DCIT, New Delhi V. M/s. Ritesh Properties & industries Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 3920/DEL/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 109 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9551 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 year(s) 4 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-01-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 25-08-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: ROHIT JAIN ADV MS SHAILY GUPTA
• Keywords: Depreciation; Earning of tax free income; Deemed dividend; Revised return; Unabsorbed depreciation; Rule 8D; Set aside
• Section: 143(3); 2(22)(e); 14A; 115JB; 139(5); 13; 37

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH F NEW DLEHI BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, HONBLE VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI K. NARASIMHA CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 3920/DEL/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 DCIT VS. RITESH PROPERTIES & INDUSTRIES LTD. CIRCLE 15(1), 11/5B, FIRST FLOOR, PUSSA ROAD, C.R. BLDG., I.P. ESTATE, NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI. PAN AAACR1437M (APPLICANT) (RESPONDENT) & CROSS OBJECTION NO. 329/DEL/2011 (IN ITA NO. 3920/DEL/2011) ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 RITESH PROPERTIES & INDUSTRIES LTD. VS. DCIT 11/5B, FIRST FLOOR, PUSSA ROAD, CIRCLE 15(1) NEW DELHI. C.R. BLDG., I.P. ESTATE, PAN AAACR1437M NEW DELHI. (APPLICANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SH. KANV BALI, SR. DR RESPONDENT BY: SH. ROHIT JAIN, ADV. MS. SHAILY GUPTA, ADV. DATE OF HEARING: 04/01/2021 DATE OF ORDER :04/01/2021 ORDER PER K. NARASIMHA CHARY, J.M. IN ITA NUMBER 3920/DEL/2011 REVENUE HAS CHALLENGED THE ORDER DATED 10/5/2011 IN APPEAL NO. 208/10-11 PASSED BY T HE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-XVIII, NEW DEL HI (LD. CIT(A)) DIRECTING THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER TO ACCEPT THE REVISED RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 139(5) O F THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT); AND TO EXCLUDE AN AMOUNT OF RS.16.87 CRORES FROM THE TAXABLE INCOME (BOTH NORMAL AND MAT) ON THE BAS IS OF REVISED 2 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS; WHEREAS IN CIVIL NO. 329 /DEL / 2011 THE ASSESSEE IMPUGNED THE CONFIRMATION OF ADDITION OF FOREIGN TR AVEL EXPENSES AMOUNTING TO RS. 7, 02, 655/-OUT OF THE TOTAL TRAVE LLING EXPENSES INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE. 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A PUBLIC LIMITED COMPANY ENGAGED, INTER ALIA, IN THE BUSINESS OF REA L ESTATE. ASSESSEE WAS GRANTED PERMISSION ON 12.04.2006 BY DIRECTORATE OF INDUSTRIES & COMMERCE, PUNJAB FOR DEVELOPMENT OF INTEGRATED INDU STRIAL PARK ON 40 ACRES OF LAND AT FOCAL POINT, PHASE VIII, LUDHIANA (PROJECT). FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09, THE ASSESSEE FILED THE ORI GINAL RETURN OF INCOME ON 29.09.2008 DECLARING INCOME OF RS.9,51,70 ,507 UNDER NORMAL PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. SUBSEQUENTLY, DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE REVISED ITS FI NANCIAL STATEMENTS AND E-FILED REVISED RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE YEAR U NDER CONSIDERATION ON AFTER EXCLUDING NET PROFIT OF RS.16.87 CRORE, BO TH WHILE COMPUTING INCOME UNDER NORMAL PROVISIONS AND ALSO UNDER SECTI ON 115JB OF THE ACT. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE, DESPITE THE FACT TH AT THE PERMISSION WAS HEDGED WITH VARIOUS CONDITIONS, INCLUDING IN PARTIC ULAR, PROHIBITION ON PRE-LAUNCH OF THE PROJECT, THE ASSESSEE, ON PRE-LAU NCH BASIS, ENTERED INTO AGREEMENT FOR SALE OF PART OF THE PROJECT, RES ULTING IN RECOGNITION OF NOTIONAL AMOUNT OF RS.85.24 CRORES AS REVENUE, WHIC H WAS SUBSEQUENTLY CANCELLED, AND IN THE REVISED AUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS DULY APPROVED BY THE MEMBERS, THE ASSESSEE EXCLUDED AN AMOUNT OF RS.85.24 CRORES ERRONEOUSLY RECOGNIZED AS REVENUE I N THE ORIGINAL FINANCIAL STATEMENTS, RESULTING IN REDUCTION OF PRO FIT AFTER TAX BY RS. 16.87 CRORES. BASED ON THE REVISED AUDITED AND APPR OVED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS, THE ASSESSEE, IN THE REVISED RETURN OF INCOME, DECLARED LOSS OF RS.4,02,77,064 UNDER THE NORMAL PROVISIONS. 3 3. ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT WAS COMPLETED BY ORDER DATED 29/12/2010 AT RS. 13, 41, 86, 242/-BY M AKING ADDITIONS OF RUPEES AND 60, 00, 107/-BY DISALLOWING FOREIGN TRAV ELLING EXPENSES, RS. 3, 27, 71, 165/-BY MAKING DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTIO N 2 (22) (E) OF THE ACT AND RS. 2, 44, 463/-BY MAKING DISALLOWANCE UNDE R SECTION 14A OF THE ACT READ WITH RULE 8D OF THE RULES. LEARNED AS SESSING OFFICER, HELD THAT THE REVISED AUDITED FINANCIAL ACCOUNTS AS WELL AS THE REVISED RETURN OF INCOME WERE NOT ACCEPTABLE, AND INCOME WAS ASSES SED BASED ON THE ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME. 4. AGGRIEVED BY SUCH FINDINGS OF THE LEARNED ASSESS ING OFFICER, ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND THE LD. CIT(A) ACCEPTED THE REVISED ACCOUNTS AND CONSEQUENTLY, THE REVISED RETURN OF INCOME AND HELD THAT CONSIDERING THAT APPROVAL GIVE N BY THE STATE GOVERNMENT DID NOT PERMIT PRE-LAUNCH SALE, THE AGRE EMENT ENTERED INTO BY ASSESSEE PURSUANT TO WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAD INCLUDED ITS SHARE OF CONSIDERATION AS REVENUE OF RS.85.24 CRORES IN T HE ORIGINAL ACCOUNTS, WAS WITHOUT SANCTITY IN THE EYES OF THE LAW, AND AC CORDINGLY, IT WAS NOT PROPER TO TAKE INTO COGNIZANCE THE SALE PROCEEDS RE PORTED IN THE ORIGINAL ACCOUNTS AND COMPUTE INCOME THEREFROM; THA T IN ACCORDANCE REVENUE RECOGNITION PRINCIPLE PRESCRIBED IN AS-9, W HICH IS MANDATORY FOR PREPARING ACCOUNTS UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, A C OMPANY IS NOT PERMITTED TO RECOGNIZE ANY AMOUNT OF REVENUE, COLLE CTION WHEREOF IS UNCERTAIN; THAT THE AMOUNT REVENUE OF RS. 85.24 CRO RES WAS HYPOTHETICAL, WHICH OUGHT NOT HAVE BEEN RECOGNIZED AS REVENUE IN THE ACCOUNTS; THAT THE COMMENTS OF THE AUDITOR WERE HIS SUBJECTIVE OPINION, WHICH IS NOT BINDING; THAT THE REVISED ACC OUNTS APPROVED IN THE AGM AND FILED BEFORE THE ROC, MUST BE ACCEPTED - IF AT ALL, THE REVISION OF ACCOUNTS HAD TO BE CHALLENGED/ DISPUTED, THE SAM E COULD BE DONE BY THE AUTHORITY COMPETENT UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT AND NOT BY THE 4 LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER AND, THEREFORE, FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING BOOK PROFITS UNDER SECTION 115JB OF THE ACT, LD. CI T(A) DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO CONSIDER THE REVISED ACCOUNTS; AND THAT INCLUSION OF REVENUE RS. 85.24 AND PROFIT THEREON OF RS.16.87 CR ORE WOULD, IN ANY CASE, RESULT IN TAXATION OF A HYPOTHETICAL AMOUNT, WHICH IS AGAINST THE SETTLED LAW THAT ONLY REAL INCOME CAN BE BROUGHT TO TAX. WHILE HOLDING SO, THE LD. CIT(A) NOTED THE FACT THAT NO AMOUNT WA S RECEIVED AGAINST THE AGREEMENTS TO SELL ENTERED BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND VARIOUS PARTIES STATED SUPRA, WHICH WERE IN FACT SUBSEQUENT LY CANCELLED. THE CIT(A) ALSO MADE NOTE OF THE FACT THAT THE GOVERNME NT HAD LATER ACCORDED APPROVAL TO SELL THE DEVELOPED AREA ONLY I N MAY, 2010.AGGRIEVED SUCH FINDINGS OF THE CIT(A), THE REV ENUE IS BEFORE US IN THIS APPEAL. 5. INSOFAR AS THE GROUNDS NO. 1 AND 2 OF REVENUES APPEAL, RELATING TO THE ACTION OF THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER IN NOT EXCLUDING SALES OF RS. 85.24 CRORES AND CORRESPONDING PROFIT THEREON OF RS . 16.87 CRORES IN COMPUTING THE TOTAL INCOME AS PER NORMAL PROVISIONS AS WELL AS UNDER SECTION 115 JB OF THE ACT, LD. DR, PLACING RELIANCE ON THE ASSESSMENT ORDER JUSTIFIED THE SAME AND IMPUGNED THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A); WHEREAS AT THE OUTSET LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ISS UE STANDS SQUARELY COVERED IN ASSESSEESFAVOUR BY ORDER DATED 24.08.20 20 PASSED BY A COORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 IN ITA NO. 3336/D EL/2019. HE THEREFORE SUBMITTED THAT INASMUCH AS THE FACTS AND THE ISSUES FOR THIS YEAR ARE IDENTICAL TO THE FACTS AND ISSUES INVOLVED IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08, THERE ARE NO REASONS TO TAKE A DIFFER ENT VIEW FROM THE VIEW TAKEN FOR SUCH YEAR. 6. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE RECORD IN THE LIGHT OF THE SUBMISSIONS MADE ON EITHER SIDE. IN THE ORDER DATED 24/8/2020 F OR THE ASSESSMENT 5 YEAR 2007-08 IN ITA NO. 3336 /DEL/ 2019 UNDER IDENT ICAL SET OF FACTS, A COORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL UPHELD THE REVISI ON OF AUDITED ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT THE REV ENUE RECORDED BY THE ASSESSEE PURSUANT TO THE AGREEMENT TO SELL REPR ESENTED ARTIFICIAL AND HYPOTHETICAL INCOME CREATED MERELY BY JOURNAL E NTRIES, WHICH CANNOT BE BROUGHT TO TAX, AND THE RELEVANT OBSERVAT IONS OF THE TRIBUNAL ARE TO THE EFFECT THAT,- 7. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT T HE ASSESSEE HAS REVISED THE AUDITED ACCOUNT AND HAS GIVEN THE RELEV ANT DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE BEFORE THE CIT (A) UPON WHICH THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALSO COMMENTED THROUGH THE RE MAND REPORT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT POINTED OUT A NY DEFECTS IN THE AUDITED ACCOUNTS WHICH ARE ALLOWED TO BE REVISE D AS PER THE GUIDELINES ISSUED BY THE MINISTRY OF FINANCE AND CO MPANY AFFAIRS. THUS, THE CIT(A) RIGHTLY HELD THAT THE ART IFICIAL AND HYPOTHETICAL INCOME CREATED BY MERE GENERAL ENTRIES WHICH WERE SUBSEQUENTLY REVERSE CANNOT BE BROUGHT TO TAX. BESIDES THAT THE ASSESSEE MADE THE STATEMENT BEFORE US THAT THE INCOME DERIVED FROM THE SAID PROJECT IN SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEARS HAS BEEN OFFERED TO TAX BY THE ASSESSEE. THUS , THE REVENUE IS NOT AT LOSS AT ANY POINT OF TIME AND HEN CE THE TREATMENT GIVEN BY THE CIT(A) BY DIRECTING THE ASSE SSING OFFICER TO ALLOW THE CLAIM OFRS. 9,00,00,000/- ON ACCOUNT O F REVISION OF FINANCIAL ACCOUNTS IS JUST AND CORRECT. THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 7. FURTHER, THERE IS NO DENIAL OF THE FACT THAT SUB SEQUENTLY, AFTER RECEIPT OF REQUISITE APPROVALS, THE PROJECT WAS LAU NCHED AND INCOME THEREFROM HAS BEEN OFFERED FOR TAX IN THE RETURN FO R THE SUBSEQUENT YEARS, AND THAT SUBSEQUENTLY, NOT ONLY THE PROJECT WAS LAUNCHED, BUT REVENUES THEREFROM ARE OFFERED FOR TAX BOTH WHILE C OMPUTING INCOME UNDER THE NORMAL PROVISIONS AND ALSO FOR THE PURPOS E OF MAT UNDER SECTION 115JB OF THE ACT. 6 8. IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE ISSUE INVOLVED FOR THIS ASSESSMENT YEAR IS DIRECTLY AND SUBSTANTIALLY INVOLVED FOR THE ASSE SSMENT YEAR 2007-08 AND THERE IS NO CHANGE IS IN FACTS OR IN LAW, WE FI ND IT DIFFICULT TO TAKE A DIFFERENT VIEW THAT WAS TAKEN FOR THE ASSESSMENT YE AR 2007-08. LD. CIT(A) DEALT WITH THIS ISSUE IN EXTENSO TO REACH A CONCLUSION THAT THE STARTING POINT FOR COMPUTING OF THE PROFITS IS THE AUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENT AS PREPARED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, WHIC H IS SUBJECT TO FURTHER ADDITIONS/DEDUCTIONS IN TERMS OF VARIOUS UP WARD AND DOWNWARD ADJUSTMENTS PROVIDED IN VARIOUS CLAUSES OF EXPLANAT ION GIVEN BELOW SUBSECTION (2) OF SECTION 115 JB OF THE ACT, AND SU CH A FINDING IS WELL FORTIFIED BY THE FINDINGS OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESS EES OWN CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08.FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A), THEREFORE, CANNOT BE FOUND FAULT WITH AND ARE TO BE CONFIRMED. WITH T HIS VIEW OF THE MATTER WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN GROUNDS NO. 1 AN D 2 OF THE REVENUES APPEAL AND THOSE ARE ACCORDINGLY DISMISSE D. 9. INSOFAR AS GROUND NO. 3 OF DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL I S CONCERNED, IT RELATES TO THE ADDITION UNDER SECTION 2(22)(E) OF T HE ACT. DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED UNSE CURED LOAN OF RS.5,99,55,000 FROM M/S RITESH SPINNING MILLS LTD. (RSML), WHICH BEARS INTEREST OF RS.76,19,342 AND WAS PAID BY THE ASSESS EE THEREON. LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER WAS OF THE OPINION THAT THE LOAN ADVANCED BY RSML TO THE ASSESSEE IS LIABLE TO TAX AS DEEMED DIVIDEND UN DER SECTION 2(22)(E) OF THE ACT, ON THE GROUND THAT MR. SANJIV ARORA IS A COMMON SHAREHOLDER HOLDING SUBSTANTIAL INTEREST IN BOTH TH E COMPANIES I.E., RSML AND THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS THUS CONCLUDED BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING 7 OFFICER THAT THE LOAN ADVANCED BY RSML TO THE ASSES SEE FALLS WITHIN THE CATEGORY OF LOAN ADVANCED BY A COMPANY IN WHICH PUB LIC IS NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INTERESTED (I.E. RSML) TO A CONCERN ( I.E. THE ASSESSEE) IN WHICH THE SHAREHOLDER OF RSML (I.E. MR. SANJIV AROR A) HAS SUBSTANTIAL INTEREST, WHICH HAS TO BE ASSESSED AS DEEMED DIVIDE ND IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE TO THE EXTENT OF ACCUMULATED PROFITS O F RSML, AND SINCE ACCUMULATED PROFITS OF RSML AGGREGATED TO RS.3,27,7 1,164, LOAN ADVANCED TO THE EXTENT OF SUCH ACCUMULATED PROFITS WAS TREATED AS DEEMED DIVIDED UNDER SECTION 2(22)(E) OF THE ACT LI ABLE TO TAX IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. 10. ASSESSEE PLEADED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) THAT THA T THE ACTION OF THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER IN BRINGING TO TAX RS.3,2 7,71,164 AS DEEMED DIVIDEND UNDER SECTION 2(22)(E) OF THE ACT IN THE H ANDS OF THE ASSESSEE IS ERRONEOUS AND LEGALLY UNSUSTAINABLE BECAUSE THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2(22)(E) OF THE ACT ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO THE CASE OF ASSESSEE INASMUCH AS NEITHER THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS A SHAREHOLDER IN RSML, NOR THERE IS ANY COMMON SHAREHOLDER HOLDING THE REQUISITE PERCEN TAGE OF SHARES IN BOTH COMPANIES. LD. CIT(A) ACCEPTED THE SAME. HE FU RTHER OBSERVED THAT THE DEEMED DIVIDEND, IF ANY, WOULD OTHERWISE BE TAX ABLE IN THE HANDS OF COMMON SHAREHOLDER IN TERMS OF THE DECISION OF HON BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN CIT V. ANKITECH (P) LTD IN ITA NO.462 OF 2 009 [REPORTED IN 340 ITR 14]. REVENUE CHALLENGES THESE FINDINGS OF CIT(A ) BY WAY OF GROUND NO. 3. 11. LD. DR PLACED RELIANCE ON THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ON THIS ASPECT; WHEREAS LD. AR SUBMITS THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT A CONCERN IN WHICH ANY OF THE SHAREHOLDERS OF RSML HAD SUBSTANTIAL INT EREST, AND WHILE 8 PLACING RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF THE SPECIAL BEN CH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF BHAUMIK COLOUR PVT. LTD. [2009] 27 SOT 270 (MUM) (SB) HE ARGUED THAT DEEMED DIVIDEND UNDER SECTION 2(22)(E) IS TAXABLE IN THE HANDS OF THE COMMON SHAREHOLDER. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE SAID DECISION OF THE SPECIAL BENCH HAS BEEN AFFIRMED BY THE HONB LE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY IN THE CASE OF CIT V. UNIVERSAL MEDICARE: 32 4 ITR 263 (BOM) . HE ALSO PLACED RELIANCE ON THE ADDITIONS REPORTED INCI T VS. ANKITECH (P) LTD: 340 ITR 14 (DEL) , WHICH WAS FURTHER UPHELD BY THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MADHUR HOUSING AND DEVELOPMENT COMPANY 4 01 ITR 152 (SC), AND IT VS. MOTHERINDIA REFRIGERATION INDUSTRIES (P) LTD. 155 ITR 711. HE ALSO PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF ITO VS. MOTHERINDIA REFRIGERATION INDUSTRIE S (P) LTD.: 155 ITR 711 ALSO. 12. FOR PROPER APPRECIATION OF THE CONTENTIONS OF THE P ARTIES ON THIS ASPECT, WE DEEM IT NECESSARY TO LOOK INTO THE PROVI SIONS OF SECTION 2(22)(E) OF THE ACT WHICH READS AS UNDER: . 2. DEFINITIONS. IN THIS ACT, UNLESS THE CONTEXT OTHERWISE REQUIRES: - (22) 'DIVIDEND' INCLUDES- (A) ANY PAYMENT BY A COMPANY, NOT BEING A COMPANY IN WH ICH THE PUBLIC ARE SUBSTANTIALLY INTERESTED, OF ANY SUM (WHETHER AS REPRESENTING A PART OF THE ASSETS OF THE COMPANY OR OTHERWISE) MADE AFTER THE 31ST DAY OF MAY, 1987, BY WAY OF ADVANCEO R LOAN TO A SHAREHOLDER, BEING A PERSON WHO IS THE BENEFICIAL O WNER OF SHARES (NOT BEING SHARES ENTITLED TO A FIXED RATE OF DIVIDEND W HETHER WITH OR WITHOUT A RIGHT TO PARTICIPATE IN PROFITS) HOLDING NOT LESS THAN TEN PER CENT. OF THE VOTING POWER,OR TO ANY CONCERN IN WHIC H SUCH SHAREHOLDER IS A MEMBER OR A PARTNER AND IN WHICH HE HAS A SUBS TANTIAL INTEREST(HEREAFTER IN THIS CLAUSE REFERRED TO AS TH E SAID CONCERN) OR ANY PAYMENT BY ANY SUCH COMPANY ON BEHALF, OR FOR THE I NDIVIDUAL BENEFIT, OF ANY SUCH SHAREHOLDER, TO THE EXTENT TO WHICH THE COMPANY IN EITHER CASE POSSESSES ACCUMULATED PROFITS; EXPLANATION 3. - FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS CLAUSE, - 9 (A) 'CONCERN' MEANS A HINDU UNDIVIDED FAMILY, OR A FIR M OR AN ASSOCIATION OF PERSONS OR A BODY OF INDIVIDUALS OR A COMPANY; (B) A PERSON SHALL BE DEEMED TO HAVE A SUBSTANTIAL INT EREST IN A CONCERN, OTHER THAN A COMPANY, IF HE IS, AT ANY TIM E DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR, BENEFICIALLY ENTITLED TO NOT LESS TH AN TWENTY PER CENT. OF THE INCOME OF SUCH CONCERN; PERSON WHO HAS A SUBSTANTIAL INTEREST IN THE COMP ANY IS DEFINED IN SECTION 2(32) OF THE ACT TO MEAN A PERSON WHO IS TH E BENEFICIAL OWNER OF SHARES CARRYING NOT LESS THAN 20% OF THE VOTING POWER. 13. IN THE CASE ON HAND, ACCORDING TO THE LEARNED A SSESSING OFFICER THE LOAN WAS ADVANCED BY RSML, IN WHICH MR. SANJIV AROR A HOLDS MORE THAN 10% OF VOTING POWER, TO THE ASSESSEE IN WHICH MR. A RORA HOLDS A SUBSTANTIAL INTEREST.LD. AR SUBMITS THAT THE LEARNE D ASSESSING OFFICER FAILED TO NOTETHAT MR. ARORA DOES NOT HOLD SUBSTANT IAL INTEREST IN THE ASSESSEE INASMUCH AS MR. ARORA DOES NOT HOLD SHARES CARRYING AT LEAST 20% OF THE VOTING POWER IN THE ASSESSEE. HE INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO THE SHAREHOLDING PATTERN OF THE ASSESSEE DURING THE REL EVANT PREVIOUS YEAR, A PERUSAL OF WHICH REVEALS THAT MR. ARORA MERELY HE LD 1633632 EQUITY SHARES IN THE ASSESSEE, WHICH CONSTITUTES MERELY 14 .09 % OF THE TOTAL VOTING POWER, AND THEREFORE, MR. ARORA DID NOT HOLD 20% OF THE VOTING POWER IN THE ASSESSEE AND CONSEQUENTLY, THE ASSESSE E CANNOT BE REGARDED AS A COMPANY IN WHICH MR. ARORA HAS SUBSTA NTIAL INTEREST. WE, THEREFORE, FIND THAT THE RELATIONSHIP AS CONTEMPLAT ED IN SECTION 2(22)(E) OF THE ACT, TO APPLY THE MISCHIEF OF THE SAID SECTI ON IS NOT AT ALL SATISFIED IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. FURTHER, THERE IS NO DENIAL OF THE SUBMISSION MADE ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE THAT NO O THER SHAREHOLDER IN THE ASSESSEE SIMULTANEOUSLY HELD MORE THAN 20% OF T HE VOTING POWER IN THE ASSESSEE AND MORE THAN 10% OF THE VOTING POWER IN RSML. 14. HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MO THERINDIA REFRIGERATIONINDUSTRIES (P) LTD.: 155 ITR 711 , HELD IN RESPECT OFTHE SCOPE OF LEGAL FICTION AS UNDER: 10 HAVING REGARD TO THE AFORESAID RIVAL CONTENTIONS, IT WILL BE CLEAR THAT THE REAL ISSUE THAT ARISES FOR OUR CONSI DERATION IN THIS CASE IS WHETHER, ON A PROPER CONSTRUCTION OF THE RE LEVANT PROVISIONS OF THE CONCERNED ENACTMENT, UNABSORBED C ARRIED FORWARD LOSSES SHOULD HAVE PREFERENCE OVER CURRENT DEPRECIATION IN THE MATTER OF SET OFF OR IS THE POS ITION VICE VERSA WHILE COMPUTING THE TOTAL INCOME OF AN ASSESS EE IN THE CONCERNED ASSESSMENT YEAR ?AND THE ANSWER TO THIS Q UESTION DEPENDS ON WHAT IS THETRUE SCOPE AND PURPOSE OF THE LEGAL FICTION CREATED UNDER PROVISO (B) TO S. 10(2)(VI)OF THE 1922 ACT OR UNDER S. 32(2) OF THE 1961 ACT .................................. IT IS TRUE THAT PROVISO (B) TO S. 10(2)(VI) CREATES A LEGAL FICTION AND UNDER THAT FICTION, UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION EIT HER WITH OR WITHOUT CURRENT YEAR'S DEPRECIATION IS DEEMED TO BE THE CURRENT YEAR'S DEPRECIATION BUT IT IS WELL SETTLED, AS HAS BEEN OBSERVED BY THIS COURT IN BENGAL IMMUNITY COMPANY L IMITED V. STATE OF BIHAR [1955] 2 SCR 603, 606 ; 6 STC 446, T HAT THE LEGALFICTIONS ARE CREATED ONLY FOR SOME DEFINITE PU RPOSE AND THESE MUST BE LIMITED TO THAT PURPOSE AND SHOULD NO T BE EXTENDED BEYOND THAT LEGITIMATE FIELD. 15. IN VIEW OF THIS FACTUAL AND LEGAL POSITION INVO LVED IN THIS CASE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE PROVISION S OF SECTION 2(22)(E) OF THE ACT ARE NOT AT ALL ATTRACTED IN THE PRESENT CASE SINCE THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT A CONCERN IN WHICH ANY OF THE SHAREHOLDERS OF RSML HAD SUBSTANTIAL INTEREST. WE, ACCORDINGLY, DIS MISSED THE GROUND NO. 3 OF THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE AND ACTION OF TH E CIT(A) OF DELETING THE ADDITION MADE UNDER SECTION 2(22)(E) O F THE ACT IS UPHELD. 16. GROUND NO. 4 OF DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL AND GROUND NO. 2(ADDITIONAL GROUND) OF ASSESSEES CROSS OBJECTIONS IN CO NO. 329/DEL/20111 RELATED TO THE DISALLOWANCEUNDER SECT ION 14A OF THE ACT READ WITH RULE 8D OF THE INCOME TAX RULES1962 ( THE RULES). 11 ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE, DURING THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR, THERE WAS NO EXEMPT INCOME WAS ACTUALLY EARNED/RECEIVED B Y THE ASSESSEE AND NO EXPENDITURE WAS ACTUALLY INCURRED FOR MAKING INVESTMENT, THE ASSESSEE, IN THE RETURN OF INCOME, DID NOT DISALLOW ANY EXPENDITURE UNDER SECTION 14A OF THE ACT. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORD ER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER, HOWEVER, DISALLOWED RS.2,44,463/- UNDER SE CTION 14A OF THE ACT, BY APPLYING RULE 8D OF THE RULES. 17. IN APPEAL LD. CIT(A), WHILE UPHOLDING THE AFORE SAID DISALLOWANCE, DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO RE-COMPUTE THE DI SALLOWANCE AFTER FIGURES AS PER REVISED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF THE ASSESSEE. REVENUE DISPUTES IN THEIR APPEAL THE SAID DIRECTION OF CIT( A) TO CONSIDER REVISED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR COMPUTING DISALLOWANCE UND ER SECTION 14A OF THE ACT, WHEREAS THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGES THE DISALL OWANCE UPHELD BY CIT(A) ON MERITS. 18. LD. AR SUBMITS THAT IN TERMS OF SECTION 14A OF THE ACT, NO DEDUCTION IS ADMISSIBLE IN RESPECT OF EXPENDITURE, WHICH HAS PROXIMATE NEXUS WITH INCOME, WHICH DOES NOT FORM PART OF TOTA L INCOME UNDER THE ACT OR, IN OTHER WORDS, EXEMPT INCOME; WHEREAS THE LD. DR, AS AGAINST THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, PLACED RELIANCE ON THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. 19. THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT DURING THE RELEVANT PR EVIOUS YEAR, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT EARN ANY EXEMPTDIVIDEND INCOME FRO M INVESTMENTS HELD IN SUBSIDIARIES. WHEN NO EXEMPT INCOME IS ACTU ALLY EARNED BY AN ASSESSEE FROM INVESTMENTS HELD DURING THE YEAR, NO PORTION OF EXPENSES INCURRED DURING THE YEAR CAN BE DISALLOWED UNDER SE CTION 14A OF THE 12 ACT. 20. HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN PCIT VS. I L & FS ENERGY DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LTD. (2017) 99 CCH 0190 DELHC, (2017) 297 CTR 0452 (DEL) DECIDED ON 16TH AUGUST, 2017, AFTER CONS IDERING A CATENA OF DECISIONS, HELD THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND OBSERVED THAT,- 9. MR. ZOHEB HOSSAIN, LEARNED SENIOR STANDING COUNS EL FOR THE REVENUE, SUBMITTED THAT, IN CHEMINVEST LTD. (SUPRA) , THIS COURT HAD NO OCCASION TO CONSIDER THE CBDT CIRCULAR NO. 5/2014 D ATED 11TH FEBRUARY 2014 WHICH CLARIFIED THAT SECTION 14A WOULD APPLY E VEN WHEN EXEMPT INCOME WAS NOT EARNED IN A PARTICULAR AY. ACCORDING TO HIM, THE OTHER DECISIONS OF THIS COURT IN CIT-IV V. TAIKISHA ENGIN EERING INDIA PVT. LTD. [2015] 370 ITR 338 (DEL) AND CIT-IV V. HOLCIM INDIA PVT. LTD. (2014) 272 CTR (DEL) 282 DID NOT ACTUALLY DISCUSS THE ABOVE CI RCULAR OF THE CBDT AND, THEREFORE, WOULD BE DISTINGUISHABLE. 10. MR. HOSSAIN FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS NO THING IN SECTION 14A OF THE ACT WHICH SUGGESTED THAT EXEMPT INCOME H AD TO NECESSARILY BE EARNED IN THE AY IN QUESTION FOR THE APPLICABILI TY OF THE SAID PROVISION. HE SUBMITTED THAT IF THE INTERPRETATION PLACED ON SECTION 14 A OF THE ACT BY THE ABOVE CBDT CIRCULAR WAS NOT ACC EPTED, THE VERY PURPOSE OF SECTION 14A WOULD BE DEFEATED. HE REFERR ED TO THE DECISIONS OF THE ITAT IN ACIT V. RATAN HOUSING DEVELOPMENT LT D. (ORDER DATED 23RD MAY 2008 OF ITAT LUCKNOW) RELAXO FOOTWEAR LTD. V. ADDL. CIT [2012] 50 SOT 102 (DEL). XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX 19. IN THE CONSIDERED VIEW OF THE COURT, THIS WILL BE A TRUNCATED READING OF SECTION 14 A AND RULE 8D PARTICULARLY WHEN RULE 8D (1) USES THE EXPRESSION SUCH PREVIOUS YEAR. FURTHER, IT DOES N OT ACCOUNT FOR THE CONCEPT OF REAL INCOME. IT DOES NOT NOTE THAT UND ER SECTION 5 OF THE ACT, THE QUESTION OF TAXATION OF NOTIONAL INCOME DOES NOT ARISE. AS EXPLAINED IN COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX V. WALFORT SHARE AND STOCK BROKERS PVT. LTD [2010] 326 ITR 1 (SC), THE MANDATE OF SECTION 14A OF THE ACT IS TO CURB THE PRACTICE OF CLAIMING DEDUCTI ON OF EXPENSES 13 INCURRED IN RELATION TO EXEMPT INCOME BEING TAXABLE INCOME AND AT THE SAME TIME AVAIL OF THE TAX INCENTIVES BY WAY OF EXE MPTION OF EXEMPT INCOME WITHOUT MAKING ANY APPORTIONMENT OF EXPENSES INCURRED IN RELATION TO EXEMPT INCOME. CONSEQUENTLY, THE COURT IS NOT PERSUADED THAT IN VIEW OF THE CIRCULAR OF THE CBDT DATED 11TH MAY 2014, THE DECISION OF THIS COURT IN CHEMINVEST LTD. (SUPRA) R EQUIRES RECONSIDERATION. 20. IN M/S. REDINGTON (INDIA) LTD. V. THE ADDITIONA L COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COMPANY RANGE V, CHENNAI (ORDER DATED 23RD DECEMBER, 2016 OF THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS IN TCA N O. 520 OF 2016), A SIMILAR CONTENTION OF THE REVENUE WAS NEGATED. TH E COURT THERE DECLINED TO APPLY THE CBDT CIRCULAR BY EXPLAINING T HAT SECTION 14A IS CLEARLY RELATABLE TO THE EARNING OF THE ACTUAL INC OME AND NOT NOTIONAL INCOME OR ANTICIPATED INCOME. IT WAS FURTHER EXPLA INED THAT, THE COMPUTATION OF TOTAL INCOME IN TERMS OF RULE 8 D IS BY WAY OF A DETERMINATION INVOLVING DIRECT AS WELL AS INDI RECT ATTRIBUTION. THUS, ACCEPTING THE SUBMISSION OF THE REVENUE WOULD RESULT IN THE IMPOSITION OF AN ARTIFICIAL MET HOD OF COMPUTATION ON NOTIONAL AND ASSUMED INCOME. WE BELI EVE THUS WOULD BE CARRYING THE ARTIFICE TOO FAR. 21. THE DECISIONS IN CIT V. M/S LAKHANI MARKETING I NC. 2014 SCC ONLINE P&H 20357, CIT V. WINSOME TEXTILE INDUSTRIES LIMITED [2009] 319 ITR 204 (P&H), CIT V. SHIVAM MOTORS (P) LTD. (2014) 272 CTR (ALL) 277 HAVE ALL TAKEN A SIMILAR VIEW. THE DECISION IN TAIKISHA ENGINEERING INDIA PVT. LTD. (SUPRA) DOES NOT SPECIFICALLY DEAL WITH THIS I SSUE. 22. IT WAS SUGGESTED BY MR. HOSSAIN THAT, IN THE CO NTEXT OF SECTION 57(III), THE SUPREME COURT IN COMMISSIONER OF INCOM E TAX, WEST V. RAJENDRA PRASAD MOODY [1978] 115 ITR 519 (SC) EXPLA INED THAT DEDUCTION IS ALLOWABLE EVEN WHERE INCOME WAS NOT AC TUALLY EARNED IN THE AY IN QUESTION. THIS ASPECT OF THE MATTER WAS D EALT WITH BY THIS COURT IN M/S CHEMINVEST LTD. (SUPRA) WHERE IT REVER SED THE DECISION OF THE SPECIAL BENCH OF THE ITAT BY OBSERVING AS UNDER : 20. SINCE THE SPECIAL BENCH HAS RELIED UPON THE DE CISION OF THE SUPREME COURT IN RAJENDRA PRASAD MOODY (SUPRA), IT IS CONSIDERED NECESSARY TO DISCUSS THE TRUE PURPORT OF THE SAID DECISION. IT IS NOTICED TO BEGIN WITH THAT THE ISSU E BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT IN THE SAID CASE WAS WHETHER THE EXPE NDITURE UNDER SECTION 57 (III) OF THE ACT COULD BE ALLOWED AS A DEDUCTION AGAINST DIVIDEND INCOME ASSESSABLE UNDER THE HEAD INCOME 14 FROM OTHER SOURCES. UNDER SECTION 57 (III) OF THE ACT DEDUCTION IS ALLOWED IN RESPECT OF ANY EXPENDITURE LAID OUT O R EXPENDED WHOLLY OR EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF MAKING OR EARNING SUCH INCOME. THE SUPREME COURT EXPLAINED THAT THE EXPRES SION 'INCURRED FOR MAKING OR EARNING SUCH INCOME?, DID N OT MEAN THAT ANY INCOME SHOULD IN FACT HAVE BEEN EARNED AS A CONDITION PRECEDENT FOR CLAIMING THE EXPENDITURE. THE COURT E XPLAINED: WHAT S. 57(III) REQUIRES IS THAT THE EXPENDITURE M UST BE LAID OUT OR EXPENDED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF MAKING OR EARNING INCOME. IT IS THE PURPOSE OF THE EXPENDI TURE THAT IS RELEVANT IN DETERMINING THE APPLICABILITY OF S. 57( III) AND THAT PURPOSE MUST BE MAKING OR EARNING OF INCOME. S. 57( III) DOES NOT REQUIRE THAT THIS PURPOSE MUST BE FULFILLED IN ORDER TO QUALIFY THE EXPENDITURE FOR DEDUCTION. IT DOES NOT SAY THAT THE EXPENDITURE SHALL BE DEDUCTIBLE ONLY IF ANY INCOME IS MADE OR EARNED. THERE IS IN FACT NOTHING IN THE LANGUAGE OF S. 57(III) TO SUGGEST THAT THE PURPOSE FOR WHICH THE EXPENDITURE IS MADE SHOULD FRUCTIFY INTO ANY BENEFIT BY WAY OF RETURN I N THE SHAPE OF INCOME. THE PLAIN NATURAL CONSTRUCTION OF THE LANGU AGE OF S. 57(III) IRRESISTIBLY LEADS TO THE CONCLUSION THAT T O BRING A CASE WITHIN THE SECTION, IT IS NOT NECESSARY THAT ANY IN COME SHOULD IN FACT HAVE BEEN EARNED AS A RESULT OF THE EXPENDITUR E.' 21. THERE IS MERIT IN THE CONTENTION OF MR. VOHRA T HAT THE DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT IN RAJENDRA PRASAD MOODY (SUPRA) WAS RENDERED IN THE CONTEXT OF ALLOWABILITY OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECT ION 57(III) OF THE ACT, WHERE THE EXPRESSION USED IS 'FOR THE PURPOSE OF MA KING OR EARNING SUCH INCOME.' SECTION 14A OF THE ACT ON THE OTHER H AND CONTAINS THE EXPRESSION 'IN RELATION TO INCOME WHICH DOES NOT FO RM PART OF THE TOTAL INCOME.' THE DECISION IN RAJENDRA PRASAD MOODY (SUP RA) CANNOT BE USED IN THE REVERSE TO CONTEND THAT EVEN IF NO INCO ME HAS BEEN RECEIVED, THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED CAN BE DISALLOWE D UNDER SECTION 14A OF THE ACT. 23. THE DECISIONS OF THE ITAT IN ACIT V. RATAN HOUS ING DEVELOPMENT LTD. (SUPRA) AND RELAXO FOOTWEAR LTD. V. ADDL. CIT (SUPRA), TO THE EXTENT THAT THEY ARE INCONSISTENT WITH WHAT HAS BEEN HELD HEREINBEFORE DO NOT MERIT ACCEPTANCE. FURTHER, THE MERE FACT THAT IN TH E AUDIT REPORT FOR THE AY IN QUESTION, THE AUDITORS MAY HAVE SUGGESTED THA T THERE SHOULD BE A DISALLOWANCE CANNOT BE DETERMINATIVE OF THE LEGAL P OSITION. THAT WOULD NOT PRECLUDE THE ASSESSEE FROM TAKING A STAND THAT NO DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14 A OF THE ACT WAS CALLED FOR IN THE AY IN QUESTION BECAUSE NO EXEMPT INCOME WAS EARNED. 15 21. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE POSITION OF LAW, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT WHERE THERE IS NO DISPUTE OF FACT THAT NO DIVIDEND HAS BEEN EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR, NO DIS ALLOWANCE IS CALLED FOR UNDER SECTION 14 A OF THE ACT. GROUND NO. 4 OF THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED AND GROUND NO. 2 O F ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED. 22. GROUND NO. 1 OF ASSESSEES CROSS OBJECTIONS REL ATES TO THE DISALLOWANCE OF FOREIGN TRAVEL EXPENSES.LEARNED ASS ESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED TRAVELLING EXPENDITURE TO THE EXTENT OF RS.60,00,107/-, ON THE GROUND THAT THE SAME WAS IN RESPECT OF FOREIGN TRAV EL, WHICH WERE INCURRED FOR NON-BUSINESS PURPOSES. ACCORDING TO TH E ASSESSEE DURING THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR ENDING 31.03.2008, THE A SSESSEE INCURRED TOTAL TRAVELLING EXPENDITURE AMOUNTING TO RS. 75,01 ,489/-, THE DETAILS OF WHICH ARE AS UNDER: A) TRAVELLING EXPENSES RS. 12,35,195 B) DIRECTOR TRAVELLING EXPENSES RS. 60,00,107 C) DIRECTOR FOREIGN TRAVELLING EXPENSES RS. 44,100 D) FOREIGN TRAVELLING RS. 1,21,588 E) CONVEYANCE RS. 1,00,500 23. ON THE BASIS OF THE AFORESAID DETAILS, THE ASSE SSING OFFICER HELD THAT EXPENDITURE OF RS.60,00,107 WAS TOWARDS FOREIG N TRAVEL AND THE SAME WAS NOT INCURRED FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS A ND HENCE NOT ALLOWABLE AS DEDUCTION. DISALLOWANCE TO THE EXTENT OF RS.7,02,655 WAS UPHELD BY THE CIT(A) ON THE GROUND THAT NO DETAILS OF TRAVEL OR NEXUS 16 WITH ASSESSEES BUSINESS WAS BEEN PROVIDED BY THE A SSESSEE DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS AND THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED T O DISCHARGE ITS ONUS OF PROVING ADMISSIBILITY OF THE AFORESAID EXPENDITU RE UNDER SECTION 37 OF THE ACT. AS REGARDS THE REMAINING EXPENDITURE OF RS .52,97,452, THE ISSUE WAS SET ASIDE TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH D IRECTION TO ALLOW SUCH PORTION OF THE SAME AS IS PROVED TO BE GENUINE AND INCURRED FOR THE PURPOSE OF ASSESSEES BUSINESS. 24. THOUGH THE COUNSEL SUBMITS THAT THE AFORESAID A CTION OF THE CIT(A) IN UPHOLDING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.7,02,655 /- ON THE GROUND THAT THE SAID EXPENDITURE WAS INCURRED FOR FOREIGN TRAVEL FOR PERSONAL PURPOSES IS WITHOUT ANY BASIS AND WITHOUT APPRECIAT ION OF FACTS, ON A CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORIT IES BELOW IN THE LIGHT OF THE SUBMISSIONS MADE ON EITHER SIDE WHERE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT FACTUALLY THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO ESTAB LISH THE NEXUS BETWEEN THE TRAVEL AND THE BUSINESS PURPOSE FOR THI S YEAR AND, THEREFORE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY GROUND TO INTERFERE W ITH THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) ON THIS ASPECT. WHILE UPHOLDING THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A), WE DISMISS GROUND NO. 1 OF ASSESSEES APPEA L. 25.IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSE D AND THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED IN PART. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT IMMEDIATELY AFTE R THE CONCLUSION OF THE HEARING IN THE VIRTUAL COURT ON THIS THE 4 TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021. SD/- SD/- (G.S. PANNU) (K. NARASIMHA CHARY) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 04/01/2021 17 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI