Lotus Valley Education Society (Lotus Valley International School), Noida v. ACIT(TDS), Noida

ITA 3255/DEL/2010 | 2009-2010
Pronouncement Date: 14-01-2011 | Result: Partly Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 325520114 RSA 2010
Assessee PAN MRTLO0110F
Bench Delhi
Appeal Number ITA 3255/DEL/2010
Duration Of Justice 6 month(s) 12 day(s)
Appellant Lotus Valley Education Society (Lotus Valley International School), Noida
Respondent ACIT(TDS), Noida
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 14-01-2011
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Partly Allowed
Bench Allotted D
Tribunal Order Date 14-01-2011
Date Of Final Hearing 10-01-2011
Next Hearing Date 10-01-2011
Assessment Year 2009-2010
Appeal Filed On 02-07-2010
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH D : NEW DELHI DELHI BENCH D : NEW DELHI DELHI BENCH D : NEW DELHI DELHI BENCH D : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI I.P.BANSAL JM AND SHRI A.K.GARODIA AM BEFORE SHRI I.P.BANSAL JM AND SHRI A.K.GARODIA AM BEFORE SHRI I.P.BANSAL JM AND SHRI A.K.GARODIA AM BEFORE SHRI I.P.BANSAL JM AND SHRI A.K.GARODIA AM ITA NOS.3254/DEL/2010 & 3255/DEL/2010 ITA NOS.3254/DEL/2010 & 3255/DEL/2010 ITA NOS.3254/DEL/2010 & 3255/DEL/2010 ITA NOS.3254/DEL/2010 & 3255/DEL/2010 ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2008 ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2008 ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2008 ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2008 - -- - 09 & 2009 09 & 2009 09 & 2009 09 & 2009 - -- - 10 1010 10 M/S LOTUS VALLEY EDUCATION M/S LOTUS VALLEY EDUCATION M/S LOTUS VALLEY EDUCATION M/S LOTUS VALLEY EDUCATION SOCIETY SOCIETY SOCIETY SOCIETY (LOTUS VALLEY INTERNAT (LOTUS VALLEY INTERNAT (LOTUS VALLEY INTERNAT (LOTUS VALLEY INTERNATIONAL IONAL IONAL IONAL SCHOOL) SCHOOL) SCHOOL) SCHOOL) PLOT NO.2 SECTOR PLOT NO.2 SECTOR PLOT NO.2 SECTOR PLOT NO.2 SECTOR- -- -126 126 126 126 EXPRESSWAY NOIDA EXPRESSWAY NOIDA EXPRESSWAY NOIDA EXPRESSWAY NOIDA DISTT.GAUTAM BUDH NAGAR DISTT.GAUTAM BUDH NAGAR DISTT.GAUTAM BUDH NAGAR DISTT.GAUTAM BUDH NAGAR UTTAR PRADESH. UTTAR PRADESH. UTTAR PRADESH. UTTAR PRADESH. PAN NO.MRTLO0110F. PAN NO.MRTLO0110F. PAN NO.MRTLO0110F. PAN NO.MRTLO0110F. VS. VS. VS. VS. ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS) INCOME TAX (TDS) INCOME TAX (TDS) INCOME TAX (TDS) NOIDA. NOIDA. NOIDA. NOIDA. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI PRAKASH NARAIN ADVOCATE. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI A.K.MONGA SR.DR. ORDER ORDER ORDER ORDER PER I.P.BANSAL JM : PER I.P.BANSAL JM : PER I.P.BANSAL JM : PER I.P.BANSAL JM : BOTH THESE APPEALS ARE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE Y ARE DIRECTED AGAINST TWO SEPARATE ORDERS PASSED BY CIT(A) DATED 5.4.2010 IN RESPECT OF FY 2007-08 & 2008-09 RELEVANT TO AY 2008 -09 & 2009-10. GROUNDS OF APPEAL IN BOTH THE APPEALS ARE AS UNDER: - 1. THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(APPEAL) GHAZIABAD IS BAD IN LAW AND ON FACTS OF THE CASE. 2. THAT LEARNED CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMI NG THE ORDER PASSED BY ACIT(TDS) NOIDA WHO WAS NOT JUSTIFI ED IN CALCULATING TDS U/S 194I AND 194J IN THE PLACE OF S ECTION 194C IN CASE OF PAYMENTS MADE TO BUS OPERATORS PROVIDING PICK AND DROP FACILITY TO SCHOOL STUDENTS . 3. THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) AND ACIT TDS NOIDA HAV E ERRED IN INTERPRETING THE DEFINITION OF RENT AND SE RVICE CONTRACT FOR TRANSPORTATION. 4. THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A)/ACIT TDS NOIDA HAVE ER RED IN APPLYING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194J IN PLACE OF SECTION 194C FOR PAYMENTS MADE TO COACHES PROVIDING COACHING OF HORSE RIDING TENNIS AND GOLF SERVICE A S THE ITA-3254 & 3255/DEL/2010 2 SAME ARE NOT PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AS DEFINED UNDE R SECTION 44AA OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. 5. THAT CONSEQUENT DEMAND RAISED BY ACIT IS WRONG AND BAD IN LAW. THE APPLICANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD OR AMEND ANY GROUND OF APPEAL. 2. THE AO HAS PASSED CONSOLIDATED ORDER DATED 28.9. 2009 IN RESPECT OF BOTH THE ABOVE MENTIONED YEARS UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 201(1)/201(1A) OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961 (ACT ). GROUND NOS.2 & 3 IN BOTH THE APPEALS RELATE TO DEDUCTION OF TAX FR OM THE PAYMENTS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE TO BUS OWNERS. ACCORDING TO T HE ASSESSEE THESE PAYMENTS ARE IN THE NATURE OF WORK CONTRACT P AYMENTS LIABLE FOR DEDUCTION OF TAX AT THE RATE OF 2% AS SPECIFIED IN SECTION 194C OF THE ACT. ACCORDING TO THE REVENUE THE ASSESSEE WAS RE QUIRED TO DEDUCT TAX AT THE RATE OF 10% IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVI SIONS OF SECTION 194I OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE BEING A SCHOOL AND E NJOYING THE REGISTRATION U/S 12A OF THE ACT HAD ENTERED INTO TR ANSPORT CONTRACT WITH TWO PARTIES NAMELY M/S RUBY TRANSPORT CORPORATION A ND M/S RUBY DELUXE BUS CO. FOR BOTH THE YEARS FOR PICKING UP AN D DROPPING CHILDREN AND STAFF OF SCHOOL TO AND FROM SCHOOL TO THEIR HOM ES. COPIES OF THESE AGREEMENTS ARE ALSO FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE PA PER BOOK RELATING TO BOTH THE YEARS FROM PAGES 1 TO 12 OF THE PAPER BOOK . ACCORDING TO THOSE AGREEMENTS THE TRANSPORTERS WERE RESPONSIBLE FOR RUNNING AND MAINTAINING THE BUSES WHICH INCLUDES FUEL SALARY O F THE DRIVERS CLEANERS ETC. AND ALL EXPENSES INCURRED FOR THAT PU RPOSE WERE TO BE BORNE BY THE TRANSPORTER INCLUDING ANY PENALTIES IM POSED BY THE GOVERNMENT AUTHORITIES. THE SCHOOL WAS NOT RESPONS IBLE FOR ANY DAMAGES OR CLAIM ARISING OUT OF ANY LIABILITY PERTA INING TO RUNNING OF THE BUSES. THE TRANSPORTER WAS TO ENSURE THE PUNCT UALITY AND IN CASE SUCH PUNCTUALITY WAS NOT OBSERVED AND THE BUSES ARR IVED 10 MINUTES OR MORE LATE THEN THE TRANSPORTER HAS TO PAY THE P ENALTY OF ` 300 PER BUS FOR PER TEN MINUTES OF LATE COMING. THE TRANSP ORTERS WERE UNDER AN OBLIGATION TO EMPLOY EXPERIENCED DRIVERS NOT BEL OW THE AGE OF 35 ITA-3254 & 3255/DEL/2010 3 YEARS AND THE LICENSED CONDUCTORS AND THEY WERE REQ UIRED TO MAINTAIN THE BUSES AS PER THE DIRECTIONS OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA AND THE BUSES SO PLIED WERE TO HAVE CERTAIN NECESSARY F ACILITIES AND IN CASE OF HIKE IN THE FUEL PRICES BEING MORE THAN 8% OF TH E COST THEN THE AMOUNT PAYABLE TO THE TRANSPORTER WILL BE RAISED PR OPORTIONATELY. THUS THE BARE PERUSAL OF THE AGREEMENT WILL SHOW T HAT SCHOOL WAS NOT RESPONSIBLE EITHER FOR MAINTENANCE OF THE BUSES OR FOR THE RUNNING EXPENSES OF THE BUSES WHICH WERE TO BE OPERATED AS PER NORMS PRESCRIBED AND SCHOOL WAS ONLY LIABLE TO PAY MONTHL Y SUMS AS SPECIFIED IN THE AGREEMENT AND AS AGREED BETWEEN THE TWO PART IES. IT IS THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT SUCH CONTRACT ENTERED INT O BY THE ASSESSEE WITH THOSE TWO CONCERNS FALLS WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF SECTION 194C OF THE ACT AND FOR THIS PURPOSE ASSESSEE IS PLACING RELIA NCE ON CIRCULAR NO.558 DATED 28.3.1990 ISSUED BY CBDT WHEREIN THE C ONTRACT BETWEEN THE OWNERS OF THE BUSES AND STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CO RPORATION WERE OPINED TO BE IN THE NATURE OF SERVICE CONTRACT FALL ING WITHIN THE AMBIT OF SECTION 194C OF THE ACT. 3. AS AGAINST THAT IT IS THE CASE OF THE REVENUE T HAT AMENDMENT IN SECTION 194I BROUGHT BY THE FINANCE ACT 2007 W.E.F. 1 ST JUNE 2007 VIDE WHICH UNDER EXPLANATION RENT HAS BEEN DEFINED BEING ANY PAYMENT BY WHATEVER NAME CALLED UNDER ANY LEASE SUB-LEASE T ENANCY OF ANY OTHER AGREEMENT OR ARRANGEMENT FOR THE USE OF (EITH ER SEPARATELY OR TOGETHER) ANY LAND BUILDING (INCLUDING FACTORY BU ILDING) OR LAND APPURTENANT TO A BUILDING (INCLUDING FACTORY BUILDI NG) OR MACHINERY OR PLANT OR EQUIPMENT OR EQUIPMENT OR FURNITURE OR FIT TINGS WHETHER OR NOT ANY OR ALL OF THE ABOVE ARE OWNED BY THE PAYEE. RE ADING FROM SUCH EXPLANATION GIVEN IN SECTION 194I THE AO IS OF THE OPINION THAT THE PAYMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE TO TRANSPORT CONTRACTO R IS RENT WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 194I OF THE ACT AND THEREFOR E THE CASE OF ASSESSEE WOULD FALL U/S 194I OF THE ACT AND THE PAY MENT SO MADE BY THE ASSESSEE TO THOSE TRANSPORT CONTRACTORS ARE LIA BLE FOR DEDUCTION OF ITA-3254 & 3255/DEL/2010 4 TAX AT THE RATE OF 10% INSTEAD OF 2% DEDUCTED BY TH E ASSESSEE AND THEREFORE THERE IS A SHORT DEDUCTION OF TAX FOR WH ICH THE AO HAS RAISED THE DEMAND ALONGWITH INTEREST UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 201(1) AND 201(1A) OF THE ACT. THE STAND OF THE AO HAS BE EN CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(A). THE ASSESSEE IS STILL AGGRIEVED AND HE NCE HAS RAISED GROUND NOS.2 & 3 IN THE AFOREMENTIONED APPEALS. 4. RELYING UPON THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE AO AND CIT(A) IT HAS BEEN THE CASE OF THE LEARNED AR THAT SUCH PAYME NTS WOULD NOT FALL WITHIN THE AMBIT OF SECTION 194I OF THE ACT. LEARN ED AR PLACED RELIANCE ON THE AFOREMENTIONED CIRCULAR ISSUED BY THE CBDT A ND ALSO DESCRIBING TO THE COPIES OF CONTRACT ENTERED INTO BY THE ASSES SEE WITH THE AFOREMENTIONED TRANSPORT CONTRACTOR IT WAS SUBMITT ED BY HIM THAT ASSESSEE HAD DEDUCTED TAX IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PR OVISIONS OF SECTION 194C OF THE ACT THEREFORE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE HELD LIABLE FOR SHORT DEDUCTION OF TAX AS PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194 I WERE NOT ATTRACTED. 5. AS AGAINST THAT RELYING UPON THE ORDER OF THE A O AS WELL AS CIT(A) IT IS THE CASE OF THE LEARNED DR THAT THE A SSESSEE HAS BEEN RIGHTLY HELD LIABLE FOR DEDUCTION OF TAX U/S 194I O F THE ACT HENCE THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) SHOULD BE CONFIRMED. 6. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIO NS IN THE LIGHT OF MATERIAL PLACED BEFORE US. A CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WOULD REVEAL THAT AO WHILE HOLDING THAT ASSES SEE IS LIABLE FOR DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194I OF THE ACT HAS MAINLY RESTED HIS CASE ON THE GROUND THAT I T IS THE RENT AS DEFINED IN EXPLANATION UNDER SECTION 194I AND THE A SSESSEE HAS PAID RENT IN RESPECT OF BUSES UTILIZED BY HIM BEING IN T HE NATURE OF PLANT. IN OUR OPINION SIMPLY FOR THE REASON THAT RENT BEIN G EXPLAINED UNDER EXPLANATION GIVEN U/S 194I IN RESPECT OF A PLANT WI LL NOT MAKE THE RELEVANT PAYMENTS LIABLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 194I. T HE SUM AND ITA-3254 & 3255/DEL/2010 5 SUBSTANCE OF THE TRANSACTION HAS TO BE SEEN AND IT HAS TO BE DECIDED THAT UNDER WHICH SECTION THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE W OULD FALL. IF ONE GOES BY THE LOGIC ADOPTED BY THE AO THEN THE SAME WILL ALSO BE EQUALLY APPLICABLE IN RESPECT OF SECTION 194C WHERE ALSO UNDER EXPLANATION-III TO SUB-SECTION (2) OF SECTION 194C THE WORK HAS BEEN DEFINED OR EXPLAINED WHICH ACCORDING TO CLAUSE (C) THERETO INCLUDES CARRIAGE OF GOODS AND PASSENGERS BY ANY MODE OF TR ANSPORT OTHER THAN BY RAILWAYS. ACCORDING TO THE TRANSPORT CONT RACT ENTERED INTO BY THE ASSESSEE THE ACTIVITY OF THE TRANSPORT CONTRAC TOR WILL BE A SIMPLE ACTIVITY OF CARRIAGE OF PASSENGER BY ANY MODE OF TR ANSPORT OTHER THAN BY RAILWAYS. THE OBJECT OF THE ASSESSEE TO ENTER I NTO SUCH AGREEMENT WAS A SIMPLE ACTIVITY OF CARRYING ITS STUDENTS AND STAFF FROM THEIR HOMES TO THE SCHOOL AND SIMILARLY FROM SCHOOL TO TH EIR HOMES. THE ASSESSEE HAS NO RESPONSIBILITY WHATSOEVER REGARDING THE BUSES TO BE UTILIZED FOR THAT PURPOSE WHICH WAS THE SOLE RESPON SIBILITY OF THE TRANSPORT CONTRACTOR. THE TRANSPORT CONTRACTOR ONL Y WAS LIABLE TO KEEP AND MAINTAIN THE REQUIRED NUMBER OF BUSES FOR SUCH ACTIVITY AT THEIR OWN EXPENSES WITH THE SPECIFIED STANDARDS. THEREFO RE THE SAID CONTRACT IS PURELY IN THE NATURE OF SERVICES RENDER ED BY THE TRANSPORT CONTRACTOR TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT HA VING ANY RESPONSIBILITY WHATSOEVER REGARDING THE TRANSPORT V EHICLES USED IN SUCH ACTIVITY. AS AGAINST THAT RENT WHICH IS DEFINED IN EXPLANATION TO SECTION 194I INTER-ALIA IS FOR THE USE OF PLANT W HICH ACCORDING TO THE AO INCLUDES BUSES. HERE ACCORDING TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE ASSESSEE ITSELF HAS NOT UTILIZED THE BUSES BEING PL ANTS BUT THEY WERE USED BY THE TRANSPORT CONTRACTOR FOR FULFILLING THE OBLIGATIONS SET OUT IN THE CONTRACT AGREEMENT. THEREFORE THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194I COULD NOT BE APPLIED TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CA SE AND IT HAS TO BE HELD THAT ASSESSEE HAS RIGHTLY DEDUCTED TAX AT SOUR CE UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194C OF THE ACT. GROUND NOS. 2 & 3 RAISED IN BOTH THE APPEALS ARE ALLOWED. ITA-3254 & 3255/DEL/2010 6 7. IN GROUND NO.4 OF BOTH THE APPEALS THE ASSESSEE IS OBJECTING TO THE ACTION OF THE AO VIDE WHICH THE PAYMENTS MADE B Y THE ASSESSEE TO THE COACHES PROVIDED FOR COACHING OF HORSE RIDING TENNIS AND GOLF SERVICES WHICH HAVE BEEN HELD BY THE AO TO BE LIABL E FOR DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE U/S 194J OF THE ACT IN PLACE OF ASSES SEES CLAIM THAT IT IS LIABLE FOR DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE U/S 194C OF T HE ACT. 8. AT THE TIME OF HEARING LEARNED AR DID NOT PRESS THE ISSUE RELATING TO DEDUCTION OF TAX IN RESPECT OF TENNIS A ND GOLF SERVICES. HENCE THE REMAINING ISSUE IS IN RESPECT OF HORSE R IDING. IT IS THE CASE OF LEARNED AR THAT ASSESSEE HAD ENTERED INTO A CONT RACT WITH M/S MUSTANG RIDING SCHOOL WHEREAS THE SAID PARTY WAS RE QUIRED TO PROVIDE FIVE HORSES FOR ` 10 000/- PER HORSE PER MONTH THRO UGHOUT THE YEAR ALONGWITH QUALIFIED AND EXPERIENCED INSTRUCTOR TO T EACH THE CHILDREN HORSE RIDING. THEY WERE ALSO REQUIRED TO PROVIDE M ANPOWER FOR MAINTAINING THE HORSES. THEY WERE ALSO REQUIRED TO PROVIDE FEEDING WATERING VET COVER MEDICINES AND EVERYTHING CONCE RNED TO HORSES. THE SCHOOL WAS TO PROVIDE STABLE FOR THE HORSES WA TER ELECTRIC CONNECTION ETC. IN THE VICINITY OF THE STABLES. T HE COPY OF SUCH CONTRACT IS FILED AT PAGES 16 & 17 OF THE PAPER BOO K. THUS IT IS THE CASE OF THE LEARNED AR THAT IT IS ONLY A SERVICE FA CILITY AVAILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND HENCE SHOULD BE TREATED AS WORK CONTR ACT AND THEREFORE ASSESSEE HAS RIGHTLY DEDUCTED TAX AT SOURCE UNDER T HE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194C OF THE ACT. 9. AS AGAINST THAT IT IS THE CASE OF THE LEARNED D R THAT IT IS NOT A SIMPLE WORK CONTRACT. M/S MUSTANG RIDING SCHOOL HA S BEEN PROVIDED WITH FEE FOR PROFESSIONAL OR TECHNICAL SERVICES TO THE ASSESSEE AND THEREFORE AO HAS RIGHTLY INVOKED SECTION 194J FOR THAT PURPOSE AND CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY UPHELD THE SAME. ITA-3254 & 3255/DEL/2010 7 10. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSI ONS IN THE LIGHT OF MATERIAL PLACED BEFORE US. IT HAS ALREADY BEEN OBS ERVED THAT SECTION 194C IS APPLICABLE WHERE THE ASSESSEE IS RESPONSIBL E FOR PAYING ANY SUM TO ANY RESIDENT IN PURSUANCE OF A CONTRACT BETW EEN THE CONTRACTORS AND SPECIFIED PERSON AND THAT PAYMENT S HOULD BE IN RESPECT OF SOME WORK. NOW IN THE PRESENT CASE WH AT IS OBTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM M/S MUSTANG RIDING SCHOOL IS A TE CHNICAL SERVICE IN THE SHAPE OF HORSE RIDING EDUCATION. IT IS NOT A S IMPLE CONTRACT OF PROVIDING THE HORSES TO THE ASSESSEE. M/S MUSTANG RIDING SCHOOL WAS TO PROVIDE QUALIFIED AND EXPERIENCED INSTRUCTORS TO TEACH THE STUDENTS OF THE ASSESSEE REGARDING HORSE RIDING AND THEY WER E ALSO TO PROVIDE MANPOWER FOR MAINTAINING THE HORSES. THEIR RESPONS IBILITY WAS NOT LIMITED ONLY TO PROVIDE THE FACILITY BUT THEY WERE TO PROVIDE TECHNICAL QUALIFICATION OF HORSE RIDING TO THE STUDENTS OF TH E ASSESSEE SCHOOL. THEREFORE WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT LEARNED CIT(A ) HAS RIGHTLY UPHELD THE ACTION OF AO FOR APPLYING RATE OF DEDUCTION OF TAX FOR SUCH AN ACTIVITY AND THIS CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSE D. IT HAS ALREADY BEEN POINTED OUT THAT LEARNED AR DID NOT PRESS THE ISSUE REGARDING DEDUCTION OF TAX IN RESPECT OF TENNIS AND GOLF SERV ICES. THEREFORE GROUND NO.4 IN BOTH THE APPEALS IS DISMISSED. 11. THE OTHER GROUNDS ARE GENERAL GROUNDS WHICH NEE D NO SEPARATE ADJUDICATION. 12. IN THE RESULT THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSE E ARE PARTLY ALLOWED. DECISION PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 14 TH JANUARY 2011. SD/- SD/- (A.K.GARODIA) (A.K.GARODIA) (A.K.GARODIA) (A.K.GARODIA) (I.P.BANSAL) (I.P.BANSAL) (I.P.BANSAL) (I.P.BANSAL) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 14.01.2011. VK. ITA-3254 & 3255/DEL/2010 8 COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR