DCIT, New Delhi v. M/s. A.V. Inc.,, New Delhi

ITA 1030/DEL/2009 | 2004-2005
Pronouncement Date: 19-02-2010 | Result: Partly Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 103020114 RSA 2009
Bench Delhi
Appeal Number ITA 1030/DEL/2009
Duration Of Justice 11 month(s)
Appellant DCIT, New Delhi
Respondent M/s. A.V. Inc.,, New Delhi
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 19-02-2010
Appeal Filed By Department
Order Result Partly Allowed
Bench Allotted A
Tribunal Order Date 19-02-2010
Date Of Final Hearing 15-02-2010
Next Hearing Date 15-02-2010
Assessment Year 2004-2005
Appeal Filed On 19-03-2009
Judgment Text
I.T.A. NO.1030 /DEL/09 1/8 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH A NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI R.P. TOLANI JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.K. GARODIA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO.1030 /DEL/2009 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2004-05 DCIT M/S A.V. INC. CIRCLE-24 (1) GREEN HOUSE 25/2 NEW DELHI. V. LADO SARAI N. DELHI. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN /GIR/NO.AABFA-1820-F APPELLANT BY : MS. BANITA DEVI NAOREM SR. DR. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI VK SABHARWAL ADVOCATE. ORDER PER A.K. GARODIA AM: THIS IS REVENUE'S APPEAL DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD CIT(A)-XXVIII NEW DELHI DATED 17.12.2008 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004 -05. 2. GROUND NO.1 OF THE APPEAL READS AS UNDER:- WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE CASE THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE DISA LLOWANCE OF RS.12 80 000/- ON ACCOUNT OF CONSULTANCY CHARGES. 3. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT IT IS NOTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON PAGE NO.2 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT DURING THE PRESEN T YEAR THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED CONSULTANCY CHARGES OF RS.12.80 LAKHS WHICH WAS PAID TO FIVE PERSONS. NAME-WISE DETAILS OF SUCH PAYMENT HAS BEEN NOTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON . I.T.A. NO.1030/DEL/09 2/8 PAGE NO.2 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THEREAFTER IT IS OBSERVED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THESE PAYMENTS WERE MADE TO CLOSE RELA TIVES OF PARTNERS AS WELL AS TO PERSONS WHOSE FAMILY HAS GIVEN ACCOMMODATION EN TRIES IN RESPECT OF RENT OF PROPERTY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE THESE PERSONS FOR THEIR EXAMINATION AND TO ESTABLISH THAT THE PAY MENTS WERE INCIDENTAL TO THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM. THEREAFTER ON PAGE NO.3 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IT IS NOTED THAT NO REPLY WAS RECEIVED AND T HEREAFTER HE HAS DECIDED THIS ISSUE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE ON THE BASIS THAT THE AS SESSEE COULD NOT ESTABLISH THE BUSINESS EXPEDIENCY AND GENUINENESS OF THESE EX PENSES. HE DISALLOWED THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF CONSULTATION CHARGES OF RS.12.80 L AKHS PAID BY THE ASSESSEE. BEING AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE LD CIT(A). BEFORE LD CIT(A) IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSESSEE FIRM HAS APPOINTED VARIOUS CONSULTANTS FOR THE PURPOSE OF DE SIGNING AND SOURCING OF HANDICRAFT MATERIAL FROM DIFFERENT PLACES TO INDIA AND THEREAFTER TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE BUYERS REQUIREMENTS QUALITY CHEC K BANKING ETC. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FURNISHED BEFORE LD CIT(A) COPY O F APPOINTMENT LETTERS BILLS RAISED BY THE CONSULTANTS THEIR IT RETURNS DETAIL S OF TDS AND BANK STATEMENTS ETC. LD CIT(A) HAS OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSING OFF ICER HAS NOT BROUGHT ON RECORD ANY MATERIAL TO REBUT THESE DOCUMENTARY EVID ENCES AND AFTER MAKING THESE OBSERVATIONS HE HAS DELETED THE DISALLOWANC E MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. NOW THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 4. IT IS SUBMITTED BY THE LD DR OF THE REVENUE THAT AS PER THE DOCUMENTS FURNISHED BEFORE LD CIT(A) AND BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IN THE PAPER BOOK THE FACTUM OF PAYMENT BY THE ASSESSEE TO VARIOUS PERSONS AND I NCLUSION OF THIS AMOUNT IN THE INCOME OF THE RECIPIENTS IS ESTABLISHED BUT THE SE DOCUMENTS DO NOT ESTABLISH THE BUSINESS EXPEDIENCY OF THESE PAYMENTS AND HENCE THE ORDER OF THE LD CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED. 5. AS AGAINST THIS LD AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE LD CIT(A) AND IT IS SUBMITTED BY HIM THAT ON PAGES 1-16 OF TH E PAPER BOOK ARE THE VARIOUS . I.T.A. NO.1030/DEL/09 3/8 DOCUMENTS IN THIS REGARD. IT IS ALSO SUBMITTED BY HIM THAT IN EARLIER YEARS ALSO AND IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEARS ALSO SIMILAR COMMISSION PAYMENT WAS MADE AND THE SAME WAS ALLOWED IN THOSE YEARS AND HENCE IN THE PR ESENT YEAR ALSO THE DISALLOWANCE IS RIGHTLY DELETED BY THE LD CIT(A). 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND HAVE GON E THROUGH THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE QUERY OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS TO JUSTIFY AND E STABLISH THE BUSINESS EXPEDIENCY OF THESE PAYMENTS. THE ASSESSING OFFICE R ALSO ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE THESE PERSONS BEFORE HIM FOR EXAMINATION . BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED ANY EXPLANA TION ESTABLISHING THAT THESE PAYMENTS WERE INCIDENTAL TO THE BUSINESS OF THE ASS ESSEE FIRM. THE ASSESSEE ALSO DID NOT PRODUCE THESE PERSONS BEFORE THE ASSES SING OFFICER AND NO REASONS ARE STATED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR NOT PRODUCING THESE PERSONS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHEREAS IT WAS ADMITTED BEFORE US THAT OUT OF FIVE PERSONS THREE PERSONS ARE RELATIVES OF THE PARTNERS OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM TO WHOM PAYMENT OF RS. 10.80 LAKHS WAS MADE OUT OF TOTAL PAYMENT OF RS.12.80 LAK HS. BEFORE LD CIT(A) ALSO THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED ONLY COPY OF APPOINTMENT LETTERS BILLS RAISED BY THE CONSULTANTS THEIR IT RETURNS DETAILS OF TDS AND C OPY OF BANK STATEMENTS. BEFORE US ALSO THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED COPY OF IT RETU RNS FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 OF NEHA CHANDRA MAHIMA GUPTA SANGEETA GUP TA AND AKSHEY CHANDRA. IN SUPPORT OF THIS CONTENTION ALSO THAT S IMILAR PAYMENTS WERE IN EARLIER YEARS AND IN SUBSEQUENT YEARS NO DOCUMENTARY EVIDE NCE HAS BEEN FURNISHED BEFORE US SHOWING DETAILS OF SIMILAR PAYMENTS IN EA RLIER OR SUBSEQUENT YEARS. UNDER THESE FACTS WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PROVED THE EXISTENCE OF BUSINESS EXPEDIENCY REGARDI NG THESE PAYMENTS. REGARDING THIS OBSERVATION OF LD CIT(A) THAT THE AS SESSING OFFICER HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO REBUT THESE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE WE WOULD LIKE TO MENTION THAT THE OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS THAT THESE EXPENSES ARE NOT INCIDENTAL TO THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM AND HENCE BY FILING THESE EVIDENCES AS STATED ABOVE THE ASSESSEE HAS PROVED ONLY ONE PART THAT PAYMENT . I.T.A. NO.1030/DEL/09 4/8 WAS IN FACT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE AND THESE PERSONS HAVE CONSIDERED THESE PAYMENTS IN THEIR INCOME BUT THIS DOES NOT FULFILL THE REQUIREMENT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THESE PAYMENTS WERE MADE FOR BUSINESS PURPOSE AND HENCE WE FEEL THAT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE THIS MATTER SHOULD GO BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR A FRESH DECISION BECAUSE ALTH OUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO ESTABLISH BEFORE US THAT THESE EXPENSES ARE FOR BUSINESS PURPOSE OF THE ASSESSEE THE ASSESSEE DESERVES AN OPPORTUNITY IN V IEW OF THIS ARGUMENT OF THE ASSESSEE THAT SIMILAR PAYMENTS TO SAME PERSONS IN E ARLIER YEARS AND IN SUBSEQUENT YEARS HAS BEEN ALLOWED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. WE THEREFORE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE AND RESTORE THIS MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR A FRESH DECISION AFTER PROVIDING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASS ESSEE HAS TO ESTABLISH THE BUSINESS EXPEDIENCY REGARDING THESE PAYMENTS AND IF THE ASSESSING OFFICER REQUIRES THE PRESENCE OF THESE PERSONS BEFORE THE A SSESSING OFFICER AND THE ASSESSEE FAILS TO PRODUCE THESE PERSONS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THE ASSESSEE HAS TO FURNISH SATISFACTORY REASONS FOR HI S FAILURE TO DO SO. THEREAFTER THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHOULD PASS NECESSARY ORDER A S PER LAW. THIS GROUND OF THE REVENUE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 7. GROUND NO.2 OF THE REVENUES APPEAL READS AS UND ER:- WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE CASE THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE DISAL LOWANCE OF RS.5 10 000/- ON ACCOUNT OF EXPENSES INCURRED ON RENT. 8. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT IT IS NOTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON PAGE NO.2 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED AN AGGREGATE EXPENDITURE OF RS.6.78 LAKHS ON ACCOUNT OF RENT PAY MENT TO FIVE PERSONS. IT IS FURTHER NOTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OUT OF THESE FIVE PAYMENTS THREE PAYMENTS OF RS.1.50 LAKHS RS.1.80 LAKHS AND AGAIN RS.1.80 LAKHS WERE MADE IN CONNECTION WITH PROPERTIES ALLEGEDLY HIRED FROM 1.1 0.2003 ONWARDS. THE . I.T.A. NO.1030/DEL/09 5/8 ASSESSING OFFICER ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO ESTABLISH A S TO WHY ADDITIONAL SPACE WAS REQUIRED IN THE SECOND HALF OF THE ACCOUNTING Y EAR. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE ELECTRICITY BILL S OF THE RESPECTIVE PROPERTIES MODE AND DATE OF RENT PAYMENT AND PRECISE BUSINESS USE ETC. IT IS FURTHER NOTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT NO REPLY HAS BEEN FUR NISHED BY THE ASSESSEE. THEREAFTER THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS DISALLOWED TH E PAYMENT OF RENT TO THE EXTENT OF RS.5.10 LAKHS ON THIS BASIS THAT THE ASSE SSEE COULD NOT ESTABLISH THE ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT OF SPACE FOR BUSINESS PURPOS E. BEING AGGRIEVED THE ASSESEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE LD CIT( A). BEFORE LD CIT(A) IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THERE WAS NEED FOR A DDITIONAL SPACE AS THE FOREIGN IMPORTERS ASKED FOR EXTRA SPACE FOR FIRE FI GHTING AREA MEDICAL FACILITY AND TESTING FACILITY ETC. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FURNIS HED COPIES OF RENT AGREEMENT PROOF OF SECURITY DEPOSIT COPIES OF ACCOUNTS CONFI RMING PAYMENT OF RENT COPY OF LETTER GIVEN TO THE BANK INTIMATING CHANGE OF ADDRE SS LETTERS AND CERTIFICATES RECEIVED FROM MINISTRY OF COMMERCE & INDUSTRIES ETC . LD CIT(A) HAS DELETED THIS DISALLOWANCE BY OBSERVING THAT THE RENT AGREEMENT A ND OTHER DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE IN SUPPORT OF E XPENDITURE UNDER THIS HEAD HAVE NOT BEEN REBUTTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. N OW THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 9. LD DR OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ASSESSMENT OR DER WHEREAS THE LD AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LD CIT(A). 10. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND HAVE GO NE THROUGH THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINI ON THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS BROUGHT ON RECORD SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT ADDITIONAL SPACE TAKEN ON RENT BY THE ASSESSEE WAS USED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR BUSINE SS PURPOSE AND HENCE WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF LD CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE AND WE THEREFORE CONFIRM THE SAME. GROUND NO.2 OF THE APPE AL OF REVENUE IS REJECTED. 11. GROUND NO.3 OF THE REVENUES APPEAL READS AS UN DER:- . I.T.A. NO.1030/DEL/09 6/8 WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE CASE THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE DISAL LOWANCE OF RS.4 57 536/- ON ACCOUNT OF EXPENSES INCURRED ON SEMINAR. 12. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT IT IS NOTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED DEDUCTION OF RS.4 57 566/- ON ACCOUNT OF SEMINARS/CONFERENCES EXPENSES. IT IS NOTED BY THE A SSESSING OFFICER THAT THE EXPENSES ARE RELATED TO PARTICIPATION OF ASSESSEES CONCERN IN CHINA FAIR HELD BETWEEN 20-24 APRIL 2004. IT IS NOTED BY THE ASSE SSING OFFICER THAT RS.2 54 616/- IS IN RESPECT OF EXHIBITION SPACE AND RS.2 02 920/- RELATES TO BILL OF TRAVEL AGENCY M/S ORBIT TOWARDS ACCOMMODATION ARRAN GEMENTS IN RESPECT OF EIGHT PERSONS FOR THE SAID CHINA FAIR. IT WAS OBSE RVED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE IS FOLLOWING MERCANTILE SYS TEM OF ACCOUNTING THESE EXPENSES CANNOT BE CHARGED BY THE REVENUE IN THIS Y EAR BECAUSE THE SAME RELATES TO THE FOLLOWING YEAR. THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO JUSTIFY THIS CLAIM IN THE PRESENT YEAR. SINCE THE ASSESSEE DID NOT SUBMIT ANY EXPLANATION BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THE ASSES SING OFFICER HAS DISALLOWED THESE EXPENSES IN THE PRESENT YEAR ON THE BASIS THA T SINCE CHINA FAIR WAS HELD IN APRIL 2004 FALLING IN THE NEXT ASSESSMENT YEAR TH ESE EXPENSES CANNOT BE ALLOWED IN THE PRESENT YEAR. BEING AGGRIEVED THE A SSESEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE LD CIT(A). BEFORE LD CIT(A) IT WAS S UBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE EXPENDITURE SHOULD BE ALLOWED ON THE BASIS OF LIABILITY INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT EIGHT PERSONS WERE NOMINATED IN THE CHINA FAIR AND THE AMOUNT WAS PAID IN ADVANCE ON 29.12.20 03 AND 31.3.2004 AND THE SAME WAS DEBITED TO THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSE E. LD CIT(A) HAS ALLOWED THIS CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE BASIS THAT THE EX PENDITURE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS TOWARDS LIABILITY WHICH HAS ALREADY AR ISEN AND THE AMOUNT WAS PAID TOWARDS THIS LIABILITY. HE HAS DELETED THIS A MOUNT ON THE BASIS THAT SINCE THE LIABILITY HAD BEEN INCURRED IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSI DERATION THE SAME DESERVES TO BE ALLOWED. NOW THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US . . I.T.A. NO.1030/DEL/09 7/8 13. IT IS SUBMITTED BY THE LD DR OF THE REVENUE THA T SINCE THESE EXPENSES ARE IN CONNECTION WITH CHINA FAIR HELD IN THE NEXT YEAR THE EXPENSES CANNOT BE ALLOWED IN THE PRESENT YEAR ALTHOUGH THE SAME CAN BE ALLOWED IN THE NEXT YEAR. HE SUPPORTED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. LD AR OF THE AS SESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LD CIT(A). 14. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND HAVE GO NE THROUGH THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND WE FIND THAT THERE IS NO DI SPUTE REGARDING THIS ASPECT THAT THESE EXPENSES WERE INCURRED ON ACCOUNT OF PARTICIP ATION OF THE ASSESSEE IN CHINA FAIR WHICH WAS HELD DURING 20-24 TH APRIL 2004. THIS IS ALSO A FACT THAT THESE EXPENSES WERE PAID BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE PRESE NT YEAR. IN THE LIGHT OF THESE FACTS WE HAVE TO DECIDE AS TO WHETHER THE DE DUCTION ON ACCOUNT OF THESE EXPENSES IS ALLOWABLE IN THE PRESENT YEAR OR IN THE NEXT YEAR. WE FAIL TO UNDERSTAND AS TO ON WHAT BASIS IT CAN BE HELD THAT THESE EXPENSES ARE ALLOWABLE IN THE PRESENT YEAR WHEN THE ASSESSEE IS ADMITTEDLY FOLLOWING MERCANTILE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING AND THE EXPENSES ARE INCURRED FOR THE CHINA FAIR TO BE HELD IN NEXT YEAR. ACCORDING TO THE MATCHING PRINCIPLE ALSO DE DUCTION ON ACCOUNT OF EXPENSES ARE ALLOWABLE IN THAT YEAR IN WHICH THE A DVANTAGE OF THE EXPENSES ACCRUES TO THE ASSESSEE. IN THE PRESENT CASE THE A DVANTAGE ON ACCOUNT OF PARTICIPATION IN CHINA FAIR WILL ACCRUE TO THE ASSE SSEE IN NEXT YEAR AND HENCE IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION DEDUCTION ON THIS ACCOUNT I S ALLOWABLE IN THE NEXT YEAR AND NOT IN THE PRESENT YEAR SIMPLY ON THIS BASIS TH AT EXPENSES ARE PAID IN THE PRESENT YEAR. WE WOULD ALSO LIKE TO FURTHER CLARIFY THAT IF A PERSON WANTS TO TRAVEL IN A TRAIN IN THE MONTH OF APRIL AND FOR THAT HE BO OKED THE TICKET IN ADVANCE IN MARCH BY MAKING FULL PAYMENT FOR THE REASON THAT IF THE TICKETS ARE NOT BOOKED IN ADVANCE NO SEAT WILL BE AVAILABLE IT CANNOT BE HE LD UNDER THESE FACTS THAT DEDUCTION ON ACCOUNT OF THESE TICKETS EXPENSES IS T O BE ALLOWED IN THE FIRST YEAR IN WHICH THE TICKETS ARE PURCHASED BUT THE SAME HAS TO BE ALLOWED IN THE NEXT YEAR WHEN THE TRAVELING HAS TAKEN PLACE. DEFINITELY THE SAME IS ALLOWABLE IN THE NEXT YEAR WHEN THE TRAVELING HAS TAKEN PLACE AND AC CORDINGLY IN THE PRESENT CASE . I.T.A. NO.1030/DEL/09 8/8 ALSO THE EXPENSES ON ACCOUNT OF CHINA FAIR IS ALLO WABLE IN THE NEXT YEAR. WE DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER ACCORDINGLY. THIS GRO UND OF THE REVENUE IS ALLOWED. 15. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS PAR TLY ALLOWED. 16. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 19TH FE BRUARY 2010. SD/- SD/- (R.P. TOLANI) (A.K. GARODIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DT.19..2.2010. HMS COPY FORWARDED TO:- 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT (A)- NEW DELHI. 5. THE DR ITAT LOKNAYAK BHAWAN KHAN MARKET NEW DELHI. TRUE COPY. BY ORDER (ITAT NEW DELHI).