Lovlesh Jain, New Delhi v. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 4724/DEL/2009 | 2004-2005
Pronouncement Date: 19-02-2010 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 472420114 RSA 2009
Bench Delhi
Appeal Number ITA 4724/DEL/2009
Duration Of Justice 2 month(s) 4 day(s)
Appellant Lovlesh Jain, New Delhi
Respondent ACIT, New Delhi
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 19-02-2010
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted D
Tribunal Order Date 19-02-2010
Date Of Final Hearing 15-02-2010
Next Hearing Date 15-02-2010
Assessment Year 2004-2005
Appeal Filed On 15-12-2009
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH D: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI C.L. SETHI JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOS. 4723 & 4724/DEL/2009 ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2003-04 & 2004-05 LOVLESH JAIN C-1/3 MODEL TOWN NEW DELHI-110009. VS. ACIT CIRCLE 20(1) NEW DELHI. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI AJAY VOHRA & SHRI ROHIT JAIN ADV. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI ANOOP KUMAR SINGH SR. D.R . O R D E R PER: C.L. SETHI J.M. THESE TWO APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIR ECTED AGAINST TWO SEPARATE ORDERS BOTH DATED 01.10.2009 PASSED BY THE LD. CI T(A) IN THE MATTER OF AN ASSESSMENT MADE BY THE A.O. U/S 143(3)/147 OF THE I NCOME TAX ACT 1961 (THE ACT) PERTAINING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2003-04 AN D 2004-05. 2. IN THESE TWO APPEALS THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED ON E PRELIMINARY ISSUE CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY OF ASSESSMENT MADE BY THE A.O. U/S 143(3) READ WITH SECTION 147 OF THE ACT. THE GROUNDS ON THIS ISSUE T AKEN IN BOTH THE YEARS ARE IDENTICAL WHICH ARE BEING REPRODUCED AS UNDER:- 1. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE VALIDITY OF THE ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) READ WITH SECTION 147 O F THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 (THE ACT) WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT THE ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER WAS BEYOND JURISDICTION BAD IN LAW AND VOI D-AB-INITIO. ITA NOS. 4723 & 4724/DEL/2009 2 1.1 THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT NO NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 WAS SERVED ON THE APPELLANT WHICH IS A CONDITION PRECEDENT TO ASSUME JURISDICTION. 1.2 THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT SINCE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 14 8 OF THE ACT WAS SENT BY SPEED POST AND WAS NOT RECEIVED BACK UNSERVED T HE SAME IS DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN SERVED ON THE APPELLANT. 1.3 THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE APPELLANT SWEARING ON OATH THAT NO NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT WAS EVER SER VED UPON HIM. 1.4 THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THAT THE ASSESSMENT PROCE EDINGS UNDER SECTION 147 OF THE ACT WERE INITIATED BY THE ASSESSING OFFI CER WITHOUT THERE BEING ANY FRESH MATERIAL/ INFORMATION COMING TO HIS POSSESSION. 3. IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 THE ASSESSEE FIL ED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 29.05.2003 SHOWING TOTAL INCOME AT RS. 1 20 436/- R OUNDED OFF TO RS. 1 20 440/-. THE RETURN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS PROCESSED U/S 143(1) ON 18.11.2003. NO REGULAR ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) WAS MADE WITHIN THE P RESCRIBED TIME. THEREAFTER THE A.O. HAD ISSUED NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT ON 16 .01.2008 AFTER RECORDING THE REASONS BY ENTERTAINING A BELIEF THAT INCOME HAD ES CAPED ASSESSMENT. THE REASON RECORDED BY THE A.O. WAS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD WRON GLY CLAIMED EXEMPTION U/S 10A IN RESPECT OF INTEREST INCOME OF RS. 12 30 660/ - RECEIVED ON FDRS. IN THE COURSE OF REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE REASONS REC ORDED BY THE A.O. FOR ISSUING NOTICE U/S 148 WERE PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE ON HIS REQUEST. THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED BEFORE THE A.O. THAT NOTICE ISSUED U/S 14 8 HAS NOT BEEN RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER THE A.O. STATED THAT NOTICE U/S 148 WAS ISSUED AND SENT BY SPEED POST FROM INDRAPRASTHA HEAD POST OFFICE ON 18 .01.2008. THE A.O. HAS MENTIONED THE RECEIPT NUMBER ISSUED BY THE POST OFF ICE. THE A.O. FURTHER STATED THAT THE EVIDENCE OF DISPATCHING THE NOTICE BY SPEE D POST IS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. ITA NOS. 4723 & 4724/DEL/2009 3 THE A.O. FURTHER STATED THAT THE NOTICE SENT BY SPE ED POST HAS NOT BEEN RECEIVED BACK UNSERVED AND AS SUCH IT IS PRESUMED THAT NOTIC E HAS BEEN DULY RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE A.O. FURTHER STATED THAT ANOTHER NOTICE U/S 142(1) WAS ALSO ISSUED AND DISPATCHED THROUGH SPEED POST AND IN RES PONSE TO WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS ATTENDED THE PROCEEDINGS ON THE GIVEN DATE. TH E A.O. FURTHER MENTIONED THAT THE ADDRESS GIVEN IN THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 148 AND THE ADDRESS GIVEN IN THE NOTICE U/S 142(1) ARE ONE AND THE SAME. THE A.O. THEREFO RE TAKEN A VIEW THAT WHEN NOTICE U/S 142(1) HAS BEEN SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE AT THE SAME ADDRESS THERE WAS NO QUESTION OF NOT RECEIVING THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 148 AT THE SAME ADDRESS. THE A.O. FURTHER STATED THAT THIS OBJECTION RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT RAISED ON THE FIRST TWO DATES OF HEARINGS HELD ON 12.12.20 08 AND 22.12.2008 BUT ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THIS OBJECTION ONLY ON 29.12.2008. THE A.O. THEREFORE REJECTED THE ASSESSEES CONTENTION THAT NOTICE U/S 148 WAS NOT S ERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE. 4. SIMILARLY IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 NO RE GULAR ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) WAS MADE ON 16.01.2008. THE A.O. HAD ISSUED U/S 148 OF THE ACT AFTER ENTERTAINING A BELIEF THAT ASSESSEE HAD WRONGLY CLA IMED EXEMPTION U/S 10A IN RESPECT OF INTEREST INCOME OF RS. 36 68 802/- RECEI VED ON FDR. IN THIS ASSESSMENT YEAR ALSO THE NOTICE U/S 148 WAS ISSUED AND SENT BY SPEED POST ON 18.01.2008 AND A.O. RAISED A PRESUMPTION THAT THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 148 HAS BEEN PROPERLY SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE AS THE SAME HAS NOT BEEN RETURNED UNSERVED. THE A.O. ALSO MENTIONED THAT WHEN NOTICE U/S 142(1) ISSUED AND SENT BY SPEED POST AT THE SAME ADDRESS HAS BEEN SERVED U PON THE ASSESSEE IT IS NOT ITA NOS. 4723 & 4724/DEL/2009 4 UNDERSTOOD AS TO HOW THE NOTICE SENT BY SPEED POST AT THE SAME ADDRESS HAS NOT BEEN SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ALSO UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE A.O. ON THIS ISSUE AS SO WAS DONE BY HIM IN ASSESSM ENT YEAR 2003-04. 5. ON AN APPEAL THE LD. CIT AGREED WITH THE A.O. B Y OBSERVING AND HOLDING AS UNDER:- 6. CONCERNING GROUND NO. 1 & 2 ON NON SERVICE OF N OTICE U/S 148 AND CONSEQUENTIAL ILLEGAL AND VOID ASSESSMENT U/S 147 IT IS FOUND FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT NOTICE U/S 148 WAS ISSUED BY SPEED POST FORM INDRAPRASTHA HEAD POST OFFICE VIDE NO. SP-ED3932108 381N COUNTER NO. 5 OP-CODE: AJAY ON 18.01.2008 AND THE NOTICE HA S NOT BEEN RECEIVED BACK UNSERVED. IT HAS BEEN HELD IN CIT VS. MADHSY FILMS PVT. LTD. (2008) 301 ITR 69 THAT SERVICE BY SPEED POST IS VALID. IF NOT RECEIVED BACK IT IS DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN SERVED ON THE APPELLANT WITHIN 2-3 DAYS BY VIRTUE OF PRESUMPTION U/S 27 OF GENERAL CLAUSES ACT 1987. D URING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE APPELLANT ATTENDED TWO HEARINGS ON 12.12.2008 AND 22.12.2008 BEFORE THE A.O. BUT DID NOT BRING TO HIS NOTICE ON THESE TWO OCCASIONS THAT HE WAS NOT IN THE RECEIPT OF NOTICE U/S 147. THE APPELLANT DID ACKNOWLEDGE NOTICE U/S 142(1) BUT NOT TO THE NO TICE U/S 148 THOUGH BOTH WERE SENT THROUGH THE SPEED POST AND THAT TO A T THE SAME ADDRESS. THE PLEA OF NON SERVICE OF NOTICE MAY PERHAPS BE TA KEN TO COVER THE DEFAULT OF NON FILING OF RETURN WITHIN 30 DAYS OF S ERVICE OF NOTICE. THE APPELLANT IS OVER EMPHASIZING THAT THE NOTICE WAS N OT SENT BY REGISTERED POST AS ENVISAGED IN SECTION 27 OF GENERAL CLAUSES ACT 1897. THE SPEED POST HAS EVOLVED AS A FASTER MODE OF POSTAL COMMUNI CATION IN LAST 25 YEARS. THIS COULD NOT HAVE BEEN INCORPORATED IN TH E GENERAL CLAUSES ACT OF 1897. HAD THERE BEEN ANY AMENDMENT TO THIS SECT ION OF THE ACT I AM OF THE VIEW THAT SPEED POST WOULD DEFINITELY FIND P REFERENCE OVER THE CUSTOMARY REGISTERED POST BECAUSE OF QUICKER SERVIC E WITH CERTAINTY. I THEREFORE HELD THAT NOTICE U/S 148 WAS ISSUED AND SERVED ON THE APPELLANT AND THE ABOVE TWO GROUNDS ARE REJECTED. 6. HENCE THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 7. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED T HAT NOTICE U/S 148 PURPORTEDLY ISSUED BY SPEED POST HAS NOT BEEN RECEI VED BY THE ASSESSEE AND ASSESSEE HAS RAISED AN OBJECTION BEFORE THE A.O. H E FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ITA NOS. 4723 & 4724/DEL/2009 5 PRESUMPTION AVAILABLE U/S 27 OF THE GENERAL CLAUSES ACT 1997 IS REBUTTABLE ONE AND WHEN ASSESSEE OBJECTED TO THE SERVICE OF THE NO TICE ISSUED U/S 148 OF THE ACT IT WAS INCUMBENT UPON THE A.O. TO PROVE AND ESTABLI SH THAT THE NOTICE HAS ACTUALLY BEEN SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE INSTEAD OF DRAWING PR ESUMPTION U/S 27 OF THE GENERAL CLAUSES ACT. HE THEREFORE SUBMITTED THAT THE WHOLE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED U/S 147 AND CONSEQUENTLY THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S 147 OF THE ACT IS FIT TO BE CANCELLED INASMUCH AS THE VERY RE QUIREMENT OF SERVICE OF NOTICE U/S 148 HAS NOT BEEN SATISFIED IN THE PRESENT CASE. 8. THE LD. D.R. ON THE OTHER HAND HAS REITERATED THE OBSERVATIONS AND DISCUSSIONS MADE BY THE A.O. AS WELL AS BY THE LD. CIT(A) IN REJECTING THE ASSESSEES CLAIM. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT ASSESS EE RAISED THE OBJECTION IN WRITING AT THE FAG END OF THE LIMITATION PERIOD OF COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT JUST TO COVER UP THE ASSESSEES DEFAULT OF NOT FILING TH E RETURN OF INCOME U/S 148 WITHIN 30 DAYS OF SERVICE OF NOTICE AND TO AVOID THE PAYME NT OF JUST TAXES BY TAKING THE UNTENABLE TECHNICAL PLEA OF SERVICE OF NOTICE U/S 1 48 UPON THE ASSESSEE. IN THIS CONNECTION THE LD. D.R. INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO T HE ASSESSEES LETTER DATED 29.12.2008 WHERE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED AN OBJECTION T HAT NOTICE ISSUED U/S 148 HAS NOT BEEN SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE WHICH WAS FILED AT THE FAG-END OF THE LIMITATION PERIOD OF COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT BEIN G EXPIRED ON 31.12.2008. 9. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND HAVE CAREFULL Y GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. ITA NOS. 4723 & 4724/DEL/2009 6 10. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE NOTICE U/S 148 HA S BEEN ISSUED AND SENT BY SPEED POST ON 18.01.2008 IN BOTH THE ASSESSMENT YEARS AT THE ADDRESS OF THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED AN OBJECTION THAT N OTICE ALLEGEDLY SENT BY SPEED POST HAS NOT BEEN SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE AND IN SUPPORT OF THE ASSESSEES OBJECTION THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED TWO SEPARATE AFFI DAVITS BOTH DATED 05.05.2009 IN BOTH THE ASSESSMENT YEARS I.E. 2003-04 AND 2004-05 STATING AS UNDER:- (SINCE BOTH THE AFFIDAVITS ARE OF IDENTICAL NATURE WITH ONLY DI FFERENCE IN THE TWO AFFIDAVITS WITH REGARD TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR AND OTHER FACTS REMAINING SAME AND IDENTICAL THE APPELLANT FILED IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 IS B EING REPRODUCED):- AFFIDAVIT I LOVLESH JAIN S/O LATE SHRI MADAN LAL JAIN R/ O C-1/3 MODEL TOWN DELHI-110009 DO HEREBY SOLEMNLY AFFIRM AND DECLARE AS UNDER:- 1. THAT THIS AFFIDAVIT IS BEING FILED IN CONNECTION WITH APPEAL PREFERRED BY ME AGAINST INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) XXII NEW DELHI. 2. THAT INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YE AR 2003-04 WAS COMPLETED BY ACIT CIRCLE 20(1) NEW DELHI (HEREINA FTER REFERRED TO AS THE ASSESSING OFFICER) VIDE ORDER DATED 30 TH DECEMBER 2008 UNDER SECTION 143(3)/ 147 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 19 61 (THE ACT). 3. THAT NOTICE DATED 18 TH JANUARY 2008 UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT PURPORTEDLY ISSUED BY THE ACIT CIRCLE 20(1) NEW D ELHI WAS NEVER SERVED ON ME; 4. THAT ONLY ON RECEIPT OF THE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 142(1) DATED 5 TH DECEMBER 2008 DID I COME TO KNOW THAT SOME PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 147 OF THE ACT HAVE BEEN INITIATED IN MY CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-03. PLACE : NEW DELHI DATED: 05.05.2009 ITA NOS. 4723 & 4724/DEL/2009 7 SD/- DEPONENT (LOVLESH JAIN) 11. IN THESE TWO ASSESSMENT YEARS THE ASSESSMENT W AS COMPLETED U/S 143(3) READ WITH SECTION 47 OF THE ACT ON 30.12.2008. BEF ORE THE A.O. THE ASSESSEE FILED HIS LETTER DATED 29.12.2008 DENYING THE SERVI CES OF NOTICE ISSUED U/S 148 UPON HIM. THE A.O. HAS DRAWN PRESUMPTION U/S 27 OF THE GENERAL CLAUSES ACT ABOUT THE SERVICE OF NOTICE UPON THE ASSESSEE AS TH E NOTICE SENT BY SPEED POST DID NOT RECEIVE BACK UNSERVED. THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DATED 05.05.2009 WHICH MAKES IT CLEAR THAT THESE AFFIDAV ITS OF THE ASSESSEE WERE NOT FILED BEFORE THE A.O. AS THE ASSESSMENT WAS ALREADY COMPLETED BY THE A.O. ON 30.12.2008. THE COPIES OF THE AFFIDAVIT ARE PLACED AT PAGES 19 AND 18 OF THE PAPER BOOKS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 AND 2004-05 RESPECTIVELY. IT IS THEREFORE CLEAR THAT THIS AF FIDAVIT WAS NOT FILED BEFORE THE A.O. IT IS ALSO NOT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT AFFIDA VIT WAS FILED BEFORE THE A.O. WHEN AFFIDAVIT WAS FILED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) THE LD. CIT(A) CALLED A REMAND REPORT FROM THE A.O. IN THE REMAND REPORT THE A.O . REITERATED THAT SINCE NOTICE SENT BY SPEED POST HAS NOT BEEN RETURNED UNSERVED I T SHALL BE PRESUMED THAT THE NOTICE HAVE BEEN DULY SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE. IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE OBJECTION IN WRITING WAS TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE VIDE LETTER DATED 29.12.2008. THE ASSESSMENT WAS GETTING TIME BARRED BY 30.12.2008. THEREFORE THERE WAS NO SUFFICIENT TIME AVAILABLE FOR THE A.O. TO MAKE ENQUIRY IN THE MATTER FROM THE POST OFFICE WHETHER THE NOTICE SENT BY SPE ED POST ON 18.01.2008 HAS ITA NOS. 4723 & 4724/DEL/2009 8 BEEN DULY DELIVERED TO THE ASSESSEE AT THE ADDRESS GIVEN IN THE LETTER. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED AN AFFIDAVIT ALLEGING THAT THE N OTICE DATED 18.01.2008 UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT PURPORTEDLY ISSUED BY THE A. O. BY SPEED POST WAS NEVER SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE IN THESE CIRCUM STANCES WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT A FURTHER ENQUIRY AND VERIFICA TION IS TO BE MADE IN THIS RESPECT. WE THEREFORE RESTORE THIS ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF THE A.O. FOR HIS FRESH DECISION AND FOR MAKING NECESSARY ENQUIRY AND VERIF ICATION IN THIS REGARD. THE A.O. SHALL MAKE SUCH ENQUIRY AND VERIFICATION FROM THE POSTAL AUTHORITY AS HE THINKS FIT AND PROPER. THE A.O. SHALL PROVIDE REAS ONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE TO HAVE HIS SAY IN RESPECT OF ANY MATERIAL OR INFORMATION THAT MAY BE GATHERED BY THE A.O. FROM POSTAL AUTHORITY. WE ORDER ACCORDINGLY. 12. SINCE THE VERY JURISDICTIONAL ISSUE ABOUT THE S ERVICE OF NOTICE U/S 148 UPON THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE A.O. FOR HIS FRESH VERIFICATION AND ADJUDICATION THE OTHER POINT RAIS ED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE VALIDITY OF ASSESSMENT MADE U/S 147 HAVE BECOME RED UNDANT AT THIS STAGE. HOWEVER THE ASSESSEE SHALL BE AT LIBERTY TO RAISE OTHER OBJECTIONS AND CONTENTIONS BEFORE THE A.O. ABOUT THE VALIDITY OF THE ASSESSMEN T MADE U/S 147 OF THE ACT. THE VARIOUS OTHER POINTS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE BEF ORE US ARE AS UNDER:- (I) THAT A.O. HAD NO MATERIAL TO ENTERTAIN A BELIEF THAT INCOME HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. (II) THAT BEFORE COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT U/S 147 READ WITH SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT THE A.O. HAS FAILED TO SERVE ANY NOTICE U/S 143(2) OF THE ACT. ITA NOS. 4723 & 4724/DEL/2009 9 13. THE OTHER GROUNDS WITH REGARD TO THE ASSESSEES CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 10A IN RESPECT OF THE INTEREST INCOME RECEIVED ON FDR S HALL ALSO BE FRESHLY CONSIDERED BY THE A.O. IN THE COURSE OF THE FRESH ASSESSMENT P ROCEEDINGS IN CASE THE A.O. TAX A VIEW THAT THE NOTICE U/S 148 HAS BEEN SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE AND THERE IS NO OTHER INFIRMITY OR ILLEGALITY IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS COMPLETED U/S 147 OF THE ACT BY THE A.O. THE ASSESSEE SHALL BE AT LI BERTY TO RAISE ALL HIS CONTENTIONS BEFORE THE A.O. WITH REGARD TO HIS CLAIM U/S 10A IN RESPECT OF INTEREST INCOME RECEIVED ON FDR. WE ORDER ACCORDINGLY. 14. IN THE RESULT BOTH THESE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE TREATED TO BE ALLOWED FOR A STATISTICAL PURPOSE. 15. THIS DECISION IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT O N 19 TH FEBRUARY 2010. SD/- SD/- (SHAMIM YAHYA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (C.L. SETHI) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 19 TH FEBRUARY 2010. MAMTA COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR ITAT NEW DELHI. BY ORDER DEPUTY REGISTRAR