DCIT, New Delhi V. M/s. Airport Authority of India, New Delhi

ITA 3841/DEL/2011

• Counselvise Citation: 384120114 RSA 2011
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-03-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 16-02-2012
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 12-08-2011
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DEV JYOTI DAS
• Assessee Lawyers: VENKATESH MOHAN CAS
• Keywords: Depreciation; Rule of consistency

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 DELHI DELHI DELHI BENCH A BENCH A BENCH A BENCH A : NEW DELHI : NEW DELHI : NEW DELHI : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G. BEFORE SHRI G. BEFORE SHRI G. BEFORE SHRI G.D.AGRAWAL, D.AGRAWAL, D.AGRAWAL, D.AGRAWAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND VICE PRESIDENT AND VICE PRESIDENT AND VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI SHRI SHRI SHRI A.D.JAIN A.D.JAIN A.D.JAIN A.D.JAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER , JUDICIAL MEMBER , JUDICIAL MEMBER , JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO ITA NO ITA NO ITA NOS SS S. .. .3841/DEL/2011 & 3842/DEL/2011 3841/DEL/2011 & 3842/DEL/2011 3841/DEL/2011 & 3842/DEL/2011 3841/DEL/2011 & 3842/DEL/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR ASSESSMENT YEAR ASSESSMENT YEAR ASSESSMENT YEARS SS S : : : : 2007 2007 2007 2007- -- -08 & 2006 08 & 2006 08 & 2006 08 & 2006- -- -07 0707 07 DY.COMMISSIONER OF DY.COMMISSIONER OF DY.COMMISSIONER OF DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INCOME TAX, INCOME TAX, INCOME TAX, CI CICI CIRCLE RCLE RCLE RCLE- -- -1(1), 1(1), 1(1), 1(1), NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI. VS. VS. VS. VS. M/S AIRPORT M/S AIRPORT M/S AIRPORT M/S AIRPORTS SS S AUTHORITY OF INDIA, AUTHORITY OF INDIA, AUTHORITY OF INDIA, AUTHORITY OF INDIA, A AA A- -- -WING, RAJIV GANDHI BHAWAN, WING, RAJIV GANDHI BHAWAN, WING, RAJIV GANDHI BHAWAN, WING, RAJIV GANDHI BHAWAN, SAFDARJUNG AIRPORT, SAFDARJUNG AIRPORT, SAFDARJUNG AIRPORT, SAFDARJUNG AIRPORT, NEW DELHI NEW DELHI NEW DELHI NEW DELHI 110 003. 110 003. 110 003. 110 003. PAN : AAACA6412D. PAN : AAACA6412D. PAN : AAACA6412D. PAN : AAACA6412D. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI DEV JYOTI DAS, CIT-DR. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI VED JAIN & SHRI VENKATESH MOHAN, CAS. ORDER ORDER ORDER ORDER PER G. PER G. PER G. PER G.D.AGRAWAL, D.AGRAWAL, D.AGRAWAL, D.AGRAWAL, VP VPVP VP : : : : THESE APPEALS BY THE REVENUE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A), NEW DELHI DATED 24 TH JUNE, 2011 FOR THE AY 2007-08 AND 2006-07. ITA NO.3841/DEL/2011 : ITA NO.3841/DEL/2011 : ITA NO.3841/DEL/2011 : ITA NO.3841/DEL/2011 :- -- - 2. GROUND NO.1 OF THE REVENUES APPEAL READS AS UND ER:- IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD .CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING ADDITION OF RS.5,10,00,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF INCOME ACCRUED TO TH E ASSESSEE IGNORING THAT : A) THE ASSESSEE IS FOLLOWING MERCANTILE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING AND THIS INCOME DUE FROM COCHIN INTERNAT IONAL AIRPORT LTD. HAS ALREADY ACCRUED TO THE ASSESSEE. ITA-3841 & 3842/DEL/2011 2 B) RELIANCE PLACED BY LD.CIT(A) IN GODHRA ELECTRICI TY COMPANY VS. CIT 225 ITR 746 (SC) IS MISPLACED AS IN THE PRESENT CASE AS PER NOTE 7 OF NOTES TO ACCOUNTS, A DRAFT CNS/ATM AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD. WAS UNDER RE-NEGOTIATION AND MINISTRY OF CIVIL AVIATION HAS ISSUED GUIDELINES TO THE ASSESSEE THAT CHARGES ON PROVIDING CNS/ATM FACILITI ES SHALL ACCRUE TO THE ASSESSEE. 