M/s Honda Motorcycle and Scooter India Private Ltd., Gurgaon V. DCIT, Gurgaon

ITA 406/DEL/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8328 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-04-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: I1
• Next Hearing Date: 11-04-2016
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 27-01-2016
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AMRENDRA KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: VIJAY IYER
• Keywords: Depreciation; Transfer pricing; International transaction; Rule of consistency
• Section: 143(3); 37(1); 32

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES : I-1 : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, AM AND SHRI C.M. GARG, JM ITA NO.406/DEL/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12 HONDA MOTORCYCLE & SCOOTER INDIA PVT. LTD., COMMERCIAL COMPLEX II, SECTOR 49-50, GOLF COURSE EXTENSION ROAD, GURGAON. PAN : AAACH7467D VS. DCIT, CIRCLE-2, GURGAON. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI VIJAY IYER, CA DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI AMRENDRA KUMAR, CIT, DR DATE OF HEARING : 11.04.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 12.04.2016 ORDER PER R.S. SYAL, AM: THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST TH E FINAL ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 143(3) READ WITH SECT ION 144C OF THE INCOME- ITA NO.406/DEL/2016 2 TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER ALSO CALLED `THE ACT) O N 04.01.2016 IN RELATION TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12. 2. FIRST ISSUE RAISED IN THIS APPEAL IS AGAINST THE ADDITION OF RS.22,85,36,863/- MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF TRAN SFER PRICING ADJUSTMENT IN RELATION TO THE INTERNATIONAL TRANSAC TION OF PAYMENT OF EXPORT COMMISSION. 3. BRIEFLY STATED, THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT T HE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURE AND SALE OF MOTORCYCLES AND SCOOTERS IN INDIA. HONDA, JAPAN PROVIDES NECESSARY TECHNOLOGY AND SUPP ORT TO THE ASSESSEE FOR MANUFACTURING TWO-WHEELERS IN INDIA. THE MANUF ACTURING ACTIVITY IS UNDERTAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE GOODS SO MANUFAC TURED, NAMELY, TWO WHEELERS, ARE LARGELY SOLD IN INDIA TO UNRELATED P ARTIES AND SOME PART OF THE TOTAL SALE IS EXPORTS MADE BOTH TO ASSOCIATED ENTER PRISES (AES) AND NON- ASSOCIATED ENTERPRISES (NON-AES). THE ASSESSEE REP ORTED CERTAIN INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS IN FORM NO.3CEB. THESE TRANSACTIONS, INTER ALIA , INCLUDED: PAYMENT OF EXPORT COMMISSION WITH TRA NSACTED VALUE OF RS.22,85,863/-. THIS EXPORT COMMISSION WAS PAID TO HONDA MOTORS LTD., ITA NO.406/DEL/2016 3 JAPAN, THE ASSESSEES PARENT COMPANY, FOR USE OF IT S DISTRIBUTION NETWORK IN FOREIGN MARKETS WHERE OTHER HONDA GROUP ENTITIES OP ERATE OR WHERE THE PARENT COMPANY HAS ITS OWN NETWORK. THE ASSESSEE A DOPTED TRANSACTIONAL NET MARGIN METHOD (TNMM) AS THE MOST APPROPRIATE ME THOD FOR BENCHMARKING ITS INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS, INCLUD ING PAYMENT OF EXPORT COMMISSION. ON A REFERENCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING O FFICER (AO) TO THE TRANSFER PRICING OFFICER (TPO) FOR DETERMINING THE ARMS LENGTH PRICE, THE TPO CALLED UPON THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH CERTAIN DET AILS, WHICH WERE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE SHOWING THAT IT USED THE DISTRIBUTO R NETWORK OF ITS AE. SUCH DISTRIBUTORS WERE THOSE WHICH ALREADY EXISTED OR TO BE DESIGNATED BY ITS AE. THE ASSESSEE ALSO FURNISHED AGREEMENT ENTE RED INTO WITH ITS AE IN THIS REGARD, WHOSE RELEVANT PARTS HAVE BEEN REPROD UCED IN THE TPOS ORDER. BY CONSIDERING RELEVANT CLAUSES OF THIS AGR EEMENT, THE TPO OPINED THAT THE ASSESSEE, BY ITS EXPORT ACTIVITIES, WAS DE VELOPING BRAND OF THE AE BY POSITIVE ACTION APART FROM EXPANDING THE REACH O F THE AE/GROUP BY INTRODUCING NEW PRODUCTS INTO THE MARKET. THE TPO HELD THAT INSTEAD OF AVAILING ANY SERVICE FOR WHICH SUCH COMMISSION WAS PAID, THE ASSESSEE WAS, IN FACT, CARRYING OUT A SERVICE TO ITS AE AND, HENCE, THERE WAS NO ITA NO.406/DEL/2016 4 REQUIREMENT FOR MAKING PAYMENT OF ANY EXPORT COMMIS SION. HE, THEREFORE, TREATED ARMS LENGTH PRICE (ALP) OF THE INTERNATION AL TRANSACTION OF PAYMENT OF EXPORT COMMISSION AT NIL, WHICH RESULTED INTO RECOMMENDING TRANSFER PRICING ADJUSTMENT OF RS.22,85,36,863/-, B EING THE VALUE OF INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION ITSELF. THE ASSESSEE REM AINED UNSUCCESSFUL BEFORE THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION PANEL (DRP). IN THE FINAL A SSESSMENT ORDER, THE AO MADE THIS ADDITION, AGAINST WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS COME UP IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSION AND PERUSED T HE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE APPLIE D THE TNMM AS THE MOST APPROPRIATE METHOD WITH THE PROFIT LEVEL INDICATOR (PLI) OF OPERATING PROFIT/OPERATING REVENUE. THE INTERNATIONAL TRANSA CTION OF `PAYMENT OF EXPORT COMMISSION HAS BEEN CONSIDERED ALONG WITH O THER INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS. AS PER THE AGREEMENT, THE ASSESSEE A VAILED ASSISTANCE FROM ITS PARENT AE FOR PROMOTING SALES OF ITS PRODUCTS I N THE DESIGNATED COUNTRIES BY PROVIDING COOPERATION IN IMPLEMENTING THE SALES PROGRAMMES AND POLICIES AND PROVIDING NECESSARY ASSISTANCE TO ADVERTISE, PUBLICISE ITA NO.406/DEL/2016 5 WITHIN THE DESIGNATED COUNTRIES, SO THAT THE ASSESS EE MAY ACHIEVE GOOD SALES TARGET. IN LIEU OF THAT, THE ASSESSEE PAID C OMMISSION @ 5% ON TWO- WHEELER AND SPARE PARTS RELATING TO TWO-WHEELERS AN D 5% ON THREE-WHEELERS AND SPARE PARTS RELATING TO THREE-WHEELERS. IT IS THIS AMOUNT OF RS.22.85 CRORE PAID AS COMMISSION BY THE ASSESSEE, FOR WHIC H ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE ON THE BASIS OF THE TPO DETERMINING ALP AT NI L. 5. THEIR LORDSHIPS IN CIT V. CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD (INDIA) (P.) LTD. (2014) 367 ITR 730 (DEL), HAVE HELD THAT THE AUTHORITY OF THE TPO IS LIMITED TO CONDUCTING TRANSFER PRICING ANALYSIS FOR DETERMINING THE ALP OF AN INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION AND NOT TO DECIDE IF S UCH SERVICES EXIST OR BENEFITS DID ACCRUE TO THE ASSESSEE. SUCH LATER ASP ECTS HAVE BEEN HELD TO BE FALLING IN THE EXCLUSIVE DOMAIN OF THE AO. IN THAT CASE, IT WAS OBSERVED THAT THE E-MAILS CONSIDERED BY TRIBUNAL FROM MR. BRAGANZ A AND MR. CHOUDHARY DEALT WITH SPECIFIC INTERACTION AND RELATED TO BENE FITS OBTAINED BY ASSESSEE, PROVIDING A SUFFICIENT BASIS TO HOLD THAT BENEFIT A CCRUED TO ASSESSEE. AS THE DETAILS OF SPECIFIC ACTIVITIES FOR WHICH COST WAS I NCURRED BY BOTH AES (FOR ACTIVITIES OF MR. BRAGANZA AND MR. CHOUDHARY), AND ATTENDANT BENEFITS TO ITA NO.406/DEL/2016 6 ASSESSEE WERE NOT CONSIDERED, THE HON'BLE HIGH COUR T REMANDED THE MATTER TO FILE OF CONCERNED AO FOR AN ALP ASSESSMENT BY TP O, FOLLOWED BY AO'S ASSESSMENT ORDER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW CONSIDERING THE DEDUCTIBILITY OR OTHERWISE AS PER SECTION 37(1) OF THE ACT. 6. WHEN WE ADVERT TO THE FACTS OF THE INSTANT CASE, IT TURNS OUT THAT THE TPO PROPOSED THE TRANSFER PRICING ADJUSTMENT EQUAL TO THE STATED VALUE OF TRANSACTION AT RS.22.85 CRORE WITH NIL ALP OF `PAYM ENT OF EXPORT COMMISSION BY HOLDING THAT NO BENEFIT WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE AS A RESULT OF THE PAYMENT OF COMMISSION AND HENCE NO PA YMENT ON THIS ACCOUNT WAS WARRANTED. THE AO IN HIS DRAFT ORDER HAS TAKEN ALP OF THIS INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION AT NIL ON THE BASIS OF RE COMMENDATION OF THE TPO WITHOUT CARRYING OUT ANY INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION IN TERMS OF THE DEDUCTIBILITY OR OTHERWISE OF SUCH PAYMENT IN TERMS OF SECTION 37(1) OF THE ACT. THIS ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE BY THE AO IN HIS F INAL ASSESSMENT ORDER GIVING EFFECT TO THE DIRECTION GIVEN BY THE DRP AND NOT BY INVOKING SECTION 37(1) OF THE ACT. AS PER THE RATIO DECIDENDI IN CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD INDIA (P.) LTD . (SUPRA), THE TPO WAS REQUIRED TO SIMPLY DETERMINE THE ALP ITA NO.406/DEL/2016 7 OF THE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION OF `PAYMENT OF EXP ORT COMMISSION UNCONCERNED WITH THE FACT, IF ANY BENEFIT ACCRUED T O THE ASSESSEE AND THEREAFTER, IT WAS FOR THE AO TO DECIDE THE DEDUCTI BILITY OF THIS AMOUNT U/S 37(1) OF THE ACT. AS THE TPO IN THE INSTANT CASE IN ITIALLY DETERMINED NIL ALP BY HOLDING THAT NO BENEFIT ACCRUED TO THE ASSES SEE AND THE AO MADE THE ADDITION WITHOUT EXAMINING THE APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 37(1) OF THE ACT, WE FIND THE ACTIONS OF THE AO/TPO RUNNING IN C ONTRADICTION TO THE RATIO LAID DOWN IN CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD (SUPRA) . RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE PRECEDENT, WE SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND REMIT THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF AO/TPO FOR DECIDING THIS ISSUE IN CONFORMIT Y WITH THE LAW LAID DOWN BY THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN TH E CASE OF CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD (INDIA) (P.) LTD. (SUPRA) . 7. RELIANCE OF THE LD. DR ON CERTAIN DECISIONS IN CLUDING BOMBARDIER TRANSPORTATION INDIA PVT. LTD. VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIO NER OF INCOME TAX IN I.T.A. NO.-1626/DEL/2015 IMPRESSING UPON US TO SUST AIN THE ADDITION IS MISCONCEIVED BECAUSE IN SUCH DECISIONS THE TRIBUNAL FOUND AS A FACT THAT NO SERVICES WERE, IN FACT, RECEIVED BY THOSE ASSESSES REQUIRING PAYMENT OF ITA NO.406/DEL/2016 8 CONSIDERATION. ON THE CONTRARY, WE ARE CONFRONTED W ITH A SITUATION IN WHICH SUCH AN ANALYSIS IS YET TO BE DONE BY THE AO/TPO. I T IS ONLY AFTER DOING THIS EXERCISE THAT THE FACTUM OF THE AE HAVING REND ERED SOME OR NO SERVICES WILL COME TO THE FORE, REQUIRING THE MAKIN G OR NOT MAKING OF ANY ADDITION. 8. IT IS FURTHER FOUND THAT THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSE SSEES OWN CASE FOR THE AYS 2008-09, 2009-10 AND 2010-11 HAS RESTORED THE MATTE R TO THE FILE OF THE AO/TPO FOR DECIDING THE ISSUE IN THE LIGHT OF THE JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF CUSHMAN (SUPRA). NOTHING HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD TO DEMONSTRATE THAT SUCH A VIEW HAS BEEN DISTURBED BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT IN ANY MANNER. FOLLOWING THE RULE OF CONSISTENCY, WE SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER ON THIS ISSUE AND SEND THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE AO/TPO FOR DECIDING IT AFRESH IN THE ABOVE TERMS AFTER ALLOWING A REASONABLE OPPORTU NITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. 9. SECOND ISSUE RAISED IN THIS APPEAL IS AGAINST TH E ADDITION OF RS.8,60,70,816/- ON ACCOUNT OF TRANSFER PRICING ADJ USTMENT FROM THE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION OF PAYMENT OF ROYALTY FO R EXPORTS TO AES. THE ITA NO.406/DEL/2016 9 FACTS APROPOS THIS ISSUE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE PAID ROYALTY AMOUNTING TO RS.404.65 CRORE TO ITS AE. THE TPO OBSERVED THAT R OYALTY WAS PAID TO HONDA, JAPAN AND SOME EXPORTS WERE MADE TO THE SUBS IDIARIES OR GROUP COMPANIES OF HONDA, JAPAN ONLY. APART FROM THAT, T HE ASSESSEE WAS ALSO FOUND TO HAVE PAID EXPORT COMMISSION TO HONDA, JAPA N @ 5% FOR EXPORTS MADE TO ITS AES. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS, THE TPO O PINED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS A CONTRACT MANUFACTURER WITH REGARD TO MANUFA CTURING OF GOODS FOR ITS AES INASMUCH AS SUCH GOODS WERE MANUFACTURED IN INDIA BY THE ASSESSEE AND, THEN, PART OF ITS WAS EXPORTED TO VAR IOUS AES. CONSIDERING THE FACTS THAT NO INDEPENDENT PARTY WOULD PAY ROYAL TY UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES IN RESPECT OF EXPORTS MADE TO AES, TH E TPO DETERMINED ALP OF THE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION OF EXPORTS MAD E TO ITS AE AT NIL, WHICH LED TO THE EVENTUAL ADDITION OF RS.8.6 CRORE BY THE AO IN HIS FINAL ORDER. THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED AGAINST THIS ADDI TION. 10. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. IT IS NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE PAID ROYALTY IN RESPECT OF DOMESTIC SALES AS WELL AS EXPORT SALES TO AES AND N ON-AES FOR A SUM OF ITA NO.406/DEL/2016 10 RS.404.65 CRORE. THE TPO SIMPLY CONSIDERED ROYALTY PAID IN RESPECT OF EXPORTS TO ITS AES FOR THE PURPOSES OF DISALLOWANCE BY CONSIDERING OTHER ROYALTY AS DEDUCTIBLE. IT IS UNDISPUTED THAT ROYAL TY WAS PAID BY THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF EXPORTS TO AES AT THE SAME RATE AT WH ICH IT WAS PAID FOR SALES MADE TO NON-AES. FIRSTLY, WE FIND THE VIEW POINT O F THE TPO TO THE EFFECT THAT ASSESSEE IS A `CONTRACT MANUFACTURER, AS CLE ARLY UNTENABLE BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE PURCHASED RAW MATERIAL, DID MANUFACTUR ING AND, THEN, SOLD THE GOODS AT ITS OWN. THROUGHOUT THE PROCESS OF PURCHA SING THE GOODS, MANUFACTURING AND SELLING THE SAME, THE TRANSACTION S, WHEREVER WITH AES, HAVE BEEN ON PRINCIPAL-TO-PRINCIPAL BASIS. IT IS T HE ASSESSEE WHO HAS BEEN RESPONSIBLE FOR RISKS AND REWARDS OF MANUFACTURING. NOT ONLY EXPORTS WERE MADE TO AES, BUT, PAYMENTS WERE ALSO RECEIVED AGAIN ST THE SALE CONSIDERATION. THUS, WE CANNOT COUNTENANCE THE VIE W POINT OF THE AO/TPO OF THE ASSESSEE BEING A CONTRACT MANUFACTURE R. 11. WE ARE NOT ABLE TO APPRECIATE THE VIEW POINT OF THE TPO IN ALLOWING ROYALTY PAYMENT IN RESPECT OF GOODS SOLD TO NON-AES AND DISALLOWING THE SAME IN RESPECT OF SALES TO AES. ACCEPTING ROYALTY PAYMENT TO AE IN ITA NO.406/DEL/2016 11 RESPECT OF SALES TO NON-AES GOES TO SHOW THAT THE A LP OF ROYALTY PAYMENT STOOD ACCEPTED BY THE REVENUE. NIL ALP HAS BEEN DET ERMINED ONLY OF THE ROYALTY PAID IN RESPECT OF EXPORTS MADE TO AES. RO YALTY IS PAYABLE ON THE BASIS OF MANUFACTURING OF GOODS AND NOT ON THE SALE S MADE. AS THE RATE OF ROYALTY PAID IN RESPECT OF EXPORTS TO AES IS EQUAL TO THAT IN RESPECT OF SALES TO NON-AES, WHICH HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE TPO AT A LP, WE FAIL TO SEE AS TO HOW ROYALTY PAID IN RESPECT OF EXPORTS TO AES IS NOT AT ALP. WE FURTHER FIND THAT SIMILAR ISSUE CAME FOR CONSIDERATION BEFO RE THE TRIBUNAL IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR EARLIER THREE YEARS STARTIN G FROM ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 UP TO 2010-11. IN ITS FIRST ORDER FOR THE AY 2008-09, THE TRIBUNAL, CONSIDERING IDENTICAL PAYMENT OF ROYALTY ALLOWED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ITS SISTER CONCERN, NAMELY, HERO MOTOR CORP LTD. (ITA NO.5130/DEL/2010), CHOSE TO DELETE THE ADDITION SO MADE BY THE TPO IN IDENTICAL CIRCUMSTANCES. SIMILAR VIEW HAS BEEN REIT ERATED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE AYS 2009-10 AND 201 0-11. IN THE LIGHT OF THE FACT THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS CONSISTENTLY DELETED THE ADDITION IN RESPECT OF ROYALTY PAYMENT BY CONSIDERING THE SAME TO BE AT AL P, WE ARE DISINCLINED TO ACCEPT THE STAND OF THE LD. DR FOR RESTORING THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF ITA NO.406/DEL/2016 12 AO/TPO FOR A FRESH DETERMINATION OF THE ALP OF THIS INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION. THIS ISSUE IS DECIDED IN THE ASSESSEE S FAVOUR. 12. LAST GROUND OF THE APPEAL IS AGAINST THE GRANT OF DEPRECIATION U/S 32 @ 15% ON MOULDS USED FOR PLASTIC COMPONENTS AS AGAI NST 30% CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. 13. BRIEFLY STATED, THE FACTS OF THIS GROUND A RE THAT THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED DEPRECIATION @ 30% AND 50% ON MOULDS USED IN PLASTI C GOODS FACTORIES. THE AO RESTRICTED SUCH RATE OF DEPRECIATION TO 15% BY CONSIDERING THE VIEW TAKEN BY HIM IN EARLIER YEARS. THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED AGAINST THE REDUCTION IN THE AMOUNT OF DEPRECIATION DUE TO APPL ICATION OF A LOWER RATE. 14. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSING THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT THE AO REDUCED THE DEPRECIATION RATE ON PLASTIC MOULDS BY FOLLOWING THE VIEW TAKEN BY HIM I N THE PRECEDING YEARS. NEITHER THE LD. AR NOR THE LD. DR COULD SPECIFICALL Y POINT OUT THE FATE OF SUCH ADDITION IN THE EARLIER YEARS, INASMUCH AS WHE THER THE ASSESSEE ACCEPTED SUCH ADDITION OR IF ASSAILED, THEN THE FIN AL VIEW TAKEN BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE PRECEDING YEARS ON THIS ISSUE. SIM ILAR ISSUE, WHEN CAME UP ITA NO.406/DEL/2016 13 FOR CONSIDERATION BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL FOR THE AY 20 06-07, IT RESTORED THE MATTER TO THE AO FOR DECIDING THIS ISSUE AFRESH AFT ER ASCERTAINING THE NECESSARY FACTS. AS THERE IS STILL NO CLARITY ON TH IS ISSUE, WE DEEM IT FIT TO FOLLOW THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE TRIBUNAL FOR THE A.Y. 2006-07. RESULTANTLY, WE SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER ON THIS ISSUE AND REMI T THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF AO FOR DECIDING THE MATTER AFRESH INCONFORMITY WITH THE DIRECTIONS GIVEN HEREINABOVE. 15. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED. THE ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 12.04.201 6. SD/- SD/- [C.M. GARG] [R.S. SYAL] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED, 12 TH APRIL, 2016. DK COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT AR, ITAT, NEW DELHI.