Jatia Investment Co. v. CIT

206 ITR 718High Court1994#1483 most cited

What is Jatia Investment Co. v. CIT authority for?

An addition under Section 68 for unexplained cash credits cannot be made when there is no actual cash credit or flow of funds, such as in cases of share swaps or notional credits.

77

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Jatia Investment Co. v. CIT · Section 68 Income-tax Act 1961 · unexplained cash credit · share swap · notional credit · no actual cash flow · share capital addition · share premium · genuineness of transaction · addition u/s 68 deletion

Also reported as

26 ITD 236

Sections most often in play

Section 68Section 1961Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 115BBESection 133(6)Section 142(1)

Issues it is cited on

share capital and share premiumprincipal officershare application moneyaddition u/s 68admission of additional evidenceunexplained cash creditgenuineness of the transactionaddition under section 68entry operatorrule 46aincome-tax officersection 68

Judgments citing Jatia Investment Co. v. CIT

Syntensia Network Security India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 11(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2927/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm M/S. Syntensia Network Security Vs. Ito 11(2)(4) India Pvt. Ltd., Churchgate, 506, Laxmi Mall Laxmi Industrial Mumbai - 400020 Estate New Link Road, Andheri (W) Mumbai - 400053 Pan/Gir No.Aalcs1143G Appellant) Respondent) ..

Section 143(3)Section 68

…y should not be treated as unexplained cash credit in the hands of the assessee company during the A.Y.2012-13 under consideration. 13. In support of above proposition, reliance was placed on the decision of Calcutta High Court in case of Jatia Investment Co. 206 ITR 718 wherein Court observed as under:- “Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Cash credits - Assessment year - Partners of assessee-firm were members of one 'J' group running ;ral businesses and industries - Accounts of assessee-firm showed that it borrowed certain amount from GB, a proprietary concern of one of its partners JM, which was invested…

Crm Services India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the assessee’s appeal ITA No

ITA 1161/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jul 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Smt. Suchitra Kamble, Jm Ita No. 1161/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Sh. Neeraj Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay I. Bara, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C

…plied). Reliance is also placed in that regard on the following decisions: CIT v. Hewlett Packard India: 314 ITR 55 (Del HC) CIT v. Chandra Kant Sahu Bhai: 202 Taxman 262 (Del HC) CIT v. Betterways Finance: ITA 995 of 2009 (Del HC) Jatia Investment Co v. CIT: 206 ITR 718 (Cal HC) Electra (Jaipur) Ltd v. IAC: 26 ITD 236 (Del ITAT) Y. W. C. A. of India vs IAC: 29 ITD 620 (Del ITAT) The applicant, it is respectfully submitted, in the course of the proceedings before the TPO and DRP filed several documents and made elaborate submissions in support of arm’s length price of international transaction of payment of roya…

Shreenath Heritage Liquor Pvt. Ltd., Jhunjhunu vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle, Jhunjhunu

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 279/JPR/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Jul 2018AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar, Advocate and Ms. Eisha Kanoongo, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra, JCIT - DR
Section 115BSection 68

…ised before the lower authorities. (ii) CIT Vs. Raoraia Hanut Singh 117 Taxman 613 / 252 ITR 0528 : (Raj) - The position is that the Tribunal can admit the additional evidence if it requires it to enable it to pass orders. Electra (Jaipur) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. IAC 26 ITD 236 - If evidence (iii) produced by assessee is genuine, reliable and proves assessee's case than assessee should not be denied opportunity of it being produced even if he first time produces same before appellate authority. (iv) Smt. Prabhavati S. Shah Vs. CIT 231 ITR 1 (Bom.) - Production of additional evidence - assessee taking loans from two cred…

M/S Gold Touch Jewellery Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, WD-7(3), Kolkata

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 327/KOL/2016[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Dec 2017AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Year:2009-10

Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 40

…s no question of deducting any TDS on the amount of wastage of gold given to the karigars. Ld. AR for the assessee in support of his claim relied on the judgment / orders of Hon'ble courts and Tribunal which are reproduced below:- a) Jatia Investment Calcutta 206 ITR 718 (Cal) b) Kantilal Verma 52 ITD 412 (Pune) c) HH Rama Verma 187 ITR 308 at 310 (SC) d) Amon Bolu Rajesh 102 ITR 403 (AP) e) Saru Smelting Allahabad 116 ITR 766 (All) On the other hand, Ld. DR vehemently relied on the order of Authorities Below. 12. We have heard rival contentions and perused the material available on record. In the instant case it…

Shri Pankajkumar Bhikhabhai Patel, Anand vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Anand

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 661/AHD/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 Sept 2017AY 2010-11
Section 143(3)Section 69Section 69A

…Foundation, 71 TTJ 343 :- “In this regard, we may however refer to observations of Shri G. Krishnamurty, the then Hon’ble President and while articulating views on behalf of Jaipur Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Electra (Jaipur) (P.) Ltd. v. IAC [1988] 26 ITD 236(Del.), which are reproduced below : Assessment/Year : 2010-2011 Page 3 of 5 "After going through the evidence placed before us, considering the facts of this and going through the orders of the authorities below, we are of the view that the assessee should not be disqualified from producing this evidence merely on the ground that the evidence was…

ITO, WD-5(3), Kolkata vs. M/S Blessing Commercial Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result we set aside the order of the Ld

ITA 271/KOL/2014[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Jun 2017AY 2010-2011

Bench: Hon‟Ble Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A. No. 271/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2010-11 I.T.O., Ward-5(3), Kolkata -Vs.- M/S. Blessings Commercial Pvt. Ltd. 228A, A.J.C. Bose Road, Kolkata – 700 020 [Pan : Aaccb 1349 N] (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant : Shri Goulen Hangshing, Cit, Dr. For The Respondent : Shri Manoj Kataruka, Advocate Date Of Hearing : 12.06.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.06.2017 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Vi, Kolkata, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”), Dt. 19/11/2013, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The „Act‟), Relating To Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. Facts In Brief:- The Assessee Is A Company & Is Engaged In The Business Of Finance & Investment. It Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2011-12 On 22/09/2010, Declaring –Nil- Income. It Showed A Loss Of Rs.668/-. The Facts As Recorded By The Assessing Officer In The Assessment Order Are Extracted Below:- “Para 1.2.1 The Assessee Has Shown Receipt Of Under Mentioned Share Capital Of Rs.1,90,00,000/- & Share Premium Of Rs.188,10,00,000/- During The Asst. Year 2010-11. The Assessee Credited Rs.1,90,00,000/- In Total In Its Books Against The Above Receipts. The Assessee Claimed That The Detail Of Receipts Are As Under :-

For Appellant: Shri Goulen Hangshing, CIT, DRFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kataruka, Advocate
Section 250

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH : KOLKATA [Before Hon‟ble Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy, AM & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, JM] I.T.A. No. 271/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2010-11 I.T.O., Ward-5(3), Kolkata -vs.- M/s. Blessings Commercial Pvt. Ltd. 228A, A.J.C. Bose Road, Kolkata – 700 020 [PAN : AACCB 1349 N] (Appellant) (Respondent) For the Appellant : Shri Goulen Hangshing, CIT, DR. For the Respondent : Shri Manoj Kataruka, Advocate Date of Hearing : 12.06.2017 Date of Pronouncement : 28.06.2017 ORDER Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, AM This is an appeal filed by the Revenue directed against the order of the C…

National Dairy Development Board, Anand vs. The Dy.CIT., Anand Circle, Anand

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 2099/AHD/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 May 2017AY 2006-07
Section 143(3)Section 28Section 36(1)(xii)

…en. The monies have not, in any case, come back to the assessee. The plea of the assessee has been rejected only on the technicalities regarding additional evidences. As held by a coordinate bench of this Tribunal, in the case of Electra (Jaipur) Ltd Vs IAC [(26 ITD 236 (Del)],”We are of the view that the assessee should not be disqualified from producing this evidence merely on the ground that the evidence was not placed before the authorities below. The sole purpose of judiciary as well as of the Revenue is to get at the truth. …. There should be no objection to consider any evidence produced to test its authen…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Smt. Prem Anand, New Delhi

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 3514/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Apr 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Sh. Raj Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Sh. F.R. Meena, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “F”, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 3514/DEL/2014 A.Y. 2008-09 ACIT, CIRCLE-33(1), SMT. PREM ANAND CIVIC CENTRE, VS. 31/9, EAST PATEL NAGAR, NEW DELHI – 110 002 NEW DELHI – 110 008 (PAN: AAHPA4222D) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Department by : Sh. F.R. Meena, Sr. DR Assessee by : Sh. Raj Kumar, CA ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU, JM : This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the Order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-XXVI, New Delhi dated 11.3.2014 pertaining to Assessment Year…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Mark Buildtech Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result ground No. 1 of the appeal of the revenue is allowed with above direction

ITA 3457/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Apr 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishiacit, Vs. Mark Buildtech Pvt Ltd, Circle-6(1), Flat No. 714, 89, Kemjunt New Delhi Chambers, Nehru Place, New Delhi Pan:Aaecm7261Qw (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 2Section 36

…the AO. There was no time baring limitation on the AO to complete the assessment in hurry on 24.08.2012 when the AO had the time to complete the assessment till 31.03.2013. The appellant also relied on the decision of Electra (Jaipur) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. IAC (1988) 26 ITD 236 (Del) to emphasis that in the interest of justice, evidence should be accepted even if it is not submitted before the lower authorities to ascertain the truth. The appellant also argued that, by not paying the balance amount of agreed purchase consideration of Rs.8.13 crore, the appellant has saved further loss that would have incurred in the busi…

ITO, Rohtak vs. Sh. Ram Kishan, Haryana

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2762/DEL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Feb 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhua.Y. : 2006-07 Income Tax Officer, Sh. Ram Kishan S/O Sh. Hari Ward-3, Aayakar Bhawan, Vs. Singh, Vpo Dabodha Khurd Rohtak (Haryana) Tehsil Bahadurgarh, Distt. Jhajjar (Pan: Dbcpk7085P)

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Rakesh Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 148

…onal evidence and also filed a report on the same (without any objection) the ground now raised is untenable. To support this contention, Ld. Counsel of the Assessee relied upon the following case laws:- - 231 ITR 1 (Bom) Smt. Prabhavati S. Shah vs. CIT - 26 ITD 236 (Del) Electra Jaipur (P) Ltd. vs. IAC - 121 TTJ 269 (Jaipur) Anmol Colours (India) (P) Ltd. vs. ITO 6.2 With regard to ground no. 2 to 4 relating to addition of Rs. 29,75,000/- on account of alleged unexplained cash deposit in bank account with Haryana Gramin Bank, Nuna Majra and addition of Rs. 10,09,837/- on account of alleged unexplained…

Chandan M Parmar, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 11(2), Mumbai

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4601/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran & Shri Pawan Singh

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal (AR)For Respondent: Shri Subhlachan Ram & Ms
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 2Section 2(14)Section 253Section 263Section 43(5)Section 68

…ed that all documents which were placed before he AO as well as before ld Pr Commissioner is filed in the form of the paper book placed before Tribunal. The ld AR for the assessee relied upon the decision of Calcutta High Court in J.P. Investment Co. vs. CIT [206 ITR 718], decision of Cochin Tribunal in ACIT vs. Kerla Transport Company [51 ITD 405] and the decision of Allahabad High Court in Sundarlal Jain vs. CIT [117 ITR 316]. On the other hand, the ld. DR for the revenue supported the order of Pr. Commissioner and argued that the AO has not made any enquiry in respect of Capital gain claimed by the assessee. T…

Control Risks India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1098/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Sept 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Sh.Prashant Maharishi

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 234BSection 92C

…T vs Text Hundred India Pvt. Ltd. 239 CTR 263 (Delhi High Court); CIT Vs. Hewlett Packard India: 314 ITR 55 (Del HC); CIT Vs. Chandra Kant Sahu Bhai: 202 Taxman 262 (Del HC); CIT Vs. Betterways Finance: ITA 995 of 2009 (Del HC); Jatia Investment Co V. CIT: 206 ITR 718 (Cal Hon'ble HC); Electra (Jaipur) Ltd. Vs. IAC: 26 ITD 236 (Del ITAT); and Y.W.C. A of India Vs. IAC: 29 ITD 620 (Del ITAT). 3. The Ld. Sr. DR did not have any objection either to the admission of fresh evidence nor to the restoration of the issue back to the file of the TPO. His only argument was that the evidence is new and he would not wa…

Control Risks India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 979/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Sept 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Sh.Prashant Maharishi

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92C

…idence may be taken into consideration. Reliance is also placed on CIT Vs. Hewlett Packard India: 314 ITR 55 (Del HC); CIT Vs. Chandra Kant Sahu Bhai: 202 Taxman 262 (Del HC); CIT Vs. Betterways Finance: ITA 995 of 2009 (Del HC); Jatia Investment Co V. CIT: 206 ITR 718 (Cal Hon'ble HC); Electra (Jaipur) Ltd. Vs. IAC: 26 ITD 236 (Del ITAT); and Y.W.C. A of India Vs. IAC: 29 ITD 620 (Del ITAT). 6.9. Accordingly, it was his submission that by allowing the prayer of the assessee, the issue may be remanded. 7. Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. Sr. DR who initially had submitte…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Niit Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4961/DEL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 May 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2007-08 Acit, Circle 9(1), Room No. 163, Vs. M/S. Niit Ltd, B-234, Okhla Indl. C.R. Building, New Delhi Area, Phase-I, New Delhi Gir/Pan : Aaacn0085D (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 10BSection 115JSection 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘E’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SMT. DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2007-08 ACIT, Circle 9(1), Room No. 163, Vs. M/s. NIIT Ltd, B-234, Okhla Indl. C.R. Building, New Delhi Area, Phase-I, New Delhi GIR/PAN : AAACN0085D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Ms. Paramita M. Biswas, CIT(DR) Respondent by Sh. Rohit Jain & Ms. Bhavita Kumar Date of hearing 05.04.2016 Date of pronouncement 20.05.2016 ORDER PER O.P. KANT, A.M.: This appeal of the Revenue is directed against order dated 05/07/2012 of learned Commissioner of Income-…

Manisha Bipin Bhinsara, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 25(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA N0

ITA 4512/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 May 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 4512/Mum/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10) Mrs. Manisha Bipin The Income Tax Officer- बनाम/ Bhinsara, Ward 25(2)(2), V. 501/A, Yogi Ratna, Bandra Kurla Complex, Opp Mogaveera Bank, Mumbai – 400 051. Eksar Road, Borivali (West), Mumbai – 400 092. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Amlpb7464N (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri V.S. Jadhav,DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

…hay Shroff v. ITO, (1997) 63 ITD 144 (1997)(Pat)(TM) approving 52 ITD 286 (Ahm) 6. DCIT v. Oman International Bank SAOG (2006) 100 ITD 285 (Mum)[SB] following the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Puri v. CIT, 151 ITR 84. 7. Electra Jaipur v. IAC, (1988)26 ITD 236 (Del.-Trib.) and 8. Prabhavati Shah v. CIT, (1998)231 ITR 1 (Bom) 8. The ld. D.R., on the other hand, relied upon the orders of authorities below. 9. We have considered the rival contentions and also perused the material available on record . We have also gone through case laws relied upon by both the rival parties. We have observed that additio…

M/S. Dhv Global Engineering Center Bv, Noida vs. DDIT, Noida

In the result, assessee’s appeals stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2300/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Feb 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra : & Shri Kuldip Singh :Asstt. Yr: 2009-10 & Ita Nos. 1238 & 1239/Del/2015 Asstt. Yrs: 2010-11 & 2011-12 Dhv Global Engineering Vs. Dcit International Taxation, Center Bv Noida. 14 Block-1, Sdf, Noida, Special Economic Zone, Noida. Pan: Aaccd 0804 G ( Appellant ) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Ajay Vohra Sr. Adv. Shri Neeraj Jain Adv. Ms. Deepika Agarwal Respondent By : Shri Amrendra Kumar Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 18/01/2016. Date Of Order : 24/02/2016. O R D E R Per S.V. Mehrotra, A.M:

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Amrendra Kumar CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144C

…Reliance is also placed in that regard on the following decisions: - CIT v. Hewlett Packard India: 314 ITR 55 (Del HC) - CIT v. Chandra Kant Sahu Bhai: 202 Taxman 262 (Del HC) - CIT v. Betterways Finance: ITA 995 of 2009 (Del HC) - Jatia Investment Co v. CIT: 206 ITR 718 (Cal HC) - Electra (Jaipur) Ltd v. IAC: 26 ITD 236 (Del. ITAT) - Y. W. C. A. of India vs IAC: 29 ITD 620 (Del IT AT) Your Honour's attention is also invited to the decision of Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of UCB India Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT, Circle 7(3), Mumbai, 1211T0131, wherein it is held as under: "In all fairness, the assessee should…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Tulip Star Hotels Ltd., New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4908/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Oct 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh, Jm & Sh. O.P.Kant, Am Ita No.4908/Del./2011 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 Acit Vs Tulip Star Hotels Ltd., Circle-16(1) Indra Palace, New Delhi H-Block, Connaught Circle New Delhi Aaacc1072F (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. J.P.Chandrekar, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Sh. Shashwat Bajpai, Adv
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘H’, NEW DELHI Before Smt. Diva Singh, JM AND Sh. O.P.Kant, AM ITA No.4908/Del./2011 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 ACIT Vs Tulip Star Hotels Ltd., Circle-16(1) Indra Palace, New Delhi H-Block, Connaught Circle New Delhi AAACC1072F (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Appellant by : Sh. J.P.Chandrekar, Sr. DR Respondent by : Sh. Shashwat Bajpai, Adv. Date of Hearing : 15.09.2015 Date of Pronouncement :14.10.2015 ORDER PER O.P.KANT, A.M. This appeal of the Revenue is directed against the order dated 25.08.2011 of learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) - XIX, New Delhi, raisi…