M/s Mool Chand Textiles, Ghaziabad V. ITO, Hapur

ITA 4583/DEL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7921 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 year(s) 8 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-04-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Next Hearing Date: 26-04-2017
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 02-08-2013
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: RAJ KUMAR S
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Business income; Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 234B

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : E : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.4583/DEL/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 MOOL CHAND TEXTILES, PILKHUWA, GHAZIABAD. PAN: AABFM3097Q VS ITO, WARD-1, HAPUR. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI K. SAMPATH & SHRI RAJ KUMAR, ADVOCATES REVENUE BY : MS RINKU SINGH, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 14.03.2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 18.04.2019 ORDER PER R.K. PANDA, AM: THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAIN ST THE ORDER DATED 30 TH APRIL, 2013 OF THE CIT(A), MUZAFFARNAGAR, RELATING TO ASSE SSMENT YEAR 2008-09. 2. GROUNDS OF APPEAL NOS.1 TO 3 OF THE ASSESSEE REA D AS UNDER:- 1. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACT S IN MAINTAINING THE AGGREGATE ADDITION OF RS. 4,29,183=00 FOR ALLEGED U NEXPLAINED SOURCE OF CAPITAL INTRODUCED BY THE PARTNERS TOWARDS THE FIRM IN THE FOLLOWING MANNER AND TREATING IT AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDITS OF THE APPELLANT FIR M. SHRI PRADEEP KUMAR 1,63,133.00 ITA NO.4583/DEL/2013 2 SHRI VIJAY KUMAR 1,22,295.00 SMT. ANJANA DEVI 1,43,755.00 2. THAT THE LD. CIT (A) ALSO ERRED IN LAW AND ON FA CTS IN ENDORSING THE OBSERVATION OF THE LD. A.O. IN THE CONTEXT OF MAKIN G THE AFORESAID AGGREGATE ADDITION OF RS. 4,29,183=00 THAT THE HOUSE HOLD EXP ENSES OF THE PARTNERS WERE UNDER DISCLOSED BY RS. 4,74,000=00. 3. THAT THE LD. CIT (A) ERRED IN MAINTAINING THE AD DITION OF RS. 51,150=00 FOR DISALLOWANCE ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST COMPUTED AT RS. 51,150=00 BY THE LD. A.O. ON THE AFORESAID ADDITION OF RS. 4,29,183=00 A S MENTIONED IN GROUND NO.1 AND 2 ABOVE. 3. FACTS OF THE CASE, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT THE ASSESS EE IS A PARTNERSHIP FIRM ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING AND SALES OF COTTON C LOTHES BOTH OWN AND ON COMMISSION BASIS. IT FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 30 TH SEPTEMBER, 2008 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.5,948/-. DURING THE COURSE OF A SSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THE PARTNERS HAVE I NTRODUCED CAPITAL OF RS.4,29,183/-, THE DETAILS OF WHICH ARE AS UNDER:- SHRI PRADEEP KUMAR 1,63,133.00 SHRI VIJAY KUMAR 1,22,295.00 SMT. ANJANA DEVI 1,43,755.00 4. HE ASKED THE ASSESSEE FIRM TO SUBSTANTIATE WITH EVIDENCE TO HIS SATISFACTION REGARDING THE SOURCE OF INTRODUCTION OF THE CAPITAL BY THE PARTNERS. IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT ALL THE THREE PARTNERS ARE INCOME-TAX PAYEES A ND HAVE INTRODUCED THE CAPITAL FROM THEIR RESPECTIVE BUSINESS INCOME. HOWEVER, THE ASS ESSING OFFICER WAS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE ASSESSEE. HE NO TED THAT THE PARTNERS HAVE DISCLOSED THEIR INCOME U/S 44AF FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 AND NO BALANCE SHEET, CAPITAL ACCOUNT, ETC. WERE FURNISHED ALONG W ITH THE RETURN OF INCOME. FURTHER, ITA NO.4583/DEL/2013 3 THE PARTNERS HAVE SHOWN MEAGER DRAWALS FOR PERSONAL EXPENSES. THEREFORE, IT WAS NOT POSSIBLE TO INTRODUCE SO MUCH CAPITAL BY THE PARTNE RS. REJECTING THE VARIOUS EXPLANATIONS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE AND OBSERVING TH AT WHATEVER INCOME DISCLOSED BY THEM IS SUFFICIENT ONLY TO MEET THEIR PERSONAL EXPE NSES AND NOTHING IS LEFT WITH HIM FOR INVESTMENT IN THE PARTNERSHIP FIRM TOWARDS CAPITAL, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITION OF RS.4,29,183/- TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF TH E ASSESSEE FIRM BY TREATING THE SAME AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDITS. IN APPEAL, THE LD.CIT (A) UPHELD THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 5. AGGRIEVED WITH SUCH ORDER OF THE CIT(A), THE ASS ESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 6. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AT THE OUTSET, SUBMITTED THAT ADDITION, IF ANY, COULD HAVE BEEN MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE PARTNERS F OR INTRODUCTION OF THE CAPITAL BY THEM AND ADDITION CANNOT BE MADE IN THE HANDS OF TH E PARTNERSHIP FIRM. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE FIRM WAS CONSTITUTED ON 1 ST APRIL, 2007 AND, THEREFORE, IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR T HE PARTNERSHIP FIRM TO EARN ANY INCOME ON THE VERY FIR ST DAY OF THE YEAR WHEN THE PARTNERSHIP FIRM WAS FORMED. RELYING ON THE DECISI ON OF THE HON'BLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ABHYUDAYA PHARMACEUTICALS VS. CIT (2013) 32 TAXMANN .COM 68 (ALLAHABAD), HE SUBMITTED THAT THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT IN THE SA ID DECISION HAS HELD THAT WHERE ADDITION WAS MADE TO ASSESSEES INCOME O N THE GROUND THAT IT FAILED TO PROVE THE SOURCE OF AMOUNT CONTRIBUTED BY ONE PARTN ER, IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT IT WAS FIRST YEAR OF OPERATION OF THE FIRM AND IT COULD NO T HAVE PERSONAL FUNDS AND, MOREOVER, ITA NO.4583/DEL/2013 4 ADDITION, IF ANY, SHOULD BE MADE IN THE HANDS OF TH E SAID PARTNER ONLY. THE ADDITION MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE PARTNER WAS ACCORDINGLY DI RECTED TO BE DELETED. RELYING ON VARIOUS OTHER DECISIONS PLACED IN THE PAPER BOOK, H E SUBMITTED THAT IN THOSE CASES THE ADDITIONS MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE FIRM WERE DELETE D ON THE GROUND THAT ADDITION, IF ANY, CAN BE MADE ONLY IN THE HANDS OF THE PARTNERS WHO HAVE INTRODUCED CAPITAL IN THE PARTNERSHIP FIRM. 7. THE LD. DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, HEAVILY RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). SHE SUBMITTED THAT ALL THE PARTNERS WHO HAVE INTRODUCED CAPITAL HAVE DECLARED THEIR PROFIT U/S 44AF IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR. THE TRANSACTION WAS IN CASH AND NOT BY CHEQUE AND, THEREFORE, IT IS UNVERIFIABLE. NONE OF THE PARTNE RS HAVE FILED THE BALANCE SHEET OR CAPITAL ACCOUNT OF THE CONTRIBUTORS AND THE PERSONA L WITHDRAWALS DECLARED BY THE PARTNERS WAS VERY LOW. REFERRING TO THE FINDINGS G IVEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND CIT(A), THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THEY HAVE GIVEN J USTIFIABLE REASONS FOR MAKING THE ADDITION. REFERRING TO THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS, TH E LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT WHERE THE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE FIRM IS NOT SATISFACTORY, THE CREDITS CAN BE ADDED IN THE HANDS OF THE FIRM:- (I) MULTI CHEMICALS VS. ACIT (2001) 76 ITD 367 (DE L); (II) DECISION OF THE HON'BLE PATNA HIGH COURT IN T HE CASE OF R.A. HIMATSINGKA & CO. DATED 01.07.2016 IN MA NO.356 OF 2009 AND M.A. NO.49 OF 2011; ITA NO.4583/DEL/2013 5 (III) DECISION OF THE HON'BLE RAJASTHAN HIG H COURT IN THE CASE OF M/S KAILASH CHAND AGARWAL DATED 17.01.2017 IN ITA NO.75 OF 2006 ; AND (IV) DECISION OF THE HON'BLE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF M/S KISHORILAL SANTOSHILAL DATED 06.02.1995. 8. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL ARGUMENTS MADE BY B OTH THE SIDES AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. IT IS AN ADMITTED FACT THAT THIS IS THE VERY FIRST YEAR OF THE OPERATION OF THE PARTNERSHIP FIRM WHICH WAS CON STITUTED BY A DEED OF PARTNERSHIP ON 1 ST DAY OF APRIL, 2007 CONSISTING OF THREE PARTNERS. THE THREE PARTNERS CONTRIBUTED AN AMOUNT OF RS.4,29,183/- TOWARDS CAPITAL OF THE FIRM THE DETAILS OF WHICH ARE ALREADY REPRODUCED IN THE PRECEDING PARAGRAPHS. IT IS THE CASE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE PARTNERS COULD NOT EXPLAIN SATISFACTORILY THE SOURC E OF INTRODUCTION OF CAPITAL. THEIR RETURNS OF INCOME SHOW THAT THEY HAVE DECLARED INCO ME U/S 44AF OF THE IT ACT AND WHICH RETURNS DO NOT ACCOMPANY THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT AND BALANCE SHEET OF THE FIRM. SINCE THE PARTNERS FAILED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF THEIR CAPITAL, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE THE ADDITION AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDITS IN TH E HANDS OF THE PARTNERSHIP FIRM. IT IS THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESS EE THAT ADDITION, IF ANY, COULD HAVE BEEN MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE PARTNERS WHO HAVE INT RODUCED THE CAPITAL AND NOT IN THE HANDS OF THE FIRM. WE FIND MERIT IN THE ABOVE ARGU MENT OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. ADMITTEDLY, THIS IS THE VERY FIRST YEAR OF THE OPERATION OF THE PARTNERSHIP FIRM. THEREFORE, ON THE VERY FIRST DAY, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE FIRM HAD SOME UNDISCLOSED INCOME. WE FIND THE HON'BLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN THE CASE ITA NO.4583/DEL/2013 6 ABHYUDAYA PHARMACEUTICALS VS. CIT(SUPRA) HAS HELD THAT ADDITION, IF ANY, SHOULD BE MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE PARTNERS AND NOT IN THE HA NDS OF THE FIRM. THE RELEVANT OBSERVATIONS OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT AT PARA 16 O F THE ORDER READ AS UNDER:- 16. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE, W E ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE COMMITTED ERROR AS THEY HAVE FAILED TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THAT THIS WAS THE FIRST YEAR OF THE BUSINES S OF THE ASSESSEE-FIRM. THE PARTNERSHIP FIRM WAS FORMED ON JULY 5, 1990, AND ON JULY 7, 1990, MASTER SHISHIR GARG DEPOSITED RS. 1,90,000 AND RS. 72,000 AS CAPIT AL MONEY WITH THE FIRM THROUGH BANK CLEARANCE OF TWO BANK DRAFTS. THE ACCO UNTING PERIOD BEING FINANCIAL YEAR, I.E., ENDING ON MARCH 31, 1991, THE FIRM COUL D NOT HAVE ANY INCOME AT THE TIME OF ITS FORMATION. THE IDENTITY OF THE DEPOSITO R, I.E., MASTER SHISHIR GARG WAS NOT IN ISSUE AT ANY POINT OF TIME BEFORE THE INCOME -TAX AUTHORITIES. THEY TREATED THE SAID DEPOSIT BY MASTER SHISHIR GARG. THIS BEING SO, IF FOR ONE REASON OR THE OTHER, THEY WERE NOT SATISFIED WITH THE FINANCIAL C APABILITY OF MASTER SHISHIR GARG, THE AMOUNTS COULD HAVE BEEN ADDED AT THE HAND S OF MASTER SHISHIR GARG AND NOT AT THE HANDS OF FIRM. 9. THE VARIOUS OTHER DECISIONS RELIED ON BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE IN THE PAPER BOOK ALSO SUPPORTS ITS CASE. THE DECISIONS R ELIED ON BY THE LD. DR ARE DISTINGUISHABLE UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES O F THE CASE SINCE IN NONE OF THE CASES THE ISSUE IS INTRODUCTION OF THE CAPITAL BY THE PAR TNERS OF THE FIRM ON THE VERY FIRST DAY OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE FIRM. WE, THEREFORE, SE T ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ACCEPT THE CAPITAL INTRODUCED BY THE PARTNERS OF RS.4,29,183/- AS GENUINE. SINCE THE CAPITAL HAS BE EN HELD TO BE GENUINE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS ALSO DIRECTED TO ALLOW INTEREST ALLOWED TO THE PARTNERS ON THE CAPITAL. THE GROUND NOS.1 TO 3 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ACCORD INGLY ALLOWED. ITA NO.4583/DEL/2013 7 10. GROUND OF APPEAL NO.4 BY THE ASSESSEE READS AS UNDER:- 4. THAT THE LD CIT(A) ALSO ERRED IN MAINTAINING TH E DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 2,62,116.50 CORRECTING IT TO RS.2,52,116.50 ON ACCO UNT OF SALES RETURN AS CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT FIRM. 11. FACTS OF THE CASE, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT THE ASSES SING OFFICER DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE H AS SHOWN SALES RETURN OF RS.2,62,116.50. ON BEING QUESTIONED BY THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE TRANSPORTATION CHARGES OF THE SALES MADE ARE PA ID BY THE PURCHASER AND IF THERE IS ANY SALES RETURN, THE TRANSPORTATION CHARGES ON THE SAME HAVE TO BE BORNE BY THE PARTY WHO IS RETURNING THE GOODS. SINCE THERE IS NO TRAN SPORTATION CHARGES PAID NOR CLAIMED IN ITS RETURN OF INCOME BY THE ASSESSEE, THERE IS N O QUESTION OF SUBMITTING THE EVIDENCE OF TRANSPORTATION CHARGES PAID. HOWEVER, THE ASSES SING OFFICER WAS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE ASSESSEE AND MADE ADD ITION OF RS.2,62,116.50 BY HOLDING THE SAME TO BE SUPPRESSED SALES. IN APPEAL , THE LD.CIT(A) UPHELD THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY OBSERVING AS UNDER:- THE FACTS OF THE CASE AS WELL AS SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE APPELLANT HAVE BEEN CAREFULLY CONSIDERED. IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE AO HA D MADE ADDITION OF RS.2,62,116/- ON THE GROUND THAT THE APPELLANT HAD NOT FURNISHED CONFIRMATIONS FROM THE PERSONS FROM WHOM GOODS WERE RECEIVED BACK. FURTHER, NO TRA NSPORTATION CHARGES WERE FOUND DEBITED TO THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT. ON THE OTHER HAND IT HAS BEEN CONTENDED BY THE APPELLANT THAT THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANTS FIRM WAS SUPPORTED BY COPIES OF ACCOUNTS. IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE APPELLANT NEITHER DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS NOR DURING APPELLATE HAS FURNISHED CONF IRMATION LETTERS FROM THE PERSONS FROM WHOM GOODS/SALES WERE RETURNED BACK. F URTHER, NO STOCK REGISTER WAS PRODUCED SO AS TO VERIFY THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT . EVEN IN THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS NO CHALLAN/TRANSPORATION RECEIPTS/DEBIT NOTE WAS FURNISHED WHICH COULD ESTABLISH THAT THE GOODS WERE ACTUALLY RECEIVED BAC K. THE ONUS WAS SQUARELY ON THE APPELLANT TO ESTABLISH HIS CLAIM AS GENUINE. HOWEVE R, THE APPELLANT HAS UTTERLY FAILED TO DISCHARGE HIS BURDEN. THUS IN ABSENCE OF THE SAM E, IT IS HELD THAT THE AO WAS JUSTIFIED IN MAKING ADDITION OF RS.2,62,116/-. THE SAME IS HEREBY CONFIRMED. GROUND OF APPEAL NO.4 IS DISMISSED. ITA NO.4583/DEL/2013 8 12. AGGRIEVED WITH SUCH ORDER OF THE CIT(A), THE AS SESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 13. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE STRONGLY OBJEC TED TO THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS THE CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ADDITION ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT FURNISHED CONF IRMATIONS FROM THE PERSONS FROM WHOM GOODS WERE RECEIVED BACK AND NO TRANSPORTATION CHARGES WERE DEBITED TO THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE VERY BASIS ON WHICH THE ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND SUSTAINED BY THE CIT(A) IS FACTUALLY INCORRECT. HE ACCORDINGLY SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDITION SHOULD B E DELETED. 14. THE LD. DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, HEAVILY RELIED O N THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). 15. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE SIDES AND PERUSING THE R ELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD, WE FIND THE ADDITION WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FURNISH CONFIRMATIONS FROM THE PERSONS FROM WHOM GOODS WERE RECEIVED BACK. FURTHER, NO TRANSPORTATION CHARGES WERE FOUND DEBIT ED TO THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT. IT IS THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESS EE THAT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM WAS SUPPORTED BY COPIES OF ACCOUNTS. IT IS ALSO HI S SUBMISSION THAT WHEN THE TRANSPORTATION CHARGE IS BORNE BY THE PERSON WHO RE TURNS THE GOODS, THERE IS NO QUESTION OF DEBITING THE SAME IN THE P&L ACCOUNT. WE FIND THE ASSESSEE, DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS OR APPEAL PROCEEDI NGS HAS NOT SUBMITTED THE STOCK REGISTER SO AS TO VERIFY THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AND IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, W E DEEM IT PROPER TO RESTORE THIS ISSUE ITA NO.4583/DEL/2013 9 TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH A DIRECTI ON TO GIVE ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO SUBSTANTIATE WITH EVIDENCE TO HIS SATIS FACTION REGARDING SUCH SALES RETURNS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL DECIDE THE ISSUE AS PER FACT AND LAW, AFTER GIVING DUE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. WE HOL D AND DIRECT ACCORDINGLY. GROUND NO.4 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 16. GROUND NO.5 WAS NOT PRESSED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FOR WHICH THE LD. DR HAS NO OBJECTION. ACCORDINGLY THIS GROUND I S DISMISSED. 17. GROUND NO.6 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE RELATES TO L EVY OF INTEREST U/S 234B AND 234C. CHARGING OF INTEREST UNDER THIS PROVISION BE ING MANDATORY AND CONSEQUENTIAL IN NATURE, THE GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMIS SED AS SUCH. 18. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE AS SESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. THE DECISION WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 1 8.04.2019. SD/- SD/- (KULDIP SINGH) (R.K. PANDA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCO UNTANT MEMFBER DATED: 18 TH APRIL, 2019 DK ITA NO.4583/DEL/2013 10 COPY FORWARDED TO 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR ASSTT. REGISTRAR, ITAT, NEW DELHI