M/s Somani Iron & Steels Ltd., Kanpur V. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Kanpur

ITA 237/LKW/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1061 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 11 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-03-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 14-03-2018
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 26-03-2014
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: US MAINTAINING COM
• Keywords: Business income; Depreciation

Judgement Text

I.T.A. NO.237/LKW/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2009-10 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH A, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI T. S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.237/LKW/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2009-10 M/S SOMANI IRON & STEELS LTD., CITY CENTRE, 4 TH FLOOR, 63/2, THE MALL, KANPUR. PAN:AABCS 9127 N VS. DY.C.I.T.-4, KANPUR. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) O R D E R PER T. S. KAPOOR, A.M. THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST TH E ORDER OF CIT(A), KANPUR DATED 31/12/2013 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 TAKING THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HA S FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE AMOUNT RS.7,45,807/- IS THE BARE MINIMUM ACTUAL GENUINE EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY US F OR MAINTAINING THE COMPANY AND ITS ASSETS. THE LD. COM MISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS CONFIRMED THE MISCONCEI VED FINDING OF LD. ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE CONFIRMING T HE DISALLOWANCE OF GENUINE EXPENDITURE BEING INCURRED TO KEEP THE PRODUCTIVE STRUCTURE INTACT, IS THEREFORE WHOLLY AR BITRARY AND ILLEGAL AS ALSO WHILE SUMMARILY DEALING WITH THE APPELLANT BY SHRI B. P. YADAV, COST ACCOUNTANT RESPONDENT BY CHAUDHARY ARUN KUMAR SINGH, D.R. DATE OF HEARING 14/03/2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 15 /03/2018 I.T.A. NO.237/LKW/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2009-10 2 REPLY/SUBMISSION PUT ON HIS RECORD BY THE APPELLANT IS TOTALLY UNJUSTIFIED UNDER LAW IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCE S OF THE CASE. 2. WHILE SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF RS.13,14,064/- OF OTHER ACTUAL MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES INCURRED TO KEEP THE CORPORATE ENTITY GOING IN THE EXPECTATION OF ACCEPTANCE OF RE HABILITATION PACKAGE BY HON'BLE BIFR (SPECIAL PROVISION) ACT, 19 85 IS ALTOGETHER UNJUSTIFIED, WITHOUT PROPERLY APPRECIATI NG THE DETAILS AND EXPLANATIONS SUBMITTED ON RECORD IS ARBITRARY/B AD IN LAW IN AS MUCH AS DISALLOWANCE HAS BEEN MADE BY SUMMARILY DEALING WITH THE SUBMISSIONS PUT ON HIS RECORD AND IS WRONG AND UNTENABLE PROCESS WHICH IS WHOLLY DEVOID OF MERITS AND HAS NO LEGS TO STAND UPON. 3. WHILE SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF RS.22,80,071/- BEING DEPRECIATION ALLOWANCES, INCURRED TO KEEP THE PRODU CTIVE STRUCTURE INTACT, IS WHOLLY ARBITRARY AND ILLEGAL. LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS FAILED AND WITHOUT APPR ECIATING THE DETAILS/STATEMENT OF DEPRECIATION AS PER INCOME TAX RULES, WHERE NO DEPRECIATION HAS BEEN CLAIMED ON PLANT AND MACHINERY AND DEPRECIATION CLAIMED IS ONLY ON THOSE FIXED ASSETS WHICH WERE USED DURING THE YEAR TO RUN THE O FFICE AND TO MAINTAIN CORPORATE ENTITY AND THE SAME IS ALLOWABLE ON ACCOUNT OF ITS USE FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE BUSINESS OF THE C OMPANY WHICH IS UNDER SUSPENDED ANIMATION. 4(A) THAT THE ADDITION OF RS.7,45,807/-, RS.13,14,0 64/- AND RS.22,80,071/- IN RESPECT OF EXPENDITURE INCURRED B Y THE COMPANY OF WHICH DETAILS CLAIMED UNDER VARIOUS HEAD S SUBMITTED, IS ARBITRARY - AND NON MAINTAINABLE BECA USE THE EXPENDITURE SO INCURRED ARE BASED ON BOOKS OF ACCOU NTS DULY AUDITED AND APPROVED BY THE SHARE HOLDERS OF THE CO MPANY IN IT'S ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING AND ARE EXPENDITURES IN CURRED BY THE COMPANY WHICH ARE NECESSARY FOR KEEPING THE COM PANY RUNNING IN THE NORMAL COURSE OF BUSINESS. 4(B) THAT THE EXPENDITURES OF RS.7,45,807/-, RS.13, 14,064/- AND RS.22,80,071/- INCURRED WAS VERIFIED FROM THE V OUCHERS AND BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE COMPANY AT THE TIME OF ASS ESSMENT AND THE ADDITIONS MADE IS ON AD HOC BASIS WITHOUT G IVING ANY FINDINGS THAT THE EXPENDITURE HAS ACTUALLY NOT BEEN INCURRED WHILE THE APPELLANTS COMPANY'S BOOKS ARE DULY AUDIT ED AND ALSO I.T.A. NO.237/LKW/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2009-10 3 APPROVED BY THE SHAREHOLDERS OF THE COMPANY SHOWING THE BONAFIDE NATURE OF THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED. 4(C) IN ANY CASE AND WITHOUT PREJUDICE DISALLOWANCE IS AGAINST PAST HISTORY. 2. AT THE OUTSET, LEARNED A. R. SUBMITTED THAT THE COMPANY IS A SICK COMPANY AND ITS CASE IS PENDING BEFORE BIFR FOR REH ABILITATION AND THEREFORE, ASSESSEE HAS BEEN INCURRING LOSSES. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS DISALLOWED AN EXPENDITURE OF RS.7,45,807/- WHICH WAS INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER THE HEAD MANUFACTURI NG AND OTHER EXPENSES. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFI CER FURTHER DISALLOWED AN EXPENDITURE OF RS.13,14,064/- WHICH WAS INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER THE HEAD MISC. EXPENSES. LEARNED A. R. FURTHER EXP LAINED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO DISALLOWED AN AMOUNT OF RS.2 2,80,071/- ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION. LEARNED A. R. SUBMIT TED THAT SIMILAR DISALLOWANCES WERE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 AND HON'BLE TRIBUNAL VIDE ORDER DATED 18/10 /2015 HAD DECIDED THE SIMILAR ISSUE OF DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES BY ALLOWI NG 50% OF THE EXPENSES OUT OF MANUFACTURING AND OTHER EXPENSES AND ALLOWIN G ONLY MANAGING DIRECTORS REMUNERATION OUT OF MISC. EXPENSES. AS REGARDS THE DEPRECIATION, LEARNED A. R. SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE AT ITS OW N HAD ADDED BACK THE AMOUNT OF DEPRECIATION TO ITS INCOME AND IN THIS RE SPECT OUR ATTENTION WAS INVITED TO PAGE NO. 27 OF THE PAPER BOOK WHERE A CO PY OF COMPUTATION OF INCOME WAS PLACED. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, IT WAS SU BMITTED THAT THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE WRONGLY DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT CLAIMED AND AS REGARDS THE DIS ALLOWANCE OF OTHER EXPENSES, LEARNED A. R. SUBMITTED THAT THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE EARLIER YEAR CAN BE FOLLOWED. I.T.A. NO.237/LKW/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2009-10 4 3. LEARNED D. R., ON THE OTHER HANDS, SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL PARTIES AND HAVE GONE TH ROUGH THE MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A P UBLIC LIMITED COMPANY AND DURING THE YEAR NO MANUFACTURING ACTIVITIES WERE CA RRIED OUT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE EXAMINATION OF PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT DISALLOWED A CLAIM OF RS.7,45,807/- UNDER THE HEAD MANUFACTURING AND OTHE R EXPENSES AND RS.13,14,064/- OUT OF MISC. EXPENSES AND SIMILARLY HE DISALLOWED DEPRECIATION OF RS.22,80,071/- WHICH WAS DEBITED TO PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD MADE THE ADDITION BY HOLD ING THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAD CLOSED THE FACTORY AND NO MANUFACTURIN G ACTIVITY WAS CARRIED OUT SINCE 1997 THEREFORE, THE BUSINESS HAD CEASED T O EXIST AND THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR ALLOWANCE OF EXPE NSES. AGGRIEVED WITH THE ORDER THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) W HO ALSO UPHELD THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. WE FIND T HAT SIMILAR DISALLOWANCES OUT OF MANUFACTURING AND MISC. EXPENSES WERE MADE B Y THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 AND HON' BLE TRIBUNAL VIDE ORDER DATED 30/07/2015 IN I.T.A. NO.427/LKW/2014 HAD ALLO WED RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE TO THE EXTENT OF 50% BY HOLDING AS UNDER: 4. APROPOS GROUND NO.1, IT IS NOTICED THAT THE ASS ESSEE IS A LIMITED COMPANY AND DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERA TION IT HAS NOT CARRIED OUT ANY TRADING AND MANUFACTURING ACTIV ITY. THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY HAS SUSPENDED ITS MANUFACTURING AC TIVITY W.E.F. 1.12.1998 AND AS SUCH THERE WAS NO BUSINESS INCOME IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. ON PERUSAL OF THE PR OFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED EXPENDITURE OF RS.11,09,884/- UNDER THE HEAD MANUFACTURING AND OTHER EXPENSES AS AGAINST THE E XPENDITURE OF RS.13,13,211/- IN THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING YEAR . THESE EXPENDITURES INCLUDE EXPENSES ON DIESEL STORES & SP ARES CONSUMED, SALARY AND WAGES INCLUDING BONUS, GRATUIT Y, EMPLOYERS CONTRIBUTION TO PROVIDENT FUND, ESI, INS URANCE, I.T.A. NO.237/LKW/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2009-10 5 REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE, ETC. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASK ED TO JUSTIFY THESE EXPENSES AND IN RESPONSE THERETO IT W AS EXPLAINED THAT THE ASSESSEES BUSINESS HAS BEEN TEMPORARILY S USPENDED AND THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY HAS ALL INTENTIONS TO RESU ME THE BUSINESS AND THE ASSESSEE IS PURSUING THE PROCEEDIN GS BEFORE THE BIFR AND THE OTHER CORPORATE ACTIVITIES, LEGAL AND OTHER PROCEEDINGS RELATING TO COMPANY LAW ARE BEING CARRI ED ON. 5. BEING NOT CONVINCED WITH THE EXPLANATIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS DISALLOWED THE ENTIRE EXPENDITURE OF RS.11,09,884/- HAVING CONCLUDED THAT NO MANUFACTURING ACTIVITY HAS BEEN CARRIED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. 6. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFO RE THE LD. CIT(A) WITH THE SUBMISSION THAT THE ASSESSING O FFICER HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE REFERENCE TO THE BIFR AND THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE APPLICATION BY BIFR WAS SUFFICIEN T INDICATION AND SUGGESTIVE OF THE ASSESSEES INTENTION TO RESUM E BUSINESS IN THE FUTURE UPON APPROVAL OF THE REHABILITATION S CHEME UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE LAW RELATING TO SICK INDUSTRI AL COMPANY ENSHRINED IN SICK INDUSTRIAL COMPANIES (SPECIAL PRO VISION) ACT, 1985. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT CONSIDERED OR RATHER BRUSHED ASIDE THE FACTS AND THE LAW LAID DOWN BY TH E COURTS AND HAS DISALLOWED THE ENTIRE EXPENDITURE FOR THE R EASONS NOT KNOWN TO THE LAW. 7. THE LD. CIT(A) RE-EXAMINED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSE SSEE AND RELYING UPON LD. CIT(A)S ORDER FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02, HE HAS RESTRICTED THE DISALLOWANCE TO 50% OF THE TOTAL CLAIM OF RS.11,09,884/-. ACCORDINGLY RELIEF OF RS.5.55 LAKH S WAS GRANTED. 8. NOW THE REVENUE HAS PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE T HE TRIBUNAL WITH THE SUBMISSION THAT SINCE THE ASSESSE ES BUSINESS WAS CLOSED, NO EXPENDITURE UNDER THIS HEAD CAN BE A LLOWED WHEREAS THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS CONTEN DED THAT SINCE THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN TEMPORA RILY SUSPENDED AND THERE IS EVERY HOPE OF ITS REVIVAL, M INIMUM EXPENDITURE SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO KEEP THE INDUSTRY OF THE ASSESSEE ALIVE. 9. HAVING CAREFULLY EXAMINED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWE R AUTHORITIES IN THE LIGHT OF THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, WE FIND THAT UNDISPUTEDLY THE ASSESSEE HAS GONE TO BIFR FOR REVI VAL OF ITS INDUSTRY AND SINCE THERE IS TEMPORARY SUSPENSION OF THE I.T.A. NO.237/LKW/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2009-10 6 BUSINESS ACTIVITIES, THEREFORE, MINIMUM EXPENDITURE SHOULD BE ALLOWED. WE ACCORDINGLY FIND NO MERIT IN THE ARGUM ENTS OF THE LD. D.R. BEING CONVINCED WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A), WE CONFIRM THE SAME. 10. SO FAR AS GROUND NO.2 IS CONCERNED, WE FIND THA T THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED MISCELLANEOUS EXPENDITURE OF RS.13,18,626/- AS AGAINST MISCELLANEOUS EXPENDITURE OF RS.17,32,443/- IN THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING YEAR. THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THE MAIN EXPENDITUR E CLAIMED UNDER THIS HEAD IS MANAGING DIRECTORS REMUNERATION AMOUNTING TO RS.8,40,000/- AS AGAINST RS.10.50 LAKHS IN THE I MMEDIATELY PRECEDING YEAR. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO JUSTIFY THE PAYMENT OF REMUNERATION AND OTHER EXPENSES IN VIEW THE FACT THAT NO BUSINESS ACTIVITY WAS CARRIED ON DURING THE YEAR UN DER CONSIDERATION. IN RESPONSE THERETO, IT WAS CONTEND ED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE I S UNDER SUSPENSION AND HAS NOT BEEN FINALLY DISCONTINUED. WITH REGARD TO THE PAYMENT OF REMUNERATION TO THE MANAGING DIRE CTOR OF RS.8.40 LAKHS, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT M/S SOMANI IRON & STEEL LTD. IS A PUBLIC LIMIT ED COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE INDIAN COM PANIES ACT, 1956 AND THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO LISTED WITH THE STOCK EXCHANGE AT MUMBAI, KANPUR AND DELHI. TO KEEP THE COMPANY ALIV E, THE WHOLE TIME DIRECTOR IS REQUIRED AND IT HAS ONLY A M ANAGING DIRECTOR WHO IS LOOKING AFTER THE ENTIRE AFFAIRS OF THE COMPANY AND THERE IS NO OTHER WHOLE TIME DIRECTOR. 11. BEING NOT CONVINCED WITH THE EXPLANATIONS OF TH E ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF REMUNERATION. THE LEGAL EXPENSES OF RS.87,345/- WA S ALSO DISALLOWED. ACCORDINGLY, A TOTAL DISALLOWANCE OF R S.13,18,626/- WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 12. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEF ORE THE LD. CIT(A) WITH THE SUBMISSION THAT DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, RS.8.40 LAKHS WAS PAID BY WAY OF REM UNERATION TO ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR SHRI. R. K. SOMANY AS AGAI NST RS.10.50 LAKHS IN THE PRECEDING YEAR. THE SAID REMUNERATION WAS DULY APPROVED BY THE GENERAL BODY MEETING OF THE COMPANY . IT WAS, HOWEVER, CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS N OT DOUBTED THE SERVICES RENDERED BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, RAT HER, ON THE CONTRARY HE HAS OBSERVED IN THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT THE SERVICES HAVE BEEN RENDERED BY THE MANAGIN G DIRECTOR, I.T.A. NO.237/LKW/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2009-10 7 BUT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE WHETHER THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY WAS UNDER ANIMATED SUSPENSION AND THERE WAS ENOUGH EVIDENCE IN RESPECT OF INTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE TO RESUME THE BUSINESS AC TIVITY AFTER THE SANCTION OF THE SCHEME BY THE BIFR. RELYING UP ON THIS EVIDENCE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ALLOWED REMUNERATION O F RS.8.40 LAKHS PAID TO THE MANAGING DIRECTOR. THE OTHER DIS ALLOWANCE WAS CONFIRMED. 13. AGGRIEVED, THE REVENUE HAS PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AND THE LD. D.R. HAS PLACED RELIANCE U PON THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHEREAS THE LD. COUNSEL FO R THE ASSESSEE HAS CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSEES BUSINESS IS TEMPORARILY SUSPENDED AND THERE IS EVERY POSSIBILIT Y OF ITS REVIVAL, AS THE ASSESSEE HAS GONE IN BIFR. SINCE T HE ASSESSEE IS A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY AND LISTED WITH THE ST OCK EXCHANGE AT MUMBAI, KANPUR AND DELHI, A WHOLE TIME DIRECTOR IS REQUIRED TO LOOK AFTER THE ENTIRE AFFAIRS OF THE ASSESSEE-CO MPANY. THEREFORE, THE REMUNERATION PAID TO THE WHOLE TIME MANAGING DIRECTOR SHOULD BE ALLOWED. 14. HAVING CAREFULLY EXAMINED THE ORDERS OF THE LOW ER AUTHORITIES IN THE LIGHT OF THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, WE FIND THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ALLOWED THE REMUNERATION PAID TO THE WHOLE TIME MANAGING DIRECTOR OF THE COMPANY, HAVING OBSERVED T HAT THE ASSESSEES BUSINESS IS TEMPORARILY SUSPENDED AND TH ERE IS EVERY POSSIBILITY OF ITS REVIVAL, AS THE ASSESSEE HAS GON E IN BIFR FOR REVIVAL OF ITS BUSINESS. WE, THEREFORE, FIND NO IN FIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE AND ACCORDING LY WE CONFIRM THE SAME. 4.1 RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ABOVE ORDER OF THE T RIBUNAL WE PARTLY ALLOW GROUND NO.1,2 & 4. 4.2 AS REGARDS GROUND NO. 3 REGARDING DISALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION, WE FIND THAT ASSESSEE IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME PLA CED AT PAGE NO. 27 HAS ITSELF ADDED BACK THE DEPRECIATION OF RS.22,80,071/ - WHICH WAS DEBITED TO THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT AND THEREFORE, THE ASSESS EE ITSELF HAD NOT CLAIMED ANY DEPRECIATION AND THEREFORE, THE FURTHER DISALLO WANCE OF DEPRECIATION, I.T.A. NO.237/LKW/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2009-10 8 WHICH WAS NEVER CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE, IS NOT JUS TIFIED. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, GROUND NO. 3 IS ALLOWED. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PAR TLY ALLOWED. (ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 15/03/2018) SD/. SD/. (PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY) ( T. S. KAPOOR ) JUDICIAL MEMBER A CCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED:15/03/2018 *SINGH COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. CONCERNED CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. D.R., I.T.A.T., LUCKNOW