Sh. Ajmeri Khan S/o Sh. Shakoor Khan, Shivpuri V. I.T.O., Shivpuri

ITA 415/AGR/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0596 (ITAT-AGRA)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 year(s) 8 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 16-05-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 02-04-2013
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 24-08-2012
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: KK MISHRA
• Assessee Lawyers: V BAPNA
• Keywords: Business income; Opportunity of being heard; Additional evidence; Cost of acquisition; Set aside
• Section: 54F; 142(1); 54; 144

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA BENCH, AGRA BEFORE : SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.L. GEHLOT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 415/AGRA/2012 ASSTT. YEAR : 2008-09 SHRI AJMERI KHAN, VS. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, S/O SH. SHAKOOR KHAN, SHIVPURI TARKESHWARI COLONY, GURDWARA, SHIVPURI (PAN: BKAPK 5609 J) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI V. BAPNA, C.A. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI K.K. MISHRA, JR. D.R. DATE OF HEARING : 02.04.2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER : 04.04.2013 ORDER PER BHAVNESH SAINI, J.M.: THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST TH E ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), GWALIOR DATED 14.05.2012 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 08-09 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS : 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING VALUE OF STAMP DUTY PAID RS.1,42,214/- AS COST OF CONSIDERATION FOR CALCULAT ING PIV IS ILLEGAL, UNJUSTIFIED AND BAD IN LAW. 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT ALLOWING CLAIM U/S. 54F RS.6,47 ,189/- WHICH IS LEGITIMATE LEGAL CLAIM IS ILLEGAL, UNJUSTIFIED AND BAD IN LAW. ITA NO. 415/AGRA/2012 2 2. BRIEFLY, THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE AO H AS ISSUED NOTICE U/S. 142(1) ON THE BASIS OF AIR INFORMATION FROM THE OFFICE OF SUB -REGISTRAR, STATING THAT SALE OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY FOR RS.43,03,500/- HAS TAKEN PLA CE ON 30.06.2007. IN THE ABSENCE OF RETURN OF INCOME OR ANY EXPLANATION FROM THE SIDE OF ASSESSEE, THE AO PASSED EXPARTE ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S. 144 OF THE IT ACT ON 10.12.2010 AND COMPUTED TOTAL INCOME AT RS.43,03,500/-. THE ASSESS EE CHALLENGED THE ADDITION BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) IN ASSESSING THE INCOME AT TH E AFORESAID AMOUNT WITHOUT GIVING CREDIT FOR COST OF ACQUISITION. THE ASSESSEE FILED CALCULATION OF THE AMOUNT AND THE SALE DEEDS TO SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEES TWO SONS HAVE SHARE IN THE PROPERTY BESIDES THE DETAILS OF LAND AS MENTIONED IN THE ORD ER OF THE COLLECTOR ITSELF. THE ASSESSEE FILED BELATED RETURN SHOWING THE DETAILS O F SALE VALUE IN THE NAME OF ASSESSEE AND HIS TWO SONS SEPARATELY. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED COST OF PIV VALUE AT RS.7,94,296/- AND DEDUCTION U/S. 54F OF THE IT ACT IN A SUM OF RS.6,47,189/-. THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE WERE FORWARDED TO THE A O FOR REPORT AND COMMENTS. THE AO SUBMITTED REMAND REPORT, WHICH IS INCORPORAT ED IN THE APPELLATE ORDER, IN WHICH THE AO ACCEPTED THE OWNERSHIP OF LAND BY THE ASSESSEE AND HIS TWO SONS AND SHARES WERE ALLOCATED SEPARATELY. THE AO FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED DEDUCTION ON ACCOUNT OF COST OF PIV VALUE AT RS.7,9 4,296/- WHEREAS THE EVIDENCES OF COST OF PROPERTY PURCHASED WERE FURNISHED IN A S UM OF ONLY RS.6,16,418/-. SINCE NO FURTHER EVIDENCES WERE PRODUCED REGARDING THE ST AMPS PURCHASED BY THE ITA NO. 415/AGRA/2012 3 ASSESSEE OR OTHER EXPENSES, THEREFORE, THE AO WAS O F THE VIEW THAT FULL CLAIM OF ASSESSEE COULD NOT BE ALLOWED. HOWEVER, INDEXATION BENEFIT COULD BE ALLOWED. REGARDING THE DEDUCTION CLAIMED U/S. 54 F, THE AO S TATED IN THE REMAND REPORT THAT THE EVIDENCES HAVE BEEN PRODUCED, HOWEVER, ASSESSME NT PROCEEDINGS ARE COMPLETED, THEREFORE, THIS POINT CAN BE DECIDED BY THE LD. CIT(A). THE LD. CIT(A), CONSIDERING THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE REMAND REPORT OF THE AO FOUND THAT THE LAND HAS BEEN OWNED BY THE ASSESSEE AND HI S TWO SONS WHICH WAS SOLD AND VALUED AT RS.43,03,500/- BY COLLECTOR OF STAMPS, SH IVPURI AND THE SHARE OF THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF SALE CONSIDERATION COMES TO RS.28,68,700/-. THE COST OF ACQUISITION IN CASE OF ASSESSEE WAS FOUND IN A SUM OF RS.6,16,418/-. THEREFORE, FULL CLAIM OF ASSESSEE FOR DEDUCTION IN A SUM OF RS.7,94 ,296/- COULD NOT BE ALLOWED BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO FURNISH SUPPORTING E VIDENCES OF INCURRING OF FURTHER EXPENSES ON ACCOUNT OF COST OF ACQUISITION. THEREFO RE, PART RELIEF WAS ALLOWED, ON WHICH THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL ON GROUND NO. 1 ABO VE. THE INDEXATION BENEFIT ON ACCOUNT OF COST OF ACQUISITION WAS ALLOWED IN FAVOU R OF THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, WITH REGARD TO CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S. 54F, THE LD. CIT(A) FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE AND SONS OF ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME ON 29.1 2.2010, WHICH IS BELATED AND NON-EST RETURN AND ASSESSMENT ORDER HAS BEEN PASSED EXPARTE U/S. 144 OF THE IT ACT. THEREFORE, NO EXEMPTION U/S. 54F COULD BE ALLOWED I N FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ITA NO. 415/AGRA/2012 4 AO WAS ACCORDINGLY DIRECTED TO COMPUTE THE CAPITAL GAINS AS WAS DIRECTED IN THE APPELLATE ORDER AND THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS PARTLY ALLOWED. 3. ON GROUND NO. 1 WITH REGARD TO ADDITION OF RS.1, 42,214/-, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE DID NOT ARGUE THIS ISSUE BEFORE US AND FURTHER, THE FACTS ARE VERY CLEAR FROM THE REMAND REPORT OF THE AO AND FINDINGS OF TH E LD. CIT(A) THAT THOUGH THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED COST OF PIV VALUE AT RS.7,94,296/- , BUT THE ASSESSEE COULD PRODUCE EVIDENCES OF LESSER AMOUNT, THEREFORE, FULL CLAIM O F THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ACCEPTED BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE TO THAT EXTENT BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE LD. CIT(A) WAS, THEREFORE, J USTIFIED IN MAKING PART ADDITION AGAINST THE ASSESSEE BECAUSE OF THE FAILURE OF THE ASSESSEE TO FILE ANY EVIDENCE, WHATSOEVER, IN SUPPORT OF INCURRENCE AND PAYMENT OF THESE EXPENSES INCLUDED IN THE COST OF ACQUISITION BY THE ASSESSEE AND HIS SON S. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE EVEN AT THE SECOND APPELLATE STAGE AND IN ABSENCE O F ANY CHALLENGE TO THE PART ADDITION SUSTAINED BY THE LD. CIT(A), WE DO NOT FIN D ANY JUSTIFICATION TO INTERFERE WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A). GROUND NO. 1 O F APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE HAS NO MERIT AND IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. 4. ON GROUND NO.2, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED DEDUCTION U /S. 54F OF THE IT ACT. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE OR MATERIAL B EFORE THE AO AT THE ASSESSMENT ITA NO. 415/AGRA/2012 5 STAGE CLAIMING ANY DEDUCTION U/S. 54F OF THE IT ACT . THE AO, THEREFORE, CORRECTLY PASSED THE EXPARTE ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S. 144 OF THE IT ACT. THUS, THERE WAS NO CLAIM BEFORE THE AO FOR DEDUCTION U/S. 54F OF THE I T ACT. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS AC CEPTED THE DECLARED INCOME IN THE INVALID RETURN FILED ON 29.12.2010, THEREFORE, THE RETURN SHOULD HAVE BEEN REGULARIZED. SUCH A CLAIM OF ASSESSEE CANNOT BE ALL OWED BECAUSE ONCE THE RETURN WAS NOT FILED WITHIN THE STATUTORY PERIOD AND THE R ETURN FILED AFTER PASSING OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE LD. CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN H OLDING THAT NO COGNIZANCE COULD BE TAKEN OF SUCH INVALID RETURN FILED ON 29.12.2010 . MERELY BECAUSE BUSINESS INCOME WAS TAKEN AS PER INVALID RETURN BY ITSELF IS NO GROUND TO CLAIM THAT THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED AFTER PASSING OF THE ASSESSM ENT ORDER IS VALID. CONTENTION OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE IS, THEREFORE, REJ ECTED. HOWEVER, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE MADE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S. 54F BEFORE TH E LD. CIT(A), ON WHICH THE REMAND REPORT FROM THE AO WAS ALSO CALLED FOR IN WH ICH THE AO STATED THAT EVIDENCES AND DOCUMENTS HAVE BEEN FILED BEFORE HIM, BUT WHEN ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ARE COMPLETED, THIS POINT CAN BE DECIDE D BY THE LD. CIT(A). HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. PRUTHVI BR OKERS AND SHAREHOLDERS P. LTD., 349 ITR 336 HELD THAT APPELLATE AUTHORITIES H AVE POWER TO CONSIDER THE CLAIM NOT MADE IN THE RETURN. THEREFORE, THE LD. CIT(A) S HOULD HAVE CONSIDERED THIS ISSUE IN PROPER PERSPECTIVE AND SHOULD NOT HAVE REJECTED THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE MERELY ITA NO. 415/AGRA/2012 6 BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE FILED INVALID RETURN OF INCOME . HOWEVER, IT IS ALSO IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THE LD. CIT(A) SHOULD HAVE EXAMINE THIS I SSUE IN THE LIGHT OF RULE 46A OF THE IT RULES, WHICH READS AS UNDER : PRODUCTION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE BEFORE THE DEPUT Y COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) AND COMMISSIONER (APPEALS). 46A. (1) THE APPELLANT SHALL NOT BE ENTITLED TO PRODUC E BEFORE THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) OR, AS THE CASE MAY B E, THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), ANY EVIDENCE, WHETHER ORAL OR DOCUMENTARY, OTHER THAN THE EVIDENCE PRODUCED BY HIM DURING THE COURSE OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER, EXCEPT IN THE FOLLOWING CIRCUMSTANCES, NAMELY : (A) WHERE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS REFUSED TO ADMI T EVIDENCE WHICH OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN ADMITTED ; OR (B) WHERE THE APPELLANT WAS PREVENTED BY SUFFICI ENT CAUSE FROM PRODUCING THE EVIDENCE WHICH HE WAS CALLED UPO N TO PRODUCE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ; OR (C) WHERE THE APPELLANT WAS PREVENTED BY SUFFICI ENT CAUSE FROM PRODUCING BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER ANY EVI DENCE WHICH IS RELEVANT TO ANY GROUND OF APPEAL ; OR (D) WHERE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE THE ORD ER APPEALED AGAINST WITHOUT GIVING SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY TO TH E APPELLANT TO ADDUCE EVIDENCE RELEVANT TO ANY GROUND OF APPEAL. (2) NO EVIDENCE SHALL BE ADMITTED UNDER SUB-RULE (1 ) UNLESS THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) OR, AS THE CASE MAY B E, THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) RECORDS IN WRITING THE REASO NS FOR ITS ADMISSION. ITA NO. 415/AGRA/2012 7 (3) THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) OR, AS THE C ASE MAY BE, THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) SHALL NOT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT ANY EVIDENCE PRODUCED UNDER SUB-RULE (1) UNLESS THE ASSESSING OF FICER HAS BEEN ALLOWED A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY (A) TO EXAMINE THE EVIDENCE OR DOCUMENT OR TO CROSS -EXAMINE THE WITNESS PRODUCED BY THE APPELLANT, OR (B) TO PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE OR DOCUMENT OR ANY W ITNESS IN REBUTTAL OF THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE PRODUCED BY THE APPELLAN T. (4) NOTHING CONTAINED IN THIS RULE SHALL AFFECT THE POWER OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) OR, AS THE CASE MAY BE, THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) TO DIRECT THE PRODUCTION OF ANY DOCUMENT, OR THE EXAMINATION OF ANY WITNESS, TO ENABLE HIM TO DISPOS E OF THE APPEAL, OR FOR ANY OTHER SUBSTANTIAL CAUSE INCLUDING THE ENHAN CEMENT OF THE ASSESSMENT OR PENALTY (WHETHER ON HIS OWN MOTION OR ON THE REQUEST OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER) UNDER CLAUSE (A) OF SUB-SECT ION (1) OF SECTION 251 OR THE IMPOSITION OF PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271. 4.1 HONBLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF HA JI LAL MOHD. BIRI WORKS VS. CIT, 275 ITR 496 HELD AS UNDER : A PERUSAL OF RULE 46A OF THE INCOME-TAX RULES, 1962 , CLEARLY SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ENTITLED TO PRODUCE FRESH ORAL OR DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE, AS A MATTER OF RIGHT, IN APPE AL. HOWEVER, UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES AS MENTIONED IN CLAUSES (A), (B), (C) AND (D) OF SUB-RULE (1) OF RULE 46A, ADDITIONAL EVIDENC E CAN BE FILED. SUB- RULE (2) OF RULE 46A PROVIDES THAT NO EVIDENCE SHAL L BE ADMITTED UNDER SUB-RULE (1) UNLESS THE AUTHORITY ADMITTING IT RECO RDS IN WRITING THE REASONS FOR ITS ADMISSION. SUB-RULE(2) CASTS A DUTY ON THE AUTHORITY CONCERNED TO RECORD REASONS IN WRITING FOR ADMISSIO N OF THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. UNDER SUB-RULE (3) THE FURTHER REQUIREMEN T IS THAT THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY SHALL NOT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT ANY EVIDENCE PRODUCED UNDER SUB-RULE (1) UNLESS THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY H AS BEEN ALLOWED A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO EXAMINE THE EVIDENCE OR T HE DOCUMENT OR TO ITA NO. 415/AGRA/2012 8 CROSS EXAMINE WITNESSES PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE OR TO PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE OR DOCUMENT OR ANY WITNESS IN REBUTTAL OF THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE. MERE PRESENCE OF THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY WILL NOT GIVE RISE TO A PRESUMPTION THAT HE CONSENTED TO THE ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. HELD, THAT THE FINDING RECORDED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE PR ESENT CASE, WAS THAT NO OPPORTUNITY TO EXAMINE NEW EVIDEN CE OR TO PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE IN REBUTTAL WAS AFFORDED TO THE ASSESS ING AUTHORITY. THIS FINDING HAD NOT BEEN CHALLENGED. THERE WAS NOTHING ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE WAS TAKEN WITH TH E ASSENT OF BOTH SIDES. THE TRIBUNAL WAS RIGHT IN SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS). 4.2 IT IS NOT A DENYING FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE OR MADE ANY CLAIM REGARDING DEDUCTION U/S. 54F OF THE IT ACT BEFORE THE AO. THEREFORE, WHATEVER EVIDENCES HAVE BEEN FILED BEFOR E THE LD. CIT(A), ALL WERE ADDITIONAL IN NATURE. THEREFORE, BEFORE TAKING COGN IZANCE OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES BY THE LD. CIT(A), THE CONDITIONS OF RULE 46A SHALL HAVE TO BE SATISFIED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE LD. CIT(A) SHOULD HAVE CONSIDERED THE REASONS FOR NOT FILING SUCH ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES AT THE ASSESSMENT STAGE. IN CA SE THE LD. CIT(A) WAS WILLING TO ADMIT THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE, HE HAS TO RECORD THE REASONS FOR ADMITTING THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES AND AFFORD REASONABLE OPPORTUN ITY TO THE AO TO EXAMINE THESE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES AS PER LAW. IT APPEARS THAT NE ITHER THE ASSESSEE NOR THE LD. CIT(A) HAVE SAID ANYTHING ABOUT THE COMPLIANCE OF R ULE 46A IN THE MATTER AND THE LD. CIT(A) ON DIFFERENT REASONS OF FILING OF INVALI D RETURN REJECTED THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE, WHICH WAS RAISED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AN D WAS ALSO EXAMINED BY THE ITA NO. 415/AGRA/2012 9 AO AT THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR T HE ASSESSEE RELIED UPON SOME DECISIONS OF DIFFERENT BENCHES OF THE TRIBUNAL, BUT THE SAME WOULD NOT ADVANCE THE CASE OF ASSESSEE BECAUSE THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS SILE NT WITH REGARD TO ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES. SINCE THE ASSESSEE RAISED CLA IM OF DEDUCTION U/S. 54F BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND FILED SOME ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES AND THE LD. CIT(A) DID NOT DECIDE THE ISSUE IN THE LIGHT OF RULE 46A OF THE IT RULES, THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE MATTER REQUIRES RECONSIDERATION AT TH E LEVEL OF THE LD. CIT(A). WE, ACCORDINGLY SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) T O THE EXTENT OF GRANT OF DEDUCTION U/S. 54F OF THE IT ACT AND THE LD. CIT(A) IS DIRECT ED TO GIVE FINDING (I). WHETHER THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE ANY CLAIM OF ADM ISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE UNDER RULE 46A BEFORE HIM; (II). WHETHER THE ASSESSEE IS ABLE TO SATISFY THE R EQUIREMENTS OF RULE 46A FOR ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES AND (III). WHETHER THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE IS LIABLE TO B E CONSIDERED BY ADMITTING THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES. 4.3 IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE LD. CIT(A) SHALL HAVE TO SATISFY HIMSELF WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF RULE 46A B EFORE TAKING ANY VIEW IN THE MATTER. IN CASE THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THE CONDITIONS OF RULE 46A, THE LD. CIT(A) WOULD BE AT LIBERTY TO TAKE ANY ADVERSE VIEW AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE DIRECT THE LD. CIT(A) TO DECI DE THE ISSUE ABOVE IN THE LIGHT OF ITA NO. 415/AGRA/2012 10 DIRECTIONS GIVEN ABOVE IN THIS ORDER AND BEFORE TAK ING ANY VIEW IN THE MATTER, HE SHALL PROVIDE REASONABLE AND SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. IN THE RESULT, GROUND NO.2 OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSE E IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PAR TLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- SD/- (A.L. GEHLOT) (BHAVNESH SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER *AKS/- COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT(A), CONCERNED BY ORDER 4. CIT, CONCERNED 5. DR, ITAT, AGRA 6. GUARD FILE SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY TRUE COPY