Laxmi Shanker Bajpai, Kanpur V. ACIT, Kanpur

ITA 261/LKW/2005

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2064 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 year(s) 5 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-09-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 24-07-2015
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 30-03-2005
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Salary income; Retrospective amendment; Accommodation entries

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH A, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.261/LKW/2005 (BLOCK PERIOD ENDED ON 06.09.2001) THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC-III, KANPUR VS LAXMI SHANKER BAJPAI, 117/805, M BLOCK, KAKA DEO, (NEAR NEW RAM JANKI DEV MANDIR) KANPUR- 208 019 PAN AAACB 8090 N (RESPONDENT) (APPELLANT) SHRI RAKESH GARG, ADVOCATE APPELLANT BY SHRI SANJAY KUMAR, CIT(DR) RESPONDENT BY 27 /07/2015 DATE OF HEARING 04/09/2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT O R D E R PER A. K. GARODIA, A.M. THIS IS AN ASSESSEES APPEAL DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A)-I, KANPUR DATED 20/01/2005 FOR BLOCK PERIOD ENDING ON 06.09.2 001. 2. THE GROUNDS NO. 1 AND 2 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE A RE AS UNDER: 1. THE LEARNED CIT(A) WAS WRONG IN LAW AND ON FACT S IN NOT QUASHING THE BLOCK ASSTT. ORDER AS THERE WAS NO VALID SEARCH IN THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT & THE PROVISIONS OF BLOCK ASSTT. WERE NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT. 2. THE LEARNED CIT(A) SHOULD HAVE HELD THAT SINCE T HERE WAS NO INDIVIDUAL SEARCH WARRANT IN THE NAME OF THE APPELL ANT, NO BLOCK ASSTT. ORDER COULD BE PASSED IN HIS CASE. 2 3. THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THIS I SSUE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE ALLAHAB AD HIGH COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SMT. VANDANA VERMA REPORTED IN 330 ITR 533 (ALL.) WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT WHEN THE WARRANT OF AUTHORIZATION FOR SEA RCH WAS ISSUED IN THE JOINT NAMES OF HUSBAND AND WIFE, INDIVIDUAL ASSESSMENTS IN THE NAMES OF HUSBAND AND WIFE ALONE IS NOT VALID. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THIS JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT WAS AGAIN FOLLOWED BY THE HONBLE ALLAHA BAD HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MADHU CHAWLA REPORTED IN INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 30 OF 2011 DATED 23.08.2011. HE SUBMITTED A COPY OF THIS JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT SLP WAS FILED BY T HE REVENUE AGAINST THIS JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT BEFORE THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT AND IT WAS DISMISSED IN SLP NO. 6080 OF 2012 DATED 02.12.2014. HE SUBMITTED A COPY OF THIS JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE APEX COURT ABO UT DISMISSAL OF SLP IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MADHU CHAWLA (SUPRA). HE POINTED OUT THA T IT IS NOW LAW OF LAND AS PER THIS JUDGMENT OF HONBLE APEX COURT BECAUSE IN THIS JUDGMENT, THE DISMISSAL OF SLP IS BY WAY OF A SPEAKING ORDER SINCE THE JUDGMENT SA YS THAT UPON HEARING, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING ORDER DELAY CONDONED, DISMISSED . HE SUBMITTED THAT AS PER THIS JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE APEX COURT, THE JUDGME NT OF THE HONBLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF MADHU CHAWLA (SU PRA) AND IN THE CASE OF CIT VS VANDANA VERMA (SUPRA) STANDS APPROVED BY THE HONBL E APEX COURT AND SINCE IN THE PRESENT CASE ALSO, SEARCH WARRANT WAS ISSUED IN JOI NT NAMES, THE INDIVIDUAL ASSESSMENT FRAMED IN THE PRESENT CASE IS NOT VALID. 4. IN REPLY, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. DR OF THE REVENUE THAT SUBSEQUENTLY, A LARGER BENCH WAS FORMED BY THE HONBLE ALLAHABAD HI GH COURT ON THE SAME ISSUE AND THIS LARGER BENCH RENDERED A JUDGMENT IN THE CA SE OF CIT VS. DEVESH SINGH REPORTED IN 252 CTR 356 WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 292CC OF THE ACT AS INSERTED BY FINANCE ACT , 2012 WITH RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT, EVEN WHERE THE WARRANT OF AUTHORIZATION OF SEARCH H AS BEEN ISSUED JOINTLY, THE ASSESSMENT CAN BE MADE INDIVIDUALLY. HE FURTHER SUB MITTED THAT AS PER THIS 3 JUDGMENT OF THE LARGER BENCH OF THE HONBLE ALLAHAB AD HIGH COURT, THIS ISSUE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE REVENUE AND AGAINST THE AS SESSEE AND THEREFORE DIVISION BENCH JUDGMENTS OF THE HONBLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. VANDANA VERMA (SUPRA) AND MADHU CHAWLA (SUPRA) ARE NO MORE VALID. REGARDING THIS JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE APEX COURT R ENDERED IN THE SLP FILED BY THE REVENUE IN THE CASE OF MADHU CHAWLA (SUPRA), IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THIS JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE APEX COURT FOR DISMISSING THE SLP OF THE REVENUE IN THAT CASE IS WITHOUT ANY DISCUSSION AND THEREFORE, THE SAME IS V ALID IN THAT CASE BUT IT DOES NOT LAY DOWN A LAW PARTICULARLY WHEN THERE IS NO REFERE NCE TO SECTION 292CC OF THE ACT IN THIS JUDGMENT. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. FIRST OF ALL, WE REFER TO PROVISION OF SECTION 292CC OF THE ACT. WE FIND THAT THIS SECTION WAS INSERTED BY FINANCE ACT, 2012 WITH RETROSPECTIVE FROM 01.04.1976. AS PER THI S SECTION, IT IS PROVIDED THAT NOTWITHSTANDING THAT THE AUTHORIZATION FOR SEARCH H AS BEEN ISSUED IN JOINT NAMES, ASSESSMENT OR REASSESSMENT SHALL BE MADE SEPARATELY IN THE NAMES OF EACH OF THE PERSONS MENTIONED IN SUCH AUTHORIZATION. HENCE, AS PER THIS RETROSPECTIVE AMENDMENT IN THE INCOME TAX ACT, THE ISSUE IN DISPU TE IN THE PRESENT CASE HAS TO BE DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE REVENUE AND AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. 6. REGARDING TWO JUDGMENTS OF DIVISION BENCH OF THE HONBLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. VANDANA VERMA (SUPRA) AND MADHU CHAWLA (SUPRA), IT GOES WITHOUT SAYING THAT WHEN A SUBSEQU ENT JUDGMENT OF LARGER BENCH OF THE HONBLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT RENDERED IN THE CA SE OF CIT VS. DEVESH SINGH (SUPRA) DATED 23.07.2012 IS AT VARIANCE WITH THESE TWO JUDGMENTS OF THE DIVISION BENCH OF THE HONBLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT, WE HAVE TO FOLLOW THE JUDGMENT OF LARGER BENCH OF THE HONBLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN PREFERENCE TO THESE TWO JUDGMENTS OF THE DIVISION BENCH OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT AND AS PER THIS JUDGMENT OF THE LARGER BENCH OF THE HONBLE ALLAHABAD HIGH C OURT, THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE IS COVERED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE BECAUSE IT WAS HELD BY LARGER BENCH OF THE HONBLE 4 ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN THAT CASE THAT EVEN WHERE T HE WARRANT OF AUTHORIZATION HAS BEEN ISSUED JOINTLY, THE ASSESSMENT CAN BE MADE IND IVIDUALLY. 7. NOW, WE ARE LEFT WITH THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBL E APEX COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MADHU CHAWLA (SUPRA) IN COURSE OF D ECIDING THE SLP FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE ALLAHAB AD HIGH COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF MADHU CHAWLA (SUPRA). WE FIND THAT AS PER T HIS JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE APEX COURT, THE SLP OF THE REVENUE WAS DISMISSED WI THOUT ANY DISCUSSION AND THIS IS BY NOW A SETTLED POSITION OF LAW THAT WHEN THE S LP IS DISMISSED BY THE HONBLE APEX COURT WITHOUT ANY DISCUSSION, SUCH JUDGMENT OF HONBLE APEX COURT IS BINDING IN THE CASE IN WHICH IT WAS RENDERED BUT DOES NOT L AY DOWN A LAW OF LAND. MOREOVER, THE DIVISION BENCH JUDGMENTS OF THE HONBLE ALLAHAB AD HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. VANDANA VERMA (SUPRA) AND MADHU CHAWLA (SUPRA) WERE RENDERED PRIOR TO INSERTION OF SECTION 292CC IN THE INCOME TAX ACT BY FINANCE ACT, 2012 WITH RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT FROM 01.04.1976 AND BOTH THE J UDGMENTS WERE RENDERED PRIOR TO THIS AMENDMENT IN I.T. ACT. IT DOES NOT COME OUT TH AT THE SUBSEQUENT RETROSPECTIVE AMENDMENT IN THE INCOME TAX ACT WAS BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE COURSE OF DECISION ON THE SLP FILED BY THE REVENUE IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MADHU CHAWLA AND THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE CONSI DERED OPINION THAT THIS JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE APEX COURT IS NOT RELEVANT IN THE PRESENT CASE BECAUSE THE SAME IS WITHOUT ANY DISCUSSION AND WITHOUT EXPLICIT LY CONSIDERING THE SUBSEQUENT RETROSPECTIVE AMENDMENT IN THE INCOME TAX ACT BY IN SERTING SECTION 292CC. 8. AS PER ABOVE DISCUSSION, WE HAVE SEEN THAT THE I SSUE IN DISPUTE AS PER GROUND NOS. 1 AND 2 IS COVERED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE AND IN FAVOUR OF THE REVENUE BY THE JUDGMENT OF LARGER BENCH OF THE HONBLE ALLAHABAD H IGH COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. DEVESH SINGH (SUPRA) AND RESPECTFULLY FO LLOWING THE SAME, WE DECLINE TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (A) ON THIS I SSUE. ACCORDINGLY, GROUNDS NO. 1 AND 2 OF THE ASSESSEE ARE REJECTED. 5 9. GROUNDS NO. 3 AND 4 ARE AS UNDER:- 1. THE LEARNED CIT(A) WAS WRONG IN THE LAW AND ON FACTS IN SUSTAINING FOLLOWING ADDITIONS IN THE BLOCK ASSTT. OF THE APPE LLANT. A. ADDITION RELATING TO ALLEGED COMMISSION/INTEREST ASSTT. YEAR AMOUNT 1999-2000 52150/- 2000-2001 59049/- 2001-2002 68437/- 2002-2003 65823/- ------------------- 245459/- ------------------- B. ADDITION IN RESPECT OF ALLEGED SALARY ASSTT. YEAR AMOUNT --------------- ------------- 2000-2001 21600/- 2001-2002 39600/- ------------- 61200/- ------------ 4. THE LEARNED CIT(A) WHILE SUSTAINING THE AFORESAI D ADDITIONS HAVE FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE REAL FACTS OF THE CASE & THE EXPLANA TION FURNISHED BY THE APPELLANT AS THERE WAS NO UNDISCLOSED INCOME TO BE ASSESSED IN BLOCK ASSTT. 10. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE THAT AS PER ALLEGATION OF THE AO IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE AMOUNT HAD BEEN REC EIVED BY THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF COMMISSION IN RESPECT OF ACCOMMODATION E NTRIES PROVIDED BY THE FAMILY MEMBERS OF THE ASSESSEE AND INTEREST WAS PROVIDED B Y THE BORROWER BAJAJ GROUP AND TDS WAS DEDUCTED WHEREVER APPLICABLE AND RESPEC TIVE FAMILY MEMBER HAS CONSIDERED SUCH INTEREST INCOME IN HIS/HER RETURN O F INCOME WHICH IS AT THE RATE OF 12% AND THIS IS NOT THE CASE OF THE REVENUE THAT CO MMISSION OF 5% ALLEGEDLY PAID BY THE BAJAJ GROUP ON ALLEGED ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES IS OVER AND ABOVE THE INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 12% PROVIDED BY THE BORROWER BAJAJ G ROUP. HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THIS IS ALSO ADMITTED POSITION THAT ALTHOUGH PROVIS ION OF INTEREST HAS BEEN MADE FOR 6 AT THE RATE OF 12% BY THE BAJAJ GROUP BUT NO PAYMEN T WAS MADE BY THE BAJAJ GROUP TO THE FAMILY MEMBERS OF THE ASSESSEE IN WHOS E NAMES, ENTRIES/LOAN WAS ACCOUNTED FOR IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE BAJAJ GROUP AND EVEN IN TWO CASES AS NOTED BY THE AO ON PAGE 8 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, SOME CHEQUES WERE GIVEN BY THE BAJAJ GROUP TO THE FAMILY MEMBERS OF THE ASSESS EE BUT CHEQUES OF EQUIVALENT AMOUNT OR HIGHER AMOUNT WAS GIVEN BACK TO THE SAME OR DIFFERENT COMPANY OF BAJAJ GROUP AND THEREFORE, THE ONLY AMOUNT RECEIVED ON AC COUNT OF SUCH ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES IS 5% COMMISSION BUT THE RESPECTIVE PERSON OF THE FAMILY OF THE ASSESSEE INCLUDED MORE AMOUNT IN HIS/HER RETURN OF INCOME AN D THE CASH AMOUNT SAID TO BE RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO NOT BELONGING TO T HE ASSESSEE BUT TO HIS FAMILY MEMBERS AND THEREFORE, NO ADDITION IS CALLED FOR ON THIS ACCOUNT IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. AS AGAINST THIS, LD. DR OF THE REVENUE SU PPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT EVEN IF S AME INCOME HAS BEEN SHOWN BY THE FAMILY MEMBERS OF THE ASSESSEE, THIS IS SETTLED POSITION OF LAW BY NOW THAT INCOME HAS TO BE ASSESSED IN CORRECT HANDS AND THER EFORE, THE ADDITION IN THE HANDS OF THE PRESENT ASSESSEE IS PROPER BECAUSE THE COMMI SSION WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE AS PER SEIZED MATERIAL. 11. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FI ND THAT IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, IT WAS NOTED BY THE AO THAT IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF BAJAJ GROUP, INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 12% WAS BEING PROVIDED AND TDS WHERE VER APPLICABLE WAS BEING DEDUCTED BUT ACTUALLY, NO PAYMENT IN CASH OR BY WAY OF CHEQUE WAS BEING MADE. IT IS NOTED BY THE AO THAT IN TWO CASES, CHEQUES WERE ISSUED BY TWO COMPANIES OF BAJAJ GROUP I.E. ON 15.02.1997 A CHEQUE OF RS.1,53, 650/- WAS ISSUED BY BAJAJ OSHO POLYPET AND ON 20.02.1997, A CHEUQE OF RS.1,60,000/ - WAS RECEIVED BY THE SAME COMPANY FROM THE SAME FAMILY MEMBER OF THE ASSESSEE . SIMILARLY ON 08.09.1995, A CHEQUE WAS RECEIVED FROM BAJAJ CHEMICALS OF RS.1,25 ,000/- AND ON 09.11.1995, A CHEQUE OF EQUIVALENT AMOUNT WAS ISSUED BY THE FAMIL Y MEMBER OF THE ASSESSEE TO THE BAJAJ OSHO POLYPET. ON PAGE 9 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, IT IS ALSO NOTED BY THE AO THAT ONE MAY CLAIM THAT THE INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 5% OR 4% AS THE CASE MAY BE 7 IS BEING PAID OUTSIDE THE BOOKS WHILE 12% IS THE RA TE OF INTEREST AS PER THE BOOKS. THEREFORE, THE TOTAL INTEREST WAS PAYABLE AT THE RA TE OF 17%. THEREAFTER, THE AO OBSERVED THAT THIS IS HOWEVER AN ABSURD PROPOSITION BECAUSE NOBODY WAS STOPPING BAJAJ GROUP FROM BOOKING AN INTEREST OF 17% IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND IT WOULD HAVE RESULTED IN REDUCTION OF TAXABLE INCOME OF BAJ AJ GROUP. HENCE, IT IS SEEN THAT EVEN AS PER ASSESSMENT ORDER, ONLY AMOUNT RECEIVED IS COMMISSION AMOUNT OF 5% IN RESPECT OF ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES SAID TO HAVE BE EN PROVIDED BY FAMILY MEMBERS OF THE ASSESSEE. IT MAY BE THAT THE AMOUNT IN FACT WAS PAID BY THE BAJAJ GROUP TO THE ASSESSEE BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE WAS WORKING WITH BAJAJ GROUP AND SINCE THE ALLEGED ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES ARE ADMITTEDLY IN THE NAME OF FAMILY MEMBERS OF THE ASSESSEE, SUCH COMMISSION INCOME FOR PROVIDING ACCO MMODATION ENTRIES IN FACT BELONGS TO RESPECTIVE FAMILY MEMBERS AND SUCH FAMIL Y MEMBER IS ALREADY ACCOUNTING FOR INTEREST INCOME IN RESPECT OF THE AL LEGED ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES AND SUCH INTEREST INCOME ALREADY TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT BY THE FAMILY MEMBERS IS AT THE RATE OF 12% WHEREAS THE COMMISSION IS SAID TO HAVE BEEN RECEIVED AT THE RATE OF 5% ONLY. UNDER THIS FACTUAL POSITION, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT SEPARATE ADDITION MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOU NT OF ALLEGED PAYMENT IN RESPECT OF ALLEGED ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES IS NOT JUS TIFIED BECAUSE EVEN IF THE LOAN PROVIDED BY THE FAMILY MEMBERS OF THE ASSESSEE TO B AJAJ GROUP IS NOT ACTUAL LOAN AND IS ONLY ACCOMMODATION ENTRY THEN ALSO, THE COMM ISSION ON SUCH ACCOMMODATION ENTRY BELONGS TO THE RESPECTIVE FAMILY MEMBER AND T HAT FAMILY MEMBER HAS ALREADY INCLUDED IN HIS INCOME INTEREST @ 12% AND ALLEGED C OMMISSION PAYMENT OF 5% IS NOT IN ADDITION TO INTEREST OF 12%. WE, THEREFORE, DELETE THIS ADDITION IN THE PRESENT CASE AND ACCORDINGLY GROUND 3A IS ALLOWED. 12. REGARDING GROUND NO. 3B IN RESPECT OF ADDITION OF RS.61,200/- ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED SALARY, WE FIND THAT IT IS NOTED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IN PARA 13.4 OF HIS ORDER THAT AS PER SEIZED MATERIAL (ANNEXURE A-1 TO A-12), IT HAS BEEN GATHERED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED SALARY OF RS.84,000/- FOR AY 2000-01 AND RS.1,02,000/- FOR AY 2001-02. BUT IN BOTH THESE YEARS, ASSESSEE HAS S HOWN SALARY INCOME OF ONLY 8 RS.62,400/- PER YEAR. ON THIS BASIS, LD. CIT(A) HAS CONFIRMED THE ADDITION OF THE DIFFERENCE IN SALARY INCOME RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSE E AS PER SEIZED MATERIAL AND DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE IN RETURN OF INCOME OF RS. 21,600/- IN AY 2000-01 AND RS.39,600/- AY 2001-02. LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE COUL D NOT CONTROVERT THIS FINDING OF THE LD. CIT(A) BY ESTABLISHING THAT THE AMOUNT OF S ALARY RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THESE TWO ASSESSMENT YEARS AS PER SEIZED MATERIAL A ND AS PER RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THESE TWO YEARS IS SAME. HENCE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE. ACCORDINGLY, GROUND NO.3B IS REJECTED. 13. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. (ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONED ON THE CAPTION PAGE) SD/- SD/- (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) (A.K. GARODIA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTA NT MEMBER DATED: 04/09/2015 AKS 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 AS STT. REGISTRAR