Frontline Papers Private Limited, New Delhi v. ITO ward-9(3), New Delhi

ITA 9861/DEL/2019 | 2011-2012
Pronouncement Date: 30-03-2021 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 986120114 RSA 2019
Assessee PAN AAACF1430C
Bench Delhi
Appeal Number ITA 9861/DEL/2019
Duration Of Justice 1 year(s) 3 month(s)
Appellant Frontline Papers Private Limited, New Delhi
Respondent ITO ward-9(3), New Delhi
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 30-03-2021
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted SMC
Tribunal Order Date 30-03-2021
Last Hearing Date 15-03-2021
First Hearing Date 15-03-2021
Assessment Year 2011-2012
Appeal Filed On 30-12-2019
Judgment Text
IN TH E INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : SMC - 2 : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO . 9861 /DEL/201 9 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 20 11 - 12 FRONTLINE PAPERS PRIVATE LTD. G - 33 GREEN PARK NEW D ELHI. PAN: A A ACF1430C VS ITO WARD - 9 ( 3 ) NEW DELHI. (APP ELL A NT ) (RESPONDENT) A SSESSEE BY : SHRI SURESH K. GUPTA CA RE VENUE BY : SHRI FARATH KHAN ADDL. CIT - DR DATE OF HEARING : 1 6 . 0 3 . 20 2 1 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : . 0 3 . 20 2 1 ORDER PER R. K. PANDA AM : TH IS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 20.11.2019 OF THE CIT(A) DELHI - 13 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 11 - 12 . 2 . FACTS OF THE CASE IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY AND HAD FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME U/S 139(1) OF THE ACT ON 30 TH SEPTEMBER 2011 DECLARING THE TOTAL INCOME AT RS.5 61 998/ - . IN THIS CASE INFORMATION WAS RECEIVED FROM THE ADIT INVESTIGATION WING UNIT - 6(2) JHANDEWALAN NEW DE LHI THAT THE ASSESSEE DURING THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR HAS MAINTAINED 5 BANK ACCOUNTS AND THE TOTAL CREDIT APPEARING IN THESE ACCOUNTS IS RS.1 88 28 865/ - WHEREAS THE ITA NO. 9861 /DEL/201 9 2 ASSESSEE HAS DECLARED A TURNOVER OF RS. 1 80 76 482/ - . THUS THE ASSESSEE HAS CONCE ALED THE PARTICULARS OF INCOME AMOUNTING TO RS.7 52 383/ - . THE AO THEREFORE REOPENED THE ASSESSMENT AFTER TAKING APPROVAL FROM THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY AND NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE. SUBSEQUENTLY VARIOUS STATUTORY NOTICES WER E ALSO ISSUED AND SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE. SINCE THERE WAS NO RESPONSE FROM THE SIDE OF THE ASSESSEE A FINAL SHOW CAUSE NOTICE WAS ISSUED TO WHICH THE ASSESSEE SOUGHT ADJOURNMENT. SINCE NO REPLY WAS RECEIVED THEREAFTER THE AO COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT DE TERMINING THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AT RS.13 14 381/ - AFTER MAKING ADDITION OF RS.7 52 383/ - TO THE RETURNED INCOME . 3. BEFORE THE CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE FILED CERTAIN DETAILS IN THE FORM OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AND APPLIED FOR ADMISSION OF THE SAME UNDER RULE 46A OF THE IT RULES 1962. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WAS INOPERATIVE AND WAS NOT CONDUCTING ANY BUSINESS ACTIVITY FOR THE LAST 5 - 6 YEARS AND THAT THE DIRECTOR HAS SHIFTED HIS RESIDENCE AND HIS PARENTS WERE LIVING THERE. THEREFORE THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE AO COULD NOT BE RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE. THUS THERE WAS NO PROPER OPPORTUNITY GIVEN BY THE AO TO THE ASSESSEE . 4 . BASED ON THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE ASSESSEE THE LD.CIT(A) CALLED FOR A REMAND REPORT FROM THE AO WHO OBJECTED TO THE ADMISSION OF THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. AFTER CONSIDERING THE REMAND REPORT OF THE AO AND REJOINDER OF THE ASSESSEE TO SUCH REMAND REPORT THE LD.CIT(A) REJECTED THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES FILED BEFORE HIM AND SUSTAINED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO. ITA NO. 9861 /DEL/201 9 3 5. SO FAR AS THE ADDITION ON MERIT IS CONCERNED THE LD.CIT(A) DISMISSED THE SAME BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: - 4.7 GR OUND OF APPEAL NO. 8 REFERS TO THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF THE FACT THAT THE CREDIT IN THE BANK ACCOUNT WAS LESS THAN THE SALES DECLARED BY THE APPELLANT. THE ARGUMENTS PUT FORTH ARE THAT THE OTHER CREDITS COULD BE RECEIPTS FROM DEBTORS RECEIVING BACK OF LOANS AND ADVANCES GIVEN EARLIER RECEIPT FROM THE DIRECTORS OF THE APPELLANT COMPANY ETC. FIRSTLY THE APPELLANT HAS NOWHERE STATED THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WERE AUDITED. THE NATURE OF BUSINESS HAS NOT BEEN SPECIFIED EVEN DURING APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS . ONE OF THE DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED REFERS TO EIGHT BANK ACCOUNTS SOME OF WHICH ARE MENTIONED AS (EURO AND USD). THIS SUGGESTS THAT PERHAPS THE APPELLANT COMPANY WAS IN THE BUSINESS OF IMPORT AND EXPORT OF SOME ITEMS (GOODS OR SERVICES). IT IS THUS CLEAR TH AT EVEN WHILE SEEKING THE BENEFIT OF 46A HE HAS NOT COME OUT WITH CLEAN HANDS TO DEFEND AND ARGUE THIS CASE AND HAS NOT EVEN INFORMED THE EXACT NATURE OF THE BUSINESS HE WAS ENGAGED IN. ACCORDINGLY THE EXPLANATION OF THE APPELLANT IN THIS REGARD IS NOT ACCEPTABLE AND IS HEREBY DISMISSED. 6 . AGGRIEVED WITH SUCH ORDER OF THE CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL BY RAISING THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: - 1. THAT THE ID. CIT - APPEALS HAS ERRED IN THE EYES OF LAW BY IGNORING THE FACTS THAT NO REAL OPPORTUNITY WAS PROVIDED TO THE APPELLANT AND THE AVAILABLE OPTIONS UNDER THE LAW WERE NOT FOLLOWED BY THE LD. A.O. 2. THAT THE ID. CIT - APPEALS HAS ERRED IN IGNORING FACTS ON RECORDS FOR THE REASONS BEST KNOWN TO HER AND DEPRIVING THE APPELLANT OF NATURA L JUSTICE EVEN. 3. THAT THE LD. CIT - APPEALS HAS ERRED IN CONTRADICTING HER OWN STAND. AT ONE HAND SHE HAS ADMITTED THE FURNISHING OF THE DETAILS BY THE APPELLANT IN RESPONSE TO THE ADDITION MADE BY THE LD. A.O. IN HIS ORDER. ON THE OTHER HAND MENTIONING A BOUT THE DETAILS COMPRISING OF US DOLLARS AND EURO ACCOUNT AND NOT ADMITTING THOSE BANK DETAILS DOESN'T CLARIFY ANY LOGIC. THE COMPANY WAS IN EXPORTS OR IN DOMESTIC BUSINESS HAS NO NEXUS BETWEEN THE CREDITS IN THE BANK STATEMENTS AND TURNOVER DECLARED BY T HE APPELLANT AS PER AUDITED ACCOUNTS. 4. THAT MERE ASSERTION THAT THE SALES AS PER THE ACCOUNTS ARE LESS THAN THE CREDITS TO THE BANK ACCOUNTS OF THE APPELLANT IS NO INFORMATION THERE MAY BE OTHER CREDITS NAMELY RECEIPTS FROM DEBTORS RECEIVING BACK OF THE LOANS AND ADVANCES EARLIER GIVEN REC EIPTS FROM DIRECTORS OF THE APPELLANT COMPANY ETC ETC. THE REASONS FOR RE - OPENING OF THE CASE ITSELF DO NOT CARRY ANY WEIGHT. HOWEVER IT IS REQUESTED THAT IN THE LIGHT OF DOCUMENTS PAPERS AND EVIDENCES ITA NO. 9861 /DEL/201 9 4 THE SAME MAY PLEASE BE EXAMINED NOW IN ORDER TO GET THE JUSTICE DELIVERED TO THE APPELLANT. 5. THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT - APPEALS IS PERVERSE ADAMANT AND IS AGAINST THE FACTS. MERELY SPEED POSTING NOTICES THAT ALSO ONLY TWO TIMES DOESN'T MEAN THE OPPORTUNITY HAS BEEN PROVIDED. OPPORTUNITY PROVIDED MUS T BE REAL AND EXHAUSTIVE NOT CUSTOMARY OR ILLUSORY. 6. THAT THE ADDITION TO THE INCOME SO MADE BY THE LD. A.O. AND UPHELD BY LD. CIT - APPEALS IS A HARDSHIP AND AS SUCH BE DELETED. THE APPELLANT CRAVES TO ADD ALTER DELETE OR AMEND ANY OR ENTIRE OF THE G ROUNDS OF APPEAL. 7 . THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE IN THE INSTANT CASE IS THE EXPLANATION OF THE SOURCES OF CREDITS APPEARING IN THE REGULAR BANK ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE EVIDENCES FURNISHED DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS B EFORE THE CIT(A) WERE AUDITED BALANCE SHEET AND THE TALLY DATA OF THE DEB TORS AND THE BANK DETAILS. THESE EVIDENCES ARE SUCH WHICH ARE IN NO CASE SECONDARY EVIDENCES I F THE BALANCE SHEET IS CONSIDERED AS PUBLIC DOCUMENT AND PART OF THE ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME. HE SUBMITTED THAT WHATEVER EVIDENCES WERE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AT THE APPELLATE STAGE ARE RELEVANT AND GOES TO THE ROOT OF THE MATTER AND MAY EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE. TH IS REQUIRES CONSIDERATION AND EXAMINATION AT THE LEVEL OF THE LD.CIT(A). THEREFORE THE LD.CIT(A) INSTEAD OF REJECTING THE EVIDENCES SHOULD HAVE CONSIDERED THE SAME. 8 . THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT A PERUSAL OF THE BANK ACCOUNT WOULD SHOW THAT THE TOTAL DEPOSI TS IN THE BANK ACCOUNTS ARE RS.2 24 83 795.49 AS ITA NO. 9861 /DEL/201 9 5 AGAINST THE AMOUNT TAKEN BY THE AO OF RS.1 88 28 865/ - . THE LD. COUNSEL REFERRING TO THE AUDITED BALANCE SHEET SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE DURING THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR HAS ISSUED FRESH SHARE CAPITA L OF RS.43 37 700/ - SINCE THE OPENING CAPITAL WAS RS.10 LAKHS AND THE CLOSING CAPITAL AT THE END OF THE YEAR WAS RS.53 37 700/ - . FURTHER THERE IS COLLECTION NET OF SALE PROCEEDS FROM DEBTORS WHICH COMES TO RS.1 83 05 772/ - . THUS THE TOTAL BANK CREDIT I S RS.2 24 83 795/ - . THEREFORE THE NET DIFFERENCE IS RS.1 59 677/ - WHICH COULD BE DUE TO CHANGES IN THE VARIOUS CURRENT ASSETS/LIABILITIES AND PENDING ITEMS IN BANK RECONCILIATION. 9 . THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT ARE AUDITED U/S 44AB AND THE TAX AUDIT REPORT WAS ALSO FURNISHED BEFORE THE AO ALONG WITH THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED U/S 139(1) . THE AO HAS NOT REJECTED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE AS NO DEFECTS WERE FOUND BY HIM. IN ABSENCE OF ANY DEFECTS BEING FOUND IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT THE TRADING RESULTS SHOULD HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED BY VIRTUE OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 145(1) OF THE ACT AND THE AO IS NOT AUTHORIZED TO TINKER WITH THE RESULTS DEDUCED FROM THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT EXAMINED BY THE AO. FOR THE ABOVE PROPOSITION HE RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE HON BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF VIKRAM PLASTICS & OTHERS REPORTED IN 239 ITR 161 AND SUBMITTED THAT IF THERE WAS NO DISCREPANCY OR DEFECTS IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND IF THEY ARE REGULARLY MAINTAINED THEN SECTION 145(3) CANNOT BE INVOKED TO REJECT THE BOOKS OF ACCO UNT. SIMILAR VIEW HAS BEEN TAKEN BY THE HON BLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. RAJ NI KANT DAVE R EPORTED IN ITA NO. 9861 /DEL/201 9 6 281 ITR 06. HE ACCORDINGLY SUBMITTED THAT WHEN THE AO HAS NOT INV OKED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 145(3) THE AO IS NOT WITHIN HIS POWER TO MAKE TRADING ADDITION. HE ACCORDINGLY SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO AND SUSTAINED BY THE CIT(A) DESERVES TO BE DELETED. 10 . THE LD. DR ON THE OTHER HAND HEAVILY RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE AO AND THE CIT(A). HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IN THE INSTANT CASE DID NOT APPEAR BEFORE THE AO FOR WHICH HE MADE THE ADDITION OF RS.7 52 383/ - TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE ORDER PASSED U/S 147 /148/144 OF THE I T ACT ON 4 TH DECEMBER 2018. SINCE THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT SUBSTANTIATE BEFORE THE CIT(A) REGARDING THE NON - SUBMISSION OF THE DETAILS BEFORE THE AO THEREFORE HE HAS REJECTED THE APPLICATION FOR ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES AND HAS DISMISSED THE APPE AL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BY GIVING JUSTIFIABLE REASONS. HE ACCORDINGLY SUBMITTED THAT THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE DISMISSED. 1 1 . I HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL ARGUMENTS MADE BY BOTH THE SIDES PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AO AND THE CIT(A) A ND THE PAPER BOOK FILED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. I HAVE ALSO CONSIDERED THE VARIOUS DECISIONS RELIED ON BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. I FIND THE AO IN THE INSTANT CASE REOPENED THE ASSESSMENT ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE MAINTAINED FIVE BAN K ACCOUNTS AND THE TOTAL CREDITS APPEARING IN THESE ACCOUNTS IS RS.1 88 28 865/ - WHEREAS THE ASSESSEE HAS DECLARED A TURNOVER OF RS. 1 80 76 482/ - AND THUS THE ASSESSEE HAS CONCEALED THE PARTICULARS OF INCOME AMOUNTING TO RS.7 52 383/ - AND DURING THE COU RSE OF ASSESSMENT ITA NO. 9861 /DEL/201 9 7 PROCEEDINGS THERE WAS NON - COMPLIANCE FROM THE SIDE OF THE ASSESSEE FOR WHICH HE MADE THE ABOVE ADDITION IN THE ORDER PASSED U/S 147/148/144 OF THE IT ACT 1961 . I FIND BEFORE THE CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE FILED CERTAIN ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES WHICH THE LD.CIT(A) DID NOT ADMIT ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT JUSTIFY THE ADMISSIBILITY OF THE SAME AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 46A OF IT RULES. THE LD.CIT(A) THEREAFTER SUSTAINED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO. IT IS THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THE EVIDENCES FURNISHED DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE CIT(A) WERE THE AUDITED BALANCE SHEET AND THE TALLY DATA OF THE DEBTORS AND THE BANK DETAILS. IT IS ALSO HIS SUBMISSION THAT HAD THE AO GO NE THROUGH THE BALANCE SHEET THEN HE COULD HAVE SEEN THE ADDITION TO THE SHARE CAPITAL TO THE TUNE OF RS.43 37 700/ - . IT IS ALSO HIS SUBMISSION THAT THE INCREASE IN SHARE CAPITAL OF RS.43 37 700/ - ALONG WITH THE NET SALE PROCEEDS OF RS.18 305 772/ - EXPLAINS THE TOTAL DEPOSIT OF RS.2 26 43 472/ - IN THE BANK ACCOUNT WHICH IS MORE THAN THE TOTAL BANK CREDIT OF RS.2 24 83 795/ - . THE DIFFERENCE OF RS.1 59 677/ - IS DUE TO CHANGES IN VARIOUS CURRENT ASSETS/LIABILITIES AND PENDING ITEMS IN BANK RECONCILIATION . 1 2 . I FIND SOME FORCE IN THE ABOVE ARGUMENT OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. THERE IS NO DISPUTE TO THE FACT THAT THE RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED S INCE THE AO IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER HAS MENTIONED THAT THE INCOME DECLARED U/S 139(1) OF THE IT ACT IS RS.5 61 998/ - . SINCE THE ASSESSEE IS A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY AND THE RETURN IS NOT TREATED AS DEFECTIVE IT SHOWS THAT THE RETURN WAS ACCOMPANIED BY AUDITED ITA NO. 9861 /DEL/201 9 8 STATEMENTS. A PERUSAL OF THE BALANCE SHEET SHOWS THAT THE ISSUED SUBSCRIBED AND PAID - UP SHARE CAPITAL HAS GON E UP FROM RS.10 LAKHS AS ON 31 ST MARCH 2010 TO RS.53 37 700/ - AS ON 31.03.2011 . SIMILARLY THERE ARE OTHER CHANGES IN THE VARIOUS CURRENT ASSETS LOANS AND ADVANCES WHICH HAS GONE UP OR GONE DOWN . THEREFORE THE AO COULD NOT HAVE IGNORED THE AUDITED BALA NCE SHEET FILED ALONG WITH THE RETURN OF INCOME. I FIND SUFFICIENT FORCE IN THE ARGUMENT OF THE LD. COUNSEL THAT THE DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNTS STAND FULLY EXPLAINED AND IN FACT THE ACTUAL DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT S ARE MUCH MORE THAN THE AMOUNT M ENTIONED BY THE AO. CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS AND CONSIDERING THE SMALLNESS OF THE AMOUNT IN QUESTION I DO NOT THINK IT PROPER TO RESTORE THE ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES SINCE THE ASSESSMENT YEAR INVOLVED IS A.Y. 2011 - 12 A ND THE VARIOUS DOCUMENTS/DETAILS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE CIT(A) WERE ALSO FORWARDED TO THE AO FOR HIS COMMENTS ALTHOUGH HE HAS NOT GIVEN ANY COMMENTS. IN MY CONSIDERED OPINION THE AUDITED BALANCE SHEET WHICH WAS FILED ALONG WITH THE RETURN OF INC OME CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS AN ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. IF THE AO HAD GIVEN A CURSORY LOOK T O THE AUDITED BALANCE SHEET HE COULD HAVE SEEN THE DIFFERENCES. A BARE PERUSAL OF THE AUDITED BALANCE SHEET SHOWS THAT THE CASH IN HAND AS ON 31.03.2010 AT RS.6 77 5 76.81 HAS GONE DOWN TO RS.65 585.56 AS ON 31.03.2011 . SIMILARLY OTHER DEBTS HAS GONE DOWN FROM RS.66 67 356.79 AS ON 31.03.2010 TO RS.61 06 363.52 AS ON 31.03.2011. THE FIXED ASSETS AS ON 31.03.2010 HAS GONE DOWN FROM RS.34 87 321.80 TO RS.29 63 883.91 AFTER DEPRECIATION OF RS.6 44 091.61. I FIND THE AO IN THE INSTANT CASE HAS ALSO NOT REJECTED THE BOOKS ITA NO. 9861 /DEL/201 9 9 BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 145(1) AND HAS SIMPLY GONE FOR THE ADDITION ON THE BASIS OF THE INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM THE INVESTIGATION WIN G WHICH WAS THE REASON FOR REOPENING OF THE CASE. SINCE THE LD. COUNSEL HAS DEMONSTRATED BEFORE ME REGARDING THE SOURCE OF DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT WHICH INCLUDES THE INCREASE IN SHARE CAPITAL TO THE TUNE OF RS.43 37 700/ - AND THE NET SALE PROCEEDS AN D MOVEMENT IN CURRENT ASSETS/CURRENT LIABILITIES AND THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WERE NOT REJECTED BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 145(1) THEREFORE I SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND DIRECT THE AO TO DELETE THE ADDITION. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE AS SESSEE ARE ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED. 1 3 . IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED . THE DECISION WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30 .0 3 .20 21 . SD/ - ( R. K. PANDA ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 30 TH MARCH 2021. DK COPY FORWARDED TO 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR ASSTT. REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI