ITO, New Delhi V. Shri Pawan Chawla, Haryana

ITA 4704/DEL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7285 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-10-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Next Hearing Date: 23-09-2014
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 06-08-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DEVI SHARAN SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: S K GUPTA
• Section: 68

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: F NEW DELHI BEFORE SMT DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. B.C.MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A .NO. - 4704/ DEL/201 3 (ASSESSMENT YEAR - 2008 - 09 ) ITO, WARD - 46(4), ROOM NO. - 309, 3 RD FLOOR, CIVIC CENTRE, NEW DELHI (APPELLANT) VS PAWAN CHAWLA, 15/591 - 92, CHAWLA BHAWAN, OLD DC ROAD, SONEPAT, HARYANA - 122201 P AN - ACLPC4807E (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SH. DEVI SHARAN SINGH, SR. DR RESPONDENT BY SH.S.K.GUPTA, CA ORDER PER DIVA SINGH, JM TH IS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 09 . 0 5 .201 3 OF THE CIT(A) - XXX , NEW DELHI PERTAINING TO 200 8 - 0 9 ASSESSMENT YEAR ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: - 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.10,84,620/ - MADE ON A/C OF UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSITS U/S 68 IN THE ASSESSEE S BANK ACCOUNT WHICH REMAINED UNEXPLAINED; 2. ON THE FACTS AND I N THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ARBITRARILY IGNORED THE EVIDENTIARY VALUE OF THE VOLUNTARILY GIVEN STATEMENT BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE AO WITHOUT BRINGING ANYTHING ON RECORD TO PROVE THAT THE STATEMENT WAS RECORDED UNDER FRA UD, COERCION OR DURESS; 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.10,84,620/ - WITHOUT PROPERLY APPRECIATING THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND WITHOUT GIVING PROPER OPPORTUNITY TO THE AO. THE D ELETING OF RS.10,84,620/ - IS BAD IN LAW. THE APPELLANT CRAVES THE RIGHT TO ALTER, AMEND, ADD OR SUBSTITUTE THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 2. THE RELEVANT FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION RETURNED AN INCOME OF RS. 1,08,930/ - . THE SAID RETURN WAS SELECTED FOR 2 I.T.A .NO. - 4704 /DEL/201 3 SCRUTINY BY CASS. AS A RESULT THEREOF AFTER ISSUANCE OF NOTICES U/S 143(2)/142(1) ALONGWITH QUESTIONNAIRE THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO EXPLAIN CASH DEPOSITS OF RS.11,95,620/ - WITH ICICI BANK (SB ACCOUNT NO 030201500364) W ITH SONEPAT BRANCH. 2.1. IN RESPONSE TO THIS VIDE LETTER DATED 09.08.2010 THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN INCOME TAX ASSESSEE FOR THE LAST 10 YEARS AND HE HAS ACCUMULATED CASH BALANCE AS HIS SAVINGS WHICH WAS AROUND RS.4,00,000/ - AND IT IS THIS AMOUNT WHICH IS BEING DEPOSITED AND SOMETIMES IT IS WITHDRAWN AND RE - DEPOSITED. 3. IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE SAID CLAIM WAS NOT SUPP ORTED BY EVIDENCE IN THE WAY OF CASH FLOW STATEMENT, THE STATEMENT OF ASSESSEE WAS RECORDED ON OATH ON 16.08.2010 LEADING TO THE ADDITION OF RS. 13,03,620/ - . THE SPECIFIC REASONS ARE EXTRACTED FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER HEREUNDER FOR READY REFERENCE: - 2.2 . THE PERUSAL OF THE STATEMENT RECORDED ON OATH REVEALED THE FOLLOWING IMPORTANT FACTS: - 2.2.1. THE ASSESSEE WAS THE ONLY MEMBER IN THE FAMILY OF FOUR HAVING CHILDREN STUDYING IN THE SCHOOL AND WIFE WHO IS A HOUSE LADY. THE ASSESSEE S EDUCATIONAL QUALIF ICATION IS 6 TH STANDARD PASS ONLY. 2.2.2. THE ASSESSEE S SALARY WAS RS.14,000/ - TO 15,000/ - PER MONTH AND HIS HOUSE HOLD EXPENSES INCLUDES RS.7,000/ - AS HOUSE RENT PAYMENT, RS.700/ - TO RS.800/ - PER MONTH TOWARDS ELECTRICITY AND WATER CHARGES AND HOUSE HOLD EXPENSES OF RS.8,000/ - TO RS.9,000/ - PER MONTH, SCHOOL FEES FO R TWO CHILDREN IS RS.1,000/ - PER MONTH. THE ASSESSEE IS LEFT WITH NO MONEY AFTER INCURRING THE ALL THE ABOVE EXPENSES. THERE IS NOT POINT OF SAVINGS IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. THIS POINT IS ALSO CONFIRMED FROM THE BANK STATEMENT WHICH DOES NOT SHOW A NY AMOUNT OF DEPOSIT ON ACCOUNT OF SALARY EVEN ONE DURING THE WHOLE YEAR. AS THE SALARY WAS PAID IN CASH AND ASSESSEE WAS LEFT WITH NO CASH WHICH COULD FIND ITS PLACE IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. 2.2.3. THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN WORKING WITH THIS CONCERN FOR THE LAS T 8 - 9 YEARS AND HIS INITIAL SALARY WAS AROUND RS.7,000/ - TO RS.8,000/ - PER MONTH WHICH IN THE COURSE OF 8 - 9 YEARS WAS RS.14 - 15,000/ - PER MONTH DURING THE YEAR. 2.2.4. WHEN ASKED TO PROVIDE THE NATURE AND SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSIT THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT HE DID NOT WANT TO STATE ANYTHING AS HE DOES NOT HAVE ANY INFORMATION ABOUT THE CASH DEPOSIT NOR WAS POSSESSING ANY EVIDENCE. 3 I.T.A .NO. - 4704 /DEL/201 3 (ANS TO QUESTION NO.7). THE ASSESSEE WAS AGAIN ASKED TO PROVIDE THE NATURE ABOUT THE CASH DEPOSIT HE AGAIN STATED THAT HE DID NOT WA NT TO STATE ANY THING IN THIS REGARD. IT CLEARLY SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS HAVING NO EXPLANATIONS TO OFFER REGARDING NATURE AND SOURCE IN RESPECT THE HUGE AMOUNT OF CASH DEPOSIT APPEARING IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT. 2.2.5 WHEN CONFRONTED WITH THE FACT (QUESTIO N NO 9) HIS COUNSEL SUBMITTED CASH DEPOSIT WERE OUT EARLIER YEARS SAVINGS AND ASKED TO JUSTIFY IT IN THE LIGHT OF SUBMISSION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN STATEMENT ON OATH. THE ASSESSEE CATEGORICALLY DENIED HAVING ANY SAVINGS AS HE IS HARDLY ABLE M EET HIS HOUS EHOLD EXPENSES OUT O F THE SALARY, WHICH IS THE ONLY DECLARED SOURCE OF INCOME. HE ALSO STATED ON OATH THE SUBMISSION PROVIDED BY THE A R ARE NOT CORRECT AND NOT TRUE. 4. AGGRIEVED BY THIS THE ASSESSEE WENT IN APPEAL BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY CONTENDING THAT HE W AS A SALARIED EMPLOYEE WORKING WITH GANGA ENTERPRISES & GANGA TRADING COMPANY DEALING WITH FRUITS AND VEGETABLES. REFERRING TO THE STATEMENT RECORDED BY THE AO THE ASSESSEE FILED AN AFFIDAVIT BEFORE THE CIT(A) CONTROVERTING THE FINDINGS IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. IT WAS ALSO CONTENDED THAT THE AFFIDAVIT HAD BEEN FILED DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ON 14.03.2014 . THIS FACT IS FOUND RECORDED IN PARA 6.2 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER. THE RELEVANT AVERMENTS ARE EXTRACTED FROM THE IMPU GNED ORDER: - 6.3 THE ASSESSEE CONTROVERT THE FACTS OBSERVED BY LD AO THROUGH HIS AFFIDAVIT IN POINT NUMBER 5 '... I HAVE NEVER APPEARED BEFORE ANY OF SUCH AUTHORITY DURING MY LIFETIME. DURING THE COURSE OF RECORDING OF MY STATEMENT THE INSPECTOR ASKED ME NUMBER OF QUESTIONS AND FREQUENCY AND SPEED OF THOSE QUESTION WAS UNMATCHABLE CONSIDERING MY EDUCATION BACK GROUND AND LEVEL OF MY KNOWLEDGE. DURING THE STATEMENT WHEN I WAS ANSWERING QUESTION THE INSPECTOR WITHOUT WAITING FOR MY REPLY HE WAS PUTTING WORDS IN MY MOUTH........ IN POINT NUMBER 6 IN RESPECT TO OWNERSHIP OF THE PROPERTY IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE WAS LIVING THE NAME OF PROPERTY OWNER ,IN ANSWER TO QUESTION NO.4 OF THE RECORDED STATEMENT, HAS BEEN WRITTEN AS ' SURENDER ARORA' WHEREAS ASSESSEE NEVER KNEW ANY SUCH PERSON I. E SURENDER ARORA THIS FACT HAS ALSO BEEN CONTROVERTED BY THE ASSESSEE IN POINT NUMBER 6 OF HIS AFFIDAVIT. ' ... WHEREAS I DON'T KNOW SUCH PERSON I.E SURENDER ARORA . THE 4 I.T.A .NO. - 4704 /DEL/201 3 PROPERTY IS IN NAME OF MY FATHER, THEREFORE THERE WAS NO REASON TO TAKE THE NAME OF ANY OTHER PERSON. MY FAMILY STAYS WITH MY FATHER IN HIS PROPERTY BEING TRADITIONAL HINDU FAMILY COMING FROM RURAL BACK GROUND WE ARE LIVING IN JOINT FAMILY AND TAKING CARE OF MY O L D PARENTS ..... ' . 4.1. IT WAS FURTHER CONTENDED THAT THE ANSWER TO QUESTION NO.4 RECORDED BY THE AO IS INCORRECT WHO HAS MENTIONED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS PAYING A RENT OF RS.7,000/ - WHEREAS THE CORRE CT FACT IS WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAD BEEN STAYING RENT FREE IN HIS FATHER S PROPERTY THE OCCASION TO M A K E A PAYMENT DID NOT . AFFIDAVIT OF MR. DESRAJ CHAWLA, FATHER OF THE ASSESSEE IN REGARD TO OWNERSHIP OF PROPERTY WAS ALSO FILED IN SUPPORT OF TH E CLAIM THAT HIS SONS WERE LI VING WITH HIM AS JOINT FAMILY .THE SAID AFFIDAVIT IT WAS STATED W A S ALSO FILED DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS . IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE FATHER HAD RETIRED AND WAS DRAWING A PENSION. THE ADDITION IT WAS SUBMITTED WAS MADE ON THE BASIS OF TWO BANK ACCOUNTS OF ICICI BANK, S O NEPAT BRANCH WHICH HAD DEPOSITS OF R S.13, 03,620/ - AND STATE BANK OF PATI ALA HAVING A D E POSIT OF RS.1,08,000/ - . IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE AO HAS IGNORED THE WITHDRAWAL FROM THE BANK ON DIFFERENT DATES AMOUNTING TO RS.12,03,000/ - . A REMAND REPORT WAS OBTAINED IN REGARD TO OWNERSHIP OF THE PR OPERTY WHICH WAS CLAIMED TO BE IN THE NAME OF HIS FATHER. THE AO FORWARDED THE FOLLOWING REPORT: - THE ASSESSEE HAS DURING THE REMAND REPORT PRODUCED A COPY OF THE DECREE SHEET OF THE COURT OF SUB JUDGE 1 ST CLASS, S O NEPAT IN CIVIL SUIT NO.145 OF 12.03.1985 DECIDED ON 26.03.1985 WHEREIN IT IS DECLARED THAT DES RAJ, S/O RAM LAL RESIDENT OF HOUSE NO - 15/591, OLD DC ROAD, S O NEPAT IS THE OWNER IN POSSESSION OF THE SAID PROPERTY. TO AUTHENTICATE THE CLAIM THAT THE PROPERTY IS TI LL DATE IN THE NAME OF S H RI DES RAJ (THE FATHER OF THE ASSESSEE), THE ASSESSEE ALSO PRODUCED THE ELECTRICITY BILL OF UTTAR HARYANA BIJLI VITRAN LTD. (A GOVT. OF HARYANA UNDERTAKING ) FOR THE MONTH OF FEBRUARY 2013. HOWEVER, THIS BILL DOES NOT CONTAIN THE F ULL ADDRESS OF THE PROPERTY AND ONLY NAME OF SHRI DESH RAJ AND THE ADDRESS AS ANAND NAGAR IS PRINTED ON THE SAID BILL. 4.2. THE SAID REMAND REPORT WAS CONFRONTED TO THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS CONTENDED THAT IT WAS A VERY SAME PLACE AND OWNERSHIP OF THE PROPER TY IN THE HANDS OF THE FATHER IS BORNE OUT THERE FROM THE FOLLOWING FACTS, THE SE SUBMISSIONS ARE EXTRACTED IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER: - 5 I.T.A .NO. - 4704 /DEL/201 3 7.6. TO PROVE THAT ANAND NAGAR AND OLD DC ROAD, S O NEPAT, AR E SAME WE HAVE BROUGHT THE COPY OF NO DIES CERTIFICATES AS ISSUED BY OFFICE OF MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, SONEPAT WHICH VERIFIES THA THE ADDRESS OF THE ASSESSEE IS 15/591, RAATH D H ANA ROAD, CHAR MARLA, ANAND NAGAR, SONEPAT, HARYANA, OLD D.C.ROAD IS THE OLD NAME AND THE SAME HAS BEEN RENAMED AS ANANAD NAGAR. BOTH ARE SAME .. 4.3. CONSIDERING T HE SUBMISSIONS THE CIT(A) CAME TO THE FOLLOWING CONCLUSION: - 11. ON PE RUSAL OF THE DOCUMENTS AS WELL THE REMAND REPORT, I FIND THAT THE RESIDENTI AL ADDR ESS OF THE APPELLANT AS RECORDED DURING THE STATEMENT IS SAME AS GI VEN I N THE DOCUMENTS FILED ALONG WITH THE AFFIDAVIT. AND THE SAME WERE VERIFIED DURING REMAND BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AND WHO ALSO F OUND THE DOCUMENTS AND THE CONTENTION OF THE APPE LLANT AS CORRECT. 11.1 I FAI L TO UNDERSTAND WHEN A PERSON IS STAYING WITH THE FATHER IN THE PROPERTY OWN ED BY THE FATHER WHY WILL HE STATE THAT HE IS STAYING IN PROPERTY OWNED BY ONE 'MR. SURENDAR ARORA' AND SECONDLY WHEN HE IS STAYING IN JOINT FAMILY WHY WI LL HE STATE THAT HE IS PAYING RENT. THE AFFIDAVIT, THE SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS AS WELL THE REMAND REPORT PR OVES THAT THE STATEMENT RECODED IS WRONG AND CAN NOT BE RELIED . 12. ON PERU SAL OF TH E COPY OF CASH BOOK AS WELL ICIC I BANK STATEMENT AND STATE BANK OF PATIALA STATEMENT IT WAS FOUND THAT CASH IS BEING DEPOSITED OUT OF THE SALAR Y IN C O ME OR PAST SAVINGS OR CASH WITHDRAWN OR LOANS TAKEN. THERE IS CASH WITH DRAWALS OF R S .1203000/ - ON DIFFERENT DATES WHICH CLEARLY SUPPORT THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSIT IN BANK ACCOUNT. THE APPELLANT HAS SUBMITTED THE SUMMARY OF IN FLOWS AND OUTFLOWS AS FOLLOWS: ' .. .. AS RE GARDS THE SU MMARY OF CASH INFLOW AND OUT FLOW DRAWN FROM THE CHART SUBMITTED DURIN G EARLIER HEARINGS IS AS FOLLOWS: INFLOWS OUTFLOWS SA LARY EARNED 2,11,300 DRAWINGS 48,000 BANK WITHDRAWALS 12,03,000 BANK DEPOSITS 13,03,620 LOAN BORROWED 2,19,000 LOANS REPAID 2,19,000 TOTAL 16,33,300 TOTAL 15,70,620 13. I HAVE CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE APPELLANT WITH REGARD TO THE CASH DEPOSITED. 13.1.ON 12.04.07 CASH OF RS.2,00,000 HAS BEEN DEPOSITED FROM THE OPENING BALANCE . 13.3. THEREAFTER RS.3,00,000 WAS WITHDRAWN AS CASH ON 23.04.07, RS.53,000 WAS WITHDRAWN ON 22.05.07 AND RS.1,00,000 ON 01.06.07 AND THE SAME HAS BEEN USED TO DEPOSIT BACK IN THE BANK AS FOLLOWS: - 12.05.07 1,520 19.05.07 15,000 22.05.07 40,000 6 I.T.A .NO. - 4704 /DEL/201 3 23.05.07 13,000 01.06.07 3,13,000 13.4. THEREAFTER RS.2,00,000 WAS WITHDRAWN AS CASH ON 26.06.07, LOAN OF RS.1,81,000 WAS BORRO WED ON 02.07.07 AND RS.4,50,000 WAS WITHDRAWN ON 09.07.07 AND THE SAME HAS BEEN USED TO DEPOSIT BACK IN THE BANK AS FOLLOWS: - 03.07.07 5,00,000 23.07.07 1,00,000 AND LOAN OF RS.2, 19,000 WAS REPAID BACK ON 15.07.07 13.5 THEREAFTER RS1,00,000 WAS WITHDRAWN AS CASH ON 28.09.07 AND THE SAME HAS BEEN USED TO DEPOSIT BACK IN THE BANK AS FOLLOWS: 12 - 11 - 07 53,95 0 20 - 11 - 07 40,0 22 - 01 - 08 15,000 18 - 03 - 08 12,150 14. I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT AND PERUSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE A.O. THERE IS NO DISPUTE ON FOLLOWING FACTS AS DEMONSTRATED BY THE ABOVE DISCUSSION: I ) THE APPELLANT IS STAYING IN JOINT FAMILY IN THE HOUSE OWNED BY HIS FATHER AND IS PAYING NO RENT. HIS FATHER IS A RETIRED GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE AND DRAWING PENSION. II) ON PERUSAL OF THE REMAND REPORT AS WELL THE FACTS DEMONSTRATED BY THE APPELLANT THE STATEMENT RECORDED DURING THE ASSESSMENT CANNOT BE RELIED. (III) THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS IGNORED THE FACTS AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND HAS NOT GIVEN COGNIZANCE TO THE CASH WITHDRAWN BY THE APPELLANT FROM THE BANK. THE APPELLANT WAS HAVING EN OUGH INFLOW IN SHAPE OF SALARY, PAST SAVINGS AND THE CASH WITHDRAWALS FROM THE BANK TO JUSTIFY THE CASH DEPOSITED IN THE BANK AS DISCUSSED ABOVE. (IV) THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO ESTABLISH THE SOURCE OF LOAN BORROWED OF RS.2,19,000. 15. THE ASSESSING OFFICE R ACTION IS NOT FULLY JUSTIFIABLE IN MAKING ADDITION OF UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSITED U/S 68 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. (A) THE ADDITION OF CASH DEPOSITED OUT OF THE LOAN BORROWED OF RS.2,19,000 IS CONFIRMED. (B) THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS.10,84,620 OF CASH DEPOSITED ADDIT ION MADE BY AO IS DELETED. (C) THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS.10,84,620. 5. AGGRIEVED BY THIS THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 7 I.T.A .NO. - 4704 /DEL/201 3 5.1. LD. SR. DR PLACES RELIANCE ON THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. LD. AR RELIES UPON THE IMPUGNED ORDER. IT WAS FURTHER CLARIFIED BY THE LD. AR THAT THE ADDITION OF RS.2,19,000/ - SUSTAINED BY THE CIT(A) HAS BEEN ACCEPTED. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. ON A CONSIDERATION THEREOF WE ARE O F THE VIEW THAT IN THE PECULIAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE WHERE THE FACTS REMAINED UNDISPUTED NAMELY THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT PAYING RENT AND HAD STAYED ALL ALONG ALONGWITH HIS FATHER RENT FREE WHO WAS A RETIRED GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE DRAWING PENSI ON WHEREIN THE EXISTENCE OF PAST SAVINGS AND INFL OW IN THE SHAPE OF SALARY JUXTA - POSED WITH THE CASH WITHDRAWALS FROM THE SAME BANK ACCOUNTS WHICH HAVE BEEN DEPOSITED IN THE SAME REMAINS UN - ASSAILED , WE FIND NO GOOD REASON TO INTERFACE WITH THE FINDING ARR IVED AT. IN VIEW OF THE SAME THE DEPARTMENTAL GROUNDS FAIL . 7 . IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. THE ORDER IS PRONOU NCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 1 0 T H OF OCTOBER 2014. S D / - S D / - ( B.C.MEENA ) (DIVA SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 1 0 / 1 0/2014 *AMIT KUMAR/SUBODH KUMAR COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT AS SISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI