSON RESIDENT IN THE TAXABLE TERRITORIES, WHICHEVER IS GREATER. 2.2 THE HONBLE COURT MENTIONED THAT THE 1922 ACT DEFINES THE EXPRESSION PERSON TO INCLUDE A HINDU UNDIVIDED FAMILY AND A LOCAL AUTHORITY, THUS, UNLESS A FIRM CAN BE CONSIDERE D A PERSON, SECTION 17(1) ITA NO. 1586(DEL)/2011 6 CANNOT GOVERN THE ASSESSMENT OF THE ASSESSEE. THE DEFINITION OF THIS EXPRESSION IS DIFFERENT IN THE 1961 ACT WHICH INC LUDES IN ITS AMBIT AN INDIVIDUAL, A HINDU UNDIVIDED FAMILY, A COMPANY, A FIRM, AN ASSOCIATION OF PERSONS OR A BODY OF INDIVIDUALS, WHETHER INCOR PORATED OR NOT, A LOCAL AUTHORITY, AND EVERY ARTIFICIAL JURIDICAL PERSO N, NOT FALLING WITHIN ANY OF THE PRECEDING CATEGORIES. THE HONBLE COURT ME NTIONED THAT THE QUESTION TO BE EXAMINED IS WHETHER THE DEFINITION CONTAINED IN SECTION 2(31) OF THE 1961 ACT, IS AN AMENDMENT OF LAW OR MERELY DECLA RATORY OF LAW WHICH WAS IN FORCE EARLIER. IN THIS CONNECTION, THE HON BLE COURT EXAMINED SOME OTHER PROVISIONS OF THE ACT AND CAME TO THE CONCL USION THAT THE POSITION IS NOT FREE FROM DOUBT. ACCORDINGLY, IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT A DECISION ON A DEBATABLE POINT OF LAW IS NOT A MISTAKE APPAREN T FROM RECORD. FURTHER, RELIANCE HAS BEEN PLACED ON THE DECISION OF HO NBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. RICHA & COMPANY, (2001) 252 ITR 40. IN THIS CASE, AN INTIMATION WAS SENT TO THE ASSESSEE U/S 143 (1)(A). SUBSEQUENTLY, ACTION U/S 154 WAS INITIATED FOR RE-COMPUTING D EDUCTION U/S 80HHC. THE HONBLE COURT MENTIONED THAT THE DEDUCTION OF CLAI M MADE U/S 80HHC COULD NOT HAVE BEEN CHANGED BY WAY OF PRIMA FACIE ADJUSTMENT U/S 143(1)(A), HENCE, THERE WAS NO MISTAKE IN THE ORDER OF INTIMATION WHICH COULD BE RECTIFIED U/S 154. RELIANCE HAS ALSO B EEN PLACED ON THE DECISION ITA NO. 1586(DEL)/2011 7 OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF MEPCO INDUSTRIES LTD. VS. CIT & ANOTHER, (2009) 319 ITR 208. THE FACTS ARE T HAT THE ASSESSEE OFFERED SUBSIDY RECEIVED FROM GOVERNMENT AS REVENUE REC EIPTS IN TWO YEARS. THEREAFTER, PETITIONS WERE MOVED U/S 264 OF THE ACT AND THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX ALLOWED THE PETITIONS. THEREAFTER, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX PASSED AN ORDER U/S 154 REVERSING THE DECISION TAKEN U/S 264 BY FOLLOWING THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF SAHNEY STEEL AND PRESS WORKS LTD. VS. CIT, (1997) 228 ITR 253 (S.C.). THE HI GH COURT HELD THAT THE DEPARTMENT WAS ENTITLED TO INVOKE THE PROVISION CONTAINED IN SECTION 154. HOWEVER, THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT REVERSED THE DECISION OF HIGH COURT. IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT A RECTIFIABLE MIST AKE MUST EXIST AND THE SAME MUST BE APPARENT FROM RECORD. IT MUST BE A PATENT MISTAKE, WHICH IS OBVIOUS AND WHOSE DISCOVERY IS NOT DEPENDEN T ON ELABORATE ARGUMENTS. THE CASE OF THE LD. COUNSEL IS THAT AT THE TIME OF THE PASSING OF ASSESSMENT ORDER, TWO INTERPRETATIONS WERE POSSI BLE AND IN ANY CASE DISPUTE EXISTED ABOUT THE INTERPRETATION. THERE FORE, THERE WAS NO RECTIFIABLE MISTAKE IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE LD. COUNSEL ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DID NOT MENT ION THE PROVISION SOUGHT TO BE INVOKED FOR HOLDING THAT FUTURE/OP TION TRANSACTIONS WERE IN THE NATURE OF SPECULATIVE TRANSACTIONS. ITA NO. 1586(DEL)/2011 8 3. IN REPLY, THE LD. DR RELIED HEAVILY ON THE LANGUAGE OF SECTION 43(5). IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE PROVISION HAS B EEN AMENDED BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2005, WITH EFFECT FROM 01.04.2006 AND A CLA USE (D) HAS BEEN INTRODUCED THAT AN ELIGIBLE TRANSACTION IN RESP ECT OF TRADING IN DERIVATIVES REFERRED TO IN CLAUSE (AC) OF SECTION 2 OF THE SE CURITIES CONTRACT (REGULATION) ACT, 1956, CARRIED OUT IN A RECOGNIZ ED STOCK EXCHANGE SHALL NOT BE DEEMED TO A SPECULATIVE TRANSACTION. T HIS AMENDMENT IS PROSPECTIVE IN NATURE. THIS AMENDMENT IN THE AC T WAS MADE PRIOR TO THE DATE OF PASSING OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE A MENDMENT CLEARLY SHOWS THAT PRIOR TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07, TRADING IN DERIVATIVE WAS A SPECULATIVE TRANSACTION. THEREFORE, IT IS ARGUED THAT A PATENT MISTAKE OF LAW WAS MADE WHILE PASSING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE US. THE SHORT QUESTION BEFORE US IS-WHETHER , ON THE DATE OF PASSING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER TWO OPINIONS COULD BE HELD ON THE ISSUE THAT TRADING IN FUTURE/OPTION CONSTITUTES SPECULATIVE BUSINESS? THE DEFINITION OF THE TERM SPECULATIVE TRANSACTION HAS BEEN FURNISHE D IN AN EXHAUSTIVE MANNER U/S 43(5) TO MEAN A TRANSACTION IN WHICH A CONT RACT FOR THE PURCHASE OR SALE OF ANY COMMODITY, INCLUDING STOCKS AND SHARES , IS PERIODICALLY OR ITA NO. 1586(DEL)/2011 9 ULTIMATELY SETTLED OTHERWISE THAN BY THE ACTUAL DELIVERY OR TRANSFER OF THE COMMODITY OR SCRIPS. THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT FUT URE AND OPTION TRANSACTIONS GIVE RISE TO A RIGHT TO PURCHASE S HARES OR SECURITIES AT THE AGREED PRICE ON A FUTURE DATE. THE TRANSACTIONS AR E SETTLED OTHERWISE THAN BY DELIVERY BY PAYING THE DIFFERENCE OR FORFEITIN G THE MONEY PAID AT THE TIME OF MAKING THE CONTRACT IN THE CASE OF AN OPT ION TRANSACTION. SUCH TRANSACTIONS APPARENTLY STAND COVERED UNDER THE A FORESAID DEFINITION. WITH INCREASE IN VOLUME OF DERIVATIVE TRANSACTIONS, WH ICH INCLUDE FUTURE AND OPTION, A NEED WAS FELT THAT SUCH TRANSACTION S SHOULD BE TAKEN OUT FROM THE AMBIT OF SPECULATIVE TRANSACTION IN ORDER TO EX PAND CAPITAL MARKETS. ACCORDINGLY, CLAUSE (D) WAS INTRODUCED IN THE PRO VISION WITH EFFECT FROM 01.04.2006. THIS AMENDMENT IS NOT APPLICABLE TO T HE PROCEEDINGS OF ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 AT HAND. ON THE OTHER HAN D, THE LD. COUNSEL RELIED ON THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF SSKI INVES TORS SERVICES (P) LTD. TO SUPPORT HIS CONTENTION THAT AT THE TIME OF MAKING THE ASSESSMENT A CONTROVERSY EXISTED IN THE MATTER. OTHER DECIS IONS RELIED UPON BY HIM FOLLOW THIS DECISION. ALL THESE DECISIONS STAN D OVERRULED BY THE DECISION OF SPECIAL BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF S HREE CAPITAL SERVICES LTD.(SUPRA). HOWEVER, THIS DECISION WAS REND ERED ON 31.07.2009. IN THIS CASE, THE EARLIER DECISIONS IN THE MATTER, THE PROVISION CONTAINED IN ITA NO. 1586(DEL)/2011 10 SECTION 2(AC) OF THE SECURITIES CONTRACT (REGULATIO N) ACT, 1956, AND AMENDMENT MADE IN SECTION 43(5) BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2005, WERE CONSIDERED. IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT TRANSACTIONS I N DERIVATIVES CONSTITUTE SPECULATIVE TRANSACTIONS FOR AND UP TO ASSESSMEN T YEAR 2005-06. THE AMENDMENT IS NOT CLARIFICATORY IN NATURE AND IT ACTS PROSPECTIVELY. THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF SSKI INVESTORS SERVICES (P) LTD. DOES NOT DEAL SPECIFICALLY WITH THE NATURE OF FUTURE AND OPTION TRANSACTIONS, FOR WHICH A PARTICULAR SHARE OR SECURITY IS THE UNDERLYING ASSE T. IT STRAIGHTWAY COMES TO THE CONCLUSION THAT DEALINGS IN DERIVATIVES A RE A SEPARATE KIND OF TRANSACTIONS. THE DEFINITION CONTAINED IN SECTI ON 2(AC)(A) HAS NOT EVEN BEEN CONSIDERED. THE DEFINITION CLEARLY SHOWS T HAT A DEBT INSTRUMENT, SHARE, LOAN ETC. ARE THE UNDERLYING ASSET. THE REFORE, THE TRANSACTION IS ONE OF DEALING IN A SHARE OR SECURITY. THE DECI SION ALSO DOES NOT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE INTENT AND PURPOSE OF CLAUSE (D) INT RODUCED IN THE PROVISION WITH EFFECT FROM 01.04.2006, WHICH EXISTED ON S TATUTE BOOK ON THE DATE OF RENDERING THE DECISION. THUS, IT ALSO DOES NOT DEAL WITH THE ISSUE WHETHER IT IS PROSPECTIVE OR RETROSPECTIVE IN NATU RE. UNDOUBTEDLY THE LEGISLATURE HAS MADE IT TO BE PROSPECTIVE. ALL THESE ISSUES ARE DISCUSSED IN THE CASE OF SHREE CAPITAL SERVICES LTD. (SUPR A), BUT WE NEED NOT DEAL IN DETAIL WITH THIS DECISION. HOWEVER, IT IS A LSO A MATTER OF FACT THAT A ITA NO. 1586(DEL)/2011 11 DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE EXISTED ON THE DATE OF PASSING ASSESSMENT ORDER. THIS DECISION, THOUGH R EVERSED LATER, CANNOT BE IGNORED. THUS, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE EARLIER DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL DOES LEAD TO AN INFERENCE THAT LEGAL CONTROVERSY SUBSISTED AND TWO OPINIONS WERE POSSIBLE IN THE MATTER. IN OT HER WORDS, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DOES NOT SUFFER FROM A MISTAKE APPARENT FR OM RECORD IN THE SENSE THAT THERE WAS NO PATENT MISTAKE OF LAW. THEREFO RE, IT IS HELD THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION U/S 15 4 TO CORRECT THE MISTAKE. 4.1 THE OBJECTION THAT THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE A. O DID NOT REFER TO SECTION 43(5) ALSO DOES NOT CARRY WEIGHT AS IT I S CLEAR AND UNAMBIGUOUS IN ITS INTENT AND PURPOSE. 5. GROUND NO. 5 REGARDING CHARGING OF INTEREST U /S 234B HAS NOT BEEN DISCUSSED BY THE LD. COUNSEL. THEREFORE, IT IS TAK EN TO BE CONSEQUENTIAL IN NATURE. THE AO SHALL REVISE THE COMPUTATION OF INTEREST. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED. THE ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 5 AUGUST, 2011. SD/- SD/- (C.L. SETHI)) (K.G. BANSAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATE OF ORDER: 05.08.2011. SP SATIA ITA NO. 1586(DEL)/2011 12 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO:- M/S HARMANOS ZUBADI INVESTMENTS (P) LTD., NEW DE LHI. ITO, WARD 12(3), NEW DELHI. CIT CIT(APPEALS) THE DR, ITAT, NEW DELHI. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR.