Wachaspati Madhupati Prani Sewa Sansthan, Allahabad V. CIT, Allahabad

ITA 485/ALLD/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2132 (ITAT-ALLAHABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-05-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 13-12-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: JAGDISH
• Assessee Lawyers: S K GARG; ASHISH BANSAL S
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice; Period of limitation
• Section: 143(3); 263

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ALLAHABAD BENCH, ALLAHABAD BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.L. GEHLOT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.485/A/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 WACHASPATI MADHUPATI PRANI VS. COMMISSIONER OF INC OME TAX, SEWA SANSTHAN, ALLAHABAD. 33-G/2, JAYANTIPUR, ALLAHABAD. (PAN: AAAAW 1691 E). (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI S.K. GARG & SHRI ASHISH BANSAL, ADVOCATES RESPONDENT BY : SHRI JAGDISH, CIT (D.R.) DATE OF HEARING : 17.04.2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 01.05.2013 ORDER PER A.L. GEHLOT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 11.10.2012 PASSED BY THE LD. CIT, ALLAHABAD FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL:- 2 ITA NO.485/A/2012 A.Y. 2009-10 1. BECAUSE THE CIT HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN HOLDING THAT THE REGULAR ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 28.12.2011 (AS PASSED BY ASSTT. CIT, RANGE-II, ALLAHABAD) WAS BOTH ERRONEOUS AS WELL AS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE AS PER THE P RINCIPLES LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF MALABAR INDUSTRIAL CO. LTD. VS. CIT REPORTED IN (2000) 248 ITR 83 AND IN CANCELLING THE ABOVE REFERRED ORDER, WITH THE DIRECTION TO MAKE FRESH AS SESSMENT AFTER CONSIDERING AND COMPLYING WITH THE ISSUES RAISED AN D ELABORATELY DISCUSSED IN THE PRESENT ORDER. 2. BECAUSE THE REGULAR ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 28.12.2011 ACCORDED FULLY WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT AND A PROBABLE VIEW TAKEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER CANNOT BE HELD TO BE ERRONEOUS IN LAW, AS PER THE PRINCIPLE LAID DOWN IN THE CASE OF MALABAR INDUSTRIAL CO. (SUPRA) ITSELF, AND THE CIT WENT WHOLLY WRONG IN ASSUMING HIS REVISIONARY JURISDICTION UNDER SECTION 263 OF ACT, IN RELATION TO THE SAID ORDER. 3. BECAUSE THE DONATION AGGREGATING RS.10,68,900/- (RS.4,01,900 + RS.6,67,000) WERE LIABLE TO BE EXCLU DED FROM THE CREDIT SIDE OF THE INCOME AND EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT AS THE S AME DID NOT FORM PART OF THE ANNUAL RECEIPTS OF THE INSTITUTION RU N BY THE APPELLANT AND CIT COULD NOT HAVE REJECTED THE SAID VIEW, SO AS TO A SSUME JURISDICTION UNDER SECTION 263 AND HOLD THAT EXEMPT ION UNDER SECTION 10(23C)(IIIAD) WAS NOT AVAILABLE TO THE APPELLANT , OWING TO THE ANNUAL RECEIPTS BEING IN EXCESS OF THE LIMIT OF RS. ONE CR ORE. 4. BECAUSE IN ANY CASE, DONATION AGGREGATING RS. 10,68,900/- , NOT BEING THE RECEIPTS OF RECURRING NATURE, COULD NOT HAVE PARTAKEN THE CHARACTER OF ANNUAL RECEIPTS AS ENVISAGED IN SECTION 10(23C)(IIIAD) OF THE AT SO A TO DENY EXEMPTION HER EUNDER AND THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE CIT IS WHOLLY ERRONEOUS AND IN-CONSISTENT WITH THE LETTER AND SPIRIT OF SECTION 10(23C)(IIIAD) OF THE ACT. 5. BECAUSE$ THE ORDER APPEALED AGAINST IS CONTRARY TO THE FACTS, LAW AND PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. 3 ITA NO.485/A/2012 A.Y. 2009-10 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSE E SOCIETY IS ENGAGED IN THE ACTIVITIES OF IMPARTING EDUCATION. ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION, THE CIT FOUND THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR A.Y. 2009-10 WAS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE. THE CIT ISSUED SHOW CAUSE NOTICE WHERE IN IT HAS BEEN STATED THAT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY UNDER SECTION 11/12 O F THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT HEREINAFTER) HAS BEEN WRONGLY ALLOWED BY THE A.O. DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE SOCIETY IS NOT REGISTERED UNDER SECTION 12A/12A A OF THE ACT FOR THE RELEVANT A.Y. AFTER CONSIDERING THE ASSESSEES SUBMISSION, THE CIT HELD AS UNDER :- (PARA 3.4 PAGE 6) 3.4) AS FURTHER LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE SUPREME C OURT IN MALABAR INDUSTRIAL CO. LTD. V. CIT (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC), THE TWIN CONDITIONS, NAMELY (I) THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING O FFICER SOUGHT TO BE REVISED IS ERRONEOUS AND (II) IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE, ARE BOTH FULFILLED IN THE INSTANT CASE, BASED ON FA CTS AND LEGAL POSITION AS DISCUSSED ABOVE, I THEREFORE, HOLD THAT THE ASSE SSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S 143(3) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961, DATED DEC., 29, 2 011, IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 IS ERRONEO US AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE AND THE SAME IS HEREBY CANCELLED AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO MAKE A FRE SH ASSESSMENT IN THIS CASE, AFTER CONSIDERING AND COMPLYING WITH THE ISSU ES RAISED AND AS ELABORATELY DISCUSSED IN THE PRESENT ORDER. 4. THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY IS FULLY ENGAGED IN PROVING EDUCATIONAL ACTIVITIES AND DURING THE RELEVANT A.Y. 2009- 10 THE SOCIETY WAS RUNNING AN INTERMEDIATE COLLEGE AND THE TOTAL FEE COLLECTION 4 ITA NO.485/A/2012 A.Y. 2009-10 FROM THE EDUCATIONAL ACTIVITIES DURING THE RELEVANT YEAR WAS RS.95,71,259/-. THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT AS PER SECTION 10(23C)(IIIAD) OF THE ACT WHICH PROVIDES THAT ANY INCOME RECEIVED BY ANY UNIVERSITY OR OTHER EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION EXISTING SOLELY FOR EDUCATI ON PURPOSE AND NOT FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROFIT IF THE AGGREGATE ANNUAL RECEIPT O F SUCH UNIVERSITY OR EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION DO NOT EXCEED THE AMOUNT OF ANNUAL RECE IPTS AS MAY BE PRESCRIBED, I.E., ONE CRORE. LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THE RECEIPT FROM EDUCATIONAL ACTIVITIES IS LESS THAN RS.1 CRORE AND HENCE IT IS FULLY EXEMPTED FROM INCOME TAX. IT WAS ALSO SUBMISSION OF THE LD. AUTH ORIZED REPRESENTATIVE THAT FROM A.Y. 2010-11 ONWARDS THE SOCIETY IS REGISTERED UNDE R SECTION 12A/12AA OF THE ACT. LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE REFERRED THE RE LEVANT INCOME & EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT OF WHICH COPY HAS BEEN PLACED IN PAPER BOOK AND SUBMITTED THAT THE TOTAL RECEIPT OF THE SOCIETY WAS RS.95,71,259/-. THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION RELIED UPON THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF PARAM HANS SWAMI UMA BHARTI MISSION VS. ACIT, 140 ITD 429. 5. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF CIT(A) AND ALSO RELIED UPON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS :- 5 ITA NO.485/A/2012 A.Y. 2009-10 I) ROHINI HOLDINGS (P) LTD. VS. CIT, 345 ITR 446 (M AD) II) CIT VS. BHAGWAN DAS, 272 ITR 367 (ALL.) III) SWARUP VEGETABLE PRODUCTS VS. CIT, 187 ITR 412 (ALL.) 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PAR TIES AND RECORDS PERUSED. THE ISSUE UNDER CONSIDERATION IS PERTAINING TO SECT ION 263 OF I.T. ACT. THE SAID SECTION READS AS UNDER:- 263. (1) THE COMMISSIONER MAY CALL FOR AND EXAMINE THE RECORD OF ANY PROCEEDING UNDER THIS ACT, AND IF HE CONSIDERS THAT ANY ORDER PASSED THEREIN BY THE [ASSESSING] OFFICER IS ERRONEOUS IN SO FAR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE, HE MAY, AFTER GIVING THE ASSESSEE AN OPPOR TUNITY OF BEING HEARD AND AFTER MAKING OR CAUSING TO BE MADE SUCH INQUIRY AS HE DEE MS NECESSARY, PASS SUCH ORDER THEREON AS THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE JUSTIFY, I NCLUDING AN ORDER ENHANCING OR MODIFYING THE ASSESSMENT, OR CANCELLING THE ASSESSM ENT AND DIRECTING A FRESH ASSESSMENT. [ EXPLANATION .FOR THE REMOVAL OF DOUBTS, IT IS HEREBY DECLARED THAT, FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SUB-SECTION, ( A ) AN ORDER PASSED [ON OR BEFORE OR AFTER THE 1ST DA Y OF JUNE, 1988] BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL INCLUDE ( I ) AN ORDER OF ASSESSMENT MADE BY THE ASSISTANT COMM ISSIONER [OR DEPUTY COMMISSIONER] OR THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER ON T HE BASIS OF THE DIRECTIONS ISSUED BY THE [JOINT] COMMISSIONER UNDER SECTION 144A ; ( II ) AN ORDER MADE BY THE [JOINT] COMMISSIONER IN EXER CISE OF THE POWERS OR IN THE PERFORMANCE OF THE FUNCTIONS OF AN ASSESS ING OFFICER CONFERRED ON, OR ASSIGNED TO, HIM UNDER THE ORDERS OR DIRECTIONS ISSUED BY THE BOARD OR BY THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OR DIRECT OR GENERAL OR COMMISSIONER AUTHORISED BY THE BOARD IN THIS BEHALF UNDER SECTION 120 ; ( B ) RECORD [SHALL INCLUDE AND SHALL BE DEEMED ALWAY S TO HAVE INCLUDED] ALL RECORDS RELATING TO ANY PROCEEDING UNDER THIS ACT A VAILABLE AT THE TIME OF EXAMINATION BY THE COMMISSIONER; ( C ) WHERE ANY ORDER REFERRED TO IN THIS SUB-SECTION A ND PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD BEEN THE SUBJECT MATTER OF AN Y APPEAL [FILED ON OR 6 ITA NO.485/A/2012 A.Y. 2009-10 BEFORE OR AFTER THE 1ST DAY OF JUNE, 1988], THE POW ERS OF THE COMMISSIONER UNDER THIS SUB-SECTION SHALL EXTEND [AND SHALL BE D EEMED ALWAYS TO HAVE EXTENDED] TO SUCH MATTERS AS HAD NOT BEEN CONSIDERE D AND DECIDED IN SUCH APPEAL.] [(2) NO ORDER SHALL BE MADE UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) AFTER THE EXPIRY OF TWO YEARS FROM THE END OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR IN WHICH THE ORD ER SOUGHT TO BE REVISED WAS PASSED.] (3) NOTWITHSTANDING ANYTHING CONTAINED IN SUB-SECTI ON (2), AN ORDER IN REVISION UNDER THIS SECTION MAY BE PASSED AT ANY TIME IN THE CASE OF AN ORDER WHICH HAS BEEN PASSED IN CONSEQUENCE OF, OR TO GIVE EFFECT TO , ANY FINDING OR DIRECTION CONTAINED IN AN ORDER OF THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, [N ATIONAL TAX TRIBUNAL,] THE HIGH COURT OR THE SUPREME COURT. EXPLANATION .IN COMPUTING THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION FOR THE PUR POSES OF SUB-SECTION (2), THE TIME TAKEN IN GIVING AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO BE REHEARD UNDER THE PROVISO TO SECTION 129 AND ANY PERIOD DURING WHICH ANY PROCEEDING UNDER T HIS SECTION IS STAYED BY AN ORDER OR INJUNCTION OF ANY COURT SHALL BE EXCLUDED. 7. FROM A READING OF SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 263 , IT IS CLEAR THAT THE POWER OF SUO MOTU REVISION CAN BE EXERCISED BY THE COMMISSIO NER ONLY IF, ON EXAMINATION OF THE RECORDS OF ANY PROCEEDINGS UNDER THIS ACT, H E CONSIDERS THAT ANY ORDER PASSED THEREIN BY THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER IS ERRONE OUS IN SO FAR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE. IT IS NOT AN ARBI TRARY OR UNCHARTERED POWER. IT CAN BE EXERCISED ONLY ON FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENT S LAID DOWN IN SUB-SECTION (1). THE CONSIDERATION OF THE COMMISSIONER AS TO WHETHER AN ORDER IS ERRONEOUS IN SO FAR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE RE VENUE, MUST BE BASED ON MATERIALS ON THE RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS CALLED FOR BY HIM. IF THERE ARE NO MATERIALS ON RECORD ON THE BASIS OF WHICH IT CAN BE SAID THAT THE COMMI SSIONER ACTING IN A REASONABLE 7 ITA NO.485/A/2012 A.Y. 2009-10 MANNER COULD HAVE COME TO SUCH A CONCLUSION, THE VE RY INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS BY HIM WILL BE ILLEGAL AND WITHOUT JURISDICTION. TH E POWER OF SUO MOTU REVISION UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) IS IN THE NATURE OF SUPERVISO RY JURISDICTION AND THE SAME CAN BE EXERCISED ONLY IF THE CIRCUMSTANCES SPECIFIED TH EREIN EXIST. TWO CIRCUMSTANCES MUST EXIST TO ENABLE THE COMMISSIONER TO EXERCISE P OWER OF REVISION UNDER THIS SUBSECTION, VIZ.(1)THE ORDER IS ERRONEOUS ; (2) BY VIRTUE OF THE ORDER BEING ERRONEOUS PREJUDICE HAS BEEN CAUSED TO THE INTERESTS OF THE R EVENUE. IT HAS, THEREFORE, TO BE CONSIDERED FIRSTLY AS TO WHEN AN ORDER CAN BE SAID TO BE ERRONEOUS. WE FIND THAT THE EXPRESSIONS ERRONEOUS, ERRONEOUS ASSESSMENT AND ERRONEOUS JUDGMENT HAVE BEEN DEFINED IN BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY. ACCORDING T O THE DEFINITION, ERRONEOUS MEANS INVOLVING ERROR; DEVIATING FROM THE LAW. E RRONEOUS ASSESSMENT REFERS TO AN ASSESSMENT THAT DEVIATES FROM THE LAW AND IS, TH EREFORE, INVALID, AND IS DEFECT THAT IS JURISDICTIONAL IN ITS NATURE, SIMILARLY, E RRONEOUS JUDGMENT MEANS ONE RENDERED ACCORDING TO COURSE AND PRACTICE OF COURT, BUT CONTRARY TO LAW, UPON MISTAKEN VIEW OF LAW, OR UPON ERRONEOUS APPLICATION OF LEGAL PRINCIPLES. 8. AN ORDER CANNOT BE TERMED AS ERRONEOUS UNLESS IT IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. IF AN INCOME TAX OFFICER ACTING IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW MAKES AN ASSESSMENT, THE SAME CANNOT BE BRANDED AS ERRONEOUS BY THE COMM ISSIONER SIMPLY BECAUSE, ACCORDING TO HIM, THE AO SHOULD MADE THOROUGH ENQUI RY AND ORDER SHOULD HAVE 8 ITA NO.485/A/2012 A.Y. 2009-10 BEEN WRITTEN MORE ELABORATELY. THIS SECTION DOES NO T VISUALISE A CASE OF SUBSTITUTION OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE COMMISSIONER FOR THAT OF THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WHO PASSED THE ORDER, UNLESS THE DECISION IS HELD TO BE ERRONEOUS. CASES MAY BE VISUALISED WHERE THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER WHILE MAKIN G AN ASSESSMENT EXAMINES THE ACCOUNTS, MAKES ENQUIRIES, APPLIES HIS MIND TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND DETERMINES THE INCOME EITHER BY ACCEPTING THE ACCOUNTS OR BY MAKING SOME CHANGES. THE COMMISSIONER, ON PERUSAL OF THE R ECORDS, MAY BE OF THE DIFFERENT OPINION THAN THE OPINION OF THE INCOME-TA X OFFICER. THAT WOULD NOT VEST THE COMMISSIONER WITH POWER TO RE-EXAMINE THE ACCOU NTS AND EXPRESS DIFFERENT OPINION. IT IS BECAUSE THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER HAS EXERCISED THE QUASI-JUDICIAL POWER VESTED IN HIM IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND ARRI VED AT A CONCLUSION AND SUCH A CONCLUSION CANNOT BE TERMED TO BE ERRONEOUS SIMPLY BECAUSE THE COMMISSIONER DOES NOT FEEL SATISFIED WITH THE CONCLUSION. IT MAY BE SAID IN SUCH A CASE THAT IN THE OPINION OF THE COMMISSIONER THE ORDER IN QUESTION I S PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE. BUT THAT BY ITSELF WILL NOT BE ENOUGH TO VEST THE COMMISSIONER WITH THE POWER OF SUO MOTU REVISION BECAUSE THE FIRST RE QUIREMENT, VIZ., THAT THE ORDER IS ERRONEOUS, IS ABSENT. 9. IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, IF WE CONS IDER THE FACTS OF THE CASE UNDER CONSIDERATION, WE NOTICE THAT THE CIT HAS TAKEN A P ARTICULAR VIEW THAT THE GROSS 9 ITA NO.485/A/2012 A.Y. 2009-10 RECEIPT IS MORE THAN RS.1 CRORE, THEREFORE, THE ASS ESSEE SOCIETY CANNOT CLAIM BENEFIT OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 10(23C)(IIIAD) OF THE ACT. GROSS RECEIPT OF RS.1,06,74,452/- INCLUDED OTHER INCOMES, WHEREAS TH E COLLEGE RECEIPTS ON ACCOUNT OF TUITION AND OTHER FEES ARE RS.95,71,259/- WHICH IS LESSER THAN RS.1 CRORE. I.T.A.T., DELHI BENCH IN THE CASE OF PARAM HANS SWA MI UMA BHARTI MISSION VS. ACIT, 140 ITD 429 HAS TAKEN A VIEW THAT FOR THE PUR POSE OF SECTION 10(23C)(IIIAD) ANNUAL RECEIPTS OF SCHOOL OR UNIVERSITY MAY BE TAKE N INTO CONSIDERATION AND NOT TOTAL INCOME OF THE SOCIETY RUNNING THAT SCHOOL OR UNIVERSITY. IN OTHER WORDS, IN ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT, THE A.O. HAS TAKEN A VIEW WHIC H IS FORTIFIED BY THE DECISION OF I.T.A.T., DELHI BENCH IN THE CASE PARAM HANS SWAMI UMA BHARTI MISSION VS. ACIT (SUPRA). THUS, IN CASE WHERE THE A.O. HAS TAK EN A PARTICULAR VIEW AND CIT WANTS A DIFFERENT VIEW, UNDER THAT CIRCUMSTANCES, I T CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE ORDER OF THE A.O. IS ERRONEOUS. WHEN THE ORDER OF THE A.O. IS NOT ERRONEOUS, THE CIT IS NOT EMPOWERED TO INVOKE SECTION 263 OF THE ACT. IN THE CASE UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE BASIC CONDITION TO HOLD THAT ORDER OF A.O. IS ERRON EOUS, IS MISSING. IN THE LIGHT OF THE FACT, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE OR DER OF CIT IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. AS REGARDS THE DECISION CITED BY THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, THESE DECISIONS ARE DISTINGUISHABLE ON FACTS AS THO SE DECISIONS HAVE BEEN DECIDED BY THE RESPECTIVE COURTS CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF E ACH CASE WHICH IS NOT SIMILAR TO 10 ITA NO.485/A/2012 A.Y. 2009-10 THE FACTS OF THE CASE UNDER CONSIDERATION. IN THE LIGHT OF ABOVE DISCUSSION, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CIT. 10. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWE D. (ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT) SD/- SD/- (BHAVNESH SAINI) (A.L. GEHLOT) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PBN/* COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT (APPEALS) CONCERNED 4. CIT CONCERNED 5. D.R., ITAT, ALLAHABAD BENCH, ALLAHABAD 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME-TAX APPELLATE T RIBUNAL, ALLAHABAD TRUE COPY