Concrete Technologies Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi V. ITO, Ward- 6(3), New Delhi

ITA 6984/DEL/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 108 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4219 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 6 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-05-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 22-11-2017
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Difference of opinion; TDS
• Section: 192; 28

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: B NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI K.N.CHARY, JUDCIAL MEMBER [THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING] ITA NO.6984/DEL./2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14 M/S. CONCRETE TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD., 926, TOWER-A, DLF TOWER, JASOLA, NEW DELHI VS. ITO, WARD-6(3), NEW DELHI PAN :AAACC6538J (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ORDER PER O.P. KANT, AM: THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST OR DER DATED 31/07/2017 PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS)-2, NE W DELHI [IN SHORT THE LD. CIT(A)] FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14 RAISING FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. THE LD. CIT(A) ALLOWED AN ADDITION OF INCOME AMO UNTING TO RS.60,16,218/- U/S 199 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 BY LD. AO WHICH IS COMPLETELY ILLEGAL, ARBITRARY, FALLACIOUS, CONJECTURAL AND BAD IN LAW AND FACE AS WELL. APPELLANT BY SH. VINOD KUMAR, CA RESPONDENT BY SH. MAHESH THAKUR, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING 05.04.2021 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 31.05.2021 2 ITA NO.6984/DEL./2017 2. THE LD. CIT(A) DID NOT GIVE A SUFFICIENT OPPORTU NITY TO APPELLANT BEFORE PASSING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. 3. THE ASSESSMENT IS ILLEGAL, ARBITRARY, FALLACIOUS , CONJECTURAL AND BAD IN LAW AND FACE AS WELL. 4. THE APPELLANT RESERVES THE RIGHT TO ADD OR DELET E THE GROUND OF APPEAL. 2 . BRIEFLY STATED FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASS ESSEE COMPANY WAS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF CONSTRUCTION , RENOVATION RECONSTRUCTION ETC. OF BUILDINGS, ROAD, FARMHOUSE E TC. FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF I NCOME ON 25/09/2013, DECLARING INCOME OF 64,960/-. THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUT INY ASSESSMENT AND STATUTORY NOTICES UNDER THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 196 1 (IN SHORT THE ACT) WERE ISSUED AND COMPLIED WITH. DURING TH E SCRUTINY PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT TH E ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED TOTAL AMOUNT OF 1,08,23,061/- FROM BHAGWANT EDUCATION FOUNDATION AND BHAGWANT EDUCATION DEVEL OPMENT SOCIETY ON WHICH TAX @ 2 PERCENTILE WAS DEDUCTED A T SOURCE BY THOSE ENTITIES. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WORK OF 48,06,843/- WAS ONLY EXECUTED AND BALANCE AMOUNT WERE SHOWN AS ADVANCE RECEIVED. BUT THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED ENTIRE TDS IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSI DERATION. THE ASSESSING OFFICER REFERRED TO VARIOUS DECISIONS WHE REIN IT IS HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE CANNOT CLAIM CREDIT FOR THE TDS O N THE INCOME WHICH IS NOT OFFERED FOR TAXATION. HOWEVER, FINALLY , THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 16.03.2016 ADDED THE AMOUNT OF 60,16,218/- (I.E. WHICH WAS SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE AS ADVANCE) TO THE INCOME OFFERED IN THE RETURN OF INC OME. THE LD. CIT(A) ALSO UPHELD THE FINDING OF THE ASSESSING OFF ICER. AGGRIEVED, 3 ITA NO.6984/DEL./2017 THE ASSESSEE IS BEFORE THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRI BUNAL (IN SHORT THE TRIBUNAL) RAISING THE GROUNDS AS REPRODUCED A BOVE. 3. BOTH THE PARTIES APPEARED BEFORE US THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING FACILITY. THE LEARNED COUNSEL OF THE A SSESSEE FILED A PAPER BOOK CONTAINING PAGES 1 TO 145 AND SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE HAS ALREADY OFFERED THE ADVANCE AMOUNT OF 60,16,218/- IN SUBSEQUENT YEARS AND, THEREFORE, COR RESPONDING CREDIT OF THE TDS MIGHT BE DRAWN FROM THE YEAR UNDE R CONSIDERATION AND SAME MIGHT BE ALLOWED IN SUBSEQUE NT YEAR(S), CORRESPONDING TO THE INCOME OFFERED. IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION, HE RELIED ON THE DECISION OF TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH THE CASE OF VARSHA G SALUNKE VS DCIT, REPORTED IN 98 ITD 147. 4. THE LEARNED DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, RELIED ON THE OR DER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND SUBMITTED THAT LEARNED CI T(A) HAS CORRECTLY UPHELD THE ADDITION. 5. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSION OF THE PARTIES ON T HE ISSUE IN DISPUTE. THE PARTIES WHO HAVE MADE PAYMENT TO TH E ASSESSEE HAS DEDUCTED TDS AT THE RATE OF 2 PERCENTILE ON ENT IRE PAYMENT OF 1,08,23,026/-. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED ENTIRE TAX WHI CH WAS DEDUCTED BY THOSE PARTIES (I.E DEDUCTOR) BUT INCOME OF 46,06,843/- HAS ONLY BEEN OFFERED FOR TAX BY THE AS SESSEE AND BALANCE AMOUNT OF 60,16,218/- HAS BEEN CLAIMED AS ADVANCE AGAINST WORK. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TREATED THI S ADVANCE AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERAT ION. THE ISSUE BEFORE US IS WHETHER THE CREDIT OF THE TDS HAS TO B E ALLOWED CORRESPONDING TO THE INCOME OFFERED OR THE INCOME H AS TO BE COMPUTED ACCORDING TO THE AMOUNT OF TDS WHICH HAS B EEN DEDUCTED AND CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER 4 ITA NO.6984/DEL./2017 HIMSELF HAS RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SMT. VARSHA G SALUNKE (SUPRA) WHEREIN IT IS HELD THAT UNLESS THE ASSESSEE OFFERED THE INCOME FOR TAXATION, THE TDS C ANNOT BE GIVEN CREDIT. IN THE SAID CASE, THERE WAS A DIFFERENCE OF OPINION BETWEEN TWO MEMBERS OF THE BENCH, AND THEREFORE MATTER WAS REFERRED TO 3 RD MEMBER, WHO CONCURRED WITH THE REASONING GIVEN BY THE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. THE RELEVANT FINDING OF THE THIR D MEMBER IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER: 6. SECTIONS 198 AND 199 OF THE ACT NOWHERE PROVIDE FOR AN EXCEPTION EITHER TO THE DETERMINATION OF THE INCOME UNDER THE AFORESAID PROVISIONS OF SECTIONS 28,29 OR AS TO THE METHOD OF ACCOUNTING EMPLOYED UNDER SECTION 145 OF THE ACT, W HICH ALONE COULD BE THE BASIS FOR COMPUTATION OF INCOME UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIONS 28 TO 43A OF THE ACT. SECTION 198 HAS A LI MITED INTENTION. IT ONLY DECLARES THE AMOUNTS DEDUCTED AT SOURCE UNDER SECTIONS 192 TO 194, SECTION 194A, SECTION 194B, SECTION 194BB, SEC TION 194C, SECTION 194D, SECTION 194E, SECTION 194EE, SECTION 194F, SECTION 194G, SECTION 194H, SECTION 194I, SECTION 194J, SEC TION 194K, SECTION 195, SECTION 196A, SECTION 196B, SECTION 19 6C AND SECTION 196D TO BE TREATED AS AN INCOME RECEIVED. THE PURPO SE OF SECTION 198 IS NOT TO CARVE OUT AN EXCEPTION TO SECTION 145 OF THE ACT. SECTION 199 OF THE ACT HAS TWO OBJECTIVES - ONE TO DECLARE THE TAX DEDUCTED AT SOURCE AS PAYMENT OF TAX ON BEHALF OF THE PERSON ON WHOSE BEHALF THE DEDUCTION WAS MADE AND TO GIVE CREDIT FOR THE A MOUNT SO DEDUCTED ON THE PRODUCTION OF THE CERTIFICATE IN TH E ASSESSMENT MADE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR FOR WHICH SUCH INCOME IS AS SESSABLE. THE SECOND OBJECTIVE MENTIONED IN SECTION 199 IS ONLY T O ANSWER THE QUESTION AS TO THE YEAR IN WHICH THE CREDIT FOR TAX DEDUCTED AT SOURCE SHALL BE GIVEN. IT LINKS UP THE CREDIT WITH ASSESSM ENT YEAR IN WHICH SUCH INCOME IS ASSESSABLE. IN OTHER WORDS, THE ASSE SSING OFFICER IS BOUND TO GIVE CREDIT IN THE YEAR IN WHICH THE INCOM E IS OFFERED TO TAX. THIS SECTION 199 DOES NOT EMPOWER THE ASSESSING OFF ICER TO DETERMINE THE YEAR OF ASSESSABILITY OF THE INCOME I TSELF BUT IT ONLY MANDATES THE YEAR IN WHICH THE CREDIT IS TO BE GIVE N ON THE BASIS OF THE CERTIFICATE FURNISHED. IN OTHER WORDS, WHEN THE ASSESSEE PRODUCES THE CERTIFICATES OF TDS, THE ASSESSING OFF ICER IS REQUIRED TO VERIFY WHETHER THE ASSESSEE HAS OFFERED THE INCOME PERTAINED TO THE CERTIFICATE BEFORE GIVING CREDIT. IF HE FINDS THAT THE INCOME OF THE CERTIFICATE IS NOT SHOWN, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ONLY NOT TO GIVE THE CREDIT FOR TDS IN THAT ASSESSMENT YEAR AND HAS TO D EFER THE CREDIT BEING GIVEN TO THE YEAR IN WHICH THE INCOME IS TO B E ASSESSEE. AT THE COST OF REPETITION, IT MAY BE MENTIONED THAT SECTIO NS 198 AND 199 DO 5 ITA NO.6984/DEL./2017 NOT IN ANY WAY CHANGE THE YEAR OF ASSESSABILITY OF INCOME, WHICH DEPENDS UPON THE METHOD OF ACCOUNTING REGULARLY EMP LOYED BY THE ASSESSEE. THEY ONLY DEAL WITH THE YEAR IN WHICH THE CREDIT HAS TO BE GIVEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IT CANNOT BE DISPUT ED THAT ACCORDING TO THE METHOD OF ACCOUNTING EMPLOYED BY THE ASSESSE E THE INCOME IN RESPECT OF THE THREE TDS CERTIFICATES, WHICH ARE ME NTIONED IN PARAGRAPH 3 ABOVE, DOES NOT PERTAIN TO THE ASSESSME NT YEAR IN QUESTION, BUT IT PERTAINS TO THE NEXT ASSESSMENT YE AR AND, IN FACT, IN THAT YEAR THE ASSESSEE HAS OFFERED THE SAME TO TAX. THEREFORE, THE CREDIT IN RESPECT OF THESE THREE TDS CERTIFICATES S HALL NOT BE GIVEN IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, BUT THE CR EDIT FOR THE SAME SHALL BE GIVEN IN THE NEXT ASSESSMENT YEAR IN WHICH THE INCOME IS SHOWN TO HAVE BEEN ASSESSED. 7. IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSIONS, I AGREE W ITH THE REASONING GIVEN BY THE LEARNED ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, WHO HAS COR RECTLY DIRECTED THE EXCLUSION OF THE INCOME REPRESENTED BY THESE TH REE TDS CERTIFICATES FROM BEING ASSESSED IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1997-98, I.E., THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, BUT THE ASSESSE E, IN THE LIGHT OF THE SCHEME OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIONS 198 AND 19 9 OF THE ACT, SHALL NOT BE ALLOWED TO CLAIM THE CREDIT IN RESPECT OF THESE TDS CERTIFICATES FOR WHICH THE INCOME HAS NOT BEEN RETU RNED BY HER AS A RESULT OF THE METHOD OF ACCOUNTING EMPLOYED. THE CR EDIT SHALL BE CARRIED FORWARD AND THE ASSESSEE WILL GET THE CREDI T FOR THE PRESENT TDS CERTIFICATE IN THE YEAR IN WHICH SHE OFFERS THE INCOME TO TAX ON THE BASIS OF THE METHOD OF ACCOUNTING REGULARLY EMP LOYED. 7. IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSIONS, I AGREE W ITH THE REASONING GIVEN BY THE LEARNED ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, WHO HAS COR RECTLY DIRECTED THE EXCLUSION OF THE INCOME REPRESENTED BY THESE TH REE TDS CERTIFICATES FROM BEING ASSESSED IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1997-98, I.E., THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, BUT THE ASSESSE E, IN THE LIGHT OF THE SCHEME OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIONS 198 AND 19 9 OF THE ACT, SHALL NOT BE ALLOWED TO CLAIM THE CREDIT IN RESPECT OF THESE TDS CERTIFICATES FOR WHICH THE INCOME HAS NOT BEEN RETU RNED BY HER AS A RESULT OF THE METHOD OF ACCOUNTING EMPLOYED. THE CR EDIT SHALL BE CARRIED FORWARD AND THE ASSESSEE WILL GET THE CREDI T FOR THE PRESENT TDS CERTIFICATE IN THE YEAR IN WHICH SHE OFFERS THE INCOME TO TAX ON THE BASIS OF THE METHOD OF ACCOUNTING REGULARLY EMP LOYED. 8. BEFORE PARTING WITH THE MATTER, I THINK IT IS NE CESSARY FOR ME TO DEAL WITH CERTAIN OBSERVATIONS REGARDING THE CLAIMI NG OF THE EXPENDITURE AS DISCUSSED BY THE LEARNED JUDICIAL ME MBER. THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION FOR AN EXPENDITURE DEPENDS UPON AGAIN THE METHOD OF ACCOUNTING REGULARLY EMPLOYED BY THE ASSESSEE. THER E IS NO DISPUTE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS INCURRED THESE EXPENSES EVEN IN RESPECT OF THE SERVICES RENDERED TO ITS CLIENTELE IN THE MONTH OF MARCH, 1997 (TO WHICH THE BILLS ARE NOT RAISED). THESE EXPENSES HAV E BEEN 6 ITA NO.6984/DEL./2017 UNDOUBTEDLY INCURRED DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR IN QU ESTION. ONLY THE MATCHING RECEIPTS HAVE NOT ACCRUED TO THE ASSESSEE IN THE ACCOUNTING YEAR IN QUESTION DUE TO THE METHOD OF AC COUNTING EMPLOYED BY HER. BUT OVER THE YEARS, THE EFFECT ON THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT GETS NEUTRALIZED. SECTIONS 198 AND 199, IT MAY AGAIN BE STRESSED, DO NOT IN ANY WAY DETERMINE THE YEAR OF A SSESSABILITY OF PROFITS AND GAINS OF BUSINESS. THEY ONLY DEAL WITH THE YEAR IN WHICH THE TDS CERTIFICATES HAVE TO BE GIVEN CREDIT TO. IN MY HUMBLE OPINION, THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CA SE OF TUTICORIN ALKALI CHEMICALS & FERTILIZERS LTD. (SUPRA) RELIED UPON BY THE LEARNED JUDICIAL MEMBER, DOES NOT IN ANY WAY ALTER THE YEAR OF ASSESSABILITY OF INCOME, WHICH IS GOVERNED UNDER SECTIONS 28, 29 AND 145 AS HAS BEEN INTERPRETED BY THE APEX COURT AND AS DISCUSSED BY ME ABOVE. 8. BEFORE PARTING WITH THE MATTER, I THINK IT IS NE CESSARY FOR ME TO DEAL WITH CERTAIN OBSERVATIONS REGARDING THE CLAIMI NG OF THE EXPENDITURE AS DISCUSSED BY THE LEARNED JUDICIAL ME MBER. THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION FOR AN EXPENDITURE DEPENDS UPON AGAIN THE METHOD OF ACCOUNTING REGULARLY EMPLOYED BY THE ASSESSEE. THER E IS NO DISPUTE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS INCURRED THESE EXPENSES EVEN IN RESPECT OF THE SERVICES RENDERED TO ITS CLIENTELE IN THE MONTH OF MARCH, 1997 (TO WHICH THE BILLS ARE NOT RAISED). THESE EXPENSES HAV E BEEN UNDOUBTEDLY INCURRED DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR IN QU ESTION. ONLY THE MATCHING RECEIPTS HAVE NOT ACCRUED TO THE ASSESSEE IN THE ACCOUNTING YEAR IN QUESTION DUE TO THE METHOD OF AC COUNTING EMPLOYED BY HER. BUT OVER THE YEARS, THE EFFECT ON THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT GETS NEUTRALIZED. SECTIONS 198 AND 199, IT MAY AGAIN BE STRESSED, DO NOT IN ANY WAY DETERMINE THE YEAR OF A SSESSABILITY OF PROFITS AND GAINS OF BUSINESS. THEY ONLY DEAL WITH THE YEAR IN WHICH THE TDS CERTIFICATES HAVE TO BE GIVEN CREDIT TO. IN MY HUMBLE OPINION, THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CA SE OF TUTICORIN ALKALI CHEMICALS & FERTILIZERS LTD. (SUPRA) RELIED UPON BY THE LEARNED JUDICIAL MEMBER, DOES NOT IN ANY WAY ALTER THE YEAR OF ASSESSABILITY OF INCOME, WHICH IS GOVERNED UNDER SECTION 28, 29 A ND 145 AS HAS BEEN INTERPRETED BY THE APEX COURT AND AS DISCUSSED BY ME ABOVE. 5.1 THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS THOUGH RELIED ON ABOVE DE CISION IN HIS ORDER, BUT IN FINAL PARA HE HAS DONE REVERSE TO THE RATIO OF DECISION. FOLLOWING THE DECISION, THE ASSESSING OFF ICER WAS REQUIRED TO EXCLUDE THE CREDIT OF THE TDS, BUT INST EAD, HE ADDED THE ADVANCE AMOUNT AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITHOUT ANY REASONING IS NOT JUSTIFIED. SIMULTANEOUSLY, THE CLA IM OF THE ENTIRE 7 ITA NO.6984/DEL./2017 AMOUNT OF THE TDS BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION IS ALSO NOT JUSTIFIED. THE LD. CIT(A) NOTED THIS FACT, HOWEVER, SHE UPHELD THE ADDITION PROPOSED BY THE AS SESSING OFFICER INSTEAD OF RESTRICTING THE CREDIT OF THE TD S. THE DULY OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS TO DECIDE, WHETHER PARTICULAR RECEIPT IS IN THE NATURE OF TAXABLE INCOME AND RAISE TAX LIABILITY CO RRESPONDING TO THAT. HE CANNOT ASSESS PARTICULAR RECEIPT AS INCOME MERELY ON THE GROUND THAT TAX ON SUCH RECEIPT HAS BEEN DEDUCTED B Y THE DEDUCTOR. IN THE CASE, THE AO WAS REQUIRED TO EXAMI NE WHETHER THE WORK WAS PERFORMED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR ENTIRE A MOUNT OR FOR THE AMOUNT OF RS.48,06,843/- ONLY. WITHOUT EXAMININ G THAT ISSUE, HE IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING THE ADVANCE A MOUNT AS TAXABLE RECEIPT OF THE YEAR. IN THE CASE OF VARSHA G . SALUNKE (SUPRA), ALSO THE PAYMENT WAS RECEIVED IN ONE YEAR, HOWEVER, BILLS FOR PART OF PAYMENT RECEIVED IN SUBSEQUENT YEARS. T HE TRIBUNAL DIRECTED TO GIVE CREDIT OF THE TDS THE YEAR IN WHIC H INCOME WAS OFFERED FOR TAXATION. 5.2 IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE FEE L IT APPROPRIATE TO RESTORE THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WITH THE DIRECTION TO THE ASSESS EE TO DEMONSTRATE TAXABILITY/NON-TAXABILITY OF AMOUNT OF RS.60,16,128/- IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WITH THE HELP OF DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES INCLUDING, BILLS/INVOICE, PRO OF OF WORK PERFORMED ETC. THEN, THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL DE CIDE THE ISSUE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. THE GROUND NO. 1 OF THE APP EAL IS ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 8 ITA NO.6984/DEL./2017 5.3 THE REMAINING GROUNDS BEING GENERAL IN NATURE, WE ARE NOT REQUIRED TO ADJUDICATE UPON AND SAME ARE DISMISSED AS INFRUCTUOUS. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWE D PARTLY. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 31 ST MAY, 2021 SD/- SD/- (K.N. CHARY) (O.P. KANT) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 31 ST MAY, 2021. RK/- (DTDS) COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR ASST. REGISTRAR, ITAT, NEW DELHI