M/S M.P. PASCHIM KSHETRA VIDYUT VITARAN CO. LTD., Indore V. The Pr CIT-1, Indore

ITA 103/Ind/2021

AI Insights

The case revolves around the revision order passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Pr. CIT) under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, concerning the assessment year 2015-16. The assessee, M.P. Paschim Kshetra Vidyut Vitran Co. Ltd., contested the revision order which was based on the grounds that the original assessment order did not adequately address the issues related to the claim of depreciation and the treatment of certain receipts as revenue. The Tribunal examined whether the Pr. CIT was justified in invoking section 263, considering the explanations and the revised returns filed by the assessee.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 130448 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 3 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-08-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 22-08-2023
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 17-05-2021
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Reopening of assessment; Revision of order; Depreciation; Additional depreciation; Capital receipt; Revised return; Set aside
• Section: 32; 263; 143(3); 72; 13

Judgement Text

Page 1 of 13 आयकर अपील य अ धकरण, इंदौर यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 103/Ind/2021 (Assessment Year:2015-16) M/s M.P. Paschim Kshetra Vidyut Vitran Co. Ltd. Indore Vs. Pr. CIT-1 Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) PAN: AABCT2018B Assessee by Shri Rajesh Mehta & Apurva Mehta, ARs Revenue by Shri P.K. Mishra, CIT- DR Date of He aring 23.08.2023 Date of Pronouncement 30.08.2023 O R D E R Per Vijay Pal Rao, JM: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the revision order dated 31.03.2021 of Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-1 Indore passed u/s 263 of the I.T. Act for Assessment Year 2015-16. The assesse has raised following grounds of appeal: “1.The below mentioned Grounds of Appeal are independent and are without prejudice to one another: 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax ('PCIT) has erred in initiating revision proceedings u/s. 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') against the appellant company without appreciating that the Assessment Order u/s. 143(3) of the Act passed by the Ld. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 3(1) (the Ld. AO') is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Thus, the Order u/s. 263 of the Act is liable to be quashed. ITA No.103/Ind/2023 M.P. Paschim Kshetra Vidyut Page 2 of 13 Page 2 of 13 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. PCIT has erred in holding that the Assessment order has been passed without making inquiry or investigation, without appreciating that the Ld. AO has passed the assessment order after making complete enquiries/investigation/verification and proper application of mind. Thus, the Order u/s. 263 of the Act is liable to be quashed. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. PCIT has erred in invoking the provisions of Section 263 of the Act by holding that the order of the Ld. AO is erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of the revenue in respect of an amount of Rs. 4,39,07.969/- by stating that the appellant company has claimed depreciation of Rs. 2,18,62,57.725/-in its return of income as against Rs. 2.14,23,49,756/- reflected in Tax Audit Report without appreciating that the appellant company is rightly eligible for claim of depreciation of Rs. 2.18,62,57,725/- as claimed in its return of income. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the appellant has claimed correct amount of depreciation which has rightly been accepted by the Ld. AO and has not resulted in any loss of revenue. Thus, the assessment order u/s. 143(3) of the Act is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and thus, the Order u/s. 263 of the Act which is wrong and contrary to the facts of the case is liable to be set aside. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. PCIT has erred in holding that the Ld. AO has not examined fact/issue and no enquiry/investigation has been made regarding allowability of provision of Section 72 of the Act without appreciating that the claim of depreciation is required to be examined under the provisions of section 32 of the Act and not under section 72 of the Act. Thus, the proceedings under section 263 of the Act initiated on incorrect premise are liable to be quashed. 6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. PCIT has erred in passing the Order u/s. 263 of the Act without considering the detailed submission made by the appellant company during the course of revision proceedings and not doing so is wrong and contrary to the provisions of the Act and principle of natural justice. Thus, the Order u/s. 263 of the Act is liable to be quashed.” 2. The assesse company is engaged in the distribution of the electricity and filed its return of income on 28.11.2015 declaring total loss of Rs.1184,20,96,274/-. Subsequently revised return of income was filed by the assesse on 21.02.2017 declaring total loss of Rs.974,36,54,487/-. The assessment was completed u/s 143(3) on 29.12.2017 at loss of Rs.974,36,54,487/-. Thereafter on going through the assessment records ITA No.103/Ind/2023 M.P. Paschim Kshetra Vidyut Page 3 of 13 Page 3 of 13 the Pr. CIT found that certain points were not taken into consideration by the AO while completing the assessment order u/s 143(3) dated 29.12.2017. The Pr. CIT observed that the AO passed the assessment order without making any inquiry on the issues of claim of depreciation and consequential carry forward loss. Accordingly a show cause notice u/s 263 dated 19.09.2019 was issued primarily on the issue of excessive claim of depreciation to the tune of Rs.4,39,07,969/-. The assesse filed reply to the show cause notice and explained that it has been receiving charges from the consumers in respect of supply affording charges and electrification charges and the same were reduced from the value of fixed asset resulting reduction in the written down value of the fixed assets and reduction in the claim of depreciation. In the preceding assessment years the department is treating the said receipt on account of supply valuable charges and electrification charges against new electricity connection as revenue receipt and added to the income of the assesse. Thus the assesse has started offering the said amount as revenue receipt for income tax purpose and consequently in the revised return of income the assessee has reduced total loss by considering the said receipt as revenue receipt and consequently the written down value of fixed asset is enhanced and claimed enhanced depreciation @ 15% on the differential amount Rs.29,27,19,797/- which comes to Rs.4,39,07,969/-. The Pr. CIT has not disputed these explanations of the assesse but set aside the impugned order on the ground that the AO has not examined the documents and conducted basic inquiry about the depreciation claimed u/s 72 of the Income Tax Act and thereby the order of the assessing officer was held as erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of the revenue for want of inquiry on the part of the AO. The AO was directed to pass a fresh assessment order on the line of the discussion in the revision order after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assesse. 3. Before the Tribunal Ld. AR of the assesse has submitted that this issue of treating the receipt on account of supply affording charges and electrification charges from the customers at the time of new electricity ITA No.103/Ind/2023 M.P. Paschim Kshetra Vidyut Page 4 of 13 Page 4 of 13 connection as capital receipt by the assesse is recurring issue for last many years and the department is treating the said receipt as revenue. He has referred to the earlier assessment order and submitted that the AO has been adding this amount by treating the same as revenue receipt and consequently assesse being loss making company has decided to declare this amount as revenue receipt in the return of income. Though, in the books of account the assesse is treating the same as capital receipt and reducing the written down value of the fixed asset. Ld. AR has submitted that earlier when the assessee was capitalizing this receipt and reducing the written down value of the fixed assets resulting less claim of depreciation due to reduction in the written down value of the fixed assets. However, now the assesse decided to declare this amount as revenue receipt in the return of income and consequently written down value of the fixed asset is increased and the depreciation on the enhanced written done value is also increased accordingly. 3.1 He has pointed out that the claim of depreciation after the receipt on account of affording charges and electrification charges is declared as revenue receipt is a valid and correct claim of the assesse as per the written down value of the fixed asset and consequently in the revised return of income the assesse has declared less loss in comparison to the loss declared in the original return of income. Since this amount is declared as revenue receipt and consequently written down value of the fixed asset is enhanced therefore, the claim of depreciation increased from Rs.214,23,49,756/- to Rs.218,62,57,725/- resulting enhancement of claim of depreciation of Rs.43907969/-. 3.2 He has referred to the assessment orders for the preceding assessment years 2011-12 to 2014-15 and submitted that this issue is a recurring issue for all preceding assessment years where the AO has treated this receipt on account of supply affording charges and electrification charges from customers at the time of new electricity connection as revenue receipt against the claim of assesse as capital receipt. Therefore, for the year under consideration the AO was not ITA No.103/Ind/2023 M.P. Paschim Kshetra Vidyut Page 5 of 13 Page 5 of 13 required to conduct any inquiry on this issue as the assesse itself offered this receipt as revenue receipt in the return of income and consequently written down value of the fixed assets stood increased by equal amount resulting increase in the claim of depreciation. Since the assesse is a loss making company therefore, the depreciation which is unabsorbed for the year under consideration as well as in the preceding year has been carry forward. He has referred to the reply filed by the assesse before the Pr. CIT in response to the show cause notice u/s 263 of the Act and submitted that the assesse has explained the claim of depreciation as valid and correct claim which is allowable and therefore, this issue of increase in written down value of the fixed assets due to the offering the receipt on account of supply affording charges and electrification charges as revenue receipt and consequential claim of depreciation is a recurring issue for the last many years need not be taken up by the AO for the year under consideration. 3.3 He has further contended the Pr. CIT instead of verifying and considering the claim of assessee as correct and valid allowable claim hasset aside the order of the AO which does not satisfy the conditions provided u/s 263 being the order of the AO is erroneous so far as prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Thus the ld. AR has contended that when the twin condition as provided u/s 263 of the Act are not satisfied then the Pr. CIT cannot invoked the provisions of section 263 of the Act. Thus, he has pleaded that the impugned order of Pr. CIT u/s 263 is not sustainable in law and liable to be quashed. 4. On the other hand, ld. DR has submitted that the AO has not conducted any inquiry on this issue of claim of depreciation in the revised return of income filed by the assesse and accepted the same without a due and proper inquiry. He has submitted that this issue is a claim of complete lack of inquiry on the part of the AO while passing assessment order which renders the order of the AO as erroneous so far as prejudicial to the interest of revenue. He has relied upon the impugned order of Pr. CIT passed u/s 263 of the Act. ITA No.103/Ind/2023 M.P. Paschim Kshetra Vidyut Page 6 of 13 Page 6 of 13 5. We have considered the rival submissions as well as relevant material on record. The assesse filed original return of income on 28.11.2015 declaring total loss of Rs.11,84,20,96,274/- Later on the assessee has revised its e-return on 21.02.2017 declaring total loss of Rs.9,74,36,54,487/-. Thus in the revised return of income the assessee has reduced the total loss. Thereafter, the Pr. CIT invoked the provisions of section 263 and issued show cause notice u/s 263 of the Act is as under: “It is observed that under the provision of section 72 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, provides that where the net result of the computation under the head Profit and gains of the business or profession is a loss to the assessee and such loss including depreciation cannot be wholly set off against income under any other head of the relevant year, so much of the loss as has not been set off shall be carried forward to the following assessment year/years to be set off against the Profits and gains of business or profession. You had filed its original e-return of income on 28/11/2015 declaring total loss of Rs. 11,84,20,96,274/-. Later on you had revised its e- return on 21/02/2017 declaring total loss of Rs. 9,74,36,54,487/- and assessment for the year 2015-16 was completed on 29/12/2017 determining loss of Rs. 9,74,36,54,487/- including the carried forward business depreciation of Rs. 2,18,62,57,725/- in the assessed loss of the current year. As per point 18 and Annexure-2 of the form 3CD pertaining to the A.Y. 2015-16, particular of depreciation allowable as per the I.T. Act, 1961 for the AY was Rs. 2,14,23,49,756/- This point was not examined by the AO. 4. The AO has not examined this fact/issue and no enquiry/investigation has been made regarding allowablity of provision of Section 72 of the IT Act. Therefore, the assessment order passed by the AO appears to be erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. You are, therefore, required to show cause why provisions of section 263 be not invoked in your case for the reasons mentioned above. MENT 5. You are, accordingly, given an opportunity to attend my office on 23.03.2020 at 01:30 P.M. and produce necessary evidences, explanation, etc. in support of your contentions and arguments. If you fail to attend the hearing, it shall be presumed that you have nothing to say in the matter and order u/s 263 shall be passed on merit and on the basis of facts available on record.” ITA No.103/Ind/2023 M.P. Paschim Kshetra Vidyut Page 7 of 13 Page 7 of 13 6. The Pr. CIT has noted that in the revised return the assessee has determined loss of Rs.974,36,54,487/- including carry forward business depreciation of Rs.2,14,23,49,756/-. In response to the said show cause notice the assesse filed the reply which has been reproduced by the Pr. CIT in para 2 of the impugned order as under: "With reference to above subject, vide above referred notice, your good office has drawn attention towards point no. 18 and Annexure - 2 of the Form 3CD pertaining to the A.Y. 2015-16 wherein depreciation allowable as per the I. T. Act, 1961 fro the AY was Rs. 214,23,49,756/-, whereas while filing revised return of income, Company declares total loss of Rs. 974,36,54,487/- and the assessment was completed determining total loss of Rs. 974,36,54,487/- including carried forward business depreciation of Rs. 218,62,57,725/-. Further, it is mention that the AO has not examined this fact/issue and no enquiry/investigation has been made regarding allowability of provision of section 72 of the IT Act. Accordingly, your good office directed to show cause why reason of section 263 be not invoked in this case. In this regard attention is drawn towards Assessment Order passed by the Assessing Officer for the Assessment Year 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14. Wherein Assessing Officer made addition certain capital receipts (Supply Affording Charges and Electrification Charges) treating the same as revenue income. The details of additions is as under: Particular A.Y. 2011-12 A.Y. 2012-13 A.Y. 2013-14 Supply affording charges Rs.21,88,21,993 /- Rs.32,25,00,000 /- Rs.30,58,44,800 /- Electrificatio n Charges Rs.3,91,92,022/ - Rs.3,32,00,000/ - Rs.16,07.40,834 1- Total Rs.25,80,14,015 /- Rs.35,57,00,000 /- Rs.46,65,85,634 1- ITA No.103/Ind/2023 M.P. Paschim Kshetra Vidyut Page 8 of 13 Page 8 of 13 The company has treated the above receipts as capital receipts and as per the provision of Income Tax Act same has been reduced from the value of Fixed Asset (Plat and machinery). But the Assessing Officer treated the same as revenue receipts and added the same to the total income. Copy of Assessment order for A. Y. 2011-12, A.Y. 2012-13 and AY. 2013-14 enclosed with the letter as Annexure- 1,Annexure-2 and Annexure-3 respectively. Looking to the above Assessment Order, Company had taken a conscious decision to offer Supply Affording Charges and Electrification Charges as revenue Income in order to avoid unwanted litigation and confrontation between the two instrumentalities of the state. But till the time decision was taken the return of Income for A.Y. 2014-15 was already filed, therefore, it had been decided the for A.Y. 2014-15. Company will file revised rectum and for AY. 2015-16 the adjustment will be taken in to account while filing original return itself. Based on the above decision, while filing return of Income for A.Y. 2015-16, not deducted the receipt of Supply Affording.Charges and Electrification Charges amounting to Rs. 29,27,19,797/- from the value of Fixed Assets (Plant & Machinery) and offered the same as Revenue Income. Copy of Acknowledgment Original Return of Income filed on dated 28/11/2015 along with Computation of Income enclosed with the letter as Annexure-7. Further, for A. Y. 2014-15 company revised its return of Income to offer Supply Affording Charges and Electrification Charges amounting to Rs. 31,64,53,835/- as revenue receipt and add back the same to the value of Fixed Assets (Plant & Machinery) which was reduced while filing original return of Income treating the same capital receipt. Company had also offered certain Income amounting to Rs. 3,99,517/- which remain to be offered as Income while filing original return of income. The Impact of the revision of Return of A. Y. 2014-15 can be understand as under: Particular Original Return Revised return Difference Remark Total Income (-) 1651,19,06,76 5/- 16195053413 31,68,53,3 52 The loss has reduced following offered to income ITA No.103/Ind/2023 M.P. Paschim Kshetra Vidyut Page 9 of 13 Page 9 of 13 1. Supply affordin g electrifi cation charges 31,64,5 3 2. Other in 3,99,51 7 Depreciati on claimed 201,18,76,983 /- 203,56,11,02 1/- 2,37,34,03 8/- The amount depreciation increased because of addition supply affording and electrification charges to value of assets (Plant machinery) calculation (Treating the as put to us less than days Rs.31,64,5 x15%x1/2= 2,37,34,038/- Copy of acknowledgment of Original Return of Income along with Computation, Acknowledgment of Revised Return of Income along with computation and Assessment Order for A.Y. 2014-15, enclosed with the letter as Annexure-4, Annexure-5 and Annexure-6 respectively. Due to above revision of return of AY. 2014-15, there is change value of following items for AY 2015-16- 1. Brought Forward Business losses has been reduced from Rs. 1651,19,06,756/- to Rs. 1619,50,53.413 (Net Effect Rs.31,68,53.3524) 2. Brought Forward Depreciation increased from Rs. 201,18,76,9834 to 203,56,11,021/- (Net Effect Rs. 2,37,34,038/4) and ITA No.103/Ind/2023 M.P. Paschim Kshetra Vidyut Page 10 of 13 Page 10 of 13 3. Opening WDV of Fixed Assets increased from Rs. 1291,69,06,048/ to Rs. 1320,96,25,845/- (Net Effect Rs. 29,27,19,797/-). As the revision of return of A. Y. 2014-15 had been done after the Tax Audit and Original Return filing of A.Y. 20105-16. In order to make the above changes for A. Y. 2015-16, the return of Income has been revised. Further, during the revision of retum it is come to the knowledge that the while filing original return of Income the effect of Depreciation amounting to Rs. 214,23,49,756/- had been taken twice. Therefore, during the revision of retum same had been corrected. The Impact of the revision of Return of A.Y. 2015-16 can be understand as under- Particular Original Return Revised return Difference Remark Total Income (-) 969,97,46,51 8/- 755,73,96,7 62 214,23,49,7 56 The loss has reduced due to elimination of dual effect of depreciation amounting to Rs.214,23,49,75 6/- taken in original return of income Depreciati on claimed 214,23,49,75 6 218,62,57,7 25 4,39,07,969 The amount of depreciation increased because of change in opening WDV of fixed assets (plant and machinery) by Rs.29,27,19,797 Calculation Rs.29,27,19,797 x 15%=Rs.4,39,07, 969 The above revision of return for A.Y. 2014-15 and A.Y. 2015-16 has been done after the finalization of Tax Audit report of A.Y. 2015-16 due to which there is difference in Brought Forward Business losses, Brought Forward Depreciation, Opening WDV and Depreciation as ITA No.103/Ind/2023 M.P. Paschim Kshetra Vidyut Page 11 of 13 Page 11 of 13 mentioned Revised Return of Income and Tax Audit Report of A. Y. 2015-16. Copy of Acknowledgment of Original Return of Income along with computation, Acknowledgment of Revised Return of Income along with Computation and Assessment Order for A.Y. 2015-16, enclosed with the letter as Annexure-7, Annexure-8 and Annexure-9 respectively. In view of above, it is submitted that the came forward depreciation for A. Y. 2015-16 amounting to Rs. 218,62,57,725/- is in accordance with the provision of section 72 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the difference in amount mentioned as per Tax Audit report and Revised Rectum of Income is only due the effect of change in particular of A. Y. 2014-15 which is brought forward to A.Y. 2015-16 as per the above detailed submission. Further, it is also submitted that, since during the A.Y. there is changes only due to change in Opening Balances therefore, there is no case of reopening of Assessment u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for A. Y. 2015-16. Also, attention is drawn towards the Notice issued by A.O. vide letter no. 688 dated 24/11/2017, where in vide point no. 1 A.O. had asked to furnish details of addition to fixed assets with major bill copies and additional depreciation claimed and vide point no. 7 A.O. had asked to furnish explanation for Annexure -1 (Capital Receipts) to audit report. The reply to which had been submitted by the company. Thus, it can be said that A.O. has examined all the facts and properly investigate the issue prior to issuing of Assessment Order and thus provision u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot be invoked in the instant case. In view of the same, it is requested to drop the proceedings initiated u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by your good office.” 7. In the reply the assesse has explained that for the assessment year 2014-15 the assesse revised the return by declaring the receipt on account of supply affordable and electrification charges as revenue receipt which was earlier capitalized by the assesse and reduced from the written down value of the fixed assets and consequently the return of income for the year under consideration was also revised whereby the assesse has reduced the loss but allowable of depreciation on the written down value of the fixed assets has been increased by sum of Rs. 4,39,07,969/-. It is ITA No.103/Ind/2023 M.P. Paschim Kshetra Vidyut Page 12 of 13 Page 12 of 13 pertinent to note that for the preceding assessment years i.e. 2011-12 to 2013-14 the receipt on account of supply affordable and electrification charges capitalized by the assessee were treated as revenue by the department and therefore, the assessee being a consistent loss making company decided to suo moto declared these charges as revenue receipt from A.Y. 2014-15 onwards and thereby work out the depreciation on the enhanced written down value to the extent of the amount which was declared as revenue receipt. Once the assesse has explained the difference of increase in the claim of depreciation to the extent of Rs.4,39,07,969/- and the Pr. CIT did not find any fault or error in the said explanation then allowing the said claim by the AO as otherwise a correct and allowable claim cannot be held as prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Since this issue has been a bone of contention between the assesse and the department for last many years and finally the assessee decided to offer this receipt as revenue receipt instead of capital receipt for the purpose of income tax then being a recurring issue the AO was very much familiar with and aware of this issue. Even if the AO has not conducted any inquiry owing to the fact that the assessee itself has offered supply affording charges and electrification charges as revenue receipt which was earlier capitalized and consequently the written down value of the fixed assets is increased by the said amount resulting increase of claim of depreciation. We find that for the assessment year 2015-16 the opening written down value of fixed assets as on 01.04.2014 was increased from Rs.1291,69,06,048/- to Rs.1320,96,25,845/- due to declaration of the charges supply of affordable charges and electrification charges as revenue receipt in the revised return of income for A.Y.2014-15 and the net increase in the written down value is Rs.29,27,19,797/-. The Depreciation at the rate of 15% on the net increase of written down value of Rs.29,27,19,797/- comes to Rs.4,39,07,969/-. The assesse has explained before the Pr. CIT that the revised return of income for A.Y. 2014-15 was filed after the original return of income for A.Y.2015-16 and to give effect to the change match in the return of income for A.Y. 2014-15 the return of income for A.Y.2015-16 was also revised. Therefore when the ITA No.103/Ind/2023 M.P. Paschim Kshetra Vidyut Page 13 of 13 Page 13 of 13 assesse has given correct calculation of the increase in the claim of depreciation as a consequence of declaration of supply affording charges and electrification charges as revenue receipt instead of capital receipt then allowing the said claim of the assessee by the AO without even conducting inquiry would not render the order of the AO as prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Therefore, when the claim of the assessee is a correct and valid allowable claim then the not conducting an inquiry on the part of the AO is not epso facto permit the commissioner to invoke the provisions of section 263 of the Act. Accordingly in the facts and circumstances of the case and interest of justice we hold that twine conditions i.e. the order passed by the AO is erroneous so far as prejudicial to the interest of revenue are not satisfied and consequently the Pr. CIT is not permitted to invoke the provisions of section 263 of the Act. Hence the impugned order of the Pr. CIT is quashed. 8. In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 30.08.2023. Sd/- Sd/- (B.M. BIYANI) (VIJAY PAL RAO) Accountant Member Judicial Member Indore, 30 .08.2023 Patel/Sr. PS Copies to: (1) The appellant (2) The respondent (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) Departmental Representative (6) Guard File By order UE COPY Sr. Private Secretary Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Indore Bench, Indore