ACIT, New Delhi V. M/s Green Wood Exports Global Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 5559/DEL/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 135 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0236 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-03-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 10-02-2011
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 08-12-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SUNIL JAIN
• Assessee Lawyers: MONA MOHANTY
• Section: 40A(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH C NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI R.P. TOLANI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI K.G. BANSAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO.5198/D/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07 M/S GREEN WOODS EXPORTS VS. D.C.I.T., GLOBAL PVT. LTD., B-14, CHIRAG CIRCLE 12(1), ENCLAVE, NEW DELHI NEW DELHI PAN NO. AAACG 9110E I.T.A. NO.5559/D/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR :2006-07 A.C.I.T., VS. M/S GREEN WOOD EXPORTS CIRCLE 12(1), GLOBAL PVT. LTD., B-14, CHIRAG NEW DELHI ENCLAVE, NEW DELHI (APPLICANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI SUNIL JAIN, CA RESPONDENT BY: SMT. MONA MOHANTY, SR. DR ORDER PER K.G. BANSAL: AM: THESE CROSS APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE REVENUE, ARISING FROM THE ORDER OF CIT(A)-XV, NEW DELHI, PASSED ON 20.04.2010 IN APPEAL NO.332/08-09, WERE ARGUED IN A CONSOLIDATED MANNER BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AND THE LEARNED DR. THEREFORE, A CONSOLIDATED ORDER IS PASSED. 5198-5559-2010-GWEG 2 2. GROUND NO.1 OF THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE L EARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN DISALLOWING THE AMOUNT OF `23,20,772/-, BEING 20% OF CASH PURCHASES MADE BY THE ASSESSEE BY INVOKING THE PROVISION CONTAINED IN SECT ION 40A(3) OF THE INCOME- TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT). ON THE OTHER HAND, GROUND NO.2 OF THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDIT ION OF `48,31,205/- OUT OF TOTAL ADDITION OF `2,41,56,021/- MADE BY THE ASSESS ING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF UNVERIFIABLE, UN-VOUCHED CASH PURCHASES. THE FACTS REGAR DING THE GROUNDS ARE COMMON. THEREFORE, THE RIVAL GROUNDS ARE CONSOLIDATED FO R THE PURPOSE OF THE DETERMINATION OF THE ISSUE. 2.1 THE FACTS MENTIONED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ARE THAT TH E ASSESSEE SHOWED TOTAL PURCHASES OF `9,66,24,084/- OF THE HUMAN HAIR. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS CARRYING ON THE BUSINESS OF EXPORT OF HUMAN H AIR WHICH IS PROCURED FROM THE OPEN MARKET. THE SUPPLIERS ARE MOSTLY IN THE UNORGANI ZED SECTOR, WHO ARE SMALL TIME TRADERS, BARBERS ETC. THEY DEMAND ONLY CASH PAYMENT FOR SALES MADE BY THEM TO THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, EVERY SINGLE PURCHASE IS OF THE AMO UNT OF LESS THAN `20,000/-. THUS, THE PROVISION CONTAINED IN SECTION 4 0A(3) OF THE ACT IS NOT INFRINGED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND VERIFIED THE BILLS FOR THE MONTH OF MARCH, 2006. HE ALSO CONSIDER ED THE NET PROFIT RATIO OF 2.14% DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. HE CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT PURCHASES IN RESPECT OF WHICH PAYMENTS ARE MADE IN CASH ARE UN-VERIFI ABLE. THEREFORE, AN 5198-5559-2010-GWEG 3 AMOUNT OF `2,41,56,021/- WAS DISALLOWED, REPRESENTING 25% OF THE TOTAL PURCHASES AMOUNTING TO `9,66,24,084/-. 2.2 IN THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A), IT WAS INTER ALIA SUBMITTED THAT PAYMENTS IN RESPECT OF PURCHASES AMO UNTING TO `8,50,20,222/- WERE MADE EITHER BY WAY OF ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUE OR ACCOUNT PAYEE DRAFT. THE LEARNED CIT(A) REFERRED THIS MATTER TO THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER FOR VERIFICATION. THE ASSESSING OFFICER REPORTED THAT THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED THE DET AILS OF SUCH PARTIES AND ON TEST CHEQUE BASIS, IT HAS BEEN FOUND THAT THE PAYM ENTS HAVE BEEN MADE BY WAY OF ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUE. IN VIEW THEREOF, THE LEARNED CI T(A) ACCEPTED THESE PURCHASES TO BE GENUINE. COMING TO CASH PURCHASES AMOUN TING TO `1,16,03,862/-, IT WAS INTER ALIA SUBMITTED THAT MOST OF THE PAYMENTS A RE OF THE AMOUNT BELOW THE AMOUNT DESCRIBED IN SECTION 40A(3). HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE W AS NOT ABLE TO SUBMIT THE IDENTITY OR THE ADDRESS OF THE PERSONS FROM WHOM CASH PURCHASES WERE MADE. THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE WERE THAT SUCH SUPPLIERS AR E SMALL TIME VENDORS AND MIGRANTS FROM RURAL AREAS WHO DEMAND CASH PAYMENTS. T HE SALES BY WAY OF EXPORT GO THROUGH RIGOROUS PROCESS OF CUSTOMS CLEARANCE. T HE QUANTITATIVE STOCK TALLY HAS BEEN FURNISHED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THEREFORE, IT WAS AGITATED THAT ALL THESE PURCHASES ARE GENUINE AND THE PROVISION CONTAINED IN SECTI ON 40A(3) IS NOT APPLICABLE. HOWEVER, THE LEARNED CIT(A) DID NOT ACCEPT TH E CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE. IT IS MENTIONED THAT THE PURCHASE MEMOS ARE OF T HE AMOUNTS BETWEEN 5198-5559-2010-GWEG 4 `17,000/- AND `20,000/-. THEY DO NOT CONTAIN THE NA ME, THE ADDRESS, THE TELEPHONE NUMBER OR ANY OTHER IDENTIFICATION OF THE VENDORS . THE TRANSACTIONS IN A DAY EXCEED `20,000/- BUT NONE OF THE PAYMENT EXCEED `20,000 /-. IN THESE PECULIAR CIRCUMSTANCES, HE CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT P ROVISION CONTAINED IN SECTION 40A(3) CAN BE INVOKED MORE SO WHEN THE IDENTITY OF THE VENDORS IS NOT ASCERTAINABLE. THEREFORE, HE DISALLOWED 20% OF THE CASH P URCHASES AGGREGATING TO `1,16,03,862/-. AS MENTIONED EARLIER, BOTH THE ASSESSEE AN D THE REVENUE ARE IN APPEAL ON THIS ISSUE. 3. BEFORE US, THE LEARNED COUNSEL REFERRED TO THE FINDINGS O F THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN THE MATTER. IT WAS SU BMITTED THAT OUT OF TOTAL PURCHASES AMOUNTING TO ABOUT `9.60 CRORES, PAYMENT OF ABOUT `8.00 CRORES HAS BEEN MADE BY ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUE OR DRAFT. THE DETAILS OF SUCH PARTIES HAVE ALREADY BEEN FURNISHED. HOWEVER, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS H ELD THAT THE PROVISION CONTAINED IN SECTION 40A(3) IS APPLICABLE. CONSEQUENTLY , HE HAS DISALLOWED AN AMOUNT EQUAL TO 20% OF CASH PURCHASES. IT IS CONTENDED THAT MOST OF THE BILLS OF CASH PURCHASE ARE BELOW `20,000/-. THEREFORE, NOTHING C OULD BE DISALLOWED U/S 40A(3). SOME PURCHASE MEMOS PREPARED INTERNALLY AND SIGNED BY THE ASSESSEE HAVE BEEN FILED. NONE OF THE MEMOS HAS BEEN SIGNED BY THE VEN DOR ALTHOUGH THERE IS SPACE EARMARKED TO DO SO. THERE IS ALSO PROVISION FO R NAME AND ADDRESS OF THE VENDOR, WHICH IS FILLED WITH THE NARRATION CASH. IN REPLY, THE LEARNED DR SUBMITTED 5198-5559-2010-GWEG 5 THAT THE MAIN ISSUE IN THIS CASE IS REGARDING GENUINENESS OF THE PURCHASES. THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN VERY LOW NET PROFIT RATIO OF 2.14% I N THE EXPORT BUSINESS OF HAIR. THE CASH MEMOS PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE NOT AT ALL RELI ABLE. THEREFORE, IT WAS AGITATED THAT THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAY BE SUSTAINED. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND SUBMISSION S MADE BEFORE US. IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. ALOO SUPPLY COMPANY, (1980) 121 ITR 680, THE FACTS ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE, A REGISTERED FIRM, DEALS ON WHOLESALE BASIS IN POTATO AND ONION. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE MADE CASH PAYMENT S OF `1,10,024/- TO DIFFERENT PERSONS AND CALLED UPON HIM TO SHOW CAUSE AS T O WHY THESE PAYMENTS MAY NOT BE DISALLOWED IN VIEW OF THE PROVISION CONTAINED IN SECTION 40A(3). IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT THE PAYMENTS WERE MADE IN CASH BECAUSE OF EXCEP TIONAL AND UNAVOIDABLE CIRCUMSTANCES AND THE PAYMENT IN ANY OTHER MANNER WAS NOT PRACTICABLE HAVING REGARD TO THE NATURE OF THE BUSINESS TRANSACTIONS. THEREFORE, THE EXCEPTIONAL PROVISION CONTAINED IN RULE 6DD(J) IS APPLI CABLE TO HIS CASE. ONE OF THE QUESTIONS, WHICH IS ALSO RELEVANT FOR US, WAS WHETHER THE STATUTORY LIMIT OF `2,500/- U/S 40A(3) OF THE ACT APPLIES TO THE PAYMENT M ADE TO A PARTY AT A TIME OR AGGREGATE OF PAYMENTS MADE TO A PARTY IN THE COURSE OF T HE DAY AS RECORDED IN THE CASH BOOK? THE TRIBUNAL RECORDED THE FINDING TO THE EFFEC T THAT THE AGENTS OF THE PAYEES CAME FROM OUTSIDE STATION AND STAYED FOR A DAY OR TWO IN THE COURSE OF WHICH THEY TOOK MONEY, IN CASH AS AND WHEN NEEDED BY TH EM DURING THE COURSE OF 5198-5559-2010-GWEG 6 THEIR STAY AT THE PLACE OF ASSESSEES BUSINESS. THE MERE FAC T THAT THE ASSESSEE MADE ONE ENTRY IN THE CASH BOOK FOR ALL THE PAYMENTS MADE TO A SINGLE PARTY IN THE COURSE OF THE DAY DOES NOT LEAD TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE ASSES SEE KNEW AT THE BEGINNING OF THE DAY OF THE PAYMENTS THAT HE WOULD MAKE TO THAT PA RTY IN THE COURSE OF THE DAY. THE AMOUNT PAID BY THE ASSESSEE DEPENDED NOT ONLY ON ITS CASH BALANCES BUT ON THE DEMAND OF THE PARTY, AS TO WHEN AND WHAT AMOUNT THEY MAY ACTUALLY DEMAND. THE HONBLE COURT HELD THAT THE STATUTORY LIMIT OF `2,500/- U/S 40A(3) APPLIES TO THE PAYMENT MADE TO A PARTY AT A TIME AND N OT TO AGGREGATE OF PAYMENTS MADE TO A PARTY IN THE COURSE OF THE DAY AS REC ORDED IN THE CASH BOOK. 4.1 IN THE CASE OF INCOME TAX OFFICER VS. SURANA TRADERS, (2005) 92 ITD 212 (MUM.), IT WAS HELD THAT IF QUANTITATIVE DETAILS ARE FU RNISHED, NO ADDITION IS CALLED FOR EVEN IF PURCHASERS ARE NOT AVAILABLE. IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. BAL KRISHAN JAGDISH CHAND, (2007) 164 TAXMAN 459 (P&H), IT WAS HELD THAT SINCE THE ACCOUNTS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE AND REPRODUCED IN THE ASSESSMENT OR DER SHOW THAT AN AMOUNT OF `2,500/- OR EVEN LESS THAN THAT AMOUNT HAS B EEN PAID, THE RIGOROUS OF SECTION 40A(3) AS IT STOOD IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 1986-87, WOULD NOT BE ATTRACTED. 4.2 WE MAY NOW CONSIDER THE FACTS OF OUR CASE IN THE LIG HT OF AFORESAID DECISIONS. THE FACTS IN THE CASE OF ALOO SUPPLY COMPANY ARE DIFFERENT BECAUSE EACH PAYMENT MADE TO THE PAYEE WAS LESS THAN `2,500/-. TH E QUESTION HERE IS NOT ONLY IN REGARD TO THE APPLICABILITY OF THE PROVISION C ONTAINED IN SECTION 40A(3) BUT 5198-5559-2010-GWEG 7 ALSO ABOUT GENUINENESS OF THE CASH PURCHASES, RAISED BY T HE REVENUE IN GROUND NO.2 OF THE APPEAL. THE FINDING OF THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER IS ALSO TO THE EFFECT THAT THE PURCHASES ARE NOT VERIFIABLE AND THE ASSESSEE HAS USED THE D EVICE OF INTRODUCING CASH PAYMENT OF LESS THAN `20,000/-. THE FACTS OF THE CASE OF SURANA TRADERS ARE ALSO DIFFERENT. IN THAT CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAD MAINTAINED QUANTITATIVE DETAILS. IN THE CASE BEFORE US, QUANTITATIVE DETAILS CANNOT BE ACCEPTED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT BECAUSE INTERNALLY PREPARED PURCHASE MEMOS ARE NOT RELIABLE AT ALL IN ABSENCE OF NAME, ADDRESS AND SIGNATURE OF THE VENDORS. WHAT IS SUR PRISING IS THAT EVEN SIGNATURE OR THUMB IMPRESSION HAS NOT BE TAKEN ON ANY MEMO, WHICH LEADS TO THE CONCLUSION THAT SOME OR ALL OF THEM HAVE BEEN PREPARED BY THE ASSESSEE AT ITS CONVENIENCE. THEREFORE, THESE MEMOS CAN NOT BE ACCEPTED TO B E CORRECT IN RESPECT OF QUANTITATIVE DETAILS MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF BAL KRISHAN JAGDISH CHAND IS ALSO DISTINGUISHABLE BECAUS E THE ADMITTED FACT WAS THAT EACH PAYMENT WAS OF AN AMOUNT LESSER THAN `2,500/-. IN THIS CASE, THE FINDING IS THAT PREPARATION OF INTERNAL MEMOS OF AMOUNTS LESSER THA N `20,000/- IS A DEVICE AS THE PURCHASES IN A DAY WERE OF ABOUT `60,000/-. LOOKIN G TO ALL THESE FACTS, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE INTERNAL MEMOS PREPARED BY THE ASSESSEE T O SUPPORT THE PURCHASES AND QUANTITATIVE DETAILS ARE NOT RELIABLE. THER EFORE, WHILE COMPLETE VERIFICATION EXISTS IN RESPECT OF PURCHASES, PAYMENT FOR WHICH IS MADE BY ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUE/DRAFT, SUCH A CONCLUSION CANNOT BE ARRIVED A T IN RESPECT OF CASH PURCHASES. THUS, THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT ARE NOT COMPLETE AND CORRECT. IN SUCH A 5198-5559-2010-GWEG 8 SITUATION, THERE WOULD BE NO ALTERNATIVE BUT TO ESTIMATE T HE PURCHASES MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO NOT FURNISHED ANY DETAIL C OMPARING THE COST PER KG. IN RESPECT OF CASH PURCHASES AND PURCHASES MADE BY P AYMENT OF ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES OR DRAFTS. THEREFORE, THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS TO BE CONSIDERED IN THE OVERALL SITUATION THAT THE BO OKS ARE NOT RELIABLE. IN SUCH A SITUATION, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) WAS RIGHT IN DISALLOWING 20% OF THE AMOUNT INVOLVED IN CASH PURCHASES, ALBEIT ON SO MEWHAT DIFFERENT LINE OF REASONING. IN SO FAR AS CHEQUE PURCHASES ARE CONCERNED, C OMPLETE DETAILS HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED, WHICH HAVE BEEN VERIFIED BY THE ASSESSING OF FICER IN THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS. THEREFORE, THERE IS NO REASON TO DISALLOW ANY PART OF THE CHEQUE PURCHASES AGGREGATING TO `8,50,20,222/-. 4.3 THE RESULT OF THE DISCUSSION IS THAT BOTH THE GROUN DS ARE DISMISSED. 5. GROUND NO.2 IN THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE L EARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN DISALLOWING A SUM OF `7,92,639/- ON ACCOUNT OF PURC HASE OF MOTORCYCLE, ALTHOUGH NO SUCH AMOUNT WAS CLAIMED AS EXPENDITURE BY THE ASSESSEE. 5.1 THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) WAS THA T A MOTORCAR WAS IMPORTED AND IT REMAINED AN ASSET IN HAND. THEREFORE, IT WAS SHOWN AN ITEM OF CLOSING STOCK. THE LEARNED CIT(A) MENTIONED THAT THE AS SESSEE HAS NOT BROUGHT ANY 5198-5559-2010-GWEG 9 EVIDENCE ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT THE PURCHASE OF MOTORCAR WAS MADE IN THE COURSE OF BUSINESS. THE ARGUMENT OF THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT HOLD GO OD BECAUSE THE FUNDS OF THE COMPANY HAVE BEEN UTILIZED FOR NON-BUSINESS PURPOSES, THEREFORE, THE ADDITION HAS BEEN UPHELD. 5.2 LEARNED COUNSEL DREW OUR ATTENTION TOWARDS THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT WHICH SHOWS THE CLOSING STOCK OF THIS YEAR AT `63,63, 937/-. THERE IS ALSO A DEBIT OF `7,95,639/- FOR PURCHASE OF MOTORCYCLE. ANNEXURE-IV R EGARDING QUANTITATIVE DETAILS OF PRINCIPAL ITEMS SHOWS PURCHASE OF ONE MOTORC YCLE AND CLOSING BALANCE OF ONE MOTORCYCLE. THEREFORE, IT BECOMES CLEAR THAT THE MOTORC YCLE HAS BEEN SHOWN IN THE CLOSING STOCK. THE SUMMARY OF THE STOCK SHOWS IT S VALUE AT `7,95,639/-. THUS, THE DEBIT AND THE CREDIT OF THE EQUIVALENT AMOUNT IN THE PR OFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT LEAD TO THE CONCLUSION THAT NO EXPENDITURE HAS BEEN CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. IN SUCH A SITUATION, IT WAS NOT INCUMBENT UPON THE ASSESSEE TO PRO VE THE BUSINESS EXPEDIENCY FOR PURCHASE OF MOTORCAR. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HELD THA T THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN UP-HOLDING THE ADDITION OF `7,95,639/-. 6. THE ASSESSEE IS A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY. IN THE IMPU GNED ORDER, IT IS MENTIONED THAT NO CASE HAS BEEN MADE OUT THAT ANY OF THE EX PENDITURE FOR RUNNING OF THE VEHICLES IS UN-VOUCHED. HOWEVER, THE LEARNED CIT(A) UPHELD 20% DISALLOWANCE OUT OF VEHICLE RUNNING AND MAINTENANCE EXPEN DITURE BY MENTIONING 5198-5559-2010-GWEG 10 THAT THE MOTOR-CAR WAS NOT PURCHASED FOR THE PURPOSE O F BUSINESS AND IT WAS FOR PERSONAL USE OF THE DIRECTOR. THEREFORE, THE DISALLOWANCE W AS UPHELD. THE ASSESSEE RELIED ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH CO URT IN THE CASE OF SAYAJI IRON & ENGG. COMPANY VS. CIT, (2002) 253 ITR 749, I N WHICH IT WAS HELD THAT IF ANY BENEFIT IS GRANTED TO THE DIRECTORS, THE SAME IS TAXABLE IN THEIR HAND AS PERQUISITE. THUS, THE EXPENDITURE IN SO FAR AS ASSESSEE IS CONCERNED, H AS BEEN INCURRED FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS. RELYING ON THIS JUDGMENT, THE DISA LLOWANCE MADE BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) IS DELETED AND GROUND NO.3 IN THE APPEAL O F THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 7. GROUND NO.3 IN THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS THAT THE LEA RNED CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF `96,283/-, MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF EXPENSES INCURRED ON TELEPHONE AND BUSINESS PROMOTION. THE SITUATION IS MORE OR LESS THE SAME AS IN RESPECT OF DISALLOWANCE FROM VEHICLE R UNNING AND MAINTENANCE EXPENSES. IN SO FAR AS THE COMPANY IS CONCERNED, THE EXPEN DITURE HAS BEEN INCURRED FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS. RELYING ON OUR AR GUMENTS IN RESPECT OF THAT GROUND, IT IS HELD THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) RIGHTLY DELETED THE DISALLOWANCE. 8. IN RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED AND THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. THIS ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 11-03-2011. 5198-5559-2010-GWEG 11 SD/- SD/- ( R.P. TOLANI ) ( K.G. BANSAL ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT ME MBER DT. 11/03/2011 NS COPY FORWARDED TO:- 1. M/S GREEN WOODS EXPORTS GLOBAL PVT. LTD., B-14, CHIRA G ENCLAVE, NEW DELHI. 2. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE-12 (1), NEW DELHI. 3. THE CIT (A), NEW DELHI. 4. THE DR, ITAT, LOKNAYAK BHAWAN, KHAN MARKET, NEW DELHI. TRUE COPY BY ORDER (ITAT, NEW DELHI).