SHRI KAILASH SATYANARAYAN AGRAWAL, Nagpur V. ADDL. CIT, RANG-1, Nagpur

ITA 23/NAG/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3121 (ITAT-NAGPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 1 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-02-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 20-01-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Capital asset; Depreciation
• Section: 143(3); 54F; 54

Judgement Text

1 ITA NO. 23/NAG/2014. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. BEFORE SHRI MUKUL K. SHRAWAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. I.T.A. NO. 23/NAG/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005 - 06. SHRI KAILASH SATYANARAYAN AGRAWAL, ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX, NAGPUR. VS. RANGE - 1, NAGPUR. PAN ABHPA6966D. APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SHRI RAJESH LOYA. RESPONDENT : SHRI A.R. MEENA. DATE OF HEARING : 08 - 12 - 2015. DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 25 TH FEBRUARY, 2016. O R D E R PER MUKUL K. SHRAWAT, J.M. THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARISING FROM THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) - I, NAGPUR DATED 23 - 04 - 2015. THE GROUNDS RAISED ARE REPRODUCED BELOW: 1. THAT THE ORDER OF THE ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE - I, NAGPUR IS BAD IN LAW AND WRONG ON FACTS AND THE LEARNED C.I.T.(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE SAME. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE ACTION OF BOTH THE AUTHORITIES IS UNJUSTIFIED. 2. THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DENYING EXEMPTION U/S 54F OF THE COST OF FLAT PURCHASED FOR RESIDENTIAL PURPOSES FROM OUT OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN DETERMINED AND THE LEARNED CIT(A) FURTHER ERRE D IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE AO. ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND EXPLANATIONS PROVIDED, THE ACTION OF THE LEARNED AUTHORITIES IS HIGHLY UNJUSTIFIED AND LIABLE TO BE SET ASIDE. 3. THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN NOT APPRECIATING THE F ACT THAT THE FLAT AT HERITAGE WAS THE ONLY FLAT WHICH IS BEING USED FOR RESIDENTIAL PURPOSES AND HAS BEEN PURCHASED ONLY WITH 2 ITA NO. 23/NAG/2014. THAT INTENTION AND THERE IS NO OTHER FLAT AND THE LEARNED CIT(A) FURTHER ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 4. THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN HOLDING THAT THE PROPERTY AT THANE PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF BUSINESS IS RESIDENTIAL HOUSE. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE PROPERTY AT THANE IS A BUSINESS ASSET NO T PURCHASED FOR THE PURPOSE OF RESIDENCE AND THEREFORE THE ACTION OF THE AUTHORITIES IS UNJUSTIFIED. 5. THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN HOLDING THE FRACTIONAL OWNERSHIP IN RAMDASPETH HOUSE AS CO - OWNER ALONGWITH OTHER RELATIVES AMOUNTS TO OWISNG A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE AND THEREBY HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE IS THE OWNER OF MORE THAN ONE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE ON THE DATE OF TRANSFER OF ORIGINAL ASSET. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE ACTION OF THE AUTHORITIES IS UNJUSTIFIED. 2. FACTS IN BRIEF AS EMERGED FROM THE CORRESPONDING ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S 143(3) DATED 29 - 12 - 2007 WERE THAT THE ASSESSEE IN INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY HAS FILED A RETURN DECLARING INCOME OF RS.54,96,640/ - . THE ASSESSEE HAD DISCLOSED LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN OF RS.1,81,705/ - AFTER CLAIMING A DEDUCTION U/S 54F OF RS.26,46,250/ - .. AS PER THE AO THE ASSESSEE HAD SOLD LISTED SECURITIES FOR A SUM OF RS.28,63,515/ - . IT WAS INFORMED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD INVESTED THE AMOUNT IN A RESIDENTIAL UNIT, A FLAT SITUATED IN H ERITAGE APARTMENT, CIVIL LINES, NAGPUR. THE COST OF THE FLAT INCLUDING STAMP DUTY WAS RS.26,46,250/ - . IT WAS INFORMED THAT THE FLAT WAS PURCHASED ONE YEAR BEFORE THE DATE OF TRANSFER. THE ASSESSEE HAS INFORMED THAT THE REGISTRATION OF THE DOCUMENT WAS COMP LETED ON 15 TH JULY, 2004, HOWEVER, AS PER THE REGISTERED SALE DEED THE CHEQUES WERE DATED 28 TH OF JUNE, 2004. THE AOS OBJECTION WAS THAT THE BALANCE SHEET DRAWN AS ON 31 - 03 - 2005 HAD REVEALED THAT THERE WAS A CREDIT BALANCE STANDING IN ICICI HOME FINANCE AMOUNTING TO RS.23,84,070/ - . ACCORDING TO THE AO ON PERUSAL OF THE SALE DEED, IT WAS FOUND THAT PAYMENT OF RS.25 LAKHS TO THE SELLER WAS THROUGH A CHEQUE OF ICICI BANK LTD. THE ALLEGATION OF THE AO WAS THAT THERE WAS NO DIRECT NEXUS BETWEEN THE UTILIZATION OF THE FUNDS RECEIVED ON SALE OF SHARES WITH THE FUNDS USED FOR THE PURCHASE OF THE FLAT. THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO UTILISE 3 ITA NO. 23/NAG/2014. THE NET CONSIDERATION TOWARDS PURCHASE OF NEW ASSET. ACCORDING TO THE AO THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO SATISFY THE CONDITIONS LAID DOWN U/S 54F OF THE I.T. ACT. ONE MORE OBJECTION HAS ALSO BEEN RAISED BY THE AO THAT IN THE BALANCE SHEET IT WAS REFLECTED THAT THERE WAS ONE MORE FLAT SITUATED IN THANE VALUED AT RS.2,61,000/ - , WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE HAD 1/4 TH SHARE IN THE SAID FLAT AT GAN GASAGAR APARTMENT, RAMDASPETH, NAGPUR. FINALLY THE EXEMPTION U/S 54F WAS DENIED BY THE AO. 3. WHEN THE MATTER WAS CARRIED BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) HAS CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE AO IN THE FOLLOWING MANNER : 7. I HAVE GIV EN CAREFUL CONSIDERATION TO THE ISSUE. THE PROVISO TO SECTION 1 OF SECTION 54F WHICH HAS BEEN DISCUSSED BY AO IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHICH IS AS FOLLOWS : PROVIDED THAT NOTHING CONTAINED IN THIS SUB SECTION SHALL APPLY WHERE (A) THE ASSESSEE OWNS MORE THA N ONE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE, OTHER THAN THE NEW ASSET, ON THE DATE OF TRANSFER OF THE ORIGINAL ASSET. 7.1 THE APPELLANT'S MAIN ARGUMENT IS THAT AS I REGARDS THE HOUSE AT THANE, IS THAT THIS HAS BEEN PURCHASED EITHER WITH A VIEW ' TO RESELL IT OR TO UTILIZE AS BUSINESS PREMISES. THERE WAS NO INTENTION TO RESIDE AT THE SAID PREMISES. HOWEVER THERE IS NOTHING CONCRETE IN THE NATURE OF DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE TO BUTTRESS THIS CONTENTION. IT IS APPARENT THAT THE FLAT WAS ADMITTEDLY NOT USED FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES AND W AS NOT A SUBSISTING BUSINESS ASSET AS NO DEPRECIATION HAS BEEN CLAIMED BY ASSESSEE ON THIS ASSET. THE FLAT WAS ESSENTIALLY A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE AND WAS CAPABLE OF BEING USED FOR RESIDENTIAL PURPOSE / F N ADDITION TO THIS FLAT APPELLANT WAS A EO - OWNER HOLDING 1 /4TH SHARE IN A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE AT NAGPUR. IN THIS REGARD APPELLANT HAS STATED THAT ALTHOUGH ASSESSEE IS EO - OWNER WITH HIS FAMILY MEMBERS THIS CO - OWERSHIP DOES NOT CONFER OWNERSHIP RIGHTS ON HIM AND THEREFORE THE PROVISO DOES NOT APPLY. WHAT EMERGES IS T HAT EVEN IF FRACTIONAL OWNERSHIP OF J HOUSE AT RAMDASPETH BEING 1/4TH IS TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION THE ASSESSEE WAS CLEARLY AND UNAMBIGUOUSLY THE OWNER OF MORE THAN ONE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE ON THE DATE OF TRANSFER OF THE CAPITAL ASSET. 