Sh. Manoj Singh, Aligarh V. I.T.O., Ward-2, Aligarh

ITA 487/AGR/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0320 (ITAT-AGRA)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-03-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 06-03-2013
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 11-10-2012
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: KK MISHRA
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Unexplained investment; Depreciation; Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 131; 68

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. 487/AGRA/2012 ASSTT. YEAR : 2006-07 SHRI MANOJ SINGH, VS. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, 1/48A, DURGESH COLONY, WARD 2, ALIGARH. ALIGARH. (PAN : AVPPS 5868 L) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI RAJENDRA SHARMA, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI K.K. MISHRA, JR. D.R. DATE OF HEARING : 06.03.2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER : 15.03.2013 ORDER PER BHAVNESH SAINI, J.M.: THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST TH E ORDER OF LD. CIT(A), GHAZIABAD DATED 06.07.2012 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. 2. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH TH E PARTIES, PERUSED THE FINDINGS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW AND CONSIDERED THE MA TERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED CONCISE GROUNDS OF APPEAL IN WHI CH THREE ISSUES HAVE BEEN RAISED AND ARE DECIDED AS UNDER : ITA NO. 487/AGRA/2012 2 3. ON GROUND NO. 1, THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ORD ER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN ENHANCING AND MAKING ADDITION OF RS.6,80,000/- AS A GAINST MADE BY THE AO AT RS.1,30,000/-. THE ASSESSEE PRAYED THAT THE ENTIRE ADDITION MAY BE DELETED. THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL AND ENGAGED IN CONSTRUCTI ON WORK AND HIRING OF JCB MACHINES. THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PRODUCE BOOKS OF A CCOUNT, BILLS AND VOUCHERS AT THE ASSESSMENT STAGE. THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN CAPITA L OF RS.6,61,884/-, HOWEVER, DURING THE LAST YEAR, THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN THE CA PITAL AT RS.4,20,336/-. THE DETAILS OF THE SAME ARE NOTED AT PAGE 2 OF THE ASSE SSMENT ORDER, IN WHICH THE DISPUTED AMOUNT IS RS.1,30,000/- BEING HIS OLD ASSE T (DUMPER) SOLD AT RS.1,30,000/-. THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO FILE SA LE LETTER IN RESPECT OF OLD DUMPER, WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO FILE. PHOT O COPY OF FORM NO. 30 WAS FILED WHICH IS NOT A DOCUMENT REGISTERED WITH RTO OFFICE. THEREFORE, IT WAS NOT CONSIDERED AS RELEVANT DOCUMENT. THUS, THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO EXPLAIN AND PRODUCE ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IN RESPECT OF HIS CLAIM THAT HE SOLD THE OLD DUMBER OF RS.1,30,000/- AND ACCORDINGLY, IT WAS STA TED AS UNEXPLAINED CAPITAL AND ADDITION WAS MADE U/S. 68 OF THE IT ACT IN A SUM OF RS.1,30,000/-. THE ASSESSEE FILED WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), WH ICH IS REPRODUCED IN THE APPELLATE ORDER IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THA T HE HAS SOLD DUMPER TO SHRI VASUDEO BHATT OF HALDWANI (UTTARAKHAND) AND PAYMENT S WERE RECEIVED THROUGH ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUE BEARING NO.641740 OF RS.3,30,0 00/- AND CHEQUE NO. 641741 OF RS.3,50,000/- (TOTAL RS.6,80,000/-) CREDITED IN ASSESSEES BANK ACCOUNT AT ITA NO. 487/AGRA/2012 3 SYNDICATE BANK. THE LD. CIT(A) ISSUED A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE FOR ENHANCEMENT BECAUSE NO EVIDENCE OF ACTUAL PRESENCE OF DUMPER WA S FILED OR SOLD TO SHRI VASUDEO BHATT, NO DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE SHOWING PURC HASE AND SALE WAS FILED. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE WAS DIRECTED THAT ADDITION SHOULD NOT BE ENHANCED FROM RS.1,30,000/- TO RS.6,80,000/-. THE ASSESSEE SUBMIT TED THAT HE HAS PURCHASED OLD DUMPER BEARING NO. HR-26/GA 0490 FOR RS.5,50,000/- ON 05.04.2005, WHICH WAS SOLD AT RS.6,80,000/- ON 25.07.2005. THEREFORE, THE AMOUNT OF RS.1,30,000/- WAS CREDITED IN THE ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESS EE FILED COPY OF THE PURCHASE AND SALE LETTER AND ALSO COPY OF CERTIFICATE OF FITNESS OF THE DUMPER DATED 13.02.2005 ISSUED BY MOTOR VEHICLE DEPARTMENT, GURGAON, DISTRI CT (HARYANA) IN THE NAME OF PREVIOUS PURCHASER/OWNER SHRI JAGDISH KUMAR AND SOL D THE SAME DUMPER TO SHRI VASU DEV BHATT OF HALDWANI. A CERTIFICATE FROM BABA FINANCERS WAS ALSO FILED TO SHOW THAT ON SAME DUMPER, THE FINANCIER HAS FINANCE D RS.2,20,000/- TO THE ASSESSEE FOR PURCHASE OF THE ABOVE DUMPER. IT WAS, THEREFORE , SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDITION OR PROPOSED ENHANCEMENT IS NOT BASED ON CORRECT FACTS. SALE CONSIDERATION IS RECEIVED THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL, THEREFORE, THE ADDITION WO ULD BE UNJUSTIFIED. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT IN CASE LD. CIT(A) IS NOT IN AGREEME NT WITH THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE DOCUMENTS PRODUCED IN SUPPORT OF H IS CONTENTION THEN DIRECT ENQUIRY MAY BE MADE FROM SELLER /PURCHASER EITHER P ERSONALLY OR THROUGH AO CONCERNED BY ISSUING NOTICE UNDER THE IT ACT. THE LD. CIT(A), HOWEVER, NOTED THAT NO BOOKS OF ACCOUNT HAVE BEEN PRODUCED ALONG WITH B ILLS AND VOUCHERS. ONLY FORM ITA NO. 487/AGRA/2012 4 NO. 30 HAS BEEN PRODUCED WHICH IS NOT RELEVANT. AT THE APPELLATE STAGE, THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED TWO MORE DOCUMENTS, I.E., SALE/R ECEIPT CERTIFICATE CERTIFYING THAT ASSESSEE HAD SOLD OLD DUMPER TO VASU DEV BHATT WHIC H BEARS VEHICLE NUMBER, CHASSIS NUMBER ETC. AND ALSO FILED A RECEIPT THAT V EHICLE WAS DELIVERED BY THE EARLIER OWNER, SHRI JAGDISH KUMAR TO THE ASSESSEE ON 05.04. 2005. THE LD. CIT(A) CONSIDERING THESE DOCUMENTS, NOTED THAT THESE DOCUM ENTS WERE NOT FILED BEFORE THE AO. THEREFORE, THESE WERE REJECTED AS NOT ADMISSIBL E. THE LD. CIT(A) ALSO FOUND THAT NO PROPER PROOF OF PURCHASE AND SALE OF SAID D UMPER HAS BEEN FILED. THEREFORE, WHATEVER DOCUMENTS ARE FILED ARE NOT GENUINE. IT WA S ALSO FOUND THAT THERE WAS NO ADDRESS OF JAGDISH KUMAR NOR ADDRESS BY THE ASSESSE E HAS BEEN FURNISHED. THEREFORE, ALL CONCOCTED PAPERS HAVE BEEN FILED. AC CORDINGLY, RECEIPT OF RS.6,80,000/- IN THE ACCOUNT OF ASSESSEE WERE TREAT ED AS UNEXPLAINED CREDIT U/S. 68 OF THE IT ACT AND THE ADDITION OF RS.1,30,000/- WAS ENHANCED TO RS.6,80,000/-. 4. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND REFERRED TO DEPRECIATION CHART, CERT IFICATE OF FITNESS (FORM-H), CERTIFICATE OF BABA FINANCERS AND RECEIPT ISSUED BY ORIGINAL OWNER, JAGDISH KUMAR AND RECEIPT ISSUED BY ASSESSEE IN FAVOUR OF VASU DE V BHATT FOR SALE OF DUMPER AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PROVED THE PURCHASE OF DUMPER AND SALE OF DUMPER AND SALE CONSIDERATION IS RECEIVED THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL. THEREFORE, THE ADDITION ITA NO. 487/AGRA/2012 5 IS UNJUSTIFIED. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR RELIE D UPON THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE ASSESSEE AT THE ASSESSMENT STAGE CLAIME D ENHANCEMENT IN THE CAPITAL OF RS.1,30,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF SALE OF OLD DUMPER. HOW EVER, THE SALE LETTER OF THE OLD DUMPER WAS NOT FILED BEFORE THE AO. ONLY COPY OF FO RM NO. 30 WAS FILED, WHICH IS NOT REGISTERED WITH THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, THEREFORE, NOT CONSIDERED AS PROPER EVIDENCE. THUS AT THE STAGE OF ASSESSMENT, T HE AO DID NOT EXAMINE RECEIPT OF RS.6,80,000/- BY THE ASSESSEE IN HIS BANK ACCOUN T ON SALE OF DUMPER IN QUESTION. FURTHER, NO BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WERE PRODUCED. THE LD. CIT(A), HOWEVER, ISSUED ENHANCEMENT NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE IN WHICH THE ASS ESSEE EXPLAINED THAT THE OLD DUMPER WAS PURCHASED ON 05.04.2005 FROM THE OWNER S HRI JAGDISH KUMAR, WHICH WAS SUPPORTED BY THE MONEY RECEIPT IN WHICH COMPLET E DETAILS OF THE DUMPER AND ADDRESS OF THE SELLER SHRI JAGDISH KUMAR IS MENTION ED (PB-8). SIMILARLY, IT WAS CLAIMED THAT THE SAID DUMPER WAS SOLD TO SHRI VASU DEV BHATT FOR RS.6,80,000/- AND THE AMOUNT WAS RECEIVED THROUGH TWO CHEQUES WHI CH WERE CREDITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. COPY OF THE SALE RECEIPT I S FILED AT PAGE 9 OF THE PAPER BOOK. COPY OF CERTIFICATE OF FITNESS OF THE SAME DU MPER IS FILED AT PAGE 19 WHICH SHOWS THE DUMPER IN QUESTION WAS EARLIER REGISTERED WITH THE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, GURGAON IN THE NAME OF JAGDISH KUMAR. PB-18 IS THE CERTIFICATE OF BABA FINANCERS ITA NO. 487/AGRA/2012 6 CERTIFYING THEREIN THAT THEY HAVE FINANCED RS.2,20, 000/- TO THE ASSESSEE FOR PURCHASE OF THE ABOVE DUMPER IN QUESTION. THE ASSES SEE ALSO PRAYED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) THAT IN CASE HE IS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE DO CUMENTS ABOVE TO EXPLAIN THE SALE CONSIDERATION, THEN DIRECT ENQUIRY CAN BE MADE FROM THE SELLER AND THE PURCHASER THROUGH AO OR PERSONALLY IN THE MATTER. THE LD. CIT (A) DID NOT ACCEPT THESE DOCUMENTS BECAUSE SAME WERE NOT FURNISHED BEFORE TH E AO. THE REASON GIVEN BY THE LD. CIT(A) IS NOT CORRECT BECAUSE THE ISSUE OF ENHANCEMENT OF THE ADDITION TO RS.6,80,000/- WAS NOT CONSIDERED BY THE AO. THEREFO RE, THERE WAS NO REASON TO FILE THE DETAILS OF PURCHASE AND SALES OF DUMPER BEFORE THE AO. SINCE THIS ISSUE OF ENHANCEMENT OF THE ADDITION WAS RAISED FOR THE FIRS T TIME BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), THEREFORE, THE LD. CIT(A) SHOULD HAVE ACCEPTED ALL THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE AT THE APPELLATE STAGE AND SHOULD HAVE CONSIDERED ON MERIT INSTEAD OF REJECTING THE SAME THAT THE SAME WERE NOT FILED BEFORE THE AO. THE LD. CIT(A) WAS ALSO NOT JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING THAT NO DETAILS OF EARLIER OWNER LIKE ADDRE SS ETC. HAVE BEEN GIVEN, BUT IN THE RECEIPT (PB-8), COMPLETE ADDRESS OF THE EARLIER OWN ER SHRI JAGDISH KUMAR HAVE BEEN GIVEN. SIMILARLY, IN THE SALE RECEIPT IN FAVOU R OF SHRI VASU DEV BHATT, HIS PERMANENT ADDRESS IS GIVEN (PB-9). THEREFORE, IF TH E LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE, HE SHOULD HAVE MADE A DIRECT ENQUIRY FROM THE SELLER AND PURCHASER AS REQUESTED BY THE ASSESSEE A T THE APPELLATE STAGE. FURTHER, WHEN THE CERTIFICATE OF FITNESS WAS FILED OF THE VE HICLE IN QUESTION, IT WAS CLEAR THAT THE SAID DUMPER IN QUESTION WAS EARLIER REGISTERED IN THE NAME OF SHRI JAGDISH ITA NO. 487/AGRA/2012 7 KUMAR BY THE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY GURGAON (HARYANA) AND ON THE SAME PURCHASE OF DUMPER, BABA FINANCERS HAVE FINANCED RS.2,20,000 /- TO THE ASSESSEE FOR PURCHASE OF THE SAME DUMPER. THEREFORE, THESE FACTS SHOULD HAVE BEEN PROBED AND VERIFIED BY THE LD. CIT(A) INSTEAD OF SUMMARILY REJ ECTING THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE. AT LEAST THE DETAILS SHOULD HAVE BEEN CAL LED FOR FROM THE RTO, GURGAON REGARDING THE DUMPER IN QUESTION EARLIER HELD BY SH RI JAGDISH KUMAR AND FURTHER SOLD TO ASSESSEE AND FROM ASSESSEE SAME WAS SOLD TO VASU DEV BHATT. THE LD. CIT(A) EXCEPT ISSUING ENHANCEMENT NOTICE TO THE ASS ESSEE DID NOT MAKE ANY ENQUIRY EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH CONCERNED AO I N THE MATTER. SINCE NO PROPER ENQUIRY HAS BEEN MADE IN THE MATTER AND THE ASSESSE E HAS ALSO NOT FURNISHED RELEVANT PAPERS BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW, THERE FORE, CONSIDERING THE PECULIAR FACTS OF THE CASE AND IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, I T WOULD BE PROPER AND REASONABLE TO RESTORE THIS ISSUE TO THE FILE OF LD. CIT(A) FOR MA KING PROPER ENQUIRY INTO THE MATTER IN ORDER TO DO JUSTICE IN THIS CASE. WE, ACCORDINGL Y, SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND RESTORE THIS ISSUE TO HIS FILE WITH DIRE CTION TO MAKE PROPER ENQUIRY PERSONALLY OR THROUGH CONCERNED AO VERIFYING THE HO LDING OF DUMPER BY SHRI JAGDISH KUMAR AND FURTHER SALE TO VASU DEV BHATT. T HE LD. CIT(A) MAY CALL FOR INFORMATION FROM THE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, GURGON IN THIS REGARD AND IF NEED ARISES, MAY EXAMINE BOTH THE SELLER AND PURCHASER ON OATH B Y ISSUING SUMMONS U/S. 131 OF THE IT ACT AGAINST THEM OR HE MAY ALSO RESORT TO CA LLING INFORMATION DIRECTLY FROM THE SELLER AND PURCHASER IN THIS REGARD AND ALL SUC H MATERIAL COLLECTED DURING THE ITA NO. 487/AGRA/2012 8 COURSE OF ENQUIRY SHALL BE CONFRONTED TO THE ASSESS EE FOR PROPER EXPLANATION. THE LD. CIT(A) SHALL GIVEN PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. IN THE RESULT, GROUND NO.1 OF CONCISE GROUNDS IS ALLOWED F OR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 6. ON GROUND NO.2, THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ADDI TION OF RS.44,558/- TOWARDS PURCHASE OF JCB, WHICH REPRESENTS THE CASH DISCOUNT GIVEN BY THE COMPANY. THE AO FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED JCB MACHIN ES FOR RS.16,73,883/-. THE ASSESSEE FILED PURCHASE INVOICE AND COPY OF BANK ST ATEMENT OF CITY CORPORATION FINANCE INDIA LTD. TO SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS TA KEN LOAN OF RS.16,00,000/- FROM CITY CORPORATION FINANCE INDIA LTD. AND FURTHER TH ERE IS FOE OF RS.44,558/-. THE AO, HOWEVER, GAVE BENEFIT OF RS.16,00,000/- ONLY, A ND MADE ADDITION OF RS.1,18,441/- FOR OTHER UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN J CB MACHINES. THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) THAT THE COST OF JC B MACHINES AS PER INVOICE WAS RS.17,18,441/- AND THE AMOUNT OF RS.44,558/- WAS RE DUCED ON ACCOUNT OF ADJUSTMENT OF FREE OF COST (FOC) PARTS AS PER INVOI CE DATED 28.05.2005. THUS, NET AMOUNT WAS PAYABLE AT RS.16,73,883/- WHICH WAS PAID ON FINANCE BY FINANCERS AT RS.16,00,000/- AND REMAINING AMOUNT OF RS.73,885/- WAS DEPOSITED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM SYNDICATE BANK. THE LD. CIT(A) ACCEPTED THE CO NTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE SOURCE OF RS.73,883/-, BUT FOR THE BALANCE OF R S.44,558/-, IN THE ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE, EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ACCEP TED AND THE ADDITION WAS RESTRICTED TO RS.44,558/- ON ACCOUNT OF PAYMENT MAD E OUT OF UNACCOUNTED CASH. ITA NO. 487/AGRA/2012 9 7. ON CONSIDERATION OF THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, WE AR E OF THE VIEW THAT THE ADDITION IS WHOLLY UNJUSTIFIED. THE ASSESSEE HAS FI LED INVOICE AT PAGE 15 OF THE PAPER BOOK, IN WHICH DISCOUNT IS GIVEN TO THE ASSES SEE IN A SUM OF RS.44,558/- BY NOTING (FOC). THE LEDGER ACCOUNT ALSO SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE PAYMENT OF RS.16,73,883/- ONLY. THEREFORE, IT WAS T HE ADDITION RESTRICTED MERELY ON PRESUMPTION THAT THE ASSESSEE MADE PAYMENT OF RS.44 ,558/- OUT OF UNACCOUNTED CASH. WE, THEREFORE, SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF AUTHOR ITIES BELOW AND DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS.44,558/- BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE SUITAB LY EXPLAINED THE DIFFERENCE OF THE SAME AMOUNT THROUGH INVOICE OF PURCHASE OF JCB. GROUND NO. 2 OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED. 8. ON GROUND NO. 3, THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED ADDITIO N ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES IN A SUM OF RS.88,906/-. T HE AO DISALLOWED 15% OF THE EXPENSES OUT OF JCB-I MACHINE POWER EXPENSES AND JC B-II MACHINE POWER EXPENSES BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PRODUCE BIL LS AND VOUCHERS AND CASH BOOK BEFORE THE AO. 15% OF THE EXPENSES IN A SUM OF RS.1 ,33,358/- WAS DISALLOWED BY THE AO, WHICH WAS RESTRICTED BY THE LD. CIT(A) TO 1 0%. 9. ON CONSIDERATION OF THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, WE DO NOT FIND ANY JUSTIFICATION TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN SUSTA INING THE PART OF THE ADDITION ITA NO. 487/AGRA/2012 10 BECAUSE ONUS IS UPON THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THAT THE EXPENSES WERE INCURRED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS. THE ON US UPON THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN DISCHARGED BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PROD UCE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, BILLS AND VOUCHERS FOR EXPENSES AT ANY STAGE. THEREFORE, DISA LLOWANCE IS JUSTIFIED. GROUND NO. 3 OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ACCORDINGLY DISM ISSED. 10. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PA RTLY ALLOWED AS INDICATED ABOVE. 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