ACIT, New Delhi V. M/s. Oriental Structural Engineers (P) Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 4245/DEL/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 53274 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-12-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Next Hearing Date: 23-11-2011
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 22-09-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R S NEGI
• Keywords: Earning of tax free income; Commercial expediency
• Section: 43B; 143(3); 14A

Judgement Text

ITA NO. 4245/DEL/2011 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH E NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI A.D. JAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 4245/DEL/2011 A.Y. : 2008-09 ACIT, CIRCLE 13(1), ROOM NO. 406, CR BUILDING, I.P. ESTATE, NEW DELHI VS. M/S ORIENTAL STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS (P) LTD., 21/48, MALCHA MARG, COMMERCIAL COMPLEX, DIPLOMATIC ENCLAVE, NEW DELHI 110 021 (PAN/GIR NO. : AAACO0054F) (APPELLANT ) (APPELLANT ) (APPELLANT ) (APPELLANT ) (RESPONDENT ) (RESPONDENT ) (RESPONDENT ) (RESPONDENT ) ASSEESSEE BY : SH. K.V.S.R. KRISHNA, CA DEPARTMENT BY : SH. R.S. NEGI, SR. D.R. ORDER ORDER ORDER ORDER PER SHAMIM YAHYA: AM PER SHAMIM YAHYA: AM PER SHAMIM YAHYA: AM PER SHAMIM YAHYA: AM THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST TH E ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) DATED 30.5.2 011 PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. 2. THE GROUNDS RAISED READ AS UNDER:- 1. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERR ED IN RESTRICTING THE DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A TO ` 40,556/- (@2% OF DIVIDEND INCOME) AND NOT APPLYING RULED 8D OF THE IN COME TAX RULES WHICH IS MANDATORY FROM A.Y. 2008-09. ITA NO. 4245/DEL/2011 2 2. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A ND IN LAW THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRE D BY IGNORING THE RATIO DECIDED IN CASE OF GODREJ AND BOY CE MANUFACTURING CO. LTD. DCIT (2010) 234 (BOM.). 3. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A ND IN LAW THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERR ED IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFI CER ON ACCOUNT OF DIRECTORS TRAVELLING WITHOUT CONSIDERING WHETHER ANY IDENTIFIABLE BENEFIT ACCRUED TO THE BUSINESS. 4. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A ND IN LAW THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRE D BY IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PROVID E ANY MATERIAL TO SUPPORT THAT THE EXPENDITURE IS A BUSINE SS EXPENSE. 5. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A ND IN LAW THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERR ED IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE ON ACCOUNT OF VAT NOT PAI D BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF FILING OF THE RETURN OF INCOME AND BY IGNORING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 43B OF THE IT A CT, 1961. 6. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES TO BE ALLOWED TO ADD A NY FRESH GROUNDS OF APPEAL AND / OR DELETE OR DEMAND ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 3. APROPOS DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A IN THIS CASE RETURN OF INCOME HAD FILED ON 30.9.200 8 DECLARING AN INCOME OF ` 67,14,94,245/-. THE ASSESSMENT WAS FRA MED U/S 143(3) OF THE IT ACT AT AN INCOME OF ` 68,05,79,170/-. IN TH E ASSESSMENT ORDER ITA NO. 4245/DEL/2011 3 ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED THE EXPENSES RELATE D TO EXEMPT INCOME U/S 14A R.W. RULE 8D AMOUNTING TO ` 35,85,121/-. 4. UPON ASSESSEES APPEAL LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) CONSIDERED THE ISSUE AND HELD AS UNDER:- I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT AND ALSO GONE THROUGH THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE ASSESSING OFFI CER AS CONTAINED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, AS WELL AS THE JU DICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS ON THE ISSUE. IT IS SEEN THAT DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATIO N EVEN THOUGH THE APPELLANT COMPANY HAS MADE BORROWINGS FROM BANKS AND FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS ON WHICH IT HAD PA ID INTEREST, INVESTMENTS IN MUTUAL FUNDS AND SHORT TERM FUNDS WERE MADE OUT OF SURPLUS FUNDS AVAILABLE WITH THE APPELLANT FROM TIME TO TIME AS PER THE BANK STATEMENT S PRODUCED. ONLY THE INTEREST OF ` 2,96,731/- WAS PA ID ON FUNDS UTILIZED FOR MAKING INVESTMENTS ON WHICH EXEMPT ED INCOME WAS RECEIVABLE (AS ADMITTED BY THE APPELLAN T DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS) AND HEN CE THE SAME IS TREATED AS EXPENSE ATTRIBUTABLE TO EXEMPT IN COME. IN RESPECT OF INVESTMENTS OF ` 6,07,775,000/- MADE I N SUBSIDIARY COMPANIES AS PER DOCUMENTS PRODUCED BEFORE ME, THEY ARE ATTRIBUTABLE TO COMMERCIAL EXPEDIENCY, BECAUSE AS PER SUBMISSION MADE BY THE APPELLANT, IT H AD TO FORM SPECIAL PURPOSE VEHICLES (SPVS) IN ORDER TO OB TAIN CONTRACTS FROM THE NHAI AND THE SPVS SO FORMED ENGAGE D THE APPELLANT COMPANY AS CONTRACT TO EXECUTE THE WOR KS AWARDED TO THEM (I.E. SPVS) BY THE NHAI. IN ITS PRO FIT AND ITA NO. 4245/DEL/2011 4 LOSS ACCOUNT FOR THE YEAR, THE APPELLANT HAS SHOWN THE TURNOVER FROM EXECUTION OF THESE CONTRACTS AND THER EFORE NO EXPENSE AND INTEREST ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE INVESTME NTS MADE BY THE APPELLANT IN THE SPVS CAN BE DISALLOWED U /S 14A R.W. RULE 8D BECAUSE IT CANNOT BE TERMED AS EXPE NSE /INTEREST INCURRED FOR EARNING EXEMPTED INCOME. IN VIEW OF THE FACTS MENTIONED ABOVE:- (I) INTEREST EXPENSES AMOUNTING TO ` 2,96,731/- HAVE BEEN DIRECTLY FOUND TO BE INCURRED FOR EARNING EXEMPT INCOME AND HENCE DISALLOWED U/S 14A. (II) FURTHER, THE COMPANY HAS EARNED DIVIDEND IN RESPECT OF INVESTMENTS MADE AND SOME ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES LIKE MANAGEMENTS SALARY, TELEPHONE, STATIONERY, POSTAGE EXPENSES, ETC. MUST HAVE BEEN INCURRED THEREON. KEEPING IN VIEW THE AFORESAID, I AM OF THE OPINION THAT ADDITION OF ` 40,556/- CALCULATED @ 2% OF THE DIVIDEND EARNED HAS TO BE MADE I.E. 2% OF ` 2,027,812/-. HENCE, ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS UPHELD TO THE EXTENT OF ` 3,37,287/- (` 2,96,731/- + ` 40,556/-.) THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 5. AGAINST THE ABOVE ORDER THE REVENUE IS IN APPEA L BEFORE US. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS IN LIGHT OF THE MATERIAL PRODUCED AND PRECEDENT RELIED UPON. ITA NO. 4245/DEL/2011 5 6.1 LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 6.2 LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). HE PLACED REL IANCE UPON THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT DECISION IN THE C ASE OF MAXOPP INVESTMENT LTD. VS. C.I.T. IN ITA NBO. 687/2009 WHE REIN VIDE ORDER DATED 18.11.2011 THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH CO URT HAS EXPOUNDED THAT DETERMINATION OF THE AMOUNT OF EXPENDITURE IN R ELATION TO EXEMPT INCOME UNDER RULE 8D WOULD ONLY COME INTO PLAY WHEN T HE ASSESSING OFFICER REJECTS THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD. IT IS FURTHER EXPOUNDED THAT CONDITION PRECEDENT FOR THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER TO HIMSELF DETERMINE THE AMOUNT OF EXPENDITURE IS THAT HE MUST RECORD HIS DISSATISFACTION WITH THE CORRECTNESS OF THE CLA IM OF EXPENDITURE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE OR WITH THE CORRECTNESS OF THE CLAIM MADE BY THE ASSESSEE THAT NO EXPENDITURE HAS BEEN INCURRED. IT IS ONLY WHEN THIS CONDITION PRECEDENT IS SATISFIED THAT THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER IS REQUIRED TO DETERMINE THE AMOUNT OF EXPENDITURE IN RELATION TO INCOME NOT INCLUDABLE IN TOTAL INCOME IN THE MANNER INDICATED I N SUB-RULE (2) OF RULE 8D OF THE SAID RULES. 6.3 WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS AN D PERUSED THE RECORDS. WE FIND THAT LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TA X (APPEALS) HAS GIVEN A FINDING THAT ONLY INTEREST OF ` 2,96,731/- WAS PAID ON FUNDS UTILIZED FOR MAKING INVESTMENTS ON WHICH EXEMPTED INC OME WAS RECEIVABLE. FURTHER, LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS OBSERVED THAT IN RESPECT OF INVESTMENT OF ` OF ` 6, 07,775,000/- MADE IN SUBSIDIARY COMPANIES AS PER DOCUMENTS PRODUCED BEFOR E HIM, THEY ARE ATTRIBUTABLE TO COMMERCIAL EXPEDIENCY, BECAUSE AS P ER SUBMISSION ITA NO. 4245/DEL/2011 6 MADE BY THE ASSESSEE, IT HAD TO FORM SPECIAL PURPOSE VEHICLES (SPVS) IN ORDER TO OBTAIN CONTRACTS FROM THE NHAI AND THE SPVS SO FORMED ENGAGED THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AS CONTRACT TO EXECUTE THE WORKS AWARDED TO THEM (I.E. SPVS) BY THE NHAI. IN ITS PRO FIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT FOR THE YEAR, THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN THE TURNOVER F ROM EXECUTION OF THESE CONTRACTS AND THEREFORE NO EXPENSE AND INTER EST ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE INVESTMENTS MADE BY THE APPELLANT IN THE SPVS CAN BE DISALLOWED U/S 14A R.W. RULE 8D BECAUSE IT CANNOT BE TERMED AS EXPENSE /INTEREST INCURRED FOR EARNING EXEMPTED INCOME. UNDER THE CIRCU MSTANCES, LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IS CORRECT IN H OLDING THAT DISALLOWANCE OF A FURTHER SUM ` 40,556/- CALCULATED @2% OF THE DIVIDEND EARNED IS SUFFICIENT. UNDER THE CIRCUMSTA NCES, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), HENCE, WE UPHOLD THE SAME. 7. APROPOS NEXT ISSUE DIRECTORS TRAVELLING ASSESSING OFFICER ON THIS ISSUE NOTED THAT ASSESS EE HAS CLAIMED DIRECTORS TRAVELLING OF ` 21,24,882/-. ASSESSING O FFICER OBSERVED THAT FROM THE EXAMINATION OF THE DETAILS IT WAS OBSERVED THAT FOR FOLLOWING VISITS MADE NO CORRESPONDENCE OR MATERIAL HAS BEEN SU BMITTED TO THE SUPPORT THE EXPENDITURE IS A BUSINESS EXPENSE. S.NO. VISITS EXPENDITURE INCURRED 1. MR. K.S. BAKSHI, MANAGING DIRECTOR ` 2,95,292/- VISITED LONDON/USA DURING MAY/JUNE, 2007 2. MR. K.S. BAKSHI, MANAGING DIRECTOR ` 41,748/ - VISITED USA IN JUNE, 2007. TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL ` 3,37,040/ ` 3,37,040/ ` 3,37,040/ ` 3,37,040/- -- - ITA NO. 4245/DEL/2011 7 ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF PRO PER SUPPORTING DOCUMENT FOR THIS EXPENDITURE, THE AMOUNT OF ` 3,37,040/- IS DISALLOWED. 8. BEFORE THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS ) ASSESSEE SUBMITTED AS UNDER:- IN OUR SUBMISSION DATED 10.8.2010 TO ASSESSING OFFI CER, WE HAVE SUBMITTED DETAILED CHART IN WHICH ALL RELEVA NT INFORMATION REGARDING DIRECTORS TRAVELLING I.E. NAME OF THE DIRECTORS, DESTINATION, PURPOSE OF TRAVELLING, NAME O F THE AIRWAYS, BILL NO., DATE AND AMOUNT WERE MENTIONED. ALL THE ABOVE DETAILS WERE DULY SUPPORTED BY THE TRAVELLING BILLS. ASSESSING OFFICER IN HIS ORDER HAS MENTIONED THAT, . NO CORRESPONDENCE OR MATERIAL HAS BEEN SUBMITTED TO SUPPORT THAT THE EXPENDITURE IS BUSINESS EXPENDITUR E. ASSESSING OFFICER IS WRONG IN STATING THAT NO CORRESPONDENCE OR MATERIAL HAS BEEN SUBMITTED. PROBAB LY ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT GONE THROUGH ALL THE DET AILS AND SUPPORTING PROPERLY. THE SUPPORTING IN REGARD TO FOREIGN TRAVEL EXPENSES DISALLOWED ARE ALREADY SUBMITTED IN OUR PREVIOUS SUBMISSION DATED 17.3.2011. THE PURPOSE OF VISIT WAS TO ATTEND MEETING WITH SE NIOR OFFICIALS OF LEIGHTON CONTRACTORS MAURITIUS FOR DI SCUSSIONS ON PROGRESS OF WORK IN REGARD TO AGRA AND INDORE S PVS. 9. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HELD THAT THE FOREIGN TRAVEL EXPENSES DISALLOWED B Y THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS INCURRED FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS O F THE ASSESSEE AND ITA NO. 4245/DEL/2011 8 HE HAS EXPLAINED BOTH IN ASSESSMENT AND APPELLATE STAGES AND THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT SATISFIED AND THE SAME WAS DELETED. 10. AGAINST THE ABOVE ORDER THE REVENUE IS IN APPE AL BEFORE US. 11. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE COUNSEL AND PERUSED THE RECORDS. WE FIND THAT ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN SUFFICIENT DETAILS RE GARDING THE FOREIGN TRAVEL EXPENDITURE. THE DISALLOWANCE IN THIS REGARD CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. HENCE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN TH E ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AND UPHOLD THE SAME. 12. APROPOS NEXT ISSUE DISALLOWANCE ON ACCOUNT OF V AT ON THIS ISSUE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED AS PER THE TAX AUDIT REPORT VAT LIABILITY OF ` 1,51,200/- HAS NOT BEEN PAID BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY STATING THAT THERE IS REFUND DUE TO THE ASSE SSEE AS PER THE LEGAL OPINION. ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THAT AS TH E LIABILITY HAS NOT BEEN PAID BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF FILING OF THE RETURN TH E SAME HAS TO BE ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 13. UPON ASSESSEES APPEAL LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) NOTED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AS UNDER:- AS PER TAX AUDIT REPORT VAT LIABILITY OF ` 1,51,20 0/- HAS NOT BEEN PAID BY THE ASSESSEE. AS STATED BY ASSESSING OFFI CER IN THE ORDER, ASSESSEE HAS STATED THAT THERE IS REFUND D UE TO ASSESSEE AS PER LEGAL OPINION AND THEREFORE THERE WAS NO LIA BILITY OUTSTANDING IN ACTUAL. THIS LIABILITY IS IN RESPEC T OF SALE OF ITA NO. 4245/DEL/2011 9 EQUIPMENT AMOUNTING TO ` 37,80,000/- FOR WHICH LIABIL ITY WAS DEBITED TO PARTY AS RECOVERABLE AND NOT DEBITED IN P&L A/C. THIS IS TO BRING TO YOUR KIND NOTICE THAT THE LIABI LITY OUTSTANDING WAS REGARDING A.Y. 2006-07, THE DETAILS OF THE CASE ARE AS FOLLOWS:- - ASSESSEE COMPANY HAD RECEIVED A SUM OF ` 3,04,19,8 03/- ON ACCOUNT OF WORK CONTRACT EXECUTED AND ON ACCOUNT OF SALE OF EARTH MOVING EQUIPMENT WORTH ` 37,80,000/- (ON WHICH VAT @4% I.E. 1,51,200/- HAS NOT BEEN DEPOSITE D). - ASSESSEE COMPANY HAD ENTERED INTO A CONTRACT AGRE EMENT WITH M/S SIMPLEX INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. FOR EXECUTING T HE CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT WORK AT CENTRAL PARK II IN THE CAPACITY OF PRINCIPAL CONTRACTOR AND SUB-CONTR ACTOR. - AS PER AGREEMENT AND ASSIGNMENT DEED M/S SIMPLEX INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. WAS LIABLE TO PERFORM THE SAID AGREEMENT. - IT WAS CONTENDED BY ASSESSEE THAT, AS DURING THE EXECUTION OF THE WORKS PROPERTY IN GOODS HAS BEEN TRANSFERRED ONLY ONCE I.E. AT THE TIME OF EXECUTION OF WORKS AT THE HANDS OF SUB CONTRACTOR I.E. M/S SIMPLEX INFRASTRUCTURE, HENC E IF THE SUB CONTRACTOR HAS DISCHARGED HIS TAX LIABILITY IN RESPECT OF WORK EXECUTED, NO TAX WAS PAYABLE BY THE MAIN CONTRA CTOR I.E. ASSESSEE COMPANY. - THIS IS TO INFORM YOU THAT STAND OF ASSESSEE HAS BEEN CONSIDERED AND ORDER DATED 31.3.2010 U/S. 15(3) OF THE HVAT HAS BEEN ISSUED BY EXCISE AND TAXATION OFFICER CUM ITA NO. 4245/DEL/2011 10 ASSESSING AUTHORITY, GURGAON (EAST). AS PER THE AS SESSMENT ORDER ISSUED THERE WAS REFUND DUE TO ASSESSEE INSTE AD OF VAT PAYABLE. - KEEPING IN VIEW ABOVE FACTS, THE DISALLOWANCE OF ` 1,51,200/- ON ACCOUNT OF VAT LIABILITY OUTSTANDING IS ERRONEOUS AND NEEDS TO BE DELETED. 14. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE, LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOM E TAX (APPEALS) OBSERVED THAT AFTER THE ORDER OF THE EXCI SE AND TAXATION OFFICER CUM ASSESSING AUTHORITY, THERE WAS REFUND TO THE ASSESSEE IN STEAD OF VAT PAYABLE. HENCE, LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ACCEPTED THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT NO DISALLOWANCE IN THIS REGARD WAS CALLED FOR. LD. C OMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ALSO ACCEPTED THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THIS AMOUNT WAS NOT CLAIMED IN THE P&L ACCOUNT. ON THAT ACCOUNT A,LSO THE DISALLOWANCE WAS NOT CALLED FOR. ACCORD INGLY, LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) DELETED THE ADD ITION. 15. AGAINST THE ABOVE ORDER THE REVENUE IS IN APPEA L BEFORE US. 16. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE COUNSEL AND PERUSED THE RECORDS. WE FIND THAT LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HA S GIVEN A FINDING THAT AS PER ORDER OF THE EXCISE AND TAXATI ON OFFICER CUM ASSESSING AUTHORITY, THERE WAS REFUND TO THE ASSE SSEE INSTEAD OF VAT PAYABLE. HENCE, LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPE ALS) HAS RIGHTLY ITA NO. 4245/DEL/2011 11 HELD THAT NO DISALLOWANCE IN THIS REGARD IS CALLED FOR. ACCORDINGLY, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CO MMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AND UPHOLD THE SAME. 17. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE STANDS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 02/12/2011. SD/- SD/- [ [[ [A.D. JAIN A.D. JAIN A.D. JAIN A.D. JAIN] ]] ] [SHAMIM YAHYA] [SHAMIM YAHYA] [SHAMIM YAHYA] [SHAMIM YAHYA] JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATE 02/12/2011 SRB COPY FORWARDED COPY FORWARDED COPY FORWARDED COPY FORWARDED TO: TO: TO: TO: - -- - 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, DELHI BENCHES