A.C.I.T.,C.C., Agra V. M/s Sarin & Sarin, Agra

ITA 184/AGR/2013

• Counselvise Citation: 18420314 RSA 2013
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-08-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 25-07-2013
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 05-06-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S L MAURYA
• Keywords: Business expenditure
• Section: 43B; 153A; 37(1); 37

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AGRA BENCH, AGRA BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.L. GEHLOT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOS. 184 & 185/AG/ 2013 ASSESSMENT YEARS 2009-10 & 2010-11 ACIT/DCIT, VS. M/S SARIN & SARIN, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AGRA 17/195, CHILLI INT ROAD, AGRA. (PAN AAFFS 8079 L) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI S.L. MAURYA, SR. D.R.. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SAHIB P. SATSANGEE, C.A. DATE OF HEARING : 25.07.2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 02.08.2013 ORDER PER A.L. GEHLOT,ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THESE APPEALS HAVE BEEN FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAIN ST TWO DIFFERENT ORDERS, DATED 01.03.2013 PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A)-II, A GRA FOR A.YS. 2009-10 & 2010-11. 2. THE EFFECTIVE GROUNDS RAISED IN THESE APPEALS A RE REPRODUCED AS BELOW:- ITA NO. 184/AG/2013 BY THE REVENUE A.Y. 2009-10 :- 1. THAT LD. CIT(A)-II, AGRA HAS ERRED IN LAW AND O N FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.1,00,03,787/- MADE ON A CCOUNT OF DEFICIT IN THE EXCISE DUTY ACCOUNT. 2. THAT LD. CIT(A)-II, AGRA HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.40,000/- MADE FOR C ARTAGE EXPENSES. ITA NOS.184 /AG./2013, 185/AG/2013 A.YS. 2009-10, 2010-11 2 3. THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A)-II, AGRA BEING ERRONEOUS IN LAW AND ON FACTS AND DESERVES TO BE VACATED AND THE ORDER OF THE AO BE RESTORED. 4. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO AMEND OR ADD ADDITIONAL GROUNDS OF THE APPEAL AS AND WHEN REQUIRED. ITA NO. 185/AG/2013 BY THE REVENUE A.Y. 2010-11:- 1. THAT LD. CIT(A)-II, AGRA HAS ERRED IN LAW AND O N FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.72,31,573/- MADE ON ACC OUNT OF DEFICIT IN THE EXCISE DUTY ACCOUNT. 2. THAT LD. CIT(A)-II, AGRA HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.50,000/- MADE FOR C ARTAGE EXPENSES. 3. THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A)-II, AGRA BEING ERRONEOUS IN LAW AND ON FACTS AND DESERVES TO BE VACATED AND THE ORDER OF THE AO BE RESTORED. 4. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO AMEND OR ADD ADDITIONAL GROUNDS OF THE APPEAL AS AND WHEN REQUIRED. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESS EES FIRM DERIVES INCOME FROM MANUFACTURING AND TRADING OF GUTKA AND PAN MASALA . A SEARCH UNDER SECTION 132(1) OF THE I.T. ACT WAS CONDUCTED. DURING THE AS SESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE A.O. NOTICED THAT ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED AN EXPENDITU RE AMOUNTING TO RS.1,00,03,787/- FOR A.Y. 2009-10 AND RS.72,31,573/ - FOR A.Y. 2010-11 TOWARDS EXCISE DUTY PAID. 4. THE LD. REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PARTIES SUBMITTED THAT THE FACTS LEADING TO THE CASE ARE IN A.Y. 2009-10. THEY ARGUED THE APPEALS A CCORDINGLY. WE HAVE ALSO DECIDED THESE APPEALS ACCORDINGLY. ITA NOS.184 /AG./2013, 185/AG/2013 A.YS. 2009-10, 2010-11 3 5. THE A.O. NOTICED THAT IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMEN T PROCEEDINGS THAT THE SALES CREDITED IN THE P&L ACCOUNT WAS EXCLUSIVE OF THE TAXES AND LEVIES IMPOSED BY THE GOVT. ON THE FINISHED GOODS MANUFACTURED BY THE ASSESSEE FIRM WHICH INCLUDED EXCISE DUTY. IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT THE EXC ISE DUTY REALIZED IN THE COURSE OF SALES WAS SEPARATELY CREDITED IN THE EXCISE DUTY ACCOUNT AND THE PAYMENT MADE UNDER THIS HEAD WERE DEBITED TO THAT SEPARATE ACCOU NT. THE A.O. NOTICED THAT SINCE THE EXCISE DUTY REALIZED ON SALES WAS NOT CREDITED IN THE SALES ACCOUNT, THE QUESTION OF CLAIMING ANY EXPENDITURE UNDER THIS HEA D WAS OBVIOUSLY NOT RELEVANT. THE A.O. WAS OF THE VIEW THAT EXCISE DUTY DEBITED T O PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT IS NOT ALLOWABLE. THE A.O. ACCORDINGLY ASKED EXPLANATI ON FROM THE ASSESSEE. 6. THE A.O. AFTER CONSIDERING THE ASSESSEES SUBMIS SION MADE THE ADDITION OF RS.1,00,03,787/- AS UNDER :- (A.O. PAGE NO.8) THE ISSUE WAS EXAMINING IN THE LIGHT OF FACTS AVAI LABLE ON RECORD AND ALSO IN THE BACKGROUND OF THE ACCOUNTING POLICY CON SISTENTLY FOLLOWED BY THE ASSESSEE FIRM BY RELATING TO REALIZATION AND PAYMENT OF EXCISE DUTY AND IT WAS FOUND THAT THE SUBMISSION MADE BY T HE FIRM IN THIS REGARD WERE GENERAL IN NATURE AND WERE NOT CONVINCI NG. ACCORDINGLY KEEPING IN VIEW THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE CLAIM REGARDING TO EXCISE DUTY AFORESAID WILL BE DISALLOW ED. FURTHER SINCE THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WAS FULLY AWARE ABOUT THE FACT THA T IN THE LIGHT OF ACCOUNTING POLICY WITH REGARD TO EXCISE DUTY THE CL AIM WAS NOT ALLOWABLE AND STILL THE SAME WAS CLAIMED, THE PENA LTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271(1)(C)OF IT ACT WILL BE SEPARATELY INITIATED FOR MAKING INACCURATE CLAIM OF EXPENDITURE WHICH IT KNEW TO BE NOT CORREC T. ITA NOS.184 /AG./2013, 185/AG/2013 A.YS. 2009-10, 2010-11 4 7. THE CIT(A) BEFORE DELETING THE ADDITION CALLED R EMAND REPORT OF THE A.O.. THE CIT(A), AFTER CONSIDERING THE ASSESSEES SUBMIS SION AND REMAND REPORT OF THE A.O., DELETED THE ADDITION AS UNDER :- (CIT(A) PAGE NOS. 16 TO 18) 4.3 I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE ASSESSMENT ORD ER, WRITTEN SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT, REMAND REPORT AS WELL AS THE REJOINDER FILED BY THE APPELLANT. THE A.O. HAS DISALLOWED DED UCTION OF RS.1,00,03,787/- IN RESPECT OF DEFICIT IN THE EXCIS E DUTY ACCOUNT CLAIMED AS ALLOWABLE DEDUCTION U/S 37 OF THE I.T. ACT AS EX PENDITURE HAVING BEEN INCURRED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS. THE REASON GIVEN BY THE AO FOR DISALLOWING THIS AMOUNT IS THAT SINCE THE EXCISE DUTY REALIZED ON SALES WAS NOT CREDITED IN THE SALES ACC OUNT, THE QUESTION OF CLAIMING ANY EXPENDITURE UNDER THIS HEAD WAS NOT RE LEVANT. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE APPELLANT HAS SUBMITTED THE ASSESSE E IS CONSISTENTLY FOLLOWING ACCOUNTING FOR EXCISE DUTY REALIZED AND B ILLED UNDER EXCLUSIVE METHOD WHEREBY THE EXCISE DUTY COLLECTED THROUGH SA LES INVOICES IS SEPARATELY CREDITED TO THE EXCISE DUTY ACCOUNT UNDE R RESPECTIVE HEAD AND SIMILARLY EXCISE DUTY PAID THROUGH THE PERSONAL LEDGER ACCOUNT (PLA), CHALLANS IS DEBITED TO THE RESPECTIVE EXCISE DUTY HEAD OF ACCOUNT AND THE BALANCE OF PERSONAL LEDGER ACCOUNT (PLA) IS REFLECTED IN BALANCE SHEET. THE EXCISE DUTY WAS ALWAYS DEPOSITED UNDER THE SELF ASSESSMENT SCHEME AND THERE WAS NOT DEFICIT IN EARL IER YEARS. THIS EXPLANATION AND SUBMISSION FILED BEFORE THE AO WAS REITERATED BEFORE ME DURING APPEAL PROCEEDINGS. THE AO WHILE MAKING T HE ADDITION NOR IN THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS HAS EXAMINED THE APPELLAN TS SUBMISSION DURING A.Y. 2008-09, THE ASSESSEE OPTED FOR THE PAY MENT OF EXCISE DUTY ON THE BASIS OF THE NUMBER OF PACKING MACHINES INST ALLED FOR THE PACKING OF SPECIFIED GOODS IN A FIXED RATE OF DUTY PER PACKING MACHINE PER MONTH BASED ON THE RETAIL SALE PRICE PRINTED ON THE POUCHES AS PER THE NOTIFICATION NO.38/2007 CE DATED 19.12.2007, PA ID EXCISE DUTY IN ADVANCE BEFORE THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE MONTH AS PER THE CONDITION IN THE NOTIFICATION. THE ASSESSEE HAS AS PER THE NOTIF ICATION STARTED REALIZING EXCISE DUTY ON THE BASIS OF SALE INVOICES RAISED PERIODICALLY AT THE TIME OF SALE OF THE FINISHED GOODS. THE NOTIFIC ATION WAS CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN RESCINDED VIDE NOTIFICATION NO.44/2008 DA TED 16.07.2008 WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE WAS COMPULSORILY REQUIRED TO P AY THIS EXCISE DUTY LIABILITY UNDER PAN MASALA PACKING MACHINE (CAPACIT Y DETERMINATION AND COLLECTION OF DUTY) RULES 2008. AS PER THIS NOT IFICATION THE DUTY PAID ON MONTHLY BASIS ON THE BASIS WORKING MACHINES HAD TO BE DEPOSITED AT ITA NOS.184 /AG./2013, 185/AG/2013 A.YS. 2009-10, 2010-11 5 THE BEGINNING OF THE MONTH AS WAS EARLIER AND ONLY ABATEMENT OF DUTY WAS PERMISSIBLE IN THE CASE OF NON PRODUCTION OF TH E NOTIFIED GOODS DURING ANY CONTINUOUS PERIOD OF 15 DAYS OR MORE FRO M THE DETAILS OF PRODUCTION AND SALE OF GUTKHA AND PAN MASALA AS REC ORDED IN THE STATUTORY RGI REGISTER AND FURNISHED BEFORE ME AS W ELL AS THE AO, IT IS SEEN THAT THE SALE HAS DECLINED IN THE MONTH OF JUL Y, AUGUST AND SEPTEMBER AND THE APPELLANT HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO RE COVER THE EXCISE DUTY ALREADY DEPOSITED FROM SALES. THE APPELLANTS CLAIM THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS SELLING HIS GOLD MOHAR GUTKHA AT RS.1. 50 PER POUCH AND GOLD MOHAR PAN MASALA AT MRP AS 2 PER POUCH SINCE T HE BEGINNING OF THE ABOVE FINANCIAL YEAR AND WITH THE COMMENCEMENT OF NOTIFICATION NO. 42/2008 THE AMOUNT OF DUTY PAYMENT ON GUTKHA ESCALA TED BY ABOVE 18% COUPLES WITH THE LACK OF DEMAND ON ACCOUNT OF H EAVY MONSOON IN THE MONTH OF AUGUST, SEPTEMBER IS VERIFIABLE FROM BOOKS WHICH HAS NOT BEEN ADVERSELY COMMENTED UPON BY THE AO. THE AO HAS ALSO NOT POINTED OUT ANY DISCREPANCY IN THE DETAILS FURNISHE D BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE PRODUCTION, REALIZATION OF THE EXCISE DUTY AGAI NST INVOICES RAISED ETC. THE AMOUNT OF EXCISE DUTY PAID AT THE BEGINNIN G OF THE MONTH AS WELL AS THE DUTY REALIZED ON THE SALE IS NOT IN DIS PUTE. AFTER GOING THROUGH THE DETAILED SUBMISSION AND THE REJOINDER A S WELL AS THE PAN MASALA (CAPACITY DETERMINATION AND COLLECTION OF DU TY) RULES 2008 NOTIFIED BY THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT, I FIND THAT THE DEFICIT IN THE EXCISE DUTY ACCOUNT AROSE ON ACCOUNT OF PAYMENT OF MONTHLY EXCISE DUTY IN TERMS OF THE NOTIFICATION AND THE EXCISE DUTY REALI ZED ON SALES BEING LESS THAN WHAT WAS ALREADY DEPOSITED WITH THE CENTRAL GO VT. AT THE BEGINNING OF THE MONTH. I ALSO FIND THAT THE AO HAS NOT DOUBTED THE SALES AS WELL AS THE EXCISE DUTY RECOVERED FROM SAL ES DURING THE YEAR AND NOTHING ADVERSE OR INCRIMINATING HAS BEEN FOUND REGARDING PRODUCTION, SALES ETC. DURING THE SEARCH AND SEIZUR E OPERATIONS IN THE PREMISES OF THE APPELLANT. NO DOCUMENTS WITH REFERE NCE TO SALES OUTSIDE THE BOOKS HAVE ALSO BEEN FOUND. IN THIS CIRCUMSTANC E MERELY OBSERVING THAT SINCE EXCISE DUTY RECOVERED ON SALES IS NOT CR EDITED TO PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT HENCE EXPENDITURE CANNOT BE ALLOWED IS NOT CORRECT AS THE ASSESSEE IS ONLY CLAIMING THE DEFICIT. 4.4 THE PAYMENT OF EXCISE DUTY AT THE BEGINNING OF THE MONTH WAS AS PER GOVERNMENT RULES WHICH HAD TO BE COMPLIED WITH TO IN ORDER CONTINUE MANUFACTURING THE PRODUCT. THE PRICE REALI ZED IN THE SALE INVOICES INCLUDING THE PRICE OF THE PRODUCT, EXCISE DUTY, SALES TAX/VAT WHICH HAS BEEN CREDITED TO SALES ACCOUNT HAS ALREAD Y BEEN VERIFIED BY THE AO AND NO DISCREPANCY OR ANYTHING ADVERSE HAS B EEN POINTED OUT. THIS DEFICIT WAS ONLY THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE AM OUNT DEPOSITED IN ITA NOS.184 /AG./2013, 185/AG/2013 A.YS. 2009-10, 2010-11 6 ADVANCE AS PER RULES AND THE AMOUNT REALIZED ON SAL ES BEING TRANSFERRED TO THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT. I AM OF THE OPINION THE EXCISE DUTY PAID UNDER GOVT. NOTIFICATION WAS AN ALLOWABLE DEDUCTION U/S 37 OF THE I.T. ACT BEING EXPENDITURE INCURRED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE BUSINESS. IT IS ALSO SEEN THAT THE U NREALIZED PORTION EXCISE DUTY PAID IS NON REFUNDABLE IN TERMS OF THE NOTIFICATION. MOREOVER, I AM IN AGREEMENT WITH THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD. A/R THAT AS THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE ACTUAL PAYMENT OF EXCISE DUTY , THE SAME IS ALLOWABLE EVEN AS DEDUCTION U/S 43B OF THE I.T. ACT . HOWEVER, THIS IS THE ALTERNATE CLAIM. 8. WE HAVE HEARD LD. REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PARTIES AND RECORDS PERUSED. THE GROUNDS RAISED IN BOTH THE APPEALS ARE COMMON GROUN DS, BEING ADDITION OF RS.1,00,03,787/- FOR A.Y. 2009-10 AND RS.72,31,573/ - FOR A.Y. 2010-11. 9. THE CRUX OF THE ISSUE PERTAINING TO APPRECIATION OF ACCOUNTING SYSTEM FOLLOWED BY THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF EXCISE DUTY. ACCOUNTING ENTRIES IN BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS DEPENDS UPON NATURE OF THE TRANSACTION AND RELATED EFFECT OF THE SAID TRANSACTIONS. IN THE CASE UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE EXCISE DUTY IS LEVIABLE IN ACCORDANCE WITH NOTIFICATIONS ISSUED BY THE EXCISE DEPARTMENT AND AS PER CAPACITY DETERMINATION AND COLLECTION OF DUTY RULE S, 2008. ACCORDING TO THE NOTIFICATION AND SAID RULE, THE EXCISE DUTY IS TO P AY ON MONTHLY BASIS ON THE BASIS OF NUMBER OF OPERATING MACHINES. EXCISE AMOUNT WAS TO DEPOSIT AT THE BEGINNING OF EACH MONTH. THE SAID EXCISE DUTY IS BEING DEPOSI TED AT THE BEGINNING OF THE MONTH IS ALLOWED TO SET OF AGAINST THE EXCISE DUTY COLLECTED ALONG WITH SALE PRICE. ON THIS BASIS OF THIS SCHEME OF THE EXCISE DUTY THE ASSESSEE FOLLOWED ACCOUNTING SYSTEM MAINTAINING A SEPARATE ACCOUNT OF EXCISE DUT Y WHEREIN ON PAYMENT OF ITA NOS.184 /AG./2013, 185/AG/2013 A.YS. 2009-10, 2010-11 7 EXCISE DUTY AT THE BEGINNING OF THE MONTH IS DEBITE D AND AT THE END OF THE MONTH ON COLLECTIONS OF THE EXCISE DUTY ALONG WITH SALE I S CREDITED. THE EXCESS COLLECTION OF EXCISE DUTY ALONG WITH SALE CONSIDERATION IS LIA BLE TO BE DEPOSITED BY THE ASSESSEE WITH THE EXCISE DEPARTMENT AND IN CASE THE RE IS SHORTAGE OF COLLECTION THAT SHORTAGE IS TO BE BORNE BY THE ASSESSEE. WHEN THERE IS SHORTAGE OF EXCISE DUTY COLLECTED, WHICH IS TO BE BORNE BY THE ASSESSEE, SU CH EXPENSES ARE BUSINESS EXPENSES OF THE ASSESSEE AND SAME IS ALLOWABLE UNDE R SECTION 37(1) OF THE ACT, AS THE ASSESSEE HAS INCURRED THE EXPENSES WHOLLY AND E XCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE BUSINESS. THE A.O. WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE ACC OUNTING SYSTEM/POLICY, WHATEVER THE AMOUNT DEBITED AND CLAIMED IN PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT WHICH IS SHORTAGE OF THE EXCISE DUTY COLLECTED AND THAT PORT ION OF THE EXCISE DUTY WHICH WAS TO BEAR BY THE ASSESSEE, HAS MADE ADDITION. THE ADDITION MADE BY A.O. IS NOT CORRECT. WE FIND THAT THE CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY APPREC IATED THE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING FOLLOWED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE CIT(A) HAS ALSO CONSI DERED THE RELEVANT EXCISE NOTIFICATION AND RULES. UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMS TANCES OF THE CASE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH ACCEPTED ACCOUNTING PRINCIPLE AND T HE EXCISE DUTY CLAIMED IN PROFIT & LOSS IS ALLOWABLE UNDER SECTION 37(1) OF T HE ACT. WE, THEREFORE, CONFIRM THE ORDER OF CIT(A) IN DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS.1 ,00,03,787/- FOR A.Y. 2009-10 AND RS.72,31,573/- FOR A.Y. 2010-11. ITA NOS.184 /AG./2013, 185/AG/2013 A.YS. 2009-10, 2010-11 8 10. THE SECOND COMMON GROUND IN REVENUES APPEAL IS PERTAINING TO DISALLOWANCE OF RS.40,000/- FOR A.Y. 2009-10 AND RS .50,000/- FOR A.Y. 2010-11 ON ACCOUNT OF CARTAGE EXPENSES. 11. WE HAVE HEARD LD. REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PARTIE S AND RECORDS PERUSED. THE CIT(A) WHILE DELETING THE ADDITION OBSERVED THAT TH E A.O. MADE ABOVE DISALLOWANCE WITHOUT POINTING OUT A SINGLE EXPENSE WHICH IS NOT INCURRED FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS. THE CIT(A) FURTHER OBSERVED TH AT THE ORDER WAS PASSED UNDER SECTION 153A OF THE ACT AND DURING COURSE OF SEARCH NO INCRIMINATING DOCUMENT WAS FOUND. WE FIND THAT THERE IS NO ERROR IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AS THE A.O. MADE THE ADDITIONS WITHOUT POINTING OUT ANY SPECIFIC INSTANCES OF EXPENDITURE WHICH WERE NOT INCURRED FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THE LIGHT OF THESE FACTS, THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A ) IS CONFIRMED FOR DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.40,000/- FOR A.Y. 2009-10 AND RS.50, 000/- FOR A.Y.2010-11. 12 GROUND NOS. 3 & 4 IN BOTH THE APPEALS ARE GENERA L IN NATURE REQUIRE NO FINDING. 13. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. (ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT.) SD/- SD/- (BHAVNESH SAINI) (A.L. GEHLOT) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTA NT MEMBER AMIT/ ITA NOS.184 /AG./2013, 185/AG/2013 A.YS. 2009-10, 2010-11 9 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO:- APPELLANT, RESPONDENT, CIT (APPEALS) CONCERNED CIT CONCERNED, D.R., ITAT, AGRA BENCH, AGRA GUARD FILE. BY ORDER SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA TRUE COPY