ACIT, Rohtak V. Sh. Ravinder Kumar Guganani, Rohtak

ITA 5129/DEL/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 65728 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-10-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: H
• Next Hearing Date: 09-10-2012
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 17-11-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MRS SHUMANA SEN
• Keywords: Gift; Accommodation entries
• Section: 142(1)

Judgement Text

I.T.A. NOS. 5128-5132/DEL/2011 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH H NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI U.B.S. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 5128/DEL/2011 A.Y. : 2003-04 ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ROHTAK CIRCLE, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, ROHTAK. VS. SMT. VEENA GUGANANI, D/O SH. RAMJI DASS, MAHAVIR MANDER GALI, 1076, CHAMELI MARKET, ROHTAK. (PAN. : ACRPG5799B) I.T.A. NO. 5129/DEL/2011 A.Y. : 2003-04 ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ROHTAK CIRCLE, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, ROHTAK. VS. SH. RAVINDER KUMAR GUGANANI, 1076, CHAMELI MARKET, ROHTAK. (PAN. : ACRPQ5776C) I.T.A. NO. 5130/DEL/2011 A.Y. : 2003-04 ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ROHTAK CIRCLE, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, ROHTAK. VS. SMT. RAJNI GUGANANI, 1076, CHAMELI MARKET, ROHTAK. (PAN. : ACRPG5850F) I.T.A. NO. 5131/DEL/2011 A.Y. : 2003-04 ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ROHTAK CIRCLE, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, ROHTAK. VS. SMT. JYOTI GUGANANI, D/O SH. MANGAT RAM, MAHAVIR MANDER GALI, 1076, CHAMELI MARKET, ROHTAK. (PAN. : ACRPG5800F) I.T.A. NO. 5132/DEL/2011 A.Y. : 2003-04 ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ROHTAK CIRCLE, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, ROHTAK. VS. SMT. URMIL GUGANANI, D/OSH. SOM NATH, MAHAVIR MANDER GALI, 790, CHAMEIL MARKET, ROHTAK (PAN. : ACRPG5774D) (APPELLANT) (APPELLANT) (APPELLANT) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) (RESPONDENT) (RESPONDENT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SH. MANOJ KUMAR, CA DEPARTMENT BY : MRS. SHUMANA SEN, SR. D.R. I.T.A. NOS. 5128-5132/DEL/2011 2 ORDER ORDER ORDER ORDER PER PER PER PER BENCH BENCH BENCH BENCH THESE APPEALS BY THE REVENUE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE COMMON ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) IN T HE CASE OF FIVE SEPARATE ASSESSES FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04. SINCE THE ISSUE INVOLVED IS COMMON AND CONNECTED, HENCE, THESE APPE ALS ARE BEING CONSOLIDATED AND DISPOSED OF BY THIS COMMON ORDER FO R THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. THIS CASE HAS BEEN ADJUDICATED BY TAKING THE FACTS IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS. RAVINDER KUMAR GUGANANI (I.T. A. NO. 5129/DEL/2011 (A.Y. 2003-04). 2. THE COMMON ISSUE RAISED IN THE REVENUE APPEALS READ AS UNDER:- THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) HAS ERRED I N LAW AS WELL AS ON FACTS IN QUASHING THE ASSESSMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS THE ASSESSEE NEVER RAISED OBJE CTION OVER THE JURISDICTION AND HAD PARTICIPATED IN THE A SSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE ISSUE OF JURISDICTION CANNOT BE R AISED IN APPEAL PROCEEDINGS AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 292BB OF THE I.T. ACT. AT THE TIME OF COMPLETION OF ASSES SMENT JURISDICTION OVER THE CASE VESTED WITH THE ACIT, CIR CLE, ROHTAK, THE DEPARTMENT HAS COLLECTED INDEPENDENT INFORMATION OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE BASIS OF WHICH N OTICE U/S. 148 WAS ISSUED BY THE ITO, WARD 25(3), DELHI AND NO TICE U/S. 148 WAS ISSUED VALIDLY. 3. IN THESE CASES DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, NEW DELHI CONDUCTED LARGE SCALE INVESTIGATIONS TO UNEARTH HUGE RACKET INVOLVING ACCOMMODATION ENTRY PROVIDERS. SUCH ENTRY PROVIDER S WERE FOUND TO I.T.A. NOS. 5128-5132/DEL/2011 3 BE INVOLVED IN GIVING ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES IN THE F ORM OF BOGUS GIFTS/ LOANS / SHARE APPLICATION MONEY/ CAPITAL GAI N ETC. THE ASSESSEE WAS ALSO ALLEGED TO HAVE TAKEN ACCOMMODATION ENTRIE S IN A BANK AT DELHI. IN VIEW OF THE INFORMATION RECEIVED, THE ASSE SSMENT OF THE ASSESSEE WAS REOPENED U/S. 147 BY ISSUING NOTICE U /S. 148 ON 26.3.2010 BY ITO, WARD 25(3), NEW DELHI. LATER ON, NOTICE U/S. 142(1) WAS ISSUED BY ITO, WARD 25(3), NEW DELHI ON 20.7.201 0. IN RESPONSE TO THIS NOTICE, THE COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE APPEAR ED BEFORE ITO, WARD 25(3), NEW DELHI AND FILED COPIES OF ACKNOWLEDGEMEN TS OF RETURN FOR THE A.Y. 2003-04 AND 2010-11 WITH THE REQUEST TO TR ANSFER THE CASE TO ITO, WARD-I, ROHTAK. ACCORDINGLY, THE CASE OF TH E ASSESSEE WAS TRANSFERRED TO ITO-I, ROHTAK ON 13.8.2010. THIS CA SE WAS FURTHER TRANSFERRED TO ACIT, ROHTAK AS THE ASSESSEE HAD FIL ED RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE A.Y. 2010-11 WITH THE ACIT, ROHTAK. THE AS SESSEE STATED THAT THE RETURN FILED WITH THE ITO, WARD-1, ROHTAK FOR T HE A.Y. 2003-04 ON 29.9.2003 MAY BE TREATED AS RETURN IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE UNDER REFERENCE. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, ASSESSING OFFICER MADE THE ADDITION OF THE AMOUNT OF BOGUS RECEIPT IN THIS REGARD AS WELL AS COMMISSION PAYMENT. 4. UPON ASSESSEES APPEAL LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE:- THAT UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE NOTICE ISSUED BY ASSESSING OFFICER, DELHI HAVING NO JURISDICTION OVER THE ASSESSEE IS NONEST IN THE EYES OF LAW AND CONSEQUENTIAL PROCEEDINGS IN REFERENCE TO THAT NOTICE IS ALSO BAD IN LAW AND VOID. HENCE, THE ASSESSMENT IS INVALID AND MAY BE QUASHED. I.T.A. NOS. 5128-5132/DEL/2011 4 4.1 LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) OBSERVED THAT ITO, WARD 25(3), NEW DELHI HAS ISSUED NOTICE U/S. 148 BASED ON THE INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM THE INVESTIGATION WING, NEW DELHI AT THE DELHI ADDRESS (PROBABLY AS REFLECTED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE A SSESSEE IN BANK OF RAJASTHAN, NEW DELHI) ON 26.3.2010 WHICH WAS FOLLOWE D BY NOTICE U/S. 142(1) DATED 21.7.2010. LATER ON, NOTICE U/S. 142 (1) WAS ISSUED BY ITO, WARD 25(3), NEW DELHI ON 20.7.2010. IN RESP ONSE TO THIS NOTICE, THE COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE APPEARED BEFORE ITO, W ARD 25(3), NEW DELHI AND FILED COPIES OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS OF RETUR N FOR THE A.Y. 2003-04 AND 2010-11 WITH THE REQUEST TO TRANSFER TH E CASE TO ITO, WARD-I, ROHTAK. ACCORDINGLY, THE CASE OF THE ASSE SSEE WAS TRANSFERRED TO ITO-I, ROHTAK ON 13.8.2010. THIS CASE WAS FURTH ER TRANSFERRED TO ACIT, ROHTAK AS THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED RETURN OF I NCOME FOR THE A.Y. 2010-11 WITH THE ACIT, ROHTAK. 4.2 LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) NOTED THAT ACIT , ROHTAK STARTED PROCEEDINGS FOR ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S. 142 (1) DATED 26.8.2010. NO NOTICE U/S. 148 WAS ISSUED BY THE A SSESSING OFFICER HAVING JURISDICTION OVER THE CASE I.E. ACIT, ROHTAK . LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) OBSERVED THAT NOTICE U/S. 148 ISS UED BY ITO, WARD 25(3), NEW DELHI WAS WITHOUT JURISDICTION AS HE WAS NOT THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAVING JURISDICTI ON OVER THE ASSESSEE I.E. ACIT, ROHTAK NEVER ISSUED ANY NOTICE U/S. 148 . IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) REF ERRED TO THE ASSESSEES SUBMISSIONS AND CASE LAWS AND HELD THAT T HE ASSESSMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS QUASHED AND THE GROUND OF APPEAL WAS ALLOWED. LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) DID NOT GO INTO THE MERITS OF THE CASE. HE HELD THAT THE REASSESSM ENT HAS BEEN HELD TO BE INVALID, THE ISSUES ON MERITS HAVE BECOME RED UNDANT. I.T.A. NOS. 5128-5132/DEL/2011 5 5. AGAINST THE ABOVE ORDER THE REVENUE IS IN APPEA L BEFORE US. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORDS. LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT ASSESS EE HAS FULLY PARTICIPATED IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. IT WAS ONLY ON THE REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE CASE WAS TRANSFERR ED FROM NEW DELHI TO ROHTAK. IN THIS VIEW OF THIS MATTER, LD. DEPART MENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT THE IMPUGNED ISSUE IS C OVERED BY SECTION 292BB. SHE SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSING OFFICE R AT DELHI AS WELL AS ROHTAK HAD CONCURRENT JURISDICTION. THE ASSESSE ES ADDRESS IN THE BANK ACCOUNTS WAS FOR NEW DELHI, AS A RESULT WHICH THE NOTICE WAS ISSUED AT DELHI ADDRESS. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE POI NTED OUT THAT NOW THE ASSESSEES CASE WAS BEING FILED AT ROHTAK. HEN CE, THE CASE WAS TRANSFERRED TO ASSESSING OFFICER AT ROHTAK ON THE R EQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE. LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE NEVER CHALLENGED THE ADDRESS AT NEW DELHI. IN THES E CIRCUMSTANCES, SHE CLAIMED THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ( A) ERRED IN QUASHING THE ASSESSMENT, ON THE GROUND THAT PROPER JURISDICTION WAS NOT OBTAINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 6.1 ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A). HE REFERRED TO THE SEVERAL CASE LAWS AS UNDER:- I) ITO VS. NASEEM FARMS LTD., ITAT, DELHI 134 TTJ 472 . II) C.I.T. VS. CEBON INDIA LTD., PUNJAB & HARYANA HI GH COURT, 229 CTR 188. III) C.I.T. VS. MUKESH KUMAR AGRAWAL, I.T.A. NO. 286 OF 2011, ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT. I.T.A. NOS. 5128-5132/DEL/2011 6 IV) C.I.T. VS. M/S DECO GLASS, I.T.A. NO. 180 OF 200 4, ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT. V) C.I.T. VS. PANORMA BUILDERS PVT. LTD., GUJARAT HIGH COURT, TAX APPEAL NO. 435 OF 2011. VI) CROSS INVESTMENT PVT. LTD. DHC, I.T.A. NO. 111/200 9. ON THE BASIS OF THESE CASE LAWS LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) H AS CORRECTLY QUASHED THE ASSESSMENT IN THESE CASES AS THE MATTER STANDS COVERED BY THE AFORESAID CASE LAWS. 7. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORDS. WE FIND THAT FROM THE BANK ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE AT DELHI, IT WAS GATHERED THAT ASSESSEE WAS RECEIVING A CCOMMODATION ENTRIES. IN THIS BANK A/C ASSESSEE HAD GIVEN ADDRE SS AT DELHI. NOTICE U/S. 148 WAS ISSUED WHICH WAS FOLLOWED BY NOTICE U/S. 142(1). IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE U/S. 142(1), ISSUED BY THE ITO, WARD 25(3), NEW DELHI, THE ASSESSEES COUNSEL APPEARED BEFORE HIM AN D SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ASSESSED WITH THE ITO, WARD-I, ROHT AK AND FURNISHED THE COPY OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF RETURN WITH THE REQU EST TO TRANSFER THE RECORDS TO ITO, WARD-I, ROHTAK. THE CASE WAS A CCORDINGLY, TRANSFERRED FROM NEW DELHI FROM ROHTAK. IN THESE CI RCUMSTANCES, LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) HAS NOTED THAT NO NOT ICE U/S. 148 WAS ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAVING THE JURISDI CTION OVER THE CASE I.E. ACIT, ROHTAK. IN OUR OPINION, THIS IS NOT V ALID AS PER THE FACTS OF THE CASE. IN THESE CASES, THE ASSESSEES ADDRESS WAS OBTAINED FROM THE BANK RECORDS IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN A DDRESS OF DELHI AND ON THE SAME ADDRESS THE NOTICE U/S. 148 WAS ISS UED FOLLOWED BY NOTICE U/S. 142(1). IN RESPONSE TO THAT NOTICE AS SESSEE APPEARED I.T.A. NOS. 5128-5132/DEL/2011 7 BEFORE THE ITO, WARD 25(3), NEW DELHI AND REQUESTE D THAT ASSESSEES CASE IS BEING ASSESSED WITH ITO, WARD-I, ROHTAK AND REQUESTED TO TRANSFER THE RECORDS TO ITO, ROHTAK FROM NEW DELHI. THUS, WE FIND THAT THERE IS NO CASE FOR ASSESSEE TO HAVE ANY GRIEVANCE IN THIS CASE AS ASSESSEE WAS ISSUED NOTICE U/S. 148 AT AN ADDRESS G IVEN TO THE BANK BY THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF. FROM THE SAME ADDRESS, IN RES PONSE TO THE NOTICES ASSESSEE RESPONDED AND SUBMITTED THAT HE/SHE IS BEING ASSESSED AT ROHTAK AND REQUESTED THAT THE RECORDS M AY BE TRANSFERRED. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION IN THESE CI RCUMSTANCES, IT CAN NOT BE SAID THAT ASSESSEES CASE WAS REOPENED AND A SSESSED WITHOUT ASSUMING PROPER JURISDICTION. WE FIND THAT THE CASE LAWS RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEES COUNSEL ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO THE F ACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. 7.1 IN THE CASE OF I.T.O. VS. NASEEM FARMS LTD. CITED ABOVE, THE FACTS OF THE CASE WERE THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAD ITS O FFICE IN NEW DELHI AND HAD BEEN FILING THE RETURN WITH THE ASSES SING OFFICER, NEW DELHI. THE NOTICE WAS ISSUED U/S. 148 BY THE ASSESS ING OFFICER AT AGRA, WHO WAS NOT SHOWN TO BE THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF T HE ASSESSEE. NOR HE WAS VESTED THE JURISDICTION OF THE ASSESSEE. WE FIND THAT FACTS IN THIS CASE LAW ARE QUITE DISTINCT FROM THE FACTS IN T HE PRESENT CASE. BECAUSE IN THE PRESENT CASE THE ADDRESS OF DELHI W AS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE BANK ACCOUNT AT DELHI. IN THIS VIE W OF THE MATTER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER AT DELHI CAN BE SAID TO HAVE CONC URRENT JURISDICTION. PURSUANT TO THE NOTICE ISSUED AT DELHI ADDRESS, ASSE SSEE PARTICIPATED AND REQUESTED THAT THE CASE MAY BE TRANSFERRED FROM DELHI TO ROHTAK AS HE WAS BEING ASSESSED THERE. IN THESE CIRCUMSTA NCES, THE CASE WAS TRANSFERRED TO ITO, WARD-1, ROHTAK, WHERE THE ASSES SMENT WAS FINALLY CONCLUDED. I.T.A. NOS. 5128-5132/DEL/2011 8 7.2 IN THE CASE OF C.I.T. VS. CEBON INDIA LTD. C.I .T.(A) & ITAT HAD GIVEN A CONCURRENT FINDING THAT THE NOTICE U/S. 14 3(2) WAS NOT SERVED WITHIN THE STIPULATED TIME. IT WAS HELD THAT MERE G IVING OF DISPATCH NUMBER WILL NOT RENDER THE SAID FINDING TO BE PERVE RSE. 7.3 IN THE CASE OF C.I.T. VS. MUKESH KUMAR AGGARWAL C ITED ABOVE, THE HONBLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT HAS ADJUDICATED ON TH E FACTS THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS RETURNED THE FINDINGS THAT THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF THE ACT WAS ADMITTEDLY NOT ISSUED IN THIS CASE. 7.4 IN OTHER CASES LAWS CITED ABOVE BY THE LD. COUN SEL OF THE ASSESSEE THERE WAS FINDING THAT NOTICE U/S. 143(2) WAS NOT SERVED. 8. TO RECAPITULATE THE FACTS OF THESE CASES IS DIF FERENT FROM THE ABOVE CASE LAWS. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ITO, WAR D-25(3), NEW DELHI WAS HAVING JURISDICTION OVER THE ASSESSEE IN AS MUCH AS ADDRESS OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE BANK ACCOUNT WAS GIVEN OF DELHI. TH E NOTICE U/S. 148 WAS ISSUED ON THIS ADDRESS AND NOTICE U/S. 142(1) W AS ALSO SERVED UPON ON THE SAME ADDRESS. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, O N THE REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE THE CASE RECORDS WAS TRANSFERRED TO THE IT O, WARD-I, ROHTAK AND SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WERE TAKEN UP BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AT ROHTAK. IN RESPONSE TO THE N OTICE ASSESSEE HAS STATED THAT THE RETURNS WERE FILED WITH THE ITO, WA RD-I, ROHTAK FOR THE A.Y. 2003-04 ON 29.9.2003 MAY BE TREATED AS RETU RN IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE UNDER REFERENCE. 9. IN THE BACKGROUND OF THE AFORESAID DISCUSSIONS, WE FIND THAT ASSESSMENT IN THIS CASE CANNOT BE SAID TO HAVE BEEN FRAMED WITHOUT ASSUMING PROPER JURISDICTION. WE FIND THAT THE NO TICE WAS VERY MUCH ISSUED AT THE ADDRESS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THE ORDERS OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER I.T.A. NOS. 5128-5132/DEL/2011 9 OF INCOME TAX (A) QUASHING THE ASSESSMENT CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. HENCE, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A). SINCE THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) H AS NOT ADJUDICATED UPON THE MERITS OF THE CASE, THE MATTER IS BEING REMITTED TO THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) TO CONSIDE R THE MERITS OF THE CASE AND PASS A SPEAKING ORDER. 10. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE FIVE APPEALS FILED BY T HE REVENUE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 19/10/2012. SD/ SD/ SD/ SD/- -- - SD/ SD/ SD/ SD/- -- - [ [[ [U.B.S. BEDI U.B.S. BEDI U.B.S. BEDI U.B.S. BEDI] ]] ] [SHAMIM YAHYA] [SHAMIM YAHYA] [SHAMIM YAHYA] [SHAMIM YAHYA] JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATE 19/10/2012 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, I TAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER, DEPUTY REGISTRAR, ITAT, DELHI BENCHES