M/s. Angul Sukinda Railway Ltd., Bhubaneswar V. ITO, Ward-1(1), Bhubaneswar

ITA 197/CTK/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3883 (ITAT-CUTTACK)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-04-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 04-04-2017
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 19-05-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: D K PRADHAN
• Assessee Lawyers: P VENUGOPALA RAO
• Keywords: Capital receipt; Capital expenditure

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CUTTACK SMC BENCH, CUTTACK BEFORE SHRI N.S SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.197 /CTK/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012 - 13 ANGUL SUKINDA RAILWAY LTD., PLOT NO.7622/4706, PRESS CHHAK, GAJAPATI NAGAR, SAHID NAGAR, BHUBANESWAR. VS. ITO, WARD 1(1), BHUBANESWAR. PAN/GIR NO. AAHCA 6638 E (APPELLANT ) .. ( RESPONDENT ) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI P.VENUGOPALA RAO, AR REVENUE BY : SHRI D.K.PRADHAN , DR DATE OF HEARING : 05 /04 / 2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 07 /04 / 2017 O R D E R THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) - 3, BHUBANESWAR , DATED 29.2.2016 , FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012 - 13 . 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE ASSESSING OFFICER (AO) HAS ERRED IN COMPUTING THE ASSESSABLE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT AT RS.38,31,340/ - AS AGAINST RETURNED INCOME OF RS.11,91,916/ - . 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE AO HAS ERRED IN TAXING A SUM OF RS.26,39,428/ - BEING INTEREST ON MOBILIZATION ADVANCE DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE SAME HAS BEEN CREDITED TO THE COST OF PROJECT AND THE SAME IS CAPITAL REC EIPT. 2 ITA NO.197/CTK/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR :2012 - 13 3. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AO EARED IN THE TAXING INTEREST ON MOBILIZATION ADVANCE WITHOUT GIVING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE APPELLANT. 4. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD OR TO AMEND THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE OR AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL. 5. FOR THESE AND AMONG OTHER GROUNDS TO BE URGED AT THE TIME OF HEARING, ADEQUATE RELIEF AS MAY BE DEEMED FIT BE GRANTED IN THE MATTER. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS A JOINT VENTURE COMPANY OF RAILWAY VIKASH NIGAM LTD (RVNL), JINDAL STEEL & POWER LIMITED, STATE GOVERNMENT OF ODISHA & BHUSAN STEEL LIMITED, INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956. IT IS ENGAGED IN CARRYING OUT TH E NEW RAIL LINE WORKS BETWEEN B UDHAPANK (ANGUL) TO BAGHUAPAL (SUKINDA). THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012 - 13 ON 25.9.2012 AT AN I NCOME OF RS.11,91,916/ - . THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS EARNED INTEREST INCOME OF RS. 26,39,428/ - FROM MOBILIZATION ADVANCE PAID TO CONTRACTOR NAMELY RAILWAY VIKASH NIGAM LTD. THE ASSESSING REQUIRED THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN WHY THE INTER EST ON MOBILIZATION ADVANCE EARNED SHOULD NOT BE TREATED AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES, CONTRARY TO THE TREATMENT OF REDUCING IT FROM CAPITAL WORK - IN - PROGRESS AS ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IN ITS BOOK. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE MOBILIZATION ADVAN CE WAS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY TO THE CONTRACTOR FOR EXECUTION OF CONTRACTS AND SAME WERE NOT MEANT FOR EARNING OF INTEREST INCOME. HENCE, THE INTEREST INCOME EARNED WAS ADJUSTED AGAINST THE CAPITAL WORK IN PROGRESS IN STEAD OF TREATING THE SAME AS I NCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. 3 ITA NO.197/CTK/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR :2012 - 13 4. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT CONVINCED WITH THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE AND HELD THAT THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE MOBILIZATION ADVANCE WAS NOT GIVEN FOR EARNING INTEREST DOES NOT HOLD GROUND BECAUSE THE INTENTIO N OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT RELEVANT AT ALL AT THE TIME OF TAXATION BUT THE NATURE OF THE RECEIPTS EARNED. FURTHER, THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE ABOUT THE NECESSITY OF MAKING MOBILIZATION ADVANCE HAS NO NEXUS WITH THE ISSUE UNDER CONSIDERATION. NEITHER T HERE WAS ANY DOUBT ON ITS NECESSITY NOR WAS THE VERACITY OF THE SAME QUESTIONED. BUT THE ISSUE UNDER CONSIDERATION WAS THE TREATMENT OF INTEREST ON MOBILIZATION ADVANCE SO MADE. NOW FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF TUTICORI N ALKALI CHEMICALS AND FERTILISERS LTD VS CIT, 227 ITR 172 (SC), IT WAS BUSINESS EXPEDIENCY FOR THE ASSESSEE TO KEEP THE MONEY RECEIVED ON SHARE ISSUE IN BANK ACCOUNT TILL THE FUNDS WERE UTILIZED. HERE ALSO, IT WAS THE BUSINESS EXPEDIENCY TO GIVE MOBILIZAT ION ADVANCE BUT JUST AS IN TUTICORIN ALKALI CHEMICALS AND FERTILSIERS LTD (SUPRA), THE INTEREST SO RECEIVED IS TAXABLE AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. 5. ON APPEAL, THE CIT(A) HELD THAT IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE, THE SHARE CAPITAL WHICH WAS NOT IMMEDIATE LY UTILIZED FOR CONSTRUCTION PROCESS OF RAILWAY LINE WERE PLACED WITH BANKS AND WITH CONTRACTORS AS SHORT TERM DEPOSIT AND CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR TAXING THE INTEREST INCOME RECEIVED UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES . 4 ITA NO.197/CTK/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR :2012 - 13 6. BEFORE ME, LD AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SARDAR SAROVAR NARMADA NIGAM LTD., (2014 ) 364 ITR 477 (GUJ) HAS HELD UNDER: (II) THAT THE VERY OBJECT FOR WHICH THE ASSESSEE HA D BEEN SET UP WAS TO CONSTRUCT A DAM ACROSS THE RIVER NARMADA AND TO CREATE A CANAL SYSTEM EMANATING FROM THE RESERVOIR CALLED THE SARDAR SAROVAR AND TO SET UP A POWER HOUSE AT THE FOOT OF THE DAM AND AT THE CANAL HEAD AND TO PROMOTE AND FACILITATE NAVIGAT ION IN THE NARMADA RIVER AND ALSO FOR UTILIZATION OF WATER. THE ACTIVITIES MENTIONED IN THE OBJECTS CLAUSE OF THE MEMORANDUM OF ASSOCIATION DID NOT CONTEMPLATE A SINGLE ACTIVITY. THE ANNUAL REPORT OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE YEAR 2000 - 01 HIGHLIGHTED PROGRESS O F THE PROJECT AS THE ACTIVITY COULD BE DIVIDED INTO THREE CATEGORIES (1) DAM AND APPURTENANT WORKS ; (2) HYDRO POWER ; AND (3) NARMADA MAIN CANAL. THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE DAM AND THE CANAL WERE ESSENTIAL AND INSEPARABLE PARTS OF THE ACTIVITY WHICH WOULD NE CESSARILY PRECEDE OTHER ACTIVITIES. AS FAR AS THE BRANCH CANAL AND DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM WERE CONCERNED, PHASE I WAS SAID TO HAVE BEEN COMPLETED UP TO MARCH, 2001. THE SECOND PHASE WAS ALSO COMPLETED UP TO MARCH, 2001. THE DIRECTORS REPORT WAS INDICATIVE OF DRINKING WATER HAVING BEEN SUPPLIED DURING PERIODS OF SCARCITY THROUGH THE PARTIALLY COMPLETED NARMADA MAIN CANAL. FOR DETERMINING WHEN THE BUSINESS COULD BE SAID TO HAVE BEEN SET UP, THE FLOW OF THE WATER FROM THE NARMADA CANAL IN THE GIVEN CIRCUMSTANCES NEEDED TO BE VIEWED AS AN INTEGRAL AND INSEPARABLE ACTIVITY OF THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE TRIBUNAL SPECIAL BENCH WAS RIGHT IN HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEES BUSINESS HAD BEEN SET UP WITH EFFECT FROM FEBRUARY 21 2001, JUST BY THE FLOW OF DRINKING WATER . 7. HE ARGUED THAT IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE ALSO, THE PROJECT INVOLVED CONSTRUCTION OF NEW BROAD GAUGE RAILWAY LINE FROM ANGUL TO SUKINDA. THE LAYING OF RAILWAY LINE HAS SEVERAL ACTIVITIES WHICH DO NOT START SIMULTANEOUSLY. FOLLOWING THE AFORESAID J UDGMENT, IT CAN BE CONCLUDED THAT THE BUSINESS OF CONSTRUCTION OF RAILWAY LINE HAS BEEN SET UP. 5 ITA NO.197/CTK/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR :2012 - 13 8. FURTHER, HE SUBMITTED THAT IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RELIED ON THE DECISION OF MUMBAI BENCHES OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE WHISTLING WOODS INTERNATIONAL VS ITO, (2011) - TIOL - 683 - ITAT (MUM) IN TREATING THE INT EREST INCOME ON MOBILIZATION ADVANCE AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. IN THAT CASE, THE MUMBAI TRIBUNAL HELD THAT UNLESS AND UNTIL THE MACHINERY OF THE PROJECT IS FULLY INSTALLED AND THE PROJECT BECOMES OPERATIONAL AND ORDER IS EXECUTED, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE BUSINESS HAS BEEN SET UP. HE SUBMITTED THAT CONSIDERING THE DECISION OF HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SARDAR SAROVAR NARMADA NIGAM LTD., (SUPRA), IT CAN BE SAFELY CONCLUDED THAT THE DECISION OF MUMBAI TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF WHISTLING WOODS INTERNATIONAL (SUPRA) IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. 9. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE AHMEDABAD SPECIAL BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SARDAR SAROVAR NARMADA NIGAM LTD., VS ACIT, (2012) 19 ITR (TRIB) 133 (AHD)(SB) HAS HELD THAT TILL SUCH TIME THE BUSINESS IS SET UP, ALL EXPENSES EVEN IF IN THE NATURE OF REVENUE EXPENSES WILL HAVE TO BE CAPITALIZED. FURTHER, THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V S. BOKARO STEEL LTD, 236 ITR 315 (SC) HELD THAT NO ACTIVITY WAS CARRIED OUT TO DO ANY EARNING BUT ALL ACTIONS UNDERTAKEN IN THE EXECUTION OF THE PROJECT THEREFORE, ANY INCOME EARNED ON THAT PROCESS WOULD GO TO REDUCE THE COST OF PROJECT. 6 ITA NO.197/CTK/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR :2012 - 13 10. HE F URTHER SUBMITTED THAT SAME VIEW WAS TAKEN BY HONBLE UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. TEHRI HYDRO DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION & ANR (2009) 25 DTR (UK) 100 WITH RESPECT TO INTEREST EARNED ON RENTAL INCOME EARNED FROM CONTRACTOR DURING CONSTRUCTION. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE HONBLE UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT HAS FOLLOWED THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. BOKARO STEEL LTD (SUPRA) AND TREATED THE SAME AS CAPITAL RECEIPT. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT IN THE CASE OF INDIAN OI L PANIPAT POWER CONSORTIUM LTD VS ITO (2009) 315 ITR 255 (DEL), IT WAS HELD BY THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT THAT THE FUNDS INFUSED BY THE ASSESSEE BY THE JV PARTNER WERE INEXTRICABLY LINKED WITH THE SETTING UP TO PLANT, THE INTEREST EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT BE TREATED AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES . 11. HE FURTHER ARGUED THAT THE CUTTACK BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF POSCO INDIA LTD VS . DCIT, (2013) TIOL - 205 (ITAT CTC ) HELD THAT THE FUNDS IN THE FORM OF SHARE CAPITAL WERE INFUSED FOR A SPECIFIC PURPOSE OF ACQUIRING LAND AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF INFRASTRUCTURE. THEREFORE, THE INTEREST EARNED ON FUNDS PRIMARILY BROUGHT FOR INFUSION IN THE BUSINESS COULD HAVE BEEN CLASSIFIED AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. SINCE THE INCOME WAS EARNED TO A PERIOD PRIO R TO COMMENCEMENT OF BUSINESS, IT WAS IN THE NATURE OF CAPITAL RECEIPT AND HENCE, WAS REQUIRED TO BE SET OFF AGAINST PRE - OPERATIVE EXPENSES. 7 ITA NO.197/CTK/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR :2012 - 13 12. HENCE, IT WAS THE PRAYER OF LD AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER TREATING THE INTEREST ON MOBILIZATION ADVANCE AS REVENUE RECEIPT SHOULD BE DELETED. 13. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE RELIED ON ORDERS OF LOWER AUTHORITIES. 14. I HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF LOWE R AUTHORITIES AND MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS ENGAGED IN THE WORK OF LAYING DOWN NEW RAILWAY LINE BETWEEN BUDHAPANK (ANGUL) TO BAGHUPAL (SUKINDA). THE ASSESSEE GOT THE WORK EXECUTED THROUGH RAILWAY VIKASH NIGAM LTD AS A CONTRACTOR. IN ORDER TO ENSURE SMOOTH PROGRESS OF THE CONSTRUCT ION WORK, THE ASSESSEE GAVE MOBILIZATION ADVANCE TO RAILWAY VIKASH NIGAM LTD., AND EARNED INTEREST INCOME THEREON OF AN AMOUNT OF RS.26,39,428/ - . THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THIS INT EREST INCOM E AS CAPITAL RECEIPT AS THE MOBILIZATION ADVANCE GIVEN TO THE CONTRACTOR WAS IN CONNECTION WITH LAYING OF RAILWAY LINE AND HENCE, ADJUSTED THE SAME BY REDUCING IT FROM THE CAPITAL WORK IN PROGRESS. THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE INC OME IS CAPITAL RECEIPT AND GOES ON TO REDUCE CAPITAL WORK IN PROGRESS AS THE BUSINESS HAS NOT YET COMMENCED. ON THE OTHER HAND AS PER REVENUE THE INTEREST INCOME IS LIABLE TO TAX UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF HONBLE S UPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF TUTICORIN ALKALI CHEMICALS AND FERTILISERS LTD (SUPRA). 15. ON APPEAL, THE CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER 8 ITA NO.197/CTK/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR :2012 - 13 FOR THE REASON THAT THE ASSESSEE UTILIZED HIS SURPLUS FUNDS BY LENDING THE SAME TO THE CONTRACTORS AS SHORT TERM DEPOSIT AND EARNED INTEREST THEREFROM. 16. I FIND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER HAS STATED THAT IT IS FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS SHOWN TO HAVE EARNED INTEREST ON MOBILIZATION ADVANCE GIVEN TO CONTRACTORS FOR EXEC UTION OF PROJECT AMOUNTING TO RS.26,39,428/ - . THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALSO OBSERVED IN HIS ORDER THAT NEITHER THERE WAS ANY DOUBT ON ITS NECESSITY NOR WAS THE VERACITY OF THE SAME QUESTIONED. BUT THE ISSUE UNDER CONSIDERATION WAS THE TREATMENT OF IN TEREST ON MOBILIZATION ADVANCE SO MADE. THEREFORE, HE BROUGHT THE INTEREST INCOME OF RS.26,39,428/ - TO TAX UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF TUTICORIN ALKALI CHEMICALS AND FERTILISERS LTD VS CIT (SUPRA). FROM THE FOREGOING OBSERVATION S OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, IT IS ABSOLUTELY CLEAR THAT THE AMOUNT WAS ADVANCED TO THE CONTRACTOR AS MOBILIZATION ADVANCE FOR EXECUTION OF THE CONTRACT AND ON THIS ADVANCE, INTEREST INCOME OF RS.26,39,428/ - WAS EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE, WHICH WAS LATER ADJUSTED AGAINST THE CHARGES PAYABLE TO THE CONTRACTOR AND HAD GONE TO REDUCE THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION. THUS, I FIND THAT THE INTEREST INCOME EARNED HAS A NEXUS WITH THE CONTRACT BEING EXECUTED BY THE ASSESSEE. ON THE SIMILAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. BOKARO STEEL LTD., (SUPRA) HAS HELD THAT THE RECEIPT 9 ITA NO.197/CTK/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR :2012 - 13 OF RENT, HIRE C HARGES AND INTEREST FROM CONTRACTORS WERE DIRECTLY CONNECTED WITH OR INCIDENTAL TO THE WORK OF CONST RUCTION OF ITS PLANT UNDERTAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ADVANCE WHICH THE ASSESSEE MADE TO THE CONTRACTORS TO FACILITATE THE CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY OF PUTTING TOGETHER A VERY LARGE PROJECT WAS AS MUCH TO ENSURE THAT THE WORK OF THE CONTRACTORS PROCEEDED WITHOUT ANY FINANCIAL HITCH AS TO HELP THE CONTRACTORS. THE ARRANGEMENTS WHICH WERE MADE BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AND THE CONTRACTORS PERTAINING TO THESE T HREE RECEIPTS WERE ARRANGEMENTS WHI CH WERE INTRINSICALLY CONNECTED WITH THE CONSTRUCTION OF ITS STEEL PLANT. THE RECEIPTS HAD BEEN ADJUSTED AGAINST THE CHARGES PAYABLE TO THE CONTRACTORS AND HAD GONE TO REDUCE THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION. THEY HAD, THEREFOR E, BEEN RIGHTLY HELD AS CAPITAL RECEIPTS AND NOT INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FORM ANY INDEPENDENT SOURCES. I FIND THAT THE FACTS OF THE INSTANT CASE ARE SIMILAR TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE WHICH WERE BEFORE THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE ABOVE CASE OF BOKARO ST EEL LTD (SUPRA). IN THE INSTANT CASE ALSO, THE MOBILIZATION ADVANCE GIVEN TO THE CONTRACTOR WERE FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONTRACT WORK OF LAYING DOWN THE RAILWAY LINE AND INTRINSICALLY CONNECTED WITH THE CAPITAL EXPENDITURE OF THE APPELLANT PRIOR TO THE COMMEN CEMENT OF ITS BUSINESS. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF BOKARO STEEL (SUPRA), I HOLD THAT THE INTEREST INCOME OF RS.26,39,428/ - EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM MOBILIZATION ADVANCE TO CONTRACTOR RAILWAY VIKASH NI GAM LTD., IS RIGHTLY TREATED BY THE ASSESSEE AS CAPITAL RECEIPT WHICH GOES ON TO REDUCE THE COST OF CAPITAL WORK IN PROGRESS. I, THEREFORE, 10 ITA NO.197/CTK/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR :2012 - 13 DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS.26,39,428/ - AND ALLOW THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 17. IN THE RESULT, THE APP EAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRO NOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 07 /04 /2017 . SD/ - ( N.S SAINI) A CCOUNTANT MEMBER CUTTACK; DATED 07 /04 /2017 B.K.PARIDA, SPS COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : BY ORDER, SR.PRIVATE SECRETARY ITAT, CUTTACK 1. THE APPELLANT : ANGUL SUKINDA RAILWAY LTD., PLOT NO.7622/4706, PRESS CHHAK, GAJAPATI NAGAR, SAHID NAGAR, BHUBANESWAR 2. THE RESPONDENT. ITO, WARD 1(1), BHUBANESWAR. 3. THE CIT(A) 3, BHUBANESWAR. 4. PR.CIT - 3, BHUBANESWAR, 5. DR, ITAT, CUTTACK 6. GUARD FILE. //TRUE COPY//