Surendra Kumar Mishra, Allahabad V. ACIT, Allahabad

ITA 304/ALLD/2012

• Counselvise Citation: 30420714 RSA 2012
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-11-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2002-2003
• Appeal Filed On: 16-08-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: Y P SRIVASTA VA
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Retrospective amendment; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 69C

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ALLAHABAD BENCH, ALLAHABAD BEFORE : SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.L. GEHLOT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 304/ALLD./2012 ASSTT. YEAR : 2002-03 SHRI SURENDRA KUMAR MISHRA, VS. A.C.I.T., RANGE -II, 794A/1, SOHBATIYA BAGH, ALLAHABAD. ALLAHABAD. (PAN : AIBPM4858R) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI ASHISH BANSAL, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI Y.P. SRIVASTAVA, D.R. DATE OF HEARING : 08.11.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER : 09.11.2012 ORDER PER BHAVNESH SAINI, J.M.: THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST T HE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), ALLAHABAD DATED 29.03.2012 FOR THE ASSESSME NT YEAR 2002-03. 2. BRIEFLY, THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSE SSEE FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 13.07.2003 DECLARING INCOME OF RS.1,68,00 0/-. NOTICE U/S.148 WAS ISSUED ON 11.02.2008. IN COMPLIANCE TO THIS NOTICE, THE ASSESSEE FILED REPLY DATED 10.11.2008 THAT THE RETURN ALREADY FILED BY H IM MAY BE TREATED AS HAVING BEEN FILED IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE U/S. 148 OF TH E ACT. AS PER RETURN FILED, THE ITA NO. 304/ALLD./2012 2 ASSESSEE DECLARED HIS SOURCE OF INCOME AS SALARY FR OM TULSI GRAMIN BANK, CHITRAKOOT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER GIVING OPPO RTUNITY OF BEING HEARD, MADE ADDITION OF RS.10,06,644/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNDIS CLOSED INVESTMENT U/S. 69C OF THE IT ACT AND ALSO MADE ADDITION OF RS.16,1 3,976/- ON ACCOUNT OF SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAINS. THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED BOTH TH ESE ADDITIONS BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND ALSO RAISED ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL STATING THEREIN THAT THE JURISDICTIONAL NOTICE U/S. 143(2) HAS NOT BEEN SERV ED UPON THE ASSESSEE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF LAW, THEREFORE, T HE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS NULL AND VOID. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT IT IS A LEGAL ISSUE AND GOES TO THE ROOT OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBJECTED TO THE ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL GROUNDS ON THE REASON THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED RETURN OF INCOME IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE U/S. 148 WITHIN TH E STIPULATED PERIOD AND LATER ON SUBMITTED THAT THE RETURN EARLIER FILED MAY BE T REATED AS FILED IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE U/S. 148 OF THE IT ACT. THEREFORE, THERE IS NO QUESTION OF ISSUING NOTICE U/S. 143(2) OF THE IT ACT AND FURTHER ASSESS EE HAS BEEN GIVEN SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. THE LD. CIT(A), CONSIDE RING THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND THE OBJECTIONS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT ADMIT THE ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL ABOVE. THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT (A) IN PARA 3.1 OF THE APPELLATE ORDER ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER : ITA NO. 304/ALLD./2012 3 3.1. I HAVE PERUSED THE ORDER OF THE A.O., THE PET ITION OF THE APPELLANT FOR THE ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL GROUN DS AND THE REPORT OF THE A.O. BEFORE PROCEEDING FURTHER, IT WO ULD BE WORTHWHILE TO DISCUSS RELEVANT PROVISION OF THE ACT . SECTION 292BB PROVIDES AS UNDER WHERE AN ASSESSEE HAS APPEARED IN ANY PROCEEDINGS OR CO-OPERATED IN ANY INQUIRY RELATING TO AN ASSESSMEN T OR REASSESSMENT, IT SHALL BE DEEMED THAT ANY NOTICE UN DER ANY PROVISION OF THIS ACT, WHICH IS REQUIRED TO BE SERV ED UPON HIM, HAS BEEN DULY SERVED UPON HIM IN TIME IN ACCORDANCE WIT H THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT AND SUCH ASSESSEE SHALL BE P RECLUDED FROM TAKING ANY OBJECTION IN ANY PROCEEDINGS OR INQUIRY UNDER THIS ACT THAT THE NOTICE WAS (A) NOT SERVED UPON HIM; OR (B) NOT SERVED UPON HIM IN TIME; OR (C) SERVED UPON HIM IN A IMPROPER MANNER: PROVIDED THAT NOTHING CONTAINED IN THIS SECTION SHA LL APPLY WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED SUCH OBJECTION BEFORE THE C OMPLETION OF SUCH ASSESSMENT OR REASSESSMENT. IN THE PRESENT CASE, NOTICE U/S. 148 WAS ISSUED ON 11.02.2008 WHICH WAS SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE ON 28.0 2.2008. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FURNISH A RETURN IN RESPONSE TO NO TICE U/S. 148. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FURNISH A RETURN IN RESPONSE T O NOTICE U/S. 148. HE, HOWEVER, VIDE HIS LETTER DATED 10.11.2008, REQUESTED THAT THE ORIGINAL RETURN FILED BY HIM MAY BE TREATED AS HAVING BEEN FILED U/S. 148. THE RIGHT COURSE OF ACTION IN THIS CASE WAS TO ISSUE NOTICE U/S. 143(2) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. BUT AS PE R THE RECORDS NO SUCH NOTICE WAS ISSUED. EVEN THE A.O. IN HIS REMAND REPORT, DOES NOT MENTION ISSUE OF ANY SUCH NOTICE. THE ASSESSMEN T ORDER IS SILENT ON ANY NOTICE ISSUED U/S. 143(2). MOREOVER, THE ASSESSEE CO- OPERATED IN THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND DID NO T RAISE ANY OBJECTION THAT NOTICE U/S. 143(2) HAS NOT BEEN ISSU ED. AS PER THE PROVISION U/S. 292BB QUOTED ABOVE, IF THE ASSESSEE HAS APPEARED IN ANY PROCEEDING OR COOPERATED IN ANY INQUIRY RELA TING TO AN ASSESSMENT OR REASSESSMENT, IT SHALL BE DEEMED THAT NOTICE U/S. 143(2), WHICH WAS REQUIRED TO BE SERVED UPON THE AS SESSEE, HAD BEEN DULY SERVED UPON HIM IN TIME IN ACCORDANCE WIT H THE PROVISION OF THIS ACT AND THE ASSESSEE SHALL BE PRE CLUDED FROM ITA NO. 304/ALLD./2012 4 TAKING ANY OBJECTION IN ANY PROCEEDINGS INCLUDING A PPELLATE PROCEEDINGS THAT THE NOTICE WAS NOT SERVED UPON HIM . BUT THERE IS ONE EXCEPTION TO THIS. IF THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED S UCH OBJECTION BEFORE THE COMPLETION OF REASSESSMENT, HE SHALL NOT BE PRECLUDED FROM TAKING OBJECTION BEFORE THE APPELLATE AUTHORIT Y. THE FACTS SUGGEST THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS COOPERATED IN THE REA SSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. HE NEVER RAISED ANY OBJECTION AS TO TH E ABSENCE OF NOTICE U/S. 143(2). THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE CANNOT RAISE THIS OBJECTION AT THIS STAGE. FURTHER, IN ACCORDANCE WIT H PROVISION U/S. 148(1), THE A.O. SERVED THE NOTICE UNDER THE ABOVE SECTION ON THE ASSESSEE REQUIRING HIM TO FURNISH WITHIN A PERIOD S PECIFIED IN THE NOTICE, RETURN OF HIS INCOME IN RESPECT OF WHICH TH E ASSESSEE IS ASSESSABLE. THE FACTS SIGNAL THAT NOTICE U/S. 148 W AS ISSUED ON 11.02.2008 TO FURNISH THE RETURN OF INCOME WITHIN 3 0 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF SERVICE OF NOTICE U/S. 148. THIS NOTICE WAS SERVED ON 28.02.2008. THEREFORE, IN TERMS OF NOTICE U/S. 148, THE ASSESSEE SHOULD HAVE FURNISHED THE RETURN ON OR BEFORE 30 TH MARCH, 2008. THE ASSESSEE HAS WRITTEN LETTER ON 10.11.2008 REQUE STING THE A.O. THAT THE RETURN ALREADY FILED MAY BE TREATED AS HAV ING BEEN FILED U/S. 148. IT IS CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FIL ED THE RETURN WITHIN THE SPECIFIED TIME IN THE NOTICE U/S. 148. IT IS NO T SO WIDE OPEN FOR AN ASSESSEE TO FILE THE RETURN AT ANY TIME DEFYING THE SPECIFIED TIME GIVEN IN NOTICE U/S. 148 OF THE I.T. ACT. THE APPELLANT HAS REFERRED TO THE FOLLOWING JUDGME NT:- CIT VS. RAJIV SHARMA 336 ITR 678 (ALLAHABAD): IN THIS JUDGMENT, THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HAS HELD THAT NOTICE U/S. 143(2) HAS TO BE MANDATORILY ISSUED BY THE A.O. AFTER THE RETURN HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN RESPON SE TO NOTICE U/S. 148 OF THE I.T. ACT. SO FAR AS THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IS CONCERNED THE SAME IS TO BE HONOURED ON THE GIVEN FACTS OF THE CASE. SO FAR THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IS CONCERNED, IT IS COVERED BY THE PROVISION U/S. 292 BB MENTIONED SUPRA. THIS SECTION HAS BEEN INSERTED BY THE FINANC E ACT, 2008 W.E.F. 01.04.2008. THE ABOVE DECISION OF THE HONBL E HIGH COURT WAS IN RESPECT OF REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS TAKEN UP BY CONCERNED A.O. DURING THE A.Y. 2001-02, MEANING THE REBY SECTION 292 BB WAS NOT THERE ON THE STATUTE. I UNDERSTAND T HAT IF ANY PROCEEDINGS UNDER THE ACT IS IN SUBSTANCE AND IN CO NFORMITY WITH ITA NO. 304/ALLD./2012 5 THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT, THE SAME SHOULD NOT SUFF ER BECAUSE OF THE PROCEDURAL MISTAKE. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS, THE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS TAK EN BY THE APPELLANT ARE NOT ADMITTED. 3. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PRESS G ROUND NO. 1, CHALLENGING THE REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT U/S. 147/148 OF THE IT ACT. THE SAME IS ACCORDINGLY, DISMISSED. 4. ON GROUND NO. 2 TO 6, THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED TH E ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN NOT QUASHING THE RE-ASSESSMENT ORDER BECA USE NO NOTICE U/S. 143(2) HAS BEEN SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE IN ACCORDANCE WIT H LAW. 5. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED REPLY DATED 10.11.2008 BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER STATING THEREIN THAT T HE RETURN ALREADY FILED MAY BE TREATED AS HAVING BEEN FILED IN PURSUANCE TO NOTICE U/S. 148 OF THE IT ACT. THEREFORE, OWING TO NON-ISSUE OF MANDATORY NOTICE U /S. 143(2), WHICH IS ADMITTED FACT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT GET JU RISDICTION TO PROCEED FURTHER IN THE MATTER. HE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL IS 2002- 03 AND THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 292 BB CAME IN THE STATUTE ON 01.04.2008. THEREFORE, THE SAME ARE APPLICABLE FROM ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. IT IS NOT ITA NO. 304/ALLD./2012 6 APPLICABLE TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL. HE HAS SUBMITTED THAT IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER NEVER ISSUED NOTICE U/S. 143(2) TO THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, THE WHOLE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS NULL AND VOID AND ALSO RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF HONBLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT I N THE CASE OF CIT VS. MUKESH KUMAR AGARWAL, 345 ITR 29, IN WHICH IT WAS H ELD THE TRIBUNAL RETURNED THE FINDINGS THAT THE ASSESSI NG AUTHORITY DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION TO PROCEED FURT HER AND MAKE ASSESSMENT SINCE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961, WAS ADMITTEDLY NOT ISSUED. ON APPEAL, CO NTENDING THAT THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) AND THE TRIBUNAL DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE RELYING UPON A JUDGMENT OF T HE SUPREME COURT BUT THAT JUDGMENT WAS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE F ACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE AS THE JUDGMENT HAD NOT TAKEN INTO CON SIDERATION THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 292 BB OF THE ACT. HELD, DISMISSING THE APPEAL, THAT THE VERY FOUNDATI ON OF THE JURISDICTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS ON THE IS SUANCE OF THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF THE ACT. 6. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND DECISION OF MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF AREVA T & D INDIA LTD. VS. ACIT, 165 TAXMAN 123, IN WHICH IT WAS HELD SINCE THERE WERE ONLY IRREGULARITIES COMMITTED BY T HE ASSESSING OFFICER, I.E., NOT CONSIDERING THE OBJECT IONS AS WELL AS NOT ISSUING NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2), BEFORE COM PLETING THE REASSESSMENT, THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL AS WELL AS THE LOWER ITA NO. 304/ALLD./2012 7 AUTHORITIES WAS TO BE SET ASIDE WITH A DIRECTION TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO CONSIDER THE MATTER AFRESH. HE HAS ALSO RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MADHYA BHARAT ENERGY CORPORATION LTD., 20 TAXMAN.CO M 557, IN WHICH HONBLE HIGH COURT OBSERVED THAT NO SPECIFIC NOTICE WAS REQUIRED U/S. 143(2). 7. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. THE F ACTS NOTED ABOVE IN THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) HAVE NOT BEEN DISPUTED B Y THE PARTIES. IT, THEREFORE, STANDS PROVED THAT NO NOTICE U/S. 143(2) HAS BEEN I SSUED IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE COMPLETION OF THE ASSESSMENT. THE L D. CIT(A) HEAVILY RELIED UPON THE PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN SECTION 292 BB FOR REJECTING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. CIT(A), HOWEVER, FAILED TO NOTE T HAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 292 BB HAVE BEEN INSERTED IN THE IT ACT BY FINANCE ACT, 2008 W.E.F. 01.04.2008. ITAT, DELHI SPECIAL BENCH IN THE CASE O F KUBER TOBACCO PRODUCTS (P) LTD. VS. DCIT, 117 ITD 273 HELD THAT SECTION 29 2 BB INSERTED BY FINANCE ACT, 2008 HAS NO RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT AND IS TO BE CONSTRUED PROSPECTIVELY. THEREFORE, THE ABOVE PROVISIONS WOULD NOT BE APPLIC ABLE TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL I.E. 2002-03. THE LD. CIT(A) DID NOT D ISPUTE THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF RAJIV S HARMA (SUPRA) BUT DID NOT FOLLOW SAME BECAUSE OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 29 2 BB OF THE IT ACT. ITA NO. 304/ALLD./2012 8 THEREFORE, THE APPROACH OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS NOT IN CONSONANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF LAW AND HE HAS TO FOLLOW THE DECISION OF JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT. FURTHER, THE HONBLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF MUKESH KUMAR AGARWAL (SUPRA) CONSIDERED THE ISSUE AND ALSO OBSERVED THAT THEY DO NOT FIND THAT NON-CONSIDERATION OF SECTION 292BB WHICH IS RULE OF EVIDENCE AND IS DEEMING PROVISION TO VALIDATE THE NOTICE IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES, WILL HAVE ANY EFFECT ON THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF HOTEL BLUE MOON, 322 ITR 362. THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) , THEREFORE, CANNOT BE SUSTAINED IN LAW. THE LD. CIT(A) FURTHER CONSIDERED THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME WITHIN THE SPECIFIED TIME U/S. 148, IT IS NOT OPEN TO ASSESSEE TO FILE THE RETURN OF INCOME AT ANY TIM E DEFYING THE SPECIFIED TIME GIVEN IN NOTICE U/S. 148 OF THE IT ACT. THE LD. CI T(A), HOWEVER, FAILED TO NOTE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER ACTED UPON THE REPLY OF THE ASSESSEE DATED 10.11.2008 AND CONSIDERED THE EARLIER RETURN OF INC OME FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 13.07.2003 DECLARING INCOME OF RS.1,68,000/- FOR TH E PURPOSE OF COMPUTING THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AND HAS TAKEN THE INCOME DI SCLOSED IN THE EARLIER YEAR IN THE COMPUTATION OF RE-ASSESSMENT AND COMPLETED T HE RE-ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. IT WOULD, THEREFORE, SUGGEST THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER ACTED UPON THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BELATEDL Y AS PER HIS LETTER DATED 10.11.2008. WE FIND FURTHER PECULIAR FACTS IN THIS CASE THAT WHEN THE ASSESSEE ITA NO. 304/ALLD./2012 9 FILED REPLY DATED 10.11.2008, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT THE RETURN FILED ORIGINALLY MAY BE TREATED AS THE RETURN FILED IN RE SPONSE TO THE NOTICE U/S. 148, THE ASSESSING OFFICER COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT ON 2 6.12.2008, WHICH PERIOD IS LESSER THAN THE PERIOD PRESCRIBED FOR ISSUE OF N OTICE U/S. 143(2) OF THE IT ACT. THESE ISSUES HAVE NOT BEEN ADDRESSED BY THE LD. CIT (A) IN THE APPELLATE ORDER AND ITS EFFECT THEREON ALSO. FURTHER THE ISSUE IS L EGAL IN NATURE AND THE LD. CIT(A) ON IRRELEVANT CONSIDERATION DID NOT ADMIT TH E ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL AND SHOULD HAVE DECIDED THE SAME IN ACCORDAN CE WITH LAW. WE ACCORDINGLY, SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE AND DIRECT HIM TO ADMIT THE ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL ABOVE AND DEC IDE THE SAME IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW BY GIVING REASONABLE AND SUFFICIENT OPPORT UNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE IN THE LIGHT OF JUDGMENTS OF HONBLE JURIS DICTIONAL ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT. IN THE RESULT, GROUND NOS. 2 TO 6 OF THE AP PEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 8. ON THE REMAINING GROUND NO. 7 TO 13, THE ASSESSE E HAS CHALLENGED ADDITIONS ON MERITS. BOTH PARTIES DID NOT ARGUE ON MERIT IN VIEW OF LEGAL ISSUE ABOVE. SINCE THE LEGAL ISSUE HAS BEEN RESTORED TO T HE FILE OF LD. CIT(A), THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THESE GROUNDS ON MERITS SHOULD ALSO BE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF LD. CIT(A), WHICH WOULD BE HAVING BEARING ON DECIDING ITA NO. 304/ALLD./2012 10 THE ABOVE LEGAL ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL. THEREF ORE, ON THE ISSUE ON MERITS ALSO, THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS SET ASIDE AND RESTORED TO THE FILE OF LD. CIT(A) WITH THE DIRECTION TO RE-DECIDE THE MATTER I N ACCORDANCE WITH LAW BY GIVING REASONABLE AND SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY OF BEI NG HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 09. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS AL LOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- SD/- (A.L. GEHLOT) (BHAVNESH SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER *AKS/- COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT(A), CONCERNED BY ORDER 4. CIT, CONCERNED 5. DR, ITAT, ALLAHABAD 6. GUARD FILE ASSTT. REGISTRAR TRUE COPY