The Prajatantra Prachar Samity, Cuttack V. ACIT, Circle-2(1), Cuttack

ITA 39/CTK/2007

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 105 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1014 (ITAT-CUTTACK)
• Duration Of Justice: 15 year(s) 3 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-05-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: PartlyAllowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 28-01-2007
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Recovery proceedings; Charitable institution; Set aside
• Section: 145; 12; 271(1)(c); 11; 12A; 264; 254(2); 13

Judgement Text

आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, कटक न्यायपीठ,कटक IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CUTTACK BENCH CUTTACK BEFORE SHRI C.M. GARG, JM & SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, AM आयकर अपीऱ सं./ITA No.38-40/CTK/2007 (नििाारण वषा / AYs. :1985-1986, 1989-1990 & 1993-1994) The Prajatantra Prachar Samity Beharibag, Chandini Chowk, Cuttack Vs ACIT, Cir-2(1), Cuttack PAN No. : AAATP 2215 Q (अऩीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ननधाारिती की ओर से /Assessee by : Shri S.K.Agrawalla, AR िाजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr.DR स ु नवाई की तािीख / Date of Hearing : 06/04/2022 घोषणा की तािीख/Date of Pronouncement : 27/05/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, AM: These three appeals by the assessee made against the order passed by the CIT(A), Cuttack, all dated 16.10.2006 for the assessment years 1985-86, 1989-90 & 1993-94, respectively. 2. On perusal of the record placed before us, brief facts of the case carved out from the record as well as the list of events filed by the assessee in the form of paper book at pages 6 are as under :- 09.01.1979 The appellant is a Public Charitable Trust registered under section 12A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter referred as 'the Act') by the virtue of order dated 09.01.1979 of the Commissioner of Income Tax, Bhubaneswar. 30.09.1985 The appellant filed its Income Tax Return (lTR) for Assessment Year 1985-86 by disclosing of loss of ~. 15,76,880/- (Rupees Fifteen lakhs seventy-six Thousand Eight Hundred and Eight Only). The loss was arrived at after making provision for liabilities incurred, taking into accounts amounts receivable but not received. So, the method of computation of income was based on the actual amounts received by the appellant. (Cash basis method of computation of income). ITA No38-40/CTK/2007 2 28.03.1998 Ld. Assessing Officer passed the assessment order holding the appellant was. doing business and therefore Section 11(4} was applicable. The AO also held that the method of accounting is not proper as it does not reflect the true state of affairs and the actual income cannot be properly deducted therefrom. Therefore, by adopting first proviso of section 145 of the Act, the A determined taxable Income as ~.15,49,580 (Rupees Fifteen' Lakhs Forty-nine Thousand Five Hundred and Eighty only). A sum of ~.30,91,093 (Thirty Lakhs Ninety- One Thousand and Ninety-Three only) which represented the amount receivable from sundry debtors was added to figure of loss disclosed. ' I Subsequently, on the basis of aforementioned order, AO passed similar order qua the assessment years of 1989-90 and 1993-94. 28.11.1988 Aggrieved from the assessment order the appellant preferred appeal before Ld. CIT (A) who had dismissed the appeal 19.01.1990 Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT (A), the appellant was constrained to approach the Hon'ble I TAT, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack. The Hon'ble ITAT upheld the assessment of AO and therefore dismissed the 2nd Appeal. The Hon'ble ITAT however has given finding on issues beyond the pleadings of the case. The Tribunal by giving a finding on the application of section 11(4A} in the matter, held that the appellant is not entitled for the exemption under section 11. The order was passed on the basis 13.12.1990 The application u/s 254(2) of the Act bearing No. M.A. No, 10/(CTK)/1990 was allowed and the Hon'ble ITAT recalled the order dated 19.0l.1990 and the matter was heard afresh. It was held that the application of section 11(4A) by Hon'ble ITAT is clear and apparent error as it has not been pleaded before the Ld. AO or Ld. CIT (A) and Hon'ble ITAT has suo- motu applied the provision in the matter. 10.05.1991 Hon'ble ITAT after hearing the matter afresh, passed a well reasoned order in ITA No.57/ (CTK) /1989 in favour of the appellant. The Tribunal went on to hold that the Hybrid System adopted by the appellant is not erroneous and it is possible to determine the real income of the appellant Trust. The tribunal also held that since the method of computation of income of the appellant is right, thus section 11(4A) ceases to be applicable. 02.12.1991 The Revenue took this matter to the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa in the Writ petition bearing No. OJC No.2953/199l. The Hon'ble High Court allowed the writ petition of the Revenue and quashed the Order dated 13.12.1990 and by extension the order dated 10.05.1991 became non- maintainable. The High Court held that, whether the Section 11(4A) is applicable in the present matter is a question of law and cannot be decided in section 254(2) of the Act. The same is referable under section 256(1) and thus the ITAT ITA No38-40/CTK/2007 3 was not justified in recalling the order dated 13.12.1990 as the mistake is does not constitute as "mistake apparent from record". 18.01.1993 The appellant challenged the order dated 01.12.1991 before Hon'ble supreme court in SLP (Civil) 2154/1992, Hon'ble supreme court granted the leave and registered the same as Civil Appeal No. 153/1993 and stayed the Assessment proceedings and incidental recovery proceedings to tax. 26.04.1996 Hon'ble Supreme Court disposed-off the civil Appeal by giving directions to both parties upon their consent. The appellant was directed to file Application under 256(1) 01 the Act for the reference against the order dated 19.01.1990 and similarly Revenue was directed to file Application under 256(1) of the act of issues which were never pleaded by either of the parties and without hearing parties on those issues. Therefore the appellant filed an Application under section 254(2) of the act for the rectification of the order dt.19.01.1990 alleging that certain mistakes have crept in the said order which is apparent from the record and the same requires rectification for the reference against the order dated; 13.12.1990 and 10.05.1991, within 60 days of the order. Upon Applications of the parties, ITAT referred-the matter to High Court under 256(2) for opinion on 3 questions: 1. Whether on facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribune justified in holding that the assessee is not entitled to exempt under section 11 of the Act? 2. Whether on facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal justified in rejecting the method of computation of income followed by the assesse? 3. Whether on facts and circumstances of .the case, the Tribunal was right in declining to grant exemption to assessee trust on completely new ground made suo-motu without affording opportunity to the assessee to have its say on the said ground. 15.01.2003 Hon'ble High Court of Orissa observed that ITAT order dated 19.01.1990 suffered from mistakes apparent from record and the aforementioned order was rightly recalled by the I TAT. However, the order dated 10.05.1991 was passed beyond the jurisdiction of the tribunal under section 254(1) and thus Hon'ble High Court set aside the order dated 10.05.1991 of ITAT and further directed ITAT to consider the case on all the points arising out of CIT (A) order dated 28.11.1988 in light of section 11(4.f\) which became effective from 01.04.1984. Hon'ble High court answered Question nO.3 in favour of assessee and returned the reference to ITAT for fresh consideration on Q. 1 & 2. ITA No38-40/CTK/2007 4 17.06.2004 Hon'ble ITAT remanded the matter back to the assessing officer for deciding afresh on the Q.1 & 2 and directed the assessing officer to consider the fact that Q.3 has been answered in favour of the appellant and give its findings in light of section 11 (4A) which became effective from 01.01.1984. 03.01.2006 Ld. AO after receiving the reference from the Hon'ble ITAT, raised certain queries through a letter and asked the appellant to submit certain documents in respect of those queries for the appellant to respond. 28.03.2006 Upon restoration of matter, the Ld. AO wrongly held that after restoration, the order of the Ld. CIT (A) dated 28.11.1988 stands and thus the matter could not have been sent back to AO for assessment. Thus AO essentially reiterated the order dated 28.11.1988 of CIT (A) and consequently, AO rejected computation system of assessee as income cannot be computed properly and further denied exemption to the appellant under section 11. AO has passed the order in an arbitrary manner and has based its decision on the earlier orders of the Ld. CIT (A) and Hon'ble I TAT, and did not consider the points afresh. Meanwhile the Ld. AO initiated penalty proceedings against the appellant in respect of AY 1985-86, 1989-90 'and 1993- 94 u/s 271(1)(c) of the act. 16.10.2006 Upon Appeal by the appellant, the Ld. CIT (A) confirmed the order dated 28.03.2006 and held that Hybrid System of accounting adopted by the assessee is arbitrary as income cannot be computed properly and further denied exemption to the appellant under section 11 for assessment year 1985- 86. 18.10.2006 Similar orders were passed in respect of the Assessment Year 1989-90 and 1993-94 there by directing the appellant to pay tax on computed income of Rs.26,89,070/- and Rs.29,72,250/- respectively. 31.03.2008 The Ld. ACIT, Circle-2(1), Cuttack, held that the appellant has violated the statutory norms u/s 271(1) (c) and has concealed the particulars of income by following a faulty method of computation and has furnished inaccurate particulars of income. Therefore, the ACIT imposed a heavy penalty of~. 18,85,565/-on the appellant in respect of AY 1985-86. Similarly, the Ld. AC'IT imposed penalty of Rs.16, 34,168/- in respect of AY 1989-90 and a penalty of Rs.13,17,953/- in respect of AY 1993-94 through separate orders. 05.05.2008 The appellant preferred an appeal against: the orders dated 16.10.2008 and 18.10.2008. During the course of proceedings, ITAT passed an interim order and gave a direction to revenue to verify if the 'Receivables' for ITA No38-40/CTK/2007 5 assessment year' 1985-1986 have been accounted in the subsequent years or not. However, Revenue never complied with this direction and gave a vague excuse of record being voluminous in nature, It is not possible to verify the same 28.11.2008 The appellant challenged the orders dated 31.03.2008 of imposition of penalty before the Ld. CIT (A) which had been wrongfully upheld the order of the Ld. ACIT without paying any heed to the arguments of the appellant and mechanically held that, since the accounting system of the appellant trust is faulty, it has resulted in diminishment of the taxable profits for the year. Moreover, the Ld. CIT (A) wrongly opined that the finding under Interim order dated 05.05.2008 of ITAT will have no relevance to the question whether, the income has been correctly reflected in the appellant's account. It is submitted that the interim order dated 05.05.2008 was passes with the sole objective to verify the bonafide of the accounting method adopted by the appellant. Thus, the aforementioned finding of the Ld. CIT(A) is perverse and untenable and renders its order to a mere mechanical affirmation of the order of ACIT without application of mind. 31.03.2010 The Hon'ble ITAT dismissed the 2nd appeal of the appellant without giving any finding or mentioned anything about the interim order dated 05.05.2008. The order is passed in utter disregard of the law and the procedure, and has caused great prejudice to the appellant by not verifying the bonafide of the appellant's income computation method despite having passed specific order to that effect. The order has in fact validated the gross inaction and inefficiency of the revenue to render otiose to the cause of justice. That, the Hon'ble ITAT through a separate order dismissed the appeals of the appellant against the penalty imposed by the Ld. ACIT after holding that, since the quantum of appeals of the appellant are dismissed, therefore the can be no infirmity in orders pertaining to imposition of penalty. 24.04.2019 The appellant went to the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa against the order of ITAT and High Court dismissed the: appeals of the appellant as devoid of merits through a cryptic and non-speaking judgment. The impugned judgment baldly affirmed to the findings of the ITAT without discussing its legality and righteousness. The Hon'ble High Court has dealt issues without presenting any finding upon them, thus rendering the judgement against the principles of natural justice. 10.02.2022 The appellant went to the Hon'ble Supreme Court against the orders of Hon'ble High Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court had set aside the matter to the Hon'ble "ITAT with the following observations and directions at para no. 16-18; 16. As the facts on record show, after the matter was remanded to the Tribunal, it called for information in terms of ITA No38-40/CTK/2007 6 which direction, affidavit was filed on behalf of the assessee .and a note was submitted on behalf of the revenue. The affidavit made the position clear and in the entirety of the process including framing of second question, the challenge with regard to the method of accounting was quite apparent. The submission advanced on behalf of the assessee was therefore required to be dealt with on merits. However, neither the affidavit nor the note referred to by the Tribunal. The conclusions arrived at by the Tribunal were not thus consistent with the order of remand passed by this court or with the direction issued by the Tribunal itself seeking certain information vide its order dated 05.05.2008. The High Court also erred in affirming the view taken by the Tribunal. 17. We therefore, set aside the orders passed by the Tribunal and the High Court and remit the matter back to the Tribunal to consider the matter afresh in the light of the order dated 24.04.1996 passed by this court and in keeping with the direction issued by the Tribunal in its order dated 05.05.2008, ITA Nos. 38- 40 of 2007 and ITA Nos. 78-80 of 2009 are therefore restored to the file of the Tribunal. 18. Since the matter has been pending for a long time, we direct the Tribunal to conclude the proceeding as early as possible and preferably within three months from the receipts of this order. To facilitate early disposal, the parties shall appear before the Tribunal on 28.02.2022. 3. Now, the appeals are listed before the Tribunal for fresh consideration on the direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as given above. 4. Since the issues involved in all the three appeals are similar and identical to each other, therefore, for the sake of convenience, all the three appeals were heard altogether and disposed off by this consolidated order. First, we shall take into consideration the facts and grounds raised in the appeal of the assessee for A.Y.1985-86 in ITA No.38/CTK/2007 for deciding all the three appeals. ITA No38-40/CTK/2007 7 5. The grounds raised by the assessee in its appeal for A.Y.1985-86 in ITA No.38/CTK/2007 read as under :- 1. For that the order dtd.16.10.06, as has been passed by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), in I.T.A. No.005912006-07 is unjustified, arbitrary, lacks application of judicious mind, contrary to the facts on records and bad in law. 2. For that both the forum have assumed self style jurisdiction in enquiring into the applicability of section 11(4A), in respect of the present year, despite the High Court’s decision, in favour of the appellant. 3. For that, the Ld. Forum below, have again erred, as to applicability of section 11 (4A), which he has simply concurred with the findings of the Assessing Officers. And it was never being a fact that the appellant assessee did not want to avail the exemption U/s 11(4A) of the Income Tax Act. 4. For that, the authorities below failed to appreciate the basic fact, that the notional income computed on mercantile system can never be physically spent by the trust assessee and the consistent refusal to appreciate the same has resulted in gross miscarriage of justice, therefore, the assessment order deserves to be quashed on this ground alone. 5. For that the appellant craves leave to amend/modify/add to the above ground, before or at the time of hearing of appeal. 6. At the outset, ld. AR submitted that the issue raised by the assessee in ground Nos.2 & 3 has already been decided by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in assessee’s own case reported in (2003) 264 ITR 160 (Ori) in favour of the assessee. Therefore, this ground may be allowed as per the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court (supra). 7. With regard to ground No.4, ld. AR submitted before us that the notional income computed on mercantile system can never be physically spent by the trust assessee and the consistent refusal to appreciate the same has resulted in gross miscarriage of justice. In this regard, ld. AR ITA No38-40/CTK/2007 8 has filed his written submission, which was placed before us during the course of hearing, wherein the ld. AR in page 3 has stated as under :- From the Asst. Year 1985-86, the assessee changed the method of accounting from cash system to hybrid system as submitted supra which had been rejected by the Ld. AO, Ld. CIT (A) as well as the Hon'ble ITAT. Presently the question is whether adoption of hybrid system of accounting by the assessee was correct or not to which the assessee submitted the submission as under; Prior to the Asst. Year 1997-98, the hybrid system of accounting was permissible under the Act. The only obligation on the part of the assessee to follow the method of accounting consistently. Moreover the provisions of section 145 is applicable to a person whose income is taxable under the head "Business or Profession" or "Income from Other Sources". The assessee is a charitable trust whose income is taxable under the provisions of section 11, 12 & 13. Therefore the provisions of section 145 is not applicable. 8. To substantiate his claim, ld. AR, for the purpose of determination of income of a charitable trust and applicability of hybrid system, has relied on the following case laws :- i) Juggilal Kamlapat Udyog Ltd. Vs. ClT, reported in (2005) 278 ITR 52 (Cal) vide PB-132-135, relevant para no.16, page nO.135 ii) K. S. Mehta (HUF) Vs. CIT, reported in (2005) 278 ITR 59 (Cal), vide PB-136- 143, relevant para no.17,18 & 19 PB- 142-143 iii) Snow White Food Products Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT, reported in (1983) 141 ITR 861 (Cal), PB-144-151, relevant para no. 29, 30 & 31, PB-150 iv) CBDT Circular No. 5P(LXX-6) of 1968 vide PB-131, Para No.2 & 4 9. Apart from the above, ld. AR also submitted that the ITAT had passed the interim order by giving direction to both the parties to bring on record whether the accrued income had been assessed by the Revenue for the above referred years in the subsequent years or not. In compliance to the direction issued by the ITAT, the assessee had appeared and produced the relevant documents to which the revenue ITA No38-40/CTK/2007 9 had expressed their inability to verify due to voluminous documents. Therefore, ld. AR submitted that this ground of appeal of the assessee deserves to be allowed. 10. On the other hand, ld.Sr. DR relied on the orders of the authorities below and fairly admitted the fact that the ground raised by the assessee with regard to declining to grant exemption to the assessee trust without affording opportunity to the assessee, has been decided by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in favour of the assessee. With respect to the other grounds raised by the assessee, ld. Sr.DR submitted that the assessee has been following Hybrid system of account instead of mercantile system of accounting. It was also submitted by the ld. Sr.DR that there can be no doubt that in the case of the institution which exists for public benefit, there is justification in applying rigorous standard for ascertaining the motive behind any change in the method of account. Therefore, both the authorities below have taken a plausible view in not accepting the claim of the assessee. Accordingly, ld. Sr.DR submitted that the orders of the authorities below in this regard should be upheld. 11. We have heard rival contentions of the parties and perused the material available on record. At the outset, we consider the submissions of both the parties with regard to the ground Nos.2 & 3, wherein the issue raised by the assessee has already been decided by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court vide order dated 15.01.2003 in favour of the assessee and against the revenue . As observed by Hon’ble Apex Court ITA No38-40/CTK/2007 10 vide its order under Civil Appeal no’s 1273-1278 of 2022 dated 10.02.20222, where in it is stated that :- 4. Accordingly, following three questions of law were referred by the Tribuna12 under Section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act", for short) to the High Court for its opinion: “1. Whether on facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in holding that the assessee is not entitled to exemption under Section 11 of the Act? 2. Whether on facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in rejecting the method of computation of income followed by the assessee? 3. Whether on facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in declining to grant exemption to assessee rust on a completely new ground made suo-motu without affording an opportunity to the assessee to have its say on the said ground?" 5. By order dated 15.01.2003, the third question was answered by the High Court in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. In so far as first two questions were concerned, the High Court however remanded the matter to the Tribunal and observed as under: “11. Sub-S.(2) of S.254 of the Act stats that the Tribunal while rectifying mistake apparent from the record may amend any order passed by it under sub- S(l). We have already noted that in exercise of that power the Tribunal can only make changes in the original order consequent on the rectification and it cannot go further and deal.: with the entire appeal afresh. A perusal of the aforesaid substantive order dated lath May, 1991, would clearly show that in the garb of rectification/amendment, the Tribunal substituted a fresh order which, in our opinion, is in excess of its jurisdiction. Therefore, having regard to the nature of the issue that was before the Tribunal and in view of what has been stated above, we think it proper to set aside that order dated lath May, 1991, and direct the Tribunal to consider the case on all the points arising out of- the ClT's order dated 28 th Nov., 1988. While considering the matter, the Tribunal will also keep in view of the provision of Section 11( 4A) of the Act which came to be inserted by the Finance Act, 1983, w.e.f. 1 st April, 1984." Therefore, with the consent of both the parties as well as respectfully following the order of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court’s order in assessee’s own case, we allow this ground of the assessee. ITA No38-40/CTK/2007 11 The other two questions remanded back by the Hon’ble High Court to the tribunal for adjudication are as under: 1. Whether on facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in holding that the assessee is not entitled to exemption under Section 11 of the Act? 2. Whether on facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in rejecting the method of computation of income followed by the assessee? 12. first we are considering question no two remanded back by the Honble high Court having same issue raised in ground No.4 of the appellant assessee, on perusal of the assessment order, we find that the AO declined to grant exemption due to change in accounting system by the assessee rejecting the books of accounts of the assessee. The CIT(A) also went with the view taken by the AO. During the course of hearing, ld.AR submitted that from the assessment year 1985-86, the assessee changed the method of accounting from cash system to hybrid system, which had been rejected by the AO and affirmed by the CIT (A) and ITAT in different stage of appeals. Now, the question arises before us is as to whether the adoption of hybrid system of accounting by the assessee was correct or not. In this regard, during the course of hearing, the ld. AR submitted that prior to the A.Y.1997-98, the hybrid system of accounting was permissible under the Act and though the assessee was to follow the method of accounting consistently, however, the assessee is a charitable trust whose income is taxable under the provisions of Section 11, 12 & 13 of the Act, therefore, the provisions of Section145 is not ITA No38-40/CTK/2007 12 applicable. The ld. AR drew our attention to page 96 of the assessee’s paper book wherein the interim order has been passed by the Tribunal vide order dated 05.05.2008 directing both the parties i.e. assessee as well as the department to bring on record as to whether the accrued income for these particulars years have subsequently been accounted by the assessee in other assessment years on cash basis or not. Our attention was also drawn at page Nos.97 & 98 of the paper book regarding reply filed by the department in compliance of the direction issued by the Tribunal on 05.05.2008, wherein the department has expressed its inability to verify the voluminous documents; more specifically the verifications of the documents to be made are not in possession of the department. It was also stated by the department in the said letter that verification by the AO regarding the incomes accrued to the assessee cannot be possible to be done by the AO alone. Without going much into the merits of the case and delving into the assessment year under consideration along with the year of appeal, we are of the substantive opinion that when the department itself has expressed its inability to verify the documents as had been directed by the Tribunal vide its order dated 05.05.2008, either on account of voluminous documents or for any other reason whatsoever, hence the contentions of the assessee cannot be rebutted or curtailed by the revenue, therefore, the assessee cannot be kept in abeyance from getting justice which he deserves. Accordingly, we allow the ground No.4 of appeal of the assessee. With respect to Question no 1 the Honble High Court has remanded back the ITA No38-40/CTK/2007 13 issue regarding entitlement of assessee to exemption u/s 11 of the Act which was denied on account of change in accounting practice is also accordingly decided in favour of the assessee. 13. In view of the above, we hereby respectfully complied the directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 10.02.2022 and passed order accordingly. 14. Ground Nos.1 & 5 are general in nature, which requires no separate adjudication. 15. Thus, the appeal of the assessee for A.Y.1985-86 in ITA No.38/CTK/2007 is allowed partly. 16. Since the facts and circumstances and the issues involved in the other two appeals filed for A.Y.1989-90 & 1993-94 in ITA Nos.39 & 40/CTK/2007 are similar to the facts and ground decided above in ITA No.38/CTK/2007, therefore, the observations made in the appeal of the assessee by us for the A.Y.1985-86 shall be applied mutatis mutandis to the other appeals under consideration also. 17. In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 27/05/ 2022. Sd/- (C.M.GARG) Sd/- (ARUN KHODPIA) न्यानयक सदस्य / JUDICIAL MEMBER ऱेखा सदस्य / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER कटक Cuttack; ददनाांक Dated 27/05/2022 Prakash Kumar Mishra, Sr.P.S. ITA No38-40/CTK/2007 14 आदेश की प्रनिलऱपप अग्रेपषि/Copy of the Order forwarded to : आदेशाि ु सार/ BY ORDER, (Assistant Registrar) आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, कटक/ITAT, Cuttack 1. अऩीलाथी / The Appellant- The Prajatantra Prachar Samity Beharibag, Chandini Chowk, Cuttack 2. प्रत्यथी / The Respondent- ACIT, Cir-2(1), Cuttack 3. आयकि आय ु क्त(अऩील) / The CIT(A), 4. आयकि आय ु क्त / CIT 5. ववभागीय प्रनतननधध, आयकि अऩीलीय अधधकिण, कटक / DR, ITAT, Cuttack 6. गार्ा पाईल / Guard file. सत्यावऩत प्रनत //True Copy//