Shri Mukesh Kumar Vishnoi, New Delhi v. DCIT, Najibabad

ITA 303/DEL/2010 | 2002-2003
Pronouncement Date: 07-01-2011 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 30320114 RSA 2010
Assessee PAN AAJPV9744R
Bench Delhi
Appeal Number ITA 303/DEL/2010
Duration Of Justice 11 month(s) 17 day(s)
Appellant Shri Mukesh Kumar Vishnoi, New Delhi
Respondent DCIT, Najibabad
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 07-01-2011
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted E
Tribunal Order Date 07-01-2011
Date Of Final Hearing 29-11-2010
Next Hearing Date 29-11-2010
Assessment Year 2002-2003
Appeal Filed On 21-01-2010
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH E: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.P. TOLANI JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.K. GARODIA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A.NOS.303 304 & 305/DEL/2010 ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2002-03 2004-05 & 2005-06 SHRI MUKESH KUMAR VISHNOI DY. COMMISSIONER OF INC OME-TAX RAJ NIWAS CIVIL LINES VS. NAJIBABAD. BIJNOR. PAN: AAJPV9744R (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI O.P. SAPRA ADVOCATE. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI B.KISHORE SR . DR. O R D E R PER R.P. TOLANI JUDICIAL MEMBER THESE ARE 3 APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE AND AS COMMON I SSUES ARE INVOLVED THEY ARE DISPOSED OF BY THIS COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 2. COMMON GROUNDS RAISED ARE AS UNDER THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER UNDER SEC. 69 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED DONATIONS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE FOR CLAIMING BENEFIT UNDER SE C. 80G OF THE ACT AND CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(A):- ASSESSMENT YEAR U/S.80G CONVEYANCE ALLOWANCE 2002-03 RS.1 60 000/- RS.33 030/- 2004-05 RS.90 000/- RS.60 750/- 2 2005-06 RS.1 20 000/- RS.44 434/- 3. BRIEF FACTS ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A DEVELOPME NT OFFICER IN LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION (LIC) AND EARNED SALARY INCOM E THEREFROM. IN ALL THESE THREE YEARS THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED DEDUCTION UN DER SEC.80G ON DONATIONS GIVEN TO DIFFERENT INSTITUTES WHICH WERE REGISTERED UNDER SEC.80G. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSING OFFICER CALLED ON THE ASSESSEE TO FILE COPIES OF CITS ORDER GRANTING REG ISTRATION TO SUCH INSTITUTIONS U/S 80G TO WHOM DONATIONS WERE GIVEN PROOF OF AVAILABILITY OF CASH PASS-BOOKS DETAILS OF DONATIONS HOUSEHOLD E XPENSES ETC. ASSESSEE WAS FURTHER ASKED TO JUSTIFY HIS CLAIM ON CONVEYANC E ALLOWANCE. ACCORDING TO THE AO DESPITE SEVERAL OPPORTUNITIES NOBODY RE SPONDED TO THE REQUIREMENTS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER PASSED ALL THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS UNDER SEC. 144 READ WITH SEC. 148 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT DEMONSTRATE THE AVAILABILITY OF CASH FOR MAKING THESE DONATIONS. THEY WERE ADDED U/S 69. SIMILARLY CONVEYANCE ALLOW ANCE WAS ALSO DISALLOWED. 4. AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED FIRST APPEAL WHERE CERTAIN DOCUMENTS WERE FILED ON WHICH THE CIT(A) CALLED FO R REMAND REPORT THEREON. THE AO SUBMITTED HIS REMAND REPORT QUA EA CH AND EVERY DONATION AND ESTABLISHED THAT THE ASSESSEES EXPLANATION ABO UT THE AVAILABILITY OF CASH 3 ON THAT DATE WAS WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE. THE CLAIM O F THE ASSESSEE WAS BASED ON THE FACT THAT HE WENT ON GIVING SELF-CHEQUES OF SMALLER AMOUNTS TO HIS EMPLOYEES 2-3 MONTHS PRIOR TO SUCH DONATIONS AND AF TER THE SUBSTANTIAL CASH WAS ACCUMULATED THESE DONATIONS WERE GIVEN IN RESP ECTIVE YEAR. THE DETAILS ARE CONTAINED IN THE DCITS REMAND REPORT. IT MAY BE PERTINENT TO MENTION THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PRODUCE THE EMPLOYEES SHR I PRAHLAD SINGH AND SHRI VINAY GUPTA BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER EITHER AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT OR DURING THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS. THE CIT(A) CONFIRM ED THE ADDITIONS. 5. VIS--VIS CONVEYANCE EXPENSES THE AO REPORTED T HAT THE ASSESSEES CLAIM IN RESPECT OF DEDUCTION OUT OF CONVEYANCE EXP ENSES WAS NOT REPORTED BY EMPLOYER IN FORM NO.16 TDS WAS DEDUCTED ON THIS BEHALF AND DETAILS ABOUT EXPENDITURE WERE FILED. AO OBSERVED THAT HON BLE SUPREME COURT VIDE ORDER DATED 9.02.2007 HAS OBSERVED THAT RULE 2 BB WAS AMENDED W.E.F. 01.07.1995 AND NEW RULES WOULD BE APPLICABLE FOR TH E CASES SUBSEQUENT TO 01.07.1995. THESE AMENDED RULES DO NOT PROVIDE FOR ALLOWABILITY OF CONVEYANCE ALLOWANCE AS DEDUCTION. ASSESSEES CASE FALLS IN SUBSEQUENT PERIOD. THEREFORE THIS ADDITION WAS ALSO CONFIRME D BY THE CIT(A). AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 6. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AT THE OUTS ET FILED AN APPLICATION FOR ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE UNDER RULE 29 OF THE INCOME-TAX 4 (APPELLATE TRIBUNAL) RULES 1963 WHICH ARE 2 AFFID AVITS OF EMPLOYEES ON THE GROUND THAT THESE AFFIDAVITS COULD NOT BE FILED BEF ORE THE CIT(A) AS THE ASSESSEE WAS UNDER BONA FIDE BELIEF THAT THE BANK S TATEMENTS WILL SUPPORT HIS CASE. 7. THE LEARNED DR AT THE OUTSET OPPOSED THE ADMISSI ON OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE ON THE PLEA THAT THE ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT DID NOT COOPERATE WHICH RESULTED IN EX PARTE ASSESSMENT . IN THE GROUND FILED BEFORE THE CIT(A) EX PARTE ASSESSMENT UNDER SEC. 1 44 HAS NOT BEEN CHALLENGED. THE CIT(A) AS A GESTURE OF SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE ADMITTED THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AND FORWARDED THE SAME TO THE A O FOR HIS REMAND REPORT. THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUESTED BY THE AO TO FILE EXPLAN ATION DURING REMAND PROCEEDINGS. THEREAFTER THE MATTER WENT BACK TO THE CIT(A) FOR HEARING. IN NONE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSEE FILED THESE AFFIDAVITS. ASSESSEE WAS PROVIDED SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITIES TO SUBMIT EVIDENC E AND THESE AFFIDAVITS WERE NOT FILED. IN OUR VIEW NO FURTHER OPPORTUNITY CAN BE GIVEN TO ASSESSEE TO FILE FRESH EVIDENCE. THEREFORE ADMISSION OF ADDIT IONAL EVIDENCE AT THIS LEVEL WILL AMOUNT TO GIVE ASSESSEE A LONG ROPE TO SUBMIT ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE WHENEVER HE LIKES TO PROVIDE. 8. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES ON ADMISSION OF A DDITIONAL EVIDENCE. IN OUR VIEW THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO CANV ASS SUFFICIENT GROUND FOR 5 ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AT SUCH A LATE STA GE AND AFTER AVAILING SO MANY OPPORTUNITIES. IN VIEW THEREOF WE DECLINE TO ADMIT THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. 9. APROPOS THE MERITS THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE CONTENDS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN VALID DONATIONS WHICH HAVE N OT BEEN DISPUTED. IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NO AVAILABILITY OF CASH TO GIVE THESE DONATIONS. THE ASSESSMENTS WERE REOPENED ONLY FOR DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION IN RESPECT OF REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENDITUR E. HOWEVER THESE AMOUNTS HAVE BEEN DISALLOWED. 10. IT WAS CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A RELIGIO US MIND PERSON AND IN ORDER TO PROVIDE SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT AT ONE GO AS DO NATION HE USED TO WITHDRAW SMALLER AMOUNTS BY SELF-CHEQUE FROM BANK. THESE SELF-CHEQUES WERE ENCASHED BY SHRI PRAHLAD SINGH AND SHRI VINAY GUPTA WHO USED TO BRING CASH TO HIM AND WHEN AMOUNTS LIKES RS.20 000/ - RS.21 000/- OR RS.4 000/- WERE ACCUMULATED CHEQUES WERE GIVEN/ENC ASHED TO THE ELIGIBLE INSTITUTIONS. THESE INSTITUTIONS HAVE ISSUED PROPE R RECEIPTS FOR SUCH FIGURE OF DONATION ALONG WITH CERTIFICATE U/S 80G OF THE ACT. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT ATTEND THE ASSES SMENT PROCEEDINGS PROPERLY WHICH RESULTED IN ASSESSMENTS BEING FRAMED UNDER SEC. 144 READ WITH SEC. 148. 6 11. AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED FIRST APPEALS WHERE THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE WAS FILED WHICH WAS DULY ADMITTED BY THE C IT(A) AND REMAND REPORT WAS CALLED FOR FROM AO. DURING THE REMAND P ROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED NECESSARY EVIDENCE BEFORE AO EXPLAINING T HE METHOD OF ACCUMULATING SMALL WITHDRAWALS FROM HIS ACCOUNT BY WAY OF SELF-CHEQUES. STATEMENTS OF BANK ACCOUNT WERE FILED WHICH SHOWED THE NAMES OF SHRI PRAHLAD SUINGH AND SHRI VINAY GUPTA. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED CASH FLOW STATEMENTS SHOWING THE DETAILS OF WITHDRAWALS. IGN ORING THE SAME THE AO HAS HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED ANY PROOF IN RESPECT OF TRANSFER OF AMOUNT FROM HIS BANK ACCOUNT TO THE ACCOUNT OF DONE E. THE INFERENCE IS NOT PROPER INASMUCH AS THE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN CASH DONA TIONS. IT HAS BEEN FURTHER HELD THAT THE ASSESSEES WITHDRAWALS WERE N OT SUFFICIENT EVEN TO MEET THE PERSONAL AND HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES WHEREAS THE ASS ESSEE HAS SHOWN SUFFICIENT AMOUNT OF WITHDRAWAL SEPARATELY. LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE DONATIONS WERE MADE OUT OF UNEXPLA INED SOURCES AS THE ASSESSEE WILL NOT USE UNEXPLAINED SOURCES TO MAKE S UCH DONATIONS. 12. APROPOS CONVEYANCE ALLOWANCE THE LEARNED COUNS EL FOR THE ASSESSEE CONTENDS THAT IN THE CERTIFICATE ISSUE BY LIC FOR T HE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEARS IN COLUMN `E OF THOSE CERTIFICATES LIC HAS CERTIFI ED E. IN ADDITION TO THE ABOVE THE FOLLOWING PAYMENTS HAVE ALSO BEEN MADE ON WHICH 7 NO TAX HAS BEEN DEDUCTED : 1. CONVEYANCE ALLOW. (AFTER DEDUCTING RS FOR PERSONAL USE TO MEET THE REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES WHOLLY NECESSARILY & EXCLUSIVELY INCURRED TO THE PERFORMANCE OF OFFICIAL DUTIES [EXEMPT FROM TAX U/S. 10(14). RS.33030 IT IS PLEADED THAT ONCE THE EMPLOYER HAS CERTIFIED THAT THE ALLOWANCE WAS DISBURSED TO MEET THE REIMBURSEMENT EXPENSES WHOLLY AND NECESSARILY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF PERFORMANCE OF DUTIE S THE EXEMPTION U/S 10(14) WAS RIGHTLY CLAIMED. 13. THE LEARNED DR ON THE OTHER HAND CONTENDS THAT THE ASSESSEES THEORY OF DONATION IS TOTALLY A MAKE BELIEF STORY FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS:- (A) THE ASSESSEE HAD BANK ACCOUNT FROM WHICH THE DONATI ON COULD HAVE EASILY BEEN GIVEN TO THE INSTITUTIONS INSTEAD THE ASSESSEE WENT ON WITHDRAWING SMALL AMOUNT OF CASH BY SELF-CH EQUES AND KEPT WITH HIMSELF AND AFTER A PERIOD OF 2-3 MON THS HE ALLEGEDLY MADE CASH DONATIONS TO THE INSTITUTIONS. (B) THE THEORY AS PROPOSED BY THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT MEE T HUMAN PROBABILITIES AND NORMAL CONDUCT. THE REGISTERED I NSTITUTIONS WILL NOT REFUSE DONATIONS BY CHEQUE. IT IS UNHEARD THAT A PERSON WHO HAS TO DONATE TO THE INSTITUTIONS WILL WITHDRAW CASH IN INSTALMENTS FROM HIS BANK ACCOUNT AND GIVE CASH DON ATIONS. 8 (C) THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT MAINTAIN REGULAR BOOKS OF ACC OUNT AND MERELY FILING A CASH FLOW STATEMENT WILL NOT PAR-TA KE THE CHARACTER OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THEREFORE IT CANNO T BE HELD THAT THE ASSESSEES STATEMENTS HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED. (D) THE ASSESSEE HAS NEITHER PRODUCED THE SAID PRAHLAD SINGH OR VINAY GUPTA DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT REMAND PROCEEDINGS OR BEFORE THE CIT(A) NOR PRODUCED ANY PROOF TO SUBSTANTIATE THE STATEMENTS BY ANY OTHER MATERIAL O R EVIDENCE. THEREFORE THE ASSESSEES STATEMENTS REMAINED TOTAL LY UNCORROBORATED. (E) THE FACTS BEING IN THE EXCLUSIVE KNOWLEDGE OF THE A SSESSEE RATHER AS ALLEGED TO HIS EMPLOYEES. THE BURDEN IS ON THE ASSESSEE TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS EXPLANATION BY ADDUCIN G NECESSARY EVIDENCE. IN THE ABSENCE OF ASSESSEES DISCHARGE O F BURDEN THE AO WILL DECIDE THE ISSUE ON THE BASIS OF MATERIAL A VAILABLE SURROUNDING CIRCUMSTANCES PREPONDERANCE OF PROBABI LITIES AS HELD BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF SU MATI DAYAL 214 ITR 801. (F) THE ASSESSEE HAS REMAINED ALWAYS ILLUSIVE BEFORE TH E AO IN ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT AND REMAND PROCEEDINGS AS WELL BEFORE THE 9 CIT(A). BEFORE ITAT AGAIN A NEW SET OF EVIDENCE WA S PROPOSED WHICH HAS BEEN REJECTED. THE ASSESSEE IS OPENING UP HIS PLEAS IN SELECTIVE MANNER WHICH SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSEES EXPLANATION CANNOT BE BELIEVED. (G) THE THEORY PROPOSED BY THE ASSESSEE IS TOTALLY UNRE LIABLE AND MERELY BY PRODUCING CERTAIN RECEIPTS THE ASSESSEE CANNOT DEMONSTRATE THAT HE HAS KNOWN SOURCES. THE ASSESSE E CLAIMS TO BE A CHARITABLE MIND PERSON WHICH CANNOT BE OBJECTE D BUT IT IS HIS BURDEN TO SHOW THAT HE HAS DISCLOSED FUNDS TO O WN-UP THE CHARITY. THEREFORE SECTION 69 IS RIGHTLY ATTRACTE D AND THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO DISCHARGE HIS BURDEN. 14. APROPOS THE CONVEYANCE EXPENSES THE LEARNED DR CONTENDS THAT THE CERTIFICATE GIVEN BY THE LIC IS NOT GOOD ENOUGH INA SMUCH AS THE AFORESAID REMARK IN COLUMN `E IS NOT GIVEN ON THE BASIS OF V ERIFICATION OF ANY EVIDENCE OF EXPENDITURE BY THE ASSESSEE. IT ONLY C LAIMS THAT IT WAS GIVEN THE ASSESSEE TO MEET HIS EXPENSES. IN THE ABSENCE OF A NY DECLARATION OF VERIFICATION OF EXPENSES BY THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY THE BURDEN LIES ON THE ASSESSEE TO SUBMIT NECESSARY VOUCHERS TO SUPPORT HI S CLAIM OF EXPENSES. IN THE ENTIRE SET OF PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSEE HAS FAIL ED TO FILE ANY EVIDENCE IN THIS BEHALF. THE CIT(A) HAS CATEGORICALLY GIVEN TH ESE FINDINGS AFTER PERUSING 10 THE REMAND REPORT. THE ISSUE ABOUT CERTIFICATE ISS UED BY THE NATIONAL FEDERATION OF INSURANCE FIELD WORKERS OF INDIA LUC KNOW BRANCH TO ITS MEMBERS INDICATING THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT DOES NOT FULFILL THIS REQUIREMENT AND THE SAID JUDGMENT WAS RELEVANT TO EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS. 15. IN VIEW OF ALL THESE FACTS THE LEARNED DR RELI ED ON THE ORDERS OF THE AO AND CIT(A). 16. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS. APROPOS C ONTENTIONS THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS TO HAVE SPENT ON DONATIONS THE BUR DEN TO PROVE THE EXPENDITURE FROM THE DISCLOSED MEANS LIES ON THE AS SESSEE. HE HAS APPARENTLY GIVEN AN EXPLANATION WHICH IN OUR VIEW IS THEORETICAL AND NOT SUBSTANTIATED BY ANY COGENT EVIDENCE. THE ASSESSEE S APPROACH ALSO SEEMS TO BE SELECTIVE INASMUCH AS THE ASSESSMENT WAS PASS ED EX PARTE CIT(A) ACCEPTED THE ASSESSEES ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AND SEN T IT FOR THE REMAND REPORT TO THE AO. THE AO DULY INITIATED THE REMAND PROCEED ING CALLING ON THE ASSESSEE TO SUBMIT HIS EXPLANATION. THE ASSESSEE S HOULD HAVE BEEN DILIGENT ENOUGH TO FILE REQUISITE EVIDENCE BEFORE HIM. EXCE PT AN ORAL ASSERTION THAT HE WAS WITHDRAWING PART AMOUNT BY SELF-CHEQUE FROM BANK THROUGH PRAHLAD SINGH AND VINAY GUPTA. HE WAS KEEPING THE AMOUNT W ITH HIM TO ACCUMULATE AND AFTER A PERIOD OF 2-3 MONTHS LARGER AMOUNT WAS COLLECTED IN 11 CASH AND WAS DONATED IS UNBELIEVABLE TO NORMAL HUMA N CONDUCT UNLESS THE ASSESSEE DEMONSTRATE THIS UNUSUAL PRACTICE BY A REA SONABLE AND COGENT EVIDENCE. BEFORE AO AND CIT(A) NEITHER THESE EMPLO YEES WERE PRODUCED NOR EVIDENCE WAS FILED TO CORROBORATE HIS CONTENTIO N. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS THE ASSESSEES EXPLANATION BECOMES UNBELIEVABLE TH E BURDEN CAST ON AO BY ASSESSEES EXPLANATION STANDS DISCHARGED BECAUSE OF UNSATISFACTORY REPLY OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH IS APPARENT FROM THESE FACTS. 17. COMING TO THE OTHER ASPECT THAT THE ASSESSEE HA S SUBMITTED CASH FLOW STATEMENT WE ARE INCLINED TO AGREE WITH THE LEARNE D DR THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT MAINTAINING ANY BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. ONLY SUBMISSION OF CASH FLOW STATEMENT WILL NOT PAR-TAKE THE CHARACTER OF ACCOUNT BOOKS. THE EXPLANATION ABOUT ENTRIES OF SMALL WITHDRAWALS DOES NOT MEET THE EYES OF LAW AND IN VIEW THEREOF WE HOLD THAT THE ADDITION U/S 69 VIS--VIS ALLEGED DONATIONS HAVE BEEN RIGHTLY MADE. THE ORDER OF THE AUTHORITY BELO W IS UPHELD. RELEVANT GROUNDS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. 18. COMING TO THE CONVEYANCE EXPENSES THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS NEITHER ADVERTED TO ANY MATERIAL TO SU GGEST THAT THE ASSESSEE ACTUALLY INCURRED SOME EXPENDITURE QUA ALLEGED REIM BURSEMENT GRANTED BY THE LIC. THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY LIC ONLY SAYS T HAT THE RELEVANT AMOUNT WAS PAID WHICH IS EXEMPT UNDER SEC. 10(14) OF THE A CT. IN OUR VIEW LIC THE 12 SALARY CERTIFICATE ISSUING AUTHORITY IS NOT COMPET ENT AUTHORITY TO CERTIFY THIS EXEMPTION OR UNDER SEC.10(14) THE POWER RESTS WITH THE AO. THEREFORE THE CERTIFICATE CANNOT BE HELD TO BE A CONCLUSIVE PROOF ABOUT ELIGIBILITY OF EXEMPTION UNDER SEC. 10(14) OF THE ACT. SINCE NO OTHER EVIDENCE OR RECORD HAS BEEN PRODUCED AND THE FEDERATIONS CERTIFICATE ALSO CANNOT BE HELD TO BE SUFFICIENT PROOF ABOUT EXEMPTION IN VIEW THEREOF WE SEE NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW DISALLOWING THE CON VEYANCE ALLOWANCE. THIS GROUND IS ALSO DISMISSED. 19. IN THE RESULT THE ASSESSEES APPEALS ARE DISMI SSED. 20. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 7 TH JANUARY 2011. SD/- SD/- (A.K. GARODIA) (R.P. TOLANI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIA L MEMBER DATED: 7 TH JANUARY 2011. ITA NOS.303 304 & 305/DEL/2010 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR BY ORDER *MG DEPUTY REGISTRAR ITAT.