ACIT, New Delhi V. Smt. Geeta Jain, Haryana

ITA 3370/DEL/2011

• Counselvise Citation: 337020114 RSA 2011
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-07-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 24-04-2012
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 29-06-2011
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SURENDER PAL
• Assessee Lawyers: VIRENDER PRATAP
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Rule of consistency; Additional evidence
• Section: 80C; 131

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH `C: NEW DELHIA BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI K.D. RANJAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T. A. NO.3370/DEL/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09 ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, SMT. GEETA J AIN, CIRCLE 43(1), NEW DELHI. VS. 200, SHASGTRI NA GAR, GANNUR, SONEPAT, HARYANA. PAN/GIR NO.ADIPJ5050G. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDEN T) APPELLANT BY : SHRI SURENDER PAL, SR. DR. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI VIRENDER PRATAP, CA. O R D E R PER K.D. RANJAN, ACCOUNTAT MEMBER: THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 -09 ARISES OUT OF THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APP EALS)-XXX, NEW DELHI. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE REVENUE ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER:- 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND LAW, THE LD. CIT(A)-XXX, NEW DELHI HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.15,00,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINE D SOURCES MADE BY THE AO. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND LAW, THE LD. CIT(A)-XXX, NEW DELHI HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE 2 ADDITION OF RS.72,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF LOW HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES MADE BY THE AO. 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND LAW, THE LD. CIT(A)-XXX, NEW DELHI HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.30,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF NON PRODUCTIO N OF DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF INVESTMENT MADE FOR CLAIMING DEDUCTION U/S 80C MADE BY THE AO. 4. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND LAW, THE LD. CIT(A)-XXX, NEW DELHI HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.7,52,982/- ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANC E OF INTEREST CLAIMED TO BE PAID ON LOAN TAKEN FOR ACQUIRING HOUS E PROPERTY AND SHOWING LESS INCOME UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY MADE BY THE AO. 5. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND LAW, THE LD. CIT(A)-XXX, NEW DELHI HAS ERRED IN ADMITTIN G ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES IN CONTRAVENTION OF RULE 46A O F THE I.T. RULES. 2. THE FIRST ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION RELATES TO DEL ETING THE ADDITION OF RS.15,00,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED SOURCES. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT AS PER COPY OF ACCOUNT OF M/S. KESHAV SHARES & STOCKS LTD., THE AS SESSEE HAD TAKEN LOAN OF RS.5,00,000/- ON 28.07.2007 AND PAID RS.10,00,000/- ON 21.01.2008. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS OF THE OPINION THAT THE ASSES SEE HAD ROUTED HER OWN MONEY THROUGH M/S. KESHAV SHARES & STOCKS LTD. AND HENCE THESE ENTRIES WERE NOTHING BUT UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AND ACCORDINGLY, ADDITION OF RS.15,00,000/- WAS MADE AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME. 3 3. BEFORE THE CIT(A) IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESS EE THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS.10,00,000/- WAS REFUNDED OUT OF RENTAL INCOME WH ICH HAD DULY BEEN TAXED BY THE AUTHORITIES. RS.5,00,000/- WAS FURTHER TAKE N AS LOAN FROM THE COMPANY WHICH HAD DISCLOSED AN INCOME OF RS.37,36,1 39/- AND PAID INCOME TAX OF RS.11,20,842/- AT THE MAXIMUM RATE OF TAX. T HE COMPANY HAD ADVANCED RS.5,00,000/- OUT OF ITS REGULAR DAY-TO-DA Y BUSINESS ACTIVITIES AND HAD DULY CONFIRMED THE LOAN. THE ASSESSEE HAD TAKE N LOAN OF RS.63,00,000/- FROM M/S. KESHAV SHARES & STOCK LTD. DURING THE YEA R 2005-06 ON INTEREST @ 9% PER ANNUM. AS ON 01.04.2007 THERE WAS AN OUTS TANDING LOAN OF RS.62,20,325/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD ADDED BO TH THE AMOUNTS I.E. THE AMOUNT OF RS.10,00,000/- WHICH WAS REFUNDED BY THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS RS.5,00,000/- A FRESH LOAN TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE FR OM M/S. KESHAV SHARES & STOCK LTD. IT WAS FURTHER EXPLAINED THAT THE ASSES SEE WAS EMPLOYEE OF M/S. KESHAV SHARES & STOCK LTD. WHICH HAD ADVANCED LOAN AGAINST THE PROPERTY. 4. THE LEARNED CIT(A) CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS MA DE BY THE ASSESSEE. HE WAS OF THE OPINION THAT THE ADDITION HAD BEEN MA DE MERELY ON THE BASIS OF SUSPICION AND DOUBTS WHICH WERE BASELESS PARTICU LARLY KEEPING IN VIEW THE PAST HISTORY OF THE ASSESSEE WHERE THE SOURCE OF LO AN AND INTEREST WAS ALWAYS ACCEPTED AND ALLOWED. THEREFORE, THERE WAS NO REAS ON TO IGNORE THE RULE OF CONSISTENCY. THE AO HAD EXAMINED THE DIRECTOR OF M /S. KESHAV SHARES & 4 STOCK LTD. U/S 131 WHO HAS AFFIRMED THE LOAN. DURI NG THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS THE EVIDENCE OF FILING OF INC OME-TAX RETURN OF M/S. KESHAV SHARES & STOCK LTD. WAS FILED ACCORDING TO W HICH THE COMPANY ITSELF HAD DECLARED INCOME OF RS.37,36,139/- IN ADDITION T O DECLARED INTEREST INCOME OF RS.15,67,168/-. SINCE THE ADVANCE OF RS. 5,00,000/- HAS BEEN CONFIRMED BY THE DIRECTOR IN HIS PERSONAL DEPOSITIO N, THE LEARNED CIT(A) WAS OF THE OPINION THAT THE ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE PURE LY ON SUSPICION AND DOUBTS AND WITHOUT ANY POSITIVE EVIDENCE. THE LEAR NED CIT(A) THEREFORE, DELETED THE ADDITION. 5. BEFORE US THE LEARNED SR. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS DRAWING SALARY OF RS.11,000/- PER MONTH FROM M/S. KESHAV SH ARES & STOCK LTD. FROM WHOM THE LOAN OF RS.63,00,000/- AT THE INTEREST OF 9% PER ANNUM HAS BEEN OBTAINED. THE ASSESSEE WAS NEVER PRESENTED BEFORE THE AO. IT WAS ASSESSEES OWN INCOME WHICH HAS BEEN ROUTED THROUGH M/S. KESHAV SHARES & STOCK LTD. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT M/S. KESHA V SHARES & STOCK LTD. WAS NOT IN THE BUSINESS OF MONEY LENDING. THEREFOR E, IT WAS STRONGLY SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDITION OF RS.15,00,000/- WAS R IGHTLY MADE BY THE AO. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEARNED AR OF THE ASSESSEE S UBMITTED THAT THE AO HAD NOT BROUGHT ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD TO PROVE THAT TH E ASSESSEE HAS ROUTED HER OWN MONEY THROUGH M/S. KESHAV SHARES & STOCK LTD. HE SUBMITTED THAT 5 LOAN OF RS.63,00,000/- WAS TAKEN DURING THE YEAR 20 05-06 AND INTEREST ON THIS AMOUNT HAS BEEN ALLOWED BY THE DEPARTMENT IN A LL THE YEARS. THEREFORE, IT IS BASELESS TO ARGUE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ROUTE D HER OWN INCOME THROUGH THE COMPANY. 6. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND GONE THROUGH THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT IS A FACT THAT THE ASSESSE E HAD TAKEN LOAN OF RS.63,00,000/- FROM M/S. KESHAV SHARES & STOCK LTD. DURING THE YEAR 2005- 06. THE ASSESSEE HAD BEEN PAYING INTEREST ON THE S AID LOAN DURING EARLIER YEARS. THE ASSESSEE HAD TAKEN FURTHER LOAN OF RS. 5,00,000/- WHICH HAD BEEN CONFIRMED BY THE DIRECTOR OF THE COMPANY. ANOTHER AMOUNT OF RS.10,00,000/- WAS PAID BY THE ASSESSEE OUT OF RENT AL INCOME. THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED COPY OF AGREEMENT FOR SUB-LEASE OF PROPER TY WHICH WAS ACQUIRED BY HER OUT OF LOAN TAKEN FROM M/S. KESHAV SHARES & STO CK LTD. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD NOT BROUGHT ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD TO P ROVE THAT IT WAS ASSESSEES OWN INCOME WHICH HAD BEEN ROUTED THROUGH THE COMPANY. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY SUCH MATERIAL, THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO AMOUNTS TO BASED ON SUSPICION AND DOUBTS. ACCORDINGLY IN OUR CONSID ERED OPINION THE LEARNED CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS .15,00,000/-. WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). 6 7. THE NEXT ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION RELATES TO DELE TING THE ADDITION OF RS.72,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF HOUSE-HOLD EXPENSES. THE ASSESSEE HAD WITHDRAWN RS.48,000/- FOR HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES. THE AO MADE ADDITION OF RS.72,000/- AS ACCORDING TO HIM HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES SHOULD BE MINIMUM OF RS.10,000/- PER MONTH. 8. BEFORE THE CIT(A) IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESS EE THAT THE HUSBAND OF THE ASSESSEE WAS A RETIRED GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE ( INCOME-TAX INSPECTOR) WHO HAD ALSO CONTRIBUTED RS.72,000/- TOWARDS HOUSEH OLD EXPENSES. THE ASSESSEE FILED A CERTIFICATE AND STATEMENT OF AFFAI RS OF HER HUSBAND SHRI RAJENDER JAIN WHO HAD MET THE BALANCE OF RS.72,000/ -. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ACCEPTED THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE AND DELETED THE ADDITION. 9. BEFORE US THE LEARNED SR. DR SUBMITTED THAT ADDI TIONAL EVIDENCE WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY TH E CIT(A) WITHOUT PROVIDING OPPORTUNITY TO THE AO. HE THEREFORE, SUB MITTED THAT THE MATTER SHOULD BE SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF THE AO. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEARNED AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A). 10. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND GONE THROUGH THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. FROM THE FACTS STATED ABOVE I T IS CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IN THE FORM OF CERTIF ICATE AND STATEMENT OF AFFAIRS OF HER HUSBAND SHRI RAJENDER JAIN WHO HAS M ET THE BALANCE OF 7 RS.72,000/-. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAD ACCEPTED THE C ONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT PROVIDING AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER. UNDER RULE 46A THE APPELLANT SHALL NOT BE ENTITLED TO PRODUCE BEFORE THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) OR, AS THE CASE MAY BE, THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), ANY EVIDENCE, WHETHER ORAL OR DOCUMENTARY, OTHER THAN THE EVIDENCE PRODUCED BY HIM DURING THE COURSE OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER EXCEPT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES M ENTIONED IN CLAUSE (A) TO CLAUSE (D) OF SEC. 46A(1). IT IS ALSO FACT THAT T HE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS NOT PROVIDED ANY OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER T O OFFER HIS COMMENTS ON THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE ADMITTED BY HIM. THEREFORE , ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, WHICH HAS BEEN ADMITTED AND TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION WHILE DISPOSING OF THE APPEAL, HAS BEEN ADMITTED CO NTRARY TO THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 46A. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE MATTER SHOULD GO BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHO WILL EXAMINE THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WHETHER HER HUSBAND SHRI RAJENDER JAIN HAD CONTRIBUTED ANY AMOUNT TOWARDS HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WILL PROVIDE NECESSARY OPPORTUNITY OF BEARING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. WE ORDER ACCORDINGLY. 11. NEXT ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION RELATES TO DELETIN G THE ADDITION OF RS.30,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF NON-PRODUCTION OF DOCUMEN TARY EVIDENCE IN 8 SUPPORT OF INVESTMENT MADE FOR CLAIMING DEDUCTION U /S 80C OF THE ACT. THE AO DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS FOUN D THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED DEDUCTION OF RS.1,00,000/- UNDER CHAPTER VI -A. THE AO ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO FILE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF CLAIM OF RS.1,00,000/-. THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT FURNISH DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE OF INVESTMENT OF RS.30,000/- MADE IN TAX SAVINGS BONDS. THE AO THE REFORE, ALLOWED DEDUCTION OF RS.70,000/- AS AGAINST RS.1,00,000/- C LAIMED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME BY THE ASSESSEE. 12. BEFORE THE CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE FILED ACKNOWLEDG EMENT SLIP OF SBI MUTUAL FUND ALONG WITH SOURCE OF DEPOSIT AND BANK S TATEMENT. BEFORE THE AO THESE DOCUMENTS WERE NOT FILED. THE LEARNED CIT (A) DIRECTED THE AO TO GIVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE AND ALLOW THE C LAIM AFTER VERIFICATION IF FOUND SATISFACTORY. 13. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES. AFTER 1 ST JUNE, 2001 POWER TO SET ASIDE IS NOT WITH THE CIT(A). THE LEARNED CIT(A) H AS DIRECTED THE AO TO VERIFY THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AND ALLOW THE CLAI M, IF EVIDENCE IS FOUND SATISFACTORY. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION SINCE THE A CKNOWLEDGEMENT SLIP OF SBI MUTUAL FUND WAS NOT FILED AND SOURCE OF INVESTM ENT WAS NOT EXPLAINED BEFORE THE AO, WE FEEL IT PROPER TO SET ASIDE THE M ATTER TO THE FILE OF THE 9 ASSESSING OFFICER WITH THE DIRECTIONS TO VERIFY TH E CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AND IF SOURCE OF INVESTMENT IS PROVED, THE SAME SHOULD BE ALLOWED. 14. THE LAST ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION RELATES TO DEL ETING THE ADDITION OF RS.7,52,982/- ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST CLAIMED ON LOA N TAKEN FOR ACQUIRING PROPERTY. THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN GROSS RENT OF RS. 24,28,066/- FROM PROPERTY BEARING SHOP NO.230, GREAT INDIA PLACE MAL L, SECTOR-18, NOIDA. THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED TDS OF RS.4,40,354/- WHICH WAS DEDUCTION @ 16.99%. THE CREDIT AMOUNT ON ACCOUNT OF RENT BY AC COUNT AS PER THE DETAIL OF TDS COMES TO RS.26,28,395/-. THE AO TOOK THE GR OSS RENT AT RS.26,28,395/- AS AGAINST RS.24,28,066/- FROM WHICH STATUTORY DEDUCTION OF RS.7,88,519/- WAS ALLOWED. THE AO DISALLOWED INTER EST OF RS.6,12,752/- U/S 24(B) ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST CLAIMED ON THE LOAN FR OM M/S. KESHAV SHARES & STOCK LTD. ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT TAKEN ANY LOAN BUT HER INCOME WAS ROUTED THROUGH M/S. KESHAV SHARES & STOC K LTD. 15. BEFORE THE CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE FILED NECESSARY DOCUMENTS TO SHOW AND PROVE THAT DURING THE YEAR RS.2,00,329/- WAS RE COVERED FROM THE TENANT AND PAID TO THE SERVICE TAX DEPARTMENT DULY SUPPORT ED WITH SERVICE TAX RETURN. AS REGARDS INTEREST OF RS.6,12,752/- THE A SSESSEE HAD GIVEN COMPLETE DETAILS. THE ASSESSEE HAD DEDUCTED RS.60,099/- ON ACCOUNT OF EXCESS AMOUNT ALLOWED ON ACCOUNT OF SERVICE TAX AND INTERE ST. IT WAS NOTED BY THE 10 LEARNED CIT(A) THAT AS REGARDS THE RESULTANT ALLOWA NCE OF STANDARD DEDUCTION, THE ASSESSEE HERSELF WAS VERY FAIR IN ADMITTING THA T THIS EXCESS DEDUCTION WOULD BE WITHDRAWN. THE LEARNED CIT(A) AFTER CONSI DERING THE ABOVE FACTS HAD HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DULY PAID THE RECOVE RED SERVICE TAX DULY SUPPORTED WITH ALL THE POSSIBLE EVIDENCES AND THERE WAS NO REASON TO TAX THE SERVICE TAX AS RENTAL INCOME. AS REGARDS INTEREST THE LEARNED CIT(A) WAS OF THE OPINION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD GIVEN NECESSARY E VIDENCE OF LOANS RAISED IN PREVIOUS YEARS. THE LEARNED CIT(A) FOLLOWING THE R ULE OF CONSISTENCY HAS HELD THAT THERE WAS NO REASON FOR NOT ALLOWING INTE REST WHICH WAS ADMITTEDLY RAISED IN THE PREVIOUS YEARS FOR PURCHASE OF PROPER TY. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ACCORDINGLY DELETED THE ADDITION. 16. BEFORE US THE LEARNED SR. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE WAS FILED BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) WHICH WAS NOT F ILED BEFORE THE AO WITH REGARD TO SERVICE TAX. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEAR NED AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). 17. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND GONE THROUGH THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE ASSESSEE HAD TAKEN LOAN F ROM M/S. KESHAV SHARES & STOCK LTD. DURING THE YEAR 2005-06. AS PER THE C ONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THE INTEREST HAS BEEN ALLOWED IN ALL THE YEARS AGAI NST THE RENTAL INCOME. THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE BEFORE THE CIT(A) IN ORDER TO PROVE 11 THAT RS.2,00,329/- WAS RECOVERED FROM THE TENANT AN D WAS PAID TO SERVICE TAX DEPARTMENT. THIS EVIDENCE WAS NOT FILED BEFORE THE AO. SINCE THE LOAN OF RS.63,00,000/- WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE IN EARL IER YEARS WHICH HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REAS ON NOT TO ALLOW INTEREST OF RS.6,12,752/- AGAINST THE RENTAL INCOME. AS REG ARDS PAYMENT OF SERVICE TAX, WE FEEL IT PROPER TO SET ASIDE THE MATTER TO T HE FILE OF THE AO WITH THE DIRECTIONS TO EXAMINE THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WHE THER THE AMOUNT OF RS.2,00,329/- WAS RECOVERED FROM THE TENANT AS SERV ICE-TAX OR WAS PART OF RENT. IF SERVICE TAX HAS BEEN RECOVERED FROM THE T ENANT, THE SAME WILL NOT BE CHARGEABLE AS RENTAL INCOME. AS THE TAX WAS RECOVE RED ON BEHALF OF THE GOVERNMENT BY THE ASSESSEE, IT WILL NOT BE SUBJECT TO TAX AS RENTAL INCOME. THE AO WILL EXAMINE THE CASE OF SERVICE TAX AND DEC IDE THE ISSUE AS PER LAW AFTER AFFORDING A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING H EARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 18. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 19. THIS DECISION IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT O N 13 TH JULY, 2012. SD/- SD/- (RAJPAL YADAV) (K.D. RANJAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 13 TH JULY, 2012. 12 ITA NO.3370/DEL/2011 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR BY ORDER *MG DEPUTY REGISTRAR, ITAT.