ACIT, New Delhi V. M/s Motherson Sumi Infotech & Design Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 4340/DEL/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0208 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 11 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-07-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: I
• Next Hearing Date: 30-04-2015
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 09-08-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ARISES OUT OF PASSED
• Keywords: Depreciation; Transfer pricing; International transaction
• Section: 143(3); 10B

Judgement Text

1 INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH I: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S.V.MEHTORA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI A. T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO4340/DEL/2012 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2005-06) ACIT, CENTRE CURCLE-09, JHANDEWALASN, NEW DELHI VS. M/S MOTHERSON SUMI INFOTECH & DESIGN LTD., 2 ND FLOOR, F-7, B-1, MOHAN COOP INDL, ESTATE, MUTHRA ROAD, NEW DELHI (PAN : AACCM3199B) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE ARISES OUT OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A)-XX, NEW DELHI DATED 30.5.2012 PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. 2. THE GROUNDS RAISED IN THE REVENUES APPEAL READ AS UNDER:- 1. THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS OF THE CASE IN DELETING T HE 2 ADDITION OF RS. 74,80,644/- MADE ON THE BASIS OF AR MS LENGTH PRICE DETERMINED BY THE TRANSFER PRICING O FFICER U/S. 92CA(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 2. THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS OF THE CASE IN HOLDING TH AT THE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE TREATED AS AT ARMS LENGTH. 3.(A) THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) IS ERRONEOUS AND NOT TENABLE IN LAW AND ON FACTS. (B) THE ASSESSEE CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER OR AME ND ANY / ALL OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE OR DURING THE C OURSE OF THE HEARING OF THE APPEAL. 3. FACTS, IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY F ILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 31.10.2005 FOR THE AY 2005-06 DECLARING A LOSS OF RS. 51,83,340/-. THE CASE WAS PROCESSED U/S. 143(1) (A) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961,(HEREIN AFTER THE ACT) ON 07.8.2006. AND STATUTORY NOTICE WERE ISSUED. LATER ON THIS CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY, SINCE BEING CONNECTED WITH SK GUPTA GROUP OF CASES, IN WH ICH SEARCH AND 3 SEIZURE ACTION TOOK PLACE ON 12.1.2006, SO WAS TRAN SFERRED U/S. 127 OF THE ACT, TO CENTRAL CIRCLE-9, NEW DELHI. AS A RESUL T OF TRANSFER OF JURISDICTION, FRESH STATUTORY NOTICES WERE ISSUED AND THE ASSESSEE RESPONDED TO IT BEFORE THE AO. 4. THE ASSESSEES CASE WAS REFERRED TO THE TRANSFER PRICING OFFICER (TPO). THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS COMPUTATION OF PROFIT ABILITY TAKING RESULTS OF 87 SELECTED COMPARABLES AS GIVEN IN PAGE S 189, 190 & 191 OF THE PAPER BOOK. THE TPO PASSED ORDER DATED 29.10 .2008 U/S. 92CA(3) OF THE ACT AS UNDER :- WITH THE ABOVE DISCUSSIONS, ALL THE CONTENTIONS MA DE BY THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN DISCUSSED AT LENGTH AND THE S EARCH ADOPTED IN ORDER TO FINE TUNE THE ONE MADE BY THE A SSESSEE SHALL STAND. PARTICULARS (EXPORT SEGMENT) AMOUNT INCOME SALES 153,031,100 EXPENDITURE PERSONNEL EXPENSES 67,758,494 ADMINISTRATION AND OTHER EXPENSES 44,948,174 LESS : LOSS ON SALE OF ASSETS 20,078 DEPRECIATION 17,598,916 TOTAL COST (TC) 130,285,506 OPERATING PROFIT (OP) 22,745,594 OP/TC 17.46% 4 OP/TC MARGIN OF THE COMPARABLES THE COMPARABLES AS PROPOSED TO THE ASSESSEE AND TH EIR CORRESPONDING OP/TC MARGINS ARE AS UNDER :- SL.NO. NAME OF THE COMPANY DATA SOURCE OP/TC (%) 1. SONATA SOFTWARE LTD. P 14.94% 2. INFOSYS TECHNOLOGIES LTD P 43.05% 3. GEOMETRIC SOFTWARE SOLUTIONS CO. LTD. P 20.32% 4. LARSEN & TOUBRO INFOTECH LTD. P 10.30% 5. SATYAM COMPUTER SERVICES LTD. P 28.41 % MEAN 23.20% COMPUTATION OF ARMS LENGTH PRICES OF THE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION : THE ARMS LENGTH PRICES OF THE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION RELATED TO SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT SERVICE S IS COMPUTED IN THE FOLLOWING : TOTAL REVENUE AS SHOWN IN TPR = RS.153,031,100 REVENUE RELATING TO INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS= RS .126,316,542 REVENUE RELATED TO UNCONTROLLED TRANSACTIONS = RS . 26,714,558 THE REVENUE RELATED TO UNCONTROLLED TRANSACTIONS HAVE AN EMBEDDED PROFIT OF 23.2% AS PER THE ARMS L ENGTH STANDARDS. AS SUCH THE TOTAL COST RELATED TO THE UNCONTROLLED REVENUE IS COMPUTED AS UNDER :- 26,714,558/ 1.232 = RS.21,683,894 5 COST RELATED TO INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS = (130,285,506-21,683,894) = 108,601,612 REVENUE AT 23.2% OPERATING PROFIT ON RS.108,601,612 (ARMS LENGTH REVENUE)= RS.133,7 97,186 REVENUE BOOKED BY THE ASSESSEE = RS.126,316,542 DIFFERENCE = RS.74,80,644 DIFFERENCE AS A PERCENTAGE OF ALP = 5.59% ACCORDINGLY, THE ARMS LENGTH PRICE OF THE INTERNA TIONAL TRANSACTION RELATED TO SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT AND DES IGNING SERVICES IS DETERMINED AS UNDER :- S.NO. INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION BOOK VALE DIFFERENCE LOADED ARMS LENGTH PRICE DIFFERENCE (%) 1 SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 124156267 7352709 131508976 5.59% 2 DESIGNING SERVICES 2160275 127935 2288210 5.59% TOTAL 126316542 7480644 SINCE THE DIFFERENCE COMPUTED AS A PERCENTAGE OF T HE ARMS LENGTH PRICE IS MORE THAN 5% NO BENEFIT UNDER THE PROVISO TO SECTION 92C(2) IS AVAILABLE TO THE ASSES SEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL ACCORDINGLY INCREASE THE IN COME OF THE ASSESSEE BY RS.74,80,644/-. 5. IN VIEW OF THE SAID TRANSFER PRICING ORDER,OF TH E TPO, THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED SOME QUESTIONS BY THE AO VIDE QU ESTIONNAIRE DATED 27.11.2008 AS UNDER:- 6 16. PLEASE REFER TO THE ORDER TPO DATED 29.10.2008 U/S. 92CA(3) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 A COPY OF WHICH HAS BEEN ISSUED TO YOU BY HIM. AS PER THE SAID ORDER THE AR MS LENGTH PRICE OF THE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION RELA TED TO SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT AND DESIGNING SERVICES HAS BEE N DETERMINED AS UNDER:- S.NO. INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION BOOK VALUE DIFFERENCE LOADED ARMS LENGTH PRICE DIFFERENCE (%) 1 SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 124156267 7352709 131508976 5.59% 2 DESIGNING SERVICES 2160275 127935 2288210 5.59% TOTAL 126216542 7480644 - - SINCE THE DIFFERENCE COMPUTED AT PERCENTAGE OF THE ARMS LENGTH PRICE IS MORE THAN 5% NO BENEFIT UNDER THE PROVISO TO SECTION 92CA(2) IS AVAILABLE TO YOU. AS SUCH YOUR INCOME SHALL BE ACCORDINGLY INCREASED BY RS. 74,80,644/-. 6. IN RESPONSE TO THE AFORESAID QUESTIONS, THE ASSE SSEE SUBMITTED HIS REPLY ON 17-I2-2008. THE RELEVANT PORTION OF WHICH IS REPRODUCED AS BELOW: WITH REGARD TO THE SAID NOTICE ISSUED BY YOUR GOOD SELF ON THE COMPANY I WOULD FIRST OF ALL LIKE TO BRING TO Y OUR GOODSELF'S KIND ATTENTION, THE FACT DURING THE F. Y 2004-05, IT WAS ENTITLED TO TAX HOLIDAY U/S 1OB OF THE ACT I N RESPECT OF THE PROFIT OF ITS EXPORT ORIENTED UNIT ('EOU) WH ICH FORM A SIGNIFICANT PART OF THE ' EXPORT SEGMENT' WHEREIN YOUR GOODSELF PROPOSES TO MAKE THE ADJUSTMENT. IN THIS 7 SCENARIO, IT IS BUT OBVIOUS THAT THE COMPANY OR ITS GROUP COMPANIES WOULD NOT HAVE ANY UNTOWARD MOTIVE TO DER IVE ANY TAX ADVANTAGE BY MANIPULATING TRANSFER PRICES O F THE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS BETWEEN THEMSELVES. 7. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUB MISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE, COMPUTED THE INCOME IN CONFORMITY, AS PER SECTION 92CA(4) OF THE ACT, WITH THE ORDER OF THE TPO, AND AS A RESULT THEREOF, MADE THE ADDITION OF RS.74,80,644/- AND ASSESSED TH E INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AT RS.22,97,300/- VIDE HIS ORDER DATED 23 .12.2008 PASSED U/S. 143(3) OF THE ACT. 8. AGAINST THE AFORESAID ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFF ICER, ASSESSEE APPEALED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), WHO VIDE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 30.5.2012 HAS ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE BY DELETING THE ADDITION. 9. NOW THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 10. THE SOLE ISSUE IS THE IMPUGNED ACTION OF THE LD CIT(A) TO EXCLUDE M/S SATYAM COMPUTERS LTD,FROM THE LIST OF C OMPARABLES SELECTED BY THE BY THE TPO,/AO. LD. DR RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE TPO AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND ASSAILED THE CIT( A) DECISION TO 8 EXCLUDE M/S SATYAM COMPUTERS LTD FROM THE LIST OF C OMPARABLES WHEN IT WAS FUNCTIONALLY SIMILAR TO THE TESTED PARTY. 11. ON THE CONTRARY, LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE HA S RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND DEFENDED THE SAME AND DOES NOT WANT US TO INTERFERE IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER. 12. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE R ECORDS. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS INCORPORATED IN THE YEAR 2000, IN INDIA AS A 100% EXPORT ORIENTED UNIT ('EOU'). THE COMPANY IS A JOINT VENTURE BETWEEN SUMITOMO WIRING SYSTEMS LTD., JAPAN (33.89%) , THE MOTHERSON GROUP, INDIA (29.6%) AND THE REMAINING AR E HELD BY OTHERS. THE COMPANY IS ENGAGED IN PROVIDING CUSTOMI ZED SOFTWARE AND ENGINEERING DESIGN SERVICES TO ITS CUSTOMERS AN D CATERS TO BOTH DOMESTIC AND EXPORT MARKETS. THE EXPORT SALES OF TH E ASSESSEE ARE PRIMARILY FROM SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT SERVICE AND THE DESIGN SERVICES FORM ONLY A SMALL PROPORTION OF EXPORT SALES. THE ASSESSEE HAS AN EXPORT ORIENTED UNIT ('EOU') REGISTERED UNDER SOFTWAR E TECHNOLOGY PARK SCHEME OF INDIA (STPI) AND ENJOYS A TAX HOLIDA Y UNDER SECTION 10B OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF THE PROFITS OF THE EOU . 9 12.1 WE FURTHER FIND THAT DURING THE YEAR THE COMPAN Y HAS ENTERED IN THE FOLLOWING INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS:- TABLE 1 : PARTICULARS AMOUNT (IN RS.) SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES RENDERED 124,156,267 DESIGN SERVICES 2,160,275 REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES 201,739 12.2 THE ASSESSEE HAD SELECTED 87 COMPARABLES USING OPERATING PROFIT/ TOTAL COST (OP / TC) AS THE PROFIT LEVEL IN DICATOR (PLI). THE MEAN MARGIN OF THE COMPARABLES WAS AT 13% AS AGAINS T 17.46% OF THE ASSESSEE. TPO ACCEPTED THE MOST APPROPRIATE METHOD AS TRANSACTIONAL NET MARGIN METHOD (TNMM) AS DONE BY THE ASSESSEE AN D OP / TC AS THE PLI. THE CALCULATION OF THE PROFIT MARGIN OF TH E ASSESSEE WAS ALSO NOT CHALLENGED BY THE TPO. AFTER USING VARIOUS FILT ERS, THE TPO CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT ONLY 5 COMPARABLES AS GIVEN IN TABLE-2 BELOW ARE COMPARABLE TO THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. IT IS P ERTINENT TO MENTION HERE THAT THE FILTERS USED WERE ONLY ON THE SET OF COMPARABLE CASES SELECTED BY THE ASSESSEE AND TPO DID NOT INTRODUCE ANY FRESH COMPARABLES AND COMPUTED THE OP/TC MARGIN AS 23.20 % . 10 TABLE 2 : SL.NO. NAME OF COMPANY OP/TC MARGIN (MARCH 2005) 1. SONATA SOFTWARE LTD. 14.94% 2. INFOSYS TECHNOLOGIES LTD 43.05% 3. GEOMETRIC SOFTWARE SOLUTIONS CO. LTD. 20.32% 4. LARSEN & TOUBRO INFOTECH LTD. 10.30% 5. SATYAM COMPUTER SERVICES LTD. 28.41 % AVERAGE 23.20% 12.3. AND THEREAFTER TPO, COMPUTED THE ALP AND MADE AN ADDITION OF RS 74,80,644/-. BEFORE THE CIT (A), THE ASSESSEE HA S RAISED THE INCLUSION OF M/S. SATYAM COMPUTER SERVICES LTD. IN THE LIST OF AFORESAID COMPARABLES TO COMPUTE THE ALP. IT WAS CO NTENDED BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A) THAT THE FINANCIAL RESULTS OF M/S. SATYAM COMPUTER SERVICES LTD. CANNOT BE RELIED UPON BECAUSE OF THE FRAUD EXPOSED IN THIS CASE DURING THE RELEVANT PERIOD. 12.4 IT IS COMMON KNOWLEDGE THAT M/S. SATYAM COMPUT ERS SERVICES LTD. INDULGED IN FRAUD AND ITS FINANCIAL STATEMENTS CANNOT BE TAKEN AS TRUE BECAUSE IT HAS BOTCHED UP THE FINANCIALS AND D OCTORED IT, WHICH LED TO LODGING OF SEVERAL CRIMINAL CASES AGAINST IT S DIRECTORS ; AND 11 SUBSEQUENT TO THE SCANDAL BEING UNEARTHED THE COMPA NY (M/S. SATYAM COMPUTER SERVICES LTD.) ITSELF HAS COME UP WITH A S TATEMENT THAT ITS FINANCIAL RESULTS ARE NOT RELIABLE, FOR THE RELEVAN T ASSESSMENT YEAR TOO, COMES IN THAT NET. 12.5 THE LD. CIT (A) HAS TAKEN NOTE OF THE ANNUAL R EPORT OF M/S. SATYAM COMPUTER SERVICES LIMITED FOR FINANCIAL YEAR 2009-10, - CORPORATE GOVERNANCE REPORTS - MAKES A MENTION OF T HE FACT THAT THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF PRECEDING YEARS SHOULD NOT BE RELIED UPON. AN EXTRACT FROM PAGE NO. 23 OF THE REPORT READS AS FOL LOWS:- 'M/S PRICE WATERHOUSE, THE ERSTWHILE AUDITORS OF TH E COMPANY COMMUNICATED VIDE A LETTER DATED JANUARY 13, 2009, THAT THEIR AUDIT REPORTS ISSUED ON THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF THE COMPANY FROM THE QUARTER ENDED JUNE 30, 2000 UNTIL THE QUAR TER ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2008 SHOULD NO LONGER BE RELIED UPON. FURTHER, IN VIEW OF THE FINANCIAL IRREGULARITIES IDENTIFIED, TH E STATEMENTS FOR THE SAID PERIOD FURNISHED UNDER CLAUSE 41 OF LISTIN G AGREEMENT WITH INDIAN STOCK EXCHANGES DID NOT REFLECT THE TRU E POSITION. IN ADDITION THERE WAS A VIOLATION OF THE ESOP GUIDELIN ES ISSUED BY SEBI IN RESPECT OF ACCOUNTING AND DISCLOSURE REQUIR EMENTS RELATING TO ASOP-A FOR WHICH THE COMPANY IS IN THE PROCESS OF SEEKING CONDONATION.' 12 12.6 WE FURTHER FIND THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS NOTED THAT IN THE CASE OF AGNITY TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 12(1), NEW DELHI DECIDED BY ITAT, DELHI 2010 (IDT2) GJX 1031 - TDEL HAS UPHELD THE DECISION OF THE DRP WHICH HAD E XCLUDED M/S. SATYAM FROM THE LIST OF COMPARABLES. LD. CIT(A) FUR THER OBSERVED THAT IN VIEW OF THIS, M/S SATYAM COMPUTERS SERVICES LTD. SHOULD BE TAKEN OUT FROM THE LIST OF COMPARABLE COMPANIES. IN THE LIGHT OF THE AFORESAID FACTS, LD. CIT (A) TOOK THE DECISION TO E XCLUDE M/S. SATYAM FROM THE LIST OF COMPARABLES, WHICH WE UPHOLD SINCE THE FINANCIAL RESULTS OF THE SAID COMPANY IS THE RESULT OF ADMITT ED FINANCIAL IRREGULARITIES AND CONSPIRACY HATCHED AND COMMITTED BY THE DIRECTORS AND CANNOT BE RELIED UPON. SO THE FINANCIAL RESULT OF THE SAID COMPANY CANNOT BE USED BY THE TPO TO COMPUTE THE ALP, WHICH HAS BEEN RIGHTLY DONE BY THE LD. CIT (A), SO WE CONCUR WITH HIS DECISION TO EXCLUDE M/S. SATYAM FROM THE LIST OF COMPARABLES, S O THE REVENUES GROUND IS DISMISSED. 12.7 THEREAFTER, WE FIND THAT ONCE M/S. SATYAM WAS EXCLUDED. FROM THE LIST OF THE COMPARABLES, THE WORKINGS OF THE MA RGIN OF THE COMPARABLES ARE GIVEN IN TABLE-3 BELOW: 13 TABLE 3: SL. NO. NAME OF COMPANY OP/TC MARGIN (MARCH 2005) WORKING CAPITAL ADJUSTED MARGIN 1. SONATA SOFTWARE LTD. 14.94% 13.15% 2. INFOSYS TECHNOLOGIES LTD 43.05% 43.72% 3. GEOMETRIC SOFTWARE SOLUTIONS CO. LTD. 20.32% 19.92% 4. LARSEN & TOUBRO INFOTECH LTD. 10.30% 10.42% AVERAGE 22.15% 21.80% 12.8 THE LD. CIT (A) TAKES NOTE OF THE FACT THAT TH E MARGIN OF THE ASSESSEE EVEN WITHOUT WORKING CAPITAL ADJUSTMENT IS AT 22.15%. SO, ACCORDING TO HIM, THE PROVISO TO SECTION 92C(2) IS APPLICABLE IN THIS CASE. SINCE THE MARGIN OF THE ASSESSEE IS AT 17.46% , THE WORKING OF THE +/- 5% IS GIVEN AS PER THE TABLE-4 REPRODUCED AS GI VEN BY THE LD. CIT (A) : TABLE-4: PARTICULARS ASSESSEE ARMS LENGTH PRICE (ALP) ALP +5% ALP -5% SALES 153,031,100 159,143,746 167,100,933 151,186,558 TOTAL COST (TC) 130,285,506 130,285,506 130,285,506 130,285,506 OPERATING PROFIT (OP) 22,745,594 28,858,240 36,815,427 20,901,052 OP/TC 17.46% 22.15% 28.26% 16.04% 14 12.9 ON THE BASIS OF THE AFORESAID COMPUTATION, SIN CE THE MARGIN OF THE ASSESSEE FALLS WITHIN +/-5% OF 22.15% I.E. ALP MARGIN, THE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION WAS TREATED BY HIM AS AT ARM'S LENGTH. THEREFORE, HE DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO / TPO IN THIS CASE. THE LD. DR COULD NOT POINT OUT ANY MISTAKE IN THE C ALCULATION GIVEN ABOVE IN TABLE 4. IN THE SAID SCENARIO, WE FIND THA T BY EXCLUDING M/S. SATYAM FROM THE LIST OF COMPARABLES, THE MEAN OF TH E ASSESSEE FALLS WITHIN 5% OF 22.15%. HENCE, WE DO NOT SEE ANY REA SON TO INTERFERE WITH THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A), HENCE, WE UPHOLD THE SAME. THEREFORE, THE ISSUES IN DISPUTE RAISED BY THE REVENUE ARE REJECTED. 13. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE STANDS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 22.07.2015. SD/- SD/- (S.V.MEHROTRA) (A. T. VAR KEY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 22/07/2015 TS 15 COPY FORWARDED TO 1. APPLICANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR:ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI