The DCIT, 1(1), Bhopal V. M/s M.P. State Agricultural Marketing Board, Bhopal

ITA 215/IND/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5711 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 3 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-07-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 28-07-2016
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 17-04-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAJEEV VARSHANEY
• Keywords: Depreciation; Charitable institution
• Section: 12A; 12AA; 11

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI D.T. GARASIA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DY. CIT, 1(1), BHOPAL VS. M/S.M.P.STATE AGRICULTURAL MARKETING BOARD, 26, ARERA HILLS, JAIL ROAD, BHOPAL PAN: AAAJMO765E APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY SHRI RAJEEV VARSHANEY, CIT DR RESPONDENT BY SHRI AMIT JAIN, C. A. DATE OF HEARING 28.07.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 28.07.2016 O R D E R PER O.P. MEENA, ACCOUTANT MEMEBR. THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORD ER OF LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS), BILASPUR, CAM P AT BHOPAL [HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE CIT(A)] DATE D 17.12.2012 AND PERTAINS TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 AS AGAINST APPEAL DECIDED IN ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED OF ACIT, WARD 1( 1), BHOPAL [HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE AO]. 2. FOLLOWING GROUNDS HAVE BEEN TAKEN BY THE REVENUE :- I.T.A. NO. 215 /IND/201 3 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 DY. CIT, 1(1), BHOPAL VS. M.P.STATE AGRICULTURAL MA RKETING BOARD, BHOPAL I.T.A.NO. 215/IND/2013 A.Y. 2006-07 2 2 ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE , THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN :- 1. HOLDING THE ASSESSEE IS ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION U/S 11 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. 2. DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 21,57,99,484/- MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF AMOUNT RECEIVED FOR VARIOUS NIDHIS. 3. DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 62,22,852/- MADE B Y THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF DEPRECIATION. 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND HAVE PERUSE D THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A MANDI BOARD AND IS AN IMPLEMENTING AG ENCY UNDER MP KRISHI UPAJ ADHINIYAM ON BEHALF OF GOVERNMENT OF MADHYA PRADESH AND NOT ENGAGED IN ANY BUSINESS ACTIVITY. H ENCE, IT HAS NO INCOME OF ITS OWN AND THE ASSESSEE HAS POINTED O UT THAT THE OBJECTS AND ACTIVITIES OF THE APPELLANT ARE CHARITABLE IN NATURE AND IT HAS BEEN ALLOWED REGISTRATION U/S 12AA HENCE DEDUCTION U/S 11 SHOWN HAVE BEEN ALLOWED. THE COUNSEL APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT SUBMITT ED THAT THE APPELLANT IS A LEGAL ENTITY CONSTITUTED UN DER MP KRISHI UPAJ MANDI ADHINIYAM 1972 TO REGULATE THE MARKET COMMITTEES IN THE STATE OF MP UNDER MP KRISH I UPAJ MANDI ADHINIYAM. THERE ARE TWO ENTITIES UNDER THAT ACT, ONE IS KRISHI UPAJ MANDI SAMITIES AND ANO THER DY. CIT, 1(1), BHOPAL VS. M.P.STATE AGRICULTURAL MA RKETING BOARD, BHOPAL I.T.A.NO. 215/IND/2013 A.Y. 2006-07 3 3 IS MP STATE AGRICULTURE MARKETING BOARD (THE APPELL ANT). THE MAIN OBJECT OF FORMING THE KRISHI UPAJ MANDI SAMITIS AND THE MANDI BOARD IS TO PROVIDE PROPER INFRASTRUCTURE FOR MARKETING OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUC E TO THE FARMERS AND TO PROTECT THEIR INTEREST SO THAT T HE FARMERS CAN GET PROPER VALUES OF THEIR PRODUCE. FOR THAT PURPOSE THE MARKET COMMITTEES HAVE BEEN ESTABLISHED AND FOR THE FUNDING OF THEIR EXPENDITURE ON THE OBJ ECT THEY HAVE BEEN AUTHORIZED UNDER THE ACT TO COLLECT MARKETING FEES ON PURCHASE OF AGRICULTURE PRODUCE. AS PER NOTIFICATION NO.D-15-5/2000/14-3 DATED 30-10-2000 ALSO REFERRED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN HIS ORDER IN PARA NO. 4 (I)(A) AT PAGE 20 THE MANDI COMMITTEES ARE REQUIRED TO CONTRIBUTE 50% OF THEIR MANDI FEES IN M P STATE MARKETING DEVELOPMENT FUND TO THE BOARD. IT H AS BEEN FURTHER CLARIFIED IN THE NOTIFICATION THAT THE BOARD SHALL PUT 85% OF THIS AMOUNT IN KISAN SADAK NIDHI A ND 15% FOR AGRICULTURE RESEARCH AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT FUND. FURTHER CERTAIN PERCENTAGES OF TH E MANDI FEES AND OTHER RECEIPTS DEPENDING ON THE RANG E OF INCOME ARE ALSO TO BE CONTRIBUTED BY MANDI COMMITTE ES IN MP STATE MARKETING DEVELOPMENT FUND. THUS THE BOARD RECEIVES FUNDS FROM VARIOUS MANDI COMMITTEES IN DY. CIT, 1(1), BHOPAL VS. M.P.STATE AGRICULTURAL MA RKETING BOARD, BHOPAL I.T.A.NO. 215/IND/2013 A.Y. 2006-07 4 4 TWO FORMS. ONE IS FIXED AMOUNT OF MANDI FEES FOR UTILIZATION OF 85 % AMOUNT IN KISAN SADAK NIDHI AND 15% IN AGRICULTURE RESEARCH AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT AND ANOTHER AMOUNT FROM THE MANDI COMMITTEE AS PROVIDED IN SCHEDULE II OF THE NOTIFIC ATION NO. NO.D-15-5-2000-XIV-3 DATED 30.10.2000. THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN GRANTED REGISTRATION U/S 12AA OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. ACCORDINGLY, IT CLAIMED ITS E NTIRE INCOME AS EXEMPT FROM TAX U/S 11. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT, THE AO OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS IN RECEIPT OF RS. 21,57,99,485/- DURING THE YEAR FROM MANDI FOR VARIOUS NIDHIS WHICH HAS NOT BEEN SHOWN I N THE STATEMENT OF RECEIPTS ANNEXED WITH THE FINANCIA L STATEMENTS AND THUS NOT OFFERED FOR TAXATION. IT IS ALSO IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED AM OUNT FROM VARIOUS KRISHI UPAJ MANDIES FOR KRISHI ANUSHANDHAN NIDHI, KISAN SADAK NIDHI AND MANDI PENSION NIDHI, AS PER DETAILS GIVEN ABOVE. WHILE TRANSFERRING ABOVE AMOUNT TO THE MANDI BOARD(ASSESS EE ), RESPECTIVE KRISHI UPAJ MANDIES TREATED THE SAME AS EXPENSES BY DEBITING THE REQUISITE ACCOUNT. HENCE, THESE RECEIPTS FROM KRISHI UPAJ MANDI IS INVARIABLY IN TH E NATURE OF INCOME FOR THE BOARD. AS ALREADY MENTIONE D NO DY. CIT, 1(1), BHOPAL VS. M.P.STATE AGRICULTURAL MA RKETING BOARD, BHOPAL I.T.A.NO. 215/IND/2013 A.Y. 2006-07 5 5 PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT OR INCOME AND EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT HAS BEEN PREPARED BY THE ASSESSEE. IN ABSEN CE OF THIS, ABOVE AMOUNT OF RS. 21,57,99,485/- WAS CONSIDERED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS INCOME OF TH E ASSESSEE AND THEREFORE ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME FO R THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. 4. THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE, AT THE OUT-SET CONTENDED THAT THE I.T.A.T. INDORE BENCH, I NDORE, HAS DEALT WITH THE SAME ISSUE IN THE CASE OF THE SAME A SSESSEE IN I.T.A.NO. 398/IND/2008 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005 -06 VIDE ORDER DATED 7 TH NOVEMBER, 2012. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ALSO FOLLOWED THE SAID DECISION OF I.T.A.T. AND ALLOWED THE APPEA L OF THE ASSESSEE. FACTS OF THIS CASE ARE SIMILAR TO ASSESS MENT YEAR 2006-07, WHEREIN THE I.T.A.T. INDORE TRIBUNAL HAS H ELD AS UNDER : '11. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS, CARE FULLY GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AN D FOUND FROM RECORD THAT IN THE COURSE OF SCRUTINY ASSESSME NT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TREATED THE AMOUNT RECEIVED B Y ASSESSEE BOARD FROM VARIOUS MARKET COMMITTEE ON ACC OUNT OF 'MADHYA PRADESH STATE MARKETING DEVELOPMENT FUND' A S INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO OBSERVED THAT WHILE TRANSFERRING THE AMOUNT TO ASSESSEE BOAR D, THE RESPECTIVE KRISHI UPAJ MANDI COMMITTEE TREATED THE SAME AS EXPENSES. HOWEVER, WHILE TREATING THE AMOUNT RECEIV ED AS INCOME, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT CONSIDERED KR ISHI UPAJ MANDI RULES AND NOTIFICATION WHICH MAKE IT CLEAR TH AT OUT OF CONTRIBUTION RECEIVED FROM VARIOUS MANDI COMMITTEE 85% AMOUNT WAS TO BE CONTRIBUTED BY ASSESSEE BOARD TO ' KISEN SADAK NIDHI' AND 15% FOR 'KRISHI ANUSANDHAN AND DY. CIT, 1(1), BHOPAL VS. M.P.STATE AGRICULTURAL MA RKETING BOARD, BHOPAL I.T.A.NO. 215/IND/2013 A.Y. 2006-07 6 6 ADHOSANRAKSHAK NIDHI'. THUS, WHATEVER AMOUNT WAS RECEIVED FROM VARIOUS MANDI COMMITTEE, THE SAME WAS REQUIRED TO BE ALLOCATED TO ROAD FUND AND INFRASTRU CTURE DEVELOPMENT FUND. NEITHER THE ASSESSEE WAS HAVING C ONTROL OVER RECEIPT OF THIS AMOUNT NOR ON ITS ALLOCATION. THE ENTIRE AMOUNT WAS TO BE ALLOCATED AS PER GOVERNMENT OF M.P . NOTIFICATION DATED 30 TH OCTOBER, 2000. AS PER M.P KRISHI UPAJ MANDI NIYAMAN 2000, THESE NIDHIS ARE NOT THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. SINCE THE ASSESSEE WAS ONLY CUSTODIAN OF THESE AMOUNTS, THE BALANCE IN VARIOUS NIDHIS ACCOUNT WAS NOT INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE VIDE NOTIFICATION NO.D-15-5/ 2000/14- 3 DATED 30THE OCTOBER 2000, WHICH READS AS UNDER :- THE M. P. STATE AGRICULTURE MARKETING DEVELOPMENT BOARD SHALL ALLOCATE 85 PERCENT OF THE RECEIPTS OBTAINED UNDER SCHEDULE ONE TO THE 'AGRICULTURIST ROAD FUND' AND REMAINING 15 PERCENT TO THE 'AGRICULTURE RESEARCH AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT FUND' IN SUCH MANNER A S MAY BE PRESCRIBED IN NOTIFICATIONS ISSUED BY THE ST ATE GOVERNMENT FROM TIME TO TIME'. 12. FURTHER M.P. GAZETTE NOTIFICATION DATED 13 TH JULY, 2001, READS AS UNDER:- CHAPTER II MADHYA PRADESH STATE MRKETING DEVELOPMENT FUND MADHYA PRADESH STATE MARKETING DEVELOPMENT FUND (1) EVERY MARKET COMMITTEE SHALL PAY BOARD UPTO THE 10 TH DAY OF EVERY MONTH OF SUCH PERCENTAGE OF GROSS RECEIPTS COMPOSING OF LICENSE FEES AND MARKET FEES AS THE STATE GOVERNMENT MAY BY NOTIFICATION DECLARE FROM TIME TO . TIME UNDER SUB SECTION (1) OF SECTION 43 OF THE ADHINIYAM'. 