M/S OM SHIVAM BUILDCON PRIVATE LTD , NAGPUR V. ACIT CENTRAL 2(1), NAGPUR

ITA 6/NAG/2021

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 109 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3707 (ITAT-NAGPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-02-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 29-01-2021
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Search and seizure; Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice; Period of limitation; Condonation of delay
• Section: 263; 132; 271(1)(c); 143(3); 153A; 250; 139(1)

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENCH, NAGPUR (AT E-COURT, PUNE) BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM AND SHRI S. S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JM . / ITA NOS.03 TO 07/NAG/2021 ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2011-12 TO 2013-14, 2015-16 & 2017-18 OM SHIVAM BUILDCON PVT. LTD., ...... / APPELLANT PLOT NO.10, ROHERA ARCADE, NMC HOUSE NO.560 A/10, WARDHA ROAD, AJNI SQUARE, NEAR HALDIRAM, NAGPUR-440015. PAN : AAACO7165P. / V/S. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL-2(1), NAGPUR. / RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : DR. MILIND BHUSARI REVENUE BY : SMT. AGNES P. THOMAS. / DATE OF HEARING : 23.02.2021 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 24.02.2021 / ORDER PER BENCH : THESE ARE THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE DIRECTED AGAINST THE DIFFERENT ORDERS OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) 3, NAGPUR [THE CIT(A)] COMMONLY DATED 28.12.2020 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2011-12 TO 2013-14, 2015-16 & 2017-18. 2. SINCE THE IDENTICAL FACTS AND ISSUES ARE INVOLVED IN ALL THESE APPEALS, WE PROCEED TO DISPOSE OF THE SAME BY WAY OF THIS COMMON ORDER. FOR THE SAKE OF CLARITY AND CONVENIENCE, THE FACTS RELEVANT IN APPEAL BEARING ITA NO.03/NAG/2021 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 ARE STATED HEREUNDER. 3. THE APPELLANT RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL :- 2 ITA NOS.03 TO 07/NAG/2021 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN HOLDING THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL CANNOT BE CONDONED. THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE DELAY BE CONDONED AND THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY BE DIRECTED THAT THE APPEAL SHOULD BE TAKEN UP FOR HEARING. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN REJECTING THE REQUEST FOR CONDONATION OF THE DELAY AND THEREBY NOT DECIDING THE ISSUE ON MERITS AND THEREBY FORECLOSING BY THE LAW OF LIMITATION, THE STATUTORY REMEDY OF APPEAL AND SERIOUSLY DEPRIVING THE APPELLANT FROM THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT REASONS FOR THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL IS NOTHING BUT SHEER LETHARGY ON THE PART OF THE APPELLANT AND AS PER THE ESTABLISHED JUDICIAL PRINCIPLES AN INDOLENT PERSON DOES NOT MERIT ANY LENIENCY. 4. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN HOLDING THE REQUEST AS NOT DESERVING ANY LENIENCY IN DECIDING THE ISSUE ON MERITS WHEN THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN VIJAY VISHIN MEGHANI VS. DCIT & ANR (2017) 398 ITR 250 (BOM) HELD THAT NONE SHOULD BE DEPRIVED OF AN ADJUDICATION ON MERITS UNLESS IT IS FOUND THAT THE LITIGANT DELIBERATELY DELAYED THE FILING OF APPEAL. 5. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT ADMITTING THE IGNORANCE OF THE APPELLANT ABOUT THE INTRICACIES OF THE TAX LAWS AS A SUFFICIENT CAUSE LEADING TO THE DELAY IN FILING OF THE APPEAL. 6. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN REJECTING THE REASONS ADVANCED BY THE APPELLANT SUBSTANTIATING THE REASONS FOR DELAY WITHOUT CAUSING ANY FURTHER ENQUIRY AS ENVISAGED UNDER SEC. 254(4) AND NOT GRANTING ANY OPPORTUNITY TO THE APPELLANT. 4. BRIEFLY, THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE AS UNDER :- THE APPELLANT IS A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 AND IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF BUILDERS. THE SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATIONS U/S 132 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT) WERE CONDUCTED IN THE BUSINESS PREMISES OF THE APPELLANT ON 26.07.2016 AND THE SEARCH WAS CONCLUDED ON 07.09.2016. THE ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 139(1) OF THE ACT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 WAS FILED ON 09.08.2011 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.1,87,21,310/-. SUBSEQUENTLY, BASED ON THE INFORMATION GATHERED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATIONS, A NOTICE U/S 153A OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED TO THE APPELLANT ON 01.02.2017 AND IN RESPONSE TO THE SAME, THE APPELLANT FILED THE RETURNS OF INCOME ON 26.03.2017 DISCLOSING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.1,91,90,110/-. IT WAS STATED THAT DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH PROCEEDINGS, THE APPELLANT COMPANY DECLARED AN ADDITIONAL INCOME OF RS.16,00,15,786/-. OUT OF WHICH, 3 ITA NOS.03 TO 07/NAG/2021 AN AMOUNT OF RS.12,63,24,818/- WAS DISCLOSED IN THE RETURNS OF INCOME FILED IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S 153A OF THE ACT, DETAILS OF WHICH ARE AS UNDER :- NAME OF ASSESSEE ASST. YEAR UNDISCLOSED AMOUNT M/S OM SHIVAM BUILDCON P. LTD. 2011-12 RS.4,68,800/- 2012-13 RS.50,000/- 2013-14 RS.25,32,450/- 2014-15 RS.93,01,543/- 2015-16 RS.1,53,49,335/- 2016-17 RS.3,83,12,123/- 2017-18 RS.6,03,26,353/- TOTAL RS.12,63,24,818/- 5. BASED ON THIS INFORMATION, THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED VIDE ORDER DATED 07.12.2018 PASSED U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 153A OF THE ACT AT A TOTAL INCOME OF RS.1,93,73,240/-. 6. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ABOVE ASSESSMENT ORDERS, AN APPEAL WAS FILED APPEALS BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WITH THE DELAY OF 84 DAYS. THE APPELLANT ALSO FILED PETITION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) PRAYING FOR CONDONING THE DELAY OF 84 DAYS BY STATING AS UNDER :- THE ASSESSMENT FROM AY 2011-12 TO 2017-18 WAS FINALIZED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON 07.12.2018 U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961. THE ORDER WAS SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE ON 12.12.2018. DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH THE ASSESSEE WAS SURRENDERED AN AMOUNT RS. 16 CRORE INCLUDING THE AMOUNT TO COVER UP THE ERROR, MISTAKE AND OMISSION WAS FOUND IN BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING. THE ASSESSMENT WAS FINALIZED BY AO OVER AND ABOVE TO APPEAL AGAINST THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THEREAFTER AO LEVY THE PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) AND 271AAB TOTAL AMOUNTING ABOUT RS. 2.60 CRORE BY PASSING THE PENALTY ORDER WHICH SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE IN LAST WEEK OF FEB 2019. FOR THE SAME REGULAR TAX CONSULTANT ADVICE NOT TO PURSUE THE APPEAL AGAINST THE PENALTY ORDER ALSO. THERE AFTER THE ASSESSEE WAS ALLOTTED THE WORK TO SHRI CHAVAN WITH DIRECTION TO APPROACH TO C.A. RAJPAL SINGHAI FOR OPINION AND PURSUE APPEAL IF HE DEEM FIT. THE DELAY OF 84 DAYS IN FILING APPEAL IS CAUSE DUE NOT GETTING THE PROPER ADVICE. THERE IS NO MISTAKE ON THE PART OF ASSESSEE BECAUSE OF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT WELL AWARE ABOUT THE VARIOUS PROVISION OF INCOME TAX LAW. HE ALWAYS DEPEND ON TAX CONSULTANT AND EXPERTS. HENCE IT IS HUMBLY REQUESTED KINDLY CONDONE THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL LOOKING TO THE FACTS OF CASE AND OBLIGE. 7. THE LD. CIT(A) AFTER REFERRING TO THE PRINCIPLES LAID DOWN IN THE FOLLOWING JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS HELD THAT IT IS NOT A FIT CASE FOR CONDONING THE DELAY OF 84 DAYS AND, ACCORDINGLY, DISMISSED THE APPEAL IN LIMINE :- 4 ITA NOS.03 TO 07/NAG/2021 (I) SHAKUNTALA DEVI JAIN VS. KUNTAL KUMARI AND ORS., AIR 1969 SC 575; (II) AJIT SINGH THAKUR SINGH AND ANR. VS. STATE OF GUJARAT, AIR 1981 SC 733; (III) BINOD BIHARI SINGH, VS. UNION OF INDIA, AIR 1993 SC 1245; AND, (IV) COLLECTOR LAND ACQUISITION VS. MST. KATIJI & ORS., AIR 1987 SCR (2) 387. 8. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ABOVE DECISION OF THE LD. CIT(A), THE APPELLANT IS BEFORE US IN THE PRESENT APPEAL. 9. BEFORE US, THE LD. COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE APPELLANT WAS NOT HELD TO BE FALSE BY THE LD. CIT(A) AND, THEREFORE, THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE CONDONED THE DELAY OF 84 DAYS. 10. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. SR. DR PLACED RELIANCE ON THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. 11. WE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE ONLY ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS WHETHER OR NOT THE LD. CIT(A) IS JUSTIFIED IN NOT CONDONING THE DELAY OF 84 DAYS IN FILING THE APPEALS HAVING REGARD TO THE EXPLANATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE HIM. THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR CONDONING THE DELAY OF 84 DAYS IN FILING OF THE APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) IS THAT THE DELAY HAD OCCURRED ON ACCOUNT OF THE CHANGE OF COUNSEL. NO DOUBT THE APPELLANT HAD NOT FURNISHED THE DETAILS AS TO, WHO WAS THE ORIGINAL COUNSEL ETC. BUT, IT IS ALSO CLEAR THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAD NOT DOUBTED THE VERACITY OF THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE APPELLANT IN SUPPORT OF CONDONING THE DELAY OF 84 DAYS IN FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE HIM. IF THE LD. CIT(A) WANTED MORE DETAILS, HE SHOULD HAVE ASKED THE APPELLANT TO FURNISH THE SAME. OBVIOUSLY, THE LD. CIT(A) HAD CHOSEN NOT TO SEEK ANY FURTHER DETAILS. FURTHERMORE, THOUGH THE LD. CIT(A) HAD REFERRED TO CERTAIN JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS AND CULLED OUT THE RATIO LAID DOWN THEREIN, WE, WITHOUT 5 ITA NOS.03 TO 07/NAG/2021 GOING INTO THE APPLICABILITY OF THE RATIO LAID DOWN THEREIN TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, IT WOULD SUFFICE TO SAY THAT THE CIT(A) HAD IGNORED THE FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE GOVERNING THE CONDONATION OF DELAY UNDER THE INCOME- TAX PROCEEDINGS I.E. THE INCOME-TAX PROCEEDINGS ARE ONLY CIVIL PROCEEDINGS AND THE MAIN OBJECT OF THE INCOME TAX ACT IS ONLY TO DETERMINE THE CORRECT TAX LIABILITY IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. REFERENCE CAN BE MADE TO THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS :- (I) AHMEDABAD ELECTRICITY CO. LTD. VS. CIT, 199 ITR 351 (BOM.) (FB); (II) CIT VS. KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE MARKETING FEDERATION LTD., 193 ITR 624; AND, (III) CIT VS. INDIAN EXPRESS (MADURAI) PVT. LTD., 140 ITR 705. 