Maharashtra Explosives Ltd, Nagpur V. Asstt.Commissioner of Income Tax ,Circle -2, Nagpur

ITA 27/NAG/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 93389 (ITAT-NAGPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 3 month(s) 30 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-05-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 21-01-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: A G PIMPARKHEDE
• Section: 27

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. BEFORE SHRI MUKUL K. SHRAWAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. I.T.A. NO S. 27 & 28/NAG/2013 ASSESSMENT YE ARS :2008-09 & 2009-10. MAHARASHTRA EXPLOSIVE LTD ASSTT. COMMISSIONER (IN LIQUIDATION), V/S. OF INCOME TA X, C/O OFFICE OF THE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR, CIRCLE-2, NEW SECRETARIAT BLDG., OPP.VCA GROUND, NAGPUR. CIVIL LINES, NAGPUR. PAN AACCM6931F APPELLANT RESPONDENT. APPELLANT BY : SH RI A.G. PIMPARKHEDE. RESPONDENT BY : SH RI P.R. MANE. DATE OF HEARING - 30-04-2015 DATE OF ORDER - 20 TH MAY, 2015 O R D E R PER SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, A.M. THESE APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(APPEALS)-I, NAGPUR FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2008-09 AND 2009-10 RESPECTIVELY. SINCE THE ISSUES ARE CONNECTED AND THE APPEALS WERE HEARD TOGETHER, THESE ARE CONSOLIDATED AND DISPOSED OF TOGETHER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 2 2. AT THE THRESHOLD, WE NOTE THAT THERE IS A DELAY OF 15 DAYS IN FILING THESE APPEALS. THE DELAY HAS BEEN ATTRIBUTED TO SUBMISSIO N OF THE APPEAL PAPERS IN THE ITAT (D.R. OFFICE) INITIALLY. WE FIND THAT THE REA SONABLE CAUSE FOR THE DELAY IS CONVINCING. HENCE WE CONDONE THE DELAY. 3. THE COMMON ISSUE RAISED IS THAT THE ACIT HAS REJE CTED ENTIRE EXPENSES INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE AT ` .32,36,341 AND ` .65,80,418 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2008-09 AND 2009-10 RESPECTIVELY AND THE LEARNED CI T(APPEALS) HAS CONFIRMED THESE DISALLOWANCES WHICH ARE NOT AS PER THE PROVIS IONS OF THE LAW. ALL THESE EXPENSES ARE ALLOWABLE UNDER SECTION 57(III) OF THE I.T. ACT WHICH HAS BEEN HELD BY VARIOUS COURTS IN THE SIMILAR CASES. 4. THE ASSESSEE IS A COMPANY UNDER LIQUIDATION. THE RETURN HAS BEEN FILED BY THE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR. IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMEN T, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT A LIQUIDATOR RECEIVES MONEY ON SALE OF ASSETS AND THE SAME ARE PUT IN F.D. WITH NATIONALIZED BANK ON WHICH INTEREST INCOME IS EARNED. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE HAS DEDUCTED VARIOUS EXPENSES SUCH AS SALA RIES, WAGES, PROFESSIONAL FEES, AUDIT FEE, LABOUR CHARGES ETC AND CLAIMED AS DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 57(III). THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THIS EXP ENDITURE IS NOT ALLOWABLE IN VIEW OF THE HONBLE APEX COURT DECISION IN THE CASE OF VIJAYA LAXMI SUGAR MILLS LTD. V/S. CIT 191 ITR 641. THE ASSESSEES COUNSEL SUBMITTED VARIOUS DECISIONS FROM VARIOUS HIGH COURTS FOR THE PROPOSITION THAT T HE EXPENDITURE WERE ALLOWABLE. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER OPINED THAT THE JUDGM ENTS CITED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT CONSIDERED THAT DEC ISION OF HONBLE APEX COURT, HENCE HE DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION. 3 5. UPON ASSESSEES APPEAL IN THIS REGARD, LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) ALSO OBSERVED THAT EXPENDITURE CLAIMED LIKE AUDIT FEES, SECURITY CHARGES, COMMISSION TO OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR ETC. HAD NO NEXUS TO THE EARNING OF INCO ME FROM OTHER SOURCES. LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF VIJAYA LAXMI SUGAR MILLS LTD. V/S. CVIT (SUP RA) WAS A BINDING PRECEDENT. THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF DWARKA CHIT FUND P. LTD. 216 ITR 115 HA S DISTINGUISHED THE HONBLE APEX COURT DECISION ABOVE ON THE FACTS OF THAT CASE . SHE HELD THAT THE EXPENDITURE CLAIMED IN THIS REGARD ARE ACTUALLY APP ROPRIATION OF PROFIT AND ARE NOT ADMISSIBLE EXPENDITURE. SHE OBSERVED THAT IN RECENT DECISION OF THE HONBLE KERALA HIGH COURT REPORTED IN 183 CTR 316 RATIO OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT DECISION IN VIJAYA LAXMI SUGAR MLLS (SUPRA) HAS BEEN AFFIRMED. SHE CONCLUDED AS UNDER : CONSIDERING THE FACTS IN TOTALITY, IT IS APPARENT THAT THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT REPORTED IN 191 ITR 641 IS MORE APPOSITE TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE AS COMPARED TO THE DECISIONS OF THE VARIOUS HIGH COURTS RELIED UPON BY THE COUNSEL OF THE APPELLANT. AGAINST THE ABOVE ORDER, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE U S. 6. LEARNED COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT E XPENDITURE CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE I.E. THE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR WERE SPENT TO MEET THE VARIOUS EXPENDITURE AS PER THE ORDERS OF THE COURT. HE CLAIMED THAT THESE EXPENDITURE ARE DEDUCTIBLE FROM THE INCOME IN THE WORKING OF ADMINISTRATION OF THE COMPANY IN LIQUIDATION. HE CLAIMED THAT THE COMPANY HAS TO MAINTAIN ITS EST ABLISHMENT AND COMPLY WITH THE STATUTORY OBLIGATIONS SO LONG AS IT IS IN OPERA TION. HE FURTHER CLAIMED THAT THE EXPENDITURE WERE TO MAINTAIN INFRASTRUCTURE FOR EAR NING OR MAKING INTEREST 4 INCOME. LEARNED COUNSEL FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IN C ATINA OF DECISIONS VARIOUS HIGH COURTS HAVE HELD THAT THESE EXPENDITURE ARE A LLOWABLE UNDER SECTION 57(III). IN PARTICULAR, HE PLACED RELIANCE UPON THE DECISION OF HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V/S. DWARKA CHIT FUND PVT. LTD. 216 ITR 115. RELIANCE WAS ALSO PLACED ON ANOTHER DECISION OF HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V/S. GANNON DUNKARLAY & CO. (P). LTD. 243 ITR 646. LEARN ED COUNSEL FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THESE DECISIONS WERE RENDERED AFTER CONSIDERI NG THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT DECISION IN THE CASE OF VIJAYA LAXMI SSUGAR MILLS LT D. (SUPRA). LEARNED COUNSEL CLAIMED THAT THE EXPENDITURE INVOLVED WAS ALLOWABLE UNDER SECTION 57(III). 7. PER CONTRA LEARNED D.R. RELIED UPON THE ORDERS O F THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 8. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORDS. THE UNDISPUTED FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSES SEE IS UNDER LIQUIDATION. IT IS BEING SUPERVISED BY THE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR APPOINT ED BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT. THE COMPANY EARNED INTEREST INCOME OUT OF DEPOSITS MADE OUT OF SALE OF ASSETS. AGAINST THIS EXPENDITURE THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED C ERTAIN EXPENDITURE LIKE A SALARY, AUDIT FEE, PROFESSIONAL FEE, LIQUIDATION EX PENSES ETC. AGAINST THE INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED ` .2,58,67,865/- AS DEDUCTIBLE EXPENDITURE. OUT OF TH ESE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE A DISALLOWANCE OF ` .32,36,341/-. WHILE MAKING THESE DISALLOWANCES THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MENTIONED THAT THE EXPENDITUR E LIKE AUDIT FEE, AND OTHER EXPENDITURES ARE NOT ALLOWABLE FROM THE INTEREST IN COME. HE HAS NOT BOTHERED TO SPECIFY AND QUANTIFY AS TO HOW HE HAS ARRIVED AT TH E FIGURE OF ` .32,36,341/-.FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 EXPENDITURE DISALLOWED REL ATE TO SECURITY CHARGES ` .61,11,718/- AND ANOTHER ESTABLISHMENT EXPENDITURE ` .4,68,700/-. NOW THE 5 ABOVE EXPENDITURE HAVE BEEN CLAIMED UNDER SECTION 5 7(III) OF THE I.T. ACT. THE ABOVE CLAIM HAS BEEN DISALLOWED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW ON THE BASIS OF THE DECISION OF HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF VIJAYA LAXMI SUGAR MILLS LTD. V/S. CIT 191 ITR 641. THE ABOVE DECISION OF THE HONBLE APEX COURT WAS A MATTER OF CONSIDERATION BEFORE HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN T HE CASE OF DWARKA CHIT FUND (SUPRA) AND CIT V/S. GANNON DUNKARLAY & CO. (SUPRA) . WE MAY GAINFULLY REFER TO THE DECISION OF HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CA SE OF DWARKA CHIT FUND LTD. (SUPRA) IN PARAGRAPH NO. 11 AS UNDER : ACCORDING TO THE SUPREME COURT, THE EXPENDITURE CLAIMED UNDER S. 57(III) OF THE ACT WAS ALLOWED BECAUSE THERE IS NO T EVEN SOME SORT OF EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT THE EXPENSES INCURRED BY THE LIQUIDATOR WERE TO FACILITATE THE EARNING OF OR AT LEAST FOR PRESERVI NG THE ESTATE. IN THE ABOVESAID DECISION, THE SUPREME COURT HELD THAT, I F ANY EXPENDITURE WERE INCURRED LIKE COMMISSION FOR COLLECTION OR SUCH SI MILAR EXPENDITURE, IT MAY BE CONSIDERED AS SPENT SOLELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF E ARNING THAT INCOME, THE POSITION MAY BE DIFFERENT. THE SUPREME COURT FURTH ER POINTED OUT THAT ACCORDING TO THE FACTS ARISING IN THAT CASE, THE E XPENDITURE INCURRED WAS NOT TO PRESERVE OR ACQUIRE THE ASSETS. THEREFORE, THE SUPREME COURT HELD IN THAT CASE THAT THE EXPENDITURE CLAIMED UNDER S. 57 (III) IS NOT A PERMISSIBLE DEDUCTION. THE DECISION IN EACH CASE DEPENDS UPON ITS OWN FACTS. BUT ACCORDING TO THE FACTS ARISING IN THE PRESENT CASE , THE TRIBUNAL, WHICH IS THE FINAL FACT-FINDING AUTHORITY, POINTED OUT THAT ALL THE EXPENSES HAVE TO BE INCURRED TO MAINTAIN THE INFRASTRUCTURE FOR EARNIN G OR MAKING THE INTEREST INCOME. WITHOUT INCURRING THESE ITEMS OF VARIOUS E XPENDITURE, IT WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE FOR ANY ONE MUCH LESS THE OFFICIAL LIQU IDATOR, TO EARN THIS INCOME BY WAY OF INTEREST RECEIPTS OR MISCELLANEOUS RECEI PTS. IT WAS, THEREFORE, HELD THAT THESE EXPENSES WERE INCURRED BY THE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR WHOLLY, EXCLUSIVELY AND NECESSARILY FOR THE PURPOSE OF EAR NING OF OR MAKING THE INCOME AS CONTEMPLATED UNDER S. 57(III) OF THE ACT . THEREFORE, THE TRIBUNAL CAME TO THE ABOVESAID CONCLUSION ON AN APPRAISAL O F FACTS ARISING IN THIS CASE. THEREFORE, THERE IS NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDE R PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN ALLOWING THE EXPENDITURE CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE U NDER S. 57(III) OF THE ACT. 6 IN THAT VIEW OF THE MATTER, WE ANSWER THE QUESTION REFERRED TO US IN THE AFFIRMATIVE AND AGAINST THE DEPARTMENT. NO COSTS. SIMILARLY IN THE CASE OF CIT V/S. GANNON DUNKARLAY & CO. (P) LTD. THE HONBLE MADRAS HAS CONSIDERED THE DECISIONS OF HONBLE APEX COURT IN VIJAYA LAXMI SUGAR MILLS LTD. (SUPRA). WE MAY GAINFULLY REFER TO THE F OLLOWING FROM THIS DECISION. ACCORDING TO THE SUPREME COURT, THE EXPENDITURE CLAIMED UNDER S. 57(III) OF THE ACT WAS NOT ALLOWED BECAUSE THERE I S NOT EVEN SOME SORT OF EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT THE EXPENSES INCURRED BY THE LIQUIDATOR WERE TO FACILITATE THE EARNING OF OR AT LEAST FOR PRESERVI NG THE ESTATE. IN THE ABOVESAID DECISION, THE SUPREME COURT HELD THAT IF ANY EXPENDITURE WERE INCURRED LIKE COMMISSION FOR COLLECTION OR SUCH SI MILAR EXPENDITURE, IT MAY BE CONSIDERED AS SPENT SOLELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF E AQRNING THAT INCOME, THE POSITION MAY BE DIFFERENT. THE SUPREME COURT FURTH ER POINTED OUT THAT ACCORDING TO THE FACTS ARISING IN THAT CASE, THE E XPENDITURE INCURRED WAS NOT TO PRESERVE OR ACQUIRE THE ASSETS. THEREFORE, THE SUPREME COURT HELD IN THAT CASE THAT THE EXPENDITURE CLAIMED UNDER S. 57 (III) IS NOT A PERMISSIBLE DEDUCTION. THE DECISION IN EACH CASE DEPENDS UPON ITS OWN FACTS. BUT, ACCORDING TO THE FACTS ARISING IN THE PRESENT CASE , THE TRIBUNAL, WHICH IS THE FINAL FACT-FINDING AUTHORITY, POINTED OUT THAT ALL THE EXPENSES HAVE TO BE INCURRED TO MAINTAIN THE INFRASTRUCTURE FOR EARNIN G OR MAKING THE INTEREST INCOME. WITHOUT INCURRING THESE ITEMS OF VARIOUS E XPENDITURE, IT WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE FOR ANYONE MUCH LESS THE OFFICIAL LIQUI DATOR TO EARN THIS INCOME BY WAY OF INTEREST RECEIPTS OR MISCELLANEOUS RECEI PTS. FOLLOWING THE SAID DECISION, WE HOLD THAT THE DEC ISION IN EACH CASE WOULD DEPEND UPON THE FACTS OF ITS OWN CASE AND AC CORDING TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, THE TRIBUNAL RECORDED A CLEAR F INDING THAT THE EXPENSES WERE INCURRED BY THE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR TO MAINTA IN THE INFRASTRUCTURE FOR THE EARNING OF THE INTEREST INCOME AND WITHOUT INC URRING THE EXPENDITURE, IT WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN POSSIBLE FOR THE OFFICIAL LIQU IDATOR TO EARN THE INTEREST 7 INCOME. WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE FINDING OF THE TRIBUNAL CLEARLY SHOWS THAT THERE IS A NEXUS BETWEEN THE EXPENDITURE AND THE INTEREST INCOME EARNED AND THAT FINDING REGARDING THE NEXUS, IN OU R OPINION, IS A FINDING OF FACT. IN VIEW OF THE FINDING OF THE TRIBUNAL, WE H OLD THAT THE TRIBUNAL WAS CORRECT IN HOLDING THAT THE ENTIRE EXPENDITURE INC URRED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DEDUCTIBLE UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF S. 57(III) OF T HE ACT. IN FINE, WE ANSWER THE QUESTIONS OF LAW REFERRED TO US IN THE VARIOUS TAX CASES IN THE AFFIRMATIVE AND AGAINST THE REVEN UE. HOWEVER, THERE WILL BE NO ORDER AS TO COSTS, IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 9. NOW A PERUSAL OF THE ABOVE SAID DECISIONS REVEAL THAT THE EXPENDITURE INVOLVED WHICH ARE INCURRED BY THE OFFICIAL LIQUID ATOR CAN BE ALLOWED IF THERE IS A FINDING THAT THE EXPENDITURE WAS INCURRED BY THE OF FICIAL LIQUIDATOR TO MAINTAIN THE INFRASTRUCTURE FOR EARNING OF THE INTEREST AND WITH OUT INCURRING THE EXPENDITURE IT COULD NOT HAVE BEEN POSSIBLE FOR THE OFFICIAL LIQUI DATOR TO EARN THE INTEREST INCOME. NOW IF WE EXAMINE THE EXPENDITURE INVOLVED WHICH RELATE TO SECURITY EXPENSES, AUDIT FEE, SALARY AND ESTABLISHMENT EXPEN SES, IT IS ABUNDANTLY CLEAR THAT THESE EXPENDITURE WERE NECESSARY TO MAINTAIN THE IN FRASTRUCTURE OF THE COMPANY. THEY WERE INCURRED BY THE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR TO MA INTAIN INFRASTRUCTURE FOR EARNING OR MAKING INTEREST INCOME. WITHOUT INCURRING THESE EXPENDITURE IT COULD NOT HAVE BEEN POSSIBLE FOR THE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR TO EARN T HE INCOME BY WAY OF INTEREST RECEIPT OR MISCELLANEOUS RECEIPT. THUS WE FIND THAT AFTER EXAMINING THE HONBLE APEX COURT DECISION IN THE CASE OF VIJAYA LAXMI SUGA R MILLS LTD., THE HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT HAS HELD THAT THE EXPENDITURE INC URRED BY THE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR FOR EARNING THE INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCE S WOULD BE ALLOWABLE IF THE SAME ARE MEANT TO MAINTAIN THE INFRASTRUCTURE OF THE COMPANY AND WITHOUT 8 INCURRING OF WHICH THE COMPANY CANNOT EARN THE INTE REST AND OTHER INCOME. WE ARE NOT IN AGREEMENT WITH THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) THAT THE EXPENDITURE ON ACCOUNT OF AUDIT FEES, SECURITY CHARGES AND OTHER E STABLISHMENT EXPENDITURE ARE IN FACT APPROPRIATION OUT OF PROFITS. IN OUR CONSI DERED OPINION, THESE ARE EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR NEC ESSARILY, WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY TO MAINTAIN THE INFRASTRUCTURE OF THE COMPANY IN LI QUIDATION, AND TO ENABLE IT TO COMPLY WITH STATUTORY FORMALITIES AND FACILITATE TH E EARNING OF INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES I.E. INTEREST INCOME AND OTHER MISCELLANEOU S RECEIPT. WHEN CONSIDERED FROM THIS POINT OF VIEW, THE EXPENDITURE CLAIMED AR E ALLOWABLE UNDER SECTION 57(III) OF THE I.T. ACT. WE NOTE THAT THE LEARNED C IT(APPEALS) HAS REFERRED TO A DECISION OF HONBLE KERALA HIGH COURT REPORTED IN 1 83 CTR 316 FOR WHICH SHE HAS CLAIMED THAT THE SAME REITERATES THE POSITION AS EM ANATING OUT OF HONBLE APEX COURT DECISION IN THE CASE OF VIJAYA LAXMI SUGAR MIL LS LTD. (SUPRA). WE ALSO NOTE THAT THERE IS NO JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT DECISION ON THIS ISSUE. WE ALSO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT HONBLE APEX COURT DECISION IN THE CASE OF VEGETABLE PRODUCTS LTD.88 ITR 192 THAT WHEN THE TWO VIEWS ARE POSSIBLE, ONE IN FA VOUR OF THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE ADOPTED. 10. HERE, FIRSTLY WE FIND THAT WE HAVE ALREADY SET ASIDE THE FINDING OF THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) THAT THE EXPENDITURE CLAIMED A RE APPROPRIATION OUT OF THE PROFIT. SECONDLY, AS APPROVED BY THE HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT AFTER CONSIDERING THE HONBLE APEX COURT DECISION THAT THE EXPENDITUR E INCURRED BY THE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR WHICH WERE NECESSARY TO MAINTAIN THE INF RASTRUCTURE OF THE COMPANY WERE NECESSARY FOR EARNING OF SUCH INTEREST INCOME. WE FIND THAT THE EXPENDITURE CLAIMED HERE DO FALL UNDER THIS CATEGORY. IN THE LI GHT OF THESE FACTS, IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) ORDE R IS NOT SUSTAINABLE. 9 ACCORDINGLY, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) AND DECIDE THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. 11. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSE E STAND ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 20 TH MAY, 2015. SD/- SD/- (MUKUL K. SHRAWAT) (SHAMIM YAHYA) JUDICIAL MEMBER. ACCOUNTANT MEMB ER NAGPUR, DATED: 20 TH MAY, 2015. COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE ASSESSEE. 2. REVENUE. 3. THE CIT(A) 4. THE CIT, NAGPUR. 5. THE D.R., ITAT, NAGPUR. 6. GUARD FILE. T RUE COPY. BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, I TAT, NAGPUR WAKODE