M/s BMG Enterprises Ltd, New Delhi V. Income Tax Officer, New Delhi

ITA 2465/DEL/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 125 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6917 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 2 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-07-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 27-04-2015
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: R K KAPOOR
• Keywords: Gift; Capital expenditure
• Section: 143(3); 37(1)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH F, NEW DELHI BEFORE : SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI L.P. SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 2465/DEL/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12 BMG ENTERPRISES LTD., 1 ST FLOOR, DCM BUILDING, 16 BARAKHAMBA ROAD, NEW DELHI. (PAN-AAACB4657R) (APPELLANT) VS. INCOME - TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(1), NEW DELHI. (RESPONDENT) A PPELLANT BY SH. R.K. KAPOOR, C.A. RE SPONDENT BY SH. ATIQ AHMED, SR. D R ORDER PER L.P. SAHU, A.M.: THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAI NST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A)-14, NEW DELHI DATED 02.03.2015 FOR THE ASSES SMENT YEAR 2011-12. 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSE E FILED RETURN OF INCOME ON 23.09.2011 DECLARING LOSS OF RS.20,90,618/-. THE CA SE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND STATUTORY NOTICES WERE ISSUED TO THE A SSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE DERIVED INCOME FROM REPRESENTATION AND CONSULTANCY IN THE FIELD OF AVIATION. IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICE R OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DEBITED A SUM OF RS.24,42,554/- UNDER THE HEAD ENTERTAINMENT EXPENSES. ON BEING ASKED FOR THE DETAILS OF THIS CL AIM, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THE DETAILS OF THESE EXPENSES. THE ASSESSING OFFICE R OBSERVED THAT SOME OF THE EXPENSES HAVE BEEN INCURRED FOR PURCHASE OF GIFT IT EMS AND AS SUCH THESE GIFTS WERE PURELY PERSONAL IN NATURE AND NOT FOR LEGITIMA TE BUSINESS NEEDS OF THE DATE OF HEARING 16.07.2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 23 .07.2018 ITA NO. 2465/DEL/2015 2 ASSESSEE COMPANY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER OBS ERVED THAT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09, THE ITAT IN APPEAL NO. 236 6/DEL/2012 VIDE ORDER DATED 14.06.2013 HAS CONFIRMED THE MAJOR PART OF TH E GIFT EXPENSES CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, HE ADDED A SUM OF RS. 4,58,170/- TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. IN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE ALSO FILED BILLS/INVOICES BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND THE LD. CI T(A), AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND ORDER OF THE ASSESS ING OFFICER, UPHELD THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER HOLDING AS UNDER : 5. I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION MADE BY THE A.R OF THE APPELLANT AND HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ASSESSMENT ORDE R. I HAVE ALSO PERUSED THE BILLS/INVOICES OF THE PURCHASE OF THE A BOVE MENTIONED GIFT ITEMS. MOST OF THE BILLS ARE IN THE NAME OF APPELLA NT COMPANY EXCEPT THE INVOICES FOR THE PURCHASE OF MONT BLANK PEN WHICH B EARS NO NAME OF THE PURCHASER. AS PER SECTION 37(1) OF THE INCOME TAX AC T, ANY EXPENDITURE (NOT BEING EXPENDITURE OF THE NATURE DESCRIBED IN S ECTION 30 TO 36 AND NOT BEING IN THE NATURE OF CAPITAL EXPENDITURE OR PERSO NAL EXPENSES OF THE ASSESSEE), LAID OUT OR EXPENDED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIV ELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE BUSINESS OR PROFESSION SHALL BE ALLOWED IN COMP UTING THE INCOME CHARGEABLE UNDER THE HEAD 'PROFITS AND GAINS OF BUS INESS OR PROFESSION. IN THIS CASE, THE APPELLANT HAS NOT BROUGHT ANY MATERI AL ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT THE EXPENSES ON ACCOUNT OF AFORESAID GIFTS WER E MADE WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF ITS BUSINESS. THE IDE NTITY OF THE RECIPIENT OF GIFTS HAS NOT BEEN DISCLOSED EITHER DURING THE ASSE SSMENT PROCEEDINGS OR DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. FURTHER, THE BUSI NESS EXIGENCIES OF THE APPELLANT COMPANY VIZ A VIZ THE AFORESAID GIFTS HAS NOT BEEN ESTABLISHED BY THE APPELLANT COMPANY. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY NEXUS BETWEEN THE GIFTS AND THE BUSINESS OF THE APPELLANT COMPANY, IN MY OPINIO N, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RIGHTLY DISALLOWED THE AFORESAID EXPENDITURE OF RS. 4,58,170/-, AND THEREFORE , THE IMPUGNED ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSES SING OFFICER IS HEREBY CONFIRMED. 3. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED A PAPER BOOK CONTAINING 38 PAG ES, WHICH IS PLACED ON RECORD. HE ALSO SUBMITTED A WRITTEN SYNOPSIS, WH ICH READS AS UNDER : ITA NO. 2465/DEL/2015 3 THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) UPHOLDING THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN DISALLOWING A SUM OF RS.4,58,170/- ON ACCOUNT OF GIFTS ETC. MADE TO THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PR INCIPALS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE DETAILS OF SUCH GIFTS ARE GIVEN AT PAGE-2 OF TH E ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SIMPLY RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE HON'BLE ITAT IN ASSESSEE'S OWN CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 IN WHICH PART OF THE GI FT EXPENSES WERE HELD TO BE NOT ALLOWABLE BY THE HON'BLE ITAT. COPY OF ITAT ORDER I N ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 IS ENCLOSED AT PAGES 07 TO 11 OF THESE SYNOPSIS. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS CONFIRMED THE DISALLOWANCE I N PARA-5 OF HIS ORDER BY HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BROUGHT ANY MATER IAL ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT THE EXPENSES ON ACCOUNT OF AFORESAID GIFTS ARE MADE WHO LLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS. FURTHER, THE CIT(A) HAS ERRONE OUSLY HELD THAT THE IDENTITY OF THE RECIPIENT OF GIFTS HAS NOT BEEN DISCLOSED EITHE R DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS OR DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. TH E CIT(A) HAS FURTHER HELD THAT BUSINESS EXIGENCIES OF THE APPELLANT COMPANY HAS NO T BEEN ESTABLISHED AND THE NEXUS BETWEEN THE GIFTS AND THE BUSINESS HAS NOT BE EN ESTABLISHED. IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE AT THIS STAGE TO CLARIFY TH AT AS OBSERVED BY THE CIT(A) AS ALSO BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AT PAGE-1 OF THE RESPECTIV E ORDER THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF PROVIDING CONSULTANCY AN D TECHNICAL SERVICES IN THE FIELD OF AVIATION AND AERONAUTICS UNDER THE NAME OF 'INDI AN AVITRON'. IT WAS AMONGST OTHER SUBMITTED AND AS OBSERVED BY THE CIT(A) IN PA RA-4. 'THAT THE APPELLANT SUBMITTED DURING THE COURSE OF A SSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE COMPLETE DETAILS OF GIFTS TOGETHER WITH THE NAMES O F PERSONS TO WHOM THE GIFTS WERE MADE WERE FURNISHED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. BE ING A CONSULTANT, IN THE FIELD OF AVIATION AND AERONAUTICS, THE ASSESSEE REQUIRES MAI NTAINING PERSONAL CONTACTS AND GOODWILL WITH FOREIGN PRINCIPALS AND THEIR REPRESEN TATIVE IN INDIA. WHENEVER THE FOREIGN PRINCIPALS AND THEIR REPRESENTATIVES VISIT IN INDIA FOR BUSINESS DISCUSSIONS, THEY HAVE TO BE PROPERLY LOOKED AFTER AND ENTERTAINED FOR MAINTAINING GOOD BUSINESS RELATIONS. THE FOREIGN PRINCIPALS HAVE TO BE PRESEN TED WITH EXPENSIVE GIFTS SO THAT THE ASSESSEE CAN GET BUSINESS. THEREFORE, THESE BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT EXPENSES ARE ESSENTIAL IN THE FIELD OF THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESS EE. THE NATURE OF EXPENSES INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTLY RELATED TO THE NATURE OF A CTIVITIES IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED. SINCE THE EXPENSES HAVE BEEN INCURRED WHOLL Y AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE BUSINESS PURPOSES, THERE WAS ABSOLUTELY NO JUSTIFI CATION FOR THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO MAKE DISALLOWANCE OF SUCH EXPENSES. ' THE BILLS OF THESE GIFTS WERE ALSO SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE CIT(A) AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS NOTED BY CIT(A) IN PARA-5 THAT MOST OF THE BILLS ARE IN THE NAME OF THE APPELLANT COMPANY. COPIES OF SUCH BILLS WHERE THE NAME OF THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE FOREIGN PRINCIPALS TO WHOM SU CH GIFTS WERE GIVEN IS ALSO MENTIONED HAD BEEN SUBMITTED BOTH DURING THE ASSESS MENT OR DURING THE APPELLANT PROCEEDINGS. THE BUSINESS EXIGENCY AND ALSO THE FAC T THAT SUCH EXPENSES ARE INCURRED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED BY ITA NO. 2465/DEL/2015 4 THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE CIT(A). THEREFORE, OBSERVAT IONS OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) WHILE UPHOLDING THE ABOVE DISALLOWANCE ARE FACTUALLY INCO RRECT, IT IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED. COPIES OF BILLS OF GIFTS ARE ENCLOSED AT PAGES 29 TO 38 OF THESE SYNOPSIS. THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN HISTORICALLY INCURRING SUCH B USINESS EXPENSES WHICH HAVE ALWAYS BEEN ALLOWED YEAR AFTER YEAR AS PER THE DETA ILS HEREUNDER: S.NO. FINANCIAL ASSESSMENT TOTAL TOTAL GIFT %TO FINAL YEAR YEAR RECEIPTS AS EXPENSES TOTAL STATUS PER P&L INCOME IN ACCOUNT APPEAL 1. 2005-06 2006-07 6,15,91,757 27,36,198 4.44% ALLOWED 2. 2006-07 2007-08 5,41,58,380 18,12,901 3.35% ALLOWED 3. 2007-08 2008-09 4,62,85,299 18,47,838 3.99% PARTIALLY ALLOWED 4. 2008-09 2009-10 7,04,26,871 12,16,165 1.73% ALLOWED 5. 2009-10 2010-11 7,29,35,094 17,14,534 2.35% ALLOWED 6. 2010-11 2011-12 3,22,64,141 4,58,170 1.42% UNDER APPEAL 1. ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 A DISALLOWANCE OF RS.4,43,5137- OUT OF ABOVE WAS MA DE WHICH WAS ALLOWED BY THE CIT(A) AS PER THE COPY OF THE ORDER ENCLOSED AT PAGES 23TO 28. 2. ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 NO DISALLOWANCE/NO SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT PAGES 21TO 22. 3. ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 18,80,3267- WAS MADE OUT OF WHI CH THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.11,51,260/- WAS UPHELD BECAUSE THIS AMOUNT WAS I NCURRED ON EXPENSIVE GIFTS SUCH AS DIAMONDS, GOLD BANGLES AND HON'BLE ITAT HAS HELD THAT THE NATURE OF ITEMS WERE OF VERY PERSONAL NATURE. HOWEVER, FOR THE BALA NCE AMOUNT OF RS.6,95,578/-, THE MATTER WAS RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OF FICER, WHO HAS STILL TO DECIDE ABOUT THE DISALLOWANCE. COPY OF ORDER OF HON'BLE ITAT ON THIS IS ENCLOSED AT PAGES 07 TO 11 OF THESE SYNOPSIS. 4. ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 NO DISALLOWANCE, REMAINS AFTER ORDER OF CIT(A) - CO PY ENCLOSED AT PAGES 12 TO 20 OF THESE SYNOPSIS. 5. ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 ITA NO. 2465/DEL/2015 5 THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS DISALLOWED THE AMOUNT BUT THE SAME WAS ALLOWED BY THE CIT(A) AND THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL IN ITAT WAS DISM ISSED AS PER THE COPY OF THE ORDER ENCLOSED FOR YOUR READY REFERENCE AND RECORDS AT PAGES 01 TO 06 OF THESE SYNOPSIS. HISTORICALLY IT WILL BE OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN GENERALLY INCURRING THESE EXPENSES ON NORMAL GIFTS WHICH HAVE ALWAYS BEEN ALL OWED AND ONLY IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 CERTAIN ITEMS OF GIFTS WHICH WERE OF G OLD AND DIAMOND WERE DISALLOWED BY THE HON'BLE ITAT. THEREFORE, ASSESSIN G OFFICER'S RELIANCE ON ITAT ORDER FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 IS MISPLACED AS THAT ORDER WAS ON PECULIAR FACTS THAT ITEMS OF GIFTS DISALLOWED WERE OF DIAMON D AND JEWELLERY. OTHERWISE ALSO IF SEEN WITH REFERENCE TO THE TOTAL GROSS RECEIPTS OF THE ASSESSEE, AS PER THE CHART GIVEN ABOVE, THE EXPENSES DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION ARE ONLY 1.42% OF ITS GROSS RECEIPTS AS AGAINST AS HIGH AS 4.4% IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006- 07 WHICH HAD BEEN SUBJECT TO SCRUTINY AND ULTIMATEL Y ALLOWED. AS ALREADY CLARIFIED, THESE TYPE OF EXPENSES HAVE A LWAYS BEEN ACCEPTED TO HAVE BEEN INCURRED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS AND KEEPING IN VIEW THE COMPLETE HISTORY OF THESE EXPENSES, THE EXPENSES DU RING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION BEING THE LOWEST OF ALL THE YEARS WHI CH HAS SO FAR BEEN EXAMINED, MAY KINDLY BE HELD TO BE ALLOWABLE TO THE ASSESSEE. 4. THE LD. DR RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITI ES BELOW. 5. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE SIDES AND PERUSING THE EN TIRE MATERIALS ON RECORD, WE OBSERVE THAT IT IS, NO DOUBT, CUSTOMARY IN OUR COUNTRY TO GIVE GIFTS TO CLIENTS WHICH SERVE AS EXPENSES ON BUSINESS PRO MOTION. HOWEVER, WHILE EXAMINING SUCH DEDUCTION OF EXPENSES OF THIS NATURE , IT IS TO BE KEPT IN MIND THAT THESE DEDUCTIONS ARE PROHIBITED IF THEY ARE PR ESUMPTIVE OF TAX EVASION AND MEANT TO REDUCE THE BUSINESS PROFITS. IN THE I NSTANT CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO SUBMITTED ANY EVIDENCES IN SUPPORT OF ITS CONTENTION THAT THE GIFTS WERE GIVEN TO ITS VARIOUS IDENTIFIABLE CUSTOM ERS. SO THE SAME ALSO REMAINS UNVERIFIED. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO NOT FURNI SHED ANY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE AS TO THE PERSONS TO WHOM SUCH GIFTS GIVEN WERE ACTUALLY FRUITFUL TOWARDS PROMOTING THE BUSINESS PROFITS OF THE ASSES SEE. THE LD. CIT(A) IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER HAS CATEGORICALLY OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO ITA NO. 2465/DEL/2015 6 EVEN DISCLOSE THE IDENTITY OF THE RECIPIENT OF GIFT S EITHER DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS OR DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. TH E LD. CIT(A) HAS ALSO EXAMINED THE RECORDS AND FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE AL SO FAILED TO ESTABLISH THE BUSINESS EXIGENCIES OF THE APPELLANT VIS-A-VIS THE AFORESAID GIFTS. THE LD. AR COULD NOT BE ABLE TO CONTROVERT THESE FINDINGS OF T HE LD. CIT(A) BY SUBMITTING ANY EVIDENCES BEFORE US CONTRARY TO IT. THEREFORE, IN OUR OPINION, IN ABSENCE OF ANY NEXUS BETWEEN THE GIFTS AND THE BUSINESS OF THE APPELLANT COMPANY, THE FINDINGS REACHED BY THE LD. CIT(A) CANNOT BE SAID T O BE WITHOUT ANY BASIS AND AS SUCH, INVOLVEMENT OF NON-BUSINESS USE IN THE PRE SENT CASE CANNOT BE RULED OUT AT ALL, AS IS EVIDENT FROM THE NATURE OF GIFTS NOTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. BILLS AND VOUCHERS OF THE GIFTS PURCHASED WERE MOSTLY FOUND IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE AND SOME O F THE BILLS, SOME NAMES WERE WRITTEN BY HAND, WHICH NOWHERE SUGGEST TO PLAC E CREDENCE ON THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THESE GIFTS WERE GI VEN TO ITS CUSTOMERS EVEN. 6. THE NEXT CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT SUCH DISALLOWANCES HAVE A HISTORY IN ASSESSEES FAVOUR. HE HAS REFERRED TO A SSESSMENT YEARS 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10 AND 2010-11, WHEN IT IS S TATED THAT SUCH DISALLOWANCES HAVE BEEN DELETED OR NOT MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ITSELF. IT IS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THEREFORE RULE OF CONSISTENC Y SHOULD BE FOLLOWED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH RESPECTIVE ORDERS OF THE AFORESAID YEARS AND WE FIND THAT IN A.Y. 2006-07, SUCH EXPENS ES WERE ALLOWED ON THE PREMISE THAT THOSE EXPENSES HAD BEEN SUBJECTED TO F RINGE BENEFIT TAX. SO IS THE POSITION WITH RESPECT TO A.Y. 2008-09. FOR A.Y. 2007-08, NO SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT WAS MADE U/S. 143(3) OF THE ACT. IN A.Y. 2008-09, THE TRIBUNAL WHILE DECIDING THIS ISSUE HAD DISALLOWED SUBSTANTIA L PART OF SUCH EXPENDITURE AND REST OF THE EXPENDITURE WERE REMANDED TO THE AS SESSING OFFICER FOR ITA NO. 2465/DEL/2015 7 VERIFICATION. IN A.Y. 2010-11, THE SIMILAR DISALLOW ANCES WERE DELETED BY TRIBUNAL. THEREFORE, FROM THE ABOVE SERIES OF FACTS , IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE HISTORY OF THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN SO GLORIOUS AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE, BUT THE DISALLOWANCES HAVE BEEN DEALT WITH BY VARIO US AUTHORITIES IN VIEW OF THE ATTENDING FACTS OF EACH YEAR, AS NOTED ABOVE. T HEREFORE, IN OUR OPINION, THE PREVIOUS HISTORY DOES NOT RENDER ANY HELP TO THE AS SESSEE. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, WE OBSERVE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO ESTABLISH THAT THE EXPENDITURE CLAIMED AS ABOVE WERE LAID WHO LLY OR EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS OR THAT THE SAME WERE OPEN FOR VERIFICATION SO AS TO ASCERTAIN THAT THE IMPUGNED GIFTS WERE GIVEN FOR BU SINESS PROMOTION OF ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE OR DER OF THE LD. CIT(A) WHILE DISALLOWING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE MADE U/S. 37( 1) OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS FOUND TO HAVE NO MERI T AND IS LIABLE TO FAIL. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 23 RD JULY, 2018. SD/- SD/- (BHAVNESH SAINI) (L .P. SAHU) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 23 RD JULY, 2018 *AKS* COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO: (1) THE APPELLANT (2) THE RESPONDENT (3) COMMISSIONER (4) CIT(A) (5) DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (6) GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES, NEW DELHI