Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Panaji V. M/s Goa Dourado Promotions Private Limited, Dona Paula - Goa

ITA 277/PAN/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8034 (ITAT-PANAJI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-01-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 07-11-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: Y V RAVIRAJ
• Assessee Lawyers: SHRINIVAS NAYAK
• Keywords: Business expenditure
• Section: 271(1)(c); 43B; 143(3); 153A; 40(a)(ia); 37(1)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PANAJI BENCH, PANAJI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA , A M AND SHRI RAM LAL NEGI , J M ITA NO. 27 7 / PAN . / 2017 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 200 9 - 10 ) ASST. CIT, CIRCLE 1(1) 1 ST FLOOR, AAYARKAR BHAWAN, EDC COMPLEX, PATTO PLAZA, PANAJI VS. M/S. GOA DOURADO PROMOTIONS PVT. LTD. A - 1, VILLA ALTO MONTE, DONA PAULA, GOA PAN/GIR NO. AAACG 70 6 8 B ( APPELLANT ) : ( RESPONDENT ) APPELLANT BY : SHRI Y. V. RAVIRAJ RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SHRINIVAS NAYAK DATE OF HEARING : 15.11.2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 03.01 . 201 9 O R D E R PER SHAMIM YAHYA, A. M.: THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) PANAJ I , DATED 21.08.2017, WHEREIN PENALTY U/S. 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT' FOR SHORT) HAS BEEN DELETED FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 200 9 - 10 . 2. T HE GROUNDS OF APPEAL READ AS UNDER : 1. THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS OPPOSED TO LAW AND FACTS OF THE CASE. 2. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING TH E PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE I .T.ACT LEVIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR CONCEALMENT OF PARTICULARS OF INCOME. 3. THE LD. CIT(A) FAILED TO CONSIDER THE FACT THAT PENALTY U/S. 271(1}{C) IS LEVIABLE IF AO IS SATISFIED IN THE COURSE OF ANY PROCEEDINGS UNDER THE IT. ACT THAT ANY PERSON HAS CONCEALED PARTICULARS OF HIS INCOME OR FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS, IT IS NOTED THAT THE AO HAS RECORDED THE SATISFACTION AT PARA 4 ON PAGE 2 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THAT THE ASSESSEE CONCEALED THE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. THUS, AO IS SPECIFIC AS REGARDS THE CONCEALMENT LIMB OF THE PENALTY IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. 4. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE PENALTY LEVIED U/S 271( 1)(C) MERELY ON THE GROUND THAT THE AO HAS FAILED TO SPECIFY THE SAID LIMB IN THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S. 274 R.W.S. 271(1)(C) OF THE IT ACT 5. THE LD.CIT(A) FAILED TO CONSIDER THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DELIBERATELY CONCEALED HIS INCOME AND HAS FURNISHE D INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN FILED. HE HAS QUOTED VARIOUS SUPREME COURT AND HIGH COURT JUDGMENTS DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS TO PROVE THAT THE NOTICE U/S 271(1)(C) 2 ITA NO. 27 7 /PAN./2017 ISSUED BY THE AO FOR IMPOSING PENALTY IS BAD IN LAW. AT NO POINT THE ASSESSEE WAS ABLE TO EXPLAINED/PROVE THE REASONS FOR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME AND CONCEALMENT OF INCOME. THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT GET DILUTED BY QUOTING VARIOUS DECISIONS OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT AND HIGH COURT. 