Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Sitapur V. Kisan Sahkari Chini Mill Ltd., Sitapur

ITA 303/LKW/2013

• Counselvise Citation: 30323714 RSA 2013
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-04-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 04-03-2014
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 30-04-2013
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: Y P SRIVASTA VA
• Assessee Lawyers: S K ARORA F

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH A, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.303/LKW/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2005 - 06 A.C.I.T., SITAPUR. VS. KISAN SAHKARI CHINI MILL LTD., MAHMOODABAD, SITAPUR. PAN:AAHCS6558H (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SHRI Y. P. SRIVASTAVA, D. R. RESPONDENT BY SHRI S. K. ARORA, F.C.A. DATE OF HEARING 04/03/2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 2 4 /04/2014 O R D E R PER A. K. GARODIA, A.M. THIS IS REVENUES APPEAL DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY LEARNED CIT(A), BAREILLY DATED 20/02/2013 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005 - 06. 2. GROUND NO. 1 RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS AS UNDER : 1. THAT THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IS ERRONEOUS IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.20,9007 - IN THE CLOSING STOCK OF PRESS MUD. 3. LEARNED D.R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHEREAS IT WAS SUBMITTED BY LEA RNED A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THIS ISSUE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE TRIBUNAL DECISION IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 09 IN I.T.A. NO. 409/LKW/2013 DATED 29/11/2013. LEARNED A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED A COPY OF THE TR IBUNAL ORDER. 2 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND FIND THAT THIS ISSUE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE TRIBUNAL DECISION FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 09. 5. LEARNED D.R. OF THE REVENUE COULD NOT POINT OUT ANY DIFFERENCE IN FACTS AND HENCE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO TAKE A CONTRARY VIEW IN THE PRESENT YEAR. WE DECLINE TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A). GROUND NO. 1 OF THE APPEAL IS REJECTED. 6. GROUND NO. 2 IS AS UNDER: 2. THAT THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IS ERRONEOUS IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.3,19,057/ - IN THE CLOSING STOCK OF BAGGASE. 7. LEARNED D.R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND DRAWN OUR ATTENTION TO PAGE NO. 2 OF THE STATEMENT OF FACTS FILED BEFORE US . L EARNED A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF CIT(A). 8. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE FIND THAT ON PAGE NO. 3 OF HIS ORDER, I T IS NOTED BY CIT(A) THAT THE ASSESSEE IS FOLLOWING CASH SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING. THE SALE OF SURPLUS BAGGASE, IF ANY, IS ACCOUNTED FOR WITHOUT VALUING THE CLOSING STOCK AT THE YEAR END AND THIS IS CLEARLY MENTIONED IN NOTES FORMING PART OF THE ACCOUNTS AND THERE IS NO CHANGE IN THE SYSTEM OF TREATMENT OF VALUATION OF BAGGASE DURING THE YEAR SINCE INCEPTION. HE HAS ALSO NOTED THAT MOST OF THE BAGGASE PRODUCTS ARE ALWAYS CONSUMED IN THE BOILER FOR GENERATION OF STEAM AND RUNNING THE PLANT. HE HAS ALSO NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS HAVING OPENING STOCK OF 4,400 QUINTALS AS ON 01/04/2004 AND THEREFORE, IF THE ADDITION MADE IN THE CLOSING STOCK HAS TO BE SUSTAINED THEN THE ADJUSTMENT IN VALUE OF OPENING STOCK OF BAGGASE SHOULD ALSO HAVE TO BE ALLOWED BY THE ASSES SING OFFICER. WE ALSO 3 FIND THAT IN THE STATEMENT OF FACTS ON PAGE NO. 2 FILED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, IT IS STATED THAT OPENING STOCK OF BAGGASE HAS BEEN SHOWN AT 4,400 QUINTALS AND AFTER DEDUCTING SALES OF 5,107 QUINTALS, CLOSING STOCK OF BAGGASE REMAI NS AT 3,262 QUINTALS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF CLOSING STOCK BUT HE HAS NOT GIVEN ANY CREDIT FOR OPENING STOCK, WHICH WAS NOT VALUED BY THE ASSESSEE SINCE THE ASSESSEE IS FOLLOWING THIS SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING THAT CLOSING STOCK OF BAGGASE IS NOT VALUED BY IT. IT IS TRUE THAT THE SYSTEM ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSEE IS FAULTY AND THE ASSESSEE SHOULD HAVE VALUED THE CLOSING STOCK YEAR AFTER YEAR BUT SINCE INCEPTION , THE ASSESSEE IS FOLLOWING THIS SYSTEM AND THE SAME WAS ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT AND THEREFORE, TO MAKE ANY CHANGE IN THE SYSTEM, WE HAVE TO GIVE EFFECT IN VALUE OF OPENING STOCK ALSO. CONSIDERING THE ENTIRE FACTS AND SMALLNESS OF AMOUNT INVOLVED, WE FE EL THAT THIS DEFECT IN THE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING FOLLOWED BY THE ASSESSEE CAN BE IGNORED BECAUSE THE AMOUNT INVOLVED IS SMALL AND TO RECTIFY THE SAME, CHANGE WILL BE REQUIRED IN SEVERAL YEARS. WE, THEREFORE, DECLINE TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A) ON T HIS ISSUE. GROUND NO. 2 IS ALSO REJECTED. 9. GROUND NO. 3 IS AS UNDER: 3. THAT THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IS ERRONEOUS IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.44,24,619/ - ON ACCOUNT OF MOLASSES IN KACHHA PI T. 10. LEARNED D.R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND ALSO DRAWN OUR ATTENTION TO PAGE NO. 2 OF THE STATEMENTS OF FACTS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. HE ALSO DRAWN OUR ATTENTION TO PAGE NO. 33 AND 34 OF THE PAPER BOOK. HE ALSO SUBMITTED THE NO CERTIFICATE WAS PRODUCED FOR CURRENT YEAR AND QUANTITY OF OPENING AND CLOSING STOCK ARE DIFFERENT. 11. LEARNED A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF CIT(A). 4 12. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE FIND THAT IT IS STATED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON PAGE NO. 2 OF THE STATEMENTS OF FACTS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS VALUED THE CLOSING STOCK OF MOLESSES WEIGHING 11,205 QUINTALS @RS.11/ - PER UNIT, WHICH IS SUBSTANTIALLY LOW IN COMPARISON TO MOLASSES KEPT IN TANKS. THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE MOLASSES STORED IN KACHCHA PIT IS NOT SALEABLE. THIS IS BY NOW A SETTLED POSITION OF LAW THAT VALUATION OF CLOSING STOCK CAN BE AT COST OR MARKET PRICE, WHI CHEVER IS LOWER. THIS FACT HAS TO BE ACCEPTED THAT MOLASSES STORED IN KACHCHA PIT IS DEFECTIVE AND IS NOT COMPARABLE WITH THE MOLASSES STORED IN TANKS. HENCE, IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN THE FA CTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. WE, THEREFORE, DECLINE TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE. THIS GROUND OF REVENUE IS ALSO REJECTED. 13. GROUND NO. 4 IS AS UNDER: 4. THAT THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IS ERRONEOUS IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.3,93,417/ - ON ACCOUNT OF BOND MONEY PAYABLE. 14. LEARNED D.R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. HE ALSO DRAWN OUR ATTENTION TO PAGE NO. 3 OF THE STATEMENT OF FACTS FILED BEFORE US ALONG WITH PAGE NO. 30 OF THE PAPER BOOK. 15. LEARNED A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF CIT(A). 16. WE FIND THAT ON PAGE NO. 30 OF THE PAPER BOOK , THERE IS OPENING BALANCE OF RS. 13,01,473.10 AS ON 01/04/2004 AND THERE IS DEDUCTION OF RS.3,93,417/ - ON 31/03/2005 BUT THERE IS NO PAYMENT AGAINST THIS OPENING BALANCE. WHEN THIS POSITION IS CONSIDERED ALONG WITH THE FACTS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED ANY DETAIL REGARDING GROWER - WISE LIST OF MONEY PAYABLE, IT HAS TO BE ACCEPTED THAT SUCH PAYMENT IS NOT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE 5 AND THE GROWERS ARE ALSO NOT CLAIMING THE SAME. HENCE, TO THIS EXTENT OF THE AMOUNT DEDUCTED FROM CANE PRICE PAYABLE TO GROWERS, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT INCURRED THE EXPENSES BUT DEBITED THE SAME TO THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT IN THE FORM OF CANE PRICE PAID AND CREATED A LIABILITY IN THE BOOKS FOR WHICH THE ASSESSEE IS NOT MAKING ANY PAYMENT TO ANYBODY AND THE ASSESSEE IS NOT IN A POSITION TO GIVE PART Y WISE DETAILS. UNDER THESE FACTS, IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS JUSTIFIED. WE, THEREFORE, REVERSE THE ORDER OF CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE AND RESTORE THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THIS GROUND OF THE REVENUE IS ALLOWED. 17. GROUN D NO. 5 IS AS UNDER: 5. THAT THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IS ERRONEOUS IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.28,367/ - MADE ON ACCOUNT OF LEGAL EXPENSES U/S 40(A)(IA) OF THE I.T.ACT 1961. 18. LEARNED D.R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. HE ALSO DRAWN OUR ATTENTION TO PAGE NO. 3 OF THE STATEMENTS OF FACTS FILED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BEFORE US WHEREAS LEARNED A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF CIT(A). 19. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE FIND THAT PAYMENTS WERE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE TO TWO PERSONS ON ACCOUNT OF LEGAL EXPENSES. THE FIRST PERSON IS SHRI RAGHVENDRA SINGH, ADVOC ATE TO WHOM PAYMENT OF RS.25,575/ - WAS MADE WHICH INCLUDED RS.18,500/ - ON ACCOUNT OF HIS FEES AND RS.6,775/ - ON ACCOUNT OF MISC. EXPENSES. THE CIT(A) HAS DELETED THIS DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT ON THE BASIS THAT SI NCE THE AMOUNT PAID ON ACCOUNT OF FEES WAS LESS THAN THE LIMIT OF RS.20,000/ - ON WHICH TDS HAS TO BE DEDUCTED, THERE WAS NO REQUI REMENT FOR ANY ADDITION. 6 20. LEARNED D.R. OF THE REVENUE COULD NOT CONTROVERT THIS FINDING OF CIT(A). WE DO NOT FIND ANY RE ASON TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A). THIS ISSUE IS REJECTED. 21. THE SECOND PERSON TO WHOM THE PAYMENT OF RS.54,454/ - WAS MADE IS SATISH ARORA & CO. WHICH INCLUDED RS.3,092.50 ON ACCOUNT OF TRAVELLING EXPENSES AND PHOTOCOPY EXPENSES. IT IS HELD B Y CIT(A) THAT THERE WAS NO REQUIREMENT OF TDS FROM THE REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES AND DELETED THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ACTION OF CIT(A). HENCE, WE UPHOLD THE SAM E AND REJECT THIS ISSUE ALSO. GROUND NO. 5 IS REJECTED. 22. GROUND NO. 6 IS AS UNDER: 6. THAT THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IS ERRONEOUS IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.7,16,196/ MADE U/S 40(A)(IA) OF I.T.ACT, 1961 ON ACCOUNT OF COMMISSION PAYMENT. 23. LEARNED D.R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND DRAWN OUR ATTENTION TO PAGE NO. 4 OF THE STATEMENT OF FACTS WHEREAS LEARNED A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF CIT(A). 24. WE HAV E CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. T HIS ISSUE IS DECIDED BY CIT(A) AS PER FOLLOWING PARA ON PAGE 8 OF HIS ORDER, WHICH IS REPRODUCED BELOW: I HAVE PERUSED AS SESSMENT ORDER, GONE THROUGH THE SUBMISSIONS AND ALSO THE PAPER BOOK FILED IN APPEAL BEFORE ME. IT IS SEEN THAT THE COPY OF ACCOUNT OF COMMISSION TO SUGAR SELLING AGENTS, VOUCHERS AND CERTIFICATE OF UP COOPERATIVE SUGAR FACTORIES FEDERATION FOR DEDUCTION OF TDS ON SALE OF SUGAR, DETAILS AND CHALLANS FOR TDS DEPOSIT HAD BEEN FILED WHICH STAND AT PAGE NO. 38 TO 39 AND 40 TO 50 OF THE PAPER BOOK. IN VIEW 7 OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE ADDITION MADE BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER IS DELETED. 25. FROM THE ABOVE PARA OF CIT(A), WE FIND THAT A CLEAR FINDING IS GIVEN BY CIT(A) THAT AS PER CERTIFICATE OF UP CO - OPERATIVE SUGAR FACTORIES FEDERATION, TDS WAS DEDUCTED ON SALE OF SUGAR AND TDS WAS DEPOSITED WITH CENTRAL GOVERNMENT. THIS FINDING OF CIT(A) C OULD NOT BE CONTROVERTED AND HENCE, WE DECLINE TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A). THIS GROUND OF REVENUE IS ALSO REJECTED. 26. GROUND NOS. 7 & 8 ARE INTER - CONNECTED, WHICH READ AS UNDER: 7. THAT THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A PPEALS) IS ERRONEOUS IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.38,33,940/ MADE U/S 36(1)(VA) OF IT.ACT, 1961 ON ACCOUNT OF LATE DEPOSIT OF EMPLOYEES DEDUCTION OF P.F. 8. THAT THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IS ERRON EOUS IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.27,780/ - MADE ON ACCOUNT OF G.I.S. RECOVERIES FROM EMPLOYEE'S LATE DEPOSITED U/S 36(1)(VA). 27. LEARNED D.R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHEREAS LEARNED A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF CIT(A). HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THIS ISSUE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE ORDER OF THIS BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL RENDERED IN THE CASE OF DCIT VS. SRAVASTI KISHAN SAHKARI CHINI MILLS LIMITED IN I.T.A. NO.528/LKW/2011 DATED 2 5/04/2013. HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE COPY OF THE ORDER IS AVAILABLE ON PAGE NO. 103 TO 105 OF THE PAPER BOOK. 28. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE FIND THAT THIS ISSUE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE TRIBUNAL DECISION IN WHICH THE TRIBUNAL HAS FOLLOW ED THE JUDGMENT RENDERED IN THE CASE 8 OF CIT VS. MANOJ KUMAR SINGH [2012] 349 ITR 230. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THIS TRIBUNAL DECISION, WE DECLINE TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A). GROUND NO. 7 & 8 ARE REJECTED. 29. GROUND NO. 9 IS AS UNDER: 9. THAT T HE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IS ERRONEOUS IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.19,45,124/ - ON ACCOUNT OF NON REFUNDABLE DEPOSIT. 30. LEARNED D.R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. LEARNED A.R. O F THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THIS ISSUE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE APEX COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX VS SIDDHESHWAR SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD. [2004] 270 ITR 1. HE ALSO PLACED RELIANCE O N THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX VS RAMALA SAHKARI CHINI MILLS LTD. AS REPORTED IN 278 ITR 670 (ALL) . 31. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND THE JUDGMENT CITED BY LEARNED A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE. WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THESE TWO JUDGMENTS CITED BY LEARNED A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE. HENCE, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THESE JUDGMENTS, WE DECLINE TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A). ACCORDINGLY, THIS GROUND OF REVENUE IS REJECTED. 32. GROUND NO. 10 IS AS UNDER: 10. THAT THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IS ERRONEOUS IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.9,14,555/ - ON AC COUNT OF PAYMENT OF SUBSCRIPTION TO FEDERATION U/S 40(A)(IA) OF I.T.ACT, 1961. 33. LEARNED D.R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHEREAS LEARNED A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF CIT(A). HE ALSO 9 SUBMITTED THAT THIS ISSUE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE TRIBUNAL DECISION RENDERED IN THE CASE OF THIS VERY ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 - 07, 2007 - 08 AND 2008 - 09 IN I.T.A. NO.406 TO 408/LKW/2013. HE SUBMITTED A COPY OF THIS ORDER AND DRA WN OUR ATTENTION TO PARA 10. 34. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE FIND THAT THIS ISSUE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THIS TRIBUNAL DECI SION. LEARNED D.R. OF THE REVENUE COULD NOT POINT OUT ANY DIFFERENCE IN THE FACTS AND HENCE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO TAKE A CONTRARY VIEW IN THE PRESENT YEAR. ACCORDINGLY, THIS GROUND OF THE REVENUE IS ALSO REJECTED. 35. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. (ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONED ON THE CAPTION PAGE) SD/. SD/. (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) ( A. K. GARODIA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUN TANT MEMBER DATED: 2 4 /04/2014. *C.L.SINGH COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. CONCERNED CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. D.R., I.T.A.T., LUCKNOW ASSTT. REGISTRAR