Gayatri Shioksha Samiti, Agra V. ACIT, Agra

ITA 464/AGR/2009

• Counselvise Citation: 46420314 RSA 2009
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 5 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-05-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 03-05-2012
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 08-12-2009
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: VITHAL DAS
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Income from undisclosed sources; Valuation report
• Section: 153A; 68; 69; 15

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. 464/AGRA/2009 ASSTT. YEAR : 2004-05 GAYATRI SHIKSHA SAMITI, VS. A.C.I.T., CENTRAL C IRCLE, 14/195, GHATIA AZAM KHAN, AGRA. AGRA. (PAN : AAAAG 1565D) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI VITHAL DAS, ADVOCATE. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI WASEEM ARSHAD, SR. D.R. DATE OF HEARING : 03.05.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER : 11.05.2012 ORDER PER BHAVNESH SAINI, J.M.: THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST TH E ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A)-I, AGRA DATED 10.09.2009 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004- 05 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS : 1. BECAUSE THE LEARNED CIT(A)-I, AGRA HAS NOT BEEN FAIR IN NOT DEDUCTING RS.10,00,000/- BEING THE ALLEGED COST OF CONSTRUCTION OF BOUNDARY WALL IN THE GUTLA BUILDING OF THE APPELLAN T SAMITI. THE SAID DISALLOWANCE OF RS.10 LACS WAS LIABLE TO BE REDUCED FROM THE OVERALL ADDITION OF RS.27,15,299/- AS MADE BY THE AO. 2. BECAUSE THE LEARNED CIT(A)-I, AGRA IS INCORRECT IN LAW IN RECORDING A DEFINITE FINDING THAT RS.17,18,669/- BE ADDED TO THE APPELLANTS INCOME IN SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEAR. T HIS DEFINITE FINDING HAS TIED THE HANDS OF THE AO TO MAKE OR UNM AKE THE ADDITION DEPENDING ON FACTUAL POSITION. ITA NO. 464/AGRA/2009 2 2. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH TH E PARTIES AND PERUSED THE FINDING OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. IN THIS CASE, THE AO PASSED THE ORDER U/S. 153A OF THE IT ACT ON 29.12.2006. THE AO MADE THE ADDITIONS OF RS.2,00,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF THE EXPENSES, ADDITION OF RS.27, 15,299/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT AND FURTHER ADDITION OF RS.3 8,59,838/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT. THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), AGITATING THE DENIAL BY THE AO OF EXEMP TION U/S. 10(23C)(IIIAD) OF THE IT ACT, STATING THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A SOCIETY DULY REGISTERED AND SOLELY EXISTS FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSE. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE IS ENT ITLED FOR EXEMPTION UNDER THE AFORESAID PROVISION. THE LD. CIT(A) CONSIDERING THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE MATERIAL ON RECORD FOUND THAT THERE IS NO MATER IAL OR EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT THE INSTITUTION DOES NOT EXIST SOLELY FOR THE EDUCATION AL PURPOSES OR THAT IT IS EXISTING PARTLY OR WHOLLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROFITS. SINCE THE TOTAL RECEIPTS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WERE BELOW RS.1 CR ORE, THEREFORE, THE LD. CIT(A) HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION U/ S. 10(23C)(IIIAD) OF THE IT ACT. THE LD. CIT(A) ALSO DELETED THE ADDITION OF RS.2,00 ,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES. THE LD. CIT(A) FURTHER CO NSIDERED THE ADDITION OF RS.27,15,299/- ON ACCOUNT OF INVESTMENT IN GRAM GUT LA, SHAMSHABAD ROAD, AGRA PROPERTY. THE LD. CIT(A) NOTED THAT DURING THE SEAR CH IN THE PREMISES OF SMT. ITA NO. 464/AGRA/2009 3 RADHA RANI SHARMA ON 16.09.2004 VARIOUS DOCUMENTS W ERE FOUND AND SEIZED IN ANNEXURE-A1 AND ON PERUSAL OF THE SEIZED PAPERS, IT WAS FOUND THAT THE INVESTMENT WAS MADE IN THE ABOVE PROPERTY IN A SUM OF RS.54,50 ,200/- WHEREAS IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 UNDER APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN INVESTMENT OF RS.27,34,905/- WHICH INCLUDES THE VALUE OF PLOT IN A SUM OF RS.6,29,647/-. THE AO ON CONSIDERATION OF THE SEIZED PAPER AND OTHER DOCU MENTS FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE MADE INVESTMENT OF RS.54,50,200/- IN THE ABOVE PROP ERTY, BUT THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN INVESTMENT IN RS.27,34,901/-. THEREFORE, DIFF ERENCE OF RS.27,15,299/- WAS TREATED AS UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT IN THE PROPERTY. THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THE ADDITION BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE IS REPRODUCED IN PARA 3.1 OF THE APPELLATE ORDER, IN WHICH THE ASSES SEE EXPLAINED THAT ENTIRE INVESTMENT IN THE PROPERTY HAVE BEEN SHOWN IN THE A CCOUNTS MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE AO DID NOT REFER TO THE VALUATION REPORT. IT WAS, THEREFORE, PLEADED THAT THE ADDITION IS UNJUSTIFIED AND IT WAS ALSO EX PLAINED THAT NO INVESTMENT WAS MADE IN THE BOUNDARY WALL WHICH WAS NEVER CONSTRUCT ED AND ADDITION OF RS.10,00,000/- IS UNJUSTIFIED. ALL THE DOCUMENTS WE RE FILED TO SHOW THAT THE ADDITION WAS UNJUSTIFIED. THE LD. CIT(A) ON CONSIDE RATION OF THE SEIZED PAPER AND DOCUMENTS FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE MADE TOTAL INVEST MENT IN A SUM OF RS.27,34,901/- IN THREE ASSESSMENT YEARS, I.E., ASS ESSMENT YEAR 2001-02 RS.6,39,697/-, 2002-03 RS.17,43,322/- AND IN ASSESS MENT YEAR 2003-04 IN A SUM OF ITA NO. 464/AGRA/2009 4 RS.3,51,882/-. THE LD. CIT(A) ALSO FUND THAT NO INV ESTMENT WAS MADE IN THE PROPERTY IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 UNDER APPEAL AS PER DETAILS GIVEN BEFORE HIM. THE LD. CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE DETAILS NOTED IN THE SEIZED PAPERS AND THE DETAILS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE FOUND THAT NO INV ESTMENT HAS BEEN SHOWN IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT REGARDING INVESTMENT MADE IN THE B OUNDARY WALL. THEREFORE, IT WAS TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT OF THE ASSESS EE IN GUTLA PROPERTY, WHICH WAS WORKED OUT TO RS.17,18,669/- (RS.27,15,299 RS.9,9 6,630/-). THE LD. CIT(A), HOWEVER, DELETED THE ENTIRE ADDITION OF RS.27,15,29 9/- BECAUSE, ACCORDING TO HIM, THE SAME SHOULD BE TAXED IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 . THE OPERATIVE PORTION OF THE FINDING OF LD. CIT(A) AT PAGE 9 OF THE IMPUGNED ORD ER IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER : IT IS SEEN THAT THE AO HAS TREATED THE ABOVE INVES TMENT AS THE APPELLANTS INCOME FOR A.Y. 2004-05. HOWEVER, AS PE R SECTION 69B OF THE ACT, SUCH INCOME IS LIABLE TO BE TAXED IN A.Y. 2005-06 BEING THE FINANCIAL YEAR RELEVANT TO THE DETECTION OF SUCH AD DITIONAL, UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT AS A RESULT OF SEARCH CONDUCTED IN THE A PPELLANTS PREMISES ON 16.09.2004. CONSEQUENTLY, THE ADDITION OF RS.27, 15,299/- MADE IN THIS YEAR IS HEREBY DELETED. HOWEVER, IN TERMS OF S ECTION 153(3) EXPLANATION 2 OF THE ACT, THE AO IS DIRECTED TO ADD THE ABOVE INCOME OF RS.17,18,669/- TO THE APPELLANTS INCOME IN A.Y. 2005-06. 2.1 THE LD. CIT(A) FURTHER DECIDED THE ISSUE OF ADD ITION OF RS.38,59,838/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT IN THE PROPERTY A ND HELD THAT THE IMPUGNED ADDITION IS NOT SUSTAINABLE AND PART OF THE ADDITIO N WOULD NOT BE SUSTAINABLE BECAUSE THE SAME IS COVERED BY EXEMPTION U/S. 10(23 C)(IIIAD) OF THE IT ACT ITA NO. 464/AGRA/2009 5 BECAUSE TOTAL RECEIPTS DID NOT EXCEED RS.1 CRORE. T HE ADDITION OF RS.38,59,928/- WAS ACCORDINGLY DELETED. THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL ON THE ABOVE GROUNDS CHALLENGING THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN NOT REDU CING RS.10,00,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF COST OF BOUNDARY WALL AND GIVING DIRECTION TO MA KE ADDITION OF RS.17,18,669/- IN SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEAR AS NOTED ABOVE. 3. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED BY THE FINDING OF THE LD. CIT(A) AS NOTED AT PAGE 9 OF THE APPELLATE ORDER BECAUSE HE CANNOT GIVE ANY DIRECTION TO THE AO TO MAKE ADDITIO N IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ALSO REFERRED TO T HE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL, WHICH, MORE OR LESS, EXPLAIN THE SAME POSITION AND ALSO SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE WAS FOUND TO BE EXEMPT, THER EFORE, NO FURTHER ADDITION U/S. 68 AND 69 COULD BE MADE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. THE L D. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT SINCE NO APPEAL WAS PENDING BEFORE T HE CIT(A) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06, THEREFORE, HE SHOULD NOT HAVE ISSUED SUCH DIRECTION TO THE AO. IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION, HE HAS RELIED UPON THE F OLLOWING DECISIONS : (I). DECISION OF HONBLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN T HE CASE OF CIT VS. HIRDEY NARAIN YOGENDRA PRAKASH, 82 ITR 136 (ALL.) I N WHICH IT WAS HELD ITA NO. 464/AGRA/2009 6 AAC HAVING FOUND THAT CERTAIN AMOUNT INCLUDED IN ASSESSMENT AS INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES DID NOT RELATE T O THE YEAR IN QUESTION HE COULD NOT PROCEED TO RECORD A FINDING T HAT SAME RELATED TO ANY PARTICULAR ASSESSMENT YEAR. (II). DECISION OF HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE C ASE OF DIT(EXEMPTION) VS. RAUNAQ EDUCATION FOUNDATION, 294 ITR 76 (DEL.), IN WHICH IT WAS HELD THE WORDS DERIVED FROM (OR SOME OTHER SIMILAR WO RDS) DO NOT OCCUR IN SECTION 10(22) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961, AND, THEREFORE, THE WORD INCOME AS OCCURRING IN SECTIO N 10(22) CANNOT BE GIVEN A RESTRICTIVE MEANING AND MUST BE GIVEN IT S NATURAL MEANING OR THE MEANING ASCRIBED TO IT IN SECTION 2(24). HEN CE, AN ASSESSEE WHO IS ENTITLED TO EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 10(22) CAN C LAIM THE BENEFIT THEREOF FOR THE PURPOSE OF INCOME DEEMED TO BE CHAR GEABLE TO TAX UNDER SECTION 68. (III). DECISION OF HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF MARUBENI INDIA P. LTD. VS. CIT, 328 ITR 306, IN WHICH IT WAS HELD APPEAL TO APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JURISDICTION CON FINED TO PASSING OF ORDERS ON SUBJECT MATTER OF APPEAL TRI BUNAL CANNOT GIVEN A FINDING IN RESPECT OF ASSESSMENT OF AN YEAR WHICH IS NOT SUBJECT- MATTER OF APPEAL. (IV). DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF RAJINDER NATH VS. CIT, 120 ITR 14 IN WHICH IT WAS HELD AS UNDER : THE EXPRESSIONS FINDING AND DIRECTION IN S. 15 3(3) ARE LIMITED IN MEANING. A FINDING GIVEN IN AN APPEAL, R EVISION OR REFERENCE ARISING OUT OF AN ASSESSMENT MUST BE A FINDING NECE SSARY FOR THE ITA NO. 464/AGRA/2009 7 DISPOSAL OF THE PARTICULAR CASE, THAT IS TO SAY, IN RESPECT OF THE PARTICULAR ASSESSEE AND IN RELATION TO THE PARTICUL AR ASSESSMENT YEAR. TO BE A NECESSARY FINDING, IT MUST BE DIRECTLY INVO LVED IN THE DISPOSAL OF THE CASE. IT IS POSSIBLE IN CERTAIN CASES THAT I N ORDER TO RENDER A FINDING IN RESPECT OF A, A FINDING IN RESPECT OF B MAY BE CALLED FOR. FOR INSTANCE, WHERE THE FACTS SHOW THAT THE INCOME CAN BELONG EITHER TO A OR B AND TO NO ONE ELSE, A FINDING THAT IT BELONGS TO B OR DOES NOT BELONG TO B WOULD BE DETERMINATIVE OF THE ISSUE WHE THER IT CAN BE TAXED AS AS INCOME. A FINDING RESPECTING B IS INIT IALLY INVOLVED AS A STEP IN THE PROCESS OF REACHING THE ULTIMATE FINDIN G RESPECTING A. IF, HOWEVER, THE FINDING AS TO AS LIABILITY CAN BE DIR ECTLY ARRIVED AT WITHOUT NECESSITATING A FINDING IN RESPECT OF B, TH EN A FINDING MADE IN RESPECT OF B IS AN INCIDENTAL FINDING ONLY. IT IS N OT A FINDING NECESSARY FOR THE DISPOSAL OF THE CASE PERTAINING TO A. 4. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR RELIED UPON THE OR DER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN GIVING SUCH DIRECTION AND SUBMITTED THAT THE DIRECT ION OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS VALID AS PER SECTION 150 OF THE IT ACT. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AND WE DO NOT JUSTIFY THE FINDING OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN ISS UING DIRECTION TO MAKE ADDITION IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN T HE CASE OF CIT VS. MANICK SONS, 74 ITR 1 (SC) HAVE HELD THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAD NO JURISDICTION IN THE APPEA L FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1953-54 TO REOPEN THE ASSESSMENT FO R THE YEAR 1952=53. THERE WAS NO SANCTION IN LAW TO ENFORCE TH E UNDERTAKING GIVEN BY THE RESPONDENT TO MAKE A VOLUNTARY RETURN FOR THE YEAR 1952- 53 WHEN URGING ITS APPEAL FOR THE YEAR 1953-54; AND EVEN IF THE RESPONDENT CARRIED OUT THAT UNDERTAKING THE ASSESSM ENT FOR 1952-53 COULD NOT BE REOPENED OTHERWISE THAN IN THE MANNER PRESCRIBED BY LAW. ITS UNDERTAKING HAD THEREFORE TO BE IGNORED. ITA NO. 464/AGRA/2009 8 THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT FURTHER HELD THAT THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL FOR REDUCING THE CASH CREDITS BY RS.21,000. THE POWER CONFERRED BY SECTION 33(4) OF THE INCOME -TAX ACT, 1922, IS WIDE, BUT IT IS STILL A JUDICIAL PER WHICH MUST BE EXERCISED IN RESPECT OF MATTERS THAT ARISE IN THE APPEAL AND ACC ORDING TO LAW. THE TRIBUNAL IN DECIDING ON APPEAL BEFORE IT MUST DEAL WITH QUESTIONS OF LAW AND FACT WHICH ARE OUT OF THE ORDER OF ASSESSME NT MADE BY THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER AND THE ORDER OF THE APPELLATE A SSISTANT COMMISSIONER. IT CANNOT ASSUME POWERS WHICH ARE INC ONSISTENT WITH THE EXPRESS PROVISIONS OF THE ACT OR ITS SCHEME. 5.1 THE DECISIONS CITED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, NOTED ABOVE, CLEARLY SUPPORT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE LD. CIT(A ) CANNOT GIVE DIRECTION TO THE AO TO MAKE ADDITION IN SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEAR. THE REFORE, THE DIRECTION OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. WE MAY FURTHE R NOTE THAT THE LD. CIT(A) APART FROM MAKING THE ABOVE DIRECTION, ALSO DECIDED OTHER ISSUES IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE HOLDING THAT THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE IS ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION U/S. 10(23C)(IIIAD) OF THE IT ACT. THE LD. CIT(A) WHILE SPECIFICALLY DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.38,59,928/- ALSO APPLIED THE ABOVE P ROVISION BY HOLDING THAT THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE SINCE WAS EXEMPT, THEREFORE, NO ADDITION COULD BE MADE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. THERE IS NO CROSS APPEAL FILE D BY THE REVENUE CHALLENGING THE ABOVE FINDING OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN THE IMPUGNED ORD ER. WHEN THIS APPEAL WAS HEARD ON 23.02.2012, THE LD. DR ON GOING THROUGH TH E ABOVE FINDING OF LD. CIT(A) ITA NO. 464/AGRA/2009 9 IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE DEPART MENT INTENDS TO FILE THE CROSS OBJECTION. THOUGH THIS REQUEST WAS MADE BELATEDLY, BUT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, THE DEPARTMENT WAS GRANTED TIME TO FILE CROSS-OBJEC TION, IF ANY, AND APPEAL WAS ADJOURNED TO 21.03.2012. WHEN THE APPEAL WAS TAKEN UP FOR HEARING ON 21.03.12, THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT STEPS HAVE BEEN TAKEN FOR FILING THE CROSS OBJECTION ON BEHALF OF THE DEPARTMENT AND THE DEPARTMENT WOULD N OT SEEK FURTHER ADJOURNMENT IN THIS MATTER. THEREFORE, LAST OPPORTUNITY WAS GRANTE D TO THE DEPARTMENT TO DO THE NEEDFUL AND THE APPEAL WAS ADJOURNED TO 25.04.2012. AGAIN ON THE REQUEST OF THE DR, THE APPEAL WAS ADJOURNED TO 03.05.2012. HOWEVER , ON THE DATE OF HEARING, NO SUCH CROSS OBJECTION HAS BEEN FILED BY THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT CHALLENGING THE FINDING OF LD. CIT(A) HOLDING THAT THE INCOME OF TH E ASSESSEE IS EXEMPT U/S 10(23C)(IIIAD) OF THE IT ACT. THE FINDING OF THE LD . CIT(A), THUS, REMAINED FINAL THAT THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE IS EXEMPT BEING SOL ELY EXISTED FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSE. THUS, THE DECISION OF HONBLE DELHI HIGH C OURT IN THE CASE OF RAUNAQ EDUCATION FOUNDATION (SUPRA) SQUARELY APPLIES TO TH E CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, WE ARE OF THE VIE W THAT THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN ISSUING THE DIRECTION TO THE AO TO MAK E ADDITION IN SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. FURTHER WHEN INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE IS EXEMPT U/S. 10(23C)(IIIAD) OF THE IT ACT, NO PURPOSE WOULD SERV E TO MAKE FURTHER ADDITION AGAINST THE ASSESSEE IN ANY RESPECT BECAUSE THE ADD ITION, IF ANY, MADE TO THE INCOME ITA NO. 464/AGRA/2009 10 OF THE ASSESSEE, WOULD FURTHER EXEMPT THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, NOTED ABOVE, W E ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE ABOVE GROUND SHALL HAVE TO B E ALLOWED. WE ACCORDINGLY, SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) ON THE ABOVE GROU ND AND QUASH HIS DIRECTION TO THE AO TO MAKE ADDITION IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED. 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