RKM Infotech & Developers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi V. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 621/DEL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4219 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 6 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-08-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Next Hearing Date: 30-05-2016
• Assessment Year: 2002-2003
• Appeal Filed On: 04-02-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R S NEGI SRDR
• Keywords: Accommodation entries; Reason to believe; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 133(6); 147; 68; 148; 144

Judgement Text

BEFORE IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH F NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G.D. AGRAWAL. VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEM BER ITA NO. 621/DEL/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2002 -03 RKM INFOTECH & DEVELOEPRS P LTD VS. THE ITO 12, 3 RD FLOOR, VASAN ARCADE WARD -15(4) B-7, VASANT KUNJ, NEW DELHI NEW DELHI PAN AAACG 9124 G (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRIN. CHHILLAR, ADV SHRI NIPUN KUMAR DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI R.S. NEGI, SR-DR DATE OF HEARING : 01.06.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 0 5.08.2016 O R D E R PER CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A)- XVIII, DELHI DATED 02.12.2 013 IN FIRST APPEAL NO. 174/09-10 PERTAINING TO A.Y 2002-03. ITA NO. 621/DEL/2014 2 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. THE CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW IN HOLDING THAT REASSES SMENT PROCEEDINGS WERE VALIDLY INITIATED IN THE SUBJECT C ASE, WHEREAS IT IS APPARENT ON A BARE PERUSAL OF THE REASONS REC ORDED, THAT THE FINDINGS OF THE AO ARE ERRONEOUS, CONTRADICTORY , AND NEITHER DEMONSTRATE ANY APPLICATION OF MIND TO THE ALLEGED INFORMATION RECEIVED, NOR ANY BELIEF THAT INCOME HA D ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. 2. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO GROUND 1, THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE VALIDITY OF REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS , AS CHALLENGED BEFORE HIM, WITHOUT PASSING A SPEAKING O RDER IN THIS REGARD. 3. THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN FACTS AND IN LAW, IN S USTAINING AN ADDITION OF RS.20,00,000 UNDER SECTION 68 OF FHE AC T, IN RESPECT OF SHARE APPLICATION MONEY RECEIVED FROM FO UR PERSONS, TO WHOM THE MONEY ADMITTEDLY STOOD REFUNDE D THE NEXT YEAR. 4. THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN FACTS AND IN LAW, IN SUSTAINING AN ADDITION OF RS.25,00,000 UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE AC T, IN RESPECT OF SHARE APPLICATION MONEY RECEIVED FROM FI VE PERSONS, IGNORING COPIOUS EVIDENCE LED BY THE ASSESSEE, SIMP LY BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ABLE TO PRODUCE THEM, BEFORE T HE AO. ITA NO. 621/DEL/2014 3 GROUND NOS. 1 & 2 3. APROPOS GROUND NO. 1, WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CO NTENTIONS AND HAVE PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE L D. AR REITERATED THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS DATED 31.5.2016 WHICH READ AS FOLLOWS: REGARDING GROUND OF APPEAL NOS. 1 & 2. IT IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED THAT THE REASONS AS RECORDED BY THE ASSES SING OFFICER (AO) ARE ONLY THE INFORMATION I.E. ONLY A REPORT RECEIVED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE ADDL. DIT(INV.) WHICH IS NOT SUFF ICIENT FOR THE ISSUANCE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 147/148 OF THE INC OME TAX ACT, (THE ACT) AS THE REPORT IS TOO GENERAL IN NATURE, VAGUE, NON SPECIFIC AND SHOWING NON APPLICATION OF MIND BY THE AO TO THE INFORMATION. FIRST PARA OF THE REPORT SAYS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN BOGUS/ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES, THE ASSESSEE IS INTO THE BUSINESS OF MONEY LAUNDERING ON A VERY LARGE SCALE AND IS ALSO ACTUALLY PROVIDING ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES. IN THE SE COND PARA, ANALYSIS OF THE TABLE SHOWS THAT ALL THE ENTRIES EX CEPT AT SERIAL NO.9 I.E. AJAY SINGH, EVERY ENTRY IS APPEARING TWIC E WHICH SHOWS NON APPLICATION OF MIND BY THE AO. IN THE THIRD PAR A, REPORT STATED THAT I AM ACCEPTING BOGUS ENTRIES. IN THIS R EPORT, IT IS NOT CLEAR AS TO, WHAT IS MY BUSINESS? FINALLY THE AO AD DED RS.45 LACS BY TREATING THE TRANSACTIONS AS BOGUS ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES. THE CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE AO BY OBSERV ING THAT AS THE AO HAS FOLLOWED THE PROCEDURE LAID DOWN BY HON BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF G K N DRIVESHAFT THE R EOPENING IS VALID. (PAGE 20, PARA 6.1 AND 6.2) ITA NO. 621/DEL/2014 4 OUR RESPECTFUL SUBMISSION IS THAT THE REASONS AS RE CORDED ARE NOT AT ALL SUFFICIENT TO INITIATE PROCEEDINGS. THE AO IS DUTY BOUND TO FORM HIS OWN OPINION BY FURTHER INVESTIGAT ION OF THE INFORMATION. ANOTHER ASPECT IS THAT THE REASONS WER E NOT SUPPLIED TO THE ASSESSEE WITH THE NOTICE ISSUED. TH ESE WERE SUPPLIED DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THIS AL SO MAKES THE ASSESSMENT ORDER INVALID AS HELD IN THE CASE OF HAR YANA ACRYLIC: 308 ITR 38(DEL) THAT THE REASONS WILL GO HAND IN HA ND WITH NOTICE, FOLLOWED BY DELHI TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF B ALWANT RAI WADHWA (ITA NO.4806/DEL/2010), SUREN INTERNATIONAL (ITA NO.2941/DEL/2010), SHAGUN IMPEX (ITA NO.2756/DEL/20 10) AND MANY OTHER ITAT JUDGMENTS. THERE ARE MANY JUDGMENTS OF HONBLE HIGH COURT AND THE TRIBUNAL ON THE ISSUE TH AT MERELY INFORMATION RECEIVED IN REPORT FORM IS NOT SUFFICIE NT TO INITIATE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. FURTHER, RELIANCE IS PLAC ED ON THE DECISION APPENDED AT S. NO. 14 IN THE PAPER BOOK DE ALING SPECIFICALLY WITH THE ISSUE AT HAND. REGARDING GROUND OF ANNEAL NOS.3 & 4, IT IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED THAT DURING THE APPELLATE AND REMAND PROC EEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE PROVIDED EACH AND EVERY DETAIL OF ALL THE 9 SHARE HOLDERS, WHICH WAS IN HIS POSSESSION, TO THE SATISF ACTION OF THE AO. THE SAME ARE APPENDED IN THE PAPER BOOK AT S. N OS.4-12. S. NO.3, ARE THE DETAILS OF SHARE APPLICANTS TO WHOM T HE MONEY STOOD REFUNDED IN SUBSEQUENT FINANCIAL YEAR 2003-04 (DETAILS ARE AT PAGE NO.9 OF THE PAPER BOOK). S. NOS. 4-7, ARE T HE DETAIL OF THE SHARE APPLICANTS PROVIDED TO THE AO REGARDING T HE APPLICANTS TO WHOM THE MONEY STOOD REFUNDED. S. NOS.8-12, ARE THE DETAILS OF THE SHARE APPLICANTS AS PROVIDED TO THE AO TO WH OM SHARES ITA NO. 621/DEL/2014 5 WERE ORIGINALLY ALLOTTED. THE DOCUMENTS PROCURED AT THAT TIME WERE DULY PROVIDED TO THE AO FOR HIS SATISFACTION. THE SHARE APPLICANTS AS AT S. NO.8-12 HAVE TRANSFERRED THEIR HOLDING TO NEW PEOPLE IN THE YEAR 2006(DETAILS ARE AT PAGE NO. 10- 11 OF THE PAPER BOOK). IN OTHER WORDS, THE ORIGINAL SHARE APP LICANTS ARE NOT OUR SHARE HOLDERS, AS ON DATE. DURING THE ASSES SMENT PROCEEDINGS, HE ISSUED SUMMONS UNDER SECTION 133(6) OF THE ACT TO ALL THE 9 SHARE HOLDERS. ALL SUMMONS RETURNED BA CK AS UN- SERVED. BY THIS AND BY BELIEVING THE REPORT, HE DOU BTED THE IDENTITY OF THE SHARE HOLDERS, THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE SHARE HOLDERS AND THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS AND ADDED RS.45 LACS. THE CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE AO BY RELYIN G ON THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF N. R. PORTFOLIO (96 DTR 0281) WHEREIN THE HIGH COURT OBSE RVED THAT MERE FILING OF DETAILS OF INCORPORATION OF THE COMP ANY AND BY SUBMITTING THAT ALL THE TRANSACTIONS WERE THROUGH B ANKING CHANNELS IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO DISCHARGE THE BURDEN LYING UPON THE ASSESSEE. THE FACTS OF THE CASE RELIED ON BY THE CIT(A) ARE D IFFERENT. IN THIS CASE, THE RESPONDENT WAS A COMPANY, HAD RECEIV ED SHARE APPLICATION MONEY FROM OTHER PRIVATE LIMITED COMPAN IES ON LARGE SCALE AND THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT WAS OF THE V IEW THAT THE RESPONDENT COMPANY IS INTRODUCING HIS OWN MONEY THROUGH THE OTHER COMPANIES. ONLY DETAIL OF INCORPORATION O F THE COMPANIES AND SHARE APPLICATION FORMS PROVIDED. IN PARA 6, IT HAS BEEN OBSERVED THAT THE SHARE APPLICATION WAS RE CEIVED FROM THE PERSONS WHO HAD BEEN IDENTIFIED AS ENTRY OPERAT ORS. IN THE ITA NO. 621/DEL/2014 6 PRESENT CASE, NO STATEMENT HAD EVER BEEN RECORDED O R NOTHING IS THERE TO SUGGEST THAT THE SHARE APPLICANTS ARE IN I NTO ENTRY ACCOMMODATION. IN OUR CASE, ALL THE SHARE APPLICANT S ARE INDIVIDUALS. FOUR OF THEM GOT THEIR MONEY REFUNDED, REST FIVE TRANSFERRED THEIR HOLDINGS TO OTHERS AND NONE OF TH EM IS OUR SHAREHOLDERS AS ON DATE. MERELY BECAUSE SUMMONS RET URNED UN- SERVED, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE IDENTITY IS NOT PROVED, CREDITWORTHINESS IS DOUBTFUL OR TRANSACTION WERE NO T GENUINE WHEREAS SPECIFIC DETAILS WERE FILED. 4. THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE REVENUE CONTENDED THAT TH E A.O WAS QUITE JUSTIFIED IN INITIATING REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AN D ISSUING NOTICE U/S 147 & 148 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 [HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS 'THE ACT' FOR SHORT] BECAUSE THERE WAS INFORMATION WITH THE A.O RECEIVED FROM THE INVESTIGATION WING OF THE DEPARTMENT REGAR DING BOGUS ENTRIES OF RS. 85 LAKHS AND THE ASSESSEE DID NOT DISCLOSE I TS IMPORTS OF METAL IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS THUS THE A.O WAS QUITE JUSTIF IED IN INVOKING THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IN THIS REGARD. 5. ON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE ABOVE RIVAL SUBM ISSIONS, FIRST OF ALL, WE MAY POINT OUT THAT THE A.O RECORDED FOLLOWI NG REASONS FOR INITIATION OF REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S 147 & 148 OF THE ACT: ITA NO. 621/DEL/2014 7 'A REPORT HAS BEEN RECEIVED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE ADDL. DVT (INV) UNIT VI DELHI THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN BOGUS/ACCOMMOD ATION ENTRIES. THE MODUS -OPERANDI IN THIS REGARD IS EXPLAINED BY ADDL DIT (INVESTIGATION) UNIT ~V1, NEW DELHI THAT THE ASSESS EE IS ACTUALLY INVOLVED IN MONEY LAUNDERING BUSINESS ON A VERY LAR GE SCALE & IN THE GRAB OF SHARE CAPITAL/SHARE APPLICATION MONEY, THE ASSESSEE IS ACTUALLY PROVIDING ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES IN THE SHA PE OF BOGUS SHARE MONEY SHARE APPLICATIONN MONEY/SHARE CAPITAL MONEY ETC. ---- ---- IN VIEW OF THE DEFINITE INFORMATION FROM ADDL DIT [ INV] UNIT VI. NEW DELHI THAT THE ASSESSES ACCEPTED BOGUS-ACCOMMODATIO N ENTRIES I HAVE REASON TO BELIEVE THAT AT LEAST INCOME CHARGEABLE T O TAX AMOUNTING RS. 85,00,000/- HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT IN THIS CAS E & THE SAME IS TO BE B ROUGHT TO TAX UNDER SECTION 147/148 OF THE I.T ACT. 1961. FURTHER INFORMATION HAS BEEN RECEIVED FROM DDIT [IN V] UNIT VI(3) NEW DELHI ON 17.8.2009 THAT AS PER THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) THE AFORESAID ASSESSEE HAS IMPORTED THE METAL. --- --- AS PER THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), METAL WAS IMPOR TED WHEREAS M/S GAURAV EXIM P. LTD HAS CLAIMED THAT THE METAL WAS PURCHASED FROM THE LOCAL MARKET. M/S GAURAV EXIM P. LTD WAS NOT ABLE TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS CLAIM THAT HE ABOVE GOOD WERE PURCHASED FROM LOCAL MARKET. F OR THE SAKE OF COMPLETENESS, REASONS RECORDED BY TH E A.O U/S 147 OF THE ACT ARE BEING ANNEXED TO THIS ORDER AS ANNEXURE A. ITA NO. 621/DEL/2014 8 6. AS IT IS AMPLY CLEAR FROM THE ABOVE THAT IN THE TABLE THERE ARE 17 ENTRIES WHICH ARE REPEATED TWICE. THE A.O HAS REPR ODUCED THE SAME WITHOUT MAKING EVEN A PRIMA FACIE ENQUIRY AND AFTER THE TABLE HE NOTED THAT IN VIEW OF THE DEFINITE INFORMATION FROM ADDL. DIT [INV] UNIT-VI, NEW DELHI THAT HE ASSESSEE HAS ACCEPTED BO GUS ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES THUS HE HAS REASON TO BELIEVE THAT THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AMOUNTING TO RS. 85 LAKHS CHARGEABL E TO TAX HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. IN THE LAST PARA OF ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE A.O HIMSELF OBSERVED THAT THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSE E THAT THERE ARE ONLY FIVE TRANSACTIONS TOTALING TO RS. 45 LAKHS, AP PEARS TO BE CORRECT AND HE MADE ADDITION OF RS. 45 LAKHS ONLY. IN THIS SCENARIO, WE ARE INCLINED TO ACCEPT THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE REPORT OF THE INVESTIGATION WING WAS GENERAL IN NATURE, VAGUE AND NON SPECIFIC ABOUT THE NATURE OF THE ALLEGED TRANSACTION AND THE A.O HAS ACCEPTED THE SAME AS GOSPEL TRUTH AND WITHOUT VERIFYING THE SAME AND WITHOUT APPLICATION OF MIND HE PROCEEDED TO INITIATE REASSE SSMENT PROCEEDINGS. IN THE TABLE STATED IN THE REASONS RECORDED EIGHT E NTRIES HAVE BEEN MENTIONED TWICE AND THIS FACT WAS ACCEPTED BY THE A .O WHEN POINTED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDIN GS. FROM THE RELEVANT OPERATIVE PART OF PAGE 20 PARAS 6.1 AND 6. 2 OF THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), IT IS CLEAR THAT HE CONFIRMED THE A CTION AND ADDITION BY ITA NO. 621/DEL/2014 9 OBSERVING THAT THE A.O HAS FOLLOWED THE PROCEDURE L AID DOWN BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF GKN DRIVE SHAF T VS. ITO 259 ITR 59 [SC] WHEREIN FOUR PRINCIPLES WERE LAID DOWN BY T HEIR LORDSHIPS FOR VALIDLY IGNITION OF PROCEEDINGS U/S 147/148 OF THE ACT. 7. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE A.O PROCEEDED ONLY ON T HE INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM THE INVESTIGATION WING ON THE ISSUE O F ALLEGED ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES WITHOUT PROVIDING DUE APPLICA TION OF MIND AND EVEN WITHOUT ANALYZING THE INFORMATION RECEIVED FRO M THE INVESTIGATION WING OF THE DEPARTMENT. REGARDING SECOND ISSUE OF UNACCOUNTED IMPORT OF GOODS, THE A.O DID NOT MAKE ANY EXAMINATI ON FROM THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND FROM THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND FROM THE FINAL STATEMENT OF ACCOUNTS SUBMITTED DURING QUANTUM ASSE SSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND ON THE BASIS OF THE REMAND REPORT O F THE A.O THIS ADDITION WAS DELETED BEING NOT SUSTAINABLE WHICH FU RTHER SHOWS THE NON APPLICATION OF MIND AND INITIATION OF REASSESSM ENT PROCEEDINGS AND ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S 147/148 OF THE ACT BY THE A. O. NOW THE RATIO OF THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CA SE OF CIT VS. SUREEN INTERNATIONAL SINCE REPORTED AS 357 ITR 24 [DELHI] [AT PAGE 32] COMES TO SUPPORT THE ABOVE CONTENTIONS OF THE A.O WHEREIN TH E SIMILAR SET OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND NOTICE U/S 148 OF ITA NO. 621/DEL/2014 10 THE ACT HAS BEEN QUASHED WHEN THERE WAS NO APPLICAT ION OF MIND BY THE A.O TO THE INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM THE INVEST IGATION WING AND WHEN THE A.O PROCEEDED ON THE BASIS OF INCORRECT IN FORMATION WITHOUT EVEN ALLEGING THE ACTUAL NATURE OF TRANSACTION IN A MECHANICAL MANNER. THE RELEVANT PARA OF THE ORDER IN 357 ITR 24 [DELHI ][SUPRA] READS AS UNDER: '13. WE HAVE HEARD COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES AT LENGT H. 14. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT CONTENDED THAT EVEN THOUGH THERE IS NO SPECIFIC ALLEGATION THAT THE ASS ESSEE HAD FAILED TO DISCLOSE ALL THE MATERIAL FACTS BUT THE SAME CAN BE GLEANED FROM THE REASONS ITSELF. WE ARE UNABLE TO ACCEPT TH IS CONTENTION. IN THE FIRST INSTANCE, WE DO NOT FIND THE REASONS A S RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO BE REASONS IN LAW, AT ALL. A BARE PERUSAL OF THE TABLE OF ALLEGED ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES INCLU DED IN THE REASONS AS RECORDED, DISCLOSES THAT THE SAME ENTRIE S HAVE BEEN REPEATED SIX TIMES. THIS IS CLEARLY INDICATIVE OF T HE CALLOUS MANNER IN WHICH THE REASONS FOR INITIATING REASSESS MENT PROCEEDINGS ARE RECORDED AND WE ARE UNABLE TO COUNT ENANCE THAT ANY BELIEF BASED ON SUCH STATEMENTS CAN EVER BE ARR IVED AT. THE REASONS HAVE BEEN RECORDED WITHOUT ANY APPLICATION OF MIND AND THUS NO BELIEF THAT INCOME HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT C AN BE STATED TO HAVE BEEN FORMED BASED ON SUCH REASONS AS RECORD ED. ' 8. HENCE THE RATIO OF THE OF THE DECISION OF THE J URISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT OF DELHI IN THE CASE OF SUREEN INTERNATIONAL [SUPRA] IS ALSO APPLICABLE TO THE PRESENT CASE. CONSEQUENTLY, THE LEGAL GROUND NOS. 1 AND 2 OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED AND THE IMPUGNED NOTICE U/S 147 OF THE ACT AND SUBSEQUENT ORDER U/S 144 OF THE ACT DAT ED 29.12.2009 ARE QUASHED. ITA NO. 621/DEL/2014 11 GROUND NOS. 3 AND 4 9. SINCE BY THE EARLIER PART OF THIS ORDER WE HAVE QUASHED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AS WELL AS NOTICE ISSUED U/S 148 O F THE ACT AND REASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S 144/147 OF THE ACT, T HEREFORE, GROUNDS OF THE ASSESSEE ON MERITS HAVE BECOME ACADEMIC AND INFRUCTUOUS AND ACCORDINGLY WE DISMISS THE SAME AS HAVING BECOME IN FRUCTUOUS. 10. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWE D ON LEGAL GROUNDS. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 05.08.2016. SD/- SD/- (G.D. AGRAWAL) (CHANDRA MOHAN GARG) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIA L MEMBER DATED : 05 TH AUGUST, 2016 VL/ COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR BY ORDER ASSTT REGISTRAR, ITAT, NEW DELHI