M/s Rolex Colours & Chemicals, RAJKOT-GUJARAT V. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), RAJKOT-GUJARAT

ITA 366/RJT/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8558 (ITAT-RAJKOT)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-08-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 30-07-2014
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 09-06-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AVINASH KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: MITUL MEHTA
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Bonafide belief
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBULAL, SMC BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE SHRI T. K. SHARMA, JM ITA NO.366/RJT/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09 M/S. ROTEX COLOURS & CHEMICALS, REFUGEE COLONY, PARSANAN NAGAR MAIN ROAD, RAJKOT PAN : AADFR 5870 L ( / APPELLANT) THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(2), RAJKOT / RESPONDENT / ASSESSEE BY SHRI DEEPAK SHAH, ADVOCATE & SHRI MITUL MEHTA, CA / REVENUE BY SHRI AVINASH KUMAR, DR / DATE OF HEARING 30.07.2014 !'# / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 12.08.2014 / ORDER THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST THE ORDER DA TED 05.03.2014 OF CIT(A)-I, RAJKOT CONFIRMING THE PENALTY OF RS.25,000/- LEVIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S. 271A OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT FOR FAILURE TO MAINTAIN BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AS PRESCRIBED U/S 44AA OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT FOR THE ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2008-09. 2. THE FACTS, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A PARTNERSHIP FIRM, ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF TRADING OF COLOURS AND CHEMICALS. FOR T HE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL, IT FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME ON 31.03.2009 DECLARI NG TOTAL INCOME AT RS. NIL AND THE SAME WAS PROCESSED U/S 143(1) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT , ON 26.09.2009. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AN D THE ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 ON AN INCOME OF RS.80,164/- BY MAKING ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF UNACCOUNTED PURCHASES AMOUNT ING TO RS.77,192/- PLUS AD-HOC DISALLOWANCE AMOUNTING TO RS.2,972/- OUT OF MISCELL ANEOUS EXPENDITURE CLAIMED. IN THIS ASSESSMENT ORDER THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO IN ITIATED PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271A OF THE ACT. SUBSEQUENTLY, VIDE ORDER DATED 05 .04.2011, THE ASSESSING OFFICER LEVIED THE PENALTY OF RS.25,000/- U/S 271A OF THE I NCOME-TAX ACT, ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO KEEP AND MAINTAIN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AS REQUIRED U/S 44AA OF THE ACT. ON APPEAL AGAINST THE PENALTY, BEFORE T HE LD. CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT IT WAS MAINTAINING BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS ON COMPUTER SYSTEM AND THE SAME WERE SUBMITTED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AL SO. THUS, THERE WAS NO CASE OF LEVY OF PENALTY. THE COPY OF THE COMPUTER BOOKS FOR AY 2008-09 WERE ALSO PRODUCED. 2 366-RJT-2014 - ROTEX COLOURS & CHEMICALS - 271A_PENALTY (SMC) THE LD. CIT(A) EXAMINED THE CASE RECORDS AND HELD T HAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WERE NOT SUBMITTED DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND WHAT IS SUBMITTED IS ONLY THE P&L ACCOUNTS AND BALANCE-SHEET FOR THE AY 2007-08. THE CONTENTION THAT THE APPELLANT HAS MAINTAINED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS FOR AY 2008-09 AND WERE SUBMITTED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT SUBSTANTIATED F ROM THE CASE RECORDS. HE THEREFORE CONFIRMED THE LEVY OF PENALTY OF RS.25,000/- LEVIED BY ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 271A OF THE IT ACT. THE APPELLANT IS, THEREFORE, IN FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL, ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- 1. BECAUSE, THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER AND CIT( A) PASSED THE ORDER WITHOUT TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION OF ABOVE MENTIONED LEDGERS AND FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS PRODUCED AND SUBMI T BEFORE HIM. 2. THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) I, RAJKOT ERRED ON FACTS AS THEY FAILS TO VERIFY THE COPY OF LEDGERS A ND FINANCIAL STATEMENTS THAT WE ALREADY SUBMITTED / PRODUCED BEFORE THE ASSESSING O FFICER AT THE TIME OF ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE AY 2008-09 AND ALSO NOT COMPARE THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS THAT WAS PRODUCED BEFORE HIM (CIT(A)-1, RAJKOT) DURING THE APPEAL PROCEEDINGS. 3. KINDLY QUASH THE DEMAND AS ALLOWED BY CIT(A), TH E ORDER WAS PASSED WITHOUT OPPORTUNITY BEING HEARD, WHICH IS BAD IN LA W. 4. YOUR HONOURS APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD/ALTER OR WITHDRAW ANY OR MORE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ON OR BEFORE THE DATE OF HEA RING. 3. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSE E, SHRI DEEPAK R. SHAH, ADVOCATE, APPEARED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. SHRI AVINAS H KUMAR, LD. DR, APPEARED FOR THE REVENUE OBJECTED THE APPEARANCE OF SHRI DEEPAK R. SHAH BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL ON THE GROUND BEING AN EX-MEMBER OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (IN SHORT ITAT) SHRI DEEPAK R. SHAH CANNOT APPEAR BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. AS AGAINST THIS, LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSE SSEE, SHRI DEEPAK R. SHAH POINTED OUT THAT AS PER THE LATEST DECISION OF ITAT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL BENCH IN THE CASE OF SHRI NANUBHAI D. DESAI V. THE ACIT IN ITA N O.2170/AHD/2005, DELIVERED ON 23.05.2014, IT WAS HELD THAT THE TRIBUNAL IS NOT CO MPETENT TO DECIDE THE ISSUE OF HIS APPEARANCE AS IT IS ALIENI JURIS. IN SUPPORT OF THIS, HE ALSO FILED SYNOPSIS OF HIS SUBMISSION, NOT ONLY ON HIS ELIGIBILITY BUT ALSO ON MERITS OF THE CASE, WHICH ARE EXTRACTED HEREUNDER:- A QUESTION IS RAISED AS TO ELIGIBILITY OF FORMER M EMBER OF INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (LTAT FOR SHORT) SHRI DEEPAK R. SHAH, C.A. & LLB AND DULY AUTHORIZED TO APPEAR BEFORE THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AND ARGUE THE CASE OF HIS CLIENT. IT IS CONTENDED T HAT ORIGINALLY A SPECIAL BENCH 3 366-RJT-2014 - ROTEX COLOURS & CHEMICALS - 271A_PENALTY (SMC) WAS CONSTITUTED BY HON'BLE PRESIDENT OF ITAT IN ITA NO. 2170/AHD/2005 IN CASE OF NANUBHAI D. DESAI V. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, S URAT UNDER SECTION 255 OF THE ACT. THE QUESTION REFERRED WAS AS UNDER: WHETHER SHRI DEEPAK R. SHAH, ADVOCATE AND EX-ACCOU NTANT MEMBER OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, IS DEBARRED F ROM PRACTICING BEFORE THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN VIEW OF THE INSERTION OF RULE 13 E IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MEMB ERS (RECRUITMENT AND CONDITIONS OF SERVICE) RULES, 1963?' THE SPECIAL BENCH HEARD THE MATTER ON 20101/2012 BU T DID NOT PASS ANY ORDER. SHRI DEEPAK SHAH, THEREFORE, PREFERRED A SPE CIAL CIVIL APPLICATION BEFORE THE HON'BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT. HON'BLE GUJA RAT HIGH COURT IN SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1530B OF 2013, BY ORDER DATED 26.12.2013 DISPOSED OFF THE PETITION BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: 'HEARD LEARNED ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER AND SHRI SYED FOR THE RESPONDENTS. THE PETITIONER HIMSELF IS ALSO PRESENT IN THE COURT AND HE WAS ALSO GRANTED AUDIENCE AT HIS REQUEST. THE PETIT IONER AND SHRI SYED INFORMED THE COURT THAT THE PRESIDENT OF THE TRIBUN AL HAD CONSTITUTED A SPECIAL BENCH UNDER THE ORDER DATED 27.5.2011 CONST ITUTING OF THREE MEMBERS FOR DECIDING THE FOLLOWING QUESTION:- WHETH ER SHRI DEEPAK R. SHAH, ADVOCATE AND EX-ACCOUNTANT MEMBER OF THE INCO ME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, IS DEBARRED FORM PRACTICING BEF ORE THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN VIEW OF THE INSERTION OF RULE 13E IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MEMBERS (RECRUITMENT AND CON DITIONS OF SERVICE) RULES, 1963? THE SPECIAL BENCH ACCORDINGLY HEARD AND COMPLETED THE HEARING ON 20.1.2012, HOWEVER, THEREA FTER THE DECISION IS NOT PRONOUNCED. SHRI SYED IN ADDITION TO IT, SUBMIT S THAT THERE ARE INTERVENING CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH ARE ALSO REQUIRED T O BE BORNE-IN-MIND IN FORM OF RESOLUTION/AMENDMENT OF THE BAR COUNCIL TOUCHING UPON THIS ASPECT. THE PETITIONER-IN-PERSON REQUESTED THE COURT THAT LET THERE BE A DIRECTION TO RESPONDENT NOS. 1 & 2 TO CONSTITU TE THE BENCH AS NOW ONE MEMBER WHO HAD EARLIER HEARD THE MATTER HAD RET IRED AND DECIDE THE REFERENCE AFRESH WITHIN A STIPULATED PERIOD OF THREE MONTHS, TO WHICH SHRI SYED DID NOT HAVE ANY OBJECTION. ACCORDINGLY, WITHOUT GOING INTO MERITS OF THE MATTER, AT THE REQUEST OF LEARNED ADV OCATE FOR THE PETITIONER AND PETITIONER HIMSELF, THIS COURT IS IN CLINED T DISPOSE OF THE MATTER WITH A DIRECTION TO RESPONDENT NO. 1 & 2 TO RE-CONSTITUTE THE SPECIAL BENCH FOR DECIDING THE REFERENCE AFORESAID WITHIN A PERIOD OF THREE MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF RECEIPT OF THE WRIT O F THIS ORDER. MEANING THEREBY THE ENTIRE EXERCISE OF RECONSTITUTING SPECI AL BENCH AND HEARING OF THE REFERENCE AND DISPOSING OF THE SAME SHALL BE COMPLETED WITHIN THREE MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF RECEIPT OF THIS ORDER . SHRI SHAH THE PETITIONER, IN VIEW OF ABOVE DIRECTIONS DOES NOT PR ESS THIS PETITION. ACCORDINGLY THE PETITION IS DISPOSED OF. THE COURT HAS NOT ENTERED INTO MERITS OF THE MATTER AND ALL THE CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES ARE KEPT OPEN. RULE DISCHARGED. NO COSTS.' AS PER THE DIRECTION OF HON'BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT A SPECIAL BENCH (CONSISTING OF HONBLE VICE PRESIDENT, A JUDI CIAL MEMBER AND AN ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) WAS AGAIN CONSTITUTED TO DECIDE THE SAME QUESTION AS REFERRED EARLIER. BY MAJORITY VIEW, THE SPECIAL BEN CH IN THE CASE OF SHRI NANUBHAI D. DESAI VIS. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE SURAT I N ITA NO.2170/AHD/2005 DATED 23/05/2014 HELD AS UNDER: 4. WE HAVE HEAD BOTH THE SIDES AT LENGTH. FROM THE RECORDS OF THE CASE, WE HAVE NOTED THAT LEARNED SHRI DEEPAK R. SHA H WAS APPOINTED AS ACCOUNTANT MEMBER OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TR IBUNAL ON 29TH OF NOVEMBER, 2001. HE WAS CONFIRMED ON 29.11.2003. LAT ER ON, HE HAS RESIGNED AS A MEMBER OF THE TRIBUNAL ON 01.04.2 010. AT THIS JUNCTURE, IT IS WORTH TO MENTION THAT RULE 13-E IN (RECRUITMENT AND 4 366-RJT-2014 - ROTEX COLOURS & CHEMICALS - 271A_PENALTY (SMC) CONDITIONS OF SERVICES) RULES, 1963 WAS INSERTED VI DE A NOTIFICATION DATED 3RD OF JUNE, 2009, ALREADY REPRODUCED SUPRA. 5. AT THE OUTSET, IT IS WORTH TO MENTION THAT WHET HER THIS SPECIAL BENCH IS ENTITLED TO DECIDE THE APPLICABILITY OF TH E PROVISIONS OF RULE 13E OF MEMBERS (RECRUITMENT AND CONDITIONS OF SERVI CE) RULES, 1963. THERE IS A CARDINAL RULE THAT MEMO DEBET ESSE JUDEX IN PROPRIA CAUSA (NO ONE SHOULD BE A JUDGE IN HIS OWN CAUSE). 5.1 THE QUESTION WAS RAISED IN THE CASE OF CONCEPT CREATIONS 120 ITD 19 (SB) (DEL) AND A VIEW WAS TAKEN THAT THE SPECIAL BENCH SO CONSTITUTED WAS COMPETENT TO GO IN TO THE SAID QUESTION RAISED BEFORE THE BENCH. BUT AS PRESENT TH AT POSITION HAS BEEN ALTERED. AT THIS JUNCTURE, IT IS ALSO WORTH TO MENT ION THAT AT PRESENT THE LEGAL POSITION IS THAT'S THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH, IN THE CASE OF DINESH CHA NDRA, AGARWAL VS. UNION OF INDIA (SERVICE BENCH NO. 62 OF 2012) V IDE AN ORDER DATED 19TH OF JANUARY 2012 HAS HELD THAT THE JUDGMENT REN DERED IN THE CASE OF CONCEPT CREATIONS (SUPRA) WAS BEYOND ITS PALE OF TA X APPEALS AS CONTAINED IN THE INCOME TAX ACT, VIDE SECTIONS 253 AND 254 THEREOF THE RELEVANT PORTION IS EXTRACTED BELOW: A PER RULE 13E OF THE RULES NOTIFIED ON JUNE 3, 20 09 WHEREBY THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MEMBERS (RECRUITM ENT AND CONDITIONS' OF SERVICE) RULES, 1963 HAS BEEN AMENDE D, A BAN HAS BEEN IMPOSED ON PRACTICE BY THE RETIRED MEMBERS BEF ORE THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULE 13E AS AFORESAID ON REP RODUCTION READS AS: 13E. THE PRESIDENT, THE SENIOR VICE-PRESIDENT, THE VICE-PRESIDENT AND THE MEMBERS OF THE TRIBUNAL SHAL L NOT PRACTICE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AFTER RETIREMENT FROM THE SERVI CE OF THE TRIBUNAL.' THOUGH, PRIMA FACIE, THE RULE APPEARS TO BE A CORRECT NOTIFICATION SUPPOSEDLY ISSUED IN PUBLIC IN TEREST IN LINE WITH THE RULES AND PRACTICE CLAMPING BAN ON THE LEGAL PRACTI CE BY THE RETIRED JUDGES OF HIGH COURT IN THE COURTS WHERE THEY REMAI N POSTED AS PERMANENT JUDGE AND THE TRIBUNALS AND COURTS SUBORD INATE TO HIGH COURT, HOWEVER, IT APPEARS TO BE OFFENSIVE IN TWO R ESPECTS; NAMELY, THAT THE RETIRED MEMBERS HAVE BEEN COMPLETELY BARRED FRO M PRACTICE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, AND SECONDLY, THAT THE AFORESAID RULE 13E HAS BEEN INTERPRETED TO APPLY RETROSPECTIVELY IN THE JUDGMEN T RENDERED IN THE CASE OF CONCEPT CREATIONS VS. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE PANIPAT REPORTED IN (2009) 120 ITD 19 (DELHI) (SPECIAL BENCH) BY THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI, BEYOND ITS PALE OF TAX APPEAL AS CONTAINED IN THE INCOME TAX ACT VIDE SECT IONS 253 AND 254 THEREOF' 5.2 HENCE THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE SPECIAL BENCH IN T HE CONCEPT CREATION (SUPRA) ABOUT THE COMPETENCE OF THE TRIBUN AL BENCHES TO HEAR SERVICE RELATED ISSUES, INCLUDING SPECIAL BENCH, NO W STOOD REVERSED. MOREOVER, AS ON DATE, THERE IS NO OTHER DECISION OF ANY OTHER HON'BLE HIGH COURT BEFORE US. THE TRIBUNAL BENCHES AS ALSO THE SPECIAL BENCH ARE SUBORDINATE TO THE HIGH COURTS. IN THE HIERARCH ICAL JUDICIAL SYSTEM AN ACCEPTED RULE TO FOLLOW A PRECEDENT IS THAT, QUO TE 'THE BETTER WISDOM OF THE COURT BELOW HAS TO YIELD TO HIGHER WISDOM OF THE COURT ABOVE. ONCE AN AUTHORITY HIGHER THAN THE TRIBUNAL HAS EXPR ESSED AN OPINION ON SOME ISSUE, THEN THE TRIBUNAL IS NO LONGER AT LIBER TY TO RELY UPON ITS EARLIER DECISION, MAY BE A DECISION OF THE SPECIAL BENCH' UNQUOTE. THIS IS A SETTLED RULE HENCE EVEN A NON-JURISDICTIONAL H IGH COURT ORDER DO NOT ALTER THE POSITION AND THEREFORE TO BE FOLLOWED, IF NOT DISSENTED. 5 366-RJT-2014 - ROTEX COLOURS & CHEMICALS - 271A_PENALTY (SMC) HENCE, THE TRIBUNAL BEING A SUBORDINATE COURT, IS E XPECTED TO FOLLOW IN LETTER AND SPIRIT AN ORDER OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT, UNLESS AND UNTIL EITHER REVERSED BY THE HON'BLE APEX COURT OR BY AN ORDER OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT TAKING A CONTRADICTORY VI EW. HENCE, THE DECISION OF THE SPECIAL BENCH PRONOUNCED IN THE CAS E OF CONCEPT CREATION (SUPRA) IS NO MORE A GOOD LAW ON THIS ISSU E BEING REVERSED BY THE HON'BLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT. SO THE PRESENT LE GAL POSITION IS THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS NO INHERENT JURISDICTION TO DECIDE THE QUESTION AS TO WHETHER AN EX-MEMBER OF THE TRIBUNAL CAN APPEAR AND PRACTICE BEFORE THE INCOME TAX TRIBUNAL BENCHES. SINCE, WE HAVE FOL LOWED THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE ALLAHBAD HIGH COURT; THEREF ORE, CERTAIN ALLIED QUESTION ABOUT THE APPLICABILITY OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 288 OF IT ACT NEED NOT TO BE ADDRESSED BY US IN THIS ORDER. L IKEWISE, THE QUESTION OF AN APPEALABLE ORDER BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AS PRESC RIBE U/S.253 IS NOT REQUIRED TO BE ADJUDICATED UPON BY US IN THE PRESEN T APPEAL. WE ARE ALSO NOT ENTERTAINING ONE OF THE ARGUMENTS OF LEARN ED MR. SHAH THAT IN TERMS OF SECTION 254 OF IT ACT THE APPELLATE TRIBUN AL IS ENTITLED TO 'PASS SUCH ORDERS THEREON AS IT THINKS FIT'. 5.3 RESULTANTLY OUR CONSCIENTIOUS DECISION IS THAT IN THE LIGHT OF THE DECISION OF THE HIGH COURT IT IS BEYOND OUR JURISDI CTION TO DECIDE THE ISSUE ON MERITS AND THAT PART OF THE CONCEPT CREATI ON (SUPRA) NOW STOOD OVERRULED BY THE HON'BLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT. THE VIRES OF RULE 13E, WHETHER IT IS ULTRA-VIRES OR INTRA-VIRES, IS A SUBJ ECT NOT FALLING WITHIN OUR JURISDICTION. 5.4 BEFORE US LEARNED STANDING COUNSEL MRS. BHATT HAS REFERRED ARTICLE 309 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA WHICH PRES CRIBES THE RECRUITMENT AND CONDITIONS OF SERVICE OF PERSONS SERVING THE UN ION OR STATE. SHE HAS SAID THAT A PARTICULAR LEGISLATURE MAY REGULATE THE RECRUITMENT AND CONDITIONS OF SERVICE OF PERSONS APPOINTED TO PUBLI C SERVICES AND POSTS IN CONNECTION WITH THE AFFAIRS OF THE UNION OR OF A NY STATE. SHE HAS ALSO POINTED OUT THAT AS PER ONE OF THE PROVISO, IT IS P RESCRIBED THAT IT SHALL BE COMPETENT FOR THE HON'BLE PRESIDENT OF INDIA, OR SU CH PERSON AS MAY BE DIRECTED, IN THE CASE OF SERVICES AND POSTS TO MAKE RULES REGULATING THE RECRUITMENT AND CONDITIONS OF SERVICE OF PERSONS AP POINTED AND ANY RULE SO MADE SHALL HAVE EFFECT SUBJECT TO THE PROVI SIONS OF ANY SUCH ACT. SHE HAS CLARIFIED THAT THE PURPOSE OF CITING ARTICL E 309 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA IS THAT IF MR. SHAH IS AGGRIE VED BY THE INSERTION OF RULE 13E THEN HE SHOULD HAVE APPROACHED THE COMPETE NT AUTHORITY TO DECIDE THE VIRES OF RULE 13E. THE INCOME TAX TRIBUN AL IS NOT THE CORRECT FORUM FOR REDRESSAL OF SUCH GRIEVANCE. SHE HAS FURTHER CLARIFIED THAT THE RECRUITMENT AS A MEMBER OF THE TRIBUNAL IS CLASSIFIED UNDER RULE 8 GENERAL CENTRAL CIVIL SERVICES CLASS-I (GROUP-A M EMBER), HENCE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL MAY BE THE PROPER F ORUM TO DECIDE THE APPLICABILITY OF THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 13E OF THE NOTIFICATION. WE FIND FORCE IN THIS ARGUMENTS OF LEARNED STANDING COUNSEL; HENCE, PUT THIS CONTROVERSY AT REST THAT THE GRIEVANCE BEI NG NOT EMERGING FROM AN ORDER OF TAX AUTHORITIES AS PRESCRIBED UNDER SEC TION 253 OF IT ACT (ORDER APPEALABLE BEFORE THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ), THEREFORE THIS TRIBUNAL IS NOT COMPETENT TO DECIDE THIS ISSUE WHIC H IS RELATED TO THE SERVICE CONDITIONS OF THE MEMBERS. 9. THE QUESTION REFERRED TO US IS ALIENI JURIS HEN CE FORBIDDEN TO ADJUDICATE. THE 3RD MEMBER OF THE SAID BENCH HELD AS UNDER: 2.1.7 I LIKE TO OBSERVE THAT AS THE HON'BLE PRESID ENT HAS RECONSTITUTED THIS SPECIAL BENCH AND REFERRED THE ABOVE QUESTION TO BE DECIDED BY THIS SPECIAL BENCH ON THE DIRECTION OF THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT DATED 11.02.2014 WHICH HAS BEEN PASSED AFTER INTERIM ORDER 6 366-RJT-2014 - ROTEX COLOURS & CHEMICALS - 271A_PENALTY (SMC) DATED 19.01.2012 OF THE HON'BLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COUR T, IN MY CONSIDERED VIEW, THIS SPECIAL BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IS DUTY BOUND TO DECIDE THE REFERRED QUESTION AS NO MATERIAL WAS BRO UGHT BEFORE US THAT THE AFORESAID DIRECTION OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT WAS VARIED SUBSEQUENTLY BY THE HON'BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT OR H ON'BLE SUPREME COURT. 2.1.8 I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO PLACE ON RECORD THE SUB MISSION OF SHRI DEEPAK R. SHAH WHICH WAS TO THE EFFECT THAT A RULE WHICH IS IN THE NATURE OF SUBORDINATE LEGISLATURE CANNOT OVERRIDE A N ACT OF PARLIAMENT UNLESS THE ACT OF PARLIAMENT SPECIFICALLY PROVIDES SO. IN THE INSTANT CASE, SECTION 288 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, WHIC H WAS PASSED BY THE PARLIAMENT NOWHERE PROVIDES THAT THE PROVISIONS OF THAT SECTION SHALL BE SUBJECT TO ANY RULE MADE BY ANY AUTHORITY. THEREFORE, IN MY CONSIDERED VIEW, RULE 13E OF 'INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (RECRUITMENT AND CONDITIONS OF SERVICE) RULES, 1963 , CANNOT OVERRIDE THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 288 OF THE ACT. IF A PERS ON VIOLATES A RULE WHICH HAS BEEN MADE UNDER 'INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (RECRUITMENT AND CONDITION IS OF SERVICE) RULES, 1963', CONSEQUE NCES OF SUCH VIOLATION PRESCRIBED BY THE LAW SHALL FOLLOW B UT THE SAME CANNOT BE HELD AS OVERRIDING THE PROVISIONS OF AN ACT PASSED BY THE PARLIAMENT. 2.1.9 FURTHER, IT MAY BE APPROPRIATE TO ALSO OBSERV E THAT THOUGH THE POWER OF THE TRIBUNAL U/S. 253 IS TO ADJUDICATE THE ISSUES ARISING OUT OF ORDERS PASSED BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AS PRESCRIBE D IN THE SECTION AND PASS SUCH ORDERS THEREON AS IT DEEMS FIT, BUT AT TH E SAME TIME, THE TRIBUNAL HAS INHERENT AND INCIDENTAL POWER TO R EGULATE THE PROCEEDINGS WHICH ARE CONDUCTED BEFORE IT. FOR EXAM PLE, RULE 17A OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES, 1963 PRESC RIBES FOR THE DRESS CODE OF THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PARTIES BEFORE I T. THEREFORE, IF A REPRESENTATIVE APPEARING BEFORE IT IS IN PROPER DRE SS AS PER THE SAID RULE OR NOT IS TO BE DECIDED BY THE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNA L BEFORE WHICH HE OR SHE IS APPEARING. TO SAY THAT THE BENCH OF THE TRIB UNAL HAS NO JURISDICTION TO DECIDE THIS INCIDENTAL MATTER AS BE CAUSE THIS ISSUE IS NOT ARISING OUT OF THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES, IN MY VIEW IS PREPOSTEROUS. 2.1.10 FURTHER, IN OTHER WORDS, WHEN THE TRIBUNAL CANNOT ADJUDICATE WHETHER AN EX-MEMBER OF THE TRIBUNAL CAN APPEAR BEF ORE IT AS AN AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OR NOT, THE NATURAL CONSE QUENCE OF THE VIEW IS THAT THE TRIBUNAL CANNOT DEBAR AN EX-MEMBER OF T HE TRIBUNAL FROM APPEARING AS AN AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE. 2.1.11 IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, THE ANSWER TO TH E QUESTION REFERRED TO THIS SPECIAL BENCH ON THE DIRECTION OF THE HON'BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT, OUGHT TO BE, IN MY OPINION, THAT SHRI DEEPAK R. SHA H, ADVOCATE AND EX- MEMBER OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CANNOT BE DEBARRED BY THE TRIBUNAL FORM PRACTICING BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL BE NCHES. I THEREFORE, HOLD SO. MY ABOVE VIEW IS FORTIFIED BY THE VIEW EXP RESSED BY THE HON'BLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN ITS INTERIM ORDER DATED 19. 01.2012 IN THE CASE OF DINESH CHANDRA AGARWAL VS. UDI THROUGH SECR ETARY, MINISTRY OF LAW & JUSTICE, NEW DELHI IN SERVICE BENCH NO. 62 OF 2012, WHEREBY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT STAYED THE OPERATION OF THE DECISION OF THE SPECIAL BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF CONCEP T CREATIONS VS. ACIT, RANGE PANIPAT (SUPRA). 2.1.12 IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, I ANSWER THE REFERRED QUESTION TO THE SPECIAL BENCH THAT THE TRIBUNAL CANNOT DEBAR SHRI D EEPAK R. SHAH, ADVOCATE AND EX-MEMBER OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL WHO IS AN AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE U/S. 288 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 TO APPEAR AND PRACTICE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL BENCHES. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, IT IS CONTENDED BY MR. DEEPAK R. SHAH THAT HE CANNOT BE DEBARRED FROM PRACTICE BEFORE IT AT FOR T HE REASON THAT IF THE 7 366-RJT-2014 - ROTEX COLOURS & CHEMICALS - 271A_PENALTY (SMC) TRIBUNAL HAS NO POWER TO DECIDE SUCH ISSUE, THE TRI BUNAL IS ALSO NOT COMPETENT TO DEBAR ALSO AS DEBARRING WILL AMOUNT TO EXERCISIN G THE POWER OF DECIDING SUCH ISSUE. THUS, ON ONE HAND TO SAY IT HAS NO POWE R TO DECIDE SUCH ISSUE AND ON THE OTHER HAND TO DEBAR HIM WILL AMOUNT TO E XERCISING POWER TO DECIDE WHICH WILL BE SELF CONTRADICTORY. IT IS ALSO CONTEN DED THAT THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IS A CREATION OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961 ITSELF. THE POWERS WHICH ARE CONFERRED ON IT AT ARE THOSE WHICH ARE EN UMERATED IN SECTIONS 253 AND 254 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961. WHILE APPEALABL E ORDERS ARE ENUMERATED IN SECTION 253 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, MANNER OF PAS SING ORDER THEREON IS ENUMERATED UNDER SECTION 254 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. AS PER SEC. 254, THE APPEAL IS TO BE DECIDED AFTER GIVING BOTH THE PARTI ES TO AN APPEAL, AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. THE PARTIES TO THE APPE AL CAN BE HEARD THROUGH THEIR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE AS ENVISAGED UNDER SECTION 288 OF THE ACT. IT IS THEREFORE CONTENDED THAT THE ITA T BEING CREATION O F STATUE CAN DECIDE THE APPEAL AFTER HEARING THE PARTIES OR THEIR AUTHORIZE D REPRESENTATIVE AS ENUMERATED IN SECTION 288 ONLY. SHRI DEEPAK R. SHAH BEING A LEGAL PRACTIONER AND ALSO AN ACCOUNTANT AS REFERRED IN SUB CLAUSE (I II) AND (IV) RESPECTIVELY OF SUB SECTION (2) OF SECTION 288 QUALIFIES TO BE AN A UTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE AS ENVISAGED UNDER SECTION 288 OF THE ACT. IT IS THERE FORE CONTENDED THAT HE IS A PERSON WHO IS ENTITLED TO APPEAR AND WHO CANNOT BE DEBARRED FROM PRACTICING BEFORE ITAT. THEREFORE IF THE QUESTION SO REFERRED BEFORE THE SPECIAL BENCH IS 'ALIENI JURIS' AND IF ITAT IS NOT COMPETENT TO ADJ UDICATE THE SAME, THEN IN THE SAME BREATH, THE ITAT CANNOT DEBAR ALSO AND ON THE CONTRARY BEING QUALIFIED U/S.288 OF THE ACT IS ENTITLED TO APPEAR. 4. APART FROM THE AFORESAID WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS, TH E LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT BEING AN ADVOCATE, HE IS DULY AUTHOR IZED BY THE ASSESSEE TO REPRESENT HIS CASE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AS PER SECTION 288 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. FURTHER, BEING AN ADVOCATE, HE CAN PRACTICE BEFORE THE ITAT AS A MATTER OF RIGHT IN VIEW OF THE LATEST NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY LAW MINISTRY BRINGING INTO FORCE SECTION 30 OF THE ADVOCATES ACT, 1961 WITH EFFECT FROM JUNE 15, 2011. THE SECTION 30 OF THE ADVOCATES ACT, 1961 READS AS UNDER:- SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT, EVERY ADVOC ATE WHOSE NAME IS ENTERED IN THE STATE ROLL SHALL BE ENTITLED AS OF RIGHT TO PRACTISE THROUGHOUT THE TERRITORIES TO WHICH THIS ACT EXTENDS,- (I) IN ALL COURTS INCLUDING THE SUPREME COURT; (II) BEFORE ANY TRIBUNAL OR PERSON LEGALLY AUTHORIS ED TO TAKE EVIDENCE; AND (III) BEFORE ANY OTHER AUTHORITY OR PERSON BEFORE W HOM SUCH ADVOCATE IS BY OR UNDER ANY LAW FOR THE TIME BEING IN FORCE ENTITLED TO PRACTISE. REFERRING TO ABOVE SECTION, HE POINTED OUT THAT AS PER SECTION 30 OF THE ADVOCATES ACT, 1961, AN ADVOCATE WHOSE NAME IS ENTE RED IN THE STATE ROLL SHALL BE ENTITLED AS A MATTER OF RIGHT TO PRACTISE BEFORE AN Y TRIBUNAL OR PERSON LEGALLY AUTHORIZED TO TAKE EVIDENCE, AMONGST OTHERS. 5. ON MERIT, THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE DREW M Y ATTENTION TO PARAGRAPH 5 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) WHICH READS AS UND ER:- 8 366-RJT-2014 - ROTEX COLOURS & CHEMICALS - 271A_PENALTY (SMC) 5. THE APPELLANT HAS CONTENDED THAT IT WAS MAINTAI NING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS ON COMPUTER AND THE SAME WERE SUBMITTED BE FORE THE AO. THUS, THERE WAS NO CASE FOR LEVY OF PENALTY. THE APPELLAN T ALSO SUBMITTED COPY OF COMPUTERIZED BOOKS FOR A.Y. 08-09. IN ORDER TO VERI FY THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT, THE CASE RECORD WAS CALLED FOR AND EXAMI NED. IT IS SEEN THAT NO SUCH BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WERE SUBMITTED BY THE APPELLANT D URING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. WHAT WAS SEEN ON RECORD WAS P&L ACCOUN T AND THE BALANCE SHEET FOR THE YEAR ENDING 31.03.2007, I.E. AY 2007- 08. THUS, THE APPELLANTS CONTENTION THAT IT HAD MAINTAINED BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS FOR A.Y. 2008-09 AND SUBMITTED BEFORE THE A.O. IS NOT SUBSTANTIATED FROM THE CASE RECORD. THE PENALTY LEVIED BY THE A.O. IS HELD TO BE ON A SOUND FOOTING AND IS HEREBY CONFIRMED. ALL THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE DISMISSED. HE FURTHER SUB MITTED THAT IN THE PENALTY ORDER TH E ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MENTIONED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRODUCED THE BO OKS OF ACCOUNTS; WHEREAS THE FACTS IS THAT ON ACCOUNT OF CONFUSION BETWEEN THE F INANCIAL YEAR AND ASSESSMENT YEAR, BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THE ASSESSEE PRO DUCED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS FOR THE AY 2007-08 WHICH WERE AVAILABLE IN THE ASSESSME NT RECORDS. THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS FOR THE AY 2008-09 WERE DULY MAINTAINED AN D THE SAME WERE PRODUCED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT TO TAL ASSESSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE IS LESS THAN RS.1,20,000/- AND TOTAL TURNO VER IS ALSO LESS THAN RS.10,00,000/- AS MENTIONED IN SECTION 44AA OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. THEREFORE, BEING A SMALL TAX PAYER, THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HA VE TAKEN A LENIENT VIEW AND SHOULD HAVE CANCELLED THE PENALTY OF RS. 25,000/- LEVIED B Y THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 271A OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT DUE TO BONAFIDE CONFUSION BET WEEN FINANCIAL YEAR AND THE ASSESSMENT YEAR BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THE BO OKS OF ACCOUNTS FOR THE AY 2007-08 WERE PRODUCED IN LIEU OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS FOR THE AY 2008-09. TO SUM UP, LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE PLEADED THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS MAINTAINED BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND THE SAME WERE ALSO PRODUCED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), THE PENALTY OF RS.25,000/- LEVIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BE CANC ELLED. 6. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DR VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED T HE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). HE POINTED OUT THAT SINCE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WAS NOT PRODUCED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE PENALTY OF RS.25,000/- WAS RIGHTLY LEVIED BY THE ASSESSING OFF ICER UNDER SECTION 271A OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT AND CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A) AND, THEREFORE THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) BE UPHELD. 9 366-RJT-2014 - ROTEX COLOURS & CHEMICALS - 271A_PENALTY (SMC) 7. I HAVE CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE SECTION 252(1) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 READS AS UNDER : - 252 (1) THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT SHALL CONSTITUTE AN APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CONSISTING OF AS MANY JUDICIAL AND ACCOUNTANT MEMBE RS AS IT THINKS FIT TO EXERCISE THE POWERS AND DISCHARGE THE FUNCTIONS CON FERRED ON THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BY THIS ACT. SECTION 253 PRESCRIBES WHICH ORDERS AND BY WHOM CA N BE APPEALED BEFORE THE ITAT. SINCE THE OBJECTIONS RAISED DO NOT FALL IN AN Y OF THE CLAUSE MENTIONED IN SECTION 253, THE SAME CANNOT BE CHALLENGED BEFORE THE ITAT. THE CONTROVERSY RAISED BY THE LD. DR IS NOT A CONTROVERSY ENVISAGED IN SECTION 25 3 OF THE ACT AND SINCE THE ITAT IS CREATED ONLY TO EXERCISE THE POWERS AND DISCHARGE T HE FUNCTIONS CONFERRED ON IT BY THE INCOME-TAX ACT ONLY. THE ITAT CANNOT GO BEYOND THE POWERS CONFERRED ON IT. IF THAT THE CASE, AND IF THE SAME IS THE VIEW OF THE M AJORITY IN THE SPECIAL BENCH CASE CITED (SUPRA) DECIDED ON 23.05.2014, THE ITAT HAS T O FUNCTION AS PER THE LAW PROPOUNDED UNDER THE INCOME-TAX ONLY. IF AS PER TH E MAJORITY VIEW ON SUCH ISSUE, THE ITAT IS ALIENI JURIS AND HENCE FORBIDDEN TO ADJUDICATE THE ISSUE REGAR DING THE ELIGIBILITY OF A FORMER MEMBER OF ITAT IN VIEW OF R ULE 13E OF INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MEMBERS (RECRUITMENT AND CONDITIONS OF SER VICE) RULES, 1963. THE SAME IS NOT WITHIN THE POWER TO EXAMINE SUCH ISSUE. THE ITAT HAS TO EXAMINE THE ONLY SCHEME OF THE ACT AND WHETHER U/S 288 OF THE ACT, T HE PERSON APPEARING BEFORE THE ITAT IS AN AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OR NOT. IN T HE CASE BEFORE ME, THE ASSESSEE IS A SMALL TAX PAYER. HIS TOTAL INCOME IS LESS THAN ON E LAC. PRIMA-FACIE IT APPEARS THAT WHILE APPOINTING SHRI DEEPAK R. SHAH, ADVOCATE, AS HIS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE U/S 288 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT TO REPRESENT HIS CASE , THE ASSESSEE WAS OF THE BONAFIDE BELIEF THAT SHRI DEEPAK R. SHAH BEING AN A DVOCATE . THEREFORE, REFUSING TO DECIDE THIS APPEAL WILL AMOUNT TO CAUSING UNDUE HARASSMENT TO THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND WITHOUT G OING INTO CONTROVERSY THAT WHETHER SHRI DEEPAK R. SHAH WHO IS EX-MEMBER OF ITAT CAN/CA NNOT BE DEBARRED FROM PRACTICING BEFORE ITAT, I PROCEED TO DECIDE THE APP EAL OF THE ASSESSEE ON MERITS. 8. I HAVE CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AS WELL AS THE REASONING GIVEN BY THE LD. CIT(A) IN PARAGRAPH 5 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER FOR CONFIRMING 10 366-RJT-2014 - ROTEX COLOURS & CHEMICALS - 271A_PENALTY (SMC) THE PENALTY. FROM PARAGRAPH 5 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER , IT CAN BE SEEN THAT BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE HAS PRODUCED THE COMPUTERIZ ED BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS FOR THE AY 2008-09. HOWEVER, THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WERE ALSO P RODUCED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER BUT THOSE WERE FOR THE AY 2007-08. FOR THIS REASON, IT APPEARS THAT THERE WAS A DIFFERENCE IN PURCHASE FIGURES. BE THAT IT MAY BE , IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITION OF RS.77192/- ON AC COUNT OF UNACCOUNTED PURCHASES. PRIMA-FACIE IT APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MAINTAINED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL. THE ASSESSEE IS A SMALL TAX PAYER; THEREFORE, THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE TAKEN A LEN IENT VIEW. I AM, THEREFORE, OF THE VIEW THAT THIS IS NOT A FIT CASE FOR LEVYING PENALT Y OF RS.25,000/- U/S 271A OF THE ACT WHEN THE TOTAL INCOME ASSESSEE IS LESS THAN RS.1,20 ,000/-. I, THEREFORE, CANCEL THE PENALTY LEVIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 271A OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED. THIS ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MEN TIONED HEREINABOVE. SD/- ( $.. &' / T. K. SHARMA) ( ) /JUDICIAL MEMBER *)& +) ,/ ORDER DATE: 12.08.2014 !$ /RAJKOT *BT / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. / APPELLANT- M/S. ROTEX COLOURS & CHEMICALS, REFUG EE COLONY, PARSANAN NAGAR MAIN ROAD, RAJKOT 2. / RESPONDENT- THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(2), RAJKOT 3. ,0,1 * * 2 / CONCERNED CIT-I, RAJKOT 4. * * 2- / CIT(A)-I, RAJKOT 5 . 567 1, * 1#, !$ / DR, ITAT, RAJKOT 6 . 79 :; / GUARD FILE *)& / BY ORDER TRUE COPY PRIVATE SECRETARY, ITAT, RAJKOT