M/s. Viney Auto Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi V. DCIT, New Delhi

CO 58/DEL/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2088 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 year(s) 11 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 14-03-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: H
• Next Hearing Date: 17-02-2016
• Assessment Year: 2000-2001
• Appeal Filed On: 23-03-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DR RAKESH GUPTA
• Keywords: Reopening of assessment; Question of law; Tangible material; Accommodation entries; Reason to believe; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 143(3); 147; 148; 68

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH H : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 291/DEL/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2000-01 DCIT, CIRCLE-17(1) VS. M/S VINEY AUTO PVT. LTD . CR BUILDING, G-975, DSIDC, NARELA INDUSTRIAL NEW DELHI COMPLEX, BHORGAH, DELHI-40 (PAN: AAACV0446L) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) AND CROSS OBJECTION NO. 58/DEL/2010 (IN ITA NO. 291/DEL/2010) ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2000-01 M/S VINEY AUTO PVT. LTD. VS. DCIT, CIRCLE 17(1) G-975, DSIDC, NARELA INDUSTRIAL NEW DELHI COMPLD-72, LAJPAT NAGAR-I, NEW DELHI 24 (PAN: ARMPS9248P) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) DEPARTMENT BY : SH. SARABJEET SINGH, SR. D R RESPONDENT BY : DR. RAKESH GUPTA, ADV. & S H. TARUN KUMAR, ADV. DATE OF HEARING : 17-02-2016 DATE OF ORDER : 14-03-2016 ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU, J.M. THE DEPARTMENT HAS FILED THE APPEAL AND ASSESSEE H AS FILED THE CROSS OBJECTION WHICH IS EMANATE FROM THE ORDER DATED 12. 11.2009 OF THE ITA NO.291/DEL./2010 CO NO. 58/DEL/2010 2 LD. CIT(A)-XIX, NEW DELHI PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01. THE GROUNDS RAISED IN THE REVENUES APPEAL READS AS UND ER:- 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE, LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 82,14,000/- MADE U/S. 68 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ESPECIALLY WHEN THE IDENTITY AND CREDIT WORTHINESS OF THE SUBSCRIBERS TO THE SHARE APPLICAT ION MONEY AND GENUINENESS OF TRANSACTION, WERE NOT ESTABLISHED SATISFACTORILY. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E, LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 2,05,350/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF COMMISSION PAID FOR OBTAINING ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES IN GUISE OF SHARE APPLICATION MONEY. 2. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE CROSS OBJECTION READS AS UNDER:- 1. THAT HAVING REGARD TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTA NCES OF THE CASE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS I N CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF AO IN PASSING THE IMPUGNE D ASSESSMENT ORDER WITHOUT COMPLYING WITH THE MANDATORY CONDITIONS AS PRESCRIBED UNDER SECTION 14 7 TO 153 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 AND REOPENING OF THE CASE IS BAD IN LAW AND BEYOND THE JURISDICTION OF THE AO. 2. THAT THE CROSS OBJECTOR CRAVES THE LEAVE TO ADD , AMEND, MODIFY, DELETE ANY OF THE GROUND(S) OF CROSS OBJECTION BEFORE OR AT THE TIME OF HEARING. ITA NO.291/DEL./2010 CO NO. 58/DEL/2010 3 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE RETURN OF INCOME WAS PROCESSED U/S. 143(1)(A) VIDE INTIMATION DATED 5.3. 2002 ON RETURNED INCOME OF RS. 13,53,490/-. ON THE BASIS O F INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM INVESTIGATION WING OF THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, NOTICE U/S. 148 ISSUED ON 13.3.2007 AFTER RECORDING THE REASONS AND AFTER TAKING APPROVAL IN TERMS OF SECTION 151(1 ) OF THE I.T. ACT. THE NOTICE WAS DULY SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE ON 14.3.2007. IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S. 148 THE ASSESSEE VIDE LETTER DATED 10.4.2007 SUBMITTED THAT THE RETURNED FILED ON 30. 10.2000 BE TREATED AS RETURNED OF INCOME HAVING BEEN FILED IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S. 148. THE REASONS FOR REOPENING FOR ASS ESSMENT WAS COMMUNICATED TO THE ASSESSEE. THE CASE WAS FIXED F OR HEARING BY ISSUING NOTICE U/S. 143(2)/142(1) AND IN COMPLIANC E LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE FILED THE SUBMISSIONS DAT ED 28.9.2007 AND 19.11.2007. THEREAFTER, THE AO HELD THAT IT IS PROVED BEYOND DOUBT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO DISCHARGE THE INITIAL ONUS CAST UPON HIM IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 68 OF THE I.T. ACT. ACCORDINGLY, MONEY RECEIVED ON ACCOU NT OF SHARE APPLICATION IS TREATED AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME AMOUNT ING TO RS. 82,14,000/- AND ALSO ADDED THE COMMISSION PAID TO THE ENTRY OPERATORS AMOUNTING TO RS. 2,05,350/- TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE BY COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT AT RS. 84,19 ,350/- U/S. 143(3)/147 OF THE ACT VIDE ORDER DATED 18.12.2007. ITA NO.291/DEL./2010 CO NO. 58/DEL/2010 4 4. AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. AO, ASSESSEE APPEA LED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY OF REASSE SSMENT AS WELL AS THE ADDITIONS IN DISPUTE WHO VIDE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 12.11.2009 HAS PARTLY ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASS ESSEE AND DELETED THE ADDITION IN DISPUTE. 5. AGGRIEVED WITH THE AFORESAID ORDER OF THE LD . CIT(A), REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AGAINST T HE DELETION OF ADDITIONS AND ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE CROSS OBJECTIO N CHALLENGING THE LEGAL ISSUE OF REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT. 6. NOW WE FIRST DEAL WITH THE ASSESSEES CROSS OBJE CTION AND ADJUDICATE UPON THE LEGAL ISSUE OF REOPENING OF ASS ESSMENT. 7. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE HAS ONLY ARGUED THE LEGAL GROUND CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY OF REOPENING U/S. 147 OF THE I.T. ACT BY STATING THAT ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS ILLEGAL, BECAUSE NO PROPER REASONS WERE RECORDED ; NO NEXUS BETWEEN THE MATERIALS RELIED UPON AND THE BELIEF FO RMED FOR ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME; NO APPLICATION OF MIND; NO PR OPER SATISFACTION WAS RECORDED BEFORE ISSUE OF NOTICE U/ S. 148; NO INDEPENDENT CONCLUSION THAT THERE WAS ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME AND NO PROPER SATISFACTION / APPROVAL HAS BEEN OBTAINE D FROM THE ADDL. CIT. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE PRESEN T CASE IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIG H COURT DECISION DATED 08.10.2015 PASSED IN ITA NO. 545/201 5 IN THE ITA NO.291/DEL./2010 CO NO. 58/DEL/2010 5 CASE OF PR. CIT-4 VS. G&G PHARMA INDIA LTD., WHEREI N THE TRIBUNALS DECISION DATED 09.1.2015 HAS BEEN UPHEL D. IN THIS BEHALF, HE FILED THE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 08.10 .2015 OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI IN PR. CIT VS. G&G PHAR MA INDIA LTD (SUPRA). THEREFORE, HE REQUESTED THAT BY FOLLOWIN G THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF PR. CIT VS. G&G PHARMA INDIA LTD., ( SUPRA) THE LEGAL ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT APPEAL MAY BE ALLOWED. 8. ON THE CONTRARY, LD. DR RELIED UPON THE ORDER PA SSED BY THE CIT(A) ON THE ISSUE OF VALIDITY OF REOPENING AND ST ATED THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY UPHELD THE ACTION OF THE AO OF R EOPENING. 9. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT RECORDS AVAILABLE WITH US, ESPECIALLY THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES AND THE CASE LAW CITED BY THE ASSESSEE S COUNSEL ON THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE. IN OUR VIEW, IT IS VERY MU CH NECESSARY TO REPRODUCE THE REASONS RECORDED BY THE AO BEFORE ISS UE OF NOTICE U/S. 148 AND THE APPROVAL OF THE LD. ADDL. CIT, RA NGE-17, NEW DELHI FOR REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT WHICH READS AS U NDER:- REASONS AN INFORMATION HAS BEEN RECEIVED VIDE EXHAUSTIVE REPORT OF THE INVESTIGATION WING DATED 2.3.2006, TH AT ITA NO.291/DEL./2010 CO NO. 58/DEL/2010 6 THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS RECEIVED ACCOMMODATION ENTRY OF RS. 2,55,000/- DATED 24.6.1999, THROUGH FEDERAL BANK, KAROL BAGH, NEW DELHI. IN REALITY THE ACCOMMODATION ENTRY REPRESENTS THE ASSESSEES OWN UNACCOUNTED MONEY. I HAVE REASONS TO BELIEVE THAT INCOME OF RS. 2,55,000/- HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT FOR THE AY 2000-01. THEREFORE, THE LD. ADDL. CIT, RANGE-17, N EW DELHI MAY KINDLY ACCORD APPROVAL UNDER SECTION 151( 2) FOR ISSUE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148. DATED SD/- (SUBHASH SAHNI) DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 17(1), NEW DELHI 12. WHETHER THE ADDL. CIT/CIT/CBDT IS SATISFIED ON THE REASONS RECORDED BY THE AO THAT IS A FIT CASE F OR THE ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S. 148. YES, IAM SATISFIED. DATED: 8/3/07 SD/- (SUNITA BAINSLA) ADDL. CIT, RANGE-17, NEW DELHI ITA NO.291/DEL./2010 CO NO. 58/DEL/2010 7 9.1 AFTER GOING THROUGH THE REASONS RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER/DCIT, CIRCLE 17(1), NEW DELHI FOR REOPENING AND THE APPROVAL THEREOF BY THE LD. ADDL. CIT, RANGE-17, N EW DELHI, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT AO HAS NOT APPLIED HIS MIND SO AS TO COME TO AN INDEPENDENT CONCLUSION THAT HE HAS REASON TO BEL IEVE THAT INCOME HAS ESCAPED DURING THE YEAR. IN OUR VIEW THE REASONS ARE VAGUE AND ARE NOT BASED ON ANY TANGIBLE MATERIAL AS WELL AS ARE NOT ACCEPTABLE IN THE EYES OF LAW. THE AO HAS MECH ANICALLY ISSUED NOTICE U/S. 148 OF THE ACT, ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION ALLEGEDLY RECEIVED BY HIM FROM THE DIRECTORATE OF I NCOME TAX (INVESTIGATION), NEW DELHI. KEEPING IN VIEW OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT CASE AND THE CASE LAW APPLICABLE IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDER ED VIEW THAT THE REOPENING IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSTT . YEAR IN DISPUTE IS BAD IN LAW AND DESERVES TO BE QUASHED. OUR VIEW IS SUPPORTED BY THE FOLLOWING JUDGMENT/DECISION:- PR. CIT VS. G&G PHARMA INDIA LTD. IN ITA NO. 545/2015 DATED 8.10.2015 OF THE DELHI HIGH COURT WHEREIN THE HONBLE COURT HAS ADJUDICATED THE ISSUE AS UNDER:- 12. IN THE PRESENT CASE, AFTER SETTING OUT FOUR EN TRIES, STATED TO HAVE BEEN RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE ON A S INGLE DATE I.E. 10TH FEBRUARY 2003, FROM FOUR ENTITIES WH ICH WERE TERMED AS ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES, WHICH ITA NO.291/DEL./2010 CO NO. 58/DEL/2010 8 INFORMATION WAS GIVEN TO HIM BY THE DIRECTORATE OF INVESTIGATION, THE AO STATED: 'I HAVE ALSO PERUSED VARIOUS MATERIALS AND REPORT FROM INVESTIGATION WING AND ON THAT BASIS IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS INTRODUCED ITS OWN UNACCOUNTED MONEY IN ITS BANK ACCOUNT BY WAY OF ABOVE ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES.' THE ABOVE CONCLUSION IS UNHELPFUL IN UNDERSTANDING WHET HER THE AO APPLIED HIS MIND TO THE MATERIALS THAT HE TA LKS ABOUT PARTICULARLY SINCE HE DID NOT DESCRIBE WHAT T HOSE MATERIALS WERE. ONCE THE DATE ON WHICH THE SO CALLE D ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES WERE PROVIDED IS KNOWN, IT WO ULD NOT HAVE BEEN DIFFICULT FOR THE AO, IF HE HAD IN FA CT UNDERTAKEN THE EXERCISE, TO MAKE A REFERENCE TO THE MANNER IN WHICH THOSE VERY ENTRIES WERE PROVIDED IN THE ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE, WHICH MUST HAVE BEEN TEND ERED ALONG WITH THE RETURN, WHICH WAS FILED ON 14TH NOVE MBER 2004 AND WAS PROCESSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE A CT. WITHOUT FORMING A PRIMA FACIE OPINION, ON THE BASIS OF SUCH MATERIAL, IT WAS NOT POSSIBLE FOR THE AO TO HA VE SIMPLY CONCLUDED: 'IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS INTRODUCED ITS OWN UNACCOUNTED MONEY IN ITS BAN K BY WAY OF ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES'. IN THE CONSIDERED VI EW OF THE COURT, IN LIGHT OF THE LAW EXPLAINED WITH SUFFI CIENT CLARITY BY THE SUPREME COURT IN THE DECISIONS DISCU SSED HEREINBEFORE, THE BASIC REQUIREMENT THAT THE AO MUS T APPLY HIS MIND TO THE MATERIALS IN ORDER TO HAVE RE ASONS ITA NO.291/DEL./2010 CO NO. 58/DEL/2010 9 TO BELIEVE THAT THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE ESCAPED ASSESSMENT IS MISSING IN THE PRESENT CASE. 13. MR. SAWHNEY TOOK THE COURT THROUGH THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) TO SHOW HOW THE CIT (A) DISCUSSED THE MATERI ALS PRODUCED DURING THE HEARING OF THE APPEAL. THE COUR T WOULD LIKE TO OBSERVE THAT THIS IS IN THE NATURE OF A POST MORTEM EXERCISE AFTER THE EVENT OF REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT HAS TAKEN PLACE. WHILE THE CIT MAY HAVE PROCEEDED ON THE BASIS THAT THE REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT WAS VALID, THIS DOES NOT SATISFY THE REQUIREMENT OF LAW THAT PRIOR TO THE REOPENING OF T HE ASSESSMENT, THE AO HAS TO, APPLYING HIS MIND TO THE MATERIALS, CONCLUDE THAT HE HAS REASON TO BELIEVE T HAT INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. UNLE SS THAT BASIC JURISDICTIONAL REQUIREMENT IS SATISFIED A POST MORTEM EXERCISE OF ANALYSING MATERIALS PRODUCED SUBSEQUENT TO THE REOPENING WILL NOT RESCUE AN INHE RENTLY DEFECTIVE REOPENING ORDER FROM INVALIDITY . 14. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE CONCLUSION REACHED BY THE ITAT CANNOT BE SAID TO BE ERRONEOUS. NO SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW ARISES. 15. THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED. ITA NO.291/DEL./2010 CO NO. 58/DEL/2010 10 (B) SIGNATURE HOTELS (P)_ LTD. VS. ITO AND ANOTHER REPORTED IN 338 ITR 51 (DEL) HAS UNDER SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES AS FOLLOWS:- FOR THE A.Y. 2003-04, THE RETURN OF INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WAS ACCEPTED U/S.143(1) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 AND WAS NOT SELECTED FOR SCRUT INY. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED NOTICE U/S.148 WHICH WAS OBJECTED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER REJECTED THE OBJECTIONS. THE ASSE SSEE COMPANY FILED WRIT PETITION AND CHALLENGED THE NOTI CE AND THE ORDER ON OBJECTIONS. THE DELHI HIGH COURT ALLOWED THE WRIT PETITION AND HELD AS UNDER: (I) SECTION 147 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961, IS WI DE BUT NOT PLENARY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER MUST HAVE REASO N TO BELIEVE THAT INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. THIS IS MANDATORY AND THE REASON TO BELIEVE ARE REQUIRED TO BE RECORDED IN WRITING BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. (II) A NOTICE U/S.148 CAN BE QUASHED IF THE BELIEF IS NOT BONA FIDE, OR ONE BASED ON VAGUE, IRRELEVANT AND NO N- SPECIFIC INFORMATION. THE BASIS OF THE BELIEF SHOUL D BE DISCERNIBLE FROM THE MATERIAL ON RECORD, WHICH WAS AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WHEN HE RECOR DED THE REASONS. THERE SHOULD BE A LINK BETWEEN THE REASONS AND THE EVIDENCE/MATERIAL AVAILABLE WITH TH E ASSESSING OFFICER. (III) THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WERE INITIATED O N THE BASIS OF INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM THE DIRECTOR OF ITA NO.291/DEL./2010 CO NO. 58/DEL/2010 11 INCOME-TAX (INVESTIGATION) THAT THE PETITIONER HAD INTRODUCED MONEY AMOUNTING TO RS.5 LAKHS DURING F.Y . 2002-03 AS STATED IN THE ANNEXURE. ACCORDING TO THE INFORMATION, THE AMOUNT RECEIVED FROM A COMPANY, S, WAS NOTHING BUT AN ACCOMMODATION ENTRY AND THE ASSESSEE WAS THE BENEFICIARY. THE REASONS DID NOT SATISFY THE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 147 OF THE ACT. THERE WAS NO REFERENCE TO ANY DOCUMENT OR STATEMENT, EXCE PT THE ANNEXURE. THE ANNEXURE COULD NOT BE REGARDED AS A MATERIAL OR EVIDENCE THAT PRIMA FACIE SHOWED OR ESTABLISHED NEXUS OR LINK WHICH DISCLOSED ESCAPEMEN T OF INCOME. THE ANNEXURE WAS NOT A POINTER AND DID N OT INDICATE ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME. (IV) FURTHER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT APPLY H IS OWN MIND TO THE INFORMATION AND EXAMINE THE BASIS AND MATERIAL OF THE INFORMATION. THERE WAS NO DISPUTE T HAT THE COMPANY, S, HAD A PAID UP CAPITAL OF RS.90 LAKH S AND WAS INCORPORATED ON JANUARY 4, 1989, AND WAS ALSO ALLOTTED A PERMANENT ACCOUNT NUMBER IN SEPTEMB ER 2001. THUS, IT COULD NOT BE HELD TO BE A FICTITIOUS PERSON. THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WERE NOT VALID AND WER E LIABLE TO THE QUASHED. 10. IN VIEW OF ABOVE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VI EW THAT THE ABOVE ISSUE IS EXACTLY THE SIMILAR AND IDENTICAL TO THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL AND IS SQUARELY COVE RED BY THE AFORESAID DECISIONS OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF DE LHI. HENCE, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ABOVE PRECEDENTS, WE DEC IDE THE LEGAL ISSUE IN DISPUTE IN FAVOR OF THE ASSESSEE BEING BAD IN LAW AND BEYOND THE JURISDICTION. THEREFORE, WE QUASH THE OR DERS OF THE ITA NO.291/DEL./2010 CO NO. 58/DEL/2010 12 AUTHORITIES BELOW AND ALLOW THE CROSS OBJECTION FIL ED BY THE ASSESSEE. REVENUES APPEAL 11. SINCE WE HAVE QUASHED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHOR ITIES BELOW ON THE LEGAL ISSUE ITSELF, HENCE, THE ISSUES RAISE D BY THE REVENUE IN ITS APPEAL HAVE BECOME INFRUCTUOUS, THEREFORE, T HE SAME ARE DISMISSED AS SUCH. 12. IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEES CROSS OBJECTION STANDS ALLOWED AND REVENUES APPEAL STAND DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THIS 14-03-2016. SD/- SD/- (O.P. KANT) (H.S. SIDHU) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 14-03-2016 SR BHATANGAR COPY FORWARDED TO: 1.APPELLANT 2.RESPONDENT 3.CIT 4.CIT(A), NEW DELHI. 5.CIT(ITAT), NEW DELHI. AR, ITAT NEW DELHI.