Sh. Dhoom Singh, Meerut V. ITO, Baraut

ITA 1588/DEL/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4734 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-08-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 17-03-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: T VASANTHAN
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH F , NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. N. K. SAINI, AM AND SH. BHAVNESH SAINI, JM ITA NO. 1588/DEL/2017 : ASSTT. YEAR : 2012 - 1 3 SH. DHOOM SINGH, S/O SH. V INOD KUMAR GOEL, 282, BOUNDRY ROAD, CIVIL LINES, MEERUT VS INCOME TAX OFFICER, BARAUT (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN NO. BCTPS7529C ASSESSEE BY : SH. VINOD KUMAR GOEL , ADV. REVENUE BY : SH. T. VASANTHAN , SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 10 .0 8 .201 7 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 31 .08 .201 7 ORDER PER N. K. SAINI, AM : THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 20.02.2017 OF LD. CIT(A) , MEERUT . 2. FOLLOWING GROUNDS HAVE BEEN RAISED IN THIS APPEAL: 1. THAT A.O. AS WELL AS CIT(A) HAS NOT JUSTIFYING IN ASSESSING NET PROFIT RATE @ 8% OF GROSS RECEIPTS FROM CONTRACT BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED AUDITED ACCOUNT DULY CERTIFIED BY AUDITOR. HENCE, ASSESSMENT MADE @ 8% IS HIGHLY EXCESSIVE. 2. THAT A .O. HAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN TAKING THE DIFFERENCE OF GROSS RECEIPT OF RS. 3,72,850/ - AS DIFFERENT OF RECEIPT AND ADDED IN THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. IT IS IMPORTANT TO GIVE NOTE THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT ARE PREPARED AS PER RECEIPT AS ON 31 - 03 - 2012 AND STATE MENT OF FORM NO. 26AS IS FINALIZED IN THE MONTH ITA NO . 1588 /DEL /201 7 DHOOM SINGH 2 OF JUNE & JULY. LD. CIT(A) IS IN ERROR IN CONFIRMING THE VIEW OF A.O. 3. THAT THE PENALTY PROCEEDING U/S 271(1)(C) INITIATED BY A.O., IS IN ROU TINE AND MECHANICAL MANNER. 4. THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RIGHT TO ADD/DELETE OR MODIFY ANY GROUNDS DURING THE APPEAL PROCEEDING. 3 . GROUND NO. 3 IS RAISED PREMATURELY AND GROUND NO. 4 IS GENERAL IN NATURE, SO THESE GROUNDS DID NOT REQUIRE ANY COMMENTS ON OUR PART. 4. VIDE GROUND NO.1, THE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE RE LATES TO THE SUSTENANCE OF ADDITION MADE BY THE AO BY APPLYING NET PROFIT RATE OF 8% ON THE GROSS RECEIPT . 5. FACTS OF THE CASE IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME ON 27.09.2012 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME AT RS.7,38,630/ - WHICH WAS PROCE SSED U/S 143(1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) AT DECLARED INCOME. LATER ON, THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE AO ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT S , BILL S , V OUCHERS ETC. IN SUPPORT OF HIS CLAIM OF VARIOUS EXPEN SES INCLUDING MATERIAL PURCHASED AND LABOUR EXPENSES ETC. DEBITED TO HIS PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT, H OWEVER, THE ASSESS EE FAILED TO FURNISH ANY DETAIL OR DOCUMENT IN SUPPORT OF HIS CLAIM AND MADE AN EXCUSE THAT THOSE WERE LOST SOMEWHERE WHEN HE WAS ITA NO . 1588 /DEL /201 7 DHOOM SINGH 3 COMING TO THE DEPARTMENT FOR PRODUCING THEM FOR HEARING. THE AO POINTED OUT THAT IN SUPPORT OF THE AFORESAID CONTENTION, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PRESENT ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE LIKE COPY OF FIR LODGED IN POLICE STA TION ETC. HE, THEREFORE, INVOKED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 145(3) OF THE ACT AND REJECTED THE TRADING RESULT S . THE AO APPLIED THE NET PROFIT RATE OF 8% ON THE CONTRACT RECEIPTS SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE AT RS.2,30,57,959/ - AND WORKED OUT THE NET PROFIT AT RS.1 8,44,636/ - . 6. BEING AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER TO THE LD. CIT(A) WHO REPRODUCED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AT PAGE 3 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER WHICH READ AS UNDER: THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN CONTRACT RECEIPT AFTER TAKING BANK ACCOUNT CONSIDE RATION ACCORDING TO WHICH, THE GROSS RECEIPT OF THE ASSESSEE WAS R.S 2,30,57,959/ - DURING THE PROCEEDING, THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED FOLLOWING REPLY ALONG WITH THE EVIDENCE BESIDE THIS, THE ASSESSEE ALSO FURNISHED POINT - WISE WRITTEN REPLY EXPLAINING THE QUERIE S ASKED BY THE A.O.. THEREFORE, THE A.O HAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN MAKING DIFFERENCE OF ENTIRE RECEIPT IN THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. REGARDING, DIFFERENCE OF BANK ACCOUNT TDS ON INTEREST IS RELATED TO TWO YEARS I.E., A.Y. 2011 - 12 & 2012 - 13 THEREFORE, THER E IS DISCREPANCY IN THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. REGARDING, NON PRODUCTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, THE A.O. HAS NEVER ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT EXCEPT IN THE QUERY DATED 03 - 03 - 205. THE ASSESSEE HAS STATED BEFORE A.O. BECAUSE THE BO OKS OF ACCOUNTS WAS LOST DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING BEFORE SALES TAX OFFICER. THE A.O. HAS COMPUTED TOTAL INCOME @ 8% WITHOUT ANY JUSTIFICATION AND NO COMPARATIVELY CASE WAS ITA NO . 1588 /DEL /201 7 DHOOM SINGH 4 FURNISHED BY THE A.O. THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE DULY A UDITED BY THE CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT, WHICH WAS CERTIFIED BY CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT. HE ALSO CERTIFIED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MAINTAINED CASH BOOK, JOURNAL BOOK, BANK BOOK, LEDGER, BILL & VOUCHERS WERE KEPT IN FILE THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE DISBELIEVE ON THIS FACT AND A.O. HAS NOT JUSTIFIED TAKING NET PROFIT RATE @ 8% INSTEAD OF 2.34% SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE HE HAS NOT GIVEN ANY COMPARATIVE CASE. THEREFORE, THE ACTION OF THE A.O. IS NOT ACCORDING TO LAW. 7 . THE LD. CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIO NS OF THE ASSESSEE OBSERVED THAT THE AO CLEARLY MENTIONED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT IN THE PRECEDING YEAR ALSO RATE OF 8% WAS APPLIED IN THIS CASE THEN THERE WAS NO NEED FOR ANY JUSTIFICATION OR COMPARISON. ACCORDINGLY, THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO WAS U PHELD. 8. NOW THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE AO WHILE APPLYING THE NET PROFIT RATE HAS NOT CONSIDERED THE PROFIT EARNED BY THE ASSESS EE IN THE PRECEDING YEAR S I.E. ASSESSMENT YEARS 2009 - 10 TO 2011 - 12. HE FURNISHED A CHART SHOWING THEREIN THE GROSS RECEIPT, NET PROFIT AND NET PROFIT RATE WHICH READ AS UNDER: S. NO. FIN. YEAR GROSS RECEIPT NET PROFIT N.P. RATE 1. 2009 - 10 2,43,08,220/ - 10 ,45,253/ - 4.3% 2. 2010 - 11 5,42,12,328/ - 9,27,441/ - 1.71% 3. 2011 - 12 2,30,57,969/ - 5,39,057/ - 2.34% ITA NO . 1588 /DEL /201 7 DHOOM SINGH 5 9. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE NET PROFIT RATE APPLIED BY THE AO WAS HIGHLY EXCESSIVE. IT WAS ALSO STATED THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE WERE DUL Y AUDITED AND TAX AUDIT REPORT U/S 44AB OF THE ACT WAS FURNISHED. HOWEVER, THOSE BOOKS WERE LOST SO COULD NOT BE REPRODUCE D BEFORE THE AO. I T WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE NET PROFIT RATE APPLIED BY THE AO AND SUSTAINED BY THE LD. CIT(A) WAS HIGHLY EXCESSIVE. 10 . IN HIS RIVAL SUBMISSIONS THE LD. DR SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 11. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON THE RECORD. IN THE PRESENT CASE, IT IS AN ADMITTED FACT TH AT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PRODUCE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT BEFORE THE AO TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE EXPENSES AND THE BOOK RESULT S . THEREFORE, THE AO WAS JUSTIFIED IN INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 145(3) OF THE ACT AND DETERMINING THE INCOME BY APPLYING THE NET PROFIT RATE. HOWEVER, NO BASIS HAS BEEN GIVEN FOR APPLYING THE NET PROFIT RATE OF 8% BY T HE AO WHO MENTIONED THAT IN THE PRECEDING YEAR, THE SAME NET PROFIT RATE WAS APPLIED. ON THE CONTRARY, THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT IN THE PRECEDING YEAR , NET PROFIT RATE DECLARED WAS AT 2.34%. THUS, THERE IS CONTRADICTION IN THE CLAIM OF BOTH THE PARTIES. WE, THEREFORE, CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS, DEEM IT APPROPRIATE TO SET ASIDE THIS ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO TO BE ADJUDICATED AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER PROVIDING DUE AND ITA NO . 1588 /DEL /201 7 DHOOM SINGH 6 REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD AND IN CASE THE ASSESSEE IS UNABLE TO PRODUCE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR OTHER DETAILS ASKED BY THE AO AND THE INCOME IS TO BE DETERMINED BY APPLYING THE NET PROFIT RATE THAN T HE AO SHOULD CONSIDER THE PAST HISTORY OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH IS THE BEST GUIDE IN SUCH TYPE OF CASES. 12. THE ANOTHER ISSUE VIDE GROUND NO. 2 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE RELATES TO THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENCE IN THE GROSS RECEIPT SHOWN IN THE BOOKS O F ACCOUNT AND AS MENTIONED IN FORM NO. 26AS. 13. THE FACT S RELATED TO THIS ISSUE IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE AO DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN RECEIPTS OF RS.2,30,57,959/ - ON ACCOUNT OF CONTRACTUAL WORK DONE WHIL E IN HIS 26AS STATEMENT, THE RECEIPTS WERE SHOWN AT RS.2,34,30,809/ - . HE ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN AS TO WHY THE UNDISCLOSED RECEIPTS OF RS.3,72,850/ - (RS.2,34,30,809/ - RS.2,30,57,959/ - ) BE NOT ADDED TO HIS RETURNED INCOME. IN RESPONSE, THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT HE WAS NOT IN RECEIPT OF TDS CERTIFICATE FROM RESPECTIVE DEPARTMENTS, SO HE COULD NOT INCLUDE THE SAID AMOUNT IN HIS CONTRACTUAL RECEIPTS. THE AO DID NOT ACCEPT THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE AND ADDED THE DIFFERENCE OF RS.3,72,850/ - TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 14. BEING AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER TO THE LD. CIT(A) AND SUBMITTED AS UNDER: ITA NO . 1588 /DEL /201 7 DHOOM SINGH 7 THE GROSS RECEIPTS SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE IS AS PER RECEIPT FROM GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, WHICH INCLUDES SALES TAX ALSO, THE SALES TAX IS NOT PART OF ASSESSEE'S TOTAL INCOME. HENCE, IT EXCLUDED FROM THE GROSS RECEIPTS, THEREFORE, IT CANNOT BE ADDED IN THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. IT IS FURTHER SUBMITTED, THAT SOME TDS MAY BE RELATED TO THE EARLIER YEARS, WHICH SHOWN AND ADJUSTED BY THE DEPARTMENT IN EARLIER YEAR. THE ASSESSEE HAS GONE THROUGH THE FORM NO. 26AS, ACCORDING TO WHICH GROSS RECEIPTS OF THE CONTRACT ARE AS UNDER: 1. BAGHPAT BARAUT KHERA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY : RS. 14,43,615/ - 2. EXECUTIVE OFFICE NAGAR PANCHYAT OON : RS. 7,72,846/ - 3. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER CONSTRUC TION DIVISION PWD BAGHPAT : RS. 72,35,658 / - 4. STATE GOVT. : RS.1,39,78,691/ - TOTAL : RS.2,34,30,810/ - EVEN THE DIFFERENCE CANNOT BE ADDED WHOLE AMOUNT , ONLY NET PROFIT OF DIFFERENCE CAN BE ADDED IN THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AS HELD IN THE CASE OF MOHD. TEHSEEN : - WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED T HE RIVAL CONTENTIONS. IT IS UNDISPUTED THAT ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN INCOME AT THE RATE OF 6% OF NET PROFIT ON THE TURNOVER OF RS.30,66,200 / - ONLY WHEREAS AN AMOUNT OF RS.92,93,900 / - IS FOUND DEPOSITED IN VARIOUS BANK ACCOUNTS. THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT OFFER ANY S ATISFACTORY EXPLANATION ABOUT EXCESS DEPOSIT OF RS. 62,27,700 / - COMPARED TO ITS SALES. THEREFORE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR APPELLATE AUTHORITY BECAUSE OF THE REASON THAT THERE IS A HUG E DIFFERENCE IN SALES ACCOUN TED IN THE BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS AMOUNT DEPOSITED IN CASH IN VARIOUS BANK ACCOUNTS. THEREFORE, WE CONFIRM THE ACTION OF ASSESSING OFFICER OF DETERMINING ITA NO . 1588 /DEL /201 7 DHOOM SINGH 8 UNACCOUNTED SALES OF RS.62,27,700 / - . HOWEVER, NOW THE ISSUE ARISES IS WHETHER THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RIGHTLY ADOPTED THE RATE OF 15% OF THE NET PROFIT ON THIS UNACCOUNTED SALE AGAINST 6% NET PROFIT SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE. FROM THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS 1ST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, WE COULD NOT FIND ANY REASON OR ANY COMPARABLE C ASE WHERE THE RATE OF PROFIT IS ADOPTED AT THE RATE OF 15%. THEREFORE, ACCORDING TO US, THIS IS AN ARBITRARY RATE WITHOUT ANY COMPARABLE CASES. THE BEST COMPARISON IS ALSO AVAILABLE OF THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF WHEREIN HE HAS SHOWN NET PROFIT AT THE RATE OF 6%. THIS 6% RATE HAS NOT BEEN DISTURBED BY AO. THIS RATE IS ALSO HIGHER AGAINST THE RATES PROVIDED BY PROVISIONS OF SECTION 44AF OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, WHICH IS 5%. BEFORE US LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE COULD NOT SHOW ANY REASON THAT W HY PROFIT SHOULD BE ESTIMATED AT THE RATE OF 15% INSTEAD OF 6%. THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT IN ABSENCE OF ANY COMPARABLE CASES FOR ADOPTION AT SUCH A HIGH RATE, WHICH IS ALMOST 2.5 TIMES OF THE NET PROFIT RATE SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE, IS NOT JUSTIFIED . THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT BEST ESTIMATE AVAILABLE IS THE TRADING RESULT OF THE ASSESSEE HIMSE LF. AS ASSESSEE HAS DISCLOSED 6 % NET PROFIT WHICH IS ACCEPTED BY ASSESSING OFFICER, WE DO NOT SEE ANY REASON TO ADOPT ANY OTHER RATE. IN THE RESULT WE D IRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ADOPT NET PROFIT RATE OF 6% ON UNACCOUNTED SALES AND RESTRICT THE ADDITION TO THAT EXTENT ONLY. THEREFORE, WE REVERSE THE FINDING OF CIT (A) ACCORDINGLY FOR ADOPTING THE NET PROFIT RATE OF 15% OF UNACCOUNTED SALES. 15. HOWE VER, T HE LD. CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE SUSTAINED THE ADDITION BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE GROUND RAISED BY THE APPELLANT AND THE ARGUMENTS MADE IN SUPPORT OF THE SAME. THE APPELLANT HAS RAISED THE ISSUE OF RECONCILIATION OF RECEIPTS WHICH CREATES THE DIFFERENCE OF GROSS RECEIPT VIS - A - VIS RECEIPTS ITA NO . 1588 /DEL /201 7 DHOOM SINGH 9 REFLECTED IN 26AS. THE AR HAS ALSO PLACED RELIANCE ON SOME CASE LAWS WHICH CAN BE DISTINGUISHED ON FACTS. MOOT POINT IS THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS HAVE BEEN REJECT ED OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE AO HAVING DONE SO AND THE CIT(A) HAVING CONFIRMED THE SAME ABOVE, THE AO IS WELL WITHIN ITS RIGHTS TO ENHANCE THE GROSS RECEIPTS ON SOME BASIS. IN THIS CASE THE ADDITION OF RS. 3,72,850/ - SHOULD BE TREATED AS ENHANCED RECEIPTS AS DONE BY THE AO SINCE THE BOOKS HAVE BEEN REJECTED. THEREFORE I FIND NO REASON TO INTERFERE THIS ADDITION MADE BY THE AO. ACCORDINGLY THIS GROUND OF APPEAL FAILS. 16. NOW THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUBMISSIO NS MADE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT EVEN IF THERE WAS THE DIFFERENCE IN THE RECEIPTS, THE TOTAL AMOUNT COULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADDED , AT THE MOST THE NET PROFIT RATE COULD HAVE BEEN APPLIED ON THE DIFFERENCE IN THE RECEIPTS SHOWN IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND IN 26AS FORM. 17. IN HIS RIVAL SUBMISSIONS THE LD. DR SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 18. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES A ND MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD, W E ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE DIFFERE NCE IN THE GROSS RECEIPTS SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE AND REFLECTED IN 26AS CANNOT BE ADDED IN TOTO PARTICULARLY WHEN THE AO HIMSELF APPLIED NET PROFIT RATE ON THE RECEIPTS SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE. WE, THEREFORE, BY CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS ARE OF THE VIEW THAT REASONABLE NET PROFIT RATE AFTER CONSIDERING THE PAST HISTORY OF THE ASSESSEE SHALL BE APPLIED ON THE ITA NO . 1588 /DEL /201 7 DHOOM SINGH 10 DIFFERENCE OF RS.3,27,850/ - , IF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT IN A POSITION TO RECONCILE THE SAID DIFFERENCE. ACCORDINGLY, THIS ISSUE IS ALSO SET ASIDE T O THE FILE OF THE AO TO BE ADJUDICATED AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER PROVIDING DUE AND REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 1 9 . IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES . (O RDE R P RONOUNCED IN T HE COURT ON 31 /08 /2017 ) SD/ - SD/ - (BHAVNESH SAINI ) (N. K. SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DAT ED: 31 /0 8 /2017 *SUBODH* COPY FORWARDED TO: 1 . APPELLANT 2 . RESPONDENT 3 . CIT 4 . CIT(APPE ALS) 5 . DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR