ITO, New Delhi V. M/s Santur Developers P. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 1532/DEL/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 91443 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 3 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-07-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Next Hearing Date: 22-05-2015
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 29-03-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P DAM KANUNJNA
• Keywords: Capital asset; Gift; Double taxation relief; Advance ruling
• Section: 234B; 201(1)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH G NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S.V. MEHROTRA : ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI A.T. VARKEY.: JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 1532/DEL/2011 ASSTT. YR: 2006-07 INCOME-TAX OFFICER, VS. M/S SANTUR DEVELOPERS P. L TD., TDS WARD 2(2), [INTL. TAXN.], A-2/133, SAFDARJUNG ENCLAVE, NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI. PAN: AAACH 0135 N ( APPELLANT ) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI P. DAM. KANUNJNA SR. DR RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SALIL AGARWAL ADV. DATE OF HEARING: : 22/05/2015. DATE OF ORDER : 24/07/2015. O R D E R PER S.V. MEHROTRA, A.M.. : THIS APPEAL, PREFERRED BY THE REVENUE, IS DIRECTED AGAINST CIT(A)S ORDER DATED 9-12-2010 IN APPEAL NO. 39/09-10, RELA TING TO A.Y. 2006-07. 2. THE AO HAD LEVIED INTEREST U/S 201(1A) IN RESPEC T OF CAPITAL GAIN ACCRUED TO ASSESSEE ON 8-6-2005 TILL THE DATE ON WH ICH CAPITAL GAIN TAX OF RS. 3,46,61,146/- WAS DEPOSITED I.E. 28-9-2007. THUS, I NTEREST @ 1% FOR 27 MONTHS WAS COMPUTED AT RS. 93,58,510/-. LD. CIT(A) WHILE PARTLY ALLOWING 2 ITA 1532/DEL/2011 ITO VS. SANTUR DEVELOPRES P LTD. THE ASSESSEES APPEAL, INTER ALIA, HELD THAT ASSESS EE WAS NOT LIABLE TO DEDUCT TAX U/S 195. 3. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT SHRI JASBIR SINGH SARKARIA, A CITIZEN OF USA, WAS ONE OF THE THREE CO-OWNERS OF LAND ADME ASURING 27.7 ACRES, SITUATED IN PANCHKULA, HARYANA. THE ASSESSEE , M/S SANTUR DEVELOPERS P. LTD ENTERED INTO A COLLABORATION AGRE EMENT WITH THE 3 CO- OWNERS ON 8.6.2005 AND A SUPPLEMENTARY AGREEMENT ON 15.09.2005. EARNEST MONEY OF RS 1 CRORE WAS PAID WITH SIGNING O F FIRST AGREEMENT. AO HAS OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE MADE PAYMENTS IN RESPECT OF SUCH AGREEMENTS TO THE NON-RESIDENT WITHOUT DEDUCTION OF TAX THEREON. PROCEEDINGS U/S 201 WERE INITIATED AGAINST THE ASSE SSEE. THE AO AFTER CONSIDERING THE ASSESSEES SUBMISSIONS, INTER ALIA, OBSERVED AS UNDER: (I) THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO DEDUCT TAX U/S 195 ON THE DATE WHEN THE INCOME ACCRUED TO THE PAYEE SHRI JASBIR SINGH SARKARI. IN REGARD TO THE ASSESSEES SUBMISSION THAT THERE WAS NO FOREIGN REMITTANCE AND ALL PAYMENTS WERE MADE IN INDIAN RUP EES AND, THEREFORE, ASSESSEE WAS NOT LIABLE FOR DEDUCTION U/ S 195, THE AO OBSERVED THAT THE ONLY REQUIREMENT OF SECTION 19 5 WAS THAT PAYMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN MADE TO THE NON-RESIDENT. THE AO ALSO REJECTED THE ASSESSEES CONTENTION THAT SECTIO N 195 ONLY 3 ITA 1532/DEL/2011 ITO VS. SANTUR DEVELOPRES P LTD. REQUIRES DEDUCTION OF TAX FROM INCOME AND NOT FROM CAPITAL GAINS. HE REFERRED TO SECTION 2(24)(VI), WHICH INCL UDES CAPITAL GAIN ALSO. (II) AS REGARDS THE ASSESSEES PLEA THAT ASSESSEE HAD NO KNOWLEDGE OF THE FACT THAT ONE OF THE SELLER WAS NON-RESIDEN T, BECAUSE THE AGREEMENT WAS ENTERED INTO ONLY WITH INDIAN RESIDEN TS, ONE OF WHICH VIZ. SHRI KARANBIR SINGH SARKARIA WAS GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER OF SHRI JASBIR SINGH SARKARIA, AO OBSERVED THAT THE SAME COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED REASONABLE IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. (III) AS REGARDS THE ASSESSEES PLEA THAT IN THE CASE OF COCA COLA BEVERAGES 293 ITR 226 THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT HAS HELD THAT THE DEDUCTOR CANNOT BE TREATED AS ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT IF THE TAX HAS BEEN DEPOSITED, THE AO ACCEPTED THE SAME AN D ACCEPTED THE ASSESSEES CONTENTION, BUT HELD THAT L IABILITY TO CHARGE INTEREST U/S 201(1A) TILL THE DATE OF PAYMEN T OF TAX BY THE DEDUCTEE OR THE LIABILITY FOR PENALTY U/S 271C STILL REMAINS. HE, ACCORDINGLY, LEVIED INTEREST AT RS. 93,58,510/- . 4. BEFORE LD. CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE HAD PRIMARILY AD VANCED FOLLOWING SUBMISSIONS: (I) THE AO HIMSELF HAD HELD THAT SINCE THE OWNERS OF TH E LAND HAD ALREADY DEPOSITED THE TAX DUE ON THE INCOME FROM C APITAL GAINS, ARISING TO THEM, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE COU LD NOT BE TREATED AS AN ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT AND, THEREFORE, N O ORDER U/S 4 ITA 1532/DEL/2011 ITO VS. SANTUR DEVELOPRES P LTD. 201(1) HAD BEEN PASSED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. THEREF ORE, THERE WAS NO JUSTIFICATION IN CHARGING INTEREST U/S 201(1 A). (II) THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 195 WERE NOT APPLICABLE I N THE INSTANT CASE FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: (A) THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT ENTERED INTO AGREEMENT DIRECTL Y WITH NON-RESIDENT BUT WITH HIS REPRESENTATIVE SHRI KARAN BIR SINGH SARKARIA, WHO WAS AN INDIAN RESIDENT AND, THE REFORE, THE ASSESSEE WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR MAKING PAYMENT OF SALE PROCEEDS OF LAND UNDER THE AGREEMENT AND THE SALE-D EED ONLY TO A RESIDENT INDIAN WHO HAD ALL THE RIGHTS OV ER THE IMPUGNED LAND INCLUDING THE RIGHT TO SELL OR TRANSF ER OR ENTER INTO A COLLABORATION INVOLVING THE SAID LAND AND AL SO TO EXECUTE SALE-DEED/ GIFT DEED AND ALSO TO ENTER INTO ANY SALE AGREEMENT/ COLLABORATION AGREEMENT ETC. IN RESPECT OF SAID LAND. (B) THE CONSIDERATION WAS PAID IN INDIA THROUGH A/C PAY EE CHEQUES DRAWN IN INDIAN RUPEES AND THE PAYMENT WAS COLLECTED IN INDIA THROUGH INDIAN BANKS AND NO REM ITTANCE TO ANY FOREIGN COUNTRY WAS INVOLVED IN THE INSTANT CASE. THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 195 APPLY ONLY WHEN ANY REMIT TANCE IS REQUIRED TO BE MADE TO ANY FOREIGN COUNTRY. (C) AS PER PROVISIONS OF SECTION 195(6) THE PERSON RESP ONSIBLE FOR MAKING ANY PAYMENT TO A NON-RESIDENT IS TO FURN ISH THE INFORMATION RELATING TO SUCH PAYMENT IN FORM NO. 15 CA AND 5 ITA 1532/DEL/2011 ITO VS. SANTUR DEVELOPRES P LTD. 15CB READ WITH RULE 37BB OF THE INCOME-TAX RULES, W HICH REQUIRES THE INFORMATION IN REGARD TO REMITTANCE MA DE BY ASSESSEE. THUS, THE FURNISHING OF INFORMATION UNDER SUB- SECTION (6) OF SECTION 195 RELATES TO REMITTANCE OF PAYMENTS TO A NON-RESIDENT OR TO A FOREIGN COMPANY. IT, THER EFORE, FOLLOWS THAT THE REMITTANCE WITHIN INDIA IS NOT CO VERED. (D) THE SALE PROCEEDS OF LAND CANNOT BE SAID TO BE A SU M CHARGEABLE UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT AS SALE PROCEEDS IS NOT INCOME CHARGEABLE UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF TH IS ACT. THE SUBMISSION IS THAT SECTION 195 IS APPLICABLE ON LY WHEN INCOME IN THE NATURE OF INTEREST OR ANY OTHER SU M CHARGEABLE UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT, IS REQ UIRED TO BE PAID BY A RESIDENT INDIAN TO A NON-RESIDENT. HOW EVER, IN THE PRESENT CASE NO INCOME WAS PAID BY ASSESSEE BUT ONLY THE ENTIRE SALE CONSIDERATION WAS PAID. (III) THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 192 TO 196D IN CHAPTER XV II RELATING TO DEDUCTION OF TAX DO NOT PROVIDE ANY DED UCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE IN RESPECT OF SALE PROCEEDS OF AN IMM OVABLE PROPERTY PAID BY A RESIDENT TAX PAYER. FURTHER, SUC H DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE IS ALSO SNOT PROVIDED FOR IN ANY D TAA WITH ANY OTHER COUNTRY INCLUDING USA. THE SUBMISSION IS THAT THIS IS FOR AN OBVIOUS REASON BECAUSE THERE COULD NOT BE ANY DISCRIMINATION WHILE CHARGING TAX FROM A NON-RESIDE NT TAX PAYER VIS A VIS A RESIDENT TAX PAYER. ARTICLE 26 OF DTAA WITH 6 ITA 1532/DEL/2011 ITO VS. SANTUR DEVELOPRES P LTD. USA SPECIFICALLY PROVIDES THAT NATIONALS OF A CONTR ACTING STATE SHALL NOT BE SUBJECTED IN THE OTHER CONTRACTING STA TE TO ANY TAXATION OR ANY REQUIREMENT CONNECTED THEREWITH WHI CH IS OTHER OR MORE BURDENSOME THAN THE TAXATION AND CONN ECTED REQUIREMENTS TO WHICH NATIONALS IN THAT OTHER STATE IN THE SAME CIRCUMSTANCES ARE OR MAY BE SUBJECTED. (IV) THE ASSESSEES SUBMISSION WAS THAT WHEN A PROPERTY IS PURCHASED BY A RESIDENT INDIAN FROM ANY OTHER RESID ENT INDIAN AND SALE PROCEEDS ARE PAID, THEN IN SUCH CIRCUMSTAN CES THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT OF DEDUCTION OF ANY TDS IN ANY OF TH E PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, EVEN IF IT IS CON SIDERED JUST FOR THE SAKE OF ARGUMENT AND DISCUSSION, THAT THE I MPUGNED TRANSACTION OF PURCHASE OF LAND WAS BETWEEN A RESID ENT INDIAN AND A USA RESIDENT, THEN ALSO THERE COULD NOT BE AN Y LIABILITY FOR DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE ON PAYMENT OF SALE P ROCEEDS, AS OTHERWISE, THIS WILL BE A DISCRIMINATION RELATING T O THE TAXATION AND CONNECTING REQUIREMENT AND WILL MAKE IT MORE BURDENSOME FOR THE US RESIDENT. (V) WITHOUT PREJUDICE TON ABOVE SUBMISSIONS, THE ASSESS EE ALSO GAVE DETAILED CALCULATION IN PARA 7 OF ITS WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS THAT, IN ANY VIEW OF THE MATTER, TOTAL INTEREST WHI CH COULD BE CHARGED WAS RS. 32,75,899/- AS REPRODUCED BY LD. CI T(A) IN PARA 12 OF HIS ORDER. 7 ITA 1532/DEL/2011 ITO VS. SANTUR DEVELOPRES P LTD. 5. LD. CIT(A) UPHELD THE ASSESSEES CONTENTION THAT IT WAS NOT LIABLE TO DEDUCT TAX U/S 195 AND FURTHER UPHELD THE CONTENTIO N OF ASSESSEE THAT IN VIEW OF NON-DISCRIMINATING CLAUSE IN ARTICLE 26 OF THE DTAA BETWEEN INDIA AND USA, THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT OBLIGED TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE U/S 195 OF THE ACT IN THE INSTANT CASE, AS THERE IS NO PROVISION IN TH E INCOME-TAX ACT, REQUIRING A RESIDENT TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE FROM SALE PROCEEDS OF LAND PAYABLE TO ANY OTHER RESIDENT. LD. CIT(A) ALSO OBSERVED THAT IN AN Y VIEW OF THE MATTER, THERE WAS NO LOSS TO REVENUE BECAUSE THE NON-RESIDENT SHR I JASBIR SINGH SARKARIA FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME FOR AY 2006-07 AND 2007- 08 ON 28-9-2007 AFTER APPROACHING THE AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULINGS AND RECEIVING THE RULE THAT SUCH TRANSACTION WAS TAXABLE IN THOSE YE ARS. HE OBSERVED THAT DEPOSIT OF TAX OF RS. 3.46 CRORES ON 28-9-2007 ENTA ILED THE PAYMENT OF INTEREST DUE U/S 234A, 234B & 234C OF THE ACT. 6. BEING AGGRIEVED WITH THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A), TH E DEPARTMENT HAS RAISED FOLLOWING TWO GROUNDS: 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN GIVING RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE ON THE B ASIS THAT INTEREST HAD BEEN PAID BY SH. J.S. SARKARIA, WITHOU T EVEN CALLING FOR A REMAND REPORT FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON T HE FACT WHETHER ANY INTEREST HAD BEEN DEPOSITED BY SH. J.S. SARKARIA. 8 ITA 1532/DEL/2011 ITO VS. SANTUR DEVELOPRES P LTD. 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE BENEFIT OF ART. 26 OF DTAA WAS AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF WITHHOLDING TAX LIABILITY. 7. LD. DR NARRATED THE FACTS AS NOTED EARLIER AND P OINTED OUT THAT ASSESSEE HAD MADE PAYMENT TO SHRI JASBIR SINGH SARKARIA, A CITIZEN OF USA WITHOUT TDS AND, THEREFORE, THERE WAS DEFAULT ON THE PART OF AS SESSEE U/S 195. HE POINTED OUT THAT SINCE AS PER THE DIRECTIONS OF AUTHORITIES FOR ADVANCE RULING, SHRI JASBIR SINGH SARKARIA HAD PAID THE TAX, THEREFORE, THE AO DID NOT PASS ANY ORDER U/S 201(1), TREATING THE ASSESSEE AS ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT AND ONLY LEVIED INTEREST U/S 201(1A), WHICH LIABILITY WAS ON ASSESS EE AS PERSON RESPONSIBLE FOR DEDUCTION OF TAX U/S 195. HE POINTED OUT THAT THE I NTEREST U/S 234A, 234B & 234C, AS REFERRED TO BY LD. CIT(A), WAS PAYABLE BY SHRI JASBIR SINGH SARKARIA AS PER OPERATIONS OF LAW AND EVEN THAT INTEREST HAS NOT BEEN QUANTIFIED BY LD. CIT(A). HE SUBMITTED THAT LD. CIT(A) DID NOT CALL F OR A REMAND REPORT ALSO FROM THE AO ON THE FACT WHETHER ANY INTEREST HAD BE EN DEPOSITED BY SHRI JASBIR SINGH SARKARIA OR NOT. AS REGARDS LD. CIT(A) S FINDING THAT IN VIEW OF NON-DISCRIMINATING CLAUSE UNDER ARTICLE 26 OF THE DTAA NO TDS WAS REQUIRED TO BE MADE, LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT AS PER P ROVISIONS OF SECTION 195, THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO DEDUCT TDS. 9 ITA 1532/DEL/2011 ITO VS. SANTUR DEVELOPRES P LTD. 8. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT FROM A BARE PERUSAL OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL, IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE DEPARTMEN T HAS NOT ASSAILED THE FINDINGS OF LD. CIT(A) IN HOLDING THAT THE PROVISIO NS OF SECTION 195 ARE NOT APPLICABLE ON THE REASONING THAT PROVISIONS OF SECT ION 195 OF THE ACT ARE APPLICABLE ONLY WHEN SOME REMITTANCE IS REQUIRED TO BE MADE FROM INDIA TO AN OUTSIDE COUNTRY AS THERE IS A POSSIBILITY THAT T HE INDIAN AUTHORITIES WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO RECOVER THE TAX DUE ON SUCH REMITTAN CES. HE POINTED OUT THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS REFERRED TO SECTION 195(6) IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONCLUSIONS. HE FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT IN PARA 7 LD. CIT(A) HAS S PECIFICALLY POINTED OUT THAT FOR CALCULATING TAX DUE ON TRANSACTION OF SALE/ PUR CHASE OF CAPITAL ASSET IN INDIA