ITO, New Delhi V. Sh. Amit Verma, New Delhi

ITA 4558/DEL/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 66005 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-12-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 10-12-2012
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 12-10-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: BHIM SINGH
• Keywords: Gross profit estimation; Unexplained cash credit; Gift; Depreciation; Source of fund

Judgement Text

ITA NO. 4558/DEL/2011 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH A, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 4558/DEL/2011 A.Y. : 2008-09 ITO, WARD - 26(2), ROOM NO. 304-C, 3 RD FLOOR, VIKAS BHAVAN, NEW DELHI VS. SH. AMIT VERMA, C-89, TAGORE GARDEN EXTENSION, NEW DELHI 110 027 (PAN/GIR NO. : AADPV 4528R) (APPELLANT ) (APPELLANT ) (APPELLANT ) (APPELLANT ) (RESPONDENT ) (RESPONDENT ) (RESPONDENT ) (RESPONDENT ) ASSESSEE BY : SH. SANJEEV JAIN, CA DEPARTMENT BY : SH. BHIM SINGH, SR. D.R. ORDER ORDER ORDER ORDER PER SHAMIM PER SHAMIM PER SHAMIM PER SHAMIM YAHYA: AM YAHYA: AM YAHYA: AM YAHYA: AM THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST TH E ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-XXIV, NEW D ELHI DATED 09.8.2011 PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. 2. THE FIRST ISSUE RAISED IS THAT LD. COMMISSIONE R OF INCOME TAX (A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF ` 6,28,387/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF 20% OF VARIOUS EXPENSES. 3. ON THIS ISSUE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT DUR ING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION SALES WERE DECLARED AT ` 53221 12/- ON WHICH ASSESSEE HAS DECLARED GP OF ` 8,12,143/-, YIELDING GP RATE OF 5.65% AS AGAINST RATE OF 15.8% DECLARED IN THE IMMEDIATELY P RECEDING YEAR. ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT NO REASON FOR LOW GP RATE WAS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE. ASSESSING OFFICER ASKED THE ASSESSE E TO SUBMIT THE DETAILS OF VARIOUS EXPENSES DEBITED TO PROFIT AND L OSS ACCOUNT, DETAILS ITA NO. 4558/DEL/2011 2 OF CONSUMABLES, CONSULTANCY LABOUR CHARGES ETC. AN D PURCHASES, AND ALSO TO PRODUCE THE BILLS AND VOUCHERS AND THE BOO KS OF ACCOUNT. ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT ALL BILLS AND VOUCHER S WERE NOT AVAILABLE AND ACCORDINGLY HE MADE ADHOC ADDITIONS @ 20% OF THE CONSULTANCY EXPENSES, TESTING FEE, INSTALLATION EXPENSES, PURCH ASES, LABOUR AND WAGES. SIMILARLY, 20% TELEPHONE EXPENSES, CAR RU NNING AND MAINTENANCE, INSURANCE OF CAR AND DEPRECIATION OF CA R WAS DISALLOWED FOR PERSONAL USAGE. 3.1 AS REGARDS CONSUMABLES ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT SUBMITTED THE RELEVANT DETAILS. HENCE, HE DI SALLOWED THE ENTIRE AMOUNT. ON BEING ASKED TO FURNISH THE DETAI LS OF CONSUMABLES, ASSESSEES COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT THESE EXPENSES PER TAIN TO TOOLS AND PETTY ITEMS LIKE CEMENT, SAND, RORI, TILES, BRUSH, P AINT, POP ETC. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THESE CONSUMABLES WERE USE D AT THE SITE EXCLUSIVELY AND WHOLLY FOR THE BUSINESS PURPOSES. ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO GIVE ANY DETAILS OF CONSUMABLES CLAIMED AT ` 1,20,930/-, THE SAME IS LI ABLE TO BE ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 4. BEFORE THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ERRED BOT H IN LAW AND IN FACTS IN HOLDING THAT THE GP RATE OF THE ASSESSEE DURING T HE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WAS 5.65% AS AGAINST 15.8% IN THE IMM EDIATELY PRECEDING YEAR. ACCORDINGLY, ADVERSE INFERENCE WA S DRAWN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THIS ISSUE. THE ASSESSEE S UBMITTED THAT IN FACT GP RATE OF THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR IS 15.23% AN D NOT 5.65% MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HAVING COME TO THE CO NCLUSION THAT THERE WAS A HUGE FALL OF MORE THAN 10% IN THE GROSS PROFIT RATIO OF THE ITA NO. 4558/DEL/2011 3 ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR AS COMPARED TO THE PRECEDIN G YEAR, THE ASSESSING OFFICER QUESTIONED ALL THE EXPENSES AND DEBITS IN THE TRADING AND PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE . IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ACCOUNTS WERE DULY AUDITED U/S. 44AB OF THE ACT AND THE COPIES OF AUDITED BALANCE SHEET, PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT ALONG WITH TAX AUDIT REPORT WERE FILED BEFORE THE ASSES SING OFFICER DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. AS REGARDS PURCHASES MADE BY THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ACCEPTED PU RCHASES AMOUNTING TO ` 19,25,807/- MADE FROM M/S ARTEK ENTERPRISES, TO W HOM PAYMENTS WERE MADE BY CHEQUES AND DISALLOWED THE BALANCE PU RCHASES OF ` 12,26,543/-, WHICH WERE ALSO FULLY VOUCHED AND DUL Y SUPPORTED BY BILLS OF PARTIES FROM WHOM SUCH PURCHASES WERE MADE. THE A SSESSING OFFICER DID NOT ACCEPT THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSE SSEE REGARDING THESE PURCHASES EVEN THOUGH ALL THE BILLS WERE PRODUCED BEFORE HIM. BEFORE THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) ASSESSEE SUB MITTED A PAPER BOOK DURING APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS WHEREIN ALL THE D ETAILS SUBMITTED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAVE BEEN INCLUDED. LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) GAVE A FINDING THAT ON PERUSAL OF THE PAPER BOOK, IT IS SEEN THAT NOT ONLY HAS THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED SUBS TANTIVE DETAILS REGARDING EACH ITEM OF PURCHASE AND EXPENDITURE, AL ONG WITH CONFIRMATIONS, HE HAS ALSO SUBMITTED A DETAILED EXPL ANATION REGARDING THE COMPARATIVE GP RATE CHART FOR THE PRECEDING TWO YEARS AND THE CURRENT YEAR. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE, LD. COMMISSION ER OF INCOME TAX (A) NOTED THAT ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MENTIONED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT ON TOTAL TURNOVER OF ` 53,32,112/-, THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCLOSED GP OF ` 8,12,143/-, YIELDING A GP RATE OF 5 .65% AS AGAINST 15.8% OF IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING YEAR. LD. COMMISSIO NER OF INCOME TAX (A) OBSERVED THAT THIS WAS WRONG PREMISE TAKEN BY THE ASSESSING ITA NO. 4558/DEL/2011 4 OFFICER THAT SINCE THE GP RATIO ACTUALLY COMES TO 15.23% AND NOT 5.65%. LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) HELD THAT SINCE THE VERY PREMISE, BASED ON WHICH THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MA DE VARIOUS ADDITIONS TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE IS FAULTY, THE ADDITIONS MADE BY HIM CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. LD. COMMISSIONER OF IN COME TAX (A) FURTHER NOTED THAT MOREOVER THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT POINTED OUT ANY DEFECT IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS MAINTAINED BY T HE ASSESSEE WHICH HAVE BEEN DULY AUDITED BY THE CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT. HE NOTED THAT ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT INVOKED SECTION 145(3) O F THE I.T. ACT TO REJECT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, AS NO SPECIFIC DEFECT S WERE POINTED OUT BY HIM IN THE BOOKS. LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME T AX (A) CONCLUDED AS UNDER:- IN LIGHT OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSIONS, AND AFTER GIVIN G CAREFUL CONSIDERATION TO THE REMAND REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS VOLUMINOUS DETA ILS SUBMITTED BY THE APPELLANT, I AM OF THE OPINION TH AT ADHOC ADDITIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO T HE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT, WITHOUT POINTING OUT ANY SPECIFIC DEFECTS IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND WITHO UT REJECTING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT U/S. 145(3) OF THE A CT, DO NOT STAND THE TEST OF JUDICIAL SCRUTINY. RELIAN CE IS PLACED ON THE JUDGEMENT OF HONBLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI IN THE CASE OF C.I.T. VS. WOODWARD GOVERNOR PVT . LTD. (2009) 312 ITR 254 (SC.). ACCORDINGLY, THE ADDITIONS MADE TO THE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT OUT OF CONSUMABLES (` 1,20,930/-), CONSULTANCY/TESTING FEE / INSTALLATION ETC. ( ` 2,75,680/-), WAGES (196600), LABOUR ITA NO. 4558/DEL/2011 5 CHARGES ( ` 24202), CAR EXPENSES (` 10,975/-) AND TELEPHONE EXPENSES (` 6370) ARE HEREBY DELETED. 5. AGAINST THE ABOVE ORDER THE REVENUE 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 THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THIS CASE HAS NOTED THAT THERE IS A F ALL IN THE GP RATIO OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE GP WAS 5.65% AS AGAINST 15.8% IN TH E IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING YEAR. HOWEVER, LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) GAVE A FINDING THAT GP RATIO ACTUALLY WAS 15.23% AND NOT 5.65%. THUS, WE FIND THAT THE BASIC PREMISE ON WHICH ASSESSMENT WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER DOES NOT STAND. IN FACT THERE HAS BEEN INCREASE IN THE GP AS COMPARED TO THE PRECEDING YEAR AND NOT AS TAKEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT PO INTED OUT ANY SPECIFIC DEFECTS IN THE BOOKS/RECORDS. MOREOVER THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS HAVE BEEN DULY AUDITED, THE DETAILS WERE SUBMITTED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT INVOKED SE CTION 145(3) AND HE HAS NOT REJECTED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. UNDER THE CI RCUMSTANCES, ADHOC DISALLOWANCE IS WITHOUT ANY BASIS. HENCE, W E DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCO ME TAX (A) AND THEREFORE, WE UPHOLD THE SAME. 7. THE NEXT ISSUE RAISED IS THAT LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF ` 8,68,500/- ON A CCOUNT OF ALLEGED GIFT U/S. 68 OF THE IT ACT. 8. ON THIS ISSUE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT ASSE SSEE HAS RECEIVED FOLLOWING CASH GIFTS FROM THE FOLLOWING PARTIES:- SHIVANI VERMA SISTER-IN-LAW 101000 ITA NO. 4558/DEL/2011 6 ANURDHA VERMA -DO- 101000 RITU VERMA -DO- 101000 ASHISH VERMA BROTHER 101000 LATE SH. NAND KUMAR VERMA FATHER 413900 RECEIPT AT THE TIME OF UTHALA OF FATHER 50600 TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL 868500 868500 868500 868500 ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE GIFTS DEEDS FROM THE ABO VE PERSONS. COPY OF INCOME TAX RETURNS WERE ALSO SUBMITTED. AS SESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED COPY OF BANK ACCOUNTS TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS AND THE ASSESSE E HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO PRODUCE THE DONORS. HENCE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DOUBTED THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE DONORS AND DISALLOWED THE A MOUNT U/S. 68 OF THE ACT. 9. UPON ASSESSEES APPEAL LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) NOTED THAT THE GIFTS WERE MADE BY THE CLOSE RELATIVE S, EACH OF WHOM HAD DULY CONFIRMED THE GIFTS AND ALSO FILED THEIR A FFIDAVITS, EACH OF THE DONORS WAS ASSESSED TO INCOME TAX WHOSE DETAILS WER E SUBMITTED AND THAT THE DONORS HAD DULY APPEARED BEFORE THE ASSESS ING OFFICER DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, BUT THE ASSE SSING OFFICER DID NOT RECORD THEIR EVIDENCES AND HELD THAT THE DONO RS WERE NEVER PRODUCED. ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT ONE OF THE DON ORS WHO IS THE BROTHER OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO A CHARTERED ACCOUNT ANT AND HE REPRESENTED THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER REGULARLY. EVEN HERE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THAT THE DON OR WAS NOT PRODUCED BEFORE HIM FOR EXAMINATION. FURTHERMORE, IT WAS SUBMI TTED THAT THE AMOUNT OF ` 4,13,900/- RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM HIS FATHER SH. NAND KUMAR VERMA WAS NEVER RECEIVED IN THE CURRENT Y EAR, BUT WAS LYING AS AN OPENING BALANCE IN HIS HANDS HAVING BEE N RECEIVED IN ITA NO. 4558/DEL/2011 7 EARLIER YEARS. ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS THE YOUNGEST MEMBER IN THE JOINT FAMILY AND LOST HIS F ATHER DURING THE CURRENT YEAR. HE RECEIVED A SUM OF ` 50600/- AT TH E TIME OF UTHALA LAST RITUALS OF HIS FATHER AS CUSTOMARY IN COMMUNITY. A SSESSING OFFICER DID NOT ACCEPT THIS AMOUNT HAS BEING VALID. FURTHERMORE, ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED A ` 1,01,000/- EACH FROM WIVES OF HIS ELD ER BROTHERS AS WELL AS HIS OWN WIFE. EACH OF THEM HAD INCOME FROM SALA RIES DISCLOSED BY THEM IN THEIR RETURNS. COPY OF THEIR SALARY C ERTIFICATES WERE ALSO SUBMITTED. CASH BOOKS OF THE DONORS WERE ALSO P LACED ON RECORD WHICH DEPICTED SUFFICIENT CASH BALANCE IN THE HAND S OF THE DONORS. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE, LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TA X (A) HELD AS UNDER:- I HAVE GIVEN CAREFUL CONSIDERATION TO THE JUSTIFIC ATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER A ND THE PLETHORA OF EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPELLANT BOTH FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS BEFORE THE UNDERS IGNED DURING APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. IN FACT, THE PROPOSI TION THAT EMERGES FROM VERDICT GIVEN BY HONBLE DELHI HIGH CO URT IN THE CASE OF ANIL KUMAR [C.I.T. VS. ANIL KUMAR (2007) 292 ITR 552 (DEL.) IS THAT THE ONUS LIES ON THE DONE NOT ONL Y TO ESTABLISH THE IDENTITY OF THE DONOR BUT ALSO THE DO NORS CAPACITY TO MAKE SUCH A GIFT. WHERE THERE WAS NOT HING ON RECORD TO SHOW AS TO (I) WHAT WAS THE FINANCIAL CAP ACITY OF THE DONOR; (II) WHAT WAS THE CREDIT WORTHINESS OF T HE DONOR; (III) WHAT WAS THE KIND OF RELATIONSHIP THE DONOR H AD WITH THE DONE ASSESSEE; (IV) WHAT ARE THE SOURCE OF FUND S GIFTED TO THE ASSESSEE; AND (V) WHETHER THE DONORS HAD THE CAPACITY OF GIVING LARGE AMOUNT OF GIFT TO THE ASSE SSEE, THE ITA NO. 4558/DEL/2011 8 TRIBUNAL WOULD NOT BE JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDI TIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IF WE TEST THE INSTA NT CASE ON THE RATIO OF THE JUDGEMENT GIVEN BY THE HONBLE DE LHI HIGH COURT, IT EMERGES THAT (I) THE FINANCIAL CAPA CITY OF THE DONORS STANDS PROVED, (II) THEIR CREDITWORTHINESS H AS BEEN PROVED BY THE APPELLANT, (III) THE CLOSE FAMILY RELA TION BETWEEN THE DONORS AND THE APPELLANT IS EVIDENT AND APPARENT, (IV) THE CASH FLOW AND ITRS OF DONORS PRO VE THE SOURCE OF FUND GIFTED TO THE APPELLANT AND (V) THE SE GIFTS ALSO STAND THE TEST OF HUMAN PROBABILITY, GIVEN THE FACT THAT THE APPELLANT IS THE YOUNGEST MEMBER OF A CLOSELY KN OT JOINT FAMILY AND HE HAS LOST HIS FATHER DURING THE YEAR. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, IT IS HELD THAT THE GIFTS RECEIVED BY THE APPELLATE AMOUNT TO ` 8,68,500/- ARE GENUINE GIF TS AND THEREFORE, THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICE R OF THIS AMOUNT U/S. 68 OF THE ACT IS HEREBY DELETED. 10. AGAINST THE ABOVE ORDER THE REVENUE IS IN APPEA L BEFORE US. 11. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS IN LIGHT OF THE MATERIAL PRODUCED AND PRECEDENT RELIED UPON. WE FIND THAT IN THIS REGARD ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED GIFT OF ` 8,68,500/- FROM CLOS E RELATIVES. IN THIS REGARD THE AFFIDAVITS REGARDING THE GIFTS GIVEN, TH E INCOME TAX RETURN OF THE PERSONS GIVING THE LOANS WAS DULY SUBMITTED. THOUGH ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOTED THE DONORS WERE NOT PRODUCED. LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) HAS GIVEN A FINDING THAT DONORS W ERE DULY PRODUCED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER, BUT ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT RECORD THEIR EVIDENCES. WE FURTHER FIND THAT A SUM OF ` 4,13,000/- SAID TO HAVE BEEN RECEIVED FROM THE ASSESSEES FATHER WAS NOT RECEIVED ITA NO. 4558/DEL/2011 9 DURING THE CURRENT YEAR, BUT IT WAS AN OPENING BALA NCE IN HIS HANDS RECEIVED IN EARLIER YEARS. WE FURTHER FIND THAT LD . COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) HAS GIVEN A FINDING THAT THE OTHER P ERSONS GIVEN THE LOANS HAD INCOME FROM SALARIES; THEIR INCOME TAX RET URNS WERE SUBMITTED; THEIR CASH BOOKS WERE ALSO PRODUCED, W HICH SHOWED SUFFICIENT CASH BALANCE IN THEIR HANDS. HENCE, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE AND THE A DDITIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S. 68 ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGE D UNEXPLAINED CREDIT IS NOT SUSTAINABLE. ACCORDINGLY, WE DO NOT FIND AN Y INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) AND H ENCE, WE UPHOLD THE SAME. 12. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE STANDS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 19/12/2012. 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 19/12/2012 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