M/s S.E.Investments Ltd., Agra V. A.C.I.T.,4(1), Agra

MA 24/AGR/2004

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7124 (ITAT-AGRA)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 year(s) 5 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 13-10-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 13-10-2011
• Assessment Year: 1999-2000
• Appeal Filed On: 30-04-2004
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: HOMI RAJVANSH
• Assessee Lawyers: PRAKASH NARAIN
• Keywords: Difference of opinion

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AGRA BENCH, AGRA BEFORE SHRI G.E.VEERABHADRAPPA, VICE PRESIDENT (AS A THIRD MEMBER) MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NOS.20/AGR/2004 TO 24/AGR /2004 (IN INTEREST TAX APPEAL NOS.15/AGR/2002 TO 19/AGR/2 002) ASSESSMENT YEARS : 1994-95 TO 1999-2000 M/S S.E.INVESTMENTS LIMITED, BLOCK-54, 1 ST FLOOR, SANJAY PLACE, AGRA. VS. ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, 4-1, AGRA. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI PRAKASH NARAIN, ADVOCATE. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI HOMI RAJVANSH, CIT-DR. ORDER THERE BEING A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE MEMBERS WHO O RIGINALLY HEARD THESE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS ARISING IN INTEREST TAX A PPEAL NOS.15/AGR/2002 TO 19/AGR/2002 FOR AY 1994-95 TO 1999-2000, THE HONBL E PRESIDENT HAS NOMINATED ME AS A THIRD MEMBER TO RESOLVE THE DIFFERENCE UNDER SECTI ON 255(4) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. 2. THESE ARE APPLICATIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE REQ UESTING THE TRIBUNAL TO RECTIFY CERTAIN MISTAKES THAT ARE STATED TO HAVE BEEN COMMI TTED IN THE ORDER DATED 14 TH AUGUST, 2003 IN INTEREST TAX APPEAL NOS.15 TO 19/AGR /2002 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 194-95 TO 1999-2000. 3. THE MAIN GRIEVANCE IN ALL THESE COMMON APPLICATI ONS FOR ALL THE YEARS IS THAT THE ITAT HAS NOT ADJUDICATED GROUND NO.5 OF THE GRO UNDS OF APPEAL TAKEN IN THE 2 MEMORANDUM OF APPEALS FOR THESE YEARS IN THE CONSOL IDATED ORDER DATED 14.8.2003. THE SAID GROUND NO.5 RAISED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL REA DS AS UNDER:- BECAUSE THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS MIS-DIRECTED HIMSEL F IN COMPLETELY IGNORING THE PLETHORA OF EVIDENCE AND CASE-LAW ADDU CED BEFORE HIM TO THE EFFECT THAT THE APPELLANT IS AN OWNER AS DEFINE D IN CLAUSE (F) OF SECTION 2 OF HIRE PURCHASE ACT 1972 AND NOT A MONE Y LENDER UNDER THE MONEY-LENDING ACT. 4. THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT THE GROUND EXTRACTED AB OVE WAS TAKEN IN ALL THESE APPEALS THAT WERE THE SUBJECT MATTER OF DISPOSAL BY THE TRIBUNAL ON 14.8.2003. THE LEARNED JUDICIAL MEMBER WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THIS G ROUND REMAINED UNDECIDED. ACCORDING TO HIM, IF ANY GROUND REMAINED UNDECIDED, IT AMOUNTS TO A MISTAKE APPARENT ON RECORD AND THE SAME IS RECTIFIABLE UNDE R SECTION 254(2) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. THEREFORE, HE PROPOSED TO RECALL THE OR DERS TO THAT EXTENT SO THAT AN ADJUDICATION UPON GROUND NO.5 IS DONE IN ALL THESE APPEALS, AFRESH. 5. THE LEARNED ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, ON THE OTHER HAND , WAS OF THE OPINION THAT IN PARAGRAPH NO.4 OF THE COMMON ORDER DATED 14.8.2003, THE TRIBUNAL HAS ALREADY DISPOSED OF THE SAME. THE ASSESSEES CLAIM THAT IT IS NOT DISPOSED OF, ACCORDING TO HIM, WAS FACTUALLY INCORRECT. HE WAS OF THE VIEW T HAT THE TRIBUNAL DISMISSED THE SAID GROUND BY HOLDING THE SAME TO BE GENERAL IN NATURE BUT THAT WOULD NOT MEAN THAT THERE HAS BEEN A NON-DISPOSAL OF ANY GROUND, FOR, T HE WHOLE READING OF THE ORDER SHOWS THAT THE MATTER ON WHICH THE ASSESSEE WAS AGI TATING HAD GOT DISPOSED OF IN ITS WHOLENESS. GROUND NO.5, ACCORDING TO HIM, WHEN REA D WITH OTHER GROUND IS WHETHER THE ASSESSEES ACTIVITY, AS UNDERTAKEN, IS ONE OF H IRING WHICH WOULD FALL WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF THE HIRE PURCHASE ACT, 1972, OR ONE OF F INANCING, SO THAT THE CHARGES RECEIVED BY IT, QUALIFIED TO BE CONSIDERED AS AN IN TEREST AND, THEREFORE, SUBJECT TO INTEREST TAX ACT, 1974. THE HOLDING OF THE ASSESSEE S GROUND NO.5, IF AT ALL AS GENERAL IN NATURE, HAS TO BE READ IN THIS CONTEXT. ACCORDIN G TO HIM, IN VIEW OF THE EXPRESS ADJUDICATION OF THE GROUNDS UNDER REFERENCE, ANY OT HER READING OF THE TRIBUNAL ORDER AMOUNTS TO A REVIEW, WHICH THE TRIBUNAL IS NOT ENTI TLED TO DO WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 254(2) OF THE ACT. 3 6. I MAY POINT OUT THAT ONE OTHER ASPECT THAT PROMP TED THE LEARNED JUDICIAL MEMBER TO TAKE A VIEW THAT ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE , THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SHRI A.R.KHAN UNHESITANTLY SUBMITTED THAT IN CASE THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN QUESTION WAS RECALLED TO THAT EXTENT, HE DID NOT HAVE ANY OBJECTION. TO THIS, THE FINDINGS OF THE LEARNED ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ARE THAT WHAT ALL THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE STATED WHILE REPRESENTI NG THE REVENUE IS THAT IF THE TRIBUNAL FINDS THAT IF THERE HAS BEEN IN FACT, A NO N-ADJUDICATION OF THE RELEVANT GROUND, THE REVENUE WOULD HAVE NO OBJECTION FOR REC ALLING OF THE ORDER TO THAT LIMITED EXTENT. ACCORDING TO LEARNED AM, THE PLEADI NG MADE BY THE LEARNED DR CANNOT BE CONSTRUED AS CONCESSION OF THE REVENUE TO THE TRIBUNAL FOR RECALL OF ITS ORDER. 7. WITH THESE DISCUSSIONS, THE LEARNED MEMBERS OF T HE DIVISION BENCH HAVE AGREED TO REFER THE FOLLOWING POINT OF DIFFERENCE FOR ADJU DICATION BY THE THIRD MEMBER:- WHETHER COMMON GROUND NO.5 IN ALL THESE APPEALS RE MAINED UNDECIDED OR IT STOOD DECIDED IN SUBSTANCE? IF IT IS FOUND T HAT GROUND NO.(5) WAS NOT DECIDED, CAN THE TRIBUNALS ORDER BE RECALLED T O DECIDE THE SAME. OR ELSE, IF IT IS FOUND THAT GROUND NO.5 HAS BEEN I N FACT, DECIDED, THE TRIBUNALS ORDER CANNOT BE RECALLED? 8. I HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES CAREFULLY AND GONE T HROUGH THE IMPUGNED ORDER IN THE LIGHT OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 14 TH AUGUST, 2003 AS ALSO THE GROUNDS OF APPEALS IN EACH OF THESE CASES. THERE IS NO DISPUT E THAT GROUND NO.5 REFERRED TO IN PARAGRAPH 3 ABOVE, WAS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE. TO THE PROPOSITION THAT THIS GROUND REQUIRES TO BE ADJUDICATED UPON, WHERE THE TRIBUNAL IN THE FIRST INSTANCE FAILED TO ADJUDICATE THIS GROUND, THERE CAN BE NO QUARREL AS THE FAILURE TO ADJUDICATE ANY GROUND RENDERS THE ORDER INTO A MISTAKE WHICH IS PR OPERLY RECTIFIABLE UNDER SECTION 254(2) OF THE ACT. BUT, A CAREFUL PERUSAL OF THIS GROUND ALONGWITH OTHER GROUNDS CONVINCES ME THAT THIS GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED BY T HE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN DISPOSED OF BY THE TRIBUNAL IN PARAGRAPH 4 OF THE ORDER DATED 1 4 TH AUGUST, 2003 WHICH READS AS UNDER:- 4 4. IN ALL THE APPEALS GROUND NO.4 HAS NOT BEEN PRE SSED DURING COURSE OF HEARING BEFORE US AND GROUND NO.5 AND 6 ARE GENE RAL IN NATURE, THEREFORE, THE SAME ARE REJECTED AND DISMISSED. 9. ALTHOUGH IT WAS ADVISABLE FOR THE DIVISION BENCH WHILE PASSING THE ORDER ON 14 TH AUGUST, 2003 TO HAVE GIVEN REASONS WHY IT CONSIDERE D THE SAID GROUND TO BE GENERAL, IN OTHER WORDS, THEY SHOULD HAVE BEEN A LITTLE MORE RE ASONED IN THIS DECISION, BUT, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THIS GROUND ITSELF IS NOT DISPO SED OF BY THE TRIBUNAL IF ONE WERE TO CLOSELY EXAMINE ALL THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL WHICH WERE BASICALLY ON THE ISSUE WHETHER THE INTEREST IN QUESTION IS LIABLE TO BE TAXED UNDE R INTEREST TAX ACT, 1974. IT CAN BE CONSTRUED AS A SHORT AND SWEET DISPOSAL AND NOT BAS ED ON DETAILED REASONING. THE SHORTNESS OF THE ORDER BY ITSELF DOES NOT NEGATE TH E FACT OF DISPOSAL OF THE ISSUE INVOLVED. HERE, AS POINTED OUT BY THE LEARNED AM, WITH WHOM I SEE A CONVINCING REASON TO ACCEPT, GROUND NO.5 IS PART OF GROUND NOS .2 & 3 WHICH READ AS UNDER:- 2. BECAUSE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW OUGHT TO HAVE APP RECIATED THAT INTEREST ON LOANS AND ADVANCES AS ENVISAGED TO BE LIABLE TO INTEREST TAX UNDER THE INTEREST TAX ACT AND HIRE CHARGES O N HIRE-PURCHASE TRANSACTIONS ARE TWO DISTINCT AND SEPARATE PHENOMEN A WITH A CLEAR LINE OF DEMARCATION BETWEEN THE TWO. 3. BECAUSE THE IMPUGNED ORDERS UNDER APPEAL ARE FUL L OF CONJECTURES & SURMISES IN COMPLETE DISREGARD OF THE FACT THAT T HE APPELLANT ON ONE HAND AND THE HIRER ON THE OTHER HAVE DISTINCT CIVIL RIGHT IN THE PECULIAR NATURE OF BUSINESS CARRIED ON BY THE APPELLANT. 10. I MAY POINT OUT THAT THE ONLY DISPUTE BEFORE TH E TRIBUNAL WAS WHETHER THE ASSESSEES ACTIVITY, AS UNDERTAKEN, IS ONE OF HIRIN G OR ONE OF FINANCING THE LOANS FOR INTEREST WITHIN THE MEANING OF INTEREST TAX ACT, 19 74. WHEN VIEWED FROM ONLY THIS DISPUTE OF THE ASSESSEE, WE MAY SEE THAT THE ASSESS EE HAS TAKEN THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS IN THIS CONNECTION:- 1. BECAUSE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE GROSSLY ERRE D ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN EQUATING HIRE CHARGES WITH INTEREST IGNO RING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT AND STATUTORY DEFINITION OF HIRE CHARGES UNDER THE 5 HIRE PURCHASE ACT, 1972. THE ADDITION OF RS.15000/ - SO MADE UNDER THE INTEREST TAX ACT, 1974 BEING UNJUSTIFIED AND UN-WAR RANTED IS LIABLE TO BE DELETED. 2. BECAUSE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW OUGHT TO HAVE APPR ECIATED THAT INTEREST ON LOANS AND ADVANCES AS ENVISAGED TO BE LIABLE TO INTEREST TAX UNDER THE INTEREST TAX ACT AND HIRE CHARGES O N HIRE-PURCHASE TRANSACTIONS ARE TWO DISTINCT AND SEPARATE PHENOMEN A WITH A CLEAR LINE OF DEMARCATION BETWEEN THE TWO. 3. BECAUSE THE IMPUGNED ORDERS UNDER APPEAL ARE FUL L OF CONJECTURES & SURMISES IN COMPLETE DISREGARD OF THE FACT THAT T HE APPELLANT ON ONE HAND AND THE HIRER ON THE OTHER HAVE DISTINCT CIVIL RIGHT IN THE PECULIAR NATURE OF BUSINESS CARRIED ON BY THE APPELLANT. 4. BECAUSE THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW IN P ASSING A REGULAR PRELIMINARY ORDER U/S 15(4) OF THE INTEREST TAX ACT (ERRONEOUSLY TITLED AS ORDER U/S 250(4) OF THE I.T.ACT) GIVING A FRESH LEASE OF LIFE TO THE AO TO FILL-IN LACUNAE IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED B Y HIM U/S 8(2) OF THE INTEREST TAX ACT. 5. BECAUSE THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS MIS-DIRECTED HIMS ELF IN COMPLETELY IGNORING THE PLETHORA OF EVIDENCE AND CA SE-LAW ADDUCED BEFORE HIM TO THE EFFECT THAT THE APPELLANT IS AN O WNER AS DEFINED IN CLAUSE (F) OF SECTION 2 OF HIRE PURCHASE ACT 1972 A ND NOT A MONEY LENDER UNDER THE MONEY-LENDING ACT. 11. GROUND NO.4 WAS NOT PRESSED BY THE ASSESSEE AND WHAT REMAINS ARE THESE GROUNDS ONLY ON THE ISSUE RELATING TO TAXABILITY OF INTEREST UNDER INTEREST TAX ACT, 1974. AS POINTED OUT BY THE LEARNED AM, ALL THE GR OUNDS HAVE TO BE VIEWED FROM THE HOLISTIC ANGLE HAVING REGARD TO THE NATURE OF DISPU TE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE. IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN DISPOSED OF. IT MAY BE THAT THE DIVISION BENCH WHICH HEARD THE APPEAL HAS CONSTRUED GROUND NO.5 TO BE GENERAL IN NATURE AS IT HAD ALREADY TAKEN A VIEW AG AINST THE ASSESSEE ON GROUND NOS.1 TO 3. THEY ARE VERY MUCH CONNECTED TO EACH OTHER. IF FOR ARGUMENTS SAKE WE ARE TO ACCEPT THE ASSESSEES CONTENTION, AND JUSTIFY THE R ECALLING OF THE ORDER ON ONE ASPECT OF THE MATTER REGARDING THE PLETHORA OF EVIDENCES A ND CASE LAWS TO THE EFFECT THAT THE ASSESSEE IS THE OWNER AS DEFINED IN CLAUSE (F) OF SE CTION 2 OF HIRE PURCHASE ACT, 1972 AND NOT A MONEY-LENDER UNDER THE MONEY-LENDING ACT, IT MAY RESULT IN A SITUATION WHERE DIFFERENT ASPECTS OF THE SAME ISSUE WILL GET DIFFERENT TREATMENT RESULTING IN SELF 6 DEFEAT OF THE DECISION TAKEN ON THE OTHER ISSUES. HIGHLY DEBATABLE CONTRADICTIONS MAY ARISE OUT OF SUCH AN ACTION ON THE PART OF THE LATT ER DIVISION BENCH TO GIVE A FINDING WHETHER THERE ARE OBVIOUS, GLARING AND PATENT MISTA KES IN AN ORDER GIVEN BY THE DIVISION BENCH EARLIER. IT MUST BE APPRECIATED THA T THE SCOPE OF SECTION 254(2) IS VERY LIMITED. THE TRIBUNAL IN THE GARB OF RECTIFYING CE RTAIN MISTAKES CANNOT DEFEAT ITS OWN ORDER ON THE SAME ISSUE ON A DIFFERENT ASPECT. IN MY VIEW, THAT WILL NOT BE RECTIFICATION OF A MISTAKE BUT A REVIEW OF OUR EARL IER ORDER. THE TRIBUNAL HAS NO POWER TO REVIEW ITS ORDER. IF THERE IS A MISTAKE I N APPRECIATING CERTAIN EVIDENCES AND CASE LAWS WITH REGARDS TO THAT ASPECT OF THE MATTER , THE PROPER COURSE WOULD HAVE BEEN CORRECTION THROUGH THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE APPE AL. IN MY VIEW, DEFINITELY, THEY DO NOT FALL WITHIN THE REALM OF PATENT AND OBVIOUS MISTAKES ON THE FACE OF THE RECORD. THE LEARNED AM, IN MY OPINION, HAS PROPERLY DISCUSS ED THE ISSUE AS ALSO THE CASE LAWS RELIED UPON BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE TO SEEK A RECTIFICATION, AND HAS COME TO A CORRECT CONCLUSION THAT THE MISTAKES POIN TED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE WERE NOT OBVIOUS ON THE FACE OF THE RECORD WHICH WARRANT REC TIFICATION. AT LEAST, IN MY VIEW, THE MATTER IS NOT FREE FROM DOUBT AND A LOT OF DELI BERATION IS REQUIRED TO SAY THAT THERE HAS BEEN A NON-DISPOSAL OF THE GROUND AS STAT ED BY THE COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE. I, THEREFORE, AGREE WITH THE VIEW EXPRESSED BY THE L EARNED AM AND ANSWER THE QUESTION REFERRED TO ME TO THE EFFECT THAT GROUND N O.5 SHOULD BE TAKEN TO HAVE BEEN DISPOSED OF IN EFFECT AND SUBSTANCE AND THE TRIBUNA LS ORDER DOES NOT REQUIRE TO BE RECALLED AS REQUESTED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THESE MISC ELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS. 12. THE MATTER SHALL NOW BE PLACED BEFORE THE REGUL AR BENCH FOR PASSING APPROPRIATE ORDER. DECISION PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30 TH AUGUST, 2011. SD/- (G.E.VEERABHADRAPPA) VICE PRESIDENT DATED : 30.08.2011 VK. 7 COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR 8 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AGRA BENCH, AGRA BEFORE SHRI G.E.VEERABHADRAPPA, VICE PRESIDENT (AS A THIRD MEMBER) MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NOS.20/AGR/2004 TO 24/AGR /2004 (IN INTEREST TAX APPEAL NOS.15/AGR/2002 TO 19/AGR/2 002) ASSESSMENT YEARS : 1994-95 TO 1997-98 & 1999-2000 M/S S.E.INVESTMENTS LIMITED, BLOCK-54, 1 ST FLOOR, SANJAY PLACE, AGRA. VS. ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, 4-1, AGRA. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) CORRIGENDUM SOME TYPOGRAPHICAL ERRORS HAVE CREPT IN MY ORDER DAT ED 30 TH AUGUST, 2011, WHICH I SEEK TO RECTIFY AS UNDER. 2. THE CAUSE TITLE SHOULD BE READ AS UNDER:- MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NOS.20/AGR/2004 TO 24/AG R/2004 (IN INTEREST TAX APPEAL NOS.15/AGR/2002 TO 19/AGR/2 002) ASSESSMENT YEARS : 1994-95 TO 1997-98 & 1999-2000 M/S S.E.INVESTMENTS LIMITED, BLOCK-54, 1 ST FLOOR, SANJAY PLACE, AGRA. VS. ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, 4-1, AGRA. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) 9 3. CONSEQUENTLY, THE REFERENCE TO THE ASSESSMENT YE ARS 1994-95 TO 1999-2000 IN PARAGRAPH NOS.1 & 2 OF THE SAID ORDER SHOULD BE REA D AS AY 1994-95 TO 1997-98 & 1999-2000. 4. IT IS CLARIFIED THAT IN AY 1998-99, THERE WAS NO APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE. SD/- (G.E.VEERABHADRAPPA) VICE PRESIDENT DATED : 30 TH SEPTEMBER, 2011. NEW DELHI. 10 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA BENCH, AGRA BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.C. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MISC. APPLICATION NOS. 20/AGR/2004 TO 24/AGR./2004 (IN INTEREST TAX APPEAL NOS. 15/AGR/2002 TO 19/AGR/ 2002) ASSESSMENT YEARS : 1994-95 TO 1997-98 & 1999-2000 M/S. S.E. INVESTMENTS LIMITED, VS. ASSTT. COMMISS IONER OF BLOCK-54, 1 ST FLOOR, INCOME-TAX, 4(1), AGRA. SANJAY PLACE, AGRA. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI R.C. TOMAR, I.T.P. FOR SRI PR AKASH NARAIN, ADVOCATE. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI A.K. SHARMA, JR. D.R. DATE OF HEARING : 13.10.2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 13.10.2011 ORDER PER B.C. MEENA, AM : WHILE DISPOSING OF THESE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIO NS, THERE AROSE DIFFERENCE OF OPINION BETWEEN THE MEMBERS CONSTITUTING THE DIVISION BENCH . THEREFORE, THE MATTER WAS REFERRED TO THE OPINION OF THE LD. THIRD MEMBER. THE LD. THIRD MEMB ER HAS AGREED WITH THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE LD. ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE MA JORITY DECISION, THE PRESENT MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS ARE DISMISSED. 2. IN THE RESULT, THE MISC. APPLICATIONS FILED BY T HE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. (ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 13.10.2011) SD/- SD/- (H.S. SIDHU) (B.C. MEENA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT M EMBER DATED: 13 TH OCTOBER, 2011 *AKS/- 11 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT(A) BY ORDER 4. CIT, CONCERNED 5. DR, ITAT, AGRA 6. GUARD FILE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR TRUE COPY