JCIT (OSD), New Delhi V. M/s. Surya Food & Agro (P) Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 230/DEL/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 58920 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-03-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 13-01-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S MOHANTYDR
• Assessee Lawyers: SATYAM SETHI; AT PANDA ARS
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice; Earning of tax free income; Retrospective amendment
• Section: 14A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI G BENC H BEFORE SMT.DIVA SINGH, JM & SHRI A.N. PAHUJA, AM ITA NO.2 30/D/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2008-09 JCIT(OSD), CIRCLE 9(1), ROOM NO. 163,CR BUILDING,IP ESTATE, NEW DELHI V/S . M/S SURYA FOOD & AGRO (P) LTD.,E-67,LGF,GREATER KAILASH-III,MASJID MOTH, NEW DELHI [PAN:A AA C S3026P ] ASSESSEE BY SHRI SATYAM SETHI & AT PANDA, ARS REVENUE BY SMT. S MOHANTY,DR DATE OF HEARING 15-03-2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 23-03-2012 O R D E R A.N.PAHUJA:- THIS APPEAL FILED ON 13 TH JANUARY, 2012 BY THE REVENUE AGAINST AN ORDER DATED 3RD OCTOBER, 2011 OF THE LD. CIT(A)- XII, NEW DELHI, RAISES THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- 1 THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON THE FACTS O F THE CASE IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO U/S 14A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT READ WITH RULE 8D(II) OF THE INCOME TAX RULES. 2 THE APPELLANT CRAVES TO AMEND, MODIFY, ALTER, AD D, OR FOREGO ANY GROUND OF APPEAL AT ANY TIME BEFORE OR DURING THE HEARING OF THIS APPEAL 2. ADVERTING FIRST TO GROUND NO.1 IN THE APPEAL , F ACTS, IN BRIEF, AS PER RELEVANT ORDERS ARE THAT RETURN DECLARING INCOME OF ` ` 11,49,99,142/- FILED ON 30.9.2008 BY THE ASSESSEE, MANUFACTURING BISCUITS, PRINTED LAMINATES ROLLS & CORRUGATED BOXES, WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY WITH THE SERVICE O F A NOTICE U/S 143(2) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT,1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT). DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER (A.O. IN SHORT) NOTICED, INTER ALIA, THAT THE ASSESSEE INVESTED SUM OF ` 13,30,00,000/- IN EQUITY SHARES OF VARIOUS I.T.A. NO.230/DEL./2012 2 COMPANIES FOR EARNING DIVING INCOME FROM THE AFORES AID INVESTMENTS. ACCORDINGLY, THE LD. AO INVOKED PROVISIONS OF SEC. 14A OF THE ACT READ WITH RULE 8D OF THE IT RULES,1962 AND DISALLOWED AN AMOUNT OF ` 15,24,320/-,RELYING INTER ALIA, ON THE DECISIONS IN ITO VS. DAGA CAPITAL MANA GEMENT (P) LTD.,117 ITD 169(MUMBAI)(SB) AND DECISION DATED 5.8.2009 IN CHE MINVEST LTD. VS. ITO,317 ITR(AT) 86(DELHI) . 3. ON APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(A) MERELY ACCEPTED THE SU BMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND RESTRICTED THE DISALLOWANCE TO ` 5,50,576/- IN THE FOLLOWING TERMS: I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS FACTS STATED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ASSESS MENT ORDER ALONG WITH CASE LAWS CITED BY THE AO. THE DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A IS R ESTRICTED TO ` 5,50,576/- AND FOR THE BALANCE ASSESSEE GETS RELIEF. 4. THE REVENUE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE US AGAI NST THE AFORESAID CONCLUSION OF THE LD. CIT(A).AT THE OUT SET, THE LD. DR WHILE INVITING OUR ATTENTION TO THE IMPUGNED ORDER CONTENDED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) DID N OT RECORD HIS SPECIFIC FINDINGS ON THE ISSUE AND ARGUED THAT THE ISSUE IS REQUIRED TO BE RE-ADJUDICATED IN TERMS OF DECISION DATED 18.11.2011 OF THE HONBLE JURISDI CTIONAL HIGH COURT IN MAXOPP INVESTMENT LTD. VS. CIT,[2011] 15 TAXMANN.COM 390 ( DELHI).ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. AR ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE WHILE CARRYING US THROUGH THE BALANCESHEET OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. C IT(A). 5. . WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND GONE THRO UGH THE FACTS OF THE CASE AS ALSO THE AFORESAID DECISION RELIED U PON BY THE LD. DR. A MERE GLANCE AT THE IMPUGNED ORDER REVEALS THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IS CRYPTIC AND GROSSLY VIOLATIVE OF ONE OF THE FACETS OF THE RULES OF NATURAL JUSTICE, NAMELY, THAT EVERY JUDICI AL/QUASI-JUDICIAL BODY/AUTHORITY MUST PASS REASONED ORDER, WHICH SHOU LD REFLECT APPLICATION OF MIND BY THE CONCERNED AUTHORITY TO T HE ISSUES/POINTS I.T.A. NO.230/DEL./2012 3 RAISED BEFORE IT. THE APPLICATION OF MIND TO THE MA TERIAL FACTS AND THE ARGUMENTS SHOULD MANIFEST ITSELF IN THE ORDER. SECTION 250(6) OF THE ACT MANDATES THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) WHIL E DISPOSING OF THE APPEAL SHALL BE IN WRITING AND SHALL STATE THE POIN TS FOR DETERMINATION, THE DECISION THEREON AND THE REASONS FOR THE DECISION. THE REQUIREMENT OF RECORDING OF REASONS A ND COMMUNICATION THEREOF BY THE QUASI-JUDICIAL AUTHORI TIES HAS BEEN READ AS AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE CONCEPT OF FAIR PRO CEDURE AND IS AN IMPORTANT SAFEGUARD TO ENSURE OBSERVANCE OF THE RUL E OF LAW. IT INTRODUCES CLARITY, CHECKS THE INTRODUCTION OF EXTR ANEOUS OR IRRELEVANT CONSIDERATIONS AND MINIMIZES ARBITRARINE SS IN THE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS. HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIG H COURT IN THEIR DECISION IN VODAFONE ESSAR LTD. VS. DRP,196 TAXMAN423(DELHI) HELD THAT WHEN A QUASI JUDICIAL AUTHORITY DEALS WITH A LIS, IT IS OBLIGATORY ON IT S PART TO ASCRIBE COGENT AND GERMANE REASONS AS THE SAME IS THE HEART AND SOUL O F THE MATTER AND FURTHER, THE SAME ALSO FACILITATES APPRECIATION WHEN THE ORDER I S CALLED IN QUESTION BEFORE THE SUPERIOR FORUM. WE MAY POINT OUT THAT A DECISION DOES NOT MERELY MEAN THE CONCLUSION. IT EMBRACES WITHIN ITS FOLD THE REASONS FORMING BASIS FOR THE CONCLUSION.[MUKHTIAR SINGH VS . STATE OF PUNJAB,(1995)1SCC 760(SC)]. 5.1. WE FIND THAT HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF GODREJ & BOYCE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LTD. (SUPRA) WHILE ADJUDICAT ING A SIMILAR ISSUE IN THE CONTEXT OF PROVISIONS OF SEC. 14A OF THE ACT AN D RULE 8D OF THE IT RULES,1962 CONCLUDED THAT RULE 8D, INSERTED W.E .F 24.3.2008 CANNOT BE REGARDED AS RETROSPECTIVE BECAUSE IT ENAC TS AN ARTIFICIAL METHOD OF ESTIMATING EXPENDITURE RELATABLE TO TAX-F REE INCOME. IT APPLIES ONLY W.E.F AY 2008-09. FOR THE ASSESSMENT Y EARS WHERE RULE 8D DOES NOT APPLY, THE AO WILL HAVE TO DETERMI NE THE QUANTUM OF DISALLOWABLE EXPENDITURE BY A REASONABLE METHOD HAVING REGARD I.T.A. NO.230/DEL./2012 4 TO ALL THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, THE HONBLE HIG H COURT CONCLUDED. 5.2 WE FIND THAT HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THEIR DECISION DATED 6.7.2010 IN CIT V. WALFORT SHARE & STOCK BRO KERS (P.) LTD.,326 ITR 1, INTER ALIA, OBSERVED THAT FOR ATTRA CTING SECTION 14A OF THE ACT THERE HAS TO BE A PROXIMATE CAUSE FOR DIS ALLOWANCE, WHICH IS ITS RELATIONSHIP WITH THE TAX EXEMPT INCOME. HON BLE APEX COURT OBSERVED IN THE CONTEXT OF PROVISIONS SEC.14A OF T HE ACT IN THE FOLLOWING TERMS: 17. THE INSERTION OF SECTION 14A WITH RETROSPECTIV E EFFECT IS THE SERIOUS ATTEMPT ON THE PART OF THE PARLIAMENT NOT TO ALLOW DEDUCTION IN RESPECT OF ANY EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE ASSES SEE IN RELATION TO INCOME, WHICH DOES NOT FORM PART OF THE TOTAL INCOM E UNDER THE ACT AGAINST THE TAXABLE INCOME (SEE CIRCULAR NO. 14 OF 2001, DATED 22- 11-2001). IN OTHER WORDS, SECTION 14A CLARIFIES THA T EXPENSES INCURRED CAN BE ALLOWED ONLY TO THE EXTENT THEY ARE RELATABLE TO THE EARNING OF TAXABLE INCOME. IN MANY CASES THE NATURE OF EXPENSES INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE MAY BE RELATABLE PARTLY TO THE EXEMPT INCOME AND PARTLY TO THE TAXABLE INCOME. IN THE ABS ENCE OF SECTION 14A, THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED IN RESPECT OF EXEMPT INCOME WAS BEING CLAIMED AGAINST TAXABLE INCOME. THE MANDATE O F SECTION 14A IS CLEAR. IT DESIRES TO CURB THE PRACTICE TO CLAIM DEDUCTION OF EXPENSES INCURRED IN RELATION TO EXEMPT INCOME AGAI NST TAXABLE INCOME AND AT THE SAME TIME AVAIL THE TAX INCENTIVE BY WAY OF EXEMPTION OF EXEMPT INCOME WITHOUT MAKING ANY APPOR TIONMENT OF EXPENSES INCURRED IN RELATION TO EXEMPT INCOME. THE BASIC REASON FOR INSERTION OF SECTION 14A IS THAT CERTAIN INCOME S ARE NOT INCLUDIBLE WHILE COMPUTING TOTAL INCOME AS THESE ARE EXEMPT UN DER CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. IN THE PAST, THERE HAVE BEEN CASES IN WHICH DEDUCTION HAS BEEN SOUGHT IN RESPECT OF SUCH INCOME S WHICH IN EFFECT WOULD MEAN THAT TAX INCENTIVES TO CERTAIN IN COMES WAS BEING USED TO REDUCE THE TAX PAYABLE ON THE NON-EXEMPT IN COME BY DEBITING THE EXPENSES, INCURRED TO EARN THE EXEMPT INCOME, AGAINST TAXABLE INCOME. THE BASIC PRINCIPLE OF TAXATION IS TO TAX THE NET INCOME, I.E., GROSS INCOME MINUS THE EXPENDITURE. O N THE SAME ANALOGY THE EXEMPTION IS ALSO IN RESPECT OF NET INC OME. EXPENSES ALLOWED CAN ONLY BE IN RESPECT OF EARNING OF TAXABL E INCOME. THIS IS THE PURPORT OF SECTION 14A. IN SECTION 14A, THE FIR ST PHRASE IS 'FOR THE PURPOSES OF COMPUTING THE TOTAL INCOME UNDER THIS C HAPTER' WHICH I.T.A. NO.230/DEL./2012 5 MAKES IT CLEAR THAT VARIOUS HEADS OF INCOME AS PRES CRIBED UNDER CHAPTER IV WOULD FALL WITHIN SECTION 14A. THE NEXT PHRASE IS, 'IN RELATION TO INCOME WHICH DOES NOT FORM PART OF TOTA L INCOME UNDER THE ACT'. IT MEANS THAT IF AN INCOME DOES NOT FORM PART OF TOTAL INCOME, THEN THE RELATED EXPENDITURE IS OUTSIDE THE AMBIT OF THE APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 14A. FURTHER, SECTION 14 S PECIFIES FIVE HEADS OF INCOME WHICH ARE CHARGEABLE TO TAX. IN ORDER TO BE CHARGEABLE, AN INCOME HAS TO BE BROUGHT UNDER ONE OF THE FIVE HEAD S. SECTIONS 15 TO 59 LAY DOWN THE RULES FOR COMPUTING INCOME FOR T HE PURPOSE OF CHARGEABILITY TO TAX UNDER THOSE HEADS. SECTIONS 15 TO 59 QUANTIFY THE TOTAL INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX. THE PERMISSIBLE DEDUCTIONS ENUMERATED IN SECTIONS 15 TO 59 ARE NOW TO BE ALLOW ED ONLY WITH, REFERENCE TO INCOME WHICH IS BROUGHT UNDER ONE OF T HE ABOVE HEADS AND IS CHARGEABLE TO TAX. IF AN INCOME LIKE DIVIDEN D INCOME IS NOT A PART OF THE TOTAL INCOME, THE EXPENDITURE/DEDUCTION THOUGH OF THE NATURE SPECIFIED IN SECTIONS 15 TO 59 BUT RELATED T O THE INCOME NOT FORMING PART OF TOTAL INCOME COULD NOT BE ALLOWED A GAINST OTHER INCOME INCLUDIBLE IN THE TOTAL INCOME FOR THE PURPO SE OF CHARGEABILITY TO TAX. THE THEORY OF APPORTIONMENT OF EXPENDITURES BETWEEN TAXABLE AND NON-TAXABLE HAS, IN PRINCIPLE, BEEN NOW WIDENED UNDER SECTION 14A. READING SECTION 14 IN JUXTAPOSITION WITH SECT IONS 15 TO 59, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE WORDS 'EXPENDITURE INCURRED' IN SECT ION 14A REFERS TO EXPENDITURE ON RENT, TAXES, SALARIES, INTEREST, ETC . IN RESPECT OF WHICH ALLOWANCES ARE PROVIDED FOR (SEE SECTIONS 30 TO 37) 5.3 HONBLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE IR DECISION IN CIT VS. HERO CYCLES LTD.,323 ITR 518 HAVE OBSERVED THAT DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14A REQUIRES FINDING OF INCURRING OF EXPENDITURE AND WHERE IT IS FOUND THAT FOR EARNING EXEMPTED INCOME NO EXPENDITURE HAS BEEN INCURRED, DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14A C ANNOT STAND. 5.4 IN THE LIGHT OF VIEW TAKEN IN THE AFORESAID DECISIONS, HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN A RECENT DECISION DATED 18.11.2011 IN MAXOPP INVESTMENT LTD. VS. CIT,[2011] 15 TAXMANN.COM 390 (DELHI) HELD AS UNDE R: 35. WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT RULE 8D WOULD OPERATE PROS PECTIVELY. WE AGREE WITH THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY DR RAKESH GUPTA THAT I F THE SAID RULE WERE TO HAVE RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT, NOTHING PREVENTED THE CE NTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES FROM SAYING SO, PARTICULARLY, IN VIEW OF THE FACT T HAT IT HAD THE POWER TO MAKE A RULE RETROSPECTIVE BY VIRTUE OF SECTION 295(4) OF T HE SAID ACT. INSTEAD OF MAKING RULE 8D RETROSPECTIVE, CLAUSE 1(2) OF THE INCOME-TA X (FIFTH AMENDMENT) RULES, I.T.A. NO.230/DEL./2012 6 2008 MADE IT CLEAR THAT THE RULES WOULD COME INTO F ORCE FROM THE DATE OF THEIR PUBLICATION IN THE OFFICIAL GAZETTE. IT IS, THEREFO RE, CLEAR THAT RULE 8D, WHICH WAS INTRODUCED BY VIRTUE OF THE NOTIFICATION NO.45/2008 DATED 24.03.2008, WAS PROSPECTIVE IN OPERATION AND CANNOT BE REGARDED AS BEING RETROSPECTIVE. WE MAY ALSO POINT OUT THAT WE HAVE HAD THE BENEFIT OF THE DECISION OF THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN GODREJ & BOYCE MFG. CO. LTD. V DY. CIT [20 10] 328 ITR 81 / 194 TAXMAN 203 , WHEREIN IT HAS, INTER ALIA, BEEN HELD THAT THE PR OVISIONS OF RULE 8D OF THE SAID RULES HAS PROSPECTIVE EFFECT AND SHALL APPLY WITH E FFECT FROM ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 ONWARDS. 36. INSOFAR AS SUB-SECTIONS (2) AND (3) OF SECTION 14A ARE CONCERNED, THEY HAVE ALSO BEEN INTRODUCED BY VIRTUE OF THE FINANCE ACT, 2006 WITH EFFECT FROM 01.04.2007. THIS IS APPARENT, FIRST OF ALL, FROM TH E NOTES ON CLAUSES OF THE FINANCE BILL, 2006 [REPORTED IN 281 ITR (ST) AT PAG ES 139-140]. THE SAID NOTES ON CLAUSES REFERS TO CLAUSE 7 OF THE BILL WHICH HAD SOUGHT TO AMEND SECTION 14A OF THE SAID ACT. IT IS SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED IN TH E SAID NOTES ON CLAUSES THAT:- 'THIS AMENDMENT WILL TAKE EFFECT FROM 1ST APRIL, 20 07 AND WILL, ACCORDINGLY, APPLY IN RELATION TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 AN D SUBSEQUENT YEARS.' 37. FURTHERMORE, IN THE MEMORANDUM EXPLAINING THE PROV ISIONS IN THE FINANCE BILL, 2006 [281 ITR (ST) AT PAGES 281-281], IT IS O NCE AGAIN STATED WITH REFERENCE TO CLAUSE 7 WHICH PERTAINS TO THE AMENDMENT TO SECT ION 14A OF THE SAID ACT THAT:- 'THIS AMENDMENT WILL TAKE EFFECT FROM 1ST APRIL, 20 07 AND WILL, ACCORDINGLY, APPLY IN RELATION TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 AN D SUBSEQUENT YEARS.' 38. WE MAY ALSO REFER TO THE CBDT CIRCULAR NO.14/2006 DATED 28.12.2006 AND TO PARAGRAPHS 11 TO 11.3 THEREOF. PARAGRAPH 11 DEALT W ITH THE METHOD FOR ALLOCATING EXPENDITURE IN RELATION TO EXEMPT INCOME AND PARAGR APHS 11.1 AND 11.2 EXPLAINED THE BASIS AND LOGIC BEHIND THE INTRODUCTI ON OF SUB-SECTION (2) OF SECTION 14A OF THE SAID ACT. PARAGRAPH 11.3 SPECIFICALLY PR OVIDED FOR APPLICABILITY OF THE PROVISIONS OF SUBSECTION (2) AND IT CLEARLY INDICAT ED THAT IT WOULD BE APPLICABLE 'FROM THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 ONWARDS'. 39. IT IS, THEREFORE, CLEAR THAT SUB-SECTIONS (2) AND (3) OF SECTION 14A WERE INTRODUCED WITH PROSPECTIVE EFFECT FROM THE ASSESSM ENT YEAR 2007-08 ONWARDS. HOWEVER, SUB-SECTION (2) OF SECTION 14A REMAINED AN EMPTY SHELL UNTIL THE INTRODUCTION OF RULE 8D ON 24.03.2008 WHICH GAVE CO NTENT TO THE EXPRESSION 'SUCH METHOD AS MAY BE PRESCRIBED' APPEARING IN SEC TION 14A(2) OF THE SAID ACT. 40. FROM THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, IT IS CLEAR THAT, IN EF FECT, THE PROVISIONS OF SUB SECTIONS (2) AND (3) OF SECTION 14A WOULD BE WORKAB LE ONLY WITH EFFECT FROM THE DATE OF INTRODUCTION OF RULE 8D. THIS IS SO BECAUSE PRIOR TO THAT DATE, THERE WAS NO PRESCRIBED METHOD AND SUB-SECTIONS (2) AND (3) O F SECTION 14A REMAINED UNWORKABLE. 6.. AS ALREADY OBSERVED, THE IMPUGNED ORDER SUFF ERS FROM LACK OF REASONING AND IS NOT A SPEAKING ORDER ON THE ISS UE BEFORE US. IN I.T.A. NO.230/DEL./2012 7 VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, ESPECIALLY WHEN THE LD. CIT( A) HAVE NOT PASSED A SPEAKING ORDER ON THE ISSUE RAISED IN THI S APPEAL BEFORE US NOR HAD THE BENEFIT OF AFORESAID DECISION OF TH E HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT, WE CONSIDER IT FAIR AND APPROPRIATE TO SET A SIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND RESTORE THE MATTER TO HIS FILE F OR DECIDING THE AFORESAID ISSUE, AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW IN THE LIGHT OF AFORESAID JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENT OF THE HONBLE JUR ISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT, AFTER ALLOWING SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY TO BOT H THE PARTIES. NEEDLESS TO SAY THAT WHILE REDECIDING THE APPEAL, T HE LD. CIT(A) SHALL PASS A SPEAKING ORDER, KEEPING IN MIND, INTER ALIA, THE MANDATE OF PROVISIONS OF SEC. 250(6) OF THE ACT. WITH THES E OBSERVATIONS, GROUND NO. 1 IN THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISPOS ED OF. 7. NO ADDITIONAL GROUND HAVING BEEN RAISED BEFORE U S IN TERM OF RESIDUARY GROUND NO.2 IN THE APPEAL , ACCORDINGLY, THIS GROUND IS DISMISSED. 8. NO OTHER PLEA OR ARGUMENT WAS MADE BEFORE US. 9. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL IS ALLOWED BUT FOR S TATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT SD/- SD/- (DIVA SINGH) (A.N. PAH UJA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER NS COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO :- 1. M/S SURYA FOOD & AGRO (P) LTD.,E-67,LGF,GREATER KAILAS- III,MASJID MOTH,NEW DELHI. 2. JCIT(OSD). CIRCLE 9(1), ROOM NO. 163,CR BUILDIN G,IP ESTATE, NEW DELHI. 3. CIT (APPEALS)-XII, NEW DELHI 4. THE CIT CONCERNED. 5. THE DR, ITAT,G BENCH, NEW DELHI 6. GUARD FILE. TRUE COPY BY ORDER, I.T.A. NO.230/DEL./2012 8 DEPUTY / ASSTT.REGISTRAR ITAT, DELHI