DCIT, Dehradun V. M/s. Wood Stock School, Dehradun

ITA 3838/DEL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3477 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 7 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-02-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: H
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 02-07-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: NAINA SAIN KAPIL
• Assessee Lawyers: R K SHARMA
• Section: 6; 12

Judgement Text

PAGE | 1 INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH D : NEW DELHI BEFORE SMT BEENA A. PILLAI , JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 3838/DEL/2014 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010 - 11 ) DCIT, CIRCLE - 1, DEHRADUN VS. WOOD STOCK SCHOOL, LANDOUR, MUSSOORIE, DEHRADUN PAN: AAAAW0078P (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY : SMT NAINA SAIN KAPIL, SR. DR ASSESSEE BY: SHRI R. K. SHARMA, ADV DATE OF HEARING 21/01/2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 2 5 / 02 / 2019 O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, A. M. 1 . THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY LD A DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE - 1, DEHRADUN [ THE LD AO ] AGAINST ORDER OF LD CIT (A) - I, NEW DELHI [ THE LD CIT (A)] DATED 11.04.2014 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 - 11. 2 . THE LD AO HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: - 1. GIVEN AOS FINDING THAT ASSESSEE HAD MADE EXCESS PAYMENT OF RS. 24,46,326/ - TO M/S. MARS CATERING SERVICES PVT. LTD, AND THERE BEING NO CONTRADICTION OF SAME, LD CIT(A) ERRED IN FACTS AND IN LAW IN ALLOWING DEDUCTION FOR ENTIRE SUM OF RS. 62,26,326/ - . 3 . ASSESSEE IS A REGISTERED SOCIETY ASSESSED AS RESIDENT; ASSOCIATION OF PERSON FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 13/10/2010 DECLARING NIL IN COME AS IT IS REGISTERED UNDER SECTION 12 AA OF THE INCOME TAX ACT [THE ACT ]. IT HAS GROSS RECEIPT OF INR 218557877/ - AND IT DISCLOSED DEFICIT OF RS. 29017712/ . DURING COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, ONLY ISSUE IN DISPUTE IN APPEAL IS DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 6226326/ BY LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER WITH RESPECT TO PAYMENT MADE TO MARS CATERING SERVICES. 4 . BRIEF FACT SHOWS THAT ASSESSEE INCURRED EXPENDITURE ON STUDENTS BOARDING EXPENDITURE . LEARNED AO QUESTIONED THAT ASSESSEE HAS MADE PAYMENT TO ABOVE COMPANY FOR UPGRADING ITS FOODSERVICE DEPARTMENT TO OFFER A HIGH LEVEL PAGE | 2 OF QUALITY CATERING SERVICES AND HAS THEREFORE PAID ABOVE SUM . R ECIPIENT AGREED TO PROVIDE ABOVE SERVICES AND HAS RESPONSIBLE FOR PRODUCTIVELY EMPLOY SERVICES OF SPECIA LIZED PERSON ESSENTIAL TO CARRY OUT ABOVE SERVICES. LD AO ALSO NOTED THAT MARS ENTERPRISES OWNS SOME HOTEL, WHICH HAS BEEN TAKEN BY ASSESSEE, AND IN THAT HOTEL, SUCH CATERING SERVICES ARE TO BE PROVIDED BY MARS CATERERS. AO ALSO NOTED THAT MARS ENTERPRISE S ENTERED IN TO AGREEMENT WITH ASSESSEE AND LATER ON TRANSFERRED AGREEMENT BY ASSIGNMENT IN FAVOUR OF MARS CATERING SERVICES. ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT AS ASSESSEE IS OPERATING A SCHOOL . SCHOOL HAS LODGI NG AND BOARDING FACILITIES BOTH. T HEREFORE, FOR MANAGING AND OPERATING FOOD SERVICES OF SCHOOL AT MUSSOORIE IT HAS EMPLOYED ABOVE COMPANY . THE COMPANY IS ONE OF EXPERTS IN SPECIFIED SERVICES. ASSESSEE EXPLAINED TERMS OF AGREEMENT, WHICH ARE REPRODUCED IN ASSESSMENT ORDER AT RELEVANT PAGES 9 11. LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT AS PER TERMS OF AGREEMENT INR 3,780,000 SHOULD HAVE BEEN PAID. ASSESSEE PAID A SUM OF RS. 41,69,000 AND PLUS A DEBIT BALANCE OF INR 2,056,000 WAS ALSO MADE AND THUS TOTAL PAYMENT OF INR 6,226,000 WAS PAID TO ABOVE CO MPANY AND THEREFORE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER ASKED ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN WHY THIS DEBIT BE NOT DISALLOWED AS PAYMENT WAS MADE FOR A PURPOSE WHICH WAS BEYOND OBJECT OF ASSESSEE SOCIETY. ASSESSEE EXPLAINED RATIONALE BEHIND PAYMENT OF ABOVE SUM. HOWEVER , LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER WAS OF VIEW THAT MAIN PURPOSE OF ALL SUCH DEBITS IS TO ALLOW UNDUE MONETARY BENEFIT TO ABOVE COMPANY AS AN ADVANCE IN GARB OF ALLEGED AGREEMENT AS SUCH WHOLE OF AMOUNT IS BEING DISALLOWED. CONSEQUENTLY ASSESSMENT ORDER UNDER SE CTION 143 (3) OF INCOME TAX ACT WAS PASSED ON 29/01/2013 DETERMINING TOTAL INCOME OF ASSESSEE AT INR 8 068967/ . 5 . ASSESSEE AGGRIEVED WITH ORDER OF LEARNED AO PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE LEARNED CIT A, DEHRADUN . LD CIT (A) PASSED ORDER DATED 11/4/2014 DELETING ABOVE DISALLOWANCE HOLDING THAT LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT DOUBTED THAT SOCIETY CONTINUES TO IMPART EDUCATION , IT HAS BEEN DOING THAT FOR PAST MANY YEARS . HENCE, IT IS A LOGICAL COROLLARY TO EDUCATIONAL ACTIVITY OF BOARDING AND LODGING OF STUDENTS AS IT IS BEING A FULLY RESIDENTIAL SCHOOL . IT HAS TO BE TREATED AS PART OF MAIN ACTIVITY OF IMPARTING EDUCATION. IN LIGHT OF THIS BROAD ASSERTION IT IS SEEN THAT PAYMENTS MADE TO ABOVE COMPANY ARE PAGE | 3 SEEN TO HAVE ONLY MARGINALLY IMPACTED COST OF FOOD OVER IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING YEAR AND INCREASE IN EXPENSES ON FOO D IS SEEN TO BE REASONABLE KEEPING WITH GENERAL TREND IN RISE OF COST OF FOOD ARTICLES. THEREFORE, IT IS CLEAR THAT NO ABNORMALITY IS VISIBLE DUE TO INVOLVEMENT OF MARS ENTERPRISE S. IT WAS FURTHER NOTED BY HIM THAT PAYMENT MADE BY ASSESSEE FOR SOCIETY ARE NOT TO PERSONS COVERED IN ANY WAY UNDER SECTION 13 OF INCOME TAX ACT. LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER AGGRIEVED WITH ORDER OF LEARNED CIT A, HAS PREFERRED THIS APPEAL BEFORE U S. 6 . LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT PARA NUMBER 7 OF ASSESSMENT ORDER NEEDS TO BE LOOKED AT BEFORE DECIDING ISSUE . SHE EXTENSIVELY READ PARA NUMBER 7 OF ORDER AND STATED THAT MAR S CATERING SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED IS AN ENTITY OF HOTEL ROCKBEE MANURE, WHICH IS STATED TO BE HOSTEL OF ASSESSEE. SHE FURTHER STATED THAT ON 01/04/2010 MARSH CATERING SERVICES MADE AGREEMENT WITH SRI SONAM BHUTIA TO COVER ABOVE GUESTHOUSE WITH STIPULATION THAT PRIMARY USE FOR HOTEL WOULD BE TO PROVIDE ACCOMMO DATION FOR SCHOOL ALUMNI FOR WHOM SERVICES ARE TAKEN. SHE FURTHER REFERRED TO FACT THAT MARS CATERING SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED IS A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY , IN WHICH SHARE HOLDING PATTERN SHOWS SHARES OF ANJALI TENDULKAR, WIFE OF SHRI SACHIN TENDULKAR HOLDS 2 , 50,000 SHARES, SHRI AJIT TENDULKAR HOLDS 5000 SHARES AND SRI SANJAY NARANG HOLDS 245000 SHARES. SHE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT STUDENT OF ASSESSEE WAS ALSO RESIDING IN ABOVE HOTEL, WHICH IS OWNED BY MARS CATERING SERVICES GR OUP . SHE THEREFORE STATED THAT APPARENTLY IT IS AN AGREEMENT TO OPERATE HOTEL . SHE SUBMITTED THAT OPERATING A HOTEL IS NOT AN EDUCATIONAL ACTIVITY . THIS CANNOT BE A CHARITABLE OBJECT AS PER SECTION 2 ( 15) OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, SHE STATED LEARNED ASSES SING OFFICER HAS CORRECTLY MADE THAT ABOVE DISALLOWANCE . SHE SUBMITTED THAT LEARNED CIT A HAS NOT LOOKED INTO ABOVE FACTS AND MERELY STATED THAT ASSESSEE IS RUNNING A SCHOOL AND THEREFORE LODGING AND BOARDING FACILITIES ARE REQUIRED TO BE PROVIDED T O STUDENTS OF ASSESSEE SCHOOL AND THEREFORE HE ALLOWED CLAIM OF ASSESSEE. SHE SUBMITTED THAT IF LOOKED AT FROM ANGLE AS MENTIONED IN PARA NUMBER SEVEN OF ASSESSMENT ORDER ABOVE EXPENDITURE HAS BEEN CORRECTLY DISALLOWED BY LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER, AS IT IS NOT AN OBJECT OF SOCIETY TO HIRE A HOTEL AND PROVIDE CATERING PAGE | 4 FACILITIES THEREIN. SHE STATED THAT IT COULD NOT BE REMOTELY RELATED TO EDUCATIONAL ACTIVITY OF ASSESSEE. 7 . LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSE E IS A SCHOOL, WHICH IS RUNNING LODGING AND BOARDING FACILITIES FOR ITS STUDENTS . F OR PURPOSE OF HOSTEL FACILITY OF STUDENT , ABOVE HOTEL WAS OCCUPIED BY SCHOOL AND FOR ABOVE SCHOOL HOSTEL , CATERING FACILITIES WERE REQUIRED TO BE PROVIDED WHICH IS ACCORDING TO STANDARD OF SCHOOL AND THEREFORE MARS CATERING SERVICES WAS ENGAGED FOR THAT AND MONEY WAS PAID FOR THAT SERVICES. HE FURTHER STATED THAT LEARNED CIT A HAS SPECIFICALLY STATED THAT MARS CATERING SERVICE DOES NOT FALL INTO PROHIBITED ENTITIES UNDER SECTION 13 (1) OF INCOME TAX ACT . MERELY BECAUSE ASSESSEE HAS OBTAINED A HOTEL FOR RESIDENTIAL ACCOMMODATION FOR STUDENTS AND FOR SAME HOSTEL IF CATERING IS ALSO PROVIDED TO SISTER CONCERN OF SAME ENTITY IT DOES NOT VIOLATE ANY OF PROVISIONS OF INCOME TAX ACT. HE SUBMITTED THA T ASSESSEE IS PROVIDING EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES ONLY, ACTIVITY OF HOSTEL AND CANTEEN OR CATERING IS PART OF THAT ACTIVITY AS IT IS A RESIDENTIAL SCHOOL. HE FURTHER STATED THAT EXCEPT THE STUDENTS OF SCHOOL NOBODY ELSE UTILIZES THE ABOVE FACILITIES. HE SUB MITTED THAT FACILITIES OF HOSTEL ARE ART OF THE EDUCATIONAL ACTIVITY AND SUPPORTED IT WITH MANY JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS. HE THEREFORE STATED THAT LEARNED CIT A HAS CORRECTLY ALLOWED CLAIM OF ASSESSEE . 8 . WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED RIVAL CONTENTION AND PE RUSED ORDERS OF LOWER AUTHORITIES. ASSESSEE IS RUNNING A BOARDING SCHOOL AND TEACHERS TRAINING COLLEGE. IT IS A SOCIETY REGISTERED UNDER SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT AS WELL AS GRANTED REGISTRATION U/S 12 A OF THE ACT . ITS MAIN OBJECTS ARE PROMOTION OF C HRISTIAN EDUCATION ACCORDING TO IDEALS AND ESSENTIAL BELIEFS HELD IN COMMON BY DIFFERENT SOCIETIES REPRESENTED ON GENERAL BODY OF SOCIETY AND EDUCATION TO BE GIVEN TO YOUTH OF SEXES AS WELL AS AMERICANS AND EUROP EANS, ANGLO INDIANS AND INDIAN CHRISTIANS . I T IS ALSO MAINTAINING A SCHOOL AS A NON - PROFIT CHRISTIAN MINORITY INSTITUTION IN ORDER TO PROVIDE AND PROMOTE EDUCATION, WHICH IS CHRISTIAN, INTERNATIONAL AND INTERNATIONALLY ACCREDITED. IT IS ALSO SERVING CHILDREN OF ALL NATIONALITIES , COMMUNITIES, AND RELIGIONS. IT IS MAINTAINING A LODGING AND BOARDING SCHOOL IN MUSSOORIE. S CHOOL ENTERED INTO AGREEMENT WITH MARSH ENTERPRISES A PARTNERSHIP FIRM, WHICH IS ENGAGED IN BUSINESS OF DEVELOPING AND OPERATING FOODSERVICE PAGE | 5 FACILITIES INCLUDING RESTAURANTS, PROVIDING FOOD, AND CATERING SERVICES. ASSESSEE SOCIETY WANTED TO UPGRADE ITS FOODSERVICE DEPARTMENT TO OFFER A HIGH LEVEL OF QUALITY CATERING SERVICES AND THEREFORE IT HAS ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH MARS CATERING SERVICES. SCHOOL WAS TO PROVIDE A BOVE FACILITIES AT FOUR DIFFERENT PLACES , INCLUDING A HOTEL, WHICH IS USED AS A HOSTEL BY THE SOCIETY, AND OBLIGATION OF MARS CATERING SERVICES IS MENTIONED IN CLAUSE 5 OF AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO BETWEEN SOCIETIES AS WELL AS MARS CATERING SERVICES DATED 17/ 07/2007. ACCORDING TO THIS AGREEMENT, INR 3,780,000 / - AT RATE OF INR 315,000 / - FOR EACH MONTH WAS TO BE PROVIDED BY SCHOOL TO MARS CATERING SERVICES. IN TERMS OF ABOVE AGREEMENT, AS ON 01/04/2009 THERE WAS A CREDIT BALANCE OF INR 1,039,000 IN ACCOUNT OF MARS CATERING SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED IN BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF ASSESSEE . ALONG WITH THAT AFTER GIVING FURTHER CREDIT FOR SERVICES RENDERED AS WELL AS TOWARDS REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES INCURRED, TOTAL CREDIT STOOD AT INR 7 198470 INCLUDING OPENING BALANC E TO CREDIT OF ABOVE COMPANY. OUT OF THAT 6819789/ WAS PAID AND STILL THERE IS A CREDIT BALANCE OF INR 3 78681 / - OUTSTANDING AS PAYABLE BY SOCIETY TO MARS CATERING SERVICES. THE LD AO DISALLOWED THE ABOVE SUM HOLDING THAT SUCH ADVANCES IS FOR THE BE NEFIT OF MAR CATERING SERVICES AND IT IS NOT FOR THE OBJECT OF TRUST ASSESSE. LOOKING AT THE ACTIVITY OF THE SCHOOL, IT IS A BOARDING SCHOOL AND TEACHERS TRAINING COLLEGE. NO DOUBT, IT HAS HIRED A HOSTEL FOR ACCOMMODATION OF STUDENT, WHICH IS A HOTE L. HOWEVER , IT IS NOT DOUBTED THAT SUCH HOTEL IS NOT USED BY ASSESSEE IS A HOSTEL. CATERING SERVICES WERE PART OF THE BOARDING AND LODGING ACTIVITY OF STUDENTS OF ASSESSEE SOCIETY WHO WERE STAYING IN THAT HOSTEL ALONG WITH OTHER LOCATIONS. IT IS NOT CASE OF REVENUE THAT MARS ENTERPRISES WERE ANY WAY ASSOCIATED WITH ASSESSEE SOCIETY EXCEPT IN STATUS OF A SERVICE PROVIDER. NONE OF SHAREHOLDERS OF M ARS SERVICES IS IN ANY WAY CONNECTED WITH ASSESSEE SOCIETY. IT IS ALSO NOT CASE OF REVENUE THAT WHATEVER IS PAID BY SOCIETY ASSESSEE TO MARS ENTERPRISES IS EXCESSIVE OR IS NOT IN TERMS OF AGREEMENT. FURTHERMORE, IT IS NO T DENIED BY ASSESSING OFFICER THAT ASSESSEE SOCIETY IS PROVIDING LODGING AND BOARDING FACILITIE S TO STUDENTS OF SCHOOL . IT IS ALSO NOT CASE THAT IN IMPUGNED PROPERTY, WHICH IS INCIDENTALLY A HOTEL BUT NOT DENIED TO HAVE BEEN USED FOR ANY OTHER PURPOSE OTHER THAN A HOSTEL, IS OCCUPIED BY ASSESSEE SOCIETY FOR RESIDENTIAL FACILITIES OF STUDENTS . PAGE | 6 IT I S IMPERATIVE THAT FOR STUDENTS RESIDING IN THAT IMPUGNED HOSTEL ARE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE CATERING FACILITIES. FOR PROVISION OF SERVICES, ASSESSEE HAS ENGAGED MARS CATERING SERVICES, WHICH IS ALSO PART OF MARS ENTERPRISES. THERE IS AN AGREEMENT ALSO OF ASS IGNMENT OF ORIGINAL AGREEMENT FROM MARS ENTERPRISE TO MARS CATERING SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED. EXPENDITURE HAS BEEN INCURRED BY ASSESSEE ONLY FOR PURPOSE OF EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES TO BE GIVEN TO STUDENT OF LODGING AND BOARDING FOR STAYING IN MUSSOORIE AND STUDYING IN THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY. IT IS NOT DENIED OR CAN BE DISPUTED THAT ASSESSEE IS PROVIDING EDUCATION TO STUDENTS AND LODGING AND BOARDING FACILITIES ARE INCIDENTAL TO EDUCATION . NO VIOLATION OF SECTION 13 HAS BEEN POINTED OUT BY LEARNED AO. IN V IEW OF THIS, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY ASSESSEE IS NOT FOR PURPOSE OF EDUCATION. FOR ALL THESE CONSIDERATIONS AS STATED ABOVE LEARNED CIT A HAS DELETED ADDITION . MERELY BECAUSE SOME CELEBRITIES ARE HOLDING SHAREHOLDING IN ONE OF ENTITIES TO WHICH ASSESSEE SOCIETY HAS ENGAGED FOR PROVISION OF SERVICES DOES NOT MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE IN ALLOWANCE OR DISALLOWANCE OF A PARTICULAR EXPENDITURE FOR OBJECT OF SOCIETY . FURTHER, MERELY BECAUSE A HOTEL IS RENTED BY ASSESSEE SOCIETY FOR USING, AS A HOSTEL FOR STUDENT , DOES NOT MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE, AS FAR AS STUDENT OF THE SOCIETY EXCLUSIVELY USES THE SAME . THESE FACTS DO NOT EXCLUDE ASSESSEE FROM PROVISION OF SECTION 2 (15) OF THE ACT. IT IS ALSO NOT THE CASE OF AO THAT ASSESSEE IS CARRYIN G ON BUSINESS ACTIVITY, WHICH IS TAINTED WITH PROFIT MOTIVES AND IS NOT AN EDUCATIONAL ACTIVITY. THE LD AO IN THIS APPEAL DOES NOT DISPUTE FURTHER REPAIR EXPENDITURE OF SUCH HOTEL USED AS HOSTEL BY ASSESSEE. HENCE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN ORDER O F LEARNED CIT AN IN DISALLOWING ABOVE CLAIM. IN RESULT, GROUND NUMBER 1 OF APPEAL OF LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER IS DISMISSED. 9 . WE WOULD ALSO LIKE TO STATE THAT APPEAL OF REVENUE DOES NOT DESERVE ANY MERIT EVEN FOR ADMISSION. BY LOOKING AT FORM NUMBER 36 IT IS APPARENT THAT LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MENTIONED RESPONDENT AS OIL AND NATURAL GAS CORP LTD, DEHRADUN. HERE RESPONDENT IS NOT ONGC BUT WOODSTOCK SCHOOL, MUSSOORIE. AS LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER WRONGLY SHOWS RESPONDENT , AND FORM NUMBER 36 IS WRONGLY FILLED UP, ON THIS ISSUE , DEFECT NOTICE WAS ALSO ISSUED TO LD AO AT TIME OF FILING OF APPEAL. REGISTRY OF TRIBUNAL HAS MENTIONED THIS DEFECT IN NOTICE ITSELF ON 14/07/2014. IT IS ALSO SURPRISING PAGE | 7 THAT LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HAS FILED THIS APP EAL IN 2014, UNTIL 2019, NO ATTEMPT HAS BEEN MADE TO EVEN CORRECT MISTAKE . HOWEVER, UNTIL NOW LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT EVEN CARRIED TO CORRECT ERROR . SUCH CALLOUSNESS AND CARELESSNESS ON PART OF ASSESSING OFFICER WHO FILED APPEAL SHOWS COMP LETE NON - APPLICATION OF MIND. IT DESERVES TO BE CONDEMNED. 10 . IN RESULT APPEAL OF REVENUE IS DISMISSED ON 2 COUNTS, ONE FOR WRONG MENTIONING OF RESPONDENT, NOT CORRECTING SAME EVEN AFTER SENDING DEFECT NOTICE AND TWO ON MERITS. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 2 5 / 02 / 2019 . - SD/ - - SD/ - ( BEENA A. PILLAI ) (PRASHANT MAHARISHI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 2 5 / 02 / 2019 COPY FORWARDED TO 1 . APPLICANT 2 . RESPONDENT 3 . CIT 4 . CIT (A) 5 . DR:ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI