M/s Hosley India Pvt. Ltd., Uttar Pradesh V. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 5904/DEL/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 58523 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-01-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 23-12-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RIS GILL
• Assessee Lawyers: VIJAY IYER; MANOMEET DALAL
• Keywords: Transfer pricing; Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice; International transaction; Rule of consistency; Question of law
• Section: 92C; 143(3); 92

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : C : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI I.P. BANSAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.5904/DEL/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07 HOSLEY INDIA PVT. LTD., C-24, HOSIERY COMPLEX, NOIDA PHASE II, UTTAR PRADESH. PAN : AABCH0722N VS. DCIT, CIRCLE 12 (1), NEW DELHI. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI VIJAY IYER, CA & SHRI MANOMEET DALAL, ADVOCATE REVENUE BY : SHRI R.I.S. GILL, CIT, DR ORDER PER I.P. BANSAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. IT IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER DATED 25 TH OCTOBER, 2010 IN PURSUANCE OF DIRECTIONS ISSUED BY DRP WHICH IS DATED 29 TH SEPTEMBER, 2010. THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS PASSED U/S 143(3) READ WITH SECTION 144C OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. THE MAIN ADDITIO N MADE IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS TRANSFER PRICING ADJUSTMENT OF ` 2,68 ,77,839/- WHICH HAS BEEN AGITATED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL AND THE FOLLO WING GROUNDS OF APPEAL HAVE BEEN FILED:- ITA NO.5904/DEL/2010 2 THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE MUTUALLY EXCL USIVE OF AND WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO EACH ANOTHER, UNTIL OTHERWISE STATED THEREIN: 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE HON'BLE DISPUTE RESOLUTION PANEL (DRP) ERRED IN CONFIRMING ORDER UNDER SECTION 92CA(3) THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ('THE ACT') PASSED BY THE LEARNED TRANSFER PRICIN G OFFICER ('TPO') AND THEREBY CONFIRMING THE DRAFT ORDER PASSED BY LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER ('AO'); 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE HON'BLE DRP/TPO ERRED IN REJECTING TWO COMPAR ABLE COMPANIES, GADAGE MAHALAXMI AND HANDICRAFTS & HANDLO OM, BASED ON INCORRECT FACTS. 3. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE GROUND, ON THE FACTS AN D IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE HON'BLE D RP/TPO ERRED IN NOT PLACING HIGHER RELIANCE ON FUNCTIONAL CO MPARABILITY VIS-A-VIS PRODUCT COMPARABILITY OF THE COMPARABLE COMP ANIES WHILE APPLYING TNMM AS THE MOST APPROPRIATE METHOD. 4. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE, ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE HON'BLE DRP/ TPO APPLIED PRODUCT CRITERION INCONSISTENTLY WHILE SELECTING THE COMPARABLE COMPANIES. FURTHER, THE LEARNED TPO HAS ERRED IN FACTS AND CIRCUM STANCES OF THE CASE BY STATING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT OBJECTED TO REJECTION OF FIVE COMPARABLES PROPOSED TO BE REJECTED BY LEARNED TPO IN HIS FIRST SHOW CAUSE NOTICE. 5. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE HON'BLE DRP/TPO ERRED IN CONSIDERING ONLY O NE COMPANY AS COMPARABLE AND THEN NOT EVEN MAKING ADJUSTMENT FOR MATERIAL DIFFERENCES. 6. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE, ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE HON'BLE DRP ERRED IN REJECTING ADDITIONAL COMPARABLES FULFILLING THE CRITERI ON OF CLOSER PRODUCT COMPARABILITY, AS LAID DOWN BY THE LEARNED TPO . 7. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE HON'BLE DRP/TPO ERRED IN CONSIDERING PRELIM INARY EXPENSES, DONATION AND INTEREST EXPENSE AS OPERATING IN NATURE WHILE COMPUTING THE OPERATING MARGINS OF THE ASSESSEE. 8. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE HON'BLE DRP/TPO ERRED IN NOT DIRECTING TPO TO ALLOW UPWARD VARIATION OF 5 PERCENT IN DETERMINING THE ARM'S LENGTH PRICE AS AMENDED PROVISO TO SECTION 92C OF THE ACT IS N OT APPLICABLE TO A.Y. 200607. ITA NO.5904/DEL/2010 3 9. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED TPO ERRED IN VIOLATING THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE BY FAILING TO NOT PROVIDING ASSESSEE OPPORTUNITY TO SUBMIT EVIDENCES TO SUPPORT THE ARM'S LENGTH NATURE OF INTERNATIO NAL TRANSACTION. 10. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AN D IN LAW, THE LEARNED AO ERRED IN NOT MEETING THE PRECONDITIO NS FOR MAKING REFERENCE TO THE TPO UNDER SECTION 92 CA (1) OF THE ACT AND IN NOT PROVIDING AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD BEF ORE REFERRING THE TRANSFER PRICING ISSUES TO THE LEARNED TP O. THE APPELLANT PRAYS FOR LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER, AMEND AND / OR MODIFY ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL AT OR BEFORE THE H EARING OF THE APPEAL. 2. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS A 100% EXPORT ORIENTED UNIT P RIMARILY ENGAGED IN THE MANUFACTURING OF FLORAL CONTAINERS, C ANDLE HOLDERS, HOME DCOR ACCESSORIES AND SEASONAL DCOR MADE OUT OF IR ON, BRASS, GLASS, RESIN, WAX, ETC. THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED BOTH IN MA NUFACTURING AND TRADING AND THE ONLY INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION U NDERTAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR IS SALE OF HANDICRAFTS ITEMS AMOUN TING TO ` 34,85,15,948/-. FOR MANUFACTURING SEGMENT THE ASSESSEE BENCHMARKED SALES AND ADOPTED TRANSACTIONAL NET MARGIN METHOD (TNMM) ON THE BASIS OF NINE COMPARABLE COMPANIES WITH AVERAGE ARITHMETICAL MEAN OF 3.02%. THE OPERATING MARGIN O F THE ASSESSEE IS 0.87% AND, THUS, THE TRANSACTION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS CONSID ERED TO BE AT ARMS LENGTH. 3. IN THE TRADING SEGMENT, THE TRANSFER PRICING ANAL YSIS OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN ACCEPTED AND NO ADVERSE INFERENCE HAS BE EN DRAWN. 4. THE TPO REJECTED EIGHT OUT OF NINE COMPARABLES SEL ECTED BY THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF PRODUCT COMPARABILITY BASED UPON WHICH AN ADJUSTMENT OF ` 2,68,77,839/- HAS BEEN MADE. THE NIN E COMPANIES WHICH WERE SELECTED AS COMPARABLES BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS T P REPORT ARE AS UNDER:- ITA NO.5904/DEL/2010 4 S.NO. NAME OF THE COMPANY MARGINS 1. ASIAN ELECTRONICS 18.66 2. GRATEX INDUSTRIES 8.26 3. GREENPLY INDUSTRIES 8.82 4. CENTURY LAMINATES 7.98 5. GADAGE MAHALAXMI 14.29 6. HANDICRAFTS & HANDLOOM (-) 0.09 7. MERINO PANEL 7.13 8. PRATIK PANELS 0.20 9. SOUTHERN VENEERS (-) 38.10 MEAN 3.02% 5. THE TPO REJECTED THE EIGHT COMPARABLES WITH THE F OLLOWING OBSERVATIONS:- I) GADAGE MAHALAXMI, THE COMPARABLE MENTIONED AT SL .NO.5 IS EXCLUDED ON THE GROUND THAT THIS COMPARABLE DERIVES O NLY RENTAL INCOME. II) HANDICRAFTS & HANDLOOM, MENTIONED AT SL. NO.6 IS R EJECTED ON THE GROUND THAT IT DEALS PRIMARILY IN SILVER AND GOLD JEWELLERY. III) GREENPLY INDUSTRIES, MENTIONED AT SL. NO.3 IS REJE CTED ON THE GROUND THAT IT DEALS IN PLYWOOD AND PARTICLE BOARD. IV) SOUTHERN VENEERS, MENTIONED AT SL. NO.9 IS REJECTE D ON THE GROUND THAT IT DEALS ONLY IN VENEERS. V) PRATIK PANELS MENTIONED AT SL. NO.8 IS REJECTED ON THE GROUND THAT THE SAID CONCERN IS DEALING IN WOODEN PLYWOOD WI NDOWS, ETC. 5.1. THE OTHER COMPARABLES ARE REJECTED WITH THE FOL LOWING OBSERVATIONS:- 5.7.1. ASIAN ELECTRONICS: THE ANNUAL REPORT OF THIS COMPANY FILED BY THE A/R FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN VE RIFIED. IT IS SEEN THAT THE COMPANY LEASE ENERGY CONSERVATION PRODUCTS AND MANUFACTURING LIGHTING PRODUCTS. THE BROADER INDUSTRY OF THE COMPARABLE COMPANY AND THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS DIFFE RENT. I THEREFORE ACCEPT THE OBJECTIONS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE A GAINST THIS COMPANY WHICH WAS SELECTED BY THE ASSESSEE AS A COMPARABLE. THE COMPANY IS DROPPED FROM THE LIST OF COMPARABLES. ITA NO.5904/DEL/2010 5 5.7.2 GRATEX INDUSTRIES: THE ANNUAL REPORT OF THIS CO MPANY HAS BEEN EXAMINED. IT IS SEEN THAT THE COMPANY IS INTO DECO RATIVE PAPER AND SIMILAR PRODUCTS. THE BROADER INDUSTRY IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS OPERATING IS SIMILAR. THE OBJEC TIONS RAISED BY THE A/R FOR THE ASSESSEE ARE DEVOID OF ANY MERITS. I THEREFORE REJECT THE OBJECTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND ACCEPT THIS COM PANY AS A COMPARABLE. 5.7.3 CENTURY LAMINATES: THE ASSESSEE HAS POINTED OUT THAT THE COMPANY IS ENGAGED INTO DECORATIVE LAMINATES AND PL YWOOD AND FURNITURE COMPONENTS AND PANEL PRODUCTS. THE OBJE CTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE HAVE BEEN EXAMINED AND ARE FOUND TO E CO RRECT. THE BROADER INDUSTRY OF THE COMPARABLE COMPANY AND THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS DIFFERENT. I THEREFORE ACCEPT THE OBJECTIONS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THIS COMPANY WHICH WAS SELECTED BY THE ASSESSEE AS A COMPARABLE. THE COMPANY IS DRO PPED FROM THE LIST OF COMPARABLES. 5.7.4 MARINO PANEL: IT HAS BEEN POINTED OUT THAT THIS CO MPANY IS ENGAGED IN THE MANUFACTURING OF LAMINATES FOR INTERI OR. THE OBJECTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE HAVE BEEN EXAMINED AND ARE FOUND TO BE CORRECT. THE BROADER INDUSTRY OF THE COMPARABLE COMPANY AND THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS DIFFERENT. I THEREFORE AC CEPT THE OBJECTIONS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THIS COMPANY WHICH WAS SELECTED BY THE ASSESSEE AS A COMPARABLE. THE CO MPANY IS DROPPED FROM THE LIST OF COMPARABLES. 6. THE GRATEX INDUSTRIES BEING THE ONLY REMAINING COM PARABLE HAS BEEN SELECTED AS COMPARABLE WHOSE OP/TC IS 8.26% AND A FTER GIVING THE CREDIT TO THE MARGIN EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE THE DIF FERENCE IN THE ALP HAS BEEN FOUND AT 6.81% AND DIFFERENTIAL AMOUNT HAS BEEN COMPUTED AT ` 2,68,77,839/-. THE CALCULATION IS AS U NDER:- OPERATING COST 364,272,706 OP/TC 8.26% MARGIN 30,088,925 ARMS LENGTH PRICE 394,361,631 PRICE CHARGED BY THE ASSESSEE 367,483,792 DIFFERENCE 26,877,839 % OF DIFFERENCE WITH ALP 6.81% 7. AT THE OUTSET, REFERRING TO THE PRINCIPLE OF CONSI STENCY AND THE DECISION OF CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF PUNE ITAT IN THE CA SE OF BRINTONS CARPETS ASIA P. LTD. VS. DCIT (2011) 46 SOT 289 (PUNE) , IT IS THE CASE OF ITA NO.5904/DEL/2010 6 THE LEARNED AR THAT IN SUBSEQUENT YEAR THE TRANSFER PR ICING OFFICER HAS IDENTIFIED NEW SET OF COMPARABLES AND FOUND TRANSACTIO NS TO BE AT ARMS LENGTH. IT IS THE SUBMISSION OF THE LEARNED AR TH AT DRP HAS PASSED A NON-SPEAKING ORDER ON CRITICAL ISSUES AS PER WORK ING CAPITAL EMPLOYED. THE OPERATING MARGIN OF GRATEX INDUSTRIES IS 2.96% AND IF THE SAME IS CONSIDERED, THEN, EVEN EMPLOYING THE SOLE C OMPARABLE BY TPO, THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ASSESSEES MARGIN AND COMPAR ABLE MARGIN WILL BE WITHIN THE TOLERANCE LIMIT OF + 5%. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE SECOND ASPECT IS REGARDING CAPACITY ADJUSTMENT. TH E COMPARABLE GRATEX INDUSTRIES HAS OPERATED IN ITS FULL CAPACITY WIT H THREE SHIFTS AND THE ADJUSTMENT IS REQUIRED TO BE GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF CAPACITY UTILIZATION. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY HIM THAT I T WILL BE PROPER IF THE MATTER IS RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER WITH A DIRECTION TO RE-COMPUTE THE ARMS LENGTH PRICE OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE BASIS OF COMPARABLES SELECTED BY THE TPO IN SUBSEQUENT YEAR WHER E SUITABLE COMPARABLES WERE FOUND AND APPLIED. HE HAS LISTED OUT THOSE COMPARABLES WHICH WERE SELECTED BY THE TPO DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2007-08 AND 2008-09. THE CHART IS REPRODUCED B ELOW FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE:- S.NO. NAME OF THE COMPARABLE OPERATING MARGIN ON OPERATING COST F.Y. 2005-06 SOURCE PRODUCT ACCEPTED BY THE TPO 1. ANISA CARPETS LTD. 1.49% COMPANY WIDE FINANCIALS CARPETS AND DRUGGETS A.Y. 2008-09 2. BANARAS BEADS LTD. 9.10% SEGMENTAL FINANCIALS HANDICRAFTS AND CARPETS A.Y. 2008-09 AND A.Y. 2007-08 3. DESTINI INDIA LTD. 3.71% COMPANY WIDE FINANCIALS HANDICRAFTS A.Y. 2008-09 AND A.Y. 2007-08 4. E HILL & CO. LTD. 4.15% COMPANY WIDE FINANCIALS CARPETS A.Y. 2008-09 5. GOLDEN CARPETS LTD. -13.37% COMPANY WIDE FINANCIALS CARPETS A.Y. 2008-09 6. ORIENT CRAFT LTD. -27.16% SEGMENTAL FINANCIALS HOME FURNISHING PRODUCTS A.Y. 2008-09 AND A.Y. 2007-08 7. RAJASTHAN SMALL INDUSTRIES CORPN. LTD. -11.91% SEGMENTAL FINANCIALS HANDICRAFTS A.Y. 2007-08 AVERAGE 4.86% - ITA NO.5904/DEL/2010 7 8. THE LEARNED AR ALSO RELIED ON THE DECISION IN THE CASE DCIT VS. M/S QUARK SYSTEMS PVT. LTD. 38 SOT 307 (CHD) (SB). IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THIS VIEW OF THE ITAT HAS BEEN UPHELD BY HONBLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE REPORTED IN 244 CTR 5 42 (P&H). 9. REFERRING TO THESE SUBMISSIONS, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LEARNED AR THAT THE MATTER SHOULD BE RESTORED BACK TO THE FIL E OF ASSESSING OFFICER. 10. THE LEARNED DR WAS REQUIRED TO SUBMIT THAT WHETHE R ON THESE FACTS AND ON THESE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE THE MATTER CAN BE RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH A DIRECTION TO RE- DETERMINE THE ARMS LENGTH PRICE OF THE ASSESSEE IN RESPE CT OF THE AFOREMENTIONED INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION. THE LEARN ED DR STATED THAT HE HAS NO OBJECTION IF THE MATTER IS RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER FOR RE-DETERMINATION OF THE ARMS LENG TH PRICE. 11. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES ON THIS ISSUE AND TA KING INTO CONSIDERATION THE PECULIAR FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE TH AT IN SUBSEQUENT YEARS THE DEPARTMENT HAS RELIED UPON FRESH SET OF COMPA RABLES AND ALSO KEEPING IN VIEW THE FACT THAT LD. CIT, DR HAS NO OBJECTION TO REMITTING THE MATTER BACK, FOLLOWING THE RULE OF CO NSISTENCY AS DESCRIBED IN THE AFOREMENTIONED DECISION OF PUNE BENC H IN THE CASE OF BRINTONS CARPETS ASIA P. LTD. (SUPRA), WE RESTORE THE ISSU E RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT APPEAL TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFI CER FOR RE- DETERMINATION OF THE ARMS LENGTH PRICE OF THE SUBJEC T INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION. IT WILL ALSO BE RELEVANT TO REPRODUCE T HE OBSERVATIONS OF PUNE BENCH RELYING UPON WHICH IT IS CONSIDERED PROPER TO RESTORE THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER. 11. REGARDING THE 'RULE OF CONSISTENCY' AND THE RELEV ANT DECISIONS ON THE TOPIC, WE HAVE EXAMINED THE FACTS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2006-07 AND 2007-08. SO FAR AS THE E XTERNAL ITA NO.5904/DEL/2010 8 COMPARABLES, TURN OVER DETAILS OF EXPORT AND DOMESTIC S EGMENTS AND OTHER RELEVANT FACTS ARE CONCERNED, WE FIND SIMILA RITY OF THE FACTS BETWEEN BOTH THE YEARS. THE ARGUMENT OF THE ASSESSE E IS THAT THE EXTERNAL COMPARABLE PRICES FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 SUPPLIED BY THE ASSESSEE, WHE N ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR THE ASSESSMENT YE AR 2007- 08, MUST BE ACCEPTED FOR THAT YEAR IN VIEW OF THE ABSENC E OF MATERIAL FACTS AND ALSO IN VIEW OF THE RULE OF CONSISTE NCY. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THIS ARGUMENT AND IN OUR OPINION, IT I S A SETTLED LAW THAT THE PRINCIPLE OF RES JUDICATA IS INAPPLICABLE TO INCOME- TAX MATTERS. HOWEVER, THE SAME IS TRUE AS LONG AS THE FAC TS OF DIFFERENT IN DIFFERENT ASSESSMENT YEARS. OTHERWISE, THE RULE OF CONSISTENCY IS RELEVANT TO INCOME-TAX MATTERS AND ASSESSI NG OFFICER CANNOT BE IGNORE THE SAME. THERE OUGHT TO BE UN IFORMITY IN TREATMENT AND CONSISTENCY WHEN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTAN CES ARE IDENTICAL AS HELD BY THE MUMBAI TRIBUNAL IN GOPAL PUROHIT V. JT. CIT [2009] 122 TTJ 87 / 29 SOT 117 . RECENT JUDGMENT OF THE MUMBAI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. GOPAL PUROHIT [2010] 188 TAXMAN 140 , OF COURSE, IN CONNECTION WITH THE ISSUE OF PROPER HEAD OF INCOME FOR TAXING THE GAINS ON SALE OF THE SHARES IS RELEVANT FOR THE CONCLUSION AND IT READ AS FOLLOWS. ' THERE OUGHT TO BE UNIFORMITY IN TREATMENT AND CONSISTEN CY IN VARIOUS YEARS WHEN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES ARE IDENTICAL NO SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW ARISES.' 12. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AL LOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES ONLY. THE ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 25.01.20 12. SD/- SD/- [SHAMIM YAHYA] [I.P. BANSAL] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED, 25.01.2012. DK COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT DEPUTY REGISTRAR, ITAT, DELHI BENCHES