ACIT, New Delhi V. Sh. Ashok Wadia, Delhi

ITA 4555/DEL/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1728 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 9 month(s) 30 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-08-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 10-07-2015
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 13-10-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAVINDER MAINI
• Assessee Lawyers: H P SINGH
• Keywords: Business income; Depreciation; Earning of tax free income; Corroborative evidences
• Section: 143(3); 133(6); 131; 56

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : A : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI I.C. SUDHIR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO . 4555 /DEL/201 0 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007 - 08 ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF VS. ASHOK WADIA, B - 36, MOHAN PARK, INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 34(1), NAVEEN SHAHDARA, DELHI BLOCK - G, VIKAS BHAWAN, NEW DELHI (PAN: AAAPK8914F ) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SH. RAVINDER MAINI, DR RESPONDENT BY : SH. H.P. SINGH, ADV. DATE OF HEARING: 10.07.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 12.08.2015 ORDER PER INTURI RAMA RAO, A.M. : THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) DATED 20 TH APRIL, 2010 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 08, ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: I. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED BOTH FACT AND LAW IN DELETING AN ADDITION OF RS. 39,76,476/ - ON ACC OUNT OF INTEREST PAYMENT ON BORROWED FUNDS AN D ALSO DELETING AN ADDITION OF R S. 10,03,861/ - ON ACCOUNT OF VARIOUS EXPENSES INCURRED TO EARNED UNDER THE HEAD I NCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES AS THESE EXPENSES A RE NOT ALLOWABLE EXPENDITURE UNDER SUB - SECTION (III) OF SECTION 57 OF THE IT ACT. II. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS IGNORED THE DECISION OF GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SMT. PADMAVATI VS. ADDL. CIT, GUJARAT 166 ITR 176, WHERE IN THE HON B;E COURT HAS HELD THAT WHERE ASSESSEE DECLARE INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCE INTEREST ON AMOUNT BORROWED TO PAY ANNUITY DEPOSIT IS NOT ALLOWABLE AS DEDUCTION UNDER SUB - SECTION (III) OF SECTION 57 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 2 III. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE FOR RESERVING THE RIGHT TO AMEND, MODIFY ALTER, ADD OR FOREGO ANY GROUND(S) OF APPEAL AT ANY TIME BEFORE OR DURING THE HEARING OF THIS APPEAL. 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE RESPONDENT ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL. HE FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 08 ON 18 TH JUNE, 2008, DECLARING INCOME OF RS. 4,04,97,722/ - . AGAINST THE SAID RETURN OF INCOME , THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT, 1961 (FOR SHORT THE ACT ) VIDE ORDER DATED 22.12.2009 AT A TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 4,54,78,060/ - . WHILE DOING SO, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE DISALLO WANCES OF INTEREST OF RS. 39,76,476/ - AND THE EXPENDITURE OF RS. 10,03,861/ - . THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD GIVEN HIS REASONS FOR MAKING THE DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST OF RS. 3 9 ,76,476/ - VIDE PARA 4 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, WHICH IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER: 4. THE REPLY OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN CONSIDERED AND HIS CLAIM OF EXPENSES TO THE EXTENT OF 19,85,422/ - IS FOUND TO BE GENUINE AND ALLOWABLE EXPENSES AGAINST THE INTEREST INCOME AND TH EREFORE, ALLOWED. FOR THE BALANCE RS. 39,76,476/ - THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO DISCHARGE OBLIGATION CAST UPON HIM TO PROVE THAT THE EXPENSES ARE WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY INCURRED IN RE LATION TO THE INCOME EARNED UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. THE ASSESSEE WAS REQ UIRED TO SUBMIT THE COPIES OF ACCOUNT OF THE PARTIES F ROM WHOM THESE LOANS HAVE BEEN RAISED SINC E THE DATE OF THESE LOANS ARE TAKEN ALONG WITH THE COPY OF THE BANK BOOKS AND BANK ACCOUNTS T O SEE THE DEPLOYMENT OF THESE FUNDS. THE REQUIRED DETAILS HAVE NOT BEEN FURNISHED ON THE PLEA THAT THE COMPUTER SYSTEM OF THE ASSESSEE IS HAVING SOME PROBLEM THEREFORE HE IS UNABLE TO PROVIDE THE DETAILS FOR A. Y. 2005 - 06 & 2006 - 07 IN WHICH THESE LOANS WERE TAKEN. IN THE ABSENCE OF THESE DETAILS, IT TREATED THAT EITHER REST OF THE FUNDS ARE UTILIZED TO MEET OUT THE ASSESSEE' S PERSONAL LIABILITIES OR HAVE BEEN INVESTED WITH THE COMPANIES AND FIRMS FROM WHERE THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED THE SHARE PROFIT WHICH IS EXEMPT INCOME IN HIS HAND. I THEREFORE, HAVE NO OPTION BUT TO DISALLOWED THE SAME TREATING THAT THESE EXPENSES ARE NOT INCU RRED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF EARNING THE INCOME UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES AND ACCORDINGLY AN ADDITION OF RS.39,76,476/ - IS MADE TO THE RETURN INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 2 71(1)(C) READ WITH EXPLANATION - A RE ALSO INITIATED SEPARATELY. 3 THE ABOVE VIEW IS SUPPORTED BY THE DECISIONS OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VIS DR. V.P. GOPINATHAN (2001) 248 ITR 439 (SC) IN WHICH IT HAS BEEN HELD THE INTEREST, THAT THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED FROM THE BANK WA S INCOME IN HIS HANDS. IT COULD STAND DIMINISHED ONLY IF THERE WAS A PROVISION IN LAW WHICH PERMITS SUCH DIMINUTION. THERE IS NONE, AND, THEREFORE, THE AMOUNT PAID BY THE ASSESSEE AS INTEREST ON THE LOAN THAT HE TOOK FROM THE BANK DID NOT REDUCE HIS INCOME BY WAY OF INTEREST ON THE FIXED DEPOSIT PLACED BY HIM IN THE BANK .... IN THE CASE OF SALUJA FARMS VS . CIT (2002) 254 ITR 172 (DEL) , THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT HAS HELD THAT 'INTEREST PAID ON MONEY BO RROWED FOR PERSONAL PURPOSE CAN NOT BE DEDUCTED FROM THE INTEREST EARN BY THE ASSESSEE FROM FIXED DEPOSIT IN THE BANK ON THE GROUNDS THAT FOR THE BORROWING THE ASSESSEE WOULD HAVE LIQUIDATED THE FIXED DEPOSITS (CARRYING INTEREST). THE CONNECTION WITH THE BORROWING AND FIXED DEPOSITS IS TOO REMOTE.' IN THE C ASE OF CIT V S DEVRAJ (S) (1969) 73 ITR 1 (MADRAS) THE HON'BLE MADRAS HIGH COURT HAS HELD THAT 'SECTION 57(III) IS THOUGH SIMILAR TO SECTION 37(I) BUT THE SCOPE OF SECTION 57(III) IS NARROWER THAN THAT OF SECTION 37(I) BECAUSE UNLESS THE EXPENDITURE HAS BEE N INCURRED WHOLLY & EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF MAKING OR EARNING INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES IT CANNOT BE ALLOWED DEDUCTION I.E. THERE MUST BE A CLEAR NEXUS BETWEEN THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED AND THE INCOME SOUGHT TO BE EARNED.' 3. WHILE MAKING DISALLOW ANCE OF EXPENDITURE OF RS. 10,03,861/ - , THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD GIVEN REASONING, WHICH IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER: 5. APART FROM THE ABOVE THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO CLAIMED THE EXPENSES UNDER THE FOLLOWING HEADS: - (I) SALARY PAID TO STAFF RS. 5,28,000 (II) DEPRECIATION RS. 23,725 (III) PRINTING & STATIONERY RS. 8,190 (IV) MISE. EXPENSES RS. 66,221 (V) BANK CHARGES RS. 1,07,687 (VI) CAR INSURANCE RS. 1,42,402 (VII) TELEPHONE EXPENSES RS. 25,122 (VIII) CAR MAINTENANCE RS. 1,02,514 TOTAL RS.10,03,8611/ VIDE ORDER SHE ET ENTRY DATED 29/10/2009 THE A R OF THE ASSESSE WAS REQUIRED TO EXPLAIN THAT HOW THE EXPENSES CLAIMED AS ABOVE ARE WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY 4 RELATED TO THE INCOME FRO M OTHER SOURCES, WHEN THE ASSES SE IS HAVING THE INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY, PROFIT AND GAINS FROM BUSINESS AND PROFESSION, SHARE OF PROFITS FROM FIRMS AND AOPS ALSO. IN RESPONSE TO THE QUERY THE REPLY DATED 16/12/2009 WAS FILED, WHICH IS AS UNDER: - 'ASSESSE HAS INCURRED A SUM OF RS. 10,03,861/ - ON A /C OF VARIOUS EXPENSES SUCH SALARY PAID TO STAFF, CAR EXPENSES, TELEPHONE, PRINTING AND STATIONARY, MISC. EXPENSES ETC TO EARN INTEREST INCOME OF RS.4,56,51,755/ - . THESE EXPENSES HAVE BEEN INCURRED EXCLUSIVELY TO EARN THIS INCOME. THESE EXPENSES AS CLAIMED IN THE PAST MAY BE ALLOWED DURING THIS YEAR ALSO BY TAKING A PRAGMATIC VIEW. ' THE REPLY OF THE ASSESSE IS NOT ACCEPTED IN VIEW OF THE FACTS THAT THE ASSESSE HAS FAILED TO PROVE THAT THE EXPENSES CLAIMED UNDER THE HEAD SALARY PAID TO STAFF, TRAVE1ING & CONVEYANCE, PRINTING AND STATIONARY, BANK CHARGES, MISE. EXPENSES AND LEGAL EXPENSES ARE - INCURRED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY TO EARN THE INCOME UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. SIMPLY SAYING THAT THESE EXPENSES HAVE BEEN INCURRED TO EARN THE INCOME U NDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES IS NOT SUFFICE. THE ASSESSE HAS NOT FURNISHED ANY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF HIS C LAIM FROM THE HEAD OF THESE EXPENSES IT IS APPARENT THAT THESE EXPENSES ARE NOT RELEVANT OR INCURRED TO EARN THE INCOME UNDER THE HEAD INC OME FROM OTHER SOURCES. THE EXPENSES UNDER THE HEAD BANK CHARGES MIGHT HAVE BEEN INCURRED IN PREPARING THE BANK DRAFTS FOR THE LIQUOR BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSE IN THE FIRMS AND AOPS. THE CLAIM OF THE EXPENSES UNDER OTHER HEADS IS ALSO NOT ACCEPTABLE IN VIEW OF THE FACTS THAT THE ASSESSE IS HAVING INCOME FROM THE SHARE PROFIT OF FIRMS AND AOPS WHICH IS EXEMPT IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSE, AND INCOME UNDER THE HEAD BUSINESS AND PROFESSION AND THE INCOME FROM SHORT TERM CAPITAL ALSO. THEREFORE, THE CLAIM OF THE A SSESSE IS DISALLOWED, TREATING THAT THESE EXPENSES HAVE NOT BEEN INCURRED TO EARN THE INCOME UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. THEREFORE, IT IS TREATED THE SAME HAVE BEEN INCURRED EITHER TO EARN THE EXEMPT INCOME IN THE SHAPE OF SHARE PROFIT FORM F IRMS AND AOPS OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE TRANSACTIONS OF INCOME FROM SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN. THEREFORE, THE SAME IS DISALLOWED AND ADDED BACK TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSE. PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271(1)(C) READ WITH EXPLANATION - 1ARE ALSO INITIATED SEPARATE LY. 4. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, AN APPEAL WAS PREFERRED BEFORE THE CIT(A) WHO VIDE ORDER DATED 20 TH APRIL, 2010 DELETED THE ADDITIONS BY PLACING RELIANCE ON THE DECISION S OF HON BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF SA BUILDERS LTD. VS. CIT, 288 ITR 1 (SC ); SETH R. DALMIA VS. CIT, 110 ITR 644 (SC) AND CIT VS. RAJENDERA PRASAD MOODY, 115 ITR 0519 (SC) AND EASTERN 5 INVESTMENTS LTD. VS. CIT, (1951) 20 ITR 1,4 (SC) . NOW AGGRIEVED FROM THIS ORDER, THE REVENUE IS BEFORE US WITH THE PRESENT APPEAL. 5 . WITH REGARD TO THE ADDITION OF RS. 39,76,476/ - ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST PAYMENT ON BORROWED FUNDS, THE LEARNED CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION VIDE PARAS 6.5 TO TO 6.7, WHICH ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER: 6.5 AS THE FACTS MENTIONED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE BODY OF HIS ASSESSMENT ORDER AND ON GOING THROUGH THE FACTUAL SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE IN HIS WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS IT IS EVIDENT THAT ALL THE INTEREST BEARING BORROWINGS WERE UTILIZED IN INVESTMENTS IN THE FIRMS, AOPS AND COMPAN IES TO EARN INTEREST. THE ASSESSEE COULD MANAGE THE BORROWINGS AT THE LESSER RATE OF INTEREST JUST TO EARN THE HIGHER RATE OF INTEREST. IT IS EXPEDIENT AND ALSO PRUDENT TO HAVE THE MODUS OPERANDI OF THE NATURE IN MAKING INVESTMENTS AND EARNING HIGHER INCOM E BY MAKING SOME BORROWINGS AT THE LOWER RATE OF INTEREST. LOOKING TO THE VOLUME OF INVESTMENTS AND NUMBER OF TRANSACTIONS IT MAY NOT BE PRAGMATIC TO HAVE THE DIRECT LINK OF EACH AND EVERY ITEM BUT THE OVERALL APPRAISAL OF THE FACTS AND THE STATEMENT OF AC COUNTS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE JUSTIFIES THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR DEDUCTION OF THE INTEREST PAID ON BORROWINGS U/S 57(III) OF THE ACT. 6.6 THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT PLACED ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS ALLEGATION THAT THE AMOUNT OF BORROWED FUNDS ON WHICH INTEREST PAYMENT OF RS. 39,76,476/ - HAS BEEN DISALLOWED BY HIM WERE NOT USED IN EARNING THE INCOME OFFERED TO TAX BY THE A SSESSEE U/S 56 OF THE ACT. IT IS SETTLED LAW THAT NO TAX LIABILITY CAN BE CAST UPON AN ASSESSEE ON THE BASIS OF PRESUMPTION, CONJECTURE AND SURMISE. STATUTE PLACES ONUS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS ALLEGATION WITH CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCES BE FORE EMBARKING UPON TO MAKE ADDITIONS IN THE HANDS OF AN ASSESSEE. 6.7 IN LIGHT OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE FACTS OF THE CASE AUTHORITIES RELIED UPON BY THE AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE, I AM OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE CASE AUTHORITIES RELIED UPON BY THE AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE AND HENCE ADDITION OF RS. 39,76,476/ - MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE IS, HEREBY DELETED. 6. IN RESPECT OF THE DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENDITURE OF RS. 10,03,860/ - , THE LEARNED CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION VIDE PARA 8, WHICH IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER: 6 AFTER CONSIDERING THE OBSERVATIONS MADE BY THE LD. ASS ESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS THE FACTUAL SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE AND I HAVE REACHED THE FOLLOWING FACTS - (I) THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NEITHER POINTED OUT ANY DEFECT IN THE BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE NOR HAS DOUBTE D THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE EXPENSES EITHER DEBITED TO THE PROFIT& LOSS ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE SO MUCH SO IT WAS PERTAINING TO CLAIMING DEDUCTION FROM THE BUSINESS RECEIPTS. (II) THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT DOUBTED THE AUTHENTICITY OF VARIOUS EXPEN SES CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE AS DEDUCTION U/S 57(III) OF THE ACT. THE ONLY OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS THAT THESE EXPENSES WERE NOT INCURRED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF EARNING INCOME UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. (III) THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT BROUGHT ANY COGENT MATERIAL ON RECORD, WHICH COULD SUGGEST THAT THE EXPENSES CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE AS DEDUCTION U/S 57(III) OF THE ACT WERE NOT INCURRED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSES OF EARNING INCOME UNDER T HE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES OFFERED TO TAX U/S 56 OF THE ACT. (IV) THAT NEITHER ANY VERIFICATION NOR ANY INVESTIGATION HAS BEEN DONE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DISLODGE THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE SO MUCH SO IT WAS CONCERNED WITH THE CLAIMING OF DEDUCTION U/S 57(III) OF THE ACT. (V) THAT UNDER THE INCOME TAX LAWS EITHER BY WAY OF SECTION 131 OR BY WAY OF SECTION 133(6) OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS BEEN GIVEN ENORMOUS POWER TO CARRY OUT VERIFICATION AND VERIFICATION TO ANY EXTENT TO S UBSTANTIATE HIS ALLEGATION AND TO DISLODGE THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE. BUT IN THE PRESENT CASE, ASSESSEE OFFICER HAS COMPLETELY FAILED TO BRING ON RECORD ANY CONTRARY MATERIAL TO DISLODGE THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE. (VI) THAT MERELY STATING THAT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISALLOWED, TREATING THAT THESE EXPENSES HAVE NOT BEEN INCURRED TO EARN THE INCOME UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES, IS NOT SUFFICIENT IN THE EYES OF LAW TO MAKE ADDITIONS IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. (VII) THAT IT IS THE SETTLED LAW THAT NO ASSESSEE CAN BE CAST UPON WITH TAX LIABILITY ON THE BASIS OF PRESUMPTION, SURMISE AND CONJECTURE. IN LIGHT OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE, OBSERVATIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND FACTUAL SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE, I AM OF THE CONSIDER ED VIEW THAT THE ADDITIONS OF RS . 10,03,861 / - 7. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAD PASSED THE ORDER IN LINE WITH THE SETTLED PRINCIPLE OF LAW THAT THE ASS ESSING OFFICER CANNOT STEP INTO SHO E S OF THE ASSESSEE AND DECIDE AS TO 7 HOW WHICH OF THE EXPENDITURE CAN BE INCURRED. ONCE THE EXPENDITURE HAS BEEN INCURRED WHOLLY OR EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE BUSINESS PURPOSES, NO DISALLOWANCE CAN BE MADE. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL R EPRESENTATIVE HAD NOT FILED ANY MATERIAL CONTRADICTING THE FINDINGS REACHED BY THE CIT(A). FURTHER, WE NOTICE THAT NO SUCH ADDITIONS WERE MADE EITHER IN THE IMMEDIATE PRECEDING YEAR OR SUCCEEDING YEAR BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE UP HOLD THE ORDER OF CIT(A) AND DISMISS THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE. 8. I N THE RESULT, THE APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. THE DECISION IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 12 TH AUGUST , 2015. SD/ - SD/ - ( I.C. SUDHIR ) (INTURI RAMA RAO) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 12 TH AUGUST , 2015. RK/ - COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR ASST. REGISTRAR, ITAT, NEW DELHI