M/s. Pulsar Knowledge Centre Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon V. JCIT, Gurgaon

ITA 5223/DEL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 86680 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-02-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Next Hearing Date: 01-12-2014
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 24-09-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VIKRAM SAHAY
• Assessee Lawyers: ROHIT JAIN; DEEPASHRE RAO
• Keywords: Capital asset; Depreciation; Business expenditure; Revenue expenditure; Capital expenditure
• Section: 143(3); 234B; 37(1)

Judgement Text

DELHI BENCH F : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G. D. AGARWAL, HONBLE VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI A. T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 5223/DEL/2014 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10) APPELLANT BY : ROHIT JAIN & DEEPASHRE RAO, ADV RESPONDENT BY : VIKRAM SAHAY, SR. DR O R D E R PER A. T. VARKEY , JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS IS AN APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD CIT(A) - 2, FARIDABAD DATED 21.07.2014 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10. 2. GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE AS FOLLOWS: - 1. THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX (APPEALS) ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN AFFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN TREATING EXPENDITURE OF RS.1,01,54,665/ - INCURRED TOWARDS OBTAINI NG RESEARCH REPORT AS 'CAPITAL' IN NATURE AS AGAINST REVENUE EXPENDITURE CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT. 2. THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE APPELLANT WAS TOWARDS OBTAINING RESEARCH REPORT I N ORDER TO FACILITATE BUSINESS OPERATIONS AND NOT FOR ACQUISITION OF ANY CAPITAL ASSET, MUCH LESS AN INTANGIBLE ASSET. 3. THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX (APPEALS) ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN AFFIRMING THE NET DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENDITURE AMOUNTING TO RS.88,85,332/ - (NET OF DEPRECIATION ON RS.1,01,54,665/ - , ON THE ALLEGED GROUND THAT INCURRENCE OF SUCH EXPENDITURE HAD RESULTED IN BENEFIT OF AN 'ENDURING NATURE' TO THE APPELLANT. 4. THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LA W IN NOT APPRECIATING THAT SIMILAR EXPENDITURE WAS BEING INCURRED BY THE APPELLANT ON A REGULAR RECURRING BASIS FOR UNDERTAKING REGULAR BUSINESS TRANSACTIONS. PULSAR KNOWLEDGE CENTRE PVT LTD, 15 TH FLOOR, TOWER - B, DLF CYBER TERRACE, BUILDING NO.5, DLF CYBER CITY, PHASE - II, GURGAON PAN:AADCP0076F VS. JCIT RANGE - II GURGAON (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAGE 2 OF 8 5. THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN CONCLUDING HOLDING THAT THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE APPELLANT TOWARDS OBTAINING RESEARCH REPORT WAS WITH A VIEW TO EXPAND EXTEND ITS EXISTING BUSINESS OPERATIONS. 6. WITHOUT PREJUDICE, THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE ENTIRE E XERCISE OF SEEKING TO DISTURB THE YEAR OF ALLOWABILITY OF EXPENDITURE IS, IN ANY CASE, REVENUE NEUTRAL. 7. THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN CONFIRMING LEVY OF INTEREST UNDER SECTIONS 234B AND 234D OF THE ACT. 3. THE SOLITARY ISSUE BEFORE US IS WHETHER THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE OF RS.1,01,54,665/ - FOR OBTAINING RESEARCH REPORT IS CAPITAL EXPENDITURE OR REVENUE EXPENDITURE. 4 . BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE RETURNED INCOME OF RS. 91 ,67,000 / - WAS ENHANCED TO RS.1,80,52,330/ - CONSEQUENT UPON ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, THE ONLY ADDITION BEING ON ACCOUNT OF EXPENDITURE ON ACQUISITION OF RESEARCH REPORTS FROM M/S ZENSAR TECHNOLOGIES LTD. HELD TO BE OF A CAPITAL NATURE BY THE AO . 5. AGGRIEVED BY THE SAID ORDER OF THE AO, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD CIT(A) WHO WAS PLEASED TO CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE AO. SO THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 6. THE LD AR SHRI ROHIT JAI N CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A PR IVATE LIMITED COMPANY INCORPORATED ON 16 TH APRIL, 2003. IT S BUSINESS IS TO PROVIDE BUSINESS ADVISORY AND RELATED KNOWLEDGE BASED SERVICE , TO DIVERSE SECTORS ACROSS GLOBE ; AND SINCE THE ASSESSEE COMPANY LACKED THE ADEQUATE RESOURCES TO PREPARE TECHNICAL RE SEARCH REPORTS FOR FURTHER SELLING TO ITS CUSTOMERS , THE ASSESSEE THEREFORE CONTACTED ZENSAR TECHNOLOGIES LTD WHICH WAS AN ESTABLISHED ENTITY IN THE INDUSTRY FOR PROVIDING VARIOUS REPORTS ON THE TOPICS PAGE 3 OF 8 IDENTIFIED AND REQUIRED BY THE ASSESSEE, SO THAT THE R EPORTS CAN BE LATER SOLD. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY OBTAINED REPORTS ON CERTAIN SPECIFIC TOPICS FOR FURTHER SELLING AND DISTRIBUTION TO ITS CUSTOMER S. ACCORDING TO THE LD AR THE BUSINESS ADVISORY TEAM OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WORK FURTHER ON THE REPORTS PROVIDED BY ZENSAR SO AS TO ADD VALUE TO THEM. THE REPORTS OBTAINED FROM Z E NSAR WERE CUSTOMIZED BY THE VARIOUS EXECUTIVES ON THE PAYROLL OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY BY PUTT ING IN VARIOUS MAN HOURS.THE ASSESSEE COMPANY DURING THE COURSE OF ITS BUSINESS HAD INC URRED EXPENDITURE OF RS.101,54,665/ - ON SUCH ACQUISITION OF RESEARCH REPORTS AND CLAIMED THE SAME AS AN EXPENSE AS PER THE PROVISIONS ENUNCIATED U/S 37(1) OF THE ACT. HOWEVER, ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE ADDITION OF RS.88,85,332 / - BY TREATING THE SAID EXPE NDITURE AS CAPITAL EXPENDITURE. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD MADE SUCH ADDITION WITHOUT ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD TO PROVE THAT EXPENDITURE IF OF CAPITAL NATURE. ACCORDING TO THE LD AR, THE BASIS ADOPTED B Y THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS UNWARRANT ED , UNJUSTIFIED AND BAD IN LAW. 7. THE LD AR BROUGHT OUR ATTENTION TO PAGE 1 OF THE PB IN WHICH THE DETAILED BREAK - UP OF INVOICES RAISED BY M/S ZENSAR TECHNOLOGIES LTD IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10 ARE GIVEN BELOW: - DATE OF RECEIPTS REPORT INVO ICE NO. INVOICE DATE COST SERVICE TAX TOTAL INVOICE AMOUNT OCT 08 1891121 12/01/2009 666,470 82,376 748,846 NOVEMBER 08 1891122 12/01/2009 927,304 114,615 1,041,919 DECEMBER 08 1891360 10/03/2009 1,759,143 217,430 1,976,573 JANUARY 09 1891361 10/03/2009 2,083,741 257,550 2,341,291 FEBRUARY 09 1900048 28/04/2009 1,888,658 227,602 2,116,260 MARCH 09 1900049 28/04/2009 1,749,570 180,206 1,929,776 9,074,887 1,079,779 10,154,666 PAGE 4 OF 8 8. THE LD AR POINTED OUT THAT A PERUSAL OF THE ABOVE CHART WOULD DEMONSTRATE AND JUSTIFY THAT SUCH REPORT WERE ACTUALLY USED DURING THE YEAR ITSELF. AND IT WAS CONTENDED THAT DURING THE YEAR THE SALE AGGREGATING TO RS.1,06,47,974/ - EXCEEDED THE TOTAL PAYMENTS MADE TO ZENSAR DURING THE YEAR AND THE AO ERRED IN HOLDING THAT SUCH REPORT WERE NOT ACTUALLY USED DURING THE YEAR ITSELF. THE LD AR FURT HER CONTENDED THAT THE REPORTS OBTAINED FROM ZENSAR WERE USED FOR MARKETING PURPOSES BY THE RESEARCH DIVISION AND WERE PROVIDED TO POTENTIAL CUS TOMERS. AND THE REPORTS OBTAINED FROM ZENSAR WERE CUSTOMIZED WITH SUPPORT OF BUSINESS ADVISORY TEAM OF PKC. PKC HAD ITS OWN RESEARCH & ADVISORY TEAM WHICH WORKED FURTHER ON THE REPORTS PROVIDED BY ZENSAR SO AS TO ADD VALUE TO THEM. VARIOUS EXECUTIVES ON TH E PAYROLL OF PKC PUT IN VARIOUS MAN HOURS IN ORDER TO CUSTOMIZE ZENSAR REPORTS. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE BASIC PURPOSE OF OBTAINING THESE REPORTS FROM ZENSAR WAS OBTAINING EXPERT'S OPINION ON PARTICULAR SUBJECT UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE REPORTS ARE NOT OBTAINED FOR TRADING PURPOSES OR OBTAINING ANY KNOW HOW WHICH COULD FURTHER BE USED FOR TRADING. AND THE REPORT WERE OBTAINED FROM ZENSAR FORTNIGHTLY, MONTHLY OR PERIOD BASED ON THE INDUSTRY NORMS. THE LD AR POINTED OUT THAT T HE REPORTS PROVIDED BY ZE NSAR TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED ARE PERISHABLE IN NATURE SINCE THE SAME ARE BASED ON PRESENT MARKET SCENARIO AND ECONOMIC CONDITIONS. THE ECONOMIC CONDITIONS IN MARKET ARE NEVER STATIC AND ARE DYNAMIC IN NATURE RENDERING THE REPORTS OUTDATED WITH CHANGING SCENAR IOS. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED BY THE LD AR THAT IN CERTAIN CASES PROSPECTIVE CLIENT SPECIFY THE COMPANY ON WHICH THEY WOULD WANT A SAMPLE REPORT, SUCH REPORTS - HAVE NO SUBSEQUENT VALUE AS THERE IS VERY LITTLE LIKELIHOOD OF ANY OTHER CLIENT SEEKING A REPORT ON THE SAME COMPANY. SUCH REPORTS EVEN IF BE STORED IN LIBRARY WOULD PAGE 5 OF 8 NOT RENDER ANY BENEFIT TO THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AS THEY WOULD NOT HARDLY BE REFERRED TO IN FUTURE. THE LD AR POINTED OUT THAT DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2008 - 09, WHICH IS RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. OVERALL 81 REPORTS WERE PURCHASED FROM ZENSAR DURING THE FY 2008 - 09 OUT OF WHICH 13 REPORTS WERE USED PURELY FOR MARKETING PURPOSES BY THE RESEARCH DIVISION. THESE REPORTS WERE SENT TO VARIOUS POTENTIAL CLIENTS INCLUDIN G AICAZAR CAPITAL LIMITED, DOHA BANK, QATAR ISLAMIC BANK, COMMERCIAL BANK TATWEER, SHUAA CAPITAL FIRST GULF BANK, EMIRATE NBD ETC. AND THE REMAINING 68 REPORTS WERE USED BY BUSINESS ADVISORY DIVISION AS A BASE FOR BILLING THE EXISTING CLIENTS. THE BUSINE SS ADVISORY DIVISION TEAM WORKED FURTHER ON THE REPORTS SO AS TO DEVELOP AND BRING THEM INTO MARKETABLE FORM FOR EXISTING CLIENTS. DIFFERENT LEVELS OF EXECUTIVES HAD TO PUT IN VARIOUS HOURS SO AS TO CONVERT ZENSAR REPORTS. THE REVENUE GENERATED AS MENTIONE D AGAINST EACH REPORT ALSO INCLUDES THE REVENUE GENERATED BECAUSE OF THE EFFORTS PUT IN BY BUSINESS ADVISORY DIVISION TEAM. IT WAS POINTED OUT BY THE LD AR THAT IN SOME CASES REPORT WERE PREPARED FOR A SPECIFIC PURPOSE WITH NO SUBSEQUENT VALUE LIKE WHEN REPORT COMPRISES OF PROVIDING BACKGROUND STUDY ON THE SECTOR OR SPECIFIC SEGMENTS / COMPANIES THAT WERE SEEN AS GROWING AT A FAST PACE. REPORTS OBTAINED BY ZENSAR CANNOT BE TAKEN AS STOCK IN TRADE FOR FUTURE TRADING PURPOSES. 8. THE BENEFIT ACCRUING OUT OF THESE REPORTS WOULD NOT EXTEND TO ANY FUTURE PERIOD; HENCE THE SAME CANNOT BE CONSTRUED AS CAPITAL EXPENDITURE BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. PAGE 6 OF 8 9. ON THE OTHER HAND THE LD DR POINTED TO THE REPLY OF ASSESSEE AT PAGE 122 WHEREIN IT IS STATED AS BELOW: - THE COMPANY BEING INTO BUSINESS OF PROVIDING BUSINESS ADVISORY SERVICES COULD NOT ADOPT USUAL MEANS OF BUSINESS PROMOTION THROUGH OTHER ADVERTISING MEDIAS. THE COMPANY WANTED TO VENTURE INTO NEW MARKETS BY DISTRIBUTING ITS SOME SAMPLE REPORTS WHICH COULD C REATE AWARENESS IN THE GLOBAL MARKET ABOUT THEIR SERVICES AND ATTRACT POTENTIAL CUSTOMER. 10. IT WAS THUS CONTENDED BY THE LD DR THAT EXPENDITURE IS OF CAPITAL IN NATURE, SO IT WAS RIGHTLY HELD BY THE AO AND LD CIT(A) AND THEREFORE THE IMPUGNED ORDER NEED NOT BE INTERFERED BY US 11. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE RECORDS. IN THE INSTANT CASE WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS ADVISORY SERVICES. IN THE COURSE OF THE SAID BUSINESS IT HAS INCURRED EXPENDITURE OF RS.1,01,54,66 5/ - FOR OBTAINING RESEARCH REPORT. ACCORDING TO THE AO, HUGE EXPENDITURE ON ACQUIRING RESEARCH REPORTS WERE INCURRED AND THE SAME IS HELD TO BE AN EXPENDITURE OF CAPITAL NATURE ON ACQUISITION OF INTANGIBLES ASSETS . AND SINCE THE EXPENDITURE HAS BEEN TREATE D AS CAPITAL EXPENDITURE, DEPRECIATION AT THE RATE PRESCRIBED FOR THE TANGIBLE ASSETS IS ALLOWED. TOTAL EXPENDITURE INCURRED, AS DISCUSSED ABOVE RS.1,01,54,665/ - LESS: DEPRECIATION ALLOWED 12.5% (1/2 OF 25%) RS. 12,69,333/ - BALANCE EXPENDITURE DISALLOWABLE RS. 88,85,332/ - 13 . THE LD CIT(A) HAS ALSO UPHELD THE ABOVE VIEW AND WAS OF THE VIEW THAT AS THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WAS FOR EXPANSION OF BUSINESS BY MEANS OF ACQUISITION OF RESEARCH REPORTS, IT IS OF CAPITAL NATURE. 14 . THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. PRIYA ROAD SHOW LTD. HELD THAT EXPENDITURE INCURRED FOR CARRYING OUT TECHNICAL AND FINANCIAL PAGE 7 OF 8 FEASIBILITY IS REVENUE EXPENDITURE, EVEN IF THE ASSESSEE DROPPED THE SAID PROJECT. IN HOLDING SO, THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HAS HELD AS UNDER: - ONE OF THE JUDGMENTS ON WHICH THE TRIBUNAL BASED ITS DECISION IS OF THIS OF THIS COURT, I.E.. CIT V. MODI INDUSTRIES LTD (NO.3)(1993) 200 ITR 341. IN THAT CASE THE ASSESSEE - COMPANY WHICH WAS MANUFA CTURING VARIOUS COMMODITIES LIKE SUGAR, VANASPATI, SOAP, PAINTS AND VARNISH, TORCH AND LANTERN, STARTED MANUFACTURING A NEW COMMODITY VIZ, SPECIAL ALLOY WIRE AND BILLETS. DEBENTURES WERE ISSUED FOR RAISING FUNDS FOR THIS NEW STEEL UNIT AND THE ASSESSEE INC URRED EXPENDITURE FOR ISSUING OF DEBENTURES. THE QUESTION WAS WHETHER THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE YEAR IN WHICH THE UNIT HAD NOT STARTED WORKING WAS ALLOWABLE AS BUSINESS EXPENDITURE. THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOUND THAT THE MANAGEMENT OF THE NEW UNIT AND THE EARLIER BUSINESS WERE THE SAME AND THERE WAS UNITY OF CONTROL AND A COMMON FUND, AND HELD THAT THE MANUFACTURE OF SPECIAL ALLOY AND BILLETS WAS AN EXPANSION OF THE ASSESSEE'S BUSINESS AND NOT A NEW BUSINESS AND ALLOWED DEDUCTIONS OF EX PENDITURE. THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL WAS AFFIRMED BY THE HIGH COURT HOLDING THAT ALL THE ASSESSEE'S BID WAS TO START MANUFACTURING A NEW COMMODITY. IN THE LARGER SENSE, THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE REMAINED THE SAME, VIZ. THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURE. TH E ASSESSEE WAS ALREADY MANUFACTURING DIVERSE ITEMS AND A NEW ITEM WAS ADDED TO THIS BUSINESS. THE TRIBUNAL HAD FOUND THAT THERE WAS COMPLETE UNITY OF CONTROL AND THAT THERE WAS A COMMON FUND WHICH WAS MOST MATERIAL FOR TESTING WHETHER THE BUSINESS WAS THE SAME. IN CONSIDERING WHETHER THE TWO BUSINESSES RUN BY AN ASSESSEE ARC THE SAME BUSINESS, WHAT IS IMPORTANT IS THAT UNITY OF CONTROL AND INTERLACING OF THE TWO BUSINESSES AND NOT THE NATURE OF THE BUSINESS. A HARMONIOUS READING OF THE AFORESAID TWO JUDGME NTS OF THIS COURT, NAMELY, TRIVENI ENGINEERING WORKS LTD. [1998] 232 LTR 639 ON THE ONE HAND AND MODI INDUSTRIES LTD. (NO. 3) [1993] 200 LTR 341,ON THE OTHER, WOULD CLEARLY DEMONSTRATE THAT ONE HAS TO KEEP IN MIND THE ESSENTIAL PURPOSE FOR WHICH SUCH AN EX PENDITURE IS INCURRED. IF THE EXPENDITURE IS INCURRED FOR STARTING A NEW BUSINESS WHICH WAS NOT CARRIED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE EARLIER, THEN SUCH EXPENDITURE IS HELD TO BE OF CAPITAL NATURE. IN THAT EVENT IT WOULD BE IRRELEVANT AS TO WHETHER PROJECT REALLY MA TERIALISED OR NOT. HOWEVER, IF THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED IS IN RESPECT OF THE SAME BUSINESS WHICH IS ALREADY CARRIED ON BY THE ASSESSEE, EVEN IF IT IS FOR THE EXPANSION OF THE BUSINESS, NAMELY, TO START A NEW UNIT WHICH IS THE SAME AS EARLIER BUSINESS AND T HERE IS UNITY OF CONTROL AND A COMMON FUND, THEN SUCH AN EXPENSE IS TO BE TREATED AS BUSINESS EXPENDITURE. IN SUCH A CASE WHETHER NEW BUSINESS/ASSET COMES INTO EXISTENCE OR NOT WOULD BECOME A RELEVANT FACTOR. IF THERE IS NO CREATION OF NEW ASSET, THEN THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED WOULD BE OF REVENUE NATURE. HOWEVER, IF THE NEW ASSET COMES INTO EXISTENCE WHICH IS OF ENDURING BENEFIT, THEN SUCH EXPENDITURE WOULD BE OF CAPITAL NATURE. PAGE 8 OF 8 15 . IN THE ABOVE JUDGEMENT, IT WAS HELD THAT THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED IN RESPECT OF SAME BUSINESS, IS ALLOWABLE AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE, EVEN IF IT IS FOR EXPANSION OF THE BUSINESS. IN THE INSTANT CASE HERE TOO ADMITTEDLY THE EXPENDITURE EVEN AS PER THE REVENUE IS FOR EXPANSION OF BUSINESS AND THEREFORE SUCH EXPENDITURE ON RESEA RCH REPORTS OBTAINED IN THE COURSE OF ADVISORY SERVICES IS REVENUE EXPENDITURE. THE ASSESSEE HAS DECLARE D INCOME FROM ADVISORY SERVICES AFTER OBTAINING REPORT OF RS.1,06,47,974/ - WHICH IS IN EXCESS TO THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED. MERE FACT THAT PART OF THE EX PENDITURE WAS INCURRED FOR MARKETING DOES NOT CHANGE THE NATURE OF EXPENDITURE. 16 . IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE WE ALLOW THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. 17 . IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 04.02.2015 . - SD / - - SD/ - ( G. D. AGARWAL) (A. T. VARKEY) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED :04 / 02 / 2015 A K KEOT COPY FORWARDED TO 1. APPLICANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR:ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI