Prometric Testing Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon V. ACIT, Gurgaon

MA 68/DEL/2022

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 103 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9592 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 27-10-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: I
• Next Hearing Date: 20-10-2022
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 10-04-2022
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Related party transaction; Opportunity of being heard; Revenue expenditure; Set aside
• Section: 14A; 133(6); 254(2)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES “I” : DELHI BEFORE SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER M.A.No.68/Del./2022 Arising out of ITA.No.499/Del./2015 & ITA.No.397/Del./2015 Assessment Year 2008-2009 M/s. Prometric Testing (P) Ltd., 2 nd Floor, DLF Infinity Tower-A, Sector-25, Phase-II, DLF City, Gurgaon.PAN AACCP5202A vs. The ACIT, Circle-II, Gurgaon.Haryana. (Applicant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Vishal Kalra, C.A. And Ms. Sumisha Murgai, C.A. For Revenue : Shri Pradeep Gautam, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing : 21.10.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 28.10.2022 ORDER PER ANIL CHATURVEDI, A.M. : By this Miscellaneous Application [“M.A.”] the Assessee seeks for recall of the order of the Tribunal dated 25.01.2021 passed in ITA.Nos.499 & 315/Del./2015 for the A.Y. 2008-09, for a fresh hearing with respect to additional 2 M.A.No.68/Del./2022 in ITA.Nos.499 & 397/Del./2015 M/s. Prometric Testing (P) Ltd., Gurgaon. ground of appeal No.1, grounds of appeal No.3.1 to 3.3 in assessee’s appeal and grounds of appeal No.6 in Revenue’s appeal. 2. With respect to the additional ground of appeal no.1, the Learned Counsel for the Assessee submitted that assessee had sought exclusion of M/s. Cosmic Global Ltd., from the comparables for the first time before the Tribunal by filing an additional ground though it was selected as a comparable by the assessee before TPO and did not seek its exclusion before TPO or CIT(A). He submitted that the reasons for seeking exclusion of M/s. Cosmic Global Ltd., as a comparable was, inter alia, that it was functionally not comparable since it was engaged mainly in the provision of translation services, the revenue earned by it from BPO services was negligible and there was no export of BPO services, it had outsourced its business activity and various High Courts and Tribunal had held it to be not be a comparable to ITeS service provider. He submitted various other decisions were also relied upon by assessee to support its claim for its exclusion, but, however, the Tribunal 3 M.A.No.68/Del./2022 in ITA.Nos.499 & 397/Del./2015 M/s. Prometric Testing (P) Ltd., Gurgaon. despite having all the relevant material/documents on record, remanded the matter to TPO/A.O. for fresh adjudication. He submitted that action of Tribunal in remanding the issue to TPO/A.O. and not considering all the contentions, Judgments and relevant material on record, constitute an error apparent on record which is amenable to rectification under section 254(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 2.1. The next Company that was selected by TPO/A.O. as a comparable company was M/s. Vishal Information Technologies Ltd. The action of the TPO/A.O. in including M/s. Vishal Information Technologies Ltd., as comparable was upheld by the Ld. CIT(A). Aggrieved by the Order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Tribunal and sought the exclusion of M/s. Vishal Information Technologies Ltd., from the final list of comparables. He submitted that assessee had sought the exclusion of M/s. Vishal Information Technologies Ltd. from the final list of comparables on the ground that firstly it had a different business model, secondly various Hon’ble High 4 M.A.No.68/Del./2022 in ITA.Nos.499 & 397/Del./2015 M/s. Prometric Testing (P) Ltd., Gurgaon. Courts and Tribunals had held it to be not a comparable to ITes Services Provider. He submitted that despite having all the material/documents on record and numerous judicial precedents wherein it was held that M/s. Vishal Information Technologies Ltd. cannot be chosen as a comparable to ITeS service provider, the Tribunal in its order has restored the issue back to the file of Ld. A.O./TPO for fresh adjudication. He submitted that action of Tribunal in restoring the issue back to the file of A.O./TPO and not considering all the contentions, Judgments, relevant material evidence on record on the issue of exclusion of the aforesaid comparable company constitutes a mistake apparent on record which is amenable to rectification under section 254(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 2.2. With respect to Revenue’s Appeal in ITA.No.397/ Del./2015, he submitted that Revenue was aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A) whereby he had directed to exclude M/s. HCL Comnet Systems and Services Ltd., from the final list of comparables. He submitted in respect of M/s. HCL Comnet Systems and Services Ltd., that it was the 5 M.A.No.68/Del./2022 in ITA.Nos.499 & 397/Del./2015 M/s. Prometric Testing (P) Ltd., Gurgaon. submission of the assessee before the Tribunal that it is not functionally comparable as it was engaged in Data Centre Management Services, End User Computing Services, Managed Security Services, Networking Services and Tools and Process Consulting Services and Telecommunication Services, whereas, assessee was engaged in computer based testing and other related services. It was also submitted that its Annual Report for year ended 30 th June, 2008 which was available in public domain showed that it failed the financial filter adopted by CIT(A). He submitted that the Tribunal has erred in directing its inclusion in the final list of comparables merely on the basis that it passes the Related Party Filter Test [“RPT”]. He submitted that the Tribunal did not take into account other relevant factors like difference in functional profile, different financial year ending which were highlighted by the assessee. He submitted that even on the issue of RPT filter, the Tribunal did not consider the fact that comparable failed the RPT filter of 25% applied by the TPO. He, therefore, submitted that action of the Tribunal in directing to include M/s. HCL Comnet Systems and Services 6 M.A.No.68/Del./2022 in ITA.Nos.499 & 397/Del./2015 M/s. Prometric Testing (P) Ltd., Gurgaon. Ltd., by erroneously holding that it had satisfied RPT filter and without considering all the arguments, submissions of the assessee constitutes an error apparent on record which is amenable to rectification under section 254(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961. He, therefore, submitted that the impugned order dated 25.01.2021 be recalled and the appeals be restored for fresh hearing with respect to the aforesaid issues. 3. The Ld. D.R. on the other hand strongly objected to the plea of assessee for rectification of the order. He submitted that the Tribunal has no power to review it’s own order under the garb of rectification. He submitted that the assessee through this M.A. is seeking for review of the order which is not permissible under law and it is beyond the scope of the Tribunal. He submitted that the order of the Tribunal is in accordance with law as the order is passed on merits which does not need for any rectification. He, thus, strongly relied on the order of the Tribunal. 4. We have heard the Learned Representatives of both the parties and perused the material on record. We find that before the Tribunal assessee had sought the 7 M.A.No.68/Del./2022 in ITA.Nos.499 & 397/Del./2015 M/s. Prometric Testing (P) Ltd., Gurgaon. exclusion of M/s. Cosmic Global Ltd., as a comparable company for the first time by filing an additional ground though it was selected as a comparable by the assessee before TPO and did not seek its exclusion before TPO or CIT(A). The Tribunal admitted the additional ground and the Tribunal after considering the submissions of the assessee, has decided the issue on merits, by observing as under : “7.3 We have heard rival submission of the parties and perused the relevant material on record. This company was included by the assessee in its set of the comparables filed before the Learned TPO and the Ld. TPO also accepted this company as valid comparable. Now, the assessee is seeking exclusion of the company on the ground of functional dissimilarity and different business model. 