DCIT, New Delhi V. M/s. Cheviot International Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 4776/DEL/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 97016 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 11 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-08-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 13-07-2015
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 07-09-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PARWINDER KAUR
• Assessee Lawyers: R K KAPOOR
• Keywords: Business expenditure; Earning of tax free income
• Section: 142(1); 14A

Judgement Text

PAGE 1 OF 6 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: B NEW DELHI BEFORE SMT DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. T .S. KAPOO R, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A .NO. - 4776 /DEL/201 2 (ASSESSMENT YEAR - 200 9 - 10 ) DCIT, CIRCLE - 3(1), NEW DELHI. (A PPELLANT) VS CHEVIOT INTERNATIONAL LTD., B - 19/2, CHEVIOT HOUSE, OKHLA, PHASE - II, NEW DELHI - 110020 PAN - AAACC0907H (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SMT.PARWINDER KAUR, SR.DR RESPONDENT BY SH.R.K.KAPOOR, CA ORDER PER DIVA SINGH, JM BY THE PRESENT APPEAL THE REVENUE ASSAILS THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER DATED 14.06.2012 OF CIT(A) - VI, NEW DELHI PE RTAINING TO 200 9 - 10 ASSESSMENT YEAR ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: - 1. THE LD.CIT(A) ERRED ON FACTS IN LAW TO DELETING THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A AMOUNTING TO RS.7,98,763/ - . 2. THE LD.CIT(A) ERRED ON LAW ON DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.11,00,000/ - BEING THE COMMISSION PAID TO THE MANAGING DIRECTOR OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY, U/S 36(1)(II) OF THE I.T.ACT. 3. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE FOR RESERVING THE RIGHT TO AMEND, MODIFY, AFTER, ADD OR FOREGO ANY GROUND(S) OF APPEAL AT ANY TIME BEFORE OR DURING THE HEARING OF THIS APPEAL. 2. TH E RELEVANT FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION DECL AR ED AN INCOME OF RS.3,80,63,020/ - WHICH WAS PROCESSED U/S 143(1) AND SUBSEQUENTLY AFTER ISSUANCE OF NOTICE ETC U/S 143(2) AND 142(1) ETC. IT WAS SUBJECTED TO SCRUTINY A SSESSMENT. THE RECORD SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING AND EXPORT OF LEATHER GARMENTS/ GOODS, EXPORT TRADING OF SKINS AND OTHER LEATHER GOODS WHEREIN THE AO CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED A DATE OF HEARING 13 .0 7 .2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 1 9 .0 8 .2015 I.T.A .NO. - 4776 /DEL/201 2 PAGE 2 OF 6 DI VIDEND OF RS.12,99,015/ - AND HAD ALSO CLAIMED A LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN OF RS.3,56,286/ - MADE A DISALLOWANCE OF RS.7,98,763/ - . IN APPEAL BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, THE SAID ORDER DID NOT FIND FAVOUR WITH THE CIT(A). 3. AGGRIEVED BY WHICH THE REV ENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 4. LD. SR. DR RELIES UPON THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE LD. AR ASSESSEE ON THE OTHER HAND INVITING ATTENTION TO PARAS 4 TO 4.4 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER SUBMITTED THAT THE DISALLOWANCE HAS BEEN MADE IN A MECHANICAL MANNER AND CONTRARY TO THE MANDATE OF THE LAW WHICH NECESSITATES THAT THE AO IS DUTY - BOUND TO RECORD A SATISFACTION AS TO HOW THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IS CONSIDERED TO BE NOT PROPER. REFERRING TO PAGE 4 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT IT HAD BEEN BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE CIT(A) AS TO HOW THE AO HAS INCLUDED EVEN THOSE INVESTMENTS WHERE AS AND WHEN THE INCOME WOULD BE EARNED, IT WOULD NOT BE EXEMPT INCOME AND IF THIS ASPECT ALONE IS CONSIDERED THAN THE DISALLOWANCE WOULD HAVE WORK ED OUT TO RS.5,72,651/ - AS AGAINST RS.7,98,763/ - WORKED OUT BY THE AO. REFERRING TO THE IMPUGNED ORDER IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT C ONSIDERING THESE FACTS THE CIT(A) HELD THAT THE AO HAS MADE A DISALLOWANCE WITHOUT RECORDING ANY REASON. THE CIT(A) IT WAS SUBMI TTED ALSO RECORDED THE FINDING THAT NOTHING HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE AO TO HOLD WHY THE SUO MOTO DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE OF RS.97,604/ - U/S 14A ON FACTS COULD NOT BE ACCEPTED. ACCORDINGLY IT WAS HIS SUBMISSION THAT RELYING UPON THE PRO POSITION OF LAW AS LAID DOWN BY THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF MAXOPP INVESTMENT LTD. VS CIT [2012] 347 ITR 272 (DEL.) AND FOLLOWED BY ANOTHER JUDGEMENTS DATED 25.11.2014 IN THE CASE OF CIT VS T AIKISHA ENGINEERING LTD. DATED 25.11.2015 REPORT ED IN 2014 - TIOL - 2239 - HC - DEL - IT AND M/S JINDAL PHOTO LTD. VS DCIT [2011 - TIOL - 653 - ITAT - DEL] THE APPEAL MAY BE DISMISSED. RELYING FURTHER UPON THE DECISION OF THE CO - ORDINATE BENCH IN ASSESSEE S OWN CASE IN 2008 - 09 WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT RULE 8D CANNOT BE APPLIED FOR WANT OF RECORDING OF REQUISITE SATISFACTION BY THE AO IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES BEING IDENTICAL, THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL ON IDENTICAL FACT HAD BEEN DISMISSED BY THE CO - ORDINATE BENCH IN ORDER DATED 22.01.2015 IN ITA NO.2623/DEL/2013 . THE SAME IT WAS REQUESTED MAY BE FOLLOWED. I.T.A .NO. - 4776 /DEL/201 2 PAGE 3 OF 6 4.1. THE LD. SR. DR RELIED UPON THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. CONSIDERING THE AFORE - SAID ORDER OF THE CO - ORDINATE BENCH STATED TO BE AN IDENTICAL FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, N O DISTINGUISHING FACTS OR CIR CUMSTANCES WAS CITED BEFORE THE BENCH IN ORDER TO CANVASS A CONTRARY VIEW. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. ON CONSIDERATION THEREOF IT IS SEEN THAT IN THE PECULIAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE WH ERE THE AO HAS NOT RECORDED HIS FINDING AS TO WHY HE WAS NOT SATISFIED BY THE CORRECTNESS OF ASSESSEE S CLAIM OF EXPENDITURE. NO DISTINGUISHING FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES HAS BEEN POINTED OUT BY THE LD. SR. DR. ACCORDINGLY IN THE ABOVE - MENTIONED FACTUAL AND LEGAL POSITION, R ESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF THE CO - ORDINATE BENCH , THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS UPHELD AND THE DEPARTMENTAL GROUND IS DISMISSED . 6 . THE NEXT ISSUE AGITATED BY THE REVENUE PERTAINS TO THE COMMISSION OF RS.11,00,000/ - PAID TO MRS. MALATI K ANORIA, MANAGING DIRECTOR U/S 36(1)(II). CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAD DECLARED A PROFIT OF RS.3,28,19,588/ - THE AO CONCLUDED THAT THE AMOUNT PAID AS A COMMISSION COULD HAVE BEEN PAID AS A PROFIT OR DIVIDEND . ACCORDINGLY THE ASSESSE E WAS ASKED TO SHOW WHY DISALLOWANCE O F THE SAID AMOUNT NOT BE MADE. THE ASSESSEE PLACED RELIANCE UPON THE ORDER OF THE ITAT IN 2003 - 04 ASSESSMENT YEAR . HO WEVER NOT CONVINCED WITH THE CLAIM, DISALLOWANCE OF THE SAID AMOUNT WAS MADE BY THE AO. THE ISSUE WAS AGITATED IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) WHO PROCEEDED TO DELETE THE ADDITIONS MADE. 7 . AGGRIEVED BY THIS THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 8. TH E LD. SR. DR PLACED RELIANCE UPON THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE LD. AR APART FROM RELYING UPON THE IMPUGNED ORDER ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE ITAT IN 2002 - 03 ASSESSMENT YEAR HAS CONSISTENTLY BEEN FOLLOWED BY THE ITAT IN THE INTERVENING YEARS . IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT INFACT THE ORDER OF THE ITAT IN 2003 - 04 ASSESSMENT YEARS, WAS UPHELD BY T HE HON BLE HIGH COURT ALSO. IN ORDER TO ESTABLISH THAT IN 2008 - 09 ASSESSMENT YEAR AND 2007 - 08 ASSESSMENT YEAR, THE RE WAS NO VARIATION IN THE VIEW TAKEN, A TTENTION WAS INVITED TO ORDER DATED 22.01.2015 IN ITA NO. - 2623/DEL/2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 09) WHE RE THE ISSUE WAS DECIDED BY THE CO - ORDINATE BENCH IN FOLLOWING MANNER: - I.T.A .NO. - 4776 /DEL/201 2 PAGE 4 OF 6 4. GROUND NO. 2 RELATES TO ADDITION OF RS. 13 LAKHS BEING COMMISSION PAID TO MRS. MALATI KANORIA U/S 36(1)(II) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREIN AFTER THE ACT ). THE LD CIT(A) HAS DELETED THE ADDITION FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF THE ITAT IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002 - 03. THE LD CIT(A) HAS HELD THAT THE FACTS OF THE INSTANT YEAR ARE IDENTICAL TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002 - 03, INASMUCH AS THE PERSON TO WHOM COMMISSION HAS BEEN PAID AND THE BASIS OF PAYMENTS REMAINS THE SAME. 5. THE LD DR COULD NOT POINT OUT ANY FRESH FACT OR DISTINGUISHING FEATURES SO AS TO MAKE US TAKE A DIFFERENT OPINION. ON THE CONTRARY THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL, STANDS DISMISSED BY AN ORDER OF THE HON BLE HIGH COURT DAT ED 18TH FEBRUARY 2011 IN ITA NO.776/2010. IN SUCH A SCENARIO, WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER IMPUGNED. SO WE DISMISS THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF REVENUE. 8 .1. SIMILARLY IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE CO - ORDINATE BENCH VIDE ORDER DATED 20.07.2010 IN ITA NO. - 23 49/DEL/2010 FOR 2007 - 08 ASSESSMENT YEAR, DECIDED THE ISSUE IN THE FOLLOWING MANNER: - 10. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE ENTIRE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. APROPOS DISALLOWANCE OF DIRECTOR S COMMISSION U/S 36(1)(II), WE FIND NO INFIRMIT Y IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A), WHO IN TURN HAS RELIED ON TRIBUNAL S ORDER IN ASSESSEE S OWN CASE FOR A.Y.2002 - 03 (SUPRA). FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES BEING SAME, WE SEE NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A), WHICH IS UPHELD. THIS GROUND IS DISMISSED. 9 . IN REPLY, THE SR.DR RELIED UPON THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. HOWEVER, NO DISTINCTION ON FACT OR LAW WAS BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE BENCH. 10 . WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL ISSUES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE RECORD SHOWS THAT DISALLOWANCE AS PER PAST PR ACTICE WAS MADE BY THE AO. THE REPLY OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE AO IT IS SEEN CITING ORDER OF THE ITAT ON IDENTICAL ISSUE IN 2003 - 04 ASSESSMENT YEAR RELYING UPON THE STATUTORY PROVISIONS WAS NOT ACCEPTED. IN APPEAL THE CIT(A) SUMMED UP THE FACTS IN THE FOLLOWING MANNER : - 5.1 DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE A.O. HAS MADE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.11,00,000/ - BEING THE COMMISSION PAID TO THE MANAGING DIRECTOR OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. THE A.O. HAS MADE THE DISALLOWANCE BY HOLDING THAT THE AMOUNT IS DISALLOWABLE U/S 36(1)(II) AND THE ASSESSEE, BY MAKING THIS PAYMENT TO ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, IS ATTEMPTING TO AVOID THE PAYMENT OF DIVIDEND TAX @ 13.5%.THE LD. AR CLARIFIED THAT THE COMMISSION IS BEING PAID TO THE MANAGING DIRECTOR OF T HE ASSESSEE COMPANY FROM THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002 - 03 WHEREIN FOR THE FIRST TIME DISALLOWANCE ON THE SIMILAR ALLEGATIONS AND FOR THE SAME REASONS WAS MADE BY THE I.T.A .NO. - 4776 /DEL/201 2 PAGE 5 OF 6 AD. THE ISSUE TRAVELLED UP TO THE HON'BLE ITAT, NEW DELHI, AND THE SAME WAS DECIDED IN FAVOUR O F THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO. 3863/DEU2007 BY HOLDING THAT THE COMMISSION HAS BEEN PAID IN TERMS OF CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT. THEREFORE, RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE MAY BE ALLOWED BECAUSE THE REASONING GIVEN IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AS WELL AS THE BASIS OF DISALLOWA NCE ARE IDENTICAL TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002 - 03. 1 1. CONSIDERING WHICH THE CIT(A) RELYING UPON THE PAST HISTORY CAME TO THE FOLLOWING CONCLUSION: - 5.2 I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE LD. AR AND HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. IT IS SEEN THAT THE IDENTICAL ISSUE CAME UP BEFORE THE HON'BLE ITAT DELHI 'C' BENCH IN ITA NO. 3863/DEL/2007 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002 - 03 IN THE CASE OF APPELLANT COMPANY, WHEREIN THE HON'BLE ITAT HAS DELETED THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE AO ON ACCO UNT OF. DISALLOWANCE OF COMMISSION PAID TO MRS. MALATI KANORIA, DIRECTOR OF RS.7,72,712/ - U/S SECTION 36(1)(II) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE AFORESAID ORDER OF THE HON'BLE ITAT IS REPRODUCE BELOW FOR REFERENCE: - '8. WE HAVE HEARD TH E RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE COMMISSION IS DISALLOWED ON THE FOLLOWING REASONS: - I. THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO EXPLAIN THE NATURE OF SERVICES RENDERED FOR PAYMENT OF COMMISSION ; AND II. THE COMMISSION WAS PAYABLE BY WAY OF PROFIT OR DIVIDEND AND, HENCE NOW ALLOWANCE U/S 36(1)(II). 9. WE FIND THAT BOTH THE ABOVE REASONS ARE NOT TENABLE ON FACTS AND AS PER LAW. AS PER TERMS OF EMPLOYMENT! THESE TWO DIRECTORS WERE ENTITLED TO MONTHLY REMUNERATION AS WELL AS COMMISSION. THE COMMISSION PAYABLE WAS REQUIRED TO BE APPROVED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS. IN TERMS OF THE RESOLUTION PASSED BY THE BOARD OF, DIRECTORS, CONSIDERING THE GROWTH IN SALES AND PROFIT, THE DIRECTOR DECIDED TO PAY COMMISSION TO THESE TWO DIRECTORS. THE REMUNERATION PAYABLE WAS HELD AS ALLOWABLE BUSINESS EXPENSES AND IN RESPECT OF WHICH THERE IS NO DISPUTE. THEREFORE, THERE IS NO DISPUTE REGARDING RENDERING OF THE SERVICES, BY THESE TWO DIRECTORS. WHAT IS THE REMUNER ATION PAYABLE FOR SUCH SERVICES WAS DECIDED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS AND, HENCE, IN TERMS OF RESOLUTION, THESE TWO DIRECTORS WERE ENTITLED TO RECEIVE REMUNERATION. ACCORDINGLY, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THERE IS NOT EVIDENCE REGARDING THE NATURE OF SERVICES RENDERED BY THESE TWO DIRECTORS. THE NATURE OF SERVICES RENDERED BY THESE TWO DIRECTORS IS THE SAME DUE TO WHICH THEY BECAME ENTITLED TO RECEIVE REMUNERATION. AS PER SECTION 17(1) OF THE ACT, THE TERM 'SALARY' INCLUDES ANY, FEES, COMMISSION, PERQUISITES OR PROFIT IN LIEU SALARY, ALL THE SUMS ARE TAXABLE UNDER THE HEAD 'SALARY' ONLY. THESE TWO DIRECTORS, WHILE FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME, DECLARED NOT ONLY THE SALARY BUT COMMISSION ALSO AS PART OF INCOME UNDER THE HEAD 'SALARY' THE SAME ARE ASSESSED AS SUCH. THEREFORE, IT IS INCORRECT TO HOLD THAT BONUS OR COMMISSION SHALL NOT FORM PART OF SALARY OR REMUNERATION. IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 36(1)(II) ANY SUM PAID TO AN EMPLOYEE AS BONUS OR COMMISSION FOR SERVICES RENDERED WHERE SUCH SUM WOULD , NOT HAVE BEEN PAYABLE TO HIM AS PROFIT OR DIVIDEND IF IT I.T.A .NO. - 4776 /DEL/201 2 PAGE 6 OF 6 HAD NOT BEEN PAID AS BONUS OR COMMISSION IS ALLOWABLE. THE SUM PAID TO THE DIRECTORS IS AS AN EMPLOYEE OF THE COMPANY. THE BONUS OR COMMISSION PAYABLE FOR THE SERVICES RENDERED AND ARE IN ACCORDANC E WITH THE TERMS OR EMPLOYMENT. THE DIRECTORS ARE NOT ONLY SHAREHOLDERS OF THE COMPANY. OUT OF THE TOTAL SHARE CAPITAL OF RS.73,50,000/ - , MRS. MALATI KANODIA HOLDS SHARE WORTH RS. 15,02,000/ - ONLY. SHRI RAJEEV BOHRA IS NOT EVEN A SHAREHOLDER. THEREFORE, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT IF THE COMMISSION WAS NOT PAID, SUCH SUM WOULD HAVE BEEN PAID TO THE EMPLOYEES AS PROFIT OR DIVIDEND. THUS, THE EXCEPTION PROVIDED IN SECTION 36(1)(II) DO NOT APPLY. IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES THE AMOUNT PAYABLE AS COMMISSION ARE ALLOWABLE U/S 36(1)(II) OF THE ACT. WE THEREFORE, DELETED THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 15.50 LAKHS'. 5.3 SINCE THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT CASE IS SIMILAR TO THE FACTS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002 - 03,RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE AFORESAID DECISION OF THE HON'BLE ITAT DELHI, THE AO IS DIRECTED TO DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS. 11,00,000/ - BEING THE COMMISSION PAID TO THE MANAGING DIRECTOR OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY U/S 36(1)(II) OF THE LT. ACT. 1 2. IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE FACTS, WHERE THE CO - ORDINATE BENCH IN 2007 - 08 & 2008 - 09 ASSESSMENT YEAR S HA S FOLLOWED THE SAID ORDER ON FACTS AND NO DISTINGUISHING FACTS OR CIRCUMSTANCES HAVING BEEN POINTED OUT BY THE REVENUE, W E FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY ARGUMENT A S S A I L I N G THE STAND T AKEN, WE FIND NO MERIT IN THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE . R ESPECTIVELY FOLLOWING THE ORDERS OF THE CO - ORDINATE BENCH, GROUND NO. - 2 OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 1 3. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED THE SAID ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN C OURT AT THE TIME OF HEARING ITSELF. 14 . IN THE RESULT THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. THE ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 1 9 T H OF AUGUST , 2015. S D / - S D / - ( T . S. KAPOO R) (DIVA SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 1 9 / 0 8 /2015 *AMIT KUMAR* COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI