ITO, Kanpur v. Suneel Kumar Khanna, Kanpur

ITA 649/LKW/2010 | 2001-2002
Pronouncement Date: 28-02-2011 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 64923714 RSA 2010
Bench Lucknow
Appeal Number ITA 649/LKW/2010
Duration Of Justice 3 month(s) 25 day(s)
Appellant ITO, Kanpur
Respondent Suneel Kumar Khanna, Kanpur
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 28-02-2011
Appeal Filed By Department
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted B
Tribunal Order Date 28-02-2011
Date Of Final Hearing 28-02-2011
Next Hearing Date 28-02-2011
Assessment Year 2001-2002
Appeal Filed On 03-11-2010
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. 649(LKW.)/2010 A.Y. : 2001-02 THE ITO-4(3) VS. SHRI SUNEEL KUMAR KHANNA KANPUR. 7/158-A SWAROOP NAGAR KANPUR. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI P.K.BAJAJ D.R. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI RAKESH GARG ADVOCATE 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 13.8.2010 IN CANCELLING THE PENALTY OF RS.2 50 000 IMPOSED UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-0 2. 2. BRIEFLY STATED THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT T HE ASSESSEE FILED ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME ON 31.7.2001 SHOWING INCOME OF RS .2 17 250 WHICH WAS WITHIN TIME. THE ASSESSEE FILED REVISED RETURN ON 15.5.2002 UNDER SECTION 139(5) OF THE ACT SHOWING INCOME OF RS.4 37 248. I N THE REVISED RETURN THE ASSESSEE HAS SURRENDERED GIFTS AMOUNTING TO RS.2 2 0 001 AS INCOME. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT HE HAS RECEIVED GIFTS ON VARI OUS OCCASIONS FROM FOLLOWING PERSONS : 2 (I) SHRI RAJEEV AGARWAL RS.1 00 000 DATED 10.7.200 0 (II) SHRI VIPIN KR. GARG RS.1 00 001 DATED 20.7.20 00 (III) SHRI ANURAG SRIVASTAVA RS.20 000 DATED 11.5. 2000 THE ASSESSEE SURRENDERED THE ABOVE GIFTS FOR WANT O F ADEQUATE AND SATISFACTORY PROOF. HOWEVER THE ASSESSMENT WAS COM PLETED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT AND PENALTY PROCEEDINGS UNDER SE CTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT WERE INITIATED AND FINALLY PENALTY OF RS.2 50 0 00 WAS LEVIED BY THE AO ON THE ASSESSEE. 3. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE AO THE ASSESSEE CARRIED 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 REVISED RETURN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE O N 15.5.2002 IS WITHIN TIME AND THE AO HAS DULY ACCEPTED AND PROCES SED THE RETURN OF INCOME. (II) THAT THE AO HAS NOWHERE STATED IN THE ASSESSME NT ORDER THAT HE WAS NOT TAKING COGNIZANCE OF THE REVISED RETURN OR THAT THE REVISED RETURN WAS MALA FIDE. (III) THAT THE AO HAS NOT BROUGHT ON RECORD WHAT C REDIBLE EVIDENCE HE HAD RECEIVED FROM THE D.I.(INV.).HE HAS ALSO NOT DISCUSSED THE ABOVE FACT EITHER IN ASSESSMENT ORDER OR THE PENALTY ORDER. (IV) THAT THE AO HAS MADE SOME GENERAL REMARKS IN THE A SSESSMENT ORDER WITHOUT GIVING ANY SPECIFIC DETAILS. (V) THAT THE STATEMENT OF SHRI SUNIL KHANNA (ASSESSEE) WAS RECORDED ON 27.5.2002 U/S 131 OF THE ACT BY THE INV ESTIGATION WING WHEREAS THE RETURN HAD BEEN REVISED AS EARLY AS ON 15.5.2002. IN THE STATEMENT THE ADIT HAD ASKED WHE THER THE 3 ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED ANY GIFTS TO WHICH THE ASSESS EE ANSWERED THAT BOTH HE AND HIS WIFE HAD RECEIVED GIFTS WHIC H FOR WANT OF ADEQUATE PROOF HAD BEEN OFFERED FOR TAX IN THE REVI SED RETURN FILED ON 15.5.2002. (VI) THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD OFFERED THE ABOVE CREDITS TO TAX VOLUNTARILY AND BEFORE DETECTION BY THE DEPARTMENT. 4. THE LD.CIT(A) CANCELLED THE PENALTY OBSERVING AS UNDER : 4. THE 2 ND IMPORTANT ISSUE IS TO DETERMINE AS TO WHETHER PENALTY IS LEVIABLE IN SUCH CASES: 4.1 MY ATTENTION HAS BEEN DRAWN TO THE BOARDS CIRC ULAR NO.451 DATED 17 TH FEBRUARY 1986 WHEREIN THE BOARD HAS CLARIFIED THE MEANING OF BEFORE DETECTION BY THE DEPARTMENT. TO QUOTE: ' .... ANSWER - IF THE INCOME TAX OFFICER HAS ALREA DY FOUND MATERIAL TO SHOW THAT THERE HAS BEEN CONCEALMENT THAT WOULD MEAN THE DEPARTMENT HAS DETECTED THE CONCEALMENT. IF THE INCOME TAX OFFICER ONLY HAD PRIMA FACIE BELIEF THAT WOULD NOT MEAN CONCEALMENT HAS BEEN DETECTED .. ' 4.2 IN THE CASE OF M/S QUDSI INTERNATIONAL VS. ITO 1 (3) ITA NUMBER 633/LUC/07 I TAT LUCKNOW DECIDED ON 20.03.2008 AND REPORTED AS 2009(13) MTC 622 (TRIB) THE HONOURABLE ITAT HELD THAT - ' MERE RAISING OF QUERY BY THE AO DID NOT AM OUNT DETECTION OF CONCEALMENT. IT CANNOT THEREFORE BE SAID THAT TH E REVISED RETURN WAS FILED AFTER THE DETECTION OF CONCEALMENT AND NO T VOLUNTARY. THE TERM 'DETECTION' ITSELF IMPLIES THE AO REACHED A CONC LUSION BUT THE QUERY RAISED BY ASSESSING OFFICER WAS ONLY FIRST ST EP IN DETECTION OF CONCEALMENT. IF THE ASSESSEE VOLUNTARY REVISED T HE RETURN IT COULD NOT BE SAID THAT IT DOES NOT FULFILL THE REQU IREMENTS OF SECTION 139(5). 4 4.3 IN THE CASE OF ADDL.CIT VS. PREM CHAND GARG ( 2009) 123 TTJ (DEL.) TM 433 THE HONOURABLE ITAT BENCH AFTER CONSIDERING THE JUDGMENT OF HONOURABLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA IN UNION OF INDIA VS. DHARAMENDRA TEXTILE PROCESSORS (2008) 219 CTR (SC) 617 HELD AS UNDER : 18. AFTER THE FULL BENCH DECISION OF SUPREME COURT IN UNION OF INDIA VS. DHARMENDRA TEXTILE PROCESSORS (2 008) 219 CTR (SC) 617 THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT OF MEANS R EA TO BE ESTABLISHED AND IT IS ONLY A CIVIL LIABILITY AN D THEREFORE KC BUILDERS & ANR. (SUPRA) DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT HOLDING THAT THE WORD CONCEALMENT INHERENTLY INVO LVES THE MENTAL CONDITION OF THE ASSESSEE WITH REGARD TO THE DEFAULT MAY NOT BE A GOOD LAW. HOWEVER THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE PROVISION CONTAINED IN EXPLN.1 ARE GIVEN A COMP LETE G O BYE AND ARE NOT APPLICABLE. THE SURRENDER OF THE AM OUNT AFTER RECEIPT OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE CANNOT LEAD TO AN INFE RENCE THAT IT WAS NOT VOLUNTARY IN ABSENCE OF ANY MATERIAL ON REC ORD SUGGESTING IT TO BE BOGUS OR UNTRUE OR THE INCOME T HE ASSESSEE BEFORE SUCH SURRENDER. 19. THE FACT WHETHER THERE IS CONCEALMENT OF INCOM E OR WHETHER INACCURATE PARTICULAR THEREOF HAVE BEEN FUR NISHED IS ESSENTIALLY A QUESTION OF FACT. TO FIND OUT THAT O R TO DECIDE WHICH ALL THE ATTENDING CIRCUMSTANCES HAVE TO BE T AKEN INTO ACCOUNT. THE QUESTION IS AT WHAT POINT OF TIME THIS MATERIAL FACT IS TO FOUND OUT. GENERALLY IT IS WITH REFERENCE TO THE RETURN OF INCOME AND AT THAT TIME IT IS TO BE SEEN WHETHER TH ERE WAS CONCEALMENT OF INCOME FROM OR FURNISHING OF INACCUR ATE PARTICULARS OF THEREOF IN THE RETURN OF INCOME CHA RGEABLE TO TAX. BUT THERE MAY BE CASES WHERE AN INCOME IS NOT DECL ARED IN THE RETURN OF THE PARTICULAR OF INCOME SHOW INACCURATEL Y IN THE RETURN BUT ASSESSEE ON REALIZATION OF MISTAKE OMIS SION OR MISDEED RECTIFIES THAT AND CORRECTS HIMSELF AND CLE ANS HIS BREAST CAN HE STILL BE ACCUSED OF CONCEALMENT THOUGH IN TH E RETURN THERE HAS BEEN OMISSION? BY THE TIME THE AO TAKES U P THE ISSUE AND COME ACROSS THE INFORMATION IN HIS POSSESSION IF THE ASSESSEE MAKES UP THE DEFICIENCY AND OFFERS THE INC OME OR FURNISHED ACCURATE PARTICULARS HE IN OUR OPINION CANNOT BE HELD 5 GUILTY OF CONCEALMENT OR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF HIS INCOME. ANY ACTION RECTIFIED RELATES BACK TO OR IGINAL ACT AND TO THE DATE AND FILING THE RETURN. WHEN AO STARTS S CRUTINY OF THE RETURN AND INITIATES ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THERE IS NOTHING CONCEALED AND THE INACCURACY IF ANY DISAPPEARED. T HEREFORE THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE HELD GUILTY OF CONCEALMENT. 4.4 IN THE CASE OF CHEAP CYCLE STORES VS. CIT 281 ITR 166 THE HON'BLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT HAS HELD PRIOR TO 2 7.9.1978 THE ORDER SHEET ENTRY SHOWS THAT ON 07.09.1978 NOTICE FIXING 27.09.1978 HAD BEEN ISSUED. THEREAFTER THE MATTER WAS GOT ADJOURNED ON TWO DATES AND REVISED RETURN WAS FILED ON 26.10.1978. IT MAY BE MENTIONED HERE THAT THE APPLI CANT HAVING FILED ORIGINAL RETURN WITH THE STATUTORY PERIOD AS PROVIDED UNDER SECTION 139(1) OF THE ACT IT WAS ENTITLED TO FILE A REVISED RETURN UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 139(5) OF THE ACT. THUS THE REVISED RETURN FILED UNDER SECTION 139(5) OF THE AC T WAS A VALID RETURN AND WAS TO BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION. NO C ONCEALMENT HAVING BEEN FOUND IN THE REVISED RETURN THE PENALT Y IN RESPECT OF THE INCOME DECLARED IN THE RETURN ORIGINALLY FILED COULD NOT HAVE BEEN TAKEN AS THE CONCEALMENT HAD NOT YET BEEN DETE CTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UP TILL THE TIME REVISED RETURN W AS FILED. THE APPELLATE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER HAD RIGHTLY CONSID ERED THE ORDER SHEET ENTRY DATED 27.9.1978 WHILE RECORDING FINDING THAT TILL THEN NO CONCEALMENT HAD BEEN DETECTED. IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING DISCUSSION WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE TRIBUNAL WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN UPHO LDING THAT THE APPLICANT HAD CONCEALED THE PARTICULARS OF THE TURN OVER AND REVISED RETURN WAS ONLY A COVER UP. WE ACCORDINGLY ANSWER THE QUESTION REFERRED TO US IN NEGATIVE I.E. IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND AGAINST THE REVENUE. HOWEVER THERE SHALL BE NO ORDER AS TO COSTS. 4.5 IN THE CASE OF DCIT -CCII LUDHIANA VS. RAKESH KUMAR [2006] 157 TAXMAN-MAGAZINE 71 THE HONORABLE ITAT ( CHD.) HELD - 'IT COULD NOT BE SAID THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT TENDERED ANY EXPLANATION BECAUSE THE EXPLANATION / WAS GIVEN BY THE 6 ASSESSEE THAT THE DOCUMENTS RELATING TO AGRICULTURA L INCOME WERE LOST DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AND FOR THAT REASO N THE INCOME EARLIER CLAIMED AS EXEMPT BEING AGRICULTURAL INCOME WAS SURRENDERED FOR TAXATION AND THE TAX WAS PAID AND IT WAS ALSO THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT TO AVOID VEXATIONS LITIGATION THE AMOUNT WAS SURRENDERED. BONAFIDE OF THE ASSESSEE WA S PROVED FROM HIS ACTION OF DEPOSITING THE TAX ON THE SURRENDERED INCOME BEFORE RECEIVING ANY NOTICE U/S 148/143(2) FROM A.O. OR GE TTING ANY LETTER FROM ADI. THEREFORE IT COULD NOT BE SAID THAT THE ASSESSEE CONCEALED INCOME OR FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULAR OF INCOME AND HAD NOT TENDERED A PLAUSIBLE EXPLANATION'. 4.6 IN THE CASE OF ALKA JAIN VS ACIT 2007 (10) MTC 943 (TRIB) THE NO CONCEALMENT WAS DETECTED BY THE AO TILL THE TIME REVISED RETURN WAS FILED. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE RATIO LAID DO WN BY HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CHEAP CYCL E STORES (SUPRA) WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE NO PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE I.T. ACT 1971 IS LEVIA BLE ' 4.7 IN THE CASE OF DCIT VS TARUN AGARWAL 2009 (13) MTC 831 (TRIB) WHERE THE HONOURABLE LUCKNOW BENCH OF TRIBUN AL HAS HELD THAT - THE ASSESSEE HAS SURRENDERED THE AMOUNT BEFORE AN Y SPECIFIC DETECTION OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME OR EVEN BEFORE THE ISSUE OF NOTICE. EVEN THOUGH A GENERAL ENQUIRY WAS GOING ON AND NOT ICES HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO SOME OF HIS RELATIVES AND THE AMOUNT MIGH T HAVE BEEN SURRENDERED BECAUSE OF COMPULSION OF CIRCUMSTANCES IT WAS NOT SUFFICIENT TO PENALIZE THE ASSESSEE AS THE FACTUM O F DETECTION WAS NOT THERE.' 4.8 IN THE CIT VS. VED PRAKASH 269 ITR 255 THE HO NOURABLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT HELD THAT : ON THE BASIS OF RETURN FILED ON 10.11.1988 THE AS SESSMENT WAS COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 143(1) ON 18.1.1989. THERE AFTER ON INVESTIGATIONS CONDUCTED BY THE ASSISTANT DIRECTO R (INV.) IT WAS FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PURCHASED THE DRAFT S BUT THE SAME WERE REFLECTED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT ON SUBS EQUENT DATES. WHILE THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE ASSISTANT D IRECTOR WERE 7 ON THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED ANOTHER RETURN ON 07.03. 1991 SUO MOTO INCLUDING THE PEAK INVESTMENT IN THE BANK DRAF TS TO THE ORIGINALLY RETURNED INCOME. ASSESSMENT ON THIS RETU RN WAS ALSO MADE UNDER SECTION 143(1) ON 11.03.1991. SUBSEQUENT LY THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FORWARDED HIS REPORT TO THE ASS ESSING OFFICER WHO ON THE BASIS OF THE SAID REPORT ISSUED NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148. IN RESPONSE TO THE SAID NOTICE THE ASSESSEE F ILED ANOTHER RETURN ON 4.2.1993 DECLARING AN INCOME WHICH WAS TH E INCOME DECLARED BY HIM IN THE EARLIER RETURN ON 7.3.1991. THIS RETURN WAS FILED UNDER PROTEST AS THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THA T NO INCOME HAD ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. THE ASSESSEE'S OBJECTION WA S OVERRULED AND ASSESSMENT ON THE BASIS OF THIS RETURN WAS MADE IN THE RETURN. WHILE COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT THE ASSESS ING OFFICER ALSO INITIATED PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S.271(1)(C) FO R CONCEALMENT OF INCOME AND PENALTY WAS IMPOSED. SAME WAS DELETED BY THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) AND THE TRIBUNAL HELD THAT T HE ENTIRE UNDISCLOSED INCOME IN RESPECT OF WHICH PENALTY HAS BEEN IMPOSED HAD BEEN DISCLOSED IN THE RETURN FILED BY T HE ASSESSEE VOLUNTARILY. ONCE THE ENTIRE AMOUNT STOOD ASSESSED THERE WAS NO SCOPE FOR ISSUE OF A FRESH NOTICE U/S 148 TO ASS ESS THE SAME INCOME ONCE AGAIN. DELETION OF PENALTY BY LOWER APP ELLATE AUTHORITIES WAS THEREFORE JUSTIFIED. 5. LOOKING TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND LEGAL PRONO UNCEMENTS IN THE MATTER I CANCEL THE PENALTY LEVIED. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND HAVE ALS O CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES WE HAVE ALSO CONSIDERED THE DECISIONS MENTIONED BY THE LD.CIT(A) IN THE IMPUGNE D ORDER. IT IS AN ADMITTED FACT THAT THE ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME FO R THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02 WAS FILED ON 31.7.2001 UNDER SECTION 139(1) OF THE ACT DECLARING A TOTAL INCOME OF RS.2 17 250. THE SAID RETURN WAS PR OCESSED ON 3.7.2002. THE ASSESSEE FILED A REVISED RETURN ON 15.5.2002 DECLAR ING A TOTAL INCOME AT RS.4 37 248. IN THE REVISED RETURN THE ASSESSEE SU RRENDERED GIFTS OF RS.2 20 001 AS INCOME. IT IS ALSO SEEN FROM THE REC ORDS THAT THE STATEMENT OF 8 SHRI SUNIL KHANNA THE ASSESSEE WAS RECORDED ON 27 .5.2002 UNDER SECTION 131 OF THE ACT BY THE INVESTIGATION WING WHEREAS T HE RETURN HAD BEEN REVISED AS EARLY AS ON 15.5.2002. IN HIS STATEMEN T SHRI SUNIL KHANNA THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT HE HAD RECEIVED GIFTS FROM AB OVE PERSONS HOWEVER FOR WANT OF ADEQUATE PROOF HE HAD OFFERED THE GIFTS FOR TAX IN THE REVISED RETURN FILED ON 15.5.2002. IT WAS ALSO STATED BY THE ASSES SEE THAT HE HAD OFFERED THESE CREDITS/GIFTS TO TAX VOLUNTARILY AND BEFORE D ETECTION BY THE DEPARTMENT. THUS IT IS CLEAR THAT THE REVISED RETURN WAS FILE D BEFORE ANY DETECTION OF CONCEALMENT BY THE DEPARTMENT. FROM THE FACTS OF T HE CASE IT IS GATHERED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD VOLUNTARILY REVISED RETURN BE FORE ANY DETECTION BY THE DEPARTMENT. IN THE CASE OF CHEAP CYCLE STORES VS. CIT (2006) 281 ITR 166(ALL.) THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT HA S HELD THAT NO CONCEALMENT HAVING BEEN FOUND IN THE REVISED RETUR N THE PENALTY IN RESPECT OF THE INCOME DECLARED IN THE RETURN ORIGINALLY FIL ED COULD NOT HAVE BEEN TAKEN AS THE CONCEALMENT HAD NOT YET BEEN DETECTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UP TILL THE TIME REVISED RETURN WAS FILED. THE HON 'BLE HIGH COURT HELD THAT WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE TRIBUNA L WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN UPHOLDING THAT THE APPLICANT HAD CONCEALED THE PAR TICULARS OF THE TURNOVER AND REVISED RETURN WAS ONLY A COVER UP. WE ALSO OB SERVE HERE THAT THE DECISIONS RELIED UPON BY THE LD.CIT(A) WHICH ARE MENTIONED IN PARAS 4.2 4.3 4.4. 4.5 4.6 4.7 AND 4.8 ARE SQUARELY APPLI CABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW THE LD.CIT(A) HAS CORRECTLY APPRECIATED THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE AND APPLI ED THE RATIO LAID DOWN IN THE CASES MENTIONED IN THE ABOVE PARAS OF THE IMPU GNED ORDER. CONSIDERING THE ENTIRE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT C ASE WE DO NOT THINK IT PROPER TO REPEAT THE DECISIONS IN THIS ORDER WHIC H ARE MENTIONED AND DISCUSSED IN THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A). 9 IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE WE HAVE NO HESITATION TO UP HOLD THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) AND CONSEQUENTLY WE DISMISS THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE. 6. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED. THE ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 28.2.20 11. SD. SD. (N.K.SAINI) (H.L.KARWA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT FEBRUARY 28TH 2011. COPY TO THE : 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT(A) (4) CIT 5.DR. A.R. ITAT LUCKNOW. SRIVASTAVA.