M/s. Nector Securities Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi V. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 2679/DEL/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6368 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 11 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-05-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Next Hearing Date: 13-05-2014
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 03-06-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: R S ADLAKHA
• Keywords: Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 142(1); 234B; 147; 27; 148; 144

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES : F : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI A.D. JAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI J.S. REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.2679/DEL/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2004-05 NECTOR SECURITIES PVT. LTD., A-2/38, SAFDARJUNG ENCLAVE, NEW DELHI. PAN : AAACN4023B VS. ITO, WARD-13 (2), NEW DELHI. ( APPELLANT ) ( RESPONDENT ) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI R.S. ADLAKHA DEPARTMENT BY : S MT. MEENAKSHI VOHRA, SR . DR ORDER PER A.D. JAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THIS IS ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 29.03.2010, PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A)-XVI, NEW DELHI, TAKING THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL:- 1. THAT THE CIT (A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN UPHOLDING THE ASSESSMENT FRAMED U/S 147/148 OF THE ACT. 2. THAT THE CIT (A) WAS WRONG IN UPHOLDING THE ASSESSM ENT IN THE ABSENCE OF SERVICE OF NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE IT ACT. 3. THAT THE CIT (A) WAS UNJUSTIFIED IN UPHOLDING THE AS SESSMENT WITHOUT ANY PROPER AND VALID SERVICE OF NOTICE U/S 142 (1) OF THE IT ACT, 1961. 4. THAT THE ALLEGED SERVICE OF NOTICE U/S 142(1) BY A FFIXTURE IS NOT IN CONFORMITY WITH THE PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN SECTION 282 OF THE IT ACT, 1961 AND IS ALSO CONTRARY TO THE PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN ORDER-V RR-17- 19 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 1908. ITA NO.2679/DEL/2010 2 5. THAT THE ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION WITHOUT PROPER AN D VALID SERVICE OF NOTICE U/S 148 IS BAD IN LAW. 6. THAT THE CIT (A) HAD NOT PROPERLY APPRECIATED AND CO NSIDERED THE VARIOUS RELEVANT CASE LAWS CITED BY THE APPELLANT. 7. THAT THE CIT (A) WAS WRONG IN HOLDING THAT NONE OF TH E CASE LAWS ON WHICH THE AR PLACED ALLIANCE IS APPLICABLE TO THE F ACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE WITHOUT DISCUSSING HOW THESE CASES ARE NOT APPLICA BLE TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE. 8. THAT THE RELIANCE PLACED BY THE CIT (A) ON VARIOUS CASE LAWS IS MISPLACED AS NONE OF THOSE CASE LAWS ARE APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE ASSESSEES CASE. 9. THAT THE CIT (A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN SUSTAINING ADDI TION OF RS.4,10,000/. 10. THAT THE CIT (A) HAD NOT CONSIDERED THE FACTS THAT NO MATERIAL WAS PLACED ON RECORD TO ESTABLISH HAT THE AMOUNT OF RS.4 ,00,000/- WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AS THERE IS NO MENTI ON OF THE MODE OF PAYMENT CASH OR CHEQUE. 11. THAT THE ADDITION OF RS.10,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF COMM ISSION ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN PAID OUT OF UNDISCLOSED SOURCES IS WITHOUT ANY BASIS AND THUS UNJUSTIFIED. 12. THAT THE ADDITION OF RS.4,10,000/- MADE BY THE AO IS BASED ON SUSPICION AND SURMISES. 13. THAT NO INTEREST U/S 234A AND 234B IS LELVIABLE. 2. GROUND NO.1 IS GENERAL. 3. APROPOS GROUND NOS.2 TO 8, THE FACTS ARE THAT THE A SSESSING OFFICER INITIATED THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS BY ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S 148 ON 29.03.2007 AFTER RECORDING REASONS AND TAKING APPROVA L FROM ADDL. CIT, RANGE-13, NEW DELHI, WHICH WAS NOT COMPLIED WITH BY THE ASSESSEE. THE NOTICE WAS RECEIVED BACK UNSERVED. AS THE NOTICE REMA INED UNCOMPLIED WITH, THE AO TRACED OUT THE CURRENT ADDRESSES OF THE DIRECTO RS ON WHICH NOTICE U/S 142 (1) DATED 31.10.2007 ALONG WITH QUESTIONNAIRE AN D COPY OF NOTICE U/S 148 WAS ISSUED AT ASSESSEES ADDRESS AT KAMAL CINEMA BUILDING , SAFDARJUNG ENCLAVE, NEW DELHI-29 AND AT THE ADDRESS OF SHRI PRAN NATH KAUL, DIRECTOR, R/O A-2/38, SAFDARJUNG ENCLAVE, NEW DELHI-29 BUT TH ESE WERE AGAIN RECEIVED BACK UNSERVED. THE AO ISSUED A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 0 6.12.2007 WHICH ITA NO.2679/DEL/2010 3 WAS SENT ALONG WITH THE COPY OF ORIGINAL NOTICE U/S 14 8 AND THE QUESTIONNAIRE/NOTICE U/S 142 (1) AT THE ABOVE ADDRESSES AS WELL AS THE ADDRESS OF THE OTHER DIRECTOR SHRI SANJAY KAUL, R/O A -2/38, SAFDARJUNG ENCLAVE, NEW DELHI REQUIRING THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN AS TO WHY THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS MAY NOT BE COMPLETED U/S 144. THE NOTICE SENT AT THE ASSESSEES ADDRESS WAS RECEIVED BACK UNSERVED AFTER WHIC H THE SERVICE WAS EFFECTED THROUGH AFFIXTURE. HOWEVER, AS PER THE A SSESSMENT ORDER, THE NOTICE SENT AT THE ADDRESS OF THE DIRECTOR SHRI SANJAY KAUL, WAS NEVER RECEIVED BACK. 4. THE LD. CIT (A) DECIDED THIS ISSUE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE, BY HOLDING AS FOLLOWS:- 2.4. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE APPELLANT COMPANY. REGARDING THE APPELLANTS CONTENTION THAT THE NOTICE U/S 148 WAS NOT SERVED ON IT, I HAVE CAREFULLY PERUSED FIRST AND SECOND PARA OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER A S WELL AS THE CONTENTIONS OF THE LD. AR. IN FIRST PARA OF THE ASSESSM ENT ORDER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS CATEGORIC IN STATING THAT THE NOTICE U/S 148 WAS ISSUED ON 29.03.2007 WHICH WAS NOT COMPLIED WITH. THE ASSESSING OFFICER TRACED OUT THE CURRENT ADDRESSES OF THE DIRECTORS WHERE A GAIN NOTICE U/S 142 (1) DATED 31.10.2007 ALONG WITH QUESTIONNAIRE AND A COPY OF ORIGINAL NOTICE U/S 148 WAS SENT I.E., THE NOTICES WERE SENT AT AP PELLANTS ADDRESS AT KAMAL CINEMA BUILDING, SAFDARJUNG ENCLAVE , NEW DELHI-29 AND TO SH. PRAN NATH KAUL, DIRECTOR, R/O A-2/38, SAFDA RJUNG ENCLAVE, NEW DELHI-29 WHICH WERE AGAIN RECEIVED BACK UNSERVED. A S PER SECOND PARA, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED SHOW-CAUSE LETTER DATED 06 .12.2007 WHICH WAS SENT ALONG WITH THE COPY OF ORIGINAL NOTICE U/S 148 AND THE QUESTIONNAIRE/NOTICE U/S 142 (1) AT THE ABOVE ADDRESS ES AS WELL AS AT THE ADDRESS OF THE OTHER DIRECTOR OF THE COMPANY I.E., SH. SANJAY KAUL, R/O A- 2/38, SAFDARJUNG JUNG ENCLAVE, NEW DELHI-29. THE NO TICE SENT AT THE ADDRESS KAMAL CINEMA BUILDING, SAFDARJUNG ENCLAVE, NEW DELHI WAS RECEIVED BACK UNSERVED AFTER WHICH THE ASSESSING OFFI CER RESORTED TO THE SERVICE BY AFFIXTURE. BUT THE NOTICE SENT AT THE ADDRESS O F THE DIRECTOR SH. SANJAY KAUL WAS NEVER RECEIVED BACK A FACT WHICH H AS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE LD. AR IN THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FILED DURING THE PRESENT PROCEEDINGS. THIS BEING THE CASE THEN IN VIEW OF THE P ROVISIONS OF SECTION 27 OF GENERAL CLAUSES ACT, THERE IS A PRESUMPTION OF S ERVICE OF NOTICE ON THE APPELLANT AND ACCORDINGLY, I REJECT ALL OTHER CONTE NTIONS OF THE LD. AR ON THE NON SERVICE OF NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT. ITA NO.2679/DEL/2010 4 5. FROM THE ABOVE, IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE LD CIT (A) DECIDED THIS ISSUE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE BY HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE, IN THE W RITTEN SUBMISSIONS FILED BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A), HAD ACCEPTED THAT THE NOTICE SENT AT THE ADDRESS OF THE DIRECTOR, SHRI SANJAY KAUL, WAS NEV ER RECEIVED BACK IN THE OFFICE OF THE AO. THIS, HOWEVER, APPEARS TO BE AN IN CORRECT FINDING. A COPY OF THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A) IS AT APB 1-5. THE RELEVANT PORTION THEREOF WITH REGARD TO TH E ISSUE AT HAND READS AS FOLLOWS:- THAT PROCEEDINGS U/S 147 BY ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S 148 WERE INITIATED ON 26.03.2007. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IT IS MENTIONED AS UNDER:- GROUND NO.1-5 THE NOTICE U/S 148 WAS ISSUED ON 26.03.2007 AFTER REC ORDING THE REASONS AND TAKING APPROVAL OF ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-13, NEW DELHI. THE NOTICE WAS, HOWEVER, NOT CO MPLIED WITH. THE CURRENT ADDRESS OF THE DIRECTORS WERE TRACED AND A NOTIC E U/S 142 (1) DATED 31.10.2007, ALONG WITH QUESTIONNAIRE AND A COPY OF NOTICE U/S 148 WAS ISSUED AND SENT AT THE ABOVE ADDRESS AS ALSO O THER AVAILABLE ADDRESSES VIZ M/S NECTOR SECURITIES PVT. LTD. KAMAL CIN EMA BUILDING, SAFDARJUNG ENCLAVE, NEW DELHI-29 AND SHRI PRAN NATH KAUL, DIRECTOR R/O A-2/38, SAFDARJUNG ENCLAVE, NEW DELHI-29. THE NOTIC ES WERE HOWEVER RECEIVED BACK UNSERVED. A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 06.12.2007 WAS ISSUED AND S ENT ALONG WITH A COPY OF THE ORIGINAL NOTICE U/S 148 AND THE QUESTIO NNAIRE/NOTICE U/S 142 (1) AT THE ABOVE ADDRESS AS WELL AS ADDRESS OF THE OTHER DIRECTOR OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY (SH. SANJAY KAUL R/O A-2/38, SA FDARJUNG ENCLAVE, NEW DELHI) REQUIRING THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN AS TO WHY THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS MAY NOT BE COMPLETED U/S 144 O N THE BASIS OF INFORMATION AVAILABLE ON RECORD. OUT OF THESE TWO NO TICES, THE NOTICE SENT AT THE ADDRESS OF KAMAL CINEMA BUILDING, SAFDARJU NG ENCLAVE, NEW DELHI WAS RECEIVED BACK UNSERVED. THE SAID SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ALONG WITH ENCLOSURES WAS ALSO AFFIXED AT THE ADDRESS OF REGISTERED OFFICE OF THE ASSESSEE VIZ A-2/38, SAFDARJUNG ENCLAV E, NEW DELHI. THE CASE WAS FIXED FOR 13.12.2007. HOWEVER, NO REPLY WA S RECEIVED FROM THE ASSESSEE. FROM THE ABOVE OBSERVATIONS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER I T MAY BE NOTED THAT THERE IS NO MENTION IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT NOTICE U/S 148 ITA NO.2679/DEL/2010 5 WAS SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE. THERE IS ALSO NO MENTIO N THAT NOTICE U/S 148 WAS SERVED BY AFFIXTURE. HOWEVER THERE IS A MENTION THAT A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE WITH NOTICE U/S 142 (1) DATED 06.12.2007 WAS SERVED BY AFFIXTURE ON 1 0.12.2007. THE ALLEGED SERVICE OF SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ALONG WITH NOTICE U/S 142 (1) DATED 06.12.2007 IS ILLEGAL AND BAD IN LAW AS WITHOUT A PROPER AND VALID SERVICE OF NOTICE U/S 148 PROPER JURISDICTION CANNOT BE ASSUMED AND THUS THE ISSUE OF ANY NOTICE AND ITS SERVICE BECOME S VOID ABINITIO. FROM THE ABOVE FACTS IT IS ESTABLISHED BEYOND DOUBT THAT THERE WAS NO SERVICE OF NOTICE U/S 148 BY ANY MEANS OF SERVICE IN CLUDING SERVICE BY AFFIXTURE. AS ALREADY STATED THAT NO NOTICE U/S 148 HAD BEEN SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE AND EVEN THERE IS NO SUBSTITUTED SERVICE/SERVI CE BY AFFIXTURE, THEREFORE, THE ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION WITHOUT PROPER AND VALID SERVICE OF NOTICE IS ILLEGAL AND BAD IN LAW. IT IS WE LL SETTLED LAW THAT SERVICE OF NOTICE IS NOT A MERE PROCEDURAL REQUIREMEN T. IT IS A CONDITION PRECEDENT TO MAKING THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT. WHETHER IT B E SERVICE OF NOTICE U/S 142 (1) FOR RETURN OR 143 (2) FOR ASSESSME NT OR 148 FOR RE- ASSESSMENT. 6. THE ABOVE EXTRACTED PORTION OF THE WRITTEN SUBMISSI ONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, THROUGH ITS COUNSEL, REVEALS THAT IT DOES NOT CO NTAIN ANY ACCEPTANCE BY THE COUNSEL/AR OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE NO TICE SENT AT THE ADDRESS OF THE DIRECTOR, SHRI SANJAY KAUL, WAS NEVER R ECEIVED BACK IN THE OFFICE OF THE AO. FURTHER, TO THE CONTRARY, THE SAID DIRECTOR OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY, NAMELY, SHRI SANJAY KAUL, FILED AN AFFIDAV IT (APB-6) BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A), CONTENDING THAT NO NOTICE, EITHER U/S 148 O F THE IT ACT, OR U/S 142 (1) OF THE ACT WAS EVER SERVED ON SHRI SANJAY KAUL. IT WO ULD BE APPROPRIATE TO REPRODUCE THE CONTENTS OF THE SAID AFFIDAVIT HERE:- I, SANJAY KAUL S/O LATE SHRI PRAN NATH KAUL R/O A-2/ 38, SAFDARJUNG ENCLAVE, NEW DELHI, DIRECTOR OF M/S NECTOR SECURITIES PVT. LTD. HEREBY SOLEMNLY AFFIRM AND DECLARE AS UNDER: THAT THE ASSESSMENTS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2000-2001, 2001-02, 2003-04 AND 2004-05 WERE COMPLETED EX PARTE U/S 144/147 OF THE IT ACT, 1961. THAT NO NOTICE U/S 148 WAS RECEIVED OR SERVED UPON ME EVEN BY AFFIXTURE. ITA NO.2679/DEL/2010 6 THAT NO NOTICE U/S 142 (1) DATED 06.12.2007 WAS SERVED BY AFFIXTURE AT A-2/38, SAFDARJUNG ENCLAVE, NEW DELHI. THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF PROPER AND VALID SERVICE, THE A SSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION IS ILLEGAL AND BAD IN LAW. THAT WITHOUT PROPER SERVICE OF NOTICE, NO VALID ASSESSM ENT CAN BE FRAMED. THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF PROPER AND VALID SERVICE EITHER OF NOTICE U/S 142 (1) OR NOTICE U/S 148, EVERY PROCEEDINGS THER EAFTER HAS TO BE HELD NULL AND VOID AS BEING WITHOUT ASSUMPTION OF PROP ER JURISDICTION. THAT THE ASSESSMENT FRAMED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BEI NG ILLEGAL, BAD IN LAW, UNJUSTIFIED AND ARBITRARY MAY KI NDLY BE QUASHED. 7. THUS, RATHER THAN ACCEPTING THE ALLEGED SERVICE OF NOTICE ON SHRI SANJAY KAUL, SHRI SANJAY KAUL, FIRSTLY HAS NOT ACCEPTED ANY SUCH SERVICE IN THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FILED BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A) AND T HE OBSERVATION OF THE LD. CIT (A), WHICH FORMS THE BASIS OF THE REJECTION OF THE ASSESSEES CONTENTION IN THIS REGARD, IS FACTUALLY INCORRECT. THEN, SHRI SANJA Y KAUL, BY WAY OF THE AFORESAID AFFIDAVIT BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A), HAS MADE A POSITIVE ASSERTION ON SOLEMN OATH, AFFIRMATION AND DECLARATION, THAT NO NO TICE, EITHER U/S 148 OF THE ACT, OR U/S 142 (1) OF THE ACT WAS EVER SERVED ON SHR I SANJAY KAUL. THE LD. CIT (A) HAS OMITTED TO DEAL WITH THIS SPECIFIC AFFIDAVIT B Y SHRI SANJAY KAUL, IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER. 8. FURTHER, EVEN BEFORE US, THE DEPARTMENT HAS NOT BE EN ABLE TO BRING ANYTHING ON RECORD TO REBUT THE AFORESAID CONTENTION OF SHRI SANJAY KAUL, DIRECTOR OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY REGARDING NON-SERVICE O F NOTICE. 9. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE FINDING OF THE LD. CIT (A), DECIDING THIS ISSUE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE, IS FOUND TO BE UNSUSTAINABLE AND THE SAME IS SET ASIDE. IT IS HELD THAT INDEED, NO NOTICE, EITHER U/S 148, OR U/S 142 (1) OF THE ACT WAS EVER SERVED ON SHRI SANJAY KAUL, DIRECTOR OF THE ASSESSE E COMPANY. 10. IN CIT VS. THAYABALI MULLA JEEVAJI KAPASI, 66 I TR 147 (SC), IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT A NOTICE UNDER THE ACT CANNOT BE REGARDED AS A MERE PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENT AND THAT IT IS A CONDITION PRECEDENT TO THE INITIATION OF ITA NO.2679/DEL/2010 7 PROCEEDINGS FOR ASSESSMENT. THIS HAS BEEN REITERATED IN T HE FOLLOWING DECISIONS:- I) CHAGGAN LAL VS. CIT, 46 ITR 351 (RAJ); II) BENARSI SILK PALACE VS. CIT, 52 ITR 220 (ALL); III) MADAN LAL AGGARWAL VS. CIT, 144 ITR 745 (ALL); AND IV) SURVAS ESTATE (P) LTD. VS. CIT, 270 ITR 373 (MP). 11. IN MOHAN WAHI VS. CIT, VARANASI & ORS., 248 ITR 799 (SC), IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT THE SERVICE OF NOTICE PRESCRIBED BY THE SEC TION 148 OF THE ACT, 1961, FOR THE PURPOSE OF INITIATING THE PROCEEDING F OR RE-ASSESSMENT IS NOT A MERE PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENT AND THAT IT IS A CONDITI ON PRECEDENT TO THE INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS U/S 147 OF THE ACT. WHILE H OLDING SO, UPADHAYA (R.K.) VS. SHAN BHAI P. PATEL, 166 ITR 163 (SC) WAS FOLLOWED. 12. IN CIT VS. KURBAN IBRAHIM JI MITHIBOREWALA, 82 ITR 821 (SC), IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT IF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE AO IS INVAL ID FOR ANY REASON, THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS BY HIM WOULD BECOME VOID FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION. 13. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE CASE LAWS, SINCE IN THE PRESEN T CASE, THERE WAS NO SERVICE OF NOTICE, ALL THE PROCEEDINGS IN PURSUANCE OF SUCH NOTICE ARE INVALID AND WE HOLD SO. 14. ACCORDINGLY, GROUND NOS.2 TO 8 ARE ACCEPTED. 15. SINCE ALL THE PROCEEDINGS, INCLUDING THE PASSING O F THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, CARRIED OUT IN PURSUANCE OF THE UNSERVED NOTIC E HAVE BEEN HELD ABOVE TO BE INVALID, NOTHING ELSE REMAINS TO BE DECIDED. AS SUCH, GROUND NOS. 9-13 PERTAINING TO THE MERITS OF THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE AO, ARE NO LONGER REQUIRED TO BE GONE INTO, AND, THEREFORE, WE ARE N OT DOING SO. ITA NO.2679/DEL/2010 8 16. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED, AS INDICATED. THE ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 23.05.201 4. SD/- SD/- [ J.S. REDDY ] [A.D. JAIN] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED, 23 RD MAY, 2014. DK COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT AR, ITAT, NEW DELHI.