Addl. CIT, Muzaffarnagar V. M/s The Ganga Kisan Sahkari Chinni Mills Ltd., Muzaffarnagar

ITA 1938/DEL/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 134 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3663 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-06-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: H
• Assessment Year: 1998-1999
• Appeal Filed On: 20-04-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MONA MOHANTY
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice; Revenue expenditure
• Section: 43B; 37

Judgement Text

I.T.A. NO.1938/DEL./2011 (A.Y. : 1998-99) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH H : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI A.D. JAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.1938/DEL./2011 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 1998-99) ADDL.CIT, RANGE 2, VS. M/S THE GANGA KISAN NEW DELHI. SAHKARI CHINNI MILLS LTD., MORNA, MUZAFFARNAGAR. (PAN/GIR NO.20-736-CQ7872 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY : MS. MONA MOHANTY, DR ORDER PER A.D. JAIN: JM THIS IS DEPARTMENTS APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998- 99 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 03.02.2011 PASSED BY THE CIT(A), GHAZIABA D, DELETING THE ADDITION OF `1,14,79,000/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF REVOLVI NG CESS. 2. NONE HAS APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE DESPI TE ISSUANCE OF NOTICE WHICH HAS NOT RETURNED UNSERVED. HOWEVER, FIND ING THAT THE MATTER CAN BE PROCEEDED IN THE ABSENCE OF THE ASSESSEE, WE A RE DOING SO. 3. VIDE ORDER DATED 22.12.2000, THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DEBITED A SUM OF `1,14,79,000 IN ITS PRO FIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT, ON ACCOUNT OF REVOLVING CESS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER RE QUIRED THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH A COPY OF THE GOVT. ORDER AND ITS RULES OR BYE LAWS, UNDER WHICH, THE REVOLVING CESS HAD BEEN PAID BY THE ASSESSEE. 4. IN RESPONSE, THE ASSESSEE FILED A COPY OF GOVT. OR DER DATED 13.02.1990 IN THIS REGARD. THEREFROM, THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBS ERVED THAT THE CESS NIDHI HAD BEEN CREATED TO PROMOTE AND STRENGTHEN INTENSIVE QUAL ITY PARTICIPATION IN THE NEW COOPERATIVE SUGAR MILL AS WELL AS FOR EXPANSI ON-CUM-MODERNIZATION OF THE EXISTING SUGAR UNITS IN THE COOPERATIVE SECTOR; THAT THE SOCIETY WOULD I.T.A. NO.1938/DEL./2011 (A.Y. : 1998-99) 2 COMPRISE OF CHAIRMAN, MEMBER & SECRETARY; THAT THE NIDH I SAMITI WOULD HAVE FOLLOWED TO REDUCE THE RATE OF CESS ON INDIVIDUAL SUGA R FACTORY(S) AND GRANT EVEN FULL EXEMPTION FOR ONE OR MORE OR ALL SUGAR COO PERATIVE FACTORIES ON A REASONABLE REQUEST OF THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, UPP COOP. SUGAR FACTORIES FEDERATION LTD; THAT THE CESS WAS LEFT AT A FIXED RATE, ON PER QUINTAL OF SUGAR SOLD; THAT THE CESS WAS IMPOSED @ `14 PER QUINTAL (`25 PER QUINTAL IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION I.E. ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998-99) OF SUGAR SOLD; THAT THE CESS SO IMPOSED WAS TO BE DEPOSITED EVERY YEAR WITHIN SIX MONTHS OF THE END OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR; THAT THE NIDHI SAMITI HAD FOLLOWE D TO REDUCE THE RATE OF CESS NOT INDIVIDUAL SUGAR FACTORY(S) AND TO GRANT EVEN FULL EXEMPTION FOR ONE OR MORE OR ALL SUGAR FACTORIES, ON THE REASONABLE REQ UEST OF THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, UPSCSFF LTD. FROM THIS, THE ASSESSING OFFICE R OBSERVED THAT THE CESS WAS NOT UNIFORM AND HAD NO STATUTORY BACKGROUND; TH AT THE IMPOSITION OF THE CESS ON A FACTORY WAS POWER DISCRETION OF THE CHAIR MAN, SECRETARY AND MEMBER OF THE SAMITI; THAT THE CESS WAS IMPOSED ON THE SA LE OF SUGAR; THAT IT COULD NOT BE IMPOSED UNLESS THE SUGAR WAS SOLD; THAT THE REFORE, THE IMPOSITION OF CESS AND PAYMENT THEREOF BY THE ASSESSEE WAS, IN NO WAY, CONNECTED WITH THE BUSINESS NEEDS OF THE ASSESSEE; THAT TH E ASSESSEE HAD NOT PROVED THAT BY NOT PAYING THE CESS IT WOULD NOT BE ABL E TO CONDUCT ITS BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURE AND SALE OF SUGAR; THAT SINCE THE CESS HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ASSESSEES ACTIVITIES OF MANUFACTURE AND SAL E OF SUGAR, THE AMOUNT OF CESS IMPOSED COULD NOT BE SAID TO BE AN EXPE NDITURE FOR BUSINESS EXPEDIENCY; RATHER THAT THE AMOUNT OF CESS WAS APPROPRIA TION OF THE ASSESSEES PROFIT; THAT THIS FACT STOOD PROVED FROM THE CO PY OF MINUTES OF MEETING DATED 29.08.97, FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, FROM WH ICH, IT WAS OBSERVED THAT THE CESS WAS IMPOSED ON THE FACTORIES WHO WERE EARN ING GOOD PROFIT; THAT THE FACTORIES RUNNING INTO LOSSES WERE APPROVED FOR EXEMPTION FROM THE PAYMENT OF CESS, AND THAT, THEREFORE, CESS WAS IMPOSED ON THE PROFITS EARNED BY A SUGAR SOCIETY, THOUGH THE CESS WAS QUANTIFIED WITH REFERENCE TO THE WEIGHT OF THE SUGAR SOLD; THAT AS SUCH THE PAYMENT OF CES S BY THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT BE TERMED AS A REVENUE EXPENDITURE, BUT IT WAS APPROPRIATION OF ITS PROFIT AS WAS ALSO PROVED FROM THE FACT THAT THE CESS PAY MENT HAD NO DIRECT NEXUS WITH THE BUSINESS EXPEDIENCY. I.T.A. NO.1938/DEL./2011 (A.Y. : 1998-99) 3 5. IT WAS IN THIS MANNER THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISA LLOWED THE CLAIM OF EXPENDITURE OF CESS PAYMENT OF `1,14,79,000. 6. THE CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OF FICER FOLLOWING THE EARLIER FIRST APPELLATE ORDER IN THE CASE OF KISAN SAH KARI CHINNI MILLS PASSED ON 18.9.2002 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1990-91 IN APPEAL NO.4 32/91-92/MZR., HOLDING THAT THE PAYMENT OF CESS WAS APPROPRIATION OF PROFIT. 7. THE TRIBUNAL, VIDE ORDER DATED 21.5.08 (COPY PLAC ED ON RECORD REFERRED TO BY THE CIT(A) IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER), IN I.T.A. NO. 1222/DEL./04 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998-99, SET ASIDE THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A), TO BE DECIDED AFRESH ON AFFORDING AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSES SEE TO RESPOND TO THE AFORESAID ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IN KISAN SAHKARI CHIN NI MILL LTD. FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1990-91. 8. IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE HEREIN TO REPRODUCE THE RELE VANT PORTION OF THE SAID ITAT ORDER: THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED THIS EXPENDITURE ON THE REASON THAT THIS EXPENDITURE IS INCURRED AS PER ORDER OF THE U. . GOVT. THE COOPERATIVE SUGAR MILL REVOLVING CESS NIDHI FUND WAS CREATED TO PROMOTE AND STRENGTHEN INCENTIVE EQUITY PARTICIPATION IN TH E NEW COOPERATIVE SUGAR MILLS AS WELL AS FOR EXPANSION-CUM -MODERNIZATION IN THE COOPERATIVE SECTOR. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSING OFFI CER THE AMOUNT OF CESS AND PAYMENT THEREOF BY THE ASSESSEE IS NOWHERE CONNECTED WITH THE BUSINESS NEEDS OF THE ASSESSEE AND IT IS FURTHE R OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PROVE THAT BY NOT PAYING CESS IT WOU LD NOT BE ABLE TO CONDUCT ITS BUSINESS AND ALSO OBSERVED THAT IT IS THE A PPROPRIATION OF PROFITS. THE CIT(A) DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSES SEE BY FOLLOWING EARLIER ORDER OF THE CIT(A), MUZAFFARNAGAR IN THE CAS E OF KISAN SAHKARI CHINI MILLS, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1990-91 IN APPEA L NO.432/91- 92/MZR DATED 18.09.2002 HOLDING THAT IT WAS AN APPROPRI ATION OF PROFITS. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND HAVE PERUSED TH E MATERIAL ON RECORD. THERE IS MERIT IN THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE. THE CIT(A) RELIED ON THE ORDER IN THE CASE OF KISAN SAHKA RI CHHINI MILLS, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1990-91. WHEN THE CIT(A) RELIED O N THE ORDER, IT IS THE DUTY OF THE CIT(A) TO PUT FORTH THIS ORDER BEFORE TH E ASSESSEE FOR COMMENTS. SINCE HE HAS NOT PLACED THIS ORDER BEFORE TH E ASSESSEE FOR COMMENTS, IN OUR OPINION, THERE IS VIOLATION OF PRINCI PLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE. HENCE WE SET ASIDE THIS ISSUE TO THE FILE OF TH E CIT(A) TO GIVE THE ASSESSEE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR COMMENTS ON THE ORDER RE LIED ON BY HIM AND THEREAFTER DECIDE THE ISSUE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES . I.T.A. NO.1938/DEL./2011 (A.Y. : 1998-99) 4 9. THE ORDER PRESENTLY UNDER APPEAL HAS BEEN PASSED BY THE CIT(A) PURSUANT TO THE AFORESAID DIRECTION OF THE ITAT. 10. BY VIRTUE OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER, THE CIT(A) DELETED THE DISALLOWANCE OF `1,14,79,000/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCO UNT OF REVOLVING CESS. 11. CHALLENGING THE IMPUGNED ORDER, THE LD.DR HAS CON TENDED THAT WHILE WRONGLY DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE CORRECTLY MADE, THE C IT(A) HAS FAILED TO CONSIDER THAT THE REVOLVING CESS DID NOT HAVE ANY DIREC T NEXUS WITH ANY BUSINESS EXPEDIENCY OF THE ASSESSEE AND THAT IN FACT, I T WAS APPROPRIATION OF THE ASSESSEES BUSINESS PROFIT, AS CORRECTLY OBSERVED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. 12. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD.DR AND HAVE PERUSAL THE MATER IAL ON RECORD. IT IS SEEN THAT THE CIT(A), WHILE DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE IN QUESTION, HAS REFERRED TO THE TRIBUNAL ORDER DATED 7.12.09 IN I.T.A. NO.839/DEL./2003, IN THE CASE OF KISAN SAHKARI CHINNI MILL, NANAUTA FOR ASS ESSMENT YEAR 1990-91, REMITTING THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO EXAMINE AS TO FOR WHAT PURPOSE THE CONTRIBUTION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS MEANT TO BE UTILIZED AND AS TO WHETHER THE SAME HAD ANY LINK WITH THE ASSESSEES INVESTMENT/EXPENDITURE IN THE CAPITAL FILED. 13. IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE TO REPRODUCE THE RELEVANT PO TION OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL AS FOLLOWS: ..WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION AN D PERUSED THE RECORDS. FROM THE FACTS ON RECORD, WE FIND IT IS NOT C LEAR AS TO FOR WHAT PURPOSE THE CONTRIBUTION OF THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD IS MEANT TO BE UTILIZED. WHETHER THE SAME HAS ANY LINKAGES WITH THE AS SESSEES INVESTMENT/EXPENDITURE IN THE CAPITAL FIELD HAS NOT BEEN CLEARLY BROUGHT OUT. HENCE, WE FIND THAT IT WILL BE APPROPRIATE TO REMIT THIS ISUE TO THE FILES OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO GIVE A FI NDING IN THIS REGARD. BOTH THE COUNSELS FAIRLY AGREED TO THIS PROPOSITION. AC CORDINGLY, THIS ISSUE IS REMITTED TO THE FILES OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO EXAMINE THE ISSUE ON THE DIRECTIONS AS GIVEN ABOVE. NEEDLESS TO A DD THAT THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE GRANTED ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEIN G HEARD. BEFORE PARTING WE WOULD LIKE TO OBSERVE THAT IF THE AMOU NT INVOLVED IS FOUND TO BE CESS THE ALLOWABILITY OF THE SAME SHALL BE CONSIDERED AS PER PROVISIONS OF SECTION 43B OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. THE DECISION OF THE I.T.A. NO.1938/DEL./2011 (A.Y. : 1998-99) 5 TRIBUNAL, COCHIN BENCH IN THE CASE OF TRAVANCORE TITA NIUM PRODUCTS LTD. VS. DCIT, 57 ITD 16 SHALL ALSO BE BORNE IN MIND .. 14. ON SUCH REMAND, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE CASE OF KISAN SAHKARI CHINNI MILLS, OBSERVED AS UNDER: IN THE CASE OF BAZPUR COOPERATIVE SUGAR FACTORY LTD., BAZPUR VS. CIT, LUCKNOW IN R.NO.26 OF 2001 (OLD NO.42 OF 1997) THE H ONBLE HIGH COURT UTTRAKHAND HAS HELD THAT THE CESS IS OF THE NATURE OF THE EXPENDITURE WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE BUSINESS AND ALLOWABLE UNDER SECTION 37 OF THE ACT. 15. THUS, IN THE CASE OF KISAN SAHKARI CHINNI MILLS , THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THAT THE PURPOSE OF THE CESS WAS TO PROMOTE AND STREN GTHEN THE QUALITY PARTICIPATION THE NEW COOPERATIVE SUGAR MILLS AND EXPAN SION-CUM- MODERNIZATION OF THE EXISTING SUGAR MILLS IN THE COOPER ATIVE SECTOR; THAT THE CESS WAS IMPOSED ON THE BASIS OF ACTUAL PRODUCTION AND WAS CALCULATED ON A PER BAG BASIS; THAT THUS, IT DID NOT RELATE TO THE PROFIT EA RNED BY THE MILL, BUT TO THE QUANTITY PRODUCED; THAT SINCE THE CESS WAS BEING C HARGED AS PER A GOVT. ORDER, IT WAS MANDATORY IN NATURE, WITHOUT COMPLYIN G WITH WHICH GOVT. ORDER, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT RUN ITS BUSINESS; AND THA T SUCH EXPENDITURE WAS ALLOWABLE U/S 37 OF THE ACT, HAVING BEEN EXPENDED WHO LLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE. 16. IN THE CASE OF KISAN SAHKARI CHINNI MILLS, THER EFORE, THE STAND TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE WAS ACCEPTED. AS SUCH, THE CIT(A)S ORDE R IN THE FIRST ROUND IN THE CASE OF KISAN SAHKARI CHINNI MILLS, WHICH ORDE R FORMED THE BASIS OF THE CONFIRMATION OF THE DISALLOWANCE BY THE CIT(A) IN THE F IRST ROUND HEREIN, WAS NO LONGER RES INTEGRA AND THE CLAIM STOOD ALLOWED UPON SUBSEQUENT REMAND BY THE ITAT, AS ABOVE. 17. IN THE PRESENT ROUND, WHILE PASSING THE IMPUGNED O RDER, THE CIT(A) HAS TAKEN THE ABOVE FACTS INTO CONSIDERATION AND HAS ONLY THE REUPON DELETED THE DISALLOWANCE. 18. NOW, IN THE CASE OF A SIMILARLY SITUATED ASSESSEE, I.E., KISAN SAHKARI CHINNI MILLS, NANAUTI, IT STANDS ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTM ENT THAT THE OBJECT OF THE REVOLVING CESS IS TO PROMOTE AND STRENGTHEN THE QUALI TY PARTICIPATION IN THE NEW COOPERATIVE SUGAR MILLS AND EXPANSION-CUM-MOD ERNIZATION OF THE I.T.A. NO.1938/DEL./2011 (A.Y. : 1998-99) 6 EXISTING SUGAR MILLS IN THE COOPERATIVE SECTOR; THAT THE C ESS IS IMPOSED ON THE BASIS OF ACTUAL PRODUCTION AND IS CALCULATED ON A PER BAG BASIS, DUE TO WHICH IT DOES NOT RELATE TO THE PROFIT EARNED BY THE MILL, BUT RE LATES TO THE QUANTITY PRODUCED; AND THAT THE CESS IS BEING CHARGED UNDER A G OVT. ORDER, WHICH NEEDS TO BE MANDATORILY FOLLOWED BY THE ASSESSEE AND I F THE SAID ORDER IS NOT COMPLIED WITH, IT WOULD NOT BE POSSIBLE FOR THE ASSESSE E TO RUN ITS BUSINESS. 19. OBVIOUSLY, SIMILARLY SITUATED ASSESSEES CANNOT BE TREATED DIFFERENTLY BY THE DEPARTMENT. THE BASIS FOR ACCEPTANCE OF THE REVOLVI NG CESS AS EXPLAINED IN THE CASE OF KISAN SAHAKARI CHINNI MILLS (SUPRA) , IS SQUARELY APPLICABLE TO THE CASE OF THE PRESENT ASSESSEE. 20. MOREOVER, IN THE CASE OF BAZPUR COOPERATIVE SUGA R FACTORY LTD., BAZPUR VS. CIT, LUCKNOW, IN R.NO.26 OF 2001, (OLD NO.42 OF 1997), AS NOTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE CASE OF KISAN SAHAKR I CHINNI MILLS LTD. (SUPRA), THE HONBLE UTTRAKHAND HIGH COURT HAS HELD THAT THE CESS IS OF THE NATURE OF AN EXPENDITURE INCURRED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIV ELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE BUSINESS AND ALLOWABLE U/S 37 OF THE I.T. ACT, 196 1. 21. THE TRIBUNAL, VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 21.5.08 (SUPRA ), REMITTING THE MATTER TO HE CIT(A), HAD OBSERVED THAT THE DECISION OF THE COCH IN BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN TRANVANCORE TITANIUM PRODUCTS VS. DCIT , 57 ITD 16 (COCHIN) WAS ALSO TO BE KEPT IN MIND BY THE CIT(A). IN TRAVANCOR E TITANIUM PRODUCTS VS. DCIT (SUPRA), THE TRIBUNAL HAS HELD THAT THE AMOUNT PAI D BY THE ASSESSEE AS SERVICE CHARGES, WAS ALLOWABLE AS BUSINESS EXPENDITU RE. THIS DECISION HAS ALSO BEEN TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION BY THE CIT(A) WHILE PASSING THE IMPUGNED ORDER. 22. IT IS THUS SEEN THAT THE CIT(A) HAS CONSIDERED THE IS SUE FROM ALL ANGLES IN THE LIGHT OF THE MATERIAL DISCUSSED HEREINABOVE AND IT IS ONLY THEREAFTER THAT THE DISALLOWANCE HAS BEEN DELETED. NOW, WHEN THE O BJECT OF THE REVOLVING CESS IS UNDISPUTEDLY TO PROMOTE AND STRENGTHEN THE QUALITY PARTICIPATION IN THE NEW COOPERATIVE SUGAR MILLS AND EX PANSION-CUM- MODERNIZATION OF EXISTING SUGAR MILLS IN THE COOPERATIV E SECTOR AND SINCE THE I.T.A. NO.1938/DEL./2011 (A.Y. : 1998-99) 7 CESS IS IMPOSED ON THE BASIS OF ACTUAL PRODUCTION AND IS CALCULATED ON A PER BAG BASIS, IT DOES NOT RELATE TO THE PROFIT EARNED BY THE MILL. IT RATHER RELATES TO THE QUANTITY PRODUCED. MOREOVER, IT IS MANDATORY UNDE R A GOVT. ORDER THAT THE CESS IS CHARGEABLE AND IS BEING CHARGED. THE AS SESSEE CANNOT RUN ITS BUSINESS WITHOUT COMPLYING WITH SUCH A MANDATORY GOVERN MENT ORDER. THE CESS HAS BEEN HELD BY THE HONBLE UTTRAKHAND HIGH COUR T IN THE CASE IF BAZPUR COOP. SUGAR FACTORY, BAZPUR (SUPRA) TO BE AN EXPENDITURE INCURRED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE BUSINES S OF THE ASSESSEE AND ALLOWABLE U/S 37 OF THE ACT. NO DECISION TO THE CONTRAR Y HAS BEEN CITED. 23. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, FINDING NO ERROR WHATSOEVER IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), THE SAME IS HEREBY UPHELD. THE GRIEVANCE SO UGHT TO BE RAISED BY THE DEPARTMENT IS FOUND TO BE SHORN OF MERIT AND IS REJECTED AS SUCH. 24. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 20.06.2011. SD/- SD/- (SHAMIM YAHYA) (A.D.JAIN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DELHI, DATED : JUNE 20, 2011 SKB COPY FORWARDED TO: 1.APPELLANT 2.RESPONDENT 3.CIT, 4.CIT(A), GHAZIABAD. 5.CIT(ITAT), NEW DELHI. AR/ITAT