ACIT, New Delhi V. Sh. Pradyuman Kumar Sharma, New Delhi

ITSSA 33/DEL/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8388 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-09-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Next Hearing Date: 12-07-2012
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 03-10-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: SAURABH GOEL
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Procedural lapse; Block assessment
• Section: 147; 68

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH F NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI T.S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.(SS) A. NO.33/DEL/2011 BLOCK PERIOD FROM 1.,4.1987 TO 8.5.1997 ACIT, SH. PRADYUMAN KUMAR SHARMA, CIRCLE-5 (1), S-20, G.K. PART-I, NEW DELHI. V. NEW DELHI. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI SUDESH GARG, CIT- DR. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SAURABH GOEL, ADVOCATE. ORDER PER TS KAPOOR, AM: THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE OR DER OF LD CIT(A) DATED 29.7.2011. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE A RE AS UNDER:- 1. THE ORDER OF THE LD CIT(A) IS ERRONEOUS AND CONTRARY TO FACTS & LAW. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 22.12 .2010 U/S 158BC/253(3) OF THE IT ACT, 1961 PASSED BY THE ACIUT , CIRCLE-5 (1) NEW DELHI TO GIVE EFFECT TO THE ORDER OF HON'BL E HIGH COURT OF DELHI IN ITS ORDER DATED 7.8.2009 IN THE CASE OF M/S K UBER FLORITECH LTD. ITA NO33/DEL/2011 2 2.1. THE LD CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT EITHER PROCE EDINGS U/S 158BC SHOULD HAVE BEEN RE-INITIATED OR PROCEEDINGS U/ S 147 SHOULD HAVE BEEN INITIATED BEFORE PASSING THE ORDER WH EN THERE IS NO PROVISION IN THE ACT TO RE-INITIATE PROCE EDINGS U/S 158BC OR INITIATE PROCEEDINGS U/S 147 IN RESPECT OF BL OCK ASSESSMENTS. 2.2. THAT THE RATIO OF THE HON'BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURTS O RDER IN THE CASE OF M/S CARGO CLEARING AGENCY V. JCIT 307 ITR 01 IS CLEARLY APPLICABLE IN THIS CASE., IT HAS BEEN HELD IN THE SAID CASE THAT PROCEEDINGS U/S 147 CANNOT BE INITIATED IN RESPECT OF BLOCK ASSESSMENTS. 3. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD TO ALTER OR AME ND ANY GROUNDS OF THE APPEAL RAISED ABOVE AT THE TIME OF THE HEARIN G. 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT ASSESSMENT UNDE R THIS CASE WAS COMPLETED U/S 158BC OF THE ACT ON 31.5.1999 WHICH WAS SET ASIDE BY THE LD CIT(A) ON PROCEDURAL GROUND VIDE HIS ORDER DATED 12.2.2000. THE ASSESSMENT WAS AGAIN COMPLETED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON 22.3.2002 ON THE SAME INCOME OF ` .135,71,67,737/- WHICH WAS THEN REVISED TO ` .11,87,63,603/- VIDE ORDER U/S 250/158BC OF THE ACT AFTER GIVING EFFECT TO CIT(A)S ORDER DATED 30.9.2004. 3. THE ASSESSMENT IN THE CASE OF M/S KUBER FLORITECH LTD . WAS COMPLETED U/S 158BC OF THE ACT VIDE ORDER DATED 22.3 .2002. THE ASSESSEE IS A DIRECTOR IN THE ABOVE COMPANY. DURING ASSESSM ENT PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF M/S KUBER FLORITECH LTD. AN ADDITION OF ` .1,85,55,000/- WAS MADE AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT U/ S 68 OF THE ACT WHICH WAS MADE BECAUSE 18,55,500 SHARES OF M/S KUBER FLO RITECH LTD. WERE FOUND IN THE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS ALLEGED THAT ASSESSEE HELD SHARES OF THE COMPANY IN BENAMI NAMES. THE L D CIT(A) ITA NO33/DEL/2011 3 VIDE HIS ORDER DATED 31.3.2003 DELETED THIS ADDITION FINDING THE ARGUMENTS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY TO BE SATISFACTORY. HON'BLE ITAT VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 22.8.2008 ALSO SUSTAINED THE ORDER OF LD CIT(A). AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD ITAT, THE REVENUE P REFERRED APPEAL BEFORE HON'BLE HIGH COURT WHICH VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 7.8.2009 DISMISSED THE REVENUES APPEAL HOLDING AS UNDER:- IN THE PRESENT CASE, IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID, THE T RIBUNAL HAS CATEGORICALLY MENTIONED IN THE AFORESAID EXTRACTED PORTION THAT THE DEPARTMENT CAN INITIATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST SHRI PK SHARMA. THUS, WHEN THE DEPARTMENT IS NOT REMEDILESS AND THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THESE SHARES WERE PURCHAS ED BY SHRI PK SHARMA AND IN THAT SITUATION,. ADDITIONS SHOU LD HAVE BEEN MADE IN THE HANDS OF SHRI PK SHARMA AND NOT IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE, IT WOULD BE OPEN TO THE REVENUE TO INITIA TE PROCEEDINGS BY TREATING THE SAME U/S 153(3) OF THE ACT AS INCOME IN THE HANDS OF SHRI PK SHARMA, IN ACCORDANC E WITH LAW. 4. IN COMPLIANCE OF THE ABOVE DIRECTIONS OF HON'BLE HIGH COURT, THE NECESSARY NOTICE WAS ISSUED U/S 254/143(2) OF THE ACT AND DATE WAS FIXED FOR 15..2.2010 BUT NONE ATTENDED ON THAT DATE . AGAIN NOTICE WAS SENT ON 7.9.2010 FIXING THE DATE OF COMPLIANCE ON 20 .9.2010 BUT AGAIN NOBODY APPEARED. ON FURTHER NOTICE, THE ASSESSEE VIDE REPLY DATED 20 TH SEPTEMBER, 2010 SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT RECEIVED /IN THE KNOWLEDGE OF ANY SUCH HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT DECI SION ON THE BASIS OF WHICH THE ADDITION IS PROPOSED TO BE MADE. THE LD AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT BLOCK PERIOD APPEAL WAS FILED BY THE D EPARTMENT AS WELL AS BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH WERE PENDING BEFORE HON'BLE ITA T AND ARE LIKELY TO BE COMPLETED SHORTLY. THEREFORE, HE REQUE STED THAT THESE PROCEEDINGS MAY BE TAKEN AFTER THE DECISION OF HON'BL E ITAT SO THAT ITA NO33/DEL/2011 4 THE WHOLE MATTER COULD BE EXAMINED AND DECIDED TOGE THER. THE CASE WAS ADJOURNED TO 12.10.2010. THEREAFTER MANY NOTICES WERE SENT FIXING THE DATE OF COMPLIANCE ON 16.12.2010 BUT NOBODY APP EARED ON THAT DATE ALSO. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN VIEW OF LIMITATION EXPIRING ON 31.12.2010 IN THE ABSENCE OF PROPER EVIDENCE AND PAR TICULARS REQUIRED TO BE SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE MADE AN ADDITION OF ` .1,85,55,000/-. 5. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE LD CIT( A) AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ACTION OF ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT SUSTA INABLE IN LAW AND THAT HON'BLE COURT HAD GIVEN LIBERTY TO THE REV ENUE TO INITIATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE ASSESSEE IN TERMS OF SECTION 153(3) OF THE ACT. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER INSTEAD OF INITIATION OF RE-ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IN TERMS OF SECTION 147/148 READ WITH SECTI ON 153(3) OR U/S 158BC HAD ISSUED NOTICE U/S 143(2) OF THE ACT AS IF THE ASSESSMENT IN THE CASE OF APPELLANT WAS SET ASIDE BY HON'BLE HIGH COURT. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, IT WAS ARGUED THAT ACTION OF ASSESSING OF FICER IN FRAMING THE ASSESSMENT WITHOUT COMPLYING WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 147/148 OR SECTION 158BC OF THE ACT DESERVES TO BE QUA SHED. THE LD CIT(A) AFTER HEARING THE SUBMISSIONS LD AR AGREED WITH THE CONTENTIONS RAISED BY LD AR AND HELD THAT ACTION OF ASSESSING OFFICE R WAS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN LAW AND DESERVES TO BE QUASHED. THE RELEV ANT PORTION OF LD CIT(A)S ORDER IS REPRODUCED BELOW:- I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE FINDINGS RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE SUBMISSIONS MADE ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT. ON CONSIDERATION I FIND THAT THE DIRECTIO N OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT WAS TO GRANT LIBERTY TO THE REVEN UE TO INILTIATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST SHRI PK SHARMA IN TERMS OF SEC. 153 (3) AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. HOWEVER, A PERUSAL OF ASSESSMENT ITA NO33/DEL/2011 5 RECORDS REVEALS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD NOT INITIA TED ANY PROCEEDINGS FOR REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT ALREADY COMPLE TED BY HIM IN TERMS OF HIS ORDER DATED 22.3.2002 AND INSTEAD , HE HAS ISSUED NOTICE U/S 254/143(2) AS IF THE ASSESSMENT IN THE C ASE OF THE APPELLANT WAS SET ASIDE BY THE HON'BLE COURT. IT H AS TO BE APPRECIATED THAT THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT HAS MERELY GIVEN LIBERTY TO THE DEPARTMENT TO INITIATE PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT IN TERMS OF SECTION 153(3) OF THE IT ACT AN D AS PER OTHER PROVISIONS OF LAW. THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT WAS NEITHER BEFORE THE HON'BLE COURT NOR THE SAME WAS SET ASIDE BY THE COURT SO AS TO MANDATE ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S 143(2) WITHOUT I NITIATING PROPER RE-ASS PROCEEDINGS UNDER THE LAW. 6. AGGRIEVED, THE REVENUE FILED APPEAL BEFORE THIS T RIBUNAL. 7. THE REVENUE HAS CHALLENGED THE ACTION OF LD CIT(A ) WHO HAD HELD THAT EITHER PROCEEDINGS U/S 158BC SHOULD HAVE RE-INITI ATED OR PROCEEDINGS U/S 147 SHOULD HAVE BEEN INITIATED BEFORE PASSING THE ORDER. IN THIS CASE RELIANCE WAS PLACED IN THE CASE OF CARGO CLEARING AGENCY V. JCIT 307 ITR 01 WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT P ROCEEDINGS U/S 147 CANNOT BE INITIATED IN CASES WHERE ASSESSMENTS HAD BEEN CO MPLETED AS BLOCK ASSESSMENT U/S 158BC OF THE ACT. 8. AT THE OUTSET, THE LD DR ARGUED THAT ASSESSING OFFICE R HAD INITIATED PROCEEDINGS ON THE BASIS OF ORDER OF HON'BL E HIGH COURT OF DELHI IN THE CASE OF M/S KUBER FLORITECH LTD. THEREF ORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD RIGHTLY MADE ASSESSMENT BY ISSUING NOTICE U/ S 143(2) OF THE ACT. 9. THE LD AR, ON THE OTHER HAND, ARGUED THAT ASSESSING OFFICER HAD WRONGLY ISSUED NOTICE U/S 143(2) OF THE ACT WITHOUT I NITIATING RE- ITA NO33/DEL/2011 6 ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S 147/148OF THE ACT. HE FURTHER ARGUED THAT BLOCK ASSESSMENT OR REGULAR ASSESSMENT DOES NOT MAKE ANY DIF FERENCE IN SO FAR AS RE-ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S 147/148 OF THE ACT ARE CONCERNED. THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, HE ARG UED THAT LD CIT(A) HAD RIGHTLY REVERSED THE ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER AS H E HAD NOT FOLLOWED THE PROPER PROCEDURE AVAILABLE UNDER THE A CT. RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE KARNATAKA HIGH CO URT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. RINKU CHAKRABORTY 242 CTR 425 AND ON THE JUD GMENT OF HON'BLE GAUHATI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. PREMCHAND R ATANLAL BAID (HUF) REPORTED AT 226 CTR 189. 10. IT WAS ARGUED THAT IN BOTH THE CASES IT WAS HELD TH AT ASSESSING OFFICER WAS WITHIN HIS RIGHTS TO PROCEED U/S 147/148 FO R RE-ASSESSMENT IN CASES WHERE ASSESSMENTS WERE COMPLETED AS A BLOCK PERIOD ASSESSMENTS. 11. WE HAVE DULY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND GONE THROUGH THE RECORD CAREFULLY. ADMITTEDLY AN ORDER U/S 158BC OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 WAS PASSED IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE ON 31 ST MAY, 1999. IT WAS SET ASIDE BY THE LD FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY ON PR OCEDURAL GROUND. THE FRESH ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PASSED ON 22.3.2002. THE ASSESSE E IS A MANAGING DIRECTOR IN M/S KUBER FLORITECH LTD. AND AN ADDITION OF ` .1,85,55,000/- WAS MADE IN THE CASE OF M/S KUBER FLORI TECH LTD. AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT U/S 68 OF THE ACT. WHEN THE DISPUTE IN THE COMPANY TRAVELED UP TO STAGE OF HON'BLE HIGH COURT, A FINDING WAS RECORDED THAT THIS ADDITION IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN THE HANDS OF THE COMPANY RATHER IT IS AN AMOUNT WHICH HAS BEEN CONTRIB UTED BY THE ASSESSEE AS A SHARE APPLICATION MONEY AND PROCEEDINGS AGAI NST SHRI P.K. SHARMA I.E. THE ASSESSEE OUGHT TO BE INITIATED. TH E HON'BLE HIGH COURT FURTHER OBSERVED THAT IT WOULD BE OPEN TO THE REVENUE TO INITIATE PROCEEDINGS BY TREATING THE FINDING OF THE TRIBUNAL COMING WITHIN THE ITA NO33/DEL/2011 7 AMBIT OF SECTION 153(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 MEANING THEREBY THE LIMITATION WOULD NOT COME IN THE WAY OF REVENUE . THE ASSESSING OFFICER INSTEAD OF FOLLOWING THE TRUE PROCEDURE FOR INITIATING PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE HAD ISSUED NOTICE U/S 143(2) AND STARTED INVESTIGATION. 12. THE NOTICE U/S 143(2) IS ISSUED BY AN ASSESSING OFFICE R IN ORDER TO INVITE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE FOR SUBMITTING ANY D ETAIL IN SUPPORT OF THE RETURN FILED BY SUCH AN ASSESSEE. IN THE PRESENT CASE THAT EXERCISE HAS ALREADY BEEN DONE WHEN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSM ENT ORDER WAS MADE. NO PROCEEDING WAS PENDING BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THEREFORE, NO NOTICE U/S 143(2) DIRECTLY COULD BE ISS UED. THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS APPRECIATED THIS ASPECT, THERE FORE, QUASHED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE NEXT QUESTION BEFORE US IS WHETHER THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RIGHTLY GIVEN EFFE CT TO THE ORDER OF HON'BLE HIGH COURT AND IF HE FAIL TO FOLLOW TRUE PR OCEDURE THEN PROCEEDINGS SHOULD BE CULMINATED OR THE IRREGULARITY CREPT IN THE PROCEEDINGS HAS TO BE REMOVED. IN OUR OPINION ON ACCO UNT OF ANY PROCEDURAL IRREGULARITY THE PROCEEDINGS ITSELF IF SUST AINABLE IN THE EYES OF LAW SHOULD NOT BE CULMINATED. THE PROVISIONS OF SEC TION 150 & 153 GOVERN SUCH TYPE OF SITUATION WHERE ASSESSMENT HAS TO B E REOPENED IN PURSUANCE OF DIRECTION OF THE APPELLATE AUTHORITIES. THUS, IT IS IMPERATIVE UPON US TO TAKE NOTE OF THE RELEVANT CLA USES OF BOTH THESE SECTIONS:- PROVISION FOR CASES WHERE ASSESSMENT IS IN PURSUANCE OF AN ORDER ON APPEAL ETC. SECTION 150 (1) NOTWITHSTANDING ANYTHING CONTAINED I N SECTION 149, THE NOTICE UNDER ASSESSMENT OR RE-ASSESSMENT OR RE- COMPUTATION IN CONSEQUENCE OF OR TO GIVE EFFECT TO A NY FINDING OR ITA NO33/DEL/2011 8 DIRECTION CONTAINED IN AN ORDER PASSED BY ANY AUTHORI TY IN ANY PROCEEDING UNDER THIS ACT BY WAY OF APPEAL, REFERENC E OR REVISION OR BY A COURT IN ANY PROCEEDINGS UNDER ANY OTHER LAW . (2) THE PROVISIONS OF SUB SECTION (1) SHALL NOT APPLY I N ANY CASE WHERE ANY SUCH ASSESSMENT, RE-ASSESSMENT OR RE-COMPUTATION AS IS REFERRED TO IN THAT SUB SECTION RELATES TO AN ASSESSME NT YEAR IN RESPECT OF WHICH AN ASSESSMENT, RE-ASSESSMENT OR RE - COMPUTATION COULD NOT HAVE BEEN MADE AT THE TIME TH E ORDER WHICH WAS THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE APPEAL, REFERENCE OR REVISION, AS THE CASE MAY BE, WAS MADE BY REASON OF ANY OTHER PROVISION LIMITING THE TIME WITHIN WHICH ANY ACTION FOR ASSESSMENT, RE-ASSESSMENT OR RE-COMPUTATION MAY BE TAKEN. **** ***** ***** **** 153(3) THE PROVISION OF SUB SECTION (1) (1A), (1B) AND (2) SHALL NOT APPLY TO THE FOLLOWING CLASSES OF ASSESSMENTS, RE- ASSESSMENTS AND RE-COMPUTATION WHICH MAY FOLLOWING (SUBJE CT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SUB SECTION (2A) BE COMPLETED AT ANY TIME. (I)****** (II) WHERE THE ASSESSMENT, RE-ASSESSMENT, OR RE-COMPUTATION IS MADE ON THE ASSESSEE OR ANY PERSON IN CONSEQUENCE OF OR T O GIVE EFFECT TO ANY FINDING OR DIRECTION CONTAINED I N AN ORDER U/S 250, 254, 260, 262, 263 OR 264 (OR IN ORDER OF ANY COURT IN A PROCEEDING OTHERWISE THAN BY WAY OF APPEAL OR REFERE NCE UNDER THIS ACT. (III) WHERE, IN THE CASE OF FIRM, AN ASSESSMENT IS MADE ON A PARTNER OF THE FIRM IN CONSEQUENCE OF AN ASSESSMENT MAD E ON THE FIRM UNDER SECTION 147. A BEAR PERUSAL OF THESE CLAUSES PROVIDE THAT SECTION 153 (3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ELIMINATE THE RIGORS OF LIMITAT ION FOR COMPLETION OF ASSESSMENT TO CERTAIN CATEGORY OF THE ASSESSMENTS WHICH ARE MADE ITA NO33/DEL/2011 9 IN TERMS OF DIRECTIONS ISSUED U/S 250, 254, 260, 262, 26 3 OR SECTION 264. THE SECTION 150 PROVIDES FOR RELAXATION IN TERMS OF TIME LIMIT FOR REOPENING. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER OUGHT TO H AVE INITIATED THE RE-ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS INSTEAD OF ISSUING NOTICE U/S 143( 2) OF THE ACT. THE LD FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS MADE ELUCID ATION OF LAW. THE DEPARTMENT INSTEAD OF FILING OF APPEAL AGAINST THE O RDER OF LD CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE RECTIFIED THE MISTAKE COMMITTED BY THE LD ASSESSING OFFICER. LD CIT(A) HAS NO POWER TO SET ASIDE THE PROCE EDINGS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THEREFORE PRONOUNCED THE RIGHT PROC EDURE WHICH OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN FOLLOWED. CONSIDERING ALL THESE ASP ECTS AND NOT FOLLOWING THE TRUE PROCEDURE WE ALLOW THIS APPEAL FO R STATISTICAL PURPOSE AND SET ASIDE THE PROCEEDINGS TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFF ICER FOR TAKING APPROPRIATE STEPS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. THE OBSERVA TIONS MADE BY US WILL NOT IMPAIR OR INJURE THE CASE OF THE ASSESSING OF FICER OR WILL NOT CAUSE ANY PREJUDICE TO THE DEFENCE/EXPLANATION OF TH E ASSESSEE ON ANY LAW POINT IF ACCRUED TO HIM. 13. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE APPEAL FILED BY REVEN UE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 14. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 21ST DAY O F SEPTEMBER, 2012. SD/- SD/- (RAJPAL YADAV) (T.S. KAPOOR) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DT. 21.9.2012. HMS COPY FORWARDED TO:- 1. THE APPELLANT ITA NO33/DEL/2011 10 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT (A)-, NEW DELHI. 5. THE DR, ITAT, LOKNAYAK BHAWAN, KHAN MARKET, NEW DEL HI. TRUE COPY. BY ORDER (ITAT, NEW DELHI). DATE OF HEARING 23.7.2012 DATE OF DICTATION 3.9.2012 DATE OF TYPING 4.9.2012 DATE OF ORDER SIGNED BY 21.9.2012 BOTH THE MEMBERS & PRONOUNCEMENT. DATE OF ORDER UPLOADED ON NET 21.9.2012 & SENT TO THE BENCH CONCERNED.