ITO, New Delhi V. M/s. Omega Biotech(P) Ltd, New Delhi

ITA 2860/DEL/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2009] 115 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2362 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-12-2009
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 01-09-2009
• Assessment Year: 2002-2003
• Appeal Filed On: 12-06-2009
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SWEETI KOTHARI
• Assessee Lawyers: MANISH GUPTA
• Keywords: Accommodation entries
• Section: 143(3); 207; 147; 68

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : B NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI I.P. BANSAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI DEEPAK R SHAH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 2860/DEL./09 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03 INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 13(4), NEW DELHI VS. M/S. OMEGA BIOTECH LTD. 1608, DEWAN HALL BUILDING, BHAGIRATH PLACE, NEW DELHI. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI MANISH GUPTA, DR DEPARTMENT BY : MS. SWEETI KOTHARI, CA ORDER PER DEEPAK R SHAH, AM: THIS APPEAL BY REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORD ER OF LD. CIT(A),-XVI, NEW DELHI DATED 3.3.2009 IN AN APPEAL AGAINST ASS ESSMENT ORDER FRAMED U/S 143(3) READ WITH SECTION 147 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 (THE ACT). 2. THE ONLY ISSUE IN APPEAL IS AGAINST DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS. 12,50,000/- U/S 68 WITH RESPECT TO AMOUNT STATED TO BE RECEIVED BY ASSESSEE TOWARDS SHARE APPLICATION MONEY. 3. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING OF MEDICINES AT GHAZIABAD. DURING THE RELEVANT FINANCI AL YEAR THE ASSESSEE COMPANY RECEIVED SHARE APPLICATION MONEY INTERALIA FROM FOLLOWING COMPANIES :- 1. AMBA ALLOYS PVT. LTD. RS. 2,50,000/- ITA NO. 2860/DEL/09 2 2. PROFAN FINANCE & INVESTMENT PVT. LTD. RS. 2,50,0 00/- 3. ENPOL PVT. LTD. RS. 2,50,000/- 4. SAURABH PETROCHEM PVT. LTD. RS. 2,50,000/- 5. LANDMARK COMMUNICATION PVT. LTD. RS. 2,50,000/- 4. THE AO NOTED THAT AS PER THE REPORT OF INVESTIGA TION WING IT WAS FOUND THAT ABOVE REFERRED FIVE COMPANIES WERE NOT CARRYING ON ACTUAL BUSINESS BUT WERE ENGAGED IN BUSINESS OF PROVIDING ACCOMMODATION ENTR IES. THE ASSESSEE IS ONE OF THE BENEFICIARY OF SUCH ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES. T HE AO TO VERIFY THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION IDENTITY AS WELL AS CREDIT WORTHINESS REQUIRED THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE PRINCIPAL OFFICERS OF THE SAID COMPANIES WITH THEIR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. THE ASESSEEE FILED THE DETAILS IN ITS POS SESSION LIKE I) CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION II) APPLICATION FOR ISSUE OF SHARES MADE TO THE ASS ESSEE COMPANY III) CONFIRMATION FOR ALLOTMENT OF SHARES IV) AFFIDAVIT OF THE DIRECTOR REGARDING ALLOTMENT O F SHARES TO THE COMPANY V) BOARD RESOLUTION PASSED BY THE SAID COMPANY FOR APPLYING SHARES OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY VI) PAN CARD VII) A PHOTOCOPY OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT FOR FILING RETUR N OF INCOME FOR AY 2001-02 VIII) A PHOTOCOPY AUDITED BALANCE SHEET AND PROFIT & LOSS A/C FOR THE YEAR ENDED 31/3/2002 4.1. THE ASSESSEE ALSO FILED PHOTOCOPY OF BANK STAT EMENT SHOWING PAYMENT THROUGH CHEQUE TO THE APPELLANT IN RESPECT OF FOLLO WING COMPANIES :- 1. AMBA ALLOYS (P) LTD. 2. SAURABH PETROCHEM (P) LTD. 3. LANDMARK COMUNICATION (P) LTD. ITA NO. 2860/DEL/09 3 4.2. AS REGARDS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THESE COMPANIE S THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT IT IS UNABLE TO PRODUCE THE SAME AND THE SAME MAY BE ASKED FROM THE RESPECTIVE COMPANIES DIRECTLY. THE AO CALLED FOR TH E BANK STATEMENT OF ALL COMPANIES FROM THE BANK. HE NOTED THAT ALL THE COMP ANIES HAVE ACCOUNT WITH JAI LAXMI COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED WHICH CANNOT BE A ME RE COINCIDENT. HE ANALYSED THE BANK STATEMENT AND CONCLUDED THAT BEFO RE ISSUANCE OF CHEQUE FOR SHARE CAPITAL, AMOUNT IS DEPOSITED IN CASH. OUT OF THE TOTAL DEPOSIT IN ALL BANK ACCOUNT MAJORITY DEPOSIT IS BY WAY OF CASH. THE AO REJECTED THE AFFIDAVIT OF THE RESPECTIVE APPLICANTS AS IT DID NOT BEAR ANY DATE. THE AO THEREAFTER ISSUED SUMMONS TO ALL THE SHARE APPLICANTS. THE SUMMONS W ERE TRIED TO BE SERVED THROUGH INSPECTOR. THE SUMMONS IN RESPECT OF M/S. S AURABH PETROCHEM (P) LTD. WAS RECEIVED BACK UNSERVED WITH THE POSTAL REMARK NO SUCH FIRM . IN RESPECT OF OTHER COMPANIES THE INSPECTOR REPORTED THAT AT THE ADDRESS MENTIONED WHICH IS 1756, NEW BASTI, NAYA BAZAR. IN RESPECT OF FOLLOWIN G THREE COMPANIES THERE ARE FOUR OR FIVE OCCUPANTS OF THE SAID BUILDING BUT NON E OF THE OCCUPANTS HAVE EVER HEARD THE NAMES OF ABOVE SAID COMPANIES 1. M/S. AMBA ALLOYS PVT. LTD. 2. M/S. ENPOL PVT. LTD. 3. M/S. PROFAN FINANCE & INVESTMENT PVT. LTD. 4.3. IN RESPECT OF M/S. LANDMARK COMMUNICATION PRIV ATE LIMITED HAVING ADDRESS AT D-112 GALI NO. 4 GAGAN VIHAR, DELHI THE INSPECTOR REPORTED THAT THERE ARE NO BLOCKS LIKE ABCD. THERE ARE ONLY NUMBER OF Q UARTERS. AT NO.112 IN GALI NO. 4 THE COMPANY DOES NOT EXIST. THIS REPORT OF I NSPECTOR WAS INFORMED TO THE ITA NO. 2860/DEL/09 4 ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSSEE WAS ASKED TO DEPUTE SOME ONE TO ACCOMPANY THE INSPECTOR AND TO GET THE SUMMON SERVED. THE ASSESSE E DID NOT COOPERATE AND SUBMITTED THAT THE DETAILS AVAILABLE ARE PROVIDED. THE DETAILS MAY BE CALLED FROM THE COMPANIES DIRECTLY INCLUDING THEIR EXAMINATION. THE AO THEREAFTER HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE BEING A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY IF THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN SHARE CAPITAL, THE SAME CAN BE ONLY FROM KNOWN PARTIES I. E. FRIENDS AND RELATIVES OF DIRECTORS / PROMOTERS. THE AO THEREAFTER ISSUED A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO DISCHARGE ITS ONUS OF PROVIN G THE EXISTENCE OF THE PARTIES AND ALSO GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION. ON THE FUR THER QUERY AS TO WHETHER THE SHARES ARE STILL HELD BY RESPECTIVE SHARE HOLDERS, THE ASSESSEE INFORMED THAT SHARES ALLEGEDLY ALLOTTED IN THE NAME OF M/S. AMBA ALLOYS PVT. LTD. STANDS TRANSFERRED IN THE NAME OF M/S. KESRI HOLDING PVT. LTD. WHICH IS FAMILY CONTROLLED COMPANY AND WHEREIN MS. KESRI GUPTA IS A DIRECTOR. SHARES ALLEGEDLY ALLOTTED IN THE NAME OF M/S. ENPOL PVT. LTD. AND M/S. LANDMARK COMMUNICATION PVT. LTD. STANDS TRANSFERRED IN THE NAME OF MS SEEMA GUPTA WH O HAPPENS TO BE THE DIRECTOR OF THE COMPANY. SHARES ALLEGEDLY ALLOTTED IN THE NAME OF M/S. PROFAN FINANCE & INVESTMENT PVT. LTD. AND M/S. SAURABH PET ROCHEM PVT. LTD. STANDS TRANSFERRED IN THE NAME OF MS. KESRI GUPTA WHO IS T HE MOTHER-IN-LAW OF MS. SEEMA GUPTA, AND THESE SHARES HAVING FACE VALUE OF RS. 10/- EACH WERE ALLEGEDLY SOLD/TRANSFERRED AT THE PRICE OF RS. 5/- EACH SHARE. 4.4. THE AO THEREAFTER HELD THAT IT IS NOT A NORMAL TRANSACTION. THE AMOUNT WAS NEVER RECEIVED AS SHARE CAPITAL/ SHARE APPLICATION MONEY BUT A CAMOUFLAGED ITA NO. 2860/DEL/09 5 TRANSACTION. ACCORDINGLY THE AMOUNT WAS ADDED AS UN EXPLAINED CASH CREDIT U/S 68 OF THE ACT. 5. LD. CIT (A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSION MAD E BEFORE HIM HELD 1) THE ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE BY AO ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM INVESTIGATION WING. 2) WHEN THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO PRODUCE PRINCIPAL OFFICER FOR EXAMINATION, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED CONFIRMATION OF SAID COMPANIES AND OTHER DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE BUT BE COULD NOT PRO DUCE THE DIRECTORS OF SAID COMPANY. 3) THE ASSESSEE HAS PROVIDED DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE AS DESCRIBED HEREIN ABOVE. THOUGH THE AO OBTAINED BANK STATEMENT OF INVESTOR COMPANY AND THE INVESTMENTS WERE DULY REFLECTED, TH ESE EVIDENCES WERE DISREGARDED. 4) THOUGH THE EVIDENCE OF INVESTOR COMPANIES ARE FI LED, THEY WERE NOT ENTERTAINED BY THE AO WITHOUT CONTROVERTING THE CON TENTS OF THE AFFIDAVIT AND HENCE THE SAME HAS TO BE ACCEPTED AS TRUE. 5) WHEN THE SUMMONS WERE ISSUED AND THE PARTIES WER E NOT FOUND AT THE GIVEN ADDRESS NO FURTHER ACTION WAS TAKEN TO GET TH E LATEST INFORMATION FROM HIS OFFICE OF ROC OR FROM THE INVESTIGATION WI NG WHO HAS PROVIDED THE RELEVANT INFORMATION. 6) THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS REQUESTED FOR CROSS EXAM INATION OF THE PARTIES, SAME WAS REFUSED BY THE AO. IN VIEW OF THE PRINCIPLES SETTLED BY VARIOUS COURTS REFUSAL OF CROSS OBJECTION WILL R ESULT INTO NOT DRAWING ANY ADVERSE INFERENCE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. 7) THE DETAILS OF INQUIRES CONDUCTED AND INFORMATIO N COLLECTED BY THE AO ON WHICH ADVERSE FINDINGS HAVE BEEN DRAWN HAS NEITH ER BEEN DISCUSSED NOR BEEN CONFRONTED TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE BY ITS LETTER DATED 4.6.2007 AND 5.9.2007 HAS SPECIFICALL Y REQUESTED TO PROVIDE BASIS OF REASONS TO CONSIDER ALONGWITH PHOT O COPIES OF ALL EVIDENCE AND STATEMENT RECORDED AND ALSO AN OPPORTU NITY OF CROSS EXAMINATION OF SAID PARTY. THIS REQUEST HAS BEEN TU RNED DOWN BY THE AO. 8) THE AO HAS NOT BROUGHT ANY MATERIAL WHICH CAN PR OVE THAT THIS MONEY WAS APPELLANTS OWN MONEY. HE HAS SIMPLY RELIED UPO N INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM INVESTIGATION WING WITHOUT MAKING EFF ORT TO VERIFY THE ITA NO. 2860/DEL/09 6 FACTS STATED THEREIN. THIS IS CONTRARY TO LAW LAID DOWN BY HONBLE HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. VALUE CAPITAL SERVICE 307 ITR 334. 9) THE AO HAS SHIFTED THE ENTIRE BURDEN ON THE ASSE SSEE WITHOUT DISCHARGING THE ONUS WHICH LIES UPON HIM. THIS IS C ONTRARY TO LAW LAID DOWN BY HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. PRADEEP KUMAR GUPTA 207 CTR 115. 10) WHEN THE ALLEGATION IS MADE BY THE DEPARTMENT T HEN THE BURDEN LAY ON THE DEPARTMENT TO PROVE THE SAME. THE ONUS FOR PROV ING THAT SHARE CAPITAL RECEIVED WAS ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES LIES ON THE DEPARTMENT. 11) IN THE CASE OF MONEY RECEIVED WHICH WERE CAPITA L ONLY. IDENTITY NEEDS TO BE PROVED. IF THE IDENTITY IS PROVED, IT IS NOT FOR ASSESSEE TO PROVE AS TO HOW THE SHAREHOLDERS CAN BE IN A POSSESSION OF THE MONEY. 12) DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE CONTAINED THE DETAILS NOT ONLY OF THE IDENTITY OF SUBSCRIBER BUT ALSO THEIR ADDRESS, PAN CARD ETC 13) THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCHARGED THE INITIAL ONUS OF GENUINENESS OF TRANSACTION AND AO WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN IGNORING VA RIOUS EVIDENCE PROVIDED TO HIM. NOTHING ADVERSE HAS BEEN BROUGHT O N RECORD BY THE AO THAT THE SHARE APPLICATION MONEY REPRESENTS ITS OWN UNDISCLOSED INCOME. 14) IF THERE WAS DOUBT ABOUT SOURCE OF INVESTMENT T HEN ADDITION SHOULD HAVE BEEN MADE IN THE CASE OF THOSE COMPANIES AND N OT IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE. THE ADDITION IS MADE SOLELY ON THE BAS IS ON INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM INVESTIGATION WING WITHOUT MAKING ANY FURTHER INVESTIGATION BY THE AO. HE ACCORDINGLY HELD THAT T HE TRANSACTION WAS GENUINE AND THE SAME WERE NOT ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES . HE, THEREFORE, DELETED THE ADDITION OF RS.12,50,000/- U /S 68 OF THE ACT. THE REVENUE IS IN FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE US. 6. WHEREAS LD. DR SOUGHT TO RELY UPON THE FINDING O F THE AO, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT ALL THE EVIDENCE TO PRO VE THAT THE AMOUNT RECEIVED WAS BY THE SHARE APPLICATION HAS BEEN FILED AND HEN CE IN ABSENCE OF ANY CONTRARY EVIDENCE, ADDITION WAS RIGHTLY DELETED BY LD. CIT(A). RELIANCE WAS ALSO PLACED ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT WHE REIN HONBLE SUPREME ITA NO. 2860/DEL/09 7 COURT DISMISSED THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION OF THE R EVENUE BY OBSERVING - IF THE SHARE APPLICATION MONEY IS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY FROM ALLEGED BOGUS SHAREHOLDERS, WHOSE NAMES ARE GIVEN TO THE AO , THEN THE DEPARTMENT IS FREE TO PROCEED TO REOPEN THEIR INDIVIDUAL ASSESSME NTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, BUT IT CANNOT BE REGARDED AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF ASSESSEE COMPANY. 7. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RELEVANT FACTS ARGUMENTS ADVANCED AND THE DECISIONS CITED. AFTER THE ASSESSEE FILED VARIO US DOCUMENTS IN RESPECT OF SHARE APPLICANTS THE AO TRIED TO EXAMINE WHETHER TH IS PERSON EXIST. THE INQUIRY REVEALED THAT ALL THESE COMPANIES DO NOT EXIST AT T HE PLACES MENTIONED. THIS FACT WAS BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF ASSESSEE ALSO. THEREAF TER THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT TRIED TO PROVE THE EXISTENCE OF SUCH SHARE APPLICAN TS. ON THE CONTRARY IT HAS BEEN STATED THAT THE SO CALLED SHARES ALLOTTED TO THE SH ARE APPLICANTS HAVE BEEN ACQUIRED BY THE DIRECTORS AND THE RELATIVES OF THE DIRECTORS OF RESPONDENT COMPANY HEREIN. IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES LD. CIT(A) ER RED IN HOLDING THAT THE ADDITION IS TO BE DELETED. THE COMMISSIONER (A) HAS FAILED TO TAKE NOTE OF THE FACT THAT WHEN THE SHARE APPLICANTS DO NOT EXIST AND WER E NOT AVAILABLE FOR THEIR EXAMINATION , HOW MERELY ON PAPER THE EXISTENCE OF SHARE APPLICANTS CAN BE PROVED. THE AO HAS NOT MERELY RELIED UPON THE INFOR MATION RECEIVED FROM INVESTIGATION WING BUT HAS ALSO TRIED TO FIND OUT W HETHER THE SHARE APPLICANTS EXIST OR NOT. WHEN THE PARTIES WERE NOT FOUND AT THE GIVE N ADDRESS, THIS FACT WAS BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSEE HAS THEREAFTER NOT PROVIDED ANY FURTHER PROOF OF THE EXISTENCE OF SHARE APPLICA NTS. THOUGH HONBLE SUPREME COURT OBSERVED AS EXTRACTED HEREIN ABOVE, BEFORE AR RIVING AT A FINDING THAT THE ITA NO. 2860/DEL/09 8 SHARES WERE ALLOTTED, THE EXISTENCE OF SHARE APPLIC ANTS IS REQUIRED TO BE ESTABLISHED. THE OBSERVATION WILL BE RELEVANT ONLY WHEN THE SHARES APPLICANTS ARE EXISTING AND SHARES ARE ALLOTTED TO THEM. IN THIS C ASE EXISTENCE OF SHARE APPLICANTS HAS BEEN SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE ON PAPERS WHICH EVEN COULD NOT BE SUBSTANTIATED BY PROOF THAT THE EXISTENCE IS ON THE ADDRESS PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE BY THE SHARE APPLICANTS. THEREFORE, THE PA PERS SUBMITTED ITSELF BY THE ASSESSEE DO NOT PROVE THE EXISTENCE OF SHARE APPLIC ANT FACTUALLY. THEREFORE IN THE PRESENT CASE WE FIND THAT THE EXISTENCE OF SHARE AP PLICANTS WERE NOT PROVED. THEREFORE MERELY ON CERTAIN PAPERS PRODUCED BY ASSE SSEE IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THESE SHARE APPLICANTS WERE IN EXISTENCE WHO HAVE ACTUALLY APPLIED FOR SHARES AND WERE ALLOTTED THE SHARES. THE FACT ALSO REMAINS THAT NOW THE SHARES ARE ACQUIRED BY THE FAMILY MEMBERS OF THE DIRECTORS AT MUCH LESSER PRICE. THIS FACT ALSO SHOULD HAVE BEEN EXAMINED . 8. THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) HAS DELETED THE ADDI TION FOR THE REASON THAT SINCE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT MADE ANY ENQUI RY AFTER THE APPELLANT FURNISHED ALL THESE PARTICULARS, IT HAS DISCHARGED ITS ONUS AND NO ADDITION IS CALLED FOR UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT. THE COMMISSIONER ( APPEALS) HAS ALSO NOT EXAMINED WHETHER THE SHARE APPLICANT HAD ANY CREDIT WORTHINESS AND THE TRANSACTION WAS GENUINE. IN SUCH A SITUATION THE CO MMISSIONER (APPEALS) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION AS THE ASSESSING OFFICER FAIL ED TO MAKE ANY ENQUIRY. RATHER IT WAS INCUMBENT UPON THE COMMISSION (APPEALS) TO C ARRY THE ENQUIRY FURTHER AND SHOULD HAVE DONE WHAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER FAILED TO DO. HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF KAPURCHAND SHRIMAL VS. CIT, 13 1 ITR 451 HELD ITA NO. 2860/DEL/09 9 IT IS WELL KNOWN THAT AN APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS T HE JURISDICTION AS WELL AS THE DUTY TO CORRECT ALL ERRORS IN THE PROCEEDINGS U NDER APPEAL AND TO ISSUE, IF NECESSARY, APPROPRIATE DIRECTIONS TO THE AUTHORI TY AGAINST WHOSE DECISION THE APPEAL IS PREFERRED TO DISPOSE OF THE WHOLE OR ANY PART OF THE MATTER AFRESH UNLESS FORBIDDEN FROM DOING SO BY STA TUTE. 9. SINCE NO FURTHER EVIDENCE IS AVAILABLE BEFORE US TO GIVE A FINDING THAT THE CASH CREDIT DURING THE YEAR HAS BEEN PROVED, AND SI NCE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW ALSO FAILED TO CONDUCT NECESSARY ENQUIRIES IN THIS REGAR D, WE REMIT THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO EXAMINE THE NA TURE OF CREDIT AND THEN TO SATISFY WHETHER THE CREDIT IS PROPERLY EXPLAINED OR NOT. TH E ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED TO PLACE NECESSARY EVIDENCE SO AS TO JUSTIFY THE IDENTITY AN D CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE CREDITOR AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION. 10. FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES, THE APPEAL IS TREATED AS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 31.12.2009. [I.P. BANSAL] [DEEPAK.R. SHAH) JUDICIAL MEMEBR ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VEENA DATED : COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER, D EPUTY REGISTRAR, ITAT