Sh. Subhash Chander Gupta S/o Sh. Tara Chand Proprietor, Ludhiana V. ITO, Ward -7(3), Ludhiana

ITA 362/CHANDI/2022

AI Insights

The case involves Subhash Chander Gupta, the proprietor of M/s Tarasons Woollen Mills, who appealed against the order of the PCIT, Ludhiana, which was passed under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The PCIT's order was based on the grounds that the original assessment did not adequately investigate certain transactions involving alleged bogus purchases, which were claimed to reduce profits. The Tribunal noted that the matter had been settled under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020, and a certificate of settlement had been issued, thus barring any reopening of the issue under section 263. The Tribunal also highlighted that the Assessing Officer had conducted a thorough examination of the purchases and applied a GP rate on the purchases, which was a plausible view.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 115343 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-03-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 01-03-2023
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 10-04-2022
• Other Referred Cases: Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT, Jai Commercial Co. Ltd. vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT, Desai Brothers Ltd. vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Gee Vee Enterprise vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax and Others, Lajja Wati Singhal, Smt. Vs CIT, K.A. Ramaswamy Chettiar And Anr. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Gopalkrishan Rajkumar vs. PCIT, PCIT vs. Manju Osatwal, Mr. Muthusamy Madhangopa vs. PCIT, M/s Sol India Pvt. Ltd. vs. PCIT, CIT vs. Bholenath Poly Feb Pvt. Ltd., PCIT vs. Rishabhdev Tachnocable Ltd.
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Accommodation entries; Competent authority; Assessment record
• Section: 147; 131; 148; 6; 263; 5(2); 143(1)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH “B”, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI. A. D. JAIN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.362/CHD/2022 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Subhash Chander Gupta S/o Shri Tara Chand Proprietor M/s Tarasons Woollen Mills, 287, Industrial Area-A, Ludhiana v. The ITO Ward 7(3) Ludhiana PAN:AEYPG7884A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.A. Respondent by: Shri Sarabjeet Singh CIT (DR) Date of hearing: 02 03 2023 Date of pronouncement: 23 03 2023 O R D E R PER A.D. JAIN, V.P.: This is assessee’s appeal against the order dated 25.3.2022 passed by the PCIT-I, Ludhiana, under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. By virtue of show cause notice (APB:1-3) dated 17.3.2022, issued to the assessee under section 263 of the I.T. Act, it was stated by the ld. PCIT that on examination of the assessment record, it was seen that the case had been reopened under section 147 of the I.T. Act and the assessment was completed vide order dated 28.12.2019, at an income of Rs.8,68,430/-, which included the addition of Rs.1,48,165/- made by the Assessing Officer by applying the GP rate @ 1.03% on total bogus purchases of Rs.1,43,85,000/- ; that the assessee had been asked to explain his business dealings with M/s Yuvraj ITA No. 362-Chd-2022 - Subhash Chander Gupta 2 Enterprises and M/s Shakti Enterprises, to whom, total credit entries of Rs.1,43,85,000/- had been transferred; that in response, the assessee had furnished only the copies of invoices in support of the purchases made from M/s Yuvraj Enterprises; that further, summons under section 131 of the I.T. Act had also been issued to the assessee for providing complete books of account along with purchase bills, sale bills and mode of transportation of purchases, freight, receipts/builties, etc.; that the statement of Shri Gaurav Pathak/Thakur, proprietor M/s Yuvraj Enterprises and M/s Shakti Enterprises was recorded by the DDIT (Investigation), Ludhiana, in which, he had stated and confirmed that there was no business conducted in these concerns and these were formed only for the purpose of providing accommodation entries and that the amounts received by cheque were returned in cash, etc.; that from the statement of Shri Gaurav Pathak/Thakur, proprietor M/s Yuvraj Enterprises and M/s Shakti Enterprises, it had clearly transpired that purchases shown by the assessee from M/s Yuvraj Enterprises were not genuine and the expenses had been claimed to reduce the profits; that the Assessing Officer had not made any enquiry during the assessment, in respect of purchases made from the concerns owned by Shri Gaurav Pathak/Thakur and accepted the assessee’s version in a routine manner; that sales, expenditure claimed as transactions of Rs.1,43,85,000/- remained unverified/unexplained and the expenses of Rs.1,43,85,000/- claimed by the assessee had been allowed without verification which, in view of the facts, were not allowable; that further, the assessee had also failed to produce the books of account, etc., for verification in response to summons under section 131 of the I.T. Act; that hence, transactions of Rs.1,43,85,000/- remained unverified/unexplained; and that in view of these facts, the ld. PCIT was of the prima-facie opinion that the errors/omissions and non- ITA No. 362-Chd-2022 - Subhash Chander Gupta 3 enquiry into the relevant facts had rendered the assessment order not only erroneous but also prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue in the purview of section 263 of the I.T. Act read with Explanation 2 thereto. 3. After considering the assessee’s reply (APB:4-13) dated 17.3.2022, the ld. PCIT passed the impugned order. Therein, inter alia, the ld. PCIT observed that in his reply, the assessee had stated that he had attended the hearing before the Assessing Officer, but the Assessing Officer had not attended, being busy, and he had requested the Assessing Officer to summon the concerned parties, namely M/s Yuvraj Enterprises and M/s Shakti Enterprises. The ld. PCIT observed that theses averments themselves showed that the Assessing Officer did not carry out required investigations and verifications; that if the assessee had asked the parties to be summoned, the Assessing Officer was required to consider this request and either issue summons to the parties or deal with the same in some suitable manner; that it was an undisputed fact that the assessee had failed to comply with the summons and he did not produce complete books of account along with purchase bills, sale bills and mode of transportation of purchases, freight, receipts/builties, etc., during the assessment proceedings; that it was also a fact that Shri Gaurav Pathak/Thakur, proprietor M/s Yuvraj Enterprises and M/s Shakti Enterprises, the alleged sellers of material to the assessee, had stated before the DDIT (Investigation), Ludhiana, that there was no business conducted in these concerns and these concerns had been formed only for the purpose of providing accommodation entries and that the amounts received by cheque were returned in cash; that thus, the claim of payment by banking channels should not have been accepted on face value without making further enquiries; that however, no ITA No. 362-Chd-2022 - Subhash Chander Gupta 4 enquiry of any worth had been conducted by the Assessing Officer; that the assessee had also submitted that he had availed the scheme under The Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 against the assessment order, which was accepted by the Department; that however, this fact had no effect on the issue which had been left to be investigated by the Assessing Officer; that as such, it was evident that the assessment order had been passed without enquiries or verification; that the Assessing Officer did not enquire/verify about the complete details and documentary evidence regarding the credit entries as appearing in the bank account, at Rs.1,43,85,000/-; that therefore, the Assessing Officer’s order was erroneous, as the Assessing Officer did not enquire/verify about the complete details and documentary evidences of availability of cash for the said cash deposits and it was also prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue, since the unexplained cash deposits had escaped taxation; that detailed and deep enquiries were required to be made on the issue, before accepting the claim of the assessee; that as per Explanation 2 to section 263 (1) of the I.T. Act, the order passed by the Assessing Officer shall be erroneous insofar as it is prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue for various reasons, including the fact that if in the opinion of the ld. PCIT, the order is passed without making any enquiry or verification, which should have been made, and also includes an order which is passed allowing any relief without enquiry into the claim. The ld. PCIT placed reliance on the following decisions: 1. ‘Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT’, order dated 10.2.2000, passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 2. ‘Jai Commercial Co. Ltd. vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax’, 66 TTJ (Del) 731. 3. ‘Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT’, 255 ITR 137 (Chennai). ITA No. 362-Chd-2022 - Subhash Chander Gupta 5 4. ‘Desai Brothers Ltd. vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax’, 66 ITD 203 (Pune). 5. ‘Gee Vee Enterprise vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax and Others’, 99 ITR 375 (Del.). 6. ‘Lajja Wati Singhal, Smt. Vs CIT’, 226 ITR 527 (All). 7. ‘K.A. Ramaswamy Chettiar And Anr. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax’, 220 ITR 657 (Mad.). 4. The ld. PCIT set aside the order to the file of the Assessing Officer for passing a fresh order in accordance with law in respect of the issue discussed, after giving sufficient opportunity of hearing to the assessee. 5. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal. 6. Challenging the impugned order, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has contended that the original return filed by the assessee was processed under section 143(1) of the I.T. Act; that thereafter, the Assessing Officer received information that credit entries aggregating to Rs.1,43,85,000/-, in the bank account of M/s Yuvraj Enterprises and M/s Shakti Enterprises, from the bank account of the assessee were not genuine; that during the assessment proceedings, the assessee contested that these payments made by him were against the purchase of material/goods from those parties and that these purchases were genuine; that the assessee had also filed a summary of his stock register and had discussed that he was maintaining stock register of the goods traded and manufactured by him; that the assessee had also filed a copy of the ledger account of the relevant parties as in his books; that the assessee had filed detailed reply and arguments before the Assessing Officer, stating that these purchases were genuine and that no addition on this account could be made; that on considering the issue, the reply of the assessee and the ITA No. 362-Chd-2022 - Subhash Chander Gupta 6 position of law, the Assessing Officer did not agree that the purchases were genuine; that he made addition, for which, he applied a GP rate of 1.03% on the quantum of purchases, thereby, making addition of Rs.1,48,165/-; that against the assessment order so passed, the assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) on 8.1.2020; that therein, the assessee challenged the reopening of the completed assessment under section 148 of the I.T. Act and also the addition made by applying the GP rate; that while the appeal was pending, The Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 came into force and the assessee opted for the same and settled, thereunder, the dispute regarding the addition made by the Assessing Officer concerning the alleged bogus purchases; that the ld. PCIT issued Certificate dated 2.4.2021, towards final settlement under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020, in Form No.5; that thereafter, the assessee filed an application dated 16.3.2021 before the ld. CIT(A) seeking withdrawal of his appeal, having availed the scheme under The Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 and having settled the matter finally thereunder; that it was thereafter, that the ld. PCIT issued show cause notice dated 17.3.2022 under section 263 of the I.T. Act to the assessee, in reply to which, besides making submissions on merits, stating that the matter has been thoroughly enquired into by the Assessing Officer and that the addition had already been made by applying the GP rate and that the issue stood also examined by the VAT Authorities in their assessment, the assessee stated that the issue had already been settled under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020, which reply has illegally been rejected by the ld. PCIT. It has been contended that a question already settled under The Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 cannot be revisited under section 263 of the I.T. Act. For this proposition, the following decisions have been relied on: 1. Gopalkrishan Rajkumar vs. PCIT, 445 ITR 577 (Mad.). ITA No. 362-Chd-2022 - Subhash Chander Gupta 7 2. PCIT vs. Manju Osatwal, 443 ITR 107 (Cal.). 3. Mr. Muthusamy Madhangopa vs. PCIT, order dated 1.7.2022 passed by the Chennai Tribunal in ITA No.142/CHNY/2021. 4. M/s Sol India Pvt. Ltd. vs. PCIT, order dated 18.8.2022, passed by the Chennai Tribunal in ITA No.348/CHNY/2022. 7. It has been contended that under the given facts and circumstances, as per the provisions of section 263(1), Explanation 1(c) of the I.T. Act, the ld. PCIT could not have assumed jurisdiction under section 263 of the I.T. Act. 8. It has been further contended that since the Assessing Officer had found the relevant purchases to have been entered in the stock register maintained by the assessee, the Assessing Officer applied GP rate on the purchases in question; that therefore, in case any addition was to be made, the same could be made only by applying the GP rate as had been done by the Assessing Officer. Reliance, in this regard, was placed on ‘CIT vs. Bholenath Poly Feb Pvt. Ltd.’, 355 ITR 290 (Guj.) and ‘PCIT vs. Rishabhdev Tachnocable Ltd.’, 424 ITR 338 (Bombay). It has been contended that since the Assessing Officer had thus taken a plausible view, the jurisdiction under section 263 of the I.T. Act could not have been invoked by the ld. PCIT; that even otherwise, evidently, the issue regarding purchases had been thoroughly examined by the Assessing Officer in the assessment proceedings and it was only thereafter, that the addition had been made by the Assessing Officer, by applying the GP rate; that as such too, jurisdiction under section 263 of the I.T. Act was wrongly invoked by the ld. PCIT. 9. In this manner, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has requested that the order under appeal be quashed on allowing the appeal filed by the assessee. ITA No. 362-Chd-2022 - Subhash Chander Gupta 8 10. The ld. D.R., on the other hand, has placed strong reliance on the impugned order. It has contended that, as correctly observed by the ld. PCIT, the assessee did not produce the complete books of account along with purchase bills, sale bills and mode of transportation of purchases, freight, receipts/builties, etc., during the assessment proceedings before the Assessing Officer; that the Assessing Officer did not carry out any investigation whatsoever into the matter, despite the fact that the proprietor of M/s Yuvraj Enterprises and M/s Shakti Enterprises had stated before the DDIT (Investigation), Ludhiana that no business had been conducted in the two concerns and that they had been formed merely for the purpose of providing accommodation entries, and that the amounts received by cheque had been returned in cash, denying the claim of payment through banking channels; that this claim had wrongly been accepted merely on its face value by the Assessing Officer, without making further enquiries; that the assessee having availed the scheme under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020, had no impact on the issue, which had not at all been examined by the Assessing Officer; that therefore, the credit entries amounting to Rs.1,43,85,000/-, as appearing in the bank account, went un-examined and un-taxed, rendering the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue; and that in these facts and circumstances, the order passed by the ld. PCIT, exercising his revisionary jurisdiction, is well versed, not requiring any interference; and that therefore, the appeal filed by the assessee, being without merit, be ordered to be dismissed. 11. We have heard the rival parties and have gone through the material placed on record. ITA No. 362-Chd-2022 - Subhash Chander Gupta 9 12. At the outset, it has not been disputed that the matter stands finally settled under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020. A Certificate (APB:47) in this regard has been issued in Form No.5, under Rule 7 of the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020, on 2.4.2021, by the PCIT, Ludhiana-1, i.e., by the same PCIT, who issued the impugned order dated 25.3.2022. For ready reference, the said Form No.5 is scanned and reproduced as under: ITA No. 362-Chd-2022 - Subhash Chander Gupta 10 13. Thus, the order for full and final settlement of tax arrears under section 5(2) read with section 6 of The Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 stood passed on 2.4.2021, before issuance of the show cause notice dated 17.3.2022, under section 263 of the I.T. Act. 14. It is also pertinent that on 15.4.2021, i.e., after the issuance of show cause notice dated 17.3.2022 under section 263 of the I.T. Act, the assessee, under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020, had filed her application (APB:50) before the ld. CIT(A), seeking permission for withdrawal of the assessee’s appeal, filed by the assessee against the assessment making addition by applying GP rate, by virtue of order dated 28.12.2019. 15. Section 5(3) of the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 is explicit, when it states that every order passed under section 5(1) of the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020, determining the amount payable under this Act, shall be conclusive as to the matters stated therein and no matter covered by such order shall be reopened in any other proceedings under the Income Tax Act or under any other law for the time being in force. There is, thus, an express bar to proceedings being continued/reopened under any law, including the Income Tax Act, once an order stands passed under section 5(1) of the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 determining the amount payable and concerning any matter covered by such order is not to be reopened. 16. In ‘Gopalkrishan Rajkumar vs. PCIT’ (supra), the question before the Hon'ble High Court was, as is the case herein, as to whether the proceedings initiated after the assessee had opted to settle the dispute under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020, were sustainable or not. Their Lordships held, inter alia, that section 6 of the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 makes it very clear that once there is compliance with the timelines specified under section 5, the ITA No. 362-Chd-2022 - Subhash Chander Gupta 11 designated authority shall not institute any proceedings in respect of an offence or aims or levy any penalty or charge any interest under the Income Tax Act in respect of the tax arrears; that Section 5 of the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 also makes it clear that save as otherwise expressly provided in sub-section(3) of Section 5 or Section 6, nothing contained in this Act shall be construed as conferring any benefit, concession or immunity on the declarant in any proceedings other than those in relation to which the declaration has been made; that the intention of the parliament in enacting the provisions of the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 is to bring a closure to disputes in respect of tax arrears; that such dispute cannot be re- opened once again under Section 263 of the Act; that once the assessee had opted to settle the dispute under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020, the proceedings initiated under Section 263 have to go; that by bringing in the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020, the Government intended to reduce the litigation, so that the taxpayers can buy peace with the Department; that the taxpayers whose appeals were pending at any level were entitled to avail benefit of the scheme; and that therefore, there was no justification in proceeding further with the impugned proceedings initiated by the first respondent under Section 263 of the Income Act. 17. In ‘PCIT vs. Manju Osatwal’ (supra), it has been held that Chapter IX of the Finance Act, 2016 is a complete code in itself; that it provides an opportunity to an assessee to offer income, which was not disclosed earlier, to tax; that Chapter IX provides for a special procedure for disclosure and charging income to tax; that it lays down the procedure for disclosure of such income, the rate of income tax and the penalty to be levied thereupon and the manner of making such payment; that under the IDS scheme, the competent authority has been vested with the power to accept the declaration made by the ITA No. 362-Chd-2022 - Subhash Chander Gupta 12 assessee and such power is to be exercised only upon being satisfied with such disclosure; that it is also open to such authority not to accept such declaration, but once accepted, the same attains finality; that the scheme does not empower and/or authorise the competent authority to reopen and/or revise a decision taken on such declaration; that the statutory authority has to function within the limits of the jurisdiction vested with him under the statute; that thus, once the declaration is accepted, the authority accepting is estopped from taking any steps which would in effect amount to reopening and/or revising the decision already taken on such declaration; that the IDS scheme was introduced in order to encourage an assessee to make a disclosure of the income not disclosed earlier; that the PCIT invoked power under Section 263 of the I.T. Act in respect of an item of income which was declared in terms of the said scheme; that all particulars were available before the PCIT in respect of such income and the PCIT, on being satisfied, accepted such declaration; that thus, if the contention of the Revenue that the PCIT has power to invoke Section 263 of the Act were to be accepted, it would frustrate the object behind introduction of such scheme; that the PCIT was not justified in invoking the power under Section 263 of the Act, as it would amount to revising a decision taken by the PCIT on such declaration by the Assessing Officer, which is not contemplated under the Income Tax Act; that thus, all materials were available before the PCIT when the declaration made under Section 183 of the Finance Act were considered and accepted; and that therefore, the assumption of jurisdiction by the PCIT under Section 263 of the Act is wholly without jurisdiction. 18. ‘PCIT vs. Manju Osatwal’ (supra) is directly applicable to the facts of the present case. Although the scheme in that case was the IDS Scheme, whereas the one at hand is the Vivad Se Vishwas ITA No. 362-Chd-2022 - Subhash Chander Gupta 13 Scheme, the question of invocation of power under section 263 of the I.T. Act is to be treated similarly in both the cases. Herein also, the declaration has been accepted, in view of the express provisions of sections 5 & 6 of the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020, invocation of power under section 263 of the I.T. Act cannot be sustained. 19. In ‘Mr. Muthusamy Madhangopa vs. PCIT’ (supra), cognizance of FAQ of Direct Tax was taken. Therein, it stood clarified that Section 5(3) of the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 restricts the rights of the Income-tax Authorities from reopening any issues under the I.T. Act; that the order passed by the designated authority is a conclusive, comprehensive and final order, in respect of matters covered by such order, including tax arrears and sums payable towards full and final settlement; that once the declarant makes payment of the amount so determined, the immunity springs into effect; that thereafter, it would not be open to the Income-tax authorities to sit over such orders and initiate any proceedings under the I.T Act. This case is also directly applicable to the facts at hand. 20. In ‘M/s Sol India Pvt. Ltd. vs. PCIT’ (supra), ‘Gopalkrishan Rajkumar vs. PCIT’ (supra) and ‘PCIT vs. Manju Osatwal’ (supra) were followed to similarly hold invocation of revisionary proceedings to be incompetent. Again, applicability of this decision to the present case cannot be controverted. 21. The above apart, as per the provisions of section 263(1), Explanation 1(c) of the I.T. Act, inter alia, where any order referred to in section 263(1) of the I.T. Act, and passed by the Assessing Officer, had been the subject matter of any appeal filed before 1.6.1988, the powers of the PCIT or Commissioner under section 263(1) of the I.T. Act shall extend to such matters as had not been considered and decided in such appeal. In the case at hand, as discussed, the ITA No. 362-Chd-2022 - Subhash Chander Gupta 14 addition made by the Assessing Officer by applying the GP rate, had been challenged by the assessee by way of appeal. The purchases qua which such addition had been made were, therefore, subject matter of appeal before the ld. CIT(A) and the ld. CIT(A) had passed his order on 15.4.2021. The show cause notice under section 263 of the I.T. Act had, on the other hand, been issued only on 17.3.2022, i.e., almost a year later. That being so, given the provisions of Explanation 1(c) to section 263(1) of the I.T. Act, the revisional jurisdiction under section 263 of the I.T. Act, by issuance of such show cause notice, could not have been assumed. ‘CIT vs. Bholenath Poly Feb Pvt. Ltd.’ (supra) and ‘PCIT vs. Rishabhdev Tchnocable Ltd.’ (supra) are eloquent in this regard. As per these decisions, as is the case herein also, the view taken by the Assessing Officer was a possible view, due to which, invocation of powers under section 263 of the I.T. Act could not have been done. 22. We find that the Assessing Officer, therefore, had carried out a thorough enquiry and examination of the purchases in question and it was only after such enquiry and examination that the addition was made by the Assessing Officer, by applying GP rate. 23. In this view of the matter, finding the grievance sought to be raised by the assessee to be justified, we agree with and accept the same. Accordingly, the order passed by the ld. PCIT under section 263 of the I.T. Act is quashed. 24. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 23/03/2023. Sd/- Sd/- [VIKRAM SINGH YADAV] [A. D. JAIN] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT DATED:23.03/2023 ITA No. 362-Chd-2022 - Subhash Chander Gupta 15 JJ:/rkk Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR By order Assistant Registrar