M/s. Gogad Fabrics (P) Ltd., JAIPUR V. ACIT, PALI

ITA 363/JODH/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1538 (ITAT-JODHPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-02-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 01-10-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: G R KOKANI
• Keywords: Depreciation; Diversion of income
• Section: 143(3); 194C; 263

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR BEFORE SHRI HARI OM MARATHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI N.K.SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 363/JU/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-06 M/S GOGAD FABRICS (P) LTD., VS. THE ACIT, CIRCLE- PALI, PALI-MARWAR PALI PAN NO. AABCG7197A & ITA NO. 364/JU/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-06 SHREE GANESH PRINT FAB (P) LTD., VS. THE ACIT, CIR CLE-PALI, PALI-MARWAR PALI PAN NO. AAICG4971M (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI P.C.PARWAL RESPONDENT BY : SHRI G.R. KOKANI DATE OF HEARING : 21.02.2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 25.02.2013 ORDER PER N.K.SAINI, A.M. THESE TWO APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEES ARE DIRECTED AGA INST THE SEPARATE ORDERS DATED 22.8.2012 AND 21.8.2012 OF LEARNED CIT (A). JODHPUR. 2 2. SINCE THE ISSUES INVOLVED IN BOTH THESE APPEALS ARE SIMILAR AND THE APPEALS WERE HEARD TOGETHER, SO, THESE ARE BEING DI SPOSED OFF BY THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 3. FIRST WE WILL DEAL WITH ITA NO. 363/JU/2012 . FOLLOWING GROUNDS HAVE BEEN RAISED IN THIS APPEAL:- 1. THE ID. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), JO DHPUR HAS ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.30,08,154/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY HOLDING THAT ASSESSEE H AS SUPPRESSED THE JOB CHARGES RECEIVED FROM M/S. SIDHI VINAYAK FAB TEXT P VT. LTD. TO THIS EXTENT BY DISCLOSING THE JOB RECEIPTS AT RS.6,56,56 ,831/- ONLY AS AGAINST RS.6,86,64,985/-. 1.1 THE ID. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPE ALS), JODHPUR HAS FURTHER ERRED IN OBSERVING THAT: A. ASSESSEE FAILED TO JUSTIFY THE CLAIM OF DISCOUNT ; B. ACCOUNTS SEEMS TO WRITTEN AFTER COMPLETION OF TH E YEAR; C. ENTRIES OF DISCOUNT IS AFTERTHOUGHT; & D. ASSESSEE FAILED TO PROVE THAT ABOVE EXPENSE IS I NCURRED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS. 2. THE APPELLANT CARVES TO ADD, AMEND, ALTER OR MODIFY ANY OF THE GROUND OF APPEAL. 3. AN APPROPRIATE COST MAY BE AWARDED TO ASSESSEE 4. THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE ASSE SSEE WAS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF JOB WORK OF PROCESSING OF CLOTHES AND F ILED THE RETURN OF INCOME ON 7.10.2005 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME AT RS. NIL. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 [HEREI NAFTER REFERRED TO AS 'THE ACT' IN SHORT] WAS PASSED ON 18.4.2007 AT RS. NIL AFTER MAKING 3 CERTAIN DISALLOWANCES TOTALLING OF RS. 54,000/- AND ALLOWING SET OFF OF UNABSORBED BROUGHT FORWARD DEPRECIATION. LATER, ON VERIFICATION IT WAS FOUND THAT AS PER TDS CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY M/S SID HI VINAYAK FAB TEX PVT. LTD., PALI, JOB RECEIPT WAS OF RS. 6,86,65,012/- AN D ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN JOB RECEIPTS IN PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT AT RS. 6,57,61 ,119/-. ON THE ABOVE FACTS, THE LEARNED CIT(A)-I, JODHPUR PASSED ORDER U/S 263 OF THE ACT ON 24.3.2010 AND DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO EXAMINE THE I SSUE AS MENTIONED IN THE ORDER AFRESH AND PASS A WELL REASONED FRESH ORDER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE DISCREPANCY. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED AS UNDER:- ASSESSEE HAS DONE JOB WORK OF M/S SIDHI VINAYAK FA B TEX PVT. LTD. AND M/S B.TEX ASSESSEE COMPANY HAVE T OTAL JOB RECEIPTS ARE AS UNDER:- M/S SIDHI VINAYK FAB TEX PVT. LTD. 6,86,64,983 /- LESS DISCOUNT 30,08,154/- 6,56,56,829/- JOB CHARGES RECEIVED FROM M/S B.TEX 1,04, 289/- TOTAL JOB RECEIPTS AS SHOWN IN SECH.07 6,57,61,119/ - THESE ALL FACTS CAN BE VERIFIED FORM, ENCLOSED COPY OF ACCOUNT OF JOB CHARGES. ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN REVENUE FROM M/S SIDHI VINAYAK F AB TEX PVT. LTD, NET OF DISCOUNT. BUT THE CERTIFICATE OF TDS (L6A) SHOWS THE GROSS AMOUNT OF JOB RECEIPT ON WHICH TDS IS DECDUCTED. DEDUCTOR COMPANY IS DEDUCTING T.D.S. AT THE TIME OF CREDITING OF PROCESSING BILL AT THE END OF EACH MON TH AND DEPOSIT 4 IT ON THE 7 TH L OF NEXT MONTH, BUT DISCOUNT IS FINALIZED LATER, DU E TO THAT TDS IS DEDUCTED ON GROSS AMOUNT. YOUR HONOR, BOTH THE COMPANIES ARE REGULAR TAX PAYER AND FILING RETURN OF INCOME WITH STIPULATED DATE. ALL T HE REVENUE RECEIVED IS PROPERLY ACCOUNTED FOR AND NOTHING IS S UPPRESSED. IN FORM NO. 16A, GROSS JOB AMOUNT IS WRITTEN SINCE DEDUCTION MADE ON SUCH AMOUNT, WHILE FINAL ACCOUNT SHOW JOB R ECEIPT AFTER DISCOUNT WHICH IS EXPLAINED BY WAY OF CONFIR MATION FROM BOTH PARTIES. JOB CHARGES PAID IN THE BOOKS OF M/S SIDHI VINAYAK FAB TEX PVT. LTD. IS AS UNDER:- JOB CHARGES RECEIVED FROM M/S SIDHI FAB 6,8 6,64,983/- VINAYAK FAB TEX PVT. LTD. ADD-EXCISE (DIRECTLY PAID IN GOVT. A/C) 18,56,076/- 7,05,21,059/- LESS DISCOUNT 30,08,154/- AMOUNT DEBITED TO P&L A/C AS PER 6,75,12,905/ - ANNEXURE B AND WHERE AS BY SAME AMOUNT IT IS CREDITED AS INCOM E IN THE BOOKS OF M/S GOGAD FABRICS PVT. LTD. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HOWEVER, DID NOT FIND MERIT I N THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE BY OBSERVING THAT PERUSAL OF MONTHLY TALLY OF THE JOB RECEIPTS REVEALED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN JOB RECEIPTS O F RS. 6,57,61,119/- WHEREAS M/S M/S SIDHI VINAYAK FAB TEX PVT. LTD., PA LI, SHOWN A PURCHASE OF RS. 6,86,65,012/- AND DEDUCTED TAX ON THE SAID A MOUNT AS PER TDS CERTIFICATE. THUS, THERE WAS A DIFFERENT OF RS. 29, 03,893/-. ACCORDING TO HIM, THE BILLING OF JOB WORK WAS MADE BY THE ASSESS EE AFTER RECEIVING THE TDS CERTIFICATES FROM M/S SIDHI VINAYAK FAB TEX PVT . LTD., PALI. HE 5 FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT AS PER THE BOOKS OF ACCOUN T OF THE ASSESSEE, TOTAL DISCOUNT OF RS. 30,08,154/- WAS GIVEN TO M/S SIDHI VINAYAK FAB TEX PVT. LTD., PALI, INSTEAD OF RS. 29,03,893/-. THEREFORE, THE DISCOUNT SAID TO HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO M/S SIDHI VINAYAK FAB TEX PVT. LTD. , PALI, WAS ADDED BACK TO THE ASSESSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE TREATING THE SAME AS DIVERSION OF INCOME. ACCORDINGLY, AN ADDITION OF RS. 30,08,154/ - WAS MADE. 5. THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER TO THE LEARNED C IT(A) AND THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) AS INCOR PORATED IN PARAS 3.2 TO 3.2.2 ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER;- 3.2. DURING THE COURSE OF THE APPELLATE PROCEEDING, THE APPELLANT MADE WRITTEN SUBMISSION THROUGH AUTHORIZE D REPRESENTATIVE. IN THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION, IT IS ST ATED THAT IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING, THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER AFTER EXAMINATION OF THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT O BSERVED THAT SALES AND PURCHASES ARE FULLY VOUCHED AND NO A DVERSE INFERENCE WAS DRAWN. IT IS CONTENDED THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 143(3) / 263 IS ERRONE OUS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOT FOLLOWED THE DIRECTION GIVEN IN ORDER U/S 263. IN THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION, IT IS EXPLAINED THAT M/S. SIDDHI VINAAYK FAB TEX (P) LTD HAS DEDUCTED TAX AT SOURCE ON THE GROSS AMOUNT OF JOB CHARGES IN ACCORDANCE WI TH THE PROVISION OF SEC. 194C BECAUSE THE ACCOUNT OF THE A SSESSEE WAS CREDITED WITH THE GROSS ACCOUNT. SECTION 194C P ROVIDES FOR DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE AT THE TIME OF CREDI T OF PAYMENT WHICHEVER IS EARLIER. AS THE ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE WAS CREDITED BY GROSS AMOUNT M/S. SIDDHI V INAYAK FAB TEX (P) LTD. WAS OBLIGED TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOURC E ON 6 SUCH GROSS AMOUNT. HAD IT DEDUCTED TAX AT SOURCE ON THE NET AMOUNT, IT WOULD HAVE RESULTED IN THE SHORT DEDUCTI ON OF TAX AT SOURCE. A COMPLETE RECONCILIATION OF THE DIFFERE NCE BETWEEN JOB CHARGES DECLARED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUN T AND THAT AS PER THE TDS CERTIFICATE WAS FILED. NO DISCR EPANCY WAS FOUND BY THE A.O. THEREIN. THEREFORE, ONLY FOR THE REASON THAT EFFECT OF SUCH DISCOUNT WAS NOT CONSIDE RED BY SIDDHI VINAYAK FAB TEX (P) LTD FROM THE JOB CHARGES BILL OF THE SUBSEQUENT MONTH, IT CANNOT BE INFERRED THAT TH E DISCOUNT SO ALLOWED IS JUST TO REDUCE THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 3.2.1. IT IS FURTHER EXPLAINED THAT SIDDHI VINA YAK FAB TEX (P) LTD IS ALSO ASSESSED WITH THE SAME ASSESSING O FFICER. IN ITS P&L ACCOUNT IT HAS CLAIMED THE JOB CHARG E EXPENSES PAID TO THE ASSESSEE AT RS. 6,56,56,830/- (RS. 6,86,64,983/- - RS. 30,08,154/-) ONLY I.E. AFT ER REDUCING THE EXPENSES BY THE AMOUNT OF DISCOUNT ALL OWED TO IT FOR RS. 30,08,154/-. M/S. SIDDHI VINAYAK FAB TEX (P) LTD HAS BEEN ASSESSED TO TAX U/S 143(3) AND IT HAS PAID TAX ON ITS INCOME @30%. SINCE THE FIGURES OF JOB CHARGES APPEARING AS INCOME IN THE BOOKS OF ASSESSEE ARE COMPLETELY RECONCILING WITH THE FIGURES OF JOB CHAR GES EXPENSES APPEARING IN THE BOOKS OF SIDDHI VINAYAK F AB TEX (P) LTD THERE IS NO QUESTION OF REDUCTION OF THE TA XABLE INCOME. 3.2.2. IT IS FURTHER STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE HA S FILED RETURN DECLARING NIL INCOME. EVEN AFTER THE ADDITION OF RS . 30,08,154/-, IT IS ASSESSED AT INCOME OF RS. 12,33, 858/- DUE TO SET OFF OF BROUGHT FORWARD DEPRECIATION. AS AGAI NST THE M/S. SIDDHI VINAYAK FAB TEX (P) LTD IS ASSESSED AT RS. 7 18,18,390/-. AFTER REDUCING ITS EXPENDITURE BY RS. 30,08,154/. IF THIS AMOUNT WOULD NOT REDUCED FROM T HE EXPENDITURE IT WOULD HAVE BEEN ASSESSED AT LOSS. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES THERE CANNOT BE ANY CASE OF TAX AVOIDANCE AS ALLEGED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 6. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HOWEVER, DID NOT FIND MERIT I N THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE BY OBSERVING THAT THERE WAS NO AGREEME NT BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND M/S SIDHI VINAYAK FAB TEX PVT. LTD., PALI, AND ORIGINALLY THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WERE NOT PRODUCED DURING THE ASSESSMENT PRO CEEDINGS OR PROCEEDINGS U/S 263 OF THE ACT. HE FURTHER OBSERVE D THAT JOB BILLS WERE FOR RS. 6,57,61,119/-, HOWEVER, IN THE PROFIT AND LOOS ACCOUNT, IT WAS SHOWN AT RS. 6,86,64,985/-. THUS, THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN RE CEIPTS LESS BY RS. 30,08,154/-. THE LEARNED CIT(A) DID NOT ACCEPT THI S CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT AS PER THE TDS CERTIFICATES THE PARTY HAD DEDUCTED TDS ON THE GROSS AMOUNT JOB RECEIPTS AT THE TIME OF CREDITING THE PROCESSING JOB BILLS BUT IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT THE JOB RECEIPTS WERE S HOWN NET OFF OF DISCOUNT WHICH WAS FINALISED LATER. THE LEARNED CIT(A) UPHEL D THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. NOW THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPE AL . 7. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUBM ISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED TH AT A DISCOUNT OF RS. 30,08,154/- WAS GIVEN TO M/S SIDHI VINAYAK FAB TEX PVT. LTD., PALI, AND THIS FACT WAS ACCEPTED WHILE FRAMING THE ASSESSMENT ON THE SAID COMPANY BY THE SAME ASSESSING OFFICER. OUR ATTENTION WAS DRAW N TOWARDS PAGE NOS. 59 TO 62 OF THE ASSESSEES PAPER BOOK WHICH IS THE COP Y OF THE ASSESSMENT 8 ORDER DATED 27.12.2010 IN THE CASE OF M/S SIDHI VIN AYAK FAB TEX PVT. LTD., PALI, TO WHOM THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT DISCOUNT WA S GIVEN. IN HIS RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, THE LEARNED DR STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 8. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE PA RTIES AND THE MATERIAL ON RECORD, IN THE PRESENT CASE, IT APPEARS THAT THE RE WAS A DIFFERENCE IN THE AMOUNT OF JOB CHARGES CREDITED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCO UNT AND AS MENTIONED IN THE TDS CERTIFICATES. THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESS EE IS THAT A DISCOUNT WAS GIVEN TO M/S SIDHI VINAYAK FAB TEX PVT. LTD., PALI, FOR A SUM OF RS. 30,08,154/- AND DUE TO THAT REASON THE FIGURES OF J OB CHARGES IN TDS CERTIFICATES AND THE CREDIT IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WERE DIFFERENT. IT IS NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSMENT OF THE ASSESSEE AND M/S SIDHI VINAYAK FAB TEX PVT. LTD., PALI, (COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER PLACED A T PAGE NOS. 59 TO 62 OF THE ASSESSEES PAPER BOOK) WERE FRAMED BY THE SAME ASSESSING OFFICER NAMELY MR. K.S. MEENA, ACIT, CIRCLE, PALI. IT IS AL SO NOTICED THAT IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER OF M/S SIDHI VINAYAK FAB TEX PVT. LTD., PALI,, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MENTIONED AT PAGE NO.3 AS UNDER:- THERE IS GROUP OF CASES VIZ M/S GOGAD FABRICS PVT. LTD. SHRI GANESH PRINT FEB TEX PVT. LTD. AND THE ASSESS EE. FROM THE PERUSAL OF THE RECORD OF ALL THREE CONCERN S, IT IS FOUND THAT THE ABOVE NAMED CONCERN USED TO UNDERTAK E THE JOB WORK OF THE ASSESSEE AND IN BOTH THE CASES OF THE SAME ASSESSMENT YEAR THE HON'BLE CIT, JODHPUR HAS PASSED AN ORDER U/S 263 OF THE ACT WHEREIN THE DISCREPANCY FOUND AND TREATED TO THE PREJUDICIAL TO 9 REVENUE AND THE TRANSACTION WITH THE ASSESSEE FOR W HICH SEPARATE ORDER HAS BEEN PASSED UNDER THE ACT IN THE CASE OF M/S GOGAD FABRICS PVT. LTD. & SHRI GANESH PRINT FEB TEX LTD. TREATING THE DISCOUNT AMOUNT OF RS. 30,08, 154/- AND 14,55,848/- AS DIVERSION OF INCOME OF M/S GOGAD FABRICS PVT. LTD. SHRI GANESH PRINT FEB TEX PVT. LT D. RESPECTIVELY AND ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME . ON BEING PERSUADED OF THE RECORD OF THE ASSESSEE WITH THAT OF M/S GOGAD FABRICS PVT. LTD. & SHRI GAN ESH PRINT FEB TEX PT LTD., IT IS FOUND THAT DISCOUNT AM OUNT ADDED IN THESE CONCERN WHILE PASSING THE ORDER U/S 263 /143(3) HAS BEEN CREDITED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS BO OKS OF ACCOUNT AND THE SAME AMOUNT HAS BEEN TAKEN AS INCOM E OF THE ASSESSEE IN ITS BOOKS. 9. FROM THE ABOVE FACTS, IT APPEARS THAT THE DISCOU NT WHICH WAS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE TO M/S SIDHI VINAYAK FAB TEX PVT. LTD. , PALI, AMOUNTING TO RS. 30,08,154/- HAS BEEN CONSIDERED AS INCOME OF THE SA ID ASSESSEE AND WAS REDUCED FROM THE JOB CHARGES EXPENSES. IT IS WELL SETTLED THAT THE SAME INCOME CANNOT BE TAXED TWICE. HOWEVER, IN THE PRESE NT CASE THE AMOUNT OF RS. 30,08,154/- CLAIMED TO BE GIVEN AS DISCOUNT TO M/S SIDHI VINAYAK FAB TEX PVT. LTD., PALI, HAS BEEN ADDED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE BY MAKING A DISALLOWANCE, ALTHOUGH THIS AMOUNT WAS ALREADY CONS IDERED IN THE CASE OF M/S SIDHI VINAYAK FAB TEX PVT. LTD. AS A DISCOUNT A ND REDUCED FROM JOB CHARGES PAID TO THE ASSESSEE, WE, THEREFORE, CONSID ERING THE TOTALITY OF FACTS ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSES SING OFFICER AND SUSTAINED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED. I N THAT VIEW OF THE MATTER THE IMPUGNED ADDITION IS DELETED. 10 10 NOW WE WILL DEAL WITH THE CASE OF M/S SHREE GAN ESH PRINT FAB (P) LTD., PALI IN ITA NO. 364/JU/2012 . THE FACTS OF THIS CASE ARE IDENTICAL TO THE FACTS IN THE CASE OF M/S GOGAD FABRICS (P) LTD. , PALI IN ITA NO. 363/JU/2012 (SUPRA) AND EVEN THE REBATES OF THE D ISCOUNT IS TO THE SAME PARTY I.E. M/S SIDHI VINAYAK FAB TEX PVT. LTD., PAL I, FROM WHOM THIS ASSESSEE ALSO RECEIVED THE JOB CHARGES AND THERE WA S ALSO A DIFFERENCE IN THE FIGURES MENTIONED IN THE TDS CERTIFICATE AND THE FI GURE CREDITED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THE EXPLANATION WAS ALSO THE SAM E THAT THE DIFFERENCE OCCURRED DUE TO DISCOUNT GIVEN TO M/S SIDHI VINAYA K FAB TEX PVT. LTD., PALI. SINCE, THE FACTS ARE IDENTICAL IN BOTH THE C ASES, IN THAT VIEW OF THE MATTER, OUR FINDINGS GIVEN IN THE FORMER PARA OF TH IS ORDER IN THE CASE OF M/S GOGAD FABRICS (P) LTD., PALI IN ITA NO. 363/JU/ 2012 SHALL APPLY MUTATIS-MUTANDIS IN THE CASE OF THIS ASSESSEE ALSO. IN THAT VIEW OF THE MATTER, WE DELETE THE ADDITION AMOUNTING TO RS. 14 ,55,848/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND SUSTAINED BY THE LEARNED CIT( A). 11. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS ARE ALLOWED. (ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 25.02.2013 ) SD/- SD/- (HARI OM MARATHA) (N.K.SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMER DATED : 25 TH FEBRUARY, 2013, RKK 11 COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR