The DCIT, 5(1), v. Shri Pradeep Patni,

ITSSA 78/IND/2002 | misc
Pronouncement Date: 24-02-2010 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 7822716 RSA 2002
Bench Indore
Appeal Number ITSSA 78/IND/2002
Duration Of Justice 7 year(s) 4 month(s) 1 day(s)
Appellant The DCIT, 5(1),
Respondent Shri Pradeep Patni,
Appeal Type Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
Pronouncement Date 24-02-2010
Appeal Filed By Department
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted DB
Tribunal Order Date 24-02-2010
Date Of Final Hearing 20-01-2010
Next Hearing Date 20-01-2010
Assessment Year misc
Appeal Filed On 23-10-2002
Judgment Text
1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH INDORE BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH AND SHRI V.K. GUPTA AM IT(SS)A NO.77 /IND/02 BLOCK PERIOD 1987-88 TO 29.1.1997 DY. COMMR. OF INCOMETAX 5(1) INDORE APPELLANT VS SHRI NALIN PATNI INDORE RESPONDENT IT(SS)A NO.78/IND/02 BLOCK PERIOD 1987-88 TO 29.1.1997 DY. COMMR. OF INCOMETAX 5(1) INDORE APPELLANT VS SHRI PRADEEP PATNI INDORE RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SMT. APARNA KARAN SR. DR RESPONDENT BY : SHRI M. SACHDEVA ADVOCATE 2 O R D E R PER BENCH BOTH THESE APPEALS ARE BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE O RDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) DATED 13.8.2002. FIRST WE SHALL TAKE UP APP EAL IN IT(SS) A NO. 77/IND/02 FOR THE ABOVE BLOCK PERIOD WHEREIN FOLLOW ING GROUNDS HAVE BEEN RAISED :- ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD.CIT(A) ERRED :- I) IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.12 26 000/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH. II) IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.1 LAKH MADE BY THE A O ON PROTECTIVE BASIS OUT OF VALUE OF JEWELLERY III) IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 2 93 824/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED FDRS. IV) IN DELETING ADDITION OF RS. 11 72 440/- MADE ON ACC OUNT OF SHARES V) IN DELETING ADDITION OF RS. 11 65 000/- MADE ON ACC OUNT OF PEAK CREDITS OF HUNDIES HELD BY THE ASSESSEE VI) IN DELETING RS. 13 15 736/- AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME O F THE ASSESSEE AS TOTAL INVESTMENT MADE IN IMMOVABLE PROPERTIES. 2. DURING HEARING WE HAVE HEARD THE LEARNED REPRES ENTATIVES OF BOTH THE SIDES PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON THE FILE A ND CONSIDERED THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THEM. THE LD. DR ALSO FILED REPORT FROM THE AO DATED 5.1.2010 STATING THAT THE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 5.2.1998 ADDRESSED TO CIT INDORE BY THE THEN ACIT (INV.) CIRCLE II(2) INDORE IS ENCLO SED AND THE COPY OF WARRANT (IN THE INSTANT CASE) A LETTER HAS BEEN SENT TO ADDITI ONAL DIT (INV.) INDORE TO SUPPLY DIRECTLY TO THE ADDITIONAL CIT ITAT INDORE AS THE SAME ARE NOT AVAILABLE ON RECORD. 3 3. AS REGARDS GROUND NO. (I) IT WAS ARGUED BY THE L EARNED SENIOR DR THAT THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DELET ING THE ADDITION OF RS.12 26 000/- MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH. OUR ATTENTION WAS INVITED TO CERTAIN PAGES OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. ON THE OTHE R HAND THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE STRONGLY DEFENDED THE IMPUGNED ORD ER BY CONTENDING THAT EVERYTHING WAS EXPLAINED. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUS ED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. BRIEF FACTS ARE THAT THE ASSES SEE DERIVES INCOME FROM THE BUSINESS OF FINANCE BROKER HOUSE PROPERTY AND ALSO HAVING AGRICULTURAL INCOME. A RAID WAS CONDUCTED AT THE PREMISES OF BROTHER OF THE ASSESSEE VIZ. SHRI PRADEEP KUMAR PATNI. SHRI PRADEEP KUMAR PATNI WAS A N INDIVIDUAL AT THE RELEVANT TIME AND WAS AN EMPLOYEE WITH BHARAT MODI GROUP OF INDUSTRIES (M/S MADHUMILAN SYNTHETICS LIMITED) IN THE CAPACITY OF L IAISON OFFICER. AS PER THE REVENUE DURING SEARCH UNEXPLAINED CASH OF RS. 18. 50 LAC WAS FOUND AND SEIZED. DETAILED INQUIRIES WERE MADE AND ULTIMATELY THE REP ORT WAS SOUGHT FROM THE AO AND ADIT(INV.) AND CONSEQUENT UPON SUCH REPORT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER RELEASED CASH OF RS.17 26 000/-. ADMITTEDLY IT WAS A CONSCIOUS DECISION BY THE LEARNED CIT AND ONLY CASH WORTH RS. 1 24 000/- REMA INED UNEXPLAINED. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THE LEARNED AO HIMSELF OBSERVED T HAT (AS REPRODUCED AT PAGE 5 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER) THE ASSESSEE IS BEING GIVE N THE BENEFIT OF DOUBT AND THE AMOUNT OF RS.1 24 000/- WAS CONSIDERED TO BE EX PLAINED AS BELONGING TO THE ASSESSEE AND HIS FAMILY MEMBERS. IN VIEW OF THESE F ACTS THE LEARNED CIT(A) 4 TREATED THE CASH AS EXPLAINED. EVEN BEFORE US NOTH ING CONTRARY WAS ADDUCED ON THE BASIS OF WHICH WE COULD REACH TO A DIFFERENT CO NCLUSION. WE THEREFORE UPHOLD THE STAND OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) CONSEQUENTLY THIS GROUND OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 4. AS REGARDS THE GROUND NO. (II) IT WAS PLEADED BY THE LEARNED DR THAT THE REPLY OF THE ASSESSEE WAS DULY CONSIDERED BY THE AO AND ALL LADIES IN THE HOUSE WERE NOT ASSESSED TO WEALTHTAX. THE ASSESSMENT OR DER WAS SUPPORTED. ON THE OTHER HAND THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE DE FENDED THE IMPUGNED ORDER. 5 AFTER HEARING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND GOING THR OUGH THE MATERIAL ON RECORD WE FIND THAT THE ADDITION OF RS. 1 LAC WAS MADE BY THE AO ON PROTECTIVE BASIS OUT OF THE VALUE OF JEWELLERY. OUT OF THE TOT AL JEWELLERY INCLUDING SILVER UTENSILS THE AO CONSIDERED THE JEWELLERY WORTH RS. 1 LAC (BELONGING TO SMT. PRATIBHA PATNI) AS UNEXPLAINED AND ADDED TO THE INC OME OF THE ASSESSEE ON PROTECTIVE BASIS. DURING SEARCH THE GOLD ORNAMENTS WORTH RS.5 04 362/- AND SILVER UTENSILS WORTH RS. 47 000/- WERE FOUND THE D ETAILS OF WHICH ARE (I) SMT. PRATIBHA PATNI (RS. 2 21 978/-) SMT. KAMLA PATNI ( RS. 1 83 010/-) SMT. KANAK PATNI (RS.32 425/-) AND SMT. HARSHA PATNI (RS.66 94 9/-). THE LEARNED CIT(A) BY FOLLOWING INSTRUCTION NO.1916 DATED 11.5.1994 IS SUED BY THE CBDT FOR THE PERSONS WHO ARE NOT ASSESSED TO WEALTH-TAX WHEREIN 500 GMS PER MARRIED LADY 250 GMS PER UNMARRIED LADY AND 100 GMS PER MALE MEM BER OF THE FAMILY NEED NOT BE SEIZED. IT IS SEEN THAT THE AO HAS NOT MADE THE ADDITION ON PROTECTIVE BASIS IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE BY HOLDING THAT JEWELLERY BELONGS TO SMT. 5 PRATIBHA PATNI. ADMITTEDLY PROTECTIVE ADDITION HA S TO BE MADE WHERE THE ASSESSEE OWNS AN ASSET. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS WE ARE IN AGREEMENT WITH THE STAND OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.1 LAC MADE AS UNEXPLAINED JEWELLERY IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE ON PROTECTIV E BASIS CONSEQUENTLY THIS GROUND OF THE REVENUE IS HAVING NO MERIT THEREFORE DISMISSED. 6. IN ITS NEXT GROUND THE DELETION OF ADDITION OF R S.2 93 824/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED FDRS HAS BEEN CHALLENGED BY THE REVENUE. THE CRUX OF ARGUMENTS BY THE LEARNED SENIOR DR IS IN SUPPORT OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHEREAS THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE DEFEND ED THE IMPUGNED ORDER. 7. ON CONSIDERATION OF THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS WE HA VE FOUND THAT AN AMOUNT OF RS.2 93 824/- WAS CONSIDERED AS UNDISCLOSED INCO ME WHICH WAS IN THE SHAPE OF FDRS FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD. THE FDRS WORTH RS. 4 LACS (OUT OF TOTAL FDRS OF RS.6 93 824/-) WERE TREATED AS EXPLAINED. THE LEARN ED AO TREATED THE REMAINING FDRS AS UNEXPLAINED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LE ARNED CIT(A) EXAMINED THE DETAILS OF INVESTMENTS MADE DURING F.Y. 1985-86 TO 1996-97 AFFIDAVITS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE PARTYWISE LIST OF SHARE HOLDINGS A ND REACHED THE CONCLUSION THAT THE FDRS WERE PURCHASED WITH PART OF THE DISCLOSED INCOME AND TREATED THE SAME AS EXPLAINED OUT OF DECLARED INCOME OF RS.9 LA CS. THE REVENUE HAS NOT CONTROVERTED THESE FINDINGS CONSEQUENTLY THERE IS NO INFIRMITY IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER. WE THEREFORE DISMISS THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE REVENUE. 8. THE NEXT GROUND PERTAINS TO DELETING OF ADDITION OF RS. 11 72 440/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF SHARES. THE LEARNED SENIOR DR SUPPOR TED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER BY 6 INVITING OUR ATTENTION TO PAGES 17 AND 18 OF THE AS SESSMENT ORDER BY CONTENDING THAT NO REMAND REPORT WAS SOUGHT FROM THE AO. ON T HE OTHER HAND THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE DEFENDED THE IMPUGNED ORDE R. 9. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS WE FIND THAT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS HAVING DIFFERENT S OURCE OF INCOME INCLUDING AGRICULTURAL INCOME. DURING SEARCH SHARES OF THE FACE VALUE OF RS.11 37 809/- WERE FOUND OUT OF WHICH THE SHARES WORTH RS. 44 000 /- BELONGING TO PRADEEP PATNI AND THE SHARES WORTH RS.94 000/- BELONGING TO SMT. SUNITA AND ANIL TONGYA WERE ACCEPTED AND THE REMAINING SHARES OF RS. 9 72 440/- WERE ADDED OUT OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME. ADMITTEDLY THE AGRICULT URAL INCOME AND OTHER AFFAIRS WERE NOT CONSIDERED BY THE AO EVEN WHEN THE ASSESSE E PRODUCED THE RECORD. AN AMOUNT OF RS. 2 LAC WAS FURTHER ADDED TO THE FAC E VALUE OF THE SHARES. THE LEARNED CIT(A) CONSIDERED THE PROOF OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME DURING THE PERIOD 1990-91 TO 1996-97 KHASRA ENTRIES AND THE AGRICULT URAL LAND ACQUIRED ON LEASE GROWING OF AGRICULTURAL CROPS AND AFTER CONSIDERING THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF R.J. TRIVE DI (144 ITR 877) DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SUDHADEVI MODI BHARAT MODI AND OTHERS DELETED THE ADDITION OF RS.11 72 440/-. THERE IS A FACTUAL FIN DING IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER AS NOT CONTROVERTED BY THE REVENUE THAT THERE WAS AGRI CULTURAL INCOME THOUGH THE EXTENT WAS SUBJECT TO VERIFICATION BUT NO EFFORT WA S MADE BY THE AO TO VERIFY THE SAME FOUND THAT THE IMPUGNED AMOUNT WAS EXPLAIN ED. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS THE STAND OF THE LD.CIT(A) IS AFFIRMED. 7 10. THE NEXT GROUND PERTAINS TO DELETING THE ADDITI ON OF RS. 11 65 000/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF PEAK CREDITS OF HUNDIES. DURING HEAR ING IT WAS EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT EVERYTHING WAS EXPLAINED BEFORE THE A UTHORITIES BELOW THAT OLD HUNDI EXPIRED AND THE ASSESSEE ONLY EARNED DALALI. DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH HUNDIES WORTH RS. 5 50 000/- (AS PER INVENTORY NAME D HS) WERE SEIZED. OUT OF THESE HUNDIES WORTH RS. 50 000/- WERE ACCEPTED TO B E BELONGING TO SHRI PRADEEP KUMAR PATNI IN HIS BLOCK ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 25. 1.99. FOR HUNDIES WORTH RS. 1 LAC (BELONGING TO SMT. MAYURI BHARKATIYA) CONFIRM ATION WAS FILED. A CONFIRMATION LETTER FROM M/S SNEH AGENCIES CONFIRMI NG THAT HUNDI WORTH RS.1 50 000/- BELONGED TO THEM WAS ALSO FILED WHICH REFLECTED RECEIPT OF MONEY FROM DR. B.S. MEHTA THROUGH SHRI NALIN KUMAR PATNI. ADMITTEDLY ALL THESE FACTS CLEARLY PROVE THAT MR. PATNI WAS ENGAGED IN T HE ACTIVITY OF A FINANCE BROKER AND ARRANGING LOAN. THESE HUNDIES WERE CLAIMED TO BE LYING WITH HIM IN THE CAPACITY OF A BROKER ONLY. HUNDIES WORTH RS. 1 LAC PERTAINING TO M/S INDUSTRIAL METALS WERE VERIFIED BY THE AO FROM THE BOOKS OF AC COUNTS. IDENTICAL EXPLANATION WAS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE WHILE RECORDI NG HIS STATEMENT BY THE AUTHORITIES DURING SEARCH OPERATION. EVEN THE AO AL SO ACCEPTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS CARRYING ON THE BUSINESS AS FINANCE BROKER AS H E HAS HIMSELF ASSESSED THE INCOME FROM DALALI FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD AT RS.1 22 000/-. IT IS ALSO AN ADMITTED FACT THAT THE BROKERAGE IS AN INTER-MEDIATORY WITH NO CLEAR TITLE OF THE PROPERTY IN HIS FAVOUR. THE AO HAS NOT MADE ANY EFFORT TO ASCER TAIN THE FACTUAL POSITION ABOUT THESE HUNDIES AND IS PROVED BEYOND DOUBT THAT THE ASSESSEE IS WORKING AS 8 A FINANCE BROKER THEREFORE HE CANNOT BE HELD TO B E ACTUAL OWNER OF THESE HUNDIES UNTIL AND UNLESS THE ALLEGATIONS ARE PROVED . CONSEQUENTLY THE IMPUGNED ADDITION WAS RIGHTLY DELETED. 11. IN THE LAST GROUND THE REVENUE HAS CHALLENGED T HE DELETION OF RS. 13 15 736/- AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE A S TOTAL INVESTMENT MADE IN IMMOVABLE PROPERTIES. THE LEARNED SENIOR DR SUPPORT ED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHEREAS THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSEESEE DEFEND ED THE IMPUGNED ORDER WHICH HAS BEEN CONSIDERED BY US. BRIEF FACTS ARE THAT AN ADDITION OF RS.13 85 460/- WAS MADE ON ACCOUNT OF INVESTMENT MADE IN IMMOVABLE PROPERTIES ON THE BASI S OF ALLEGED EVIDENCE FOUND DURING COURSE OF SEARCH AND SEIZURE AND ALSO FROM REJECTION OF INHERITANCE OF RS.1 50 000/- FROM GRAND MOTHER THROUGH WILL. AS PER THE ASSESSEE AN YEARWISE INVESTMENT ALONGWITH EXPLANATION FOR INVES TMENT DURING THE BLOCK PERIOD WAS FURNISHED. THE LD. AO CONSIDERED THE INV ESTMENT BUT DID NOT CONSIDER THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT. THE ASSESSEE WA S HAVING AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS. 16 10 000/- AND SURRENDERED RS. 9 LACS DURIN G BLOCK PERIOD. THE ASSESSEE WAS ALSO HAVING INCOME FROM HUNDI BUSINESS AND OTHE R SOURCES AND THE INVESTMENT SPREAD OVER THE ENTIRE BLOCK PERIOD. THE ASSESSEE ALSO PRODUCED A WILL FROM THE GRAND MOTHER FOR RECEIVING RS. 1 50 0 00/- CONSEQUENTLY THE AO WAS SUPPOSED TO GIVE CREDIT FOR INVESTMENT OF RS.1 50 000/-. ADMITTEDLY THE 9 AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS. 16 10 000/- WAS ALSO SHO WN DURING THE BLOCK PERIOD. IN ITS PAPER BOOK THE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN WORKING OF THE AMOUNTS INVESTED IN PROPERTIES (PAGE 10 AND 11 OF THE PAPER BOOK) WHICH WAS NOT CONTROVERTED BY THE REVENUE. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THE LEARNED A O HAS NOT DISCUSSED THE EXPLANATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND MERELY REJECT ED THE STATEMENT OF AFFAIRS FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD AND THE INVESTMENT MADE OUT OF AGR ICULTURAL INCOME. EVEN THE AO DID NOT MAKE ANY EFFORT TO VERIFY THE CLAIM OF T HE ASSESSEE BY MAKING FURTHER INVESTIGATION. EVEN THERE IS NO MENTION WH ETHER THE ASSESSEE WAS HAVING SUFFICIENT FUNDS OR NOT IN MAKING THE INVESTMENT AS CLAIMED. LIKEWISE THE CLAIM OF RS. 1 50 000/- RECEIVED THROUGH WILL FROM GRAND MOTHER WAS SUMMARILY REJECTED WITHOUT DISPUTING THE GENUINENESS OF SUCH A WILL. ADMITTEDLY LITTLE MORE EFFORTS WOULD HAVE UNEARTHED THE TRUTH. THE A O WAS EITHER SUPPOSED TO ACCEPT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE OR WAS SUPPOSED TO BRING SOME MATERIAL ON RECORD TO REBUT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS AND THE DETAILED FINDING/REASONS GIVEN BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) AND UPHOLD THE SAME. A CCORDINGLY THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 12. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DIS MISSED. 13. IN IT(SS) A NO. 78/IND/02 THE REVENUE HAS RAISE D THE FIRST GROUND THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS .41 05 633/- MADE ON 10 PROTECTIVE BASIS. SINCE IN IT(SS) A NO. 77/IND/02 W E HAVE AFFIRMED THE STAND OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) CONSEQUENTLY THIS ISSUE HAS RE MAINED FOR ACADEMIC INTEREST ONLY CONSEQUENTLY THE SAME IS DISMISSED. 14. THE LAST GROUND PERTAINS TO DELETING THE ADDITI ON OF RS.30 000/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF TRAVELLING ADVANCES. THE LEARNED SENIOR DR SUPPORTED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHEREAS THE ASSESSEE DEFENDED THE IMPUGNED. AFTER HEARING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON FILED WE HAVE FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE SHOWED TWO AMOUNTS OF RS.30 000/- EACH AS RECEIVED FROM M/S MADHUMILAN SYNTHECS PRIVATE LIMITED TOWARDS LOAN AN D TRAVELLING ADVANCE. THE AO ACCEPTED THE LOAN AMOUNT BUT REJECTED THE TRAVEL LING ADVANCE BY OBSERVING THAT HE MIGHT HAVE SPENT THAT AMOUNT ON TRAVELLING BEFORE THE DATE OF SEARCH AND NO CASH LEFT WITH HIM CONSEQUENTLY HE ADDED THE AMO UNT OF TRAVELLING ADVANCE U/S 69 OF THE ACT. IT IS SEEN THAT THE AO HAS NOT C ORRECTLY APPRECIATED THE FACTS REGARDING RECEIPT OF THE MONEY FROM THE EMPLOYER AS THE ASSESSEE FILED CERTIFICATE FROM THE COMPANY CONFIRMING THAT IN FAC T THE MONEY WAS GIVEN AS ADVANCE. ACCEPTANCE OF ONE AMOUNT (LOAN AMOUNT) AND REJECTION OF TRAVELLING ADVANCE THAT TOO FROM THE SAME IS WITHOUT ANY REASO N. THE AO EVEN DID NOT BOTHER TO VERIFY THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. IN VIE W OF THESE FACTS NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE U/S 69 OF THE ACT AS SECTION 69 DEALS W ITH UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT ONLY CONSEQUENT IT WAS RIGHTLY DELETED BY THE LEA RNED CIT(A). WE THEREFORE DISMISS THIS GROUND OF THE REVENUE. 11 15. IN THE RESULT BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 24 TH FEBRUARY 2010. SD SD (V.K. GUPTA) (JOGINDER SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER FEBRUARY 24.2.2010 COPY TO: APPELLANT RESPONDENT CIT CIT(A) DR *DBN/