Shiv Kumar, Gurgaon V. ITO, Gurgaon

ITA 3983/DEL/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 61628 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-04-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Next Hearing Date: 18-04-2012
• Assessment Year: 1991-1992
• Appeal Filed On: 01-09-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S MOHANTY
• Assessee Lawyers: REENA NE HRU
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice; Condonation of delay; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 142(1); 147; 148

Judgement Text

ITA NOS. 3978, 3979, 3980, 3981, 3982 & 3983/DEL/20 11 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH G NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI I.P. BANSAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NOS. 3978, 3979, 3980, 3981, 3982 & 3983/DEL/ 2011 A.YRS. : 1989-90, 89-90, 90-91, 90-91, 91-92 & 91-9 2 SHIV KUMAR L/ H OF BURFO DEVI C/O YPS RANA & ASSOCIATES, 205-208, DEEP PLAZA, NEAR CIVIL COURT, GURGAON-122001, HARYANA (PAN : ARJPK5280C) VS. ITO, WARD - 3, GURGAON (APPELLANT ) (APPELLANT ) (APPELLANT ) (APPELLANT ) (RESPONDENT ) (RESPONDENT ) (RESPONDENT ) (RESPONDENT ) ASSESSEE BY : REENA NEHRU , ADV. DEPARTMENT BY : S. MOHANTY, D.R. ORDER ORDER ORDER ORDER PER PER PER PER BENCH BENCH BENCH BENCH THESE APPEALS ARE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. THEY A RE DIRECTED AGAINST THE TWO SEPARATE ORDERS PASSED BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) DATED 26.2.2008 AND 03.3.2008 IN RESPECT OF ASSESSMENT YEARS 1989-90, 90-91 AND 91-92. THE ORD ER DATED 26.2.2008 RELATES TO QUANTUM PROCEEDINGS AND ORDER D ATED 3.3.2008 RELATES TO PENALTY LEVIED U/S. 271(1)(C) OF THE IT ACT, 1961 (ACT). ALL THESE APPEALS WERE ARGUED TOGETHER BY BOTH THE PAR TIES. HENCE, FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE ALL OF THEM ARE BEING DISPOS ED OFF BY THIS ITA NOS. 3978, 3979, 3980, 3981, 3982 & 3983/DEL/20 11 2 CONSOLIDATED ORDER. THE GROUND OF APPEAL IN ALL T HESE APPEALS ARE IDENTICAL. 2. IT IS NOTICED THAT THE APPEALS ARE TIME BARRED B Y 1210 DAYS. AN APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY HAS BEEN FILE D. IT HAS BEEN MENTIONED IN THE APPLICATION THAT THE ORDER OF THE L D. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) DATED 26.2.2008 AND THE APPEAL SHOULD HAVE BEEN FILED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL ON OR BEFORE 27.4 .2008. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE DUE TO HER PROLONGED IL LNESS HAD DIED ON 28.2.2008 AND LEGAL HEIRS WERE NOT AWARE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS BEING CONTINUED AGAINST HER AND THEREFORE, THERE IS A RE ASONABLE CAUSE FOR NON-FILING OF APPEAL AND THE APPEAL FILED BY THE AS SESSEE SHOULD BE ADMITTED AND BE DECIDED ON MERITS, AFTER CONDONING T HE DELAY. ALONGWITH THE APPEAL THE DEATH CERTIFICATE OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN FILED WHICH IS SHOWING THE DATE OF DEATH AS 28.2.20 08. 3. IN THIS VIEW OF THE SITUATION, AFTER HEARING BOT H THE PARTIES, AS THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) DATED 26.2.2008 AND 3.3.2008 WHICH IS VERY NEAR TO THE DA TE OF DEATH OF THE ASSESSEE, WE CONSIDER IT JUST AND PROPER TO CONDON E THE DELAY AND ADMIT THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE TO BE HEARD ON MERITS. 4. IN QUANTUM APPEALS GROUNDS OF APPEAL READ AS UND ER:- ITA NOS. 3978, 3979, 3980, 3981, 3982 & 3983/DEL/20 11 3 1. THAT EXPARTE ASSESSMENT ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS BAD IN LAW AND AGAINST THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 2. THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER ERROR IN LAW AND ALS O ON FACTS BY NOT SERVING OF NOTICE U/S. 148 AND 142(1) UPON THE ASSESSEE U/S. 282(1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 HENCE THE SAID ASSESSMENT ORDER IS NOT VALID. 3. THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER ERROR IN LAW AND ALS O ON FACTS BY NOT PROVIDING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF B EING HEARD TO THE APPELLANT. THE FIRST NOTICE U/S. 148 FOR FILING OF RETURN STATED TO BE ISSUED ON 16.2.2000 B UT THE SAID NOTICE WAS NOT SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE. FURTHER A NOTICE GAIN STATED TO BE ISSUED ON 29.9.2 000 FOR 9.10.2000. BUT THE SAID NOTICE HAD ALSO NOT BE EN SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE. 4. THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER ERROR IN LAW AND ALS O ON FACTS BY ALLEGING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED INTEREST OF ` 99615/- DURING THE YEAR. BUT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT RECEIVED ANY INTEREST INCOME ON ITA NOS. 3978, 3979, 3980, 3981, 3982 & 3983/DEL/20 11 4 COMPULSORY ACQUISITION OF AGRICULTURE LAND AS ALLEG ED IN THE SAID ASSESSMENT ORDER. 5. THAT ASSESSING OFFICER ERROR IN LAW AND ALSO ON FACTS BY FRAMING ASSESSMENT OF BURFO DEVI AS INDIVIDUAL WHILE THE SAID INTERESTE AMOUNT PERTAINS TO THE HUF OF LT. SH. CHARAN SINGH AS THE SAID INTEREST RECEIVED BY SH. CHRAN SINGH KARTA, HUF. 6. THAT ASSESSING OFFICER ERROR IN LAW AND ALSO O N FACTS BY FRAMING EXPARATE ASSESSMENT AS TIME BARRED U/S. 147/148 & 149. 7. THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER ERROR IN LAW AND ALS O ON FACTS BY FRAMING NON SPEAKING EXPARTE ASSESSMENT ORDER. 8. THAT ASSESSING OFFICER ERROR IN LAW AND ALSO ON FACTS BY NOT EXPLAINING THE BASIS OF ADDITION OF INTEREST IN THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR 1989-90. 9. THAT THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY IS LIA BLE TO BE SET ASIDE ON OTHER GROUNDS TOO WHICH THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO TAKE AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THIS APPEAL. ITA NOS. 3978, 3979, 3980, 3981, 3982 & 3983/DEL/20 11 5 10. THAT APPELLANT CRAVES TO ADD, AMEND MODIFY, ALTE R OR SUBSTITUTE ALL OR ANY OF THE GROUNDS MENTIONED HERE IN ABOVE. 5. IN PENALTY APPEALS GROUNDS OF APPEAL READ AS UN DER:- 1. THAT EXPARTE ASSESSMENT ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS BAD IN LAW AND AGAINST THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 2. THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER ERROR IN LAW AND A LSO ON FACTS BY NOT SERVING NOTICE FOR DATED 23.4.2001 FOR IMPOSITION OF PENALTY U/S. 271(1) AND 271(1)(B) UPON THE ASSESSEE AS PER SECTION 282(1) OF THE INCOME TA X ACT, 1961 HENCE THE SAID PENALTY ORDER IS NOT VALI D. 3. THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER ERROR IN LAW AND ALS O ON FACTS BY NOT PROVIDING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE APPELLANT BECAUSE SINGLE NOTICE FOR 23.4.2001 HAS NOT BEEN SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE AND IMPOSED PENALTY OF ` 40000/- UPON THE ASSESSEE ON THE SINGLE NOTICE EXPARTE. 4. THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER PENALIZED THE APPELL ANT OF THE FAULT WHICH THE APPELLANT NEVER COMMITTED AND ITA NOS. 3978, 3979, 3980, 3981, 3982 & 3983/DEL/20 11 6 HENCE SERIOUS VIOLATION OF LAW OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND ALSO THE LACK OF APPLICATION OF JUDICIOUS MIND IN TH E INSTANT CASE. 5. THAT THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY IS LI ABLE TO BE SET ASIDE ON THE OTHER GROUNDS TOO WHICH THE APPELLANT CRAVES AND LEAVES TO TAKE AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THIS APPEAL. 6. THAT APPELLANT CRAVES TO ADD, AMEND, MODIFY, AL TER OR SUBSTITUTE ALL OR ANY OF THE GROUNDS MENTIONED HERE IN ABOVE. 6. IN THE QUANTUM ORDER THE INCOME ASSESSED IN RES PECT OF ALL THE YEARS IS A SUM OF ` 99615/- IN EACH YEAR. IN PEN ALTY APPEALS, PENALTY LEVIED U/S. 271(1)(C) IN RESPECT OF ASSESSMENT YEARS 1989-90 & 90-91 IS A SUM OF ` 40,000/- FOR EACH YEAR AND FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1991-92 IS A SUM OF ` 30,000/-. THE IMPUGNED ORDERS HAVE BE EN PASSED BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IN PURSUANC E TO THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ITAT DATED 25.2.2005, A COPY OF WHICH HAS BEEN FILED BEFORE US. IT WAS NOTICED BY THE TRIBUNAL THAT L D. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IN ALL THESE APPEALS HAD DISPO SED OFF THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN-LIMINE WITHOUT DISCUSSING THE MERITS OF THE ITA NOS. 3978, 3979, 3980, 3981, 3982 & 3983/DEL/20 11 7 CASE. THEREFORE, ALL THESE APPEALS WERE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) FOR DECIDING TH EM ON MERITS. IT IS IN PURSUANCE OF THAT ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL, BOTH THE IMPUGNED ORDERS HAVE BEEN PASSED BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME T AX (APPEALS). 7. IN QUANTUM APPEALS THE MAIN CONTENTION OF THE ASS ESSEE IS THAT ASSESSMENT IS INVALID INTER-ALIA ON THE GROUND THAT NOTICE U/S. 148 HAS NOT BEEN SERVED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS O F LAW, HENCE, REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ARE INVALID. THOUGH, LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS REFERRED TO THIS ISSUE, B UT IT IS NOTICED THAT LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS NOT GI VEN A DEFINITE FINDING THAT WHETHER NOTICE ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN IS SUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S. 148 ON 16.2.2000 WAS WHETHE R ISSUED AND SERVED UPON ASSESSEE. LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME T AX (APPEALS) HAS UPHELD THE VALIDITY OF THE REASSESSMENT PROCEED INGS WITHOUT GIVING HIS SPECIFIC FINDING ON THE ISSUE THAT WHETHER ANY SUCH NOTICE WAS EFFECTIVELY ISSUED AND SERVED UPON ASSESSEE. IT IS THE CASE OF LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE THAT THOUGH ASSESSING OF FICER HAS MENTIONED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT NOTICE U/S. 1 48 WAS ISSUED ON 16.2.2000, BUT IT HAS NOT BEEN STATED BY HIM WHETHER THAT NOTICE WAS EVER ISSUED OR SERVED UPON ASSESSEE. SHE ALSO RE FERRED TO THE SWORN ITA NOS. 3978, 3979, 3980, 3981, 3982 & 3983/DEL/20 11 8 AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE COPY OF WHICH PLACED AT PAGE NO. 27 OF THE PAPER BOOK, IN WHICH IT HAS BEEN SPECIFICALL Y AVERRED AS UNDER:- I BARFO DEVI W/O LATE SH. CHARAN SINGH RESIDENT OF VILLAGE JHARSA GURGAON DO HEREBY SOLEMNLY AFFIRM AND DECLARE AS UNDER:- 1. THAT I BAFRO DEVI W/O LATE SH. CHARAN SINGH RESIDENT OF VILLAGE JHARSA STATING THAT I DID NOT RECEIVE ANY NOTICE U/S. 148 OF DATED 16.2.2000 FROM THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT. 7.1 SHE SUBMITTED THAT LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) WITHOUT ASCERTAINING THE FACTUAL ASPECT, HAS DISMISS ED THIS PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE ON LEGAL GROUND AND EVEN ON LEGAL GROUND S UCH ORDER OF LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IS NOT SUSTAINA BLE IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY DEFINITE FINDING RECORDED BY HIM REG ARDING ISSUANCE AND SERVICE OF THE NOTICE. SHE CONTENDED THAT IN VIEW OF THE AFOREMENTIONED AFFIDAVIT AND SPECIFIC DENIAL BY THE ASSESSEE REGARDING SERVICE OF NOTICE, IT WAS THE OBLIGATION UPON LD. C OMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) TO ADJUDICATE UPON THE ISSUE B Y GIVING A SPECIFIC FINDING IN THIS REGARD. ITA NOS. 3978, 3979, 3980, 3981, 3982 & 3983/DEL/20 11 9 7.2 SO AS TO IT RELATES TO PENALTY PROCEEDINGS, SHE SUBMITTED THAT UNLESS JURISDICTION IS DECIDED FIRST IN A PROPER MANN ER, THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS CANNOT BE DECIDED. SHE SUBMITTED THAT IT WILL BE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, IF THE MATTER REGARDING PENALTY IS ALSO RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPE ALS) WITH A DIRECTION TO FIRST GIVE DEFINITE FINDING ON JURISDI CTIONAL ISSUE AND THAT READJUDICATE PENALTY APPEALS. SHE SUBMITTED THAT IN T HE AFOREMENTIONED ORDER THE TRIBUNAL WAS ALSO IN RESPEC T OF ASSESSMENT YEARS 1997-98 AND 1998-99 AND THESE YEARS HAVE NOT BEEN DECIDED BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AND DIRE CTION MAY BE GIVEN TO THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) TO DISPOSE OFF THOSE YEARS. 7.3 ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATI VE RELIED UPON THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME T AX (APPEALS). 8. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIO NS IN LIGHT OF THE MATERIAL PRODUCED BEFORE US. A SPECIFIC GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME T AX (APPEALS) AND SAID GROUND HAS ALSO BEEN REPRODUCED IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). IN THE SAID G ROUND, IT WAS CONTENDED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICE R HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ALSO ON FACTS BY NOT SERVING OF NOTICE U/S. 148 AND 142(1) UPON ITA NOS. 3978, 3979, 3980, 3981, 3982 & 3983/DEL/20 11 10 THE ASSESSEE U/S. 282(1) OF THE IT ACT, 1961 HENCE, THE SAID ASSESSMENT ORDER IS NOT VALID AND IN THE GROUND OF APPEAL ASSESSEE HAD ALSO RELIED UPON THE VARIOUS JUDICIAL PRONOUNCE MENTS. IN THIS MANNER, A SPECIFIC GROUND WAS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE REGARDING ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S. 148 AND THIS HAS BEEN ADJUDICATED BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) WITH THE FOLLOW ING OBSERVATIONS:- 3.4 RELIANCE IS PLACED ON 281 ITR 444 (MAD.), 281 I TR 1 (DELHI), 120 ITR 576 (MAD.), 99 ITR 349 (P&H). IT I S STATED THAT THE HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT HELD IN T HE CASE OF JAYANTHI TALKIES DISTRIBUTORS VS. C.I.T. IN 120 ITR 576 THAT THE ITO WILL HAVE NO JURISDICTION TO MAKE AN ASSESSMENT U/S. 147 UNLESS THE NOTICE U/S. 148 I S VALIDLY ISSUED TO AND SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE. AS THE NOTICE IN THE INSTANT CASE WAS BY NOTICE SERVER OF THE DEPARTMENT AND NOT BY POST, THE PROCEDURE CONTEMPLATED BY THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SHOULD HAVE BEEN FOLLOWED AS PER U/S. 281(1). THE PROVIS IONS IN THE CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE MAKE IT CLEAR THAT THE SERVICE OF NOTICE ON A PERSON CAN BE EFFECTED BY SERVING THE NOTICE ON HIS AGENT WHO HAS BEEN ITA NOS. 3978, 3979, 3980, 3981, 3982 & 3983/DEL/20 11 11 SPECIFICALLY EMPOWERED OR AUTHORIZED TO RECEIVE THE NOTICE IN WRITING BY THAT PERSON. THE MANAGER ON WHOM THE NOTICE HAD BEEN SERVED IN THIS CASE HAD N O WRITTEN AUTHORITY FROM THE PARTNER TO RECEIVE THE NOTICES ON BEHALF OF THE FIRM. CONSEQUENTLY, THE NOTICE U/S. 148 HAD NOT BEEN VALIDLY SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE AND THE REASSESSMENT MADE U/S. 147 CANNOT BE HELD TO BE VALID. THE HONBLE PUNJAB AND HARYAN A HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF VIJAY KUMAR JAIN V. C.I.T . IN 99 ITR 349 HELD, THAT WHEN IN RESPECT OF ANY YEAR, A RETURN HAS BEEN SUBMITTED BEFORE ASSESSMENT, THE INCOME TAX OFFICER CANNOT IGNORE THE RETURN AND THE NOTICE OF REASSESSMENT AND CONSEQUENT ASSESSMENT IGNORING THE RETURN ARE INVALID. IF THE NOTICE ISS UED IS INVALID FOR ANY REASON, THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS TAKE N BY HIM WOULD BE VOID FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION. IN THIS SITUATION, THE TRIBUNAL WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN REFUSI NG TO CONSIDER THE VALIDITY OF THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 1 48 EVEN THOUGH THE GROUND CHALLENGING THE SAME HAD NOT BEEN PRESSED BEFORE THE APPELLATE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER. ITA NOS. 3978, 3979, 3980, 3981, 3982 & 3983/DEL/20 11 12 8.1 IT CAN BEEN SEEN FROM THE ABOVE OBSERVATIONS OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) THAT HE HAS NOT GIVEN A SPECIFIC FINDING THAT WHETHER OR NOT THE SAID NOTICE U/S. 1 48 WAS ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND SERVED UPON ASSESSEE. THE REFORE, WE CONSIDER IT JUST PROPER TO RESTORE ALL THESE APPEALS TO TH E FILE OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) WITH THE DIRECTI ON TO GIVE DEFINITE FINDING ON THIS ISSUE. THE ISSUE REGARD ING ISSUE OF SERVICE OF NOTICE U/S. 148 WILL GO TO THE ROOT OF THE MATTER AN D IF IT HAS NOT BEEN VALIDLY ISSUED AND SERVED, THEN THE ASSESSMENT FRAME D WOULD NOT STAND THE TEST OF LAW. THE LEVY OF PENALTY CAN B E DECIDED AFTER ASCERTAINING THE JURISDICTION ISSUE. THEREFORE, W E CONSIDER IT JUST AND PROPER TO RESTORE ALL THESE APPEALS TO THE FILE OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). ACCORDINGLY, WE RESTORE ALL THESE APPEALS TO THE FILE OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPE ALS) WITH THE DIRECTION TO DETERMINE THE AFOREMENTIONED ISSUE, AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF LAW AND AFTER ASCERTAINING THE ISSUE HE WILL RE -ADJUDICATE ALL OTHER ISSUES AND ALSO THE ISSUE REGARDING THE LEVY OF PE NALTY. WE DIRECT ACCORDINGLY. NEEDLESS TO ADD THAT THE LD. COMMISS IONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) WILL READJUDICATE THESE APPEALS IN PU RSUANCE OF THIS ORDER, AFTER GIVING REASONABLE AND SUFFICIENT OPPOR TUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. WITH THESE DIRECTIONS, ALL THE AP PEALS FILED BY THE ITA NOS. 3978, 3979, 3980, 3981, 3982 & 3983/DEL/20 11 13 ASSESSEE ARE DISPOSED OFF AND ARE CONSIDERED TO BE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 9. IN THE RESULT, APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE CONSIDERED TO BE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES IN THE MANNER AFORE SAID. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 20/4/2012. SD/- SD/- [SHAMIM YAHYA] [SHAMIM YAHYA] [SHAMIM YAHYA] [SHAMIM YAHYA] [ [[ [I.P. BANSAL I.P. BANSAL I.P. BANSAL I.P. BANSAL] ]] ] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATE 20/4/2012 SRBHATNAGAR SRBHATNAGAR SRBHATNAGAR SRBHATNAGAR COPY FORWARDED TO: COPY FORWARDED TO: COPY FORWARDED TO: COPY FORWARDED TO: - -- - 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, DELHI BENCHES