HT Music & Entertainment Co. Ltd., New Delhi V. CIT, New Delhi

ITA 5741/DEL/2011

• Counselvise Citation: 574120114 RSA 2011
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-04-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 01-03-2012
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 23-12-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RIS GILL
• Keywords: Depreciation
• Section: 143(3); 142(1); 263

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH C NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI G.D. AGRAWAL, HONBLE PRESIDENT AND SHR I RAJPAL YADAV: HONBLE JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 5741/DEL/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 HT MUSIC & ENTERTAINMENT CO. LTD., VS. COMMISSIONE R OF IT, 18-20, K.G. MARG, CIRCLE 12(1), NEW DELHI-1100 01 NEW DELHI-1100 01 (PAN: AABCH6177R) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SHRI VP GUPTA, ADV. RESPONDENT BY: SHRI RIS GILL, CI T(DR) DATE OF HEARING : 01.03.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 13.04.2012 ORDER PER RAJPAL YADAV: JUDICIAL MEMBER THE PRESENT APPEAL IS DIRECTED AT THE INSTANCE OF ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF LEARNED COMMISSIONER DATED 31.10.2011 PASS ED UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 -08. THE GROUNDS OF APPEALS TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE ARE NOT IN CONSONANCE WITH RULE 8 OF THE ITAT'S RULES, THEY ARE DESCRIPTIVE AND ARGUMENTATIV E IN NATURE. IN BRIEF, THE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT LEARNED COMMISSIO NER HAS ERRED IN TAKING COGNIZANCE UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 AND THEREBY SETTING ASIDE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 03.12.2009 PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT AND DIRECTING THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER TO CONDUCT A FRESH 2 INQUIRY ON THE ISSUE OF CLAIM OF ADVERTISEMENT, PUB LICITY AND SALES PROMOTION EXPENSES AS REVENUE EXPENSES. 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSE E IS A COMPANY INCORPORATED ON 28 TH OCTOBER, 2005. IT IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF PROVIDING ENTERTAINMENT, RADIO BROADCASTING AND ALL OTHER RELATED ACTIVITIES THROUGH ITS RADIO STATION OPERATING TO THE BRAND NA ME FEVER 104 IN INDIA. IT HAS FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON IST OF NOVEMBER, 2007 DECLARING LOSS OF RS.27,66,87,152. THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS SELEC TED FOR SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT AND A NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED ON 16 TH SEPTEMBER, 2008. ASSESSING OFFICER HAS PASSED AN AS SESSMENT ORDER ON 3 RD OF DECEMBER, 2009. ON AN ANALYSIS OF THE ASSESSMENT RE CORD, LEARNED COMMISSIONER FORMED AN OPINION THAT ASSESSEE COMPAN Y HAD INCURRED A SUM OF RS.9,51,23,079 ON ACCOUNT OF ADVERTISEMENT, PUBL ICITY AND SALES PROMOTION EXPENSES. THESE EXPENSES HAVE BEEN INCUR RED IN FIRST FEW MONTHS OF THE OPERATION OF THE COMPANY. ACCORDING TO THE L EARNED COMMISSIONER, THE EXPENSES WOULD PROVIDE ENDURING BENEFIT TO THE ASSESSEE AND, THEREFORE, THEY SHOULD HAVE BEEN CAPITALIZED AND ASSESSEE WOUL D GET DEPRECIATION @ 25% AMOUNTING TO RS.2,37,80,770 AND REST OF THE AMO UNT OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN ADDED BACK TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. IN HIS OP INION, ACTION OF THE 3 ASSESSING OFFICER IN ALLOWING ALL THE EXPENSES AS A REVENUE EXPENSES IS ERRONEOUS WHICH IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF R EVENUE. APART FROM THIS ONE ISSUE, LEARNED COMMISSIONER HAS TAKEN UP TWO MORE I SSUES IN THE SHOW- CAUSE NOTICE, HOWEVER, IN FINAL OUTCOME OF THE 263 ORDER, HE ACCEPTED THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE AND DID NOT DISTURB THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THEREFORE, WE DO NOT DEEM IT NECESSARY TO REFER THO SE TWO ISSUES. 3. IN RESPONSE TO THE SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE, IT WAS CON TENDED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HAS CALLED FOR INFOR MATION FROM THE ASSESSEE VIDE A QUESTIONNAIRE DATED 06.11.2009 ISSUED UNDER SEC. 142(1) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE LEARNED C OMMISSIONER THE SHOW- CAUSE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICE R. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER CONTENDED THAT IT HAS SUBMITTED THE COMPLETE DETAIL S OF THE EXPENSES INCURRED ON ADVERTISEMENT, PUBLICITY AND SALES PROMOTION, TH OUGH THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT MADE ELABORATE DISCUSSION BUT IN A WAY HE HAS APPLIED HIS MIND AND ACCEPTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. LEARNE D COMMISSIONER HAS NO JURISDICTION UNDER SEC. 263 OF THE ACT TO SET ASIDE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND SUBSTITUTE HIS VIEW POINT. LEARNED COMMISSIONER HAS REPRODUCED THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER. HE THEREAFTER, OBSERVED THAT ON AN EXAMINATION OF THE DETAIL, IT REVEALED T HAT CERTAIN EXPENSES ARE ON 4 ACCOUNT OF PURCHASE OF PROMOTIONAL ITEMS, PAYMENT O F RETAINERSHIP FOR MARKETING ACTIVITY, PURCHASING OF MARKETING COUPONS AND BOOKLET ETC. THESE EXPENSES HAVE PROVIDED ENDURING BENEFIT TO THE ASSE SSEE AND, THEREFORE, ALL SUCH EXPENSES CANNOT BE SAID TO BE REVENUE IN NATUR E. ACCORDINGLY, HE SET ASIDE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, REMITTED THE ISSUE TO T HE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FRESH EXAMINATION. 4. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE WHILE IMPUG NING THE ORDER OF LEARNED COMMISSIONER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING O FFICER HAS CONDUCTED A PROPER INQUIRY, THOUGH DISCUSSION SPECIFICALLY IS N OT DISCERNIBLE IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. HE TOOK US THROUGH THE QUESTIONNA IRE AVAILABLE ON PAGE 41 OF THE PAPER BOOK. IN RESPONSE TO THIS QUESTIONNAI RE, ASSESSEE HAS FILED A DETAILED SUBMISSIONS. ACCORDING TO THE LEARNED COUN SEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ADOPTED ONE OF THE VIEW AVAIL ABLE IN LAW. IF HIS VIEW POINT DID NOT MATCH WITH THE VIEW OF LEARNED COMMIS SIONER THEN IT CANNOT AUTHORIZE THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER TO ASSUME JURISD ICTION UNDER SEC. 263 OF THE ACT. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FU RTHER SUBMITTED THAT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. CITI FINANCIAL CONSUMER FIN LTD. RE PORTED IN 335 ITR 29, HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT HAS OBSERVED THAT EXPENDIT URE ON PUBLICITY AND ADVERTISEMENT IS TO BE TREATED AS REVENUE IN NATURE . IT IS ALLOWABLE FULL IN THE 5 YEAR IN WHICH IT WAS INCURRED. HE ALSO DREW OUR ATT ENTION TOWARDS THE DECISION OF HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SALORA INTERNATIONAL LTD. REPORTED IN 308 ITR 194 WHEREIN HON'BLE HIGH COURT TOOK THE SIMILAR VIEW. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSES SEE THEREAFTER RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF HON'BLE HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF C IT VS. MONTO MOTORS RENDERED IN ITA NO. 978/DEL/2011. HE PLACED ON RECO RD COPY OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURTS DECISION AT PAGES 25 TO 28 OF THE PAPE R BOOK. THE ISSUE BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT WAS WHETHER EXPENSES INCURRE D TOWARDS ADVERTISEMENT WOULD BE TREATED AS CAPITAL NATURE AS SUCH EXPENSES GIVES ENDURING BENEFIT TO THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE. T HE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SPECIFICALLY DREW OUR ATTENTION TOWARDS TH E FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS FROM THE JUDGMENT: ADVERTISEMENTS AND SALES PROMOTION ARE CONDUCTED T O INCREASE SALE AND THEIR IMPACT IS LIMITED AND FELT FOR A SHORT DU RATION. NO PERMANENT CHARACTER OR ADVANTAGE IS ACHIEVED AND IS PALPABLE, UNLESS SPECIAL OR SPECIFIC FACTORS ARE BROUGHT ON RECORD. EXPENSES FO R ADVERTISING CONSUMER PRODUCTS GENERALLY ARE A PART OF THE PROCE SS OF PROFIT EARNING AND NOT IN THE NATURE OF CAPITAL OUTLAY. THE EXPENS ES IN THE PRESENT CASE WERE NOT INCURRED ONCE AND FOR ALL, BUT WERE A PERIODICAL EXPENSES WHICH HAD TO BE INCURRED CONTINUOUSLY IN V IEW OF THE NATURE OF THE BUSINESS. IT WAS AN ONGOING EXPENSE. GIVEN T HE FACTUAL MATRIX, IT IS DIFFICULT TO HOLD THAT THE EXPENSES WERE INCU RRED FOR SETTING THE PROFIT EARNING MACHINERY IN MOTION OR NOT FOR EARNI NG PROFITS. 6 5. ON THE STRENGTH OF THIS JUDGMENT, HE POINTED OUT THAT LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TAKEN ONE OF THE POSSIBLE VIE W, AND ON SUCH DEBATABLE ISSUE, LEARNED COMMISSIONER OUGHT TO HAVE NOT TAKEN COGNIZANCE UNDER SEC. 263 OF THE ACT. IN SUPPORT OF HIS PROPOSITION, HE R ELIED UPON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS: 1. CIT VS. ANIL KUMAR SHARMA (2011) 335 ITR 83 2. RAJIV AGNIHOTRI VS. CIT (2009) 125 TTJ 428 (DEL.) 3. AHALYA TRADING (P) LTD. VS. CIT (2008) 22 SOT 68 (M UM.) 6. ON THE OTHER HAND, LEARNED DR RELIED UPON THE OR DER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER. HE POINTED OUT THAT LEARNED COMMISSIO NER MADE ANALYSIS OF THE DETAILS OF EXPENDITURE AND, THEREAFTER ARRIVED AT A CONCLUSION THAT SOME OF THE EXPENSES ARE OF A CAPITAL NATURE AND ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT MADE PROPER ANALYSES OF ALL THESE DETAILS. LEARNED COMMI SSIONER HAS JUST SET ASIDE THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR REVERIFICATION. HE ALSO RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN TH E CASE OF GEE VEE ENTERPRISES REPORTED IN 99 ITR 373 WHEREIN HON'BLE HIGH COURT HAS PROPOUND THE ROLE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER REQUIRED TO BE PLAYED. 7 7. WE HAVE DULY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AN D GONE THROUGH THE RECORD CAREFULLY. WE DO NOT DEEM IT NECESSARY TO R ECITE AND RECAPITULATE ALL THE DECISIONS ON THE LEGAL ASPECT AS TO HOW THE ORD ER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER PASSED UNDER SEC. 263 IS TO BE JUDGED. THE ITAT IN THE CASE OF MRS. KHATIZA S. OOMERBHOY VS. ITO,MUMBAI, 101 T TJ 1095, HAS ANALYZED IN DETAIL VARIOUS AUTHORITATIVE PRONOUNC EMENTS INCLUDING THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF MA LABAR INDUSTRIES 243 ITR 83 AS WELL AS HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT RENDER ED IN THE CASE OF GABRIEL INDIA LTD. REPORTED IN 203 ITR 108 AND HAS PROPOUNDED THE FOLLOWING BROADER PRINCIPLE TO JUDGE THE ACTION OF CIT TAKEN UNDER SECTION 263. (I) THE CIT MUST RECORD SATISFACTION THAT THE ORD ER OF THE A.O IS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. BO TH THE CONDITIONS MUST BE FULFILLED. (II) SEC. 263 CANNOT BE INVOKED TO CORRECT EACH AN D EVERY TYPE OF MISTAKE OR ERROR COMMITTED BY THE A,O AND IT WAS ONLY WHEN AN ORDER IS ERRONEOUS THAT THE SECTION WILL BE ATTRACTED. (III) AN INCORRECT ASSUMPTION OF FACTS OR AN INCOR RECT APPLICATION OF LAW WILL SUFFICE THE REQUIREMENT OF ORDER BEING ERRONEOUS. (IV) IF THE ORDER IS PASSED WITHOUT APPLICATION O F MIND, SUCH ORDER WILL FALL UNDER THE CATEGORY OF ERRONEOUS ORDER. (V) EVERY LOSS OF REVENUE CANNOT BE TREATED AS PRE JUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE AND IF THE A.O HAS ADOPTED ONE OF TH E COURSES PERMISSIBLE UNDER LAW OR WHERE TWO VIEWS ARE POSSIBLE AND THE A.O HAS TAKEN ONE VIEW WITH WHICH THE CIT DOES NOT AGREE, IT CANNOT B E TREATED AS AN ERRONEOUS ORDER, UNLESS THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE A.O I S UNSUSTAINABLE UNDER LAW. 8 (VI) IF WHILE MAKING THE ASSESSMENT, THE A.O EXAMI NES THE ACCOUNTS, MAKES ENQUIRIES, APPLIES HIS MIND TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND DETERMINE THE INCOME, THE CIT, WHILE EXERC ISING HIS POWER UNDER S. 263 IS NOT PERMITTED TO SUBSTITUTE HIS ESTIMATE OF INCOME IN PLACE OF THE INCOME ESTIMATED BY THE A.O. (VII) THE A.O EXERCISES QUASI-JUDICIAL POWER VEST ED IN HIS AND IF HE EXERCISES SUCH POWER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND ARR IVES AT A CONCLUSION, SUCH CONCLUSION CANNOT BE TERMED TO BE ERRONEOUS SI MPLY BECAUSE THE CIT DOES NOT FEEL SATISFIED WITH THE CONCLUSION. (VIII) THE CIT, BEFORE EXERCISING HIS JURISDICTION UNDER S. 263 MUST HAVE MATERIAL ON RECORD TO ARRIVE AT A SATISFACTION. (IX) IF THE A.O HAS MADE ENQUIRIES DURING THE COU RSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ON THE RELEVANT ISSUES AND THE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN D ETAILED EXPLANATION BY A LETTER IN WRITING AND THE A.O ALLOWS THE CLAIM ON BEING SATIS FIED WITH THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE, THE DECISION OF THE A.O CANNOT BE HEL D TO BE ERRONEOUS SIMPLY BECAUSE IN HIS ORDER HE DOES NOT MAKE AN ELABORATE DISCUSSION IN THAT REGARD. 8. APART FROM THE ABOVE, WE DEEM IT APPROPRIATE TO MAKE A REFERENCE OF THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF VEE GEE ENTERPRISES REPORTED IN 99 ITR 373 WHEREIN HON'BLE HI GH COURT HAS EXPOUNDED THE APPROACH OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHI LE PASSING ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT RE AD AS UNDER:- IT IS NOT NECESSARY FOR THE COMMISSIONER TO MAKE F URTHER INQUIRIES BEFORE CANCELING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER OF THE INCOME-TAX OF FICER. THE COMMISSIONER CAN REGARD THE ORDER AS ERRONEOUS ON THE GROUND THAT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER SHOULD HAVE MADE FURTHER INQ UIRIES BEFORE ACCEPTING THE STATEMENTS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN HIS RETURN. THE REASON IS OBVIOUS. THE POSITION AND FUNCTION OF THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER IS VERY DIFF ERENT FROM THAT OF A CIVIL COURT. THE STATEMENT MADE IN A PLEADING PROVED BY THE MINI MUM AMOUNT OF EVIDENCE MAY BE ADOPTED BY A CIVIL COURT IN THE ABSENCE OF A NY REBUTTAL. THE CIVIL COURT IS NEUTRAL. IT SIMPLY GIVES DECISION ON THE BASIS OF T HE PLEADING AND EVIDENCE WHICH COMES BEFORE IT. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER IS NOT ONLY AN ADJUDICATOR BUT ALSO AN INVESTIGATOR. HE CANNOT REMAIN PASSIVE IN THE FACE OF THE RETURN WHICH IS APPARENTLY IN ORDER BUT CALLS FOR FURTHER INQUIRY. IT IS HIS DUTY TO ASCERTAIN THE TRUTH 9 OF THE FACTS STATED IN THE RETURN WHEN THE CIRCUMST ANCES OF THE CASE ARE SUCH AS TO PROVOKE AN INQUIRY. IT IS BECAUSE IT IS INCUMBENT O N THE ITO TO FURTHER INVESTIGATE THE FACTS STATED IN THE RETURN WHEN CIRCUMSTANCES W OULD MADE SUCH AN INQUIRY PRUDENT THAT THE WORD ERRONEOUS IN SECTION 263 IN CLUDES THE FAILURE TO MAKE SUCH AN ENQUIRY. THE ORDER BECOMES ERRONEOUS BECAUSE SUC H AN INQUIRY HAS NOT BEEN MADE AND NOT BECAUSE THERE IS ANYTHING WRONG WITH T HE ORDER IF ALL THE FACTS STATED THEREIN ARE ASSUMED TO BE CORRECT. 9. IN THE LIGHT OF ABOVE BROAD TESTS, LET US EXAMIN E THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. IN THE QUESTIONNAIRE DATED 06.11.2009, LEARNE D ASSESSING OFFICER HAS CALLED FOR THE FOLLOWING DETAILS FROM THE ASSESSEE AMONGST OTHERS: TO THE PRINCIPAL OFFICER, M/S. H.T. MUSIC & ENTERTAINMENT CO. LTD. 18-20, KASTURBA GANDHI MARG, NEW DELHI-1100 01 SIR/MADAM, SUB: INFORMATION REQUIRED U/S. 142(1) OF THE I.T. ACT APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS FOR THE A.Y. 2007-0 8 YOU ARE REQUIRED TO FURNISH THE FOLLOWING INFORMATI ON W.R.T. ONGOING SCRUTINY PROCEEDINGS IN YOUR CASE FOR A.Y. 2007-08. X X X X X X X X 2) PLEASE FILE DETAIL OF ADVERTISEMENT AND SALES PROMO TION 10 PARTY-WISE AND TDSA THEREON ALONG WITH PROOF OF TD S DEPOSIT. X X X X X X X X X SD/- (SANJIV KUMAR) DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF I.T. CIRCLE 12(1), NEW DELHI 10. THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED A REPLY ON 12.11.200 9. ALONG WITH THIS REPLY, IT HAS SUBMITTED THE DETAILS OF ALL THE EXPE NDITURE IN A TABULAR FORM. ASSESSING OFFICER HAS GONE THROUGH ALL THESE DETAIL S. HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF MONTO MOTORS, SALORA INTERNATI ONAL AND CITI FINANCIAL CONSUMER (SUPRA) HAS OBSERVED THAT EXPENDITURE ON P UBLICITY AND ADVERTISEMENT IS TO BE TREATED AS REVENUE IN NATURE . IT WOULD ALLOWABLE IN THE YEAR IN WHICH IT WAS INCURRED. IF THAT BE SO, THEN ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TAKEN ONE OF THE POSSIBLE VIEW. THIS VIEW MAY NOT MATCH W ITH THE VIEW OF LEARNED COMMISSIONER BUT THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT ASSESSMENT ORDER IS ERRONEOUS. ASSESSING OFFICER HAS CONDUCTED AN INQUIRY THOUGH H E HAS NOT DISCUSSED THE ISSUE IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER BUT FROM THE RECORD, IT IS DISCERNIBLE THAT HE HAS CALLED FOR INFORMATION. ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THE INFORMATION AND AFTER ANALYZING ALL THOSE INFORMATION HE HAS ACCEPTED THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE. LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) NOWHERE CONCLUSIVELY HELD AS T O HOW THESE EXPENSES 11 ARE TO BE TREATED AS CAPITAL NATURE. HE MERELY SET ASIDE THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER. THEREFORE, IN OUR OP INION, THE ORDER OF LEARNED COMMISSIONER IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN THE EYES OF LAW. IT IS SET ASIDE. CONSEQUENTLY, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED . DECISION PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 13.04.201 2 SD/- SD/- ( G.D. AGRAWAL ) ( RAJPAL YADAV ) VICE-PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 13/04/2012 MOHAN LAL COPY FORWARDED TO: 1) APPELLANT 2) RESPONDENT 3) CIT 4) CIT(APPEALS) 5) DR:ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR