ACIT, New Delhi V. M/s. Talbros Automotive Components Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 4906/DEL/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 58440 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-01-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: H
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 04-11-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A K MONGA
• Assessee Lawyers: KVSR KRISHNA
• Keywords: Business income; Depreciation; Charitable institution; Additional depreciation; Onus to prove
• Section: 14A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH H DELHI) BEFORE SHRI A.D. JAIN AND SHRI K.G. BANSAL ITA NO. 4906(DEL)2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, M/S. TALBROS AU TOMOTIVE COMPONENTS CIRCLE 16(1), NEW DELHI. V. LTD., 1 411, NICHOLSON ROAD, KASHMERE GATE, DELHI -1100 06. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SHRI A.K. MONGA, SR. DR RESPONDENT BY: SHRI K.V. S.R. KRIS HNA, CA ORDER PER A.D. JAIN, J.M. THIS IS DEPARTMENTS APPEAL FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 01.08.2011 PASSED BY THE COMMISSION ER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS)XIX, NEW DELHI, WHEREBY HE HAS CANCELL ED THE PENALTY OF ` 5,20,770/- LEVIED BY THE AO U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE IN COME TAX ACT. 2. THE ASSESSEE IS A COMPANY DERIVING INCOME FROM M ANUFACTURE OF AUTOMOTIVE AND INDUSTRIAL GASKETS FROM OEM AND ALSO FROM LOCAL MARKETS. IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE AO MADE THE FOLL OWING ADDITIONS IN THE SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT VIDE ORDER DATED 8.12.2009:- ITA 4906(DEL)2011 2 ` 1. ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION DISALLOWED 12,77,82 4/- 2. DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A OF THE I.T.ACT. 2,09,365/- 3. DISALLOWANCE OF SALES PROMOTION EXPENSES 60,000/- 3. IN THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITT ED THAT CONCEALMENT PENALTY BE NOT LEVIED, IT BEING A CASE OF MERE DISA LLOWANCE OF EXPENSES WHERE THERE WAS NO WILLFUL DEFAULT IN FURNISHING PA RTICULARS OF INCOME AND NO INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME HAD BEEN FURNISHED ; THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WAS UNDER A BONA FIDE BELIEF THAT THE PROVI SIONS OF SECTION 14 A OF THE ACT READ WITH RULE 8D OF THE RULES WERE APPLICA BLE W.E.F. ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 AND NOT FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATI ON, I.E., ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08; THAT ALL THE ADDITIONS/DISALLOWANCES WERE BASED TO BE INTERPRETATIONS; THAT HOWEVER, THERE WAS NOTHING TO INDICATE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CONCEALED THE PARTICULARS OF ITS INCOME AND HAD FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS THEREOF. 4. VIDE PENALTY ORDER DATED 23.6.2010, HOWEVER, THE AO IMPOSED PENALTY OF ` 5,20,770/- . WHILE DOING SO, IT WAS OBSERVED, INT ER ALIA, THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED EXPENSES WHICH COULD NOT BE SU BSTANTIATED DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS; AND THAT IT WAS THE ASSESSE ES BURDEN TO PROVE THE PARTICULARS OF INCOME/EXPENDITURE OR DEDUCTION CLAI MED. THE AO PLACED ITA 4906(DEL)2011 3 RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF THE CHANDIGARH BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF CIT V. INDIAN METAL & FERRO ALLOYS LTD. 94 TT J (CHD) 859. THE AO ALSO OBSERVED THAT THE EXPRESSION HAS CONCEALED TH E PARTICULARS OF INCOME AND HAS FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME , THOUGH NOT DEFINED IN THE ACT, ARE NOT IDENTICAL, THAT THE OFFENCE OF CON CEALMENT IS A DIRECT ATTEMPT TO HIDE AN ITEM OF INCOME OR A PORTION THEREOF FROM THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE INCOME TAX AUTHORITIES AND WHILE FURNISHING ITS RET URN OF INCOME, THE ASSESSEE HAS REQUIRED TO FURNISH PARTICULARS OF ACC OUNTS ON WHICH SUCH RETURNED INCOME HAS BEEN ARRIVED AT, THAT THIS MAY BE PARTICULARS AS PER ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, IF MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE OR ANY OTHER BASIS WHICH IT HAS ARRIVED AS A RETURNED FIGURE OF INCOME AND THAT IN ANY ACCURACY MADE IN SUCH BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR OTHERWISE WHICH RESULTS IN KEEPING OFF OR HIDING A PORTION OF ITS INCOME AMOUNTS TO FURNISHING OF INAC CURATE PARTICULARS OF ITS INCOME. FOR THIS, THE AO PLACED RELIANCE ON CIT V. INDIAN METAL & FERRO ALLOYS LTD., 117 CTR (ORI) 378. 5. BY VIRTUE OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER, THE LD. CIT(A) CANCELLED THE PENALTY. AGGRIEVED, THE DEPARTMENT IS IN APPEAL. 6. CHALLENGING THE IMPUGNED ORDER, THE LD. DR HAS C ONTENDED BEFORE US THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CANCELLING THE PEN ALTY CORRECTLY LEVIED BY THE AO; THAT WHILE DOING SO, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS FAILED TO CONSIDER THAT AS PER ITA 4906(DEL)2011 4 EXPLANATION 1 TO SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT, PENA LTY IS LEVIABLE IF THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF IT S INCOME OR HAS FURNISHED SUCH PARTICULARS AS HE IS NOT ABLE TO SUBSTANTIATE IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS; THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ALSO FAILED TO CONSIDER THAT AS CORRECTLY NOTED BY THE AO IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE BURDEN TO PROVE THE CORRECTNESS OF THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ON TH E ASSESSEE AND IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAS MISERABLY FAILED TO DISCHARGE THE ONUS; AND THAT IT HAS NOT BEEN APPRECIATED THE ASSESSEE CLAIM ED EXPENSES WHICH COULD NOT BE SUBSTANTIATED DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDI NGS. 7. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE A SSESSEE HAS STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE IMPUGNED ORDER. IT HAS BEEN CONTENDE D THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS WELL VERSED AND DOES NOT CONTAIN ANY ERROR WHATSOEVER; THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DULY FURNISHED ALL THE REQUISITE PARTI CULARS OF ITS INCOME; THAT THE EXPLANATION OFFERED WAS A BONA FIDE EXPLANATION ; AND THAT SUCH EXPLANATION WAS NOT FOUND TO BE EITHER FALSE OR INC ORRECT. RELIANCE HAS BEEN PLACED ON THE FOLLOWING CASE LAWS:- 1. CIT V. RELIANCE PETROPRODUCTS PVT. LTD., 322 ITR 158(SC); 2. SHRI SARDARMAL SANCHETI CHARITABLE TRUST V. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS, 322 ITR 167(RAJ); 3. CIT V. INTERNATIONAL AUDIO VISUAL COMPANY, 288 IT R 570 (DEL); 4. CIT V. BACARDI MARTINI INDIA LTD., 288 ITR 585(DE L); 5. K.C. BUILDERS V. ACIT, 265 ITR 562(SC); AND 6. CIT V. IFCI LTD., 328 ITR 611(DEL). ITA 4906(DEL)2011 5 8. WE HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES AND HAVE PERUSED THE M ATERIAL ON RECORD. VIDE LETTER DATED 28.1.2010 (COPY AT ASSESSEES PAP ER BOOK [APB FOR SHORT] 1 TO 3), THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED AS FOLLOWS BEFORE THE AO IN RESPONSE TO THE PENALTY NOTICE:- 1. ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION - ` 12,77,824/-: IN OUR RETURN, WE HAVE CLAIMED ADDITIONAL DEPRECIAT ION OF ` 2,60,58,579/- AS PER SECTION 32(1)(II)(A) OF THE AC T ON THE TOTAL ADDITIONS TO THE BLOCK PLANT & MACHINERY AND ACCO RDINGLY WE HAVE CLAIMED ` 2,60,58,579/- AS ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION. TOTAL VALUE OF ADDITION IN BLOCK MACHINERY WAS ` 25,47,13,327/-, DETAILS OF THESE HAD ALREADY BEEN PROVIDED TO YOU. LIST O F ASSETS CONSISTED OF AN ITEM OF ` 59,51,586/- WHICH WAS SHOWN AS ITEM LESS THAN ` 1.00 LAKH AND VARIOUS RUNNING ITEMS, AND ALSO CONS ISTED OF FREIGHT AND UNLOADING CHARGES AMOUNTING TO ` 4,37,535/-. A DETAILED BREAK UP OF THESE ITEMS WERE NOT PROVIDED AT THE TI ME OF ASSESSMENT BECAUSE AMOUNT OF THESE ADDITIONS ARE VERY SMALL IN COMPARISON TO TOTAL ADDITION. YOU WOULD AGREE THAT AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF LAW A LL THE EXPENSES UP TO THE INSTALLATION OF EQUIPMENT, I.E., CARTAGE, FREIGHT, INSTALLATION AND ERECTION CHARGES ETC. ARE CAPITALI ZED AS THE COST OF EQUIPMENT AND ARE ELIGIBLE FOR DEPRECIATION AND ADD ITIONAL DEPRECIATION. WE HAD NO INTENTION NOT TO PROVIDE THE DETAILED BRE AK UP OF ` 59,51,586/- AND ` 4,37,535/- WHILE ASSESSMENT. NOW WE ARE SUBMITTING COMPLETE BREAK UP OF THE SAME WITH COPIE S OF INVOICES/BILLS/RECEIPTS AS ANNEXURE 1 & ANNEXURE 2 FOR YOUR KIND CONSIDERATION AND HUMBLY REQUEST TO YOU PLEASE DO N OT TREAT IT AS CONCEALMENT. ITA 4906(DEL)2011 6 2. SALES PROMOTION EXPENSES ` 60,000/-: WE HAVE BEEN INCURRING CERTAIN EXPENSES INTO NORMAL COURSE OF OUR BUSINESS ON DIFFERENT TYPES OF SALES PROMOTION ACTI VITIES IN INDIA AS WELL AS OVERSEAS. THE TOTAL EXPENSES ON THIS ACCO UNT AMOUNTING TO ` 1,70,22,630/- IN THE YEAR UNDER REFERENCE. OUT OF THE TOTAL EXPENSES, A SUM OF ` 60,000/- IS DISALLOWED BY YOUR GOODSELF THOUGH ALL THE PAYMENTS WERE MADE THROUGH ACCOUNT P AYEE CHEQUES ONLY. THIS BEING A SMALL AMOUNT IN COMPA RISON TO THE TOTAL EXPENSES AND THE VOLUME OF BUSINESS MAY NOT B E TREATED AS CONCEALMENT. 3. DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14A READ WITH RULE 8 D OF THE INCOME TAX RULES: YOUR GOODSELF HAS ADDED ` 2,09,365/- ON ACCOUNT OF EXPENDITURE INCURRED FOR EARNING EXEMPTED INCOME UNDER SECTION 14A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT AND RULE 8D OF THE INCOME TAX RULES. IN THIS CONNECTION WE DID NOT INCUR ANY INTEREST EX PENSES (DIRECT OR INDIRECT) DURING THE YEAR ENDED 31 ST MARCH, 2007 ON EARNING OF EXEMPTED INCOME RECEIVED ON INVESTED FUND. THE FU NDS WERE COLLECTED THROUGH A FRESH PUBLIC ISSUE OF EQUITY CA PITAL OF ` 50.00 CRORES ( ` 4.90 CRORES AS EQUITY CAPITAL AND ` 45.10 CRORES AS SHARE PREMIUM) DURING THE YEAR ENDED 31 ST MARCH, 2006. THESE FUNDS WERE INVESTED ONLY DURING THE INTERMEDIARY PERIOD T ILL THE TIME USED FOR SETTING UP THE NEW PROJECT FOR WHICH PUBLIC ISS UE WAS MADE. AS PER PROVISION OF SECTION 14A, THERE WAS NO SUCH METHOD PRESCRIBED TO DETERMINE THE AMOUNT OF INDIRECT EXPE NDITURE IN RELATION OF EXEMPTED INCOME. AFTER E-FILING OUR R ETURN OF INCOME ON 30.10.2007, A NEW RULE 8D WAS INTRODUCED VIDE NO TIFICATION NO. 45/2008 DATED 24.3.2008, I.E., DURING THE ASSESSMEN T YEAR 2008-09 AND MUCH LATER THAN E-FILING OF INCOME TAX RETURN. WE WERE UNDER IMPRESSION THAT THIS RULE WILL BE APPLICABLE FROM A SSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. HENCE, WE DID NOT CONSIDER THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 8D WHILE COMPUTING THE TAXABLE INCOME. ITA 4906(DEL)2011 7 THE ABOVE SUBMISSION WAS MADE DURING THE CAUSE OF A SSESSMENT PROCEEDING VIDE OUR LETTER DATED 15.6.2009 REQUESTI NG THAT YOU MAY ADD ` 2,09,365/- TO OUR RETURNED INCOME AND YOUR GOODSELF HAS CORRECTLY MENTIONED THESE FACTS AND ADDED THE AMOUN T IN THE INCOME OF RETURN IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. YOU MAY FURTHER SUBMIT THAT IN THE PREVIOUS ASSESS MENT YEAR 2006- 07 SIMILAR SITUATION PREVAILED AND WE HAD TO GO TO THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY AGAINST THE IMPOSITION OF PENALTY. OUR A PPEAL WAS DULY ACCEPTED AND THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS )XIX, NEW DELHI WAS KIND ENOUGH TO CANCEL THE PENALTY. A CO PY OF THE APPELLATE ORDER DATED 16.10.2009 IS ENCLOSED FOR YO UR READY REFERENCE. IT IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED THAT ALL THE ABOVE ISS UES RELATING TO ADDITIONS/DISALLOWANCES ARE BASED ON DIFFERENT INTE RPRETATIONS. YOU MAY HAVE A DIFFERENT VIEW ON THESE ISSUES, BUT THERE ARE NO CIRCUMSTANCES INDICATING THAT WE HAD CONCEALED PART ICULARS OF INCOME OR FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOM E. 9. BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) ALSO, WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS (COPY AT APB 79 TO 86)WERE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, MAINTAINING THE SAME STAND AS WAS TAKEN BEFORE THE AO. 10. APROPOS THE DISALLOWANCE OF ADDITIONAL DEPRECIA TION, THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION OF ` 2,60,58,579/- ON THE TOTAL ADDITIONS TO THE BLOCK OF PLANT AND MACHINERY, WHICH AMOUNTED TO ` 25,47,13,327/-. COMPLETE BREAK UP ALONG WITH COPIES OF INVOICES AND BILLS/RECEIPTS OF ` 59,51,586/- WAS GIVEN TO THE AO VIDE ITS AFORESAID LETTER DATED 28.1.2010. THESE DOCUMENTS EVIDENCED THE EXPENDITURE TO BE REL ATED TO INSTALLATION OF EQUIPMENT. THE EXPLANATION OFFERED WAS THAT AS SU CH, THE EXPENSES HAD ITA 4906(DEL)2011 8 BEEN RIGHTLY CLAIMED AS PART OF THE COST OF THE ASS ET AND, THEREFORE, ELIGIBLE FOR ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION. PERTINENTLY, NO APPE AL AGAINST THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE SINCE THE ASSES SEE HAD ALREADY BEEN PAYING TAXES UNDER THE BOOK PROFIT COMPUTATION . THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT FOUND TO BE EITHER FALSE OR INCORRECT. THE ADDITIONS TO THE PLANT AND MACHINERY WERE ACCEPTED BY THE AO. THE DETAILS ABOUT THE ADDITIONAL CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION WERE DULY FURNISHE D DURING THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS. IN VIEW OF THE DETAILS FURNISHED, TH E ASSESSEE CANNOT BE SAID TO HAVE EITHER CONCEALED PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR HAVE FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS THEREOF. 11. SOFAR AS REGARDS THE DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A OF TH E ACT READ WITH RULE 8D OF THE I.T. RULES, THE STAND MAINTAINED BY THE A SSESSEE ALL THROUGH IS THAT IT HAD NOT INCURRED ANY EXPENDITURE DIRECTLY OR IND IRECTLY FOR EARNING THE EXEMPTED INCOME. THE FUNDS FOR INVESTMENT WERE CO LLECTED THROUGH A FRESH PUBLIC ISSUE OF EQUITY CAPITAL OF ` 50 CRORES, I.E., 4.9 CRORES AS EQUITY CAPITAL AND 45.10 CRORES AS SHARE PREMIUM DURING THE YEAR 3 1.3.2006. THE ASSESSEE MAINTAINED THAT THE INTEREST EXPENSES HAD NO CONNEC TION WITH THE INVESTMENT; THAT RULE 8D OF THE RULES HAD WRONGLY BEEN APPLIED TO THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE SAID RULE HAVING BEEN INTRODUCED VIDE NOTIFICATION DATED 24.3.08; THAT NO PENAL CONSEQUENCES COULD VISIT THE CONSEQUENTIAL ITA 4906(DEL)2011 9 DISALLOWANCE ON THE ALLEGATION OF FURNISHING OF INA CCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME; THAT EVEN OTHERWISE, THE DISALLOWANCE U/S 1 4A OF THE ACT, MADE ON ESTIMATED BASIS, COULD NOT LEAD TO LEVY OF CONCEALM ENT PENALTY. 12. IN THIS REGARD, EVEN DISCOUNTING THE ASSESSEES STAND OF PENALTY NOT BEING LEVIABLE ON DISALLOWANCE MADE ON ESTIMATED BA SIS, IT IS SEEN THAT AS HELD BY THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF GODREJ AND BOYCE MANUFACTURING CO. LTD. V. DCIT, 234 ITR 1(BOM), TH E PROVISIONS OF RULE 8D OF THE RULES ARE NOT APPLICABLE RETROSPECTIVELY AND ARE APPLICABLE FOR AND FROM ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. FURTHER, NOTHING HA S BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT ANY EXPENDITURE HAD BEEN INCURRED EITH ER DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, FOR EARNING THE EXEMPTED INCOME. THE FUNDS COLLEC TED CAME THROUGH A FRESH PUBLIC ISSUE OF EQUITY CAPITAL. NO NEXUS HAS BEEN SHOWN BETWEEN THE INTEREST EXPENDITURE AND THE INVESTMENT. THEN, IN CIT V. RELIANCE PETROPRODUCTS PVT. LTD., 322 ITR 158(SC), IT HAS B EEN HELD, INTER ALIA, THAT INACCURATE PARTICULARS MEANS THE DETAILS SUPPLIED IN THE RETURN, WHICH ARE NOT ACCURATE, NOT EXACT OR CORRECT, NOT ACCORDING T O TRUTH OR ERRONEOUS. AS OBSERVED THEREIN, IN THE PRESENT CASE ALSO, NO DETA ILS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE HAVE BEEN FOUND TO BE INCORRECT OR ERRONEOUS OR FAL SE. A MERE MAKING OF A CLAIM WHICH IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN LAW, AS OBSERVED IN RELIANCE PETROPRODUCTS PVT. LTD. (SUPRA), BY ITSELF, WOULD NOT AMOUNT TO FURNISHING ITA 4906(DEL)2011 10 INACCURATE PARTICULARS REGARDING THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AND SUCH CLAIM MADE IN THE RETURN CANNOT AMOUNT TO INACCURATE PART ICULARS. THEREFORE, PENALTY ON THIS ASPECT WAS ALSO NOT LEVIABLE. MORE OVER, FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07, VIDE ORDER DATED 16.10.2009, (REFERENCE AT APB 82), THE LD. CIT(A) HAD DELETED THE PENALTY ON THE SAME GROUND. 13. COMING TO THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF AD-HOC DIS ALLOWANCE OF ` 60,000/-, OUT OF THE TOTAL SALES PROMOTION EXPENSES OF ` 1,70,22,630/-, THE AO HAD ADDED ` 60,000/- ON ESTIMATED BASIS. WHILE DOING SO, NO S PECIFIC REASON WAS DELINEATED FOR THE DISALLOWANCE AND SO, PENALTY APROPOS THIS ITEM WAS ALSO NOT CALLED FOR. 14. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DULY TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATIO N THESE FACTS WHILE CANCELLING THE PENALTY. HE HAS PLACED RELIANCE O N KANBAY SOFTWARE INDIA (P)LTD. V. DCIT, 31 SOT 153(PUNE). NO DECISION TO THE CONTRARY HAS BEEN BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE. AS RIGHTLY OBSERVED BY THE LD. CIT(A), NO POSITIVE MATERIAL WAS BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE AO TO ESTABLI SH THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF ITS INCOME, SO AS TO REDUCE ITS TAXABLE INCOME. THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE H AS NOT BEEN SHOWN TO BE NOT A BONA FIDE EXPLANATION. SUCH EXPLANATION, AS OBSERVED, WAS NEITHER FOUND TO BE FALSE NOR INCORRECT NOR UNREASONABLE. ITA 4906(DEL)2011 11 15. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, FINDING NO MERIT THEREIN, THE GRIEVANCE SOUGHT TO BE RAISED BY THE DEPARTMENT IS REJECTED. 16. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE DEPARTME NT IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 09.01.2012. SD/- SD/- (K.G. BANSAL) (A.D. JAIN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 09.01.2012 *RM COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR TRUE COPY BY ORDER DEPUTY REGISTRAR