CHHATTISGARH STATE CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION LTD, RAIPUR (CG) V. CIT, RAIPUR (CG)

ITA 36/BIL/2011

• Counselvise Citation: 3624714 RSA 2011
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 10 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-12-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 31-01-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: D K JAIN
• Assessee Lawyers: NIKHILESH BEG ANI; N C BEGANI
• Keywords: Depreciation; Period of limitation; Reasonable cause; Competent authority; Revised return; Unabsorbed depreciation
• Section: 148; 139; 143(3)

Judgement Text

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,BENCH -RAIPUR . .. . . .. . , ,, , ! ! ! !, ,, , . .. . . .. . BEFORE S/SH.H.L.KARWA,PRESIDENT AN D RAJENDRA,ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO.36/BLPR/2011- # # # # / // / ASSESSMENT YEAR -2006-07 CHHATTISGARH STATE CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION LTD., BAL ASHRAM PARISAR, KUTCHARI CHOWK, RAIPUR. PAN: AACCC 1772 C V/S. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER 1(2), RAIPUR. ( ) / // / APPELLANT ) ( *+) / RESPONDENT ) ASSESSEE BY : SH.NIKHILESH BEGANI & N.C. BEGANI, CA REVENUE BY : SH. D.K. JAIN, D.R. - /DATE OF HEARING : 18 -12-2014 - /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 22 -12-2014 # # # # , 1961 1961 1961 1961- - - - 254 254254 254( (( (1 11 1) )) ) ORDER U/S.254(1)OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT,1961(ACT) PER RAJENDRA,AM < << < = = = =, ,, , ! ! ! ! : CHALLENGING THE ORDER DATED 29.09.2010 OF THE CIT(A )-RAIPUR,ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AS WELL AS IN LAW, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE AD DITION OF RS.7,35,67,735/- MADE BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER BY NOT ALLOWING THE APPEL LANT TO SET-OFF THE BROUGHT FORWARD LOSSES PERTAINING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2002-03 & 2005-0 6 FOR THE REASON THAT THE RETURNS WERE FILED BEYOND THE DUE DATE PRESCRIBED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 139(3) R.W.S. 80 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 WHICH IS HIGHLY UNJUSTIFIED, UNWARRANTED, UNSUSTAINABLE, NOT PROPER ON FACTS AND NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF LAW. HE HAS FAILE D TO APPRECIATE THAT THE APPELLANT BEING A GOVERNMENT COMPANY, HAD SUFFICIENT AND REASONABLE C AUSE FOR NOT FILING THE RETURN OF LOSS WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME LIMIT UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF S ECTION 139(3) R.W.S. 80 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 AND HENCE, LOSS DETERMINED WAS ELIGIBLE FOR CA RRY FORWARD AND SET-OFF IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER VI OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 196 1.THEREFORE, IT IS PRAYED THAT THE ADDITION OF RS.7,35,67,735/- MAY PLEASE BE DELETED AND THE BROU GHT FORWARD LOSSES MAY PLEASE BE ALLOWED TO BE SET-OFF AGAINST THE TOTAL INCOME. THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT ASSESSEE IS A STATE GOVERNMENT OWNED COMPANY.IT HAD NOT FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME.THEREFORE,THE AO ISSUED NOTICE U/S . 148 REQUIRING IT TO FILE THE RETURN BY 30.09.2008. THE RETURN WAS FILED ON 24.12.08 DECLAR ING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.36,63,26,030/-.THE RETURN FILED WAS TREATED AS INVALID BEING FILED OUT OF TIME.SUBSEQUENTLY, THE AO COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT U/S.147 R.W.S.144 ON THE BASIS OF MATERI AL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND THE TOTAL INCOME WAS ASSESSED AT RS.43,98,93,765/- AFTER DISALLOWING THE BROUGHT FORWARD BUSINESS LOSSES. 2. THE EFFECTIVE GROUND OF APPEAL IS ABOUT DISALLOWANC E OF SET OFF BROUGHT FORWARD LOSS.DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS,THE AO OBSERVED THAT IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME THE COMPANY HAD SOUGHT SET-OFF OF BROUGHT FORWARD LOSSES OF RS.7,35 ,67,735/- PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 2002- 03 AND 2005-06,THAT THE RETURNS FOR THESE ASSESSMEN T YEARS WERE FILED ON 10.02.05 & 12.11.08 RESPECTIVELY I.E. BEYOND THE DUE DATE,THAT THE ASSE SSEE IS NOT ENTITLED TO CARRY FORWARD THE LOSSES TO THE SUBSEQUENT YEARS AND HENCE SET OFF THE SAME WAS NOT ALLOWABLE. 3. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE AO,THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY(FAA).DURING APPEAL PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESS EE SUBMITTED THAT RETURNS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2002-03 & 2005-06 COULD NOT BE FILED WITHIN T HE PRESCRIBED TIME DUE TO NON-COMPLETION OF 2 ITA NO. 36/BLPR-11- CHHATTISGARH STATE CIVIL SUPPLI ES CORPN. AUDIT,THAT IT WAS A REASONABLE CAUSE AND THE PENALT Y PROCEEDINGS INITIATED U/S. 271B FOR BOTH THOSE ASSESSMENT YEARS WERE DROPPED. AFTER GOING THROUGH THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE AO AND THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE,THE FAA REFERRED TO SECTION 80 OF THE ACT WHICH DEALS WITH THE SUBJECT MATTER OF CARRY FORWARD AND SET-OFF OF LOSSES UNDER DIFFERENT PROVISIONS OF SECTION 72 TO 74A OF THE ACT.HE HELD THAT AS PER PROVISIONS OF SECTION 80,IT WAS ONLY THAT LOSS WHICH HAD BEEN DETERMINED IN PURSUANCE OF A RETURN FILED U/S. 139(3),WAS ENTITLED TO BE CARRIED FORWARD AND SET O FF IN SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEAR.HE FURTHER HELD THAT THE PROVISIONS WERE ABSOLUTE,THAT THE AO HAD NO DISCRETION TO DEVIATE ON THE GROUNDS OF REASONABLE CAUSE.HE RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF HON BLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT DELIVERED IN THE CASE OF KOPPIND (P) LTD.(207ITR228),WHEREIN THE HONBLE COURT HAD OBSERVED THAT SEC. 80 HAD A CLEAR MANDATE THAT IT WAS ONLY THE LOSS DETERMINED IN THE PURSUANCE OF RETURN FILED U/S. 139 WAS ELIGIBLE FOR CARRY FORWARD AND SET-OFF.HE ALSO HELD THAT DRO PPING OF PENALTY U/S. 271B ON THE GROUNDS OF REASONABLE CAUSE WAS NOT A ACCEPTABLE PLEA FOR CARR YING FORWARD OF LOSSES. 4. BEFORE US,THE AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE (AR) STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD REASONABLE CAUSE FOR NOT FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME IN TIME,THAT THE AU DITORS WERE APPOINTED BY THE COMPETENT AUTHORITIES AFTER THE DUE DATE OF FILING OF RETURN HAD ALREADY EXPIRED, THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS STATE OWNED CORPORATION AND IT COULD NOT FILE ANY RETURN WITHOUT BEING AUDITED BY THE AUDITORS. HE REFERRED TO THE STATEMENT OF EVENTS MENTIONED AT PA GE NO. 7 OF THE PAPER BOOK. THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE RELIED UPON THE DECISIONS IN THE FOLLOWING CASES : (I). JAGDISH MALPANI VS. ACIT (94 TTJ 321-ITAT, IN DORE) (II). KRISHNASWAMY S. PD.VS. UOI (201 CTR 183(SC) (III). CIT VS. NATIONAL TAJ TRADERS (14 CTR 348 (S C) (IV). FERTILIZER CORPORATION OF INDIA VS. STATE OF BIHAR, 1988 AIR 361 (SC) (V). H.P. STATE FOREST CORPN. LTD. VS. DCIT, 87 TT J 418 (ITAT CHD.) (VI). BOMBAY MERCANTILE CO-OP. BANK LTD. VS. CBDT, 236 CTR 156 (BOM. HC). THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (DR) ARGUED THAT TH ERE WAS NO PROVISION IN THE ACT ABOUT ALLOWING THE CARRY FORWARD OF LOSS WHERE RETURNS WE RE FILED SHOWING NEGATIVE INCOME,THAT IT WAS A NON-EST RETURN,THAT THE PROVISIONS REGARDING FILING OF RETURN WERE MANDATORY, THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT FILED THE RETURN FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-0 3 AND 2005-06 IN TIME,THAT IT WANTED TO CARRY FORWARD LOSSES OF EARLIER YEARS WITHOUT ADHERING TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL BEFORE US.UNDISPUTED FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FILE RETURNS OF INCOME FOR AY.2002-03 AND 2005-06 IN TIME,THAT THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATI ON WAS ALSO NOT FILED ON DUE DATE,THAT THE ASSESSEE REQUESTED THE AO TO ALLOW CARRY FORWARD OF LOSS OF EARLIER YEARS,THAT THE AO HELD THAT IF THE RETURN WAS NOT FILED IN TIME THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT CLAIM CARRY FORWARD OF LOSS,THE ASSESSEE HAD ARGUED THAT BECAUSE OF LATE APPOINTMENT OF AUDITORS IT COULD NOT FILE RETURNS OF INCOME.WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE FILING OF RETURN IN TIME IS TH E BASIC DUTY OF THE ASSESSEE TO CLAIM CERTAIN CONCESSIONS-ESPECIALLY CLAIMING CARRYING FORWARD OF LOSSES.THE ACT HAS CLEARLY MANDATED THAT HOW THE CARRY FORWARD OF LOSSES HAS TO BE DEALT WIT H.DELIBERATING UPON THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 80 OF THE ACT THE COURTS HAVE VERY EXPRESSLY HELD T HAT IF THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT FILE RETURN IN TIME IT CANNOT CLAIM CARRY FORWARD OF LOSEES. HONBLE P & H HIGH COURT HAS HELD IN THE MATTER OF JOGINDER PAUL HUF(331ITR31) THAT FAILURE TO FILE R ETURN OF LOSS WITHIN TIME ALLOWED IN SECTION 139(3) WOULD DISENTITLE THE TO CARRY FORWARD AND SE T OFF OF LOSS.IN THAT MATTER DURING THE AY.1996- 97, THE ASSESSEE DECLARED LONG-TERM CAPITAL LOSS IN THE RETURN FILED ON 24.12.1996 WHEREAS IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 139(1) OF THE ACT,THE RETURN CLAIMING LOSS WAS REQUIRED TO BE FILED ON OR BEFORE 31.08.1996. THE ASSESSEE FOR THE AY.1999- 2000 DECLARED LONG-TERM CAPITAL GAINS ON THE SALE OF SHARES AGAINST WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAD SOUGH T TO ADJUST THE LONG-TERM CAPITAL LOSS RELATING TO AY.1996-97.ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE, THE LOSS FOR THE AY.1996-97 WAS CARRIED FORWARD TO THE AY.S.1997-98 AND 1998-99 AND IN THE COMPUTATION CHA RT OF TOTAL INCOME FILED ALONG WITH THE RETURN FOR 1997-98 AND 1998-99, A NOTE WAS APPENDED TO CARRY FORWARD THE LONG-TERM CAPITAL LOSS IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEARS. THE INCOME RETURNED IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998-99 WAS ACCEPTED BY THE 3 ITA NO. 36/BLPR-11- CHHATTISGARH STATE CIVIL SUPPLI ES CORPN. AO AND, THUS, THE LOSS WAS IMPLIEDLY ALLOWED TO BE CARRIED FORWARD TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1999- 2000. THE ASSESSEE WAS DISALLOWED SET-OFF OF THE LO SS CLAIMED BY HIM AS ACCORDING TO THE AO,THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 80 READ WITH SECTION 139(3) O F THE ACT HAD NOT BEEN COMPLIED WITH BY THE ASSESSEE, INASMUCH AS THE RETURN FOR THE AY. 1996-9 7 WAS NOT FILED WITHIN THE TIME ALLOWED UNDER SECTION 139(1) OF THE ACT.IN THE APPELLATE PROCEEDI NGS,THE FAA HELD THAT THE AO WAS JUSTIFIED IN NOT ALLOWING THE SET OFF OF THE LOSS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE.THE TRIBUNAL ALSO DID NOT ACCEPT THE SUBMISSIONS RAISED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AND CO NSEQUENTLY DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE.THE ASSESSEE APPROACHED THE HONBLE HIGH C OURT.DISMISSING THE APPEAL THE COURT HELD AS UNDER: THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT FILED THE RETURN DECLARING LO NG-TERM CAPITAL LOSS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1996-97 IN TERMS OF SECTION 139(3) OF THE ACT WITHI N TIME AND, THEREFORE, IT WOULD NOT BE ENTITLED TO CARRY FORWARD SUCH LOSS TO BE SET OFF IN SUBSEQUENT YEARS. THE MERE FILING OF RETURNS FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 1997-98 AND 1998-99 BY THE ASSESSEE DEPICTING THAT LONG-TERM CAPITAL LOSS WAS TO BE CARRIED FORWARD, IN THE ABSENCE OF SPECIFIC ORDER BY THE AS SESSING OFFICER, WOULD NOT ENTAIL ANY RIGHT IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE.THE SUBMISSION THAT WHEN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IT WOULD IMPLIEDLY CONSTITUTE PERMISSION TO CARRY FORWARD THE LONG-TERM CAPITAL LOSS, WAS AGAINST THE MANDATE OF SECTION 80 OF THE ACT WHICH PRESCRIBES THAT THE LOSSES UNDER SECTIONS 72(1), 73(2), 74(1), 74(3) AND 74A(3), IF NOT DETERMINED I N PURSUANCE OF A RETURN FILED UNDER SECTION 139(3), WOULD NOT BE CARRIED FORWARD AND SET OFF. SIMILARLY,IN THE CASE OF THE HONBLE P & H HIGH CO URT HAS HELD AS FOLLOW: THE MANDATE UNDER SECTION 80 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961, IS THAT THE LOSSES UNDER SECTIONS 72(1), 73(2), 74(1), 74(3) AND 74A(3), IF NOT DETERMINED I N PURSUANCE OF A RETURN FILED, SHALL NOT BE CARRIED FORWARD AND SET OFF. IN ORDER TO BE ENTITLE D TO CARRY FORWARD A BUSINESS LOSS, THE ASSESSEE MUST SUBMIT A RETURN UNDER SECTION 139(3) OF THE AC T AND HAVE AN ASSESSMENT MADE FOR THE YEAR IN WHICH HE HAS INCURRED THE LOSS. THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER HAS TO NOTIFY TO THE ASSESSEE BY AN ORDER IN WRITING THE AMOUNT OF THE BUSINESS LOSS AS COMPUTED BY HIM WHICH THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO CARRY FORWARD. WHERE THE BUSINESS LOSS DETERMINED HAS NOT BEEN NOTIFIED TO THE ASSESSEE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE CAN HAVE IT DETERMINED IN A S UBSEQUENT YEAR IN WHICH THE BUSINESS LOSS IS TO BE SET OFF. IN THAT MATTER OF HARYANA HOTELS LTD.(276ITR521)FOR THE AY.1987-88,THE ASSESSEE FILED A RETURN ON 31.07.1987,DECLARING ITS INCOME AS NIL.IT WAS TR EATED AS AN INVALID RETURN AS IT WAS NOT ACCOMPA -NIED BY AUDITED ACCOUNTS AND THE ASSESSEE WAS INFO RMED ACCORDINGLY.THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS REVISED RETURN ACCOMPANIED BY AUDITED ACCOUNTS AND TAX AUDIT REPORT ON 24.04.1992.THE ASSESSEE HAD DECLARED LOSS OF RS.24,66,432 FOR THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO THE AY.1987-88. THE DELAY WAS CONDONED UNDER SECTION 119(2B) OF THE ACT BY TH E COMPETENT AUTHORITY AND THE AO WAS DIRECTED TO COMPLETE THE ASSESSMENT. ANOTHER REVISE D RETURN WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 31.03. 1994,DECLARING LOSS AT RS.26,50,915.THE AO, WHILE P ASSING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT, ALLOWED UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION TO BE CARRIED FORWARD TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 24,17,869. HOWEVER, HE DISALLOWED THE BROUGHT FORWA RD LOSSES AND UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION OF EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS AND THEIR SET OFF ON THE G ROUND THAT NO VALID ASSESSMENT HAD BEEN MADE FOR THE AY.1986-87.THE TRIBUNAL DIRECTED THE AO TO ALLOW THE CLAIM OF CARRY FORWARD OF UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION AS WELL AS UNABSORBED LOSSE S SUBJECT TO THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION IN RESPECT OF THE UNABSORBED LOSSES.ON APPEAL TO THE HIGH COUR T IT WAS HELD THAT THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ENTITLED TO GET UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION OF EARLIER YEARS 1984-85 AND 1985-86 SET OFF IN 1987-88 EVEN IF NO VALID RETURN FOR THE AY. 1986-87 HAD BEE N FILED BY THE ASSESSEE,THAT IT WAS AN ADMITTED FACT THAT NO VALID RETURN FOR THE AY.1986-87 HAD BE EN MADE BY THE ASSESSEE AND ACCORDINGLY NO ASSESSMENT COULD BE MADE AND THE BUSINESS LOSSES CO ULD NOT BE NOTIFIED TO THE ASSESSEE.THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO CARRY FORWARD AND SET OFF BUSINESS LOSS DURING THE AY.1987-88. FROM THE ABOVE DISCUSSION,IT IS CLEAR THAT PROVISIO NS GOVERNING THE CARRY FORWARD OF LOSSES ARE DIFFERENT FROM THE PROVISIONS OF CARRY FORWARD OF D EPRECIATION.FOR CARRY FORWARD OF LOSSES NOT ONLY FILING OF RETURN BY DUE DATE IS A PRE-CONDITION,BUT THE ORDER OF THE AO IS ALSO REQUIRED.PROVISIONS OF SECTION 271 DEALING WITH PENALTIES ARE NOT APPLI CABLE TO DECIDE THE CARRY FORWARD OF LOSSES.AS A RULE PENALTIES CAN BE WAIVED IF THERE ARE REASONABL E CAUSE FOR OMISSION OR COMMISSION BY AN 4 ITA NO. 36/BLPR-11- CHHATTISGARH STATE CIVIL SUPPLI ES CORPN. ASSESSEE,BUT SAME IS NOT APPLICABLE WHEN THE RETURN IN NOT FILED IN TIME AND CARRY FORWARD OF LOSS IS CLAIMED IN SUCH RETURN.FACTS OF THE CASE UNDER CONS IDERATION ARE SIMILAR TO THE FACTS DISCUSSED ABOVE.WE ARE AWARE THAT APPOINTMENT OF AUDITOR IS N OT UNDER THE CONTROL OF THE ASSESSEE,BUT IT COULD HAVE FILED A PROVISIONAL RETURN OR A RETURN WITHOUT AUDITED ACCOUNTS MENTIONING THE FACT OF INABILITY OF FILING AUDITED ACCOUNTS.THE ASSESSEE D ID NOT OPTED FOR ANY OF THE OPTIONS.CONSIDERING THE PECULIAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE,WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE ORDER OF THE FAA DOES NOT SUFFER FROM ANY LEGAL OR FACTUAL INFIRMITY .SO,UPHOLDING THE SAME,WE DECIDE THE EFFECTIVE GROUND OF APPEAL AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE CASES RELIED UPON BY THE A SSESSEE.EITHER THEY HAVE NOT CONSIDERED THE JUDGMENTS OF THE HONBLE P &H HIGH COURT ARE THEY D EAL WITH ENTIRELY DIFFERENT SUBJECTS.IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION,PROVISIONS OF SECTION 80 HAVE BE EN RIGHTLY ANALYSED AND APPLIED BY THE AO AND FAA IN THE MATTER UNDER APPEAL. AS A RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS DISMISSED. > #> @ A - ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 22 ND ,DECEMBER,2014. - E 22, F ,2014 - . SD/- SD/- (H.L.KARWA/ . .. . . .. . ) ( ! ! ! ! / RAJENDRA) PRESIDENT/ = = = = /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /RAIPUR. F DATE: 22.12.2014 - -- - *#GH *#GH *#GH *#GH IH IH IH IH / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. APPELLANT / ) 2. RESPONDENT / *+) 3. THE CONCERNED CIT(A)/ J K , 4. THE CONCERNED CIT / J K 5. DR ITAT,RAIPUR BENCH/ H *## , . . . , 6. GUARD FILE/ . +H *# //TRUE COPY// / BY ORDER, / DY./ASST. REGISTRAR , /ITAT, RAIPUR