M/s. Empire Transport Corporation, Nagpur V. Income Tax Officer,Ward-4(1), Nagpur

ITA 63/NAG/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9629 (ITAT-NAGPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 7 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-11-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 28-03-2011
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DR MILIND BHUSARI
• Keywords: Additional evidence; Corroborative evidences
• Section: 234B; 194C

Judgement Text

- 1 - ITA 63/NAG/2011, A.Y. 2007-08 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI P. K. BANSAL, HONBLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI D.T. GARASIA, HONBLE JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 63/NAG/2011 (ASST. YEAR 2007-08) M/S EMPIRE TRANSPORT CORPORATION, APPELLANT M. G. MORYANI, ADVOCATE, SUDAMA BHAWAN, NEAR SUT MARKET, GANDHIBAGH, NAGPUR. PAN : AAAFE2759C VS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, RESPONDENT WARD 4(1), NAGPUR APPELLANT BY : SHRI MANOJ MORYANI (ADV) RESPONDENT BY : SHRI (DR) MILIND BHUSARI (DR) DATE OF HEARING: 15/10/2012 DATE OF ORDER : 09/11/2012 O R D E R PER D. T. GARASIA JM THIS APPEAL BY ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT (A) II, NAGPUR, DT. 08/02/2011. THE FOLLOWING ARE THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE. 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT (A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 2,14,56,235/- U/S 409A) (IA). THE ADDITIONS CONFIRMED ARE UNJUSTIFIED, UNWARRANTED AND EXCESSIVE. 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT (A) ERRED IN NOT ACCEPTING ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE OF THE ASSESSEE OF - 2 - ITA 63/NAG/2011, A.Y. 2007-08 CROSSING OF VEHICLE THEREFORE THE ADDITION CONFIRMED BY THE CIT (A) ARE INVALID AND BAD IN LAW. 3. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT (A) ERRED IN NOT ACCEPTING ADDITIONAL GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE OF CROSSING OF VEHICLE AS DUE TO CROSSING OF VEHICLE THE ASSESSEE IS HIT BY THE PROVISION 40(A)(IA) TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 3,86,500/- SUBMITTED IN THE CHART AS PER BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, THEREFORE THE ADDITION CONFIRMED BY THE CIT (A) ARE INVALID AND BAD IN LAW. 4. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LEARNED CIT (A) ERRED IN NOT ACCEPTING DISALLOWANCE TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 3,86,500/- AND NOT RS. 2,14,56,235/- HENCE THE ORDER PASSED IS UNJUSTIFIED, UNWARRANTED AND EXCESSIVE. 5. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD.CIT (A) ERRED IN NOT ACCEPTING BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THERE IS NO REGULAR CONTRACT OF HIRING OF TRUCKS FOR CONTINUING OF TRANSPORTATION OF VARIOUS GOODS AND EACH GR IS A SEPARATE CONTRACT BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND THE PERSON OFFERING THE TRANSPORT OF GOODS, THEREFORE ORDER PASSED IS UNJUSTIFIED, UNWARRANTED AND EXCESSIVE. 6. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT (A) ERRED IN NOT ADMITTING ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE UNDER RULE 46A OF THE I. T. ACT 1961, THEREFORE ORDER PASSED IS ILLEGAL, INVALID AND BAD IN LAW. 7. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT (A) WERE HURRY IN PASSING THE ORDER WHEN THE MAIN APPEAL U/S 201(1)/201(1A) R.W.S. 194C IS PENDING THEREFORE THE ORDER PASSED IS ILLEGAL, INVALID AND BAD IN LAW. 8. THE APPELLANT DENIES LIABILITY OF INTEREST U/S 234A, 234B AND 234C OF THE I. T. ACT, 1961, WITHOUT PREJUDICE THE LEVY OF INTEREST IS UNJUSTIFIED, UNWARRANTED AND EXCESSIVE. 2. THE SHORT FACTS OF THE CASE ARE AS UNDER: - THE ASSESSEE IS DOING THE BUSINESS OF TRANSPORTATION. DURING THE YEAR ASSESSEE HAS PAID TRANSPORTATION CHARGES TO TRANSPORTER AMOUNTING - 3 - ITA 63/NAG/2011, A.Y. 2007-08 TO RS 31928465/-. THE AO HAS ANALYSED THE SOFT COPY OF DATA WHICH CONTAINS DETAILS OF PAYMENT TO THREE THOUSAND TRUCKS. AFTER ANALYSIS OF DATA, AO HAS SEGREGATED THE CASE WHERE NO TAX WAS DEDUCTED AT SOURCE AND HAD COME TO CONCLUSION THAT AN AMOUNT OF RS. 21456235/- WAS TOTAL AMOUNT OF WHICH TDS WAS DEDUCTABLE. THE AO HAS THUS MADE THE ADDITION OF RS. 21456235/-. 3. NOW WE WILL TAKE UP GROUND NO. 6 AS IT RELATES TO ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE UNDER RULE 46A OF I. T. ACT 1961 THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE DETAILED CHART OF STATEMENT OF TOTAL TRANSPORTATION CHARGES DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2006-07 SHOWING SERIAL NUMBER, DATE, TRUCK NUMBER, FREIGHT AMOUNT AND DESTINATION. THE CHART WAS PREPARED AS PER THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. THE AFORESAID CHART SUPPORTED BY BUILTY OF COMMISSION AGENT AS WELL AS CROSSING RECEIPT OF THE VEHICLE. THE CROSSING OF VEHICLE IS THE VITAL ISSUE TO DECIDE THE APPEAL. THE SAID EVIDENCE WERE NOT NEW EVIDENCE BUT IT IS ONLY CHART WAS PREPARED AS PER THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, THIS EVIDENCE MAY BE ACCEPTED AS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. THE LD. AR RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF CIT VS SURATECH HOSPITAL RESEARCH CENTRE LTD, 293 ITR 53 BOM, 231 ITR 1 BOM, 232 ITR 173 BOM & 222 CTR 601. ON THE OTHER HAND LD. DR RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF REVENUE AUTHORITIES. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTION OF BOTH THE PARTIES. LOOKING TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCE OF THE CASE WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PRODUCED THE CHART WHICH WAS PREPARED AS PER THE BOOKS OF THE ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE CHART IS SUPPORT OF BUILTY OF COMMISSION AGENT AS WELL AS CROSSING RECEIPT OF THE VEHICLES. WE FIND THAT THIS NOT A NEW EVIDENCE BUT IT IS A SUPPORTING EVIDENCE THEREFORE WE ADMIT THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. WE FIND SUPPORTS FROM THE FOLLOWING DECISION WHEREIN THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT HAS HELD THAT IF THE TRIBUNAL FINDS THAT THE PRODUCTION OF ANY DOCUMENTS IS NECESSARY TO DISPOSE OF THE APPEAL THAN THE TRIBUNAL HAS POWER TO ADMIT IT. THEREFORE FOLLOWING THE DECISION WE ADMIT THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. IN THE CASE OF CIT VS SURETECH HOSPITAL & RESEARCH CENTRE LTD 293 ITR 53 (BOM) WHEREIN IT HAS HELD THAT RULE 46A(4) PROVIDES THAT NOTWITHSTANDING R. 46A(1) THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY CAN PERMIT PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS TO ENABLE HIM TO DISPOSE OF THE APPEAL FINDING RECORDED BY THE TRIBUNAL THAT THE DOCUMENTS - 4 - ITA 63/NAG/2011, A.Y. 2007-08 PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE CIT (A) WERE NECESSARY FOR DISPOSAL OF THE APPEAL ON MERITS. IT WAS JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING THAT THE CIT (A) OUGHT TO HAVE EXERCISED ITS POWER TO ADMIT ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. NO QUESTION IF LAW ARISES. SIMILARLY IN THE CASE OF SMT PRABHAVATI S SHAH V CIT, 231 ITR 1 (BOM) WHEREIN IT IS HELD THAT RULE 46A IS INTENDED TO PUT FETTERS ON THE RIGHT OF APPELLANT TO PRODUCE BEFORE AAC ANY ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE EXCEPT IN CIRCUMSTANCES SET OUT THEREIN. IT DOES NOT DEAL WITH POWERS OF AAC TO MAKE FURTHER ENQUIRY OR TO DIRECT THE ITO TO MAKE FURTHER ENQUIRY. IT IS INCUMBENT ON AAC TO EXERCISE HIS POWERS UNDER S. 250(4) IF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES JUSTIFY. IN SUPPORT OF THE GENUINENESS OF A LOAN TAKEN BY ASSESSEE HE WANTED TO PRODUCE PHOTOSTAT COPIES OF CHEQUES, CERTIFICATE FROM BAN AND A COPY OF HIS BANK ACCOUNT. AAC SHOULD HAVE CONSIDERED THIS EVIDENCE IN EXERCISE OF HIS POWERS UNDER SUB-SS.(4) AND (5) OF S. 250 OR EVEN UNDER R. 46A. PRESENT CASE WOULD FALL UNDER CL. (C) OF SUB-R. (1) OF R. 46A BECAUSE ASSESSEE HAD NO OCCASION TO COLLECT THIS EVIDENCE EARLIER. WE RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE SAME ADMIT THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AND DECIDED THE APPEAL ON MERITS. 5. IN THE RESULT THIS GROUND IS ALLOWED. 6. GROUND NO. 1 TO 5: - THE SHORT FACTS OF THE CASE ARE AS UNDER: - THE ASSESSEE IS DOING THE BUSINESS OF TRANSPORTATION. DURING THE YEAR ASSESSEE HAS PAID TRANSPORTATION CHARGES TO TRANSPORTER AMOUNTING TO RS 31928465/-. THE AO HAS ANALYSED THE SOFT COPY OF DATA WHICH CONTAINS DETAILS OF PAYMENT TO THREE THOUSAND TRUCKS. AFTER ANALYSIS OF DATA, AO HAS SEGREGATED THE CASE WHERE NO TAX WAS DEDUCTED AT SOURCE AND HAD COME TO CONCLUSION THAT AN AMOUNT OF RS. 21456235/- WAS TOTAL AMOUNT OF WHICH TDS WAS DEDUCTABLE. THE AO HAS THUS MADE THE ADDITION OF RS. 21456235/-. 7. MATTER CARRIED TO CIT (A) AND CIT (A) HAS DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE THEREFORE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 8. LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE IS DOING TRANSPORTATION BUSINESS. IN THIS PARTICULAR LINE OF BUSINESS THERE IS A CROSSING OF VEHICLE THE SAID ASPECT HAS NOT BEEN CONSIDERED WHILE THE PASSING THE ORDER UNDER 143 (3). THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THE DETAILS OF TRANSPORTATION CHARGES - 5 - ITA 63/NAG/2011, A.Y. 2007-08 TRUCK WISE PAID MORE THAN RS. 50,000/- FOR A.Y. 2007-08. THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID RS. 386500/- WHICH ARE EXCEEDING MORE THAN RS. 50000/- IN RESPECT OF 3 TRUCKS. REST OF AMOUNT OF TRANSPORTATION CHARGES PER TRUCK ARE LESS THAN RS. 20000/- AND IN AGGREGATE IT DO NOT EXCEED RS. 50000/-. ASSESSEES CASE IS COVERED BY SECTION 194 C(5) WHEREIN IT PROVIDES THAT NO DEDUCTION SHALL BE MADE FROM THE AMOUNT OF ANY SUM CREDITED OR PAID OR LIKELY TO BE CREDITED OR PAID TO ACCOUNT OF OR THE CONTRACTOR IF SUCH SUM DOES NOT EXCEEDS RUPEES 20000 PROVIDED THAT WHERE THE AGGREGATE OF THE AMOUNTS OF SUCH SUMS CREDITED OR PAID OR LIKELY TO BE CREDITED OR PAID DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR EXCEEDS FIFTY THOUSAND RUPEES, THE PERSON RESPONSIBLE FOR PAYING SUCH SUMS REFERRED TO IN SUB SECTION (1) SHALL BE LIABLE TO DEDUCT INCOME TAX UNDER THIS SECTION. THE ASSESSEE IS MAINTAINING REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE ARE AUDITED AS PER SECTION 44 AB OF THE I.T. ACT. THE ASSESSEE, IN ORDER TO PROVIDE THE SERVICES FOR CONTRACT, HIRED TRUCKS FROM OPEN MARKET IN THE VICINITY OF VARIOUS FACTORIES LOCATED FOR TRANSPORTATION OF GOODS. THE ASSESSEE HAS NO REGULAR CONTRACT OF HIRING OF TRUCKS FOR CONTINUOUS TRANSPORTATION OF VARIOUS GOODS. EACH G. R. IS A SEPARATE CONTRACT BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND THE PERSON OFFERING TO TRANSPORT THE GOODS FOR ASSESSEE. THE PAYMENT MADE TO VARIOUS PERSONS BEING LESS THAN RS. 20,000/- AND EACH CONTRACT BEING OF A VALUE OF LESS THAN RS. 20,000/-, THERE IS NO OBLIGATION TO DEDUCT TDS UNDER SECTION 194C OF THE I. T. ACT. THE LD. AO WRONGLY HELD THAT THE PAYMENT OF HIRE CHARGES IS WITHOUT MAKING DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE AND HENCE THE SAME IS LIABLE TO BE DISALLOWED UNDER SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE I. T. ACT 1961 . 9. LD. AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE IS DOING THE BUSINESS OF TRANSPORTATION WITH VERY LITTLE MARGIN. THE ASSESSEE TAKES THE VEHICLES WHICH ARE COMING TO THE CITY AND WHEN GOING BACK BOOKED THE SAME TO GET AT CHEAPER RATE. THE ASSESSEE HAS HIRED THE TRUCKS ONLY ONCE AND NO REPEATATION. THE ASSESSEE DOING TRANSPORTATION ON COMMISSION BASIS THEREFORE, THE PAYMENT IS LESS THAN TWENTY THOUSAND. HE ALSO DRAWN OUR ATTENTION TO PAGE NUMBER 26 TO 86 WHEREIN THE DATE OF HIRING THE TRUCK AND TOTAL AMOUNT PAID THE DETAIL HAS BEEN SUBMITTED AND FROM THIS DETAIL IT CAN BEEN SEEN THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT PAID MORE THAN RS. 50000/- TO ANY TRUCK OWNER IN A YEAR, THEREFORE ASSESSEES APPEAL MAY BE ALLOW. - 6 - ITA 63/NAG/2011, A.Y. 2007-08 10. ON THE OTHER HAND LD. DR RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF REVENUE AUTHORITIES. 11. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTION OF BOTH THE PARTIES. ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF TRANSPORTATION. THE AO HAS EXAMINED THE NATURE OF EXPENDITURE ON ACCOUNT OF TRANSPORTATION AMOUNTING TO RS. 21456235/- CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. WE FIND THAT ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THE PARTY WISE DETAIL OF PAYMENT AND WE FIND THAT ASSESSEE HAS PAID LESS THAN TWENTY THOUSAND TO EACH TRUCK OWNER THEREFORE PROVISION OF SECTION 194C IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE. WE FIND THAT ASSESSEE HAS MADE INDIVIDUAL PAYMENT TO TRUCK OWNERS ARE BELOW TWENTY THOUSAND RUPEES HENCE IT IS NOT REQUIRED TO DEDUCTED TDS PARTICULARLY WHEN THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194C OF THE ACT WHERE AMENDED W.E.F. 01/10/2004 AS REGARDS TO REQUIREMENT OF TDS ON PAYMENT EXCEEDING FIFTY THOUSAND IN AGGREGATE. WE FIND THAT AO AND CIT (A) HAS NOT LOOKED INTO THIS PROVISIONS AND ASSESSEE HAD NO LIABILITY TO DEDUCT A TAX AT SOURCE IF THE AMOUNT PAID IN PURSUANCE OF CONTRACT DID NOT EXCEEDS TWENTY THOUSAND. WE FIND THAT CBDT CIRCULAR NUMBER 715 DT. 08/08/1995 WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN MENTIONED THAT EACH GR WAS TO BE TREATED AS SEPARATE CONTRACT EXCEPT WHEN SUCH GR WAS IN RESPECT OF CONTRACT FOR TRANSPORTATION OF GOODS FOR A SPECIFIED PERIOD OR QUANTIFY AND IN THIS CASE ASSESSEE HAD NOT ENTERED INTO ANY SUCH CONTRACT WITH ANY OF THE TRANSPORTER WHO HAD TRANSPORTED THE GOODS ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AND EACH PAYMENT IS LESS THAN TWENTY THOUSAND HENCE IS ASSESSEE IS NOT LIABLE TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE. 12. WE FIND THAT ASSESSEE HAS ADMITTED THAT RS. 386500/- IS THE PAYMENT WHICH IS ABOVE FIFTY THOUSAND THEREFORE IT IS TO BE DISALLOW AND REST OF THE PAYMENT (21456235 386500 = 21069735) IS NOT LIABLE TO DEDUCT A TAX AT SOURCE IN RESPECT OF PAYMENT IS COVERED U/S 194C(5) OF THE ACT. SECTION 194C (5) WHICH READS AS UNDER: - NO DEDUCTION SHALL BE MADE FROM THE AMOUNT OF ANY SUM CREDITED OR PAID OR LIKELY TO BE CREDITED OR PAID TO THE ACCOUNT OF OR TO THE CONTRACTOR, IF SUCH SUM DOES NOT EXCEED TWENTY THOUSAND RUPEES: PROVIDED THAT WHERE THE AGGREGATE OF THE AMOUNTS OF SUCH SUMS CREDITED OR PAID OR LIKELY TO BE CREDITED OR PAID DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR EXCEEDS FIFTY THOUSAND RUPEES, THE PERSON - 7 - ITA 63/NAG/2011, A.Y. 2007-08 RESPONSIBLE FOR PAYING SUCH SUMS REFERRED TO IN SUB SECTION (1) SHALL BE LIABLE TO DEDUCT INCOME TAX UNDER THIS SECTION. 13. FROM THIS AFORESAID PROVISION WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT AS PER THE EVIDENCE WHICH IS SUBMITTED BEFORE US FROM PAGE NUMBER 26 TO 86 OF THE PAPER BOOK WHICH A PAYMENT OF TRANSPORTATION CHARGES PAID DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION IS LESS THAN TWENTY THOUSAND TO EACH TRUCK OWNER. WE FIND THAT ASSESSEE IN ORDER TO PROVIDE SERVICE FOR CONTRACT HIRED THE TRUCKS FROM OPEN MARKET IN THE VICINITY OF VARIOUS FACTORIES LOCATED FOR TRANSPORTATION OF GOODS. THE ASSESSEE HAS NO REGULAR CONTRACT FOR HIRING OF TRUCKS FOR CONTINUES TRANSPORTATION OF VARIOUS GOODS. THE PAYMENT MADE TO VARIOUS PERSONS BEING LESS THAN TWENTY THOUSAND AND EACH CONTRACT BEING VALUE OF LESS THAN TWENTY THOUSAND AND AGGREGATE PAYMENT TO EACH PERSON AS CONTENDED IS LESS THAN RUPEES FIFTY THOUSAND. THERE IS NO OBLIGATION TO DEDUCT A TDS UNDER SECTION 194C OF THE I. T. ACT. WE THEREFORE DIRECT TO DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS. 21069735/-. 14. WE FIND THAT ASSESSEE HAS PRODUCED THE DETAIL CHART OF STATEMENT OF TOTAL TRANSPORTATION CHARGES DURING F.Y. 2006-07 SHOWING SERIAL NUMBER, DATE, TRUCK NUMBER, FREIGHT AMOUNT AND DESTINATION BEFORE CIT (A). CIT (A) HAS NOT ADMITTED THIS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. AS WE HAVE HELD THAT THIS DOCUMENT IS NECESSARY TO DECIDE THE APPEAL THEREFORE, WE HAVE ADMITTED THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. WE FIND THAT THIS CHART WAS BEFORE CIT (A), CIT (A) HAS NOT VERIFIED THIS CHART AS WELL AS AO HAS NOT VERIFIED THIS CHART I.E. PAGE 26 TO 86 OF THE PAPER BOOK, THEREFORE, WE RESTORE THIS CHART TO THE FILE OF AO TO VERIFY THE DETAIL OF PAYMENT IF NECESSARY AND IF THE PAYMENT FOUND TO BE LESS THAN TWENTY THOUSAND AND RS. 50,000/- IN AGGREGATE DURING THE YEAR TO EACH TRUCK OWNER THAN DIRECTED TO DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS. 21069735/-. IN THE RESULT GROUNDS NUMBER 1 TO 5 ARE ALLOWED AS INDICATED ABOVE. 15. GROUND NO. 7, 8 &9:- AS WE HAVE ALLOWED GROUND NUMBER 1 TO 5 THEREFORE THESE GROUNDS DOES NOT SURVIVE HENCE DISMISSED. - 8 - ITA 63/NAG/2011, A.Y. 2007-08 16. IN THE RESULT APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 09/11/2012. SD/- SD/- (P. K. BANSAL) (D. T. GARASIA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER PANAJI / GOA DATED: - 09.11.2012 *NANU* COPY TO : 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT, NAGPUR 4. CIT(A), NAGPUR 5. D.R 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR I.T.A.T., NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.