DCIT, New Delhi V. M/s. Bougainvillea Multiplex & Entertainment Centre Pvt. Ltd., Noida

ITA 3300/DEL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 130 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6555 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 8 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-02-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 16-02-2017
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 29-05-2014
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S K JAIN
• Keywords: Question of law; Capital receipt
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH A, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S.V. MEHROTRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.3300/DEL/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11 DCIT, CIRCLE- 3(1), NEW DELHI. VS. BOUGAINVILLEA MULTIPLEX & ENTERTAINMENT CENTRE PVT. LTD., PLOT NO.1-2, SPICE WORLD, SECTOR NO.25A, NOIDA. PAN : AAACB 4985 E (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI S. K. JAIN, SR.DR RESPONDENT BY : SHRI AJAY VOHRA, SR. ADV. & SHRI ROHIT GARG, CA DATE OF HEARING : 16-02-2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 17-02-2017 O R D E R PER S.V. MEHROTRA, A.M : THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 25.02.2014 PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)- VI, NEW DELHI, U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE A CT) RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE CO MPANY HAD ELECTRONICALLY FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING LOSS OF RS.(-) 6,38,22,681/- FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. IN THE RELEVA NT ASSESSMENT YEAR, THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WAS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF RUN NING AND MANAGEMENT OF A 2 ITA NO.3300/DEL/2014 MULTIPLEX COMPRISING 8-SCREENS CINEMA AND SHOPPING MALL IN THE NAME & STYLE AS SPICE WORLD AT I-2, SECTOR-25A, NOIDA, GAUTAMB UDH NAGAR, UP. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY EARNED REVENUE FROM SALE OF CINEMA TICKETS, SALE OF SPACE OR TIME FOR ADVERTISEMENTS, SALE OF FOOD AND BEVERAGES IN THE CINEMA AND RENTAL INCOME FROM SHOPS IN THE MALL. 3. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IN ITS COMPUTATIO N OF INCOME CLAIMED DEDUCTION OF ENTERTAINMENT TAX OF RS.4,38,79,626/- FROM THE TOTAL INCOME. FURTHER, HE NOTICED THAT IN CLAUSE 11 UNDER THE HEA D CONTINGENT LIABILITY IT HAD BEEN MENTIONED AS UNDER :- THE COMPANY COLLECTS ENTERTAINMENT TAX ON SALE OF TICKETS OF CINEMA OPERATION. THE UP STATE GOVT. HAS, WITH A VIEW TO E NCOURAGE SETTING UP OF MULTIPLEXES IN THE STATE, GRANTED AN EXEMPTION TO T HE COMPANY, FROM PAYMENT OF ENTERTAINMENT TAX. AS PER THE UNDERLYING SCHEME, TH E COMPANY IS PERMITTED TO COLLECT ENTERTAINMENT TAX FROM ITS CUSTOMERS AND RE TAIN THE SAME FOR A PERIOD OF 5 YEARS AND RETAIN 100% OF THE SAME IN THE INITIAL TH REE YEARS AND 75% OF THE SAME IN THE 4 TH AND 5 TH YEAR, SUBJECT TO THE OVERALL CEILING OF THE COST O F THE MULTIPLEX. THE ENTERTAINMENT TAX SO COLLECTED BY THE COMPANY IS AC COUNTED FOR AS INCOME IN THE P&L ACCOUNT IN THE YEAR OF RECEIPT. THE EXEMPTION IS AV AILABLE TO THE COMPANY IN RESPECT OF SALE OF TICKETS OF CINEMA OPERATION OTHER THAN '4-D ' THEATRES. AS ADVISED BY A TAX EXPERT, THE COMPANY HAS CONSIDE RED THE AMOUNT OF ENTERTAINMENT TAX SO COLLECTED ON SALE OF TICKET OF THE CINEMA OPERATIONS AND RETAINED BY IT AS CAPITAL RECEIPT FOR INCOME TAX PU RPOSES AND HENCE, NOT TAXABLE. ACCORDINGLY, THE TAX PROVISION FOR THE CURRENT PERI OD IS CALCULATED BASED ON THE PROFITS OF BUSINESS AS REDUCED BY THE AMOUNT OF ENT ERTAINMENT TAX COLLECTED BY THE COMPANY DURING THE PERIOD. 4. ACCORDINGLY, HE SHOW-CAUSED THE ASSESSEE AS TO W HY THE ENTERTAINMENT TAX SHOULD NOT BE TREATED AS REVENUE RECEIPT. THE ASSESSEES DETAILED REPLY HAS 3 ITA NO.3300/DEL/2014 BEEN REPRODUCED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FROM PAGES 2 TO 8. AFTER CONSIDERING THE ASSESSEES REPLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER CONCLUD ED THAT THE SUBSIDY RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WAS ON REVENUE ACCOUNT AND NOT CAPITAL ACCOUNT FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS :- (A) THE SUBSIDY HAD BEEN GIVEN TO THE COMPANY AFTER COMMENCEMENT OF ITS BUSINESS AND OPERATIONALIZATION OF THE MULTI PLEX. (B) THE SUBSIDY WAS IN THE NATURE OF EXEMPTIONS FRO M PAYMENT OF ENTERTAINMENT TAX WHICH WAS GENERATED DURING THE CO URSE RUNNING OF CINEMA HALLS IN THE MULTIPLEX. (C) THE SUBSIDY WAS NOT LINKED TO ANY OF THE FIXED ASSETS OF THE COMPANY. (D) THERE WAS NO STIPULATION IN THE SCHEMES OF SUBS IDY REGARDING THE MANNER IN WHICH THE SUBSIDY AMOUNT WAS TO BE UTILIZ ED BY THE COMPANY. THE COMPANY WAS FREE TO USE IT IN THE MANNER IT DEE MED FIT. (E) THE MONEY WAS GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSISTI NG IT IN CARRYING OUT THE BUSINESS OPERATION. 5. HE, ACCORDINGLY, MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.4,38,79, 626/-. LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF HIS PREDECESSORS FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2006-07 TO 2009-10, WHICH WAS UPHELD BY THE T RIBUNAL. BEING AGGRIEVED, THE DEPARTMENT IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AGA INST THE DELETION OF THE ADDITION OF RS.4,38,79,626/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF DIS ALLOWANCE OF ENTERTAINMENT SUBSIDY. 4 ITA NO.3300/DEL/2014 6. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSE SSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE DECISION OF TRIBUNAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2006-07 T O 2009-10 RELIED ON BY LD. CIT(A) HAS BEEN UPHELD BY THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH CO URT IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN ITA NO.587 OF 2013 (A.Y. 2006-07), ITA NO.5 86 OF 2013 (A.Y. 2007- 08), ITA NO.204 OF 2014 (A.Y. 2008-09) AND ITA NO.1 61 OF 2014 (A.Y. 2009- 10). IN THE AFOREMENTIONED JUDGEMENT DATED 30.01.20 15, THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT HELD AS UNDER :- 32. THE UP SCHEME UNDER WHICH THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS EXEMPTION TO THE EXTENT OF ENTERTAINMENT TAX SUBSIDY, CLAIMING IT TO BE CAPITA L RECEIPT, IS CLEARLY DESIGNED TO PROMOTE THE INVESTORS IN THE CINEMA INDUSTRY ENCOUR AGING ESTABLISHMENT OF NEW MULTIPLEXES. A SUBSIDY OF SUCH NATURE CANNOT POSSIB LY BE GRANTED BY THE GOVERNMENT DIRECTLY. ENTERTAINMENT TAX IS LEVIABLE ON THE ADMI SSION TICKETS TO CINEMA HALLS ONLY AFTER THE FACILITY BECOMES OPERATIONAL. SINCE THE S OURCE OF THE SUBSIDY IS THE PUBLIC AT LARGE WHICH IS TO BE ATTRACTED AS VIEWERS TO THE CI NEMA HALLS, THE FUNDS TO SUPPORT SUCH AN INCENTIVE CANNOT BE GENERATED UNTIL AND UNLESS T HE CINEMA HALLS BECOME FUNCTIONAL. 33. THE STATE GOVERNMENT HAD OFFERED 100% TAX EXEMP TIONS FOR THE FIRST THREE YEARS REDUCED TO 75% IN THE REMAINING TWO YEARS. TH US, THE AMOUNT OF SUBSIDY EARNED WOULD DEPEND ON THE EXTENT OF VIEWERSHIP THE CINEMA HALL IS ABLE TO ATTRACT. AFTER ALL, THE COLLECTIONS OF ENTERTAINMENT TAX WOULD CORRESPO ND TO THE NUMBER OF ADMISSION TICKETS SOLD. SINCE THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF SUBSIDY M ADE AVAILABLE IS SUBJECT TO THE CEILING EQUIVALENT TO THE AMOUNT INVESTED BY THE AS SESSEE IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE MULTIPLEX AS ALSO THE ACTUAL COST INCURRED IN ARRAN GING THE REQUISITE EQUIPMENT INSTALLED THEREIN, IT NATURALLY FOLLOWS THAT THE PU RPOSE IS TO ASSIST THE ENTREPRENEUR IN MEETING THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED ON SUCH ACCOUNTS. GIVEN THE UNCERTAINTIES OF A BUSINESS OF THIS NATURE, IT IS ALSO POSSIBLE THAT A MULTIPLEX OWNER MAY NOT BE ABLE TO MUSTER ENOUGH VIEWERSHIP TO RECOVER ALL HIS INVESTM ENTS IN THE FIVE YEAR PERIOD. 34. SEEN IN THE ABOVE LIGHT, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDE RED VIEW THAT IT WAS UNREASONABLE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER T O DECLINE THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE ABOUT THE SUBSIDY BEING CAPITAL RECEIPT. SUCH A SUB SIDY BY ITS VERY NATURE, WAS BOUND TO COME IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE AFTER THE CINE MA HALL HAD BECOME FUNCTIONAL AND DEFINITELY NOT BEFORE THE COMMENCEMENT OF PRODUCTIO N. SINCE THE PURPOSE WAS TO OFFSET THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED IN SETTING UP OF THE PROJE CT, SUCH RECEIPT (SUBJECT, OF COURSE, TO THE CAP OF AMOUNT AND PERIOD UNDER THE SCHEME) C OULD NOT HAVE BEEN TREATED AS ASSISTANCE FOR THE PURPOSES OF TRADE. 5 ITA NO.3300/DEL/2014 35. THE FACTS THAT THE SUBSIDY GRANTED THROUGH DEEM ED DEPOSIT OF ENTERTAINMENT TAX COLLECTED DOES NOT REQUIRE IT TO BE LINKED TO A NY PARTICULAR FIXED ASSET OR THAT IS ACCORDED 'YEAR AFTER YEAR' DO NOT MAKE ANY DIFFEREN CE. THE SCHEME MAKES IT CLEAR THAT THE GRANT WOULD STAND EXHAUSTED THE MOMENT ENT ERTAINMENT TAX HAS BEEN COLLECTED (AND RETAINED) BY THE MULTIPLEX OWNER MEETING THE E NTIRE COST OF CONSTRUCTION (APPARATUS, INTERIORS ETC. INCLUDED), EVEN IF IT WE RE 'BEFORE COMPLETION OF FIVE YEARS'. 36. AS HELD BY THE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF SAH NEY STEEL (SUPRA), THE CHARACTER OF THE SUBSIDY IS TO BE DETERMINED HAVING REGARD TO THE PURPOSE FOR WHICH IT IS GRANTED. THE 'PURPOSE TEST', REFERRED TO IN PONN I SUGARS (SUPRA) WHEN APPLIED TO THE CASE AT HAND, LEAVES NO ROOM FOR DOUBT THAT THE ASSISTANCE IN THE FORM OF ENTERTAINMENT TAX EXEMPTION IS SHOWN TO HAVE COME I N THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE TO ENABLE IT TO SET UP THE NEW UNIT WHICH RENDERS IT A RECEIP T ON CAPITAL ACCOUNT. THE PERIODICITY (YEAR TO YEAR) OF THE SUBSIDY, ITS SOURCE (COLLECTI ONS FROM THE PUBLIC AT LARGE) AND THE FORM (DEEMED DEPOSIT) ARE IRRELEVANT CONSIDERATIONS . 37. THE FACTUAL MATRIX IN PONNI SUGARS (SUPRA) IS N EARER HOME TO THE CASE AT HAND WHICH IS DISTINGUISHABLE FROM THE CASE OF SAHNEY ST EEL (SUPRA). IN SAHNEY STEEL (SUPRA), THE INCENTIVES WERE LINKED TO PRODUCTION W HICH IS THE PRIME REASON WHY THE SUBSIDY OF SALES TAX WAS HELD TO BE OPERATIONAL SUB SIDY OR REVENUE IN NATURE. 38. INDEED, IN PONNI SUGARS (SUPRA), THE FACT THAT THE AMOUNT RECEIVED AS SUBSIDY WAS REQUIRED NECESSARILY TO BE UTILIZED ONLY FOR RE PAYMENT OF TERM LOANS FOR SETTING UP OF THE NEW UNIT WAS ONE OF THE IMPORTANT FACTORS TA KEN INTO ACCOUNT FOR TREATING IT TO BE CAPITAL RECEIPT. THE CASE AT HAND IS NOT VERY DI FFERENT. AS OBSERVED EARLIER, THE SUBSIDY IS MEANT TO LIQUIDATE THE COST INCURRED IN SETTING UP OF THE MULTIPLEX CINEMA HALL AND FOR MAKING IT OPERATIONAL BY INSTALLING TH E REQUISITE APPARATUS. THE FLOW OF SUBSIDY STOPS AS SOON AS THE EXPENDITURE ON SUCH AC COUNT IS MET IN ENTIRETY. 39. FOR THE FOREGOING REASONS, WE FIND THAT ITAT IN THE IMPUGNED ORDERS HAS TAKEN A CORRECT VIEW OF LAW ON THE BASIS OF AVAILABLE FAC TS TO CONCLUDE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED, IN TERMS OF THE UP SCHEME, TO TREAT THE A MOUNTS COLLECTED TOWARDS ENTERTAINMENT TAX AS CAPITAL. THE QUESTION OF LAW R AISED IN THESE APPEALS IS, THUS, ANSWERED IN THE NEGATIVE AGAINST THE REVENUE/APPELL ANT. 40. THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE CHALLENGING THE VIEW TAKEN BY CIT AND ITAT ARE, THUS, LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED. THIS COURT, HOWEVER, IS OF THE VIEW THAT THE MATTER CANNOT END ONLY WITH SUCH RESULT OF THE PROCESS. WE NOTICE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAVING DECLINED TO GRANT THE BENEFIT UNDER THE SCHEME TO T HE ASSESSEE (CLAIMING THE AMOUNTS COLLECTED AS ENTERTAINMENT TAX TO BE CAPITAL RECEIP TS), THE FIRST AND THE SECOND APPELLATE COURT CONCLUDED THEIR RESPECTIVE ORDERS ( IN APPEALS BROUGHT BY THE ASSESSEE AND REVENUE RESPECTIVELY) BY HOLDING THAT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WAS CORRECT. IT APPEARS THAT THERE HAS BEEN NO EXERCISE UNDERTAKEN TO FIND ON FACTS AS TO THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION AND SETTING UP OF THE CINEMA HALL TO MAKE IT FUNCTIONAL SO AS TO ASSESS T HE EXTENT OF CAPITAL SUBSIDY IT CAN CLAIM OVER THE ASSESSMENT YEARS IN QUESTION ON ACCO UNT OF ENTERTAINMENT TAX EXEMPTIONS. 6 ITA NO.3300/DEL/2014 41. THUS, WHILE DISMISSING THE APPEALS OF THE REVEN UE, WE DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DO THE NEEDFUL IN THE ABOVE REGARD FOR F INALIZING THE ASSESSMENTS FOR THE PERIODS IN QUESTION. 7. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF HONBLE D ELHI HIGH COURT, WE UPHOLD THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE REGARDING RECEIPT OF S UBSIDY BEING CAPITAL SUBSIDY. HOWEVER, THE SAME WILL BE SUBJECT TO THE TERM OF SC HEME AND COULD NOT EXCEED 100% OF COST OF CONSTRUCTION OVER THE YEARS. THE A SSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO CARRY OUT THE SAME EXERCISE AS HAS BEEN DIRECTED BY HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT FOR FINDING OF FACTS AS TO THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY ASSESSEE IN THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION AND SETTING OFF OF THE CINEMA HALL TO MAKE IT FUNCTIONAL SO AS TO ASSESS THE EXTENT OF CAPITAL SUBSIDY, IT COULD CLAI M OVER THE ASSESSMENT YEARS IN QUESTION ON ACCOUNT OF ENTERTAINMENT TAX EXEMPTIONS . IN THE RESULT, THIS GROUND IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 8. THE NEXT GROUND APPEAL IS THAT LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN TREATING INCOME OF RS.5,32,367/- DERIVED FROM RENTING OF SPACE FOR DIS PLAY PURPOSE AS INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY WHEN IT HAD BEEN RIGHTLY TREATED AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 9. THE FACTS APROPOS THIS ISSUE ARE THAT DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAD CONSIDERED AN AMOUNT OF RS .5,32,367/- ON ACCOUNT OF RENTING OF SPACE FOR DISPLAY PURPOSES AS INCOME FRO M HOUSE PROPERTY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS OF THE OPINION THAT THE RENTI NG OF SPACE FOR DISPLAY 7 ITA NO.3300/DEL/2014 PURPOSE WAS NOT COVERED WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF HOUSE PROPERTY. AFTER CONSIDERING THE ASSESSEES SUBMISSIONS, THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER TREATED THE RENT OF SPACE FOR HOARDINGS OR SIGNBOARDS AND RENTING OF RO OF AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES AND, ACCORDINGLY, MADE ADDITION OF RS.1,59, 710/- BEING 30% OF THE RENTAL INCOME RETURNED BY ASSESSEE AS INCOME FROM H OUSE PROPERTY. LD. CIT(A), FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF ITAT, MUMBAI BENCHES IN T HE CASE OF (I) MAHALAXMI SHEELA PREMISES CHS LTD. VS. ITO IN ITA NO.784 TO 7 86/MUM/2010, ORDER DATED 30.08.2011 AND (II) M/S KAMLESH REAL ESTATES (P) LTD. VS. ACIT IN ITA NO.1451/MUM/2010, ORDER DATED 20.04.2011 ALLOWED TH E ASSESSEES CLAIM. LD. DR RELIED ON THE ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER. 10. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THI S ISSUE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE BY THE DECISION OF HONBLE DELHI HIGH C OURT IN THE CASE OF NIAGARA HOTELS & BUILDERS (P.) LTD. VS. CIT, (2015) 60 TAXM ANN.COM 83 (DELHI). 11. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND HAVE PERUSED THE RECORD OF THE CASE. AS PER SECTION 22 OF THE A CT, IF THE INCOME IS DERIVED FROM THE OWNERSHIP OF ANY BUILDINGS OR LANDS APPURT ENANT THERETO THEN THE INCOME IS ASSESSABLE UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HO USE PROPERTY. THE TERM BUILDING CANNOT BE ASSIGNED A RESTRICTED MEANING BECAUSE IT IS OF WIDE CONNOTATION. WE FIND THAT HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF NIAGARA HOTELS & BUILDERS (P.) LTD. (SUPRA) HAS HELD IN PAR A 21 AS UNDER :- 8 ITA NO.3300/DEL/2014 21. IN THE CASE AT HAND, THE BUILDING THE TOP TERR ACE OF WHICH IS THE SUBJECT OF FOCAL ATTENTION HERE HAS BEEN DEVELOPED FOR ITS VARIOUS P ORTIONS TO BE SOLD OR LET OUT WITH NO POSSIBILITY OF THE TERRACE FLOOR BEING SUBJECTED TO SUCH UTILIZATION. THE ASSESSEE CONTINUES TO BE THE OWNER OF THE TERRACE FLOOR. IT HAS CONCEIVABLY NO OTHER PURPOSE TO BE SERVED BY SUCH PROPERTY AS IS HELD ON THE TERRAC E FLOOR, EXCEPT THE EXPLOITATION OF THE LICENSED SPACE FOR GAINING THE INCOME THAT CANN OT BE TREATED AS EITHER INCOME FROM BUSINESS OR INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. THE INC OME WAS THUS RIGHTLY RETURNED AS INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY. 12. THE FACTS IN THE CASE AT HAND ARE IDENTICAL AND , THEREFORE, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF NIAGARA HOTELS & BUILDERS (P.) LTD. (SURPA), THIS GROUND IS DISMISSED. 13. RESULTANTLY, THE APPEAL OF THE DEPARTMENT IS PA RTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 17 TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2017. SD/- SD/- (DIVA SINGH) (S. V. MEHROTRA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 17-02-2017. SUJEET COPY OF ORDER TO: - 1) THE APPELLANT 2) THE RESPONDENT 3) THE CIT 4) THE CIT(A) 5) THE DR, I.T.A.T., NEW DELHI BY ORDER //TRUE COPY// ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI