Smt. Dr. Radhika Labroo, Gurgaon V. ITO, Gurgaon

ITA 1455/DEL/2011

• Counselvise Citation: 145520114 RSA 2011
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-12-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Next Hearing Date: 17-10-2011
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 23-03-2011
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A K MONGA
• Assessee Lawyers: K P GARG
• Keywords: Cost of acquisition
• Section: 54F; 131

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH F NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.P. TOLANI AND SHRI A.N. PAHUJA ITA NO. 1455/DEL/2011 ASSTT. YR: 2007-08 SMT. (DR.) RADHIKA LABROO, VS. INCOME-TAX OFFICE R, L-18/1, DLF PH-II, GURGAON. WARD-3, GURGAON PAN/GIR NO. ABTPL7008F (APPELLANT ) ( RESPONDENT ) APPELLANT BY : SHRI K.P. GARG CA RESPONDENT BY : SHRI A.K. MONGA, SR. DR O R D E R PER R.P. TOLANI, J.M : THIS IS ASSESSEES APPEAL AGAINST CIT(A)S ORDER DA TED 25-01-2011 RELATING TO A.Y. 2007-08. 2. GROUNDS RAISED BY ASSESSEE ARE AS UNDER: 1. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FAC TS IN UPHOLDING THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS CON TRARY TO LAW, EQUITY AND JUSTICE AND FACTS AND MATERIAL ON RECORD , ARBITRARY, BASED ON CONJECTURES AND SURMISES. 2. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACT S IN UPHOLDING THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE MANNER OF COMPUTATION OF INCOME AND TAX AS DETERMINED AND COM PUTED BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER. 3. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACT S IN RESTRICTING THE COST OF ACQUISITION OF THE NEW PROP ERTY AT RS. 23,94,592/- AS TAKEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS AG AINST THE ACTUAL PURCHASE CONSIDERATION OF RS. 43,47,164/- AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE, AS ACTUALLY PAID AND THUS SUSTAINING THE ADDITION ON ITA 1455/DEL/11 DR. RADHIKA LABROO 2 ACCOUNT OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS AT RS. 19,52,572 /- (AO COMPUTED AT RS. 21,05,408), ON THE BASIS OF TRIPART ITE SALE DEED EXECUTED BY THE BUILDER ON BEHALF OF THE ORIGINAL A LLOTTEE AND THE ASSESSEE, BEING INTERMEDIATE PURCHASER. 4. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACT S IN REJECTING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND THE LD. CIT(A) H AS ERRED IN UPHOLDING SUCH REJECTION, WHICH IS CONTRARY TO LAW AND FACTS ON RECORD. 5. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACT S IN ESTIMATING THE GROSS PROFESSIONAL RECEIPTS FROM MED ICAL PROFESSION (DENTIST) AT RS. 4,00,000/- (AO ESTIMATE D AT RS. 6,83,832/-) AS AGAINST RS. 2,20,450/- SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE S PER BOOKS, THUS SUSTAINING THE ADDITION AT RS. 1,79 ,550/- AS AGAINST RS. 4,63,382/- MADE BY AO (WRONGLY TAKEN AS RS. 459824/- BY THE LD. CIT(A) IN HIS ORDER). 3. GROUND NOS. 1 & 2 ARE GENERAL IN NATURE AND NEED S NO ADJUDICATION. 4. FACTS, APROPOS GROUND NO. 3, ARE: THE ASSESSEE I S A DENTIST, SOLD A PROPERTY AT THANE, MAHARASTRA AND HER SHARE OF SALE CONSIDERATION CAME TO RS. 50 LACS. COST OF ACQUISITION AS ON 1-4-1981 WAS ADOPTED AT RS. 1,25,787/- ; INDEX COST OF ACQUISITION AT RS. 6,52,836/-; LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS AT RS. 43,47,164/- (RS. 50,00,000 43,47,164). 