ITO, New Delhi V. Sh. Manjiv Singh, New Delhi

ITA 5071/DEL/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7497 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-01-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Next Hearing Date: 16-01-2012
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 14-11-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R S NEGI
• Assessee Lawyers: PUNEET THUKRAL
• Keywords: Additional evidence

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH E NEW DELHI. BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV AND SHRI K.G. BANSAL I.T.A. NOS. 5071 & 5072 (DEL)/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 INCOME-TAX OFFICER, SHR I MANJIV SINGH, WARD 23(1), NEW DELHI. VS. 505, MEGHD OOT BUILDING, 94, NEHRU PLACE, NEW DELHI. PAN: BDEPS4017F (APPLICANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI R.S. NEGI, SR. D.R. RESPONDENT BY: SHRI PUNEET THUKRAL, C.A. DATE OF HEARIN G: 16.01.2012 DATE OF PRONOUN CEMENT: 20.01.2012. ORDER PER K.G. BANSAL : A.M THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED HIS RETURN ON 25.09.2007 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 12,48,847/-. THE RETURN WAS PROCESSE D U/S 143(1) ON 26.03.2009. THEREAFTER, ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS W ERE UNDERTAKEN BY SERVING A NOTICE DATED 24.07.2008 ON THE ASSES SEE. ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S 143(1) ON 23.12.2009 AT TOTAL INCO ME OF RS. 12,48,847/-. HOWEVER, IT WAS ALSO NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE H AS RECEIVED CASH FROM SOME PARTIES. THEREFORE, PROCEEDINGS WERE INITIA TED U/S 271D AND 271E OF THE ACT FOR CONTRAVENING THE PROVISIONS CONTAINE D IN SECTION 269SS AND ITA NOS. 5071 & 5072(DEL)/2011 2 269T RESPECTIVELY. THESE PROCEEDINGS WERE DISPO SED OFF BY TWO SEPARATE ORDERS PASSED ON 30.06.2010. IN THESE ORDERS, PE NALTIES OF RS. 15,90,000/- AND RS. 15.00 LAKH WERE LEVIED UNDER SECTIONS 2 71D AND 271E RESPECTIVELY. 1.1 THE FACTS IN REGARD TO LEVY OF PENALTIES ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE SHOWED RECEIPT OF CASH FROM SIX PARTIES AGGREGATING TO RS. 19,30,000/-. OUT OF THESE PARTIES, CONFIRMATIONS FILED BY SHRI ARVINDE R SINGH AND SMT. GURMEET KAUR OF RS. 90,000/- AND RS. 2,50,000/- W ERE TAKEN TO BE GENUINE IN RESPECT OF TRANSACTIONS MENTIONED THEREIN. T HESE TRANSACTIONS WERE TAKEN TO HAVE BEEN UNDERTAKEN IN THE COURSE OF B USINESS. THEREFORE, THESE TRANSACTIONS WERE TAKEN OUT OF PURVIEW OF THE LEVY OF PENALTY. 1.2 IN RESPECT OF SHRI K.C. NANDA, INVOLVING TWO RECEIPTS OF RS. 5.00 LAKH EACH, AGGREGATING TO RS. 10.00 LAKH, THE ASS ESSEE FILED A COPY OF LETTER DATED 30.06.2006 ADDRESSED TO THE ASSESSEE TO THE EFFECT THAT HE HAD TIME AND AGAIN CALLED AND REQUESTED THE ASSESSE E, BUT SOME HOW THE ASSESSEE DID NOT TAKE UP THE CALLS OR DID NOT REPLY. HE IS NOW PAINFULLY REQUESTING TO RETURN THE MONEY AS THE DEAL DID NO T MATURE. ACCORDINGLY, A REQUEST WAS MADE TO REFUND THE AMOUNT OF RS. 11 ,50,000/- STANDING TO HIS ITA NOS. 5071 & 5072(DEL)/2011 3 CREDIT. THE AO CONSIDERED THIS LETTER TO BE VAGUE AS IT DID NOT SPECIFY THE DETAILS OF THE DEAL. IN RESPECT OF OTHER T HREE PERSONS, UNITED UKRAINE TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD. (UNITED UKRAINE FOR SHO RT), BHANDARI BUILDERS PVT. LTD. (BHANDARI BUILDERS FOR SHORT) AND J AGJOT SINGH KALRA (JAGJOT FOR SHORT), IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE AMOUNTS WER E NOT LOANS. THESE WERE CASH ADVANCES RECEIVED FOR BUSINESS PURPOSE FO R ARRANGING PURCHASE OF PROPERTY, TAKING PROPERTY ON RENT AND ARRANGING FI NANCE FOR PURCHASE OF MACHINERY. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO SUBMIT EVI DENCE IN SUPPORT OF THE CLAIMS. NO EVIDENCE WAS FILED THAT THE TRANSAC TIONS WERE UNDERTAKEN IN THE COURSE OF BUSINESS. IN ABSENCE OF THE EVIDEN CE, IT WAS HELD THAT THE AMOUNTS WERE LOANS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE. A CCORDINGLY THE PENALTY WAS LEVIED IN RESPECT OF FOUR AMOUNTS AMOUNTING TO RS. 15,90,000/-. 1.3 IN RESPECT OF THESE VERY PARTIES, AN AGGREGAT E SUM OF RS. 15.00 LAKH WAS RETURNED IN CASH. THEREFORE , PENALTY OF RS. 15.00 LAKH WAS LEVIED U/S 271E. 1.4 AGGRIEVED BY THESE ORDERS, THE ASSESSEE MOVE D APPEALS BEFORE CIT(APPEALS)-XXIV, NEW DELHI. HE DISPOSED OFF THE PROCEEDINGS BY WAY OF TWO SEPARATE ORDERS PASSED ON 30.08.2011 . ITA NOS. 5071 & 5072(DEL)/2011 4 1.5 IT APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE MOVED AN APP LICATION UNDER RULE 46A OF INCOME-TAX RULES, 1962 REQUESTING THAT ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE MAY BE ADMITTED. THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE WAS FOR WARDED TO THE AO FOR FURNISHING HIS REPORT. THE AO REPORTED THAT THE BUSINESS ACTIVITY OF THE ASSESSEE INVOLVES LIAISON AND CONSULTANCY SERVICE S IN FINANCE AND PROPERTY MATTERS. IT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED THAT CLIENTS GIV E HIM ADVANCES FOR ARRANGING BUSINESS DEALS. WHENEVER THE DEAL DOE S NOT MATERIALIZE, THE ADVANCE IS RETURNED SOMETIMES IN CASH AND SOMETIM ES BY WAY OF CHEQUE. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS. 5.00 LAKH RECEIVED FROM UNITED UKRAINE WAS RETURNED IN THREE INSTALLMENTS. THEREFORE, IT CANNOT BE ACCEPTED THAT THE MONEY WAS RECEIVED FOR ARRANGIN G PURCHASE OF MACHINERY. ACCORDINGLY, IT WAS HELD THAT IT WAS A LOAN. AS REGARDS CASH OF RS. 40,000/- RECEIVED FROM BHANDARI BUILDERS AND RS. 50,000/- FROM JAGJOT, THESE AMOUNTS WERE RETURNED ON THAT VERY DAY BY CHEQUES. THIS GOES TO PROVE THAT THESE AMOUNTS DID NOT CONSTIT UTE ADVANCES. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A) WAS THAT HAVING ACCEPTED SIMILAR CONFIRMATIONS FROM SMT. GURMEET KAUR AND SHRI ARVINDER SINGH, THERE IS NO REASON AS TO WHY THE CONFIRMA TIONS FROM OTHER THREE PARTIES SHOULD BE DOUBTED. A LETTER FROM SHRI K .C. NANDA HAD BEEN PRODUCED REQUESTING FOR REFUND OF THE SUM OF RS. 11 ,50,000/- AND IT WAS ITA NOS. 5071 & 5072(DEL)/2011 5 MENTIONED THAT THE PROMISED DEAL HAD NOT MATUR ED. SHRI K.C. NANDA HAD EXPIRED SINCE THEN AND A COPY OF HIS DEATH CERTIF ICATE WAS PLACED ON RECORD. A SUM OF RS. 8.00 LAKH WAS RETURNED TO HIM IN CA SH AND THE BALANCE AMOUNT WAS RETURNED BY WAY OF CHEQUES. IT WAS ARGUED THAT THE NATURE OF BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE NECESSITATED THE RECEIPT OF CASH ADVANCES. THE AMOUNT WAS RETURNED WHEN THE DEAL DID NOT MA TERIALIZE. CONFIRMATIONS FROM ALL THE PARTIES HAVE BEEN FILED AND IN VIE W THEREOF THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION FOR LEVY OF PENALTY. THE LD. CIT(A ) CONSIDERED THESE SUBMISSIONS AND DELETED BOTH THE PENALTIES. 2. BEFORE US, THE LD. DR REFERRED TO THE ASSES SMENT ORDER. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO DISCLOSE SP ECIFIC BUSINESS DEALINGS IN RESPECT OF WHICH THE ADVANCES WERE RECEIVED. T HE CONFIRMATION IN RESPECT OF SHRI K.C. NANDA DOES NOT DISCLOSE THE TRANSACTION AS HE MERELY REQUESTED FOR RETURN OF MONEY AS THE PROMISED DE AL DID NOT MATURE. THE DETAILS OF THE DEAL ARE NOT THERE. THE ASSES SEE FILED ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(APPEALS). BUT, AGAIN THE DET AILS OF THE SPECIFIC DEALS HAVE NOT BEEN MENTIONED. IN THE CASE OF UNITED UKRAINE, THE ONLY THING WHICH IS MENTIONED IS THAT THE ADVANCE WAS PAID FOR ARRANGING FINANCE FOR PURCHASE OF MACHINERY. IT IS NOT CLARIFIED WHICH M ACHINERY THIS PARTY ITA NOS. 5071 & 5072(DEL)/2011 6 WANTED TO PURCHASE AND HOW MUCH CASH WAS REQUIRE D FOR PURCHASE OF MACHINERY. THE DETAILS OF BROKERAGE TO BE EARNE D BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ALSO NOT MENTIONED. IN THIS CASE, WHILE THE CASH WAS RECEIVED ON 07.05.2006, IT WAS RETURNED IN THREE INSTALLMENTS ON 28.08.2006 , 25.09.2006 AND 26.12.2006. IN THE CASE OF BHANDARI BUILDERS, TH E PARTICULARS OF PREMISES SOUGHT ON RENT HAVE NOT BEEN MENTIONED. THE MONE Y WAS RECEIVED IN CASH ON 16.05.2006 AND RETURNED ON THE SAME DAY BY WAY OF CHEQUE. IN THE CASE OF BHANDARI BUILDERS, THE PARTICULARS OF OFFI CE PREMISES ARE NOT MENTIONED. THE CASH WAS RECEIVED ON 28.08.2006 AND PAID ON THE SAME DAY BY WAY OF CHEQUE. IT IS QUITE UNUSUAL THAT OFFICE WILL BE LOCATED ON THE DAY WHEN ADVANCE HAS BEEN GIVEN. SIMILARLY, T HE AMOUNT IN CASE OF JAGJOT WAS FOR PAYMENT OF RENT SECURITY BUT THE DETAILS OF THE PREMISES WERE NOT FURNISHED. SUCH DETAILS WILL BE IN TH E KNOWLEDGE OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE CLIENT AS THE MONEY WAS TO BE PAID AS S ECURITY FOR A SPECIFIED PREMISE. 2.1 IN REPLY, THE LD. COUNSEL REFERRED TO THE FIN DINGS OF THE AO. ON PAGE NO. 2 OF HIS ORDER, A TABLE HAS BEEN DRAWN FUR NISHING DETAILS OF SIX PERSONS FROM WHOM MONEY WAS RECEIVED IN CASH AG GREGATING TO RS. 19,30,000/-. PARAGRAPH NO. 3.2 REPRODUCES THE CO NTENTS OF THE LETTER ITA NOS. 5071 & 5072(DEL)/2011 7 RECEIVED FROM SHRI K.C. NANDA. THE CONTENTS OF TH IS LETTER HAVE ALREADY BEEN PARAPHRASED BY US. IT IS ARGUED THAT THE LETTER ITSELF SPEAKS OF THE DEAL WHICH DID NOT MATURE. IN VIEW THEREOF, IT IS ARGUED THAT THE TRANSACTION IS NOT ONE OF LOAN OR ADVANCE AS UNDERSTOOD U/S 269SS BUT MONEY RECEIVED IN THE COURSE OF BUSINESS. FURTHER, OUR ATTENTION IS DRAWN TO PAGE NOS. 11, 12 AND 13 OF THE PAPER BOOK. PAGE NO. 11 IS THE CONFIRMED COPY OF THE ACCOUNT OF UNITED UKRAINE. THIS ACCOUNT SHOW S INTER-ALIA CASH RECEIPT OF RS. 5.00 LAKH ON 07.05.2006 AND CASH PAYMENTS OF RS. 2,50,000/-, RS. 1,50,000/- AND RS. 1,00,000/- ON 28.08.2006, 25.0 9.2006 AND 26.12.2006 RESPECTIVELY. THE CONFIRMATION STATES THAT ADV ANCE OF RS. 5.00 LAKH WAS PAID IN CASH FOR ARRANGING FINANCE FOR PURCHASE OF MACHINERY. PAGE NOS. 12 AND 13 ARE SIMILAR CONFIRMATIONS FROM BHANDARI BU ILDERS AND JAGJOT. IN THE CASE OF BHANDARI BUILDERS, IT IS MENTIONED TH AT THE SUM OF RS. 40,000/- WAS PAID AS AN ADVANCE FOR ARRANGING AN OFFICE ON RENTAL BASIS. THE AMOUNT WAS RETURNED AS PREMISES COULD NOT BE ARRA NGED. THE CONFIRMATION IN RESPECT OF JAGJOT STATES THAT ADVANCE OF RS. 50,000/- WAS PAID FOR LOCATING OFFICE PREMISE AND THE AMOUNT WAS IN RES PECT OF RENT SECURITY. THE AMOUNT WAS RETURNED AS THE PREMISES COULD NOT B E ARRANGED. THE CASE OF THE LD. COUNSEL IS THAT IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID C ONFIRMATIONS, THERE IS NO CASE FOR LEVY OF PENALTY EITHER U/S 271D OR 271 E. ITA NOS. 5071 & 5072(DEL)/2011 8 3. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE US. THE FACTS ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN RECEIPTS OF VARIOUS CASH AMOUNTS AGGREGATING TO RS. 19.30 LAKH FROM S IX PARTIES. THE ASSESSEE FILED CONFIRMATIONS FROM TWO PARTIES, ARVINDER SINGH AND GURMEET KAUR, TO THE EFFECT THAT THE MONIES WERE ADVANCED IN T HE COURSE OF BUSINESS. ON THE BASIS OF THESE CONFIRMATIONS, THE AO HELD THA T THE AMOUNTS RECEIVED FROM THESE TWO PARTIES WERE NOT IN THE NATURE OF LOANS OR ADVANCES. 3.1 THE ASSESSEE ALSO FILED A LETTER DATED 30.0 6.2006 FROM SHRI K.C. NANDA ADDRESSED TO HIM. IN THIS LETTER HE REQUES TED FOR RETURN OF MONEY ADVANCED BY HIM AS THE DEAL PROMISED TO HIM DID NOT MATURE. THE AO DID NOT ACCEPT THE EXPLANATION IN REGARD TO TH IS LOAN ON THE GROUND THAT IT IS VAGUE AND IT DOES NOT FURNISH SPECIFIC DETAI LS OF THE DEAL. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) DELETED THE PENALTY IN RESPECT OF THIS AMOUNT. IT HAS BEEN RECORDED THAT SHRI K.C. NANDA HAD PASSED SINCE THE N AS EVIDENCED BY DEATH CERTIFICATE. THE MONEY RECEIVED BY HIM WAS RETUR NED IN CASH AMOUNTING TO RS. 8.00 LAKH AND THE BALANCE BY WAY OF CHEQU ES. THE ASSESSEE DISCHARGED THE INITIAL BURDEN OF FURNISHING EXP LANATION AND SUCH EXPLANATION HAS NOT BEEN CONTROVERTED IN ANY MANNE R BY THE AO. HAVING CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT IT WAS FOR THE ITA NOS. 5071 & 5072(DEL)/2011 9 AO TO PROVE THAT THE AMOUNT IN QUESTION WAS EITHE R A LOAN OR AN ADVANCE AFTER PRODUCTION OF THE CONFIRMATION BY THE ASSES SEE. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE ON RECORD TO THAT EFFECT. EVEN IF IT IS INITIAL LY PRESUMED THAT THE AMOUNT WAS LOAN OR ADVANCE, THE LATTER DATED 30.06.200 6 REBUTS THE PRESUMPTION. THERE IS NO CONTRARY EVIDENCE BROUGHT ON RECORD B Y THE AO THEREAFTER. THERE IS NO FINDING IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT ANY UNACCOUNTED MONEY WAS INVOLVED IN THE TRANSACTION EITHER IN CASE OF LATE SHRI NANDA OR THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT ON THE FACTS, THE AO WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN LEVYING THE PENALTY. ACCORDINGLY, WE UPHOLD THE ACTION OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) IN DELETING THE PENALTY IN RES PECT OF THIS ACCOUNT. 3.2 UNITED UKRAINE HAD ADVANCED RS. 5.00 LAKH IN C ASH TO THE ASSESSEE ON 07.05.2006. NO EVIDENCE WAS FILED BEFORE T HE AO THAT THE AMOUNT WAS RECEIVED IN CONNECTION WITH THE BUSINESS. HOW EVER, BEFORE THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) THE ASSESSEE FILED CONFIRMATION FROM THIS COMPANY THAT THE AMOUNT WAS PAID FOR ARRANGING FINANCE FOR PURCHA SE OF MACHINERY. THE AO WAS REQUESTED TO FURNISH HIS REPORT IN THE MA TTER. THE ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE WAS OBJECTED TO BY THE AO BUT LOOKING TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE THAT SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY HAD NOT BE EN GRANTED IN THE COURSE OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS, THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) ADMIT TED THE EVIDENCE. ON ITA NOS. 5071 & 5072(DEL)/2011 10 MERITS, THE AO COULD NOT BRING ANY THING ON RECOR D TO CONTROVERT THE AVERMENT MADE BY UNITED UKRAINE THAT THE MONEY WAS ADVANCED FOR ARRANGING FINANCE FOR PURCHASE OF MACHINERY. IN ABS ENCE THEREOF, THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) RECORDED A FINDING THAT THE MONEY H AD BEEN ADVANCED IN THE COURSE OF THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE AND, THERE FORE, IT DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A LOAN OR ADVANCE. IN THIS CASE ALSO, AS IN THE CASE OF LATE SHRI NANDA, THERE IS EVIDENCE ON RECORD BY WAY OF CONFIRMATIO N THAT THE THAT THE SUM OF RS. 5.00 LAKH WAS RECEIVED FOR ARRANGING FINANC E REQUIRED BY THE COMPANY FOR PURCHASE OF MACHINERY. THIS MONEY HAS BEEN RETURNED IN CASH IN THREE INSTALLMENTS. THEREFORE, THE FACTS ARE MORE OR LESS SIMILAR AS THE FACTS IN THE CASE OF LATE SHRI NANDA. IN VIEW OF OUR FINDING IN THAT CASE, IT IS HELD THAT THE MONEY WAS RECEIVED IN THE COURSE OF BUSINESS FROM A CLIENT AND, THEREFORE, IT DOES NOT CONSTITUTE EITHER LOA N OR ADVANCE. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ALSO HELD THAT THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) WAS RIG HT IN DELETING THE PENALTY IN RESPECT OF THIS ACCOUNT ALSO. 3.3 THE FACTS IN THE CASE OF BHANDARI BUILDERS A ND JAGJOT ARE ALSO SIMILAR. RS. 40,000/- AND RS. 50,000/- WERE RECE IVED IN CASH. THE MONIES WAS RETURNED ON THE DATE OF ADVANCE ITSELF BY W AY OF CHEQUES. BHANDARI BUILDERS SUBMITTED THAT THE MONEY WAS ADVANCED FOR ARRANGING ITA NOS. 5071 & 5072(DEL)/2011 11 ACCOMMODATION ON RENTAL BASIS. THE ACCOMMODATION COULD NOT BE FOUND. JAGJOT ALSO STATED THAT THE ADVANCE WAS FOR RE NT SECURITY FOR THE OFFICE PREMISES TO BE LOCATED BY THE ASSESSEE. AS THE D EALS DID NOT MATERIALIZE, THE MONIES WERE RETURNED BY WAY OF CHEQUES. THESE AV ERMENTS HAVE NOT BEEN CONTRADICTED BY THE AO. THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) WAS RIGHT IN DELETING THE PENALTY I N RESPECT OF THESE AMOUNTS ALSO. 4. COMING TO THE RETURN OF MONEY IN CASH TO THESE P ERSONS AND LEVY OF PENALTY U/S 271D, IT BECOMES CLEAR FROM THE AFOR ESAID DISCUSSION THAT THE MONIES WERE RECEIVED IN THE COURSE OF BUSINESS AND AS THE BUSINESS PURPOSE WAS NOT ACHIEVED, THE MONIES WERE RETUR NED. THE FINDING OF THE AFORESAID ORDER APPLY MUTATIS MUTANDIS IN RESPECT OF RETURN OF MONEY ALSO. THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE LD. CIT (APPEALS) WAS RIGHT IN DELETING THE PENALTY. 5. THE QUESTION AS TO WHETHER THE MONIES WERE RE CEIVED AND RETURNED IN THE COURSE OF BUSINESS OR THE TRANSACTIONS CO NSTITUTED LOANS OR ADVANCES AND RETURN THEREOF IS ESSENTIALLY A QUESTION OF FACT. THE DISCUSSION AS AFORESAID LEADS TO A CONCLUSION THAT THE MONIES WERE RECEIVED AND ITA NOS. 5071 & 5072(DEL)/2011 12 RETURNED IN THE COURSE OF BUSINESS. THEREFORE, THE TRANSACTIONS DID NOT CONSTITUTE RECEIPT OF LOAN ETC. AND RETURN THERE OF. IN SUCH A SITUATION, WE DO NOT THINK IT NECESSARY TO GO INTO THE CASES RELIED UPON BY THE PARTIES. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS ARE DISMISSED. SD/- SD/- (RAJPAL YADAV) (K.G. BANSAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER 20/01/2012 SP SATIA COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO:- SHRI MANJIV SINGH, NEW DELHI. ITO, WARD 23(1), NEW DELHI. CIT(A) CIT, THE D.R., ITAT, NEW DELHI. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR.