DCIT, New Delhi V. M/s. Tropicana Beverages Company, New Delhi

ITA 5183/DEL/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 65669 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 10 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-10-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: H
• Next Hearing Date: 03-10-2012
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 22-11-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MRS SHUMANA SEN
• Keywords: Business income; Commercial expediency

Judgement Text

ITA NO. 5183/DEL/2010 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. 5183/DEL/2010 A.Y. : 2003-04 DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 16(1), NEW DELHI VS. M/S TROPICANA BEVERAGES COMPANY, 13 TH FLOOR, MOHAN DEV BUILDING, 13, TOLSTOY MARG, NEW DELHI 110 001 (PAN/GIR NO. : AABCT17633G) (APPELLANT ) (APPELLANT ) (APPELLANT ) (APPELLANT ) (RESPONDENT ) (RESPONDENT ) (RESPONDENT ) (RESPONDENT ) ASSESSEE BY : SH. C.S. AGGARWAL, SR. ADV., SH. SHAILESH GUPTA, ADV. DEPARTMENT BY : MRS. SHUMANA SEN, SR. D.R. ORDER ORDER ORDER ORDER PER SHAMIM YAHYA: AM PER SHAMIM YAHYA: AM PER SHAMIM YAHYA: AM PER SHAMIM YAHYA: AM THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST TH E ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-XIX, NEW DEL HI DATED 01.9.2010 PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04. 2. THE GROUNDS RAISED READ AS UNDER:- THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) HAS ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW BY DELETING ADDITION OF ` 13,48,7 52/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF SALE OF RAW MATERIAL BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY TO ITS HOLDING COMPANY AT LESS THAN THE MARKET PRICE ON THE GROUND THAT IT WAS A DISTRESS SALE, IGNORING THAT : ITA NO. 5183/DEL/2010 2 I). IF THE HOLDING COMPANY COULD FIND A MARKET FOR THE RAW MATERIAL THEN THE SALE COULD HAVE BEEN MADE BY THE SUBSIDIARY ASSESSEE COMPANY DIRECTLY TO THE BUYERS INSTEAD OF TO THE HOLDING COMPANY. II) IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE SALE OF THE RAW MATERIAL BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY TO ITS HOLDING COMPANY AT LESS THAN THE MARKET PRICE CANNOT BE SAID TO BE A DISTRESS SALE. 3. IN THIS CASE THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WAS ENGAGED IN TRADING OF PACKED FRUIT JUICES UNDER THE BRAND NAME TROPICANA . ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER FOUND THAT ASSESSEE COMPANY PURCHA SES FINISHED GOODS FROM DYNAMIX DAIRY INDUSTRIES LTD., PUNE AND OPER ATED THROUGH ITS VARIOUS LOCATIONS SPREAD ACROSS MANY STATES IN INDIA. DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS R EPORTED A TOTAL SALES AND OTHER INCOME OF ` 31.90 CRORES AS AGAINST THE PREVIOUS YEARS FIGURE OF ` 28.09 CRORES. ASSESSING OFFICER OBS ERVED THAT FROM THE PERUSAL OF THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT ASSESSEE CO MPANY, IT WAS SEEN THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAD AN OPENING STOCK OF ` 1,58,02,000/- OF PACKING AND RAW MATERIAL OUT OF WHICH SALES TO THE TUNE OF ` 79,33,000/- WERE EFFECTED DURING THE YEAR, THUS LEA VING A BALANCE OF ` 73,69,000/- WHICH SHOULD HAVE FORMED A PART OF ASSES SEES CLOSING STOCK AT THE END OF THE YEAR. HOWEVER, IT WAS NO T INCLUDED IN THE CLOSING STOCK. UPON ASSESSING OFFICER S ENQUIR Y, IN THIS REGARD, ASSESSEE GAVE FOLLOWING RESPONSE:- ITA NO. 5183/DEL/2010 3 THE COMPANY IMPORTED RAW MATERIAL NAMELY FRUIT JUICE CONCENTRATE AND ALSO PURCHASED LAMINATE (PACKI NG MATERIAL) DURING THE YEAR ENDED MARCH 31, 2002 FOR T HE PURPOSE OF MANUFACTURING TROPICANA TWISTER A PROPO SED NEW BRAND OF JUICE DRINKS. HOWEVER, DUE TO A CHAN GE IN OUR OUTLOOK ON THE MARKET AND LACK OF DEMAND FOR THE PROD UCT IN THE INDIAN MARKET, THE PROPOSED LAUNCH OF TROPIC ANA TWISTER WAS CANCELLED. THE CONCENTRATE WAS IMPORTED FORM M/S DHOLDER EURO CITRUS BV, NETHERLANDS AFTER PAYMENT OF CUSTOMS DU TY. THE PACKING MATERIAL LAMINATE WAS PURCHASED FROM TETRA PA K INDIA LIMITED. THE LAMINATE WHICH WAS PURCHASED FROM TETRA PAK INDIA LIMITED WAS SPECIFIC TO PRODUCT AND HAD THE BRAND TROPICANA TWISTER PRINTED ON IT. THUS, IT COULD NOT BE USED FOR ANY OTHER PRODUCT. THE MANAGEMENT IN ORDER TO RECOVER AT LEAST PART OF THE COST SOLD IT TO A T HIRD PARTY NAMELY M/S ANKIT PAPER COMPANY. THE SAID LAMINATE WAS SOLD FOR A SUM OF ` 186,673/- WHICH WAS PURCHASED A T COST OF ` 7,555,291/-. THIS DECISION TO SELL THE WASTE L AMINATE WAS ALSO TAKEN TO AVERT THE CONTINUED COST OF STORING T HE SAME. THE MANAGEMENT ALSO DECIDED TO SELL THE OLD CONCENTRATE OF TROPICANA TWISTER, AS ITS SHELF LI FE WAS GOING TO EXPIRE. THE COMPANY SOLD THE CONCENTRATE AT COST PRICE TO M/S PEPSICO INDIA HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED, CHEMBUR, ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF JUICE BASED PROD UCTS FOR ` 7,747,000/-. ITA NO. 5183/DEL/2010 4 THE AMOUNT REALIZED BY THE COMPANY ON SALE OF LAMINATE AND CONCENTRATE HAS BEEN INCLUDED IN THE TURNOVER WHEREAS; COST OF THESE HAS BEEN INCLUDED UNDER THE HEAD PURCHASE FOR RESALE IN THE FINANCIAL STA TEMENTS OF THE COMPANY. COPY OF INVOICES OF M/S DOHLER ALONG WITH THE COP Y OF INVOICES RAISED ON LOCAL PARTIES TO WHOM THE SALE OF LAMINATE AND CONCENTRATE WERE MADE, IS ENCLOSED ON PAGE NO. 1 66 TO 181, 183. THE COPY OF APPROVAL OF THE MANAGEMENT FOR SALE OF THE SAID MATERIAL IS ALSO BEING ENCLOSED AT PAGE NO. 182. 3.1 FROM THE ABOVE DETAILS, ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT FOLLOWING THREE FACTS EMERGED OUT OF ASSESSEES SHELVING ITS PLAN TO MARKET ITS NEW PRODUCTS:- I) THAT THE CONCENTRATE OF TROPICANA TWISTER WAS SOLD OFF TO ITS HOLDING COMPANY AT COST PRICE I.E. WITHOU T EARNING ANY PROFIT. II) THAT PACKING MATERIAL WORTH ` 73,69,000/- WAS S OLD OFF FOR A PALTRY SUM OF ` 1,86,673/- THEREBY RESULTING A LOSS OF ` 71,82,327/-. III) THAT ALL THESE RELATED EVENTS TOOK PLACE IN TH E FINANCIAL YEAR ENDING MARCH, 2002, INCLUDING THE INSTALLATION OF PLANT AND MACHINERY GIVEN TO M/S DYNAMIX DAIRY INDUSTRIES LTD. FOR THE READY TO USE BASIS. 3.2 ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER OBSERVED THAT REPLY OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WAS NOT ACCEPTABLE. HE FURTHER OBSERVED THA T ASSESSEE HAS ITA NO. 5183/DEL/2010 5 NOT GIVEN ANY EXPLANATION AS TO WHAT LEAD TO THEIR CHANGE IN THE PLAN TO LAUNCH TROPICANA TWISTER AT THE LAST MOMENT, W HEN IT HAD ALREADY INVESTED HUGELY ON THE INSTALLATION OF NEW MACHINER Y AND THE IMPORT OF RAW AND PACKING MATERIAL. ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER OBSERVED THAT IT WAS SURPRISING THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY COULD NO T FIND ANY OTHER BUYER FOR RAW MATERIAL EXCEPT ITS OWN HOLDING COMPANY TO WHOM IT WAS SOLD OFF WITHOUT EARNING ANYTHING. ASSESSING O FFICER HELD IF THE HOLDING COMPANY COULD FIND MARKET FOR TROPICANA TWIS TER, IT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN OUT OF ASSESSEES REACH AS WELL. ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER OBSERVED THAT ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS THEREFORE , EXTENDED UNDUE BENEFIT TO ITS HOLDING COMPANY WHICH IS A SPE CIFIED PERSON U/S. 40A(2)(B) IN NOT CHARGING THE MARKET PRICE FOR THE C ONCENTRATE OF TROPICANA TWISTER. IN THIS BACKGROUND, ASSESSIN G OFFICER HELD THAT BY APPLYING THE GP RATE 17.41% A TRADING ADDITION OF ` 13,48,752/- IS MADE TO THE ASSESSEES INCOME ON ACCOUNT OF PROFIT U NDERSTATED. 3.3 ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER HELD THAT LOSS ON SALE OF PACKING MATERIAL WAS ALSO TO BE DISALLOWED. ACCORDINGLY, T HE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITION OF ` 71,82,327/-. 4. UPON ASSESSEES APPEAL LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) NOTED THAT ASSESSEE HAS INCURRED EXPENDITURE OF ` 7 ,747,000/- ON IMPORT OF FRUIT JUICE CONCENTRATE FROM M/S DOHLER EURO CITRUS BV, NETHERLANDS, FOR MANUFACTURING TROPICANA TWISTER, A PROPOSED NEW BRAND OF JUICE DRINKS. THE PROPOSED LAUNCH OF T HIS PRODUCT WAS CANCELLED. AS THE SHELF LIFE OF THE FRUIT JUICE CONCENTRATE WAS NEARING EXPIRY, IT WAS SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE TO ITS HOLDING COMPANY PEPSICO INDIA HOLDINGS PVT. LTD. AT COST. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED BEFORE THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) THAT CANCELLATION OF LAUNCH OF ITA NO. 5183/DEL/2010 6 TROPICANA TWISTER WAS THE BUSINESS DECISION OF THE ASSESSEE AND THAT THE MANNER IN WHICH THE BUSINESS IS TO BE CONDUCTED IS THE DISCRETION OF THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IT WAS NOT THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE TO SELL CONCENTRATES, AND IT WAS ON LY WHEN SHELF LIFE OF THE SAME WAS NEARING ITS EXPIRY DATE THAT THE ASSES SEE DECIDED TO SELL THE SAME TO AT LEAST RECOVER THE COST PRICE. CONS IDERING THE ABOVE, LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) HELD THAT THERE I S NO CASE FOR APPLICATION OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40A(2)(B), SIN CE THERE IS NO PAYMENT / EXPENDITURE. LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME T AX (A) DELETED THE ADDITION MADE IN THIS REGARD. LD. COMMISSIONER O F INCOME TAX (A) FURTHER DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING O FFICER REGARDING THE LOSS IN SALE OF PACKING MATERIAL AMOUNTING TO ` 7,182,327/-. FURTHER, LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) OBSERVED T HAT ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT APPRECIATED THAT THE PRODUCT COU LD NOT BE LAUNCHED. IN ORDER TO MINIMIZE THE LOSS, THE CONCENTRATE WAS SO LD. LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) CONCLUDED THAT THE F ACTS DO NOT SUGGEST THE ESTIMATION OF GP ON THE SAID SALE WHEN IT IS DISTRESS SALE. HE HELD THAT BUSINESS CONSIDERATION OF THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE QUESTIONED ON FLIMSY GROUNDS. 5. AGAINST THE ABOVE ORDER THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS IN LIGHT OF THE MATERIAL PRODUCED AND PRECEDENT RELIED UPON. WE FIND THAT REVENUE HAS NOT RAISED ANY GROUND REGARDING THE DELETION BY THE LD . COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) OF ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF LOSS OF SA LE ON PACKING MATERIAL AND REVENUE HAS ONLY AGITATED THE ISSUE OF DELETION OF ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF SALE OF MATERIAL BY THE ASSE SSEE COMPANY TO ITS HOLDING COMPANY. LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE R ELIED UPON THE ITA NO. 5183/DEL/2010 7 ORDERS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND SUBMITTED THAT THE SAME SHOULD BE SUSTAINED. LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE OTHER HAND SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) HAS CORRE CTLY DELETED THE ADDITION. LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUB MITTED THAT THE FROM THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSMENT, IT CAN BE SAID THAT ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY INVOKING THE PROVI SIONS OF SECTION 40A(2)(B) OF THE I.T. ACT. LD. COUNSEL FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT SECTION 40A(2)(B) IS NOT AT ALL APPLICABLE. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE SAID SECTION EMPOWERS THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DISALLOW THE EXPE NDITURE INCURRED IN RESPECT OF WHICH PAYMENT HAS BEEN MADE BY THE AS SESSEE TO THE PERSONS MENTIONED IN SECTION 40A(2)(B) OF THE ACT, W HERE SUCH AN EXPENDITURE INCURRED IS HELD TO BE EXCESSIVE OR UNR EASONABLE. HOWEVER, IN THE INSTANT CASE THE ADDITION SO MADE IS NOT IN RESPECT OF ANY SUCH EXPENDITURE INCURRED WHICH IS HELD OR FOUN D TO BE EXCESSIVE OR UNREASONABLE. LD. COUNSEL FURTHER SUBMITTED THA T THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS HAS NOT BEEN REJECTED IN THIS CASE. HE FU RTHER SUBMITTED THAT NO DISCREPANCY HAS BEEN FOUND IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOU NTS IN THIS CASE. 6.1 WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS A ND PERUSED THE RECORDS. WE FIND THAT IN THIS CASE ASSESSEE COMP ANY PURCHASED RAW MATERIAL NAMELY FRUIT JUICE CONCENTRATE DURING THE Y EAR 31.3.2002 FOR THE PURPOSE OF MANUFACTURING TROPICANA TWISTER, A PROPOSED NEW BRAND OF JUICE DRINKS. THE AFORESAID RAW MATERIAL HAD BEEN PURCHASED IN THE PRECEDING YEAR AND REPRESENTED THE RAW MATER IAL AND WAS IN RESPECT OF THE PROPOSED NEW BRAND OF JUICE DRINKS. HOWEVER, DUE TO CHANGE IN THE MARKET AND LACK OF DEMAND IN THE AFORES AID PRODUCT IN THE INDIAN MARKET, PROPOSED LAUNCH OF THE AFORESAID PRODUCT COULD NOT BE MATERIALIZED AND LAUNCH OF THE AFORESAID PRODUCT WAS ABANDONED. IT IS FURTHER NOTED THAT THE AFORESAID CONCENTRAT E WHICH WAS IMPORTED ITA NO. 5183/DEL/2010 8 BY THE ASSESSEE HAS A SHELF LIFE WHICH WAS ABOUT T O EXPIRE, AND AS SUCH, ASSESSEE CONSIDERED IT APPROPRIATE IN ITS BU SINESS INTEREST TO SELL THE SAME TO RECOVER THE COST AND THUS IT SOLD THE S AME TO ITS HOLDING COMPANY NAMELY M/S PEPSICO INDIA HOLDING PRIVATE LIMITE D. THUS, THERE WAS NO LOSS INCURRED IN THIS REGARD. THIS D ECISION WAS A BUSINESS DECISION AND WAS BASED ON THE REALIZATION THAT THE PRODUCT DOES NOT COMMAND ADEQUATE DEMAND. 6.2 WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALSO MAD E ADDITION FOR LOSS OF PACKING MATERIAL IN THIS REGARD AMOUNTING TO ` 7182327/-. THE LOSS ON ACCOUNT OF SALE OF PACKING MATERIAL WAS ALSO INCURRED DUE TO THE SAME REASONS I.E. SHELVING THE PLAN TO LAUNCH T HE NEW PRODUCT TROPICANA TWISTER. LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TA X (A) HAS DELETED THE ADDITION ALSO. REVENUE HAS ACCEPTED THIS DECI SION AND NOT AGITATED THE SAME BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. REVENUE I S ONLY AGGRIEVED THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) HAS DELET ED THE ADDITION OF 13,48,752/- WHICH THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS COMP UTED FOR THE LOSS WHICH THE ASSESSEE MIGHT HAVE INCURRED IN SELLING TH E PRODUCT TO ITS HOLDING COMPANY AT COST. THUS, WE FIND THAT REVENU ES ACTION OF CONTESTING ONLY ONE ASPECT IS NOT JUSTIFIED. WE FI ND THAT LOSS ON SALE OF PACKING MATERIAL AS WELL AS GROSS PROFIT ADDITION WE RE BASED ON THE SAME RATIONALE THAT THE NEW PRODUCT HAS LIMITED DEMA ND IN THE INDIAN MARKET. WE FIND THAT IT IS THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE SAID AFORESAID CONCENTRATE HAS A LIMITED SHELF LIFE, SINC E THE SAME WAS DUE ITA NO. 5183/DEL/2010 9 TO EXPIRE. ASSESSEE HAD TO SELL THE SAME TO ITS H OLDING COMPANY TO MINIMIZE THE LOSS IN THIS REGARD. THUS, WE FIND TH AT THIS WAS A BUSINESS DECISION OF THE ASSESSEE AND REVENUE CANN OT QUESTION THE SAME. MOREOVER, WE NOTE THAT THERE IS NO EVIDENCE T HAT ASSESSEE HAS SOLD THE CONCENTRATE TO ITS HOLDING COMPANY WHICH IN TURN HAS MADE A PROFIT IN THIS REGARD, BY SELLING IT TO OTHERS. HE NCE, THE CONTENTION OF THE REVENUE THAT ASSESSEE COULD ALSO HAVE FOUND BUY ERS AS THE HOLDING COMPANY IS ALSO DEVOID OF COGENCY. 6.3 IN THIS REGARD, WE REFER THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A), BOMBAY VS. WALCHAND AND CO. PRIVATE LTD. IN 65 ITR 381, WHEREI N IT WAS HELD THAT IN APPLYING THE TEST OF COMMERCIAL EXPEDIENCY FOR D ETERMINING WHETHER AN EXPENDITURE WAS WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY F OR BUSINESS, THE EXPENDITURE HAS TO BE ADJUDGED FROM THE POINT OF VI EW OF THE BUSINESSMAN AND NOT OF REVENUE'. THE RATIO FROM THIS EXPOSITION IS CLEARLY APPLICABLE IN THIS REGARD. ACTION OF ASSESS EE BASED ON COMMERCIAL EXPEDIENCY CAN BE QUESTIONED BY THE ASSE SSING OFFICER. 6.4 WE FURTHER FIND COGENCY IN THE SUBMISSION OF TH E LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE THAT SECTION 40A(2)(B) IS NOT APPLI CABLE IN THE FACTS OF THE CASE. THE SAID SECTION RELATES TO EXPENSES OR PAYMENTS WHICH ARE NOT DEDUCTIBLE IN CERTAIN CASES. WHILE IN THIS CA SE ASSESSING OFFICER ITA NO. 5183/DEL/2010 10 HAS MADE THE DISALLOWANCE WHILE COMPUTING THE GROSS P ROFIT ON THE SALE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. 6.5 HENCE, IN THE BACKGROUND OF THE AFORESAID DISCU SSIONS AND PRECEDENTS, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY OR ILLEGALI TY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) ON THIS ISSUE. A CCORDINGLY, WE AFFIRM THE ORDER ON THIS ISSUE. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE S TANDS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 12/10/2012. SD/- SD/- [ [[ [U.B.S. U.B.S. U.B.S. U.B.S. BEDI BEDI BEDI 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 12/10/2012 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, ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, DELHI BENCHES