ITO, New Delhi V. M/s. Gurdayal Nirman Udyog Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 1491/DEL/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2714 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 9 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-01-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 21-12-2015
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 30-03-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: T VASANTHAN
• Assessee Lawyers: S C GUPTA TAX CONSULTANT
• Keywords: Search and seizure; Document seized; Principle of natural justice; Question of law; Reason to believe; Documents seized
• Section: 68

Judgement Text

ITA NO. 1491/DEL/2012 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH C, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A.NO.1491/DEL/2012 A.Y. : 2003-04 INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 12(3) NEW DELHI VS. M/S GURDAYAL NIRMAN UDYOG PVT. LTD., Y-286, MB ROAD, LAI KUAN, BADARPUR, NEW DELHI (PAN: AAACG0067G) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) DEPARTMENT BY : SH. T. VASANTHAN, SR. DR ASSESSEE BY : SH. S.C. GUPTA, TAX CONSULTANT DATE OF HEARING : 22-12-2015 DATE OF ORDER : 04-01-2016 ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU : JM THE REVENUE HAS FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL AGAINST T HE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 17/1/2012 PASSED BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-XV, NEW DELHI ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- 1. WHETHER THE LD. CIT(A) IS CORRECT IN HOLDING THAT THE REOPENING HAS BEEN DONE IN A MECHANICAL MANNER, WHEN THE AO AFTER DULY APPLYING HIS MIND TO THE INVESTIGATION REPORT AND SEIZED PAPER FORMED A REASON TO BELIEF THAT THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE HAD ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. 2. WHETHER THE LD. CIT(A) IS CORRECT IN HOLDING THA T THE ADDL. CIT HAS NOT APPLIED HIS MIND WHEN HE IN HIS OWN HAND WRITING HAS SPECIFICALLY ANSWERED IN ITA NO. 1491/DEL/2012 2 AFFIRMATIVE TO THE QUESTION WHETHER THE ADDL. COMMISSIONER IS SATISFIED ON THE REASONS RECORDED BY THE ITO THAT IT IS A FIT CASE FOR THE ISSUE OF N OTICE U/S. 148. 3. WHETHER LD. CIT(A) WAS CORRECT ON FACT AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW IN DELETING TH E ADDITION OF RS. 44,50,000/- MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF BOGUS CASH CREDIT U/S. 68 OF THE I.T. AC T. 4. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE, TO ADD, ALTER OR AME ND ANY GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED ABOVE AT THE TIME OF TH E HEARING. 2. THE FACTS NARRATED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES ARE NOT IN DISPUTE, HENCE, THE SAME ARE NOT REPEATED HERE FOR THE SAKE OF BREV ITY. 3. AT THE TIME OF HEARING LD. DR RELIED UPON THE OR DER OF THE AO AND REITERATED THE CONTENTIONS RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN THE GROUNDS. 4. ON THE CONTRARY, DURING THE HEARING, LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE A UTHORITY AND ALSO FILED A COPY OF THE TRIBUNALS ORDER DATED 29.11.2013 PA SSED IN THE CASE OF M/S FLOWMORE ANTI COUNTERFEIT SECURITY SYSTEM P. LTD. V S. ITO IN ITA NO. 3532/DEL/2008 (AY 2001-02) AND STATED THAT THE F ACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE ARE IDENTICAL TO THE CASE OF M/S FLOWMORE ANTI COU NTERFEIT SECURITY SYSTEM P. LTD. VS. ITO (SUPRA), THEREFORE, THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE AFORESAID DECISION WHEREIN THE TRIBUNAL HAS FOLLOWED THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI DECISION IN THE CASE OF PREM P RAKASH NAGPAL DECIDED IN ITA NO. 57/2012. HE REQUESTED THAT APPEAL FILED B Y THE REVENUE MAY BE DISMISSED. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE BOTH PARTIES AND PERUSED AND CONSIDERED THE RELEVANT RECORD AVAILABLE WITH US SPECIALLY THE IMPUGNED ORD ERS PASSED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES AND THE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 29.11.2013 OF THE TRIBUNAL PASSED IN THE CASE OF M/S FLOWMORE ANTI C OUNTERFEIT SECURITY ITA NO. 1491/DEL/2012 3 SYSTEM P. LTD. VS. ITO IN ITA NO. 3532/DEL/2008 (AY 2001-02). WE FIND THAT LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS ELABORATELY DISCUSSED THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE BY CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE AND ADJUDICATED THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE AS UNDER:- 6. I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ABOVE SUBMISSIONS OF TH E APPELLANT AND HAVE CONSIDERED THE JUDICIAL DECISIO N RELIED UPON BOTH BY THE APPELLANT AS WELL AS AO AND HAVE A LSO CONSIDERED THE EVIDENCES AND FACTS AVAILABLE ON REC ORD. THE FACT IS THAT THE CASE WAS RE-OPENED BY THE AO ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM THE INVESTIG ATION WING. IT MAY BE MENTIONED THAT AT THE STAGE OF REO PENING, THE AO HAS TO FORM REASON TO BELIEVE ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION AVAILABLE WITH HIM. HE NEED NOT FINALLY ASCERTAIN THE FACTS AT THE STAGE OF REOPENING. IN THE CASE OF RAYMOND WOOLEN MILLS LTD. VS. ITO (2 36 ITR 34) (SC), THE HONBLE APEX COURT HAS HELD THAT AT THE STAGE OF REOPENING ONLY PRIMA FACIE MATERIAL HAS TO BE TH ERE WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE SUFFICIENCY OR CORRECTNE SS OF THE MATERIAL IS NOT TO BE CONSIDERED AT THAT STAGE. THUS IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DECISION THE AO WAS WELL WITHIN HIS RIGHT TO RE-OPEN THE CASE ON THE BASIS OF INFOR MATION RECEIVED FROM THE INVESTIGATION. 6.1 HOWEVER AO BALDLY RELIED ON THE INFORMATION RE CEIVED, HE HAS NOT EXAMINED THE INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM T HE INVESTIGATION WING AND RECORDED THE SAME FINDING AT THE TIME OF RE-OPENING THE ASSESSMENT. THE AO HAS TO AC T ON THE BASIS OF 'REASON TO BELIEVE' NOT 'REASON TO SUS PECT'. EVEN FURTHER WHEN THE AO REFERRED TO MATTER TO THE ADDITIONAL CIT TO SEEK HIS APPROVAL FOR RE-OPENING THE CASE, THE ADDITIONAL CIT (AGAINST COLUMN NO. 12) HAS NOT RECORDED ITA NO. 1491/DEL/2012 4 HIS SATISFACTION AT ALL, HE HAS JUST RECORDED THE W ORD YES WITH NO DATE OR COMMENTS. ALL THESE FACTS SHOW THA T THE RE- OPENING HAS BEEN DONE IN A VERY MECHANICAL MANNER WITHOUT ANY APPLICATION OF MIND. THUS IN MY VIEW TH E RE- OPENING IS NOT VALID AND IN COMING TO THIS CONCLUSI ON, I RELY ON THE DECISION OF: A) CIT VS. SFIL STOCK BROKING LTD. (2010)(325 ITR 2 85) (DELHI). B) CHHUGAMAL RAJPAL VS. S.O. CHALIHA (1971) (79 ITR 603) {SC). 6.2. FURTHER EVEN ON MERITS IT ALSO OBSERVED FROM T HE APPELLANT'S SUBMISSIONS THAT WHEN THE REASONS OF RE - OPENING WERE COMMUNICATED TO THE APPELLANT ON 23.11.2010. THE APPELLANT ON 28.11.2010 ASKED THE A O TO SUPPLY THE COPY OF STATEMENT OF SH. MANMOHAN SINGH (MD OF INDO-AMERICAN ELECTRICAL LTD AND MR. NAVNEET JHA NB, WHICH WAS AN IMPORTANT EVIDENCE USED AGAINST THE APPELLANT BUT THE AO VIDE HIS LETTER DATED 07.12.20 10 STATED THAT NO SUCH STATEMENT IS AVAILABLE ON RECO RD.' EVEN DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS WHE N THE AO WAS ASKED TO SEND THE DOCUMENTS ON WHICH THEY HA VE RELIED AND CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE APPELLAN T HAS PAID RS. 44,50,000/- IN CASH ON ACCOUNT OF PURCHASE OF LAND FROM INDO AMERICAN ELECTRICAL LTD., THE AO VID E HIS LETTER DATED 31.10.2011, SUPPLIED THE EXTRACTS OF A PPRAISAL REPORT AND THE REASON FOR REOPENING. THE COPY OF TH E AOS LETTER DATED 31.10.2011 WAS FORWARDED TO THE APPELL ANT FOR THEIR COMMENTS. 6.3 FROM THE APPELLANT SUBMISSIONS AS WELL AS FROM THE PERUSAL OF THE EXTRACTS OF APPRAISAL REPORT ON THE BASIS OF ITA NO. 1491/DEL/2012 5 WHICH THE AO HAS MADE THE ADDITIONS, IT IS SEEN THA T NOWHERE IN THE APPRAISAL REPORT NOR DURING THE COUR SE OF SEARCH MR. MANMOHAN SINGH (MD OF INDO AMERICAN ELECTRICAL LTD. WHO HAVE SOLD THE LAND) AND MR. NAV NEET JHANB (THE PROPERTY DEALER THROUGH WHOM LAND HAVE B EEN SOLD) HAVE ADMITTED THAT THEY HAVE RECEIVED THE CAS H FROM THE APPELLANT COMPANY, EVEN AT THE ASSESSMENT STAGE THIS BASIC ENQUIRY HAS NOT BEEN DONE BY THE AO. NOWHERE IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THE AO HAS MENTIONED ON WHAT PAPERS/DOCUMENTS HE HAS COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE APPELLANT HAS PAID MONEY IN CASH FOR THE PURCHASE O F LAND. 6.4. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, IT IS QUITE CLEAR THAT THE AO HAS NOT FOLLOWED THE RULES OF NATURAL JUSTICE, THE EVID ENCES USED AGAINST THE APPELLANT NOWHERE MENTIONS OR SUGGESTS THAT THE CASH HAS BEEN PAID BY THE APPELLANT, SIMPLY ACT ING ON THE REPORT WITHOUT SUPPORTED BY ANY EVIDENCE TO THA T EFFECT, IN MY OPINION DOESN'T WARRANT THE AO TO TAKE AN ADV ERSE VIEW. HENCE IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, THE AD DITION MADE BY THE AO, DESERVES TO BE DELETED. 7. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED. 5.1 WE ALSO FIND CONSIDERABLE COGENCY IN THE CONTE NTION OF THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE IN THE REVENUES APPEAL IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE TRIBUNALS ORDER DATED 2 9.11.2013 PASSED IN THE CASE OF M/S FLOWMORE ANTI COUNTERFEIT SECURITY SYST EM P. LTD. VS. ITO IN ITA NO. 3532/DEL/2008 (AY 2001-02), WHEREIN, THE TRIBUNAL HAS ADJUDICATED THE MATTER VIDE PARA 10 TO 13 AS UNDER: - 10. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORDS. WE FIND THAT THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF DUA AUTO COMPONENTS P LTD. (SUPRA) AND M/S INDICATION I NSTRUMENTS ITA NO. 1491/DEL/2012 6 LTD. (SUPRA) HAS CONSIDERED SIMILAR ADDITIONS IN TH E CASE OF OTHER ASSESSEES WHICH WERE MADE ON THE BASIS OF SAME DO CUMENTS FOUND IN THE SAME SEARCH. THE TRIBUNAL HAS CONS IDERED THE ISSUE IN THE CASE OF DUA AUTO COMPONENTS P LTD. AS UNDER:- 6. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE COUNSEL AND PERUSED THE RECORDS. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER MENTIONS ABOUT THE SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION CARRIED OUT BY THE INVESTIGATION WING AT THE BUSINE SS PREMISES OF M/S MANAV RACHNA GROUP OF COMPANIES ON 4.8.2005, WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN CLAIMED THAT CERTAIN INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS WERE SEIZED WHICH INDICATED THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY PURCHASED A PLOT. THE PLOT HAD BEEN SAID TO BE REGISTERED FOR RS. 1320521/- AND THE DOCUMENTS SEIZED INDICATED THAT ASSESSEE HAS INVESTED RS. 60,36,000/- IN CASH FOR PURCHASE THE SAID LAND. 6.1 WE FIND THAT THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT BROUGHT EVEN A SINGLE WORD REGARDING THE NATURE OF DOCUMENT AND HOW HE HAS CONCLUDED THAT THEY BELONG TO THE ASSESSEES AND THAT ON MONEY TRANSACTION HAS BEEN TAKEN PLACE. HE HAS SIMPLY RELIED UPON THE REASONS RECORDED WITHOUT SHOWING ANY APPLICATION OF MIND ON HIS PART. 6.2 IN THIS REGARD WE NOTE THAT IT IS ALSO NOT THE CASE THAT THE SELLER HAS MADE ANY STATEMENT OR HAD ACCEPTED THE RECEIPT OF ON MONEY I.E. CONSIDERATION OVER AND ABOVE THAT DISCLOSED. IT IS ALSO NOT THE CASE THAT THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS WERE IN THE HANDWRITING OF THE ASSESSEE OR THE SELLER OR WERE SEIZED FROM THE PREMISES OF SELLER AND PURCHASER. LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ITA NO. 1491/DEL/2012 7 BROUGHT OUT VARIOUS DISCREPANCIES IN THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS RELIED UPON BY THE REVENUE AND STRIKING FEATURE OF THESE ANOMALIES IS THAT IN THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS, IT HAS BEEN MENTIONED THAT THE IMPUGNED PLOT WAS NOT SOLD. THUS, THE WORKING AND THE FIGURES MENTIONED THEREIN CAN AT BEST BE SAID T O BE TENTATIVE OR EXPECTED AMOUNT. THIS BY NO STRET CH OF IMAGINATION CAN BE TREATED AS CONCLUSIVE PROOFS OF ON MONEY TRANSACTIONS. MOREOVER, IT IS AN ADMITT ED FACT THAT THE DOCUMENTS BEING RELIED UPON SHOWED ACCOUNT AS ON 31.10.2001, WHILE AS PER THE REGISTERED SALE DEED THE PLOT WAS SOLD ON 23.5.200 2. UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THESE ADDITIONS HAVE BEEN MADE ON THE BASIS OF DOCUMENTS FOUND DURING SEARCH AT THE PLACE OF A THIRD PARTY WHICH AT BEST ONLY SHOWED THE TENTATIVE /PROJECTED PURCHASE CONSIDERATION. IT IS NOT THE CASE THAT THE CIRCLE RATE OR THE VALUE AS PER STAMP REGISTRATION AUTHORITIES OF THE IMPUGNED PROPERTY IS MORE THAN WHAT HAS BEEN DISCLOSED. IT IS ALSO NOT THE CASE THAT UNACCOUN TED CASH HAS BEEN FOUND TO BE PAID BY THE ASSESSEE OR RECEIVED BY THE SELLER. THERE IS ALSO NO STATEM ENT OF THE SELLER ON RECORD THAT HE HAS OBTAINED ON MONEY. UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE ADDITIONS MADE IN THIS REGARD IS NOT SUSTAINABLE. 6.3 IN THIS REGARD, WE PLACE RELIANCE UPON THE HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF K.P. VARGHESE V S. INCOME TAX OFFICER, ERNAKULAM AND ANOTHER 131 ITR 597 (SC), WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT THE BURDEN OF PROVING IS THAT OF REVENUE WHEN THERE IS ALLEGATION OF UNDERSTATEMENT ON CONCEALMENT IN THE CONSIDERATION SHOWN. ITA NO. 1491/DEL/2012 8 6.4 WE ALSO PLACE RELIANCE UPON THE JUDGEMENT OF THE HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF C.I.T. VS. P. V. KALYANASUNDARAM IN (2007) 294 ITR 49 (SC) IN WHICH ALLEGATIONS OF ON MONEY TRANSACTION ON THE BASIS OF NON-CONVINCING LOOSE SHEETS FOUND DURING T HE COURSE OF SEARCH AND CONFLICTING STATEMENT OF THE SELLER, WAS DELETED BY THE TRIBUNAL (TO WHICH, ONE OF US THE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER WAS THE PARTY) AND THE SAME WAS AFFIRMED BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT AND HONBLE APEX COURT. 11. WE FIND THAT IN THE CASE OF M/S INDICATION INST RUMENTS LTD. (SUPRA), THE TRIBUNAL HAS OBSERVED THAT SINCE THE F ACTS AND DOCUMENTS IN THE PRESENT CASE WERE SAME AS REFERRED IN THE ABOVE TRIBUNAL DECISION, THE REVENUE ALLEGATION OF MONEY TRANSACTION WAS DISMISSED. THE ABOVE DECISION WAS SUBJECT MATTER OF AN APPEAL BEFORE THE HONBLE JURISDICTION AL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ITA NO. 603/2011 IN THE CASE OF INDI CATION INSTRUMENTS LTD. (SUPRA) AND IN ITA NO. 57-/2012 I N THE CASE OF PREM PRAKASH NAGPAL AND THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HAS DISMISSED THE REVENUES APPEAL. IN THE CASE OF PREM PRAKASH NAGPAL (SUPRA) THE CONCLUDING REMARKS OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT IS AS UNDER:- THE ABOVE DECISION, MADE IN M/S INDICATION INSTRUMENTS LTD. (SUPRA) WAS AFFIRMED BY A DIVISION BENCH OF THIS COURT IN ITA NO. 603/2011, CIT VS. INDICATION INSTRUMENTS LTD. (DECIDED ON 10.5.2012). IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE AND HAVING REGARD TO THE FACT THAT THE TRIBUNAL TOOK INTO THE ACCOUNT AND APPLIED THE RATIO IN KP VARGHESE VS. ITO, ERNAKULAM, (1981) 131 ITR 597 (SC) AS WELL AS THE SUBSEQUENT RULING IN CIT VS. PV KALYANSUNDARAM, (2007) 294 ITR ITA NO. 1491/DEL/2012 9 49(SC), THIS COURT IS OF THE OPINION THAT NO SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION. 12. THUS, WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE INVOLVED IS COVERE D IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. TO RECAPITULATE IN THIS REGARD, THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS WERE NOT IN THE HANDWRITING OF THE ASSESS EE OR THE SELLER. THE DOCUMENTS WERE NEITHER SEIZED FROM THE SELLER NOR THE PURCHASER. THE SELLER HAS NOT BEEN MADE ANY STATEM ENT AND HAS NOT ACCEPTED THE RECEIPT OF ON MONEY. THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER HAS NOT BROUGHT OUT ANY COGENT BASIS AS TO HOW THE DOCU MENTS PERTAINED TO THE ASSESSEE AND THE ON MONEY TRANSACT ION HAS TAKEN PLACE. THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS DO NO SHOW THAT THE IMPUGNED PLOTS WERE SOLD. THUS, THE WORKING FIGURE S MENTIONED THEREIN CAN AT BEST BE SAID TO BE TENTATIVE OR EX PECTED AMOUNT. THIS CAN NOT BE TREATED AS A CONCLUSIVE PROOF. IT IS ALSO NOT THE CASE THAT ON MONEY TRANSACTION IS PROVED ON THE BA SIS OF THE REGISTERED SALE DEED. IT IS ALSO NOT THE CASE THA T CIRCLE RATE OR THE VALUE OF THE STAMP DUTY OF THE IMPUGNED PROPERTY IS MORE THAN WHAT HAS BEEN DISCLOSED. IT IS ALSO NOT THE CASE O F THAT UNACCOUNTED CASH HAVE BEEN FOUND AND TO BE PAID BY THE ASSESSEE AND RECEIVED BY THE SELLER. IN THESE CIRC UMSTANCES, RATIO FROM THE HONBLE APEX COURT FROM THE DECISION OF THE KP VARGHESE VS. ITO 131 ITR 597 (SC) AND ALSO FROM THE HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF C.I.T. VS. PV KALYANSUNDA RAM IN 294 ITR 49 (SC) ARE APPLICABLE. ACCORDINGLY, RESPECTFU LLY FOLLOWING THE PRECEDENTS AS ABOVE, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND DECIDE THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSE E. 13. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS ALLOWED AS ABOVE. ITA NO. 1491/DEL/2012 10 6. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE PRECEDENT, AS AFORES AID, WE UPHOLD THE WELL REASONED ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AU THORITY WHICH DOES NOT NEED ANY INTERFERENCE ON OUR PART. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DIS MISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 04/01/2016. SD/- SD/- [PRASHANT MAHARISHI] [H.S. SIDHU] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATE 04/01/2016 SRBHATNAGAR COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT - 2. RESPONDENT - 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, DELHI BENCHES