ITO, Bulandshahr V. Smt. Raj Rani, Bulandshahr

ITA 2035/DEL/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7437 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 7 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-12-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Next Hearing Date: 30-12-2014
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 03-05-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VIKRAM SAHAY
• Assessee Lawyers: ASHWANI TANEJA
• Keywords: Gift; Corroborative evidences
• Section: 143(3); 142(1); 131; 68

Judgement Text

ITA NO. 2035/ DEL/ 2010 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH F , NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI N.K. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. N O. 2035 /DEL/201 0 A.Y. : 200 5 - 0 6 INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3, AAYKAAR BHAWAN TEACHER S COLONY, BULANDSHAHAR VS. SMT. RAJ RANI W/O SH. VIJAI KUMAR, PROP. M/S VENKETSHWARA CHEMICALS, 132/2, CHOWK BAZAR, BULANDSHAHR (PAN:ACOPR9342N) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) DEPARTMENT BY : SH. VIKRAM SAHAY, SR. DR ASSESSEE BY : SH. ASHWANI TANEJA, CA DATE OF HEARING : 30 - 1 2 - 2014 DATE OF ORDER : 31 - 1 2 - 2014 ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU : J M TH IS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE O RDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS ) - MEERUT DATED 1.2.2010 P ERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 5 - 0 6 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: - 1. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON THE FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 5,00,000/ - MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED / UNPROVED GIFTS WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE ITA NO. 2035/ DEL/ 2010 2 FAILED TO PROVE GENUINENE SS OF GIFTS AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE DONORS BEFORE THE AO. 2. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON THE FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 11,80,000/ - MADE BY THE AO AS UNEXPLAINED UNSECURED LOANS IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT ESTABLISH THE GENUINENESS AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE DEPOSITORS. 3. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. C IT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 7000/ - MADE BY THE AO OUT OF TRAVELLING AND CONVE YANCE EXPENSES OF RS. 68,795/ - IGNORING THE FACT THAT PERSONAL USE CANNOT BE RULED OUT. 4. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) MAY BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE AO BE RESTORED. 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF WHOLESALE TRADING OF CALCIUM CARBIDE (CHEMICALS) AND RETURN IN THIS CASE HAS BEEN FILED ON 21.10.2005, DECLARING AN INCOME OF RS. 1,88,590/ - . AFTER PROCESSING THE RETURN, THIS CASE WAS PICKED UP FOR SCRUTINY A S PER CLAUSE 2, OF ACTION PLAN FOR THE F.Y. 2006 - 07. THEREAFTER A NOTICE U/S. 143(2) WAS ISSUED ON 25.9.2006 FIXING THE DATE FOR COMPLIANCE THEREIN ON 13.10.2006. SUBSEQUENTLY, STATUTORY NOTICES U/S. 142(1) ALONGWITH QUESTIONNAIRES WAS ISSUED ON ITA NO. 2035/ DEL/ 2010 3 27.10.20 06. THE ASSESSING OFFICER VIDE HIS ORDER DATED 20.7.2007 HAS COMPUTED THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AS UNDER: - NET TAXABLE INCOME DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE RS. 1,88,590/ - ADDITIONS: - - DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES UNDER THE HEAD TELEPHONE EXPENSES - DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES UNDER THE HEAD TRAVELING CONVEYANCE EXPENSES - UNEXPLAINED GIFTS - UNEXPLAINED UNSECURED LOANS RS. 20,000/ - RS. 7,000/ - RS. 5,00,000/ - RS. 11,80,000/ - TOTAL TAXABLE INCOME RS. 18,95,590/ - 3 . AGAINST THE ASSESSING OFFICER S ORDER DATED 20 . 7 .200 7 PASSED U/S. 143(3) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 ASSESSEE APPEALED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), WHO VIDE IMPUGNED O RDER DATED 1 8 . 3 .201 0 PARTLY ALLOW ED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE BY DELETING THE ADDITIONS ON ACCOUNT OF TRAVELLING - CONVEYANCE EXPENSES OF RS. 7000/ - ; UNEXPLAINED GIFTS OF RS. 5,00,000/ - AND UNEXPLAINED UNSECURED LOANS OF RS. 11,80,000/ - , AS AFORESAID. 4 . AGAINST THE ABOVE ORDER OF THE LD . CIT(A) DATED 18 . 3 .201 0 , REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 5 . AT THE TIME OF HEARING LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE HAS RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND REITERATED ON THE CONTENTIONS RAISED IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL FILED BY THE REVEN UE AND ALSO REQUESTED TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND THAT OF THE AO BE RESTORED. 6. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION HAS RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND ALSO ITA NO. 2035/ DEL/ 2010 4 FILED COPIES OF THE FOLLO WING JUDGMENTS OF THE HON BLE HIGH COURTS AND REQUESTED THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) MAY BE UPHELD. - ITAT NO. 263 OF 2011 - GA NO. 2856 OF 2011 CIT VS. M/S DATAWARE PRIVATE LIMITED - HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA - ORDER DATED 21.9.2011. - ITA NO. 5 OF 2003 NEMI CHAND KOTHARI VS. CIT HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI ORDER DATED 2.9.2013. - ITA NO. 32 OF 2003 ARAVALI TRADING CO. VS. ITO HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN ORDER DATED 25.1.2007 7 . WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE COUNSEL AND PERUSED THE RECORDS. WITH REGAR D TO GROUND NO. 1 RELATING TO ADDITION OF RS. 5,00,000/ - MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED / UNPROVED GIFTS, WE FIND THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS ELABORATELY DISCUSSED THE ISSUE IN QUESTION AND ADJUDICATED THE SAME AS UNDER: - I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT. IT IS NOTED THAT THE APPELLANT FILED DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS IN SUPPORT OF HER CLAIM OF GIFT. (I) PHOTOCOPY OF GIFT DEED. (II) PHOTOCOPY OF RECEIPT EVIDENCING FILING OF RETU RN OF INCOME AND RETURN OF WEALTH BY THE DONOR. ITA NO. 2035/ DEL/ 2010 5 (III) PHOTOCOPY OF PAN CARD. (IV) PHOTOCOPY OF RATION CARD. (V) PHOTOCOPY OF BANK A/C. THE A.O. DISBELIEVED THE GIFTS AS THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE THE DONORS, AND ALSO BECAUSE THE DONORS DID NOT APPEAR FOR EXAMINATION EVEN IN COMPLIANCE OF THE SUMMON ISSUE U / S 131 OF THE I T. ACT, 1961. THERE IS NO DISPUTE ON PROPOSITION OF LAW THAT THE INITIAL AND PRIMARY DUTY IS ON THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF ANY CREDIT ENTRY IN HIS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT BUT AT THE SAME TIME THE LEGAL POWERS AVAILABLE TO THE A.O. IN COMPARISON WITH THE ASSESSEE ARE VAST TO ENFORCE THE ATTENDANCE OF WITNESSES. WHEN THESE POWERS VEST WITH A.O. IT IS HIS DUTY ALSO TO EX ERCISE THESE POWERS WHEN REQUESTED. THIS VIEW HAS BEEN APPROVED BY THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT IN CASE OF E.M.C. WORK PVT. LTD. (1963), 49 ITR 650 (AIL). THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF NATHU RAM PREM CHAND VS. CIT (1963), 49 ITR 56 1 (ALL.) HAS ALSO HELD THAT IT IS THE DUTY OF THE A.O. TO ENFORCE ATTENDANCE OF A WITNESS IF HIS EVIDENCE IS MATERIAL IN EXERCISE OF HIS POWERS U / S 131 AND IF HE FAILS TO DO SO, ADVERSE INFERENCE CANNOT BE DRAWN AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. ITA NO. 2035/ DEL/ 2010 6 THE HON'BLE I T.A.T. A BENCH NEW DELHI IN CASE OF A.C.LT. VS. UJJAGAR SINGH OBEROI (2009) 121 TT] (DEL.) 228 HELD AS UNDER: - 'THE A.O, HAS NOT FOUND ANY FAULT IN REGARD TO THE LETTERS WHICH HAVE BEEN ISSUED BY THE DONORS CONFIRMING THE GIFTS NOR HAS HE FOUND FAULT WITH THE I. T . RETURNS WHICH HAVE BEEN PRODUCED, BELONGING TO THE DONORS. OBVIOUSLY, WHAT SHOULD BE NOTICED HERE IS THAT UNLESS A PERSON IS KNOWN, NORMALLY, NOBODY WOULD PART WITH COPIES OF THEIR I. T. RETURNS OR COPIES OF THE PASSPORTS. THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS B EEN ABLE TO PRODUCE THE COPIES OF THE I.T. RETURNS OF ALL THE DONORS WHICH HAVE BEEN FILED IN UK / USA AS ALSO THE COPIES OF THEIR PASSPORTS WOULD SHOW THAT THERE IS A CLOSE FRIENDSHIP/RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND THE DONORS. THE REVENUE HAS ALSO N OT DISPUTED THE FACTS OF THE PHOTOGRAPH OF THE ASSESSEE WITH THE FAMILY OF THE DONOR D. THE A.O. HAD ONLY BEEN FINDING FAULT WITH THE AFFIDAVIT AS PRODUCED AND NONE OF THE OTHER EVIDENCES HAVE BEEN FAULTED WITH. FURTHER, IT IS NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD GIVEN THE DETAILS OF THE DONOR AS EARLY AS IN JANUARY, 2004, AND THE ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN COMPLETED IN ITA NO. 2035/ DEL/ 2010 7 MARCH, 2004. IT IS FURTHER NOTICED THAT EVEN THROUGH THE ASSESSEE AUTHORITY HAD VAST POWERS AVAILABLE UNDER SS. 131 AND 133(6), THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY H AS NOT USED ANY OF HIS POWERS OF THE GENUINENESS OF THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE BY VERIFYING CORRESPONDENCE WITH THE DONOR. IF THE. ASSESSING AUTHORITY HAD DOUBTED, THE TRANSACTION OF THE GIFTS, AFTER RECEIVING THE EVIDENCES WHICH HAVE BEEN PRODUCED BY THE A SSESSEE IN SUPPORT OF ITS CLAIM., IT WAS VERY MUCH OPEN TO THE A.O. TO DO HIS INDEPENDENT VERIFICATION. THIS HAS NOT DONE BY A.O. FURTHER THE A.O. STATES THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED DESIRED DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE, WHAT IS THE DESIRED DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE REQUIRED TO SUPPORT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AS REQUIRED BY THE A.O. IS NOT COMING OUT OF THE ORDER OF THE A.O. IT IS FURTHER NOTICED THAT THE C. I. T.(A) HAS GONE THROUGH ALL THE EVIDENCES PRODUCED AND HAS NOT RESTRICTED HIMSELF TO ONLY THE EVIDENCE IN TH E' FORM OF AFFIDAVITS. IT IS NOTICED THAT AFTER CONSIDERING THE EVIDENCES BEING THE CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCES PRODUCED IN THE FORM OF FURTHER CORRESPONDENCE AND THE RETURNS OF THE DONORS, THAT THE C. I T. ( A) HAS DELETED THE ADDITION. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY ITA NO. 2035/ DEL/ 2010 8 EVIDENCE OR SUBMISSIONS TO SHOW THAT FINDING OF THE C. I T.(A) IS PERVERSE OR HAS BEEN ARRIVED AT ON A WRONG APPRECIATION OF FACTS, THE FINDING OF C I T (A) IN DELETING THE ADDITIONS MADE ON ACCOUNT OF THE GIFTS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE IS L IABLE TO BE SUSTAINED.' NOW ADDRESSING THE THREE POINT TEST IN TERMS OF THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 68 OF THE LT. ACT, THE APPELLANT FILED BEFORE THE A.O. PHOTOCOPY OF THE RATION CARD, COPY OF BANK ALC, COPY OF PAN CARD, COPY OF RECEIPT OF RETURN OF INCOME AND RETURN OF WEALTH BECAUSE OF WHICH IT CANNOT BE ALLEGED THAT THE IDENTITY OF THE DONOR HAS NOT BEEN PROVED. WITH REGARD TO THE CAPACITY OF THE DONOR THERE IS A NO DENIAL THAT THE DONORS ARE ASSESSED UNDER INCOME TAX ACT AND WEALTH TAX ALSO. I AM OF THE OP INION THAT PRIOR TO REACHING AT THE CONCLUSION THAT THE AMOUNT TRANSFERRED FROM THE BANK ACCOUNT REPRESENT ASSESSEE'S OWN MONEY ROUTED THROUGH THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE DONOR, THE A.O. SHOULD HAVE EXAMINED THE APPARENT HOLDER OF THE BANK ACCOUNT TO BRING EVI DENCES ON RECORDS CONTRADICTING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. THE DONORS IN THEIR GIFT DEED HAVE CLEARLY MENTIONED THAT THE AMOUNT WAS GIFTED OUT OF THEIR OWN FUNDS AND SOURCES. THE DONORS HAVE ALSO MENTIONED THEIR PAN NO. AS WELL AS THEIR A.O. VIDE LETTER DA TED 28.6.07 THE ITA NO. 2035/ DEL/ 2010 9 CHANGED ADDRESSES OF THE DONORS ALSO WERE PROVIDED TO THE A O . THE AO DID NOT CARE TO SERVE THE SUMMON U/S 131 AT THE CHANGED ADDRESSES EITHER DURING AS SESSMENT PROCEEDINGS OR AT THE REMAND STAGE. THE A.O. HAS OBSERVED THAT THERE WAS A NO OCCASION AND NO RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE DONOR AND DONEE. THE AO'S CONCLUSION TO THIS EFFECT IS NOT SOUND AS THE DONEE OR DONOR NEVER APPEARED BEFORE HIM. ON THIS ISSUE THE ALLAHABAD BENCH OF THE HON'BLE IT AT IN THE CASE OF ITO VS. MATADIN SNEHLATA (H UF ) (2004) 90 ITD 203 HAS PASSED ORDER WHEREIN THE HON'BLE BENCH HELD THAT THERE MAY BE RELATIONSHIP BY BEHAVIOUR ALSO. THE SAME VIEW WAS ALSO TAKEN BY THE HON'BLE ITAT NEW DELHI 121 TTJ (DEL.) 228 (SUPRA) IN THE TOT ALITY OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND THE POSITION OF LAW, I THEREFORE, CONCLUDE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SUFFICIENTLY DISCHARGED THE ONUS THAT LAY ON HER IN TERMS OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 68 AND IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE RECEIPTS IN HER HANDS ARE IN ANY WAY UNEXPLAINED. THE UNILATERAL VIEW ENTERTAINED BY THE A.O. WAS MORE BASED ON UNFOUNDED PRESUMPTIONS WITHOUT CONVERTING THEM INTO EVIDENCES AND THE EVIDENCES FILED BY THE ASSESSEE HAVE REMAINED UNADDRESSED AND ITA NO. 2035/ DEL/ 2010 10 UNREBUTTED. THE ADDITION OF RS. 5,00, 000 / - IS DELETED. 7 .1 IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE FIND CONSIDERABLE FORCE IN THE CONCLUSION DRAWN BY THE LD. CIT(A) THAT ASSESSEE HAS SUFFICIENTLY DISCHARGED THE ONUS THAT LAY ON HER IN TERMS OF PROVISION OF SECTION 68 AND IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE RECE IPTS IN HER HANDS ARE IN ANY WAY UNEXPLAINED. THE UNILATERAL VIEW ENTERTAINED BY THE AO WAS MORE BASED ON UNFOUNDED PRESUMPTIONS WITHOUT CONVERTING THEM INTO EVIDENCES AND THE EVIDENCES FILED BY THE ASSESSEE HAVE REMAINED UNADDRESSED AND UNREBUTTED. ACCORDINGLY, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY DELETED THE ADDITION OF RS. 5,00,000/ - , WHICH DOES NOT NEED ANY INTERFERENCE ON OUR PART, HENCE, WE UPHOLD THE SAME. 8 . WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE COUNSEL AND PERUSED THE RECORDS. WITH REGARD TO GROUND N O. 2 RELATING TO ADDITION OF RS. 11,80,000/ - MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED UNSECURED LOANS, WE FIND THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS ELABORATELY DISCUSSED THE ISSUE IN QUESTION AND ADJUDICATED THE SAME AS UNDER: - I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE EVIDENCES PLACED BEFORE T HE AO AND FILED BEFORE ME BOTH THE CREDITORS ARE ASSESSED TO TAX AT RANGE BULANDSHAHR. IN CASE OF ANIL KUMAR THE NECESSARY INFORMATION WAS PASSED TO THE ITO, WARD - 1, BULANDSHAHR AND THE EXAMINATION OF AVAILABILITY OF CASH WITH HIM IS UNDER PROCESS. IN C ASE OF SMT. MONIKA GOYAL THE AMOUNT OF RS. 5,00,000/ - WAS TAKEN AS LOAN FROM SH. BHAGWANDAS FROM WHICH SHE HAS ADVANCED TO THE APPELLANT. BY THE PRINCIPLES LAID DOWN BY THE HON BLE SUPREME IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. ORISSA CORP. PVT. LTD. 52 CTR 138 AND H ON BLE GAUHATI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ITA NO. 2035/ DEL/ 2010 11 NEMI CHAND KOTHARI VS. CIT 264 ITR 254 THE ASSESSEE IS NOT REQUIRED TO PROVE THE SOURCE OF SOURCE FROM WHICH THE CREDITOR HAD ADVANCED TO THE ASSESSEE. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DECISIONS, I DO NOT AGREE WITH THE FINDING OF THE AO AND ADDITION MADE OF RS. 11,80,000/ - BEING THE AMOUNT ADVANCED BY SH. ANIL KUMAR AND SMT. MONIKA GOYAL IS HEREBY DELETED. 8 .1 IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE FIND CONSIDERABLE FORCE IN T HE CONCLUSION DRAWN BY THE LD. CIT(A) THAT IN VIEW OF THE PRINCIPLES LAID DOWN BY THE HON BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. ORISSA CORP. PVT. LTD. 52 CTR 138 AND HON BLE GAUHATI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF NEMI CHAND KOTHARI VS. CIT 264 ITR 254 TH E ASSESSEE IS NOT REQUIRED TO PROVE THE SOURCE OF SOURCE FROM WHICH THE CREDITOR HAD ADVANCED TO THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, WE FIND LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT AGREED WITH THE FINDING OF THE AO AND ACCORDINGLY RIGHTLY DELETED THE ADDITION OF RS. 11 , 80 , 000 / - , WHICH DOES NOT NEED ANY INTERFERENCE ON OUR PART, HENCE, WE UPHOLD THE SAME. 9. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE COUNSEL AND PERUSED THE RECORDS. WITH REGARD TO GROUND NO. 3 RELATING TO ADDITION OF RS. 7000/ - MADE ON ACCOUNT OF TRAVELLING AND CONVEYANCE EXPENSES, WE FIND THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS ELABORATELY DISCUSSED THE ISSUE IN QUESTION AND ADJUDICATED THE SAME AS UNDER: - UNDER THE HEAD OF TRAVELLING EXPENSES NO DISCREPANCY HAS BEEN NOTICED BY THE AO. THEREFORE, THE ADDITION MADE OF RS. 7,000/ - IS DELETED. ITA NO. 2035/ DEL/ 2010 12 9 .1 IN V IEW OF THE ABOVE, WE FIND LD. CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY DELETED THE ADDITION OF RS. 7000 / - , WHICH DOES NOT NEED ANY INTERFERENCE ON OUR PART, HENCE, WE UPHOLD THE SAME. 10 . IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE STANDS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE O PEN C OURT ON 31 / 1 2 /20 1 4 . SD/ - SD/ - [ N.K. SAINI ] [ H.S. SIDHU ] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATE 31 / 1 2 /201 4 SRBHATNAGAR COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT - 2. RESPONDENT - 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, DELHI BENCHES