ITO, UDAIPUR V. Sh. Onkar Lal Choudhary, UDAIPUR

ITA 317/JODH/2012

• Counselvise Citation: 31723314 RSA 2012
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-09-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 12-09-2013
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 21-08-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: N A JOSHI
• Assessee Lawyers: U C JAIN

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELALTE TRIBUNAL : JODHPUR BENC H : JODHPUR BEFORE SHRI HARI OM MARATHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI N.K. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. ITA NO. 317/JODH/2012 (A.Y. 2009-10) ITO, VS. SHRI ONKAR LAL CHOUDHARY, WARD-1(1), PROP. VALIA ROAD LINES, UDAIPUR. D-31, TRANSPORT NAGAR, UDAIPUR. PAN NO. AECPC6776K (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI U.C. JAIN & SHRI RAJENDRA JAIN DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI N.A. JOSHI- D.R. DATE OF HEARING : 12/09/2013. DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 25/09/2013. O R D E R PER N.K.SAINI, A.M THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE DEPARTMENT AGAINST THE OR DER DATED 15/06/2012 OF LD. CIT (A), UDAIPUR. THE ONLY GROUN D RAISED IN THIS APPEAL READS AS UNDER: ON THE FACTS AND IN THE PRESENT CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 2,05,29,569/- MADE U/S 40(A)(IA) OF THE I.T. ACT. 2 2 FACTS OF THE CASE IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE W AS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS AS TRANSPORTERS AND TRANSPORT CONTRACTORS. THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME ON 30/09/2009 DECLARING AN INCOME OF RS. 6,07,742/-, WHICH WAS PROCESSED UNDER SECTION 143(1) OF THE I.T . ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS ACT, FOR SHORT) ON 07 /04/2010. LATER ON, THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY. DUR ING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTIC ED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE FREIGHT PAYMENTS TO THE SUB-CONTRACTORS AM OUNTING TO RS. 7,14,86,783/-, OUT OF WHICH, A SUM OF RS. 32,89,684 /- WAS PAID TO THE TRANSPORTERS AND IT WAS CLAIMED THAT THE TOTAL PAYM ENT MADE TO SUCH INDIVIDUAL TRANSPORT WAS LESS THAN RS. 20,000/- AT A ONE TIME AND LESS THAN RS. 50,000/- ON ANNUAL BASIS. IT WAS FURTHER CLAIMED THAT NO TDS WAS LIABLE TO BE DEDUCTED FROM THOSE PAYMENTS AND T HE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO FOUND THAT ON PAYMENTS MADE TO SUB-CONTRACTORS AMOUNTING TO RS. 4,76,67,530/- TDS WAS DEDUCTED AND THE AMOUNT DEPOS ITED INTO THE GOVERNMENT ACCOUNT, THOUGH BELATEDLY BUT BEFORE DUE DATE OF FILING OF THE INCOME TAX RETURN. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE PAYMENT OF RS. 2,05,29,569/- TO 166 DIFFERENT TRANSPORTERS FROM WHOM HE HAD OBTAINED FORM NO. 15-I, HENCE, NO TAX W AS DEDUCTED AT SOURCE FROM SUCH PAYMENTS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER O BSERVED THAT IT WAS 3 NOT VERIFIABLE AS TO WHETHER ALL SUCH FORMS WERE OB TAINED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE MAKING OR CREDITING FREIGHT PAYMENT TO THE A CCOUNT OF THE SUB- CONTRACTORS AS NO DATE OF RECEIPT OF FORMS BY THE A SSESSEE WAS AVAILABLE ON THE FORMS AND IN FEW OF THEM, DATE OF DECLARATIO N HAD NOT BEEN MENTIONED. HE ALSO OBSERVED THAT FORM NO. 15-I OBT AINED WERE NOT FURNISHED TO THE CIT IN FORM NO. 15-J AS PER RULE 2 9 OF THE IT RULES, 1962 WITHIN THE SPECIFIED TIME. HE, THEREFORE, ISSUED A SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE POSITION. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT IN THE CASE OF SHRI VALIBHAI KHANBHAI MANKAD, AHMEDABAD IN ITA NO. 2228/ADH/2009 A.Y. 2006-07 AND IN THE CASE OF SURAT AHMEDABAD TRANSPORT PVT. LTD. (IT NO. 2015/AHD/2009) ON IDENT ICAL FACTS, ISSUE HAD BEEN DECIDED BY THE ITAT, A BENCH, AHMEDABAD IN F AVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. BUT, THIS CONTENTION WAS REJECTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER STATING THAT THE SAID DECISIONS HAD NOT BEEN ACCEPT ED BY THE DEPARTMENT AND WERE PENDING FOR ADJUDICATION BEFORE THE HON'BL E HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THAT THE ASSES SEE HAD NOT DEDUCTED THE TAX FROM THE PAYMENT MADE TO THE TRANSPORTERS T O THE EXTENT OF RS. 2,05,29,569/- AND FORM NO. 15-I OBTAINED BY THE ASS ESSEE HAD NOT BEEN FURNISHED BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT IN THE FORM NO. 15 -J BEFORE 30/06/2009, WHICH IS THE PRESCRIBED TIME. THE ASSESSING OFFICE R ALSO OBSERVED THAT 4 THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED THAT THOSE FORMS WERE DEPO SITED ON 28/07/2009, BUT THOSE WERE TO BE FURNISHED BEFORE 3 0/06/2009, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO FULFILL THE CONDI TION LAID DOWN IN THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194C(3) OF THE ACT READ WITH RULES 29D OF THE IT RULES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THAT THE ASSESSE E HAD NOT MADE TAX DEDUCTION AT SOURCE FROM THE FREIGHT PAYMENTS MADE TO THE TRANSPORTERS TO THE TUNE OF RS. 2,05,29,569/- THOUGH HE WAS LIAB LE TO DO SO. ACCORDINGLY, THE ADDITION OF THE SAID AMOUNT WAS MA DE UNDER SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT. 3. BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER T O THE LEARNED CIT(A) AND THE SUBMISSIONS MADE AS INCORPORATED IN PARA 2.2 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER, ARE REPRODUCED VERBATIM AS UNDER:- 1. THE LEARNED JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, R ANGE I, UDAIPUR HAS PASSED THE ORDER ON 25.01.2011 U/S. 143 (3) OF THE I.T. ACT IN WHICH HE ADDED RS.20529569/- IN THE INCOME OF YOUR APPELLANT FOR BREACH OF A CONDITION OF RULE 29 D WHEREAS RULE 29 D IS SIMPLY PROCEDURAL. MOREOVER THE ORDER U/S. 143 (3) IS TIME BARRED AND AS SUCH Q UITE ILLEGAL. 2. THE ADDITIONS OF RS. 20529569 /- IS UNDER SECTIO N 40 (A) (IA) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. THE LEARNED JOINT COMMISSIONER HAS MIS-INT ERPRETED AND INTERMIX THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40 (A) (IA) AND SECTION 1 94 C (3) WHEREAS EVERY PROVISIONS ARE SEPARATE FROM EACH OTHER. THERE IS N O DEFAULT OF THE ASSESSEE U/S. 40 (A) (IA) OF THE I.T. ACT. 3. THE CASE IS FULLY COVERED BY THE DECISION OF HON OURABLE INCOME TAX APPELLANT TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCH 'A' AHMEDABAD IN CASE OF VALIBHAI 5 KHANBHAI MANKAD PROP. OF M/S. AHMEDABAD ROADWAYS VS . DY. CIT (OSD) CIRCLE 9 AHMEDABAD. IN THIS CASE IN THE IDENTICAL F ACTS THE TRIBUNAL DELETED THE ADDITIONS AND HELD THAT TAX WAS NOT LIABLE TO B E DEDUCTED FROM THE PAYMENTS MADE TO SUB-CONTRACTORS ON ACCOUNT OF THEY SUBMITTING FORM 15-I TO THE CONTRACTOR AND THEREFORE NO ADDITIONS U/S. 4 0 (A) (IA) COULD BE MADE. 4. THE MUMBAI BENCH B OF HONOURABLE INCOME TAX APPE LLATE TRIBUNAL IN CASE OF BAPU SHAEB NANA SAHEB DHUMAL MUMBAIVS. ACIT (RG) MUMBAI (2010) XLIV TAX WORLD 63 HELD THAT PROVISIONS OF SE CTION 40 (A) (IA) AND 194 C ARE SEPARATE AND NO ACTION U/S.40 (A) (IA) CAN BE TAKEN FOR ANY BREACH U/S, 194 C. 5. THE CONDITIONS LAID DOWN U/S. 40 (A) (IA) FOR MA KING ADDITION IS THAT TAX IS DEDUCTIBLE AT SOURCE AND SUCH TAX HAS NOT BEEN DEDU CTED. IF BOTH THE CONDITIONS ARE SATISFIED THEN SUCH PAYMENT CAN BE D ISALLOWED U/S. 40 (A) (IA). IN OTHER WORDS WHERE TAX IS NOT DEDUCTIBLE AD DITIONS U/S. 40 (A) (IA) CANNOT BE MADE. IN THIS CASE AS THE SUB-CONTRACTORS HAVE SUBMITTED FORM 15-L TAX IS NOT DEDUCTIBLE. THE DEDUCTIBILITY OF TA X IS CONFINED OR LIMITED TO APPLICABILITY OF SECOND PROVISO OF SECTION 194 C (3 ) BECAUSE IT IS THAT POINT OF TIME WHEN ASSESSEE HAS TO DECIDE WHETHER IT HAS TO DEDUCT THE TAX OR NOT. WHERE FORM 15-I IS SUBMITTED TO THE ASSESSEE BY THE SUB-CONTRACTOR , THE TAX IS NOT DEDUCTIBLE. ONCE TAX IS NOT DEDUCTIBLE, NO ADDITION U/S. 40 (A) (IA) CAN BE MADE. THE DELAY IN FURNISHING FORM 15-J TO T HE COMMISSIONER WITH IN TIME PRESCRIBED IN RULE 29D CANNOT HAVE ANY EFFECT ON DECIDING AS TO WHETHER TAX IS DEDUCTIBLE OR NOT FROM THE PAYMENT T O SUB-CONTRACTOR. 6. IN CASE OF M/S. INDER PRASAD MATHURALAL, BARAN V S. THE IT0, BARAN TAX WAS NOT DEPOSITED WITHIN TIME, HONOURABLE TRIBUNAL JAIP UR BENCH 'A' HAS CONDONED THE DELAY IN DEPOSITING TAX' IT MEANS ANY DELAY U/S. 194 C IS CONDONABLE AND NO DRASTIC ACTION CAN BE TAKEN (2011 ) XLVI TAX WORLD I. 7. IN CASE OF C.I.T. VS. M/S ADIDAS INDIA MARKETING (P) LTD. (2007) 288 ITR 379 TAX WAS NOT DEDUCTED BY THE ASSESSEE. EVEN THOUGH H ONOURABLE THE DELHI HIGH COURT HELD THAT DEDUCTOR CAN NOT BE HELD TO BE AN ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT. 6 8 AS THE SUB-CONTRACTORS HAVE SUBMITTED FORM 15-L THE ASSESSEE CAN NOT DEDUCT THE TAX AT THE TIME OF MAKING PAYMENT TO SUB -CONTRACTORS. HOW AN ACTION WHICH IS RIGHT AND LEGAL WHEN IT WAS DONE CA N BE DECLARED WRONG SUBSEQUENT SIMPLY BECAUSE FORM 15-J WAS NOT SUBMITT ED WITH IN TIME. WHETHER TAX IS TO BE DEDUCTED OR NOT IS DECIDED BY SECOND PROVISO TO SECTION 194 C (3) AND NOT BY THE 3 RD PROVISO. 9. NEITHER SECTION 40(A) (IA) SAYS THAT IT WILL AP PLY ON 3 RD PROVISO TO SECTION 194 (3) NOR THE 3 RD PROVISO SAY THAT IF FORM 15-J IS NOT SUBMITTED TO THE COMMISSIONER WITHIN THE TIME THE ASSESSEE WILL BE L IABLE TO DEDUCT THE TAX. 10. THE ADDITION OF RS. 20529569 /- WERE MADE U/S. 40 (A) (IA) OF THE I.T. ACT BUT THE SECTION IS AS UNDER :- ANY.. ... OR AMOUNTS PAYABLE TO A CONTRACTOR OR SU B-CONTRACTOR, BEING RESIDENT, FOR CARRYING OUT ANY WORK...... ... . ON WHICH TAX IS DEDUCTIBLE AT SOURCE UNDER CHAPTER XVII-B AND SUCH TAX HAS NOT BEEN DEDUCTED . THE TAX IS DEDUCTIBLE AT THE TIME OF MAKING PAYMENT AND NO TAX IS DEDUCTIBLE IF THE SUB-CONTRACTOR FURNISHES FORM 15- I IN THIS CASE THE SUB-CONTRACTORS HAVE FURNISHED THE REQUIRED FORM AN D AS SUCH TAX WAS NOT DEDUCTIBLE. THEREFORE, SECTION 40 (A) (IA) DOES NOT APPLY IN THIS CASE AND NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE UNDER THAT SE CTION. RULE 29 D IS SIMPLY PROCEDURAL AND COME INTO OPERATION AFTER 30TH JUNE WHEREAS TAX IS DEDUCTIBLE OR NOT IS DECIDED MUCH EA RLIER BEFORE 31'T MARCH. WHETHER TAX IS DEDUCTIBLE OR NOT IS DECIDED BEFORE 31 ST MARCH ON THE CONDITION THAT WHETHER SUB-CONTRACTOR HAVE FURNISHED FORM 15-L OR NOT. IN THE PRESENT CASE THE SUB-CONTR ACTOR HAVE FURNISHED THE FORM L5-L AND AS SUCH THE TAX WAS NOT DEDUCTIBLE AND NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE U/S. 40 (A) (IA)'. 4. LEARNED CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS O F THE ASSESSEE OBSERVED THAT THIS ISSUE HAD BEEN DECIDED BY THE IT AT, AHMEDABAD BENCH, AHMEDABAD VIDE ORDER DATED 29/04/2011 IN THE CASE OF VALIBHAI 7 KHANBHAI MANKAD VS. DCIT (OSD), CIRCLE 9, AHMEDABAD IN ITA NO. 2228/ADH/2009 FOR THE A.Y. 2006-07, WHERE DISALLOWA NCE OF RS. 7,93,34,193/- WAS MADE FOR THE AMOUNT PAID TO THE S UB-CONTRACTORS FOR TRANSPORTATION AND FORM NO. 15-I WAS OBTAINED WHIL E FORM NO. 15-J WAS DEPOSITED ON 26/02/2009 FOR THE A.Y. 2006-07. THE LEARNED CIT(A) REPRODUCED THE RELEVANT FINDINGS GIVEN BY THE ITAT, AHMEDABAD BENCH IN THE AFORESAID REFERRED TO CASE AT PAGES NO. 5 TO 10 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER, FOR THE COST OF REPETITION, THE SAME IS NOT REPRODUCED HEREIN. THE LEARNED CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT IN THE PRESENT CASE, T HERE WAS NOTHING TO SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT OBTAINED FORM NO. 15 -I FROM SUB- CONTRACTOR BEFORE MAKING PAYMENT AND FORM NO. 15-J WAS DEPOSITED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 28/07/2009 INSTEAD OF 30/06/2009, S O, THERE WAS A DELAY OF MERELY 28 DAYS ONLY, AS EXPLAINED BEFORE THE ASS ESSING OFFICER. LEARNED CIT(A) FURTHER OBSERVED THAT IT WAS A FACT ON RECORD THAT THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED FORM NO. 15-J TO THE CIT BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF FILING OF THE RETURN I.E. BEFORE 30/09/2009. HE, THEREFOR E, WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE FINDINGS OF THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF VALIBHAI KHANBHAI MANKAD VS. DCIT (OSD), CIRCLE 9, AHMEDABAD ( SUPRA), WHEREIN THE DECISION OF THE ITAT AHMEDABAD BENCH IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS. M/S. S HREE PRAMUKH TRANSPORT CO. BHUTTADI DATED 31/08/2010 WAS FOLLOWE D, WERE SQUARELY 8 APPLICABLE IN THE ASSESSEES CASE. THE LEARNED CIT (A), ACCORDINGLY, DELETED THE IMPUGNED DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSES SING OFFICER. NOW, THE DEPARTMENT IS IN APPEAL. 5. LEARNED D.R. REITERATED THE OBSERVATIONS MADE BY T HE ASSESSING OFFICER AND STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 6. IN HIS RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR TH E ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW A ND STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A). IT WAS FURTHER STATED THAT THE DECISION OF THE ITAT, A B ENCH, AHMEDABAD (SUPRA) IN THE CASE OF VALIBHAI KHANBHAI MANKAD VS. DCIT (OSD), CIRCLE 9, AHMEDABAD HAS BEEN AFFIRMED BY THE HON'BLE GUJRAT H IGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT-I VS. VALIBHAI KHANBHAI MANKAD IN TAX APPEAL NO. 1182/2011 DATED 01/10/2012. COPY OF THE SAID ORDER WAS FURNI SHED, WHICH IS AVAILABLE AT PAGES 1 TO 9 OF THE ASSESSEES PAPER B OOK. LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THE ISSUE IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE AFORESAID REFERRED TO DECISION OF HON'BLE GUJRAT HI GH COURT, THEREFORE, LEARNED CIT(A) RIGHTLY DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 7. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE P ARTIES AND CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RE CORD. IN THE PRESENT 9 CASE, IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE ASSESSEE OBTAIN ED FORM NO. 15-I FROM THE TRANSPORTER TO WHOM PAYMENT OF RS. 2,05,29,569/ -WAS MADE. THESE FORMS WERE TO BE SUBMITTED TO THE LEARNED CIT ON OR BEFORE 30/06/2009 IN FORM NO. 15-J, HOWEVER, THE SAME WERE FURNISHED BELATEDLY BY 28 DAYS ON 28/07/2009, BUT BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF FILING OF THE RETURN ON OR BEFORE 30/09/2009. IN THE PRESENT CASE, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE RETURN IN FORM NO. 15-J WAS NOT FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE AT ALL. MOREOVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HIMSELF ADMITTED THAT FROM NO. 15 -J WAS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE BELATEDLY ON 28/07/2009, BUT FURNISHED BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF FILING OF THE RETURN. ON A SIMILAR ISSUE, THE H ON'BLE GUJRAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT-I VS. VALIBHAI KHANBHAI MANKAD [(2012) 83 CCH 0 78] HAS HELD AS UNDER:- ONCE THE CONDITIONS OF SECTION 194C(3) WERE SATISF IED, THE LIABILITY OF THE PAYEE TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE WOUL D CEASE. THE REQUIREMENT OF SUCH PAYEE TO FURNISH DETAILS TO THE INCOME TAX AUTHORITY IN THE PRESCRIBED FORM WITHIN PRESCRIBED TIME WOULD ARISE LATER AND ANY INFRACTION IN SUCH A REQUIREMEN T WOULD NOT MAKE THE REQUIREMENT OF DEDUCTION AT SOURCE APPLICA BLE. IT MAY BE THAT FAILURE TO COMPLY SUCH REQUIREMENT BY THE P AYEE MAY RESULT INTO SOME OTHER ADVERSE CONSEQUENCES IF SO P ROVIDED UNDER THE ACT. HOWEVER, ANY SUCH FAILURE CANNOT BE VISUALIZED BY ADVERSE CONSEQUENCES PROVIDED U/S 40(A)(IA). IT WAS HELD THAT WHEN ON THE BASIS OF THE RECORD IT WAS NOT DIS PUTED THAT THE REQUIREMENTS OF SUB-SECTION (3) WERE FULFILLED, THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT REQUIRED TO MAKE ANY DEDUCTION AT SOURCE ON THE PAYMENTS MADE TO THE SUB-CONTRACTORS. APPLICATION OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) WOULD NOT ARISE SINCE, SECTION 40(A)(IA) APPLIES WHEN THERE IS A REQUIREMENT OF DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURC E AND SUCH REQUIREMENT IS EITHER NOT FULFILLED OR HAVING DEDUC TED TAX AT SOURCE IS NOT DEPOSITED WITHIN PRESCRIBED TIME. 10 8. SINCE, THE ISSUE UNDER CONSIDERATION IS SQUARELY COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND AGAINST THE REVENUE VIDE RATIO LAI D DOWN IN THE AFORESAID REFERRED TO ORDER OF THE HON'BLE GUJRAT HIGH COURT AND NO CONTRARY DECISION OF ANY OTHER HIGHER FORUM WAS FURNISHED BY THE DEPARTMENT, WE THEREFORE, DO NOT SEE ANY MERIT IN THIS APPEAL OF T HE DEPARTMENT. 9. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE DEPARTMENT IS DISMI SSED. (ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 25 TH SEPTEMBER, 2013). (HARI OM MARATHA) (N.K.SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 25 TH SEPTEMBER, 2013. VR/- COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE LD.CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE D.R ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, JODHPUR.