Jain Exports Pvt. Ltd.,, New Delhi v. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 4409/DEL/2011 | 2008-2009
Pronouncement Date: 30-03-2012 | Result: Partly Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 440920114 RSA 2011
Bench Delhi
Appeal Number ITA 4409/DEL/2011
Duration Of Justice 5 month(s) 26 day(s)
Appellant Jain Exports Pvt. Ltd.,, New Delhi
Respondent DCIT, New Delhi
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 30-03-2012
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Partly Allowed
Bench Allotted D
Tribunal Order Date 30-03-2012
Date Of Final Hearing 26-03-2012
Next Hearing Date 26-03-2012
Assessment Year 2008-2009
Appeal Filed On 04-10-2011
Judgment Text
ITA NO. 4409/DEL/2011 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH D NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 4409/DEL/2011 A.Y. : 2008-09 M/S JAIN EXPORTS PRIVATE LIMITED FLAT NO. 111 COMPETENT HOUSE F- 14 CONNAUGHT PLACE NEW DELHI 110001 (PAN : VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX OSD C.I.T.-II NEW DELHI (APPELLANT ) (APPELLANT ) (APPELLANT ) (APPELLANT ) (RESPONDENT ) (RESPONDENT ) (RESPONDENT ) (RESPONDENT ) ASSESSEE BY : SH. O.P. MODY ADVOCATE DEPARTMENT BY : SH. AROOP KUMAR SINGH 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 ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST TH E ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-VII NEW DELHI DATED 15.7.2011 PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. 2. THE GROUNDS RAISED READ AS UNDER:- 1. FOR THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL S) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF ` 1 53 48 850/- BEING AN ACCEPTED AND CARRIED FORWARD LIABILITY ITA NO. 4409/DEL/2011 2 PAYABLE BY THE APPELLANT COMPANY TO ELEPHANTA OIL VANASPATI INDUSTRIES LTD. AND SHOWN BY IT AS SUCH IN ITS REGULARLY MAINTAINED AUDITED BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. FOR THAT BEING UNWARRANTED THE ADDITION SO CONFIRMED IT IS PRAYED MAY KINDLY BE DELETED. 2. FOR THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN CONFIRMING DISALLOWANCE OF ` 43 422/- UNDER RULE 8D(III) OF THE IT RULES 1962. FOR THAT BEING UNWARRANTED THE DISALLOWANCE SO CONFIRMED IT IS PRAYED MAY KINDLY BE DELETED. 3. FOR THAT THE APPELLANT COMPANY CRAVES LEAVE TO TAK E ADDITIONAL GROUND OR GROUNDS OF APPEAL AT OR BEFORE THE TIME OF HEARING. 3. ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE COURSE OF ASSES SMENT NOTED THAT THE SUNDRY CREDITORS REMAINED UNMOVED FOR SO MANY YEA RS. THIS INCLUDED M/S ELEPHANTA OIL AND VANASPATI LTD. FOR AN AMOUNT OF ` 1 53 48 850/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT A S REGARDS THE LIABILITIES OF ` 1 53 48 850/- IN THE BOOKS OF TH E ASSESSEE SHOWN OUTSTANDING AS SUNDRY CREDITORS (GOODS) AGAINST THE NAME OF M/S ELEPHANTA OIL & VANASPATHI LTD. THE ASSESSEE HAS EXPRESSED HIS ITA NO. 4409/DEL/2011 3 INABILITY TO FILE CONFIRMATION WITH REGARD TO THIS S UNDRY CREDITORS WHICH IS SHOWN TO HAVE BEEN OUTSTANDING SINCE 1984-85. A SSESSING OFFICER FURTHER OBSERVED THAT A LETTER ISSUED AT THE ADDRES S PROVIDED BY THE ASSESSEE CALLING CONFIRMATION OF THIS LIABILITY U /S. 133(6) HAS ALSO BEEN RECEIVED BACK. HOWEVER ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT AT THE LAST LEG OF PROCEEDING I.E. ON 27.10.2010 THE ASSES SEE HAS FILED A CONFIRMATION ON A PLAIN PAPER WHICH IS SIGNED BY ON E BN KAPOOR IN THE CAPACITY OF EX. FINANCE MANAGER OF M/S ELEPHANTA OIL AND VANASPATHI INDUSTRIES LTD. ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT SATISF IED WITH THIS CONFIRMATION. ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THAT IN THIS CASE ALSO THE LIABILITY WHICH REMAINED UNMOVED AND OUTSTANDING FOR ALMOST 25 YEARS SEIZED TO EXIST AS THERE IS NO POSSIBILITY OF ANY CLAIM IN FUTURE. 4. BEFORE THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS ) IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT WHEREAS A SUM OF ` 1 53 48 849.75 WA S PAYABLE BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY TO ELEPHANTA A SUM OF ` 1 57 1 0 690.53 WAS ALSO RECEIVABLE FROM IT. SO IN THE NET EFFECT EL EPHANTA OWED TO THE ASSESSEE COMPANY A SUM OF ` 3 61 840.78. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT AMOUNT SHOWN AS PAYABLE TO ELEPHANTA REPRESEN TED BANK GUARANTEES GIVEN IN 1984-85 BY ELEPHANTA ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE TO CUSTOM AUTHORITIES THROUGH PUNJAB & SINDH BANK. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED IN RESPECT OF ELEPHANTA ON THE RECOMMENDAT ION OF THE BIFR ITA NO. 4409/DEL/2011 4 THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HAD ADMITTED THE RELEVANT CO MPANY PETITION FOR LIQUIDATION OF THE SAID ELEPHANTA AND HAD ALSO APPOINTED PROVISIONAL LIQUIDATOR WHO SHALL TAKEN INTO HIS POSSESSION AND CONTROL OF THE ASSETS OF ELEPHANTA INCLUDING ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND STA TUTORY RECORDS. THE SAID LIQUIDATION PROCEEDINGS REMAIN PENDING EVE N AS ON DATE AND THE AMOUNT PAYABLE TO AND RECEIVABLE FROM ELEPHANTA B Y THE ASSESSEE COMPANY CONTINUE TO REMAIN AT THE VERY SAME FIGURE AT WHICH IT STOOD AS ON 31.3.2008. LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ( APPEALS) FURTHER NOTED THAT ASSESSEE WAS REQUESTED DURING THE APPELL ATE PROCEEDINGS TO FURNISH THE EVIDENCES IN SUPPORT OF THE BANK GUA RANTEE GIVEN FOR CUSTOMS DUTY BY M/S ELEPHANTA OIL & VANASPATI INDUSTR IES LTD. IN THE YEAR 1984-85. THE ASSESSEE WAS ALSO REQUESTED TO FURNISH THE SHARE HOLDING PATTERN OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AS WELL AS T HAT OF M/S ELEPHANTA OIL & VANASPATI INDUSTRIES LTD. THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) NOTED THAT THE COMPLIANCE IN TH IS REGARD WAS NOT MADE. LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) F URTHER FOUND THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED THE COPY OF ACCOUNT OF ELEPHANTA OIL & VANASPATI INDUSTRIES LTD. SIGNED BY THE CONCERNED PRINCIPAL OFFICER. IN OTHER WORDS THE CONFIRMATION FROM THE SAID CREDITOR M/S ELEPHANTA OIL & VANASPATHI INDUSTRIES LTD. WAS NOT PRODUCED. L D. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) NOTED THAT IT IS ALSO SIGNIFI CANT TO MENTION HERE ITA NO. 4409/DEL/2011 5 THAT M/S ELEPHANTA OIL AND VANASPATHI INDUSTRIES LT D. IS A SISTER CONCERN OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. HENCE LD. COMMI SSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HELD THAT THUS FOR ALL THESE REASONS AND AS THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRODUCED SUFFICIENT MATERIAL JUSTIF YING ITS CLAIM WITH COGENT MATERIAL AND EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THE LIAB ILITY OF ` 1 53 48 850/- APPEARING AGAINST THE NAME OF M/S ELEPH ANTA OIL & VANASPATI INDUSTRIES LTD. HE WAS OF THE CONSIDERE D THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO ESTABLISH THE GENUINENESS OF THE LIAB ILITY OF ` 1 53 48 850/- STANDING AGAINST THE NAME OF M/S ELEPHANTA OIL & VANA SPATHI INDUSTRIES LTD.. HENCE THE ADDITION OF ` 1 53 48 850/- IS CONFIRMED. 5. AGAINST THE ABOVE ORDER THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEA L BEFORE US. 6. LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT WHEREA S A SUM OF ` 1 53 48 849.75 WAS PAYABLE BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY TO ELEPHANTA A SUM OF ` 1 57 10 690.53 WAS ALSO RECEIVABLE FROM IT . SO IN THE NET EFFECT ELEPHANTA OWED TO THE ASSESSEE COMPANY A SUM OF ` 3 61 840.78. HE PLEADED THAT ASSESSEE COMPANY WA S IN LIQUIDATION. HENCE HE CLAIMED THAT THERE WAS NO BASIS OF MAKIN G THE ADDITION IN THIS REGARD BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. LD. COUNSEL FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE SAID LIABILITY OF ` 1 53 48 849.75 TOWARDS ELEP HANTA OIL & VANASPATI INDUSTRIES LTD. WAS ORIGINATED FROM 1984-85 AND CON TINUED TILL ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 AND IN ALL THE INTERVENING PERIODS THE SAME ITA NO. 4409/DEL/2011 6 WAS NOT DISALLOWED. LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE FURTHER TOOK US TO THE SCHEDULE-6 RELATING TO LOANS AND ADVANCES WHEREIN M/ S ELEPHANTA OIL & VANASPATI INDUSTRIES LTD. WAS SHOWN AS OWING ` 15 710 690.53 TO THE ASSESSEE. 7. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORDS. WE FIND THAT LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE TOT ALLY ERRED IN IGNORING THE FACT THAT A SUM OF ` 15 710 690.60 WAS ALSO REC EIVABLE FROM M/S ELEPHANTA OIL & VANASPATI INDUSTRIES LTD. TO THE AS SESSEE. THIS FACT WAS EMERGING FROM THE SAME ACCOUNT FROM WHERE LIABILIT Y TOWARDS ELEPHANTA WAS DEPICTED. REVENUE CANNOT ACCEPT PART ACCOUNTS AND REJECT ANOTHER PART. COMMON LAW MAXIM OF APPROBATE AN D REPROBATE MANDATE THAT WHEN A DOCUMENT IS TO BE RELIED IT IS TO BE RELIED IN THE WHOLE. THUS WHEN A SUM OF ` 15348849.75 IS BEING ACCEPTED AS ASSESSEES LIABILITY TOWARDS M/S ELEPHANTA IT IS I NCUMBENT UPON THE REVENUE TO ACCEPT THAT SUM OF ` 157 10690.53 BEING OWED BY M/S ELEPHANTA TO THE ASSESSEE. IN THIS CONNECTION IN THE NET EFFECT ELEPHANTA OWED TO THE ASSESSEE COMPANY A SUM OF ` 3 6 1 840.78. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES THERE IS NO QUESTION OF DISALLO WANCE OF THE LIABILITY OF ` 1 53 48 849/-. UNDER THE CIRCUMSTAN CES WE SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND DECIDE THE ISSU E IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. ITA NO. 4409/DEL/2011 7 8. APROPOS ISSUE OF DISALLOWANCE OF ` 43 422/- ON THIS ISSUE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT PERUSA L OF SCHEDULE-4 OF THE BALANCE SHEET IT IS SEEN THAT THERE WERE LON G TERM INVESTMENTS TO THE TUNE OF ` 86 84 401/- MADE BY THE ASSESSEE I N QUOTED AND UNQUOTED SHARES OF DIFFERENT COMPANIES. ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO FURNISH WORKING OF DISALLOWANCE U/S. 14A READ WITH RULE 8D OF THE IT RULES. NO COMPLIANCE IN THIS REGARD WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT IT WAS HELD BY THE HO NBLE SPECIAL BENCH OF THE ITAT DELHI IN THE CASE OF M/S. CHEMINVEST LT D. VS. ITO IN ITA NO. 87/DEL/2008 THAT DISALLOWANCE U/S. 14A IS TO BE MADE EVEN IF NO INCOME HAS RESULTED OR EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE IN TH E YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION FROM LONG TERM INVESTMENTS. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS THE DISALLOWANCE U/S. 14A AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 8D WHICH CAME TO ` 45 248/-. ACCORDINGLY AN AMOUNT OF ` 45 248/- WAS DISALLOWED U/S. 14A READ WITH RULE 8D. 9. UPON ASSESSEES APPEAL LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ELABORATELY CONSIDERED THE ISSUE AND HELD AS UNDER:- I HAVE CONSIDERED THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT THE FINDINGS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER I N THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE FACTS ON RECORD. THE ISSUE ITA NO. 4409/DEL/2011 8 INVOLVED IN THE APPEAL WAS DECIDED BY THE DELHI SPE CIAL BENCH OF ITAT IN THE CASE OF CHEMINVEST LTD. VS. ITO (2009) 121 ITD 318 (DELHI) (SB)/ 124 TTJ 577 (DELHI) (SB) 27 DTR (DEL) (SB) (TRIB.) 82. REFERENCE MAY ALSO BE MADE T O THE DECISIONS OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE O F C.I.T. MUMBAI VS. M/S WALFORT SHARE AND STOCK BROKERS PVT. LT D. (2010) TIOL-47-SC-IT: (2010)41 DTR (SC) 233 : 192 T AXMAN 211 (SC) AND OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN GODREJ BOYCE MANUFACTURING CO. LTD. MUMBAI VS. DCIT (2010) 234 CTR (BOM) : 328 ITR 81 (BOM.). FROM THE CONJOINT READING OF THE JUDGEMENTS CITED ABOVE THE FOLLOWING PROPOSITIONS EMERGE:- A) WHEN THE DIVIDEND IS NOT TAXABLE AT ALL THE EXPENDI TURE ON RENT TAXES SALARIES INTEREST ETC. PERTAINING TO THAT WOULD ALSO NOT BE ALLOWABLE BECAUSE THERE IS NO TAXABLE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AGAINST WHICH SUCH EXPENDITURE CAN BE ALLOWED. B) THE DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14A COULD BE MADE IN A YEAR IN WHICH NO EXEMPT INCOME HAD BEEN EARNED OR RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE; ITA NO. 4409/DEL/2011 9 C) THE ALLOWANCE OF EXPENDITURE IN RELATION TO DIVIDE ND INCOME WOULD NOT BE ADMISSIBLE IN COMPUTING THE INCOME OF AN ASSESSEE UNDER THE ACT IN BOTH THE SITUATIONS WHETHER THE SHARES ARE HELD AS INVESTME NT OR HELD ON TRADING ACCOUNT AS STOCK-IN-TRADE; AND D) THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 8D OF THE INCOME TAX RULES WHICH HAVE BEEN NOTIFIED WITH EFFECT FROM 24 MARCH 2008 SHALL APPLY WITH EFFECT FROM ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. AS HELD BY THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE C ASE OF GODREJ BOYCE MFG. CO. (SUPRA) RULE 8D OF THE INCOME T AX RULES 1962 IS APPLICABLE ONLY PROSPECTIVELY I.E. FROM A.Y. 2008-09. SINCE THE ASSESSMENT YEAR INVOLVED IN THE PRESENT CA SE IS 2008- 09 RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE SAID JUDGEMENT OF THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IT IS HELD THAT THE ASSESSING OFF ICER WAS JUSTIFIED IN APPLYING THE SAID RULE TO QUANTIFY THE DISALLOWANCE U/S. 14A OF THE ACT. AS FURTHER HELD BY THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE SAID CASE THE QUANTUM OF DISALLOWANCE U/S. 14A MUST BE DETERMINED HAVING REGARD TO THE ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE. ELABORATE SUBMISSIONS WERE MADE ON BEHALF OF THE A PPELLANT TO ESTABLISH THAT THE INTEREST PAID TO THE EXTENT OF ` 94 000/- CANNOT ITA NO. 4409/DEL/2011 10 BE SAID TO BE ATTRIBUTABLE TO INVESTMENT AND THE RESULTANT DIVIDEND INCOME. HENCE DISALLOWANCE OF ` 1826/- IS NOT WARRANTED IN TERMS OF RULE 8D(II) OF THE INCOME TAX RULES 1962. AFTER HAVING CONSIDERED THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS A ND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE DISALLOWANCE OF ` 43 422/- IN TERMS OF RULE 8D(III) OF THE INCOME TAX RULES 1962 IS CO NFIRMED. AS A RESULT THE APPELLANT GETS A RELIEF OF ` 1826/- AND GROUND OF APPEAL NO. 4 IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 10. AGAINST THE ABOVE ORDER THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPE AL BEFORE US. 11. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS IN LIGHT OF THE MATERIAL PRODUCED AND PRECEDENT RELIED UPON. WE FIND THAT H ONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF MAXOPP IN VESTMENT LTD. VS. C.I.T. NEW DELHI (203 TAXMAN 364) HAS EXPOUNDED IN THE HEAD NOTES AS UNDER:- SECTION 14A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 READ WIT H RULE 8D OF THE INCOME TAX RULES 1962 EXPENDITURE INCURR ED IN RELATION TO INCOME NOT INCLUDIBLE IN TOTAL INCOME WHETHER IN TERMS OF SECTION 14A(2) CONDITION PRECEDENT FOR ASSESSING OFFICER TO DETERMINE AMOUNT OF EXPENDITURE INCURRED IN RELATION TO EXEMPT INCOME IS THAT HE MUST RECORD HIS DISSATISFACTION WITH CORRECTNESS OF CLAIM OF EX PENDITURE MADE BY ASSESSEE OR WITH CORRECTNESS OF CLAIM MADE BY ITA NO. 4409/DEL/2011 11 ASSESSEE NO EXPENDITURE HAS BEEN INCURRED. HELD YES WHETHER THEREFORE DETERMINATION OF AMOUNT OF EXPENDI TURE IN RELATION TO EXEMPT INCOME UNDER RULE 8D WOULD ON LY COME INTO PLAY WHEN ASSESSING OFFICER REJECTS CLAI M OF ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD HELD YES WHETHER RULE 8D WHICH WAS INTRODUCED BY VIRTUE OF NOTIFICATION NO. 45/20 08 DATED 24.3.2008 IS PROSPECTIVE IN OPERATION AND CANNOT B E REGARDED AS BEING RETROSPECTIVE HELD YES WHETH ER THOUGH SUB-SECTIONS(2) AND (3) OF SECTION 14A WERE INTRODUCED WITH PROSPECTIVE EFFECT FORM ASSESSMENT YE AR 2007-08 ONWARDS THEY WOULD BE WORKABLE ONLY WITH E FFECT FROM DATE OF INTRODUCTION OF RULE 8D WHICH GAVE CONT ENT TO EXPRESSION SUCH METHOD AS MAY BE PRESCRIBED APPEARI NG IN SECTION 14A(2) HELD YES WHETHER HOWEVER FACT THAT SUB-SECTIONS (2) AND (3) OF SECTION 14A AND RULE 8D WOULD OPERATE PROSPECTIVELY (AND NOT RETROSPECTIVELY) D OES NOT MEAN THAT PRIOR TO THAT PERIOD ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT TO SATISFY HIMSELF WITH CORRECTNESS OF CLAIM OF ASSESSEE WITH REGARD TO SUCH EXPENDITURE HELD YES WHETHER EV EN FOR PER-RULE 8D PERIOD WHENEVER ISSUE OF SECTION 14A ARISES BEFORE AN ASSESSING OFFICER HE HAS FIRST OF ALL TO ASCERTAIN CORRECTNESS OF CLAIM OF ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF EXPEN DITURE INCURRED IN RELATION TO INCOME WHICH DOES NOT FORM PART OF TOTAL INCOME UNDER ACT AND IF HE IS SATISFIED ON AN OBJECTIVE ANALYSIS AND FOR COGENT REASON THAT AMOUNT OF SUCH EXPENDITURE AS CLAIMED BY ASSESSEE IS NOT CORRECT HE REQUIRED TO DETERMINE AMOUNT OF SUCH EXPENDITURE ON B ASIS ITA NO. 4409/DEL/2011 12 OF A REASONABLE AND ACCEPTABLE METHOD OF APPORTIONMEN T - HELD YES (PARTLY IN FAVOR OF REVENUE). 12. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION IN THE INTEREST OF JU STICE THE ISSUE NEEDS TO BE EXAMINED ON THE TOUCHSTONE OF THE EXPOS ITION OF HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT AS ABOVE. HENCE THE IS SUE IS REMITTED TO THE FILES OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO CONSIDER THE ISS UE AFRESH IN LIGHT OF THE DECISION OF HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT AS AB OVE. NEEDLESS TO ADD THAT THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE GRANTED ADEQUATE OPPORT UNITY OF BEING HEARD. 13. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30/3/2012. SD/- SD/- [ [[ [RAJPAL YADAV RAJPAL YADAV RAJPAL YADAV RAJPAL YADAV] ]] ] [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 30/3/2012 SRBHATNAGAR SRBHATNAGAR SRBHATNAGAR SRBHATNAGAR 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