ADIT, New Delhi v. China Trust Commercial Bank, New Delhi

ITA 3101/DEL/2009 | 2005-2006
Pronouncement Date: 29-02-2012 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 310120114 RSA 2009
Assessee PAN AAACC4000B
Bench Delhi
Appeal Number ITA 3101/DEL/2009
Duration Of Justice 2 year(s) 7 month(s) 26 day(s)
Appellant ADIT, New Delhi
Respondent China Trust Commercial Bank, New Delhi
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 29-02-2012
Appeal Filed By Department
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted B
Tribunal Order Date 29-02-2012
Date Of Final Hearing 27-02-2012
Next Hearing Date 27-02-2012
Assessment Year 2005-2006
Appeal Filed On 03-07-2009
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI B BENC H BEFORE SHRI R.P. TOLANI JM & SHRI A.N. PAHUJA AM ITA NO.3101/DEL/2009 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2005-06 ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME- TAX CIRCLE 1(1) INTERNATIONAL TAXATION ROOM NO. 204 DRUM SHAPED BUILDING IP ESTATE NEW DELHI V/S. M/S CHINA TRUST COMMERCIAL BANK A-1-16 WENGER HOUSE RAJEEV CHOWK CONNAUGHT PLACE NEW DELHI. [PAN NO.: AAACC 4000B] C.O. NO.265/DEL/2009 ( IN I.T.A. NO.3101/DEL/2009) ASSESSMENT YEAR:2005-06 M/S CHINA TRUST COMMERCIAL BANK A-1-16 WENGER HOUSE RAJEEV CHOWK CONNAUGHT PLACE NEW DELHI. V/S. ASSTT. DIRECTOR OF INCOME- TAX CIRCLE 1(1) INTERNATIONAL TAXATION NEW DELHI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY SHRI K.V.S. GUPTA & SH. PANKAJ KHANNA ARS REVENUE BY MS. RENU JAVHRI DR DATE OF HEARING 27-02-2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 29-02-2012 O R D E R A.N.PAHUJA:- THIS APPEAL FILED ON 03.07.2009 BY THE REVENUE AND THE CORRESPONDING CROSS-OBJECTION[CO] FILED ON 21-08-2 009 BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST AN ORDER DATED 03.03.2009 OF THE LEARNED CIT(A)-XX IX NEW DELHI RAISE THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- I.T.A. NO.3101/D/2009[REVENUE] 1) IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LEARNED CIT(A) AFTER HOLDING THAT THE BRANCH H AS TO BE REMUNERATED FOR HELP IT RENDERED TO HEAD OFFICE IN ITA N O.3101 /DEL./2009 & CO N O. 265/DEL./2009 2 THE FORM OF SERVICES FOR PROCESSING THE CASE FOR TH E PURPOSE OF EXTERNAL COMMERCIAL BORROWINGS HAS ERRED IN DIRECTING THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO EXAMINE THE INCLUSION OF SERVICE CHARGES RECEIVED FROM CUSTOMER S WHICH WAS NOT IN DISPUTE. 2) IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND I N LAW THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN DIRECTING THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOT TO ADD THE FEE FROM HEAD OFFICE IF SER VICE CHARGES FROM THE CUSTOMERS IS INCLUDED IN THE PROFI T AND LOSS ACCOUNT. 3) IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND I N LAW THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THE FA CT THAT THE FEE FROM CUSTOMERS IS FEE FOR SERVICES RENDERED TO THE CUSTOMERS AND THIS FEE IS DIFFERENT FROM THE FEE IT SHOULD HAVE CHARGED TO THE HEAD OFFICE F OR SERVICES PROVIDED TO HEAD OFFICE. 4) THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF ASSESSING OFFICER BE RESTORED. 5) THE APPELLANT CRAVES TO ADD AMEND MODIFY OR AL TER ANY GROUNDS OF APPEAL AT ANY TIME OR BEFORE THE HEARING OF THE APPEAL.. C.O. NO.265/D/2009[ASSESSEE] 1) THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS HIGHLY MISPLACED I N VIEW OF THE FACT THAT IN THE COURSE OF SCRUTINY ASSESSME NT PROCEEDINGS FOR THE IMMEDIATELY SUCCEEDING YEAR THE REVENUE HAS ITSELF ACCEPTED THAT THE FEE CHARGED FR OM THE CUSTOMERS IS THE TOTAL REVENUE ENTITLEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE FROM SUPPORTING SERVICES IN RESPECT OF ECB LOANS WITHOUT THERE BEING ANY OTHER REVENUE DUE TO THE ASSESSEE FROM ITS HEAD OFFICE IN RESPECT OF ECB LOA NS. 2) THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS GROSSLY FAILED TO APP RECIATE THAT THERE CANNOT BE A DUAL REVENUE ENTITLEMENT FOR THE ASSESSEE FROM THE SAME ACTIVITY OF PROVIDING SUPPOR T SERVICES FOR ECB LOANS I.E. FROM THE HEAD OFFICE IN A SITUATION WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAS ALREADY RECOVERED THE SAID SERVICE CHARGES FROM ITS CUSTOMERS. ITA N O.3101 /DEL./2009 & CO N O. 265/DEL./2009 3 3) THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE NOTIONAL ADDITION @1% OF ECB LOANS HAS BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON A HIGHLY ARBITRARY AND UNJUST BASIS SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS ALREADY RECOVER ED CHARGES FOR PROVIDING SERVICES FOR ECB LOANS FROM T HE CUSTOMERS. 4) THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW APPEAL CANNOT LIE FROM A MERE DIRECTION BY THE CIT(A) TO VERIFY WHETHER CHARGES FOR PROVIDING SERVICES IN RELATION TO ECB ARE INCLUDED IN THE ACCOUNTS. 2. ADVERTING FIRST TO GROUND NOS.1 TO 3 IN THE AP PEAL OF THE REVENUE FACTS IN BRIEF AS PER RELEVANT ORDERS ARE THAT RE TURN DECLARING LOSS OF ` ` 24 71 640/- FILED ON 29.10.2005 BY THE ASSESSEE A BANK WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY WITH THE SERVICE OF A NOTICE U/S 143(2) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) ISSUED ON 20 .10.2006. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSING OFFICER (A.O. IN SHORT) NOTICED THAT ECB LOANS OF USD 10 550 000 WERE LENT TO CUSTOMERS IN I NDIA BY THE HEAD OFFICE OF THE ASSESSEE. AT THE TIME OF ADVANCING THE LOAN T HE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO MAINTAIN THE RELATIONSHIP WITH THE CUSTOMER DO THE CREDIT WORTHINESS ANALYSIS OF THE CUSTOMER ARRANGE THE MEETINGS FORWARD ALL THE NECESSARY INFORMATION TO THE HEAD OFFICE ARRANGING FOR THE AGREEMENT LEGAL REQ UIREMENTS REPORTING TO THE REGULATORS ETC. AND DURING THE CURRENCY OF AGREEMEN T THE BRANCH WAS REQUIRED TO CONTINUOUSLY MONITOR THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE CU STOMER FOLLOW UP THE PAYMENTS ETC. FOR SUCH SERVICES THE AO WAS OF THE OPINION THAT BRANCH SHOULD BE REMUNERATED @ 1% OF THE REFERRED LOANS BY WAY OF SERVICE FEE. A CCORDINGLY THE AO ADDED AN AMOUNT OF ` `46 02 965/- (EQUIVALENT TO USD 105 500) TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 3. ON APPEAL THE LD. CIT(A) CONCLUDED AS UNDER:- 5. GROUND OF APPEAL NO. 3 RELATES TO ADDITION OF R S.46 02 965/- MADE BY THE AO TREATING 1 % OF THE ECB LOAN SANCTIO NED AND GIVEN BY THE HEAD OFFICE (HO) AS SERVICE FEE RECEIVABLE B Y THE BRANCH OFFICE (BO). IN RESPECT OF THIS THE APPELLANT HAS MENTIONED AS UNDER:- ITA N O.3101 /DEL./2009 & CO N O. 265/DEL./2009 4 'APPELLANT IS A BRANCH OF CHINATRUST COMMERCIAL BAN K TAIWAN. DURING THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR AND SOME EARLIER YEARS ALSO CLIENTS APPROACHED THE BANK FOR GRANTING EXTERNAL C OMMERCIAL BORROWING TO THEM. IN THIS RESPECT THE APPELLANT BR ANCH RENDERED SERVICES TO CLIENTS IN PROCESSING THEIR APPLICATION ETC. AND CHARGED PROCESSING FEE FROM THEM. SINCE NO SERVICES WERE RE NDERED TO HEAD OFFICE NOTHING WAS CHARGED FROM HEAD OFFICE. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ASSESS EE WAS ASKED TO FURNISH DETAILS OF ALL ECB GIVEN BY BANK IN EARL IER YEARS WHICH CONTINUED DURING THE YEAR OR NEW ECB PROVIDED BY TH E HEAD OFFICE OR ANY OTHER ASSOCIATED ENTERPRISES TO INDIAN CUSTO MERS. IN REPLY OF THE SAME APPELLANT MADE THE FOLLOWING SUBMISSIONS VIDE POINT NO.6 OF SUBMISSION DATED 11TH DECEMBER 2007: CHINATRUST COMMERCIAL BANK HEAD OFFICE OR ASSOCIAT ED ENTERPRISES HAS PROVIDED FOLLOWING ECBS TO INDIAN CUSTOMERS. S.NO. NAME OF BORROWER AMOUNT BORROWED YEAR OF SANC TION 1. AMERICAN EMBASSY SCHOOL USD 3 000 000 1998 2. POLYPLEX CORPN. LTD. USD 4 000 000 2003 3. POLYPLEX CORPN. LTD. USD 800 000 2004 4. SCANDENT NETWORK PVT. LTD. USD 2 750 000 2004 THE AO MADE THE ADDITION OF RS.4 602 965/- I.E. @ 1 % OF THE SANCTIONED AMOUNT IN RESPECT OF ALL SUCH LOANS SAN CTIONED BY HEAD OFFICE WITHOUT ASKING ANY INFORMATION REGARD ING TYPE OF SERVICES RENDERED TO CLIENTS OR HEAD OFFICE. THE CUSTOMERS HAD APPROACHED THE INDIAN BRANCH TO P ROVIDE CERTAIN SUPPORT SERVICES VIS-A-VIS DUE DILIGENCE OF THE VARIOUS DOCUMENTS/INFORMATION BEING PROVIDED BY THEM TO HEA D OFFICE. ITA N O.3101 /DEL./2009 & CO N O. 265/DEL./2009 5 THE FEE FOR PROVIDING THE SERVICES WAS CHARGED FROM THE CUSTOMER IN INDIA. APPLICATION FOR ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IS BEING SUBMITTED SEPARATELY. WE REQUEST THAT THE EVIDENCE MAY KINDLY BE ADMITTED AT THIS STAGE. THE APPELLANT HAS CHARGED PROCESSING FEES TOTALING TO RS.4 947 5001- FROM THE CLIENTS IN RESPECT OF SUCH LOANS WHICH IS HIGHER THAN THE ALLEGED ADDITION OF RS.4 602 9651- MADE BY THE AO WITHOUT CALLING FOR ADEQUATE INFORMATION.' THE APPELLANT HAS ALSO SUBMITTED COPIES OF SANCTION ORDER FOR THESE LOANS. A PERUSAL OF THE SANCTION ORDER IN RESPECT OF THE ABOVE MENTIONED CLIENTS OF THE BANK INDICATES THAT THESE LOANS IN FACT HAVE BEEN PROCESSED AND SANCTIONED BY THE INDI AN BRANCH. THIS IS EVIDENT FROM THE NOTING OF THE HO GIVEN IN THE CREDIT APPROVAL FORM COPIES OF WHICH HAVE BEEN FILED BY T HE APPELLANT DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. THE HO CREDIT INFORMATION AS GIVEN IN THE CREDIT APPROVAL FORMS INDICATES THAT IT IS THE INTERNAL APPROVAL OF HEADQUARTERS CREDIT DEPART MENT BUT PROCESS OF THE LOAN AND DISBURSAL IS DONE BY THE LO CAL OFFICE. THEREFORE IT IS CLEAR THAT INCOME ARISING OR ACCRU ING OUT OF THIS LOAN SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN THE INCOME OF THE BO. THE APP ELLANT HOWEVER MADE A POINT THAT THE INTEREST INCOME HAS ACCRUED TO THE HO AND THE TDS HAS BEEN DEDUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH 115A AND THEREFORE ACCORDING TO THE APPELLANT IN CASE INTE REST RECEIVED BY THE HO IS TAXABLE IN THE HANDS OF THE BO THEN TWO C ONSEQUENCES WILL FOLLOW:- '(I) ALL EXPENSES RELATING TO SUCH INCOME INCURRED BY HO WOULD NEED TO BE ALLOWED. (II) CREDIT OF TAX WITHHELD AND DEPOSITED ON BEHAL F OF HO WOULD NEED TO BE GIVEN TO THE BRANCH OFFICE. THE OPERATING INCOME OF THE HO OF THE APPELLANT AS ON 31 ST DECEMBER 2004 IS 24.98%. APPLYING TAX RATE OF 40% NET RATE OF WHICH INTEREST INCOME IS TO BE TAXED COMES TO 10% ( APPX.) WHILE TAX HAS BEEN WITHHELD @ 20% (EXCLUDING SURCHARGE AN D EDUCATION CESS). THEREFORE; A MUCH HIGHER TAX HAS ALREADY BEE N PAID ON THIS INCOME. THE POINTS MADE BY THE APPELLANT HAVE BEEN CONSIDER ED AND IT IS SEEN THAT WHAT IS TAXABLE IN THE HANDS OF THE APPELLANT IS ITS ITA N O.3101 /DEL./2009 & CO N O. 265/DEL./2009 6 INCOME FROM INDIA. THE HO AS WELL AS THE BO ARR NOT TO BE CONSIDERED AS A TWO DISTINCT ENTITIES FOR THE PURPO SE OF THE TAXATION OF INCOME. THE CONCEPT OF TREATING BRANCH AS A SEP ARATE ENTITY IS ONLY TO LIMITED PURPOSE OF COMPUTATION OF ATTRIBUTA BLE INCOME OF THE PE. THE INCOME IS ASSESSABLE IN THE HANDS OF THE NO N-RESIDENT ONLY. THEREFORE INCOME EARNED BY THE APPELLANT AS INTEREST WILL IN ANY CASE REMAIN TAXABLE AS PER PROVISIONS OF SECTIO N 115A. AT THE SAME TIME THE BO HAS TO BE REMUNERATED FOR THE HEL P IT RENDERED TO HO IN THE FORM OF SERVICES FOR PROCESSING THE CA SE FOR THE PURPOSE OF EXTERNAL COMMERCIAL BORROWING. ACCORDING LY THE ACTION OF THE AO IN COMPUTING ALLOCABLE SERVICE CHARGES TO THE BO IS UPHELD. HOWEVER APPELLANT HAS IN THE LETTER DT.29. 01.2009 HAS MENTIONED THAT SUCH SERVICE CHARGE IS ALREADY INCLU DED IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME THE RELEVANT PART OF THE RES PONSE IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER:- 'AS MENTIONED IN OUR EARLIER SUBMISSION THE AO HAD WORKED OUT A NOTIONAL INCOME OF RS.46 02 965/- BEING EQUIVALENT TO 1% OF THE TOTAL LOAN GRANTED. THIS AMOUNT WAS WORKED OUT AND ASSESSED WITHOUT SEEKING ANY EXPLANATION FROM THE APPELLANT. IN THE NEXT YEAR I.E. A.Y 2006-07 SIMILAR LOAN OF USD 1.80 MILLION WAS GRANTED. ON THIS FEE OF RS.1 000 000/- WAS RECE IVED BY THE BRANCH FOR PROCESSING. THE AO TAKING INTO CONSIDERA TION THE FACT THAT FEE RECEIVED AND INCORPORATED IN THE BOOKS OF BRANCH BEING HIGHER THAN 1% OF THE LOAN SANCTIONED DID NOT COMPU TE ANY FURTHER NOTIONAL INCOME. COPY OF THE SUBMISSION MADE TO THE AO FOR A. Y 2006 -07 IS GIVEN BELOW: 'NOTIONAL INCOME ON ECB LOANS GRANTED BY HO THE AO IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR AY 2005-06 MADE THE ADDITION RS. 46 02 9651- @ 1% OF THE ECB LOANS BY HEAD OFFIC E TO THE CUSTOMERS IN INDIA HOC BASIS. THE ECB LOANS GRANTED BY THE HEAD OFFICE AND PROCES SING FEES RECOVERED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2005-06 IS AS UNDER:- NAME OF THE BORROWER - PEARL GLOBAL LIMITED SANCTIONED AMOUNT - USD 1.80 MILLION DATE OF SANCTION - 02-09-2005 ITA N O.3101 /DEL./2009 & CO N O. 265/DEL./2009 7 PROCESSING FEES RECOVERED AN 28.10.2005 - RS.10 00 000 HOWEVER NO ADDITION ON THE ABOVE GROUND IS CALLED FOR ON THE ABOVE GROUND' IN THE YEAR UNDER REFERENCE. OUR SUBM ISSION IN THIS REGARD IS AS FOLLOWS:- ASSESSEE IS -A BRANCH OF CHINA TRUST COMMERCIAL BAN K TAIWAN. DURING THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR AND SOME EARLIER YEARS ALSO CLIENTS APPROACHED THE BANK FAR GRANTING EXTERNAL COMMERCIAL BARROWING TO THEM. IN THIS RESPECT THE APPELLANT BRANCH RENDERED SERVICES TO C LIENTS IN PROCESSING THEIR APPLICATION ETC. AND CHARGED PROCESSING FEE F ROM THEM. SINCE NO SERVICES WERE RENDERED TO HEAD OFFICE NO ADDITION IS CALLED FOR ON THE ABOVE GROUND IN ANY CASE BASED ON 1 % INCOME DETER MINED IN EARLIER YEAR THE TOTAL INCOME ON THE LOAN DURING THE YEAR WILL BE RS.7 92 720/- (COMPUTED ON THE BASIS OF EXCHANGED RATE OF USD1 = !NR44.04 PREVAILING AS ON THE DATE OF SANCTION I.E. 02/09/05). AGAINST WHICH INCOME OF RS.10 00 000/- FOR THE SAME HAS BEEN SHOWN BY THE A SSESSEE WHICH IS HIGHER THAN 1% INCOME AS ABOVE.' THE APPELLANT HAS ALSO MENTIONED THAT FOR SUBSEQUEN T YEAR ON THE. BASIS OF EXPLANATION GIVEN THIS AMOUNT HAS NOT BEEN ADDED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS THEREFORE DIRECTED TO EX AMINE WHETHER THIS AMOUNT IS ALREADY INCLUDED IN THE ACCOUNTS AND FINDS PLACE INTO THE INCOME IN P&L A/C. IF THIS AMOUNT IS ALREADY I NCLUDED IN THE P & L ACCOUNT AS INCOME IT NEED NOT BE ADDED AGAIN. 4. THE REVENUE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE US AGAINST THE AFORESAID FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) . THE LD. DR SUPPORTED T HE ORDER OF THE AO. ON THE OTHER HAND THE LD. AR ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE S UPPORTED THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) WHILE ADMITTING THAT THEIR CROSS OBJECTION MERELY SUPPORTED THE SAID FINDINGS . 5. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND GONE THROUGH THE FACTS OF THE CASE. AS IS APPARENT FROM THE AFORESAID FINDINGS IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER THE LD. CIT(A) WHILE UPHOLDING THE ACTION OF THE AO IN COM PUTING ALLOCABLE SERVICE CHARGES TO THE BO CONSIDERED THE PLEA OF THE ASSES SEE IN THEIR LETTER DT.29.01.2009 AND DIRECTED THE AO THAT IF ANY AMOU NT IS ALREADY INCLUDED IN THE P & L ACCOUNT AS INCOME IT NEED NOT BE ADDED AGAIN . APPARENTLY THESE ITA N O.3101 /DEL./2009 & CO N O. 265/DEL./2009 8 DIRECTIONS ARE FOR OBVIATING THE POSSIBILITY OF TA XING THE SAME INCOME TWICE. SINCE THE REVENUE HAVE NOT PLACED BEFORE US ANY MATERIAL CONTROVERTING THE AFORESAID DIRECTIONS OF THE LD. CIT(A) SO AS TO ENABLE US TO TAKE A DIFFERENT VIEW IN THE MATTER WE ARE NOT INCLINED TO INTERFERE. THEREFORE GROUND NOS.1 TO 3 IN THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. 6. GROUND NO.4 IN THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE BEING GENERAL IN NATURE NOR ANY SUBMISSIONS HAVING BEEN MADE BEFORE US DOE S NOT REQUIRE ANY SEPARATE ADJUDICATION WHILE NO ADDITIONAL GROUND HAVING BEEN RAISED BEFORE US IN TERMS OF RESIDUARY GROUND NO.5 IN THEIR APPEAL ACCORDINGLY BOTH THESE GROUNDS ARE DISMISSED. 7. GROUNDS RAISED IN THE CO BEING ADMITTEDLY SU PPORTIVE OF THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) NOR ANY SUBMISSIONS HAVING BEEN MADE BEF ORE US ON THESE GROUNDS ARE ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. 8. NO OTHER SUBMISSION OR ARGUMENT WAS MADE BE FORE US. 9. IN RESULT BOTH THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE AND THE CO FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. SD/- SD/ - (R.P. TOLANI) (A.N. PAHUJA) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) NS COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO :- 1. M/S CHINA TRUST COMMERCIAL BANK A-1-16 WENGER HOUSE RAJEEV CHOWK CONNAUGHT PLACE NEW DELHI. 2. ASSTT. DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE 1(1) INT ERNATIONAL TAXATION NEW DELHI. 3. CIT(A)-XXIX NEW DELHI. 4. CIT CONCERNED. 5. DR ITAT B BENCH NEW DELHI ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ITA N O.3101 /DEL./2009 & CO N O. 265/DEL./2009 9 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER DEPUTY / ASSTT.REGISTRAR ITAT DELHI