Addl. C.I.T.(AO), Range-1, Aligarh V. Jamia Urdu, Aligarh

ITA 224/AGR/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 62852 (ITAT-AGRA)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-10-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 27-09-2012
• Assessment Year: 1998-1999
• Appeal Filed On: 15-06-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: P K SEHGAL
• Keywords: Capital expenditure
• Section: 40A(3); 133A; 12A; 144; 11

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.221, 222, 223 & 224/AGR/2011 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 1997-98, 1997-98, 1998-99, 1998- 99 RESPECTIVELY ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A.O.) VS. J AMIA URDU, RANGE-1, ALIGARH. MEDICAL ROAD, ALIGARH. (PAN: AAATJ 5521 B) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI WASEEM ARSHAD, SR. D.R. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI P.K. SEHGAL, ADVOCATE DATE OF HEARING : 27.09.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER : 05.10.2012 ORDER PER A.L. GEHLOT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: ALL THESE FOUR APPEALS HAVE BEEN FILED BY THE REVEN UE AGAINST FOUR SEPARATE ORDERS, ALL DATED 07.03.2011, PASSED BY THE LD. CIT (A), GHAZIABAD FOR A.YS. 1997- 98, 1997-98, 1998-99 & 1998-99 RESPECTIVELY. 2. COMMON GROUNDS HAVE BEEN RAISED BY THE REVENUE A S ALL THESE APPEALS ARE BASED ON IDENTICAL SET OF FACTS. THEREFORE, FOR TH E SAKE OF CONVENIENCE, ALL THESE APPEALS ARE DECIDED BY THIS COMMON ORDER. ITA NOS.221, 222, 223 & 224/AGR/2011 A.YS. 1997-98 & 1998-99. 2 3. TWO APPEALS PERTAIN TO MERIT OF THE CASE AND TWO APPEALS PERTAIN TO LEVY OF PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX A CT, 1961 (THE ACT HEREINAFTER). SINCE COMMON GROUNDS HAVE BEEN RAISE D BY THE REVENUE IN BOTH THE APPEALS, THEREFORE, FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE, TH E GROUNDS RAISED FOR A.Y. 1997- 98 ARE REPRODUCED AS BELOW :- GROUNDS OF ITA NO.221/AGR/2011 FOR A.Y. 1997-98:- 1. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FA CTS DELETING THE PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) AMOUNTING TO RS.55,00,000/- A LLOWING EXEMPTION U/S 10(22) OF THE IT ACT, 1961 TO THE ASSESSEE. 2. APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO AMEND, ALTER, ADD OR M ODIFY ANY GROUND OR GROUNDS OF APPEAL EITHER BEFORE OR AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF CASE. GROUNDS OF ITA NO.222/AGR/2011 FOR A.Y. 1997-98:- 1. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FA CTS DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.1,35,93,560/- ALLOWING EXEMPTION U/S 10(22) OF THE IT ACT, 1961 TO THE ASSESSEE. 2. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS)S ORDER IS NOT CORRECT IN T HE EYE OF LAW AS HE IGNORED THE FACTS & CIRCUMSTANCE OF THE CASE THA T THE ASSESSMENT ORDER HAD BEEN PASSED U/S 144 OF THE IT ACT DUE TO NON CO-OPERATION OF ASSESSEE. 3. APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO AMEND, ALTER, ADD OR M ODIFY ANY GROUND OR GROUNDS OF APPEAL EITHER BEFORE OR AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF CASE. ITA NOS.221, 222, 223 & 224/AGR/2011 A.YS. 1997-98 & 1998-99. 3 4. THE BRIEF FACTS NOTED FROM THE A.Y. 1997-98 ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE CLAIMING TO BE AN EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTE STYLED AS JAMIA URDU, M EDICAL ROAD, ALIGARH REGISTERED UNDER SOCIETIES ACT. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED EXEMPTIO N OF ITS INCOME UNDER SECTION 10(22) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT HEREI NAFTER). THIS IS SECOND ROUND OF LITIGATION. IN THE FIRST ROUND, THE CIT(A), GHA ZIABAD PASSED AN ORDER ON 31.05.2005 ALLOWING APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN PART. THE SAID ORDER OF THE CIT(A) WAS CHALLENGED BEFORE THE I.T.A.T., AGRA BENCH. TH E AGRA BENCH VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 6 TH SEPTEMBER, 2007 IN ITA NOS. 371, 372, 373 & 374/AG R/2005 SENT BACK THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A). IN COMPLIANC E TO THE DIRECTION OF I.T.A.T., THE CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE ASSESSEES SUBMISSION, DECIDED THE APPEAL IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THE CIT(A) NOTED THAT THE ASSESSE E WAS ALSO GRANTED REGISTRATION UNDER SECTION 12A OF THE ACT W.E.F. 01.04.2004. TH E ISSUE BEFORE THE CIT(A) WERE OF FOUR FOLDS WHICH READS AS UNDER :- (PAGE NO.20) I) ONE IS WHETHER THE APPELLANT IS ENTITLED FOR EXE MPTION UNDER SECTION 10(22) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. II) THE OTHER ONE IS FIND THE EFFECT AND FATE OF AD DITION MADE IN THE HAND ON PROTECTIVE BASIS AND MADE ON SUBSTANTIVE BA SIS IN THE HAND OF SHRI S. ANWAR SAEED. III) REMAINING QUESTION IS WITH REGARD TO TWO OTHER ADDITIONS I.E. CAPITAL EXPENDITURE DEBITED TO INCOME & EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT AND DISALLOWANCE MADE BY RESORTING TO SECTION 40A(3 ) OF THE ACT. IV) OTHER ISSUES LIKE CHARGING OF INTEREST UNDER DI FFERENT SECTION OF THE ACT. ITA NOS.221, 222, 223 & 224/AGR/2011 A.YS. 1997-98 & 1998-99. 4 5. THE CIT(A) DECIDED THE FIRST ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AS UNDER :- (PARAGRAPH NOS.7.4, 7.5 & 7.6, PAGE NOS.22, 23 & 24 ) 7.4 NO OTHER PURPOSE OF THE APPELLANT HAS BEEN ALL EGED (I WOULD REFER TO ASPECT OF NOT FOR PROFIT PURPOSE, LITTLE L ATER). FURTHER, THE CIT, ALIGARH HAS HIMSELF GRANTED THE APPELLANT REGISTRAT ION UNDER SECTION 12A OF THE ACT ON THE GROUND THAT IT WAS AN EDUCATI ONAL INSTITUTION WITHIN MEANING OF SECTION 2(15) OF THE ACT. FURT HER, THE APPELLANT IS CONDUCTING COURSE UPTO THE LEVEL OF B.ED. AND IS RE COGNIZED BY VARIOUS UNIVERSITIES AND GOVERNMENT BODIES AND THUS IMPARTI NG REGULAR EDUCATION. NOTHING HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD THAT , IT HAS BEEN DOING SOMETHING ELSE OTHERWISE THAN IMPARTING EDUCA TION. THE OBSERVATION OF THE AO THAT THE DEGREE OF THIS INSTRUCTION HAVE BEEN DERECOGNIZED BY THE ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVER SITY IS ALSO FOUND TO BE FACTUALLY WRONG. ON MY DIRECTION DURIN G APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE APPELLANT HAS PLACED DOCUMENTS OF AMU CURRICULUM AND PROSPECTS WHICH CLEARLY ESTABLISH THAT IN TIME PERIODS, BOTH BEFORE THE SURVEY ACTION AS WELL AS AFTER IT; THE C OURSES CONDUCTED AND DEGREES AWARDED BY THE APPELLANT, REMAINED RECOGNIZ ED ON THE CURRICULUM OF AMU. IT IS ALSO OBSERVED THAT LARGE NUMBER OF STUDENTS W ERE ENROLLED IN THE COURSES, RUN BY THE APPELLANT INSTITUTE. FURTHER, THIS IS ALSO ON RECORD THAT VARIOUS GOVT. DEPARTMENTS OF CENTRAL AS WELL AS STATE GOVERNMENTS AS WELL AS VARIOUS OTHER EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTES WERE GIVING RECOGNITION TO T HE COURSE RUN BY THE APPELLANT INSTITUTE. THESE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES L END CREDENCE TO THE APPELLANTS CLAIM THAT IT WAS EXISTING FOR ED UCATION PURPOSES. THE OBJECTION OF THE AO IN SO FAR AS NON FILING OF RETURN INSPITE OF HAVING RECEIPTS OF OVER RS.1 CRORE IS NOT TENAB LE FOR THE REASON THAT SECTION 10(22) OF THE ACT, AS IT STOOD AT THE RELEV ANT TIME DID NOT PROVIDE FOR ANY SUCH CAP ON TOTAL RECEIPTS. IT WAS ONLY AFTER THE AMENDMENT BROUGHT BY FINANCE (NO.2) ACT, 1998 THAT THIS SECTION WAS AMENDED W.E.F. 01.04.1999 I.E., ASSESSMENT YEAR 199 9-2000 AND CAP ON TOTAL RECEIPT WAS PLACED. HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF 301 ITR 86 HAS CLEARLY MENTIONED THAT SECTION 11 TO 13 HAD NO ITA NOS.221, 222, 223 & 224/AGR/2011 A.YS. 1997-98 & 1998-99. 5 APPLICATION IN THE MATTER OF EXEMPTION UNDER SECTIO N 10(22) OF THE ACT ! THE CASE LAWS OF ST. MICHAEL EDU FOUNDATION 43 ITD 656 (ITAT DELHI) AND OF M.D. MEMORIAL CHARITY & EDUCAT IONAL SOCIETY 74 TTJ 595 (ITAT DELHI) ARE ALSO APPLICABLE ON THIS ISSUE. ALSO THE ACT, DID NOT PROVIDE ANY CONDITION OR FILING OF RET URN AND AUDIT OF ACCOUNTS TO AVAIL EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 10(22) OF THE ACT, AND THUS, THE CONCLUSION IS INEVITABLE THAT THE APPELLA NT IS EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION AND EXISTING SOLELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF EDUCATION. 7.5 HERE, THE OTHER QUESTION ARISES WHETHER IT WAS EXISTING NOT FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROFIT. IN THIS READ, TREADING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WOULD REVEAL THAT THE ONLY OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER, BASED ON SURVEY CONDUCTED ON 21.11.2002, SPECIAL AUDIT AND T HE STATEMENT OF ONE ABDUL MAJID, ACCOUNTS OFFICER IS THAT SHRI S. A NWAR SAEED, THE THEN REGISTRAR OF THE INSTITUTE WAS RUNNING THE INS TITUTE FOR PERSONAL PROFITS AND HE HAD USED THE INSTITUTION FOR HIS PER SONAL GAINS. THE AO HAS WHILE ALLOWED THE SALARY PAID TO SHRI S. ANWAR SAEED, BUT HAS DISALLOWED THE EXPENDITURE OF SUCH PERSONAL ADVANTA GE GAINED BY HIM FROM THE HANDS OF THE APPELLANT AND THAT TOO ON PRO TECTIVE BASIS TO BE TAXED IN THE HANDS OF SHRI S. ANWAR SAEED ON SUBSTA NTIVE BASIS. ON GOING THROUGH THE ENTIRE MATERIAL, I AM UNABLE TO R EACH TO THE CONCLUSION THAT MERELY BECAUSE THE EMPLOYEE OF THE INSTITUTION HAS GAINED PERSONAL BENEFIT ON ACCOUNT OF HIS POSITION OR MISAPPROPRIATE FUNDS OF THE INSTITUTION, IT CAN BE SAID THAT THE C HARACTER OF INSTITUTION AS A WHOLE WAS CHANGED FROM NON PROFIT TO PROFIT. THUS, THIS CONSIDERATION OF MISAPPROPRIATION OF FUNDS OR UTILI ZATION OF FACILITIES FOR PERSONAL GAINS BY ANY EMPLOYEE, TO HOLD THE INS TITUTION ITSELF AS EXISTING FOR PROFIT WOULD NOT BE CORRECT. THE IN STITUTION (I.E., THE APPELLANT) AND ITS REGISTRAR ARE TWO SEPARATE AND D ISTINCT ENTITIES. WHILE THE REGISTRAR IS PAID EMPLOYEE ON REGULAR ROL LS OF THE INSTITUTE, WHO HAS LATER BEEN REMOVED AND VARIOUS CRIMINAL PRO CEEDINGS AND OTHER ACTIONS WERE TAKEN AGAINST HIM MAY HAVE PROFI T MOTIVE, BUT HIS MOTIVE CANNOT BE IMPORTED AS THE MOTIVE OF THE INST ITUTION. NO OTHER CASE HAS BEEN MADE OUT BY AO TO HOLD THE APPELLANT AS EXISTING FOR PROFITS. I HAVE ALSO GONE THROUGH THE DECISIONS C ITED BY LEARNED AR REPRODUCED IN EARLIER PART OF THIS ORDER AND AGREE WITH HIM IN THIS REGARD. I AM NOT REPRODUCING THOSE JUDGMENTS FOR T HE SAKE OF BREVITY, BUT THE CONCLUSION HAS BEEN ARRIVED BY ME ON THE BA SIS OF GUIDANCE OF THOSE JUDGEMENTS. ITA NOS.221, 222, 223 & 224/AGR/2011 A.YS. 1997-98 & 1998-99. 6 7.6. THUS, ON THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, I HOLD THAT THE APPELLANT INSTITUTION IS AN EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION EXISTING SOLELY FOR THAT PURPOSE AND NOT FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROFIT AND THUS FULFILLS THE CONDITIONS OF SECTION 10(22) OF THE ACT AND ACCORDINGLY THE APPEL LANT IS ENTITLED FOR EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 10(22) OF THE ACT IN RESPEC T OF ITS INCOME AND IS ACCORDINGLY HELD SO. 6. THE OTHER ISSUES RELATING TO DISALLOWANCE ON PRO TECTIVE BASIS, ADDITION IN THE HANDS OF SHRI S. ANWAR SAEED AND DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 40A(3) HAS BEEN DECIDED BY THE CIT(A) IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT THE QUESTION OF SUSTAINING THE DISALLOWANCE FOR ANY REASON DOES NOT SURVIVE, BECAUSE ONCE THE INSTITUTION IS HELD TO BE ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION UN DER SECTION 10(22) OF THE ACT, WHOLE OF ITS INCOME IS ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION. THE CIT(A) FURTHER OBSERVED THAT SECTION 10(22) OF THE ACT DOES NOT RESTRICT THE INC OME DERIVED FROM EDUCATIONAL ACTIVITIES ONLY AS EXEMPT, BUT ALL INCIDENTAL INCOM E WOULD ALSO BE SO ELIGIBLE. THE CIT(A) FOLLOWED THE JUDGEMENT OF HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT WHICH IS DIRECTLY ON THE ISSUE IN THE CASE OF DIT(E) VS. RAUNAQ FOUNDATI ON 294 ITR 76. THE CIT(A) HAS ALSO HELD THAT WHEN THE DISALLOWANCE WAS MADE I N THE CASE OF ASSESSEE ON PROTECTIVE BASIS AND THE SAME WERE ADDED IN THE HAN DS OF SHRI S. ANWAR SAEED ON SUBSTANTIVE BASIS, THE DISALLOWANCE MADE ON PROTECT IVE BASIS CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. SIMILAR FINDING WAS GIVEN BY THE CIT(A) IN RESPECT OF DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 40A(3) OBSERVING THAT WHEN ASSESSEE IS ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 10(22) OF THE ACT, THE DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 40A(3) B ECOMES ACADEMIC. ITA NOS.221, 222, 223 & 224/AGR/2011 A.YS. 1997-98 & 1998-99. 7 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PAR TIES AND RECORDS PERUSED. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPREHENSIVE DID NOT DISPUTE R EGARDING THE FACTS OF THE CASE. THE ADMITTED FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSE E IS AN EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTE AND ITS INCOME ARE EXEMPT UNDER SECTION 10(22) OF THE A CT. WE NOTICED THAT THE CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY ALLOWED THE ASSESSEES CLAIM AFTER A DE TAILED DISCUSSION THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION EXISTING SOLELY FOR T HE THAT PURPOSE AND NOT FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROFIT AND THUS FULFILLED THE CONDITIONS OF SECTION 10(22) OF THE ACT. THE CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY DELETED THE ADDITION WHICH WAS M ADE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE ON PROTECTIVE BASIS AS THE ADDITION IN THE HANDS OF SHRI S. ANWAR SAEED HAS BEEN ADDED ON SUBSTANTIVE BASIS. EVEN ON MERIT , THE CIT(A) FOUND THAT MERELY BECAUSE THE EMPLOYEE HAS GAINED PERSONAL BENEFIT, I T CANNOT CHANGE THE CHARACTER OF THE INSTITUTION AS A WHOLE FROM NON-PROFIT INSTI TUTION TO A PROFIT MAKING INSTITUTION. 8. AS REGARDS THE DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 40A(3) OF THE ACT, WE FIND THAT THE CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY DELETED THE ADDITION HOLDING THAT THE INCOME OF THE INSTITUTION IS EXEMPT UNDER SECTION 10(22) OF THE A CT. THEREFORE, THE DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 40A(3) OF THE ACT BECAME ACADEMIC. 9. ONE MORE GROUND RAISED IN REVENUES APPEAL IS IN RESPECT OF ASSESSMENT MADE UNDER SECTION 144 OF THE ACT. THIS GROUND DOE S NOT CARRY ANY SUBSTANCE ITA NOS.221, 222, 223 & 224/AGR/2011 A.YS. 1997-98 & 1998-99. 8 BECAUSE THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN TRAVELLED NUMBER OF TIMES BEFORE THE APPELLATE AUTHORITIES IN RESPECT OF REGISTRATION UN DER SECTION 12A OF THE ACT AS WELL AS MERIT OF THE CASE. THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ALSO SUBJECT TO SURVEY UNDER SECTION 133A OF THE ACT. FURTHER THE BOOKS OF ACCO UNT OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO SUBJECT TO AUDIT UNDER SECTION 142(2A) OF THE ACT. THE CIT(A) HAS GIVEN FINDING THAT THE A.O. HIMSELF HAS CONSIDERED IN THE ASSESSM ENT ORDER ITSELF THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION. APART FROM ABOVE FACTS, WE NOTICE THAT THE CIT(A) HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE AFTER A DETAILED DISCU SSION ON EACH AND EVERY ISSUE. THE REVENUE HAS FAILED TO POINT OUT HOW THE ASSESSM ENT MADE UNDER SECTION 144 OF THE ACT WAS IN FAVOUR OF THE REVENUE PARTICULARLY W HEN THE CIT(A) HAS CONSIDERED EACH AND EVERY ISSUE AND ASPECT OF THE A.O. THE CI T(A) HAS CO-TERMINUS POWER OF THE A.O. AND FROM THE DETAILED DISCUSSION IN THE CI T(A)S ORDER, WE DO NOT FIND ANY SUBSTANCE IN THIS GROUND OF THE APPEAL OF THE R EVENUE AND, THEREFORE, THE SAME IS DISMISSED. 10. GROUND NO.3 IS GENERAL IN NATURE REQUIRES NO IN DEPENDENT FINDING. 11. THE REVENUE HAS FAILED TO POINT OUT ANY CONTRAR Y MATERIAL OR EVIDENCE NOR THE SAME ARE AVAILABLE ON RECORD AGAINST THE FINDIN G OF CIT(A). THEREFORE, IN THE LIGHT OF ABOVE DISCUSSION, ORDERS OF THE CIT(A) ARE CONFIRMED. ITA NOS.221, 222, 223 & 224/AGR/2011 A.YS. 1997-98 & 1998-99. 9 12. OTHER TWO APPEALS ARE IN RESPECT OF LEVY OF PEN ALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. 13. THE BRIEF FACTS NOTED FROM THE PENALTY ORDER FO R A.Y. 1997-98 ARE THAT THE A.O. LEVIED PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. THE A.O. LEVIED PENALTY AFTER GIVING EFFECT TO THE ORDER OF CIT(A) DATED 31 .05.2005. THIS ORDER OF THE CIT(A) HAS BEEN CHALLENGED BEFORE THE I.T.A.T. THE I.T.A.T. RESTORED THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF CIT(A). THE CIT(A) HAS DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O. IN QUANTUM APPEAL. THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) HAS BEEN C ONFIRMED BY US AS PER THE DETAILED DISCUSSION MADE ABOVE. IN THE LIGHT OF TH E FACT THAT THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE A.O. HAVE BEEN DELETED, UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCE S, THERE IS NO QUESTION OF LEVY OF PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. WE FIND THAT THE CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY CANCELLED THE PENALTY LEVIED UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C ) OF THE ACT. WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A). SIMILAR POSI TION IS FOR A.Y. 1998-99. THE ORDERS OF THE CIT(A) ARE, THEREFORE, CONFIRMED. 14. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE FOUR APPEALS FILED BY TH E REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. (ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT) SD/- SD/- (BHAVNESH SAINI) (A.L. GEHLOT) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PBN/* ITA NOS.221, 222, 223 & 224/AGR/2011 A.YS. 1997-98 & 1998-99. 10 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT (APPEALS) CONCERNED 4. CIT CONCERNED 5. D.R., ITAT, AGRA BENCH, AGRA 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA TRUE COPY