Bio Med Private Ltd., Ghaziabad V. Addl. CIT, Ghaziabad

ITA 2182/DEL/2011

• Counselvise Citation: 218220114 RSA 2011
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 10 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-03-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 20-01-2015
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 02-05-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: Y KAKKAR
• Assessee Lawyers: AKHILESH KUMAR
• Keywords: Capital asset; Depreciation; Revenue expenditure; Capital expenditure
• Section: 143(3); 80IB

Judgement Text

I.T.A. NOS.: 2182 & 2161/DEL/2011 ASSESSMENT YEARS 2003-04 PAGE 1 OF 14 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI A BENCH, NEW DELHI [CORAM: PRAMOD KUMAR, AM AND C.M. GARG, JM] I.T.A. NO.: 2182/DEL/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2003-04 BIO MED PRIVATE LIMITED .APPELLANT C-96, SITE NO.1, BSR INDUSTRIAL AREA, GHAZIABAD. [PAN: AABCB 3477 C] VS. ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, .RESPONDENT RANGE 2, GHAZIABAD. I.T.A. NO.: 2161/DEL/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2003-04 ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, .APPELLANT RANGE 2, GHAZIABAD. VS. BIO MED PRIVATE LIMITED .APPELLANT C-96, SITE NO.1, BSR INDUSTRIAL AREA, GHAZIABAD. [PAN: AABCB 3477 C] APPEARANCES BY: AKHILESH KUMAR , FOR THE ASSESSEE Y. KAKKAR, FOR THE REVENUE DATE OF CONCLUDING THE HEARING: 20 TH JANUARY, 2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE ORDER: 31 ST MARCH, 2015 O R D E R PER PRAMOD KUMAR: I.T.A. NOS.: 2182 & 2161/DEL/2011 ASSESSMENT YEARS 2003-04 PAGE 2 OF 14 1. THESE CROSS APPEALS CHALLENGE CORRECTNESS OF ORD ER DATED 9 TH FEBRUARY, 2011 PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IN THE MATTER OF ASSESSMEN T UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT), FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04. AS A MATTER OF CONVENIENCE, THESE APPEALS ARE BEING TAKE N UP FOR DISPOSAL TOGETHER, BY WAY OF THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER. 2. WE WILL FIRST TAKE UP THE APPEAL FILED BY THE AS SESSEE. 3. GROUND NO.1 IS GENERAL IN NATURE AND DOES NOT CA LL FOR ANY ADJUDICATION. 4. IN GROUND NO.2, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLL OWING GRIEVANCE:- 2. BECAUSE, THE LEAORNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN TREATING THE REPAIRS OF RS.9,83,339/- INCURRED FROM TIME TO TIME AS CAPITAL EXPENDITURE MERELY ON THE BASIS OF PRESUMPTION AND CONSIDERING THE REGISTRATION OF OLD BUILDING ON 30.03.03 AS POINTED FOR THIS PURPOSE EVEN AFTER HOLDING THAT THE SAID BUILDING WAS ACQUIRED IN MAY, 0 2 AND ALSO IN TOTAL DISREGARD TO THE FACTS ON THE RECORD THAT BUILDING WAS USED & NO NEW ASSET HAD COME INTO EXISTENCE ETC. 5. IN A CONNECTED GRIEVANCE, RAISED BY REVENUES AP PEAL AS GROUND NO.5, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GRIEVANCE: 5. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW BY DELETING T HE ADDITION IN RESPECT OF BUILDING REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE WITHOUT APPRECIAT ING THE FACTS OF THE CASE. HENCE THE ORDER OF CIT(A) BE CANCELLED AND THE ORDER OF THE AO BE RESTORED. 6. SO FAR AS THIS ISSUE IS CONCERNED, THE RELEVANT MATERIAL FACTS ARE LIKE THIS. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFF ICER NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED A SUM OF RS.19,44,957/- ON ACCOUNT OF BUILD ING REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE DURING THE YEAR. OUT OF THIS AMOUNT, RS.9,42,376/- WAS SP ENT ON UNIT III AND RS.9,83,339/- WAS SPENT ON C-98 PREMISES. WHEN ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO EXPLAIN WHY SUCH A HEAVY EXPENDITURE WAS INCURRED ON REPAIRS AND WHY A PART OF THE SAME NOT BE TREATED AS CAPITAL EXPENDITURE AS IT RESULTS IN ENDURING BENEFIT. THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED AS FOLLOWS :- I.T.A. NOS.: 2182 & 2161/DEL/2011 ASSESSMENT YEARS 2003-04 PAGE 3 OF 14 AS REGARDS THE REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE EXPENSES FOR THE BUILDING, WE WISH TO SUBMIT THAT ALL THE EXPENSES INCURRED ARE ONLY FOR THE REPAIR OF THE FACTORY BUILDING OF THE COMPANY. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS ENGAGED IN THE MANUFACTURE OF VACCINE. THE DRUG MANUFACTURING REGUL ATORY AUTHORITIES AND WHO GMP REGULATORY AUTHORITIES REQUIRE US TO FOLLOW GOOD MANUFACTURING PRACTICES. THIS REQUIRE US TO KEEP OUR FACTORY BUILD ING IN A UP TO DATE CONDITION. AS A RESULT OF THIS REQUIREMENT, WE HAVE TO CARRY OUT REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE OF THE FACTORY BUILDING. ALL THE EXPENSES INCURRED AR E ONLY FOR THE CURRENT REPAIRS OF THE BUILDING AND THERE IS NO CREATION OF A NY NEW ASSET. 7. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THIS EXPLANATION IS VAGUE AND VERY GENERAL. IT WAS ALSO NOTED THAT C-98 PREMISES WAS PUT TO US AS ANIMAL HOUSE IMMEDIATELY AFTER TAKING POSSESSION ON 02.05.2002 AND THAT NO EXPLANATION AS TO HOW THE SO CALLED REPAIRS AND RENOVATION HAS NOT RESULTED INTO CREATI ON OF AN ASSET OF ENDURING NATURE HAS, HOWEVER, BEEN PUT FORTH BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSE SSING OFFICER FURTHER NOTED THAT IT IS SETTLED LAW THAT ANY AMOUNT INCURRED AFTER ACQUISIT ION OF NEW PREMISES TO CURE DEFICIENCIES OF THE CONDITION IN WHICH IT WAS PURCHASED WOULD BE IN THE NATURE OF CAPITAL EXPENDITURE ONLY. ACCORDINGLY, SO FAR AS EXPENSES INCURRED ON C-98 PREMISES WERE CONCERNED, ENTIRE AMOUNT OF RS.9,83,339/- WAS DISALLOWED. AS REGARDS THE EXISTING PREMISES, I.E. UNIT III, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED 50% EXPENDITURE AS CAP ITAL EXPENDITURE AND THE BALANCE AMOUNT WAS ALLOWED AS DEDUCTION. AGGRIEVED BY THE STAND SO TAKEN BY THE AO, ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). LEARNED CIT(A), WHILE SUSTAINING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.9,83,339/- IN RESPECT OF NEW PRE MISES, DELETED THE PARTIAL DISALLOWANCE OF RS.4,71,188/- IN RESPECT OF REPAIR EXPENSES IN U NIT III. WHILE HOLDING SO, LEARNED CIT(A) OBSERVED AS FOLLOWS :- 7. I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE REASONS STATED BY THE AO FOR MAKING ADDITION AND THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE COUNSEL ALONG WITH REM AND REPORT AND THE REJOINDER ON THE SAME AND FURTHER SUBMISSIONS. ALL TH E RELEVANT FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE ARE EXAMINED AND THE LAW O N THE ISSUE HAVE GONE INTO. REGARDING C-98 I.E. EXTENSION OF UNIT III I FIND THAT NEW ASSET (C-98) HAS COME INTO EXISTENCE TO THE EXTENT THAT A NEW AREA HAS BEEN CONSTRUCTED. IT IS ON THE RECORD THAT ASSESSEE TOOK POSSESSION OF PREMISES C-98 IN MAY, 02 FOR WHICH REQUISITE DOCUM ENTS ARE EXAMINED. SO, AO IS JUSTIFIED IN MAKING THE DATE OF REGISTRATION; AS AN INDICATOR FOR TREATING C- I.T.A. NOS.: 2182 & 2161/DEL/2011 ASSESSMENT YEARS 2003-04 PAGE 4 OF 14 98 AS A NEW ASSET, AND FOR THE CAPITALIZATION OF EXP ENSES. IT IS ALSO A FACT THAT THE COMPANY IS REQUIRED TO MAINTAIN THE STANDARD LAID DOWN BY REGULATORY AUTHORITY WHICH NEEDS SET-UP OF THIS NEW PREMISES STRI CTLY ACCORDING TO SCIENTIFIC NORMS. THUS, IT CANNOT BE OVERLOOKED THAT C-98 I.E. THE UNI T III IS ACQUIRED BUILT IN THE CURRENT YEAR AND BECAUSE OF TECHNICAL NATURE O F BUSINESS IT MUST HAVE REQUIRED LARGE SCALE CHANGES TO THE BASIC STRUCTURE EXISTING EARLIER, WHICH ALSO EXPLAINS THE REASON FOR SUBSTANTIAL PURCHASES OF SANI TARY ITEMS AND SUBSTANTIAL MASONRY AND CIVIL CONSTRUCTION ITEMS ETC. IN C-98. CAPITAL EXPENDITURE IS NOT ONLY ON ACCOUNT OF EXISTENCE OF NEW ASSET BUT COVER S ANY EXPENDITURE WHICH RESULTS INTO ADVANTAGE OF ENDURING NATURE AND IS NO T MERELY FOR THE PROTECTION OR MAINTENANCE OF THE EXISTING ASSET. OF COURSE, IT IS ON RECORD THAT THIS NEW PURCHASES C-98 WAS ACQUIRED FRESH, AND NATURALLY, AL L THE EXPENSES RELATING TO ITEMS STARTING FROM PLASTERING, TO POP, TO SANITATI ON, AND, MORE IMPORTANTLY, TO SCIENTIFIC LAY-OUT WERE NECESSARY TO START THE OPER ATION OF THIS NEW UNIT-III. BY ALL STANDARDS OF ACCOUNTANCY, HUMAN PROBABILITY AND LEGAL DECISIONS; SUCH EXPENSES, MADE TO BRING UNIT III INTO EXISTENCE AND TO START OPERATION OF UNIT III, HAVE TO BE (MUST BE) CAPITALIZED. HENCE I AM INCLINED TO FULLY AGREE WITH THE AO ON T HIS ISSUE. HAVING EXAMINED THE DETAILS OF REPAIRS, I HOLD THAT ALL THE EX PENSES RELATING TO C-98 SHALL BE CONSIDERED AS CAPITAL EXPENDITURE. OLD PREMISES: HOWEVER, THE TOTAL REPAIRS RELATING TO THE OLD BUILD ING IN THE ABSENCE OF EXISTENCE OF ANY NEW ASSET AND OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES S HALL STAND ALLOWED AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE. BECAUSE, IN RESPECT OF OLD UNI TS, NO NEW CAPITAL ASSET HAS COME INTO EXISTENCE. RATHER, THESE ARE EXPENSES NECES SARY FOR SMOOTH RUNNING AND MAINTENANCE OF OLD UNITS. IT IS ON RECORD THAT S UCH REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE ARE NECESSITATED BY THE STANDARD LAID DO WN BY REGULATORY AUTHORITY. OVERALL : THEREFORE, OUT OF ENTIRE REPAIR & MAINTENANCE EXPEN SES; THE ADDITION OF RS.9,83,399/- STANDS SUSTAINED AND BALANCE IS DELET ED. DEPRECIATION ON THE AMOUNT CAPITALIZED WILL BE ALLOWED AS PER THE RULES. (RELIEF OF RS.4,71,188/-) 8. NONE OF THE PARTIES IS SATISFIED AND HENCE THE P ARTIES ARE IN APPEAL BEFORE US. I.T.A. NOS.: 2182 & 2161/DEL/2011 ASSESSMENT YEARS 2003-04 PAGE 5 OF 14 9. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS, PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AND DULY CONSIDERED FACTS OF THE CASE IN THE LIGHT OF THE AP PLICABLE LEGAL POSITION. 10. WE HAVE NOTED THAT THERE IS NOTHING ON THE RECO RD, BARING SOME GENERAL REMARKS, TO DEMONSTRATE THAT ANY PART OF THE REPAIRS AND MAINTE NANCE EXPENSES INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE CAPITAL EXPENDITURE IN NATURE. JUST B ECAUSE TILES, CEMENT OR IRON IS USED IN THE CIVIL WORK CARRIED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE, IN RESPECT OF THOSE PREMISES, SUCH CIVIL WORK NEED NOT NECESSARILY RESULT IN CAPITAL EXPENDITURE. IN A SOPHISTICATED TECHNICAL AND SCIENTIFIC WORK AS VACCINE DEVELOPMENT, IT IS ONLY NATURAL THA T HIGHEST PRECAUTIONS ARE TAKEN TO ENSURE THAT THE MANUFACTURING OR OTHER SCIENTIFIC P ROCESS DOES NOT GET VITIATED BY UNWELCOME ELEMENTS. THE EXERCISE OF SUCH PRECAUTIO NS NECESSITATES EXPENDITURE ON CIVIL AND MAINTENANCE WORK BUT THEN SUCH WORK DOES NOT RE SULT IN A CAPITAL ASSET. THE AUTHORITIES BELOW WERE CLEARLY IN ERROR IN HOLDING THAT IN RESPECT OF A NEW BUILDING, ALL MAINTENANCE AND CIVIL WORKS EXPENSES WILL BE CAPITA L EXPENDITURE IN NATURE. THE TEST IS NOT WHEN IS THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED BUT WHAT DOES EXPE NDITURE RESULT IN. EVERY EXPENDITURE ON A NEW PREMISES, UNTIL THE TIME IT IS READY FOR U SE BY THE ASSESSEE, IS NOT ALWAYS CAPITAL EXPENDITURE IN NATURE. WHEN SOME ONE BUYS A NEW HO USE, AND CLEANS, PAINTS OR FUMIGATES IT BEFORE MOVING IN, CLEANING, PAINTING OR FUMIGATI ON EXPENSES DO NOT BECOME CAPITAL EXPENDITURE IN NATURE. THIS IS A SIMPLE EXAMPLE BU T EVEN WITH RESPECT TO LITTLE MORE COMPLEX SITUATIONS, THE PRINCIPLE REMAINS THE SAME. IN THE SITUATION BEFORE US, AND PARTICULARLY AS THERE IS NOTHING TO SHOW THAT EXPEN DITURE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE RESULTED IN A NEW ASSET, OR SUCH ENDURING ADVANTAGE SO AS TO RESULT IN THE VERY CHARACTER OF EXPENDITURE BEING RENDERED CAPITAL, WE ARE OF THE C ONSIDERED VIEW THAT IMPUGNED DISALLOWANCES WERE WHOLLY UNWARRANTED AND UNSUSTAIN ABLE IN LAW. WE, THEREFORE, DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DELETE THE IMPUGNED DISALL OWANCES IN ENTIRELY. 11. GROUND NO.2 OF THE ASSESSEE IS THUS ALLOWED AND AGROUND NO.5 OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 12. IN GROUND NO.3, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOL LOWING GRIEVANCE : I.T.A. NOS.: 2182 & 2161/DEL/2011 ASSESSMENT YEARS 2003-04 PAGE 6 OF 14 3. BECAUSE THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ( APPEALS) ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST RS.5,77,283 /- U/S 40A(2)(B) OF THE ACT TREATING THE SAME AS EXCESSIVE BY 2% (ALLOWING 14% A GAINST PAYMENT OF 16%) EVEN AFTER ACCEPTING GENUINETY OF PAYMENT, DEDUCTIO N OF TAX, BUSINESS NEED, PAST HISTORY OF SUCH PAYMENT & DECLARATION OF SUCH INT EREST BY DEPOSITOR ETC. 13. IN A CONNECTED GRIEVANCE, WHICH WE WILL TAKE UP TOGETHER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GRIEVANCE: 3. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS WRONGLY DELETED THE ADDITIO N MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST PAYMENT AMOUNTING TO RS.12,11,1 49/- IN SPITE OF THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT APPROVE THE JUSTIFICATIO N OF PAYMENT OF INTEREST @ 16% TO THE SPECIFIED PERSONS AS PER SECTION 40A(2)( B) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. HENCE THE ORDER OF CIT(A) BE CANCELLED AND THE ORDE R OF THE AO BE RESTORED. 14. SO FAR AS THESE GRIEVANCES ARE CONCERNED, THE R ELEVANT MATERIAL FACTS ARE LIKE THIS. DURING THE COURSE OF SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING S, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN NET INTEREST INCOME OF RS.81 ,77,424/- WHICH CONSISTED OF INTEREST RECEIPT OF RS.1,27,95,687/- AND INTEREST PAYMENT OF RS.46,18,263/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID INTEREST @ 16% TO VARIOUS RELATIVES OF DIRECTORS, WHICH, IN THE OPINION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WAS EXCESSIVE AND UNREASONABLE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT WHILE RESERVES AND SUR PLUSES IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE AMOUNTED TO RS.11.26 CRORES, WHICH, ACCORDING TO TH E ASSESSING OFFICER, FOR USE IN INVESTMENTS. ON THIS BASIS, NETTING OF INTEREST W AS DECLINED. SO FAR AS INTEREST PAYMENT WAS CONCERNED, ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THAT INVESTME NT YIELDED 9.5% ON AN AVERAGE, AND, THEREFORE, INTEREST PAID IN EXCESS OF 9.5% TO THE R ELATIVES OF DIRECTORS SHOULD BE DISALLOWED. ACCORDINGLY, DISALLOWANCE OF RS.17,88,432 WAS MADE. WHEN THE MATTER WAS CARRIED IN APPEAL BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A), WHILE DISALLOWANC E WAS UPHELD IN PRINCIPLE THE QUANTUM OF DISALLOWANCE WAS REDUCED INASMUCH AS RATE OF 14% , AS AGAINST 9.5% ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WAS HELD TO BE REASONABLE. THE AMOUNT PAID IN EXCESS OF 14% INTEREST WAS DISALLOWED. NONE OF THE PARTIES IS SATISFIED B Y THE STAND SO TAKEN BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) AND BOTH THE PARTIES ARE IN APPEAL BEFORE US. I.T.A. NOS.: 2182 & 2161/DEL/2011 ASSESSMENT YEARS 2003-04 PAGE 7 OF 14 15. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS, PERUSED TH E MATERIAL ON RECORD AND DULY CONSIDERED FACTS OF THE CASE IN THE LIGHT OF THE AP PLICABLE LEGAL POSITION. 16. WE HAVE NOTED THAT THE PAYMENT OF INTEREST IS N OT IN DISPUTE AND THE SHORT QUESTION BEFORE US REALLY IS WHETHER THE PAYMENT OF INTEREST @ 16% CAN BE SAID TO BE EXCESSIVE OR UNREASONABLE WHICH IS SINE QUA NON FOR DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 40A(2)(B) I.E. LEGAL PROVISION UNDER WHICH IMPUGNED DISALLOWANCE IS MADE . AS FAR AS THE STAND OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS CONCERNED, HE HAS HELD THAT PA YMENT IN EXCESS OF 9.5% INTEREST IS EXCESSIVE AND UNREASONABLE, WHILE LD. CIT(A) HOLDS THIS RATE AT 14% TO BE FAIR AND REASONABLE. WHEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER HIMSELF HOL DS THAT THE FUNDS HELD AS RESERVE AND SURPLUS AND UNSECURED LOANS ARE TO BE PRESUMED T O HAVE BEEN INVESTED IN INVESTMENTS, AND THIS FINDINGS OR PRESUMPTION REMAINS UNDISTURBE D, THE YARDSTICK FOR WHAT CONSTITUTES REASONABLE INTEREST RATE IS THE RATE AT WHICH THE A SSESSEE COULD HAVE RAISED BORROWINGS FROM SIMILARLY PLACED UNRELATED PARTIES. IN THE DE TAILS REPRODUCED AT PAGE 24 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, IT IS SEEN THAT INTEREST RECEIVED AT ITEM NOS. 6, 8 AND 9, INTEREST RATE IS 18%. SUCH BEING THE UNDISPUTED FACTS, INTEREST @ 1 6% CANNOT BE SAID TO BE EXCESSIVE OR UNREASONABLE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HIMSELF HAS SH OWN HIGHER INTEREST EARNINGS @ 18%, MODERATE INTEREST EARNINGS @ 14% AND LOW INTEREST E ARNINGS @ 5 TO 7.25%. THE UNSECURED BORROWINGS BY A COMMERCIAL ORGANISATION L IKE THE ASSESSEE, ON THESE FACTS, @ 16% INTEREST SEEMS TO BE REASONABLE. THE BENCHMARK @ 14% ADOPTED BY THE LD. CIT(A), BY TAKING FIXED DEPOSIT INTEREST RATES OF COMPANIES LI KE MGF LIMITED AND RAMA VISION LTD., CANNOT BE APPLIED IN A RIGID WAY. THERE IS NO MATE RIAL WHATSOEVER TO SUGGEST THAT A 2% HIGHER INTEREST THAN INTEREST PAID TO SUCH WELL REP UTED COMPANIES, AND THAT TOO ON FIXED PERIOD DEPOSITS, WILL RENDER THE INTEREST PAID BY T HE ASSESSEE TO ITS UNSECURED LENDERS AS EXCESSIVE AND UNREASONABLE HAVING REGARD TO FAIR MA RKET INTEREST RATE. IN VIEW OF THESE DISCUSSIONS, AS ALSO BEARING IN MIND ENTIRETY OF TH E CASE, WE HOLD THAT ENTIRE INTEREST PAYMENT TO THE SPECIFIED PERSONS, AT THE RATE OF 16 %, SHOULD BE ALLOWED AS DEDUCTION. ACCORDINGLY, INMPUGNED DISALLOWANCES DESERVE TO BE DELETED. WE HOLD SO. 17. GROUND NO.3 OF THE ASSESSEE IS THUS ALLOWED AND GROUND NO.3 OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. I.T.A. NOS.: 2182 & 2161/DEL/2011 ASSESSMENT YEARS 2003-04 PAGE 8 OF 14 18. IN GROUND NO.4, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOL LOWING GROUND :- 4. BECAUSE, LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN DISALLOWING TH E CLAIM U/S 80IA/IB BY RS.3,36,614/- I.E. 30% ON RS.11,12,046/- BY HOLDING THAT, THE EXP. ON R&D SHALL BE ALLOCATED 1/3 RD TO UNIT-III CLAIMING EXEMPTION U/S 80IA/B OF THE AC T AIN THE WHOLE DISREGARD OF THE FACT THAT THE ISSUE HAS ALREADY BEEN DECIDED FINALLY IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE BY HONBLE ITAT & LD. CIT(A) IN THE EARLIER YEARS WHICH IS AGAINST THE JUDICIAL DISCIPLINE. 19. IN A CONNECTED GROUND RAISED BY THE A.O. VIDE G ROUND NO.4 OF HIS APPEAL, THE FOLLOWING GRIEVANCE IS RAISED:- 4 THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS WRONGLY DELETED THE DISALLOW ANCE OF DEDUCTION U/S 80IB OF RS.16,08,971/- WITH THE DIRECTION TO RE- COMPUTE THE DEDUCTION U/S 80IB BY APPORTIONING THE EXPENDITURE ON RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT BY 1/3 RD TO EACH UNIT. HENCE THE ORDER OF CIT(A) BE CANCELLED AN D THE ORDER OF THE AO BE RESTORED. 20. AS FAR AS THESE ISSUES ARE CONCERNED, IT IS SUF FICIENT TO TAKE NOTE OF THE FACT THAT IN GRANTING THE IMPUGNED RELIEF, LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ME RELY FOLLOWED HIS ORDER, IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06, WHICH HAS BEEN CONFIRMED BY A CO-ORDINATE BENCH, VIDE ORDER DATED 27.04.2012 :- 20. WE HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIA L AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE POINT OF CONTENTION BEFORE THE PARTIES IS THE ALLO CATION OF R & D EXPENSES TO THE THREE UNITS. FROM THE ITAT ORDER IN APPEAL NO. 564 9/DEL/2004, IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WAS ORIGINALLY DEN IED THE BENEFIT OF SECTION 80IA IN RESPECT OF UNIT NO. 2 DURING 1994-95 WHICH WA S CHALLENGED BEFORE THE CIT(A) AND CIT(A) HAD GIVEN RELIEF TO THE COMPANY. THE REVENUE HAD NOT FILED APPEAL AGAINST THE CIT(A)S ORDER. DURING THE YEAR 20 01-02 ALSO, THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE TRAVELLED UP TO THE STAGE OF THE TRIBUNAL O N THE SAME ISSUE I.E., 1/3 RD ALLOCATION OF R &D EXPENSES OF EACH UNIT. THE CASE WAS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE DECISION OF THE ITAT IS REPRODUCED BELOW :- IN THE APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE CONTEND ED THAT THE RESEARCH PROJECT UNDERTAKEN BY IT RELATES TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF NEW VACCINES WHICH NONE OF THE THREE UNITS WAS MANUFACTURING AND FURNISHED DET AILS OF VACCINES MANUFACTURED DURING THE YEAR. IT WAS FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HIMSELF AGREED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT THE R&D EXPENSES DID NOT I.T.A. NOS.: 2182 & 2161/DEL/2011 ASSESSMENT YEARS 2003-04 PAGE 9 OF 14 RELATE TO ANY PARTICULAR UNIT AND THAT THE BENEFIT DE RIVED BY ONE PARTICULAR UNIT FROM THE R&D EXPENDITURE CANNOT BE ASCERTAINED. IT WA S FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1994-95, THE CIT(A) HAS BY ORDER DATED 1.5.1998 HELD THAT THE EXPENDITURE ON RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT C ANNOT BE APPORTIONED TO UNIT NO. II FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECTION 80IA. THE C IT(A) ACCEPTED THE ABOVE SUBMISSIONS AND ALSO HELD THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HA S NOT POINTED OUT ANY SUCH EXPENSES INCURRED ON R&D WHICH RELATES TO ANY PART ICULAR UNIT. HE, THEREFORE, ACCEPTED THE ASSESSEES PLEA FOLLOWING HIS PREDECESSORS ORDER FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1994-95. THE DEPARTMENT IS IN APPEAL AND WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS. THE LD COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE MADE A STATEMENT FROM TH E BAR THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT RECEIVED ANY INTIMATION OF AN APPEAL FILED B Y THE DEPARTMENT AGAINST THE DECISION OF THE CIT(A) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 19 94-95 ON THIS POINT. THE LD SR. DR STATED THAT HE HAS NO INFORMATION OF ANY APPEAL BY THE DEPARTMENT ON THIS POINT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1994-95, BUT WANT ED TO VERIFY THE POSITION AND REQUESTED THAT WE MAY HOLD OVER THE PASSING OF THE ORDERS TILL THE END OF THE MONTH. ACCORDINGLY, WE HAVE WAITED TILL THE 31.5.20 07 BUT SO FAR NO INFORMATION HAS COME FROM THE DEPARTMENT. SINCE THE DE PARTMENT HAS NOT CHALLENGED THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) ON THIS POINT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1994- 95, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE JUDGMENTS OF THE HONB LE DELHI HIGH COURT IN CIT VS. NEO POLY PACK (P) LTD. 245 ITR 492, CIT VS. ARJ SECURITY PRINTERS 264 ITR 346, 276 AND CIT VS. DALMIA PROMOTERS DEVELOPERS P. LTD. 281 ITR 346, WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) ON THIS POINT FOR THE YE AR UNDER APPEAL AND DISMISS THE GROUND TAKEN BY THE REVENUE. 21. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL A ND KEEPING IN VIEW THE PRINCIPLES OF CONSISTENCY IN THE JUDICIAL PRONOUNCE MENTS, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE CIT(A) WHILE ON THE ONE HAND HAD RIGHTFULLY GIVEN THE BENEFIT OF SECTION 80IB OF THE ACT BUT AT THE SAME TIME HE HAS WRONGLY R EDUCED THE PROFITS OF UNIT NO. 3 BY ALLOCATING 1/3 RD OF R&D EXPENSES IN RESPECT OF BOTH YEARS. 21. AS FAR AS THE ISSUE REGARDING ALLOCATION OF R&D EXPENSES IS CONCERNED, WE FIND THAT THIS ISSUE IS COVERED, IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE, B Y AFORESAID ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. YET, LEARNED CIT(A) HAS RESPECTFULLY DISTINGUISHED THE SAID ORDER BY, INTER ALIA, OBSERVING THAT PRINCIPLES OF RES JUDICATA ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO IN COME TAX PROCEEDINGS AND THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAD REJECTED THE SAND OF THE REVENUE ON A TECHNICAL GROUND THAT THE LD. CIT(A)S FINDING, IN EARLIER YEAR, WERE NOT CHALLENGED. WE ARE UNABLE TO SEE ANY MERITS IN THIS APPROACH OF THE LD. CIT(A). AS A MATTER OF FACT, W HEN ASSESSING OFFICER DOES NOT CHALLENGE FINDINGS OF AN APPELLATE AUTHORITY, AGAINST HIM, FO R ONE ASSESSMENT YEAR, IT IS NOT OPEN TO I.T.A. NOS.: 2182 & 2161/DEL/2011 ASSESSMENT YEARS 2003-04 PAGE 10 OF 14 HIM TO CHALLENGE THE SAME FINDINGS IN A SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEAR. IN ANY CASE, ONCE A CO-ORDINATE BENCH TAKEN A PARTICULAR VIEW OF THE MA TTER, IT IS AMORALLY NOT OPEN TO US TO TAKE ANY OTHER VIEW OF THE MATTER. IN VIEW OF THES E DISCUSSIONS, WE UPHOLD THE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE AND DISMISS THE GRIEVANCE RAISED BEFOR E US BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 22. GROUND NO.4 OF THE ASSESSEE IS THUS ALLOWED AND GROUND NO.4 OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 23. GROUND NO.5 IS SOMEWHAT GENERAL IN NATURE AND D OES NOT CALL FOR ANY SPECIFIC ADJUDICATION. 24. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS AL LOWED. 25 COMING TO THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSING OFFI CER, IN THE FIRST GROUND OF APPEAL, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GRIEVANC E:- 1. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS WRONGLY DELETED THE ADDITIO N MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF PACKING EXPENSES AMOUNTING TO RS.12,04,0 41/- IN SPITE OF THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO MAINTAIN SEPARATE DETA ILS OF THESE EXPENSES IN RESPECT OF 3 RD UNIT. HENCE THE ORDER OF CIT(A) BE CANCELLED AND T HE ORDER OF THE AO BE RESTORED. 26. SO FAR AS THIS DISALLOWANCE OF RS.12,04,041/- I S CONCERNED, THE RELEVANT MATERIAL FACTS ARE LIKE THIS. THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN PR ODUCTION OF PHARMACEUTICALS AND MAINLY MANUFACTURES ANIMAL AND HUMAN VACCINES. THE ANIMAL VACCINES ARE PRODUCED IN UNIT I & II, WHEREAS HUMAN VACCINES ARE PRODUCED IN UNIT III. T HE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED INCENTIVE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IB IN RESPECT OF UNIT III ONLY. DURING THE COURSE OF SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTIC ED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED DEDUCTION, IN RESPECT OF UNIT I & II, FOR PACKING E XPENSES OF RS.29,79,093/-, WHEREAS SIMILAR DEDUCTION FOR UNIT III WAS FOR RS.48,16,164/-. THE A.O. WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE COMPANY HAD RANDOMLY ATTRIBUTED EXPENSE IN ORDER TO ARTIFIC IALLY ENHANCE THE VALUE OF ITS DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IB. IT WAS ALSO NOTED THAT WHILE RATIO OF PACKING MATERIAL TO SALES, SO FAR AS UNIT I & II ARE CONCERNED, IS ONLY 6.08%, WHEREA S THIS RATIO STOOD AT 15.44% IN RESPECT OF I.T.A. NOS.: 2182 & 2161/DEL/2011 ASSESSMENT YEARS 2003-04 PAGE 11 OF 14 UNIT III. IT WAS IN THIS BACKDROP, AND IN THE ABSE NCE OF DAY TODAY STOCK RECORDS OF CONSUMPTION OF MATERIAL, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISA LLOWED 25% OF PACKING EXPENSES IN RESPECT OF UNIT III. AGGRIEVED, INTER ALIA, BY THI S DISALLOWANCE OF RS.12,04,041/-, ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WHO DELETED THE DISALLOWANCE BY OBSERVING AS FOLLOWS :- IN THE APPEAL ALL THE INVOICES ARE PRODUCED. IT IS A LSO CLEAR FROM THE RECORD THAT AFTER 14.02.2007, NO SHOW CAUSE / DETAILS OF DEFICIENCIES WAS GIVEN TO ASSESSEE. THESE DEFICIENCIES / ANOMALIES WERE EXP LAINED IN DETAIL WITH SUPPORTING INVOICES IN APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. NO FU RTHER DEFICIENCY IS INDICATED BY THE AO IN THE REMAND REPORT. VALUATION DETAILS OF CLOSING STOCK IS ALSO FILED A ND NO DEFECT IS FOUND BY THE AO AFTER EXAMINATION. IT IS ALSO FOUND THAT IN THE NATURE OF BUSINESS IT MAY NOT BE PRACTICABLE TO MAINTAIN ITEM WISE CONSUMPTION OF PACKING MATERI AL, COST OF WHICH MAY ALSO BE VERY VERY PETTY IN TERMS OF CONSUMPTION PER ITEM . STOCK REGISTER OF FINISHED GOODS IS ALSO MADE A BAS IS IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER BUT, I OBSERVE THAT THE SAME IS NOT RELEVANT F OR THIS MATTER BECAUSE THE SAME IS STATED TO BE PRODUCED IN THE REPLIES PRODUCE D BEFORE ME. I ALSO FIND IT IMPORTANT THAT STOCK REGISTER IS EVEN SIGNED BY THE TRADE TAX AUTHORITIES. IN ANY CASE STOCK REGISTER IS PROVIDING PROPER DETAILS . COMPARATIVE FIGURES OF PACKING MATERIAL CONSUMPTIO N ALSO PROVE THAT THE % OF EXPENSES IN THE CURRENT YEAR ARE COMPARABLE /LESSER THAN THE EARLIER YEAR AND IN THE EARLIER YEARS NO PART OF EXPENSES IS DISALLOWED. I FIND FORCE IN ARGUMENT OF THE LD. COUNSEL THAT WITHOUT REJECTING THE ACCOUNTS AND WITHOUT FINDING ANY EXPENSES WRONG OR NOT RELATED TO BUSINE SS, NO LUMP SUM DISALLOWANCE SHOULD HAVE MADE. IN MY CONSIDERED VIEW, ASSESSEE HAS FULLY PROVED THE TRANSACTION OF PACKING MATERIAL OF RS.12,04,041/-. THEREFORE, THE A DDITION OF RS.12,04,041/- IS DELETED. (RELIEF OF RS.12,04,041/-) I.T.A. NOS.: 2182 & 2161/DEL/2011 ASSESSMENT YEARS 2003-04 PAGE 12 OF 14 27. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS AGGRIEVED OF THE RELIE F SO GIVEN BY THE LD. CIT(A) AND IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 28. HAVING HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND HAVING P ERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD, WE ARE NOT INCLINED TO DISTURB WELL REASONED FINDINGS OF THE LEARNED CIT(A). AS HE RIGHTLY OBSERVED, IT IS NOT ALWAYS PRACTICABLE TO MAINTAIN ITEM WISE DAY TO DAY CONSUMPTION OF PACKING MATERIAL, AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER CANNOT DISREGARD THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WITHOUT REJECTING THE SAME. THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE ASSESS ING OFFICER PROCEED ON MERE SUSPICION AND ONCE ALL THE DEFECTS AND DOUBTS OF THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER WERE SATISFIED IN THE FIRST APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THERE WAS NO LEGALLY SUSTAIN ABLE BASIS FOR THE IMPUGNED DISALLOWANCE. LEARNED CIT(A) RIGHTLY DELETED THE S AME. WE CONFIRM HIS ORDER ON THIS POINT ALSO AND DECLINE TO INTERFERE IN THE MATTER. 29. GROUND NO.1 OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DISMISS ED. 30. IN GROUND NO.2, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RAISE D THE FOLLOWING GRIEVANCE:- 2. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS WRONGLY DELETED THE ADDITIO N MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF SALES EXPENSES AMOUNTING TO RS.10,43,373 /- IN SPITE OF THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PROVE THE PAYMENT OF THESE EXP ENSES IN RESPECT OF SALES PROMOTION. HENCE THE ORDER OF CIT(A) BE CANCELLED A ND THE ORDER OF THE AO BE RESTORED, 31. AS FAR AS THIS DISALLOWANCE IS CONCERNED, IT WA S MADE ON ADHOC BASIS @ 30% OF TOTAL EXPENSES INCURRED UNDER THE HEAD SALES EXPENSES O N THE GROUND, INTER ALIA, THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS SPECIFICALLY REQUIRED TO FURNISH DETAI LS OF SUCH EXPENDITURE STATING THE PURPOSE, PERSON CONTACTED, IMPROVEMENT IN THE SALES OF SUCH REGION ETC. TO SUBSTANTIATE THE GENUINENESS OF EXPENDITURE CLAIMED BUT NO SUCH DE TAILS WERE FURNISHED AND BALD (SIC- BLAND) ATTEMPTS WERE MADE TO JUSTIFY SUCH EXPENDITU RE WITHOUT PRODUCTION OF ANY EVIDENCE. HOWEVER, WHEN ASSESSEE CARRIED THIS DIS ALLOWANCE IN APPEAL, LEARNED CIT(A) DELETED THE DISALLOWANCE BY OBSERVING AS FOLLOWS :- I.T.A. NOS.: 2182 & 2161/DEL/2011 ASSESSMENT YEARS 2003-04 PAGE 13 OF 14 5.B. ABOUT THE SECOND DISALLOWANCE OUT OF SALES EXPENSE S, IT IS EXAMINED THAT SUFFICIENT EVIDENCES ARE FILED AND TIME TO TIME EXP LANATIONS ARE GIVEN ON THE QUERIES RAISED. EXAMPLES OF REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENS ES INCURRED BY EMPLOYEES ARE FILED BEFORE AO AS WELL AS IN APPEAL. OUT OF VO UCHERS PRODUCED IN APPEAL ON THE BASIS OF TEST CHECK I AM SATISFIED THAT EXPENSES C LAIMED BY EMPLOYEES ARE PROPERLY SUPPORTED. THE A.O. FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT SELF-MADE VOUCHERS OF THE RESPECTIVE EMPLOYEES ARE ALWAYS SUPPORTED BY THE ACT UAL BILLS/VOUCHERS INCURRED BY THOSE EMPLOYEES. BIFURCATION OF EXPENSES AND NATURE OF EXPENSES IS EXPLAINED. MOST OF THE EXPENSES INCLUDING REIMBURSEM ENT OF EXPENSES ARE THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL.AO FAILED TO INDICATE ANY SPEC IFIC EXPENSE WHICH HE FOUND WRONG AND OBVIOUSLY REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES CANNOT BE A GROUND FOR THE REJECTION ESPECIALLY WHEN THE SAME IS PROPERLY SU PPORTED. PAST HISTORY ALSO SUPPORT THE CLAIM AS EXPENSES INCURRED ARE COMPARABL E AND NOT DISALLOWED IN THE EARLIER YEAR. HAVING CONSIDERED ALL THE FACTS I AM INCLINED TO AGREE WITH THE LD. COUNSEL THAT WITHOUT REJECTING THE ACCOUNTS AND WI THOUT FINDING ANY EXPENSES WRONG OR NOT RELATED TO BUSINESS NO LUMP S UM DISALLOWANCE COULD HAVE MADE. IN MY VIEW ASSESSEE HAS PROPERLY ROVED THE EXPENSES UNDER THIS HEAD. THEREFORE, THE ADDITION OFRS.10,43,373/- IS DELE TED. (RELIEF OF RS.10,43,373/-) 32. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS AGGRIEVED BY THE RELIE F SO GRANTED BY THE LD. CIT(A) AND IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 33. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS, PERUSED TH E MATERIAL ON RECORD AND DULY CONSIDERED FACTS OF THE CASE IN THE LIGHT OF APPLIC ABLE LEGAL POSITION. 34. WE HAVE NOTED THAT THE FACT OF EXPENDITURE WAS WELL ESTABLISHED BY EVIDENCES BUT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WANTED DETAILS LIKE THE END R ESULTS BY WAY OF IMPROVEMENT OF SALES AND DETAILS OF PERSONS CONTACTED DURING VISIT ETC. ON THESE FACTS, AND SATISFIED BY THE EVIDENCES PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE ABOUT FACT OF EX PENDITURE AND BROAD PURPOSE OF EXPENDITURE, LEARNED CIT(A) HAS DELETED THE DISALLO WANCE. IN ANY CASE, THE DISALLOWANCE IS PURELY ON ADHOC BASIS. WE SEE NO REASONS TO DISTUR B THE CONCLUSION SO ARRIVED AT BY THE LD. CIT(A), WHICH ARE ALSO IN HARMONY WITH ACCEPTED PA ST HISTORY OF THE CASE. WE, THEREFORE, CONFIRM THE ACTION OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND DECLINE TO INTERFERE IN THE MATTER. 35. GROUND NO.2 IS THUS DISMISSED. I.T.A. NOS.: 2182 & 2161/DEL/2011 ASSESSMENT YEARS 2003-04 PAGE 14 OF 14 36. GROUND NO.3, 4 & 5 ARE ALREADY DISMISSED IN THE LIGHT OF OUR OBSERVATIONS GIVEN EARLIER IN THIS ORDER AS THESE GROUNDS OF APPEAL WE RE TAKEN UP ALONG WITH CONNECTED GRIEVANCES RAISED IN ASSESSEES APPEAL. 37. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSING OF FICER IS DISMISSED. TO SUM UP, WHILE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DISMISSED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT TODAY ON 31 ST MARCH, 2015. SD/- SD/- C.M. GARG PRAMOD KUMAR (JUDICIAL MEMBER) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) NEW DELHI, THE 31 ST DAY OF MARCH, 2015 COPIES TO: (1) THE APPELLANT (2) THE RESPONDENT (3) COMMISSIONER (4) CIT(A) (5) DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (6) GUARD FILE BY ORDER ETC ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES, NEW DELHI