Shri. Surendrakumar Arora, Nagpur V. Assistane Commissioner of Income-Tax,Central Circle -1(2), Nagpur

ITA 40/NAG/2008

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7660 (ITAT-NAGPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 year(s) 11 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-01-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 27-06-2016
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 17-01-2008
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A R NINAWE
• Assessee Lawyers: S C THAKAR; C J THAKAR
• Keywords: Unexplained expenditure; Search and seizure; Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice; Source of fund; Corroborative evidences
• Section: 69C; 143(3); 133A; 132; 154

Judgement Text

1 ITA NO. 40/NAG/2008 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. (S.M.C.) I.T.A. NO. 40 /NAG/20 08. ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005 - 06. SHRI SURENDRA KUMAR ARORA, ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX, NAGPUR. VS. CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(2), NAGPUR. PAN AB HPA 6883B. APPELLANT. RESPONDENT. APPELLANT BY : SHRI C.J. THAKAR & SHRI S.C. THAKAR. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI A.R. NINAWE. DATE OF HEARING : 0 5 - 12 - 2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 13 TH JANUARY, 2017. O R D E R. T HIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST ORDER OF L EARNED CIT(APPEALS) - I, NAGPUR DATED 31/10/2007 AND PERTAINS TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005 06. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL READ AS UNDER : 1. LEARNED C.I.T.(A) ERRED IN MAKING UNWARRANTED, UNTENABLE AND HIGHLY PREJUDICIAL STATEMENT S AND OBSERVATION WITHOUT ANY LEGAL OR PROPER MATERIAL OR EVI D E NCE AND IN VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND WITHOUT JUR ISDICTION AND MERELY ON SURMISES AND CONJECTURES AND HENCE ALL SUCH OBSERVATION, FINDINGS, STATEMENTS OF INCRIMINATING NATURE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE BE DELETED. 2. LEARNED C.I.T.(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE UNWARRANTED AND UNTENABLE ADDITIONS MADE BY A.O. 3. LEARN ED C.I.T.(A) ERRED IN CONVERTING PROTECTIVE ADDITION OF RS.7,41,073/ - MADE BY A.O. INTO SUBSTANTIVE ADDITION. 4. LEARNED C.I.T.(A) ERRED IN ISSUING NOTICE OF ENHANCEMENT AND ERRED IN 2 ITA NO. 40/NAG/2008 NOT PROPERLY CONSIDERING THE ASSESSEES REPLY THERETO AND THE EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT THEREOF WHICH WAS CONSIDERED BY A.O. AND WAS ALSO ACCEPTED BY HIM IN ASSESSMENT ORDER. 5. LEARNED C.I.T.(A) ERRED IN MAKING AN ADDITION OF RS.6,42,728/ - AS UNEXPLAINED GOLD ORNAMENTS/SILVER/DIAMOND WHICH IS CONTRARY TO THE EVIDENCE AND MATERIAL ON RE CORD. 6. LEARNED C.I.T.(A) ERRED IN MAKING AN ADDITION OF RS.32,375/ - AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CONTRARY TO EVIDENCE AND MATERIAL ON RECORD. 2. I N THIS CASE SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION S UNDER SECTION 132 OF THE I NCOME T AX A CT WERE CARRIED OUT IN THE RESIDENTIAL AS WELL AS THE BUSINESS P REMI S ES OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE OTHER FAMILY MEMBERS. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THE A SSESSING O FFICER OBSERVED AND HELD AS UNDER : ASSESSEE WAS ASKED VIDE LETTER DATED 19 - 12 - 2006 THAT AN AMOUN T OF RS.741074 HAS BEEN PAID BY ASSESSEE IN F.Y. 2004 - 05 AGAINST THE DEMAND RAISED U/S 154 OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 FOR A.Y. 2000 - 01 TO A.Y. 2003 - 04 IN THE CASE OF SHRI KHUSHALKUMAR TANK TO WHOM ASSESSEE HAS REPRESENTED BEFORE ITO WD. - 8(2),NAGPUR DURING PROCE EDINGS U/S 154. SHRI TANK DURING HIS STATEMENT DURING POST SEARCH INQUIRIES AND BEFORE ME HAS STATED THAT HE N E VER RECEIVED ANY REFUND NEITHER HE OPERATED A/C NO 11444 IN BANK OF MAHARASHTRA SHANKAR NAGAR BR. NAGPUR FOR WITHDRAWING AMOUNTS FROMIN ALSO HE H AS NOT GIVEN AUTHORIZATION TO ASSESSEE FOR PROCEEDINGS U/S 154. HE FURTHER STATED THAT HE NEVER RECEIVED ANY DEMAND NOTICE IN ABOVE MENTIONED CASES OF SHRI TANK. HE HAS STATED THAT HE NEVER PAID THE AMOUNT OF RS.7,41,073/ - . THE SAME AMOUNT IS NOT REFLECT ED IN REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE. HE WAS ASKED WHY THIS AMOUNT NOT BE ASKED IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE FOR A.Y. 2005 - 06. ASSESSEE HAS NOT GIVEN ANY SATISFACTORY EXPLANATION FOR HIS. HENCE, I ADD ON PROTECTIVE BASIS THIS AMOUNT OF RS .7,41,073/ - TO THE RETURNED INCOME OF ASSESSEE AS UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE U/S 69C OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271(1)(C) IS INITIATED. 3. A GAINST THE ABOVE ORDER ASSESSEE APPEALED BEFORE THE L EARNED CIT(APPEALS). THE L EARNED CIT(APPEALS) NOTED THE BACKGROUND OF THIS CASE. THAT THE DEPARTMENT HAS UNEARTHED FRAUD OF REFUND CLAIMS AGAINST FAKE TDS 3 ITA NO. 40/NAG/2008 CERTIFICATES. THE MAIN CULPRIT WAS THE ASSESSEE WHO IS A C HARTERED A CCOUNTANT. IN CASE OF SEVERAL PARTIES ORDERS UNDER SECTION 154 WERE PASSED BY THE A SSESSING O FFICER AND THE PERSON S CONCERNED REFUNDED THE AMOUNT. BUT IN CASE OF ONE PERSON SHRI K HUSHALDAS TANK, THE SAID PERSON DECLINED THAT HE HAD RECEIVED THE REFUND OR EN CASH D THE SAME. THE AMOUNT INVOLVED WAS RS. 7 , 41 , 074 / - . THE SAID PERSON SUBMITTED THAT THE ENTIRE MATTER WAS HANDLED BY THE ASSESSEE AND HE WAS NOT AWARE OF ANY RECEIPT IN THIS CONNECTION. THE A SSESSING O FFICER HOWEVER DISBELIEVED HIM AND ADDED THE SAID AMOUNT SUBSTANTIVELY IN HIS H AND S AND ALSO ADDED THIS AMOUNT ON PROTECTIVE BASIS IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE AS MENTIONED IN THE A SSESSING O FFICER'S ORDER REPRODUCED HERE IN ABOVE. 4. IN THE APPEAL IN THE CASE OF SHRI TANK THE L EARNED CIT(APPE A LS) IS SAID TO HAVE DELETED THE ADDITIO N ON SUBSTANTIVE BASIS. 5 . IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE'S APPEAL THE L EARNED CIT(APPEALS) ADDED THE SAID AMOUNT OF 7 , 41 , 074 / - IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE ON SUBSTANTIVE BASIS. THEN T HE CIT (APPEALS) FURTHER ENHANCE D THE ASSESSMENT BY ADDING RS.6 , 42 , 728 / - AS UNEXPLAINED VALUE OF GOLD ORNAMENTS SILVER ETC AND RS.32 , 375 / - AS UNEXPLAINED CASH FOUND AT THE TIME OF S EARCH. 6. AGAINST THIS ORDER ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE ITAT. 7. I HAVE HEARD BOTH THE COUNSEL AND PERUSED THE RECORDS. THE POINT - W ISE SUBMIS SION OF THE ASSESSEE S COUNSEL AGAINST THE OBSERVATIONS OF L EARNED CIT(APPEALS) AND OTHER PLEADINGS ARE SUMMARISED AS BELOW : OBSERVATIONS BY LEARNED C.I.T.(A) ASSESSEES REPLY. I) FOR MAKING AN ADDITION OF RS. 7,41,071/ - ON SUBSTANTIVE BASIS BY CIT(A) AGAINST PROTECTIVE ADDITION MADE BY AO , THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS SOLELY ASSESSEE HAD NO OPPORTUNITY TO COUNTER THE ALLEGATIONS MADE IN I MPUGNED APPRAISAL REPORT. THERE WAS A GROSS VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. 4 ITA NO. 40/NAG/2008 RELIED ON THE APPRAISAL REPORT OF ADDL.D.I.T.(INV.) NAGPUR. NOT ONLY THIS BUT SHE HAS TAKEN THE SAME AS PROVED. ALLEGATIONS IN APPRAISAL REPORT OF ADIT(INV) THAT ASSESSEE CONFESSED TO FORGERY, FRAUD ETC. IS NOT TRUE. IN FACT HE HAS DENIED ANY FRAUD. HE HAD ONLY SAID THAT HE WIL L HELP IN RETRIEVING THE AMOUNT BY DEPT. ALLEGED CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT NOT PUT TO ASSESSEE. II) VARIOUS WILD ALLEGATIONS ARE MADE BY LEARNED CIT(A) AND HELD THEM AS PROVED WITHOUT EVEN PUTTING THEM TO THE ASSESSEE LIKE REFUND VOUCHERS ENCFASHED THROUGH BANK A/C. NO.11444 OF KHUSHALCHAND TANK WITH BANK OF MAHARASHTRA - SPECIMEN SIGNATURE IN BANK A/C. DIFFERS FROM TANKS SIGNATURE ON HIS RETURN ETC. BANK A/C NO. 11444 OF TANK EXIST FOR MORE THAN LAST 15 YEARS, THERE ARE VARIOUS DEPOSITS AND WITHDRAWALS BY TANK. RE. : ALLEGED VARIATION IN SIGNATURE THERE IS NO OPINION OF HAND WRITING EXPERT. SAID ALLEGATION NOT PUT TO THE ASSESSEE. OTHERWISE HE WOULD HAVE EXPLAINED AND PROVED THAT THE BANK A/C. IS OPERATED BY TANK AND NO NE ELSE. III) ALLEGATION THAT TANK USED TO GIVE BLANK SIGNED RETURNS TO SHRI SKH ARORA AND HE MISUSED IT. NO EVIDENCE. NOT PUT TO HIM. ASSESSEE CAN PROVE THIS TO BE FALSE. IV) AUDIT REPORT ATTACHED WITH THE RETURN OF A.U. 2001 - 02 DOES NOT BEAR SIGNATURE OF TANK. AUDIT REPORT FABRICATED ETC. SIGNATURE NOT NECESSARY. ONLY AUDITORS SIGNATURE IS REQUIRED. FURTHER THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT CONFRONTED WITH THE SAID ALLEGATION. HE HAD NO OPPORTUNITY TO COUNTER IT. V) ALLEGATION THAT TANK NEVER VISITED INCOMETAX OFFICE. STATUTORY NOTICE RECD. BY ARORA ETC. ALLEGATION FALSE. 154 NOTICE SERVED ON SHRI TANK BY AFFIXTURE ON HIS PREMISES. EVEN SURVEY U/S. 133A WAS CARRIED AT TANKS PREMISES IN HIS PRESENCE. HE HAS SIGNED INVENTORIES, HAS RECEIVED NOTICES. HAVE GIVEN AU THORITY TO ARORA ASSESSEE TO APPEAR IN 154 PROCEEDINGS. ALLEGATION/FINDING OF LEARNED CIT(A) THAT IT IS THE ASSESSEE WHO PAID THE DEMAND OF RS.7,41,073/ - IS NOT BASED ON ANY LEGAL OR ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE. IT IS 5 ITA NO. 40/NAG/2008 BASED ON ASSUMPTIONS. IT IS SERIOUSLY VIOL ATIVE OF PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. ALTERNATIVE PLEA IF THE ALLEGATION OF CIT(A) THAT IT WAS SKH ARORA WHO WAS THE BENEFICIARY AND IT WAS HE WHO RECEIVED THE REFUND AND THAT THE DEMAND OF RS.7,41,073/ - U/S 154 WAS PAID BY ARORA WERE TO BE ACCEPTED THEN THE SOURCE OF PAYMENT OF DEMAND AS OUT OF THE REFUND AMOUNT IS AUTOMATICALLY PROVED AND THERE IS NEITHER ANY UNEXPLAINED OR UNPROVED INVESTMENT & HENCE ALSO NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE. RE.: ADDITION OF RS.6,42,728/ - GOLD ORNAMENTS ETC. FIRSTLY AT THE TIME OF SEARCH TWO MLIST OF ORNAMENTS DT. 08/07/1998 PREPARED BY ASSESSEE IN 1998 WITH FULL DETAILS OF ITEMS, WEIGHT ETC. WERE FOUND. THE SAID LIST FOUND AT THE TIME OF SEARCH ITSELF HAS A GREAT EVIDENTIARY VALUE. THE LIST OF ORNAMENTS FOUND AT THE TIME OF SEARCH FROM RESIDENCE WAS PREPARED AT R - 1/J (PAGE 42 PAPERBOOK 916 GMS.) AND FROM LOCKER NO. 139 WAS PREPARED AT R - 1/J5 (PAPER BOOK PAGE 43 762.050 GMS). THE LIST OF ORNAMENTS DT. 08.07.1998 FOUND FROM RESIDENCE AT THE TIME OF SEARCH WAS ALMOST COMPLETELY TALLIED WITH THE ORNAMENTS FOUND AT THE TIME OF SEARCH BY SEARCH PARTY. THUS IT WAS ESTABLISHED BEYOND DOUBT THAT THESE ORNAMENTS WERE EXISTING PRIOR TO 1998. 6 ITA NO. 40/NAG/2008 SECONDLY ASSESSEES WIFES ELDER BROTHER SHRI CHANDRAMOHAN VACHHER HAS FILED AFFIDAVIT AND HAS GIVEN THE DETAILS OF ORNAMENTS GIVEN BY HIS PARENTS LATE AMARNATH VACHHAR AND ON WHICH OCCASION AMARNATH VACHHAR WAS A VERY WELL TO DO PERSON. HE WAS IN INDIAN AIR FORCE AND AFTER RETIREMENT HE WAS WITH ESCOR LTD. THERE IS NO MATERIAL TO DISBELIEVE THIS EVIDENCE. SIMILARLY ASSESSEES ELDER BROTHER SHRI OMPRAKASH HANSRAJ CHACHDA HAS ALSO FILED AFFIDAVIT AND HAD PROVED THAT 500 GMS. O F GOLD ORNAMENS WERE GIVEN BY HIS PARENTS TO THE ASSESSEE AND HIS WIFE. OMPRAKASH CHACHDA WAS VERY WELL TO DO PERSON. WAS CARRYING ON BUSINESS SINCE LAST 50 YEARS AND WAS INCOMETAX ASSESSEE. SIMILAR QUANTITY OR ORNAMENTS WERE GIVEN TO HIS BROTHER ALSO. THIS WAS A FAMILY TRADITION. THERE WAS NO MATERIAL TO DISBELIEVE THE SAME. THIRDLY THE A. O. AFTER FULLY INQUIRY HAS PASSED ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S 153 - A R.W.S. 143(3) FOR A.Y. 1999 - 2000 TO 2004 - 05 AND U/S 143(3) FOR A.Y. 2005 - 06. FULL DETAILED EXPLANATION DT. 27.12.2006 AND EVIDENCE REFERRED TO IN PAPERBOOK WAS CONSIDERED BY A.O. AND HE ACCEPTED THE SAME AND DID NOT MAKE ANY ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF ANY ALLEGED UNEXPLAINED ORNAMENTS OR UNEXPLAINED CASH. EVEN AT THE TIME OF SEARCH THE DEPARTMENT DID NOT SEIZE ORNAMENTS AT SERIAL NO. 1 R - 1/J 916 GMS. AND OTHER ITEMS (EXCEPT AT J5 762.050 GMS. IN LOCK ER) AS IT CONSIDERED THEM AS EXPLAINED. WHILE THE CIT(A) HAS ARBITRARILY CONSIDERED ITEMS AT SERIAL NO. 1R - 1/J 916 GMS. AND OTHERS AS UNEXPLAINED. SHE HAS TREATED ITEMS AT J5 762 GMS. AS EXPLAINED. 7 ITA NO. 40/NAG/2008 FOURTHLY IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE THE ADDITION OF RS.6,42,7 28/ - WHICH MAINLY CONSIST OF ORNAMENTS AT SERIAL NO.1 R - 1/J 916.00 GMS. AND WHICH ADMITTEDLY IS BELONGING TO SMT. SUJATA CANNOT BE ADDED IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. ADDITION IS WHOLLY UNTENABLE. SMT. SUJATA ARORA IS HERSELF AN ASSESSEE. IF FOR SAKE OF ARG UMENT ANY OF HER ORNAMENTS REMAINED UNEXPLAINED IT CAN BE ADDED IN HER CASE AND NOT IN THE ASSESSMENT OF THIS ASSESSEE. FIFTHLY LEARNED CIT(A) APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN OBESSED BY THE APPRAISAL REPORT AND ALLEGED SCAM INVOLVING ASSESSEE AN CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT AND HENCE ADDITION APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN MADE FOR ADDITION SAKE. THERE IS NO MATERIAL OR BASIS FOR MAKING ADDITION. LEARNED CIT(A) STATES THAT THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY ASSESSEE IS A MERE STATEMENT ON PAPER WHICH IS NOT BACKED BY ANY SUPPORTING EVIDENCE. SHE FAILED TO SEE AND APPRECIATE THAT THE AFFIDAVITS OF THIRD PARTIES ARE BY THEMSELVES EVIDENCE AND CANNOT BE BRUSHED ASIDE AS MERE PIECE OF PAPER. HER APPROACH IS CONTRARY TO WELL ESTABLISHED PRINCIPLES REGARDING EVIDENCE OF AFFIDAVIT AS EXPLAINED BY HON SUP REME COURT IN 30 ITR P. 181 S.C. AND BOMBAY H.C. IN 94 ITR P. 1. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE THE ADDITION OF RS.6,42,728/ - NEEDS TO BE DELETED. RE.: CASH RS.32,375/ - . THE SAME IS DULY EXPLAINED BY BALANCE SHEET SHOWING CASH IN HAND AT RS.72,928/ - AND DAILY CASH IN HAND STATEMENT PLEASE SEE. P.86 AND P.87 TO 91. ADDITION OF RS.32,375/ - IS UNJUSTIFIED. 8. P ER C ONTRA LEARNED D EPARTMENTAL R EPRESENTATIVE RELIED UPON THE ORDERS OF 8 ITA NO. 40/NAG/2008 THE L EARNED CIT(APPE A LS). 9. UPON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION I FIND THAT IT IS THE SUBMISS ION OF THE L EARNED COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE THAT L EARNED CIT(APPEALS) HAS NOT GRANTED ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE INASMUCH AS ON VARIOUS ADVERSE OBSERVATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS DRAWN BY THE L EARNED CIT(APPEALS) THE ASSESSEE WAS NEVER G IVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO PUT FORWARD HIS SUBMISSIONS. I FIND THAT THERE IS CONSIDERABLE COGENCY IN THE SUBMISSION OF THE L EARNED COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE P ARTICULARLY WITH RESPECT TO THE SUBSTANTIVE ADDITION OF THE SOURCE OF REFUND AMOUNT. WHEN IT IS THE REVE NUE'S ALLEGATION THAT THE REFUND AMOUNT WAS ACTUALLY RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE THEN THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE SAME AMOUNT WAS USED FOR REFUND NEEDS EXAMINATION AND CANNOT BE B R USHED ASIDE AT THE THRESHOLD . FURTHER MORE I FIND THAT THE ENHANCEMENT DONE BY THE CIT (APPEALS) IS NOT AT ALL WITH RELATION TO ANY OBSERVATIONS OR FINDING OR ADDITIONS MADE BY THE A SSESSING O FFIC ER IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. 10. IN THIS REGARD IT IS RELEVANT TO NOTE TH E OBSERVATION BY THE L EARNED CIT(APPEALS) REGARDING THE ENHANCEMENT THAT WHILE CONDUCTING PROCEEDINGS IT TRANSPIRED THAT THERE ARE CERTAIN ITEMS FOUND AS A RESULT OF SEARCH IN APPE L L A NT S CASE THAT HAVE NOT BEEN DISCUSSED/DECIDED IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER. TH EREAFTER THE APPEL LA NT S CASE WAS EXAMINE D AFRESH FROM THE ASSESSMENT ANGLE AND ENHANCEMENT NOTICE UNDER SECTION 251(2) WAS ISSUED TO THE APPEL LA NT...... 1 1 . IN THIS REGARD IT IS RELEVANT TO NOTE THAT HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT HAS EXPOUNDED THAT T HE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY CAN REVISE EVERY PROCESS WHICH LED TO THE ULTIMATE COMPUTATION OR ASSESSMENT. THERE IS ONE LIMITATION TO THIS POWER OF REVISION NAMELY, IT IS NOT OPEN TO HIM TO INTRODUCE IN THE ASSESSMENT NEW SOURCES OF INCOME, AND THE ASSESS MENT MUST BE CONFINED TO THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT. [NARRONDAS VS.CIT (1957) 31 ITR 901 (BOM); CIT V. SCINDIA STEAM NEVIGATION CO. LTD. (1971) 80 ITR 589,597 (BOM.)]. 9 ITA NO. 40/NAG/2008 12. A CCORDINGLY IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE I REMIT THE ISSUE RAISED IN THIS APPEAL TO THE FILE OF L EARNED CIT(APPEALS) . THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) IS DIRECTED TO CONSIDER THE ISSUE A FRESH AFTER GIVING THE ASSESSEE AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD AND ALSO TAKING IN TO ACCOUNT THE OBSERVATION AS ABOVE AND AS PER LAW. 13. IN THE RESULT THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 13 TH DAY OF JANUARY., 2017. SD/ - ( SHAMIM YAHYA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. NAGPUR, DATED: 13 TH JANUARY, 2017. COPY FORWARDED TO : 1. SHRI SURENDRA KUMAR ARORA, AMRITA MANOR, IN FRONT OF THE AXIS BANK, CIVIL LINES, NAGPUR. 2. A.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(2) , NAGPUR. 3. C.I.T. - (CENTRAL) , NAGPUR. 4. CIT(APPEALS), - I, NAGPUR. 5. D.R., ITAT, NAGPUR. 6. GUARD FILE TRUE COPY BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGIS TRAR, INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WAKODE.