Pankaj Sapra, New Delhi V. ITO, Ward- 23(2), New Delhi

ITA 5747/DEL/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 112 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8827 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-11-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 06-09-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S N MEENA
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Reassessment proceedings; Set aside
• Section: 143(1); 147; 68; 69; 148

Judgement Text

1 ITA NO. 5747/DEL/2018 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: F NEW DELHI BEFORE MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O. P. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 5747/DEL/20 18 (A.Y 2008-09) PANKAJ SAPRA, H-1481, 1 ST FLOOR, C. R. PARK, NEW DELHI 110 019. (PAN : BBOPS 2128 D) (APPELLANT) VS INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 23(2), NEW DELHI. ( RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SH. R. S. SINGHVI, C.A. RESPONDENT BY SHRI S. N. MEENA, SR. D.R. ORDER PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JM THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE OR DER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX [APPEALS]-31, NEW DELHI DATED 31.07.2018 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. 2. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE AS UNDER :- 1(I) THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND UNDER THE LAW, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS WRONGLY ASSUMED JURISDICT ION U/S. 148 WITHOUT PROPER APPRECIATION OF FACTS, RECORDING OF SATISFACTION AND REQUISITE APPROVAL IN TERMS OF PROVISIONS OF SEC. 1 51 OF THE ACT. (II) THAT THERE IS NO CASE OF ANY INCOME ESCAPING ASSESS MENT AND WHOLE BASIS OF REASSESSMENT IS ILLEGAL AND WITHOUT JURISD ICTION. DATE OF HEARING 21.11.2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 22.11.2019 2 ITA NO. 5747/DEL/2018 2(I) THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E, THE CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING ADDITION OF RS.27,27,350/- AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN TERMS OF PROVISIONS OF SEC. 69 OF I.T . ACT, 1961. (II) THAT THERE IS NO CASE OF ANY UNEXPLAINED INVES TMENT AND FINDING AND CONCLUSION OF THE CIT(A) IS WITHOUT PROPER APPR ECIATION OF FACTS, APPLICATION OF MIND AND OPPORTUNITY TO THE APPELLAN T. (III) THAT ADDITION OF RS. 27,27,350/- IS HIGHLY ARBITRAR Y AND UNJUSTIFIED. 3(I) THAT CIT(A) IS ALSO NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMIN G ADDITION OF RS. 23,48,615/- AS UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSIT IN TERMS OF PROVISIONS OF SEC. 68 OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. (II) THAT THERE IS NO FACTUAL OR LEGAL BASIS FOR ALLEGED CASH DEPOSIT OF RS. 23,48,615/- AND ASSESSING OFFICER HAS CONSIDERED TH E SAME IN ARBITRARY MANNER WITHOUT ANY REFERENCE TO BANK ACCO UNT OR ANY OTHER MATERIAL. (III) THAT IMPUGNED ADDITION IS HIGHLY ARBITRARY, UNJUSTI FIED AND MERELY BASED ON PRESUMPTION AND SURMISES. 4. THAT THE ASSESSEE CRAVE LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND, ALTER OR FORGO ANY OR ALL OF THE GROUNDS AS MAY BE NECESSARY AND IN THE I NTEREST OF JUSTICE. 5. THAT ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES ARE NOT JUSTIF IED ON FACTS AND SAME ARE BAD IN LAW. 3. THE ASSESSEE CARRIED ON BUSINESS AS A PROPERTY C ONSULTANT. THE RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED ON 25.02.2010 DECLARING INCOME OF RS.1,25,400/- AND THE SAME WAS PROCESSED U/S 143(1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT , 1961. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE CASE WAS RE-OPENED AND A NOTICE DATED 26/03/2013 U/ S 148 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 WAS ISSUED ON THE BASIS OF THE INFORMATIO N RECEIVED FROM ADDL. DIRECTOR INCOME TAX (INV.) THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DE POSITED CASH OF RS.23,48,615/- AND MADE UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT OF R S. 27,27,350/-. THE REASONS RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ARE EXTRA CTED AS UNDER: REASONS RECORDED FOR INITIATING PROCEEDINGS U/S. 14 8 OF THE IT ACT, 1961 IN THE CASE OF SH. PANKAJ SAPRA (BBOPS2128D) FOR THE A .Y. 2008-09 THE ADDL. DIRECTOR INCOME TAX (INV.), UNIT-V, NEW D ELHI VIDE HIS LETTER F.NO. ADDL. DIT (INV.)/U-V/2011-12/251, DATED 16.03.2012 HAD SENT A REPORT IN THE CASE OF SH. PANKAJ SAPRA. 3 ITA NO. 5747/DEL/2018 AS PER THE INVESTIGATIONS MADE, THE ASSESSE HAD DEP OSITED UNACCOUNTED CASH IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT AND ALSO MADE LARGE INVEST MENT IN ASSETS. THE DETAILS ARE AS FOLLOWS:- 1. UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSIT:- A.Y. 2008-09 RS. 23,48,615/- 2. UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENTS: RS. 27,27,350/- IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE MENTIONED FACTS, THE UNEXPLAIN ED CASH DEPOSITS AND UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENTS ARE LIABLE TO TAX U/S. 68 & 69 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. THE INCOME HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT IN THE CASE OF SH. PANKAJ SAPRA FOR A.Y. 2008-09 TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 50,75,9 65/-, AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE MENTIONED FACTS, I HAVE REASON TO BELIEF THAT INCOME TO THE TUNE OF RS. 50,75,965/- HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 147 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. ACCORDI NGLY, NECESSARY PERMISSION/APPROVAL UNDER SECTION 15(2) OF THE INCO ME TAX ACT, 1961 MAY KINDLY BE ACCORDED FOR ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S 148 O F THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 FOR A.Y. 2008-09. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S 147 WERE COMPLETED VIDE ORDER DATED 19/03/2014 AT AN INCOME OF RS. 52, 01,510/- AFTER MAKING ADDITION OF RS. 50,76,110/- BEING RS. 23,48,615/- O N ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSITS U/S 68 OF THE ACT AND RS. 27,27,350/- AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENTS U/S 69 OF THE ACT. 4. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASS ESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). THE CIT(A) DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 5. AS REGARDS GROUND NO.1 RELATING TO VALIDITY OF N OTICE U/S 148 AND ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION U/S 147 OF THE ACT, THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER INITIATED THE REASSESSMENT PROCEE DINGS MERELY ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR OF IN COME TAX (INVESTIGATION), NEW DELHI. THE LD. AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE AS SESSING OFFICER WITHOUT CONDUCTING ANY ENQUIRY / INVESTIGATION IN RESPECT O F CASH DEPOSITS AND AGREEMENT TO SALE ENTERED INTO BY THE ASSESSEE HAS PRESUMED THAT THE INCOME HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. HOWEVER, AS PER THE FACTS O F THE CASE AND BASED ON RELEVANT BANK ACCOUNT, THERE IS NO CASE OF CASH DEP OSITS AS REFERRED TO IN THE 4 ITA NO. 5747/DEL/2018 REASONS RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE LD. AR POINTED OUT THE RELEVANT BANK ACCOUNT AND ITS DETAILS WHICH WERE PRODUCED BE FORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS CIT(A). THE LD. AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THA T IN FACT ON THE IDENTICAL GROUNDS, PROCEEDINGS U/S 148 RELATING TO A.Y. 2007- 08 WAS SET ASIDE BY THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ORDER DATED 28.03.2019 BEING ITA NO.4 253/DEL/2018. THE LD. AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THERE ARE VARIOUS DECISIO NS OF JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN RESPECT OF REASONS RECORDED ON THE BASIS O F WRONG FACTS AND THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HELD THAT THERE IS NO JUSTIFICAT ION FOR ASSUMING JURISDICTION U/S 148 OF THE ACT. IN THIS CONNECTION, THE LD. AR RELIED UPON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS: I. SH. INDERJEET VS. ITO (ITA NO.2740/D/18) (DELHI ITA T) (03.12.2018) II. CIT V. SUREN INTERNATIONAL P. LTD. [2013] 357 ITR 2 4 (DEL) III. PR. CIT V. SNG DEVELOPERS LTD. (DELHI HC) (ITA 92/2 017) (12.07.2017) IV. HIGH-TECH CONSTRUCTION P. LTD V. ITO (ITA NO.1605/D /19) (ITAT DELHI) (22.03.2019) V. SH. JAGAT SINGH V. ITO (ITA NO.2749/D/18) (DATED 04 .09.2018) (ITAT, DELHI) VI. MAVERIC ELECTRONICS (P) LTD. V. ITO (DELHI ITAT) (I TA NO.1835/D/14) (21/03/2017) 6. AS REGARDS GROUND NO.2 RELATING TO AN ADDITION U /S 69 OF THE ACT ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT OF RS.27,27,350/- , THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT SHRI S. N. ARORA (FATHER OF THE ASSESSEE) ENTE RED INTO A COLLABORATION AGREEMENT IN RESPECT OF PROPERTY NO. H-1481, C.R. P ARK, NEW DELHI WITH SH. NILAMBER VIDE THE AGREEMENT DATED 13.09.2005 FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS. 56,50,000/- AND AS SUCH AN ADVANCE OF RS. 46,50,000 /- WAS PAID BY SH. S. N. SAPRA / ARORA. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THE COLLABORATI ON AGREEMENT DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING WHICH WAS ALSO BEFORE THE CIT(A). IN FACT ASSESSING OFFICER IN CASE OF SH. S N SAPRA HAS MADE ADDITION OF RS.46,00 ,000/- AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN A.Y. 2006-07. THE LD. AR FURTHER SUBM ITTED THAT DUE TO NON- COMPLIANCE OF THE TERMS & CONDITIONS OF THE COLLABO RATION AGREEMENT, THE AFORESAID COLLABORATION AGREEMENT WAS CANCELLED BY SH. S N SAPRA & SH. NILAMBER AND THE ARRANGEMENT WAS MADE BETWEEN THE P ARTIES TO ADJUST THE 5 ITA NO. 5747/DEL/2018 ADVANCE OF RS. 46,50,000/-. SUBSEQUENTLY, ON 13/02/ 2008, SH. PANKAJ SAPRA I.E. ASSESSEE ALONG WITH SMT. DAYA SAPRA I.E. MOTHE R OF THE ASSESSEE PURCHASED RIGHTS OF SECOND FLOOR WITH TERRACE THAT OF PROPERT Y MENTIONED HEREINABOVE VIDE SALE DEED FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS. 27,27,350/-. S IMILARLY, ON 14/02/2008, SMT. DAYA SAPRA ALONG WITH SMT. KAMLESH GUPTA HAVIN G 50% SHARE EACH PURCHASED FIRST FLOOR FROM SALE PROPERTY FROM SH. N ILAMBER VIDE AGREEMENT TO SELL FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS. 27,27,350/- IN JOIN T OWNERSHIP. THE LD. AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS. 5, 58,975/- [46,50,000 - 27,27,350 - 13,63,675] WAS RECEIVED BY SH. S. N. SA PRA FROM SH. NILAMBER IN FULL AND FINAL SETTLEMENT OF THE TRANSACTION. THE A SSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BEFORE THE REVENUE AUTH ORITIES. THE LD. AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT MADE AN Y INVESTMENT AND AS SUCH THE COMPLETE TRANSACTION IS RELATED TO THE COLLABOR ATION AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO BY SH. S N SAPRA AND SH. NILAMBER AS PER MUTUAL SET TLEMENT. MOREOVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALREADY MADE AN ADDITION OF R S. 46,00,000/- IN THE CASE OF SH. S N SAPRA FOR A.Y. 2006-07 BY PASSING RE-ASS ESSMENT ORDER U/S 147 OF THE ACT AND ACCORDINGLY, THE IMPUGNED ADDITION IS I N THE NATURE OF DOUBLE ADDITION. 7. AS REGARDS GROUND NO.3 RELATING TO ADDITION U/S 68 OF RS. 23,48,615/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNTS, THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT CASH DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNTS I S ONLY TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 60,835/- AND AS SUCH WHOLE BASIS OF ADDITION IS HIG HLY ARBITRARY AND WITHOUT ANY BASIS. THE LD. AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE AS SESSEE HAS TAKEN A LOAN OF RS.13,00,000/- FROM SH. ARUN GUPTA AND RECEIVED TWO CHEQUES OF RS. 3,00,000/- AND RS.10,00,000/- RESPECTIVELY AND THE SAME WERE DULY DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, THE C HEQUE OF RS.10,00,000/- WAS NOT CLEARED DUE TO INSUFFICIENT BALANCE IN THE ACCOUNT OF SH. ARUN GUPTA AND INFACT, A NEW CHEQUE OF RS. 10,00,000/- WAS GIV EN BY SH. ARUN GUPTA TO THE ASSESSEE. THUS THE TOTAL DEPOSITS IN THE FORM O F CHEQUES WAS ONLY TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 13,00,000/-. THE LD. AR FURTHER SUBMI TTED THAT THE ASSESSING 6 ITA NO. 5747/DEL/2018 OFFICER IN THE REMAND REPORT DATED 01.05.2008 MADE AN OBSERVATION THAT THE RETURNED CHEQUE OF RS.10,00,000/- HAS TO BE CONSIDE RED. THE CIT(A) IGNORED THE SAID OBSERVATIONS AND UPHELD THE ADDITIONS MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. 8. THE LD. DR, AS REGARDS GROUND NO.1 SUBMITTED THA T THE REASONS ARE PROPERLY DRAFTED AND THERE IS A PROPER SATISFACTION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR REOPENING THE MATTER. AS REGARDS GROUND NO.2, THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDITION U/S 69 ON ACCOUNT OF UN EXPLAINED INVESTMENT HAS DULY BEEN ADDED, AS THE FACT REMAINS THAT BEFORE TH E ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT ESTABLISHED ANY DIRECT NEXUS ABO UT THE INVESTIGATION. AS REGARDS GROUND NO.3 THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE A DDITION U/S 68 ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSITS IN THE BANK AC COUNT WAS NOT PROPERLY DEMONSTRATED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THEREFOR E, THE ADDITION WAS PROPERLY MADE. 9. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED ALL T HE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE ISSUE RELATING TO PROCEEDINGS INITIA TED U/S 148 WHETHER THE SAME IS VALID OR NOT, HAS ALREADY BEEN DECIDED IN A SSESSEES OWN CASE FOR A.Y. 2007-08 BY THE TRIBUNAL. THE TRIBUNAL HELD AS UNDER : 8. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS MADE B Y BOTH THE SIDES AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITY BELOW. I FIND T HE AO ON THE BASIS OF THE INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM THE INVESTIGATION WING OF THE DEPARTMENT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE CASH DEPOSIT OF RS. 4,97,452/- RE OPENED THE ASSESSMENT BY ISSUING NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 AND THEREAFTER MADE ADDITION OF RS. 4,97,452/- TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF T HE ASSESSEE BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 68 OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. I FIND THE LEARNED CIT(A) UPHELD THE ACTION OF THE AO, THE REASONS OF WHICH H AVE ALREADY BEEN REPRODUCED IN THE PRECEDING PARAGRAPH. IT IS THE SU BMISSION OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THERE IS COMPLETE NON APPLICATION OF MIND OF THE AO WHILE RECORDING THE REASONS AND HE HAS NOT V ERIFIED THE FACTS PROPERLY AND THE REOPENING WAS MADE ON THE BASIS OF REPORT OF THE INVESTIGATION WING. FURTHER THE DEPOSITS IN THE BAN K ACCOUNTS ARE FULLY EXPLAINED AND THEREFORE NO ADDITION IS CALLED FOR. 9. I FIND FORCE IN THE ABOVE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. A PERUSAL OF THE NOTICE ISSUED UN DER SECTION 148 SHOWS 7 ITA NO. 5747/DEL/2018 THAT THE NOTICE HAS BEEN ISSUED IN A VERY CASUAL MA NNER, CLAUSE 3 OF THE NOTICE READS AS UNDER:- NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 19 61. 3. THIS NOTICE IS BEING ISSUED AFTER OBTAINING THE NECESSARY SATISFACTION OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX .... ........./THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES. 10. SIMILARLY, A PERUSAL OF THE BANK ACCOUNT MAINT AINED WITH VIJAYA BANK ACCOUNT NO. 004427, COPY OF WHICH HAS BEEN PLA CED AT PAGE NO. 25 AND 26 OF THE PAPER BOOK, SHOWS THAT AN AMOUNT OF R S. 2,50,000/- WAS BY WAY OF CLEARING OF CHEQUE NO. 719443 AND NOT CASH D EPOSIT. IF THE SAME IS EXCLUDED FROM THE TOTAL DEPOSITS MADE DURING THE YE AR FROM THE TWO BANK ACCOUNTS THEN THERE IS NO SUCH CASH DEPOSIT OF RS. 4,97,452/- IN THE TWO BANK ACCOUNTS MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE , I FIND FORCE IN THE ARGUMENT OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT T HE REASONS RECORDED ARE EITHER VAGUE REASONS OR NOT BASED ON ITA NO. 42 53/DEL/2018 & ITA NO. 4254/DEL/2018 6 ANY APPLICATION OF MIND. IN ANY CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAS EXPLAINED THE SOURCE OF EACH DEPOSIT MADE BOTH IN CASH AS WELL AS IN CHEQUE AND THEREFORE, EVEN ON MERIT ALSO NO ADDITIO N IS CALLED FOR. I, THEREFORE, SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A ) AND DIRECT THE AO TO DELETE THE ADDITION. THE GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSES SEE IS ALLOWED. THUS THE REASONS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT ARE MERELY MECHANICAL AND HAVE NOT GIVEN ANY CO NCRETE REASONS AS TO WHY THE RE-OPENING IS JUSTIFIED. AS REGARDS GROUND NO. 2 RELATING TO ADDITION U/S 69, THE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN A DETAIL OF INVESTMENTS AND THE FACT THAT THE ADDITION OF THE SAID AMOUNT IS ALREADY MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE FATHER OF THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT SUSTAIN IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. AS R EGARDS GROUND NO.3 RELATING TO ADDITION U/S 68 IN RESPECT OF CASH DEPOSITS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HIMSELF ADMITTED THAT THE CHEQUE OF RS.10,00,000/- HAS BEEN RETURNED BACK WHICH WAS NOT AT ALL CONSIDERED BY THE CIT(A). THE REASONS AR E MECHANICAL AS ALL THE INVESTMENT AS WELL AS THE LOANS WERE DEMONSTRATED B Y THE ASSESSEE AS PER THE AUDITED BALANCE SHEET ITSELF. THEREFORE, THE ASSESS ING OFFICER WAS NOT RIGHT IN REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT WHICH IS BAD IN LAW AND WI THOUT ANY JUSTIFIED REASONS FOR THE ADDITIONS. THUS, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 8 ITA NO. 5747/DEL/2018 10. IN RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 22 ND DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 . SD/- SD/- (O. P. MEENA) (SUCHITRA KAMBLE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEM BER DATED: 22/11/2019 PRITI YADAV, SR. PS * COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI