DCIT, Circle- 1(1)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi V. Alcatel Lucent France, France

ITA 5592/DEL/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 107 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4463 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-09-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 01-09-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: BHUVNESH KULSHRESHTHA
• Keywords: Double taxation relief; Question of law; TDS; Set aside
• Section: 195; 6

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: D NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER [THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING] ITA NO.5591/DEL/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 AND ITA NO. 5592/DEL/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14 AND ITA NO. 5593/DEL/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2014-15 DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, NEW DELHI VS. ALCATEL LUCENT, FRANCE, 3, AVENUE OCTAVE GREARD, PARIS, FRANCE PAN : AABCC4864E (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) AND ITA NO. 6273/DEL/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2014-15 DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, NEW DELHI VS. ALCATEL LUCENT INTERNATIONAL, FRANCE, 3, AVENUE OCTAVE GREARD, PARIS, FRANCE PAN :AABCC4864E (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY SH. PRASHANT MEHARCHANDANI, ADV. SH. DIVYANSH SINGH, ADV. DEPARTMENT BY SH. BHUVNESH KULSHRESHTHA, CIT DATE OF HEARING 30.09.2021 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 30.09.2021 2 ITA NO. 5591 TO 5593/DEL/2017 & 6273/DEL/2017 ORDER PER O.P. KANT, AM: THESE APPEALS BY THE REVENUE, BEARING ITA NOS. 5591 , 5592 & 5593/DEL/2017 FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2012-13, 2013- 14 & 2014-15 RESPECTIVELY ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)- 42, NEW DELHI , EACH DATED 27.06.2017 AND THE APPEAL, BEARING ITA NO. 6273/DEL/2017, FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15 IS DIRE CTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 21.07.2017. SINCE IDENTICAL ISSUES ARE INVOLVED IN THESE APPEALS, THEY WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND DISPOSE D OFF BY WAY OF THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIE NCE. 2. BEING IDENTICAL ISSUES IN ALL THE APPEALS, THE GROU NDS RAISED IN ITA NO. 6273/DEL/2017 FOR AY 2014-15 ARE REPRODU CED AS UNDER FOR THE SAKE OF BREVITY: 1.1 THAT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E, AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY T HE AO, AND IN HOLDING THAT THE REVENUE RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE F ROM SUPPLY OF SOFTWARE IS NOT TAXABLE IN INDIA AS ROYALTY/S 9(L)( VI) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, AS WELL AS ARTICLE 13(3) OF THE INDIA - FR ANCE DTAA. 1.2 THAT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE , AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO, WITHOUT CONSIDERING EXPLANATION 5 AND 6 TO SECTION 9(L)(VI) , WHICH HAVE BEEN INSERTED BY CLARIFICATORY AMENDMENTS WITH RETR OSPECTIVE EFFECT. 1.3 THAT IN THE FACTS AND IN CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE, AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY T HE AO, AFTER ERRONEOUSLY CONSIDERING THE CLAIMED ADEQUACY OF COM PENSATION OF ALCATEL LUCENT INDIA WHILE DETERMINING THE INCOME O F THE ASSESSEE, AND IN WRONGLY APPLYING THE RATIO OF MORG AN STANLEY 292 ITR 416 (SC). 1.4 THAT IN THE FACT AND IN CIRCUMSTANCE OF THE CA SE, AND IN LAW, THE LD, CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY T HE AO BY ERRONEOUSLY STATING THAT HE HAS RELIED ON THE ASSES SEES OWN 3 ITA NO. 5591 TO 5593/DEL/2017 & 6273/DEL/2017 CASE, WHEREAS THE FIRST SCRUTINY ASSESSEMENT OF ALC ATEL LUCENT INTERNATIONAL WAS FOR 2013-14. 2. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, MODIFY, AMEND OR ALTER ANY GROUND OF APPEAL AT THE TIME OF, OR BEFORE, THE HEA RING OF 3. AT THE VERY OUTSET, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASS ESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUES RAISED BY THE REVENUE HAV E ALREADY BEEN ADJUDICATED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE O RDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF DCIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATIO N, NEW DELHI VS. ALCATEL LUCENT INTERNATIONAL FRANCE (ITA NO.6272 /DEL/2017 FOR AY 2013-14, ORDER DATED 30.06.2021). 4. THE LD. DR DID NOT OBJECT TO THE ABOVE ARGUMENTS O F THE LEARNED COUNSEL. 5. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES THROUGH VIDEO CONFER ENCING AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD, ESPECI ALLY THE ORDERS OF THE TRIBUNAL REFERRED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL. 6. ON PERUSAL, WE FIND THAT IDENTICAL ISSUES HAS BEEN DECIDED BY THIS TRIBUNAL IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE IN ITA N O. 6272/DEL/2017 (SUPRA). THE RELEVANT FINDINGS OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL (SUPRA) READ AS UNDER: 8. A SIMILAR QUARREL WAS DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL I N FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND AGAINST THE REVENUE IN A BUNCH OF APPE ALS IN ITA NOS.4866/DEL/2010 AND OTHERS VIDE ORDER DATED 04.04 .2014. THIS ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL WAS CONFIRMED BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI IN ITA NOS.119 TO 157/2015 VIDE ORDER DATED 2 7.02.2015. THE RELEVANT FINDINGS OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF DELH I READ AS UNDER: 4. RE-ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WERE INITIATED FOR TH E YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT THE INCOME DECLARED ORIGINALLY M THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS BE TREATED AS RETURN FILED IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. IN T HE RE- ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE AO OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE . A COMPANY INCORPORATED IN FRANCE AND OTHER CONCERNED 4 ITA NO. 5591 TO 5593/DEL/2017 & 6273/DEL/2017 COUNTRIES USED TO MANUFACTURE, TRADE AND SUPPLY EQU IPMENTS AND SERVICES FOR GSM CELLULAR RADIO TELEPHONES SYST EMS. THE ASSESSEE HAD SUPPLIED HARDWARE AND SOFTWARE TO VARI OUS ENTITIES M INDIA. SOFTWARE LICENCED BY THE ASSESSEE EMBODIES THE PROCESS WHICH IS REQUIRED TO CONTROL AND MANAGE THE SPECIFIC SET OF ACTIVITIES INVOLVED IN THE BUSINESS USE OF ITS CUSTOMERS. SOFTWARE ALSO MADE AVAILABLE THE PROCESS TO ITS CUSTOMERS, WHO USED IT TO CARRY OUT THEIR BUSINESS ACTIVITIES. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, THE AO FELT THAT THE CONSI DERATION OF SUPPLY OF SOFTWARE AMOUNTED TO ROYALTY UNDER SECT 9 (L)(VI) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. THE CTT( APPEALS) - TO WHOM THE ASSES APPEALED AND LATER THE ITAT TO WHOM THE REVENUE APP EALED CONCURRED HELD THAT THE SUPPLY OF EMBEDDED SOFTWARE (WHICH WAS PART OF THE HARDWARE SUPPLIED TO THE ASSESSEES CUSTOMERS BY IT) UNDER CONSIDERATION DID CONSTITUTE ROYALTY AND. THEREFORE. SECTION 9(L)(VI) WAS NOT ATTRACTED AND THE SAME REASONS. ARTICLE 13(3) OF THE DTAA WAS NOT INVOLVED . 5. WE HAVE NOTICED, AT THE OUTSET, THAT THE ITAT HA D RELIED UPON RULING OF THIS COURT IN DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX V ERICSSON A.B. (2012) 3 ITR 470 WHEREIN IDENTICAL ARGUMENT WI TH RESPECT TO WHETHER CONSIDERATION PAID TOWARDS SUPPLY OF SOF TWARE ALONG WITH HARDWARE - RATHER SOFTWARE EMBEDDED IN T HE HARDWARE AMOUNTED TO ROYALTY. AFTER NOTICING SEVERA L CONTENTIONS OF THE REVENUE, THIS COURT HELD IN ERIC SSON A.B. (SUPRA) FOLLOWS:- 54. IT IS DIFFICULT TO ACCEPT THE AFORESAID SUBMIS SIONS IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. WE HAVE ALREADY HELD ABO VE THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT HAVE ANY BUSINESS CONNECTION I N INDIA. WE HAVE ALSO HELD THAT THE SUPPLY OF EQUIPME NT IN QUESTION -WAS IN THE NATURE OF SUPPLY OF GOODS. THE REFORE, THIS ISSUE IS TO BE EXAMINED KEEPING IN VIEW THESE FINDINGS. MOREOVER, ANOTHER FINDING OF FACT IS RECORDED BY TH E TRIBUNAL THAT THE CELLULAR OPERATOR DID NOT ACQUIRE ANY OF THE COPYRIGHTS REFERRED TO IN SECTION 14 (B) OF THE COPYRIGHT ACT. 1957. 55. ONCE WE PROCEED ON THE BASIS OF AFORESAID FACTU AL FINDINGS, IT IS DIFFICULT TO HOLD THAT PAYMENT MADE TO THE ASSESSEE WAS IN THE NATURE OF ROYALTY EITHER UNDER THE INCOME-TAX ACT OR UNDER THE DTAA. WE HAVE TO KEEP I N MIND WHAT WAS SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE INDIAN CUSTOMERS -WAS A GSM WHICH CONSISTED BOTH OF THE HARDWARE AS WELL AS THE SOFTWARE, THEREFORE, THE TR IBUNAL IS RIGHT IN HOLDING THAT IT M AS NOT PERMISSIBLE FO R TIN REVENUE TO ASSESS THE SAME UNDER TWO DIFFERENT ARTI CLES. TIN SOFTWARE THAT WAS LOADED ON THE HARDWARE DID NO T 5 ITA NO. 5591 TO 5593/DEL/2017 & 6273/DEL/2017 HAVE ANY INDEPENDENT EXISTENCE. THE SOFTWARE SUPPLY IS AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE GSM MOBILE TELEPHONE SYSTEM AND IS USED BY THE CELLULAR OPERATOR FOR PROVIDING THE CEL LULAR SERVICES TO ITS CUSTOMERS THERE COULD NOT BE ANY INDEPENDENT USE OF SUCH SOFTWARE. TIN SOFTWARE IS EMBODIED IN THE SYSTEM AND THE REVENUE ACCEPTS THAT IT COULD NOT BE USED INDEPENDENTLY. THIS SOFTWARE MERE LY FACILITATES THE FUNCTIONING OF THE EQUIPMENT AND IS AN INTEGRAL PART THEREOF. ON THESE FACTS, IT WOULD BE USEFUL TO REFER TO TIN JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT IN TATA CONSULTANCY SERVICE VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH (20 04) 271 ITR 401 (SC), WHEREIN THE APEX COURT HELD THAT SOFTWARE WHICH IS INCORPORATED ON MEDIA WOULD BE G OODS AND, THEREFORE, LIABLE TO SALES TAX FOLLOWING DISCU SSION IN THIS BEHALF IS REQUIRED TO BE NOTED:- 'IN OUR VIEW THE TERM 'GOODS' AS USED IN ARTICLE S66(12) OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA AND AS DEFINED UNDER THE SAID ACT ARE VERY WIDE AND INCLUDE ALL TYPES OF MOVABLE PROPERTIES, WHETHER THOSE PROPERTIES BE TANGIBLE OR INTANGIBLE. WE ARE IN COMPLETE AGREEMENT WITH THE OBSERVATIONS MADE BY THIS COURT IN ASSOCIATED CEMENT COMPANIES LTD. (SUPRA). A SOFTWARE PROGRAMME MAY CONSIST OF VARIOUS COMMANDS WHICH ENABLE THE COMPUTER TO PERFORM A DESIGNATED TASK. THE COPYRIGHT IN THAT PROGRAMME MAY REMAIN WITH THE ORIGINATOR OF THE PROGRAMME. BUT THE MOMENT COPIES ARE MADE AND MARKETED, IT BECOMES GOODS, IT 'INCH ARE SUSCEPTIBL E TO SALES TAX. EVEN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, ONCE IT IS PUT ON TO A MEDIA, -WHETHER IT BE IN THE FORM OF BOOKS OR CANVA S (IN CASE OF PAINTING) OR COMPUTER DISCS OR CASSETTE S, AND MARKETED WOULD BECOME 'GOODS'. WE SEE NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A SALE OF A SOFTWARE ARE PROGRAMME ON A CD FLOPPY DISC FROM A SALE OF MUSIC ON A CASSETTE CD OR A SALE OF A FILM ON A VIDEO CASSETTE CD. IN ALL SUCH CASES, THE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY HAS BEEN INCORPORATED ON A MEDIA FOR PURPOSES OF TRANSFER. SALE IS NOT JUST OF THE MEDIA WHICH BY ITSELF HAS VERY LITTLE VALUE. THE SOFTWARE ARE AND THE MEDIA CANNOT BE SPLIT UP. WHAT THE BUYER PURCHASES AND PAYS FOR IS NOT THE DISC OR THE CD. A S IN THE CASE OF PAINTINGS OR BOOKS OR MUSIC OR FILMS THE BUYER IS PURCHASING THE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND N OT THE MEDIA I.E. THE PAPER OR CASSETTE OR DISC OR CD. THUS A TRANSACTION SALE OF COMPUTER SOFTWARE IS CLEARLY A SALE OF 'GOODS' WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE 6 ITA NO. 5591 TO 5593/DEL/2017 & 6273/DEL/2017 TERM AS DEFINED IN THE SAID ACT. THE TERM 'ALL MATERIALS, ARTICLES AND COMMODITIES' INCLUDES BOTH TANGIBLE AND INTANGIBLE INCORPOREAL PROPERTY WHICH IS CAPABLE OF ABSTRACTION, CONSUMPTION AND USE AND WHICH CAN BE TRANSMITTED, TRANSFERRED, DELIVERED, STORED, POSSESSED ETC. THE SOFTWARE PROGRAMMES HAVE ALL THESE ATTRIBUTES IN ADVENT SYSTEMS LTD. V. UNISYS CORPN, (925 F. 2D 6~0 F3RD CIR. 1991 N. RELIED ON BY MR. SORABJEE, TH E COURT W AS CONCERNED WITH INTERPRETATION OF UNIFORM CIVIL CODE WHICH 'APPLIED TO TRANSACTIONS IN GOODS' . THE GOODS THEREIN WERE DEFINED AS 'ALL THINGS (INCLUDING SPECIALLY MANUFACTURED GOODS) WHICH ARE MOVEABLE AT THE TIME OF THE IDENTIFICATION FOR SALE '. IT WAS HELD: 'COMPUTER PROGRAMS ARE THE PRODUCT OF AN INTELLECTUAL PROCESS, BUT ONCE IMPLANTED IN A MEDIU M ARE WIDELY DISTRIBUTED TO COMPUTER OWNERS. AN ANALOGY CAN BE DRAW N TO A COMPACT DISC RECORDING OF AN ORCHESTRA] RENDITION. THE MUSIC IS PRODUCED B Y THE ARTISTRY OF MUSICIANS AND IN ITSELF IS NOT A 'G OOD,' BUT WHEN TRANSFERRED TO A LASER-READABLE DISC BECOMES A READILY MERCHANTABLE COMMODITY. SIMILARLY, WHEN A PROFESSOR DELIVERS A LECTURE, IT IS NOT A GOOD, BUT, WHEN TRANSCRIBED AS A BOOK, IT BECOMES A GOOD. THAT A COMPUTER PROGRAM MAY BE COPYRIGHTABLE AS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DOES NOT ALTER THE FACT THAT ONCE IN THE FORM OF A FLOPPY DISC OR OTHER MEDIUM, THE PROGRAM IS TANGIBLE, MOVEABLE AND AVAILABLE IN THE MARKETPLACE. THE FACT THAT SOME PROGRAMS MAY BE TAILORED FOR SPECIFIC PURPOSES NEED NOT ALTER THEIR STATUS AS 'GOODS' BECAUSE THE CODE DEFINITION INCLUDES,; 'SPECIALLY MANUFACTURED GOODS. ' 56. A FORTIORARI WHEN THE ASSESSEE SUPPLIES THE SOF TWARE WHICH IS INCORPORATED ON A CD. IT HAS SUPPLIED TANG IBLE PROPERTY AND THE PAYMENT MADE BY THE CELLULAR OPERA TOR FOR ACQUIRING SUCH PROPERTY CANNOT BE REGARDED AS A PAY MENT BY WAY OF ROYALTY. 6. THIS COURT ALSO NOTICED THAT THE ITAT HAD IN ADD ITION RELIED UPON OTHER JUDGMENT OF THIS COURT I.E. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX VS. MS. NOKIA NETWORKS. (2013) 358 ITR 259 (DELHI). 7 ITA NO. 5591 TO 5593/DEL/2017 & 6273/DEL/2017 7. IN VIEW OF THIS SETTLED POSITION, THIS COURT IS OF THE OPINION THAT NO SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW ARISES. THE APP EAL IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. 9. THIS ORDER OF THE HONTOLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI HA S BEEN UPHELD BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN A BUNCH OF APPEALS IN THE CASE OF ENGINEERING ANALYSIS CENTRE OF EXCELLENCE PRIVATE L IMITED VIDE ORDER DATED 02.03.2021 AND IN THE BUNCH OF APPEALS THE AS SESSEE IS AT CIVIL APPEAL NO. 10674 OF 2016, 010673 OF 2016 AND SLP (C) NO.28868 OF 2016. THE RELEVANT FINDINGS OF THE HON BLE SUPREME COURT READ AS UNDER:- 168. GIVEN THE DEFINITION OF ROYALTIES CONTAINED I N ARTICLE 12 OF THE DTAAS MENTIONED IN PARAGRAPH 41 OF THIS JUDG MENT, IT IS CLEAR THAT THERE IS NO OBLIGATION ON THE PERSONS MENTIONED IN SECTION 195 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE, AS THE DISTRIBUTION AGREEMENTS'/EULAS IN THE FACTS OF THESE CASES DO NOT CREATE ANY INTEREST OR RIGHT IN SUCH DISTRIB UTORS/END- USERS, WHICH WOULD AMOUNT TO THE USE OF OR RIGHT TO USE ANY COPYRIGHT. THE PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN THE INCOME T AX ACT (SECTION 9(1 )(VI), ALONG WITH EXPLANATIONS 2 AND 4 THEREOF), WHICH DEAL WITH ROYALTY, NOT BEING MORE BENEFICIAL TO THE ASSESSEES, HAVE NO APPLICATION IN THE FACTS OF THES E CASES. 169.OUR ANSWER TO THE QUESTION POSED BEFORE US, IS THAT THE AMOUNTS PAID BY RESIDENT INDIAN END-USERS/DISTRIBUT ORS TO NON-RESIDENT COMPUTER SOFTWARE MANUFACTURERS/SUPPLI ERS, AS CONSIDERATION FOR THE RESALE/USE OF THE COMPUTER SO FTWARE THROUGH EULAS/DISTRIBUTION AGREEMENTS, IS NOT THE P AYMENT OF ROYALTY FOR THE USE OF COPYRIGHT IN THE COMPUTER SO FTWARE, AND THAT THE SAME DOES NOT GIVE RISE TO ANY INCOME TAXA BLE IN INDIA, AS A RESULT OF WHICH THE PERSONS REFERRED TO IN SECTION 195 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT WERE NOT LIABLE TO DEDUCT ANY TDS UNDER SECTION 195 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, THE ANSWER TO THIS QUESTION WILL APPLY TO ALL FOUR CATEGORIES OF CASES ENUMERATED BY US IN PARAGRAPH 4 OF THIS JUDGMENT. 170.THE APPEALS FROM THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENTS OF THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA ARE ALLOWED, AND THE AFORESAID J UDGMENTS ARE SET ASIDE. THE RULING OF THE AAR IN CITRIX SYST EMS (AAR) (SUPRA) IS SET ASIDE. THE APPEALS FROM THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENTS OF THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI ARE DISMISSED. 10. CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN THE LIGHT OF THE DECISIONS MENTIONED HERE IN ABOVE WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE AND THE SAME IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. 8 ITA NO. 5591 TO 5593/DEL/2017 & 6273/DEL/2017 11. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. 7. IN VIEW OF ABOVE, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISI ON OF THE TRIBUNAL MENTIONED HEREIN ABOVE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDERS OF THE LEARNED CIT(A), THEREFORE, WE UP HOLD THE SAME. 8. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- SD/- (KUL BHARAT) (O.P. KANT) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 30 TH SEPTEMBER, 2021. RK/- COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR ASST. REGISTRAR, ITAT, NEW DELHI