Ashok Kumar Tandon, New Delhi V. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 4218/DEL/2012

• Counselvise Citation: 421820114 RSA 2012
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 11 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-07-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 22-07-2014
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 03-08-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: Y KAKKAR
• Keywords: Reopening of assessment; Depreciation; Salary income; Tangible material; Reason to believe
• Section: 147; 148

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI DELHI DELHI DELHI BENCH BENCH BENCH BENCH A AA A : NEW DELHI : NEW DELHI : NEW DELHI : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G.D. AGRAWAL, VICE BEFORE SHRI G.D. AGRAWAL, VICE BEFORE SHRI G.D. AGRAWAL, VICE BEFORE SHRI G.D. AGRAWAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND PRESIDENT AND PRESIDENT AND PRESIDENT AND SHRI SHRI SHRI SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER MEMBER MEMBER MEMBER ITA NO ITA NO ITA NO ITA NOS SS S. .. .4218/DEL/2012, 874/DEL/2012, 3051/DEL/2010, 1193/D EL/2013 & 4218/DEL/2012, 874/DEL/2012, 3051/DEL/2010, 1193/DE L/2013 & 4218/DEL/2012, 874/DEL/2012, 3051/DEL/2010, 1193/DE L/2013 & 4218/DEL/2012, 874/DEL/2012, 3051/DEL/2010, 1193/DE L/2013 & 875/DEL/2012 875/DEL/2012 875/DEL/2012 875/DEL/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR ASSESSMENT YEAR ASSESSMENT YEAR ASSESSMENT YEARS SS S : : : : 2005 2005 2005 2005- -- -06, 2 06, 2 06, 2 06, 2006 006 006 006- -- -07, 2007 07, 2007 07, 2007 07, 2007- -- -08, 2007 08, 2007 08, 2007 08, 2007- -- -08 & 2008 08 & 2008 08 & 2008 08 & 2008- -- -09 0909 09 SHRI ASHOK KUMAR TANDON, SHRI ASHOK KUMAR TANDON, SHRI ASHOK KUMAR TANDON, SHRI ASHOK KUMAR TANDON, E EE E- -- -25, GREEN PARK MAIN, 25, GREEN PARK MAIN, 25, GREEN PARK MAIN, 25, GREEN PARK MAIN, NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI. PAN : AACPT4661N. PAN : AACPT4661N. PAN : AACPT4661N. PAN : AACPT4661N. VS. VS. VS. VS. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INCOME TAX, INCOME TAX, INCOME TAX, CIRCLE CIRCLE CIRCLE CIRCLE- -- -37(1), 37(1), 37(1), 37(1), NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI SALIL AGARWAL, ADVOCATE AND SHRI SHAILESH GUPTA, CA. RESPONDENT BY : MS. Y. KAKKAR, DR. ORDER ORDER ORDER ORDER PER G.D. AGRAWAL, VP PER G.D. AGRAWAL, VP PER G.D. AGRAWAL, VP PER G.D. AGRAWAL, VP : : : : ITA NOS.4218/DEL/2012, 874/DEL/2012 & 875/DEL/2012 : ITA NOS.4218/DEL/2012, 874/DEL/2012 & 875/DEL/2012 : ITA NOS.4218/DEL/2012, 874/DEL/2012 & 875/DEL/2012 : ITA NOS.4218/DEL/2012, 874/DEL/2012 & 875/DEL/2012 : - -- - THESE APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE O RDER OF LEARNED CIT(A)-XXVIII, NEW DELHI DATED 12 TH MARCH, 2012 AND 14 TH DECEMBER, 2011 FOR THE AY 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2008-0 9. 2. GROUND NO.1 IN ALL THESE THREE APPEALS READS AS UNDE R:- THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS ) XXVIII, NEW DELHI HAS ERRED IN LAW IN NOT CONSIDERIN G THE FACT THAT THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HAD ERRED IN REOPENING THE ASSESSMENTS U/S 148 AND HAS FURTHER ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING THE VARIOUS JUDGEMENTS SUBMITTED DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. 