Addl. CIT, Sonepat V. M/s Crystal Phosphate Ltd., Sonepat

ITA 2740/DEL/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 52558 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-08-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 27-05-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MRS SHYAMA S BANSIA
• Assessee Lawyers: GAUTAM JAIN
• Keywords: Charitable institution; TDS; Set aside
• Section: 143(3); 40(a)(ia)

Judgement Text

BEFORE THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH B, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI C.L. SETHI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.C. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.2740/DEL.2011 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09) ADDL. CIT, SONEPAT RANGE, VS. M/S. CRYSTAL PHOSPHAT E LTD., SONEPAT. VILLAGE NATHUPUR, DISTT. SONEPAT. (PAN NO.AABCC1978R) (APELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI GAUTAM JAIN, CA DEPARTMENT BY : MRS. SHYAMA S. BANSIA, DR O R D E R PER B.C. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT (APPEALS), ROHTAK DATED 31.03.2011 FOR THE ASSESSME NT YEAR 2008-09. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL TAKEN BY THE REVENUE ARE AS U NDER :- 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS IN DELETING T HE ADDITION OF RS.1,58,96,413/- WHICH WAS MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF CASH DISCOUNT AMOUNTI NG TO RS.1,58,96,413/- U/S 40(A)(IA). THE ASSESSEE ALLOWE D CASH DISCOUNT AMOUNTING TO RS.1,58,96,413/- TO THE DEALE RS AND SUB-DEALERS FOR PROMOTION OF GOODS AND ASSESSEE FAI LED TO DEDUCT OR COLLECT ANY TAX AT SOURCE ON THIS CASH DI SCOUNT, THEREFORE, PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE A CT WERE APPLICABLE IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. THE DECISIO N OF HONORABLE KERLA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF VODAFONE ESSAR CELLULAR V/S ACIT REPORTED IN 194 TAXMAN 518 IS APPLICABLE IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. ITA NO.2740/DEL/2011 2 2. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.14,91,637/- WHICH WAS M ADE BY THE AO, BY DISALLOWING INTEREST ATTRIBUTABLE TO RS.1,10,49,168/- INVESTED ON CAPITAL WORK IN PROGRE SS OUT OF ITS INTEREST BEARING FUNDS. THE CAPITAL WORK IN PROGRESS HAS NOT BEEN PUT TO USE BY THE ASSESSEE FOR ITS BUS INESS; THEREFORE, INTEREST ATTRIBUTABLE TO THIS INVESTMENT WAS DISALLOWED. 3. THE LD CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS IN DELE TING THE ADDITION OF RS.9,35,784/- WHICH WAS MADE BY THE AO BY DISALLOWING UN-VOUCHED EXPENSES UNDER THE SUB-HE AD LEAKAGE AND WASTAGE AND 'NO JUSTIFICATION/EVIDENCES OF THE EXPENSES CLAIMED UNDER THE SUB HEAD WAS PRODUCED BE FORE THE A.O. 2. THE ASSESSEE IS A PUBLIC LIMITED COMPANY ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING AND SALE OF PESTICIDES, INSECTICID ES AND FERTILIZERS. THE TURNOVER OF THE COMPANY FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDER ATION WAS RS.245.21 CRORES. THE GROSS PROFIT DECLARED DURING THE YEAR WAS @ 19.70% AND THE INCOME WAS RETURNED AT RS.8,50,86,620/-. 3. IN THE GROUND NO.1, THE REVENUE HAS CHALLENGED T HE DELETION OF RS.1,58,96,413/- MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF CASH DISCOUNT U/S 40(A)(IA) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. 4. THE REVENUE IS CONTESTING THAT ASSESSEE HAS ALLO WED CASH DISCOUNT TO THE DEALERS AND SUB-DEALERS FOR PROMOTION OF SAL ES OF GOODS AND THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO DEDUCT OR COLLECT ANY TAX AT SOURCE ON THESE DISCOUNT AMOUNTS. THE REVENUES CONTENTION IS THAT PROVISIO NS OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) ARE APPLICABLE. THE RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE DEC ISION OF HON'BLE KERALA ITA NO.2740/DEL/2011 3 HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF VODAFONE ESSAR CELLULAR V S. ACIT REPORTED IN 194 TAXMAN 518. 5. WHILE PLEADING FOR REVENUE LEARNED DR RELIED ON THE ORDER OF AO AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS GIVING DISCOUNT TO THE DEALERS/SUB- DEALERS. THEY ARE NOT THE ULTIMATE END USER/CUSTOM ERS. HE SUBMITTED THAT THESE DEALERS/SUB-DEALERS FUNCTION FOR ALL PRACTICA L PURPOSES AS AGENT OF THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, THERE EXISTED THE RELATION SHIP OF PRINCIPAL TO AGENT. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS, THERE WAS OBLIGATION ON ASS ESSEE TO DEDUCT TAX AT THE TIME OF PAYMENT WHICH HAS NOT BEEN DONE. FOR N OT MAKING TDS, THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) ARE APPLICABLE. TH EREFORE, ORDER OF CIT (A) DESERVES TO BE SET ASIDE. 6. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEARNED AR SUBMITTED THAT THE COMMISSION OR THE BROKERAGE HAS BEEN DEFINED IN EXPLANATION TO SECTION 194H OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT AND AS PER THIS SECTION, ANY PAYMENT FOR SERVICES RENDERED BY A PERSON ACTING ON BEHALF OF ANOTHER PERSON OR F OR ANY SERVICES IN THE COURSE OF BUYING OR SELLING GOODS OR IN RELATION TO ANY TRANSACTION RELATING TO ANY ASSET, VALUABLE ARTICLE OR THING IS COMMISSI ON OR BROKERAGE. THUS, THE ESSENTIAL PRECONDITION FOR HOLDING ANY SUM TO B E COMMISSION IS THAT SUCH PAYMENT MUST HAVE BEEN FOR SERVICES RENDERED B Y A PERSON ACTING ON BEHALF OF ASSESSEE OR SUCH SERVICES WERE PROVIDED I N THE COURSE OF BUYING OR SELLING OF GOODS OR IN RELATION TO ANY ASSET, VA LUABLE, ARTICLE OR THING OR BY A PERSON ACTING ON BEHALF OF ANOTHER PERSON. T HUS, THE ELEMENT OF ITA NO.2740/DEL/2011 4 AGENCY, I.E. PRINCIPAL AGENT RELATIONSHIP IS AN E SSENTIAL STATUTORY PRECONDITION FOR INVOKING SECTION 194H OF THE INCOM E-TAX ACT. THIS PROPOSITION HAS BEEN HELD BY VARIOUS COURTS INCLUDI NG JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SINGAPORE AIRLINES, 31 9 ITR 29 (DEL.) AND CIT VS. IDEA CELLULAR LTD., 325 ITR 148 (DEL.). HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACT URE AND SALE OF PESTICIDES, INSECTICIDES AND FERTILIZERS AND IN THE COURSE OF BUSINESS, CASH DISCOUNTS WERE ALLOWED TO THE DEALERS/SUB-DEALERS D EPENDING UPON THE PROMPTNESS OF PAYMENT OF THE SALES CONSIDERATION. ALL THE DETAILS WERE SUBMITTED. THE ASSESSEE WAS HAVING 1246 DEALERS/SU B-DEALERS AT VARIOUS PLACES. THESE DEALERS AND SUB-DEALERS DO NOT REPRE SENT THE ASSESSEES COMPANY FOR RENDERING ANY SERVICE THEREFORE, THEY A RE NOT ENTITLED FOR ANY COMMISSION. THE SALE TRANSACTIONS WITH THE DEALERS /SUB-DEALERS ARE DIRECT AND ON THE BASIS AT ARMS LENGTH. THE RELATIONSHI P IS PRINCIPAL TO PRINCIPAL BASIS. FOR THIS PROPOSITION, HE RELIED O N THE DECISION OF BHOPAL SUGAR INDIA LTD. VS. STO REPORTED IN AIR 1977 S 127 5. HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO AGENCY AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND ITS DEALERS/SUB-DEALERS. THESE DEALERS/SUB-DEALERS WER E ONLY ASKED TO FILL UP CUSTOMER APPOINTMENT FORMS BEFORE APPOINTING THEM A S DEALERS/SUB- DEALERS BUT AS PER THE SALES POLICY OF THE COMPANY, NO COMMISSION WAS TO BE PAID TO THE DEALERS/SUB-DEALERS. THE PROPERTY I NCLUDING ALL RISKS AND LIABILITIES ARE TRANSFERRED TO THESE DEALERS/ SUB-D EALERS UPON THE DELIVERY OF ITA NO.2740/DEL/2011 5 THE GOODS BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AND ANY FURTHER D EALING WITH THE GOODS IS ON THE RISK AND AT THE EXPENSES OF THE CON CERNED DEALERS/ SUB- DEALERS. SINCE THESE DEALERS/ SUB-DEALERS NEITHER ACTS ON BEHALF OF ASSESSEE COMPANY NOR RENDERS ANY SERVICES IN THE CO URSE OF BUYING OR SELLING GOODS, THEREFORE, THESE TRANSACTIONS WITH T HESE DEALERS/ SUB-DEALERS ARE NOT COVERED BY THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194H. THE TITLE OF THE GOODS SOLD TO THESE DEALERS/ SUB-DEALERS PASSES ON TO THE M ON THE RAISING OF THE INVOICES OF THE GOODS. HE ALSO RELIED ON VARIOUS D ECISIONS OF ITAT INCLUDING HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT DECISION IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. JAI DRINKS PVT. LTD. IN ITA NO.399/2010 DATED 6.1.2011, ITAT DECISION IN THE CASE OF ADDL. CIT VS. PEARL BOTTLING (P) LTD. I N ITA NO.367/VIZAG/2009 DATED 10.02.2011, SHRI BAIYANATH AYURVED BHAWAN LTD. VS. JCIT 83 TTJ 409 AND ITO VS. MOTHER DAIRY F OOD PROCESSING LTD. IN ITA NO.385/DEL/2010. HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT DIS COUNT IS ABETMENT OF COST AND IS NOT IN THE NATURE OF COMMISSION SO THAT PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194H COMES INTO PLAY. FOR THIS, HE RELIED ON THE D ECISION OF HON'BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF AHMEDABAD STAMP V ENDORS ASSOCIATION VS. UOI 257 ITR 202 (GUJ.), M.S. HAMEED VS. DIRECTOR OF STATE LOTTERIES 249 ITR 186 (KER.), CIT VS. MOVING PICTURE CO. (INDIA) LTD. 20 SOT 120 (DEL.) AND KERALA STATE STAMP VENDO RS ASSOCIATION VS. OFFICE OF THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL AND ORS. 282 ITR 7 (KER.). HE FINALLY SUBMITTED THAT AOS CONTENTION THAT ASSESSEE WAS HA VING PRINCIPAL AGENT ITA NO.2740/DEL/2011 6 RELATIONSHIP IS FACTUALLY AND LEGALLY INCORRECT. T HE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ASSESSEE AND THE DEALERS/ SUB-DEALERS WAS OF PRINCI PAL PRINCIPAL BASIS. HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE CONTENTION OF THE AO THA T PAYMENT WAS MADE FOR PROMOTION OF GOODS IS ALSO FACTUALLY INCORRECT. THERE IS NO SUCH SALE POLICY OF THE COMPANY. THESE CASH DISCOUNTS WERE O NLY FOR PROMPT PAYMENT OF THE GOODS SOLD TO DEALERS/ SUB-DEALERS. HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE DECISION OF CIT VS. IDEA CELLULAR LIMITED REPOR TED IN 325 ITR 148 (DEL.) AND VODAFONE ESSAR CELLULAR LTD. VS. ACIT RE PORTED IN 194 TAXMAN 518 (KAR) HAS NO APPLICABILITY IN THE CASE O F ASSESSEE. THOSE CASES WERE HAVING COMPLETELY DIFFERENT SET OF FACTS THAN THE ASSESSEES CASE. THE IDENTICAL EXPENDITURE HAS BEEN ALLOWED I N THE PRECEDING YEARS WITHOUT INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A)(IA ) READ WITH SECTION 194H OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT. THEREFORE, ON THE GROU ND OF CONSISTENCY ALSO, SUCH DISALLOWANCES WERE NOT CALLED FOR AND FO R THE GROUND OF CONSISTENCY, HE RELIED ON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS : - (I) CIT VS. J.K. CHARITABLE TRUST 308 ITR 161 (SC) ; (II) RADHA SAOMI SATSANG VS. CIT 193 ITR 321 (SC); (III) CIT VS. GIRISH MOHAN GANERIWALIA 260 ITR 417 (P&H) HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT AO HAS ACCEPTED REBATE AND O FF-SEASON DISCOUNT IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE. FINALLY, HE PLEADED THAT NO S UM WAS PAYABLE AT THE END OF THE YEAR. HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT IN MANY O F THE CASES, THE DISCOUNT WAS LESS THAN RS.5,000/-, THEREFORE, OTHER WISE ALSO, THE ITA NO.2740/DEL/2011 7 PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194 H WERE NOT APPLICABLE. H E FINALLY PRAYED TO SUSTAIN THE ORDER OF CIT (A). 7. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES ON THE ISSUE AND AF TER HEARING BOTH THE SIDES, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS SELLING TH E GOODS TO ITS DEALERS/ SUB-DEALERS AT ARMS LENGTH. THESE DEALERS/ SUB-DE ALERS WERE NOT ACTING ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. THE GOODS WERE SOLD TO THESE DEALERS/ SUB- DEALERS ON PRINCIPAL TO PRINCIPAL BASIS. THERE WAS NO AGENCY RELATIONSHIP WITH THEM. FURTHER THESE DEALERS/ SUB-DEALERS HAVE NOT GIVEN ANY SERVICE IN THE COURSE OF BUYING AND SELLING OF THE GOODS. SINCE THE GOODS HAD BEEN SOLD TO THEM AS PRINCIPAL TO PRINCIPAL BASIS A ND THEY WERE NOT ACTING ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, THERE WAS NO AGENCY RELATIONSHIP WITH THEM. AS PER THE POLICY OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY, N O COMMISSION WAS PAYABLE TO THE DEALERS/ SUB-DEALERS FOR PROMOTION O F THE SELLING OF THE GOODS. THIS CASH DISCOUNT WAS FOR THE PROMPT PAYME NT FOR THE GOODS SUPPLIED TO THEM. SUCH DISCOUNTS WERE IN THE FORM OF ABETMENT OF COST AND NOT IN THE NATURE OF COMMISSION, THEREFORE, IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194H ARE NOT APPLICABLE. IN VIEW OF THESE, WE FIND NO FAULT IN THE ORDER OF CIT (A) ON THIS ISSUE AND WE SUSTAIN THE SAME. ACCORDINGLY, THIS GROUND OF REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 8. IN THE GROUND NO.2, THE ISSUE INVOLVED IS DELETI NG THE ADDITION OF RS.14,91,637/- WHICH THE AO HELD BY DISALLOWING INT EREST ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE AMOUNT INVESTED ON THE CAPITAL WORK IN PROGRESS OF RS.1,10,49,168/-. ITA NO.2740/DEL/2011 8 THIS CAPITAL WORK IN PROGRESS HAS NOT BEEN PUT TO U SE FOR ITS BUSINESS DURING THE RELEVANT PERIOD, THEREFORE, INTEREST ATT RIBUTABLE TO THIS INVESTMENT IN CAPITAL WORK IN PROGRESS IS NOT ALLOW ABLE EXPENDITURE. THE LEARNED DR RELIED ON THE ORDER OF AO AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN FRESH INTEREST BEARING LOANS DURING THE YEAR AND HAS ALSO MADE INVESTMENT IN THE CAPITAL WORK IN PROGRESS TO THE T UNE OF RS.1,10,49,168/- AND THESE ASSETS WERE NOT PUT TO USE DURING THE RE LEVANT PERIOD. THEREFORE, INTEREST ATTRIBUTABLE TO THESE INVESTMEN TS DESERVES TO BE DISALLOWED AND CIT (A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN ALLOWING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. 9. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEARNED AR SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS AN OPENING BALANCE IN THE CAPITAL WORK IN PROGRESS. F URTHER THE WORK WAS COMPLETED DURING THE YEAR AND THE ASSET WAS PUT TO USE WHICH IS EVIDENT FROM THE FACT THAT THERE WAS NO CLOSING BALANCE AT THE END OF THE YEAR UNDER THE HEAD CAPITAL WORK IN PROGRESS. THEREFORE , THE AOS OBSERVATIONS THAT THE ASSETS WERE NOT PUT TO USE IS FACTUALLY INCORRECT AND HE ALSO PLEADED THAT THERE IS NO DIRECT NEXUS BETWE EN THE BORROWED FUND AND AMOUNT INVESTED IN WORK IN PROGRESS. THE ASSES SEE WAS HAVING OPENING SHARE CAPITAL TO THE TUNE OF RS.6.57 CRORES AND RESERVES AND SURPLUS OF RS.13.36 CRORES. LD. AR RELIED ON VARIO US JUDGMENTS INCLUDING THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CAS E OF CIT VS. JET AIR PVT. LTD. IN ITA NO.1231 DATED 02.12.2009. ITA NO.2740/DEL/2011 9 10. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES AND AFTER HEARING, WE FIND THAT THERE WAS AN OPENING BALANCE AT THE BEGINNING OF THE YEAR UNDER THE HEAD CAPITAL WORK IN PROGRESS. FURTHER AS PER THE AUDI TED ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE, THERE WAS NO CLOSING BALANCE UNDER THE HE AD CAPITAL WORK IN PROGRESS. THIS SHOWS THAT THE WORK WAS COMPLETED DURING THE RELEVANT YEAR. THE ASSETS WERE READY FOR USE OR USED FOR TH E BUSINESS PURPOSES DURING THE YEAR. SINCE THERE WAS NOTHING UNDER THE HEAD CAPITAL WORK IN PROGRESS, THEREFORE, THERE IS NO QUESTION OF ESTAB LISHING THE NEXUS BETWEEN THE BORROWED FUND AND THE INVESTMENT MADE. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS, WE SUSTAIN THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) ON THIS ISSUE AND DISMISS THIS GROUND OF REVENUES APPEAL. 11. IN THE GROUND NO.3, THE ISSUE INVOLVED IS DELET ING THE ADDITION OF RS.9,35,784/- WHICH HAS BEEN DISALLOWED BY THE AO O N ACCOUNT OF UNVOUCHED EXPENSES UNDER THE SUB-HEAD LEAKAGE AND W ASTAGE. 12. THE AO HAS HELD THAT THE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY T HE ASSESSEE WAS NOT FOUND CONVINCING BECAUSE IT WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY AN Y BILLS/EVIDENCES. THE AO ALSO HELD THAT THE WASTAGE/LEAKAGES WERE DUE TO IMPROPER HANDLING BY THE TRANSPORTERS AND IN THE GODOWNS. T HE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO PRODUCE ANY CONVINCING EXPLANATION AND THE AMOUN T WAS DISALLOWED. 13. THE LEARNED DR RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE AO. 14. THE LEARNED AR SUBMITTED THAT THE LEAKAGES AND WASTAGES ARE PART AND PARTIAL OF THE MANUFACTURING ACTIVITY CARRIED O UT BY THE ASSESSEE ITA NO.2740/DEL/2011 10 COMPANY AND THESE HAVE BEEN ALLOWED IN THE PAST YEA RS. FOR THE AY 2004-05, SUCH EXPENSES WERE 0.02% OF THE TOTAL SALE S AND THE SAME WERE ALLOWED WHILE MAKING THE ORDER U/S 143(3) OF THE IN COME-TAX ACT. WHILE IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION THESE ARE ONLY 0.04 % OF THE SALES. THESE ARE NORMALLY LEAKAGES AND WASTAGES OCCURRED DURING THE NORMAL COURSE OF BUSINESS. DURING THE YEAR, THE GROSS PROFIT HAS AL SO SHOWN INCREASING TREND. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) MAY BE SUSTAINED. 15. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES AND CONSIDERED THE FACTS INVOLVED ON THE ISSUE AND AFTER CONSIDERING THESE FACTS, WE HOL D THAT THE CIT (A) HAS RIGHTLY DELETED THE ADDITION. THESE LEAKAGES AND W ASTAGES DEBITED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT ARE PART AND PARCEL OF MANUFACTURI NG ACTIVITY OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, WE SUSTAIN THE ORDER OF THE C IT (A) AND THIS GROUND OF REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 16. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DIS MISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THE 19 TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2011. SD/- SD/- (C.L. SETHI) (B.C. MEENA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : THE 19 TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2011/TS COPY FORWARDED TO: 1.APPELLANT 2.RESPONDENT 3.CIT 4.CIT (A), ROHTAK. 5.CIT(ITAT), NEW DELHI. AR/ITAT