DCIT, Kanpur v. Sanjiv Gupta, Kanpur

ITA 587/LKW/2010 | 2007-2008
Pronouncement Date: 07-01-2011 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 58723714 RSA 2010
Bench Lucknow
Appeal Number ITA 587/LKW/2010
Duration Of Justice 3 month(s) 27 day(s)
Appellant DCIT, Kanpur
Respondent Sanjiv Gupta, Kanpur
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 07-01-2011
Appeal Filed By Department
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted B
Tribunal Order Date 07-01-2011
Date Of Final Hearing 06-01-2011
Next Hearing Date 06-01-2011
Assessment Year 2007-2008
Appeal Filed On 10-09-2010
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B - BENCH LUCKNOW. BEFORE SHRI H.L.KARWA HON'BLE VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI N.K.SAINI ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A.NO.587(LKW.)/2010 A.Y. : 2007-08 THE DY.CIT-II VS. SHRI SANJIV GUPTA KANPUR. 81/21 FAZAL GANJ KANPUR. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI P.K.BAJAJ D.R. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI VIKAS GARG C.A. AND SHRI SWARN SINGH C.A. O R D E R PER H.L.KARWA VICE PRESIDENT THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAIN ST THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A)-II KANPUR DATED 25.6.2010 RELATING TO TH E ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007- 08. 2. IN THIS APPEAL THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOL LOWING GROUNDS: 1. THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (AP PEALS)-II KANPUR HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS OF THE CASE IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.24 42 737/- ON ACCOUNT OF COMMISSION PAID TO THE FOREIGN AGENT FOR PROCUREMENT OF EXPORT ORDER W ITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE ASS ESSING OFFICER DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS . 2. THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS )-II KANPUR HAS FAILED TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE CONTENTS OF THE BOARD'S CIRCULAR NO. 7/2009 VIDE WHICH CBDT WITHDR EW ITS EARLIER CIRCULARS IN THIS MATTER AND CLARIFIES THE CORRECT LEGAL 2 POSITION. 3. THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-II KANPUR IS ERRONEOUS IN LAW AND ON FAC TS AS LD. CIT(A)-II KANPUR HAS IGNORED THE RATIO OF THE JUDG MENT PASSED BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS GOLD COIN HEALTH FOOD PVT.LTD.(2008) 304 ITR 308(SC) WHEREIN THE ISSUE OF RETROSPECTIVE APPLICATION OF BOARD'S C IRCULAR HAS BEEN CONCLUSIVELY SETTLED. LD. CIT(A)-II HAS ALSO IGNORED THE RATIO OF THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN T HE CASE OF CIT VS. MOSER BAER INDIA LTD. [2009]315 ITR460 (SC) . 4. THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A)-II KANPUR DATE D 25.06.2010 NEEDS TO BE QUASHED AND THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASS ESSING OFFICER DATED 29.12.2009 BE RESTORED 5. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO MODIFY ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL MENTIONED ABOVE AND/OR TO ADD ANY FRESH GROU NDS AS AND WHEN IT IS REQUIRED TO DO SO. 3. THE ONLY ISSUE INVOLVED IN THIS APPEAL RELATES T O DISALLOWANCE OF RS.24 42 737 OUT OF COMMISSION ON EXPORT FOR NON-D EDUCTION OF TDS UNDER SECTION 195 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT). 4. THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL AND IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING AND EXPORT OF LEATHER BAGS AND OTHE R ARTICLES UNDER HIS PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERN M/S.DIVYA INTERNATIONAL AND IS ALSO ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF LENDING MONEY UNDER HIS PROPRIETORSHI P CONCERN M/S.DEVASHISH COMMERCE. THE ASSESSEE ALSO DERIVES INCOME FROM HOU SE PROPERTY CAPITAL GAINS INTEREST ON SAVING BANK DIVIDENDS ETC . THE ASSESSEE FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME ON 29.10.2007 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME AT RS .1 00 86 080. THE AO MADE THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.24 42 737 OUT OF COMMIS SION ON EXPORT FOR NON-DEDUCTION OF TDS UNDER SECTION 195 OF THE ACT. THE DISALLOWANCE WAS 3 MADE IN SPITE OF THE FACT THAT PAYMENT OF COMMISS ION WAS MADE TO NON- RESIDENT. THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE TH E AO WAS THAT NO PART OF COMMISSION PAID TO NON-RESIDENT AGENT EITHER ACC RUED OR AROSE IN INDIA OR DEEMED TO ACCRUE OR ARISE IN INDIA UNDER SECTION 9 OF THE ACT AND THUS WAS NOT TAXABLE IN INDIA. IT WAS ALSO ONE OF THE CONTEN TION OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE AO THAT THE NON-RESIDENT AGENT DID NOT HAVE AN Y CONNECTION IN INDIA HENCE LIABILITY TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE ON THE A SSESSEE DID NOT ARISE. THE AO HAS PASSED A DETAILED ORDER WHILE MAKING THE DIS ALLOWANCE. HE HAS ALSO RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE I.T.A.T. DELHI BENCH IN THE CASE OF VAN OORD ACZ INDIA (P.) LTD. VS. ADDL.CIT (2009) (2008) 112 ITD 79 (DEL.). THE AO CONCLUDED THAT WHERE DEDUCTION IS REQUIRED TO BE MA DE UNDER SECTION 195(1) THE SAME CANNOT BE AVOIDED UNLESS NIL DEDUCTION O R DEDUCTION AT A LOWER RATE IS AUTHORIZED BY THE AO UNDER SECTION 195(3) OR 197 OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF PAYMENTS OUTSIDE INDIA. THE AO HAS ALSO HELD THAT AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A)(I) OF THE ACT NO DEDUC TION FOR SUCH PAYMENTS IS ALLOWED TO THE ASSESSEE IN COMPUTATION OF INCOME FOR SUCH PAYMENT OUTSIDE INDIA OR IN INDIA TO A NON-RESIDENT SINCE TAX IS NOT DEDUCTED AT SOURCE. HE THEREFORE DISALLOWED THE PAYMENT OF RS.24 42 73 7 BEING COMMISSION PAID TO FOREIGN AGENT UNDER SECTION 40(A)(I) OF TH E ACT FOR NON-DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE UNDER SECTION 195. 5. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE AO THE ASSESSEE C ARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A). BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE TOOK THE FOLLOWING LINE OF ARGUMENTS ; (I) THAT THE COMMISSION WAS PAID TO FOREIGN AGENT NAMELY MS. JEANETTE ALBERTSSON FOR PROCUREMENT OF EXPORT ORDE R. 4 (II) THAT THE AO WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN MAKING DISALLOWAN CE OF RS.24 42 737 OUT OF COMMISSION PAID TO FOREIGN AGEN T UNDER SECTION 40(A)(I) FOR NON-DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE UNDER SECTION 195. (III) THAT THE COMMISSION PAID TO FOREIGN AGENT WAS NOT T AXABLE UNDER SECTION 9 OF THE ACT BECAUSE THE INCOME OF T HE FOREIGN AGENT DID NOT ACCRUE OR ARISE IN INDIA. (IV) THAT THE SUM PAYABLE (COMMISSION) WAS NOT TAXABLE U NDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT HENCE TAX WAS NOT REQUIRED TO BE DEDUCTED UNDER SECTION 195 OF THE ACT. (V) THAT THE VIEW OF THE AO REGARDING DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE UNDER SECTION 195 ON PAYMENT OF COMMISSION TO FOREI GN AGENT WAS BASED ON THE DECISION OF THE I.T.A.T. DELHI B ENCH IN THE CASE OF VAN OORD ACZ INDIA (P.)LTD. VS. ACIT (2008) 112 ITD 79 (DEL.) WHICH HAS BEEN OVERRULED BY THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT WHICH IS REPORTED IN (2010) 230 CTR (DEL.) 365. (VI) THAT THE TAX WAS NOT REQUIRED TO BE DEDUCTED IN VIE W OF THE CBDT CLARIFICATION VIDE CIRCULAR NO.23 DATED 23. 