I.T.O.((TDS) WARD -1(1), Nagpur V. SHRI HUKUMCHAND LALCHAND MUNOT, Nagpur

ITA 368/NAG/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8894 (ITAT-NAGPUR)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Transfer Pricing) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-10-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 27-05-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AGNES P THOMAS
• Keywords: TDS
• Section: 6; 154; 15

Judgement Text

1 ITA NO. 368/NAG/2016. IN THE INC OME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. (S.M.C.) I.T.A.NO. 368/NAG/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2014 - 15. THE INCOME - TAX OFFICER, SHRI HUKUMCHAND LALCHAND MUNOT, (TDS), WARD - 1(1), NAGPUR. VS. NAGPUR. PAN ABKPJ2917N. APPELLANT. RESPONDENT. APPELLANT BY : SMT. AGNES P. THOMAS. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SANDEEP JAIN. DATE OF HEARING : 26 - 10 - 2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 2 ND NOV.., 2016 O R D E R. THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) DATED 07 - 03 - 2016 AND PERTAINS TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014 - 15. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE READ AS UNDER : 1. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) IS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE DEMAND OF RS.34,40,281/ - INCLUDING INTEREST RAISED U/S 206(6A)/206(7) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 EVENTHOUGH FORM NO. 27C WERE SUBMITTED WELL BEYOND STATUTORY LIMIT? 2. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) IS JUSTIFIED IN NOT APPRECIATING THAT THE SAID FORM NO. 27C OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN FURNISHED TO THE ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF DEBITING THE ACCOUNT OF THE BUYER OR AT THE TIME OF RECEIPT OF SALE PROCEEDS FROM THE BUYER, WHICH EVER IS EARLIER, AS PER THE P ROVISIONS OF SEC. 206C OF THE ACT? 2 ITA NO. 368/NAG/2016. 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE AS UNDER : THE APPELLANT IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF PURCHASE AND SALE OF IRON AND SCRAP OBTAINED FROM ROLLING MILLS AND SELL THE SAME TO VARIOUS OTHER CONCERNS. A SPOT VERIFICATION WAS C ARRIED OUT BY THE TDS WING IN THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT AND IT WAS NOTED THAT THE APPELLANT HAD FAILED TO COLLECT TAX ON SALE OF SCRAP THOUGH IT WAS LIABLE TO MAKE TCS U/S 206C OF THE I.T. ACT. THE AO THEREFORE REQUIRED THE APPELLANT TO EXPLAIN AS TO WHY T HE APPELLANT SHOULD NOT BE DEEMED TO BE IN DEFAULT FOR NON COLLECTION OF TCS. IT WAS EXPLAINED BY THE APPELLANT THAT IT WAS NOT A MANUFACTURER AND THAT SECTION 206C IS RESTRICTED TO SCRAP GENERATED FROM THE MANUFACTURING PROCESS. THE APPELLANT PLACED ITS R ELIANCE ON THE CASE OF NAVINE FLUORINE INTERNATIONAL LTD. VS. ACIT (ITAT AHMEDABAD) WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT THE SCRAP TRADERS ARE NOT REQUIRED TO COLLECT TCS ON SALE. THE AO CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT IN THIS REGARD BUT CAME TO THE CONCLU SION THAT IN VIEW OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND ALSO AFTER CONSIDERING THE CBDTS CIRCULAR DATED 18 TH / 21 ST MAY 2012 THAT THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT THAT THE SCRAP SHOULD BE PRODUCED / MANUFACTURED BY THE SELLER ITSELF AND THAT THE BUYER IS NOT RESTRICTED TO A PERSON WHO BUYS THE SPECIFIED GOODS IN AN AUCTION OR TENDER. THE AO THEREFORE CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE APPELLANT BEING SELLER OF SCRAP WAS LIABLE TO COLLECT THE TCS @ 1%. 3. THE APPELLANT FURTHER SUBMITTED BEFORE THE AO THAT IT HAD OBTAINED FORM NO. 27BA AS PER THE PROVISO TO SECTION 206C(7) AND AFTER CONSIDERING THE ITAT RAJKOT BENCH ORDER IN THE CASE OF BHARAT AUTO PRODUCTS VS. CIT RAJKOT 37 TAXMAN.COM 37 (2013) AND THE 1 ST PROVISO TO SECTION 206C(6A) INTRODUCED BY THE FINANCE ACT 2012 W.E.F. 01 - 07 - 2012, THE APPELLANT SHOULD NOT BE HELD TO BE IN DEFAULT FOR NOT MAKING TCS. THE AO TOOK COGNIZANCE OF THE ABOVE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT AND STATED THAT THE ABOVE CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT ARE ACCEPTABLE AND HAS REPRODUCED THE LIST OF CASES IN R ESPECT OF WHICH FORM NO. 27BA HAS BEEN SUBMITTED BY THE APPELLANT. 3 ITA NO. 368/NAG/2016. 4. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS THE AO CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE APPELLANT WAS LIABLE TO COLLECT TCS IN RESPECT OF SALE OF SCRAP AND SINCE IT HAD FAILED TO DO SO HE WAS TO BE TREATED AS ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT. THE AO, HOWEVER, GAVE CREDIT IN RESPECT OF THE PARTIES FOR WHICH FORM NO. 27BA WAS SUBMITTED. THE AO ACCORDINGLY DETERMINED THE AMOUNT OF DEMAND PAYABLE U/S 206C(6A) U/S 206C(7) AND U/S 206C(7)(1D). 6. UPON ASSESSEES APPEAL, LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) ELABORATELY CONSIDERED THE ISSUE. HE OBSERVED AS UNDER : 8 . I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT. IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE APPELLANT HAS SUBMITTED FORM NO . 27C IN R ESPECT OF THE PARTIES BEFORE THE LD . AO . DURING THE COURSE OF PROCEED I NGS BEFORE THE LD . AO , THE ONLY REASON THAT THE LD. AO HAS REFUSED TO TAKE COGN IZ ANCE OF THE SAID FORM NO . 27C IS THE ASSUMPTION OF THE LD . AO THAT THE R ELEVANT FORMS WERE NOT OBTAINED AT T HE TIME OF THE SALE BY THE APPELLAN T AND THAT THEREFORE THERE I S NO QUEST I ON OF SUBM I SS I ON OF THE SA I D FORMS IN TIME BEFORE THE RELEVANT AUTHORITIES IN THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT . HE HAS COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE APPELLANT OBTAINED THE SA I D FORMS ON A LATER DATE TO GET RI D OF TCS LI ABILITY WHICH WAS ARISING IN THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT ON ACCOUNT OF SPOT VER I FICAT I ON . THE LD. AO THEREFORE HAS REJECTED THE SAID FORM NO . 27C SUBMITTED BY THE APPELLANT AFTER THE SPOT VERIFICAT I ON . 8.1 THE ABOVE REASONING OF THE LD . AO IS FLAWED . THERE I S NO BAS I S TO COME TO THE CONCLUS I ON THAT THE APPELLANT WAS NOT I N POSSESS I ON OF THE SA I D FORM NO . 27C AT THE TIME OF MAKING SALES TO THE VARIOUS PART I ES . EVEN DURING THE COURSE OF SPOT VER I FICAT I ON WHEREIN THE STATEMENT OF THE APPELLANT WAS RECO RDED , I N ANSWER TO QUEST I O N N O . 3 & 4 I T WAS SUBMITTED BY THE APPELLANT THAT IT WAS IN POSSESSIO N OF SOME FORMS NO . 27C AND THAT THE REMA I NING FORMS HAD BEEN COLLECTED BY THEM BUT WERE PRESENTLY ( AT THE T I ME OF SPOT VERIFICATION) WITH THEIR AUDITOR SHR I PRATIK PAREKH WHO WAS OUT OF TOWN AND THAT THEREFORE THEY WERE UNABLE TO SUBMIT THE SAME . THUS THE INABILITY OF THE APPELLANT TO PRODUCE THE SAID FORM NO . 27C DUR I NG THE COURSE OF SPOT VERIFICATION DOES NOT I N ANY WAY ESTABLISH THAT THE APPELLANT WAS NOT IN POSSESSION OF THE SAID FORMS AT THE TIME OF SURVEY . THE LD . AO THEREFORE HAD NO BASIS TO COME TO THE CONCLUS I ON THAT THE APPELLANT DID NOT HAVE FORM NO . 27C WHILE MAKING SALES TO THE VARIOUS MANUFACTURERS . 8.2 EVEN ASSUM I NG THAT THE APPELLANT WAS NOT I N POSSESSION OF THE SAID FO R MS AT THE TIME OF SALES TO THE VARIOUS MANUFACTURERS, THERE ARE SEVERAL JUD I CIA L PRONOUNCEMENTS WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT WHERE THE ASSESSEE RECE I VES FORM NO . 27C BELATEDLY A N D I F THE SAME ALSO CONSEQUENTLY SUBMITTED BELATED L Y BEFORE THE APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY , SUCH A BREACH IS TECHNICAL IN NATURE AND THE APPELLANT CANNOT BE PENALISED FOR THE SAME . 8 . 3 IN SUCH FACTS IT HAS BEEN HELD I N SEVERAL JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS THAT THE BREACH WAS TE CHNICAL AND WAS LIABLE TO BE CONDONED . IN THE CASE OF CIT VS . AD I SANKARA (SUPRA) IT HAS BEEN HELD AS UNDER : - '2. A S F AR AS TH E SECO N D QUES TI O N IS CONCE R NED, TH E T R IB U N A L H A S NOTED I N P AR AG R A P H 3 THAT TH E ASSESSEE HAD OBTAINED F ORM 27C FRO M THE BU Y ERS OF TH E CO TT O N W A S TE . I N THE COURSE OF T HE APPEL L A T E PR OC EEDIN GS , T H E SAME WAS ALS O FILED BEF ORE T HE ASSESSING AU T HO R ITY BY AP PL YI N G THE PROVI S IONS OF 4 ITA NO. 368/NAG/2016. SE C TION 15 4 O F THE ACT. THE T RIB UNA L HEL D THAT T HE ASSES S EE H A VI N G FILED TH E STATUTOR Y FOR M , VI Z. , FORM 2 7 C, THE TECHNICAL BREACH WAS L IABLE TO BE CONDONED BY FOLIO W I NG THE DEC I S I ON OF THIS COURT I N THE CASE O F CIT V. A . N . ARUNACHALAM [1994} 208 ITR 481 / 7 5 TA X MAN 529 (MAD . ) . THE R E F ORE , W E D O NOT F I ND ANY SCOPE TO ENTERTA I N T HE SAID QUESTION .. . ' 8 . 4 SUBSEQUENTLY IN A RECENT JUDGEMENT THE ITAT BANGALORE BENCH I N THE CASE OF KARNATAKA FOREST DEVELOPMENT CORPORAT I ON LTD. VS . ITO (SUPRA) HELD AS UNDER : - ' . . 8 . W E HA VE P E R U S E D T H E ORDERS AND HEARD TH E RIVAL CO N TENTIONS . IT I S N OT DI SP UTED THAT ASS E SS E E H AD FI L ED T H E DECLARA TI O N FROM THE B U YER , A S MANDATE D I N SEC TI O N 20 6 C( 1A ) O N LY W H EN S H OW C AU SE N O T ICES WERE I SSUED BY THE AO , POINTING O UT FA I L U RE TO CO LL ECT T AX AT S OUR CE . H OWEVER , I T R EM AI N S A FACT THAT ASSESSE E HAD PR O DU CE D F ORM N O.27 C O BTA I N ED FROM B O T H TH E PARTIES. COP I ES OF T HESE F ORMS HAVE BEEN PL A CED ON RECORD AT PAPER B O O K PA G ES 1 TO 66 . . . 9 . SE C T IO N 206C ( LA ) MANDATES THAT ANY PERSON R E SPO N SIBLE FOR COLLECTING T A X U NDE R SECTIO N 2 06C ( 1 ) NEED NOT DO SO IF HE O B T A I N S A D E CL A RA T IO N F R O M T HE BUYER THAT H E I S P UR CH A SI NG T H E G O O D S F OR US E IN MA NUFACTUR I NG , PROCESSING OR PROD U CI N G ARTICLES OR THINGS . IT DOES NOT SAY THAT SUCH DECLARATION HAS TO BE OBTAINED AT THE VERY SAME MOMENT WHEN A SALE I S AF F ECTED . A READING OF SUB SECTION ( 18) CLEARLY BR I NG S OUT THIS SINCE OBLIGATION OF THE ASSESSEE TO FILE A COPY OF THE DECLARATION AR I SES ONLY WHEN THE DECLARA T ION IS FURNISHED TO HIM BY THE BUYER . TH E POINT O F REFEREN C E I S FURNISHING O F DECLARATION BY THE BU Y ER AND N OT THE MONTH OR DATE ON WHICH SALE I S AFFE C TED B Y TH E ASSE S SEE. E V EN I F W E C ONS I DER THA T THERE IS A BREACH ON THE PART OF THE A S S E SSEE IN NOT O BTAIN I N G TH E DECLARATION FROM T H E B U YER THE MOMENT A SALE W AS ETTE C TED, AND I N FI L I NG I T B E FORE THE CCIT OR CIT R AS THE C A SE MA Y BE , A SIMILAR BREACH WAS CO NS I D ERE D T O BE O NL Y T E C HNICAL AND O NE THAT COULD BE CONDONED B Y HON 'BLE MADRA S HIGH COU R T I N THE CASE OF ADISANKARASPG . M I LLS ( P . ) LTD . ( SUPRA ) . IN THE SAID CESE , ASSESSEE HAD FILED FORM 2 7 C SUBSEQUENT TO THE PROCEEDIN G S , TH R OUGH A RECTIFICATION PETITION UNDE R S ECTI O N 154 R BUT STILL CON SI D ER ED T O B E S U F FIC I ENT C OMPTIENCE , WHICH VIE W OF THE TR I BUNAL W AS C O NFIRM E D B Y H ON 'BLE M A D RA S HIGH COURT. P R OCEEDING S O N TH E ASSESSE E FO R THE ALLEGED D E F A UL T HER E W E R E INITIATED ON 10 / 10 / 201 1 AND A S SESSEE HAD BEFOR E 31 / 10 / 20 12 FIL ED THE FORMS . ASSESSMENT YEA R S INV O LVED WERE A S SESSME N T YEAR 2009 - 1 0 T O 2 0 11 - 12 AND THERE WAS MUCH TIM E L E FT W I TH TH E REVENUE TO V ER IFY WH ETHE R T H E BUYERS WERE INDEED USING TH E WOO D PULP FO R MENUTE C TUTINQ , PROC E S S I NG O R P R ODUCING ARTICLE O R TH I NG AND N O T FOR TRADING AND TO P R O CE ED AGA I NS T T HEM IF THEY HAD FURNISHED F ALS E DE C LARATION . W E A R E THEREF O R E OF T H E O P I N I ON A S SESSEE C OULD NOT HAVE BEEN DEEMED AS ONE I N DEFAULT UNDER SECTIO N 20 6 C(6D ) OF THE ACT OR LIABL E FOR INTER E ST UNDER SECTION 2 06 (7) . O R D ERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES W ERE S ET ASIDE . . . N ( EMPHASIS PR OV IDED ) 8 . 5 CONSIDERING T H E FACTS OF THE CASE AND THE ABOVE CLEAR LEGAL POSIT I ON I T I S HE L D TH A T SIN C E T H E AP PEL L AN T HAS OBTAINED AND SUBMITTED FORM NO. 27C , THE TECHN I CA L BREACH ON ACCOUNT OF DELAYED SUBMISSION I S REQUIRED TO BE CONDONED . CONSEQUENTLY THE L D . AO I S DIRECTED TO D ELETE THE DEMA N D U/S . 206C I N R ES P E CT OF SALES MADE TO PARTIES WHO WE R E ABL E TO SUBMIT FORM NO . 27C TI L L THE T IME OF R EMAND PROCEEDINGS . THI S DEMAND I S THE R EFORE DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. 5 ITA NO. 368/NAG/2016. 8. AGAINST THE ABOVE ORDER, REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE ITAT. 9. I HAVE HEARD BOTH THE COUNSEL AND PERUSED THE RECORDS. I FIND THAT THE ONLY GRIEVANCE OF THE REVENUE IS THAT THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) ERRED IN ALLOWING BELATED FURNISHING OF FORM NO. 27C. I FIND THAT AS PER FOLLOWING DECISIONS WHICH HAVE ALSO TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT DECISION, THIS BELATED FURNISHING OF FORM NO. 27C CAN BE CONDONED; CIT VS. ADISANKARA (HON. MADRAS HIGH COURT) '2. A S F AR AS TH E SECO N D QUES TI O N IS CONCE R NED, TH E T R IB U N A L H A S NOTED I N P AR AG R A P H 3 THAT TH E ASSESSEE HAD OBTAINED F ORM 27C FRO M THE BU Y ERS OF TH E CO TT O N W A S TE . I N THE COURSE OF T HE APPEL L A T E PR OC EEDIN GS , T H E SAME WAS ALS O FILED BEF ORE T HE ASSESSING AU T HO R ITY BY AP PL YI N G THE PROVI S IONS OF SE C TION 15 4 O F THE ACT. THE T RIB UNA L HEL D THAT T HE ASSES S EE H A VI N G FILED TH E STATUTOR Y FOR M , VI Z. , FORM 2 7 C, THE TECHNICAL BREACH WAS L IABLE TO BE CONDONED BY FOLIO W I NG THE DEC I S I ON OF THIS COURT I N THE CASE O F CIT V. A . N . ARUNACHALAM [1994} 208 ITR 481 / 7 5 TA X MAN 529 (MAD . ) . THE R E F ORE , W E D O NOT F I ND ANY SCOPE TO ENTERTA I N T HE SAID QUESTION .. . ' ITAT BANGALORE IN KARNATAKA FOREST DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. VS. ITO , DATED 17 - 04 - 2015. ' . 8 . W E HA VE P E R U S E D T H E ORDERS AND HEARD TH E RIVAL CO N TENTIONS . IT I S N OT DI SP UTED THAT ASS E SS E E H AD FI L ED T H E DECLARA TI O N FROM THE B U YER , A S MANDATE D I N SEC TI O N 20 6 C( 1A ) O N LY W H EN S H OW C AU SE N O T ICES WERE I SSUED BY THE AO , POINTING O UT FA I L U RE TO CO LL ECT T AX AT S OUR CE . H OWEVER , I T R EM AI N S A FACT THAT ASSESSE E HAD PR O DU CE D F ORM N O.27 C O BTA I N ED FROM B O T H TH E PARTIES. COP I ES OF T HESE F ORMS HAVE BEEN PL A CED ON RECORD AT PAPER B O O K PA G ES 1 TO 66 . . . 9 . SE C T IO N 206C ( LA ) MANDATES THAT ANY PERSON R E SPO N SIBLE FOR COLLECTING T A X U NDE R SECTIO N 2 06C ( 1 ) NEED NOT DO SO IF HE O B T A I N S A D E CL A RA T IO N F R O M T HE BUYER THAT H E I S P UR CH A SI NG T H E G O O D S F OR US E IN MA NUFACTUR I NG, PROCESSING OR PROD U CI N G ARTICLES OR THINGS . IT DOES NOT SAY THAT SUCH DECLARATION HAS TO BE OBTAINED AT THE VERY SAME MOMENT WHEN A SALE I S AF F ECTED . A READING OF SUB SECTION ( 18) CLEARLY BR I NG S OUT THIS SINCE OBLIGATION OF THE ASSESSEE TO FILE A COPY OF THE DECLARATION AR I SES ONLY WHEN THE DECLARA T ION IS FURNISHED TO HIM BY THE BUYER . TH E POINT O F REFEREN C E I S FURNISHING O F DECLARATION BY THE BU Y ER AND N OT THE MONTH OR DATE ON WHICH SALE I S AFFE C TED B Y TH E ASSE S SEE. E V EN I F W E C ONS I DER THA T THERE IS A BREACH ON THE PART OF THE A S S E SSEE IN NOT O BTAIN I N G TH E DECLARATION FROM T H E B U YER THE MOMENT A SALE W AS AFF E C TED, AND I N FI L I NG I T B E FORE THE CCIT OR CIT R AS THE C A SE MA Y BE , A SIMILAR BREACH WAS CO NS I D ERE D T O BE O NL Y 6 ITA NO. 368/NAG/2016. T E C HNICAL AND O NE THAT COULD BE CONDONED B Y HON 'BLE MADRA S HIGH COU R T I N THE CASE OF ADISANKARASPG . M I LLS ( P . ) LTD . ( SUPRA ) . IN THE SAID CESE , ASSESSEE HAD FILED FORM 2 7 C SUBSEQUENT TO THE PROCEEDINGS , TH R OUGH A RECTIFICATION PETITION UNDE R S ECTI O N 154 R BUT STILL CON SI D ER ED T O B E S U F FIC I ENT C OMPTIENCE , WHICH VIE W OF THE TR I BUNAL W AS C O NFIRM E D B Y H ON 'BLE M A D RA S HIGH COURT. P R OCEEDING S O N TH E ASSESSE E FO R THE ALLEGED D E F A UL T HER E W E R E INITIATED ON 10 / 10 / 201 1 AND A S SESSEE HAD BEFOR E 31 / 10 / 20 12 FIL ED THE FORMS . ASSESSMENT YEA R S INV O LVED WERE A S SESSME N T YEAR 2009 - 1 0 T O 2 0 11 - 12 AND THERE WAS MUCH TIM E L E FT W I TH TH E REVENUE TO V ER IFY WH ETHE R T H E BUYERS WERE INDEED USING TH E WOO D PULP FO R MANUFA C TURING , PROC E S S I NG O R P R ODUCING ARTICLE O R TH I NG AND N O T FOR TRADING AND TO P R O CE ED AGA I NS T T HEM IF THEY HAD FURNISHED F ALS E DE C LARATION . W E A R E THEREF O R E OF T H E O P I N I ON A S SESSEE C OULD NOT HAVE BEEN DEEMED AS ONE I N DEFAULT UNDER SECTIO N 20 6 C(6D ) OF THE ACT OR LIABL E FOR INTER E ST UNDER SECTION 2 06 (7) . O R D ERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES W ERE S ET ASIDE . . . N ( EMPHASIS PR OV IDED ) . 10. HENCE FOLLOWING THE ABOVE PRECEDENTS, I AFFIRM THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) ORDER THAT DELAY IN FURNISHING FORM NO. 27C IS ONLY A TECHNICAL BREACH. HENCE I DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(APPEALS). ACCORDINGLY I UPHOLD THE SAME. 1 1 . IN THE RESULT, REVENUES APPEAL STANDS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 2 ND DAY OF NOV., 2016. SD/ - ( SHAMIM YAHYA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. NAGPUR, DATED : 2 ND NOV. , 2016. 7 ITA NO. 368/NAG/2016. COPY FORWARDED TO : 1. SHRI HUKUMCHAND LALCHAND MUNOT, PROP. M/S JAIN STEEL TRADERS, 266, J.K. TOWER SMALL FACTORY AREA, BAGADGANJ, NAGPUR. 2. I.T.O., (TDS), WARD - 1(1), NAGPUR. 3. C.I.T. - (TDS), NAGPUR. 4. CIT(APPEALS), - II, NAGPUR. 5. D.R., ITAT, NAGPUR. 6. GUARD FILE TRUE COPY BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WAKODE.