ITO, New Delhi v. M/s. More Credit Securities Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 246/DEL/2010 | 2001-2002
Pronouncement Date: 08-07-2011 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 24620114 RSA 2010
Assessee PAN AACCK5184C
Bench Delhi
Appeal Number ITA 246/DEL/2010
Duration Of Justice 1 year(s) 5 month(s) 23 day(s)
Appellant ITO, New Delhi
Respondent M/s. More Credit Securities Ltd., New Delhi
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 08-07-2011
Appeal Filed By Department
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted E
Tribunal Order Date 08-07-2011
Date Of Final Hearing 06-07-2011
Next Hearing Date 06-07-2011
Assessment Year 2001-2002
Appeal Filed On 15-01-2010
Judgment Text
ITA NO. 246/DEL/2010 & CO NO. 78/DEL/2010 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH E NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI C.L. SETHI JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 246/DEL/2010 A.Y. : 2000-01 INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 5(4) NEW DELHI ROOM NO. 327 CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING I.P. ESTATE NEW DELHI 110 002 VS. M/S MORE CREDIT SECURITIES LTD. D-28 SOUTH EXTN. PART-I NEW DELHI - 110 049 (PAN/GIR NO. : AACCK5184C) AND C.O. NO. 78/DEL/2010 (IN ITA NO. 246/ DEL/2010) A.Y. 2000-01 M/S MORE CREDIT SECURITIES LTD. VS. INCOME TAX OFFI CER D-28 SOUTH EXTN. PART-I WARD 5(4) NEW DELHI - 110 049 NEW DELHI (PAN/GIR NO. : AACCK5184C) (APPELLANT) (APPELLANT) (APPELLANT) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) (RESPONDENT) (RESPONDENT) (RESPONDENT) ASSEESSEE BY : SH. ASHWANI TANEJA & SH. TARUN ADVOCATES DEPARTMENT BY : MRS. SRUJANI MOHANTY SR. D.R. ORDER ORDER ORDER ORDER PER SHAMIM YAHYA : AM PER SHAMIM YAHYA : AM PER SHAMIM YAHYA : AM PER SHAMIM YAHYA : AM THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE AND CROSS OBJECTION BY T HE ASSESSEE EMANATE OUT OF ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCO ME TAX (APPEALS) DATED 13.11.2009 AND PERTAIN TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 00-01. ITA NO. 246/DEL/2010 & CO NO. 78/DEL/2010 2 REVENUES APPEAL 2. THE ISSUE RAISED READS AS UNDER:- ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRE D IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF ` 35 02 500/- MADE BY THE A SSESSING OFFICER U/S 68 OF THE IT ACT BEING THE UNEXPLAINE D / BOGUS CASH CREDITS AND ` 8756/- BEING THE UNACCOUNTED CASH PAI D FOR OBTAINING THE ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES. 3. IN THIS CASE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT AS P ER INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INVESTIGATION) ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES AS BENEFICIARIES FROM ENTRY OPERATORS AND FOLLOWING SUMS WERE RECEIVED :- BENEFICIARY INSTRUMENT NO./DATE AMOUNT NAME OF THE ENTRY PROVIDER I.E. THE OPERATOR BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ENTRY OPERATOR MORE CREDIT SECURITIES LTD. 276306 / 16.11.99 20 01 600 M.V. MARKETING PVT. LTD. BANK OF PUNJAB ROHINI SECTOR-8 II06224 MORE CREDIT SECURITIES LTD. 214077 / 16.11.99 15 00 900 FAIR N SQUARE EXPORTS PVT. LTD. BANK OF PUNJAB ROHINI SECTOR-8 II063316 TOTAL 35 02 500 3.1 ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER NOTED THAT ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO PRODUCE SHRI MUKESH GUPTA DIRECTOR OF BOTH THE CO MPANIES BUT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO DO SO. ASSESSING OFFICER REF ERRED THE STATEMENT OF ITA NO. 246/DEL/2010 & CO NO. 78/DEL/2010 3 SH. MUKESH GUPTA BEFORE THE ADIT (INV.) WHEREIN SHRI MUKESH GUPTA HAD ADMITTED THAT HE WAS DIRECTOR OF M/S MV MARKETING PVT. LTD. AND M/S FAIR N SQUARE EXPORTS PVT. LTD. ALONGWITH OTH ER FIVE COMPANIES. HE ALSO ADMITTED THAT THESE COMPANIES HAVE NOT DONE R EAL BUSINESS EXCEPT DATE ENTRY. ASSESSING OFFICER CONCLUDED THAT ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED ANY ACCOMMODATION ENTRY AND NO SHARE APPLIC ATION MONEY. ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER REFERRED TO THE BANK STAT EMENTS OF THESE SHARE APPLICANTS AND NOTED THAT SUMS WERE DEPOSITED IN CASH BEFORE THE ISSUE OF CHEQUES FOR SHARE APPLICATION MONEY. C ONSIDERING THE ABOVE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE THE ADDITION OF 35 11 256/-. 4. UPON ASSESSEES APPEAL LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ELABORATELY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS AND HELD AS UNDER:- SUBMISSION MADE ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY FINDINGS RECORDED BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER AND VOLUMINOUS DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPANY IN THE FORM OF PAPER BOOK HAVE BEEN CAREFULLY EXAMINED. ADMITTEDLY THE APPELLANT COMPANY HAS FILED FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS IN S UPPORT OF RECEIPT OF APPLICATION MONEY OF RS 35LACS FROM THE THREE PARTIES NAMELY M/S FAIR 'N' SQUARE EXPORTS PVT LTD M/S M.V MARKETING PVT LTD AND M/S MASTERO MARKETING AND ADVERTISING PVT LTD.:- (A). COPY OF INCOME TAX RETURN (B). COPY OF PROFIT & LOSS A/C AND BALANCE SHEET (C). PARTIES WISE SHARE CAPITAL RAISED (D) COPIES OF CONFIRMATIONS AND ITA NO. 246/DEL/2010 & CO NO. 78/DEL/2010 4 ( E) AFFIDAVITS. AS THERE WAS A DISCREPANCY IN THE AMOUNT OF SHARE APPLICATION MONEY RECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT COMPANY DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION A WR ITTEN CLARIFICATION WAS SUBMITTED ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLA NT COMPANY TO THE EFFECT THAT OUT OF RS 20 LACS SHOWN IN THE REPORT OF THE INVESTIGATION WING TO HAVE BEEN RECEI VED FROM M/S M.V. MARKETING PVT LTD ONLY A SUM OF RS 10 LACS WAS ACTUALLY RECEIVED FROM THE SAID COMPANY AND BALANCE RS 10 LACS WAS RECEIVED FROM THE ANOTHER COMPANY NAMELY M/S MASTERO MARKETING AND ADVERTISING PVT LTD. IN MY OPINION THE REASONS FOR WHICH THE SUBJECT AMOUNT WAS BROUGHT TO TAX IN THE HANDS OF THE APPELL ANT COMPANY WERE THAT (A) THERE WAS A REPORT FROM THE INVESTIGATION WING TO THE EFFECT THAT M/S FAIR 'N' S QUARE EXPORTS PVT LTD M/S M.V. MARKETING PVT LTD WERE INVO LVED IN PROVIDING ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES TO THE NEEDY PERSONS AND (B) THE APPELLANT COMPANY FAILED TO PRODUCE THE DIRE CTORS OF THE AFORESAID COMPANY FOR EXAMINATION. THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT ASSESSEE COMPANY THAT TH E LD. ASSESSING OFFICER HIMSELF HAD NOTICES U/S 136 OF THE IT ACT AND IN RESPONSE TO WHICH THEY HAVE CONFIRMED TH E TRANSACTIONS HAS ALSO NOT BEEN DENIED BY THE AO. I ALSO FIND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT ALLOW ANY OPPORT UNITY TO THE APPELLANT ASSESSEE TO CONFRONT THE EVIDENCES CO LLECTED BY THE INVESTIGATION WING NOR THE COPIES OF STATEME NTS OF SHRI MUKESH GUPTA AND RAJAN JASSAL WERE MADE AVAILAB LE FOR ITA NO. 246/DEL/2010 & CO NO. 78/DEL/2010 5 CROSS EXAMINATION. EVEN THE COPY OF BANK STATEMENT R ELIED UPON THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT MADE AVAI LABLE TO THE ASSESSEE COMPANY DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSM ENT PROCEEDINGS. THEREFORE THERE IS A CONSIDERABLE FOR CE IN THE ARGUMENTS OF THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE COMPANY THAT WHATEVER EVIDENCE WERE COLLECTED BY THE REVENUE DID NOT SUGGEST ANY CORRELATION BETWEEN THE ACT OF PROVIDIN G HAWALA ENTRIES AND RECEIPT OF SHARE APPLICATION MONE Y BY THE APPELLANT COMPANY. FURTHER I ALSO AGREE WITH TH E LD. COUNSELS FOR THE APPELLANT THAT IT IS THE DUTY OF T HE ASSESSING OFFICER TO NOT ONLY COLLECT ADVERSE MATERIAL BUT AL SO TO CONFRONT THE SAME WITH THE CONCERNED PARTY BEFORE U SING THE SAME FOR MAKING ADDITIONS. I ALSO DO NOT FIND AN Y MERIT IN THE REPLY SUBMITTED BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE COPIES OF BANK STATEMENTS ETC COLLECTED BY THE DEPAR TMENT HAVE NOW BEEN PROVIDED TO THE APPELLANT. FURTHER T HE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT FORM NO 2 REGARDING RET URN OF ALLOTMENT OF SHARES SUBMITTED TO THE ROC ALSO SPEAK S ABOUT ONLY M/S FAIR 'N' EXPORTS PVT LTD AND THE NA MES OF M/S M.V MARKETING PVT LTD AND M/S MASTERO MARKETING AND ADVERTISING PVT LTD DO NOT FIND PLACE THEREIN IS A LSO FACTUALLY INCORRECT. IT APPEARS TO ME THAT THE ASSES SING OFFICER HAS GIVEN THIS FINDING ONLY ON THE BASIS OF FROM NO 2 AS AVAILABLE ON PAGE 62 OF THE PAPER BOOK AND HE HA S TOTALLY IGNORED PAGES 65 AND 66 WHEREIN NOT ONLY TH E NAMES OF THESE TWO COMPANIES FIND PLACE BUT ALSO THE DEPOS IT OF RS 35 LACS IS DULY REFLECTED IN THE BANK STATEMENT OF THE APPELLANT COMPANY. ITA NO. 246/DEL/2010 & CO NO. 78/DEL/2010 6 IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE AND LOOKING TO THE PLETHORA O F JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS SUPPORTING THE ASSESSEE'S CA SE I DO NOT FIND THAT THE AO WAS JUSTIFIED IN MAKING THE SUBJECT ADDITION OF RS 35 11 256 WHICH ALSO INCLUDES A SUM OF RS 8 756 BEING COMMISSION AMOUNT ALLEGEDLY PAID TO THE HAWALA OPERATORS. IN MY OPINION INSTEAD OF BLINDLY RELYING UPON THE REPORT OF THE INVESTIGATION WING AND BLAMIN G THE APPELLANT ASSESSEE COMPANY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICE R SHOULD HAVE MADE ATTEMPTS TO COLLECT BRING ON RECOR D AND CONFRONT THE ASSESSEE WITH THE EVIDENCE TO SUGGEST THAT THE MONEY IN QUESTION HAS ORIGINATED FROM THE COFFERS OF THE APPELLANT ASSESSEE. HOWEVER SINCE THE ASSESSING OF FICE HAS NOT BROUGHT ANY SUCH EVIDENCE ON RECORD THE SUBJECT ADDITION IS NOT SUSTAINABLE AND THE SAME IS ACCORDIN GLY DELETED. 5. AGAINST THIS ORDER THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFO RE US. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS IN LIGHT OF THE MATERIAL PRODUCED AND PRECEDENT RELIED UPON. WE FIND THAT A SSESSEE HAS PROVIDED ALL THE NECESSARY DETAILS REQUIRED FOR EST ABLISHING THE IDENTITY OF THE PARTIES. THE DETAILS PROVIDED INCLUDING COP Y OF INCOME TAX RETURNS AND THE PAN OF THE PARTIES. UNDER THESE CIR CUMSTANCES IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION WHEN THE IDENTITY OF THE PARTIES ARE ESTABLISHED ADDITION OF SHARE APPLICATION MONEY AS UNEXPLAINED C ASH CREDIT CANNOT BE SUSTAINED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. IN OUR C ONSIDERED OPINION THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS MADE A REASONABLE ORDER WHICH DOES NOT NEED ANY INTERFERENCE ON OUR P ART. ITA NO. 246/DEL/2010 & CO NO. 78/DEL/2010 7 7. ON COMING TO THE ABOVE CONCLUSION WE ALSO PLACE RELIANCE OF THE HONBLE APEX COURT DECISION DELIVERED IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. LOVELY EXPORTS 216 CTR 195. IN THIS CASE IT WAS HELD THAT IF THE SHARE APPLICATION MONEY IS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPAN Y FROM ALLEGED BOGUS SHAREHOLDERS WHOSE NAMES ARE GIVEN TO THE AS SESSING OFFICER THEN THE DEPARTMENT IS FREE TO PROCEED TO REOPEN THEI R INDIVIDUAL ASSESSMENTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW BUT IT CANNOT B E REGARDED AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 8. WE FURTHER PLACE RELIANCE UPON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF C.I.T. V G OURDIN HERBALS INDIA LTD. IN ITA NO. 665/2009 VIDE ORDER DATED 17.4.2009 WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD AS UNDER:- THREE COMPANIES VIZ. M/S KUBERCO SALES PVT. LTD. M/ S GARG FINVEST PVT. AND M/S MAFICO LEASING AND CONSULTANTS PV T. LTD. HAD SUBSCRIBED TO THE SHARE CAPITAL ISSUED BY THE ASSE SSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD SOME DOUBTS ABOUT THE SOURCE OF THE INVESTMENT MADE BY THOSE THREE COMPANIES AND THEREFO RE MADE CERTAIN INQUIRIES. IN RESPONSE THE ASSESSEE PRODUC ED THE COPY OF THE BANK ACCOUNTS OF ALL THE THREE COMPANIES THEI R CERTIFICATES OF INCORPORATION AND ALSO THE INCOME TAX RETURNS FI LED BY THEM. FROM THE ABOVE DOCUMENTS THE IDENTITY AND GENUINENESS OF THESE COMPANIES IS CLEARLY ESTABLISHED. THE ONLY GROUND FOR MAKING ADDITION BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS THAT T HE BANK ITA NO. 246/DEL/2010 & CO NO. 78/DEL/2010 8 ACCOUNTS OF THE THREE COMPANIES REVEALED THAT THE AMOUNTS IN CASH WERE DEPOSITED IN THOSE ACCOUNTS AND THUS CHEQ UES WERE ISSUED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY ALONGWITH SHARE APPLICATION MONEY. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT FOLLOWING THE JUDGEMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF COMMISSI ONER OF INCOME TAX VS. LOVELY EXPORTS PVT. LTD. 216 CTR 195 THE ITAT HAS RIGHTLY HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DISCHARGED I TS BURDEN. IN CASE THOSE THREE COMPANIES HAD RECEIVED CERTAIN CAS H WHICH WERE DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNTS IT WAS FOR TH E INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT TO TAKE ACTION AGAINST THE SAID COMPANIES. 9. WE FURTHER PLACE RELIANCE UPON THE DECISION OF T HE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF C.I.T. VS. DWARKADISH INVESTMENT P LTD. THE RELEVANT PARAS OF THIS JUDGEMENT OF HON BLE DELHI HIGH COURT I.E. PARA NO. 6 7 & 8 ARE REPRODUCED HEREIN BELOW:- 6. IN OUR OPINION AS SECTION 68 OF THE ACT 1961 HAS BEEN INTERPRETED AS RECENTLY AS 2008 BY A DIVISION BENCH OF THIS COURT IN DIVINE LEASING AND FINANCE LTD. (SUPRA) AFTE R CONSIDERING ALL THE RELEVANT JUDGEMENTS WE DO NOT HAVE TO RECONSIDER ALL THE JUDGEMENTS REFERRED TO BY MR. SAH NI ITA NO. 246/DEL/2010 & CO NO. 78/DEL/2010 9 WHICH ARE PRIOR IN DATE AND TIME TO THE AFORESAID JUDGEMENT. IN FACT A SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION FILED A GAINST THE SAID DIVISION BENCH JUDGEMENT WAS DISMISSED BY THE SUPREME COURT BY WAY OF SPEAKING ORDER IN C.I.T. VS . LOVELY EXPORTS (P) LTD. 216 CTR 195 (SC). THE SUPREME COUR T IN LOVELY EXPORTS PVT. LTD. (SUPRA) HAS HELD AS UNDER:- CAN THE AMOUNT OF SHARE MONEY BE REGARDED AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961. WE FIND NO MERIT IN THIS SPECIAL LE AVE PETITION FOR THE SIMPLE REASON THAT IF THE SHARE APPLICATION MONEY IS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY FROM ALLEGED BOGUS SHAREHOLDERS WHOSE NAMES ARE GIVEN TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER THEN THE DEPARTMENT IS FREE TO PROCEED TO REOPEN THEIR INDIVIDUAL ASSESSMENTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. HENCE WE FIND NO INFIRMITY WITH THE IMPUGNED JUDGEMENT. 7. CONSEQUENTLY THE DOCTRINE OF MERGER WOULD APPLY AND THE JUDGEMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT IN LOVELY EXPORTS (P) LTD. (SUPRA) WOULD COVER THE FIELD WITH REGARD TO INTERP RETATION OF SECTION 68 OF THE ACT. ITA NO. 246/DEL/2010 & CO NO. 78/DEL/2010 10 8. IN ANY MANNER THE ONUS OF PROOF IS NOT A STATIC ONE. THOUGH IN SECTION 68 PROCEEDINGS THE INITIAL BURDE N OF PROOF LIES ON THE ASSESSEE YET ONCE HE PROVES THE IDENTIT Y OF THE CREDITORS/ SHARE APPLICANTS BY EITHER FURNISHING T HEIR PAN NUMBER OR INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT NUMBER AND SHOWS THE GENUINENESS OF TRANSACTION BY SHOWING MONEY / HIS B OOKS EITHER BY ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUE OR BY DRAFT OR BY A NY OTHER MODE THEN THE ONUS OF PROOF WOULD SHIFT TO THE REVE NUE. JUST BECAUSE THE CREDITORS /SHARE APPLICANTS COULD NOT BE FOUND AT THE ADDRESS GIVEN IT WOULD NOT GIVE THE R EVENUE THE RIGHT TO INVOKE SECTION 68. ONE MUST NOT LOSE SIGHT OF THE FACT THAT IT IS THE REVENUE WHICH HAS ALL THE P OWER AND WHEREWITHAL TO TRACE ANY PERSON. MOREOVER IT IS SETTLED LAW THAT THE ASSESSEE NEED NOT TO PROVE THE SOURCE OF SOURCE. 10. FROM THE ABOVE PARAGRAPHS OF THE HONBLE JURISDI CTIONAL HIGH COURT DECISION IT IS SEEN THAT IT HAS BEEN HELD BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT THAT ASSESSEE HAS PROVED THE IDENTITY OF THE SHARE APPLICANTS BY EITHER FURNISHING THEIR PAN NUMBER OR INCOME TAX ASSE SSMENT NUMBER AND SHOWN THE GENUINENESS OF TRANSACTION BY SHOWIN G MONEY EITHER BY ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUE OR BY DRAFT OR BY ANY OTHE R MODE THEN THE ONUS OF PROOF WOULD SHIFT TO THE REVENUE. IN THE PRESENT CASE ASSESSEE HAS DISCHARGED ITS ONUS TO PROVE THE IDENT ITY OF THE SHARE APPLICANTS. ITA NO. 246/DEL/2010 & CO NO. 78/DEL/2010 11 11. IN THE BACKGROUND OF THE AFORESAID DISCUSSIONS AND PRECEDENTS RELIED UPON WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY OR ILLE GALITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). ACCOR DINGLY WE UPHOLD THE SAME. 12. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE STANDS DISMISSED. ASSESSEES CROSS OBJECTION 13. IN THE CROSS OBJECTION ASSESSEE HAS AGITATED AGA INST THE VALIDITY OF THE REOPENING IN THIS CASE. 14. WE FIND THAT WE HAVE ALREADY DISMISSED THE REV ENUES APPEAL ON THE MERITS IN THIS CASE. HENCE THE CROSS OBJE CTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE HAS BECOME INFRUCTUOUS. ACCORDINGLY WE DI SMISS THE SAME AS INFRUCTUOUS. 15. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AND CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STAND DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 08/7/2011. SD/ SD/ SD/ SD/- -- - SD/ SD/ SD/ SD/- -- - [C.L. SETHI] [C.L. SETHI] [C.L. SETHI] [C.L. SETHI] [SHAMIM YAHYA] [SHAMIM YAHYA] [SHAMIM YAHYA] [SHAMIM YAHYA] JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATE:- 08/7/2011 SRB COPY FORWARDED TO: COPY FORWARDED TO: COPY FORWARDED TO: COPY FORWARDED TO: - -- - 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT DELHI BENCHES