IN CASE OF A NON-RESIDENT SELLER, SECTION 163 OF THE ACT HAS BEEN SPECIFICALLY ENACTED WHERE A RESIDENT PURCHASER OF A CAPITAL ASSET IS TO BE REGARDED AS AN AGENT OF THE NON-RESIDENT AND TAX LI ABILITY OF THE NON-RESIDENT IS THEN FASTENED ON THE PURCHASER U/S 161 OF THE AC T. 8.1. LD. COUNSEL FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT LD. CIT(A) RIGHTLY HELD THAT IN VIEW OF ARTICLE 26 OF DTAA BETWEEN USA AND INDIA, SINCE NO TDS IS REQUIRED TO BE MADE IN CASE OF SALE OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTIES WIT HIN INDIA, THEREFORE, AN ASSESSEE COULD NOT BE BURDENED WHILE MAKING THE PAY MENT TO A NON-RESIDENT FOR DEDUCTING TAX AT SOURCE. 10 ITA 1532/DEL/2011 ITO VS. SANTUR DEVELOPRES P LTD. 9. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PER USED THE RECORD OF THE CASE. FACTS ARE NOT DISPUTED. ADMITTEDLY, ASSESSEE MADE THE PAYMENT TO SHRI KARANBIR SINGH SARKARIA, THE GENERAL POWER OF ATTOR NEY HOLDER OF SHRI JASBIR SINGH SARKARIA, A US RESIDENT WITHOUT DEDUCTING TDS . LD. CIT(A) HAS HELD THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 195 WERE NOT APPLICA BLE FOR THE REASONING NTOED IN PARA 8 ABOVE. ALTERNATIVELY HE HAS HELD THAT- (A) THERE WAS NO REVENUE LOSS TO DEPARTMENT AS JASB IR SINGH SARKARIA HAD PAID TAXES; AND (B) THE ASSESSEE WAS ENTITLED TO THE BENEFIT OF ART ICLE 26 OF DTAA BETWEEN USA AND INDIA. 9.1. THE DEPARTMENT HAS NOT ASSAILED THE FINDINGS O F LD. CIT(A) IN HOLDING THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 195 ARE NOT APPLICAB LE. UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, WE RFRAIN FROM MAKING ANY OBSERVATIO NS WITH REGRD TO APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 195 TO THE FACTS OF THE IN STANT CASE AND PROCEED TO TAKE UP GROUND NO. 2. 9.2. APROPOS GROUND NO. 2, WE FIND THAT THE REASONI NG GIVEN BY LD. CIT(A) WITH REFERENCE TO ARTICLE 26 OF THE DTAA BETWEEN IN DIA AND USA IS FULLY JUSTIFIED BECAUSE SINCE THERE IS NO PROVISION IN TH E INCOME-TAX ACT 1961, REQUIRING A RESIDENT TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE FROM S ALE PROCEEDS OF LAND PAYABLE TO ANY OTHER RESIDENT, THEREFORE, IN VIEW O F ARTICLE 26(4) REPRODUCED HEREUNDER, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT BE BURDENED WITH THE REQUIREMENT OF TDS IN CASE OF PAYMENT TO NON-RESIDENT: 11 ITA 1532/DEL/2011 ITO VS. SANTUR DEVELOPRES P LTD. ENTERPRISE OF A CONTRACTING STATE, THE CAPITAL OF WHICH IS WHOLLY OR PARTLY OWNED OR CONTROLLED, DIRECTLY OR I NDIRECTLY, BY ONE OR MORE RESIDENTS OF THE OTHER CONTRACTING S TATE, SHALL NOT BE SUBJECTED IN THE FIRST-MENTIONED STATE TO ANY TAXATION OR ANY REQUIREMENT CONNECTED THEREWITH WHI CH IS OTHER OR MORE BURDENSOME THAN THE TAXATION CONNECTE D REQUIREMENTS TO WHICH OTHER SIMILAR ENTERPRISES OF THE FIRST- MENTIONED STATE ARE OR MAY BE SUBJECTED. 9.3. ACCORDINGLY, GROUND NO. 2 RAISED BY THE REVENU E IS DISMISSED. 10. AS WE HAVE HELD THAT THERE WAS NO REQUIREMENT F OR MAKING TDS IN VIEW OF ARTICLE 26 OF THE DTAA, THEREFORE, GROUND N O. 1, RAISED BY THE DEPARTMENT, BECOMES INFRUCTUOUS. 11. IN THE RESULT, DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL IS DISMISSED . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 24/07/2015.. SD/- SD/- (A.T. VARKEY. ) (S.V. MEHROTRA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 24/07/2015. *MP* COPY OF ORDER TO: 1. ASSESSEE 2. AO 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, NEW DELHI.