Rio Tinto Orissa Mining Pvt. Ltd., Bhubaneswar V. ACIT, Corporate Circle-1(2), Bhubaneswar

ITA 294/CTK/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 115 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4161 (ITAT-CUTTACK)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 7 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-03-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 05-02-2019
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 31-07-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: B K MAHAPATRA
• Keywords: Business income; Depreciation; Business expenditure; Principle of natural justice; Capital expenditure; TDS
• Section: 14A; 37(1); 201; 37

Judgement Text

, . . , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH , CUTTACK , BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ ITA NO. 294 / CTK /20 1 7 ( / ASS ESSMENT YEAR : 20 1 2 - 20 1 3 ) RIO TINTO ORISSA MINING PRIVATE LIMITED, N - 3/356, IRC VILLAGE NAYAPALLI, BHUBANESWAR - 751015 VS. ACIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE - 1(2), BHUBANESWAR ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. : A A BCR 5371 H ( / APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) /AS SESSEE BY : SHRI B.K.MAHAPATRA , AR /REVENUE BY : SHRI SUBHENDU DUTTA , DR / DATE OF HEARING : 0 7 / 0 3 /201 9 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 13 / 0 3 /201 9 / O R D E R THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 1 , BHUBANESWAR , DATED 27.01.2017 PASSED IN FIRST APPEAL NO. 0103 /201 5 - 1 6 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 201 2 - 201 3 . 2 . THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL : - 1. THAT THE ORDER DATED 27.04.2017 PASSED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) [IN SHORT 'CIT(APPEALS)'], IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL IS AGAINST PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE, CONTRARY TO FACTS, ARBITRARY AND ERRONEOUS AND BAD I N LAW. 2. SUSTENANCE OF DISALLOWANCE OF BUSINESS EXPENSE OF RS,38,27,662/ - AND DEPRECIATION OF RS.50,396/ - , TOTALING TO RS.38,78,058/ - . (A) THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE CONFIRMING OF THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFF ICER IN DISALLOWING BUSINESS EXPENSE OF RS,38,27,662/ - AND ITA NO. 294 /CTK/201 7 2 DEPRECIATION OF RS.50,396/ - ., TOTALLING TO RS.38,78,058/ - BY THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS), ON MIS - APPRECIATION OF FACTS, ARBITRARY, ERRONEOUS AND BAD, BOTH IN THE EYE OF LAW AND ON FACTS. (B) THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT COMMENCED ITS BUSINESS SO FAR AND THE EXPENSE CANNOT BE ALLOWED AS BUSINESS EXPENSE IS CONTRARY TO FACTS, INCORRECT, ARBITRARY, AND BAD, BOTH IN THE EYE OF LAW AND ON FACTS. (C) THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) UPHOLDING THAT EXPENSES ARE IN THE NATURE OF 'PRE - OPERATIVE EXPENSES' REQUIRING CAPITALISATION IS INCORRECT, ARBITRARY, ERRONEOUS AND BAD, BOTH IN THE EYE OF LAW AND ON FACTS. (D) THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ALREADY SET UP ITS BUSINESS LONG BACK (IN THE YEAR 1997 - 98) AND THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) HOLDING THAT THE THERE IS NO EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF ASSESSEE'S CLAIM IS ON MIS - APPRECIATION/ MISCONSTRUING O F FACTS OF FACTS, INCORRECT, ARBITRARY, ERRONEOUS AND BAD, BOTH IN THE EYE OF LAW AND ON FACTS. (E) THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER IN DISALLOWING THE AFORESAID. RS. 38,78,058/ - (EXPENSE OF RS,38,27,6 62/ - AND DEPRECIATION OF RS.50,396/ - , TOTALING TO RS.38,78,058/ - ) BY TREATING AS 'DEFERRED REVENUE EXPENSES' IS ARBITRARY, ERRONEOUS AND BAD, BOTH IN THE EYE OF LAW AND ON FACTS.. (F) THAT THE EXPENSES OF RS, 12,60,570/ - HAS BEEN INCURRED WHOLLY AND EX CLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE, IS FULLY ALLOWABLE AS DEDUCTION UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT, AND THE LOWER AUTHORITIES NOT ALLOWING THE SAME IS ARBITRARY, ERRONEOUS AND BAD, BOTH IN THE EYE OF LAW AND ON FACTS. (G) THAT THE FIX ED ASSETS HAVING ALREADY BEEN PUT TO USE, THE DEPRECIATION OF RS.50,396/ - IS FULLY ALLOWABLE AS DEDUCTION U/S.32 OF THE ACT AND THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) NOT ALLOWING THE SAME IS ARBITRARY, ERRONEOUS AND BAD, BOTH IN THE EYE OF LAW AND ON FACTS. 3. THA T THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, SUPPLEMENT, MODIFY THE GROUNDS HERE - IN - ABOVE BEFORE OR AT THE HEARING OF THE APPEAL. 3. THE EFFECTIVE GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS AGAINST SUSTENANCE OF DISALLOWANCE OF BUSINESS EXPENSES AND D EPRECIATION. ITA NO. 294 /CTK/201 7 3 4. FACTS GIVING RISE TO THE PRESENT APPEAL ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MINING AND SERVICES TO MINING INDUSTRIES AND FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ELECTRONICALLY ON 20.09.2012 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.NIL. THE CASE OF T HE ASSESSEE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY UNDER CASS AND NOTICES U/S.143(2) & 1432(1) OF THE ACT WERE ISSUED, IN RESPONSE TO WHICH LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE APPEARED AND THE CASE WAS DISCUSSED. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE AO OBSERVED THAT SI NCE THERE WAS NO BUSINESS INCOME AS THE WORK PROJECT WAS IN PROGRESS THE EXPENDITURE OF RS.38,78,058/ - WAS IN THE NATURE OF PRE - OPERATIVE EXPENSES. THE AO FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE ABOVE EXPENSES CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE IN THE NATURE OF DEFERRED REVENU E EXPENSES FOR BEING DEBITED AGAINST THE INCOME WHEN THE SAME WOULD HAVE ARISEN AND ACCORDINGLY THE AO BROUGHT THE INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES AS DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE TO TAX AND ADDED THE SAME TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 5. I N APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS AS W ERE MADE BEFORE THE AO AND ALSO FILED ELABORATE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS STATING THAT SINCE IT HAS ALREADY COMMENCED BUSINESS, THE EXPENSES RESULTING IN BUSINESS LOSS SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO BE SET OFF AGAINST INC OME FROM OTHER SOURCES EVEN THOUGH NO BUSINESS RECEIPTS ARE THERE FOR THE PREVIOUS YEAR IN QUESTION. THE CIT(A) THOUGH ACCEPTED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE WITH REGARD TO INAPPLICABILITY OF SECTION 14A OF THE ACT AS APPLIED BY THE AO, HOWEVER, OBSERVED THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT COMMENCED ITS BUSINESS SO FAR, THE EXPENSES IN ITA NO. 294 /CTK/201 7 4 QUESTION CANNOT BE ALLOWED AS BUSINESS EXPENSES AND, THEREFORE, IT IS NOT CORRECT ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO CLAIM THAT IT HAS ALREADY STARTED ITS BUSINESS OPERATION SINCE THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THE ASSESSEES CLAIM. ACCORDINGLY, THE CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF BUSINESS EXPENSES. AGAINST WHICH THE ASSESSEE IS IN FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 6. LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE EXPENSES CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE AS PER ITS PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT ARE FULLY SUPPORTED AND HAS BEEN INCURRED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE AND THEREFORE IS FULLY ALLOWABLE AS DEDUCTION U/S.37 OF THE ACT. I T WAS FURTHER CONTENTION OF LD. AR THAT T HE ASSESSEE HAS ALREADY SET UP ITS BUSINESS LONG BACK IN THE YEAR 1997 - 98 AND THE EXPENSES RS,38,27,662/ - AS PER ITS PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT IS NOT IN THE N ATURE OF PRE - OPERATIVE EXPENSES, HOWEVER, THE AO HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE VERY IMPORTANT AND RELEVANT FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ALREADY SET UP ITS BUSINESS IN THE LONG PAST AND EVEN IF THERE IS NO BUSINESS RECEIPTS DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION , THE DISALLOWANCE CANNOT BE MADE. FURTHER LD. AR DREW THE A TTENTION OF THE BENCH AT PAGE 46 OF THE PAPER BOOK AND SUBMITTED THAT T HE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO RECEIVED CONSULTANCY INCOME IN THE PAST ON WHICH TDS ALSO HAS BEEN MADE BY THE C USTOMER AND IN THIS REGARD THE LEDGER ACCOUNT COPY OF THE CUSTOMER (RIO TINTO EXPLOR ATION INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED) FOR THE ACCOUNTING YEAR 1999 - 2000 ( A.Y. 2000 - 01) WHEREIN THE SAID CONSULTANCY INCOME OF RS.91,614/ - AND TDS OF RS.5039/ - HAS BEEN SHOWN. THUS , THE ASSESSEE HAVING ALREADY SET UP ITS BUSINESS IN THE YEAR ITA NO. 294 /CTK/201 7 5 1997 - 98, EVEN IF THERE IS NO BUSINESS RECEIPT DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE EXPENSE AS PER ITS PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT AND DEPRECIATION AS PER IT ACT , IS NOT DISALLOWABLE. 7. IT WAS ALSO THE CONTENTION OF LD. AR THAT THE AO IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER HAS MENTIONED THAT T HERE IS NO BUSINESS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, HOWEVER, THE CIT(A) HAS STATED THAT THERE IS NO BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. LD.AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE HAD BEEN SET UP IN THE PAST AND IS IN EXISTENCE DURING THE YEAR 2012 - 13 AND THE EXPENSES INCURRED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE AND HENCE FULLY ALLOWABLE. IT IS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE INTEREST EARNED OF RS.5,35,137/ - . DURING T HE ACCOUNTING YEAR 2011 - 12, IS TO BE CONSIDERED AS 'INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES', AND THE LOSS AND DEPRECIATION FOR THE ASST. YEAR 2012 - 13 OF RS.38,78,058/ - IS TO BE ADJUSTED AGAINST THE AFORESAID INTEREST INCOME OF RS.5,35,137/ - AND THE BALANCE LOSS AND DEP RECIATION OF RS.33,42,421/ - OUGHT TO BE CARRIED FORWARDED. 8. OPPOSING TO THE ABOVE SUBMISSIONS OF LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE , LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE EXPENSES CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE IN THE NATURE OF DEFERRED REVENUE EXPENSES AND THERE IS NO BUSINESS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THEREFORE, BOTH THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE TAKEN A CONDIGN VIEW IN NOT GIVING ANY RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD. ITA NO. 294 /CTK/201 7 6 9 . I HAVE GIVEN MY THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION TO THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED AT T HE HANDS OF LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE AND LD.DR FOR REVENUE. ON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF ABOVE RIVAL SUBMISSIO NS AND FROM PARA 2 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, I OBSERVE THAT THE AO AS KED THE ASSESSEE TO JUSTIFY THE CLAIM OF IMPUGNED BUSINESS EXPENSES OF RS.38,27,662/ - AND DEPRECIATION OF RS.50,396/ - IN THE LIGHT OF PROVISION OF SECTION 14A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (FOR SHORT THE ACT ) . HOWEVER, FROM PARA 3.2 OF THE FIRST APPELLATE ORDER, I ALSO OBSERVE THAT THE LD. CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT SECTION 14A OF THE ACT HAS NO APPLICATION IN THE CASE AND AO S REFERENCE TO THE SAME IS MISPLACED. IN THIS SITUATION, I CAN SAFELY PRESUME THAT THE AO PROCEEDED TO DISALLOW THE IMPUGNED EX P ENSES ON WRONG PRESUMPTION AND WRONG APPLICATION OF PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. 10 . FURTHER, THE AO OBSERVED THAT SECTION 3 7(1) OF THE ACT PUTS DOWN CERTAIN MANDATORY CONDITIONS TO BE FULFILLED BEFORE THE ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN EXPENDITURE AND IN CONDIT IONS 5 & 6 , THE EXPENSES SHOULD BE IN RESPECT OF BUSINESS CARRIED ON BY THE ASSESSEE AND OTHER EXPENSES SHOULD HAVE BEEN EXPENDED WHOLLY A ND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE BUSINESS PURPOSE OF THE ASSESSEE. THE AO FURTHER OBSERVED THAT NO BUSINESS INCOME IS INCLUDED IN TOTAL IN COME SINCE THE SAME HAS BEEN SH OWN AS NI L AND THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE CERTAINLY CALL FOR DISALLOWANCE OF CLAIMED EXPENSES. THE AO LASTLY OBSERVED THAT T HERE WAS NO BUSINESS INCOME AS THE WORK PROJECT WAS IN PROGRESS AND THE IMPUGNED EXPENDITURE WAS IN THE NATURE OF PRE - OPERATIVE EXPENSES WHICH OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN CAPITALIZED. I MAY POINT OUT THAT THE AO HAS NOT DOUBTED REGARDING ITA NO. 294 /CTK/201 7 7 QUANTUM AND PURPOSE OF THE IMPUGNED EXPENDITURE BUT HE DISALLOWED THE CLAIM MAINLY ON TWO PREMISE S THAT NO BUSINESS INCOME IS INCLUDED IN THE TOTAL INCOME AND THE WORK PROJECT WAS IN PROGRESS, HENCE, THE IMPUGNED EXPENDITURE S WERE IN T HE NATURE OF PRE - OPERATIVE EXPENSES, WHICH OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN CAPITALIZED. 11 . FR OM THE RELEVANT PARA 3.2 OF THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A), I OBSERVE THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS UPHELD AND CONFIRMED THE BASIS OF DI SALLOWANCE THAT THE IMPUGNED EXPENSES ARE IN THE NATURE OF PRE - OPERATIVE EXPENSES REQUIRES CAPITALISATION AND THE ASSESSEE IS NO T CORRECT IN CLAIMING THAT IT HAS ALREADY STARTED ITS BUSINESS OPERATION. 12 . KEEPING IN VIEW THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW, I AM SURPRISED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN INCOME FROM SERVICE RENDERE D BY IT DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 1999 - 2000, WHICH WAS SHOWN IN THE RETURN AND TAXES WERE ALSO PAID THEREON DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000 - 2001 , THEN HOW IT CAN BE SAID THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT COMMENCE ITS BUSINESS OPERATIONS. THIS FACT HAS NOT BEEN CONTROVERTED BY THE LD. DR. FROM CAREFUL READING OF RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF SECTION 37 OF THE ACT, I CLEARLY OBSERVE THAT THE PROVISION PROVIDES THA T ANY EXPENDITURE NOT BEING EXPENDIT URE OF THE NATURE D ESCRIBED UNDER SECTION S 33 TO 36 A ND NOT BEING IN THE NAT URE OF CAPITAL EXPENDITURE OR PERSONAL EXPENSE SF THE ASSESSEE, LAID OUT OR EXPENDED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE BUSINESS OR PROFESSION SHALL BE ALLOWED I N COMPUTING THE INCOME CHARGEABLE UNDER THE HEAD PROFITS AND GAINS OF BUSINESS OR PROFESSION . THERE ARE TWO EXPLANATIONS TO SECTION 37(1) OF THE ACT, WHICH PROVIDE THAT ITA NO. 294 /CTK/201 7 8 ANY EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY AN ASSESSEE FOR ANY PURPOSE WHICH IS AN OFFENCE OR WHICH IS PROHIBITED BY LAW SHALL NOT BE DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN INCUR RED FOR THE PURPOSE OF B USI NESS OR PROFESSI O N ANY EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE ACTIVITIES RELATING TO CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY REFERRED TO IN SECTION 135 OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 2013, SHALL NOT BE DEEMED TO BE AN EXPENDITURE I NCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE BUSINESS OR PROFES SION. 13 . IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE PROVISIONS , I AM OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT WHEN THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE WAS STARTED LONG BACK AND IT IS CONTINU ING WITH THE ESTABLISHMENT, THEN MERELY BECAUSE THERE WAS NO BUSINESS INCOME, THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE DENIED BUSINESS EXPENDITUR E AND DEPRECIATION ON THE FIXED ASSETS AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. IN MY HUMBLE UNDERSTANDING OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 37(1) OF THE ACT, THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT OF THE LEGISLATURE THAT THERE MUST BE BUSINESS INCOME THEN ONLY THE ASSESSEE CAN CLAIM EXPENDITURE WHICH WAS EXPENDED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE EXISTENCE OF ASSESSEE COMPANY IS NOT IN DISPUTE AND QUANTUM OF IM PUGNED BUSINESS EXPENDITURE AS WELL AS IT WAS EXPENDED FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE, ARE ALSO NO T IN DISPUTE. I AM SATISFIED THAT THE ASSESSEE S BUSINESS IS CONTINUING SINCE MANY YEARS, THEREFORE, THE IMPUGNED EXPENDITURE CANNOT BE TREATED AS PRE - OPERATIVE EXPENDITURE AND DOES NOT REQUIRE CAPITALIZATION. SIMILARLY, THE DEPRECIATION WHICH IS ALLOWABLE ON THE FIXED ASSETS OF THE ASSESSEE AS PER T HE ITA NO. 294 /CTK/201 7 9 PROVISIONS OF THE ACT , CANNOT BE DENIED MERELY BECAUSE THERE WAS NO BUSINESS INCOME DURING THE RELEVANT FINANCIAL YEAR. 14 . IN THE TOTALITY OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, AS NOTED ABOVE, I AM OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE AUTHORITIES BELOW W ERE NO T CORRECT IN DISMISSING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE PERTAINING TO THE IMPUGNED BUSINESS EXPENDITURE AND DEPRECIATION AND IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO THE ASSESS EE. ACCORDINGLY, THE SOLE GROUND NO.2 AGITATED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED AND THE AO IS DIRECTED TO ALLOW THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE REGARDING BUSINESS EXPENDITURE AND DEPRECIATION. 15 . IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. O RDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 13 / 0 3 / 201 9 . SD/ - ( CHANDRA MOHAN GARG ) / JUDICIAL MEMBER CUTTACK ; DATED 13 / 03 /201 9 . . / PKM , S R.P.S. / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : / BY ORDER, ( SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY ) , / ITAT, CUTTACK 1. / THE APPELLANT - . RIO TINTO ORISSA MINING PRIVATE LIMITED, N - 3/356, IRC VILLAGE NAYAPALLI, BHUBANESWAR - 751015 2. / THE RESPONDENT - ACIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE - 1(2), BHUBANESWAR 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A), 4. / CIT 5. , , / DR, ITAT, CUTTACK 6. / GUARD FILE. //TRUE COPY//