M/s. Supreme Polupropolene (P) Ltd, New Delhi v. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 4622/DEL/2009 | 2001-2002
Pronouncement Date: 28-02-2010 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 462220114 RSA 2009
Assessee PAN UMBER3072W
Bench Delhi
Appeal Number ITA 4622/DEL/2009
Duration Of Justice 2 month(s) 20 day(s)
Appellant M/s. Supreme Polupropolene (P) Ltd, New Delhi
Respondent ITO, New Delhi
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 28-02-2010
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted G
Tribunal Order Date 28-02-2010
Assessment Year 2001-2002
Appeal Filed On 08-12-2009
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH G : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI J.P.BANSAL AND SHRI K.D.RANJAN ITA NO. 4622/DEL/2009 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2001-02 M/S SUPREME POLYPROPOLENE (P) LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS M/S SUPREME BUTTON MANUFACTURER PVT. LIMITED) E-35 301 SHRI GANESH COMPLEX JAWAHAR PARK LAXMI NAGAR DELHI- 1100092. VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 9(4) NEW DELHI. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI C.S.AGGARWAL ADVOCATE WITH SHRI GAUTAM JAIN ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI GAJANAND MEENA CIT DR ORDER PER K.D.RANJAN AM: THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 1-02 ARISES OUT OF ORDER OF LD. CIT(A)-XII NEW DELHI. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN AS MANY AS NINE GROUNDS O F APPEAL WHICH INTER ALIA INCLUDE GROUNDS IN RESPECT OF ASSUMPTION OF J URISDICTION UNDER SECTION 147 OF THE ACT. 3. THE FACTS OF THE CASE STATED IN BRIEF ARE THAT ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING LOSS OF RS. 11 481/- WAS FILED ON 29/10/2 001. THE ASSESSING 2 OFFICER COMPLETED ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) ON 19/3/200 4. THEREAFTER THE ASSESSING OFFICER RECEIVED INFORMATION FROM THE OFF ICE OF DIRECTOR GENERAL INVESTIGATION TO THE EFFECT THAT ASSESSEE COMPANY W AS ONE AMONG ENTRY OPERATORS WHO HAD GIVEN ENTRIES TO VARIOUS BENEFICI ARIES. THE REPORT CONTAINED DETAILS OF AMOUNT TAKEN BY THE BENEFICIAR IES FROM ENTRY OPERATORS ALONG WITH DETAILS REGARDING THE MODUS OPERANDI OF THE BENEFICIARIES AND THE ENTRY OPERATORS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER RECORD ING REASONS REOPENED ASSESSMENT U/S 147 BY ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S 148 DATED 31/3/2008 WHICH WAS SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE. 4. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE COURSE OF ASSES SMENT PROCEEDINGS NOTED THAT ASSESSEE WAS ONE OF THE CLOSE ASSOCIATES OF LATE SHRI SANJAY MOHAN AGGARWAL. DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2000-01 THE ASSESSEE COMPANY INTRODUCED FRESH SHARE CAPITAL AMOUNTING TO RS. 4 9 5 00 000/-. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO FURNISH NECESSARY DETAILS AND CONFIRMA TION IN RESPECT OF SHARE CAPITAL INTRODUCED AND OTHER NECESSARY DETAILS INCL UDING NARRATION OF BANK STATEMENT. THE ASSESSEE FILED A CERTIFIED COPY OF B ANK STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT NO.3072 IN THE NAME OF ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFI CER FROM COPY OF THE BANK STATEMENT NOTED THAT ALL CREDIT ENTRIES WERE T RANSFERRED FROM THE ACCOUNTS OPERATED BY SHRI SANJAY MOHAN AGGARWAL. DU RING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS PHOTOCOPIES OF CONFIRMATION IN RESPECT OF SHARE CAPITAL INTRODUCED DURING THE YEAR WERE FILED BUT T HE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PRODUCE THE CONCERNED PERSONS. SINCE THE ASSESSEE D ID NOT PRODUCE THE PERSONS THE ASSESSING OFFICER CAME TO THE CONCLUSI ON THAT ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF TRANSACTION OF S HARE CAPITAL INTRODUCED TO THE EXTENT OF RS.4 95 00 000/-. THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER ADDED THE AMOUNT OF RS.4 95 00 000/-. HE ALSO ADDED THE AMOUNT OF RS.3 59 400/- ON ACCOUNT OF COMMISSION AS UNDISCLOSED COMMISSION INCOME. 3 5. DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION U/S 147. HOWEVER TH E LD. CIT(A) HELD THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS IN POSSESSION OF EXACT BANK A CCOUNT NAME AND ADDRESS OF BANK ACCOUNT HOLDER EXACT NAME OF ASSOC IATED COMPANY OPERATED BY SHRI SANJAY MOHAN AGGARWAL. THEREFORE CONTENTIO N OF ASSESSEE THAT NO PROCEEDING COULD BE INITIATED AS THERE WAS NO FAILU RE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO DISCLOSE FULLY AND TRULY ALL MATERIAL F ACTS DID NOT HOLD ANY SUBSTANCE. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS NO FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO DISCLOSE FULLY AND TRULY ALL MATERIAL F ACTS NECESSARY FOR MAKING ASSESSMENT. HOWEVER THIS CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSE E WAS REJECTED BY THE LD. CIT(A) ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD FOLLOWED ALL DUE PROCEDURE AND INITIATED PROCEEDINGS ONLY AFTER HE C AME ACROSS INFORMATION ON THE BASIS OF WHICH HE FORMED A BELIEF THAT INCOM E CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAD ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. SHE ACCORDINGLY UPHELD THE REOP ENING OF ASSESSMENT U/S 147 OF THE ACT. 6. BEFORE US THE LD. A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTE D THAT ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT WAS MADE U/S 143(3) ON 19/3/2004. THE AS SESSING OFFICER ISSUED NOTICE U/S 148 ON 31/3/2008. IN OTHER WORDS NOTICE U/S 148 WAS ISSUED JUST ON THE DAY WHEN THE TIME LIMIT FOR ISSUE OF NOTICE OF SIX YEARS WAS GOING TO EXPIRE. SINCE THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT WAS MADE U/S 143(3) THE ASSESSEES CASE FELL IN PROVISO TO SEC.147. THEREFORE THE ASS ESSING OFFICER SHOULD HAVE MATERIAL TO REOPEN THE ASSESSMENT U/S 147. HE FURTH ER SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE HAS DISCLOSED ALL NECESSARY FACTS AND MATERIAL AND THERE WAS NO FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO DISCLOSE MATERIAL FACTS NEC ESSARY FOR MAKING ASSESSMENT AND HENCE NOTICE HAS BEEN ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITHOUT ANY MATERIAL IN HIS POSSESSION. THE LD. A.R . OF THE ASSESSEE FURTHER 4 SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE RECORDIN G REASONS FOR REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT HAS NOT APPLIED HER MIND. THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER WHILE RECORDING THE REASONS FOR REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT H AS NOT MENTIONED THAT THERE WAS A FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO DISCLOSE FULLY AND TRULY NECESSARY MATERIAL FOR COMPLETION OF ASSESSMENT. TH EREFORE THE ASSESSMENT FRAMED U/S 143(3)/147 IS BAD IN LAW. HE PLACED RELI ANCE ON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS: 1. HARYANA ACRYLIC MANUFACTURING CO. LTD. V. CIT 3 08 ITR 38 (DEL.) 2. CIT V. WEL INTERADE PVT. LTD. 308 ITR 22 (DEL.) 3. M/S JSRS UDYOG LTD. V. CIT 313 ITR 321(DEL) 4. CIT V. INTERCONTINENTAL TRADING & INVESTMENT CO. LTD. 165 TAXMAN 82 (DEL) HE HAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE RECORDING REASONS HAS MENTIONED THAT THE INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT AS PER PROVISION OF SEC. 147(A) (B) AND (C) OF THE IN COME-TAX ACT 1961. HE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO SECTION IN THE STATUTE NAMELY SEC. 147(A) (B) AND (C) OF THE INCOME -TAX ACT. THEREFORE THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER HAD NOT APPLIED HER MIND WHILE REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS NO BASIS WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ASSUME T HAT INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE EXCEEDING RS.1 LAC HAD ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. THEREFORE REASONS RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ARE HIGHLY VAGUE AND ARE BASED ON NO MATERIAL AND HENCE CANNOT CONFER JURISDICTION ON T HE ASSESSING OFFICER IN VIEW OF DECISION IN THE CASE OF MOHINDER SINGH MALI K V. CCIT 267 ITR 716 (P&H). IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT ALLEGATION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED COMMISSION IN CASH IS NOT BAS ED ON MATERIAL. THIS ALLEGATION IS HIGHLY HYPOTHETICAL AND IS BASED ON N ON-EXISTENT FACT. SINCE THERE WAS NO MATERIAL TO SUPPORT THIS ALLEGATION T HE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD NO 5 JURISDICTION TO INITIATE PROCEEDINGS U/S 147 OF THE ACT. THE LD. A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE RELYING ON VARIOUS DECISIONS SUBMITTED THA T THERE WAS NO WHISPER OF ALLEGATION THAT INCOME HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT BY RE ASON OF FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO DISCLOSE FULLY AND TRULY AL L MATERIAL FACTS NECESSARY FOR HIS ASSESSMENT. ABSENCE OF THIS FINDING WHICH IS A SINCE QUA NON FOR ASSUMING JURISDICTION U/S 147 OF THE ACT IN A CASE FALLING UNDER THE PROVISO THERETO MAKING THE ACTION TAKEN BY THE ASSESSING O FFICER WHOLLY WITHOUT JURISDICTION. 7. LD. A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE THEREFORE SUBMITTED T HAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD NO MATERIAL IN HIS POSSESSION TO SUGGES T THAT THERE WAS FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO DISCLOSE FULLY AND TRUL Y ALL MATERIAL NECESSARY FOR HIS ASSESSMENT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD ALSO NOT APPLIED HER MIND WHILE INITIATING THE PROCEEDINGS. LD. A.R. OF THE ASSESSE E ALSO PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CAS E OF CIT V. RAINEE SINGH IN ITA NO.566/2009 DATED 20/8/2009 WHEREIN ASSESSME NT HAS BEEN QUASHED ON THE GROUND THAT THERE WAS NO BASIS FOR INITIATIN G PROCEEDINGS U/S 147 AND REOPENING WAS MADE ON VAGUE GROUNDS. 8. ON THE OTHER HAND LD. CIT DR SUPPORTED THE ORDE R OF LD. CIT(A). 9. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND GONE THROUGH THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IN THE INSTANT CASE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT WAS MADE U/S 143(3) ON 19/3/2004. THE ASSESSING OFFICER REOPENED ASSESSMENT U/S 147 BY RECORDING FOLLOWING REASONS: ADDL. DIRECTOR OF INVESTIGATION VI NEW DELHI HAD SENT A LIST CONTAINING THE DETAILS OF TRANSACTIONS AND PARTICUL ARS OF BENEFICIARIES AND OPERATORS OF ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES IN DELHI. A PERUSAL OF THE LIST SHOWS THAT M/S SUPREME BUTTONS MANUFACTURER PVT. LT D. WHOSE 6 JURISDICTION LIES WITH THE UNDERSIGNED HAS PROVIDED A HUGE NUMBER OF ENTRIES TO OTHER BENEFIARIES FROM ITS ACCOUNT NUMBE R 3072 WITH VIJAYA BANK ANSARI ROAD DARYAGANJ DELHI. THIS COMPANY I S AN ASSOCIATE OF SH. SANJAY MOHAN AGGARWAL WHO AS PER THE DIT (IN V.) REPORT IS THE OLDEST AND MOST SAVVY ENTRY OPERATOR OF DELHI. THE AMOUNT OF ENTRIES GIVEN RUNS INTO CRORES OF RUPEES. THESE ENT RIES IN THE BANK ACCOUNT REPRESENT UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AGAINST WHICH CHEQUES HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO BENEFICIARIES AFTER CHARGING COMMISSION FROM THEM. THE COMMISSION INCOME RECEIVED IN CASH IS NOT DECLARED ACCOUNTED F OR IN THE RETURNS OF INCOME. THE QUANTUM OF COMMISSION INCOME ESCAPIN G ASSESSMENT THOUGH WILL FINALLY BE DETERMINED AFTER ANALYSIS OF COMPLETE STATEMENTS OF THE BANK ACCOUNTS OF THE COMPANY IS CERTAINLY BELIEVED TO BE MORE THAN RS.1 LAKHS BECAUSE AS PER THE DIT(INV.) REPORT THE AMOUNT OF ENTRIES GIVEN RUNS INTO SEVER AL CRORES OF RUPEES DURING THE F.Y. 2000-01 RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE CREDIBLE INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM THE DIT(INV.) I HAVE REASONS TO BELIEVE THAT THE INCOM E OF MY ASSESSEE WHO STANDS AS A BENEFICIARY FROM THE ENTRY PROVIDER WHICH IS CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT PER THE PR OVISIONS OF SECTION 147(A) (B) & (C ) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961. I AM THEREFORE SATISFIED THAT THE SAID INCOME ON ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES AS MENTIONED ABOVE HAS ESCAPE D ASSESSMENT AND ACCORDINGLY AFTER RECORDING THE ABOVE SAID REAS ONS AS LAID DOWN UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 148(2) OF THE INCOM E TAX ACT PROPOSE TO ISSUE A NOTICE TO THE ABOVE MENTIONED ASSESSEE U /S 148(1) OF THE I.T.ACT 1961. 10. IN THE INSTANT CASE THE INCOME WAS FIRST ASSES SABLE IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02 AND THEREFORE THE ASSESSMENT COULD H AVE BEEN REOPENED UPTO 31/3/2006 UNDER THE MAIN PROVISIONS OF SEC. 147. HO WEVER FOR REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT BEYOND THE PERIOD OF FOUR YEARS THE PROVISO TO SEC.147 IS PRESSED INTO OPERATION ACCORDING TO WHICH THERE SHO ULD BE FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO DISCLOSE ALL MATERIAL FACTS NECE SSARY FOR HIS ASSESSMENT. IN THE INSTANT CASE AS POINTED OUT BY LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THE 7 ASSESSING OFFICER HAD CALLED FOR THE INFORMATION VI DE HIS LETTER DATED 20/12/2002 INCLUDING THE SHARE CAPITAL INTRODUCED B Y THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN REPLY VIDE HIS LETTER DATED 16/1 /2003. THEREFORE THE ENTIRE INFORMATION WAS AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICE R WHEN ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT WAS MADE ON 19/3/2004. THE ASSESSING OFF ICER ON RECEIPT OF INFORMATION FROM INVESTIGATION WING HAD RECORDED RE ASONS FOR REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT. FROM THE REASONS RECORDED AS REPRODUCED ABOVE ONE MAY FIND THAT IT DOES NOT CONTAIN ANY INFORMATION BASED ON W HICH IT COULD BE SAID THAT THERE WAS A FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO DISCLOSE FULLY AND TRULY MATERIAL FACTS NECESSARY FOR HIS ASSESSMENT. IN THE ABSENCE OF RECORDING SUCH FACTS THE REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT IS BAD IN LAW. H ONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF HARYANA ACRYLIC MANUFACTURING CO. (P ) LTD. V. CIT (SUPRA) HAS HELD THAT WHERE THERE WAS NO WHISPER WHAT TO SP EAK OF ANY ALLEGATION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO DISCLOSE FULLY AND TRULY ALL MATERIAL FACTS NECESSARY FOR HIS ASSESSMENT AND THAT BECAUSE OF TH IS FAILURE THERE HAD BEEN AN ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX. MERELY H AVING A REASON TO BELIEVE THAT INCOME HAD ESCAPED ASSESSMENT IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO REOPEN THE ASSESSMENT BEYOND FOUR YEARS PERIOD. THE ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME FROM ASSESSMENT MUST ALSO BE CONSIDERED BY THE FAILURE O N THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO DISCLOSE MATERIAL FACTS FULLY AND TRULY. THIS IS A NECESSARY CONDITION FOR OVERCOMING THE BAR SET UP BY THE PROVISO TO SEC. 14 7. HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT HAS HELD THAT IF THIS CONDITION IS NOT SATISF IED THE BAR WOULD OPERATE AND NO ACTION U/S 147 COULD BE TAKEN. SIMILAR VIEW HAS BEEN TAKEN BY THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. WEL INTERTRADE PRIVATE LTD. (SUPRA). THEREFORE IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY RECORDING OF REASONS THAT THERE WAS FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO DISCLOSE FUL LY AND NECESSARY FACTS FOR HIS ASSESSMENT THE ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION IS BAD I N LAW. MOREOVER THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RECORDED REASONS WITHOUT GIVI NG ANY AMOUNT OF 8 INCOME ESCAPED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ASSUMED T HAT INCOME BY WAY OF COMMISSION MUST HAVE EXCEEDED RS.1 LAC WHICH HAS NO T BEEN DISCLOSED. THE REASONS RECORDED ARE VAGUE. MOREOVER THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD ALSO STATED IN THE REASONS RECORDED THAT COMMISSION INCOME HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT WITHIN THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 147(A) (B) AND (C) O F THE ACT. WITH EFFECT FROM 01-4-1989 THERE IS NO PROVISION IN THE INCOME-TAX ACT AS IN SEC. 147(A) OR 147(B). HOWEVER EXPLANATION 2 TO SEC. 147 SPECIFIE S THE CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX SHALL BE DEEMED TO H AVE ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. IN THE INSTANT CASE THE ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED U/S 143(3) THEREFORE IF AT ALL CLAUSE (C) OF EXPLANATION 2 W ILL BE APPLICABLE ACCORDING TO WHICH THE INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX SHALL BE DEEMED TO HAVE ESCAPED ASSESSMENT IF INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAS BEEN UND ERASSESSED; OR SUCH INCOME HAS BEEN ASSESSED AT A LOW RATE; OR SUCH INC OME HAS BEEN MADE SUBJECT TO EXCESSIVE RELIEF UNDER THIS ACT; OR EXCE SSIVE LOSS/DEPRECIATION ALLOWANCE OR ANY OTHER ALLOWANCE UNDER THIS ACT HAS BEEN COMPUTED. NO SUCH CASE HAS BEEN MADE OUT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICE R WHILE RECORDING OF REASONS FOR REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT. HENCE THE REC ORDING OF REASON THAT INCOME HAS ESCAPED U/S 147(A) (B) AND (C) AMOUNTS TO NON-APPLICATION OF MIND ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 11. IN VIEW OF ABOVE FACTS WE ARE OF THE OPINION T HAT ASSESSING OFFICER HAS FAILED TO RECORD REASONS THAT THERE WAS FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO DISCLOSE FULLY AND TRULY ALL NECESSARY FACTS FOR COMPLETION OF HIS ASSESSMENT. THE REASONS RECORDED ARE VAGUE IN NATUR E. THEREFORE IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION THE REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT IS BAD IN LAW IN VIEW OF DECISION OF HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF HARYANA ACRYLIC MANUFACTURING CO. (P) LTD. (SUPRA) AND OTHER DECISI ONS RELIED UPON BY THE LD. A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE AS THERE IS NO WHISPER OR ALLE GATION THAT THERE HAS BEEN 9 FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO DISCLOSE FUL LY AND TRULY ALL MATERIAL FACTS NECESSARY FOR HIS ASSESSMENT. ACCORDINGLY THE ASSE SSMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS ANNULLED. 12. SINCE WE HAVE ANNULLED THE ASSESSMENT ON ASSUM PTION OF JURISDICTION WE DO NOT FEEL IT NECESSARY TO DISPOSE OF OTHER GRO UNDS ON MERITS. 13. IN THE RESULT APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 28 TH FEBRUARY 2010. SD/- SD/- ( I.P.BANSAL) ( K.D.RANJAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 28.02.2010. PSP COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR ITAT DEPUTY REGISTRAR