Royal Rubber Works, Delhi V. ITO, Ward- 47(5), New Delhi

ITA 7237/DEL/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7046 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-04-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 14-11-2018
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Question of law; Onus to prove; TDS; Bogus
• Section: 68; 145; 69C; 133(6); 73

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH SMC , NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. N. S . SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 7237 /DEL/2018 : ASSTT. YEAR : 2015 - 1 6 ROYAL RUBBER WORKS, 1580, BHAGIRATH PALACE, CHANDNI CHOWK, DELHI - 110006 VS INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 4 7 (5 ), NEW DELHI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN NO. A AAFR4045E SA NO. 199/DEL/2019 (IN ITA NO. 7237/DEL/2018 : ASSTT. YEAR : 2015 - 16) ROYAL RUBBER WORKS, 1580, BHAGIRATH PALACE, CHANDNI CHOWK, DELHI - 110006 VS INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 47(5), NEW DELHI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN NO. AAAFR4045E ASSESSEE BY : SH. K. SAMPATH , ADV. , SH. R. RAJAKUMAR, ADV. & SH. K. PRASANNA, ADV. REVENUE BY : SH. S. L. ANURAGI , SR. DR DATE OF HEAR ING: 11 . 04 .201 9 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 30 .04 .201 9 ORDER THIS IS AN APPEAL AND STAY PETITION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE , THE APPEAL FILED AGAINST THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 16, NEW DELHI DATED 31.08 .2018 . 2. THE SOLE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THIS APPEAL IS THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN CONFIRMING ADDITION OF TRADE CREDITS OF RS.34,34,837/ - MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFI CER. ITA NO . 7237 /DEL /201 8 SA NO. 199/DEL/2019 ROYAL RUBBER WORKS 2 3. THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN SUNDRY CREDITORS OF RS.88,97,485/ - . ON THE BASIS OF THE ADDRESS PROVIDED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ORDER TO VERIFY GENUINENESS AND THE CREDITORS INFORMATION WAS CALLED FOR U/S 133(6) OF THE ACT FROM THE FOLLOWING PERSONS: S. NO. NAME ADDRESS REPLY/REPLY NOT RECEIVED AMOUNT 1. M/S ASG HEALTH CARE CO. LTD. 1546, PRINCESS STREET, MUMBAI REPLY NOT RECEIVED RS.6,73,000/ - 2. M/S HOSPITAL SUPPLY COMPANY B - 4/263C, LAWRENCE ROAD, DELHI REPLY NOT RECEIVE D RS.6,07,500/ - 3. M/S HOSPITAL TRADERS 1413, GROUND FLOOR, SHORA KOTHI, SUBJI MANDI, DELHI REPLY NOT RECEIVED RS.7,02,300/ - 4. RAMA SURGICAL 1542, BHAGRIRATH PALACE, DELHI REPLY NOT RECEIVED RS.2,69,075/ - 5. M/S REX SURGICO 19, KHAJOOR WALI BUILDING, B HAGIRATH PALACE, DELHI REPLY NOT RECEIVED RS.4,01,250/ - 6. M/S SHREE BABA TRADING CO. 1933/12, MOHAN BAZAR, BHAGIRATH PALACE, DELHI REPLY NOT RECEIVED RS.2,48,399/ - 7. M/S WHITE SIGNATURE INC. 15, 1 ST FLOOR, ASHISH BUILDING, 40, BABU GENU ROAD, MUMBAI RE PLY RECEIVED BUT DENY, NO SUCH TRANSACTIONS RS.1,24,600/ - 8. M/S RAHUL DRUGS 40/8745, ATDS EAST SANNIDHI ROAD, EARNAKULAM, KERALA REPLY RECEIVED BUT DENY, NO SUCH TRANSACTIONS RS.1,33,500/ - 9. M/S OM SURGICAL COMPANY 88, KM STONE, VILLAGE TITOLI, ROHTAK, HARYANA REPLY NOT RECEIVED RS.1,59,350/ - 10. M/S J.M.S. HEALTH CARE PRODUCTS 124, GROUND FLOOR, NETTU STREET, CHENNAI, TAMIL NADU REPLY NOT RECEIVED RS.49,567/ - 11. M/S NATIONAL BABY PRODUCTS D - 22/23, 3 RD FLOOR, ACME INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, SEWRI(E), MUMABI REPLY NOT RECEIVED RS.66,296/ - 4 . HE OBSERVED THAT NOTICES SENT THROUGH POST WERE RETURNED BACK WITH THE REMARKS NO SUCH PERSON/LEFT . THEREFORE, HE MADE ADDITION OF RS.34,34,837/ - TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE U/S 68 OF THE ACT. ITA NO . 7237 /DEL /201 8 SA NO. 199/DEL/2019 ROYAL RUBBER WORKS 3 5 . ON APPEAL, THE COMMI SSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVING THAT HE AGREED WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE CREDITORS ARE NOT GENUINE. 6 . BEFORE ME, THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE RELIED ON THE DECISION OF LUCK NOW BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ITO VS ZAZSONS EXPORTS LTD. REPORTED IN (2016) 158 ITD 0001 (LUCKNOW) WHERE IT WAS HELD AS UNDER: 15. IF ID. JM'S VIEW IS ACCEPTED THEN IT WOULD LEAD TO AN ANOMALOUS SITUATION INASMUCH AS THE INCOME OF ASSESSEE WIL L JUMP SPIRALLY TO AN ASTRONOMICAL FIGURE WHICH IS UNTHINKABLE PARTICULARLY WHEN NEXUS BETWEEN SUNDRY CREDITORS AND PURCHASES IS CLEARLY ESTABLISHED. THE SUNDRY CREDITORS HAVE DIRECT NEXUS WITH THE TRADING RESULTS AND, THEREFORE, THEY CANNOT BE EXAMINED ON THE SAME FOOTING AND CRITERIA ON WHICH LOANS AND DEPOSITS APPEARING IN BOOKS ARE TO BE EXAMINED. THE PRIMARY ONUS LAY ON ASSESSEE TO ESTABLISH THE SUNDRY CREDITORS BUT IF ASSESSEE FAILS TO DISCHARGE THAT ONUS THEN CONSIDERING THE ENTIRE FACTS AND CIRCUMST ANCES OF A CASE, A FAIR CONCLUSION HAS TO BE DRAWN BY AO TO FIND OUT WHETHER UNEXPLAINED SUNDRY CREDITORS REPRESENT ASSESSEE'S INCOME OR NOT. IT WOULD BE TRAVESTY OF JUSTICE IF THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF BOTH TRADING RESULTS AS WELL AS SUNDRY CREDITORS IS SIMULTANEOUSLY SUSTAINED WITHOUT TELESCOPING THE BOTH BECAUSE SUNDRY CREDITORS ARE DIRECTLY RELATED TO TRADING RESULTS. 15.1 IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS, FIRST OF ALL THE DECISION OF HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF PANCHAM DASS JAIN (SUPRA) IS TO BE CONSIDERED, ON WHICH HEAVY RELIANCE HAS BEEN PLACED BY ID. A.M. BUT ID. J.M. HAS MERELY STATED THAT THE SAID DECISION IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE. IN THIS CASE, THE ASSESSEE WAS A DEALER IN IRON GOODS AND, AGRICULTURAL, IMPLEMENTS. TH E ASSESSEE FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE AY. 1976 - 77. WHILE FRAMING THE ASSESSMENT OF THE ASSESSEE, THE ITO ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE NATURE AND SOURCE OF THE CASH DEPOSITS APPEARING IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE NAME OF TWO P ERSONS. AS THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO GIVE SATISFACTORY EXPLANATION WITH REGARD TO NATURE AND SOURCE OF AFORESAID DEPOSITS, THE ITO MADE ADDITION U/S 68. ON APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT THE CREDITS APPEARING IN THE NAME OF THE SAID TWO PERSONS DID NOT R EPRESENT DEPOSIT OF CASH BY ITA NO . 7237 /DEL /201 8 SA NO. 199/DEL/2019 ROYAL RUBBER WORKS 4 THEM WITH THE ASSESSEE AND THAT THEY REPRESENTED THE VALUE OF GOODS SUPPLIED BY THEM TO THE ASSESSEE AND, THEREFORE, THE ADDITION IN QUESTION U/S 68 WAS NOT WARRANTED. THE ASSESSEE'S CONTENTIONS WERE ACCEPTED BY ID. CIT(A) AND T HE TRIBUNAL WHICH WERE CONFIRMED BY THE HON'BLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT OBSERVING AS UNDER: 8. 'THE SUBMISSION IS MISCONCEIVED. THE TRIBUNAL HAS RECORDED A CATEGORICAL FINDING OF FACT BASED ON APPRECIATION OF MATERIALS AND EVIDENCE ON RECORD THAT THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER HAD ACCEPTED THE PURCHASES, SALES AS ALSO THE TRADING RESULT DISCLOSED BY THE RESPONDENT - ASSESSEE. IT HAD RECORDED A FINDING THAT THE AFORESAID TWO AMOUNTS REPRESENTED THE PURCHASES MADE BY THE ASSESSEE ON CREDIT AND, THEREFORE, THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 68 OF THE ACT COULD NOT BE ATTRACTED IN THE PRESENT CASE. WE FULLY AGREE WITH THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE TRIBUNAL ON THIS ISSUE, INASMUCH AS, ON THE BASIS OF THE FINDINGS RECORDED BY IT THAT THESE TWO AMOUNTS REPRESENTED PURCHASES MADE BY THE RESPOND ENT - ASSESSEE ON CREDIT AND THE PURCHASES AND SALES HAVING BEEN ACCEPTED .BY THE DEPARTMENT, THE QUESTION OF ADDITION OF THE AFORESAID TWO AMOUNTS U/S 68 OF THE ACT DID NOT ARISE INASMUCH AS THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 68 OF THE ACT WOULD NOT BE ATTRACTED ON THE PURCHASES MADE ON CREDIT.' 15.2 KEEPING IN VIEW THE FAC T THAT IN THE PRESENT CASE ALSO THE RE BEING NO DISPUTE AS REGARDS THE PURCHASES AND THE TRADING RESULTS HAVING BEEN ACCEPTED, IN MY OPINION, THE DECISION OF HON'BLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IS SQUAREL Y APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE. THE DECISION RELIED UPON BY ID. DR IN THE CASE OF SMT. ANNAM - KUTY JOSE (SUPRA) HOLDING THAT THE PRINCIPLES CONTAINED IN SECTION 68 AS WELL AS IN SECTION 69C ARE SQUARELY APPLICABLE TO SUNDRY CREDITORS HAS BEEN RENDERE D ON THE FACTS OBTAINING IN THE SAID CASE AND HAS NO APPLICATION TO THE PRESENT CASE. 15.3 NOW, I WILL REFER T O VARIOUS CASE LAWS RELIED UPON BY ID. CIT(DR), TO EXAMINE THE APPLICABILITY OF THEM TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE: (A) GROVER FABRICS (INDIA) (P.) LTD.'S (SUPRA) 'THE ASSESSEE DERIVED INCOME FROM TRADING IN HANDLOOM PRODUCTS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT ACCEPT THE TRADING RESULTS REFLECTED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND ACCORDINGLY, MADE AN ADDITION TO THE DECLARED INCOME. APART FROM MAKING THE ADDITION, THE AO MADE A FURTHER ADDITION IN ITA NO . 7237 /DEL /201 8 SA NO. 199/DEL/2019 ROYAL RUBBER WORKS 5 RESPECT OF CREDIT ENTRIES FROM BOGUS ENTITIES. THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) DELETED THE TRADING ADDITION AFTER GIVING THE BENEFIT OF TELESCOPING AGAINST THE ADDITION IN RESPECT OF UNEXPLAINED CREDIT ENTRIES. ON FUR THER APPEAL BY BOTH PARTIES, THE TRIBUNAL REMANDED THE MATTER TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVING THAT THERE WAS CONTRADICTION IN THE DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE. ON APPEAL: HELD, DISMISSING THE APPEAL, THAT UNEXPLAINED CREDIT ENTRIES MAY OR MAY NO T HAVE A NEXUS WITH THE TRADING RESULTS, AS ASSESSED. THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) DELETED THE ADDITIONS IN RESPECT OF TRADING RESULTS AFTER GIVING THE BENEFIT OF TELESCOPING. IT WOULD, THUS, BE A QUESTION OF FACT IN EACH CASE WHETHER THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT UNEXPLAINED CREDIT ENTRIES WAS JUSTIFIED, IN SPITE OF THE ADDITION MADE TO THE DECLARED TRADING RESULTS. NO SUB STANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW AROSE. ' THUS, THE ENTIRE CONTROVERSY REVOLVED AROUND THE FACT WHETHER TRADING ADDITIONS COULD BE TELESCOPED AGAINST TH E ADDITIONS MADE FOR UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDITS OR NOT. HON'BLE P&H HIGH COURT HELD THAT IT WOULD DEPEND ON FACTS OF EACH CASE AS TO WHETHER NEXUS WITH SUNDRY CREDITORS HAD BEEN ESTABLISHED OR NOT. THIS DECISION WAS RENDERED ON ENTIRELY DIFFERENT SET OF FACT S WHERE AO HAD RECORDED A FINDING THAT THE CREDIT ENTRIES WERE FROM BOGUS ENTITIES. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THERE IS NO FINDING BY AO THAT THE SUNDRY CREDITORS WERE BOGUS. HERE AO HAD ONLY DRAWN AN ADVERSE CONCLUSION ONLY ON ACCOUNT OF NON - VERIFIABILITY OF SU NDRY CREDITORS BUT NO FINDING WAS GIVEN THAT CREDITORS WERE BOGUS. ON THE CONTRARY THE AO HAD ACCEPTED ASSESSEE'S CONTENTION REGARDING PAYMENT OF OPENING CREDITORS DURING THE YEAR. THEREFORE, THIS DECISION IS OF LITTLE ASSISTANCE TO THE DEPARTMENT. (B) SM T. ANNAMKUTY JOSE'S CASE (SUPRA) IN THIS CASE MAIN ISSUE BEFORE HON'BLE KERALA HIGH COURT WAS AS TO ON WHOM THE ONUS TO PROVE THE SUNDRY CREDITORS SHOWN IN THE BOOKS LAY - WHETHER ON ASSESSEE OR DEPARTMENT. IT WAS HELD THAT BURDEN LIES ON ASSESSEE TO ESTA BLISH THE GENUINENESS OF SUNDRY CREDITORS, WITH WHICH THERE CANNOT BE ANY DISPUTE, AND NOT ON AO TO PROVE THAT SUNDRY CREDITS REPRESENT INCOME OF ASSESSEE. HON'BLE HIGH COURT OBSERVED AS UNDER: ITA NO . 7237 /DEL /201 8 SA NO. 199/DEL/2019 ROYAL RUBBER WORKS 6 'IN THE PRESENT CASE AO HAS NOT DISPUTED THE PREVALENT TRADE PRACTICE OF CREDIT PURCHASES IN THIS LINE OF BUSINESS. THEREFORE, THIS DECISION IS OF LITTLE ASSISTANCE TO DEPARTMENT.' (C) JAI PRAKASH SAHU'S CASE (SUPRA) IN THIS CASE IT WAS, INTER - ALIA, HELD THAT MERE NON - MENTIONING OF SECTION 145 COULD NOT VITIATE TH E PROCEEDINGS BECAUSE CRITERIA SET OUT IN SECTION HAD BEEN MET - IN THE PRESENT CASE ADDITION U/S 68 WAS NOT DISPUTED ON THE GROUND OF WRONG MENTIONING OF SECTION BUT ON THE GROUND THAT PROPER OPPORTUNITY WAS NOT AFFORDED TO ASSESSEE TO ESTABLISH THE GENUI NENESS OF SUNDRY CREDITS ONCE THE AO DID NOT PROCEED FURTHER WITH THE ADDITION U/S 41. THEREFORE, THIS DECISION HAS NO APPLICATION TO THE FACTS OF PRESENT CASE. (D) KACHWALA GEMS, CASE (SUPRA) '11. IT IS WELL - SETTLED THAT IN A BEST JUDGMENT ASSESSMENT, THERE IS ALWAYS A CERTAIN DEGREE OF GUESS WORK. NO DOUBT THE AUTHORITIES CONCERNED SHOULD TRY TO MAKE AN HONEST AND FAIR ESTIMATE OF THE INCOME EVEN IN A BEST JUDGMENT ASSESSMENT, AND SHOULD NOT ACT TOTALLY ARBITRARILY, BUT THERE IS NECESSARILY SOME AMOUNT OF GUESS WORK INVOLVED IN A BEST JUDGMENT ASSESSMENT, AND IT IS THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF WHO IS TO BLAME AS HE DID NOT SUBMIT PROPER ACCOUNTS. IN OUR OPINION, THERE WAS NO ARBITRARINESS IN THE PRESENT CASE ON THE PART OF THE INCOME - TAX AUTHORITIES.' 15.4 IN MY OPINION THIS DECISION PRIMARILY SUPPORTS THE ASSESSEE'S CASE THAT INCOME CANNOT BE DETERMINED AT ASTRONOMICAL FIGURES UNLESS ASSESSEE'S EXPLANATION HAS BEEN PROVED TO BE FALSE. 15.5 IN VIEW OF ABOVE DISCUSSION, I AGREE WITH THE VIEW TAKEN BY LD. ACCOUN TANT MEMBER IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN PANCHAM DASS JAIN'S CASE (SUPRA). 7. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. ITA NO . 7237 /DEL /201 8 SA NO. 199/DEL/2019 ROYAL RUBBER WORKS 7 8. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED TH E ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ADDED RS.34,34,837/ - BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 68 OF THE ACT BEING AMOUNT OF CREDIT BALANCE IN RESPECT OF 11 PERSONS WHICH WAS CONFIRMED BY THE COMMISSIO NER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). 9. THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS NO FRESH CREDIT OF EVEN A SINGLE RUPEE IN RESPECT OF 11 PERSONS IN QUESTION DURING THE YEAR. THEREFORE, THE ADDITION MADE BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 68 OF THE ACT IS BAD IN LAW. 10. THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE FILED COPY OF LEDGER ACCOUNT OF 11 PERSONS PLACED AT PAGE NOS. 37 TO 73 OF THE PAPER BOOK. THE POSITION REVEALED BY THE SAID LEDGER ACCOUNTS ARE TABULATED AS UNDER: S. NO. NAME OPENING BALANCE FRESH CREDIT DURING THE YEAR PAYMENT DURING THE YEAR CLOSING BALANCE 1. M/S ASG HEALTH CARE CO. LTD. 8,04,000 NIL 1,31,000 6,73,000 2. M/S HOSPITAL SUPPLY COMPANY 6,56,500 NIL 49,000 6,07,500 3. M/S HOSPITAL TRADERS 8,16,300 NIL 1,14,000 7,02,300 4. RAMA SURGICAL 2,69,075 NIL NIL 2,69,075 5. M/S REX SURGICO 1,35,000 10,74,375 8,08,125 4,01,25 0 6. M/S SHREE BABA TRADING CO. 1,71,360 1,12,844 3,35,805 2,48,399 7. M/S WHITE SIGNATURE INC. 2,86,600 NIL 1,62,000 1,24,600 8. M/S R AHUL DRUGS 1,79,000 NIL 45,500 1,33,500 9. M/S OM SURGICAL COMPANY 1,59,350 NIL NIL 1,59,350 10. M/S J.M.S. HEALTH CARE PRODUCTS 87,967 NIL 76,800 49,567 11. M/S NATIONAL BABY PRODUCTS 66,296 NIL NIL 66,296 ITA NO . 7237 /DEL /201 8 SA NO. 199/DEL/2019 ROYAL RUBBER WORKS 8 11. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE HAS N OT DISPUTED THE ABOVE FACTS. 12. A PERUSAL OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 68 OF THE ACT SHOWS THAT THE ADDITION UNDER THAT SECTION CAN BE MADE ONLY OF THAT SUM WHICH HAS BEEN CREDITED DURING THE YEAR IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. MY ABOVE VIEW FINDS SUPPORT FROM THE DECISION OF THE HON BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS USHA STUD AGRICULTURAL FIRMS LTD. REPORTED IN (2008) 301 ITR 384 (DEL.). THEREFORE, THE ADDITION OF RS. 30,91,548/ - MADE BY INVOKING PROVISIONS OF SECTION 68 OF THE ACT IS BAD I N LAW AND UNSUSTAINABLE. I, THEREFORE, DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS. 30,91,548 / - AND CONFIR M THE ADDITION OF RS.3,43,289/ - . HENCE, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOW ED. 13. IN VIEW OF OUR DECISION IN THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ITSELF THE ST AY PETITION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS INFRUCTUOUS AND THEREFORE, DISMISSED. 14 . IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED AND STAY PETITION OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED . (ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 30 TH DAY OF APRIL, 2019 AT NEW DELHI ) SD/ - (N. S. SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 30 /0 4 /2019 *SUBODH* COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR