ACIT, New Delhi V. M/s International Panacea Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 2839/DEL/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 52529 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-08-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 03-08-2011
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 07-06-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 143(3); 153A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH C, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI I.P. BANSAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI K.G. BANSAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOS. 2838 TO 2841/DEL/2010 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2002-03 TO 2005-06 ACIT, VS. INTERNATIONAL PANACEA LTD., CENTRAL CIRCLE 8, E-34/2 ND FLOOR, ROOM NO. 356, CONNAUGHT CIRCUS, 3 RD FLOOR, ARA CENTRE, NEW DELHI. JHANDEWALAN EXTN., AAAC12322L NEW DELHI. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI KAPIL GOEL, ADV. ORDER PER BENCH : ALL THESE APPEALS ARE FILED BY THE REVENUE. THEY ARE DIRECTED AGAINST FOUR SEPARATE ORDERS PASSED BY LD. CIT(A) DATED 30.03.2010 IN RESPECT OF ASSESSMENT YEARS 200 2-03 TO 2005-06. 2. IMPUGNED ASSESSMENTS HAVE BEEN FRAMED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 143(3)/153A OF THE INCOME TAX AC T, 1961 ITA NOS. 2838 TO 2841/D/2010 2 (ACT) IN PURSUANCE OF SEARCH CONDUCTED ON 24.01.200 7 IN M2K GROUP OF COMPANIES. THE RETURNS WERE FILED IN RESP ONSE TO NOTICES ISSUED BY THE DEPARTMENT AND THE ASSESSMENT S HAVE BEEN FRAMED BY SEPARATE ORDERS DATED 31.12.2008. G ROUNDS OF APPEAL FOR RESPECTIVE ASSESSMENT YEARS READ AS U NDER: - GROUNDS OF APPEAL FOR A.Y. 2002-03 : 1(A) ON THE FACTS AND UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING ADDITION OF RS. 5 LAKHS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF TRAVELING EXPENSES. 1(B) ON THE FACTS AND UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED ION DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 5 LAKHS MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF SELLING & DISTRIBUTION EXPENSE. 1(C) IN HOLDING THAT SELLING & DISTRIBUTION EXPENS ES AS CLAIMED WAS GENUINE AND INCURRED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS. 2. THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IS ERRONEOUS AND NOT TENABLE IN LAW AND ON FACTS. 3. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER OR AMEND ANY/ALL OF THE GROUND OF APPEAL BEFORE OR DURING THE COURSE OF THE HEARING OF THE APPEAL. GROUNDS OF APPEAL FOR A.Y. 2003-04 : 1(A) ON THE FACTS AND UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING ADDITION OF RS. 20 LAKHS MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF SELLING & DISTRIBUTION EXPENSE. ITA NOS. 2838 TO 2841/D/2010 3 1(B) IN HOLDING THAT SELLING AND DISTRIBUTION EXPEN SES AS CLAIMED WAS GENUINE AND INCURRED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS. 2. THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IS ERRONEOUS AND NOT TENABLE IN LAW AND ON FACTS. 3. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER OR AMEND ANY/ALL OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE OR DURING THE COURSE OF THE HEARING OF THE APPEAL. GROUNDS OF APPEAL FOR A.Y. 2004-05 : 1(A) ON THE FACTS AND UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 10 LAKHS MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF TRAVELING EXPENSE. 1(B) IN HOLDING THAT SELLING & DISTRIBUTION EXPENSE AS CLAIMED WAS GENUINE AND INCURRED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS. 2. THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IS ERRONEOUS AND NOT TENABLE IN LAW AND ON FACTS. 3. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER OR AMEND ANY/ALL OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE OR DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL. GROUNDS OF APPEAL FOR A.Y. 2005-06 : 1(A) ON THE FACTS AND UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 10 LAKHS MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF SELLING & DISTRIBUTION EXPENSE. ITA NOS. 2838 TO 2841/D/2010 4 1(B) IN HOLDING THAT SELLING & DISTRIBUTION EXPENSE S AS CLAIMED WAS GENUINE AND INCURRED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS. 2. THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IS ERRONEOUS AND NOT TENABLE IN LAW AND ON FACTS. 3. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER OR AMEND ANY/ALL OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE OR DURING THE COURSE OF THE HEARING OF THE APPEAL. 3. AS IT CAN BE SEEN FROM THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL THE GRIEVANCE OF THE REVENUE IN RESPECT OF ALL THE FOU R YEARS IS EITHER REGARDING DISALLOWANCES DELETED BY CIT(A) WI TH REGARD TO TRAVELING AND SALE & DISTRIBUTION EXPENSES OR EI THER OF THEM. THESE APPEALS WERE CUMULATIVELY ARGUED BY THE LD. A R, HENCE, FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE THESE APPEALS AR E BEING DISPOSED OF BY THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER. 4. AT THE OUTSET, IT MAY BE MENTIONED HERE THAT LD. CIT(DR) WHO WAS TO REPRESENT THESE APPEALS HAD PLACED ON RE CORD AND ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION DATED 3 RD AUGUST, 2011 ASKING THE ADJOURNMENT OF ALL THESE APPEALS ON THE GROUND SOM E MORE TIME IS REQUIRED. HOWEVER, LD. CIT(DR) WAS NOT PR ESENT IN THE BENCH THROUGH OUT THE HEARING CONDUCTED BY THE BENC H AND ITA NOS. 2838 TO 2841/D/2010 5 LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE EXPRESSED HIS GRIEVANCE OVER THE FACT THAT DEPARTMENT HAS BEEN TAKING ADJOURNMENT TIME AN D AGAIN WITHOUT INFORMING THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS SEEN THAT L D. CIT(DR) HAS BEEN ADOPTING A PRACTICE OF NON-APPEARANCE BEFO RE THE TRIBUNAL AND SIMPLY FILING AN ADJOURNMENT APPLICATI ON WITHOUT HIS PRESENCE. THE REASONS STATED FOR TAKING ADJOUR NMENT ARE ALSO NOT SUPPORTED BY ANY CAUSE. THEREFORE, WE REJ ECTED THE ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION FILED BY LD. CIT(DR) AND PR OCEED TO DECIDE THE PRESENT APPEAL AFTER CONSIDERING THE FAC TS OF THE CASE AVAILABLE ON OUR RECORD AND AFTER HEARING LD. AR. 5. AS IT CAN BE SEEN THAT THE GRIEVANCE OF THE REVE NUE IN ALL THESE APPEALS IS REGARDING DELETION OF ADDITIONS MA DE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF TRAVELING EXPENSES AND SALE AND DI STRIBUTION EXPENSES. IT MAY BE MENTIONED HERE THAT WHILE MAKI NG THE DISALLOWANCE LD. AO HAS RELATED THE CLAIM OF EXPENS ES TO THE TURNOVER OF THE ASSESSEE WITH THE EARLIER YEAR AND EXPENSES INCURRED TO EARN THE SAME AND HE FOUND THAT IN COMP ARISON TO INCREASE IN TURNOVER, THE EXPENSES CLAIMED WERE MAN Y TIME HIGHER. TO MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBE THE POSITION , FOLLOWING CHARTS ARE PREPARED: - ITA NOS. 2838 TO 2841/D/2010 6 SELLING & DISTRIBUTION EXPENSES (FIGURES IN LACS) S.NO. ASSTT. YEAR TURNOVER OF CURRENT YEAR TURNOVER OF IMMEDIATE PRECEDING ASSTT. YEAR SELLING & DISTRIBUTION EXPENSES OF CURRENT YEAR SELLING & DISTRIBUTION EXPENSES OF IMMEDIATE PRECEDING YEAR ADDITION MADE BY THE AO 1. 2002- 03 553.10 165.98 11.25 0.95 5.00 2. 2003- 04 1989.49 553.10 139.55 11.25 20.00 3. 2004- 05 2401.99 1989.49 120.24 139.55 NIL 4. 2005- 06 2482.09 2401.99 161.02 120.24 10.00 TRAVELING EXPENSES (FIGURES IN LACS) S.NO. ASSTT. YEAR TURNOVER OF CURRENT YEAR TURNOVER OF IMMEDIATE PRECEDING ASSTT. YEAR TRAVELING EXPENSES OF CURRENT YEAR TRAVELING EXPENSES OF IMMEDIATE PRECEDING ASSTT. YEAR ADDITION MADE BY THE AO 1. 2002- 03 553.10 165.98 17.15 1.96 5.00 2. 2003- 04 1989.49 553.10 78.56 17.15 NIL 3. 2004- 05 2401.99 1989.49 107.45 78.56 10.00 4. 2005- 06 2482.09 2401.99 122.76 107.45 NIL 6. LOOKING INTO AFOREMENTIONED FIGURES THE SOLE PRE MISES OF THE AO FOR MAKING THE ADDITION IS THAT THERE IS UN- PRECEDENT INCREASE IN THE AFOREMENTIONED EXPENDITURE AS COMPA RED TO INCREASE IN THE TURNOVER. FOR EXAMPLE IF THE REFER ENCE IS MADE TO THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR A.Y. 2002-03, AFTER GIV ING THE ITA NOS. 2838 TO 2841/D/2010 7 RELEVANT FIGURES LD. AO HAS OBSERVED THAT EXPENSES OF THE ASSESSEE ON TRAVELING HAVE GONE UP BY NINE TIMES AN D SELLING AND DISTRIBUTION EXPENSES HAVE GONE UP BY APPROXIMA TELY 13 TIMES AS AGAINST INCREASE IN THE TURNOVER WHICH IS ONLY OF ALMOST FOUR TIMES AS COMPARED TO THE PREVIOUS YEAR. WHILE MAKING THE DISALLOWANCE UNDER TRAVELING EXPENSES AN D SELLING AND DISTRIBUTION EXPENSES THE AO OBSERVED THAT ASSE SSEE HAS FAILED TO JUSTIFY THE TRAVELING AND SALE AND DISTRI BUTION EXPENSES DIRECTLY ATTRIBUTABLE TO BUSINESS AND APAR T FROM THAT ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED EXPENSES SEPARATELY IN REGARD TO BRANCH OFFICE/SALE DEPOTS/CONSIGNEE AGENT AT DIFFER ENT LOCATIONS AND, THEREFORE, HE HAS MADE THE ADDITION OF RS. 5 LAKH EACH UNDER BOTH THE HEADS. HOWEVER, AO HAS NO T POINTED OUT ANY SPECIFIC DEFECT IN THE VOUCHERS MAI NTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE. IT IS ALSO NOT THE CASE OF THE AO TH AT ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO FURNISH ANY DETAIL WHICH WAS REQUIRED TO BE FURNISHED BY THE AO. THE ADDITION MADE WAS AGITATE D IN THE APPEAL FILED BEFORE CIT(A) ON THE GROUND THAT ADDIT ION IS AN ADHOC ADDITION WITHOUT SPECIFYING DEFECT EITHER IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR IN THE VOUCHERS MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESS EE WITH REGARD TO INCURRING OF THE EXPENDITURE. IT WAS THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT INCURRING OF THESE EXPENDITURES WILL VARY FROM ITA NOS. 2838 TO 2841/D/2010 8 YEAR TO YEAR THE ASSESSEE IS INVOLVED IN THE ACTIVI TY OF MANUFACTURING OF BIO PRODUCTS AND RELATED FERTILIZE RS AND PESTICIDES HAVING BRANCHES IN MOST OF THE STATES OF INDIA AND THE PRODUCTS OF THE ASSESSEE REQUIRES PERSONAL CANV ASSING, USE OF LITERATURE, ANNOUNCEMENT FROM JEEPS AND REAC HING FERTILIZER SHOPS AND FARMERS IN REMOTE AREAS AND AL L THESE EXPENSES ARE TO BE INCURRED EITHER UNDER THE HEAD TRAVELING EXPENSES OR UNDER THE HEAD SELLING AND DISTRIBUTI ON EXPENSES. ACCORDING TO THE NATURE OF THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE THE INCURRENCE OF SUCH EXPENDITURE IS ESSE NTIAL. THE TURNOVER OF THE ASSESSEE WAS CONSTANTLY INCREASING DUE TO INCURRENCE OF THESE EXPENDITURES. NONE OF THE EXPE NDITURE HAS BEEN INCURRED FOR PERSONAL UTILIZATION AND THES E WERE INCURRED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS. ON THESE SUBMISSIONS, LD. CIT(A) HAS OBSERVED THAT THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN PASSED U/S 153A READ W ITH SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT. A SEARCH HAD TAKEN PLAC E AND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH NO INSTANCE WAS FOUND A CCORDING TO WHICH IT CAN BE HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE IS CLAIMI NG BOGUS EXPENDITURE UNDER THESE TWO HEADS. THE AO HAS NOT BROUGHT ANY SUCH MATERIAL ON RECORD AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCE S EVEN UNDER NORMAL SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT NO SUCH DISALLOWAN CE CAN ITA NOS. 2838 TO 2841/D/2010 9 BE UPHELD. THE AO CAN DISALLOW ANY EXPENDITURE ONL Y IF HE IS ABLE TO BRING ON RECORD THE FACT THAT EXPENSES DEBI TED ARE NOT VERIFIABLY FULLY FOR WHICH HE HAS TO SPECIFICALLY P OINT OUT AND BRING ON RECORD SOME BILLS OR VOUCHERS WHICH CAN BE SAID TO BE INCOMPLETE OR CAN BE SAID TO BE UNVERIFIABLE. IN T HE INSTANT CASE THE AO HAS NOT BRING OUT ANY SUCH MATERIAL AND HAS SIMPLY MENTIONED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ABLE TO J USTIFY THE DISPROPORTIONATE INCREASE OF EXPENSES BUT HE COULD NOT BROUGHT OUT ANY SINGLE EXPENDITURE WHICH ACCORDING TO HIM WAS NOT GENUINE. THE AO CANNOT MAKE ADHOC DISALLOW ANCE THE AO ALSO CANNOT PUT HIMSELF IN THE ARM CHAIR OF THE BUSINESSMAN AND ASSUME THE ROLE TO DECIDE THAT HOW MUCH EXPENDITURE IS REASONABLE. AS LONG AS EXPENDITURE WHICH IS REVENUE IN NATURE AND NOT PERSONAL AND GENUINE OF W HICH IS NOT IN DOUBT, IF IT IS INCURRED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIV ELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS, THE SAME HAS TO BE ALLOWED AND IN THIS MANNER LD.CIT(A) HAS DELETED BOTH THE ADDITIONS IN RESPECT OF ASSESSMENT 2002-03 AND IN RESPECT OF REMAINING ASSE SSMENT YEARS ALSO, ON SIMILAR LINES HE HAS DELETED THE ADD ITIONS MADE IN THOSE YEARS. THE DEPARTMENT IS AGGRIEVED, HENCE IN APPEAL. ITA NOS. 2838 TO 2841/D/2010 10 7. AFTER NARRATING THE FACTS, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY L D. AR THAT ALL THE DETAILS WHICH WERE ASKED FOR BY THE AO WERE SUBMITTED TO HIM BY THE ASSESSEE. THE NATURE OF THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE REQUIRES FOR INCURRENCE OF SUCH EXPENDITUR E WHICH HAVE BEEN INCURRED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE P URPOSE OF BUSINESS. HE SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS NO MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD TO SUGGEST THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS EITHER C LAIMED BOGUS EXPENSES OR HAS INFLATED EXPENSES. NO DEFECT S WHATSOEVER HAVE BEEN POINTED OUT IN RESPECT OF CLAI M OF EXPENDITURE. THEREFORE, HE SUBMITTED THAT ADDITION HAS RIGHTLY BEEN DELETED BY THE LD. CIT(A) AND HIS ORDERS IN TH IS REGARD SHOULD BE UPHELD. HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT PRIOR TO SEARCH ASSESSEE WAS ASSESSED U/S 143(3) FOR A.Y. 2003-04 A ND 2004-05, WHERE THOROUGH EXAMINATION WAS MADE BY THE AO IN THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE AND NO ADD ITION WHATSOEVER WAS MADE WITH REGARD TO THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED UNDER THESE TWO HEADS AND COPIES OF SUCH ORDERS ARE PLACED AT PAGES 32 TO 38 AND 59 TO 62 OF THE PAPER BOOK FO R ASSESSMENT YEARS 2003-04 AND 2004-05 RESPECTIVELY. HE SUBMITTED THAT DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH ALSO NO MATERIAL WHATSOEVER WAS FOUND BY THE AO FROM WHERE IT COULD BE INFERRED THAT ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED INFLATED EXPENSE S WITH ITA NOS. 2838 TO 2841/D/2010 11 REGARD TO THE AFOREMENTIONED EXPENDITURES. THEREFO RE, HE SUBMITTED THAT ADDITION HAS RIGHTLY BEEN DELETED BY LD. CIT(A) AND HIS ORDER SHOULD BE UPHELD. 8. WE HAVE CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE ASSESSMENT OR DER AS WELL AS ORDER PASSED BY LD. CIT(A). IT IS A MAT TER OF FACT ON RECORD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PRODUCED THE RELEVANT BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND THE DETAILS ASKED FOR BY THE AO AND IT IS NOT THE CASE OF LD. AO THAT ASSESEE DID NOT SUBMIT THE DETA ILS AND EXPLANATIONS ASKED BY HIM FROM THE ASSESSEE. IT IS THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THERE IS NO MATERIAL ON RECORD TO SUGGEST THAT THE EXPENSES CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER THE SE TWO HEADS WERE EITHER INFLATED OR WERE BOGUS. THE NATU RE OF THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE IS SUCH THAT IT HAS TO INC UR EXPENSES OF THESE HEADS. THE TURNOVER OF THE ASSESSEE HAS B EEN INCREASING. IF THE DETAILS ASKED FOR HAVE BEEN FUR NISHED AND THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT ARE REGULARLY MAINTAINED, THEN IF THE ADDITION IS SOUGHT TO BE MADE BY THE AO, THEN THE A O IS DUTY BOUND TO BRING MATERIAL ON RECORD TO MAKE DISALLOWA NCE OF EXPENSES WHICH WILL DEMONSTRATE THAT THE CLAIM OF T HE ASSESSEE WAS EITHER INFLATED OR NOT GENUINE. THE P LAIN READING OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT ORDERS WILL REVE AL THAT AO ITA NOS. 2838 TO 2841/D/2010 12 HAS NOT BROUGHT ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD TO SUGGEST T HAT THERE WAS ANY DEFECT IN MAINTENANCE OF ACCOUNTS BY THE AS SESSEE OR IN KEEPING THE VOUCHERS FOR THESE EXPENDITURES. IN ABSENCE OF SUCH MATERIAL ON RECORD, WE ARE OF THE OPINION T HAT LD. CIT(A) IS JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING THAT ADDITION COULD NOT BE MADE ON ADHOC BASIS. IF THERE IS COMPLETE ABSENCE OF SU CH MATERIAL, IT WILL BECOME RELEVANT THAT FOR A.Y. 2003-04 AND 2004-05 THE ASSESSMENTS OF THE ASSESSEE WERE FRAMED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT WHERE A DETAILED ORDER WAS PASSED BY THE LD. AO AND HOWEVER, NO DISALLOWANCE WAS MADE ON ACCOUNT OF EXPENDITURE INCURRED UNDER THESE TWO HEADS. THEREF ORE, AT LEAST, IT CAN BE OBSERVED THAT THERE WAS NO DEFECT IN THE VOUCHERS MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE WITH REGARD TO THESE EXPENDITURES FOR THESE TWO YEARS IRRESPECTIVE OF TH E FACT THAT DISALLOWANCE HAS BEEN MADE IN THE IMPUGNED ASSESSME NTS FOR THESE TWO YEARS. THEREFORE, ALSO, WE FIND NO J USTIFICATION IN INTERFERING THE DELETION OF DISALLOWANCE MADE BY TH E LD. CIT(A). 9. SO AS IT RELATES TO OTHER TWO YEARS, IT CAN BE O BSERVED THAT THERE IS NO MATERIAL ON RECORD BY THE AO TO SU GGEST THAT ANY OF THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED UNDER THESE TWO HEA DS WAS INFLATED OR UN-GENUINE. THE DISALLOWANCE HAS BEEN MADE ON ITA NOS. 2838 TO 2841/D/2010 13 ADHOC BASIS. THEREFORE, WE FIND NO JUSTIFICATION I N INTERFERING WITH THE DELETION MADE BY LD. CIT(A). 10. IN VIEW OF ABOVE DISCUSSION, FINDING NO MERIT I N DEPARTMENTAL APPEALS. WE DISMISS THE SAME. 11. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS FILED BY THE DEPARTM ENT ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 5.8.2011 SD/- SD/- (K.G. BANSAL) (I.P. BANSA L) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: *KAVITA COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER, DEPUTY REGISTRAR