3. AT THE TIME OF HEARING BEFORE US, IT IS STATED B Y THE LEARNED DR THAT AS PER MOU BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND COCHIN INT ERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD. (IN SHORT CIAL), THE ASSESSEE I.E. AIRPORT A UTHORITY OF INDIA LTD. IS ENTITLED TO RECEIVE THE PAYMENT FOR PROVIDING ATM/C NS FACILITY. THE ASSESSEE ITSELF HAS MADE THE PROVISION FOR THE SAME IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AT `5.10 CRORES BUT DID NOT OFFER THE SAME IN ITS INCOME. HE, THEREFORE, SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER RIG HTLY INCLUDED THE SUM OF `5.10 AS INCOME ACCRUED TO THE ASSESSEE. 4. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, ON THE OTH ER HAND, STATED THAT CIAL SINCE BEGINNING I.E. 1999 DID NOT ACCEPT THE ASSESSEES CLAIM FOR SEPARATE PAYMENT FOR THE USE OF ATM/CNS FACILIT Y. IN FACT, THE DRAFT AGREEMENT IN WHICH THIS PROVISION WAS MADE FOR SEPA RATE PAYMENT FOR USE OF ATM/CNS FACILITY WAS NOT SIGNED BY CIAL. TH EREFORE, THE ASSESSEES CLAIM OF THE CHARGES FOR USE OF CNS/ATM FACILITIES IS ONLY ONE SIDED. THE ASSESSEE IS MAKING THIS PROVISION I N THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AS PER THE DIRECTION OF CIVIL AVIATION MINI STRY AND TO KEEP ALIVE ITS CLAIM. HOWEVER, SINCE INCEPTION, CIAL HAS NOT ACCEPTED THE ASSESSEES CLAIM AND HAS NOT MADE ANY PAYMENT THERE FORE. THAT THE IDENTICAL ISSUE AROSE IN AY 2002-03 WHEREIN THE SIM ILAR ADDITION WAS MADE. HOWEVER, THE LEARNED CIT(A), VIDE ITS ORDER IN APPEAL NO.87/04- 05, DELETED THE ADDITION. THE REVENUE ACCEPTED THE ABOVE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND DID NOT FILE ANY APPEAL BEFORE THE T RIBUNAL. THEREAFTER, IN AY 2003-04, 2004-05 & 2005-06, NO ADDITION WAS M ADE BY THE ITA-3841 & 3842/DEL/2011 3 REVENUE. THUS, EVEN AS PER RULE OF CONSISTENCY, TH IS ISSUE IS SETTLED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. MOREOVER, ON MERITS ALSO, THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) IS CORRECT BECAUSE UNLESS THE PAYER ACCEPTS THE ASSESSEES CLAIM, NO RIGHT IS ACCRUED TO THE ASSESS EE BY MAKING SUO MOTU ENTRY IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. HE, THEREFORE, SUB MITTED THAT THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) SHOULD BE SUSTAINED. 5. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE ARGUMENTS OF BO TH THE SIDES AND HAVE PERUSED THE MATERIAL PLACED BEFORE US. WE FIND THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF HIS PRED ECESSOR FOR AY 2002- 03 AND HAS ALSO OBSERVED THAT AS PER JUDICIAL DISCI PLINE, HE SHOULD FOLLOW THE ORDER OF HIS PREDECESSOR UNLESS THERE IS CHANGE IN FACTS OR IN LAW. THE REVENUE IS UNABLE TO POINT OUT THAT THERE WAS ANY CHANGE IN THE FACTS OR IN LAW AS COMPARED TO AY 2002-03. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ALSO RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF HONBLE JURISDICTI ONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. DINESH KUMAR GOEL (2011) 239 CTR 46 (DEL) IN WHICH THEIR LORDSHIPS OF JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT CONSID ERED THE MEANING OF THE WORDS INCOME AND ACCRUAL OF INCOME AND, HEL D AS UNDER:- TO THE SAME EFFECT AT THE OBSERVATIONS OF SATYANAR AYANA RAO J. IN CIT VS. ANAMALLAIS TIMBER TRUST LTD. (195 0) 18 ITR 333 (MAD) AND MUKHERJEA J. IN CIT VS. AHMEDBHAI UMA RBHAI & CO. (1950) 18 ITR 472 (SC) WHERE THIS PASSAGE FRO M THE JUDGMENT OF MUKERJI J. IN ROGERS PYATT SHELLAC & CO . VS. SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA 1 ITC 363, IS APPROVED AND ADOPTED. IT IS CLEAR THEREFORE THAT INCOME MAY ACC RUE TO AN ASSESSEE WITHOUT THE ACTUAL RECEIPT OF THE SAME. IF THE ASSESSEE ACQUIRES A RIGHT TO RECEIVE THE INCOME, TH E INCOME CAN BE SAID TO HAVE ACCRUED TO HIM THOUGH IT MAY BE RECEIVED LATER ON ITS BEING ASCERTAINED. THE BA SIC CONCEPTION IS THAT HE MUST HAVE ACQUIRED A RIGHT TO RECEIVE THE INCOME. THERE MUST BE A DEBT OWNED TO HIM BY SOMEBODY. THERE MUST BE AS IN OTHERWISE EXPRESSES ITA-3841 & 3842/DEL/2011 4 DEBITUM IN PRAESENTI, SOLVENDUM IN FUTURE. SEE W.S. TRY LTD. VS. JOHNSON (INSPECTOR OF TAXES) (1946) 1 ALL ER 532 AND WEBB VS. STENTON & ORS. GARNISHEES 11 QBD 518. UNLESS AND UNTIL THERE IS CREATED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE A DEBT DUE BY SOMEBODY IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT HE HA S ACQUIRED A RIGHT TO RECEIVE THE INCOME OR THAT INCO ME HAD ACCRUED TO HIM. (EMPHASIS BY UNDERLINING SUPPLIED BY US) 6. THE RATIO OF THE ABOVE DECISION WOULD BE SQUAREL Y APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE ASSESSEES CASE. WHEN CIAL HAS NO T ACCEPTED THE LIABILITY TO PAY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE USE OF CNS/AT M FACILITY, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT ANY RIGHT HAS ACCRUED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE TO RECEIVE SUCH AMOUNT. WHEN NO SUCH RIGHT IS ACCRUED TO THE ASSESSEE, IT CANNOT BE ASSESSED AS INCOME IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE MERELY BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE THE PROVISION IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THE REVENUE ITSELF HAS ACCEPTED THE ASSESSEES CLAIM FO R AY 2002-03 [BY ACCEPTING THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A)] AND IN AY 2003-0 4, 2004-05 & 2005- 06 (BY NOT MAKING ANY ADDITION) IN THIS REGARD. IN VIEW OF THE TOTALITY OF ABOVE FACTS AND LEGAL POSITION, WE DO NOT FIND A NY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A). THE SAME IS SUSTAINED AND GROUND NO.1 OF THE REVENUES APPEAL IS REJECTED. 7. GROUND NO.2 OF THE REVENUES APPEAL READS AS UND ER:- ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, LD.CIT (A) ERRED IN DELETING PRIOR PERIOD EXPENSES OF RS.9,24, 20,455/- THE LD.CIT HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT IN MERCANT ILE SYSTEM FOLLOWED BY THE ASSESSEE THERE IS NO PROVISI ON TO ALLOW PRIOR PERIOD EXPENSES. RELIANCE IS PLACED ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN HAJI LAL MOHD. BIRI WORDS VS. CIT 224 ITR 591 (1997). ITA-3841 & 3842/DEL/2011 5 8. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE M ATERIAL PLACED BEFORE US. WE FIND THAT WITH REGARD TO PRIOR PERIO D EXPENSES ALSO, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS RECORDED THE FINDING THAT SIMILA R ISSUE WAS DECIDED BY HIM FOR AY 2005-06 IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE WHI CH WAS ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT. THE FACTS OF THE YEAR UNDER CON SIDERATION ARE ADMITTEDLY IDENTICAL. MOREOVER, IT WAS POINTED OUT BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THOUGH THE PRIOR PERI OD EXPENSES WERE TO THE TUNE OF `9.24 CRORES BUT, THE ASSESSEE HAS DISC LOSED MUCH MORE INCOME OF THE PRIOR PERIOD AND, IN FACT, IF THE ASS ESSEES PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT IS LOOKED INTO, THERE IS NET CREDIT OF THE PRIOR PERIOD INCOME AMOUNTING TO `71.55 CRORES. THUS, THE PRIOR PERIOD INCOME OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS MORE BY `71.55 CRORES THAN THE PRI OR PERIOD EXPENSES CLAIMED IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ASSESSED THE PRIOR PERIOD INCOME AND DI SALLOWED PRIOR PERIOD EXPENSES. HE CANNOT ADOPT DIFFERENT YARDSTI CK FOR ASSESSING THE INCOME AND ALLOWING THE EXPENDITURE. CONSIDERING T HE TOTALITY OF THE ABOVE FACTS, WE DO NOT FIND ANY JUSTIFICATION TO IN TERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN THIS REGARD. THE SAME IS SUSTAINED AND GROUND NO.2 OF THE REVENUES APPEAL IS REJECTED. 9. GROUND NO.3 OF THE REVENUES APPEAL READS AS UND ER:- IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, LD.CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING ADDITION OF RS.8,30,391/- ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF EXTRA DEPRECIATION @60% ON TYPEWRITERS IGNORING THAT AS P ER THE IT RULES 60% DEPRECIATION IS ALLOWABLE ONLY ON COMP UTER AND COMPUTER SOFTWARE. 10. IN THIS REGARD, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASS ESSEE FAIRLY ADMITTED THAT IN THE EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEAR I.E. A Y 2004-05 IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE, THE CIT(A), VIDE HIS ORDER DA TED 24.3.2008, HAS SET ASIDE THIS ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESS ING OFFICER FOR ITA-3841 & 3842/DEL/2011 6 VERIFICATION. IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 ALSO, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS FOLLOWED THE ORDER OF HIS PREDECESSOR AND, VIDE HIS ORDER DATED 3.10.2008, REMANDED THE ISSUE BACK TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR VERIFICATION. THE LEARNED COUNSEL PLACED ON RECORD THE COPIES OF BOTH THE ORDERS OF LEARNED CIT(A) FOR AY 2004-05 & 2005- 06. IT WAS, THEREFORE, SUBMITTED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL THAT FO R THE SAKE OF CONSISTENCY, IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION ALSO, HE SHOULD HAVE SET ASIDE THIS MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO BE READJUDICATED IN THE LIGHT OF DIRECTIONS IN THE EAR LIER YEARS, INSTEAD OF ALLOWING THE RELIEF. 11. THE LEARNED DR ALSO FAIRLY STATED THAT IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE IF THE MATTER IS SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER FOR READJUDICATION AS PER THE DIRECTIONS OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN THE PRECEDING YEARS. 12. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE SI DES, THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE IS SET ASIDE AND T HE MATTER IS RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR READJ UDICATION AS PER THE DIRECTIONS OF THE CIT(A) IN THE PRECEDING YEAR. GR OUND NO.3 RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS, THEREFORE, TREATED AS ALLOWED. ITA NO.3842/DEL/2011 : ITA NO.3842/DEL/2011 : ITA NO.3842/DEL/2011 : ITA NO.3842/DEL/2011 :- -- - 13. THE ONLY GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN THIS A PPEAL READS AS UNDER:- THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW BY ALL OWING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE OF RS.3,16,8,999/- ON ACCOUNT OF FRINGE BENEFITS, IGNORING THE LEGAL POSITION THAT F OR CLAIMING ANY DEDUCTION FROM THE RETURN ALREADY FILED, THE AS SESSEE MUST REVISE ITS RETURN AND THE SAME CANNOT BE CLAIM ED BY SIMPLY FILING A LETTER BEFORE THE AO AS HAS BEEN HE LD BY THE ITA-3841 & 3842/DEL/2011 7 HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF GOETZE (INDIA) LTD. VS. CIT (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC). 14. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL PLACED BEFORE US. WE FIND THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS DISCUSSED THIS ISSUE IN PARAGRAPH 10 OF HIS ORDER AND HE HAS ACCEP TED THE LEGAL POSITION THAT FOR CLAIMING A DEDUCTION FROM THE RET URN ALREADY FILED, THE ASSESSEE MUST REVISE THE RETURN AND THE SAME CANNOT BE CLAIMED BY SIMPLY FILING A LETTER BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER . HOWEVER, AFTER ACCEPTING THE LEGAL POSITION AS RAISED BY THE REVEN UE IN THIS APPEAL, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS DISCUSSED THE POWER OF THE A PPELLATE AUTHORITY AND, RELYING UPON THE DECISION OF HONBLE JURISDICT IONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. JAI PARABOLIC SPRINGS LTD. (2008) 306 ITR 42 (DELHI) AND ALSO THE DECISION OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF BALMUKUND ACHARYA VS. DCIT (2009) 221 CTR 440 (BOM), HELD THAT THE DECISION OF HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF GOETZE (INDIA) LIMITED VS. CIT (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC) DOES NOT BIND THE APPELL ATE AUTHORITIES. THE REVENUE HAS NOT CHALLENGED THE AB OVE FINDING OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN ITS GROUND OF APPEAL. MOREOVER, AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL BEFORE US ALSO, THE LEARNED D R DID NOT POINT OUT ANY DECISION WHICH SAYS THAT APPELLATE AUTHORITIES DO NOT HAVE THE POWER OF ADMITTING FRESH CLAIM. IN FACT, IN THE DE CISION OF HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF GOETZE (INDIA) LIMITED (SUPRA), IT HAS BEEN CLARIFIED THAT THE DECISION IS LIMITED TO THE POWER OF THE AS SESSING AUTHORITY AND DOES NOT IMPINGE ON THE POWER OF THE ITAT. THE ABO VE OBSERVATION OF THE HONBLE APEX COURT WOULD BE SQUARELY APPLICABLE WITH REGARD TO THE POWER OF THE CIT(A). MOREOVER, THE HONBLE JURISDI CTIONAL HIGH COURT HAS ALSO CLARIFIED THIS POSITION IN THE CASE OF JAI PARABOLIC SPRINGS LTD. (SUPRA). 15. WITH REGARD TO THE MERIT OF THE LEVY OF FRINGE BENEFIT TAX ON THE CALIBRATION EXPENDITURE, THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONE R IN THE REMAND REPORT BEFORE THE CIT(A) ADMITTED AS UNDER:- ITA-3841 & 3842/DEL/2011 8 HOWEVER, CONSIDERING THE MERITS OF THE SUBMISSION WITH REGARD TO CLAIM FOR NON INCLUSION OF CALIBRATION EX PENDITURE INCURRED ON AIR CRAFT OWNED BY AAI INCLUDED IN THE LEVY OF FBT; IT IS SEEN THAT FBT IS NOT ATTRACTED ON THE EX PENDITURE UNDER REFERENCE. 16. THUS, THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER HIMSELF HAS A DMITTED THAT FBT IS NOT ATTRACTED ON THE CALIBRATION EXPENDITURE INC URRED ON AIRCRAFTS OWNED BY THE AAI. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THERE IS N O MERIT IN THE REVENUES APPEAL. THE SAME IS DISMISSED. 17. IN THE RESULT, THE REVENUES APPEAL IN ITA NO.3 841/DEL/2011 IS PARTLY ALLOWED WHILE IN ITA NO.3842/DEL/2011 IS DIS MISSED. DECISION PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 16 TH MARCH, 2012. SD/- SD/- ( (( (A.D.JAIN A.D.JAIN A.D.JAIN A.D.JAIN) )) ) (G.D.AGRAWAL) (G.D.AGRAWAL) (G.D.AGRAWAL) (G.D.AGRAWAL) JUDICIAL JUDICIAL JUDICIAL JUDICIAL MEMBER MEMBER MEMBER MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT VICE PRESIDENT VICE PRESIDENT VICE PRESIDENT DATED : 16.03.2012 VK. COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR