ACIT Circle-3 (1), New Delhi v. Caryaire Equipments, Noida

ITA 3016/DEL/2008 | 2000-2001
Pronouncement Date: 09-09-2011 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 301620114 RSA 2008
Assessee PAN AAACC2454K
Bench Delhi
Appeal Number ITA 3016/DEL/2008
Duration Of Justice 2 year(s) 11 month(s) 8 day(s)
Appellant ACIT Circle-3 (1), New Delhi
Respondent Caryaire Equipments, Noida
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 09-09-2011
Appeal Filed By Department
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted B
Tribunal Order Date 09-09-2011
Date Of Final Hearing 24-08-2011
Next Hearing Date 24-08-2011
Assessment Year 2000-2001
Appeal Filed On 01-10-2008
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH B NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.P. TOLANI AND SHRI K.D. RANJAN ITA NOS. 3016/DEL/08 3447 &1279/DEL/07 1272 & 298 4/DEL/08 ASSTT. YRS: 2000-01 01-02 02-03 03-04 & 2005-06 ACIT CIRCLE 3(1) VS. M/S CARYAIRE EQUIPMENTS NEW DELHI. A-10 SECTOR-59 NOIDA (UP) PAN/GIR NO.AAACC2454K ( APPELLANT ) ( RESPONDENT ) APPELLANT BY : SHRI SALIL MISHRA SR. DR RESPONDENT BY: SHRI ANIL KUMAR CA O R D E R PER R.P. TOLANI J.M : THESE ARE REVENUES APPEALS AGAINST SEPARATE ORDERS OF CIT(A) RELATING TO A.Y. 2000-01 01-02 02-03 03-04 & 2005-06. ALL THE APPEALS WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY A CONSOLIDATE D ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. ONE COMMON GROUND RAISED IN ALL THESE APPEALS CHALLENGES THE CIT(A)S ORDER HOLDING THAT UNIT II OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80-IA OF THE I.T. ACT OVERRULING THE AOS OBJECTION THAT SUCH UNIT WAS NOT CARRYING OUT ANY INDEPENDENT MANUFACTU RING ACTIVITY WHICH WAS ESSENTIAL FOR CLAIMING SUCH DEDUCTION. IN A.Y. 2003 -04 AND 2004-05 ANOTHER GROUND RAISED IS AGAINST ALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION @ 60% ON COMPUTER PERIPHERALS AND ACCESSORIES. 2 2. BRIEF FACTS ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WAS I NCORPORATED ON 11-10- 1989 AND STARTED PRODUCTION SINCE 1990 AT ITS SECTO R 8 NOIDA UNIT WHICH IS CALLED AS UNIT I. THEREAFTER ASSESSEE OPENED A NEW FACTORY AT SECTOR-59 NOIDA CALLING UNIT II WHICH STARTED COMMERCIAL PRO DUCTION IN SEPTEMBER 1997. BOTH THE UNITS WERE ENGAGED IN THE MANUFACTUR ING AND FABRICATION OF STEEL AND OTHER METAL ACCESSORIES EASY AIR DISTRIB UTION PRODUCTS AIR CONTROL & TREATMENT DEVICES ETC. BOTH THE UNITS CLAIMED DEDUC TION U/S 80-IA UP TO A.Y. 1999-2000. 2.1. THEREAFTER ASSESSEE SURRENDERED ITS MANUFACTU RING LICENSE FOR UNIT I IN F.Y. 1999-2000 ON 17-5-1999 AND STARTED ONLY DOI NG JOB WORK FOR UNIT II. IT MAY BE PERTINENT TO MENTION THAT UNIT I STARTED ITS PRODUCTION IN 1990 AND WENT ON CLAIMING DEDUCTION U/S 80-IA FOR TEN YEARS. SINCE THE BENEFIT OF THIS DEDUCTION WAS GOING TO AN END UNIT I STOPPED THE MANUFACTURING ACTIVITY AND SURRENDERED ITS MANUFACTURING LICENSE AND START ED DOING JOB WORK FOR UNIT II BY USING ITS FACILITIES AND WORKERS ON BEH ALF OF UNIT II. ACCORDING TO AO IT AMOUNTED TO RECONSTRUCTION OF EXISTING BUSIN ESS OF ASSESSEE VIS A VIS UNIT II AND ITS ACTIVITIES WERE OSTENSIBLY TRANSFO RMED TO UNIT II WHICH CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S 80-IA. SECTION 80I(2) PROVIDE S THAT MANUFACTURING UNIT SHALL NOT BE FORMED BY SPLITTING UP OR RECONST RUCTION OF A BUSINESS ALREADY IN EXISTENCE AND SHALL NOT BE FORMED BY TRA NSFER TO A NEW BUSINESS OF 3 MACHINERY OR PLANT PREVIOUSLY USED FOR ANY PURPOSE. AO HELD THAT SINE THE PLANT AND MACHINERY OF UNIT I WERE BEING USED FOR THE PURPOSES OF BUSINESS OF UNIT II THE LATTER WAS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTI ON U/S 80-IA. AO IN HIS ORDER HAS FURTHER OBSERVED THAT ASSESSEE DID NOT FURNISH THE ACCOUNT OF JOB WORK AND OTHER SERVICES BEING PROVIDED BY UNIT I TO UNIT II. THE DEDUCTION WAS DISALLOWED BY AO IN ALL THESE YEARS ON ABOVE LINES. 2.3. AGGRIEVED ASSESSEE PREFERRED FIRST APPEAL WH ERE DETAILED SUBMISSIONS WERE MADE RAISING FOLLOWING ISSUES: (A) UNIT NO. II WAS ESTABLISHED EVEN WHEN UNIT I WAS IN OPERATION BY WAY OF A NEW AND DISTINCT UNIT WHICH INCLUDED PLANT AND MACHINERY AND DEDUCTION U/S 80-I AND 80I(1A) WAS INDEPENDENTL Y ALLOWED TO BOTH THE UNITS THEREFORE IT CANNOT BE HELD THAT U NIT NO. II WAS ESTABLISHED BY RECONSTRUCTION OF EXISTING BUSINESS OR BY TRANSFER OF OLD PLANT & MACHINERY. UNIT NO. II WAS AN INTEGRATE D AND INDEPENDENTLY FUNCTIONING UNIT DISTINCT AND SEPARA TE FROM UNIT I AND INDEPENDENTLY FULFILLED ALL THE CONDITIONS FOR SUCH DEDUCTION. RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE RATIO OF DECISION OF HON BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF TEXTILE MACHINERY CORPORATION LTD. VS. CIT (1997) 107 ITR 195(SC) WHERE THE QUESTION INVOLVED WAS THAT IF AN EXISTING CIVIL ENGINEERING UNIT STARTS NEW UNIT TO MANUFACTURING ARTICLES TO BE USED IN THE EXISTING BUSINESS WHETH ER THERE IS RECONSTRUCTION OF BUSINESS ALREADY IN EXISTENCE? TH E HONBLE COURT THEREIN OBSERVED AS UNDER: 4 IT IS IMPORTANT THAT THE NEW UNIT MUST BE AN INTEG RATED UNIT BY ITSELF. IT SHOULD PRODUCE ARTICLES WITH AT LEAST TEN PEOPLE WITH THE AID OF POWER AND TWENTY PEOPLE WITH OUT THE AID OF POWER. ALSO THERE IS NO TRANSFER OF THE ASSETS OF THE OLD BUSINESS TO THE NEW UNIT. HOW THE END PROD UCTS ARE USED IS IMMATERIAL. THEREFORE THE ASSESSEE IS E NTITLED TO RELIEF U/S 15C OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1922. (B) IN A.Y. 1998-99 AND 1999-2000 SAME UNIT II WAS ALLO WED DEDUCTION U/S 80-IA BY AO HIMSELF BY HOLDING THAT U NIT II WAS INDEPENDENT AND FULLY INTEGRATED UNIT WHICH IMPLIES THAT UNIT II WAS AN INDEPENDENT AND FULLY INTEGRATED UNIT AND WA S NOT FORMED BY WAY OF TRANSFER OF ANY PLANT OR MACHINERY NOR RE CONSTRUCTION OF EXISTING BUSINESS. IF THE MACHINERY WAS RUN BY OTHE R UNIT IT WILL NOT DISENTITLE THE ASSESSEE FROM CLAIMING DEDUCTION U/S 80-IA AS THE REMAINING ACTIVITIES INCLUDING PROCUREMENT OF ORDER S PREPARATION OF DESIGN RUN AND EXECUTION OF SALES WAS DONE BY T HE ASSESSEE ON ITS OWN RISK AND COST. CIT(A) BY AN ELABORATE ORDER HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE S UNIT II WAS NEITHER FORMED BY WAY OF RECONSTRUCTION OF EXISTING BUSINES S OR TRANSFER OF ANY EXISTING PLANT OR MACHINERY OF ANY EXISTING BUSINES S AND ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION. AGGRIEVED REVENUE IS IN APPEALS BEFORE US. 3. LEARNED DR REITERATED THE FACTS AND CONTENDS THA T ASSESSEE DEVISED THE MECHANISM TO GET TAX ADVANTAGES BY SHIFTING JOB WO RK ACTIVITIES TO UNIT I AS THE LATTER WAS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR ANY DEDUCTION ON PR OFITS; UNIT II IS ENJOYING THE BENEFIT OF DEDUCTION U/S 80-IAON MANUFACTURING ACTIVITIES WHICH ARE 5 ACTUALLY CARRIED OUT BY UNIT I. THUS THE PLANT & MA CHINERY OF UNIT I IS INDIRECTLY TRANSFERRED TO UNIT II IN THE GARB OF JO B WORK TO CLAIM THE BENEFITS U/S 80-IA. IT WAS FURTHER CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESS EE HAS NOT FURNISHED PROPER DOCUMENTS AS POINTED OUT BY AO TO DEMONSTRATE THE D ETAILS OF JOB WORK AND SERVICES PROVIDED BY UNIT I TO UNIT II. ORDER OF AO WAS RELIED ON. 4. LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ON THE OTHER HA ND CONTENDS AS UNDER: (1) IT HAS NOT BEEN DISPUTED THAT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YE ARS 1998-99 AND 1999-2000 BOTH THE UNITS WERE INDEPENDENTLY FUNCTIO NING HAVING THEIR RESPECTIVE MANUFACTURING ACTIVITIES. BOTH WERE CLAI MING DEDUCTION U/S 80-IA WHICH HAS BEEN ALLOWED BY AO ACCEPTING THEIR INDEPENDENT EXISTENCE. THEREFORE THERE IS NO MERIT IN THE STAN D OF THE DEPARTMENT THAT UNIT II WAS FORMED BY RECONSTRUCTION OF BUSINE SS OR TRANSFER OF PLANT & MACHINERY OF UNIT I. (2) THE MOOT QUESTION IS WHETHER AFTER ESTABLISHMENT OF AN INDEPENDENT AND FULLY INTEGRATED UNIT BY ACQUIRING NEW PLANT & MACHINERY IF DUE TO SOME BUSINESS EXIGENCIES THE JOB WORK IS PROCUR ED BY OTHER UNIT WHETHER IT AMOUNTS TO RECONSTRUCTION OR IT CAN LEAD TO A FINDING THAT THE PLANT & MACHINERY OF ONE UNIT IS INDIRECTLY STA NDS TRANSFERRED TO OTHER UNIT. 4.1. ACCORDING TO LEARNED COUNSEL THIS PRESUMPTION IS FAR FETCHED AS IN BUSINESS EXIGENCIES IT IS OFTEN SEEN THAT ONE UNIT REQUESTS OTHER UNIT TO CARRY OUT PART OF MANUFACTURING ACTIVITIES OR JOB WORK W HICH IN THIS CASE IS 6 FABRICATION BASED ON THE DESIGNS PROVIDED BY UNIT I I. LEARNED COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT THE ITAT IN THE CASE OF JCIT VS. AS SOCIATED CAPSULES (P) LTD. 114 ITD 189 (MUM.) RELYING ON THE RATIO OF DE CISIONS IN THE CASES OF TEXTILE MACHINERY CORPN. LTD. V. CIT (1997) 107 ITR 195 (SC); PERIYAR CHEMICALS LTD. V. CIT (1997) 226 ITR 467 (KER.); AN D STATE OF GUJARAT V. SAURASHTRA CEMENT & CHEMICALS INDUSTRIES LTD. (2003 ) 260 ITR 181 (SC) HAS OBSERVED AS UNDER: 1. A PERUSAL OF S. 80-I AND S. 80-IA ESTABLISHES T HAT THE NOTION OF UNDERTAKING IS A CORE JURISDICTIONAL EL EMENT FOR THE APPLICATION OF S. 80-I AND S. 80-IA. THE OTHER COND ITIONS STIPULATED CAN BE SATISFIED ONLY WHEN THERE IS AN UNDERTAKING. THE UNDERTAKING SHOULD BE NEW IN THE SENSE THAT IT SHOULD HAVE BEGUN TO MANUFACTURE OR PRODUCE SPECIFIED ARTICLES OR THINGS AFTER THE PRESCRIBED TIME SCHEDULE. 2. APPLICATION OF S. 80-I/S. 80-IA TO NEW INDUSTRIA L UNDERTAKINGS STARTED FOR THE FIRST TIME BY THE ASSE SSEE IS USUALLY DEVOID OF ANY DIFFICULTIES. CONTROVERSIES ARISE WHE RE THE OLD BUSINESS IS BEING CARRIED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE AND T HE NEW ACTIVITY IS LAUNCHED BY HIM ESTABLISHING NEW PLANTS AND MACHINERY BY INVESTING SUBSTANTIAL FUNDS TO PRODUCE THE ARTICLES OR THINGS WHICH ARE THE SAME AS THOSE FROM OF THE O LD BUSINESS OR TO PRODUCE SOME DISTINCT MARKETABLE PRODUCTS WHI CH MAY FEED THE OLD BUSINESS. IT IS THE GENERAL CONTENTION OF THE REVENUE IN THESE CASES THAT ESTABLISHMENT OF A NEW UNDERTAKING MANUFACTURING THE SAME PRODUCT IS NOT A NEW UNDERTA KING ELIGIBLE FOR TAX INCENTIVES. BENEFIT UNDER THE SAID SECTIONS IS AVAILABLE TO A UNIT OR A NEW UNIT ONLY IF IT IS IN THE NATURE OF AN UNDERTAKING. 3. THE TERM UNDERTAKING HAS NOT BEEN STATUTORILY DEFINED IN THE INCOME-TAX ACT AND THE CRUCIAL QUESTION OF WHETHER A 7 UNIT IS TO BE CONSIDERED AS AN UNDERTAKING IS LEFT TO BE DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNALS/ COURTS. THE TRIBUNAL FURTHER OBSE RVED THAT A UNIT QUALIFIES TO BE AN UNDERTAKING WHEN IT UNDERTA KES PRODUCTION OR MANUFACTURE OF ARTICLES OR THINGS IN ITS OWN RIGHT AND PRODUCES SUCH ARTICLES OR THINGS BY ITSELF AS A SEPARATE OR INDEPENDENT UNIT. 4. THE CIT(A) ON EXAMINATION OF THE MATERIAL ON REC ORD HAD HELD THAT THE UNITS IN QUESTION WERE WELL-INTEGRATE D UNITS PRODUCING CAPSULES ON THEIR OWN AND HAD A SEPARATE AND DISTINCT IDENTITY OF THEIR OWN WHICH HAD NOT BEEN SHOWN TO BE INCORRECT OR BASED ON NO MATERIAL. THE DEPARTMENT H AD ALSO NOT REBUTTED THE ASSESSEES CLAIM THAT IT HAD TREAT ED EACH UNDERTAKING AS SEPARATE AND INDEPENDENT IN ITS ACCO UNTS. IT WAS ALSO NOT THE CASE OF THE DEPARTMENT THAT ANY OF THE NEGATIVE TESTS LAID DOWN IN S. 80I(2) WAS ATTRACTED IN THIS CASE. THEREFORE THE CIT(A) HAD DECIDED THE ISSUE CORRECT LY. THEREFORE THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE WAS LIAB LE TO BE DISMISSED. 4.2. ONCE IT IS ESTABLISHED THAT THE BUSINESS OF NE W UNIT WAS INDEPENDENT FULLY INTEGRATED STARTED BY NEW PLANT & MACHINERY SUBSEQUENT HELP BY AN ASSOCIATED CONCERN FOR PART OF ITS MANUFACTURING UN ITS ON JOB WORK BASIS WILL NOT LEAD TO A CONCLUSION THAT THE INDEPENDENT STATU S OF THE NEW UNIT GETS EXTINGUISHED. BOTH THE UNITS WERE INDEPENDENT AND C ONTINUE TO BE INDEPENDENTLY WORKING. THE SAME HAS NOT BEEN DOUBTE D BY AO IN ANY MANNER. 4.3. THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF TEXTI LE MACHINERY CORPN. LTD. (SUPRA) HAS CLEARLY HELD THAT MERELY BECAUSE A UNIT GETS SOME PART OF ITS 8 MANUFACTURING ACTIVITIES CARRIED OUT BY ANOTHER UNI T IT CANNOT HE HELD THAT IN THE HANDS OF THE FIRST UNIT IT WILL NOT AMOUNT TO M ANUFACTURING ACTIVITIES. 4.4. LEARNED COUNSEL FURTHER CONTENDS THAT THE ASSE SSEE HAS NOT EVEN ENTERED INTO ANY KIND OF AVOIDANCE OF TAX AS IT IS A LEGITIMATE AND TRANSPARENT BUSINESS ARRANGEMENT. BESIDES THE ASSESSEES UNIT I I HAS PROFIT AND UNIT I WAS INCURRING LOSSES. THE ASSESSEE IN ALL FAIRNESS INTENDED TO SUPPORT UNIT I. UNIT II HAS CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S 80-IA ONLY ON THE NET AMOUNT AFTER SUCH ADJUSTMENT. THIS DISPELS ANY ASSUMPTION THAT THE AS SESSEE WAS TRYING TO CLAIM UNJUSTIFIED DEDUCTION U/S 80-IA. 5. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND GONE THROUGH THE ENTIRE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE CIT(A) HAS PASSED DETAILED ORDER LISTING OUT ALL THE FACTS AND CONTENTIONS ALONG WITH CASE LAWS. FOR THE SAKE OF BREVITY WE ARE NOT INCLINED TO REPRODUCE THEM. IT HAS NOT BEEN DIS PUTED BY THE DEPARTMENT THAT FOR TWO INITIAL YEARS I.E. 1998-99 AND 1999-20 00 BOTH UNITS I & II WERE INDEPENDENTLY MANUFACTURING AND UNIT II WAS SET UP BY SEPARATE NEW MACHINERIES. THUS UNIT II CANNOT BE HELD TO BE A UN IT ESTABLISHED BY RECONSTRUCTION OF BUSINESS. FOR TWO YEARS IT WAS AN INDEPENDENT BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE SET UP BY NEW PLANT & MACHINERY AND ON WHICH AO HIMSELF ALLOWED DEDUCTION U/S 80-IA ON THESE FINDINGS. 9 5.1. ONCE IT IS SO MERELY BECAUSE IN SUBSEQUENT YE ARS UNIT II GOT SOME OF ITS MANUFACTURING ACTIVITIES EXECUTED BY UNIT I ON JOB WORK BASIS WILL NOT REVERSE THE CLOCK. IT CANNOT BE HELD THAT WHAT WAS NEW AND INDEPENDENT BUSINESS STANDS TRANSFORMED INTO A RECONSTRUCTED OL D BUSINESS BECAUSE OF JOB WORK. THEREFORE INDEPENDENT STATUS OF UNIT II CANN OT BE ALTERED AS PROPOSED BY AO DUE TO JOB WORK EXECUTED BY UNIT I. VARIOUS A UTHORITIES HAVE CLEARLY HELD THAT BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING IS SUM TOTAL OF VARIOUS ACTIVITIES INCLUDING PROCUREMENT OF ORDER DESIGN SPECIFICAT IONS AND MANUFACTURING OF GOODS AS PER THEIR DESIGNS SUPPLY DISPATCH AS PER THE SATISFACTION OF CUSTOMER AND ACTIVITIES OF COMPLETION OF SALES ETC. MERELY BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE GETS THE FABRICATION WORK DONE AS PER ITS DESIGN FROM UNIT I IT WILL NOT TANTAMOUNT TO A FINDING THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT C ARRIED OUT THE MANUFACTURING ACTIVITIES. OUR VIEW IS FORTIFIED BY THE RATIO OF DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF TEXTILE MACHIN ERY CORPN. LTD. (SUPRA) AND THE ORDER OF ITAT IN THE CASE OF ASSOCIATED CAP SULES (P) LTD. (SUPRA). THE ALLEGATION OF THE DEPARTMENT THAT THE ASSESSEE DIVERTED THE MANUFACTURING ACTIVITIES TO UNIT I WITH AN INTENTIO N TO AVOID TAX CANNOT BE ACCEPTED AS THE LAW ACCEPTS AND RECOGNIZES THE LEGI TIMATE PLANNING OF AFFAIRS OF BUSINESS BY THE ASSESSEE. THE LAW DOES NOT FORB ID UTILIZATION OF MANUFACTURING FACILITIES OF ONE UNIT BY OTHER ON JO B WORK BASIS. THEREFORE 10 THE ARRANGEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE TREATED A S ILLEGITIMATE OR UNJUSTIFIED. THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT IT HAS CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S 80-IA ON THE NET PROFITS WORKED OUT AFTER ADJUSTING THE LOSSES OF UNIT I WITH PROFITS OF UNIT II HAS NOT BEEN DISPUTED BY THE DE PARTMENT. WITH ALL THESE FACTS ON RECORD WE ARE UNABLE TO HOLD THAT THE ASS ESSEE WAS INDULGING IN ANY AVOIDANCE OF TAX. IN THE ENTIRETY OF FACTS AND CIRC UMSTANCES WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A) ALLOWING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF CIT(A) ON THIS C OUNT FOR ALL THE ASSESSMENT YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION. 6. APROPOS REMAINING GROUND CHALLENGING THE ALLOWA NCE OF DEPRECIATION @ 60% ON COMPUTER PERIPHERALS AND ACCE SSORIES FOR A.Y. 2003- 04 & 2004-05 LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE CONT ENDS THAT THE ISSUE IS NOW WELL SETTLED BY VARIOUS COURTS INCLUDING ITAT D ELHI BENCHES. 7. LEARNED DR DID NOT DISPUTE THIS CONTENTION RAISE D ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. 8. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT RECORD. IN VIEW OF ABOVE WE SEE NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A) IN ALLOWING 11 DEPRECIATION @ 60% ON COMPUTER PERIPHERALS AND ACCE SSORIES FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS IN QUESTION AND UPHOLD THE ORDER O F CIT(A). 9. IN THE RESULT REVENUES APPEALS FOR BOTH THE AS SESSMENT YEARS IN QUESTION STAND DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 09-09-2011. SD/- SD/- ( K.D. RANJAN ) ( R.P. TOLANI ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 09-09-2011. MP COPY TO : 1. ASSESSEE 2. AO 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR