D S DOORS (INDIA) LTD., FARIDABAD V. ITO, WARD- 1(2), FARIDABAD

ITA 389/DEL/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5745 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-05-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 18-01-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ASHIMA NEB SENIOR
• Keywords: Accommodation entries; Procedural lapse; Set aside
• Section: 147; 68; 148

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH B : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.389/DEL./2019 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11) M/S. DS DOORS (INDIA) LTD., VS. ITO, WARD 1 (2), 11/7, MILE STONE, FARIDABAD. DELHI BADARPUR BORDER, NH 2, FARIDABAD. (PAN : AAACD5805B) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI SAUBHAGYA AGGARWAL, ADVOCATE SHRI KUNAL JANGID, ADVOCATE SHRI SUMIT BASKAR, ADVOCATE REVENUE BY : MS. ASHIMA NEB, SENIOR DR DATE OF HEARING : 16.04.2019 DATE OF ORDER : 08.05.2019 O R D E R PER KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THE APPELLANT, M/S. DS DOORS (INDIA) LTD. (HEREINA FTER REFERRED TO AS THE ASSESSEE) BY FILING THE PRESEN T APPEAL SOUGHT TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 31.12.2018 PASSE D BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS), FARIDABAD QUA THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 ON THE GROUNDS INTER ALIA T HAT :- 1. THAT HAVING REGARD TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANC ES OF THE CASE, LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN C ONFIRMING THE ITA NO.389/DEL./2019 2 ACTION OF LD. AO IN PASSING THE IMPUGNED REASSESSME NT ORDER U/S 143(3)/147 AND THAT TOO WITHOUT ASSUMING JURISDICTI ON AS PER LAW AND WITHOUT COMPLYING THE MANDATORY CONDITIONS OF S ECTION 147 TO 151 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 2. THAT IN ANY CASE AND IN ANY VIEW OF THE MATTER, ACTION OF LD. CIT(A) IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF LD. AO IN PA SSING THE IMPUGNED REASSESSMENT U/S 143(3)/147, IS BAD IN LAW AND AGAINST THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 3. THAT HAVING REGARD TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCE S OF THE CASE, LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN N OT QUASHING THE IMPUGNED REASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U1S LD. AO O N THE GROUND THAT NO 'REASON' RECORDED HAVE EVER BEEN PRO VIDED TO THE ASSESSEE, DESPITE THE SPECIFIC REQUEST MADE AND THU S LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE QUASHED THE REASSESSMENT ORDER ON THI S GROUND ITSELF. 4. THAT HAVING REGARD TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCE S OF THE CASE, LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN C ONFIRMING THE ACTION OF LD. AO IN MAKING ADDITION OF RS.25,00,000 /- BY TREATING IT AS ALLEGED ACCOMMODATION ENTRY U/S 68 OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 2. BRIEFLY STATED THE FACTS NECESSARY FOR ADJUDICAT ION OF THE CONTROVERSY AT HAND ARE : ON THE BASIS OF SEARCH AN D SEIZURE OPERATION AT THE RESIDENCE AND VARIOUS PREMISES OF SHRI SHIRISH C SHAH, ONE OF THE COMPANIES M/S. AVANCE TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED, CONTROLLED BY SHIRISH C SHAH NOTICE UNDER SECTION 1 48 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (FOR SHORT THE ACT) WAS SERV ED UPON THE ASSESSEE ON 30.03.2017. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROC EEDINGS, ASSESSING OFFICER RECEIVED INFORMATION FROM DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), MU MBAI SUPPORTED WITH ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED IN CASE OF M /S. AVANCE TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED U/S 153C OF THE ACT WHEREIN IT IS ACCEPTED BY ITA NO.389/DEL./2019 3 DIRECTOR OF THE COMPANY THAT THE COMPANY WAS ONLY E NGAGED IN PROVIDING BOGUS ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES. AO NOTICED THAT ASSESSEE COMPANY WAS ONE OF THE BENEFICIARIES OF THE ACCOMMO DATION ENTRY IN THE SHAPE OF BOGUS SHARE PREMIUM AND RELIED UPON THE MATERIAL SUPPLIED BY THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), MUMBAI T O BELIEVE THAT THERE WAS AN ESCAPEMENT OF TAX. AO, AFTER DECLININ G THE CONTENTIONS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE, REACHED THE CON CLUSION THAT WHEN IT STANDS PROVED THAT THE PURPORTED INVESTOR C OMPANY WAS ONLY DEALING IN PROVIDING ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES TO VARIOUS BENEFICIARIES, SHARE PREMIUM OF RS.25,00,000/- RECE IVED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS FOUND TO BE INGENUINE TRANSACTI ON AND THEREBY MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.25,00,000/- U/S 68 OF THE AC T. 3. ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BY WAY OF AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A) WHO HAS CONFIRMED THE ADDITION BY DISMI SSING THE APPEAL. FEELING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE HAS COME U P BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL BY WAY OF FILING THE PRESENT APPEAL. 4. 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. 5. LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGING THE IMPUGNED ORDER CONTENDED THAT AO AS WELL AS CIT (A) HAVE ERRED IN PASSING/ ITA NO.389/DEL./2019 4 CONFIRMING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AS AO HAS NO JURISD ICTION U/S 143(3)/147 OF THE ACT AS HE HAS FAILED TO COMPLY WI TH THE MANDATORY CONDITIONS LAID DOWN UNDER SECTIONS 147 T O 151 OF THE ACT AND AS SUCH, REASSESSMENT ORDER IS LIABLE TO BE QUASHED ON LEGAL GROUND. LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE FURTHER CONTENDED THAT THE AO HAS NEVER SUPPLIED THE REASONS RECORDED TO THE ASSESS EE DESPITE DEMAND AND RELIED UPON THE CASE OF PR.CIT VS. JAGAT TALKIES DISTRIBUTORS (2017) 85 TAXMANN.COM 189 (DELHI) . 6. TO COUNTER THE ARGUMENTS ADDRESSED BY THE LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE, LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS DULY CONFRONTED WITH THE REASONS RECORDED IN THIS C ASE AND THERE IS NO NEED TO SUPPLY THE REASONS RECORDED AND RELIED U PON THE DECISION RENDERED BY HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF S. NARAYANAPPA & ORS. VS. CIT, BANGALORE 1967 AIR 523 . WITHOUT PREJUDICE, THE LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE FURTHER CONTENDED THAT N ON-SUPPLYING THE REASONS RECORDED TO THE AO IS A MERE IRREGULARI TY WHICH DOES NOT AFFECT THE LEGALITY AND VALIDITY OF THE ASSESSM ENT ORDER AND RELIED UPON THE DECISION RENDERED BY HONBLE SUPREM E COURT IN THE CASE OF HOME FINDERS HOUSING LTD. VS. ITO (2018) 94 TAXMANN.COM 84 (SC) . LD. DR ALSO FILED WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS WHICH HAVE BEEN MADE PART OF THE JUDICIAL RECORD. ITA NO.389/DEL./2019 5 7. UNDISPUTEDLY, DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, AO ON RECEIPT OF AN INFORMATION FROM DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), MUMBAI, IN THE FORM OF ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S 153C OF THE ACT IN CASE OF M/S. AVANCE TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED WHEREIN THE DIR ECTOR OF THE SAID COMPANY HAD ADMITTED IN THEIR STATEMENT THAT T HE COMPANY WAS ONLY ENGAGED IN PROVIDING BOGUS ACCOMMODATION E NTRIES. IT IS ALSO NOT IN DISPUTE THAT ON THE BASIS OF AFORESAID INFORMATION A SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE ON 08. 12.2017 ALONG WITH NOTICE U/S 142(1). IT IS ALSO NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS BEEN SUPPLIED WITH THE COPY OF ASSESSME NT ORDER PASSED U/S 153C/143(3) FOR AY 2011-12 IN CASE OF M/ S. AVANCE TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED. IT IS ALSO NOT IN DISPUTE TH AT THE AO HAS NOT SUPPLIED REASONS RECORDED FOR REOPENING OF THE ASSE SSMENT DESPITE DEMAND OR SOUGHT FOR AND HAS NOT DISPOSED OFF THE O BJECTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE WITH RESPECT TO REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMEN T. 8. FROM THE UNDISPUTED FACTS OF THIS CASE, ORDER PA SSED BY THE LOWER REVENUE AUTHORITIES, ARGUMENTS ADDRESSED BY T HE LD. AR FOR THE PARTIES TO THE APPEAL AND CASE LAWS RELIED UPON , THE SOLE QUESTION ARISES FOR DETERMINATION IN THIS CASE IS : - AS TO WHETHER REASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE AO U/S 143(3)/147, CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT (A), IS LIABLE TO BE QUASHED ON THE GROUND THAT NO REASONS HAVE BEEN RECORDED BEFORE REOPENING NOR THE COPY THEREOF HAS BEEN SUPPLIED TO THE ASSESSEE DESPITE DEMAND? ITA NO.389/DEL./2019 6 9. WHEN WE EXAMINE THE QUESTION FRAMED IN THE LIGHT OF THE UNDISPUTED FACTS THAT REASONS RECORDED, IF ANY, H AS NEVER BEEN SUPPLIED TO THE ASSESSEE BY THE AO DESPITE DEMAND V IDE LETTER DATED 04.04.2017, AVAILABLE AT PAGE 6 OF THE PAPER BOOK, IT BECOMES CLEAR THAT REASONS RECORDED, IF ANY, HAVE NOT SEEN THE LI GHT OF THE DAY. 10. LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE HAS IMPLIEDLY ADMITTED T HAT REASONS RECORDED HAVE NOT BEEN SUPPLIED TO THE ASSESSEE AS SHE HAS RELIED UPON NOTING SHEET DATED 24.07.2017 RECORDED BY THE AO, AVAILABLE AT PAGE 15 OF THE SYNOPSIS FILED BY THE LD. DR, SHO WING THAT REASONS RECORDED WERE CONFRONTED TO THE ASSESSEE. BUT WE F AIL TO UNDERSTAND IF THE NOTING SHEET DATED 24.07.2017 REL IED UPON BY THE LD. DR IS QUA CONFRONTING THE REASONS RECORDED TO THE ASSESSEE, WHICH IS EXTRACTED FOR READY PERUSAL AS UNDER :- 24.7.17 SH. S.R. MALTA, SR. ACCOUNTS MANAGER ATTENDED. ASKED TO SUBMIT INFORMATION/DETAIL RELAT ING TO AMOUNTS CREDITED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT ON ACCOUNT OF SHARE PREMIUM, SHARE CAPITAL OR ADVANCE OF ANY KIND CONFRONTED WITH THE INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM DCIT, CC 2(2), MUMBAI REGARDING RECEIPT OF RS.25,00,000/- ON 25-2-2010 BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY FROM M/S. AVANCE TECHNOLOGIES LTD. IT HAS BEEN FOUND. 11. BARE PERUSAL OF THE AFORESAID NOTE RECORDED BY THE AO SHOWS THAT ONLY INFORMATION RECEIVED BY HIM FROM DCIT, CC -2(2), MUMBAI AS TO RECEIPT OF RS.25,00,000/- ON 25.02.201 0 BY THE ITA NO.389/DEL./2019 7 ASSESSEE COMPANY FROM M/S. AVANCE TECHNOLOGIES LIMI TED HAS BEEN CONFRONTED TO THE ASSESSEE AND IT CANNOT BE TR EATED AS REASONS RECORDED BY ANY STRETCH OF IMAGINATION, SO QUESTION OF CONFRONTING THE SAME TO THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT ARISE. 12. SO, WE CAN SAFELY CONCLUDE THAT THE ASSESSEE HA S NOT BEEN SUPPLIED WITH REASONS RECORDED DESPITE DEMAND RAT HER NO REASON HAS BEEN RECORDED BY THE AO BEFORE REOPENING THE AS SESSMENT BY APPLYING HIS INDEPENDENT MIND. HAD THERE BEEN ANY REASONS RECORDED ON THE FILE, THE SAME WOULD HAVE BEEN BROU GHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE BENCH BY THE LD. DR ALONG WITH ORDER SHEETS AND WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FILED AT THE TIME OF ARGUMENTS. 13. HONBLE APEX COURT IN CASE OF M/S. GKN DRIVESHAFT INDIA LTD. VS. ITO 259 ITR 19 HAS LAID DOWN THE LAW THAT IT IS MANDATORY FOR THE AO TO SUPPLY THE REASONS RECORDED WITHIN REASONABLE TIME, TO WHICH THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO FILE THE OBJECTION TO THE ISSUANCE OF THE NOTICE AND THEN AO IS BOUND TO DISPOSE OFF THE OBJECTIONS BY PASSING A SPEAKING OR DER. OPERATIVE PART OF THE HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF M/S. GKN DRIVESHAFT INDIA LTD. (SUPRA) IS EXTRACTED BELOW FOR READY PERUSAL:- WE SEE NO JUSTIFIABLE REASON TO INTERFERE WITH TH E ORDER UNDER CHALLENGE. HOWEVER, WE CLARIFY THAT WHEN A NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT IS ISSUED, THE PR OPER ITA NO.389/DEL./2019 8 COURSE OF ACTION FOR THE NOTICEE IS TO FILE A RETUR N AND IF HE SO DESIRES, TO SEEK REASONS FOR ISSUING NOTICES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS BOUND TO FURNISH REASONS WITHI N A REASONABLE TIME. ON RECEIPT OF REASONS, THE NOTICEE IS ENTITLED TO FILE OBJECTIONS TO ISSUANCE OF NOTICE A ND THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS BOUND TO DISPOSE OF THE SAME B Y PASSING A SPEAKING ORDER. IN THE INSTANT CASE, AS T HE REASONS HAVE BEEN DISCLOSED IN THESE PROCEEDINGS, T HE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TO DISPOSE OF THE OBJECTIONS, IF FILED, BY PASSING A SPEAKING ORDER, BEFORE PROCEEDI NG WITH THE ASSESSMENT IN RESPECT OF THE ABOVESAID FIV E ASSESSMENT YEARS. 14. LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE BY RELYING UPON THE DECI SION RENDERED BY HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF HOME FINDERS HOUSING LTD. VS. ITO (2018) 94 TAXMANN.COM 84 (SC ) DISMISSING THE SLP FILED BY THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT NON- COMPLIANCE OF THE PROCEDURE LAID DOWN BY THE HONBL E SUPREME COURT IN M/S. GKN DRIVESHAFT INDIA LTD. (SUPRA) WOULD NOT MAKE THE ORDER VOID AND NON EST AND SUCH A VIOLATION WAS A PROCEDURAL IRREGULARITY WHICH COULD BE CURED BY REMITTING THE MATTER TO THE AUTHORITY. OPERATIVE PART OF THE DECISION RENDERED BY HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN HOME FINDERS HOUSING LTD. VS. ITO (SUPRA) IS EXTRACTED FOR READY PERUSAL AS UNDER :- SECTION 148, READ WITH SECTION 147, OF THE INCOME- TAX ACT, 1961 - INCOME ESCAPING ASSESSMENT - ISSUE OF NOTICE FOR (GENERAL) - ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED TH AT INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAD ESCAPED ASSESSMENT AND HE INITIATED REASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 147 - ASSES SEE RAISED OBJECTIONS - HOWEVER, ASSESSING OFFICER WITH OUT GIVING DISPOSAL TO OBJECTIONS OF ASSESSEE, PASSED ITA NO.389/DEL./2019 9 REASSESSMENT ORDER - ASSESSEE CHALLENGED REASSESSME NT ORDER BEFORE HIGH COURT ON GROUND THAT BY NOT PASSI NG A SPECIFIC ORDER AFTER RECEIVING OBJECTIONS, ASSESS ING OFFICER VIOLATED LAW DECLARED BY SUPREME COURT IN G KN DRIVESHAFTS (INDIA) LTD. V. ITO [2002] 125 TAXMAN 9 63 THAT ASSESSING OFFICER SHOULD PASS A SPEAKING ORDER TAKING INTO ACCOUNT OBJECTIONS FOR RE-OPENING ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 147, AND RESULTANTLY, ORDE R WAS BAD IN LAW - HIGH COURT HELD THAT NON-COMPLIANC E OF PROCEDURE INDICATED BY SUPREME COURT WOULD NOT MAKE ORDER VOID OR NON EST AND SUCH A VIOLATION WAS A PROCEDURAL IRREGULARITY WHICH COULD BE CURED BY REMITTING MATTER TO AUTHORITY - WHETHER SLP AGAINST IMPUGNED ORDER WAS TO BE DISMISSED - HELD, YES [PAR A 2] [IN FAVOUR OF REVENUE] 15. WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT FACTS OF THE CASE AT HAND ARE DISTINGUISHABLE FROM THE CASE OF HOME FINDERS HOUSING LTD. VS. ITO (SUPRA) BECAUSE IN THAT CASE, REASONS RECORDED WER E SUPPLIED TO WHICH ASSESSEE HAD FILED OBJECTIONS WHI CH HAD NOT BEEN DISPOSED OFF BY THE AO. BUT, IN THE INSTANT CASE, REASONS HAVE NOT BEEN RECORDED BY THE AO RATHER BASED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ON THE INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM DCIT, CC 2(2), MUMBAI ALO NG WITH ASSESSMENT ORDER OF M/S. AVANCE TECHNOLOGIES LIMITE D PASSED U/S 153C OF THE ACT, SO THE QUESTION OF SUPPLYING REASO NS RECORDED TO THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT ARISE. 16. MORE PARTICULARLY, WHEN ASSESSEE HAD MADE A REQ UEST FOR SUPPLY OF THE REASONS RECORDED AND THE SAID REQUEST HAD NOT BEEN ADHERED TO AND THE AO PROCEEDED TO PASS THE ASSESSM ENT ORDER EVEN ITA NO.389/DEL./2019 10 WITHOUT PROVIDING AN OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS EXAMINE T HE DIRECTOR OF M/S. AVANCE TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED WHOSE STATEMENTS H AVE BEEN RELIED UPON TO PROVE THE FACT THAT M/S. AVANCE TECH NOLOGIES LIMITED, A ACCOMMODATION ENTRY PROVIDER HAS PROVIDE D ACCOMMODATION ENTRY OF RS.25,00,000/- TO THE ASSESS EE. 17. SO, THE VERY INITIATION OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDIN GS U/S 147/148 OF THE ACT WERE VOID AND NON EST AT THE VERY OUTSET BECAUSE THE AO HAS NOT RECORDED ANY REASONS AFTER APPLYING HIS MIN D NOR SUPPLIED THE COPY THEREOF TO THE ASSESSEE AND AS SUCH, IN TH ESE CIRCUMSTANCES, QUESTION OF FILING / DISPOSING OFF T HE OBJECTIONS BY ASSESSEE/AO DOES NOT ARISE. 18. HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN CASE CITED AS PR.CIT-16 VS. JAGAT TALKIES DISTRIBUTORS (2017) 85 TAXMANN. COM 189 (DELHI) WHEREIN GKN DRIVESHAFT (INDIA) LTD. (SUPRA) AND OTHER CASE LAWS DISCUSSED HELD THAT WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN GIVEN COPY OF REASONS RECORDED FOR ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S 148 BY THE AO, ENTIRE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND RESULTANT ASSESSM ENT ORDER PASSED U/S 143(3)/148 WAS TO BE QUASHED. 19. IN VIEW OF WHAT HAS BEEN DISCUSSED ABOVE, WE AR E OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE CASE LAW RELIED UPON BY TH E LD. DR IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE. SINCE THE AO HAS FAILED TO RECORD THE REASONS AFTER BEING SATISF IED THAT THE INCOME ITA NO.389/DEL./2019 11 HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT, WHICH HE HAS NOT SUPPLIED T O THE ASSESSEE DESPITE DEMAND THE INITIATION OF REASSESSMENT PROCE EDINGS AT THE VERY OUTSET WERE VOID AND NON EST AND AS SUCH, CONS EQUENT ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE AO IS LIABLE TO BE Q UASHED WITHOUT GOING INTO THE MERITS OF THIS CASE, HENCE HEREBY QU ASHED. RESULTANTLY, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS HE REBY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THIS 8 TH DAY OF MAY, 2019. SD/- SD/- (R.K. PANDA) (KULDIP SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED THE 8 TH DAY OF MAY, 2019 TS COPY FORWARDED TO: 1.APPELLANT 2.RESPONDENT 3.CIT 4.CIT(A), FARIDABAD. 5.CIT(ITAT), NEW DELHI. AR, ITAT NEW DELHI.