3. AT THE TIME OF HEARING BEFORE US, IT IS SUBMITTED B Y THE LEARNED COUNSEL THAT THE ISSUE UNDER CONSIDERATION IS SQUARELY CO VERED IN ITA-4218/D/2012 & 4 OTHERS 2 FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE DECISION OF HON'BLE JURISDI CTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. ORIENT CRAFT LTD. [201 3] 354 ITR 536 AND CIT VS. ATUL KUMAR SWAMI [2014] 362 ITR 693. HE ST ATED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN EMPLOYEE WITH ITC. IN THE YEAR UNDER CON SIDERATION, THE ASSESSEE HAD BEEN PROVIDED WITH THE ACCOMMODATION BY TH E EMPLOYER VIZ., ITC. IN THE RETURN OF INCOME, THE ASSESSEE HAD G IVEN A NOTE WHY THE VALUE OF RENT FROM THE ACCOMMODATION IS NOT INCL UDIBLE IN THE ASSESSEES INCOME AS A PERQUISITE. THAT THE RETURNS OF TH E YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED UNDER SECTION 143(1 ). THEREAFTER, ON THE BASIS OF SAME RETURN OF INCOME, THE ASSESSMENTS HAVE BEEN REOPENED UNDER SECTION 147. IN THIS REGARD, HE REFE RRED TO THE COPY OF REASONS RECORDED WHEREIN THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS REFERR ED TO THE ASSESSEES RETURN OF INCOME. HE, THEREFORE, SUBMITTED TH AT ON THESE FACTS, THE DECISIONS OF HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COU RT WOULD BE SQUARELY APPLICABLE. 4. LEARNED DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, STATED THAT THE ASSE SSMENT FOR AY 2007-08 WAS TAKEN UP FOR SCRUTINY AND DURING THE SC RUTINY OF THE RETURN FOR AY 2007-08, IT WAS NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT DISCLOSE THE VALUE OF THE PERQUISITE FOR RENT FREE ACCOMMODAT ION PROVIDED BY THE EMPLOYER. SINCE THE VALUE OF THE PERQUISITE WAS TO BE INCLUDED IN THE INCOME FROM SALARY, THE ADDITION WAS MADE IN AY 2 007-08 AND ALSO THE ASSESSMENTS FOR OTHER YEARS WERE REOPENED UNDER SECTI ON 148. SHE, THEREFORE, SUBMITTED THAT ON THESE FACTS, THE DE CISIONS OF HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT WOULD NOT BE APPLICABLE BE CAUSE THE ONLY BASIS FOR REOPENING WAS NOT THE RETURN OF THOSE YEARS BU T THE MAIN BASIS WAS FINDING ARRIVED AT DURING ASSESSMENT FOR AY 2007 -08. 5. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE SIDES AND PERUSED RELEVANT MATERIAL PLACED BEFORE US. WE F IND THAT ITA-4218/D/2012 & 4 OTHERS 3 ALONGWITH THE RETURN OF INCOME, THE ASSESSEE FILED THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME IN WHICH FOLLOWING NOTE WAS GIVEN :- VALUE OF RENT FREE ACCOMMODATION NOT INCLUDED IN T HE PERKS AS BEING CONSIDERED UNDER HOUSE PROPERTY INCOME O F E-25, GREEN PARK (MAIN), FROM ITC LIMITED FOR SELF U SE. 6. THE REASONS RECORDED FOR REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT BY TH E ASSESSING OFFICER READ AS UNDER:- HOWEVER, SOME DISCREPANCY HAS BEEN OBSERVED IN THE RETURN. AS PER CERTIFICATE OF THE EMPLOYER (TAGGED AS B), THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED THE FOLLOWING SALARY AND PERQUISITE :- TOTAL TAXABLE INCOME 19,28,050/- ADD : TAXABLE PERQUISITES LTC 170000 FURNITURE LOAN 192 TAXABLE FURNITURE 13888 VRFQ 419616 6,36,096/- GROSS TAXABLE SALARY 25,31,750/- HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN TOTAL INCOME FROM SALARY AS RS.20,93,655/- WITH THE NOTE THAT VALUE OF RENT F REE ACCOMMODATION NOT INCLUDING IN THE PERKS AS BEING CONSIDERED UNDER HOUSE PROPERTY INCOME OF E-25, GREEN PARK (MAIN), FROM ITC LTD. FOR SELF USE. IT IS TO MENTION HERE THAT FROM THE AVAILABLE DOCUME NTS WITH THE RETURN, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RENTE D OUT THE PROPERTY AT E-25, GREEN PARK (MAIN) TO ITC LTD AT ANNUAL RENT OF RS.4,50,000/-. THE ITC LTD HAS FURTH ER ALLOTTED THIS PROPERTY FOR RESIDENCE OF ITS EMPLOYEE I .E. THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF. FROM THE ABOVE, IT IS CLEAR THAT THERE ARE TWO TRANSA CTIONS INVOLVED:- ITA-4218/D/2012 & 4 OTHERS 4 (I) RENTING OF PROPERTY AT E-25, GREEN PARK (MAIN), NEW DELHI BY THE ASSESSEE TO ITC LTD. THIS INCOME SHOULD FORM A PART OF HOUSE PROPERTY INCOME. (II) ALLOTMENT OF THE SAID HOUSE BY THE ITC LTD. TO ITS EMPLOYEE (MR. ASHOK TANDON) AS RENT FREE PERQUISITES THIS SHOULD BE ADDED BACK TO THE SALARY OF THE MR. TANDON. THE ABOVE TWO TRANSACTIONS ARE INDEPENDENT AS FAR AS INCOME TAX IS CONCERNED. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE HAS TRIE D TO EVADE INCOME TAX BY TREATING THESE SEPARATE TRANSACTIONS AS SINGLE TRANSACTION. THUS, THE ASSESSEE WHILE SHOWING HIS HOUSE PROPERTY INCOME OF RS.4,50,000/ - HAS NOT INCLUDED THE VALUE OF RENT FREE ACCOMMODATIO N IN ITS SALARY INCOME THOUGH IT WAS INCLUDED IN THE SALARY CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE ITC LTD. ACCORDINGLY, THE INCOME IS UNDERSTATED BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE TUNE OF RS.4,50,000/ - ON THIS ACCOUNT. 7. IN THE ABOVE FACTUAL BACKGROUND, LET US SEE THE DE CISIONS OF HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT RELIED UPON BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL. IN THE CASE OF ORIENT CRAFT LTD. (SUPRA), HON'BLE JURISDI CTIONAL HIGH COURT HELD AS UNDER:- HELD, DISMISSING THE APPEAL, THAT THE REASONS DISCLOSED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER REACHED THE BELIEF THAT THER E WAS ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME ON GOING THROUGH THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AFTER HE ACCEPTED THE RET URN UNDER SECTION 143(1) WITHOUT SCRUTINY, AND NOTHING MO RE. THIS WAS NOTHING BUT A REVIEW OF THE EARLIER PROCEEDI NGS AND AN ABUSE OF POWER BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE REASONS RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID CONFIRM THE APPREHENSION ABOUT THE HARM THAT A LESS STRICT INTERPRETATION OF THE WORDS REASON TO BELIEVE VIS-A -VIS AN INTIMATION ISSUED UNDER SECTION 143(1) COULD CAUSE TO T HE TAX REGIME. THERE WAS NOTHING IN THE REASONS RECORDED TO SHOW THAT ANY TANGIBLE MATERIAL HAD COME INTO THE POSSESSION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER SUBSEQUENT TO THE ISSUE OF THE INTIMATION. THE NOTICE REFLECTED AN ARBITRA RY EXERCISE OF THE POWER CONFERRED UNDER SECTION 147. ITA-4218/D/2012 & 4 OTHERS 5 8. IN THE CASE OF ATUL KUMAR SWAMI (SUPRA), HON'BLE J URISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT HELD AS UNDER:- HELD ACCORDINGLY, DISMISSING THE APPEAL, THAT THE NOT E FORMING PART OF THE RETURN FILED FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEA R 1999-2000 CLEARLY MENTIONED AND DESCRIBED THE NATUR E OF THE RECEIPT UNDER A NON-COMPETE AGREEMENT. THE REA SONS FOR THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 147 OF THE INCOME-TAX A CT, 1961, NOWHERE MENTIONED THAT THE REVENUE CAME UP WI TH ANY OTHER FRESH MATERIAL WARRANTING REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT. THEREFORE, MERE CONCLUSION OF THE PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 14391) IPSO FACTO DID NOT PE RMIT INVOCATION OF POWERS FOR REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT. 9. WHEN WE EXAMINE THE FACTS OF THE ASSESSEES CASE IN THE LIGHT OF THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE ABOVE TWO DECISIONS OF HON 'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT, WE FIND THAT BOTH THE ABOVE DECISIONS WOU LD BE SQUARELY APPLICABLE. IN THE CASE OF ORIENT CRAFT LTD. (SUPRA) , ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 143(1) BUT WAS REOPENED ON G OING THROUGH THE RETURN OF INCOME WHICH WAS NOT APPROVED BY HON'B LE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT. IDENTICAL ARE THE FACTS OF THE ASSESSEES C ASE. IN THIS CASE ALSO, FROM THE REASONS RECORDED, IT IS EVIDENT THAT TH E ASSESSMENT IS BEING REOPENED ON GOING THROUGH THE RETURN OF INCOM E AND THE DOCUMENTS FILED ALONGWITH THE RETURN OF INCOME. IN THE CASE OF ATUL KUMAR SWAMI (SUPRA), THE ASSESSEE HAD GIVEN THE NOTE AL ONGWITH THE RETURN OF INCOME THAT THE AMOUNT RECEIVED UNDER A N ON-COMPETE AGREEMENT IS NOT CHARGEABLE TO TAX. THE ASSESSMENT WAS C OMPLETED UNDER SECTION 143(1) AND WAS REOPENED WITHOUT ANY FR ESH MATERIAL. IDENTICAL IS THE SITUATION IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. T HE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO GIVEN THE NOTE IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME POI NTING OUT WHY THE PERQUISITES FROM THE RENT FREE ACCOMMODATION IS NOT CH ARGEABLE TO TAX. NO FRESH MATERIAL IS BROUGHT BY THE REVENUE ON RECORD BUT THE ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN REOPENED ON THE BASIS OF RETURN OF INC OME AND THE DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED ALONGWITH THE RETURN OF INCO ME. THEREFORE, ITA-4218/D/2012 & 4 OTHERS 6 IN VIEW OF BOTH THE ABOVE DECISIONS OF HON'BLE JURISD ICTIONAL HIGH COURT, REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT IS NOT VALID. THE SAME IS QUASHED AND ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED IN PURSUANCE T O THE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 148 IS ALSO QUASHED. 10. SINCE WHILE ADJUDICATING GROUND NO.1, WE HAVE A LREADY QUASHED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE OTHER GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REV ENUE IN ALL THESE THREE APPEALS DO NOT REQUIRE ANY ADJUDICATION O N MERITS. ITA NO.3051/DEL/2010 : ITA NO.3051/DEL/2010 : ITA NO.3051/DEL/2010 : ITA NO.3051/DEL/2010 :- -- - 11. IN THIS APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED AS MANY AS SEVEN GROUNDS I.E. GROUND NOS.(A) TO (G) AGAINST THE ADDITIO N OF ` 4,74,886/- TOWARDS THE VALUE OF RENT FREE ACCOMMODATION. 12. HOWEVER, AT THE TIME OF HEARING BEFORE US, THE L EARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT JUSTIFY WHY THE VALUE OF RENT FREE ACCOMMODATION PROVIDED BY THE EMPLOYER IS NOT CHARGE ABLE TO TAX AS INCOME FROM SALARY IN THE CASE OF THE EMPLOYEE. LEAR NED COUNSEL ALSO COULD NOT POINT OUT ANY MISTAKE IN THE WORKING OF TH E PERQUISITE. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN GROU ND NOS.(A) TO (G) OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL. THE SAME ARE REJECTED. 13. GROUND NO.(H) OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS AGAINST THE DISALLOWANCE OF ` 20,000/- OUT OF PROFESSIONAL INCOME. THE FACTS OF T HE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCLOSED THE PROFESSIONAL INC OME OF ` 20,000/- OUT OF WHICH, HE CLAIMED VARIOUS EXPENSES AMO UNTING TO ` 69,520/- AS WELL AS DEPRECIATION ON CAR AMOUNTING TO ` 55,080/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED ` 50,000/- OUT OF SUCH EXPENSES WHICH WERE NOT VOUCHED AND VERIFIABLE. ON APPEAL, LEARNE D CIT(A) REDUCED THE ADDITION TO ` 20,000/-. THE ASSESSEE, VIDE GROUND NO.(H), IS IN APPEAL AGAINST THE ADDITION OF ` 20,000/- SUSTAINED BY THE CIT(A). ITA-4218/D/2012 & 4 OTHERS 7 14. AT THE TIME OF HEARING BEFORE US, NO SPECIFIC ARG UMENT IS ADVANCED ON THIS POINT AND THEREFORE, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS TREATED AS NOT PRESSED AND REJECTED AS SUCH. 15. ACCORDINGLY, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE VIDE ITA NO.3051/DEL/2010 IS DISMISSED. ITA NO.1193/DEL/2013 : ITA NO.1193/DEL/2013 : ITA NO.1193/DEL/2013 : ITA NO.1193/DEL/2013 :- -- - 16. THE ONLY GROUND RAISED IN THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST THE LEVY OF PENALTY OF 1,78,678/- UNDER SECTION 271 (1)(C) OF THE ACT. 17. THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICE R HAD LEVIED THE PENALTY OF ` 1,78,678/- FOR NON-DISCLOSURE OF THE PERQUISITE VALUE IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. 18. WE HAVE HEARD THE ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE SIDES AND PERUSED RELEVANT MATERIAL PLACED BEFORE US. WE FIND THAT IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME, COPY OF WHICH IS PLACED AT PAGE 10 OF THE ASSE SSEES PAPER BOOK, FOLLOWING NOTE WAS GIVEN :- VALUE OF RENT FREE ACCOMMODATION NOT INCLUDED IN T HE PERKS AS BEING CONSIDERED UNDER HOUSE PROPERTY INCOME O F E-25, GREEN PARK (MAIN), FROM ITC HOTELS LIMITED FOR SELF USE. 19. FROM THE ABOVE, IT IS EVIDENT THAT IN THE COMPUT ATION OF INCOME ITSELF, THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCLOSED ALL THE RELEVANT FACTS I .E. THE ASSESSEE HAD BEEN ALLOWED THE RENT FREE ACCOMMODATION FROM T HE EMPLOYER VIZ., ITC HOTELS LTD. FOR SELF-USE. HOWEVER, HE HAS GIVEN TH E REASON WHY THE PERQUISITE VALUE OF SUCH RENT FREE ACCOMMODATION IS NO T CHARGEABLE. MERELY BECAUSE THIS CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ACCEPTED BY THE ITA-4218/D/2012 & 4 OTHERS 8 ASSESSING OFFICER AND PERQUISITE VALUE OF THE RENT FREE ACCOMMODATION WAS CHARGED TO TAX, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE ASSESSEE CONCEALED INCOME OR FURNISHED ANY INACCURATE PARTICULARS. WHIL E TAKING THIS VIEW, WE DERIVE SUPPORT FROM THE DECISION OF HONBLE APEX C OURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. RELIANCE PETROPRODUCTS PVT.LTD. 322 ITR 158 (SC). THAT THE RATIO OF THE ABOVE DECISION WOULD BE SQUARELY APPLICA BLE. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE SAME, WE CANCEL THE PENALTY LEVIED UND ER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. 20. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL IN ITA NO.3051/DEL/ 2010 IS DISMISSED AND ASSESSEES APPEALS IN ITA NO.4218/DEL/2012, 874/DEL/2012, 875/DEL/2012 AND 1193/DEL/2013 ARE AL LOWED. DECISION PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 25 TH JULY, 2014. SD/- SD/- ( (( (H.S. SIDHU H.S. SIDHU H.S. SIDHU H.S. SIDHU) )) ) (G.D. AGRAWAL (G.D. AGRAWAL (G.D. AGRAWAL (G.D. AGRAWAL) )) ) JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE P VICE P VICE P VICE PRESIDENT RESIDENT RESIDENT RESIDENT DATED : 25.07.2014 VK. COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT : SHRI ASHOK KUMAR TANDON, SHRI ASHOK KUMAR TANDON, SHRI ASHOK KUMAR TANDON, SHRI ASHOK KUMAR TANDON, E EE E- -- -25, GREEN PARK MAIN, NEW DELHI. 25, GREEN PARK MAIN, NEW DELHI. 25, GREEN PARK MAIN, NEW DELHI. 25, GREEN PARK MAIN, NEW DELHI. 2. RESPONDENT : ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE CIRCLE CIRCLE CIRCLE- -- -37(1), NEW DELHI. 37(1), NEW DELHI. 37(1), NEW DELHI. 37(1), NEW DELHI. 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR