DCIT, Kanpur v. M/s. Yog Builders, Kanpur

ITA 697/LKW/2010 | 2006-2007
Pronouncement Date: 23-03-2011 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 69723714 RSA 2010
Bench Lucknow
Appeal Number ITA 697/LKW/2010
Duration Of Justice 3 month(s) 27 day(s)
Appellant DCIT, Kanpur
Respondent M/s. Yog Builders, Kanpur
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 23-03-2011
Appeal Filed By Department
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted B
Tribunal Order Date 23-03-2011
Date Of Final Hearing 21-03-2011
Next Hearing Date 21-03-2011
Assessment Year 2006-2007
Appeal Filed On 26-11-2010
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH B : LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI H. L. KARWA HONBLE VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI N. K. SAINI ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO.697/LKW/10 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-2007 DY. C. I. T. VS. M/S YOG BUILDERS CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 123/1-F KALPI ROAD KANPUR. KANPUR. PAN:AAAFY3499D (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI VIVEK MISHRA CIT D. R. RESPONDENT BY: S/SHRI ASHWNI KUMAR & SUDHINDRA JAIN C.A. ORDER PER N. K. SAINI: THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT AGAIN ST THE ORDER DATED 14/09/2010 OF CIT(A)-I KANPUR RELATING TO AS SESSMENT YEAR 2006- 2007. IN THIS APPEAL THE DEPARTMENT HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. THE CIT (A) ERRED IN GIVING RELIEF ON ACCOUNT O F INVESTMENT IN PROPERTIES ON WRONG APPRECIATION OF F ACTS AND ALSO WITHOUT ANY BASIS ACCEPTED THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE DESPITE THE CLEAR FINDING TO THIS EFFE CT BY THE AO THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT DISCHARGED ITS ONU S OF EXPLAINING UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN THE BUILDING. 2 2. THE CIT (A) WHILE ARRIVING AT THIS CONCLUSION HA D ERRED IN RELYING THE JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF SMT. AMIYABALA PAUL VS. CIT 2003 (SC) BY IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE RAT IO OF THE DECISION OF THIS CASE IS NOT APPLICABLE IN THE APPELLANT CASE AS THE ACT HAS BEEN AMENDED AND AS PER PROVISO TO THE SECTION 142A OF THE I.T. ACT TH E AO CAN MAKE REFERENCE U/S 142A TO THE VALUATION OFFICE R TO KNOW THE ACTUAL INVESTMENT IN THE PROPERTY CONCERNE D. 3. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN RELYING THE DECISION OF CIT VS. STAR BUILDERS 294 ITR (GUJ.) AND IGNORING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 69B OF THE I.T. ACT WHICH CLEARLY PRESCRIBE S THAT EXCESS AMOUNT OF INVESTMENT SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. INCOME INDICATES NET INCOME I.E. RECEIPTS ARE REDUCED BY EXPENDITURE. ONCE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 69B ARE ATTRACTED THE EXPENDI TURE CANNOT BE ALLOWED RATHER EXCESS OF INVESTMENT ITSEL F HAS TO BE TREATED AS INCOME. 4. THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (A) BEING ERRONEOU S IN LAW AND ON FACTS BE VACATED AND THE ORDER OF THE AO BE RESTORED. 5. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO AMEND ANYONE OR MORE OF THE GROUNDS OF THE APPEAL AS STATED ABOVE A S AND WHEN NEED FOR DOING SO MAY ARISE. 2. FROM THE ABOVE GROUNDS IT IS GATHERED THAT THE G RIEVANCE OF THE DEPARTMENT RELATES TO THE DELETION OF ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF INVESTMENT IN PROPERTY. 3. THE FACTS RELATED TO THIS CASE IN BRIEF ARE TH AT THE ASSESSEE IS A FIRM CARRYING ON CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY AS ESTATE DEVELOP ER. A SEARCH WAS CONDUCTED U/S 132(1) OF THE I.T. ACT 1961 (IN SHOR T THE ACT) ON 01/12/2004 AT THE BUSINESS AND RESIDENTIAL PREMISES OF SHRI AM AR NATH GUPTA GROUP OF 3 CASES TO WHICH THE ASSESSEE BELONGS. THE ASSESSEE FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME U/S 139(1) OF THE I.T. ACT ON 16/01/2006 DEC LARING AN INCOME OF ` 4 80 677/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER REFERRED THE MAT TER FOR VALUATION OF THE PROPERTY U/S 142A OF THE I.T. ACT TO THE D.V.O. AND POINTED OUT THAT THE D.V.O. ESTIMATED THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION AT ` 2 27 79 300/- AS AGAINST ` 1 72 07 739/- DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE PER IOD RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE THE ADDITION OF ` 55 71 561/- BY STATING THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO OFFER EXPLANATION ABOUT THE NATURE AND SOURCE OF INVESTME NTS WHICH WAS DETERMINED BY THE D.V.O. KANPUR IN VALUATION REPOR T. 4. THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER TO THE LEARNED C IT(A) WHO DELETED THE ADDITION BY OBSERVING THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH ALSO CONTAINED THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION/INVESTMENT HAD NOT BEEN REJECTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR THE RELEVANT PERIOD AN D THAT THERE WAS NO ADVERSE MATERIAL AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER IN RESPECT OF UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT IN THE SAID PROJECT EXCEPT F OR THE VALUATION REPORT OF THE D.V.O. ACCORDING TO HIM THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE BASIS OF VALUATION REPORT WITHOUT FINDING AN Y DISCREPANCY IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WAS PRESUMPTIVE AND CONTRARY TO TH E LAW. HE THEREFORE DELETED THE ADDITION. THE RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON T HE FOLLOWING CASE LAWS: 4 1. SAKTHI TOURIST HOME VS. CIT [2009] 308 ITR 228 ( KER) 2. SMT. AMIYA BALA PAUL VS. CIT [2003] 262 ITR 407 (SC) 3. CIT VS. STAR BUILDERS [2007] 294 ITR 338 (GUJ.) NOW THE DEPARTMENT IS IN APPEAL. 5. THE LEARNED D. R. STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER O F THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS DIFFER ENCE BETWEEN THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE AND ESTIMATED BY THE D.V.O. THEREFORE THE DIFFERENCE WAS RIGHTLY ADDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER SINCE THE D.V.O. IS HAVING TECHNICAL KNOWLEDGE AND EXPERT ISE IN ESTIMATION OF COST OF CONSTRUCTION AND THAT THE TECHNICAL OBJECTI ONS AND INFIRMITIES RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE WERE DISPOSED OF BY THE ASSESSING O FFICER THEREFORE THE LEARNED CIT (A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE A DDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 6. IN HIS RIVAL SUBMISSIONS THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE SIMILAR ADDITIONS WERE ALSO MADE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2002-2003 TO 2005-2006 BY THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER WHICH WERE DELETED BY THE LEARNED CIT (A) AND DEPARTMENT PREFE RRED THE APPEALS IN I.T.A. NOS. 318 TO 321/LUC/10 FOR THOSE ASSESSMENT YEARS AND THIS BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ORDER DATED 06/01/2011 CONFI RMED THE ORDERS OF THE LEARNED CIT (A) THEREFORE THIS ISSUE STANDS COVER ED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. COPY OF THE AFORESAID ORDER WAS FURNISHE D WHICH IS PLACED ON 5 RECORD. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ALSO RELIED THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF SARGAM CINEMA VS. CIT [2010] 328 ITR 513 (SC). 7. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND CAR EFULLY GONE THROUGH THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON THE RECORD. IT I S NOTICED THAT ON THE SIMILAR ISSUE HAVING IDENTICAL FACTS THE DEPARTMEN T PREFERRED THE APPEALS AGAINST THE ORDERS OF LEARNED CIT (A) IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN I.T.A. NOS. 318 TO 321/LUC/10 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-2003 TO 2005-2006 WHEREIN THE ACTION OF THE LEARNED CIT (A) IN DELET ING THE SIMILAR ADDITIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS CHALLENGED AND T HIS BENCH OF TRIBUNAL CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE LEARNED CIT (A) VIDE OR DER DATED 06/01/2011. THE RELEVANT FINDINGS HAVE BEEN GIVEN IN PARA 5 AND 5.1 OF THE SAID ORDER WHICH READ AS UNDER: 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND HAVE A LSO PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IN THE INSTANT CASE THE LD.CIT(A) HAS CATEGORICALLY STATED THAT THE RE PORT OF THE DVO BASED ON WHICH ADDITION WAS MADE BY THE AO IS NOT A DETAILED REPORT AS ALSO NOTED BY THE AO ON PAGE 4 PARA 3 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. WE FIND SUBSTANCE IN THIS SUBMISS ION OF SHRI ASHWANI KUMAR C.A. AND SHRI SUDHINDRA JAIN C.A. L D. COUNSELS FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THE INTERIM REPORT ON THE BASIS OF WHICH THE ADDITION OF RS.5 34 445 HAS BEEN ARBI TRARILY WORKED OUT AND MADE TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE IS WHOLLY ILLEGAL BECAUSE ANYTHING LIKE INTERIM REPORT I S NOT KNOWN TO THE LAW AND IS NOT COGNIZABLE. THEREFORE THE LD.CI T(A) HAS 6 CORRECTLY OBSERVED THAT THERE WERE SHORTCOMINGS L ACUNAS AND DEFICIENCIES IN THE VALUATION REPORT BASED ON WHIC H IMPUGNED ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE. ON THIS SCORE ALONE THE GRO UND OF APPEAL OF THE REVENUE DESERVES TO BE REJECTED. EVEN OTHERWISE ALSO; THE ASSESSEE HAS A STRONG CASE IN ITS FAVOUR. IN THIS REGARD WE MAY OBSERVE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MAINTAINED REG ULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. WE FIND THAT THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION WAS FULLY DISCLOSED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT ON DAY TO DAY BAS IS WHICH CONSTITUTED STOCK-IN-TRADE FOR THE YEAR UNDER CO NSIDERATION. THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT REGULARLY MAINTAINED BY THE A SSESSEE WERE SUBJECT TO AUDIT AND THE AUDITORS HAVE NOT GI VEN ANY ADVERSE REMARKS IN THE AUDIT REPORT. IN THE INSTANT CASE THE AO HAD NOT CARED TO LOOK INTO THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT RE GULARLY MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE. IN FACT THE AO HAS NOT POINTED OUT ANY SPECIFIC DEFECT/DISCREPANCY IN THE BOOKS OF ACC OUNT REGULARLY MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE RELATING TO TH E COST OF CONSTRUCTION OF THE BUILDING IN QUESTION. IN OUR V IEW THE INTERIM VALUATION REPORT OF THE DVO IS ONLY INFORMA TION AND ESTIMATE OF COST OF CONSTRUCTION CARRIED ON BY THE ASSESSEE AND THIS REPORT ALSO SUFFERS FROM MATERIAL DEFECTS AS P OINTED OUT BY THE LD. CIT(A) IN PARA 13 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER. A SIMILAR ISSUE CAME UP FOR CONSIDERATION BEFORE THIS BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF DY.CIT VS. ROHTAS PROJECTS LTD. (2010) 133 TTJ (LUCKNOW)(UO) 89 AND THE TRIBUNAL HELD (HEAD NOTE) AS UNDER : IT IS TRUE THAT FOR THE PURPOSE OF MAKING ADDITI ON TOWARDS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT THE AO WAS UNDER LE GAL OBLIGATION TO VERIFY THE BOOKS AND VOUCHERS MAINTAI NED BY THE ASSESSEE IN SUPPORT OF THE COST OF CONSTRUCT ION SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE AND AT THE SAME TIME THE AO SHOULD HAVE POINTED OUT SPECIFIC DEFECTS IN THE BOO KS OF ACCOUNT REGULARLY MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE. IT IS SEEN THAT THE ASSESSEE VIDE ITS LETTER DT. 26TH MARCH 1 998 HAS REQUESTED THE AO TO IGNORE THE REPORT OF THE DVO AN D PROCEED WITH THE ASSESSMENT OF ACTUAL AMOUNT SPENT DULY SUPPORTED BY VOUCHERS/BILLS AS PER AUDITED BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. IT SEEMS THAT THE AO HAD NOT ACCEDED TO TH E 7 REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE. THE AO HAS MADE THE ADDITI ON MERELY ON THE BASIS OF THE VALUATION REPORT BY THE DVO. THE AO DID NOT CARE TO LOOK INTO THE BOOKS OF ACCOU NT REGULARLY MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH WERE DU LY SUPPORTED BY BILLS AND VOUCHERS. THERE IS NO DISPUT E THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE WER E DULY AUDITED. IN FACT THE AO HAS NOT POINTED OUT A NY SPECIFIC DEFECT/DISCREPANCY IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT REGULARLY MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE RELATING TO TH E COST OF CONSTRUCTION OF THE BUILDING IN QUESTION. THE VA LUATION REPORT OF DVO IS ONLY INFORMATION AND ESTIMATE OF C OST OF CONSTRUCTION CARRIED ON BY THE ASSESSEE AND THIS RE PORT ALSO SUFFERS FROM MATERIAL DEFECTS AS POINTED OUT B Y THE CIT(A) IN PARA 9 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER. THE REVENUE HAS ALSO NOT POINTED OUT A SINGLE INSTANCE TO SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ACTUALLY INCURRED EXPENDITURE MORE THAN THAT RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. CONSEQUENTLY NO ADDITION IS CALLED FOR.- K.K. SESHAIYER VS. CIT (20 01) 166 CTR (MAD) 527 : (2000) 246 ITR 351 (MAD) AND CIT VS . HOTEL JOSHI (1999) 157 CTR (RAJ) 369: (2000) 242 IT R 478 (RAJ) RELIED ON. 5.1 IN OUR VIEW THE DECISION OF THIS BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL RENDERED IN THE CASE OF ROHTAS PROJECTS LTD.(SUPRA) IS SQUARELY APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. IN THA T CASE ALSO THE AO MADE THE ADDITION ON THE BASIS OF REPORT OF THE DVO AND DID NOT CARE TO LOOK INTO THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT REGULAR LY MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH WERE DULY SUPPORTED BY BILLS AND VOUCHERS. IN THAT CASE ALSO THE REVENUE HAS NOT P OINTED OUT A SINGLE INSTANCE TO SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ACTUA LLY INCURRED EXPENDITURE MORE THAN THAT RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. KEEPING IN VIEW THOSE FACTS THE TRIBUNAL CONCLUDED THAT THE VALUATION REPORT OF THE DVO IS ONLY INFORMATION AND ESTIMATE OF COST OF CONSTRUCTION CARRIED ON BY THE ASSESSEE; WI THOUT POINTING OUT ANY SPECIFIC DEFECTS IN THE BOOKS OF A CCOUNT REGULARLY MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH ARE DUL Y AUDITED THE AO WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN MAKING THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF COST OF CONSTRUCTION MERELY ON THE BASIS OF REPORT OF DVO. 8 WHILE REACHING THE ABOVE CONCLUSION THE TRIBUNAL H AS ALSO REFERRED TO THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE JURISDICTI ONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MEERUT CEMENT CO.(P. ) LTD. (2006) 202 CTR (ALL.)_ 506 WHEREIN THE HON'BLE ALLA HABAD HIGH COURT HELD THAT THE REPORT OF THE DVO SUFFERED FROM MATERIAL DEFECTS AND THE REVENUE HAS NOT POINTED OU T A SINGLE INSTANCE OF UNRECORDED EXPENDITURE ADDITION UNDER SECTION 69B MADE ONLY ON THE BASIS OF DVOS REPORT COULD NOT BE SUSTAINED. THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT ALSO HELD TH AT IF THE ASSESSEE MAINTAINED REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT IN THE REGULAR COURSE OF BUSINESS AND NECESSARY ENTRIES RELATING T O THE EXPENDITURE TOWARDS COST OF CONSTRUCTION ARE ENTER ED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WHICH ARE OPEN TO VERIFICATION A ND ITS CORRECTNESS IS NOT DOUBTED IT SHOULD BE ACCEPTED. THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT FURTHER HELD THAT IN CASE OF DOUBT THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY CAN REFER THE MATTER TO THE VALUATION CEL L FOR DETERMINATION OF COST OF CONSTRUCTION AND RELY UPON SUCH REPORT AS AN EVIDENCE BUT IT IS OPEN TO THE ASSESSEE TO C HALLENGE THE CORRECTNESS OF SUCH VALUATION REPORT AND IN CASE IF IT ESTABLISHES THAT SUCH REPORT IS NOT CORRECT AND RELIABLE EXPEN DITURE SHOWN IN THE CONSTRUCTION AS PER THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT IS LIABLE TO BE ACCEPTED. 7.1 SO RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE AFORESAID REFERRE D TO ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN EARLIER YEARS HA VING IDENTICAL FACTS WE DO NOT SEE ANY VALID GROUND TO INTERFERE WITH THE I MPUGNED ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT (A). 7.2 MOREOVER NOW THE ISSUE RELATING TO THE REFEREN CE TO BE MADE TO THE D.V.O. HAS BEEN SETTLED BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COUR T IN THE CASE OF 9 SARGAM CINEMA VS. CIT [2010] 328 ITR 513 (SC) WHERE IN THEIR LORDSHIP HAS HELD AS UNDER: IN THE PRESENT CASE WE FIND THAT THE TRIBUNAL DE CIDED THE MATTER RIGHTLY IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE INASMUCH AS THE TRIBUNAL CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY COULD NOT HAVE REFERRED THE MATTER TO THE DEPARTME NTAL VALUATION OFFICER (DVO) WITHOUT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUN T BEING REJECTED. IN THE PRESENT CASE A CATEGORICAL FINDIN G IS RECORDED BY THE TRIBUNAL THAT THE BOOKS WERE NEVER REJECTED . THIS ASPECT HAS NOT BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE HIGH COURT. I N THE CIRCUMSTANCES RELIANCE PLACED ON THE REPORT OF TH E DVO WAS MISCONCEIVED. 7.2 IN THE PRESENT CASE ALSO THE ASSESSEE MAINTAINE D THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WHEREIN THE ENTRIES RELATING TO THE COST OF CONSTRUCTIONS WERE MENTIONED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 28/12/2008 CATEGORICALLY STATED AT PAGE NO. 2 AS UN DER: THE ASSESSEE HAS PRODUCED BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WHICH W ERE TEST CHECKED. 7.3 IT IS THEREFORE CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE MAINTA INED BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WHICH WERE PRODUCED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER WH O TEST CHECKED THOSE BOOKS HOWEVER COULD NOT POINT OUT ANY DISCREPANCY IN THOSE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. HE SIMPLY RELIED THE REPORT OF THE D.V.O. WHILE MAKING THE IMPUGNED ADDITION. AS PER RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE AFORESAID REFERRED TO CASE OF SARGAM CINEMA VS. CIT [2010] 328 ITR 513 (SC) THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT JUSTIFIED I N REFERRING THE MATTER TO 10 THE D.V.O. WITHOUT REJECTING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT A ND THEREAFTER IN MAKING THE ADDITION ACCORDINGLY ON THE BASIS OF THE D.V.O. S REPORT. IN THAT VIEW OF THE MATTER WE ARE OF THE CONFIRMED VIEW THAT THE L EARNED CIT (A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSE SSING OFFICER. WE DO NOT SEE ANY MERIT IN THIS APPEAL OF THE DEPARTMENT. 8. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED. (THE ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 23/0 3/2011) SD/. SD/. ( H. L. KARWA ) (N. K. SAINI) VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 23/03/2011 *SINGH COPY FORWARDED TO THE: 1. APPELLANT. 2. RESPONDENT. 3. CIT (A) 4. CIT 5. DR. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR