The DCIT, 3(1), V. M/s Venkatesh Brewries Ltd.,

ITA 862/IND/2004

• Counselvise Citation: [2009] 115 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1415 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 year(s) 1 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-11-2009
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 09-11-2009
• Assessment Year: 1998-1999
• Appeal Filed On: 09-10-2004
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: T K SHAH
• Assessee Lawyers: S S MUNDRA
• Keywords: Revenue expenditure
• Section: 43B; 143(3)

Judgement Text

PAGE 1 OF 11 -I.T.A.NO. 862/IND/2004- M/S. VENKATE SH BEVERAGES LIMITED, BHOPAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH : INDORE BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI V.K. GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PAN NO. : N.A. I.T.A.NO.862/IND/2004 A.Y. : 1998-99 DY. CIT, M/S.VENKATESH BEVARAGES LIMITED, 3(1), VS E-3/41, ARERA COLONY, BHOPAL. BHOPAL APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SHRI T.K.SHAH, CIT DR RESPONDENT BY : SHRI S.S.MUNDRA, C. A. DATE OF HEARING : 09/11/2009 O R D E R PER V.K. GUPTA, A.M. THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARISES OUT O F ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A)-II, BHOPAL, DATED 28.07.2004, FOR THE ASSES SMENT YEAR 1998-99. 2. GROUND NO. 1 READS AS UNDER :- ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 12 ,00,000/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 43B OF THE INCOME -TAX ACT, 1961. PAGE 2 OF 11 -I.T.A.NO. 862/IND/2004- M/S. VENKATE SH BEVERAGES LIMITED, BHOPAL 3. THE FACTS, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT THE A.O. MADE A DISAL LOWANCE OF RS. 25,95,158/- OUT OF INTEREST ON TERM LOAN U/S 43B OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961, FOR THE REASON THAT NO EVIDENCE OF PAYMENT IN SUPPORT OF PAYMENT THEREOF HAD BEEN FILED EITHER WITH THE RETURN OF IN COME OR IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. AGGRIEVED BY THIS, THE ASSE SSEE APPROACHED THE LD. CIT(A), WHEREIN THE DETAILS REGARDING SUCH INTE REST WERE FILED, WHICH REVEALED THAT SUCH PROVISION REPRESENTED THE AMOUNT OF INTEREST PAYABLE IN RESPECT OF ASSESSMENT YEAR 1997-98, WHICH HAD REMAI NED UNPAID AND NOT CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE, ACCORDINGLY, IN THAT ASSES SMENT YEAR. IT WAS ALSO REVEALED THAT SUM OF RS. 12 LAKHS HAD BEEN PAID ON 28.3.1998. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE LD. CIT(A) ALLOWED THE DEDUCTION OF RS. 12 LAKHS ON THE BASIS OF ACTUAL PAYMENT AND CONFIRMED THE DISAL LOWANCE TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 13,95,158/-. AGGRIEVED BY THIS, THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 4. THE LD. DR NARRATED THE FACTS AND PLACED RELIANCE O N THE ORDER OF THE AO. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, ON THE OT HER HAND, PLACED STRONG RELIANCE ON THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). 5. ON DUE CONSIDERATION OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY ALLOWED THE DE DUCTION OF RS. 12 LAKHS ON THE BASIS OF ACTUAL PAYMENTS AFTER VERIFYI NG THE FACTS AND EVIDENCES THEREOF. THUS, THIS GROUND OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. PAGE 3 OF 11 -I.T.A.NO. 862/IND/2004- M/S. VENKATE SH BEVERAGES LIMITED, BHOPAL 6. IN GROUND NOS. 2 & 3, THE REVENUE IS AGGRIEVED BY T HE DELETION OF DISALLOWANCES BY THE LD. CIT(A) OUT OF CONVEYANC E EXPENSES AND TELEPHONE EXPENSES MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON AD HOC BASIS. 7. THE LD. DR NARRATED THE FACTS AND PLACED RELIANCE O N THE ORDER OF THE AO. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, ON THE OT HER HAND, PLACED STRONG RELIANCE ON THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). 8. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY BOTH THE SIDES, MATERIAL ON RECORD AND THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIE S BELOW. WE FIND THAT THE A.O. MADE THE DISALLOWANCE OUT OF THESE EXPENSE S ON ACCOUNT OF PERSONAL USE AND IT IS A CASE OF COMPANY. HENCE, NO DISALLOWANCE CAN BE MADE ON THIS BASIS AND, ACCORDINGLY, WE CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). THUS, BOTH THESE GROUNDS OF THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. 9. IN RESPECT OF ISSUE RAISED IN GROUND NO.4, THE LEAR NED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, AT THE VERY OUT-SET, SUBMITTED TH AT PAYMENT OF P.F. & E.S.I. AMOUNTING TO RS. 70,226/- MADE BEEN MADE WIT HIN GRACE PERIOD. HENCE, ALLOWABLE U/S 43-B, WHICH WAS DONE BY THE CI T(A). 10. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE COULD NOT CO NTROVERT THE CLAIMS OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. HOW EVER, SHE PREFERRED TO RELY ON THE ORDER OF THE A.O. 11. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY BOTH THE SIDES, MATERIAL ON RECORD AND THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIE S BELOW. PAGE 4 OF 11 -I.T.A.NO. 862/IND/2004- M/S. VENKATE SH BEVERAGES LIMITED, BHOPAL 12. IT IS NOTED THAT THE IMPUGNED PAYMENTS HAVE BEEN MA DE WITHIN THE GRACE PERIOD ALLOWED IN TERMS OF PROVISIONS OF RESPECTIVE STATUTE. HENCE, WE HOLD THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY DELE TED THIS ADDITION. ACCORDINGLY, GROUND NO.4 OF THE REVENUES APPEAL IS ALSO DISMISSED. 13. IN GROUND NO.5, THE REVENUE IS AGGRIEVED BY THE DE CISION OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASS ESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF UN-VERIFIABLE GOODS DESTROYED. 14. THE FACTS, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THE LOSS OF RS. 1,38,486/- UNDER THE HEAD GOODS DESTROYED ON ACCO UNT OF LEAKAGE/TRANSIT DAMAGE ETC. THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED THE COPY OF ACCOUNT ALSO. THE A.O., HOWEVER, HELD THAT THERE WAS NO SUC H LOSS IN THE EARLIER YEARS AND FURTHER NO EVIDENCE HAD BEEN FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE IN SUPPORT OF ITS SUCH CLAIM. HENCE, HE DISALLOWED THE SAME AND ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. AGGRIEVED BY THIS, TH E ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), WHEREIN LEDGER ACCOUN T FOR GOODS DESTROYED ALONGWITH PAGE NO., DATE ETC. TOGETHER WI TH NATURE OF DAMAGE MENTIONED IN THE DAMAGED STOCK CLAIMS WERE FILED. T HE LD. CIT(A) FOUND THAT SUCH DETAILS EXPLAINED THE NATURE OF DAMAGED S TOCK AS WELL AS QUANTUM OF THE CLAIM. HENCE, HE DELETED THE IMPUGNE D ADDITION. STILL AGGRIEVED BY THIS, THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. PAGE 5 OF 11 -I.T.A.NO. 862/IND/2004- M/S. VENKATE SH BEVERAGES LIMITED, BHOPAL 15. THE LD. DR NARRATED THE FACTS AND PLACED RELIANCE O N THE ORDER OF THE AO. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, ON THE OT HER HAND, PLACED STRONG RELIANCE ON THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). 16. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY BOTH THE SIDES, MATERIAL ON RECORD AND THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIE S BELOW. 17. IT IS NOTED THAT THE A.O. MAINLY DISALLOWED THIS CL AIM IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT NO SUCH CLAIM HAD BEEN MADE IN THE PA ST, WHICH, IN OUR OPINION, CANNOT BE A PROPER BASIS FOR MAKING SUCH D ISALLOWANCE AND RATHER, THIS FACT SUPPORTS THE GENUINENESS OF THE C LAIM MADE BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE REASON THAT IT LEAD TO AN INFERENC E THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE SUCH CLAIM ONLY WHEN IT HAS ACTUALLY SUFFERED SUCH LOSS. FURTHER, THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES HAVE ALSO BEEN SUBMITTED BEFO RE THE CIT(A), WHO HAS ACCEPTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AFTER APPRAI SING THEM. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, WE HOLD THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS RIGH TLY DELETED THE IMPUGNED ADDITION. THUS, THIS GROUND OF THE REVENUE IS ALSO DISMISSED. 18. IN GROUND NO.6, THE REVENUE IS AGGRIEVED BY THE DE CISION OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 22,55,12 2/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF OUT OF BOOK SALES. 19. THE FACTS, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT THE A.O. ON THE BASIS OF PROCEEDINGS FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1996-97, HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE S BOOKS WERE NOT CORRECT AND, HENCE, REJECTED. HE FURTHER HELD THAT M/S. HINDUSTAN PAGE 6 OF 11 -I.T.A.NO. 862/IND/2004- M/S. VENKATE SH BEVERAGES LIMITED, BHOPAL PACKAGING COMPANY LIMITED FROM WHOM THE ASSESSEE HA D CLAIMED PURCHASES OF PAPERS DID NOT REPLY TO THE QUERY MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOR CONFIRMED THE PURCHASES, HENCE, DRAWING SUPPORT FROM THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1996-97, HE HELD THAT 10 % OF THE T OTAL SALES WERE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE OUT OF BOOKS AND MADE AN ADDITION O F RS. 22,55,121/- BY APPLYING A GROSS PROFIT RATE OF 30% ON SUCH SALES. AGGRIEVED BY THIS, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), WHEREIN THE DETAILED SUBMISSIONS WERE MADE. THE LD. CIT(A), AGREEING WIT H SUCH SUBMISSIONS, DELETED THE ADDITION. THE RELEVANT FIN DINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) ARE AS UNDER :- THE AR HAS CONTENDED FORCEFULLY THAT THE A.O.S FI NDINGS ARE WHOLLY WRONG AND OPPOSED TO FACTS. IT IS A SETT LED LAW THAT EACH ASSESSMENT YEAR IS SEPARATE & DISTINCT AND MER ELY BECAUSE AN ADDITION HAS BEEN OR A BOOKS OF ACCOUNT ARE REJECTED IN ONE YEAR, IT DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE ASS ESSEES BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WOULD BE REJECTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR LIABLE FOR REJECTION IN ALL SUBSEQUENT YEARS SO LONG AS THE ASSESSEE REMAIN ALIVE. THE AR HAS SUBMITTED THAT IT IS THE STATUTORY OBLIGATION OF A.O. TO EXAMINE THE ACCOUNT BOOKS IN EACH AND EVERY YEAR WITH REFERENCE TO THE BILLS AND VOUCHERS MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE AND IF HE FINDS SOME DEF ECTS, PAGE 7 OF 11 -I.T.A.NO. 862/IND/2004- M/S. VENKATE SH BEVERAGES LIMITED, BHOPAL ERRORS AND OMISSIONS THEN HE IS OBLIGED TO BRING TH E SAME TO THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE ASSESSEE AND SEEK THE EXPLANAT ION FOR THE DOUBTS IN HIS MIND. IT IS ALSO FURTHER STATUTOR Y DUTY OF THE A.O. ON RECEIVING EXPLANATION FORM THE ASSESSEE TO COMMUNICATE THE ASSESSEE THE DEFICIENCY IN THE EXPL ANATION AND ALSO TO DISCLOSE HIS MIND AS TO WHAT INTERFEREN CES HE IS DRAWING FROM THE EXPLANATION. THE READING OF THE OR DER EX FACIE SHOWS THAT THE ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE ARBITRA RY AND IN MOST UNREASONABLE MANNER SOLELY BASED ON SUSPICION, SURMISES AND CONJECTURE. NO DEFECT, EVEN OF A SINGL E ITEM HAS BEEN FOUND DESPITE THE EXTENSIVE EXAMINATION OF ACC OUNT BOOKS. ALL PAPER PURCHASES BILLS WERE EXAMINED. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT ALL ITS PURCHASES WERE FROM T HE HINDUSTAN PACKAGING CO.LTD., WHICH IS ONE OF THE UN ITS OF NDDB ANAND AND ALSO FROM COMPANY TETRA PAK CONVERTI NG INDIA LIMITED. THE A.O. IS NOT JUSTIFIED OR RATHER ACTED INJUDICIOUSLY AND UNLAWFULLY IN DRAWING INFERENCES THAT MERELY BECAUSE THE SAID COMPANY DID NOT RESPOND TO HIM, THE ASSESSEES BOOKS ARE UNRELIABLE. THE AR HAS SUBMITT ED THAT THE AFORESAIDA RE NOT JUDICIAL AND LAWFUL REASONS F OR THE REJECTION OF ACCOUNT BOOKS AND ARBITRARILY ASSUMING THAT THE PAGE 8 OF 11 -I.T.A.NO. 862/IND/2004- M/S. VENKATE SH BEVERAGES LIMITED, BHOPAL ASSESSEE MUST BE DOING BUSINESS OUTSIDE ACCOUNT BOO KS. THE A.O. HAS COMPLETELY IGNORED THE FACTS THAT THE ASSE SSEES GOODS ARE EXCISABLE UNDER THE CENTRAL EXCISE ACT. A LLITS PRODUCTIONS AND SALES ARE FULLY VERIFIABLE BOTH IN RESPECT OF QUANTITY AND VALUE FROM THE STATUTORY EXCISE 20. AGGRIEVED BY THIS, THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 21. THE LD. DR NARRATED THE FACTS AND PLACED RELIANCE O N THE ORDER OF THE AO. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, ON THE OT HER HAND, PLACED STRONG RELIANCE ON THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). 22. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE FACTS OF THIS YEAR WERE SUBSTANTIALLY DIFFERENT FROM THE FAC TS OF THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1996-97 AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DAT ED 25.3.1999 PASSED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT FOR OUR PERUSAL. THEREAFTER, HE REFERRED TO PARA 2 THEREOF AND SUBMITTED THAT IN THAT YEAR THERE WERE DIFFERENCES IN THE COPY OF ACCOUNT OBTAINED BY THE DEPARTMENT FROM M/S. HI NDUSTAN PACKAGING LIMITED AND QUANTUM OF PURCHASES RECORDED BY THE AS SESSEE IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION . HOWEVER, IN THE YEAR UNDER CO NSIDERATION , THERE WERE NO SUCH DIFFERENCES AND REFERRED TO PAGE NOS. 9 & 10 CONTAINING COPIES OF PURCHASE/SALES DETAILS OF M/S. HINDUSTAN PACKAGING COMPANY LIMITED AND PAGE 6 OF THE PAPER BOOK CONTAINING DET AILS OF PURCHASE ACCOUNT MAINTAINED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE A SSESSEE COMPANY, PAGE 9 OF 11 -I.T.A.NO. 862/IND/2004- M/S. VENKATE SH BEVERAGES LIMITED, BHOPAL WHICH WERE TALLIED. HE, ACCORDINGLY, CONTENDED THAT THE A.OS ACTION WAS BASED ON SUSPICION ONLY, PARTICULARLY WHEN NO SPECI FIC DEFECTS WERE POINTED OUT IN THE RECORDS OF THE YEAR UNDER CONSID ERATION. 23. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY BOTH THE SIDES, MATERIAL ON RECORD AND THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIE S BELOW. IT IS NOTED THAT M/S. HINDUSTAN PACKAGING LIMITED GOT MERGED SUBSEQU ENTLY INTO ANOTHER COMPANY AND DUE TO GAP BETWEEN YEAR OF TRANSACTION AND YEAR OF QUERIES THE DETAILS AS DESIRED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER COU LD NOT BE FURNISHED, WHICH LED TO AN ADVERSE INFERENCE AGAINST THE ASSES SEE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WHO WAS ALSO INFLUENCED BY THE DEFICIENCI ES NOTED IN THE SIMILAR TRANSACTIONS IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 1996-97. HOWEVER, I N THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THERE IS NO DEFICIENCY IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND THE PURCHASES SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE BOOKS OF ACC OUNT ARE TALLIED WITH THE COPIES OF PURCHASE AND SALES STATEMENTS SUBMITT ED BY THE M/S. HINDUSTAN PACKAGING COMPANY LIMITED. HENCE, THE FAC TS OF THIS YEAR ARE ENTIRELY DIFFERENT FROM THE FACTS OF THAT YEAR AND, THEREFORE, THE FINDINGS IN ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1996-97 CANNOT BE A PROPER BASIS. WE FURTHER FIND THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS EXAMINED THIS I SSUE IN DETAIL AND WHOSE FINDINGS HAVE BEEN REPRODUCED BY US HEREIN BE FORE. HENCE, WE CONSIDER IT APPROPRIATE NOT TO DELIBERATE ON THIS I SSUE FURTHER FOR THE SAKE PAGE 10 OF 11 -I.T.A.NO. 862/IND/2004- M/S. VENKAT ESH BEVERAGES LIMITED, BHOPAL OF BREVITY AS WE ARE IN AGREEMENT WITH SUCH FINDING S OF THE LD. CIT(A). ACCORDINGLY, WE DISMISS THIS GROUND OF THE REVENUE ALSO. 24. IN GROUND NO. 7, THE REVENUE IS AGGRIEVED BY THE D ECISION OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 22,96,995/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF LEASE RENT. 25. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THIS ISSUE WAS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1995-96 VIDE I.T.A.NO. 763/IND/1998 ORDER DATED 23 RD APRIL, 2004, AND REFERRED TO PARAS 2, 3, 4& 5 AT PAGES 132 & 133 OF PAPER BOOK. THE LD. DEPARTM ENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, COULD NOT CONTROVERT THE CLAIMS OF THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, HE PREFERRED TO RELY ON THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) . 26. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY BOTH THE SIDES, MATERIAL ON RECORD AND THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIE S BELOW. 27. IT IS NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD TAKEN THE MACHINE ON LEASE FROM M/S. HINDUSTAN PACKAGING CO. LTD., AND THE LEASE RE NTALS PAYABLE THEREON HAVE BEEN CAPITALIZED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT TO SH OW A ROSY PICTURE TO THE BANKING INSTITUTION. HOWEVER, THE SAME HAS BEEN CLAIMED AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. THE NATURE OF SUCH LEASE RENTALS IS NOT IN DISPUTE AND THE ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE ONLY ON ACCOUNT OF SUCH LEASE RENTALS BEING CAPITALIZED IN THE BOOKS OF ACC OUNT. IT IS A SETTLED PAGE 11 OF 11 -I.T.A.NO. 862/IND/2004- M/S. VENKAT ESH BEVERAGES LIMITED, BHOPAL JUDICIAL PRINCIPLE THAT ENTRIES IN THE BOOKS OF ACC OUNT ARE NOT CONCLUSIVE AND INCOME/EXPENDITURE HAS TO BE COMPUTED AS PER TH E PROVISIONS OF LAW. THUS, IN VIEW OF THIS LEGAL POSITION AND CONSIDERIN G THE DECISION OF THE COORDINATE BENCH IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN EARL IER YEARS, WE HOLD THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY DELETED THE IMPUGNED ADD ITION. ACCORDINGLY, THIS GROUND OF THE REVENUE IS ALSO DISMISSED. 28. IN RESPECT OF GROUND NO.8, BOTH THE PARTIES AGREED THT THIS GROUND HAD NO IMPACT ON ANY ISSUE IN THIS YEAR AND, THEREF ORE, WE DISMISS THIS GROUND AS INFRUCTUOUS. 29. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. THIS ORDER HAS BEEN PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 27 TH NOVEMBER, 2009. SD/- SD/- (JOGINDER SINGH) (V. K. GUPTA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 27 TH NOVEMBER, 2009. CPU* 913D16