M/s. Shree Krishan Kripa Feeds, Delhi V. ITO, Panipat

ITA 5818/DEL/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5117 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-08-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 31-05-2017
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 15-11-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: T VASANTHAN
• Assessee Lawyers: MUKUL GUPTA S
• Keywords: Bogus purchase; Capital asset
• Section: 143(3); 10

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH SMC : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 5818/DEL/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 M/S SHREE KRISHAN KRIPA FEEDS, VS. ITO, WARD-1, C/O KAPIL GOEL, ADV., PANIPAT, F-26/124, SECTOR-7, ROHINI, HARYANA DELHI 110 085 (PAN: ABEFS0656F) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SH. KAPIL GOEL & SH. MUKUL GUPTA, ADVOCATES REVENUE BY : SH. T. VASANTHAN, SR. DR. ORDER THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDE R DATED 08.9.2016 OF THE LD. CIT(A), KARNAL PERTAINING TO A SSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- 1. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF CA SE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT APPEALS ERRED IN CONFIRMING AN ASSESSMENT MADE BY AN LD. AO AT TAXABLE INCOME OF R S. 36,65,080/-, WHICH NO PERSON ACTING JUDICIALLY AND PROPERLY INSTRUCTED ON FACTS AND LAW; WOULD HAVE DO NE. UNSECURED LOANS ADDITION (RS. 7.20 LACS) 2. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF CA SE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING ERR ONEOUS 2 ADDITION OF 720000/- FOR GENUINE UNSECURED LOANS (CORRECT FIGURE RS. 6,20,000/-) 2.1. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT APPEALS ERRED IN CONFIRMIN G ERRONEOUS ADDITION OF RS. 7,20,000/- FOR GENUINE UNSECURED LOANS: A) WHICH ARE DULY CONFIRMED AND PROVEN: B) MERELY ON BASIS OF CASH DEPOSIT IN LENDER'S A/C WHICH IS NOT VALID GROUND TO MAKE ADDITION AND C) WITHOUT ANY ADVERSE/INCRIMINATING MATERIAL ON RECORDS AND D) WITHOUT ANY MEANINGFUL AND PERCEPTIBLE ENQUIRY. TRADE PURCHASES (RS. 21,46,261/-) 3. THAT ON FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF CASE A ND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT APPEALS ERRED IN CONFIRMING ERR ONEOUS ADDITION OF RS. 21,46,261/- FOR GENUINE PURCHASES: 3.1. THAT ON FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT APPEALS ERRED IN CONFIRMING ERRONEOUS ADDITION OF RS. 2.1,46,261/- FOR GENUINE PURCHASES: A. WHICH ARE PROVED ACCORDING TO STANDARDS AND PRESCRIPTION OF SECTION 37; B. WHICH ARE DULY ACCOUNTED AND RECORDED IN. REGULA R AUDITED AND DEFECT FREE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS; 3 C. MERELY FOR NON APPEARANCE AND AVAILABILITY OF SUPPLIER WHICH IS IRRELEVANT TO WHOLE ISSUE; D. IN WORST CASE, WITHOUT PREJUDICE, ONLY LIMITED PORTION OF PURCHASES COULD BE DISALLOWED INSTEAD OF WHOLE PURCHASES (LIKE 5% OF PURCHASES). 4. THAT THE ASSESEE RESERVES THE RIGHT 'TO AMEND, DELETE, ADD, SUBSTITUTE, MODIFY OR ALTER ANYONE OR MORE OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL AT THE TIME OF HEARING. 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSE E FILED E-RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING TAXABLE INCOME OF RS. 7,98,820 /- ON 20.9.2012 AND THE SAME WAS PROCESSED UNDER SECTION 143(1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ON 16.2.2013. LATER ON, THE CASE HAS BEEN SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY THROUGH CASS. THE ASSESSEE DERIVES INCOME FROM MANUFACTURING AND TRADING OF POULTRY FEED AND ADDIT IVES. NOTICE U/S. 143(2) OF THE ACT ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE ON 6.8.201 3 WHICH WAS SERVED ON 13.8.2013 FOR 22.8.2013. NOTICE U/S. 142( 1) ALONGWITH QUESTIONNAIRE WAS ISSUED ON 7.8.2014 WHICH WAS SERV ED ON 11.8.2014 FOR 14.8.2014. IN RESPONSE TO STATUTORY NOTICES, THE A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE ATTENDED THE PROCEEDINGS FROM TIME TO TIME AND FILED THE INFORMATION / EVIDENCE WHICH HAVE BEEN EXAMINED . DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, AO NOTED THAT ASSESSEE HAD ACCEPTED UNSECURED LOANS FROM KANTA CHUGH OF RS. 1.50 LACS O N 20.12.2011, FROM KRISHNA WANTI CHUGH OF RS. 2.50 LACS AND RENU CHUGH OF RS. 2.20 LACS ON 8.2.2012. THE AO OBSERVED THAT CASH DE POSIT HAD BEEN 4 MADE IN THE BANK ACCOUNTS OF THESE PARTIES ON THE S AME DAY WHEN CHEQUES WERE ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE. THE AO FURTHE R OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO EXPLAIN AN D ESTABLISH THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE PARTIES FROM WHOM THE LOANS HAD BEEN TAKEN. HOWEVER, ON PAGES 2 TO 4 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, C ONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE PERSENT CASE THE AO HAS RELIED UPON VA RIOUS JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS TO CONCLUDE THAT THE CREDITWORTHINES S OF THE PARTIES HAD NOT BEEN ESTABLISHED. ACCORDINGLY, THE AO ADDE D THE TOTAL ADDITION OF RS. 28,66,261/- TO THE INCOME OF THE AS SESSEE AND ASSESSED THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AT RS. 36,65,08 0/- VIDE ORDER DATED 24.3.2015 PASSED U/S. 143(3) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE AO DATED 24.3.2015, ASSESSEE APPEA LED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), WHO VIDE HIS IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 8.9.2 016 HAS DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 3. AGGRIEVED WITH IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 8.8.2016, AS SESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 4. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSES SEE HAS STATED THAT LD. CIT APPEALS ERRED IN CONFIRMING AN ASSESSM ENT MADE BY AN AO AT TAXABLE INCOME OF RS. 36,65,080/- AND STATED THAT ADDITION OF RS. 7,20,000/- FOR GENUINE UNSECURED LOANS, WHICH ARE DULY CONFIRMED AND PROVE; MERELY ONLY ON THE BASIS OF CASH DEPOSIT IN LENDERS A/C WHICH IS NOT VALID GROUND TO MAKE ADDI TION AND WITHOUT ANY ADVERSE / INCRIMINATING MATERIAL ON RECORD AND WITHOUT ANY MEANINGFUL AND PERCEPTIBLE ENQUIRY. HE FURTHER STA TED THAT ANOTHER 5 ADDITION OF RS. 21,46,261/- WAS ALSO MADE FOR GENUI NE PURCHASE, WHICH ARE PROVED ACCORDING TO STANDARDS AND PRESCRI PTION OF SECTION 37; WHICH ARE DULY ACCOUNTED AND RECORDED IN REGUL AR AUDITED AND DEFECT FREE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT; MERELY FOR NON-APPEAR ANCE AND AVAILABILITY OF SUPPLIER WHICH IS IRRELEVANT TO WHO LE ISSUE. IN SUPPORT OF THIS CONTENTION, HE RELIED UPON THE FOLLOWING C ASES LAWS: A) ITAT, SMC BENCH, MUMBAI IN THE CASE OF ADAMJI & COMPANY VS. ITO VIDE ORDER DATED 27.5.2016 PASSED IN ITA NO. 25/MUM./2016 (AY 2009-10). B) ITAT, F BENCH, NEW DELHI IN THE CASE OF ITO VS . M/S RANCURE INVESTMENTS PVT. LTD. VIDE ORDER DATED 4.4.2016 PASSED IN ITA NO. 6099/DEL/2013 (AY 2009-10). C) ITAT, B BENCH, NEW DELHI IN THE CASE OF SH. HIMANSHU CHAWLA VS. ITO VIDE ORDER DATED 04.4.2016 PASSED IN ITA NO. 737/DEL/2014 (AY 2005-06). 5. ON THE CONTRARY, LD. DR RELIED UPON THE ORDERS O F THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 6. I HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE RE CORDS AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW, E SPECIALLY THE CONTENTION RAISED IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL AND THE CASE LAWS CITED BY THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE, AS AFORESAID. I FI ND THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS ELABORATELY DISCUSSED AND ADJUDICATED THE ISSU ES IN DISPUTE VIDE 6 PARA NO. 2.4 & 3.4 OF HIS IMPUGNED ORDER. FOR THE S AKE OF CONVENIENCE, I AM REPRODUCING THE SAID RELEVANT FI NDING AS UNDER:- 2.4 FINDINGS:- AFTER GOING THROUGH THE FACTS AND SUBMISSIONS IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE AO HAS MADE THE ADDITION BY' HIGHLIGHTING THAT WITH REGARD TO THE THREE PARTIES, KANTA CHUGH. KRISHNA WANTI CHUGH AND RENU CHUQH; THERE WERE CASH DEPOSITS IN THE BACK ACCOUNT OF THESE PARTIES IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING THE CHEQUE ISSUE TO THE APPELLANT TOWARDS UNSECURED LOANS. THE AO HAS HIGHLIGHTED THAT THE CREDIT WORTHINESS OF THE PARTIES HAD NOT BEEN ESTABLISHED BY THE ASSESSEE. 2.5 ON PAGE 3 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THE AO HAS POINTED OUT THAT THE POOR CASH BALANCE IN THE SAVING BANK ACCOUNT OF THE THREE PARTIES RAISES DOUBT ABOUT THE CREDIT WORTHINESS OF THESE PARTIES. 2.6 ANOTHER IMPORTANT ASPECT DETECTED BY THE AO HIGHLIGHTS THAT THE CASH AMOUNT DEPOSITED IN THE SAVING BANK ACCOUNTS WAS DEPOSITED BY ONE PERSON NAMELY MUKESH. SUCH AN ACTION APPEARS TO BE SUSPICIOUS AND NON GENUINE. THE AO HAS THEREFORE RIGHTLY RAISED HIS DOUBTS THAT THE GENUINENESS AND CREDIT WORTHINESS OF THESE UNSECURED LOANS HAVE 7 NOT BEEN ESTABLISHED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE INITIA L ONUS HAD THEREFORE NOT BEEN DISCHARGED BY THE ASSESSEE. 2.7 ON THE OTHER HAND THE A .APPELLANT HAS ONLY EMPHASIZED THAT INCOME TAX RETURN, PAN AND OTHER DETAILS HAVE BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE AD AND THEREFORE THE CREDIT WORTHINESS OF THE PARTIES HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED. HOWEVER, THE AR HAS NOT PROVIDED THE DETAILS OF RETURNED INCOME OF THE PARTIES AND THE EXPLANATION FOR DEPOSIT OF CASH BY ONE PERSON IMMEDIATELY BEFORE CHEQUES WERE ISSUED TO THE APPELLANT. ESTABLISHING THE CRED IT WORTHINESS AND GENUINE WOULD IMPLY THAT THE PARTIES WOULD BE HAVING SUFFICIENT SURPLUS SAVINGS AND FUNDS BACKED BY CAPITAL ASSETS TO PROVIDE LOAN TO THE APPELLANT. MERELY BY PROVIDING THE INCOME TAX RETURN AND PAN NUMBER IS NOT ENOUGH TO ESTABLISH THE CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE UNSECURED LOANS. ACCORDINGLY, THIS ADDITION MADE BY THE AO IS UPHELD AND THE GROUND OF THE APPELLANT IS DISMISSED. 3.4 FINDINGS:- AFTER GOING THROUGH THE FACTS AND SUBMISSIONS IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE AO HAS CONDUCTED DETAILED 8 ENQUIRIES REGARDING THE DETAILS OF PURCHASES FROM M/S HARYANA TRADING COMPANY AND M/S VISHAL TRADERS AND HAD COME TO LOGICALLY CONCLUDE THAT THESE PURCHASES FROM THE PARTIES COULD NOT BE ESTABLISHED. THE BILLS OF THE PARTIES DID NOT HAVE SALES TAX NO., TIN NO. OR CIN NO. FURTHER, ON PHYSICAL VERIFICATION OF THE ADDRESSES THESE PARTIE S WERE NOT FOUND TO BE EXISTING, WHICH WAS ALSO SUPPORTED BY CERTIFICATE FROM LOCAL AUTHORITY. 3.5 THE AR OF THE APPELLANT HAS SUBMITTED THAT THESE PURCHASES WERE PART OF THE SALE REFLECTED IN THE SALE TAX RETURN. HOWEVER, ON GOING THROUGH THE SALE TAX RETURN THERE IS NO EVIDENCE TO SHOW THA T THESE PURCHASES HAD BEEN INCLUDED IN THE DETAILS IN THE SALE TAX RETURN. IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT S UCH MODUS OPERANDI IS USED BY SOME BUSINESS PERSONS TO BOOK BOGUS PURCHASES FOR SUPPRESSING THE PROFITS OF BUSINESS. IN THE PRESENT CASE THE ARGUMENT O F THE AR THAT THESE PURCHASES WERE THE BASIS OF THE SALES MADE, IS NOT ESTABLISH BY FACTS AND EVIDENCES . THE VALUE OF GOODS AS PER THE VAT RETURN FOR THE YEAR ENDING 31.3.2012 HAS BEEN SHOWN AT RS. 53,53,28,987/-. ACCORDINGLY, IT APPEARS THAT THESE PURCHASES FROM M/S HARYANA TRADING COMPANY AND 9 M/S VISHAL TRADERS HAVE BEEN USED FOR SUPPRESSING THE PROFITS OF THE BUSINESS. 3.6 EVEN THOUGH THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT HAVE NOT BEEN REJECTED, SINCE THE AO HAS CLEARLY ESTABLISHED THAT THE PURCHASES WERE BOGUS, THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION FOR ACCEPTING THE CONTENTIONS OF THE AR THAT ONLY PART OF THE PURCHASE SHOULD BE DISALLOWED. 3.7 IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE OBSERVATIONS THIS ADDITION MADE BY THE AO IS UPHELD AND THE GROUND IS DISMISSED. 6.1 AFTER PERUSING THE AFORESAID FINDING OF THE LD. CIT(A), WITH REGARD TO ADDITION OF RS. 7,20,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNSECURED LOAN IS CONCERNED, I FIND THAT AO HAS MADE THE ADDITION BY HIGHLIGHTING THAT WITH REGARD TO THE THREE PARTIES, KANTA CHUGH. KRI SHNA WANTI CHUGH AND RENU CHUQH; THERE WERE CASH DEPOSITS IN THE BAC K ACCOUNT OF THESE PARTIES IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING THE CHEQUE ISS UE TO THE ASSESSEE TOWARDS UNSECURED LOANS. THE AO HAS HIGHLI GHTED THAT THE CREDIT WORTHINESS OF THE PARTIES HAD NOT BEEN ESTAB LISHED BY THE ASSESSEE. I FURTHER FIND THAT ON PAGE 3 OF THE ASSE SSMENT ORDER THE AO HAS POINTED OUT THAT THE POOR CASH BALANCE IN TH E SAVING BANK ACCOUNT OF THE THREE PARTIES RAISES DOUBT ABOUT THE CREDIT WORTHINESS OF THESE PARTIES. ANOTHER IMPORTANT ASPECT DETECTED BY THE AO HIGHLIGHTS THAT THE CASH AMOUNT DEPOSITED IN THE SA VING BANK 10 ACCOUNTS WAS DEPOSITED BY ONE PERSON NAMELY MUKESH. SUCH AN ACTION APPEARS TO BE SUSPICIOUS AND NON GENUINE. IN MY CONSIDERED OPINION, THE AO HAS THEREFORE RIGHTLY RAISED HIS DO UBTS THAT THE GENUINENESS AND CREDIT WORTHINESS OF THESE UNSECURE D LOANS HAVE NOT BEEN ESTABLISHED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE INITIAL ON US HAD THEREFORE NOT BEEN DISCHARGED BY THE ASSESSEE. ON THE OTHER H AND THE ASSESSEE HAS ONLY EMPHASIZED THAT INCOME TAX RETURN , PAN AND OTHER DETAILS HAVE BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFOR E THE AO AND THEREFORE THE CREDIT WORTHINESS OF THE PARTIES HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED. HOWEVER, THE AR HAS NOT PROVIDED THE DETAILS OF RET URNED INCOME OF THE PARTIES AND THE EXPLANATION FOR DEPOSIT OF CASH BY ONE PERSON IMMEDIATELY BEFORE CHEQUES WERE ISSUED TO THE APPEL LANT. ESTABLISHING THE CREDIT WORTHINESS AND GENUINE WOUL D IMPLY THAT THE PARTIES WOULD BE HAVING SUFFICIENT SURPLUS SAVINGS AND FUNDS BACKED BY CAPITAL ASSETS TO PROVIDE LOAN TO THE ASSESSEE. MERELY BY PROVIDING THE INCOME TAX RETURN AND PAN NUMBER IS N OT ENOUGH TO ESTABLISH THE CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF T HE UNSECURED LOANS. ACCORDINGLY, THIS ADDITION MADE BY THE AO W AS RIGHTLY UPHELD BY THE LD. CIT(A), WHICH DOES NOT NEED ANY INTERFER ENCE ON MY PART, HENCE, I UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) ON THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE AND DISMISS THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE RAISED BY THE ASS ESSEE. 6.2 WITH REGARD TO ADDITION OF RS.21,46,261/- RELAT ING TO UNVERIFIED PURCHASES IS CONCERNED, I FIND THAT AO HAS CONDUCTE D DETAILED ENQUIRIES REGARDING THE DETAILS OF PURCHASES FROM M /S HARYANA 11 TRADING COMPANY AND M/S VISHAL TRADERS AND HAD COME TO LOGICALLY CONCLUDE THAT THESE PURCHASES FROM THE PARTIES COUL D NOT BE ESTABLISHED. THE BILLS OF THE PARTIES DID NOT HAVE SALES TAX NO., TIN NO. OR CIN NO. FURTHER, ON PHYSICAL VERIFICATION OF THE ADDRESSES THESE PARTIES WERE NOT FOUND TO BE EXISTING, WHICH WAS ALSO SUPPORTED BY CERTIFICATE FROM LOCAL AUTHORITY. I FU RTHER FIND THAT THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THESE PURCHAS ES WERE PART OF THE SALE REFLECTED IN THE SALE TAX RETURN. HOWEVER, ON GOING THROUGH THE SALE TAX RETURN THERE IS NO EVIDENCE TO SHOW TH AT THESE PURCHASES HAD BEEN INCLUDED IN THE DETAILS IN THE SALE TAX RE TURN. IT IS WORTHWHILE TO NOTE THAT SUCH MODUS OPERANDI IS USED BY SOME BUSINESS PERSONS TO BOOK BOGUS PURCHASES FOR SUPPRE SSING THE PROFITS OF BUSINESS. IN THE PRESENT CASE THE ARGUMENT OF T HE AR THAT THESE PURCHASES WERE THE BASIS OF THE SALES MADE, IS NOT ESTABLISHED BY FACTS AND EVIDENCES. THE VALUE OF GOODS AS PER THE VAT RETURN FOR THE YEAR ENDING 31.3.2012 HAS BEEN SHOWN AT RS. 53, 53,28,987/-. ACCORDINGLY, IT APPEARS THAT THESE PURCHASES FROM M /S HARYANA TRADING COMPANY AND M/S VISHAL TRADERS HAVE BEEN US ED FOR SUPPRESSING THE PROFITS OF THE BUSINESS. EVEN THOUG H THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT HAVE NOT BEEN REJECTED, SINCE THE AO HAS CL EARLY ESTABLISHED THAT THE PURCHASES WERE BOGUS, THERE IS NO JUSTIFIC ATION FOR ACCEPTING THE CONTENTIONS OF THE AR THAT ONLY PART OF THE PU RCHASE SHOULD BE DISALLOWED. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE OBSERVATIONS THIS ADDITION MADE BY THE AO WAS RIGHTLY UPHELD BY THE LD. CIT(A), WHICH DOES NOT NEED 12 ANY INTERFERENCE ON MY PART, HENCE, I UPHOLD THE OR DER OF THE LD. CIT(A) ON THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE AND DISMISS THE ISS UE IN DISPUTE RAISED BY THE REVENUE. 6.3 AS REGARDS THE CASE LAWS CITED BY THE LD. COUNS EL OF THE ASSESSEE, I AM OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE FACT S AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT CASE ARE DISTINGUISHED TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE OF THE CASE LAWS CITED BY THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE, HENCE, THE SAID DECISIONS ARE NOT APPLICABLE IN THE PRESENT CASE. 7. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THIS 08-08-2017. SD/- (H.S. SIDHU) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED :08-08-2017 SR BHATANGAR COPY FORWARDED TO: 1.APPELLANT 2.RESPONDENT 3.CIT 4.CIT(A), NEW DELHI. 5.CIT(ITAT), NEW DELHI. AR, ITAT NEW DELHI.