ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), Nagpur V. M/S CHINTAMANI BUILDERS, Nagpur

ITA 301/NAG/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 134 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1626 (ITAT-NAGPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 3 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-10-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 09-07-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: NARENDRA KANE
• Section: 143(3); 133A; 80IB; 147; 148; 263; 132

Judgement Text

1 ITA NOS. 301 & 302/NAG/2013 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. NOS. 301 & 302/NAG/2013 ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2006 - 07 & 2007 - 08.. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX, M/S CHINTAMANI BUILDERS, CENTAL CIRCLE - 1(2), NAGPUR. VS. NAGPUR. PAN AADFC 2767P APPELLANT. RESPONDENT. APPELLANT BY : SHRI NARENDRA KANE. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI K.P. DEWANI. DATE OF HEAR ING : 18 - 08 - 2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30 TH OCT., 2015 O R D E R PER MUKUL K. SHRAWAT, J.M. FOR BOTH THE YEARS REVENUE IS IN APPEAL EMANATING FROM CONSOLIDATED ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) - I, NAGPUR DATED 15 - 05 - 2013. REVENUE HAS RAISED IDENTICALLY WORDED GROUNDS, REPRODUCED FROM THE LEADING ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 - 07 AS UNDER : 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, LD. CIT (A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.1,06,05,579/ - (RS.96,30,269/ - FOR AY 2007 - 08) ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION U/S 80IB(10). 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FULFI LLED ALL THE CONDITIONS FOR ALLOWING DEDUCTION U/S 80IB(10) OF THE I.T. ACT. 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT APPROVAL GRANTED BY THE GRAM PANCHAYAT TO THE INDIVIDUAL PLOTS, TANTAMOUNT TO GRANT ING APPROVAL FOR THE PROJECT AS A WHOLE. 2 ITA NOS. 301 & 302/NAG/2013 2. FACTS IN BRIEF AS EMERGED FROM THE CORRESPONDING ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S 147 READ WITH SECTION 143(3) DATED 21 - 09 - 2010 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 - 07 WERE THAT THE ASSESSEE IN THE STATUS OF A FIRM IS IN CONSTRUC TION BUSINESS. THE AO HAS MENTIONED THAT A SEARCH U/S 132 WAS CARRIED OUT AT VASTU GROUP OF COMPANIES AND ASSOCIATES CONCERNS ON 23 - 07 - 2007. DURING THE COURSE OF THAT SEARCH A SURVEY U/S 133A WAS CARRIED OUT AT THE OFFICE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE ON 23 - 07 - 2008. VIDE PARA 4 THE AO HAS MENTIONED THAT NO MATERIAL PERTAINING TO THE ASSESSEE WAS SEIZED AT THE TIME OF SEARCH FROM VASTU GROUP OF COMPANIES. DUE TO THAT REASON THE PROCEEDINGS U/S 153C WERE DROPPED. FOR READY REFERENCE THE SAID PARAGRAPH IS REPRODUC ED BELOW : DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, IT IS NOTICED THAT THERE WAS NO MATERIAL PERTAINING TO THE ASSESSEE WAS SEIZED FROM THE RESIDENCE OF THE ANY OF THE DIRECTORS OR OFFICE PREMISES OF THE VASTU GROUP OF COMPANIES. THEREFORE THE PROCEE DINGS U/S 153C WAS DROPPED ON 19.12.2009 AS ABINITO VOID. 2.1 THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS REOPENED BY ISSUING A NOTICE U/S 148 OF I.T. ACT. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO JUSTIFY THE C LAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 80IB(10) OF I.T. ACT. FROM THE SIDE OF THE REVENUE C ERTAIN ENQUIRIES WERE MADE AND THE ASSESSEE WAS PROVIDED WITH THE COPIES OF THOSE CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED FROM NAGPUR IMPROVEMENT TRUST (NIT). THE ASSESSEE WAS CONSTRUCTING THREE PROJECTS, NAMELY, CHINTAMANI NAGRI - I, CHINTAMANI NAGRI - II , CHINTAMANI NAGRI - I II AND RESPECTIVELY THE PROFITS WERE SHOWN TO THE TUNE OF RS.9,27,723/ - , RS.1,36,158/ - AND RS.95,41,698/ - . THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED EXEMPTION U/S 80IB(10) IN RESPECT OF THE SAID PROJECTS. IN THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER THE AO HAS DISCUSSED THE DETAILS OF THE PROJECT. HOWEVER, THE OBJECTION OF THE AO WAS THAT IN RESPECT OF CHINTAMANI NAGRI - I PROJECT THE PERMISSION WAS NOT FOR THE WHOLE PROJECT. ACCORDING TO THE AO THERE WAS NO APPROVAL FROM THE LOCAL AUTHORITY FOR THE HOUSING PROJECT. AS PER THE INFORMATI ON AVAILABLE WITH THE AO, THE APPROVAL FROM TOWN PLANNING DEPARTMENT, NAGPUR WAS FOR THE PURPOSE OF SUB PLOTTING OF LAND. 3 ITA NOS. 301 & 302/NAG/2013 2.2 IT IS WORTH TO MENTION AT THIS JUNCTURE THAT THE AO WAS AWARE OF THE FACT, AS NOTED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THAT IN THE PAST I.E . FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2004 - 05 AND 2005 - 06 THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 80IB(10) WAS DENIED BY THE AO. WHEN THE MATTER WAS CARRIED BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS), THE CLAIM WAS ALLOWED. REVENUE HAS CHALLENGED THAT ORDER, HOWEVER, THE RESPECTED ITAT HAD APP ROVED THE RELIEF GRANTED BY LEARNED CIT(APPEALS). THE AO HAS DISCUSSED THAT ON ENQUIRY FROM NIT IT WAS FOUND THAT THE PERMISSION WAS ONLY FOR REGULARISATION OF PLOTS WHICH WERE SOLD TO INDIVIDUAL OWNERS. ONE MORE OBSERVATION OF THE AO WAS THAT THE NIT WAS THE ONLY AUTHORITY, BEING A PLANNING AUTHORITY, TO GRANT PERMISSION FOR BUILDING PLAN TO BE CONSTRUCTED. AFTER DISCUSSING T HE POINT - WISE COMMUNICATION WITH THE NIT, FINALLY THE AO HAS OPINED THAT IT WAS VERY MUCH CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT OBTAINED ANY PERMISSION FROM THE LOCAL AUTHORITY FOR THE HOUSING PROJECT. HENCE IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY APPROVAL THE DEDUCTION U/S 80IB(10) WAS NOT PERMISSIBLE. 2.3 IN RESPECT OF CHINTAMANI NAGRI - II, THE OBSERVATION OF THE AO WAS THAT THE PERMISSION WAS OBTAINED FROM TOWN PLANNING, NAGPUR ONLY TO SUB PLOT THE BIGGER PLOT. THE SUB PLOTS WERE SOLD TO INDIVIDUAL OWNERS. AFTER SELLING THE PLOTS TO INDIVIDUAL PERSONS THE ASSESSEE HAD WORKED AS A CONTRACTOR. AN AGREEMENT WAS EXECUTED BY THE ASSESSEE AS A CONTRACTOR WITH THE NEW PLOT OWNERS TO CONSTRUCT BUNGALOWS. ACCORDING TO THE AO THE ASSESSEE HAD OBTAINED A PERMISSION FROM GRAM PANCHAYAT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION ON THE PLOTS. SINCE THE PERMISSION WAS IN RESPECT OF EACH PLOT, THEREFORE, THERE WAS NO PERMISSION FOR THE WHOL E PROJECT TO BE TERMED AS A HOUSING PROJECT. 2.4 THE NEXT OBJECTION OF THE AO WAS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED THAT A PERMISSION FOR CONSTRUCTION OF BUNGALOWS WERE OBTAINED FROM GRAM PANCHAYAT, BESA. THE LETTERS WHICH WERE SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE CLAI MED TO HAVE BEEN ISSUED FROM GRAM PANCHAYAT WERE FOUND RECORDED IN THE GRAM PANCHAYAT RECORD. IN THE PROCEEDINGS BOOK MAINTAINED BY GRAM PANCHAYAT A PROCEEDING 4 ITA NOS. 301 & 302/NAG/2013 RECORDED WAS IN RESPECT OF A ELECTRIC WORK DATED 25 - 06 - 2003. THE COMMUNICATION RECEIVED FROM GRAM PANCHAYAT, BESA WAS ALSO COMMUNICATED TO THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, UNDISPUTEDLY THE SAID LETTER WAS JOINTLY SIGNED BY GRAM SARPANCH AND GRAM SECRETARY. THE AO HAS ALSO MADE ENQUIRIES FROM THE COLLECTOR AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, NAGPUR. IT HAS ALSO BEEN QUESTIONED WHETHER UNDER ANY PROVISION OF LAW AN APPROVAL COULD BE OBTAINED FROM GRAM PANCHAYAT AND THE ANSWER WAS THAT THE SARPANCH HAD NO AUTHORITY. LIKEWISE THE AO HAD MADE ENQUIRIES IN RESPECT OF CHINTAMANI NAGRI - III PROJECT. ALMOST THE SAME CONCLUSION WAS DRAWN BY THE AO THAT THE SANCTION GRANTED BY GRAM PANCHAYAT, BESA FOR CONSTRUCTION OF BUNGALOWS WAS NOT A LEGAL SANCTION. ACCORDING TO THE AO, PERMISSION OBTAINED FROM THE GRAM PANCHAYAT WAS NOT AS PER LAW BECAUSE THE GRAM PANCHAYAT WAS NOT A LOCAL A UTHORITY AS PRESCRIBED UNDER THE ACT. THE PERMISSION OBTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT A PROPER PERMISSION, HENCE THE PROJECT WAS NOT A SANCTIONED PROJECT. THEREFORE, THE CONDITION PRESCRIBED U/S 80IB(10) WAS NOT FULFILLED, AO HAS CONCLUDED. AS A RESULT, T HE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 80IB TOTALLING RS.10605579/ - WAS DISALLOWED. 3. WHEN THE MATTER WAS CARRIED BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) HAS EXAMINED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AT LENGTH. LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) HAS ALSO EXAMINED THE DECISI ON OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE PERTAINING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2004 - 05 AND 2005 - 06. ON THE ISSUE OF SANCTION OBTAINED FROM THE GRAM PANCHAYAT IT WAS ARGUED THAT THE COLLECTOR CAN ONLY REGULATE THE USE OF LAND. HOWEVER, FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONS TRUCTION OF BUILDING WITHIN VILLAGE AREA WAS TO BE GRANTED BY GRAM PANCHAYAT. DUE TO THAT REASON THE ASSESSEE HAD OBTAINED PERMISSION FOR CONSTRUCTION FROM THE SARPANCH. IT HAS ALSO BEEN PLEADED THA T AS PER MAHARASHTRA REGIONAL AND TOWN PLANNING ACT, 1966 THE AUTHORITY CAN REGULATE THE USE OF LAND AND THERE IS NO PROVISION FOR REGULATING THE CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDING. IT HAS ALSO BEEN PLEADED THAT IN NUMBER OF DECISIONS, GRAM PANCHAYAT OF A VILLAGE IS HELD AS LOCAL 5 ITA NOS. 301 & 302/NAG/2013 AUTHORITY. THE RELEVANT PARAGRAPH FROM THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) IS EXTRACTED BELOW: THE APPELLANT PLACED RELIANCE ON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS OF ITAT, WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT GRAM PANCHAYAT OF VILLAGE IS THE LOCAL AUTHORITY FOR THE PURPOSE OF GRANT OF APPROVAL OF HOUSING PROJEC T TO MAKE THE APPELLANT ELIGIBLE FOR THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 80IB(10) OF I.T. ACT, 1961. 1. ITATS ORDER IN ITA NO.556/MDS/2011 IN THE CASE OF TRUE VALUE HOMES (INDIA) PVT. LTD. DATED 24 TH JUNE, 2011. 2. ITATS ORDER IN I.T.A. NOS. 248 & 249/VIZAG/2009 IN THE CASE OF RAGHAVA ESTATES LTD., VIJAYWADA DATED 4THN AUGUST, 2011. 3. DCIT VS. ARIHANT FOUNDATIONS AND HOUSING LTD. (2012) 18 ITR (TRIB) (CHENNAI). 3.1 CONSIDERING THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE, LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) HAS DISCUSSED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 10(20) DEFINING THE TERM LOCAL AUTHORITY IN ONE OF THE EXPLANATION ANNEXED TO SECTION 10(20) OF THE I.T. ACT. HENCE THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) HAD DRAWN THE CONCLUSION THAT THIS DISPUTE WAS CLEARLY COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE DECISION OF HON BLE ITAT, AND FOLLOWING THE DECISION IT WAS HELD THAT THE DENIAL OF DEDUCTION U/S 80IB(10) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED. 3.2 IN RESPECT OF CHINTAMAN NAGRI II AND III PROJECTS, IT WAS FOUND THAT ALL THE RESIDENTIAL HOUSES WERE CONSTRUCTED AND THE OCCUPATION WAS TRANSF ERRED TO THE CUSTOMERS. AGAIN THE VIEW EXPRESSED BY RESPECTED ITAT, NAGPUR BENCH WAS QUOTED BY LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) AND HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE SHOULD NOT BE DEPRIVED OF THE DEDUCTION. SINCE THE CLAIM WAS ALLOWED, HENCE THE REVENUE IS IN FURTHER APPEAL. 4. FROM THE SIDE OF THE REVENUE, LEARNED D.R. MR. NARENDRA KANE APPEARED AND PLACED RELIANCE ON THE ORDER OF AO . ON THE OTHER HAND, FROM THE SIDE OF THE RESPONDENT - ASSESSEE LEARNED A.R. MR. K.P. DEWANI APPEARED AND PLACED RELIANCE ON THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT (APPEALS). 6 ITA NOS. 301 & 302/NAG/2013 5. WE HAVE PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES IN THE LIGHT OF THE CASE LAWS CITED AS WELL AS THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL PRONOUNCED IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE PERTAINING TO THE PAST YEARS. THERE WAS A DISCUSSION OF BOMBAY VILLAGE PANCHAYAT ACT, 1958 AND AS PER SECTION 52, SANCTION OF CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDING WITHIN THE LIMIT OF VILLAGE HAS TO BE GRANTED BY THE PANCHAYAT. ON THE SAID BASIS IT WAS HELD THAT THE VILLAGE PANCHAYAT IS A LOCAL AUTHORITY. WE HAVE ALSO PERUSED THE ORDER OF ITAT , NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR BEARING ITA NO. 327/NAG/2008 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005 - 06, ORDER DATED 5 TH JUNE, 2009 WHEREIN THE REVENUE HAS CHALLENGED THE RELIEF GRANTED IN RESPECT OF DEDUCTION U/S 80IB(10) BY LEARNED CIT(APPEALS). THERE IS ONE MORE ORDER OF ITAT, NA GPUR BENCH BEARING ITA NO. 448/NAG/2007 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004 - 05 TITLED AS ITO VS. CHINTAMANI BUILDERS, ORDER DATED 5 TH OF JANUARY, 2009 WHEREIN THE ISSUE OF HOUSING PROJECTS AT CHINTAMANI NAGRI I AND CHINTAMANI NAGRI II WERE DISCUSSED THAT WHETHER THE CONSTRUCTION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE HOUSING PROJECT WOULD QUALIFY FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80IB(10). FINALLY THE VERDICT OF THE TRIBUNAL WAS IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AS PER THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS: 7 . 1 . IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THE SEQUENCE OF FACTS, I . E. ACQU I RING PIECE OF LAND FOR PROPOSED IMPLEMENTATION OF HOUSING PROJECTS, GETTING APPROVAL OF LAYOUT PLAN FOR THE ENTIRE LAN D , WIDE PUBLICATION IN THE BROCHURE FOR DWELLING HOUSES IN THE PROJECT, SUBSEQUENT P L OT TIN G OF THE SAME AND CONSTRUCT ION OF DWELLING HOUSES ON SUCH PLOT ALL SHOULD HE CONSIDERED TOGETHER. ONCE WE CONSIDER ENTIRE FACTS AND SEQUENCE OF EVENTS IN TOTALITY, IT IS E V IDENT THAT THE ASSESSEE DEVELOPED HOUS I NG PROJECT . MERELY BECAUSE TWO SEPARATE A GREEMENTS WERE.ENTERED - INTO , ONE FOR SALE OF PLOT AND OTHER FOR CONSTRUCTION THEREON, I T \ - CAN NOT BE SAID THAT BOTH AGREEMENTS W: R E ~.P~NDENT AGREEMENTS. THE ASSESSEE HAS SOLD ' B U N G LO W ' , I.E, PLOT OF LAND WITH CONSTRUCTION THERE ON. SALE PRICE WAS OF'BUNGLOW' . NO - . . .. ~ BUYER HAD AN Y OPTION TO P U RC H ASE ONLY PLOT AND DID NOT GET 'BUNGLO W ' CONSTRUCTED THEREON FROM THE ASSESSEE . MERELY BECAUSE THE TRANSACTION OF SALE OF BUN G LO W WAS COMPLETED THRO U GH TWO AGREEMEN TS ENTERED I N TO SI MULTANEOUSLY, IT C A NNOT BE S AI D T HAT THE A SSES SEE D ID NO T D EVELOP HOUSING PROJECT, IN OU R OPINION , THE C.LT . CA) ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E CASE HAS RIGKTLY . HELD T HAT THE A S SE SSEE HAD SOLD THE TENEM E NTS TO THE BUYER . B Y EXECXUTING TWO AGREEMENTS TO SPLIT ITS SA L E CONSIDERATION TOWARDS PLOT OF LAND AND CONSTRUCTION 7 ITA NOS. 301 & 302/NAG/2013 ' I . ~ OF DWELLING UNIT . IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE C.LT.CA ) AND DISMISS E REVENUE'S APPEAL . . 5.1 WE HAVE ALSO PERUSED THE ORDER OF ITAT, NAGPUR BENCH PRONOUNCED IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003 - 04 BEARING ITA NO. 278/NA G/2008 TITLED AS M/S CHINTAMANI BUILDERS VS. ACIT. THE ASSESSEE HAD CHALLENGED THE ORDER PASSED U/S 263 OF I.T. ACT. THE TRIBUNAL HAS QUASHED THE PROCEEDINGS U/S 263 FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL BEING THE ISSUE WAS STATED TO BE COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THOSE DECISIONS. 6. AS FAR AS THE ISSUE WHETHER THE GRAM PANCHAYAT IS LOCAL AUTHORITY OR NOT, THE DECISION OF ITAT, PUNE BENCH HAS BEEN CITED BEFORE US BEARING ITA NO. 667/PN/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10 IN THE CASE OF HIRAMAN NIVRUTTI BHUJAL, ORDER DATED 27 - 05 - 2014 WHEREIN OTHER DECISIONS WERE DISCUSSED AND FINALLY CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE CONCERNED GRAM PANCHAYAT WAS A COMPETENT LOCAL AUTHORITY FOR THE P URPOSE OF ISSUING APPROVAL AND COMPLETION CERTIFICATE FOR CLAIMING DEDUCTION U/S 80IB(10) OF I.T. ACT. MOREOVER, THE RESPONDENT - ASSESSEE HAS ALSO PLACED RELIANCE ON A DECISION OF CIT VS. GWALIOR RAYON SILK MANUFACTURING CO. LTD. 196 ITR 149 (SC) FOR THE LE GAL PROPOSITION THAT THE PROVISIONS FOR DEDUCTIONS AND EXEMPTIONS SHOULD BE CONSTRUED REASONABLY AND IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION SINCE ALL THE ISSUES IN HAND HAVE BEEN COVERED EITHER BY THE ORDERS OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE OR BY R ESPECTED COORDINATE BENCHES, THEREFORE, WE FIND NO FALLACY IN THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS). RESULTANTLY, THE SAME IS HEREBY CONFIRMED AND THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. 8 ITA NOS. 301 & 302/NAG/2013 7. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS OF TH E REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 30 TH DAY OF OCT., 2015. SD/ - SD/ - ( SHAMIM YAHYA) (MUKUL K. SHRAWAT) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. JUDICIAL MEMBER NAGPUR, DATED: 30 TH OCT., 2015. COPY FORWARDED TO : 1. M/S CHINTAM ANI BUILDERS, 3 RD FLOOR, NKY TOWER, AJANI, NAGPUR. 2. A CIT, CENTRE CIRCLE - 1(2) , NAGPUR. 3. C.I.T., CONCERNED 4. CIT(APPEALS) - I, NAGPUR. 5. D.R., ITAT, NAGPUR. 6. GUARD FILE TRUE COPY BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, INCOME TAX APP ELLATE TRIBUNAL, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WAKODE