ACIT, Circle-2(2), V. Standard Chartered Grindlays Bank Ltd.,

ITA 2180/DEL/2006

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3144 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 year(s) 8 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-02-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 13-07-2017
• Assessment Year: 1998-1999
• Appeal Filed On: 14-06-2006
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: D K DHALL
• Keywords: Business income; Depreciation; Earning of tax free income; Bad and doubtful debts
• Section: 14A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES : B : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.2180/DEL/2006 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 1998-99 ADIT, CIRCLE 2(2), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, NEW DELHI. VS. M/S STANDARD CHARTERED GRINDLAYS BANK LTD., (FORMERLY KNOWN AS ANZ GRINDLAYS BANK), H-2, CONNAUGHT CIRCUS, NEW DELHI. PAN: AAACA1049A ITA NO.1459/DEL/2006 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 1998-99 M/S STANDARD CHARTERED GRINDLAYS BANK LTD., (FORMERLY KNOWN AS ANZ GRINDLAYS BANK), H-2, CONNAUGHT CIRCUS, NEW DELHI. PAN: AAACA1049A VS. ADIT, CIRCLE 2(2), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, NEW DELHI. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ITA NOS.2180 & 1459/DEL/2006 2 ASSESSEE BY : MS SHASHI M. KAPILA, ADVOCATE SHRI PRAVESH SHARMA, ADVOCATE DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI D.K. DHALL, CIT, DR DATE OF HEARING : 27.02.2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 28.02.2018 ORDER PER R.S. SYAL, VP: THESE TWO CROSS APPEALS ONE BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE OTHER BY THE REVENUE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A) ON 31.03.2006 IN RELATION TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998- 99. 2. THE FIRST GROUND OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS AGA INST THE CONFIRMATION OF AN AD HOC DISALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION OF RS.8 LAC ON LET OU T PROPERTY TAXED UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY. 3. BRIEFLY STATED, THE FACTS OF THIS GROUND ARE THA T THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED RENTAL INCOME OF RS.41,26,304/- FROM VARIOUS PROPER TIES WHICH WAS CONSIDERED AS INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY. THE ASS ESSEE ALSO CLAIMED DEPRECIATION ON BUILDINGS GIVEN ON RENT IN THE COMP UTATION OF BUSINESS INCOME. THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT IF INC OME WAS TO BE TAXED UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY, THEN, NO DEPRECIATION COULD ITA NOS.2180 & 1459/DEL/2006 3 BE ALLOWED IN RESPECT OF THE BUILDINGS FROM WHICH R ENTAL INCOME WAS EARNED. RELYING ON THE VIEW TAKEN FOR THE ASSESSME NT YEAR 1997-98, HE TREATED SUCH RENTAL INCOME AS FALLING UNDER THE HEA D PROFITS AND GAINS FROM BUSINESS OR PROFESSION. STATUTORY DEDUCTION OF RS. 7,43,824/- CLAIMED UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY WAS DIS ALLOWED. THE LD. CIT(A) ALSO, FOLLOWING HIS VIEW FOR EARLIER YEARS, HELD THAT SUCH INCOME SHOULD BE TAXED UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE P ROPERTY. THE ASSESSING OFFICERS ACTION IN DISALLOWING 1/5, BEIN G, STATUTORY DEDUCTION TOWARDS REPAIRS WAS SET ASIDE. THEREAFTER, THE LD. CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT BE GRANTED DEPRECIATION, IN THE COMPUTATION OF BUSINESS INCOME, ON THE BUILDINGS FROM WHICH RENTAL INCOME W AS EARNED. CONSIDERING THE AMOUNT DISALLOWED AS DEPRECIATION A T RS.10 LAC AND RS.9 LAC FOR THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING TWO ASSESSMENT YE ARS, HE ESTIMATED DEPRECIATION AT RS.8 LAC FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDE RATION AND DISALLOWED THE SAME. THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED AGAINST THE DISALLO WANCE OF DEPRECIATION. 4. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES AND PERUSED THE REL EVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. IT CAN BE SEEN FROM THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHO RITIES BELOW THAT SIMILAR ISSUE WAS RAISED IN THE PRECEDING YEARS. WE HAVE G ONE THROUGH THE ORDER ITA NOS.2180 & 1459/DEL/2006 4 PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO.1106/DEL/2006 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1997-98, WHOSE COPY IS AVAILABLE ON PAGE 12 ONWARDS OF THE PAPER BOOK. IT CAN BE SEEN THAT SUCH RENTAL INCOME HAS BEEN ASSESS ED AS `BUSINESS INCOME WITH THE CONSEQUENTIAL EFFECT OF WITHDRAWAL OF STAT UTORY DEDUCTION U/S 24. THIS WOULD AUTOMATICALLY RESULT IN ALLOWING THE DEP RECIATION. THE TRIBUNAL, IN ITS ORDER DATED 30.11.2017 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YE AR 1997-98, FOLLOWED ITS EARLIER ORDER FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1996-97. REL EVANT PARTS OF THE PRECEDING YEARS ORDER HAVE BEEN REPRODUCED IN PARA 10 OF THE LATER ORDER. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE PRECEDENT, WE ORDER TO T REAT THE RENTAL INCOME AS FALLING UNDER THE HEAD PROFITS AND GAINS OF BUSINE SS OR PROFESSION; DISALLOWING THE CLAIM OF STATUTORY DEDUCTION OF RS. 7,43,824/-; AND DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.8 LAC ON ACCOUNT OF DEPRECIA TION. 5. THE NEXT GROUND OF THE ASSESEES APPEAL IS AGAIN ST SUSTENANCE OF 20% OF NRI EXPENSES INCURRED ON PERSONNEL, TELEPHONE AN D TRAVELLING. THE REVENUE IS AGGRIEVED AGAINST ALLOWING 80% OF EXPENS ES. 6. BRIEFLY STATED, THE FACTS OF THIS GROUND ARE THA T THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED DEDUCTION OF RS.2.44 CRORE TOWARDS EXPENSES INCURRE D OUTSIDE INDIA FOR ITA NOS.2180 & 1459/DEL/2006 5 MOBILIZATION OF NRI DEPOSITS. SUCH EXPENSES WERE N OT BOOKED BY DEBITING THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT, BUT, A SEPARATE DEDUCTIO N WAS CLAIMED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THAT THESE BEING HEAD OFFICE EXPENSES COULD BE ALLOWED ONLY U/S 44C OF THE ACT AND NOT AS A SEPARA TE DEDUCTION. THE LD. CIT(A), FOLLOWING HIS VIEW FOR THE IMMEDIATELY PREC EDING TWO YEARS, NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ALLOWED HEAD OFFICE E XPENSES TO THE EXTENT OF 5% OF TOTAL INCOME. IT WAS, THEREFORE, HELD THAT 2 0% OF PERSONNEL EXPENSES, TELEPHONE EXPENSES AND TRAVELLING EXPENSES SHOULD B E TREATED AS TOWARDS MOBILIZING NRI DEPOSITS. THAT IS HOW, BOTH THE SID ES HAVE COME UP IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL ON THEIR RESPECTIVE STAN DS. 7. AFTER HEARING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSING THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT THIS ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN ITS ORDER FOR THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR . RELEVANT DISCUSSION HAS BEEN MADE IN PARA 15. THE TRIBUNAL FOLLOWED IT S EARLIER ORDER PASSED FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1996-97, IN WHICH THE MATTE R WAS REMANDED TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER WITH A DIRECTION TO THE A SSESSEE TO FURNISH DETAILS AS TO WHAT WAS THE AMOUNT OF DEPOSITS RAISED AND HO W THE SAME WAS BROUGHT INTO INDIA AND, THEREAFTER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER W AS DIRECTED TO EXAMINE THE ITA NOS.2180 & 1459/DEL/2006 6 DETAILS OF EXPENSES AND THE BASIS OF ALLOCATION OF SUCH EXPENSES FOR CONSIDERING THE ALLOWABILITY OF THE SAME. SUCH DIR ECTION GIVEN BY THE TRIBUNAL HAS BEEN REPRODUCED ON PAGE 12 OF THE TRIB UNAL ORDER FOR THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR. IN THE ABSE NCE OF ANY DISTINGUISHING FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, RESPECTFULL Y FOLLOWING THE PRECEDENT, WE SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER ON THIS SCORE AND SEND THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FO R DECIDING IT IN CONFORMITY WITH THE DIRECTIONS GIVEN BY THE TRIBUNAL FOR THE A SSESSMENT YEAR 1996-97, WHICH HAVE BEEN EXTRACTED VERBATIM ON PAGE 12 OF THE TRIBUNAL ORDER FOR THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING YEAR. 8. GROUND NO.3 OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS AGAINST UPHOLDING THE ESTIMATE OF INDIRECT EXPENSES OF RS.5,46,84,250/- A TTRIBUTABLE TO INCOME ON FOREIGN CURRENCY LOANS TAXABLE U/S 115A OF THE ACT. THE FACTUAL MATRIX OF THIS GROUND IS THAT THE ASSESSEE DECLARED INTEREST INCOME OF RS.27.15 CRORE ON FOREIGN CURRENCY LOANS TO INDIAN CUSTOMERS CHARG EABLE TO TAX U/S 115A(1) OF THE ACT. SUCH INCOME WAS OFFERED @ 20% IN ADDITION TO THE REMAINING BUSINESS INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX AT THE NORMAL RATE OF TAX. THE ASSESSEE ADDED RS.16.95 CRORE IN THE COMPUTATION OF BUSINESS INCOME, ITA NOS.2180 & 1459/DEL/2006 7 BEING, THE EXPENDITURE OUTGO ON FOREIGN CURRENCY DE POSITS BY THE BANK. CONSIDERING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 115A(1) ALONG WITH (3), THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THAT APART FROM INTEREST EXP ENDITURE DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE, CERTAIN OTHER ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES AND OTHER OVERHEADS WOULD ALSO CALL FOR DISALLOWANCE. CONSIDERING THE GROSS RECEIPTS AND EXPENDITURE SHOWN IN THE P&L ACCOUNT AT RS.1319.3 CRORE AND RS. 1089.2 CRORE RESPECTIVELY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DETERMINED RATI O OF EXPENSES AT 82.56% OF GROSS RECEIPTS. APPLYING SUCH RATIO TO THE INTE REST INCOME OF RS.27.15 CRORE, HE COMPUTED EXPENDITURE OF RS.22,41,84,250/- AS RELATABLE TO SUCH INTEREST INCOME. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAD VOLUNTARIL Y DISALLOWED EXPENDITURE OF RS.16.95 CRORE U/S 115A(3), THE ASSESSING OFFICE R ADDED BACK THE REMAINING AMOUNT OF RS.5,46,84,250/- (RS.22.41 CROR E MINUS RS.16.95 CRORE). THE LD. CIT(A) UPHELD THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 9. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RE CORD. IT IS OBSERVED THAT SIMILAR ISSUE CAME UP FOR CONSIDERATION BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING A SSESSMENT YEAR. RELEVANT DISCUSSION HAS BEEN MADE IN PARAS 42 AND 4 3 OF THE ORDER. CERTAIN DIRECTIONS HAVE BEEN GIVEN BY THE TRIBUNAL FOR WORK ING OUT THE AMOUNT ITA NOS.2180 & 1459/DEL/2006 8 DISALLOWABLE AND IN THE EVENTUAL ANALYSIS, THE MATT ER HAS BEEN SENT BACK TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR DECIDING IT IN CONFORMITY WITH THE DIRECTIONS CONTAINED IN SUCH PARAS OF THE ORDER. IN THE ABSEN CE OF ANY DISTINGUISHING FACT HAVING BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE, RESPECTFULLY FOL LOWING THE PRECEDENT, WE SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND REMIT THE MATTER T O THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR DECIDING THIS ISSUE IN CONFOR MITY WITH THE DIRECTIONS CONTAINED IN PARAS 42 AND 43 OF THE ORDER FOR THE I MMEDIATELY PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEARS. 10. GROUND NO.4 OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS AGAINST CONFIRMATION OF ADDITION OF RS.50 LAC AS EXPENSES FOR EARNING EXEMP T INCOME U/S 10(15)(IV) OF THE ACT. 11. THE FACTUAL SCENARIO IN RELATION TO THIS GROUND IS THAT THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED EXEMPTION OF RS.459,50,076/- U/S 10(15)(IV) OF THE ACT, BEING THE AMOUNT OF INCOME FROM FEE IN RESPECT OF FOREIGN CUR RENCY LOANS. SINCE THE ENTIRE AMOUNT WAS TREATED AS EXEMPT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER OPINED THAT THE EXEMPTION COULD BE GIVEN ONLY IN RESPECT OF INCOME AND NOT THE GROSS RECEIPTS. HE ESTIMATED EXPENDITURE OF RS.50 LAC RE LATABLE TO THE EARNING ITA NOS.2180 & 1459/DEL/2006 9 EXEMPT INCOME AND INCREASED TOTAL INCOME WITH SUCH AMOUNT. THE LD. CIT(A) CONSIDERED SUCH AMOUNT OF RS.50 LAC AS DISAL LOWABLE U/S 14A OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED AGAINST SUCH DISALL OWANCE. 12. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES AND PERUSED THE RE LEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT THE ASSESSEE CLAI MED EXEMPTION OF THE GROSS AMOUNT U/S 10(15)(IV) OF RS.4.59 CRORE. IT IS, BUT, NATURAL THAT THE EXPENSES INCURRED IN RESPECT OF SUCH EXEMPT INCOME CANNOT BE ALLOWED U/S 14A OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDER ATION IS 1998-99. HENCE, THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 8D CANNOT BE INVOKED FOR COMPUTING THE AMOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A. UNDER THESE CIRCUM STANCES, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT IT WOULD BE IN THE FITNESS OF THINGS IF THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS SET ASIDE AND THE MATTER IS RESTORED TO TH E FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER FOR DETERMINING THE AMOUNT DISALLOWABLE U/S 14A ON SOME REASONABLE BASIS. IT IS, HOWEVER, MADE CLEAR THAT SUCH FRESH DISALLOW ANCE IN THE CONSEQUENTIAL PROCEEDINGS SHOULD NOT EXCEED THE AMOUNT DISALLOWED IN THE ORIGINAL ORDER. ITA NOS.2180 & 1459/DEL/2006 10 13. THE LAST GROUND ABOUT THE ADDITION SUSTAINED AT RS.1 LAC AGAINST THE EXEMPT DIVIDEND INCOME WAS NOT PRESSED BY THE LD. A R. THE SAME, THEREFORE, STANDS DISMISSED. 14. GROUND NO.2 OF THE REVENUES APPEAL IS AGAINST THE DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS.60.73 LAC ON ACCOUNT OF PAYMENTS MAD E TO CLUBS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, CONSIDERING THE VIEW TAKEN BY HI M IN EARLIER YEARS, DISALLOWED THE AMOUNT PAID TO CLUBS AT RS.60.73 LAC . SUCH ADDITION GOT DELETED IN THE FIRST APPEAL. 15. HAVING HEARD BOTH THE SIDES AND PERUSED THE REL EVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT SIMILAR ISSUE CAME UP FOR CONS IDERATION BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE ASSESSM ENT YEAR 1997-98. THE TRIBUNAL HAS DECIDED THIS ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE AS SESSEE. THE RELEVANT DISCUSSION HAS BEEN MADE IN PARAS 59 AND 60 OF THE TRIBUNAL ORDER. THERE BEING NO DISTINGUISHING FACT IN THE INSTANT YEAR VIS--VIS THE PRECEDING YEAR, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE PRECEDENT, WE UPHOLD THE IMPUGNED ORDER ON THIS SCORE. THIS GROUND IS NOT ALLOWED. ITA NOS.2180 & 1459/DEL/2006 11 16. GROUND NO.3 IS AGAINST THE DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS.10 CRORE ON ACCOUNT OF COMMISSION EARNED BY FOREIGN BRANCH ON C REDIT CARDS ISSUED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, FOLLOWING THE VIEW TAKEN IN THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING TWO YEARS, MADE THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.10 LAC WHICH GOT DELETED BY THE LD. CIT(A) FOLLOWING HIS VIEW FOR THESE YEAR S. 17. THIS ISSUE CAME UP FOR CONSIDERATION BEFORE T HE TRIBUNAL IN EARLIER YEARS. FOLLOWING THE VIEW TAKEN FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1996-97, THE TRIBUNAL UPHELD THE DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS.10 C RORE IN THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING YEAR. SINCE THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION ARE SIMILAR, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING T HE PRECEDENT, WE UPHOLD THE IMPUGNED ORDER ON THIS SCORE. THIS GROUND IS N OT ALLOWED. 18. GROUND NO.4 OF THE REVENUES APPEAL IS AGAINST DELETION OF DISALLOWANCE OF RS.3,49,82,000/-, BEING THE INTERE ST PAID TO NHB FUNDING. THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE THE DISALLOWANCE WHICH S TOOD DELETED BY THE LD. CIT(A). 19. AGAIN, IT IS FOUND THAT SIMILAR ISSUE CAME UP FOR CONSIDERATION BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE ASS ESSMENT YEAR 1997-98. ITA NOS.2180 & 1459/DEL/2006 12 THE TRIBUNAL FOLLOWED THE VIEW TAKEN FOR THE ASSESS MENT YEAR 1996-97 AND UPHELD THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO. SINCE THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES FOR THE INSTANT YEAR ARE SIMILAR TO T HOSE OF THE PRECEDING YEARS, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE PRECEDENT, WE OVE RTURN THE IMPUGNED ORDER ON THIS ISSUE AND RESTORE THE ADDITION MADE B Y THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THIS GROUND IS ALLOWED. 20. THE LAST GROUND IS AGAINST THE DELETION OF ADDI TION ON ACCOUNT OF PROVISION FOR BAD AND DOUBTFUL DEBTS U/S 36(1)(VIIA ) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE CREATED A PROVISION OF RS.26.02 CRORE BY W AY OF DEBIT TO ITS PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSEE ADDED SUCH AMOUNT IN THE COMPUTATION OF TOTAL INCOME AND DEDUCTED RS.22,53,05,139/- U/S 36( 1)(VIIA) AS PROVISION FOR BAD AND DOUBTFUL DEBTS, EQUAL TO 5% OF TOTAL IN COME. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ADDED SUCH SUM OF RS.22.53 CRORE, WHICH ADD ITION GOT DELETED IN THE FIRST APPEAL. 21. HAVING HEARD BOTH THE SIDES AND PERUSED RELEVAN T MATERIAL ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT SIMILAR ISSUE CAME UP FOR CONSIDERATIO N BY THE TRIBUNAL FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1997-98. RELEVANT DISCUSSION HAS B EEN MADE IN PARA 31 OF ITA NOS.2180 & 1459/DEL/2006 13 THE ORDER, RESTORING THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE A SSESSING OFFICER FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION IN THE LIGHT OF THE DISCUSSION MADE IN THIS PARA. ADMITTEDLY, THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE GROUND FOR THE INSTA NT YEAR ARE MUTATIS MUTANDIS SIMILAR TO THOSE OF PRECEDING YEAR. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE PRECEDENT, WE ALSO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER ON THIS SCORE AND SEND THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER FOR DE CIDING THIS ISSUE AFRESH IN THE LIGHT OF THE DIRECTIONS GIVEN BY THE TRIBUNAL I N ITS ORDER FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1997-98. 22. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS ARE PARTLY ALLO WED. THE ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 28.02.201 8. SD/- SD/- [SUCHITRA KAMBLE] [R.S. SYAL] JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT DATED, 28 TH FEBRUARY, 2018. DK ITA NOS.2180 & 1459/DEL/2006 14 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT AR, ITAT, NEW DELHI.