ACIT, New Delhi V. Sh. Harvansh P Chawla, New Delhi

ITA 2423/DEL/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 81774 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 4 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-09-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 29-09-2014
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 11-05-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SUNIL BAJPAI
• Assessee Lawyers: DR RAM SAMUJH
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Unexplained investment; Unexplained expenditure; Search and seizure; Deemed to accrue or arise in india; Corroborative evidences
• Section: 69C; 143(3); 68; 69; 27; 132

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : C NEW DELHI BEFORE S HRI G .D. AGARWAL , HON BLE VI CE PRESIDENT AND SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K. , JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 2423 /(DEL) 201 1 ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 7 - 200 8 ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. S HRI HARVANSH P. CHAWLA CENTRAL CIRCLE - 13, M/S K.R CHAWLA & CO., NEW DELHI. KAILASH BUILDING, 26, KASTURBA GANDHI MARG, NEW DELHI. PAN: ADDPC 7559 G (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI SUNIL BAJPA I, CIT. RESPONDENT BY : DR. RAM SAMUJH, ADVOCATE ORDER PER GEORGE GEORGE K., J . M : 1. THIS APPEAL AT THE INSTANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE CIT(A) S ORDER DATED 15. 0 2.201 1 . THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR IS 200 7 - 0 8 . 2. THE SOLITARY ISSUE T HAT ARISES FOR OUR CONSIDERATION IS WHETHER THE CIT(A) IS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.55 .00 CRORES MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE BASIS OF POST DATED CHEQUE FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. ITA NO. 2423/(DEL) 2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 2008 2 3. THE ASSESSEE AN INDIVIDUAL, IS AN ADVOCAT E BY PROFESSION. THERE WAS SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION U/S 132 OF THE I.T. ACT CARRIED OUT IN THE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE ON 28.02.2007. PURSUANT TO THE SEARCH, ASSESSEE HAD FILED THE RETURN ON 30.10.2007 , DECLARING AN INCOME OF RS.1,19,13,501/ - . THE ASS ESSMENT U/S 143(3) R.W.S.153A OF THE ACT WAS DETERMIN ED FIXING A TOTAL INCOME OF RS.56,19, 61,180/ - BY MAKING THE FOLLOWING DISALLOWANCE/ADDITIONS: - I) CAR RUNNING & TRAVELLING EXPENSES RS.12,64,77/ - II) TELEPHONE EXPENSES RS.21,201/ - III) UNEXPLAINE D I NCOME RS.55,00,00,000/ - 4. AGGRIEVED BY THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). THE CIT(A) AFTER CALLING FOR THE REMAND REPORT FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND LEGAL POSITION , UPH E LD THE DISALLOWAN CE OF RS.1,26,477/ - AND RS.21,201/ - AND DELETED THE ADDITION OF RS.55 .00 CRORES. THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL WITH REFERENCE TO DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS.55 .00 CRORES. 5. THE BRIEF FACTS IN RELATION T O THE ADDITION OF RS.55 .00 CRORES ARE AS FOLLOWS. IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH PROCEEDINGS CONDUCTED IN THE ASSESSEE S PREMISES ON 28.02.2007, A POST DATED CHEQUE (CHEQUE DATED 02.04.2007) OF RS.55 .00 CRORES IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE ( ISSUED BY SHRI KUNWAR ONKAR SINGH ) WAS FOUND AND SEIZED . THE ASSESSING OFFICER WIT H REFERENCE TO THE SAID POST DATED CHEQUE, ISSUED A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE WITH THE FOLLOWING INFERENCES: - ITA NO. 2423/(DEL) 2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 2008 3 (A) THAT THE RECEIPT OF RS.55 CRORES BY CHEQUE FROM MR. KUNWAR ONKAR SINGH CONSTITUTES INCOME IN YOUR HAND. (B) SINCE KUNWAR ONKAR SINGH DOES NOT HAVE THE FINANCIAL CAPACITY, A PRESUMPTION ARISES AGAINST YOU THAT YOU HAVE ATTEMPTED TO USE HIM AS A CONDUIT FOR ROUTING YOUR UNACCOUNTED FUNDS THROUGH HIM. (C) THE AVAILABILITY OF THE CHEQUE IN YOUR POSSESSION CREATES A LIABILITY BOGUS IN NATURE IN YOUR NAME AND HENCE REPRESENTS UNDISCLOSED CONSIDERATION IN YOUR HAND. (D) IT HAS ALSO BEEN NOTICED THAT YOU HAD MADE A VISIT TO SIKKIM IMMEDIATELY PRIOR TO SEARCH I.E. LAST WEEK OF FEB 20 07, TO MEET KUNWAR ONKAR SINGH. 5.1 IN RESPONSE TO THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED A REPLY DATED 22.12.2008, WHICH WAS REPRODUCED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AT PAGES 3 TO 8 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. T HE ASSESSING OFFICER REJECTED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.55 .00 CRORES BY WAY OF UNEXPLAINE D INCOME. THE RELEVANT OBSERVATION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER READS AS FOLLOWS: - THE LEGAL PRESUMPTION FROM THE CIRCUMSTANCES SURROUNDING THIS WHOLE TRANSACTION IS THAT THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF IS THE OWNER OF AN AMOUNT OF RS.55 CRORES, WHICH WAS HITHERTO NOT B EEN DISCLOSED IN HIS INCOME TAX RETURNS. THE PREPONDERANCE OF PROABILITY IN THIS CASE WEIGHTS ITSELF IN FAVOUR OF THIS CONCLUSION. ON OTHER THAND, THE STORY PUT FOURTH BUT THE ASSESSEE SUFFERED FROM SEVERAL LOOP HOLES. IF KUNWAR ONKAR SINGH WAS A GENUINE B UYER WOULD HE AGREED TO ISSUE A CHEQUE FOR SUCH A HUGE AMOUNT CONSTITUTING 100% OF THE CONSIDERATION BEFORE DOING THE DILIGENCE AND WITHOUT ANY FORMAL AGREEMENT. IT IS WELL KNOWN BUSINESS PRACTICE IN ALL MAJOR PURCHASE DEALS THAT THE ADVANCE AMOUNT OR WHER E A CHEQUE IS TO BE GIVEN IN ADVANCE, ONLY CERTAIN PERCENTAGE SAY 10 TO 15 % OF FINAL C ON SI DERATION IS PAID. THE ASSESSEE IS TRYING TO SELL TH E STOR Y THAT BU Y E R G A V E HIM A CHEQUE FOR ENTIRE AMOUNT EVEN WITHOUT DOING A D U E D ILI G ENCE . S U C H TRANSACTIONS ARE U NHEARD OF AND NO BUYER WOULD B E SO D E SPERAT E TO BU Y A HOSPITAL WORTH ONLY RS . 5 ITA NO. 2423/(DEL) 2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 2008 4 CRORES AS ON DATE AND ISSUE A CH E QU E O F RS . 55 CRORES FOR THAT PURCHASE . THIS ENTIRE STORY IS MAKING BELIEVE ONE , A TAPESTRY OF LIES. IT MAY BE STATED THAT NO AMOUNT OF CRAFTY LANGUAGE AND FICTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES CAN RENDER A FALSEHOOD INTO A TRUTH . MR . HARVANSH CHAWALA ' S INTENTION IN OBTAINING A CHEQUE FROM KUNWAR ONK A R SINGH CAN BE EASILY SEEN FROM CIRCUMSTANCES SURROUNDING THIS TRANSACTION . HIS VISI T TO SIKKIM AND TRYING TO A RRANGE A DEAL WITH KUNWAR ONK A R SINGH WAS NOTHING BUT AN ATTEMPT TO CREATE AN ACCOMMODATION ENTRY FROM A TAX HEAVEN. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS, AN AMOUNT OF RS . 55 CRORES IS ADDED IN TH E INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE BEING UNEXPLAINED . FURTHER , SINCE THE CHEQU E UNDER CONSIDERATION HAS BEEN SEIZED IN THE F .Y. 2006 - 0 7, THE ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR I.E. YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION . (THI S INDICATES THAT ASSESSEE HAS ATTEMPTED TO USE HIM AS A CONDUIT FOR ROUTING HIS UNACCOUNTED FUNDS THROUGH MR . KU NWAR ONKAR SINGH) . I AM ALSO SATI S FIED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULAR S OF INCOME AND CONCEALED THE PARTICULARS OF ITS INCOME. HENCE, PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 2 7 1 (1) (C) ARE BEING INITIATED SEPARATELY . ' 5.2 . THE ASSESSEE BEING AG GRIEVED FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). THE CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE FACTS, THE LEGAL POSITION AND SEVERAL REMAND REPORT S AND REJOINDER S DELETED THE ADDITION OF RS.55 .00 CRORES VIDE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 15.02.2011. THE REVENUE BEING AGGRIEVED IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 5.3 . THE LD. D.R. SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE LD. A.R. ON THE OTHER HAND, REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE INCOME TAX AUTHORITY AND RELIED ON THE FINDINGS OF THE CIT(A). 6 . WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSION A ND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. IT IS UNDISPUTED FACT THAT THE CHEQUE FOUND IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH IS NOT ENCASHED. EVEN AS ON TODAY, THE REVENUE DOES NOT HAVE A CASE THAT THE CHEQUE IN QUESTION IS ITA NO. 2423/(DEL) 2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 2008 5 ENCASHED AND THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED THE MONEY. ON T HE CONTRARY, THE SIMPLE CASE OF THE REVENUE IS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN OWNER OF AN AMOUNT OF RS.55 .00 CRORES , WHICH WAS NOT DISCLOSED IN HIS INCOME TAX RETURN AND THE ISSUER OF THE CHEQUE (MR. KUNWAR ONKAR SINGH) IS ONLY A CONDUIT FOR RO U TING THE ASSESSEE UNACCOUNTED FUND S . THIS CONCLUSION OF THE REVENUE IS ONLY BASED ON PRESUMPTION AND SURMISES. IN SPITE OF SEARCH AND SEIZURE ACTION COMPLETED U/S 132 OF THE ACT AGAINST THE ASSESSEE , T HERE WAS NO CORROBORATORY EVIDENCE OR DOCUMENTS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH TO SUBSTANTIATE THE INFERENCE DRAWN BY THE A.O. 6.1 THE CIT(A) AFTER ELABORATELY AND COMPREHENSIVELY CONSIDERING THE FACTS, THE LEGAL POSITION AND SEVERAL REMAND REPORTS AND REJOINDER DELETED THE ADDITION OF RS.55 .00 CRORES. THE RELEVANT FINDING S OF THE CIT(A) READS AS FOLLOWS: - 23. HAVING CONSIDERED ALL THESE ISSUES RAISED BY THE AO ON ONE SIDE IN HIS ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE SUBSEQUENT REPORTS; AND BY THE APPELLANT/ AR ON THE S I DE IN HIS SUBMISSIONS AS WELL AS ALL THE REJOINDERS, AND KEEPING IN VIEW THE O F THE CASE AND THE JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS CITED AND THE POSITION OF LAW, I AM OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE FOLLOWING CONCLUSIONS CAN BE DRAWN IN THIS CASE BAS ED ON ISSUES WHICH ARE UNCONTROVERTED FACTS BEYOND DISPUTE BY BOTH THE SIDES: - A) T HE IMPUGNED CHEQUE DRAWN BY SH. KUNWAR ONKAR SINGH IN FAVOUR OF THE APPELLANT OF RS. 55 CRORES WAS FOUND AND SEIZED IN THE APPELLANTS PREMISES DURING SEARCH U /S 132 OF THE IT ACT . HOWEVER, THE CHEQUE HAS NOT BEEN PRESENTED TO THE APPELLANT ' S BANK AND THAT AS PER AO ' S FINDINGS (DETAILS OF WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN FILED BEFORE ME), SH . K.O.SINGH IS . A PERSON OF NO SUBSTANTIAL MEANS AND DID NOT HAVE THE FINANCIAL CAPACITY TO ISSUE CHEQUE OF SUCH AMOUNT . HE IS ALSO REPORTED TO BE ABSCONDING TRACELESS AND HAD NO SUB STANTIAL BALANCE IN HIS ACCOUNT ON WHICH THE CHEQUE WAS DRAWN. B) AS REGARDS THE CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED BY THE AO FROM THE VIGILANCE DEPT OF ITA NO. 2423/(DEL) 2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 2008 6 SIKKIM POLICE, ALONG WITH ITS ENCLOSED DOCUMENTS, THE AO HAS REPORTED THAT THESE HAVE ALREADY BEEN CONSIDERED B Y THE AO IN THE APPELLANT'S OWN CASE AND ADDITIONS AS DEEMED FIT, AS PER THE FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS OF THE DOCUMENTS, HAVE ALREADY BEEN MADE IN HIS ORDER FOR THE NEXT YEAR I . E. AY 2008 - 09. THE AO HAS NOT INDICATED ANY SPECIFIC AMOUNT OF TAX EVADED ON THIS ISSUE BASED ON THESE DOCUMENTS IN THE AY UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE AO'S VIEW THAT THESE DOCUMENTS ARE SUPPORTING EVIDENCE R EGARDING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE APPELLANT AND THE ISS U E R OF THE I M PUGNED CHEQUE HAS BEEN KEPT IN CONSIDERATION . IN THIS REGARD I T I S ALSO P ERTINENT TO KEEP IN VIEW THAT THE E - MAIL EXCHANGE HAS TAKEN PLACE I N TH E MONTH OF NOVEMBER/DECEMBER, 2007, I . E. MUCH AFTER THE DATE OF S EARCH ON 28.2 . 2007. THERE IS REASON FOR SUSPECTING FINANCIAL TR ANSACTIONS/INTERACTION BETWEEN THE APPELLANT A ND THE PARTIES TO THE E - MAIL, HOWEVER, NO CONCRETE EVIDENCE EMERGES FROM THE E - MAIL TO FORM THE BASIS FOR AN ADDITION REGARDING A POST DATED CHEQUE WHICH WAS ISSUED SEVERAL MONTHS BEFORE THE E - MAILS EXCHANGED. C) THE AO HAS DISAGREED WITH THE EXPLANATIONS O FFERED BY THE APPELLANT REGARDING THE PRESENCE OF THE IMPUGNED CHEQUE IN HIS PREMISES AND ITS PURPOSE ETC . , HOWEVER THERE IS PRECIOUS LITTLE EVIDENCE GATHERED BY THE AO FOR ALL THE PRESUMPTIONS DRAWN BY HIM AGAINST THE APPELLANT IN THIS REGARD INSPITE OF T HE FACT THAT THE APPELLANT'S PREMISES HAVE BEEN SUBJECTED TO SEARCH & SEIZURE ACTION U/S 132 OF THE I . T . ACT . D) THE AO HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO OR NOT BEEN IN A POSITION TO QUESTION THE ISSUER OF THE CHEQUE AT ALL, NOR HAS HE MADE OUT A CASE OF THE ISSUER SH . K .O. SINGH BEING THE BENAMIDAR OF THE APPELLANT . THE AO HAS ALSO NOT BEEN ABLE TO OFFER ANY CROSS EXAMINATION OF SH . K.O. SINGH TO THE APPELLANT . E) IN SPITE OF SEARCH AND SEIZURE ACTION COMPLETED U/S 132 OF THE IT ACT AGAINST THE APPELLANT, THE AO'S ORDER IS LARGELY BASED UPON PRESUMPTIONS AND SURMISES RATHER THAN CONCRETE EVIDENCE OR DOCUMENTS FOUND DURING THE SEARCH EXCEPT THE DISCOVERY OF THE IMPUGNED CHEQUE . THE AO ' S CONCLUSION THAT THE DOCUMENTS FORWARDED BY THE SIKKIM POLICE I ND I CATE APPELLANT'S RELATION S AND TRANSACTION WITH SH . KUNWAR OMKAR SINGH WHICH ACCORDING TO THE AO ARE NOT MERELY THAT OF A PROSPECTIVE BUYER AND SELLER . HAVE NOT BEEN FOLLOWED UP BY ANY SUBSTANTIAL INVESTIGATION AND FIND I NG WHICH CAN ESTABLISH THE FACTUAL BASIS OF THE TRANSACTION SO AS TO BE THE GROU N D FOR THE ASSESSMENT OF RS. 55 CRORES IN THE HANDS OF THE APPELLANT . TH E AO ' S ORDER LEVELS VARIOUS ALLEGATIONS ON THE APPELLANT BUT THESE R EMAIN MERE ALLEGATIONS IN ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE FOUND DURING SEARCH OR A CASE BUILT UP DURING POST SEARCH ENQUIRIES OR EVEN DURING THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS. ITA NO. 2423/(DEL) 2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 2008 7 F) THE AO HAS NOT MENTIONED THE SECTION UNDER WHICH THE CHEQUE OF RS.55 CRORES WAS TO BE TAXED IN THE APPELLANT'S HANDS. IN THIS RESPECT IT WOULD BE WORTHWHILE TO EXAMINE THE VARIOUS DEEMING PR OVISIONS OF THE IT ACT WHICH MAY BE APPLICABLE IN SUCH A CASE. IT IS OBSERVED THAT NO CASE HAS BEEN EFFECTIVELY MADE OF DEEMED INCOME U/S 68 O R U/S 69, 69A, 698 , 69C OR 69D OF THE IT ACT . EXAMINED IN THE CONTEXT OF SECTION 68 NO CREDIT IN THE BOOKS OF ACCO UNTS OF THE APPELLANT HAVE BEEN FOUND TO BE TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT . NEITHER A CASE U/S 69 HAS BEEN MADE OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT NOT RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF THE APPELLANT ' S ACCOUNTS. IN THE CONTEXT OF 69A FOR UNEXPLAINED MONEY ETC, THE AO HAS PERHAPS ATTEMPTED TO TREAT THE IMPUGNED CHEQUE AS 'OTHER VALUABLE ARTICLE' BUT NO ATTEMPT HAS BEEN MADE TO DEMONSTRATE AS TO HOW A POST DATED CHEQUE WHICH HAS NOT BEEN PRESENTED TO THE BANK AND NEITHER IS THERE ANY SUBSTANTIAL BALANCE IN THE DRAWER'S ACCO UNT AS PER THE AO ' S FINDINGS ITSELF, CAN BE TREATED AS ANY VALUABLE ARTICLE. AS REGARDS SECTION 698 ALSO, NO VALID CASE HAS BEEN MADE OF THE AMOUNT TO HAVE BEEN TREATED AS AN INVESTMENT ETC, NOT FULLY DISCLOSED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. THE QUESTION OF EXA MINING THE LIKELY HOOD OF THIS ADDITION U/S 69C(UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE ETC) OR U/S 69D (AMOUNT BORROWED OR REPAID ON HUNDI) IS OBVIATED BY THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND THE AO HAS NEITHER INTENDED NOR ATTEMPTED TO BRING THE ISSUE UNDER THESE PROVISIONS. THE I SSUE IS ALSO NOT ARGUABLY DEFINABLE AS INCOME EVEN UNDER SECTION 2(24) , SEC. 4 OR SEC. 5 OF THE IT ACT . THE AR'S PLEA IS VALID THAT DISCOVERY OF A CHEQUE CAN INITIATE AN INQUIRY INTO AN INCOME BUT CANNOT ITSELF CONSTITUTE INCOME WHEN IT HAS NEITHER ACCRUED NOR BEEN RECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT . 24 . HAVING CONSIDERED THE AO ; S ORDER, HIS SUBSEQUENT REPORTS, APPELLANT'S SUBMISSIONS AND SUBSEQUENT REJOINDERS, FACTS AND EVIDENCES OF THE CASE AND THE JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS CITED AS WELL AS THE POSITION OF LAW, IT IS M Y CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE CASE MADE OUT BY THE AO. AGAINST THE APPELLANT ON THIS GROUND IS NOT ADEQUATE TO UPHOLD THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO; OF RS. 55 CRORES WHICH HAS BEEN CONTESTED IN THIS GROUND. THE ADDITION, THEREFORE, DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. THE A PPELLANT ' S GROUND IS ALLOWED . 6.2 . THE ABOVE FINDINGS OF THE CIT(A) HAS NOT BEEN DISPEL LED BY THE REVENUE . AS MENTIONED EARLIER, THE ADDITIONS HAVE BEEN MADE BY THE A.O. MERELY ON PRESUMPTION AND SURMISES WITHOUT ANY CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE OR DOCUMENTS. ITA NO. 2423/(DEL) 2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 2008 8 THEREFORE, WE DEEM IT APPROPRIATE TO UPH O LD THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AS CORRECT AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND NO INTERFERENCE IS CALLED FOR. IT IS ORDER ED ACCORDINGLY. 7 . IN THE RESULT , THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED . THE ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30 .0 9 .2014 SD/ - SD/ - ( G.D. AGARWAL ) ( GEORGE GEORGE K. ) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED 30 .0 9 .2014 COP Y OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT (APPEALS) CONCERNED 4. CIT CONCERNED 5. D.R., ITAT, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR