ITO, New Delhi v. Shri Avdesh Kumar, New Delhi

ITA 2107/DEL/2011 | 2005-2006
Pronouncement Date: 30-03-2012 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 210720114 RSA 2011
Assessee PAN AGGPK5430N
Bench Delhi
Appeal Number ITA 2107/DEL/2011
Duration Of Justice 11 month(s) 1 day(s)
Appellant ITO, New Delhi
Respondent Shri Avdesh Kumar, New Delhi
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 30-03-2012
Appeal Filed By Department
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted A
Tribunal Order Date 30-03-2012
Date Of Final Hearing 15-03-2012
Next Hearing Date 15-03-2012
Assessment Year 2005-2006
Appeal Filed On 28-04-2011
Judgment Text
ITA 2107/DEL/2011 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH `A NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G.D. AGRAWAL VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A.NO.2107/DEL/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-06 INCOME TAX OFFICER VS SHRI AVDESH KUMAR WARD 25(4) 304-D 1035 GALI VOHRAN WALI 3 RD FLOOR VIKAS BHAVAN NAJAFGARH NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI. (PAN AGGPK5430N) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SHRI AROOP KUMAR SINGH DR RESPONDENT BY : NONE O R D E R PER CHANDRA MOHAN GARG JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN PREFERRED BY THE REVENUE AGAI NST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A)-XXVII NEW DELHI DATED 24.1.2011 BY WHICH TH E LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION OF RS.34 71 875 MADE BY THE AO BY ADMI TTING ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE OF THE ASSESSEE. THE CASE IS PERTAINING T O ASSTT. YEAR 2005-06. 2. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER:- ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN 1. DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.33 71 875/- BY ADMITTING ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IN CONTRAVENTION OF RULE 46A OF THE I.T. RULE 1962. ITA 2107/DEL/2011 2 2. NOT MAKING MANDATORY INQUIRIES U/S 250(4) OF THE I.T. ACT WHEN THE A.O. HAD SPECIFICALLY OBJECTED TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCES. THE APPELLANT CRAVES THE RIGHT TO AMEND/ADD ANY OTHER GROUND OF APPEAL. 3. REQUIRED NOTICE DATED 21.11.2011 FOR TODAYS HEA RING WAS SENT TO THE ASSESSEE WHICH WAS RECEIVED BACK AFTER PROPER SERVI CE ON THE ASSESSEE MADE ON 27.1.2012. NEITHER THE ASSESSEE NOR HIS REPRESE NTATIVE HAS APPEARED BEFORE US. THEREFORE WE FOUND IT APPROPRIATE TO P ROCEED FURTHER TO HEAR THIS APPEAL IN THE ABSENCE OF THE ASSESSEE AND HIS REPRE SENTATIVE. 4. BRIEFLY STATED THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT T HE AO ISSUED A NOTICE U/S 142(1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 (HEREINAFTER TH E ACT) ALONG WITH A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE U/S 142(2) OF THE ACT ASKING HIM TO EXPLAIN THE INVESTMENT OF RS. 33 71 875/- FOR PURCHASE OF PROPE RTY ON 02.02.2005 AND TO STATE WHETHER A RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 WAS FILED OR NOT. 5. WE ALSO OBSERVED THAT THE AO ISSUED NOTICE U/S 1 42(1) OF THE ACT ON 21.11.2007 FIXING THE CASE FOR 30.11.2007. ANOTHER NOTICE U/S 142(1) OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE ON 17.12.2007 BY SPE ED POST FIXING THE CASE FOR 24.12.2007 AND IN ABSENCE OF THE REPLY THE AO PASSED ASSESSMENT ORDER ITA 2107/DEL/2011 3 ON 28.12.2007 U/S 144 OF THE ACT AND ASSESSED INCOM E AT RS. 34 71 875/- IN ADDITION TO THE INCOME ALREADY DECLARED BY THE ASSE SSEE. 6. THE CONTENTIONS OF THE LD. DR ARE THAT THE LD. C IT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN ADMITTING ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IN CONTRAVENTION O F RULE 46A OF THE INCOME TAX RULES 1962 (HEREINAFTER THE RULES) AND HE WA S ALSO NOT JUSTIFIED IN NOT MAKING INQUIRY U/S 250(4) OF THE ACT WHEN AO HA D SPECIFICALLY OBJECTED THE ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCES. 7. IN THE LIGHT OF GROUNDS OF APPEAL AND ARGUMENTS PLACED BEFORE US BY THE LD. DR ON PERUSAL OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER THE LD . CIT(A) SENT COPY OF SUBMISSIONS TO THE AO THROUGH LETTER DATED 20.8.201 0 TO EXAMINE EVIDENCE AND DOCUMENTS PRODUCED BEFORE THE CIT(A) U/S 46A(3) OF THE RULES AND THE REMAND REPORT OF THE AO WAS RECEIVED ON 9.9.2010 OP POSING THE ADMISSIBILITY OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE ON FOLLOWING G ROUNDS:- (I) THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FURNISH PAN AT THE TIME OF PURCHASE OF LAND (II) THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FILE THE RETURN FOR 200 5-06. (III) SINCE THE APPELLANT DELIBERATELY FAILED TO RE PLY TO NOTICE UNDER SECTION 142(1) DATED 21.11.2007 AND 24.12.2007. THERE WAS NO FORCE IN THE ARGUMENT THA T HE WAS PREVENTED BY SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR NOT FURNISHIN G EVIDENCE BEFORE THE ITO. (IV) THE DELIBERATE DELAY WAS INTENTIONAL AS THE H UF OF RAMESH CHAND BAHIA (WHERE SHRI AVDESH KUMAR IS MEMBER) FILED A RETURN FOR 2005-06 ON 31.3.2006. ITA 2107/DEL/2011 4 (V) SINCE THE APPELLANT DID NOT COME UP WITH CLEAN HANDS THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE NOW FILED MAY KINDLY BE REJ ECTED AND NOT ADMITTED. 8. WE ALSO FOUND THAT A COPY OF THE REMAND REPORT W AS SUPPLIED TO THE ASSESSEE AND HE FILED HIS REJOINDER ON 6.10.2010 ST ATING FOLLOWING FIVE REASONS WHICH PREVENTED HIM FROM FURNISHING THE REL EVANT EVIDENCE AT THE TIME OF HEARING:- 1. THE APPELLANT IS AN AGRICULTURIST AND BELONGING TO A FARMER FAMILY AND THE AGRICULTURAL LAND ACQUIRED IN QUESTION IS SITUATED IN RURAL AREA BEING VILLAGE DH ANSA. THE ASSESSEE IS A FARMER NOT BEING A TOO EDUCATED P ERSON. THEREFORE HE COULD NOT FURNISH PAN AT THE TIME OF PURCHASE OF THE LAND. AS SUBMITTED EARLIER BEFORE YOUR HONOUR THE SAID AGRICULTURAL LAND WAS ACQUIRED BY SHRI RAMESH CHAND BOHRA HUF (IN WHICH SHRI AVDESH KUMAR IS A MEMBER) OUT OF COMPENSATION RECEIVED ON COMPULSORY ACQUISITION OF AGRICULTURAL LAND BY DELH I GOVERNMENT FOR METRO PROJECT. THE SAID HUF IS REGULARLY FILING ITS RETURN OF INCOME IN RESPECT OF WHICH COPIES OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF INCOME TAX RETURN HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED VIDE PAGE NO. 8 TO 13 OF WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS DATED 05.08.2010. THE INVESTMENT OF RS.33 71 875/- WAS OUT OF TOTAL INVESTMENT OF RS.1 04 41 775/- MADE OUT OF COMPENSATION OF RS.3 22 64 808/-. THE FACT OF THE TOTAL INVESTMENT OF RS.1 04 41 775/- AND COMPENSATION OF RS.3 22 64 808 /- HAS BEEN DULY DISCLOSED BY WAY OF FOOTNOTE IN THE COMPUTATION OF TOTAL INCOME ENCLOSED WITH THE RETUR N OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. THE SAID DOCUMENTS HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED VIDE PAGE NO. 14 & 15 OF WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS DATED 14.10.2009. 2. THE APPELLANT HAD FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR TH E ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 VIDE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT NO. ITA 2107/DEL/2011 5 000002081 DATED 31.03.2006. THE COPIES OF SAID ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ALONG WITH THE COMPUTATION HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED THE VIDE PAGE NO. 64-65 OF WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS DATED 14.10.2009. 3. THE APPELLANT IS AN AGRICULTURIST AND THE AGRICULTU RAL LANDS BELONGING TO HIM AND THE SAID HUF ARE ALSO SITUATED IN MADHYA PRADESH AND UTTAR PRADESH. HE WAS OUT OF DELHI TO LOOK AFTER THE AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES DURING THE MONTH OF NOVEMBER AND DECEMBER 2007. DUE TO THESE REASONS THE APPELLAN T COULD NOT REPLY TO THE SHORT PERIOD NOTICE DARED 21.11.2007 FIXING HEARING ON 30.11.2007 AND DATED 17.12.2007 FIXING HEARING ON 24.12.2007. IN THE ABSENCE OF REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD T HE APPELLANT COULD NOT REPLY TO THE SAID NOTICES AND T HERE WAS NO DELIBERATE FAILURE TO REPLY TO THE SAID NOTI CES. THE SAID FACT WAS INCORPORATED IN PARA NO. 4 OF THE STATEMENT OF FACTS AND PARA NO. 4 OF THE FACTS O F THE CASE SUBMITTED VIDE WRITTEN SUBMISSION DATED 14.10.2009. THE COPIES OF DOCUMENTS SHOWING AGRICULTURAL LAND SITUATED IN MADHYA PRADESH AND UTTAR PRADESH ARE BEING ENCLOSED HEREWITH. 4. THE APPELLANT AND THE SAID HUF ARE REGULARLY FILING THEIR RETURN OF INCOME FOR EACH AND EVERY ASSESSMEN T YEAR BEFORE THE END OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR AND THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 WAS FILED ON 31.3.2006 MUCH BEFORE THE DATE OF THE NOTICES BEING 21.11.2007 AND 17.12.2007. THEREFORE IT CANNOT BE PRESUMED THAT THERE WAS DELIBERATE DELAY AND THE DELAY WAS INTENTIONAL. 5. AS THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT (SUBJECT MATTER OF THE APPEAL) IS OUT OF THE PROCEEDS OF THE COMPENSATION (BEING EXEMPTED U/S 10(37) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961) RECEIVED FROM THE GOVERNMENT IT CANNOT BE PRESUMED THAT THE APPELLANT DID NOT COME UP WITH CLEAN HANDS. ITA 2107/DEL/2011 6 9. THE LD. CIT(A)-XXVIII NEW DELHI IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER IN PARA 5 & 6 DEALING WITH GROUNDS NO. 4 AND 5 HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD AND TO SUBMIT EXPLANATION I N REGARD TO ADDITION MADE BY AO. 10. ON A CAREFUL READING OF THE ORDER OF THE AO DAT ED 28.12.2007 WE FOUND THAT A NOTICE DATED 17.12.2007 THROUGH SPEED POST WAS ISSUED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE EXPECTING HIM TO SUBMIT HIS REPLY ONLY AFTER SEVEN DAYS OF THE DATE OF NOTICE I.E. ON 24.12.2007 AND THE ASSESSMEN T ORDER U/S 144 OF THE ACT WAS PASSED ON 28.12.07. THEREFORE WE ARE OF THE V IEW THAT THE AO DID NOT PROVIDE AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESS EE AND TO SUBMIT HIS REPLY AND RELEVANT EVIDENCE AND DOCUMENTS IN HIS FAVOUR B EFORE PASSING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THEREFORE WE ARE CONSTRAINED TO NOTE THAT THE AO VIOLATED PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND THE FIND INGS OF LD. CIT(A) IN THIS REGARD ARE JUSTIFIED. 11. A PERUSAL OF RULE 46A OF THE RULES CLEARLY SHOW S THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ENTITLED TO PRODUCE FRESH ORAL OR DOCUMENTARY E VIDENCE AS A MATTER OF RIGHT IN APPEAL. HOWEVER UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTA NCES AS MENTIONED IN CLAUSE (A) (B) (C) AND (D) OF SUB-RULE(1) OF RULE 4 6A ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE CAN BE FILED. SUB-RULE (2) OF RULE 46A CASTS A DUTY ON THE AUTHORITY CONCERNED TO ITA 2107/DEL/2011 7 RECORD REASONS IN WRITING FOR ADMISSION OF ADDITION AL EVIDENCE. UNDER SUB- RULE (3) OF THE RULE 46A FURTHER REQUIREMENT IS TH AT THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY SHALL NOT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT ANY EVIDENCE PRODUCED U NDER SUB-RULE (1) UNLESS THE AO HAS BEEN ALLOWED A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO EXAMINE THE EVIDENCE OR DOCUMENT OR TO CROSS-EXAMINE WITNESSES PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE OR TO PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE OR DOCUMENT OR ANY WITNESS IN REBUTTAL OF THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE. 12. SECTION 250(4) OF THE ACT READS AS UNDER:- SECTION 250(4) THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) MAY BEFORE DISPOSING OF ANY APPEAL MAKE SUCH FURTHER INQUIRY AS HE THINKS FIT OR MAY DIRECT THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER TO MAKE FURTHER INQUIRY AND REPORT THE RESU LT OF THE SAME TO THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS). 13. IN THE CASE OF CIT VS RANJIT KUMAR CHOUDHURY RE PORTED AS 288 ITR 179 (GAUHATI) THE HONBLE GAUHATI HIGH COURT HELD THAT THE RESTRICTIONS PLACED ON THE PRODUCTION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE BY THE APPELLANT UNDER RULE 46A OF THE RULES SHALL NOT AFFECT THE POWERS OF THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY TO CALL FOR THE PRODUCTION OF ANY DOCUMENT OR EXAMINATION O F ANY WITNESS TO ENABLE HIM TO DISPOSE OF THE APPEAL. IT WAS ALSO CATEGORI CALLY HELD BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI THAT THE POWERS CONFERRED UPO N THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY UNDER SUB-SECTION (4) OF SECTION 250 OF T HE ACT BEING A QUASI- ITA 2107/DEL/2011 8 JUDICIAL POWER IT WAS INCUMBENT UPON HIM TO EXERCI SE THE SAME IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE JUSTIFYING THE PURPO SE OF THE PROVISION. 14. THE PURPOSE OF RULE 46A(3) WAS TO ENSURE THAT T HE EVIDENCE SHOULD BE SUBMITTED PRIMARILY BEFORE THE AO AND IF ANY ADDITI ONAL EVIDENCE IS SOUGHT TO BE ADDUCED BEFORE THE CIT(A) FIRST OF ALL THE CIT(A) WOULD SATISFY HIMSELF REGARDING SUFFICIENT CAUSE WHICH PREVENTED THE ASSESSEE TO ADDUCE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE BEFORE THE AO AND FURTHER THE CIT(A) IS EXPECTED TO CALL FOR A REMAND REPORT FROM THE AO REGARDING THE ADMIS SIBILITY OF DOCUMENTS. ON RECEIPT OF REMAND REPORT AND PROVIDING AN OPPORT UNITY TO THE AO TO CONFRONT THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE THE CIT(A) MAY PR OCEED FOR DISPOSAL OF APPEAL IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. 15. AFTER CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF FACTS AND CIRCUM STANCES OF THE PRESENT CASE AND ARGUMENTS PLACED BY DR WE ARE OF THE OPIN ION THAT THE CIT(A) FOLLOWED THE PROCEDURE FOR ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AS LAID DOWN BY RULE 46A AND DELETION MADE BY HIM IN RESPECT OF AD DITION OF RS.34 71 875/- MADE BY THE AO BY ADMITTING ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE I S IN ACCORDANCE WITH RULE 46A OF THE RULES. AS WE ALSO OBSERVE THAT THE CIT(A) CALLED A REMAND REPORT FROM THE AO WITH REGARD TO THE ADDITIONAL EV IDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE. THUS WE ALSO HOLD THAT THE AO WAS GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO CONFRONT THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AND AFTER CONSIDER ATION OF ALL MATERIAL AND ITA 2107/DEL/2011 9 ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE PLACED BEFORE THE CIT(A) THE F IRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY PROCEEDED TO DECIDE THE APPEAL. 16. LD. CIT(A) IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER AFTER CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE AOS REMAND REPORT AND THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPEL LANT HELD THAT THE APPELLANT ASSESSEE SUBMITTED CONFIRMATION OF EXAMIN ATION OF KARTA SHRI RAMESH CHAND BOHRA(HUF) WHEREIN HE HAS CONFIRMED TH E PAYMENTS CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE AL SO FILED COPIES OF CERTAIN DOCUMENTS REGARDING ACQUISITION OF LAND INCOME TAX RETURN OF SHRI RAMESH CHAND BOHRA (HUF) AND BANK ACCOUNT. WHILE DEALING WITH GROUND NO.4 THE CIT(A) REGARDING ADDITION OF RS. 1 LAKH TOWARDS ES TIMATED HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE IS REGULARLY FILIN G HIS INCOME TAX RETURN AND HIS HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES ARE MET OUT OF THE INCOME SH OWN. WITH THE ABOVE FINDINGS THE CIT(A) DECIDED THE APPEAL DELETING TH E ADDITION OF RS.34 71 875/- MADE BY THE AO. LD. DR SEEMS TO BE UNABLE TO SATISFY US THAT THE DELETION OF ADDITION BY CIT(A) WAS IN CONT RAVENTION OF RULE 46A. THEREFORE WE HOLD THAT GROUND NO.1 IS NOT SUSTAINA BLE. 17. REGARDING GROUND NO.2 THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THA T THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT MAKING MANDATORY INQUIRIES U/S 250(4) OF THE ACT. IN THE LIGHT OF PROVISIONS MADE BY THE AO REGARDING ADMISSIBILITY O F ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE WE HAVE DISCUSSED EARLIER THAT THE SUBMISSION OF AD DITIONAL EVIDENCE BEFORE ITA 2107/DEL/2011 10 THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY I.E. CIT(A) FALLS WIT HIN THE PURVIEW OF RULE 46A OF THE RULES. AS FAR AS INQUIRY U/S 250(4) OF THE ACT IS CONCERNED THIS IS NOT RELATED TO ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE BECAUSE THE LANGUAGE OF SECTION 250(4) IS VERY CLEAR AS FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY MAY BEFORE DISP OSAL OF ANY APPEAL MAKE SUCH FURTHER INQUIRY AS HE THINKS FIT OR MAY DIRECT THE AO MEANING THEREBY THAT INQUIRY U/S 250(4) OF THE ACT IS NOT OF MANDAT ORY NATURE. THE CIT(A) HAS TO DECIDE WHETHER IN THE PECULIAR FACTS AND CIR CUMSTANCES OF THE CASE SUCH INQUIRY IS NECESSARY OR NOT. FURTHER HE IS H AVING TWO OPTIONS; EITHER HE MAY MAKE INQUIRY HIMSELF OR HE MAY DIRECT THE AO TO MAKE FURTHER INQUIRY AND TO SUBMIT A REPORT REGARDING THE RESULT OF THE SAME. BUT IT ALL DEPENDS UPON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE ON WHI CH THE CIT(A) DECIDES WHETHER AN INQUIRY U/S 250(4) OF THE ACT IS REQUIRE D OR NOT. IN THE INSTANT CASE IN HAND THE CIT(A) WAS TAKING CARE OF ADDITIO NAL EVIDENCE AND HE PROCEEDED WITH RULE 46A OF THE RULES AND AFTER RECE IPT OF REMAND REPORT FROM AO HE DECIDED THE APPEAL BY DELETING THE ADDI TION MADE BY THE AO IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE WE HOLD THAT THE CIT(A) DID NOT PREFER TO PROCEED U/S 250(4) OF THE ACT AND THAT WAS HIS PRER OGATIVE. THUS WE HOLD THAT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE TH E INQUIRY U/S 250(4) OF THE ACT WAS NOT FOUND NECESSARY BY THE CIT(A) AND HIS A CTION IN THIS REGARD IS JUST AND PROPER. THEREFORE GROUND NO. 2 IS ALSO N OT FOUND SUSTAINABLE. ITA 2107/DEL/2011 11 18. ON THE BASIS OF FOREGOING DISCUSSION WE CONCLU DE THAT THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS DEVOID OF MERIT AND DESERVES TO BE D ISMISSED. 19. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DIS MISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30.3.2012. SD/- SD/- (G.D. AGRAWAL) (CHANDRA MOHAN GARG) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER DT. 30TH MARCH 2012 GS COPY FORWARDED TO:- 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR BY ORDER ASSTT. REGISTRAR ITA 2107/DEL/2011 12