The Dy. C.I.T., Central Circle, Agra V. Sh. Rajesh Kumar Agarwal, Agra

ITA 354/AGR/2010

• Counselvise Citation: 35420314 RSA 2010
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 7 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-03-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 02-03-2012
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 05-08-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Gift; Notional interest
• Section: 153A; 131; 68; 132

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AGRA BENCH, AGRA BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.L. GEHLOT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.354/AGR/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VS. SHRI RAJE SH KUMAR AGARWAL, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AGRA. F-673, KAMLA NAGAR, AGRA. (PAN: AEBPA 8955 P). (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI WASEEM ARSHAD, SR. D.R. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI ANURAG SINHA, ADVOCATE DATE OF HEARING : 02.03.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 07.03.2012 ORDER PER A.L. GEHLOT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 12.05.2010 PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A)-II, AGRA FOR THE ASSESSMEN T YEAR 2006-07. 2. THE FIRST GROUND RAISED IN THE APPEAL IS IN RESP ECT OF DELETION OF ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF UNSECURED LOAN OF RS.15,00,000/- AND INT EREST THEREON AMOUNTING TO RS.1,14,300/-. ITA NO.354/AGR/2010 A.Y. 2006-07 2 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE IN RESPECT OF GROUND NO.1 ARE THAT DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTIC ED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN LOANS FROM THE FOLLOWING PERSONS:- S.NO. NAME AMOUNT INTEREST 1. BHARAT TRUST 8,00,000/- 60,900/- 2. RAMRANI TRUST 4,00,000/- 31,800/- 3. BHAGWATI TRUST 3,00,000/- 21,600/- ------------------------------------------------- ------------- TOTAL RS.15,00,000/- RS.1,14,300/- ------------------------------------------------- ------------- 4. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO FURN ISH THE DETAILS IN RESPECT OF ABOVE LOANS AND DEPOSITORS. THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED COPY OF ACCOUNTS OF DEPOSITORS ALONG WITH THEIR PAN AND ADDRESSES, BUT THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER NOTED THAT THE REQUIRED DETAILS HAVE NOT BEEN FURNISHED BY THE ASS ESSEE. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FURNISH ANY EVIDENCE TO PROVE THE IDENTITY OF THE C REDITORS, THEIR CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER NOTED THAT EVEN BANK STATEMENTS HAVE NOT BEEN FURNISHED. THE ASSES SING OFFICER ACCORDINGLY MADE ADDITION OF RS.15,00,000/- AND INTEREST THEREON OF RS.1,14,300/-. THE CIT(A) DELETED THE SAID ADDITION AFTER CONSIDERING THE ASS ESSEES SUBMISSION AND THE ASSESSING OFFICERS REMAND REPORT. WHILE DELETING THE ADDITION, THE CIT(A) NOTED IN HIS FINDING THAT IN THE REMAND REPORT EXCEPT STA TING THAT THE EVIDENCES ENCLOSED IN THE PAPER BOOK STOOD ALREADY FILED DURING THE CO URSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, ITA NO.354/AGR/2010 A.Y. 2006-07 3 THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS PREFERRED NOT TO COMMENT ON THE FACTS AS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE CIT(A) HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HA S PROVIDED CREDIBLE EVIDENCE TO PROVE THE CREDIT, CONFIRMATION BEFORE THE RELEVANT MEMBERS ABOUT THE CREDIT AND CREDITOR AND COPY OF BANK ACCOUNT OF CREDITOR SHOWI NG CREDITWORTHINESS AND INCOME TAX RETURN FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. THE CIT(A) FURTHER NOTED THAT INSPITE OF REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESS ING OFFICER HAS CHOSEN NOT TO SUMMON THE CREDITOR AS THE ASSESSEE MADE A REQUEST THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NO CONTROL OVER THE CREDITOR AS CREDIT STOOD REPAID AND THE AS SESSEE HAS REQUESTED THAT SUMMONS BE ISSUED TO THE BROKER TO ENFORCE ATTENDAN CE. THE CIT(A) NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED ADEQUATE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES T O SHOW THAT THE CREDITOR IS AN INCOME TAX ASSESSEE, HIS PAN AND COMPLETE POSTAL AD DRESS WAS FURNISHED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE LOAN WAS RECEIVED VIDE ACCOU NT PAYEE CHEQUE FROM THE ACCOUNT OF THE CREDITOR, REPAYMENT ALONG WITH INTER EST HAS BEEN PAID BY WAY OF CHEQUE. COPY OF CREDITORS BANK ACCOUNT HAS BEEN B ROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE ASSESSEE SHOWING REMITTANCE OF LOAN AND RECEIPT OF INTEREST, CREDITOR IS SEPARATELY ASSESSED TO INCOME TAX. THE OBJECTION OF THE ASSES SING OFFICER WITH REGARD TO SOURCE OF CREDIT IN RESPECT OF BANK ACCOUNT OF THE CREDITOR IS BEYOND THE SCOPE OF SECTION 68 OF THE ACT, AS THE CIT(A) FOLLOWED VARIO US JUDGMENTS WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT LAW DOES NOT REQUIRE THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THE SOURCE OF SOURCE. THE CIT(A) RELIED UPON FOLLOWING DECISIONS :- ITA NO.354/AGR/2010 A.Y. 2006-07 4 I) ARAVALI TRADING CO. VS. ITO, 8 DTR (RAJ) 199 II) KANHAIA LAL JANGID VS. ACIT, 217 CTR (RAJ) 354 III) CIT VS. DIAMOND PRODUCTS LIMITED, 177 TAXMAN 331 (DEL) IV) CIT VS. S. KAMALJEET SINGH, 147 TAXMAN 18 (ALL D.) V) CIT VS. JAUHARIMAL GOEL, 147 TAXMAN 448 (ALLD.) VI) DY. CIT VS. ROHINI BUILDERS, 256 ITR 360 (GUJ. ) VII) CIT VS. ORISSA CORPORATION (P) LTD. 159 ITR 7 8 (SC) 5. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FUR NISH THE REQUIRED DETAILS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN HI S REMAND REPORT CLEARLY STATED THAT NO FRESH MATERIAL EVIDENCE HAS BEEN FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE. LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSE SSING OFFICER IS EMPOWERED TO ASK THE SOURCE OF THE SOURCE AND IN SUPPORT OF THIS CONTENTION HE RELIED UPON THE FOLLOWING JUDGMENTS :- I) RAM LAL AGARWAL VS. CIT, 280 ITR 547 (ALL.) II) CIT VS. BIJU PATNAIK, 160 ITR 674 (SC), III) DY. CIT VS. VISWANATH PRATAP GUPTA, 129 ITD 9 5 (TM) (JABALPUR) 6. THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE, ON THE OTHER HAND, RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) INCLUDING THE DECISIONS RELIED UPON B Y THE CIT(A). 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PAR TIES AND RECORDS PERUSED. IN RESPECT OF SECTION 68 OF THE ACT, IT IS SETTLED POS ITION OF LAW THAT THE ASSESSEE IS TO ESTABLISH THREE INGREDIENTS NAMELY IDENTITY, CREDIT WORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF ITA NO.354/AGR/2010 A.Y. 2006-07 5 THE TRANSACTIONS. IN THE CASE UNDER CONSIDERATION, WE NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED ALL THE COMPLETE DETAILS OF THE CREDITOR. THE CREDITOR IS ASSESSED TO TAX, AND PAN HAS ALSO BEEN FURNISHED. THE TRANSACTION I S THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL. THE ASSESSEE SPECIFICALLY REQUESTED THE ASSESSING O FFICER TO ISSUE SUMMON UNDER SECTION 131 OF THE ACT AS THE ASSESSEE HAS REPAID T HE LOAN AND THE CREDITOR IS NOT WITHIN THE CONTROL OF THE ASSESSEE. THERE IS NO FI NDING OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE TRANSACTION WAS NON-GENUINE. THE CASE OF THE A SSESSING OFFICER IS THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FURNISH REQUIRED DETAILS. CONTRAR Y TO THAT FACT, THE CIT(A) RECORDED THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED S UFFICIENT EVIDENCES TO SATISFY ALL THE THREE INGREDIENTS REQUIRED UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT I.E. IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION . THE CIT(A) CALLED FOR REMAND REPORT FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE AS SESSING OFFICER HAS REPEATED THE SAME FACTS WHICH HAVE BEEN STATED IN THE ASSESS MENT ORDER. IT APPEARS FROM THE FACTS ON RECORD THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT CORRECT IN SAYING THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FURNISH FRESH MATERIAL. THE ASSES SING OFFICER NOTED IN HIS ORDER THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FURNISH THE COPY OF BANK ACCOUNT WHEREAS THE CIT(A) NOTED THIS FACT IN PARAGRAPH NO.18 OF HIS ORDER THA T XEROX COPY OF BANK ACCOUNTS OF CREDITOR SHOWING REMITTANCE HAS BEEN FURNISHED BY T HE ASSESSEE AND THE CIT(A) CALLED FOR THE REMAND REPORT FROM THE ASSESSING OFF ICER. WHEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT EXAMINING THE RELEVANT RECORDS MEREL Y BY GENERAL OBSERVATIONS ITA NO.354/AGR/2010 A.Y. 2006-07 6 PARTICULARLY WHEN THE MATERIALS FURNISHED BY THE AS SESSEE HAVE BEEN EXAMINED BY THE CIT(A), THE GENERAL OBSERVATION OF THE AO CANNO T BE ACCEPTED. 8. AS REGARDS THE DECISION RELIED UPON BY THE LD. D EPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE JUDGEMENT OF HONBLE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD IN THE CASE OF RAM LAL AGARWAL VS. CIT(A), 280 ITR 547 (ALLD), THE SAID J UDGEMENT IS DISTINGUISHABLE ON FACTS AS IN THAT CASE THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE IN RESPECT OF GIFTS. THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PROVE THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE PERSONS MAKING THE PAYMENT OF SUCH AMOUNT TO THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS FOUND THAT BOTH THE PERSONS WHO WERE ALLEGED TO HAVE MADE THE PAYMENT HAD NO SOURCE AND CAPACITY TO MAKE SUCH PAYMENTS. IN THAT CASE, THERE IS A FINDING THAT AFTER EXAMINING THE FACTS, IT WAS FOUND THAT THE DEPOSITORS WERE NOT HAVING CAPACITY TO ADVANCE THE LOAN AND THE ASSESSE E FAILED TO SATISFY ONE OF THE CONDITIONS I.E. CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE DEPOSITOR. BUT IN THE CASE UNDER CONSIDERATION, WE DO NOT FIND ANY SUCH FINDING BY T HE ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER EXAMINING THE MATERIAL EVIDENCES FILED BY THE ASSES SEE. 9. THE JUDGEMENT OF APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V S. BIJU PATNAIK, 160 ITR 674 (SC) IS ALSO DISTINGUISHABLE ON FACTS. IN THAT CASE ALSO, THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO EXPLAIN THE GENUINENESS OF THE CASH CREDIT. THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE AS TO WHO WERE THE PERSONS FROM WHOM THE MONEY WAS COLLECTED, HOW WAS THE MONEY RECEIVED AND HOW WAS THE MONEY INVESTED. BUT, IN THE CASE UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSEE ITA NO.354/AGR/2010 A.Y. 2006-07 7 HAS FURNISHED SUFFICIENT MATERIAL, AS NOTED BY THE CIT(A), RATHER THIS IS NOT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE TRANSACTION WAS N ON-GENUINE. 10. AS REGARDS TO THE THIRD MEMBER DECISION OF ITAT JABALPUR BENCH IN THE CASE OF DY. CIT VS. VISWANATH PRATAP GUPTA, 129 ITD 95 (TM) IS RATHER IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE WHEREIN GIFT RECEIVED BY THE ASSESS EE BY WAY OF CHEQUES WHICH HAVE BEEN CONFIRMED BY THE DONORS UNDER THE HEAD GI FT AND DISCLOSED IN THE RESPECTIVE RETURNS COULD NOT BE TREATED AS NON-GENU INE GIFT AND, THEREFORE, ADDITION OF GIFTED AMOUNTS WAS DELETED. THUS, IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION THE DECISION CITED BY THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATI VE DOES NOT HELP THE REVENUE. 11. THE CIT(A) WHILE DELETING THE ADDITION NOTED TH AT IT IS A CASE OF SEARCH UNDER SECTION 132 AND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, NO MAT ERIAL WAS FOUND. THEREFORE, SUCH ADDITION CANNOT BE MADE WHILE MAKING ASSESSMEN T UNDER SECTION 153A OF THE ACT. FOR THIS VIEW OF THE CIT(A), WE ARE NOT AGREE ING WITH THE SAME AS THE ISSUE IS A CONTROVERSIAL ONE. HOWEVER, APART FROM THIS VIEW AS DISCUSSED ABOVE, WE FIND THAT THE CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY DELETED THE ADDITION CO NSIDERING THE MERIT OF THE CASE. 12. THE SECOND GROUND OF APPEAL IS IN RESPECT OF DE LETION OF ADDITION OF RS.2,27,184/-. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THA T DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN ADVANCE OF ITA NO.354/AGR/2010 A.Y. 2006-07 8 RS.18,93,197/- TO SHRI RAMA SHANKAR AGARWAL, FATHER OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT CHARGE INTEREST FROM SHRI RAMA SHANKAR AGARWAL, WHEREAS, FOR THE LOANS TAKEN FROM FAMILY MEMBERS AND OTHER PARTIES, THE ASSESSEE PAID INTEREST @ 12%. IT HAS ALSO BEEN NOTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN NIL INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES, WHEREAS THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED INTEREST TOTALING TO RS.66,554 /- PAID TO HIS FATHER SHRI RAMA SHANKAR AGARWAL AND TO SMT. SUSHMA GOYAL. THE ASSE SSING OFFICER, AFTER APPLYING 12% OF RATE OF INTEREST, CALCULATED THE AM OUNT OF ADDITION AT RS.2,27,184/- . THE CIT(A) DELETED THE SAID ADDITION AS UNDER :- 13) I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT, REPORT OF THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER AND THE POSITION OF LAW. THERE IS NO DENIAL TO THE FACT TH AT THE ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE WITHOUT THERE BEING ANY EVIDENCE FOUND OR NOTED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH PERSUADING THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER TO MAKE THE DISALLOWANCE. THE ADDITION IS THUS BAD IN LAW AND THEREFORE CANNOT BE SUSTAINED IN VIEW OF THE DETAILED FINDINGS RECORDED HEREINBEFORE. 14) THERE IS EQUALLY NO DENIAL TO THE FACT THAT THE ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE APPELLANT FOR THE FIRST TI ME DESPITE THE FACT THAT ASSESSMENTS FOR THE PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR S WERE ALSO FRAMED UNDER SECTION 153A OF THE ACT. IN THE CASE OF MALWA COTTON & SPINNING MILLS LIMITED VS. ACIT REPORTED IN (2004) 89 ITD 65 (TM) IT WAS HELD THAT INTEREST ON BORROWED CAPITAL CANNOT BE DISALLOWED, WHERE NO DISALLOWANCE WAS MADE IN EARLIER YEARS, TH E SAME COULD NOT BE MADE IN SUBSEQUENT YEARS ON THE SAME SET OF FAC TS IN SUBSEQUENT YEARS ASSESSING OFFICER IS PRECLUDED FROM TAKING A DIFFERENT STAND. IN THIS REGARD ATTENTION IS DRAWN TO THE DECISION OF H ONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF H.A. SHAH AND CO. VS. CIT REPORTED AS (1956) 30 ITR 618 (BOM) HAS HELD THAT THE PRINCIPL E OF ESTOPPEL OR RES-JUDICATA DOES NOT STRICTLY APPLY TO THE INCOME TAX AUTHORITIES AND YET DECLARING THAT:- AN EARLIER DECISION ON THE SA ME QUESTION CANNOT ITA NO.354/AGR/2010 A.Y. 2006-07 9 BE REOPENED IF THAT DECISION IS NOT ARBITRARY OR PE RVERSE, IF IT HAD BEEN ARRIVED AT AFTER DUE INQUIRY, IF NO FRESH FACTS ARE PLACED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL GIVING THE LATER DECISION AND IF THE TRIBU NAL GIVING THE EARLIER DECISION HAS TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION ALL M ATERIAL EVIDENCE. NEITHER IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS NOR IN THE RE MAND PROCEEDINGS ASSESSING OFFICER HAS BEEN ABLE TO CONTRADICT THE S UBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT THAT THE BORROWED FUNDS HAVE BEEN UTILIZE D EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS. HONBLE ALLAHABAD HIGH CO URT IN THE CASE OF RAVI IRON INDUSTRIES VS. DIRECTOR OF INVESTIGATION HAS LAID OUT A PRINCIPLE OF LAW WHILE HOLDING THAT WHERE ASSERTION MADE REMAINED UNDISPUTED IT IS TREATED TO BE ADMITTED AGAINST THE PARTY AGAINST WHOM IT IS MADE. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER ADDITION OF RS.2,27,184/- IS DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. 13. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PA RTIES AND RECORDS PERUSED. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS FAILED TO MA KE OUT A PROPER CASE. MERELY BY SAYING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN LOAN OF RS.18,93 ,197/- TO HIS FATHER SHRI RAMA SHANKAR AGARWAL WITHOUT INTEREST, THE ASSESSING OFF ICER CANNOT CALCULATE NOTIONAL INTEREST APPLYING 12% PER ANNUM AS RATE OF INTEREST . SIMULTANEOUSLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT INTEREST OF RS.2,27,184/- CALCUL ATED BY APPLYING 12% OF INTEREST RATE IS DISALLOWED OUT OF INTEREST CLAIMED OF THE A SSESSEE RS.7,06,223/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FAILED TO RECORD THE FACT WHETHER THIS INTEREST FREE LOAN WAS OUT OF HIS OWN CAPITAL OR FROM BORROWED CAPITAL. IN OTHER WORDS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS FAILED TO ESTABLISH THE NEXUS AND GIVEN FINDING THAT INTEREST FREE LOAN GIVEN WAS OUT OF THE INTEREST BEARING FUNDS. DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS A NOTIONAL DISALLOWANCE WITHOUT BRINGING COMPLET E FACTS ON RECORD. THE CIT(A) NOTED THE FACT THAT NEITHER IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCE EDINGS NOR IN THE REMAND ITA NO.354/AGR/2010 A.Y. 2006-07 10 PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS BEEN ABLE TO CONTRADICT THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE BORROWED FUNDS HAVE BEEN UTIL IZED EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THE LIGHT OF THESE FACTS, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT SUCH ADDITION IS NOT SUSTAINABLE. THE CIT(A) HAS RIGHTL Y DELETED THOUGH NOT ON THE REASONS GIVEN BY THE CIT(A) THAT NO EVIDENCE WAS FO UND IN THIS REGARD DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH PROCEEDINGS. THE ADDITION IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN THE LIGHT OF OUR ABOVE DISCUSSIONS. WITH THIS MODIFICATION, ORDER O F THE CIT(A) IS CONFIRMED. 14. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISS ED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 07.03.2012. SD/- SD/- (BHAVNESH SAINI) (A.L. GEHLOT) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATE: 7 TH MARCH, 2012 PBN/* COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: APPELLANT RESPONDENT CIT CONCERNED CIT (APPEALS) CONCERNED D.R., ITAT AGRA BENCH, AGRA GUARD FILE. BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA TRUE COPY