12. BY MERE NON-CONDONATION OF DELAY OF 84 DAYS, THE VERY OBJECT OF THE ACT WOULD BE DEFEATED. IN THIS REGARD, WE REFER TO THE RECENT DECISION OF THE HONBLE TELANGANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF THUNUGUNTLA JAGAN MOHAN RAO VS. DCIT, 427 ITR 204 WHEREIN THE HONBLE HIGH COURT AFTER REFERRING TO THE JUDGEMENT OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF N. BALAKRISHNAN VS. M. KRISHNAMURTHY, 7 SCC 123 HELD AS FOLLOWS :- 20. WE HAVE NOTED THE CONTENTIONS OF BOTH SIDES. 21. THE REASONING ASSIGNED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR NOT PREFERRING THE APPEAL WITHIN THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION TO THE TRIBUNAL WAS THAT HE WAS UNDER THE MISTAKEN IMPRESSION THAT ONLY THE CONSEQUENTIAL ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON 31-12-2015 WAS REQUIRED TO BE CHALLENGED AND NOT THE ORDER DT.10- 03-2015 OF THE REVISIONAL AUTHORITY, AND THAT ONLY AFTER HE CONSULTED THE ADVOCATE, HE REALIZED THE MISTAKE AND THEN CHALLENGED THE ORDER OF THE REVISIONAL AUTHORITY. 22. THE TRIBUNAL TOOK THE VIEW THAT THE APPELLANT OUGHT TO HAVE EXPLAINED WHY AFTER RECEIVING THE ORDER FROM THE REVISIONAL AUTHORITY HE DID NOT APPROACH THE ADVOCATE, AND HELD THAT HE CANNOT SAY THAT ONLY AFTER HE RECEIVED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON 31-12-2015, HE APPROACHED THE ADVOCATE. 23. IN OUR OPINION, THIS VIEW IS NOT REASONABLE FOR THE REASON THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL AND MAY NOT BE WELL VERSED IN LAW. IT IS NOT AS IF THE APPELLANT ACTED DELIBERATELY IN NOT APPROACHING THE ADVOCATE AFTER HE RECEIVED THE ORDER OF THE REVISIONAL AUTHORITY. 24. THE REVISIONAL AUTHORITY HAD REMITTED THE MATTER BACK TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO REDO THE EXERCISE OF ASSESSMENT AND THE APPELLANT COULD VERY WELL BE UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT THE CONSEQUENTIAL ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER ONLY REQUIRED TO BE CHALLENGED AND NOT THE ORDER OF THE REVISIONAL AUTHORITY. 6 ITA NOS.03 TO 07/NAG/2021 25. THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO QUESTION THE ORDER PASSED BY THE REVISIONAL AUTHORITY ALSO ON THE GROUND THAT POWERS OF REVISION UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT OUGHT NOT TO HAVE BEEN INVOKED IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND CONTEND BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL THAT THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER CANNOT BE SAID TO BE PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE EVEN IF IT IS ERRONEOUS PARTICULARLY WHERE TWO VIEWS ARE POSSIBLE. THE TRIBUNAL OUGHT TO HAVE ATLEAST IMPOSED SOME COSTS ON THE APPELLANT IN THE EVENT IT WAS OF THE OPINION THAT THE SAID PERIOD OF DELAY WAS NOT PROPERLY EXPLAINED IN VIEW OF THE POSSIBLE PREJUDICE CAUSED TO THE APPELLANT IF THE APPEAL WERE TO BE DISMISSED . 26. THE SUPREME COURT IN N. BALAKRISHNAN V. M. KRISHNAMURTHY [1998] 7 SCC 123 HAS HELD THAT THE PRIMARY FUNCTION OF A COURT IS TO ADJUDICATE THE DISPUTE BETWEEN THE PARTIES AND TO ADVANCE SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE; AND THAT RULES OF LIMITATION ARE NOT MEANT TO DESTROY THE RIGHT OF PARTIES, BUT THEY ARE MEANT TO SEE THAT PARTIES DO NOT RESORT TO DILATORY TACTICS, BUT SEEK THEIR REMEDY PROMPTLY. IT HELD THAT THERE IS NO PRESUMPTION THAT DELAY IN APPROACHING THE COURT IS ALWAYS DELIBERATE, AND THE WORDS 'SUFFICIENT CAUSE' UNDER SECTION 5 OF THE LIMITATION ACT SHOULD RECEIVE A LIBERAL CONSTRUCTION SO AS TO ADVANCE SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE. IT HELD THAT IN EVERY CASE OF DELAY THERE CAN BE SOME LAPSE ON THE PART OF THE LITIGANT CONCERNED, BUT THAT ALONE IS NOT ENOUGH TO TURN DOWN HIS PLEA AND TO SHUT THE DOOR AGAINST HIM; AND IF THE EXPLANATION DOES NOT SMACK OF MALA FIDES OR IT IS NOT PUT FORTH AS PART OF A DILATORY STRATEGY, THE COURT MUST SHOW UTMOST CONSIDERATION TO THE SUITOR. IT ALSO OBSERVED THAT IF THE DELAY IS DELIBERATE, THEN THE COURT SHOULD NOT ACCEPT THE EXPLANATION. IT HELD THAT WHILE CONDONING THE DELAY, THE COURT SHOULD COMPENSATE THE OPPOSITE PARTY WITH COSTS. 27. APPLYING THE PRINCIPLES LAID DOWN IN THE ABOVE CASE TO THE INSTANT CASE, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT, IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE EXPLANATION FOR THE DELAY OFFERED BY THE APPELLANT CANNOT BE SAID TO SMACK OF MALA FIDES OR THAT IT WAS PUT FORTH AS A PART OF A DILATORY STRATEGY, AND THEREFORE, THE TRIBUNAL OUGHT TO HAVE CONDONED THE DELAY OF SAID PERIOD OF 154 DAYS IN FILING THE I.T.A. AND TAKEN UP THE MATTER ON MERITS. 13. THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE TELANGANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF THUNUGUNTLA JAGAN MOHAN RAO (SUPRA) IS SQUARELY APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. ACCORDINGLY, WE DIRECT THE LD. CIT(A) TO CONDONE THE DELAY OF 84 DAYS AND ADJUDICATE THE ISSUE IN APPEAL ON MERITS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. NEEDLESS TO SAY, THE LD. CIT(A) SHALL DECIDE THE ISSUE AFTER GRANTING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. THUS, THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 14. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO.03/NAG/2021 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 7 ITA NOS.03 TO 07/NAG/2021 15. SINCE THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL AND FACTS INVOLVED IN REST OF FOUR APPEALS I.E. ITA NOS.04 TO 07/NAG/2021 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2012-13, 2013-14, 2015-16 & 2017-18 ARE IDENTICAL TO GROUNDS RAISED IN ITA NO.03/NAG/2021 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12, THEREFORE, OUR DECISION IN ITA NO.03/NAG/2021 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 SHALL APPLY MUTATIS MUTANDIS TO REST OF FOUR APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE I.E. ITA NOS.04 TO 07/NAG/2021 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2012-13, 2013-14, 2015-16 & 2017- 18. ACCORDINGLY, THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN REST OF FOUR APPEALS ARE PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 16. RESULTANTLY, ALL THE CAPTIONED APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS THE 24 TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2021. SD/- SD/- (S. S. VISWANETHRA RAVI) (INTURI RAMA RAO) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / PUNE; / DATED : 24 TH FEBRUARY, 2021. SUJEET / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT. 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT(APPEALS)-3, NAGPUR 4. THE CIT (CENTRAL), NAGPUR. 5 . , , / DR, ITAT, NAGPUR PUNE; 6. / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, // TRUE COPY // SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY , / ITAT, PUNE.