Kapil Gupta, Delhi V. ITO, Ward-55(4), New Delhi

ITA 4635/DEL/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6549 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 6 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-02-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 17-07-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Reason to believe
• Section: 44AD; 48; 147; 27; 148

Judgement Text

PAGE 1 OF 7 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH SMC, NEW DELHI BEFORE MRS. DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.4635/DEL/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010 -11 KAPIL GUPTA 2039/3, SHIV SHAKTI MARKET, KATRA LACHHU SINGH, BHAGIRATH PALACE, DELHI-110006 VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-55(4), NEW DELHI-110002. PAN : AEAPG 3178B (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) O R D E R THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WHEREIN THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER DATED 11.05.2017 OF CIT(A)-NEW DELHI PERT AINING TO 2010-11 ASSESSMENT YEAR IS ASSAILED ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS. 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A ND IN LAW, THE ID CIT(A) WRONGLY UPHELD THE IT ORDER PASSED BY THE ID. AO. 2. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO GROUND NO. (1) ABOVE, AND ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED C IT(A) HAS LEGALLY ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE LD. AO OF PASSING IT ORDER U/S 14 3(3) WITHOUT SERVING NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT ON THE APPELLANT. 3. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO GROUND NOS. (1) AND (2) ABOVE , AND ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED C IT(A) HAS LEGALLY ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE AOS ESTIMATION OF INCOME AT RS.7,56,310/- COMP UTED BY APPLYING NET PROFIT RATE OF 10% TO TURNOVER OF RS.75,63,100/- WHICH IS VERY EXC ESSIVE IN THE APPELLANT LINE OF BUSINESS. 4. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO GROUND NOS. (1) AND (2) ABOVE , AND ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED C IT(A) HAS LEGALLY ERRED IN HOLDING THE AOS ACTION OF MAKING ADDITION OF RS.1,60,000/- AS NOTIONAL INCOME WITHOUT ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD. 5. THAT THE ORDER OF THE ID. CIT(A)S ORDER IS ERRONE OUS AND BAD IN LAW. APPELLANT BY NONE RESPONDENT BY SH. PRADEEP SINGH GAUTAM, SR. D.R. DATE OF HEARING 03.02.2020 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 06.02.2020 ITA NO.4635DEL/2017 KAPIL GUPTA VS. ITO PAGE 2 OF 7 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, NO ONE WAS PRESENT ON BE HALF OF THE ASSESSEE. THE APPEAL WAS PASSED OVER. IN THE SECOND ROUND ALSO TH E ASSESSEE REMAINED UNREPRESENTED DESPITE ISSUANCE OF NOTICE. ACCORDING LY, AFTER HEARING THE LD. DR IT WAS DEEMED APPROPRIATE TO PROCEED WITH THE PRESENT APPEAL EX-PARTE QUA THE ASSESSEE APPELLANT ON MERITS. 3. THE RELEVANT FACTS PERTAINING TO GROUND NO. 1 AND 2 ARE FOUND ADDUCED IN PARA NO.4 AND 5 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER. A PERUSAL OF THE SAME SHOWS THAT THE NOTICE WAS ISSUED TO THE ONLY KNOWN ADDRESS PROVIDED BY THE BA NK. THE AO ALSO MADE EFFORTS TO LOCATE THE ASSESSEES SHOP AND SENT NOTICES TO T HIS ADDRESS WHICH WAS RESPONDED TO BY THE ASSESSEES ADVOCATE. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE AND ARGUMENT TO THE CONTRARY FINDING NO INFIRMITY I N THE CONCLUSION ARRIVED AT SAME IS UPHELD. FOR READY REFERENCE THE RELEVANT FACTS EXTRACTED FROM THE ORDER WHICH HAVE BEEN RELIED UPON BY THE SR. DR IS REPRODUCED H ERE UNDER. 4. THE GROUND NO.1 IS IN RELATION TO PASSING OF ORDER U/S 147 WITHOUT SERVICE OF NOTICE OF 148 TO THE APPELLANT. IN THIS STATEMENT OF FACTS , THE APPELLANT HAS STATED THAT HE WAS A VERY SMALL BUSINESS MAN DOING BUSINESS FROM SHOP OF HIS FATHE R. HE OBTAINS ORDER FROM OUTSIDE PARTIES AND SELLS TO THEM. THE PARTIES DEPO SITED THE AMOUNT IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. THE APPELLANT ADMITS THAT HE DID NOT FILE HIS RETURN FOR THE AY 2010- 11. HE THEREAFTER STATES THAT NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 WAS NOT SERVED UPON HIM AND THEREFORE THE PROCEEDINGS ARE INVALID. I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE FACTS. THE A.O HAD RECEIVED A COPY OF THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE APPELLANT SHOWING LARGE AMOUNT OF CASH DEPOSITS . THE BANK PROVIDED THE ADDRESS OF THE APPELLANT AS 453,TELIWARA, SHAHDARA, THE B ANK COULD NOT PROVIDE ANY PAN OF THE APPELLANT AND THEREFORE A LETTER WAS SENT ON 16-03-2016 TO SH. KAPIL GUPTA ASKING HIM TO PROVIDE EXPLANATION OF CASH DEPOSITS IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT. SINCE THE APPELLANT DID NOT COMPLY TO THE NOTICE, THERE WAS A REASON TO BELIEVE THAT INCOME HAD ESCAPED ASSESSMENT (SINCE ASSESSEE WAS CONCEALING T HESE DEPOSITS). PROCEEDING U/S 147 WERE INITIATED AFTER OBTAINING APPROVAL OF CIT AND THEREAFTER NOTICE WAS ISSUED ON 30-03-2016 VIDE SPEED POST NO. ED929937053IN. HO WEVER, NO COMPLIANCE WERE MADE. FURTHER, LETTERS WERE SENT ON SAME ADDRESS BU T AGAIN NO COMPLIANCE WAS MADE. AFTER DOING MUCH EFFORT, THE ASSESSING OFFICE R WAS ABLE TO LOCATE THE SHOP ADDRESS OF THE APPELLANT AT 2039/3 SHIV SHAKTI MARK ET, BHAGIRAT PALACE, DELHI. THEREFORE, NOTICES WERE SENT ON THIS NEW ADDRESS. S H. RAJU ADVOCATE APPEARED BUT AGAIN THEREAFTER NO COMPLIANCE WAS MADE IN SPITE OF THE FACT THAT THE NOTICES WERE ISSUED ON THE ADDRESS REPORTED NOW IN THE APPELLATE MEMO. THE PROCEEDINGS WERE THEREFORE COMPLETED U/S 144. THE MAIN CHALLENGE OF THE APPELLANT IS THAT THE NOTICE U/S 148(1) WAS NOT SERVED UPON HIM. I HAVE ALREADY POINTED OUT THAT THE INFORMATION WAS WITHOUT PERMANENT ACCOUNT NUMBER. NOTICES U/S 1 48 WAS DULY SERVED BY SPEED POST AT THE LAST KNOWN ADDRESS OF THE APPELLANT WHI CH WAS INFORMED BY THE BANK. THE ITA NO.4635DEL/2017 KAPIL GUPTA VS. ITO PAGE 3 OF 7 SERVICE ON THE LAST KNOWN ADDRESS BY SPEED POST IS DEEMED TO BE A VALID SERVICE AS LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT: IN THE CASE OF C.C. ALAVI HAJI VS PALAPETTY MUHAMMED & ANR IN APPEAL NO. 767 OF2007 (6 SCC 555) BEFORE A THREE MEMBER BENCH. IT WAS A MATTER IN WHICH THE NOTICE FOR INITIATING LEGAL PROCEEDINGS F OR DISHONOR OF A CHEQUE WAS SENT TO THE DRAWER BY POST. THE SAME RETURNED UNSERVED . THEREAFTER THE PAYEE ATTACHED THE SAME WITH HIS COMPLAINT FILED WITH THE COURT. THE QUESTION BEFORE THE BENCH WAS AS UNDER:- WHETHER IN ABSENCE OF ANY AVERMENTS IN THE COMPLAIN T TO THE EFFECT THAT THE ACCUSED HAD A ROLE TO PLAY IN THE MATTER OF NON-REC EIPT OF LEGAL NOTICE; OR THAT THE ACCUSED DELIBERATELY AVOIDED SERVICE OF NOTICE, THE SAME COULD HAVE BEEN ENTERTAINED KEEPING IN VIEW THE DECISION OF THIS CO URT IN VINOD SHIVAPPAS CASE (SUPRA)? THE HONOURABLE COURT RELIED ON THE DECISION IN K. B HHASKARAN VS SANKARAN VAIDHYAN BALAN & ANR. WHERE SAID EXPRESSION CAME UP FOR INTERPRETATION. IT HELD THE WORDS IN CLAUSE(B) OF THE PROVISO TO SECTION 1 38 (OF NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT ACT)OF THE ACT SHOW THAT PAYEE HAS THE S TATUTORY OBLIGATION TO MAKE A DEMAND BY GIVING NOTICE. THE T HRUST IN THE CLAUSE IS ON THE NEED TO MAKE A DEMAND. IT IS ONLY THE MODE FOR MAKING SUCH DEMAND WHICH THE LEGISLATURE HAS PRESCR IBED: A PAYEE CAN SEND THE NOTICE FOR DOING HIS PARI FOR GIVING T HE NOTICE. ONCE IT IS DISPATCHED HIS PART IS OVER AND THE NEXT DEPENDS ON WHAT THE SENDEE DOES. 8. SINCE IN BHASKARANS CASE (SUPRA), THE NOTICE IS SUED IN TERMS OF CLAUSE (B) HAD BEEN RETURNED UNCLAIMED AND NOT AS R EFUSED, THE COURT POSED THE QUESTION: WILL THERE BE ANY SIGNIFICANT DIFFERE NCE BETWEEN THE TWO SO FAR AS THE PRESUMPTION OF SERVICE IS CONCERNED? IT WAS OBSERVED THAT THOUGH SECTION 138 OF THE ACT DOES NOT REQUIRE THAT THE NO TICE SHOULD BE GIVEN ONLY BY POST, YET IN A CASE WHERE THE SENDER HAS DISPATCHED THE NOTICE BY POST WITH CORRECT ADDRESS WRITTEN ON IT, THE PRINCIPLE INCORP ORATED IN SECTION 27 OF THE GENERAL CLAUSES ACT, 1897 (FOR SHORT G.C. ACT) COUL D PROFITABLY BE IMPORTED IN SUCH A CASE. IT WAS HELD THAT IN THIS SITUATION SERVICE OF NOTICE IS DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN EFFECTED ON THE SENDEE UNLESS HE PROVES T HAT IT WAS NOT REALLY SERVED AND THAT HE WAS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR SUCH NON-SERVIC E. 9. ALL THESE ASPECTS HAVE BEEN HIGHLIGHTED AND REI TERATED BY THIS COURT RECENTLY IN VINOD SHIVAPPAS CASE (SUPRA). ELABORATELY DEALING WITH THE SITUATION WHERE THE NO TICE COULD NOT BE SERVED ON THE ADDRESSEE FOR ONE OR THE OTHER REASON, SUCH AS HIS NON AVAILABILITY AT THE TIME OF DELIVERY, OR PREMISES REMAINING LOCKED ON A CCOUNT OF HIS HAVING GONE ELSEWHERE ETC; IT WAS OBSERVED THAT IF IN EACH SUCH CASE, THE LAW IS UNDERSTOOD TO MEAN THAT THERE HAS BEEN NO SERVICE OF NOTICET ' IT WOULD COMPLETELY DEFEAT THE VERY PURPOSE OF THE ACT. IT WOULD THEN BE VERY EASY FOR AN UNSCRUPULOUS AND DISHONEST DRAWER OF A CHEQUE TO MAKE HIMSELF SC ARCE FOR SOMETIME AFTER ISSUING THE CHEQUE SO THAT THE REQUISITE STATUTORY NOTICE CAN NEVER BE SERVED UPON HIM AND CONSEQUENTLY HE CAN NEVER BE PROSECUTE D. IT WAS FURTHER OBSERVED THAT ONCE THE PAYEE OF THE CHEQUE ISSUES N OTICE TO IKE DRAWER OF THE CHEQUE, THE CAUSE OF ACTION TO FILE A COMPLAINT ARI SES ON THE EXPIRY OF THE PERIOD PRESCRIBED FOR PAYMENT BY THE DRAWER OF THE CHEQUE. IF HE DOES NOT FILE A COMPLAINT WITHIN ONE MONTH OF THE DATE ON WHICH T HE CAUSE OF ACTION ARISES UNDER CLAUSE (C) OF THE PROVISO TO SECTION 138 OF T HE ACT, HIS COMPLAINT GETS ITA NO.4635DEL/2017 KAPIL GUPTA VS. ITO PAGE 4 OF 7 BARRED BY TIME. THUS, A PERSON WHO CAN DODGE THE PO STMAN FOR ABOUT A MONTH OR TWO, OR A PERSON WHO CAN GET A FAKE ENDORSEMENT MADE REGARDING HIS NON AVAILABILITY, CAN SUCCESSFULLY AVOID HIS PROSECUTIO N BECAUSE THE PAYEE IS BOUND TO ISSUE NOTICE TO HIM WITHIN A PERIOD OF 30 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF RECEIPT OF INFORMATION FROM THE BANK REGARDING THE RETURN OF THE CHEQUE AS UNPAID. HE IS, THEREFORE, BOUND TO ISSUE THE NOTICE , WHICH MAY BE RETURNED WITH AN ENDORSEMENT THAT THE ADDRESSEE IS NOT AVAIL ABLE ON THE GIVEN ADDRESS. THIS COURT HELD: WE CANNOT ALSO LOSE SIGHT OF THE F ACT THAT THE DRAWER MAY BY DUBIOUS MEANS MANAGE TO GET AN INCORRECT ENDORSEMEN T MADE ON THE ENVELOPE THAT THE PREMISES HAS BEEN FOUND LOCKED OR THAT THE ADDRESSEE WAS NOT AVAILABLE AT THE TIME WHEN POSTMAN WENT FOR DELIVER Y OF THE LETTER. IT MAY BE THAT THE ADDRESS IS CORRECT AND EVEN THE ADDRESSEE IS AVAILABLE BUT A WRONG ENDORSEMENT IS MANIPULATED BY THE ADDRESSEE. IN SUC H A CASE, IF THE FACTS ARE PROVED, IT MAY AMOUNT TO REFUSAL OF THE NOTICE. IF THE COMPLAINANT IS ABLE TO PROVE THAT THE DRAWER OF THE CHEQUE KNEW ABOUT THE NOTICE AND DELIBERATELY EVADED SERVICE AND GOT A FALSE ENDORSEMENT MADE ONL Y TO DEFEAT THE PROCESS OF LAW, THE COURT SHALL PRESUME SERVICE OF NOTICE. THI S, HOWEVER, IS A MATTER OF EVIDENCE AND PROOF. THUS EVEN IN A CASE WHERE THE N OTICE IS RETURNED WITH THE ENDORSEMENT THAT THE PREMISES HAS ALWAYS BEEN FOUND LOCKED OR THE ADDRESSEE WAS NOT AVAILABLE AT THE TIME OF POSTAL DELIVERY, I T WILL BE OPEN TO THE COMPLAINANT TO PROVE AT THE TRIAL BY EVIDENCE THAT THE ENDORSEMENT IS NOT CORRECT AND THAT THE ADDRESSEE, NAMELY THE DRAWER O F THE CHEQUE, WITH KNOWLEDGE OF THE NOTICE HAD DELIBERATELY AVOIDED TO RECEIVE NOTICE. THEREFORE, IT WOULD BE PRE- MATURE AT THE STAGE OF ISSUANCE OF PROCESS, TO MOVE THE HIGH COURT FOR QUASHING OF THE PROCEEDING UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. THE QUESTION AS TO WHETHER THE SERVICE OF NOTICE HA S BEEN FRAUDULENTLY REFUSED BY UNSCRUPULOUS MEANS IS A QUESTION OF FACT TO BE D ECIDED ON THE BASIS OF EVIDENCE. IN SUCH A CASE THE HIGH COURT OUGHT NOT T O EXERCISE ITS JURISDICTION UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 10. IT IS, THUS, TRITE TO SAY THAT WHERE THE PAYEE DISPATCHES THE NOTICE BY REGISTERED POST WITH CORRECT ADDRESS OF THE DRAWER OF THE CLREQUE, THE PRINCIPLE INCORPORATED IN SECTION 27 OF THE G.C. AC T WOULD BE ATTRACTED; THE REQUIREMENT OF CLAUSE (B) OF PROVISO TO SECTION 138 OF THE ACT STANDS COMPLIED WITH AND CAUSE OF ACTION TO FILE A COMPLAI NT ARISES ON THE EXPIRY OF THE PERIOD PRESCRIBED IN CLAUSE (C) OF THE SAID PRO VISO FOR PAYMENT BY THE DRAWER OF THE CHEQUE. NEVERTHELESS, IT WOULD BE WIT HOUT PREJUDICE TO THE RIGHT OF THE DRAWER TO SHOW THAT HE HAD NO KNOWLEDGE THAT THE NOTICE WAS BROUGHT TO HIS ADDRESS. 5. IN FACT A COPY OF THE NOTICE COULD HAVE BEEN FURTHE R SERVED ON THE APPELLANT HAD HE ATTENDED THE PROCEEDINGS INSPITE O F BEING SERVED THE SUBSEQUENT NOTICES. . THE ADDRESS MENTIONED BY THE APPELLANT MEMO IS OF HIS SHOP AND HE HAS NOT STATED THAT ADDRESS 445,TELIWAR A SHAHDARA WAS A WRONG ADDRESS OR WAS INCORRECT ADDRESS, SINCE, THE SAME H AD BEEN DULY FURNISHED BY THE APPELLANT TO THE BANK WHICH HE HAD BEEN CONSIST ENTLY OPERATING. THE SUBSEQUENT CONDUCT OF DEFIANCE SHOWS THAT THE ORIGI NAL NOTICE U/S 148 WAS DULY SERVED, BUT IGNORED BY THE ASSESSEE, JUST LIKE THE SUBSEQUENT NOTICES. THIS GROUND OF THE APPELLANT IS THEREFORE REJECTED. 4. ADDRESSING THE NEXT ISSUE CHALLENGED BY THE ASSE SSEE BY WAY OF GROUND NO.3 AND 4, THE LD. SR. DR RELIED UPON PARA 6 PAGE 6 OF THE ORDER. ADDRESSING GROUND ITA NO.4635DEL/2017 KAPIL GUPTA VS. ITO PAGE 5 OF 7 NO.4, SPECIFICALLY IT WAS FURTHER HIGHLIGHTED THAT THE CIT(A) HAS NOT MADE ANY FRESH ADDITION AND IT IS ONLY A SUPPORTING FACT FOR THE O RIGINAL ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 5. I HAVE PERUSED THE RECORD AND SEEN THE SPECIFIC FINDING UNDER CHALLENGE. IT IS SEEN THAT IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION THE ASSES SEE ADMITTEDLY DID NOT FILE ANY RETURN OF INCOME QUA THE AMOUNT DEPOSITED. THE EXPL ANATION HAS BEEN CALLED FOR. TO THE EXTENT POSSIBLE EXPLANATION HAS BEEN ACCEPTED. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY COGENT ARGUMENT AND SUBMISSIONS REMAINING UNADDRESSED. I F IND NO INFIRMITY IN THE CONCLUSION DRAWN IN PARA 6 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER. F OR READY REFERENCE IT IS REPRODUCED HEREIN UNDER. 6. THE OTHER GROUNDS IS IN RESPECT OF ESTIMATION O F PROFIT AT THE RATE OF 10% BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE APPELLANT ADMITTED THAT HE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF ELECTRICAL ITEMS. THE BANK DOES REVEAL DEPOSITS OF RS.76,63,100/- IN VARIOUS L OCATIONS IN INDIA. CLEARLY THEREOF THIS WAS AN UN-DISCLOSED TURNOVER OF THE APPELLANT. WHERE THE T URNOVER IS OUTSIDE THE BOOKS IT INCLUDES NOT JUST AN ELEMENT OF PROFIT BUT ALSO EVASION OF TAX LIKE V AT, EXERCISE ETC. SECTION 44AD OF THE ACT, PROVIDES A GUIDANCE OF THE PROFIT OF RETAIL BUSINES S. TAKING GUIDANCES FROM THE SAME AND FURTHER CONSIDERED ON ACCOUNT OF EVASION OF VAT AND OTHER D UES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS BEEN REASONABLE ENOUGH TO ESTIMATE OF PROFIT OF 10%. HOWEVER WHILE ESTIMATING THE PROFIT, AO HAS OMITTED TO ADD INVESTMENT THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN MADE IN CARRYING OUT A TURNOVER OF RS.75,00,00 0/- THERE WOULD BE SAME ACCOUNT OF MONEY INVESTMENT IN THE DEBTORS, STOCK ETC.. THE COUNSEL OF THE APPELLANT VIDE ORDER SHEET ENTRY DATED 19- 04-2017 WAS CONFRONTED WITH THESE FACTS AND HE WAS ASKED TO SHOW CAUSE AS TO WHY ENHANCEMENT BE NOT MADE IN THIS CASE IN RESPECT OF THE UN-DISCL OSED INVESTMENTS. HE HAS STATED THAT THERE IS LIKELY TO BE AN ELEMENT THAT THE GOODS WERE PURCHAS ED ON CREDIT, ALTHOUGH NO SUCH FACTS HAS BEEN SHOWN. THEREFORE, ADDITION IN RESPECT OF THE INVEST MENTS IN BUSINESS DESERVES TO BE MADE. SINCE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALREADY MADE AN ADDITION OF R S.1,60,000/- AS NOTIONAL INCOME. THE SAME IS CONSIDERED TO BE SUFFICIENT TO COVER THE INVESTMENT MADE IN THIS BUSINESS. AS SUCH THE ADDITION IS SUSTAINED. GROUNDS 3 & 4 OF THE ASSESSE ACCORDINGLY ARE DISMIS SED. SAID ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT AT THE TIME OF HEARING ITSELF. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIS MISSED. THE ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT AT THE T IME OF HEARING ITSELF ON 6 TH FEBRUARY, 2020. SD/- (DIVA SINGH) JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.4635DEL/2017 KAPIL GUPTA VS. ITO PAGE 6 OF 7 PK/PS COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTR AR, ITAT NEW DELHI