ACIT, Gurgaon V. M/s. Omax Auto Ltd, Gurgaon

ITA 2928/DEL/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 97175 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 year(s) 2 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-09-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Next Hearing Date: 17-08-2015
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 17-06-2009
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P DAM KANUNJNA
• Keywords: Depreciation; Scheme of amalgamation; Unabsorbed depreciation
• Section: 43B

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH E NEW DELHI BEFORE : SHRI I.C. SUDHIR, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI L.P. SAHU , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 2928/DEL./2009 ASSTT. YEAR : 2003 - 04 A.C.I.T., GURGAON CIRCLE, VS. M/S. OMAX AUTO LTD., GURGAON. 5/13, SOHNA - GURGAON ROAD, VILL TIKRI, GURGAON. [PAN: AAACO 2190 C] (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SH. P DAM KANUNJNA, SR. D.R. RESPONDENT BY : SH. ASHWANI KUMAR, C.A. DATE OF HEARING : 17.08.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 04 .0 9 .2015 ORDER PER L.P. SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE ON 17.06.2009 IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 16.03.2009 OF THE LEARNED CIT(A), PANCHKULA FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003 - 04 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS : 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.7,51,539/ - MADE BY THE ASSESSING OF FICER ON ACCOUNT OF LATE DEPOSIT OF EMPLOYER S CONTRIBUTION TO PF DISREGARDING THE FACT THAT THE PAYMENTS WERE MADE BEYOND THE DUE DATES AND WERE, THEREFORE, NOT ALLOWABLE U/S. 36(1)(VA) AND WERE TO BE TREATED AS INCOME U/S 2(24)(X) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, IN CONTRAVENTION OF THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. PAMWI TISSUES LIMITED 215 CTR 150 (BOM)? 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN ALLOWING DEPRECIATION @ 80% IN RESPECT OF CYLINDER , ITA NO. 2928/DEL/2009 2 VALVES AND REGULATORS AS AGAINST 25% ALLOWED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THESE ITEMS TERMED AS PLANT & MACHINERY. 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN ALLOW ING DEPRECIATION @ 100% ON WATER TREATMENT PLANT & WATER POLLUTION CONTROL EQUIPMENT SYSTEM AS AGAINST 25% ALLOWED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER EVEN THOUGH THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR DEPRECIATION @ 100% AS IT WAS NOT PROVIDING INFRASTRUCTURE FACILITIES. 4. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN ALLOWING DEPRECIATION @ 25% ON RACKS, BINS AND TROLLEYS AS AGAINST 15% ALLOWED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THESE ITEMS W ERE COVERED UNDER THE HEAD FURNITURE AND FITTINGS. 5. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN ALLOWING DEPRECIATION @ 100% ON SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT AS AGAINST 25% ALLOWED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER EVEN THOUGH IS PLANT TERMED AS PLANT & MACHINERY. 6. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN ALLOWING DEPRECIATION @ 80% ON LPG GAS PLANT IN SPEEDOMAX UNIT IN RESPECT OF CYLINDER, VALVES AND REGU LATORS AS AGAINST 25% ALLOWED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THESE ITEMS TERMED AS PLANT & MACHINERY. 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE - COMPANY FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 01.12.2003 SHOWING TAXABLE INCOME AS NIL. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS DECLARED PROFIT AMOUNTING TO RS.22,64,85,660/ - AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF MAT AND PAID TAXES THEREON. LATER ON, THE CASE WAS PICKED UP FOR SCRUTINY AND NOTICE WAS ISSUED U/S. 143(2). THE SAID COMPANY WAS MERGED WITH M/S. INDITAL TINTORIA LTD . IN TERMS OF THE SCHEME OF AMALGAMATION W.E.F. 28.02.2003. IT HAS BEEN STATED THAT ON THE AMALGAMATION TAKING PLACE, THE BROUGHT FORWARD LOSSES OF THE SAID COMPANY ARE ELIGIBLE FOR SET OFF AGAINST THE BUSINESS PROFITS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR ITA NO. 2928/DEL/2009 3 2003 - 04 IN TERMS OF SECTION 72A OF THE I.T. ACT. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS CLAIMED UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION AND BUSINESS LOSSES AMOUNTING TO RS.27,95,48,422/ - IN THE COMPUTATION OF TAX ABLE INCOME. IN THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE LEARNED AR, THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT THE BROUGHT FORWARD LOSSES AND UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION OF INDITAL TINTORIA LTD. HAS BEEN CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY ON RETURN LOSSES AND NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH T HE AMOUNT ASSESSED. IN RESPONSE , THE ASSESSEE COMPANY FILED DETAILS REGARDING THE AMOUNT ASSESSED IN THE CASE OF M/S. INDITAL TINTORIA LTD. AND THE SAME HAS BEEN SHOWN AT RS.26,08,15,117/ - . THE DETAILS REGARDING THE BROUGHT FORWARD LOSSES AND DEPRECIATION ALLOWABLE TO THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WAS CALLED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE ACIT,CIRCLE - 1, ALWAR WHO HAD JURISDICTION OVER THE CASE OF M/S. INDITA L TINTORIA LTD. AND THESE DETAILS ARE MENTIONED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR ASSESSMEN T YEAR 2002 - 03 EXCEPT FOR THE SUCCEEDING YEAR 2003 - 04. FROM THE RECORD, IT REVEALS THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS CLAIMED EXCESS BROUGHT FORWARD LOSSES AND DEPRECIATION, WHICH IS RESTRICTED TO RS.26,06,85,370/ - AS AGAINST RS.27,95,48,422/ - CLAIMED BY THE AS SESSEE COMPANY. 3 . THE FACTS RELEVANT TO GROUND NO. 1 ARE THAT DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ENJOYING BENEFIT OF NON - PAYMENT OF INCOME TAX WITHOUT ACTUALLY DISCHARGING THEIR LIABILITIES T O DEPOSIT THE EMPLOYERS CONTRIBUTION TO THE PF WITHIN THE STIPULATED TIME. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THE PAYMENTS OF PF MADE AFTER THE DUE DATE I.E., 15 TH OF THE ITA NO. 2928/DEL/2009 4 FOLLOWING MONTH , ARE NOT ENTITLED FOR ANY DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 43B ( B) READ WITH SECTION 36(1)(VA) AND 2(24)(X) OF THE I.T. ACT. THE DETAILS OF SUCH CONTRIBUTION OF EMPLOYERS TO PF ARE GIVEN AS UNDER : EMPLOYERS CONTRIBUTION TO PF : AMOUNT DATE OF DEDUCTION DUE DATE OF PAYMENT ACTUAL DATE DHARUHERA UNIT 245735 3103.02 15.04.03 18.04.03 SPEEDOMAX 77280 31.05.02 15.06.02 17.06.02 83472 31.08.02 15.09.02 16.09.02 81936 31.05.02 15.06.02 17.06.02 92903 31.08.02 15.09.02 16.09.02 77591 28.02.03 15.03.03 16.03.03 AUTOMAX PLANT - II 20419 31.05.02 15.06.02 17.06.02 20138 31.10.02 15.11.02 17.11.02 20480 30.11.02 15.11.02 17.11.02 23104 31.03.03 15.04.03 16.04.03 2908 31.03.03 15.04.03 16.04.03 5573 30.06.02 21.07.02 23.07.02 TOTAL 751539 THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THUS, AFTER CONSIDERING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2(24), SECTION 43B READ WITH SECTION 36(1) OF THE ACT, MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.14,93,261/ - TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE, WHICH INCLUDES THE EMPLOYEES CONTRIBUTION OF RS.7,41,722/ - AND EMPLOYER S CONTRIBUTION O F RS.7,51,539/ - . 4 . THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THIS ADDITION IN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), WHO ACCEPTED THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE DELAYED PAYMENTS MADE DUE TO SUNDAY AND GAZETTED HOLIDAYS ARE ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION . THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ALSO GIVEN THE DETAILS OF SUCH PAYMENTS WHICH HAVE BEEN MADE LATE DUE TO SUNDAYS AND ITA NO. 2928/DEL/2009 5 HOLIDAYS WITH RESPECT TO BOTH EMPLOYEES AND EMPLOYER S CONTRIBUTION AT PAGE 9 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER. HE ALSO ACCEPTED THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE PAYMENTS MADE WIT HIN THE GRACE PERIOD OF FIVE DAYS FROM THE DUE DATE ARE ALSO ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION AND DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ALLOW THE DEDUCTION IN RESPECT OF EMPLOYER S CONTRIBUTION, WHERE THE AMOUNTS HAVE BEEN DEPOSITED WITHIN THE GRACE PERIOD. CONSIDERING THE DECISIONS OF VARIOUS BENCHES OF ITAT, AS MENTIONED IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER, THE LEARNED CIT(A) DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO RECOMPUTED THE DISALLOWANCE . THE DEPARTMENT BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE IMPUGNED ORDER HAS CHALLENGED THE DELETION OF ADDITION ONLY IN RESPECT OF LATE DEPOSITION OF EMPLOYER S CONTRIBUTION TO PF, IN THIS APPEAL BEFORE US. 5 . THE LEARNED DR RELYING UPON THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, CONTENDED THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED TO ACCEPT THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE WHILE DELETING THE AD DITION. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE PLACED STRONG RELIANCE ON THE APPELLATE ORDER. 6 . WE HAVE HEARD AND CONSIDERED THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE PARTIES AND HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW, MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON R ECORD AND THE DECISIONS RELIED UPON . ITA NO. 2928/DEL/2009 6 7 . WHILE CONSIDERING THE GRIEVANCE OF THE REVENUE IN THE LIGHT OF PROVISIONS OF LAW APPLICABLE TO THE ISSUE AND THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS DISALLOWED THE DEDUCTION WIT H RESPECT TO EMPLOYER S CONTRIBUTION TO PF AMOUNTING TO RS.7,51,539/ - BY REJECTING THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE EMPLOYER S CONTRIBUTION TO PF COULD LEGALLY BE DEPOSITED WITHIN THE GRACE PERIOD OF FIVE DAYS FROM THE DUE DATES. THE RECORD SHOWS THAT THE EMPLOYER S CONTRIBUTION TO PF HAS BEEN DEPOSITED BY THE ASSESSEE WITH A DELAY OF 1 TO 3 DAYS, WHICH CERTAINLY FALL WITHIN THE STATUTORY GRACE PERIOD OF FIVE DAYS. THE STAND OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS, THEREFORE, NOT SUSTAINABLE BECAUSE FIVE DAYS GRACE PE RIOD HAS BEEN ALLOWED TO THE EMPLOYER S FOR PAYMENT OF PROVIDENT FUND CONTRIBUTIONS UNDER CLAUSE (III) OF CPFC S CIRCULAR NO. E. 128(1) 60 - III DATED 19.03.1964 AS MODIFIED BY CIRCULAR NO. E11/128 (SECTION 14 - B AMENDMENT)/73 DATED 24.10.1973 . MOREOVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS QUOTED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 36(1)(VA) AND SECTION 2(24)(X) OF THE ACT WHICH DEAL WITH THE EMPLOYEES CONTRIBUTION TO PF AND NOT THE EMPLOYER S CONTRIBUTION. WE, THEREFORE, FIND NO MATERIAL ON RECORD TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE. GROUND NO. 1 OF REVENUE IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. 8 . GROUNDS NOS. 2 TO 6 IN THIS APPEAL PERTAIN TO DISALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION ON VARIOUS ASSETS AT VARIOUS RATES. THE REVENUE HAS CHALLENGED THE ACTION OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN ALLOWING DEPRECIATION AT DIFFERENT RATES . THE AO HAS GIVEN THE DETAILED CHART OF EXCESS DEPRECIATION CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. ITA NO. 2928/DEL/2009 7 09 . THE GRIEVANCE OF THE REVENUE AS PER GROUNDS OF APPEAL IS CONFINED TO THE FOLLOWING DEPRECIA TION : NAME OF ASSET DEP. CLAIMED DEP. ALLOWED DEP. ALLOWED BY ASSESSEE (%) B Y A.O. (%) BY CIT(A) (%) ------------------- --------------- ----------------- ------------------- (I). CYLINDERS, VALVES & REGULATORS. 80% 25% 80% ( I I). WATER TREATMENT PLANT & WATER POLLUTION CONTROL EQUIPMENT SYSTEM 80% 25% 80% (IN GROUNDS OF APPEAL 100% CLAIM IS SHOWN ) (III) RACKS, BINS & TROLLEYS 25% 15% 25% (IV). SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT 100% 25% 100% ( V ). LPG GAS PLANT IN SPEEDOMAX 80% 25% 80% 1 0 . WE HAVE HEARD AND CONSIDERED THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE PARTIES AND HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. 1 1 . AS REGARDS THE DEPRECIATION ON CYLINDER, VALVES & REGULATORS, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ALLOWED DEPRECIATION @ 80% IN RESPECT OF GAS CYLINDERS INCLUDING VALVES AND REGULATORS. HE OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED DEPRECIATION ON CO2 GAS PLANT AND HAS NOT RESTRICTED IT TO THE CYLINDER S VALVES AND REGULATORS. WHILE ALLOWING DEPRECIATION ON THESE ASSETS, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS CONSIDERED CLAUSE (X) OF SUB - CLAUSE ITA NO. 2928/DEL/2009 8 (VIII) OF CLAUSE (3) )PART A. THE LEARNED DR COULD NOT BE ABLE TO REBUT THE FINDINGS REACHED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER. WE, THEREFORE, FIND NO MATERIAL ON RECORD TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) ON THIS COUNT. 1 2 . AS FAR AS THE DEPRECIATION ON WATER TREATMENT PLANT IS CONCERNED , THE AO RESTRICTED THE DEPRECIATION TO 25% OBSERVING THAT TH E RATE CLAIMED BY ASSESSEE IS APPLICABLE IN THE CASE OF EFFLUENT TREATMENT PLANT AND THE ASSESSEE IS NOT AN INFRASTRUCTURE COMPANY U/S. 80IA. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS EXAMINED THE ISSUE IN DETAIL AND ALLOWED DEPRECIATION ON THIS ASSET AT THE RATE OF 80% AFTER CONSIDERING THE NOTE NO. 4 GIVEN BELOW THE DEPRECIATION CHART IN THE RULES AND HAS CATEGORICALLY OBSERVED THAT WATER TREATMENT PLANT REFERS TO EFFLUENT TREATMENT PLANT ONLY. THIS FINDING OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) DOES NOT STAND REBUTTED ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE BEFORE US. WE , THEREFORE, DO NOT FIND ANY GOOD REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) ON THIS ACCOUNT ALSO. 1 3 . IN RESPECT OF DEPRECIATION ON RACKS, BINS & TROLLEYS, THE AO HAS ALLOWED THE DEPRECIATION @ 15% ON THE GROUND THAT THESE ARE COVERED UNDER THE HEAD FURNITURE AND FITTINGS. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ALLOWED DEPRECIATION @ 25% ON THESE ASSETS AFTER CONSIDERING THE CONTENTION OF ASSESSEE THAT THE RACKS ARE PLACED IN THE WORKSHOP TO PLACE THE WIP COMPONENTS AND BINS AND TROLLEYS ARE MEANT FOR MOVEMENT OF COMPONENTS INSIDE AND OUTSIDE THE WORKSHOP. THESE ASSETS ARE USED IN A VERY ROUGH ITA NO. 2928/DEL/2009 9 MANNER. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THE LD. CIT(A) APPEARS TO HAVE RIGHTLY ALLOWED DEPRECIATION ON THESE ASSETS AT THE RATE OF 25% AS AGAINST 15% ALLOWED BY THE AO, PARTIC ULARLY WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN CLAIMING THE SAME RATE OF DEPRECIATION UNDER THE CATEGORY OF PLANT & MACHINERY SINCE INCEPTION AND THERE HAS BEEN NO LITIGATION ON THIS POINT IN THE HISTORY OF THE ASSESSEE. WE, THEREFORE, DO NOT FIND ANY MATERIAL TO SUPPO RT THE CONCLUSION ARRIVED AT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND TO INTERFERE WITH THE IMPUGNED ORDER ON THIS COUNT. 1 4 . SIMILARLY, THE AO HAD RESTRICTED THE DEPRECIATION TO 25 % AS AGAINST 100% CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE ON SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT FOR THE REASON TH AT SOME OF THE BILLS AS MENTIONED IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER WERE NOT AVAILABLE. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ALLOWED THE DEPRECIATION AT THE RATE OF 100% ON THESE ASSETS OBSERVING THAT THE DEFICIT BILLS ARE AVAILABLE, FOR SUBMISSION OF WHICH THE AO DID NOT GIVE REASONAB LE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. NO CONTRARY EVIDENCE COULD BE ADDUCED ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE TO CONTRADICT THE FINDING OF FACT RECORDED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A). WE, THEREFORE, ENDORSE THE VIEW EXPRESSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) ON THIS ACCOUNT. 1 5 . AS REGARDS THE DEPRECIATION ON LPG GAS PLANT INCLUDING C YLINDER S , VALVES & REGULATORS IN SPEED OMAX UNIT , THE LEARNED CIT(A) ALLOWED DEPRECIATION @ 80% FOR THE REASON THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT RESTRICTED THE DEPRECIATION ON CYLINDERS, VALVES AND REGULARS, B UT HAS CLAIME D DEPRECIATION ON LPG GAS PLANT. WHILE DOING SO, THE LD. ITA NO. 2928/DEL/2009 10 CIT(A) APPEARS TO HAVE ACCEPTED THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE LPG GAS PLANT IS NOTHING BUT A PLANT TO REGULATE THE FUNCTIONING OF GAS CYLINDERS AND THEREFORE, SUCH LPG GAS PLAN T IS COVERED IN SUB - CLAUSE (X) OF SUB - CLAUSE 8 OF ITEM III (PART A) WHICH CONSISTS OF GAS CYLINDERS INCLUDING VALVES AND REGULATORS. THE LEARNED DR FAILED TO PLACE ANY CONTRARY MATERIAL BEFORE US TO CONTRADICT THE FINDINGS OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED DEPRECIATION ON LPG GAS PLANT AND HAS NOT RESTRICTED IT TO THE CYLINDERS, VALVES AND REGULATORS. THEREFORE, THE CONCLUSION REACHED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IS LIABLE TO BE SUPPORTED. 1 6 . IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, WE FIND NO MERITS IN GROUNDS NOS. 2 TO 6 RAISED BY THE REVENUE AND THE SAME ARE LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED. 1 7 . IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 04.09.2015. SD/ - SD/ - ( I.C. SUDHIR ) ( L.P. SAHU ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 04.09.2015 *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