ACIT CIRCLE -2(1), BILASPUR(CG) V. SHRI RAJESH AGRAWAL, BILASPUR(CG)

ITA 111/BIL/2010

• Counselvise Citation: 11124714 RSA 2010
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 7 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-12-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 03-05-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: HARIMOHAN MAHARANA
• Assessee Lawyers: S R RAO
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Search and seizure; Fair market value
• Section: 50C

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR BEFORE SHRI H.L. KARWA, PRESIDENT AND SHRI REJENDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMEBR ITA NOS.109 TO 113/BLPR/2010 A.YS. 2003-04, 2004-05, 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2008-09 RESPECTIVELY ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VS. SHRI RAJESH AGARWAL, CIRCLE-2(1), BILASPUR. S/O. LT. RAMCHANDRA AGAR WAL, K-22, KRANTI NAGAR, BILASPUR (CG). (PAN: AFVAP 0292 A) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI HARIMOHAN MAHARANA, SR. D.R. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI S.R. RAO DATE OF HEARING : 16.12.2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 16.12.2014 ORDER PER H.L. KARWA, PRESIDENT THESE FIVE APPEALS BY THE REVENUE INVOLVING IDENTIC AL ISSUES WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY THIS COMMON O RDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. GROUND NO.1 (A.YS. 2003-04 & 2004-05) & GROUND NO.2 (A.YS. 2007-08 & 2008-09) 2. VIDE ABOVE GROUNDS, THE REVENUE HAS CHALLENGED T HE ACTION OF LD. CIT(A) IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.25,063/-, RS.40,558/-, RS.31,328/- AND RS.43,859/- FOR 2 ITA NOS .109 TO 113/BLPR/2010 A.YS. 2003-04, 04-05, 06-07, 07-08 & 08-09 THE A.YS. 2003-04, 2004-05, 2007-08 AND 2008-09 RES PECTIVELY BEING THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION ESTIMATED BY THE D VO AND THE INVESTMENT SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE IN RESIDENTIAL HOUSE, AS UNEXPLAINE D INVESTMENT UNDER SECTION 69B OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT). 3. BRIEFLY STATED, THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT A SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION UNDER SECTION 132(1) OF THE ACT, WAS CONDUCTED ON 3 0.01.2008 AT THE RESIDENTIAL PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE ALONG WITH OTHER FAMILY ME MBERS AND AT THE BUSINESS PREMISES OF THE GROUP CONCERNS. DURING THIS ACTION , RESIDENTIAL HOUSE JOINTLY OWNED BY THE ASSESSEE AND HIS TWO BROTHERS AT KRANTI NAGA R, BILASPUR WAS REFERRED TO DVO FOR ESTIMATION OF COST OF CONSTRUCTION. THE ESTIMA TED COST OF CONSTRUCTION ASSESSED BY THE DVO WAS HIGHER THAN THE ACTUAL COST OF CONST RUCTION DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE AND HIS BROTHERS. THE A.O TOOK THE VIEW T HAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT TO THE EXTENT OF THE SAID DI FFERENCE AND ACCORDINGLY THE SAME WAS ASSESSED AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT UNDER S ECTION 69B OF THE ACT. 4. ON APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE IMPUGNED A DDITIONS FOR THE DETAILED REASONS GIVEN IN PARAGRAPH NO.4.3 OF THE IMPUGNED O RDER. LD. CIT(A) CONCLUDED THAT NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE SOLELY ON THE BASIS OF DVOS REPORT WITHOUT ANY CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND HAVE ALS O PERUSED THE MATERIALS 3 ITA NOS .109 TO 113/BLPR/2010 A.YS. 2003-04, 04-05, 06-07, 07-08 & 08-09 AVAILABLE ON RECORD ON RECORD. IT IS OBSERVED THA T THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL AND DERIVES INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY, SHARE INCOME FR OM VARIOUS FIRMS, INTEREST AND REMUNERATION FROM FIRMS. THE ASSESSEE IS ONE OF TH E FAMILY MEMBERS OF RAMA GROUP. THIS GROUP IS CARRYING ON BUSINESS IN REAL ESTATE DEALINGS AND COAL TRADING, COAL WASHERY, TRANSPORTATION ETC. DURING THE COURS E OF SEARCH, THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES REQUIRED THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE IN VESTMENT MADE IN THE RESIDENTIAL PREMISES JOINTLY OWNED BY HIM WITH HIS BROTHERS NAM ELY SHRI SANJAY AGARWAL AND SHRI RAJEEV AGARWAL. THE A.O. NOTICED THAT IN THE STATEMENT RECORDED UNDER SECTION 132(4) OF THE ACT, ASSESSEES BROTHERS HAVE DISCLOS ED RS.15,00,000/- EACH AS UNRECORDED INVESTMENT IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE RE SIDENTIAL HOUSE. THE A.O. REFERRED THIS PROPERTY TO THE DVO, BHOPAL FOR ESTIM ATING THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION. THE DVO, ESTIMATED THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION AT RS.6 0,48,743/-. THE DVO VIDE HIS REPORT DATED 15.12.2009 HAS ESTIMATED THE DIFFERENC E OF COST OF CONSTRUCTION AT RS.4,22,423/-. THE DVO HAS ALSO GIVEN YEAR-WISE BR EAKUP FOR EXCESS COST OF CONSTRUCTION BASED UPON YEAR-WISE EXPENDITURE STATE MENT SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE DVO ESTIMATED THE INVESTMENT AT RS.60,48,743/- AS AGAINST RS.56,18,320/- SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE AND HIS BROTHERS. THUS, THE DIFFERENCE IN COST OF CONSTRUCTION OF RESIDENTIAL BUILDING COMES TO RS.4,22,423/-. WE MAY OBSERVE HERE THAT THE DIFFERENCE IN COST OF CONSTRUCTION IS LESS THAN 10% OF THE TOTAL COST OF CONSTRUCTION ESTIMATED BY THE DVO. THEREFORE, ON THIS SCORE ALO NE, THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O. IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN LAW. THE REPORT SUBMITT ED BY THE DVO IS MERELY AN OPINION REGARDING VALUATION OF THE PROPERTY AND MER E RELIANCE UPON THE REPORT OF 4 ITA NOS .109 TO 113/BLPR/2010 A.YS. 2003-04, 04-05, 06-07, 07-08 & 08-09 VALUATION OFFICER REGARDING TRUE VALUE OF PROPERTY WOULD BE INADEQUATE MATERIAL FOR A.O. TO CONSTITUTE EVIDENCE IN THE ABSENCE OF POSIT IVE EVIDENCE. AT THIS STAGE, WE MAY OBSERVE HERE THAT DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, IN THE INSTANT CASE, NO INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS WERE FOUND SUGGESTING ANY I NVESTMENT OVER AND ABOVE THAT DECLARED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE A.O., WITHOUT POINTING OUT ANY DISCREPANCY IN THE VALUATION SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE AND HIS BROTHERS, REFERRED THE MATTER TO THE DVO WHICH IS A LSO AGAINST THE WELL ESTABLISHED NORMS OF LAW. WE ALSO FULLY AGREE WITH THIS OBSERV ATION OF THE LD. CIT(A) THAT THE DVO HAS GIVEN REBATE FOR SELF-SUPERVISION @ 7.5% AS AGAINST 10% GENERALLY ALLOWED AND APPROVED BY THE APPELLATE FORUMS. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GIVEN AN INSTANCE BEING A COMPARABLE CASE OF HIMALAYA COMMER CIAL COMPLEX WHEREIN THE A.O. HIMSELF HAS ALLOWED 10% REBATE ON ACCOUNT OF S ELF-SUPERVISION. IF THE REBATE OF 10% IS ALLOWED, THE INVESTMENT AS PER DVOS REPO RT COMES TO RS.47,11,781/- AND THE INVESTMENT SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE AT RS.56,18,32 0/- IS MORE THAN THE INVESTMENT ESTIMATED BY THE DVO. RECENTLY, THE HONBLE HIGH C OURT OF DELHI IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. AGILE PROPERTIES PVT. LTD. (2014) 107 DTR ( DEL) 201 HAS HELD THAT MERE SUSPICION CANNOT TAKE THE PLACE OF PROOF. THE HON BLE HIGH COURT WAS OF THE OPINION THAT MERE RELIANCE UPON THE REPORT OF THE D VO EXPRESSING HIS OPINION AS TO THE TRUE VALUE WOULD BE INADEQUATE MATERIAL FOR THE A.O. TO CONSTITUTE EVIDENCE IN THE ABSENCE OF POSITIVE EVIDENCE. 6. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, WE UPHOLD THE V IEW TAKEN BY THE LD. CIT(A) 5 ITA NOS .109 TO 113/BLPR/2010 A.YS. 2003-04, 04-05, 06-07, 07-08 & 08-09 IN HOLDING THAT NO ADDITION IS POSSIBLE SOLELY ON T HE BASIS OF DVOS REPORT WITHOUT ANY CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE. OTHERWISE ALSO, NO ADD ITION CAN BE MADE ON THE BASIS OF DVOS REPORT BECAUSE THE RATES APPLIED BY HIM AR E UNDISPUTEDLY ON HIGHER SIDE IN COMPARISON TO LOCAL RATES. IN THIS CASE, THE DVO H AS APPLIED PLINTH AREA RATE FOR ESTIMATING COST OF CONSTRUCTION ON THE BASIS OF COS T INDEX METHOD AS PER DELHI SCHEDULE RATES. HOWEVER, LOCAL RATES ARE QUITE DIF FERENT. IN BILASPUR (CG), THE VITAL COMPONENTS SUCH AS COST OF STEEL, CEMENT AND LABOUR RATE ARE VERY CHEAP IN COMPARISON TO DELHI. THIS FACTOR HAS NOT BEEN CONS IDERED BY THE DVO. VIEWED FROM ANY ANGLE, NO ADDITION IS SUSTAINABLE AND, THE REFORE, WE DO NOT SEE ANY MERITS IN THESE GROUNDS OF APPEALS. GROUND NO.1 (A.YS. 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2008-09) . 7. THE REVENUE HAS CHALLENGED THE ACTION OF LD. CIT (A) IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.1,68,000/-, RS.8,57,334/- AND RS.4,52,100/- M ADE BY THE A.O. UNDER SECTION 69B OF THE ACT BEING THE UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN PROPERTY. THE A.O. OBSERVED THAT DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERAT ION CERTAIN COPIES OF REGISTERED SALE DEEDS WERE FOUND AND SEIZED. THE A.O. NOTICED THAT DURING THE RELEVANT PERIOD THE ASSESSEE MADE INVESTMENTS IN THESE PROPERTIES, THE DETAILS OF WHICH ARE MENTIONED IN ANNEXURE-A1 ANNEXED TO THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE A.O. FOUND THAT THERE WAS DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE AMOUNTS INVESTED I N PURCHASE OF PROPERTY AS PER THE FAIR MARKET VALUE FOR STAMP DUTY AND THE PURCHA SE VALUE SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE. 6 ITA NOS .109 TO 113/BLPR/2010 A.YS. 2003-04, 04-05, 06-07, 07-08 & 08-09 SINCE THE DOCUMENTS AND REGISTERED SALE DEEDS WERE FOUND IN THE POSSESSION OF THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO EXPLAIN AS T O WHY THE INVESTMENT INVOLVED IN THESE TRANSACTIONS SHOULD NOT BE PRESUMED TO HAVE B EEN MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN VIEW OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 132(4) READ WITH SECT ION 292C OF THE ACT. AFTER CONSIDERING THE ASSESSEES REPLY, THE A.O. HELD THA T THE ASSESSEES SUBMISSION CANNOT BE ACCEPTED AS TRUE. ACCORDINGLY, THE A.O. ASSESSED THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE FAIR MARKET VALUE AS PER STAMP DUTY AUTHORITY A ND THE AMOUNTS AS MENTIONED IN THE REGISTERED SALE DEEDS AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT UNDER SECTION 69B OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY, THE AMOUNT OF RS.1,68,000/-, RS.8,57,3 34/- AND RS.4,52,100/- WERE ADDED AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT UNDER SECTION 69B O F THE ACT, FOR THE A.YS. 2006- 07, 2007-08 AND 2008-09 RESPECTIVELY. 8. ON APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE IMPUGNED A DDITIONS FOR THE REASONS STATED IN PARAGRAPH NO.3.4 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER. 9. NOW THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THIS TRIBUNA L AGAINST THE COMMON ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) DATED 16.02.2010. 10. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND HAVE AL SO PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. BEFORE US, SHRI S.R. RAO, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HEAVILY RELIED ON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS:- I) ACIT VS. M/S ENPRO LIMITED ITA NO.1612/MUM/201 0 (A.Y. 2006- 7 ITA NOS .109 TO 113/BLPR/2010 A.YS. 2003-04, 04-05, 06-07, 07-08 & 08-09 07), ORDER DATED 09.03.2011; II) ITO VS. SHRI DIPAKKUMAR CHAMPALAL DOSHI ITA N O.1934/AHD/2012 (A.Y. 2009- 10), ORDER DATED 27.11.2012. 10.1 IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, HE SUBMITTED THAT THE IS SUE IS SQUARELY COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND AGAINST THE REVENUE BY THE ABOV E DECISIONS OF ITAT, MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI AND ITAT, AHMEDABAD BENCHES, AHMEDA BAD. ACCORDINGLY, HE SUBMITTED THAT THE APPEALS PREFERRED BY THE REVENUE DESERVE TO BE DISMISSED. IT IS OBSERVED THAT WHILE DECIDING A SIMILAR ISSUE, D B ENCH OF ITAT, MUMBAI IN THE CASE OF M/S ENPRO LIMITED (SUPRA) HAS HELD AS UNDER :- 7. HAVING CAREFULLY HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE R IVAL PARTIES AND PERUSING THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE A.O. HAS TAKEN THE VALUE OF THE IM MOVABLE PROPERTY AT RS.1,06,40,000/- ON THE BASIS OF THE VALUE ADOPTED BY THE SUB- REGISTRATION OFFICE, KARJAT FOR THE PURPOSE OF STAM P DUTY AS AGAINST THE PURCHASE PRICE OF THE PROPERTY AT RS.45,60,300/- SH OWN BY THE ASSESSEE AS PER REGISTERED AGREEMENT, REGISTERED WITH SUB-RE GISTRATION OFFICE, KARJAT. ACCORDING TO THE A.O., THE DIFFERENCE BETW EEN THE VALUE SHOWN FOR THE PURPOSE OF STAMP DUTY AND THE PURCHASE PRIC E OF RS.60,79,700/- IS AN UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT U/S 69B OF THE ACT. H OWEVER, THE LD. CIT(A) HELD THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50-C ARE NOT APPLICABLE AND THE SAME ARE APPLICABLE ONLY FOR COMPUTING CAPITAL GAINS IN THE HANDS OF THE SELLER, DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O . 8. IN THE CASE OF KAMAL KISHORE CHANDAK VS. ITO (SU PRA), IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT NO ADDITION U/S 69-B CAN BE MADE SIM PLY ON THE BASIS OF STAMP DUTY VALUATION AS THIS IS NOT A GOOD PARAMETE R TO DETERMINE THE REAL COST OF A PROPERTY. 9. IN THE CASE OF ITO VS. SATYANARAYAN AGARWAL (SUP RA) IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNE XPLAINED INVESTMENT IN PURCHASE OF PROPERTY ON THE BASIS OF STAMP DUTY CHARGED BY THE SUB-REGISTRAR. 8 ITA NOS .109 TO 113/BLPR/2010 A.YS. 2003-04, 04-05, 06-07, 07-08 & 08-09 10. IN THE CASE OF ITO VS. OPTEC DISC MANUFACTURING (SUPRA), IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT A.O. WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN MAKING ADD ITION UNDER SECTION 69B OF THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CONSIDERATION STATED BY ASSESSEE FOR PURCHASE OF LAND AND THE VALUE ADOPTED BY STATE REV ENUE AUTHORITY FOR STAMP DUTY PURPOSES ON THE BASIS OF CONTROVERTED AN D UNCONTROVERTED STATEMENT OF SELLER AND BY RELYING ON S.50C WHICH I S NOT APPLICABLE IN THE CONTEXT OF S. 69B. 11. IN THE CASE OF JAI MARWAR CO. (P) LTD. VS. ACIT (SUPRA) IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT ADDITION COULD NOT BE MADE SIMPLY ON THE BASIS OF THE ORDER PASSED IN STAMP DUTY CASE, PARTICULARLY WHEN THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF ANY PAYMENT OVER AND ABOVE THE AMOUNT S HOWN IN THE SALE DEED. 12. IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. K.K. ENTERPRISES (SUPRA) , IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE ON RECORD, IT C ANNOT BE PRESUMED THAT LAND HAS BEEN SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE AT A HIGHER PRICE THAN THE CONSIDERATION SHOWN IN THE REGISTERED SALE DEEDS, A ND THE RATES OF PROPERTY FIXED BY THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY FOR REGISTRATION PURPOSES CANNOT BE APPLIED TO ARRIVE AT THE PRICE F OR WHICH THE PROPERTY MIGHT HAVE BEEN SOLD AND NO ADDITION CAN B E MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNDERSTATEMENT OF SALE PRICE. 13. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY DISTINGUISHING FEATURE BR OUGHT ON RECORD BY THE REVENUE, WE RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE CONSI STENT VIEW AS AFORESAID, HOLD THAT THE A.O. WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN APPLYING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50-C IN THE CASE OF THE ASSES SEE AS A PURCHASER AS THE FICTION CREATED U/S 50C WHICH IS A DEEMING PROV ISION HAS TO BE RESTRICTED TO THAT SECTION ONLY AND SUCH FICTION CA NNOT BE READ INTO SECTION 69B OF THE ACT AND ACCORDINGLY WE ARE INCLI NED TO UPHOLD THE FINDING OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN DELETING THE SAME. TH E GROUNDS TAKEN BY THE REVENUE ARE THEREFORE REJECTED. 10.2 IT IS WORTHWHILE TO MENTION HERE THAT A SIMILA R VIEW HAS BEEN TAKEN BY THE A BENCH OF ITAT, AHMEDABAD IN THE CASE OF SHRI DIPAKK UMAR CHAMPALAL DOSHI (SUPRA). IN THE SAID CASE, THE TRIBUNAL OBSERVED T HAT ADDITIONS MADE UNDER SECTION 69B CANNOT BE SUSTAINED BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C OF THE ACT. THE BENCH HELD THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C OF TH E ACT, IS A SPECIAL PROVISION FOR 9 ITA NOS .109 TO 113/BLPR/2010 A.YS. 2003-04, 04-05, 06-07, 07-08 & 08-09 ADOPTING THE VALUE OF SALE CONSIDERATION IN A SPECI FIC CIRCUMSTANCE WITH RESPECT TO THE VENDER OF AN IMMOVABLE PROPERTY AND NOT WITH RE SPECT TO THE VENDEE. IF THE ACT INTENDED TO APPLY THE PURCHASE CONSIDERATION IN THE CASE OF THE PURCHASER OF THE IMMOVABLE PROPERTY, IT WOULD HAVE SPECIFICALLY SAID SO. IT WAS ALSO OBSERVED BY THE TRIBUNAL THAT DEEMING FICTION CREATED FOR A SPECIFI C PURPOSE CANNOT BE INFUSED FOR ANOTHER APPLICATION UNLESS AND UNTIL IT IS SPECIFIC ALLY PROVIDED IN THE ACT. 10.3 IN THE INSTANT CASE, APART FROM STAMP DUTY VAL UE, THERE WAS NOTHING ON RECORD WHICH SUGGESTS THAT THE REVENUE HAS PROVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID OVER AND ABOVE WHAT HAS BEEN RECORDED AS PURCHASE CONSIDERAT ION OF THE PROPERTY IN THE SALE DEED. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISIONS OF THE CO-ORDINATE BENCHES REFERRED TO ABOVE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT NO ADD ITION ON UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT COULD BE MADE BY INVOKING PROVISIONS OF SECTION 69B OF THE ACT. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, WE DO NOT SEE ANY MERIT IN THESE GROUNDS OF APPEALS AND, THEREFORE, WE DISMISS THESE GROUNDS. 11. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE FIVE APPEALS PREFERRED B Y THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 16.12.2014. SD/- SD/- (RAJENDRA) (H.L. KARWA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PRESIDENT RAIPUR, DATED: 16.12.2014 PBN/* 10 ITA NO S.109 TO 113/BLPR/2010 A.YS. 2003-04, 04-05, 06-07, 07-08 & 08-09 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. THE CONCERNED CIT(A) 4. THE CONCERNED CIT 5. D.R. ITAT, RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR 6. GUARD FILE //TRUE COPY// BY ORDER ASSTT. REGISTRAR, ITAT, RAIPUR