4.1. ASSESSEE INVESTED THE AMOUNT OF LONG TERM CAPI TAL GAINS IN PURCHASE OF A RESIDENTIAL FLAT NO. 1202, BLOCK-7, UNIWORLD G ARDEN, SECTOR-47, GURGAON (HARYANA) IN MAY 2007 ALONG WITH OTHER CO-O WNER SUNALI PRAKASH TAMHANEY BY A TRIPARTITE AGREEMENT BETWEEN PURCHASE RS, M/S RHINO BUILDERS & SELLERS LTD., AND LT. GEN. PARAMJIT SINGH AND MS. MONA SINGH ORIGINAL PURCHASER . THE INVESTMENT IN RESIDENTIAL FLAT CAME TO RS. 43,47,164/- (RS. 42,15,980/- AS SHARE & PURCHASE COST; RS. 98,900/- SHARE OF STAMP DUTY AND RS. 32,384/- SHARE OF OTHER EXPENSES). THE APPELLA NT THUS PAID PURCHASE COST ITA 1455/DEL/11 DR. RADHIKA LABROO 3 OF RS. 42,15,980/- BY A/C PAYEE DEMAND TO SELLER LT . GEN. PARAMJIT SINGH AND MS. MONA SINGH FOR JOINT PURCHASE BY A TRIPART ITE AGREEMENT. THE CONVEYANCE DEED EXECUTED ON 12-12-2007 BETWEEN THE BUILDER M/S RHINO HOLDINGS (P) LTD, THE SHARE OF ASSESSEE COST COME T O RS. 19.64,319/-. 4.2. AO ADOPTED THE INVESTMENT IN RESIDENTIAL HOUSE AT RS. 23,94,592/- (COST + EXPENSES) AS COMPARED TO ASSESSEES ACTUAL INVESTMENT OF RS. 43,47,164/-, THEREBY DISALLOWING INVESTMENT OF RS. 19,52,572/-. THOUGH ALL THE PAYMENTS WERE MADE BY A/C PAYEE CHEQUE AND DEMA ND DRAFT, TO THE SELLER, LT. GEN. PARAMJIT SINGH, THE AO DID NOT ACC EPT IT; A COPY OF TRIPARTITE AGREEMENT WAS PRODUCED. AO HELD THAT LT. GEN. PARA MJIT SINGHS CONFIRMATION WAS NOT PRODUCED. 4.3. APROPOS SECOND ISSUE ABOUT PROFESSIONAL INCOME , THE ASSESSEE MAINTAINS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT FOR THE PROFESSION AS A DENTIST. AO FOUND INFIRMITIES THEREIN AND REJECTED THE BOOKS, PROFES SIONAL INCOME WAS ESTIMATED AT RS. 5,83,824/- AS AGAINST RS. 1,20,442 /-, OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE. 4.4. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE PREFERRED FIRST APPEAL. TH E ASSESSEES FIRST ISSUE WAS DISMISSED BY CIT(A) BY FOLLOWING OBSERVAT IONS: 3.8. I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION MA DE BY THE APPELLANT AND HAVE GONE THROUGH ALL THE DOCUMENTS F ILED BY THE APPELLANT I.E. COPY OF AGREEMENT TO SELL, COPY OF T HE BANK CERTIFICATE, COPY OF THE CONVEYANCE DEED AND REGIST RATION DEED. IT IS NOTED THAT THOUGH AS PER THE AGREEMENT TO SEL L BETWEEN THE APPELLANT AND LT. GEN. PARAMJIT SINGH AND MS. MONA SINGH, THE SALE CONSIDERATION OF THE PROPERTY HAS BEEN FIXED A T RS. 84,31,960/- IN WHICH APPELLANTS 50% SHARES WORKS O UT TO RS. 42,15,960/- BUT AS RIGHTLY OBSERVED BY THE AO THIS IS MERELY ON AGREEMENT TO SELL AND IS UNDATED AND UNREGISTERED. AS PER THE ITA 1455/DEL/11 DR. RADHIKA LABROO 4 CONVEYANCE DEED WHICH IS THE REGISTERED DOCUMENT, T HE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY HAS BEEN STATED TO BE RS. 39,28,637/- + THE STAMP DUTY. THEREFORE, THE AO IS JUSTIFIED IN TAKING THE APPELLANTS SHARE AT 50% OF THE VALUE REFLECTED IN THE CONVEYAN CE DEED. IT IS FURTHER SEEN THAT THOUGH THE APPELLANT HAS GIVEN TH E DETAILS OF THE AMOUNT PAID TO THE SELLER LT. GEN. PARAMJIT SIN GH & MONA SINGH, THIS ITSELF DOES NOT SHOW THAT THE AMOUNT HA S BEEN PAID AS PART OF THE SALE CONSIDERATION OF THE PROPERTY I N QUESTION. FURTHER, THE APPELLANT HAS NOT FILED ANY CONFIRMATI ON FROM THE SELLER EITHER BEFORE THE AO OR DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS THAT THE ACTUAL SALE CONSIDERATION OF THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION AS RECEIVED BY THEM IS RS. 84,31,960/- AS AGAINST RS. 39,28,637/- MENTIONED IN THE CONVEYANCE DEED. THIS IS VERY IMPO RTANT IN LIGHT OF THE FACT THAT SUMMONS ISSUED U/S 131 BY TH E AO DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS REMAINED NON COMPLIED WI TH. MOREOVER, IF APPELLANTS CONTENTION THAT THE ACTUAL SALE CONSIDERATION PAID TO THE SELLERS IS MORE THAN WHAT IS MENTIONED IN THE CONVEYANCE DEED IS ACCEPTED, THEN PERHAPS TH E APPELLANT COMMITTED AN ILLEGAL ACT BY EVADING STAMP DUTY PAYM ENT ON THE PROPERTY TRANSFERRED. 3.9. IN ANY CASE FOR THE PURPOSE OF WORKING OUT THE APPELLANTS INVESTMENT IN PURCHASE OF PROPERTY THE ONLY GUIDING DOCUMENT CAN BE DULY REGISTERED SALE DEED. NO OTHER DOCUMENT CAN TAKE PRECEDENT OVER THE SAME. THE AO IS THEREFORE PERFEC TLY IN THE RIGHT IN ADOPTING THE VALUE OF APPELLANTS SHARES IN INVESTMENT IN PURCHASE OF PROPERTY AS PER THE VALUE REFLECTED IN THE CONVEYANCE DEED DATED 12.12.2007. THE AOS ACTION I N THIS REGARD IS UPHELD. THE EXEMPTION U/S 54F IS THEREFOR E RESTRICTED TO THE VALUE/ THE AMOUNT OF INVESTMENT AS REFLECTED IN THE CONVEYANCE DEED. THE AO IS DIRECTED TO REWORK THE T AXABLE CAPITAL GAIN IN VIEW OF THE FINDING IN THE PRECEDIN G PARA THAT THE COST OF ACQUISITION OF THE PROPERTY SOLD IN THANE I S TO BE TAKEN AS PER THE REGISTERED VALUER REPORT. THE APPELLANT GETS PARTIAL RELIEF. THESE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE PARTLY ALLOWED. 4.5. APROPOS ESTIMATION OF PROFESSIONAL INCOME, THE CIT(A) GAVE PART RELIEF BY FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS: ITA 1455/DEL/11 DR. RADHIKA LABROO 5 4.2. I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION MAD E BY THE APPELLANT AND ALSO THE REASONING GIVEN BY THE AO FO R REJECTING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE APPELLANT. A PERUSAL OF THE DISCREPANCIES NOTED BY THE AO AS GIVEN ON PAGE 4 & 5 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER REVEAL THAT THOUGH SOME OF THE MIS TAKES CAN BE PUT IN THE CATEGORY OF CLERICAL HUMAN ERRORS BUT CERTAIN OTHER INSTANCES POINTED OUT BY THE AO REVEAL THAT PROPER RECORD OF THE RECEIPTS IS NOT BEING KEPT BY THE APPELLANT. THEREF ORE, THE AOS ACTION OF REJECTING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND ESTIMA TING THE GROSS RECEIPTS IS UPHELD IN PRINCIPLE. HOWEVER, AT THE SAME TIME THE ESTIMATE MADE BY THE AO IS HELD TO BE ON THE HI GHER SIDE. IT WILL BE FAIR AND JUST IF THE GROSS RECEIPTS ARE TAK EN AT RS. 4 LACS AS AGAINST RS. 6,83,832/- WORKED OUT BY THE AO. THE NET RECEIPTS AFTER ALLOWING THE EXPENSES CLAIMED AT RS. 1,00,008/- COMES TO RS. 3 LACS APPROXIMATELY AS AGAINST RS. 4, 59,824/- WORKED OUT BY THE AO. THE APPELLANT GETS THE CONSEQ UENTIAL RELIEF. THE AO IS DIRECTED TO REWORK THE APPELLANT S INCOME FROM BUSINESS AND PROFESSION IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE D IRECTION. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE IS BEFORE US. 5. LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE CONTENDS THAT T HE APPELLANT INVESTED ENTIRE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN OF RS. 43,47,164/- IN PURCHASE OF RESIDENTIAL FLAT NO. 1202, BLOCK-7, UNIWORLD GARDEN, SECTOR-47, GURGAON BY A TRIPARTITE AGREEMENT BETWEEN SELLER OF FLAT LT. GEN. PARAMJIT SINGH AND MONA SINGH, BUILDER RHINO BUILDER AND PAID THE PURCHASE AMOUNT BY A/C PAYEE CHEQUES AND DEMAND DRAFT IN TERMS OF THIS TRIPARTITE SALE A GREEMENT. THE CONVEYANCE DEED WAS SUBSEQUENTLY EXECUTED ON 12-12-2007 BETWEE N THE BUILDER M/S RHINO HOLDINGS PVT. LTD. AND ASSESSEE WITH SUNALI P RAKASH TAMHANEY AS CO- PURCHASER. APPELLANTS RS. 19,64,319/- AS PER BUILD ERS CONVEYANCE DEED WHICH WAS ON PRICE PAID BY LT. GEN. PARAMJIT SINGH AND MONA SINGH. IT WAS UNDISPUTEDLY A CASE OF SECOND SALE. ITA 1455/DEL/11 DR. RADHIKA LABROO 6 5.1. LD. COUNSEL REFERRED TO PAPER BOOK PAGES 23-24 , WHICH IS THE FIRST AGREEMENT BETWEEN M/S RHINO BUILDERS AND THE VERY FIRST BUYER SHRI SUNIL KAKKAR DATED 28-2-2004. THE SAME HAS BEE N ASSIGNED IN FAVOUR OF PARAMJIT & MONA SINGH 23-8-2005. THEREAFT ER, IT HAS BEEN ASSIGNED IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE ON 16-5-2007. 5.2. LT. GEN. PARAMJIT & MONA SINGH HAVE EXECUTED A N INDEMNITY BOND IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE IN MAY 2007, THE SAME IS NOTARIZED ON 14- 5-2007, CERTIFYING THAT THEY HAVE TRANSFERRED THE R IGHT, TITLE AND INTEREST IN THE FLAT IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE. 5.3. BANK OF BARODA CERTIFICATE (PAPER BOOK PAGE N O. 21), CERTIFYING THAT ASSESSEE PAID A SUM OF RS. 42 LACS BY A PAY OR DER, IS ON RECORD. 5.4. LEARNED COUNSEL FURTHER CONTENDS THAT THERE AO HAS RAISED NO QUESTION ABOUT THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION. THE FLAT WAS PURCHASED BY AN AGREEMENT TO SELL BETWEEN THREE PARTIES I.E. ASS ESSEE, LT. GEN. PARAMJIT SINGH AND THE BUILDER. THE ACTUAL AMOUNT OF CONSIDE RATION WAS RS. 42,15,980/- BETWEEN ASSESSEE AND LT. GEN. PARAMJIT SINGH & MS. MONA SINGH, WHO WERE FIRST OWNERS OF THE FLAT. SINCE IT WAS A BUILDER FLAT, M/S RHINO HOLDINGS PVT. LTD., WAS A COMPULSORY PARTY FO R CONVEYANCE. THE FLAT WAS EARLIER PURCHASED BY LT. GEN. PARAMJIT SINGH IN WHOSE FAVOUR CONVEYANCE WAS NOT EXECUTED, THEREFORE IT WAS CONVE YED DIRECTLY BY THE BUILDER IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE. IT DOES NOT SIGNIFY THAT THE PRICE PAID BY THE ASSESSEE FOR PURCHASE OF FLAT WAS LESSER AMOUNT. TH E ACTUAL CONSIDERATION PAID TO LT. GEN. PARAMJIT SINGH WAS AS PER THE TRIP ARTITE AGREEMENT WHICH FOR THE FULL AMOUNT OF RS. 42,15,980/-. HE BEING AN AR MY OFFICER REFUSED TO ITA 1455/DEL/11 DR. RADHIKA LABROO 7 CONFIRM ANYTHING FURTHER THAN THE ALREADY SIGNED TH E AGREEMENT. IT HAS NOT BEEN HELD BY THE AO THAT THE TRIPARTITE AGREEMENT I S SHAM OR BOGUS, THEREFORE, BOTH THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE ERRED IN ADOPTING THE CONVEYANCE VALUE. 5.5. THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION IN THE OBSERVATION T HAT HE SALE DEED BEARS NO DATE AND ACTUAL AMOUNT OF PURCHASE COULD NOT BE ASC ERTAINED. A VERIFICATION OF PAPER BOOK WILL REVEAL THAT ASSESSEE ACTUALLY PA ID A SUM OF RS. 43,47,164/- TO SECOND BUYERS IN LINE, PRECEDED BY T HE FIRST BUYER SHRI SUNIL KAKKAR FROM RHINO BUILDERS. 5.6. APROPOS OTHER ISSUE, IT IS CONTENDED THAT THE BOOKS HAVE BEEN REJECTED DUE TO MINOR CLERICAL HUMAN ERRORS LIKE DISCREPANCI ES IN SIGNATURES AND DATES ETC. THE ASSESSEE IS A LADY DENTIST AND COULD NOT EMPLOY RECEPTIONIST/ CLERK FOR ISSUING RECEIPTS TO PATIENTS AND SUCH HUMAN ERR ORS CANNOT BE HELD TO BE REASON FOR REJECTION OF THE BOOKS. 6. LEARNED DR IS HEARD WHO SUPPORTS THE ORDER OF LO WER AUTHORITIES. 7. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND GONE THROUGH THE ENTIRE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. 7.1. SO FAR AS LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN IS CONCERNED, THE TRIPARTITE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE, LT. GEN. PARAMJIT SINGH, AND M/S RHINO HOLDINGS PVT. LTD. HAS NOT BEEN HELD TO BE SHAM OR BOGUS. CO NSEQUENTLY, THE ACTUAL SALE OF THE FLAT WAS MADE BY LT. GEN. PARAMJIT SI NGH & MS. MONA SINGH IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. LT. GEN. PARAMJIT SINGH & M ONA SINGH HAD EARLIER ITA 1455/DEL/11 DR. RADHIKA LABROO 8 PURCHASED THE FLAT FROM SHRI SUNIL KAKKAR WHO IN TU RN PURCHASED IT FROM M/S RHINO HOLDINGS PVT. LTD. AND IT WAS ULTIMATELY CON VEYED IN THE FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE. IN VIEW THEREOF, COST OF ACQUISITION PAID BY THE ASSESSEE WILL MEAN ACTUALLY PAID BY THE ASSESSEE TO LT. GEN. PARAMJIT SINGH & MONA SINGH. THE CONVEYANCE BETWEEN ASSESSEE AND BUILDER AT THE PURC HASE PRICE OF FIRST PURCHASE CANNOT BE HELD TO BE THE ACTUAL COST OF AC QUISITION. 7.2. WE ARE UNABLE TO AGREE WITH LOWER AUTHORITIES THAT THERE IS NO MENTION OF DATE OR PLACE IN AGREEMENT TO SELL. IN VIEW OF A BOVE DOCUMENTS ON PAPER BOOK, THESE ASPECTS ARE CLEARLY VERIFIABLE. BESIDES , THE TRANSACTION OF PURCHASE HAS BEEN ACCEPTED ALBEIT AT A LOWER PRICE. 7.3. HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF MYSORE MINERALS 239 ITR 775 HAS VERY WELL DEFINED THE CONCEPT OF OWNERSHIP. LT. GEN. PARAMJIT SINGH & MONA SINGH WERE THE EFFECTIVE OWNERS OF THE FLAT W HICH WAS SOLD TO ASSESSEE AT A PRICE MENTIONED ABOVE. IN VIEW THEREO F, THE ACTUAL COST OF PURCHASE OF THE SAID FLAT IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSES SEE HAS TO BE TAKEN AT RS. 43,47,164/-. IN VIEW OF THIS OBSERVATION, WE ALLOW THIS GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE. 8. COMING TO THE OTHER ISSUE ABOUT THE ESTIMATION O F PROFESSIONAL INCOME, CIT(A) HAS REFERRED TO THE OBSERVATION OF A O FOR NON-MAINTENANCE OF ASSESSEES BOOKS AS PER RULE 6F(2) OF THE I.T. R ULES, THOUGH IT HAS BEEN PLEADED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THA T THE ASSESSEE IS A LADY DOCTOR, NOT WELL VERSED WITH THE ACCOUNT AND HAD TO GET THE HELP OF A CLERK. IN OUR VIEW THE CIT(A) HAS CONSIDERED THIS ASPECT WHIL E GIVING PART RELIEF. AO MADE AN UNSCIENTIFIC ESTIMATE BY AVERAGING THE PATI ENTS AND ADOPTING A FEE OF ITA 1455/DEL/11 DR. RADHIKA LABROO 9 RS. 100/- PER PATIENT FOR 4 A DAY AND FOR 310 DAYS. CIT(A) REDUCED THE ADDITION TO RS. 1,79,550/-. IN OUR VIEW, INTEREST O F JUSTICE WILL BE MET IF THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF PROFESSIONAL RECEIPTS IS RES TRICTED TO RS. ONE LAKH. IN VIEW THEREOF THIS GROUND OF ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLO WED. 9. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOW ED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 9-12-2011. SD/- SD/- (A.N. PAHUJA ) ( R.P. TOLANI ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 9-12-2011. MP COPY TO : 1. ASSESSEE 2. AO 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR ITA 1455/DEL/11 DR. RADHIKA LABROO 10