Rattan Dev Sadh, New Delhi V. ACIT, Circle-30(1), New Delhi

ITA 5930/DEL/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2910 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-03-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 18-09-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: V K JIWANI
• Assessee Lawyers: ATUL GUPTA
• Keywords: Question of law; Initiation of penalty proceedings; Reasonable cause
• Section: 10B; 148; 12

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH SMC: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 5930/DEL/2017 A.Y. : 2008-09 SH. RATTAN DEV SADH, VS. ACIT, CIRCLE 30(1), 53, KAILASH HILLS, NEW DELHI EAST OF KAILASH, NEW DELHI 110 048 (PAN: AAXPS7661J) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SH. ATUL GUPTA, CA DEPARTMENT BY : SH. V.K. JIWANI, SR. DR O R D E R THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-10, NEW DELHI DAT ED 28.10.2016 PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. 2. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED IN THE ASSESSEES APPEAL READ AS UNDER:- 1. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED TO CONFIRM THE ACTION OF AO LEVY PENALTY OF RS. 29,942/- U/S. 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME T AX ACT WITHOUT CONSIDER THE FACT IN THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S. 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S. 271 READ WITH SECTION 274 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT SUFFERS FROM THE VICE OF NON-APPLICATION OF MIND ON THE PART OF THE AO. 2 2. THAT THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S. 148 OF THE I.T. ACT HAS BEEN ISSUED WITHOUT LAYING FOUNDATION FOR THE ASSUMPTI ON IN AS MUCH AS THERE IS NO VIOLATION OF THE CONDITIONS TO CLAIM THE EXEMPTION U/S. 10B OF THE INCOME TAX ACT AS ALLEGED IN REASONS RECORDED. 3. THAT THE FINDINGS RETURNED ARE CONTRARY TO THE EVIDENCE ON RECORD. 4. THAT YOUR PETITIONER PRAYS TO ALLOW AMENDING ANY FURTHER GROUNDS AND EVIDENCE AT THE TIME OF HEARING. 5. THAT NECESSARY RELIEF TO GRANTS TO YOUR PETITIONER AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A), NEW DELHI. 3. FACTS NARRATED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES ARE NOT DISPUTED BY BOTH THE PARTIES, HENCE, THE SAME ARE NOT REPEATED HERE FO R THE SAKE OF BREVITY. 4. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE HAS STATED THAT NO SPECIFIC ALLEGATION AS TO THE CONCEALMENT OF PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS HAS BEEN LEVIED B Y THE AO IN THE NOTICE DATED 01.3.2016 ISSUED BY HIM U/S. 271(1) OF THE ACT PLACED ON FILE WHICH CLEARLY SHOWS THAT THE SAME IS THE STANDARD FORMAT OF T HE NOTICE AND AO HAS JUST TICKED ON THE OPTION OF CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR F URNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF SUCH INCOME. HE FURTHER STATED THAT SIMILAR LY, THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 VIDE ORD ER DATED 17.7.2017 PASSED IN ITA NO. 730/DEL/2017 (AY 2007-08 ) ON IDENTICAL FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, HAS DELETED THE PENALTY. HE FURTHE R STATED THAT THE PENALTY IMPOSED IS LIABLE TO BE QUASHED ON LEGAL GROU NDS AS THE ISSUE IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS.: 3 - ITAT, DELHI DECISION IN THE CASE OF ABR AUTO PVT. LTD . VS. ACIT IN ITA NO. 6236/DEL/2015 DATED 4.12.2017. - 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. - 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. 5. ON THE CONTRARY, LD. DR RELIED UPON THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 6. I HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE RELE VANT RECORDS, ESPECIALLY THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES ALON GWITH THE PROVISIONS OF LAW AS WELL AS THE CASE LAW CITED BY THE LD. COUNSEL OF T HE ASSESSEE. I HAVE ALSO PERUSED THE NOTICE DATED 01.3.2016 ISSUED BY THE AO FOR INITIATION OF PENALTY AND DIRECTING THE ASSESSEE TO APPEAR BEFORE HIM . I FURTHER FIND THAT TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007- 08 VIDE ORDER DATED 17.7.2017 PASSED IN ITA NO. 730/ DEL/2017 (AY 2007- 08) ON IDENTICAL FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, HAS DELETED TH E PENALTY. FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE, SOME OF THE CONTENTS OF THE PENA LTY NOTICE DATED 01.3.2016 ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER:- ..IT APPEARS TO ME THAT YOU:- * HAVE WITHOUT REASONABLE CAUSE FAILED TO COMPLY WI TH A NOTICE UNDER SECTION 142(1)/143(2) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 DATED. 4 * HAVE CONCEALED THE PARTICULARS OF YOUR INCOME OR FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF SUCH INCOME IN TERMS OF EXPLANATION 1,2,3,4 AND 5. . 6.1 AFTER PERUSING THE AFORESAID CONTENTS OF THE NOTICE DATED 01.3.2016, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT THE AO HAS INITIATED THE PENALTY FOR CONCEALMENT OF PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTI CULARS, WHICH IS CONTRARY TO THE PROVISIONS OF LAW. I AM OF THE VIEW THAT NOTICE ISSUED BY THE AO U/S. 271(1) READ WITH SECTION 274 OF THE ACT IS BA D IN LAW AS IT DOES NOT SPECIFY WHICH LIMB OF SECTION 271(1) OF THE ACT, T HE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS HAD BEEN INITIATED I.E. WHETHER FOR CONCEAL MENT OF PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS. THEREF ORE, THE PENALTY IN DISPUTE IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN THE EYES OF LAW, HENCE, I C ANCEL THE PENALTY IN DISPUTE. I ALSO FIND THAT MY AFORESAID VIEW IS SUPPOR TED 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 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 OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. MANJUNATHA COTTON AND GINNING FACTORY (2013) (7) TMI 620- KARANATAKA HIGH COURT. 5 THUS SINCE THE MATTER IS COVERED BY JUDGMENT OF THE DIVISION BENCH OF THIS COURT, WE ARE OF THE OPINION N O 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. 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 6 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 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 7 APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE, HAS RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE DIVISION BENCH OF THIS COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF 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. 8. IN THE BACKGROUND OF THE AFORESAID DISCUSSIONS AND RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE PRECEDENTS, WE DELETE THE PENALTY IN DISPUTE 8 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 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 9 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 CONCEALED THE INCOME OF RS. 26,50,500/- AND DID NOT DECLARE IN THE RETURN OF INCOME INSPITE OF ADMITTING A DISCLOSURE OF RS. 40,00,000/- DURING SURVEY. 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 AO 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. 10 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 THE 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 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 11 THAT HE IS SATISFIED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED 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 PARTICULARS OF INCOME/CONCEALMENT OF INCOME, WHEREAS THE PENALTY IN DISPUTE HAS BEEN LEVIED BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS. IN 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 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 12 271(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 OF 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 13 274 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. 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. 7. KEEPING IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID DISCUSSIONS, I CANCEL THE PENALTY IN DISPUTE BY RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE AFORESAID DECISIONS AND ALLOW THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STA NDS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 21/03/2018. SD/- [H.S. SIDHU] JUDICIAL MEMBER DATE: 21/03/2018 SRBHATNAGAR COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4.CIT (A) 5. DR , ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, DELHI BENCHES