M/s. Jaiprakash Power Ventures Ltd., Dehradun V. DCIT, Dehradun

ITA 4249/DEL/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 58935 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-03-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 20-03-2012
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 22-09-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DK MISHR A
• Assessee Lawyers: V K GARG
• Keywords: Business income; Opportunity of being heard; Source of fund

Judgement Text

ITA NO. 4249/DEL/2011 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH D, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 4249/DEL/2011 A.Y. : 2007-08 M/S JAIPRAKASH POWER VENTRUES LTD., 113, RAJPUR ROAD, DEHRADUN (PAN: AAACJ5463H) VS. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, 13A SUBHASH ROAD, DEHRADUN -248001 (APPELLANT ) (APPELLANT ) (APPELLANT ) (APPELLANT ) (RESPONDENT ) (RESPONDENT ) (RESPONDENT ) (RESPONDENT ) ASSESSEE BY : SH. ANIL CHOPRA, CA & SH. V.K. GARG, ADV. DEPARTMENT BY : SH. D.K. MISHRA, D.R. ORDER ORDER ORDER ORDER PER SHAMIM YAHYA: AM PER SHAMIM YAHYA: AM PER SHAMIM YAHYA: AM PER SHAMIM YAHYA: AM THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST TH E ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) DATED 10.6.2 011 PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. 2. THE GROUNDS RAISED READ AS UNDER:- 1) THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF ` 2,43,02,3 46/- BEING THE AMOUNT OF INTEREST ON FIXED DEPOSITS WITH BANK HELD TO BE NOT ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S. 80IA ON THE GROUND ITA NO. 4249/DEL/2011 2 THAT INTEREST INCOME THOUGH BUSINESS INCOME ATTRIBUT ABLE TO BUSINESS, IS NOT INCOME DERIVED FROM THE ELIGIBLE BU SINESS. 2) THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS CONFIRMED THE NON-ALLOWANCE OF ` 2,43,02,346/- IN RE SPECT OF INTEREST ON FIXED DEPOSITS WITH BANK UNDER SECTION 80IA WITHOUT PROPERLY CONSIDERING, APPRECIATING OR REBUT TING THE OPERATIVE FACTS OF THE TRUST AND RETENTION ACCOUNT AGREEMENT (TRA AGREEMENT) AND SCHEME INVOLVED. T HE SAID INTEREST INCOME IS DERIVED FROM THE BUSINESS IN CONTEXT OF THE SAID SCHEME. 3) THAT WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE GROUND NO. 1 ABOVE , THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN NO T ALLOWING THE NETTING OFF OF THE INTEREST INCOME ON BANK FDRS WITH INTEREST PAID ON BORROWED FUNDS UTILIZED FOR INVESTMENTS IN THE SAID BANK DRS UNDER THE TRA AGREE MENT ON THE ERRONEOUS GROUNDS THAT: I) THERE IS NOTHING ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT INVESTMEN TS IN FDRS HAVE BEEN MADE OUT OF BORROWED FUNDS. ITA NO. 4249/DEL/2011 3 II) FUNDS WERE BORROWED FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES AND AN Y INTEREST PAID THEREON WAS COMMITTED TO THE BUSINESS OPERATIONS. 4) THAT THE NON-ALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION U/S. 80IA I S BASED ON ERRONEOUS VIEWS AND / OR NON-APPRECIATION OF THE FA CTS AND LAW INVOLVED, WITHOUT PROPERLY CONSIDERING OR REBUT TING MATERIAL, EXPLANATIONS, SUBMISSIONS AND CASE LAW PLAC ED BEFORE HIM. AS SUCH TOO THE SAID ADDITION DESERVED TO BE DELETED IN TOTO. 5) THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IS WITHOUT PROPER LAWFUL OPPORTUNITY BEIN G GRANTED AND WITHOUT COMPLIANCE WITH THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURA L JUSTICE. 6) THAT THE INTEREST EARNED ON FDRS WITH BANK UNDER TRA AGREEMENT INVOLVED, IF TO BE REDUCED OR ADJUSTED FOR COMPUTING THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IA, CAN ONLY BE ADJUSTED ON NET INTEREST BASIS WHETHER THE INCOME B E ASSESSED AS INCOME FROM BUSINESS OR AS INCOME FROM OTH ER SOURCES. ITA NO. 4249/DEL/2011 4 7) THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE INTEREST CHARGED UNDER SECTI ONS 234C OF THE ACT FOR DEFERMENT OF ADVANCE TAX IN RES PECT OF THE BOOK TAX U/S. 115JB. 8) THAT THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL AS HEREIN ARE WITHOU T PREJUDICE TO EACH OTHER. 9) THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER OR FOREGO ANY GROUND(S) BEFORE OR AT THE TIME OF HEARING. 3. IN THIS CASE THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF POWER GENERATION AND IS LIABLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S. 80-IA OF THE IT ACT (SUBJECT TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE RELEVANT CONDIT IONS). GROSS TOTAL INCOME WAS CALCULATED BY IT AT ` 52,04,10,652/-, A GAINST WHICH DEDUCTION OF EQUAL AMOUNT WAS CLAIMED U/S. 80IA OF THE IT ACT, REDUCING TOTAL INCOME TO NIL. TAX WAS, HOWEVER, PAI D ON BOOK PROFIT OF ` 74,79,42,659/- AS COMPUTED UNDER PROVISION OF SECTIO N 115JB. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CRED ITED INTEREST INCOME OF ` 2,43,12,346/- AND MISCELLANEOUS INCOME O F ` 12,750/- TO THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT ABOVE AND ASKED THE ASS ESSEE TO EXPLAIN WHY SUCH INCOME SHOULD NOT BE TREATED AS INCOME FRO M OTHER SOURCES AND SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED AS INELIGIBLE FOR DEDU CTION U/S. 80-IA. ITA NO. 4249/DEL/2011 5 THE ASSESSEE REPLIED THAT IT HAD TAKEN HUGE LOAN FO R ITS POWER PROJECT AND THAT PART OF THE BORROWED FUND, WHENEVER NOT R EQUIRED IMMEDIATELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS, WAS INVES TED AND INCOME WAS EARNED ON IT. SUCH INCOME, ACCORDING TO THE ASS ESSEE, WENT TO REDUCE THE COST OF BORROWING. IT WAS, THEREFORE, C LAIMED THAT, FOR PURPOSE OF COMPUTATION OF ITS PROFIT OF BUSINESS, O NLY THE NET AMOUNT OF INTEREST EXPENDITURE SHOULD BE CONSIDERED RATHER THAN TAKING THE GROSS INTEREST AS EXPENDITURE AND THE INTEREST INCO ME SEPARATELY AS INCOME. RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE FOLLOWING DE CISION IN SUPPORT OF THE COMPOSITION. 1. C.I.T. VS. BOKARO STEEL LTD. 236 ITR 0315 (SC) 2. C.I.T. VS. EASTERN TAR (P) LTD. 301 ITR 0427 (J HARKHAND) 3. C.I.T. VS. ELTEK SGS P LTD. 300 ITR 0006 (DEL) THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE ASSESSEES EXPLANATION. ACCORDING TO HIM, THE DEDUCTION IN QUE STION WAS AVAILABLE ONLY IN RESPECT OF THE PROFIT DERIVED FROM THE ELI GIBLE BUSINESS AND THE INCOMES IN QUESTION DID NOT FALL IN THAT BRACKET. RELYING ON THE FOLLOWING DECISION, HE HELD THE INCOME AS INCOME FR OM OTHER SOURCES AND TAXED IT ACCORDINGLY. ITA NO. 4249/DEL/2011 6 1. CAMBAY ELECTRIC SUPPLY INDUSTRIAL COMPANY LTD. VS. C. I.T., GUJRAT-II 113 ITR 84 (SC). 2. PANDIAN CHEMICALS LTD. VS. C.I.T. (2203) 262 ITR 278 (SC). 4. AGAINST THE ABOVE ORDER THE ASSESSEE APPEALED BE FORE THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). LD. COMMISSI ONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ELABORATELY CONSIDERED THE ISSUE IN P ARA 1.5 OF THE ORDER AND HELD AS UNDER:- THE NEXT ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION IS WHETHER SUCH INTEREST AND MISCELLANEOUS INCOME SHOULD BE TAKEN AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. AS DISCUSSED ABOVE, SUCH A TREATM ENT COULD BE POSSIBLE ONLY IF THE ASSESSEE HAD SURPLUS FUNDS IN THE FIRST PLACE AND INVESTED THE SAME FOR PURPOSES OF EARNING RETURN ON INVESTMENT. HERE, THE CASE IS D IFFERENT. THE ASSESSEES OWN FUNDS WERE GROSSLY INADEQUATE EV EN FOR MEETING THE ROUTINE REQUIREMENTS OF ITS BUSINESS AND IT HAD TO BORROW HEAVILY. THE INCOME EARNED BY IT BY TE MPORARY DEPLOYMENT OF ITS CIRCULATING CAPITAL IN PERMITTED INVESTMENTS IS CERTAINLY NOT ITS INCOME FROM OTHE R SOURCES. TO THAT EXTENT, THE ASSESSING OFFICERS FINDING GIVEN IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS REVERSED. IN VIEW OF THIS, THE ASSESSEES ALTERNATIVE ARGUMENT IS ALSO RENDERE D OTIOSE. ITA NO. 4249/DEL/2011 7 IT IS HELD THAT THE INCOME REPRESENTED PROFITS ATTR IBUTABLE TO BUSINESS. SINCE, HOWEVER, IT WAS NOT THE DIRECT RESULT OF THE OPERATION OF THE BUSINESS BUT INCIDENTAL TO IT, IT CANNOT BE CALLED TO HAVE BEEN DERIVED FROM THE SAME. CONSEQUENTLY, THE BENEFIT OF DEDUCTION U/S. 80IA C ANNOT BE GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF ITS INTEREST IN COME. AS REGARDS THE MISCELLANEOUS INCOME OF ` 12,750/-, NO ARGUMENT HAS BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESSEE ABOUT WHY IT SHOULD BE CONSIDERED ELIGIBLE FOR THE DEDUCTION. THUS, EVEN THOUGH THE ASSESSING OFFICERS FINDING THAT T HE INCOME WAS TAXABLE UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURC ES IS REVERSED, HIS DECISION TO DENY THE BENEFIT OF DEDU CTION IN RESPECT OF THE SAME IS CONFIRMED. 5. AGAINST THE ABOVE ORDER THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEA L BEFORE US. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS IN LIGHT OF THE MATERIAL PRODUCED AND PRECEDENT RELIED UPON. WE FIND THAT L D. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS HELD THAT ASSESSING OFF ICERS FINDING THAT INTEREST INCOME WAS TAXABLE UNDER THE HEAD INCOME F ORM OTHER SOURCES IS REVERSED. AFTER HAVING SO HELD LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS PROCEEDED TO HOLD THAT THE SAID INTEREST INCOME THOUGH SAID TO BE ATTRIBUTABLE TO BUSINESS C ANNOT SAID TO BE ITA NO. 4249/DEL/2011 8 DERIVED FROM THE SAME. CONSEQUENTLY, THE BENE FIT OF DEDUCTION U/S. 80IA CANNOT BE GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, IN P ARA 1.4 OF HIS ORDER LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HELD AS UND ER:- THE NEXT ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION IS, EVEN IF THE A SSESSEE COULD SHOW THAT BORROWED FUNDS HAD BEEN USED FOR TH E PERMITTED INVESTMENTS, COULD IT BE ALLOWED TO ADJUST THE INTEREST INCOME AGAINST THE INTEREST EXPENDITURE. ARITHMETICALLY, THERE SHOULD BE NO OBJECTION TO SUCH TREATMENT, AS THE FIGURE OF NET PROFIT OF THE BUSI NESS WOULD REMAIN UNCHANGED. THERE IS, HOWEVER, A PROBLEM FOR THE PURPOSE OF TAXATION. IT IS NOT DISPUTED THAT THE L OANS HAD BEEN TAKEN FOR PURPOSES OF THE BUSINESS AND HAD BE EN UTILIZED AS SUCH. IT IS NOT THE ASSESSEES CASE TH AT, IF THE PERMITTED INVESTMENTS HAD NOT BEEN MADE, THE LOANS TO THAT EXTENT WOULD NOT BE REQUIRED BY IT. IN FACT, IT IS ALSO AN ADMITTED FACT THAT THE FUND WAS BASICALLY APPLIED TO THE BUSINESS, THE INVESTMENTS BEING OF ONLY SHORT TERM N ATURE AND BEING MADE ONLY INTERMITTENTLY WHEN THE MONEY WAS NOT REQUIRED IMMEDIATELY FOR THE BUSINESS. NO DOUB T, IT WAS A PRUDENT BUSINESS DECISION AND HELPED THE ASSESSE E TO ENHANCE ITS FUNDS EFFICIENCY ON THE ONE HAND AND RE DUCE ITA NO. 4249/DEL/2011 9 THE REAL COST OF BORROWING ON THE OTHER. BUT, TH E FACT REMAINS THAT, WHETHER THE ASSESSEE RESORTED TO THE PERMITTED INVESTMENTS OR NOT, THE INTEREST LIABILIT Y WOULD REMAIN THE SAME. THAT IS THE REASON THE INTEREST I NCOME IS NOT NETTED AGAINST THE INTEREST LIABILITY AND IS SH OWN AS OTHER INCOME. THE BASIC PRINCIPLE FOR ALLOWING ANY DEDUCTION AGAINST INTEREST INCOME IS THAT THE EXPEN DITURE SHOULD HAVE BEEN INCURRED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR PURPOSES OF EARNING SUCH INCOME. THE FOREGOING A NALYSIS SHOWS THAT, IN SO FAR AS THE WHOLE OF THE INTERES T EXPENDITURE WAS ALREADY COMMITTED AGAINST THE BUSINE SS OPERATIONS, IT CANNOT BE SAID TO HAVE BEEN INCURRED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR PURPOSES OF EARNING INTEREST I NCOME. FROM PURELY MATHEMATICAL POINT OF VIEW, A PRO-RATA ALLOCATION OF INTEREST EXPENDITURE (` 90.42 CRORES ) COULD BE DONE BETWEEN THE BUSINESS RECEIPT (` 214.15 CRORES ) AND THE INTEREST RECEIPT (`2.43 CRORES) IF THE TWO WERE TAKEN AS SEPARATE SOURCES OF INCOME. BY DOING SO, THE INTER EST REFERABLE TO THE TWO RECEIPTS WOULD BE ` 89.41 CRO RES AND ` 1.01 CRORES RESPECTIVELY. EVEN BY SUCH PURE MATHEMAT ICAL CALCULATION, INTEREST EXPENDITURE OF ` 1.01 CRORE C OULD BE ITA NO. 4249/DEL/2011 10 ALLOWED TO THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE INTEREST INCOM E AND THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF ` 1.43 CRORES WOULD STILL BE T AXABLE. BUT, AS MENTIONED ABOVE, DEDUCTION IS BASED ON THE PROVISIONS OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, AND NOT PURE MATHEMATICS. TO SUMMARIZE, NO DEDUCTION AGAINST THE INTEREST INCOME CAN BE ALLOWED BECAUSE:- I) BUSINESS OPERATIONS AND INVESTMENTS CANNOT BE TREATED AS TWO SEPARATE SOURCES OF INCOME. IT WAS A COMPOSITE BUSINESS, INTEREST BEING INCIDENTAL TO THE BUSINESS. II) THERE IS NOTHING ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT THE INVESTMENTS IN QUESTION HAD BEEN MADE PURELY OUT OF BORROWED FUNDS AND THE AVAILABLE INFORMATION SUGGESTS OTHERWISE. III) EVEN IF IT COULD BE SHOWN THAT THE INVESTMENTS HAD BEEN MADE PURELY OUT OF THE BORROWED FUNDS, DEDUCTION COULD BE ALLOWED ONLY IN RESPECT OF THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR EARNING THE INTEREST INCOME. NO INTEREST WAS THUS INCURRED; THE ENTIRE INTEREST ITA NO. 4249/DEL/2011 11 EXPENDITURE WAS ALREADY COMMITTED TO THE BUSINESS OPERATIONS. IN VIEW OF THE THIS, THE ASSESSEES ARGUMENT THAT T HE INTEREST EXPENDITURE SHOULD BE NETTED FOR COMPUTING OF ITS PROFITS AND GAINS OF BUSINESS IS NOT ACCEPTA BLE. 6.1 ON DUE CONSIDERATION OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTAN CES, WE FIND THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT CHALLENGED THE FINDING OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) RECORDED IN PARAGRAPH NO. 1.5, TO THIS EXTENT HE TREATED THE INTEREST INCOME AS BUSINESS INCOME AND H E REVERSED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. LD. COUNSEL FOR TH E ASSESSEE SPECIFICALLY TOOK THE STAND AT THE TIME OF HEARING THAT ASSESSEE IS NOT IMPUGNING THIS FINDING OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A PPEALS). HE ALSO POINTED OUT THAT REVENUE IS NOT IN APPEAL ON THIS I SSUE. WE HAVE DIRECTED THE BENCH CLERK TO VERIFY FROM THE REGISTR Y WHETHER REVENUE IS IN APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSION ER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) OR NOT? THE BENCH CLERK INFORMED US TH AT NO APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE REVENUE. IN SUCH SITUATION, T HE FINDING OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) TO THIS EXTENT IS UPHELD. ON PERUSAL OF LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) S FINDING EXTRACTED SUPRA IN PARAGRAPH NOS. 1.4 & 1.5 CLEARL Y BRINGS OUT THAT LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS PASSED AN I NHERENTLY ITA NO. 4249/DEL/2011 12 CONTRADICTORY ORDER. WHILE ON THE ONE HAND HE HAS HELD THAT THE INTEREST INCOME CAN BE SAID TO BE ATTRIBUTABLE TO B USINESS AND DESPITE HOLDING SO, HE HAS HELD THAT ASSESSEES ARGUMENT THA T THE INTEREST EXPENDITURE SHOULD BE NETTED FOR COMPUTING OF ITS PR OFITS AND GAINS OF BUSINESS IS NOT ACCEPTABLE. THIS IN OUR CONSIDERE D OPINION, IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (AP PEALS)S ADJUDICATION GIVEN VIDE PARA 1.5 OF HIS ORDER. IN PARA 1.4 OF HIS ORDER EVEN THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS GONE ON TO HOLD THAT INTEREST INCOME WAS TO BE ALLOCATED ON P RO-RATA BASIS AGAINST THE BUSINESS RECEIPT AND INTEREST RECEIPT. HAVING SO HELD, IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ( APPEALS) HAS MISDIRECTED HIMSELF BY HOLDING THAT ASSESSEES ARGUM ENT THAT THE INTEREST EXPENDITURE SHOULD BE NETTED FOR COMPUTING OF ITS PROFITS AND GAINS OF BUSINESS IS NOT ACCEPTABLE. UNDER THE FAC TS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINIO N, AS REGARDS THE CLAIM OF INTEREST EXPENDITURE SHOULD BE NETTED FOR COMPUTING THE PROFITS AND GAINS, THIS ASPECT SHOULD BE REMITTED T O THE FILE OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) TO CONSIDER THE ISSUE AFRESH. IT IS NEEDLESS TO SAY THAT OUR OBSERVATION WILL NOT IMP AIR OR INJURE THE CASE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND IT WILL NOT CAUSE ANY PREJUDICE TO THE DEFENCE/ EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE. LD. COMMISSIO NER OF INCOME ITA NO. 4249/DEL/2011 13 TAX (APPEALS) SHALL DECIDE THE ISSUE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER PROVIDING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO TH E ASSESSEE. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 23/3/2012. SD/- SD/- [ [[ [RAJPAL YADAV RAJPAL YADAV RAJPAL YADAV RAJPAL YADAV] ]] ] [SHAMIM YAHYA] [SHAMIM YAHYA] [SHAMIM YAHYA] [SHAMIM YAHYA] JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATE 23/3/2012 SRBHATNAGAR SRBHATNAGAR SRBHATNAGAR SRBHATNAGAR COPY FORWARDED TO: COPY FORWARDED TO: COPY FORWARDED TO: COPY FORWARDED TO: - -- - 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, DELHI BENCHES