Sh. Kunj Bihari,, Delhi v. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 3428/DEL/2010 | 1998-1999
Pronouncement Date: 25-02-2011 | Result: Partly Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 342820114 RSA 2010
Bench Delhi
Appeal Number ITA 3428/DEL/2010
Duration Of Justice 7 month(s) 12 day(s)
Appellant Sh. Kunj Bihari,, Delhi
Respondent ITO, New Delhi
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 25-02-2011
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Partly Allowed
Bench Allotted D
Tribunal Order Date 25-02-2011
Date Of Final Hearing 28-01-2011
Next Hearing Date 28-01-2011
Assessment Year 1998-1999
Appeal Filed On 13-07-2010
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH D NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI I.P. BANSAL JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI K.G. BANSAL ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO.3428/D/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 1998-99 SHRI KUNJ BEHARI PROP. VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER M/S KUNJ BEHARI ROSHAL LAL WARD 29(1) 4127 NAYA BAZAR DELHI-6 NEW DELHI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN NO. XXXXX APPELLANT BY : SHRI V. PRATAP CA RESPONDENT BY: SHRI K. RAVI RAMACHANDRAN DR ORDER PER K.G. BANSAL: AM: THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN THREE GROUNDS IN THIS APPEAL. HOWEVER IN TH E COURSE OF HEARING BEFORE US ONLY TWO ISSUES WERE PRESSED. THE FIRST ISSUE IS THAT THE NOTICES U/S 148 142 AND 143(2) WERE ISSUED IN THE WR ONG NAME OF KUNJ BEHARI ROSHAN LAL AND THEREFORE THE ASSESSMENT FINALLY FRAMED IN THE NAME OF SHRI KUNJ BEHARI PROPRIETOR OF M/S KUNJ BEHARI ROSHAN LAL IS BAD IN 3428-2010-KB 2 LAW. THE SECOND ISSUE IS THAT THE LOANS TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE AGGREG ATING TO `15 00 000/- WERE WRONGLY ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE U/S 69D OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT 1961. IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID OTHER GROU NDS ARE DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. 2. IN REGARD TO THE FIRST ISSUE THE LEARNED COUNSEL REFERRED TO PAGE NO.1 OF THE PAPER BOOK WHICH IS THE COPY OF THE NOTICE U/S 148 IS SUED ON 12.11.2002 TO M/S KUNJ BEHARI ROSHAN LAL AT THE ADDRESS OF 4127 FIRST FLOOR NAYA BAZAR DELHI. FURTHER HE REFERRED TO PAGE NO.2 OF THE PAPER BOOK BEING A LETTER ADDRESSED BY THE COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE TO THE ASSESSING OFF ICER ON 16.11.2001 INTIMATING THAT NOW THERE IS NO FIRM UNDER THE NAME AND STYLE OF M/S KUNJ BEHARI ROSHAN LAL FUNCTIONING FROM THE AFORESAID ADDRESS. HE ALSO REFERRED TO ASSESSING OFFICERS NOTICE U/S 143(2) ISSUED TO THE AS SESSEE ON 04.02.2003 IN THE NAME OF M/S KUNJ BEHARI ROSHAN LAL. SUCH IS ALS O THE CASE IN RESPECT OF NOTICE U/S 142(1) ISSUED ON 14.12.2001 AND PLAC ED IN THE PAPER BOOK ON PAGE NOS. 4 & 5. HE ALSO REFERRED TO THE ASSESSMENT OR DER IN WHICH THE ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN MADE ON SHRI KUNJ BEHARI PROPRIETOR M/S K UNJ BEHARI ROSHAN LAL. IT IS ARGUED THAT .THE NOTICES WERE ISSUED IN THE D IFFERENT NAME WHILE THE ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN MADE IN THE STATUS OF INDIVIDUAL IN TH E CASE OF SHRI KUNJ BEHARI AS PROPRIETOR OF M/S KUNJ BEHARI ROSHAN LAL. SINCE THE NOTICES WERE ISSUED IN DIFFERENT NAME THOSE WERE INVALID AND ACCO RDINGLY THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT IS ALSO INVALID. 3428-2010-KB 3 2.1 IN REPLY THE LEARNED DR SUBMITTED THAT M/S KUNJ BEHARI ROSH AN LAL IS A PROPRIETARY CONCERN OF SHRI KUNJ BEHARI. THE NOTICES WERE ISSUED IN THE NAME AND STYLE OF THE PROPRIETARY CONCERN BEING KUNJ BEHARI ROSHAN LAL. EVEN AS PER ASSESSEE NO FIRM OF THIS NAME WAS EXISTING ON THAT DATE AT TH E GIVEN ADDRESS THEREFORE THERE COULD HAVE BEEN NO CONFUSION IN THE MIND OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE NOTICES WERE ISSUED TO HIM IN HIS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY AS PROPRIETOR OF THE FIRM. THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN HEARD AT LENGTH IN TH E COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND VARIOUS SUBMISSIONS HAVE BEEN MADE. THIS ALSO SHOWS THAT NO REAL GRIEVANCE COULD HAVE OCCURRED TO THE ASSES SEE ON ACCOUNT OF MENTIONING THE NAME OF PROPRIETARY CONCERN IN THE NOT ICES. THEREFORE THE NOTICES WERE VALIDLY ISSUED AND CONSEQUENTLY THE ASSESS MENT MADE ON THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO VALID. THE AFORESAID ARGUMENTS WERE FURTH ER BUTTRESSED BY TAKING RECOURSE TO THE PROVISION CONTAINED IN SECTIO N 292B REGARDING RETURN OF INCOME ETC. NOT TO BE INVALID ON CERTAIN GRO UNDS WHICH READS AS OVERLEAF: 292B: NO RETURN OF INCOME ASSESSMENT NOTICE SUMMONS OR OTHER PROCEEDING FURNISHED OR MADE OR ISSUED OR TAKEN OR PURPORTED TO HAVE BEEN /FURNISHED OR MADE OR ISSUED OR TAKEN IN PURSUANCE OF ANY OF THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT SHALL BE INVALID OR SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE INVALID MERELY BY REASON OF ANY MISTAKE DEFECT OR OMISSION IN SUCH RETURNS OF INCOME ASSESSMENT NOT ICE SUMMONS OR OTHER PROCEEDING IF SUCH RETURN OF INCOME ASSESSMENT NOTICE SUMMONS OR OTHER PROCEEDING IS IN 3428-2010-KB 4 SUBSTANCE AND EFFECT IN CONFORMITY WITH OR ACCORDING TO THE INTENT AND PURPOSE OF THIS ACT. 2.2 WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND SUBMISSIONS MA DE BEFORE US. WE FIND THAT THE NOTICES HAVE BEEN ISSUED IN THE NAME OF KUNJ BEHARI ROSHAN LAL WHICH IS THE PROPRIETARY CONCERN OF SHRI KUNJ BEHARI. T HE ADDRESS HAS BEEN CORRECTLY MENTIONED IN THE NOTICES. AT THE RELEVANT POINT O F TIME THERE WAS NO PARTNERSHIP FIRM FUNCTIONING FROM THIS ADDRESS. T HE ASSESSEE HAS PARTICIPATED IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THEREFORE NO REAL GRIEVANCE HAS OCCURRED ON THE ASSESSEE. FURTHER THE PROVISION CONTAINED IN SECT ION 292B CURES SUCH MISTAKE DEFECT OR OMISSION IN THE NOTICES ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHICH WERE IN SUBSTANCE AND EFFECT IN CONFORMITY WITH TH E INTENT AND PURPOSE OF THE ACT. IN VIEW OF THIS PROVISION ALSO THE NO TICES WILL HAVE TO BE HELD TO BE VALID. ACCORDINGLY THE SUBMISSIONS MADE ARE DISMISSED. THUS IT IS HELD THAT THE ASSESSMENT IS VALID. 3. COMING TO THE MERITS A NUMBER OF ARGUMENTS WERE TAKEN BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN RESPECT OF ADDITION OF `15 00 000/- U/S 69D. MOST OF THESE ARGUMENTS WERE DROPPED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL EXCEPT THAT THE ADDITIO N SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN MADE UNDER AFORESAID PROVISION BECAUSE LOANS WERE N OT OBTAINED ON HUNDIS. IT WAS HIS CASE THAT ONCE THIS LEGAL POSITION G ETS DECIDED 3428-2010-KB 5 IN HIS FAVOUR THE DEPARTMENT WILL HAVE NO CASE FOR THE ADDITION AS THE ADMITTED POSITION IS THAT LOANS WERE IN FACT TAKEN FROM SHRI K.C. JAIN. IN THIS CONNECTION HE DREW OUR ATTENTION TO THREE DOCUMENTS FILED BE FORE US ALONG WITH LETTER DATED 09.02.2001 WHICH HAVE BEEN HELD TO BE HUNDIS BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. THESE DOCUMENTS HAVE BEEN WRITTEN IN HINDI ON THE LETTER- PAD OF KUNJ BEHARI ROSHAN LAL GENERAL MERCHANTS AND COMMISSION AGENT 4127 1 FLOOR NAYA BAZAR DELHI-6. THE SAME HAVE BEEN SIGNED BY THE PROPRIETOR/MANAGER OF THE AFORESAID CONCERN BEING SHRI KUNJ BEHARI OR SHRI A.K. GARG. THE NARRATION IN THE DOCUMENTS CAN BE TRANSLATED ROU GHLY AS THAT `5 00 000/- HAVE BEEN RECEIVED AND CREDITED TO YOUR NAME WHICH BEAR INTEREST @1% PER MONTH. THE DOCUMENTS HAVE BEEN WRITTEN ON 17.10.19 97 23.10.1997 AND 20.11.1997. THEREFORE THE AGGREGATE OF THE LO ANS TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE AND COMPUTED ON THE BASIS OF THESE THREE DOCUMENTS W ORKS OUT TO `15 00 000/- WHICH HAS BEEN ADDED UNDER THE PROVISION OF S ECTION 69D. THE CASE OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL IS THAT THESE DOCUMENTS DO NOT CONSTITUTE HUNDIS. THEREFORE THE AFORESAID PROVISION CANNOT BE INVOKED. 3.1 IN REPLY THE LEARNED DR REFERRED TO PARAGRAPH NO.4 OF THE IMP UGNED ORDER IN WHICH A REFERENCE HAS BEEN MADE FROM THE DECISION IN T HE CASE OF M/S TARA CHAND RAMESH KUMAR WHO WAS ALSO ONE OF THE PARTIES WHO HAD BORROWED UNACCOUNTED MONEY FROM KAMAL CHAND JAIN GROUP. THE APPELLATE ORDER IN THAT CASE HAS BEEN REPRODUCED. FURTHER HE REFERRED TO P ARAGRAPH 3428-2010-KB 6 NOS. 8 & 9 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IN WHICH IT HAS BEEN HELD TH AT THE CONCLUSION ARRIVED AT IN OTHER CASES IS APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF TH IS CASE. THESE PARAGRAPHS ARE REPRODUCED BELOW:- 8. AND IT MUST ALWAYS BE BORNE IN MIND THAT THE STANDARD OF PROOF BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT HAS NO APPLICABILITY IN SO FAR AS THE DETERMINATION OF MATTERS UNDER THE DIRECT TAX STATUTES ARE CONCERNED. IT IS SETTLED THAT /THE TAXING AUTHORITIES ARE ENTITLED TO LOOK INTO THE SURROUNDING CIRCUMSTANCES TO FIND OUT THE REALITY OF THE MATTER BY APPLYING THE TEST OF HUMAN PROBABILITIES (CIT VS. DURGA PRASAD MORE (1971) 82 ITR 540 (SUPREME COURT) AT PAGES 545 547). THE PRINCIPLE HAS BEEN EXPOSITED BY THE APEX COURT THUS: IT IS TRUE THAT AN APPARENT MUST BE CONSIDERED REAL UNTIL IT IS SHOWN THAT THERE ARE REASONS TO BELIEVE THAT THE APPARENT IS NOT THE REAL. IN A CASE OF THE PRESENT KIND A PARTY WHO RELIES ON A RECITAL IN A DEED HAS TO ESTABLISH THE TRUTH OF THOSE RECITALS OTHERWISE IT WILL BE VERY EASY TO MAKE SELF-SERVING STATEMENTS IN DOCUMENTS EITHER EXECUTED OR TAKEN BY A PARTY AND RELY ON THOSE RECITALS. IF ALL THAT AN ASSESSEE WHO WANTS TO EVADE TAX IS TO HAVE SOME RECITALS MADE IN A DOCUMENT EITHER EXECUTED BY HIM OR EXECUTED IN HIS FAVOUR THEN THE DOOR WILL BE LEFT WIDE OPEN TO EVADE TAX. A LITTLE PROBING WAS SUFFICIENT IN THE PRESENT CASE TO SHOW THAT THE APPARENT WAS NOT THE REAL. THE TAXING AUTHORITIES WERE NOT REQUIRED TO PUT ON BLINKERS WHILE LOOKING AT THE DOCUMENTS PRODUCED BEFORE THEM. THEY WERE ENTITLED TO LOOK INTO THE SURROUNDING 3428-2010-KB 7 CIRCUMSTANCES TO FIND OUT THE REALITY OF THE RECITALS MADE IN THOSE DOCUMENTS. 9. TO MY MIND AND APPLYING THE RATIOS LAID DOWN IN THE AUTHORITIES SUPRA TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE THE CONCLUSION SEEMS INESCAPABLE THAT LIKE SO MANY OTHER PARTIES THE APPELLANT HAD ALSO BORROWED UNDISCLOSED CASH AMOUNTS FROM THE KAMAL CHAND JAIN GROUP OF CASES IN NO.2 ACCOUNT. TO MY VIEW THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HAS SUFFICIENTLY ESTABLISHED THIS CASE TO THE EXTENT POSSIBLE AND IT WOULD NOT BE OUT OF PLACE TO MENTION THAT ONE HAS TO REMEMBER THE LEGAL MAXIM-LEX NON COJIT AD IMPOSSIBILIA- WHICH MEANS THE LAW DOES NOT COMPEL A MAN TO DO THAT WHICH HE CANNOT POSSIBLY PERFORM. I AM FIRMLY OF THE OPINION THAT IMPOSSIBLE BURDENS OF PROOF CANNOT BE PLACED EITHER ON THE DEPARTMENT OR INDEED EVEN ON THE ASSESSEE. I AM FURTHER FORTIFIED BY THE PRINCIPLES LAID DOWN IN CIT VS. DEVI PRASAD VISHWANATH PRASAD (1969) 72 ITR 194 (SUPREME COURT); GOVINDARJULU MUDALLAR VS. CIT (1958) 34 ITR 807 (SUPREME COURT); SUMATI DAYAL VS. CIT (1995) 214 ITR 801 (SUPREME COURT); HARI CHAND VIRENDER PAUL VS. CIT (1983) 140 ITR 148 (P&J) AND NANAK CHANDER LAXMAN DASS VS. CIT (1983) 140 ITR 151 (ALL). 3.2 WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND SUBMISSIONS MAD E BEFORE US. THE PROVISION CONTAINED IN SECTION 69D READS AS UNDER:- 3428-2010-KB 8 69D: WHERE ANY AMOUNT IS BORROWED ON A HUNDI FROM OR ANY AMOUNT DUE THEREON IS REPAID TO ANY PERSON OTHERWISE THAN THROUGH AN ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUE DRAWN ON A BANK THE AMOUNT SO BORROWED OR REPAID SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE THE INCOME OF THE PERSON BORROWING OR REPAYING /THE AMOUNT AFORESAID FOR THE PREVIOUS YEAR IN WHICH THE AMOUNT WAS BORROWED OR REPAID AS THE CASE MAY BE: PROVIDED THAT IF IN ANY CASE ANY AMOUNT BORROWED ON A HUNDI HAS BEEN DEEMED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION TO BE THE INCOME OF ANY PERSON SUCH PERSON SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO BE ASSESSED AGAIN IN RESPECT OF SUCH AMOUNT UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION ON REPAYMENT OF SUCH AMOUNT. EXPLANATION-FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION THE AMOUNT REPAID SHALL INCLUDE THE AMOUNT OF INTEREST PAID ON THE AMOUNT BORROWED. 3.3 ON PERUSAL OF THE PROVISION IT CAN BE INFERRED THAT IF ANY AMO UNT IS BORROWED ON A HUNDI FROM ANY PERSON OTHERWISE THAN THROUGH AN ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUE THE AMOUNT SO BORROWED SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE THE INCO ME OF THE PERSON BORROWING THE MONEY. THE PROVISION CONTAINS AN IRREB UTTABLE PRESUMPTION OF LAW AND THEREFORE IT HAS TO BE NECESSARILY INVOKED AT THE VERY INSTANCE IN FAVOUR OF THE REVENUE. IT IS AN ADMITTED FACT THAT T HE AMOUNTS HAVE BEEN BORROWED IN CASH I.E. OTHERWISE THAN THROUGH AN ACCOUN T PAYEE CHEQUE DRAWN ON A BANK. HOWEVER THE QUESTION IS WHETHER TH E DOCUMENTS 3428-2010-KB 9 ARE HUNDIS OR NOT? IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. DEXAN PHARMACEUTICAL LIMITED (1995) 214 ITR 576 HONBLE ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT EXAMINED THE INDICAT ORS WHICH WILL DECIDE WHETHER A DOCUMENT IS A HUNDI OR NOT. THE MAJOR CONSIDERATIONS ARE THAT THERE HAVE TO BE THREE PERSONS THE DRAWER; T HE DRAWEE; AND THE PAYEE BUT THE DRAWER CANNOT HIMSELF ALSO BE THE DR AWEE. IF THE TRANSACTION IS BY BI-LATERAL IT IS A VERY STRONG INDICATOR TO S HOW THAT IT IS NOT A HUNDI TRANSACTION. A HUNDI IS NORMALLY WRITTEN IN ORIENTAL LAN GUAGE AS PER THE MERCANTILE CUSTOM. FOR THE SAKE OF COMPLETENESS THE TEST S LISTED BY THE HONBLE COURT ON PAGE NO.581 OF THE REPORT ARE REPRODUCED B ELOW:- 1.THERE ARE ALWAYS THREE PARTIES TO SUCH A TRANSACTION. THEY ARE THE DRAWER THE DRAWEE AND THE PAYEE. THE DRAWER CANNOT HIMSELF ALSO BE THE DRAWEE. IF THE TRANSACTION IS BILATERAL IT IS A VERY STRONG INDICATION TO SHOW THAT IT IS NOT A HUNDI TRANSACTION. 2.A HUNDI IS PAYABLE TO SATISFY A PERSON OR ORDER BUT NEGOTIABLE WITHOUT ENDORSEMENT BY THE PAYEE. 3.THE HOLDER OF A HUNDI IS ENTITLED TO SUE ON ITS BASIS WITHOUT ANY ENDORSEMENT IN HIS FAVOUR. 4.A HUNDI ONCE ACCEPTED BY THE DONEE COULD BE NEGOTIATED WITHOUT ENDORSEMENT. 3428-2010-KB 10 5.IN THE CASE OF LOSS OF A HUNDI THE OWNER CAN CLAIM DUPLICATE OR TRIPLICATE FROM THE DRAWER AND PRESENT THE SAME TO THE DRAWEE FOR CLAIMING PAYMENT. 6.A HUNDI IS NORMALLY IN THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE AS PER THE MERCANTILE CUSTOM. 3.4 THE HONBLE COURT ALSO MENTIONED THE CONTENTS OF THE IMPUGNED DOCUMENT BEFORE IT ON PAGE NO.578 OF THE REPORT WHICH HAD BE EN SIGNED BY TWO PARTIES. IT WAS MENTIONED THAT THE CONTENTS OF THE DOCUMEN TS ARE IN ENGLISH AND NOT IN ORIENTAL LANGUAGE. THE TRANSACTIONS ARE NOT BETWEEN THREE PARTIES AS THEY ARE BY BI-LATERAL. THE DRAWER HIMSELF IS THE DRAWEE IN ALL T HE TRANSACTIONS. IT IS FURTHER MENTIONED THAT THOUGH IT MAY NOT B E WHOLLY ACCURATE TO SAY THAT DOCUMENTS IN ENGLISH CANNOT BE HUNDIS THERE IS NO DOUBT WHATSOEVER THAT THE ABSENCE OF ORIENTAL LANGUAGE IN THE DOCUMEN T COUPLED WITH THAT THE TRANSACTION IS ONLY BY BI-LATERAL AND NOT TRIP ARTITE IS CONCLUSIVE TO SHOW THAT THE INSTRUMENT THOUGH TITLED A HUNDI IS NOT REALLY A HUNDI. THE DOCUMENT IS ON THE LINES OF A PROMISSORY NOTE. 3428-2010-KB 11 3.5 IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. PARANJOTHI SALT COMPANY (1995) 211 ITR 141 THE HONBLE COURT MENTIONED ON PAGE NO.143 OF THE REPORT THE ESSENTIA L CHARACTERISTICS OF A HUNDI I.E. AN UNCONDITIONAL ORDER SIGNED BY THE MAKER DIRECTING A CERTAIN PERSON TO PAY A CERTAIN SUM OF MONEY ONLY TO OR TO THE ORDER OF A CERTAIN PERSON OR TO THE BEARER OF THE INSTRUMENT ARE ABSENT. THIS JUDGMENT ALSO HOLDS THAT FOR A DOCUMENT TO BE A HUNDI IT SHOULD BE A TRIPARTITE ARRANGEMENT. 3.6 COMING TO THE FACTS OF THIS CASE THE BORROWER ACKNOWLEDG ES RECEIPT OF AN AMOUNT BY WAY OF LOAN WITH STIPULATION OF INTEREST AT 1% PER MO NTH. IT IS OF COURSE WRITTEN IN HINDI. HOWEVER IT IS ONLY A BILATERAL ARRANGEMEN T AND NOT A TRIPARTITE ARRANGEMENT. IT IS NOT NEGOTIABLE PRIMA FACIE AND THEREFOR E THE HOLDER IN DUE COURSE MAY NOT BE IN A POSITION TO SUE KUNJ BEH ARI ROSHAN LAL. THUS WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE DOCUMENT IS NOT A HUNDI. AC CORDINGLY IT IS HELD THAT THE PROVISION CONTAINED IN SECTION 69D IS NOT APPLICABLE. 3.7 IT IS AN ACCEPTED POSITION OF FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED THE MONIES FROM SHRI K.C. JAIN WHICH WERE UNACCOUNTED IN LATTERS HANDS. AC CORDINGLY THE AMOUNT CANNOT BE SAID TO BE UNEXPLAINED IN THE HANDS OF THE AS SESSEE. THUS PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN SECTION 68 ETC. ARE NOT APPLICABLE. 4. IN RESULT THE APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED AS INDICATED ABOVE. THIS ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 25.02.2011. 3428-2010-KB 12 SD/- SD/- ( I.P. BANSAL ) ( K.G. BANSAL ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DT. 25/02/2011 NS COPY FORWARDED TO:- 1. SHRI KUNJ BEHARI PROP M/S KUNJ BEHARI ROSHAN LAL 4127 NAYA BAZAR DELHI-6. 2. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-29(1) NEW DELHI. 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT (A) NEW DELHI. 5. THE DR ITAT LOKNAYAK BHAWAN KHAN MARKET NEW DELHI. TRUE COPY BY ORDER (ITAT NEW DELHI).