ACIT, New Delhi V. M/s. Venubhai Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 2252/DEL/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 69520 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 6 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-11-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: H
• Next Hearing Date: 17-09-2013
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 11-05-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RENUKA JAIN GUPTA
• Keywords: Fair market value

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: H NEW DELHI BEFORE SMT. DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI J. S. REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A .NO.-2252 TO 2254 & 1953/DEL/2012 (ASSESSMENT YEARS-2006-07 TO 2008-09 & 2005-06) ASSTT. CIT VS. M/S VENUBHAI CIRCLE-17 (1) ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD. C.R. BUILDING B-604, PLOT NO.37, NEW DELHI SECTOR-6, DWARKA, NEW DELHI. PAN: AABCV1369H I.T.A .NOS. 1457 TO 1459/DEL/2012 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2005-06 TO 2007-08) M/S VENUBHAI ENTERPRISES VS. ADDL. CIT PVT. LTD. SHREE BALAJI APARTMENT RANGE-17, B-604, PLOT NO.37, NEW DELHI. SECTOR-6, DWARKA, NEW DELHI. PAN: AABCV1369H I.T.A .NOS. 1460/DEL/2012 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2008-09) M/S VENUBHAI ENTERPRISES VS. DY. CIT PVT. LTD. SHREE BALAJI APARTMENT RANGE-17(1) B-604, PLOT NO.37, NEW DELHI. SECTOR-6, DWARKA, NEW DELHI. PAN: AABCV1369H (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY:-MS. RENUKA JAIN GUPTA, SR. DR ASSESSEE BY:-SH. ASHWANI KUMAR, CA. 2 ORDER PER BENCH. THESE CROSS APPEALS ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (A)- XIX, NEW DELHI DATED 16.2.2012 FOR THE AYS 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08 AND 2008-09. 2. THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS DISPOSED OFF T HE APPEALS BY WAY OF A COMMON ORDER. AS THE ISSUES ARE COMMON, FOR THE SAK E OF CONVENIENCE, WE HEARD ALL THE APPEALS TOGETHER AND WE DISPOSE OFF A LL THE APPEALS BY WAY OF THIS COMMON ORDER. 3. THE ASSESSEE IS A COMPANY AND IS ENGAGED IN THE MANUFACTURING AND EXPORT OF READYMADE GARMENTS. THE SOLE ISSUE THAT A RISES FOR OUR CONSIDERATION IS THE QUANTUM OF REMUNERATION PAID T O DIRECTOR OF THE COMPANY MS.NEERIEN NINA KAUR GILL, WHICH IS ALLOWAB LE UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE. 4. THIS IS THE SECOND ROUND OF APPELLATE PROCEEDING S. WHEN THE ISSUE HAS COME UP FOR THE FIRST TIME BEFORE THE I BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NOS 191 AND 453/DEL/09, ITA NO. 2220/DEL/09, ITA NO.355 /DEL/09, ITA NO. 3276/DEL/09 AND ITA NO.2765/DEL/09, THE TRIBUNAL IN ITS ORDER DATED 3 11.12.2009 CONSIDERED THE ISSUE FROM PARA 6.4 TO PA RA 6.7. THIS IS EXTRACTED FOR READY REFERENCE. 6.4 WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND R IVAL SUBMISSIONS. THE FACTS ARE THAT THE DIRECTOR WAS PAID REMUNERATI ON OF RS.15.90 LAC IN THE LAST YEAR, WHICH INCREASED TO ABOUT RS.61.94 LAC IN THIS YEAR. THE TURN OVER OF THE ASSESSEE INCREASED FROM ABOUT 5.00 CRORE LAST YEAR TO RS.6.50 CRORE IN THIS YEAR. THE CASE OF THE LEARNED DR IS THAT THE ARMS LENGTH REMUNERATION WAS WORKED OUT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY RESORTING TO THE INCREASE IN THE TURN OV ER, WHICH WAS A FAIR AND REASONABLE BASIS IN THE LIGHT OF THE FACTS SUBM ITTED BY THE ASSESSEE. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE CASE OF THE LEARNE D COUNSEL WAS THAT A HOST OF FACTORS HAVE TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT FOR FIXING THE ARMS LENGTH REMUNERATION AND A MATHEMATICAL FORMULA, DER IVED ON THE BASIS OF THE RATIO OF THE TURN OVER, DOES NOT LEAD TO DETERMINATION OF ARMS LENGTH REMUNERATION. THE REMUNERATION WAS FIX ED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS IN ITS MEETING AND THE SAME WAS BASED UPON THE CONSIDERATION OF VARIOUS SERVICES RENDERED BY HER. IT WILL BE SEEN FROM THE AFORESAID DISCUSSION THAT THE APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 40A(2) HAS NOT BEEN CHALLENGED BY EITHER PARTY. THEREFORE, THE ONLY QUESTION IS WHAT SHOULD BE THE ARMS LENGTH REMUNERATION? THE ASSESSEE HAS PLACED BOARD RESOLUTION DATED NIL ON PAGE 89 OF THE PAPER BOOK, PASSED IN THE MEETING HELD ON 04.04.2004. IT WAS ME NTIONED THAT SUBJECT TO APPLICABLE PROVISIONS, IF ANY, OF THE CO MPANIES ACT, 1956, THE REMUNERATION OF MS. NEERIEN NINA KAUR GILL, WHO LE TIME DIRECTOR OF THE COMPANY BE INCREASED FROM 01.04.2004 AS FOLL OWS:- 4 1) REMUNERATION PAYABLE: A) SALARY; RS. 2,25,000/- PER MONTH B) COMMISSION; 5% OF THE NET PROFIT OF THE COMPANY FOR EACH FINANC IAL YEAR. C) PERQUISITES; I) SUITABLE ACCOMMODATION WILL BE PROVIDED IN CASE NO ACCOMMODATION IS PROVIDED, THE WHOLE TIME DIRECTOR WILL BE ENTITLED TO HOUSE RENT ALLOWANCE O F RS.1,50,000/- PER MONTH. II) GAS, ELECTRICITY WATER & FURNISHING ACTUAL. III) REIMBURSEMENT OF MEDICAL EXPENSES, HOSPITALIZATION (INCLUDING FACILITY FOR TREATMENT A S MAY BE REQUIRED IN ANY PART OF THE WORLD). THE PERQUISITES SHALL BE EVALUATED AS PER INCOME TAX RULES WHEREVER APPLICABLE. D) THE WHOLE TIME DIRECTOR WILL BE PROVIDED A CHAUF FEUR DRIVEN CAR FOR OFFICIAL DUTIES, A MOBILE, A TELEPHO NE AT RESIDENCE AND REIMBURSEMENT OF ENTERTAINMENT OF EXPENSES ACTUALLY AND PROPERLY INCURRED IN THE COUR SE OF LEGITIMATE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY. EXPENSES ON CAR , MOBILE, TELEPHONE AND ENTERTAINMENT WILL NOT BE CONSIDERED AS PERQUISITES. 2) THE WHOLE TIME DIRECTOR, SO LONG AS SHE FUNCTION S AS SUCH, SHALL NOT BE PAID AS SITTING FEES FOR ATTENDI NG MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS. 5 6.5 IT WILL BE SEEN THAT SHE WAS PAID INTER ALIA A SALARY @ RS.2.25 LAC PER MONTH AND COMMISSION AT THE RATE OF 5% OF T HE NET PROFIT OF THE COMPANY. SHE WAS ALSO ENTITLED TO SUITABLE ACCOMMOD ATION, FAILING WHICH SHE WAS ENTITLED TO HOUSE RENT ALLOWANCE AT T HE RATE OF 1.50 LAC PER MONTH. SHE WAS ENTITLED TO OTHER FACILITIES SUC H AS GAS, ELECTRICITY, WATER AND FURNISHING, MEDICAL EXPENSES FOR SELF AND THE FAMILY IN ANY PART OF THE WORLD, CHAUFFEUR DRIVEN CAR FOR OFFICIA L DUTIES, A MOBILE, A TELEPHONE AT RESIDENCE, AND REIMBURSEMENT OF ENTERT AINMENT OF EXPENSES INCURRED IN THE COURSE OF BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY ETC. 6.6 COMING TO THE LEGAL POSITION IN RESPECT OF THE PROVISION, THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF VOLTAMP T RANSFORMERS (P) LTD. VS. CIT, (1981) 129 ITR 105, HELD THAT THE LEG ITIMATE BUSINESS NEEDS OF AN ASSESSEE OR THE BENEFIT DERIVED BY OR A CCRUING TO THE ASSESSEE FROM GOODS, SERVICES, FACILITIES ETC. ARE TO BE JUDGED FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF THE BUSINESSMAN AND NOT FROM THE P OINT OF VIEW OF THE REVENUE OFFICER. IN THIS CASE, IT WAS ALSO HELD THA T IN JUDGING THE REASONABLENESS OR EXCESSIVENESS