Harhad Rai Mehta, Cuttack V. ITO, Cuttack

ITA 580/CTK/2013

• Counselvise Citation: 58022114 RSA 2013
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-07-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 30-12-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: N K NEB
• Assessee Lawyers: D K SHETH
• Keywords: Income from undisclosed sources; Onus to prove
• Section: 145

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK BEFORE SHRI P. K. BANSAL, HONBLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI D.T. GARASIA, HONBLE JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 580/CTK/2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR - 2009 - 10) HARSHAD RAI MEHTA, PROP: ISWAR JEWELLERS, NAYA SARAK, CUTTACK - 753002 PAN: ABCPM1568J (APPELLANT) VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(3), CUTTAK. (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI D.K. SHETH, AR RESPONDENT BY : SHRI N.K. NEB, DR DATE OF HEARING : 29/04/2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 15 /07 /2013 O R D E R PER: D.T. GARASIA THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) - CUTTAK, DATED 28.11.2013 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10. 2. THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS ARE RAISED IN THIS APPEAL AS UNDER. 1. FOR THAT UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE ADDITION OF RS.68,55,000/ - UNDER HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES IS ARBITRARY, MISCONCEIVED, PREJUDICIAL AND THEREFORE UNJUSTIFIED. 2. FOR THAT THE LEARNED A.O. SHOULD NOT HAVE MADE THE AFORESAID ADDITION WHEN HE IS OF THE OPINION THAT THE BANK DEPOSITS HAVE NO CONNECTION WITH THE APPELLANTS INCOME AS IS APPARENT FROM THE WAY OF ADDITION MADE ON PROTECTIVE MANNER AND NOT ON SUBSTAN TIVE MANNER ( LAST PARA - PAGE 8 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER). 3. FOR THAT THE ADDITION OF RS.27,73,000/ - AS MADE UNDER HEAD UNEXPLAINED BANK DEPOSITS IS UNCALLED FOR, ARBITRARY AND UNJUSTIFIED. THE LEARNED A.O. HAS MADE THE ADDITION MERELY ON THE BASIS OF H IS FEELING AS CONTRARY TO NORMAL BUSINESS PRACTICES AND HUMAN PROBABILITIES. 2 . ITA NO. 580/CTK/2013, (A.Y. 2009 - 10) HARSHAD RAI MEHTA VS. ITO 2.1 THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL WHO DERIVES INCOME FROM WHOLESALE TRADING OF GOLD AND SILVER ORNAMENTS AND FROM SHARES & SECURITIES. THE ASSESSEE FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME ON 30.09.2009 FOR THE PREVIOUS YEAR 2008 - 09 RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10 DISCLOSING TAXABLE INCOME AT RS. 1,54,979/. THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT LIKE CASH BOOK, GENERAL LEDGER, PURCHASE INVOICES, SALES MEMOS AND COPY OF THE BANK ACCOUNTS, WERE PRODUCE D FOR VERIFICATION. DURING THE CURSE OF SCRUTINY, ON EXAMINATION OF THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE IN HIS PROPRIETARY BUSINESS M/S. ISWAR JEWELLERS, THE AO FOUND THAT CASH DEPOSITS CONSIDERABLE AMOUNTS WERE MADE AND IMMEDIATELY WITHIN 2 - 3 DAYS ALMOST EQU IVALENT AMOUNTS CHEQUES HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO FEW PERSONS. AS PER THE QUERY OF THE AO THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT CASH DEPOSITS WERE FROM THE SALES OF ORNAMENTS/GOLD BAR BULLIONS AND CHEQUES WERE ISSUED AGAINST PURCHASE OF OLD ORNAMENTS/GOLD BAR BULLIONS. TH E PURCHASE HAS BEEN DECLARED AS CREDIT PURCHASES AND 2 - 3 DAYS CHEQUES HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO THEM. ALL THE SALES INVOICES WERE IN CASH. THE SALES VOUCHERS DID NOT HAVE NAMES OF THE PERSONS TO WHOM SUCH ITEMS WERE SOLD AND NO VERIFIABLE ADDRESSES WERE MENTIONE D ON THE SALES VOUCHERS. THE SALES BILLS HAVE BEEN ISSUED WITH THE SIGNATURE OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE SAME DATE BOTH AT CUTTACK FOR ISWAR JEWELLERS AND AT AHMEDABAD FOR HARSHADRAI MEHTA. THE AO HAS SUMMONED 8 PERSONS RESIDING AT CUTTAK AND 3 PERSONS BELONGIN G TO ONE FAMILY AT ANGUL FROM WHOM THE ASSESSEE HAD ALLEGEDLY MADE CREDIT PURCHASES AND LATER ISSUED CHEQUES. THE PERSONS WHO WERE SERVED WITH SUMMONS DID NOT TURN UP. CONFIRMATIONS FROM THOSE PERSONS WHO WERE RECEIVED THROUGH POST. CONFIRMATION FROM 3 PER SONS FROM ANGUL WERE WITHOUT OTHER RELEVANT DETAILS CALLED FOR, ALL THE REPLIES BOTH FROM CUTTACK &ANGUL WERE RECEIVED THROUGH POST IN THE SIMILAR ENVELOPE, SIMILAR TYPING LETTERS, SIMILAR VERBATIM AND WERE SENT FROM SAME POST OFFICE I.E. CHANDINICHOWK, CU TTACK. THE AO FURTHER FOUND THAT CASH BALANCE AS PER CASH BOOK AS ON 07.08.2008 WAS AT RS.11,43,547/ - BUT THE ASSESSEE WITHDREW FROM THE BANK RS. 50,000/ - ON 08.08.2008. THE AO FOUND THAT SIMILAR INSTANCES AND REQUIRED THE ASSESSEE TO 3 . ITA NO. 580/CTK/2013, (A.Y. 2009 - 10) HARSHAD RAI MEHTA VS. ITO EXPLAIN SUCH ILLOGICA L ACTION OF WITHDRAWING CASH FROM BANK EVEN IF THERE WAS SUBSTANTIAL CASH IN HAND AS PER THE CASH BOOK. THE REPLY OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT CONVINCING. THE AO ALSO FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT GIVE ANY REASON WHY HE HAD BOUGHT OLD GOLD ORNAMENTS FOR BUL LION TRADING ACTIVITY WHEN THERE IS A WELL SET BULLION MARKET. THE AO AFTER CONSIDERING THE REPLY OF THE VIEW THAT THE CLAIM OF CASH SALES NOT ACCEPTED AND BANK DEPOSITS UNEXPLAINED AND IT IS LIABLE TO BE INCLUSION IN THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE . THEREFORE, HE TREATED THE BANK CASH DEPOSIT AMOUNTING TO RS.68,55,000/ - AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES ON A PROTECTIVE MANNER AND CORRESPONDING AMOUNTS OF RECEIPT OF FUNDS FROM THE ASSESSEE BY THE RECIPIENT IN THEIR HANDS AS THEIR I NCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES ON SUBSTANTIVE MANNER. 2.2. THE MATTER CARRIED TO CIT(A) AND CIT(A) HAS DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 2.3. THE AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE DEALS IN GOLD BULLION AND ORNAMENTS. AS PER THE AUDIT REPORT AND THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, MAINTAINED BY THE APPELLANT, HE HAD AN OPENING STOCK OF GOLD ORNAMENTS AND ALSO CLOSING STOCK OF THE SAME. THE PURCHASE AND SALES ARE SUPPORTED BY BILLS AND MEMOS. THE ASSESSEE HAS DEPOSITED THE AMOUNT FOR PURPOSE OF PURCHASE OF GOLD ORNAMENTS A GAINST PAYMENT BY CHEQUES. IF AT ALL THE A.O. IS CORRECT THAT THE APPELLANT DID NOT DO ANY BUSINESS AT THE END OF THE YEAR IN BANK DEPOSIT SHOULD HAVE RS. 40,883.94. THE ASSESSING OFFICER RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF ADDL. CIT GURSHANT ROTARY COMPRESSOR LTD . 116 ITD 131. THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE VERY MUCH DIFFERENT FROM THE FACTS OF THE INSTANCE CASE. THE FACTS OF THIS CASE ARE DIFFERENT MOREOVER, WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE PURCHASE FROM IDENTIFIABLE PERSONS, THROUGH A/C PAYEE CHEQUES OR DRAFTS, THE O PENING STOCK , PURCHASE AND THE C LOSING S TOCK CAN NEVER BE TREATED AS FALSE ONLY BECAUSE TH E SALES WERE MADE IN CASH. NO ACTION HAS BEEN INITIATED AGAINST THE SELLERS OF GOLD ORNAMENTS, THEREFORE, AO IS NOT JUSTIFIED. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO PRODUCED PROFIT AND LOS S ACCOUNT FO R THE ENDED 4 . ITA NO. 580/CTK/2013, (A.Y. 2009 - 10) HARSHAD RAI MEHTA VS. ITO 31 ST MARCH, 2009. THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT ARE AUDITED. THE LEARNED AR SUBMITTED THAT WHEN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT ARE NOT REJECTED AND IF IT IS ACCEPTED THEN NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE. 2.4 THE LEARNED DR RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF REVENUE. 2.5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTION OF BOTH THE PARTIES. LOOKING TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE DEALS IN GOLD BULLION AND ORNAMENTS. THE ASSESSEE HAD AN OPENING STOCK OF GOLD ORNAMENT AND SAME ORNAMENTS WERE AT TH E CLOSING STOCK. THE ASSESSEE S SALES ARE SUPPORTED BY BILLS AND MEMOS. THE ASSESSEE HAS DEPOSITED THE AMOUNT FOR THE PURPOSE OF PURCHASE OF GOLD ORNAMENTS AGAINST THE PAYMENT OF CHEQUE. D URING THE COURSE OF SCRUTINY, ON EXAMINATION OF THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE IN HIS P ROPRIETARY BUSINESS M/S. ISWAR J E WELLERS, THE AO FOUND THAT CASH DEPOSITS OF CONSIDERABLE AMOUNTS WERE MADE AND IMMEDIATELY WITHIN 2 - 3 DAYS ALMOST EQUIVALENT AMOUNTS CHEQUES HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO FEW PERSONS. AS PER THE QUERY OF THE AO T HE ASSESSEE HAS E XPLAINED THAT CASH DEPOSITS WERE FROM THE SALES OF ORNAMENTS/GOLD BAR BULLI ONS AND CHEQUES WERE ISSUED AGAINST PURCHASES OF G OLD ORNAMENTS/GOLD BAR BULLIONS. THE PURCHASES HAD BEEN DECLARED AS CREDIT PURCHASES AND AFTER 2 - 3 DAYS CHEQUES HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO THEM. THE AO HAS TRIED TO VERIFY TO WHOM THE SALES WERE MADE. THE AO HAS ISSUED THE SUMMONS TO THE VARIOUS PERSONS FROM WHOM CREDIT P URCHASE HAS BEEN MADE. THE SALE BILL S HAVE BEEN ISSUED WITH THE SIGNATURE OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE SAME DATE BOTH AT CUTTAK FOR ISWAR JEWELLERS AND AT AHME DABAD FOR HARSH A DRA I MEHTA. THE AO HAD ISSUED SUMMONS AND THREE PERS ONS FROM ANGUL HAVE SENT TH E CONFIRMATION AND SOME OF THE PERSONS FROM CUTTAK HAVE SUBMITTED THE CONFIRMATION THAT THEY HAVE SOLD THE GOLD ORNAMENTS TO THE ASSESSEE. ALL HAVE FILED THE CONFIRMATION LETTER WITH THE AO. WE FIND THAT THE AO WAS OF THE VIEW THAT ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED T HE G OLD ORNAMENTS IN CASH, THEREFORE, HE HAS ISSUED THE CHEQUE TO THEIR CONCERNED PERSONS FOR PURCHASING THE G OLD ORNAMENTS /GOLD BAR BULLIONS. 5 . ITA NO. 580/CTK/2013, (A.Y. 2009 - 10) HARSHAD RAI MEHTA VS. ITO THE AO WAS OF THE VIEW THAT ALL THESE PURCHASES ARE NOT GENUINE AND ALL THESE CASH DEPOSITS IN THE BANK AMOUNTING TO RS.68,55,000/ - IS FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES. WE FIND THAT THE AO DID NOT REJECT THE BOOK RESULTS OF THE ASSESSEE. ALL THE PURCHASE AND SALES ARE ACCEPTED. WE FIND THAT ASSESSEE IS MAKING SALES OF GOLD ORNAMENTS . A SSESSEE HAS PURCHASED THE GOLD ORNAMENTS / GOLD BAR BULLIONS ON CREDIT PURCHASE AND AFTER 2 - 3 DAYS CHEQUES HAVE BEEN ISSUED. WHEN ALL THE EIGHT PERSONS HAVE CONFIRMED THAT THEY HAVE SOLD GOLD ORN A MENT AND PAYMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE TO THEM. THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE PURCHASE S ARE NOT GENUINE. THE ASS ESSEE MAINTAIN S THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND ASSSESSEES BOOKS ARE AUDITED. THE OPENING STOCK OF GOLD ORNAMENTS AND CLOSING STOCK OF GOLD ORNAMENTS ARE MAINTAINED. ALL THE PURCHASES AND SALES ARE SUPPORTED BY BILLS AND MEMOS. TH EREFORE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THE ASSESSEE DEALS I N GOLD BULLION AND ORNAMENTS AND TREATED THE CASH DEPOSIT S IN THE BANK ACCOUNT AS INCOME FROM DISCLOSED SOURCES. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS WITHOUT ANY REASON TREATED THE DEPOSIT IN BANK ACCOUNT AS INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES. THE ASSESSEE WAS DOING THE BUSINESS AND THE BALANCE AT THE END OF THE YEAR RS.40,883. 94. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE THE ADDITION ON P ROTECTIVE MANN ER WHICH INDICATES THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT IS TRUE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT TAKEN ANY ACTION AGAINST THE PERSON FROM WHOM THE PURCHASERS HAVE BEEN MADE. THE OPENING STOCK, THE PURCHASE AND THE CLOSING S TOCK CAN NEVER BE TREATED AS FALSE ONLY B ECAUS E THAT SALES WERE MADE IN C ASH. IF THE ASSESSING OFFI CER FEELS THAT THE OTHER PERSON SELLER HAS GIVEN THE MONEY FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES THEN THE PROPER ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN TAKEN AGAINST THAT PERSON , BUT IT CANNOT BE ADDED PROTECTIVELY IN HAND OF ASSES SEE. THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT ASSESSEE HAS MADE PURCHASE FROM IDE NTIFIABLE PERSONS THROUGH ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES OR DRAFTS. THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE AO AND CIT(A) AR E NOT JUSTIFIED IN TREATING THE CASH PAYMENT AS FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES. W E THEREFORE, TREATED THE BANK TRANSACTION AS GENUINE BUSINESS TRANSACTION OF THE ASSESSEE. HENCE, WE ALLOW THE APPEAL ON THIS GROUND. 6 . ITA NO. 580/CTK/2013, (A.Y. 2009 - 10) HARSHAD RAI MEHTA VS. ITO 3 . SECOND GROUND: - THIS GROUND RELATES TO UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSIT OF RS. 27,73,000/ - FROM THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE OTHER PROPRIETOR BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE, NAMELY SHRI HARSHAD RAI MEHATA. T HE AO FOUND THAT THE RE HAS BEEN CASH DEPOSIT OF RS. 30,71,000/ - WHICH THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED AS FROM CREDIT SALES EFFECTED AT AHMEDABAD AND CONSIDERATION RECEIVED AT CUTTAK. THE AO HAS EXAMINED THE ASSESSEE UNDER OATH AND COLLECTED CERTAIN DETAILS. THE AO TRIED TO VERIFY THE SOURCE OF SUCH RECEIPTS OF CASH THROUGH PRODUCTION OF IDENTITY OF PERSONS, CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE PERSONS TO ADVANCE SUCH AMOUNT AND THE GENUINENESS OF SUCH TRANSACTIONS. THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT THE SALES WERE EFFECTED AT AHMEDABAD ON CREDIT AND KARIGARS FROM GUJRAT CAME AND HANDED OVER CASH TO HIM AND THAT AMOUNT HAS BEEN DEPOSITED IN THE CASH DEPOSITS OF THE ASSESSE. THE AO WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT MADE PURCHASE OF GOLD ORNAMENTS FROM AHMEDABAD ON CREDIT AND ASSESSEE DID NOT RECEIVE THE AMOUNT THROUGH KARIGARS AT C UTTAK. THEREFORE, HE T REATED THE CASH DEPOSITS OF RS. 27,73,000/ - AS UNEXPLAINED AND ADDED THE SAME TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 3.1. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTION OF BOTH THE PARTIES. LOOKING TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE FI ND THAT ON EXAMINATION OF ENTRIES IN THE BANK ACCOUNT MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ING VYSYA BANK, CUTTA CK , T HE TOTAL CREDIT OF THE ACCOUNT WAS FOUND AT RS. 35,20,820/ - OUT OF WHICH THERE IS CASH DE POSIT FOR RS. 30,71,000/ - . THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT THIS CASH DEPOSIT OF RS. 30,71,000/ - IS SALES PROCEEDS WHICH IS BROUGHT FROM AHMEDABAD AND RECEIVED AT CUTTACK FROM THE KARIGARS. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MAINTAINED REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND ASSESSEES BOOKS OF ACCOUNT ARE NOT REJECTED. WHEN ASSESSEE S ALES AND PURCHASE ARE ACCEPTED TH ERE FORE, ONE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE TREATED AS UNDISCLOSED BANK DEPOSITS. WE FIND THA T THE ASSESSEE HAS EXPLAINED ALL THE SALES AND PURCHASES. THE AO HAS ALSO ACCEPTED THE BOOK RESULT OF THE ASSESSEE. WE FIN D THAT WHEN THE ASSESSEES BOOKS OF 7 . ITA NO. 580/CTK/2013, (A.Y. 2009 - 10) HARSHAD RAI MEHTA VS. ITO ACCOUNTS ARE ACCEPTED NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE WIT H OUT REJECTING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE RELIES ON HIS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT IN SUPPORT OF THE RETURN, THE RETURN INCOME WITH REFERENCE TO THE BOOK IS BOUND TO BE ACCEPTED IF THE AMOUNTS ARE FOUND TO BE RELIABLE AND HEAD MAINTAINED ACCORDING TO AMOUNTING SYSTEM REGULARLY EMPL OYED BY THE ASSESSEE AS REQUIRED BY SECTION 145 OF THE ACT. WHETHER SUCH ACCOUNTS HAVE DULY AUDITED, THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON AO TO PROVE THAT SUCH ACCOUNTS ARE INCORRECT AND INCOMPLETE OR METHOD OF ACCOUNT IS DEFECTIVE, THE SOLE REASON ON NET PROFIT. WE FIND THAT IN THIS CASE THE AO HAS NOT REJECTED THE BO OKS OF ACCOUNT AND ASSESSEE HAS ISSUED THE SALE BILLS ON THE SAME DATE AT CUTTACK FOR ISWAR JEWELL ER AND AT AH MEDABAD FOR M/S. HARS H A D RAI MEHTA . T HE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED AND CLARIFIED THAT THE ASSESSEE HA S DISCLOSED THE SALES OF RS.25 ,52,590/ - AGAINST THE PURCHASE OF RS.25,26,030/ - AND T HE SALES AND PURCHASES ARE RELATED TO TRADING IN BULLIONS THROUGH THE BRANCH OFFICES AT AHMEDABAD . THE ASSESSEE HAS EXPLAINED THAT THE CASH DEPOSITS WHICH FOUND FROM THE BANK AND ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED THE CASH FROM AHMEDABAD. THE ASSESSEES BOOKS ARE NOT REJECTED, THEREFORE, MERELY ON THE GROUND THAT CASH DEPOSITS IN BANK CANNOT BE ADDED AS UNEXPLAINED DEPOSITS OF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT JUSTIFIED, THEREFORE, WE ARE OF T HE VIE W THAT AO AND CIT(A) ARE NOT JUSTIFIED IN TREATING THE DEPOSIT OF RS.27,73,000/ - AS UNEXPLAINED INCOME . THEREFORE, WE ALLOW THE APPEAL ON THIS GROUND. 4 . IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 5 . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN PURSUANCE OF RULE 34(4) OF ITAT RULES, 1963 BY PUTTING ON NOTICE BOARD OF THE BENCH AT CUTTAK ON THE O PEN COURT ON 1 5 . 7 . 2014. S D / - S D / - ( P.K. BANSAL) (D.T. GARASIA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER PLACE : PANAJI / GOA DATED : 1 5 . 7 .2014 P.S. - *PK* 8 . ITA NO. 580/CTK/2013, (A.Y. 2009 - 10) HARSHAD RAI MEHTA VS. ITO COPY TO : ( 1 ) APPELLANT ( 2 ) RESPONDENT ( 3 ) CIT CONCERNED ( 4 ) CIT(A) ( 5 ) D.R ( 6 ) GUARD FILE TRUE COPY, BY ORDER