RANI SATI IMPEX P.LTD,NOIDA V. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, NOIDA

ITA 411/DEL/2020

AI Insights

The case involves two appeals by Rani Sati Surajgarhia Infrastructure Ltd. and Rani Sati Impex Pvt. Ltd. against the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Noida. The appeals challenged the reopening of assessments for the assessment year 2011-12 under sections 147 and 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, following a search and seizure operation under section 132. The primary issues were the jurisdictional validity of the reopening and the merits of the additions made under section 68 of the Act, which were based on alleged accommodation entries. The Tribunal found that the reopening was based on a mere change of opinion without any new evidence, and thus, the notices were quashed.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 37054 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-04-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Other Referred Cases: CC, Madras VS. D Bhoormal, Rasalika Trading & Investment Co.P.Ltd. vs DCIT & Another, CIT vs Kelvinator India, Andhra Bank Ltd. vs CIT, Jindal Photo Films Lt. vs Dy.CIT, Calcutta Discount Co.vs ITO
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANDEEP PANWAR
• Assessee Lawyers: SALIL AGGRAWAL
• Keywords: Difference of opinion; Change of opinion; Document seized; Documents seized; Reopening of assessment; Search and seizure; Accommodation entries; Loose papers; Assessment record; Reason to believe
• Section: 148; 143(3); 142(1); 143(2); 132; 153A; 68; 13; 153C; 191; 20

Judgement Text

"ITA Nos.409 & 411/Del/2020 1 | P a g e IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “E” BENCH: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI SUDHIR KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.409/Del/2020 [Assessment Year : 2011-12] Rani Sati Surajgarhia Infrastructure Ltd., KGF-002 Pearl Gateway Tower Sector-44, Noida Uttar Pradesh-201301 PAN-AADCR5998Q vs DCIT Central Circle-1 Noida APPELLANT RESPONDENT ITA No.411/Del/2020 [Assessment Year : 2011-12] Rani Sati Impex Pvt.Ltd. KGF-002, Pearl Gateway Tower Sector-44, Noida Uttar Pradesh-201301 PAN-AAACR7635R vs DCIT Central Circle-1 Noida APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by Shri Salil Aggrawal, Sr.Adv. Shri Shailesh Gupta, Adv. & Shri Uma Shankar, Adv. Respondent by Shri Mandeep Panwar, Sr.DR Date of Hearing 06.01.2025 Date of Pronouncement 02.04.2025 ORDER PER PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, AM : The captioned appeals have been filed at the instance of the respective assessee seeking to assail respective First Appellate order both dated 05.11.2019 passed by Commissioner of Income Tax (A)-IV, Kanpur [“CIT(A)”] ITA Nos.409 & 411/Del/2020 2 | P a g e under s. 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] arising from the respective assessment orders both dated 31.12.2018 passed under s. 147/143(3) of the Act pertaining to assessment year 2011-12. ITA No.409/Del/2020 [Assessment Year : 2011-12] 2. Briefly stated, a search and seizure operation was carried out on Ranisati Group under s. 132 of the Act on 12.11.2013. Consequently, notice under s. 153A of the Act was issued on the assessee pursuant to which the assessee filed return of income on 21.09.2015 declaring total income at INR 9,76,161/-. Notice under s. 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued alongwith the questionnaires. The assessee filed written submissions and supporting documents in the course of search assessment before the AO. Thereafter, the assessment was framed under s. 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 31.03.2016 wherein the income returned by the assessee at INR 9,76,161/- was assessed without any modification. 2.1. Thereafter a notice under s. 148 of the Act was issued dated 30.03.2018 seeking to re-open the completed assessment. The reasons recorded under s. 148(2) which provided foundation for re-opening the completed assessment is reproduced as under:- “Reason for re-opening of the Assessment in the case of M/s Ranisati Impex Private Limited for the AY 2011-12 m/s 147 of the Act. The name of the assessee is M/s Ranisati Surajgarhia Infrastructure Ltd registered at K-002, Pearl Gateway, Sector 44, Noida. The company is engaged in the business of real estate. A search & seizure operation u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was conducted on 12/11/2013 on the premises of the assessee comprising Eminent Group of cases. The promises covered u/s 132 operation was C-16, Sector 49, Noida. Subsequently, notice u/s 153A was issued on 11/08/2015. The assessee filed return of income on 21/09/2015 declaring total income of Rs. 9,76,161/- Assessment was completed on 31/03/2016 at total income of Rs. 9,76,161/- u/s 143(3)/153A of the I.T. Act, 1961. 2. Ranisati Group was subject to search and seizure operation u/s 132 on 12.11.2003 by investigation wing Agra, U.P. (Part of Eminent Group of cases) thereafter the group was centralized with Central Circle, Noida and the assessment u/s 153A was completed on 31.03.2006 by DCIT, Central ITA Nos.409 & 411/Del/2020 3 | P a g e Circle, Noida. The Group has taken accommodation entry from known entry operator in case of Ranisati Surajgarhia Infrastructure Ltd. as well as Ranisati Impex Pvt. Ltd. and in respect to which various incriminating documents were seized during the course of search and seizure operation. Particulars of some of these incriminating materials such LP-16 found from the premise C-16 Sector 49 Noida. On page 39 of LP-16, the figures are written on both left and right side. From the bare perusal it is seen that on the left side receipt from Dubai) has been shown at 126 and on the right side the list of 8 companies along with the figures are written as under- Nemo Resorts Pvt Ltd 35 WBT India Pvt Ltd 10 Ultimate IT Solution Pvt Ltd 20 Sony Financial Services Pvt Ltd 15 Nakodaji Builders Pvt Ltd 10 Gewapur Water Purification Pvt Ltd 15 AKI Rganics Pvt Ltd 10 Amarsaria Impex Pvt Ltd 10 In reply to above seized documents, it was only stated that share application monies have been received from these parties but the connections with the Dubai was not explained. Nothing was placed on the record to controvert the findings of the Investigation Unit that these funds are own funds of the assessee companies which has been routed through these companies through accommodation entries. From the perusal of the case records, it was found that the company has taken share capital/share premium from the following parties as under- Sl.No. Name Share Capital Share Premium 1. Amrsaria Impex Pvt.Ltd. 1,00,000/- 9,00,000/- 2. Nakodia Buildwell Ltd. 1,00,000/- 9,00,000/- 3. Namo Resorts Pvt.Ltd. 3,50,000/- 31,50,000/- 4. Aki Organics Pvt.Ltd. 1,00,000/- 9,00,000/- 5. Gewapur Water Purification Ltd. 1,50,000/- 13,50,000/- 6. Sony Financial Services Pvt.Ltd. 1,50,000/- 13,50,000/- 7. Wbt India Limited 3,00,000/- 27,00,000/- 8. Ultimate Solution Pvt.Ltd. 2,00,000/- 18,00,000/- 9. Arrow Equity Services Pvt.Ltd. 3,00,000/- 27,00,000/- 10. Vidhan Infrastructure Pvt.Ltd. 4,00,000/- 36,00,000/- 11. Maple Infra Reality Pvt.Ltd. 3,50,000/- 31,50,000/- Total 25,00,000/- 2,25,00,000/- 3. From the facts discussed in the foregoing paras and material evidences available on record it transpires that M/s. Ranisati Surajgarhia Infrastructure Ltd. had received accommodation entry to the tune of Rs. 2,50,00,000/- from shell companies operated by entry operator. When ITA Nos.409 & 411/Del/2020 4 | P a g e financials and other data of the companies of analysed it was revealed that the group companies had shown to have received share capital with exorbitant premium from large number of non-descript companies mainly based in Delhi. The profit declared by most of the so called investor companies over the years is negligible. Even the turnover declared by the investor companies is not very significant in most of the cases. In fact, these financials are typical of accommodation entry providing companies in whose accounts only huge share capital, premium and investments are reflected without any worthwhile turnover and profits. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CC, Madras VS. D Bhoormal reported in 1983(13) ELT 1546 (SC) has held that the prosecution or department is not required to prove its case with mathematical precision but what is required is the establishment of such degree of probability that a prudent man may on its basis believe in the existence of the facts in issue. In the instant case, facts and documents discussed in the earlier paragraphs appear to demonstrate that M/s Ranisati Surajgaria Infrastructure Ltd have grossly neglected such high value transaction in the ITR. 4. Thus, it is inferred that the assessee had not disclosed its correct & true income. Further as per finding of the Investigation, and from the perusal of details available, it is noticed that the assessee has received funds to the tune of Rs. 2,50,00,000/- from shell companies for which no explanation has been offered. Therefore, I have 'reason to believe' that due to omission on the part of the assessee, the income of Rs. 2,50,00,000/- has escaped assessment in the meaning of section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 5. From the perusal of details provided, it is noticed that the assessee has received funds to the tune of Rs. 2,50,00,000/- from shell companies for which no explanation has From the perusal of details provided, it is noticed that the assessee has received been offered so far. 6. The assessee is one of the beneficiary in which the unaccounted funds were routed with the aid of entry operator controlled shell companies, the details of which are tabulated above. It shows that the assessee has routed its unaccounted wealth to the tune of Rs. 6 The assessee is one of the beneficiary in which the unaccounted funds were routed 250,00,000/-in its books with the aid of entry operator. 7. In this case, return of income was filed for the year under consideration and assessment u/s 153A was made on 31.03.2016 since 4 years from the end of relevant year has expired in this case, and the requirement to initiate proceedings u/s 147 is reason to believe that income for the year under consideration has escaped assessment because of failure on the part of Assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment for the AY under consideration, it is pertinent to mention here that reasons to believe that income has escaped assessment for the year under consideration have been recorded above in para 4. ITA Nos.409 & 411/Del/2020 5 | P a g e I have carefully considered the Assessment record containing the submissions made by assessee in response to various notices issued during the assessment proceedings and have noted that assessee has not fully & truly disclosed the above stated facts necessary for his assessment for the year under consideration. It is evident from the above facts that the Assessee had not truly and fully disclosed material cats necessary for his assessment for the year under consideration thereby necessitating reopening u/s 147 of the Act. In view of the above, explanation 1 to section 147 is applicable to facts of this case and the assessment year under consideration is deemed to be case where income chargeable-to-tax has escaped assessment. In this case more than four years have lapsed from the end of the assessment year under consideration. Hence necessary sanction to issue the notice u/s 148 has been obtained separately from the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax as per the provisions of section 151 of the Income tax Act, 1961.” 2.2. The assessee filed an objection to the re-opening of assessment vide its application dated 18.12.2018. The objections so raised were not disposed off by the AO on the ground that objection has been raised at a very belated stage of the proceedings when hardly 11 days were left for completing assessment. The AO also observed that the assessee has not filed any details or explanations in the assessment proceedings and only filed objections. The AO ultimately made additions of INR 1,15,00,000/- recorded by way of share capital considering such share capital to be ingenuine and are in the nature of accommodation entries availed by the assessee. Transactions with seven companies alleged to be entry providers are tabulated hereunder :- Name Share Capital/Face Value Premium Amsaria Impex Pvt.Ltd. 1,00,000/- 9,00,000/- Nakodia Resorts Pvt.Ltd. 1,00,000/- 9,00,000/- Namo Resorts Pvt.Ltd. 3,50,000/- 31,50,000/- Aki Organics Pvt.Ltd. 1,00,000/- 9,00,000/- Gewapur Water Purification Pvt.Ltd. 1,50,000/- 13,50,000/- Sony Financial Services Pvt.Ltd. 1,50,000/- 13,50,000/- Ultimate Solutions Pvt.Ltd. 2,00,000/- 18,00,000/- Total 10,50,000/- 102,50,000/- ITA Nos.409 & 411/Del/2020 6 | P a g e 3. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) however did not find any merit in the legal objections or challenge to the additions on merits. 4. Further aggrieved, the assessee has preferred appeal before this Tribunal. 5. As per grounds of appeal, the challenge to the action of the Revenue authority by the assessee is essentially twofold:- (a) wrong assumption of jurisdiction under s. 147/148 of the Act; (b) lack of justification for additions on merits under s. 68 of the Act. 6. Wide ranging submissions have been made on behalf of the assessee. We shall deal with such plea in the succeeding paragraphs. 7. Per contra, the Revenue has relied upon the action of the lower authorities. 8. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material referred to and relied upon. 8.1. As per the case records and oral submissions made in the course of hearing, it is the case of the assessee that the assessment in the instant case was already completed earlier under s. 153A on 31.03.2016 in pursuance of search conducted in the premises of the assessee on 12.11.2013. The re- opening has been carried out based on the same incriminating material LP-16 found from the premises of the assessee at the time of search where at the left side, ‘Dubai’ has been shown as 126.00 and on the right side name of certain companies are mentioned. The relevant loose papers/seized document is extracted hereunder:- “Details of payments receivable from Dubai Ranisati Surajgarhia Infrastructure Ltd. • Receipt Amount Payments Amount Dubai 126.00 WBT India Pvt.Ltd. 10.00 Nakodaji Buildwell Ltd. 10.00 Amar Saria Impex Ltd. 10.00 ITA Nos.409 & 411/Del/2020 7 | P a g e Gewapur Water Purification Pvt.Ltd. 15.00 Sony Financial Services Ltd. 15.00 AKI Organies P.Ltd. 10.00 Namo Resorts Pvt.Ltd. 35.00 Ultimate IT Solutions Pvt. Ltd. 20.00 125.00 • 8.2. The AO alleged in the reasons recorded under s. 148(2) of the Act that in reply to the above seized documents, the assessee only stated that share application money have been received from these parties but the connection with expression ‘Dubai’ was not explained in the original proceedings carried out under s. 153A of the Act. It was alleged that the assessee has failed to controvert the findings of the Investigation Wing that these funds are accommodation entries for which the funds of the assessee was routed through these companies. 8.3 The assessee contends that the re-opening of assessment has been carried out based on re-appreciation of the same document/loose paper for which questionnaires were issued and replies were obtained in the course of search assessment. The search assessment under s. 153A has been framed after inquisitive enquiries on such loose paper. A reference was made to the notice dated 09.12.2015 issued by the AO in the course of search assessment proceedings under s. 153A of the Act wherein the same very loose paper i.e. at page 39 of the LP-16 seized in the course of search was subjected to requisite enquiries and based on the replies filed in the course of search assessment under s. 153A (original assessment proceedings), the AO having found the explanation offered by the assessee to be satisfactory, did not disturb the returned income on this score. 8.4 The assessee contends that based on reappreciation of same loose paper, the AO has proceeded to exercise powers under s. 147 r.w.s 148 of the Act solely on the ground that the assessee has not explained the connection with Dubai in respect of such receipts. In the reasons recorded, the AO also observed that the financial parameters of such companies are very hollow and ITA Nos.409 & 411/Del/2020 8 | P a g e typical of accommodation entries providing companies. The assessee thus alleged that the assessee has received funds from such companies for which no worthwhile explanation have been offered. The AO thus held ‘reason to believe’ that due to omission on the part of the assessee, income to the extent of INR 2,50,00,000/- has escaped assessment. For the purposes of assumption of jurisdiction under s. 147 of the Act, the AO also alleged that the assessee has not disclosed the material facts fully and truly resulting in escapement of chargeable income from taxation as postulated in s. 147 of the Act. 8.5 In this back drop, the assessee contends that instant case is a gross case of ‘change of opinion’ on the same facts duly examined by the AO in the previous proceedings. The contents of the loose paper which was already a subject matter of specific enquiry in search assessment, have sought to be re- visited by the AO after the completion of assessment and based on a mere different view and change of opinion on the contents of the existing loose paper. Besides, the completed assessment has been unauthorisedly re-opened after four years from the end to the relevant AY without meeting the pre-requisites of the first proviso to erstwhile s. 147 of the Act. 9. The contention on behalf of the assessee on purported lack of jurisdiction under s. 147 are broadly outlined hereunder:- (a) The contents of the loose papers were evaluated and subjected to innate enquiry in the course of original assessment and after taking into account the explanation offered, the AO reached a conclusion that explanation offered is plausible and consequently, the returned income was not disturbed; (b) No fresh material has come to the possession of the AO subsequent to the original assessment which may give rise to inference of discovery of any income which escaped assessment; (c) The AO has merely reviewed his own decision on the same material arising from the existing case records and attempted to exercise power under s. 147 of the Act to depart from the view expressed in the original assessment. It ITA Nos.409 & 411/Del/2020 9 | P a g e is thus a clear case of ‘change of opinion’ which tantamount to review of the original action by the same authority; (d) The so-called loose paper wherein expression ‘Dubai’ is written at the left side does not give any meaning. ‘126’ also does not give any meaning either and is merely a dumb figure. Based on 8 entries on the right side showing the name of 8 companies, the AO has alleged escapement of INR 2,50,00,000/-. The additions were actually effected on a different figure although; (e) In the reasons recorded, the AO further alleged that he holds ‘reason to believe’ towards escapement due to omission on the part of the assessee. The nature of omission is not described but however may inferred that connection with ‘Dubai’ was not explained resulting in omission. The allegation so made is inexplicable where the contents of the some paper giving rise to inference of escapement were subject matter of enquiry of assessment. The AO has not brought any new material on record to expand and extrapolate the meaning of contents of loose papers post assessment. (f) The AO has alleged that the assessee has not disclosed material facts fully and truly in the course of original assessment and failure to do so has resulted in extension of limitation beyond 4 years for the purposes of issuance of notice under s. 147 of the Act. The assessee asserts that loose paper forming the basis of alleged escapement was already with the Investigation Team and also with the AO. Therefore, the full and true disclosure of relevant fact is implicit. It is not known as to what was expected from the assessee in the course of original assessment which was not disclosed. 10. We straightway agree with the case made out on behalf of the assessee towards inherent lack of jurisdiction for exercising powers under s. 147 of the Act on both grounds namely ‘change of opinion’ as well as non fulfillment of conditions of first proviso. ITA Nos.409 & 411/Del/2020 10 | P a g e 10.1 On perusal of the reasons recorded, it is self-evident that the AO has attempted to review the existing case records and the contents of loose paper which were demonstrated to be subject matter of enquiry in the course of original assessment too. It is self-evident that the AO has attempted to entertain a different opinion on the same documents post assessment. There is no reference to any new material which has come to surface post original assessment. It is trite that a completed assessment cannot be re-opened in exercise of power conferred under s. 147 of the Act merely on the basis of ‘change of opinion’. A reference has been made in this regard to the judgement delivered in the case of Rasalika Trading & Investment Co.P.Ltd. vs DCIT & Another [2014] 365 ITR 447 (Delhi) where the ratio of judgment rendered in the case of CIT vs Kelvinator India [2010] 320 ITR 561 (SC) was applied. Needless to say, there is a conceptual difference between ‘power to review’ and ‘power to re- assess’. There are long line of judicial precedents wherein it was essentially held that a fresh litigation cannot be started with a view to obtain another assessment upon different assumption of same facts. The re-opening cannot be made as a mere ipse dixit on the basis of a different view on same set of facts. It is not a case that loose paper/material showing entries were not available before the AO at the first instance, in the original assessment. Categorical enquiries were carried out giving reference to said loose paper, as can be noticed from the questionnaire dated 09.12.2015 issued in the course of original assessment. Hence, it is not possible to hold that an opinion was not expressed on such document in the original assessment. In the absence of any fresh material, the opinion already expressed on existing material facts, thus could not be changed by exercising power under s. 147 of the Act. Such view have also been echoed earlier in Andhra Bank Ltd. vs CIT (1997) 225 ITR 447 (SC), Jindal Photo Films Lt. vs Dy.CIT (1993) 234 ITR 170 (Del.). Hence, there is a strong merit in the lea of assessee that it is case of reopening on ‘change of opinion’. The notice issued under s. 148(1) requires to be quashed on this score at standalone basis. ITA Nos.409 & 411/Del/2020 11 | P a g e 10.2 We also advert to the contentions raised on behalf of the assessee that embargo of limitation placed by the first proviso to erstwhile s.147 of the Act has not been lifted and therefore, the notice issued under s. 148 of the Act is time barred. The first proviso postulates that no action can be taken under s. 147 after expiry of four years from the end of the relevant AY where an assessment has been carried out under s. 143(3) of the Act unless any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for such AY by the reason of failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment for that assessment year. In the instant case, the assessment has been earlier carried out under s. 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act and notice under s. 148 has been issued after the completion of four years from the end of AY 2011-12. Hence, to lift the embargo of limitation for issuance of notice beyond 4 years, onus lies on the AO to establish that escapement has occurred by the reasons of failure on the part of the assessee towards full and true disclosure of all material facts. The AO has merely alleged existence of failure towards full and true disclosure in the reasons recorded without showing the basis for such allegation. The so-called loose paper/document giving rise to allegation of escapement of income was admittedly before the AO and was subject matter of assessment under s. 153A of the Act. We thus cannot visualize lack of any disclosure per se. All the primary facts were thus available to the AO. It is plainly a case of oversight, if any on the part of AO and cannot be said that the income escaped by reason of omission or failure on the part of assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts. Such view has been expressed in Gemini Leather Stores vs ITO (1975) 100 ITR 1 (SC). In the instant case, the entries recorded in the loose paper were glaring and one cannot imagine that the AO has missed out to take note of crucial expression ‘Dubai’. The assessee cannot be expected to proactively provide explanation on each averment found recorded in documents which were subjected to assessment unless asked to do so. Once all primary facts are available before the AO, it is for him to decide the manner of enquiry and draw appropriate inference thereon. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in ITA Nos.409 & 411/Del/2020 12 | P a g e Calcutta Discount Co.vs ITO (1961) 41 ITR 191 (SC) observed that an assessee is not expected to advise the AO as to what inferences to be drawn on the disclosed facts. On facts, the AO has not made any reference to any subsequent or fresh information to expose alleged falsity in the facts disclosed. The loose paper was before AO since inception. Thus one cannot claim absence of any full and true disclosure on the part of the assessee which culminated any escapement of income. 11. The action of re-opening by AO thus clearly betrays mandatory jurisdictional conditions in-built for exercise of jurisdiction. Hence the assumption of jurisdiction under s. 147 is without legal foundation. The re-opening on ‘change of opinion’ clearly violates pre-requisites of main provisions. The notice issued under s. 148 is also barred by limitation due to non-fulfillment of conditions build in first proviso to s. 147 of the Act. 12. Notice issued under s. 148 is thus quashed. As a corollary, the re- assessment giving rise to the present appeal is also rendered nonest and bad in law. 13. In this view of the matter, we do not consider it necessary to examine other legal contentions and aspects of merits of the additions. 14. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. ITA No.411/Del/2020 [Assessment Year : 2011-12] • 15. The assessment in the instant case was earlier made under s. 153C of the Act. The broad facts and jurisdiction issue are stated to be identical and consequently, the observations made in ITA No.409/Del/2020 shall apply mutatis mutandis. In consonance with the view expressed in ITA No.409/Del/2020, the captioned appeal of the assessee in ITA No.411/Del/2020 is thus allowed. 16. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. ITA Nos.409 & 411/Del/2020 13 | P a g e 17. In the combined result, both captioned appeals of the assessee are allowed. Order dictated and pronounced in the open Court on 02.04.2025. Sd/- Sd/- (SUDHIR KUMAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER *Amit Kumar, Sr.P.S* (PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Copy forwarded to: • Appellant • Respondent • CIT • CIT(Appeals) • DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI "