ACIT, New Delhi V. Smt. Suchita Vemuri, New Delhi

ITA 5635/DEL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2903 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 7 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-05-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Next Hearing Date: 09-05-2017
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 18-10-2013
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S S RANA
• Assessee Lawyers: RAJNISH BIHARI MATHUR
• Keywords: Income from undisclosed sources
• Section: 44AD; 143(3); 142(1); 131; 54; 132; 139

Judgement Text

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH G : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S.SIDHU , JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 5635/DEL/2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011 - 12 ) ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 13, ROOM NO. 332, ARA CENTRE, JHANDEWALAN EXTN, NEW DELHI VS. SUCHITA VEMURI, D - 199, 2 ND FLOOR, SAKET, NEW DELHI PAN:AANPV5042L (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY : SH. SS RANA, CIT DR ASSESSEE BY: SH. RAJNISH BIHARI MATHUR, CA DATE OF HEARING 11/05 / 2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 29 / 05 / 2017 O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, A. M. 1. THIS APPEAL IS PREFERRED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD CIT(A) - 1, NEW DELHI DATED 01.08.2013 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011 - 12. 2. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: - 1. THE ORDER OF LD. CIT (A) IS NOT CORRECT IN LAW AND FACTS. 2. ON THE FACTS AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACTS BY HOLDING THAT THE ADDITION OF RS.45 LACS WAS NOT JUSTIFIED. 3. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW BY DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.45 LACS AND REVERTING THE FINDING OF FACTS MADE BY THE AO IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHEREIN HE HAS HELD THE AMOUNT AS UNEXPLAINED CASH FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES. THE LD. CIT (A) HAS IGNORED THE FACT THAT AO HAS PROVIDED AMPLE OPPORTUNITIES TO ASSESSEE TO CROSS EXAMINE THE PURCHASER BUT ASSESSEE HAS NOT AVAILED THAT OPPORTUNITIES. KEEPING IN VIEW THESE FACTS OF THE CASE THE FINDING OF FACT OF THE CIT(A) DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.45 LACS APPEARS TO BE ERRONEOUS A ND CONTRARY TO THE STAND TAKEN BY THE DEPARTMENT. 4. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN ALLOWING DEDUCTION U/S 54 OF I.T. ACT TREATING THE CONSIDERATION OF RS. 45,00,000/ - AS PART OF SALE CONSIDERATION WHILE THE ASSES SING OFFICER HAS NOT TREATED THE SAME AS SALES CONSIDERATION. 5. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN RESTRICTING THE ADDITION TO RS. 1,81,084/ - OUT OF TOTAL ADDITION OF RS. 6,70,677/ - WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS THAT ASSESSEE FAILED LO FURNISHED CASH FLOW STATEMENT/ CASH BOOK AND BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS FOR VERIFICATION. PAGE 2 OF 6 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL WHO WAS INTERCEPTED BY AIR INTELLIGENCE UNIT AT MUMBAI AIRPORT ON 21.02.2011 ALONG WITH C ASH OF RS. 3 5 LAKHS WHEN SHE WAS TRAVELLING BY FLIGHT NO. GB - 105 OF THE GO AIRLINES FROM DELHI TO MUMBAI. SHE SUBMITTED THAT THE CASH BEING CARRIED BY HER IS PART OF THE SALE CONSIDERATION OF THE PROPERTY BEARING NO. C - 16/3, SFS DDA FLATS, SAKET, NEW DELHI SOLD TO DR. PRADEEP GOVIL AND MRS GOVIL AT A STATED CONSIDERATION OF RS. 1.25 CRORES BY CHEQUE BUT ACTUAL CONSIDERATION IS RS. 1.70 CRORES AND THEREFORE, BALANCE RS. 45 LAKHS IS RECEIVED IN CASH . SHE STATED THAT DECLARED AND REGISTRATION CONSIDERATION OF THE SALE OF PROPERTY IS RS. 1.25 CRORES WHEREAS, THE ACTUAL SALE CONSIDERATION IS RS. 1.70 CRORES . LATER ON NOTICE U/S 142(1) WAS ISSUED ON 17.01.2012, IN RESPONSE TO WHICH RETURN DECLARING INCOME OF RS. 1063030/ - WAS FILED ON 02.02.2012 . IN HER RETURN OF INCOME SHE INCLUDED THE ABOVE SUM OF RS 45 LAKHS AS SALES CONSIDERATION ABOVE THE DISCLOSED SALE CONSIDERATION IN THE SALES DEED AND COMPUTED THE CAPITAL GAIN, CLAIMED EXEMPTION U/S 54 OF THE ACT. O N 04.04.2011 IN RESPONSE TO SUMMONS U/S 131 SHE FURTHER AG REED TO CONTENTS OF HER STATEMENT U/S 132 ON 21.02.2011 . THE STATEMENT U/S 131 WAS ALSO RECORDED OF MR. SUDHANSHU SHARMA , WHO SIGNED AS WITNESS AGREEMENT TO SALE WHEREIN TOTAL CONSIDERATION OF RS. 1.70 CRORES IS MENTIONED , HE ALSO CONFIRMED THAT THE IM PUGNED PROPERTY WAS SOLD AT RS 1.70 CRORES AND NOT RS 1.25 CRORES . ON 14.3.2011 , STATEMENT U/S 131 OF THE BUYER DR. PRADEEP GOVIL WAS ALSO RECORDED WHO, HOWEVER, STATED THAT TRANSACTION TOOK PLACE AT A CONSIDERATION OF RS. 1.25 CRORE ONLY AND DENIED ANY PAYMENT OF RS 45 LAKHS IN CASH. BASED ON THIS A SUM OF RS. 45 LAKHS WAS ADDED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME. CONSEQUENTLY, ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT WAS PASSED ON 06.02.2013 AT RS. 5618457/ - AGAINST RETURNED INCOME OF R S . 1063030/ - . THE LD AO ALSO DISALLOWED THE EXPENSES OF RS. 670677/ - AND REJECTED THE COMPUTATION OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN OF RS. 615250/ - . 4. THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE THE LD CIT(A), WHO HELD THAT RS. 45 LAKHS IS NOT AN UNDISCLOSED INCOME BUT CH ARGEABLE TO TAX AS SALE PROCEEDS OF THE PROPERTY AS CAPITAL GAIN. HE FURTHER DELETED THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 670677/ - OF EXPENSES. CONSEQUENTLY, THE INCOME OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE OF RS. 181084/ - WAS DIRECTED TO BE TAXED. THEREFORE, REVENUE AGGRIEVED WITH THE ORDER OF THE LD CIT(A), HAS PREFERRED THIS APPEAL. 5. THE LD DR VEHEMENTLY CONTESTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS FOUND IN POSSESSION OF RS. 45 LAKHS AT THE AIRPORT AND THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHOULD CHARGE THE ABOVE AMOUNT IN HER HAND AS UNEXPLAINED INCOME . IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE COULD NOT PROVE THAT THIS SUM WAS ACTUALLY THE SAME SUM, WHICH WAS RECEIVED BY HER PAGE 3 OF 6 FROM DR. PRADEEP GOVIL OR WAS FROM SOME OTHER SOURCE. HE FURTHER REFERRED TO PAGE NO. 9 TO 11 OF THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED IT. 6. THE LD AR SUBMITTED THAT THE LD CIT(A) HAS CORRECTLY DEALT WITH THE WHOLE ISSUE AND SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE HAS SHOW N SALE CONSIDERATION OF THE PROPERTY BEING OF RS. 1.70 CRORES AT RS. 85 LAKHS AND COMPUTED THE CHANGEABLE CAPITAL GAIN OF RS. 5673787/ - . AS THE ASSESSEE HAS INVESTED IN NEW RESIDENTIAL HOUSE AND HER SHARE BEING HALF SHARE SHE HAS CLAIMED EXEMPTION U/S 54 OF THE ACT OF RS. 5058537/ - AND OFFERED CAPITAL GAIN OF RS. 615250/ - . HE THEREFORE, SUBMITTED THAT AS ASSESSEE HAS CONSISTENTLY STATED THAT THE PROPERTY WAS SOLD AT RS. 1.70 CRORES AND NOT AT RS. 1.25 CRORES AND THEREFORE, IMPUGNED SUM IS CORRECTLY OFFE RED FOR TAXATION UNDER THE HEAD CAPITAL GAIN AND CANNOT BE HELD TO BE INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES. WITH RESPECT TO THE EXPENDITURE HE SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE HAS OFFERED A GROSS RECEIPT OF RS. 851761/ - AND INCOME IS OFFERED U/S 44AD OF THE ACT AT 21.26 % SHOWING PROFIT OF RS. 181084/ - . THERE IS NO EVIDENCE WITH THE AO THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT INCURRED THE EXPENDITURE. AS THE RETURN IS FILED U/S 44AD THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS INCORRECT. 7. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTI ONS AND ALSO PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. THE IMPUGNED TRANSACTION IS SALE OF PROPERTY BY M/S. SUCHITRA VEMURI AND SMT. SONALI MEHRA TO MR. PRADEEP GOVIL AND DR. NILAM PRASAD GOVIL ON 23.03.2010 OF PROPERTY SITUATED AT FLAT NO. C - 16/3, CATE GORY SFS 3 WITH SCOOTER GARAGE SITUATED AT MALAVIYA NAGAR EXTENSION NOW KNOWN AS SAKET, NEW DELHI 17. ACCORDING TO THE SALE DEED EXECUTED THE AGREED CONSIDERATION OF THE PROPERTY IS RS. 1.25 CRORES. THE BUYER PAID THE ABOVE SUM BY EIGHT DIFFERENT CHEQUE ST ARTING FROM 08.09.2010 TO 20.11.2010 . SUBSEQUENTLY, THE ASSESSEE WAS INTERCEPTED WHILE TRAVELLING FROM DELHI TO MUMBAI ALONG WITH A CASH OF RS. 35 LAKHS AND AS A SOURCE OF THE ABOVE SUM SHE STATED THAT ACTUALLY THE IMPUGNED PROPERTY WAS SOLD AT RS. 1.70 CR ORES OUT OF WHICH RS. 1.25 CRORES WAS CONSIDERATION STATED IN THE SALE DEED, RECEIVED BY CHEQUE FROM THE BUYER AND THE BALANCE SUM OF RS. 45 LAKHS WAS RECEIVED IN CASH FROM BUYER . T O SUBSTANTIATE HER CLAIM THAT SAID SUM FORMS PART OF THE CONSIDERATION, SHE SUBMITTED AN AFFIDAVIT DATED 09.07.2013 STATING THAT OVER AND ABOVE THE CHEQUE CONSIDERATION SHE RECEIVED RS. 1 LAKHS ON 02.09.2010 AND RS. 44 LAKHS ON 16.11.2010 IN CASH FROM THE BUYER. SHE FURTHER STATED THAT ONE SHRI SUDHANSHU SHARMA AND ANOTHER SHRI SK DHAMIJA WERE THE BROKERS IN THE ABOVE STATED TRANSACTION AND BOTH ARE WITNESSED TO THE ABOVE TRANSACTION. TO SUBSTANTIATE HER CLAIM SHE ALSO PRODUCED A RECEIPT CUM AGREEMENT TO SALE DATED 02.09.2010 BETWEEN THE SELLER AND THE BU YER WHERE A SUM OF RS. 1.70 CRORES WAS MENTIONED AS PAGE 4 OF 6 A CONSIDERATION. SHE FURTHER PRODUCED A RECEIPT OF RS. 44 LAKHS ISSUED BY THE ASSESSEE IN FAVOUR OF THE BUYER WHEREIN THESE TWO BROKERS HAVE SIGNED AS A WITNESS. THE ABOVE RECEIPT CUM AGREEMENT TO SALE WA S ALSO SHOWN TO HAVE BEEN SIGNED BY THE BUYER. ONE OF THE BROKER U/ S 131 OF THE ACT ALSO CONFIRMED THE ABOVE STATEMENT . EVEN DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, SHE SUBMITTED IN RESPONSE TO SUMMONS U/S 131 DATED 14.03.2011 THE ABOVE FACTS. HOWEVE R, THE BUYER OBVIOUSLY, IN RESPONSE TO SUMMONS U/S 131 ON 14.03.2011 CONFIRMED THE TRANSACTION PRICE OF THE PROPERTY AT RS. 1.25 CRORES ONLY. IN NUTSHELL BUYER DENIED TO HAVE PAID ANY SUM OVER AND ABOVE RS. 1.25 CRORES TO THE ASSESSEE. THE LD CIT(A) IN VIE W OF THE ABOVE OVERWHELMING DOCUMENTS AND CONFIRMATION BY THE BROKER AS WELL AS THE STATEMENT U/S 132(4) OF THE ACT OF THE ASSESSEE HERSELF HAS HELD THAT A SUM OF RS. 45 LAKHS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE IS IN FACT TOWARDS SALES CONSIDERATION OF THE PROPERTY AND THEREFORE CANNOT BE TAXED AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. HE FURTHER HELD THAT THERE IS NO INCONSISTENCY IN THE STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE WITH RESPECT TO THE SOURCE OF THE ABOVE SUM AT VARIOUS TIMES. IN VIEW OF THIS, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD CIT(A) IN HOLDING THAT SUCH SUM CANNOT BE TAXED AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE BUT IS CONSIDERED AS SALES CONSIDERATION OF THE PROPERTY SOLD AND CHARGEABLE TO TAX UNDER THE HEAD CAPITAL GAIN. THE ABOVE VIEW IS FURTHER CORREC T BECAUSE OF THE REASON THAT REVENUE COULD NOT PROVE ITS ALLEGATION THAT THE SUM FOUND IN POSSESSION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT THE SAME MONEY, WHICH WAS PART OF THE SALES CONSIDERATION. THE ASSESSEE WAS CAUGHT AT THE AIRPORT 21.02.2011 WHEREAS THE ASSESSEE O N 16.11.2010 RECEIVED THE SUM OF MONEY OF RS. 45 LAKHS , THEREFORE, THERE WAS ONLY THREE MONTHS TIME BETWEEN THE TIME OF RECEIPT OF SUM AND MONEY SEIZED FROM THE ASSESSEE. THE REVENUE COULD NOT SHOW THAT MONEY RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS UTILIZED SOMEWHERE ELSE AND THE MONEY FOUND FROM THE ASSESSEE WAS FORM DIFFERENT SOURCE. IN VIEW OF THIS, WE FULLY CONCUR WITH THE VIEWS OF THE LD CIT(A) WITH RESPECT TO TAXATION OF THE ABOVE SUM UNDER THE HEAD CAPITAL GAIN ONLY. HENCE, WE DISMISS GROUND NO. 1 TO 4 OF THE A PPEAL OF THE REVENUE ON THIS ASPECT. 8. GROUND NO. 5 OF THE APPEAL WAS WITH RESPECT TO THE DISALLOWANCE DELETED BY FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY OF RS. 670677/ - . THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED A RETURN OF INCOME U/S 44AD OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 SHOWING GROSS RECEIPT OF RS. 851761/ - AND OFFERED PROFIT THERE FROM AT 21.26% AMOUNTING TO RS. 181084/ - . DURING THE ASSESSMENT PRECEDING THE ASSESSEES CLAIM WAS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A COMMUNICATION EXPERT AND WORKS AS A GHOSTWRITER FOR VARIOUS PUBLIC RELATIONS FIRM AND THEREFORE INCOME IS OFFERED U/S 44AD OF THE ACT. SHE ALSO DOES NOT MAINTAIN PAGE 5 OF 6 ANY BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT 21% OF THE GROSS RECEIPT IS OFFERED AS AN INCOME, WHICH IS HIGHER THAN 8% PROVIDED BY THE ACT. THE LD ASSESSING OFFICER REJECTED THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE AS ASSESSEE DID NOT PRODUCE ANY BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR ANY PROOF OF EXPENDITURE INCURRED. HE FURTHER HELD THAT AS TDS CERTIFICATE ISSUE D IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE U/S 194J SHOWS THAT ASSESSE E IS A PROFESSIONAL; ASSESSEE SHOULD HAVE MAINTAIN ED BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. ON APPEAL BEFORE THE LD CIT(A), HE HELD THAT AS THE GROSS RECEIPT IS BELOW RS. 10 LAKHS THE APPELLANT WAS NOT REQUIRED TO MAINTAIN BOOKS OF ACCOUNT U/S 44AA OF THE ACT AND THEREFORE HE DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DELETE THE DISALLOWANCE AS THE PROFIT OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE IS MORE THAN 8% PRESCRIBED U/S 44AD OF THE ACT. 9. THE LD DR VEHEMENTLY CONTESTED THE FINDING OF THE LD CIT( A) AND SUBMITTED ON WHAT BASIS THE ASSESSEE HAS COMPUTED PROFIT @21.26% OF INCOME IS NOT KNOWN. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT SECTION 44AD PROVIDES MINIMUM PROFIT OF 8% AND NOT THE MAXIMUM PROFIT. IT IS ALSO STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS REQUIRED TO MAINTAIN BOO KS OF ACCOUNT. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT ANY PERSON OFFERING INCOME U/S 44AD IS REQUIRED TO PRODUCE CERTAIN INFORMATION AS MENTIONED U/S 139 OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, HE STATED THAT LD CIT(A) HAS WRONGLY DELETED THE DISALLOWANCE WITHOUT VERIFICATION. 10. WE HA VE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND ALSO PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. IT IS APPARENT THAT ASSESSEE IS PROVIDING SOME PROFESSIONAL CONSULTANCY SERVICES HOWEVER, THE NATURE OF SERVICES IS NOT KNOWN. IT IS ALSO AN ACCEPTED FACT T HAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN PROFIT @21.26% OF THE GROSS RECEIPT SHOWN BY HER. ON PERUSAL OF THE SECTION 44AD OF THE ACT IT IS APPARENT THAT 8% NET PROFIT RATE PROVIDED BY THE STATUTE IS THE MINIMUM SUM CHARGEABLE TO TAX AND IF ASSESSEE IS EARNING HIGHER TH AN 8% THEN SUCH HIGHER PERCENTAGE OF PROFIT IS CHARGEABLE TO TAX. PROVISIONS OF SECTION 44AD FURTHER PROVIDE SECTION 44AA ALSO DO NOT APPLY IN SUCH CASES. HOWEVER, ON READING OF THE PROVISION OF CLAUSE ( F) TO EXPLANATION TO SECTION 139 PROVIDES THAT WHERE THE ASSESSEE DO NOT MAINTAIN REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT , THE RETURN SHALL BE REQUIRED TO BE ACCOMPANIED BY STATEMENT INDICATING THE AMOUNT OF TURNOVER OR GROSS RECEIPT, GROSS PROFIT, EXPENSES AND NET PROFIT AND THE BASIS ON WHICH SUCH AMOUNT HAVE BEEN COMP UTED. IT WAS ALSO FURTHER PROVIDED TO DISCLOSE THE AMOUNT OF TOTAL SUNDRY DEBTOR , SUNDRY CREDITOR, STOCK IN TRADE, CASH BALANCE ON HAND AS AT THE END OF THE YEAR , OTHERWISE , AND THE RETURN SHALL BE REGARDED AS DEFECTIVE RETURN. IN VIEW OF THIS, IT IS APPAR ENT THAT ASSESSEE IS REQUIRED TO PRODUCE ALL THESE DETAILS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER DESPITE THE FACT THAT SHE HAS OFFERED INCOME U/S 44AD OF THE ACT. HENCE, WE DO NOT CONCUR WITH THE OPINION OF THE LD CIT(A) IN DELETING THE ADDITION WITHOUT VERIFYING THE INFORMATION PAGE 6 OF 6 MENTIONED UNDER CLAUSE (F) TO EXPLANATION TO SECTION 139 OF THE ACT. FURTHERMORE, LD CIT(A) HAS ALSO NOT EXAMINED THAT WHETHER THE ASSESSEE WAS CARRYING THE BUSINESS, WHICH FALLS WITHIN THE PROVISION OF SECTION 44AD OF THE ACT. I N VIEW OF THIS WE SET ASIDE GROUND NO. 5 OF THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE TO FILE OF THE LD ASSESSING OFFICER WITH A DIRECTION TO EXAMINE THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE U/S 44AD WITH RESPECT TO THE ELIGIBLE BUSINESS AND THEN PROVISION OF SECTION 139 OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO DIRECTED TO SUPPORT HER CLAIM U/S 44AD WITH RESPECT TO THE DETAILS REQUIRED TO BE MAINTAINED ACCORDING TO CLAUSE 9F) OF EXPLANATION TO SECTION 139 OF THE ACT. IN THE RESULT GROUND, NO. 5 OF THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS ALLOWED ACCORDINGLY. 11. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PR ONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 2 9 / 05 / 2017 . - S D / - - S D / - ( H.S.SIDHU ) (PRASHANT MAHARISHI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 2 9 / 05 / 2017 A K KEOT COPY FORWARDED TO 1. APPLICANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR:ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI