DCIT, New Delhi V. M/s. DLF Utilities Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 4781/DEL/2012

• Counselvise Citation: 478120114 RSA 2012
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 5 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-02-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 21-07-2014
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 07-09-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PARWINDER KAUR
• Keywords: Depreciation; Business expenditure; Notional interest; Revenue expenditure; Capital expenditure

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : B : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI I.C. SUDHIR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI J.S. REDDY , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 4781/DEL / 2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008 - 09 DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME VS. M/S DLF UTILITIES LTD. TAX, CIRCLE - 10(1), NEW DELHI (SUCCESSOR TO DT CINEMA LTD.) 9 TH FLOOR, DLF CENTRE, SANSAD MARG, NEW DELHI (PAN: AABCD8494M ) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SMT. PARWINDER KAUR, SR. DR RESPONDEN T BY: SH. R.S. SINGHVI, CA DATE OF HEARING: 12.12.2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 20.02.2015 ORDER PER I.C. SUDHIR, JM : THE REVENUE HAS IMPUGNED THE FIRST APPELLATE ORDER ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: I. WHETHER THE CIT(A) UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW WAS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 29,73,740/ - MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF NOTIONAL INTEREST CHARGED ON INTEREST FREE SECURITY DEPOSIT GIVEN TO VARIOUS G ROUP COMPANIES? II. WHETHER THE CIT(A) UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW WAS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCES OF RS. 1,53,65,028/ - MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OUT OF DIESEL EXPENSES WHEN THE ASSESSEE IN SPITE OF REPEATED REQUESTS DID NOT PRODUCE THE ORIGINAL BILLS AND VOUCHERS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND ONLY PRODUCED THE SAME BEFORE THE LD CIT(A). III. WHETHER THE CIT(A) UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW WAS JUSTIFIED IN DELETI NG THE DISALLOWANCES OF RS. 52,90,624/ - MADE BY 2 ITA NO. 4781/DEL/2012 AY : 2008 - 09 THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF CAPITAL EXPENDITURE INCLUDED IN MISC. CONTRACT EXPENSES AFTER ENTERTAINING THE FRESH EVIDENCE OF THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT CALLING FOR REMAND REPORT FROM THE ASS ESSING OFFICER? IV. WHETHER THE CIT(A) UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW WAS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING DISALLOWANCES OF RS. 9,54,678/ - MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OUT OF HIRE CHARGES PAID AFTER ENTERTAINING THE FRESH EVIDENCE OF THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT CALLING FOR REMAND REPORT FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER? V. WHETHER THE CIT(A) UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW WAS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCES OF RS. 23,934/ - MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFI CER ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST PAID ON TDS AFTER ENTERTAINING THE FRESH EVIDENCE OF THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT CALLING FOR REMAND REPORT FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER? VI. WHETHER THE CIT(A) UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW WAS JUST IFIED IN DELETING DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 1,01,549/ -- MADE AY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF PRIOR EXPENSES' VII. WHETHER THE CIT(A) UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW WAS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCES OF RS. 13 ,80,790/ - MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OUT OF EVENT EXPENSES AND CONSULTANCY CHARGES? VIII. WHETHER THE CIT(A) UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW WAS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCES OF RS. 25,15,644/ - MA DE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OUT OF LEGAL AND PROFESSIONAL EXPENSES? 2. WE HAVE HEARD AND CONSIDERED THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE PARTIES IN VIEW OF THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW , MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND THE DECISIONS RELIED UPON. 3. THE ASSESSEE IS A PRIVATE COMPANY INCORPORATED ON 08.06.1999 AND IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF PROVIDING MANAGEMENT SERVICES I.E. MAINTENANCE AND ALLIED SERVICES OF COMMERCIAL AND HIGH RISE BUILDING FOR PROPERTY OWNERS/OCC UPANTS OF DLF QUTUB ENCLAVE COMPLEX KNOWN AS DLF CITY AT GURGAON AND COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS AT NEW DELHI. THE SERVICES PROVIDED, INTER 3 ITA NO. 4781/DEL/2012 AY : 2008 - 09 ALIA, INCLUDE HOUSEK EEPING SERVICES, HVAC SERVICE, SECURITY SERVICES, LIGHTING FACILITY AND PEST CONTROL S ERVICES ETC. BESIDES, DURING THE YEAR , THE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO CARRIED OUT THE BUSINESS OF RUNNING MULTIPLEX THEATRE AT DLF CITY CENTRE, GURGAON, HARYANA IN THE NAME OF DT CINEMAS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION MADE THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONS/DISALL OWANCES: SL. NO. NATURE OF DISALLOWANCE AMOUNT (RS. ) 1. DISALLOWANCE OF ROC FEES RS. 6,00,000/ - 2. CHARGING OF NOTIONAL INTEREST ON SECURITY DEPOSIT RS. 29,73,740/ - 3. DISALLOWANCE OUT OF DIESEL EXPENSES RS. 1,53,65,028/ - 4. CAPITALIZATION OF EXPENSES RS. 52,90,624/ - 5. DISALLOWANCE OUT OF HIRE CHARGES RS. 9,54,678/ - 6. DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST PAID ON TDS RS. 23,934/ - 7. DISALLOWANCE OF PRIOR PERIOD EXPENSES RS. 1,01,549/ - 8. DISALLOWANCE OF ESI ETC. RS. 5 9,553/ - 9. DISALLOWANCE OUT OF EVENT EXPENSES AND CONSULTANCY CHARGES RS. 13,80,790/ - 10. DISALLOWANCE OUT OF LEGAL AND PROFESSION EXP. RS. 5,15,644/ - 4. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS DELETED THE ABOVE ADDITIONS/DISALLOWANCES MADE BY THE A.O. THE REVENUE HAS QUESTIONED THIS ACTION OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN THE PRESENT APPEAL EXCEPT DELETION OF DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 6 LACS MADE ON ACCOUNT OF ROC FEES. GROUND NO. 1 . 5 THE FACTS IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER VIDE PARA NO. 5 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ALLEGED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT CHARGED INTEREST OF SECURITY DEPOSIT GIVEN BY IT TO ITS GROUP COMPANIES. THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED BEFORE THE A.O. THAT IT HAD GIVEN SECURITY DEPOSITS AMOUNTING TO RS. 8,06,54,056/ - TO 4 ITA NO. 4781/DEL/2012 AY : 2008 - 09 VARIOUS GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND GROUP COMPANIES. THE DETAILS OF WHICH WERE FILED DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. IT WAS STATED THAT THE DEPOSITS WERE GIVEN MAINLY TO THE GOVERNMENT AGENCIE S, VIZ., HARYANA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD; WATER A ND SEWERAGE SECURITIES AND THE SECURITY DEPOSIT TO THE LAND LORDS. MOST OF THE S ECURITIES WERE GIVEN IN EARLIER YEARS. IT WAS EXPLAINED FURTHER THAT NO INTEREST ACCRUES OR PAID TO THE ASSESSEE BY THE GOVERNME NT AGENCIES AND ALSO BY THE LANDLORDS FROM WHOM THE PROPERTIES HAD BEEN TAKEN ON RENT. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT IT IS THE INDUSTRIES NORM THAT THE INTEREST FREE SECURITY IS RECEIVED BY THE LANDLORDS FROM THE TENANT. THE A.O. DID NOT AGREE WITH THE ASSESSEE AN D MADE THE ADDITION OF RS. 29,73,740/ - ON ACCOUNT OF NOTIONAL INTEREST @ 8.50% ON PART OF INTEREST FREE SECURITY DEPOSITS OF RS. 3,49, 00,820 / - PAID TO VARIOUS MALLS TO RUN CINEMA HALLS, FOOD COURT ETC. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS, HOWEVER, DELETED THE ADDITION BEING CONVINCED WITH THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED WITH THE DECISIONS RELIED UPON. 5 .1 IN SUPPORT OF GROUND, THE LEARNED SR. DR HAS BASICALLY PLACED RELIANCE ON THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. SHE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO EXPLAIN THE PURPOSE OF THE LOAN TAKEN DURING THE YEAR. 5 .2 THE LEARNED AR, ON THE OTHER HAND, TRIED TO JUSTIFY THE FIRST APPELLATE ORDER ON THE ISSUE. HE REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND PLACED RELIANCE ON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS: (I) STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE VS. CIT, (1986) 158 ITR 102 (SC); (II) MORVI INDUSTRIES LTD. VS. CIT, (1971) 82 ITR 835 (SC); 5 ITA NO. 4781/DEL/2012 AY : 2008 - 09 (III) B & A PLANTATIONS AND INDUSTRIES LTD. VS. CIT (2000) 242 ITR 22 (GAU.) (IV) CIT VS. PREMIER INDUSTRIES (I.) LT D., (2002) 257 ITR 762 (MP) (V) CIT VS. BANSWARE FABRICS LTD., (2004) 267 ITR 398 (RAJ.) 5 .3 LEARNED AR SUBMITTED FURTHER THAT DURING THE YEAR THE ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED INTEREST FREE SECURITY DEPOSITS OF RS. 12 CRORES AND NO INTEREST WAS PAID ON SUCH DEPOSITS, THEREFORE, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS PAYING INTEREST ON SECURITY DEPOSITS RECEIVED WHEREAS NO INTEREST WAS CHARGED FROM THE DEPOSITS. 5 .4 HAVING GONE THROUGH THE DECISIONS CITED ABOVE, WE FIND THAT THE RATIO LAID DOWN THEREIN IS THAT LIABILITY TO TAX CAN ARISE ONLY WHEN THERE IS INC OME AND NO TAX CAN BE CHARGED O N NOTIONAL INC OME ON ACCRUAL . 5 .5 CONSIDERING THE ABOVE FACTS IN ITS TOTALITY AND THAT DURING THE YEAR THE ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED INTEREST FREE SECURITY DEPOSIT OF RS. 12 CRORES AND NO INTEREST WAS PAID ON SUCH DEPOSITS, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS R IGHTLY DELETED THE ADDITION, AFTER DISCUSSING THE ABOVE STATED UNREBUTTED FACTS. FOR READY REFERENCE, FINDING OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) IS BEING REPRODUCED HEREUNDER: I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT AND OBSERVATION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IT IS SEEN THAT DURING THE YEAR APPELLANT HAS GIVEN SECURITY DEPOSIT AMOUNTING TO RS. 8,06,54,000/ - TO VARIOUS GOVERNMENT AGENCIES AND MALL OWNERS FOR TAKING CINEMAS, FOOD COURTS ETC ON LEASE. AT THE SAME TIME THE APPELLANT HAS RECEIVED SECUR ITY DEPOSIT O R RS. 20,82,46,000/ - FROM 'VARIOUS COMPANIES. OUT OF THIS SECURITY DEPOSIT OF RS. 12 CRORE WAS INTEREST FREE AND ON THE SECURITY DEPOSIT OF RS. 8 CRORE, 6 ITA NO. 4781/DEL/2012 AY : 2008 - 09 THE APPELLANT HAS PAID INTEREST @8.75% P.A. ON THE BASIS OF THIS PREPOSITION THE ASSESSING OFFICER CONC LUDED THAT AT ONE HAND APPELLANT IS PAYING INTEREST ON SECURITY DEPOSIT, HOWEVER, NO INTEREST IS CHARGED ON THE SECU RITY DEPOSIT OF RS. 8,06,54,056/ - GIVEN TO VARIOUS GOVT. AGENCIES AND MALLS . ONGOING THROUGH THE DETAILS OF SECURITY DEPOSITS GIVEN TO VARIO US PARTIES, IT IS SEEN THAT AN AMOUNT OF RS. 4,53,46,236 / - HAS BEEN GIVEN TO HARYANA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD. THE SECURITY DEPOSIT HAS ALSO BEEN GIVEN TO SEWERAGE DEPARTMENT WATER SUPPLY DEPARTMENT. THE OTHER DEPOSITS HAVE BEEN GIVEN FOR TAKING FOOD COURT ON RENT OR TAKING SPACE FROM MALL ON RENT. IN SOME CASES THE ADVANCE RENT HAS BEEN GIVEN AS DEPOSIT FOR TAKING SPACE ON RENT. IT IS WELL SETTLED PRINCIPLE THAT ANY SECURITY DEPOSIT GIVEN TO GOVERNMENT FOR TAKING ELECTRICITY CONNECTION AND OTHER PUBLIC UTIL ITIES, NO INTEREST IS PAID BY THE GOVERNMENT. SIMI LARLY, THE SECURITY DEPOSIT AND ADVANCE SECURITY DEPOSIT GIVEN FOR TAKING PREMISES OR SPACE ON RENT NO INTEREST IS RECEIVABLE FROM THE LANDLORD. THIS GENERAL PRACTICE IS PREVALENT IN THE MARKET; THEREFORE, THERE IS NO QUESTION OF CHARGING OF NOTIONAL INTEREST ON THE SECURITY DEPOSIT GIVEN BY THE APPELLANT TO VARIOUS PARTIES. THE APPELLANT IN SUPPORT OF ITS CONTENTION HAS FILED COPIES OF THE LEASE DEED ENTERED INTO WITH M/ S AKSHAR SHOBTI & OTHERS FOR TAKING PREMISES ON RENT. AS PER THIS LEASE DEED, THE APPELLANT HAS GIVEN S E CURITY DEPOSIT OF RS. 58,73,460/ - AS INTEREST FREE SECURITY DEPOSIT WHICH IS CLEARLY MENTIONED IN THE AGREEMENT. SINCE, ALL THE DEPOSITS GIVEN ARE INTEREST FREE, NO NOTIONAL INTEREST CAN B E CHARGE ON SUCH DEPOSITS. IT MAY ALSO BE ME NTIONED HERE THAT, THE APPELLANT HAS RECEIVED INTEREST FREE SECURITY DEPOSIT OF RS. 12 CRORE AND NO INTEREST HAS BEEN PAID ON SUCH DEPOSITS. THEREFORE, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT APPELLANT IS PAYING INTEREST ON SECUR ITY DEPOSITS RECEIVED WHEREAS NO INTEREST IS CHARGED FROM THE DEPOSITS GIVEN. 7 ITA NO. 4781/DEL/2012 AY : 2008 - 09 AS DISCUSSED ABOVE, BY THE AR OF THE APPELLANT WHEN NO REAL INCOME HAS ACCRUED THE SAME CANNOT BE TAXED ON NOTIONAL BASIS. CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND VARIOUS JUDICI AL PRONOUNCEMENTS RELIED UPON BY THE APPELLANT, I AM OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT NO NOTIONAL INTEREST ON SECURIT Y DEPOSIT CAN BE CHARGE. HENCE, THE ADDITION MADE BY TH E ASS ESSING OFFICER OF RS. 29,73,740/ - IS DELETED. 5 .6 AS DISCUSSED ABOVE, WE FIND THAT THE FIRST APPELLATE ORDER ON THE ISSUE IS COMPREHENSIVE AND REASONED ONE TO WHICH WE FULLY CONCUR WITH. THE SAME IS ACCORDINGLY UPHELD. THE GROUND NO. 1 IS ACCORDINGLY REJECTED. GROUNDS NOS. 2, 3, 4, 7 & 8 6 THESE GROUND S PERTAINED TO DISALLOWANCE MADE OUT OF DIESEL EXPENSE, CONTRACT EXPENSES TREATING THE SAME AS CAPITAL EXPENDITURE, HIRE CHARGES PAID, EVENT EXPENSES, CONSULTANCY CHARGES AND LEGAL AS WELL AS PROFESSIO NAL EXPENSES MADE BY THE A.O. FINDING OF THE A.O. THAT DETAILS HAVE NOT BEEN FURNISHED WAS CONTENDED BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) BY THE ASSESSEE AS CONTRARY TO HIS OWN OBSERVATION IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR. THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE AD - HOC DISALLOWANCE ON THE WRONG PREMISES. THE ASS ESSEE FILED COMPARATIVE CHART OF EXPENSES FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2006 - 07, 2007 - 08 AND 2009 - 10. THE ASSESSEE ALSO ENCLOSED A COMPARATIVE CHART OF R EVENUE UNDER DIFFERENT SEGMENTS FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND FOR TH E ASSESSMENT YEARS 2006 - 07 , 2007 - 08 AND 2009 - 10 . IT WAS CONTENDED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER MISREAD HIMSELF IN 8 ITA NO. 4781/DEL/2012 AY : 2008 - 09 MAKING THE AD - HOC DISALLOWANCES OF THESE ROUTINE BUSINESS EXPE NSES WHICH HAVE ALL ALONG BEEN ALLOWED TO THE ASSESSEE IN THE EARL IER YEARS SINCE INCEPTION AND EVEN IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR. THE LEARNED CIT(A) AFTER DISCUSSING THE CASES OF THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS DE LETED THE ADDITIONS IN QUESTION . 6 .1 IN SUPPORT OF THE GROUND, THE LEARNED DR HAS BASICALLY PLACED RELIANCE ON THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. SHE SUBMITTED THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) WHILE DELETING THE ADDITIONS HAS NOT MET OUT THE OBJECTIONS RAISED BY THE A.O. 6 .2 THE LEARNED AR, ON THE OTHER HAND, TRIED TO JUSTIFY THE FIRST APPELLATE ORDER ON THE ISSUE A ND REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISIONS REFERRED BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) . 6 .3 WE FIND THAT THE DISALLOWANCES WERE MADE BY THE A.O. ON ACCOUNT OF POWER AND FUEL EXPENSES ( 2% OF THE CLAIM) ( GRO UND NO. 2); MISCELLANEOUS CO NTRACT EXPENSES UNDER THE HEAD REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE HELD AS CAPITAL EXPENDITURE (GROUND NO. 3); HIRE CHARGES (50 % OF THE CLAIM) (GROUND NO. 4); EVENT EXPENSES AND CONSULTANCY CHARGES (25% OF THE CLAIM) (GROUND N O. 7); AND LE GAL AND PROFESSIONAL CHARGES (10% OF THE CLAIM) (GROUND NO. 8). 6 .4 SO FAR AS POWER AND FUEL EXPENSES IS CONCERNED, THE A.O. HAS MADE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 1,53,65,028/ - WITH THE OBSERVATIONS THAT THE PARTY LEDGER ACCOUNT AND BILLS WERE NOT FURNISHED. THIS FINDING OF THE A.O. HAS BEEN CONTENDED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE OBSERVATIONS ARE CONTRARY IN ITSELF FOR THE 9 ITA NO. 4781/DEL/2012 AY : 2008 - 09 REASON THAT FROM HIS OBSERVATIONS IN THE ORDER, THE A.O. APPEARS TO BE SATISFIED THAT THE EXPENSES HAVE BEEN INCURRED WITH RESPECT TO BUILDING/MALL S TO WHOM ELECTRICITY HAS BEEN PROVIDED IN LIEU OF WHICH INCOME HAS BEEN EARNED. IT WAS CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS FAILED TO CONSIDER AND APPRECIATED THE INCREASE IN THE LEVEL OF INCOME UNDER DIFFERENT SEGMENTS DURING THE YEAR AS COMPARED TO THE EARLIER YEARS. THERE HAS BEEN A SUBSTANTIAL INCREASE IN THE REVENUE OVER THE EARLIER YEARS AND ACCORDINGLY THE INCREASE IN EXPENSES WAS JUSTIFIED. IT WAS CONTENDED THAT WHILE MAKING THE DISALLOWANCE IN QUESTION , THE A.O. HAS NOT POINTED OUT ANY DEFECT IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WHICH HAVE BEEN DULY AUDITED. IT WAS CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ENCLOSED THE COPY OF THE LEDGER ACCOUNT OF THE EXPENSES AT PAGE 27 TO 115 OF THE PAPER BOOK. THUS, THE VERY BASIS FOR MAKING THE AD - HOC ADDITION IS MISCONCEIVED B ASED ON CONJECTURE SURMISES. 6 .5 REGARDING THE DISALLOWANCE MADE TOWARDS MISCELLANEOUS CONTRACT EXPENSES UNDER THE HEAD REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE EXPENSES , WE FIND THAT THE A.O. HAD SEGREGATED CERTAIN ITEM OF EXPENDITURE FROM THE DETAILS OF REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE FILED BEFORE HIM AT PAGE NO. 7 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE A.O. MADE THE ADDITION OF RS. 52,90,624/ - (N ET OF DEPRECIATION) INCURRED ON RENOVATION OF EXISTING ASSET BY HOLDING IT TO BE OF CAPITAL IN NATURE . THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THIS ACTION OF THE A.O. REMAINED THAT LEDGER A CCOUNT OF EXPENSES WAS ENCLOSED. THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER ARE 10 ITA NO. 4781/DEL/2012 AY : 2008 - 09 MISCONCEIVED , WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS AS POINTED OUT HEREINABOVE AGAINST THE DISALLOWANCE MADE ON ACCOUNT OF POWER AND FUEL EXPENSES. IT WAS CONTENDED THAT T HE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY HOLDING THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED TO BE OF CAPITAL IN NATURE IS OPPOSED TO THE FACTS , INASMUCH AS NO NEW ASSET HAS COME INTO EXISTENCE OF ENDURING BENEFIT. IT WAS CONTENDED THAT THE IMPUGNED DISALLOWANCE HAS BEEN MADE BY THE A.O. WIT HOUT APPLICATION OF MIND INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 35D(2 )(D) OF THE ACT WHICH, INTER ALIA, DEALS WITH THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED BEFORE THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE BUSINESS AND IN CONNECTION WITH THE EXTENSION OF THE UNDERTAKING OR IN CONNECTION WITH SE TTING UP A NEW UNIT. IT WAS CONTENDED THAT NO NEW UNIT OR EXTENSION OF THE EXISTING BUSINESS HAS TAKEN PLACE, NEITHER THE EXPENDITURE HAS BEEN INCURRED BEFORE THE COMMENCEMENT OF BUSINESS INASMUCH AS THE BUSINESS STANDS DULY COMMENCED DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. 6 .6 THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED A SUM OF RS. 9,54,678/ - BEING 50% OF RS. 19,09 ,355/ - ON ACCOUNT OF HIRE C HARGES W ITH THE OBSERVATION THERE WAS NIL EXPENDITURE INCURRED UNDER THIS HEAD IN THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING YEAR. THIS ACTION OF THE A.O. WAS CONTENDED BY THE ASSESSEE WITH THE SUBMISSION THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS FAILED TO CONSIDER AND FAILED TO APPRECIATE THOUGH DULY EXPLAINED TO HIM DURING THE ASSESSING PROCEEDINGS THAT IN THE EARLIER YEARS, THE EXPENSES WERE GROUPE D UNDER THE HEAD MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES . IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT IN THE IMMEDIATELY P RECEDING YEARS A SUM OF RS. 17,67,16 9/ - WAS 11 ITA NO. 4781/DEL/2012 AY : 2008 - 09 INCURRED UNDER THE HEAD HIRE CHARGES GROUPED WITH MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES AND THE MARGINAL INCREASE DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATI ON IS COMMENSURATE WITH THE INCREASE IN INCOME. THE OBSERVATION OF THE A.O. THAT THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE WAS NOT FURNISHED, WAS ALSO CONTEND ED AS CONTRARY TO H IS OWN OBSERVATIONS OF THE A.O. 6 .7 THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 13,80,79 0/ - BEING 25% OF RS. 55,22,876/ - . IT WAS OBJECTED BY THE ASSESSEE WITH CONTENTIONS THAT THE DETAILS WERE FURNISHED AND WITHOUT CONSIDERING AND APPRECIATING THE BUSINESS ACTIVITIES OF THE ASSESSEE WARRANTING SUCH EXPENDITURE, THE A.O. HAS MADE AD - HOC DISALLOWANCE. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE EXPENDITURE CLAIMED WAS ROUTINE IN NATURE WHEREBY ROUTINE BUSINESS PROMOTION EVENTS WERE ORGANIZED INCIDENTAL TO THE BUSINESS ACTIVITIES OF THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS CONTENDED THAT IN THE PRESENT COMPETITIVE MARKET SUCH EXPENDITURE IS NECESSARY TO ATTRACT CUSTOMERS. THE INCREASE THEREIN IS COMMENSURATE WITH T HE INCREASE IN INCOME. 6 .8 REGARDING LEGAL AND PROFESSION AL EXPENSES DISALLOWANCE, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE THIS DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 25,15,644/ - BEING 10% OF RS. 2,51,56,444/ - . THE SAME WAS OBJECTED BY THE ASSESSEE WITH THIS CONTENTION THAT DESPITE THE DETAILS WERE FURNISHED DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE AD - HOC DISALLOWANCE WITH THE CONTRARY OBSERVATION THAT DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES WERE NOT FURNISHED. IT WAS CONTENDED THAT ALL THE PAYMENTS HAVE BEEN MA DE BY CROSSED CHEQUES DULY AUTHORIZED AND VOUCHED 12 ITA NO. 4781/DEL/2012 AY : 2008 - 09 EXPENDED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS ACTIVITIES. CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS AND DEALING WITH THE ISSUE IN DETAIL, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS DELETED THE ABOVE AD - HOC DISALLOWANCES TAKING SUPPORT OF THE DECISIONS IN THE CASES OF (I) FRIENDS CLEARING AGENCY P. LTD. VS. CIT, (2011) 332 ITR 269 (DEL) ; (II) WIDEX INDIA (P) LTD. VS. DY. CIT, (2012) 66 DTR 57 (DEL.)(TRIB.) ; (III) THARD HARDWARE CO. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (2004) 26 6 ITR (AT) (GAU.) ; AND (IV) CIT VS. S.S.P. (P.) LTD., (2011) 202 TAXMANN.COM 386 (P&H) (HC). 6 .9 FOR A READY REFERENCE, THE FINDINGS OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) ON THE DISALLOWANCE S IN QUESTION IS BEING REPRODUCED HERE UNDER: I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT, OBSERVATION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND VARIOUS JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS RELIED UPON BY THE APPELLANT ON THIS ISSUE. IT IS SEEN THAT ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE AD - HOC DISALLOWANCE UNDER THE POWER AND FUEL, HIRE CHARGES, EVENT AND CONSULTANC Y EXPENSES, LEGAL AND PROFESSIONAL EXPENSES AND TREATED CERTAIN EXPENSES AS CAPITAL IN NATURE OUT OF REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE EXPENSES. FROM THE A SSESSMENT ORDER IT IS SEEN THAT ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT DOUBTED THE GENUINENESS OF THESE EXPENSES AND HE HAS N OT BROUGHT ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD WHICH COULD HAVE PROVE THAT THESE EXPENSES WERE NOT INCURRED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE BUSINESS PURPOSES. THE APPELLANT HAS SUBMITTED DETAILS A BOUT THE DIESEL EXPENSES WHICH HAVE BEEN INCURRED FOR RUNNING DG SET FOR G ENERATING ELECTRICITY WHICH WAS SUPPLIED TO VARIOUS MALLS AND OFFICES TO WHICH SERVICES ARE BEING PROVIDED BY THE APPELLANT. THESE DG SETS WERE RUN TO SUPPLEMENT THE SHORTAGE OF ELECTRICITY IN GURGAON REGION AND IF THERE IS A INCREASE IN THE EXPENSES ON 13 ITA NO. 4781/DEL/2012 AY : 2008 - 09 AC COUNT OF DIES EL, THERE IS INCREASE IN THE REVENUES RECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT. THE ENTRIES GIVEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PERTAINS TO THE EXPENSES INCURRED ON RUNNING OF DG SETS FOR A PARTICULAR BUILDING AND ENTRY FOR THE EXPENSES MA DE ON A PARTICULAR DATE. THESE ENTRIES NOWHERE SUGGEST THAT THESE ARE NOT GENUINE EXPENSES AND NOT INCURRED FOR THE BUSINESS OF THE APPELLANT. FURTHER, ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT POINTED OUT ANY DEFECT IN THE CORRECTNESS OF DIESEL ACCOUNT MAINTAINED BY THE A PPELLANT. THEREFORE, THE 2% DISALLOWANCE OUT OF ENTIRE EXPENDITURE OF RS. 76,82,51, 447/ - WAS NOT JUSTIFIED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MENTIONED CERTAIN EXPENSES IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AT PAGE 7 OUT OF REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE EXPENSES AND TREATED THE SA ME AS CAPITAL IN NATURE. THESE EXPENSES HAVE BEEN INCURRED ON REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE OF VARIOUS BUILDINGS AND MALLS. ONGOING THROUGH THE DESCRIPTION OF THE EXPENSES IT IS SEEN THAT THESE AMOUNTS PERTAINS TO THE RUNNING BILLS OF THE PA RTIES FOR DOING RENOVA TION WORK, PLUMBING WORK, SUPPLYING OF BUILDING MATERIAL, COVERING OF JOINTS, SEWAGE WORK C ARRIED OUT, KOTA STONE LAID FOR RENOVATION WORK, FIXING OF SLIDING DOORS, INTERIOR WORK, CONSTRUCTION OF MS RAILING, CONSTRUCTION OF X - RAY ROOM, CONSTRUCTION OF RAIN HARVESTING SYSTEM AND FIXING OF RAILING IN STAIR CASES. THE NATURE OF THE EXPENSE SUGGESTS THAT BY INCURRING THESE EXPENSES NO ENDURING ADVANTAGE HAS BEEN DERIVED AND NO NEW ASSET HAS BEEN CREATED BY INCURRING THESE EXPENSES. THESE EXPENSES HAVE BEEN INCU RRED TO MAINTAIN THE BUILDING AND FIX CERTAIN ITEMS FOR SMOOTH WORKING OF THE BUSINESS OF THE APPELLANT. THEREFORE, THE EXPENSES INCURRED ON MAINTENANCE AND REPAIRS WERE WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES AND WERE IN THE NATURE OF CURRENT REPAIRS , WHICH ARE ALLOWABLE AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE. HENCE, THE TREATING OF THE EXPENSES OF RS. 52,90,624/ - AS CAPITAL EXPENDITURE IS NOT JUSTIFIED. 14 ITA NO. 4781/DEL/2012 AY : 2008 - 09 THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALSO DISALLOWED RS. 9,54,768/ - OUT OF HIRE CHARGES PAID FOR AC, CRAIN, DG SETS, PHOT OCOPY MACHINE, TANKER AND TAXI HIRE CHARGES. THE ARGUMENT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS THAT NO EXPENDITURE HAS BEEN INCURRED IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR ON THE BASIS OF HIRE CHARGES. HOWEVER, THE APPELLANT HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE HIRE CHARGES IN A.Y. 2008 - 09 WERE G ROUPED UNDER MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES AND SAME WERE AT RS. 17,67,169/ - . THEREFORE, THE REASON APPLIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR DISALLOWANCE IS NOT SUSTAINABLE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT BROUGHT ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD TO PROVE THAT THE EXPENSES WERE N OT GENUINE. THE DISALLOWANCE MADE WITHOUT BRINGING ANY EVIDENCE ON RECORD CONTRARY TO THE EVIDENCES SUBMITTED BY THE APPELLANT WAS NOT JUSTIFIED. THESE EXPENSES HAVE BEEN INCURRED FOR GENUINE BUSINESS NEEDS OF THE APPELLANT. HENCE, THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ADHOC BASIS OF RS. 9,54,674/ - IS DELETED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS DISALLOWED RS. 13,80,790/ - OUT OF EVENT EXPENSES AND CONSULTANCY EXPENSES SHOWN UNDER THE HEAD REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE'. THESE EXPENSES HAVE BEEN INCURRED ON T HE VARIOUS EVENTS ORGANIZED BY THE APPELLANT ON THE EVENT NAME 'WOMEN IN INDIA CINEMA' FOR PROMOTING BUSINESS OF THE APPELLANT. THE APPELLANT HAS GIVEN THE NAME OF THE PARTY TO WHOM THESE PAYMENTS WERE MADE ALONGWITH THE N ECESSARY EVIDENCES, THEREFORE, DISALLOWANCE OF 25% EXPENSES OUT OF SAID EXPENSES WAS NOT JUSTIFIED. THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER HAS DISALLOWED RS. 25,15,644/ - OUT OF LEGAL AND PROFESSIONAL EXPENSES. THE APP ELLANT HAS PAID RS. 2,51,56,444/ - TO DSL DIVISION. ALL THE PAYMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE BY CROSS CHEQUE FOR THE SERVICES RENDERED BY VARIOUS PARTIES WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSES OF APPELLANT'S BUSINESS. THE APPELLANT HAS GIVEN ACCOUNT OF EXPENSES INCURRED FROM PAGE 136 TO 144 OF THE PAPER BOOK. ON 15 ITA NO. 4781/DEL/2012 AY : 2008 - 09 EXAMIN ATION OF THESE EXPENSES, IT IS SEEN THAT THESE EXPENSES HAVE BEEN PAID TO VARIOUS ADVOCATES, RETAINER SHIP FEES, SALARY AND OTHER LEGAL AND PROFESSIONAL SERVICES OBTAINED BY THE A PPELLANT. THEREFORE, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THESE EXPENSES WERE NOT GENUINE. FURTHER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT MADE ANY ENQUIRY AND HAS NOT BROUGHT ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD TO PROVE THAT THE EXPENSES UNDER THIS HEAD WERE NOT GENUINE. THEREFORE, THE ADHOC DISALLOWANCE MADE ON THE BASIS OF CONJECTURES AND SURMISES CANNOT BE SUSTAI NED. CONSIDERING THE FACTUAL POSITION DISCUSSED ABOVE, THE DISALLOWANCE MADE UNDER THE HEAD DIESEL EXPENSES, REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE EXPENSES, HIRE CHARGES, E VENT AND CONSULTANCY EXPENSES AND LEGAL AND PROFESSIONAL EXPENSES ARE DELETED. 6 .10 WE FIND THAT THE FIRST APPELLATE ORDER ON THE ISSUE IS COMPREHENSIVE AND REASONED ONE TO WHICH WE FULLY CONCUR WITH. IN THE ABSENCE OF REBUTTAL OF THE FACTS NOTED BY HIM, THE SAME IS UPHELD. THE GROUNDS NOS. 2, 3, 4, 7 AND 8 ARE ACCORDINGLY REJECTED. GROUND NO. 5 7 THE A.O. MADE THE DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST PAID ON ACCOUNT OF TDS OF RS. 23,934/ - . 7 . 1 THE LEARNED AR PLACED RELIANCE ON THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHEREAS THE FIRST APPELLATE ORDER HAS BEEN REFERRED BY THE LEARNED AR ON THE ISSUE. 7 . 2 WE FIND THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS DEALT WITH THE ISSUE IN PARA NOS. 9, 9.1 AND 9.2 WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS: 16 ITA NO. 4781/DEL/2012 AY : 2008 - 09 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT AND OBSERVATION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IT IS SEEN THAT THE PAYMENT OF INTEREST PERTAINS TO DELAYED P AYMENT OF SERVICE TAX AND UNC LAIMED SALARY AND BONUS PAYABLE TO PUNJAB WELFARE COMMISSIONER. IT IS NOTICED THAT NO PAYMENT RELATES TO INTEREST ON DELAYED PAYMENT OF TDS. SINCE, THE INTEREST OF PAY MENT RELATES TO DELAYED PAYMENT OF SERVICE TAX AND UNCLAIMED BONUS AND SALARY, THE SAME IS ALLOWABLE AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE. HENCE, THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASS ESSING OFFICER IS DELETED. 7 .3 THE FINDINGS OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) ARE THAT NO PAYMENT RELATES TO INTEREST ON DELAYED PAYMENT OF TDS HAS BEEN MADE AND THE INTEREST PAYMENT ACTUALLY RELATES TO DELAYED PAYMENTS OF SERVICE TAX AND UNCLAIMED BONUS AND SALARY. HENCE, IT IS ALLOWABLE AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE, HAS NOT BEEN REBUTTED BY THE REVENUE BEFORE US. WE THUS DO NOT FIND REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE FIRST APPE LLATE ORDER IN THIS REGARD. THE SAME IS UPHELD. THE GROUND NO. 5 IS ACCORDINGLY REJECTED. GROUND NO. 6 8 THE A.O. MADE DISALLOWANCE OF PRIOR PERIOD EXPENSES OF RS. 1,01,549/ - . THE SAME WAS CONTENDED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE EXPENDITURE OF RS. 1,01,549/ - REPRESENTS SERVICE TAX PAID ON FOREIGN SERVICES BELATEDLY ON CLARITY FROM THE SERVICE TAXATION AUTHORITIES. IT WAS SUBMITTED FURTHER THAT THE LIABILITY FOR EXPENSES BEING CONTINGENT IN NATURE CRYSTALLIZE D DURING THE YEAR AND ACCORDINGLY CLAIMED DEDUCTION IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE DECISION OF HON BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MODIPON LTD., 17 ITA NO. 4781/DEL/2012 AY : 2008 - 09 (2011) 334 ITR 102 HOLDING THAT WHERE CERTAIN EXPENSES CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE AS BUSINESS EXPENDITURE WERE DISALLOWED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE GRO U ND THAT THEY PERTAINED TO PRIOR PERIOD BUT TRIBUNAL FOUND THAT ALL THOSE EXPENSES WERE SETTLED DURING THE YEAR AND WERE COVERED U/S 43B, TRIBUNAL ORDER WAS NOT TO BE INTERFERED . REFERENCE OF DECISION OF DELHI BENCH OF THE TRI BUNAL IN THE CASE OF NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL CO - OPERATIVE FEDERATION OF INDIA LTD. VS. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, 304 ITR 303 WAS ALSO GIVEN WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT AN ASSESSEE CANNOT CLAIM TO DEDUCT AN ITEM OF LIABILITY WHICH IS NOT ACCEPT ED BY HIM BUT WHICH ON THE CONTRARY IS DISPUTED BY HIM. THE LIABILITY IS DEDUCTIBLE ONLY WHEN IT CRYSTALLIZES INTO AN ASCERTAINED LIABILITY. SOME OTHER DECISIONS HAVE ALSO BEEN CITED. BEING CONVINCED WITH THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS DELETED THE ADDITION. 8 .1 IN SUPPORT OF THE GROUND, LEARNED SR. DR HAS PLACED RELIANCE ON THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. SHE SUBMITTED THAT THE A.O. HAS OBSERVED THAT THE TAX AUDITORS HAVE DULY QUALIFIED THE EXPENDITURE AS PRIOR PERIOD EXPENDIT URE. 8 .2 LEARNED AR, ON THE OTHER HAND, REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 8 .3 WE FIND THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) AFTER DISCUSSING THE ISSUE IN DETAIL AS WELL AS THE CITED DECISIONS RELIED UPON BY THE A.O. , HAS GIVEN FOLLOWING FI NDINGS ON THIS ISSUE: 18 ITA NO. 4781/DEL/2012 AY : 2008 - 09 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT, OBSERVATION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND VARIOUS JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS RELIED UPON ON THIS ISSUE. IT IS SEEN THAT THE EXPENDITURE UNDER CONSIDERATION WAS PERTAINING TO PAYMENT OF S ERVICE TAX WHICH WAS NOT PAID BECAUSE OF THE CLARIFICATION PENDING WITH THE SERVICE TAX DEPARTMENT. THE SAME WAS PAID AFTER CLARIFICATION WAS RECEIVED. SINCE, THE LIABILITY TO PAY THE SERVICE TAX WAS CRYSTALLIZED DURING THE YEAR, THEREFORE, THE SAME IS RIG HTLY CLAIMED DURING THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL ON THE BASIS OF CRYSTALLIZATION OF EXPENSES. HENCE, THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DELETED. 8 .4 IN THE ABSENCE OF REBUTTAL OF THE FINDING S OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) THAT THE LIABILITY TO PAY THE SERVICE TAX WAS CRYSTALLIZED T HEREFORE, THE SAME WAS RIGHTLY CLAIMED DURING THE YEAR ON THE BASIS OF CRYSTALLIZATION OF EXPENSES BY THE REVENU E BEFORE US, WE ARE NOT INCLINED TO INTERFERE WITH THE FIRST APPELLATE ORDER. THE SAME IS UPHELD AND THE GROUND NO. 6 IS ACCORDINGLY REJECTED. 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. THE DECISION IS PRONOUN CED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 2 0 T H FEBRUARY , 2015. S D / - S D / - ( J.S. REDDY ) ( I.C. SUDHIR ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 2 0 T H FEBRUARY , 2015. RK/ - COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR ASST. REGISTRAR, ITAT, NEW DELHI