Shri Raj Kumar Chaurasia, Lucknow V. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD), Lucknow

ITA 541/LKW/2013

• Counselvise Citation: 54123714 RSA 2013
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-10-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 13-10-2014
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 16-07-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VIVEK MISHRA
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH B, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOS.541 TO 547/LKW/2013 A. YRS:2004 - 05 TO 2010 - 11 SHRI RAJ KUMAR CHAURASIA, 25, DATIA HOUSE, KHURSHED HOUSE, LUCKNOW. PAN:ABRPC4156F VS. JT. C.I.T. (OSD), CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, LUCKNOW. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ITA NOS.686 & 687/LKW/2013 A. YRS:2004 - 05 & 2005 - 06 DY.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE - II, LUCKNOW. VS. SHRI RAJ KUMAR CHAURASIA, 25, DATIA HOUSE, KHURSHED HOUSE, LUCKNOW. PAN:ABRPC4156F (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ITA NOS.688 TO 692/LKW/2013 A. YRS:2006 - 07 TO 2010 - 11 DY.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE - II, LUCKNOW. VS. SMT. ASHA CHAURASIA, 14, DATIA HOUSE, KHURSHED HOUSE, LUCKNOW. PAN:ABRPC4158M (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) C. O. NOS.65 TO 69/LKW/2013 (IN ITA NOS.688 TO 692/LKW/2013) A. YRS:2006 - 07 TO 2010 - 11 SMT. ASHA CHAURASIA, 14, DATIA HOUSE, KHURSHED HOUSE, LUCKNOW. PAN:ABRPC4158M VS. JT. C.I.T. (OSD), CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, LUCKNOW. (OBJECTOR) (RESPONDENT) ITA NOS.761 TO 762/LKW/2013) A. YRS:2004 - 05 TO 2005 - 06 SMT. ASHA CHAURASIA, 14, DATIA HOUSE, KHURSHED HOUSE, LUCKNOW. PAN:ABRPC4158M VS. JT. C.I.T. (OSD), CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, LUCKNOW. (OBJECTOR) (RESPONDENT) 2 ITA NOS.436 TO 442/LKW/2013 A. YRS:2004 - 05 TO 2010 - 11 DY.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE - II, LUCKNOW. VS. SHRI UDAI CHAND CHAURASIA, 67, SHREE RAM ROAD, LUCKNOW. PAN:ADCPC2461J (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) C. O. NOS.58 TO 64/LKW/2013 (IN ITA NOS.436 TO 442/LKW/2013) A. YRS:2004 - 05 TO 2010 - 11 SHRI UDAI CHAND CHAURASIA, 67, SHREE RAM ROAD, LUCKNOW. PAN:ADCPC2461J VS. JT. C.I.T. (OSD), CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, LUCKNOW. (OBJECTOR) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY SHRI ABHINAV MEHROTRA, ADVOCATE REVENUE BY SHRI VIVEK MISHRA, CIT, D.R. DATE OF HEARING 1 4 / 10 /2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 21 /10/2014 O R D E R PER BENCH . ALL THE APPEALS AND CROSS OBJECTIONS WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY WAY OF THIS COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 2. FIRST WE TAKE UP THE APPEALS IN THE CASE OF SHRI UDAI CHAND CHAURASIA I.E. I.T.A. NOS . 436 TO 442/LKW/2013 AND CORRESPONDING CROSS OBJECTIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE SAME ASSESSMENT YEAR AS PER C.O. NO. 58 TO 64. THESE APPEALS ARE FILED BY THE REVENUE FO R ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004 - 2005 TO 2010 - 2011 WHICH ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE COMBINED ORDER PASSED BY CIT(A) - III, LUCKNOW DATED 24/01/2013. IN ALL THESE APPEALS, THE ONLY GRIEVANCE OF THE REVENUE IS REGARDING DELETION OF VARIOUS AMOUNTS OF ADDITIONS MADE BY TH E ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE BASIS OF D.V.O.S REPORT U/S 69B OF THE ACT. IN THESE CROSS OBJECTIONS, VERY FIRST OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN MAKING ADDITION TO THE RETURNED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AFTER REFERENCE TO D.V.O. WITHOUT INITIALLY REJECTING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT PROPER. 3 3. LEARNED D.R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS WHEREAS LEARNED A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF LEARNED CIT(A). IT WAS SUBMITTED BY L EARNED A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE THAT IN THIS CASE , REFERENCE TO D.V.O. WAS MADE BY ASSESSING OFFICER WITHOUT REJECTING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE AND THEREFORE, REFERENCE TO D.V.O. IS NOT VALID AND AS A CONSEQUENCE , ANY ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE BASIS OF SUCH REPORT OF THE D.V.O. IS NOT SUSTAINABLE. IN THIS REGARD, HE PLACED RELIANCE ON THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE APEX COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF SARGAM CINEMA VS. CIT AS REPORTED IN [2010] 328 ITR 513 [SC]. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED TH E RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIND THAT AS PER THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THERE IS NO MENTION BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WERE REJECTED BY HIM. IT IS ALSO SEEN THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS SIMPLY MADE TWO ADDITIONS IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003 - 04 AS PER HIS VARIOUS OBSERVATIONS IN PARA 4 & 5 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THESE ADDITIONS ARE ON THE BASIS OF D.V.O.S REPORT ONLY AND THERE IS NO MENTION IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE WERE REJECTED. IN OT HE R YEARS ALSO, SIMILAR ADDITIONS ARE MADE BY THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER ON THE BASIS OF D.V.O. REPORT AND IN THESE YEAR ALSO , THERE IS NO MENTION IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE ARE REJECTED. UNDER THESE FACTS, THIS JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF SARGAM CINEMA (SU PRA) IS SQUARELY APPLICABLE AND RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE SAME , WE HOLD THAT THE REFERENCE TO D.V.O. BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT PROPER AND AS A CONSEQUENCE, NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE ON THE BASIS OF SUCH REPORT OF THE D.V.O. THEREFORE, WE DECLINE TO I NTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A) ON ANY OF THE ISSUES FOR WHICH THESE APPEALS ARE FILED BY THE REVENUE. 5. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE SEVEN APPEALS OF THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. 6. IN THE CROSS OBJECTION S, IN ADDITION TO THE ISSUE REGARDING ADDITIONS ON THE BASIS OF DVOS REPORT OBTAINED WITHOUT REJECTING BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, WHICH IS DECIDED BY US AS PR ABOVE PARA, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED VARIOUS GROUNDS IN RESPECT OF VARIOUS OTHER ADDITION S MADE AND PARTLY CONFIRMED BY CIT(A) NOT ON THE BASIS OF D.V.O. REPOR T . IN THIS REGARD , WE WOULD LIKE TO OBSERVE THAT SO FAR THE ISSUE IN RELATION TO VARIOUS ADDITIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE BASIS OF D.V.O.S REPORT WHICH WERE PARTLY CONFIRMED BY CIT(A) AND AGAINST WHICH THE CROSS OBJECTIONS ARE FILED BY THE A SSESSEE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED 4 OPINION THAT NO SUCH ADDITION IS SUSTAINABLE BECAUSE WE HAVE ALREADY HELD THAT THE REFERENCE TO D.V.O. ITSELF WAS NOT VALID AND AS A CONSEQUENCE , NO ADDITION MADE ON THE BASIS OF DVOS REPORT CAN BE SUSTAINED. WE, THEREFO RE, DELETE SUCH ADDITION. 7 . REGARDING THE OTHER ADDITIONS, WHICH WERE CONFIRMED BY CIT(A) AND WHICH ARE NOT IN RELATION TO D.V.O. REPORT, WE FIND THAT RELIANCE HAS BEEN PLACED BY LEARNED A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE ON A TRIBUNAL DECISION IN THE CASE OF SANJAY AGGARWAL VS. DCIT IN I.T.A. NO.3184/DEL/2013 DATED 16/06/2014 . IN THIS CASE, THE TRIBUNAL HAS CONSIDERED A DECISION OF SPECIAL BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ALL CARGO GLOBAL LOGISTICS LTD. VS. DCIT [2012] 137 ITD 287 (SB) (MUM) AND A JUDGMENT OF HO N'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. ANIL KUMAR BHATIA [2013] 352 ITR 493 (DEL) AND IT WAS HELD BY THE TRIBUNAL THAT IF THESE FACTS ARE NOT COMING OUT AS TO WHETHER THE ASSESSMENT FOR THE RELEVANT YEAR WAS PENDING OR NOT ON THE DATE OF SEARCH AND WHETHER ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIAL WAS FOUND OR NOT HAVING BEARING ON THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND IN THAT SITUATION , THE TRIBUNAL SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CIT(A) AND RESTORED THE MATTER BACK TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FRESH DECISION AFTER EXAMINING AND FINDING OUT THE FACTUAL POSITION IN THIS REGARD AND BY FOLLOWING THESE TWO JUDGMENTS , I N THE PRESENT CASE ALSO, WE HOLD THAT SINCE, THIS FACT IS NOT COMING OUT FROM THE RECORDS AS TO WHETHER THE ASSESSMENTS IN THESE YEARS WERE PENDING OR NOT ON THE DATE OF SEARCH AND WHETHER THESE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BEING ADDITIONS OTHER THAN THE ADDITIONS ON THE BASIS OF D.V.O.S REPORT WERE ON THE BASIS OF SOME INCRIMINATING MATERIAL FOUND IN COURSE OF SEARCH OR NOT AND THEREFORE, IN THE PRESENT CASE ALSO, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CIT(A) IN ALL THE YEARS WITH RESPECT TO VARIOUS ADDITIONS CONFIRMED BY CIT(A) WHICH ARE NOT IN RELATION TO ADDITIONS MADE ON THE BASIS OF D.V.O. REPORT AND RESTORE THESE MATTERS BACK TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FRESH DECISION TO FIND OUT WHETHER ASSESSMENTS WERE PENDING OR NOT ON THE DATE OF SEARCH AND WHETHER THESE ADDITIONS ARE MADE ON THE BASIS OF INCRIMINATING MATERIALS HAVING BEEN FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHOULD ALSO CONSIDER THESE TWO JUDGMENTS RENDERED IN THE CASE OF ALL CARGO GLOBAL LOGISTICS LT D. (SUPRA) AND ANIL KUMAR BHATIA (SUPRA) AND PASS NECESSARY ORDER AS PER LAW AFTER PROVIDING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 5 9. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE SEVEN APPEALS OF THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED AND ALL SEVEN CROSS OBJECTIONS ARE ALL OWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 10. NOW WE TAKE UP THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE IN THE CASE OF SMT. ASHA CHAURASIA I.E. I.T.A. NOS. 6 88/LKW/2013 TO 692/LKW/2013 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2006 - 07 TO 2010 - 11 AND APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE IN I.T.A. NOS. 761/LKW/2 013 AND 762/LKW/2013 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2004 - 05 & 2005 - 06 AND CROSS OBJECTION BY ASSESSEE IN C.O. NOS.65/LKW/2013 TO 69/LKW/2013 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2006 - 07 TO 2010 - 11. 11. FIRST WE TAKE UP THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE I.E. I.T.A. NO. 688/LKW/2013 TO 692/LKW/2013 AND THE CROSS OBJECTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE. IN FIVE APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE IN THE CASE OF SMT. ASHA CHAURASIA, THE ONLY ISSUE IS REGARDING DELETION OF ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE BASIS OF D.V.O. REPORT. IN THE CORRESPONDING FIVE CROSS OBJECTIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, ONE OF THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE REFERENCE TO D.V.O. WAS MADE WITHOUT REJECTING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. WE HAVE ALREADY HELD WHILE DECIDING THE SIMILAR ISSUE IN THE CASE OF SHRI UDAI CHAURASIA THAT REFERENCE TO D.V.O. BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITHOUT REJECTING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT IS NOT PROPER AND AS A CONSEQUENCE THEREOF , ANY ADDITION MADE ON THE BASIS OF SUCH D.V.O. REPORT IS NOT SUSTAINABLE. WHILE DECIDING THIS ISSUE IN THIS MANNER, WE HAVE FOLLOWED THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF SARGAM CINEAM (SUPRA). IN THE SAME LINE, IN THE PRESENT CASE ALSO, WE HOLD ACCORDINGLY AND DELETE THE ENTIRE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE BASIS OF SUCH REPORT OF D.V.O., WHICH WAS WITHOUT REJECTING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. ACCORDINGLY ALL THE GROUNDS OF THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE ARE REJECTED AND THE CORRESPONDING GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ALL THE CROSS OBJECTION S REGARDING ADDITION ON THE BASIS OF D.V.O. REPORT ARE ALLOWED. 12. REGARDING THE REMAINING GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE CROSS OBJECTIONS IN RESPECT OF VARIOUS OTHER ADDITIONS UPHELD BY CIT(A) ALSO, WE HAVE DECIDED THIS ISSUE IN THE CASE OF SHRI UDAI CHAURASIA BY RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE TRIBUNAL DECISION IN THE CASE OF SANJAY AGGARWAL (SUPRA) AND ALSO BY FOLLOWING THE JUDGMENTS OF THE SPECIAL BENCH OF TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ALL CARGO GLOBAL LOGISTICS LTD. (SUPRA) AND HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF ANIL KUMAR BHATIA (SUPRA) AND THIS MATTER WAS RESTORED BACK TO 6 THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FRESH DECISION IN THE LIGHT OF THESE JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS AND AFTER ASCERTAINING THE FACT THAT WHETHER CORRESPONDING ASSESSMENT WAS PENDING OR NOT ON THE DATE OF SEARCH AND WHETHER THESE ADDITIONS A RE MADE ON THE BASIS OF ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIAL FOUND IN SEARCH. IN THE CASE OF THIS ASSESSEE ALSO, THESE FACTS ARE NOT COMING OUT FROM THE RECORD AND HENCE, IN THIS CASE ALSO, THESE ISSUES ARE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR A FRESH DECISION ON THE SAME LINE AS HAS BEEN DIRECTED BY US IN THE CASE OF SHRI UDAI CHAURASIA. 13. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED AND CROSS OBJECTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 14. THERE ARE TWO APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ALSO IN THIS CASE I.E. I.T.A. NO. 761/LKW/2013 AND 762/LKW/2013 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2004 - 05 & 2005 - 06. IN THESE TWO APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSEE IS DISPUTING THE ADDITION CONFIRMED BY LEARNED CIT(A) ON ACCOUNT OF AD HOC DISAL LOWANCE OUT OF VARIOUS ITEMS OF EXPENSES SUCH AS COMMISSION, LOADING, FUEL AND OIL EXPENSES OF RS.1,71,237/ - IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004 - 05 AND RS.2,25,532/ - IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005 - 06. THESE ISSUES ARE IDENTICAL AS THE OTHER ISSUES RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE FIVE CROSS OBJECTIONS AND ACCORDINGLY THESE ISSUES IN THESE TWO YEARS ARE ALSO RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FRESH DECISION AFTER ASCERTAINING THE FACTS AS TO WHETHER THE CORRESPONDING ASSESSMENT WAS PENDING OR NOT ON THE DATE OF SE ARCH AND AS TO WHETHER THESE ADDITIONS ARE MADE ON THE BASIS OF ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIAL FOUND IN SEARCH AND THEREFORE, IN THESE TWO YEARS ALSO, WE RESTORE THESE MATTERS BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FRESH DECISION AFTER ASCERTAINING THE SE TWO FACTS AND IN THE LIGHT OF VARIOUS JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS NOTED IN ABOVE PARA . 15. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE SE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 16. NOW WE TAKE UP SEVEN APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE CASE OF SHRI RAJ KUMAR CHAURASIA FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2004 - 05 TO 2010 - 11 I.E. I.T.A. NO.541/LKW/2013 TO 547/LKW/2013 AND TWO APPEALS OF THE REVENUE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004 - 05 AND 2005 - 06 IN I.T.A. NO.686 /LKW/2013 & 687/LKW/2013. IN BOTH THESE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE, THE ONLY ISSUE INVOLVED IS REGARDING DELETION OF VARIOUS ADDITIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE BASIS OF D.V.O. REPORT AND IN ALL THESE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE, ONE OF THE ISSUES 7 INVO LVED IS REGARDING CONFIRMING A PART ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE BASIS OF D.V.O.S REPORT. IN RESPECT OF THIS ISSUE REGARDING ADDITION ON THE BASIS OF D.V.O.S REPORT, IT WAS AGREED BY BOTH THE SIDES THAT THE FACTS ARE IDENTICAL IN THESE CASES ALSO AND REFERENCE TO DVO IN THIS CASE ALSO WAS MADE WITHOUT REJECTING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND ACCORDINGLY , THIS ISSUE IS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF SARGAM CINEMA (SU PRA). THE SECOND ISSUE INVOLVED IN THESE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE REGARDING CONFIRMING OF VARIOUS OTHER ADDITIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHICH ARE NOT ON THE BASIS OF D.V.O.S REPORT. IT WAS FAIRLY AGREED BY BOTH THE SIDES THAT IN THIS CASE ALS O , THIS FACT IS NOT COMING OUT FROM THE RECORD AS TO WHETHER THE ASSESSMENT FOR THE RELEVANT YEAR WAS PENDING OR NOT ON THE DATE OF SEARCH AND WHETHER ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIAL WAS FOUND OR NOT DURING THE SEARCH FOR MAKING THESE ADDITIONS . HENCE, ON THIS ISSUE, WE RESTORE THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FRESH DECISION ON THE SAME LINE AS HAS BEEN DECIDED BY US IN THE CASE OF SHRI UDAI CHAURASIA AND SMT. ASHA CHAURASIA ABOVE . 17. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE ARE DISMI SSED AND THE APPEAL S OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 18. IN THE COMBINED RESULT, ALL THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE IN THE CASE OF UDAI CHAND CHAURASIA, ASHA CHAURASIA AND RAJ KUMAR CHAURASIA ARE DISMISSED AND CROSS OBJECTIONS AND APPEAL S BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. (ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONED ON THE CAPTION PAGE) SD/. SD/. (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) ( A. K. GARODIA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 21 /10/2014. *C.L.SINGH COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. CONCERNED CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. D.R., I.T.A.T., LUCKNOW ASSTT. REGISTRAR