ACIT, Faridabad v. M/s. Studds Accessories Ltd, Faridabad

ITA 1677/DEL/2009 | 2005-2006
Pronouncement Date: 25-02-2010 | Result: Partly Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 167720114 RSA 2009
Assessee PAN AACCS4217Q
Bench Delhi
Appeal Number ITA 1677/DEL/2009
Duration Of Justice 10 month(s) 1 day(s)
Appellant ACIT, Faridabad
Respondent M/s. Studds Accessories Ltd, Faridabad
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 25-02-2010
Appeal Filed By Department
Order Result Partly Allowed
Bench Allotted I
Tribunal Order Date 25-02-2010
Date Of Final Hearing 25-02-2010
Next Hearing Date 25-02-2010
Assessment Year 2005-2006
Appeal Filed On 24-04-2009
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH I: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI C.L. SETHI JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 1677/DEL/2009 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-06 ACIT CIRCLE 1 FARIDABAD VS. STUDDS ACCESSORIES LTD. OLD HAVELLS COMPOUND 14/3 MATHURA ROAD FARIDABAD. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) [PAN : AACCS 4217 Q] APPELLANT BY : MS. ANUSHA KHUR ANA DR RESPONDENT BY : NONE O R D E R PER: C.L. SETHI J.M. THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 23.02.2009 PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IN SO FAR AS IT IS PERTINENT TO T HE A.Y. 2005-06. 2. THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE CIT(A) DATED 23.02.200 9 IS A COMMON ORDER FOR TWO ASSESSMENT ORDERS VIZ. 2005-06 AND 2 006-07. HOWEVER IN THIS APPEAL WE ARE CONCERNED WITH THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IN SO FAR AS ITS PERTAINS TO THE A.Y. 2005-06. IT HAS BEEN MADE CLE AR TO US THAT APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE FOR THE A.Y. 2006-07 HAS ALREA DY BEEN DISPOSED OFF VIDE ORDER DATED 23.10.2009 IN ITA NO. 1444/DEL/200 9. ITA NO. 1677/DEL/2009 PAGE 2 OF 10 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. DR. NONE FOR THE ASSESSEE IS PRESENT. THE NOTICE OF HEARING HAS BEEN SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE AS PER REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE DEPARTMENTAL AUTHORITIES WHICH IS PLACED ON RECORD. 4. THE GROUND NO. 1 RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECT ED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 20 86 401/- MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF PAYMENT OF SALE COMMISSION/PROFESSION AL CHARGES PAID ON SALES TO M/S. SANKALP CONSUMER PRODUCTS (PVT.) LTD. 5. IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IT WAS NOTICED BY THE AO THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED PAYMENT OF COMMISSION TO RS. 20 86 401/-TO ONE M/S. SANKALP CONSUMER PRODUCTS (PVT.) LTD. IN R ESPECT OF SALES MADE TO CANTEEN STORES DEPARTMENT A WING OF MINISTRY OF DEFENCE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA. IN SUPPORT OF THE CLAIM THE ASSESSEE PRODUCED A COPY OF AGREEMENT DATED 01.10.1997. THE AO MADE AN ENQUIRY FROM CANTEEN STORES DEPARTMENT WHEREUPON THE DEPARTMENT INFORMED THE AO THAT IT DID NOT ALLOW THE M/S. SANKALP CONSUMERS PR ODUCTS PVT. LTD. TO ACT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR S 2003-04 AND 2004-05 AND THEREAFTER. IT WAS ALSO NOTICED BY THE AO THAT THE AGREEMENT WAS EFFECTIVE FROM 01.10.1997 UP TO THE PERIOD OF FIVE YEARS EXPIRING ON 03.09.2002. AFTER CONSIDERING THE ASSESSEES EXPLA NATION THE AO HAD TAKEN A VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO ESTABL ISH THE GENUINENESS AND JUSTIFICATION OF THE EXPENDITURE ON ACCOUNT OF COMM ISSION ON SALE PAID TO ITA NO. 1677/DEL/2009 PAGE 3 OF 10 M/S. SANKALP CONSUMER PRODUCTS (PVT.) LTD. THE AO THEREFORE DISALLOWED THE ASSESSEES CLAIM. 6 ON AN APPEAL THE CIT(A) ALLOWED THE ASSESSEES C LAIM BY OBSERVING THAT SIMILAR DISALLOWANCES MADE IN THE AS SESSEES CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2003-04 AND 2004-05 WERE DELETED BY THE CIT(A) AND THAT ORDER OF THE CIT(A) HAS BEEN UPHELD BY THE TRI BUNAL VIDE ORDER DATED 21.11.2008 IN ITA NO. 3383 & 3384/DEL/2007. THIS I SSUE BEFORE THE CIT(A) WAS IN TWO ASSESSMENT YEARS 2005-06 AND 2006 -07 AND THE CIT(A) ACCORDINGLY DELETED THE ADDITION IN BOTH THE ASSESSMENT YEARS BY FOLLOWING HIS EARLIER ORDER FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR S 2003-04 AND 2004-05 WHICH HAS BEEN UPHELD BY THE TRIBUNAL. THIS GROUND RAISED IN A.Y. 2006- 07 HAS BEEN DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL AFTER FOLLOWIN G TRIBUNALS ORDER FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2003-04 AND 2004-05. THE TRIB UNALS ORDER IS DATED 23.10.2009 IN ITA NO. 1444/DEL/2009 FOR A.Y. 2006-0 7. THIS ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN A.Y. 2006-07 BY OBS ERVING AND HOLDING AS UNDER:- 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT ASSESSEE HAS MADE COMMISSION PAYMENT TO ONE M/S. SANKALP CONSUMER PRODUCT (P) LTD. THE PAYMENT WAS MADE FOR THE SERVICES PROVIDED AT CANTEEN STORES DEPARTMENT A WING OF MINISTRY OF DEFENCE GOVT. OF INDIA. THE AO HAS DISALLOWED THE COMMISSION PAYMENT ON THE BASIS OF H IS FINDING MADE IN EARLIER YEARS. LD. CIT (A) HAS DELE TED THE DISALLOWANCE ON THE GROUND THAT SIMILAR DISALLOWANC E WAS MADE IN ASSTT. YEAR 2003-04 AND 2004-05 AND THE DISALLOWANCE WAS DELETED. THE TRIBUNAL HAS UPHELD T HE DELETION OF THE DISALLOWANCE. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE A SSESSEE ITA NO. 1677/DEL/2009 PAGE 4 OF 10 PLACED ON RECORD COPIES OF TRIBUNALS ORDERS IN ASS TT. YEAR 2003-04 AND 2004-05. HE CONTENDED THAT ISSUE I N DISPUTE IS SQUARELY COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESS EE. LD. DR WAS UNABLE TO CONTROVERT THE CONTENTION OF LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. 3. ON DUE CONSIDERATION WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT SIMILAR DISALLOWANCE WAS MADE IN ASSTT. YEAR 2 000- 01 UPTO 2004-05. THE DISALLOWANCE WAS DELETED BY L D. CIT(A) AND IT WAS UPHELD BY TRIBUNAL. THE FINDING O F THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSTT. YEAR 2003-04 AND 2004-05. THIS I SSUE READ AS UNDER :- 10. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE OBSERVE THAT THE AO MADE THE AFORESAID DISALLOWANCES OF PAYMENTS MADE TO SCPL ON THE GROUND THAT THE SCPL WAS THE MIDDLEMAN AND ITS SERVICES WERE NOT REQUIRED TO MAKE SUPPLY TO CSD. HOWEVER WE OBSERVE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE REQUISITE STATEMENTS SUPPORTED WITH THE DOCUMENTS AS MENTIONED IN THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) THAT SCPL IS A PROFESSIONAL BODY AND ITS STAFF PROVIDES SERVICES TO THE ASSESSEE TO ENHANCE SALE OF ITS PRODUCTS BY EDUCATING THE CSD STAFF AT THE CANTEEN COUNTERS UPPER SPECIAL POINT OF THE ASSESSEES PRODUCTS FOR BETTER PROMOTION OF ASSESSEES PRODUCTS. WE ALSO OBSERVE THAT SCPL ALSO FOLLOWS UP FOR ISSUE OF REQUISITE DOCUMENTS FROM DEPOTS FOR RELEASE OF PAYMENTS INCLUDING RELEASE OF STATUTORY SALES TAX FORMS ETC. THEREFORE WE AGAIN WITH THE LD. CIT(A) THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS AVAILED THE SERVICES OF THE SCPL FOR GENERATING AND IMPROVING BUSINESS OF ITS PRODUCT AT CSD COUNTER. WE OBSERVE THAT THE DEPARTMENT HAS ANALYZED THE ROLE OF SCPL IN EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS AND ACCEPTED THE PROFESSIONAL CHARGES PAID BY THE ASSESSEE TO SCPL IN THE ASSESSMENTS COMPLETED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT AS IS EVIDENT FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS PASSED FOR THE A.Y. 2001-02 AND 2002- 03 THE COPIES OF WHICH ARE PLACED AT PAGES 95- ITA NO. 1677/DEL/2009 PAGE 5 OF 10 97 AND 98 TO 101 OF THE PAPER BOOK. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING THE LD. DR HAS NOT DISPUTED THE OBSERVATION OF THE LD. CIT(A) THAT THERE IS NO MATERIAL CHANGE IN THE FACTS AS COMPARED TOS THE EARLIER YEARS. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE LD. CIT (A) HAS RIGHTLY DELETED THE ADDITIONS OF RS. 12 62 305/- AND RS. 19 85 121/- MADE BY THE AO IN THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2003-04 AND 2004- 05 RESPECTIVELY. THEREFORE WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) BY REJECTING THE GROUND NO. 1 OF BOTH THE APPEALS. 4. IN VIEW OF THE TRIBUNALS ORDER IN ASSTT. YEAR 2003-04 AND 2004-05 THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS REJECT ED BECAUSE THERE IS NO DISPARITY ON FACTS. 7. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE TRIBUNALS YEAR FOR T HE A.Y. 2006-07 WHERE THE TRIBUNALS EARLIER ORDER FOR THE ASSESSME NT YEARS 2003-04 AND 2004-05 HAS BEEN RELIED UPON WE ARE INCLINED TO UP HOLD THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE AND REJECT THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE. IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE HERE THAT THE CIT(A) VIDE IMPUGNE D COMMON ORDER HAS DELETED THE ADDITION IN BOTH THE ASSESSMENT YEARS I .E. A.Y. 2005-06 AND A.Y. 2006-07 ON IDENTICAL FACTS AND REASONS. WE TH EREFORE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO TAKE THE VIEW CONTRARY TO THE VIEW AL READY TAKEN BY THE CO- ORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL ON THE SAME SET OF F ACTS. THEREFORE GROUND NO. 1 IS HEREBY REJECTED. 8. THE GROUND NO. 2 IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE CIT(A) S ORDER IN DELEING THE ADDITION OF RS. 1 68 605/- MADE BY THE AO ON AC COUNT OF FOREIGN TRAVELING EXPENSES. ITA NO. 1677/DEL/2009 PAGE 6 OF 10 9. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD DR AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. 10. THE IDENTICAL DISALLOWANCES ON ACCOUNT OF FOREI GN TRAVELING EXPENSES WERE MADE BY THE AO IN THIS A.Y. 2005-06 AND AS WELL IN THE A.Y. 2006-07. THE LD. CIT(A) VIDE HIS COMMON ORDER HAS DELETED THE DISALLOWANCE IN BOTH THE ASSESSMENT YEARS BY MAKING IDENTICAL OBSERVATIONS AND GIVING IDENTICAL REASONS. THE ORD ER OF THE CIT(A) PERTAINING TO THE A.Y. 2006-07 HAS BEEN UPHELD BY T HE TRIBUNAL IN A.Y. 2006-07 VIDE ORDER DATED 23.10.2009 IN ITA NO. 1444 /DEL/2009. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES WE THEREFORE UPHELD THE ORDER OF T HE CIT(A) FOR THE SAME REASONS AS GIVEN BY THE TRIBUNAL IN A.Y. 2006-07. THUS THIS GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS REJECTED. 11. THE GROUND NO. 3 AND 4 ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE CIT(A)S ORDER IN DELEING THE ADDITION OF RS. 1 23 350/- AND RS. 2 54 934/- MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCES OUT OF TELEPHONE EXPENS ES AND VEHICLE EXPENSES ETC. RESPECTIVELY. 12. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. DR AND PERUSED THE MATERI AL ON RECORD. 13. THE AO MADE THE DISALLOWANCE OUT OF TELEPHONE E XPENSES ON AD- HOC BASIS DISALLOWING 1/5 OF THE TOTAL EXPENSES FOR PERSONAL PURPOSES. HOWEVER THE CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION BY OBSERVI NG AS UNDER:- 24. I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. ARS AND PERUSED THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT. IT IS FOUND THAT BY MAKING THE DISALLOWANCE ON THE ABOVE GROUND THE AO IS CONTRADICTING HIMSELF BY OBSERVIN G THAT ITA NO. 1677/DEL/2009 PAGE 7 OF 10 THE DISALLOWANCE WAS MADE NOT FOR PERSONAL USED OF THE DIRECTORS OF THE COMPANY BUT BECAUSE OF NON-BUSINES S NATURE OF EXPENSES. AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTI ON 37 THE EXPENDITURE ALLOWABLE SHOULD NOT BE EITHER CAPI TAL OR PERSONAL AND WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY SHOULD HAVE BEE N USED FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES. IT IS NOT UNDERSTANDAB LE WHAT THE AO MEANS BY NON-BUSINESS NATURE OF THE EXPENDITURE WHEN THE PERSONAL USE OF THE ASSET BY T HE DIRECTORS OF THE COMPANY AMOUNTS TO NON-BUSINESSES USED BY WHICH IT COULD HAVE BEEN UNDERSTOOD THAT ET H EXPENDITURE WAS NOT INCURRED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES. THEREFORE THE AO HAS MADE THE DISALLOWANCE PURELY ON A MISCONCEPTION OF THE EXPENDITURE WHICH IS ENTIRELY ALLOWABLE AS PER THE JURISDICTIONAL TRIBUNALS DECISION IN THE CASE OF D CIT VS. HARYANA OXYGEN LTD. (1999) 76 ITD (DEL) 32. THUS T HE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 1 23 350/- BEING ARBITRARY IS DELETED. 14. SIMILARLY THE AO DISALLOWED 1/5 OF THE TOTAL E XPENSES ON ACCOUNT OF REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE OF CAR WHICH HAS BEEN DE LETED BY THE CIT(A) BY OBSERVING AS UNDER:- 27. I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. D.R. AND PERUSED THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT . ON SIMILAR GROUNDS THE DISALLOWANCES WERE MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 & 2004-05 WHICH WERE DELETE D BY THE UNDERSIGN IN MY RESPECTIVE ORDERS AND MY DECISIONS HAVE BEEN CONFIRMED BY THE LD. JURISDICTI ONAL TRIBUNAL VIDE THEIR ORDER DATED 21.11.2008 FOR BOTH THE YEARS AS MENTIONED IN PARA 14 ABOVE. 15. IN THE COURSE OF HEARING OF THIS APPEAL THE LD . DR MERELY RELIED UPON THE AOS ORDER. 16. AFTER CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE AND IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE INDICATING THAT THESE EXPENDITURE WERE NOT INCURRED BY COMPANY IN THE COURSE OF ITS BUSINESS AND MERE BECA USE THE DIRECTORS ITA NO. 1677/DEL/2009 PAGE 8 OF 10 MIGHT HAVE USED THE VEHICLE FOR THEIR OWN PURPOSES WE DONT FIND ANY JUSTIFICATION FOR MAKING ANY DISALLOWANCES IN THE C OMPANYS HAND. THE CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY DELETED THE DISALLOWANCE FOR THE REASONS GIVEN BY HIM IN HIS ORDER. WE THEREFORE UPHELD THE ORDER OF T HE CIT(A) FOR THE REASONS GIVEN BY HIM AND IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY MATE RIAL REBUTTING THE FINDINGS GIVEN BY THE CIT(A). THUS GROUND NO. 3 A ND 4 RAISED BY THE REVENUE ARE REJECTED. 17. THE GROUND NO. 5 IS AGAINST THE CIT(A)S ORDER IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 37 205/- MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF CLUB EXPENSES. 18. THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 37 205/- WAS MADE BY TH E AO BY OBSERVING THAT OUT OF THE TOTAL EXPENSES OF RS. 1 0 2 327/- THE EXPENSES OF RS. 37 205/- WERE NOT INCURRED FOR BUSINESS PURPOSE S. 19. ON AN APPEAL THE CIT(A) HAS DELETED THE ADDITI ON BY SAYING THAT SUBSCRIPTION TO THE CLUB WHEREVER THEY ARE SITUATED ARE MEANT AND LAID OUT FOR THE PURPOSES OF BUSINESS. 20. IN THIS CASE THE ASSESSEE INCURRED TOTAL EXPE NSES OF RS. 1 07 527/- OUT OF THIS RS. 5 200/- WERE SPENT ON SUBSCRIPTION AND SUM OF RS. 1 02 327/- WERE SPENT TOWARDS CLUB EXPENSES. OUT O F THE CLUB EXPENSES AMOUNTING TO RS. 1 02 327/- THE AO DISALLOWED THE SUM OF RS. 37 205/- WHICH WERE INCURRED OUTSIDE FARIDABAD. IT IS THUS CLEAR THAT THE AO HAS NOT DISALLOWED ANY EXPENSES ON ACCOUNT OF SUBSCRIPT ION GIVEN TO THE CLUB ITA NO. 1677/DEL/2009 PAGE 9 OF 10 AND THEREFORE THE CIT(A)S REASON IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 37 205/- ON THE GROUND THAT SUBSCRIPTION TO THE CLU B MEANT AND LAID OUT FOR THE BUSINESS PURPOSES IS MISCONCEIVED. THE CIT(A) HAS NOT APPLIED HIS MIND TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE. THE ISSUE WAS WHETH ER THE SUM OF RS. 37 205/- AND NOT WHETHER ANY SUBSCRIPTION PAID TO CLUB HAVE BEEN INCURRED FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESSES. THE ASSESS EE HAS NOT GIVEN ANY DETAIL ABOUT THE EXPENSES TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 37 2 05/- TO ESTABLISH WHETHER THEY WERE INCURRED BY ANY PERSONNEL OF COMP ANY IN THE COURSE OF DISCHARGING THEIR OFFICIAL DUTIES. WE THEREFORE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND RESTORE THAT OF THE AO. IN OTHER WORDS THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 37 205/- MADE BY THE AO IS RESTORED AND THUS UP HELD. THUS THIS GROUND NO. 5 RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS ALLOWED. 21. LAST GROUND NO. 6 IS AGAINST THE CIT(A)S ORDER IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 1 71 224/- ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWAN CE U/S. 40(A)(IA) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 (THE ACT). 22. IN THE GROUND IT HAS BEEN STATED BY THE REVENU E THAT THE AFORESAID AMOUNT WAS OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE ITSELF FOR DISAL LOWANCE VIDE LETTER DATED 24.10.2007 AND 23.11.2007. HOWEVER THE CIT( A) HAS DELETED THIS ADDITION BY OBSERVING THAT THE PAYMENT TOWARDS PERS ONAL SERVICES WAS NOT TAXABLE IN INDIA BUT WAS TAXABLE ONLY IN SPAIN AND THEREFORE THERE WAS NO LIABILITY UPON THE ASSESSEE TO DEDUCT THE TAX AT S OURCE. WHILE HOLDING SO THE CIT(A) HAS REFERRED TO THE PROVISIONS OF DTAA B ETWEEN INDIA AND ITA NO. 1677/DEL/2009 PAGE 10 OF 10 SPAIN. ALL THESE DELIBERATIONS WERE NOT MADE BEFORE THE AO. BEFORE THE AO THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF STATED THAT THE PAYMENT IS DISALLOWABLE AND ACCORDINGLY THE AO DISALLOWED THE SAME. IN THESE C IRCUMSTANCES WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE MATTER SHOULD GO BACK TO THE A O FOR HIS EXAMINATION AND VERIFICATION AND FOR ASCERTAINING AS TO WHETHER THE PAYMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE TO NON-RESIDENT IS SUBJECT TO TAX DEDU CTIBLE AT SOURCE U/S. 195 READ WITH 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT. THE AO SHALL PROVI DE REASONABLE OPPORTUNITIES OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. WE O RDER ACCORDINGLY. 23. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS PARTLY ALLOWED IN THE MANNER AS INDICATED ABOVE. 24. THIS DECISION WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE HEARING WAS OVER ON 25 TH FEBRUARY 2010. SD/- (SHAMIM YAHYA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SD/- (C.L. SETHI) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 25 TH FEBRUARY 2010 *NITASHA COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR ITAT NEW DELHI. BY ORDER DEPUTY REGISTRAR