Premier Ancillaries Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi V. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 4342/DEL/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 136 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3447 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-07-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Next Hearing Date: 21-07-2010
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 13-11-2009
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: BANITA DEVI NAOREM
• Keywords: Business income; Depreciation
• Section: 234B

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH F: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI I.P. BANSAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI R.C. SHARMA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 4342/DEL/2009 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2005-06 PREMIER ANCILLARIES PVT. LTD., C-117, NARAINA AREA, PHASE-1, NEW DELHI. AAACP1821H VS. ITO, WARD 14(3), NEW DELHI. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI M.P. RASTOGI, ADV . RESPONDENT BY: SMT. BANITA DEVI NAOREM, SR. DR O R D E R PER I.P. BANSAL, J.M. THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. IT IS D IRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) DATED 22 ND AUGUST, 2009 FOR A.Y. 2005-06. GROUNDS OF APPEAL READ AS UNDER: - 1. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTI ON OF THE LD. AO ASSESSING THE CONSULTANCY-SERVICE CHARGES AS INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY PURELY THE BASIS OF TDS CERTIFICATE IN WHI CH TDS HAS BEEN EFFECTED AT 20% RATE APPLICABLE TO RENT INSTEAD OF 5% APPLICABLE TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES IN UTTER DISREGARD TO THE ARR ANGEMENT BETWEEN THE PARTIES. 2. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTIO N OF THE LD. AO IN NOT ALLOWING THE EXPENSES, WHICH A COMPANY HAS NECESSAR ILY TO INCUR. 3. THE INTEREST CHARGED U/S 234B AND 234D ARE WRONG . 4. THAT THE ABOVE GROUNDS ARE INDEPENDENT AND WITHO UT PREJUDICE TO EACH OTHER. 5. THAT THE APPELLANT SEEKS LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND, AL TER OR ABANDON ANY OF THE ABOVE GROUNDS AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE APP EAL. 2 ITA NO. 4342/DEL/2009 2. THE ASSESSEE IS OWNER OF A PROPERTY KNOWN AS C-1 17, NARAINA, INDUSTRIAL AREA, PHASE-1, NEW DELHI. IT HAS GIVEN THE SAID PREMISES ON RENT TO THREE DIFFERENT PARTIES THE DETAILS OF WHICH ARE AS UNDER: - PARTICULARS APPROX AREA REMARKS IN SFT 1. RENTED TO M/S VIJAY POLYMERS 1050 RENT-RS.5,000 PM THIS AREA IS OF ABOUT 20FT. HEIGHT 2. RENTED TO M/S USHA PROFILES P. LTD., 1050 RENT-R S.5,000 PM THIS AREA IS OF ABOUT 20FT HEIGHT 3. AREA IN WHICH WEBTEK LABS P. LTD., 4,200 CONSIDE RATION FOR IS RENDERED BUSINESS CENTER SERVICES THE SERVIC ES INCLUDING THE CABIN ETC. OF ABOUT 360 SFT. RS. 18 ,000 [2M]; OCCUPIED BY THE DIRECTOR OF THIS COMPANY 32,000[2 M] AND WHO GUIDES AND SUPERVISES THE ACTIVITIES RS. 50,00 0 FOR THE OF WEBTEK LABS IT MAY PLEASE BE NOTED THAT BALANC E 8 MONTHS. THIS AREA IS OF ABOUT 10FT HEIGHT ONLY INSTEAD OF 20FT USED BY OTHERS. 3. SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO PROPERTIES RENTED TO PAR TIES STATED AT SL. NO. 1 & 2 THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE SAME IS HOUSE PROPERTY INCOME. THEREFORE, INCOME THEREOF HAS BEEN SHOWN UNDER THE HEAD HOUSE PROPERTY INCOME AT RS. 1,20,000/-. SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO AMOUNT RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF PARTIES STATED AT SL. NO. 3, IT IS THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE AMOUNT RECEIVED BY IT FROM THE SAID PARTY IS IN THE NATURE OF BUSINESS INCOME. THE AO, HOWEVER, IS OF THE VIEW THAT THE SAID RECEIPT IS ALSO IN THE NATURE OF HOUSE PROPERTY INCOME AS ACCORDING TO A O THE SAID PARTY HAS DEDUCTED TDS FROM THE ASSESSEE BY TREATING THE SAID AMOUNT AS RENT. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE, THE NARRATION IN TDS FOR M CANNOT BE SOLELY RELIED UPON TO HOLD THAT THE AMOUNT RECEIVED BY THE ASSESS EE IS IN THE NATURE OF RENT. 3 ITA NO. 4342/DEL/2009 ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE, SUCH PAYMENT ATTRACTS SE C. 194J I.E. FEES FOR PROFESSIONAL OR TECHNICAL SERVICES, HENCE DOES NOT FALL WITHIN THE DEFINITION OF HOUSE PROPERTY INCOME. IT IS THE CASE OF THE ASSES SEE THAT THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT HAS BEEN CARRYING OUT THE SURVEYS ON A N UMBER OF COMPANIES AND TAKING ACTION U/S 201 ETC. FOR NOT DEDUCTING TDS U/ S 194H WHENEVER THERE IS EVEN A REMOTE CONNECTION TO USE THE PREMISES IS INV OLVED AND IN ORDER TO AVOID SUCH HARASSMENT FROM THE TDS DEPARTMENT BOTH THE PA RTIES HAD AGREED THAT TDS SHOULD BE DONE AT A HIGHER OF THE TWO SECTIONS AND IN THIS MANNER THE DEDUCTION WAS MADE U/S 1944. IN THE ALTERNATIVE IT HAS BEEN CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT EVEN IF THE AMOUNT OF RS. 5 LAKH RECE IVED FROM PARTY STATED AT SL. NO. 3 IS CONSIDERED TO BE INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERT Y THEN ALSO THE ASSESSEE IS ELIGIBLE TO GET DEDUCTION ON ACCOUNT OF REPAIRS @ 30% I.E. A SUM OF RS. 1,50,000/- WHICH IS HIGHER THAN THE WHOLE OF THE SA LARY PAID OF RS. 1,42,894/- INCLUDING RS. 78,000/- BEING SALARY PAID TO THE DIR ECTORS. THESE SUBMISSIONS HAVE BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE AO VIDE LETTE R DATED 24 TH JULY, 2007 COPY OF WHICH IS PLACED AT PAGES 3 & 4 OF THE PAPER BOOK. 4. IT IS THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT ASSESSEE IS PROVIDING VARIOUS OTHER SERVICES TO M/S WEBTEK LABS PVT. LTD. ON ACCOUNT OF WHICH THE SAID AMOUNT IS RECEIVED. REFERENCE WAS MADE TO THE LETTER DATED 6 TH AUGUST, 2004 WHICH WAS GIVEN BY WEBTEK LABS PVT. LTD. TO THE ASSESSEE AND A COPY OF WHICH IS PLACED AT PAGES 6 & 7 OF THE PAPER BOOK. IN THAT LETTER T HE SERVICES PROVIDED BY THE ASSESSEE WERE STATED IN A SUMMARIZE MANNER AS FOLLO WS: - A) THEY WILL BE PERMITTED TO FUNCTION FROM OUR PRE MISES. 4 ITA NO. 4342/DEL/2009 B) THE DIRECTOR OF THE COMPANY WHO IS AN EXPERIENCE D ENGINEER WOULD MANAGE THE TECHNO-ADMINISTRATIVE FUNCTIONS FROM THEM. C) THE COMPANY WILL ALSO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE GEN ERAL UPKEEP OF THE PREMISES INCLUDING THE CLEANING AND GARDENING SERVICES. D) THE SECURITY OF THE PREMISES AND THE MOVEABLE AS SETS OF WEBTEK LABS PVT. LTD. IN IT. IT IS TO BE NOTED THAT THE COMPANY RETAINED THE POSSESSION AND CONTROL OF THE PREMISES AT ALL TIMES . THUS, THE ARRANGEMENT IS THAT OF SERVICE OF A BUSIN ESS CENTER RATHER THAN OF A LEASE OR LICENSE OF THE PRE MISES. ACCORDINGLY, THE COMPANY HAS CORRECTLY DEPICTED THE AMOUNT RECEIVED AS CONSULTANCY SERVICE CHARGES. 5. THUS, IT HAS BEEN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE BEFOR E AO THAT THE AMOUNT RECEIVED BY IT FROM M/S WEBTEK LABS PVT. LTD. IS IN THE NATURE OF CONSULTANCY SERVICES CHARGES INSTEAD OF RENT TREATED BY THE A O. THE AO DID NOT ACCEPT SUCH SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE AND ASSESSED THE SA ID SUM OF RS. 5 LAKH AS INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY. AGGRIEVED ASSESSEE FIL ED AN APPEAL BEFORE CIT(A). REFERENCE WAS MADE TO FOLLOWING DECISIONS: - CIT VS. NATIONAL STORAGE PVT. LTD., 66 ITR 596 (SC ) MANOHAR SINGH VS. CIT 58 ITR 592 (PUN.) CIT VS. KANAK INVESTMENTS PVT. LTD., 95 ITR 419 (CA L.) REFERENCE TO ABOVE DECISION, IT WAS CONTENDED THAT IN A CASE WHERE THERE WERE COMPOSITE/CONSOLIDATED ARRANGEMENTS ARE MADE FOR MA KING AVAILABLE THE PREMISES AS WELL AS RENDITION OF SOME SERVICES THEN AMOUNT ATTRIBUTABLE TO BUILDING SHOULD BE ASSESSED AS INCOME FROM BUSINESS OR OTHER SOURCES AND EXPENSES AND DEPRECIATION TOWARDS THEM SHOULD BE AL LOWED. LD. CIT(A) HAS 5 ITA NO. 4342/DEL/2009 CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE. HE OBS ERVED THAT THE DIRECTORS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY ARE ALSO INTERESTED IN M/S WEB TEK LABS PVT. LTD. (WEBTEK). THEREFORE, THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT CONSIDERATION RECEIVED FROM M/S WEBTEK LABS PVT. LTD. IS INDICATI VE OF SERVICE CHARGES CANNOT BE ACCEPTED. LD. CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT OUT OF TOTAL AREA OF 6,300 SQ. FT. AN AREA OF 4,200 SQ. FT. WAS GIVEN TO WEBTEK WHICH CONSTITU TE 2/3 RD AREA OF THE TOTAL AREA AND THUS, THE MAJOR PORTION WAS OCCUPIED BY THE SAI D COMPANY. HE OBSERVED THAT AO HAS CLEARLY BROUGHT OUT ON RECORD THAT M/S WEBTEK HAS ISSUED FORM NO. 16A IN WHICH THE NATURE OF RECEIPT WAS MENTIONED AS RENT. THUS, THE NATURE OF RECEIPT OF THE ASSESSEE WAS RENT ONLY. LD. CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT RESIDUARY HEAD CAN BE ASSIGNED ONLY IN A CASE WHERE NO SPECIFIC HE AD IS APPLICABLE. ACCORDING TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE AMOUNT WAS RECEIVED B Y THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF HOUSE PROPERTY AND THUS, THE AO WAS RIGHT IN ASSESS ING THE SAME AS HOUSE PROPERTY INCOME. THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED, HENCE IN APPEAL. 6. AFTER NARRATING THE FACTS, IT WAS VEHEMENTLY PLE ADED BY LD. AR THAT IT IS CLEAR FROM THE LETTER ISSUED BY WEBTEK TO THE ASSES SEE THAT THE AMOUNT RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT SIMPLICITOR RENT A S THE ASSESSEE WAS TO PROVIDE SEVERAL SERVICES IN LIEU OF THE PAYMENT REC EIVED BY IT FROM WEBTEK. HE HAS INVITED OUR ATTENTION TOWARDS AFOREMENTIONED RE PLY SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE AO DATED 24 TH JULY, 2007, THE REFERENCE OF WHICH HAS ALREADY BEEN MADE IN EARLIER PART OF THIS ORDER. HE SUBMIT TED THAT ACCORDING TO THE DECISIONS RELIED UPON BY ASSESSEE BEFORE AO, IF ASS ESSEE HAS RECEIVED COMPOSITE AMOUNT IN RESPECT OF SOME PROPERTY THEN T HE AMOUNT ATTRIBUTABLE TO OTHER SERVICES HAS TO BE ASSESSED UNDER OTHER HEAD AND NOT FROM THE INCOME 6 ITA NO. 4342/DEL/2009 FROM THE HOUSE PROPERTY AND AMOUNT WHICH CAN BE ASS ESSED UNDER HOUSE PROPERTY IS AN AMOUNT ATTRIBUTABLE TO HOUSE PROPERT Y. THUS, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) WAS WRONG IN DISALLOWING THE CL AIM OF THE ASSESSEE WITH REGARD TO THE HEAD OF THE INCOME. HE SUBMITTED THA T THE DECISION OF AO AND CIT(A) REST UPON THE TDS CERTIFICATE WHICH CANNOT B E DETERMINATIVE TO DECIDE THE HEAD OF THE INCOME AS ENTIRETY OF FACTS HAS TO BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION. HE CONTENDED THAT THE CLAIM OF THE EXPENSES OF THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO BEEN ARBITRARILY DISALLOWED AND THUS, GROUND NO. 2 OF TH E ASSESSEE SHOULD ALSO BE ALLOWED. 7. IN RESPECT OF INTEREST CHARGED U/S 234B AND 234D IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE SAME IS CONSEQUENTIAL. 8. ON THE OTHER HAND, RELYING UPON THE ORDER OF AO AND CIT(A), IT WAS PLEADED BY LD. AR THAT THE INCOME HAS RIGHTLY BEEN ASSESSED UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY. 9. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIO NS IN THE LIGHT OF MATERIAL PLACED BEFORE US. IN A CASE OF A CORPORA TE ASSESSEE, IF IT IS CLAIMED THAT CERTAIN RECEIPTS ARE IN THE NATURE OF BUSINESS INCOME, IT HAS TO BE ESTABLISHED BY THE ASSESSEE FIRSTLY THAT THE ACTIVI TY CARRIED ON IT IS PERMITTED BY ITS MEMORANDUM OF ASSOCIATION AND ARTICLE OF ASSOCI ATION. IT HAS BEEN MENTIONED BY LD. CIT(A) THAT THE TOTAL AREA OWNED B Y THE ASSESSEE IS 6,300 SQ. FT. THE WHOLE OF THE AREA HAS THUS, BEEN RENTED OU T BY THE ASSESSEE TO THREE DIFFERENT PARTIES LISTED IN THE ABOVE PART OF THIS ORDER. 7 ITA NO. 4342/DEL/2009 10. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, IT WAS STATED BY LD. COUNSEL THAT THE ARRANGEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE WITH WEBTEK IS NOT A NE W ARRANGEMENT. IN THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE CIT(A) ALSO IT HAS BEEN STA TED THAT THE SAME ARRANGEMENT IS CONTINUING FROM A NUMBER OF YEARS. EARLIER THE ASSESSEE WAS CHARGING 18,000 PER MONTH, WHICH WAS ALSO A CHARGE FOR INITIATION TWO MONTHS IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION THEREAFTER FOR FURTHER TWO MONTHS THE CHARGES WERE RAISED TO 32,000/- AND THEREAFTER FOR 8 MONTHS THES E CHARGES HAVE STATED TO BE 50,000/- PER MONTH. THE REASON FOR INCREASE IN CHA RGES ARE STATED AT POINT NO. A, B, C & D IN REPLY DATED 24 TH JULY, 2007 WHICH HAS ALSO BEEN DESCRIBED IN THE EARLIER PART OF THIS ORDER. IT IS STATED AT POINT SL. NO. (B) THAT THE DIRECTORS OF THE COMPANY WHO IS AN EXPERIENCE ENGINEER WOULD HAS MAN AGED THE TECHNO ADMINISTRATION FUNCTION FROM THEM. IT IS NOT MADE CLEAR THAT HOW THE SERVICES WERE RENDERED BY THE ASSESSEE TO WEBTEK. AT SL. NO . (C) IT IS STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR GENERAL UP KEEP OF THE PREMISES INCLUDING THE CLEANING AND GARDENING SERVICES. IT IS NOT MADE CLEAR THAT WHETHER EARLIER ALSO THESE SERVICES WERE BEING REND ERED. SIMILARLY, AT POINT (B) IT IS STATED THAT SECURITY OF THE PREMISES AND THE MOVABLE ASSETS OF WEBTEK WILL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE ASSESSEE AND IT IS NOT CLEAR THAT WHETHER EARLIER ALSO THE SIMILAR LIABILITY WAS ON THE ASSESSEE. FROM TH E FACTS, IT IS NOT CLEAR THAT WHAT VALUE ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESSEE TO RAI SE THE CHARGES FROM18,000/- TO 50,000/-AND IN WHAT MANNER THOSE SE RVICES WERE BEING PROVIDED BY THE ASSESSEE TO WEBTEK. THUS, THERE IS NO CLARITY ON FACTS. TO HOLD THAT A PARTICULAR RECEIPT IS A BUSINESS INCOME THE ENTIRETY OF FACTS IS REQUIRED TO BE EXAMINED. THERE BEING LACK OF SUCH FACTS THE IS SUE CANNOT BE DECIDED. 8 ITA NO. 4342/DEL/2009 11. IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SHAMBHU INVESTMENT PVT. LTD. 263 ITR 143 THE QUESTION AROSE BEFORE HONBLE SUPREME COURT WAS THA T WHETHER COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, WHO PASSED ORDER U/S 263 HOLDING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AS ERRONEOUS AND JUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE, WAS RIGHT TO HOLD THAT THE AMOUNT RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM LETTING OUT OF FICE PREMISES ALONG WITH CERTAIN FACILITIES AND SERVICES TO VARIOUS PERSONS AS BUSINESS INCOME. THE HIGH COURT HAD OBSERVED THAT PRIME OBJECT OF THE ASSESSE E UNDER THE AGREEMENTS WAS TO LET OUT THE PORTION OF THE SAID PROPERTY TO VARIOUS OCCUPANTS BY GIVING THEM ADDITIONAL RIGHT OF USING FURNITURE AND FIXTUR E AND OTHER COMMON FACILITIES FOR WHICH RENT WAS BEING PAID MONTH BY MONTH WAS IN THE NATURE OF INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY. 12. AT THE SAME TIME AS PER DECISIONS RELIED UPON T HE ASSESSEE BEFORE AO WHERE THE ASSESSEE IN RECEIPT OF COMPOSITE/CONSOLID ATED ARRANGEMENTS FOR MAKING AVAILABLE THE PREMISES AS WELL AS RENDITION OF SOME SERVICES THEN AMOUNT ATTRIBUTABLE TO BUILDING SHALL BE INCOME FRO M HOUSE PROPERTY AND AMOUNT ATTRIBUTABLE TO AMENITIES AND SERVICES IS AS SESSABLE AS BUSINESS INCOME OR OTHER SOURCES. AS PER SUBMISSIONS MADE B EFORE CIT(A) THE COPY OF WHICH FILED AT PAGE 13 TO 15 OF THE PAPER BOOK THE ASSESSEE IS CHARGING RENT FROM M/S VIJAY POLYMER AND M/S USHA PROFILES PVT. L TD. @ RS. 4.76 PER SQ. FT. AND FROM WEBTEK @ RS. 9.92 PER SQ. FT. HERE ALSO T HE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE PREMISES GIVEN TO WEBTEK IS ONLY 10 FEET H IGH, WHEREAS TO TWO OTHER PARTIES THE SAME IS 20 FEET HIGH. ALL THESE FACTS ARE REQUIRED TO BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION WHILE DECIDING THE ISSUE THAT HOW MUC H AMOUNT CAN BE ATTRIBUTED 9 ITA NO. 4342/DEL/2009 TO BUILDING. THERE BEING LACK OF DETERMINATION FAC TORS AS POINTED OUT IN THIS ORDER, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE MATTER REQUIR ES RESTORATION TO THE FILE OF THE AO TO BRING ON RECORD ALL THE NECESSARY FACTS AND T HEN TO READJUDICATE THE ISSUE AS PER PROVISIONS OF LAW AFTER AFFORDING THE REASON ABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. IT MAY BE MENTIONED HERE THAT THE ST ATEMENT MADE IN TDS CERTIFICATE ALONE CANNOT BE A DETERMINATIVE FACTOR TO DETERMINE THE NATURE OF RECEIPT OF THE ASSESSEE. WITH THESE OBSERVATIONS W E RESTORE THE FIRST GROUND TO THE FILE OF AO TO DECIDE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DIR ECTIONS GIVEN HEREINABOVE AND ALSO AS PER LAW. FIRST GROUND IS ALLOWED FOR S TATISTICAL PURPOSES. 13. SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO GROUND NO. 2 IT IS OBSE RVED THAT AFTER DETERMINING THE MAIN ISSUE THE AO WILL ALSO RE-ADJUDICATE SECON D GROUND IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. WE DIRECT ACCORDINGLY. 14. GROUND NO. 3 HAS BEEN SUBMITTED TO THE CONSEQUE NTIAL BY LD. AR, THEREFORE, THE AO WILL RE-COMPUTE THE INTEREST ACCO RDINGLY AFTER DECIDING THE ISSUES ON MERITS. 15. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES IN THE MANNER AFORESAID. ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30.07.201 0 (R.C. SHARMA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (I.P. BANSAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 30.7.2010 *KAVITA 10 ITA NO. 4342/DEL/2009 COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, NEW DELHI. TRUE COPY BY ORDER DEPUTY REGISTRAR