DCIT, CIRCLE-4, Nagpur V. SMT. SAROJDEVI AGRAWAL, Nagpur

ITA 253/NAG/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 134 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1693 (ITAT-NAGPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 2 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-08-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 05-06-2013
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: V K LUKKA
• Assessee Lawyers: K P DEVANI
• Keywords: Deemed dividend
• Section: 143(3); 37(1)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI MUKUL K. SHRAWAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 352/NAG./2013 ( ASSESSMENT YEAR : 200809 ) ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE3, 3 RD FLOOR, SARAF CHAMBER SADAR, NAGPUR APPELLANT V/S M/S. BHARAT HARDWARE & IRON STORES 215, SMALL FACTORY AREA BAGADGANJ, NAGPUR PAN AABFB3048A .... RESPONDENT ITA NO. 353/NAG./2013 ( ASSESSMENT YEAR : 200910 ) ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE3, 3 RD FLOOR, SARAF CHAMBER SADAR, NAGPUR APPELLANT V/S M/S. BHARAT HARDWARE & IRON STORES 215, SMALL FACTORY AREA BAGADGANJ, NAGPUR PAN AABFB3048A .... RESPONDENT M/S. BHARAT HARDWARE & IRON STORES 2 ITA NO. 354/NAG./2013 ( ASSESSMENT YEAR : 201011 ) ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE3, 3 RD FLOOR, SARAF CHAMBER SADAR, NAGPUR APPELLANT V/S M/S. BHARAT HARDWARE & IRON STORES 215, SMALL FACTORY AREA BAGADGANJ, NAGPUR PAN AABFB3048A .. RESPONDENT ITA NO. 355/NAG./2013 ( ASSESSMENT YEAR : 201112 ) ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE3, 3 RD FLOOR, SARAF CHAMBER SADAR, NAGPUR APPELLANT V/S M/S. BHARAT HARDWARE & IRON STORES 215, SMALL FACTORY AREA BAGADGANJ, NAGPUR PAN AABFB3048A .. RESPONDENT REVENUE BY : SHRI V.K. LUKKA ASSESSEE BY : SHRI K.P. DEVANI DATE OF HEARING 28.07.2015 DATE OF ORDER 28.08 .2015 O R D E R PER MUKUL K. SHRAWAT, J.M. THESE APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE ARE EMANATING FR OM THE IMPUGNED ORDERS OF EVEN DATE 12 TH JULY 2013, PASSED BY THE LEARNED M/S. BHARAT HARDWARE & IRON STORES 3 COMMISSIONER (APPEALS)-II, NAGPUR, FOR THE ASSESSME NT YEAR 2008 09, 200910, 201011 AND 201112 RESPECTIVELY. 2. SINCE ALL THESE APPEALS PERTAIN TO THE SAME ASSESSEE I NVOLVING COMMON ISSUES ARISING OUT OF IDENTICAL SET OF FACTS AN D CIRCUMSTANCES, THEREFORE, AS A MATTER OF CONVENIENCE, THESE APPEALS WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OFF BY WAY OF THIS CON SOLIDATED ORDER. THE GROUNDS OF APPEALS ARE IDENTICALLY WORDED EXCEP T CHANGE IN THE QUANTUM ADDITIONS CHALLENGED. THE LEAD YEAR IS THE A SSESSMENT YEAR 200809, HENCE, THE FACTS AND THE ISSUES ARE DISCUS SED HEREIN BELOW AFTER PERUSING THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES FO R THAT YEAR. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 200809, READ AS UNDER: 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN TREATING THE INTER EST EXPENSES OF ` 10,04,744 AS ALLOWABLE UNDER SECTION 37(1) OF THE ACT WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT THERE WAS A DIRECT NEXUS BETWEEN LOANS BORROWED AND ADVANCES MADE TO THE PATTERNS AN D SISTER CONCERNS. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN TREATING THAT LOAN OF ` 1,66,32,595 AND INTEREST ACCRUED THEREUPON OF ` 19,72,929 GIVEN ON THE ASSESSEE FIRM BY OCAPL DID NOT FALL WITHIN THE AMBI T OF SECTION 2(22)(E) WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT OCAPL AND OCSIPL IS IN THE BUSINESS OF ALLOYS AND NOT IN MONEY LENDING BUSINES S. 