Bhupinder Kumar Chugh, Panipat V. ITO, Panipat

ITA 252/DEL/2009

• Counselvise Citation: 25220114 RSA 2009
• Duration Of Justice: 6 year(s) 4 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-06-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 18-05-2015
• Assessment Year: 1994-1995
• Appeal Filed On: 22-01-2009
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: T VASANTHAN SENIOR
• Assessee Lawyers: DR RAKESH GUPTA; ASHWANI TANEJA S
• Keywords: Gift; Onus to prove; Reason to believe
• Section: 148

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI DELHI DELHI DELHI BENCH BENCH BENCH BENCH C CC C : NEW DELHI : NEW DELHI : NEW DELHI : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G.C. GUPTA BEFORE SHRI G.C. GUPTA BEFORE SHRI G.C. GUPTA BEFORE SHRI G.C. GUPTA, VICE , VICE , VICE , VICE PRESIDENT AND PRESIDENT AND PRESIDENT AND PRESIDENT AND SHRI SHRI SHRI SHRI TARVINDER SINGH KAPOOR TARVINDER SINGH KAPOOR TARVINDER SINGH KAPOOR TARVINDER SINGH KAPOOR, , , , ACCOUNTANT ACCOUNTANT ACCOUNTANT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MEMBER MEMBER MEMBER ITA NO ITA NO ITA NO ITA NO . .. . 252/DEL/2009 252/DEL/2009 252/DEL/2009 252/DEL/2009 ASSESSMENT YEAR ASSESSMENT YEAR ASSESSMENT YEAR ASSESSMENT YEAR : : : : 1994 1994 1994 1994 - -- - 95 9595 95 SHRI BHUPINDER KUMAR SHRI BHUPINDER KUMAR SHRI BHUPINDER KUMAR SHRI BHUPINDER KUMAR CHUGH, CHUGH, CHUGH, CHUGH, 11 1111 11- -- -12, SUKHDEV NAGAR, 12, SUKHDEV NAGAR, 12, SUKHDEV NAGAR, 12, SUKHDEV NAGAR, PANIPAT. PANIPAT. PANIPAT. PANIPAT. PAN : ABAPK8485E. PAN : ABAPK8485E. PAN : ABAPK8485E. PAN : ABAPK8485E. VS. VS. VS. VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD WARD WARD WARD- -- -4, 4,4, 4, PANIPAT. PANIPAT. PANIPAT. PANIPAT. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : DR. RAKESH GUPTA AND SHRI ASHWANI TANEJA, ADVOCATES. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI T.VASANTHAN, SENIOR DR. DATE OF HEARING : 18.05.2015 18.05.2015 18.05.2015 18.05.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 02.06.2015 02.06.2015 02.06.2015 02.06.2015 ORDER ORDER ORDER ORDER PER G.C. GUPTA PER G.C. GUPTA PER G.C. GUPTA PER G.C. GUPTA, VP , VP , VP , VP : :: : THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEA R 1994-95 IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A), KARNA L DATED 4 TH NOVEMBER, 2008. 2. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ARE AS UND ER:- 1. THE ASSESSEE HAD DULY FILED THE RETURN OF INCOM E FOR THE ASSTT. YEAR 1994-95 U/S 139(1). THE CASE WAS A SSESSED ACCORDINGLY ON THE RETURNED INCOME. THE ASSESSEE W AS SUBSEQUENTLY SERVED A NOTICE U/S 148 BY THE LD.A.O. FOR REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ALLEGING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ACCEPTED A BOGUS GIFT FROM ONE SHRI SU BHASH SETHI OF DELHI, PERMANENTLY RESIDING IN MANCHESTER, U.K. AND HAS ALLEGEDLY PAID A PREMIUM OF 10 PERCENT IN CONSIDERATION OF OBTAINING THE SAID GIFT. 2. IT IS EMPHASIZED THAT IN THE RETURN OF INCOME ORIGINALLY FURNISHED, IT WAS INDICATED THAT DURING THE F.Y. 1993-94, THE ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED A GIFT FROM NRE A/C OF SH. SUBHASH SETHI. THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED THE COPY OF ITA-252/DEL/2009 2 AFFIDAVIT, GIFT DEED, DD OF RS.10.00 LACS AS ALSO C ERTIFICATE FROM THE AMERICAN EXPRESS BANK WHERE IT WAS CONFIRM ED THAT A DD NO.078451 DT. 30.07.1993 FOR RS.1.00 LACS WAS ISSUED BY IT, DEBITING THE NRE A/C NO.320169733 OF SUBHASH SETHI. 3. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED T HAT THE ONLY ISSUE IN THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS REGARDING T HE VALIDITY OF PENALTY IMPOSED U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 A MOUNTING TO `4,91,413/-. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DI SCHARGED ITS BURDEN OF PROVING THE IDENTITY AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE DONOR OF GIFT OF `10 LAKHS AND THE TRANSACTION OF GIFT WAS GENUINE. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED ALL DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES IN SUP PORT OF ITS CASE. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE DONOR SHRI SUBHASH SETHI WAS AN NRI SETTLED IN UK AND WAS HOLDING PASSPORT NO. W 409703 ISSUED AT LIVERPOOL AND HAS CONFIRMED THE FACT OF GIFT MADE FROM HIS NRE AC COUNT TO THE ASSESSEE BY FILING AN AFFIDAVIT DATED 30 TH JULY, 1993 TO THIS EFFECT. THE GIFT DEED WAS ALSO EXECUTED ON 30 TH JULY, 1993 BETWEEN THE DONOR SHRI SUBHASH SETHI AND THE ASSESSEE (DONEE) WHEREIN THE DEMAND DRAFT DRAWN ON STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE OUT OF DONORS NR E ACCOUNT WITH AMERICAN EXPRESS BANK, NEW DELHI WAS PURCHASED. TH E DONOR HAS ADMITTED THAT HE HAS NATURAL LOVE AND AFFECTION TOW ARDS THE DONEE AND THE GIFT WAS MADE OUT OF HIS OWN SOURCES AND INCOME . THE DONOR FURTHER CONFIRMED THAT HE IS AN NRI AND HAS TRANSFE RRED ALL THE RIGHTS IN THE GIFTED SUM TO THE DONEE AND NONE OF HIS LEGAL H EIRS SHALL HAVE ANY RIGHT IN THE GIFTED SUM FROM THE DATE OF THE SAID G IFT. THE COPY OF CERTIFICATE DATED 30 TH JULY, 1993 OF AMERICAN EXPRESS BANK CONFIRMING THE ABOVE FACTS WAS ALSO FILED WITH THE ASSESSING O FFICER. THE COPY OF THE PASSPORT OF SHRI SUBHASH SETHI, THE DONOR, WAS FILED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ENFORCEME NT DIRECTORATE, FEMA, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA HAS INITIATED PROCEEDINGS AND THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR THEREOF HAS EXONERATED THE ASSESSEE OF ALL THE CHARGES LEVELED AGAINST HIM. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE CASE OF THE ASS ESSING OFFICER THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE THE COMPENSATORY PAYMENTS ALO NG WITH SOME ITA-252/DEL/2009 3 PREMIUM IN REGARD TO THE GIFTS RECEIVED FROM SHRI S UBHASH SETHI, IS FAR FROM TRUTH AND IS MERELY A SURMISE AND CONJECTURE. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE WHOLE CASE OF THE DEPARTMENT IS BASED ON SUSPIC ION AND THE PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT COULD NO T BE LEVIED ON MERE SUSPICION. HE SUBMITTED THAT NO OPPORTUNITY TO CRO SS-EXAMINE THE DONOR WAS EVER ALLOWED TO THE ASSESSEE. 4. LEARNED DR HAS OPPOSED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LE ARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE DONOR SHRI SUBHASH SETHI HAS DENIED AS HAVING MADE ANY GIFT TO ANY PERSON IN IND IA OUT OF HIS SAID NRE ACCOUNT VIDE LETTER DATED 7 TH AUGUST, 1995 AND THIS FACT WAS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF SHR I VED PRAKASH CHUGH IN WHICH THE PENALTY LEVIED WAS CONFIRMED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A), KARNAL. IN THESE FACTS, HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS JUSTIFIED IN LEVYING PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271( 1)(C) OF THE ACT AS THE DONOR WAS NEVER PRODUCED BEFORE THE ASSESSING O FFICER AND THERE WAS NO BLOOD RELATION BETWEEN THE DONOR AND THE DON EE IN THIS CASE. HE SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS NO SPECIFIC OCCASION TO MAKE THE GIFT BY THE DONOR TO THE ASSESSEE. HE RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE LEARNED CIT(A). 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE S IDES AND HAVE PERUSED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE LEARNED CIT(A) AND ALSO THE COPIES OF VARIOUS DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE A SSESSEE IN THE COMPILATION FILED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. WE FIND THA T THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED THAT IT HAS RECEIVED THE GIFT OF `10 LAKHS FROM SHRI SUBHASH SETHI, AN NRI THROUGH NRE ACCOUNT ON 30 TH JULY, 1993 VIDE DRAFT DRAWN ON STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE OUT OF DONORS NRE ACCO UNT WITH AMERICAN EXPRESS BANK, NEW DELHI. WE FIND THAT IT IS NOT TH E CASE WHERE THERE IS NO EVIDENCE SUPPORTING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED DULY SWORN-IN AFFIDAVIT DATED 30 TH JULY, 1993 OF THE DONOR AND ALSO THE GIFT DEED EXECUTED ON 30 TH JULY, 1993 BETWEEN THE DONOR SHRI ITA-252/DEL/2009 4 SUBHASH SETHI AND THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FILED THE BANK CERTIFICATE OF AME RICAN EXPRESS BANK DATED 30 TH JULY, 1993 CERTIFYING THAT THEY HAVE PURCHASED A D EMAND DRAFT DATED 30 TH JULY, 1993 FOR `10 LAKHS FROM THE STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, NEW DELHI FAVOURING THE ASSESSEE BY DEB ITING THE NRE ACCOUNT OF SHRI SUBHASH SETHI (THE DONOR) WITH THEM . THE COPY OF THE BANK DRAFT OF STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE DATED 30 TH JULY, 1993 WAS ALSO FILED ALONG WITH THE COPY OF THE PASSPORT NO. W 409 703 OF THE DONOR SHRI SUBHASH SETHI SHOWING THE COMPLETE ADDRESS OF THE DONOR. WE FIND THAT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT HE WAS EXO NERATED BY THE ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE, FEMA, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA FROM ALL THE CHARGES LEVELED AGAINST HIM IN THE PROCEEDINGS INIT IATED BY THE ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE, COULD NOT BE CONTROVERTED ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE. WE ARE AWARE THAT WE, VIDE OUR SEPARATE O RDER IN THE QUANTUM APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE RELEVANT ASS ESSMENT YEAR 1994-95 IN ITA NO.4659/DEL/2004, HAVE CONFIRMED THE ADDITION OF `10 LAKHS ON ACCOUNT OF THE AFORESAID GIFT BY HOLDING T HAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE SAID NRI GIF T FROM SHRI SUBHASH SETHI TO THE ASSESSEE. IT IS SETTLED LEGAL POSITIO N THAT THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS ARE DIFFERENT FROM ASSESSMENT PROCEEDIN GS AND THE FINDING GIVEN IN THE ASSESSMENT MAY CONSTITUTE GOOD EVIDENC E BUT SAME COULD NOT BE TAKEN AS CONCLUSIVE IN THE PENALTY PROCEEDIN GS. FURTHER, MERELY BECAUSE THE ADDITION HAS BEEN CONFIRMED IN APPEAL, IT COULD NOT BE THE SOLE GROUND FOR COMING TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE A SSESSEE HAD CONCEALED ANY INCOME. WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIE W THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF COMPLETE AND CONVINCING CORROBORATIVE EV IDENCE, THE REVENUE MAY JUSTIFY ADDITION, BUT, IN THE MATTER OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS, THE ONUS LIES HEAVILY ON THE REVENUE T O PROVE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CONCEALED HIS INCOME OR HAS FILED INAC CURATE PARTICULARS OF HIS INCOME. IN THE ASSESSMENT CASE OF THE ASSES SEE, THE ADDITION COULD BE SUSTAINED ON PREPONDERANCE OF PROBABILITIE S, BUT, PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT FOR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR FILING ITA-252/DEL/2009 5 OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME COULD NOT BE SU STAINED MERELY ON PREPONDERANCE OF PROBABILITIES. 6. IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US, IT WAS PO INTED OUT IN THE QUANTUM APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THERE WAS NO BL OOD RELATION OF THE ASSESSEE (DONEE) WITH THE DONOR AND THERE WAS NO SP ECIFIC OCCASION TO MAKE THE GIFT TO THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS ALSO PLEADED ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE THAT DURING THE COURSE OF PROCEEDINGS IN TH E CASE OF ONE SHRI VED PRAKASH CHUGH, IT WAS FOUND THAT THE DONOR SHRI SUBHASH SETHI HAS WRITTEN A LETTER TO THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF ENFOR CEMENT STATING THAT HE HAD NOT MADE ANY GIFT TO ANY PERSON IN INDIA OUT OF HIS SAID NRE ACCOUNT AND THAT HE HAD NOT REMITTED ANY MONEY FROM ABROAD INTO THIS ACCOUNT. IN THESE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND CONFIRMED BY THE LEARNED CIT( A) IN THE QUANTUM CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS CONFIRMED BY THE TRIBUNAL. HOWEVER, THE PARAMETERS OF DECIDING THE VALIDITY OF ADDITION MAD E IN THE ASSESSMENT CASE OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE PENALTY IMPOSED UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT ARE ESSENTIALLY DIFFERENT. THE ONUS TO PROVE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CONCEALED HIS INCOME OR HAS FILED INAC CURATE PARTICULARS OF HIS INCOME LIES WITH THE DEPARTMENT IN THE PENAL TY PROCEEDINGS INITIATED UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. IN T HIS CASE, THERE WAS A SUSPICION THAT THE GIFT CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE TO HAVE RECEIVED FROM NRI SHRI SUBHASH SETHI WAS NOT GENUINE, BUT, THE SU SPICION, HOWEVER STRONG IT MAY BE, COULD NOT TAKE PLACE OF PROOF AND COULD NOT MADE THE BASIS FOR IMPOSING THE PENALTY FOR CONCEALMENT OF I NCOME. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT MADE FURTHER ENQ UIRIES REQUIRED IN THIS CASE TO REACH THE TRUTH. HE HAS NOT ENQUIRED THAT WHO HAS DEPOSITED THE AMOUNT IN THE NRE ACCOUNT OF THE NRI DONOR SHRI SUBHASH SETHI. NO ENQUIRY WAS MADE DIRECTLY FROM S HRI SUBHASH SETHI OR FROM THE BANK OR FROM THE ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORAT E ETC. THAT UNDER WHAT CIRCUMSTANCES HE WAS EXONERATED. THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER HAS NOT GIVEN ANY REASON TO BELIEVE THE DENIAL OF THE DONOR SHRI SUBHASH SETHI ITA-252/DEL/2009 6 IN SOME LETTER WRITTEN BY HIM TO THE ASSISTANT DIRE CTOR OF ENFORCEMENT IN SOME OTHER CASE OF SHRI VED PRAKASH CHUGH AND DI SBELIEVING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. 7. MOREOVER, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE AFFIDAVIT O F THE DONOR ALONG WITH THE GIFT DEED, BOTH EXECUTED ON THE DATE OF GI FT, I.E., 30 TH JULY, 1993 AND, THEREFORE, CARRIES MORE EVIDENTIARY VALUE . THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS FAILED TO GIVE ANY REASON FOR DISBELIEV ING THE BANK CERTIFICATE DATED 30 TH JULY, 1993 ITSELF (THE DATE OF GIFT) OF AMERICAN EXPRESS BANK ALONG WITH THE COPY OF THE DEMAND DRAF T DATED 30 TH JULY, 1993 ISSUED BY THE STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE IDENTITY OF THE DONOR SHRI SUBHASH S ETHI IS PROVED BEYOND DOUBT WITH THE COPY OF HIS PASSPORT FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ONLY REASON GIVE N BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE THE COMPENSA TORY PAYMENTS ALONG WITH THE PREMIUM IN REGARD TO THE GIFT RECEIV ED FROM SHRI SUBHASH SETHI. WE FIND THAT THERE IS NO EVIDENCE W HATSOEVER BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO SUGGEST THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS IN FACT MADE SUCH COMPENSATORY PAYMENT TO THE DONOR. NO DOUBT THAT THE SUSPICION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER COULD BE A P OSSIBILITY BUT THE OTHER POSSIBILITY OF THE DONOR NOT STATING THE TRUT H IN HIS LETTER WRITTEN TO THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF ENFORCEMENT IN SOME OT HER CASE OF SHRI VED PRAKASH CHUGH COULD NOT BE RULED OUT. NO ENQUIRY W AS MADE AS TO WHY THE DONOR KEPT MUM AFTER THE AMOUNT OF `10 LAKHS WA S DEBITED TO HIS NRE BANK ACCOUNT WITH AMERICAN EXPRESS BANK ON 30 TH JULY, 1993 TILL THE LETTER WRITTEN BY HIM TO THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF ENFORCEMENT IN SOME OTHER CASE OF SHRI VED PRAKASH CHUGH (THE DATE OF THIS LETTER WAS NOWHERE MENTIONED). THE FACT THAT THE AMOUNT OF `1 0 LAKHS WAS DEBITED TO THE NRE ACCOUNT OF THE DONOR WITH AMERIC AN EXPRESS BANK, NEW DELHI AS EVIDENCED BY THE BANK CERTIFICATE OF A MERICAN EXPRESS BANK AND THE COPY OF THE DEMAND DRAFT DATED 30 TH JULY, 1993 OF `10 LAKHS FROM STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE IN FAVOUR OF TH E ASSESSEE, COULD ITA-252/DEL/2009 7 NOT BE CONTROVERTED ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NEVER PROVIDED THE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO C ROSS-EXAMINE THE DONOR REGARDING HIS LETTER TO THE ASSISTANT DIRECTO R OF ENFORCEMENT. IN THESE FACTS OF THE CASE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED V IEW THAT THE FACTS OF THE CASE MAY JUSTIFY THE ADDITION MADE IN THE QUANT UM CASE OF THE ASSESSEE TO BE SUSTAINED BUT EVIDENCE BROUGHT ON RE CORD WAS NOT SUFFICIENT TO PROVE THE CHARGE OF CONCEALMENT OF IN COME OR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, WE ARE UNABLE TO SUSTAIN THE PE NALTY IMPOSED UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT, WHICH IS ACCORD INGLY CANCELLED AND THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED. DECISION PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 2 ND JUNE, 2015. SD/- SD/- ( (( ( TARVINDER SINGH KAPOOR TARVINDER SINGH KAPOOR TARVINDER SINGH KAPOOR TARVINDER SINGH KAPOOR ) )) ) (G. (G. (G. (G. C. GUPTA C. GUPTA C. GUPTA C. GUPTA ) )) ) ACCOUNTANT ACCOUNTANT ACCOUNTANT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MEMBER MEMBER MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT VICE PRESIDENT VICE PRESIDENT VICE PRESIDENT VK. COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT : SHRI BHUPINDER KUMAR CHUGH, SHRI BHUPINDER KUMAR CHUGH, SHRI BHUPINDER KUMAR CHUGH, SHRI BHUPINDER KUMAR CHUGH, 11 1111 11- -- -12, SUKHDEV NAGAR, PANIPAT. 12, SUKHDEV NAGAR, PANIPAT. 12, SUKHDEV NAGAR, PANIPAT. 12, SUKHDEV NAGAR, PANIPAT. 2. RESPONDENT : INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- -- -4, PANIPAT. 4, PANIPAT. 4, PANIPAT. 4, PANIPAT. 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR