DCIT, New Delhi V. M/s. Bhupendra Steel Ltd, New Delhi

ITA 3424/DEL/2009

• Counselvise Citation: 342420114 RSA 2009
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-08-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 25-06-2012
• Assessment Year: 2001-2002
• Appeal Filed On: 04-08-2009
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: DR RAKESH GUPTA MS RANI KYALA
• Keywords: Additional evidence; Difference of opinion; Accommodation entries; Non compliance; Change of opinion
• Section: 143(3); 147; 148

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH A NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI R.P. TOLANI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI T.S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO.3424/DEL/2009 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2001-02 DCIT, M/S BHUPENDRA STEEL LTD., CIRCLE-2 (1), F-1098, BASEMENT, CHITRANJAN PARK, NEW DELHI. V. NEW DELHI. AND C.O. NO.347/DEL/2009 IN I.T.A. NO.3424/DEL/2009 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2001-02 M/S BHUPENDRA STEEL LTD., DCIT, F-1098, BASEMENT, CIRCLE-2 (1), CHITRANJAN PARK, NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI. V. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN /GIR/NO. PAN /GIR/NO. PAN /GIR/NO. PAN /GIR/NO.AWYPS AWYPS AWYPS AWYPS- -- -7509 7509 7509 7509- -- -N NN N APPELLANT BY : SHRI SANJAY PANDEY, SR. DR. RESPONDENT BY : DR. RAKESH GUPTA, MS. RANI KYALA & SHRI SOMIL AGARWAL. ORDER PER TS KAPOOR, AM: THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORD ER OF LD CIT(A) DATED 5.6.2009. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED CROSS OBJEC TIONS IN THIS ITA NO3424-347/DEL/2009 2 CASE. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL TAKEN BY THE REVENUE AND CROSS OBJECTIONS TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE ARE AS UNDER:- I.T.A. NO.3424 I.T.A. NO.3424 I.T.A. NO.3424 I.T.A. NO.3424/DEL/.2009 (REVENUES APPEAL): /DEL/.2009 (REVENUES APPEAL): /DEL/.2009 (REVENUES APPEAL): /DEL/.2009 (REVENUES APPEAL): 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD CIT( A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADITION OF ` .52,02,877/- MADE U/S 68 OF THE ACT BY IGNORING THAT: A) M/S CMS SECURITIES LTD. WAS ENGAGED IN PROVIDING ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES TO VARIOUS PARTIES INCLUDING THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. B) THESE ENTRIES PROVIDING COMPANIES WERE OWNED BY SHRI MUKESH GUPTA WHO HAD ADMITTED THAT THESE COMPANIES WERE NOT CARRYING ANY REAL BUSINESS BUT ONLY PROVIDING ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES. C) THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO FILE REPLY/INFORMATION IN SPITE OF SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITIES PROVIDED IN THIS REGARD BY TH E ASSESSING OFFICER. 2) ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN ADMITTING ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE WHICH ARE IN VIOLATION OF RULE 46A. MOREOVER NO OPPORTUNITY WAS GIVEN TO THE A SSESSING OFFICER TO EXAMINE THE SAME. 3. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE FOR RESERVING THE RIGHT TO AMEND, MODIFY, ALTER, ADD OR FOREGO ANY GROUND(S) OF APPEAL AT ANY TIME BEFORE OR DURING THE HEARING OF THIS APPEAL. C CC C.O. NO.347/DEL/2009 (ASSESSEES APPEAL): .O. NO.347/DEL/2009 (ASSESSEES APPEAL): .O. NO.347/DEL/2009 (ASSESSEES APPEAL): .O. NO.347/DEL/2009 (ASSESSEES APPEAL): ITA NO3424-347/DEL/2009 3 1. THAT HAVING REGARD TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN CONFIR MING THE ACTION OF LD ASSESSING OFFICER IN REOPENING OF THE CASE THAT TOO WITHOUT COMPLYING WITH THE MANDATORY CONDITIONS AS PR ESCRIBED IN SECTION 147 TO 151 OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 . 