M/s. Pragati Milk Product Pvt. Ltd., Cuttack V. ACIT, Central Circle, Cuttack

ITA 145/CTK/2022

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 102 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0855 (ITAT-CUTTACK)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-10-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 10-10-2023
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 01-09-2022
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Depreciation; Rectification of order; Bad and doubtful debts; Assessment record
• Section: 154; 40A(3); 48

Judgement Text

आयकर अऩीऱीय अधधकरण, कटक न्यायऩीठ,कटक IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CUTTACK BENCH CUTTACK (THROUGH VIRTUAL HEARING) श्री जाजज माथन, न्याययक सदस्य एवं श्री राजेश क ु मार, ऱेखा सदस्य के समक्ष । BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अऩीऱ सं/ITA Nos.143 t o 145/C TK /2022 (ननधाारण वषा / Asses s m ent Year : 2012-2 013 to 2014-2015) M/s Pragati Milk Products(P) Ltd. Plot No.71/A/1, New Industrial Estate, Jagatpur, Cuttack-754021 Vs ACIT, Central Circle, Cuttack PAN No. :AAECP 6353 J (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee by : Shri P.R.Mohanty, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by : Shri Dr. Abani Kanta Nayak, CIT-DR स ु नवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 11/10/2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 11/10/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These are the appeals filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT(A)-2, Bhubaneswar, dated 12.10.2018, passed in I.T.Appeal No.0487/2017-18 for the assessment year 2012-2013. 2. It was submitted by the ld. AR that the facts in all the cases are identical. It was the submission that there was search in the premises of the assessee. As a consequence of search, assessment came to be completed u/s.153A of the Act. In the assessment u/s.153A of the Act, the assessee had been granted the benefit of deduction u/s.80IB(11A) of the Act. It was the submission that the said assessment order was the subject matter of rectification application on multiple occasions and in the third round of rectification application the AO has withdrawn the benefit of deduction u/s.80IB (11A) of the Act. It was the submission that the ITA Nos.143-145/CTK/2022 2 assessment u/s.153A of the Act was completed on 31.03.2016. Subsequently, the first rectification was done u/s.154 of the Act vide an order dated 25.05.2016 and the second on 16.11.2016 and in the third rectification u/s.154 of the Act vide an order dated 28.09.2017, the AO had proposed to withdraw the deduction u/s.80IB(11A) of the Act. It was the submission that in the rectification application the AO mentioned that the assessee company was formed on 21.01.2008 and it began its production operation in the financial year 2008-2009 relevant to the assessment year 2009-2010 being the year ending 31.03.2009 insofar as the assessee had declared sales of Rs.1.90 crores as against various expenditures claimed of Rs.2.36 crores including the depreciation of Rs.40.35 lakhs. It was the submission that the assessee had received his registration certificate for processing of milk products from the Directorate of Animal Husbandry & Veterinary Services, Orissa, Cuttack vide registration No.13/OR/MMPO/09, dated 15.05.2009. It was the further submission that in the assessment year 2014-2015, the AO in the assessment order passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s.153A of the Act, dated 31.03.2016, had, in respect of the deduction u/s.80IB(11A) of the Act categorically, held that in the case of the assessee the assessment year 2009-2010 is the initial assessment year. It was the submission that for the assessment year 2014-2015, the AO had categorically given a finding after examining all the facts, that the same cannot be rectified by invoking provisions of Section 154 of the Act as no mistake apparent from the record has been shown. The ld. AR, on the direction of the Tribunal, has ITA Nos.143-145/CTK/2022 3 also placed before us the electricity bills of assessee’s company for January 2009 to May 2009, wherein the electricity bills, details of which read as follows :- M/S. PKAGATI MILK PRODUCTS (P) LTD. PLOT NO.- 71/A/l, NEW INDUSTRIAL ESTATE JAGATPUR, CUTTACK-754021 PAN- AAECP6353J ELECTRICITY CONSUMPTION DETAILS SI. No. Month & Year Current Bill Amount in (Rs.) Rebate Allowable Net Payable in (Rs.) 1. Jan 2009 7556.00 414.00 7142.00 2. Feb 2009 31802.00 2680.00 29122.00 3. Mar 2009 170952.00 1573.00 169379.00 4. Apr 2009 402076.45 1765.00 400311.45 5. May 2009 524015.00 1681.00 522334.00 3. The original electricity bills have also been placed in the paper book filed by the assessee. It was the submission that the ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that a trial production and the sale thereon of Rs.2.36 crores was the start of the manufacturing activity. The ld. AR also placed before us the production certificate issued by the District Industry Centre, Cuttack, Orissa, wherein the date of start of production has specifically mentioned as 08/04/2009. The ld. AR also placed before us the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Keshri Metal (P) Ltd., reported in (1999) ITR 165 (SC), to submit that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has categorically held that the mistake must be apparent from the record and a look at the record must show that there has been an error and reference to documents outside the record is not permissible. It was the submission ITA Nos.143-145/CTK/2022 4 that in view of the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Keshri Metal (P) Ltd., referred to supra, the rectification as done by the AO and as upheld by the ld. CIT(A) requires to be reversed. 4. In reply, ld. CIT-DR has filed his written submission as follows :- These appeals relate to rectification orders u/s.154 of the Income Tax Act passed by the A.O. For the assessment years in appeal, the assessee company had claimed deduction u/s.80IB(l 1A) of the Act. It was found out from the assessment records of A.Y. 2009-10 that the assessee company was formed on 21.01.2008. In A.Y. 2009-10, the assessee company had declared sales of Rs.1,90,74,299/- and after incurring expenses of Rs.2,36,15,690/- which also included depreciation of Rs.40,35,943/-. In view of above facts, it was crystal clear that the assessee company had started commercial operations in F.Y. 2008-09 itself. The claim of the assessee that it had done only trial run and that the commercial production began after 31.03.2009, was found to be false. Accordingly the A.O. withdrew the deduction u/s.80IB(HA) of the Act for A.Y. 2012-13, A.Y. 2013-14 & A.Y. 2014-15 by passing rectification order u/s.154 of the Act. 2. Kindly refer to para-3.1 on page-2 of the appellate order dated 12.10.2018 passed by the Id. CIT(A)-2, Bhubaneswar. On perusal of the same, it is noticed that the Id. CIT(A)-2, Bhubaneswar has held that the A.O. had detected the mistake on the basis of material on record. The assessee company had itself declared commercial production in F.Y. 2008-09 in the audited profit & loss account. Besides above, there could not be sales of Rs.1.90 crores during a trial run and assessee company had also paid VAT on sales as evident from VAT returns filed by it. It is unimaginable that an assessee could have incurred expenditure of Rs.1,95,79,747/- during a trial run. These facts can't be repudiated by the assessee company. Hence it is clear that the assessee company had started commercial production in F.Y. 2008-09 itself. The fact of operation of plant, production of dairy products on large scale, payment of VAT on sales as seen from the audited books of account are sufficient to conclude that commercial production had itself began in F.Y. 2008-09. On the contrary, deduction u/s.80IB(11A) is allowable to an assessee if it starts commercial production after 01.04.2009.When the provisions of law are clear then the "Rule of Literal Interpretation" and "Rule of Strict Interpretation" will come into play. 3. The assessee company has relied on the Production Certificate issued by the District Industries Centre, Cuttack and Udyog Aadhaar Registration Certificate issued by Ministry of Micro, Small & Medium Enterprises wherein date of production/commencement has been shown as 08.04.2009. At the outset, these certificates ITA Nos.143-145/CTK/2022 5 have been issued for different purposes. The Id. AR of the assessee company has failed to show that on which dates, the alleged applications for issue of production certificate/registration certificate were filed. The District Industries Centre are not a statutory bodies. The District Industries Centres (DIC) were established with the objective of promoting small village and cottage industries in a particular area. The DICs have been established in various districts of India at varying times since 1978 when it was launched. Being established at the district level, the District Industries Centres have mainly provided all the necessary services and support to facilitate entrepreneurs in setting up MSMEs (Micro, Small and Medium, enterprises). The District Industries Centres help in identifying suitable schemes for development of Industrial clusters, help prepare feasibility reports and also arrange facilities for procuring machinery, equipment as well as credit. The District Industries Centres (DICs) are headed by a General Manager at the Joint Director Level. The General Manager is assisted by the Manager (Handloom), Manager (Economic Investigation), Manager (Credit), Manager (Development) and an Administrative Assistant. The General Manager provides reviews which helps in evaluating performance of different schemes and also helps in resolving the difficulties in implementing those schemes. It must be appreciated here that date of issue of Production Certificate by DIC, Cuttack is 21.05.2018. The date of filing an application for Issue of Production Certificate has not been furnished by the assessee. Similarly the date of filing an application for Udyog Aadhaar Registration is 05.01.2017. It is basically a registration certificate Issued by Ministry of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises for identity of an enterprises. It does not signify the date of actual commercial production because It is issued as per details mentioned in the requisite application. It is crystal clear that these certificates have been obtained by the assessee on later dates only for the sake of justifying its claim u/s.80IB(HA) of the Act. These are not relevant for the issue under consideration. 4. The various decisions relied upon by the Id. AR of the assessee company have been distinguished by the Id. CIT(A)-2, Bhubaneswar in paras-3.2 to 3.4 on pages-2 to 3 of the appellate order which may kindly be perused. The sales of Rs.1.90 crores do not justify the facade of a trial run. Hence the A.O. was justified in withdrawing claim of deduction u/s.80IB(11A) of the Act. 5. Reliance is placed on the decision of Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Steel Strips Ltd. (11 taxmann.com 361) wherein on similar facts, it was held in para-5 as under: "5. It is clear from the order of the Assessing Officer that depreciation was allowed overlooking section 80VVA of the Act. Overlooking of a statutory provision is clearly a mistake apparent on record and on that basis, rectification under section 154 of the Act was clearly admissible. Impermissibility of deduction is not debatable if section 80VVA is applied. This being so, the CIT(A) as ITA Nos.143-145/CTK/2022 6 well as the Tribunal erred in law in holding that rectification was beyond the scope of section 154 of the Act. It is clear that the statutory provision having come into force with effect from 1-4-1984, the same could have been applied for the assessment year 1984- 85 and thereafter. However, while applying the said provision for the assessment year 1984-85, claim or carry forward or set off, had to be considered in accordance with law as in force during the said assessment year even if it relates back to an earlier year. The question is accordingly answered in favour of the revenue and against the assessee." 6. Reliance is placed on the decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Peirce Leslie & Co. Ltd. (99 Taxman 471) wherein on similar facts, it was held in para-6 as under: "6. We have heard the rival submissions. In the above cited decisions, it was pointed out that the cost of acquisition of the depreciable asset is bound to be computed in accordance with section 50. In other words, section 55(2) is applicable only in respect of sections 48 and 49 and it has no application to section 50. Thus, where more than one High Court understood the provisions contained in section 50 and section 55(2) in a particular manner, it is not open to give a different interpretation other than what was given by the various High Courts as stated above. It cannot be said that there is any debatable issue in the matter of ascertaining the cost of acquisition under section 50. Even during the time, when the Tribunal passed its order, two decisions rendered by the Gujarat High Court and the Allahabad High Court cited (supra) were available on this aspect. Therefore, it cannot be said that there is any debatable issue or long drawn argument involved in understanding or interpreting the provisions of section 50. In the case of T. Manickavasagam Chettiar vs. CIT [1983] 143 ITR 269/ 14 Taxman 248 , this Court has held that if a provision which is inapplicable to the facts has been applied, then it is a mistake on the face of the record. Similarly, in the case of CIT v. Sundaram Textiles Ltd. [1984] 149 ITR 525/ 19 Taxman 437 this Court has held that the application of a wrong provision of the Act or the erroneous application of the same to the facts of the case, which do not call for such application, will amount to a mistake apparent from the record for the purpose of section 154. In the present case, the ITO applied the wrong provisions of law in the original assessment while permitting the assessee to exercise its option to offer fair market value as on 1-1-1954, for the cost of acquisition of depreciable asset. This was permitted on the mistaken application of law. Later on by invoking the provisions of section 154 ITO withdrew the permission given to the assessee to exercise its open to offer fair market value as on 1-1-1954. Since there is an error apparent on the face of the record in passing the original assessment order, warranting application of section 154, the order of the Tribunal was not correct in cancelling the rectification order passed by the authorities berow under section 154. In that view of the matter, we answer these questions referred ITA Nos.143-145/CTK/2022 7 to us in the negative and in favour of the department. There will be no order as to costs." 7. Reliance is placed on the decision of Hon'ble Delhi IT AT in the case of Shiv Shakti Traders vs. ACIT (139 taxmann.com 193) wherein on highly debatable issue involving disallowance u/s.40A(3), it was held in para-8 to 11 as under: "8. In the case before us it was brought to the notice of the Ld. AO by RAP that in the original assessment made by him, he overlooked the mandatory provision of section 40A(3) of the Act. Ld. AO, therefore, after giving opportunity to the assessee passed the rectificatory order making the impugned disallowance. Assumption of power by the Ld. AO under section 154 was agitated by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) as also before us on the ground that the impugned disallowance is a debatable issue and hence outside the ambit of section 154 of the Act. We are unable to subscribe to this view. Overlooking the mandatory provision of law in the original assessment is apparent mistake of law which is rectifiable under section 154 as held in the case of the Ashok Textile Ltd. and Janatha Steel Mills (P.) Ltd. (supra). The reliance placed by the assessee on the judgment of Lucas TVS Ltd. (supra) is misplaced. In that case the issue was of reopening the assessment under section 147(b) on the opinion of the audit party. We accordingly, reject the ground of the assessee objecting to the assumption of jurisdiction by the AO under section 154 of the Act. 9. We now proceed to deal with the grounds of the assessee relating to challenge of the impugned disallowance under section 40A(3) on merits. Section 40A(3) and (3A) as substituted w.e.f. 1-4- 2009 read as under :— "(3). Where the assessee incurs any expenditure in respect of which payment or aggregate of payments made to a person in a day, otherwise than by an bank account payee cheque drawn on a bank or account payee bank draft exceeds twenty thousand rupees, no deduction shall be allowed in respect of such expenditure. Provided that no disallowance shall be made and no payment shall be deemed to be the profits and gains of business or profession under sub-section (3) where a payment or aggregate of payments made to a person in a day, otherwise than an account payee cheque drawn on a bank or account payee bank draft exceeds twenty thousand rupees in such cases and under such circumstances as may be prescribed, having regard to the nature, and extent of banking facilities available, consideration of business expediency and other relevant factors." 9.1 The legislative intent behind the above provision may be seen from circular No. 1 dated 27-3-2009 reported in (2009) 310ITR (St) 42 which states as below :— ITA Nos.143-145/CTK/2022 8 "13.2 Sub-section (3) of section 40A is an anti tax evasion measure. By requiring payments to be made by an account payee instrument, it is possible to verify the genuineness of the transaction. Thereby the risk of evasion is substantially mitigated." 9.2 Rule 6DD prescribed by the Board has been substituted by the Income Tax (Seventh Amendment) Rules, 2008 w.e.f. assessment year 2009-10. 10. Perusal of the order under section 154 reveals that during the rectificatory proceedings the Ld. AO required the assessee to show cause as to why its income be not recomputed as payments amounting to Rs. 23,72,40,000/- for expenditure made in violation of section 40A(3) of the Act were liable to be disallowed. Notice under section 154 dated 5-7-2018 was duly received by the Ld. AR of the assessee who appeared on 16-7-2018 but did not provide any reply and requested for adjournment which was granted. The hearing was adjourned to 19-7-2018 but on that date also neither the assessee nor the Ld. AR filed any reply. Ld. AO, therefore, passed exparte order. In the appellate order the Ld. CIT(A) observed that without filing any application under rule 46A the assessee furnished undated copies of letters addressed to ACIT-C2, Ghaziabad as part of submission. Before us the plea taken by the assessee in the grounds of appeal is that the Ld. AO has not disputed the genuineness of the impugned expenditure and accepted the sale made by the assessee based on such expenditure. We are of the view that this is not enough to bring the case of the assessee out of the ambit of the mandatory ^provision of section 40A(3). The assessee also claimed that its case is covered under rule 6DD without specifying under which sub-rule of rule 6DD as amended by the Income Tax (Seventh Amendment) Rules, 2008 its case falls. In such scenario, in our opinion it would be just and fair if the matter is restored to the file of the Ld. AO for decision afresh. Ld. AO shall give reasonable opportunity to the assessee to present its case and to bring on record all the material in support of its claim that its case falls under rule 6DD. Thereafter, Ld. AO shall pass reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law. 11 In the result, the appeal is partly allowed." 8. Reliance is placed on the decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Cuddalore District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. vs. DCIT (130 taxmann.com 239) wherein on highly debatable issue involving disallowance u/s.36(1)(vii)), it was held in para-19 to 20 as under: "19. In the present case, the respondent has stated clearly that the provision for bad and doubtful debts is under section 36(1)(vii). Unless amount of bad and doubtful debts is debited to the provision for bad and doubtful debts account and the deduction admissible u/s.36(1)(vii) is limited to the amount by which such debt or part thereof exceeds the credit balance in the provision for bad and doubtful debts account. The language and intention of the ITA Nos.143-145/CTK/2022 9 legislature is clear and unambiguous and therefore the mistake in this case is apparent from record and thus issue of notice under section 154 is within the ambit of section 154 of the Income-tax Act, and it is a mistake apparent from record. 20. It is contended that the respondent is not going to adjudicate the merits of the issue. They have intended to rectify the mistake regarding the amount of bad and doubtful debts is debited to the provision for bad and doubtful debts account and the deduction admissible under section 36(1)(vii) is limited to the amount by which such debt or part thereof exceeds the credit balance in the provision for bad and doubtful debts account. It is contended that it is a mistake committed while passing an order of assessment. Therefore, such a mistake apparent from record is to be rectified. The learned Senior Standing Counsel, reiterated that the Authorities have not intended to go beyond the scope of Section 154 for rectification of mistake, which is apparent from record and, therefore, the writ petitioner is at liberty to defend his case before the Authorities Concerned regarding the grounds raised. 22. With reference to the judgments cited on behalf of the writ petitioner, this Curt is of the considered opinion that regarding the observations made by Apex Court of India in the case of Volkart Bros (supra) it was a case where section 71 of the Income-tax Act, was applicable to the case of the respondent is not free from doubt. Therefore, the Income-tax Officer was not justified in thinking that on that questions there could be no two opinions which was not proved the scope of relevant provisions of the Act under section 154 of the Income Tax. Thus, the Supreme Court in unambiguous terms held that the authorities competent cannot go beyond the scope of section 154 of the Income-tax Act in the said case. The issue adjudicated was considered as disputable by Apex Court. However, the precedent laid down is that the Authorities Competent are empowered to invoke section 154 of the Income-tax Act only if they find any mistake apparent on record and such a mistake is sought to be rectified. As far as the other two judgments of the Calcutta High Court are concerned, the facts are also dissimilar and further the proposition mooted by the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be disputed as scope of section 154 of the Income-tax Act is limited and the Authorities are empowered to invoke section 154 only by adhering to the grounds contemplated under the said provision." In view of above facts & circumstances and judicial precedents, the grounds of appeal taken by the assessee are required to be dismissed. 5. It was the submission that when the assessee is not entitled to deduction u/s.80IB(11A) of the Act itself, the same is to be considered as ITA Nos.143-145/CTK/2022 10 rectifiable u/s.154 of the Act. Ld.CIT-DR drew our attention to the decision of the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Steel Strips Ltd., reported in 11 taxmann.com 361, which has been referred by him in his written submission, to submit that in that case the AO had allowed depreciation overlooking Section 80VVA of the Act and overlooking the statutory provisions is clearly a mistake apparent from the record and on that basis rectification was held to be admissible. It was the submission that in the present case, the deduction u/s.80IB(11A) of the Act was not available to the assessee and the wrong granting of the same was rectifiable by an order u/s.154 of the Act. It was, thus, the prayer of the ld. CIT-DR that the order of the AO and the ld. CIT(A) are liable to be upheld. 6. We have considered the rival submission. A perusal of the facts of the present case clearly shows that in the original assessment order for the assessment year 2014-2015, the AO himself in scrutiny proceedings and that too a search assessment scrutiny proceedings, considered the claim of deduction/s.80IB(11A) of the Act and then came to the conclusion that initial year is the assessment year 2009-2010. The original assessment order u/s.143(3) r.w.s.153A of the Act has been passed by one Assessing Authority. Every time there has been a change in the incumbent, thereby another rectification u/s.154 of the Act gets proposed on the assessee. This is a third rectification order wherein the new ground of withdrawal of deduction u/s.80IB(11A) of the Act has been done. Section 80IB(11A) of the Act requires commencement of production on or after 01.04.2009. It is an admitted fact that the assessee has been ITA Nos.143-145/CTK/2022 11 incorporated on 21.01.2008 but incorporation does not mean commercial production. The commercial production is when the assessee is permitted by the relevant authority to start commercial production. The authority is the District Industry Centre, Cuttack and the District Industry Centre, Cuttack has certified the date of starting of production as 08.04.2009. The assessee admittedly is dealing in milk and milk-products, which obviously requires for registration with the Directorate of Animal Husbandry & Veterinary Services, Cuttack and the same has been received by the assessee only on 15.05.2009. The assessee has been repeatedly submitting that the assessee has done trial production. Without doing a trial production, it is not possible for any industry to apply for certification under the relevant industrial provisions. Just because the assessee been able to sell the products, which have been manufactured in the course of trail production, does not mean that the assessee has started commercial production. The benefit of Section 80IB(11A) of the Act is available to an assessee, who starts commercial production on or after 1 st April, 2009. A perusal of the electricity consumption itself shows that in April, 2009, the assessee has consumed more than Rs.4 lakhs worth of electricity whereas in March, 2009, the assessee has got its factory set up and started the trial production which has resulted in an electricity bill of Rs.1.69 lakhs. 7. A perusal of Section 80IB(11A) of the Act, shows that the proviso thereunder provides that the provision shall not apply to an undertaking engaged in the business of processing, preservation and packaging of ITA Nos.143-145/CTK/2022 12 meat or meat products or poultry or marine or dairy products if it begins to operate such business before the 1 st day of April, 2009. Beginning of an operation of the business becomes effective only when it is licensed and permitted under the relevant provisions of the relevant statutes to commence production and that certification has come for the first time from the District Industrial Centre, Cuttack only on 08.04.2009. In the said certificate the initial date of production and commencement of services have also been specifically specified as 08.04.2009. This being so, obviously the assessee has began to operate its business of commercial production only on 08.04.2009 and the assessee is entitled to the deduction u/s.80IB(11A) of the Act. 8. The fact that so much of evidences have to be looked into co- related and considered, clearly shows that this is not a mistake which can be considered as apparent from the record amenable to rectification u/s.154 of the Act. Clearly, this requires the interpretation of the documents as also verification of the documents. In these circumstances, in view of the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Keshri Metal (P) Ltd., referred to supra, the rectification u/s.154 of the Act as made by the AO and as confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) in all the three appeals of the assessee for the assessment years 2012-2013, 2013-2014 & 2014-2015 are also unsustainable and the same stand quashed. ITA Nos.143-145/CTK/2022 13 9. In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee for respective assessment years under consideration are allowed. Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 11/10/2023. Sd/- (राजेश क ु मार) (RAJESH KUMAR) Sd/- (जाजज माथन) (GEORGE MATHAN) ऱेखा सदस्य/ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER न्यानयक सदस्य / JUDICIAL MEMBER कटक Cuttack; ददनाांक Dated 11/10/2023 Prakash Kumar Mishra, Sr.P.S. आदेश की प्रनतलऱपऩ अग्रेपषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : आदेशान ु सार/ BY ORDER, (Assistant Registrar) आयकर अऩीऱीय अधधकरण, कटक/ITAT, Cuttack 1. अऩीऱाथी / The Appellant- M/s Pragati Milk Products(P) Ltd. Plot No.71/A/1, New Industrial Estate, Jagatpur, Cuttack-754021 2. प्रत्यथी / The Respondent- ACIT, Central Circle, Cuttack 3. आयकर आय ु क्त(अऩीऱ) / The CIT(A), 4. आयकर आय ु क्त / CIT 5. ववभागीय प्रयतयनधध, आयकर अऩीऱीय अधधकरण, कटक / DR, ITAT, Cuttack 6. गार्ज पाईऱ / Guard file. सत्यावऩत प्रयत //True Copy//