Income Tax Officer., Lucknow V. M/s. U.P.Forest Corporation Ltd., Lucknow

ITA 4/LKW/2012

• Counselvise Citation: 423714 RSA 2012
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 10 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-11-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 12-11-2013
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 04-01-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: R B SHUKLA A R SHUKLA
• Keywords: Charitable institution; Retrospective amendment
• Section: 143(3); 234B

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH A, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.04/LKW/2012 A.Y.:2007 - 08 INCOME TAX OFFICER - 1(4), LUCKNOW. VS. U.P. FOREST CORPORATION LTD., 21/475,INDIRA NAGAR, LUCKNOW. PAN:AAACU8180C (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) C.O.NO.04/LKW/2012 (IN ITA NO.04/LKW/2012) A.Y.:2007 - 08 U.P. FOREST CORPORATION LTD., 21/475,INDIRA NAGAR, LUCKNOW. PAN:AAACU8180C VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER - 1(4), LUCKNOW. (OBJECTOR) (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY SHRI MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, CIT, D.R. ASSESSEE BY S/SHRI R. B. SHUKLA, A. R. SHUKLA ADVOCATES DATE OF HEARING 12/11/2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 29 /11/2013 O R D E R PER A. K. GARODIA, A.M. THE APPEAL IS FILED BY THE REVENUE AND THE CROSS OBJECTION IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, WHICH ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT ( A) - I, LUCKNOW DATED 10/10/2011 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 7 - 200 8 . 2 2. FIRST WE TAKE UP THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE. THE GRO UNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE ARE AS UNDER: 1. THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN RELYING UPON THE EARLIER DECISIONS OF HON'BLE ITAT AND LD.CIT(A) ON THE ISSUE OF CHARGING INTEREST U/S 234B OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT AFTER AMENDMENT TO SECTION 234B OF THE ACT W.E.F. 01.04.2007 I.E. A.Y. 2007 - 08, WHERE REGULAR ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN MADE , INTEREST U/S 234B SHA LL BE CHARGED ON TAX ON TOTAL INCOME AS PER THE REGULAR ASSESSMENT AND THERE IS NO OPTION AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSEE FOR CHARGING INTEREST ON TAX ON INCOME DETERMINED U/S SUB - SECTION (1) TO 143 OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT. 2. THE LD.CIT(A) HAS FURTHER ERRED IN REL YING UPON THE EARLIER DECISIONS OF HON'BLE ITAT AND CIT(A) WITHOUT RECORDING ANY FINDING THAT THE FACTS OBTAINING IN THE A.Y. 2007 - 08 WERE THE SAME AS IN THE EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS IN RESPECT OF WHICH THE DECISIONS RELIED UPON WERE RENDERED. 3. THE APPE LLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD OR AMEND ANY ONE OR MORE OF THE GROUND OF APPEAL AS STATED ABOVE AS AND WHEN NEED OF DOING SO ARISES WITH THE PRIOR PERMISSION OF THE HON'BLE BENCH. 3. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE CROSS OBJECTION ARE ALSO CONNECTED WITH THE SAME ISSUE REGARDING CHARGEABILITY OF INTEREST U/S 234B AND HENCE, WE DECIDE BOTH THE APPEALS AND CROSS OBJECTION TOGETHER. GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE CROSS OBJECTION ARE ALSO REPRODUCED BELOW: 1. BECAUSE THE L D. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX (APPEALS) - I HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN NOT DECIDING THE MAIN ISSUE WITH REFERENCE TO THE GROUND OF APPEAL WHETHER THE ASSESSEE WAS, AT ALL, LIABLE TO PAY ADVANCE 3 TAX ON ITS CURRENT INCOME WITH REFERENCE TO ITS COM PUTATIO N OF SUCH INCOME U/S 209 (1 ) (A)/208 READ WITH SECTION 210 (1) OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT, DESPITE THE JUDGMENT OF THIS TRIBUNAL DATED 13.11.2007 AND THE ORDERS OF THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL FOR COMPUTATION OF INCOME U/S 11, AND, THAT TOO, IN ABSENCE OF ANY, NOTICE BY THE A.O. U/S 210 (3) TO THE ASSESSEE TO PAY ADVANCE TAX. 2. BECAUSE THE L D. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX (APPEALS) - I HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN LAW IN STRAIGHTWAY GOING TO THE CALCULATION ASPECT OF THE INTEREST U/S 234B ALLOWED BY THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL B Y ITS ORDER DATED 13.11.2007 BASED ON THE ALTERNATIVE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE DE HORS THE LIABILITY TO PAY ADVANCE TAX AS PER GROUND NO.1 (SUPRA) AND THE GROUND OF APPEAL BEFORE HIM. 3. IT IS PRAYED THAT THE DELETION OF INTEREST U/S 234B BY THE L D. C.L. T. (A), ALTHOUGH WITH REFERENCE TO THE ASPECT OF CALCULATION MAY GRACIOUSLY BE CONFIRMED BY THIS HON'BLE TRIBUNAL ON THE GROUND THAT IN THE FACTS OF THIS CASE AND THE JUDGMENTS OF THIS HON'BLE TRIBUNAL, ASSESSEE WAS NEVER LIABLE TO PAY ADVANCE TAX MERELY B ECAUSE OF AN ILLEGAL VIEW SUBSEQUENTLY TAKEN BY THE A.O. CONTRARY TO HIS OWN FINDING IN EARLIER YEARS BY EXEMPTING THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE U/A 11 OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT. 4. FIRST WE REPRODUCE PARA NO. 7 OF THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT ( A) AS PER WHICH HE HA S DISCUSSED THE ISSUE AND DECIDED THE SAME: 7. GROUND NO. 5 DISPUTES THE LEVY OF INTEREST U/S 234B. THE APPELLANT CONTENDS THAT THE INTEREST CHARGED BY THE AO U/S 234B IS CONTRARY TO THE DEFINITION OF ASSESSED TAX IN EXPLANATION 1 TO SECTION 234B. THE APPELLANT FURTHER CONTENDS THAT THOUGH SECTION 234 IS MANDATORY, THE CONDITION PRECEDENT FOR INVOKING THE SECTION IS THAT THE ASSESSEE MUST BE FASTENED WITH THE LIABILITY TO PAY ADVANCE TAX U/S 208. IN SUPPORT OF ITS CONTENTION THE APPELLANT CORPORATION HAS SUBMITTED COPIES OF THE TWO ORDERS - FIRST FOR TH E A.YRS. 1997 - 98, 1999 - 2000, 4 20001 - 02 & 2002 - 03 DATED 20.12.2007, AND THE OTHER, FOR THE A.Y. 19990 - 91 AND 2003 - 04 DATED 13.11.2007 PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE APPELLANT'S OWN CASE, IN WHICH THE ISSUE RELATING TO LEVY OF INTEREST U/S 234B HAS BEEN DECIDE D IN FAVOUR OF THE APPELLANT. THIS DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL HAS BEEN FOLLOWED BY M Y LEARNED PREDECESSOR IN HIS ORDER DATED 12.01.2009 PASSED FOR THE A.Y. 2005 - 06. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE EARLIER ORDERS ON THIS ISSUE , I DECIDE THE GROUND NO. 5 IN FAVOUR OF THE APPELLANT WITH THE DIRECTION TO THE AO TO CALCULATE THE INTEREST U/S 234B WITH REFERENCE TO TAX AS PER INCOME ACCEPTED U/S 143(1). 5. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY LEARNED D.R. OF THE REVENUE THAT EXPLANATION 1 TO SECTION 234B HAS BEEN SUBSTITUTED BY FINAN CE ACT, 2006 WITH EFFECT FROM 01/04/2007 AND THEREFORE, SUCH SUBSTITUTED EXPLANATION 1 IS APPLICABLE IN THE PRESENT YEAR I.E. 2007 - 2008 AND HENCE, THE EARLIER TRIBUNAL ORDER IS NOT APPLICABLE IN THE PRESENT CASE. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT LEARNED CIT ( A) HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AS PER EARLIER TRIBUNAL ORDER WITHOUT CONSIDERING THIS AMENDED EXPLANATION TO SECTION 234B AND THEREFORE, THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT ( A) SHOULD BE REVERSED AND THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHOULD BE RESTORED. HE ALSO PLACED RELIANCE ON THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE KERALA HIGH COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF SEAPEARL ENTERPRISES VS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX [2007] 294 ITR 374 (KER) . HE ALSO SUBMITTED A COPY OF CBDT CIRCULAR NO. 14 OF 2006 DATED 28/12/2006 AND DRAWN OUR ATTENTION TO PARA 38.5 OF THIS CIRCULAR. 6. AS AGAINST THIS, LEARNED A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT ( A). HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THIS ISSUE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE EARLIER TRIBUNAL DECISION IN ASSESSE ES OWN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 1990 - 91 AND 2003 - 04 IN I.T.A. NO.1250 AND 1251/LKW/05 DATED 13/11/2007, COPY OF WHICH IS AVAILABLE ON PAGES 9 TO 5 77 OF THE PAPER BOOK. HE HAS ALSO DRAWN OUR ATTENTION TO ANOTHER TRIBUNAL ORDER IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR A SSESSMENT YEAR 2005 - 2006 IN I.T.A. NO.205/LKW/09 DATED 20/05/2009, COPY OF WHICH IS AVAILABLE ON PAGES 83 TO 85 OF THE PAPER BOOK. HE SUBMITTED THAT THIS ISSUE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AS PER THESE TWO TRIBUNAL DECISIONS. 7. WE HAVE CONSIDERE D THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD , GONE THROUGH THE O RDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND THE TRIBUNAL DECISION S CITED BY LEARNED A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE. BRIEF FACTS ARE THAT IN THIS CASE , THE RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 31/10/2007 DECLARING A LOSS OF RS.9,54,06,372/ - . THE ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) WAS COMPLETED ON 18/12/2009 AT A TOTAL INCOME OF RS.75,57,64,348/ - AND INTEREST WAS CHARGED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 234B OF THE ACT. SUCH INTEREST WAS CHARGED ON THE BASIS OF THE ASSESSED INCOME AS PER ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 143(3) ON 18/12/2009. AGAINST THIS CHARGING OF INTEREST, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A), WHO DIRE CTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO CALCULATE THE INTEREST U/S 234B OF THE ACT WITH REFERENCE TO INCOME ACCEPTED U/S 143(1) AND NOW , THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 7.1 IN THE LIGHT OF ABOVE FACTS, NOW WE EXAMINE THE APPLICABILITY OF TWO TRIBUNAL DECISIONS. WE FIND THAT THE FIRST TRIBUNAL DECISION IS FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1990 - 91 AND 2003 - 04, WHICH IS AVAILABLE ON PAGES 9 TO 77 OF THE PAPER BOOK. ON PAGE NO. 10 OF THE PAPER BOOK, WHERE FACTS ARE NOTED BY THE TRIBUNAL, IT IS NOTED THAT ON THE ASSESSEES WRIT PETITION, THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 19/05/2008 HAS HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS LOCAL AUTHORITY AND ALSO CHARITABLE INSTITUTION AND ACCORDINGLY ENTITLED FOR EXEMPTION U/S 10(20) AND SECTION 11 OF THE ACT. THIS IS ALSO NOTED THAT ON SLP FIL ED BY THE DEPARTMENT, THE HON'BLE APEX COURT VIDE 6 JUDGMENT DATED 02/03/98 HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION AND THE ISSUE ON EXEMPTION U/S 11 WAS RESTORED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IN THE LIGHT OF THIS FACTUAL POSITION NOTED BY THE TRI BUNAL IN THAT YEAR, WE FURTHER FIND THAT IT WAS HELD BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THIS ORDER FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1990 - 91 AT PARA 71 OF THIS ORDER THAT SINCE IT WAS HELD BY HON'BLE HIGH COURT VIDE JUDGMENT DATED 19/05/98 THAT THE ASSESSEES INCOME IS EXEMPT U/S10(20) AND 11(1) OF THE ACT, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT REQUIRED TO PAY ADVANCE TAX AND, THEREFORE, IT CANNOT BE FASTENED WITH THE LIABILITY OF INTEREST U/S 234B OF THE ACT. IT IS FURTHER NOTED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN PARA 76 THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT FORESEE THE OUTCOME OF THE PENDING DISPUTE BEFORE HON'BLE SUPR EME COURT AND THEREFORE, THERE WA S NO OBLIGATION OF THE ASSESSEE TO PAY ADVANCE TAX AND HENCE, QUESTION OF CHARGING INTEREST FOR FAILURE TO PAY ADVANCE TAX DOES NOT ARISE. BUT IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINIO N, THIS TRIBUNAL DECISION IS NOT APPLICABLE IN THE PRESENT CASE BECAUSE AS PER THE FACTS NOTED BY THE TRIBUNAL ON PAGE 10 OF THE PAPER BOOK, THE HON'BLE APEX COURT VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 02/03/98 HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION U/S10(20 ) AND THE ISSUE OF EXEMPTION U/S 11 WAS RESTORED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HENCE, IN THE PRESENT ASSESSMENT YEAR I.E. ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 2008, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT LIABLE TO PAY ADVANCE TAX IN VIEW OF THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE ALLAH ABAD HIGH COURT DATED 19/05/88 IN VIEW OF THE SUBSEQUENT JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE APEX COURT DATED 02/03/98. 7.2 WHILE DECIDING THE ISSUE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003 - 04, AS PER PARA 98 OF THE TRIBUNAL ORDER, AVAILABLE ON PAGE 76, WE FIND THAT THE SAME WAS ON THE BASIS THAT THE AMENDMENT IN EXPLANATION 1 TO SECTION 234B OF THE ACT WAS BY FINANCE ACT, 2006 EFFECTIVE FROM 01/04/2007 AND THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE IS LEGALLY CORRECT TO ADOPT THE MEANING OF WORDS ASSESSED TAX AS 7 THE TAX WITH REFERENCE TO INCOME DETERMINED U/S 143(1) OF THE ACT. BUT IN THE PRESENT CASE BEFORE US, THE ASSESSMENT YEAR INVOLVED IS 2007 - 08 AND HENCE, THE AMENDED PROVISION S OF EXPLANATION 1 TO SECTION 234B OF THE ACT ARE APPLICABLE AND THEREFORE, THE TRIBUNAL DECISION FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003 - 0 4 IS ALSO NOT RELEVANT IN THE PRESENT YEAR. 7.3 NOW WE DISCUSS THE APPLICABILITY OF ANOTHER TRIBUNAL DECISION FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005 - 06. SINCE THIS ORDER IS ALSO FOR A PERIOD PRIOR TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 08 I.E. BEFORE THE AMEND M E NT IN THE PROVISION S O F EXPLANATION 1 TO SECTION 234B, THIS TRIBUNAL DECISION IS ALSO NOT APPLICABLE. 7.4 NOW WE DISCUSS THE APPLICABILITY OF THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE KERALA HIGH COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF SEAPEARL ENTERPRISES (SUPRA). THIS JUDGMENT IS WITH REGARD TO CHA RGEABILITY OF INTEREST U/S 234A AND THE SAME WAS IN CONNECTI ON WITH THE AMENDMENT OF SECTION 234A BY FINANCE ACT, 2001 WITH RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT FROM 01/04/89 AND IT WAS HELD THAT THIS JUDGMENT IS CLARIFICATORY AND THEREFORE, VALID. A REFERENCE WAS MADE I N THIS CASE TO THE AMENDMENT IN SECTION 234B ALSO REGARDING SUBSTITUTION OF EXPLANATION 1 TO SECTION 234B AND IT WAS OBSERVED THAT THIS AMENDMENT TO SECTION 234B IS ALSO INTENDED TO CLARIFY THE SAME POSITION THAT THE INTEREST IS CHARGEABLE U/S 234A AND 234B ON ASSESSED INCOME AND NOT ON INCOME RETURNED BY THE ASSESSEE. HENCE, THIS JUDGMENT S UPPORTS THE CASE OF THE REVENUE. 7.5 AS PER THE CBDT CIRCULAR NO. 14 OF 2006, IT IS CLEAR THAT FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING INTEREST U/S 234A AND 234B, INCOME DETERMINED AFTER REGULAR ASSESSMENT IS TO BE CONSIDERED IF IT IS SO ASSESSED IN A GIVEN CASE . H ENCE, ON THIS ASPECT, WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THE ARGUMENT OF LEARNED A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE THAT FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING INTEREST 8 CHARGEABLE U/S 234B OF THE ACT, INCOME DETERMINED U/S 143(1) IS TO BE CONSIDERED AND HENCE, WE HOLD THAT FOR SUCH CHAR GING OF INTEREST U/S 234B, THE INCOME DETERMINED AS PER REGULAR ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) SHOULD BE CONSIDERED WHERE SUCH ASSESSMENT IS MADE. 8. REGARDING THE CROSS OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE ALSO, WE FIND THAT THE OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT LIABLE TO PAY ADVANCE TAX IS WITHOUT ANY MERIT BECAUSE THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT HAS BEEN REVERSED BY HON'BLE SUPREME COURT AND THEREFORE, THIS ARGUMENT OF LEARNED A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT VALID. REGARDING THIS ARGUMENT THAT N O NOTICE WAS ISSUED ASKING THE ASSESSEE TO PAY ADVANCE TAX, WE WOULD LIKE TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT AS PER SECTION 210(1) OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSEE IS REQUIRED TO PAY ADVANCE TAX ON HIS OWN AND THEREFORE, THE ISSUE OF NOTICE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 210(3) IS NOT MANDATORY. IT IS AN ADDITIONAL POWER GIVEN TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS PER WHICH HE MAY ISSUE A NOTICE TO AN ASSESSEE ASKING THE ASSESSEE TO MAKE PAYMENT OF ADVANCE TAX BUT IT IS NOT MANDATORY AND IT CANNOT BE S AID THAT WHERE NO NOTICE WAS ISSUED, THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT REQUIRED TO PAY ADVANCE TAX. WE HAVE ALREADY SEEN THAT NONE OF THE TRIBUNAL ORDER S IS APPLICABLE IN THE PRESENT YEAR AND HENCE, NONE OF THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE CROSS OBJECTION HAS ANY MERIT. IT IS ALSO RELEVANT TO N OTE THAT AS PER TRIBUNAL ORDER DATED 13/11/2007, IT WAS NOT THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT LIABLE TO PAY ADVANCE TAX AND THEREFORE, INTEREST U/S 234B IS NOT CHARGEABLE. THE DECISION WAS TH IS THAT THE INTEREST U/S 234B SHOULD BE COMP UTED AS PER INCOME COMPUTED U/S 143(1) AND HENCE, THIS CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT LIABLE TO PAY ADVANCE TAX AND THEREFORE, NOT CHARGEABLE TO INTEREST . IN FACT , THIS TRIBUNAL ORDER DATED 13/11/2007 COVERS THE ISSUE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE REGARD ING 9 CHARGEABILITY OF INTEREST AND ONLY ASPECT, WHICH IS REQUIRED TO BE DECIDED NOW IS WHETHER SUCH INTEREST SHOULD BE PAID AS PER IN COME COMPUTED U /S143(1) OR 143(3). ON THIS ASPECT, T HE EARLIER TRIBUNAL ORDER IS NOT APPLICABLE IN VIEW OF THE AMENDMENT IN EXPLANATION 1 TO SECTION 234B OF THE ACT. HENCE, ALL THE GROUNDS OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE CROSS OBJECTION ARE REJECTED. 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS ALLOWED AND THE CROSS OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. (ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONED ON THE CAPTION PAGE) SD/. SD/. (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) (A. K. GARODIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 29 TH NOVEMBER, 201 3 . *C.L.SINGH COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. CONCERNED CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, LUCKNOW ASSTT. REGISTRAR