Ambica Steels Ltd., Delhi V. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 878/DEL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 81540 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 6 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-08-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 23-06-2014
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 12-02-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: Y KAKKAR
• Assessee Lawyers: SUREJNDER KR JAIN
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice; Services rendered outside India; Deemed to accrue or arise in india; Additional evidence; Corroborative evidences
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH A : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI N. K. SAINI , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI A. T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 878 /DEL/ 2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009 - 10 ) AMBICA STEELS LTD., C - 54/1, WAZIRPUR INDUSTRIAL AREA, DELHI PAN:AAAC9942Q VS. DCIT CIRCLE - 1(1) NEW DELHI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SUREJNDER KR. JAIN, CA RESPONDENT BY : MS. Y KAKKAR, SR. DR O R D E R PER A. T. VARKEY , JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS IS AN APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 06.1 1 .2012 OF THE CIT(A) - IV, NEW DELHI RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10 . 2. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE AS FOLLOWS: - 1. THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD AO, AS WELL AS CIT(A) IS BAD IN LAW AND AGAINST THE FACTS OF THE CASE. 2. THAT THE LD AO AS WELL CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DISALLOWING EXPORT COMMISSION OF RS. 2,82,54,644/ - . 3. THE ASSESSEE CRAVES THE RIGHT TO ADD, DELETE, MODIF Y ANY ONE OR MORE OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL AT THE TIME OF HEAR ING. 3. THE SOLE GROUND OF APPEAL. APROPOS DISALLOWANCE OF EXPORT COMMISSION TO THE TUNE OF RS. 2,82,54,644/ - . 4. BR IEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT T HE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING OF STEEL INGOTS, BAR ETC AND FILED THE OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10 BEFORE DCIT CIRCLE - 1(1), NEW DELHI DECLARING LOSS OF RS. 77,92,270/ - ON 29.09.2009. THE AO, VIDE ORDER UNDER SE CTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, MADE CERTAIN ADDITION/ DISALLOWANCES AND ASSESSED THE INCOME AT RS. PAGE NO. 2 2,04,62,374/ - VIDE ORDER DATED 05.12.2011 AND DISALLOWED THE COMMISSION PAID ON EXPORT COMMISSION OF RS. 2,82,54,644/ - FOR NON DEDUCTION OF TDS BY THE A SSESSEE TO NON - RESIDENT/ OUTSIDERS AND FOR NON SUBMISSION OF THE SUPPORTING EVIDENCE RELATING THEREWITH. THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD CIT(A) IV, NEW DELHI WHICH WAS DISMISSED BY THE LD CIT(A) IV, NEW DELHI VIDE ORDER DATED 06.11.2012. 5. T HE LD CIT(A) HELD AS FOLLOWS: - 5.5 THE FACTS OF THE APPELLANTS CASE ARE SIMILAR TO THE FACTS OF HAVELLS INDIA LTD. THE SUBMISSION THE OF THE LD AR THAT MY LD PREDECESSOR HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE IN THE FAVOUR OF THE APPELLANT IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 09 IS OF NO HELP TO THE APPELLANT AS WHEN MY LD PREDECESSOR WAS DECIDING THE ISSUE, HE DID NOT HAVE THE BENE FIT OF THE AUTHORITATIVE PRONOUNCEMENT FROM THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT. THE RELIANCE PLACED THE LD AR ON THE VARIOUS DECISIONS IS OF NO HELP TO THE APPELLANT AS THEY WERE DECIDED ON DIFFERENT FACTS AND HENCE DISTINGUISHABLE. MOREOVER, THE HONBLE JURISD ICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. HAVELLS INDIA (SUPRA) HAS DISCUSSED THE ENTIRE JURISPRUDENCE ON THE ISSUE AND GAVE A RULING THAT THE PAYMENTS MADE TO NON - RESIDENTS IN RESPECT OF EXPORTS EMANATING FROM INDIA WILL BE LIABLE FOR TDS AND HIT BY SECT ION 40(A)(IA). IN THE CASE UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE MANUFACTURING FACILITIES OF THE APPELLANT ARE LOCATED IN INDIA. THE EXPORT COMMISSION OF RS. 2,82,54,644/ - WAS PAID IN RESPECT OF THE EXPORTS WHICH ORIGINATED FROM INDIA. THEREFORE, THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD AR ARE REJECTED. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, LEGAL POSITION AND JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENT OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT, I HOLD THAT THE AO WAS FULLY JUSTIFIED IN COMING TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE COMMISSION PAID TO NON - RE SIDENT IS INCOME DEEMED TO ACCRUE OR ARISE IN INDIA WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 9 OF THE IT ACT, 1961 AND THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE WAS LIABLE TO DEDUCT TDS ON EXPORT COMMISSION PAID TO NON - RESIDENT AND IN MAKING THE DISALLOWANCE U/S 40(A)(IA). THE DISALLO WANCE MADE BY THE AO IS UPHELD. THE GROUND OF APPEAL IS REJECTED. 6. AGGRIEVED BY THE SAID ORDER OF THE LD CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE/ APPELLANT IS BEFORE US. 7. AT THE OUTSET THE LD AR POINTED OUT THAT IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 09, THE CO - ORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL HAS ALLOWED THE EXPORT COMMISSION TO THE VERY SAME NON - RESIDENT, SO THEREFORE THE LD CIT(A) ERRED IN DISALLOWING THE SAID EXPORT COMMISSION MERELY ON THE BASIS THAT TDS WAS NOT DEDUCTED BY THE ASSESSEE. ON THE OTHER H AND , THE LD DR, SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE LD CIT(A) AND CONTENDED THAT HONBLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI HAS HELD IN HAVELLS CASE ITA NO. 55/DE/2012 DATED 21 ST MAY 2012 THAT SINCE THE SOURCE OF INCOME IS IN INDIA, THEN TDS HAS TO BE DEDUCTED. THEREFORE ACCORDI NG TO THE LD DR, THE SAID RATIO PAGE NO. 3 OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE JURISDICTION HIGH COURT IS SQUARELY APPLICABLE TO THE ISSUE IN HAND AND THEREFORE SHE DOES NOT WANT US TO DISTURB THE IMPUGNED ORDER. 8 . WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE RECORDS AND GONE THROUGH THE CASE LAWS CITED BEFORE US. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS MANUFACTURING STEEL INGOTS, BARS ETC FOR DOMESTIC MARKET AS WELL AS INTERNATIONAL MARKET. IT HAS PAID COMMISSION OF RS. 2,82,54,644/ - TO NON - RESID ENTS ON EXPORT SALES OF RS. 126 C RORES FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE HELD THAT ASSESSEE WAS OBLIGED TO DEDUCT TDS ON THE COMMISSION PAID TO NON - RESIDENTS AND IN THE ABSENCE THEREOF, THE EXPENDITURE CLAIMED IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION ON ACCOUNT OF PROVISIO N CONTAINED IN SECTION 40(A)(I) OF THE ACT. WE FIND IDENTICAL ISSUE HAD CAME UP BEFORE THE CO - ORDINATE BENCH IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE IMMEDIATE PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR, WHEREIN, BY ORDER DATED 25.02.2013 IN ITA NO. 2264/DEL/2012 IT WAS HELD AS UNDER: - 6. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES, CONSIDERED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AS WELL AS ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. IT IS FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED COMMISSION AGREEMENT AT FIRST APPELLATE STAGE AND CIT(A) HAS CONCLUDED TO DEL E TE THE IMPUGNED ADDITION BY ELABORATELY DISCUSSING SUCH ISSUE FROM PARAS 5.10 TO 5.13 OF HIS ORDER WHICH READS AS UNDER: 5.10 I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, REMAND REPORTS OF THE AO AND THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE LD AR. THE COPY OF COMM ISSION AGREEMENT WITH M/S. TRANOX GMBH TO WHOM MAJOR COMMISSION WAS PAID BY THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ASKED FOR THE AO DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING, ALTHOUGH AO HAS CITED IT AS ONE OF THE REASONS FOR DISALLOWING THE EXPORT COMMISSION PAID BY THE APPELLANT. THE APPELLANT WAS, THEREFORE, PREVENTED BY SUFFICIENT CAUSE FROM FURNISHING THE ABOVE AGREEMENT DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING. FURTHER, AS MENTIONED EARLIER, THE SAID COMMISSION AGREEMENT WAS DULY FORWARDED TO THE AO FOR EXAMINATION DURING THE REMAND PR OCEEDING AND THE AO HAS NOT GIVEN ANY ADVERSE COMMENTS ON MERIT. THE SAID ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IS VERY MUCH RELATED TO THE ISSUE ON WHICH ADDITION WAS MADE BY THE AO AND THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE APPELLANT. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE, THE SAID ADDITION AL EVIDENCE IS ADMITTED UNDER RULE 46A IN THE INTEREST OF NATURAL JUSTICE. 5.11 COMING TO THE MERIT OF THE IMPUGNED ADDITION, I FIND THAT THE AO HAS ERRONEOUSLY DISALLOWED THE TOTAL EXPORT COMMISSION PAID AT RS. 3,67,19,237/ - ALTHOUGH THE SAME INCLUDED CO MMISSION OF RS. 76,52,798/ - PAID TO DOMESTIC PARTIES ON WHICH TDS U/S 194H IS STATED TO HAVE BEEN DEDUCTED BY THE APPELLANT. IN HIS REMAND REPORT DATED 16.01.2012, THE AO HAS ADMITTED THE ABOVE MISTAKE AND HAS MENTIONED THAT THE DISALLOWANCE BE RESTRICTED TO THE AMOUNT OF COMMISSION EXPENSES ON PAGE NO. 4 WHICH TDS HAD NOT BEEN MADE. THE ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 76,52,798/ - IS, THEREFORE DELETED. 5.12 COMING TO THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS. 2,90,66,440/ - , AS PER THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING OF STEEL INGOTS AND BARS ETC, AND SELLING THE SAME IN DOMESTIC MARKET AND ALSO IN INTERNATIONAL MARKET. THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT HAVE ANY OFFICE OUTSIDE OF INDIA. THE EXPORT ORDERS ARE RECEIVED THROUGH AGENTS IN VARIOUS COUNT RIES APPROVED TO PROCURE THE ORDERS AGAINST WHICH THE ASSESSEE SUPPLIES THE GOODS TO THE FOREIGN BUYERS. THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED DETAILS OF SERVICES RENDERED BY THE FOREIGN AGENTS. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO SUBMITTED BILL - WISE DETAILS OF EXPORTS MADE AND CO MMISSION PAID, ALONG WITH COPY OF ACCOUNT OF FOREIGN AGENTS GIVING PARTICULARS OF THE PAYMENTS MADE TO THEM AGAINST EXPORT INVOICES AS WELL AS COMMISSION ACCRUED THEREON, COPY OF PAYMENT VOUCHERS AND OUTWARD REMITTANCE ADVICE ISSUED BY THE BANK SHOWING THA T THE REMITTANCE ADVICE ISSUED BY THE BANK SHOWING THAT THE REMITTANCE WAS MADE DIRECTLY BY THE BANK TO THE FOREIGN AGENT IN FOREIGN EXCHANGE ETC. IT IS SUBMITTED BY THE LD AR THAT SINCE THE ABOVE EXPORTS COMMISSION RELATES TO SERVICES RENDERED OUTSIDE IND IA AND PAYMENT IS MADE OUTSIDE INDIA, THERE IS NO INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX IN INDIA IN THE HANDS OF FOREIGN AGENTS AND HENCE THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 195 OF THE ACT WAS NOT APPLICABLE. FURTHER, IT IS ARGUED BY THE LD AR THAT THE COMMISSION AGENTS DO NOT R EQUIRE ANY PROFESSIONAL OR TECHNICAL DEGREE AND HENCE THE COMMISSION PAID TO THEM IS NOT IN THE NATURE OF FEES FOR TECHNICAL SERVICES AS ALLEGED BY THE AO. FURTHER, IT IS ARGUED THAT CIRCULAR NO. 7 OF 2009 DATED 22.10.2009 ISSUED BY CBDT IS PROSPECTIVE IN INCOME AND AS PER CBDTS CIRCLE NO. 23 DATED 23.07.1969 AND CIRCULAR NO. 786 DATED 07.02.2002 APPLICABLE AT THE RELEVANT TIME, THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT OBLIGED TO DEDUCT ANY TAX U/S 195 ON THE ABOVE COMMISSION PAYMENT. 5.13 THE LD AR HAS RELIED UPON A LARGE N UMBER OF CASE LAWS IN SUPPORT OF HIS ARGUMENTS. ON CAREFUL EXAMINATION OF THE MATTER, I FIND THAT UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES PAID TO THE EXPORT AGENTS CANNOT BE CONSTRUED AS FEES FOR TECHNICAL SERVICES. AS SUCH, THE SAID AMOUNT IS NOT SUBJECT TO TDS U/S 195 OF THE ACT AND HENCE THE QUESTION OF DISALLOWANCE U/S. 40(A) DOES NOT ARISE. THIS IS SUPPORTED BY THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE APEX COURT IN CIT VS. TOSHOKU LTD. (1980) 125 ITR 525 AND GE INDIA TECHNOLOGY COM (P) LTD VS. CIT 193 TAXMAN 234. FURTHER, THE HONBLE ITAT, HYDERABAD IN THE CASE OF DCIT VS. DIVIS LABORATORIES LTD. 140 TTJ 796 HAS HELD THAT THE COMMISSION PAID TO NON - RESIDENT AGENT FOR SERVICES RENDERED OUTSIDE INDIA ARE NOT CHARGEABLE TO TAX IN INDIA. SIMILAR VIEW HAS ALSO BEEN EXPRESSED BY THE HONBLE ITAT, JAIPUR IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS. MODE R N INSULATORS LTD. 140TTJ 715. THE AO WHILE MAKING ADDITION HAS RELIED UPON THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE ITAT, DELHI WHICH AS POINTED OUT BY THE LD AR HAS BEEN OVERRULED BY THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF VANOORD ACZ INDIA PVT. LTD. VS. CIT 323 ITR 130. FURTHER THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT RECENTLY IN CIT VS. EON TECHNOLOGY PVT. LTD. (2012) 246 CTR (DEL) 40 ON SIMILAR FACTS HELD THAT DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 40(A)(I) WAS NOT CALLED FOR ON SALES PAGE NO. 5 COMMISSION PAID TO NON - RESIDENT AS PER THE FOLLOWING HEAD - NOTES: - PAYMENT OF SALES CO MMISSION TO NON RESIDENT ASSESSEE PAID COMMISSION OF RS.33.36 LAKHS TO ITS HOLDING COMPANY ETUK ON THE SALES AND AMOUNT REALIZED ON EXPORT CONTRACTS WHEN A NON - RESIDENT AGENT OPERATES OUTSIDE THE COUNTRY NO PART OF HIS INCOME ARISES IN INDIA, AND SINCE PAYMENT IS REMITTED DIRECTLY ABROAD, AND MERELY BECAUSE AN ENTRY IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS IS MADE. IT DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE NON - RESIDENT HAS RECEIVED ANY PAYMENT IN INDIA APPELLATE AUTHORITIES, ON THE BASIS OF MATERIAL ON RECORD, HAVE RIGHTLY HELD THAT BUSINESS CONNECTION IS NOT ESTABLISHED TAX WAS NOT DEDUCTABLE AT SOURCE AND DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 40(A)(I) WAS NOT CALLED FOR. IN VIEW OF ABOVE, CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE STATUTORY PROVISIONS AND RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWIN G THE SETTLED CASE LAWS ON THE MATTER. I FIND THAT THE IMPUGNED ADDITION OF RS.2,90,66,440/ - IS NOT SUSTAINABLE ON FACTS OR IN LAW. TO SUM UP, THE ADDITION OF RS.3,67,19,237/ - (I.E. RS.76,52.798/ - PLUS RS.2,90,66,440/ - ) IS DELETED. 6. ON PERUSAL OF THE AB OVE REPRODUCED PORTION OF THE CONCLUSION AS DRAWN BY THE CIT(A), WE FIND THAT HE HAS CONSIDERED EACH AND EVERY ASPECT OF THE MATTER IN DETAIL BEFORE ARRIVING AT THE FINDING. NEITHER ANY FLAW NOR INFIRMITY HAS BEEN POINTED OUT NOR NOTICED. MOREOVER, THE BAS IS AND REASONING AS GIVEN BY THE CIT(A) ARE OTHERWISE FOUND TO BE JUST AND APPROPRIATE. IN VIEW OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AND MATERIAL ON RECORD, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT CONCLUSION AS DRAWN BY THE CIT(A) IN THIS CASE IS JUST AND APPROPRI ATE, WHICH CALLS FOR NO INTERFERENCE AT OUR ENDS. AS SUCH, WHILE CONCURRING WITH THE FINDING AS ARRIVED AT BY THE CIT(A), WE UPHOLD HIS ORDER AND DISMISS THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE BEING DE VOID OF ANY MERITS. 9 . HAVING REGARD TO THE AFORESAID DECISION, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT OBLIGED TO DEDUCT TDS ON PAYMENT OF EXPORT COMMISSION TO THE NON - RESIDENT AND THEREFORE DISALLOWANCE NEED TO BE DELETED. THE LD CIT(A) AS WELL AS THE LD DR, HAVE RELIED UPON THE JUDGMENT IN HAVELLS CASE (SUPRA ), IN THE SAID CASE , THE ASSESSEE HAD INCURRED TESTING CHARGES TO A U. S. COMPANY WHICH WAS DISALLOWED U/S 40(A)(I) OF THE ACT. THE TRIBUNAL HELD THAT SEC 9(I)(VII)(B) EXEMPTS FEES FOR TECHNICAL SERVICES PAID FOR PURPOSE OF MAKING OF EARNING INCOME OUTSIDE INDIA AND AS SUCH DISALLOWANCE MADE U/S 40 (A)(I) WAS DELETED. HOWEVER, THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HELD THAT THE SOURCE OF INCOME IN RESPECT OF TESTING CHARGE S SINCE EMANATED FROM INDIA, THEREFORE THE EXEMPTION DID NOT APPLY TO THE ASSES SEE. IT IS THUS EVIDENT THAT THE CONTROVERSY BEFORE THE HONBLE HIGH COURT WAS IN RESPECT OF TESTING CHARGES PAID TO A NON - RESIDENT AND ITS TAXABILITY U/S 9(I)(VII)(B) OF THE ACT. THE ISSUE HOWEVER BEFORE US IS NEITHER IN RESPECT OF TESTING CHARGES NOR IN RESPECT OF SECTION 9( I)(I) OF THE ACT. TH E ISSUE HAS BEEN ALREADY HELD IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE PROVISION ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 09. LD DR APART FROM PLACING RELIANCE ON THE PAGE NO. 6 AFORESAID JUDGMENT HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO DISTINGUISH OR POINT OUT ANY ERROR I N T HE DECISION RENDERED BY THE AFORESAID ORDER OF THE CO - ORDINATE BENCH IN ASSESSES OWN CASE . IN FACT WE ALSO FIND THAT THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. EON TECHNOLOGY PVT. L TD. 246CTR40 (DELHI) HELD THAT : - PAYMENT OF SALES COMMISSION TO NON - RESIDENT TO ITS HOLDING COMPANY ON THE EXPORT SALES IS NOT LIABLE TO DISALLOWANCE U/S 40(A)(I) ON THE GROUND THAT WHEN A NON - RESIDENT AGENT OPERATES OUTSIDE THE COUNTRY NO PART OF HIS INCOME ARISES IN INDIA, AND SINCE PAYMENT IS REMITTED DIRECTLY AB ROAD IT DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE NON - RESIDENT HAS RECEIVED ANY PAYMENT IN INDIA. 10 . HAVING REGARD TO THE AFORESAID CASE LAW, WE ARE INCLINED TO RESPECTFULLY FOLLOW THE ORDER OF THE CO - ORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR ASSESSME NT YEAR 2008 - 09 AND ALLOW THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 11 . IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 1 3 . 08 .2014. - S D / - - S D / - ( N. K. SAINI ) (A. T. VARKEY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 1 3 / 08 / 2014 A K KEOT COPY FORWARDED TO 1. APPLICANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR:ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI