Brij Bhushan Singal, New Delhi vs Department Of Income Tax

ACIT, Vs Brij Bhushan Singal, Central Circle-13, W-29, Greater Kailash, Room No. 332, Part-II, New Delhi. ARA Centre, (PAN: AEFPS6298M) Jhandewalan Extn. New Delhi. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri A. Misra, CIT DR Respondent by: Shri Ashwani Kumar, CA & Aditya Kumar,CA Date of hearing: 22.1.2015 Date of pronouncement: 9.3.2015

ORDER

PER C.M. GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER

This appeal has been preferred by the revenue against the order of the CIT(A)- I, New Delhi dated 5.7.2013 in Appeal No.52/12-13 for AY 2010-11.

2. Ground No. 1 and 3 of the revenue are general in nature. Remaining sole

ground no. 2 reads as under:-

"2. On the facts and circumstances of the case the ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the penalty imposed by AO u/s 271AA of IT Act amounting to Rs. 5 crores on the surrender of Rs. 50 crores, as the assessee had not substantiated the manner in which the undisclosed income was derived with any corroborative evidence."

3. We have heard arguments of both the sides and carefully perused the

relevant material placed on record. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to this

appeal are that a search and seizure operation u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act,

1961 was carried out in the case of Bhushan Steel Group of cases on 3.3.2010.

On the basis of material seized during search, the assessee appellant admitted

undisclosed income of Rs.50 crore which was declared in the return of income

filed for AY 2010-11 and taxes paid thereon. The AO initiated penalty

proceedings u/s 271AAA of the Act during the assessment proceedings on the

ground that the assessee had not specified the manner in which the undisclosed

income was earned and also failed to substantiate it and imposed penalty of

Rs.5 crore on the assessee for such failure.

4. Being aggrieved by the said penalty order, the assessee preferred an

appeal before the CIT(A) which was allowed by passing the impugned order by

relying upon the order of ITAT Delhi Bench "E" in ITA No. 337/D/2013 for AY

2010-11 in the case of Neerat Singal vs ACIT dated 24.6.2013. Now, the

revenue is before this Tribunal against the order of the first appellate authority

which deleted the penalty and allowed the appeal of the assessee with the sole

grounds as reproduced hereinabove.

5. Ld. DR submitted that the CIT(A) has erred in deleting the penalty

amounting to Rs. 5 crore on the surrender of Rs.50 crore as the assessee had not

substantiated the manner in which the undisclosed income was derived with any corroborative evidence. Ld.AR supporting the impugned order submitted that

on similar facts and circumstances, the CIT(A) granted relief in the case of

Neerat Singal for AY 2010-11 in Appeal No.51/12-13 vide order of the CIT(A)

dated 17.12.2012 which was upheld by the ITAT by order dated 24.6.2013

(supra) and, therefore, the present case is squarely covered in favour of the

assessee by the order of the Tribunal (supra).

6. On careful consideration of above submissions of both the parties, we

note that the CIT(A) has granted relief for the assessee by following his own

decision dated 17.12.2012 in the case of Shri Neerat Singal (supra) which was

upheld by ITAT "E" Bench Delhi by order dated 24.6.2013. The relevant

operative part of this order reads thus:-

"11. When we compare Explanation 5 to section 271(1)© of the Act with the provisions laid down u/s 271AAA of the Act we find a lot of similarity therein under which penalty is not attracted in a case of search on the undisclosed income. As per Explanation 5 to section 271(1)© of the Act if the assessee in the course of search makes a statement under sub section (4) of section 132 that any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or things found in his possession or under his control has been acquired out of his income which has not been disclosed so far in his return of income to be furnished before the expiry of time specified in sub section (1) of section 139 and also specifies in the statement the manner in which such income has been derived and pays the tax, together with interest, if any, in respect of such income, then the assessee for such income will not be deemed to have concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income to attract the penalty therein. Similarly under the provisions of section 271AAA of the Act penalty is not leviable where search has been ITA No-337/Del/2013 8 initiated u/s 132 on or after 1.6.2007 but before 1.7.2012, and the assessee in the course of search, in a statement under the sub section 4 of section 132,(i), admits the undisclosed income (ii) specifies and substantiates the manner in which such income has been derived, and (iiii) pays the tax together with interest, if any, in respect of the undisclosed income.

From the reading of both these penal provisions we find that one requirement is common for non attraction of the penal provisions under both the sections i.e. if the assessee in his statements recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act admits the undisclosed income and specifies in the statement the manner in which such income has been derived and pays the tax together with interest, if any, in respect of such income. The only additional requirement in the case of section 271AAA in this regard is that the assessee will also have to substantiate the manner in which the undisclosed income was derived besides specification of the manner in which such income was derived. The other difference is in the application of the provisions under both the sections. The penal provision u/s 271(1)© under Explanation 5 thereto is applicable in such cases where search u/s 132 was initiated before 1.6.2007 whereas u/s 271AAA, the provisions therein are applicable in a case where search u/s 132 of the Act has been initiated on or after 1.6.2007 but before 1.7.2012. Thus the intention of the legislature is clear to this extent that in a case wherein search was initiated before 1.6.2007, provisions u/s 271(1)© will be applicable and in search initiated after 1.6.2007 (but before 1.7.2012) provisions u/s 271AAA of the Act will be applicable.

These provisions are thus not applicable simultaneously but these are period specific. As discussed above, the only additional requirement for non attraction of penal provision u/s 271AAA of the Act in comparison to this u/s 271(1)© is that besides specifying the manner in which the admitted an undisclosed income has been derived, the assessee will also have to substantiate this manner. In view of this relative study of both the provisions when we go through the decisions relied upon by the Ld. AR, we find that in the case of ACIT vs. GEBILAL Kanhialal (HUF) (supra) before the Hon'ble Supreme Court the Karta of the asseseee HUF had made a statement u/s 132 (4)admitting ITA No-337/Del/2013 9 concealed income in the course of search and specified the manner in which such income stood derived. In this statement the Karta also surrendered an amount of Rs. 42,32,000/-. The Karta however neither filed return of income u/s 139 (1) on due date nor paid due tax on the surrendered income. Later on he also retracted from his statement recorded u/s 132(4) about surrender. The Hon'ble Supreme Court after deliberating in detail on different Explanations to section 271(1)© has been pleased to hold that the assessee was entitled to immunity under clause (2) of Explanation 5 to section 271(1)© of the Act.

In that case failure to file return of income on 31st July 1987 and failure to pay tax thereon was the mere reason relied upon by the department to deny to the assessee the benefit of immunity under clause (2) of Explanation 5 to section 271(1)© of the Act. According to the department the assessee had complied with all the conditions of clause 2 of Explanation 5 except payment of tax in time. Hon'ble Supreme Court pleased to hold that no time limit has been prescribed for payment of tax under clause 2 of Explanation 5 and the assessee having paid tax upto the date of payment in respect of the undisclosed income surrendered by it in the course of search, all the three conditions laid down in clause 2 of Explanation 5 to section 271(1)© stood fulfilled and therefore the assessee is entitled to immunity under clause (2) of Explanation 5 to section 271(1)© of the Act. In the case of CIT vs. Radha Kishan Goel (supra) before the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court the issue raised was as to whether mere non-statement of manner in which undisclosed income was derived would make Explanation 5 (2) to section 271(1)© inapplicable.

The further question raised was as to whether in a case manner in which income has been derived has not been stated in the statement u/s 132(4) but is stated subsequently, that amounts to compliance with Explanation 5 (2) to section 271(1)© and no penalty would be leviable under said section.. Both these questions have been replied in affirmative in the decision of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court. As per the decision mere non statement of manner in which undisclosed was derived would not make Explanation 5 (2) to section 271(1)© inapplicable. Similarly in a case manner in which income has been ITA No-337/Del/2013 10 derived has not been stated in statement u/s 132(4) but is stated subsequently that amounts to compliance with Explanation 5 (2) to section 271(1)© and no penalty would be leviable. Similarly in the case of CIT vs. Mahendra G. Shah before the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court the basic requirement for immunity form the levy of penalty under Explanation 5 to section 271(1) © of the Act has been discussed as per which the first requirement is disclosure in statement made u/s 132(4) and payment of tax before the assessment was completed.

Following ratio laid down in this decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court, Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case of DCIT vs. Shri Inderchand Surajmal Bothra (supra) wherein penalty u/s 271(1)© was levied held that it is not required to specify the manner in which the income was earned in respect of the amount offered to tax in the return of income filed to search action by paying taxes thereon for adopting immunity from penalty under Explanation 5 of section 271(A) (C) of the Act. The cuttak Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Shri Ashok Kumar Sharma (HUF) and others vs. DCIT (supra) wherein penalty u/s 271 AAA was levied the assesee had disclosed concealed income while giving statement u/s 132 of the Act during the course of search and had paid the tax thereon and showed the said undisclosed income filed under the head "income from business" and department had accepted these returns and accordingly passed the assessment order. Penalty u/s 271AAA was levied. It was held that undisputedly the assessee had shown the undisclosed income under the head "income from business" in the returns filed by them and that was accepted by the department by passing the assessment orders accordingly, therefore the case of the assessee falls exactly within the purview of sub section 2 of section 271AAA.

Thus the impugned penalty levied contrary to the provisions contained in section 271AAA (2) is not sustainable. The penalty was accordingly deleted. In the case of Shri Pramod Kumar Jain and another vs. JCIT (supra) before the Cuttak Bench of the Tribunal, the assesee had disclosed the unaccounted income but had failed to specify the manner in which such income had been derived. The department accordingly levied penalty u/s 271AAA of the Act.

The same ITA No-337/Del/2013 11 was upheld by the first appellate authority. The Tribunal has however deleted the penalty on the basis that there is no prescribed method to indicate the manner in which income was generated where the definition of "undisclosed income" has been defined in the Act itself when no income of the specified previous year represented "either wholly or partly" which onus lay upon the assessee stood discharged. The Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in its recent decision in the case of Mother Pride Education Personna Pvt. Ltd,.vs. DCIT (supra) while placing reliance on its earlier decision in the case of Smt. Raj Rani Gupta (supra) and following the ratio of the decision of Hon'ble High Courts in the case of CIT vs. Radhi Kishan Goel (supra) (All) and CIT vs. Mahendra C. Shah (supra) (Guj) has deleted the penalty. The Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs. Radha Kishan Goel (supra) has been pleased to hold that u/s 132(4) of the I.T. Act 1961 unless the authorized officer puts specific question with regard to the manner in which income has been derived, it is not expected from the person to make a statement in this regard and in case in the statement the manner in which income has been derived has not been stated but has been stated subsequently, that amounts to the compliance with Explanation 5 (2) to Section 271 (1) (C) of the Act. It was further held that in case there is nothing to the contrary in the statement recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act in the absence of any specific statement about the manner in which such income has been derived, it can be inferred that such undisclosed income was derived from the business which he was carrying on or from other sources. The object of the provision is achieved by making the statement admitting the non-disclosure of money, bullion, jewellery etc. It was thus held that much importance should not be attached to the statement about the manner in which such income has been derived. It can be inferred on the facts and circumstances of the case, in absence of anything to the contrary. Therefore, mere non statement of the manner in which such income was derived would not make Explanation 5 (2) inapplicable, held the Hon'ble High Court.

12. The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Mahendra C. Shah has been pleased to held as under :-

" In so far as the alleged failure on the part of the assessee to specify in the statement u/s 132(4) of the Income Tax Act 1961 regarding the manner in which such income has been derived, suffice it to state that when the statement is being recorded by the authorized officer it is incumbent upon the authorized officer to explain the provisions of Explanation 5 in its entirety to the assessee concerned and the Authorized Officer cannot stop short at a particular stage so as to permit the Revenue to take advantage of such a lapse in the statement. The reason is not far to seek. In the first instance, the statement is being recorded in the question and answer form and there would be no occasion of an assessee to stage and make averments in the exact format stipulated by the provisions considering the setting in which such statement is being recorded, as noted by the Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Radha Kishan Goel (2005) 278 ITR 454. Secondly, considering the illiterate, to be specific and to the point regarding the conditions stipulated by exception no.2 while making statement u/s 132(4) of the Income tax Act, 1961. The view taken by the Tribunal as well as the Allahabad High Court to the effect that even if the statement does not specify the manner in which the income is derived, if the income is declared and tax thereon paid, there would be substantial compliance not warranting any further denial of the benefit under exception no.2 in Explanation 5 is commendable."

13. In the present case before us during the course of search at the residential premises of the assessee on 4.3.2010 certain documents relating to the transactions in properties undertaken by the assessee were found and seized as per page Nos. 4 & 5 of Annexure A3 in SR4. As per such papers the assessee had an outstanding sum of Rs. 3 crore and Rs. 6 crore from various person which was duly disclosed as additional income for asstt. year 2010-11 while making statement u/s 132(4) of the Act. In addition, as per page No. 6 of Annexure A3 in SR4 the assessee had paid in cash a sum of Rs. 17,86,57,781/- for purchase of land by Bhushan Steel Limited (however at the time of statement recorded it was ITA No-337/Del/2013 13 inadvertently mentioned as Bhushan Energy Ltd.) which was also declared as additional income for the asstt. year 2010-11 while making a statement u/s 132(4) of the Act. As per the said statement the assessee had admitted that he had entered into various forward/speculative and property transaction during the period from 1.4.2009 to 4.3.2010. Keeping in view the same an income of Rs. 125 crores arising out of the said transactions was declared in the statement recorded during the course of search which included the said amount as undisclosed. Subsequently the taxes due thereon were also paid and the same income declared in the return of income filed for the assessment year 2010-11 was also accepted by the Department.

14. On having gone through the query raised while recording the statement of assessee u/s 132(4) of the Act, we find substance in the contention of the Ld. AR that nowhere the authorized officer has asked a specific question with regard to the manner in which the undisclosed income has been derived. The relevant questions are question Nos. 4,5,6 and 7. For a ready reference these questions and reply by the assesee thereto are being reproduced hereunder:-

4 For facility of reference and as in aid for further analysis and discussion the relevant part of the statement recorded during the course of search is as follows:-

Q 4. I am drawing your attention to annexure A-3 at Page No-

6. Please go through the same and explain the content thereof?

Ans. This paper depicts details regarding purchase of various lands on various dates by M/s Bhushan Energy Ltd in Kolkata. As mentioned in this paper in the entire transaction an amount of Rs. 178657781/- was paid in cash on 02/05/2009. This cash was paid out of my own unaccounted ITA No-337/Del/2013 14 funds which was never l disclosed for taxation purpose. I hereby accept the above amount to be my unaccounted income in the shape of investment in the current financial year and the same is offered for taxation.

Q5. I am drawing your attention towards annexure A-3 at Page NO-5 found from your residence, please explain to whom this paper belongs and under whose hand writing this has been written. Please go through the same and explain the content thereof?

Ans. Yes, I accept that this sheet of paper was found from my bed room at this premise, I own this paper and all the contents of this paper are written by me only. The notings on this paper depicts the fact that I have advanced certain amounts to some person on different dates. The details of which is furnished below:-

List of advances outstanding on 31.01.2010 Atma Ram 11.0 Cr Shiv Prakash 15.0 Cr Devender Kumar 17.0 Cr Prem Singh 6.0 Cr Kundan Singh Negi 9.5 Cr Prembir Singh 5.5 Cr Sureinder Singh 5 Cr _____ 69.0 Cr This is the amount given by me to the above persons during the current financial year outstanding as on 31.01.2010.

Q.6 What is the source of this amount of Rs. 69 Crores? Ans. The above amount of Rs. 69 crores is my unaccounted income for the current financial year generated from undisclosed sources. By means of ITA No-337/Del/2013 15 t his statement I hereby accept the above amount of Rs. 69 Cr to be my unaccounted income from the current F.Y and offer it for taxation.

Q.7. I am drawing your attention towards anneuxre-A-3 at page NO-4 found from your residence. Please explain to whom this paper belongs and under whose hand writing this has been writtteen. Please go through the same and explain the content thereof?

Ans. Yes, I accept that this sheet of paper belongs to me, I own this paper and all the contents of this paper have been written by me only. The notings on the paper depicts the fact that I had advanced an amount of Rs.3.0 cr on 9.6.2009 for the purpose of purchase of property at Q1- A, Hauz Khias Enclave, New Delhi. In respect of this amount I hereby state that this amount is my unaccounted income not offered for taxation for the current financial year.

On the basis of my reply to questions numbers 5, 6 and 7 I reiterate to have accepted a total amount of Rs. 90Cr (Rupees Ninety crores only) to be my unaccounted income for the current financial year, which I hereby offer for taxation.

15. We find further that vide its reply dated 03.6.2010, addressed to the Asstt. Director of Income Tax (Investigation) and dated 25/7/2011, 8/6/2012 and 20/6/2012 to the Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax the assessee has tried to explain the undisclosed income of Rs. 125 crore surrendered by the asseseee in his statement recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act. The contents of para No. 1 & 2 of the letter dated 25.7.2011 are being reproduced hereunder :-

(1) With regard to Your Honour's query regarding income of Rs.125 crores for F.Y 2009-10 disclosed during the course of search u/s 132, it is submitted that during the course of the said search at the residential premises of the Assessee on 04 March 2010 certain documents relating to transactions in properties undertaken by him were found as per page Nos. 4 & 5 of Annexure A-3 in SR- 4. As per the said papers the Assessee had an outstanding of a sum of Rs. 3,00,00,000/- and Rs. 69,00,000/- from various persons which were declared as additional income of A/Y 2010- 1\2011 while making a statement u/s 132(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. In addition , as per page No-6 of Annexure A-3 in SR-4, the Assessee had paid in cash a sum of Rs. 17,86,57,781/- for purchase of land by M/s Bhushan Steel Limited however, at the time of statement recorded it was inadvertently mentioned as M/s Bhushan Energy Ltd, which was also declared as additional income for A.Y 2010-2011 while making a statement u/s 132(4) of the Income-tax-Act, 1961.

(2) As per the statement recorded during the course of search the Assessee himself had admitted that he had entered into various forward/speculative transactions and also transactions related to properties during the period from 1/4/2009 to 4/3/2010 i.e. Financial Year 2009-2010 relevant to Assessment Year 2010-2011. The said transactions were carried out in an unorganized manner and neither any accounting records nor any documentary evidence/support in respect of transactions/activities carried out were maintained. The only documentary evidence in respect of the said transaction was as per the page Nos. 4, 5 & 6 of Annexure-A-3 in SR- 4 and no other detailed record of transactions were either maintained or preserved. Keeping in view the situation mentioned above, the income of ITA No-337/Del/2013 17 Rs.125,00,000/- arising out of the said transactions was declared in the statement recorded during the course of search u/s 132 which included the said amount as per page Nos. 4, 5 & 6 of Annexure A-3 in Sr-4. Subsequently, the taxes due thereon were also paid and the said income declared in the return of income filed for A.Y 2010-11.

16. In view of above facts of the present case wherefrom it is evident that during the course of search proceedings the authorized officer of the department had not raised any specific query regarding the manner in which the undisclosed income has been derived and on the contrary the assessee has tried to explain the earning of the undisclosed income in question in its reply during the course of recording of his statement u/s 132(4) of the Act and thereafter. We thus respectfully following the ratio of above cited decisions of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court and Hon'ble Gujarat High Court hold that in absence of query raised by the authorized officer during the course of recording of statement u/s 132 (4) about the manner in which the undisclosed income has been derived and about its substantiation, the AO was not justified in imposing penalty u/s 271AAA of the Act specially when the offered undisclosed income has been accepted and due tax thereon has been paid by the assessee. We thus while setting aside orders of the authorities below in this regard direct the AO to delete the penalty of Rs. 12,50,00,000/- levied u/s 271AAA of the Act. The ground is accordingly allowed."

7. Turning to the facts of the present case from Paper Book page no.16, we

observe that in the statement recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act on 4.3.2010, the

assessee Shri Brij Bhushan Singal, replying to question no.8 of the revenue

authority accepted unaccounted income of Rs.31 crore for FY 2009-10 relevant

to AY 2010-11 surrendering and offering the same amount as undisclosed

income and assuring the department that due taxes will be paid in due time

thereon.

8. We further note that reply filed during the assessment proceedings dated

25.7.2011 (available on page no. 19 to 21 of the Paper Book), the assessee

submitted and explained the following facts:-

"(1) With regard to Your Honour's query regarding income of Rs. 50 crores for FY 2009-10 disclosed during the course of search u/s 132, it is submitted that during the course of the said search at the residential premises of the Assessee on 04 March 2010 certain documents relating to transactions in properties undertaken by him were found as per page No. 17 of Annexure A-3 in SR-4. As per the said papers the Assessee had an outstanding of a sum of Rs. 31,00,00,000/-

from various persons which was duly disclosed as additional income for AY 2010-2011 while making a statement u/s 132(4) of the Income - tax Act, 1961.

(2) As per the statement recorded during the course of search the Assessee himself had admitted that he had entered into various forward/speculative transactions and also transactions related to properties during the period from 01- 04-2009 to 04-03-2010 i.e. Financial Year 2009-2010 relevant to Assessment year 2010-11. The said transactions were carried out in an unorganized manner and neither any accounting records nor any documentary evidence/support in respect of transactions/activities carried out were maintained. The only documentary evidence in respect of the said transactions was as per the page No. 17 of Annexure A-3 in SR-4 and no other detailed record of transactions were either maintained or preserved. Keeping in view the the income of Rs. 50,00,00,000/- arising out of the said transactions was declared in the statement recorded during the course of search u/s 132 which included the said amount of Rs. 31,00,00,000/- as disclosed in page No. 17 of Annexure A-3 in SR-4. Subsequently, the taxes due thereon were also paid and the said income declared in the return of income filed for Assessment Year 2010-11.

(3) Regarding Your Honour's query asking the Assessee to furnish his explanation with respect to the facts emerged from the statement of the persons listed at serial nos. a. to j. thereunder recorded in the course of survey operations u/s 133A it is submitted that all these persons are working as Directors of some companies. They have already clarified that on the date of search due to tension and mental pressure certain observations were made by them which did not reflect the actual state of affairs. In any case all such companies are existing Assessees and whatever transactions have taken place between the Assessee and these companies stand duly reflected in the books of accounts and no adverse inference need to be drawn only on the basis of the statements recorded during the course of survey u/s 133A as none is drawable."

9. In view of above, we are of the considered opinion that the assessee

replied all the questions of revenue authorities in the statement recorded on

4.3.2010 u/s 132(4) of the Act. We further note that during the assessment proceedings, the assessee in his reply dated 25.7.2011further submitted details

of the surrendered income of Rs.50 crore and submitted that he had entered into

various speculative transactions and also transaction related to properties during

the period from 1.4.2009 to 4.3.2010 i.e. FY 2009-10 relevant to AY 2010-11

and the said transactions were carried out in an unrecognised manner and neither

any accounting records nor any documentary evidence/support in respect of

these transactions/activities carried out by the assessee were maintained. Under

these facts and circumstances of the case and in the light of decision of ITAT

Delhi "E" Bench in the case of Neerat Singal dated 24.6.2013, we are of the

opinion that the present case is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the

decisions of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs Radha Kishan

Goel (supra), by the decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT

vs Mahendra C. Shah (supra) in favour of the assessee and hold that in absence

of specific query raised by the authorised officer during the course of recording

of statement u/s 132(4) of the Act about the manner in which undisclosed

income has been derived and AO was not justified in imposing penalty u/s

271AAA of the Act. We also notice a peculiar fact of the present case that

during the course of assessment, replying to the query of the AO, the assessee

vide his reply dated 25.7.2011, as reproduced hereinabove, explained the

manner in which the undisclosed income has been derived which cannot be

ignored. Therefore, we reach to a logical conclusion that the CIT(A) was right

in granting relief for the assessee in deleting the penalty and we are unable to see any controversy or any other valid reason to interfere with the same.

Accordingly, sole ground of the revenue being devoid of merits is dismissed.

10. In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 09.03.2015.

Sd/- Sd/-

(PRAMOD KUMAR) (CHANDRAMOHAN GARG) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

DT. 09th March , 2015 'GS'

Copy forwarded to:-

1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. C.I.T.(A) 4. C.I.T. 5. DR By Order

Asstt. Registrar