ITO, Paradeep V. Satyabrata Jena, Kendrapada

ITA 449/CTK/2011

• Counselvise Citation: 44922114 RSA 2011
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-02-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 04-11-2011
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 40A(3); 194C

Judgement Text

IN THE INC O ME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK BEFORE : SHRI K.K.GUPTA, AM , AND SHRI K.S.S.PRASAD RAO, JM ITA NO. 449/CTK/2011 AND C.O.NO.29/CTK/2011 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 09) (C.O. FILED BY THE ASSESSEE) INCO ME - TAX OFFICER, PARADEEP WARD, PARADEEP. VERSUS SRI SATYABRATA JENA, AT/P.O.NIKIRAI, DT. KKENDRAPARA PAN: ADYPJ 0274 A (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR THE APPELLANT: SHRI A.BHATTACHARJEE, DR FOR THE RESPONDENT SHRI P.VYAS, A R DATE OF HEARING : 13.01.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 17.02.2012 ORDER SHRI K.S.S.PRASAD RAO, JM : THE APPEAL IS FLED BY THE DEPARTMENT, WHEREAS THE CROSS OBJECTION IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX (APPEALS) DT.24.8.2011 FOR THE A SSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 09 IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. 2. THE DEPARTMENT HAS RAISED ONLY ISSUE IN ITS APPEAL CHALLENGING THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF LABOUR EXPENSES OF 37,78,993 U/S.40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHEN THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE AS REQUIRED U/S.194C OF THE I.T.ACT,161. 3. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING ISSUES IN ITS CROSS OBJECTION. 1 ) THE CIT(A) AFTER DUE CONSID ERATION OF THE FACTS, ACCOUNTS AND WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS HAS RIGHTLY DELETED LABOUR CHARGES OF 37,78,993 WHICH WAS WRONGLY DISALLOWED BY I.T.O. ON MERE PRESUMPTIONS U/S.40(A)(IA) OF THE I.T.ACT,1961. 2 ) THAT THE ADDITIONS OF 1,95,605 SUSTAINED BY THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE FACTS, ACCOUNT AND WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS IS UNJUSTIFIED, HENCE LIABLE TO BE DELETED. 3 ) THAT THE ALLEGED CONTRAVENTION U/S.40A(3) OF 21,000 IS LIABLE TO BE DELETED UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. LAT ER ON THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED FOLLOWING ADDITIONAL ISSUES. ITA NO.449/CTK/2011 AND C.O.NO.29/CTK/2011 2 1 ) THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) SHOULD HAVE COMPLETELY DELETED THE ADDITION OF 7,37,404 AS NECESSARY EVIDENCE WAS SUBMITTED BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW THE LETTER NO. 3608 DT.31.12.10 IN WHICH THE EXE CUTIVE ENGINEER RURAL WORKS DIVISON II, JAJPAUR AT JARAKA HAS CLARIFIED THE MATTER THAT THE SAID PAYMENT DOES NOT RELATE TO THIS ASSESSEE. 2 ) THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED AND HAS TRAVELLED BEYOND HIS JURISDICTION BY SETTING ASIDE THIS MATTER TO T HE A.O. DIRECTING TO VERIFY THE CLARIFICATION GIVEN BY THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (R & W) DIVISION II, JARKA, DT.31.12.10, ADDRESSED TO THE I.T.O. IN RESPONSE TO HIS LETTER INSTEAD OF DELETING THE ADDITION. 3 ) THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN NOT CONSI DERING THE CLAIM OF 90,000 TOWARDS DEDUCTION U/S.80C EVEN THOUGH THE CLAIM WAS SPECIFICALLY MADE IN PARA 5 OF THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION DT.27.7.2011 FILED BEFORE HIM. 3. BOTH THE PARTIES WERE HEARD REGARDING THE ISSUES RAISED IN THE APPEAL AS WELL AS IN TH E CROSS OBJECTION AND THEIR LEGAL IMPLICATIONS. 4. ON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE MATERIAL MADE AVAILABLE TO THE TRIBUNAL AND ANALYZING THE SAME IN THE LIGHT OF THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES, THE UNDISPUTED FACTS RELATING TO THE ISSUES ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE DERIVES INCOME FROM CIVIL CONTRACT UNDER THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (R& B) DIVISION, KENDRAPARA . DURING THE PERIOD UNDER CONSIDERATION THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO UNDERTAKEN WORKS CONTRACT UNDER PROJECT ADMINISTRATOR, ITDA, CHAMPUA OF A NEGLIGIBLE AMOUNT OF 3,07,533. FOR EXECUTION OF WORKS CONTRACT IN THE REMOTE INTERIOR PROJECT AREAS, THE ASSESSEE ARRANGES LABOURERS BY HIMSELF AND THROUGH STAFF FROM THE LOCAL AREAS AND LABOUR PAYMENTS ARE ALSO MADE DIRECTLY WITHOUT ENGAGING ANY LABOUR CONTRACTOR. FOR THE PURPOSE OF ACCOUNTS, THE ASSESSEE MAINTAINS CASH BOOK, GENERAL LEDGER, LABOUR REGISTER AND SUPPORTING VOUCHERS ETC., AND THEY ARE ALL SUBJECTED TO AUDIT. THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN RETURNED AT 2,60,740 AS PER AUDITED PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT AND BALANCE SHEET. BUT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS WRONGLY AND ARBITRARILY DETERMINED THE SAME AT 47,29,742. AN AMOUNT OF 4,73,404 HAS ITA NO.449/CTK/2011 AND C.O.NO.29/CTK/2011 3 BEEN ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSMENT THE GROUND OF NON - INCLUSION OF THE INCOME FROM WORKS CONTRACT DONE UNDER THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, RURAL WORKS DIVISION II, JARKA (JAJPUR). ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE HE HAS NOT UNDERTAKEN SUCH WORK AND THE SAID WORK WAS UNDERTAKEN BY ANOTHER CONTRACTOR WITH THE SIMILAR NAME HAVING DIFFERENT PAN AND THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER BY LETTER D T.31.12.2010 HAS CLARIFIED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT THE CONTRACTOR BUT ANOTHER PERSON OF SIMILAR NAME HAVING DIFFERENT PAN WAS THE CONTRACTOR IN PURSUANCE TO LETTER DT.26.11.2010 ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 5. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE LEARNE D DR HAS VEHEMENTLY ARGUED ASSAILING THE DECISION OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF NON - DEDUCTION OF TDS ON THE LABOUR EXPENSES AS REQUIRED U/S.14C CONTENDED INTER ALIA THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ENGA GED LABOURERS THROUGH CONTRACTORS AND PAYMENT WAS MADE TO THE CONTRACTORS AND IN TURN THEY HAVE PAID THE AMOUNTS TO THE LABOURERS AND THEREFORE, SECTION 194C ATTRACTS. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS ADMITTEDLY NOT DEDUCTED THE TDS ON SUCH PAYMENTS, THE ASSESSING O FFICER HAS RIGHTLY DISALLOWED THE SAID LABOUR EXPENSES BY APPLYING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A)((IA) OF THE I.T.ACT. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE ACTION OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN DELETING SUCH DISALLOWANCE IS NOT SUSTAINABLE FOR LEGAL SCRUTINY FOR THE REASON T HAT THE ASSESSING OFFICERS OBSERVATION THAT A SUM OF 19,80,472 IS ALSO OUTSTANDING OUT OF THE LABOUR EXPENSES OF 37,78,93 AS THE OUTSTANDING AMOUNT HAS COMING OUT 50%$ OF THE TOTAL EXPENSES AND FOUND THAT SUCH AN OUTSTANDING EXPENDITURE IS HIGHLY IMPOSSIBLE TO BE PAID AFTER A LONG PERIOD OF SEVEN MONTHS . THE ASSESSING OFFICER ASSUMED THAT THE ASSESSEE MUST HAVE ARRANGED AND PAID THE LABOURERS THROUGH HIS SARDARS AND HAS NOT DEDUCTED ITA NO.449/CTK/2011 AND C.O.NO.29/CTK/2011 4 TAX AT SOURCE AS REQUIRED U/S.1 9 4C. THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT HE NEVER EMPLOYED ANY CONTRACTOR FOR THE LABOURERS AND HE P AID THE AMOUNTS DIRECTLY TO THE LABOURERS THROUGH HIS SUPERVISORS, HENCE, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY MATERIAL MADE OUT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO SUPPORT HIS FINDING THAT STATEMENT GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE ON 24.11.2010 BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS REQ UIRED TO BE ACCEPTED. BUT THIS OBSERVATION OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) IS NOT TENABLE MORE SO WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO PRODUCE BEFORE THE LABOUR REGISTER FOR WHOLE PERIOD. HE HAS PRODUCED THE LABOUR REGISTER FROM 1.12.2007 TO 22.12.2007 NOT EVEN FO R A MONTH DURING THE PERIOD UNDER CONSIDERATION. THEREFORE, THE FINDING OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIABLE FOR LEGAL SCRUTINY. ACCORDINGLY, HE SOUGHT FOR SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) BY ALLOWING THE GROUND RAISED BY THE DEPARTMENT. 6 . ADVERTING TO THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS CROSS OBJECTION, HE CONTENDED THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY CONFIRMED THE ADDITION OF 1,95,605 MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BECAUSE THERE IS MISTAKE IN TOTALLING OF THE AMOUNT I.E., 17,85 ,137 INSTEAD OF 19,88,742.THEREFORE SO ALSO THE LEARNED DR CONTENDED THAT AS THE ASSESSEE PAID 21,000 TO SHRI D.P.BISWAL ON23.9.2008 VIDE VOUCHER NO.649 IN CASH, THIS IS NOTHING BUT CONTRAVENTION OF SECTION 40A(3) BY MAKING CASH PAYMENT EXCEEDING 20, 000.THEREFORE, DISALLOWANCE OF 20,000 MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS RIGHTLY SUSTAINED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A). IN VIEW OF THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY HIM IN DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL, HE CONTENDED THAT THE FIRST ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS CROSS OBJECT ION IS NOT TENABLE UNDER LAW. ADVERTING TO THE ADDITIONAL ISSUES RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS CROSS OBJECTION REGARDING THE ADDITION OF 7,37,404 AS THE CONCERNED ENGINEER HAS NOT RESPONDED TO THE VERIFICATION LETTER ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER N 26. 11.2010,THEREFORE, THE ITA NO.449/CTK/2011 AND C.O.NO.29/CTK/2011 5 ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS CORRECT AS PER THE RECORDS MADE AVAILABLE TO HIM. REGARDING THE OTHER ADDITIONAL GROUNDS OF 990,000 CLAIMED TOWARDS DEDUCTION/S.80C, THE LEARNED DR CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT PLEADED THIS GROUND BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A). HE MADE ONLY MENTIONED IN THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION AS CAN BE SEEN FROM THE GROUND ITSELF PLEADED BY THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, UNLESS THERE IS AN ISSUE IS BEFORE LEARNED CIT(A) HE IS NOT OBLIGED TO CONSIDER THE SAME. THE PLEADING MUST FOLLOW THE SUBMISSIONS BUT NOT VICE - VERSA. THUS ARGUING, THE LEARNED DR SOUGHT FOR ALLOWING THE APPEAL OF THE DEPARTMENT AND DISMISS THE CROSS OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE. 7. CONTRARY TO THIS, THE LEARNED AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS SUPPORTED THE O RDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF LABOUR PAYMENT OF 37,78,993 AS THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CATEGORICALLY GAVE A STATEMENT BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT HE NEVER ENTERED INTO CONTRACT TO FETCH LABOURER S AND HE MADE PAYMENT TO THE LABOURERS THROUGH SUPERVISORS. THEREFORE, THE QUESTION OF APPLICATION OF SECTION 194C DOES NOT ARISE. HENCE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY DELETED THE DISALLOWANCE. SO ALSO THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS CONFIRMED THE ADDITION MADE BY ASSESSING OFFICER OF 1,94,605 REPRESENTING DIFFERENCE IN TOTALLING THE OUTSTANDING PAYMENTS TO LABOURERS. THIS ACTION OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) IS INCORRECT MORE SO PARTICULARLY WHEN THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS DELETED THE ADDITION OF 19,80,742 MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS OUTS TANDING LABOUR PAYMENT ON THE GROUND THAT THE TOTAL LABOUR PAYMENTS CHARGED TO P & L ACCOUNT AT 37,78,993 IS INCLUSIVE OF THE SAID AMOUNT OF 19,80,742 SHOWN AS OUTSTANDING IN THE BALANCE SHEET. WHEN AMOUNT ITSELF RELATES TO DIFFERENT IN TOTALLING WIL L NOT MATER IN ANY WAY THEREFORE, THE CONFIRMATION OF THE ADDITION OF 1,94,605 MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) IS ITA NO.449/CTK/2011 AND C.O.NO.29/CTK/2011 6 NOT CORRECT AND NOT SUSTAINABLE FOR LEGAL SCRUTINY. AS CAN E SEEN FROM THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A), THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS NOTED IN PARA 4.3 THAT ON VERIFICATION OF THE CASH BOOK, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID 21,000 TO D.P.BISWAL ON 29.3.2008 VIDE VOUCHER NO.649. SINCE THE PAYMENT IS BEYONDRS.20,000 AND IT IS CONTRAVENIN G THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40A(3) HE DISALLOWED THE SAME . BUT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS NOT GIVEN ANY FINDING WHETHER HE CONFIRMED OR DISALLOWED IT. THEREFORE, WHEN THERE IS NO FINDING GIVEN BY THE LEARNED CIT(A), CONFIRMATION OF THE SAID ADDITION WILL NOT B E EFFECTIVE. THEREFORE, THE ADDITION OF 21,000 IS ALLOWABLE TO BE DELETED. THERE AFTERWARDS, THE LEARNED AR OF THE ASSESSEE ADVERTING TO OTHER ISSUES RAISED IN THE CROSS OBJECTION ADDITION OF 7,34,.404 CONTENDED THAT THIS AMOUNT IS NOT RELATED TO THE A SSESSEE BUT IT IS A PAYMENT TO A PERSON HAVING SIMILARLY NAME OF THE ASSESSEE HAVING DIFFERENT PERMANENT ACCOUNT NUMBER. CONSIDERING THIS ISSUE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS REMANDED THE SAME TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR VERIFICATION SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS FILE D A LETTER FROM THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (R & B) DIVISION II OF JARKA AS THIS IS NOT REACHED THE ASSESSING OFFICER BEFORE PASSING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AS THE LETTER IS DT.31.12.2010 AND PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE. BUT THE LETTER BEING ISSUED BY THE CONCERNED A UTHORITIES OF THE STATE GOVERNMENT OF ORISSA, THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT OF RE - VERIFICATION BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE LEARNED CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE GIVEN STRAIGHT AWAY DIRECTION FOR DELETION OF THE ADDITION ESPECIALLY BASING THE SIMILARITY OF THE NAME AND PAN DIFFERENCE. THUS CONTENDING THE LEARNED AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS SOUGHT FOR DISMISSING THE APPEAL OF THE DEPARTMENT BY ALLOWING THE CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. ITA NO.449/CTK/2011 AND C.O.NO.29/CTK/2011 7 8. ON CAREFUL ANALYSIS OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) IT IS FOUND THAT T HE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS FOUND THE STATEMENT RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF THE ASSESSEE WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE HAS CATEGORICALLY STATED THAT HE IS NOT ENGAGED ANY CONTRACT FOR SUPPLY OF LABOURERS AND LABOURERS ARE BEING PAID IN CASH THROUGH HIS SUPERVISO R DIRECTLY TO THE LABOURERS. HENCE, THERE IS NO QUESTION OF APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 194C IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY CONTRACT ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND THE LABOURERS. SO ALSO THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS FOUND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE THE ADDITION OF 19,80,742 BEING THE OUTSTANDING LABOUR PAYMENTS SHOWN IN THE BALANCE SHEET FORGETTING FOR A MOMENT THAT THE TOTAL LABOUR PAYMENTS OF 37,78,993 CHARGED TO THE P & L ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE IS INCLUSIVE OF THIS OUTSTANDING PAYMENTS. THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE FINDING OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF 37,78,993 AS WELL AS 19,80,742 IS VERY MUCH RIGHT AS PER THE MATERIAL MADE AVAILABLE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THEREFORE, WE HEREBY UPHELD THE SAID FINDI NGS OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) AND DISMISS THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL AND ACCEPTING THE FIRST ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS CROSS OBJECTION. 9. NOW COMING TO THE SECOND ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS CROSS OBJECTION, WHICH RELATES TO CONFIRMATION OF THE ADDITION OF 7,37,404 WE FIND THAT THIS ADDITION IS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS HE HAS NOT RECEIVED ANY REPLY FROM THE CONCERNED EXECUTIVE ENGINEER FOR HIS LETTER DT.26.11.2010. THEREFORE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS CONFIRMED THE SAID AD D ITION HOWEVER B Y DIRECTING THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO VERIFY THE SAME WITH REFERENCE TO THE LETTER DT.31.12.2010 ISSUED BY THE CONCERNED EXECUTIVE ENGINEER WHICH WAS MADE AVAILABLE TO HIM BY THE ASSESSEE. AS CAN BE SEEN FROM THE COPY OF THE SAID LETTER PRODUCED BEFORE US B Y THE LEARNED AR OF THE ASSESSEE, IT IS SEEN THAT ITA NO.449/CTK/2011 AND C.O.NO.29/CTK/2011 8 THERE IS DEFERENCE IN PAN OF THE ASSESSEE AND ANOTHER CONTRACTOR OF THE SAME NAME TO WHOM THE SAID AMOUNT WAS STATED TO HAVE BEEN PAID BY THE CONCERNED EXECUTIVE ENGINEER. SINCE, THIS IS TO BE VERIFIED AS T O THE DIFFERENCE IN PAN IS WHETHER CORRECT OR NOT, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAD DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO VERIFY IT AND PASS NECESSARY CONSEQUENTIAL ORDER . HENCE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) AND THE SAME IS UPHELD BY DISMISSING THE ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD. 10. NOW COMING TO THE OTHER ISSUE OF NON - CONSIDERATION OF THE CLAIM OF 90,000 U/S.80C OF THE I.T.ACT, WE FIND THAT THERE IS NO GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) ABOUT THIS ISSUE. HENCE, IT IS NOT CONSIDERED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A). IN VIEW OF THIS, THERE IS NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A),WHICH WE UPHOLD AND DISMISS THE GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE AS DEVOID OF MERIT. 11. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVEN UE IS DISMISSED AND THE CROSS OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. S D/ - S D/ - (K.K.GUPTA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( K.S.S.PRASAD RAO) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATE: 17.02.2012 H.K.PADHEE, SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY. COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT: INCOME - TAX OFFICER, PARADEEP WARD, PARADEEP. 2. THE RESPONDENT: SRI SATYABRATA JENA, AT/P.O.NIKIRAI, DT. KKENDRAPARA 3. THE CIT, 4. THE CIT(A), 5. THE DR, CUTTACK 6. GUARD FILE (IN DUPLI CATE) TRUE COPY, BY ORDER, SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY.