Bright View Buildcon LLP (Formerly Known as Bright View Buildcon P.Ltd), New Delhi V. ITO, Ward-5(2), New Delhi

ITA 5690/DEL/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8674 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-04-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 04-09-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S L ANURAGI
• Keywords: Question of law; Initiation of penalty proceedings; TDS; Set aside
• Section: 271(1)(c); 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: SMC NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A .NO.-5690/DEL/2018 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2013-14) BRIGHT VIEW BUILDCON LLP (FORMERLY KNOWN AS BRIGHT VIEW BUILDCON P. LTD.) A-6/5, BASEMENT, PASCHIM VIHAR, NEW DELHI 110 063 (PAN NO. AADCB2017Q) (A PPELLANT) VS. ITO, WARD 5(2), NEW DELHI (RE SPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SHRI ROHIT TIWARI, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY SHRI S.L. ANURAGI, SR. DR ORDER THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAIN ST THE ORDER DATED 01.03.2018 OF THE LD. CIT(A)-13, NEW DE LHI RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14. 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT IN THIS CASE R ETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED ON 30.10.2013 DECLARING AN INCOME OF RS. 1,37,130/-. THE ASSESSMENT U/S. 143(3) OF THE INCOM E TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT ACT) WAS COMPLETED VIDE ORDER DATE D 28.3.2016 AT AN INCOME OF RS. 45,84,206/- BY MAKING THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF INCOME IN RESET OF TDS AMOUN T CLAIMED LESS ALREADY DECLARED IN ITR RS. 12,66,547/-; INCOM E IN RESPECT OF OTHER CREDIT ENTRIES IN BANK RS. 28,93,417/- AND INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES RS. 2,87,112/- THUS TOTALING TO RS. 44,47,076/- FURTHER, PENALTY PROCEEDINGS WERE INITIATED BY THE AO WITH 2 REGARD TO THE ABOVE ADDITIONS AND ACCORDINGLY A SHO W CAUSE NOTICE DATED 2.8.2016 WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE. IN RESPONSE TO THE SAME, THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS REPLY DATED 26. 9.2016. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PREFERRED AN APPEAL B EFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AGAINST THE QUANTUM ADDITION. THE AO IN THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS HAS OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT IN ANY WAY SUBSTANTIATED THE EXPLANATION FURNISHED BY IT AND A SSESSEE HAD NO VALID REASON. RATHER, THE QUANTUM AND / OR NATU RE OF THE ADDITIONS MADE SUGGEST THAT IT WAS CERTAINLY A CASE OF GROSS AND WILLFUL NEGLECT ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE. AO FURTHER OBSERVED THAT ALL THE FACTS RELATING TO THE ALLEGED ADDITIONS MADE IN QUESTION AND THUS MATERIAL TO THE COMPUTATI ON WERE NOT SUOMOTU DISCLOSED. HENCE, HE IMPOSED THE PENAL TY OF RS.13,74,146/- U/S. 271(1)(C) VIDE ORDER DATED 29.9 .2016. AGAINST THE PENALTY ORDER, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED A N APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), WHO VIDE HIS IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 01.3.2018 HAS DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. AGGRIEVED WITH THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 3. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSES SEE HAS ARGUED THAT NO SPECIFIC SHOW CAUSE NOTICE HAS BEEN ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THEREFORE , THE PENALTY LEVIED IS WITHOUT JURISDICTION. IN THIS REG ARD HE DRAW MY ATTENTION TOWARDS PB PAGE NO. 24 WHICH IS A SHO W CAUSE 3 NOTICE 28.03.2016. HE STATED THAT FROM THIS NOTICE , IT IS CLEAR THAT NO SATISFACTION HAS BEEN RECORDED BY THE AO TH AT UNDER WHICH CHARGE THE PENALTY IS LEVIABLE I.E. ON ACCOUN T OF CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE P ARTICULARS. HENCE, HE STATED THAT THE PENALTY IMPOSED IS LIABL E TO BE QUASHED ON LEGAL GROUND AS THE ISSUE IS SQUARELY C OVERED BY THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS.: - HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT DECISION IN THE CASE OF CIT & ORS. VS. M/S MANJUNATHA COTTON AND GINNIG FACTORY & ORS. (2013) 359 ITR 565 - APEX COURT DECISION IN THE CASE OF CIT & ANR. VS. M/S SSAS EMERALD MEADOWS IN CC NO. 11485/2016 DATED 05.8.2016. 3.1 HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS DISMIS SED THIS LEGAL GROUND WHICH IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE AF ORESAID DECISIONS OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT AND HONBLE HIGH COURT. 4. ON THE CONTRARY, LD. DR RELIED UPON THE ORDERS O F THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND STATED THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS PA SSED A WELL REASONED ORDER WHICH DOES NOT NEED ANY INTERFERENCE . 5. I HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE R ELEVANT RECORDS, ESPECIALLY THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE AUTH ORITIES ALONGWITH THE PROVISIONS OF LAW AS WELL AS THE CAS E LAWS CITED 4 BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. AFTER PERUSING THE PB PAGE NO. 24 WHICH IS A COPY OF SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 2 8.3.2016, I NOTE THAT NO SPECIFIC SHOW CAUSE NOTICE HAVE BEEN I SSUED FOR LEVYING THE PENALTY IN DISPUTE. FOR THE SAKE OF C ONVENIENCE, I AM REPRODUCING HEREWITH THE CONTENTS OF THE SHOW C AUSE NOTICE DATED 28.03.2016 AS UNDER:- 5 5.1 AFTER PERUSING THE AFORESAID PENALTY NOTICE DAT ED 28.3.2016 , IN MY CONSIDERED OPINION, THE AO IS NOT CLEAR UNDER WHICH CHARGE THE PENALTY IS LEVIABLE I.E. WHETHER I T IS ON ACCOUNT OF CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR FURNISHING OF I NACCURATE PARTICULARS. HENCE, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT THE AO H AS INITIATED THE PENALTY FOR CONCEALMENT OF PARTICULARS OF INCOM E OR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS, WHICH IS CONT RARY TO THE PROVISIONS OF LAW AND AGAINST THE SPIRIT OF THE VAR IOUS DECISIONS OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT AND HONBLE HIGH COURT . THEREFORE, THE PENALTY IN DISPUTE IS NOT SUSTAINABL E IN THE EYES OF LAW. MY AFORESAID VIEW IS FORTIFIED BY THE FOLL OWING DECISIONS:- I) CIT & ANR. VS. M/S SSAS EMERALD MEADOWS 2015 (11) TMI 1620 KARNATAKA HIGH COURT HAS HELD THAT TRIBUNAL HAS CORRECTLY ALLOWED THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE HOLDING THE 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 OF SECTION 271(1) OF THE ACT, THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS HAD BEEN INITIATED I.E., WHETHER FOR CONCEALMENT OF PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. THE TRIBUNAL, WHILE ALLOWING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE, HAS RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE 6 DIVISION BENCH OF THIS COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE O F COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. MANJUNATHA COTTON AND GINNING FACTORY (2013) (7) TMI 620- KARANATAKA HIGH COURT. THUS SINCE THE MATTER IS COVERED BY JUDGMENT OF THE DIVISION BENCH OF THIS COURT, WE ARE OF THE OPINION NO SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW ARISES DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE. II) CIT & ANR. VS. M/S SSAS EMERALD MEADOWS HONBLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA REPORTED IN 2016 (8) TMI 1145 SUPREME COURT. THE APEX COURT HELD THAT HIGH COURT ORDER CONFIRMED (2015) (11) TMI 1620 (SUPRA) KARNATAKA HIGH COURT. NOTICE ISSUED 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 THE ACT, THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS HAD BEEN INITIATED I.E., WHETHER FOR CONCEALMENT OF PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE. III) ITAT, A BENCH, NEW DELHI DECISION DATED 05.12.2017 IN THE CASE OF ASHOK KUMAR CHORDIA VS. DCIT PASSED IN ITA NO. 5788 TO 5790/DEL/2014 WHEREIN THE TRIBUNAL HAS OBSERVED AS UNDER:- 7 7. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES ALONGWITH THE RELEVANT RECORDS AVAILABLE WITH US. FIRSTLY, WE HAVE PERUSED THE NOTICE DATED 26.3.2013 ISSUED BY THE AO FOR INITIATING THE PENALTY AND DIRECTING THE ASSESSEE TO APPEAR BEFORE HIM AT 11.30 AM ON 26/04/2013 AND ISSUED A SHOW CAUSE TO THE ASSESSEE STATING THEREIN THAT ..YOU HAVE CONCEALED THE PARTICULARS OF YOUR INCOME OR FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF SUCH INCOME. AFTER PERUSING THE NOTICE DATED 26.3.2013 ISSUED BY THE AO TO THE ASSESSEE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE AO HAS INITIATED THE PENALTY FOR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME AS WELL AS IN THE PENALTY ORDER DATED 30.9.2013 AO HAS STATED THAT HE IS SATISFIED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CONCEALED PARTICULARS OF HIS INCOME, WHICH IS CONTRARY TO LAW. 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 2015 (11) TMI 1620 KARNATAKA HIGH COURT HAS HELD THAT TRIBUNAL HAS CORRECTLY ALLOWED THE 8 APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE HOLDING THE 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 OF SECTION 271(1) OF THE ACT, THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS HAD BEEN INITIATED I.E., WHETHER FOR CONCEALMENT OF PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. THE TRIBUNAL, WHILE ALLOWING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE, HAS RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE DIVISION BENCH OF THIS COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE O F COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. MANJUNATHA COTTON AND GINNING FACTORY (2013) (7) TMI 620- KARANATAKA HIGH COURT. THUS SINCE THE MATTER IS COVERED BY JUDGMENT OF THE DIVISION BENCH OF THIS COURT, WE ARE OF THE OPINION NO SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW ARISES DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE. II) CIT & ANR. VS. M/S SSAS EMERALD MEADOWS HONBLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA REPORTED IN 2016 (8) TMI 1145 SUPREME COURT. THE APEX COURT HELD THAT HIGH COURT ORDER CONFIRMED (2015) (11) TMI 1620 (SUPRA) KARNATAKA HIGH COURT. NOTICE ISSUED BY AO UNDER SECTION 274 READ WITH SECTION 271(1)(C) TO BE BAD IN LAW AS IT DID NOT SPECIFY 9 WHICH LIMB OF SECTION 271(1) OF THE ACT, THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS HAD BEEN INITIATED I.E., WHETHER FOR CONCEALMENT OF PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE. 8. IN THE BACKGROUND OF THE AFORESAID DISCUSSIONS AND RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE PRECEDENTS, WE DELETE THE PENALTY IN DISPUTE AND DECIDE THE ISSUE IN FAVOR OF THE ASSESSEE AND AGAINST THE REVENUE. IV) ITAT, D BENCH, NEW DELHI DECISION DATED 26.5.2017 IN THE CASE OF RAJENDER JAIN VS. ACIT PASSED IN ITA NO. 6804/DEL/2013 WHEREIN THE TRIBUNAL HAS OBSERVED AS UNDER:- 7. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES ALONGWITH THE RELEVANT RECORDS AVAILABLE WITH US. FIRSTLY, WE HAVE PERUSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHEREIN THE AO HAS RECORDED HIS SATISFACTION ON THE PAGE 2, 2 ND PARA VIZ. I AM SATISFIED THAT IT IS A FIT CASE FOR INITIATION OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT FOR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME/CONCEALMENT OF INCOME. WE HAVE ALSO PERUSED THE NOTICE DATED 31.12.2007 10 ISSUED BY THE AO FOR INITIATING THE PENALTY AND DIRECTING THE ASSESSEE TO APPEAR BEFORE HIM AT ---- -----AM/PM ON --------200------ AND ISSUED A SHOW CAUSE TO THE ASSESSEE STATING THEREIN THAT WHY AN ORDER IMPOSING THE PENALTY OF AMOUNT SHOULD NOT BE MADE U/S. 271(1)(C) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. AFTER PERUSING THE NOTICE DATED 31.12.2007 ISSUED BY THE AO TO THE ASSESSEE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE AO HAS INITIATED THE PENALTY FOR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME/CONCEALMENT OF INCOME, BUT IN THE PENALTY ORDER DATED 06.11.2009 HE HAS STATED THAT HE IS SATISFIED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED THE INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. 7.1 HOWEVER, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GIVEN CLEAR FINDING REGARDING THE FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS. FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE, THE RELEVANT PARA NO. 5.3.1 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER:- 5.3.1 THE ABOVE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) CLEARLY ESTABLISHES THAT THE APPELLANT HAS CONCEALE D THE INCOME OF RS. 26,50,500/- AND DID NOT DECLARE IN THE RETURN OF INCOME INSPITE OF ADMITTIN G A DISCLOSURE OF RS. 40,00,000/- DURING SURVEY. 11 THUS, THE APPELLANT HAS FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF HIS INCOME. THE FACTS OF THE CASE CLEARLY REVEAL THAT THE APPELLANT TRIED TO EVADE PAYMENT OF TAXES BY FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. THEREFORE, I HOLD THAT THE A O WAS FULLY JUSTIFIED IN LEVYING THE PENALTY U/S. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. THE PENALTY LEVIED BY THE AO IS UPHELD. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS REJECTED. 8. KEEPING IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID FINDING OF THE LD. CIT(A), WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE AO HAS PASSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHEREIN THE AO HAS RECORDED HIS SATISFACTION ON THE PAGE 2, 2 ND PARA VIZ. I AM SATISFIED THAT IT IS A FIT CASE FOR INITIATION OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT FOR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME/CONCEALMENT OF INCOME. FURTHER THE AO VIDE HIS NOTICE DATED 31.12.2007 FOR INITIATING TH E PENALTY AND DIRECTED THE ASSESSEE TO APPEAR BEFORE HIM AT ---------AM/PM ON --------200------ AND ISSUED A SHOW CAUSE TO THE ASSESSEE STATING THEREIN THAT WHY AN ORDER IMPOSING THE PENALTY OF AMOUNT SHOULD NOT BE MADE U/S. 271(1)(C) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. AFTER PERUSING THE NOTICE DATED 31.12.2007 ISSUED BY THE AO TO THE ASSESSEE, WE 12 ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE AO HAS INITIATED THE PENALTY FOR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME/ CONCEALMENT OF INCOME, BUT IN THE PENALTY ORDER DATED 06.11.2009 HE HAS STATED THAT HE IS SATISFIED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHE D THE INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. IN OUR VIEW THE PENALTY IN DISPUTE IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN THE EYES OF LAW, BECAUSE THE AO HAS NOT RECORDED ANY CLEAR FINDING WHETHER THE ASSESSEE WAS GUILTY OF CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. SECONDLY, THE NOTICE U/S. 271(1)(C) HAS BEEN ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE LEVYING THE PENALTY FOR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULAR S OF INCOME/CONCEALMENT OF INCOME, WHEREAS THE PENALTY IN DISPUTE HAS BEEN LEVIED BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS. I N OUR VIEW 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 EMERALD MEADOWS 2015 (11) TMI 1620 KARNATAKA HIGH COURT HAS HELD THAT TRIBUNAL HAS CORRECTLY ALLOWED THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE HOLDING THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 274 13 READ WITH SECTION 271(1)(C) TO BE BAD IN LAW AS IT DID NOT SPECIFY WHICH LIMB OF SECTION 271(1) OF THE ACT, THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS HAD BEEN INITIATED I.E., WHETHER FOR CONCEALMENT OF PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. THE TRIBUNAL, WHILE ALLOWING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE, HAS RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE DIVISION BENCH OF THIS COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE O F COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. MANJUNATHA COTTON AND GINNING FACTORY (2013) (7) TMI 620- KARANATAKA HIGH COURT. THUS SINCE THE MATTER IS COVERED BY JUDGMENT OF THE DIVISION BENCH OF THIS COURT, WE ARE OF THE OPINION NO SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW ARISES DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE. II) CIT & ANR. VS. M/S SSAS EMERALD MEADOWS HONBLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA REPORTED IN 2016 (8) TMI 1145 SUPREME COURT. THE APEX COURT HELD THAT HIGH COURT ORDER CONFIRMED (2015) (11) TMI 1620 (SUPRA) KARNATAKA HIGH COURT. NOTICE ISSUED 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 THE ACT, THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS HAD BEEN INITIATED I.E., 14 WHETHER FOR CONCEALMENT OF PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE. 8.1 IN THE BACKGROUND OF THE AFORESAID DISCUSSIONS AND RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE PRECEDENTS, WE DELETE THE PENALTY IN DISPUTE AND DECIDE THE ISSUE IN FAVOR OF THE ASSESSEE AND AGAINST THE REVENUE. 6. KEEPING IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID DISCUSSIONS AND RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE AFORESAID PRECEDENTS, I SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES BY CANCELLING THE PENALTY IN DISPUTE AND ACCORDINGLY ALLOW THE APPEAL OF THE ASS ESSEE. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESS EE STANDS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 09-04-2019. SD/- (H.S. SIDHU) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 09/04/2019 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI