DCIT-CIRCLE-4, Nagpur V. SHRI JUGALKISHORE H. MANIYAR, Nagpur

ITA 367/NAG/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 134 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1622 (ITAT-NAGPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-10-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 15-10-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: NARENDRA KANE
• Keywords: Reopening of assessment; Unexplained cash credit; Difference of opinion; Reason to believe; Change of opinion; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 143(3); 10B; 147; 68; 148

Judgement Text

1 ITA NO. 367/NAG - 2013 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI MUKUL K. SHRAWAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. I.T.A. NO. 367/NAG/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2004 - 05 DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX, SHRI JUGALKISHORE H. MANIYAR CIRCLE - 4, NAGPUR. VS. NAGPUR. PAN AJCPM 3176G APPE LLANT. RESPONDENT. APPELLANT BY : SHRI NARENDRA KANE. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI ABHAY AGRAWAL. DATE OF HEARING : 25 - 08 - 2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30 TH OCT., 2015 O R D E R PER MUKUL K. SHRAWAT, J.M. THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE ARISING FROM AN ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) - II, NAGPUR DATED 10 - 07 - 2013. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE ARE REPRODUCED BELOW : 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSMENT MADE U/S 147 IS BAD IN LAW AND IS LIABLE TO BE CANCELLED. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN GRANTING DIRECT RELIEF U/S 68 OF THE I.T. AC T, 1961 AT RS.3,11,25,250/ - INCOME OF THE APPELLANT , BEING UNEXPLAINED CREDIT OUTSTANDING IN THE NAME OF M/S ALPHA IMPEX, HONGKONG TO WHOM THE APPELLANT HAS MADE EXPORTS. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE CONSIDERED SUBSTANCE OVER PROCEDURE. 3. FACTS IN BRIEF AS EMERGED FROM THE CORRESPONDING ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S 143(3) READ WITH SECTION 147 OF I.T. ACT DATED 29 - 12 - 2010 WERE THAT THE 2 ITA NO. 367/NAG - 2013 ASSESSEE IN INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY IS STATED TO BE ENGAGED IN EXPORT OF COMPUTER SOFTWARE. THERE WERE CERTAIN ENQUIRIES IN RESPECT OF TRANSACTION OF THE ASSESSEE WITH M/S ALFA IMPEX, HONGKONG. ACCORDING TO THE AO THE ASSESSEE HAS EXPORTED THE SOFTWARE TO M/S ALFA IMPEX, HONGKONG WHICH WAS UNUSUAL AND UNCOMMON. THE ALLEGATION OF THE AO WAS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAPPEN S TO BE 47 YEARS OLD HAVING NO PREVIOUS EXPERIENCE IN DEVELOPING SOFTWARE. THE ASSESSEE HAS SET UP AN EXPORT ORIENTED UNIT (EOU) IN THE YEAR 2000 IN THE NAME OF M/S JAI HARI SOFTECH. THE SAID UNIT WAS ESTABLISHED IN SOFTWARE TECHNOLOGY PARK OF INDIA (STPI) , NAGPUR. THE PROFIT FOR DEVELOPING SOFTWARE AND EXPORT CLAIMED AS ELIGIBLE FOR 100% EXEMPTION. THE AO HAS COMPARED THE PROFI T S DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2001 - 02 , 2002 - 03, 2003 - 04 AND THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION I.E. ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2004 - 05. ACCORDING TO THE AO THE DEDUCTIONS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE PAST WERE TO THE TUNE OF RS.6.45 CRORES, 3.32 CRORES, 4.41 CRORES RESPECTIVELY HENCE THE ALLEGATION OF THE AO WAS THAT THE PROFIT WHICH WAS SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT POSSI BLE RATHER UNATTAINABLE. THE AO HAS COMPARED THE PROFITS WITH OTHER COMPANIES IN THE SAME LINE OF BUSINESS, NAMELY WIPRO (24%) INFOSYS (31%), SATYAM (25%) AND POLARIS (22%). THE AO HAS RAISED CERTAIN OTHER OBJECTIONS AND ONE OF THE MAJOR OBJECTION WAS THAT THE PAYMENT WAS RECEIVED THROUGH COMMISSION AGENT, NAMELY, SHRI RAKESH SINDHER, HONGKONG. AS PER THE AO THE PAYMENTS WERE NOT RECEIVED DIRECTLY FROM THE USER OF THE SOFTWARE. THE AO HAS COLLECTED CERTAIN INFORMATION THROUGH INTERNET WHICH HAD REVEALED THA T SHRI RAKESH SINDHER WAS AN AGENT AND PROVIDING BOOKING SERVICES WHILE DEALING IN FABRICS, YARN, PLASTIC MATERIALS ETC. FURTHER THE AO HAS ALSO OBJECTED THAT THERE WERE CERTAIN DISCREPANCIES ABOUT THE INVOICES FURNISHED TO STPI. 4. THE CASE OF THE ASSES SEE WAS REOPENED U/S 147 OF I.T. ACT. REASONS FOR REOPENING WERE RECORDED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. ONE OF THE REASON R E CORDED WAS THAT FROM THE DOCUMENTS FURNISHED TO STPI, NAGPUR IT WAS FOUND FROM 3 ITA NO. 367/NAG - 2013 SOFTEX FORM AC THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD EXPORTED SOFTWARE A GAINST THE INVOICES BUT AS PER THE AUDIT REPORT FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004 - 05 SALES WERE NOT REFLECTED IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO NOT SHOWN CORRESPONDING WORK IN PROGRESS IN THE ACCOUNT. THE AO HAD FORMED AN OPINION THAT THERE WAS A FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO DISCLOSE TRUE AND CORRECT INCOME, HENCE THERE WAS ESCAPEMENT OF EXPORT INCOME AMOUNTING TO RS.9 CRORES WHICH WAS CHARGEABLE TO TAX. THE ASSESSEE HAD OBJECTED THE REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT. IT WAS INFORMED THAT IN THE PAST THE GENUINENESS OF THE EXPORT WAS DULY ACCEPTED BY HONBLE ITAT. HOWEVER, THE AO WAS NOT CON VINCED AND HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD REPRESENTED INCORRECT FACTS BEFORE THE HONBLE ITAT. THE AO HAS THUS REACHED TO A CONCLUSION THAT NO SATISFACTORY EXPLANATION WAS OFFERED IN RESPECT OF A SUM OF RS.3,11,25,350/ - CREDITED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 68 OF I.T. ACT, THE SAID AMOUNT WAS TAXED. 5. WHEN THE MATTER WAS CARRIED BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE VALIDITY OF THE REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT AND THE SAME WAS DECIDED BY LEARN ED CIT(APPEALS) AS FOLLOWS : THUS I SEE MERIT IN THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT THAT THE REASONS WERE RECORDED FOR ESCAPEMENT OF EXPORT OF SOFTWARE RS.9 CRORES AND NOT FOR ANY OTHER ESCAPEMENT AND THAT HENCE THE LD. AO SHOULD SNOT ENTERED INTO A ROVING AND FISHING ENQUIRY IN CASE NO ADDITION IN RESPECT OF THE SAID ESCAPEMENT OF SOFTWARE EXPORT VALUED AT RS.9 CRORES WAS BEING MADE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD THE JURISDICTION TO REASSESS ISSUES OTHER THAN THE ISSUES IN RESPECT OF WHICH PROCEEDINGS ARE INIT IATED BUT HE WAS NOT SO JUSTIFIED WHEN THE REASONS FOR THE INITIATION OF THOSE PROCEEDINGS CEASED TO SURVIVE. IN SUCH A SITUATION, THE LD. AO HAD NO JURISDICTION TO ENQUIRE INTO AN ITEM WHICH WAS NOT PART OF THE REASONS RECORDED. EVEN IF THE LD. AO WAS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE SAID CREDIT HAD ESCAPED ASSESSMENT AND WAS THEREFORE REQUIRED TO BE ADDED, A FRESH NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 WAS NECESSARY, THE LEGALITY OF WHICH WOULD BE TESTED IN THE EVENT OF A CHALLENGE BY THE APPELLANT. RESPECTFULLY FOLL OWING THE DECISION OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF JET AIRWAYS LTD. AND THE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF RAMBAXY LABORATORIES LTD. IT IS HELD THAT ASSESSMENT MADE U/S 4 ITA NO. 367/NAG - 2013 147 IS BAD IN LAW AND IS LIABLE TO BE CANCELLED ON THE ABOVE LEGAL POS ITION ITSELF. 5.1 LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) HAS ALSO MENTIONED THAT AFTER COMPLETION OF THE ORIGINAL ORDER PASSED BY THE AO DATED 27 - 12 - 2006, NO NEW MATERIAL CAME TO THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE AO. NO NEW FACTS WERE FOUND IN RESPECT OF THE IMPUGNED CASH CREDIT. THE A MOUNT IN QUESTION WAS OUTSTANDING DURING THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND CONTINUED TO B E OUTSTANDING DURING REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. BY REOPENING, THE AO HAD ATTEMPTED TO REVIEW HIS OWN EARLIER ORDER WHICH IS NOT PERMISSIBLE. LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) HAS, THEREFORE, HELD THAT THE ASSESSMENT MADE BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 147 OF I.T. ACT WAS BAD IN LAW. BEING AGGRIEVED, NOW THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL. 6. IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE FACTUAL BACKGROUND WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES. FROM THE SIDE O F THE REVENUE LEARNED D.R. MR. NARENDRA KANE APPEARED AND SUPPORTED THE REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT. ON THE OTHER HAND, FROM THE SIDE OF THE RESPONDENT - ASSESSEE, LEARNED A.R. MR.ABHAY AGRAWAL APPEARED AND PLACED RELIANCE ON TWO ORDERS OF THE TRIBUNAL PASSE D IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2001 - 02 AND 2004 - 05. THE REFERENCE OF THE DECISIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL ARE AS UNDER : I) ITAT, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR BEARING ITA NO. 159/NAG/2008 IN THE CASE OF JUGAL KISHORE H. MANIYAR VS. ITO FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004 - 05, ORDER DATED 6 TH MARCH, 2009. IN THIS CASE THE ISSUE WAS DISALLOWANCE OF EXEMPTION CLAIMED U/S 10B OF I.T. ACT AMOUNTING TO RS.14,55,227/ - . THE VERDICT OF THE TRIBUNAL WAS AS UNDER , (ONLY RELEVANT PORTION REPRODUCED) : WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDE RED THE ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE SIDES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL PLACED BEFORE US. THE CIT(APPEALS) HAS SUSTAINED THE DISALLOWANCE OF EXEMPTION U/S 10B MAINLY ON THE BASIS OF FINDING IN THE SURVEY REPORT AND HAS EXTENSIVELY QUOTED THE SAME FROM PAGE 3 TO 5 OF HIS ORDER. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED EACH AND EVERY FINDING IN THE SURVEY REPORT. THE LEARNED DR HAS NOT CONTROVERTED THE EXPLANATION OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE WITH REFERENCE TO 5 ITA NO. 367/NAG - 2013 THE ISSUES RAISED IN THE SURVEY REPORT. THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) HAS ALSO MENTIONED THE AOS REPORT THAT ON VISIT OF ASSESSEES PREMISES ONLY ONE LADY WAS FOUND SITTING AT THE RECEPTION. IT WAS EXPLAINED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL THAT THE ASSESSEES BUSINESS OF EXPORT OF SOFTWARE IS ALREADY CLOSED IN MARCH,2004 AND THERE IS NO FURTHER EXPORT THERE AFTER. THE VISIT BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES WAS IN THE YEAR 2007. WHEN THERE WAS NO BUSINESS OF EXPORT OF SOFTWARE IN EXISTENCE IN THE YEAR 2007 THEN NATURALLY ONLY THE OFFICE STAFF WOULD BE AVAILABLE. FRO M THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT OF THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WE FIND THAT THERE WAS A RECEIPT OF RS.46.55 LAKHS FROM THE EXPORT OF SOFTWARE AGAINST WHICH THE TOTAL EXPENDITURE CLAIMED WAS RS.31,99,772/ - DETAILS OF WHICH ARE AS UNDER - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - THE GENUINENESS OF THE ABOVE EXPENDITURE HAS NOT BEEN DOUBTED BY THE AO OR THE CIT(APPEALS). THE ABOVE EXPENDITURE HAS BEEN DULY ALLOWED. WHEN THE HUGE EXPENDITURE ON SALARY, INTERNET EXPENSES, ANNUAL MAINTENANCE CH ARGE FOR COMPUTERS AND THE SERVICE CHARGES TO STPI IS ALLOWED, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THERE WAS NO BUSINESSS OF SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE RELEVANT ACCOUNTING YEAR. THE ASSESSEE IS REGISTERED AS IMPORTER EXPORTER WITH STPI. THE CERTIFI CATE OF THE SAME IS PLACED AT PAGE 21 OF THE ASSESSEES PAPER BOOK. THE EXPORT OF SOFTWARE IS DULY EVIDENCED BY THE INVOICE RAISWED ON ALFA IMPEX. THE SALE CONSIDERATION OF EXPORT OF SOFTWARE WAS RECEIVED IN CONVERTIBLE VARIATION EXCHANGE THROUGH BANKING C HANNEL. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED REQUIRED FORM TO STPI. THE ASSESSEE HAD PURCHASED THE SOFTWARE WHICH WAS FURTHER DEVELOPED AND EXPORTED TO ALPHA IMPEX. THE PURCHASE OF SOFTWARE WERE AT RS.15,01,699/ - IS ALLOWED BY THE AO. IN VIEW OF THE TOTALITY OF THE FA CTS, WE ARE SATISFIED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DULY ESTABLISHED THE GENUINENESS OF THE EXPORT OF THE SOFTWARE BY IT DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE AO DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE BASIS OF MERE PRESUMPTION AND SUSPICION. WE, THEREFORE, ACCEPT THE ASSESSEES APPEAL AND DIRECT THE AO TO ALLOW DEDUCTION U/S 10B OF THE I.T. ACT AMOUNTING TO RS.14,55,227/ - . II) ITAT, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR IN THE CASE OF JUGAL KISHORE MANIYAR VS. ACIT BEARING ITA NO. 99,100,101/NAG/2011, ASSESSMENT YEARS 2001 - 02, 2002 - 03 AND 2003 - 04, ORDER DATED 23 - 11 - 2012. FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION IT WAS NOTICED BY THE TRIBUNAL THAT A SURVEY WAS CONDUCTED AND IT WAS FOUND THAT THERE WAS NO INFRASTRUCT URE AVAILABLE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE SOFTWARE. ON 6 ITA NO. 367/NAG - 2013 THAT BASIS THE CASE WAS REOPENED. THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT THE GENUINENESS OF THE SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT WAS EXAMINED BY STIP. THERE WAS NO REASON TO PRESUME THAT THE EXPORT WAS NOT GENUIN E. IT WAS WRONG ON THE PART OF THE AO TO HOLD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED FOREIGN INWARD REMITTANCE. ACCORDANCE TO THE ASSESSEE THE INWARD REMITTANCE WAS W RONGLY TAXED U/S 68 OF THE I.T. ACT. THE GENUINENESS OF THE EXPORT OF SOFTWARE WAS EXAMINED BY TH E TRIBUNAL AND THEREAFTER CAME TO THE CONCLUSION AS UNDER : IN VIEW OF THIS FACT, WE DO NOT FIND THAT THERE ARE ANY DIFFERENCE OF FACTS AS COMPARED TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004 - 05 AND IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004 - 05 THIS TRIBUNAL HAS CATEGORICALLY HELD THA T THE ASSESSEE HAS DULY ESTABLISHED THE GENUINENESS OF THE EXPORT OF THE SOFTWARE BY IT DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE DECISION OF COORDINATE BENCH IS BINDING ON US. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE SAID DECISION, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CIT(A) IN ALL THE YEARS AND THUS ALLOW THE GROUND NO. 5 TO 13 OF THE ASSESSEE AND DELETE THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 68 OF THE ACT AND DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ALLOW THE DEDUCTION TO THE ASSESSEE U/S 10B OF THE ACT. 6.1 THE TRIBUNAL HAS EX AMINED THE LEGAL ISSUE OF REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT WHICH WAS HELD AS INVALID ON THE GROUND OF CHANGE OF OPINION AND THE VERDICT WAS AS UNDER : WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD ALONG WITH THE ORDERS O F THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 147. UNDER SECTION 147, THE ASSESSING OFFICER CAN REOPEN THE ASSESSMENT. IF THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS REASOSN TO BELIEVE THAT ANY INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT FOR ANY ASSESSMENT YEAR, THE EXPRESSION REASON TO BELIEVE DOES NOT PURELY SUBJECTIVE SATISFACTION. THE BELIEF MUST BE HELD IN GOOD FAITH. IT CANNOT MERELY BE A PRETENCE. THE SUSPICION, GOSSIP OR RUMOR CANNOT FORM THE BASIS OF RECORDING THE REASONS TO BELIE VE. EVEN THE EXTRANEOUS AND IRRELEVANT MATERIAL CANNOT BE THE BASIS FOR ARRIVING AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE FACT. EVEN THE CHANGE OF OPINION CANNOT BE THE BASIS TO FORM THE REASON TO BELIEVE. THE REASON TO BELIEVE DOES NOT GIVE ARBITRARY POWER TO THE ASSESS ING OFFICER TO REOPEN THE ASSESSMENT ON THE BASIS OF MERE CHANGE OF OPINION. IN THIS REGARD THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. KELVINATOR (SUPRA) HAS HELD AS UNDER : 7 ITA NO. 367/NAG - 2013 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE ABOVE CASE , WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE REASONS RECORDED IN THIS CASE ARE NOT BONAFIDE AND IT IS MERELY CHANGE OF OPINION. ON THIS BASIS ITSELF THE INITIATION OF THE PROCEEDINGS U/S 147 AR E INVALID AND IN CONSEQUENCE THEREOF THE ASSESSMENT FRAMED IS ALSO INVALID AND ACCORDINGLY WE QUASH THE SAME. 7. APART FROM THE TWO ORDERS OF THE RESPECTED COORDINATE BENCH PRONOUNCED IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE, AS REPRODUCED ABOVE, THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO PLAC ED RELIANCE ON JET AIRWAYS 331 ITR 236 (BOM.) AND THE DECISION OF KELVINATOR OF INDIA 320 ITR 561 (SC). IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, WHEN THE TRIBUNAL IN THE PAST IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE HAD ALREADY DECIDED BOTH THE ISSUES I.E. THE QUESTION OF REOPENING OF AS SESSMENT AS WELL AS THE QUESTION OF GENUINENESS OF THE EXPORT BUSINESS, THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS RIGHTLY FOLLOWED THOSE DECISIONS OF THE RESPECTED COORDINATE BENCHES WHILE GRANTING RELIEF TO THE ASS ESSEE. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY CONTRARY MATERIAL FROM THE SIDE OF THE REVENUE, WE HEREBY HOLD THAT THESE DECISIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL ARE LEGALLY REQUIRED TO BE FOLLOWED. THE VIEW TAKEN BY LEARNED CIT(APPE A LS) IS, THEREFORE, CONFIRMED AND THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. 8. IN THE RESULT, REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 30 TH DAY OF OCT., 2015. SD/ - SD/ - ( SHAMIM YAHYA) (MUKUL K. SHRAWAT) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. JUDICIAL MEMBER NAGPUR, DATED: 30 TH OCT., 2015. 8 ITA NO. 367/NAG - 2013 COPY FORWARDED TO : 1. JUGALKISHORE H. MANIYAR, PROP. JAI HARI SOFTTECH, 125, WARDHAMAN NAGAR, NAGPUR. 2. DCIT, CIRCLE - 4, NAGPUR. 3. C.I.T., CONCERNED 4. CIT(APPEALS) - II, NAGPUR. 5. D.R., ITAT, NAGPUR. 6. GUARD FILE TRUE COPY BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, INCOME TAX APP ELLATE TRIBUNAL, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.