7.2 TH E ASSESSEE HAS NO T UTILIZED THE AMOUNTS RECEIVED OUT OF SALE CONSIDERATION AS THE FLAT WAS PURCHASED BEFORE THE DATE OF TRANSFER. IT IS ALSO SIGNIFICANT TO NOTE THAT ASSESSEE WHILE CLAIMING THAT HE IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S.54F FOR UTILIZING BORROWED FUNDS HAS ALSO SO UGHT THE BENEFIT OF CLAIMING INTEREST U/S.24(B), ON THE SAME BORROWED FUNDS. THIS ACTION OF THE ASSESSEE REVEALS THAT HE HAS SOUGHT TO AVAIL UNDUE BENEFIT UNDER TWO DIFFERENT SECTIONS OF THE ACT ON THE SAME AMOUNT IN VIOLATION OF THE PURPOSE AND INTENT OF THE LEGISLATIVE ENACTMENT. 4 ITA NO. 23/NAG/2014. 7.3 APPELLANT ALSO RELIED ON THE DECISION OF HON'BLE ITAT, MUMBAI IN THE CASE OF ITO VS. RASIKLAL N. SATRA REPORTED IN 98 ITD 335(MUM.) IN SUPPORT OF ITS CLAIM. HOWEVER THE DECISION WAS RENDERED FOR AY 1998 - 99 WHEREIN THE PROVI SIONS OF SECTION 54F WERE MADE INAPPLICABLE IF THE ASSESSEE OWNED 'ANY RESIDENTIAL HOUSE'. IN THE CONTEXT OF INTERPRETING THE WORD 'A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE' THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL RELIED ON THE CONCEPT OF FRACTIONAL OWNERSHIP AND HELD THAT A EO - OWNER IS NOT ON P AR WITH A OWNER. HOWEVER SUBSEQUENTLY THE PROVISIONS WERE SUBSTITUTED BY FINANCE ACT, 2000 W.E.F. 01 - 04 - 2001 AND EXEMPTION WAS MADE AVAILABLE TO A PERSON WHO OWNED ONE HOUSE ON THE DATE OF TRANSFER AND THE STIPULATION 'OWNS MORE THAN ONE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE , OTHER THAN THE NEW ASSET, ON DATE OF TRANSFER OF THE ORIGINAL ASSET' CAME TO BE INTRODUCED IN THE STATUTE. - IN THE APPELLANT'S CASE IT EMERGES THAT WHEN CO - OWNERSHIP I S . CONSIDERED APPELLANT OWNED 1 AND 1/4TH SHARE IN RESIDENTIAL HOUSE WHICH I S NUMERICALLY AND ARITHMETICALLY MORE THAN 1 . THE QUANTITY ONE AND AN ADDITION OF A FRACTIONAL SHARE IS UNAMBIGUOUSLY . AND UNEQUIVOCALLY MORE THAN THE QUANTITY ONE. THE APPELLANT'S ARGUMENTS ARE THEREFORE WITH MISDIRECTED AND NOT IN CONSONANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF LAW. THEREFORE I AM IN AGREEMENT WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE AO THAT ASSESSEE IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 54F AS THE CONDITIONS OF THE PROVISO HAVE BEEN VIOLATED. THIS GROUND IS THEREFORE DISMISS ED. 4. THE ARGUMENT OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US IS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A SALARIED EMPLOYEE AND ON SALE OF LISTED SECURITIES EARNED THE CAPITAL GAIN. THE ASSESSEE SOLD SHARES DURING THE PERIOD OF 22 ND JULY, 2004 TO 31 ST AUGUST, 2004. THE ASSESSEE HAD PURCHASED THE RESIDENTIAL FLAT AT HERITAGE APARTMENT, CIVIL LINES, NAGPUR THROUGH A SALE DEED EXECUTED ON 26 TH JULY, 2004. THE CHEQUES WERE DATED 28 TH OF JUNE, 2004. THE ASSESSEE HAD TAKEN A LOAN FROM ICICI BANK LTD. WHICH WAS UTILISED TO ISSUE CHEQUES FOR PURCHASE OF THE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE. THE ASSESSEE HAD OBTAINED HOME LOAN FOR A SHORT PERIOD AND UNDER THE EXPECTATION OF SALE OF SHARES IN NEAR FUTURE, HENCE THE INVESTMENT HAD QUALIFIED FOR DEDUCTION U/S 54F OF I.T. ACT. IN A WRITTEN SUBMISSION BEFORE US THE DATES WERE REFERRED AS UNDER : THE AO HAS DISALLOWED THE CLAIM ON THE BASIS THAT THE RESIDENTIAL APARTMENT WAS PURCHASED FROM THE LOAN OBTAINED FROM ICICI HOME FINANCE CO. LTD. IN THIS REGARD IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE RESIDENTIAL APARTMENT WAS PURCHASED BEFORE THE SALE OF ASSET I.E. SHARES. HENCE THERE WAS NO MONEY AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE FOR PURCHASE OF FLAT FROM SUCH SALE OF SHARES. THE ASSESSEE HAS NO OTHER ALTERNATIVE BUT TO OBTAIN LOAN FOR PURCHASE OF FLAT. THE ASSESSEE APPROACHED TO THE BANKER FOR THE PURCHASE OF HOME LOAN AND SUCH 5 ITA NO. 23/NAG/2014. LOAN WAS SANCTIONED IN THE MONTH OF JUNE, 2004 AND THE DATE OF DISBURSEMENT WAS 28 TH JUNE, 2004. THE CHEQUES BY THE ICICI BANK WERE PREPARED ON 28 TH JUNE, 2004 AND THE SALE DEED WAS EXECUTED ON 26 TH JULY, 2004. ALL THESE FACTS CAN BE VERIFIED FROM THE SALE DEED THROUGH WHICH THE IMPUGNED RESIDENTIAL APARTMENTS WAS PURCHASED. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 54F THE ONLY CONDITION IS PURCHASE OF PROPERTY IN A PERIOD IN ONE YEAR BEFORE THE SALE OF ASSET. YOUR GOODSELF WILL APPRECIATE THAT IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES THESE CANNOT BE UTILISATION OF SALE PROCEED OF ASSETS ON WHICH CAPITAL GAINS AROSE. IT WOULD BE AN IMPOSSIBILITY AND THE SECT ION WOULD BECOME NON PRACTICABLE IF THE SAME AMOUNT IS REQUIRED TO BE UTILISED FOR PURCHASE OF PROPERTY. THE ACTION OF AO IN DISALLOWING THE CLAIM ON SUCH BASIS IS BAD IN LAW. THE LEARNED A.R. HAS ALSO PLEADED THAT THE FLAT AT THANE WAS NOT UNDER ABSOLUT E OWNERSHIP OF THE ASSESSEE BUT THE ASSESSEE WAS HAVING ONLY 1/4 TH SHARE OF THE SAID FLAT WHICH WAS NOT AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSEE FOR RESIDENTIAL PURPOSES. IN SUPPORT OF THE CONTENTIONS, RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS : I) ITO VS. K.C GOPALAN (2000) 162 CTR (KER) 566. II) ACIT VS. DR. P.S. PASRICHA (2008) 20 SOT 468 (MUM.) III) MRS. PREMA P. SHAH VS. ITO 100 ITD 60 (MUM.) IV) BOMBAY HOUSING CORPORATION VS. ACIT (2002) 81 ITD 545 (MUM.). V) LALIT MARDA VS. ACIT (2008) 23 SOT 250 (KOL.). 5. FROM THE SIDE OF THE REVENUE , LEARNED D.R. MR. A.R. MEENA APPEARED AND SUPPORTED THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES. 6. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES AT SOME LENGTH AND CAREFULLY PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW IN THE LIGHT OF THE COMPILATION FILED AND C ASE LAWS REFERRED. AS FAR AS THE FIRST OBJECTION OF THE AO IS CONCERNED, WE HAVE NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS OBTAINED A SHORT TERM HOUSING LOAN FROM ICICI BANK AND UTILISED THE BORROWED FUNDS TOWARDS PURCHASE OF THE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE. THE ACT HAS PRESCRIBE D A PERIOD FOR INVESTMENT AND AS PER SECTION 54F(1) IN CASE THE CAPITAL GAIN ARISES FROM THE TRANSFER OF ANY LONG TERM CAPITAL ASSET AND THE ASSESSEE HAS WITHIN A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR BEFORE OR TWO YEARS AFTER THE DATE ON WHICH THE TRANSFER TOOK PLACE HAS PU RCHASED A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE , THEN THE CAPITAL 6 ITA NO. 23/NAG/2014. GAIN TO BE DEALT WITH AFTER GIVING BENEFIT OF THE SAID INVESTMENT. THEREFORE , TO QUALIFY AN INVESTMENT, A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR BEFORE THE TRANSFER HAS ALSO BEEN GRANTED IN THE STATUTE. THEREFORE, THIS OBJECTION OF MAKING INVESTMENT PRIOR TO THE SALE OF SHARES HAS NO FORCE AS WELL AS NO SANCTITY IN THE EYES OF LAW. THIS OBJECTION IS HEREBY REJECTED. NOW THE QUESTION IS THAT WHETHER THE INVESTMENT SHOULD BE OUT OF CONSIDERATION RECEIVED OR THE ASSESSEE CAN BORROW FUNDS FOR INVESTMENT IN RESIDENTIAL HOUSE. THIS QUESTION HAS BEEN ANSWERED IN NUMBER OF DECISIONS AS REFERRED BY LEARNED A.R. WHEREIN IT WAS OPINED THAT NATURALLY THE STATUTE HAS TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION THAT AN INVESTMENT CAN BE MADE PRIOR TO THE DATE OF TRANSFER WHICH MEANS THAT THE STATUTE HAS GRANTED PERMISSION TO ARRANGE FUNDS FOR INVESTMENT IN A RESIDENTIAL UNIT TO ENJOY THE EXEMPTION. THIS QUESTION HAS BEEN ANSWERED IN THE CASE OF K. G. GOPALAN 162 CTR 566 (KER.). THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF DR. P.S. PASRICHA 20 SOT 468 (MUM.) HAS ALSO OPINED THAT THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT OF LAW TO PROVE THE NEXUS BUT THE REQUIREMENT IS THAT THERE SHOULD BE AN INVESTMENT IN SPECIFIED ASSETS WITHIN A SPE CIFIED PERIOD. IN THE CASE OF MRS. PREMA P. SHAH 100 ITD 60 (MUM.) IT WAS EVEN HELD THAT THE FUNDS COULD BE BORROWED BUT THE OTHER CONDITIONS OF INVESTMENT IN SPECIFIED ASSETS SHOULD BE SATISFIED FOR ENTITLEMENT OF EXEMPTION. THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT HAD JUDICIOUSLY HELD A STEP FURTHER IN THE CASE OF BOMBAY HOUSING CORPORATION 81 ITD 545 (MUM.) THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION REQUIRES THAT THE AMOUNT SHOULD BE INVESTED ARITHMETICALLY EQUAL TO THE NET CONSIDERATION. CONSIDERING THE VIEW EXPRESSED IN NU MBER OF DECISIONS AND ALSO TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE PAYMENTS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE DATES MENTIONED/SPECIFIED HEREIN ABOVE , WE HEREBY HOLD THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED FOR THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 54F OF I.T. ACT. AS FAR AS THE SECOND OBJECTION OF H AVING AN ANOTHER RESIDENTIAL PREMISES IS CONCERNED, THE FACTS OF THE CASE HAVE REVEALED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS SHOWING 1/4 TH SHARE IN A COMBINED PROPERTY WHICH WAS NOT USED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR RESIDENTIAL PURPOSES. IN THE CASES OF DR. P.K. VASANTI 7 ITA NO. 23/NAG/2014. RANGRAJAN VS. CIT 252 CTR 336 AND ITO VS. RASIKLAL N. SATRA 98 ITD 335 IT WAS HELD THAT UNLESS AND UNTIL THERE ARE MATERIAL TO SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEE IS EXCLUSIVE OWNER AND USING THE PROPERTY FOR RESIDENTIAL PURPOSES, IT WOULD BE HARSH TO DENY THE EXEMPTION U/S 54 F OF THE I.T. ACT. UNDER THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE HEREBY HOLD THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED FOR THE CLAIM OF EXEMPTION U/S 54F OF THE I.T. ACT. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRODUCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 25 TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2016. SD/ - SD/ - (SHAMIM YAHYA) (MUKUL K. SHRAWAT) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER NAGPUR, DATED: 25 TH FEBRUARY, 2016. COPY FORWARDED TO : 1. SHRI KAILASH SATYANARAYAN AGRAWAL, C/O M/S LOYA BAGRI & CO. GANDHIBAGH, NAGPUR. 2. ADDL. C.I.T., RANGE - 1, NAGPUR. 3. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX - ,NAGPUR. 4. CIT(APPEALS) - I, NAGPUR. 5. D.R., ITAT, NAGPUR. 6. GUARD FILE TRUE COPY BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, NAGPUR WAKODE.