Nath Bros. Exim International Ltd., New Delhi V. ACIT, Circle- 17(2), New Delhi

ITA 157/DEL/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 109 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0009 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 2 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-03-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 05-01-2018
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Earning of tax free income; TDS; Rule 8D; Set aside
• Section: 14A; 201

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: E NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER [THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING] ITA NO.157/DEL./2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2014-15 M/S. NATH BROS. EXIM INTERNATIONAL LTD., 102/A, BANGLA SAHIB MARG, GOLE MARKET, NEW DELHI VS. ACIT, CIRCLE-17(2), NEW DELHI PAN :AAACN0495R (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ORDER PER O.P. KANT, AM: THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST ORD ER DATED 21/11/2017 PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS)-28, N EW DELHI [IN SHORT THE LD. CIT(A)] FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 201 4-15 RAISING FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AND THE LEARNED ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX HAVE E RRED IN DISALLOWING RS.70,643.00 U/S 14A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 BY APPLYING RULE 8D OF THE INCOME TAX RULES, 1962 WITH OUT SPECIFYING ANY PARTICULAR EXPENDITURE THAT MAY HAVE BEEN INCURRED. APPELLANT BY SHRI S.K. SARKAR, CA RESPONDENT BY MS. RINKU SINGH, SR.DR DATE OF HEARING 02.03.2021 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 12.03.2021 2 ITA NO.157/DEL./2018 2. THE APPELLANT-COMPANY RESERVE THEIR RIGHT, WITHO UT PREJUDICE, TO ADD, DELETE, ALTER, MODIFY OR OTHERWISE PRESENT ANY GROUNDS OF APPEAL EITHER AT OR BEFORE DATE OF HEARING OF THE A PPEAL. 2. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT DURING R ELEVANT YEAR THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WAS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF WEAVING OF FABRIC AND MANUFACTURING OF READY-MADE GARMENTS AND EXPORT THEREOF. FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ASSE SSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME ON 29/11/2014, DECLARING TOTAL INC OME OF 98,81,640/-. THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY THE ASSE SSEE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT AND STATUTORY NOTI CES UNDER THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT) WERE ISSU ED AND COMPLIED WITH. DURING THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING, THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED DIVIDEND INCOME OF 5,41,959/- WHICH WAS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE AS EXEMPT AND AGA INST IT, NO EXPENSES WERE DISALLOWED SUO MOTU UNDER SECTION 14A OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE ASS ESSEE HAD INVESTED IN VARIOUS SHARES/SECURITIES AS WELL AS WA S ENGAGED IN TRADING IN SHARES AND SECURITIES AND THE PURPOSE OF SUCH INVESTMENT WAS TO EARN DIVIDEND INCOME. ACCORDING T O THE ASSESSING OFFICER, TOP MANAGEMENT MIGHT HAVE TAKEN DECISIONS FOR SALE OF SHARES OR SECURITIES AND ACCOUNTING OF THE RESULTANT INCOME HAS BEEN TAKEN CARE IN BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. TH E ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THAT ALL THOSE ACTIVITIES REQUIRE INVO LVEMENT OF ASSESSEES EMPLOYEES AND USE OF THE ASSESSEES OFFI CIAL MACHINERY. ACCORDINGLY, HE REJECTED THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSE SSEE THAT NO EXPENDITURE WAS INCURRED FOR EARNING DIVIDEND INCOM E. IN VIEW OF THE OBSERVATIONS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER PROPOSED TO INVOKE RULE 8D OF THE INCOME TAX RULES, 1962 (IN SHORT THE RUL ES). THE 3 ITA NO.157/DEL./2018 LEARNED AO REJECTED THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND INVOKED RULE 8D OF THE RULES AND COMPUTED THE DISALLOWANC E OF 70,643/-. 2.1 AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND CONTESTED THE FINDING OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON FOLLOWING TWO GROUNDS: (I) NO OBJECTIVE SATISFACTION WAS RECORDED WITH REGARD TO THE CORRECTNESS OF THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. (II) NO NEXUS HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED BETWEEN THE INVESTMENTS MADE FOR EARNING THE EXEMPT INCOME AND THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED. 2.2 THE LD. CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE UPHELD THE DISALLOWANCE OBSERVING AS UNDER : 4.2 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE, BASIS OF DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO AND SUBMISSIONS OF APPELLANT. AS IT IS CLEAR FROM ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT THE AO HAS ANALYZED THE FACTS AND FIGURES OF THE EXEMPT INCOME EARNED BY APPELLANT, EXPENSES CLA IMED AGAINST IT AND INVESTMENTS MADE TO EARN SUCH EXEMPT INCOME. TH E AO HAS ALSO DISCUSSED THE NATURE OF ADMINISTRATIVE AND OTH ER EXPENSES WHICH ARE BOUND TO INCUR BY APPELLANT FOR EARNING S UCH EXEMPT INCOME. HE HAS RECORDED SPECIFIC REASONS REJECTING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IN REGARDS TO EXPENDITURE COMPUTED BY IT F OR EARNING SUCH EXEMPT INCOME. TAKING INTO ACCOUNT ALL THESE FACTS AND LEGAL POSITION, AO HAS COMPLETED THE DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A AND RULE 8D AT RS. 70,643/-. THE OBJECTION RAISED BY APPELLANT THAT AO HAS NOT RECORDED ANY OBJECTIVE SATISFACTION IN REGARD TO TH E CORRECTNESS OF CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE HAS NO FORCE AS RECENTLY IN T HE CASE INDIABULLS FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD. VS. DCIT 395 ITR 242, HON'B LE JURISDICTIONAL COURT HAS HELD THAT IF THE AO HAS CARRIED ELABORATE ANALYSIS OUT OF FACTS AND THE ISSUE BUT DID NOT EXPRESSLY RECORD HI S DISSATISFACTION, WOULD NOT PER SAY JUSTIFY THAT HE WAS NOT SATISFIED OR DID NOT RECORD COGENT REASONS FOR HIS DISSATISFACTION. IT HAS BEEN FURTHER HELD BY HON'BLE COURT TO INSIST THAT THE AO SHOULD PAY SUCH LIP SERVICE REGARDLESS OF SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE WITH A PROVISI ON WOULD, IN FACT, DESTROY THE MANDATE SECTION 14A OF THE ACT. SO FAR AS THE COMPUTATION OF DISALLOWANCE UNDER 8D RULE OF THE AC T IS CONCERNED, HON'BLE COURT HAS FURTHER HELD THAT 'UNDOUBTEDLY, T HE LANGUAGE OF SECTION 14A PRESUPPOSES THAT THE AO HAS TO ADDUCE S OME REASONS IF 4 ITA NO.157/DEL./2018 HE IS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE AMOUNT OFFERED BY WAY OF DISALLOWANCE BY THE ASSESSEE. AT THE SAME TIME, SECTION 14A (2) AS READ WITH RULE 8D (2)(I) LEAVES THE AO EQUALLY WITH NO CHOICE IN T HE MATTER INASMUCH AS THE STATUTE IN BOTH THESE PROVISIONS MANDATES TH AT THE PARTICULAR METHODOLOGY ENACTED SHOULD BE FOLLOWED. IN OTHER WO RDS, THE AO IS UNDER A MANDATE TO APPLY THE FORMULAE AS IT WERE UN DER RULE 8D BECAUSE OF SECTION 14A(2). IF IN A GIVEN CASE, THER EFORE, THE AO IS CONFRONTED WITH A FIGURE WHICH, PRIMA FACIE, IS NOT IN ACCORD WITH WHAT SHOULD APPROXIMATELY BE THE FIGURE ON A FAIR W ORKING OUT OF THE PROVISIONS, HE IS BUT BOUND TO REJECT IT. IN SUCH C IRCUMSTANCES THE AO ORDINARILY WOULD EXPRESS HIS OPINION BY REJECTING T HE DISALLOWANCE OFFERED AND THEN PROCEED TO WORK OUT THE METHODOLOG Y ENACTED.' THUS, THE HON'BLE COURT ALSO HOLDS THAT IF THE AO I S NOT SATISFIED WITH THE AMOUNT OFFERED BY WAY OF DISALLOWANCE BY THE AS SESSEE, HE HAS NO CHOICE EXCEPT TO FOLLOW THE PARTICULAR METHODOLO GY ENACTED AS PER PROVISIONS OF 14A(2) R.W. RULE 8D (2) (I) OF IT RUL ES. HON'BLE COURT CLEARLY SAYS THAT THE AO IS UNDER MANDATE TO APPLY THE FORMULA AS PER AFORESAID PROVISIONS IN SUCH CASES. IN THE CASE OF APPELLANT, AO WAS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE FACT THAT APPELLANT HAD MADE NO DISALLOWANCE AGAINST THE EXEMPT INCOME EARNED BY IT . IN SUCH SITUATION, THE AO WAS JUSTIFIED IN COMPUTING THE DI SALLOWANCE AS PER RULE 8D OF THE ACT AFTER ANALYZING THE AMOUNTS OF I NVESTMENTS MADE BY APPELLANT, EXEMPT INCOME SHOWN AND EXPENSES CLAI MED AGAINST IT BY APPELLANT. THE AO HAS ALSO APPLIED THE LEGAL PRO VISIONS TO THE SITUATION AND ALSO THE CIRCULAR ISSUED BY THE CBDT, NEW DELHI IN THIS REGARD WHICH IS MANDATORY ON HIS PART. IN VIEW OF THIS, I UPHOLD THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY AO AT RS. 70,463/- U/S 14A R.W. RULE 8D OF IT RULES AND DISMISS THE GROUNDS TAKEN BY APPELL ANT. 2.3 AGGRIEVED WITH THE FINDING OF THE LEARNED CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE INCOME TAX APPELLA TE TRIBUNAL (IN SHORT THE TRIBUNAL) RAISING THE GROUNDS AS REPROD UCED ABOVE. 3. BOTH THE PARTIES APPEARED BEFORE US THROUGH VIDEOCONFERENCING FACILITY AND THE ASSESSEE FILED A PAPER-BOOK (CONTAINING PAGES 1 TO 110) ELECTRONICALLY AS WELL AS PHYSICALLY. 4. THE LEARNED COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE REFERRED TO PA GE 47 TO 49 OF THE PAPER-BOOK, WHICH CONTAINS LIST OF THE IN VESTMENT IN SHARES/SECURITIES AT THE YEAR ENDING I.E. AS ON 31/ 03/2014, HAVING VALUE AT COST OF 1,19,01,143/- AND MARKET VALUE OF 3,04,07,475/- AND SUBMITTED THAT THE DIVIDEND INCOM E EARNED 5 ITA NO.157/DEL./2018 HAS BEEN DIRECTLY CREDITED IN BANK ACCOUNT. HE SUBM ITTED THAT NO PORTFOLIO MANAGER OR ANY SPECIFIC PERSON HAD BEEN POSTED/EMPLOYED FOR MAKING INVESTMENT OR WATCHING T HE INVESTMENT. THE LEARNED COUNSEL REFERRED TO PAGE 55 OF THE PAPER-BOOK AND SUBMITTED THAT ONLY INVOLVEMENT FOR EARNING DIVIDEND INCOME IS BY WAY OF FILLING UP OF PAY IN S LIPS AND DEPOSITING (NUMBERING 43) DIVIDEND WARRANTS IN THE BANK. THE LEARNED COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE EMPHASIZED THAT NO OBJECTIVE SATISFACTION HAS BEEN RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFF ICER FOR REJECTING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. HE REFERRED TO THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE YEAR UNDER CON SIDERATION AVAILABLE ON PAGE 30 OF THE PAPER-BOOK AND SUBMITTE D THAT NO EXPENSES HAVE BEEN INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR EAR NING THE EXEMPT INCOME AND THUS ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) SHOU LD BE SET ASIDE. 5. THE LEARNED DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, RELIED ON THE O RDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESS ING OFFICER HAS RECORDED HIS DISSATISFACTION ON THE CLAIM OF TH E ASSESSEE AS PER THE MANDATE OF THE ACT. SHE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ITSELF ADMITTED INCURRING OF EXPENDITURE TO THE EXT ENT OF DEPOSIT OF THE SLIPS IN BANKS AND STILL CLAIMED THAT NO EXPEND ITURE WAS INCURRED. ACCORDING TO HER, THE LEARNED CIT(A) IS J USTIFIED IN UPHOLDING THE DISALLOWANCE OF 70,643/- IN TERMS OF SECTION 14A OF THE ACT READ WITH RULE 8D OF THE RULES. 6. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSION OF THE PARTIES ON TH E ISSUE IN DISPUTE AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON REC ORD. THE ASSESSEE HAS EARNED DIVIDEND INCOME OF 5,41,949/- AND CLAIMED THE SAME AS EXEMPT, HOWEVER, NO EXPENDITURE HAS BEE N 6 ITA NO.157/DEL./2018 DISALLOWED BY THE ASSESSEE SUO MOTU IN TERMS OF SECTION 14A OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER REJECTED THE CLAIM OF TH E ASSESSEE AND INVOKED RULE 8D OF RULES AND MADE DISALLOWANCE OF 70,643/-. THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US IS THAT THE ASS ESSING OFFICER HAS NOT COMPLIED WITH THE MANDATORY CONDITION OF RE CORDING DISSATISFACTION ON THE CORRECTNESS OF THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE IMPUGNED ASS ESSMENT ORDER HAS INVOKED THE RULE 8D AFTER RECORDING DISSATISFAC TION AS UNDER: DURING THE YEAR THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS EARNED EX EMPT INCOMES ON THE ABOVE INVESTMENTS IN THE FORM OF EQUITY SHAR ES/MUTUAL FUNDS. FURTHER, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT NO EXPENDITURE WAS REGARDING MANAGEMENT AND PROPER ACCOUNTING OF INVESTMENT. INV ESTMENT DECISIONS ARE IMPORTANT DECISIONS AND GENERALLY TAK EN BY THE TOP MANAGEMENT. INVESTMENTS ARE TO BE PROPERLY WATCHED AND WHETHER A PARTICULAR INVESTMENT IS TO BE MAINTAINED OR TO B E SOLD IS DECIDED BY THE SENIOR PERSONS OF THE COMPANY. INCOME RESULT ED FROM INVESTMENT AS WELL AS INVESTMENTS THEMSELVES OR TO BE PROPERLY ACCOUNTED FOR IN THE ASSESSEES BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. ALL THESE ACTIVITIES REQUIRE INVOLVEMENT OF THE ASSESSEES EM PLOYEES AND USE OF ASSESSEE OFFICIAL MACHINERY. IN VIEW OF THIS IT IS NOT ACCEPTABLE THAT NO EXPENDITURE WAS INCURRED. THUS, ASSESSEES CONTENTION IS REJECTED IN THIS REGARD. AS THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT MADE ANY DISALLOWANCE OF EX PENSES U/S 14A ON ITS OWN FOR EARNING OF EXEMPT INCOME, I AM S ATISFIED THAT IN VIEW OF THE REASONS AS DISCUSSED ABOVE, THE DISALLO WANCE U/S 14A IS REQUIRED TO BE COMPUTED. ACCORDINGLY, DISALLOWAN CE OF EXPENDITURE IS COMPUTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH PROVISIONS OF SECTIO N 14A OF THE ACT AS PER PROCEDURE GIVEN UNDER RULE 8D OF THE INCOME TAX RULE, 1962. THE OPENING AND CLOSING BALANCE OF INVESTMENT IN EQ UITY SHARES/MUTUAL FUNDS AND ALSO AS DISCUSSED ABOVE WER E RS 1,36,53,560 AND RS. 1,46,03,527/- RESPECTIVELY. THU S AVERAGE INVESTMENT OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY COMES TO RS. 1,4 1,28,543/- THE DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES U/S 14A READ WITH UNDER RU LE 8D ARE COMPUTED AS UNDER: (I) DIRECT EXPENSES NIL (II) COMPONENT OF INTEREST EXPENDITURE ATTRIBUTABLE TO INCOME WHICH DOES NOT FORM PART OF THE TOTAL INCOME NIL (III) 0.5% OF AVERAGE INVESTMENT (1,41,28,543/-) RS.70,643/ - TOTAL RS.70,643/- 7 ITA NO.157/DEL./2018 6. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS OPINED THAT TOP MANAGEMEN T MUST HAVE TAKEN DECISION FOR INVESTMENT AS WELL AS WATCH ING OF THE INVESTMENT OR SALE. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSING OFFI CER PART OF THE EXPENDITURE OF THE TOP MANAGEMENT MUST BE ATTRIBUTA BLE TOWARDS THE ACTIVITY OF EARNING EXEMPT INCOME. THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER HAS ALSO MENTIONED THAT EXPENDITURE AND ACCOUNTING OF T HE EXEMPT INCOME ALSO MUST HAVE BEEN THERE AS THE ACTIVITIES OF THE MANAGEMENT AND ACCOUNTING REQUIRED INVOLVEMENT OF T HE ASSESSEES EMPLOYEES AND USE OF OFFICIAL MACHINERY, WHICH MAY INCLUDE OFFICE COMPUTERS, VEHICLES ET CETERA. THUS IN OUR OPINION, THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT NO DISSATISFACTION H AS BEEN RECORDED ON THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE, IS NOT CORRE CT. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE JU RISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF INDIABULLS FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD. (SUPRA) IN SUPPORT OF THE CONTENTION THAT EVEN IMPL IED DISSATISFACTION IS SUFFICIENT TO INVOKE RULE 8D OF THE RULES AND THERE MAY NOT BE REQUIRED EXPRESSED DISSATISFACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE CORRECTNESS OF THE CLAIM O F THE ASSESSEE. AFTER RECORDING THE DISSATISFACTION ON THE CORRECTN ESS OF THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS INVOKED RULE 8D OF THE RULES AND COMPUTED THE DISALLOWANCE. 7. WE FIND FROM PAGE 55 OF THE PAPER-BOOK, WHICH IS P ART OF SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), W HERE THE ASSESSEE HAS ADMITTED THAT EXPENDITURE WAS INCURRED FOR FILLING UP OF PAY-IN-SLIPS AND DEPOSITING ( NUMBERING 43) D IVIDEND WARRANT IN BANK. ALSO FROM PAGE 30 OF THE PAPER-BOO K, WHICH IS PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDER ATION, IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DEBITED EMPLOYEE BENE FIT EXPENSES 8 ITA NO.157/DEL./2018 OF 7,71,33,208/-. DETAILS OF THESE EXPENSES ARE AVAIL ABLE ON PAGE 42 OF THE PAPER-BOOK. THE EXPENSES INCLUDE WAG ES, SALARIES BONUS AND OTHER ALLOWANCE OF 7,02,83,010/-, TERMINAL BENEFITS 4,22,890; MANAGERIAL REMUNERATION OF RS.43,03,310/ - ETC. IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, IT CANNOT BE DENIED THAT PART O F THE EXPENSES ON MANAGERIAL REMUNERATION AND SALARY OF THE OFFICE STAFF WAS RELATABLE TO ACTIVITY OF EARNING DIVIDEND INCOME. S IMILARLY UNDER THE HEAD OTHER EXPENSES THE ASSESSEE HAS DEBITED EX PENSES OF 7,56,19,679/- WHICH INCLUDED EXPENSES OF 3,97,29,593/- ON ADMINISTRATIVE SELLING AND OTHER EXPENSES AND IT CA NNOT BE DENIED THAT A PART OF WHICH MUST HAVE BEEN RELATED TO EARN ING OF DIVIDEND INCOME. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS DISALLOWED AMOUNT OF 70,643/- AS PER THE PROCEDURE LAID DOWN IN PROVISIO NS OF THE ACT AND RULES. NO ERROR HAS BEEN POINTED OUT BY THE LEA RNED COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE IN SUCH COMPUTATION OF THE DISALLOW ANCE. 7.1 IN OUR OPINION, THERE IS NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND ACCORDINGLY WE UPHOLD THE SAME. THE GROU ND NO.1 OF THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 8. THE GROUND NO.2 OF THE APPEAL BEING GENERAL IN NAT URE IS DISMISSED AS INFRUCTUOUS. 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMI SSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 12 TH MARCH, 2021 SD/- SD/- (AMIT SHUKLA) (O.P. KANT) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 12 TH MARCH, 2021. RK/- (DTDS) 9 ITA NO.157/DEL./2018 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR ASST. REGISTRAR, ITAT, NEW DELHI