Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Durg V. M/s. Mahamaya Mines Private Limited, Durg

ITA 172/BIL/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 94008 (ITAT-RAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 11 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-06-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 18-07-2011
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S M DAS
• Assessee Lawyers: G S AGRAWAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAIPUR BENCH , RAIPUR BEFORE S/SHRI MUKUL K SHRAWAT, ( JM) AND SHAMIM YAHYA,(AM) I TA . NO . 1 72 / BLPR / 201 1 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 200 4 - 05 ) ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 1 , 32/32, BUNGALOWS, BHILAI , DISTRICT DUR G (CG), PIN - 490006 VS. M/S MAHAMAYA MINES PVT. LTD., 5/7, RAVI HOUSE, NEHRU NAGAR (E), BHILAI APPELLANT .. RESPONDENT PAN/GIR NO. : AACCM8202H APPELLANT BY : SHRI S M DAS RESPONDENT BY : SHRI G S AGRAWAL DATE OF HEARING : 1 5 .6.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 19 . 6. 201 5 O R D E R PER MUKUL K SHRAWAT, ( JM) : TH IS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE ARISING FROM THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) DATED 30. 3 .2011 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 4 - 05. 2. T HE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS : 1. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 15,094/ - MADE BY THE AO BY MAKING DISALLOWANCE OUT OF TRAVELLING EXPENSES. 2. WHETH ER IN LAW AND ON FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 48,000 / - MADE BY THE AO BY MAKING DISALLOWANCE OUT OF VEHICLE EXPENSES. 3. WHETHER IN LAW AND ON FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE CIT(A ) WAS JUSTIFIED IN RESTRICTING THE ADDITION OF RS.90,000/ - TO RS.20,000/ - MADE BY THE AO BY MAKING DISALLOWANCE OUT OF SALARY EXPENSES. 4. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 11 ,71,686 / - ITA. NO. 172 / BLPR/201 1 2 MADE BY THE AO BY MAKING DISALLOWANCE OUT OF COMMISSION PAYMENT. 5. THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS ERRONEOUS BOTH IN LAW AND ON FACTS 3 . THE ASSESSEE IS A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF TRADING OF IRON AND STEEL. WHILE PAS SING THE ORDER U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT), DATED 28.12.2006, THE AO OBSERVED THAT THE EXPENDITURE WAS INCURRED IN RESPECT OF TRAVELLING OF THE DIRECTOR AND HIS WIFE TO CALCUTTA DURING THE CHRISTMAS AND NEW YEAR PERIOD. IT WAS A SKED TO JUSTIFY THE BUSINESS PURPOSE FOR TRAVELLING EXPENSES. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY SATISFACTORY EXPLANATION, THE SAME WAS TAXED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. 4 . WHEN THE MATTER WAS CARRIED BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A), THE LD . CIT(A) HAS HELD THAT EVEN IF IT W AS TO BE DISALLOWED BEING NOT INCURRED FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES BUT IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE AO AS PERQUISITES IN T HE HANDS OF THE DIRECTOR . SINCE THE ADDITION WAS DELETED, HENCE THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 5 . HAVING CONSIDERED THE R IVAL SUBMISSIONS, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT CLAIMED THAT THE EXPENDITURE WAS A PERQUISITE IN THE HANDS OF T HE DIRECT OR . NO CONSEQUENTIAL STEPS WERE TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. THEREFORE, WE ARE NOT INCLINED TO CONFIRM THE SAID FINDINGS OF THE LD.CIT(A). HOWEVER, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE TOTAL DISALLOWANCE CAN ALSO NOT BE SUSTAINED AS ARGUED BEFORE US, B E CAUSE, THE AO HAS GIVEN THE FINDING THAT THE DIRECTORS VISIT WAS ALONG WITH HIS WIFE TO CALCUT TA . THE ASSESSEE HAS PLEADED THAT THE DIRECTOR HAS HELD FEW MEETINGS WITH THE CLIENTS AND CUSTOMERS TO PROMOTE THE SALES OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. AT THE BEST, THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED FOR THE TRAVELLING OF THE WIFE OF THE DIRECTOR CAN BE DISALLOWED . WE, THEREFORE, DIRECT THE AO TO MAKE 50% ADDITION OF THE ITA. NO. 172 / BLPR/201 1 3 TOTAL EXPENDITURE OF RS.15,094/ - GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS THEREFORE PARTLY ALLOWED. 6 . APROPOS, GROUND NO.2, THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE AO WERE THAT THE EXPENDITURE OF VEHICLE WAS INCURRED ON MONTH LY BASIS TO THE EMPLOYEES WITHOUT SUPPORTING BILLS . ACCORDING TO THE AO THERE WAS NO WRITTEN DIRECTION TO PROVIDE TRAVELLING ALLOWANCE TO SOME OF THE EMPLOYEES. RESULTANTLY DISALLOWANCE OF RS.48,000/ - WAS MADE. 7 . WHEN THE MATTER WAS CARRIED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), IT WAS HELD BY THE LD. CIT(A) THAT CONVEYANCE ALLOWANCE OF RS.1000/ - WAS PAID TO FEW EMPLOYEE OF THE COMPANY. THE CONFIRMATION LETTERS HAVE ALSO BEEN FURNISHED. IT HAS ALSO BEEN FOUND BY THE LD.CIT(A) THAT THERE ARE REIMBURSEMENT OF PETROL E XPENSES ETC. AFTER EXAMINING THE FACTS, THE ADDITION WAD DELETED . 8. HAVING HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH SIDES AND AFTER CONSIDERING THE CERTAIN FACTS THAT THE TURNOVER OF THE COMPANY HAD GONE UP TO THE TUNE OF RS.14.70 CRORES, AS NOTED BY THE LD.CIT( A ). WE HEREBY AFFIRM THE FACTUAL FINDING OF THE LD.CIT(A). THE CONVEYANCE ALLOWANCE WAS PAID TO THE EMPLOYEES WHO HAVE GIVEN THEIR RESPECTIVE CONFIRMATION LETTERS. WE FIND NO FORCE IN THIS GROUND OF THE REVENUE, HENCE, DISMISSED. 9. APROPOS, GROUND NO.3, THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE AO WERE THAT THERE WAS SOME ANOMALY, IN THE PAYMENT OF SECURITY GUARDS. ACCORDING TO THE AO , THERE WAS SUDDEN INCREASE IN THE NUMBER OF SECURITY GUARDS. IT HAS ALSO BEEN NO T ED BY T HE AO THAT THERE WAS SOME IRREGULARITY IN THE SIG NATURES OF THE GUARDS ON T HE VOUCHERS. THE AO HELD THAT RS.90,000/ - WAS BOGUS EXPENDITURE AND HENCE THE SAME W ERE DISALLOWED . 10. THE MATTER WAS CARRIED BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A), WHO HAS EXAMINED THE COMPARATIVE FIGURES OF THE TOTAL TURNOVER IN COMPARISON W ITH THE ITA. NO. 172 / BLPR/201 1 4 EXPENDITURE CLAIMED. HE HAS ALSO EXAMINED TH AT THERE WAS FREQUENT ROTATION IN THE GUARDS. THERE WERE INCREASED ACTIVITIES OF THE BUSINESS AND HENCE MORE GUARDS WERE EMPLOYED. THE SIGNATURE SOME TIME ALSO DIFFERS DUE TO CHANGE OF THE GUARDS. CONSI DERING, THOSE FACT, THE LD.CIT(A) HAS DIRECTED THE AO TO RESTRICT THE DISALLOWANCE TO RS.20,000/ ONLY. 11. HAVING CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE SIDES, WE HAVE NOTED THAT TOTAL PAYMENT TO GUARDS WAS AMOUNTING TO RS.1,53,000/ - OUT OF WHICH THE AO HAS DISALLOWED A SUM OF RS.90,000/ - WHICH ACCORDING TO US WAS EXCESSIVE AND HENCE UNREASONABLE. IN T HE TOTALITY OF T HE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE DISALLOWANCE TO THE EXTENT OF RS.20,000/ - WAS RIGHTLY RESTRICTED BY T H E LD . CIT(A), THEREFORE , THE SAME IS HEREBY CONFIRMED AND, THEREFORE, THIS GROUND OF REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 12. APROPOS GROUND NO.4, THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE AO ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED PAYMENT OF COMMISSION ON SALES TO COMMISSION AGENTS NAMELY M/S VIJAY ISPAT ALLOYS P RIVATE L IMITED. A QUERY WAS RAISED AS TO WHAT SERVICES WERE RENDERED BY THE SAID COMMISSION AGENT. THE ASSESSEE S EXPLANATION WAS THAT THE SAID AGENT WAS PROCURING ORDERS, UPLOADING THE MATERIALS AND LOOKING AFTER THE TRANSPORTATION OF THE IRON STEELS TO ITS DESTINATION. THE AO HAS MADE CERTAIN INQUIRIES FROM THE PARTIES WHO HAVE MADE PURCHASE FROM THE ASSESSEE. ON INQUIRY IT WAS FOUND THAT THE PURCHASERS HAVE DENIED THE EXISTENCE OF ANY AGENT. SOME OF THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE AO ARE AS UNDER : AN INTERESTING ASPECT OF THE WHOLE STORY IS THE DENIAL BY TWO OF THE PURCHASERS REGARDING EXISTENCE OF COMMISSION - AGENT M/S JINDAL POWER AND ISPAT LIMITED, RAIPUR OFFICE AND M /S GEL HAMAN LIMITED DENIED THE PRESENCE OF ANY AGENT OF THE ASS ESSEE COMPANY. JINDAL POWER AND STEEL, RAIGARH OFFICE DID NOT BOTHER TO REPLY TO THE NOTICE SENT BY THIS OFFICE. IT IS PROBABLE THAT SINCE THE FINANCE AND ACCOUNTS DIVISION OF JINDAL IS AT RAIPUR, THE COMPANY DECIDED TO REPLY FROM RAIPUR OFFICE ONLY. ITA. NO. 172 / BLPR/201 1 5 ST RANGELY, FURTHER LETTER WAS RECEIVED FROM M/S GEL HAMON INDUSTRIES LTD ON 15.12.2006. IN THIS THE COMPANY HAS INFORMED THAT THEY HAVE BEEN DEALING WITH SHRI ANAND AGRAWAL AND SHRI AJAY JAISWAL AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF M/S TIRUPATI STEEL TRADERS. TH E ASSESSEE HAS BEEN ABLE TO GET A SIMILAR LETTER FROM AN EX - EMPLOYEE OF M/S JINDAL STEEL AND POWER LTD, SHRI SANJAY SINGH ON 28.12.2006. IN HIS LETTER SHRI SINGH HAS INFORMED THAT HE WAS JR. EXECUTIVE, PURCHASE IN JINDAL STEEL AND POWER FOR ABOUT 10 YEARS AND DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2003 - 04 13. SINCE, THE ASSESSEE WAS UNABLE TO SATISFY THE AO , HENCE, THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.11,71,686/ - WAS MADE (RS.387876 M/S GEL HAMAN + RS.783810 M/S JINDAL STEEL AND POWER LIMITED ) 14. BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLA TE AUTHORITY, CERTAIN EVIDENCES WERE PLACED AND ON APPRECIATION OF THOSE EVIDENCES, THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS GRANTED RELIEF IN THE FOLLOWING MANNER: I HAVE CONSIDERED THE ARGUMENTS, WRITTEN SUBMISSION AND PAPER BOOK FILED ON BEHALF OF THE APPELL ANT AS WELL AS THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND REMAND REPORT OF THE AO. IN THE REMAND REPORT, THE AO HAS RELIED UPON THE OBSERVATIONS MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. I AM CONVINCED WITH THE FACTS ON THE RECORD AND THE ARGUMENTS OF THE LD. COUNSEL. THERE IS NO DIS PUTE THAT THIS YEAR THE TURNOVER HAS GONE UP BY MORE THAN 55% OVER EARLIER YEARS. THE TURNOVER HAS GONE - UP FROM RS.9.44 CRORES TO RS.14.70 CRORES. THE AO HAS PARTLY ACCEPTED THE PAYMENT OF COMMISSION TO M/S VIJAY ISPAT ALLOYS PRIVATE LIMITED. THE APPELLAN T HAD PAID COMMISSION OF RS.16,27,540/ - ON SALES OF 2712.565 MT GOODS AMOUNTING TO RS.6,65,20,106/ - TO THE ABOVE COMMISSION AGENT. OUT OF PAYMENT OF RS.16,27,560/ - , RS.4,45,854/ - HAS BEEN ALLOWED BY THE AO. THE AO ALLOWED COMMISSION ON SALES MADE BY THE ABOVE COMMISSION AGENT TO M/S GOPAL INDUSTRIES AND TRF LIMITED, BUT DISALLOWED COMMISSION PAID ON SALES MADE TO M/S GEL HAMAN LIMITED AND TO M/S JINDAL STEEL AND POWER LIMITED. THE COMMISSION AGENT HAS CATEGORICALLY ADMITTED HAVING RECEIVED THE COMMISSI ON. HE HAS ALSO ADMITTED THAT THE COMMISSION RECEIVED FROM APPELLANT HAS BEEN DULY ACCOUNTED FOR IN THEIR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND THAT THEIR LETTER DATED13.11.2006 IS CLEAR ON THIS ISSUE. M/S GIE HEMON INDUSTRIES, BHOPAL IN THEIR LETTER DATED 6.12.2006 HAVE ALSO ADMITTED THAT THEY WERE DEALING WITH SHRI ANAND AGRAWAL AND SHRI AJAY JAISWAL. SHRI AJAY JAISWAL IS DIRECTOR OF M/S VIJAY ISPAT ALLOYS PVT LTD, COMMISSION HAS BEEN PAID TO ABOVE COMPANY. THE ITA. NO. 172 / BLPR/201 1 6 AO CANNOT SIT ON THE JUDGMENT OF A BUSINESS. M/S G EI HEMON INDUSTRIES IN THIS LETTER HAVE MENTIONED THE NAME OF DIRECTOR OF THE APPELLANT COMPANY - SHRI ANAND AGRAWAL AND ALSO SHRI AJAY KUMAR JAISWAL. EVEN IN CASE OF COMMISSION AGENT, THE DIALOGUES WITH PRINCIPAL TO PRINCIPAL TAKES PLACE AS PER THE BUSIN ESS PRACTICE. WITH REGARD TO M/S JINDAL STEEL AND POWER LTD A LETTER OF MR. SANJAY SINGH WAS FILED BY THE APPELLANT. SHRI SANJAY SINGH WAS JUNIOR EXECUTIVE (PURCHASE) AT THE RELEVANT TIME. HE HAS ALSO ADMITTED THAT THE DEALING WERE DONE THROUGH SHRI A NAND AGRAWAL, SHRI VIJAY JAISWAL AND SHRI AJAY JAISWAL. JAISWALS ARE DIRECTORS OF THE COMMISSION AGENT COMPANY. MENTIONING THE NAME OF DIRECTOR OF THE COMPANY WITH THE DIRECTORS OF THE AGENT COMPANY DOES NOT NEGATE THE FACT THAT M/S VIJAY ISPAT ALLOYS PVT LTD, WAS NOT WORKING AS COMMISSION AGENT. THE APPELLANT HAS ALSO FILED AN APPLICATION UNDER RULE 46A TO ADMIT THE SERVICE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY M/S JINDAL STEEL AND POWER LTD., FOR THE SERVICES OF M/S SANJAY SINGH. THIS IS ADMITTED FOR REASON THAT THE AO HAS DOUBTED THE LETTER OF MR. SANJAY SINGH AS TO WHETHER MR.SINGH WAS IN SERVICE WITH M/S JINDAL STEEL AND POWER LTD., AT THE RELEVANT TIME. I ALSO FIND THAT THE APPELLANT HAS PAID COMMISSION AMOUNTING TO RS.16,27,539/ - DURING THE YEAR ITSELF BARRI NG RS.94,146/ - . THE APPELLANT HAS ALSO MADE TDS AT RS.83,393/ - ON COMMISSION AND DEPOSITED THE SAME. THE COMMISSION AGENT IS NOT A RELATED PARTY AS REFERRED IN SECTION 40A(2)(B). THE ABOVE FACTS ARE NOT CONTRAVENED BY THE AO. DISALLOWANCE CANNOT BE MADE O N SUSPICION. FOR THE ABOVE REASONS, I HOLD THAT THE APPELLANT HAS MADE THE PAYMENT OF COMMISSION TO M/S VIJAY ISPAT ALLOYS PVT.LTD, FOR THE SERVICES RENDERED FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS. THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.11,71,686 IS, THEREFORE, UNCALLED FOR AND IS DELETED. 15 . FROM THE SIDE OF THE REVENUE , THE LD.DR HAS PLACED RELIANCE ON THE ORDER OF THE AO AND VEHEMENTLY PLEADED THAT THE NEW EVIDENCE S WERE CONSIDERED BY THE LD.CIT(A) BY INFRINGING THE PROCEDURE AS LAID DOWN UNDER RULE 46A OF T HE INCOME TAX R ULES, 1962. HE HAS ARGUED THAT WHEN THE INQUIRY WAS MADE BY THE AO , THERE WAS DENIAL OF ANY SERVICE RENDERED BY T HE AGENT. LATER ON, THOSE VERY PARTIES HAVE CHANGED THEIR EARLIER STAND ON THE PRETEXT THAT IT WAS AN ERROR COMMITTED BY THE COMPUTER OP - OP ERA T OR . THEREFORE, THE LD.DR HAS PLEADED THAT THE GENUINENESS OF COMMISSION PAYMENT WAS RIGHTLY DOUBTED BY THE AO . ITA. NO. 172 / BLPR/201 1 7 16. FROM THE SIDE OF THE ASSESSEE, THE LD.AR HAS FIRST DRAW N OUR ATTENTION TO THE LETTERS WHICH WERE RELIED UPON BY THE AO WRITTEN BY M/S GEI HEMON INDUSTRIES AND M/S JINDAL STEEL AND POWER LIMITED. HIS ARGUMENTS WAS THAT THE TRADING RESULTS WERE BETTER THAN THE PAST YEARS AND EVEN AFTER CLAIMING THE EXPENDITURES OF COMMISSION THE BOOK RESULTS WERE BETTER THAN THE PAST YEARS. HE HAS ALSO ARGU ED THAT THE INQUIRY WAS MADE BY THE AO ON THE BACK OF THE ASSESSEE. HENCE, INFORMATION SO GATHERED SHOULD BE DISCARDED. 17. AFTER CONSIDERING THE ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE SIDES, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT ALTHOUGH THE REMAND REPORT WAS RECEIVED B Y THE LD. CIT(A) FROM THE AO BUT HE IGNORED THE DISCREPANCY INFORMED BY THE AO. ALTHOUGH THERE IS NO DENIAL OF THE FACTS THAT THE TURNOVER HAD GONE UP DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION BUT THE OTHER REQUIREMENT OF THE MATTER IS THAT THE EXPENDITURE CAN ONLY BE ALLOWED IF THE ASSESSEE PROVES WITH EVIDENCE THAT SAME WAS INCURRED FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE . WHEN THE AO HAS MADE DIRECT INQUIRY THEN THE SAID TWO PARTIES ; VIZ M/S GEI HEMON INDUSTRIES AND M/S JINDAL STEEL AND POWER LTD ; HAVE CATEGORICALLY STATED THAT THERE WAS NO AGENT INVOLVED IN THE TRANSACTION OF PURCHASE OF MATERIAL. THE SUBSEQUENT LETTERS OBTAINED FROM THE SAID TWO PARTIES HAVE ALSO BEEN DOUBTED. ONE OF THE LETTER OF M/S JINDAL STEEL AND POWER LTD WAS IN DOUBT BECAUSE TH E SIGNATORY WAS NOT UNDER EMPLOYMENT WHEN THE IMPUGNED PURCHASES WERE MADE. THE AO WAS NOT SITTING ON THE JUDGMENT OF THE BUSINESSMAN, AS MENTIONED BY THE LD.CIT(A) WHILE GRANTING RELIEF, BUT THE FACT HAVE ESTABLISHED THAT THE AO HAD MADE AN INQUIRY AND T HEREUPON RECEIVED LETTERS FROM THESE TWO PARTIES WHO HAVE CATEGORICALLY DENIED INVOLVEMENT OF ANY AGENT. WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT WHILE GRANTING RELIEF, THE LD. CIT(A) SHOULD HAVE CALLED FOR A SPECIFIC REPORT FROM THE AO IN RESPECT OF DISALLO WANCE OF COMMISSION BY CONFRONTING THE LETTERS RECEIVED SUBSEQUENTLY AT T HE TIME OF FINAL APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, WE ARE OF T HE VIEW THAT THE LETTERS IN QUESTION AND OTHER MATERIALS AS PLACED BEFORE THE ITA. NO. 172 / BLPR/201 1 8 LD.CIT(A) SHOULD BE R E - E XAMINED BY THE AO, NEEDLESS TO SAY AFTER PROVIDING AN ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE . SINCE THIS GROUND IS RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO , THEREFORE, MAY BE TREATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 18 . IN THE RESULT, THE AP PEAL OF THE REVENUE IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 19TH JUNE , 201 5 SD SD ( SHAMIM YAHYA ) ( MUKUL K SHRAWAT ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER RAIPUR : 19TH JUNE,2015. SRL , SR. PS COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT(A) - CONCERNED 4. CIT CONCERNED 5. DR, ITAT, RAIPUR CONCERNED 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER, SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY /ASSTT.REGISTRAR