DCIT, New Delhi V. Smt. Sadhna Sachdeva, New Delhi

ITA 1100/DEL/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 65350 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-09-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Next Hearing Date: 04-09-2012
• Assessment Year: 1993-1994
• Appeal Filed On: 02-03-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DR PRABHA KANT
• Assessee Lawyers: SANJAY KAPOOR
• Keywords: Retraction
• Section: 143(3); 80HHC

Judgement Text

ITA NO. 1100/DEL/2012 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH G, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI I.C. SUDHIR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 1100/DEL/2012 A.Y. : 1993-94 DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-26(1), NEW DELHI D-9, VIKAS BHAVAN, NEW DELHI VS. SMT. SADHNA SACHDEVA, PROP. M/S TULIPS, GH-2, 85A/86A, ANKUR APARTMENT, PASCHIM VIHAR, NEW DELHI (PAN/GIR NO. : ABIPS7481A) (APPELLANT ) (APPELLANT ) (APPELLANT ) (APPELLANT ) (RESPONDENT ) (RESPONDENT ) (RESPONDENT ) (RESPONDENT ) ASSESSEE BY : SH. SANJAY KAPOOR, CA DEPARTMENT BY : DR. PRABHA KANT, SR. D.R. ORDER ORDER ORDER ORDER PER SHAMIM YAHYA: AM PER SHAMIM YAHYA: AM PER SHAMIM YAHYA: AM PER SHAMIM YAHYA: AM THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST TH E ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-XXIV, NEW D ELHI DATED 30.12.2011 PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 1993-94. 2. THE GROUNDS RAISED READ AS UNDER:- I) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF ` 1,89,52,588/- UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. II) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) ITA NO. 1100/DEL/2012 2 ERRED IN HOLDING THE EXPORTS TO M/S TAJ, DUBAI AMOUNTING TO ` 1.89 CRORES AS GENUINE. III) SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) AND RESTORE THE MATTER BACK TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO RE-EXAMINE FRESH EVIDENCES IN A HOLISTIC MANNER. IV) THE APPELLANT CRAVES THE RIGHT TO ADD ANY OTHE R GROUND OF APPEAL. 3. IN THIS CASE RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING TOTAL IN COME OF ` 108107/- WAS FILED ON 31.10.1993 AFTER CLAIMING DEDUCTION OF ` 3,08,43,785/- U/S. 80HHC OF THE ACT. ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT IN THIS CAS E WAS COMPLETED U/S. 143(3) ON 29.3.1996. AT THE TIME OF ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT, DEDUCTION U/S. 80HHC IN RESPECT OF EXPORTS MADE BY T HE ASSESSEE TO M/S TAJ AL-KHALEEJ GENERAL TRADING CO., DUBAI (M/S TA J, DUBAI) WAS ALLOWED. A SEARCH U/S. 132 OF THE ACT WAS CONDUCT ED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE AND OTHER COMPANIES AND CONCERNS OF M/S M.S. SHOE GROUP ON 29.6.1994. THE CASES OF THE GROUP WERE ALSO IN VESTIGATED BY THE DRI, WHO COMMUNICATED WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER ENC LOSING A COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF SHEIKH SAUD-BIN-ABDULLAH RASHID ALNUAIMI. IN THIS STATEMENT THE SHEIKH HAS DECLARED THAT HE WAS THE REGISTERED HOLDER OF TRADE LICENCE ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF DUBAI, UAE IN FAVOUR OF HIS CONCERN M/S TAJ AL-KHALEEJ GENERAL TRADING CO., DUBAI. THE SHEIKH SPECIFICALLY STATED THAT HE NEVER HAD ANY BUSINESS DEALINGS OR COMMERCIAL TRANSACTIONS WITH M/S M.S. INTERNATIONAL O R SH. PAWAN SACHDEVA (HUSBAND OF THE ASSESSEE) OR ANY OF THEIR CONCERNS. THE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE REGARDING THEIR E XPORTS TO M/S TAJ, ITA NO. 1100/DEL/2012 3 DUBAI WERE NOT ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AN D AN ADDITION OF ` 1,89,52,588/- WAS MADE TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE . 4. UPON ASSESSEES APPEAL LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) CONFIRMED THE ADDITION. 5. ASSESSEE APPEALED BEFORE THE ITAT. THE ITAT V IDE ORDER DATED 17.2.2006 SET ASIDE THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) TO CONSIDER THE ISSUE AFRESH, AFTER ALLOWING THE ASSESSEE FURTHER REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY. ACC ORDINGLY, THE MATTER WAS TAKEN UP BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ( A). THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE INFERENCE THAT THE EXPO RT MADE BY HER TO M/S TAJ, DUBAI WERE NOT GENUINE, WAS BASED ON THE STA TEMENT OF SHAIKH. ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE SAID STATEMENT OF SH. SHEIKH ON BEHALF OF THE TAJ DUBAI WAS RETRACTED BY HIM IN A NOTHER STATEMENT, WHEREIN HE CONFIRMED HAVING DEALT WITH SH. PAWAN SACH DEVA, M/S TULIPS AND M/S M.S. INTERNATIONAL LTD. SH. SHEIK H ALSO WROTE A LETTER TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF THE ASSESSEE CONFIRMIN G THE TRANSACTION OF M/S TAJ, DUBAI WITH THE ASSESSEE. AFTER CONSIDERING THE STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE, LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) OBSE RVED THAT SIMILAR EXPORT TRANSACTIONS WERE CARRIED OUT BY ANOT HER COMPANY OF THE SAME GROUP NAMELY M/S M.S. INTERNATIONAL LTD. TO T HE SAME PARTY NAMELY, M/S TAJ DUBAI, WHICH WAS EXAMINED IN DETAIL BY THE ITAT IN I.T.A. NO. 36/DEL/2022 FOR A.Y. 1993-94. IT WAS HE LD THAT THE TAX ITA NO. 1100/DEL/2012 4 AUTHORITIES BELOW WERE NOT JUSTIFIED IN TREATING A S BOGUS, THE EXPORT SALES MADE BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE SHAIKHS COMPANY TA J, DUBAI AND THEREFORE THE ORDERS OF THE TAX AUTHORITIES WERE SE T ASIDE IN THE IMPUGNED ADDITION OF ` 6,05,43,627/-.L 6. CONSIDERING THE ASSESSEES SUBMISSION AND THE ITA T ORDERS REFERRED ABOVE, LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) H ELD AS UNDER:- I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE DOCUMENTS AND EVIDE NCES PLACED ON RECORD BY THE APPELLANT. I HAVE TAKEN NOTE OF THE FACT THAT GOVERNMENT AUTHORITIES AND DEPARTMENTS CONCERNED, INCLUDING DRI, DGFT AND THE CONSULATE GEN ERAL OF INDIA IN DUBAI HAVE COME OUT IN SUPPORT OF THE AP PELLANT. REDEMPTION LETTER ISSUED BY THE OFFICE OF THE ZONAL JOINT DGFT REGARDING REALIZATION OF FOREIGN CURRENCY IS PL ACED ON RECORD. THE APPELLANT MRS. SADHNA SACHDEVA AND H ER PROPRIETARY CONCERN M/S TULIPS HAS ALSO BEEN CLEAR ED OF ALL CHARGES VIDE ORDER DATED 29.5.2008 OF SPECIAL DIRECT OR OF ENFORCEMENT, ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE FOR A.Y. 1996-97 . I HAVE ALSO TAKEN NOTE OF THE FACT THAT VARIOUS RELEV ANT DEPARTMENTS AND BANKS HAVE AUTHENTICATED THE EXPORTS MADE BY THE APPELLANT TO M/S TAJ, DUBAI AND ALSO OF PR OPER RECEIPT OF THE SALES PROCEEDS IN FOREIGN CURRENCY T HROUGH BANK REALIZATION CERTIFICATES. THUS, ALL THE RE QUIREMENTS OF PROPER EXPORTS AND REALIZATION OF EXPORT PROCEEDS I N FOREIGN CURRENCY, HAVE BEEN FULFILLED BY THE APPELLANT IN O RDER TO MAKE HER PROPRIETARY CONCERN M/S TULIPS, FULLY ENTI TLED FOR ITA NO. 1100/DEL/2012 5 DEDUCTIONS U/S. 80HHC OF THE ACT. THUS, IN VIEW OF THE EVIDENCES ON RECORD, THE EXPORTS BY THE APPELLANT TO M/S TAJ DUBAI CANNOT BE TREATED AS NON-GENUINE. DUE RESP ECT AND REGARDS IS ALSO TO BE ACCORDED TO THE FINDINGS GIVEN BY THE ITAT, DELHI, BENCH B, NEW DELHI IN A RELATED CASE OF M/S M.S. INTERNATIONAL LTD. VS. DCIT, CC-8, NEW DELHI IN I.T.A. NO. 36/DEL/2012 FOR A.Y. 1993-94. 7. AGAINST THE ABOVE ORDER THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 8. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE COUNSEL AND PERUSED THE R ECORDS. LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE DECISION OF ITAT IN ASSESSEES GROUP CONCERN S M/S M.S. INTERNATIONAL LTD. IN I.T.A. NO. 36/DEL/2022 VIDE O RDER DATED 21.10.2005. THE TRIBUNAL HAD DELETED THE ADDITION OF ` 6,05,43,627/- MADE IN THIS REGARD. LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE IS ALSO COVERED BY THE ANOTHER DECIS ION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES GROUP COMPANY IN CASE OF M/S M.S. SHOE EAST LTD. VS. DCIT IN I.T.A. NO. 38/DEL/2002 AND M/S PEARL INTERCON TINENTAL LTD. VS. DCIT IN I.T.A. NO. 40DEL/2002. IN THESE TWO CASES V IDE COMMON ORDER DATED 20.4.2006 THE TRIBUNAL HAS DELETED THE SIMIL AR ADDITIONS. ACCORDINGLY, LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED T HAT THE ISSUE IS COVERED BY THE TWO GROUP COMPANIES CASES. 8.1 LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ON THE OTHER HAN D COULD NOT CONTROVERT THE ABOVE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEES C OUNSEL AND CONCEDED THAT THE ISSUE INVOLVED IS COVERED BY THE DECISION OF THE ITAT IN THE CASES REFERRED BY THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE AS SESSEE. 9. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORDS. WE FIND THAT ITAT IN THE CASE OF M/S M. S. INTERNATIONAL LTD., ITA NO. 1100/DEL/2012 6 ASSESSEE GROUP COMPANY IN I.T.A. NO. 36/DEL/2002 FOR A.Y. 1993-94 VIDE ORDER DATED 21.10.2005 HAS HELD AS UNDER:- THE QUESTION REQUIRED TO BE DETERMINED BY US IS WHE THER THE ASSESSEE COMPANY ACTUALLY EXPORTED SYNTHETIC RU BBER SHEETS TO THE COMPANY OF THE SHEIKH, TAKGT, DUBAI F OR AN AMOUNT OF RS.6,05,43,627/- IN CONSIDERATION FOR WHIC H IT RECEIVED FOREIGN REMITTANCE OF THE AFORESAID SUM WHI CH SHOULD BE ENTITLED TO DECLARATION U/S 80HHC OR WHET HER THE AFORESAID AMOUNT HAD NO CONNECTION WITH ANY EXPORT A ND THAT IT REPRESENTED THE ASSESSEE'S INCOME FROM UNDI SCLOSED SOURCES. THE UNREBUTTED DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE PRODUC ED ON RECORD BY THE ASSESSEE UNDOUBTEDLY PROVES THE IMP ORT OF THE RAW MATERIAL AND THE SHIPMENT OF THE FINISHED G OODS TO DUBAI IN RESPONSE TO THE ORDERS PLACED BY THE COMPANY OF THE SHEIKH, TAKGT, DUBAI, FOR WHICH THE ASSESSEE REC EIVED THE FOREIGN REMITTANCES OF RS.6,05,43,627/-FROM DUBA I THROUGH BANKING CHANNELS AND THAT THE EXPORT SALES SHIPPED TO DUBAI BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE COMPANY OF THE SHEIKH , TAKGT THROUGH THE CUSTOMS AUTHORITIES, DIRECTOR GENE RAL OF FOREIGN TRADE, SHIPPING LINE EXPORTERS BANK IN INDIA AND BUYER'S BANK ABROAD, ALL AUTHENTICATED THE GENUINEN ESS OF SHIPPING TRANSACTION AND THE PAYMENTS MADE TO THE ASSESSEE. WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT IN CASE THE AO WAS RELYI NG UPON THE STATEMENT OF THE SHEIKH DATED 28.12.94 THE OPPOR TUNITY SHOULD ALSO HAVE BEEN AFFORDED TO THE ASSESSEE TO C ROSS EXAMINE THE SHEIKH AND IN THE ABSENCE OF SAME NO REL IANCE ITA NO. 1100/DEL/2012 7 COULD ALSO BE PLACED ON SUCH STATEMENT. FURTHER, THE SECOND STATEMENT MADE BY THE SHEIKH, FULLY RETRACTING FROM THE EARLIER STATEMENT MADE BY HIM ALSO OF COURSE CANNOT BE SAFELY RELIED UPON BECAUSE THE AO IS DEPRIVED FROM T HE OPPORTUNITY OF CROSS EXAMINING THE SHEIKH AS HE DID NOT CHOOSE TO APPEAR FOR THIS PURPOSE. AS REGARDS THE A FFIDAVIT OF THE SHEIKH IN SUPPORT OF HIS RETRACTION FROM THE STATEMENT MADE EARLIER DATED 28.12.94, ADMITTING THE EXPORT PURCHASES MADE FROM THE ASSESSEE AND THE PAYMENTS BEI NG MADE THROUGH BANKING CHANNELS AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE CONSULATE GENERAL OF INDIA'S OFFICE I N THE LETTER TO ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR OF FOREIGN TRADE HAS CO NFIRMED THE GENUINENESS OF THE AFFIDAVIT OF THE SHEIKH, ON WHICH THE SIGNATURE OF THE SHEIKH WERE LEGALIZED THE AFFIDAVI T WAS REGISTERED BY THE DUBAI CHAMBER OF COMMERCE & INDUSTRY AND HAS ALSO BEEN ENDORSED BY THE DAB MINISTRY OF FORE IGN AFFAIRS. IN THESE FACTS IT MAY NOT BE SAFE TO RELY U PON THE UNAUTHENTICATED STATEMENT MADE BY THE SHEIKH, ,BUT, A T THE SAME TIME, IT WOULD ALSO NOT BE FAIR ON THE PART OF TAX AUTHORITIES BELOW TO IGNORE THE AFFIDAVIT, FOR CONT RADICTING WHICH NEITHER ANY ENQUIRY HAS BEEN MADE NOR ANY EVID ENCE HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE DEPARTMENT. FACT REMAINS THAT WHEN THE ASSESSEE FROM THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IS ABLE TO PROVE THE EXPORT SALES MAGE BY I T TO THE SHEIKH'S COMPANY TAKGT, DUBAI, AND HAVING RECEIVED TH E AMOUNT OF RS.6,05,43,627/- AS REMITTANCE FOR THE SAM E, THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL OF DUBAI IN THE INDIAN BANK THE EXPORT SALES MADE BY THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE DISBELIE VED ITA NO. 1100/DEL/2012 8 ON THE SOLITARY STATEMENT OF THE SHEIKH MADE EARLIER ON 28.12.94, WHEN THE SAME WAS SUBSEQUENTLY RETRACTED BY THE SHEIKH HIMSELF IN A DULY AUTHENTICATED AFFIDAVIT . IT IS ALSO IMPORTANT TO MENTION HERE THAT IN VIEW OF THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE IN SU PPORT OF EXPORT SALES, THE SAME SHOULD NOT BE DISBELIEVED ON THE MERE STATEMENT OF THE SHEIKH MADE ON 28.12.94 WHEN THE SHEIKH IN AN AFFIDAVIT/STATEMENT SUBSEQUENTLY ALSO ADMITTED THAT ALL THE ORDERS OF M/S. INTERNATIONAL LTD. I.E. THE ASSESSEE AND ITS OTHER GROUP COMPANIES, WERE PLACED BY HIS CO MPANY AND HE MADE PURCHASES FROM THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AND ITS SISTER CONCERNS AND IN THE ASSESSMENT OF THOSE SISTE RS CONCERNS OF THE ASSESSEE ALL THE EXPORT TRANSACTION WITH TAKGT HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED AS BONA FIDE AND GENUINE, THEN, WHY ONLY IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE, DESPITE THE DOCUM ENTARY EVIDENCE BEING PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE EXPORT SALES MADE TO THE SHEIKH CAN BE HELD TO BE IN-GENUINE ON T HE BASIS OF THE INCONSISTENT STATEMENT OF THE SHEIKH. LASTLY, WE HAVE ALSO TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION THE OTHER TWO RE ASONS APPEARING IN THE ORDERS OF TAX AUTHORITIES BELOW W HERE IN THEY HAVE CONCLUDED THAT WITH THE MEAGER EXPENDITUR E ON ELECTRICITY AND WATER AND LABOUR CLAIMED BY THE ASS ESSEE AND ON ACCOUNT OF THE MACHINERY WORTH RS.272249/- T HE ASSESSEE WAS NOT IN A CAPACITY TO MANUFACTURE FINIS HED PRODUCTS WORTH MORE THAN RS.12- 3 CRORES. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CONTENDED THAT HE WAS GETTING THE JOB WORK DONE FROM ITS OTHER SISTER CONCE RNS AND ITA NO. 1100/DEL/2012 9 WAS ALSO GETTING THE MANUFACTURING DONE FROM THEM AS IS CLEAR FROM THE DUTY EXEMPTION ENTITLEMENT CERTIFICATE PLACED AT PAGE 234 & 235 OF THE PAPER BOOK. AT PAGE 235 THE ASSESSEE HAS MENTIONED THE NAME & ADDRESS OF TH E FACTORIES WHERE THE RESULTANT PRODUCTS FOR EXPORTS WERE TO BE MANUFACTURED I.E. 11/S. SHOES EAST LTD. INDICATI NG THAT THE ENTIRE MANUFACTURING WAS NOT DONE BY THE ASSESSE E ITSELF BUT WAS BEING GOT DONE BY OTHER SISTER CONCE RNS OF THE ASSESSEE FINDS SUPPORT FROM THE DOCUMENTS. THIS MEAN S THAT IF THE ASSESSEE WAS GETTING ITS GOODS MANUFACT URED FROM THE OTHER SISTER CONCERNS, IT COULD NOT BE SAID THAT BECAUSE OF THE MACHINERY USED THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT HAVE MANUFACTURED SUCH HUGE AMOUNT OF FINISHED GOODS BECA USE THE ASSESSEE NEVER CLAIMED THAT THE ENTIRE GOODS WER E MANUFACTURED BY IT. THIS ALSO EXPLAINS THE MEAGER EX PENSES CLAIMED ON ELECTRICITY, WATER AND LABOUR, AS WELL AS , ITS MANUFACTURING MACHINERY WORTH RS.272249/- WHICH COUL D NOT HAVE MANUFACTURED SUCH HUGE QUANTITY OF FINISHE D GOODS. WE MAY ALSO MENTION HERE THAT NEITHER ASPECT HAS BEEN PROPERLY EXAMINED BY THE TAX AUTHORITIES BELOW NOR THE SAME COULD SUCCESSFULLY BE CONTROVERTED BY LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE REVENUE BEFORE US . IN VIEW OF THE DETAILED DISCUSSION GIVEN HEREINABOV E IN OUR ORDER, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE TAX AUTHORITI ES BELOW WERE NOT JUSTIFIED IN TREATING THE EXPORT SALES MADE BY THE ASSESSEE TO SHEIKH'S COMPANY TAKGT DUBAI AS INGENUIN E AND THEREFORE, THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW IN THIS REGARD ARE SET ASIDE AND THE IMPUGNED ADDITION OF ITA NO. 1100/DEL/2012 10 RS.6,05,43,627/- MADE AND CONFIRMED BY THE TAX AUTHO RITIES BELOW AS 'INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES, IS DELETED. 10. IN LIGHT OF THE AFORESAID DISCUSSION AND PRECE DENTS, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY OR ILLEGALITY IN THE ORDER OF T HE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A). ACCORDINGLY, WE AFFIRM THE LD. COMMI SSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A)S ORDER. 11. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENU E STANDS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 07/9/2012. SD/- SD/- [ [[ [I.C. SUDHIR I.C. SUDHIR I.C. SUDHIR I.C. SUDHIR] ]] ] [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 07/9/2012 SRBHATNAGAR SRBHATNAGAR SRBHATNAGAR SRBHATNAGAR COPY FORWARDED TO: COPY FORWARDED TO: COPY FORWARDED TO: COPY FORWARDED TO: - -- - 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, DELHI BENCHES