M/s. Willard India Ltd., Bulandshahr v. ACIT, Bulandshahr

ITA 726/DEL/2010 | 2002-2003
Pronouncement Date: 15-07-2011 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 72620114 RSA 2010
Bench Delhi
Appeal Number ITA 726/DEL/2010
Duration Of Justice 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 27 day(s)
Appellant M/s. Willard India Ltd., Bulandshahr
Respondent ACIT, Bulandshahr
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 15-07-2011
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted I
Tribunal Order Date 15-07-2011
Date Of Final Hearing 05-07-2011
Next Hearing Date 05-07-2011
Assessment Year 2002-2003
Appeal Filed On 18-02-2010
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH I NEW DELHI) BEFORE SMT. DIVA SNGH JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.K. HALDAR ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO.726/DEL/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2002-03 M/S WILLIARD INDIA LTD. ACIT C/O AGAUTA SUGAR & CHEMICALS CIRCLE BULANDSHAHR VILL. BHANDORIA BULANDSHAHR. V. BULANDSHAHR. AND I.T.A. NO.1116/L/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2002-03 ACIT M/S WILLIARD INDIA LTD. CIRCLE BULANDSHAHR. V. VILL. BHANDORIA BULANDSHAHR. (DEPARTMENT) (ASSESSEE) PAN /GIR/NO. PAN /GIR/NO. PAN /GIR/NO. PAN /GIR/NO.AAACW AAACW AAACW AAACW- -- -3212 3212 3212 3212- -- -D DD D ASSESSEE BY : NONE DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI H.L. DIHANA CIT-DR ORDER PER B.K. HALDAR AM: THESE ARE CROSS APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE REVEN UE RESPECTIVELY AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD CIT(A) MEERUT DATED 22.12.2009 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03. BEING CROSS APPEALS THESE AR E DISPOSED OFF BY THIS COMMON ORDER. PAGE 2 OF 11 ITA NO728& 1116/DEL/2010 2. THIS CASE HAS BEEN FIXED EARLIER ON A NUMBER OF TIM ES BUT THE SAME WAS ADJOURNED A NUMBER OF TIMES ON REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER ON THE LAST DATE OF HEARING I.E. 5.7.2011 N EITHER ANYBODY APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE NOR WAS THERE ANY ADJ OURNMENT APPLICATION ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS SUBMITTED B Y THE LD CIT- DR THAT THE ISSUES DISPUTED BY BOTH THE PARTIES ARE GENE RALLY COVERED BY THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR A SSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01 & 2001-02 DATED 13.8.2008. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE WE PROCEEDED TO HEAR THE APPEALS EX PARTE QUA THE ASSESSEE. I.T.A. NO.726/DEL/2010 (ASSESSEES A I.T.A. NO.726/DEL/2010 (ASSESSEES A I.T.A. NO.726/DEL/2010 (ASSESSEES A I.T.A. NO.726/DEL/2010 (ASSESSEES APPEAL): PPEAL): PPEAL): PPEAL): 3. THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL S:- 1. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN C ONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. ] 06 90 800/- BY DISALLOWING INTEREST PAID ON THE LOAN TAKEN IN THE PRECEDING YEARS BY THE APPELLANT C OMPANY FOR ITS BATTERY DIVISION. THE SAID UNIT WAS TRANSFERRED TO T HE SUBSIDIARY COMPANY OF THE APPELLANT W.E.F. 01112/93 B UT LOAN IN FULL WAS NOT TRANSFERRED IN TERMS OF SETTLEMENT WITH TH E COLLABORATOR AND THE LENDING FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS. THE LOAN WAS TAKEN FOR THE BUSINESS OF THE APPELLANT COMPANY IN THE PRECEDING YEARS AND MERELY DUE TO SALE OF SOME ASSETS OF THE COMP ANY IT CANNOT BE STATED THAT INTEREST ON LOANS TAKEN EARLIER AND USED FOR BUSINESS AND THE ASSETS SO TRANSFERRED CANNOT BE ALLOWED AS A DEDUCTION. THUS THE SAID ADDITION MADE MUST BE DELETED . 2. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN C ONFIRMING THE ESTIMATED ADDITION OF RS. 38 92 867/- ON ACCOUNT OF I NTEREST ON ADVANCE GIVEN TO MOBAR INDIA LTD. A COMPANY FLOATE D BY THE PAGE 3 OF 11 ITA NO728& 1116/DEL/2010 APPELLANT FOR ITS BUSINESS INTEREST BY NOT APPRECIATING THE SUBMISSIONS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE APPELLANT. THUS THE ADDITION SO MADE MUST BE DELETED. 3. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN C ONFIRMING THE ESTIMATED ADDITION OF RS. 2 22 075/- ON ACCOUNT OF IN TEREST ON SHARE APPLICATION MONEY ADVANCED TO MOBAR ENGINEERIN G GMBH AND FOR WHICH NO SHARES WERE ALLOTTED TILL 31/03/0 I AND BY NOT APPRECIATING THE SUBMISSIONS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE APPELLANT. THUS THE ADDITION SO MADE MUST BE DELETED. 4. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN C ONFIRMING AN ADDITION OF RS. 80 758/- AS INTEREST ON AMOUNT OF LOAN REMAINING OUTSTANDING FROM BATTERY UNIT WHEN IT WAS TRANSFERRED . DURING THE YEAR THE COMPANY HAD NOT CHARGED ANY INTEREST FR OM THE LOAN TRANSFERRED FROM BATTERY DIVISION. THUS NO INTERE ST AS ABOVE COULD BE DISALLOWED AS THE LEARNED AUTHORITIES HAD CON SIDERED PREVIOUS YEAR AMOUNT FOR DISALLOWANCE. THUS ADDITION SO MADE MUST BE DELETED. 5. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN C ONFIRMING AN ADDITION OF RS. 13 51 288/- MADE BY DISALLOWING THE SA ME OUT OF INTEREST PAID BY HOLDING THAT INTEREST FREE ADVANCE O F RS. 90 LACS HAS BEEN GIVEN TO SISTER CONCERN WITHOUT ANY REASON AND PURPOSE. WHILE ASSERTING SO HE IGNORED THAT THE APPELLA NT IS RUNNING TWO AGRICULTURAL COMMODITY BASED MANUFACTURI NG UNITS - SUGAR AND JUTE AND WHERE HIGH YIELD DENSE CROP PRODU CTION DEVELOPMENT IS NECESSARY AND FOR WHICH ASSISTANCE WAS SOUGH T FOR FROM THE SAID COMPANY WHO HAS GOT A COLLABORATION FOR THE PURPOSE WITH ONE OF THE WORLD BEST CONSULTANTS. MOREOVE R PAGE 4 OF 11 ITA NO728& 1116/DEL/2010 COMPANY HAS RECEIVED THE SHARES AGAINST THE ADVANCE GIV EN TO ANKUR BIO CULTURE LTD. THUS THE SAID ADDITION MUST BE DELETED. 6. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ALSO ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE ENHANCED CAPITAL GAIN ON SALE OF LAND TO RS. 2 33 296/- AS AGAINST THE CAPITAL LOSS OF RS. 1 49 222/- CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT BY MISAPPRECIATING THE FACTS. THUS THE ADDI TION SO MADE MUST BE DELETED. 7. THE APPELLANT CRAVES THE LEAVE TO ADD SUBSTITUTE MODIFY DELETE OR AMEND ALL OR ANY GROUND OF APPEAL. 4. WITH REFERENCE TO GROUND NO.1 I.E. CONFIRMATION OF ADDITION OF `.1 06 90 800/- ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST PAID ON LOANS TAKEN BY THE APPELLANT COMPANY FOR ITS BATTERY DIVISION WHICH WAS T RANSFERRED TO ITS SUBSIDIARY COMPANY IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD CIT (DR) THAT THE IMPUGNED ISSUE WAS DISCUSSED BY THE LD CIT(A) IN PAGE NO. 14 PARA 8. TO 8.4 OF HIS ORDER. THE IMPUGNED ADDITION WAS CONFI RMED BY HIM IN VIEW OF HON'BLE ITAT AMRITSAR BENCHS ORDER DATED 13 .8.2008 IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS. AS THE FA CTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT YEAR REMAINED THE SAME AS I N EARLIER YEARS IT WAS SUBMITTED BY HIM THAT THIS GROUND OF APP EAL TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE MAY BE REJECTED. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD CIT-DR AND PERUSED THE RECOR D. THE FINDING OF THE LD CIT(A) IN PARA 8.4. OF HIS ORDER C LEARLY SHOWS THAT THE ISSUE IS SQUARELY COVERED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE AS PER THE TRI BUNALS ORDER IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR EARLIER YEARS. IN VIEW O F THE ABOVE WE REJECT THIS GROUND TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE. PAGE 5 OF 11 ITA NO728& 1116/DEL/2010 6. IN GROUND NO.2 THE ASSESSEE IS DISPUTING CONFIRMATION OF ADDITION OF `.38 92 867/- BY THE LD CIT(A). THE LD CIT(A) H AS DISCUSSED THE IMPUGNED ISSUE IN PARA 9 TO 9.5 OF HIS ORDER THIS ISSU E IS ALSO SQUARELY COVERED BY THE EARLIER ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL MENTIO NED SUPRA. IN THE SAID ORDER THE TRIBUNAL HAS DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER TO EXAMINE AS TO WHETHER SHARES WERE ALLOTTED TO THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AGAINST ADJUSTMENT OF THE SAID ADVANCE. IF IT WAS FOUND THAT THE SHARES WERE INDEED ALLOTTED AGAINST THE ADVANCE THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER WAS DIRECTED TO ALLOW THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE TO THAT EXTENT. THE ASSESSEE ACCORDINGLY WAS ASKED TO PRODUCE EVIDENCE IN RESPECT OF ALLOTMENT OF SHARES BY M/S MOBAR INDIA LTD. THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PROD UCE ANY EVIDENCE. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE LD CIT(A) HAS CONFI RMED THE IMPUGNED ADDITION. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS WE DO NOT FIN D ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF LD CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE AND CONFIRM THE DISAL LOWANCE. THUS GROUND NO.2 TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO REJECTED. 7. GROUND NO.3 IS ON CONFIRMATION OF ADDITION OF `.2 22 075/-ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST ON SHARE APPLICATION MONEY ADVANC ED TO M/S MOBAR ENGINEERING GMBH. LD CIT(A) HAS DISCUSSED THIS ISSUE IN PA RA 10 TO 10.4. OF HIS ORDER. MOBER ENGG. GMBH IS ALSO A SISTER CO NCERN OF THE ASSESSEE LIKE M/S MOBAR INDIA LTD. IN THIS CASE ALSO NO SH ARES WERE ALLOTTED TO THE ASSESSEE AND THE AMOUNT ADVANCED WAS REC OVERED IN MAY 2003. LD CIT(A) THEREFORE OPINED THAT THE D IRECTION OF THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL GIVEN IN THE CASE OF M/S MOBAR INDIA LTD WOULD SQUARELY APPLY TO THIS ISSUE ALSO. AS NO SHARES WERE ALLOT TED TO THE ASSESSEE THE LD CIT(A) UPHELD THE IMPUGNED DISALLOWANCE . IN THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES WE FIND NO REASON TO INT ERFERE WITH THE FINDING OF LD CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE AND CONFIRM THE SAME . THUS GROUND NO.3 TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO REJECTED. PAGE 6 OF 11 ITA NO728& 1116/DEL/2010 8. GROUND NO.4 TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE IS ON CONFIRMATION OF DISALLOWANCE OF `.80 758/- BY THE LD CIT(A). SIMILA R DISALLOWANCE FOR EARLIER YEARS HAS BEEN CONFIRMED BY THE HON'BLE ITAT IN THEIR ORDER DATED 13.8.2008 IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE. IN VIEW OF THE A BOVE WE REJECT THIS GROUND TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE. 9. GROUND NO. 5 RELATES TO CONFIRMATION OF ADDITION OF `.13 51 288/-. THE IMPUGNED ISSUE HAS BEEN DISCUSSED BY THE LD CIT(A) I N PARA 13. TO 13.4. OF HIS ORDER. HERE ALSO THE HON'BLE ITAT IN T HEIR ORDER DATED 13.8.2008 IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR EARLIER YEARS HAS DI RECTED THAT IF SHARES WERE ALLOTTED TO THE ASSESSEE THEN ONLY THE INTERE ST ADDITION SHOULD BE DELETED. AS THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT THE SHARES WERE ALLOTTED TO IT BY M/S ANKUR B IO CULTURE LTD THE IMPUGNED DISALLOWANCE WAS CONFIRMED BY THE LD CIT (A). IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES MENTIONED ABOVE WE DO NOT FI ND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF LD CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE AND CONFIRM T HE SAME. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO REJECTED. 10. GROUND NO.6 RELATES TO CONFIRMATION OF ENHANCED CAPITAL GAIN ON SALE OF LAND AT `.2 33 396/- AS AGAINST CAPITAL LOSS DISC LOSED BY THE ASSESSEE AT `.1 19 222/-. THE LD CIT(A) HAS DISMISSED THE I SSUE IN PARA 16 TO 16.6 OF THIS ORDER. IN IDENTICAL FACTS OBTAINED IN THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR ITAT AMRITSAR BENCH IN I.T.A . NO. 2492/ASR/2006 IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE HAS CONFIRMED SUCH ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE LD CIT (A) HAS CONFIRMED THE IMPUGNED ADDITION. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER W E DO NOT INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LD CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE. THIS GRO UND NO.6 TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO REJECTED. 11. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. PAGE 7 OF 11 ITA NO728& 1116/DEL/2010 I.T.A. NO.116/DEL/2010 (REV I.T.A. NO.116/DEL/2010 (REV I.T.A. NO.116/DEL/2010 (REV I.T.A. NO.116/DEL/2010 (REVE EE ENUES APPEAL): NUES APPEAL): NUES APPEAL): NUES APPEAL): 12. THE REVENUE HAS TAKEN FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL S:- 1. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD CIT( A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON THE FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITI ON OF `.17 850/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST PAID U/S 201(1 A) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE ORDER O F THE ITAT IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE BY VIRTUE OF WHICH THE ADDITION W AS CONFIRMED IN (I.T.A. NO. 2492/DEL/2006 FOR ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2001- 02). 2. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD CIT( A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON THE FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITI ON OF `.2 87 352/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF PRIOR PERIOD EXPENSE S WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT ASSESSEE FAILED TO ESTABLISH THA T THE LIABILITY OF EXPENSES WAS ARISEN OUT OF COURTS ORDER. 3. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD CIT( A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON THE FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITI ON OF `.2 18 32 784/- ADDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS DISALLO WANCE FOR INTEREST ON ADVANCE GIVEN TO M/S SOLARSONS INDUSTRI ES LTD. IGNORING THE DECISION OF ITAT BY VIRTUE OF WHICH THE ISSUE WAS SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER (I.T.A. NO.56 08/DEL/2004 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01). 4. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE ORDER O F THE LD CIT(A) MAY BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICE R RESTORED. 13. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD CIT-DR AND PERUSED THE REC ORD. PAGE 8 OF 11 ITA NO728& 1116/DEL/2010 14. THE FIRST GROUND TAKEN BY THE REVENUE IS ON ACCOU NT OF DELETION OF ADDITION OF `.17 850/- BY THE LD CIT(A). IT IS T HE CONTENTION OF THE REVENUE THAT THE ISSUE IS SQUARELY COVERED IN FAVOUR O F REVENUE BY THE HON'BLE ITATS DECISION IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02. THE TRIBUNALS ORDER IS AVAILABLE IN ASSESSEES PAPER BOOK PAGES 28 TO 82. THE SAME HAS BEEN DISCUSSED BY THE HON' BLE TRIBUNAL IN PARA 26 OF THE ORDER. THE ASSESSEE SOUGHT INTEREST ON TDS AMOUNTING TO `.3 41 424/- AS AN ALLOWABLE EXPENDITUR E WHICH WAS NOT ACCEPTED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN VIEW OF HON'BLE ALLAHAB AD HIGH COURTS JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. KANPUR TEXTILE LTD. R EPORTED IN 276 ITR 140. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS WE FIND THE CONTEN TION OF THE REVENUE TO BE CORRECT AND REVERSE THE ORDER OF LD CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE. WE HOLD THAT THE IMPUGNED AMOUNT OF `.17 850/- CANNOT BE AL LOWED AS BUSINESS EXPENDITURE. THIS GROUND OF REVENUE IS ALLOWED. 15. GROUND NO.2 TAKEN BY THE REVENUE IS AGAINST THE D ELETION OF ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF PRIOR PERIOD EXPENSES AMOUNTIN G TO `.2 87 352/- BY THE LD CIT(A). THE LD CIT(A) HAS DELETED THE IMP UGNED ADDITION BY HOLDING THAT THE PF ADMINISTRATION CHARGES WAS ALLOWAB LE IN TERMS OF SUB SECTION (B) OF SECTION 43B. THE SAID DELETION WAS N OT MADE BY HOLDING THAT THE LIABILITY CRYSTALLIZED DURING THE R ELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR. AS SUCH THE LD CIT(A) HAS HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO ESTABLISH THAT THE LIABILITY CRYSTALLIZED DURING THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR. WE FIND THAT CLAUSE (B) OF SECTION 43B OF THE ACT COVERS ONLY THE CONTRIBUTION MADE TO PF ETC. BY NO STRETCH OF IMAGINATION PF ADMI NISTRATIONE CHARGES CAN BE SAID TO BE CONTRIBUTION MADE TO SUCH FU NDS. THUS THE SAID EXPENDITURE CANNOT BE ALLOWED AS PER CLAUSE (B) O F SECTION 43B. AS THERE IS A CLEAR FINDING OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW THA T THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO SHOW THAT THE SAID LIABILITY CRYSTALLIZED DU RING THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR WE REVERSE THE ORDER OF LD CIT(A) ON T HIS ISSUE AND PAGE 9 OF 11 ITA NO728& 1116/DEL/2010 RESTORE THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THIS GROUND OF TH E REVENUE IS ALLOWED. 16. GROUND NO.3 RELATES TO DELETION OF ADDITION OF ` .2 18 32 784/- BY THE LD CIT(A). IT IS THE CONTENTION OF THE REVENUE THAT IN I.T. NO. 5608/DEL/2004 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01 IN ASSESSEES OW N CASE THE IMPUGNED ISSUE WAS REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF TH E ASSESSING OFFICER. IN THE ABOVE FACTS IT IS CONTENDED BY THE REVENUE THAT THE LD CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE IMPUGNED ADD ITION. WE FIND THE ABOVE CONTENTION OF THE REVENUE TO BE CORRECT. AS SU CH THE TRIBUNAL HAS DIRECTED THAT THE ASSESSEE SHOULD FURNISH EVIDENCE THA T SHARES WERE IN FACT ISSUED TO IT BY THE SAID CONCERN. IN THI S VIEW OF THE MATTER WE SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW ON THI S ISSUE AND REMIT THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER W ITH A DIRECTION THAT THE ISSUE BE DECIDED AFRESH IN THE LIGHT OF THE HON'BL E TRIBUNALS ORDER IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01 AFTER GIVI NG THE ASSESSEE ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. THIS GROUN D OF THE REVENUE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 17. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS ALLOW ED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES AND THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 18. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE 15TH DAY OF JULY 2011. SD/- SD/- (DIVA SINGH) (B.K. HALD AR) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DT. 15.7.2011. HMS PAGE 10 OF 11 ITA NO728& 1116/DEL/2010 COPY FORWARDED TO:- 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT (A)- NEW DELHI. 5. THE DR ITAT LOKNAYAK BHAWAN KHAN MARKET NEW DEL HI. TRUE COPY. BY ORDER (ITAT NEW DELHI). DATE OF HEARING 5.7.2011 DATE OF DICTATION 6.7.2011 DATE OF ORDER SIGNED BY THE HON'BLE MEMBER. 15.7.2011 DATE OF ORDER SENT TO THE CONCERNED BENCH 15.7.2011 PAGE 11 OF 11 ITA NO728& 1116/DEL/2010