2. THAT IN ANY CASE AND IN ANY VIEW OF THE MATTER ACTIO N OF LD CIT(A) IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF LD ASSESSING OFFICER IN REO PENING THE CASE IS BAD IN LAW AND AGAINST THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTAN CES OF THE CASE. 3. THAT THE CROSS OBJECTOR CRAVES THE LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND , MODIFY, DELETE ANY OF THE GROUND (S) OF CROSS OBJECTION BEFORE OR AT THE TIME OF HEARING. 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING AN INCOME OF ` .2,90,566/- WAS FILED ON 30.10.2001 WHICH WAS ASSESSED U/S 143(3) ON 22.3.2004 AT AN INCOME OF ` .3,80,.459/-. THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS REOPENED U/S 147/148 OF THE ACT ON ACCOUNT O F INFORMATION GATHERED BY DIT (INV.) THAT ONE M/S CMS SECURITIES LTD. HAD PROVIDED ENTRIES TO THE ASSESSEE. THE NOTICE U/S 148 WAS I SSUED ON 26.3.2008 AFTER RECORDING THE REASONS AS PER PROVISIONS OF SECTION 147 OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ASKED THE LD AR OF T HE ASSESSEE VIDE ORDER SHEET ENTRY DATED 13.10.2008 TO FURNISH DETAIL S OF TRANSACTIONS WITH M/S CMS SECURITIES LTD. AND CASE WAS ADJOURNED TO 22.10.2008. ON 22.10.2008 NOBODY APPEARED. THE ASSESSEE WAS AGAIN ASK ED TO FURNISH THE NECESSARY DETAILS VIDE LETTER DATED 25.11.2 008 & THE CASE WAS FIXED FOR 2.12.2008 AND ON NON COMPLIANCE THE CA SE WAS FINALLY ADJOURNED TO 10.12.2008 ON WHICH DATE ALSO NOBODY AP PEARED. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER PROCEEDED TO MAKE RE-A SSESSMENT ON THE BASIS OF MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED ITA NO3424-347/DEL/2009 4 THAT THE ENTRIES AMOUNTING TO ` .52.02 LAKHS WERE OBTAINED FROM M/S CMS SECURITIES LTD. WHICH WAS OWNED BY ONE MR. MUKESH GUPTA. MR. MUKESH GUPTA HAD ADMITTED THAT COMPANY WAS NOT CARRYI NG OUT ANY REAL BUSINESS AND WAS PROVIDING ADJUSTMENT ENTRIES ONLY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACT AND KEEPIN G IN VIEW THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 68, ARRIVED AT THE CONCLUSION THA T CAPACITY AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS WERE NOT PROVED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THEREFORE HE MADE AN ADDITION OF ` .52.02 LAKHS. 3. AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE LD CIT(A ) AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ALREADY DECLARED THE INCO ME OF ` .52.02 LAKHS AS SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN FROM THE SALE O F SHARES AND PLEADED THAT SINCE INCOME WAS ALREADY DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE SAME CANNOT BE ADDED AGAIN. THAT COMPLETE DETAILS OF CONTRACT NOTES, DETAILS OF SALE/PURCHASE OF SHARES WERE FILED WITH ASSESSING OFFICER VIDE LETTER DATED 28.11.2002. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT ASSE SSING OFFICER HAD PROCEEDED PURELY ON THE BASIS OF STATEMENT GIVEN B Y SHRI MUKESH GUPTA AND HE HAD NOT BROUGHT OUT ANYTHING FRESH AND ADVERSE DURING THE RE-ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD PRO CEEDED U/S 147 ON A CHANGE OF VIEW ON THE BASIS OF STATEMENT O F A PERSON BECAUSE THE ENTIRE INFORMATION WAS ALREADY WITH ASSESSIN G OFFICER AND ON WHICH THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD ALREADY APPLIED HIS M IND. THEREFORE, REOPENING WAS ALSO CHALLENGED BEFORE LD CI T(A). RELIANCE WAS PLACED UPON THE FOLLOWING JUDGMENTS:- 1. CIT V. KELVINATOR OF INDIA LTD. 256 ITR 1. 2. SITA WORLD TRAVELS INDIA LTD. V CIT 274 ITR 186 (DEL .). 3. HARI IRON TRADING CO. V. CIT 263 ITR 437 (P&H). 4. THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IN THE FORM OF STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT AND CONTRACT NOTES ISSUED BY M/S CMS SECURITIES LTD. SHOW ING ARISING OF ITA NO3424-347/DEL/2009 5 SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN WERE ALSO FILED BEFORE LD CIT (A). THE LD CIT(A) AFTER HEARING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON MERITS BUT DID NOT COM MENT UPON THE REOPENING OF THE CASE U/S 147/148. THE RELEVANT PORTI ON OF LD CIT(A) S ORDER IS REPRODUCED BELOW:- I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY TH E AR AND THE EVIDENCE PLACED ON RECORD WITH REFERENCE TO THE OBSERVATIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN HIS ASSESSMENT ORDER. FROM THE AUDITED BALANCE SHEET & P&L A/C, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN THE AMOUNT OF ` .52,02,877/- AS ITS INCOME UNDER THE HEAD SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAINS. FROM THE STATEMENT OF COMPUTATION OF TOTAL INCOME AND THE ORI GINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 22.3.2004 IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE SAID AMOUNT HAD BEEN DECLARED AS ASSESSEES INCOME AND ASSESSED AS SUCH. FROM THE MONTHLY STATEMENT OF ACCOUNTS AND THE ENCLOSED CONTRACT NOTES OF THE SHARE BROKING COMPANY M /S CMS SECURITIES LTD., IT IS CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD EARNED THE INCOME FROM SALE OF SHARES OVER A PERIOD OF TIME THRO UGH THE SHARE BROKING COMPANY WHICH IS A MEMBER OF NATIONAL S TOCK EXCHANGE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER EXCEPT STATING THAT SHRI MUKESH GUPTA HAD ADMITTED THAT THE COMPANIES OWNED BY HIM W ERE NOT DOING ANY REAL BUSINESS, DID NOT BRING OUT ANY MATERIA L FACT OR EVIDENCE TO SUGGEST/PROVE THAT ALL THESE TRANSACTIONS OF PURCHASE & SALE OF QUOTED SHARES THROUGH A MEMBER OF NATIONAL STOCK EXCHANGE, WERE BOGUS. THOUGH ALL THE PARTICULARS INCL UDING THE NAME AND FULL ADDRESS OF THE SHARE BROKER COMPANY WER E AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER RIGHT FROM THE ORIGI NAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, HE HAD NOT BOTHERED TO VERIFY T HE FACTS BY EXAMINING THE SAID SHARE BROKER COMPANY. THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER HAS NOT EVEN CHECKED OUT WHAT WAS THE CONTROL LING ITA NO3424-347/DEL/2009 6 INTEREST OF SHRI MUKESH GUPTA IN THE SHARE BROKER COM PANY M/S CMS SECURITIES LTD. IT WAS ALSO NOT BROUGHT OUT IN THE RE- ASSESSMENT ORDER AS TO WHAT ACTION WAS TAKEN AGAINST THE SA ID SHARE BROKER COMPANY WHEN IT WAS HELD THAT IT WAS NOT DOING ANY REAL BUSINESS BUT ONLY PROVIDING ENTRIES. IN IDENTICAL FACTS, THE HON'BLE ITAT DELHI SMC BENCH IN THE CASE OF BHALLA BUILDERS (P) LTD. V. ITO WARD-2 (4), N EW DELHI (IN I.T.A. NO.1593/.DEL/2008) HAS HELD THAT IN THE CIRCU MSTANCES, EVEN IF THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE ABOUT THE RECEIPT IN QUESTION BEING COMMISSION IS HELD TO BE BOGUS, WE ARE OF THE VIE W THAT THE AMOUNT OF SUCH RECEIPTS HAVING BEEN ALREADY DECL ARED BY THE ASSESSEE AS ITS INCOME IN THE EARLIER YEARS, IT CANNOT BE ADDED AGAIN TO ITS TOTAL INCOME FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDER ATION AS THE SAME WOULD CLEARLY RESULT IN DOUBLE ADDITION OF THE SA ME AMOUNT. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAD DISCLOSED THE SAID INCOME IN THE SAME ASSESSMENT YEAR WHICH WAS ASSESSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS SUCH IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT AND IT WAS NOT DISTURBED IN THE RE-ASSESSMENT . RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWI NG THE DECISION OF THE ITAT WHICH IS ON IDENTICAL FACTS, I DI RECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DELETE THE ADDITION OF ` .52,02,877/-. 5. AGGRIEVED, THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US AGAI NST DELETION BY LD CIT(A) AND ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE LEGALITY OF RE OPENING THOUGH CROSS OBJECTIONS. 6. AT THE OUTSET, THE LD AR REQUESTED TO ARGUE FIRST O F HIS CROSS OBJECTIONS AND REQUESTED FOR ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL GR OUND AS UNDER:- HAVING REGARD TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE, THE ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION U/S 147 IS BAD AS MANDATORY C ONDITIONS ITA NO3424-347/DEL/2009 7 UNDER THE PROVISO U/S 151(1) WAS NOT SATISFIED AND THE REOPENING IS BARRED BY LIMITATION DUE TO THE IST PROVISO TO SECTI ON 147, ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT HAVING BEEN PASSED U/S 143(3) AND REOPENING BEING INITIATED AFTER FOUR YEARS. 7. THE ADDITIONAL GROUND TAKEN BY LD AR WAS SIMILAR T O GROUND NO.1 TAKEN IN THE CROSS OBJECTION AND THEREFORE LD DR HAD NO OBJECTION OF ACCEPTING THE ADDITIONAL GROUND. IN VIEW OF THE ABO VE, THE ADDITIONAL GROUND WAS ADMITTED. 8. THE LD AR ARGUED THAT ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLE TED U/S 143(3) VIDE ORDER DATED 22.3.2004 AND NOTICE OF RE- ASSESSMENT WAS ISSUED ON 26.3.2008 WHICH WAS AFTER A PERIOD OF FOUR Y EARS FROM THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR AND WHICH IS NOT AS PER THE PROV ISIONS OF SECTION 151(1) OF THE ACT WHICH REQUIRES SPECIFIC PERM ISSION FROM COMMISSIONER OR CHIEF COMMISSIONER AS THE CASE MAY BE. IN THIS RESPECT HE TOOK US TO PAGE 55 OF PAPER BOOK WHERE A C OPY OF NOTICE U/S 148 DATED 26.3.2008 WAS PLACED WHEREIN FACT OF HAVIN G OBTAINED SANCTION OF ACIT WAS MENTIONED. THE LD AR ALSO TOOK US THROUGH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 151(1). THE LD AR ALSO FILED AN O RDER OF HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN I.T.A. NO.836 OF 2011 IN THE CA SE OF CIT V. M/S SPLS SIDHARATHA LTD.. HE INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO PARA 8 OF THE ORDER WHEREIN THE HON'BLE COURT HAD HELD THAT WHERE IN A STATUTE AN AUTHORITY IS GIVEN BY EXPRESSLY BY AFFIRMATIVE WORDS TO A DESIGNATED AUTH ORITY, THEN ANY THAT AUTHORITY SHOULD BE EMPOWERED TO DO THAT ACTION . HE, THEREFORE, ARGUED THAT NOTICE FOR REOPENING DATED 26.3.2008 WA S ITSELF IN BAD AS IT WAS ISSUED AFTER A PERIOD OF FOUR YEARS AND WITHOUT T HE PERMISSION OF PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY AS PER PROVISIONS OF SECTION 151(1 ) WHICH SHOULD HAVE BEEN COMMISSIONER OR CHIEF COMMISSIONER INSTEAD OF ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE LD AR ARGUED THAT THE ITA NO3424-347/DEL/2009 8 REOPENING WAS BAD IN LAW AND THEREFORE ENTIRE PROCEE DINGS SHOULD BE QUASHED. ON MERITS ALSO, HE ARGUED THAT THERE IS NO ESC APEMENT OF INCOME AS THE AMOUNTS WERE SALE PROCEEDS OF SHARES AND ON WHICH SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN WAS EARNED BY THE COMPANY AN D WAS ALREADY DECLARED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME AND NO NEW MATERIA L HAD COME TO THE NOTICE OF ASSESSING OFFICER. 9. THE LD DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, ARGUED THAT ASSESSEE D ID NOT COOPERATE DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THOUGH SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITIES WERE GIVEN. HE FURTHER ARGUED THAT LD CIT(A) HAS NOT CALLED FOR REMAND REPORT WHICH WAS NECESSARY AS FRESH E VIDENCE IN THE FORM OF CONTRACT NOTES ETC. WERE FILED BEFORE LD CIT (A). IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, HE ARGUED THAT CASE SHOULD EITHER BE REMITTED BACK OR ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER BE UPHELD. IN HIS REJOINDER, THE LD AR ARGUED THAT LD DR HAS NOT SAID ANYTHING ON CROSS OBJECTION OF THE ASSE SSEE AND STATED AT PAGE 57 TO 59 OF PAPER BOOK, A COPY OF LETTER DA TED 22.3.2010 WRITTEN BY AR OF THE ASSESSEE IS PLACED WHEREIN AT PAGE 59 THE ASSESSEE HAD ALREADY EXPLAINED SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN A ND HAD ALREADY FURNISHED THE NECESSARY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF ITS CLAIM. IN THIS RESPECT HE INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO PAGES 62 TO 100 O F PAPER BOOK WHERE RELEVANT DOCUMENTS WERE PLACED. THEREFORE, HE PLEADED THAT THERE WAS NO ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE WHICH WAS FILED WITH THE LD CIT(A). HE ALSO RELIED UPON THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF PRADEE P GUPTA DECIDED BY HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT REPORTED AT 95 ITR 303 WHEREIN HON'BLE HIGH COURT HAD HELD THAT ONCE SECTION 147/148 IS RESO RTED TO THE BURDEN IS ON THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO PROVE ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION AVAILABLE ON THE RECORD THAT INCOME HAD ESCAPED ASSESSM ENT. IN THE PRESENT CASE, ALL DOCUMENTS WERE BEFORE ASSESSING OFFICER AND HE CONSIDERED ALL OF THEM DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND DID NOT DRAW ANY ADVERSE CONCLUSION WHILE FRAMING ORIGINAL ASSE SSMENT. ITA NO3424-347/DEL/2009 9 10. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE PA RTIES AND HAVE GONE THROUGH THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE HAVE OBSERVED THAT NOTICE FOR RE-ASSESSMENT DATED 26.3.2008 WAS ISSUED B EYOND A PERIOD OF FOUR YEARS FROM THE END OF RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR WHICH EXPIRED ON 31.3.2006. AS PER PROVISIONS OF SECTION 151( 1), THE NOTICE FOR RE-ASSESSMENT CAN BE ISSUED AFTER THE EXPIRY OF FOU R YEARS FROM THE END OF RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR ONLY IF THE CHIEF COMM ISSIONER OR COMMISSIONER AS THE CASE MAY BE IS SATISFIED ON THE REASONS RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT IT IS A FIT CASE FOR ISSUE OF SUCH NOTICE. IN THE PRESENT CASE NOTICE MENTIONS THE FACT THAT IT HAS B EEN ISSUED AFTER RECEIVING NECESSARY SATISFACTION FROM ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX WHICH IS NOT AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 151(1) OF THE ACT. MOREOVER NO NEW MATERIAL HAD COME TO THE NOTICE OF ASSESSING OFFICER AS ALL DETAILS ALONG WITH DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE OF SUCH SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAINS WERE BEFORE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE FINALI ZING THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT. THEREFORE, IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, THE ASSESSING OFFICER INITIATED PROVISIONS OF SECTION 147/148 ON CHANGE OF OPINION ONLY. HENCE, IN OUR VIEW, THE ENTIRE RE-ASSESSMENT PROCEEDIN GS ARE BAD IN LAW. ON MERITS ALSO, WE HAVE OBSERVED THAT TRANSACTION OF RECEIPT OF CHEQUES WAS ON ACCOUNT OF SALE OF SHARES ON WHICH THE ASSE SSEE HAD EARNED SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN AND HAD DULY DECLARED THE SAME IN ITS RETURN OF INCOME. THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THERE WAS NO ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE DO NO T SEE ANY REASON TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF LD CIT(A). 11. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE I S DISMISSED AND CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ITA NO3424-347/DEL/2009 10 12. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE 9TH D AY OF AUGUST, 2012. SD/- SD/- (R.P. TOLANI) (T.S. KAPOO R) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DT. 9.8.2012. HMS COPY FORWARDED TO:- 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT (A)-, NEW DELHI. 5. THE DR, ITAT, LOKNAYAK BHAWAN, KHAN MARKET, NEW DEL HI. TRUE COPY. BY ORDER (ITAT, NEW DELHI). DATE OF HEARING 25.6.2012 DATE OF DICTATION 30.7.2012 DATE OF TYPING 31.7.2012 DATE OF ORDER SIGNED BY 9.8.2012 BOTH THE MEMBERS & PRONOUNCEMENT. DATE OF ORDER UPLOADED ON NET 9.8.2012 & SENT TO THE BENCH CONCERNED.