Smt Manorama Singhal, Indore V. ITO-3(2), Indore

ITA 130/Ind/2020

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 107 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5596 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 6 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-09-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 02-03-2020
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P K SINGHI
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Capital asset converted into stock in trade; Search and seizure; Loose papers; Document seized; Principle of natural justice; Opportunity of cross examination; Validity of assessment; Documents seized; Reassessment proceedings; Set aside
• Section: 143(3); 142(1); 143(2); 153C; 147; 69; 148; 132

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VIRTUAL HEARING ITA NO.130/IND/2020 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2013-14 SMT. MANORAMA SINGHAL INDORE : APPELLANT PAN: AHCPS6665G V/S ITO-3(2) INDORE : RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY SHRI PANKAJ SHAH, AR REVENUE BY SHRI P.K. SINGHI, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING 29.07.2021 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 21.09.2021 O R D E R PER MANISH BORAD, A.M THE ABOVE CAPTIONED APPEAL FILED AT THE INSTANCE O F THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14 IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS)-I (IN SHORT SMT. MANORAMA SINGHAL ITA NO.130/IND/2020 2 LD. CIT], INDORE DATED 05.01.2020 WHICH IS ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER U/S 147 R.W.S. 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961(IN SHORT THE ACT) DATED 19.12.2018, FRAMED BY ITO - 3(2) INDORE. 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE AS CULLED OUT FROM THE R ECORDS ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL EARNING INCOME FROM H OUSE PROPERTY AND OTHER SOURCES. RETURN OF INCOME FOR A. Y. 2013-14 FILED ON 30.07.2013 DECLARING INCOME OF RS.8,80,350 /-. NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED ON 22.09.2017, BASED ON THE INFORMATION RECEIVED ON THE BASIS OF SEARCH CONDUCT ED U/S 132 OF THE ACT ON 21.09.2012 AT GARHA GROUP AND APOLLO GROUP, INDORE, ALLEGING THAT ON-MONEY OF RS. 36,46,175/ - PAID BY ASSESSEE IN CASH FOR PURCHASING A PLOT OF LAND FRO M M/S RANI AGRO PVT. LTD. IN REPLY TO NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE AC T RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED ON 01.09.2018 DECLARING SAME INCOM E OF RS.8,80,350/- AS DECLARED IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN. 3. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING CARRIED OUT AFT ER ISSUANCE OF NOTICES U/S 143(2) & 142(1) OF THE ACT ASSESSEE STATED THAT NO ON-MONEY HAS BEEN PAID AND THE PLOT OF LAND WAS P URCHASED FROM M/S. RANI AGRO PVT. LTD. ON 03.12.2012 FOR CON SIDERATION OF RS.40,00,000/- AFTER PAYMENT OF STAMP DUTY OF RS .2,50,000/- SMT. MANORAMA SINGHAL ITA NO.130/IND/2020 3 . LD. AO HOWEVER WAS NOT CONVINCED AND BASED UPON T HE SEIZED DOCUMENTS FOUND IN THE CASE OF GARHA GROUP AND APOL LO GROUP MADE ADDITION OF RS.36,46,175/- IN THE HANDS OF ASS ESSEE, ASSESSING INCOME AT RS.45,26,530/-. 4. AGGRIEVED ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE TH E LD. CIT(A) CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY OF REASSESSMENT PROCEEDING S AS WELL AS THE CHALLENGING THE ADDITION MADE FOR THE ALLEGED ON-MONEY. LD. CIT(A) HOWEVER FIND NO MERIT IN THE CONTENTIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE AND CONFIRMED THE FINDING OF LD. CIT(A). 5. NOW ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL RA ISING FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN L AW THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-I ('CI T(A)') ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF ASSESSING OFFICER IN REOPE NING THE CASE AND MAKING REASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 147 OF THE AC T WHICH IS PRAYED TO BE QUASHED AND HELD AS UNWARRANTED, ILLEG AL AND BAD- IN LAW. 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN L AW THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACT OF AO IN ASSUMING JURISDICTION UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT AND FAILE D TO APPRECIATE THAT THE REASONS STATE THAT INCOME HAS ESCAPED ASSE SSMENT BASED ON INCRIMINATING MATERIAL FOUND IN SEARCH PRO CEEDINGS AT THE PREMISES OF SELLER OF PROPERTY AND THUS THE PRO CEEDINGS OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN INVOKED UNDER SECTION 153C OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE ORDER BE HELD INVALID AND DIRECTED TO BE QUASHED. 3. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN L AW THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT HOLDING THE ACTION OF A O AS INVALID IN NOT PROVIDING THE THIRD PARTY EXTERNAL INFORMATION BASED ON WHICH THE CASE HAS BEEN REOPENED. ACCORDINGLY THE A PPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE BASIS ON WHICH EXERCISE HAS BEEN CAR RIED OUT IS IN VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE THE ASSE SSMENT BE HELD TO BE INVALID AND DIRECTED TO BE QUASHED. 4. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN L AW THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF AO IN NOT SMT. MANORAMA SINGHAL ITA NO.130/IND/2020 4 PROVIDING THE OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS EXAMINE THE PERS ONS WHO HAVE ALLEGEDLY STATED TO HAVE RECEIVED ON MONEY FROM THE APPELLANT, INSPITE OF SPECIFIC REQUEST FOR IT. ACCORDINGLY REL IANCE PLACED ON THIRD PARTY EXTERNAL INFORMATION WITHOUT AFFORDING OPPORTUNITY OF CROSS EXAMINATION MAKES THE ASSESSMENT INVALID IN V IOLATION OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND RENDERS THE ASSES SMENT BE HELD TO BE INVALID. 5. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN T HE LAW THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT UNDER SECTION 69 OF THE ACT AMOUNTING TO RS.3646175 BASED ON DUMB DOCUMENTS WIT HOUT ANY COGENT EVIDENCES AND FOLLOWING PRINCIPLES OF NA TURAL JUSTICE. ACCORDINGLY, THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE SAID ADDI TION BE DELETED. 6. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN L AW THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF AS SESSING OFFICER DETERMINING TOTAL INCOME AT RS.4526530/AS AGAINST D ECLARED INCOME OF RS. 880350/-, WHICH IS BAD IN LAW AND EXC ESSIVE. 7. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD TO, ALTER AND/OR AMEND ALL OR ANY OF THE FOREGOING GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 6. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUBM ISSION MADE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) PLACED AT PAGES 1 TO 9 OF THE PAPER BOOK AND ALSO REFERRED TO THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS PLACED AT PAGES 1 TO 11. RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON FOLLOWING DECISIONS: I. C. VASANTLAL AND CO. 45 ITR 206 (SC) II. KISHAN CHAND CHELLARAM VS. CIT (125 ITR 713) III. CIT, CENTRAL JAIPUR VS. SMT. SUNITA DHADDA IV. M/S. ANDAMAN TIMBER INDUSTRIES V. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE 92015) 281 CTR 241(SC) 7. PER CONTRA LD. DR VEHEMENTLY ARGUED SUPPORTING T HE FINDING OF BOTH LOWER AUTHORITIES. 8. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORDS PLACED BEFORE US. AS REGARDS GROUND NO.1 TO 3 CHALL ENGING THE VALIDITY OF THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WE FIND TH AT THERE WAS SMT. MANORAMA SINGHAL ITA NO.130/IND/2020 5 SPECIFIC INFORMATION RECEIVED BY THE LD.AO ON THE B ASIS OF SEARCH CONDUCTED IN SOME OTHER CASES. THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS REVEALED THE DETAILS OF ASSESSEE HAVING TRANSACTED WITH THE SEARCHED PARTIES AND THE SAME FORMED THE BASIS FOR ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT. 9. UNDER THESE GIVEN FACTS, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY DISMISSED THE ASSESSEES LEGAL GROUND C HALLENGING THE VALIDITY OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S 147 OF T HE ACT HOLDING THAT THE NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT HAS BEEN RIGHTLY ISSUED. THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS M ENTIONED BELOW:- 3. GROUND NOS.1 TO 6: ALL THESE GROUNDS OF APPEAL HAVE BEEN RAISED AGAINST THE ADDITION OF RS.36,46,175/- ON ACCOUNT OF ON-MONEY PAID ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT FOR PURCHASE PLOT NO.14/1, NEW PALASIA, INDORE. A SEARCH AND SEIZURE ACTION U/S 132 OF THE INCOME T AX ACT, 1961 WAS CARRIED OUT AT THE BUSINESS PREMISES OF GA RHA GROUP OF INDORE ALONG WITH APOLLO GROUP, INDORE ON 21.09.2012. DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH ACTION, SEV ERAL INCREMENTING DOCUMENTS HAVE BEEN FOUND AND SEIZED. AS PER INFORMATION, M/S RANI AGRO PVT. LTD. HAD UNDERT AKEN A PROJECT IN THE NAME OF GOLD GREEN AND GOLD LINK DURING THE PERIOD FROM F.Y. 2009-10. IT WAS A JOINT VENTUR E PROJECT WITH APOLLO GROUP IN THE RATIO OF 60% TO M/S RANI A GRO PVT. LTD. AND 40% TO THE APOLLO GROUP, INDORE. DURING TH E COURSE OF SEARCH PROCEEDINGS, IT WAS ESTABLISHED THAT M/S. RANI AGRO PVT. LTD. AND APOLLO GROUP HAVE ACCEPTED ON MO NEY FROM THE PERSONS WHO HAVE PURCHASE PLOTS. IT HAS BE EN SOUGHT TO MY NOTICE THAT THE GARHA GROUP OF INDORE HAD FILED PETITION FOR SETTLEMENT BEFORE THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION. IN THE EXCEL SHEET FILED ALONG WITH APP LICATION SMT. MANORAMA SINGHAL ITA NO.130/IND/2020 6 TO SETTLEMENT COMMISSION, THE NAME OF THE APPELLANT WAS MENTIONED AS ONE WHO HAD PAID ON MONEY IN PURCHASE OF PLOT. THEREFORE, ON THE BASIS OF ADMISSION OF GARHA GROUP OF INDORE AND APOLLO GROUP, IT HAS TO BE CONCLUDED THA T APPELLANT HAS PAID THE ON-MONEY WHICH IS ALSO BASED ON VARIOUS INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS FOUND DURING THE CO URSE OF SEARCH. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER PROCEEDED TO RE- OPEN THE CASE UNDER SECTION 147 OF THE IT ACT ON TH E BASIS OF VARIOUS INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS AND STATEMENT FILED BY GRAHA GROUP BEFORE THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION ADMITT ING THE ON-MONEY RECEIVED FROM VARIOUS PERSON INCLUDING THE APPELLANT UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE NOTICE U/S 148 O F THE IT ACT 1961 AFTER DUE APPROVAL BY PR. CIT, INDORE. I D ONT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN ISSUE OF NOTICE FOR REOPENING THE CASE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT BEEN DEBARRED BY LAW TO I SSUE NOTICE U/S 148 EVEN IF THE CASE OF APPELLANT FELL W ITHIN THE AMBIT OF SECTION 153C OF THE IT ACT. RATHER IN THIS CASE, THE REOPENING HAS BEEN FOUND MADE ONLY AFTER THE GRAH G ROUP FILED THE STATEMENT BEFORE THE STATEMENT COMMISSION ADMITTING ON MONEY. THEREFORE, THE REOPENING HAS BE EN FOUND AS PER LAW. THE GROUND ON THIS POINT ARE DISM ISSED. 10. WE, THEREFORE, UNDER THE GIVEN FACTS AND CIRCUM STANCES OF THE CASE, ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT LD. CIT(A ) HAS RIGHTLY DISMISSED THE ASSESSEES LEGAL GROUND CHALLENGING T HE VALIDITY OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. WE, THUS, SET ASIDE THE FIN DING OF LD. CIT(A) AND DISMISS THE LEGAL GROUND CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THUS, GROUND NOS. 1 TO 3 RA ISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. 11. AS REGARDS THE LEGAL GROUND RAISED IN GROUND NO .4 CHALLENGING THE ADDITION HAVING BEEN MADE WITHOUT P ROVIDING SMT. MANORAMA SINGHAL ITA NO.130/IND/2020 7 THE OPPORTUNITY OF CROSS EXAMINATION OF THE SEARCH PARTIES TO THE ASSESSEE BEFORE MAKING IMPUGNED ADDITION. WE FI ND THAT THE ADDITION MADE BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER IS SOLEL Y BASED ON THE SEIZED MATERIAL FOUND FROM THE GARHA GROUP & AP OLLO GROUP. THE REGISTERED DOCUMENTS FOR THE PURCHASE OF PLOT OF LAND SHOWS THAT THE CONSIDERATION IS NOT LESS THAN THE GUIDELINES RATE AND BOTH BUYER AND SELLER HAVE AGRE ED TO THIS CONSIDERATION. ASSESSEE HAS SEEKED OPPORTUNITY FOR CROSS EXAMINATION OF THE SEARCHED PERSON, DURING THE PROC EEDINGS BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND THE SAME WAS IGNORED. 12. WE, OBSERVE THAT SUCH ACTION OF THE LD. ASSESSI NG OFFICER OF MAKING ADDITION IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE BASED ON 3 RD PARTY STATEMENT/EVIDENCE CANNOT WITHSTAND UNLESS PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF CROSS EXAMINATION IS PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE. FOR THIS PROPOSITION WE FIND SUPPORT FROM THE JUDGM ENT OF HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF M/S ANDAMAN TIMBER INDUSTRIES VS. CCE (SUPRA) WHEREIN HONBLE COURT HELD AS UNDER: NOT ALLOWING THE ASSESSEE TO CROSS-EXAMINE THE WITN ESSES BY THE ADJUDICATING AUTHORITY THOUGH THE STATEMENTS OF THO SE WITNESSES WERE MADE THE BASIS OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS A SERIOUS F LAW WHICH MAKES THE ORDER NULLITY INASMUCH AS IT AMOUNTED TO VIOLAT ION OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE BECAUSE OF WHICH THE ASSESSEE WAS A DVERSELY AFFECTED. IT IS TO BE BORNE IN MIND THAT THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER WAS BASED UPON THE STATEMENTS GIVEN BY THE AFORESAI D TWO WITNESSES. EVEN WHEN THE ASSESSEE DISPUTED THE CORR ECTNESS OF THE SMT. MANORAMA SINGHAL ITA NO.130/IND/2020 8 STATEMENTS AND WANTED TO CROSS-EXAMINE, THE ADJUDIC ATING AUTHORITY DID NOT GRANT THIS OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. IT WOULD BE PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE ADJUD ICATING AUTHORITY HE HAS SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED THAT SUCH AN OPPORTUN ITY WAS SOUGHT BY THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, NO SUCH OPPORTUNITY WAS GRAN TED AND THE AFORESAID PLEA IS NOT EVEN DEALT WITH BY THE ADJUDI CATING AUTHORITY. AS FAR AS THE TRIBUNAL IS CONCERNED, WE FIND THAT REJE CTION OF THIS PLEA IS TOTALLY UNTENABLE. THE TRIBUNAL HAS SIMPLY STATED T HAT CROSS- EXAMINATION OF THE SAID DEALERS COULD NOT HAVE BROU GHT OUT ANY MATERIAL WHICH WOULD NOT BE IN POSSESSION OF THE AP PELLANT THEMSELVES TO EXPLAIN AS TO WHY THEIR EX-FACTORY PR ICES REMAIN STATIC. IT WAS NOT FOR THE TRIBUNAL TO HAVE GUESS WORK AS T O FOR WHAT PURPOSES THE APPELLANT WANTED TO CROSS-EXAMINE THOS E DEALERS AND WHAT EXTRACTION THE APPELLANT WANTED FROM THEM. APPELLANT HAS CONTESTED THE TRUTHFULNESS OF THE STA TEMENTS OF THESE TOW WITNESSES AND WANTED TO DISCREDIT THEIR TESTIMO NY FOR WHICH PURPOSE IT WANTED TO AVAIL THE OPPORTUNITY OF CROSS -EXAMINATION. THAT APART, THE ADJUDICATING AUTHORITY SIMPLY RELIED UPO N THE PRICED LIST AS MAINTAINED AT THE DEPOT TO DETERMINE THE PRICE FOR THE PURPOSE OF LEVY OF EXCISE DUTY. WHETHER THE GOODS WERE, IN FACT, SO LD TO THE SAID DEALERS/WITNESSES AT THE PRICE WHICH IS MENTIONED I N THE PRICED LIST ITSELF COULD BE THE SUBJECT MATTER OF CROSS-EXAMINA TION. THEREFORE, IT WAS NOT FOR THE ADJUDICATING AUTHORITY TO PRESUPPOS E AS TO WHAT COULD BE THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CROSS-EXAMINATION AND MAKE THE REMARKS AS MENTIONED ABOVE. PARA7 IF THE TESTIMONY OF THESE TWO WITNESS IS DISCREDITE D, THERE WAS NO MATERIAL WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF THE BASIS OF WHICH IT COULD JUSTIFY ITS ACTION AS THE STATEMENT OF THE AFORESAID TWO WITNES SES WAS THE ONLY BASIS OF ISSUING THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE. PARA8 CONCLUSION: NOT ALLOWING THE ASSESSEE TO CROSS-EXAMINE THE WITN ESSES BY THE ADJUDICATING AUTHORITY THOUGH THE STATEMENTS OF THO SE WITNESSES WERE MADE THE BASIS OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS A SERIOUS F LAW WHICH MAKES THE ORDER NULLITY INASMUCH AS IT AMOUNTED TO VIOLAT ION OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE 13. SIMILAR VIEW WAS ALSO TAKEN BY HONBLE HIGH COU RT OF RAJASTHAN IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SMT. SUNITA DHADDA (SUPRA) WHEREIN HONBLE COURT HAS CONSIDERED THE JUDGMENT O F HONBLE SMT. MANORAMA SINGHAL ITA NO.130/IND/2020 9 SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF M /S ANDAMAN TIMBER INDUSTRIES VS. CCE (SUPRA) AND CONFIRMED THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE TRIBUNAL HOLDING THAT IF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT PROVIDED ANY OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS EXAMINE THE PERSON WHO STATED TO HAVE RECEIVE D ON-MONEY IS A VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. WE , THUS CALLED FOR THE DELETION OF ADDITION SO MADE BY THE LD. ASSESSI NG OFFICER. 14. WE, THEREFORE, UNDER THE GIVEN FACTS AND CIRCUM STANCES OF THE CASE, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISIONS REFE RRED HEREINABOVE, ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW IN THE INST ANT CASE ALSO ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN PROVIDED ANY OPPORTUNITY OF C ROSS EXAMINATION OF THE PARTIES WHO HAVE STATED TO HAVE RECEIVED ON- MONEY FROM SALE OF LAND. WE, THUS, SET ASIDE THE F INDING OF LD. CIT(A) AND DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS.36,46,175/- AN D ALLOW GROUND NO.4 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE. GROUND NO.5 & 6 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE BECOMES MERELY ACADEMIC IN NATURE AS W E HAVE ALREADY DELETED THE ADDITION ALLOWING GROUND NO.4 O F THE ASSESSEE. GROUND NO.7 IS GENERAL IN NATURE WHICH NE EDS NO ADJUDICATION. SMT. MANORAMA SINGHAL ITA NO.130/IND/2020 10 15. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL IN ITANO.130 /IND/2020 IS PARTLY ALLOWED. THE ORDER PRONOUNCED AS PER RULE 34 OF ITAT RULES, 1963 ON 21.09.2021. SD/- SD/- (C.M. GARG) (MANISH BORAD) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTA NT MEMBER / DATED : 21.09. 2021 PATEL/PS COPY TO: THE APPELLANT/RESPONDENT/CIT CONCERNED/CIT (A) CONCERNED/ DR, ITAT, INDORE/GUARD FILE. BY ORDER, ASSTT.REGISTRAR, I.T.A.T., INDORE