6. FOR THESE AND OTHER GROUNDS THAT MAY BE ADDUCED AT THE TIME OF THE HEARING, THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) MAY BE SET ASIDE AND THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER RESTORED. 3. B RIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IN THIS CASE WAS P ASSED ON 28/12/2011 U /S. 153A READ WITH SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT. I N THE ASSESSMENT ORDER , IN PARAGRAPH 4 , THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT CONSEQUENT TO SEARCH, THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAD GIVEN A DISCLOSURE OF RS.2, 29 , 67 ,7 5 0/ - FOR THE PERIOD UNDER CONS IDERATION. ON VERIFICATION OF THE RETURN OF INCOME AND ENCLOSURES IT IS OBSERVED THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCLOSED ITS INCOME AT RS. 2 , 4 1, 14,44 0/ - . CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE COMPANY HAS FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME BY DECLARING THE INCOME UNEARTHED DURING THE CO URSE OF SEARCH/POST SEARCH PROCEEDINGS, THE COMPANY CONCEALED PARTICULARS OF INCOME THEREBY ATTRACTING PROVISIONS OF SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. HENCE, PENALTY PROCEEDINGS INITIATED SEPARATELY. 4. THEREAFTER , THE ASSESSING OFFICER (A.O. FOR SHORT) OBS ERVED THAT AFTER VERIFICATION , THE ASSESSMENT IS COMPLETED . THEREAFTER , THE A.O. MADE THE FOLLOWING ADDITION S : TOTAL INCOME RETURNED 2,41,14,437 ADDITION AS DISCUSSED ABOVE: 1 UNDISCLOSED INCOME 105 ACRES SAGARAITIRTH / TEMB 2,83,100 2 UNDISCLOSED INCOME MORAVE HINDLE VILLAGE, SINDUDURG (CORRECTLY IT IS DISALLOWED U/S.43B ON ACCOUNT OF SERVICE TAX) 1,75,386 3 DONATIONS DISALLOWED 2,50,000 4 DIFFERENCE OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME RAJENDRA DEWOO NAIK 2,999 TOTAL ADDITIONS MADE 7,11,485 TOTAL INCOME ROUNDED OFF U/S. 288A 2,48,25,922 5 . IN THE END, THE A.O. NOTED THAT PENALTY PROCEEDING U /S. 271 (1)(C) WAS INITIATED SEPARATELY . I N THIS REGARD , WE NOTE THAT THE A.O. HAS MENTIONED IN THE FIRST PARAGRAPH OF 3 ITA NO. 27 7 /PAN./2017 HIS ORDER THAT ASSESSEE HAS MADE DISCL OSU RE OF INCOME PURSUANT TO SEARCH, W HICH WAS ALSO RETURNED IN THE RETURN O F INCOME . THE A.O. HAS HELD THAT THIS WAS CONCEALMENT OF INCOME AND PENALTY PROCEEDINGS INITIATED SEPARATELY. PENALTY PROCEEDINGS WERE ALSO INITIATED ON THE ADDITIONS OF RS.7 ,11,485 / - AS MENTIONE D HERE - IN - ABOVE. HOWEVER WITH REGARD TO THESE ADDITIONS , THE A.O. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER HAS NOT SPECIFIED AS TO WHETHER HE WAS SATISFIED THAT ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR IS GUILTY OF CONCEALMENT OF THE PARTICULARS OF INCOME . T HEREAFTER , PENALTY NOTICE WAS ISSUED. IN THE SAID NOTICE , IN THE PRINTED FORMAT , THE RELEVANT LIMB WAS NOT SPECIFIED AS TO WHETHER THE NOTICE IS BEING ISSUED FOR THE CHARGE OF CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTI CULARS OF INCOME. IN THE PENALTY ORDER , THE PENALTY WAS LEVIED WITH REFERENCE TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 2,48,25,922 / - AS IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. IN THE PENALTY ORDER , THE A.O. HELD THAT PENALTY WAS BEING LEVIED FOR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME. 6 . AGAINST THE ABOVE ORDER , THE ASSESSEE APPEALED BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT - A. 7 . THE LEARNED CIT - A DELETED THE ADDITION ON THE GROUND THAT THE RELEVANT LIMB OF SPECIFIC CHARGE WAS NOT IDENTIFIED IN THE NOTICE ISSUED U /S .271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. I N THIS REGARD , THE LEARNED C IT - A PLACED RELIANCE UPON SEVERAL CASE LAWS FROM THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT AND HONBLE APEX COURT. 8 . T HE LEARNED CIT - A IN A COMMON ORDER C ONCLUDED AS UNDER : 4.15. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DECISIONS OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT AND IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF SSA'S EMERALD MEADOWS (REFERRED SUPRA) WHICH CONFIRMS THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA IN THE CASE OF CIT VS MANJUNATHA COTTON AND GINNING FACTORY (SUPRA), 'INAPPROPRIATE WORDS' AND 'PARAGRAPHS' IN THE STANDARD PROFORMA OF THE NOTICES ISSUED U/S. 274 R.W.S. 271 OF THE ACT AS USED BY THE AO WERE REQUIRED TO BE DELETED TO SPECIFY AS TO ON WHICH LIMB OF SECTION 271(1)(C), THE PENALTY WAS PROPOSED TO BE LEVIED. HAVING FAILED TO DO SO, THE IMPUGNED NOTICES ISSUED ON 28.12.2011 FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2007 - 08, 2008 - 09 AND 2009 - 10 SUFFER FROM NON - APPLICATION OF MIND. HENCE, THE SAID NOTICES ISSUED FOR INITIATION OF PENA LTY PROCEEDINGS U/S. 274 R.W S. 271 OF THE ACT FOR LEVY OF PENALTY U/S. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT FOR THE SAID 3 A.YS. ARE DEFECTIVE AND ISSUED WITHOUT 4 ITA NO. 27 7 /PAN./2017 APPLICATION OF MIND AND HENCE, ARE INVALID. CONSEQUENTLY, THE ORDERS LEVYING PENALTY U/S. 271(1)(C) OF THE AC T FOR THE 3 ASSESSMENT YEARS 2007 - 08, 2008 - 09 AND 2009 - 10 ARE INVALID AND LIABLE TO BE CANCELLED. ACCORDINGLY, ADDITIONAL GROUND NO.3 RAISED BY THE APPELLANT FOR ALL THE THREE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2007 - 08, 2008 - 09 AND 2009 - 10 ARE ALLOWED. 9 . A GAINST THE ABOVE ORDER , THE R EVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 1 0 . WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE COUNSEL AND PERUSED THE RECORDS. WE FIND THA T THE ADDITION IN THIS CASE HAS TWO COMPONENTS: INCOME RETURNED BY THE ASSESSEE RS. 2,41,14,437 / - ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O. RS. 7,11,485 / - TOTAL RS. 2,48,25,922 / - 11. AS REGARDS THE LEVY OF PENALTY ON THE RETURNED INCOME OF RS. 2,41,14,437 / - IS CONCERNED, THE SAME CANNOT BE SUSTAINED AS THE PENALTY FOR CONCEALMENT CANNOT BE LEVIED IF THE INCOME IS SHOWN IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. IF ANYTHING WAS FOUND ON SEARCH OR STATED AT THE TIME OF SEARCH HAS ALSO NOT BEEN SPECIFIED BY THE A.O. IN THIS R EGARD, WE DRAW SUPPORT FROM THE OF HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT DECISION IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SAS PHARMACEUTICALS [2011] 335 ITR 259 (DEL). THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HAS EXPOUNDED THAT PENALTY U/S. 271(1)(C) CAN ONLY BE LEVIED IF IN THE COURSE OF PROCEEDINGS, THE A.O. IS SATISFIED THAT THERE IS AN CONCEALMENT OR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS. THE WORDS ' IN THE COURSE OF ANY PROCEEDINGS UNDER THIS ACT MEAN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ' . HOWEVER, THE QUESTION WHETHER THERE IS CONCEALMENT OR INACCURATE PARTICULARS HAS TO BE DETERMINED WITH REFERENCE TO THE RETURNED INCOME. ACCORDINGLY, IN THE BACKGROUND OF THE AFORESAID DISCUSSION AND PRECEDENT, THE PENALTY LEVIED WITH REFERENCE TO INCO ME RETUNED IS NOT SUSTAINABLE. 1 2 . AS REGARDS THE PENALTY ON ADDITION OF RS. 7,11,485 / - IS CONCERNED, W E FIND THAT THE ENTIRE ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O. WAS DEALT WITH AS UNDER: 5 ITA NO. 27 7 /PAN./2017 ADDITION OF RS.2,83,100/ - BEING ASSESSED AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME WAS DELETED BY THE LD. CIT(A) . AS INFORMED TO US, T HE REVENUE HAS NOT FILED AN APPEAL AGAINST THE ABOVE BEFORE ITAT. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, PENALTY LEVIED WITH REFERENCE TO THIS ADDITION DOES NOT SURVIVE. ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF DONATION: ADDITION ON THIS ACCOUNT WA S MADE BY THE A.O. AS ACCORDING TO THE A.O THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PRODUCE D ANY DETAILS OF DONATION GIVEN AND HOW THE SAID DONATION WAS ALLOWABLE AS BUSINESS EXPENDITURE AND ACCORDINGLY, THE A.O. DISALLOWED THE SAID DONATION OF RS.2,50,000/ - . 1 3 . D URING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE THE FOLLOWING SUBMISSIONS: 'DONATIONS DISALLOWED RS.2,50,00/ - : THE AMOUNT PERTAINS TO THE PAYMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE TO SHRI. DEV B 5 (RS.2,00,000/ - ) AND TO VTTHOBA GOPAL FLAG/CAR (RS.50,000/ - ) TOWARDS THE ADVERTISEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE TO BE DISPLAYED AT THE RESPECTIVE RELIGIOUS GATHERINGS. COPY OF THE LEDGER EXTRACT ENCLOSED. ANNEX - VI. THE ASSESSEE IS IN THE BUSINESS OF BUYING AND SELLI NG OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTIES AND IN ORDER TO LOOKOUT FOR NEW IMMOVABLE PROPERTIES AND TO EXPAND THE BUSINESS, THE ASSESSEE HAS TO INCUR EXPENDITURE - BY WAY OF SPONSORSHIP TO RELIGIOUS AND SOCIAL GATHERINGS IN LOCAL AREAS IN ORDER TO CANVAS THE BUSINESS. THE ASSESSEE HAD INCURRED THE ABOVE EXPENDITURE FOR RELIGIOUS GATHERING WHICH IS DIRECTLY LINKED TO THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE AND IS ALLOWABLE U/S. 37(1) OF THE IT. ACT, 1961. THE AMOUNT PERTAINS TO THE ADVERTISEMENT OF THE COMPANY, BUT THE SAME HAS BEEN WRONGLY CLASSIFIED AS DONATIONS IN THE BOOKS OF ASSESSEE. THE PAYMENT IS MADE BY WAY OF CROSS CHEQUE AND THE SAME WAS TOWARDS THE PROPAGATION OF THE COMPANIES ACTIVITIES IN THE FUNCTION TO BE ORGANIZED BY THE RESPECTIVE PERSONS AT THEIR RELIGIOUS GATHERING S. THE EXPENDITURE WAS INCURRED WH OLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE AS THE ASSESS EE HAS TO PROMOTE THE BU SINESS IN THE LOCAL AREA IN ORDER TO GET NEW BUSINESS DEALS. HENCE, THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED OF RS.2,50,000/ - WAS TOWA RDS THE BUSINESS AND HAS WRONGLY BEEN DISALLOWED BY THE AO . 6 ITA NO. 27 7 /PAN./2017 1 4 . HENCE, THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT SATISFIED AND HE HELD AS UNDER: 5.1 I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT. THE AMOUNTS SPENT BY THE APPELLANT IN FAV OUR OF SHRI DEV B. AND SHRI VITHOBA GOPAL BAGKAR CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS ADVERTISEMENT EXPENDITURE AS IT HAS NOT BEEN PROVED THAT THE SAID PARTIES DID ANY ADVERTISEMENT FOR THE APPELLANT. IF IT IS ADVERTISEMENT, TAX SHOULD HAVE BEEN DEDUCTED AT SOURCE FOR ALLOWING TH IS DEDUCTION AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE IT. ACT. AS PURPOSE OF PAYMENT IS NOT SATISFACTORILY EXPLAINED AND AS THE EXPENDITURE IN QUESTION WAS NOT SUBJECTED TO TDS, THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO IS UPHE LD. 1 5 . WE FIND THAT THIS DI SALLOWANCE HAS BEEN SUSTAINED ON THE GROUND THAT NECESSARY EVIDENCE AND VOUCHER OF ADVERTISEMENT WERE NOT PRODUCED AND THE TDS WAS NOT DEDUCTED. WE FIND THAT THIS IS NOT AT ALL A CASE OF C ONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCO ME. ALL THE DETAILS INCLUDING IDENTITY OF THE PAYE E WERE THERE. DIS ALLOWANCE HAS SOLELY BEEN DONE AS THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ABLE TO PRODUCE THE CONCERNED EVIDENCE OF EXPENDITURE BEING OF ADVERTISEMENT IN NATURE. HENCE, IF A C L AIM OF THE ASSESSEE IS REJECTED, THE SAME DOES NOT AUTOMATICALLY LEAD TO LEVY OF PENALTY U/S. 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 AS PER THE DECISION OF HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF RELIANCE PETROPRODUCTS (P.) LTD. [2010] 322 ITR 158 (SC). HENCE THIS PENALTY IS NOT SUSTAINABLE. 1 6 . ADDITION OF RS.1,75,386/ - U/S. 43B : THIS DISALLOWANCE WAS MADE U/S. 43 B ON ACCOUNT OF REMITTANCE O F SERVICE TAX COLLECTED TO THE GOVERNMENT ACCOUNT. HERE ALSO WE FIND THAT ALL THE PARTICULARS WERE DULY AND CORRECTLY DISCLOSED. IT IS NOT A CASE OF CONCEALMENT OR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. REJECTION OF THE ASSESSEES CLAIM AS HELD BY THE HONBLE APEX COURT IN RELIANCE PETROPRODUCTS ( P.) LTD .(SUPRA) WILL NOT AUTOMATICALLY LED TO LEVY OF PENALTY U/S. 271(1)(C). FURTHERMORE, THE 7 ITA NO. 27 7 /PAN./2017 VIEW THAT SECTION 43B IS NOT A TTRACTED ON SERVICE TAX COLLECTED HAS BEEN UPHELD BY THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT DECISION IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. NOBLE & HEWITT (I ) P. LTD. [2008] 305 ITR 324 (DEL). HENCE, THE PENALTY U/S. 271(1) (C) ON THIS ADDITION IS ALSO NOT SUSTAINABLE. 1 7 . W E FURTHER FIND THAT IN THIS CASE , THE CHARGE ON WHICH PENALTY HAS BEEN LEVIED HAS NOT BEEN SPECIFIED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDE R , AS TO WHETHER THE PENALTY HAS BEEN LEVIED FOR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME WITH REGARD TO THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O. THIS IS FOLLOWED BY A NOTICE FOR THE LEVY OF PENALTY U/S.271(1)(C) IN WHICH THE SPECIFIC LIMB IDENT IFYING THE CHARGE HAS NOT BEEN IDENTIFIED. IN SUCH SCENARIO , THE LEARNED CIT - A HAS RELIED UPON SEVERAL CASE LAWS FROM THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT AND THE HONBLE APEX COURT THAT PENALTY LEVIED WITHOUT SPECIFICATION OF CHARGE IS NOT SUSTAINABLE. I N THIS REGARD , REFERENCE HAS B EEN MADE TO FOLLOWING CASE LAWS: CIT VS. M/S. SSAS EMERALD MEADOWS (2015) 380 ITA (SC) CIT VS. MANJUNATHA COTTON AND GINNING FACTORY & ORS . (TS - 936 - HC - 2012 (KAR)) CIT VS. SHRI SAMSON PERINCHERY (IT APPEALS NOS. 953/1097/1154/ 1226 OF 2014 VIDE ORDER DATED 05.01.2017) 1 8 . IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE SAID CASE LAWS DUE TO ABSENCE OF SATISFACTION AND IDENTIFICATION OF THE SPECIFIC CHARGE FOR LEVY OF PENALTY, THE PENALTY IN THIS CASE DESERVES TO BE DELETED ON THIS ACCOUNT ALSO . I N THE BACKGROUND OF AFORESAID DISCUSSION AND PRECEDENT , WE UPHOLD THE DELETION OF PENALTY IN THIS CASE. 8 ITA NO. 27 7 /PAN./2017 1 9 . IN THE RESULT , THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE STANDS DISMISSED . O RDER PRONOUNCED BY LISTING THE RESULT ON THE NOTICE BOARD OF THE BENCH UNDER RULE 34(4) OF THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES, 1963. SD/ - RAM LAL NEGI JUDICIAL MEMBER SD/ - SHAMIM YAHYA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 0 3 . 0 1 . 2 0 1 9 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : (1) THE ASSESSEE; (2) THE REVENUE; (3) THE CIT(A); (4) THE CIT, PANJI CITY CONCERNED; (5) THE DR, ITAT, PANJI ; (6) GUARD FILE . BY ORDER ROSHANI , SR. PS ( SR. P.S. / P.S. ) ITAT