ITO, New Delhi V. M/s. DSSI Foods Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 4148/DEL/2011

• Counselvise Citation: 414820114 RSA 2011
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-12-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 15-11-2011
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 15-09-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DR B R K KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: B N GOSWAMY
• Section: 194C

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES: B NEW DELHI BEFORE SMT. DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.C.MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO: 4148/DEL/2011 A.Y. : 2007-2008 ITO, W-10(4) VS. M/S DSSI FOODS PVT.LTD. NEW DELHI DDA COMMERCIAL COMPLEX 208-216, AURBINDO MARG, HAUZ KHAZ NEW DELHI PAN: AACCD0640G (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : DR.B.R.K.KUMAR, SR.D.R. RESPONDENT BY : SH. BN GOSWAMY, ADV. O R D E R PER DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER DT. 22.7.2011 OF CIT(A)-XIII, NEW DELHI PERTAINING TO 2 007-08 A.YS WHEREIN THE SOLE ISSUE AGITATED BY REVENUE IS AS UNDER. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD.CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 12, 74,842/- U/S 40A(IA) OF THE ACT AS THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS FAIL ED TO DEDUCT TAX. 2. THE RELEVANT FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSE SSEE WHO IS AN EXPORTER AS WELL AS A SELLER OF TEA IN THE DOMESTIC MARKET MADE A PAYMENT OF RS. 12,74,842/- TO M/S BHAGWATI PRINTER S PVT.LTD. THE PAYMENT WAS MADE FOR PURCHASING CARTONS AND OTHER PACKAGING MATERIAL FOR PACKING ITS PRODUCTS WITH ITS OWN SPECIFIC BRAN D/LOGO I.E. HAPPY ELEPHANT PRINTED ON THE CARTONS. THE A.O. WAS OF THE VIEW THAT SINCE ITA 4148/DEL/2011 PAGE 2 OF 9 DSSI FOODS P.LTD. A.Y. 2007-08 THE ASSESSEE HAD PROCURED THE PACKAGING MATERIAL CA RRYING THE LOGO OF SPECIFIC BRAND I.E. HAPPY ELEPHANT OF 10 VARIETIE S THE ORDER PLACED ON M/S BHAGWATI PRINTERS PVT.LTD. WAS IN THE NATURE O F WORKS CONTRACT AS ENVISAGED U/S 194C OF THE INCOME TAX ACT ON WHICH T HE ASSESSEE WAS LIABLE TO DEDUCT TDS. THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSES SEE THAT FOR THE SAID PURCHASE TDS WAS NOT ATTRACTED AS TDS IS NOT APPLIC ABLE ON GOODS SUPPLIED BY THE SUPPLIER WAS HELD TO BE UNTENABLE. THE A.O. EQUATED THE PRINTING OF THE ASSESSEES BRAND PARTICULARS/LO GO ON THE CARTONS AS PRINTING WORK ON THE SAME FOOTING AS PRINTING OF PERIODICALS ETC. ACCORDINGLY RELYING ON BOARDS CIRCULAR NO.715 DT. 8.8.1995; AND THE JUDGEMENT OF HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF STAT E OF TAMIL NADU VS. ANADAM VISWANATHAN (1989) 73 STC HE MADE A DISALLO WANCE OF THE ENTIRE SUM OF RS.12,74,842/- U/S40A(IA) IN VIEW OF ASSESSEES FAILURE TO DEDUCT TDS. 3. AGGRIEVED BY THIS THE ASSESSEE CAME IN APPEAL BE FORE THE CIT(A). THE SUBMISSIONS ADVANCED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE ARE FOUND REPRODUCED IN PARA 3 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER. THE CI T(A) TOOK NOTE OF THE FACT THAT M/S BHAGWATI PRINTERS P.LTD. IS AN OLD AN D REGULAR SUPPLIER OF PACKAGING MATERIAL IN THE FORM OF CARTONS TO THE AS SESSEE ON WHICH ASSESSEES BRAND NAME/LOGO ETC. ARE PRINTED. TAKIN G NOTE OF THE FACT THAT IN THE PRECEDING AS WELL AS SUBSEQUENT YEARS PURCH ASES MADE FROM THE SAME PARTY IN IDENTICAL FACTS HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED. CONSIDERING THE FACTS IT WAS HELD THAT IT WAS A TRANSACTION UNDER THE SA LE OF GOODS ACT AND ITA 4148/DEL/2011 PAGE 3 OF 9 DSSI FOODS P.LTD. A.Y. 2007-08 NOT A SUPPLY UNDER THE WORKS CONTRACT. THE SAI D AUTHORITY TOOK NOTE OF THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT SUPPLIED THE RAW MATERIAL FOR THE MANUFACTURE OF CARTONS AND TILL THE DATE OF THE SAL E OF THE CARTONS TO THE ASSESSEE THE OWNERSHIP OVER THE CARTONS VESTED WIT H M/S BHAGWATI PRINTERS P.LTD. TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION EXPLANAT ION (IV) TO S.194C IT WAS HELD THAT SINCE THE RAW MATERIALS FOR THE MANUF ACTURE OF CARTONS HAD NOT SUPPLIED BY THE ASSESSEE TO M/S BHAGWATI PRINTE RS P.LTD. FOR SUPPLY OF CARTONS CARRYING THE PRINTED LOGO/BRANDS OF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT FOR CARRYING OUT ANY WORK AS SUCH THE PAYMENT WAS HELD TO BE OUTSIDE THE AMBIT OF S.194C. RELIANCE WAS PLACED UPON THE ORDE R OF THE COORDINATE BENCH SITTING AT BANGALORE IN THE CASE OF KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION LTD. VS ITO, TDS, 11, TAXMAN.COM 313 (BANGALORE) W HEREIN VIDE ITS ORDER DT. 17.3.2011 WHEREIN THE CHARACTERISTICS OF WORKS CONTRACT AND SUPPLY CONTRACT HAD BEEN EXAMINED AT LENGTH IN THE CONTEXT OF APPLICATION U/S 194C. IT WAS OBSERVED BY THE CIT(A ) THAT THE SCOPE OF BOARDS CIRCULAR NO.295 DT. 6.3.1981; 681 DT. 8.3.1 994 AND 715 DT. 8.81995 AS WELL AS CIRCULAR NO.13 OF 2006 DT. 13.12 .2006 WHICH RESOLVED THE CONFLICT BETWEEN THE CIRCULAR NO.681 DT. 8.3.9 4 AND CIRCULAR NO.715 DT. 8.8.95 HAD BEEN CONSIDERED AT LENGTH. IN THE F ACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE IT WAS OBSERVED THAT THE A.O. HAS APPLIED CIRCULAR NO.715. THE RELEVANT PORTION IS EXTRACTED FROM THE ORDER IN THE CASE OF KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION LTD. AS UNDER. THUS, THERE WAS A CONFLICT BETWEEN CIRCULAR NOS. 6 81 AND 715. THE SAME WAS BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE ITA 4148/DEL/2011 PAGE 4 OF 9 DSSI FOODS P.LTD. A.Y. 2007-08 CBDT AND IN THIS REGARD, THE CBDT ISSUED CIRCULAR NO.13 OF 2006, DATED 13.12.2006 WHICH READS AS FOLLOWS. 1. REPRESENTATIONS HAVE BEEN RECEIVED IN THE BOARD SEEKING CLARIFICATION ON THE APPLICABILITY OF SECTI ON 194C ON SUCH TRANSACTIONS, WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAS OUTSOURCED CERTAIN WORK RELATING TO FABRICATION OR MANUFACTURING OF ARTICLE OR THING IN ACCORDANCE WIT H THE SPECIFICATIONS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE. CIRCULAR NO. 681 DT. 8.3.1994 OF THE BOARD CLARIFIES IN PARA 7(VI) T HAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194C WOULD NOT APPLY TO CONTR ACTS FOR SALE OF GOODS AND FURTHER CLARIFIES THAT WHERE THE PROPERTY IN THE ARTICLE OR THING SO FABRICATED PASS ES FROM THE FABRICATOR-CONTRACTOR TO THE ASSESSEE ONLY AFTE R SUCH ARTICLE OR THING IS DELIVERED TO THE ASSESSEE, SUCH CONTRACT WOULD BE A CONTRACT FOR SALE AND SO OUTSID E THE PURVIEW OF SECTION 194C. HOWEVER, IN REPLY TO QUES TION NO.15 IN CIRCULAR NO.715 THE SUBJECT OF APPLICABILI TY OF SECTION 194C, IN RESPECT OF CONTRACT OR SUPPLY PRIN TED MATERIAL AS PER PRESCRIBED SPECIFICATIONS, IT HAS B EEN REPRESENTED THAT THE VIEWS EXPRESSED IN THESE TWO CIRCULARS, TO THE EXTENT AS POINTED OUT ABOVE, ARE IN CONTRADICTION TO EACH OTHER. THE MATTER HAS BEEN EXAMINED BY THE BOARD AND IT IS CONSIDERED THAT EXCLUSIVE RELIANCE ON QUESTION/ANSWER NO.15 OF CIRCULAR NO.715, WITHOUT TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE PRINCIPLES LAID DOWN IN CIR CULAR NO.681 IS NOT JUSTIFIED. BEFORE TAKING A DECISION ON THE APPLICABILITY OF TDS U/S 194C ON A CONTRACT, IT WOU LD HAVE TO BE EXAMINED WHETHER THE CONTRACT IN QUESTIO N IS A CONTRACT FOR WORK OR A CONTRACT FOR SALE AND TDS SHALL BE APPLICABLE ONLY WHERE IT IS A CONTRACT FO R WORK. 3.1. ACCORDINGLY HOLDING THAT IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE IT WAS NOT A CASE OF CONTRACT FOR WORK AS SUCH RELIANCE PLAC ED UPON CIRCULAR NO.715 DT.8.8.1995 BY THE A.O. WAS HELD TO BE MISPL ACED AND RELYING UPON THE DEFINITION OF WORK IN S.194C(1) THE CIT( A) HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT LIABLE FOR DEDUCTING TDS. AS SUCH S.40A(IA) ALSO WAS HELD TO BE NOT ATTRACTED AND THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE A.O. WAS DELETED. ITA 4148/DEL/2011 PAGE 5 OF 9 DSSI FOODS P.LTD. A.Y. 2007-08 4. AGGRIEVED BY THIS THE DEPARTMENT IS IN APPEAL BE FORE THE TRIBUNAL. 5. LD.D.R. HEAVILY RELYING UPON THE ORDER OF A.O. E MPHASIZED THE FACT THAT THE PURCHASES MADE BY WAY OF PLACING A SPECIFI C ORDER AFFECTED THE BRAND NAME OF THE ASSESSEE AND WERE TAILOR MADE SP ECIFICALLY TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS AND SPECIFICATIONS OF THE ASSESSEE. A S SUCH THE TDS WAS ATTRACTED. ON A SPECIFIC QUERY IT WAS STATED THAT RAW MATERIAL WAS NOT SUPPLIED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE DEPARTMENTAL CASE RE STS ON THE FACT THAT THESE WERE SPECIFICALLY TAILOR MADE FOR THE ASSESSE E AND IT TANTAMOUNTS TO A WORKS CONTRACT. 6. THE LD.A.R. ON THE OTHER HAND RELYING UPON THE IMPUGNED ORDER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PROVIDED ANY MA TERIAL, NO DOUBT ASSESSEES BRAND NAME WAS DEPICTED THEREIN, HOWEVER THE PROPERTY IN GOODS PASSED TO THE ASSESSEE ONLY WHEN THE PAYMENT WAS MADE AND THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN PROCURING CARTONS AND PACKING MAT ERIAL FROM THE SAME PARTY AND NEVER IN THE EARLIER YEARS NOR IN TH E SUBSEQUENT YEARS SUCH A DISALLOWANCE HAS BEEN MADE AND THE FACTS REM AINED IDENTICAL. IN THE CASE OF WORKS CONTRACT IT WAS CLARIFIED THAT A VAT IS CHARGED WHEREAS IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE SALES TAX HAS BEEN CHARGED WHICH ITSELF SHOWS THAT IT IS A CASE OF SALE OF GOODS AND NOT A CASE OF WORKS CONTRACT. 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. ON A CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE ENTIRE FACTS AND MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND TAKING INTO CONSID ERATION THE LEGAL POSITION WHICH WE SHALL DISCUSS SUBSEQUENTLY, WE AR E OF THE VIEW THAT THE DEPARTMENTAL GROUND DESERVES TO BE DISMISSED. IT I S SEEN THAT THE SAID ISSUE HAS BEEN EXAMINED BY THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN CIT VS. DABUR INDIA LTD. 238 ITR 197 (DELHI) AND AGAIN IN C IT VS REBOK INDIA LTD. 306 ITR 197(DELHI) AND YET AGAIN IN CIT VS SE A GRAM MANUFACTURING P.LTD.(DEL) 221 CTR 509(DELHI). REFE RENCE MAY ALSO BE MADE TO THE ORDER OF THE COORDINATE BENCH IN ITO VS DR.WILLMAR SCHWABE INDIA P.LTD. 95 TTJ 53 WHEREIN THE SPECIFIC LOGOS/B RAND NAMES ETC. WERE ITA 4148/DEL/2011 PAGE 6 OF 9 DSSI FOODS P.LTD. A.Y. 2007-08 DEPICTED IN THE PACKAGING MATERIAL. THE JUDGEMENT OF THE HONBLE APEX COURT IN STATE OF TAMIL NADU VS. ANADAM VISWANATH AN (1989) 73 STC 1 ON WHICH THE RELIANCE HAS BEEN PLACED UPON BY THE A.O. HAS ALSO BEEN CONSIDERED BY THEIR LORDSHIPS OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT WHICH WE SHALL PROPOSE TO SPECIFICALLY ADDRESS IN THE SUGGES TED PARAS. HOWEVER FIRST WE PROPOSE TO ADDRESS THE SPECIFIC PROVISION. IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE IT IS SEEN THAT WE ARE CONCERNED WITH EXPLANATION (IV) TO S.194C FOR READY REFERENCE WE REPRODUCE THE RELEVAN T PORTIONS OF THE SAID SECTION PAYMENT TO CONTRACTORS : 194C. (1) ANY PERSON RESPONSIBLE FOR PAYING ANY SUM TO ANY RESIDENT (HEREAFTER IN THIS SECTION REFERRED TO AS THE CONTRACTOR) FOR CARRYING OUT ANY WORK (INCLUDING SU PPLY OF LABOUR FOR CARRYING OUT ANY WORK) IN PURSUANCE OF A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CONTRACTOR AND A SPECIFIED PER SON SHALL, AT THE TIME OF CREDIT OF SUCH SUM TO THE ACC OUNT OF THE CONTRACTOR OR AT THE TIME OF PAYMENT THEREOF IN CASH OR BY ISSUE OF BY A CHEQUE OR DRAFT OR BY ANY OTHER MO DE, WHICHEVER IS EARLIER, DEDUCT AN AMOUNT EQUAL TO- (I) ONE PER CENT WHERE THE PAYMENT IS BEING MADE OR CRE DIT IS BEING GIVEN TO AN INDIVIDUAL OR A HINDU UNDIVIDE D FAMILY; (II) TWO PER CENT WHERE THE PAYMENT IS BEING MADE OR CRE DIT IS BEING GIVEN TO A PERSON OTHER THAN AN INDIVIDUAL OR A HINDU UNDIVIDED FAMILY OF SUCH SUM AS INCOME-TAX ON INCOME COMPRISED THEREIN. (2) X X X X X (3) X X X X X (4) X X X X X (5) X X X X X (6) X X X X X (7) X X X X X EXPLANATION FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS SECTION,- (I) XXXXXXXXX (II) XXXXXXXXX (III) XXXXXXXXX (IV) WORK SHALL INCLUDE (A) ADVERTISING; (B) BROADCASTING AND TELECASTING INCLUDING PRODUCTION OF PROGRAMMES FOR SUCH BROADCASTING OR TELECASTING; ITA 4148/DEL/2011 PAGE 7 OF 9 DSSI FOODS P.LTD. A.Y. 2007-08 (C) CARRIAGE OF GOODS OR PASSENGERS BY ANY MODE OF TRANSPORT OTHER THAN BY RAILWAYS; (D) CATERING ; (E) MANUFACTURING OR SUPPLYING A PRODUCT ACCORDING TO THE REQUIREMENT OR SPECIFICATION OF A CUSTOMER BY USING MATERIAL PURCHASED FROM SUCH CUSTOMER. BUT DOES NOT INCLUDE MANUFACTURING OR SUPPLYING A PRODUCT ACCORDING TO THE REQUIREMENT OR SPECIFICATI ON OF A CUSTOMER BY USING MATERIAL PURCHASED FROM A PERSO N, OTHER THAN SUCH CUSTOMER . 7.1. ON A BARE READING OF THE RELEVANT PROVISION IT IS SEEN THAT THE ASSESSEE FALLS IN THE EXCEPTION CARVED OUT IN SUB CLAUSE (E) OF CLAUSE (IV) OF THE EXPLANATION TO SECTION 194C. THE FINDING OF THE CIT(A) AS SUCH DESERVES TO BE UPHELD. A PERUSAL OF THE JUDGEMENTS OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT REFERRED TO ABOVE FURTHER FORTIFIES OUR VIEW. THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASES OF CIT VS DABUR INDIA LTD . (CITED SUPRA) AND CIT VS. REEBOK INDIA (CITED SUPRA) AS OBSERVED HAS CONS IDERED IDENTICAL ISSUES. IT IS SEEN THAT IN BOTH THE APPEALS THEIR LORDSHIPS HELD THAT THE PAYMENTS FOR CORRUGATED BOXES WITH SPECIFICATIONS AS PER ASSESEES REQUIREMENTS IN THE CASE OF THE FORMER; AND TH E SUPPLY OF ITEMS ACCORDING TO THE SPECIFICATIONS DESIGNS PROVIDED B Y THE ASSESSEE WHO WAS ENGAGED IN MAKING OF FOOTWEAR, APPAREL ACCESSOR IES AND SPORTS GOODS IN THE CASE OF THE LATTER DID NOT AMOUNT TO CONTRAC T FOR WORK AND WAS IN FACT A CONTRACT OF SALE. IT IS SEEN THAT WHILE UP HOLDING THE ACTION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN DABUR INDIA LTD. THEIR LORDSHIPS OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT HAD AN OCCASION TO CONSIDER THE JUDGEMENT OF THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF STATE OF TAMIL NADU VS. ANANDAMA VISWA NATHAN (1989) 73 STC 1 ON WHICH RELIANCE HAS BEEN PLACED BY THE DEPA RTMENT. THEIR ITA 4148/DEL/2011 PAGE 8 OF 9 DSSI FOODS P.LTD. A.Y. 2007-08 LORDSHIPS REJECTED THE DEPARTMENTAL STAND TAKING IN TO CONSIDERATION THE FACT THAT IN THE FACTS OF THAT CASE PRINTING OF QUE STION PAPERS AT THE BEHEST OF A UNIVERSITY OR EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION W AS CONSIDERED TO BE A DELICATE AND CONFIDENTIAL TYPE OF WORK AND THE PRI CE PAID FOR SUPPLYING SUCH PRINTED QUESTION PAPERS OR PRINTED MATERIAL EN TAILS PRIMARILY THE CONFIDENCE AND SECONDLY THE SKILL AND TO A VERY SMA LL EXTENT THE MATERIAL. IN THE FACTS WHERE CORRUGATED BOXES WERE MADE AT TH E SPECIFICATION OF THE ASSESSEE THE NECESSARY DISPLAY ETC. THEIR LORDSHIPS WERE OF THE VIEW THAT IT IS NOBODYS CASE THAT THE PRINTING OF THE LABELS ON THE CORRUGATED BOXES REQUIRE ANY SPECIAL SKILL OR INVOLVE ANY CONFIDENCE OR SECRECY. 7.2. IT MAY NOT BE OUT OF PLACE HERE TO REFER TO TH E ORDER OF THE COORDINATE BENCH IN THE CASE OF ITO VS. DR.WILLMAR SCHWABE INDIA P.LTD. 95 TTJ (DEL) 53: WHEREIN THE COORDINATE BENCH WAS SEIZED OF THE FACTS WHERE THE ASSESSEE WHO WAS A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPA NY ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURE AND DISTRIBUTION OF HOMEOPA THIC AND HERBAL MEDICINES REQUIRED BOTTLES, CAPS, LABELS AND OTHER PACKING MATERIALS FOR PACKING OF THE MEDICINES WHICH WERE PURCHASED FRO M VARIOUS SUPPLIERS AS PER ASSESEES OWN SPECIFICATIONS. THE SUPPLIERS WERE FOUND TO BE PAYING EXCISE DUTY AND ALSO SALES TAX. THE TRIBUN AL CONCLUDED THAT THE OWNERSHIP IN THE SAID MATERIAL WAS ENTIRELY WITH TH E CONCERNED MANUFACTURERS TILL ITS SUPPLY TO THE ASSESSEE COMPA NY AND THE CONTRACT BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AND THESE MANUFACTURER S WAS THAT FOR SUPPLY OF MATERIAL AND NOT FOR CARRYING OUT ANY PAR TICULAR WORK AS ITA 4148/DEL/2011 PAGE 9 OF 9 DSSI FOODS P.LTD. A.Y. 2007-08 ENVISAGED IN S.194C. AS SUCH THE PROVISIONS OF S.1 94C WERE HELD TO BE NOT ATTRACTED. 8. ACCORDINGLY CONSIDERING THE SPECIFIC PROVISIONS OF THE ACT AND THE FACTS AVAILABLE ON RECORD IN THE LIGHT OF THE LEGAL POSITION AS DISCUSSED ABOVE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THERE IS NO MERIT IN THE DEPARTMENTS GROUND. AS SUCH THE SAID GROUND IS DISMISSED. 9. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE DEPARTMENT IS RE JECTED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 2 ND DECEMBER, 2011. SD/- SD/- (B.C.MEENA ) (DIVA SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 2 ND DECEMBER, 2011 *MANGA COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT; 2.RESPONDENT; 3.CIT; 4.CI T(A); 5.DR; 6.GUARD FILE BY ORDER DY. REGISTRAR