ITO, Rohtak V. Sh. Vikram Maheshwari, Bahadurgarh

ITA 3524/DEL/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4774 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-12-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: H
• Next Hearing Date: 05-11-2013
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 05-07-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: SAMEER SHARMA
• Keywords: Reopening of assessment; Additional evidence; Non compliance
• Section: 147; 148

Judgement Text

ITA NO. 3524/DEL/2012 & CO NO. 28/DEL/2013 ASSTT. YEAR: 2006-07 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH `H NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G.D. AGRAWAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A.NO.3524/DEL/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07 INCOME TAX OFFICER, VS SHRI VI KRAM MAHESHWARI, WARD-3, H.NO. 53A, MODEL TOWN, ROHTAK. BAHADURGARH. C.O.NO.28/DEL/2013 (IN I.T.A.NO.3524/DEL/2012) ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07 SHRI VIKRAM MAHESHWARI, VS INCOME TAX OFFICER, BAHADURGARH. ROHTAK. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SHRI NAVIN GUPTA RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SAMEER SHARMA, SR. DR O R D E R PER CHANDRAMOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER THE ABOVE CAPTIONED APPEAL OF THE REVENUE AS WELL AS CROSS OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE HAVE BEEN PREFERRED AGAINST THE ORD ER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(A), ROHTAK DATED 30.04.2012 IN APPEAL NO . 376/RTK/2011-12 FOR AY 2006-07. IT IS PERTINENT TO MENTION THAT TH E APPEAL OF THE REVENUE AND C.O. OF THE ASSESSEE HAVE ARISEN FROM THE SAME ORDE R OF COMMISSIONER OF ITA NO. 3524/DEL/2012 & CO NO. 28/DEL/2013 ASSTT. YEAR: 2006-07 2 INCOME TAX(A), THEREFORE, WE HAVE CLUBBED BOTH AND THESE ARE BEING ADJUDICATED BY THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER. 2. FIRST OF ALL, WE TAKE UP THE APPEAL OF THE REVEN UE WHEREIN SOLE GROUND READS AS UNDER:- ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS IN DELET ING THE ADDITION OF RS.28,48,246 MADE BY ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF NON COMPLIANCE OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194- H WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS DISCUSSED IN DETAI L IN ASSESSMENT ORDER AND REMAND REPORT SUBMITTED BY ASSESSING OFFICER AND ACCEPTING THE ADDITIONAL EVID ENCE PRODUCED BY ASSESSEE DURING APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS WITHOUT CONFRONTING THE SAME TO THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER. 3. APROPOS THE ABOVE GROUND OF THE REVENUE, LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT(A) ACCEPTED ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS WITHOUT CONFRONTING THE SAME TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE DR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF I NCOME TAX(A) HAS ALSO ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.28,48,246 MADE BY ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF NON-COMPLIANCE OF P ROVISIONS OF SECTION 194-H OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. THE DR POINTED OUT THAT THE ASSESSEE PAID COMMISSION TO THE CAR DEALERS IN THE GARB OF R EBATE OR DISCOUNT AND REASONS RECORDED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX( A) FOR GRANTING RELIEF WERE NOT SUPPORTED BY COGENT EVIDENCE AND DETAILS. THE DR VEHEMENTLY CONTENDED THAT IF THE ASSESSEE WAS INTENDING TO MAK E PAYMENT OF REBATE OR ITA NO. 3524/DEL/2012 & CO NO. 28/DEL/2013 ASSTT. YEAR: 2006-07 3 DISCOUNT TO THE CUSTOMERS, THEN IT COULD HAVE BEEN MADE DIRECTLY TO THE CUSTOMER BUT THE ASSESSEE ISSUED CHEQUES IN THE NAM E OF AUTOMOBILE DEALER WHICH WAS ACTUALLY PAYMENT OF COMMISSION AND FROM T HE EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE, RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE CUSTOMER I.E. CAR PURCHASER AND ASSESSEE COULD NOT BE ESTABLISHED, TH EREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER RIGHTLY MADE AN ADDITION IN THIS REGARD. T HE DR HAS FINALLY SUBMITTED THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE COMMISSION ER OF INCOME TAX(A) MAY BE SET ASIDE BY RESTORING THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. REPLYING TO THE ABOVE, THE COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED SOME F ACTS ABOUT THE PROCESS AND DOCUMENTATION FOR ARRANGING THE FINANCE FOR THE CUSTOMER. THE COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT A CUSTOMER WILLING T O PURCHASE AUTOMOBILE OR VEHICLE APPROACHES THE ASSESSEE FOR ARRANGING VEHIC LE LOAN FROM HDFC BANK AND AFTER TAKING THE NECESSARY DOCUMENTS AND VERIFY ING THE SAME, THE ASSESSEE FORWARDS THE CASE TO HDFC BANK FOR SANCTIO N OF LOAN AND AFTER SANCTIONING OF THE LOAN BY HDFC BANK, THE AMOUNT IS DISBURSED BY HDFC BANK DIRECTLY TO THE DEALER OF THE VEHICLE. THE CO UNSEL FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT FOR GETTING THE CUSTOMERS AND UNDERTAKING DUE DILIGENCE AND LOAN AND REPAYMENT RESPONSIBILITIES, HDFC BANK PAYS COMMISSI ON TO THE ASSESSEE DIRECTLY. THE COUNSEL FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT IN ORDER TO ATTRACT CUSTOMERS AND TO IMPROVE BUSINESS, THE ASSESSEE PASSES ON PAR T OF THE COMMISSION TO ITA NO. 3524/DEL/2012 & CO NO. 28/DEL/2013 ASSTT. YEAR: 2006-07 4 THE CUSTOMER BY DIRECTLY ISSUING CHEQUE IN THE NAME OF THE DEALER FROM WHICH THE CUSTOMER IS GOING TO PURCHASE THE VEHICLE FOR WHICH THE LOAN HAS BEEN SANCTIONED. THE COUNSEL ALSO POINTED OUT THAT THE VEHICLE DEALER MAINTAINS LEDGER ACCOUNT OF CUSTOMERS WHEREIN THE C HEQUE ISSUED BY THE ASSESSEE TOWARDS REBATE AND DISCOUNT IS CREDITED TO THE RESPECTIVE ACCOUNTS OF THE CUSTOMERS AND NO ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE IS MAI NTAINED BY THE VEHICLE DEALER IN THIS REGARD. THE COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE VEHEMENTLY CONTENDED THAT THERE IS NO RELATION BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND THE V EHICLE DEALER UNDER WHICH ANY COMMISSION HAS TO BE PAID AND IF FOR THE SAKE O F ARGUMENT, WE PRESUME THAT THE COMMISSION HAS TO BE PAID, THEN ALSO THE A SSESSEE IS PROVIDING BUSINESS TO THE VEHICLE DEALER AND UNDER THIS OBLIG ATION, VEHICLE DEALER IS UNDER OBLIGATION TO PAY COMMISSION OR ANY OTHER REM UNERATION TO THE ASSESSEE BUT IN ANY CASE, THE ASSESSEE IS NOT REQUI RED TO PAY ANY COMMISSION TO THE VEHICLE DEALER. 4. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE PARTIE S AND CAREFULLY PERUSED THE RECORD, INTER ALIA ASSESSMENT ORDER AS WELL AS IMPUGNED ORDER. ON CAREFUL PERUSAL OF THE PAPER BOOK FILED BY THE A SSESSEE SPREAD OVER 118 PAGES, WE OBSERVE THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME T AX(A) HAS ASKED REMAND REPORT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER PRIOR TO ADM ISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. THE REMAND REPORT IS AVAILABLE ON PAPER BOOK PAGE NO. 43-45 ITA NO. 3524/DEL/2012 & CO NO. 28/DEL/2013 ASSTT. YEAR: 2006-07 5 WHICH CLEARLY REVEALS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HA S MADE DETAILED EXAMINATION ON THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AND HAS SUBM ITTED THE DETAILED REMAND REPORT TO THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(A). IN THIS SITUATION, WE ARE UNABLE TO ACCEPT THIS LEGAL CONTENTION OF THE R EVENUE THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(A) ACCEPTED THE ADDITION AL EVIDENCE PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS WI THOUT CONFRONTING THE SAME TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER. UNDER THESE CIRCUM STANCES, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(A) ADMITTE D ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE BY FOLLOWING DUE PROCEDUR E AS STIPULATED IN RULE 46A OF THE INCOME TAX RULES, 1962. THUS, LEGAL CON TENTION OF THE REVENUE IS REJECTED IN THIS REGARD. 5. COMING TO THE ISSUE OF DELETION OF ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF NON-COMPLIANCE OF PROVISION O F SECTION 194H OF THE ACT, FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WE OBSERVE THAT THE ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE BY OBSERVING AND HOLDING AS UNDER:- FROM THE NUMBER OF TRANSACTIONS WITH EACH OF THESE PARTIES AND AMOUNT INVOLVED, IT IS CLEAR THAT THESE MAY NOT BE ULTIMATE CUSTOMER AND END-USERS OF THE PRODUCTS/SERVICES. RATHER, THESE ARE SUB-AGENT OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE CUSTOMERS. DURING PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED AS TO WHY THESE EXPENSES MAY NO T BE DISALLOWED IN VIEW OF SECTION 40A(IA) AS THE ASSESS EE WAS FAILED TO COMPLY THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194H BY NOT DEDUCTING THE TAX ON THESE PAYMENTS. THE ASSESSEE REITERATED IN HIS FINAL REPLY DATED 18.10.2011 THAT THESE ITA NO. 3524/DEL/2012 & CO NO. 28/DEL/2013 ASSTT. YEAR: 2006-07 6 EXPENSES WERE DULY EXAMINED AND VERIFIED AT THE TIM E OF ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT BY THE THEN ITO, WARD-3, ROHTAK AND NO DISCREPANCY WAS FOUND. THE ABOVE SAID EXPENSES ARE ROUTINE EXPENSE4S BEING CLAIMED EVERY YEAR AND ARE GRANTED BY THE DEPARTMEN T EVERY YEAR. THESE EXPENSES WERE DULY ALLOWED BY THE AO AT THE TIME OF ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT THIS YEAR ALSO. THESE EXPENSES ARE NEITHER ON ACCOUNT OF PAYMENT OF COMMISSION TO ANY PERSON NOR THESE EXPENSES ARE ON ACCOUNT OF CONTRACT WITH THE PERSON. IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION, THE ASSESSEE COULD NO T FURNISH ANY CONCRETE EVIDENCES THAT THE PAYMENTS OF RS. 28,48,2461- WERE MADE TO THE ULTIMATE CONSUMERS/END -USER AND NOT TO THE INTERMEDIARIES AND IMPLIEDLY THE SUB -AGENT OF THE ASSESSEE AS IS EVIDENT FROM SELF-ADMISSION O F THE ASSESSEE CITED SUPRA. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, I HAV E NO OTHER ALTERATIVE, BUT TO MAKE AN ADDITION OF RS. 28 ,48,246/- TO THE ALREADY ASSESSED INCOME OF RS. 2,79,540/- U NDER SECTION 40A(IA) AS THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO COMPLY TH E PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194B BY NOT DEDUCTING THE TAX ON SAID PAYMENTS. 6. ON THE OTHER HAND, FROM THE IMPUGNED ORDER, WE A LSO OBSERVE THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(A) HAS GRANTED RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE WITH FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS AND FINDINGS:- 7. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE ISSUE AND THE SUBMISSION S MADE BY THE AR. THE ASSESSEE IS A DMA OF HDFC BANK FOR ARRANGING FINANCE TO OLD AND NEW PROCESS AND DOCUMENTATION FOR ARRANGING THE FINANCE IS AS UNDER :- A CUSTOMER APPROACHES THE ASSESSEE FOR ARRANGING VEHICLE LOAN FROM HDFC BANK. AFTER TAKING THE NECES SARY DOCUMENTS AND VERIFYING THE SAME, LOAN AMOUNT TO BE ITA NO. 3524/DEL/2012 & CO NO. 28/DEL/2013 ASSTT. YEAR: 2006-07 7 SANCTIONED IS FORWARDED BY THE ASSESSEE TO HDFC BAN K. AFTER SANCTIONING THE LOAN, THE AMOUNT IS DISBURSED BY HDFC BANK DIRECTLY TO THE DEALER OF THE VEHICLE. FO R GETTING THE CUSTOMERS AND UNDERTAKING DUE DILIGENCE AND LOAN REPAYMENT RESPONSIBILITIES, HDFC BANK PAYS COMMISSION TO THE ASSESSEE DIRECTLY. IN ORDER TO AT TRACT CUSTOMERS AND IMPROVE BUSINESS, THE ASSESSEE PASSES ON PART OF THE COMMISSION TO THE CUSTOMER BY DIRECTLY ISSUING CHEQUE IN THE NAME OF THE DEALER. THE VEHICLE DEALE R MAINTAINS LEDGER ACCOUNT OF THE CUSTOMERS WHEREIN T HE CHEQUE ISSUED BY THE ASSESSEE TOWARDS REBATE AND DI SCOUNT IS CREDITED TO THEIR ACCOUNT. NO ACCOUNT OF THE ASS ESSEE IS MAINTAINED BY THE DEALER. 7.1 IT IS EVIDENT FROM THE ABOVE THAT PART OF THE COMMISSION RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE IS PASSED ON TO THE CUSTOMER AND NOT TO DEALER/SUB-AGENT, BY WAY OF REB ATE & DISCOUNTS. AS NO RELATIONSHIP IN THE NATURE OF PRIN CIPAL TO AGENT EXISTS BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND THE CUSTOMER, THE QUESTION OF TREATING THE REBATE & DISCOUNTS AS COMM ISSION DOES NOT ARISE. THEREFORE, DEFAULT FOR NON DEDUCTIO N OF TAX THEREBY CONTRAVENING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40 ( A)(IA) DOES NOT ARISE. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE DISALLOWA NCE MADE BY THE AO IS DELETED AND THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE ALLOWED. 7. ON CAREFUL PERUSAL OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, WE O BSERVE THAT PERHAPS THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS CONFUSED BETWEEN PAYMENT OF COMMISSION AND GRANT OF DISCOUNT OR REBATE. ON SPECIFIC QUERY FRO M THE BENCH, THE DR ACCEPTED THAT IN VIEW OF THE PROCESS AND DOCUMENTAT ION FOR ARRANGING FINANCE FOR THE CUSTOMER, THE ASSESSEE WAS PROVIDING SERVIC ES TO THE HDFC BANK BY PROCESSING LOAN CASES FOR THE VEHICLE CUSTOMERS AND FOR THE SAFETY OF THE LOAN AMOUNT, THE CHEQUES OF THE LOAN AMOUNT WERE ISSUED BY HDFC BANK DIRECTLY ITA NO. 3524/DEL/2012 & CO NO. 28/DEL/2013 ASSTT. YEAR: 2006-07 8 IN THE NAME OF PROPOSED VEHICLE DEALER. FURTHER, W E ALSO OBSERVE THAT FROM THE ARRANGEMENT AND PROCESS OF SANCTIONING OF LOAN AND DISBURSEMENT, WE FIND THAT THERE WAS NO OCCASION TO PAY ANY COMMISSI ON TO THE VEHICLE DEALERS BY THE ASSESSEE BECAUSE THE VEHICLE DEALERS ARE NOT PROVIDING ANY SERVICES TO THE ASSESSEE AND IN THIS PROCESS, THE VEHICLE DEALE RS ARE GETTING BUSINESS FROM THE ASSESSEE WHO IS ACTIVELY WORKING FOR PROCURING FUNDS FOR THE CUSTOMERS AS LOAN FOR PURCHASE OF VEHICLES. UNDER THESE CIRC UMSTANCES, WE ARE UNABLE TO ACCEPT THIS CONCLUSION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE ASSESSEE MADE PAYMENTS TO THE INTERMEDIARIES AND IMPLIEDLY THE SU B-AGENTS OF THE ASSESSEE. PER CONTRA, WE HAVE NO HESITATION TO HOLD THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT GETTING ANY SERVICES FROM THE VEHICLE DEALER AND THERE WAS NO OCCASION TO MAKE ANY PAYMENT OF COMMISSION TO THE VEHICLE DEALERS. ON T HE OTHER HAND, IF THE ASSESSEE IS SHARING A PART OF COMMISSION RECEIVED A S REMUNERATION FROM HDFC BANK IN ORDER TO ATTRACT CUSTOMERS TO IMPROVE VOLUME OF BUSINESS, THEN THE PAYMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE CUSTOM ERS BY ISSUING CHEQUE IN THE NAME OF VEHICLE DEALERS CANNOT BE SAID TO BE A PAYMENT OF COMMISSION. THE DR HAS NOT DISPUTED HIS POINT THAT THE VEHICLE DEALER MAINTAINS MAJOR ACCOUNT OF THE CUSTOMERS WHEREIN THE CHEQUES ISSUED BY THE ASSESSEE TOWARDS REBATE AND DISCOUNT IS CREDITED TO THE RESPECTIVE A CCOUNTS OF THE CUSTOMERS ITA NO. 3524/DEL/2012 & CO NO. 28/DEL/2013 ASSTT. YEAR: 2006-07 9 AND THE VEHICLE DEALERS ARE NOT MAINTAINING ANY ACC OUNT OF THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD. 8. IN THE LIGHT OF DISCUSSIONS MADE HEREINABOVE, WE ARE OF THE FIRM VIEW THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITIONS ON HYPER TECHNICAL GROUNDS WHICH WAS RIGHTLY DELETED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME T AX(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE, THE REMAND REP ORT AND EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE. AT THE COST OF REPETITION, WE HOLD TH AT THERE WAS NO OCCASION FOR THE ASSESSEE TO MAKE PAYMENT OF COMMISSION TO THE V EHICLE DEALERS WHO ARE GETTING BUSINESS BY THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, THE PA YMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE FORM OF CHEQUES THROUGH VEHICLE DEA LERS TO THE CUSTOMERS IS A GRANT OF REBATE AND DISCOUNT. HENCE, THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT UNDER ANY OBLIGATION TO COMPLY WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194H OF THE ACT AND IN THIS SITUATION, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WRONGLY INVOK ED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40A(IA) OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY, SOLE GROU ND OF THE REVENUE BEING DEVOID OF MERITS IS DISMISSED. CROSS OBJECTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE 9. WE ALSO HEARD RIVAL ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE PARTIE S ON CROSS OBJECTION. THE COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT IF THE R ELIEF GRANTED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(A) IS APPROVED, THEN THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT WANT TO AGITATE THE ISSUE OF REOPENING OF THE ASSES SMENT U/S 147 AND 148 OF ITA NO. 3524/DEL/2012 & CO NO. 28/DEL/2013 ASSTT. YEAR: 2006-07 10 THE ACT. THE LD. DR HAS DRAWN OUR ATTENTION TOWARD S FIRST PART OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSMENT WA S RIGHTLY REOPENED AND THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 147 AND 148 OF THE ACT CANNOT BE HELD TO BE ILLEGAL. 10. ON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF ABOVE CONTENTION, W E ARE OF THE VIEW THAT SINCE WE HAVE DISMISSED SOLE GROUND OF THE REVENUE PERTAINING TO THE DELETION OF ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THEREFORE, IF THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT WANT TO FURTHER AGITATE ITS CROSS OBJECTIO N IN THE LIGHT OF RELIEF GRANTED AND APPROVED BY THIS TRIBUNAL ON MERITS, TH EN THE ISSUE OF REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT U/S 147 AND 148 OF THE ACT BECOMES AC ADEMIC. ACCORDINGLY, CROSS OBJECTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED AS D EEMED TO BE NOT PRESSED. 11. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE AS WEL L AS C.O. OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 13.12.2013. SD/- SD/- (G.D. AGRAWAL) (CHANDRAMOHAN GARG) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER DT. 13 TH DECEMBER 2013 GS ITA NO. 3524/DEL/2012 & CO NO. 28/DEL/2013 ASSTT. YEAR: 2006-07 11 COPY FORWARDED TO:- 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. C.I.T.(A) 4. C.I.T. 5. DR BY ORDER ASSTT.REGISTRAR