ACIT, New Delhi V. M/s. Nuberg Engineering Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 237/DEL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8842 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-01-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Next Hearing Date: 07-01-2015
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 14-01-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VINAY JAIN
• Assessee Lawyers: GUNJAN PRASHAD
• Keywords: Initiation of penalty proceedings; Agreed addition; Revised return; Bonafide mistake
• Section: 142(1); 80IB; 139(5)

Judgement Text

ITA NO.237/DEL/2013 ASSTT.YEAR: 2008-09 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES E NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G.D. AGRAWAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI CHANDRAMOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 237/DEL/2013 ASSTT. YEAR: 2008-09 ACIT, VS NUBERG ENGINEERIN G LTD., CIRCLE-13(1), 1223, GALI NO.83, ROOM NO. 406, SHANTI NAGAR, TRI NAGAR, C.R. BUILDING, NEW DELHI. I.P. ESTATE, (PAN: AAACN3523A) NEW DELHI. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SHRI VINAY JAIN, CA RESPONDENT BY: SHRI GUNJAN PRASHAD, CIT DR O R D E R PER CHANDRAMOHAN GARG, J.M. THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN PREFERRED BY THE REVENUE AGAI NST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A)-XVI, NEW DELHI DATED 26.10.2012 IN APPE AL NO. 16/11-12 FOR AY 2008-09. ALTHOUGH THE REVENUE HAS RAISED AS MANY AS FIVE GR OUNDS IN THIS APPEAL BUT EXCEPT GROUND NO.1, OTHER GROUNDS ARE AR GUMENTATIVE AND SUPPORTIVE TO THE MAIN GROUND NO. 1 WHICH READS AS UNDER:- 1. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE PENALTY OF RS.41,49,854/- IMPOSED U/S 271(1)( C) OF THE I.T. A CT, 1961 FOR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. ITA NO.237/DEL/2013 ASSTT.YEAR: 2008-09 2 2. BRIEFLY STATED, THE FACTS GIVING RISE TO THIS AP PEAL ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE WHILE FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S 80IB OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 AMOUNTING TO RS.1,22,09,044/- . SUBSE QUENTLY, DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, ASSESSEE FILED A LETTER ON 8.9.2010 AND WITHDREW THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROC EEDINGS, THE ISSUE WAS DISCUSSED AND THE ASSESSEES REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITT ED THAT THEIR CLAIM WAS VALID BUT THEY WERE NOT IN POSSESSION OF EXCISE CER TIFICATE INDICATING THE DATE OF COMMENCEMENT OF BUSINESS. HOWEVER, IN ORDER TO BUY PEACE, THE AR SUBMITTED BEFORE THE AO THAT THEY HAD WITHDRAWN THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 80IB OF THE ACT AND AGREED FOR ADDITION IN THIS REGARD. ACCORDINGLY, THE SAID AMOUNT OF CLAIM WAS ADDED BACK TO THE INCOME O F THE ASSESSEE ON AGREED BASIS. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE AO ISSUED A NOTICE FOR IMPOSITION OF PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT ON 12.1.2011 FIXING THE D ATE ON 17.1.2011. NONE APPEARED ON THE SAID DATE NOR ANY REPLY WAS FILED. THE AO ISSUED ANOTHER SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ON 15.2.2011 FIXING THE DATE ON 2 8.2.2011. THE AO HELD THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED ANY REPLY, IT IS THEREFORE OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NO EXPLANATION TO OFFER AND PENALT Y IS DECIDED ON THE BASIS OF MATERIAL FACTS AS PER PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. TH E AO IMPOSED PENALTY OF RS. 41,49,854/- @100% OF TAX SOUGHT TO BE EVADED. 3. THE AGGRIEVED ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFOR E THE CIT(A) WHICH WAS ALLOWED BY PASSING THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND THE A O WAS DIRECTED TO ITA NO.237/DEL/2013 ASSTT.YEAR: 2008-09 3 DELETE THE PENALTY. NOW, THE AGGRIEVED REVENUE IS BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL IN THIS SECOND APPEAL WITH THE MAIN GROUND AS REPRODUC ED HEREINABOVE. 4. WE HAVE HEARD ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE SIDES AND CA REFULLY PERUSED THE MATERIAL AND DOCUMENTS PLACED BEFORE US. LD. DR SU BMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE PENALTY OF RS.41,4 9,854/- IMPOSED U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 FOR FURNISHING OF I NACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. LD. DR FURTHER CONTENDED THAT THE FIRST AP PELLATE AUTHORITY HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE PENALTY BY HOLDING THAT THE A O HAD NOT RECORDED ITS SATISFACTION REGARDING FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PAR TICULARS OF INCOME WHEREAS THE AO INITIATED THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/ S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE ASSESSEE ACCEPTED T HAT HE HAD FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME U/S 80IB OF THE AC T AND AGREED FOR ADDITION OF THE SAME. LD. DR VEHEMENTLY CONTENDED THAT THE CIT(A) IGNORED THE REASON RECORDED BY THE AO FOR IMPOSING PENALTY THAT THE CIT(A) WAS AWARE OF THE FACT THAT COMMENCEMENT OF BUSINESS CERTIFICA TE OF EXCISE DEPARTMENT WAS NOT AVAILABLE WITH IT, STILL IT DID NOT FILE IT S REVISED RETURN AS PER TIME ALLOWED U/S 139(5) OF THE ACT. THE DR ALSO MENTION ED THAT THE CIT(A) HAS ALSO IGNORED THIS IMPORTANT FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE ACCEPTED ITS MISTAKE ONLY AFTER ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S 143(2)/142(1) OF THE A CT I.E. AFTER INITIATION OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. ITA NO.237/DEL/2013 ASSTT.YEAR: 2008-09 4 5. REPLYING TO THE ABOVE, AT THE VERY OUTSET, LD. A R HAS DRAWN OUR ATTENTION TOWARDS PARA NO. 5.5 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDE R AND SUBMITTED THAT THE IMPUGNED DEDUCTION WAS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER A BONA FIDE MISTAKE WHICH HE IMMEDIATELY RECTIFIED BEFORE COMME NCEMENT OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS BY ITS LETTER DATED OCTOBER 8, 2009. THE AR HAS ALSO DRAWN OUR ATTENTION TOWARDS ASSESSMENT ORDER P ARA 3.1 AT PAGE 2 AND SUBMITTED THAT DATE OF THE LETTER OF THE ASSESSEE F ILED BEFORE THE AO DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WAS NOTED AS 08.09.2010 WHIC H IS WRONG AND FACTUALLY THE CORRECT DATE WAS 8.10.09 BY WHICH THE ASSESSEE WITHDREW ITS CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 80IB OF THE ACT. FROM BARE READING OF PARA 5.5 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER, WE NOTE THAT THE CIT(A) HAS APPRECI ATED THIS FACT AND APPROVED THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE AS SESSEE FILED LETTER ON 8.10.09 BEFORE THE COMMENCEMENT OF ASSESSMENT PROCE EDINGS. 6. LD. AR SUPPORTING THE IMPUGNED ORDER FURTHER SUB MITTED THAT THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS SOCI ETEX (2012) 24 TAXMAN.COM 309 HAS HELD THAT THE MISTAKE BEING A HU MAN BONAFIDE CLERICAL MISTAKE WHICH OCCURRED WHILE MAKING THE STATEMENT O F INCOME CANNOT ATTRACT PENALTY. IN THAT CASE, THE HONBLE JURISDI CTIONAL HIGH COURT OF DELHI APPROVED THE CONCLUSION OF THE ITAT THAT IN THIS SI TUATION, THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE HELD GUILTY OF FILING INACCURATE PARTICUL ARS OF INCOME. ITA NO.237/DEL/2013 ASSTT.YEAR: 2008-09 5 7. ON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF ABOVE SUBMISSIONS AN D CONTENTIONS OF BOTH THE SIDES AND BARE READING OF THE IMPUGNED ORD ER, WE OBSERVE THAT THE CIT(A) HAS ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE DELET ING THE PENALTY IMPOSED BY THE AO U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT WITH FOLLOWING O BSERVATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS:- 5.6 IN FACT, BEFORE THE QUESTIONNAIRES WERE ISSUED U/S 142(1) BY THE AO, THE ASSESSEE OFFERED THE INCOME T O THE EXTENT IT WAS CLAIMED AS DEDUCTION U/S 80IB TO BE C ONSIDERED AS PART OF INCOME. THE ASSESSEE SURRENDERED THE SAM E TO BUY PEACE WITH THE DEPARTMENT BEFORE THE CLAIM OF DEDUC TION U/S 80IB WAS EXAMINED BY THE AO IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCE EDINGS. MERELY BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE DISCLOSED ADDITIONAL IN COME SUO MOTU AFTER ISSUE OF A NOTICE U/S 143 (2) OF THE ACT , DOES NOT AMOUNT TO DETECTION OF CONCEALMENT BY THE AO. APPAR ENTLY, THE ASSESSEE HAD GIVEN ALL PARTICULARS OF HIS INCOM E AND HAD DISCLOSED ALL FACTS TO THE AO DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. IT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE AO THAT IN R EPLY TO A QUERY OF THE AO, SOME NEW FACTS WERE DISCOVERED OR THE AO HAD DUG OUT SOME INFORMATION WHICH WAS NOT FURNISHE D BY THE ASSESSEE. IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, I AM OF THE OP INION THAT NO PENALTY IS LEVIABLE. IT IS WELL SETTLED THAT ASS ESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND PENALTY PROCEEDINGS ARE SEPARATE AN D DISTINCT AND AS HELD BY .HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN T HE CASE OF ANANTHRAMAN VEERASINGHAIAH & CO. VS. CIT, 123 ITR 4 57, THE FINDING IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS CANNOT BE REG ARDED AS CONCLUSIVE FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE PENALTY PROCEEDI NGS. WHEN THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF OFFERED THE INCOME AND RECTIFI ED THE BONAFIDE MISTAKE BEFORE ITS DETECTION BY THE AO, IT COULD NOT BE HELD LIABLE FOR PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1) (C) OF THE ACT. 5.7 IN A SIMILAR CASE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SOCIETEX (2012) 24 TAXMAN.COM 309 UPHELD TH E DECISION OF TRIBUNAL AND CIT (APPEAL) WHERE THE ASS ESSEE IN THIS CASE MADE PROVISION FOR TAXATION UNDER THE HEA D CURRENT LIABILITIES AND THE PROVISION WAS NOT ADDED BACK TO THE PROFIT AS PER THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT. THE HON'BLE ITA T HELD THE MISTAKE TO BE HUMAN BONAFIDE CLERICAL MISTAKE WHICH ITA NO.237/DEL/2013 ASSTT.YEAR: 2008-09 6 OCCURRED WHILE MAKING THE STATEMENT OF INCOME AND I T ALSO HELD NO SATISFACTION WAS RECORDED BY THE A.O IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS GUILTY OF FILING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. IT WAS THEREFORE HELD THAT THE PENALTY CANNOT BE IMPOSED ON THE ASSESSEE U/S 2 71 (1 ) (C) OF THE ACT. 5.8 IN THE CASE OF DY. CIT VS. TARUN AGARWAL 2009 ( 13) MTC 831, THE ITAT LUCKNOW BENCH 'A' HELD THAT 'THE ASSE SSEE HAD SURRENDERED THE AMOUNT BEFORE ANY SPECIFIC DETECTIO N OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME OR EVEN BEFORE THE ISSUE OF NOTI CE. EVEN THOUGH A GENERAL ENQUIRY WAS GOING ON AND NOTICES H AD BEEN ISSUED TO SOME OF HIS RELATIVES AND THE AMOUNT MIGH T HAVE BEEN SURRENDERED BECAUSE OF COMPULSION OF CIRCUMSTA NCES, IT WAS NOT SUFFICIENT TO PENALIZE THE ASSESSEE AS THE FACTUM OF DETECTION WAS NOT THERE.' IN THE INSTANT CASE ALSO, NOTHING IS BROUGHT ON RECORD THAT THERE WAS ANY DETECTION AT T HE LEVEL OF THE AO TO SUGGEST THAT THE ASSESSEE CONCEALED TH E INCOME, WHICH WAS OFFERED FOR TAXATION SUO MOTU. 5.9 IN THE CASE OF ACIT V. ASHOK RAJ NATH (ITAT, DE LHI) 'A' BENCH IN ITA NO. 2970/(DEL)/2012 IT WAS HELD BY THE HON 'BLE ITAT THAT MERELY BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE DISCLOSE D ADDITIONAL INCOME SUO MOTO AFTER ISSUE OF NOTICE U/ S 143(2) OF THE ACT, DOES NOT AMOUNT TO DETECTION OF CONCEAL MENT BY THE A.O. APPARENTLY THE ASSESSEE HAD GIVEN ALL PART ICULARS OF HIS INCOME AND HAD DISCLOSED ALL FACTS TO THE A.O D URING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS; IT WAS HELD THAT IT WAS NOT A CASE THAT ON- REPLY TO THE QUERY OF THE AO SOME NEW FACT S WERE DISCOVERED OR THE AO HAD DUG OUT SOME INFORMATION W HICH WAS NOT FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE THE HO N'BLE ITAT WAS OF THE OPINION THAT NO PENALTY IS LEVIABLE . IN PARA 9 OF THE ORDER, HON'BLE ITAT HELD: 'THE ASSESSEE VOLUNTARY DISCLOSED ADDITIONAL INCOME DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND PAID TAX T HEREON. IN THE LIGHT OF VIEW TAKEN IN THE AFORESAID DECISIO NS, IT CANNOT BE SAID IN THE CASE BEFORE US, ADDITIONAL INCOME DI SCLOSED DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WAS NOT VOLUNTARILY OR THAT THE ASSESSEE WANTED TO CONCEAL THE INCOME. EVEN THOUGH THE REVISED RETURN WAS FOUND TO BE INVALID, THE AO ACCEPTED THE INCOME AS DECLARED IN THE REVISED RETURN AND COMPUTATION. THE AO DID NOT BRIN G ANY ITA NO.237/DEL/2013 ASSTT.YEAR: 2008-09 7 MATERIAL ON RECORD THAT THE DECLARATION OF INCOME M ADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN HIS REVISED RETURN OR HIS EXPLANATI ON WAS NOT BONAFIDE. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THERE APPEARS TO BE NO BASIS FOR IMPOSITION OF PENALTY ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME .' 5.L0 IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS AND DECISIONS CITED , IT IS HELD THAT AS NO SATISFACTION IS RECORDED FOR INITIATION OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE IT ACT, 1961 IN RE SPECT OF ADDITIONS MADE FOR DISALLOWANCE U/S 80IB OF THE ACT ., THEREFORE, THE PENALTY ORDER SUFFERS FROM LACK OF J URISDICTION TO IMPOSE PENALTY. FURTHER AS THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF OFFERED THE INCOME AND RECTIFIED THE BONAFIDE MISTAKE BEFORE IT S DETECTION BY THE AO, IT COULD NOT BE HELD LIABLE FO R PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1) (C) OF THE ACT. 8. UNDER AFOREMENTIONED CONCLUSION OF THE CIT(A) AN D FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT CASE, FROM THE ASSESSM ENT ORDER DATED 01.09.2010, WE NOTE THAT THE AO MADE FOUR ADDITIONS AND FIRST ADDITION WAS RELATED TO DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION U/S 80IB OF TH E ACT ON AGREED BASIS AND THE AO DID NOT RECORD ANY SATISFACTION FOR IMPOSING PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT BUT AT THE SAME TIME, WE CLEARLY OBSERVE TH AT THE AO SPECIFICALLY AND SEPARATELY RECORDED SATISFACTION FOR IMPOSING PENAL TY IN REGARD TO OTHER THREE ADDITIONS WHICH CLARIFY THE MIND AND OBJECT O F THE AO DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THAT HE DID NOT INTEND TO IM POSE PENALTY ON THE AGREED ADDITION OF DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION U/S 80 IB OF THE ACT. AT THIS STAGE, WE ALSO NOTE THAT THE LD. DR HAS NOT DISPUTE D THIS FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE WITHDREW ITS CLAIM ON 9.10.2009 PRIOR TO I SSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S 142(1) OF THE ACT I.E. PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF ASS ESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. IN THIS SITUATION, WE CAN SAFELY PRESUME THAT AT THE T IME OF MAKING ADDITION ON ITA NO.237/DEL/2013 ASSTT.YEAR: 2008-09 8 AGREED BASIS, THE AO, IN FACT, WAS NOT INTENDED TO INITIATE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS ON THE COUNT OF FIRST ADDITION WHICH WA S MADE ON THE BASIS OF WRITTEN LETTER OF THE ASSESSEE WITHDRAWING THE CLAI M U/S 80IB OF THE ACT DATED 9.10.2009 WHICH WAS FILED PRIOR TO ISSUANCE O F NOTICE U/S 142(1) OF THE ACT. HENCE, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE AS SUMPTION OF JURISDICTION FOR INITIATION OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT WAS NOT VALID. WE MAY ALSO POINT OUT THAT IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE AO RECORDED SATISFACTION ABOUT THREE ADDITIONS AT THE END OF RE LEVANT OPERATIVE PARA BUT NEITHER AT THE END OF IMPUGNED ADDITION IN REGARD T O AGREED DISALLOWANCE NOR AT THE END OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE AO BOTH ERED TO RECORD REQUIRED SATISFACTION AS PER PROVISIONS OF THE ACT FOR INITI ATION OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271(1)( C) OF THE ACT. 9. HOWEVER, IN THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS AND CIRCU MSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE CLEARLY NOTE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS WITHDRAWN ITS CL AIM OF DEDUCTION FILED U/S 80IB OF THE ACT AT THE VERY OUTSET OF ASSESSMENT PR OCEEDINGS PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S 142(1) OF THE ACT AND THE RE ASON AS EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT THEIR CLAIM WAS VALID BUT AS THEY ARE NOT IN POSSESSION OF EXCISE CERTIFICATE INDICATING DATE OF COMMENCEMENT OF BUSINESS, THEREFORE, THEY AGREED FOR ADDITION IN THIS REGARD. AT THIS J UNCTURE, WE RESPECTFULLY TAKE COGNIZANCE OF DECISION OF HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS RELIANCE PETROPRODUCTS LTD. 322 ITR 158 (SC) WHEREIN THEIR LORDSHIPS ITA NO.237/DEL/2013 ASSTT.YEAR: 2008-09 9 HELD THAT MERELY BECAUSE THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ACCEPTED OR NOT FOUND TO BE ACCEPTABLE BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES, THAT BY ITSELF WOULD NOT ATTRACT PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. IN THE P RESENT CASE, WE DISAGREE WITH THE CONCLUSION OF THE AO THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED EITHER INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR SUBMITTED WRONG STATEMENT OF ITS INCOME DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND AS WE HAVE NOTED ABOVE THE ASSESSEE WITHDREW ITS CLAIM OF DEDUCTION US/ 80IB O F THE ACT BEFORE INITIATION OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THEREFORE, W E APPROVE THE CONCLUSION OF THE CIT(A) DELETING THE PENALTY AND WE REACH TO A LOGICAL CONCLUSION THAT WE ARE UNABLE TO SEE ANY AMBIGUITY OR PERVERSITY OR ANY OTHER VALID REASON TO INTERFERE IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AN D WE UPHOLD THE SAME. ACCORDINGLY, MAIN GROUND OF THE REVENUE BEING DEVOI D OF MERITS IS DISMISSED. 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISM ISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 27.1.2015. SD/- SD/- (G.D. AGRAWAL) (CHANDRAMOHAN GARG) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER DT. 27TH JANUARY, 2015 GS ITA NO.237/DEL/2013 ASSTT.YEAR: 2008-09 10 COPY FORWARDED TO:- 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. C.I.T.(A) 4. C.I.T. 5. DR BY ORDER AS STT. REGISTRAR