Rockwell Automation India Pvt. Ltd., Delhi V. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 567/DEL/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 87168 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-03-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: I
• Next Hearing Date: 27-03-2015
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 29-01-2015
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AJIT KUMAR SINGH
• Keywords: Transfer pricing; International transaction; Application of stay; Initiation of penalty proceedings
• Section: 143(3); 234B; 37

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH I: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K., JUDICIAL MEMBER STAY NO.57/DEL/2015 (IN ITA NO.567/DEL/2015) (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11) AND ITA NO.567/DEL/2015) (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11) M/S. ROCKWELL AUTOMATION INDIA PVT. LTD., VS. DCIT , CIRCLE 21 (2), 131, FUNCTIONAL INDUSTRIAL AREA, NEW DELHI. PATPARGANJ, DELHI 110 092. (PAN : AACCR3791A) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI NITIN NARANG, CA REVENUE BY : SHRI AJIT KUMAR SINGH, CIT DR DATE OF HEARING : 27.03.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 31.03.2015 O R D E R PER GEORGE GEORGE K., JM: THIS APPEAL, AT THE INSTANCE OF THE ASSESSEE, IS DI RECTED AGAINST THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) R.W.S. 144C OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 DATED 31.12.2014. THE RELEVANT ASSESSMEN T YEAR IS 2010-11. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOUR GROUNDS IN ITS MEMO RANDUM OF APPEAL. GROUND NO.1 & 2 RELATES TO THE TRANSFER PRICING ADJ USTMENT. GROUND NO.3 RELATES TO INITIATION OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS. THIS GROUND IS PREMATURE AND IS NOT 2 STAY NO.57/DEL/2015 AND ITA NO.567/DEL/2015 MAINTAINABLE, HENCE, GROUND NO.3 IS DISMISSED. GRO UND NO.4 IS REGARDING LEVY OF INTEREST U/S 234B AND 234C. THE LEVY OF INTERES T UNDER THE ABOVE PROVISIONS IS MANDATORY AND CONSEQUENTIAL. HENCE, GROUND NO.4 IS REJECTED. 3. BRIEFLY STATED, THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE AS FOL LOWS. THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN MANUFACTURING/ASSEMBLIN G AUTOMATION AND INDUSTRIAL CONTROL PRODUCTS/SYSTEMS. APART FROM MA NUFACTURING / ASSEMBLING, THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS ALSO ENGAGED IN TRADING IN CERTAIN PRODUCTS. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS ALSO PROVIDING SERVICES LIKE IN FORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND ENGINEERING BASED CONSULTANCY SERVICES, TRAINING ET C. DURING THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR, ASSESSEE HAD UNDERTAKEN THE FOLLOW ING INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS WITH ITS AES :- S.NO. NATURE OF TRANSACTIONS AMOUNT (IN INR) METHOD TESTED PARTY COMPARABLES I) EXPORT OF FINISHED GOODS 84,03,311 TRANSACTIONAL NET MARGIN METHOD (TNMM) OP/SALES AS PLI 6.88% 4.72% (AS PER TP STUDY) 3.04% 2.15% (WORKING CAPITAL ADJUSTED) II) IMPORT OF PRODUCTS/ COMPONENTS 2,43,07,41,591 III) IMPORT OF CAPITAL GOODS 56,56,517 IV) RECEIPT OF SERVICES 1,63,88,484 V) PROVISION OF SERVICES 1,85,86,840 VI) MANAGEMENT FEE 7,54,58,373 VII) COST RECHARGES TO GROUP COMPANIES 3,45,05,554 COMPARABLE UNCONTROLLED PRICE METHOD (CUP) 3 STAY NO.57/DEL/2015 AND ITA NO.567/DEL/2015 THE TRANSFER PRICING OFFICER ACCEPTED ALL THE INTER NATIONAL TRANSACTIONS ENTERED INTO BY THE ASSESSEE WITH ITS AES DURING THE YEAR U NDER CONSIDERATION TO BE AT ARMS LENGTH EXCEPT THE TRANSACTION RELATING TO PAY MENT OF MANAGEMENT FEES AMOUNTING TO RS.7,54,58,373/-, THEREBY MAKING A TP ADJUSTMENT OF RS.7,54,58,373/-. IN MAKING THE TP ADJUSTMENT, THE TPO STATED THAT NO BENEFIT WAS AVAILED BY THE ASSESSEE BY MAKING SUCH PAYMENTS TO ITS AES AND IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY ANALYSIS PRESENTING THE COST BENEFIT , THE PAYMENT OF MANAGEMENT FEES WAS UNWARRANTED. PURSUANT TO THE TPOS ORDER, THE AO ISSUED A DRAFT ORDER UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE FILE D OBJECTIONS TO THE DRAFT ASSESSMENT ORDER TO THE DRP. THE DRP DISPOSED OFF THE ASSESSEES OBJECTIONS VIDE ITS ORDER/DIRECTIONS DATED 02.12.2014. THE DR P CONFIRMED THE TP ADJUSTMENT MADE BY THE TPO/AO. PURSUANT TO THE DRP S DIRECTIONS, FINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PASSED ON 31.12.2014. 4. AGGRIEVED BY THE TP ADJUSTMENT, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE APPEAL BEFORE US. BOTH THE SIDES AGREED THAT THE TRANSFER PRICING ISS UE IS TO BE RESTORED TO THE AO/TPO FOR FRESH CONSIDERATION IN THE LIGHT OF THE JUDGMEN T OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT OF DELHI IN THE CASE OF CIT-I VS. CUSHMAN AND WAKEFIELD (INDIA) (P.) LTD. REPORTED IN [2014] 46 TAXMANN.COM 317 (DELHI). IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT SIMILAR VIEW WAS TAKEN BY TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASES FOR A Y 2008-09 AND 2009-10 IN ITA NO.6262/DEL./2012 & ITA NO.504/DEL./2014 (ORDER DAT ED 22.12.2014). 5. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CU SHMAN AND WAKEFIELD 4 STAY NO.57/DEL/2015 AND ITA NO.567/DEL/2015 (INDIA) (P.) LTD. (SUPRA) HELD THAT TPO CANNOT DETE RMINE ARMS LENGTH PRICE OF THE PAYMENTS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE TO ITS AE AT N IL FOR THE REASON THAT ASSESSEE DID NOT DERIVE ANY BENEFIT FROM SERVICES R ENDERED BY AE. THE RELEVANT FINDING OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT RE ADS AS UNDER:- 34. THE COURT FIRST NOTES THAT THE AUTHORITY OF TH E TPO IS TO CONDUCT A TRANSFER PRICING ANALYSIS TO DETERMINE THE ALP AN D NOT TO DETERMINE WHETHER THERE IS A SERVICE OR NOT FROM WHICH THE AS SESSEE BENEFITS. THAT ASPECT OF THE EXERCISE IS LEFT TO THE AO. THIS DIST INCTION WAS MADE CLEAR BY THE IT AT IN DRESSER-RAND INDIA (P.) LTD V. ADDL . CLT (2011) 47 SOT 423/13 TAXXMANN. COM 82 (MUM.): 8. WE FIND THAT THE BASIC REASON OF THE TRANSFER P RICING OFFICER'S DETERMINATION OF ALP OF THE SERVICES RECE IVED UNDER COST CONTRIBUTION ARRANGEMENT AS 'NIL' IS HIS PERCEPTION THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT NEED THESE SER VICES AT ALL, AS THE ASSESSEE HAD SUFFICIENT EXPERTS OF HIS OWN WHO WERE COMPETENT ENOUGH TO DO THIS WORK. FOR EXAMPLE, THE TRANSFER PRICING OFFICER HAD POINTED OUT THAT THE A SSESSEE HAS QUALIFIED ACCOUNTING STAFF WHICH COULD HAVE HAN DLED THE AUDIT WORK AND IN ANY CASE THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID AU DIT FEES TO EXTERNAL FIRM. SIMILARLY, THE TRANSFER PRICING O FFICER WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD MANAGEMENT EXPERT S ON ITS ROLLS, AND. THEREFORE, GLOBAL BUSINESS OVERSIGHT SE RVICES WERE NOT NEEDED. IT IS DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND, MUCH LES S APPROVE, THIS LINE OF REASONING. IT IS ONLY ELEMENTARY THAT HOW AN ASSESSEE CONDUCTS HIS BUSINESS IS ENTIRELY HIS PRER OGATIVE AND IT IS NOT FOR THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES TO DECIDE WHAT 6 ITA NOS.6262/DEL /2012 ITA NO.504/D/2014 IS NECESSARY F OR AN ASSESSEE AND WHAT IS NOT. AN ASSESSEE MAY HAVE ANY NUMBER OF QUALIFIED ACCOUNTANTS AND MANAGEMENT EXPE RTS ON HIS ROLLS, AND YET HE MAY DECIDE TO ENGAGE SERVI CES OF OUTSIDE EXPERTS FOR AUDITING AND MANAGEMENT CONSULT ANCY; IT IS NOT FOR THE REVENUE OFFICERS TO QUESTION ASSESSE E'S WISDOM IN DOING SO. THE TRANSFER PRICING OFFICER WA S NOT ONLY GOING MUCH BEYOND HIS POWERS IN QUESTIONING COMMERCIAL WISDOM OF ASSESSEE'S DECISION TO TAKE BE NEFIT OF EXPERTISE OF DRESSER RAND US, BUT ALSO BEYOND TH E POWERS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. WE DO NOT APPROVE THIS APPROACH OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES. WE HAVE FURTHE R 5 STAY NO.57/DEL/2015 AND ITA NO.567/DEL/2015 NOTICED THAT THE TRANSFER PRICING OFFICER HAS MADE SEVERAL OBSERVATIONS TO THE EFFECT THAT, AS EVIDENT FROM TH E ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT BENE FIT, IN TERMS OF FINANCIAL RESULTS, FROM THESE SERVICES. TH IS ANALYSIS IS ALSO COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT, BECAUSE WHETHER A PA RTICULAR EXPENSE ON SERVICES RECEIVED ACTUALLY BENEFITS AN A SSESSEE IN MONETARY TERMS OR NOT EVEN A CONSIDERATION FOR I TS BEING ALLOWED AS A DEDUCTION IN COMPUTATION OF INCOME, AN D, BY NO STRETCH OF LOGIC, IT CAN HAVE ANY ROLE IN DETERM INING ARM'S LENGTH PRICE OF THAT SERVICE. WHEN EVALUATING THE A RM'S LENGTH PRICE OF A SERVICE, IT IS WHOLLY IRRELEVANT AS TO WHETHER THE ASSESSEE BENEFITS FROM IT OR NOT; THE R EAL QUESTION WHICH IS TO BE DETERMINED IN SUCH CASES IS WHETHER THE PRICE OF THIS SERVICE IS WHAT AN INDEPENDENT EN TERPRISE WOULD HAVE PAID FOR THE SAME. SIMILARLY, WHETHER TH E AE GAVE THE SAME SERVICES TO THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRECE DING YEARS WITHOUT ANY CONSIDERATION OR NOT IS ALSO IRRE LEVANT. THE AE MAY HAVE GIVEN THE SAME SERVICE ON GRATUITOU S BASIS IN THE EARLIER PERIOD, BUT THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT ARM'S LENGTH PRICE OF THESE SERVICES IS 'NIL'. THE AUTHOR ITIES BELOW HAVE BEEN SWAYED BY THE CONSIDERATIONS WHICH ARE NO T AT ALL RELEVANT IN THE CONTEXT OF DETERMINING THE ARM'S LE NGTH PRICE OF THE COSTS INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE IN COST CONTR IBUTION ARRANGEMENT. WE HAVE ALSO NOTED THAT THE STAND OF T HE REVENUE AUTHORITIES IN THIS CASE IS THAT NO SERVICE S WERE RENDERED BY THE AE AT ALL, AND THAT SINCE THERE IS NO. EVIDENCE OF SERVICES HAVING BEEN RENDERED AT ALL, T HE ARM'S LENGTH PRICE OF THESE SERVICES IS 'NIL'. 35. THE TPO'S REPORT IS, SUBSEQUENT TO THE FINANCE ACT, 2007, BINDING ON THE AO. THUS, IT BECOMES ALL THE MORE IM PORTANT TO CLARIFY THE EXTENT OF THE TPO'S AUTHORITY IN THIS C ASE, WHICH IS TO DETERMINING THE ALP FOR INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS REFERRED TO HIM OR HER BY THE AO, RATHER THAN DETERMINING WHETHER S UCH SERVICES EXIST OR BENEFITS HAVE ACCRUED. THAT EXERCISE - OF FACTUAL VERIFICATION IS RETAINED BY THE AO UNDER SECTION 37 IN THIS CASE. INDEED, THIS IS NOT TO SAY THAT THE TPO CANNOT - AF TER A CONSIDERATION OF THE FACTS - STATE THAT THE ALP IS 'NIL' GIVEN THAT AN INDEPENDENT ENTITY IN A COMPARABLE TRANSACTION WOUL D NOT PAY ANY AMOUNT. HOWEVER, THIS IS DIFFERENT FROM THE TPO STA TING THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT BENEFIT FROM THESE SERVICES, WHICH AMOUNTS TO DISALLOWING EXPENDITURE. THAT DECISION IS OUTSIDE T HE AUTHORITY OF 6 STAY NO.57/DEL/2015 AND ITA NO.567/DEL/2015 THE TPO. THIS ASPECT WAS MADE CLEAR BY THE ITAT IN DELLOITE CONSULTING INDIA (P.) LTD. V. DY. CIT/ITO [2012] 13 7 ITD 21122 TAXMANN.COM 107 (MUM): 37. ON THE ISSUE AS TO WHETHER THE TRANSFER PRICIN G OFFICER IS EMPOWERED TO DETERMINE THE ARM'S LENGTH PRICE AT 'NIL', WE FIND THAT THE BANGALORE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN GEMPLUS INDIA (P.) LTD. V. ASSTT. CIT [IT APPEAL NO . 352 (BANG.) OF 2009, DATED 20-10-2010] HELD THAT THE AS SESSEE HAS TO ESTABLISH BEFORE THE TRANSFER PRICING OFFICE R THAT THE PAYMENTS MADE WERE COMMENSURATE TO THE VOLUME AND QUALITY SERVICE AND THAT SUCH COSTS ARE COMPARABLE. WHEN COMMENSURATE BENEFIT AGAINST THE PAYMENT OF SERVICE S IS NOT DERIVED, THEN THE TRANSFER PRICING OFFICER IS JUSTI FIED IN MAKING AN ADJUSTMENT UNDER THE ARM'S LENGTH PRICE. 38. IN THE CASE ON HAND, THE TRANSFER PRICING OFFIC ER HAS DETERMINED THE ARM'S LENGTH PRICE AT 'NIL' KEEPING IN VIEW THE FACTUAL POSITION AS TO WHETHER IN A COMPARABLE CASE, SIMILAR PAYMENTS WOULD HAVE BEEN MADE OR NOT IN TER MS OF THE AGREEMENTS. THIS IS A CASE WHERE THE ASSESSEE H AS NOT DETERMINED THE ARM'S LENGTH PRICE. THE BURDEN IS IN ITIALLY ON THE ASSESSEE TO DETERMINE THE ARM'S LENGTH PRICE. T HUS, THE ARGUMENT OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE TRANSFER PRICING OFFICER HAS EXCEEDED HIS JURISDICTION BY DISALLOWING CERTAI N EXPENDITURE, IS AGAINST THE FACTS. THE TRANSFER PRI CING OFFICER HAS NOT DISALLOWED ANY EXPENDITURE. ONLY TH E ARM'S LENGTH PRICE WAS DETERMINED. IT WAS THE ASSESSING O FFICER WHO COMPUTED THE INCOME BY ADOPTING THE ARM'S LENGT H PRICE DECIDED BY THE TRANSFER PRICING OFFICER AT 'N IL'. THIS IS A SLENDER YET CRUCIAL DISTINCTION THAT REST RICTS THE AUTHORITY OF THE TPO. WHILST THE REPORT OF THE TPO IN THIS CA SE ULTIMATELY NOTED THAT THE ALP WAS 'NIL', SINCE A COMPARABLE EN TITY WOULD PAY 'NIL' AMOUNT FOR THESE SERVICES, THIS COURT NOTED T HAT REMARKS CONCERNING, AND THE FINAL DECISION RELATING TO, BEN EFIT ARISING FROM THESE SERVICES ARE PROPERLY RESERVED FOR THE AO. 36. IN THIS CASE, THE ISSUE IS WHETHER AN INDEPENDE NT ENTITY WOULD HAVE PAID FOR SUCH SERVICES. IMPORTANTLY, IN REACHING THIS CONCLUSION, NEITHER THE REVENUE, NOR THIS COURT, MU ST QUESTION THE COMMERCIAL WISDOM OF THE ASSESSEE, OR REPLACE ITS O WN ASSESSMENT 7 STAY NO.57/DEL/2015 AND ITA NO.567/DEL/2015 OF THE COMMERCIAL VIABILITY OF THE TRANSACTION. THE SERVICES RENDERED BY CWS AND CWHK IN THIS CASE CONCERN LIAIS ING AND CLIENT INTERACTION WITH IBM ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESS EE - ACTIVITIES FOR WHICH, ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE'S CLAIM - INTE RACTION WITH IBM'S REGIONAL OFFICES IN SINGAPORE AND THE UNITED STATES WAS NECESSARY. THESE SERVICES CANNOT - AS THE IT A T CO RRECTLY SURMISED - BE DUPLICATED IN INDIA INSOFAR AS THEY R EQUIRE INTERACTION ABROAD. WHETHER IT IS COMMERCIALLY PRUD ENT OR NOT TO EMPLOY OUTSIDERS TO CONDUCT THIS ACTIVITY IS A MATT ER THAT LIES WITHIN THE ASSESSEE'S EXCLUSIVE DOMAIN, AND CANNOT BE SECOND- GUESSED BY THE REVENUE. 37. AT THIS POINT, IT IS NOTEWORTHY THAT THE CIRCUM STANCE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD MARKET RESEARCH FACILITIES IN INDIA DO ES NOT CORRESPOND TO THE PERFORMANCE OF SERVICES ABROAD, E SPECIALLY IN RELATION TO CLIENT INTERACTION SERVICES LOCATED OUT SIDE INDIA - ALBEIT FOR ULTIMATELY SOURCING THEM INTO THE INDIAN MARKET . THE E-MAILS CONSIDERED BY THE ITA T FROM MR. BRAGANZA AND MR. C HOUDHARY SO FAR AS THEY DEAL WITH SPECIFIC INTERACTION WITH IBM BY THOSE PERSONS, AND RELATE IT TO BENEFITS OBTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE, PROVIDE A SUFFICIENT BASIS TO HOLD THAT BENEFIT ACCRUED TO THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, THIS DETERMINATION REMAINS UNCLEAR AND INC HOATE. THE DEVIL HERE LIES IN THE DETAILS. THE DETAILS OF THE SPECIFIC ACTIVITIES FOR WHICH COST WAS INCURRED BY BOTH CWS AND CWHK (F OR THE ACTIVITIES OF MR. BRAGANZA AND MR. CHOUDHARY), AND THE ATTENDANT BENEFIT TO THE ASSESSEE, HAVE NOT BEEN CONSIDERED T ILL DATE. THIS MUST BE PROVIDED, IN ADDITION TO A CONSIDERATION OF THE ALP VIS-A- VIS THE TOTAL COST CLAIMED BY THESE AES. TO THIS EX TENT, FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF ALP IN RESPECT OF THESE TRANSACTIO NS, THE MATTER IS REMANDED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE CONCERNED AO, FOR AN ALP ASSESSMENT BY THE TPO, FOLLOWED BY THE AO'S ASSESSM ENT ORDER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. 6. THE HONBLE HIGH COURT CATEGORICALLY HELD THAT T HE TPO IS TO CONDUCT A TRANSFER PRICING ANALYSIS TO DETERMINE THE ARMS LE NGTH PRICE (ALP) AND NOT TO DETERMINE WHETHER THERE IS A SERVICE FROM WHICH ASS ESSEE HAS DERIVED BENEFIT OR NOT. THE HONBLE COURT HELD THAT THE EXERCISE TO DE TERMINE WHETHER ASSESSEE HAD DERIVED ANY BENEFIT OR NOT FROM PAYMENT OF SUCH MAN AGEMENT FEE IS TO BE 8 STAY NO.57/DEL/2015 AND ITA NO.567/DEL/2015 EXAMINED BY THE AO AND APPROPRIATE DISALLOWANCE U/S 37 IS CALLED FOR. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE TPO HAD DETERMINED THE ALP OF PAY MENT OF MANAGEMENT FEES AT NIL BY HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT DERIV E ANY BENEFIT FROM SERVICES RENDERED BY THE AE. THEREFORE, KEEPING IN VIEW THE DICTUM LAID DOWN BY THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT, NECESSARILY AO AS TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE ASSESSEE HAS DERIVED ANY BENE FIT FROM PAYMENT OF PROFESSIONAL FEES AND IF ANY BENEFIT HAD DERIVED, W HETHER SUCH PAYMENT IS COMMENSURATE TO COMPARABLE TRANSACTION HAS TO BE EX AMINED BY THE TPO. FOR THE ABOVE SAID PURPOSE, THE TRANSFER PRICING ISSUE IS RESTORED TO AO/TPO FOR DE- NOVO CONSIDERATION. WE ORDER ACCORDINGLY. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PAR TLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 7. THE STAY APPLICATION IS DISMISSED AS INFRUCTUOUS SINCE THE APPEAL IS HEARD. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THIS 31 ST DAY OF MARCH, 2015. SD/- SD/- (R.S. SYAL) (GEORGE GEORGE K.) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED THE 31 ST DAY OF MARCH, 2015/TS COPY FORWARDED TO: 1.APPELLANT 2.RESPONDENT 3.CIT 4.CIT(A) 5.CIT(ITAT), NEW DELHI. AR, ITAT NEW DELHI.