“Section 142(1)”

Section References (mined)Section 142Section 142(1)15,051 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 142(1) is Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji (167 ITR 471), cited in 3,926 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 142(1)

Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji

167 ITR 471 · 1987 · Supreme Court

3,926

citing judgments

Delay in filing appeals, when supported by sufficient or justifiable cause, should be condoned with a liberal approach to ensure substantial justice. This principle prioritizes the cause of justice over mere technicalities.

Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT

243 ITR 83 · 2000 · Supreme Court

2,943

citing judgments

For revision under Section 263, the Assessing Officer's order must be both erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue; if either condition is not met, the revisionary jurisdiction cannot be invoked. An order is not erroneous merely because the Assessing Officer did not record the details of enquiries conducted, provided due enquiries were made.

CIT v. Multiplan India Ltd.

38 ITD 320 · 1991 · ITAT

2,267

citing judgments

An appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal can be dismissed for non-prosecution or treated as unadmitted when the appellant fails to appear, cooperate, or show diligence, in accordance with Rule 19(2) of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules. The law aids the vigilant, not those who sleep on their rights.

Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar v. CWT

223 ITR 480 · 1997 · High Court

2,040

citing judgments

A court or tribunal is not bound to answer a reference or adjudicate an appeal on its merits if the party at whose instance the proceeding is made fails to appear at the hearing or take necessary steps for its proper conduct.

Sumati Dayal v. CIT

214 ITR 801 · 1995 · Supreme Court

1,967

citing judgments

The Revenue is entitled to look behind the apparent form of a transaction to discover its true nature, applying the test of human probabilities and surrounding circumstances. If transactions defy logic or are unnatural, they can be treated as bogus, even if supported by some documentation, especially in cases of cash credits or unexplained investments.

CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd.

320 ITR 561 · 2010 · Supreme Court

1,673

citing judgments

An Assessing Officer cannot initiate reassessment proceedings under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act based on a mere change of opinion. Reassessment is permissible only when there is fresh tangible material leading to the belief of income escapement, not merely a review of existing facts.

CIT v. B.N. Bhattacharya & Another

118 ITR 461 · 1997 · Supreme Court

1,656

citing judgments

Appealing a tax assessment requires more than just filing the appeal; it involves actively pursuing it. The assessee must effectively engage with the appellate process.

CIT v. Durga Prasad More

82 ITR 540 · 1971 · Supreme Court

1,579

citing judgments

Tax authorities must judge evidence using the test of human probabilities and consider the apparent as real until there are reasons to believe it is not. They can rely on circumstantial evidence and the preponderance of probabilities to determine the genuineness of transactions.

Judgments citing Section 142(1)

Muraleedharan Pillai Arunkumar, Kollam vs. ITO Ward 1 & Tps, Alappuzha

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 690/COCH/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2017-18 Muraleedharan Pillai Arunkumar .......... Appellant Karuvazhathu House, Thevalakara P.O. Palickal, Karunagappally 690524 [Pan: Avjpa3922F] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Wd-1&Tps, Alappuzha.......... Respondent Assessee By: Shri R. Krishnan, Ca Revenue By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 29.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 20.11.2025 O R D E R This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 30.07.2025 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is An Individual. No Regular Return Of Income For Ay 2017-18 Was Filed By The Appellant. Based On The Information That The Appellant Made Cash Deposits Of Rs. 1,65,98,650/- National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter Called "The Ao") Formed An Opinion That Income Escaped Assessment To Tax. Accordingly, A Notice U/S. 148 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Was Issued On 30.03.2021. In 2 Muraleedharan Pillai Arunkumar Response To The Notice U/S. 148, The Appellant Filed Return Of Income On 29.11.2021 Disclosing Income Of Rs. 3,00,990/-. Against The Said Return Of Income, The Assessment Was Completed By The Ao Vide Order Dated 29.03.2022 Passes U/S. 147 R.W.S. 144B Of The Act At Total Income Of Rs. 30,70,746/-. While Doing So, The Ao Made Addition Of Cash Deposits Of Rs. 20,11,631/- S Unexplained Money Of The Appellant. The Ao Also Made Addition On Account Of Vendor Commission Of Rs. 7,58,125/-.

For Appellant: Shri R. Krishnan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM Assessment Year: 2017-18 Muraleedharan Pillai

Kailash Chandra Patidar, Shajapur vs. Income Tax Officer, Shajapur

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

ITA 216/IND/2025[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Nov 2025AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 246ASection 249(3)Section 250Section 253

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, इंदौर "ायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT

Kailash Chandra Patidar, Shajapur vs. Income Tax Officer, Shajapur

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

ITA 196/IND/2025[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Nov 2025AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 246ASection 249(3)Section 250Section 253

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, इंदौर "ायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT

Lucknow Educational and Social Welfare Society, Lucknow vs. Assessment Unit, NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 314/LKW/2025[2020-21]Status: FixedITAT Lucknow20 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2012-13 Shri Brahma Prakash Singh, Vs. Principal Commissioner Of 94, Vaishali Enclave, Sector-9, Indira Income Tax-2, Lucknow Nagar, Lucknow Pan: Ajmps4451L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Dharmendra Kumar, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 20.11.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Pcit-2, Lucknow Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act On 14.03.2018. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under: - “1. That Revision Proceeding Initiated U/S 263 Of Income-Tax Act, 1961 By Learned Pr. Cit-2. Lucknow Is Illegal & Without Jurisdiction. 2. That Since Assessment Order Passed By The Ao Was Not Erroneous In So Far As It Is Prejudicial To The Interests Of The Revenue, Hence Revision Order Passed By Ld. Pr. Cit-2, Lucknow Is Illegal & Without Jurisdiction. 3. That Ld.Ao Had Examined The Issue & After Being Satisfied By The Documentary Evidences & Explanations Furnished By Appellant, Passed Assessment Order, Hence Revision Order, Cancelling The Assessment Order Is Illegal & Without Jurisdiction. 4. That Where An Order Passed By Ao Is Subject To An Appeal That Had Been Filed, Then Commissioner Cannot Invoke Power Under Section 263 In Such Matters, Which Are Agitated In Such Appeal. Since Issue Under Appeal Before Commissioner (Appeals) & Revision Order Passed Under Section 263 Is Same, Hence, Revision Order Passed By Commissioner Is Illegal & Without Jurisdiction. 5. That The Appellant Seeks Permission To Modify And/Or Add Any Other Ground Or Grounds Of Appeal As The Circumstances Of The Case Might Require Or Justify.”

For Appellant: Sh. Dharmendra Kumar, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, CIT DR

Section 133(6)Section 148Section 263

observed during the proceedings under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, that the assessee had changed his response to the notice under section 142(1) regarding the sources of investment in the purchase of immovable property on seven occasions and he has reproduced these different arguments in his order

Yashwant Namdev Pawar, Sangli vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward One Sangli

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

ITA 1742/PUN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1739 To 1742/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 To 2016-17 Yashwant Namdev Pawar, Vs. Ito, Ward-1, Sangli. At Post Navraswad Karnal, Karlal Dist Sangli, Sangli- 416416. Pan : Bkepp5877P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Umeshkumar M. Mali Revenue By : Shri Umesh Phade Date Of Hearing : 03.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.11.2025 आदेश / Order Per Bench : The Above Captioned Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Dated 16.10.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Years 2013-14 To 2016-17 Respectively. 2. There Is Delay In Filing Of The Present Appeals. We Are Satisfied With The Reasons Mentioned In The Application For Appeals Within The Prescribed Time Limit. After Hearing Ld. Dr, We Condone The Delay & Proceed To Adjudicate The Appeals. 3. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In All The Above Captioned Four Appeals Of The Assessee, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 4. First We Shall Take Up The Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.1739/Pun/2025 For A.Y. 2013-14 For Adjudication.

For Appellant: Shri Umeshkumar M. MaliFor Respondent: Shri Umesh Phade

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE

Yashwant Namdev Pawar, Sangli vs. Income Tax Officer, Sangli

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

ITA 1741/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Umeshkumar M. MaliFor Respondent: Shri Umesh Phade

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE

Yashwant Namdev Pawar, Sangli vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward One Sangli

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

ITA 1740/PUN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Umeshkumar M. MaliFor Respondent: Shri Umesh Phade

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE

Yashwant Namdev Pawar, Sangli vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward One Sangli

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

ITA 1739/PUN/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Umeshkumar M. MaliFor Respondent: Shri Umesh Phade

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE

Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(1), Pune vs. Shravani Land Private Limited, Pune

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

ITA 857/PUN/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Nov 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.857/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Ito, Ward-6(1), Pune. Vs. Shravani Land Private Limited, Utkarsha, Plot No.14, Yogi Arbindo Society, Sahakar Nagar-2, Pune- 411009. Pan : Aalcs1473M Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri Manish Kumar Sinha Assessee By : None Date Of Hearing : 15.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.11.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 26.02.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Id. Cit(A) Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 2,43,35,511/-

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Manish Kumar Sinha

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE

Radhanagar Cold Stores Private Limited, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 9(3), Kolkata

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

ITA 777/KOL/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Nov 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 777/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-2019 Radhanagar Cold Stores Pvt. Limited,...……Appellant 161, Rajakatra Building, 1St Floor, Netaji Subha Road, Burrabazar, Kolkata-700007 [Pan:Aabcr5647N] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,…………………………..…..Respondent Ward-9(3), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appearances By: Shri Palash Chttopadhyay, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Susanta Saha, Sr. D.R., Addl. Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: September 04, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: November 20, 2025 O R D E R

Section 142(1)Section 36(1)(ii)

that there was difference in the amount of payment of bonus/commission paid to the employees as per ITR and audit report. Notice under section 142(1) of the Act was issued on 02.12.2020 and duly served upon the assessee calling for details to be filed on or before

Star Paper Mills Limited, Kolkata vs. PCIT - 2, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 641/KOL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY (Judicial Member)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36(1)(vii)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH,KOLKATA SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER

Tirupati Timbers & Packaging P. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 4(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1428/KOL/2025[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Nov 2025AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 1428/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2011-2012 Tirupati Timbers & Packaging P. Limited,…Appellant Room No. 563, Marshall House, 33/1, N.S. Road, Dalhousie, G.P.O., Kolkata-700001, W.B. [Pan:Aabct2720Q] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,……………………………..Respondent Ward-4(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, 8Th Floor, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appearances By: Shri Girdhar Dhelia, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Kallol Mistry, Jcit, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: September 02, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: November 20, 2025 O R D E R

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 250

Notice under section 143(2) was issued on 18.07.2018 requiring to produce the details/documents/accounts or any other evidence. On 20.08.2018, a notice under section 142(1) along with questionnaire was sent to the assessee, and in response, the assessee-company filed details/documents against the said notice. Consequently a letter

Anand Arunraj, Chennai vs. DCIT, Corp. Cirlce-5(1), Chennai

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1348/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Gautam S. Mukundan, JCIT

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 56(2)(vii)

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘ए’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी एबी ट

Harmony Foundation, Mumbai vs. ITO Exem Ward 1(3), Mumbai

ITA 5725/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry

For Appellant: Shri Haridas Bhat, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri A.M.K. Mahadevan, Ld. Sr

Section 11Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 80G

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “SMC”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.5725/M/2025 Assessment

Sneha Binoy Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO Circle 19(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 5007/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal & Smt.Renu Jauhri7 (A.Y.2017-18)

For Appellant: Shri Smit C. Jhaveri, CA a/w ShriFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra- CIT DR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 250Section 68Section 69C

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SMT.RENU JAUHRI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER 7

Reliance Commercial Dealers Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 8(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 3800/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Nov 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Smt. Renu Jauhri ()

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 244A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SMT. RENU JAUHRI (ACCOUNTANT

ITO(It)-3(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry, Mumbai

ITA 3674/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Porus Kaka, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar - CIT DR

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 151Section 3Section 3(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT

Income Tax Officer (It)-3(2)(1), Kautilya Bhawan vs. Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3523/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Porus Kaka, Sr. Advocate and Shri Divesh Chawla, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar - CIT DR

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 151Section 3Section 3(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT

Income Tax Officer (International Taxation) 3(2)(1), Kautilya Bhawan Mumbai vs. Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry, Mumbai

ITA 3440/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Porus Kaka, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar - CIT DR

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 151Section 3Section 3(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT

Magnolia Martinique Clothing Private Limited, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle 17, New Delhi, Delhi

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 4293/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S.Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Dushayant Chaudhary, CAFor Respondent: Shri Jitender Singh, CIT DR

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES ‘A’: NEW DELHI. BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER and SHRI