The ACIT, Gandhidham Circle, GANDHIDHAM V. M/s. Saraswati Construction Co., GANDHIDHAM

ITA 175/RJT/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0043 (ITAT-RAJKOT)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-08-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 25-07-2012
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 29-04-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ANKUR GARG
• Section: 133(6); 194C

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBULAL; RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT. BEFORE SHRI T. K. SHARMA, JM AND SHRI A. K.GARODIA, AM ITA NO.692 AND 693/RJT/2010. / ASSESSMENT YEARS 2005-06 & 2006-07 AND ITA NO.175/RJT/2011. / ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 ACIT PLOT NO.32, SEC-3 GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE-KUTCH ( / APPELLANT) VS. M/S SARASWATI CONSTRUCTION CO., PLOT NO.235/236, WARD 12/B GANDHIDHAM-KUTCH PAN:AATFS5928E / RESPONDENT / REVENUE BY SHRI ANKUR GARG ' / ASSESSEE BY SHRI KALPESH DOSHI & / DATE OF HEARING 25.7.2012 & / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 30.8.2012 / / / / ORDER PER T. K. SHARMA JM THESE THREE APPEALS BY THE REVENUE ARE AGAINST TWO SEPARATE ORDERS DATED 30.11.2009 AND OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX(A)-II, RAJKOT AND ORDER DATED 20.1.2011 OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX(A)-XX, AHMEDABAD FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2005-06 & 2006-07 A ND 2007-08 RESPECTIVELY. ALL THESE APPEALS WERE HEARD TOGETHER, T HEREFORE, ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY THIS COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENI ENCE. ITA NO.692/RJT/2010. (AY-2005-06) ITA NO.692/RJT/2010(AY-2006-07) ITA NO.175/RJT/2011(AY 2007-08) 2 ITA NO.692/RJT/2010. (AY-2005-06) 2. GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED IN THIS APPEAL ARE REPRO DUCED BELOW : 1. THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACT IN DELETING THE ENTIRE ADDITION OF RS.78,61,230/- MADE ON ACCO UNT OF DISALLOWANCE U/S 40(A)(A). 2. THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACT IN RESTRICTING THE ADDITION TO RS.10,95,009/- AS AGAINST THE TOTA L ADDITION OF RS.43,80,036/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF E XPENSES. 4. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD.CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE AO. 5. IT IS, THEREFORE, PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A)-BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE AO BE RESTORED TO THE ABOVE EX TENT. ITA NO.693/RJT/2010(AY-2006-07) 1. THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACT IN RESTRICTING THE ADDITION TO RS.6,86,116/- AS AGAINST THE TOTAL ADDITION OF RS.27,44,456/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF N ON- VERIFIABLE EXPENSES. 2. THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACT IN DELETING THE ENTIRE ADDITION OF RS.30,86,105/- MADE ON ACCO UNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF SUB-CONTRACT EXPENSES. 4. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD.CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE AO. 5. IT IS, THEREFORE, PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A)-BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE AO BE RESTORED TO THE ABOVE EX TENT. ITA NO.175/RJT/2011(AY 2007-08) A. THE LD. CIT (A) XX, AHMEDABAD HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACT IN RESTRICTING THE ADDITION TO RS.6,09,970/- (BEING 5% OF TOTAL UNVERIFIABLE EXPENSES) AS AGAINST RS.24,39,88 2/-(BEING 20% OF TOTAL UNVERIFIABLE EXPENSES) MADE ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF UNVERIFIABLE EXPENSE. B. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD.CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE AO. ITA NO.692/RJT/2010. (AY-2005-06) ITA NO.692/RJT/2010(AY-2006-07) ITA NO.175/RJT/2011(AY 2007-08) 3 C. IT IS, THEREFORE, PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A)-BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE AO BE RESTORED TO THE ABOVE EX TENT. 3. BRIEF FACTS RELATING TO CONTROVERSY RAISED IN GROUND NO.1 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 ARE THAT AO IN THE ASSESSMENT ORD ER MADE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.78,61,230/- U/S 40(A)(IA) ON THE G ROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DEDUCTED TAX AT SOURCE FROM THE PAYMENTS OF SUB- CONTRACT EXPENSES AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF INCOME TAX ACT , 1961 (THE ACT). THE ASSESSEE HAS DEBITED RS.5,99,07,029/- UNDER TH E HEAD SUB- CONTRACT EXPENSE. PARTY-WISE DETAILS OF PAYMENTS WERE A LSO SUBMITTED TO THE AO DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WHICH A RE REPRODUCED BY THE AO AT PAGE 2 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER . THE AO SIMPLY COMPARED TOTAL AMOUNT CREDITED IN PARTIES ACCOUN T AND MADE THE DISALLOWANCE. 4. ON APPEAL, BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT IN THE SUM OF RS.5,99,07,029/- COMPRI SES THREE PARTS, THE FIRST PART IS BEING THE VALUE OF SUB-CONTRACT WORK OF R S.5,05,28,678/- FROM WHICH THE APPELLANT DEDUCTED THE TAX AT SOURCE AT APPL ICABLE RATE AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194C. THE SECOND AND THIRD PART COMPRISES RS.68,18,266/- AND RS.25,60,085/- WHICH ARE RELATED T O COST OF DIESEL AND MATERIALS PURCHASED BY THE APPELLANT AND CONSUMED BY TH E SUB-CONTRACTOR IN EXECUTING THE APPELLANTS CONTRACT. IT WAS FURTHER STATED THAT FOR THE PURPOSE OF KEEPING TRACK, HOW MUCH MATERIAL AND DIESEL W ERE CONSUMED BY EACH SUB-CONTRACTORS, THE APPELLANT KEPT SEPARATE ACCOUN T OF EACH SUB-CONTRACTORS IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. INSTEAD OF DEBIT ING THE SAID EXPENDITURE TO DIESEL AND MATERIALS ACCOUNT, IT DEBITED UNDER THE SUB-HEAD OF SUB-CONTRACT EXPENSES. THUS, THE ASSESSEE CONCLUDED THE ARGUMENTS ITA NO.692/RJT/2010. (AY-2005-06) ITA NO.692/RJT/2010(AY-2006-07) ITA NO.175/RJT/2011(AY 2007-08) 4 BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE PURCHASED T HE MATERIAL AND DIESEL WHICH WERE FOR EXECUTING THE WORK OF SUB-CONTRACT, THERE WAS NO QUESTION OF DEDUCTING THE TDS ON THE SAME. 4.1 THE LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE FURTHER CONTENDED BEFO RE THE LD. CIT(A) THAT THE LEDGER ACCOUNT OF EACH SUB-CONTRACTOR, L EDGER ACCOUNT OF DIESEL, AND MATERIAL SUPPLY OF EACH SUB-CONTRACTOR AS WEL L AS COPIES OF BILLS RAISED BY THE SUB-CONTRACTORS WERE PRODUCED BEFORE THE AO. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE DEDUCTED TAX AT SOU RCE OF RS.5,20,458/- AT THE RATE OF ONE PER CENT ON SUB-CONTR ACTED EXPENSES OF RS.5,20,45,800/-. THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THA T THE ASSESSEE DEBITED RS.5,99,07,029/- AS SUB-CONTRACT PAYMENT IN TH E PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT AND HENCE THE AO WAS OF THE OPINION THAT THE ASSESSEE SHOULD HAVE DEDUCTED TAX AT SOURCE ON RS.5,99,07,029/-. SINCE THE ASSESSEE DEDUCED THE TAX ON RS.5,20,45,800/- AND HENCE THE A O CONCLUDED THAT THE DIFFERENCE O RS.78,61,230/- WAS DISALLOWED BY INVO KING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A)(IA). 4.2 THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE MATERIAL INCLUDING DIESEL FOR EXECUTION OF WORK WERE SUPPLIED BY IT TO THE SUB- CONTRACTOR AND THE TAX WAS DEDUCTED AFTER RECOVERY OF MA TERIAL, THUS TDS NEED NOT BE DEDUCTED ON THE WHOLE AMOUNT OF SUB-CON TRACT PAYMENT. 5. AFTER CONSIDERING THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE BEFORE T HE LD. CIT(A), THE LD. CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT THE AFORESAID SUM OF RS.5,99,07, 029/- CONSISTS OF THREE PARTS, THE FIRST PART IS BEING VALUE OF SUB-CONTRA CT WORK OF RS.5,05,28,678/- FROM WHICH THE APPELLANT DEDUCTED THE TAX AT SOURCE AT APPLICABLE RATE AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194C OF THE ACT. THE ITA NO.692/RJT/2010. (AY-2005-06) ITA NO.692/RJT/2010(AY-2006-07) ITA NO.175/RJT/2011(AY 2007-08) 5 SECOND AND THIRD PARTS CONSISTS OF RS.68,18,266/- AND RS. 25,60,085/- RELATED TO COST OF DIESEL AND MATERIALS PURCHASED BY THE APPELLANT AND CONSUMED BY THE SUB-CONTRACTOR IN EXECUTING THE APPELLANT S CONTRACT. IT WAS FURTHER STATED THAT FOR THE PURPOSE OF KEEPING T RACT, HOW MUCH MATERIAL AND DIESEL WERE CONSUMED BY EACH SUB-CONTRACTOR S, THE APPELLANT KEPT SEPARATE ACCOUNT OF EACH SUB-CONTRACTORS IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. INSTEAD OF DEBITING THE SAID EXPENDITURE T O DIESEL AND MATERIAL ACCOUNT, IT DEBITED UNDER THE SUB-HEAD OF SUB-CONTRACT E XPENSES. THE LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION FOR THE DETAILED REASO NS GIVEN IN PARAGRAPHS 2.(B) AND ( CA ) TO (CB). THE MAIN REASONING GIVEN BY THE LD. CIT(A) IN THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DEDUCTED THE TAX AT SOURCE ON THE AMOUNT OF SUB- CONTRACTED AMOUNT OF RS.5,05,28,679/- AT APPLICABLE RA TE AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194C OF THE ACT. HOWEVER, ON CO ST OF DIESEL AND MATERIAL, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DEDUCTED TDS SINCE THE ASSESSEE DID NOT MAKE ANY PAYMENT FOR MATERIAL AND DIESEL TO IS SUB-CONT RACTOR. AGGRIEVED WITH THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), THE RE VENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL. 6. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES. IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT THE AO WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS HAS DISALLOWED THE AMOUNT OF RS.5,99,07,029/- BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 4 0(A)(IA) OF THE ACT. SINCE THE ASSESSEE DEDUCTED THE TDS AT APPLICABLE RAT E ON THE AMOUNT OF SUCH SUB-CONTRACTED AMOUNT OF RS.5,05,28,67 9/- AND IN RESPECT OF BALANCE AMOUNT THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO DE DUCT TAX AT SOURCE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GIV EN COGENT REASONS TO DELETE THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO U/S 40(A) (IA) OF THE ACT AND THEREFORE, ITA NO.692/RJT/2010. (AY-2005-06) ITA NO.692/RJT/2010(AY-2006-07) ITA NO.175/RJT/2011(AY 2007-08) 6 HE CORRECTLY DELETED THE AMOUNT OF RS.5,05,28,679/-. HENCE WE DECLINE TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). THIS G ROUND OF APPEAL IS REJECTED. 7. BRIEF FACTS RELATING TO CONTROVERSY RAISED IN GROUND NO.2 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 AND ONLY GROUND IN ASSESSMENT YEAR S 2006-07 AND 2007-08 ARE THA THE AO DISALLOWED 20% OF EXPENSES . ON APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(A) RESTRICTED THE DISALLOWANCE TO 5%. THE SUM MARY OF DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO AND CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IS AS UNDER: A.Y. DISALLOWED BY THE AO RS. CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(A) RS. 2005-06 4,380,036/- 10,95,009/- 2006-07 27,44,465/- 6,86,116/- 2007-08 2,43,981/- 6,09,970/- 8. AT THE TIME OF HEARING BEFORE US SHRI ANKUR GARG, DR POINTED OUT THAT ,LOOKING TO THE REASONING RECORDED BY THE AO IN T HE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE DISALLOWANCE OF 20% ON ACCOUNT OF UNVERIFIA BLE EXPENSES IS REASONABLE AND THE LD. CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN RE STRICTING THE SAME TO 5% OF TOTAL UNVERIFIABLE EXPENSES. HE FURTHER DRE W OUR ATTENTION TO THE NET PROFIT DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE AND GROSS RECEIPTS DECL ARED BY THE ASSESSEE AND ABNORMAL INCREASE OF EXPENDITURE. AS AGAINST THIS THE LD. COUNSEL POINTED OUT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ACCEPTED THE D ISALLOWANCE TO THE EXTENT OF 5% AND THEREFORE, THE VIEW TAKEN BY T HE LD.CIT(A) BE UPHELD. IN THE REJOINDER THE LD. DR CONTENDED THAT THIS DI SALLOWANCE BE RAISED AT LEAST TO 12.5% OF UNVERIFIABLE EXPENDITURE. 9. HAVING HEARD BOTH THE SIDES, WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AS WELL AS THE REASONS GIVEN BY TH E AO FOR THE ITA NO.692/RJT/2010. (AY-2005-06) ITA NO.692/RJT/2010(AY-2006-07) ITA NO.175/RJT/2011(AY 2007-08) 7 MAKING DISALLOWANCE AND THE LD. CIT(A) FOR RESTRICTING T HE DISALLOWANCE OF COST OF 5% OF TOTAL UNVERIFIABLE EXPENDITURES. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THE DISALLOWANCE TO EXTENT OF 5% OF UNVERIFIABL E EXPENSES SUSTAINED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IS ON LOWER SIDE AND IN OUR OPINION AND IT WOULD MEET ENDS OF JUSTICE IF WE RESTRICT THE DISALLOWANCE TO 7.5% OF TOTAL UNVERIFIABLE EXPENSES. ASSESSMENT YEAR DISALLOWED BY THE AO SUSTAINED BY THE CIT(A) ACCORDING TO TRIBUNALS ORDER 2005-06 4,380,036/- 10,95,009/- 16,42,513/- 2006-07 27,44,465/- 6,86,116/- 10,29,174/- 2007-08 2,43,981/- 6,09,970/- 9,14,955/- WE ORDER ACCORDINGLY. RESULTANTLY, THE GROUNDS RA ISED IN THIS BEHALF BY THE REVENUE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 10. IN THE RESULT, THE REVENUES APPEALS FOR THE ASSESSM ENT YEAR 2005- 06 AND 2006-07 ARE PARTLY ALLOWED. 11. BRIEF FACTS RELATING TO CONTROVERSY RAISED IN GROUND NO.2 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 ARE THAT AO IN THE ASSESSMENT ORD ER MADE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.30,86,105/- ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWAN CE OF SUB- CONTRACT EXPENSES. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDI NGS THE AO OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID RS.30,86,105/- TO ON E MR.KANTILAL MANJI HADIA FOR SUB-CONTRACT WORK. THE AO ASKED THE ASSES SEE TO PRODUCE HIM BEFORE THE AO, BUT ASSESSEE FAILED TO DO SO . THEREAFTER, A NOTICE U/S 133(6) OF ACT WAS SENT TO THE CONCERNED PARTY TO REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE AO BUT WITHOUT COMPLIANCE. THE AO AGAIN CALLED UPON THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE GENUINENESS OF THE SUB-CONTRACTOR O NE MR.KANTILAL ITA NO.692/RJT/2010. (AY-2005-06) ITA NO.692/RJT/2010(AY-2006-07) ITA NO.175/RJT/2011(AY 2007-08) 8 MANJI HADIA FAILING WHICH RS.30.86,105/- WILL BE DISAL LOWED AND WILL BE ADDED BACK TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 12. IN REPLY, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE PAYMENT IN QUESTION WAS PAID THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL AND THE SAME IS PAID TOWAR DS WORK CARRIED OUT BY THE HIM AND THE PAYMENT IS MADE AFTER VERIFICA TION. 13. THE REPLY GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF THE A DDITION OF RS. RS.30.86,105/- CONSIDERED BY THE AO AND HE DID NOT FIND FAVOUR WITH THE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE, ACCORDINGLY, HE ADDED THE SAME TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 14. AGGRIEVED BY THE ABOVE MENTIONED ADDITION, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). 15. BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) SUBMITTED THAT THE SUB-CONT RACT PAYMENTS WERE MADE THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL AND THE PAYMENTS WER E MADE AFTER DUE VERIFICATION BY IS ENGINEER. WITH REGARD TO TH E PERSONAL ATTENDANCE OF MR.KANTIALAL MANJI HADIA BEFORE THE AO, THE APPEL LANT SUBMITTED THAT MR.KANTILAL MANJI HADIA WAS NOT IN TOWN HENCE HE COU LD NOT PRODUCE MR.KANTILAL MANJI HADIA BEFORE THE AO. 16. AFTER GOING THROUGH THE MATERIAL BEFORE THE CI T(A), HE OBSERVED AND HELD THAT THE AO HAS NO STRONG CASE. THE NON-COMPL IANCE BY A PARTY TO THE NOTICE U/S 133(6) SHOULD NOT DRIVE THE AO TO PE NALIZE THE APPELLANT. THE LD. CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED LEDG ER ACCOUNT OF THE SAID PARTY MR.KANTILAL MANJI HADIA, BILLS RAISED BY HIM, HIS INCOME TAX RETURN CONSISTING OF PAN , AND ADDRESS. THE DETAILS F URNISHED BY MR.KANTILAL MANJI HADIA SHOWS THAT HE RECEIVED PAYMEN TS FROM THE ITA NO.692/RJT/2010. (AY-2005-06) ITA NO.692/RJT/2010(AY-2006-07) ITA NO.175/RJT/2011(AY 2007-08) 9 ASSESSEE BY CHEQUE FROM BANK MNS BANK LTD AN BMCPP LTD. TAX WAS ALSO DEDUCTED AT SOURCE FROM THE PAYMENTS. THEREFORE, THE CIT(A) WAS SATISFIED WITH THE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE AN D DETAILS OF MR.KANTILAL MANJI HADIA AND AFTER GIVING DETAILED R EASONS IN PARAGRAPH 3(BA) THE CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION OF RS.30,86,10 5/- MADE BY THE AO. 17. HAVING HEARD BOTH THE SIDES, WE HAVE GONE THROU GH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AS WELL AS THE REASONS GIVEN BY TH E AO FOR THE MAKING DISALLOWANCE AND THE LD. CIT(A) FOR DELETING T HE ADDITION OF RS.30,86,105/-. THE LD. DR COULD NOT BRING ANY CONTRAR Y MATERIAL TO REBUT THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND THEREFORE, WE ARE INCLINED TO UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). WE HOLD AND DIRECTLY ACCORDIN GLY. 18. THIS GROUND OF REVENUES APPEALS IS DISMISSED. 19. IN SUM AND SUBSTANCE, THE REVENUES APPEALS FOR THE A SSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 AND 2006-07 ARE PARTLY ALLOWED THIS ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DAT E MENTIONED HEREINABOVE. SD SD ( A. K.GARODIA) ( T. K. SHARMA) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /JUDICIAL MEMBER +/ ORDER DATE 30 -08-2012. /RAJKOT ITA NO.692/RJT/2010. (AY-2005-06) ITA NO.692/RJT/2010(AY-2006-07) ITA NO.175/RJT/2011(AY 2007-08) 10 SRL - - - - .- .- .- .- / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. / APPELLANT-, 2. / RESPONDENT- 3. 4 / CONCERNED CIT. 4. 4- / CIT (A). 5. - , , / DR, ITAT, RAJKOT 6. / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER , TRUE COPY SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY , INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT.