Mrinal Roy, Noida V. DCIT, Circle-2, Noida

ITA 1682/DEL/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4570 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-02-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 28-02-2019
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Recovery proceedings; Salary income; TDS
• Section: 205; 201

Judgement Text

1 , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH SMC, NEW DELHI !' BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, VICE PRESIDENT $ / ITA NO.1682/DEL/2019 % & & / ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 MRINAL ROY, C/O ANANYA KAPOOR, ADVOCATE 12-CENTRAL LANE, GROUND FLOOR BENGALI MARKET-NEW DELHI PAN-ABPPR0608F .......... '( /APPELLANT VS DCIT, CIRCLE-2, NOIDA . )*'( / RESPONDENT '(+,- / APPELLANT BY : MS. ANANYA KAPOOR, ADVOCATE )*'(+,- / RESPONDENT BY : SH. PRADEEP SINGH GAUTAM, SR. D R +./ / DATE OF HEARING : 16.01.2020 01 +./ / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 21.02.2020 -2 / ORDER PER SUSHMA CHOWLA, VP THE PRESENT APPEAL FILED BY ASSESSEE IS AGAINST ORD ER OF CIT(A)-I, NOIDA DATED 28.09.2018 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 AGAINST ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3)/147 OF THE ACT. 2. THE ISSUE RAISED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS AGAINS T THE NON ALLOWANCE OF CREDIT OF TDS DEDUCTED BY THE PAYER. ITA NO.1682/DEL/2019 2 3. BRIEFLY IN THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE ASSESSMENT IN THE CASE WAS COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 147/143(3) OF THE ACT ON TH E INCOME DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE. THOUGH THE AO DIRECTS THE GRANT CREDI T OF PREPAID TAXES, BUT THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED BY NON ALLOWANCE OF CREDI T OF TDS OF RS. 12,36,240/-. 4. THE CIT(A) DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN LIMINE ON THE GROUND THAT THE CHALLAN FOR FEE UNDER SECTION 249(1 )(A) WAS NOT AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US HAD FURNISHED THE NECESSARY EVIDENCE IN THIS REGARD AND THERE IS NO MERIT IN THE AFORESA ID DISMISSAL OF THE APPEAL. 5. NOW COMING TO THE MERITS OF THE ISSUE RAISED WHE REIN THE PAYER M/S SUBHIKSHYA TRADING SERVICE LTD., TAN CHES05999A WAS THE EMPLOYER OF THE ASSESSEE AND HAD DEDUCTED TAX AT SOURCE; BUT TH E SAME WAS NOT DEPOSITED IN THE GOVERNMENT ACCOUNT. THE QUESTION W HICH ARISES IS WHETHER IN THE ABSENCE OF THE DEPOSIT OF TAX AT SOU RCE BY THE EMPLOYER. CAN THE ASSESSEE EMPLOYEE GET THE BENEFIT OF TAX DE DUCTED AT SOURCE OUT OF THE SALARY INCOME? IT MAY BE CLARIFIED HEREIN ITSEL F THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS EMPLOYED BY TWO DIFFERENT EMPLOYERS DURING THE YEAR , WHO HAD DEDUCTED TAX AT SOURCE OUT OF THE SALARY TO THE ASSESSEE AND NOT DEPOSITED THE SAME WITH TREASURY. 6. THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ARICENT TECHNOLOGIES HOLDINGS LTD. VS. ACIT IN ITA NO. 5708/DEL/2019 HAD DECIDED SIMILAR I SSUE OF DEDUCTOR DEDUCTING TAX AT SOURCE BUT NOT DEPOSITING THE TAX WITHHELD BY IT AND ITA NO.1682/DEL/2019 3 SHOULD THE PAYEE SUFFER. THE TRIBUNAL, VIDE PARAS 17 TO 23 HELD AS UNDER:- 17. NOW, COMING TO THE NEXT STAND OF THE ASSESSEE WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN POINTED OUT THAT IN CASE DEDUCTOR DEDUCTS TAX AT SO URCE I.E. WITHHOLDS TAX, OUT OF PAYMENTS DUE / PAID TO THE ASSESSEE; BUT DOE S NOT DEPOSIT THE TAX WITHHELD BY IT, THEN WHY SHOULD THE ASSESSEE SUFFER ? 18. UNDER SECTION 199(1) OF THE ACT, IT IS PROVIDED THAT IF TAX HAS BEEN DEDUCTED AT SOURCE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISION S OF THE CHAPTER XVII AND PAID TO THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT, THE SAME SHALL BE TREATED AS PAYMENT OF TAX ON BEHALF OF THE PERSON, FROM WHOSE INCOME, THE DEDUCTION WAS MADE. 19. FURTHER SECTION 205 OF THE ACT READS AS UNDER:- 205. WHERE TAX IS DEDUCTIBLE AT THE SOURCE UNDER [THE FO REGOING PROVISIONS OF THIS CHAPTER], THE ASSESSEE SHALL NOT BE CALLED UPON TO PAY THE TAX HIMSELF TO THE EXTENT TO WHICH TAX HAS BEEN DEDUCTED FROM THAT INCOME. 20. UNDER SECTION 205 OF THE ACT, IT IS FURTHER PRO VIDED THAT WHERE THE TAX HAD BEEN DEDUCTED AT SOURCE BY THE DEDUCTOR OUT OF PAYMENTS DUE TO THE DEDUCTEE, THEN SUCH DEDUCTEE CANNOT BE HELD LIABLE FOR PAYMENT OF SUCH TAX WHICH WAS DEDUCTED AT SOURCE BY THE DEDUCTOR. IN OT HER WORDS, UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT, IT IS PROVIDED THAT THERE IS LIABILITY UPON THE PERSON MAKING THE PAYMENTS, TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE IN LIN E WITH THE PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER XVII OF THE ACT. ONCE SUCH TAX HAD BEEN DE DUCTED THEN THE DEDUCTOR IS LIABLE TO DEPOSIT THE SAME INTO THE CRE DIT OF THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT. SUCH AMOUNT WHICH IS WITHHELD BY THE D EDUCTOR OUT OF THE AMOUNT DUE TO THE DEDUCTEE I.E. PERSON TO WHOM THE PAYMENTS ARE MADE, THEN THE SAID DEDUCTION SHALL BE TREATED AS PAYMENT OF TAX ON BEHALF OF THE PERSON FROM WHOM SUCH DEDUCTIONS WAS MADE, AS PER T HE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 199(1) OF THE ACT. FURTHER THERE ARE PROVI SIONS UNDER THE ACT DEALING WITH THE RECOVERY OF TAX AT SOURCE FROM THE PERSON WHO HAVE WITHHELD THE SAME. IN TERMS OF SECTION 205 OF THE ACT, THE ASSE SSEE/DEDUCTEE CANNOT BE CALLED UPON TO PAY TAX, TO THE EXTENT TO WHICH TAX HAD BEEN DEDUCTED FROM THE PAYMENTS DUE. CONSEQUENTLY, IT FOLLOWS THAT CR EDIT FOR SUCH TAX DEDUCTED AT SOURCE, WHICH IS DEDUCTED FROM THE ACCO UNT OF THE DEDUCTEE, BY THE DEDUCTOR, IS TO BE ALLOWED AS TAXES PAID IN THE HANDS OF THE DEDUCTEE, IRRESPECTIVE OF THE FACT WHETHER THE SAME HAS BEEN DEPOSITED BY THE DEDUCTOR TO THE CREDIT OF THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT OR NOT. THE DEDUCTEE IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES CANNOT BE DENIED CREDIT OF TAX D EDUCTED AT SOURCE ON ITS BEHALF. UNDER THE ACT, THE PROVISIONS ARE ENSHRINE D UNDER WHICH RECOVERY OF TAX FROM THE ACCOUNT OF THE PERSON, WHO HAD DEDU CTED THE SUCH TAX, ARE PROVIDED. ACCORDINGLY, WE HOLD THAT WHERE THE ASSE SSEE IS ABLE TO FURNISH THE NECESSARY DETAILS WITH REGARD TO TAX DEDUCTION AT SOURCE OUT OF THE AMOUNTS DUE TO IT, THEN THE ACTION WHICH FOLLOWS IS ALLOWING THE CREDIT OF SUCH TAX DEDUCTED AT SOURCE TO THE ACCOUNT OF THE D EDUCTEE. IN CASE WHERE THE DEDUCTOR DEPOSITS THE TAX DEDUCTED AT SOURCE TO THE CREDIT OF THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT AND THE DEDUCTION REFLECTS IN FORM NO.26 AS MAY BE ON A LATER DATE, THEN IT IS INCUMBENT UPON THE ASSESSEE TO PRO DUCE THE NECESSARY ITA NO.1682/DEL/2019 4 EVIDENCE IN THIS REGARD AND IT IS ALSO THE DUTY OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ALLOW SUCH CREDIT OF TAX DEDUCTED AT SOURCE, AS TAX ES PAID IN THE HANDS OF THE DEDUCTEE ASSESSEE. 21. WE FIND SUPPORT FROM THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN YASHPAL SAHANI VS. REKHA HAJARNAVIS, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX [2007] 165 TAXMAN 144 (B OM.) AND HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SUMIT DEVENDRA RA JANI VS. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX [2014] 49 TAXMANN.COM 31 (GUJARAT). 22. THE HONBLE HIGH COURT IN LATEST DECISION DATED 30.01.2019 IN PUSHKAR PRABHAT CHANDRA JAIN VS. UNION OF INDIA [20 19] 103 TAXMANN.COM 106 (BOMBAY) HAS HELD AS UNDER:- 7. SECTION 205 OF THE ACT CARRIES THE CAPTION 'BAR AGAINST DIRECT DEMAND ON ASSESSEE'. THE SECTION PROVIDES THAT WHER E TAX IS DEDUCTED AT THE SOURCE UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER XVII, TH E ASSESSEE SHALL NOT BE CALLED UPON TO PAY THE TAX HIMSELF TO THE EXTENT TO WHICH TAX HAS BEEN DEDUCTED FROM THAT INCOME. THIS PROVISION CAME UP F OR CONSIDERATION BEFORE DIVISION BENCH OF THIS COURT IN CASE OF YASHPAL SAH NI VS. REKHA HAJARNAVIS AND ORS. IT WAS A CASE WHERE THE EMPLOYER WHILE PAYING SALAR Y TO THE EMPLOYEE HAD DEDUCTED TAX AT SOURCE RS.6.66 LAKHS. S UBSEQUENTLY, DISPUTES AROSE BETWEEN THE EMPLOYER AND EMPLOYEE DU E TO WHICH SERVICE OF THE EMPLOYEE WAS TERMINATED. THE EMPLOYEE FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME CLAIMING CREDIT OF TDS OF RS.6.66 LAKHS. THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER ISSUED INTIMATION UNDER SECTION 143(1)(A) OF THE ACT DENYIN G CREDIT OF TDS OF RS.6.66 LAKHS ON THE GROUND THAT SUCH AMOUNT WAS NOT DEPOSITED BY THE EMPLOYER. THIS COURT IN SUCH BACKGROUND AFTER REFER RING TO SECTION 205 OF THE ACT HELD AND OBSERVED AS UNDER: 20. FROM THE LANGUAGE OF SECTION 205, IT IS CLEAR T HAT ONCE THE TAX IS DEDUCTED AT SOURCE, THE SAME CANNOT BE LEVIED ONCE AGAIN ON THE ASSESSEE WHO HAS SUFFERED THE DEDUCTION. ONCE IT IS ESTABLIS HED THAT THE TAX HAS BEEN DEDUCTED AT SOURCE FROM THE SALARY OF THE EMPL OYEE, THE BAR UNDER SECTION 205 OF THE ACT COMES INTO OPERATION AND IT I S IMMATERIAL AS TO WHETHER THE TAX DEDUCTED AT SOURCE HAS BEEN PAID TO THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT OR NOT, BECAUSE ELABORATE PROVISIONS ARE MADE UNDER THE ACT FOR RECOVERY OF TAX DEDUCTED AT SOURCE FROM THE PER SON WHO HAS DEDUCTED SUCH TAX. 21. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE PETITIONER ASSESSEE HA S FURNISHED MONTHLY PAY SLIPS AND BANK STATEMENTS TO SHOW THAT FROM HIS SAL ARY TAX WAS DEDUCTED AT SOURCE BY THE EMPLOYER RESPONDENT NO. 6. AUTHENT ICITY OF THE SAID PAY SLIPS AND BANK STATEMENTS HAVE NOT BEEN DISPUTED BY THE REVENUE. THUS, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE TAX HAS BEEN DEDUCTED AT SOURCE B Y THE RESPONDENT NO. 6 FROM THE SALARY PAID TO THE PETITIONER. THEREFORE, THE ONLY QUESTION TO BE CONSIDERED IS, IF THE EMPLOYER RESPONDENT NO. 6 HAS FAILED TO DEPOSIT THE TAX DEDUCTED AT SOURCE FROM THE SALARY INCOME OF THE PE TITIONER TO THE CREDIT OF THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT, WHETHER THE REVENUE CAN REC OVER THE TDS AMOUNT WITH INTEREST ONCE AGAIN FROM THE PETITIONER? 22. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THOUGH THE RESPONDENT NO. 6 HAS DEDUCTED THE TAX AT SOURCE FROM THE SALARY INCOME OF THE PETITIONER, THE RESPONDENT NO. 6 HAS NOT ISSUED THE TDS CERTIFICATE IN FORM NO. 16 TO TH E PETITIONER. AS A RESULT, THE PETITIONER IS NOT ENTITLED TO AVAIL CREDIT OF T HE TAX DEDUCTED AT SOURCE. HOWEVER, ONCE IT IS ESTABLISHED THAT THE TAX HAS BE EN DEDUCTED AT SOURCE, THE BAR UNDER SECTION 205 OF THE ACT COMES INTO OPER ATION AND THE REVENUE IS BARRED FROM RECOVERING THE TDS AMOUNT ONCE AGAIN FROM THE EMPLOYEE FROM WHOSE INCOME, TDS AMOUNT HAS BEEN DEDUCTED. IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE ITA NO.1682/DEL/2019 5 THAT THE PURPOSE OF ISSUING TDS CERTIFICATE UNDER S ECTION 203 OF THE ACT IS TO ENABLE THE ASSESSEE TO AVAIL CREDIT OF THE TAX DEDU CTED AT SOURCE IN THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR. IF THE TDS CERTIFICATE IS NOT ISSUED, THEN UNDER SECTION 199 OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSEE FROM WHOSE INCO ME, TAX HAS BEEN DEDUCTED AT SOURCE WILL NOT BE ENTITLED TO TAKE CRE DIT OF THE SAID AMOUNT. IN THAT EVENT, ON ACCOUNT OF THE NON AVAILABILITY OF T HE CREDIT, THE ASSESSEE WOULD BE LIABLE TO PAY TAX ONCE AGAIN EVEN THOUGH T HE TAX WAS DEDUCTED AT SOURCE. THUS, IT WOULD BE A CASE OF DOUBLE TAXATION WHICH IS NOT PERMISSIBLE IN LAW. TO AVOID SUCH ANOMALY, SECTION 205 HAS BEEN ENACTED, TO THE EFFECT THAT, ONCE THE TAX IS DEDUCTED AT SOURCE BY THE EMP LOYER COMPANY, THEN, THE PERSON FROM WHOSE INCOME, THE TAX HAS BEEN DEDUCTED AT SOURCE SHALL NOT BE CALLED TO PAY THE SAID TAX AGAIN. FROM THE LANGU AGE OF SECTION OF 205 OF THE ACT, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE BAR OPERATES AS SOON A S IT IS ESTABLISHED THAT THE TAX HAS BEEN DEDUCTED AT SOURCE AND IT IS WHOLLY IR RELEVANT AS TO WHETHER THE TAX DEDUCTED AT SOURCE IS PAID TO THE CREDIT OF CENTRAL GOVERNMENT OR NOT AND WHETHER TDS CERTIFICATE IN FORM NO. 16 HAS BEEN ISSUED OR NOT. ALSO THE MERE FACT THAT THE EMPLOYER MAY NOT ISSUE TDS CERTI FICATE TO THE EMPLOYEE DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE LIABILITY OF THE EMPLOYER CE ASES. THE LIABILITY TO PAY INCOME TAX IF DEDUCTED AT SOURCE IS UPON THE EMPLOY ER. 23. AS HELD BY THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT IN THE COURSE OF OMPRAKASH GATTANI (SUPRA), ONCE THE MODE OF COLLECTING TAX BY DEDUCTI ON AT SOURCE IS ADOPTED, THAT MODE ALONE IS TO BE ADOPTED FOR RECOVERY OF TA X DEDUCTED AT SOURCE. ALTHOUGH IT IS OBLIGATORY ON THE PART OF THE PERSON COLLECTING TAX AT SOURCE TO PAY THE SAID TDS AMOUNT TO THE CREDIT OF THE CENTRA L GOVERNMENT WITHIN THE STIPULATED TIME, IF SUCH PERSON FAILS TO PAY THE TD S AMOUNT WITHIN THE STIPULATED TIME, THEN, SECTION 201 OF THE ACT PROVID ES THAT SUCH PERSON SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE AN ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT AND THE REVE NUE WILL BE ENTITLED TO RECOVER THE TDS AMOUNT WITH INTEREST AT 12% P.A. AN D TILL THE SAID TDS AMOUNT WITH INTEREST IS RECOVERED THERE SHALL BE A CHARGE ON ALL THE ASSETS OF SUCH PERSON OR THE COMPANY. PENALTY UNDER SECTIO N 221 OF THE ACT AND RIGOROUS IMPRISONMENT UNDER SECTION 276B OF THE ACT CAN ALSO BE IMPOSED UPON SUCH DEFAULTING PERSON OR THE COMPANY. THUS, C OMPLETE MACHINERY IS PROVIDED UNDER THE ACT FOR RECOVERY OF TAX DEDUCTED AT SOURCE FROM THE PERSON WHO HAS DEDUCTED SUCH TAX AT SOURCE AND THE REVENUE IS BARRED FROM RECOVERING THE TDS AMOUNT FROM THE PERSON FROM WHOSE INCOME, TAX HAS BEEN DEDUCTED AT SOURCE. THEREFORE, THE FACT TH AT THE REVENUE IS UNABLE TO RECOVER THE TAX DEDUCTED AT SOURCE FROM THE PERS ON WHO HAS DEDUCTED SUCH TAX WOULD NOT ENTITLE THE REVENUE TO RECOVER T HE SAID AMOUNT ONCE AGAIN FROM THE EMPLOYEE ASSESSEE, IN VIEW OF THE SP ECIFIC BAR CONTAINED IN SECTION 205 OF THE ACT. 24. AS STATED EARLIER, IN THE PRESENT CASE THE PETIT IONER ASSESSEE HAS ESTABLISHED THAT FROM HIS SALARY INCOME, TAX HAS BE EN DEDUCTED AT SOURCE BY THE EMPLOYER RESPONDENT NO. 6 AND, THEREFORE, TH E REVENUE HAS TO RECOVER THE SAID TDS AMOUNT WITH INTEREST AND PENALTY FROM THE RESPONDENT NO. 6 ALONE AND THE REVENUE CANNOT SEEK TO RECOVER THE SA ID AMOUNT FROM THE PETITIONER ASSESSEE IN VIEW OF THE SPECIFIC BAR CON TAINED UNDER SECTION 205 OF THE ACT. THE FACT THAT THE PETITIONER IS NOT ENTI TLED TO THE CREDIT OF THE TAX DEDUCTED AT SOURCE FOR THE NON ISSUANCE OF THE TDS CERTIFICATE BY THE RESPONDENT NO. 6, CANNOT BE A GROUND TO RECOVER THE AMOUNT OF TAX DEDUCTED AT SOURCE FROM THE PETITIONER. IN OTHER WORDS, EVEN IF THE CREDIT OF THE TDS AMOUNT IS NOT AVAILABLE TO THE PETITIONER ASSESSEE FOR WANT OF TDS CERTIFICATE, THE FACT THAT THE TAX HAS BEEN DEDUCTE D AT SOURCE FROM SALARY INCOME OF THE PETITIONER WOULD BE SUFFICIENT TO HOL D THAT AS PER SECTION 205 OF THE ACT, THE REVENUE CANNOT RECOVER THE TDS AMOUN T WITH INTEREST FROM THE PETITIONER ONCE AGAIN. 8. THE SITUATION ARISING IN THE PRESENT PETITION IS SIMILAR. THE DEPARTMENT DOES NOT CONTEND THAT THE PETITIONER DID NOT SUFFER DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE ITA NO.1682/DEL/2019 6 AT THE HANDS OF PAYER, BUT CONTENDS THAT THE SAME H AS NOT BEEN DEPOSITED WITH THE GOVERNMENT REVENUE. AS PROVIDED UNDER SECTI ON 205 OF THE ACT AND AS ELABORATED BY THIS COURT IN CASE OF YASHPAL SAHN I (SUPRA) UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES THE PETITIONER CANNOT BE ASKED TO PAY THE SAME AGAIN. IT IS ALWAYS OPEN FOR THE DEPARTMENT AND INFACT THE ACT CO NTAINS SUFFICIENT PROVISIONS, TO MAKE COERCIVE RECOVERY OF SUCH UNPAI D TAX FROM THE PAYER WHOSE PRIMARY RESPONSIBILITY IS TO DEPOSIT THE SAME WITH THE GOVERNMENT REVENUE SCRUPULOUSLY AND PROMPTLY. IF THE PAYER AFT ER DEDUCTING THE TAX FAILS TO DEPOSIT IT IN THE GOVERNMENT REVENUE, MEAS URES CAN ALWAYS BE INITIATED AGAINST SUCH PAYERS. 23. APPLYING THE SAME PARITY OF REASONING, WE DIREC T THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ALLOW THE CREDIT OF TAX DEDUCTED AT SOUR CE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE, WHERE THE ASSESSEE PRODUCES THE PRIMARY E VIDENCE OF SAME BEING DEDUCTED TAX AT SOURCE OUT OF THE AMOUNT DUE TO IT. THE GROUND OF APPEAL NO. 6 IS THUS ALLOWED. 7. FOLLOWING SAME PARITY OF REASONING, WE DIRECT T HE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE THE PRIMARY EVIDENCE OF TAX DEDUCTED AT SOU RCE OUT OF SALARY DUE TO HER AND THE AO IS DIRECTED TO ALLOW THE CREDIT OF THE T AX DEDUCTED AT SOURCE BY THE EMPLOYER, MAY BE NOT DEPO SITED BY IT. THE GROUND OF APPEAL NOS. 3 & 4 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED. 8. THE GROUND OF APPEAL NOS. 1 & 2 ARE NOT PRESSED HENCE DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. THE GROUND OF APPEAL NOS. 5 TO 8 ARE ALSO NOT PRESSED HENCE DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 2 1 ST FEBRUARY, 2020. SD/- (SUSHMA CHOWLA) !' / VICE PRESIDENT / DATED : 21 ST FEB, 2020 SH ITA NO.1682/DEL/2019 7 -2+)%.345-4.6 COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : 1. '( / THE APPELLANT 2. )*'( / THE RESPONDENT 3. 7. 8 9 / THE CIT(A) 4. : 7. / THE PR. CIT 5. 6. 4;<)%.% / DR, ITAT, DELHI <=&>6 GUARD FILE. -2 / BY ORDER , *4.)%. // TRUE COPY // ? @ABC , ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, DELHI