ACIT, Kanpur v. M/s. Prachi Leathers Ltd., Kanpur

ITA 57/LKW/2010 | 2002-2003
Pronouncement Date: 14-03-2011

Appeal Details

RSA Number 5723714 RSA 2010
Bench Lucknow
Appeal Number ITA 57/LKW/2010
Duration Of Justice 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 23 day(s)
Appellant ACIT, Kanpur
Respondent M/s. Prachi Leathers Ltd., Kanpur
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 14-03-2011
Appeal Filed By Department
Bench Allotted B
Date Of Final Hearing 14-03-2011
Next Hearing Date 14-03-2011
Assessment Year 2002-2003
Appeal Filed On 22-01-2010
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH B BB B LUCKNOW LUCKNOW LUCKNOW LUCKNOW BEFORE HONBLE SHRI H.L. KARWA BEFORE HONBLE SHRI H.L. KARWA BEFORE HONBLE SHRI H.L. KARWA BEFORE HONBLE SHRI H.L. KARWA AND HONBLE SHRI N.K. SAINI AND HONBLE SHRI N.K. SAINI AND HONBLE SHRI N.K. SAINI AND HONBLE SHRI N.K. SAINI ITA NO.57/LKW/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2002-03 ACIT-VI KANPUR V. M/S PRACHI LEATHERS PVT. LTD. C-3 UDYOG NAGAR KANPUR PAN:AAACP8242N (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SHRI P. K. BAJAJ D.R. RESPONDENT BY: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA ADVOCATE O OO O R RR R D DD D E EE E R RR R PER PER PER PER H. L. KARWA H. L. KARWA H. L. KARWA H. L. KARWA: :: : THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A)-II KANPUR IN CANCELLING THE PENALTY OF $ 40 LAKHS IMPOSED U/S. 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT) RELATING TO ASSESSME NT YEAR 2002-03. 2. IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS LATE BY SIX DAYS. THE REVENUE HAS FILED AN APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY WHICH IS SUPPORTED BY AN AFFIDAVIT OF SHRI V. K. SRIVASTAVA S/O S. S. SRIVAS TAVA ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX OFFICE OF JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RAN GE 6 VAIBHAV BHAVAN CIVIL LINE KANPUR NAGAR. IN THE AFFIDAVIT IT IS STATED THAT T HE LAST DATE FOR FILING OF SECOND APPEAL WAS 15.1.2010 AND THE SAME WAS FILED ON 22.1.2010. THE CASE WAS LEFT OUT INADVERTENTLY AND SECOND APPEAL COULD NOT BE FILED ON OR BEFORE 1 5.1.2010. 3. AT THE TIME OF HEARING SHRI AMIT SHUKLA LD. COUNS EL FOR THE ASSESSEE DID NOT RAISE ANY OBJECTION REGARDING CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FIL ING THE APPEAL. 4. SHRI P. K. BAJAJ LD. D.R. SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS A SUFFICIENT CAUSE IN NOT FILING THE APPEAL WELL WITHIN THE TIME. 5. IN OUR VIEW THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL OCCURRE D IN THIS CASE DESERVES TO BE CONDONED KEEPING IN VIEW THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCE S OF THE PRESENT CASE AND ALSO THE SETTLED LEGAL POSITION. THE SETTLED LEGAL POSITION IS THAT JURISDICTION TO CONDONE THE DELAY SHOULD BE EXERCISED LIBERALLY. THE MATTER RELATING TO CONDONATION OF DELAY SHOULD BE :-2-: JUDGED BROADLY AND NOT IN A PEDANTIC MANNER. ACCOR DINGLY WE CONDONE THE DELAY AND ADMIT THE APPEAL FOR HEARING ON MERITS. 6. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE I S A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY AND THE RETURN WAS FILED DECLARING NIL INCOME UNDER THE NORMAL PROVISIONS OF THE ACT AND DECLARING INCOME OF $ 9 79 860 DETERMINED U/S. 115JB OF THE ACT. HOWEVER THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED AT NIL INCOME UNDER THE NO RMAL PROVISIONS OF THE ACT AND AT $ 1 23 05 451 UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 115JB O F THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY DISCLOSED THIS INCOME FROM MANUFACTURING OF FINISHE D LEATHER FROM RAW HIDES AND LEATHER GOODS MANUFACTURED FROM SUCH HIDES. DURING THE YEA R UNDER CONSIDERATION THE ASSESSEE HAD DECLARED BUSINESS INCOME AS UNDER:- 1) UNIT-1 AND 2 SITUATED AT VILLAGE SWAROOP PUR TEHSI L AKBARPUR KANPUR DISTRICT. 2) UNIT-3 SITUATED AT C-3 UDYOG NAGAR KANPUR 6.1 IN UNIT-3 THE MANUFACTURING OF LEATHER GOODS MAINL Y SHOE UPPERS IS BEING DONE WHILE IN UNIT-1 IS A TANNER IN WHICH LEATHER IS BEI NG PRODUCED. IN UNIT-2 FINISHED GOODS SUCH AS SHOE UPPERS LEATHER BAGS ETC ARE BEING MA NUFACTURED. THE TURNOVER OF ALL THE THREE UNITS AND THE PROFITS EARNED THEREON IS AS UN DER:- S.NO. UNIT TURNOVER PROFIT/LOSS 1 UNIT-1 24 62 23 194 (-)87 12 504 2 UNIT-2 896 15 303 2 16 62 613 3 UNIT-3 HEAD OFFICE 4 04 93 473 22 62 114 6.2 THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY HAS CLAIMED SEPARATELY DEDUCTI ON U/S. 80HHC OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF UNIT-2 AND UNIT-3 WHICH WERE CLAIMED AT $ 1 29 02 744 AND $ 10 91 563 RESPECTIVELY TOTALING TO $ 1 39 94 307. SINCE THERE WAS NET LOSS IN UNIT-1 N O DEDUCTION U/S. 80HHC OF THE ACT WAS CLAIMED IN RESPECT OF UNI T-1. IN SUPPORT OF THIS CLAIM THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY SUBMITTED THAT IT WAS MAINTAINING SEPARATE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF EACH UNIT AND NO TRANSFER OF LOCAL PROFIT TO THE EXPORT PROFIT WAS BEING MADE. IT WAS ALSO CLAIMED THAT EXPORT IN RESPECT OF UNIT-2 AND UNIT-3 WERE INDEPENDENTLY ASCERTAINABLE. :-3-: HOWEVER AFTER LOOKING TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANC ES OF THE CASE THE ASSESSMENT WAS MADE AFTER ALLOWING DEDUCTION U/S. 80HHC OF THE ACT ONLY OF $ 26 68 714 AS AGAINST THE CLAIM OF $ 1 39 94 307. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALSO OBSERV ED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS MAINTAINING SEPARATE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT TO CLAIM THE BENEFIT OF HIGHER DEDUCTION U/S. 80HHC OF THE ACT WHICH AMOUNTED TO MANEUVERING THE THINGS ACCORDING TO ITS OWN CONVENI ENCE. THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A)-II KANPUR W HO VIDE ORDER DATED 31.7.2006 DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE BY OBSERVING T HAT THE COMPUTATION OF DEDUCTION U/S. 80HHC OF THE ACT MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS CORRECT. 6.3 SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE WRONG CLAIM OF DEDUCTIO N U/S. 80HHC OF THE ACT THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT WERE ALSO INITIATED AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. ACCORDINGLY A NOTICE U/S. 274 READ WITH SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED ON 7.3.2008. IN COMPLIANCE TO T HIS NOTICE THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS REPLY ON 17.3.2008.AND SUBMITTED THAT THE PENALTY PROCEED INGS MAY BE DROPPED. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN ITS REPLY TO NOTICE U/S. 274 OF THE ACT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO BRING ANY NEW THING ON RECORD EXCEPT THE FA CTS WHICH HAVE ALREADY BEEN DISCUSSED IN DETAIL IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE A SSESSING OFFICER DID NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THE REPLY OF THE ASSESSEE STATING THAT THERE WAS CLEAR MANEUVERING OF THE FACTS AS THE ASSESSEE TRIED TO DEFRAUD THE REVENUE BY CLAIMING T HAT IT WAS RUNNING THREE SEPARATE UNITS WHICH COULD NOT BE PROVED DURING THE ASSESSME NT PROCEEDINGS. RELYING ON THE FINDINGS GIVEN IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER HELD THAT THE ACTIVITIES OF ALL THE UNITS OF THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY WERE NOT AT ALL I NDEPENDENT AND THERE WAS ONE SINGLE BUSINESS FOR WHICH THE DEDUCTION U/S. 80HHC OF THE ACT SHOULD HAVE BEEN COMPUTED BY TAKING THE TURNOVER AND PROFITS OF ALL THE UNITS TO GETHER. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER THE ASSESSEE CONCEALED ITS INCOME BY MAKIN G WRONG CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S. 80HHC OF THE ACT AND HAS THUS CONCEALED THE TRUE PA RTICULARS OF ITS INCOME AND HAS FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME FOR WHIC H PENALTY U/S. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT IS CLEARLY IMPOSABLE. CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE ASSESSING OFFICER IMPOSED PENALTY OF $40 LAKHS U/S. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. 7. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TH E ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). THE LD. CIT(A) AF TER CONSIDERING THE DECISIONS OF THE HON'BLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASES OF CIT V. SU RESH B MEHTA [2007] 291 ITR 462 :-4-: (MAD.) AND CIT V. M GANI AND CO. [2008] 301 ITR 381 (MAD.) ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE OBSERVING AS UNDER:- 6.4. DECISION : I AGREE WITH THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE APPELLAN T THAT NO PENALTY U/S. 271(1)(C) CAN BE LEVIED IF THE ADDI TION IS ACCOUNT OF GENUINE DIFFERENCE OF OPINION. IN THE INSTANCE CASE THE STAND OF THE APPELLANT I S SUPPORTED BY THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE MADRAS HIG H COURT IN THE CASES OF SURSH B MEHTA & M GOVIND CO. (SUPRA). 8. AT THE VERY OUTSET SHRI AMIT SHUKLA LD. COUNSEL F OR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ITAT A BENCH LUCKNOW VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 8. 7.2010 HAS QUASHED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 15.2.2005 PASSED IN THE CASE OF THE ASS ESSEE U/S. 143(3) OF THE ACT IN ITA NO. 26/(L)/2010 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03 . THE RELEVANT FINDINGS OF THE TRIBUNAL ARE AS UNDER:- 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND HAVE AL SO PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE FIRST ISSUE BEFO RE US IS AS TO WHETHER THE ADDL .CIT RANGE-VI KANPUR WAS HAVING JURISDICTION TO ACT AS AN AO AT THE TIME WHEN HE HAD ISSUED A NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF THE ACT DATED 21.2.2003 FOR THE PURPOSE OF SCRUTINIZING THE RETURN FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03 WHICH IS THE IMPUGNED YEAR IN THIS APPEAL. WE FIND THAT A SIMILAR ISSUE WAS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN ITA NO.744(LUC.)/2004 RELATING TO THE ASSE SSMENT YEAR 2001-02. THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 29.3.2009 HAS CAT EGORICALLY STATED THAT THE LETTER DATED 21.1.2003 SENT BY THE ITO CANNOT BE TAKEN AS AN ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT IN EXERCISE OF HIS POWER UNDER SE CTION 120 OR UNDER SECTION 120(4)(B) OR UNDER SECTION 127 OF THE ACT. THE TRIBUNAL HAS REPRODUCED THE SAID LETTER AT PAGES 6 AND 7 OF THE ORDER DATED 29.3.2009 WHICH READS AS UNDER : F.N. CIT-II/SCRUTINY/(TECH)/KNP/02/03 OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II KANPUR DATED:21 ST JAN.2003 :-5-: TO THE ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANGE-VI KANPUR. SIR SUB: SCRUTINY CASES ASSIGNED-REGARDING. KINDLY REFER TO YOUR LETTER F.N.ADDL.CIT/ER-6/KNP/0 2-03/7499 DATED 16.01.2003 ON THE SUBJECT CITED ABOVE. IN THIS CONNECTION I AM DIRECTED TO INFORM YOU THA T THE FOLLOWING SCRUTINY CASES HAVE BEEN ASSIGNED TO YOU IN WHICH ALL PENDING ASSESSMENTS ARE TO BE COMPLETED AT YOUR END :- SL.NO. NAME OF THE ASSESSE. 01. MICRO FIN SECURITIES (P) LTD. 02. TECH TRUSION SYSTEMS (P) LTD. 03. NEHA EXIMS (P) LTD. 04. SUPER TANNERY (P) LTD. 05. URVASHI SYNTHETICS PROCESSORS LTD. 06. PRACHI LEATHER (P) LTD. 07. SHREE VATS FINANCE AND LEASING (P) LTD. 08. COURTESY MOTORS (P) LTD./POLYTECH EXTRUSION 09. EXCEL CREDIT (P) LTD. 10. RAVE ENTERTAINMENT (P) LTD. YOURS FAITHFULLY SD/- ( B.L. KUREEL) ( B.L. KUREEL) ( B.L. KUREEL) ( B.L. KUREEL) INCOME TAX OFFICER (TECH.) FOR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II KANPUR. :-6-: 7.1 AS REGARDS THE ABOVE LETTER THE TRIBUNAL HELD AS UNDER : 17.TO DECIDE THIS ASPECT WE NOW PROCEED TO DEAL W ITH VARIOUS LETTERS/ORDERS RELIED UPON BY THE LD.D.R. IN THIS R ESPECT FIRST OF WHICH IS LETTER F.NO.CIT-II/SCRUTINY/(TECH)/KNP/02/03 DAT ED 21.1.2003 WRITTEN BY THE CIT-II KANPUR TO ADDL.CIT RANGE VI KANPUR WHICH HAS ALREADY BEEN REPRODUCED BY IS IN PARA 9.1 ABOVE . (I) FROM THE AFORESAID LETTER THE LD.D.R. HAS TRIED TO EMPHASISE THAT THIS IS AN ORDER OF THE BOARD AS ENVISAGED IN SUB-CLAUSE (B)OF SUB-SECTION (4) OF SECTION 120 WHEREAS THE LD.A.R. SHRI S.K. GARG HAS PLEADED THAT THIS IS FIRSTLY NOT AN ORDER BY TH E CIT IN EXERCISE OF THE POWERS GIVEN BY THE BOARD IF ANY AND THEREFOR E CANNOT BE TERMED AS AN ORDER AS ENVISAGED IN THE PROVISIONS O F SUB-CLAUSE (B) OF SUB-SECTION (4) OF SECTION 120 READ WITH SECTI ON 2(7A) OF THE ACT AND SECONDLY WHAT THIS LETTER CONVEYS IS THE ASSIG NMENT OF THE JURISDICTION OVER THE CASES OF TEN ASSESSEES MENTI ONED THEREIN INCLUDING THE ASSESSEE TO THE ADDL. CIT RANGE VI KANPUR NOTHING MORE NOTHING LESS AND SINCE ADMITTEDLY NEITHER TH E ASSESSEE WAS HEARD BEFORE THIS LETTER WAS WRITTEN NOR THE CONCER NED AUTHORITY STOOD APPOINTED TO ACT AS AN ASSESSING OFFICER TH E ASSIGNMENT OF ASSESSEES CASE TO THE ADDL. CIT RANGE VI KANPUR ITSELF WAS ILLEGAL AND BAD IN LAW. (II) AFTER CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF RIVAL SUBMISSIO NS THE CONTENTS AND INTENT OF THE LETTER AS WELL AS PROVISIONS OF C LAUSE (B) OF SUB- SECTION (4)OF SECTION 120 AS WELL AS OF SECTION 2(7 A) WE ARE IN AGREEMENT WITH THE SUBMISSIONS ADVANCED BY SHRI S. K.GARG LD COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THIS LETTER CANNOT BE READ AS AN ORDER AS ENVISAGED IN THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 120(4)(B) OF THE ACT. WE ARE FURTHER OF THE OPINION THAT EVEN IF IT IS CONS IDERED FOR THE SAKE OF CONSIDERATION AS PLEADED BY THE LD.D.R. THAT CIT H AD ALSO BEEN AUTHORIZED BY THE BOARD TO ISSUE DIRECTIONS OR ORD ERS AS PER SECTIONS 121 AND 122 THEN ALSO THIS LETTER CANNOT BE READ AS AN ORDER APPOINTING THE ADDL. CIT RANGE VI KANPUR AS ASSESSING :-7-: OFFICER THIS LETTER IS ALSO NOT EVEN A DIRECTION OF THE CIT FOR TRANSFER OF JURISDICTION OVER ANY OF TEN ASSESSEES MENTIONE D THEREIN (INCLUDING THE ASSESSEE) TO THE ADDL. CIT-VI KANPU R BECAUSE THE LETTER HAS BEEN SIGNED BY THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER (T ECH.) FOR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX-II KANPUR. IT ONLY CO NVEYS A FACT OF PASSING OF AN ORDER BUT WHETHER SUCH ORDER HAD IN FACT EVEN BEEN PASSED OR NOT HAS TO BE ESTABLISHED BY ENCLOSING A COPY OF THE SAME. IN THE PRESENT CASE NO SUCH DOCUMENT HAS BEE N BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE BY THE DEPARTMENT AND THEREFORE VERY EX ISTENCE OF ORDER IS IN DOUBT. UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF LAW ANY DIRECT ION OR ORDER TRANSFERRING JURISDICTION OVER CASE OF ANY PERSON/A SSESSEE OR AUTHORIZING ANY OFFICER TO EXERCISE AND PERFORM THE POWERS AND FUNCTIONS OF A PARTICULAR AUTHORITY IN THE PRESENT CASE THAT OF THE AO THE ORDER OR DIRECTION HAS TO BE SIGNED BY THE CONC ERNED AUTHORITIES AND IN THE PRESENT CASE IT WAS THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX. THIS LETTER SIGNED BY THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER (TECH.) TH EREFORE CANNOT BE TAKEN AS AN ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT IN EXERCISE OF IS POWER UNDER SECTION 120 OR UNDER SECTION 120(4)(B) OR UNDER SEC TION 127 OF THE ACT. 7.2 IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FINDINGS OF THE TRIBUNAL WE HOLD THAT THE LETTER DATED 21.1.2003 (F.NO.CIT-II/SCRUTINY/(TECH.)/KNP/0 2/03) SENT BY THE ITO (TECH.) CANNOT BE TAKEN AS AN ORDER PASSED BY THE L D. CIT IN EXERCISE OF POWER UNDER SECTION 120 OR UNDER SECTION 120(4)(B) OR UNDER SECTION 127 OF THE ACT. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW THE DECISION R ENDERED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN A.Y.2001-02 (SUPRA)IS SQUARELY APPLICABLE TO THE F ACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE AND THEREFORE WE QUASH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 15.2.2005 PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3)OF THE ACT. 8. BEFORE PARTING WITH THIS CASE WE MAY ALSO OBSER VE THAT THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 17.9.2004 ISSUED UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF THE ACT IS CLEARLY BARRED BY LIMITATION AS PER PROVISO TO SECTION 143( 2) OF THE ACT BECAUSE THE SAME WAS ISSUED AND SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE BEYOND THE PERIOD OF 12 MONTHS FROM THE END OF THE MONTH THE RETURN WAS FIL ED I.E. 30.10.2002. :-8-: 9. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE WE DO NOT THINK IT NECESSA RY TO DECIDE THE OTHER GROUNDS OF APPEAL WHICH ARE OF ACADEMIC INTEREST O NLY. 9. SINCE THE TRIBUNAL HAS QUASHED THE ASSESSMENT THER EFORE PENALTY U/S. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT CANNOT STAND. IT IS WELL SETTLED LAW TH AT WHERE AN ORDER OF ASSESSMENT OR REASSESSMENT ON THE BASIS OF WHICH PENALTY HAS BEE N LEVIED ON THE ASSESSEE AS IT IS BEING FINALLY SET ASIDE OR CANCELLED BY THE TRIBUNA L OR OTHERWISE THE PENALTY CANNOT STAND BY ITSELF AND THE SAME IS LIABLE TO BE CANCELLED. IN VIEW OF THE SETTLED LEGAL POSITION WE DO NOT SEE ANY MERIT IN THIS APPEAL AND ACCORDINGLY WE DISMISS THE SAME. 10. IN THE RESULT APPEAL IS DISMISSED. ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 14.3.201 1. SD/- SD/- [ N. K. SAINI] [H. L. KARWA] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT DATED:14.3.2011 JJ:1403 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR