Nikon India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon V. DCIT, Circle- 3, Gurgaon

ITA 6299/DEL/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3533 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-11-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: I
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 10-10-2017
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: GOURAV GUPTA
• Keywords: Transfer pricing; Opportunity of being heard; International transaction
• Section: 92C; 143(3); 92B; 234B

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : I - 2 , NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. H.S. SIDHU , JUDICIAL M EMBER AND SH. O.P. KANT , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 6299 /DE L/ 2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2013 - 14 M/S. NIKON INDIA PVT. LTD., PLOT NO. 71, SECTOR - 32, INSTITUTIONAL AREA, GURGAON, VS. DCIT, CIRCLE - 3(1), GURGAON PAN : AACCN5100F (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) AND S.A. NO. 570/DEL/2017 [IN ITA NO. 6299/DEL/2017] ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013 - 14 M/S. NIKON INDIA PVT. LTD., PLOT NO. 71, SECTOR - 32, INSTITUTIONAL AREA, GURGAON, VS. DCIT, CIRCLE - 3(1), GURGAON PAN : AACCN5100F (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY SH. GOURAV GUPTA, ADV. DEPARTMENT BY SH. H.K. CHOUDHARY, CIT(DR) DATE OF HEARING 17.10.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 06.11.2017 ORDER PER O.P. KANT , A. M. : THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST ORDER DATED 28/09/2017 PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX, CIRCLE - 3, GURGAON (HEREINAFTER CALLED AS THE ASSESSING OFFICER ) PU RSUANT TO THE DIRECTION OF THE L D. DISPUTE RESOLUTION PANEL (DRP) , RAISING FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 2 ITA NO . 6299/DEL/2017 & S.A. NO. 570/DEL/2017 1. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE AO HAS ERRED IN ASSESSING THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE APPELLANT UNDER SECTION 143(3) O F THE ACT, FOR THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR AT INR 46,73,05,373 AS AGAINST THE RETURNED INCOME OF INR 3,82,78,270. 2. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE AO/TPO WERE BAD IN LAW AS THE PRE - REQUISITE FOR APPLYING CHAPTER - X, I.E., EXISTENCE OF AN INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION BETWEEN TWO ASSOCIATED ENTERPRISES ( AE ) UNDER SECTION 92B OF THE ACT, WAS NOT SATISFIED OR EXISTED AS THERE WAS NO AGREEMENT, UNDERSTANDING OR ARRANGEMENT BETWEEN THE APPELLANT AND THE A E FOR INCURRENCE OF SUCH EXPENDITURE BY THE APPELLANT AND THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION PANEL ( DRP ) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE SAME. 2.1 THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E CASE AND IN LAW, THE AO/ DRP/TPO HAVE ERRED IN RE - CHARACTERIZING THE APPELLANT AS SE RVICE PROVIDER RENDERING BRAND BUILDING SERVICES TO ITS AE, WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT IT IS A FULL RISK BEARING DISTRIBUTOR INCURRING AMP EXPENDITURE IN THE COURSE OF ITS OWN BUSINESS TO PROMOTE ITS SALES IN INDIA. 3. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE AO/DRP/TPO WERE BAD IN LAW AS THE UNILATERAL AMP EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE APPELLANT WAS CATEGORIZED AS INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION UNDER CHAPTER X OF THE ACT, BY THE AO/DRP/TPO, CONTRARY TO LAW IN AS MUCH THE AO NEITHER GRANTED ANY OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE APPELLANT, NOR PASSED A SPEAKING ORDER RECORDING HIS SATISFACTION IN RELATION TO CHARACTERIZATION / CATEGORIZATION OF THE AMP EXPENDITURE AS AN INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION . 4. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE TPO ERRED IN RE - CHARACTERIZING THE UNILATERAL AMP EXPENDITURE BEING PAYMENTS MADE BY APPELLANT TO INDEPENDENT THIRD PARTIES AS AN INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION UNDER CHAPTER X OF THE ACT, PARTICULARLY WHEN SECTIO N 92CA OF THE ACT ENABLES THE TPO ONLY TO COMPUTE THE ARM S LENGTH PRICE ( ALP ) OF INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION . FURTHER, THE DRP ERRED IN NOT ADJUDICATING THE OBJECTIONS CHALLENGING THE JURISDICTION OF THE TPO IN THIS REGARD. 4.1 THAT ON THE FACTS AND CI RCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE TPO ERRED IN SUO MOTO BENCHMARKING THE ALLEGED INTERNATIONAL 3 ITA NO . 6299/DEL/2017 & S.A. NO. 570/DEL/2017 TRANSACTION RELATED TO AMP EXPENDITURE WITHOUT THEIR BEING ANY ORDER OR REFERENCE FROM THE AO IN RELATION THERETO. NOTWITHSTANDING AND WITHOUT PREJUDICE T O THE ABOVE GROUNDS THAT THE AMP EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE APPELLANT DOES NOT CONSTITUTE AN INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION UNDER CHAPTER X OF THE ACT, THE APPELLANT CRAVES TO RAISE FOLLOWING GROUNDS ON MERITS: 5. THAT ON FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A ND IN LAW, THE AO/DRP/TPO HAVE ERRED IN MAKING AN ADJUSTMENT IN RESPECT OF ALLEGED INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION OF AMP EXPENDITURE, WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT ADJUSTED GROSS PROFIT MARGIN AS WELL AS OPERATING MARGIN OF THE APPELLANT WAS BETTER THAN THE COMPARA BLES. 6. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE AO/DRP/TPO GROSSLY ERRED IN APPLYING BRIGHT LINE TEST ( BLT ) TO PROPOSE TRANSFER PRICING ADJUSTMENT AMOUNTING TO INR 42,90,27,103, ON PROTECTIVE BASIS, WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT BLT HAS BEEN EXPRESSLY REJECTED BY THE HON BLE TRIBUNAL IN APPELLANT S OWN CASE FOR EARLIER AYS. 7. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, AO/DRP/TPO HAVE ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THAT THE APPELLANT HAD NOT PROVIDED ANY VALUE ADDED/BRAN D BUILDING SERVICES TO ITS AE BY INCURRING AMP EXPENDITURE, AND THEREFORE, NO MARK - UP COULD HAVE BEEN CHARGED/LEVIED ON SUCH EXPENDITURE, EVEN IF THE SAME WAS TO BE CHARACTERIZED AS AN INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION . 7.1 NOTWITHSTANDING AND WITHOUT PREJUDICE THAT NO MARK - UP COULD HAVE BEEN LEVIED, ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, AO/DRP/TPO HAVE ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS, BY CHERRY PICKING THE COMPARABLE COMPANIES FOR PURPOSE OF COMPUTING MARK - UP FOR THE ALLEGED INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION AN D WITHOUT PROVIDING AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD IN THIS REGARD. 7.2 THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE AO/DRP/TPO HAS ERRED IN NOT GRANTING SET - OFF OF EXCESS PROFIT FROM DISTRIBUTION OF PRODUCTS WHILE BENCHMARKING THE ALLEG ED INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION OF INCURRENCE OF EXCESSIVE AMP EXPENDITURE. 8. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE AO/DRP/TPO HAVE ERRED IN NOT GRANTING QUANTITATIVE/ ECONOMIC 4 ITA NO . 6299/DEL/2017 & S.A. NO. 570/DEL/2017 ADJUSTMENTS (SUCH AS NON - PAYMENT OF ROYALTY/ EXPENSES INCURRED ON NEW PRODUCT LAUNCHES) WHILE QUANTIFYING ARM S LENGTH PRICE OF THE ALLEGED INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION OF AMP EXPENDITURE. 9. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE AO HAVE ERRED IN LEVYING / CHARGING INTEREST UNDER SECTI ONS 234B OF THE ACT. EACH OF THE ABOVE GROUNDS ARE INDEPENDENT AND WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE OTHER GROUNDS OF APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE APPELLANT. THE APPELLANT PRAYS FOR LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER, VARY, OMIT, SUBSTITUTE OR AMEND THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL, AT ANY TIME BEFORE, OR AT, THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL. 2. T HE BRIEFLY STATED FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT, ASSESSEE IS A WHOLLY - OWNED SUBSIDIARY OF NICKON C ORPORATIONS , JAPAN . IT WAS ENGAGED IN BUSINESS OF IMPORT, DI STRIBUTION AND SALES FOR NIKON IM AGING P RODUCTS IN INDIA AND ALSO PROVIDED AFTER SALES SERVICE FOR THE COMPLETE RANGE OF NIKON I MAGING, VISION AND INSTRUMENT PRODUCTS. THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME ELECTRONICALL Y , DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.3,82, 78, 270/ - ON 29/11/2013. THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND NOTI CE UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT ) WAS ISSUED AND COMPLIED WITH. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS CARRIED O UT BY THE ASSESSEE WITH THE ASSOCIATED E NTERPRISES (AE) , AND ACCORDINGLY HE REFERRED THE DETERMINATION OF ARM S LENGTH PRICE OF THE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION TO THE LD. TRANSFER PRICING OFFICER (TPO) IN TERMS OF SECTION 92CA(1) O F THE ACT. ACCORDING TO THE TPO , THE ASSESSEE INCURRED EXPENSES ON ADVERTISING, MARKETING AND P ROMOT IONS (AMP) OF THE BRAND OF THE ASSOCIATED E NTERPRISE (AE) , AND THUS THERE EXISTED ON INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS , WHICH NEED TO BE BENCHMARKED. THE LEARNED TPO COMPARED THE INTENSITY OF AMP FUNCTIONS OF THE COMPARABLE S AND THE 5 ITA NO . 6299/DEL/2017 & S.A. NO. 570/DEL/2017 ASSESSEE AND PROPOSED AMP ADJUSTMENT ON SUB STANTIVE BASIS AMOUNTING TO RS.33,08,51, 870/ - . THE LEARNED TPO ALSO COMPUTED AMP ADJUSTMENT ON THE BRIGHT LINE TEST (BLT) AN D PROPOSED AN ADJUSTMENT OF RS. 42,90,27,103 / - ON PROTECTIVE BASIS IN HIS ORDER DATED 09/11/2016. AFTER TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE PROPOSED TRANSFER PRICING ADJUSTMENT S , THE ASSESSING OFFICER PASSED DRAFT ASSESSMENT ORDER ON 09/11/2016 UNDER SECTION 143(3) R.W.S. 144C OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE FI LED OBJECTIONS AGAINST THE DRAFT ASSESSMENT ORDER BEFORE THE LD. DRP. AFTER TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE OBJECTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE , THE LD. DRP ISSUED DIRECTIONS TO REDUCE THE AMP ADJUSTMENT ON SUBSTANTIVE BASIS TO NIL AGAINST THE ADDITION PROPOSED OF RS .33,08,51, 870/ - BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE LD. DRP , HOWEVER, UPHELD THE PROPOSAL OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO MAKE AN ADJUSTMENT FOR AMP ON PROTECTIVE BASIS AMOUNTING TO RS.42,90,27,103/ - . IN VIEW OF THE DIRECTIONS OF THE LD. DRP, THE ASSESSING OFFICER P ASSED FINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER ON 28/09/2017 IN TERMS OF SECTION 143(3) R.W.S. 14 4C OF THE ACT, IN WHICH HE MADE AMP ADJUSTMENT AMOUNTING TO RS.42,90,27,103/ - ON PROTECTIVE BASIS. AGGRIEVED WITH THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL B EFORE THE TRIBUNAL RAISING THE GROUNDS AS REPRODUCED ABOVE. 3. IN THE GROUNDS RAISED , THE ONLY EFFECTIVE ISSUE IS , WHETHER AMP ADJUSTMENT COULD BE MADE IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE ON PROTECTIVE BASIS FOLLOWING THE BRIGHT LINE T EST (BLT). 4. BEFORE US , THE LEARNED COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT IDENTICAL ADDITION MADE ON PROTECTIVE BASIS APPLYING BRIGHT LINE T EST (BLT) IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 - 11 HAS BEEN DELETED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE ITSELF; ACCORDINGLY, THE ADDITION IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION IS NOT SUSTAINABLE. 6 ITA NO . 6299/DEL/2017 & S.A. NO. 570/DEL/2017 5. THE LD. CIT (DR), ON THE OTHER HAND , SUBMITTED THAT ADDITION WAS MADE ON PROTECTIVE BASIS TO SAFEGUARD THE INTEREST OF R EVENUE AS THE ISSUE OF APPLYING BLT FOR BENCHMARKING IN TERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS OF AMP, IS PENDING IN HIGHER APPELLATE COURT. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSION AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 - 11 , THE LEARNED TPO MADE AMP ADJUST MENT AMOUNTING TO RS. 22,30,18, 964/ - ON PROTECTIVE BASIS APPLYING THE BLT. ON FURTHER APPEAL, THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO. 4574/DEL/2017 DELETED THE ADDITION WITH FOLLOWING OBSERVATION: 15. TPO BY APPLYING THE BRIGHT LINE TEST (BLT) PROPOSED ADJUSTMENT OF RS.22 ,30,18,964/ - ON PROTECTIVE BASIS. THE LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE BY RELYING UPON THE DECISIONS RENDERED BY THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN TIANJIN TIANSHI BIOLOGICIAL DEVELOPMENT COM PANY LTD. VS. DCIT (2014) 52, ITA NO4574/DEL/2017 TAXMANN.COM 518 ( DELHI - TRIB, ITO VS. M/S. FUSSY FINANCIAL SERVICES PVT. LTD. IN ITA NO.4227/DEL/2014 DATED 05.06.2017, PERFETTI VAN MELLE INDIA PVT. LTD. VS. DCIT IN ITA NO.1073/DEL/2017 DATED 24.05.2017, DECISION RENDERED BY HON BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN SONY ERICSSON MOBIL E COMMUNICATIONS INDIA (P.) LTD. VS. CIT - III (2015) 55 TAXMANN.COM 240 (DELHI) AND DECISION RENDERED BY HON BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN VEER GEMS VS. ACIT (2011) 15 TAXMANN.COM 355 (GUJARAT) CONTENDED THAT TP ADJUSTMENT ON PROTECTIVE BASIS IS NOT SUSTAINABLE AND ORDER IS ITSELF VOID AB INITIO. THE LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE FURTHER CONTENDED THAT BLT COULD HAVE BEEN APPLIED AT THE FIRST STAGE. 16. THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN CASE C ITED AS PERFETTI VAN MELLE INDIA PVT. LTD. VS. DCIT IN ITA NO.1073/DEL/2017 DATED 24.05.2017 DETERMINED THE ISSUE AS TO APPLYING THE BLT FOR DETERMINING THE ALP OF AMP EXPENSES AND OBSERVED AS UNDER : - 13. WE WANT TO CLARIFY THAT IF A SITUATION FOR DETE RMINING THE ALP OF AMP EXPENSES ARISES, THEN NO TRANSFER PRICING ADJUSTMENT SHOULD BE MADE BY APPLYING THE BRIGHT LINE TEST, AS HAS BEEN DONE ON PROTECTIVE BASIS, BECAUSE OF HON BLE HIGH COURT HAS NOT APPROVED THE APPLICATION OF THE BRIGHT LINE TEST IN SEV ERAL DECISIONS. 7 ITA NO . 6299/DEL/2017 & S.A. NO. 570/DEL/2017 17. FURTHERMORE, HON BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN SONY ERICSSON MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS INDIA (P.) LTD. VS. CIT - III (2015) 55 TAXMANN.COM 240 (DELHI) ALSO DETERMINED THE IDENTICAL ISSUE AS TO APPLYING THE BLT FOR DETERMINING ALP OF THE AMP I N FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND HAS CATEGORICALLY HELD THAT BLT HAS NO STATUTORY MANDATE AND IT IS NOT OBLIGATORY TO SUBJECT AMP EXPENSES TO BLT AND CONSIDERED NON - ROUTINE AMP AS SEPARATE TRANSACTIONS BY MAKING FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS : - III. SECTION 92C OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT, 1961 - TRANSFER PRICING - COMPUTATION OF ARM'S LENGTH PRICE (COMPARABLES AND ADJUSTMENTS/ADJUSTMENTS - AMP EXPENSES) - ASSESSEES WERE SEVERAL INDIAN SUBSIDIARIES OF MULTI NATIONAL ENTERPRISES (MNES) ENGAGED IN DISTRIBUTION AND MARKETIN G OF IMPORTED AND BRANDED PRODUCTS, MANUFACTURED AND SOLD TO THEM BY FOREIGN AES - THEY HAD APPLIED TNMM/RPM FOR COMPUTING ALP - TPO ACCEPTED METHODS SO APPLIED BY ASSESSEES, HOWEVER, FOUND THAT ASSESSEES HAD INCURRED AMP EXPENSES TOWARDS PROMOTION OF BRAN D IN INDIA, HOWEVER, NO REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES WAS MADE FROM AES - HENCE, HE USED BRIGHT LINE TEST BY SEGREGATING NON - ROUTINE EXPENSES AND BY DEDUCTING AMOUNT REPRESENTING BRIGHT LINE FROM VALUE OF GROSS SALES AND DETERMINED EXCESS AMP INCURRED BY ASSE SSEE AND ADDED SAME TO INCOME OF ASSESSEE : - WHETHER WHERE COMPARABLES ADOPTED BY ASSESSEE, WITH OR WITHOUT MAKING ADJUSTMENTS AS A BUNDLED TRANSACTION HAD BEEN ACCEPTED BY TPO, IT WOULD BE ILLOGICAL AND IMPROPER TO TREAT AMP EXPENSES AS A SEPARATE TRANSAC TION - HELD, YES - WHETHER BRIGHT LINE TEST HAS NO STATUTORY MANDATE AND IT IS NOT OBLIGATORY TO SUBJECT AMP EXPENSES AS A BRIGHT LINE TEST AND CONSIDER NON - ROUTINE AMP AS A SEPARATE TRANSACTION HELD, YES 7. WE FIND THAT BLT HAS BEEN DISCARDED AS A METHOD FOR COMPUTING ARM S LENGTH PRICE FOR INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS OF AMP BY THE HON BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SONY ERICSS ON MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS INDIA P RIVATE L IMITED VS. CIT (2015) , 374 ITR 118 (DEL HI), THU S, NO ADDITION COULD BE SUSTAINED APPLYING THE BLT EVEN ON PROTECTIVE BASIS. SINCE IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION ALSO , THE ONLY ADDITION OF AMP ADJUSTMENT AMOUNTING TO RS.42,90, 27, 103/ - MADE APPLYING BLT ON PROTECTIVE BASIS HAS BEEN CHALLENGED B EFORE US , RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE 8 ITA NO . 6299/DEL/2017 & S.A. NO. 570/DEL/2017 ABOVE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL, WE DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DELETE THE SAID ADDITION. 8. ACCORDINGLY , GROUND NO. 6 OF THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED. SINCE THE ADDITION IN QUESTION HAS ALREADY BEEN DELETED BY US, THE R EMAINING GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE MERELY ACADEMIC IN NATURE AND ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED AS INFRUCTUOUS. 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED PARTLY. 10. SINCE WE HAVE ALREADY DELETED ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSES SING OFFICER, THE STAY P ETITION OF THE ASSESSEE (I.E. S . A . NO. 570/DEL/2017) SEEKING STAY OF RECO VERY OF DEMAND IS RENDERED INFRU CTUOUS. THE DECISION IS PRONOUN CED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 6 T H N O V . , 201 7 . S D / - S D / - ( H.S. SIDHU ) ( O.P. KANT ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 6 T H N O V E M B E R , 201 7 . RK / - (D.T.D) COPY FORWARDED TO: 1 . APPELLANT 2 . RESPONDENT 3 . CIT 4 . CIT(A) 5 . DR ASST. REGISTRAR, ITAT, NEW DELHI