7.1969 AND CIRCULAR NO.786 DATED 7.2.2000 FOR NON-DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE UNDER SECTION 195 WITH REGARD TO PAYMENT OF COMMISSION TO FOREIGN AGENT. 5 (VII) THAT SUBSEQUENT WITHDRAWAL OF THE ABOVE CIRCU LARS VIDE CIRCULAR NO.7 OF 2009 DATED 22.10.2009 DOES NOT ALT ER THE LEGAL POSITION. MOREOVER WHEN THE ASSESSEE MADE THE COM MISSION PAYMENTS TO THE FOREIGN AGENT THE AFORESAID BOARD S CIRCULAR WAS VERY MUCH IN EXISTENCE AND BECAUSE OF WHICH NO TDS WAS MADE. THE POSITION EXISTING AS ON THAT TIME CANNOT BE ALTERED BY WITHDRAWING THAT CIRCULAR SUBSEQUENTLY. THE ASSESSE E RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE I.T.A.T. MUMBAI BENCH IN THE C ASE OF DY. CIT VS. M/S.SIEMENS AKTIENGESELLSHAFT (2010)-TIOL-1 02- ITAT-MUM. (ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 7.12.2009). 6. THE LD.CIT(A) DELETED THE DISALLOWANCE UNDER SE CTION 40(A)(I) OF THE ACT OBSERVING AS UNDER : 3. DECISION: I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE VIEWS EXPRESSED BY THE A.O. (WHILE MAKING THE DISALLOWANCE U/S 40(A)(I) FOR NON DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE ON PAYMENT OF COMMISSION TO FOREIGN AGENT ) AS WELL AS SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE APPELLANT. IN VIEW OF THE C ATEGORICAL FINDING OF THE HON. ITAT IN THIS REGARD I AGREE WITH THE S UBMISSIONS OF APPELLANT THAT THE ISSUANCE OF CIRCULAR NO 7 OF 200 9 DATED 22-10-2009 WITHDRAWING THE CIRCULAR NO. 23 OF 1969 163 OF 197 5 AND 786 OF 2000 WILL BE OPERATIVE ONLY FROM 22.10.2009 AND NOT PRIO R TO THAT DATE. THUS THE WITHDRAWAL OF EARLIER CIRCULARS WITH EFFE CT FROM 22.10.2009 HAS NO BEARING IN THE INSTANT ASSESSMENT YEAR. MORE OVER THE RELIANCE BY THE A.O. ON THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF CASE VAN OORD ACZ INDIA (P) LTD VS. ACIT (2008) REPORTED IN 112 ITD 79 (DEL HI} HAS NO MEANING SINCE THE SAME HAS BEEN OVERRULED BY THE HO N'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT ON 15 TH MARCH 2010. ACCORDINGLY THE APPELLANT WAS NOT REQUIRED TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE U/S 195 IN RESPECT OF COMMISSION PAID TO THE FOREIGN AGENT. DISALLOWANCE U/S 40(A)(I ) IS THEREFORE DELETED. 6 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. SHRI P.K.BA JAJ LD.D.R. HEAVILY RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE AO. ON THE OTHER HAND SHRI VIKAS GARG C.A. AND SHRI SWARN SINGH C.A. LD. COUNSELS FOR THE ASSESSE E REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. IT W AS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUANCE OF CIRCULAR NO.7OF 2009 DATED 22.10.20 09 WITHDRAWING THE CIRCULAR NO.23 OF 1969 163 OF 1975 AND 786 OF 2000 WILL BE OPERATIVE ONLY FROM 22.10.2009 AND NOT PRIOR TO THAT DATE. RELIANC E WAS PLACED ON THE DECISION OF THE I.T.A.T. MUMBAI BENCH IN THE CASE OF DY.CIT VS. M/S.SIEMENS AKTIENGESELSCHAFT (2010)-TIOL-102-ITAT- MUM. WE FIND THAT AS PER THE CBDT CIRCULAR NO.23 DATED 23.7.196 9 AND CIRCULAR NO.786 DATED 7.2.2000 THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT REQUIRED TO DE DUCT THE TAX AT SOURCE UNDER SECTION 195 WITH REGARD TO PAYMENT OF COMMISS ION TO FOREIGN AGENT. RELEVANT PART OF THE CIRCULAR NO.23 DATED 23.7.1969 READS AS UNDER : 4. FOREIGN AGENTS OF INDIAN EXPORTERS A FOREIGN AGENT OF INDIAN EXPORTER OPERATES IN HIS OWN COUNTRY AND NO PART OF HIS INCOME ARISES IN INDIA. HIS COM MISSION IS USUALLY REMITTED DIRECTLY TO HIM AND IS THEREFORE NOT REC EIVED BY HIM OR ON HIS BEHALF IN INDIA. SUCH AN AGENT IS NOT LIABLE TO INCOME-TAX IN INDIA ON THE COMMISSION. CIRCULAR NO.786 DATED 7.2.2000 READS AS UNDER : CIRCULAER NO.786 DATED 7.2.2000(CLARI) TAX DEDUCTION AT SOURCE UNDER SECTION 195 AND THE T AXABILITY OF EXPORT COMMISSION PAYABLE TO NON-RESIDENT AGENTS RENDERING SERVICES ABROAD- -CLARIFICATION REGARDING IN THEIR AUDIT REPORT FOR 1997-98 (D. P. NO. 79 (I. T.)) THE COMPTROLLER AND AUDITOR-GENERAL (C & AG) RAISED AN OBJECTION TH AT THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN COMPUTING THE PROFITS AND GAINS OF BUSIN ESS OR PROFESSION IN 7 A CASE IN MUMBAI CHARGE HAD WRONGLY ALLOWED A DEDU CTION IN RESPECT OF A PAYMENT TO A NON-RESIDENT WHERE TAX HAD NOT BE EN DEDUCTED AT SOURCE. THE NATURE OF THE PAYMENT IN THIS CASE WAS EXPORT COMMISSION AND CHARGES PAYABLE FOR SERVICES RENDERED OUTSIDE I NDIA. IN THE VIEW OF C & AG THE EXPENDITURE SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISALLOWED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A)(I) OF . THE IN COME TAX ACT 1961. IT HAS COME TO THE NOTICE OF THE BOARD THAT A SIMIL AR VIEW ON THE SAME SET OF FACTS HAS BEEN TAKEN BY SOME ASSESSING OFFIC ERS IN OTHER CHARGES. 2. THE DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE UNDER SECTION 19 5 WOULD ARISE IF THE PAYMENT OF COMMISSION TO THE NON-RESIDENT AGENT IS CHARGEABLE TO TAX IN INDIA. IN THIS REGARD ATTENTION TO CBDT CIRC ULAR NO. 23 DATED 23-7-1969 IS DRAWN WHERE THE TAXABILITY OF 'FOREI GN AGENTS OF INDIAN EXPORTERS' WAS CONSIDERED ALONGWITH CERTAIN OTHER SPECIFIC SITUATIONS. IT HAD BEEN CLARIFIED THEN THAT WHERE T HE NON-RESIDENT AGENT OPERATES OUTSIDE THE COUNTRY NO PART OF HIS INCOME ARISES IN INDIA. FURTHER SINCE THE PAYMENT IS USUALLY REMITTED DIRE CTLY ABROAD IT CANNOT BE HELD TO HAVE BEEN RECEIVED BY OR ON BEHAL F OF THE AGENT IN INDIA. SUCH PAYMENTS WERE THEREFORE HELD TO BE NOT TAXABLE IN INDIA. THE RELEVANT SECTIONS NAMELY SECTION 5(2) AND SEC TION 9 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 NOT HAVING UNDERGONE ANY CHAN GE IN THIS REGARD THE CLARIFICATION IN CIRCULAR NO. 23 STILL PREVAILS. NO TAX IS THEREFORE DEDUCTIBLE UNDER SECTION 195 AND CONSEQUE NTLY THE EXPENDITURE ON EXPORT COMMISSION AND OTHER RELATED CHARGES PAYABLE TO A NON-RESIDENT FOR SERVICES RENDERED OUTSIDE IND IA BECOMES ALLOWABLE EXPENDITURE. ON BEING APPRAISED FOR THIS POSITION THE COMPTROLLER AND AUDITOR GENERAL HAVE AGREED O DROP THE OBJECTION REFERRED TO ABOVE. 7.1 IN THE INSTANT CASE THE ASSESSMENT YEAR INVOLV ED IS 2007-08 AND THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR IS 2006-07. ADMITTEDLY RET URN OF INCOME WAS FILED ON 30.10.2007. AT THE TIME OF FILING OF THE RETURN CIRCULAR NO.7 OF 2009 DATED 22.10.2009 WAS NOT IN FORCE BY WHICH THE CBDT WITHDREW CIRCULAR NO.23 DATED 23.7.1969 WITH IMMEDIATE EFFECT. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW WHERE A CIRCULAR ISSUED EARLIER CREATED A VESTED RIGHT I N THE TAX-PAYER AND SUCH RIGHT IS SOUGHT TO BE CURTAILED OR WITHDRAWN BY A SUBSEQU ENT CIRCULAR THEN SUCH 8 SUBSEQUENT CIRCULAR WILL NOT HAVE A RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT. WHILE TAKING SUCH A VIEW WE ARE FORTIFIED BY THE DECISION OF THE HON' BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF BASF (INDIA) LTD. AND ANOTHER VS. W.HA SAN CIT (2006) 280 ITR 136 (BOM.) WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT CIRCU LARS WHICH ARE IN FORCE DURING THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEARS ARE THE CIRCUL ARS THAT HAVE TO BE APPLIED AND SUBSEQUENT CIRCULARS EITHER WITHDRAWING OR MODI FYING THE EARLIER CIRCULARS HAVE NO APPLICATION. SIMILAR VIEW HAS B EEN TAKEN IN CIT VS. GEEVA FILMS (1983) 141 ITR 632(KER.) AND CIT VS. B .M.EDWARD INDIA SEA FOODS (1979) 119 ITR 334 (KER.)(F.B.). 7.2 IN THE CASE OF M/S. SIEMENS AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT (SUPRA) WHILE DECIDING A SIMILAR ISSUE THE TRIBUNAL HELD THAT IT IS AXIOMATIC THAT A CIRCULAR IN OPERATION THROUGH THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR CANNOT BE HELD TO BE IN- OPERATIONAL SIMPLY BY REASON OF THE FACT THAT IT HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN IN THE YEAR 2009. THE WITHDRAWAL OF SUCH CIRCULARS WILL BE EFFECTIVE ONLY AFTER THE SAID DATE OF 22 ND OCTOBER 2009 BY WHICH THESE CIRCULARS HAVE BEEN WITHDRAWN WITH IMMEDIATE EFFECT. ACCORDINGLY THE MUMBAI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL HELD THAT ISSUANCE OF CIRCULAR NO.7 OF 200 9 WITHDRAWING THE CIRCULAR NO.23 OF 1969 163 OF 1975 AND 786 OF 2000 WILL BE OPERATIVE ONLY FROM 22.10.2009 AND NOT PRIOR TO THAT DATE. THUS THE W ITHDRAWAL OF EARLIER CIRCULARS WITH EFFECT FROM 22.10.2009 HAS NO BEARIN G IN THE INSTANT CASE. IN OUR VIEW THE ABOVE- SAID DECISION IS SQUARELY AP PLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. IT IS WORTH MENTIONING THAT THE PREV IOUS YEAR INVOLVED IN 2006- 07 RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDER ATION. AT THE RELEVANT TIME IN VIEW OF THE C.B.D.T. CIRCULAR NO.23 DATED 23.7.1969 AND CIRCULAR NO.786 DATED 7.2.2000 THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT OBLIGED TO DEDUCT THE TAX UNDER SECTION 195 OF THE ACT AND THE CIRCULAR NO.7 OF 20 09 DATED 22.10.2009 9 WITHDRAWING THE CIRCULAR NO.23 OF 1969 AND CIRCULAR NO.786 OF 2000 WILL BE OPERATIVE ONLY FROM 22 ND OCTOBER 2009 AND NOT PRIOR TO THAT DATE. WE MAY ALSO MENTION THAT THE DECISION RELIED UPON BY THE AO IN THE CASE OF VAN OORD ACZ INDIA (P.) LTD. VS. ADDL.CIT (SUPRA) HAS B EEN OVERRULED BY THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT WHICH IS REPORTED IN (2010 ) 230 CTR (DEL.) 365 WHEREIN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT HAS CONCLUDED AS UN DER : OBLIGATION TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE UNDER S. 195 I S ATTRACTED ONLY WHEN THE PAYMENT IS CHARGEABLE TO TAX IN INDIA; IT AUTHORITIES HAVING ACCEPTED: THAT THE NON-RESIDENT RECIPIENT IS NOT LIABLE TO PAY ANY TAX IN INDIA THE ASSESSEE- PAYER WAS NOT L IABLE TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE UNDER S. 195(1) IN RESPECT OF THE MOB ILIZATION AND DEMOBILIZATION COSTS REIMBURSED BY IT TO THE SAID N ON-RESIDENT COMPANY. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION WE DO NOT FIND A NY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE AND ACCORDINGL Y WE UPHOLD THE SAME. 8. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE I S DISMISSED. THE ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 7.1.11. SD. SD. (N.K.SAINI) (H.L.KARWA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT JANUARY 7TH 2011. COPY TO THE : 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT(A) (4) CIT 5.DR. A.R. ITAT LUCKNOW. SRIVASTAVA.