ACIT, Gurgaon V. M/s Danone (India) Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon

ITA 3433/DEL/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 115 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6703 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 4 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-10-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 09-06-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: NIDHI SRIVASTAVA
• Assessee Lawyers: S K AGGARWAL
• Keywords: Depreciation; Business expenditure; Revenue expenditure; Set aside

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : B : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.3433/DEL/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 ACIT, CIRCLE 1(1), GURGAON. VS DANONE (INDIA) PVT. LTD., BUILDING NO.8, TOWER-C, 11 TH FLOOR, DLF CYBER CITY, DLF PHASE II, GURGAON. PAN: AAACD5049B (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI S.K. AGGARWAL, CA REVENUE BY : MS NIDHI SRIVASTAVA, CIT, DR DATE OF HEARING : 21.08.2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30.10.2019 ORDER PER R.K. PANDA, AM: THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINS T THE ORDER DATED 31 ST MARCH, 2016 OF THE CIT(A)-1, GURGAON, RELATING TO A SSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. 2. FACTS OF THE CASE, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT THE ASSESS EE IS A COMPANY ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF PROVIDING TECHNOLOGICAL AND PERSONNEL S UPPORT TO FOOD PROCESSING AND DAIRY INDUSTRY. IT FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 2 4 TH SEPTEMBER, 2008, DECLARING THE TOTAL INCOME AT NIL, AFTER CLAIMING LOSSES. THE AS SESSING OFFICER, DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESS EE COMPANY HAS DECLARED A ITA NO.3433/DEL/2016 2 BUSINESS LOSS OF RS8,79,74,695/-. ON VERIFICATION O F THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT, HE NOTED THAT NO COMMERCIAL/BUSINESS ACTIVITIES WERE C ARRIED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE O NLY INCOMES SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR ARE AS UNDER:- I) PROFIT ON SALE OF INVESTMENTS - RS.1,43,246/- II) INTEREST ON BANK DEPOSIT - RS.11,58,065/- III) DIVIDEND INCOME EXEMPT U/S 10(34) - RS.38,51,264/- 3. HE OBSERVED THAT THE TOTAL BUSINESS EXPENSES DEB ITED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT AMOUNTING TO RS.10,78,31,182/ - INCLUDES EMPLOYEE COST AND THE LEGAL EXPENSES, TRAVELLING EXPENSES, COMMUNICAT ION AND OTHER EXPENSES, DEPRECIATION AND INTEREST EXPENSES. HE, THEREFORE, ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN AS TO WHY THE ENTIRE EXPENSES CLAIMED SHOULD NOT BE DI SALLOWED IN THE ABSENCE OF NO BUSINESS ACTIVITY CARRIED OUT BY IT. THE ASSESSEE, IN ITS RESPONSE, SUBMITTED THAT ALTHOUGH IT HAS NOT SECURED ANY ORDER DURING THE RE LEVANT PERIOD FOR WHICH THERE WAS NO INCOME, HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE HAD TO STILL I NCUR NORMAL ADMINISTRATIVE AND OPERATIVE EXPENSES TO CONTINUE BUSINESS ACTIVITIES. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS PROVIDING TECHNICAL AND PERSONNEL SUPPO RT SERVICES TO DIFFERENT FOOD PROCESSING AND DAIRY INDUSTRY VERTICALLY AND THE EF FORTS OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION HAVE TRANSLATED INTO REVENUE IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEARS. SINCE THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS NOT DONE ANY BUSINESS ACTIVITY DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT FURNISH AN Y SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE TO SHOW ITA NO.3433/DEL/2016 3 THAT THE TRAVEL EXPENSES WERE INCURRED FOR TRAVELLI NG MADE FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES AND THE ASSESSEES BUSINESS HAS NOT YET STARTED DUE TO LITIGATION, THE ASSESSING OFFICER RESTRICTED THE EXPENSES TO ONLY THOSE EXPEN SES WHICH ARE NORMAL EXPENSES REQUIRED AS PER LAW FOR MONITORING ITS CORPORATE EN TITY AND EXISTENCE AMOUNTING TO RS.49,35,784/- AND DISALLOWED AN AMOUNT OF RS.10,28 ,95,398/- BEING THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE ACTUAL CLAIM OF RS.10,78,31,182/- AND R S.49,35,784/-. 4. BEFORE THE CIT(A), IT WAS ARGUED THAT THE FACTS OF THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION IS DIFFERENT FROM THE EARLIER YEARS B ECAUSE IN THE CURRENT YEAR THE BUSINESS WAS SET UP SINCE SENIOR EMPLOYEES FOR THE OPERATIONS WERE TAKEN ON EMPLOYMENT WHICH INCLUDES SALES HEAD. THESE EMPLOY EES WERE SENT ON TRAINING WITH A VIEW THAT THE MAIN PURPOSE OF THE ASSESSEE C OMPANY OF PROVIDING TECHNOLOGICAL SUPPORT TO FOOD PROCESSING AND DAIRY INDUSTRY IS MET. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT DURING THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR, THE ASSESSEE HAD KEY MANAGEMENT PERSONNEL AT ITS PAY ROLL TO CARRY OUT I TS BUSINESS ACTIVITIES. THE ASSESSEE HAS APPOINTED MR. ANUJ MEHTA, SENIOR MANAG ER, QUALITY AND MR. SANJAY SHARMA, NATIONAL SALES HEAD. DURING THE YEAR, IT H AD EMPLOYED A STRONG MANAGEMENT TEAM TO CARRY OUT ITS BUSINESS. THUS, T HE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE WAS, IN FACT, SET UP DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT VARIOUS KEY PERSONNEL INCLUDING THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, FINANCE DIRECTOR, SALES & DISTRIBUTION DIRECTOR, MARKETING MANAGER, LEGAL & COMPANY SECRET ARY, FINANCE MANAGER, WERE ALREADY ON THE ASSESSEES PAY ROLL DURING THE SUBJECT ASSESSMENT YEAR. IT WAS ITA NO.3433/DEL/2016 4 FURTHER ARGUED THAT THE ASSESSEE, DURING THE IMPUGN ED ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDERTOOK VARIOUS ACTIVITIES TO FULFILL ITS KEY OBJECTIVES SU CH AS PROMOTION OF AND PARTICIPATING IN THE PROMOTION OF SUBSIDIARY, ACT AS AN INVESTMEN T COMPANY AND ACQUIRE SHARE, STOCKS DEBENTURES, ETC., PROVIDE PERSONNEL SUPPORT SERVICES TO ITS GROUP COMPANIES, ETC. SAMPLE VOUCHERS EVIDENCING SUCH TRAVEL WERE A LSO FURNISHED BEFORE THE CIT(A). RELYING ON VARIOUS DECISIONS, IT WAS ARGUE D THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE DURING THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR HAS SET UP ITS BUSINES S, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DISALLOWING THE BUSINESS EXPENSES DEBITED IN THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT. 5. BASED ON THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE ASSESSEE AND RELYING ON THE DECISION OF THE DELHI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF DHOOMKETU BUILDERS & DEVELOPMENT PVT. LTD. VS. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER O F INCOME TAX (2012) 17 TAXMANN.COM 36, THE LD.CIT(A) DELETED THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH CERTAIN DIRECTIONS. WHILE DOING SO, H E NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS STARTED DEPLOYING THE SKILFUL PERSONNEL AND HAS COV ERED THE LAST MILE OF ITS PREPAREDNESS WHICH IS SUFFICIENT TO CONCLUDE THAT T HE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR AFTER 07.07.2008 WAS FULLY EQUIPPED TO MOUNT THE OPERATIO N OF BUSINESS. IT WAS ON THIS DATE THAT SHRI SANJAY SHARMA, SALES HEAD FOR THE AS SESSEE WAS RECRUITED WHICH REFLECTS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS STARTED ITS OPERATIO NS. HE, THEREFORE, HELD THAT THE EXPENSES INCURRED AFTER THIS DATE ARE FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES AND, HENCE, ARE TO BE ALLOWED. HE ACCORDINGLY DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFF ICER TO OBTAIN THE DETAILS OF THE ITA NO.3433/DEL/2016 5 EXPENSES OUT OF THE DISALLOWED AMOUNT OF RS.8,66,73 ,393/- WHICH PERTAINED TO THE PERIOD AFTER THE SETTING UP OF THE BUSINESS ON 07.0 7.2008 TILL 31.03.2009 AND ALLOW THE SAME IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. 6. AGGRIEVED WITH SUCH ORDER OF THE CIT(A) THE REVE NUE IS IN APPEAL BY RAISING THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- 1. THE LD CIT(A) HAS ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS STARTED ITS BUSINESS OPERATION ON THE DATE OF RECRUITMENT OF SALES HEAD ON 07.07.2008, WHEREAS THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT FURNISHED ANY EVIDENCES DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THAT BUSINE SS WAS SET UP AND CARRIED OUT DURING THE YEAR. 2. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN DIRECTING THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO OBTAIN DETAILS OF EXPENSES OF RS.8,66,73,393/- OUT OF THE EXPENSES DISALLOWED OF RS. 10,28,95,398/- PERTA INING TO THE PERIOD FROM 07.07.2008 TO 31.03.2009 AND ALLOW THE SAME AS DEDU CTION FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. 3. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES FOR THE PERMISSION TO ADD, DELETE OR AMEND THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE OR AT THE TIME OF HEAR ING OF APPEAL. 7. THE LD. DR STRONGLY CHALLENGED THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). SHE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT EXPLAINED WHAT ARE THE ACTUAL DATES OF THE RECRUITMENT OF THE PERSONS NOR FILED COPIES OF THE AGREEMENT. THEREFO RE, THE VARIOUS SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE RELIED UPON. SHE SU BMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS GIVEN JUSTIFIABLE REASONS WHY THE EXPEN SES SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT STARTED ITS BUSINESS AND HAS N OT RECEIVED ANY INCOME FROM ITS BUSINESS ACTIVITIES. SHE ACCORDINGLY SUBMITTED THA T THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE SHOULD BE ALLOWED AND THE ORDER OF THE CIT( A) BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BE RESTORED. ITA NO.3433/DEL/2016 6 8. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, ON THE OTHER H AND, HEAVILY RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). HE SUBMITTED THAT WHEN THE AS SESSEE HAD APPOINTED ITS SALES HEAD, IT WAS THE LAST RECRUITMENT. REFERRING TO CO PY OF THE LETTER ADDRESSED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON 6 TH SEPTEMBER, 2011, COPY OF WHICH IS PLACED AT PAGES 106 TO 109 OF THE PAPER BOOK, THE LD COUNSEL SUBMITTED A B RIEF CHART OUTLINING THE ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES PERFORMED BY THE MAIN MANAGERIAL P ERSONS BEING THE DIRECTORS AND SR. MANAGERS DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AS WELL AS NEW PERSONS RECRUITED DURING THE YEAR WERE FILED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFF ICER. IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT THE ACTIVITIES CARRIED OUT BY THESE PERSONNEL ARE NORMA L AND ORDINARY BUSINESS ACTIVITIES REQUIRED FOR RUNNING AND MANAGING THE BUSINESS. IT WAS FURTHER EXPLAINED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT AS A RESULT OF THE BUSIN ESS EFFORTS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR, SERVICE INCOME OF RS.17.14 MILLION WAS GENERATED IN THE SUBSEQUENT F.Y. 2009-10 BY WAY OF RENDERING SERVICES TO ITS GROUP COMPANIES. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE VARIOUS EXPENSES INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE WERE NOT DOUBTED. HE ACCORDINGLY SUBMITTED THAT SINCE T HE BUSINESS HAS BEEN SET UP DURING THE YEAR, THEREFORE, THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) ALLOWING THE EXPENSES INCURRED AFTER THE DATE OF SET UP I.E., 07.07.2008 TILL 31.0 3.2009 IS JUSTIFIED. HE ALSO RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIB UNAL IN THE CASE OF DHOOMKETU BUILDERS & DEVELOPMENT PVT. LTD. VS. ADDITIONAL COM MISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (SUPRA) WHICH HAS BEEN RELIED UPON BY THE CIT(A). ITA NO.3433/DEL/2016 7 9. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY BOTH THE SIDES AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE CIT(A) AND THE PAPER BOOK FILED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. WE HAVE ALSO GONE THROUGH THE VARIOUS DECISIONS CITED BEFORE US. WE FIND THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE INSTANT CASE, DISALLOWED AN AMOUNT OF RS.10,28,95,398/- BEING THE VARIOUS EXPEN SES DEBITED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT ON THE GROUND THAT NO BUS INESS ACTIVITY WAS CONDUCTED DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND THE ASSESSE E COMPANY HAS NOT FURNISHED ANY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT THE TRAVEL EX PENSES WERE ACTUALLY INCURRED FOR TRAVELLING MADE FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES AND THE BUSIN ESS OF THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT YET STARTED DUE TO LITIGATION. FURTHER, THE RENT EXPEN SES ARE INCURRED FOR RESIDENCE OF MANAGING DIRECTOR AND DIRECTOR AND, HENCE, THEY ARE NOT ALLOWABLE AS REVENUE EXPENSES IN THE ABSENCE OF BUSINESS ACTIVITY AS SIM ILAR TO THAT OF SALARY EXPENSES. WE FIND THE LD.CIT(A) HELD THAT WHEN THE ASSESSEE H AS APPOINTED SKILFUL PERSONNEL AND HAS COVERED THE LAST MILE OF ITS PREPAREDNESS O N 07.07.2008, THEREFORE, THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN SET UP ON 07.07.2 008 AND, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO CLAIM THE VARIOUS EXPENSES PERTAININ G TO THE PERIOD AFTER SETTING UP THE BUSINESS ON 07.07.2008 TILL 31.03.2009. RELYING ON THE DECISION OF THE COORDINATE BENCH IN THE CASE OF DHOOMKETU BUILDERS & DEVELOPMENT PVT. LTD. VS. ADDI TIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (SUPRA), THE LD.CIT(A) DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ALLOW THE EXPENSES FOR THE PERIOD FROM 07.07.200 8 TILL 31.03.2009 AMOUNTING TO RS.8,66,73,393/- AFTER OBTAINING THE DETAILS OF EXP ENSES. WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). WE FIND, THE LD.CIT(A) WHILE ALLOWING THE ITA NO.3433/DEL/2016 8 CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WITH CERTAIN DIRECTIONS HAS R ELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE COORDINATE BENCH IN THE CASE OF DHOOMKETU BUILDERS & DEVELOPMENT PVT. LTD. VS. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (SUPRA), WHERE IT HAS BEEN HELD AS UNDER:- THE SOLE ISSUE IS WHETHER THE ASSESSEE IS ABLE TO DEMONSTRATE THAT ITS BUSINESS IN RESPECT OF REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT WAS SET UP DU RING THE RELEVANT ACCOUNTING PERIOD AND, THEREFORE, IT IS ENTITLED FOR CARRY FOR WARD OF NET BUSINESS LOSS SUFFERED IN THE YEAR. SECTION 2(13) PROVIDES THE DEFINITION OF EXPRESSION BUSINESS ACCORDING TOWHICH BUSINESS INCLUDES ANY TRADE, COMMERCE, MANU FACTURE OR ANY ADVENTURE OR CONCERN IN THE NATURE OF TRADE, COMMERCE OR MANU FACTURE. IN VARIOUS AUTHORITATIVE PRONOUNCEMENTS OF THE SUPREME COURT A ND THE HIGH COURT, MEANING AND SCOPE OF EXPRESSION, BUSINESS HAS BEEN PROPOUNDED IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO RECITE AND RECAPITULATE OF THOSE DECIS IONS BUT ON THE STRENGTH OF THEM, IT WOULD BE SUFFICE TO SAY THAT WORD BUSINES S HAS A WIDE IMPORT AND IT MEANS AN ACTIVITY CARRIED ON CONTINUOUSLY AND SYSTE MATICALLY BY A PERSON BY THE APPLICATION OF HIS LABOUR AND SKILL WITH A VIEW TO EARN AN INCOME SECTION 3 DEFINES PREVIOUS YEAR. PREVIOUS MEANS THE FINANCI AL YEAR IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR. THE PROVISO APPENDED TO THIS SECTION FURTHER CONTEMPLATES THAT IN CASE OF A BUSINESS NEWLY SET U P IN THE SAID FINANCIAL YEAR, THE PREVIOUS YEAR SHALL BE THE PERIOD BEGINNING WIT H THE DATE OF SET UP OF THE BUSINESS. THE EXPRESSION SET UP HAS NOT BEEN DEFI NED ANYWHERE IN THE ACT BUT IT IS UNDERSTOOD IN THE COMMON PARLANCE AND HAS BEE N EXPLAINED IN A LARGE NUMBER OF DECISIONS. ACCORDING TO THE MEANING EXPOU NDED IN THE AUTHORITATIVE PRONOUNCEMENTS, IF AN ASSESSEE IS IN A POSITION TO DELIVER THE GOODS, IT MEANS THAT THE BUSINESS IS SET UP. ACTUAL DELIVERY IS IMM ATERIAL. FOR EXAMPLE, IF A PERSON WANTS TO CARRY ON THE BUSINESS OF TRANSPORTA TION, THE MOMENT HE PURCHASED THE VEHICLE FOR TRANSPORTING THE GOODS AN D ARRANGED THE SPACE THEN IT WOULD INDICATE THAT BUSINESS HAS BEEN SET UP, IT IS IMMATERIAL WHETHER HE WAS ABLE TO ACTUALLY TRANSPORTED THE GOODS OR NOT. 10. SINCE THE ASSESSEE IN THE INSTANT CASE HAS STAR TED DEPLOYING THE SKILLFUL PERSONNEL AND HAS COVERED THE LAST MILE OF ITS PREP AREDNESS ON 07.07.2008 WHEN THE SALES HEAD SHRI SANJAY SHARMA WAS APPOINTED, THEREF ORE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IN HOLDING THA T THE ASSESSEE HAS SET UP ITS BUSINESS ON 07.07.2008 AND, THEREFORE, IS ENTITLED TO CLAIM THE EXPENSES AS A ITA NO.3433/DEL/2016 9 REVENUE EXPENDITURE FOR THE PERIOD FROM 07.07.2008 TILL 31.03.2009 SUBJECT TO VERIFICATION OF THE DETAILS BY THE ASSESSING OFFICE R. FURTHER, THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD. COUNSEL THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS EARNED INCOME OF RS.17.14 MILLION IN THE SUBSEQUENT F.Y. 2009-10 COULD NOT BE CONTROVERTED B Y THE LD. DR. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IN HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS STARTED ITS BUSINESS OPERATIO N ON THE DATE OF RECRUITMENT OF SALES HEAD ON 07.07.2008 AND DIRECTING THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER TO OBTAIN THE DETAILS OF EXPENSES OF RS.8,66,73,393/- OUT OF THE EXPENSES DISALLOWED OF RS.10,28,95,398/- PERTAINING TO THE PERIOD FROM 07. 07.2008 TILL 31.03.2009 AND ALLOW THE SAME AS DEDUCTION IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSI DERATION. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE ARE ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. 11. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. THE DECISION WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 3 0.10.2019. SD/- SD/- (SUCHITRA KAMBLE) (R.K. PANDA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCO UNTANT MEMBER DATED: 30 TH OCTOBER, 2019 DK COPY FORWARDED TO : 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR ASSTT. REGISTRAR, ITAT, NEW DELHI