ITO, New Delhi V. Varun Sharma, New Delhi

ITA 5441/DEL/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 61721 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-05-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: H
• Next Hearing Date: 21-05-2012
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 05-12-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PRADEEP KUMAR MEEL
• Assessee Lawyers: VENKETESH MOHAN
• Keywords: Reopening of assessment; Gift; Assessment record; Reason to believe; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 143(3); 147

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI H BENC H BEFORE SMT. DIVA SINGH, JM & SHRI A.N. PAHUJA, A M ITA NO.5441/DEL/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2004-05 INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(4), ROOM NO.234 B, C.R. BUILDING, IP ESTATE, NEW DELHI V/S . VARUN SHARMA A-39, VASANT MARG, VASANT VIHAR, NEW DELHI [PAN : AAOPS 1513 L] (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY SHRI VENKETESH MOHAN, AR REVENUE BY SHRI PRADEEP KUMAR MEEL, DR DATE OF HEARING 21-05-2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 31-05-2012 O R D E R A.N.PAHUJA:- THIS APPEAL FILED ON 05.12.2011 BY THE REVENUE AGAI NST AN ORDER DATED 15.09.2011 OF THE LD. CIT(A)-VII, NEW DELHI, RAISES THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- 1. THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) IS ERRONEOUS AN D CONTRARY TO FACTS AND LAW. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E, THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER CEASES TO HAVE JURISDICTION OVER REASSESSME NT PROCEEDINGS ONCE THE INCOME ALLEGED TO HAVE ESCAPED ASSESSMENT RECORDED IN THE REASONS WAS NOT FOUND CORRECT AND NO ADDITION WAS MADE ON THAT ACCOUNT IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. 3. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, TO ALTER OR M ODIFY ANY GROUND(S) OF APPEAL RAISED ABOVE AT THE TIME OF THE HEARING. ITA N O.5441 /DEL./2011 2 2. FACTS, IN BRIEF, AS PER RELEVANT ORDERS ARE THA T RETURN DECLARING INCOME OF ` ` 6,48,065/- FILED ON 30.10.2004 BY THE ASSESSEE, WAS PROCESSED U/S 143(1) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REF ERRED TO AS THE ACT). SUBSEQUENTLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER[AO IN SHORT] NO TICED THAT INCOME OF 1,31,75,000/- HAD ESCAPED ASSESSMENT , INVESTMENT O F THE SAID AMOUNT HAVING NOT BEEN REFLECTED IN THE RETURN. LATER, THE ASSES SMENT WAS COMPLETED ON 27.12.2006 U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT, DETERMINING INCO ME OF ` 20,54,406/-,WITH THE ADDITIONS OF ` 11,06,392/- ON A/C OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS AND ` 3,00,000 ON A/C OF LOW WITHDRAWALS FOR HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES. 2.1 ON APPEAL, THE LEARNED CIT(A) VIDE HIS ORDER D ATED 10 TH JUNE, 2008 PARTLY ALLOWED THE APPEAL. ON FURTHER APPEAL BY TH E ASSESSEE, THE ITAT VIDE ORDER DATED 07.04.2011 IN I.T.A. NO.3137/D/2010 SET ASIDE THE ISSUE REGARDING VALIDITY OF REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT TO THE FILE OF CIT(A) TO BE DECIDED AFRESH WITH THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS:- 4. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES, THE AMENDED GRO UNDS OF APPEAL WERE ADMITTED. THE ASSESSEE IN THE AMENDED GROUNDS HAS MENTIONED THAT NO ADDITION WAS MADE FOR ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME FOR WHICH THE ASSESSMENT WAS REOPENED. SINCE BEFORE LE ARNED CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT TAKEN THIS LEGAL GROUND WHICH HAS BEEN ADMITTED BY US, WE FEEL IT PROPER TO SET ASIDE THE ISSUE THE FILE OF LEARNED CIT(A) WITH THE DIRECTION TO EXAMINE THE LE GAL ISSUE WHETHER ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION U/S 147 OF THE A CT WAS JUSTIFIED IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT NO ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE IN RESPECT OF AMOUNT AND INCOME ESCAPING ASSESSMENT FOR WHICH THE ASSESSMENT WAS REOPENED. THE LEARNED CIT(A) WILL E XAMINE THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE AND PASS A SPEAKING ORDER IN R ESPECT OF ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION U/S 147 OF THE ACT. SIN CE WE HAVE SET ASIDE THE ISSUE RELATING TO ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICT ION U/S 147, THE ADDITION MADE ON MERIT ALSO SET ASIDE TO THE FILE O F CIT(A) TO BE DECIDED AFRESH. 3. IN TERMS OF AFORESAID DIRECTIONS OF THE ITAT, T HE ASSESSEE FILED DETAILED WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AS REPRODUCED IN PARA 3 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE RELIED ,INTER A LIA, UPON THE DECISION OF ITA N O.5441 /DEL./2011 3 HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN CIT VS. JET AIRWAYS (I ) LIMITED IN I.T.A. NO.1714 OF 2009, UPHOLDING THE VIEW OF ITAT HOLDING THAT TH E WORDS AND ALSO ARE USED IN CUMULATIVE AND CONJUNCTIVE SENSE. SECTION 147 HAS THIS EFFECT THAT THE AO HAS TO ASSESS OR REASSESS THE INCOME WHICH ESCAPED ASSESSM ENT AND WHICH WERE THE BASIS OF FORMATION OF BELIEF AND IF HE DOES SO, HE COULD ALSO ASSESS OR REASSESS ANY OTHER INCOME WHICH HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT AND W HICH COMES TO HIS NOTICE DURING THE COURSE OF PROCEEDINGS. IN THE LIGHT OF THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE, THE LD. CIT(A) WHILE RELYIN G UPON THE DECISION DATED 3 RD JUNE, 2011 OF HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN RANBAXY LABORATORIES LTD. VS. CIT, 336 ITR 136 (DELHI) CONCLUDED AS UNDER:- 3.1 I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION MADE ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT, FINDINGS OF THE AS SESSING OFFICER AND THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. I HAVE ALSO PERUSED TH E ASSESSMENT RECORDS FOR THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR (WHICH WER E FORWARDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS PER DIRECTIONS OF THE UNDE RSIGNED.) THE AR OF THE APPELLANT HAS ALSO REFERRED TO THE DECISI ON OF HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF RANBAXY LA BORATORIES LTD. VS. CIT ON 3 RD JUNE, 2011 AND REPORTED IN 336 ITR 136 (DELHI)(2011) 242 CTR 117 (DELHI)/200 TAXMAN 242 (D ELHI), WHEREIN IDENTICAL ISSUE HAS BEEN EXAMINED AND IT WA S HELD AS UNDER:- 18. WE ARE IN COMPLETE AGREEMENT WITH THE REASONIN G OF THE DIVISION BENCH OF BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF V. JAGANM OHAN RAO (SUPRA). WE MAY ALSO NOTE THAT THE HEADING OF SECTION 147 IS INCOME ESCAPING ASSESSMENT AND THAT OF SZECTION 148 ISSUE OF NOTI CE WHERE INCOME ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. SECTION 148 IS SUPPLEMENTARY AND COMPLIMENTARY TO SECTION 147. SUB-SECTION (2) OF SECTION 148 MAN DATES REASONS FOR ISSUANCE OF NOTICE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND SUB -SECTION (1) THEREOF MANDATES SERVICE OF NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE BEFORE T HE ASSESSING OFFICER PROCEEDS TO ASSESS, REASSESS OR RECOMPUTED ESCAPED INCOME. SECTION 147 MANDATES RECORDING OF REASONS TO BELIEVE BY THE ASS ESSING OFFICER THAT THE INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. A LL THESE CONDITIONS ASSESSMENT ORDER REQUIRED TO BE FULFILLED TO ASSESS OR REASSESS THE ESCAPED INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX. AS PER EXPLANATION (3) I F DURING THE COURSE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSING OFFICER COMES TO CO NCLUSION THAT SOME ITEMS HAVE ESCAPED ASSESSMENT, THEN NOTWITHSTANDING THAT THOSE ITEMS WERE NOT INCLUDED IN THE REASONS TO BELIEVE AS RECO RDED FOR INITIATION OF ITA N O.5441 /DEL./2011 4 THE PROCEEDINGS AND THE NOTICE, HE WOULD BE COMPETE NT TO MAKE ASSESSMENT OF THOSE ITEMS. HOWEVER, THE LEGISLATUR E COULD NOT BE PRESUMED TO HAVE INTENDED TO GIVE BLANKET POWERS TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT ON ASSUMING JURISDICTION U/S 147 REGAR DING ASSESSMENT OR REASSESSMENT OF ESCAPED INCOME, HE WOULD KEEP ON MA KING ROVING INQUIRY AND THEREBY INCLUDING DIFFERENT ITEMS OF INCOME NOT CONNECTED OR RELATED WITH THE REASONS TO BELIEVE, ON THE BASIS OF WHICH HE ASSUMED JURISDICTION. FOR EVERY NEW ISSUE COMING BEFORE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE COURSE OF PROCEEDINGS OF ASSESSMENT OR REASSESSMENT OF ESCAPE D INCOME, AND WHICH HE INTENDS TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT, HE WOULD BE REQUIRED TO ISSUE /A FRESH NOTICE U/S 148. 19. IN THE PRESENT CASE, AS IS NOTED ABOVE, THE ASS ESSING OFFICER WAS SATISFIED WITH THE JUSTIFICATIONS GIVEN BY THE ASSE SSEE REGARDING THE ITEMS VIZ., CLUB FEES, GIFTS AND PRESENTS AND PROVISION F OR LEAVE ENCASHMENT, BUT, HOWEVER, DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, HE FOUN D THE DEDUCTION U/S 80HH AND 80-I AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE TO BE NOT ADMISSIBLE. HE CONSEQUENTLY WHILE NOT MAKING ADDITIONS ON THOSE IT EMS OF CLUB FEES, GIFTS AND PRESENTS, ETC. PROCEEDED TO MAKE DEDUCTIONS U/S 80HH AND 80-I AND ACCORDINGLY REDUCED THE CLAIM ON THESE ACCOUNTS. 20. THE VERY BASIS OF INTIMATION OF PROCEEDINGS FOR WHICH REASONS TO BELIEVE WERE RECORDED WERE INCOME ESCAPING ASSESSME NT IN RESPECT OF ITEMS OF CLUB FEES, GIFTS AND PRESENTS, ETC., BUT T HE SAME HAVING NOT BEEN DONE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER PROCEEDED TO REDUCE THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 80HH AND 80-I WHICH AS PER OUR DISCUSSION WAS N OT PERMISSIBLE. HAD THE ASSESSING OFFICER PROCEEDED NOT TO MAKE DISALLO WANCE IN RESPECT OF THE ITEMS OF CLUB FEES, GIFTS AND PRESENTS, ETC., T HEN IN VIEW OF OUR DISCUSSION AS ABOVE, HE WOULD HAVE BEEN JUSTIFIED A S PER EXPLANATION 3 TO REDUCE THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 80HH AND 80-I AS WELL. 21. IN VIEW OF OUR ABOVE DISCUSSIONS, THE TRIBUNAL WAS RIGHT IN HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD THE JURISDICTION TO REASSESS ISSUES OTHER THAN THE ISSUES IN RESPECT OF WHICH PROCEEDINGS ARE INITIATED BUT HE WAS NOT SO JUSTIFIED WHEN THE REASONS FOR THE INITIATIO N OF THOSE PROCEEDINGS CEASED TO SURVIVE. CONSEQUENTLY, WE ANSWER THE FIR ST PART OF QUESTION IN AFFIRMATIVE IN FAVOUR OF REVENUE AND THE SECOND PAR T OF THE QUESTION AGAINST THE REVENUE. 22. THE PRESENT APPEAL IS ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED. 3.2 AFTER HAVING CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE O F THE APPELLANT, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT RATIO DECIDENDI OF ABOVE CITED ITA N O.5441 /DEL./2011 5 JUDGMENT OF HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IS APPLICABLE TO IDENTICAL FACTS OF THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT. IN THE PRESENT CASE, AS SUBMITTED ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS SATISFIED WITH THE JUSTIFICATIONS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE REGARDING THE INVESTMENT OF ` `1,31,75,000/- IN LOANS AND ADVANCES FOR PURCHASE O F LAND AT NOIDA FOR WHICH REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WERE INITI ATED. FOR READY REFERENCE, THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE REASON S RECORDED BEFORE ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S 148 IS REPRODUCED BEL OW:- RETURN OF INCOME FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 IN CA SE WAS FILED ON 30.10.2004 VIDE ACK. RECEIPT NO.709 DECLARING AN IN COME OF ` ` 6,73,463/- . ASSESSEE IS A DIRECTOR IN A NUMBER OF COMPANIES. F ROM THE PERUSAL OF RECORD, IT IS OBSERVED THAT ASSESSEE HAS DURING THE YEAR MADE INVESTMENT IN LOANS AND ADVANCES TO FOLLOWING COMPANIES FOR PU RCHASE OF LAND AT NOIDA. S.NO. NAME OF COMPANY AMOUNT [IN ` ] . 1. JPC MERCANTILE PVT. LTD. 43,45,000/- 2. JPC INFO SYSTEM PVT. LTD. 43,50,000 /- 3. JPC APPARELS PVT. LTD. 44,75,000/- 1,31,75,000/- ON VERIFICATION, IT IS FOUND THAT INVESTMENT OF ` 1,31,75,000/- HAS NOT BEEN REFLECTED BY THE ASSESSEE IN HIS RETURN FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05. I HAVE REASON TO BELIEVE THAT INCOME OF ` `1,31,75,000/- CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05. ISSUE NOTICE U/S 148 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-0 5. 3.3 HOWEVER, DURING THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, T HE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITIONS OF ` ` 11,06,392/- ON ACCOUNT OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS AND ` 3,00,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF LOW WITHDRAWALS FOR HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES. THUS, IN VIEW OF THE AFOREMENTIONED JUDGMENT OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT RELIED UPON BY THE APPELLANT, CLEAR POSITION OF LAW AND FA CTS OF THE CASE, I AM OF THE CONSIDERED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD NO JURISDICTION TO REASSESS ISSUES OTHER THAN /THE ISSUE IN RESPECT OF WHICH REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WERE INITIATED WHEN NO ADD ITION WAS MADE IN RESPECT OF THE AMOUNTS OF INCOME ESCAPING A SSESSMENT FOR WHICH THE ASSESSMENT WAS REOPENED. THEREFORE, IT I S HELD THAT THE ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION U/S 147 OF THE ACT FOR M AKING ADDITIONS ON ACCOUNT OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS AND LOW WITHDRAW ALS FOR HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES IN THE REASSESSMENT ORDER IS WIT HOUT THE AUTHORITY OF LOW WITHDRAWALS FOR HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES IN THE ITA N O.5441 /DEL./2011 6 REASSESSMENT ORDER IS WITHOUT THE AUTHORITY OF LAW AND SAME IS HEREBY QUASHED. 4. AS THE REASSESSMENT ORDER HAS BEEN QUASHED, ALL THE OTHER ISSUES RAISED IN THE APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE HAVE BE COME INFRUCTUOUS. THEREFORE, I DO NOT ENTER INTO THE OT HER ISSUES RAISED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL ON MERITS OF THE CASE. 4. THE REVENUE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE US AGAINST THE AFORESAID FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A). THE LD. DR SUPPORTED T HE FINDINGS OF THE AO WHILE THE LD. AR ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE RELIED UPON THE I MPUGNED ORDER. 5. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND GONE THROUG H THE FACTS OF THE CASE. INDISPUTABLY, THE AO DID NOT MAKE ANY ADDITI ON ON THE ISSUE, WHICH FORMED THE BASIS FOR REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT, IN HIS REAS SESSMENT ORDER. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE LD. CIT(A) RELIED UPON THE DECI SION OF HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN RANBAXY LABORATORIES LTD.(SUPRA) AND QUASHED THE REASSESSMENT ORDER. EARLIER THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN CIT VERSUS JET AIRWAYS INDIA LIMITED, (2011) 331 ITR 236 (BOM.) HELD AS UNDER: .SECTION 147 HAS THIS EFFECT THAT THE ASSESS ING OFFICER HAS TO ASSESS OR REASSESS THE INCOME ('SUCH INCOME') WHIC H ESCAPED ASSESSMENT AND WHICH WAS THE BASIS OF THE FORMATION OF BELIEF AND IF HE DOES SO, HE CAN ALSO ASSESS OR REASSESS ANY OTHER INCOME WHICH HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT AND WHICH COMES TO HIS NOTICE DURING THE COURSE OF THE PROCEEDINGS. HOWEVER, IF AFTER ISSUING A NOTICE UNDER SECTION 1 48, HE ACCEPTED THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE AND HOLDS THAT THE INCO ME WHICH HE HAS INITIALLY FORMED A REASON TO BELIEVE HAD ESCAPED ASSESSMENT, HAS AS A MATTER OF FACT NOT ESCAPED ASSESSMENT, IT IS NOT OPEN TO HIM INDE PENDENTLY TO ASSESS SOME OTHER INCOME. IF HE INTENDS TO DO SO, A FRESH NOTI CE UNDER SECTION 148 WOULD BE NECESSARY, THE LEGALITY OF WHICH WOULD BE TESTE D IN THE EVENT OF A CHALLENGE BY THE ASSESSEE.' 5.1 FOLLOWING THE VIEW IN JET AIRWAYS INDIA LTD.(SUPRA) AND RANBAXY LABORATORIES LTD.(SUPRA), HONBLE CHATTISGARH HIGH COURT IN THEIR DECISION ITA N O.5441 /DEL./2011 7 DATED 8.11.2011 IN ACIT VS. MAJOR DEEPAK MEHTA IN I TA NO. 04 OF 2006 ALSO HELD IN SIMILAR TERMS. RECENTLY, HONBLE BOMBAY HI GH COURT IN THEIR DECISION DATED 29.2.2012 IN THE BASMATH TALUKA KHAREDI VIKRI SANGH BASAMATHNAGAR, DISTHINGOLI ,IN TAX APPEAL NO. 53 OF 2010 ALSO TOOK SIMILAR VIEW. EARLIER , HONBLE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VERSUS SHRI RAM SINGH, (2008) 306 ITR 343 (RAJ.) OBSERVED AS UNDER: IT IS ONLY WHEN, IN PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 147 THE ASSESSING OFFICER, ASSESSES OR REASSESSES ANY INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX WHICH HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT FOR ANY ASSESSMENT YEAR, WITH RESPECT TO WHICH HE HAD 'REASON TO BELIEVE' TO BE SO, THEN ONLY, IN ADDITION, HE CAN A LSO PUT TO TAX, THE OTHER INCOME, CHARGEABLE TO TAX, WHICH HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT, AN D WHICH HAS COME TO HIS NOTICE SUBSEQUENTLY, IN THE COURSE OF PROCEEDINGS U NDER SECTION 147. 5.2 IN THE LIGHT OF VIEW TAKEN IN THE AFORESAID D ECISIONS ,ESPECIALLY WHEN THE REVENUE HAVE NOT BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE ANY CONTRARY DECISION NOR PLACED BEFORE US ANY MATERIAL SO AS TO ENABLE US TO TAKE A DIFFER ENT VIEW IN THE MATTER, WE ARE NOT INCLINED TO INTERFERE. THEREFORE, GROUND NO.2 I N THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 6.. GROUND NO.1 IN THE APPEAL BEING GENERAL IN NAT URE, DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY SEPARATE ADJUDICATION WHILE NO ADDITIONAL GROUN D HAVING BEEN RAISED BEFORE US IN TERMS OF RESIDUARY GROUND NO.3 IN THE APPEAL, ACCORDINGLY, THESE GROUNDS ARE DISMISSED. 7. NO OTHER PLEA OR ARGUMENT WAS MADE BEFORE US. 8. IN RESULT, THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED. SD/- SD/- (DIVA SINGH) (A.N. PAHUJA) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ITA N O.5441 /DEL./2011 8 NS COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO :- 1. ASSESSEE 2. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(4), ROOM NO.234B, C.R . BUILDING, IP ESTATE, NEW DELHI 3. CIT CONCERNED 4. CIT (A)-VII, NEW DELHI. 5. DR, ITAT,H BENCH, NEW DELHI 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER, DEPUTY / ASSTT.REGISTRAR ITAT, DELHI