Mrs. Anita Beri, New Delhi V. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 5889/DEL/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 135 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0305 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-03-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 28-02-2011
• Assessment Year: 1992-1993
• Appeal Filed On: 23-12-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B KISHORE
• Keywords: Business income
• Section: 271(1)(c)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : A : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI I.P. BANSAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.5889/DEL/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 1992-93 MRS. ANITA BERI, D-86, ANAND NIKETAN, NEW DELHI. PAN : AAFBP5464L VS. DCIT, CIR.24 (1), NEW DELHI. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI R.S. SINGHVI, CA REVENUE BY : SHRI B. KISHORE, SR. DR ORDER PER I.P. BANSAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. IT IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) DATED 22 ND OCTOBER, 2010 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1992-93. GROUNDS OF APPEAL READ AS UNDER:- 1. THAT THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED APPELLATE AUTHORITY IS ARBITRARY AND AGAINST LAW AND FACTS OF THE CASE. 2. THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPE ALS) XXII HAS ARBITRARILY AND AGAINST THE LAW AND FACTS OF THE CASE, CONFIRMED THE PENALTY OF RS.1,90,829/- ON ACCOU NT OF DISALLOWANCES OF PURCHASES AS LEVIED BY THE ASSESSIN G AUTHORITY. 3. THAT THE APPELLANT RESERVES ITS RIGHT TO WITHDRAW, ALTE R, AMEND, VARY AND MAKE FURTHER ADDITIONS TO GROUNDS OF APPEAL. ITA NO.5889/DEL/2010 2 2. A CONCEALMENT PENALTY OF ` 1,90,829/- HAS BEEN IM POSED UPON THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF INGENUINE PURCHASES AMOUNTING TO ` 3,40,766/-. THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT CASE APART FROM EARNING INCOME AS A SHARE OF PROFIT FROM A FIRM HAS ALSO SHOWN I NCOME FROM PROPRIETARY BUSINESS UNDER THE NAME AND STYLE OF M/S YOU NG FASHIONS AMOUNTING TO RS.15,257/-. TOTAL SALES WERE SHOWN AT ` 4,38,829/- AGAINST PURCHASES OF ` 4,13,798/-. DURING THE COURSE O F ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO EXPLAIN THE PUR CHASES AND SALES. IT WAS INFORMED THAT PURCHASES OF ` 4,13,798/- W ERE MADE FROM THE FOLLOWING THREE PARTIES:- NAME OF THE PARTY ADDRESSES AMOUNT (RS.) M/S HARKISHAN LAL & SONS SHORI CLOTH MKT., ROHTAK 124 001. 1,70,383.40 M/S M.J. SILK MILLS 786/20-21, GALI TELIAN, KATRA NEEL, CHANDNI CHOWK, DELHI 6. 1,70,383.40 M/S RAJESH TEXTILES 29, MANOHAR MKT., KATRA NEEL, CHANDNI CHOWK, DELHI. 73,031.50 3. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED THE SUMMONS TO THOSE PARTIES AND AS A RESULT OF THE INQUIRY, IT WAS FOUND TH AT AT THE ADDRESS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF M/S M.J. SILK MILLS, O NE SHRI S.K. ARORA APPEARED AND HE DENIED TO HAVE MADE ANY SALE T O THE ASSESSEE. IN RESPECT OF PURCHASES MADE FROM M/S HARKISHAN LAL & SO NS, ONE OF THE PARTNER SHRI ASHOK KUMAR APPEARED BEFORE THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER WHO STATED THAT HIS FIRM DID NOT HAVE ANY TRANSACTION WITH M/S YOUNG FASHIONS AND THEY DID NOT KNOW ANY PERSON NAMED AS MRS A NITA BERI. SALES WERE MADE TO M/S KRISHNA PRASAD & CO. IN RESPECT O F WHICH SOME BILLS WERE MARKED IN THE NAME OF M/S YOUNG FASHIONS AND THOSE BILLS WERE IDENTIFIED AS BILL NOS.3657, 3672, 3681, 3690 AN D 3703. IT WAS STATED THAT SHRI MEHRA, THE PARTNER OF M/S KRISHNA PRA SAD & CO. HAD ASKED TO MAKE THE CHANGES IN THE BILL IN THE NAME OF M/S YOUNG FASHIONS INSTEAD OF KRISHNA PRASAD & CO. AND ON QUERY OF THE ASSESSING ITA NO.5889/DEL/2010 3 OFFICER IT WAS STATED THAT THE CHANGES WERE MADE AS IT WAS TOLD BY SHRI MEHRA, THE PARTNER OF M/S KRISHNA PRASAD & CO. THAT M/ S YOUNG FASHIONS IS THEIR SISTER CONCERN AND THOSE BILLS WILL BE P AID BY THE SAID CONCERN. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO MADE INQUIRIES FROM THE FEDERAL BANK IN WHICH THE PAYMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE BY ACCOU NT PAYEE CHEQUES IN REGARD TO PURCHASES WERE DEBITED AND THE FO LLOWING INFORMATION WAS RECEIVED FROM THE BANK:- CHEQUE NO. DATE OF CHEQUE PAID BY US ON AMOUNT PAYEE COLLECTING BANK 808093 25.1.92 29.1.92 170383.40 HARKISHAN LAL & SONS PNB, GURUDWARA ROAD, KAROL BAGH 808099 14.2.92 17.2.92 73031.50 RAJESH TEXTILES ALL AHABAD BANK, CHANDNI CHOWK 808100 14.2.92 17.2.92 170383.40 M.J. SILK MILLS - DO - 4. FURTHER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED SUMMONS TO THE MAN AGER, ALLAHABAD BANK, CHANDNI CHOWK AND MANAGER, PNB, GUR UDWARA ROAD, KAROL BAGH, REQUIRING THEM TO SUBMIT THE RELEVANT EV IDENCES. THE PNB, GURUDWARA ROAD, KAROL BAGH, SUBMITTED THE INFORMATIO N REGARDING THE CONSTITUTION OF M/S HARKISHAN LAL & SONS AS UNDER:- 2. IT IS PARTNERSHIP FIRM CONSISTING THE FOLLOWING PAR TNERS:- 1. SH. HARKISHAN LAL 2. SH. VISHWAMITTER 3. SH. ASHOK KUMAR 4. SMT. SUSHMA DEVI 5. SH. JAGDISH CHANDER GULATI. 5. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT M/S HARKISHAN LAL & SONS, SORI MARKET, ROHTAK WAS MAINTAINING CURRENT A/C NO.6597. THE ALL AHABAD BANK SUBMITTED THAT M/S M.J. SILK MILLS A/C NO.106423 IS UND ER THE PROPRIETORSHIP OF SHRI ASHOK KHURANA, 866/13, POONAM CLOTH MARKET, DELHI. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SENT SUMMONS TO SHRI ASHOK KH URANA AT THE ADDRESS GIVEN TO THE BANK WHERE HE WAS OPERATING T HE BANK ACCOUNT AND LOCAL INQUIRIES REVEALED THAT THE SAID SH RI ASHOK KHURANA ITA NO.5889/DEL/2010 4 WAS BELONGING TO ROHTAK AND HE WAS EARLIER RUNNING TH E SHOP ABOUT FIVE YEARS BACK IN THE NAME OF M/S M.J. SILK MILLS AND SUCH INFORMATION WAS GIVEN BY THE PERSONS WHO WERE PRESENT AT THAT SHOP. HOWEVER, LATER ON, VIDE LETTER SENT ON 10 TH MAY, 1994 BY REGISTERED A/D SHRI ASHOK KHURANA STATED THAT HE HAD SOLD THE GOODS TO THE ASSESSEE COMPANY THE DETAILS OF WHICH WERE GIVEN IN THE SAID L ETTER AS UNDER:- BILL NO./DT. AMOUNT 1102 DT.9.10.91 38291/- 1126 DT.2.11.91 41580/- 1131 DT. 8.11.91 34361.25 1140 DT. 5.12.91 56156.20 TOTAL 170383.45 6. HE ALSO STATED THAT HE HAD RECEIVED THE PAYMENT TH ROUGH ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUE WHICH WAS DULY DEPOSITED IN THE AFOREMENTIONED BANK ACCOUNT MAINTAINED AND OWNED BY HIM. THE COPY OF THE SAID LETTER IS PLACED AT PAGES 39-40 OF TH E PAPER BOOK. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISBELIEVED THE SAID LETTER ISSUED BY SHR I ASHOK KHURANA AND PRESSED FOR THE PRODUCTION OF SHRI ASHOK K UMAR KHURANA AND THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PRODUCE HIM. THEREFORE, TAK ING INTO CONSIDERATION THE FACT THAT ONE SHRI S.K. ARORA OPER ATING FROM THE ADDRESS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE ALSO BEING THE PROPRIETOR OF M/S M.J. SILK MILLS, HAD DENIED ANY TRANSACTION BEING ENTERED INTO BY HIM WITH THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS COME TO THE CONCLUSION TH AT SUCH PURCHASE SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE WAS A BOGUS ONE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO TOOK NOTICE OF THE FACT THAT THE CONSIDE RATION RECEIVED BY SHRI ASHOK KHURANA AGAINST SALES MADE TO THE ASSESSEE WAS IMMEDIATELY WITHDRAWN FROM THE BANK ACCOUNT. THERE FORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE ASSESSEE R EMAINED UNABLE TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE PURCHASE AND, T HEREFORE, THE SALES WERE GENUINE. ITA NO.5889/DEL/2010 5 7. COMING TO THE PURCHASES MADE BY THE ASSESSEE FROM M/S HARKISHAN LAL & SONS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS OF THE OPIN ION THAT THOSE SALES WERE NOT MADE TO THE ASSESSEE AND SHRI ASHOK KUMAR, THE PARTNER OF M/S HARKISHAN LAL & SONS HAS CLEARLY STATED T HAT THOSE SALES WERE MADE ONLY TO M/S KRISHNA PRASAD & CO. AND, THEREF ORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISBELIEVED THOSE PURCHASES ALSO. THE DISA LLOWANCES SO MADE HAS BEEN UPHELD BY THE CIT (A) AS WELL AS BY TH E TRIBUNAL. 8. IN RESPONSE TO THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE AGAINST LEVY OF CONCEALMENT PENALTY, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT APPEAR BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. BEFORE LEARNED CIT (A), THE ASSESSEE PL EADED THAT ALL THE RELEVANT EVIDENCES WERE FILED BEFORE THE ASSESSING O FFICER AND THE ASSESSEE HAD DISCHARGED THE ONUS LAID UPON HER REGARDING THE GENUINENESS OF THE PURCHASES. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE PURCHASES WERE MADE THROUGH BILLS AND VOUCHERS, THE COPIES OF WH ICH WERE PRODUCED AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT. THE PAYMENTS WERE M ADE THROUGH ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES. THE BANK ACCOUNT AND OTHER PARTICULARS WERE MADE AVAILABLE. THE RELEVANT EVIDE NCES WERE FILED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE PURCHASES AND THE DISALLOWANCE HAS BEEN MADE MERELY ON CONJECTU RES AND SURMISES, WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS BROUGHT ON REC ORD BY THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, LEARNED CIT (A) HAS NOT RECORDED ANY FINDING ON THE FACTS STATED BY THE ASSESSEE AND BASED ON CASE LAW HE H AS UPHELD THE LEVY OF PENALTY. HE HAS ALSO RELIED UPON THE FAC T THAT THE CIT (A) AS WELL AS ITAT HAS CONFIRMED THE ADDITION. 9. AFTER NARRATING THE FACTS, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LEARNED AR THAT THE ONUS LAID UPON THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS O F THE PURCHASES WERE DISCHARGED. HE DREW OUR ATTENTION TO T HE EVIDENCE MADE AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND IT WAS CONTE NDED THAT WHEN THE SALES OF THE ASSESSEE HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED, THE PU RCHASES ITA NO.5889/DEL/2010 6 AGAINST WHICH THOSE SALES HAVING BEEN MADE CANNOT BE DO UBTED. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE PAYMENTS HAVE ALSO BEEN MADE THROUG H ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES WHICH HAVE DULY BEEN CREDITED TO THE ACCOUNT OF THE PERSONS FROM WHOM THE GOODS HAVE BEEN PURCHASED. HE SUB MITTED THAT WHEN THE FACTUM OF SALE HAS BEEN ACCEPTED, IF TH E PURCHASES ARE ADDED, THEN, IT WILL GIVE RISE TO ABNORMAL PROFIT AR ISING TO THE ASSESSEE WHICH WILL BE TO THE EXTENT OF 85%. RELYING UPON T HE DOCUMENTS PLACED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO SUPPORT THE GENUI NENESS OF THE PURCHASES, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY LEARNED AR THAT THE IMPU GNED PENALTY HAS WRONGLY BEEN CONFIRMED BY THE CIT (A) AND THE SA ME SHOULD BE DELETED. 10. ON THE OTHER HAND, LEARNED DR, RELYING UPON THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND CIT (A), PLEADED THAT THE ASSESSEE HA S REMAINED UNABLE TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF HER PURCHASES. THER EFORE, HE PLEADED THAT THE LEARNED CIT (A) HAS RIGHTLY CONFIRM ED THE PENALTY AND HIS ORDER SHOULD BE UPHELD. 11. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS I N THE LIGHT OF THE MATERIAL PLACED BEFORE US. SO FAR AS IT RELATES T O THE PURCHASES MADE BY THE ASSESSEE THROUGH M/S M.J. SILK MILLS, THOUGH THE ASSESSEE, IN THE DETAILS OF PURCHASES FURNISHED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER, STATED THE ADDRESS AS 786/20-21, GALI TELIAN, KATRA NEE L, CHANDNI CHOWK, DELHI 6, BUT THE INQUIRY MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER REVEALED THAT THE BANK ACCOUNT IN WHICH THE ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUE PAID BY THE ASSESSEE AS A CONSIDERATION OF PURCHASES HAD WE NT TO ACCOUNT NO.106423 WITH ALLAHABAD BANK, CHANDNI CHOW K, DELHI. THIS WAS THE INFORMATION SUPPLIED BY THE BANKER OF THE ASSESSE E. THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE INQUIRY FROM ALLAHABAD BANK ALSO AND IT WAS FOUND THAT M/S M.J. SILK MILLS HAVING ACCOUNT NO.1064 23 WAS UNDER THE PROPRIETORSHIP OF ONE SHRI ASHOK KHURANA, 866/13, POO NAM CLOTH ITA NO.5889/DEL/2010 7 MARKET, CHANDNI CHOWK, DELHI. THE ASSESSING OFFICER AL SO ISSUED SUMMONS TO THAT PARTY AND IN RESPONSE TO THOSE SUMMONS, HE ADMITTED THAT HE HAD BEEN CARRYING ON THE BUSINESS OF SALE AND PURCHASE AND HE HAD SOLD THE GOODS TO THE ASSESSEE. SUCH CONFIRMATION, AS ALREADY OBSERVED, IS PLACED AT PAGE 3 9-40 OF THE PAPER BOOK. THE BILL NOS. ALSO WERE GIVEN AND THE FA CT OF RECEIVING THE PAYMENT IS ALSO MENTIONED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS DISBE LIEVED SUCH EVIDENCE MAINLY ON THE BASIS THAT THE SAID SHRI ASH OK KHURANA WAS NOT PRODUCED. THUS, IT IS NOT A CLEAR CASE WHERE I T HAS BEEN CONCLUSIVELY ESTABLISHED THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT MAKE PU RCHASES FROM THE SAID PARTY. AS PER WELL ESTABLISHED LAW, THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND PENALTY PROCEEDINGS ARE DIFFERENT PRO CEEDINGS. IN ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WHILE MAKING DISALLOWANCE OF THE C LAIM, THE BURDEN LIES UPON THE ASSESSEE WHEREAS IN PENALTY PROCEEDI NGS THE BURDEN IS ON REVENUE. MOREOVER, THE LEVY OF PENALTY HAS TO BE SEEN IN THE LIGHT OF THE EXPLANATION (1) TO SECTION 271(1)( C) WHICH DESCRIBE THE CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH THE RELEVANT AMOUNT CAN BE DEEMED TO REPRESENT THE INCOME IN RESPECT OF WHICH PARTICULARS H AVE BEEN CONCEALED. SUCH PRESUMPTION WILL BE IN A CASE WHERE THE PERSON, UPON WHOM THE PENALTY IS SOUGHT TO BE LEVIED, FAILS TO OFFE R AN EXPLANATION OR OFFERS AN EXPLANATION WHICH IS FOUND BY THE ASSESSING OFF ICER TO BE FALSE OR IN A CASE WHERE SUCH PERSON OFFERS AN EXPLANATI ON WHICH HE IS NOT ABLE TO SUBSTANTIATE AND FAILS TO PROVE THAT SUCH E XPLANATION IS BONA FIDE AND THAT ALL THE FACTS RELATING TO THE SAME AND MATERIAL TO THE COMPUTATION OF HIS TOTAL INCOME HAVE BEEN DISCLOSED BY HIM. IT IS A CASE WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAS OFFERED AN EXPLANATION THAT SH E HAS MADE THE PURCHASES FROM THE AFOREMENTIONED PARTIES AND TO SU BSTANTIATE THAT EXPLANATION THE RELEVANT EVIDENCES WERE ALSO PRO DUCED. THE PAYMENTS WERE MADE THROUGH ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES WHIC H HAVE BEEN FOUND TO BE CREDITED IN THE RESPECTIVE ACCOUNT OF THE PARTIES FROM WHOM THE PURCHASES HAVE BEEN MADE. MERELY ON THE BASI S OF ITA NO.5889/DEL/2010 8 STATEMENT OF ONE PERSON, NAMELY, SHRI S.K. ARORA WHO IS ALSO A PROPRIETOR OF M/S M.J. SILK MILLS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS DISBELIEVED THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE. HERE IT HAS BEEN THE C ASE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT HE HAS NEVER BEEN CONFRONTED TO THE STATEME NTS MADE BY THE SAID SHRI S.K. ARORA AND HE WAS NOT MADE AVAIL ABLE FOR CROSS EXAMINATION. THUS, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE EXPLAN ATION OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN FOUND TO BE FALSE, BUT IT IS A CASE OF ME RE SUSPICION. THEREFORE, IN OUR OPINION, DEEMING FICTION DOES NOT APPLIED TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND, ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSEE IS NOT LIABLE FOR CONCEALMENT PENALTY. 12. NOW, COMING TO THE PURCHASES MADE BY THE ASSESSEE FRO M M/S HARKISHAN LAL & SONS, HERE ALSO THE PARTNER OF THE SAID CONCERN HAS CLEARLY STATED THAT THE BILLS OF THOSE GOODS WERE ASKED TO BE MADE IN THE NAME OF M/S YOUNG FASHIONS. THE BILL NOS. WERE ALSO IDENTIFIED. THOSE BILLS WERE IN THE NAME OF M/S KRISHNA PRASAD & CO. THE PAYMENT HAS BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE PURCHASES SHOWN TO BE MADE. AT PAGE 66 OF THE PAPER BOOK THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO ENCLOSED THE CERTIFICATE GIVEN BY M/S KRISHNA PRASAD & CO. DESCR IBING THE SAME BILL NOS. AND IT HAS BEEN CERTIFIED THAT THOSE BILLS WE RE NEVER ENTERED IN THEIR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND THEY HAVE NOT MADE ANY PA YMENTS IN REGARD TO THOSE PURCHASES. IN THE SAID CERTIFICATE, PE RMANENT ACCOUNT NO. HAS ALSO BEEN GIVEN. THE COPY OF STATEMENT OF SHR I ASHOK KUMAR, THE PARTNER OF M/S HARKISHAN LAL & SONS IS PLACED AT PA GE 50-52 OF THE PAPER BOOK. IN THE SAID STATEMENT ALSO HE HAS IDENTIFI ED THE BILL NOS. AND HAS STATED CATEGORICALLY THAT SHRI MEHRA TOLD ME THAT M/S YOUNG FASHIONS WAS THEIR SISTER CONCERN AND FOR THESE BILLS WOUL D BE PAID BY THEM. I RECEIVED A CHEQUE FOR PAYMENT FROM M/S YOUN G FASHIONS. THIS CHEQUE WAS GIVEN TO ME BY SHRI MEHRA. IF IT IS SO, THEN, THE PAYMENT HAS BEEN MADE BY M/S YOUNG FASHIONS AND AGAINST THESE PUR CHASES THE SALES HAVE BEEN MADE. THEREFORE, IT IS ALSO A CASE WHERE IT CANNOT ITA NO.5889/DEL/2010 9 BE SAID THAT THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN FOU ND TO BE FALSE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THEREFORE, FOR THIS PURCHASE A LSO EXPLANATION 1 TO SECTION 271(1)(C) WILL NOT BE ATTRACTED. 13. IN VIEW OF ABOVE DISCUSSION, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT LEVY OF CONCEALMENT PENALTY IN REGARD TO AFOREMENTIONED PUR CHASES IS UNJUSTIFIED AND IS LIABLE TO BE DELETED. ACCORDINGLY DELETED. 14. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AL LOWED. THE ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 04.03.201 1. SD/- SD/- [A.K GARODIA] [I.P. BANSAL] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED, 04.03.2011. DK COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER, DEPUTY REGISTRAR, ITAT, DELHI BENCHES ITA NO.5889/DEL/2010 10 DATE OF DICTATION 28.02.2011. DATE OF PRESENTATION OF THE DRAFT ORDER TO THE MEMBER 01.03.2011 DATE OF RETURN FROM THE BENCH AFTER PRONOUNCEMENT &SIGNING DATE OF DISPATCH OF THE ORDER TO THE BENCH