New India Rice Mill,, Kaithal v. ITO,, Kaithal

CO 42/CHANDI/2009 | 2006-2007
Pronouncement Date: 09-12-2010 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 4221523 RSA 2009
Assessee PAN AAFFN4639E
Bench Chandigarh
Appeal Number CO 42/CHANDI/2009
Duration Of Justice 1 year(s) 5 month(s) 13 day(s)
Appellant New India Rice Mill,, Kaithal
Respondent ITO,, Kaithal
Appeal Type Cross Objection
Pronouncement Date 09-12-2010
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted A
Tribunal Order Date 09-12-2010
Date Of Final Hearing 10-11-2010
Next Hearing Date 10-11-2010
Assessment Year 2006-2007
Appeal Filed On 26-06-2009
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCHES A CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI D.K.SRIVASTAVA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS SUSHMA CHOWLA JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 622/CHD/2009 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 THE ITO VS. M/S NEW INDIA RICE MILLS WARD-3 KAITHAL KAITHAL PAN NO. AAFFN4639E & C.O. NO.42/CHD/2009 (IN ITA NO. 622/CHD/2009) ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 M/S NEW INDIA RICE MILLS VS THE ITO WARD-3 KAITHAL KAITHAL PAN NO. AAFFN4639E (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI N.K.SAINI RESPONDENT BY: SHRI PANKAJ JAIN ORDER PER SUSHMA CHOWLA JM THE APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (A) KARNAL DATED 16.3.2 009 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 AGAINST ORDER PASSED U/S 14 3(3) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED CROSS OBJECTION AGAINST THE APPE AL FILED BY THE REVENUE. 2 2. BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE AND CROSS OBJECT ION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 3. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN I TA NO. 622/CHD/2009 ARE AS UNDER:- 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 4 73 270/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF LOW YIELD OF NAKKU IRRESPECTIVE OF THE FACT THAT NAKKU IS NOT A PART O F RICE AND IT IS NOT SUPPLIED TO THE GOVT. AGENCIES WITH R ICE. 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 42 615/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF LOW YIELD OF RICE HUSK WHEREAS THE ASSESSEES SISTER CONCERN FIRM ITSELF W AS SHOWING HIGHER YIELD IN THE SAME AREA. 3. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELEING THE ADDITION OF RS. 1 21 137/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF VALUATION OF CLOSING STOCK OF HUSK AS THE ASSESSEE ITSELF HAS SHOWN SALE OF HUSK AT AN AVERAGE RATE OF 58.78 PER QTL. DURING T HE YEAR AND ASSESSEE FAILED TO FILE ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE THAT THE CLOSING STOCK OF HUSK WAS OF INFE RIOR QUALITY. 4. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 2 46 695/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF VALUATION OF CLOSING STOCK OF RICE IRRESPECTIVE OF THE FACT THAT THE CLO SING STOCK OF RICE WAS OUT OF THE PURCHASE MADE ON THE L AST DAY OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR I.E. 31.3.2006. 4. THE GROUND NO.1 RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS AGA INST DELETION OF ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF LOW YIELD OF NAKKU. THE BRI EF FACTS RELATING TO THE ISSUE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS RUNNING A RICE MILL. DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION THE ASSESSEE HAD MILLED 72498.62 QUI NTALS OF PADDY SELF MILLING 6645.62 QUINTALS AND JOB WORK 65852.42 QUIN TALS. THE ASSESSEE 3 HAD DECLARED PRODUCTION OF NAKKU WEIGHING 89.45 QUI NTALS WHICH IN TERMS OF %AGE WAS 0.14%. THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUISITIONED TO EXPLAIN THE LOW YIELD OF PRODUCTION OF NAKKU. THE ASSESSEE WAS AL SO SHOW CAUSED AS TO WHY PRODUCTION OF NAKKU SHOULD NOT BEEN AT 1.12% OF THE PADDY MILLED IN VIEW OF THE PRODUCTION BEING SHOWN BY OTHER RICE MILLERS OF THE AREA. IN REPLY THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT THE YIELD OF NAKKU DEPENDS ON MANY FACTORS LIKE CONDITION OF MACHINERY LABOUR CONTENTS OF MOISTURE IN PADDY ETC. AND YIELD OF 1.2% CANNOT BE A BINDING FACTOR. THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PRODUCE ANY RECORD OF DAY TO DAY MILLING OF PADDY OR STOCK REGISTER OR ANY OTHER RECORD TO PROVE ITS CON TENTION BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER REJECTIN G THE BOOK VERSION OF THE ASSESSEE COMPUTED THE YIELD OF NAKKU AT THE RAT E OF 1.12% OF PADDY MILLED WHICH WORKED OUT TO 2812 QUINTALS. THE ASSE SSEE HAD SHOWN PRODUCTION OF 89.45 QUINTALS. THE BALANCE OF 722.5 5 QUINTALS AT THE RATE OF RS. 655/- PER QUINTALS WAS ADDED TO THE INCOME OF T HE ASSESSEE RESULTING IN ADDITION OF RS. 473270/-. BEFORE THE CIT(A) THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT IT WAS PROCESSING PADDY OF ITS OW N AS WELL AS THAT OF GOVERNMENT AGENCY. IT WAS FURTHER EXPLAINED THAT THE GOVERNMENT OR ITS AGENCIES ACCEPTS 66 % YIELD OF RICE FROM ITS PADDY WHICH IS GIVEN FOR MILLING TO RICE SELLERS WHEREAS THE PRODUCTION OF PURE RICE IS CLAIMED TO BE NOT MORE THAN 65%. IN THE PROCESS OF RICE SHEL LING NAKKU IS THE RICE PRODUCT AND TO COMPLETE 66% CONDITION OF CUSTOM MIL LING OF RICE YIELD NAKKU ARE GIVEN WITH THE RICE. FURTHER CLAIM OF T HE ASSESSEE BEFORE CIT(A) WAS THAT NAKKU PRODUCTION WAS 1% TO 1.5% DEP ENDING UPON THE QUALITY OF RICE AND THE MACHINERY IN WHICH IT WAS P ROCESSED. AS 66% YIELD OF RICE WAS GIVEN TO THE GOVERNMENT AGENCIES ON THEIR RICE SHELLING THERE WAS NO NAKKU IN THE CUSTOM MILLING AND YIELD OF NAKKU WAS THUS NIL. OUT OF ITS OWN RICE SHELLING YIELD OF NAKKU WAS AT 1.53% WHEREAS THE 4 ASSESSING OFFICER HAD TAKEN THE SAME TO BE THE YIEL D ON TOTAL RICE SHELLING. THE CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT COMPARED THE COMPLETE PICTURE OF THE OTHER TWO CONCERN WHOSE YI ELD OF NAKKU WAS COMPARED WITH THE ASSESSEE BUT THE YIELD OF RICE AS WELL AS ITS BYE PRODUCTS SHOULD HAVE BEEN COMPARED AND ACCORDINGLY IT WAS HELD THAT MERE COMPARISON OF YIELD OF NAKKU WAS NOT PROPER. THE C IT(A) FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD NOT DENIED THAT ASSESSEE HAD GIVEN 66% YIELD OF RICE FOR CUSTOM MILLING WHEREAS NORMA L YIELD WAS LESS THAN 65% AND THEREFORE THE BENEFIT OF 1% ON CUSTOM MILLI NG SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO THE ASSESSEE. THE CIT(A) NOTED THAT IN CASE 1% IS ADDED TO 1.53% SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE THEN THE YIELD OF NAKKU IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WOULD BE MUCH MORE THAN 1.12% HELD BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND AS SUCH THE ADDITION MADE WAS DELETED. THE REVE NUE IS IN APPEAL AGAINST THE SAID DELETION. 5. THE LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE POINTED OUT THA T THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO FURNISH ANY RECORD THAT RICE ALONG WITH NAKKU HA S BEEN SOLD TO THE GOVERNMENT AGENCIES. OUR ATTENTION WAS DRAWN TO T HE DETAILS OF NAKKU ACCOUNT AND IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT ASSESSEE HAS FA ILED TO SHOW THE PRODUCTION OF NAKKU CORRECTLY. THE LD. AR POINTED OUT THAT THE YIELD OF NAKKU IS DEPENDENT ON THE QUALITY OF MACHINERY USED . RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE AMRITSAR BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN SHANKAR RICE MILLS [79 ITD 1 (SB) ASR] FOR THE PROP OSITION THAT YIELD OF NAKKU IS DEPENDENT ON MANY FACTORS AND ALSO FOR THE PROPOSITION THAT IN CASE OF GOVERNMENT MILLING THE PADDY IS ACCEPTED A T 66%. THE LD. AR FURTHER STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN THE YIEL D OF RICE AT 66% ON ACCOUNT OF GOVERNMENT MILLING AND AS YIELD OF RICE WAS HIGHER; THERE WAS NO QUESTION OF ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF YIELD OF NAKK U. IN ANY CASE THE 5 ADDITION WAS MADE ON THE BASIS OF ESTIMATION OF PRO DUCTION WITHOUT POINTING OUT ANY SPECIFIC DEFECTS IN THE BOOKS OF A CCOUNT MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE. FURTHER SINCE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WERE PRODUCED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THE SAME COULD NOT BE REJE CTED SUMMARILY WAS THE CONTENTION OF LD. AR. THE LD. DR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT INSTANCES OF LOADING OF NAKKU AS DETAILED ON VARIOUS DOCUMENTS F ILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS PAPER BOOK REVEALS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD MUCH M ORE PRODUCTION OF NAKKU THAN DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE SALE OF THE SAME HAD BEEN MADE WITHOUT RECORDING IT IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT A S ONLY PART OF SALES ARE SHOWN IN THE NAKKU SALES. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORDS. THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF RICE SHE LLING AND WHILE PROCESSING THE PADDY FOR OBTAINING RICE THE BYE PR ODUCTS INCLUDE HUSK RICE BRAN AND NAKKU WHICH IS THE BROKEN TIP OF RICE . THE ASSESSEE IS PROCESSING RICE ON ITS OWN AND ALSO ON ACCOUNT OF T HE GOVERNMENT OR ITS AGENCIES. THE GOVERNMENT MILLING OF PADDY IS 65852 QUINTALS AS AGAINST OWN MILLING OF 6645 QUINTALS DURING THE YEAR. THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT IN RESPECT OF GOVERNMENT MILLING YIELD OF 66% HAS BEEN DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE WHEREAS THE PRODUCTION OF PURE RICE IS ONLY TO THE EXTENT OF 65%. IN CASE THE HIGHER YIELD OF PRODUCTION OF RIC E IS ACCEPTED THEN THE PRODUCTION OF NAKKU WHICH VARIES BETWEEN 1% TO 1.5% DEPENDING UPON THE QUALITY OF RICE AND THE MACHINERY USED FOR PROCESSI NG STANDS MERGES WITH THE YIELD OF RICE. THE ASSESSEE POINTS OUT THAT T HE PRACTICE IS TO SELL THE RICE AND THE NAKKU TOGETHER TO THE GOVERNMENT AGENC IES IN ORDER TO MAINTAIN THE YIELD OF RICE. WE FIND THAT THE REVEN UE HAS FAILED TO CONTROVERT THE FINDINGS OF CIT(A) THAT THE YIELD OF RICE ON ACCOUNT OF GOVERNMENT MILLING WAS 66% DURING THE YEAR. ONCE THE SAID STAND OF THE 6 ASSESSEE STAND ACCEPTED WE FIND NO MERIT IN ANY FURTHER ADDITION ON THIS ACCOUNT. CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF CIT(A) THE GR OUND NO.1 RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS THUS DISMISSED. 7. THE GROUND NO.2 RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS AGAINST THE VALUATION OF CLOSING STOCK OF HUSK. THE ASSESSEE HAD VALUED T HE CLOSING STOCK OF HUSK AT THE RATE OF RS. 50/- PER QUINTAL WHEREAS THE A SSESSING OFFICER VALUED THE HUSK @ RS. 57/- PER QUINTAL AS THE ASSESSEE HAD SOLD THE HUSK AT THE SAID RATE RESULTING IN ADDITION OF RS. 73 544/-. THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT THE QUALITY OF THE HUSK HAD BECOME INFERIO R AND ITS VALUE HAD REDUCED AND HENCE THE VALUATION @ RS. 50/- PER QUIN TAL. THE SAID STOCK OF HUSK WAS CLAIMED TO BE SOLD AT RS. 52/- PER QUINTAL IN THE SUCCEEDING YEAR. THE CIT(A) ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AS THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD NOT DISPUTED THE SALE OF STOCK OF HUSK @ RS. 52/- P ER QUINTAL. WE ARE IN AGREEMENT WITH THE ORDER OF CIT(A) THAT IN THE ABSE NCE OF ANY EVIDENCE FOUND AND THE FACTUAL ASPECT OF SELLING THE SAME ST OCK OF HUSK @ RS. 52/- PER QUINTAL SUBSEQUENTLY THERE IS NO MERIT IN VAL UING THE STOCK @ RS. 57/- PER QUINTAL AS THE STOCK IS TO BE VALUED AT COST OR MARKET PRICE WHICHEVER IS LESS. THE BYE-PRODUCT OF HUSK IS CONSEQUENT TO THE PROCESS OF RICE SHELLING AND IN SUCH CASES IT IS DIFFICULT TO DETER MINE ITS COST. HOWEVER IT IS AN ESTABLISHED RULE THAT THE COST IS MOSTLY LOWER THAN THE MARKET PRICE. CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF CIT(A) WE DISMIS S THE GROUND NO.2 RAISED BY THE REVENUE. 8. THE GROUND NO.3 RAISED BY THE REVENUE AGAINS T THE VALUATION OF CLOSING STOCK OF RICE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON PE RUSAL OF INVENTORY OF CLOSING STOCK FOUND THE ASSESSEE TO HAVE SHOWN THE QUANTITY OF SUPERFINE RICE OF 344.42 QUINTAL VALUED AT THE RATE OF RS. 80 1/- PER QUINTAL. THE 7 ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO NOTED THAT THE AVERAGE RATE OF PURCHASES MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE MONTH OF MARCH 2006 CAME TO RS . 941/- PER QUINTAL. THE ASSESSEES METHOD OF VALUATION WAS COST OR MARK ET PRICE WHICHEVER WAS LESS. THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE IN THI S REGARD WAS THAT THE QUANTITY REMAINING WITH THE ASSESSEE WAS OF INFERIO R QUALITY AND HENCE VALUED AT RS. 801/- PER QUINTAL. THE ASSESSING OF FICER ON THE EXAMINATION OF COPY OF SUPERFINE RICE ACCOUNT PLACE D ON RECORD BY THE ASSESSEE FOUND THAT THE LAST SALE OF 255.30 QUINTAL OF SUPERFINE RICE WAS MADE ON 22.3.2006 AND THERE IS NO SALE AFTER THAT. THE CLOSING STOCK OF 344.42 QUINTAL LYING WITH THE ASSESSEE WAS COMPRISE D OF THE LAST PURCHASES MADE ON 20.3.2006 AND 23.3.2006 @ RS. 935/- AND 925 /- RESPECTIVELY. THE CLOSING STOCK WAS ACCORDINGLY VALUED BY THE ASS ESSING OFFICER @ RS. 925/- PER QUINTAL RESULTING IN ADDITION OF RS. 42 7 08/-. THE SAID ADDITION WAS DELETED BY THE CIT(A) OBSERVING THAT THE ASSESS EE HAD SOLD HIS STOCK SUBSEQUENTLY AT A LOWER RATE. WE FIND NO MERIT IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A) IN THIS REGARD AS THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS BROUGHT ON RECORD THE FACTUAL ASPECTS. THE STOCK AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE AT THE CLOSE OF THE YEAR WAS OUT OF THE LAST PURCHASES MADE BY THE ASSESSEE ON 20.3.2006 AND 23.3.2006 AFTER THE LAST SALE MADE ON 22.3.2006. THE BALANCE STOCK IS THUS TO BE VALUED AT RS. 925/-. IN THE ENTIRETY O F FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CIT(A) AND U PHOLD THE ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER IN VALUING THE STOCK AT THE RATE OF RS. 925/- BEING THE LAST PURCHASE OF RICE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. THE GR OUND NO.3 RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS THUS ALLOWED. 9. THE LAST ISSUE RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS AGA INST THE DELETION OF RS. 25 000/- OUT OF WAGES AND LABOUR ACCOUNT. THE ASS ESSEE HAS RAISED CROSS OBJECTION AND VIDE GROUND NO.2 SIMILAR ISSUE HAS BE EN RAISED. THE 8 DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 50 000/- OUT OF WAGES AND LABOU R EXPENSES WAS RESTRICTED TO RS. 25 000/- BY THE CIT(A). THE DISA LLOWANCE MADE BY ASSESSING OFFICER BEING ADHOC WE FIND NO MERIT IN THE GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE REVENUE. THE SAME IS DISMISSED. C.O. NO. 42/CHD/2009 10. THE GROUNDS OF CROSS OBJECTION RAISED BY THE A SSESSEE IN C.O.42/CHD/2009 ARE AS UNDER:- 1. BECAUSE OF ACTION OF CIT(A) IN UPHOLDING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 2 83 250/- IS BEING CHALLENGED ON FACTS AND LAW. SIGNIFICANTLY THE FINDING REGARDING COMMERCIAL EXPEDIENCY HAS NOT BEEN RECORDED. 2. BECAUSE OF ACTION OF CIT(A) IN UPHOLDING VARIOU S DISALLOWANCES FOR RS. 71 970/- IS BEING CHALLENGED ON FACTS AND LAW. SIGNIFICANTLY THE DISALLOWANCE ARE ADHOC AND CONTRARY TO THE TRIBUNAL ORDER OF DIVISIO NAL BENCH AND EXCESSIVE. 11. THE ISSUE IN GROUND NO.1 IS AGAINST THE DISALLO WANCE COMPUTED OUT OF INTEREST EXPENSES FOLLOWING THE RATIO LAID D OWN BY THE HON'BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN ABHISHEK INDUSTRIES VS. CIT [286 ITR 1)(P&H)]. THE LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED T O BRING ON RECORD ANY EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY. WE ARE BOUND BY THE RAT IO DOWN BY THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ABHISHEK I NDUSTRIES VS CIT (SUPRA) AND THE DISALLOWANCE IN THE CASE OUT OF INT EREST ACCOUNT HAS BEEN COMPUTED RELYING ON THE RATIO DOWN BY THE HON'BLE C OURT. UPHOLDING THE ORDER OF CIT(A) WE DISMISS THE GROUND OF APPEA L RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS CROSS OBJECTION. 12. THE LAST ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGA INST THE RESTRICTION OF DISALLOWANCE OUT OF SEVERAL EXPENSES INCLUDING WAGE S AND LABOUR PADDY 9 EXPENSES RICE EXPENSES RICE MILL REPAIR AND BARDA NA EXPENSES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD DISALLOWED RS. 50 000/- OUT O F WAGES AND LABOUR EXPENSES AND RS. 10 000/- OUT OF REPAIR EXPENSES R ICE EXPENSES AND BARDANAS EXPENSES. A SUM OF RS. 15 000/- WAS DISAL LOWANCE OUT OF PADDY EXPENSES AND RS. 1 970/- OUT OF TELEPHONE EXPENSES. THE CIT(A) RESTRICTED THE DISALLOWANCE OUT OF WAGES AND LABOUR EXPENSES TO RS. 25 000/- AND UPHELD THE OTHER DISALLOWANCES. THE LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE FAIRLY POINTED OUT THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AG GRIEVED BY THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 25 000/- OUT OF WAGES AND LABOU R EXPENSES. WE FIND NO MERIT IN THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE KEEPING IN VIE W THE NATURE OF BUSINESS AND THE EXPENDITURE OF RS. 978246/- INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF WAGES AND LABOUR EXPENSES DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 2 5 000/- OUT OF SUCH EXPENSES IS UPHELD. THE DISALLOWANCE OUT OF THE O THER EXPENSES TOTALING RS. 46 970/- IS ALSO UPHELD. THE GROUND NO.3 RAISE D BY THE ASSESSEE IS THUS DISMISSED. 13. IN THE RESULT APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS PARTLY ALLOWED AND CROSS OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 9 TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2010. SD/- SD/- (D.K.SRIVASTAVA) (SUSHMA CHOWLA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 9 TH DECEMBER 2010 RKK COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR 10