M/s Mezbaan Hoteliers (P) Ltd.,, New Delhi v. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 3707/DEL/2012 | 1999-2000
Pronouncement Date: 11-10-2013 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 370720114 RSA 2012
Assessee PAN AAACM4725B
Bench Delhi
Appeal Number ITA 3707/DEL/2012
Duration Of Justice 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 25 day(s)
Appellant M/s Mezbaan Hoteliers (P) Ltd.,, New Delhi
Respondent ITO, New Delhi
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 11-10-2013
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted E
Tribunal Order Date 11-10-2013
Date Of Final Hearing 03-10-2013
Next Hearing Date 03-10-2013
Assessment Year 1999-2000
Appeal Filed On 17-07-2012
Judgment Text
ITA NO. 3707/DEL/2012 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH E NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI C.M. GARG JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 3707/ DEL/201 2 A.Y. : 1999-2000 M/S MEZBAAN HOTELIERS (P) LTD. S-137 PANCHSHEEL ENCLAVE NEW DELHI (PAN: AAACM 4725B) VS. I.T.O. WARD 6(4) NEW DELHI (APPELLANT) (APPELLANT) (APPELLANT) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) (RESPONDENT) (RESPONDENT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SH. HIREN MEHTA CA DEPARTMENT BY : MRS. RENUKA JAIN GUPTA SR. D.R. ORDER ORDER ORDER ORDER PER SHAMIM PER SHAMIM PER SHAMIM PER SHAMIM YAHYA: AM YAHYA: AM YAHYA: AM YAHYA: AM THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST TH E ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-IX NEW DE LHI DATED 09.3.2012 PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 1999-2000. 2. THE GROUNDS RAISED READ AS UNDER:- I) THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IS BAD IN LAW. II) THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE PENALT Y ORDER IN SPITE OF THE FACT THAT THE SAID PENALTY OR DER DOES NOT RECORD A CATEGORICAL FINDING AS TO WHETHER THE PENALTY HAS BEEN LEVIED FOR FILING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME. ITA NO. 3707/DEL/2012 2 III) THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE PRECEDING GROUND OF APPEAL THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN UPHOLDING THE IMPOSITION OF PENALTY AGGREGATING RS. 1 75 214/- EVEN ON MERITS. IV) THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LAVE TO ADD ALTER A MEND MODIFY ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL AT THE TIME OF HEARING OR EARLIER. 3. IN THIS CASE INFORMATION WAS RECEIVED THAT DU RING THE PREVIOUS YEAR ASSESSEE WAS RECIPIENT OF SUB-LEASE RENTAL INCOME OF RS. 15 LACS. IN VIEW THEREOF NOTICE U/S. 148 OF T HE I.T. ACT WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE. IN RESPONSE THE ASSESSEE F ILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME WHEREIN THE RENTAL RECEIPTS WERE DECLARED A T RS. 15 LACS BUT THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED EXPENDITURE TO THE EXTENT OF R S. 923511/- IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT. RESULTANTLY AFTER MA KING NECESSARY ADJUSTMENTS TO THE BOOK PROFITS IN TERMS WITH ALLOW ANCE OF DEPRECIATION AS PER I.T. ACT THE TAXABLE INCOME WA S DECLARED AT RS. 5 32 258/-. 3.1 DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AS SESSEE WAS ASKED TO JUSTIFY AS TO HOW THE ACTIVITY OF SUB LEA SING THE PROPERTY IS ITS BUSINESS AND ALSO JUSTIFY THE ALLOWANCE OF EXPE NSES CLAIMED IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT AFTER PERUSAL OF THE D ETAILS / EVIDENCE FILED. THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS REJEC TED AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THAT INCOME FROM SUB-LEASE O F PROPERTY WAS TAXABLE UNDER THE HEAD OTHER SOURCES. ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO HELD THAT THE EXPENSES TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 520422/- DID NOT RELATE TO INCOME FROM SUB-LEASE. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE THE T AXABLE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE WAS RECOMPUTED UNDER THE HEAD OTHER S OURCES AT RS. 11 56 250/-. ON THIS AMOUNT PENALTY U/S. 271(1)(C) WAS ALSO LEVIED. ITA NO. 3707/DEL/2012 3 ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THAT IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE SA ID FACTS HE HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICUL ARS OF ITS INCOME / CONCEALED THE TRUE PARTICULARS OF ITS INCOME TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 5 00 612/-. ACCORDINGLY PENALTY AMOUNTING TO RS. 1 75 214/- WAS LEVIED. 4. UPON ASSESSEES APPEAL LD. CIT(A) AFFIRMED THE A SSESSING OFFICERS ACTION. ASSESSEE HAS CONTENDED BEFORE TH E LD. CIT(A) THAT ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT RECORDED ANY CATEGORICAL FINDING AS TO WHETHER THIS A CASE OF CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR FUR NISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. LD. CIT(A) IN THI S REGARD HAS HELD THAT FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR CONCEALING THE TRUE PARTICULARS OF INCOME ARE ONE AND THE SAME THI NG. HENCE HE REJECTED THIS CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE ALSO. 5. AGAINST THE ABOVE ORDER THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEA L BEFORE US. 6. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE COUNSEL AND PERUSED THE R ECORDS. WE FIND THAT IN THIS CASE THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWED THE SUB-RENTAL INCOME UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM BUSINESS AGAINST WHICH C ERTAIN BUSINESS EXPENSES WERE CLAIMED. IN SUPPORT OF THIS CONTENTION ASSESSEE HAS PLEADED THAT SUB-LEASING ACTIVITY WAS A PART AND PARCEL BUSINESS ACTIVITY OF A COMPANY. IN THIS REG ARD ASSESSEE ALSO REFERRED TO SEVERAL CASE LAWS BUT ASSESSING OFFICE R HAS NOT CONVINCED. HE FOUND THAT ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN ON LE ASE PROPERTY AT MONTHLY RENT OF RS. 20 000/- FOR A PERIOD OF THRE E YEARS ON THE SAME DAY ASSESSEE SUB-LET THIS PROPERTY FOR A MONT HLY RENT OF RS. 1 25 000/-. ASSESSING OFFICER IN THIS REGARD REFE RRED TO THE MEMORANDUM OF ASSOCIATION OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. FROM THAT HE HELD THAT THE ACTIVITY OF GIVING RESIDENTIAL PRO PERTY ON SUB-LEASE IS NOT COVERED IN THE OBJECTS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. ASSESSING OFFICER OPINED THAT ASSESSEES BUSINESS WAS TO RUN HOTEL OR TO DO ITA NO. 3707/DEL/2012 4 RELATED ACTIVITIES BUT NOT TO SUBLEASE THE PROPERTY . ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THAT ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF HIS INCOME/CONCEALED THE TRUE PARTICULARS OF HIS IN COME AND ACCORDINGLY PENALTY HAS BEEN LEVIED IN THIS CASE. LD. CIT(A) ALSO HAS CONFIRMED THE ASSESSING OFFICERS ACTION. 6.1 WE FIND THAT SECTION 271(1)(C) POSTULATES IMPOS ITION OF PENALTY FOR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS AND CONCE ALMENT OF INCOME. IN THIS CASE WE FIND THAT ASSESSEES MEMORANDUM OF ASSOCIATION CONTAINS THE FOLLOWING AS ITS MAIN OBJECTS:- I) TO SOURCE OPERATE PROCURE GRANT OF FRANCHISE TO HOTELS TOURIST RESORTS INNS LODGING HOUSES CATERING ESTABLISHMENT AND RESTAURANTS. II) TO OPERATE MANAGE AND OWN HOTELS TOURIST RES ORTS INNS LODGING HOUSES CATERING ESTABLISHMENTS AND RESTAURANTS. III) TO PROVIDE TECHNICAL EDUCATIONAL MANAGEMENT MAINTENANCE AND MARKETING SERVICES TO HOTELS TOURIST RESORTS INNS LODGINGS HOUSES CATERING AN D HOUSING ESTABLISHMENTS AND RESTAURANTS. IV) TO CARRY ON THE BUSINESS OF CONSTRUCTION OF HOT ELS RESORT TO RENOVATE TO TAKE ON RENT AND TO RUN TH E BUSINESS OF HOTELIERS TO PROVIDE ON RENT THE SPACE IN PARTS OR IN WHOLE IN THE HOTEL MOTEL AND RESORT . V) TO DO THE CONSULTANCY BUSINESS IN THE FIELDS AS SPECIFIED IN THE ABOVE OBJECT CLAUSES (1) TO (4) OF MAIN CLAUSE III (A). ITA NO. 3707/DEL/2012 5 FROM THE ABOVE IT IS THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSE E THAT INCOME FROM SUBLEASING WAS TO BE ASSESSED AS INCOM E FROM BUSINESS AND NOT FROM OTHER SOURCES. HOWEVER THE R EVENUE AUTHORITIES IN THIS REGARD WERE NOT CONVINCED AS THEY HAVE OBSERVED FROM THE MEMORANDUM OF ASSOCIATION OF THE COMPANY THAT ACTIVITY OF GIVING RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY ON SUB -LEASE IS NOT COVERED IN THE OBJECTS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. 6.2 WE FIND THAT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE NARRATED ABOVE AND THE MAIN OBJECTS OF THE CLAUSE OF THE MEM ORANDUM OF ASSOCIATION AS REFERRED ABOVE IT CANNOT BE SAID TH AT ASSESSEE HAD MADE AN EX-FACIE BOGUS CLAIM OR TOTALLY WRONG CLAIM . FURTHER IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED INACCURA TE PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR CONCEALED ANY INCOME. ASSESSEE WAS UNDER A BELIEF THAT INCOME DERIVED FROM SUB-LEASING OF THE PROPERTY WAS ITS BUSINESS INCOME. ASSESSEE HAS DISCLOSED ALL THE FACTS IN TH E RETURN OF INCOME. THERE WAS NO CONCEALMENT. ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FURNISH ED ALL THE PARTICULARS. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES WE FIND THAT A SSESSEE CANNOT BE VISITED WITH THE RIGORS OF PENALTY U/S. 271(1)(C). THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS FURTHER DISALLOWED EXPENSES TO THE EXTE NT OF RS. 520422/- AND HELD THAT THE ABOVE EXPENSES CANNOT BE ALLOWED U/S. 57 OF THE I.T. ACT. WE FIND THAT IT IS NOT THE CASE THAT ANY EXPENSE WAS NOT DECLARED OR THERE WAS ANY BOGUS EXPENDITURE. ASSES SING OFFICER WAS OF THE OPINION THAT EXPENSES CANNOT SAID TO HAVE BE EN EXPENDED TO EARN RENTAL INCOME BY THE ASSESSEE. IN OUR CONSIDE RED OPINION THE ABOVE CANNOT BE REASON TO VISIT WITH RIGOR OF PENAL TY U/S. 271(1)(C). 6.3 IN THIS REGARD WE PLACE RELIANCE UPON THE HON BLE APEX COURT DECISION IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. RELIANCE PETRO PROD UCTS LTD. IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2463 OF 2010. IN THIS CASE VIDE ORDER D ATED 17.3.2010 IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT THE LAW LAID DOWN IN THE DILIP S HEROFF CASE 291 ITR 519 (SC) AS TO THE MEANING OF WORD CONCEALMENT AND ITA NO. 3707/DEL/2012 6 INACCURATE CONTINUES TO BE A GOOD LAW BECAUSE WH AT WAS OVERRULED IN THE DHARMENDER TEXTILE CASE WAS ONLY THAT PART IN DILIP SHEROFF CASE WHERE IT WAS HELD THAT MENSREA WAS A E SSENTIAL REQUIREMENT OF PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C). THE HONBLE APEX COURT ALSO OBSERVED THAT IF THE CONTENTION OF THE REVENUE IS A CCEPTED THEN IN CASE OF EVERY RETURN WHERE THE CLAIM IS NOT ACCEPT ED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR ANY REASON THE ASSESSEE WI LL INVITE THE PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C). THIS IS CLEARLY NOT THE INT ENDMENT OF LEGISLATURE. 6.4 WE FURTHER PLACE RELIANCE FROM THE APEX COURT DECISION RENDERED BY A LARGER BENCH COMPRISING OF THREE OF THEIR LORDSHIPS IN THE CASE OF HINDUSTAN STEEL VS. STATE OF ORISSA IN 83 ITR 26 WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT AN ORDER IMPOSING PENALTY FOR FAILURE TO CARRY OUT A STATUTORY OBLIGATION IS THE RESULT OF A QUASI-CRIMI NAL PROCEEDINGS AND PENALTY WILL NOT ORDINARILY BE IMPOSED UNLESS THE P ARTY OBLIGED EITHER ACTED DELIBERATELY IN DEFIANCE OF LAW OR WAS GUILTY OF CONDUCT CONTUMACIOUS OR DISHONEST OR ACTED IN CONSCIOUS DI SREGARD OF ITS OBLIGATION. PENALTY WILL NOT ALSO BE IMPOSED MEREL Y BECAUSE IT IS LAWFUL TO DO SO. WHETHER PENALTY SHOULD BE IMPOSED FOR FAILURE TO PERFORM A STATUTORY OBLIGATION IS A MATTER OF DISCR ETION OF THE AUTHORITY TO BE EXERCISED JUDICIALLY AND ON A CONSI DERATION OF ALL THE RELEVANT CIRCUMSTANCES. EVEN IF A MINIMUM PENALTY IS PRESCRIBED THE AUTHORITY COMPETENT TO IMPOSE THE PENALTY WILL BE JUSTIFIED IN REFUSING TO IMPOSE PENALTY WHEN THERE IS A TECHNIC AL OR VENIAL BREACH OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT OR WHERE THE B REACH FLOWS FROM A BONAFIDE BELIEF THAT THE OFFENDER IS NOT LIABLE TO ACT IN THE MANNER PRESCRIBED BY THE STATUTE. 6.5 FURTHERMORE ANOTHER PLANK OF LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEES ARGUMENTS IN THIS REGARD IS THAT ASSESSING OFFICER OR THE LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT GIVEN A POSITIVE FINDING AS TO WHETHER THER E WAS ITA NO. 3707/DEL/2012 7 CONCEALMENT OF INCOME BY THE ASSESSEE OR WHETHER A NY INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF SUCH INCOME HAS BEEN FURNISHED BY TH E ASSESSEE. IN THIS REGARD LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBM ITTED THAT IN SUCH A SITUATION IT HAS BEEN EXPOUNDED THAT ASSESSEE SHO ULD NOT BE VISITED WITH THE RIGORS OF PENALTY U/S. 271(1)(C). FOR THIS PROPOSITION LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE HAS REFERRED TO THE HO NBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT DECISION IN THE CASE OF NEW SORATHIA ENG G. CO. VS C.I.T. 155 TAXMANN 513 (GUJ) AND ALSO C.I.T. VS. MANU ENGI NEERING WORKS 122 ITR 306 (GUJ). WE FIND THAT IN THIS CASE ASSE SSEE HAS DULY TAKEN ABOVE ARGUMENTS THAT ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NO T SPECIFIED AS TO WHETHER THERE IS CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR WHETH ER IT IS FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. H OWEVER LD. CIT(A) HAS HELD THAT BOTH AMOUNTS TO THE SAME THING AND HAS REJECTED THE ASSESSEES GROUND RAISED IN THIS REGARD. WE FIND THAT IN THE ABOVE CASE LAW REFERRED BY THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSE E IN THE CASE OF NEW SORATHIA ENGG. CO. AND C.I.T. (SUPRA) FOLLOWING HAS BEEN EXPOUNDED:- FROM THE FACTS AS WERE AVAILABLE ON THE RECORD IT WAS APPARENT THAT THE RATIO OF THE DECISION OF THE GUJR AT HIGH COURT IN MANU ENGG. WORKS (SUPRA) APPLIED ON ALL FO URS WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT IT WAS INCUMBENT UPON THE INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER TO COME TO A PO SITIVE FINDING AS TO WHETHER THERE WAS CONCEALMENT OF INCO ME BY THE ASSESSEE OR WHETHER ANY INACCURATE PARTICU LARS OF SUCH INCOME HAD BEEN FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE (PA RAS 10 AND 11) IN THE INSTANT CASE THE PENALTY ORDER AND THE ORDE R OF THE COMMISSIONERS (APPEALS) SHOWED THAT NO CLEAR CUT FINDING HAD BEEN REACHED. THE TRIBUNAL HAD FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT LEGAL ISSUE. APPLYING THE RATIO TO THE ITA NO. 3707/DEL/2012 8 FACTS OF THE CASE IT WAS APPARENT THAT THE ORDER O F PENALTY COULD NOT BE SUSTAINED AND THE TRIBUNAL COU LD NOT HAVE SUSTAINED THE SAME. THE TRIBUNAL HAVING FAIL ED TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION AND DEAL WITH THE DECISION OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IT WOULD CONSTITUTE AN E RROR IN LAW WHICH WENT TO THE VERY BASIS OF THE CONTROVERSY INVOLVED AND HENCE THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE TRI BUNAL COULD NOT BE UPHELD. (PARA 12) FROM THE ABOVE WE FIND THAT IT IS INCUMBENT UPON THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES TO GIVE A POSITIVE FINDING AS TO WHETHE R THERE WAS CONCEALMENT OF INCOME BY THE ASSESSEE OR WHETHER IN ACCURATE PARTICULARS OF SUCH INCOME HAVE BEEN FURNISHED BY T HE ASSESSEE. IN THIS CASE WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS N OT DONE SO AND THE LD. CIT(A) HAS HELD THAT BOTH THE TERMS AMOUNT TO O NE AND SAME THING. THIS IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH RATIO EMANATING FROM THE ABOVE CASE LAWS. HENCE ON THE ANVIL OF THE ABOVE CASE LAWS ALSO IN THIS CASE PENALTY U/S. 271( 1)(C) IS NOT LEVIABLE. 6.6 AS REGARDS THE CASE LAW RELIED BY THE LD. CIT(A ) WHICH WERE ALSO REFERRED BY THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIV E WE FIND THAT THEY ARE NOT APPLICABLE ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE I N THE CASE OF C.I.T. VS. ESCROTS FINANCE LTD. 328 ITR 44 IT WAS HELD TH AT IF THE CLAIM WAS EXFACIE BOGUS IT WOULD ATTRACT THE PENALTY PROVISIO NS. FURTHERMORE IN THE CASE C.I.T. VS. ZOOM COMMUNICATION PVT. LTD. 327 ITR 510 IT WAS HELD THAT IF THE ASSESSEE MAKES A CLAIM WHICH I S NOT ONLY INCORRECT IN LAW BUT IS ALSO WHOLLY WITHOUT ANY BAS IS AND EXPLANATION THEN ALSO PENALTY U/S. 271(1)(C) IS LE VIABLE. WE FIND THAT THAT IN THIS CASE THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE CA NNOT BE SAID TO BE EX-FACIE BOGUS OR TOTALLY INCORRECT. ON THE FACTS A ND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND ALSO IN VIEW OF THE MAIN OBJECTS OF M EMORANDUM OF ITA NO. 3707/DEL/2012 9 ASSOCIATION OF THE ASSESSEE ASSESSEE WAS OF THE OP INION THAT INCOME FROM SUB-LEASING OF PROPERTY WAS INCOME FROM ASSESSEES BUSINESS. HOWEVER THIS WAS NOT ACCEPTED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND IT WAS HELD THAT GIVING RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY ON SUB-LEASE IS NOT COVERED BY THE OBJECTS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. TH US WE FIND THAT ASSESSEES CLAIM CANNOT BE SAID TO BE WRONG OR EX-F ACIE BOGUS. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES WE SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND DECIDE THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSE E. ACCORDINGLY WE DELETE THE PENALTY OF RS. 1 75 214/-. 7. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 11/10/2013. SD/- SD/- [ [[ [C. M. GARG C. M. GARG C. M. GARG C. M. GARG] ]] ] [SHAMIM YAHYA] [SHAMIM YAHYA] [SHAMIM YAHYA] [SHAMIM YAHYA] JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATE 11/10/2013 SRBHATNAGAR SRBHATNAGAR SRBHATNAGAR SRBHATNAGAR COPY FORWARDED TO: COPY FORWARDED TO: COPY FORWARDED TO: COPY FORWARDED TO: - -- - 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT DELHI BENCHES ITA NO. 3707/DEL/2012 10