Addl. CIT, Special Range- 4, New Delhi V. Indian Herbs Specialties Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

ITA 1642/DEL/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 108 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8463 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-03-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 08-03-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: AGAINST DATED PASSED
• Keywords: Rule 8D; Set aside
• Section: 14A; 10B; 201; 80IC; 80IC; 22

Judgement Text

1 ITA NO. 1642/DEL/2018 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: C NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI N. K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDI CIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 1642/DEL/20 18 (A.Y 2013-14) (THROUGH VIDEO CON FERENCING) ADDL. CIT(A), SPECIAL RANGE-4 NEW DELHI (APPELLANT) VS INDIAN HERBS SPECIALITIES PVT. LTD. D-21, SHOP NO. 2, ACHARYA NIKETAN, MAYUR VIHAR, PHASE-1 NEW DELHI AADCI0033P (RESPONDENT) ORDER PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JM THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST ORDER DATED 18/12/2017 PASSED BY CIT(A)-4 NEW DELHI FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 13-14. 2. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE AS UNDER:- 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. ADDITION OF RS. 5,68,44,423/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF DED UCTION U/S 80IC BY RESTRICTING DEDUCTION U/S 80IC OF IT ACT, 1961 @ 30% OF THE PROFITS OF UNDERTAKING AS AGAINST DEDUCTION CLAIMED BY THE ASS ESSEE 100% OF PROFITS OF UNDERTAKING AT RS. 8,12,06,319. APPELLANT BY SH. MUKESH THAKUR, SR. ADV RESPONDENT BY SH. MADHUR AGGARWAL, ADV DATE OF HEARING 24.03.2021 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 24.03.2021 2 ITA NO. 1642/DEL/2018 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD CIT(A) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THERE CAN BE MORE THAN ONE INITIAL ASSESSMENT YEAR FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEDUCTION U/S 80IC OF THE INCOME TAX ACT , 1961 WHEREAS THE THERE IS NEITHER CONCEPT OF MORE THAN ONE INITIAL ASSESSM ENT YEAR NOT INTENTION OF LEGISLATURE BEHIND SECTION OF 80IC OF THE INCOME TA X ACT, 1961. 3. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE CIT(A) THAT IS CORRECT IN LAW IN HOLDING THAT THAT THE PROVISION O F SECTION 80IC OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ALLOWED EXISTENCE OF MORE THAN ONE IN ITIAL ASSESSMENT YEAR. 3. THE ASSESSEE IS A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY AND EN GAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING AND SALE OF HERBALS PRODUCTS I.E. MEDICINES AND ANIMAL/POULTRY FILLED SUPPLEMENTS FOR THE USE OF AN IMALS AND HERBAL EXTRACTS/HUMAN MEDICINES ETC. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WAS INCORPORATED ON 31/08/2012 AFTER CONVERSATION OF PARTNERSHIP FIRM N AMELY INDIAN HERBS SPECIALTIES (PVT. LTD. COMPANY) UNDER PART IX OF TH E COMPANIES ACT, 1956. THE FIRM BEFORE CONVERSATION INTO PVT. LTD. COMPANY HAD SET UP A NEW INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING IN THE AREA NOTIFIED BY THE BOARD IN AC CORDANCE WITH THE SCHEME FRAMED AND NOTIFIED U/S 80IC (2)(A)(II) IN HIMACHAL PRADESH ON THE NOTIFIED LAND AND COMMENCE THE BUSINESS W.E.F. 14/06/2006. THERE AFTER, THE COMPANY HAD UNDERTAKEN SUBSTANTIAL EXPLANATION IN THE EXISTING BUSINESS OF THE UNIT DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2011-12 WHICH IS COMPLETED ON 22 /3/2012 AFTER FULFILLING ALL THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS AS PRESCRIBED U/S 80IC. T HE ASSESSEE COMPANY VIDE ORDER DATED 12/3/2013 PASSED BY THE HONBLE DELHI H IGH COURT COMPANIES NAMELY INDIAN HERBS RESEARCH & SUPPLY COMPANY LTD. HAVING MANUFACTURING UNIT AT SAHARANPUR AND ENVIN BIOCEUTICALS PVT. LTD. WERE AMALGAMATED INTO THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AND THE AMALGAMATED COMPANIES WERE ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURE AND SALE OF HERBAL PRODUCTS I.E. HERBAL EXTRACTS, AYURVEDIC MEDICINES, VETERINARY MEDICINES AND ANIMA L FIELD SUPPLEMENTS. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 29/0 9/2013 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME AT RS.7,80,02,150/-. THE ASSESSMENT WAS COM PLETED ON 7/3/2016 AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER ASSESSED THE TOTAL INCOME AT RS.13,89,49,250/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITION OF RS. 14,37,556/- TOWARDS THE EXPENSE IN REGARD TO PROVISIONS OF SECTION 35DD. THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER FURTHER MADE 3 ITA NO. 1642/DEL/2018 ADDITION OF RS. 5,68,00,000/- IN RESPECT OF DEDUCTI ON U/S 80IC AND ADDITION OF RS. 26,65,125/- IN RESPECT OF DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A READ WITH RULE 8D. 4. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASS ESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). THE CIT(A) PARTLY ALLOWED THE APPEAL O F THE ASSESSEE. 5. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE PRECEDING AND SUBS EQUENT ASSESSMENT YEARS, THE TRIBUNAL HAS ALLOWED IDENTICAL ISSUES IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. 7. THE LD. DR RELIED UPON THE ASSESSMENT ORDER BUT SUBMITTED THAT ALL THE ISSUES CONTESTED IN REVENUES APPEAL IS DECIDED AGA INST THE REVENUE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15 BEING ITA NO. 3344/DEL/2018 AND ASSESSMENT YEAR 2015-16 ITA NO. 299/DEL/2019 ORDER DATED 18/10/2019 . 8. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE M ATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT IS SEEN THAT FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-1 3 IN RESPECT OF AMALGAMATING COMPANY I.E. HERBS SPECIALTIES VS. DCI T (ITA NOS. 196 & 197/CHD/2017 A.Y. 2012-13 AND 2013-14 ORDER DATED 2 7/3/2018), THE TRIBUNAL HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE OF 80IC IN ASSESSEE S FAVOUR. BESIDES THIS, FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15 AND 2015-16, THE TRIBUNAL A LSO HAS DECIDED THE SIMILAR ISSUE THEREBY STATING THAT THE ISSUE IS ALR EADY SETTLED IN LIGHT OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT DECISION IN CASE OF AARHAM SO FTRONICS CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 1784/2019 AND THUS, THE ISSUE IS SQUARELY COVERED I N FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THE TRIBUNAL HELD AS UNDER: 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSION AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. AS PER THE PROVISION OF SECTION 80IC(2) OF THE ACT ANY UNDERTAKING OR ENTERPRISES WHICH HAS BEGUN OR BEGIN S TO MANUFACTURE OR PRODUCE ANY ARTICLE OR THE THING BY SETTING UP A NE W FACTORY IN THE AREA SPECIFIED THEREIN INCLUDING THE STATE OF THE HIMACH AL PRADESH, IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IC OF THE ACT. SUB-SECTIO N (3) HAS PRESCRIBED PERIOD OF 10 YEARS COMMENCING WITH INITIAL ASSESSME NT YEAR. SUB-SECTION 3 FURTHER PRESCRIBED DEDUCTION AT THE RATE OF 100% OF SUCH PROFIT AND GAINS 4 ITA NO. 1642/DEL/2018 FROM THE UNDERTAKING OR AN ENTERPRISE FOR FIVE ASSE SSMENT YEARS COMMENCING WITH INITIAL ASSESSMENT YEAR AND THEREAF TER DEDUCTION ALLOWABLE @ 25% (OR @ 30% WHERE THE ASSESEE IS A C OMPANY) OF THE PROFIT AND GAINS. FURTHER, SUB-SECTION (6) PUTS A CAP OF 1 0 YEARS FOR CLAIMING DEDUCTION UNDER THE SECTION. IN THE CASE, THE ASSE SSEE HAS AVAILED 100% OF THE PROFIT AND GAINS AS DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IC OF THE ACT FOR FIVE ASSESSMENT YEARS COMMENCING WITH THE INITIAL ASSESS MENT YEAR, I.E., 2007- 08 TO 2011-12 AND THEREAFTER THE ASSESSEE CARRIED O UT SUBSTANTIAL EXPANSION AND AGAIN CLAIMED THAT IT SHOULD BE ALLO WED DEDUCTION FROM PROFIT AND GAINS FOR ANOTHER FIVE YEARS @ 100%. 6.1 THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE IS WHETHER THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IC @ 100% FOR 6 TH TO 10 TH ASSESSMENT YEARS FROM THE YEAR OF THE MANUFACTURING AS CLAIMED BY TH E ASSESSEE, ON THE GROUND THAT FOR THE PURPOSE OF SUBSTANTIAL EXPANSIO N INITIAL ASSESSMENT YEARS WOULD BE SEPARATE. THE CONTENTION OF THE ASS ESSEE THAT THERE CAN BE MORE THAN ONE INITIAL ASSESSMENT YEAR, FIRST W HEN THE ASSESSEE BEGINS TO MANUFACTURE OR COMMENCES OPERATION AND AN OTHER AFTER COMPLETING SUBSTANTIAL EXPANSION . 6.2 WE FIND THAT HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF AARHAM SOFTRONICS (SUPRA) HAS HELD IN CASE OF SUBSTANTIAL EXPANSION, THE SAID PREVIOUS YEAR WOULD BECOME INITIAL ASSESSMENT YEAR AND FROM THAT ASSESSMENT YEAR THE ASSESSEE SHALL BE ENTITLED TO H UNDRED PERCENT DEDUCTION OF THE PROFIT AND GAINS. THE RELEVANT FIN DING OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER: 24.THE AFORESAID DISCUSSION LEADS US TO THE FOLLOW ING CONCLUSIONS: (A) JUDGMENT DATED 20TH AUGUST, 2018 IN CLASSIC BIN DING INDUSTRIES CASE OMITTED TO TAKE NOTE OF THE DEFINITION INITIA L ASSESSMENT YEAR CONTAINED IN SECTION 80-IC ITSELF AND INSTEAD BASED ITS CONCLUSION ON THE DEFINITION CONTAINED IN SECTION 80-IB, WHICH DOES N OT APPLY IN THESE CASES. THE DEFINITIONS OF INITIAL ASSESSMENT YEAR IN THE TWO SECTIONS, VIZ. SECTIONS 80-IB AND 80-IC ARE MATERIALLY DIFFER ENT. THE DEFINITION OF INITIAL ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER SECTION 80-IC HAS M ADE ALL THE DIFFERENCE. THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT T HE AFORESAID JUDGMENT DOES NOT LAY DOWN THE CORRECT LAW. (B) AN UNDERTAKING OR AN ENTERPRISE WHICH HAD SET U P A NEW UNIT BETWEEN 7TH JANUARY, 2003 AND 1ST APRIL, 2012 IN ST ATE OF 5 ITA NO. 1642/DEL/2018 HIMACHAL PRADESH OF THE NATURE MENTIONED IN CLAUSE (II) OF SUB-SECTION (2) OF SECTION 80-IC, WOULD BE ENTITLED TO DEDUCTIO N AT THE RATE OF 100% OF THE PROFITS AND GAINS FOR FIVE ASSESSMENT YEARS COMMENCING WITH THE INITIAL ASSESSMENT YEAR. FOR THE NEXT FIVE YEARS, THE ADMISSIBLE DEDUCTION WOULD BE 25% (OR 30% WHERE THE ASSESSEE I S A COMPANY) OF THE PROFITS AND GAINS. (C) HOWEVER, IN CASE SUBSTANTIAL EXPANSION IS CARRI ED OUT AS DEFINED IN CLAUSE (IX) OF SUB-SECTION (8) OF SECTION 80-IC BY SUCH AN UNDERTAKING OR ENTERPRISE, WITHIN THE AFORESAID PERIOD OF 10 YE ARS, THE SAID PREVIOUS YEAR IN WHICH THE SUBSTANTIAL EXPANSION IS UNDERTAK EN WOULD BECOME INITIAL ASSESSMENT YEAR, AND FROM THAT ASSESSMENT YEAR THE ASSESSEE SHALL BEEN ENTITLED TO 100% DEDUCTIONS OF THE PROFI TS AND GAINS. (D) SUCH DEDUCTION, HOWEVER, WOULD BE FOR A TOTAL P ERIOD OF 10 YEARS, AS PROVIDED IN SUB-SECTION (6). FOR EXAMPLE, IF THE EX PANSION IS CARRIED OUT IMMEDIATELY, ON THE COMPLETION OF FIRST FIVE YEARS, THE ASSESSEE WOULD BE ENTITLED TO 100% DEDUCTION AGAIN FOR THE NEXT FI VE YEARS. ON THE OTHER HAND, IF SUBSTANTIAL EXPANSION IS UNDERTAKEN, SAY, IN 8TH YEAR BY AN ASSESSEE SUCH AN ASSESSEE WOULD BE ENTITLED TO 100% DEDUCTION FOR THE FIRST FIVE YEARS, DEDUCTION @ 25% OF THE PROFITS AN D GAINS FOR THE NEXT TWO YEARS AND @ 100% AGAIN FROM 8TH YEAR AS THIS YE AR BECOMES INITIAL ASSESSMENT YEAR ONCE AGAIN. HOWEVER, THIS 100% DEDUCTION WOULD BE FOR REMAINING THREE YEARS, I.E., 8TH, 9TH AND 10TH ASSESSMENT YEARS. 6.3 THE TRIBUNAL (SUPRA) IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 201 2-13 AND 2013-14 HAS ALSO DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSE E OBSERVING AS UNDER: 6. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING BEFORE US, IT WAS BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE THAT THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THESE APPEALS HAS ALREAD Y BEEN ADJUDICATED BY THE HONBLE HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT VIDE THEIR ORDER DT. 28 TH NOVEMBER 2017 IN THE GROUP OF CASES WITH THE LEAD C ASE TITLED AS M/S STOVEKRAFT INDIA VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, IT A NO.20 OF 2015, AND IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HAD DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE, HOLDING THAT THERE IS NO BA R IN THE SAID SECTION DENYING THE BENEFIT OF HUNDRED PERCENT DEDUCTION TO NEW UNITS UNDERTAKING SUBSTANTIAL EXPANSION. OUR ATTENTION WA S DRAWN TO THE RELEVANT CONCLUSIONS OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT IN T HIS REGARD AT PARA 55 OF THE ORDER AS UNDER: 6 ITA NO. 1642/DEL/2018 55.THUS, IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, THESE AP PEALS ARE ALLOWED AND ORDERS PASSED BY THE ASSESSMENT OFFICER AS WELL AS THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY AND THE TRIBUNAL, IN THE CASE OF EACH ONE OF THE ASSESSES, ARE QUASHED AND SET ASIDE, HOLDING AS UNDER: (A) SUCH OF THOSE UNDERTAKINGS OR ENTERPRISES WHICH WER E ESTABLISHED, BECAME OPERATIONAL AND FUNCTIONAL PRIOR TO 7.1.2003 AND HAVE UNDERTAKEN SUBSTANTIAL EXPANSION BETWEEN 7.1.2003 U PTO 1.4.2012, SHOULD BE ENTITLED TO BENEFIT OF SECTION 80-IC OF T HE ACT, FOR THE PERIOD FOR WHICH THEY WERE NOT ENTITLED TO THE BENEFIT OF DEDU CTION UNDER SECTION 80-IB. (B) SUCH OF THOSE UNITS WHICH HAVE COMMENCED PRODUCTION AFTER 7.1.2003 AND CARRIED OUT SUBSTANTIAL EXPANSION PRIO R TO 1.4.2012, WOULD ALSO BE ENTITLED TO BENEFIT OF DEDUCTION AT D IFFERENT RATES OF PERCENTAGE STIPULATED UNDER SECTION 80-IC. (C) SUBSTANTIAL EXPANSION CANNOT BE CONFINED TO ONE EXP ANSION. AS LONG AS REQUIREMENT OF SECTION 80-LC(8)(IX) IS MET, THER E CAN BE NUMBER OF MULTIPLE SUBSTANTIAL EXPANSIONS. (D) CORRESPONDINGLY, THERE CAN BE MORE THAN ONE INITIAL ASSESSMENT YEARS. (E) WITHIN THE WINDOW PERIOD OF 7.1.2013 UPTO 1.4.2012, AN UNDERTAKING OR AN ENTERPRISE CAN BE ENTITLED TO DED UCTION @ 100% FOR A PERIOD OF MORE THAN FIVE YEARS. (F) ALL THIS, OF COURSE, IS SUBJECT TO A CAP OF TEN YEA RS. [SECTION 80-IC(6)]. (G) UNITS CLAIMING DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80-IC SHALL NOT BE ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION UNDER ANY OTHER SECTION, CONTAINED IN CHA PTER VI-A OR SECTION 10A OR 10B OF THE ACT [SECTION 80- 1B(5)]. 7. LD. DR FAIRLY ADMITTED THAT THE ISSUE IS SQUAREL Y COVERED BY THE ABOVE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH C OURT. IT WAS, HOWEVER, SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE BE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICERS FOR VERIFICATION AS TO WHETHER THE ASSESSEE HAS ACTUALL Y CARRIED OUT THE SUBSTANTIAL EXPANSION TO BE ENTITLED TO CLAIM DEDUC TION U/S 80IC OF THE ACT. 8. WE DO NOT AGREE TO THE ABOVE CONTENTION RAISED B Y THE REVENUE AT THIS STAGE. A PERUSAL OF THE ORDERS OF THE ASSESSIN G OFFICERS REVEAL THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICERS HAVE NOT DISPUTED THAT THE ASSES SEE UNIT HAS CARRIED OUT SUBSTANTIAL EXPANSION AS PROVIDED UNDER CLAUSE (B) OF SUB SECTION (2) READ WITH CLAUSE (IX) OF SUB SECTION (7) OF SECTION 80IC OF THE ACT. ALMOST SIMILAR VIEW HAS ALSO BEEN TAKEN BY THE HON'BLE HIMACHAL PR ADESH HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF M/S STOVEKRAFT INDIA VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (SUPRA) IN THE FOLLOWING CONCLUDING PARA OF THE ORDER:- 7 ITA NO. 1642/DEL/2018 58. ON FACTS, WE MAY CLARIFY THAT THE REVENUE HAS NOT DISPUTED, (A) THE UNITS HAVING CARRIED OUT SUBSTANTIAL EXPANSION WITH IN THE DEFINITION OF THE SECTION, (B) THEIR ENTITLEMENT AND EXTENT OF DE DUCTION WOULD BE DEPENDENT UPON INTERPRETATION OF THE RELEVANT PROVI SIONS. WE, THEREFORE, DO NOT FIND ANY JUSTIFICATION AT THI S STAGE TO GIVE THE ASSESSING OFFICERS A SECOND INNINGS TO RE-EXAMINE U NDISPUTED FACTS. 9. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, THE IMPUGNED OR DERS OF THE CIT(A) ARE SET ASIDE AND THE ASSESSING OFFICERS ARE DIRECT ED TO GRANT TO THE ASSESSEE DEDUCTION AT THE RATE OF HUNDRED PERCENT O F ITS ELIGIBLE PROFITS, AS PER THE RULING OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THIS REGARD IN THE CASE OF M/S STOVEKRAFT INDIA VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TA X (SUPRA). 6.4 IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING TH E BINDING PRECEDENT, THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) ON THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE IS SET ASIDE AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO ALLOW THE DEDUCTIO N UNDER SECTION 80IC OF THE ACT TO THE ASSESSEES. THE GROUND NO. 1 TO 1.4 OF T HE APPEAL ARE ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED. THUS, THE ISSUES ARE IDENTICAL AND DO NOT REQUIRE A NY SEPARATE FINDING AS THE PRESENT ASSESSMENT YEAR IS ONE OF THE ASSESSMENT YE AR WERE DEDUCTION UNDER 80IC HAS TO BE ALLOWED. NO DISTINGUISHING FACTS WE RE SUBMITTED BY THE LD. DR AT THE TIME OF HEARING. HENCE, THE APPEAL OF THE RE VENUE IS DISMISSED. 9. IN RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT IN PRESENCE OF B OTH THE PARTIES ON THIS 24 TH DAY OF MARCH, 2021 SD/- SD/- (N. K. BILLAIYA) (SUCHITRA KAMBLE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEM BER DATED: 24/03/2021 R. NAHEED * COPY FORWARDED TO: 8 ITA NO. 1642/DEL/2018 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI