ACIT, Circle-63(1), New Delhi V. Vanesa Cosmatics, New Delhi

ITA 3841/DEL/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 108 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5868 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 11 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-04-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 22-05-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: FARHAT KHAN
• Keywords: Set aside
• Section: 80IC; 80IC

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH F : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE) ITA NO.3841/DEL./2018 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2014-15) ACIT, CIRCLE 63 (1), VS. M/S. VANESA COSMETICS, NEW DELHI. 116, MODEL BASTI, DELHI 110 005. (PAN : AAHFV5455B) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI MADHUR AGGARWAL, ADVOCATE REVENUE BY : SHRI FARHAT KHAN, DR DATE OF HEARING : 08.04.2021 DATE OF ORDER : 23.04.2021 O R D E R PER KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER : APPELLANT, ACIT, CIRCLE 63 (1), NEW DELHI (HEREINA FTER REFERRED TO AS THE REVENUE) BY FILING THE PRE S ENT APPEAL SOUGHT TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 31.03.2018 PASSE D BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-20, NEW DELHI QUA THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15 ON THE GROUNDS INTER ALIA T HAT :- 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION M ADE BY AO BY DISALLOWING THE DEDUCTION U/S 80-IC OF RS.3,85,61,3 55/-, IGNORING THE FACT THAT ONCE AN INITIAL ASSESSMENT YEAR HAD BEEN DETERMINED FOR A ITA NO.3841/DEL./2018 2 CLAIM OF DEDUCTION (AS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE), THEN THERE CANNOT BE SECOND INITIAL ASSESSMENT YEAR FOR A CLAIM UNDER SA ME SECTION BY THE SAME UNDERTAKING. IF SUCH AN INTERPRETATION IS MADE THAT WOULD NOT ONLY RESULT INTO AN ABSURDITY BUT ABSOLUTELY AN IMP ROBABLE AND UNWORKABLE SITUATION. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION M ADE U/S 80-IC IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE INTERPRETATION OF THE AS SESSEE THAT DEDUCTION U/S 80-IC SHALL BE AVAILABLE TO THE NEW UNDERTAKING OR ENTERPRISES FOR THE INITIAL FIVE YEARS AND THEN SHALL BE AVAILABLE @ 100% FOR ANOTHER FIVE YEARS IN CASE THE UNDERTAKING OR THE ENTERPRIS ES CARRIES OUT SUBSTANTIAL EXPANSION HAS THE EFFECT OF CREATING A GREAT ANOMALY BECAUSE THIS SECTION WILL RESULT IN A DISADVANTAGEO US SITUATION FOR THE PRE-EXISTING UNDERTAKINGS WHILE THE NEWLY ESTABLISH ED UNDERTAKINGS SHALL BE IN A POSITION TO AVAIL 100% DEDUCTION FOR A CONTINUOUS PERIOD OF 10 YEARS IF THEY CARRY OUT SUBSTANTIAL EXPANSION AFTER FIVE YEARS OF THE COMMENCEMENT OF MANUFACTURE OR PRODUCTION AND T HE PRE-EXISTING UNDERTAKING SHALL BE ABLE TO AVAIL 100% DEDUCTION F OR A PERIOD OF FIVE YEARS AFTER CARRYING OUT THE SUBSTANTIAL EXPANSION AND THEREAFTER FIVE YEARS THEY SHALL BE ENTITLE TO ONLY 25%/30% OF THE DEDUCTION. 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION M ADE U/S 80-IC IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE BENEFIT OF SUBSTANTIAL E XPANSION WAS MEANT ONLY FOR UNITS EXISTING AS ON 07.01.2003. IF THE CO NTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS ACCEPTED, THEN 100% DEDUCTION WILL BE A VAILABLE TO THE ASSESSEE FOR 1 ST FIVE YEARS THEREAFTER 100% DEDUCTION WILL BE AVAIL ABLE TO THE ASSESSEE FOR NEXT FIVE YEARS ON EXPANSION OF TH E UNDERTAKING AND 25% / 30% DEDUCTION WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR NEXT 5 YE ARS. WHILE 80-IC (6) PROVIDES THAT NO DEDUCTION SHALL BE ALLOWED TO ANY UNDERTAKING OR ENTERPRISE UNDER THIS SECTION, WHERE THE TOTAL PERI OD OF DEDUCTION INCLUSIVE OF THE PERIOD OF DEDUCTION UNDER THIS SEC TION, OR UNDER THE SECOND PROVISO TO SUB-SECTION (4) OF SECTION 80-IB OR UNDER SECTION 10C, AS THE CASE MAY BE, EXCEEDS TEN ASSESSMENT YEARS. 4. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND IN LAW, THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT 100% DEDUCT ION IN SECTION 80- IC WOULD BE AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSEE AFTER COMPLET ING 5 YEARS IF THE ASSESSEE SUBSTANTIALLY EXPANDS ITS UNDERTAKING AS H ELD BY HON'BLE GUJRAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF M/S ANAND FOOD & D AIRY PRODUCTS VS. ITO 394 ITR 0531 INTER-ALIA THAT IN CASE OF DED UCTION U/S 80-IB, DEDUCTION WOULD BE AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSEE 25% AF TER COMPLETION OF 5 YEARS. THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 80-LB AND 80-IC AR E PARALLEL PROVISIONS IN NATURE. 5. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION O F RS.41,711/- ON ACCOUNT INTEREST EXPENSE OF CAR ON ACCOUNT OF PERSO NAL USE OF THE CAR WITHOUT GIVING ANY SPECIFIC REASON. IT IS SETTLED P OSITION OF LAW THAT PERSONAL USE OF THE CARS CANNOT BE RULED OUT. 6. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION O F RS.66,099/- ON ACCOUNT OF TOUR AND TRAVELLING EXPENSES WITHOUT GIV ING ANY SPECIFIC ITA NO.3841/DEL./2018 3 REASON. AS THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESS MENT PROCEEDINGS FAILED TO PRODUCE FOR VERIFICATION THE VOUCHERS OF EXPENSES AND ALSO TO SUBSTANTIATE CLAIM THAT THE EXPENSES WERE INCURRED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE BUSINESS PURPOSE. 7. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION O F RS.58,714/- ON ACCOUNT OF CONVEYANCE EXPENSES WITHOUT GIVING ANY S PECIFIC REASON. AS THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEE DINGS FAILED TO PRODUCE FOR VERIFICATION THE VOUCHERS OF EXPENSES A ND ALSO TO SUBSTANTIATE CLAIM THAT THE EXPENSES WERE INCURRED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE BUSINESS PURPOSE. 3. BRIEFLY STATED THE FACTS NECESSARY FOR ADJUDICAT ION OF THE CONTROVERSY AT HAND ARE : M/S. VANESA COSMETICS, TH E ASSESSEE, A PARTNERSHIP FIRM, IS INTO THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTU RING OF PERFUMES, DEODORANTS, COSMETIC ITEMS AND TOILETRY GOODS UNDER THE NAME AND STYLE OF M/S VANESA COSMETICS AT KHASRA NO. 196/186 /1113, VILLAGE, JOHARAN, TRILOK PUR ROAD, TEHSIL NAHAN, DI STT. SIRMOR (KNOWN AS KALA AMB, INDUSTRIAL AREA), HIMACHAL PRAD ESH, DULY NOTIFIED INDUSTRIAL AREA VIDE NOTIFICATION NO. SO12 69(E) DATED 04.11.2003 FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECTION 80IC OF THE I NCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (FOR SHORT THE ACT) . ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME CLAIMING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.37,66,522/- WHICH WAS S UBJECTED TO SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT. ASSESSING OFFICER (AO) MADE A DDITION OF RS.3,85,61,355/- WHILE MAKING DISALLOWANCE UNDER SE CTION 80IC OF THE ACT BY RESTRICTING THE SAME TO 25% INSTEAD OF 1 00% CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT 100% DEDUCTION U/S 80IC IS AVAILABLE TO THE UNITS LOCATED IN NORTH INDIAN STAT ES FOR THE FIRST 5 ITA NO.3841/DEL./2018 4 YEARS AND FOR THE NEXT 5 YEARS @ 25%/35%. AO ALSO MADE AD HOC DISALLOWANCE OF RS.41,711/- ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST EXPENSES ON CAR ON ACCOUNT OF PERSONAL USE OF THE CAR. AO ALSO MAD E ADDITION OF RS.66,099/- BY WAY OF DISALLOWANCE ON ACCOUNT OF TO UR AND TRAVELLING EXPENSES @ 10% OF THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF RS .6,60,988/-. AO ALSO MADE ADDITION OF RS.58,714/- BY WAY OF DISA LLOWANCE ON ACCOUNT OF CONVEYANCE EXPENSES BEING 10% OF RS.5,87 ,144/-. 4. ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE THE LD. CIT ( A) BY WAY OF FILING THE APPEAL WHO HAS DELETED THE ADDITIONS BY ALLOWING THE SAME. FEELING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT (A), THE REVENUE HAS COME UP BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL BY WAY OF FILING THE PRESENT APPEAL. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PARTIES TO THE APPEAL, GONE THROUGH THE DOCUMENTS R ELIED UPON AND ORDERS PASSED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES BELOW IN T HE LIGHT OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 6. LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE CHALLENGING THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY LD. CIT(A) RELIED UPON THE ASSESSMENT ORD ER AND CONTENDED THAT THE ENTIRE ADDITIONS/DISALLOWANCES H AVE BEEN MADE BY THE AO ON THE BASIS OF PARTICULAR FACTS OF THE C ASE. HOWEVER, ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE RELIED UPON THE EARLIER ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR AY 2013-14 ITA NO.3841/DEL./2018 5 WHICH HAS BEEN CONFIRMED BY THE TRIBUNAL AND FURTHE R RELIED UPON THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SHIMLA VS. AARHAM SOFTRONICS (2019) 412 ITR 0623 AND ORDER PASSED BY THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF TIR UPATI LPG INDUSTRIES LTD. VS. DCIT (SUPRA) (2014) 151 ITD 000 1 . GROUNDS NO.1, 2, 3 & 4 7. UNDISPUTEDLY ASSESSEE HAS SET UP ITS BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING OF PERFUMES, ETC. IN THE NAME AND STY LE OF M/S VANESA COSMETICS AT KALA AMB, INDL. AREA DULY NOTIF IED FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECTION 80IC. IT IS ALSO NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS STARTED COMMERCIAL PRODUCTION IN 2007-08 AND SU CCESSFULLY CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S 80IC FOR 5 YEARS TILL 2012-13 AND ALLOWED AS SUCH. IT IS ALSO NOT IN DISPUTE THAT IN THE SUBSEQU ENT ASSESSMENT YEARS VIZ. 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 AND 2017-18, 1 00% DEDUCTIONS HAVE BEEN ALLOWED BY LD. CIT(A) ON THE G ROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE SUBSTANTIAL EXPANSION IN THE EXISTING UNIT. IT IS ALSO NOT IN DISPUTE THAT FOR AYS 2015-16, 2016-1 7 AND 2017-18, NO APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE APPEAL ALLOWED BY LD. CIT(A). ITA NO.3841/DEL./2018 6 7. IN THE BACKDROP OF THE AFORESAID UNDISPUTED FACT S AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE SOLE QUESTION ARISES FOR DETERMINATION IN THIS CASE IS : AS TO WHETHER LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING TH E DISALLOWANCE OF ADDITION MADE U/S 80IC BY THE AO BY GRANTING 25% /30% OF THE DEDUCTION INSTEAD OF 100% CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE D URING THE YEAR UNDER ASSESSMENT? 8. WHEN IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CARRIED OUT SUBSTANTIAL EXPANSION DURING FINANCIAL YEAR 2011-12 BY INSTALLING PLANT AND MACHINERY WORTH RS.1,20,26,092.00 WHICH I S MORE THAN 50% OF THE TOTAL BOOK VALUE OF RS.2,30,48,407.00 OF THE PLANT AND MACHINERY EXISTING ON 1 ST DAY OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR IN WHICH SUBSTANTIAL EXPANSION WAS TOOK PLACE, THE CLAIM OF THE DEDUCTION ON ACCOUNT OF SUBSTANTIAL EXPANSION U/S 80IC SUB SECTI ON 8 CLAUSE (IX) IS ADMISSIBLE TO THE ASSESSEE IRRESPECTIVE OF THE C ONDITIONS STIPULATED FOR NORTH INDIAN STATES AND NORTH EASTER N INDIAN STATES AS DISCUSSED BY AO. 9. HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN CASE CITED AS PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, SHIMLA VS. AARHAM SOFTR ONICS (SUPRA) DECIDED THE IDENTICAL ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF TH E ASSESSEE BY HOLDING THAT IN CASE OF SUBSTANTIAL EXPANSION CARRI ED OUT AS PER CLAUSE (IX) OF SUB SECTION 8 OF SECTION 80IC WITHIN THE AFORESAID PERIOD OF 10 YEARS THE SAID PREVIOUS YEARS IN WHICH THE SUBSTANTIAL ITA NO.3841/DEL./2018 7 EXPANSION IS UNDERTAKEN WOULD BECOME INITIAL ASSESS MENT YEAR AND AS SUCH ENTITLED FOR 100% DEDUCTIONS OF PROFITS AND GAINS. OPERATIVE PART OF THE JUDGMENT (SUPRA) IS EXTRACTED FOR READY PERUSAL AS UNDER: A) .. B) AN UNDERTAKING OR AN ENTERPRISE WHICH HAD SET UP A NEW UNIT BETWEEN 7TH JANUARY, 2003 AND 1ST APRIL, 2012 IN ST ATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH OF THE NATURE MENTIONED IN CLAUSE (II) OF S UB-SECTION (2) OF SECTION 80-IC, WOULD BE ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION @ 100 % OF THE PROFITS AND GAINS FOR FIVE ASSESSMENT YEARS COMMENCING WITH THE INITIAL ASSESSMENT YEAR. FOR THE NEXT FIVE YEARS, THE ADMI SSIBLE DEDUCTION WOULD BE 25% (OR 30% WHERE THE ASSESSEE IS A COMPAN Y) OF THE PROFITS AND GAINS. C) HOWEVER, IN CASE SUBSTANTIAL EXPANSION IS CARRI ED OUT AS DEFINED IN CLAUSE (IX) OF SUB-SECTION (8) OF SECTIO N 80-IC BY SUCH AN UNDERTAKING OR ENTERPRISE, WITHIN THE AFORESAID PER IOD OF 10 YEARS, THE SAID PREVIOUS YEAR IN WHICH THE SUBSTANTIAL EXPANSI ON IS UNDERTAKEN WOULD BECOME INITIAL ASSESSMENT YEAR, AND FROM TH AT ASSESSMENT YEAR THE ASSESSEE SHALL BEEN ENTITLED TO 100% DEDUCTIONS OF THE PROFITS AND GAINS. D) SUCH DEDUCTION, HOWEVER, WOULD BE FOR A TOTAL P ERIOD OF 10 YEARS, AS PROVIDED IN SUB-SECTION (6). FOR EXAMPLE, IF THE EXPANSION IS CARRIED OUT IMMEDIATELY, ON THE COMPLETION OF FIRST FIVE YEARS, THE ASSESSEE WOULD BE ENTITLED TO 100% DEDUCTION AGAIN FOR THE NEXT FIVE YEARS. ON THE OTHER HAND, IF SUBSTANTIAL EXPANSION IS UNDERTAKEN, SAY, IN 8TH YEAR BY AN ASSESSEE SUCH AN ASSESSEE WOULD B E ENTITLED TO 100% DEDUCTION FOR THE FIRST FIVE YEARS, DEDUCTION @ 25% OF THE PROFITS AND GAINS FOR THE NEXT TWO YEARS AND @ 100% AGAIN FROM 8TH YEAR AS THIS YEAR BECOMES INITIAL ASSESSMENT YEAR ONCE AGAIN. HOWEVER, THIS 100% DEDUCTION WOULD BE FOR REMAINING THREE YEARS, I.E., 8TH, 9TH AND 10TH ASSESSMENT YEARS. 10. HOWEVER, ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DR FOR THE REVE NUE RELIED UPON THE DECISION RENDERED BY HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN CASE OF CIT VS. CLASSIC BINDING INDUSTRIES (2018) 407 ITR 4 29 (SC) AND CONTENDED THAT WHEN INITIALLY ASSESSEE HAS AVAILED DEDUCTION U/S 80IC FOR A PERIOD OF 5 YEARS @ 100%, IT WOULD BE EN TITLED TO ITA NO.3841/DEL./2018 8 DEDUCTION ON SUBSTANTIAL EXPANSION FOR REMAINING FI VE ASSESSMENT YEARS @ 25%/30%. HOWEVER, HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN CASE OF AARHAM SOFTRONICS (SUPRA) IN THE PRECEDING PARA AFTER DULY DISCUSSING THE DECISION RENDERED BY HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN CASE OF CLASSIC BINDING INDUSTRIES (SUPRA), REACHED THE CONCLUSION THAT WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS CARRIED OUT SUBSTANTIAL EXPANSION IN THE EXISTING UNIT IMMEDIATELY ON COMPLETION OF FIRST FI VE YEARS I.E. FY 2011-12 AND DULY COMPLIED WITH THE CONDITIONS LAID DOWN IN CLAUSE (IX) SUB-SECTION 8 OF SECTION 80IC, IT IS ENTITLED FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80IC FOR THE YEAR UNDER ASSESSMENT. SO, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT LD. CIT (A) HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE IN CONT ROVERSY IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY DULY RELYING UPON THE ORDER PASS ED BY THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN CASE OF TIRUPAT I LPG INDUSTRIES LTD. (SUPRA) AND HAS RIGHTLY DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE U/S 80IC. SO, FINDING NO SCOPE TO INTERFERE INTO THE FINDINGS RETURNED BY TH E LD. CIT (A), GROUNDS NO.1, 2, 3 & 4 ARE DETERMINED AGAINST THE R EVENUE. GROUNDS NO.5, 6 & 7 11. LD. CIT (A) ALSO DELETED THE ADDITION OF RS.41, 711/-, RS.66,099/- & RS.58,714/- MADE BY THE AO ON AD HOC BASIS @ 10% ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST EXPENSES ON CAR HAVING ELEME NT OF PERSONAL ITA NO.3841/DEL./2018 9 USE, TOUR AND TRAVELLING EXPENSES AND CONVEYANCE EX PENSES RESPECTIVELY. 12. WHEN UNDISPUTEDLY ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED THE EXPE NSES ON THE BASIS OF ITS AUDITED FINANCIALS WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN DISPUTED BY THE AO, THE AD HOC ADDITIONS ON THE BASIS OF SURMISES A RE NOT PERMISSIBLE UNDER LAW. MOREOVER WHEN IT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE AO THAT THESE EXPENSES HAVE NOT BEEN MADE WHOLLY AND E XCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS BY THE ASSESSEE, THERE IS N O GROUND TO DISALLOW THE SAME. SO, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VI EW THAT WHEN AO HAS PROCEEDED TO MAKE AFORESAID DISALLOWANCES WI THOUT ASSIGNING ANY REASON BUT ON THE BASIS OF SURMISES, THE DISALLOWANCES ARE NOT SUSTAINABLE IN THE EYES OF LA W, HENCE THERE IS NO SCOPE TO INTERFERE INTO THE DELETION MADE BY THE LD. CIT (A). CONSEQUENTLY, GROUNDS NO.4, 5 & 6 RAISED BY THE REV ENUE ARE DISMISSED. 13. RESULTANTLY, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THIS 23 RD DAY OF APRIL , 2021. SD/- SD/- (ANIL CHATURVEDI) (KULDIP SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED THE 23 RD DAY OF APRIL, 2021 TS ITA NO.3841/DEL./2018 10 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1.APPELLANT 2.RESPONDENT 3.CIT 4.CIT(A)-20, NEW DELHI. 5.CIT(ITAT), NEW DELHI. AR, ITAT NEW DELHI.