SHRI ASHOK SHRIKISHAN AGRAWAL, Nagpur V. I.T.O. WARD -4(1), Nagpur

ITA 162/NAG/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2166 (ITAT-NAGPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-06-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 10-03-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: D S JOGANI
• Keywords: Bogus purchase
• Section: 37(1); 147; 148

Judgement Text

IN TH E INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR BENCH: NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI MUKUL K. SHRAWAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER (S.M.C.) I.T.A. NO. 160 , 161 & 162 /NAG/20 1 6 ( A . Y . : - 200 9 - 1 0 , 2010 - 11 & 2011 - 12) SHRI ASHOK SHRIKISAN AGRAWAL C/O.ADV.D.S.JOGANI, 640 ANAV NIDHI , TE KDI RD, SADAR , NAGPUR PAN:A BGHA7363E VS INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD - 4(1), SARAF CHAMBER, SADAR, NAGPUR - 4400 0 1 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SHRI D.S. JOGANI , A.R. RESPONDENT BY SHRI P.R. MANE , D.R. DATE OF HEARING: 23 - 0 5 - 201 6 DATE OF PRONOUN CEMENT: - 1 4 /0 6 /2016 O R D E R PER MUKUL K. SHRAWAT, J.M. ALL THE THREE APPEAL S HAVE BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARISING FROM COMMON ORDER OF LD. CIT - (A ) - 4 , NAGPUR DATED 2 9 . 1 2 .201 5 . THE ISSUE IN ALL THESE APPEALS REV OLVED AROUND THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO BY ALLEGING THE PURCHASES AS BOGUS IN NATURE. YEAR - WISE RELEVANT GROUND ARE REPRODUCED BELOW: - ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10 : - THAT IN LAW, AS WELL AS ALSO ON FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCE OF THE CASE, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (APPEALS) - II, NAGPUR HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE U/S.37(1) OF PURCHASES AT RS.1,41,662/ - BY TREATING THE PURCHASES AS BOGUS IN NATURE. ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 - 11 : - THAT IN LAW, AS WELL AS ALSO ON FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCE OF THE CASE, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (APPEALS) - II, NAGPUR HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANC E U/S.37(1) OF PURCHASES AT RS.2 , 1 1,6 17 / - BY TREATING THE PURCHASES AS BOGUS IN NATURE. - 2 - ITA NO. 160 - 161 & 162 /NAG/201 6 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011 - 12 : - THAT IN LAW, AS WELL AS ALSO ON FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCE OF THE CASE, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (APPEALS) - II, NAGPUR HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE U/S.37(1) OF PURCHASES AT RS.53,441/ - BY TREATING THE PURCHASES AS BOGUS IN NATURE. 2. IN THE LEAD ASSESSMENT YEAR IN AY 2009 - 10 THE AO HAS DISCUS SED THE FACTS IN BRIEF AS PER THE ORDER PASSED U/S.143(3) R/W. SECTION 147 DATED 25.07.2014 THAT THE ASSESSEE I N AN INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY HA D MADE PURCHASES TO THE TUNE OF RS.1,41,662/ - FROM M/S.BHARAT ENTERPRISES. ON THE BASIS OF AN INFORMATION , CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS REOPENED BY I N V O K ING THE PROVISION OF SECTION 148 OF I.T. ACT,1961. IN COMPLIANCE OF AN ENQUIRY, I T WAS INFORMED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS PROPRIETOR OF M/S. SWATI AGENCY DEALING IN COSMETIC GOODS SINCE 2005 - 06. THE ASSESSEE WAS AS KED TO PRODUCE THE DETAILS OF THE PURCHASES MADE FROM M/S. BHARAT ENTERPRISES . T HE ASSESSEE HAS CLARIFIED THAT THE PURCHASES OF THE COSMETIC PRODUCTS BRANDED AS BERINA WERE MADE FROM M/S.BRILLIC TRADING AND AGENCIES PVT. LTD., MUMBAI. THE SAID PARTY M/S. BRILLIC TRADING AGENCIES HAD QUOTED WRONG TIN NO. WHICH BELONGS TO M/S. BHARAT ENTERPRISES. THEREFORE THE ASSESSEE HAS CLARIFIED THAT HE HAD NO BUSINESS DEALI NG WITH M/S. BHARAT ENTERPRISES . T HE ASSESSEE HAD PRODUCED ORIGINAL BILLS OF M/S. BRILLIC TRADING AGENCY. THE AO HAS MENTIONED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PRODUCED THE LEDGER ACCOUNT OF THE SAID PARTY AS APPEARING IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE ALONG WITH PURCHASE REGISTER AND THE QUANTITATIVE DETAILS. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO PRODUCED THE BANK ACCOUNT SHOWING THE PAYMENT S MADE TO THE PARTY. THE AO HAD ISSUED A NOTICE U/S.143 (3) TO M/S. BRILLIC TRADING AGENCY, HOWEVER, RECEIVED BACK UN - SERVED . WHEN IT WAS INFORMED TO THE ASSESSEE, AN ADDRESS WAS GIVEN ON WHICH ANOTHER LETTER WAS ISSUED BY TH E AO, HOWEVE R TH AT TOO WAS RECEIVED BACK UN - SER VED . AFTER THAT A DETAIL ED SHOW - CAUSE NOTICE WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN AS TO WHY THE PURCHASES BEING BOGUS IN NATURE SHOULD NOT BE DISALLOWED. FINALLY, THE AO HAS CONCLUDED AS UNDER: - - 3 - ITA NO. 160 - 161 & 162 /NAG/201 6 V. THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE THE DELIVERY MEMO, OCTROI BILLS OF THE PURCHASES EFFECTED FROM M/S. BRILLIC TRADING & AGENCIES PVT. LTD., MUMBAI. IN AN EARLIER SUBMISSION, THE COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT THE REPRESENTATIVE OF CONCERNED COMPANY ARRANGED THE SUPPLY OF GOODS TO ASS ESSEE AT ITS WADI GODOWN AND RAISED INVOICE FROM THIS DISTRIBUTOR IN MUMBAI NAMED M/S. BRILLIC TRADING & AGENCIES PVT. LTD. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT TAKEN ANY EFFORTS TO PRODUCE THE DELIVERY MEMOS/OCTROI BILLS TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF PURCHASES. IN ABSE NCE OF DELIVERY MEMOS / OCTROI BILLS, THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE REPRESENTATIVE OF CONCERNED COMPANY ARRANGE SUPPLY OF GOODS AT ITS WADI GODOW N IS NOT ACCEPTABLE. THE ASSESSEE HAS EVEN NOT GIVEN THE NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE COMPANY LEAVE APART PRODUCING THEM FOR EXAMINATION. VI. THOUGH, THE ASSESSEE PRODUCED THE PURCHASE BILLS, QUANTITATIVE DETAILS AND BANK STATEMENTS, BUT THE FACT REMAINS THAT THE PARTY'S WHEREABOUTS ARE NOT KNOWN AT THE GIVEN ADDRESSES AND, THER EFORE, THE SUPPLIER IS NOT GENUINE. THEREFORE, THE ONUS LIES ON THE ASSESSEE TO DISCHARGE THE OBLIGATION OF PROVING THE IDENTITY AND GENUINENESS OF TRANSACTIONS FROM THE PARTY NAMELY M/S. BRILLIC TRADING & AGENCIES PVT. LTD., MUMBAI VII. THE DECISIONS CITED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DISTINGUISHABLE ON FACTS. IN THE CASE OF M/S. NIKUNJ EXIMP ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD., VS. CIT, (BOMBAY HIGH COURT), RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED LETTERS OF CONFIRMATION FROM SUPPLIERS ALONG WITH BANK STATEME NTS, COPIES OF INVOICES AND STOCK STATEMENT. HOWEVER, IN THE ASSESSEE'S CASE, NO CONFIRMATION FROM SUPPLIER, I.E., M/S. BRILLIC TRADING & AGENCIES PVT. LTD., MUMBAI HAS BEEN FILED. FURTHER, THE SUPPLIER IS NOT REGISTERED UNDER VAT AND WHEREABOUTS OF THE PARTY IS DOUBTFUL AS THE SAID PARTY IS NOT EXISTING ON THE GIVEN ADDRESSES. 7 . IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, IT IS ABUNDANTLY CLEAR THAT THE PURCHASES TO THE TUNE OF RS.141662/ - MADE BY THE ASSESSEE FROM M/S. BRILLIC TRADING & AGENCIES PVT. LTD., MUMBAI IS NO T FOUND GENUINE AND ONLY PAPER TRANSACTION WITHOUT AUTHENTICITY OF SUPPLIER EXIST. THE SAID PURCHASES ARE BOGUS IN NATURE. IT IS ALSO CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS REDUCED THE PROFIT TO THE EXTENT OF RS.1 ,41,662/ - . AS THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PROVE THE GEN UINENESS OF THE' PARTY, PURCHASES SHOWN AT R S . 1 ,41,662/ - ARE DISALLOWED U/S. 37(1) OF INCOME - TAX ACT, 1961 AND ADDED BACK TO T HE AL L INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE ARE NO REJECTED FOR THE REASON THAT THERE IS SINGLE TRANSACT ION OF BOGUS PURCHASES A N D IN RESPECT OF OTHER PURCHASES, NO DISCREPANCIES COULD BE POINTED OUT. THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF ITS INCOME. THEREFORE, PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S. 271 (1 )(C) ARE SEPARATELY INITIATED . - 4 - ITA NO. 160 - 161 & 162 /NAG/201 6 3. WHEN THE MA TTER WAS CARRIED BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY THE LD. CIT(A) HAS AFFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE AO IN THE FOLLOWING MANNER : - 4.2. I HAVE PERUSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS AND SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE APPELLANT AND THE AO IN HIS ORDER HAS CLEARLY STATED T HAT THE PARTY FROM WHICH ALLEGED PURCHASES WERE MADE WAS FOUND TO BE NON - EXISTENT AND WAS NOT REGISTERED UNDER VAT. EVEN THE TIN NO. WHICH WAS USED WAS A BOGUS NUMBER. THE AO IN HIS ORDER HAS STATED THAT THE APPELLANT COULD NOT PRODUCE THE DELIVERY MEM O AND OCTROI BILL FOR THESE PURCHASES. THE APPELLANT HAS RELIED ON THE CASE OF CIT VS. NIKUJ EXIM P ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD.(MAHARASHTRA HIGH COURT). HOWEVER, I FIND THAT THE A.O. IN PARA 6(VII) OF HIS ORDER HAS CLEARLY STATED THAT THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN THE CASE OF NIKUJ EXIM P ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD. ARE DIFFERENT FROM THE FACTS OF THIS CASE. 4.3. BASED ON THE ORDER OF THE AO AND SUBMISSIONS FILED BY THE APPELLANT I FIND THAT THE PARTY FROM WHICH PURCHASES WERE MADE WERE NOT FOUND TO BE ANY EXPENSES. THE AP PELLANT FAILED TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF PURCHASES MADE BY HIM. ACCORDINGLY, THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE A.O. ARE CONFIRMED AND GROUNDS OF THE APPELLANT IS DISMISSED. 4. ON THE SHORT ISSUE I HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDE S . FROM SIDE OF THE APPELLANT THE LD. A R HAS FURNISHED COMPILATION FOR ALL THE 3 YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION , CONSISTING FOLLOWING EVIDENCES : - 1. LEDGER A/C OF M/S.BRILLIC TRADING & AGENCIES P. LTD. 2. PURCHASE BILL OF M/S. BRILLIC TRADING & AGENCIES P. LTD. 3. RELEVANT PORTION OF BANK STATEMENT OF ASSESSEE. 4. RELEVANT PORTION OF BANK STATEMENT OF M/S. BRILLIC TRADING & AGENCIES P. LTD. 5. COPY OF MCA 21 REGISTER DSC OF M/S. BRILLIC TRADING & AGENCIES P. LTD. 6. COPY OF MCA21 REGISTER DSC OF M/S. BRILLIC TRADING & AGENCIES P. LTD. 7. STOCK SUMMA RY. 8. AUDITED TRADING AND PROFIT & LOSS A/C. 9. DETAILS OF BERINA PURCHASE A/C. 10. DETAILS OF BERINA SALES A/C. 11. CONFIRMED LEDGE A/C. OF M/S. BABULAL COLLECTION (DEBTOR) CONFIRMING SALES MADE BY ASSESSEE TO IT. 12. CONFIRMATION FROM M/S. POOJA BEAUTY COLLECTION (DEBTOR) ALONGWITH COPY OF INVOICES CONFIRMING SALES MADE BY ASSESSEE . 13. SUBMISSION DATED 01.12.2015 BEFORE CIT(APPEALS). - 5 - ITA NO. 160 - 161 & 162 /NAG/201 6 5. ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FURNISHED FEW CASE LAWS AS UNDER: - 1. ITA NO.5604 OF 2010(BOM) DATED 17.12.2012 CIT V. NIKUNJ E XIM P ENTERPRISES PVT. LT D., 2. ITA NO.689 OF 2010(GUJ) DATED 22.04.2013 CIT V. N ANGALIA FABRICS PVT. LT D., 3. ITA NO.5 7 0 6/MUM/2013 DATED 1 3 . 05.2015 IT O V. SHRI PARESH ARVIND GANDHI 4. ITA NO.5 24 6 /MUM/2013 DATED 05.03 .201 5 A CIT V. SHRI RAMILA PRAVIN SHAH 5. IT A NO.2826/MUM/2013 DATED 05 .1 1 .201 4 SHRI GANPATRA A. SANGHAVI V. A CIT 6. ITA NO.56 97/MUM/2010 DATED 22.0 2.201 3 IT O V. EAGLE IMPEX 7. ITA NO. 1311 OF 20 0 0 DATED 17. 0 1 .2005 BABULAL C. BORANA V. ITO & OTHERS (2006) 282 ITR 0251 8. IT REF NO. 3 OF 1978 DATED 25 . 10 .1 985 CIT V. M.K.BROTHERS (1987) 163 ITR 0249 6. IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION IT EMERGES THAT ON ONE HAND THE LD. DR MR. P.R.MANE HAS PLEADED THAT ON THE BASIS OF SAID INFORMATION FROM THE SALES TAX DEPARTMENT, IT WAS FOUND THAT THE PURCHASE S A S DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE WERE NOT GENUINE BECAUSE THE TIN MENTIONED WAS INCORRECT , HENCE THE CASES WERE R EOPENED. THE AO HAD MADE ENQUIRY , BUT THE PARTIES FROM WHO M THE PURCHASES HAVE BEEN MADE , HAVE NOT RESPONDED. THE LD. DR H AS ALSO POINTED OUT THAT T HE PURCHASES MADE BY THE SAID PARTY W ERE APPEARING IN THE CLOSING STOCK. OUT OF THOSE PURCHASES NO SALES HAVE BEEN MADE. AS A RESULT THE CLOSING STOCK FOR THE ACCOUNTING PERIOD ENDED ON 31 ST MARCH 2009 WAS AT RS.20,55,000/ - . THE LD . DR HAD ALSO POINTED OUT THAT THE SALE S BILLS HAVE NOT CONTAINED THE ITEM - WISE DETAILS DUE TO WHICH IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO EXACTLY TALLY THE TRANSACTION OF THE GOODS SOLD. 6. 1 ON THE OTHER HAND THE LD. AR H A S EMPHASISE D THAT THE PURCHASES HAVE BEEN DULY RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT THEREFORE , THERE WAS NO MISREPRESENTATION OF THE PURCHASES. AS FAR AS THE RECORDS OF THE ASSESSEE IS CONCERNED NO IRREGULARITY WAS POINTED OUT BY THE AO. THE ASSESSEE HAD MAINTAINED THE QUANTITATIVE DETAILS OF THE PURCHASES MADE , AS WELL AS THE STO CK MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE INVOICES OF THE - 6 - ITA NO. 160 - 161 & 162 /NAG/201 6 PURCHASES HAVE SHOWN THE ADDRESS OF THE SUPPLIER. THE PURCHASES HAVE BEEN MADE ON F O R BASIS. THE MAIN EMPHASISE OF LD. AR WAS THAT IF SOME IRREGULARITY HAD BEEN MADE BY THE SAID PARTY FROM WHOM THE PURCHAS ES HAVE BEEN MADE, THEN THE ASSESSEE SHOULD NOT BE HE LD RESPONSIBL E . ACCORDING TO LD. AR THE PARTY IN QUESTION HAD DELIBERATELY AVOIDED TO APPEAR BEFORE THE AO OTHERWISE THE COMPANYS MASTER DATA WAS SHOWING THE STATUS OF M/S.BRILLIC TRADING AGENCY AS A N ACTIVE ENTITY. 7. IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE CASE LAWS AND THE EVIDENCES PLACE D IN COMPILATION , IN MY HUMBLE OPINION THE ENQUIRY CONDUCTED BY THE AO WAS STOPPED IN A PRE - MATURED MANNER BECAUSE OF THE REASONS THAT THE AO HAD CON FINE D T H E DECISION ONLY O N ONE POINT THAT THE ALLEGED PARTY FROM WHOM THE PURCHASES HAVE BEEN BELIEVED TO HAVE BEEN MADE HAD NOT RESPONDED TO HIS NOTICES. BUT ON THE OTHER HAND THE AO HAS ADMITTED THAT THERE WAS NO REASON TO REJECT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT BECAUSE NO DISCREPANCY WAS F OUND. ON THE LAST PAGE OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATE D 21.07.2014 FOR A.Y. 2009 - 10 THE AO HA S MADE AN OBSERVATION QUOTE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE ARE NOT REJECTED FOR THE REASON THAT THERE IS SINGLE TRANSACTION OF BOGUS PURCHASES AND IN RESPECT O F OTHER PURCHASES, NO DIS CREPANCIES COULD BE POINTED OUT UNQUOTE. 8. AS FAR AS THE REASON GIVEN BY THE AO FOR THE START OF THE PR O C E ED ING S WAS CONCERNED IT IS WORTH MENTION ING THAT THERE WAS A GOOD REASON TO INVESTIGATE THE GENUINENESS OF THE PURCHASES. BUT THE ENQUIRY SHOULD HAVE REACHED TO A LOGICAL CONCLUSION. ACCORDIN G TO ME THE AO HAD LEFT THE ENQUIRY AT THE INITIAL PO INT ITSELF WITHOUT FURTHER PRO B ING THE GENUINENESS OF THE PURCHASES AS REFLECTED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. ALTHOUGH TH E PARTY IN QUESTION FROM WHOM THE PURCHASES WERE ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN MADE HAVE NOT RESPONDED ; BUT SIDE BY SIDE IT IS DIFFICULT TO IGNORE THE MODE AND MANNER IN WHICH THE PURCHASES HAVE BEEN RECORDED BY THE ASSESSEE IN HIS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THE COPIES OF T HE LEDGER ACCOUNT S , THE POSITION OF THE STOCK AND THE DETAILS OF THE PAYMENT MADE THROUGH BANK TRANSACTION WAS ALSO BEFORE THE AO. THE AO SHOULD NOT HAVE STOPPED THE ENQUIRY MERELY ON ONE POINT THAT THE PARTY IN QUESTION HAD NOT APPEAR ED . ALTHOUGH A SUSP I C I O N WAS RAISED BECAUSE OF - 7 - ITA NO. 160 - 161 & 162 /NAG/201 6 THE WRONG MENTION OF TIN BUT WHETHER THAT IRREGULARITY WAS A DELIBERATE ATTEMPT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE OR IT WAS BY THE SAID PARTY IN QUESTION. SPECIALLY WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS TRIED TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THE SALES HAVE MATCHED WITH TH E PURCHASES AND THE QUANTITATIVE DETAILS HAVE HAD NEXUS IN SALE AND PURCHASE THEN THE AO WAS EX P EC TED TO LOOK INTO THIS MATTER FROM THE ACCOUNT S ANGLE AS WELL. I HAVE ALSO EXAMINED THE CASE LAWS AS CITED BY LD. AR, HOWEVER CONSIDERING THE PRINCIPAL LAI D D OWN IN THOSE DECISION I DEEM IT PROPER TO RESTORE THIS ISSUE OF BOGUS PURCHASES BACK TO THE FILE OF AO TO BE DECI DED DENOVO I N THE LIGHT OF THE OBSERVATION MADE HEREINABOVE, SO THAT A LOGICAL CONCLUSION CAN BE DRAWN THAT IF ALL THE SALES HAVE BEEN MADE O UT OF THE PURCHASES AS RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT THEN WHETHER A N ADDITION CAN BE MADE ON THE ALLEGATION OF ALLEGED BOGUS PURCHASES. WITH T HESE REMARKS THE MATTER IS RESTORE D BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO , THEREFORE THE GROUND S MAY BE TREATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICALLY PURPOSE ONLY. 9. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE THREE ABOVE APPEALS A R E ALLOWED FOR STATISTICALLY PURPOSE. ORDER PRONOU NCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 14 TH DAY OF JUNE , 2016 SD/ - (MUKUL K. SHRAWAT) JUDICIAL MEMBER NAGPUR, DATED: - 14 / 0 6 /2016 COPY FORWAR DED TO : 1. SHRI ASHOK SHRIKISAN AGRAWAL C/O.ADV.D.S.JOGANI, 640 ANAV NIDHI, TEKDI RD, SADAR, NAGPUR 2. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD - 4(1), SARAF CHAMBER, SADAR, NAGPUR - 440001 3. THE PR. CIT - 3 , NAGPUR 4. CIT ( APPEALS) - 4 , NAGPUR. 5. D.R., ITAT, NAGPU R. 6. GUARD FILE TRUE COPY BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR MANGESH BODKHE/PS