VLCC Health Care Ltd., New Delhi V. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 289/DEL/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5520 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-02-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: H
• Next Hearing Date: 08-02-2010
• Assessment Year: 2001-2002
• Appeal Filed On: 28-01-2009
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: N K CHAND
• Keywords: Earning of tax free income
• Section: 14A; 37(1)

Judgement Text

I.T.A. NO. 289 /DEL/2009 1/11 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI, BENCH H BEFORE SHRI K. G. BANSAL, ACCOUTANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.289 /DEL/2009 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02) VLCC HEALTH CARE LTD., VS. ACIT, CIRCLE 3(1), (FORMERLY KNOWN AS NEW DELHI CURLS AND CURVES (I) PVT. LTD.,) M-14, GREATER KAILASH, PART-II, COMMERCIAL COMPLEX, NEW DELHI.-110048 (APPELLANTS) (RESPONDENTS) PAN / GIR NO. AAACC4808P APPELLANT BY: SHRI V K BINDAL, & MS. SWEETY KOTHARI, CA RESPONDENT BY: SHRI N K CHAND, SR. DR ORDER PER GEORGE MATHAN, JM: 1. THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN PREFERRED A GAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) VI, NEW DELHI IN APPEAL NO.64/2007-08 DATED 23.12.2008 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02 CONFIRMING THE LEVY OF PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. SHRI V K BINDAL & MS. SWEETY KOTHARI, CA REPRESENTED FOR THE ASSESSEE AND SHRI N K CHAND, SR. DR REPRESENTED FOR THE REVENUE. I.T.A. NO. 289 /DEL/2009 2/11 2. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION BY THE LD. A.R. THAT THE A SSESSEE IS IN THE BUSINESS OF RUNNING HEALTHCARE AND BEAUTY PARLOR CENTER. THE ASSESSEE HAD CENTERS WHICH WERE RUN BY THE ASSESSEE AND THERE WERE ALSO CENTERS WHICH W ERE RUN IN PARTNERSHIP AND OTHER CENTERS, WHICH WERE RU N ON FRANCHISEE BASIS. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE A SSESSEE HAD PAID ROYALTY @ 1% OF THE TOTAL REVENUE COLLECTE D FROM THE BUSINESS ACTIVITIES CARRIED OUT BY USING T HE BRAND NAME OF SMT. VANDANA LUTHRA. THE ROYALTY WAS PAID TO MRS. VANDANA LUTHRA IN LINE WITH AN AGREEME NT ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND MRS. VANDANA LUTHRA DATED 04 TH OCTOBER 2000. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE A. O. HAD DISALLOWED THE ROYALTY PAID TO SMT. VANDANA LUT HRA IN RESPECT OF THE REVENUE GENERATED UNDER THE PARTNERSHIP AND FRANCHISEE. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE PAYMENT OF ROYALTY WAS PER SE ACCEPTED BY THE REVENUE AND IT WAS ONLY THE PORTION OF THE ROYALTY ON ACCOUNT OF THE REVENUE GENERATED IN THE HANDS OF PARTNERSHIP AND THE FRANCHISEE THAT HAD BEEN DISALL OWED. THE ROYALTY PAID IN RESPECT OF THE REVENUE GENERATE D BY THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF THE CENTERS RUN BY THE A SSESSEE ITSELF WAS ALLOWED. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE DISALLOWANCE OF ROYALTY HAD BEEN MADE BY INVOKING T HE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 37(1) OF THE ACT. IT WAS THE I.T.A. NO. 289 /DEL/2009 3/11 FURTHER SUBMISSION THAT UP TO THE TRIBUNAL THE ASSE SSEE HAD FAILED. IT WAS THE FURTHER SUBMISSION THAT THE TRIBUNAL WHILE DECIDING THE ISSUE HAD HELD THAT THE EXPENSES INCURRED FOR EARNING AN INCOME WHICH WERE NOT PART OF THE TOTAL INCOME COULD NOT BE ALLOWED I N TERMS OF SECTION 14A OF THE ACT. IT WAS THE SUBMISS ION THAT THE SECTION 14A ITSELF WAS INTRODUCED IN THE S TATUTE DURING THE YEAR 2001-02 AND THE ISSUE OF SECTION 14 A ITSELF WAS HIGHLY DEBATABLE. IT WAS THE FURTHER SUBMISSION THAT ON ACCOUNT OF THE DISALLOWANCE OF ROYALTY PAID TO SMT. VANDANA LUTHRA THE A.O. HAD LEVIED PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) WHICH HAD ALSO BEEN CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A). IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE PAYMENT OF 1% ROYALTY TO MRS. VANDANA LUTH RA WAS ON ACCOUNT OF THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE ASSESSE E AND MRS. VANDANA LUTHRA AND THE FRANCHISEE NOR THE PARTNERSHIP HAD ANY CONNECTION OR AGREEMENT WITH MR S. VANDANA LUTHRA. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THOUGH T HE INCOME FROM THE PARTNERSHIP ENTERED INTO BY THE ASSESSEE WAS EXEMPT IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE, T HE INCOME FROM THE FRANCHISEE WAS TAXABLE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT IT WAS ON LY ON ACCOUNT OF NON-PRODUCTION OF FRANCHISEE AGREEMENT BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, THE TRIBUNAL HAD HELD THAT IT COULD NOT GIVE A FINDING IN RESPECT OF THE ALLOWABILITY O F I.T.A. NO. 289 /DEL/2009 4/11 ROYALTY PAID TO MRS. VANDANA LUTHRA. IT WAS THE FUR THER SUBMISSION THAT EVEN ASSUMING THAT THE ROYALTY WAS NOT ALLOWABLE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT O F THE EXEMPT INCOME THE ROYALTY PAYABLE WOULD HAVE BEEN T HE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE PARTNERSHIP AND FRANCHISEE CE NTERS AND CONSEQUENTLY THE INCOME FROM THE FRANCHISEE CENTERS AND THE PARTNERSHIP WOULD HAVE REDUCED BY T HE ROYALTY AMOUNT ITSELF. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE PAYMENT OF ROYALTY TO MRS. VANDANA LUTHRA HAVING BE EN ACCEPTED TO BE THE ACTUAL PAYMENT AND WHETHER IT IS PAID ON ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE OR IN THE HANDS OF THE FRANCHISEE CENTERS AND THE PARTNERSHIP, THE RESULT WOULD BE THE SAME IN SO FAR AS IF THE ROYALTY IN RELATION TO MRS. VANDANA LUTHRA WAS PAID FROM THE FRANCHISEE CENTERS AND THE PARTNERSHIP THEN THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FROM SUCH FRANCHISEE CENTERS AND PARTNERSHIP WOULD HAVE BEEN REDUCED BY THE SAME AMOUNT. IT WAS THE FURTHER SUBMISSION THAT THE FRANCHISEE CENTERS NOR THE PARTNERSHIP HAD ANY AGREEMENT WITH MRS. VANDANA LUTHRA. IT WAS THE FURTHER SUBMISSION THAT THE AS SESSEE WAS ABLE TO DO ITS BUSINESS AS ALSO GENERATED INCOM E THROUGH FRANCHISEE AND THROUGH ENTERING INTO PARTNERSHIP ONLY BECAUSE OF THE BRAND NAME OF MRS. VANDANA LUTHRA. IT WAS THUS A SUBMISSION THAT TH ERE WAS NO CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR FURNISHING THE I.T.A. NO. 289 /DEL/2009 5/11 INACCURATE PARTICULARS FOR THE LEVY OF PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. IT WAS ALSO THE ALTERNATE SUBMISSION OF THE LD. A.R. THAT THE PENALTY LEVIED U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT WAS BARRED BY LIMITATION IN SO FAR AS THE PROVISO TO CLAUSE (A) TO SECTION 275(1) PROV IDED THAT THE A.O. WAS BOUND TO PASS PENALTY ORDER WITHI N 1 YEAR FROM THE END OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR IN WHICH TH E ORDER OF CIT(A) WAS RECEIVED BY THE CIT AND THE ORD ER OF CIT(A) HAVING BEEN PASSED ON 09.09.2004 AND THE PENALTY ORDER HAVING BEEN PASSED ONLY ON 29.11.2007 , THE PENALTY WAS BARRED BY LIMITATION. 3. IN REPLY THE LD. D.R. SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE O F LIMITATION WAS COVERED BY THE DECISION OF COORDINAT E BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF PANDIT VIJAY KANT SHARMA IN I.T.A. NO. 3709/DEL/2008 DATED 29.05.2009 WHEREIN ONE OF US WAS THE AUTHOR. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF COORDINA TE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF PANDIT VIJAY KANT SHARMA REFERRED TO SUPRA IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE PENALTY WAS BARED BY LIMITATION. 4. ON MERITS, IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT IN THE RE TURN OF INCOME THE ASSESSEE HAS ONLY DISCLOSED THE ASSESSEE S OWN TURNOVER AND THE TURNOVER OF THE FRANCHISEES AN D THE PARTNERSHIP WERE NOT DISCLOSED. IN THE RETURN OF INCOME, THE ASSESSEE HAD ONLY DISCLOSED THE INCOME I.T.A. NO. 289 /DEL/2009 6/11 FROM THE FRANCHISEES AND THE PARTNERSHIP ALONG-WITH THE ASSESSEES TURNOVER. THEREFORE, THE METHOD OF CALCULATION OF THE ROYALTY ITSELF WAS NOT PROVED. IT WAS THE FURTHER SUBMISSION THAT AS THE PROVISIONS OF SE CTION 14A APPLIES AND THE INCOME FROM THE PARTNERSHIP WAS AN EXEMPT INCOME, THE ROYALTY PAID IN RELATION TO THE TURNOVER OF THE PARTNERSHIP COULD NOT BE ALLOWED. I T WAS THE FURTHER SUBMISSION THAT THE AGREEMENT WITH THE FRANCHISEE HAVING BEEN PRODUCED ONLY NOW IN THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS AND THE DISALLOWANCE OF THE ROY ALTY PAID IN RELATION TO THE INCOME GENERATED FROM THE FRANCHISEES HAVING BEEN DISALLOWED AND SUCH DISALLOWANCE HAVING ALSO BEEN UPHELD BY THE TRIBUNA L, THE PENALTY WAS RIGHTLY UPHELD BY THE CIT(A). IT W AS THE FURTHER SUBMISSION THAT THE FACT THAT THE DISALLOWANCE HAS BEEN MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSE SSEE AND SUCH DISALLOWANCE WAS ALSO UPHELD RIGHT UP TO T HE TRIBUNAL, THE PENALTY WAS LIABLE TO BE UPHELD IN RE SPECT OF THE DISALLOWANCE OF ROYALTY PAID TO MRS. VANDANA LUTHRA. HE VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE L D. CIT(A). 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. A PE RUSAL OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER CLEARLY SHOWS THAT THE A.O. HAS DISALLOWED THE ROYALTY PAID TO MRS. VANDANA LUTHRA IN RESPECT OF THE TURNOVER OF THE FRANCHISEES AND THE I.T.A. NO. 289 /DEL/2009 7/11 PARTNERSHIPS ENTERED INTO BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE GR OUND THAT THE FRANCHISEES CENTERS AND THE PARTNERSHIP CO NCERNS ARE SEPARATELY ASSESSABLE TO TAX AND ANY EXPENDITUR E ON THE BASIS OF THE RECEIPT BY THE CENTERS COULD ONLY BE CLAIMED AGAINST THE SALES SHOWN IN THEIR RESPECTIVE RETURNS. THUS, IT IS NOTICED THAT THE DISALLOWANCE OF THE ROYALTY PAID TO MRS. VANDANA LUTHRA IS NOT ON ACCOU NT OF DISBELIEF OF THE A.O. OF STHE PAYMENT OF ROYALTY BUT ON ACCOUNT OF THE VIEW THAT THE EXPENSES IN THE FOR M OF ROYALTY WERE THE EXPENSES OF THE FRANCHISEES CENTER S AND THE PARTNERSHIP CONCERNS WHICH WERE SEPARATELY ASSESSABLE TO TAX. IT IS FURTHER NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT HAVE ENTERED INTO THE FRANCHISEES AGREEME NT AND THE PARTNERSHIP BUT FOR THE FACT THAT THE ASSES SEE HAD THE VALUABLE BRAND VALUE OF MRS. VANDANA LUTHRA. T HE ASSESSEE HAS ENTERED INTO AGREEMENT WITH MRS. VANDA NA LUTHRA AND ON THE BASIS OF THE AGREEMENT THE ASSESS EE HAS TO PAY 1% ROYALTY ON THE REVENUE GENERATED BY USING THE BRAND VALUE. THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FROM THE PARTNERSHIP FIRMS THOUGH EXEMPT, IS IN FACT THE SOURCE OF THE REVENUE WHICH COULD NOT HAVE BEEN GENERATED BY THE ASSESSEE IF IT DID NOT HAVE THE BR AND VALUE OF MRS. VANDANA LUTHRA, THE SAME ALSO IN RESP ECT OF THE INCOME GENERATED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM THE FRANCHISEE CENTERS. WE HAVE ALSO PERUSED THE SAMPLE I.T.A. NO. 289 /DEL/2009 8/11 CASES OF THE PARTNERSHIP ENTERED INTO WITH THE ASSE SSEE AS ALSO WITH THE FRANCHISEE CENTERS PERMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE. IT IS NOTICED THAT THEY HAVE TAXABLE INC OME. IF THIS ROYALTY WAS TO BE ALLOWED ONLY IN THE HANDS OF THE INCOME GENERATING APPARATUS BEING BUSINESS OF THE PARTNERSHIP AND THE FRANCHISEES, THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FROM SUCH FRANCHISEES AND THE PARTNERSHIPS WOULD HAVE GONE DOWN BY 1% OF THE TURNOVER OF THE FRANCHISEES AND THE PARTNERSHIP ON ACCOUNT OF THE ROYALTY. THUS, THE EXPENDITURE EVEN AS PER THE A. O. IS AN ALLOWABLE EXPENDITURE THOUGH IN THE HANDS OF THE INCOME GENERATING APPARATUS BEING BUSINESS OF THE PARTNERSHIP AND THE FRANCHISEE CENTERS. THUS IT CA NNOT BE SAID THAT BY PAYING THE ROYALTY FROM THE HANDS O F THE ASSESSEE IS A CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS NOR CONCEALED THE INCOME FOR THE PURPOSE OF LEVY OF PENALTY U/S 271(1 )(C) OF THE ACT. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE PENALTY AS LEVIED BY THE A.O. AND AS CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A) STAN DS DELETED. 6. IN RESPECT OF THE ALTERNATE SUBMISSION MADE BY T HE LD. A.R. THAT THE PENALTY LEVIED U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE A CT IS BARRED BY LIMITATION ON ACCOUNT OF THE PROVISO TO C LAUSE I.T.A. NO. 289 /DEL/2009 9/11 (A) OF SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 275 OF THE ACT, I T IS NOTICED THAT THIS ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED BY THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF PA NDIT VIJAY KANT SHARMA REFERRED TO SUPRA WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD AS FOLLOWS: WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. THE LEARNED COUNSEL HAS SOUGHT TO DEF END THE ORDER OF CIT(A) AS A RESPONDENT BY TAKING THE P LEA THAT .THE ORDER OF PENALTY WAS BARRED BY LIMITATION . SUCH A PLEA WAS NOT TAKEN BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) . IT WAS INTER-ALIA ARGUED THAT RULE 27 OF THE INCOME TA X (APPELLATE TRIBUNAL) RULES, 1963, ALLOWED HIM TO TA KE SUCH A PLEA. THIS RULE STATES THAT THE RESPONDENT, THOUGH HE MAY NOT HAVE APPEALED, MAY SUPPORT THE ORDER APPEALED AGAINST ON ANY GROUND DECIDED AGAINS T HIM. AS MENTIONED EARLIER, THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT TA KEN ANY GROUND TO THIS EFFECT BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) . THUS, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS NOT DECIDED ANY SUCH GROUND AGAINST HIM. THEREFORE, RULE 27 IS NOT APPLICABLE ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. HOWEVER, THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN TH E CASE OF B.R. BAMSI VS. CIT (1972) 83 ITR 223 HELD T HAT THE RESPONDENT IN A CASE CAN SUPPORT THE ORDER APPE ALED AGAINST BY TAKING ANY PLEA INCLUDING THE PLEA THAT THE ORDER IS BAD IN LAW. IF SUCH A PLEA SUCCEEDS, IT W ILL NOT RENDER THE ORDER APPEALED AGAINST AS NUGATORY, BUT THE EFFECT WILL BE THAT THE ORDER SHALL STAND AS IT IS. IN OTHER WORDS, A DEFENSIVE PLEA CAN BE TAKEN BUT SUCH A PLE A CANNOT BE TAKEN TO OFFEND THE ORDER APPEALED AGAINS T. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO RAISE THE PL EA OF THE PENALTY ORDER BEING BARRED BY LIMITATION. ON T HE FACTS OF THIS CASE, IT WAS PLEADED THAT IN TERMS OF THE PROVISO TO CLAUSE (A) OF SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 275, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS BOUND TO PASS PENALTY ORD ER WITHIN ONE YEAR FROM THE END OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR IN I.T.A. NO. 289 /DEL/2009 10/11 WHICH THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) WAS RECEIVED BY THE COMMISSION. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE CASE OF THE LEA RNED DR WAS THAT THE ORDER WAS IN TIME IN TERMS OF THE M AIN PROVISION CONTAINED IN THE AFORESAID CLAUSE (A). I T IS AN ADMITTED FACT THAT THE ORDER WAS PASSED IN TIME IN SO FAR AS CLAUSE (A) IS CONCERNED, WHICH PERMITS THE ASSES SING OFFICER TO PASS THE ORDER, ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE , WITHIN SIX MONTHS FROM THE END OF THE MONTH IN WHICH THE O RDER OF CIT(A) OR THE TRIBUNAL WAS RECEIVED. THIS CLAUS E CONTAINS THE GENERAL RULE, TO WHICH ONLY EXCEPTIONS CAN BE PROVIDED BY WAY OF PROVISO TO THE CLAUSE. THIS PROVISO PLACES AN OUTER LIMIT OF ONE YEAR FROM THE END OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR IN WHICH THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) WAS RECEIVED BY THE COMMISSIONER. IF WE ACCEPT THE PLE A OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL, THE CONSEQUENCE WILL BE THAT T HIS PROVISION OVERRIDES A PART OF THE PROVISION CONTAIN ED IN CLAUSE (A) RELATING TO THE TIME LIMIT IN A CASE WHE RE THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT WAS MADE SUBJECT MATTER OF APPE AL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. AS MENTIONED EARLIER, A PROVI SO IS MEANT TO CARVE OUT AN EXCEPTION AND NOT TO ABROGATE A PART OF THE MAIN PROVISION. THUS, THE PLEAS OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL IS NOT ACCEPTABLE IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID SETTLED RULE OF STATUTORY INTERPRETATION. THUS, THE ONLY MEANING WHICH CAN BE PLACED ON THE PROVISO IS THAT IN A CASE WHERE THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING COME TO AN END WITH THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A), THEN, THE OUTER LIMIT OF PASSING THE ORDER WILL BE ONE YEAR F ROM THE END OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR IN WHICH THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) WAS RECEIVED; AND IN CASES WHERE THE MATTER IS CARRIED FURTHER IN APPEAL TO THE TRIBUNAL , THE TIME LIMIT SHALL BE SIX MONTHS FROM THE END OF THE MONTH IN WHICH THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IS RECEIVED BY T HE COMMISSIONER. THUS, IT IS HELD THAT THE ORDER OF P ENALTY WAS PASSED WITHIN THE TIME PRESCRIBED BY THE STATUT E U/S 275(1)(A). I.T.A. NO. 289 /DEL/2009 11/11 7. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING T HE DECISION OF COORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN TH E CASE OF PANDIT VIJAY KANT SHARMA REFERRED TO SUPRA IT IS HELD THAT THE ORDER OF THE PENALTY IS PASSED WITHIN THE TIME PRESCRIBED BY THE STATUTE U/S 275(1)(A) OF THE ACT AND THIS ARGUMENT OF THE ASSESSEE FAILS. 8. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE STANDS ALLOWED IN PART. 9. THIS DECISION WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT O N 12 TH FEB., 2010. SD./- SD./- (K.G.BANSAL) (GEORGE MATHAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED:12 TH FEB., 2010 SP. COPY FORWARDED TO 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT TRUE COPY: BY ORDER 4. CIT(A) 5. DR DY. REGISTRAR, ITAT, NEW DELHI