Surender Kumar (Indl.), V. ITO Ward I,

ITA 3658/DEL/2007

• Counselvise Citation: [2009] 115 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2153 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 4 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-12-2009
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Next Hearing Date: 04-11-2009
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 16-08-2007
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: H K LAL
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Depreciation; Onus to prove; Ignorance of law
• Section: 250; 68

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH G : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI VIMAL GANDHI, PRESIDENT AND SHRI K.D.RANJAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.3658/DEL/2007 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2004-05 SHRI SURENDER KUMAR (INDIVIDUAL), PROPRIETOR OF M/S SHRI KRISHNA FLOUR MILL, HAILY MANDI, GURGAON. VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD NO.3, GURGAON. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SHRI VIJAY KUMAR GUPTA, ADVOCAT E RESPONDENT BY : SHRI H.K.LAL, SR.D.R. ORDER PER RANJAN, AM: THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 4-05 ARISES OUT OF ORDER OF LD. CIT(A), PUNCHKULA. 2. THE FIRST ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION RELATES TO CON FIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.10,36,000/- MADE U/S 68 OF THE ACT AS UNEXPLAINE D CASH CREDIT. FACTS OF THE CASE, STATED IN BRIEF, ARE THAT ASSESSEE HAS RA ISED FRESH LOANS FROM M/S URMILA DEVI RS.2,82,700/-, SHRI KRISHAN KUMAR RS.3, 76,600/- AND SHRI INDERJEET RAJPURA RS.3,76,700/- IN CASH. IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION THE ASSESSEE FILED AFFIDAVITS FROM THESE PERSONS. THE A SSESSING OFFICER, HOWEVER, NOTED THAT THE DOCUMENTS FILED BY ASSESSEE , IT WAS EVIDENT THAT NONE OF THE PERSONS WAS HAVING ANY BANK ACCOUNT AND NONE OF THEM HAVE EVER BEEN ASSESSED TO TAX. HE ALSO NOTED THAT NONE OF THEM WAS HAVING 2 RESOURCES TO EXTEND LOANS TO THE EXTENT CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE H AD ALSO TRANSFERRED RS.1,10,000/- FROM THE ACCOUNT OF MRS. SOBHAGYA DEV I RAJPURA TO THE ACCOUNT OF MRS. URMILA DEVI AT RS.10,000/-; (2) SHR I KRISHAN KUMAR RS.50,000/- ;AND (3) SHRI INDERJEET RAJPURA RS.50,0 00/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO NOTED THAT ALL THE ENTRIES RELATING TO THE CASH CREDITORS HAVE BEEN DONE BY THE ASSESSEE AS PER HIS REQUIREMENT FO R DAY-TO-DAY CASH. THE ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER APPLYING PEAK CASH SHOR TAGE METHOD I.E. AFTER TAKING INTO ACCOUNT PEAK CASH SHORTAGE IN CASH BOOK AFTER ACCOUNTING ENTRIES RELATING TO UNSECURED LOANS. PEAK CASH SHOR TAGE CAME TO RS.10,36,000/-. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER REQUIRED THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THE CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF CR EDITORS. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT ESTABLISHED THE GENUINENESS OF TRA NSACTION AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE PERSONS HE ADDED THE AMOUNT OF RS.10,36,000/- AS AMOUNT INTRODUCED U/S 68 OF THE ACT AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDITS. 3. ON APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(A) UPHELD THE STAND TAKEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE GROUND THAT THE BURDEN TO PROVE THE IDENTITY OF THE CREDITORS, THE CAPACITY OF THE CREDITORS TO ADVANCE MONEY AND TO ESTABLISH THE GENUINENESS OF TRANSACTION WAS ON THE ASSESSEE. MER ELY TRYING TO ESTABLISH THE IDENTITY OF CREDITORS WAS NOT SUFFICIENT, THERE FORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS JUSTIFIED IN MAKING THE ADDITIONS. LD. CIT(A) F URTHER NOTED THE CONTENTS OF THE ASSESSEE THAT CREDITORS WERE MOSTLY VILLAGER S AND WERE NOT AWARE OF PROVISIONS OF INCOME-TAX ACT THAT THE CREDIT COULD ONLY BE GIVEN THROUGH ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES AND NOT IN CASH. THIS CONTENT ION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS REJECTED BY THE LD. CIT(A) BY SAYING THAT IGNORANCE OF LAW WAS NO EXCUSE. HE PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPRE ME COURT IN THE CASE OF MOTILAL PADAMPAT MILLS LTD. V. STATE OF U.P. 118 IT R WHEREIN IT WAS HELD 3 THAT THERE WAS NO PRESUMPTION THAT EVERY PERSON KNE W THE LAW ALSO DOES NOT SUPPORT THE CASE OF ASSESSEE. LD.CIT(A) ACCORDINGLY UPHELD THE ADDITION MADE BY ASSESSING OFFICER AT RS.10,36,000/-. 4. BEFORE US, LD. A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED TH AT ASSESSEE HAD TAKEN LOAN FROM THE FAMILY MEMBERS JUST TO ENHANCE THE BA LANCE SHEET. SHRI KRISHAN KUMAR AND SHRI INDERJEET RAJPURA ARE BROTHE RS OF ASSESSEE THEY OWN 25 ACRES OF LAND EACH. SMT. URMILA DEVI IS, THEREFO RE, AND OWNS 7 ACRES OF LAND. THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED THE COPY OF CONFIRMATI ONS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHEREIN THEY HAVE ESTIMATED TO HAVE GIVEN L OANS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD RECORDED THE STATEMENT OF ALL THE THREE PERSONS WHEREIN THEY HAVE ADMITTED TO HAVE GIVEN THE LOAN TO THE ASSESSEE. TH E LD. A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE PAPER BOOK FILED THE COPY OF JAMABANDI GIVIN G THE DETAILS OF THE LAND OWNED BY THE CREDITORS. THE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO FILED COPY OF KHASRAGIRDAWAI IN SUPPORT OF THE CONTENTION THAT VARIOUS CROPS SUC H AS BAJRA AND WHEAT WERE GROWN BY THEM. THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED COPIES OF FOR M J ISSUED BY M/S SANT TRADING CO., HELLI MANDI, GURGAON ACCORDING TO WHIC H THE AGRICULTURAL CROPS WERE SOLD BY THE CREDITORS. ACCORDINGLY, IT WAS CON TENDED THAT IT IS NOT ONLY A CASE WHERE IDENTITY OF PERSON WAS ESTABLISHED. THE ASSESSEE HAD ESTABLISHED THE CREDITWORTHINESS AS WELL AS GENUINENESS OF TRAN SACTION BY FILING THE RELEVANT DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES. THEREFORE, THE AUTH ORITIES BELOW WERE NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AS SESSING OFFICER. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD.SR. D.R. SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF CIT(A). 5. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND GONE THROUGH THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE FROM RECORD. WE HAVE ALSO PERUSED THE REV ENUE RECORDS INDICATING THE LANDHOLDING AND CROPS GROWN. AS PER THE JAMABAN DI THE LANDS ARE OWNED JOINTLY BY THESE PERSONS. HOWEVER, AS PE THE STATEM ENT RECORDED BY THE 4 ASSESSING OFFICER AND AFFIDAVITS FILED, IT IS SEEN THAT SHRI KRISHAN KUMAR SON OF SHRI SANT LAL OWNED 25 ACRES OF AGRICULTURAL LAN D. SHRI INDERJEET RAJPURA ALSO OWNED 25 ACRES OF AGRICULTURAL LAND IN THE SAM E VILLAGE. SMT. URMILA DEVI YADAV OWNED 7 ACRES OF LAND. SINCE THE LANDS A RE OWNED JOINTLY AND THERE IS NO IDENTIFICATION OF THE LANDS AMONGST THE OWNERS, THE AREA UNDER CULTIVATION OF A PARTICULAR LAND HAS TO BE TAKEN OU T ON THE BASIS OF AGRICULTURAL LANDHOLDING BY THE CO-OWNERS. AS PER REVENUE RECORD S, THE AGRICULTURAL LAND FALLING IN KHEWAT NO.25/22 KHATAUNI NO.31, THE LAND HOLDING IS 56 KANAL 2 MARLA AND IS OWNED BY SEVEN PERSONS EQUALLY. AS PER KHATAUNI GIRDAWARIWHICH GIVES THE DETAILS OF CROPS GROWN THE NATURE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND IS CHAHI TWO CROPS HAVE BEEN GROWN. IN RESPECT OF KHARIF CROP MAJORITY OF THE LAND WAS EMPTI AND NO CROP WAS GROWN.HOWEVER , BAJRA HAS BEEN GROWN ON LAND MEASURING 77 KANAL 3 MARLA ROUGHLY AR OUND 9.5 ACRES. THEY HAVE ALSO GROWN GWAR IN 29 KANAL ROUGHLY 3.62 ACRES AND FODDER (CHARI) IN 24 KANAL AND 13 MARLA ROUGHLY 3.5 ACRES. THE CREDIT ORS HAVE NOT EARNED ANYTHING FROM GWARI AND CHARI AS THESE CROPS ARE GR OWN FOR THE PURPOSE OF FODDER. THUS ON 9.5 ACRES LAND OF THE SHAREHOLDERS HAVE GROWN BAJRA CROP. THE PRODUCTION FROM BAJRA 9.5 QTLS. CANNOT BE MORE THAN 95 QTLS. AS AGAINST SHOWN BY KRISHAN KUMAR AT 27.06 QTLS., INDE RJEET RAJPURA 73.70 QTLS. AND SMT. URMILA DEVI 78 QTLS. THE TOTAL SALE OF BAJRA HAS BEEN SHOWN BY 3 PERSONS AT 178.76 QTLS. THERE ARE 7 SHAREHOLDE RS IN MAJORITY OF THE LAND, THEREFORE, OUT OF 95 QTLS. BAJRA WHICH COULD HAVE B EEN PRODUCTION THEIR SHARE WOULD BE MUCH LOWER. MOREOVER, BAJRA IS USED IN VIL LAGES EITHER FOR OWN CONSUMPTION AS WELL AS FOR CATTLES. THEREFORE, THE SALE CERTIFICATE WILL BE ISSUED BY M/S SANT TRADING CO.IN FORM J CANNOT BE C ONSIDERED AS GENUINE. AS REGARDS RABI CROP, TWO CREDITS HAVE BEEN GROWN I .E. WHEAT AND MUSTARD. IN MAJORITY OF THE LAND MUSTARD HAS BEEN GROWN. THE AREA UNDER WHEAT WAS AT 292 KANAL 4 MARLA ROUGHLY 36.5 ACRES. HERE AGAIN , THERE ARE 7 OWNERS IN 5 MAJORITY OF THE LAND. THE PRODUCTION PER ACRE OF WH EAT WOULD GIVE FROM 36.5 ACRES LAND ABOUT 584 QTLS. TAKING AVERAGE WHEAT PRO DUCTION @ 16 QTLS. PER ACRE. HOWEVER, AS PER FORM J SHRI KRISHAN KUMAR ALL EGED TO HAVE SOLD 657.85 QTLS. OF WHEAT, SHRI INDERJEET RAJPURA 620.6 7 QTLS. AND SMT. URMILA DEVI 466.35 QTLS. THE TOTAL SALE OF THESE THREE PER SONS HAVE BEEN SHOWN AT 1,744.87 QTLS. EVEN IF IT IS ASSUMED THAT OTHER SHA REHOLDERS HAVE NOT GROWN ANYTHING EVEN IN THAT SITUATION THE PRODUCTION OF W HEAT WILL NOT BE MORE THAN 584 QTLS. FROM THE LAND HELD BY THEM. MOREOVER , THERE ARE TWO MORE ASPECTS TO THIS WHICH ARE COMMON IN RESPECT OF ANY AGRICULTURIST. FIRSTLY, HE CANNOT SELL THE ENTIRE PRODUCTION AS HE HAS TO RETA IN WHEAT FOR HIS OWN CONSUMPTION AND ALSO WILL SELL FOR HIS OTHER NEEDS LIKE CLOTHES AND HOUSEHOLDS. OTHER THAN THE AGRICULTURISTS HAS TO IN CUR EXPENDITURE ON SOWING SEEDS, FERTILIZERS, WEEDING OUT, WATERING AND HARVE STING. THE COST OF PRODUCTION IN CASE OF WHEAT IS NOT LESS THAN 40% OF THE PRODUCTION. SIMILAR IS THE CASE IN RESPECT OF BAJRA THOUGH THE INPUT WI LL BE SLIGHTLY LOWER AS THE CROP IS DEPENDENT ON MONSOONIC CONDITIONS. TAKING I NTOACCOUNT THE INPUT, THE PERSONAL NEEDS, THE AGRICULTURIST WILL NOT BE A BLE TO SELL HIS ENTIRE PRODUCTION. IT WOULD DEPEND UPON HIS NEEDS. EVEN IF IT IS ESTIMATED THAT THE COST OF INPUT IS 25% OF THE PRODUCTION AND SIMILAR AMOUNT IS NEEDED FOR THE HOUSEHOLDS, MAINTENANCE ETC., THE AGRICULTURIST CAN NOT SELL MORE THAN 50% OF THE PRODUCTION WHICH WILL GIVE HIM MONEY. IF THAT I S THE CASE, BAJRA NOT MORE THAN 50 QTLS. CAN BE SOLD BY ALL THE SEVEN SHA REHOLDERS AND AS REGARDS WHEAT PRODUCTION ABOUT 250 QTLS. COULD BE SOLD BY A LL THE SEVEN SHAREHOLDERS. THE SHARE OF KRISHAN KUMAR, INDERJEET AND URMILA DEVI WILL BE MUCH LOWER THOUGH IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO QUANTIFY AT OUR STAGE THE EXACT LAND IN WHICH THEY HAVE GROWN THE PARTICULAR CROP. IN ANY CASE, IF IT IS ASSUMED THAT THE ENTIRE LANDHOLDING WAS EVEN INTHAT SITUATION THEY COULD HOLD 50 QTLS. OF BAJRA AND AROUND 250 QTLS. OF WHEAT AND NOT AS CDLAIMED BY 6 THEM AS 178.76 QTLS. OF BAJRA AND 1700.44 QTLS. OF WHEAT. WE ALSOFIND FROM THE COPY OF JAMABANDI THAT THEIR LANDS ARE MORTGAGE D WITH VARIOUS BANKS. AS PER THE RECORDS KHEWAT NO.77/74 IS MORTGAGED FOR RS . 2 LAKHS WITH GURGAON GRAMIN BANK THALI MANDI. ANOTHER LAND IS MORTGAGED WITH BANKS FOR RS.7,.40,000/-. KHEWAT NO.77/76 IS MORTGAGED FOR RS .7,40,000/-. KHEWAT NO.81 IS MORTGAGED FOR RS. 10 LAKHS. FROM THE DETAI LS OF MORTGAGED, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE SHAREHOLDERS HAVE TO PAY ABOUT 25 LA KHS OF VARIOUS BANKS, THEREFORE, WHATEVER MAY BE THE PRODUCTION WOULD GO TO MEET THE INSTALMENTS IN RESPECT OF BANK LOANS. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES , THESE PERSONS WOULD NOT BE IN A POSITION TO LEND ANY MONEY TO THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THEIR CREDITWORTHINESS IS NOT PROVED. UNDER SEC.68, WHEN AN AMOUNT IS FOUND TO BE CREDITED IN THE BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THE IDENTITY, THE CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF TRANSACTIONS. N O DOUBT, THE SOURCE OF INCOME IS WITH THE CREDITORS. HOWEVER, THERE IS A D IFFERENCE IN SOURCE OF INVESTMENT AND CREDITWORTHINESS. IN THE INSTANT CAS E, AS DISCUSSED ABOVE, THESE CREDITORS WERE NOT IN A POSITION TO LEND ANY MONEY TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RECORDED A FINDING THAT AS AN D WHEN THE MONEY WAS NEEDED, THE AMOUNT WAS INTRODUCED IN HIS BOOKS IN T HE NAME OF THE FAMILY MEMBERS, THEREFORE, IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO DISCHARGE THE ONUS WITH EVIDENCE THAT THE A MOUNT INTRODUCED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT HAS REALLY COME FROM THE CREDITORS . SINCE THE CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF TRANSACTIONS HA VE NOT BEEN DISCHARGED THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 68 ARE SQUARELY APPLICABLE. ACCORDINGLY, IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THE LD. CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.10,36,000/-. 6. THE NEXT ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION RELATES TO CONF IRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.47,508/- ON ACCOUNT OF ELECTRICITY CHARGES, RS.1 3,820/- ON ACCOUNT OF 7 ADVERTISEMENT EXPENSES AND RS.37,359/- ON ACCOUNT O F MAIL EXPENSES. THE FACTS OF THE CASE STATED IN BRIEF RELATING TO THIS GROUND OF APPEAL ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE PAYMENT OF ELECTRICITY BILL FOR R S.57,394/- FOR THE PERIOD 10/3/2003 TO 10/4/2003. THE BILL INCLUDED SUNDRY CH ARGES OF RS.27,729/-. ON A QUERY RAISED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, IT WAS SUB MITTED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE CLAIM OF EXPENSES HAS BEEN TAKEN ON PAYMENT BAS IS AND SINCE THE PAYMENT WAS MADE IN THIS YEAR AND HENCE SAME WAS CL AIMED. HOWEVER, THIS CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS TURNED DOWN ON THE G ROUND THAT ASSESSEE WAS FOLLOWING MERCANTILE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING AND, THER EFORE, COULD NOT CLAIM EXPENSES ON CASH BASIS. AS SUCH, SUNDRY CHARGES AMO UNTING TO RS.27,729/- AND 2/3 RD OF THE BALANCE BEING THE ELECTRICITY BILL FOR THE PREVIOUS YEAR I.E.RS.19,777 WAS DISALLOWED BY TREATING THE PRIOR PERIOD EXPENSES. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE DISALLOWANC E OF RS.47,508/-. AS REGARDS THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.13,820/- THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER NOTED THAT EXPENDITURE WAS INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE ON ADVERTI SEMENT. IN RESPONSE TO A QUERY RAISED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IT WAS SUBMIT TED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE EXPENDITURE OF CALENDAR WALL PAINTING HAVE BEEN RIGHTLY CLAIMED IN THE ACCOUNT AS THE EXPENDITURE WAS INCURRED FOR ADVERTI SEMENT FOR THE PURPOSE TO GROW THE BUSINESS. THIS CONTENTION OF ASSESSEE WAS REJECTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE GROUND THAT ASSESSEE WAS DOING JOB W ORK FOR HAFED AND DID NOT REQUIRE ANY ADVERTISEMENT ON ROAD SIDE. THE ASS ESSEE HAD NOT FILED ANY DOCUMENT IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION THAT EXPENSES HAVE BEEN ACTUALLY INCURRED. HE ACCORDINGLY DISALLOWED THE AMOUNT OF R S.13,820/-. AS REGARDS DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 37,359/-, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE AMOUNTING TO R S.41,510/- INCLUDING MILL EXPENSES WAS CAPITAL IN NATURE. IT WAS EXPLAIN ED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT EXPENSES WERE INCURRED ON REPAIR OF FLOOR TILES, NE W SHED OR LABOUR QUARTERS. THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED ON NEW SHED FOR LABOUR QUA RTERS WAS IN THE NATURE 8 OF WELFARE OF LABOUR AND, THEREFORE, HE EXPENDITURE WAS REQUIRED TO KEEP THE LABOUR HAPPY AND SATISFIED FOR THE MAXIMUM OUTPUT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THEREFORE, TREATED THE EXPENDITURE CAPITAL IN NATUR E. HE DISALLOWED THE ENTIRE EXPENDITURE. HOWEVER, HE ALLOWED DEPRECIATION @10% AMOUNTING TO RS.4,151/- WHICH RESULTED IN ADDITION OF R.37,359/- . 7. ON APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE DISALLOW ANCES FOLLOWING THE LOGIC GIVEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR THE DISALL OWANCE. 8. BEFORE US, NO ARGUMENTS WERE ADVANCED BY THE ASS ESSEE WHEN THE ISSUE CAME UP FOR HEARING. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO NO T FILED ANY MATERIAL IN PAPER BOOK AGAINST CONFIRMING THE SAID DISALLOWANCE S. SINCE NO ARGUMENTS WERE MADE AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS THE LD.CIT(A) HAVE FOUND. EVEN ANY WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS NOTHING HAS BEEN MENTI ONED ABOUT THIS GROUND. SINCE HE ASSESSEE HAD NOT ADVANCED ANY ARGU MENT NOR HAS GIVEN ANY MATERIAL SO AS TO CONTROVERT THE FINDINGS OF THE LD . CIT(A) AS WELL AS THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WE, THEREFORE, DO NOT FIND ANY R EASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE. 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. DECISION PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 18TH DE CEMBER, 2009. SD/- SD/- (VIMAL GANDHI) (K.D.RANJAN) PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 18.12.2009. PSP 9 COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT DEPUTY REGISTRAR