Evalueserve.com Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi v. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 5149/DEL/2010 | 2006-2007
Pronouncement Date: 03-11-2011 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 514920114 RSA 2010
Assessee PAN AAACE8014E
Bench Delhi
Appeal Number ITA 5149/DEL/2010
Duration Of Justice 11 month(s) 14 day(s)
Appellant Evalueserve.com Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi
Respondent ITO, New Delhi
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 03-11-2011
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted B
Tribunal Order Date 03-11-2011
Date Of Final Hearing 01-03-2012
Next Hearing Date 01-03-2012
Assessment Year 2006-2007
Appeal Filed On 19-11-2010
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : H : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI I.P. BANSAL JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI K.G. BANSAL ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.5149/DEL/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07 STAY APPLICATION NO.110/DEL/2011 (ITA NO.5149/DEL/2010) ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07 EVALUESERVE.COM PVT. LTD. 701 GURU APARTMENTS SECTOR 14 ROHINI NEW DELHI. PAN : AAACE8014E VS. ITO WARD-11(2) NEW DELHI. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : S/SHRI TARANDEEP SINGH VINAY SINGHAL MANEESH UPREJA CAS REVENUE BY : SHRI KRISHNA CIT DR ORDER PER I.P. BANSAL JUDICIAL MEMBER VIDE STAY APPLICATION FILED AS ABOVE THE ASSESSEE HAS SOU GHT STAY OF OUTSTANDING DEMAND OF RS.8 32 20 253. THE ASSESSE E COMPANY IS A WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDIARY COMPANY OF EVALUESERVE LTD . BERMUDA AND IS REGISTERED UNDER THE SOFTWARE TECHNOLOGY PARK SCHEME OF GOVERNMENT OF INDIA. IT IS ENGAGED IN THE RESEARCH A CTIVITIES AND PROVIDES INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ENABLED SERVICES PRIMA RILY TO ITS ASSOCIATE ENTERPRISES. DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERAT ION IT HAD ENTERED INTO INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS WITH EVALUESER VE LTD. BERMUDA WHICH COMPRISED OF PROVISION OF IT ENABLED BACK OFFI CE SERVICES AND REIMBURSEMENT OF TRAVELLING EXPENSES. WHILE COMPUTING THE ARMS LENGTH PRICE THE ASSESSEE SELECTED TRANSACTIONAL NET MAR GIN METHOD ITA NO.5149/DEL/2010 STAY APPLN. NO.110/DEL/2011 2 (TNMM) AND IN APPLYING SUCH METHOD IT USED THE PROFIT LEVEL INDICATOR OF NET OPERATING PROFIT/OPERATING COST. IT ALSO SELEC TED EXTERNAL COMPARABLES USING A SCIENTIFIC SCREENING PROCESS INVOLVIN G VARIOUS QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE FILTERS TO ARRIVE AT IN DEPENDENT COMPANIES WITH A COMPARABLE FUNCTIONAL PROFILE AND ON THIS BASI S IT COMPARED THE MARGINS EARNED BY IT WITH THAT OF COMPARABLES AND CON CLUDED THAT ITS MARGIN IS 11.18% VIS-A-VIS 8.70% OF THE COMPARABLES. T O BETTER UNDERSTAND THE ASSESSEE COMPUTED THE MARGIN ON THE BASIS OF THE FOLLOWING COMPARABLES:- S.NO. S.NO. S.NO. S.NO. NAME NAME NAME NAME OP/TC (%) OP/TC (%) OP/TC (%) OP/TC (%) 1. ALPHAGEO (INDIA) LTD. 42.81 2. UNILEVER SHAVED SERVICES LTD. 9.97 3. B 2 K CORP (P) LTD. (-) 26.44 4. TRANSWORKS INFORMATION SERVICES LTD. 19.52 5. VISHAL INFORMATION TECHNOLOGIES LTD. 48.04 6. NIIT SMART SERVICE LTD. (-) 22.88 2. THE TPO HAS REJECTED THE TWO COMPARABLES WHICH HAD INCURRED LOSSES FOR THE REASONS RECORDED IN HIS ORDER. THE COMPAR ABLES WHICH HAVE BEEN REJECTED ARE MENTIONED AT SL.NOS.3 AND 6 I N THE AFOREMENTIONED TABLE. AFTER REJECTION OF THE TWO C OMPARABLES THE TPO HAS ADOPTED REMAINING FOUR COMPARABLES AND HAS COME TO THE ARITHMETICAL MEAN OF 30.08% AS PER THE FOLLOWING TAB LE:- S.NO. S.NO. S.NO. S.NO. NAM NAM NAM NAME EE E OP/TC % OP/TC % OP/TC % OP/TC % 1. ALPHAGEO (INDIA) LTD. 42.81 2. UNILEVER SHAVED SERVICES LTD. 9.97 3. TRANSWORKS INFORMATION SERVICES LTD. 19.52 4. VISHAL INFORMATION TECHNOLOGIES LTD. 48.04 ARITHMETIC MEAN ARITHMETIC MEAN ARITHMETIC MEAN ARITHMETIC MEAN 30.08 3. AFTER ADOPTING THE ARITHMETICAL MEAN OF 30.08% THE TPO HAS WORKED OUT ADJUSTMENT OF RS.16 24 01 920 AS BELOW:- TOTAL COST OF THE ASSESSEE : RS.539 900 000 ARMS LENGTH PRICE AT A MARGIN OF 30.08% : RS.762 801 920 REVENUE SHOWN : RS.600 400 000 DIFFERENCE : RS.162 401 920 ITA NO.5149/DEL/2010 STAY APPLN. NO.110/DEL/2011 3 4. THE AO FRAMED DRAFT ORDER ON 21 ST DECEMBER 2009 AND HAS ADDED THE SAID AMOUNT TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. TH E ASSESSEE PREFERRED TO FILE OBJECTIONS AGAINST THE SAID DRAFT ASSE SSMENT ORDER ON 27 TH JANUARY 2010 AND AFTER RECORDING THE FILING OF OB JECTIONS AND PRESENCE OF THE ASSESSEE LD. DRP HAS UPHELD THE ADDITION WITH THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS:- HAVING CONSIDERED THE ARGUMENTS OF ASSESSEE REPRESENTATIVES THE WRITTEN ARGUMENTS SUBMITTED AND THE DRA FT ASSESSMENT ORDER THE DRP FINDS THAT ALL THE QUESTIONS R AISED BY THE ASSESSEE HAVE BEEN ANSWERED IN DETAILS BY THE TPO AND THE A.O. IN THE DRAFT ORDER. THE REJECTION TO COMPARABLE A RE BASED ON DETAILED REASONING AND AFTER APPLYING REASONABLE F ILTERS. THE DENIAL OF WORKING CAPITAL ADJUSTMENT AS ALSO CAPACITY A DJUSTMENT IS BASED ON COGENT REASONING USE OF CURRENT YEAR DATA HAS BEEN FOUND MORE APPROPRIATE AND FRESH SEARCH HAS BEEN REJ ECTED AS THERE WERE NO VALID REASONS. WE ALSO DO NOT FIND ANY FAULT WITH THE WORKING OF 10A DEDUCTION. AS REGARDS PROPOSED LE VY OF INTEREST AND INITIATION OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271(1 )(C) WE FIND IT PREMATURE TO ISSUE ANY DIRECTION. HENCE THE DR P DOES NOT FIND ADEQUATE REASONS TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF TPO/A.O. 5. THE STAY APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS EARLIE R FIXED FOR HEARING ON 21 ST OCTOBER 2011 WHEN IT WAS POINTED OUT BY LD. AR THA T ORDER PASSED BY THE DRP IS A NON-SPEAKING ORDER AND HAS TO BE RESTORED BACK TO THE DRP IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF H ONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF VODAFON ESSAR LTD. 196 TAXMAN 423 (DEL). HE PLEADED THAT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS FIXED FOR HEA RING ON 3 RD NOVEMBER 2011 THEREFORE THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE GRANTE D STAY AND THE MATTER SHOULD BE RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF DRP AND IF THE MATTER IS RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF DRP THEN THE STAY AP PLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WILL BECOME INFRUCTUOUS AS THERE WILL BE NO OUTSTANDING DEMAND. CONSIDERING THIS SUBMISSION OF THE LD. AR THE STAY APPLICATION WAS ADJOURNED TO 3 RD NOVEMBER 2011 WHEN THE HEARING OF THE APPEAL WAS ALSO FIXED. ON THE 3 RD NOVEMBER 2011 LD. AR REPEATED HIS ARGUMENTS REGARDING SENDING THE MATTER BA CK TO THE FILE OF DRP. ITA NO.5149/DEL/2010 STAY APPLN. NO.110/DEL/2011 4 6. ON THE OTHER HAND LD. DR RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF DRP AND THE AO. 7. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE PAR TIES. IN GROUND NOS.1 AND 2 THE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE ARE AS UNDER:- 1. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND IN LAW THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFF ICER (A.O.) IS BAD IN LAW AND VOID AB-INITIO. 2. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND IN LAW THE REFERENCE MADE BY THE LD. A.O. SUFFER S FROM JURISDICTIONAL ERROR AS THE LD. A.O. DID NOT RECORD AN Y REASONS IN THE DRAFT ASSESSMENT ORDER BASED ON WHICH HE REACHED TH E CONCLUSION THAT IT WAS EXPEDIENT AND NECESSARY TO REFE R THE MATTER TO THE LD. TRANSFER PRICING OFFICER (TPO) FOR COMPUTATION OF THE ARMS LENGTH PRICE AS IS REQUIRED U NDER SECTION 92CA(1) OF THE INCOME TAX AT 1961 (ACT). 8. IN OTHER GROUNDS THE ASSESSEE IS AGITATING THE ADDITIO N ON MERITS AND VARIOUS OTHER ISSUES ARE ALSO RAISED LIKE ALLOWABILIT Y OF 5% MARGIN UNDER THE PROVISO TO SECTION 92C (2) OF THE ACT; REG ARDING LIMITING THE DEDUCTION U/S 10A OF THE ACT ON THE GROSS TOTAL INCOME RATHER THAN PROFIT AND GAINS OF ELIGIBLE UNDERTAKING; LEVY OF VA RIOUS INTEREST; AND VALIDITY OF INITIATION OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271 (1)(C) ETC. 9. IT CAN BE SEEN FROM THE GROUNDS OF OBJECTIONS FILED BEFORE THE DRP THAT ALL THESE ISSUES WERE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE CIT (A). HOWEVER LD. DRP HAS REJECTED ALL THESE OBJECTI ONS ON THE BASIS OF REASONING GIVEN BY THE TPO AND THE AO IN THE DRAFT O RDER. SINCE THE MATTER WAS HEARD ONLY ON THE GROUND THAT WHETHER OR NOT IT IS A FIT CASE WHERE THE PROCEEDINGS CAN BE RESTORED BACK TO THE FIL E OF DRP WE CONFINE OUR FINDINGS ONLY TO THAT EXTENT. 10. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. THE ORDER PASSED BY THE DRP HAS ALREADY BEEN REPRODUCED IN THE A BOVE PART OF THIS ORDER. THE MATTER WAS REFERRED TO THE DRP U/S 14 4C OF THE IT ACT. ITA NO.5149/DEL/2010 STAY APPLN. NO.110/DEL/2011 5 UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 144C THE ASSESSING OFFI CER IS UNDER AN OBLIGATION TO FORWARD A DRAFT OF THE PROPOSED ORD ER OF ASSESSMENT TO THE ASSESSEE IF HE PROPOSES TO MAKE ON OR AFTER THE FIRST DAY OF OCTOBER 2009 ANY VARIATION IN THE INCOME OR LOSS RE TURNED WHICH IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF SUCH ASSESSEE. UNDER SUB-SE CTION (2) OF SECTION 144 THE ASSESSEE WITHIN 30 DAYS OF THE RECEIPT OF SUCH DRAFT ORDER CAN ACCEPT THE VARIATION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OF FICER OR HE CAN FILE OBJECTIONS EITHER TO DISPUTE RESOLUTION PANEL OR TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED HIS OBJECTIONS WIT H DRP THEN UNDER SUB-SECTION (5) THE DRP UPON RECEIPT OF OBJECT ION IS UNDER OBLIGATION TO ISSUE DIRECTIONS AS IT THINKS FIT FOR THE GUIDANCE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ENABLE HIM TO COMPLETE THE ASSESSMENT AND UNDER SUB-SECTION (6) SUCH DIRECTIONS WHICH ARE PUT UP UNDER SUB-SECTION (5) WOULD BE FURTHER CONSIDERING THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS: (A) DRAFT ORDER; (B) THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE; (C) THE EVIDEN CE FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE; (D) REPORT IF ANY OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER VALUATION OFFICER OR TPO OR ANY OTHER AUTHORITY; (E) RECORDS RELATING TO THE DRAFT ORDER; (F) EVIDENCE COLLECTED BY OR CAUSED TO BE CO LLETED BY IT; AND (G) RESULT OF ANY INQUIRY MADE BY OR CAUSED TO BE MADE B Y IT. UNDER SUB- SECTION (7) DRP IS ALSO AUTHORIZED BEFORE ISSUING OF DI RECTION UNDER SUB-SECTION (5) TO MAKE SUCH FURTHER INQUIRY AS IT THI NK FIT OR CAUSE ANY FURTHER INQUIRY TO BE MADE BY ANY INCOME-TAX AUTHOR ITY AND REPORT THE RESULT OF THE SAME TO IT. UNDER SUB-SECTION (8) THE DR P HAS POWER TO CONFIRM REDUCE OR ENHANCE THE VARIATIONS PROPOSED IN THE DRAFT ORDER SO HOWEVER THAT IT SHALL NOT SET ASIDE ANY PROPOSED VA RIATION OR ISSUE ANY DIRECTION UNDER SUB-SECTION (5) FOR FURTHER INQUI RY AND PASSING OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. UNDER SUB-SECTION (11) NO DIRECTIO N U/S SUB- SECTION (5) SHALL BE ISSUED UNLESS AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEIN G HEARD IS GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON SUCH DIRE CTIONS WHICH ARE PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE ASSESSEE OR THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE RESPECTIVELY. UNDER SUB-SECTION (12) DIR ECTIONS UNDER ITA NO.5149/DEL/2010 STAY APPLN. NO.110/DEL/2011 6 SUB-SECTION (5) CANNOT BE PASSED AFTER NINE MONTHS FROM THE END OF THE MONTH IN WHICH DRAFT ORDER IS FORWARDED TO THE ELIGI BLE ASSESSEE. UNDER SUB-SECTION (13) ON RECEIPT OF DIRECTIONS ISSUED UNDER SUB- SECTION (5) THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TO PASS THE ASSESSMENT O RDER IN CONFORMITY WITH THE DIRECTIONS WITHOUT PROVIDING ANY FURTHER OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE WITHIN ONE M ONTH FROM THE END OF THE MONTH IN WHICH SUCH DIRECTIONS ARE RECEIVE D. 11. THE DIRECTIONS PASSED BY DRP U/S 144C (5) AS IT CAN BE SEEN IN THE PRESENT CASE ARE NOT SPEAKING ABOUT WHAT OBJECTIO NS WERE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE AND HOW THEY HAVE BEEN FOUND TO BE NOT ACCEPTABLE. LD. DRP HAS SIMPLY OBSERVED THAT ALL THE QUESTIONS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE HAVE BEEN ANSWERED IN DETAIL BY THE TPO AND BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE DRAFT ORDER. THE REJECTION OF COMPARABLES ARE BASED ON DETAILED REASONING AND AFTER APPLYING REASONA BLE FILTERS. THE DENIAL OF WORKING CAPITAL ADJUSTMENT AS ALSO CAPACITY ADJUSTMENT IS BASED ON COGENT REASONING USE OF CURRENT DATA HAS BEEN FOUND MORE APPROPRIATE AND FRESH SEARCH HAS BEEN REJECTED AS THERE IS NO VALID REASON. SIMILARLY THE DRP HAS REJECTED THE OTHER GR OUNDS. THEREFORE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. DRP IS A NON-SPEAKING ORDER NOT STATING THE OBJECTIONS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE REASONS HAVE ALSO NOT BEEN GIVEN AS SIMPLY THE ORDER OF TPO AND ASSESSING OFFICER AR E REFERRED. WE FIND THAT SIMILAR ISSUE WAS CONSIDERED BY THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE AFOREMENTIONED CASE OF VODAFONE ESSAR LTD . (SUPRA) AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE DRP-II AND ORS. AND THE SAID WRIT PETITION HAS BEEN DECIDED BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT VIDE THEIR ORDER DATED 2 ND DECEMBER 2010. THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED A WRIT OF CERT IORARI SEEKING THE QUASHING THE ORDER OF DRP AND THE REVENUE CONTENDED BEFORE THE HONBLE HIGH COURT THAT THE ORDER IN QUE STION DESERVE TO BE QUASHED AND THE MATTER WAS REMANDED FOR FRESH ADJUDIC ATION. THE SAID ORDER OF THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IS REPRODU CED BELOW:- ITA NO.5149/DEL/2010 STAY APPLN. NO.110/DEL/2011 7 JUDGEMENT JUDGEMENT JUDGEMENT JUDGEMENT HEARD MR. SYALI LD. SR. COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER AN D MR. SANJEEV SABHARWAL LD. STANDING COUNSEL FOR THE REVENUE. BY THIS WRIT PETITION THE PETITIONER HAS PRAYED FOR ISSUE OF A WRIT OF CERTIORARI FOR QUASHMENT OF THE ORDER DATED 30 TH SEPTEMBER 2010 PASSED BY THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION PANEL-II THE FIR ST RESPONDENT HEREIN. WHAT COULD HAVE BEEN A MATTER OF DE BATE WAS PUT TO REST BY MR. SANJEEV SABHARWAL LD. COUNSEL FOR THE REVENUE BY STATING THAT THE ORDER PASSED ON 30 TH SEPTEMBER 2010 CONTAINED IN ANNEXURE-P1 DESERVES TO BE QUASHE D AND THE MATTER BE REMANDED TO THE SAID AUTHORITY FOR FRESH ADJUDI CATION. IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID FAIR CONCESSION THE ORDER D ATED 30 TH SEPTEMBER 2010 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO. 1 IS QUAS HED AND THE MATER IS REMANDED TO THE SAID RESPONDENT TO ADJUDICATE AFRESH. BE IT NOTED WHEN A QUASI JUDICIAL AUTHORITY D EALS WITH A LIST IT IS OBLIGATORY ON ITS PART TO ASCRIBE COGENT AND G ERMANE REASONS AS THE SAME IS THE HEARD AND SOUL OF THE MATTER AND FURTHER THE SAME ALSO FACILITATES APPRECIATION WHEN THE ORDER IS CALLED IN QUESTION BEFORE THE SUPERIOR FORUM. NEEDLE S TO SAY THAT THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY WHILE PASSING THE ORDER SHALL K EEP IN MIND THE ORDER DATED 29 TH NOVEMBER 2010 WHEREIN WE HAD DIRECTED THAT THE PERIOD FROM THE DATE OF FILING THE WRITE PETITION AND FOUR WEEKS AFTER ITS DISPOSAL SHALL STAND EXCLUDED WHILE COMPUTING THE LIMITATION FOR THE DEPARTMENT TO PASS AN ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE WRIT PETITION IS ALLOWED TO THE EXTENT INDICATED ABOVE WITHOUT ANY ORDER AS TO COSTS. ORDER DASTI UNDER THE SIGNATURES OF THE COURT MASTER. [WPO (C) 7028/2010] 12. THIS TRIBUNAL IN MANY OF SUCH CASES HAS RESTORED THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF DRP FOR PASSING A SPEAKING ORDER ON EACH OF TH E OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE RAISED BEFORE IT. THEREFORE WE FIND THAT IT I S A FIT CASE WHERE THE ENTIRE MATTER SHOULD BE RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF DRP TO PASS A DETAILED ORDER STATING ALL THE OBJECTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND DISPOSING THEM BY GIVING A COGENT AND GERMANE REASONS FOR ADJUD ICATION OF THE OBJECTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE. WE DIRECT ACCORDINGLY. AFT ER RECEIVING THE ORDER FROM DRP THE ASSESSING OFFICER WILL AGAIN PASS ORD ER U/S 144C(13) AND THE PRESENT ASSESSMENT PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OF FICER ITA NO.5149/DEL/2010 STAY APPLN. NO.110/DEL/2011 8 IS SET ASIDE AS THE DRP IS DIRECTED TO RE-ADJUDICATE THE OBJECTIONS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE AS PER DIRECTIONS GIVE ABOVE. WE D IRECT ACCORDINGLY. 13. IN THE RESULT FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS TREATED AS ALLOWED. 14. SINCE WE HAVE RESTORED THE PROCEEDINGS TO THE FIL E OF THE DRP AND CONSEQUENTLY THE DEMAND DOES NOT OUTSTAND THEREFO RE THE STAY APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE HAS BECOME INFRUCTUOUS AND IS DISMISSED. 15. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES IN THE MANNER AFORESAID AND THE STA Y APPLICATION FILED IS DISMISSED HAVING BECOME INFRUCTUOUS. THE ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 03.11. 2011. SD/- SD/- [K.G. BANSAL] [I.P. BANSAL] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED 03.11.2011. DK COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR ITAT DEPUTY REGISTRAR ITAT DELHI BENCHES