Sh. Shyam Lal Agarwal, Agra V. I.T.O.-4(4), Agra

ITA 247/AGR/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7682 (ITAT-AGRA)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-07-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 23-07-2012
• Assessment Year: 1997-1998
• Appeal Filed On: 30-05-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A K SHARMA
• Assessee Lawyers: NAVIN GARGH
• Keywords: Period of limitation; Assessment record
• Section: 27; 148

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA(SMC) BENCH, AGRA BEFORE : SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 247/AGRA/2012 ASTT. YEAR : 1997-98 SHYAM LAL AGARWAL, VS. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, 1/34, TAKSAL GALI, 4(4), AGRA. JOHRI BAZAR, AGRA. (PAN : AAWPA 2431 P) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR ASSESSEE : SHRI NAVIN GARGH, ADVOCATE FOR REVENUE : SHRI A.K. SHARMA, JR. D.R. DATE OF HEARING : 23.07.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER : 27.07.2012 ORDER THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST TH E ORDER OF LD. CIT(A)-II, AGRA DATED 09.02.12 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1997-98 , CHALLENGING THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSE SSEE WITH REGARD TO THE SERVICE OF NOTICE U/S. 148 OF THE IT ACT. 2. THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT EARLIER, THE MATT ER IN ISSUE TRAVELED TO THE ITAT, AGRA IN ITA NO. 23/AGRA/2006 AND VIDE ORDER D ATED 11.06.2007, THE ASSESSEES APPEAL WAS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPO SES ON THIS ISSUE. THE FINDINGS ITA NO. 247/AGRA/2012 2 OF THE TRIBUNAL IN PARA 7 IS REPRODUCED IN THE IMPU GNED ORDER, WHICH READS AS UNDER :- 7. THE SAID NOTICE IS CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN SENT BY SPEED POST ALONG WITH NUMBER OF OTHER ASSESSEES TOTALING TO 13 AND AN ACKNOWLEDGEMENT DATED 27.03.2004 HAS BEEN OBTAINED FROM SANJAY PLACE POST OFFICE, AGRA. AGAINST THE ASSESSEES NAM E, SHRI SHYAM LAL AGARWAL, AGRA, RECEIPT NO. 112 HAS BEEN MENTION ED. WHEN THE ASSESSEES COUNSEL WAS CONFRONTED WITH THE ACKNOWLE DGEMENT, HE CONTENDS THAT THIS SPEED POST BOOKING LIST DOES NOT CONTAIN THE ADDRESS OF THE ASSESSEE. IT, THEREFORE, CANNOT BE I NFERRED THAT THE MINISTERIAL STAFF OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD CORR ECTLY ADDRESSED THE ENVELOP, IN WHICH NOTICE U/S. 148 IS CLAIMED TO HAV E BEEN ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE. THUS, THE BURDEN OF THE REVENUE THAT THE ENVELOP HAS CORRECTLY BEEN ADDRESSED IS NOT DISCHARGED. LET THA T AS IT MAY BE, I FIND THAT THE LD. CIT(A) DID NOT ENQUIRE INTO THE F ACTS PROPERLY. HE DID NOT MAKE ANY ENQUIRY FROM THE GENERAL SECTION O F THE INCOME-TAX DEPARTMENT, AS TO THE LETTERS, THAT ARE SENT AND AR E RECEIVED BACK UN- SERVED AT CENTRAL PLACE, INCLUDED ANY SUCH LETTER A DDRESSED TO THE APPELLANT AS WELL. UNLESS THIS FACT WAS ENQUIRED AN D THE ASSESSEE IS CONFRONTED WITH THE RESULTS OF SUCH ENQUIRY IT WAS NOT PROPER FOR THE LD. CIT(A) TO HAVE REACHED A CONCLUSION TO HOLD THA T THE REVENUES ONUS AS REGARDS THE SERVICE OF NOTICE STANDS DISCHA RGED. I, THEREFORE, SET ASIDE THE DECISION WITH A DIRECTION TO MAKE ENQ UIRIES AFRESH AND ALSO FIND OUT AS TO WHETHER IN FACT THE ONUS THAT L AY UPON THE REVENUE TO SHOW THAT THE ENVELOP WAS CORRECTLY ADDRESSED, I T WAS STAMPED AND WAS DISPATCHED BY REGISTERED POST STANDS SATISF IED OR NOT AND THEREAFTER COME TO A CONCLUSION AFRESH IN ACCORDANC E WITH LAW AFTER AFFORDING REASONABLE AND EFFECTIVE OPPORTUNITY OF B EING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 3. IN RESPONSE TO THE ABOVE DIRECTIONS OF THE TRIBU NAL, THE ASSESSEE APPEARED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND FILED THE WRITTEN SUBMISS ION, WHICH IS INCORPORATED IN THE APPELLATE ORDER, IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE DENIED T HE SERVICE OF NOTICE U/S. 148 AND ALSO FILED AFFIDAVIT DATED 13.11.2007 BEFORE TH E LD. CIT(A) DENYING THE ITA NO. 247/AGRA/2012 3 SERVICE OF NOTICE U/S. 148 OF THE ACT. THE MATTER W AS REFERRED TO THE AO WHO HAS FILED HIS REPORT DATED 27.03.2010, WHICH IS ALSO RE PRODUCED IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER, IN WHICH THE AO AFFIRMED THAT THE NOTICE U/S . 148 DATED 26.03.2004 WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE ON 27.03.2004 THROUGH SPEED POST. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS INCORRECT BECAUSE THE UNDELIVERED ENVELOP WAS NOT RECEIVED BACK FROM THE POSTAL DEPARTMENT. ENQUIRY W AS MADE WITH THE TAX ASSISTANT, WHO HAS REPORTED THAT UNDELIVERED ENVELO P WAS NOT RECEIVED BACK IN THE OFFICE. THE LETTER WAS SENT TO THE POST MASTER, SANJAY PLACE, AGRA, WHO HAS SHOWN HIS INABILITY TO GIVE ANY INFORMATION IN THIS REGARD. THE AO, THEREFORE, REQUESTED THAT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE DESERVES TO BE DISMISSED. THE ASSESSEE FILED REJOINDER IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE MORE OF LESS REPEATED THE SAME CONTENTION AND IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT WHEN THE ASSESSEES COUNS EL WAS CONFRONTED WITH THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT, HE HAD CONTENDED THAT THE SPEED PO ST BOOKING LIST DID NOT CONTAIN THE ADDRESS OF THE ASSESSEE AND NO PROPER E NQUIRY HAS BEEN MADE AND THE ASSESSEE REPEATEDLY DENIED THE SERVICE OF NOTICE U/ S. 148. THE ASSESSEE ALSO RELIED UPON CERTAIN DECISIONS BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). HOWEV ER, THE LD. CIT(A) DID NOT ACCEPT THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE AND DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. HIS FINDINGS IN PARA 5 AND 6 OF THE APPELLATE ORDER ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER : 5. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND FIN D THAT FROM THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT DATED 27.03.2004 OF THE POST OF FICE, SANJAY PLACE, AGRA IT IS CLEAR BEYOND DOUBT THAT THE LETTE R CONTAINING THE NOTICE U/S. 148 WAS SENT TO THE APPELLANT. FROM THE OFFICE COPY OF THE ITA NO. 247/AGRA/2012 4 NOTICE AS AVAILABLE IN ASSESSMENT FOLDER IT IS ALSO CLEAR THAT THE NOTICE WAS PROPERLY ADDRESSED WHICH FACT HAS BEEN A CKNOWLEDGED BY THE HONBLE ITAT IN ITS ORDER IN PARA NO.6. THERE I S NO REASON TO PRESUME THAT THE ADDRESS WAS NOT MENTIONED CORRECTL Y ON THE ENVELOP. THE LETTER CONTAINING THE NOTICE HAS ALSO NOT BEEN RECEIVED BACK. AS PER SECTION 27 OF THE GENERAL CLAUSES ACT THERE IS A PRESUMPTION THAT UNLESS CONTRARY IS PROVED, A LETTE R DISPATCHED BY REGISTERED POST IS DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN DELIVERED IN ORDINARY COURSE OF TEST. THOUGH, IT CANNOT BE CONCLUSIVELY SAID THA T THE ENVELOP WAS PROPERLY ADDRESSED AS NO OFFICE COPY OF THE ENVELOP E IS RETAINED, HOWEVER, THE PREPONDERANCE OF PROBABILITY IS THAT T HE LETTER CONTAINING THE NOTICE U/S. 148 WAS SERVED ON THE AP PELLANT IN THE ORDINARY COURSE OF POST. 6. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 4. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND SUBMITTED THAT THE AFFIDAVIT WAS FIL ED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) DATED 13.11.2007 DENYING THE SERVICE OF NOTICE U/S. 148. HE HAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IS DATED 15.06.2007, THROUGH WHICH THE MATTER WAS REMANDED TO THE FILE OF LD. CIT(A), BUT NO ENQUIRY HAS BEEN MADE AS DIRECTED BY THE TRIBUNAL. HE HAS ALSO RELIED UPON THE SAME DECI SIONS WHICH WERE RELIED UPON BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) IN THE FOLLOWING CASES : (I). CIT VS. HOTLINE INTERNATIONAL P. LTD., 296 IT R 333 (DEL.) (II). CIT VS. CEBON INDIA LTD., 184 TAXMAN, 290 (P &H) (III). ACIT VS. VINDHYA TELELINKS LTD., 13 SOT 233 (JABALPUR BENCH)(TM) (IV). ITA NO. 175/AGR/2003 (A.Y. 1996-97) SHRI BUD H PRAKASH VS. ITO 5. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR RELIED UPON THE OR DERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND SUBMITTED THAT PROPER NOTICE U/S. 148 WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE AT THE ITA NO. 247/AGRA/2012 5 CORRECT ADDRESS AND PROPER STAMPS WERE AFFIXED AND COVER SENT THROUGH SPEED POST DID NOT RETURN BACK TO THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT. THER EFORE, IT IS DEEMED TO BE SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE IN THE ORDINARY COURSE OF BUSINESS. THE CASE LAWS CITED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE. 6. I HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND THE MATER IAL ON RECORD. THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT THE ADDRESS OF THE ASSESSEE IS 1/34, T AXAL GALI, JOHRI BAZAR, AGRA, WHICH IS MENTIONED IN THE CIT(A)S ORDER AS WELL AS IN APPEAL PAPERS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE TRIBUNAL IN THE FIRST INSTANCE WHILE REMANDING THE ISSUE HAS NOTED AFTER PERUSAL OF THE ASSESSMENT RECORD THAT COPY OF THE NOTICE IS AVAILABLE ON THE RECORD WHICH REVEALS THAT THE NOTICE HAS BEEN ISSUE D AT THE ADDRESS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE AS IS NOTED ABOVE. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSME NT RECORD CONTAINS THE COPY OF THE NOTICE U/S. 148 WHICH WAS ISSUED AT THE CORRECT ADDRESS OF THE ASSESSEE. IT IS ALSO NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE NOTICE U/S. 148 WAS IS SUED TO THE ASSESSEE ON 27.03.2004 THROUGH SPEED POST AND THE SAME DID NOT RETURN BACK TO THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT. THE TAX ASSISTANT GAVE REPORT TO THE SA ME EFFECT THAT UNDELIVERED ENVELOP WAS NOT RECEIVED BACK FROM POSTAL DEPARTMEN T. THE POSTAL AUTHORITIES HAVE SHOWN THEIR INABILITY TO GIVE FURTHER INFORMAT ION IN THIS REGARD. IT IS, THEREFORE, ADMITTED FACT THAT PROPER NOTICE U/S. 14 8 WAS ISSUED AT THE CORRECT ADDRESS OF THE ASSESSEE AND WAS ALSO DISPATCHED THR OUGH SPEED POST TO THE ITA NO. 247/AGRA/2012 6 ASSESSEE. THE SPEED POST COVER CONTAINING THE NOTIC E U/S. 148 DID NOT RETURN BACK TO THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT. IT IS, THEREFORE, CLEAR THAT THE NOTICE U/S. 148 WAS PROPERLY ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE. 6.1 HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SHANKER LAL VED PRAKASH, 300 ITR 243 HELD HELD, ALLOWING THE APPEAL, THAT THE NOTICES UNDER SECTION 143(2) WERE UNDISPUTEDLY DISPATCHED ON AUGUST 25, 1 998; THE ASSESSEE HAD ACQUIESCED TO THE STATEMENT THAT THIS ENVELOPE HAD REACHED CIVIL LINES POST OFFICE ON THE NEXT DAY ITS ELF. AUGUST 25, 1998, FELL ON A TUESDAY. DESPITE THE ASSERTION THAT THE ENVELOPE HAD REACHED THE CIVIL LINES POST OFFICE ON AUGUST 26, 1 998, IT WOULD BE FAIR FOR THE COURT TO PRESUME THAT A LOCAL LETTER W OULD REACH THE ADDRESSEE WITHIN THREE DAYS, I.E., FRIDAY AUGUST 28 , 1998. IT WAS CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT DUTY-BOUND TO A PPEAR BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER SINCE THE NOTICE WAS RECEIVED BEY OND THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION. THIS ASSUMES THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS AWAR E OF THE LEGAL PROVISIONS ON THAT DATE OR SOON THEREAFTER PRESUMAB LY AFTER TAKING LEGAL ADVICE. IN BOTH CONTINGENCIES IT WOULD HAVE B EEN NORMAL FOR HIM TO ADDRESS A COMMUNICATION TO THE ASSESSING OFF ICER FORTHWITH OR AT LEAST WITHIN A MONTH TO THE EFFECT THAT PROPO SED PROCEEDINGS HAD BEEN RENDERED LEGALLY INEFFICACIOUS. THE ASSESS EE COULD ALSO HAVE OBTAINED A CERTIFICATE FROM THE POSTAL DEPARTM ENT SINCE HE WAS FULLY AWARE OF THE IMPORTANCE OF THE DATE OF DELIVE RY. THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO DISCHARGE THE BURDEN WHICH SHIFTED TO HIM IMMEDIATELY ON HIS ASSERTION THAT HE HAD RECEIVED THE NOTICE ON A PARTICULAR DATE. THEREFORE, THE NOTICE WAS NOT BARRED BY LIMITATION. 6.2 HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MADHSY FLMS P. LTD., 301 ITR 69 HELD HELD, ALLOWING THE APPEAL, THAT THERE WAS NOTHING ON RECO RD TO SHOW THAT THE NOTICE DATED OCTOBER 23, 2002 DISP ATCHED ON OCTOBER 25, 2002, BY SPEED POST WAS UNDELIVERED OR RECEIVED BACK. UNDER THE NORMAL CIRCUMSTANCES, A PRESUMPTION WOULD LIE THAT THE ITA NO. 247/AGRA/2012 7 NOTICE HAD REACHED THE ASSESSEE WITHIN 2 OR 3 DAYS. THOUGH THE PRESUMPTION UNDER THE SECTION IS REBUTTABLE, IN THE ABSENCE OF PROOF TO THE CONTRARY, THE PRESUMPTION OF PROPER SERVICE OR EFFECTIVE SERVICE OF NOTICE WOULD ARISE. SINCE THE ENVELOPE C ONTAINING THE NOTICE HAD NOT BEEN RECEIVED BACK BY THE DEPARTMENT , THERE WAS A PRESUMPTION THAT IT HAD REACHED THE ASSESSEE WHICH WAS NOT REBUTTED BY THE ASSESSEE BY FILING AN AFFIDAVIT. THEREFORE, NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF THE ACT WAS SERVED ON THE ASSESSE E WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED PERIOD. 6.3 HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. VINS OVERSEAS INDIA LTD., 305 ITR 320 HELD IN TERMS OF SECTION 27 OF THE GENERAL CLAUSES ACT, 1897, IF A NOTICE IS PROPERLY ADDRESSED AND DISPATCHED THROUGH REGISTERED POST, THERE IS A PRESUMPTION THAT IT HAS BEEN SERVED ON T HE ASSESSEE. THE TRIBUNAL CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE NOTIC E DATED OCTOBER 9, 1998, ISSUED UNDER SECTION143(2) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961, WAS NOT SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE. THE TRIBUNA L RELIED UPON AN AFFIDAVIT FILED FOR THE FIRST TIME BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE IT IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE DENIED RECEIPT OF THE NOTICE DATED OCTOBER 9, 1998. THE TRIBUNAL CONCLUDED THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAD, BY FILING THE AFFIDAVIT, REBUTTED THE PRESUMPTION OF SERVICE, THE BURDEN SHIFTED ON TO THE REVENUE TO SHOW, BY REFERENCE TO THE POSTAL RECORD, THAT THE NOTICE WAS IN FACT DULY SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS HELD THAT THE BURDEN HAD NOT BEEN DISCHARGED BY THE REVENUE. ON A PPEAL : HELD, THAT ACCORDING TO THE REVENUE, A NOTICE UNDER SECTI ON 143(2) OF THE ACT DATED OCTOBER 9, 1998, WAS SENT T O THE ASSESSEE THROUGH REGISTERED POST ON OCTOBER 13, 1998. THE SA ID NOTICE WAS NOT RECEIVED BACK UNDELIVERED. THE ASSESSEE RECEIVE D A NOTICE DATED FEBRUARY, 28, 2000, ON MARCH 1, 2000, AND IN COMPLI ANCE WITH THAT NOTICE, THE MANAGER (FINANCE) ALONG WITH THE GENERA L MANAGER (FINANCE) OF THE ASSESSEE ATTENDED THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON MARCH 7, 2000. THE ASSESSEE HA D COME TO KNOW OF THE NOTICE DATED OCTOBER 9, 1998, BECAUSE IT RAI SED A PLEA BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) THAT IT WAS NOT SERVED W ITH ANY NOTICE WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME. DESPITE THIS, NO OBJECT ION WAS TAKEN BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND EVEN BEFORE THE CO MMISSIONER ITA NO. 247/AGRA/2012 8 (APPEALS) THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FILE ANY AFFIDAVIT T O REBUT THE STATUTORY PRESUMPTION OF SERVICE. THE AFFIDAVIT DENYING SERVI CE OF NOTICE WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ONLY BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. THE RE WAS NO PROPER REBUTTAL OF THE PRESUMPTION OF VALID SERVICE OF NOT ICE. THE NOTICE DATED OCTOBER 9, 1998, HAD BEEN VALIDLY SERVED. 6.4 THE ASSESSEE RELIED UPON THE DECISION IN THE CA SE OF HOTLINE INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD. (SUPRA), IN WHICH THE ISSUE WAS OF AFFIXA TION OF NOTICE WITHOUT TRYING TO SERVE THE ASSESSEE OR ITS AGENT AND WAS DISTINGUISH ED BY THE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF VINS OVERSEAS INDIA LTD. (SUPRA). IN TH E CASE OF CEBON INDIA LTD. (SUPRA), THE ISSUE WAS WHETHER DEFECT IN SERVICE OF NOTICE CAN BE HELD TO BE CURABLE U/S. 292BB. HELD, NO. THUS, THESE DECISIONS WOULD NOT SUPPORT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE DECISIONS OF ITAT JABALPUR AND AGRA BENCH CANNOT BE GIVEN PREFERENCE AGAINST THE DECISIONS OF HONBLE D ELHI HIGH COURT REFERRED TO ABOVE. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE BECAUSE SUFFICIENT MATERIAL IS AVAI LABLE ON RECORD TO PROVE THAT PROPER NOTICE U/S. 148 HAS BEEN ISSUED AT THE CORRE CT ADDRESS OF THE ASSESSEE AND WAS ALSO DISPATCHED THROUGH SPEED POST, WHICH DID N OT RETURN BACK TO THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES. THEREFORE, SAME IS SERVED UPON THE ASS ESSEE. IN TERMS OF SECTION 27 OF THE GENERAL CLAUSES ACT, IF A NOTICE IS PROPERLY ADDRESSED AND DISPATCHED THROUGH REGISTERED POST, THERE IS A PRESUMPTION THA T IT HAS BEEN SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BROUGHT ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD TO REBUT SUCH PRESUMPTION. THE AFFIDAVIT IF ANY WAS FILED, WAS FI LED FOR THE FIRST TIME BEFORE THE ITA NO. 247/AGRA/2012 9 LD. CIT(A) WITHOUT GIVING ANY DETAILS OR SPECIFIC O BJECTION THEREIN. WE, THEREFORE, DID NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE FINDING OF THE LD . CIT(A). SAME ARE CONFIRMED AND THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIS MISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- (BHAVNESH SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER *AKS/- COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT(A), CONCERNED BY ORDER 4. CIT, CONCERNED 5. DR, ITAT, AGRA 6. GUARD FILE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR TRUE COPY