Manas Sewa Samiti, Aligarh V. Addl. C.I.T., Range-1, Aligarh

ITA 36/AGR/2013

• Counselvise Citation: 3620314 RSA 2013
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-08-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 07-08-2013
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 30-01-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ANIRUDH KUMAR
• Keywords: Question of law; Benefit of exemption
• Section: 12A; 12AA; 12; 10; 11

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. 36/AGRA/ 2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-2010 MANAS SEWA SAMITI VS. ADDL. C.I.T. RANGE-1, 63, VISHNUPURI, AAYKAR BHAWAN, ALIGARH. ALIGARH. (PAN AABTM 4363 M) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI ANURAG SINHA, ADVOCATE REVENUE BY : SHRI ANIRUDH KUMAR, CIT, D.R. DATE OF HEARING : 07.08.2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 14.08.2013 ORDER PER BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST TH E ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), GHAZIABAD DATED 10.10.2012 FOR A.Y. 2009-10 . 2. IN THIS APPEAL, ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ORDER O F LD. CIT(A) IN NOT HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ELIGIBLE FOR REGISTRA TION UNDER SECTION 12AA OF THE I.T. ACT AND CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFIT UNDER SECTIO N 11 OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE ALSO CHALLENGED THE ADDITION OF RS.86,34,4 60/- AS EXEMPTED UNDER SECTION 10(23C)(IIIAD) OF THE ACT. ITA NO.36 /AGRA/2013, A.Y. 2009-10 2 3. BRIEFLY THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSES SEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.NIL. THE A.O. FOUND TH AT ASSESSEE-SOCIETY WAS NOT ENTITLED TO THE ABOVE BENEFIT AS WAS FOUND IN A .Y. 2007-08 AND THAT ASSESSEE EXIST FOR NON EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES ALSO. A .O. FURTHER FOUND THAT THE ISSUES HAVE BEEN DECIDED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE IN A. Y. 2007-08 BECAUSE THERE IS NO REGISTRATION UNDER SECTION 12AA OF THE ACT AN D FURTHER THE RECEIPT OF THE ASSESSEE ARE MORE THAN RS.1.00 CRORE AND THERE IS NO RECOGNITION IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, NO EXEMPTION UND ER SECTION 10(23C)(IIIAD) SHOULD BE GRANTED. THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WAS REJECTED AND INCOME WAS COMPUTED AT RS.81,68,760/-. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT APPEAR BEFORE LD. CIT(A), THEREFORE, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS D ISMISSED. 4. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOW FILED DECLARATION UNDER SEC TION 158A(1) OF THE ACT DATED 21.07.2013 STATING THAT IN PRECEDING A.Y. 2007-08 ITAT, AGRA BENCH PASSED THE ORDER ON 23.10.2012 IN ITA NO. 229 /AGRA/2011 AND APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN DISMISSED ON IDENTICAL FAC TS. IT IS FURTHER STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE HONBLE AL LAHABAD HIGH COURT AGAINST THE SAID DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 52 OF 2013 AND THE APPEAL HAS BEEN ADMITTED FOR HEARING. COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE HONBLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT DATED 15.03.2013 IS FI LED ON RECORD. IT IS FURTHER STATED THAT THE QUESTIONS OF LAW ARE IDENTI CAL, WHICH ARE INVOLVED IN THE PRESENT PENDING APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, ITA NO.36 /AGRA/2013, A.Y. 2009-10 3 STATED THAT IF THE TRIBUNAL AGREES TO APPLY TO THE CASE REFERRED TO IN ABOVE APPLICATION, THE FINAL DECISION IN QUESTIONS OF LAW TO BE DECIDED BY HONBLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT. THE ASSESSEE WILL NOT RAISE T HE SAID QUESTION BEFORE HONBLE HIGH COURT OR SUPREME COURT OF INDIA. THE N OTICE OF THIS APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 158A(1) OF THE ACT WAS GI VEN TO THE LD. D.R. AND A.O. AND REPORT WAS CALLED FOR BUT NO REPORT IS FIL ED. SEVERAL FURTHER DATES WERE GIVEN, BUT THE A.O. DID NOT FILE ANY REPLY/REP ORT. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THA T APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 158A(1) MAY BE ADMITTED AND THE DECISION OF HONBLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT MAY BE APPLIED FOR A.Y . 2007-08 IN THE PRESENT APPEAL, WHENEVER THE JUDGMENT WOULD BE DELI VERED. THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN OB JECTED BY THE LD. CIT,D.R. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND SUB MISSION OF THE PARTIES. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE RELIEF CLAIM ED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL WAS DENIED TO THE ASSESSEE BECAUSE OF THE FINDINGS OF T HE FACT GIVEN AGAINST THE ASSESSEE IN A.Y. 2007-08. IN A.Y. 2007-08, THE APPE AL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS DECIDED BY THE ITAT, AGRA BENCH, IN ITA NO. 229/AGR A/ 2011, VIDE ORDER DATED 23.10.2012 DISMISSING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSES SEE. THE FINDINGS OF THE TRIBUNAL IN PARA NO.4 TO 8 ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER: - 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND TH E MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE FIRST ISSUE IS WI TH REGARD TO CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S. 11 OF THE IT ACT. HONBLE S UPREME COURT ITA NO.36 /AGRA/2013, A.Y. 2009-10 4 IN THE CASE OF U.P. FOREST CORPORATION (SUPRA) HELD THAT REGISTRATION U/S. 12A IS A CONDITION PRECEDENT FOR AVAILING OF BENEFIT OF SECTION 11 & 12 OF THE IT ACT. UNLESS AN D UNTIL INSTITUTION IS REGISTERED U/S. 12A OF THE ACT, IT C ANNOT CLAIM BENEFIT U/S. 11 OF THE IT ACT. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, SHRI NEERAJ KUMAR, ADVOCATE ADMITTED BEFORE THE AO AT THE ASSESSMENT STAGE THAT THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY IS NOT R EGISTERED U/S. 12AA OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE WOULD NOT BE ENTITLED FOR ANY DEDUCTION U/S. 11 OF THE IT ACT. EVEN DURIN G THE COURSE OF ARGUMENTS, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ADMI TTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT REGISTERED U/S. 12AA OF THE IT ACT. THE MAIN CONTENTION IS THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE APPLIED FOR R EGISTRATION BEFORE THE LD. CIT ON 06.09.2005 AND THE LD. CIT HA S NEITHER REFUSED TO GRANT REGISTRATION NOR GRANTED REGISTRAT ION, THEREFORE, IT WOULD AMOUNT TO DEEMED REGISTRATION A ND THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE GRANTED BENEFIT OF DEDUCTION PRO VIDED U/S. 11 OF THE IT ACT. WE DO NOT AGREE WITH SUCH A CONTE NTION OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. IN THE DECISION IN TH E CASE OF BHAGWAD SWARUP SHRI SHRI DEVRAHA BABA MEMORIAL SHRI HARI PARMARTH DHAM TRUST VS. CIT (SUPRA) OF SPECIAL BENC H, THE ISSUE WAS WITH REGARD TO GRANT OF REGISTRATION U/S. 12AA OF THE IT ACT. THE MATTER IN ISSUE BEFORE THE SPECIAL BENC H WAS NOT CONNECTED WITH THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME ON THE BAS IS OF REGULAR ASSESSMENT. SIMILARLY, THE ISSUE BEFORE THE HONBLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SOCIETY FOR THE PROMOTION OF EDUCATION ADVENTURE SPORT & CONSERVATION OF ENVI RONMENT VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (SUPRA) WAS IN WRIT PETITION WITH REGARD TO THE DELAY ON THE PART OF THE IT AUTH ORITIES IN NOT DECIDING THE APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION. WHETHER THE LD. CIT HAS GRANTED REGISTRATION OR DID NOT REFUSE TO GRANT REGISTRATION IS AN INDEPENDENT AND DISTINCT MATTER FROM THE COMP UTATION OF INCOME ON THE BASIS OF REGULAR ASSESSMENT PASSED BY THE AO. IN SECTION 246A SEVERAL PROVISIONS HAVE BEEN MENTIONED IN WHICH IF ANY ORDER IS PASSED BY THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY, IT WOULD BE APPEALABLE ORDER BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS). NO REMEDY IS PROVIDED IF THE CIT DID NOT PASS ANY ORDE R U/S. 12AA FOR FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). ACCORD ING TO SECTION 253(1)(C), THE ORDER PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER U/S . 12AA IS APPEALABLE BEFORE THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IF THE ASS ESSEE WAS AGGRIEVED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT U/S. 12AA OF THE IT ACT. IT WOULD MEAN THAT NO REMEDY LIES FOR GRANT OF REGI STRATION OR ITA NO.36 /AGRA/2013, A.Y. 2009-10 5 REFUSAL TO GRANT REGISTRATION BEFORE THE CIT(A). IF ANY ORDER IS PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER U/S. 12AA AND THE ASSESS EE IS AGGRIEVED, THE APPEAL DIRECTLY LIES TO THE APPELLAT E TRIBUNAL. THEREFORE, SUCH AN ISSUE OF DEEMED REGISTRATION COU LD NOT HAVE BEEN AGITATED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND RIGHTLY SO, THE LD. CIT(A) DID NOT TAKE COGNIZANCE OF THE SAME. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE DID NOT CITE ANY DECISION IF ON THE BA SIS OF DEEMED REGISTRATION, ANY COURT HAS DIRECTED TO GRANT EXEMP TION OF INCOME U/S. 11 OF THE ACT. SINCE GRANT OF REGISTRAT ION IS A CONDITION PRECEDENT FOR GRANT OF EXEMPTION U/S. 11 OF THE IT ACT AND IN THIS CASE, THERE IS NO REGISTRATION GRANTED U/S. 12AA OF THE ACT IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE, NO RELIEF OR EXE MPTION CAN BE GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE U/S. 11 OF THE ACT. THE REG ISTRATION ISSUE IS THUS, INDEPENDENT AND DISTINCT MATTER FROM THE C OMPUTATION OF INCOME IN THE REGULAR ASSESSMENT AND AS SUCH, THE S EPARATE AND DISTINCT MATTER CANNOT BE CLUBBED IN THE QUANTUM AP PEALS. THE QUANTUM ASSESSMENT ORDERS ARE AVAILABLE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) U/S. 250 OF THE IT ACT ON MERIT. SEPARATE APPEAL LIES TO THE TRIBUNAL U/S. 25 3(1)(A) OF THE IT ACT. FURTHER, NON-ACTION BY THE CIT U/S. 12AA C OULD NOT HAVE BEEN EXAMINED BY THE CIT(A) OR THE TRIBUNAL IN THE QUANTUM PROCEEDINGS. THE REMEDY LIES SOMEWHERE ELSE , BUT IT APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT AVAILED TO ANY SU CH ALTERNATE REMEDY PROVIDED UNDER THE LAW. CONSIDERING THE ABOV E DISCUSSION IN THE LIGHT OF DECISION OF HONBLE SUPR EME COURT IN THE CASE OF U.P. FOREST CORPORATION (SUPRA), WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN REJECTI NG THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE FOR EXEMPTION U/S. 11 OF THE IT ACT IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY REGISTRATION IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THE DEC ISION CITED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THUS, WOULD NOT SU PPORT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE QUANTUM PROCEEDINGS. TH US, THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE IS A CCORDINGLY REJECTED. 5. NOW, WE CONSIDER THE ALTERNATE CONTENTION OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE WITH REGARD TO THE CLAIM R AISED U/S. 10(23C)(IIIAD) OF THE IT ACT. SECTION 10(23C)(IIIAD ) PROVIDES AS UNDER : (IIIAD) ANY UNIVERSITY OR OTHER EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION EXISTING SOLELY FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSE S AND NOT FOR ITA NO.36 /AGRA/2013, A.Y. 2009-10 6 PURPOSES OF PROFIT IF THE AGGREGATE ANNUAL RECEIPTS OF SUCH UNIVERSITY OR EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION DO NOT EXCEED THE AMOUNT OF ANNUAL RECEIPTS AS MAY BE PRESCRIBED; OR 5.1 SECTION 10(23C)(VI) OF THE IT ACT PROVIDES AS UNDER : [(VI) ANY UNIVERSITY OR OTHER EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION EXISTING SOLELY FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSE S AND NOT FOR PURPOSES OF PROFIT, OTHER THAN THOSE MENTIONED IN S UB-CLAUSE (IIIAB) OR SUB-CLAUSE (IIIAD) AND WHICH MAY BE APPR OVED BY THE PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY; OR 5.2 SECTION 2(24)(IIA) OF THE IT ACT PROVIDES THE DEFIN ITION OF INCOME, WHICH INCLUDES (IIA) VOLUNTARY CONTRIBUTIONS RECEIVED BY A TRUST C REATED WHOLLY OR PARTLY FOR CHARITABLE OR RELIGIOUS PURPOS ES OR BY AN INSTITUTION ESTABLISHED WHOLLY OR PARTLY FOR SUCH P URPOSES OR BY AN ASSOCIATION OR INSTITUTION REFERRED TO IN CLAUSE (21) OR CLAUSE (23), OR BY A FUND OR TRUST OR INSTITUTION REFERRED TO IN SUB- CLAUSE (IV) OR SUB-CLAUSE (V) OR BY ANY UNIVERSITY OR OTHER EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION REFERRED TO IN SUB-CLAUSE ( IIIAD) OR SUB- CLAUSE (VI) OR BY ANY HOSPITAL OR OTHER INSTITUTION REFERRED TO IN SUB-CLAUSE (IIIAE) OR SUB-CLAUSE (VIA)] OF CLAUSE ( 23C) OF SECTION 10 [OR BY AN ELECTORAL TRUST. 6. CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN THE LIGHT O F ABOVE PROVISIONS OF LAW, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO NOT ENTITLED FOR DEDUCTION IN THE ABOVE PROVISIONS. THE AO FOUND FROM THE SMRITI PATRA OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSESSEE DI D NOT EXIST SOLELY FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSE AND IT HAS OTHER OBJ ECTS ALSO. WHEN THE ANNUAL RECEIPTS EXCEED RS. ONE CRORE, THE APPROVAL OF PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY IS REQUIRED IN THE ABOVE PROVI SIONS. IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE, AGGREGATE ANNUAL RECEIPTS OF THE ASSESSEE WERE FOUND EXCEEDING RS.1,00,00,000/-. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT DONATION IS NOT PART OF THE TOTAL RECEIPTS, BU T THE VOLUNTARY CONTRIBUTIONS PROVIDED U/S. 2(24)(IIA) CLEARLY INCL UDES THE VOLUNTARY CONTRIBUTIONS RECEIVED BY THE TRUST OF DI FFERENT NATURE INCLUDING THE EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION WOULD BE INCL UDED IN THE DEFINITION OF INCOME. THUS, THE TOTAL RECEIPTS OF T HE ASSESSEE ITA NO.36 /AGRA/2013, A.Y. 2009-10 7 WERE MORE THAN RS. ONE CRORE AND IF BENEFIT OF SECT ION 11(1)(D) COULD BE GRANTED, THEN VOLUNTARY CONTRIBUTION MADE WITH A SPECIFIC DIRECTION THAT THEY SHALL FORM PART OF COR PUS OF TRUST COULD BE GRANTED EXEMPTION AND FOR THAT PURPOSE ALS O, THE INSTITUTION SHOULD BE REGISTERED U/S. 12AA OF THE I T ACT AND THERE SHOULD BE EVIDENCE ON RECORD THAT SUCH AN INC OME IN THE FORM OF VOLUNTARY CONTRIBUTION WAS RECEIVED FOR THE SPECIFIC PURPOSE TO FORM PART OF THE CORPUS OF THE TRUST/INS TITUTION. AS NOTED ABOVE, IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE, THERE IS NEIT HER ANY REGISTRATION U/S. 12AA NOR IS THERE ANY EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE DONATIONS WERE RECEIV ED WITH SPECIFIC DIRECTION THAT IT WILL FORM PART OF CORPUS OF THE ASSESSEE INSTITUTION. THEREFORE, SUCH A BENEFIT COULD ALSO N OT BE GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. CIT(A) ON PROPER APPRECIATION OF FACTS AND APPLYING CORRECT LAW RIGHTLY HELD THAT THE DONA TIONS WERE PART OF THE ANNUAL RECEIPTS OF THE ASSESSEE AND SHA LL BE TREATED AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THIS VIEW ALSO FINDS SUP PORT FROM THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 12(1) OF THE IT ACT AS IS CON SIDERED BY THE LD. CIT(A) ALSO. THE LD. CIT(A), THEREFORE, CORRECT LY ANALYZED THE ABOVE PROVISION FOR THE PURPOSE OF DECIDING THE ISSUE BEFORE HIM. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE DISCUSSION IN THE LIGHT OF FINDINGS OF LD. CIT(A), WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE LD. CIT(A) RIGHTLY DECLINED BENEFIT OF EXEMPTION U/S. 10(23C)(IIIAD) O F THE IT ACT. THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE IS, THEREFORE, REJECTED. 7. NO OTHER POINT IS ARGUED OR PRESSED. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIS MISSED. 6. THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL AGAINST THE AFO RESAID ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL BEFORE THE HONBLE HIGH COURT AND VIDE ORD ER DATED 15.03.2013 THE HONBLE HIGH COURT, IN INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 52 OF 2013, ISSUED NOTICE TO THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT ON THE QUESTIONS OF LAW FRAM ED ON IDENTICAL SUBJECT. THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS STATED TO BE PENDING BEFORE HONBLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT. ITA NO.36 /AGRA/2013, A.Y. 2009-10 8 7. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE, WE ACCEPT THE APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 158A(1) OF THE ACT BECAUSE THE ISSUE IS IDENTICAL AS WAS DECIDED IN A.Y. 2007-08 WHICH IS INVOLVED IN THE PR ESENT APPEAL. THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, ADMITTED. FOLLOWING OUR ORDER FOR A.Y. 2007-08 REPRODUCED AS ABOVE, WE DISMISS THE APPEAL OF THE A SSESSEE ON THE IDENTICAL QUESTION OF LAW PENDING BEFORE HONBLE ALLAHABAD HI GH COURT AND DIRECT THE A.O. THAT WHENEVER THE DECISION ON THE QUESTIONS OF LAW IS DELIVERED BY THE HONBLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT, BECOME FINAL, IT SHAL L BE APPLIED TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL AS THE CASE MAY BE, WI TH NECESSARY AMENDMENT TO THE ORDER AND THE A.O. SHALL PASS THE ORDER IN C ONFIRMITY WITH THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT TO BE DELIVERED IN A.Y. 2007-08 8. IN VIEW OF ABOVE DISCUSSION, THE APPEAL OF THE A SSESSEE IS DISMISSED WITH DIRECTION TO THE A.O. TO AMEND THE ORDER IN CO NFORMITY WITH THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT FOR A. Y. 2007-08. (ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT.) SD/- SD/- (A.L. GEHLOT) (BHAV NESH SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER AMIT/ ITA NO.36 /AGRA/2013, A.Y. 2009-10 9 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT (APPEALS) CONCERNED 4. CIT CONCERNED 5. D.R., ITAT, AGRA BENCH, AGRA 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA TRUE COPY