7.4. On perusal of page 376 of the paper-book of the annual reports, which is director’s report of the company, wherein under the head review performance and business prospectus, the activity of the translation 8 M.A.No.68/Del./2022 in ITA.Nos.499 & 397/Del./2015 M/s. Prometric Testing (P) Ltd., Gurgaon. has been categorized as ITeS activity. No further detail as how the transaction services falls under ITeS category is given in the Annual Report. The process of service delivery is also not mentioned in the Annual Report. Further, the Learned DR submitted that CBDT has considered translation activity as part of ITeS activity. In view of the doubts raised by the assessee on the IteS nature of the translation services performed by the company and no further details available in the Annual Report, needs verification from the company, which may be carried out by the ld. AO/TPO by way of exercising authority under section 133(6) of the Act 7.5. Further, the assessee has stated that the company work on outsource model as against the assessee who provide services to the AEs through its own employees. The Learned DR on the other hand has objected for assuming the outsource model only on the basis of one entry of translation charges paid of ₹ 2,86,29,348/-out of total operating cost of ₹ 4,75,83,209/-. We have perused the Annual Report of 9 M.A.No.68/Del./2022 in ITA.Nos.499 & 397/Del./2015 M/s. Prometric Testing (P) Ltd., Gurgaon. the company and from schedule 14- Significant Accounting Policies (page 385 of Annual Report paper book) we find as follows: “1.6. The Company follows the procedure of deploying personnel as Transcriptionists and checkers for translation work only after imparting an intensive training programme. In the opinion of the Company, the intensive training programme is vital and necessary, without which the personnel will not be able to achieve the necessary competence for carrying out the operations. Such personnel after the training programme was absorbed by the Company as employees and the entire expenditure incurred on such personnel hithertofore accounted as Deferred Revenue Expenditure is now accounted as Revenue Expenditure during the year and written off. However the proportion of earlier years Deferred Revenue expenditure of Rs. 3,74,500 is written off. During this training period, the personnel are paid stipend.” 10 M.A.No.68/Del./2022 in ITA.Nos.499 & 397/Del./2015 M/s. Prometric Testing (P) Ltd., Gurgaon. 7.6. Since exclusion of the company has been sought first time before the Tribunal, and in order to verify the exact nature ‘translation work’ and the ‘expenses on translation’ whether the same are in the nature of outsourcing or incurred by the assessee in developing employees, we feel it appropriate to restore the issue of exclusion of the company from the set of the comparables to the file of the Learned AO/TPO for verifying from the Annual Report or by way of issuing notice under section 133(6) of the Act to the company. It is needless to mention that the assessee shall be provided copy of the information gathered by the AO/TPO from the company and also provide adequate opportunity of being heard on the issue. The additional ground No.1 of the appeal is accordingly allowed for statistical purposes.” 4.1. With respect to exclusion of M/s. Vishal Information Technologies Ltd., from the list of comparables, we find that the issue has been decided by the Tribunal on merits, by observing as under : 11 M.A.No.68/Del./2022 in ITA.Nos.499 & 397/Del./2015 M/s. Prometric Testing (P) Ltd., Gurgaon. “9. In regular ground No. 3.1 to 3.4 of the appeal, under the ITes segment, the assessee has only challenged inclusion of ‘M/s. Vishal Information Technologies Ltd.’ in set of comparables. 9.1 The Learned Counsel of the assessee submitted that the company subcontracts majority of its work to 3 rd party vendors. He submitted that vendor payments approximate to 85.58% of the total cost incurred by the company and thus, it needs to be excluded on the ground of business model. He submitted that company has been rejected as comparable to ITeS companies in following decisions:  Rampgreen Soultions Private Limited [ITA 102/2015] - Delhi HC - Please refer para 8.  BNY Mellon International Operations V/s PCIT (ITA No 1226/2015) - High Court.  Everest Business Advisory India Private Limited V/s DCIT (ITA No 43/Del/2013) - AY 2007-08.  M/s. BA Continuum India Private Limited V/s ACIT (ITA No.1144/Hyd/2014) - AY 2008-09. 12 M.A.No.68/Del./2022 in ITA.Nos.499 & 397/Del./2015 M/s. Prometric Testing (P) Ltd., Gurgaon.  M/s. Symphony Marketing Solutions India Private Limited V/s ITO (IT(PA)No.1316/Bang/2012) - AY 2008-09.  PTC Software (India) Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No.336/PN/2014) for AY (2009-10) dated 31.10.2014.  M/s. Capital IQ Information Systems (India ) Pvt. Ltd (ITA No.l961/Hyd/2011 ; AY 2007-08; Paragraph 17 and 23 Page 20-21 and 25); wherein, the Hon'ble ITAT relied upon DPP directions for subsequent year, i.e. AY 2008-09 in assessee's own case based on similar facts of the case in both the years.  Zavata India Private Limited [ITA No.l781/Hyd/2011; AY 2007-08; Paragraph 16 - Page 9]. In this case, the Hon'ble ITAT followed the order of Capital IQ Information Systems wherein, the Hon'ble ITAT had relied upon DRP directions for subsequent year, i.e. AY 2008-09 in assessee's own case based on similar facts of the case in both the years. 13 M.A.No.68/Del./2022 in ITA.Nos.499 & 397/Del./2015 M/s. Prometric Testing (P) Ltd., Gurgaon.  HSBC Electronic Data Processing India Ltd.ITA No.l624/Hyd/2010; AY 2006-07; Paragraph 9.2 - Page 6; wherein, the Hon'ble ITAT relied upon DRP directions for subsequent year, AY 2008-09 in assessee's own case based on similar facts of the case in both the years.  Cognizant Technology Services Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad ITA No.255/Hyd/14 AY 2007-08, 2008- 09. “9.2. The Learned DR, on the other hand, contested that in the case of the company claim of salary expenses being low as compared to vendor payment is not correct. Before the Learned TPO, the assessee challenged inclusion of the company “Vishal Information Technology Ltd.” on the ground of outsourcing model. The learned TPO rejected this ground following the finding of the Tribunal in the case of Deloitte Consultant Private Limited (supra). Before the Learned CIT(A) this ground was not taken and only the company was challenged on the ground of functional dissimilarity, which was rejected by the Learned CIT(A). 14 M.A.No.68/Del./2022 in ITA.Nos.499 & 397/Del./2015 M/s. Prometric Testing (P) Ltd., Gurgaon. The Learned Counsel of the assessee has referred to Schedule 14A of financial statement (page 401 of the paper-book of Annual Reports) and has submitted that vendor payment constitute 85.58% of the total cost. However, on verification of the schedule, we find that alleged vendor payments actually consist of opening stock of work in progress also and there is no separate amount of vendor payments mentioned specifically in financial statements. From the other parts of the annual report also we are unable to decipher whether the company work mainly on outsource model. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we feel it appropriate to restor+e this issue to the file of the Learned AO/TPO to verify exercising authority under 133(6) of the Act and if it is found that business model of the company is outsourced model, the issue may be decided in accordance with law.” 15 M.A.No.68/Del./2022 in ITA.Nos.499 & 397/Del./2015 M/s. Prometric Testing (P) Ltd., Gurgaon. 4.2. With respect to Revenue’s Appeal [ITA.No.397/ Del./2015] in connection with M/s. HCL Comnet Systems and Services Ltd., the issue has been decided by the Tribunal by observing as under : “14. In ground No. 6, the Revenue has challenged exclusion of M/s HCL Comnet Systems and Services Ltd.’ 14.1. The Learned DR submitted that CIT(A) is not justified in rejecting the comparable on the ground of related party transaction. According to him while comparing related party transactions, entire transaction of purchase and sales cannot be compared with the sales only. 14.2. The Learned Counsel, on the other hand, relied on the order of the Ld. CIT(A). 14.3. We have heard rival submission of the parties on the issue in dispute and perused the order of the lower authorities. The Ld. CIT(A) has excluded the company on the ground of related party transactions 16 M.A.No.68/Del./2022 in ITA.Nos.499 & 397/Del./2015 M/s. Prometric Testing (P) Ltd., Gurgaon. being more than 25% of the sales. The relevant finding of the Ld. CIT(A) is reproduced as under: “(c) I have considered the submissions of the appellant and gone through the facts of this case. The appellant is challenging the inclusion of this comparable on two fronts, firstly the massive disparity in turnover of the appellant company on the one hand and HCL on the other and RPT being more than 25% in the case of the comparable company. As regards the latter, the TPO had chosen RPT transactions greater than 25% as a filter for selecting the final list of comparables. Once RPT in excess of 25% was adopted by the TPO as a filter, no comparable failing to satisfy this filter should have been included. Besides there are a number of case laws where comparables having RPT in excess of 25% have been excluded. (ADP(P) Ltd Vs DCIT(2011) 10 taxmann.com 160) (Kyd-Trib); Global Logic 17 M.A.No.68/Del./2022 in ITA.Nos.499 & 397/Del./2015 M/s. Prometric Testing (P) Ltd., Gurgaon. India(P) Ltd Vs DCIT (2011) 12 taxmann.com 2S5 (De!-Trib) ACIT Vs Hapag Lloyd Global Services(P) Ltd (ITA No 8499 dated 28-2-13).In light of this discussion if RPT is in excess of 25% this comparable should be excluded. (ii) As regards turnover difference between the appellant and the comparable company, I hold that whereas the turnover of HCL was 495 crores, the appellant's turnover was hardly 4.6 crores. As has been rightly held in the cases of Market Tools Research(supra),Capital IQ information System lndia(P) Ltd Vs ACIT(supra)CSR India(P) Ltd Vs ITO (2013) 31 taxmann.com 265(Bang-Trib) and Actis Advisers(P) Ltd Vs DCIT (Delhi), the TPO should not have considered HCL Comnet System as a comparable on account of these reasons. Thus I hold that the TPO erred in including HCL as a comparable and it should thus be excluded from the list of comparables.” 18 M.A.No.68/Del./2022 in ITA.Nos.499 & 397/Del./2015 M/s. Prometric Testing (P) Ltd., Gurgaon. 14.4. We do not agree with the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue in dispute. The Learned CIT(A) has clubbed the transaction of sale, purchase, payment for facilities, management contracts etc. and then worked out ratio of these transaction to sales. The said ratio has been worked out to 26.44 %. In our opinion, if total related party transactions have to be compared, then same should be compared with total transaction of purchase and sales etc. carried out by the assessee. Comparing the total related party transaction with the sales reflect a distorted view of the measure of related party impact on the margin of the company. The Learned Counsel was directed to provide any binding judicial precedent where a company was rejected on the basis of filter of ratio of total RPT to sales being more than 25%, however no such information was provided by him. In the facts and circumstances, we are of the opinion that the company cannot be rejected on the ground of RPT filter. The direction of the Learned CIT(A) on the issue in dispute are set aside and the Learned 19 M.A.No.68/Del./2022 in ITA.Nos.499 & 397/Del./2015 M/s. Prometric Testing (P) Ltd., Gurgaon. AO/TPO is directed to retain the said company as comparable in the final set of the comparables. The ground No.6 of the appeal of the Revenue is accordingly allowed.” 5. On the issue of M/s. Cosmic Global Ltd., as comparable whose exclusion is sought by the assessee, it is an undisputed fact that assessee had included it in its set of comparables filed before TPO and TPO also accepted it as a valid comparable. The assessee had not agitated about its inclusion either before TPO or CIT(A). However, assessee had sought its exclusion on the ground of functional dissimilarity and different business model by raising an additional ground. We find that the Tribunal for the reasons noted in para 7.4 of the order has noted that since assessee had raised the doubts on the ITeS nature of transaction services performed and in the absence of details available in the Annual Report, verification was needed and, therefore, the Tribunal had directed the A.O./TPO to carry-out by way of exercising authority under section 133(6) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 20 M.A.No.68/Del./2022 in ITA.Nos.499 & 397/Del./2015 M/s. Prometric Testing (P) Ltd., Gurgaon. 5.1. With respect to inclusion of M/s. Vishal Information Technologies Ltd., by the TPO as a comparable company, the assessee had challenged its inclusion before the Tribunal, inter alia, on the ground that it had a different business model as compared to the assessee. The Tribunal after hearing both the sides and after careful perusal of Annual Report and in order to decipher whether the company work mainly on outsource model, restored the issue back to the file of A.O./TPO to verify the issue on hand by exercising authority under section 133(6) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 5.2. As far as inclusion of M/s. HCL Comnet Systems and Services Ltd., in the final list of comparables in Revenue’s Appeal [ITA.No.397/Del./ 2015] is concerned, we find that the Tribunal at para 14.4 of the order has clearly noted that the Ld. A.R. of the Assessee was directed to provide any binding judicial precedent where a company was rejected on the basis of filter of ratio of total RPT to sales being more than 25%, but, no such information was provided by Ld. A.R. In such a situation, the Coordinate 21 M.A.No.68/Del./2022 in ITA.Nos.499 & 397/Del./2015 M/s. Prometric Testing (P) Ltd., Gurgaon. Bench of the Tribunal held that the company cannot be rejected on the ground of RPT filter and thus, the A.O. was directed to retain the said company as a comparable in the final set of comparables. We are, therefore, of the view that since the Tribunal has decided the issue on merits, we find no mistake apparent on record as contemplated under section 254(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 5.3. Further it is a settled law that power of rectification under section 254(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961 can be exercised only when the mistake which is sought to be rectified is an obvious and patent mistake which is apparent from record and not a mistake which requires to be established by arguments and long drawn process of reasoning. Further Tribunal cannot exercise its power of rectification, look into some other circumstances which would support or not support its conclusion so arrived at. The mistake which the Tribunal is entitled to correct is not an error of judgment but a mistake which is apparent from record itself. For this proposition, we rely upon the Judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT 22 M.A.No.68/Del./2022 in ITA.Nos.499 & 397/Del./2015 M/s. Prometric Testing (P) Ltd., Gurgaon. vs. Ramesh Electric and Trading Company (1993) 203 ITR 497 [Bom.] [HC] wherein the Hon’ble Bombay High Court has held that “Tribunal has no power to review its own order”. It has further held that “failure of the Tribunal to consider an argument advanced by either party for arriving at a conclusion is not an error apparent on record, although it may be an error of judgment. Further the Tribunal cannot in exercise of its power of rectification look into some other circumstances which would support or not support its conclusion”. The Hon’ble jurisdictional Delhi High Court in the case of Ras Bihari Bansal v. CIT and Another, [2007] 293 ITR 365 (Delhi) [HC] has held that “in the grab of an application for rectification it is not permissible to the parties to reopen and reargue the whole matter.” The Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of P.T. Manuel and Sons vs., CIT (2021) 434 ITR 416 (Kerala) [HC] has held that “the power of rectification is not akin to that of appeal or even a review. It has further held that merely because there is a wrong or erroneous order or a wrong appreciation of facts, the same 23 M.A.No.68/Del./2022 in ITA.Nos.499 & 397/Del./2015 M/s. Prometric Testing (P) Ltd., Gurgaon. cannot be grounds for rectification though they could be grounds for appeal”. 5.4. We further find that Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs., Earnest Exports Ltd., [2010] 323 ITR 577 (Bom.) (HC) has held that “Section 254(2) is not a carte blanche for the Tribunal to change its own view by substituting a view which it believes should have been taken in the first instance. Section 254(2) is not a mandate to unsettle decisions taken after due reflection nor does it contemplate a fresh look at a decision recorded on merits.” 5.5. We further find that the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs., Reliance Telecom Ltd., [2021] 133 taxmann.com 41 (SC) has held that “while considering the application under section 254(2), the Tribunal is not required to visit its earlier order and to go into details on merits and if the assessee was of the opinion that the order passed by the Tribunal was erroneous, either on facts or on law, then in that case the only remedy available to the assessee was to prefer appeal before High Court.” 24 M.A.No.68/Del./2022 in ITA.Nos.499 & 397/Del./2015 M/s. Prometric Testing (P) Ltd., Gurgaon. 5.6. In view of the aforesaid facts and following the decisions cited hereinabove, we are of the view that since the Assessee has failed to point-out any mistake apparent as contemplated under section 254(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961 in the order, we are not inclined to recall the order of the Tribunal in ITA.No.499/Del./2015 and ITA.No,.397/Del./ 2015 dated 25.01.2021 and thus the Misc. Application of the Assessee is dismissed. 6. In the result, the M.A of the Assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 28.10.2022. Sd/- Sd/- (NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY) (ANIL CHATURVEDI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Delhi, Dated 28 th October, 2022 VBP/- Copy to 1. The appellant 2. The respondent 3. CIT(A) concerned 4. CIT concerned 5. D.R. ITAT ‘I’ Bench, Delhi 6. Guard File. // By Order // Assistant Registrar : ITAT Delhi Benches : Delhi.