13. IT IS CLEAR FROM THE ABOVE THAT M.P. STATE AG RICULTURAL MARKETING DEVELOPMENT BOARD SHALL ALLOCATE 85% OF THE RECEIPTS SO OBTAINED TO THE 'AGRICULTURIST ROAD FUND' AND 15 PERCENT TO 'AGRICULTURE RESEARCH AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT FUND'. DY. CIT, 1(1), BHOPAL VS. M.P.STATE AGRICULTURAL MA RKETING BOARD, BHOPAL I.T.A.NO. 215/IND/2013 A.Y. 2006-07 7 7 14. WE FOUND THAT EVEN THE INTEREST ACCRUED ON TH E DEPOSIT OF THESE FUNDS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT, WAS ALSO REQUIRED TO BE ALLOCATED FOR THE SPECIFIED PURPOSE AS PER NOTIFICATION DATED 30 TH OCTOBER 2000. THUS, WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAD NO CONTROL OVER RECEIPT NOR ON ITS UTILIZATION , THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION TO TREAT SU CH RECEIPTS AS ASSESSEES INCOME. THUS, WE FOUND THAT THESE AMOUNTS DO NOT FORM PART INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 15. IN RESPECT OF ITS OWN INCOME, THE ASSESSEE HAS ACTUALLY SPENT MORE THAN 85% OF THE SALE, THEREFORE, BENEFIT OF SECTION 11 &12 CANNOT B E DECLINED ON THE PLEA THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT USED 85% OF ITS RECEIPTS. AS PER THE CALCULATION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER VIS-A-VIS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE PAPER BOOK INDICATE TOTAL RECEIPT O F RS. 29. 20 CRORES, 15% OF WHICH WORKS OUT TO BE RS. 4. 38 CRORES AND BALANCE WORKS OUT TO BE RS. 24.82 CRORES. THE ASSESSEE HAS INCURRED REVENUE EXPENSES OF RS. 27.06 CRORES AND CAPITAL EXPENSES AS PER FOR M 10-8 AT RS. 1. 15 CRORES. THUS, THE REVENUE EXPENSE S AND THE CAPITAL EXPENSES SO INCURRED BY THE ASSEESSEE WORKS OUT TO BE MORE THAN RS.24.82 CRORES, WHICH IS THE BALANCE OF TOTAL RECEIPTS. 16. THE AMOUNT RECEIVED FROM MANDI COMMITTEE, AS PER SCHEDULE ONE WAS ALLOCATED TO AGRICULTURE ROAD FUND AND AGRICULTURE RESEARCH AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT FUND, THUS DID NOT FORM PART OF ASSESSEE'S INCOME BECAUSE OF OVERRIDING TITLE. SINE THESE RECEIPTS WERE NOT ASSESSEE'S INCOME, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN TREATING THE BALANCE AMOUNT IN THESE FUNDS AS ASSESSEE'S INCOME ON THE PLEA OF NON- UTILIZATION OF 85% OF RECEIPTS. THE DETAILED FINDING GIVEN BY THE ID.CIT(A) FROM PAGES 10 TO 12 HAS NOT BEEN CONTROVERTED BY THE ID. CIT DR BY BRINGING ANY POSITIVE MATERIAL ON RECORD. ACCORDINGLY, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A)'. 6. WE, THEREFORE, FOLLOWING OUR OWN DECISION I N THE DY. CIT, 1(1), BHOPAL VS. M.P.STATE AGRICULTURAL MA RKETING BOARD, BHOPAL I.T.A.NO. 215/IND/2013 A.Y. 2006-07 8 8 CASE OF THE SAME ASSESSEE, REJECT THE GROUND OF THE REVENUES APPEAL. 7. NEXT GROUND RELATES TO THE DISALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIA TION AMOUNTING TO RS. RS. 62,22,852/- MADE BY THE AO AND DELETED BY THE LD. CIT(A) . 8. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE AO. 9. THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION OF RS. 62, 22,852/- IS ALLOWABLE IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF I.T.A.T. INDOR E BENCH IN THE CASE OF SHRI GUJRATI SAMAJ VS. ACIT, REPORTED IN (2 011) 17 ITJ 684 (TRIB.). 10. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND HAVE PERUSE D THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE HAVE ALSO GONE THR OUGH THE CASE LAW RELIED UPON BY THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIV E OF THE ASSESSEE. WE FIND THAT THE I.T.A.T. INDORE TRIBUNAL CONSIDERED THE DECISION OF THE APEX COURT RELIED ON BY THE AO IN THE CASE M.P.MADHYAM & OTHERS VS. CIT REPORTED IN 13 ITJ 103 AND AFTER CONSIDERING THE DECISION OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. RAIPUR PALLOT INE SOCIETY, (1989) 180 ITR 579 (MP) (1989) 80 CTR 127: (1990) 5 0 TAXMAN 233, DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. P RECISE OBSERVATION OF HON'BLE HIGH COURT WAS AS UNDER:- DY. CIT, 1(1), BHOPAL VS. M.P.STATE AGRICULTURAL MA RKETING BOARD, BHOPAL I.T.A.NO. 215/IND/2013 A.Y. 2006-07 9 9 'DEPRECIATION IS THE EXHAUSTION OF THE EFFECTIVE LIFE OF A FIXED ASSET OWING TO 'USE' OR OBSOLESCENCE. IT MAY BE COMPUTED AS THAT PART OF THE COST OF THE ASSET WHICH WILL NOT BE RECOVERED WHEN THE ASSET IS FINALLY PUT OUT OF USE. THE OBJECT OF PROVIDING FOR DEPRECIATION IS TO SPREAD THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED IN ACQUIRING THE ASSET OVER ITS EFFECTIVE LIFETIME AND THE AMOUNT OF PROVISION MADE IN RESPECT OF AN ACCOUNTING PERIOD IS INTENDED TO REPRESENT THE PROPORTION OF SUCH EXPENDITURE WHICH HAS EXPIRED DURING THAT PERIOD. IF DEPRECIATION IS NOT ALLOWED AS A NECESSARY DEDUCTION IN COMPUTING THE INCOME OF A CHARITABLE TRUST, THEN THERE WOULD BE NO WAY TO PRE SERVE THE CORPUS OF THE TRUST. A CHARITABLE TRUST IS, THEREFORE, ENTITLED TO DEPRECIATION IN RESPECT OF THE ASSETS OWNED BY ITS. ' 11. SIMILAR VIEW WAS TAKEN BY THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL, IND ORE, IN THE CASE OF SHRI GUJRATI SAMAJ VS.ACIT REPORTED IN (2011) 17 ITJ 684. IN THE CASE OF BHOPAL CAMPION SCHOOL SOCIETY, BHOPAL VS. ACIT 1(1), BHOPAL, THE CIT(A), BHOPAL ALLOWED DEPRE CIATION WHICH WAS DISALLOWED BY THE AO BY PLACING RELIANCE ON DEC ISION ON THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF ESCORTS LTD. VS. UNION OF INDIA. THE TRIBUNAL DISCUSSED VARIOUS PROVISIONS OF SECTION 11 , 12 & 12A AND DECISION OF THE APEX COURT IN ESCORTS LTD. AND HELD IN ORDER IN ITA NO.529/IND/2010 DATED 17.08.2011 THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE DULY COMPLIED PROVISIONS OF SECTION 11(2) OF THE ACT AND DEPRECIATION WAS CLAIMED AFTER APPLICATION OF MORE THAN 85% OF THE INCOME, THERE IS NO DOUBLE DEDUCTION OF DEPRECI ATION ALLOWANCE. WE FIND THAT IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE TO TAL RECEIPT WAS RS.29,20,84,683/-OUT OF WHICH REVENUE EXPENSES NET OF DY. CIT, 1(1), BHOPAL VS. M.P.STATE AGRICULTURAL MA RKETING BOARD, BHOPAL I.T.A.NO. 215/IND/2013 A.Y. 2006-07 10 10 DEPRECIATION WAS RS.27,06,06,012/- AND ADDITION TO FIXED ASSETS IS RS. 1,15,383/-. THUS, THERE IS DEFICIT AND THERE IS NO TAX LIABILITY AS THE TOTAL INCOME IS NIL. HENCE, THERE IS NO DOUBLE DEDUCTION. FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL A S WELL AS JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT (SUPRA), WE REJECT THIS G ROUND OF THE REVENUE. 12. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISS ED. THE ORDER HAS BEEN PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THE 28TH JULY, 2016. SD/- (D.T.GARASIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER SD/- (O.P.MEENA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED :28TH JULY, 2016. CPU* COPY TO: 1. THE ASSESSEE. 2. THE A.O. CONCERNED. 3. THE LD. PCIT CONCERNED 4. THE LD. CIT(A) 5. THE D.R., INDORE 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR I.T.A.T., INDORE DY. CIT, 1(1), BHOPAL VS. M.P.STATE AGRICULTURAL MA RKETING BOARD, BHOPAL I.T.A.NO. 215/IND/2013 A.Y. 2006-07 11 11