The ACIT, Vapi Circle, Vapi V. M/s. Dadra Nagar Haveli Sahakari Khand Udyog Mandali Ltd., SILVASSA

ITA 2940/AHD/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2162 (ITAT-SURAT)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 11 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-09-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 20-10-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ANIL DHAKA
• Keywords: Depreciation
• Section: 43B

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT , , BEFORE SHRI C.M.GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P.MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER . / ITA NOS.1065 & 2940/AHD/2015/SRT / ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2010-11 & 2011-12 ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VAPI CIRCLE, VAPI. VS. DADRA NAGAR HAVELI SAHAKARI KHAND UDYOG MANDALI LTD., SURVEY NO.287/1, VILLAGE SURANGI, VIA KHADOLI, DAPADA, PATELAD, SILVASA. [PAN: AAAAK 0901F] ( ' / APPELLANT) ( #$' /RESPONDENT) / ASSESSEE BY : SHRI HIREN R. VEPARI, C.A /REVENUE BY : SHRI ANIL DHAKA, SR. D.R /DATE OF HEARING : 19-09-2018 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 27-09-2018 / ORDER PER C.M.GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THESE TWO APPEALS HAVE BEEN FILED BY THE REVENUE A GAINST THE ORDERS OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), VAL SAD (CIT(A) FOR SHORT) DATED 16.02.2015 & 18.08.2015 RESPECTIVELY F OR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS (A.YS) 2010-11 & 2011-12. 2. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN I TA NO.1065/AHD/2015/SRT READ AS FOLLOWS: 2 ITA NOS.1065 & 2940/AHD/2015/SRT (AYS: 2010-11 & 20 11-12) DADRA NAGAR HAVELI SAHKARI KHAND UDHYOG MANDALI LTD . 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A ND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING ADDITION OF DISALLOWAN CE OF MANUFACTURING EXPENSES OF RS.36,07,635/- IGNORING T HE FACT THAT NO DETAILS WERE PRODUCED BEFORE THE AO IN THE ASSES SMENT PROCEEDINGS. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A ND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING DISALLOWANCE OF ADMINI STRATIVE EXPENSES OF RS. 14,81,616/- IGNORING THE FACT THAT NO DETAILS WERE PRODUCED BEFORE THE AO IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING S. 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A ND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING DISALLOWANCE OF INTERE ST EXPENDITURE OF RS.64,77,055/- IGNORING THE FACT THAT NO DETAILS WERE PRODUCED BEFORE THE AO IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. 4. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A ND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING DISALLOWANCE U/S 43B A MOUNTING TO RS. 1,87,556/- IGNORING THE FACT THAT NO DETAILS WE RE PRODUCED BEFORE THE AO IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. 5. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A ND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING DISALLOWANCE OF CURREN T LIABILITY OF RS.5,07,19,183/- IGNORING THE FACT THAT NO DETAILS WERE PRODUCED BEFORE THE AO IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. 6. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING DISALLOWANCE OF DEPREC IATION OF RS.2,12,746/- IGNORING THE FACT THAT NO DETAILS WER E PRODUCED BEFORE THE AO IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. REVENUE APPEAL ITA NO.1065/AHD/2015/SRT FOR AY 2010 -11: 3. GROUND NO.1: APROPOS GROUND NO.1, WE HAVE HEARD THE ARGUMENTS O F BOTH SIDES AND CAREFULLY PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL PLACED ON THE RECORD OF THE TRIBUNAL. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (DR ) SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING ADDITION OF DISALLOWAN CE OF MANUFACTURING EXPENSES OF RS.36,07,635/- IGNORING THE FACT THAT N O DETAILS WERE PRODUCED BEFORE THE AO IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING S. THE LD. AR SUPPORTED THE FIRST APPELLATE ORDER AND SUBMITTED T HAT THE ASSESSEE ITSELF 3 ITA NOS.1065 & 2940/AHD/2015/SRT (AYS: 2010-11 & 20 11-12) DADRA NAGAR HAVELI SAHKARI KHAND UDHYOG MANDALI LTD . HAS DISALLOWED A SUM OF RS. 37,23,417/- OUT OF TOTA L MANUFACTURING EXPENSES THEREFORE, NO FURTHER DISALLOWANCE HAS TO BE MADE BY THE AO HENCE, LD. CIT(A) WAS RIGHT IN DELETING THE ADDITIO N. 4. ON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF ABOVE RIVAL SUBMISSI ONS, FIRST OF ALL, WE MAY POINT OUT THAT ADMITTEDLY THE ASSESSEE ITSELF H AS DISALLOWED A HUGE SUM OF RS. 37,23,417/- OUT OF TOTAL AMOUNT OF MANUF ACTURING EXPENSES RS. 72,15,270/- AND IF FURTHER DISALLOWANCE OF AO IS AD DED THEN TOTAL MANUFACTURING EXPENSES REACHED TO RS. 73,31,052/- W HICH IS MORE THAN TOTAL CLAIM OF MANUFACTURING EXPENSES. THEREFORE, WE HOLD THAT THE LD. CIT(A) WAS RIGHT IN DELETING THE ADHOC DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO WITHOUT ANY BASIS AND JUSTIFIED REASON AFTER CONSID ERING THE SUO MOTO DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE ITSELF. WE ARE U NABLE TO SEE ANY VALID REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE SAME AND THUS, W E UPHOLD THE FIRST APPELLATE ORDER ON THIS ISSUE. ACCORDINGLY, GROUND NO.1 OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. GROUND NO.2: 5. APROPOS GROUND NO.2 OF REVENUE, WE HAVE HEARD TH E ARGUMENTS OF BOTH SIDES AND CAREFULLY PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATER IAL PLACED ON THE RECORD OF THE TRIBUNAL. THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING DISALLOWANCE OF ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES OF RS. 14,81,616/- IGNORING THE FACT THAT NO DETAILS WERE PRODUCED BEF ORE THE AO IN THE 4 ITA NOS.1065 & 2940/AHD/2015/SRT (AYS: 2010-11 & 20 11-12) DADRA NAGAR HAVELI SAHKARI KHAND UDHYOG MANDALI LTD . ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ITSELF SUO MOTO DISALLOWED 2/3 RD OF TOTAL CLAIMED EXPENSES OF RS. 31,31,560/- WHICH COMES TO RS. 20,87,707/- AND IF T HE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO OF RS. 14,81,616/- IS FURTHER ADDED THEN, THE TOTAL DISALLOWANCE COMES TO THE AMOUNT WHICH IS MORE THAN THE CLAIMED ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES THEREFORE, LD. CIT(A) WAS RIGHT IN DELETIN G THE ADDITION. 6. ON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF ABOVE RIVAL SUBMISSI ONS, FIRST OF ALL, WE MAY POINT OUT THAT SOME FACTS HAVE NOT BEEN CONTROV ERTED BY THE AO OR BY THE LD. DR DURING ARGUMENT BEFORE US I.E., THE ASSE SSEE HAS ITSELF SUO MOTO DISALLOWED 2/3 RD OF TOTAL CLAIMED EXPENSES OF RS. 31,31,560/- WHICH COMES TO RS. 20,87,707/- AND IF THE DISALLOWANCE MA DE BY THE AO OF RS. 14,81,616/- IS FURTHER ADDED THEN, THE TOTAL DISALL OWANCE COMES TO THE AMOUNT WHICH IS MORE THAN THE CLAIMED ADMINISTRATIV E EXPENSES. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS, WE HOLD THAT THE LD. CIT(A) WAS RIG HT IN DELETING THE ADDITION CONSIDERING THE SUO MOTO DISALLOWANCE OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE ITSELF. WE ARE UNABLE TO SEE ANY VALID REASON TO INTERFERE WIT H THE FINDINGS RECORDED BY THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY AND HENCE, WE UPHOLD THE SAME. ACCORDINGLY, GROUND NO.2 OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSE D. GROUND NO.3: 7. APROPOS GROUND NO.3, WE HAVE HEARD THE ARGUMENTS OF BOTH SIDES AND CAREFULLY PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL PLACED ON THE RECORD OF THE 5 ITA NOS.1065 & 2940/AHD/2015/SRT (AYS: 2010-11 & 20 11-12) DADRA NAGAR HAVELI SAHKARI KHAND UDHYOG MANDALI LTD . TRIBUNAL. THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST EXPENDITURE OF RS.64,77,05 5/- IGNORING THE FACT THAT NO DETAILS WERE PRODUCED BEFORE THE AO IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT (A) WAS RIGHT IN DELETING THE ADDITION BY CONSIDERING THE SUO MOTO DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 50,29,541/- AND PENAL INTEREST OF RS. 5,59,688/- TH EREFORE, FIRST APPELLATE ORDER MAY KINDLY BE UPHELD. 8. ON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF ABOVE RIVAL SUBMISSI ONS, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ADHOC DISALLOWANCE OF ENTIRE INTEREST AMOUNT IS NOT CORRECT AS THE BORROWED WERE USED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING A PART OF THE FINANCIAL PERIOD. FURTHERMORE, THE ASSESSEE ITSELF HAS MADE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 50,29,451/- OUT OF INTEREST AMOUNT AND RS. 5,59,688 /- OUT OF PENAL INTEREST THEREFORE, THE LD. CIT(A) WAS RIGHT IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO WITHOUT ANY JUSTIFIED REASON AND BASIS ONLY ON ADHO C BASIS. WE ARE UNABLE TO SEE ANY VALID REASON TO INTERFERE WITH TH E FINDINGS RECORDED WITH THE LD. CIT(A) AND HENCE, WE UPHOLD THE SAME. ACCO RDINGLY, GROUND NO.3 OF THE REVENUE IS ALSO DISMISSED. GROUND NO.4: 9. APROPOS GROUND NO.4, WE HAVE HEARD THE ARGUMENTS OF BOTH SIDES AND CAREFULLY PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL PLACED ON THE RECORD OF THE TRIBUNAL. THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING 6 ITA NOS.1065 & 2940/AHD/2015/SRT (AYS: 2010-11 & 20 11-12) DADRA NAGAR HAVELI SAHKARI KHAND UDHYOG MANDALI LTD . DISALLOWANCE U/S 43B OF THE ACT AMOUNTING TO RS. 1, 87,556/- IGNORING THE FACT THAT NO DETAILS WERE PRODUCED BEFORE THE AO IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE APPELLA NT ITSELF HAS DISALLOWED HIGHER AMOUNT OF RS. 2,22,834/- THEREFORE, NO FURTH ER DISALLOWANCE WAS CALLED FOR. 10. ON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF ABOVE RIVAL SUBMISS IONS, FROM THE RELEVANT TOP PARA AT PAGE 25 OF FIRST APPELLATE ORD ER, WE OBSERVE THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS CONSIDERED THE UNDISPUTED FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE ITSELF HAS ALLOWED HIGHER AMOUNT OF RS. 2,22,834/- WHICH INCLU DES RS. 1,73,868/- AND RS. 48,966/- THEREFORE, THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY WAS RIGHT IN DELETING THE ADDITION AND FINDINGS RECORDED BY HIM IN THE TOP PARA AT PG. 25 OF FIRST APPELLATE ORDER ARE UPHELD. ACCORDINGL Y, GROUND NO.4 OF THE REVENUE BEING DEVOID OF MERITS IS DISMISSED. GROUND NO.5: 11. APROPOS GROUND NO.5, WE HAVE HEARD THE ARGUMENT S OF BOTH SIDES AND CAREFULLY PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL PLACED ON THE RECORD OF THE TRIBUNAL. THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING DISALLOWANCE OF CURRENT LIABILITY OF RS.5,07,19,183 /- IGNORING THE FACT THAT NO DETAILS WERE PRODUCED BEFORE THE AO IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. 12. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE AO WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN MAKING ADDITION OF ENTIRE CURRENT LIABILITY WHICH INCLUDES THE AMOUNT OF EARLIER 7 ITA NOS.1065 & 2940/AHD/2015/SRT (AYS: 2010-11 & 20 11-12) DADRA NAGAR HAVELI SAHKARI KHAND UDHYOG MANDALI LTD . YEARS OF RS. 3,77,11,261/- BEING OUTSTANDING LIABIL ITY AS ON 31.03.2009 AND THE NEW LIABILITIES WERE ONLY OF RS. 1,30,07,92 2/- AND IN THE REMAND REPORT THE AO DID NOT MAKE ANY ADVERSE COMMENT DESP ITE BEING GIVEN OPPORTUNITY TO REBUT THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE . THEREFORE, CONCLUSION RECORDED BY THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY MAY KINDL Y BE UPHELD. 13. ON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF ABOVE RIVAL SUBMISS IONS, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE LD. CIT(A) DURING FIRST APPELLATE PRO CEEDINGS ALLOWED THE AO TO REBUT THE EXPLANATION AND FACTS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE, BUT THE AO COULD NOT BROUGHT ANY ADVERSE EVIDENCE OR MATERIAL AGAINST THE ASSESSEE SHOWING THAT THE LIABILITIES ARE NOT GENUINE. FROM THE FIRST APPELLATE ORDER PAGE 26, IT IS ALSO CLEARLY DISCERNABLE THAT THE RE MAND PROCEEDINGS, THE AO RAISED QUARRIES AND SOUGHT THE ASSESSEE TO PRODU CE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WHICH WERE GIVEN TO HIM ALONG WITH FURTHER DETAILS IN RESPECT OF ALLEGED LIABILITIES AND THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED SUBM ISSIONS AND DOCUMENTS WITH SUPPORTING BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND THE AO WAS GIVEN DUE OPPORTUNITY TO PLACE HIS STAND AGAINST THE ASSESSEE DURING FIRST APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, BUT THE AO COULD NOT ESTABLISHED OR BR OUGHT ANY ADVERSE MATERIAL OR EVIDENCE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE SHOWING T HAT THE ALLEGES LIABILITIES ARE NOT GENUINE. IN THIS SITUATION, TH E FINDINGS RECORDED BY THE LD. CIT(A) REQUIRE NO INTERFERENCE AS WE ARE UNABLE TO SEE ANY AMBIGUITY, PERVERSITY OR ANY OTHER VALID REASON TO INTERFERE W ITH THE SAME AND 8 ITA NOS.1065 & 2940/AHD/2015/SRT (AYS: 2010-11 & 20 11-12) DADRA NAGAR HAVELI SAHKARI KHAND UDHYOG MANDALI LTD . THEREFORE, WE UPHOLD THE CONCLUSION ARRIVED BY THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. ACCORDINGLY, GROUND NO.5 OF THE REVENUE IS ALSO DIS MISSED. GROUND NO.6: 14. APROPOS GROUND NO.6, WE HAVE HEARD THE ARGUMENT S OF BOTH SIDES AND CAREFULLY PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL PLACED ON THE RECORD OF THE TRIBUNAL. THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING DISALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION OF RS.2,12,746/- IGNOR ING THE FACT THAT NO DETAILS WERE PRODUCED BEFORE THE AO IN THE ASSESSME NT PROCEEDINGS. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE ITSELF DISALLOWE D ENTIRE CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION OF RS. 2,12,746/- THEREFORE, THE LD. C IT(A) WAS RIGHT IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE. 15. ON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF ABOVE RIVAL SUBMISS IONS, AT THE VERY OUTSET, WE MAY POINT OUT THAT THE ASSESSEE ITSELF A LREADY DISALLOWED ENTIRE AMOUNT OF DEPRECIATION IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME THEREFORE, A FURTHER DISALLOWANCE IS MADE THEN, THAT WOULD AMOUNT TO DOU BLE DISALLOWANCE. THEREFORE, THE LD. CIT(A) WAS RIGHT IN DELETING THE ADDITION AND CONCLUSION DRAWN BY HIM IS UPHELD. ACCORDINGLY, GROUND NO.6 OF REVENUE ALSO STANDS DISMISSED. REVENUE APPEAL ITA NO.2940/AHD/2015/SRT FOR AY 2011 -12: 16. IN THIS APPEAL THE REVENUE HAS RAISED SOLE GROU ND WHICH READS AS FOLLOWS: 9 ITA NOS.1065 & 2940/AHD/2015/SRT (AYS: 2010-11 & 20 11-12) DADRA NAGAR HAVELI SAHKARI KHAND UDHYOG MANDALI LTD . ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING DISALLOWANCE OF CURREN T LIABILITY OF RS. 85,02,987/- IGNORING THE FACT THAT NO DETAILS WERE PRODUCED BEFORE THE AO IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. 17. APROPOS THE SOLE GROUND OF REVENUE, WE HAVE HEA RD THE ARGUMENTS OF BOTH SIDES AND CAREFULLY PERUSED THE RELEVANT MA TERIAL PLACED ON THE RECORD OF THE TRIBUNAL. THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING DISALLOWANCE OF CURRENT LIABILITY OF RS. 8 5,02,987/- IGNORING THE FACT THAT NO DETAILS WERE PRODUCED BEFORE THE AO IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED SUPPORTED THE FI RST APPELLATE ORDER AND SUBMITTED THAT IN THE AUDITED ACCOUNTS THERE WA S NOT NEW CURRENT LIABILITY AND THE BALANCE IS SHOWN AT THE END OF YE AR HAS NOT EXCEEDED TO THE BALANCES OF LAST YEAR SHOWN UNDER THE SAME HEAD S THEREFORE, THE LD. CIT(A) WAS RIGHT IN DELETING THE ADDITION. 18. ON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF ABOVE RIVAL SUBMISS IONS, WE MAY POINT OUT THAT THE LD. CIT(A) FIRST OF ALL NOTED THAT THE ADDITION MADE ON THE SAME COUNT IN AY 2010-11 HAS BEEN DELETED BY THE LD. CIT (A) I.E., HIS PREDECESSOR. THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY FURT HER OBSERVED THAT THE BALANCES OUTSTANDING UNDER ALL THE LIABILITIES REFE RRED TO ARE THE SAME OR LESS WHEN COMPARED TO THE BALANCES OF THE LAST YEAR WHICH ALSO GETS SUPPORTS FROM THE CHART SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE D URING FIRST APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS, WE ARE INCLIN ED TO HOLD THAT WHEN IN THE AUDITED ACCOUNTS IT HAS BEEN SEEN THAT THERE AR E NO NEW CURRENT 10 ITA NOS.1065 & 2940/AHD/2015/SRT (AYS: 2010-11 & 20 11-12) DADRA NAGAR HAVELI SAHKARI KHAND UDHYOG MANDALI LTD . LIABILITIES AND THE BALANCES DURING THE YEAR UNDER THESE HEADS HAS NOT EXCEEDED THE BALANCES OF THE LAST YEAR. THEREFORE, CONCLUSION DRAWN BY THE LD. CIT(A) IS QUITE CORRECT AND THUS, WE ARE UN ABLE TO SEE ANY VALID REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE SAME. CONSEQUENTLY, S OLE GROUND OF REVENUE BEING DEVOID OF MERITS IS DISMISSED. 19. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS OF REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS DAY OF 2 7 TH SEPTEMBER, 2018. / SURAT ; DATED : 27 TH SEPTEMBER, 2018 EDN # & / COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT ; 2. / THE RESPONDENT ; 3. $ ( ) / THE CONCERNED CIT(A); 4. THE CONCERNED PRL. CIT; 5. , , / DR, ITAT, SURAT; 6. / GUARD FILE . / BY ORDER , // TRUE COPY // * / ASSISTANT REGISTRAR , / ITAT, SURAT SD/- SD/- ( ) ( O.P.MEENA ) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( ) (C.M.GARG) /JUDICIAL MEMBER