ITO, Cuttack V. Akshya Kumar Patra, Jajpur

ITA 108/CTK/2012

• Counselvise Citation: 10822114 RSA 2012
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-03-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 06-02-2012
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S C MOHANTY
• Assessee Lawyers: D K SETH
• Section: 144

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK BEFORE : SHRI K.K.GUPTA, AM, AND SHRI K.S.S.PRASAD RAO, JM ITA NO. 108/CTK/2012 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 09) INCOME - TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(2), CUTTACK. VERSUS SHRI AKSHAYA KUMAR PATRA, PROP.TRIVE NI TEXTILES, AT:BIBISARAI,P.O.JAJPUR TOWN, DIST. JAJPUR 755 019 PAN: AGHPP 0987 A (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR THE APPELLANT: SHRI S.C.MOHANTY, DR FOR THE RESPONDENT SHRI D.K.SETH, AR DATE OF HEARING : 14. 03.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 16.03.2012 ORDER SHRI K.K.GUPTA, AM : THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE RAISES THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS : 01 . WHETHER WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 144 OF THE LT.ACT,1961 WHILE MAKING AN ASSESSMENT OF TAXABLE INCOME TO THE BEST OF HIS JUDGMENT THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS LAWFULLY DEBARRED TO ASCERTAIN THE GROSS PROFIT AT MODERATE RATE @L2% OF GROSS TURNOVER. 02 . WHETHER IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY IS JUSTIFIED TO HOLD THAT ACCRUED INTEREST ON FIXED DEPOSIT IN DIFFERENT BA NKS AND ACCRUED INTEREST ON KVPS COULD NOT BE CHARGED AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE CURRENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHOULD WAIT TO ASSESS SUCH INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AFTER MATURITIES OF THOSE FIXED DEPOSITS AND KVPS ONLY WHEN THE ASSESSEE WILL OFFER THOSE FOR TAXATION. 03 . IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF 7,03,873 MADE U/S.68 UNDER THE HEAD DISCREPANCY IN SUNDRY CREDITORS WHERE THE AO HAS DISALLOWED THE DIFFERENCE OF 7,03,873 BETWEEN THE CREDIT BALANCE SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE CONFIRMATION OBTAINED FROM THE CREDITORS. 04 . IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUM STANCES OF THE CASE THE LD.CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF 2,48,977 MADE BY THE AO UNDER THE HEAD VAT PAID ON THE GROUND THAT ONLY UNPAID VAT PAYABLE OF 12,612 IS TO BE DISALLOWED WHERE AS THE VAT ITA NO.108/CTK/2012 2 IS COLLECTED FROM THE CUSTOMERS A T THE TIME OF SALES AND INCLUDED IN THE NET SALES. WHENEVER OUTPUT VAT EXCEEDS TO THE INPUT VAT AS PER THE VAT RETURN SUBMITTED BEFORE THE SALE TAX DEPARTMENT, TO THAT EXTENT OF EXCESS OUTPUT VAT IS TO BE DEBITED IN THE P&L ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE CL AIMING OF THE ABOVE AMOUNT IN THE P&L ACCOUNT IS NOT PERMISSIBLE AS THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PAID EXCESS VAT AS PER VAT RETURN. 2. THE BRIEF FACTS AS ARE ON RECORD ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL DERIVING INCOME FROM RETAIL TRADE IN CLOTH AND READYMAD E GARMENTS. RETURN FOR THE YEAR ENDING 31 ST MARCH,2008 WAS FILED DECLARING INCOME AT 2,61,510. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS PASSED THE ORDER U/S.144 BUT HAS NOT MENTIONED THE REASON FOR THE SAME WHEN THE ASSESSEES AR SHRI D.K.SETH HAD BEEN APPEARING. THE AS SESSING OFFICER ESTIMATED THE GROSS MARGIN AT 12% OF THE TURNOVER OF 3.1 CRORES AS AGAINST GROSS PROFIT SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE AT 30,26,577. A SUM OF 7,04,074 WAS BROUGHT TO TAX BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS AGAINST TOTAL INCOME RETURNED BY THE ASSESSEE AT 2,61,510. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO BROUGHT TO TAX THE ACCRUED INTEREST ON INVESTMENT IN VARIOUS DEPOSITS AND KVPS AMOUNTING TO 76,592 AND 55,000 RESPECTIVELY. HE HELD A VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE OUGHT TO HAVE DISCLOSED IT IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF M/S. TRIVENI TEXTILES BEING THE SOLE PROPRIETOR OF THE SAME. THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE AN ADDITION U/S.68 AMOUNTING TO 7,03,873 AS HE OBSERVED THAT THE TOTAL SUNDRY CREDITORS AMOUNTING TO 1 , 07,75,865 WERE TO BE EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE BY FURNISHING THEIR C ONFIRMATIONS. HE MADE DIRECT REFERENCE WITH THE MAJOR CREDITORS AND THE CONFORMATIONS RECEIVED INDICATED DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE SUNDRY CREDITORS AS SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE AT 12,75,715 VIS - - VIS AS CONFIRMED BY THE CREDITORS AT 5,71,842. HE TREATED THE EXC ESS CREDIT SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE AMOUNTING TO 7,03,873 FOR TAXATION U/S.68. IN THE BALANCE SHEET THERE WAS A PROVISION TOWARDS VAT PAYABLE AT 12,612 SINCE PURCHASES AND SALES ARE INCLUSIVE OF VAT AND AT NO POINT OF TIME DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER C ONSIDERATION THE ASSESSEES OUTPUT VAT EXCEEDED ITA NO.108/CTK/2012 3 INPUT VAT THE PROVISION OF 12,612 WAS HELD AS UNCALLED FOR AND BOGUS AND WAS ADDED TO THE INCOME U/S.68 BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. CONSEQUENTLY , THE DISALLOWANCE OF 2,48,9877 VAT PAID WAS ALSO MADE . AGGRIEVE D, THE ASSESSEE APPEALED BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY WHO HAS DELETED ALL THESE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER EXCEPT CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF 12,612 (VAT PAYABLE). 3. THE LEARNED DR INITIATING HIS ARGUMENTS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER WAS WITHIN HIS JURISDICTION TO PASS THE ASSESSMENT U/S.144 WHEN THE RELEVANT INFORMATION CALLED FOR BY HIM WAS NOT FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE LEARNED CIT(A) OUGHT NOT HAVE DELETED THE ADDITION OF 7,04,072 BEING THE ESTIMATION OF GROSS PROFIT @12% WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN GROSS PROFIT OF 9.735% IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 009 AND 10.35% IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 08. HE POINTED OUT THAT THERE WAS SUFFICIENT GROUND FOR THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO RESORT TO ESTIMAT ION IN VIEW OF THE FACT THE AS SESSEE HAVING BUSINESS OF READYMADE GARMENTS AS WELL AS MIXED WITH THE DRESS MATERIAL BUSINESS WHICH COMBINED EFFECT HA D TO GENERATE 12% MARGIN . THE HIGHER MARGIN IN THE READYMADE GARMENTS IS BALANCED WITH THE LOWER MARGIN IN THE DRESS MATERIAL BUSINESS WA S ESTIMATED IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW U/S.144 WHICH THE LEARNED CIT(A) DID NOT JUSTIFY DELETION. 3.1. WITH RESPECT TO THE ACCRUED INTEREST ON FDS AND KVPS, THE LEARNED CIT(A) OUGHT NOT TO HAVE DELETED THE ADDITION BY HOLDING A VIEW THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT HAVING ANY MATERIAL TO COME TO A FINDING THAT THE INTEREST HAD BEEN RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR. THE LEARNED DR POINTED OUT THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD CATEGORICALLY MENTIONED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE DEPOSITS AND PLEDGED TO THE BANKS AS COLLATERAL SECURITIES AGAINST THE CASH CREDIT ACCOUNT. THESE FDS ARE THEREFORE ITA NO.108/CTK/2012 4 TERM DEPOSITS AND THEREFORE, TO BE TAXED UNDER THE MERCANTILE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING FOR THE ACCRUED INTEREST FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR. 3.2 WITH RESPECT TO THE DISCREPANCY IN THE SUNDRY CREDITORS AMOUNTING TO 7,03,873, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS DELETED THE ADDITION BY POINTING OUT THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER COULD HAVE ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE SAID DIFFERENCE. THE LEARNED DR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS GIVEN A CATEGORICAL FINDING THAT THESE T RADE CREDITORS HAVE NOT RESPONDED THE CREDIT BALANCE AS NOTED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THEREFORE, THE DIFFERENCE COMPUTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OUGHT TO BE TAXED AS IT DID NOT EXIST AS PROVIDED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 68. 3.3. WITH RESPECT TO THE LAST ISSUE BEING THE VAT AMOUNT PAYABLE 12,612, THE LEARNED DR VEHEMENTLY ARGUED THAT THE PROCEDURE FOR PAYMENT OF VAT HAS NOT BEEN SCRUPULOUSLY FOLLOWED BY THE ASSESSEE WHEN OUTPUT IS MORE THAN THE INPUT. AS PER THE RETURN FILED FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR FOR VAT, THE AMOUNT SHOWN AS PAY ABLE AMOUNTING TO 12,612 WAS DISALLOWED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER CLAIMED U/S.37 BY THE ASSESSEE. THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES THEREFORE DID NOT REQUIRE THE LEARNED CIT(A) TO DELETE THE SAME BECAUSE HE CONSIDERED A SUM OF 2,48,977 AS PAYMENT CLAIMED IN THE P & L ACCOUNT WHICH WAS ALSO DISALLOWED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 4. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) WITHIN HIS JURISDICTION CONSIDERED THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WHEN THE RATE OF GROSS MARGIN HAS BEEN CONSIDERED BY T HE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 144. THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES INDICATE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN RENDERING GROSS MARGIN IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT MAINTAINED AND IT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ESTIMATE THE PROFIT WITHOUT POINTING OUT ANY DISCREPANCY IN THE TRADING ACTIVITIES OF THE ASSESSEE. HOLDING A VIEW THAT THE READYMADE GARMENTS FETCH MORE MARGIN ITA NO.108/CTK/2012 5 THEN TH E DRESSING MATERIAL HAS NOT BEEN BROUGHT N RECORD BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ESTIMATE PROFIT AT 12%. THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, HAD BEEN RENDERING THE GROSS MARGIN FOR THE COMBINED TRADING IN READYMADE GARMENTS AND CLOTH WHEN THE TURNOVER OF 3.1 CRORES FETCHED GROSS MARGIN OF 30,26,577 AT 9.7%. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT CATEGORICALLY GIVEN A FINDING AS TO THE ITEMS WHICH OUGHT TO HAVE FETCHED MORE MARGIN FOR ENHANCING THE GROSS MARGIN AT 12% BY MAKING AN ADDITION OF 7,04,074. THE LEARNED CIT(A) THEREFORE RIGHTLY CONFIRMED THE GROSS MARGIN AS RETURNED BY THE ASSESSEE. HE RIGHTLY HELD THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER, AFTER ESTIMATING THE GROSS MARGIN, OUGHT NOT TO HAVE MADE FURTHER ADDITION WHICH HE WAS CONSTRAINED TO CONSIDER INDIVI DUALLY FOR DELETION. 4.1. ON THE ISSUE OF ACCRUED INTEREST AS RIGHTLY CONSIDERED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER , TERM DEPOSITS WERE PLEDGED WITH THE BANK FOR OBTAINING CREDIT FACILITIES BY THE ASSESSEE WAS HELD BY THE ASSESSEE AS A PERSONAL ASSET AND IT WAS TER M DEPOSITS FOR THE PERIOD OF AVAILING THE CASH CREDIT LIMITS. THE BANK WAS TO ADJUST THESE DEPOSITS WITH ACCRUED INTEREST AT THE TIME OF CLOSING OF THE BUSINESS, WHICH WAS NOT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE TO DECLARE INCOME FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR. TH E ASSESSEE DOES NOT HAVE ACCESS TO THE INTEREST WHICH BANK REINVESTS FOR THE CASH CREDIT LIMIT. THEREFORE, THE SAME WAS DELETED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) HOLDING A VIEW THAT THE INCOME HA S NOT ARISEN TO THE ASSESSEE EVEN UNDER THE MERCANTILE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTI NG AS THEY WERE HELD IN THE ASSESSEES PERSONAL NAME. 4.2. WITH RESPECT TO THE DISCREPANCY IN THE SUNDRY CREDITORS THE ADDITION OF 7,03,873 WAS DELETED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) WHEN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES ARE CONTRADICTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN HI S ORDER. THE TOTAL SUNDRY CREDITORS AMOUNTING TO 1.07 CRORES WERE CONSIDERED FOR ITA NO.108/CTK/2012 6 OBTAINING INFORMATION FROM 96 PARTIES WHEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER CHOSE TO VERIFY THE 4 PARTIES WHO CONFIRMED DIFFERENT BALANCES AS OTHERWISE SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE RESULTING I N DIFFERE NCE OF 7,03,873. AS THE NAME SUGGESTS THE PARTIES ARE ALL SELLERS OF GOODS TO THE ASSESSEE AND HAD CONFIRMED THE BILLS WHICH WERE INCORPORATED BY THE ASSESSEE AS PURCHASER. NO CREDITOR WOULD ASK FOR LESS THAN WHAT IT HAS LEGITIMATELY CLAIMED BY RAISING OF BILLS. THUS, THE CONFIRMATION OF LOWER BALANCES OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITHOUT THE PAYMENTS HAVING BEEN RECEIVED BY THEM AS ON 31 ST MARCH,2008. THE LEARNED CIT(A) RIGHTLY NOTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER OUGHT TO HAVE ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE SAID DIFFERENCE WHICH OTHERWISE HE HIMSELF HAS NOTED IN HIS ORDER. 4.3. IN RESPECT TO THE LAST GROUND REGARDING VAT PAYMENT AS PAYABLE , THE DISALLOWANCE HAS BEEN CONFIRMED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) U/S.43B AS PROCEDURE FOR VAT HAVI NG BEEN VIOLATED WAS NOT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO S IT ON THE JUDGMENT AS THE SALES TAX OFFICER WHEN THE IN PUT IS TO BE LESS THAN THE OUTPUT. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS CATEGORICALLY MENTIONED THAT THE SUM OF 2,48,977 HAS BEEN CLAIMED WHICH HAS BE EN CHARGED FROM THE CUSTOMERS OF THE ASSESSEE WAS PAID WITHIN THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR WAS 2,36,365 WAS THEREFORE RIGHTLY CONSIDERED AS EXPENDITURE U/S.37 AND THE BALANCE BEING 12,612 TO BE ALLOWED AS AND WHEN PAID BY THE ASSESSEE AS WAS SHOWN AS A L IABILITY. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE ON THE FIRST GROUND RAISED, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD RETURNED THE GROSS MARGIN IN ACCORDA NCE WITH THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT REGULARLY MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE ON A TURNOVER 3.1 CRORES WHEN HE HAS SHOWN THE GP AT 9.735% VIS - - VIS AS DISCLOSED FOR THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING YEAR AT 10.35%. ITA NO.108/CTK/2012 7 THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THE REASON FOR FALL IN GROSS MARGIN OF HAVING OPENED A NEW BRANCH AT JAJPUR ROAD WHEN THE TURNOVER REACHED TO 3.11 CRORES AS AGAINST 1.67 CRORES IN THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING YEAR. THE NEW BRANCH DID NOT ATTRACT CUSTOMERS THEREFORE, THE GOODS WERE SOLD AT A COMPETITIVE MARGIN WAS A REASON F OR FALL IN MARGIN COULD NOT BE ESTIMATED AT 12% BY HOLDING A VIEW THAT THE TWO SETS OF GOODS SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE BEING READYMADE GARMENTS AND DRESS MATERIAL WOULD FETCH PROFIT MORE THAN 9.73% . NO CONTROVERTING MATERIAL WAS FOUND BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) T O CONFIRM THE ESTIMATE AT 12% EVEN ON BEST JUDGMENT UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 144. WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE CONTENTION OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN HOLDING A VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD RETURNED THE GROSS MARGIN WHICH CANNOT BE DISTURBED ON MER E SUSPICION AND SURMISES. WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN THIS REGARD . 5.1. WITH RESPECT TO THE ACCRUED INTEREST ON FDS AND KVPS, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE INTEREST ACCRUED WAS NOT RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE BEING AN INDIVIDUAL HOLD ING THE DEPOSITS IN HIS PERSONAL NAME WERE MERGING WITH THE BANK FOR AVAILING CASH CREDIT LIMIT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER RIGHTLY NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE DISCLOSED FDS AND KVPS BUT NOT RENDERED THE INTEREST INCOME THERE OF IN THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR WHICH NEITHER HAD ARISEN NOR ACCRUED TO THE ASSESSEE AS PER THE BANK REINVESTING THE INTEREST FOR HOLDING THE TERM DEPOSIT AGAINST CASH CREDIT AVAILED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE CASH CREDIT CONTINUES FOR THE TERM OF THE DEPOSITS THEREFORE, CANNOT BE TAXED ON ACCRUAL BASIS IN THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR. THE AMOUNT OF INTERST WILL BE TAXED ON MATURITY. IN THAT VIEW OF THE MATTER, WE ARE OF VIEW THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE ON THIS COUNT, WHICH WE UPHOLD AND DISMISS THE GROUND RA ISED BY THE REVENUE. ITA NO.108/CTK/2012 8 5.2. ON THE LAST GROUND, THE RIVAL PARTIES HAVE THEMSELVES NARRATED THE FACTUAL ASPECTS FOLLOWED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE LEARNED CIT(A) THEREFORE DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY FURTHER DELIBERATION IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE LEARNED COUNSEL FO R THE ASSESSEE HAS RIGHTLY POINTED OUT THAT THE REVENUE CANNOT PARTICIPATE FOR HOLDING THE ASSESSEE MAKING A DEFAULT IN PAYMENT OF VAT. THE INPUT AND OUTPUT HAVE BEEN PAID WHEN THE SHORT DEDUCTION FROM CUSTOMERS WAS SHOWN PAYABLE BY THE ASSESSEE AS PER THE SALES TAX AUTHORITIES DIRECTION. SINCE IT HAS NOT BEEN PAID WAS CONFIRMED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) U/S.43B THE SUM OF 12,612 THEREFORE REQUIRES NO FURTHER DELIBERATION. THE DISALLOWANCE OF 2,48,977 BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS IN PARA 2 OF HIS ORDER IS A M ISINTERPRETATION OF THE PROCEDURE FOR COLLECT ION AND PAYMENT OF VAT WHEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER HIMSELF HAS ADJUDICATED THE ISSUE OF THE GROSS MARGIN EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE. FINDING NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A), WE UPHOLD THE SAME AND DIS MISS THE GROUND OF THE REVENUE. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. S D. / - S D/ - (K.S.S.PRASAD RAO) JUDICIAL MEMBER (K.K.GUPTA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATE: 16.03.2012 H.K.PADHEE, SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY. COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT: INCOME - TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(2), CUTTACK. 2. THE RESPONDENT: SHRI AKSHAYA KUMAR PATRA, PROP.TRIVENI TEXTILES, AT:BIBISARAI,P.O.JAJPUR TOWN, DIST. JAJPUR 755 019 3. THE CIT, 4. THE CIT(A), 5. THE DR, CUTTA CK 6. GUARD FILE (IN DUPLICATE) TRUE COPY, BY ORDER, SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY.