Om Prakash Bhargava, V. CIT Haldwani,

ITA 2685/DEL/2007

• Counselvise Citation: [2009] 115 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2292 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 6 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-12-2009
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: H
• Next Hearing Date: 24-11-2009
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 28-05-2007
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: V K TIWARI
• Assessee Lawyers: R SANTHAN AM
• Keywords: Reopening of assessment; Business income; Difference of opinion; Assessment record; Change of opinion
• Section: 143(3); 147; 263; 63

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH H NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV AND SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA I.T.A. NO. 2685/DEL/2007 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2003-04 SHRI OM PRAKASH BHARGAVA, VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCO ME-TAX, PROP: BHARGAVA MOTORS, HALDWANI. BAREILLY ROAD, HALDWANI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SHRI R. SANTHANAM, ADV. RESPONDENT BY: SHRI VK TIWARI, CIT(DR) ORDER PER RAJPAL YADAV: JUDICIAL MEMBER AGGRIEVED WITH THE ORDER OF LEARNED COMMISSIONER D ATED 8.3.2007 PASSED UNDER SEC.263 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003- 04, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 2. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE ARE NOT IN CONSONANCE WITH RULE 8 OF THE ITATS RULES, THEY ARE ARGUMENTA TIVE AND DESCRIPTIVE IN NATURE. IN BRIEF, THE SOLITARY GRIEVANCE OF THE ASS ESSEE IS THAT LEARNED COMMISSIONER HAS ERRED IN TAKING ACTION UNDER SEC.2 63 OF THE ACT WHEREBY HE CANCELLED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO FRAME A FRESH ASSESSMENT EXAMINING THE CASE DE NOVO IN TOTO. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSE E IS AN INDIVIDUAL ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF TRADING OF VEHICLES I.E. TRUCKS OF EICHER MOTOR AND 2 MOTOR CYCLE OF M/S. ROYAL ENFIELD LTD. HE HAS FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME ON 30.11.2000 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.9,63,910. A N ASSESSMENT UNDER SEC. 143(3) WAS PASSED ON 3.3.2000 WHEREBY TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN DETERMINED AT RS.10,58,093 AFTER MAKING VARIOU S DISALLOWANCES/ADDITIONS. 4. LEARNED COMMISSIONER ON PERUSAL OF ASSESSMENT RE CORD FOUND THAT ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS.4.76 L ACS ON LAND HOLDING OF 24 BIGHAS, (APPROXIMATELY 4 ACRES). ASSESSING OFFIC ER HAS MADE AN ESTIMATED DISALLOWANCE OF RS.50,000 OUT OF THE ABOVE AGRICULT URAL INCOME ON THE GROUND OF GROSS RECEIPTS NOT BEING VERIFIABLE. IN T HE OPINION OF LEARNED COMMISSIONER, THIS MUCH SMALL LANDHOLDING MAY NOT B E ABLE TO GENERATE AGRICULTURAL INCOME AT RS.4,26,000 AS ACCEPTED BY T HE ASSESSING OFFICER BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT MAINTAINING ANY SEPARA TE DETAILS OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME AND HIS GROSS RECEIPTS ARE NOT VERIFIABLE. T HUS, ACCORDING TO THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER, ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICE R IS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. SIMILAR LY, LEARNED COMMISSIONER FOUND THAT ASSESSEE HAD MADE THE PAYMENT OF COMMISS ION TO HIS DAUGHTER KUMARI MONIKA BHARGAVA AT RS.10,37,000. ASSESSING O FFICER HAS NOT MADE ANY INQUIRY ON THIS ISSUE AND ALLOWED THE COMMISSIO N PAYMENT WITHOUT 3 MAKING ANY DISCUSSION IN THE ORDER. THUS, THIS HAS ALSO MADE THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO T HE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. THE THIRD CIRCUMSTANCE POINTED OUT BY THE LEARNED C OMMISSIONER IS THAT ASSESSING OFFICER HAD SENT REGISTERED LETTER TO SOM E OF THE SUNDRY CREDITORS FOR VERIFICATION. ONE SUCH LETTER WAS SENT THROUGH REGISTERED POST TO M/S. VERMA AGENCY, B/2 ALIGANJ, LUCKNOW. THIS WAS RECEIV ED BACK UNSERVED WITH THE POSTAL REMARKS NOT KNOWN. INSPITE OF THI S FACT, ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT MADE FURTHER INVESTIGATION AND HAS NOT ADDE D THIS AMOUNT IN THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. POINTING OUT THE ABOVE CIRC UMSTANCES, LEARNED COMMISSIONER ISSUED A SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE TO THE ASSE SSEE INVITING HIS EXPLANATION AS TO WHY THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OF FICER BE NOT HELD AS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE RE VENUE AND IT SHOULD NOT BE CANCELLED. IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE OF LEARNED COM MISSIONER, ASSESSEE HAS FILED WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS AND THE SUBMISSIONS MADE ON ISSUE NOS. 1 AND 2 VIDE LETTER DATED 22.3.2007 HAS BEEN REPRODUCED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER IN PARAGRAPH 2.1 AND 3.1 OF THE IMPUGN ED ORDER. LEARNED COMMISSIONER AFTER TAKING COGNIZANCE OF THE ASSESSE ES SUBMISSIONS HAS HELD THAT THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS ERR ONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO 4 THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. HE CANCELLED THE ASSES SMENT ORDER AND DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO FRAME A FRESH ASSESSMENT O RDER. 5. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE WHILE IMPUG NING THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER CONTENDED THAT AS FAR AS THE I SSUE RELATING TO THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME IS CONCERNED, THE ASSESSING OFF ICER HAS VERIFIED THE REGISTER AND THE RELATED VOUCHERS. THE ASSESSEE HAD PRODUCED ALL THESE RECORDS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THEREAFTER HE MADE A DISALLOWANCE OF RS.50,000 ONLY. THIS RECORD CAN BE CALLED FOR FR OM THE ASSESSMENT RECORD. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FURTHER CONTEN DED THAT LEARNED COMMISSIONER HAS MADE A REFERENCE TO AN INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM THE CHIEF AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, PANT NAGAR, EXHIBITING THE MAXIMUM YIELD IN THIS REGION PER ACRE COMES TO ABOUT RS.12000 PER ACRE. T HIS INFORMATION WAS NOT SUPPLIED TO THE ASSESSEE MORE SO IT RELATES TO THE FOOD GRAINS WHEREAS THE ASSESSEE IS RUNNING A NURSERY. IN THE SUBSEQUENT YE AR, LEARNED COMMISSIONER HAS ACCEPTED THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME O F THE NURSERY AT THIS VERY MAGNITUDE AND DEPARTMENT HAS NOT CHALLENGED TH E ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER. HE FURTHER CONTENDED THAT IN ASSESSME NT YEAR 2004-05, LEARNED COMMISSIONER SOUGHT TO REVISE THE ORDER UND ER SEC. 263 BUT SOMEHOW DROPPED THE PROCEEDINGS. IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05, SIMILAR 5 DISALLOWANCE WAS MADE. IT WAS DELETED BY THE LEARNE D CIT(APPEALS) AND THE REVENUE HAS ACCEPTED THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A PPEALS). IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06, ADDITION HAS BEEN DELETED BUT REVENUE HAS CHALLENGED THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS). WITH REGARD TO C OMMISSION PAID TO MS.MONIKA BHARGAVA IS CONCERNED, HE POINTED OUT THA T DAUGHTER OF THE ASSESSEE IS ACTIVELY INVOLVED IN PROMOTION OF THE S ALES OF ASSESSEES BUSINESS. THEREFORE, HE HAS PAID THE COMMISSION REL ATED TO THE SALES TO HIS DAUGHTER. SHE IS AN ASSESSEE AND HAS FILED HER RETU RN OF INCOME. AS FAR AS THE ISSUE RELATING TO THE SUNDRY CREDITORS IS CONCERNED , IF A LETTER SENT TO THE SUNDRY CREDITORS WAS RECEIVED UNSERVED THEN THAT DO ES NOT MEAN THAT THE ENTRY MEANS IN THE BOOKS OF ASSESSEE IS A BOGUS ONE . IT IS FOR THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO MAKE FURTHER INQUIRY. ASSESSING OFFICER MIGHT BE SATISFIED WITH THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE AND DID NOT MAKE AN Y ADDITION. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FURTHER CONTENDED THAT THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS ONE OF THE POSSIBLE VIEW. HE H AS DECIDED THE ISSUE AFTER APPLICATION OF MIND AND, THEREFORE, NO ACTION UNDER SEC. 263 IS REQUIRED AT THE END OF LEARNED COMMISSIONER. IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONT ENTIONS, HE RELIED UPON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS: 1. 243 ITR PAGE 83; 2. 295 ITR PAGE 282; 6 3. 268 ITR PAGE 128; 4. 294 ITR PAGE 310; AND 5. 297 ITR PAGE 441. 6. LEARNED DR ON THE OTHER HAND RELIED UPON THE ORD ER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER. HE PLACED ON RECORD COPIES OF THE ORD ER SHEET ENTRY AND POINTED OUT THAT ON 17.2.2006 WHEN ASSESSEE COULD N OT PRODUCE THE DETAILS IN SUPPORT OF THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME THEN HIS REPRESE NTATIVE AGREED TO ASSESSMENT OF RS.50,000 AS BUSINESS INCOME. HE TOO K US THIS ORDER SHEET ENTRY. SIMILARLY, HE POINTED OUT THAT WITH REGARD T O THE COMMISSION PAID BY THE ASSESSEE, NOT A SINGLE WORD IS DISCUSSED BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER IN HIS ASSESSMENT ORDER. IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTI ON, HE RELIED UPON THE DECISIONS REPORTED IN 86 ITR 439, 304 ITR 363. 7. WE HAVE DULY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AN D GONE THROUGH THE RECORD CAREFULLY. THE ITAT IN THE CASE OF MRS. KH ATIZA S. OOMERBHOY VS. ITO,MUMBAI, 101 TTJ 1095, ANALYZED IN DETAIL VARI OUS AUTHORITATIVE PRONOUNCEMENTS INCLUDING THE DECISION OF HONBLE SU PREME COURT IN THE CASE OF MALABAR INDUSTRIES 243 ITR 83 AS WELL AS H ONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF GABRIEL INDIA LTD. AN D HAS PROPOUNDED THE 7 FOLLOWING BROADER PRINCIPLE TO JUDGE THE ACTION OF CIT TAKEN UNDER SECTION 263. THE FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE WHICH EMERGE FROM THE A BOVE CASES MAY BE SUMMARIZED BELOW (I) THE CIT MUST RECORD SATISFACTION THAT THE ORDE R OF THE A.O IS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. BO TH THE CONDITIONS MUST BE FULFILLED. (II) SEC. 263 CANNOT BE INVOKED TO CORRECT EACH AN D EVERY TYPE OF MISTAKE OR ERROR COMMITTED BY THE A,O AND IT WAS ONLY WHEN AN ORDER IS ERRONEOUS THAT THE SECTION WILL BE ATTRACTED. (III) AN INCORRECT ASSUMPTION OF FACTS OR AN INCOR RECT APPLICATION OF LAW WILL SUFFICE THE REQUIREMENT OF ORDER BEING ERRONEOUS. (IV) IF THE ORDER IS PASSED WITHOUT APPLICATION O F MIND, SUCH ORDER WILL FALL UNDER THE CATEGORY OF ERRONEOUS ORDER. (V) EVERY LOSS OF REVENUE CANNOT BE TREATED AS PRE JUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE AND IF THE A.O HAS ADOPTED ONE OF TH E COURSES PERMISSIBLE UNDER LAW OR WHERE TWO VIEWS ARE POSSIBLE AND THE A.O HAS TAKEN ONE VIEW WITH WHICH THE CIT DOES NOT AGREE, IT CANNOT B E TREATED AS AN ERRONEOUS ORDER, UNLESS THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE A.O I S UNSUSTAINABLE UNDER LAW. (VI) IF WHILE MAKING THE ASSESSMENT, THE A.O EXAMI NES THE ACCOUNTS, MAKES ENQUIRIES, APPLIES HIS MIND TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND DETERMINE THE INCOME, THE CIT, WHILE EXERC ISING HIS POWER UNDER S. 263 IS NOT PERMITTED TO SUBSTITUTE HIS ESTIMATE OF INCOME IN PLACE OF THE INCOME ESTIMATED BY THE A.O. (VII) THE A.O EXERCISES QUASI-JUDICIAL POWER VEST ED IN HIS AND IF HE EXERCISES SUCH POWER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND ARR IVES AT A CONCLUSION, SUCH CONCLUSION CANNOT BE TERMED TO BE ERRONEOUS SI MPLY BECAUSE THE CIT DOES NOT FEEL SATISFIED WITH THE CONCLUSION. (VIII) THE CIT, BEFORE EXERCISING HIS JURISDICTION UNDER S. 263 MUST HAVE MATERIAL ON RECORD TO ARRIVE AT A SATISFACTION. 8 (IX) IF THE A.O HAS MADE ENQUIRIES DURING THE COU RSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ON THE RELEVANT ISSUES AND THE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN DETAILED EXPLANATION BY A LETTER IN WRITING AND THE A.O ALLO WS THE CLAIM ON BEING SATISFIED WITH THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE, THE DECISION OF THE A.O CANNOT BE HELD TO BE ERRONEOUS SIMPLY BECAUSE IN HI S ORDER HE DOES NOT MAKE AN ELABORATE DISCUSSION IN THAT REGARD. 11. IN THE LIGHT OF ABOVE PROPOSITION, IF WE EXAMIN E THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE THEN IF WOULD REVEAL THAT THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER HAS ACCEPTED THE ACCOUNTING ENTRY AS IT IS WITHOUT ANY INQUIRY IN RE SPECT OF COMMISSION PAID BY THE ASSESSEE TO AN INDIVIDUAL WHO IS COVERED UND ER SEC. 40A(2)(B) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. CERTAINLY THIS WOULD MAKE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE RE VENUE IN VIEW OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURTS DECISION IN THE CASE OF MAL ABAR INDUSTRIES REPORTED IN 243 ITR 83 (SUPRA). AS FAR AS THE ISSUE IN RESPE CT OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME IS CONCERNED, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE AN ESTIMA TED DISALLOWANCE OF RS.50,000. ACCORDING TO HIM, THE GROSS RECEIPTS SHO WN BY THE ASSESSEE ARE NOT VERIFIABLE. ON THE ONE HAND, HE MADE THIS OBSER VATION AND ON THE OTHER HAND HE OBSERVED THAT HE HAS VERIFIED THE REGISTER AND RELATED VOUCHERS. BOTH THESE FINDINGS ARE CONTRADICTORY. LEARNED COMMISSIO NER HAS OBSERVED THAT ASSESSEE DID NOT MAINTAIN ANY DETAIL IN RESPECT OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, WE HAVE CONFRONTED TH E LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE TO SHOW US THE MATERIAL, I.E. THE REGISTER AND VOUCHER WHICH HAS 9 BEEN REFERRED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ORDER FOR DISLODGING THE FINDINGS OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER THAT NO DETAIL S ARE MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE, BUT THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS EXPRESSED HIS INABILITY AND SUBMITTED THAT ALL SUCH DETAILS ARE ON THE ASSE SSMENT RECORD. LEARNED DR HAS CALLED FOR THE RECORD AND POINTED OUT THAT NO S UCH DETAILS ARE ON THE RECORD. IN SUCH SITUATION, WE ARE OF THE OPINION TH AT LEARNED COMMISSIONER HAS MADE THE OBSERVATIONS AFTER VERIFICATION OF THE RECORD AND THESE OBSERVATIONS ARE NOT DISPROVED BY THE LEARNED COUNS EL FOR THE ASSESSEE. ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT DECIDED THE ISSUE LOGICAL LY RATHER HE HAS RECORDED CONTRADICTORY FINDING. IN SUCH SITUATION, HIS ORDER CAN RIGHTLY BE TREATED AS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE RE VENUE. 12. AS FAR AS THE THIRD ISSUE IN RESPECT OF SUNDRY CREDITS IS CONCERNED, AGAIN THERE IS NO DISCUSSION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. WE COULD HAVE UNDERSTOOD THAT IF ANY SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE IN RESPECT OF THESE ISSUES WERE ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND ASSESSEE HAS FI LED DETAILED SUBMISSIONS, THOSE SUBMISSIONS WERE CONSIDERED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THEREAFTER HE ACCEPTED THE STAND OF THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT MAKIN G ANY DISCUSSION IN THE ORDER BUT LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AT THE T IME OF HEARING WAS UNABLE TO DEMONSTRATE BEFORE US THIS POSITION. AS FAR AS T HE CASE LAWS RELIED UPON BY 10 THE ASSESSEE ARE CONCERNED, WE FIND THAT THE FACTS ARE QUITE DISTINGUISHABLE IN THOSE CASES VIS--VIS THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. WE HAVE ALREADY MADE A DISCUSSION ABOUT THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE SUPREM E COURT IN THE CASE OF MALABAR INDUSTRIES (SUPRA). THE NEXT CASE RELIED UP ON BY THE ASSESSEE IS 295 ITR PAGE 282 IN THE CASE OF CIT LUDIANA VS. MAX IND IA LTD. IN THIS CASE, LEARNED COMMISSIONER SOUGHT TO TAKE ACTION UNDER SE C. 263 OF THE ACT ON THE BASIS OF COMPUTATION OF DEDUCTION AVAILABLE UND ER SEC. 80-HHC. ACCORDING TO THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER, SUCH COMPUTA TION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. HO N'BLE SUPREME COURT HAS OBSERVED THAT COMPUTATION OF DEDUCTION ADMISSIBLE U NDER SEC. 80-HHC HAS BECOME SO COMPLICATED OVER THE YEARS AND TWO VIEWS WERE INHERENTLY POSSIBLE. THEREFORE, NO ACTION UNDER SEC. 263 IS AD VISEABLE. NO SUCH FACTS ARE IN THE PRESENT CASE. THE NEXT CASE RELIED UPON BY T HE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE IS OF HON'BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT AND AGAIN IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MAX INDIA LTD. REPORTED IN 268 ITR 128. THI S IS THE CASE WHICH TRAVELED TO THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT AND DISCUSSED IN THE PRECEDING PARAGRAPHS. THE NEXT CASE LAW RELIED UPON BY THE AS SESSEE IS THE DECISION OF HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. EIC HER LTD. 294 ITR 310. THIS CASE RELATES TO REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT UNDER SEC. 147 OF THE ACT. THE 11 ISSUE BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT WAS THAT WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE FULL AND TRUE DISCLOSURE OF ALL MATERIAL FACT AND A SSESSING OFFICER, WHILE PASSING ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER, CHOSE NOT TO GIV E ANY FINDING IN REGARD TO A PARTICULAR ISSUE AND LATER ON TOOK A DIFFERENT VI EW ON THE SAME FACTS THEN IT WILL AMOUNT TO CHANGE OF OPINION AND SAME COULD NOT FORM BASIS FOR ASSESSING OFFICER TO REOPEN THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SE C. 147 OF THE ACT. TO OUR MIND, THIS DECISION IS ALTOGETHER FOR A DIFFERENT P ROPOSITION AND NO BENEFIT CAN BE DRAWN BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE FACTS AND CIRCU MSTANCES DISCUSSED ABOVE. TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION ALL THE FACTS AND CIRCUMS TANCES, WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THIS APPEAL. IT IS DISMISSED. 13. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. DECISION PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON .12 .2009 ( SHAMIM YAHYA ) ( RAJPAL Y ADAV ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: /12/2009 MOHAN LAL COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR:ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR