M/s Credential Stock Brokers Limited, New Delhi V. DCIT, New Delhi

CO 139/DEL/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 122 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7642 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 26-09-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 24-09-2012
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 27-04-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAM BILESH MEENA
• Assessee Lawyers: MRS RANO JAIN CAS
• Keywords: Depreciation; Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 115JB; 194C

Judgement Text

ITA NO. 4742/DEL/2010 & CO NO. 139/DEL/2011 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH B NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 4742/DEL/2010 A.Y. : 2006-07 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 3(1), NEW DELHI VS. M/S CREDENTIAL STOCK BROKERS LIMITED, J-5/164, RAJOURI GARDEN, NEW DELHI 110 027 (PAN/GIR NO. : AABCC1868L) C.O. NO. 139/DEL/2011 (IN I.T.A. NO. 4742/DEL/2010) A.Y.. : 2006-07 M/S CREDENTIAL STOCK BROKERS LIMITED, J-5/164, RAJOURI GARDEN, NEW DELHI 110 027 (PAN/GIR NO. : AABCC1868L) VS. DCIT, CIRCLE 3(1), NEW DELHI (APPELLANT ) (APPELLANT ) (APPELLANT ) (APPELLANT ) (RESPONDENT ) (RESPONDENT ) (RESPONDENT ) (RESPONDENT ) ASSESSEE BY : SH. VED JAIN & MRS. RANO JAIN, CAS DEPARTMENT BY : SH. RAM BILESH MEENA, SR. D.R. ORDER ORDER ORDER ORDER PER PER PER PER SHAMIM YAHYA : AM SHAMIM YAHYA : AM SHAMIM YAHYA : AM SHAMIM YAHYA : AM THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE AND CROSS OBJECTION B Y THE ASSESSEE EMANATE OUT OF ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) DATED 19.8.2010 AND PERTAIN TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. 2. THE GROUNDS RAISED IN THE REVENUES APPEAL RE AD AS UNDER:- ITA NO. 4742/DEL/2010 & CO NO. 139/DEL/2011 2 (I) LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED, HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON THE FACTS IN DELETING ADDITION OF ` 11345/- ON ACCOUNT OF EXTRA DEPRECIATION CLAIMED ON COMPUTER PERIPHERALS IGNORING THAT AS PER THE I.T. RULES 60% DEPRECIATION IS ALLOWABLE ONLY ON COMPUTER AND COMPU TER SOFTWARE AND NOT ON COMPUTER PERIPHERALS/ ACCESSORIE S. (II) LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS E RRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING ADDITION OF ` 26,58,76 2/- ON ACCOUNT OF NON-DEDUCTION OF TDS ON PAYMENTS MADE BY NS E IGNORING THAT AS PER NSES LETTER DATED 10.5.2007 T O ITS MEMBERS TDS MUST BE DEDUCTED BY ALL MEMBERS U/S. 194(J) OF THE I.T. ACT ON CHARGES I.E. MEMBERSHIP FEE, TR ANSACTION CHARGES AND V-STATE AND LEASE LINE CHARGES. (III) THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE FOR RESERVING TH E RIGHT TO AMEND, MODIFY, ALTER, ADD OR FOREGO ANY GROUND(S) O F APPEAL AT ANY TIME BEFORE OR DURING THE HEARING OF T HIS APPEAL. 3. THE GROUNDS RAISED IN THE ASSESSEES CROSS OB JECTION READ AS UNDER:- 1(I) ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, TH E LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) [CIT(A) HAS ER RED BOTH ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN UPHOLDING THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER (AO) IN RESTRICTING THE REBATE UN DER SECTION 88E OF THE INCOME TAX ACT TO RS. 51,86,074/- AS AGAINST THE CLAIM OF RS.58,97,616/-. ITA NO. 4742/DEL/2010 & CO NO. 139/DEL/2011 3 (II) ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, TH E LD CIT(A) HAS ERRED BOTH ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN IGNORING THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT THAT FOR APPORTIONMENT OF THE EXPE NSES THE RIGHT RATIO WILL BE THE RATIO IN THE TURNOVER WHICH IS 13:10 AS AGAINST 17:83 APPLIED BY THE AO. (III) ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD CIT(A) HAS ERRED BOTH ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN IGNORING THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT THAT THE AO WAS NOT CORRECT IN TAK ING THE GROSS INCOME FROM TRANSACTION SUBJECT TO SECURITY TRANSACTION TAX AT RS. 1,96,58,175/- IGNORING THE F ACT THAT THE SAME WAS NET INCOME AFTER DEDUCTING EXPENSES OF RS.18,91,605/- FROM THE GROSS INCOME OF RS. 2,15,50, 320/-. 2 (I) ON THE FACT AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, TH E LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED BOTH ON FACT AND IN LAW IN REJECTI NG THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT THAT WHILE COMPUTING TAX LIABILITY UNDER SECTION 115JB OF THE ACT THE CREDIT OF THE TA X UNDER SECTION 88E IS TO BE ALLOWED. (II) WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE AND IN THE AL TERNATIVE, LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED BOTH ON FACTS AND IN LAW I N NOT APPRECIATING THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE TL:1AT THE CREDIT OF STT PAID UNDER SECTION 88E SHALL ALSO BE AVAILAB LE ON THE TAX COMPUTED AS PER PROVISIONS OF SECTION 115JB OF T HE ACT. (III) ON THE FACT AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, T HE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED BOTH ON FACT AND IN LAW IN HOLDING THAT THE TAX LIABILITY UNDER SECTION 115JB BEING LESS THAN T HE TAX LIABILITY ON THE BASIS OF THE RETURNED INCOME, THE ISSUE IS ITA NO. 4742/DEL/2010 & CO NO. 139/DEL/2011 4 ONLY OF ACADEMIC IN NATURE AND REQUIRE NO FINDING OR ADJUDICATION. (IV) THAT THE ABOVE FINDING OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) I S AGAINST THE FINDING GIVEN BY THE AG. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WH EREBY HE HAS COMPUTED TAX LIABILITY OF THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 115JB OF THE ACT AT RS.15,41,230/-. 3. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND OR ALTE R ANY OF THE GROUNDS REVENUES REVENUES REVENUES REVENUES A AA APPEAL: PPEAL: PPEAL: PPEAL:- -- - APROPOS ISSUE OF DEPRECIATION ON COMPUTER PERIPH ERALS 4. ON THIS ISSUE ASSESSEE HAS MADE ADDITION TO TH E FIXED ASSETS UNDER THE HEAD COMPUTER AND CLAIMED DEPRECIATION @ 60%. ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT ASSESSEE HAD MADE THE PURCHASES OF COMPUTER ACCESSORIES AND PERIPHERALS OF ` 11,345/-. HE WAS OF THE OPINION THAT ASSESSEE WOULD BE ENTITLED DEPRECIATI ON ONLY TO 15% AS CLAIMED AGAINST 60%. 5. UPON ASSESSEES APPEAL LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) HELD THAT THE COMPUTER PERIPHERALS HAVE TO BE CONSIDERED AS PART OF THE COMPUTER SYSTEM AND DEPRECIATION HAS TO BE PROVIDED @ 60%. 6. AGAINST THE ABOVE ORDER THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS IN LIGHT OF THE MATERIAL PRODUCED AND PRECEDENT RELIED UPON. WE FIND THAT T HE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF C.I.T. VS. BSES RAJDHANI POWERS LTD. IN ITA NO. 1266/2010 DATED 31.8.2010 HAD HEL D THAT COMPUTER ACCESSORIES AND PERIPHERALS SUCH AS, PRINTERS, SCAN NERS AND SERVER ETC. ITA NO. 4742/DEL/2010 & CO NO. 139/DEL/2011 5 FORM AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE COMPUTER SYSTEM AS THEY C ANNOT BE USED WITHOUT THE COMPUTER. HENCE, SAME ARE THE PART O F THE COMPUTER SYSTEM AND ENTITLED TO DEPRECIATION AT THE HIGHER RA TE OF 60%. ACCORDINGLY, CONSIDERING THE AFORESAID PRECEDENT, W E DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCO ME TAX (A) AND HENCE, WE UPHOLD THE SAME. 8. APROPOS ISSUE OF DISALLOWING ADDITION OF ` 26,58 ,762/- ON ACCOUNT OF NON-DEDUCTION OF TDS ON PAYMENT MADE BY NSE. ON THIS ISSUE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT ASSE SSEE COMPANY HAD MADE THE PAYMENT TO NATIONAL STOCK EXCHANGE (NSE ) SUCH AS TRANSACTION CHARGES, V-STATE CHARGES, LEASE RENT CHARGES AND MISC. CHARGES. DURING THE ASSESSMENT ASSESSING OFFICER RAISED THE QUERY THAT SINCE TDS WAS NOT DEDUCTED ON PAYMENTS MADE TO NSE, THEN WHY THESE AMOUNTS SHOULD NOT BE DISALLOWED. ASSESS EE RESPONDED THAT SO FAR AS THE TDS ON PAYMENT TO NSE IS CONCERNED , THERE IS NO PROVISION UNDER THE ACT WHICH REQUIRES DEDUCTING T AX ON THESE PAYMENTS. THESE ARE NORMAL BUSINESS PAYMENTS AND AR E NOT COVERED UNDER THE TDS PROVISIONS. ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT ACCEPT THIS PROPOSITION. HE OBSERVED THAT THE NSE IN ITS A DVISE TO ITS MEMBER BROKER HAS ASKED TO DEDUCT TDS ON PAYMENTS OF ALL KIN DS BEING MADE TO THE EXCHANGE. HENCE, ASSESSING OFFICER OPIN ED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS LIABLE TO DEDUCT TDS ON PAYMENTS TO THE EXCHANGE. ACCORDINGLY, HE HELD THAT SINCE NO TDS WAS DEDUCTED, THE SUM OF ` 26,58,762/- WAS PAID IN THIS REGARD WAS DISALLOWED. 9. UPON ASSESSEES APPEAL LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) HELD AS UNDER:- ITA NO. 4742/DEL/2010 & CO NO. 139/DEL/2011 6 ON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION, I FIND THAT THE ISSUE RE LATES TO LIABILITY TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE ON PAYMENTS MADE TO NSE ON ACCOUNT OF TRANSACTION CHARGES, V-SAT CHARGES, L EASE LINE CHARGES AND MISCELLANEOUS CHARGES. AS FAR AS ADVICE OF NSE IS CONCERNED, THAT IS GENERAL IN NATURE AND THE MEMB ERS HAVE BEEN ADVISED TO EVALUATE THE APPLICABILITY OF TAX PROVISIONS. OTHERWISE ALSO, FOR ASCERTAINING THE LI ABILITY OF TAX DEDUCTION AT SOURCE WITH REGARD TO VARIOUS PAYME NTS, IT WOULD BE NECESSARY TO REFER TO THE RELEVANT STATUTO RY PROVISIONS. IN HIS REMAND REPORT, THE ASSESSING OFFI CER HAS MADE REFERENCE TO SECTION 194C OF THE ACT. HOWEVER, THE SAID SECTION RELATES TO THE PAYMENTS MADE TO A CONTR ACTOR IN PURSUANCE OF A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CONTRACTOR AND THE SPECIFIED PERSON. NO MATERIAL HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RE CORD TO SHOW THAT THE PAYMENTS ON ACCOUNT OF TRANSACTION CHA RGES, V-SAT CHARGES, LEASE LINE CHARGES AND MISC. CHARGES WERE MADE IN PURSUANCE OF A CONTRACT. THE PAYMENTS ARE MADE TO NSE IN THE NORMAL COURSE OF BUSINESS AND THESE PAYMENTS DO NOT FALL WITHIN THE SCOPE OF SECTION 194 C OF THE ACT. THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS, THEREFORE, DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. 10. AGAINST THE ABOVE ORDER THE REVENUE IS IN APPEA L BEFORE US. 11. LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE I SSUE IS SQUARELY COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE DECISION O F THE SPECIAL BENCH, ITAT, VISHAKAPATNAM BENCH IN THE CASE OF MERILYN SH IPPING & TRANSPORTS VS. ADDL. C.I.T. (2012) 136 ITD 23 (VISH ) (SB). IN THIS CASE IT WAS HELD THAT THE PROVISION OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) CA NNOT BE INVOKED WITH ITA NO. 4742/DEL/2010 & CO NO. 139/DEL/2011 7 RESPECT TO THE PAYMENTS WHICH ARE ACTUALLY PAID DURI NG THE FINANCIAL YEAR, BUT IT CAN BE INVOKED ONLY WITH RESPECT TO TH E PAYMENTS NOT ACTUALLY MADE. SINCE ALL THE PAYMENTS WERE MADE DUR ING THE YEAR AND NOTHING WAS PAYABLE, NO AMOUNT WAS TO BE DISALLOWED IN THIS REGARD. LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ON THE OTHER HAND, R ELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 12. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS IN LIGHT OF THE MATERIAL PRODUCED AND PRECEDENT RELIED UPON. WE FIND THAT LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) HAS NOTED THAT AS FAR AS THE ADVI SE OF NSE RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS CONCERNED, IT I S GENERAL IN NATURE AND THE MEMBERS HAVE BEEN ADVISED TO EVALUATE THE AP PLICABILITY OF TAX PROVISIONS. LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) FURTHER FOUND THAT FOR ASCERTAINING THE LIABILITY OF TAX DEDUCTION AT SOURCE WITH REGARD TO VARIOUS PAYMENTS, IT WOULD BE NECESSARY TO REFER TO THE RELEVANT STATUTORY PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194C OF THE ACT. LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) OPINED THAT THE SAID SECTION RELATES TO THE PAYMENTS MADE TO A CONTRACTOR IN PURSUANCE OF A CONTRACT BETW EEN THE CONTRACTOR AND THE SPECIFIED PERSON. LD. COMMISSIONE R OF INCOME TAX (A) FURTHER OBSERVED THAT NO MATERIAL HAS BEEN BRO UGHT ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT THE PAYMENTS ON ACCOUNT OF TRANSACTION CHA RGES, V-SAT CHARGES, LEASE LINE CHARGES AND MISC. CHARGES WERE MADE IN PURSUANCE OF A CONTRACT. THESE PAYMENTS WERE MADE TO NSE IN TH E NORMAL COURSE OF BUSINESS AND THESE PAYMENTS DO NOT FALL WITHIN T HE SCOPE OF SECTION 194C OF THE ACT. 13. OVER AND ABOVE, WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE INVOLVED IS ALSO SQUARELY COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE DECISION O F THE SPECIAL BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF MERILYN SHIPPING & T RANSPORTS VS. ADDL. ITA NO. 4742/DEL/2010 & CO NO. 139/DEL/2011 8 C.I.T. (SUPRA). IN THIS CASE IT WAS HELD THAT THE PROVISION OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) CANNOT BE INVOKED WITH RESPECT TO THE PAY MENTS WHICH ARE ACTUALLY PAID DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR, BUT IT CAN BE INVOKED ONLY WITH RESPECT TO THE PAYMENTS NOT ACTUALLY MADE. SINCE IN THIS CASE ALL THE PAYMENTS WERE MADE DURING THE YEAR AND NOTHING WAS PAYABLE AT THE END OF THE YEAR, NO DISALLOWANCE IS CALLED FOR. AC CORDINGLY, IN THE BACKGROUND OF THE AFORESAID DISCUSSIONS AND PRECEDE NT, WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) AND D ECIDE THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. 14. IN THE RESULT, THE REVENUES APPEAL STANDS DISMI SSED. ASSESSEES CROSS OBJECTION ASSESSEES CROSS OBJECTION ASSESSEES CROSS OBJECTION ASSESSEES CROSS OBJECTION 15. IN THIS CASE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT ASSE SSEE HAS CLAIMED THE REBATE U/S. 88E. A PERUSAL OF THE DETAIL SUBMIT TED BY THE ASSESSEE REVEALS THAT PROFIT AND GAINS FROM TRANSACTIONS CHAR GEABLE TO STT IS ` 1,96,58,715/-. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED REBATE U/S. 88E OF ` 58,97,616/-. ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO SUBMIT THE COMPU TATION OF REBATE, ASSESSEE SUBMITTED AS UNDER:- AMOUNT OF STT DEDUCTED DURING F.Y. 05-06 6402784/- TAX ON TRANSACTION LIABLE TO STT 5897616/- (30% OF ` 19658720/-) TAX ON TOTAL INCOME 5902518/- AMOUNT OF REBATE ALLOWED (LOWER OF THE ABOVE THREE) 5897616/- ON PERUSAL OF THE DETAILS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE, HE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED SOME DISCREPANCIES. IT WAS NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT USED THE CORRECT METHOD AS PRESCRIBED U/S 88E FO R CALCULATION OF REBATE. SECONDLY, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT REDUCED THE EXPENSES FROM THE ITA NO. 4742/DEL/2010 & CO NO. 139/DEL/2011 9 INCOME ON ACCOUNT OF SELF TRADING SUBJECTED TO STT FOR CALCULATION PURPOSES. FURTHER, ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT CONSIDERED ADMINISTRATIVE AND OPERATIVE EXPENSES DEBITED IN THE P&L A/C FOR THE PURPOSE OF CALCULATION OF REBATE U/S 88E. VIDE LETTER DT. 25.11.2008 THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE RATIO OF TURNOVER ON OWN ACCOUNT AND ON CLIENTS ACCOUNT IS 13:10. HOWEVER, I N THE ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ACC EPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THEREFORE, IN THE ABSENCE OF COMP LETE EVIDENCE THE EXPENSES WERE APPORTIONED ON THE BASIS OF TURNOVER ON BROKERAGE ACCOUNT AND ON SELF TRADING. THE RATIO OF TURNOVER ON BROKERAGE ACCOUNT AND SELF TRADING ACCOUNT WAS 17% AND 83% RE SPECTIVELY. ACCORDINGLY, REBATE U/S 88E WAS RECALCULATED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND WAS RESTRICTED TO RS. 51,86,074/-. 16. UPON ASSESSEES APPEAL LD. COMMISSIONER OF INC OME TAX (A) AFFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 17. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORDS. WE FIND THAT ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE T HIS DISALLOWANCE BY NOTING THAT PROPER EVIDENCE REGARDING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT SUBMITTED. LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) HA S ALSO CONFIRMED THIS ORDER. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANC ES OF THE CASE, IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, INTEREST OF JUSTICE, WILL B E SERVED IF THE ISSUE IS ITA NO. 4742/DEL/2010 & CO NO. 139/DEL/2011 10 REMITTED TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO C ONSIDER THE ISSUE AFRESH. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL CONSIDER THE ISSUE IN LIGHT OF THE SUBMISSION IN THIS REGARD, AFTER GIVING ASSESSEE PR OPER OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. WE HOLD AND DIRECT ACCORDINGLY. 18. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVEN UE STANDS DISMISSED AND CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STAND ALL OWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 26/9/2012. SD/ SD/ SD/ SD/- -- - SD/ SD/ SD/ SD/- -- - [ [[ [JOGINDER SINGH JOGINDER SINGH JOGINDER SINGH JOGINDER SINGH] ]] ] [SHAMIM YAHYA] [SHAMIM YAHYA] [SHAMIM YAHYA] [SHAMIM YAHYA] JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATE 26/9/2012 SRBHATNAGAR COPY FORWARDED TO: COPY FORWARDED TO: COPY FORWARDED TO: COPY FORWARDED TO: - -- - 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4.CIT (A) 5.DR, I TAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, DELHI BENCHES