ITO, New Delhi V. Sh. Jai Kishan Gupta, Ghaziabad

ITA 3607/DEL/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 74229 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 6 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-02-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 16-12-2013
• Assessment Year: 2001-2002
• Appeal Filed On: 27-07-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S N BHATIA
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Gift; Income from undisclosed sources; Search and seizure
• Section: 153A; 132; 68

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. 3607 /DEL/ 2010 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2001 - 02 ) ITO WARD 13(3), ROOM NO. 338, C.R. BUILDING, NEW DELHI VS. JAI KRISHAN GUPTA, A - 108 B, F - 1, SURYA NAGAR, GAZIABAD PAN AFNPG1106K (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI S. N. BHATIA, SR. DR RESPONDENT BY: NONE O R D E R PER A. T. VARKEY , JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS IS AN APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD CIT(A) - 1, NEW DELHI DATED 31.03.2010 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001 - 02. 2. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE ARE AS FOLLOWS: - 1. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN L AW THE LD CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 5,48,900/ - MADE U/S 68 OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 BY THE A.O ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CREDITS OF INTEREST ACCRUED. 2. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AS WELL AS IN LAW, THE LD CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 3,62,155/ - MADE BY THE A.O. AS UNEXPLAINED OPENING CASH BALANCE, AS INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES. 3. THE APPELLANT CRAVES TO BE ALLOWED TO ADD, DELETE OR AMEND ANY OTHER GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 3. APROPOS DELETION OF ADDIT ION OF RS. 5,48,900/ - MADE U/S 68 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER THE ACT) BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CREDITS OF INTEREST ACCRUED. 4. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE AS FOLLOWS. A SEARCH OPERATION WAS CONDUCTED AT THE PREMIS ES OF THE ASSESSEE ON 28.07.2006. IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH CASH AMOUNTING TO RS. PAGE NO. 2 5,89,000/ - WAS FOUND, OUT OF WHICH A N AMOUNT OF RS. 5,60,000 WAS SEIZED. CERTAIN DOCUMENTS REGARDING SALE OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY AND ACCRUAL OF INTEREST WERE ALSO FOUND. THEREFO RE, A NOTICE U/S 153 A OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED. THE ASSESSEE FILED NIL RETURN ON 25.08.2008. A SEIZED PAPER DURING THE SEARCH SHOWED THAT AN INTEREST OF RS. 5,48,900 / - ACCRUED TO THE ASSESSEE ON 31.01.2001 AND SINCE THE SAID SEIZED PAPER BEARS THE NAME OF T HE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT ACCEPT THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE SAID DOCUMENT DOES NOT BELONG TO HIM . IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IT WAS MENTIONED THAT THE DOCUMENTS PERTAINS TO VARIOUS DEPOSITS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE SHOWING CREDIT BA LANCE OF RS. 21,56,316/ - AS ON 31.03.2001 ; AND SINCE THE DOCUMENTS CONTAINS THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE AND IT WAS FOUND FROM HIS PREMISES IT WAS HELD THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS. 5,48,900/ - WAS EARNED BY WAY OF INTEREST. THIS AMOUNT WAS ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE THUS A TOTAL INCOME OF ASSESSEE WAS COMPUTED AT RS. 9,11,060/ - . 5. AGGRIEVED BY THE SAID ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD CIT(A) WHO BY AN ORDER DATED 31.03.2010 ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AND DELETED THE SAID ADDITION. THE REVENUE IS AGGRIEVED BY THE SAID ORDER OF THE LD CIT(A) AND HAS PREFERRED THIS APPEAL AND IS NOW BEFORE US. 6. THE LD DR SUBMITTED THAT THE RELEVANT PAPER SEIZED FROM THE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE CONTAINED VARIOUS ENTRIES O F AMOUNTS AND IN THE COURSE OF HEARING THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN THE CREDIT BALANCE OF RS. 25,56,316/ - AS ON 31.03.2001. THE INTEREST UP TO THIS PERIOD ACCRUING TO THE ASSESSEE AMOUNTED TO RS. 5,48,900/ - AND SINCE THE INCRIMINATING PAPER WAS FOUND FROM THE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE, THE SAME HAS TO BE TAKEN TO BE CORRECT IN TERMS OF ITS CONTENTS AS PER PROVISION CONTAINED IN SECTION 132(4A) OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, ACCORDING TO THE LD DR THE LD CIT(A) ERRED IN ACCEPTING THE ARGUMENT OF THE ASSESSEE THA T THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT ESTABLISHED THAT INTEREST OF RS. 5,48,900/ - HAD ACCRUED TO THE ASSESSEE. 7. THE LD AR ON THE OTHER HAND STATED THAT THE DEPARTMENTS SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION U/S 132 OF THE ACT WAS CARRIED ON 28.07.2006 AT THE RES IDENTS OF T HE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSEE HAD PROPERLY COMPLIED WITH THE NOTICE FORWARDED U/S 153A OF THE PAGE NO. 3 ACT. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING S THE ASSESSEE ON BEING ASKED TO FILE THE CONSOLIDATED SUMMARIZED CASH FLOW STATEMENT REFLECTING THEREIN ALL CASH ENTRIES/ TRANSACTIONS YEAR WISE HAD ALSO BEEN FILED BEFORE THE AO . THE LD AR ALSO CLARIFIED THAT THE PAPER UNDER QUESTION WHICH WAS CONSIDERED SUFFICIENT TO FASTEN THE LIABILITY BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER W AS ONLY A HAND WRITTEN PAPER , WHICH WAS NEI THER HIS NOR IT WAS IN HIS HAND WRITING. THE LD AR POINTED OUT THAT IN THE PAPER ONLY THE NAME OF ONE JAI KISHAN WAS APPEARING AGAINST TWO FIGURES OF RS. 4,00,000/ - DATED 10.04.1999 AND RS. 2,27,000/ - DATED 27.04.1999. THEREFORE ACCORDING TO THE AR ASSESSI NG THE SAID AMOUNT WHICH IS REFLECTED IN THE SEIZED PAPER, IN THE HANDS OF THE APPELLANT IS ILLEGAL BECAUSE THE SAID AMOUNT DOES NOT BELONG TO THE ASSESSEE. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO T HIS SUBMISSION THE LD AR ALSO STATED THAT EVEN IF THE AMOUNT OF RS. 5,48,900/ - AS PER THE SLIP FOUND DURING THE SEARCH WAS RELATING TO TWO FINANCIAL YEARS I.E . ONE ON 31.01.2000 (A.Y. 2000 - 01) AND SECOND ON 31.01.2001 (A.Y. 2001 - 02) AND THEREFORE IT WAS CONTENDED THAT IT COULD NOT BE ASCERTAINED AS TO WHAT AMOUNT PERTAIN TO WHICH Y EAR COULD BE ASCERTAINED . THE LD AR ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE PROVISION OF SECTION 68 OF THE ACT IS NOT ATTRACTED IN THE PRESENT CASE ; AND BEFORE INVOKING THE SAID PROVISION , THE AO IS DUTY BOUND TO ESTABLISH CONCLUSIVELY WITH PROOF THAT THE AMOUNT BELONGS TO THE ASSESSEE. THE AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT FOR TAXING THE AMOUNT U/S 68 IT IS MANDATORY THAT THE AMOUNT SHOULD HAVE BEEN CREDITED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE BUT NO SUCH ENTRY WAS FOUND BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE; THEREFORE, SECTION 68 CANNOT BE INVOKED. FURTHER IT WAS CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER BEFORE INVOKING THE POWER U/S 68 MUST SATISFY THAT THERE ARE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE CASH CREDIT IS RECORDED IN THE SAID BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. THE EXISTENCE OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS IS ESSENTIAL FOR INVOKING OF THE POWER U/S 68 OF THE ACT AND HE RELIED, ON THE DECISION IN SMT. SHANTI DEVI VS. CIT (171 ITR 532) PUNJ. & HAR) WHEREIN, THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HELD THAT IN RELATION TO THE E XPRESSION USED IN SECTION 68 BOOKS THE EMPHASIS IS ON THE WORD ASSESSEE MEANING THEREBY THAT SUCH BOOKS HAVE TO BE THE BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF AND NOT OF ANY OTHER ASSESSEE. HE ALSO CONTENDED THAT THE REVENUE SHOULD BRING ON RECO RD THE MATERIAL FROM WHICH IT PAGE NO. 4 COULD BE CONCLUDED THAT THE INVESTMENTS WERE IN FACT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE ADDITION WAS MADE U/S 68 OF THE ACT . IF THIS EXERCISE WAS NOT DONE , THEN NO AMOUNT COULD BE ADDED AS THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE AR ALSO POINTED OUT THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT ESTABLISH ED AND PROVE D THAT THE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF RS. 21,56,316/ - BELONG TO THE ASSESSEE AS IS EVIDENT FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ITSELF . IT WAS CONTENDED BY THE LD AR THAT WHEN THE PRINCIPAL AMOU NT OF RS. 21,56,316/ - HAS NOT BEEN FOUND TO BE THAT OF THE ASSESSEE, HOW CAN THE INTEREST ACCRUED ON IT CAN BE TAXED ON HIS HANDS. THEREFORE ACCORDING TO HIM THERE IS NO QUESTION OF ADDING INTEREST RS. 5,48,900/ - IN THE HAND OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSESSM ENT YEAR 2001 - 02 WHICH RELATED TO TWO ASSESSMENT YEAR S 2000 - 01 AND 2001 - 02 AS PER THE SEIZED SLIP . ACCORDING TO THE AR IT WAS A WASTE PAPER AND IT WAS AN OLD PAPER WHICH WAS WRITTEN BY SOMEBODY 8 YEARS BACK AND DID NOT HAVE ANY FURTHER DETAILS WRITTEN ON I T AND HE ALSO POINTED OUT THAT PERCENTAGE OF INTEREST OF RS. 5,48,900/ - IN RELATION TO AN AMOUNT OF RS. 6,27,000/ - COMES TO APPROX. 87.54% WHICH IS NEXT TO IMPOSSIBLE. THEREFORE , ACCORDING TO THE LD AR, FIRSTLY, THE PAPER SEIZED AT THE TIME OF SEARCH WAS NOT AT ALL RELATING TO THE ASSESSEE AND SECONDLY , THE AMOUNT WA S NOT FOUND IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE AND IT WAS SIMPLY A PIECE OF PAPER WITH JOTTINGS THEREON. THE ASSESSEE ALSO DENIES THE HAND WRITING ON THE PAPER AS HIS OR THAT OF ANY OF HI S FAMILY MEMBERS AND ALSO RAISED SUSPICION THAT THE PAPER IN QUESTION MIGHT HAVE BEEN L EFT BY SOMEBODY AT HIS PREMISES AND PLEADS THAT THE SAID LIABILITY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN FASTENED ON HIM BY THE AO, HOWEVER THE CIT(A) HAS APPRECIATED THE FACTS AND CIRCU MSTANCES OF THE CASE AND RIGHTLY DELETED THE SAME AND THE SAID ORDER NEED NOT BE INTERFERED WITH. 8. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSION OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE RECORDS AND HAS GONE THROUGH THE CASE LAWS CITED BEFORE US. THE ASSESSING OFFICER H AS NOT TAXED THE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF RS. 25,56,316/ - FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION THOUGH HE HAS ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE CREDIT BALANCE OF RS. 25,56,316/ - AS ON 31.03.2001. SO, WE FIND FORCE IN THE ARGUMENTS OF THE LD AR THAT WHEN T HE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT HAS NOT BEEN TAXED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR , THEN HOW CAN THE ASSESSING OFFICER TAX THE ASSESSEE ON THE PURPORTED PAGE NO. 5 INTEREST ACCRUED ON THE BASIS OF A FIGURE WRITTEN ON PIECE OF PAPER ( RS. 4,00,000/ - A ND RS. 2,27,000/ - ) AND CERTAIN DATES APPEARING AGAINST IT ( 10.04.1999 AND 27.04.1999 ) . EVEN IF FOR ARGUMENT SAKE THE INTEREST ACCRUED ON THE SAID AMOUNT (RS.6,27,000) WAS RS. 5,48,900/ - THEN IT WOULD AMOUNT TO AN INTEREST RATE OF MORE THAN 87.54% WHICH IS TOO HIGH AN INTEREST AND IT IS COMMON KNOWLEDGE THAT IN BUSINESS DEALINGS NO ONE GIVES S UCH A HIGH INTEREST. AND MOREOVER THE SAID AMOUNT OF RS. 6 ,22,700/ - ALSO DOES NOT PERTAIN TO THIS RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION TOO . 9. IN THE SAID CI RCUMSTANCES WE FIND SUBSTANCE IN THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE AND THEREFORE CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE LD CIT(A), THIS GROUND OF THE REVENUE IS THEREFORE DISMISSED. 10. APROPOS DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS. 3,62,155/ - MADE O N UNEXPLAINED OPENING CASH BALANC E. 12. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE AS FOLLOWS. A SEARCH OPERATION WAS CONDUCTED AT THE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE ON 28.07.2006. IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH CASH AMOUNTING TO RS. 5,89,000/ - WAS FOUND, OUT OF WHICH A AMOUNT OF RS. 5,60,000 WAS SEIZED. CERTAIN D OCUMENTS REGARDING SALE OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY AND ACCRUAL OF INTEREST WERE ALSO FOUND. THEREFORE, A NOTICE U/S 153 A OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED. THE ASSESSEE FILED NIL R ETURN ON 25.08.2008. IN RESPECT TO CASH, A CASH FLOW STATEMENT W AS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE REF LECTING CLOSING CASH AT HAND AS ON 31.03.2000 AS RS. 3,62,155/ - . THIS AMOUNT WAS TAKEN AS OPENING CASH AT HAND FOR THIS RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISBELIEVE D THE SAID STATEMENT AND THEREFORE THE AMOUNT WAS TREATED AS INCOME AND ADDITI ON WAS MADE ACCORDING TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE . 13. AGGRIEVED BY THE SAID ADDITION THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD CIT(A) WHO BY THE IMPUGNED ORDER DELETED THE SAME. 14. AGGRIEVED BY THE SAID DELETION OF THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSES SING OFFICER, THE REVENUE IS BEFORE US. 15. THE LD DR SUBMITTED THAT DURING SEARCH THE ASSESSEE WAS FOUND IN POSSESSION OF CASH TO THE TUNE OF RS. 5, 89,0 00/ - . THIS AMOUNT WAS SOUGHT TO BE EXPENDITURE WITH REFERENCE TO CASH FLOW STATEMENT. THIS STATEMENT I S NOT IN THE NATURE OF CASH BOOK AND PAGE NO. 6 THEREFORE IT DOES NOT REPRESENT CONTEMPORANEOUS RECORD FOR EXPLAINING CASH FOUND IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH. NONETHELESS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ADDED ONLY AN AMOUNT OF RS. 3,62,155/ - . ACCORDING TO THE LD DR , THE LD CIT(A) WRONGLY RELIED ON THE CASH FLOW STATEMENT TO HOLD THAT THIS AMOUNT WAS AVAILABLE WITH T HE ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF THE BEGINING OF THIS RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR AND THEREFORE ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THEREFORE HE WANT S US TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD CIT(A) AND RESTORE THE ORDER OF THE AO . ON THE OTHER HAND THE LD AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSMENT OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000 - 01 (PREVIOUS ASSESSMENT YEAR TO THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERAT ION) WAS COMPLETED U/S 143(3)/ 153(A) OF THE ACT VIDE ORDER DATED 31.12.2008. DURING THE SAID ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ACCEPTED THE STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE CLOSING BALANCE OF CASH IN HAND AS ON 31.03.2000 WAS RS. 3,62,155/ - . THEREFORE ACCORDING TO THE AR THE OPENING BALANCE OF CASH AS ON 01.04.2000 SHOULD BE RS. 3,62,155/ - WHICH DID NOT REQUI RE ANY FURTHER CLARIFICATION IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE SAME WAS ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000 - 01. L D AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE APPELLANT HAD CASH IN HAND OF RS. 3,62,155/ - ON 31.03.2000 AS PER CASH FLOW STATEMENT, WHICH WAS CARR IED FORWARD AS OPENING BALANCE ON 01.04.2000. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER TREATED THE SAID AMOUNT OF OPENING BALANCE OF RS. 3,62,155/ - AS INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCE IN SPITE OF THE FACT THAT ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ASSESSED THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000 - 01. THE LD AR EXPLAINED THAT THE CASH BALANCE OF RS. 3,62,155/ - AS ON 31.03.2000 WAS THE RESULTANT FIGURE OF THE PAST SAVINGS, EARNINGS AND GIFTS ETC. ACCORDING TO THE LD AR THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR THE YEAR 2000 - 01 PASSED THE ORDER U/S 143(3)/ 153A AFTER HAVING SATISFIED TO THE GENUINENESS OF THE SAME AND THEREFORE THE CLOSING BALANCE OF CASH IN HAND ON 31.03. 2000 SHOULD NATURALLY BE THE OPENING BALANCE AND THAT BY NO STRETCH OF IMAGINATION BE TERMED AS INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCE . THE LD AR ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT HAVING ANY BANK ACCOUNT DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THERE FORE HE WAS KEEPING THE CASH MODE AND IT WAS UTILIZED / INVESTED IN SUBSEQUENT YEARS AS PER CASH FLOW STATEMENT. THEREFORE IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD ARBITRARILY PAGE NO. 7 MADE THE ADDITION WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE CORRECT FACTS AND THE LD CIT(A) HAVE CORRECTED THE SAID MISTAKE AND T HEREFORE HE SUPPORTED THE DECISION OF THE LD CIT(A). 16. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES AND HAVE PERUSED THE RECORDS . IT IS EVIDENT FROM THE RECORDS THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT HAVING A BANK ACCOUNT AND THEREFORE THE ASS ESSEE HAD EXPLAINED THE REASON TO KEEP CASH AT HOME. THE ASSESSEE S CASH FLOW STATEMENT REVEALS THAT THE HAD A BALANCE OF RS. 3,62,155/ - AS ON 01.04.2000, WHICH IS THE SAME AMOUNT REFLECTED AS HIS CLOSING BALANCE ON 31.03.2000. SINCE THIS AMOUNT OF RS. 3,6 2,155/ - WAS RELATED TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000 - 01 , THE SAME COULD NOT HAVE BEEN TAXED FOR THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION I.E., 2001 - 02. THEREFORE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF LD CIT(A) TO DELETE THE SAID ADDITION OF RS. 3,62,155/ - ON ACCOUNT OF OPENING CASH BALANCE AS ON 01.04.2000. THIS GROUND OF REVENUE IS ALSO DISMISSED. 17. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF REVENUE FAILS AND THE ORDER OF THE LD CIT(A) IS CONFIRMED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 14 . 02 .2014 . - SD/ - - SD/ - ( G. D. AGARWAL) (A. T. VARKEY) HONBLE VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED 14 / 02 /2014 A K KEOT COPY F ORWARDED TO 1. APPLICANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR:ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI