ITO, New Delhi v. Smt. Madhu Singhal,, Delhi

ITA 2108/DEL/2009 | 2001-2002
Pronouncement Date: 15-01-2010 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 210820114 RSA 2009
Bench Delhi
Appeal Number ITA 2108/DEL/2009
Duration Of Justice 7 month(s) 28 day(s)
Appellant ITO, New Delhi
Respondent Smt. Madhu Singhal,, Delhi
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 15-01-2010
Appeal Filed By Department
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted E
Tribunal Order Date 15-01-2010
Date Of Final Hearing 07-01-2010
Next Hearing Date 07-01-2010
Assessment Year 2001-2002
Appeal Filed On 18-05-2009
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH E: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI C.L. SETHI JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI K.G. BANSAL ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 2108/DEL/2009 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2001-02 INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-20(4) NEW DELHI. VS. SMT. MADHU SINGHAL A-21 VIJAY NAGAR DELHI. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : G.S. SAHOTA SR . D.R. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI S. KRISHNAN ADV. O R D E R PER: C.L. SETHI J.M. THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 05.03.2009 PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IN THE MATTER OF AN ASSESSMENT MADE U/S 147/144 OF THE ACT 1961 PERTAINING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02. 2. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE AS UNDER: - 1. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DE LETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 7 00 000/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS INC OME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE CASH OF RS. 5 00 000/- AND RS. 2 00 000/- RESPECTIVELY HAD BEEN DEPOSITED IN T HE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE ISSUING CHEQUES TO M/S RAJSHREE MAR KETING AND M/S SAKSHI CONSTRUCTIONS WHICH REMAINED UNEXPLAINED. 2. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN APP RECIATING THAT THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSITED AMOUNTING TO RS. 5 00 000/ - AND RS. 2 00 000/- RESPECTIVELY IN THE ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE ISSUE OF CHEQUE OF SIMILAR AMOUNT TO M/S. RAJSHREE MARKETING AND M/S. SAKSHI CONSTRUCTIONS REMAINED UNEXPLAINED AND THAT IT COUL D VERY WELL BE TAXED U/S 68 OF THE I.T. ACT 1961. ITA NO. 2108/DEL/2009 2 3. IN THIS CASE THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S 1 47/144 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT BY THE A.O. VIDE ORDER DATED 18.12.2007. IN TH E ASSESSMENT ORDER THE A.O. HAS STATED THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS. 7 LAKH RECEIVED F ROM M/S. SAKHSHI CONSTRUCTION (RS. 5 00 000) AND RS. RAJ SHREE MARKETING AND SERV ICES (RS. 2 00 000/-) ON 29.12.2000 BY THE ASSESSEE HAD REMAINED UNEXPLAINED INASMUCH AS ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRODUCED ANY EVIDENCES IN SUPPORT OF THE GENUIN ENESS OF THE CREDIT ENTRIES. THE A.O. FURTHER STATED IN THE ASSESSMENT THAT IN T HE COURSE OF INVESTIGATION CONDUCTED BY DIRECTORATE OF INCOME TAX (INVESTIGATI ON) IT WAS REVEALED THAT M/S RAJ SHREE MARKETING AND SERVICES AND M/S. SAKSHI CO NSTRUCTION ARE ENGAGED IN THE ACTIVITY OF PROVIDING ACCOMMODATION ENTRY OF W HICH ASSESSEE IS ALSO ONE OF THE BENEFICIARY. HE THEREFORE TREATED THE AFORES AID AMOUNT OF RS. 7 00 000/- AS INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES. 4. ON AN APPEAL THE LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITIO N AFTER CONSIDERING THE VARIOUS DOCUMENTS AND EVIDENCES FILED BY THE ASSESS EE BEFORE HIM IN RESPECT OF WHICH A REMAND REPORT WAS OBTAINED FROM THE A.O. 5. IN THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE TH E LD. CIT(A) IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE SAID AMOUNT HAS NOT BEEN RECEIVED AS LOAN OR CREDIT FROM THE AFORESAID TWO PARTIES I.E. M/S RAJ SHREE MARKETING AND SERVICES AND M/S. SAKSHI CONSTRUCTION BUT THE AMOUNT HAS BEE N RECEIVED ON ACCOUNT OF REPAYMENT OF THE OUTSTANDING BALANCE DUE TO THE ASS ESSEE BY THE AFORESAID TWO PARTIES. IN SUPPORT THEREOF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTE D THE DETAILS ABOUT THE ITA NO. 2108/DEL/2009 3 TRANSACTIONS MADE WITH AFORESAID TWO PARTIES ALONGW ITH COPY OF BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS AFORESAID TWO PARTIES. THE COPIES OF THE DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WERE SENT TO THE A.O. IN ORDER TO GIVE HIM AN OPPORTUNITY IN THE TERMS OF PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN RULE 46A(3) OF THE INCOME TAX RULES 1962. THE A.O. THEN SUBMITTED ITS REPOR T ON 10.02.2009 BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) A COPY OF WHICH WAS GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE O N 20.02.2009 BY THE LD. CIT(A). AFTER ADMITTING THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES S UBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE AND OBTAINING A REMAND REPORT FROM THE A.O. IN RESPECT OF THOSE EVIDENCES SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE THE LD. CIT(A) DECIDED THE ISSUE B Y OBSERVING AND HOLDING AS UNDER:- 5. I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THE W RITTEN AND ORAL SUBMISSION(S) OF THE APPELLANT AND THE REMAND REPOR T OF THE A.O. THE A.O HAS MADE AN ADDITION OF RS. 7 00 000/- AS UNEXP LAINED MONEY BEING RECEIVED FROM THE TWO PARTIES NAMELY SAKSHI CONST RUCTION COMPANY AND RAJSHREE MARKETING ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- (A) THERE WAS NO COMPLIANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. (B) INFORMATION WAS RECEIVED FROM THE DIRECTORATE OF IN COME TAX (INVESTIGATION) THAT SEVERAL PERSONS HAD BEEN OPERA TING AS ENTRY PROVIDERS EITHER IN THEIR OWN NAMES AND THEIR RELAT IONS OR IN THE NAMES OF CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS AND EVEN BY FLOATING BOGUS FIRM S AND COMPANIES. (C) SUCH ENTRY PROVIDERS WERE EITHER DEPOSITING CASH DI RECTLY OR ROTATING CREDIT ENTRIES IN SEVERAL ACCOUNTS BY FIRS T DEPOSITING CASH IN A PARTICULAR BANK IN A PARTICULAR CASE. (D) DESPITE HAVING OBTAINED PERMANENT ACCOUNT NUMBERS F ROM THE DEPARTMENT THESE WERE NOT GENUINE TAX ENTITIES OR WERE NOT HAVING ANY FUNDS AT THEIR DISPOSAL TO ADVANCE AS CREDIT IN ANY FORM TO THE BENEFICIARIES OF SUCH CREDIT ENTRIES. (E) IN THE INSTANT CASE M/S RAJSHREE MARKETING & SERVI CES AND M/S. SAKHSI CONSTRUCTIONS ARE SUCH TWO ENTRY PROVIDERS A ND THE ASSESSEE IS THE BENEFICIARY. ITA NO. 2108/DEL/2009 4 5.1 ON THE OTHER HAND THE APPELLANT HAS SUBMITTED THAT SHE HAS NOT RECEIVED ANY ACCOMMODATION OR BOGUS ENTRIES FROM AN Y PARTY INCLUDING M/S. RAJSHREE MARKETING & SERVICES AND M/S SAKSHI C ONSTRUCTION. RATHER SHE GOT BACK THE MONEY FROM THE PARTIES TO W HOM IT WAS GIVEN AT AN EARLIER DATE. IN ORDER TO SUBSTANTIATE HER CONT ENTION THE COPY OF BANK STATEMENTS OF HER ACCOUNT AS WELL AS THOSE OF THE A FOREMENTIONED TWO PARTIES WERE FURNISHED. IT IS NOTICED THAT THE LD. A.O. HAS NOT FOUND ANY FAULT IN REGARD TO THE AFOREMENTIONED EVIDENCES WH ICH HAVE BEEN PRODUCED BY THE APPELLANT. IT IS FURTHER OBSERVED THAT EVEN THOUGH A.O. HAS VAST POWERS U/S 131 AND 133(6) OF THE ACT HE H AS NOT USED ANY OF HIS POWERS TO VERIFY THE GENUINENESS OF THE CLAIM OF TH E ASSESSEE BY VERIFYING THE DOCUMENTS FURNISHED BY IT. IF A.O. HAD DOUBTED THE IMPUGNED TRANSACTION AFTER RECEIVING THE EVIDENCES WHICH HAD BEEN PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE IN SUPPORT OF ITS CLAIM IT WAS VERY MUCH O PEN TO THE A.O. TO DO HIS INDEPENDENT ENQUIRY AND VERIFICATION. THIS HAS NOT BEEN DONE BY THE A.O. FURTHER WHAT IS THE DESIRED DOCUMENTARY EVID ENCE REQUIRED TO SUPPORT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AS REQUIRED BY TH E A.O. IS NOT COMING OUT OF THE ORDER OF THE A.O. AS WELL AS OUT OF THE REMAND REPORT SUBMITTED BY HIM. IT HAS BEEN POINTED OUT IN THE REMAND REPO RT THAT CASH AMOUNTING TO RS. 7 LACS AND RS. 5 LACS HAS BEEN DEP OSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNTS OF THE AFOREMENTIONED TWO PARTIES RESPECTI VELY BEFORE THE ISSUANCE OF CHEQUES OF RS. 2 LACS AND RS. 5 LACS RE SPECTIVELY BUT THIS IN ITSELF IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO ESTABLISH THE FACT THAT THE CASH DEPOSITED WAS BELONGING TO THE ASSESSEE. IT IS ALSO OBSERVED THA T THERE IS ALSO NO EVIDENCE OR MATERIAL TO EVEN SUGGEST AS POINTED OU T ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE CHEQUE DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY EM ANATED FROM THE ASSESSEE SO THAT IT COULD BE SAID THAT THE ASSESSEE S OWN MONEY WAS BROUGHT BACK IN THE GUISE OF CREDIT ENTRIES. 5.2 SINCE THE ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE AS UNEXPLAINED CAS H CREDIT IT IS CONSIDERED NECESSARY TO EXAMINE THE CASE IN THE LIG HT OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 68 OF THE ACT. UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT IF ANY SUM IS FOUND CREDITED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE APPELLANT AND THE APPELLANT OFFERS NO EXPLANATION ABOUT THE NATURE AND SOURCE THEREOF OR THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY HIM IS NOT SATISFACTORY IN THE OPINION O F THE ASSESSING OFFICER THE SUM SO CREDITED MAY BE CHARGED TO INCOME TAX AS THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE OF THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR. THEREFORE WHAT HAS TO BE ENQUIRED INTO BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS THE NATUR E AND SOURCE OF THE SUM OR DEPOSIT. IF THE EXPLANATION WITH REGARD TO NATU RE AND SOURCE IS NOT FOUND SATISFACTORY ONLY THEN THE AMOUNT SO CREDITE D MAY BE TREATED AS INCOME. IT HAS BEEN HELD BY THE VARIOUS HIGH COURT S THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS TO PROVE THREE CONDITIONS (I) IDENTITY OF THE C REDITOR (II) CAPACITY OF SUCH CREDITOR TO ADVANCE MONEY & (III) GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION. IF ITA NO. 2108/DEL/2009 5 ALL THE AFORESAID CONDITIONS ARE PROVED THE BURDEN SHIFTS ON THE REVENUE TO PROVE THAT THE AMOUNT BELONGED TO THE ASSESSEE. IT HAS ALSO BEEN HELD BY THE VARIOUS HIGH COURTS THAT THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE ASKED TO PROVE THE SOURCE OF SOURCE OR THE ORIGIN OF DEPOSIT. REFEREN CE MAY ALSO BE MADE TO THE DECISION OF THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V S. ORISSA CORPN. (P) LTD. (1986) 159 ITR 78 (SC) & KISHAN CHAND CHELLARA M VS. CIT 125 ITR 713 (SC). IN THIS REGARD IT IS IMPORTANT TO TAKE NOTE OF THE JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF KISHAN CHAND CHELLARAM (SUPRA) HOLDING THAT THE BURDEN IS ON THE DEPARTMENT TO SHOW THAT THE MONEY BELONGED T O THE ASSESSEE BY BRINGING PROPER EVIDENCE ON RECORD AND THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT BE EXPECTED TO PUT EVIDENCE TO HELP THE DEPARTMENT TO DISCHARGE THE BURDEN THAT LAY UPON IT. THE EVIDENCE IF ANY GATHERED B EHIND THE BACK OF THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE USED AGAINST HIM WITHOUT CONFRON TING HIM WITH IT. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE ON THE BASIS OF WHICH ASSESSIN G OFFICER WOULD COME TO A FINDING THAT SUM CREDITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE REPRESENTED THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 5.3 UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE STATE D ABOVE IT IS HELD THAT THE APPELLANT HAD DISCHARGED ITS BURDEN O F PROOF U/S 68 OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY THE ADDITION OF RS. 7 00 000/- O N ACCOUNTOF CREDIT ENTRIES IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE APPELLANT IS DEL ETED. AS A RESULT GROUND NO. 1 IS ALLOWED. 6. HENCE THE DEPARTMENT IS IN APPEAL. 7. THE LD. D.R. HAS SUBMITTED THAT IN THE BANK ACCO UNT OF THE ASSESSEE THE CASH OF RS. 5 00 000/- AND RS. 2 00 000/- WERE DEPO SITED IMMEDIATELY BEFORE ISSUING THE CHEQUES TO M/S RAJ SHRI MARKETING AND S ERVICES AND M/S. SAKSHI CONSTRUCTION AND THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE BEFOR E ISSUING THE CHEQUE OF SIMILAR AMOUNT TO M/S RAJ SHREE MARKETING AND SERVICES AND M/S. SAKSHI CONSTRUCTION AND THUS THE AMOUNT OF RS. 7 00 000/- DEPOSITED IN ASSESSEES ACCOUNT HAD REMAINED UNEXPLAINED AND IT WAS THUS RIGHTLY TAXE D U/S 68 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961. ITA NO. 2108/DEL/2009 6 8. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ON THE OTHER H AND SUBMITTED THAT THE A.O. HAS MADE THE ADDITION OF RS. 7 00 000/-IN RESPECT O F THE AMOUNT RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM M/S RAJ SHREE MARKETING AND SERVICES AND M/S. SAKSHI CONSTRUCTION AND NOT WITH REGARD TO THE AMOUNT DEP OSITED BY THE ASSESSEE IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS. 7 00 000/- RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM THE AFORESAID TWO PARTIES IS THE REPAYMENT OF THE AMOUNT ALREADY PAID EARLIER BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE AFORESA ID TWO PARTIES AND THEREFORE THE AMOUNT RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE CANNOT CONSIDERED T O BE AN ACCOMMODATION ENTRY TO COVER UP ANY UNACCOUNTED MONEY OF THE ASSE SSEE. HE THEREFORE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN DELETING T HE ADDITION. 9. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND HAVE GONE THR OUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 10. FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IT IS CLEAR THAT THE A.O. HAS MADE THE ALLEGED ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF THE AMOUNT OF RS. 7 00 000/- RECEIVED ON 29.12.2000 FROM M/S RAJ SHREE MARKETING AND SERVICES AND M/S. SAKSH I CONSTRUCTION. IT WAS NOT THE CASE OF THE A.O. THAT THE CASH AMOUNT DEPOSITED IN THE ASSESSEES BANK ACCOUNT BEFORE ISSUING CHEQUE TO M/S RAJ SHREE MARK ETING AND SERVICES AND M/S. SAKSHI CONSTRUCTION HAD REMAINED UNEXPLAINED. THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O. IS WITH REGARD TO THE AMOUNT RECEIVED BY THE ASSESS EE FROM M/S RAJ SHREE MARKETING AND SERVICES AND M/S. SAKSHI CONSTRUCTION . FROM THE DETAILS OF ITA NO. 2108/DEL/2009 7 TRANSACTIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE WITH M/S RAJ SHRE E MARKETING AND SERVICES AND M/S. SAKSHI CONSTRUCTION THE FOLLOWING POSITIO N EMERGES:- PAYMENT DETAILS RAJSHREE MARKETING RS. 5 00 000/- (RECEIVED VIDE CH. NO. 51420 DT. 26.12.2000) SAKSHI CONSTRUCTION RS. 2 00 000.00 (RECEIVED VID E CH. NO. 61062 DT. 28.12.2000) RECEIPT DETAILS SAKSHI CONSTRUCTION RS. 2 00 000.00 (PAID VIDE CH . NO. 14860 DT. 28.07.2000) RAJSHREE MARKETING RS. 5 00 000/- (PAID VIDE CH. NO. 14862 DT. 20.08.2000) 11 IN THIS CASE THE AMOUNT OF RS. 2 00 000/- AND R S. 5 00 000/- WERE PAID BY THE ASSESSEE TO M/S. SAKSHI CONSTRUCTION AND M/S RA J SHREE MARKETING AND SERVICES VIDE CHEQUE NO. 14860 AND 14862 DATED 28.0 7.2000 AND 20.08.2000 RESPECTIVELY. IN OTHER WORDS THE ASSESSEE HAD ADV ANCED THE AMOUNT OF RS. 2 00 000/- AND RS. 5 00 000/- TO M/S. SAKSHI CONSTR UCTION AND M/S RAJ SHREE MARKETING AND SERVICES ON 28.07.2000 AND 20.08.2000 . THIS AMOUNT WAS REMAINING OUTSTANDING RECEIVABLE BY THE ASSESSEE FR OM THE AFORESAID TWO PARTIES. LATER ON AFORESAID TWO PARTIES HAD RE-PAID THE AMOU NT ON 28.12.2000 AND 26.10.2000 THROUGH BANKING CHANNELS. THE A.O. HAS NOT BROUGHT ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD TO PROVE AND ESTABLISH THAT THE AMOUNT DEPOS ITED IN THE ACCOUNT OF AFORESAID TWO PARTIES WERE ACTUALLY EMANATED FROM T HE COFFERS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE PURPOSE OF ISSUING CHEQUES TO THE ASSESSEE TO L IQUIDATE THE AMOUNT OUTSTANDING IN THE NAME OF THE AFORESAID TWO PARTIE S IN THE ACCOUNTS OF THE ITA NO. 2108/DEL/2009 8 ASSESSEE. THE A.O. HAS MERELY MADE A REFERENCE TO THE INVESTIGATION MADE BY THE DIRECTORATE INCOME TAX INVESTIGATION WITHOUT POINTI NG OUT ANY EVIDENCES OR THE MATERIALS COLLECTED BY THE INVESTIGATION WING INDIC ATING THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS. 7 00 000/- REPAID BY THE AFORESAID PARTIES TO THE A SSESSEE IS AN UNACCOUNTED MONEY OF THE ASSESSEE. NO DETAILS ABOUT THE INVESTI GATION REPORT HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD TO SUPPORT THE A.O.S CASE. 12. FURTHER IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL THE DEPARTME NT HAS TRY TO MAKE OUT A CASE TO SUSTAIN THE ADDITION OF RS. 7 00 000/- ON THE GR OUND THAT AMOUNT OF RS. 5 00 000/- AND RS. 2 00 000/- DEPOSITED IN CASH IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE ISSUING OF CHEQUE OF SIMILAR AMOUNT TO M/S RAJ SHREE MARKETING AND SERVICES AND M/S. SAKSHI CONSTRUCTION HAD REMAI NED UNEXPLAINED THOUGH IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THE A.O. HAS MADE THE ADDITIO N NOT ON ACCOUNT OF AMOUNT DEPOSITED BY THE ASSESSEE IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT BEFOR E ISSUING CHEQUES TO M/S RAJ SHREE MARKETING AND SERVICES AND M/S. SAKSHI CONSTR UCTION BUT THE ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE ON ACCOUNT OF THE AMOUNT RECEIVED BACK BY THE ASSESSEE FROM M/S RAJ SHREE MARKETING AND SERVICES AND M/S. SAKSHI CONSTR UCTION AND THEREFORE IT IS CLEAR THAT THE DEPARTMENT HAS TRIED TO MAKE OUT A N EW CASE BEFORE US WHICH WAS NOT THE BASIS FOR ADDITION WHILE MAKING THE ASSESSM ENT. 13. IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION WE THERE FORE UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 7 00 000 /- MADE BY THE A.O. 14. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ITA NO. 2108/DEL/2009 9 15. THIS DECISION IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT O N 15 TH JANUARY 2010. (K.G. BANSAL) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (C.L. SETHI) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 15 TH JANUARY 2010. MAMTA COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR ITAT NEW DELHI. BY ORDER DEPUTY REGISTRAR