BG Exploraiton & Production India Ltd., New Delhi V. Addl. DIT, Dehradun

ITA 500/DEL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7075 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-02-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 13-01-2016
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 28-01-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ANUJ ARORA
• Assessee Lawyers: ANSHUL SACHAR
• Keywords: Double taxation relief; Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice; Additional evidence; Permanent establishment
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

ITA NO. 500/DEL/2013 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH A, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI L.P. SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A.NO. 500 /DEL/2013 A.Y. : 2006 - 07 BG EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION INDIA LIMITED, C/O NANGIA & COMPANY SUITE 4A, PLAZA M-6, JASOLA, NEW DELHI 110 025 (PAN: AAACE4569K) VS. ADDL. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), INCOME TAX OFFICE, SUBHASH ROAD, DEHRADUN 248001 UTTARAKHAND (APPELLANT) (APPELLANT) (APPELLANT) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) (RESPONDENT) (RESPONDENT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SH. AJAY VOHRA, SR. ADV. & ANSHUL SACHAR, ADV. DEPARTMENT BY : SH. ANUJ ARORA, CIT(DR) DATE OF HEARING : DATE OF HEARING : DATE OF HEARING : DATE OF HEARING : 13 1313 13- -- -0 00 01 11 1- -- -201 201 201 2016 66 6 DATE OF ORDER : DATE OF ORDER : DATE OF ORDER : DATE OF ORDER : 0 00 03 33 3- -- -0 00 02 22 2- -- -201 201 201 2016 66 6 ORDER ORDER ORDER ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU : JM PER H.S. SIDHU : JM PER H.S. SIDHU : JM PER H.S. SIDHU : JM THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL AGAINST THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 19/11/2012 PASSED BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-II, DEHRADUN ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- BASED ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, YOUR APPELLANT RESPECTFULLY SUBMITS THE FOLLOWING GROUND S WHICH ARE WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO EACH OTHER: ITA NO. 500/DEL/2013 2 GROUND NO.1 THAT BASED ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ORDER OF THE AO A ND SUSTAINING THE DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 40(A)(I) WITH REGARDS TO PAYMENTS OF RS. 90,504,600 MADE TO MIS G X TECHNOLOGY LIMITED FOR THE OUTRIGHT PURCHASE OF GEO LOGICAL DATA. GROUND NO.2 THAT BASED ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE PAYMENTS OF RS . 90,504,600 TO MIS GX TECHNOLOGY LIMITED FOR OUTRIGH T PURCHASE OF GEOLOGICAL DATA WAS SUBJECT TO WITHHOLD ING TAX UNDER SECTION 195 OF THE ACT. GROUND NO.3 THAT BASED ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT TLETERMINING WHETHER OR NOT THE PAYMENTS OF RS. 90,504,600 TO MIS GX TECHNOLOGY LIM ITED FOR OUTRIGHT PURCHASE OF GEOLOGICAL DATA CONSTITUTE D 'INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX IN INDIA'. GROUND NO.4 THAT BASED ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT ACCEPTING THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT THAT THE PAYMENTS TO MIS GX TECHNOLOGY LIMITED FOR OUTRIGHT ITA NO. 500/DEL/2013 3 PURCHASE OF GEOLOGICAL DATA WAS NOT CHARGEABLE TO T AX IN TERMS OF THE DOUBLE TAXATION AVOIDANCE AGREEMENT BE TWEEN INDIA AND UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. GROUND NO.5 THAT BASED ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DENYING NATURAL JUSTICE TO THE APPELLANT BY NOT PROVIDING SUFFICIENT TIME TO FURNISH THE TAX RE SIDENCY CERTIFICATE OF MIS GX TECHNOLOGY LIMITED. YOUR APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE ERRONEOUS ORDER BE CA NCELLED AND APPROPRIATE RELIEF MAY BE GRANTED TO THE APPELL ANT. YOUR APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD TO, ALTER, AMEND , VARY, OMIT, SUBSTITUTE OR DELETE ANY OF THE AFOREMENTIONE D GROUNDS OF APPEAL OR ADD A NEW GROUND OR GROUNDS OF APPEAL AT ANY TIME BEFORE OR AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL . 2. THE FACTS NARRATED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES A RE NOT DISPUTED BY BOTH THE PARTIES, THEREFORE, NOT REPEATED HERE FOR THE SAKE CONVENIENCE. 3. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSES SEE, SHRI AJAY VOHRA, SR. ADVOCATE ALONGWITH ANSHUL SACHAR, ADV. FILED THE AP PLICATION FOR ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IN TERMS OF RULE 29 OF THE INCO ME TAX (APPELLATE TRIBUNAL) RULES, 1963 IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS STATED THAT T HE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES FILED BY THE ASSESSEE MAY BE ACCEPTED AND THE ADDITION IN DISPUTE MAY BE DELETED. ITA NO. 500/DEL/2013 4 4. ON THE CONTRARY, LD. D.R. SHRI ANUJ ARORA, CIT(D R) OPPOSED THE ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AT TH IS STAGE AND STATED THAT THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE REQU IRED THOROUGH INVESTIGATION AT THE LEVEL OF THE AO AND STATED THAT IT MAY BE SENT TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR EXAMINATION. LD. DR FURTHER STATED THAT THE ADD ITION IN DISPUTE MAY NOT BE DELETED WITHOUT VERIFYING THE VERACITY OF THE ADDIT IONAL EVIDENCES FILED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 5. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSING THE RELEVANT RECORDS ESPECIALLY THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES, T HE APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING IN WHICH THE A SSESSEE HAS ATTACHED THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES I.E. TAX RESIDENCY CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE TAX AUTHORITIES OF USA CERTIFYING THAT GX TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION IS RESIDENT OF USA FOR THE PURPOSES OF TAXATION AND CERTIFICATE DATED 31.1.200 6 ISSUED BY GX TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION CERTIFYING THAT IT IS RESIDENT OF USA I N TERMS OF ARTICLE 4 OF THE INDIA US DOUBLE TAXATION AVOIDANCE AGREEMENT (DTAA) AND D OES NOT HAVE PERMANENT ESTABLISHMENT IN INDIA IN TERMS OF ARTICL E 5 OF THE DTAA. THE CONTENTS OF THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES UNDER RULE 29 OF THE ITAT RULE S ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER:- BG GROUP IS PRESENT IN INDIA THROUGH BRANCH OFFICE AND PROJECT OFFICES OF ITS CAYMAN ISLANDS ENTITY, BG EXPLORATIO N & PRODUCTION ITA NO. 500/DEL/2013 5 INDIA LIMITED ('BGEPIL' OR' 'THE APPLICANT') WHICH IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF PROSPECTING FOR, EXPLORATION AND PRODUC TION OF CRUDE OIL AND NATURAL GAS. THE APPLICANT IS INVOLVED IN THE FOLLOWING PRODUCTI ON SHARING CONTRACTS (UPSCS') FOR EXPLORATION AND PRODUCTION O F PETROLEUM IN THE DESIGNATED CONTRACT AREAS: A) PANNA AND MUKTA FIELDS; B) MID AND SOUTH TAPTI GAS FIELDS; THE APPLICANT OPERATES THROUGH A JOINT VENTURE ('JV ') ARRANGEMENT WITH OTHER CONTRACTORS SUCH AS OIL AND NATURAL GAS CORPORATION LIMITED ('ONGC') AND RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED (' RIL') FOR ITS SHARE OF PARTICIPATING INTEREST. THE APPLICANT HAD ENTERED INTO A MASTER GEOPHYSICAL DATA-USE LICENCE AGREEMENT DATED 21.01.2006 WITH GX TECHNOLO GY CORPORATION ('GX TECHNOLOGY') FOR GRANTING NON-EXCL USIVE, NON- TRANSFERABLE LICENCE TO USE GEOPHYSICAL AND GEOLOGI CAL INFORMATION FOR PROSPECTING AND EXPLORATION OF MINERAL OILS. TI TLE TO THE SAID INFORMATION WAS NOT TRANSFERRED TO THE APPLICANT AN D REMAINED WITH GX TECHNOLOGY. DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07, THE APPLICANT H AD PAID RS. 90,504,600 TO GX CORPORATION FOR PURCHASE OF GEOPHY SICAL AND GEOLOGICAL INFORMATION UNDER THE MASTER GEOPHYSICAL DATA-USE LICENCE AGREEMENT DATED 21.01.2006. ITA NO. 500/DEL/2013 6 THE APPLICANT DID NOT DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE UNDER SE CTION 195 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 ('ACT') ON THE AFORESAID PAYME NTS SINCE SUCH PAYMENTS WERE NOT LIABLE TO TAX IN INDIA AS BUSINES S INCOME IN ABSENCE OF PERMANENT ESTABLISHMENT ('PE') OF GX COR PORATION IN INDIA IN TERMS OF ARTICLE 5 READ WITH ARTICLE 7 OF THE INDIA- USA DTAA. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS INITIAT ED FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DIRE CTED THE APPLICANT TO PROVIDE DETAIL OF MISCELLANEOUS EXPENS ES. ACCORDINGLY, THE APPLICANT VIDE SUBMISSION DATED 16.12.2010 PROVIDED DETAIL OF SUCH MISCELLANEOUS EX PENSES WHICH INCLUDED, INTER-ALIA, DETAIL OF AFORESAID EXPENSES OF 90,504,600 PAID BY THE APPLICANT TO GX CORPORATION. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, HOWEVER, PASSED ORDER DATED 18.02.2011, UNDER SECTION 143(3) R.W.S. 263 OF THE ACT DISALLOW ING ALL THE EXPENSES, INCLUDING THE AFORESAID EXPENSE OF 90,504 ,600 BY SUMMARILY HOLDING THAT THE APPLICANT HAD NOT FILED DETAIL OF MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT DE TAILS HAD ALREADY BEEN FILED VIDE SUBMISSION DATED 16.12.2010 . AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER DATED 18.02.2011 PASSED BY T HE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE APPLICANT FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT( A), WHO, VIDE ORDER DATED 21.03.2011, DISALLOWED THE AFORESAID EX PENSE OF 90,504,600 BY HOLDING THAT THE APPLICANT HAD BEEN T O FURNISH TAX RESIDENCY CERTIFICATE (TRC') ISSUED BY THE TAX AUTH ORITIES OF USA CERTIFYING THAT GX TECHNOLOGY WAS TAX RESIDENT OF U SA. ITA NO. 500/DEL/2013 7 IN ORDER TO REBUT THE FINDINGS OF THE CIT(A), WHICH BECAME KNOWN FROM THE APPELLATE ORDER, FOR THE FIRST TIME, THE A PPLICANT NOW SEEKS TO PLACE ON RECORD THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS: TAX RESIDENCY CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE TAX AUTHORI TIES OF USA CERTIFYING THAT GX TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION IS RE SIDENT OF USA FOR PURPOSES OF TAXATION CERTIFICATE DATED 31.01.2006 ISSUED BY GX TECHNOLOG IES CERTIFYING THAT IT IS RESIDENT OF USA IN TERMS OF A RTICLE 4 OF THE INDIA US DTAA AND DOES NOT HAVE PE IN INDIA IN TERMS OF ARTICLE 5 THEREOF. THE AFORESAID EVIDENCE IS CRUCIAL TO REBUT THE ALLE GATIONS LEVELLED BY THE CIT(A) AND MAY KINDLY BE ADMITTED AS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IN TERMS OF RULE 29 OF THE ITAT RULES FOR JUDICIOUS DI SPOSAL OF THE PRESENT APPEAL. THE SAID EVIDENCE COULD NOT BE FILE D EARLIER SINCE THE SAME WAS NOT REQUISITIONED BY THE CIT (A), BEFO RE DECIDING THE ISSUE AGAINST THE APPELLANT. JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS: JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS: JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS: JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS: REFERENCE, IN THIS REGARD, MAY BE MADE TO THE DECIS ION OF THE JURISDICTIONAL DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. TEXT HUNDRED INDIA PVT. LTD.:239 CTR 263. IN THAT CASE, THEIR LO RDSHIPS HELD THAT RULE 29 OF ITAT RULES, PERMITTING THE TRIBUNAL TO A DMIT ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IS MADE TO ENABLE THE TRIBUNAL TO ADMIT AN Y ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE WHICH WOULD BE NECESSARY TO DO SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE IN THE MATTER. THEIR LORDSHIPS FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE V ARIOUS PROCEDURES, INCLUDING THAT RELATING TO FILING OF ADDITIONAL EVI DENCE, IS HANDMADE ITA NO. 500/DEL/2013 8 FOR JUSTICE AND JUSTICE SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO BE CHOKED ONLY BECAUSE OF SOME INADVERTENT ERROR OR OMISSION ON TH E PART OF ONE OF THE PARTIES TO LEAD EVIDENCE. THE RELEVANT OBSERVATIONS OF THE COURT ARE REPRODUC ED HEREUNDER: '13. THE AFORESAID CASE LAW CLEARLY LAYS DOWN A NEA T PRINCIPLE OF LAW THAT DISCRETION LIES WITH THE TRIB UNAL TO ADMIT ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE ONCE THE TRIBUNAL AFFIRMS THE OPINION THAT DOING SO WOULD BE NECESSAR Y FOR PROPER ADJUDICATION OF THE MATTER. THIS CAN BE DONE EVEN WHEN APPLICATION IS FILED BY ONE OF THE PARTIES TO THE APPEAL AND IT NEED NOT TO BE A SUO MOTTO ACTION OF THE TRI BUNAL. THE AFORESAID RULE IS MADE ENABLING THE TRIBUNAL TO ADM IT THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IN ITS DISCRETION IF THE TRIBUN AL HOLDS THE VIEW THAT SUCH ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE WOULD BE NECESSA RY TO DO SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE IN THE MATTER. IT IS WELL SETTL ED THAT THE PROCEDURE IS HANDMADE OF JUSTICE AND JUSTICE SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO BE CHOKED ONLY BECAUSE OF SOME INADVERTE NT ERROR OR OMISSION ON THE PART OF ONE OF THE PARTIES TO'LE AD EVIDENCE AT THE APPROPRIATE STAGE. ONCE IT IS FOUND THAT THE PARTY INTENDING TO LEAD EVIDENCE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL FOR THE FIRST TIME WAS PREVENTED BY SUFFICIENT CAUSE TO LEAD SUCH AN EVIDENCE AND THAT. THIS EVIDENCE WOULD HAVE MATERIA L BEARING ON THE ISSUE WHICH NEEDS TO BE DECIDED BY T HE TRIBUNAL AND ENDS OF JUSTICE DEMAND ADMISSION OF SU CH AN EVIDENCE, THE TRIBUNAL CAN PASS AN ORDER TO THAT EF FECT.' (EMPHASIS SUPPLIED) ITA NO. 500/DEL/2013 9 KIND ATTENTION IS ALSO INVITED TO THE DECISION OF T HE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OFCIT V. VIRGIN SECURITIES & CRED ITS (P) LTD.: 332 ITR 396, WHEREIN THE HIGH COURT, IN THE CONTEXT OF POWE RS OF THE CIT(A) TO ADMIT ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE, HELD THAT THE CIT(A) MAY ADMIT EVIDENCE AFTER OBTAINING A REMAND REPORT FROM THE A SSESSING OFFICER, IF THE EVIDENCE SOUGHT TO BE ADDUCED BY THE APPLICA NT IS CRUCIAL, TO THE DISPOSAL OF THE APPEAL. THE RELEVANT OBSERVATIO NS OF THE COURT ARE AS UNDER: '8. THE AFORESAID CONTENTION APPEARS TO BE DEVOID O F ANY MERIT. IT IS A MATTER OF RECORD THAT BEFORE ADM ITTING THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE, THE CIT (A) HAD OBTAINED REMAND REPORT FROM THE AG. WHILE SUBMITTING HIS REPORT, THE A G HAD NOT OBJECTED TO THE ADMISSION O F THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE, BUT HAD MERELY REITERATED THE CONTENTIONS IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS. IT IS ONLY AF TER CONSIDERING THE REMAND REPORT, THE CIT (A) HAD ADMITTED THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. IT CANNOT BE DISPUTED THAT THIS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE WAS CRUCIAL TO THE DISPOSAL OF THE APPEAL AND HAD A DIRECT BEARING ON THE GUANTUM OF CLAIM MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH WAS TAKEN BEFORE THE AO REMAINS THE SAME. THE AO HAD TAKEN ADVERSE NOTE BECAUSE OF NON-PRODUCTION OF CERTAIN DOCUMENTS TO SUPPORT THE PLEA AND IT WAS IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE ADDITIO NAL EVIDENCE WAS SUBMITTED BEFORE THE CIT (A). IT CANNO T BE SAID NOT IS IT THE CASE OF THE REVENUE THAT ADDI TIONAL EVIDENCE IS NOT PERMISSIBLE AT ALL BEFORE THE FIRST ITA NO. 500/DEL/2013 10 APPELLATE AUTHORITY. ON THE CONTRARY, RULE 46A OF T HE ACT PERMITS THE CIT (A) TO ADMIT ADDITIONAL EVIDENC E IF HE FINDS THAT THE SAME IS CRUCIAL FOR DISPOSAL OF T HE APPEAL. IN THE FACTS OF THIS CASE, THEREFORE, WE AR E OF THE OPINION THAT ON THIS ASPECT, NO SUBSTANTIAL QUE STION OF LAW ARISES.' (EMPHASIS SUPPLIED). PRAYER PRAYER PRAYER PRAYER IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID, IT IS RESPECTFULLY PRAYED THAT THE AFQRESAID OPINION~MAY KINDLY BE ADMITTED AS ADDITIO NAL EVIDENCE BY EXERCISING THE DISCRETION CONFERRED ON THIS HON' BLE TRIBUNAL UNDER RULE 29 OF THE ITAT RULES. THE APPLICANT TRUSTS THAT THE REQUEST SHALL MERIT S YMPATHETIC CONSIDERATION AND SHALL BE ACCEDED TO. AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD IS PRAYED FOR. 6. AFTER GOING THROUGH THE IMPUGEND ORDER AS WELL A S THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE RAISED IN THE APPLICATION FOR ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES, WE ARE OF THE CONSDIERED VIEW THAT THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE S I.E. TAX RESIDENCY CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE TAX AUTHORITIES OF USA CE RTIFYING THAT GX TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION IS RESIDENT OF USA FOR THE PURPOSES OF TAXATION AND CERTIFICATE DATED 31.1.2006 ISSUED BY GX TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION CER TIFYING THAT IT IS RESIDENT OF USA IN TERMS OF ARTICLE 4 OF THE INDIA US DOUBLE TA XATION AVOIDANCE AGREEMENT (DTAA) AND DOES NOT HAVE PERMANENT ESTABLISHMENT IN INDIA IN TERMS OF ARTICLE 5 OF THE DTAA ARE VERY MUCH ESSENTIAL EVIDENCES FOR D ECIDING THE ISSUE IN DIPSUTE WHICH REQUIRE THOROUGH EXAMINATION AT THE LEVEL OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THEREFORE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, AS AGREED BY BOTH THE PARTIES, WE ACCEPT THE ITA NO. 500/DEL/2013 11 APPLICATION FOR ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES F ILED BY THE ASSESSEE U/R 29 OF THE ITAT, RULES, 1963 AND SEND BACK THE ISSUE I N DISPUTE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR EXAMINATION AND VERIFYING THE AFORESAID ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES AND THEN DECIDE THE ADDITION IN DISPUTE AFRESH, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, AFTER GIVING FULL OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE OF BEING HEARD. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE STAND S ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 03/02/2016. S SS SD DD D/ // /- -- - S SS SD DD D/ // /- -- - [ [[ [L.P. SAHU L.P. SAHU L.P. SAHU L.P. SAHU] ]] ] [H.S. SIDHU] [H.S. SIDHU] [H.S. SIDHU] [H.S. SIDHU] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATE 03/02/2016 SRBHATNAGAR SRBHATNAGAR SRBHATNAGAR SRBHATNAGAR COPY FORWARDED TO: COPY FORWARDED TO: COPY FORWARDED TO: COPY FORWARDED TO: - -- - 1. APPELLANT - 2. RESPONDENT - 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, DELHI BENCHES