ITO, New Delhi V. Sh. S. S. Ahluwalia, New Delhi

ITA 2944/DEL/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 134 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4245 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-04-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Next Hearing Date: 18-04-2011
• Assessment Year: 1991-1992
• Appeal Filed On: 11-06-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: BANITA DEVI
• Keywords: Search and seizure; Tax effect; Retraction; Revised return
• Section: 143(3); 142(1); 148

Judgement Text

ITA NOS. 2942-2945/DEL/2010 & WTA NOS. 26-29/DEL/2010 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH G NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI A.D. JAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOS. 2942, 2943, 2944 & 2945/DEL/2010 A.YRS. 1989-90 TO 1992-93 INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 47(3), ROOM NO. 416, 4 TH FLOOR, MAYUR BHAVAN, CONNAUGHT PLACE, NEW DELHI -110001 VS. SH. S.S. AHLUWALIA, F-5, N.D.S.E., PART-II, NEW DELHI (PAN/GIR NO. : AERPA 6517P) AND W.T.A. NOS. 26, 27, 28 & 29/DEL/2010 A.YRS. : 1989-90 TO 1992-93 WEALTH TAX OFFICER, WARD 47(3), ROOM NO. 416, 4 TH FLOOR, MAYUR BHAVAN, CONNAUGHT PLACE, NEW DELHI -110001 VS. SH. S.S. AHLUWALIA, F-5, N.D.S.E., PART-II, NEW DELHI (PAN/GIR NO. : AERPA 6517P) (APPELLANT (APPELLANT (APPELLANT (APPELLANT S SS S ) )) ) (RESPONDENT (RESPONDENT (RESPONDENT (RESPONDENT S SS S ) )) ) ASSEESSEE BY : SH. K. SAMPATH, ADV. DEPARTMENT BY : S MT. BANITA DEVI, (D.R.) ORDER ORDER ORDER ORDER PER PER PER PER BENCH BENCH BENCH BENCH THESE INCOME TAX AND WEALTH TAX APPEALS BY THE R EVENUE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE RESPECTIVE ORDERS OF THE LD. C OMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-XXX, NEW DELHI AND LD. COMMISSI ONER OF INCOME/WEALTH TAX (APPEALS)-XXX BOTH DATED 17.3.201 0 FOR THE ITA NOS. 2942-2945/DEL/2010 & WTA NOS. 26-29/DEL/2010 2 ASSESSMENT YEARS 1989-90 TO 1992-93 IN THE INCOME TA X AS WELL AS WEALTH TAX CASES. SINCE THE APPEALS WERE HEARD TOG ETHER, THESE APPEALS ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY THIS COMMON ORDER F OR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. ITA NO. 2942 ITA NO. 2942 ITA NO. 2942 ITA NO. 2942- -- -2945 2945 2945 2945 2. THE COMMON ISSUE RAISED IN THESE APPEALS IS THAT LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN DE LETING THE ADDITIONS OF ` 4,65,416/-, ` 5,66,720/-, ` 5,14,910 /- AND ` 5,41,796/- RIGHTLY MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF RENTAL INCOMES IN ASSESSMENT YEARS 1989-90 TO 1992-93, WITHOUT RECOGN IZING THE MERITS OF THE ORIGINAL STATEMENTS OF MR. NYMO LOTHA, MR. V. BHASKARAN AND THE POWER OF ATTORNEY EXECUTED IN FAVOUR OF MRS. RAJINDE R KAUR WALIA. 3. THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED RETURNS OF INCOME FOR THE A.YRS. 1989-90 TO 1992-93 DECLARING INCOME OF ` 49870/-, ` 134460, ` 60,180/- AND ` 74,900/-. ON 2 7.3.87 CBI HAD RAIDED THE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE AND HIS ASSOCIAT ES AT KOHIMA, DELHI AND OTHER PLACES. NOTICE U/S 148 WERE ISSUED F OR A.YRS. 1985-86 TO 1988-89 AND ASSESSMENTS WERE MADE BUT THESE ASSES SMENTS WERE QUASHED BY THE ITAT ON TECHNICAL GROUNDS. HOWEVER, IN CONSEQUENCE OF THESE ASSESSMENTS, NOTICE U/S 148 WERE ALSO ISSU ED FOR A.YRS. 1989- 90 TO 1992-93. IN RESPONSE TO THESE NOTICES THE ASS ESSEE FILED REVISED RETURNS ON THE SAME INCOME. 3.1 THE ASSESSMENTS WERE COMPLETED U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 148 ON 8.3.96 WHEREIN BASED ON FINDINGS GIVEN IN ASSESSMENT ORD ERS FOR 1986-87 AND 1987-88 RENTAL INCOME FROM CERTAIN BENAMI PROPER TIES WAS ASSESSED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. ITA NOS. 2942-2945/DEL/2010 & WTA NOS. 26-29/DEL/2010 3 3.2 THE ASSESSEE WENT IN APPEAL AND THE LD. COMMISSI ONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) VIDE ORDER DATED 15.05.98 SET ASIDE T HE ASSESSMENT. THE FRESH ASSESSMENTS WERE MADE VIDE ORDER U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 250 DATED 23.03.2011. THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL AND THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-XXI VIDE ORDER DATED 31.3.2005 ALLOWED CERTAIN RELIEF. THE ASSESSEE AND THE DEPA RTMENT FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE ITAT. THE HONBLE ITAT VIDE ORDER ITA NO. 3068 TO 3071/DEL/2005 DATED 13.12.2007 AND ITA NOS. 3052 TO 3055/DEL/2005 DATED 13.12.2007 SET ASIDE THE ASSESSMENT. NOTICES U/S 143(2) AND 142(1) WERE ISSUED AND COMPLIED WITH. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD FINALIZED THE ASSESSMENTS MAKING ADDITIONS ON ACCOUN T OF RENTAL INCOME FROM FLATS IN DEVIKA TOWER AND ESSEL MANSIONS. 4. AGGRIEVED FROM THE ABOVE ORDER, ASSESSEE APPEALE D BEFORE THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). LD. COMMISS IONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ELABORATELY CONSIDERED THE SUB MISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND HELD AS UNDER:- I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE APPELLANT. IT IS A CASE WHERE THE ORIGINAL ASSESSME NTS WERE MADE IN CONSEQUENCE OF AND FOLLOWING THE ASSESSMENT ORDE RS FOR THE PRECEDING YEARS I.E. ASSESSMENT YEARS 1986-87 AND 19 87-88 WHICH WERE MADE RELYING UPON THE INFORMATION RECEIVE D FORM THE CBI THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS THE OWNER OF CERTAIN IMMOVE ABLE PROPERTIES PURCHASED IN THE NAMES OF HIS RELATIVES. HOWEVER, THE SUBSEQUENT EVENTS HAVE SHOWN THAT THE ADDITIONS MAD E IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ARE NOT JUSTIFIED BECAUSE, I. THE CBI HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO PROVE THE ALLEGATIONS CONCLUSIVELY EVEN AFTER A LAPSE OF 23 YEARS, ITA NOS. 2942-2945/DEL/2010 & WTA NOS. 26-29/DEL/2010 4 II. THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS FOR A.YS.1986-87, 1987-8 8 WHICH FORMS THE BASIS FOR THE ORDERS UNDER APPEAL, WERE QU ASHED BY THE ITAT. III. WHILE SETTING ASIDE THE ORIGINAL ORDERS FOR A SSESSMENT YEARS 1989-90 TO 1992-93 THE ITAT GAVE A DIRECTION THAT N O RELIANCE CAN BE PLACED ON THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS FOR 1986- 87 AND 1987-88. IT IS ALSO SEEN THAT THE ORDERS UNDER APPEAL HAVE B EEN FRAMED ON DIRECTIONS OF THE HON'BLE ITAT, THAT THE ENTIRE MAT ERIAL AND EVIDENCE GATHERED FOR THE PURPOSE OF HOLDING THE OW NERSHIP OF THE PROPERTIES IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE WAS TO BE PUT TO THE ASSESSEE FOR CONFRONTATION AND EXPLANATION. THE AO WHILE COMPLETING THE SET ASIDE ORDERS HAS RELIED UPON ANNE XURE A,B & C NAMELY STATEMENT OF MR.NYMO LOTHA, MR. V. BHASKARAN A ND POWER OF ATTORNEY OF MRS. RAJINDER KAUR WALIA BUT AO'S RELIANCE ON THESE STATEMENTS AT THIS STAGE IS MISPLACED IN VI EW OF THE FACTS THAT: - A. THE STATEMENT BY MR. NYMO LOTHA'S HAS BEEN RETRACT ED AND IN THE VARIOUS ITAT'S ORDER IT HAS BEEN HELD TH AT NYMO LOTHA'S RETRACTION HAS GOT EVIDENTIARY VALUE AND IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY CONFRONTATION, THE AFFIDAVIT OF NYMO LOTHA CANNOT BE DISBELIEVED AND DISCARDED. B. THE STATEMENTS OF MR. V. BHASKARAN WAS CHALLENGE D IN A CRIMINAL DEFAMATION CASE AND THE CASE HAS BEEN DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. ITA NOS. 2942-2945/DEL/2010 & WTA NOS. 26-29/DEL/2010 5 C. MRS. RAJINDER KAUR WALIA HAS NEVER ACTED ON THE P OWER OF ATTORNEY. IT IS ALSO SEEN THAT ON THE ONE HAND, THE RENTAL IN COME FROM THE ALLEGED BENAMI PROPERTIES HAS BEEN ASSESSED IN T HE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE AND ON THE OTHER HAND THE SAM E RENTAL INCOME HAS ALSO BEEN ASSESSED IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE'S RELATIVE AS IS EVIDENT FROM THE FOLLOWING :-. IN THE CASE OF MOHINDER SINGH IN THE A. Y.1986-87 INVESTMENT IN PROPERTIES HAS BEEN HELD AS EXPLAINED AND LOAN TAKEN FROM NYMO LOTHA TREATED AS GENUINE. IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1991-92, 1992-93 AND 2003 -04 RENTAL INCOME FROM FLATS IN THE NAME OF MR. MOHINDER SI NGH HAS BEEN TREATED AS HIS INCOME ON SUBSTANTIVE BASIS . SIMILARLY IN THE CASE OF INDERJEET SINGH IN THE AS SESSMENT YEAR 1986-87 INVESTMENT IN PROPERTY HAS BEEN HELD A S EXPLAINED AND LOAN TAKEN FROM NYMO LOTHA TREATED AS GENUINE. IN THE ASSESSMENTS FOR A.Y.1991-92 AND 2003-04 RENT AL INCOME FROM FLATS IN THE NAME OF MR. MOHINDER SINGH HAS BEEN TREATED AS HIS INCOME ON SUBSTANTIVE BASIS. IN THE CASE OF DALJIT WALIA ALSO IN THE A.Y.1991-92 A ND 1993-94 RENTAL INCOME HAS BEEN TREATED AS HER INCOME . IN RESPECT OF REMAINING OWNERS THEY HAVE SHOWN TH E RENTAL INCOME IN RESPECT OF IMPUGNED PROPERTIES AS T HEIR ITA NOS. 2942-2945/DEL/2010 & WTA NOS. 26-29/DEL/2010 6 INCOMES AND THIS HAS NOT BEEN DISPUTED BY THE DEPART MENT TILL DATE. MOREOVER IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF THERE IS NO DISPUTE' OF RENTAL INCOME AFTER A. Y.1992-93 AND NO ADDITIONS HAS BEEN MADE IN ASSESSEES HAND. IN VIEW OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AS DISCUSSED ABOVE I HOLD THAT THE RENTAL INCOME IN RESPECT OF IMMOVEABLE PROPERTIES AT DEVIKA TOWER, NEHRU PLACE AND ESSEL MANSION, KAROL BAGH, NEW DELHI IN THE NAMES OF ASSESSEES RELATIVES NAMEL Y MOHINDER SINGH, INDERJEET SINGH, DALJIT WALIA, RAJINDER KAUR W ALIA AND OTHERS CANNOT BE ASSESSED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSES SEE BECAUSE IT HAS NOT BEEN ESTABLISHED THAT THESE PROPERTIES A RE THE BENAMI PROPERTIES OF THE ASSESSEE AND MOREOVER RENTAL INCOME FROM THE SAME PROPERTIES IS ALREADY BEEN ASSESSED IN THE HAN DS OF THE RESPECTIVE OWNER I.E. THE ASSESSEE'S RELATIVE. I, T HEREFORE DELETE THE ADDITIONS OF ` 4,65,416/-, ` 5,66,720/-, `. 5, 14,910/- AND ` 5,41,796/- MADE BY THE AO FOR THE A. Y S.1989-90 TO 1992-93. 5. AGAINST THE ABOVE ORDER THE REVENUE IS IN APPE AL BEFORE US. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORDS. WE FIND THAT LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HA S ELABORATELY CONSIDERED THE ISSUE AND GIVEN A FINDING THAT RENTA L INCOME IN RESPECT OF THE IMMOVABLE PROPERTIES AT DEVIKA TOWER, NEHRU PLA CE AND ESSEL MANSION, KAROL BAGH, NEW DELHI IN THE NAMES OF THE AS SESSEES RELATIVES CANNOT BE ASSESSED IN THE HANDS OF THE AS SESSEE, BECAUSE IT HAS NOT BEEN ESTABLISHED THAT THESE PROPERTIES ARE THE BENAMI PROPERTIES OF THE ASSESSEE. MOREOVER, THE RENTAL I NCOME FROM THE ITA NOS. 2942-2945/DEL/2010 & WTA NOS. 26-29/DEL/2010 7 SAME PROPERTIES IS ALREADY ASSESSED IN THE HANDS OF THE RESPECTIVE OWNERS I.E. ASSESSEES RELATIVES. 6.1 IN THE AFORESAID CIRCUMSTANCES, IN OUR CONSIDERE D OPINION, THERE IS NO INFIRMITY OR ILLEGALITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. C OMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). WE ACCORDINGLY UPHOLD THE SAME. 6.2 MOREOVER, WE ALSO FIND THAT THE TAX EFFECT OF A PPEALS IN THESE YEARS IS BELOW THE LIMIT FIXED BY THE CBDT FOR FILIN G THE APPEAL BEFORE THE ITAT. 7. IN THE RESULT, THESE APPEALS BY THE REVENUE STAN D DISMISSED. WTA NOS. 26 WTA NOS. 26 WTA NOS. 26 WTA NOS. 26- -- -29/DEL/2010 29/DEL/2010 29/DEL/2010 29/DEL/2010 8. THE COMMON ISSUE RAISED IS THAT LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/WEALTH TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN DELETING TH E ADDITIONS OF ` 52,34,410/-, ` 51,83,900, ` 51,10,760 AND ` 51,23,7 00/- RIGHTLY MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF VALUE OF 18 COMMERCIAL FLATS IN ASSESSMENT YEARS 1989-90 TO 1992-93. 9. THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED RETURNS OS WEALTH FOR THE A.YRS. 1989-90 TO 1992-93 DECLARING WEALTH OF ` 1,86,900/-, ` 2,22,800/-, ` 2,00,300/- AND ` 2,12,7 00/-. ON 27.3.87 CBI HAD RAIDED THE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE AND HIS ASSO CIATES AT KOHIMA, DELHI AND OTHER PLACES. NOTICES U/S 17 WERE ISSUED AND ASSESSMENT WERE COMPLETED U/S 16(3) ON 17.3.97. THE ASSESSEE WENT IN APPEAL AND THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) VIDE ORDER DATED 17.1.1999 SET ASIDE THE ASSESSMENT. HENCE RE-ASSE SSMENT WAS MADE VIDE ORDER U/S 16(3)/23 DATED 23.3.2001. THE ASSESS EE WENT IN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-XX I, NEW DELHI. THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) VIDE AP PEAL ORDER NO. ITA NOS. 2942-2945/DEL/2010 & WTA NOS. 26-29/DEL/2010 8 114/2003-04/761 DATED 31.3.05 HAS CONFIRMED THE OR DER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HOWEVER, THE LD. COMMISSIONER O F INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ALLOWED CERTAIN RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE. T HE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) WAS NOT ACCEPTE D BY THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS THE DEPARTMENT AND BOTH THE PA RTIES FILED APPEALS BEFORE THE ITAT. THE HONBLE ITAT VIDE ORDER WTA NOS. 76 TO 79/DEL/2005 AND WTA NOS. 84 TO 87/DEL/2005 DATED 13. 12.07 HAS SET ASIDE THE ASSESSMENT. IN CONSEQUENCE OF THE ITAT OR DER, NOTICES U/S 16(2) ISSUED AND COMPLIED WITH. THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER HAS FINALIZED THE ASSESSMENTS MAKING ADDITIONS ON ACCOUNT OF IMMOVA BLE PROPERTY AND MOVABLE ASSETS. 10. AGGRIEVED BY THE ABOVE ORDER THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/WEALTH TAX (APPEALS). LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME /WEALTH TAX (APPEALS) CONSID ERED THE SUBMISSIONS AND HELD AS UNDER:- IN THE ORDER UNDER APPEAL, THE WTO HAS HELD THAT T HE VALUE OF 18 FLATS IN THE NAMES OF ASSESSEES RELATIVES ARE IN FA CT THE PROPERTIES OWNED BY ASSESSEE HIMSELF IN BENAMI NAME S. THE WTO HAS, THEREFORE, ADDED THE ESTIMATED VALUE OF ` 5 2,34,410/- TO THE DECLARED WEALTH OF THE APPELLANT. THE WTO HA S RELIED UPON THE IT ASSESSMENT FOR A.Y. 1991-92 AND EARLIER YEAR S AS ALSO THE ORDER OF LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-XX I VIDE APPEAL ORDER NO. 115/2003-04/762 DATED 31.3.2005 CONFIRMING THE IT ORDERS. HOWEVER, THE ORDERS THAT HAVE BEEN RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WERE SUBSEQUENTLY SET ASIDE BY THE ITAT VI DE ORDER ITAT ITA NOS. 2942-2945/DEL/2010 & WTA NOS. 26-29/DEL/2010 9 VIDE ORDER ITA NO. 3068 TO 3071/DEL/2005 DATED 13.1 2.2007 AND ITA NO. 3052 TO 3055/DEL/2005 DATED 13.12.2007 AND THE INCOME TAX ORDERS FOR A.YRS. 1989-90 TO 1992-93 WER E REFRAMED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, AND ALTHOUGH THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER HAS REPEATED THE ADDITIONS MADE EARLIER IN ORDER (WHICH WERE SET ASIDE), THE APPEAL AGAINST THE REFRAMED ORDERS HAS B EEN DECIDED BY ME IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE VIDE MY ORDER APPEAL NO. 541 TO 544/08-09 DATED 17.3.2010. IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT O F BENAMI OWNERSHIP OF FLATS HAS BEEN DELETED AND IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT, THE RENTAL INCOME IN RESPECT OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTIES AT DEVIKA TOWER, NEHRU PLACE AND ESSEL MANSION, KAROL B AGH, NEW DELHI IN THE NAMES OF ASSESSEES RELATIVES NAMELY , MOHINDER SINGH, INDERJEET SINGH, DALJIT WALIA, RAJINDER KAUR WALIA AND OTHERS CANNOT BE ASSESSED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE BECAUSE IT HAS NOT BEEN ESTABLISHED THAT T HESE PROPERTIES ARE THE BENAMI PROPERTIES OF THE ASSESSEE AND MOREOVER RENTAL INCOME FROM THE SAME PROPERTIES IS ALREADY BEEN ASSESSED IN THE HANDS OF THE RESPECTIV E OWNER I.E. THE ASSESSEES RELATIVE. I, THEREFORE DELETE THE ADDITIONS OF ` 4,65,416/-, ` 5,66,720/-, ` 5,14,910/- AND ` 5 ,41,796/- ITA NOS. 2942-2945/DEL/2010 & WTA NOS. 26-29/DEL/2010 10 MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR THE A.YRS. 1989-9 0 TO 1992-93. THE ADDITIONS OF ` 52,34,410/-, ` 51,83,900/-, ` 51 ,10,760/- AND ` 51,23,700/- ON ACCOUNT OF VALUE OF 18 COMMERC IAL FLATS IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 1989-90 TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 1992- 93 ARE DELETED. 11. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSE D THE RECORDS. WE NOTE THAT THE ADDITIONS ON ACCOUNT OF INCOME FROM OWNERSHIP OF FLATS HAS BEEN DELETED BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF IN COME TAX (APPEALS) AND WE HAVE CONFIRMED THE SAME IN OUR ORDE RS IN THE INCOME TAX APPEALS ABOVE. IT HAS ALSO BEEN NOTED THAT INCOME FROM THE PROPERTIES HAS BEEN ADDED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSES SEES RELATIVES, WHO ARE THE OWNERS OF THESE PROPERTIES. IN SUCH SI TUATION, LEVY OF WEALTH TAX FOR THESE FLATS IN ASSESSEES HANDS IS N OT SUSTAINABLE. HENCE, WE HOLD THAT THERE IS NO INFIRMITY OR ILLEGA LITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME/WEALTH TAX (APPEALS) IN THIS REGARD. 12. MOREOVER, WE ALSO FIND THAT THE TAX EFFECT OF A PPEALS IN THESE YEARS IS BELOW THE LIMIT FIXED BY THE CBDT FOR FILIN G THE APPEAL BEFORE THE ITAT. 13. IN THE RESULT, THESE WEALTH TAX APPEALS BY THE REVENUE STAND DISMISSED. ITA NOS. 2942-2945/DEL/2010 & WTA NOS. 26-29/DEL/2010 11 14. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE INCOME TAX AND WEALTH T AX APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE STAND DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 28/04/2011, U PON CONCLUSION OF HEARING. SD/ SD/ SD/ SD/- -- - SD/ SD/ SD/ SD/- -- - [ [[ [A.D. JAIN] A.D. JAIN] A.D. JAIN] A.D. JAIN] [SHAMIM YAHYA] [SHAMIM YAHYA] [SHAMIM YAHYA] [SHAMIM YAHYA] JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATE 28/04/2011 SRB COPY FORWARDED TO: COPY FORWARDED TO: COPY FORWARDED TO: COPY FORWARDED TO: - -- - 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER, DEPUTY REGISTRAR, ITAT, DELHI BENCHES