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN BY NOT CONSIDERING TWO NEW JUDGMENTS ON DEEMED DIVIDEND HONBLE DELHI HIGH COU RTS DECISION IN CIT V/S BHARAT OVERSEAS TRADING CO., 24 9 CTR 554, AND NATIONAL TRAVEL SERVICES, 249 CTR 540, WHEREIN THE ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE REVENUE. M/S. BHARAT HARDWARE & IRON STORES 4 3. FACTS IN BRIEF : THE ASSESSEE FIRM IS IN THE BUSINESS OF TRADING OF IRON AND STEEL. FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09, THE AS SESSMENT WAS COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT DATED 12 TH OCTOBER 2010. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS OBSERVED THAT THE INTEREST BEA RING FUNDS HAVE BEEN DIVERTED TO THE PARTNERS. BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 37(1) OF THE ACT, THE INTEREST EXPENDITURE WAS DIS ALLOWED. 4. WHEN THE MATTER WAS CARRIED BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS FOLLOWED THE DECISION OF THE T RIBUNAL, NAGPUR BENCH, PRONOUNCED IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE ASS ESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 AND 2007-08, BEARING ITA NO.65 AND 66/NAG./ 2011, DATED 9 TH JANUARY 2013. FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL, TH E IMPUGNED ADDITION WAS DELETED. 5. AT THE OUTSET, WE HAVE BEEN INFORMED BY THE PARTIES APP EARING BEFORE US THAT ON IDENTICAL FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES IN THE PAST I.E., FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 AND 2007-08, IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE, THE TRIBUNAL, NAGPUR BENCH, HAS DECIDED THIS ISSUE IN AS SESSEES FAVOUR VIDE ORDER DATED 9 TH JANUARY 2013. IN ADDITION TO THE SAID ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL, IT HAS ALSO BEEN PLEADED THAT WHEN THE WITH DRAWALS WERE MADE BY THE PARTNERS TO THE EXTENT EITHER CAPITAL OR AC CRUED PROFIT, THEN THERE SHOULD NOT BE ANY DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST, IF THERE IS NO NEXUS BETWEEN INTEREST BEARING LOAN AND WITHDRAWALS MADE BY THE M/S. BHARAT HARDWARE & IRON STORES 5 PARTNERS FROM THEIR CAPITAL ACCOUNT. THE CASE LAWS CI TED WHICH WERE ALSO BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) ARE AS UNDER:- I) ITO V/S TAJMAHAL HOTEL, 2 TTJ 1509 (HYD.); II) ITO V/S B. NALACHAKARAVARTHY, 22 TTJ 542 (MAD.); III) ITO V/S TYADE LINKS V/S ITO, 48 TTJ 163 (DEL.) (TM) ; IV) APOLLO TRADE LINKS V/S ITO, 48 ITD 159 (TM). 6. FOR THE SAKE OF READY REFERENCE, RELEVANT PARA FROM THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL, NAGPUR BENCH, CITED SUPRA, IS REPRODUCE D BELOW:- 8. NOW, WE WILL TAKE UP THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESS EE I.E. ITA NO.68&69/NAG/2011 FOR A Y 2006-07 & 2007 OB. 9. THE ONLY ISSUE IN APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE IS AGA INST CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.B,4B,034/- & RS.1 0,57,4901- OUT OF INTEREST PAID AS NON-BUSINESS PURPOSE EXPEND ITURE RESPECTIVELY FOR BOTH OF THE YEARS. 10. THE BRIEF FACTS IN THIS REGARD ARE THAT THE PAR TNER OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM WITHDREW SOME CAPITAL OUT OF CREDIT B ALANCE IN THEIR CREDIT ON ACCOUNT OF CAPITAL IN THE FIRM AND ADVANCED TO THE SISTER CONCERN I.E. MIS RAJU STEEL INDUSTRIES. SIMILARLY THE PARTNER OF M/S RAJU STEEL INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. WITH DREW SOME CAPITAL FROM MIS RAJU STEEL INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. AN D ADVANCED TO THE ASSESSEE'S FIRM. THE AO WAS OF THE VIEW THAT SINCE THE PARTNER IN BOTH THE FIRMS HAVE WITHDRAWN THEIR CAPI TAL IN THE RESPECTIVE FIRMS AND HAVE ADVANCED THE LOANS TO EAC H OTHER, THEREFORE, INTEREST PAID TO THE LENDERS WAS NOT ALL OWABLE UNDER SECTION 37(1). 11. LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ALSO CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE AO. 12. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSION AND PERUSING T HE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW, WE FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE D ESERVES TO SUCCEED ON THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN BOTH THESE APPEALS . THE PARTNERS HAVE WITHDRAWN THEIR CAPITAL, WHICH WERE C REDITED IN THE FIRM. THERE IS NO BAR TO WITHDRAW THEIR CAPITAL AS THEY HAVE WITHDRAWN THEIR CAPITAL OUT OF THE TOTAL CAPITAL IN VESTED IN THE FIRM. THEY HAVE ADVANCED THESE AMOUNTS TO ANOTHER F IRM I.E. M/S. BHARAT HARDWARE & IRON STORES 6 M/S RAJU STEEL INDUSTRIES ON WHICH THEY HAVE CHARGE D INTEREST AND THAT INTEREST INCOME HAS BEEN SHOWN IN THE HANDS OF THESE PARTNERS. SIMILARLY, THE PARTNER OF MIS RA JU STEEL INDUSTRIES HAS WITHDRAWN SOME CAPITAL FROM THEIR PA RTNERSHIP FIRM AND ADVANCED THE MONEY TO THIS PARTNERSHIP CON CERN. THIS PARTNERSHIP CONCERN HAS PAID INTEREST TO THEM AND T HE INTEREST INCOME HAS BEEN SHOWN IN THEIR RESPECTIVE HANDS. TH EREFORE, IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, THERE IS NO LOSS OF REVENUE AT ALL. THE FIRM IS PAYING INTEREST AND CLAIMING DEDUCTION IN PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT, ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LENDERS HAVE SHOWN THE INTEREST INCOME IN THEIR HANDS AND PAYING DUE TAX O N THAT INCOME. THE RATE OF TAX IS SAME, THEREFORE, IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST PAID WAS NOT JUSTIFI ED UNDER SECTION 37(1). THIS IS THE BUSINESS MAN WHO KNOWS H OW TO RUN HIS BUSINESS ACTIVITY. THE ASSESSEE HAS RUN HIS BUS INESS ACTIVITIES IN A WAY WHICH THEY LIKE AND WAS BENEFIC IAL FOR THEM. IF BY ANY REASON THEY HAVE MADE SOME TAX PLANNING, THAT TAX PLANNING IS ALSO IN EH FOUR CORNER OF LAW, WHICH IS PERMISSIBLE. THEREFORE, FOR THIS REASON ALSO, DISALLOWANCE OF IN TEREST WAS NOT JUSTIFIED. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTA NCES OF THE CASE, WE DELETE THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF DIS ALLOWANCE OF INTEREST FOR BOTH OF THE YEARS. 7. ONCE THE RESPECTED OF CO-ORDINATE BENCH IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE ON IDENTICAL FACTS HAVE TAKEN A VIEW IN ASSESSEES F AVOUR, HENCE, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY CONTRARY MATERIAL, WE FIND NO REA SON TO TAKE ANY OTHER VIEW BUT TO RESPECTFULLY FOLLOW THE SAME. RESULTA NTLY, THE GROUND NO.1, RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS HEREBY DISMIS SED. 8. GROUND NO.2, READS AS UNDER:- 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN TREATING THAT LOAN OF ` 1,66,32,595 AND INTEREST ACCRUED THEREUPON OF ` 19,72,929 GIVEN ON THE ASSESSEE FIRM BY OCAPL DID NOT FALL WI THIN THE AMBIT OF SECTION 2(22)(E) WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT OCAPL AND OCSIPL IS IN THE BUSINESS OF ALLOYS AND NOT IN MONE Y LENDING BUSINESS. M/S. BHARAT HARDWARE & IRON STORES 7 9. THE ADMITTED FACTUAL POSITION WAS THAT THERE WAS A PA RTNER IN THE FIRM NAMELY DOLY WEIGHBRIDGE PVT. LTD., HAVING 4 0% SHARE THE PARTNERSHIP FIRM. THE SAID CONCERN WAS ALSO HAVING 43.33% OF SHAREHOLDING IN ORANGE CITY ALLOYS PVT. LTD. (OCAPL) . THE SAID CONCERN WAS ALSO HAVING 39.99% SHAREHOLDING IN ORAN GE CITY STEEL INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. (OCSIPL). IT IS ALSO AN ACCEPTED FACTUAL POSITION THAT THE FIRM WAS NOT HAVING ANY SHAREHOLDING IN THE SA ID TWO COMPANIES NAMELY OCAPL AND OCSIPL. THE ASSESSING OF FICER HAS FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD TAKEN LOAN OF ` 3,26,49,691, FROM OCAPL AND A LOAN OF RS 1,28,94,755, FROM OCSIPL RESPECTIVE LY. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER, DUE TO THE FACT THAT DOLY WEIGHBR IDGE PVT. LTD. WAS HAVING SHAREHOLDING IN THE FIRM AND ALSO HAVING SUBSTANTIAL SHAREHOLDING WITH THE SAID TWO COMPANIES, THEREFORE, THROUGH THE SAID PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY, THE ASSESSEE FIRM WAS HAVIN G SUBSTANTIAL INTEREST IN THE SAID TWO COMPANIES. BY REFERRING TO TH E PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2(22) OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS COMMENTED THAT AS PER THE DEFINITION PERSON WHO HAS A SUBSTANTIAL INTEREST IN THE COMPANY THE ASSESSEE IS A BENEFICIAL OWNER OF THE SHARES A ND ENTITLED FOR DIVIDEND OF THE SAID TWO COMPANIES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER EXAMINED THE ACCUMULATED PROFITS OF THE SAID TWO COMPA NIES AND TAXED THE SAME IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE BY INVOKIN G THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2(22)(E) OF THE ACT. M/S. BHARAT HARDWARE & IRON STORES 8 10. WHEN THE MATTER WAS CARRIED BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, IT WAS FOUND THAT THIS ISSUE WAS ALSO DECIDED BY THE T RIBUNAL, NAGPUR BENCH, IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2006-07 AND 2007-08, ORDER DATED 9 TH JANUARY 2013 CITED SUPRA. AFTER REPRODUCING THE PORTION OF VERDICT OF THE TRIBUNAL, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS HELD THAT THE DEEMING FICTION OF SECTION 2(22)(E) OF THE ACT COULD BE APPLIED ONLY TO THE SHAREHOLDERS AND NOT TO THE CONC ERN IN WHICH THE SHAREHOLDERS ARE PARTNERS. HENCE, FOLLOWING THE VI EW TAKEN BY THE TRIBUNAL, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS DELETED THE ADDITION. 11. WITH THESE BRIEF FACTUAL BACKGROUND, WE HAVE HEARD B OTH THE SIDES AND THEREUPON NOTICED THAT THIS ISSUE IS ALSO C ONSIDERED BY THE RESPECTED CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSES SEES OWN CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2006-07 AND 2007-08, ORDER DATED 9 TH JANUARY 2013, AND AFTER CONSIDERING THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN ACIT V/S BHAUMIK COLOU RS PVT. LTD., 118 TTJ 001 (BOM.) AND UNIVERSAL MEDICARE PVT. LTD., 324 ITR 263 (BOM.) DELETED THE ADDITION. FOR READY REFERENCE IN PARA-7 I S REPRODUCED BELOW:- 7. AFTER CONSIDERING THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFF ICER AND LEARNED CIT(A), WE FOUND NO INFIRMITY IN THE FINDIN GS OF THE LEARNED CIT(A). THE ASSESSEES FIRM IS NEITHER A RE GISTERED SHAREHOLDER NOR BENEFICIARY SHARE HOLDER IN THE SAI D COMPANY, WHO IS A CREDITOR OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM. THE SPECIAL BENCH OF THE M/S. BHARAT HARDWARE & IRON STORES 9 TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF BHAUMIK COLOUR PVT. LTD. (S UPRA) HAS HELD THAT ADDITION CAN BE MADE UNDER SECTION 2(22) IN THE CASE OF BENEFICIARY SHAREHOLDER ONLY. THIS VIEW OF THE TRIBUNAL HAS BEEN CONFIRMED BY THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HI GH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V/S UNIVERSAL MEDICARE PVT. LTD., R EPORTED IN 324 ITR 263 (BOM.) IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS AND CIRCU MSTANCES FO THE CASE, WE HOLD THAT LEARNED CIT(A) WAS RIGHT IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN VIEW OF T HE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2(22)(E) AND DISALLOWING THE INTEREST WH ICH WAS CONSEQUENTIAL TO THE ADDITION MADE AS DEEMED DIVIDE ND. ACCORDINGLY, WE CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CI T(A) FOR BOTH THE YEARS. HENCE, APPEALS OF THE DEPARTMENT I. E., ITA NO.65&66/NAG./2011 FAIL AND THE SAME ARE DISMISSED. 12. ON THIS ISSUE, THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT H AS PASSED THE JUDGMENT IN CIT V/S IMPACT CONTAINERS PVT. LTD., 10 7 DTR 145 (BOM.), WHEREIN REFERRED THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN CIT V/S ANKITECH PVT. LTD., 340 ITR 14 (DEL.) AND HELD THAT THE DEEMED DIVIDEND CAN BE ASSESSED ONLY IN CASE OF PER SON WHO IS A SHAREHOLDER OF LENDER COMPANY AND NOT IN THE HANDS OF THE PERSON OTHER THAN THE SHAREHOLDER. 13. CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, ESPECIALLY WHEN THE RESPECTED CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL ON THOSE VERY FACTS HAS ALREADY TAKEN A VIEW IN FAV OUR OF THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, WE HAVE NO OPTION BUT TO FOLLO W THE SAME AND, HENCE, AFFIRM THE DECISION OF THE LEARNED CIT(A). GRO UNDS NO.2 AND 3 ARE ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. M/S. BHARAT HARDWARE & IRON STORES 10 14. AS FAR AS THE POSITION OF LAW IS CONCERNED, IT IS MA NDATORY ON OUR PART TO RESPECTFULLY FOLLOW THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON'B LE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT. IN GROUND NO.3, THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT HAS REFERRED TWO DECISIONS OF THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE REVENUE. WITHOUT GOING INTO T HE MERITS OF THOSE DECISIONS, PRIMARILY, WE ARE OF THE CONSCIENTIOU S VIEW THAT WHILE SITTING AT NAGPUR BENCH, WE HAVE TO DUTIFULLY RELY ON THE VERDICT OF THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT AS CITED SUPRA. THE REFORE, WE FIND NO REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) WHO HAS FOLLOWED THE ORDER OF THE RESPECTED CO-ORDINATE BENCH PRONOUNCED IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE. THUS, THIS GROUND NO.3, RAIS ED BY THE REVENUE IS AS WELL DISMISSED. 15. IN REST OF THE THREE YEARS, THE REVENUE HAS RAISED TH E SAME ISSUE, AS DISCUSSED HEREIN ABOVE, HENCE, THOSE GROUN DS RAISED IN ALL THE THREE ASSESSMENT YEARS ARE ALSO DISMISSED. 16. IN THE RESULT, REVENUES ALL THE APPEALS ARE DISMIS SED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 28.08.2015 SD/ - SHAMIM YAHYA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SD/ - MUKUL K. SHRAWAT JUDICIAL MEMBER NAGPUR, DATED: 28.08.2015 M/S. BHARAT HARDWARE & IRON STORES 11 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : (1) THE ASSESSEE; (2) THE REVENUE; (3) THE CIT(A); (4) THE CIT, NAGPUR CITY CONCERNED; (5) THE DR, ITAT, NAGPUR; (6) GUARD FILE. TRUE COPY BY ORDER PRADEEP J. CHOWDHURY SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY A SSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NAGPUR