DCIT, Faridabad V. Mr. Jagjit Singh, Faridabad

ITA 3117/DEL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 77801 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-07-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 07-05-2014
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 17-05-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ASHWANI TANEJA; SOMIT AGARWAL
• Assessee Lawyers: SULEKHA VERMA
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Search and seizure
• Section: 153A

Judgement Text

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH D : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G. D. AGARWAL, HONBLE VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI A. T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 2427 /DEL/ 2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010 - 11 ) JAGJIT SINGH H. NO. 9 - 10, SECTOR - 16A FARIDABAD AEZPS1137F VS. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1 FARIDABAD (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ITA NO. 3117 /DEL/ 2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010 - 11 ) ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1 FARIDABAD VS. JAGJIT SINGH H. NO. 9 - 10, SECTOR - 16A FARIDABAD AEZPS1137F (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : ASHWANI TANEJA, ADV. & SOMIT AGARWAL, CA RESPONDENT BY : SMT. SULEKHA VERMA , CIT DR O R D E R PER A. T. VARKEY , JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS IS AN APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE REVENUE AND CROSS APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD C IT( CENTRAL ) (APPEALS) , GURGAON DATED 08.03.2013 FOR THE AY 2010 - 11. 2. THE GROUND OF APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE REVENUE ARE AS FOLLOWS: - (I) WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUM STANCES OF THE CASE THE LD CIT(A) WAS RIGHT IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 25,78,048/ - MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN JEWELLERY ESPECIALLY WHEN THE LD CIT HAS HERSELF AGREED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS UNABLE TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF ACQ UIRING THE JEWELLERY? (II) WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN EXTENDING BENEFIT OF CBDT INSTRUCTION WHICH IS MERELY GUIDING FACTS FOR SEIZURE OF GOLD ORNAMENTS DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. THE BENEFIT OF CIRCULAR CAN NOT BE EXTENDED IN THE CASE WHERE NO EXPLANATION IF FURNISHED. 3. THE GROUND OF APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE AS FOLLOWS: - 1. THAT HAVING REGARD TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, LD CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN UPHOLDING THE ACTION OF THE LD AO, IN MAKING AN ADDITION OF RS. 3,32,900/ - ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH. PAGE NO. 2 2. IN ANY VIEW OF THE MATTER AND IN ANY CA SE THE ORDER UNDER APPEAL AND THE ADDITION MADE SUSTAINED ARE BAD IN LAW AND AGAINST THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 4. FIRST WE WILL CONSIDER THE APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE REVENUE AND TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THE FIRST GROUND FOR ADJUDICATION. APRO POS DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS. 25,78,048/ - BY THE LD CIT(A), WHICH WAS ADDED BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF UNEX PLAINED INVESTMENT IN JEWELLERY . 5. IN THIS CASE SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION WAS CONDUCTED ON 02.09.2009 IN THE PREMISES OF M/S. IMPERIAL AUTO GROUP. AND A SURVEY OPERATION WAS ALSO SIMULTANEOUSLY CONDUCTED AT THE RESIDENTIAL PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE. RETURN WAS FILED ON 15.10.2010 DECLAR ING AN INCOME OF RS.5,06,84,450/ - WHICH WAS ASSESSED AT RS. 5,38,16,920/ - . THE UNDISPUTED FACT IS THAT WHEN THE AFORE SAID OPERATION WAS CONDUCTED BY REVENUE AT THE RESIDENTS OF THE ASSESSEE AT HOUSE NO. 9 - 10, SECTOR 16 - A, FARIDABAD , THE FOLLOWING PERSONS WERE RESIDING AT THIS HOUSE: - A) MR. JAGJIT SINGH, ASSESSEE HIMSELF, 73 YEARS OLD B) MRS. MANJEET LAMBA, WIFE O F THE ASSESSEE, 68 YEARS OLD C) MR. TARUN LAMBA, SON OF ASSESSEE, 45 YEARS OLD D) MRS. PREETY LAMBA, DAUGHTER - IN - LAW OF THE ASSESSEE, 40 YEARS OLD E) MR. KARAN LAMBA, GRANDDAUGHTER OF THE ASSESSEE, 18 YEARS OLD F) MS. SHIRIN LAMBA, GRANDAUGHTER OF T HE ASSESSEE, 16 YEARS OLD 6 . CONSEQUENTLY, ASSESSMENT U/S 153A OF THE IT ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER THE ACT) WAS FRAMED IN THE CASE OF FIRST FOUR FAMILY MEMBERS. TOTAL JEWELLERY FOUND DURING THE SAID OPERATION AT RESIDENCE AND AT BANK LOCKERS OF DIFFERENT F AMILY MEMBERS ARE AS GIVEN BELOW: - GOLD JEWELLERY RS. 135.14 LACS SILVER UTENSILS FOUND RS. 0.64 LACS TOTAL RS. 135.78 LACS 7 . OUT OF AFORESAID JEWELLERY, JEWELLERY WORTH RS. 110 LACS WAS DECLARED (RS. 50 LACS BY MR. JAGJIT SINGH, RS. 55 LACS BY MR. ARUN LAMBA AND RS. 5 LACS BY MRS. PREETY LAMBA) AS PAGE NO. 3 UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT IN JEWELLERY BY DIFFERENT FAMILY MEMBERS DURING ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 - 11 AND INCLUDED IN THEIR RETURN OF INCOME FOR AY 2010 - 11. OUT OF THE TOTAL GOLD JEWELLERY OF RS. 135. 14 LACS FOUND, JEWELLERY WORTH RS. 108.75 LACS WAS SEIZED BY REVENUE DURING THE SEARCH AND BALANCE JEWELLERY OF RS. 26.39 LACS THOUGH FOUND DURING SEARCH WAS NOT SEIZED AS PER CBDT INSTRUCTION NO. 1194 DATED 11.05.1994. HOWEVER,T HE AO HAS MADE ADDITION ON THE TOP OF WHAT WAS DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE AS AFORESTATED , THE REMAINING JEWELLERY INCLUDING SILVER UTENSILS WHICH WERE NOT SEIZED AMOUNTING TO RS. 25.78 LACS IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE I.E. RS. 135.78 LACS - RS. 110 LACS= RS. 25.78 LACS. 8 . AGGRIEVED BY THE SAID ADDITION OF RS. 25.78 LAC S MADE BY THE AO AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN JEWELLERY, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD CIT(A) WHO WAS PLEASED TO DELETE THE SAID ADDITION ON THE STRENGTH OF CBDT INSTRUCTION NO. 1194 DATED 1 1.05.1994 WHEREIN IT IS STATED THAT IN CASE OF PERSON NOT ASSESSED TO WEALTH TAX, GOLD JEWELLERY AND ORNAMENTS TO THE EXTENT OF 500 GM PER MARRIED LADY, 250 GM PER UNMARRIED LADY AND 100 GMS PER MALE MEMBER OF THE FAMILY NEED NOT BE SEIZED DURING SEARCH C ONDUCTED BY THE DEPARTMENT . AND THE SAID INSTRUCTION FURTHER PROVIDES THAT HAVING REGARD TO THE STATUS OF THE FAMILY AND CUSTOM AND PRACTICE OF THE COMMUNITY TO WHICH THE FAMILY BELONGS, THE OFFICER MAY EXCLUDE A LARGER QUANTITY OF JEWELLERY AND ORNAMENTS FROM SEIZURE. THE LD CIT(A) IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER WHI LE DELETING THE IMPUGNED ADDITION OBSERVED THAT THE NET WEIGHT AS PER SUMMARY BASED ON THE PANCHNAMAS OF SEIZURE OF JEWELLERY WAS 3106.822 GMS AND TOOK NOTE OF THE FACT THAT THE IMPUGNED ADDITION WAS ONLY FOR 677 GMS OF GOLD JEWELLERY ; AND TAKING INTO CONS IDER ATION THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE S FAMILY COMPRIS ES OF 4 ADULTS AND TWO CHILDREN, A SON AND A DAUGHTER ; AND SINCE THE ASSESSEES SON AND DAUGHTER - IN - LAW HAV E ALREADY MADE SURRENDER OF GOLD JEWELLERY IN THEI R RESPECTIVE HANDS, THE REMAINING GOLD WHICH W AS NOT SEIZED IE, 667 GMS WHICH WAS ADDED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE WAS HELD TO BE OWNED BY THE FAMILY AND THEREFORE THE LD CIT(A) DIRECTED THE IMPUGNED ADDITION TO BE DELETED. A SSAILING THE SAID ORDER OF THE LD CIT(A), THE REVENUE IS BEFORE US. PAGE NO. 4 9 . THE LD DR CONTENDED THAT THE LD CIT ( APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION ON THE BASIS OF THE CBDT INSTRUCTION NO. 1194 DATED 11.05.1994 BECAUSE THE SAID INSTRUCTION WAS ONLY IN RESPECT TO SEIZURE OF GOLD OR NA MENTS BY THE DEPARTMENT DURING THE COURS E OF SEARCH. ACCORDING TO THE LD DR THIS WAS ONLY AN INSTRUCTION TO OFFICER SEARCHING THE HOUSE NOT TO SEIZE CERTAIN AMOUNT OF ORNAMENTS WHICH ARE PRESCRIBED IN THE SAID INSTRUCTION. THE LD DR ALSO TOOK OUR ATTENTION TO THE SAID CIRCULAR AND POINTED OUT TH AT IN THE SAID INSTRUCTION IT IS STATED THAT IN ALL CASES, A DETAILED INVENTORY OF THE JEWELLERY AND ORNAMENTS FOUND MUST BE PREPARED TO BE USED FOR ASSESSMENT PURPOSES . SO THE LD DR CONTENDED THAT THE GUIDELINES WAS ONLY FOR NOT SEIZING THE GOLD ORNAMENTS DURING SEARCH AND IT DOES NOT IN ANY MANNER BE TERMED OR CONSTRUED TO GRANT ANY EXEMPTION FROM ASSESSMENT OF G OLD NOT SEIZED, BY THE SAID INSTRUCTION OF CBDT . THEREFOR E THE LD DR SUBMITTED THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD CIT(A) IS ERRONEOUS AND THEREFORE NEED S TO BE SET ASIDE AND THE ORDER OF THE AO MAY BE RESTORED. ON THE OTHER HAND THE LD AR SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE LD CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE AND DOES NOT WANT US TO INTERFER E. 10 . AGGRIEVED BY THE SAID ORDER OF THE LD CIT(A) THE REVENUE IS BEFORE US. 11 . WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND HAVE PERUSED THE RECORDS AND CASE LAWS CITED BEFORE US. A PERUSAL OF THE RECORDS REVEALS THAT AFTER THE SEARCH HAS TAKEN PLACE AT HIS RESIDENCE , THE ASSESSEE HAS SURRENDERED A SUM OF RS. 50 LACS ON ACCOUNT OF JEWELLERY AND HIS SON AND HIS DAUGHTER - IN - LAW HAVE SURRENDERED A SUM OF RS. 55 L ACS AND RS.5 LACS RESPECTIVELY ON JEWELLERY SEIZED DURING THE SAID OPERATION . THUS TOTAL AMOUNT OF RS . 110 LACS WAS SURRENDERED AS AGAINST JEWELLERY FOUND AT HIS RESIDENCE WORTH RS. 1,35,78,048/ - . THE CBDT CIRCULAR NO. 1916 DATED 11.05.1994 HAS PRESCRIBED THAT UP TO 500 GMS OF GOLD JEWELLERY PER MARRIED LADY , FOUND DURING SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION NEED NOT BE SEIZED BY THE REVENUE. IN SMT. SULOCHANA DEVI JAISWAL VS. DCIT 90 TTJ 974 (JABALPUR) THE TRIBUNAL HAS OBSERVED THAT THE CBDT MIGHT HAVE ISSUED THE SAID CIRCULAR TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE FACT THAT THE GOLD JEWELLERY TO THE EXTENT OF 500 GMS COULD BE IN POSSESSION OF AN INDIAN FAMILY . WE FIND FROM A PERUSAL OF THE SAID CIRCULAR THAT DURING SEARCH IF THE DEPARTMENT FINDS GOLD JEWELLERY , THEN GOLD JEWELLERY WEIGHING 500 GMS PER MARRIED LADY, 250 GM PER PAGE NO. 5 UNMARRIED LADY AND 100 GMS PER MALE MEMBER OF THE FAMILY NEED NOT BE SEIZED. FROM A PERUSAL OF THE FAMILY CHART OF THE ASSESSEE, WE FIND THAT THERE WERE TWO MARRIED LADIES RESIDING IN THE HOUSE WHERE SEARCH TOOK PLACE; AND WE FIND THAT THE IMPUGNED ADDITIO N HAS BEEN MADE BY THE AO IN RESPECT OF 667 GMS OF GOLD ORNAMENTS WHICH WAS TREATED AS UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT BY HIM, WHICH WAS DELETED BY THE LD CIT(A) ON THE STRENGTH OF THE CIRCULAR NO 1916 OF CBDT. IN THE LIGHT OF THE CIRCULAR AND SEVERAL DECISIONS CIT ED BEFORE US, WE FIND THAT THE IMPUGNED ADDITION WAS ONLY FOR 667 GMS OF GOLD NOT SEIZED DURING THE SEARCH OPERATION, AND TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE FACT THAT THERE WAS TWO MARRIED LADIES , 2 MALE MEMBERS. AND OTHERS RESIDING AT THE RESIDENCE OF THE ASSE SSEE AT THE TIME OF SEARCH, AND 667 GMS OF GOLD MUST HAVE BEEN OWNED BY THEM, AS EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THERE IS NO OTHER MATERIAL BROUGHT BEFORE US TO TAKE ANOTHER VIEW OF THE MATTER THEREFORE, WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD CIT (A) ORDERING DELETION OF THE ADDITION MADE ON 667 GMS OF GOLD ORNAMENTS WHICH WAS NOT SEIZED DURING THE SEARCH CONDUCTED BY THE REVENUE . THEREFORE WE UPHOLD AND CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE LD CIT(A). 12 . IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 13 . NEXT LET US CONSIDER THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. 14 . APROPOS ADDITION OF RS. 3,32,900/ - ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH. 15 . BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE IS AS FOLLOWS: THE RESIDEN CE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS SEARCHED ON 02.09.2009 AND AN AMOUNT OF RS. 87,32,900/ - WAS FOUND AS CASH OUT OF WHICH AN AMOUNT OF RS. 84,00,000/ - WAS SEIZED BY THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT AND BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS. 3,32,900/ - WAS NOT SEIZED. THE SEIZED AMOUNT OF RS. 57 LACKS WAS EXPLAINED / DECLARED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE, HIS SON MR. TARUN LAMBA OF M/S IMPERIAL AUTO INDUSTRIES LTD. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF THE AMOUNT OF RS. 3,32,900/ - WHICH WAS NOT SEIZE D. THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT THIS AMOUNT BELONG S TO HIMSELF, HIS WIFE AND HIS SON AND HIS DAUGHTER - IN - LAW AND IT WAS FROM THEIR PERSONAL SAVINGS. BEFORE THE AO THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE FAMILY MEMBERS HAVE PAGE NO. 6 HUGE INCOME , WHICH HAVE BEEN REGULAR LY TAXE D AND T HEREFORE DUE CREDIT NEEDS TO BE GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE IN THIS BEHALF; AND THE SAID SUM OF RS. 3,32,900/ - WAS THE SAVINGS OF HIS FAMILY MEMBERS AND THEREFORE SHOULD NOT BE TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED CASH OF THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER THE AO DID NOT ACC EPT THE SAID EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE AND OBSERVED THAT THE SAID AMOUNT OF RS. 3,32,900/ - WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY ANY BANK WITHDRAWALS OR ANY OTHER EVIDENCE , SO HE ADDED THE SAME AS UNEXPLAINED CASH OF THE ASSESSEE. 16 . AGGRIEVED BY THE SAID ORDER OF THE AO THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD CIT(A), WHO WAS PLEASED TO CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE AO BY STATING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF THE DISPUTED AMOUNT OF CASH FOUND DURING SEARCH . AG GRIEVED BY THE SAID ORDER OF THE LD CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE IS BEFORE US. 17 . THE LD AR REITERATED THE CONTENTION RAISED BEFORE THE AO AND THE LD CIT(A) AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS 73 YEARS OLD WHEN THE SEARCH WAS CONDUCTED AND THE MONEY WAS KEPT IN T HE HOUSE TO TAKE CARE OF ANY MEDICAL EMERGENCY ; AND THE ASSESSEE AND HIS FAMILY MEMBERS WERE REGULAR INCOME TAX PAYERS AND THE AMOUNT OF RS. 3,32,900/ - WAS THE SAVING OF THE FAMILY MEMBERS AND THE CREDIT OF THE SAID SAVING SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED BY THE A UTHORITIES BELOW. THEREFORE THE LD AR PRAYED THAT THE SAID ADDITION MAY BE DELETED. ON THE OTHER HAND THE LD DR RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE AO AND LD CIT(A) AND DOES NOT WANT US TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LD CIT(A). 18 . WE HAVE HEA R D BOTH THE PARTI ES AND HAVE PERUSED THE RECORDS. WE FIND THAT DURING SEARCH AN AMOUNT OF RS. 87,32,900/ - WAS FOUND IN THE HOUSE OF THE ASSESSEE AND AN AMOUNT OF RS. 84 LACKS WAS SEIZED BY THE DEPARTMENT AND THE REMAINING AMOUNT I.E. 3,32,900/ - WHICH WAS NOT SEIZED HAS BEEN ADDED BY THE AO AS UNEXPLAINED CASH IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE . IT IS ALSO SEEN THAT OUT O F THE SAID CASH SEIZED RS.29 LAC S WAS SURRENDERED BY THE ASSESSEE AND RS. 30 LACS WAS SURRENDERED BY MR. TARUN LAMBA, SON OF THE ASSESSEE. THE AO HAS MADE THE IMPUGNED ADDITION ON THE GROUND THAT THE SAID AMOUNT OF RS. 3,32,900/ - WAS NEITHER SUPPORTED BY ANY BANK WITHDRAWAL NOR ANY OTHER PAGE NO. 7 EVIDENCE WAS ADDUCED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD AND THE SOURCE OF THE SAID MONEY COULD NOT BEEN EXPLAINED BY THE ASS ESSEE. BEFORE THE LD CIT(A) ALSO, THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF THE SAID AMOUNT . SO HE CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE AO . THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD IS THAT THE AMOUNT IN QUESTION WAS NOT SEIZED BY THE DEPARTMENT ITSELF GOES ON TO SHOW THAT THE DEPARTMENT ITSELF FELT THAT THE SAID AMOUNT IS A REASONABLE AMOUNT THAT MAY BE KEPT IN THE HOUSE TO MEET ANY EXPENSES IN RESPECT OF ANY MEDICAL EMERGENCY C CANNOT BE ACCEPTED BY US, BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE WAS DUTY BOUND TO EXPLAIN THE SOU RCE OF THE AMOUNT FOUND IN HIS RESIDENCE DURING THE SEARCH OPERATION . NO INFERENCE AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE CAN BE DRAWN BY US, MERELY BECAUSE THE SAID AMOUNT HAS NOT BEEN SEIZED BY THE DEPARTMENT DURING SEARCH ; AND THE NON - SEIZURE OF ANY AMOUNT FOUND DURING SEARCH, IN NO MANNER MITIGATE OR GRANT ANY EXEMPTION TO THE ASSESSEE FROM HIS DUTY TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF THE AMOUNT WHICH HAS BEEN FOUND DURING SEARCH . AND SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT EXPLAIN ED SATISFACTORILY TH E SOURCE OF THE AMOUNT FOUND AT HIS RESIDENCE THOUGH NOT SEIZED , BOTH BEFORE THE AO AS WELL AS BEFORE THE LD CIT(A). WE HAVE NO ALTERNATIVE BUT TO CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE LD CIT(A) , THEREFORE THIS GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 19 . IN THE RESULT BOTH THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE AS WELL AS THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30 . 07 .2014. - SD/ - - SD/ - ( G. D. AGARWAL) (A. T. VARKEY) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 30 / 07 / 2014 A K KEOT COPY FORWARDED TO 1. APPLICANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR:ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI