M/s Raghubar Singh, Patna V. DCIT,

ITA 150/PAT/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9645 (ITAT-PATNA)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 5 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-04-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 17-10-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: K M MISHRA SH
• Assessee Lawyers: T VARKEY JUDIC IA L M EMBER
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 143(3); 133(6); 68; 69; 6; 144

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PA T N A BENCH , PATNA BEFORE SHRI ABY. T. VARKEY , JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI WASEEM AHMED , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 150 / PAT / 2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008 - 09 M/S RAGHUBAR SINGH NEW BILASH BHAWAN, LALJI TOLA, PATNA - 800001 / V/S . DCIT, CIRCLE - 5, PATNA /APPELLANT .. /RESPONDENT / BY APPELLANT SHRI K.M. MISHRA, ADVOCATE / BY RESPONDENT SHRI K.K. DAS, DR / DATE OF HEARING 10 - 04 - 2017 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 10 - 04 - 2017 /O R D E R PER BENCH : - THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - DANBAD CAMP OFFICE , PATNA DATED 1 7 .0 9 .201 2 . ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED BY DC IT , CIRCLE - 5 , PATN A U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) VIDE HIS ORDER DATED 29 .12.20 1 0 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 8 - 0 9 . SHRI K.M. MISHRA, LD. ADVOCATE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF ASSESSEE AND SHRI K.K. DAS, LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF REVENUE. 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT HE HAS DIRECTED BY ASSESSEE NOT TO PRESS GROUND NO.9. HENCE, SAME IS DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. 3. ONLY EFFECTIVE ISSUE RAISED BY ASSESSEE IN GROUND NO. 1 TO 8 ARE THAT LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY SUSTAINING THE DISALLOWANCE OF 1,45,53,427/ - DUE TO NON VERIFICATION OF SUNDRY CREDITORS. ITA NO. 150/PAT/2012 A.Y. 2008 - 09 M/S RAGHUBAR SINGH VS DCIT, CIR - 5 PATNA PAGE 2 4. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS ARE THAT ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT CASE IS A PARTNERSHIP FIRM AND ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF CIVIL CONSTRUCTION. THE ASSESSEE IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION HAS SHOWN SUNDRY CREDITORS FOR THE VALUE OF 1,45,53,427/ - AND SUBMITTED A LIST OF SUN DRY CREDITORS ALONG WITH CORRESPONDING ADDRESSES AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. TO ESTABLISH THE VERACITY OF SUNDRY CREDITORS, AO ISSUED NOTICES U/S. 13(6) OF THE ACT BUT FOUND THAT SUCH NOTICES HAVE EITHER BEEN RETURNED UN - SERVED OR THE ALLEGED CR EDITORS DENIED TO HAVE ANY TRANSACTIONS WITH THE ASSESSEE IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION . BESIDES THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO FURNISH THE COPY OF ACCOUNT, CONFIRMATION OF PAN OF SUNDRY CREDITORS. THEREFORE, THE AO DISALLOWED THE SUNDRY CREDITORS OF 1,45, 53,427/ - AND ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF ASSESSEE. 5. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE LD. CIT(A). THE ASSESSEE BEFORE LD. CIT(A) SUBMITTED A FRESH LIST OF SUNDRY CREDITORS ON WHICH REMAND REPORT WAS CALLED BY LD. CIT(A) FROM AO. AGAIN, THE AO ISSUED FURTHER NOTICES U/S. 133(6) OF THE ACT TO ESTABLISH THE VERACITY OF THE SUNDRY CREDITORS AND ALL THE SUNDRY CREDITORS CONFIRMED THE BALANCES WITH THE ASSESSEE BUT FAILED TO FURNISH COPY OF LEDGER. THE AO IN HIS REMAND REPORT ALSO OBSERVED THAT AL L THE SUNDRY CREDITORS HAVE RESPONDED TO THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 133(6) OF THE ACT IN STEREOTYPE CONFIRMATION. BESIDES, ALL THE SUNDRY CREDITORS FAILED TO FURNISH THE COPY OF PAN, COPY OF LEDGER, COPY OF INVOICE BILLS & VOUCHERS, PAYMENT RECEIVED AND THE BAN K STATEMENT. THUS, THE AO DOUBTED THE GENUINENESS OF SUNDRY CREDITORS. LD. CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE REMAND REPORT FROM THE AO AND THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY ASSESSEE BEFORE HIM CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: - IN THIS ASSESSMENT YEAR, THE APE FIRST SUBMITTED A LIST OF 13 SUNDRY CREDITORS WHICH WAS FOUND TO BE UNVERIFIABLE. IN FACT, SOME OF THE CREDITORS REPLIED THAT THEY NEITHER HAD ANY TRANSACTIONS WITH THE APPELLANT DURING THE RELEVANT FINANCIAL YEAR NOR ANY AMOUNT WA S OUTSTANDING AT THE END OF THE YEAR. IN THE APPEAL PROCEEDINGS, THE APPELLANT HAS SUBMITTED ALTOGETHER A NEW LIST WITH NEW NAMES AND ADDRESSES AND OUTSTANDING AMOUNTS CONTAINING 10 NAMES. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANC ES, THE JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2006 - 07 WILL NOT BE OF ANY ASSISTANCE TO THE APPELLANT AND THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF SUNDRY CREDITORS IS WARRANTED. ACCORDINGLY, ADDITION OF RS.1,45,53,427/ - MADE BY THE AO IS CONFIRMED. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THIS ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) ASSESSEE CAME IN SECOND APPEAL BEFORE US ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: - ITA NO. 150/PAT/2012 A.Y. 2008 - 09 M/S RAGHUBAR SINGH VS DCIT, CIR - 5 PATNA PAGE 3 1. FOR THAT, THE ORDER IMPUGNED IS BAD BOTH ON FACT AS WELL AS ON LAW BECAUSE THE LD. CIT(A) WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY APPELLANT AND WITHOUT PROVIDING OPPORTUNITY CONFIRMED THE ORDER W HICH PER SE IN ARBITRARY AND UNJUSTIFIED THEREFORE FIT TO QUASH. 2. FOR THAT THE LD. CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT ORDER OF ASSESSMENT IS WITHOUT JURISDICTION AS IT HAS BEEN FRAMED U/S. 143(3) INSTEAD OF U/S. 144 HENCE LIABLE TO SET ASIDE. 3. FOR THAT, ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF TRADE CREDITORS IS BAD AS THE APPELLANT HAS SUBMITTED AFFIDAVIT FROM TRADE CREDITORS WHICH WAS DULY CONFIRMED UNDER ENQUIRY U/S. 133(6), HOWEVER, THE CIT(A) EVEN DID NOT CONSIDERED THE AFFIDAVIT ETC ON FRIVOLOUS GROUND AND CON FIRMED THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT. 4. FOR THAT, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN RELAYING UPON THE LIST OF CREDITORS AS IT WAS NEITHER SIGNED BY ASSESSEE NOR THE AR NOR IT WAS IN THE FORM OF AFFIDAVIT AS SUCH THE SAID LIST HAVE NO EVIDENTIARY VALUE HOWEVER, AT THE ST AGE OF APPEAL THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED AFFIDAVIT FROM DIFFERENT CREDITORS WHICH WAS CONFIRMED UNDER ENQUIRY CONDUCTED BY AO US 133(6) HENCE THE EXPLANATION GIVEN AT THE STAGE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDING HAVE EVIDENTLY VALUE AS IT WAS IN THE FORM OF AFFIDAVIT THEREFORE CANNOT BRUSHED ASIDE ON MERE PRESUMPTION AND SUSPICION AS SUCH THE ORDER IS BAD AND LIABLE TO QUASH. 5. FOR THAT, THE LD. CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATED THE FACT THAT IN ABSENCE BOOKS, ADDITION ON ACCOUNT TRADE CREDITORS COULD NOT BE MADE U/S. 68 AS THE BALANCE SHEET AND P&L A/C IS NOT BOOKS THEREFORE THE AUTHORITY BELOW ENLARGED THE SCOPE OF SECTION 68 WHICH IS NOT PERMISSIBLE UNLESS RULES OF INTERPRETATION IS APPLIED. 6. FOR THAT, THE FINDING RECORDED BY AO AND CONFIRMED BY CIT(A) TO THE EFFECT THAT THE APPELLANT HAS INTRODUCED CAPITAL TO LEVEL THE ASSETS SIDE OF BALANCE SHEET IS UN - SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT MADE ANY UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT IN MOVABLE OR IMMOVABLE ASSETS DURING THE YEAR THEREFORE, FINDING IS BASED ON SURM ISE, SUSPICION AND CONJECTURE HENCE FIT TO BE DELETED. 7. FOR THAT THE FINDING O F CIT THAT THE TRADE CREDITORS CAN BE ADDED UNDER SECTION 41 ( 1) OF THE ACT IS TOO ERRONEOUS AND AGAINST THE LAW IN VIEW OF THE FAT THAT NEITHER CIT NOR AO HAS BROUGHT ON RECOR D ANY MATERIALS TO ESTABLISH THAT THE LIABILITY HAS BEEN SEIZED. 8. FOR THAT CIT FINDING RECORDED BY CIT IS SELF CONTRADICTORY AND AGAINST THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AS THE CIT IN ONE HAND RELIED UPON THE REMAND REPORT FOR CONFIRMING ADDITION WHEREI N THE AO HAS HELD THAT THE TRADE CREDITORS IS FALSE AND FABRICATED HOWEVER ON OTHER HAND THE CIT ACCEPT THE LIABILITY. 6. BEFORE US LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF TRADE CREDITORS CANNOT BE MADE U/S. 68 OF THE ACT. THE PROVISION MADE U/S 68 IS REPRODUCED HERE WHERE ANY SUM IS FOUND IN CREDIT IN THE BOOKS OF ASSESSEE MAINTAINED FOR ANY PREVIOUS YEAR AND THE ASSESSEE OFFER NO EXPLANATION ABOUT THE ITA NO. 150/PAT/2012 A.Y. 2008 - 09 M/S RAGHUBAR SINGH VS DCIT, CIR - 5 PATNA PAGE 4 NATURE AND SOURCE THEREOF OR THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY HIM IS NOT, SATISFACTORY, IN THE SATISFACTORY, THE SUM SO CREDITED MAY BE CHARGED TO INCOME TAX AS THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE OF THAT PREVIOUS YEAR. BY PERUSAL OF THE LEGAL PROVISION, IT IS MANIFEST THAT FOR MAKING ADDITION U/S. 68 FOLLOWING CONDITION MUST BE FULL FILLED: - (1) T HE SUM IS FOUND TO BE CREDITED IN THE BOOKS OF WHICH THE ASSESSEE MAINTAIN IN REGULAR COURSE; (2) T HE ASSESSEE OFFER S NO EXPLANATION ABOUT THE NATURE AND SOURCE OF SAID SUM; (3) T HE EXPLANATION AS ABOV E WAS NOT SATISFACTORY IN THE EYE OF AO; HE FURTHER STATED THAT IT IS UNDISPUTED FACT THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER NOWHERE SAYS THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WERE AVAILABLE WITH THE AO. THE CIT - A HAS ALSO NOTE D IN ORDER AT PAGE - 7, PARA - 2 THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WERE NOT AVAILABLE. SECTION 68 OF THE ACT SAYS THAT IF ANY CREDIT FOUND IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. SINCE THE CIT - A AS WELL AS THE AO HAS NOTED THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WERE NOT AVAILABLE THEREFORE NO ADDITION U/S. 68 OF THE ACT CAN BE MADE. THE HON'BLE DEL HI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MRS MAYAWATI (2011) 338 ITR 563 (DEL) HAS HELD THAT THE BANKS STATEMENT, BALANCE SHEET AND PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT IS NOT BOOKS OF ACCOUNT THEREFORE, ADDITION U/S 68 OF THE ACT CANNOT BE MADE ON THAT BASIS. HE FURTHER S TATED THAT LD. CIT FURTHER ERRED IN MAKING ADDITION U/S. 68 OF THE ACT BECAUSE THE AO IN THE RE P ORT AND THE ASSESSMENT ORDER HAS NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS TRADE CREDITORS AS SUCH, THE ASSESSEE HAS INTRODUCED CAPITAL TO THE EXTENT OF TRADE CREDITORS. IF THE FINDING OF THE LD. CIT AND THE AO TAKEN AS TRUE, THE ISSUE COVERED U/S 69 OF THE ACT NOT U/S 68 OF THE ACT. ADDITION U/S 69 OF THE ACT CAN BE MADE WHERE THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO ACCOUNT FOR INVESTMENT MADE IN ANY ASSETS. HE RE THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR THE LD. CIT HAS NOT DISPUTED THAT THE ASSETS SIDE OF THE BALANCE SHEET IS UNEXPLAINED R A THER THE ASSETS IS FIXED AND THE SOURCE WHEREOF IS UNDISPUTE D HENCE ADDITION U/S. 69 OF THE AC T CANNOT BE MADE. LD. AR CITED A CASE LAW OF H ON'BLE ODISHA HIGH COURT ARVINDO SENITARY CASE IN 276 ITR 549 (ODI) HELD IN SIMILAR SITUATED CASE (AT PAGE 650 PARA - 14, 15) CONSIDERED THE APPLICATION OF SECTION 68 AND 69 AND HELD THAT IT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE DEPARTMENT THAT ANY SUM WAS FOUND IN THE CR EDIT IN THE BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE MAINTAINED FOR THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR AND THE APPELLANT HAS NOT OFFERED EXPLANATION FOR SUCH FALSE OR BOGUS CREDIT IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THE ITA NO. 150/PAT/2012 A.Y. 2008 - 09 M/S RAGHUBAR SINGH VS DCIT, CIR - 5 PATNA PAGE 5 CASE OF THE DEPARTMENT ON THE OTHER HAND IS THAT WH EREAS IN THE PARTY LEDGER THE FIRM HAS SHOWN LESS AMOUNT BUT IN THE BALANCE SHEET FILED TO THE DEPARTMENT INFLATED LIABILITY WERE SHOWN ON ACCOUNT OF CREDITORS. HENCE, 68 OF THE ACT IS NOT AT ALL ATTRACT ED AND CANNOT BE APPLIED. THE AO IN FACT HAS APPLIED SEC. 69 OF THE ACT. FURTHER, AT CONCLUDING PARAGRAPH THE HON'BLE COURT HELD THAT WE DO NOT AGREE WITH THE AFORESAID CONCLUSION OF THE TRIBUNAL BECAUSE SECTION 69 IS DEEMING PROVISION PROVIDE FOR TREATING AN UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT MADE BY AN AS DURING A F INANCIAL YEAR TO BE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE OF FINANCIAL YEAR FOR THE PURPOSE OF ASSESSMENT AND UNLESS THE REQUIREMENT OF SECTION 69 ARE STRICTLY SATISFIED BY A FINDING BY THE AO ON RELEVANT MATERIALS THAT ASSESSEE HAD ACTUALLY MADE SOME UNDISCLOSED INVESTM ENT DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR, SECTION 69 CANNOT BE APPLIED. THE HON'BLE COURT THEREFORE DELETED THE ADDITION. HE FURTHER CITED CASE LAW OF ITAT DELHI BENCH IN (2012) 134 ITD 0148, 2012 TAX PUB (DDT) 0990 HAS HELD THAT AS PER THE BALANCE SHEET THE ASSES SEE HAD AN OUTSTANDING LIABILITY OF SUNDRY CREDITORS AND THE SAME TIME IT HAD ASSETS IN THE FORM OF ADVANCE TO SUPPLIER, DEBTORS, STOCKS, ETC. WHICH SHOWED THAT CREDITORS WERE GENUINE. TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION ABOVE FACT OF ASSESSEE, IT WAS A FIT CASE NOT TO MAKE ANY ADDITION BY INVOKING THE DEEMING FICTION OF SECTION 68 IN RESPECT OF SUNDRY CREDITORS. DESPITE THE FACT TH A T ASSESSEE COULD NOT SUPPLY THE ADDRESS OF THESE CREDITO R S. LD. AR REQUESTED THE BENCH TO QUASH THE ORDER OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. 7. ON TH E OTHER HAND, LD. DR VEHEMENTLY RELIED ON THE ORDER OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. 8. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND CASE LAW CITED BY THE LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE. THE ISSUE IN THE INSTANT CASE RELATES TO THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW ON ACCOUNT OF NON - CONFIRMATION O F THE SUNDRY CREDITORS FOR WHICH ADDITION MADE BY AO AND SUBSEQUENTLY CONFIRMED BY LD. CIT(A) U/S. 68 OF THE ACT. HOWEVER, LD. AR BEFORE US HAS TAKEN A PLEA THAT THE SUNDRY CREDITORS ARE ARISING OUT OF THE PURCHASE EXPENSES CLAIMED IN RETURN OF INCOME. THEREFORE, THE PROVISION OF SEC. 68 OF THE ACT TO THE INSTANT DISALLOWANCE CANNOT BE INVOKED. WE FIND FORCE IN THE ARGUMENT PLACED BY LD. AR THAT THE PROVISION OF SEC. 6 8 OF THE ACT ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO THE SUNDRY CREDITORS . THE PROVISIONS OF S ECTION 68 OF THE ACT ARE APPLIED TO THE CASH CREDIT WHICH HA S NOT ITA NO. 150/PAT/2012 A.Y. 2008 - 09 M/S RAGHUBAR SINGH VS DCIT, CIR - 5 PATNA PAGE 6 BEEN EXPLAINED BY ASSESSEE . IN THE INSTANT CASE SUNDRY CREDITORS ARE ARISING OUT OF THE PURCHASES AS CLAIMED BY AS SESSEE WHICH HAVE BEEN DULY ACCEPTED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE ALSO FIND THAT THE PROVISION OF SEC. 41(1) OF THE ACT CANNOT ALSO BE INVOKED AT THE SAME TIME. IT IS BECAUSE THE LIABILITIES SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE HAVE NOT SEIZED TO EXIST IN THE BOOKS OF AC COUNT. HOWEVER, IT IS THE DUTY OF THE ASSESSEE TO JUSTIFY ITS TRANSACTION ON THE BASIS OF EVIDENCE WHICH IN THE INSTANT CASE , T HE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO DO SO . AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE INVOKED THE PROVISION OF SEC. 68 OF THE ACT TO TAX THE SUNDRY CREDITORS W HEREAS THE ASSESSEE IS CLAIMING THAT THE FORESAID AMOUNT REPRESENT S THE TRADE CREDITORS AND THEREFORE THE PROVISION OF SEC. 68 OF THE ACT CANNOT BE APPLIED. ADMITTEDLY, THE CREDITORS HAVE FOUND BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. NOW THE ISSUE ARISES WHETHER THESE A RE CASH CREDIT AS PER THE PROVISION OF SEC. 68 OF THE A CT OR SUNDRY CREDITORS . T HE ONUS LIES ON ASSESSEE TO JUSTIFY THAT THESE ARE SUNDRY CREDITORS. IN ORDER TO JUSTIFY THE IMPUGNED TRADE CREDITORS, THE ASSESSEE SHOULD PRODUCE COPIES OF PAN, LEDGER COPIES , BILLS / INVOICES DETAILS OF PAYMENTS , INCOME TAX RETURN , MODE OF PAYMENTS ETC . THE ARGUMENTS OF ASSESSEE CANNOT BE ACCEPT ED ONLY WHEN HE FURNISHE S THE AFORESAID DETAILS. IN THE INSTANT CASE BEFORE US THE ASSESSEE HAS SUMMARILY FAI LED TO OBSERVE THE DIRECTIONS ISSUED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. HOWEVER, IN THE INTEREST OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND FAIR PLAY WE ARE INCLINED TO RESTORE THIS ISSUE TO THE FILE OF AO TO GIVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO ASSESSEE TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS CLAIM IN THE LIGHT OF OBSERVATION AS DISCUS SED . THEREFORE, WE RESTORE THIS ISSUE TO THE FILE OF AO FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION AS PER LAW. NEEDLESS TO SAY THAT ASSESSEE SHOULD SUBMIT THE REQUISITES DETAILS TO VERIFY THE GENUINENESS OF THE SUNDRY CREDITORS CLAIMED BY IT . HENCE, THIS ISSUE OF ASSESSEES A PPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. 9. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL STANDS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT AT THE CLOSE OF THE HEARING I.E. ON FRIDAY, 10 / 04 /201 7 SD/ - SD/ - ( ABY. T. VARKEY ) ( WASEEM AHMED ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER *DKP , SR.P.S - 10 / 04 /201 7 PATNA ITA NO. 150/PAT/2012 A.Y. 2008 - 09 M/S RAGHUBAR SINGH VS DCIT, CIR - 5 PATNA PAGE 7 COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO: - 1 . APPELLANT - M/S RAGHUBAR SINGH NEW BILASH BHAWAN, LALIJI TOLA, PATNA - 800001 2 . RESPONDENT - DCIT, CIRCLE - 5, PATNA 3 . CONCERNED CIT 4 . CIT (A) 5 . DR, ITAT, PATNA 6 . GUARD FILE. BY ORDER/ , /TRUE COPY/ SR.PS/PS, ITAT, PATNA