ITO, Dehradun V. Shri Japinder Singh, Dehradun

ITA 5601/DEL/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1373 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-03-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 05-11-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SHUMAINA SEN
• Assessee Lawyers: VAID JAIN; RANO JAINCA
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH D: NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI R. P. TOLANI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI T. S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.5601 /DEL/ 2012 (ASSESSMENT YEAR :2007-2008) ITO VS. JAPINDER SINGH WARD-1(1) 133, SAHARANPUR ROAD DEHRADUN DEHRADUN PAN: AGPPS3944J (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) CROSS OBJECTION NO. 457/DEL/ 2012 IN ITA NO. 5601/DEL/2012 (ASSESSMENT YEAR:2007-08) JAPINDER SINGH VS. ITO 133, SAHARANPUR ROAD WARD-1(1) DEHRADUN DEHRADUN PAN: AGPPS3944J (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY :SHRI VAID JAIN & RANO JAIN,CA. REVENUE BY :MS. SHUMAINA SEN, SR.DR. ORDER PER T. S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-I, NEW DELHI D ATED 13.08.2012 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FILED CROSS-OBJECTION ITA NO.5601/DEL/2012 & C.O-457/DEL/2012 2 AGAINST THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE. THE GROUND S OF APPEAL TAKEN BY REVENUE AND GROUNDS OF CROSS-OBJECTION TAKEN BY ASS ESSEE ARE AS UNDER: GROUNDS OF REVENUE THE LD. CIT HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DIRE CTING THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE CASH BOOK TO THE AO IN ORDE R TO SATISFY HIM WHETHER CASH INVESTMENT OF RS.5,30,820/- MADE D URING THE PREVIOUS YEAR FOR PURCHASE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND AT SUHELI IS EXPLAINED AND IS MADE OUT OF CASH AVAILABLE WITH HI M AND MAKING SPECIFIC OBSERVATION THAT THE CASH BOOK WAS AVAILABLE WITH THE AO IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT. LD. CIT (A ) HAS NOT APPRECIATED THE CATEGORICAL FINDING GIVEN BY THE AO THAT AVAILABILITY OF BALANCE OF CASH IN HAND COULD NOT B E PROVED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSEE HAD NEVER PRODUCED TH E CASH BOOK BEFORE THE AO. THE ORDER OF LD. CIT (A) BEING ERRON EOUS DESERVES TO BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE AO BE REST ORED. 2. THAT LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS W HILE ADJUDICATING THE ISSUE OF ADDITION OF RS.8,39,000/- IN DIRECTING THE AO AND THE ASSESSEE TO FOLLOW THE DIRECTIONS AS GIVEN IN PARA 2.1 OF HIS APPELLATE ORDER AND IN FURTHER DIRE CTING THAT REAL POINT OF EXAMINATION FOR THE AO IS THE AVAILABILITY OF CASH AND NOT ITS APPLICATION BECAUSE THE CASH BOOK WAS AVAIL ABLE BEFORE THE AO IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT. THE LD. CIT (A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE ALLEGED CASH BOOK WAS NEVER PRO DUCED BEFORE THE AO AND ONLY COPY OF THE LEDGER ACCOUNT O F THE CASH BOOK WAS PRODUCED BEFORE THE AO. 3. THAT LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS I N DIRECTING THE AO TO FOLLOW HIS DIRECTIONS AS CONTAI NED IN PARA 2.1 OF HIS APPELLATE ORDER IN RESPECT OF ADDITION O F RS. 1,20,000/- TOWARDS HOUSE HOLD EXPENSES. 4. THAT LD. CIT (A) HAS ACTUALLY SET ASIDE ALL THE ADDITIONS AS MENTIONED ABOVE TO THE FILE OF THE AO WHICH IS E VIDENT FROM THE APPELLATE ORDER ITSELF AND AS SUCH THE ORDER PA SSED BY THE LD. CIT (A) IS ERRONEOUS IS LAW IN AS SUCH AS THE SAME IS IN VIOLATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 251 (1) (A) OF THE IT ACT, ITA NO.5601/DEL/2012 & C.O-457/DEL/2012 3 1961 BECAUSE AS PER THIS SECTION, THE LD. CIT (A) I S NOT THE AUTHORITY TO SET ASIDE ANY ASSESSMENT TO THE FILE O F THE AO AND AS SUCH THE ORDER OF LD. CIT (A) SHOULD BE VACATED AND THAT OF THE AO BE RESTORED. GROUNDS OF CROSS OBJECTION 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEA LS) [CIT (A)] IS BAD BOTH IN THE EYE OF LAW AND ON FACTS. 2(I) ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, TH E LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) [CIT(A)] HAS E RRED BOTH ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION O F THE AO IN MAKING ADDITION OF AN AMOUNT OF RS.62,50,000/- RECE IVED FROM SH. KHETASAR AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. (II) THAT THE ABOVE ADDITION HAS BEEN CONFIRMED DES PITE THE ASSESSEE BRINGING ALL MATERIAL AND EVIDENCES ON REC ORD TO PROVE THAT THE SAME REPRESENTED LOAN FROM SH. KHETASAR AN D NOT THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 3(I) ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, TH E LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED BOTH ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN CONFIRMIN G THE ACTION OF THE AO IN MAKING ADDITION OF AN AMOUNT OF RS.2,0 6,115/- ON ACCOUNT OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME. (II) THAT THE ABOVE ADDITION HAS BEEN CONFIRMED DES PITE THE ASSESSEE BRINGING ALL MATERIAL AND EVIDENCES ON REC ORD TO PROVE THAT THE SAME REPRESENTED TO AGRICULTURE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 4. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED BOTH ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN NOT DELET ING THE ADDITION OF RS.5,30,820/- MADE ON THE GROUND OF INV ESTMENT IN AGRICULTURAL LAND AT SUHELI DESPITE THE APPELLANT P RODUCING SUFFICIENT EVIDENCES ABOUT SOURCE OF SUCH INVESTMEN T. 5. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED BOTH ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN NOT DELET ING THE ITA NO.5601/DEL/2012 & C.O-457/DEL/2012 4 ADDITION OF RS.8,39,000/- BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF D EPOSIT IN THE BANK ACCOUNT DESPITE THE ASSESSEE LEADING SUFFI CIENT EVIDENCES ABOUT SOURCE OF SUCH DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. 6. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED BOTH ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN NOT DELET ING THE ADDITION OF RS.1,20,000/- BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF T HE HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES DESPITE THE FACT THAT ASSESSEE H AS LED EVIDENCE ABOUT INCURRING OF THE HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES. 7. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND OR ALTER ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF CROSS OBJECTION. 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT, ASSESSEE I S A PROPERTY CONSULTANT AND WAS ALSO WORKING FOR PACL INDIA LTD., NEW DELHI FOR ARRANGING LAND FOR THE COMPANY. THE RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED ON 31.0 3.2008 SHOWING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.1,29,996/- AND AGRICULTURE INCOME OF R S.8,88,648/-. 3. THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTI NY. DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE AO OBSERVED THAT ASSESSEE HAD ENTE RED INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH M/S PACL INDIA LTD. FOR PROCURING 20 THOUSAND BIGHAS OF LAND FOR COMPANY ALONG WITH SHRI RAJENDRA SINGH KHETASAR WHO HAD ALSO ENTERED INTO AGREEMENT WITH THE SAME COMPANY FOR PROCUREMENT OF RS.1,30,000/- BIGHAS OF LAND. HE FURTHER OBSERVED THAT ASSESSEE HAD ENTE RED INTO AN AGREEMENT DATED 14.03.2006 WITH SHRI RAJENDRA SINGH KHETASAR BY WHICH ALL DEALINGS WITH THE COMPANY WARE TO BE DONE BY SHRI RAJENDRA S INGH KHETASAR ONLY HOWEVER COMMISSION INCOME FROM THE COMPANY IN RESPE CT OF LANDS PROCURED THROUGH BOTH OF THEM WERE TO BE SHARED BETWEEN THEM ON 50-50 BASIS. THE ITA NO.5601/DEL/2012 & C.O-457/DEL/2012 5 AO OBSERVED THAT DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATIO N SHRI RAJENDRA SINGH KHETASAR HAD PAID A SUM OF RS.62.50 LACS BY CHEQUE TO THE ASSESSEE AND WHEN CONFRONTED THE ASSESSEE REPLIED THAT THE AMOUN T WAS UNSECURED LOAN AND, FURTHER, STATED THAT NO COMMISSION WAS EARNED AS NO LAND WAS PROCURED FOR THE COMPANY DURING THE YEAR. VIDE QUERY LETTER DATED 24.10.2009, THE ASSESSE WAS AGAIN SPECIFICALLY REQUIRED TO SHOW CAU SE AS TO WHY THE AMOUNT OF RS.62.50 LACS RECEIVED FROM SHRI RAJENDRA SINGH KHETASAR BE NOT TREATED AS HIS SHARE OF COMMISSION RECEIVED BY SHRI RAJENDR A SINGH KHETASAR FROM THE COMPANY, M/S PACL INDIA LTD. TO WHICH ASSESSEE S COUNSEL CONTENDED THAT IT WAS NOT A COMMISSION BUT IT WAS AN UNSECURE D LOAN. THE AO THEN WROTE A LETTER TO M/S PACL INDIA LTD. AND IN REPLY TO THAT NOTICE M/S PACL INDIA LTD. SUBMITTED THAT MR. JAPINDER SINGH HAD NO T PROCURED ANY LAND BUT FURTHER STATED THAT SHRI RAJENDRA SINGH KHETASAR PR OCURED LAND MEASURING 1 LAC 23 THOUSAND BIGHAS FOR THE COMPANY. 4. THE AO ARRIVED AT THE CONCLUSION THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS.62.50 LACS TRANSFERRED BY SHRI RAJENDRA SINGH KHETASAR THROUGH CHEQUE FROM HIS BANK ACCOUNT TO THE ACCOUNT OF SHRI JAPINDER SINGH WAS N OT A LOAN BUT HIS SHARE OF COMMISSION WHICH WAS AS PER SEPARATE AGREEMENT ENTE RED INTO BETWEEN THEM. THE AO FURTHER STRENGTHENED HIS VIEW FROM TH E FACT THAT ASSESSEE HAD ITA NO.5601/DEL/2012 & C.O-457/DEL/2012 6 UTILIZED THE AMOUNT RECEIVED FROM SHRI RAJENDRA SIN GH KHETASAR FOR PURCHASE OF PROPERTIES AND FOR GIVING LOANS TO OTHE R PERSONS. 5. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE THE AMOUNT OF RS.62.50 LACS WAS ADDED AS COMMISSION INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE AO FURTHER O BSERVED THAT ASSESSEE HAD PURCHASED AGRICULTURE LAND FOR RS.5,30,820/- WH ICH INCLUDED COST OF LAND AND EXPENSES AND IT WAS OBSERVED THAT ASSESSEE HAD NOT WITHDRAWN ANY AMOUNT FROM BANK FOR PURCHASE OF SUCH PROPERTY. THE ASSESSEE HAD SUBMITTED THAT PAYMENT OF THIS LAND WAS MADE OUT OF BALANCE OF CASH IN HAND AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE HOWEVER AO DID NOT AGRE E WITH THE CONTENTIONS OF ASSESSEE AND MADE THE ADDITION OF RS.5,30,820/-. 6. THE AO FURTHER OBSERVED THAT ASSESSEE HAD DECLAR ED AGRICULTURE INCOME TO THE EXTENT OF RS.8,88,648/- OUT OF WHICH AGRICULTURE INCOME FOR SALE OF SUGAR CANE WAS TO THE TUNE OF RS.2,06,115/- . HE FURTHER OBSERVED THAT ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN TO HAVE INCURRED AN EXPENDITURE OF RS.56,115/- AS AGRICULTURE EXPENSES. THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ABLE TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IN RESPECT OF SUGAR CANE INCOME AS WELL AS AGRICULTURE EXPENSES THEREFORE, AO MADE ADDITION OF RS.2,62,230/-. THE A O FURTHER FOUND THAT ASSESSEE HAD DEPOSITED IN HIS ICICI BANK AND BANK O F BARODA AN AMOUNT OF RS.8,39,000/-. WHEN CONFRONTED, THE ASSESSEE SUBMIT TED A COPY OF CASH BOOK FOR THE PERIOD OF 1.04.2006 TO 31.03.2007 AND SUBMI TTED THAT DEPOSITS WERE ITA NO.5601/DEL/2012 & C.O-457/DEL/2012 7 MADE OUT OF CASH AVAILABLE IN THE BOOKS BUT AO DID NOT AGREE WITH THE CONTENTIONS AND MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.8,39,000/- A S UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDITS. SIMILARLY FURTHER ADDITIONS OF RS.1,20,000 /- ON ACCOUNT OF HOUSSE HOLD EXPENSES AND RS.6,987/- ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST INCOME WERE MADE. 7. DISSATISFIED WITH THE ORDER, THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE LD. CIT (A) WHO AFTER GOING THROUGH THE SUBMISSIONS OF LD. AR CONFIRMED THE ADDITIONS OF RS.62,50,000/- AND ALSO CONFIRMED ADDI TION ON ACCOUNT OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME TO THE EXTENT OF RS.2,06,115/-. IN RESPECT OF OTHER ADDITIONS, HE ISSUED DIRECTIONS TO AO TO VERIFY THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF CASH AVAILABLE FOR PURCHASE OF PROPERTY AND FOR DEPOSIT OF AMOUNTS IN BANK ACCOUNT AND FOR HOUSE HOLD EXPENSES. 8. AGGRIEVED BOTH REVENUE AS WELL AS ASSESSEE FILED APPEALS BEFORE US. AT THE OUT SET THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT ORDER PASSED BY LD. CIT (A) WAS NOT AS PER LAW. HE INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO PAGE 4 OF CIT (A)S ORDER AND READ LAST LINE OF PARA 1.5, WHEREIN IT WAS WRITTEN THAT THE AO MAY APPLY HIS MIND TO THIS ASPECT OF THE MA TTER TO DO NEEDFUL AS REQUIRED. 9. SIMILARLY OUR ATTENTION WAS INVITED TO PAGE 6 OF CIT(A)S ORDER ON WHICH PARA2.1 WAS READ, WHEREIN IT WAS WRITTEN WI TH THIS END IN VIEW THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED TO EXPLAIN THE CASH BOOK TO TH E AO. THE AO SHOULD ITA NO.5601/DEL/2012 & C.O-457/DEL/2012 8 CARRY OUT SUCH ENQUIRY AS HE DEEM FIT IN ORDER TO S ATISFY HIMSELF ABOUT THE CORRECTNESS OF THE EXPLANATION. 10. SIMILARLY HE TOOK US TO PAGE 7 OF CIT (A)S ORD ER, WHEREIN IT WAS WRITTEN THAT THE DIRECTION CONTAINED IN PARA 2.1 O F THIS ORDER WOULD TAKE CARE OF THIS ADDITION ALSO. THE ASSESSEE AND THE AO ARE DIRECTED TO DO THE NEEDFUL AS PER SAID DIRECTION. 11. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE SUBMISSIONS THE LD. DR SUB MITTED THAT LD. CIT (A) HAS EXCEEDED HIS POWER AND HAS WRONGLY SET ASID E THE MATTERS TO AO. 12. THE LD. AR ON THE OTHER HAND TRIED TO PROTECT T HE ORDER OF LD. CIT (A) WHICH WAS IN HIS FAVOUR AND TRIED TO CONDEMN THE PO RTION OF CIT (A)S ORDER WHICH WAS NOT IN HIS FAVOUR AND IN RESPECT OF REVEN UE,S APPEAL AGAINST DELETION OF RS.62,50,000/- SUBMITTED THAT THE WHOLE LAND PROCURED BY ASSESSEE AND OTHER PERSON HAS BECOME DISPUTED AND C OMPANY HAS FILED CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS AGAINST SHRI RAJENDRA SINGH KH ETASAR SO THERE WAS NO QUESTION OF COMMISSION. 13. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL PARTIES AND HAVE GONE T HROUGH THE MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT THE LAND WAS PROCURE D BY SHRI RAJENDRA SINGH KHETASAR AS CONFIRMED BY THE COMPANY ON WHOSE BEHAL F LAND WAS PURCHASED AND SHRI RAJENDRA SINGH KHETASAR HAD ALSO DECLARED COMMISSION INCOME TO THE TUNE OF RS.7,18,55,600/- IN HIS RETURN OF INCOM E. WE ALSO FIND FROM THE ITA NO.5601/DEL/2012 & C.O-457/DEL/2012 9 ORDER OF CIT (A) THAT ASSESSEE HAD MADE A COMPLAINT ON 9.4.2009 TO THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, ECONOMIC OFFENCES WING, NEW DELHI CLAIMING THAT THE COMPANY HAD PAID AN AMOUNT OF RS.213 CRORE S TO SHRI RAJENDRA SINGH KHETASAR WHO HAD PROCURED APPROXIMATELY 1.5 L ACS BIGHAS OF LAND AND HAD COLLECTED RS.15 CRORES AS COMMISSION. WE ALSO F IND FROM THE ORDER OF CIT (A) THAT LAND PURCHASE HAD BECOME DISPUTED BECA USE OF ITS PROXIMITY TO PAKISTAN AND, THEREFORE, COMPANY HAD FILED SEVERAL SUITS AGAINST SHRI RAJENDRA SINGH KHETASAR AS WELL AS THE ASSESSEE CLA IMING RECOVERY OF MONEY PAID FOR PURCHASE OF LAND AND COMMISSION. WE ALSO F IND THAT SHRI RAJENDRA SINGH KHETASAR HAD SINCE DIED AND ASSESSEE HAD NOT RETURNED THE MONEY TO SHRI RAJENDRA SINGH KHETASAR DESPITE A PERIOD OF 5 YEARS HAD ELAPSED BETWEEN DATE OF PAYMENT AND APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS A S NOTED BY LD. CIT (A). 14. THOUGH THE LD. CIT (A) HAD CONFIRMED AND UPHELD THE ADDITIONS ,MADE BY AO, ON ACCOUNT OF PAYMENT OF RS.62,50,000/ - BY SHRI RAJENDRA SINGH KHETASAR TO ASSESSEE BUT VITAL FACTS HAS BEEN IGNORED BOTH BY AO AND LD. CIT (A) AND THESE ARE THAT AS PER AGREEMENT THE COMMISSIONS WAS TO BE SHARED AS 50: 50 BUT DESPITE THE FACT THAT SHRI RAJ ENDRA SINGH KHETASAR HAD DECLARED COMMISSIONS INCOME OF RS.7,18,55,600/- THE AO TOOK ONLY RS.62,50,000/- AS SHARE OF ASSESSEE ON THE BASIS TH AT SUCH SUM WAS RECEIVED BY ASSESSEE. IN FACT IF THE AO ON THE BASIS OF AGRE EMENT BETWEEN ASSESSEE ITA NO.5601/DEL/2012 & C.O-457/DEL/2012 10 AND SHRI RAJENDRA SINGH KHETASAR IS TREATING THE CH EQUE RECEIVED BY ASSESSEE AS HIS INCOME, HE SHOULD HAVE CONSIDERED 50% OF TOT AL COMMISSION EARNED BY SHRI RAJENDRA SINGH KHETASAR WHICH WAS IN CRORES . THE AO ALSO DID NOT CONFIRM FROM THE INCOME TAX RECORDS OF SHRI RAJENDR A SINGH KHETASAR AS TO WHETHER HE HAD CLAIMED EXPENDITURE WHICH HE HAD PAI D TO THE ASSESSEE AS HIS ALLEGED SHARE OF COMMISSION. MOREOVER LD. CIT (A) H AS GIVEN DIRECTIONS TO AO REGARDING CERTAIN ADDITIONS AND HAS NOT DIRECTLY ADJUDICATED ON THEM WHICH IS BEYOND HIS POWERS. 15. THEREFORE KEEPING IN VIEW THE TOTALITY OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT WHOLE CASE SHOUL D BE RELOOKED AGAIN BY AO AND IT IS DIRECTED THAT AO SHOULD MAKE PROPER AN D DETAILED ENQUIRIES BEFORE ARRIVING AT ANY CONCLUSION REGARDING ADDITIO NS IF ANY. THEREFORE THE CASE IS REMITTED BACK TO OFFICE OF AO. 16. NEEDLESS TO SAY THAT NECESSARY OPPORTUNITY WILL BE GIVEN TO ASSESSEE OF BEING HEARD. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE APPEALS FILED BY REVENUE AS WE LL AS BY ASSESSEE GETS ACCEPTED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 15 TH /03/ 2013. SD/- SD/- (R.P.TOLANI) (T.S. KAPOOR) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.5601/DEL/2012 & C.O-457/DEL/2012 11 DATED THE 15 TH DAY OF MARCH, 2013 S.SINHA COPY FORWARDED TO 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. CIT(ITAT), NEW DELHI. AR,ITAT NEW DELHI.