Diamon Carpet, Agra V. Addl. C.I.T., Range-1, Agra

ITA 264/AGR/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2149 (ITAT-AGRA)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-07-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 11-07-2013
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 06-07-2011
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S L MAURYA
• Assessee Lawyers: MUNNA LAL AGARWAL
• Keywords: Depreciation; Corroborative evidences

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AGRA BENCH, AGRA BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.L. GEHLOT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.264/AGRA/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 DIAMOND CARPET, VS. ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOM E TAX, MILLENNIUM HOUSE, RANGE-1, AGRA. FATEHABAD ROAD, AGRA. (PAN: AABFD 1560 H) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI MUNNA LAL AGARWAL, C.A. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI S.L. MAURYA, SR. D.R. DATE OF HEARING : 11.07.2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 19.07.2013 ORDER PER A.L. GEHLOT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 28.02.2011 PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A)-I, AGRA FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL :- 1. BECAUSE THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS), AGRA WRONGLY DISALLOWED LOOM EXPENSES AMOUNTING TO RS.22,62,695/- AS REVENU E EXPENSES UNDER THE HEAD LOOM EXPENSES. 2. BECAUSE THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS), AGRA WRONGLY A LLOWED A SUM OF RS.5,00,000/- AS CAPITAL EXPENSES INSTEAD OF REVENUE EXPENSES OUT OF LOOM EXPENSES OF RS.22,62,695/-. ITA NO.264/AGRA/2011 A.Y. 2007-08 2 3. BECAUSE THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS), AGRA WRONGLY CONFIRMED THE DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST ON DEBIT BALANCE OF SH RI KUNAL JAIN, S/O. THE MANAGING PARTNER WHILE THE AMOUNT GIVEN TO KUNA L JAIN IS FINALLY TREATED AS DRAWINGS OF THE PARTNER WHO IS RESPONSIB LE TO BEAR THE EDUCATION EXPENSES OF SHRI KUNAL JAIN. 4. BECAUSE THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS), AGRA WRONGLY CONFIRMED THE DISALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION AMOUNT ON ONE CAR AMOUNTING TO RS.1,50,000/- (CAR WORTH RS.10,00,000/-). 5. BECAUSE THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS), AGRA WRONGLY CONFIRMED THE ADDITION OF RS.92,276/- OUT OF FOOD & BEVERAGE EXPENSES AND RS.1,35,180/- OUT OF FUEL OF CAR & SCOOTER. BECAUSE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIT (APPEAL S), AGRA IS WRONG, ILLEGAL AND AGAINST THE FACTS OF THE CASE AN D LIABLE TO BE SET ASIDE. 3. GROUND NO.1 & 2 ARE PERTAINING TO DISALLOWANCE O F LOOM EXPENSES. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THE ASSESSEE FIRM CARRIES ON BUSINESS OF EXPORTING OF HANDMADE WOOLEN CARPETS AND HANDLOOM DURRIES. THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING INCOME OF RS.95,52,710/-. DURING THE ASS ESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE A.O. NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DEBITED AN AMOUNT OF RS.22,62,695/- ON ACCOUNT OF LOOM EXPENDITURE. ON PERUSAL OF COPY OF REGISTER S UBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE ABOUT THE LOOMS INSTALLATIONS, THE A.O. NOTICED THAT THE NUMBER OF LOOMS OF VARIOUS SIZES FROM 3 FT. TO 18 FT. HAVE BEEN SHOWN IN VARIOUS NAM ES ON DIFFERENT DATES. FROM THE ITA NO.264/AGRA/2011 A.Y. 2007-08 3 DETAILS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE A.O. NOTICED THAT THE NUMBER OF LOOMS SHOWN AGAINST EACH NAME IS QUITE HIGH AND TOTAL IN THE YE AR IT HAS BEEN SHOWN 505 LOOMS ERECTED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE A.O. FURTHER NOTED TH AT ALL EXPENSES ON ACCOUNT OF LOOM HAVE BEEN SHOWN ON SELF MADE CASH VOUCHER EACH AMOUNTING BELOW RS.5,000/-. THE A.O. ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE THE CONCERNED PARTIES. THE ASSESSEE PRODUCED ONLY ONE PERSON NAMELY SHRI HARI SHANKAR. SHRI HARI SHANKAR STATED THAT HE WORKED ONLY AS A CONTRACTOR FOR THE ASSESSEE FIRM AND RECEIVED COMMISSION ON ACCOUNT OF PROVIDING WEAVERS IN THE V ILLAGES AND ONCE THE CARPET IS DELIVERED HE RECEIVES RS.3/- TO RS.5/- PER SQ. FT. AS COMMISSION. AS REGARDS LOOMS HE STATED THAT IT IS ERECTED BY THE VILLAGERS THEMS ELVES AND THE EXPENDITURE ON ACCOUNT OF LOOM IS PAID BY THE ASSESSEE FIRM. ON T HE BASIS OF THE STATEMENT OF SHRI HARI SHANKER, THE A.O. NOTICED THAT THE LOOMS ARE N EITHER ERECTED AT HIS PREMISES NOR ANY EXPENDITURE ON ACCOUNT OF LOOM HAS BEEN DEB ITED AGAINST HIS NAME WHEREAS IN THE ASSESSEES BOOKS OF ACCOUNT THE LOOMS HAVE B EEN SHOWN IN THE NAME OF SHRI HARI SHANKAR. THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO PRODUCE O THER PERSONS. THE A.O. NOTICED THAT EXPENDITURE CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF LOOM WAS NOT JUSTIFIED. FURTHER, THE ALLEGED LOOMS STILL REMAINED THE PROPE RTY OF ASSESSEE ON OWNERSHIP BASIS. THEREFORE, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT SUCH PROP ERTY HAS BEEN INCURRED ON THE BASIS OF CASH VOUCHERS AND PAYMENT SHOWN TO VARIOUS LABOURERS WILL NOT BE AVAILABLE FOR ASSESSEES USE IN FUTURE. SINCE THE EXPENDITURES WERE NOT VERIFIABLE AS ITA NO.264/AGRA/2011 A.Y. 2007-08 4 INCURRED ON SELF GENERATED VOUCHERS, THE DEPRECIATI ON AVAILABLE FOR PLANT AND MACHINERY IS ALSO NOT ALLOWABLE. THE A.O. RELIED U PON THE JUDGEMENT OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN HE CASE OF KEDAR NATH JUTE MANUFAC TURING CO LTD. VS. CIT, 82 ITR 363 (SC) WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT WHETHER THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO A PARTICULAR DEDUCTION OR NOT WILL DEPEND ON THE PROV ISIONS OF LAW RELATING THERETO AND NOT ON THE VIEW WHICH THE ASSESSEE MIGHT TAKE O F HIS RIGHT NOR CAN THE EXISTENCE OR ABSENCE OF ENTRIES IN THE BOOKS OF ACC OUNTS BE DECISIVE OR CONCLUSIVE IN THE MATER. THE A.O. MADE ADDITION OF RS.22,62,6 95/-. 4. THE CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ADDITION. THE CIT(A) C ALLED THE REMAND REPORT FROM THE A.O. ON THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE. A T THE TIME OF REMAND PROCEEDINGS TWO PERSONS WERE PRODUCED WHEREIN THEY CLAIMED THAT 85 LOOMS HAVE BEEN ERECTED/CONSTRUCTED. THE CIT(A) HELD THAT ONL Y ON THE BASIS OF SAMPLE SURVEY, VERIFICATION OF 100% EXPENSES ON LOOMS EREC TED CANNOT BE ACCEPTED. HOWEVER, THE CIT(A) FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE IS IN T HE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING OF CARPET AND THE LOOMS ARE ESSENTIAL MACHINERY. THER EFORE, CONSTRUCTION/ERECTION OF LOOMS BY THE ASSESSEE AT THE SITE OF WEAVERS CANNOT BE DENIED. IT IS ALSO OBSERVATION OF THE CIT(A) THAT SUCH EXPENDITURE CAN BE ACCEPTED ONLY TO THE EXTENT OF EVIDENCES PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE CIT(A) ON THE BASIS OF EVIDENCES PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE HELD THAT AT THE MOST EXPE NDITURE INCURRED ON ITA NO.264/AGRA/2011 A.Y. 2007-08 5 CONSTRUCTION/ERECTION OF LOOMS CAN BE ACCEPTED FOR 110 LOOMS FOR WHICH EXPENDITURE CAN BE ESTIMATED AT RS.5,00,000/-. THE CIT(A) ACCORDINGLY HELD THAT EXPENDITURE ON CONSTRUCTION/ERECTION OF THE LOOMS C AN BE ACCEPTED TO THE EXTENT OF RS.5,00,000/-. HE, THEREFORE, DIRECTED THE A.O. TO ALLOW DEPRECIATION @ 15% APPLICABLE FOR PLANT & MACHINERY AFTER CAPITALIZING EXPENDITURE ON CONSTRUCTION/ERECTION OF LOOMS TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 5,00,000/-. THUS, CIT(A) HAS CONFIRMED THE ADDITION OF RS.22,62,695/- MADE BY TH E A.O. ON ACCOUNT OF LOOM EXPENSES AND FURTHER DIRECTED THE A.O. TO ALLOW DEP RECATION ON SUCH LOOMS AFTER CAPITALIZING AT RS.5,00,000/- ON CONSTRUCTION/ERECT ION. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PAR TIES AND RECORDS PERUSED. THE ADMITTED FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSE E BOOKED THE LOOMS EXPENDITURE ON THE BASIS OF SELF MADE VOUCHERS. IT IS ALSO ADM ITTED FACTS AS ADMITTED BY THE CIT(A) THAT SUCH EXPENDITURES ARE NECESSARY FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE BUSINESS. ONCE IT IS FOUND THAT SUCH EXPENDITURES ARE NECESSARY FO R THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS, THE ENTIRE EXPENSES CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE D ISALLOWED. IN THE LIGHT OF THE FACT, THE ORDERS OF REVENUE AUTHORITIES CANNOT BE S USTAINED. IT IS ALSO A FACT THAT THE EXPENDITURE ACCOUNTED FOR AND CLAIMED BY THE AS SESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF LOOMS IS NOT VERIFIABLE. UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, CONSIDERI NG THE FACT THAT SUCH EXPENDITURE ARE NECESSARY FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS, THE QUES TION TO BE CONSIDERED IS ITA NO.264/AGRA/2011 A.Y. 2007-08 6 ESTIMATION OF SUCH EXPENSES. BECAUSE WITHOUT SUCH EXPENDITURE, IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO EARN PROFIT AND SHOWING INCOME TO THE EXTENT OF RS.95,52,710 /- IN THE RETURN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THE CASE UNDER C ONSIDERATION IS A REASONABLE ESTIMATION OF SUCH EXPENSES. IF WE CONSIDER COMPAR ATIVE TRADING ACCOUNT FOR THE YEAR ENDED 31.03.2007, YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND LAST YEAR ENDED 31.03.2006, WE NOTICED THAT LAST YEAR THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED RS.1 2,60,374/- LOOM EXPENSES AND GROSS PROFIT SHOWN WAS RS.1,45,00,622/- AND IN THE YEAR ENDED 31.03.2007 GROSS PROFIT SHOWN IS RS.2,12,79,434/-. THUS, PROPORTION ATE LOOM EXPENDITURE SHOULD BE RS.18,50,000/- (ROUNDED OFF) (1260374/14500612 X 2,12,79,434). IT IS STATED THAT IN LAST YEAR THE LOOM EXPENSES HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED B Y THE DEPARTMENT. UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES LOOM EXPENSES TO THE EXTENT OF RS.18, 50,000/- IS ALLOWABLE EXPENDITURE. WE ACCORDINGLY ALLOW THE SAME AND BAL ANCE AMOUNT OF RS.4,12,695/- IS CONFIRMED. THE ASSESSEE GETS RELIEF OF RS.18,50 ,000/- OUT OF ADDITION OF RS.22,62,695/-. 6. THE THIRD GROUND IS IN RESPECT OF DISALLOWANCE O F INTEREST EXPENSES. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE A.O. NOTICED THAT TH E ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED INTEREST EXPENSE OF RS.2,45,337/- ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST. T HE A.O. FURTHER NOTICED THAT AN AMOUNT OF RS.9,03,331/- HAS BEEN SHOWN AS OUTSTANDI NG UNDER THE HEAD ADVANCE IN THE NAME OF SHRI KUMAL JAIN. SHRI KUNAL JAIN IS SO N OF ONE OF THE PARTNERS SHRI LALIT JAIN. THE A.O. NOTICED THAT NO INTEREST RECO VERY ON ACCOUNT OF ADVANCE GIVEN ITA NO.264/AGRA/2011 A.Y. 2007-08 7 TO SHRI KUNAL JAIN HAS BEEN SHOWN. THE NATURE OF A DVANCE IS A PERSONAL ADVANCE GIVEN BY THE FIRM TO SHRI KUNAL JAIN. THE FIRM HAS BORROWED LOAN FOR ITS BUSINESS PURPOSE ON WHICH THE INTEREST HAS BEEN PAID WHEREAS AT THE SAME TIME THE FUND HAS BEEN ADVANCED TO A PERSON RELATED TO ITS PARTNER WI THOUT ANY CHARGE OF INTEREST. THE A.O. CALCULATED THE AMOUNT OF ADDITION APPLYING 12% RATE OF WHICH CALCULATION COMES TO RS.1,08,360/- WHICH HAS BEEN CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(A). 7. LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT THE AMOUNT DEBITED IN KUNALS ACCOUNT HAS BEEN FINALLY TRANSFERRED TO THE PARTNER OF THE ASSESSEE AS HE ASSESSEE WAS HAVING SUFFICIENT OWN FUND IN THIS REGARD. THE REFORE, NO DISALLOWANCE IS WARRANTED. 8. AFTER HEARING THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIV E, WE FIND THAT THE DETAILS OF OWN FUND AND OTHERS ARE NOT AVAILABLE ON RECORD. H OWEVER, THE I.T.A.T., MUMBAI BENCH IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS. H.P. SHAH & CO. IN IT A NO.3694/M/2006, ORDER DATED 15.01.2009, WHEREIN A FORMULA HAS BEEN LAID T HAT TO THE EXTENT OF OWN CAPITAL AND RESERVE THE ADDITION IS NOT WARRANTED IN SUCH C ASE. IN ABSENCE OF RELEVANT DETAILS AVAILABLE ON RECORD, WE ARE SENDING BACK TH IS MATTER TO THE FILE OF A.O. WITH DIRECTION TO DECIDE THE ISSUE IN THE LIGHT OF ABOVE ORDER OF I.T.A.T. MUMBAI BENCH, AFTER PROVIDING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING T O THE ASSESSEE. ITA NO.264/AGRA/2011 A.Y. 2007-08 8 9. THE FOURTH GROUND IS IN RESPECT OF DISALLOWANCE ON DEPRECIATION ON CAR. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE A.O. NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED DEPRECIATION ON SECOND-HAND CAR WHICH WAS PURCHASED BY MAKING PAYMENT THROUGH CHEQUE DATED 01.11.2006 HAVING NO.DL-4C AF0416. TH E A.O. NOTICED THAT NO BILL, RECEIPT OR ANY OTHER PAPERS WERE FURNISHED AS EVIDENCE FOR OWNERSHIP OF THE ASSET. COPY OF REGISTRATION PAPER OF THE CAR WAS A LSO NO FURNISHED WHICH CAN SHOW HA THE ASSET HAS BEEN OWNED BY THE ASSESSEE AND PUT TO USE FOR ITS BUSINESS PURPOSE. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE REGARDING THE OWNERS HIP OF ASSET AND BEING USED FOR THE BUSINESS PURPOSE, THE CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION ON SUCH ASSET AMOUNTING TO RS.1,50,000/- WAS DISALLOWED BY THE A.O. AND MADE A DDITION OF RS.1,50,000/-. THE CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O. AS N O EVIDENCE WAS FURNISHED REGARDING OWNERSHIP OF THE CAR AND IT IS BEING USED FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS. 10. THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THA T COY OF REGISTRATION WAS FURNISHED BEFORE THE CIT(A). AS PER THE REGISTRATI ON DOCUMENT, THE CAR WAS TRANSFERRED IN THE NAME OF ONE OF THE PARTNERS SHRI LALAIT JAIN. 11. AFTER HEARING THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATI VE, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO FURNISH SUPPORTING EVIDENCE THAT THE CAR WAS PURCHASED IN THE NAME OF PARTNER SHRI LALIT JAIN AND IT WAS USED FOR THE PUR POSE OF BUSINESS. THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO FURNISH ANY EVIDENCE IN THIS REGARD. ONCE IT IS FOUND THAT THE CAR WAS NOT USED FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS, DEPRECIATION IS NOT ALLOWABLE. THE ASSESSEE ITA NO.264/AGRA/2011 A.Y. 2007-08 9 HAS FAILED TO FURNISH ANY EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT THE CAR WAS USED FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS. IN THE LIGHT OF THE FACT, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A). THE ORDER OF CIT(A) IS CONFIRMED ON THE IS SUE. 12. THE FIFTH GROUND OF APPEAL IS IN RESPECT OF DI SALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES OF RS.92,276/- OUT OF FOOD & BEVERAGES. DURING THE AS SESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE A.O. NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED RS.4,61,381/- ON ACCOUNT OF FOOD AND BEVERAGES. THE A.O. DISALLOWED 20% OF SUCH EXPENDI TURE TO COVER UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF FBT. ON PERUSAL OF RECORDS, THE A.O. NOTICED THAT ON REFERRING TO THE DETAILS OF WORKING OF FBT ATTACHED ALONG WITH AUDIT REPORT, SUCH EXPENDITURE HAVE NOT BEEN CONSIDERED THERE ALSO. THE A.O. ALSO NOTI CED THAT THESE EXPENSES HAVE BEEN ACCOUNTED FOR ON THE BASIS OF SELF-GENERATED V OUCHERS. THE EXPENSES ARE NOT FULLY VERIFIABLE. THE A.O. MADE THE ADDITION OF RS .92,276/- BEING 20% OF THE TOTAL EXPENSES. THE CIT(A), AFTER CONSIDERING THE ASSESS EES SUBMISSION AND A.O.S REMAND REPORT, NOTICED THAT THE FBT HAVE BEEN APPLI CABLE FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND IT WAS FOUND BY THE A.O. THAT NO FBT HAS BEEN PAID BY THE ASSESSEE ON SUCH EXPENDITURE WHICH IS IN THE NATURE OF ENTERTAINMENT AND HOSPITALITY AND COVERED BY THE ENTRY NO.(B) OF SUB- SECTION (2) OF SECTION 115WB. THE CIT(A) REJECTED THE ASSESSEES CONTENTION FOR D ISALLOWANCE TO THE EXTENT OF 5% ON THE GROUND THAT AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF FBT 20% OF SUCH EXPENDITURE SHOULD ITA NO.264/AGRA/2011 A.Y. 2007-08 10 HAVE BEEN TAKEN AS FRINGE BENEFIT VALUE FOR CHARGIN G OF FBT AND NO SUCH TAX HAS BEEN PAID BY THE ASSESSEE ON SUCH VALUE. THE CIT(A ) UPHELD THE ORDER OF A.O. 13. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PA RTIES AND RECORDS PERUSED. WE NOTICE THAT THE CIT(A), AFTER CONSIDERING THE PR OVISIONS OF FBT AND RECORDS OF THE ASSESSEE, FOUND THAT 20% DISALLOWANCE WAS REASO NABLE. THE ASSESSEE AGREED BEFORE THE CIT(A) THAT DISALLOWANCE TO THE EXTENT O F 5% CAN BE MADE. CIT(A) REJECTED THE ASSESSEES CONTENTION CONSIDERING THE PROVISIONS OF FBT. THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO FURNISH ANY EVIDENCE OR EXPLANATION W HY ONLY 5% WAS TO BE DISALLOWED, WHEREAS THE CIT(A) HAS CONSIDERED THE R ELEVANT PROVISIONS OF FBT AND FOUND THAT 20% OF THE DISALLOWANCE WAS REASONABLE. IN THE ABSENCE OF CONTRARY MATERIAL ON THE FINDING OF CIT(A), ORDER OF CIT(A) IS CONFIRMED ON THE ISSUE. 14. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED AND PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. (ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT) SD/- SD/- (BHAVNESH SAINI) (A.L. GEHLOT) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTA NT MEMBER PBN/* COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO:- APPELLANT/RESPONDENT/CIT (APPEALS) CONCERNED/CIT CO NCERNED/ D.R., ITAT, AGRA BENCH, AGRA/ GUARD FILE. BY ORDER SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA TRUE COPY