Neelam Rani Verma, Shamli V. ITO, Ward-1(4), Shamli

ITA 5500/DEL/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3461 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-02-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 23-08-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Depreciation; Transactions in derivatives; Question of law; Initiation of penalty proceedings; Reasonable cause; Ignorance of law
• Section: 271(1)(c); 273B; 143(3); 274; 20

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : SMC : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.5500/DEL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2015-16 NEELAM RANI VERMA, C/O PANWAR PATHOLOGY LAB, HANUMAN TILA, SHAMLI ROAD, SHAMLI, UP. PAN: AEIPV1748Q VS. ITO, WARD-1(4), SHAMLI. ITA NO.5501/DEL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2015-16 KANWAR PAL SINGH, C/O PANWAR PATHOLOGY LAB, HANUMAN TILA, SHAMLI ROAD, SHAMLI, UP. PAN: BCNPS5303N VS. ITO, WARD-1(4), SHAMLI. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI NIRBHAY MEHTA, CA REVENUE BY : SHRI S.L. ANURAGI, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 20.02.2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 25.02.2019 ORDER THE ABOVE TWO APPEALS FILED BY THE RESPECTIVE ASSES SEES ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE SEPARATE ORDERS DATED 28 TH JUNE, 2018 OF THE CIT(A), MUZAFFARNAGAR, RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2015-16. ITA NOS.5500 & 5501/DEL/2018 2 2. SINCE IDENTICAL GROUNDS HAVE BEEN TAKEN BY THE R ESPECTIVE ASSESSEES IN THESE APPEALS, THEREFORE, THESE WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND A RE BEING DISPOSED OF BY THIS COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 3. FIRST WE TAKE UP ITA NO.5501/DEL/2018. FACTS OF THE CASE, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME ON 7 TH FEBRUARY, 2016 DECLARING TOTAL TAXABLE INCOME OF RS.5,97,690/-. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE CASE OF THE ASSES SEE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND STATUTORY NOTICES WERE ISSUED. THE ASSESSEE APPEAR ED FROM TIME TO TIME AND, THEREAFTER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) ON 29.11.2017 DETERMINING THE TOTAL INCOME AT RS.23,16,540/- WHEREIN HE MADE ADDITION OF RS.11,87,719/- ON ACCOUNT OF DERIVATIVE TRADING, RS.3,12,000/- OUT OF SALARY TO STAFF, RS.1,16,850/- UNDER THE HEAD TRAVELLING EXPENSES, RS.44,630/- OUT OF TRAINING EXPENSES AND RS.57,650/- OUT OF DEPRECIATION. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE ASSESSING O FFICER INITIATED PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE IT ACT. REJECTING THE VARIOUS EXPLANATIONS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER LEVIED PENALTY OF RS.4,89,686 /- BEING 100% OF THE TAX SOUGHT TO BE EVADED. 3.1 IN APPEAL, THE LD.CIT(A) UPHELD THE ACTION OF T HE ASSESSING OFFICER BY OBSERVING AS UNDER:- 6. IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IT WAS NOTED BY THE AO THAT THE APPELLANT HAS NOT SHOWN INCOME FROM TRADING IN FUTU RE & OPTIONS FOR RS. 1718849/-. THE AO HAS THUS MADE ADDITION OF RS. 171 8849/- TO THE RETURNED INCOME OF THE APPELLANT AND INITIATED PENALTY PROCE EDINGS U/S 271(L)(C) OF THE ACT FOR CONCEALING THE PARTICULARS OF INCOME AND FOR FU RNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. THE AO HAS FURTHER LEVIED PE NALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT BY RELYING UPON EXPLANATION 1(B) TO SECTION 271(L)( C) FOR CONCEALING THE PARTICULARS OF INCOME FOR RS.4,89,686/-. THE APPELL ANT DURING THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS HAS STATED THAT INCOME FROM TRADING IN FUTURE & OPTIONS COULD NOT BE ITA NOS.5500 & 5501/DEL/2018 3 SHOWN DUE TO IGNORANCE AND DUE TO BONA FIDE MISTAKE . THE APPELLANT FURTHER STATED THAT THERE WERE NO MALA FIDE INTENTIONS. THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT IS A PART OF STATEMENT OF FACTS. THE FACTS OF THE CASE ALONG WITH MATERIAL ON RECO RD HAVE BEEN GONE THROUGH. IT IS NOTED THAT THE APPELLANT HAS DERIVED INCOME FROM TRADING IN FUTURE & OPTIONS WHICH HAS NOT BEEN DISCLOSED IN THE RETUR N OF INCOME. THE APPELLANT IS A PROFESSIONAL DOCTOR AND IGNORANCE OF LAW CANNOT B E GROUND FOR JUSTIFICATION/EXPLANATION FOR NOT SHOWING THE ABOVE INCOME IN THE RETURN. THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT IS COVERED BY EXPLANATION 1(B ) TO SECTION 271(1 )(C) OF THE ACT. IT IS NOTED THAT THE APPELLANT HAS CONCEALED T HE PARTICULARS OF INCOME OF THIS ACCOUNT. THERE IS NO REASONABLE CAUSE IN THE CASE O F THE APPELLANT AS PROVIDED U/S 273B OF THE ACT. UNDER THE FACTS IT IS HELD THAT TH E AO WAS JUSTIFIED TO LEVY PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. THE SAME IS HEREB Y CONFIRMED. GROUNDS OF APPEAL NOS.L & 6 ARE DISMISSED. 4. AGGRIEVED WITH SUCH ORDER OF THE CIT(A), THE ASS ESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL RAISING THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- 1. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AN D IN LAW, THE ORDER PASSED BY CIT (A), MUZAFERNAGAR (HEREINAFTER REFERR ED TO AS CIT (A)), IS BAD IN LAW. 2. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE , THE CIT-A WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN UPHOLDING THE ORDER IMPOSING PENALTY A S THE ASSESSING OFFICER FAILED TO RECORD REQUISITE SATISFACTION IN THE ASSESSMENT ORD ER FOR INITIATION OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS, 3. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, TH E CIT-A WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN UPHOLDING THE ACTION OF THE AO FOR IMPOSING THE PENALTY U/S 271(1) (C) SINCE THERE IS NO CLEAR CUT FINDING IN THE PENALTY ORDER AS TO IMPOSITION OF PENALTY IS FOR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR FOR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME BY THE APPELLANT, 4. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCESOF THE CASE, THE CIT-A WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN UPHOLDING THE ACTION OF THE AO FOR IMPOSING THE PENALTY U/S 271(1) (C) OF RS.4,89,686/-(100% OF THE TAX SOUGHT TO BE EVADED) IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE APPELLANT HAD VOLUNTARILY OFFERED TO TAX THE INCOME FROM F&O TRANSACTIONS EMANATING FROM PORTFOLIO MANAGEMENT SERVICES AVAILE D BY IT FROM SMC FINANCIAL SERVICES. 5. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER, MODI FY ANY OF THE GROUNDS AT ITA NOS.5500 & 5501/DEL/2018 4 THE TIME OF HEARING OR BEFORE THE HEARING. 5. THE LD. COUNSEL, AT THE OUTSET, FILED A COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE IT ACT DATED 29.11.2017. REFERRING TO THE SAME , HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT STRUCK OFF THE INAPPROPRIATE WORDS FROM THE SAID NOTICE I.E., HE HAS NOT SPECIFIED UNDER WHICH LIMB OF THE PROVISIONS I.E., WHETHER FOR CONCEALMENT OF THE PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE P ARTICULARS OF SUCH INCOME THE PENALTY HAS BEEN LEVIED. REFERRING TO VARIOUS DECI SIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL AND THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF MANJUNATH COTTON MILLS REPORTED IN 359 ITR 565 (KAR), HE SUBMITTED THAT IF THE ASSESSING OFFICER DOES NOT STRIKE OFF THE INAPPROPRIATE WORDS FROM THE NOTICE, THEN, LEVY OF PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) IS NOT JUSTIFIED SINCE IT IS NOT KNOWN UNDER WHICH LIM B OF THE PROVISION THE PENALTY HAS BEEN LEVIED. FURTHER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER HAS NOT REACHED REQUISITE SATISFACTION AS TO WHETHER THE INITIATION OF PENALTY IS ON ACCOUNT OF CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE P ARTICULARS OF INCOME. REFERRING TO THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. RAMPUR ENGINEERING CO. LTD., REPORTED IN 309 ITR 143 (DEL) , HE SUBMITTED THAT THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT IN THE SAID DECISION HAS HELD THAT THE P OWER TO IMPOSE PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) DEPENDS UPON THE SATISFACTION OF THE ITO IN THE COU RSE OF THE PROCEEDINGS UNDER THE ACT. HE DREW THE ATTENTION OF THE BENCH TO PARA 9 O F THE SAID ORDER WHICH READS AS UNDER:- 9. IN OUR OPINION, THE LEGAL POSITION IS WELL SET TLED IN VIEW OF THE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS IN COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MADRAS. AN D ANR. V. S.V. ANGIDI CHETTIAR (SUPRA) AND D.M. MANASVI V. COMMISSIONER O F INCOME TAX, GUJARAT, II ITA NOS.5500 & 5501/DEL/2018 5 AHMEDABAD (SUPRA), THAT POWER TO IMPOSE PENALTY UND ER SECTION 271 OF THE ACT DEPENDS UPON THE SATISFACTION OF THE INCOME TAX OFF ICER IN THE COURSE OF THE PROCEEDINGS UNDER THE ACT. IT CANNOT BE EXERCISED I F HE IS NOT SATISFIED AND HAS NOT RECORDED HIS SATISFACTION ABOUT THE EXISTENCE OF TH E CONDITIONS SPECIFIED IN CLAUSES (A), (B) AND (C) BEFORE THE PROCEEDINGS ARE CONCLUD ED. IT IS TRUE THAT MERE ABSENCE OF THE WORDS 'I AM SATISFIED' MAY NOT BE FATAL BUT SUCH A SATISFACTION MUST BE SPELT OUT FROM THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY AS TO THE CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR DELIBERATELY FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTIC ULARS. IN THE ABSENCE OF A CLEAR FINDING AS TO THE CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR DELIBERA TELY FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS, THE INITIATION OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS WILL BE WITHOUT JURISDICTION. IN OUR OPINION, THE LAW IS CORRECTLY LAID DOWN IN RAM COMMERCIAL ENTERPRISES (SUPRA) AND WE ARE IN RESPECTFUL AGREEMENT WITH THE SAME. THE REFERENCE IS ANSWERED ACCORDINGLY. 6. HE ACCORDINGLY SUBMITTED THAT THE PENALTY LEVIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT JUSTIFIED. HE ALSO RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE H ON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT REPORTED IN MS MADHUSHREE GUPTA VS. UNION OF INDIA (2009) 317 I TR 107 (DEL). 7. THE LD. DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, HEAVILY RELIED ON TH E ORDER OF THE CIT(A). HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT TAKEN SUCH GROU NDS BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES, THEREFORE, HE SHOULD NOT BE PERMITTED TO ARGUE ON T HIS ASPECT. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS CONCEALED PARTICULARS OF INCOME AND HAS FURNISHED I NACCURATE PARTICULARS BY NOT DISCLOSING HIS TRUE INCOME, THE CIT(A) IS FULLY JUS TIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE PENALTY LEVIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 8. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL ARGUMENTS MADE BY BOTH THE SIDES AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. I HAVE ALSO CONSI DERED VARIOUS DECISIONS CITED BEFORE ME. A PERUSAL OF THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 274 READ WI TH SECTION 271 OF THE IT ACT DATED 29.11.2017 SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT STRUCK OFF THE INAPPROPRIATE WORDS IN THE SAID NOTICE. WHILE IMPOSING THE PENALTY, TH E ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT MENTION ITA NOS.5500 & 5501/DEL/2018 6 UNDER WHICH LIMB OF THE PROVISION THE PENALTY HAS B EEN INITIATED I.E., FOR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR FOR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULA RS OF INCOME OR FOR BOTH. THE NOTICE MENTIONS AS UNDER:- * HAVE CONCEALED THE PARTICULARS OF YOUR INCOME OR FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF SUCH INCOME. 9. THE COORDINATE BENCHES OF THE TRIBUNAL ARE TAKING THE CONSISTENT VIEW THAT WHERE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT STRUCK OFF THE INAPPROPRIATE WORDS IN THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 274 READ WITH SECTION 271 OF THE IT ACT, THEN PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) IS NOT JUSTIFIED. I FIND IDENTICAL ISSUE HAD COME UP BEFOR E THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF YUM ! RESTAURANTS MARKETING PVT. LTD. VS. ITO VIDE ITA NO S. 894, 895, 896/DEL/2013, ORDER DATED 28 TH JUNE, 2017, FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2006-07, 2002-03 AND 2003-04 RESPECTIVELY (TO WHICH I AM A PARTY), THE TRIBUNAL HAS CANCELLED THE PENALTY SO LEVIED BY OBSERVING AS UNDER:- 10. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES ALONG WITH THE RELEVANT RECORDS AVAILABLE WITH US. FIRSTLY, WE HAVE PERUSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 11.10.2010 PASSED U/S. 143(3) OF THE ACT AND FOUND THAT AO WHILE COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT HAS NOT RECORDED THE SATISFACTION AND HAS NOT INITIATED THE PENALTY PROC EEDINGS. SIMILARLY, AT THE TIME OF IMPOSING THE PENALTY U/S. 271(1) OF THE ACT, T HE AO HAS LEVIED THE PENALTY, BUT DID NOT MENTION UNDER WHICH LIMB THE PENALTY H AS BEEN IMPOSED WHETHER IT IS ON ACCOUNT OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR C ONCEALMENT OF INCOME. THEREFORE, THE ENTIRE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS STAND VIT IATED. IN VIEW OF ABOVE, THE PENALTY IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN THE EYES OF LAW. OUR AFORESAID VIEW IS FORTIFIED BY THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS:- I) CIT & ANR. VS. M/S SSAS EMERALD MEADOWS 20 15 (11) TMI 1620 KARNATAKA HIGH COURT HAS HELD THAT TRIBUNA L HAS CORRECTLY ALLOWED THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE HOLDING T HE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 274 READ WITH SECTION 271(1)(C) TO BE BAD IN LAW AS IT DID NOT SPECIFY WHICH LIMB O F SECTION 271(1) ITA NOS.5500 & 5501/DEL/2018 7 OF THE ACT, THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS HAD BEEN INITIA TED I.E., WHETHER FOR CONCEALMENT OF PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR FURNISH ING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. THE TRIBUNAL, WHILE ALLOWIN G THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE, HAS RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE DIV ISION BENCH OF THIS COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOM E TAX VS. MANJUNATHA COTTON AND GINNING FACTORY (2013) (7) T MI 620- KARANATAKA HIGH COURT. THUS SINCE THE MATTER IS COV ERED BY JUDGMENT OF THE DIVISION BENCH OF THIS COURT, WE AR E OF THE OPINION NO SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW ARISES DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE. II) CIT & ANR. VS. M/S SSAS EMERALD MEADOWS HON BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA REPORTED IN 2016 (8) TMI 1145 SU PREME COURT. THE APEX COURT HELD THAT HIGH COURT ORDER CONFIRME D (2015) (11) TMI 1620 (SUPRA) KARNATAKA HIGH COURT. NOTICE ISS UED BY AO UNDER SECTION 274 READ WITH SECTION 271(1)(C) TO BE BAD IN LAW AS IT DID NOT SPECIFY WHICH LIMB OF SECTION 271(1) OF TH E ACT, THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS HAD BEEN INITIATED I.E., WHETHE R FOR CONCEALMENT OF PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR FURNISHING OF INACCURAT E PARTICULARS OF INCOME DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE. 10.1 IN THE BACKGROUND OF THE AFORESAID DISCUSSIONS AND RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE PRECEDENTS, WE DELETE THE PENALTY IN DISPUTE AN D DECIDE THE ISSUE IN FAVOR OF THE ASSESSEE AND AGAINST THE REVENUE. 10. SINCE THE FACTS OF THE IMPUGNED APPEAL ARE IDENTICA L TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF YUM ! RESTAU RANTS MARKETING PVT. LTD. (SUPRA), THEREFORE, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE SAME, I CANCE L THE PENALTY SO LEVIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND UPHELD BY THE CIT(A) DUE TO N ON-STRIKING OFF THE INAPPROPRIATE WORDS IN THE NOTICE. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE AS SESSEE ARE ALLOWED. ITA NO.5500/DEL/2018 11. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE READ AS UNDER:- 1. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE ORDER PASSED BY CIT (A), MUZAFERNAGAR (HEREINAFTER REFERR ED TO AS CIT (A)), IS BAD IN LAW. 2. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE , THE CIT-A WAS NOT ITA NOS.5500 & 5501/DEL/2018 8 JUSTIFIED IN UPHOLDING THE ORDER IMPOSING PENALTY A S THE ASSESSING OFFICER FAILED TO RECORD REQUISITE SATISFACTION IN THE ASSESSMENT ORD ER FOR INITIATION OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS, 3. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, TH E CIT-A WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN UPHOLDING THE ACTION OF THE AO FOR IMPOSING THE PENALTY U/S 271(1) (C) SINCE THERE IS NO CLEAR CUT FINDING IN THE PENALTY ORDER AS TO IMPOSITION OF PENALTY IS FOR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR FOR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME BY THE APPELLANT, 4. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCESOF THE CASE, THE CIT-A WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN UPHOLDING THE ACTION OF THE AO FOR IMPOSING THE PENALTY U/S 271(1) (C) OF RS.57,375/-(100% OF THE TAX SOUGHT TO BE EVADED) IG NORING THE FACT THAT THE APPELLANT HAD VOLUNTARILY OFFERED TO TAX THE INCOME FROM F&O TRANSACTIONS EMANATING FROM PORTFOLIO MANAGEMENT SERVICES AVAILE D BY IT FROM SMC FINANCIAL SERVICES. 5. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER, MODI FY ANY OF THE GROUNDS AT THE TIME OF HEARING OR BEFORE THE HEARING. 12. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE SIDES, I FIND THE GROUNDS RA ISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THIS APPEAL ARE IDENTICAL TO THE GROUNDS RAISED IN ITA N O.5501/DEL/2018. I HAVE ALREADY DECIDED THE ISSUE IN THE PRECEDING PARAGRAPHS AND T HE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE HAVE BEEN ALLOWED. FOLLOWING SIMILAR REASONINGS, T HE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED. 13. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS ARE ALLOWED. THE DECISION WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 2 5.02.2019. SD/- (R.K. PANDA) ACCOUNTANT MEMFBER DATED: 25 TH FEBRUARY, 2019 DK ITA NOS.5500 & 5501/DEL/2018 9 COPY FORWARDED TO 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR ASSTT. REGISTRAR, ITAT, NEW DELHI