Naresh Kumar Garg, Haryana v. ACIT, Bhiwani

ITA 5706/DEL/2016 | 2009-2010
Pronouncement Date: 14-11-2019 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 570620114 RSA 2016
Assessee PAN CTION1904J
Bench Delhi
Appeal Number ITA 5706/DEL/2016
Duration Of Justice 3 year(s) 9 day(s)
Appellant Naresh Kumar Garg, Haryana
Respondent ACIT, Bhiwani
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 14-11-2019
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted E
Tribunal Order Date 14-11-2019
Assessment Year 2009-2010
Appeal Filed On 04-11-2016
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH E NEW DELHI BEFORE : SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P. KANT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 5706/DEL/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 NARESH KUMAR GARG PROP. GARG ELECTRICALS V.P.O. DHIGAWA TEHSIL- LOHARU DISTT. BHIWANI (HARYANA) (APPELLANT) VS. A.C.I.T. BHIWANI. (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SH. SATYAJEET GOEL C.A. RESPONDENT BY SH. SHANKAR NASKAR SR. DR ORDER PER O.P. KANT A.M. THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE AGA INST ORDER DATED 29/08/2016 PASSED BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX (APPEALS) HISAR [IN SHORT THE LD. CIT(A)] FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009- 10. 2. IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED WITH THE LEGALITY OF REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS COMPLETED UNDE R SECTION 143(3) READ WITH SECTION 147 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 (IN SH ORT THE ACT) AS WELL AS ADDITIONS MADE IN REASSESSMENT PROCEEDING. DATE OF HEARING 31.10.2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 14.11.2019 ITA NO. 5706/DEL/2016 2 3. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE A SSESSEE IS A GOVERNMENT CONTRACTOR AND FILED RETURN OF INCOME ON 30/09/2009 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.26 79 270/-. THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143 (3) OF THE ACT WAS COMPLETED ON 20/09/2011 AFTER MAKING ADDITION OF RS .2 00 000/- TO THE RETURNED INCOME. SUBSEQUENTLY THE ASSESSING OFFICE R RECORDED REASONS ON 01/03/2013 THAT INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE HAD ESCAPED ASSESSMENT AND ISSUED NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT. THE REASSESSME NT PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE WERE COMPLETED ON 21/03/2014 WHEREIN FOLLOWING ADD ITIONS WERE MADE: SR NO. ADDITIONS AMOUNT 1. DISALLOWANCE OF THE INTEREST ON BORROWED FUNDS FOR DIVERTING TO INTEREST-FREE ADVANCES RS. 2 25 912/ - 2. CASH EXPENSES IN VIOLATION OF PROVISION SECTION 40A(3) OF THE ACT RS. 1 07 671 / - 3. DISALLOWANCE U/S 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT FOR NON-DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE ON CRANE CHARGES ( RS. 9 36 058/-) AND BOKI CHARGES ( RS. 5 90 452/-) RS. 9 63 058/ - 4. OTHER ADDITIONS FOR LOANS SALARY ETC RS. 21 54 000/ - TOTAL RS. 34 80 423/ - ON FURTHER APPEAL THE LD. CIT(A) REJECTED THE CONT ENTION OF THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGING THE PROCEEDING UNDER SECTION 147 OF THE ACT HOWEVER ALLOWED THE APPEAL PARTLY ON MERIT. THE LD. CIT(A) ALLOWED THE DISALLOWANCES/ADDITION AS UNDER: ITA NO. 5706/DEL/2016 3 SR NO. ADDITIONS A MOUNT UPHELD BY CIT(A) DISALLOWANCE OF THE INTEREST ON BORROWED FUNDS FOR DIVERTING TO INTEREST-FREE ADVANCES RS. 2 25 912/ - RS. 90 968/ - CASH EXPENSES IN VIOLATION OF PROVISION SECTION 40A(3) OF THE ACT RS. 1 07 671 NIL DISALLOWANCE U/S 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT FOR NON-DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE ON CRANE CHARGES ( RS. 9 36 058/-) AND BOKI CHARGES ( RS. 5 90 452/-) RS. 9 63 058/ - NIL OTHER ADDITIONS FOR LOANS SALARY ETC RS. 21 54 000/ - 19 50 000/ - TOTAL RS. 34 80 423/ - 4. BEFORE US THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE FILED A PAPER BOOK CONTAINING PAGES 1-22 AND REFERRED TO COPY OF REASONS RECORDED FOR REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT. THE LD. COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT IN THE C ASE OF THE ASSESSEE NO ADDITION CAN BE SUSTAINED IF THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DEL ETED THE ADDITION ON THE BASIS OF WHICH THE ASSESSMENT WAS REOPENED RELYING ON THE DECISION DATED 28.07.2011OF THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CA SE OF CIT VS ADHUNIK NIRYAT ISPAT LTD IN IT APPEAL NO. 2090 OF 2010 WHE REIN IT IS HELD THAT WHEN THE GROUNDS FOR REOPENING THE REASSESSMENT DO NOT E XIST ANY LONGER AND NO ADDITIONS WERE ULTIMATELY MADE ON THAT ACCOUNT THE ADDITION IN RESPECT OF THE OTHER ITEMS WHICH WERE NOT PART OF THE REASONS T O BELIEVE CANNOT BE MADE. ITA NO. 5706/DEL/2016 4 5. THE LD. DR ON THE OTHER HAND RELIED ON THE ORD ER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSION AND PERUSED T HE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE HONBLE HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF AD HUNIK NIRYAT ISPAT LTD. (SUPRA) HAS HELD THAT WHEN THE GROUND OF REOPENING DO NOT EXIST ANY LONGER AND NO ADDITIONS ARE ULTIMATELY MADE ON THAT ACCOUN T THEN ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF OTHER ITEMS WHICH ARE NO LONGER PART O F REASONS TO BELIEVE CANNOT BE MADE. SIMILAR FINDING HAS BEEN GIVEN BY T HE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF RANBAXY LABORATORIES LTD VS CI T (2011) 242 CTR 117 (DEL). WE HAVE TO EXAMINE WHETHER THE RATIO OF THE ABOVE DECISIONS OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT APPLY IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSE E. 7. THE REASONS RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FO R REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE AS AVAILABL E ON PAGE 2 OF THE PAPER BOOK ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER: RETURN OF INCOME IN THIS CASE WAS FILED ON 30.09 2 009 DECLARING INCOME OF RS. 26 79 270/- AND THE ASSESSMENT WAS CO MPLETED AT INCOME OF RS. 28.79 270/-. PERUSAL OF THE VOUCHERS PLACED ON FILE REVEALED THA T THE ASSESSEE HAS GOT FABRICATED A TRACTOR TROLLY FROM GARG ENGINEERI NG WORKS FOR RS. 78000/-. THIS IS WORK CONTRACT COVERED U/S 194C OF THE ACT ON WHICH TAX IS REQUIRED TO BE DEDUCTED AT SOURCE. ITA NO. 5706/DEL/2016 5 LEDGER ACCOUNT FOR CARRIAGE INWARD EXPENSES SHOWS T HAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE THE PAYMENT OF FREIGHT M/S. HARYA NA CONCRETE HANSI TO THE TUNE OF RS.1 363 600/- ON ACCOUNT OF CARRIAGE I NWARD. THE ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED 9 MTR. ELECTRIC POLE FROM HARYANA CONCRET E. THE PAYMENT OF FREIGHT IS COVERED U/S. 194C INCOME TAX ACT. THE ASSE SSEE SHOULD HAVE DEDUCTED TAX AT SOURCE ON THE ABOVE FREIGHT PAYMENT BUT HAS FAILED TO DO SO. THE ASSESSEE MAY TAKE THE PLEA THAT THESE PAYMEN TS OF FREIGHT ARE INCLUDED IN THE COST OF GOODS AND THE SELLER HAVE G IVEN DELIVERY OF GOODS ON FOR BASIS BUT WHEN THE COST OF FREIGHT HAS BEEN ME NTIONED IN THE BILLS SEPARATELY IT CLEARLY INDICATES THAT THE WORK HAS BEEN EXECUTED ON PART OF THE PURCHASER. EXPLANATION (IV)(C) TO SECTION 194C OF THE ACT DEFINES THE WORK WHICH INCLUDE CARRIAGE OF GOODS. IN THESE CIRC UMSTANCES THE SELLER HAS EXECUTED WORK AND RECEIVED THE FREIGHT PAYMENTS WHETHER THEY ISSUED COMPOSITE BILL SHOWING THE COST OF FREIGHT IN THE B ILL OR OTHERWISE. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES THE SELLER HAS EXECUTED WORK AND RECE IVED THE FREIGHT PAYMENTS WHETHER THEY ISSUED COMPOSITE BILL SHOWING THE COST OF FREIGHT IN THE BILL OR OTHERWISE. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES SECTI ON 194C IS ATTRACTED. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOU RCE ON FREIGHT PAYMENTS THE EXPENSES OF RS.1 33 600/- NEEDS TO BE DISALLOWE D U/S. 40(A)(IA). THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE THE PAYMENT OF RS.1 56 660/- T O ASHOK CRANE WORKS FOR CRANE CHARGES. THESE PAYMENTS ARE NOTHING BUT THE CONTRACT PAYMENTS. SIMILARLY THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID RS.65 54 0/- TO NAVARATTAN BALAJI CRANE SERVICE. THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID BOKI CHA RGES TO RAM KUNWAR AMOUNTING TO RS.14 982/- RS. 15 260/- RS.14 950/- RS.15 290/- AND RS.15 010/- ON 27.10.2008 25.10.2008 24.09.2008 20.09.2008 AND 27.10.2008 RESPECTIVELY TOTALLING TO RS.75 492/-. TH ESE ARE NOTHING BUT THE CONTRACT PAYMENTS COVERED U/S. 194C OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID RS.1 80 000/- TO RAJENDER AGGARWAL ON ACCOUNT OF AC COUNTING AND CONSULTANCY CHARGES WHICH ARE COVERED U/S. 194J OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DEDUCTED TAX ON ANY OF THE ABOVE PAYMENTS A S MENTIONED IN COLUMN 27(A) OF THE AUDIT REPORT. SINCE THE ASSESSE E HAS FAILED TO DEDUCT TAX ON ABOVE EXPENSES AGGREGATING TO RS.6 39 382/- (78 000 + 1 33 600 +1 56 660 +65540 + 75 492 +1 30 000) THE SAME IS RE QUIRED TO BE ITA NO. 5706/DEL/2016 6 DISALLOWED U/S. 40(A)(IA) AND ADDED BACK TO THE INC OME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE A.O. MAY EXAMINE OTHER EXPENSES WITH THIS POINT OF VIEW. I HAVE THEREFORE REASONS TO BELIEVE THAT INCOME OF RS.6 39 382/- CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT FOR THE A. Y. 2009-10 AND ALSO ANY OTHER INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX WHICH HAS ESCAPE D ASSESSMENT AND WHICH COMES TO THE NOTICE OF THE A.O. SUBSEQUENTLY IN THE COURSE OF THE PROCEEDINGS UNDER THIS SECTION. ISSUE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961. 8. WE FIND THAT IN THE REASONS RECORDED THE ASSESS ING OFFICER HAS EXPRESSED ESCAPEMENT OF THE INCOME OF RS.6 39 382/- ON FOLLOWING ITEMS: 1. NON-DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE ON U/S 194C FOR FRE IGHT PAYMENT OF RS.1 33 600/- PAID TO HARYANA CONCRETE 2. NON-DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE U/S 194C ON PAYMENT OF RS.1 56 660/- TO ASHOK CRANE WORKS FOR CRANE CHARGE S 3. NON-DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE UNDER SECTION 194C O N PAYMENT OF RS.65 540/- TO NAVRATAN BALAJI FOR CRANE SERVICE. 4. NON-DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE UNDER SECTION 194C O N PAYMENT OF RS. 75 492/- TO RAMKUNWAR FOR BOKI CHAR GES 5. NON-DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE UNDER SECTION 1904J FOR PAYMENT OF RS.1 30 000/- TO RAJENDRA AGARWAL ON ACC OUNT OF ACCOUNTING AND CONSULTANCY CHARGES. 9. ON PERUSAL OF THE IMPUGNED REASSESSMENT ORDER W E FIND THAT OUT OF THE ITEMS OF ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME IN REASONS RECORDED IN THE REASSESSMENT ORDER HE MADE ADDITION OF RS.9 92 840/- IN TERMS OF SECTI ON 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT FOR NON-DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE ON CRANE CHARGES OF RS. 5 26 858 AND BOKI CHARGES OF RS. 4 65 982/- TOTALING TO RS.9 92 840/- . THIS ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALSO BEEN DELETED BY THE LD. CIT(A) OBSERVING AS UNDER: ITA NO. 5706/DEL/2016 7 6.1 IN GROUND NO. 5 THE APPELLANT HAS OBJECTED TO DISALLOWANCE OF RS.9 92 840/- ON ACCOUNT OF PAYMENTS MADE TO CONTRACTORS U/S 40A( IA) OF THE I.T. ACT. IT WAS FOUND BY THE AO THAT THE APPELLANT HAD FAILED TO PROVE TH AT SOME PAYMENTS HAD BEEN MADE TO CASUAL WORKERS DIRECTLY. THE RECORD SUBMITTED BY THE APPELLANT HAS SHOWN THAT A FEW NAMES WERE REPEATED MANY TIMES WHICH LED THE AO TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THESE ARE LABOUR CONTRACTORS UNTIL THE APPELLANT PROVES O THERWISE. THE AO HELD THAT EVEN IF ALTERNATIVE VIEW IS TAKEN THE AMOUNT OF RS. 5 26 8 58/- (REMAINED PAYABLE OUT OF RS. 9 63 058/- ) & RS. 4 65 982/- (REMAINED PAYABLE OUT OF RS. 5 90 452/-) AND DISALLOWED THE SAME UNDER SECTION 40A(IA). THE AO S TATED THAT THE SAME HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE APPELLANT IN HIS REPLY DATED 05.02. 2014. 6.2 IN ITS WRITTEN SUBMISSION THE APPELLANT HAS ST ATED AS UNDER: AS PER PARA NO. 3.3 THE LD. ACIT HAS HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO PROVE THAT SOME PAYMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE TO CASUAL WORKERS DIRECTLY. HE HAS FURTHER HELD THAT THE RECORDS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE CLEA RLY SHOWS THAT A FEW NAMES ARE REPEATED AGAIN AND AGAIN WHICH LEAD HIM TO DECI DE THAT THOSE ARE LABOUR CONTRACTOR UNTIL ASSESSEE PROVES OTHERWISE. THE LD. ACIT HAS FURTHER STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE SHOULD HAVE DEDUCTED TDS ON EVERY PAYA BLE AMOUNT BEFORE MAKING PAYMENT THEREFORE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 9 92 8 40/- WHICH REMAINED PAYABLE AT THE CLOSE OF THE YEAR ARE DISALLOWED UNDE R SECTION 40(A) (IA) AND HAS MADE ADDITION OF RS. 9 92 840/- ON THIS ISSUE. IT IS TRUE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DEBITED ON ACCOUNT OF CRANE CHARGES WORTH RS. 9 63 058/- AND BOKI CHARGES WORTH RS. 5 90 452/- AN D RS. 2 04 15 441/- ON ACCOUNT OF WAGES AND LABOUR CHARGES. OUT OF ABOVE EXP ENSES THE PAYABLE EXPENSES REMAINED AT RS. 5 26 851/- + RS. 4 65 892/ -. THE LD. ACIT HAS GROSSLY REJECTED THESE PAYMENTS WHICH WERE TO BE MADE ON ACC OUNT OF CRANE CHARGES AND BOKI CHARGES AND NOT OUT OF THE WAGES AND LABOUR CHARGES WHICH WERE RS. 2 04 15 441/-. THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF IS A GOVT CONT RACTOR SUPPLYING CABLES TRANSFORMERS ELECTRIC POLES WIRES M.S GOODS & LA BOUR ETC. ALL THE ABOVE SAID PAYMENTS WERE MADE IN CASH AND BELOW RS. 20 000/-. T HESE PAYMENTS ARE RELATED TO LABOUR WORK AND THE QUESTION OF NON DEDU CTION OF TDS IS NOT APPLICABLE. IT IS CORRECT THAT A FEW OF THE LABOURE RS CONTINUOUSLY ENGAGED BY THE CONTRACTOR FOR DISPOSAL OF HIS WORK. THEREFORE A FE W NAMES OF SUCH LABOURER ARE REPEATED IN THE LEDGER TO WHICH THESE PAYMENTS ARE MADE. NO SUCH LABOUR CONTRACTOR WAS ENGAGED FOR THIS WORK AND PAYMENTS W ERE MADE DIRECT TO THE LABOUR WHICH IS BELOW RS. 20 000/- IN A DAY IN EVERY CASE. THUS THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION FOR DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE AS PROVIDED UNDER SECTION 40(A) (IA) ARE NOT APPLICABLE IN THIS CASE. ALL THESE PAYMENTS WER E PAID TO THE LABOURERS ITA NO. 5706/DEL/2016 8 WORKING AT THE SITE DIRECTLY AND NO CONTRACTOR WAS ENGAGED FOR THIS PURPOSE. MOREOVER SUCH PAYMENT NEVER EXCEEDS RS.50000.00 TO A SINGLE LABOUR THROUGHOUT THE YEAR THEREFORE THERE WAS NO LIABILITY TO DEDUCT TDS. THE SAME MAY KINDLY BE DELETED SIR. 6.3 I HAVE CAREFULLY EXAMINED THE FACTS OF THE CASE . THE AFORESAID PAYMENTS FOR CRANE CHARGES AND BOKI CHARGES ARE ON ACCOUNT OF WA GES AND LABOUR. THE APPELLANT BEING A LABOUR CONTRACTOR HAS MADE PAYMENTS TO LABO UR IN CASH AND ALL PAYMENTS ARE BELOW RS. 20 000/-. ACCORDING TO THE APPELLANT AS THESE PAYMENTS ARE TO LABOURS AND RELATED TO LABOUR CONTRACT IT DOES NOT ATTRACT PROVISION FOR DEDUCTION OF TDS. AS SOME OF THE LABOURERS ARE ENGAGED CONTINUOUSLY NAM ES OF FEW LABOURERS APPEAR IN THE LEDGER REPETITIVELY. HOWEVER AS PAYMENTS ARE B ELOW RS. 20 000/- IN A DAY IN EVERY CASE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT ARE NOT APPLICABLE IN ITS CASE. THERE IS NO PAYMENT IN EXCESS OF RS. 50 000/- TO A SINGLE LABOUR IN A DAY AND THEREFORE THERE WAS NO LIABILITY TO DEDUCT TDS. CON SIDERING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE ADDITIONS MADE BY TH E AO OF RS. 9 92 840/- ON ACCOUNT OF NON-DEDUCTION OF TDS U/S 40(A)(IA) OF TH E ACT IS DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALLOWED. 10. IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HIMSEL F DID NOT MAKE ADDITION IN RESPECT OF THE FIRST PART OF THE ITEMS OF REASON RE CORDED I.E. FREIGHT TO M/S HARYANA CONCRETE. THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER ON THE SECOND PART OF THE REASON RECORDED I.E. DISALLOWANCE OF CR ANE CHARGES AND BOKI CHARGES HAS BEEN DELETED BY THE LD. CIT(A). THUS WE FIND THAT NO ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF THE ITEMS OF REASONS RECORDED IS IN EXIS TENCE AFTER THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). AS PER THE RECORD THE REVENUE IS NOT I N APPEAL AGAINST SAID DELETION BY THE LD. CIT(A). IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES F OLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ADHUNIK NIRYAT IS PAT LTD (SUPRA) AND RANBAXY LABORATORIES LTD (SUPRA) THE ADDITIONS MA DE ON ACCOUNT OF THE ITEMS ITA NO. 5706/DEL/2016 9 OTHER THAN THE ITEMS IN REASONS RECORDED CANNOT S URVIVE. WE DIRECT THE AO TO DELETE THE ADDITIONS ACCORDINGLY. THE ISSUE IN DISP UTE INVOLVED IN THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED IN FA VOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. SINCE WE HAVE ALLOWED THE APPEAL ON LEGALITY OF THE ADDIT ION MADE IN REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WE ARE NOT ADJUDICATING ON MERIT OF TH E ADDITIONS. 11. IN RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWE D . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 14 TH NOVEMBER 2019. SD/- SD/- (BHAVNESH SAINI) (O.P. KANT) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 14 TH NOV. 2019 *AKS* COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO: (1) THE APPELLANT (2) THE RESPONDENT (3) COMMISSIONER (4) CIT(A) (5) DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (6) GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES NEW DELHI