ACIT, New Delhi V. M/s. Uppal Housing Limited, New Delhi

ITA 3266/DEL/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 134 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4227 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-04-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: H
• Next Hearing Date: 06-04-2011
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 02-07-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Documents seized
• Section: 68; 132

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH H : NEW DELHI) (DELHI BENCH H : NEW DELHI) (DELHI BENCH H : NEW DELHI) (DELHI BENCH H : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI A.D. JAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND BEFORE SHRI A.D. JAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND BEFORE SHRI A.D. JAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND BEFORE SHRI A.D. JAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI K.D. RANJAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI K.D. RANJAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI K.D. RANJAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI K.D. RANJAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.3266/DEL./2010 ITA NO.3266/DEL./2010 ITA NO.3266/DEL./2010 ITA NO.3266/DEL./2010 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007- -- -08) 08) 08) 08) ACIT, CEN.CIR.4, ACIT, CEN.CIR.4, ACIT, CEN.CIR.4, ACIT, CEN.CIR.4, VS. VS. VS. VS. UPPAL HOUSING LTD., UPPAL HOUSING LTD., UPPAL HOUSING LTD., UPPAL HOUSING LTD., NEW D NEW D NEW D NEW DELHI. ELHI. ELHI. ELHI. S SS S- -- -39A, PANCHSHEEL PARK, 39A, PANCHSHEEL PARK, 39A, PANCHSHEEL PARK, 39A, PANCHSHEEL PARK, NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI. (PAN/GIR NO.AAACU1786A) (PAN/GIR NO.AAACU1786A) (PAN/GIR NO.AAACU1786A) (PAN/GIR NO.AAACU1786A) (APPELLANT) (APPELLANT) (APPELLANT) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) (RESPONDENT) (RESPONDENT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI SALIL AGGARWAL, ADV. ASSESSEE BY : SHRI SALIL AGGARWAL, ADV. ASSESSEE BY : SHRI SALIL AGGARWAL, ADV. ASSESSEE BY : SHRI SALIL AGGARWAL, ADV. REVENUE BY : SHRI Y.K. KAKKAR, SR.DR REVENUE BY : SHRI Y.K. KAKKAR, SR.DR REVENUE BY : SHRI Y.K. KAKKAR, SR.DR REVENUE BY : SHRI Y.K. KAKKAR, SR.DR ORDER ORDER ORDER ORDER PER A.D. JAIN: JM PER A.D. JAIN: JM PER A.D. JAIN: JM PER A.D. JAIN: JM THIS IS DEPARTMENTS APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08, TAKING THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE CASE, THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF `19,00,000 MADE BY THE AO U/S 68 OF THE I.T. ACT ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH FOUND DURING SEARC H? 2. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E CASE, THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF `3,24,465 MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF CASH PAID BY THE ASSESSEE OUT OF HIS UNDISCLOSED INCOME? 2. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS ENGAGED IN CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT OF REAL ESTATE. A SEARCH WAS CONDUCTED ON THE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE, ON 28.7.2006. A CASH OF `19 LAKHS WAS SEI ZED. THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT THE CASH FOUND, BELONGED TO VARI OUS COMPANIES AND THE INVESTORS OPERATING FROM THE PREMISES; THAT FROM THE DETAILS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, INCLUDING THE RELEVAN T PAGES OF THE 2 CASH BOOK, IT WAS SEEN THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD EVEN TAKEN IN TO ACCOUNT THE CASH IN HAND AVAILABLE WITH THE INDIVIDUALS OR HU FS OF THE ASSESSEE GROUP; THAT IT WAS NOT UNDERSTANDABLE AS TO WHY THE CA SH AVAILABLE WITH THE INDIVIDUALS WOULD BE KEPT AT THE BUSINESS PREM ISES; AND THAT FURTHER, SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT BEEN ABLE TO EXPLAIN THE AVAILABILITY OF CASH AT THE TIME OF SEARCH, THE PLEA TAKEN SUBSEQUEN TLY DID NOT CARRY ANY SUBSTANCE; THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WAS THE FLA GSHIP COMPANY OF THE GROUP. 3. THE CIT(A) HAVING DELETED THIS ADDITION, THE DEPA RTMENT HAS TAKEN GROUND NO.1 BEFORE US. 4. CHALLENGING THE IMPUGNED ORDER, THE LD.DR HAS CON TENDED THAT THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF `19 LAKHS CORRECTLY MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH FOUND DURING THE SEARCH; THAT WHILE DELETING THE ADDITION, THE CIT(A) HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT IT DOES NOT STAND THE REASON, AS OBSERVE D BY THE AO, THAT INDIVIDUALS OR HUFS WOULD KEEP THE CASH AT THE BU SINESS PREMISES AND STILL MADE THEIR DAY-TO-DAY HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES. 5. LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, ON THE OTHER HAND, HAS STR ONGLY RELIED ON THE IMPUGNED ORDER. IT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED THAT AS BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW, THAT COMPLETE DETAILS OF THE AVAIL ABILITY OF THE CASH WERE FILED BEFORE THE AO; THAT THE MONEY BELONGED T O VARIOUS SOURCES OF THE UPPAL GROUP, OPERATING FROM THE SAME PREMISES; THAT THE CASH BALANCE AVAILABLE IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT TALLIED WI TH THE CASH SEIZED BY THE DEPARTMENT; THAT THE CASH FOUND WAS ALSO SUPPORT ED BY THE COPY OF TRIAL BALANCE; THAT NO DIFFERENCE WAS FOUND IN CASH BALANCE SHOWN; THAT THE ENTIRE CASH WAS OWNED BY THE COMPANIES/ INDIVIDUALS AND REFLECTED IN THEIR BALANCE SHEET AS ON 31.3.2007, FILED WITH THE DEPARTMENT; THAT THE PREMISES FROM WHICH THE CASH WAS FOUND, WAS OCCUPIED BY VARIOUS GROUP CONSTITUENTS AS THEIR PRINCIP AL PLACE OF BUSINESS; THAT REMARKABLY, EVEN THOUGH THE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT BEEN ACCEPTED, NO ADDITION HAD BEEN MA DE IN THE 3 OTHER GROUP CONSTITUENTS COVERED U/S 132 OF THE ACT; T HAT IN THE CASES OF THE GROUP, ALL THE CASH AND ACCOUNTING WORK RELAT ING TO ALL THE GROUP CONSTITUENTS, INCLUDING HUFS, INDIVIDUALS AND GROUP COM PANIES WERE CENTRALIZED AND WERE BEING HANDLED BY THE ACCOUNTS D EPARTMENT; THAT THE INDIVIDUALS AND THE HUFS WERE ALSO ENGAGED IN BUSIN ESS ACTIVITIES; THAT THE CHEQUE BOOKS WERE BEING KEPT WITH THE ACCOU NTANT WHO DREW THE CASH AS PER REQUIREMENT AND KEPT IN THE STRONG ROO M BEING OPERATED FROM THE BUSINESS PREMISES; THAT DURING THE SEAR CH NO CASH WAS FOUND AT THE RESIDENTIAL PREMISES; AND THAT THE CIT (A) HAS CORRECTLY APPRECIATED THE ABOVE FACTUAL POSITION AND HAS RIGHTL Y DELETED THE ADDITION WRONGLY MADE. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES ON THIS ISSUE. THE DETAIL S OF THE CASH FOUND, DURING THE SEARCH CONDUCTED: S.N. NAME OF THE GROUP CASH BALANCE CASH SEIZED CASH R ELEASED CONSTITUENTS AVAILABLE IN DURING THE AT THE TIME CASH BOOK AS SEARCH ON SEARCH DATE OF SEARCH 1.UPPAL HOUSING (P)LTD. 7,31,393.21 7,05,000.00 26,393.21 2.PROSPEROUS ESTATES(P)LTD.4,33,181.00 4,25,000.00 8, 181.00 3.INDIA COLONISERS(P) LTD. 68,527.00 60,000.00 8 ,527.00 4.B.K.UPPAL(IND.) 1,38,934.14 1,30,000.00 8,934.14 5.MANISH UPPAL(IND.) 3,93,411.22 3,90,000.00 3,411.22 6.VEENA UPPAL(IND.) 1,96,175.00 1,90,000.00 6,175.00 7.UPAL DEVELOPERS(P)LTD. 1,766.55 NIL 1,766.5 5 8.MAJNISH UPPAL(HUF) 11,066.50 NIL 11,066.50 9.MISC. EXCESS & SHORTAGE OF CASH WITH CASHIER 4,045.38 NIL 4,045.38 __________ ____________ __________ 19,78,500.00 19,00,000.00 78,500.00 7. THE AO MADE THE ADDITION OBSERVING THAT IT WAS NOT UNDERSTANDABLE AS TO WHY THE CASH AVAILABLE WITH THE I NDIVIDUALS AND HUFS WOULD BE KEPT AT THE BUSINESS PREMISES; THAT THE ASSESSE E HAD FAILED TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE REGARDING TH E SOURCE OF INCOME AT THE TIME OF SEARCH; AND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT BEEN ABLE 4 TO EXPLAIN THE AVAILABILITY OF THE CASH AT THE TIME OF SEARCH AND SO, THE PLEA SUBSEQUENTLY TAKEN WAS UNTENABLE. 8. THERE IS NO DENIAL TO THE CIT(A)S OBSERVATION THAT THE CASH BOOKS OF THE VARIOUS CONCERNS WERE PRODUCED BEFORE THE AO. HOWEVER, AS RIGHTLY NOTED BY THE CIT(A) NO FINDING HAS BEEN RECO RDED IN THIS REGARD BY THE AO IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE CIT(A) PERUSED T HE COPIES OF THE CASH BOOKS PRODUCED BEFORE HIM AND IT WAS OBSERVED THEREFROM THAT THE VARIOUS CONCERNS OPERATING FROM THE PREMISES W HERE THE SEARCH WAS CONDUCTED, WERE HAVING OPENING BALANCE OF `19,78,500 AS ON 28.7.2006, I.E., THE DATE ON WHICH THE SEARCH WA S CONDUCTED. THE AO, IT IS SEEN, HAS NOWHERE REBUTTED THIS AND THE CASH F OUND HAS BEEN TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED MONEY ONLY ON THE BASIS OF THE CONJUNCTURE THAT THE INDIVIDUALS AND HUFS WOULD NOT KEEP THEIR MO NEY IN THE BUSINESS PREMISES. 9. FINDING NO ERROR IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IN T HIS REGARD, THERE IS NO REASON TO TAKE ANY VIEW DIFFERENT FROM THAT TAKEN BY THE CIT(A). AS SUCH, FINDING NO MERIT THEREIN GROUND NO.1 IS REJECTE D. 10. APROPOS GROUND NO.2, THE AO OBSERVED THAT AMONGST THE NUMEROUS DOCUMENTS SEIZED DURING THE SEARCH, ANNEXURE A -7 WAS HANS WRITING PAD; THAT PAGE 2 OF THIS PAD REFLECTED THE NAMES AND AMOUNTS WRITTEN AGAINST THEM; THAT FROM THESE, IT WAS R EVEALED THAT THE PAYMENTS HAD BEEN MADE TO THE EMPLOYEES OF THE ASSE SSEE COMPANY; THAT ON QUERY, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THESE AMOUNTS WERE REQUIREMENTS OF CERTAIN MEMBERS FOR STAFF ADVANCE S AND IMPREST AND WERE FOR DISCUSSION WITH THE MANAGEMENT; THAT OUT OF THESE AMOUNTS, CERTAIN ADVANCES WERE GIVEN AND THE REST WERE NOT SANCTIONED; THAT THE COPIES OF ACCOUNT OF S/SHRI SUDH IR GANGAL, A.K. GOYAL AND K.G.S. RATNAM HAD BEEN FILED. THE AO OBSE RVED THAT NONE OF THESE ACCOUNTS REFLECTED AMOUNTS WRITTEN AGAINST THE IR NAMES ON PAGES 2 & 5 OF ANNEXURE A-7; THAT IN FACT, AS PER THE SAID ACCOUNT, A 5 CHEQUE OF `50,000 HAD BEEN PAID TO SHRI SUDHIR GANG AL ON 21.8.06; CHEQUE OF `30,000 HAD BEEN PAID TO SHRI A.K. GOYAL ON 21.8.06 AND ANOTHER CHEQUE OF `30,000 HAD BEEN PAID TO SHRI K.G .S. RATNAM ON 21.8.06; THAT AS SUCH, THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED AS TO WHY THESE AMOUNTS BE NOT TREATED AS ADVANCES PAID TO STAFF IN CASH OUT OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME; THAT IN REPLY, THE ASSESSEE HAD MAINT AINED HIS EARLIER STAND; THAT HOWEVER, THIS STAND WAS NOT MAINTAI NABLE SINCE AT PAGE 2 OF ANNEXURE A-7 EVEN THE DATE OF PAYMENT STOO D MENTIONED; THAT FURTHER, IT WAS EVIDENT FROM PAGE 2 OF ANNEXURE A7 THAT THE MATTER RELATED TO APRIL, 2006 WHEREAS, THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT BEEN ABLE TO SHOW ANY SUCH PAYMENT TO ANY OF THE PERSONS MENTIONE D IN ANNEXURE A-7 DURING THE PERIOD FROM ITS BOOKS OF ACCO UNT; THAT THE COPIES OF ACCOUNTS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE REFLECTED ONL Y THE PAYMENTS MADE ON 21.8.06, I.E., AFTER ABOUT FOUR MON THS; THAT THIS SHOWED THAT THE PAYMENT HAD ACTUALLY BEEN MADE BY TH E ASSESSEE IN CASH OUT OF ITS UNDISCLOSED INCOME; THAT IT WAS ALSO REVE ALED FROM THE TWO PAGES OF ANNEXURE A-7 THAT SOME NAMES AND AMOUNTS W ERE COMMON ON BOTH THE PAGES; THAT THIS SHOWED THAT THESE W ERE NOT MERELY REQUIREMENTS, BUT THE DETAILS OF THE ACTUAL PA YMENTS; THAT AS SUCH, THERE WAS NO SUBSTANCE IN THE PLEA TAKEN BY THE A SSESSEE. 11. THE CIT(A) DELETED THIS ADDITION ALSO. 12. THE LD.DR. HAS CONTENDED THAT THIS ADDITION HAS AL SO BEEN WRONGLY DELETED BY THE CIT(A); THAT THE AMOUNT OF ` 3,24,465 REPRESENTED CASH PAID BY THE ASSESSEE OUT OF ITS UNDISCLOSED INCOME; THAT THE CIT(A) HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE, AS OBSERVED BY THE AO, THAT SOME NAMES AND AMOUNTS WRITTEN AGAINST THEM ON BOTH PAG ES 2 & 5 OF THE SEIZED NOTE PAD OF ANNEXURE A-7, ARE COMMON, IND ICATING THE FACT THAT THE PLEA OF THESE BEING ONLY REQUIREMENTS, IS MER ELY A COCK AND BULL STORY; THAT PERTINENTLY, EVEN DATES ARE MENTIONE D ON PAGE 2 OF ANNEXURE A-7; THAT THESE DATES ARE NOTHING BUT THE DA TES OF PAYMENT; 6 THAT FURTHER, AS IS EVIDENT FROM PAGE 2 OF ANNEXURE A -7, THE MATTER RELATED TO APRIL, 2006 AND THE ASSESSEE REMAINED UNABLE TO SHOW ANY PAYMENT TO ANY OF THE PERSONS MENTIONED THEREIN DURIN G THAT PERIOD, FROM ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT THAT REMARKABLY, THE ACCOUN TS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE SHOWED PAYMENTS MADE ON 21.8.06 ONLY, I.E., AFTER AROUND FOUR MONTHS; THAT FROM THIS SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE , THE AO CORRECTLY ARRIVED AT THE PLEA THAT THESE PAYMENTS HAD ACTUALLY BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN CASH OUT OF ITS OWN UNDISCLOSED INC OME AND THAT, THEREFORE, THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IN THIS REG ARD BE REVERSED AND THAT PASSED BY THE AO BE REVIVED BY ACCEPTING GROUND NO.2. 13. LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, ON THE OTHER HAND, HAS, AGAIN, PLACED RELIANCE ON THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) . IT HA S BEEN SUBMITTED THAT IT IS A PRACTICE IN ALL ORGANIZATIONS THAT WHENEVER A NY STAFF MEMBER REQUIRES ANY ADVANCE OR IMPREST, HE APPROACHES HIS IMME DIATE OFFICER, WHO IN TURN, SEEKS THE APPROVAL OF THEIR ULTIMATE SANC TIONING AUTHORITY I THE ORGANIZATIONAL HIERARCHY; THAT THIS WAS SO IN THE ASSESSEES CASE ALSO; THAT CERTAIN EMPLOYEES APPROACHED FOR STAFF ADVA NCE/IMPREST, WHICH WAS JOTTED DOWN ON THE NOTE PAD ANNEXURE A-7; THAT THE AMOUNTS SANCTIONED WERE DULY RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WHILE THE OTHERS WERE NOT; AND THAT THE ORDER OF THE AO WA S SELF- CONTRADICTORY AS MUCH AS IT WAS ACCEPTED BY THE AO HIM SELF THAT CHEQUES WERE SEIZED OF `.30,000 TO SHRI A.K. GOYAL AN D K.G.S. RATNAM EACH ON 21.8.06 AND CHEQUE OF `50,000 TO SHRI SUDHI R GANGAL ALSO ON 21.8.06; THAT THESE PAYMENTS WERE MADE BY CHEQUE; THA T RELEVANT COPY OF STAFF ADVANCES WERE NOT PRODUCED BEFORE THE A O; THAT THE CIT(A) HAS CORRECTLY APPRECIATED THE FACTUAL SITUATIO N AND HAS RIGHTLY DELETED THE ADDITION WRONGLY MADE. 15. ON HAVING HEARD THE PARTIES ON THIS ISSUE IN THE LI GHT OF THE MATERIAL BROUGHT ON RECORD, AGAIN, WE DO NOT FIND A NY FORCE IN THE 7 GRIEVANCE RAISED BY THE DEPARTMENT BY WAY OF GROUND NO.2. THE ENTRIES ON PAGE 2 OF ANNEXURE A-7 ARE AS FOLLOWS: MONIKA 03.04.06 9,500 KGS RATNAM NANAGER SERVIES 03.04.06 42,425 SANJEEV SHARMA METRO PARK PROJECT ENGINEER 10.04.06 30K Y.K. SINGHAL 26.04.06 ALOK SUPRA SHIKHOPUR PROJECT ENGINEER 01.04.06 45, 000 14. THE ENTRIES CONTAINED ON PAGE 5 OF ANNEXURE A-7 ARE AS FOLLOWS: 1. ARUN JOSHI 2. SUDHIR GANGAL 1,00,000 3. A.K. GOYAL 45,000 4. K.G.S. RATNAM 42,425 5. SANJEEV SHARMA 30,000 6. ALOK SUPRA 45,000 7. ATUL SHARMA 62,000 8. Y.K. SINGHAL 15. THE ABOVE ENTRIES WERE MADE BY THE ASSESSEES ACCOUNT ANT, SHRI MANOJ KUMAR MEHRA. THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE WIT H REGARD TO THESE ENTRIES WAS THAT THEY REPRESENTED THEIR REQUESTS MA DE BY THE STAFF MEMBERS BY THE ASSESSEE FROM TIME TO TIME AND THAT ROUGH NOTINGS WERE MADE TO PUT UP THE SAME BEFORE THE MANAG EMENT, FOR DISCUSSION, AS CORRECTLY NOTED BY THE CIT(A), THE PRESUM PTION ARISEN U/S 132A(4) OF THE ACT THUS STOOD REVERTED BY THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, THE AOS DOUBT THAT THE STAND OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT SUSTAINABL E IS NOT BASED ON ANY SOLID FOUNDATION. RATHER, IT IS MERELY CO NJUNCTURE AND SURMISES ON WHICH THE ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE. THE PERSO NS MENTIONED IN PAGES 2 & 5 IN ANNEXURE A-7 OUGHT TO HA VE BEEN EXAMINED BY THE AO WHEN HE WAS IN SUCH A DOUBT. THIS WAS, HOWEVER, NOT DONE IN HIS WISDOM. 16. THE AOS OTHER OBSERVATION WAS THAT THE ENTRIES PER TAINED TO APRIL, 2006. HOWEVER, THE CHEQUE PAYMENTS AMOUNTING TO `1,10,000 TO S/SHRI SUDHIR GANGAL, A.K. GOYAL AND K.G.S. RATN AM WERE NOT TAKEN 8 INTO CONSIDERATION BY THE AO. THE DETAILS OF THESE AD VANCES WERE CROSS VERIFIED BY THE CIT(A) AND THEY WERE FOUND TO BE CO RRECT. THE PAYMENTS WERE FOUND TO HAVE BEEN MADE ON 21 ST OF AUGUST, 2006. THE CIT(A) REQUIRED THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE THE ACCOUNTANT, SHRI MANOJ KUMAR MEHRA, WHO CONFIRMED THE STAND TAKEN BY THE ASSE SSEE BY WAY OF AFFIDAVIT. THESE FACTUAL FINDINGS OF THE CIT(A) H AVE REMAINED UNHINGED. 17. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE ACTION OF THE CIT(A) ON THE DELETING OF THE ADDITION OF `3,24,425, IS ALSO CONFIRMED. GROUND NO.2 IS ALSO REJECTED. 18. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE DEPARTMEN T IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 21.04.2011. SD/- SD/- (K.D. RANJAN) (K.D. RANJAN) (K.D. RANJAN) (K.D. RANJAN) (A.D. JAIN) (A.D. JAIN) (A.D. JAIN) (A.D. JAIN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED, APRIL DATED, APRIL DATED, APRIL DATED, APRIL 21, 2011. 21, 2011. 21, 2011. 21, 2011. SKB SKB SKB SKB COPY COPY COPY COPY FORWARDED TO: FORWARDED TO: FORWARDED TO: FORWARDED TO: 1.APPELLANT 1.APPELLANT 1.APPELLANT 1.APPELLANT 2.RESPONDENT 2.RESPONDENT 2.RESPONDENT 2.RESPONDENT 3.CIT 3.CIT 3.CIT 3.CIT 4.CIT(A) 4.CIT(A) 4.CIT(A) 4.CIT(A)- -- -III, NEW DELHI. III, NEW DELHI. III, NEW DELHI. III, NEW DELHI. 5.CIT(ITAT), NEW DELHI. 5.CIT(ITAT), NEW DELHI. 5.CIT(ITAT), NEW DELHI. 5.CIT(ITAT), NEW DELHI. AR/ITAT AR/ITAT AR/ITAT AR/ITAT