OF A PARTICULAR PAY MENT, ONE MUST KEEP IN MIND THE RELEVANT CONSIDERATIONS. THE HONB LE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SHRIRAM PISTONS AND RI NG LIMITED (1990) 181 ITR 230, HELD THAT WHERE THE REMUNERATION OF AN EMPLOYEE/DIRECTOR HAS BEEN APPROVED BY THE COMPANY LAW BOARD UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, THE SAME SHALL ORDINARILY BE REGARDED AS REASONABLE. HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF UP PER INDIA PUBLISHING HOUSE (P) LTD. VS. CIT (1979) 117 ITR 56 9, HELD THAT THE QUESTION WHETHER A PARTICULAR PAYMENT IS EXCESSIVE OR UNREASONABLE IS ESSENTIALLY A QUESTION OF FACT. WE HAVE MENTIONED T HE AFORESAID 6 DECISIONS ON OUR OWN AS NONE OF THE CONTENDING PART IES HAD CITED ANY CASE LAW IN THE MATTER TO SUPPORT ITS CASE, AND THU S, IT BECAME NECESSARY FOR US TO HAVE A LOOK AT THE POSITION OF LAW IN THE MATTER. THE POSITION IS THAT THE QUESTION IS ESSENTIALLY A QUESTION OF FACT, AND THE SAME SHOULD BE DECIDED FROM THE POINT OF VIEW O F THE BUSINESSMAN AND NOT FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF THE REVENUE OFFIC ER. IT IS ALSO A FACT THAT THE REMUNERATION PAID TO MS. NEERIEN NINA KAUR GILL, WAS NOT APPROVED BY THE COMPANY LAW BOARD UNDER THE COMPANY ACT AND, THEREFORE, IT CANNOT BE PRESUMED THAT IT WAS REASON ABLE. 6.7 IT IS A MATTER OF FACT ON RECORD THAT THE REMUN ERATION WAS INCREASED FROM RS.15.90 LAC TO RS.61.94 LAC IN ONE YEAR. THE ONLY OBJECTIVE CRITERION CITED BEFORE US FOR WORKING OUT REASONABLE REMUNERATION WAS BY THE REVENUE, AND IT WAS BASED O N THE RATIO OF TURN OVER OF LAST YEAR AND THIS YEAR. IN THE LIGHT OF POSITION IN THE CASE OF VOLTAMP TRANSFORMERS (P) LTD., THE SITUATION HAS TO BE LOOKED NOT ONLY ON THE BASIS OF STATISTICS BUT ALSO FROM THE P OINT OF VIEW OF A BUSINESSMAN. IT IS A FACT, NOT DENIED BY REVENUE, T HAT MS. NEERIEN NINA KAUR GILL, WAS ASSOCIATED WITH THE OPERATIONS OF THE COMPANY FROM THE VERY BEGINNING AND TOOK IMPORTANT JOBS INC LUDING SALES WERE LOOKED AFTER BY HER. THE RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS DID NOT MENTION THE BASIS ON WHICH HER REMUNERATION WAS FIX ED. WE FIND THAT NO COMPARABLE CASE OF ANY OTHER EMPLOYEE HAS BEEN C ITED BY THE ASSESSEE AS SUCH A CASE MAY NOT EXIST LOOKING TO TH ESE FACTORS WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE PHENOMENAL INCREASE OF ABOUT 3 .95 TIMES MAY NOT JUSTIFIED LOOKING TO THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE S ERVICES RENDERED BY THE DIRECTOR OR LEGITIMATE NEEDS OF THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE OR 7 BENEFIT DERIVED THEREFROM. THEREFORE, THE INVOCATION OF THE PROVISION CONTAINED IN SECTION 40A(2) WAS JUSTIFIED ON THE FA CTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. WE, HOWEVER, FIND THAT T HE LEARNED CIT (A) DID NOT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE RELEVANT FACTOR SUCH AS FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE SERVICES, LEGITIMATE NEEDS OF THE BUSINESS O F THE ASSESSEE OR BENEFIT ACCRUING TO THE ASSESSEE INTO ACCOUNT WHILE FIXING ARMS LENGTH REMUNERATION AT RS.31.80 LAC. HE SUMMARILY STATED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL ALLOW THE REMUNERATION OF RS.31.80 LA C, BEING TWICE THE AMOUNT PAID IN THE LAST YEAR. IN ABSENCE OF DETAILE D DISCUSSION ON THE FACTORS WHICH PROMPTED THE LEARNED CIT (A) TO FIX A RMS LENGTH REMUNERATION AS AFORESAID, WE THINK IT FIT TO RESTO RE THE MATTER TO HIS FILE WITH A DIRECTION TO CONSIDER RELEVANT FACTORS AND DECIDE THE ISSUE AFRESH AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES. THUS, GROUND NO. 2 OF THE REVENUE AND GROUND NO. 1 OF THE ASSESSEE ARE TREATED AS ALL OWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. (EMPHASIS OWN) 5. THE APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 40A(2) HAS NOT BE EN CHALLENGED BEFORE THE I.T.A.T. THE TRIBUNAL ONLY CONSIDERED THE QUESTION AS TO WHAT SHOULD BE THE ARMS LENGTH REMUNERATION AND HAD REFERED TO CERTAI N DECISIONS AND HELD AS FOLLOWS: (A) THE REASONABLENESS SHOULD BE JUDGED FROM THE PO INT OF VIEW OF BUSINESS MAN. 8 (B) ORDINARILY, WHEN REMUNERATION PAYABLE TO AN EMP LOYEE / DIRECTOR IS APPROVED BY THE COMPANY LAW BOARD UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, IT SHALL BE CONSIDERED AS REASONABLE . (C) WHETHER A PARTICULAR PAYMENT IS EXCESSIVE OR UN REASONABLE IS ESSENTIALLY A QUESTION OF FACT. (D) THE TRIBUNAL NOTED THAT IN THE CASE OF M/S NEER IEN NINA KAUR GILL, THE REMUNERATION IN QUESTION IS NOT APPROVED BY THE COMPANY LAW BOARD UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, AND HENC E THERE IS NO PRESUMPTION THAT THE SAME IS REASONABLE . 6. THE TRIBUNAL REJECTED THE CRITERIA ADOPTED BY TH E REVENUE, I.E. INCREASE IN TURNOVER FROM LAST YEAR TO THIS YEAR, ON THE GRO UND THAT THE SITUATION CANNOT BE LOOKED INTO ONLY ON THE BASIS OF STATISTICS, BUT THAT IT SHOULD ALSO BE LOOKED AT FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF A BUSINESSMAN. IT ALSO RECORDED THAT M/S NEERIEN NINA KAUR GILL, FROM THE VERY BEGINNING, LOOKED AFT ER IMPORTANT JOBS INCLUDING SALES IN THE COMPANY. THE TRIBUNAL OBSERV ED THAT NO COMPARABLE CASES WERE CITED. FINDING WAS RECORDED THAT THE PHE NOMENAL INCREASE MAY NOT BE JUSTIFIED LOOKING AT THE FAIR MARKET VALUE O F THE SERVICES RENDERED BY THE DIRECTOR OR LEGITIMATE NEEDS OF THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE OR BENEFITS DERIVED THEREFROM. AS THE LD. CIT (A) HAD NOT TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT RELEVANT FACTORS SUCH AS; 9 (A) FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE SERVICES, (B) LEGITIMATE NEEDS OF THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSE E (C) BENEFIT ACCRUING TO THE ASSESSEE, THE MATTER WA S RESTORED THE MATTER TO THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. 7. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSE E AND THE REMAND REPORT BY THE AO THE LD. CIT (A) AT PARA 15 HELD AS FOLLOWS: 15. THERE IS INCREASE IN TURNOVER FROM RS.5.00 CRO RE IN THE AY 2004-05 TO RS.6.5 CRORES IN A.Y. 2005-06. SIMILA RLY THERE IS INCREASE IN REMUNERATION PAID TO MS NEERIEN NINA KA UR GILL FROM RS.15,90,000 IN AY 2004-05 TO RS.50,57,602 IN AY 2005- 06. IT IS A DIFFICULT EXERCISE TO QUANTIFY THE EXTE NT OF INCREASE WHICH IS REASONABLE IN ABSENCE OF ANY COMPARATIVE D ETAILS FURNISHED EITHER BY THE APPELLANT OR THE AO. AS ALR EADY STATED IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE APPELLANT TO PROVE ITS CLAIM TO THE SATISFACTION OF REVENUE AUTHORITIES WHEN A CLAIM IN TERMS OF EXPENDITURE IS MADE. THE SALARY OF ANY KEY PERSONNE L HAS NOT BEEN INCREASED IN SUCH A PHENOMENAL MANNER. AFTER C AREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE, 50% OF THE REMUNERATION PAID IS CONSIDERED REASONABLE AND ALLOWABLE. THE DI SALLOWANCE IS RS.25,28,801/- BEING 50% OF THE REMUNERATION PAI D. RELIEF: RS.25,28,801/- CONFIRMED: RS.25,28,801/- ACCORDINGLY, GROUND NO. 1 OF THE ORIGINAL APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 10 8. AGGRIEVED BOTH THE PARTIES ARE IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 9. WE HAVE HEARD MR. ASHWANI KUMAR THE LD. COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AND MRS. RENUKA JAIN GUPTA THE LD. SR. DR ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE. 10. BOTH THE PARTIES REITERATED THE CONTENTIONS RAI SED BY THEM IN THE FIRST ROUND OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. THE CONTENTIONS RAI SED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A), ARE AT PAGES 78 TO 87 OF TH E PAPER BOOK. THE CONTENTIONS IN BRIEF ARE; (A) M/S NEERIEN NINA KAUR GILL, HAS MORE THAN THREE DECADES OF EXPERIENCE IN THIS LINE OF BUSINESS AND LOOK AFTER ALL DIVISIONS AND ASPECTS OF BUSINESS. (B) SHE IS WELL KNOWN INTERNATIONALLY AND DOMESTICA LLY IN APPAREL DESIGN AND FASHION INDUSTRY AND CIRCLES AND THE REM UNERATION PAID IN COMMENSURATE AND REASONABLE WITH THE MARKET VALUE. (C) DETERMINATION OF EXECUTIVE REMUNERATION IS AN I NTRICATE TASK AND DEPENDS ON MANY ASPECTS (D) THE AO HAS NOT DISPUTED THE FACT OF SERVICES HA VING BEEN RENDERED BY MS.NEERIEN NINA KAUR GILL (E) THE AO HAS WRONGLY ATTEMPTED TO LINK THE INCREA SE IN SALARY COMMENSURATE WITH THE INCREASE OF TURNOVER. 11 (F) THAT THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT OF OBTAINING APPRO VAL OF COMPANY LAW BOARD UNDER THE LAW. (G) RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SATRUNJAY DIAMONDS LTD ., 261 ITR 259. CERTAIN OTHER CASE LAWS WERE ALSO RELIED UPON. (H) THE ENTIRE REMUNERATION PAID TO M/S NEERIEN NIN A KAUR GILL HAS BEEN TAXED IN HER INDIVIDUAL HANDS. 11. THE LD. DR OPPOSE THESE CONTENTIONS, BY RELYING ON THE REASON GIVEN BY THE AO. 12. AFTER CONSIDERING RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE LIMITED SCOPE OF REMAND TO LD. CIT (A) BY THE ITAT WAS TO FIX THE REASONABLE REMUNERATION THAT CAN BE ALLOWED IN THIS CASE. ALL OTHER ARGUMENTS CANNOT BE CONSIDERED US AT THIS STAGE AS THERE ARE NO MORE RE INTEGRA. WE HAVE TO EXAMINE WHETHER THE LD. CIT (A ) HAS CARRIED OUT THE DIRECTION OF THE TRIBUNAL. THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTH ORITY, HELD THAT THE DISALLOWANCE OF 50%, OF THE REMUNERATION CLAIMED AS THE ONLY POSSIBLE SOLUTION, AS THE ASSESSEE HAS IN THIS CASE NOT COME OUT WITH ANY COMPARABLE CASES OR JUSTIFICATION OF THE REMUNERATION CLAIM. I N THE ABSENCE OF ANY MATERIAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AN AD HOC ESTIMATION WAS MADE BY THE LD. CIT (A). THERE IS ALREADY FINDING OF THE TRIBUNAL THAT THE CLAIM IS EXCESSIVE. 12 THERE IS ALSO A FINDING THAT INCREASE IN TURNOVER C ANNOT BE THE SOLE CRITERIA FOR FIXING REMUNERATION. AS NONE OF THE PARTIES HAVE BR OUGHT MATERIAL IN SUPPORT OF THEIR RESPECTIVE CONTENTIONS, THE LD. CIT (A) HA D NO OTHER ALTERNATIVE, BUT TO MAKE AN AD HOC ESTIMATE. HENCE WE UPHOLD THE ORD ER OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY AND DISMISSED THE APPEALS FILED BY THE AS SESSEE, AS WELL THOSE APPEAL WHICH ARE FILED BY THE REVENUE. 13. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE APPEAL ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 27/11/2013. SD/- SD/- (DIVA SINGH ) (J. S. REDDY) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT ME MBER DATED: 27/11/2013 *AK VERMA* COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR