Bhule Ram Sharma, Noida V. ACIT, Circle-1, Noida

ITA 7085/DEL/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 107 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2928 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 11 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-10-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 06-11-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SANJAY TRIPATHI
• Keywords: TDS
• Section: 56; 28; 45(5); 201; 194A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH A, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER DR. B. R. R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 7085/DEL/2018 : ASSTT. YEAR : 2015-16 BHULE RAM SHARMA, VILLAGE-NAGLA CHARAN DAS, PO-NEPZ, PHASE-II, NOIDA, U.P.-201305 VS ACIT, CIRCLE-1, NOIDA (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN NO. ASRPS4421C ASSESSEE BY : SH. VED JAIN, ADV. & REVENUE BY : SH. SANJAY TRIPATHI , SR. DR DATE OF HEAR ING: 2 1 . 10 .20 2 1 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 25 .10 .20 2 1 ORDER PER DR. B. R. R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A)-I, NOIDA DATED 30.07.20 18. 2. FOLLOWING GROUNDS HAVE BEEN RAISED BY THE ASSES SEE: 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) IS BAD BOTH IN T HE EYES OF LAW AND ON FACTS. 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED BOTH ON FACTS AND IN LAW I N SUSTAINING THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST OF ENHANCED COMPENSATION TO THE EXTENT OF GROSS INTEREST OF RS. 62,63,354/- AS AGAINST THE GROSS INTEREST OF RS. 21,80,662/- DECLARED BY THE ASSESSE E. 3. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCE OF THE CASE THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED BOTH ON FACTS AND IN LAW I N CONFIRMING THE ADDITION, REJECTING THE CONTENTION O F THE ASSESSEE THAT THE AMOUNT HAVING BEEN RECEIVED ITA NO. 7085/DEL/2018 BHULE RAM SHARMA 2 U/S 28 OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT, THE SAME IS NOT TAXABLE. 4. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCE OF THE CASE THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED BOTH ON FACTS AND IN LAW I N CONFIRMING THE ADDITION, MISINTERPRETING THE VARIOU S JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS GIVEN BY VARIOUS HIGH COURTS. 5. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED BOTH ON FACTS AND IN LAW I N CONFIRMING THE ADDITION REJECTING THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE INTEREST RECEIVED ON COMPULSO RY ACQUISITION IS SPECIFICALLY EXEMPT UNDER SECTION 96 OF THE RIGHT TO FAIR COMPENSATION AND TRANSPARENCY IN LAND ACQUISITION REHABILITATION & RESETTLEMENT ACT, 2013. 3. THE ONLY DISPUTE BEFORE US PERTAINS TO TAXABILIT Y OF INTEREST RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE ON ENHANCED COMPENSATION P AID BY THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH FOR COMPULSORILY ACQUIRING O F THE AGRICULTURAL LAND OF THE ASSESSEE. THE INTEREST ON THE ENHANCED COMPENSATION PAID BY THE NOIDA WAS OF RS.1,87,90,06 1/- ON WHICH TDS U/S 194A HAS BEEN DULY DEDUCTED. THE ASSE SSING OFFICER ALLOWED 50% OF THE INTEREST RECEIVED ON THE ENHANCED COMPENSATION AND TAXED AN AMOUNT OF RS.83,04,689/-. 4. THE ASSESSING OFFICER INVOKED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 56(2)(VIII) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 READS AS UN DER: VIII. INCOME BY WAY OF INTEREST RECEIVED ON COMPENSATION OR ENHANCED COMPENSATION REFERRED TO I N CLAUSE (B) OF SECTION 145A. (INSERTED W.E.F. 01.04.2010) 5. THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN INTEREST ON COMPENSATION OF LAND ACQUISITION OF RS.21,80,682/- AND CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S 57(IV). ITA NO. 7085/DEL/2018 BHULE RAM SHARMA 3 THE PROVISIONS SECTION 57(IV) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT , 1961 READS AS UNDER: IV. IN THE CASE OF INCOME OF THE NATURE REFERRED T O IN CLAUSE (VIII) OF SUB-SECTION (2) OF SECTION 56, A DEDUCTION OF SUM EQUAL TO 50% OF SUCH INCOME AND NO DEDUCTION SHALL BE ALLOWED UNDER ANY OTHER CLAUSE O F THIS SECTION. 6. THUS, THE ISSUE TO ADJUDICATE IS WHETHER THE IN TEREST ON ENHANCED COMPENSATION PARTAKE THE CHARACTER OF COMP ENSATION OR INTEREST. 7. THIS ISSUE HAS BEEN EXAMINED BY VARIOUS COURTS N AMELY, HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT, HONBLE PUNJAB & HARYAN A HIGH COURT AND BY THE HONBLE APEX COURT. 8. IN THE CASE OF INDERJIT SINGH SODHI (HUF) VS. IT O IN ITA NO. 8808/DEL/2019, ORDER DATED 19.06.2020 AUTHORED BY ONE OF THE MEMBER OF THIS BENCH HELD AS UNDER: 13. UNDISPUTEDLY, THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THESE APPE ALS IS REGARDING THE TAXABILITY OF INTEREST RECEIVED ON ENHANCED COM PENSATION U/S 28 OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894. NOW, THERE ARE T WO QUESTIONS INVOLVED IN THESE APPEALS, FIRST ISSUE IS REGARDING THE YEAR OF TAXABILITY OF THE INTEREST INCOME WHETHER IT HAS TO TAXED IN THE YEAR OF RECEIPT IN THE LIGHT OF THE DECISION OF THE HON' BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF GHANSHYAM (HUF) (SUPRA) OR IS TO BE TAX ED ON THE BASIS OF APPORTIONMENT FOR EACH YEAR FROM THE DATE OF ACQ UISITION OF LANDS TILL THE RECEIPT OF THE COMPENSATION IN THE LIGHT O F THE DECISION OF THE INDERJIT SINGH SODHI HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN T HE CASE OF RAMA BAI (SUPRA); THE SECOND ISSUE INVOLVED IS AS TO WHE THER THE INTEREST AWARDED U/S 28 OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT ON ENHAN CED COMPENSATION IS TO BE TREATED AS PART OF THE ENHANC ED COMPENSATION ITA NO. 7085/DEL/2018 BHULE RAM SHARMA 4 AND WILL NOT BE TAXABLE SEPARATELY AS INTEREST INCO ME UNDER THE HEAD 'INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES'? 14. WE FIND THAT BOTH THESE ISSUE S ARE COVERED BY THE AFORESAID DECISION OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE O F GHANSHYAM (HUF) (SUPRA) HOLDING THE SAME TO BE IN THE NATURE OF COMPENSATION ITSELF. THE COURT ALSO DEALT WITH THE OTHER ASPECT NAMELY, THE YEAR OF TAX AND ANSWERED THIS QUEST ION BY HOLDING THAT IT HAS TO BE TESTED ON RECEIPT BASIS, WHICH MEANS IT WOULD BE TAXED IN THE YEAR IN WHICH IT IS RECEIVED. THE SAID FINDINGS GIVEN IN THE CASE OF GHANSHYAM (HUF) (SUPRA) HAVE BEEN REITERATED BY THE HON'BLE S UPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF GOVINDBHAI MAMAIYA (SUPRA) OBSERVING AS UNDER: 'IN SO FAR AS THE SECOND QUESTION IS CONCERNED, THA T IS ALSO COVERED BY ANOTHER JUDGMENT OF THIS COURT IN COMMIS SIONER OF INCO ME TAX, FARIDABAD VS. GHANSHYAM (HUF) REPORTED IN (2009) 8 SCC 412, 6 ALBEIT, IN FAVOUR OF THE REVENUE. IN T HAT CASE, THE COURT DREW DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE 'INTEREST' EARNE D UNDER SECTION 28 OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT AND TH E 'INTEREST' WHICH IS UNDER SECTION 34 OF THE SAID ACT. THE COUR T CLARIFIED THAT WHEREAS COMPENSATION GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE O F THE LAND ACQUIRED WOULD BE 'INCOME', THE ENHANCED COMPENSATION/CONSIDERATION BECOMES INCOME BY VIRTUE OF SECTION 45(5)(B) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. THE QUESTION WAS WH ETHER IT WILL COVER 'INTEREST' AND IF SO, WHAT WOULD BE THE YEAR OF TAXABILITY. THE POSITION IN THIS RESPECT IS EXPLAINED IN PARAS 49 AND 50 OF THE JUDGMENT WHICH MAKE THE FOLLOWING READING: '49. AS DISCUSSED HEREINABOVE, SECTION 23(1-A) PROV IDES FOR ADDITIONAL AMOUNT. IT TAKES CARE OF THE INCREASE IN THE VALUE AT THE RATE OF 12% PER ANNUM. SIMILARLY, UNDER SECTION 23(2) OF THE 1894 ACT THERE IS A PROVISION FOR SOLATIUM WHIC H INDERJIT SINGH SODHI ALSO REPRESENTS PART OF THE ENHANCED COMPENSATION. SIMILARLY, SECTION 28 EMPOWERS THE CO URT IN ITS ITA NO. 7085/DEL/2018 BHULE RAM SHARMA 5 DISCRETION TO AWARD INTEREST ON THE EXCESS AMOUNT O F COMPENSATION OVER AND ABOVE WHAT IS AWARDED BY THE COLLECTOR. IT INCLUDES ADDITIONAL AMOUNT UNDER SECTION 23(1-A) AND SOLATIUM UNDER SECTION 23(2) OF THE SAID ACT. SECTI ON 28 OF THE 1894 ACT APPLIES ONLY IN RESPECT OF THE EXCESS AMOU NT DETERMINED BY THE COURT AFTER REFERENCE UNDER SECTI ON 18 OF THE 1894 ACT. IT DEPENDS UPON THE CLAIM, UNLIKE INTERES T UNDER SECTION 34 WHICH DEPENDS ON UNDUE DELAY IN MA KING THE AWARD. 50. IT IS TRUE THAT 'INTEREST' IS NOT COMPENSATION. IT IS EQUALLY TRUE THAT SECTION 45(5) OF THE 1961 ACT REFERS TO C OMPENSATION. BUT AS DISCUSSED HEREINABOVE, WE HAVE TO GO BY THE PROVISIONS OF THE 1894 ACT WHICH AWARDS 'INTEREST' BOTH AS AN ACCRETION IN THE VALUE OF THE LANDS ACQUIRED AND INTEREST FOR UN DUE DELAY. INTEREST UNDER SECTION 28 UNLIKE INTEREST UNDER SEC TION 34 IS AN ACCRETION TO THE VALUE, HENCE IT IS A PART OF ENHAN CED COMPENSATION OR CONSIDERATION WHICH IS NOT THE CASE WITH INTEREST UNDER SECTION 34 OF THE 1894 ACT. SO ALSO ADDITIONAL AMOUNT UNDER SECTION 23 (1-A) AND SOLATIUM UNDER SE CTION 23(2) OF THE 1961 ACT FORMS PART OF ENHANCED COMPEN SATION UNDER SECTION 45(5)(B) OF THE 1961 ACT.' 8. IT IS CLEAR FROM THE ABOVE THAT WHEREAS INTEREST UNDER SECTION 34 IS NOT TREATED AS A PART OF INCOME SUBJECT TO TA X, THE INTEREST EARNED UNDER SECTION 28, WHICH IS ON ENHANCED COMPE NSATION, IS TREATED AS AN ACCRETION TO THE VALUE AND THEREFORE, PART OF THE ENHANCED COMPENSATION OR CONSIDERATION MAKING IT EX IGIBLE TO TAX. AFTER HOLDING THAT INTEREST ON ENHANCED COMPEN SATION UNDER SECTION 28 OF 1894 ACT IS TAXABLE, THE COURT DEALT WITH THE OTHER ASPECT NAMELY, THE YEAR OF TAX AND ANSWERED T HIS QUESTION BY HOLDING THAT IT HAS TO BE TESTED ON RECEIPT BASI S, WHICH MEANS IT WOULD BE TAXED IN THE YEAR IN WHICH IT IS RECEIV ED. IT WOULD ITA NO. 7085/DEL/2018 BHULE RAM SHARMA 6 MEAN THAT INDERJIT SINGH SODHI CONVERSE POSITION I. E. SPREAD OVER OF THIS INTEREST ON ACCRUAL BASIS IS NOT PERMI SSIBLE.' 15. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE HAS FURTHER BROUGH T OUR ATTENTION THE LATEST DECISION OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. CHET RAM (HUF) DATED 12.9.2017 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.13053/2017 WHEREIN ALSO THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT HAS AGAIN RE ITERATED THE PROPOSITION LAID DOWN IN THE CASE OF GHANSHYAM (HUF ) (SUPRA), WHICH WE FIND HAS BEEN FURTHER REITERATED IN THE CASE OF UNION OF INDIA VS. HARI SINGH & OTHERS IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1504 OF 201 7 DATED 15.9.2017, AS UNDER: '(2) WHILE DETERMINING AS TO WHETHER THE COMPENSATI ON PAID WAS FOR AGRICULTURAL LAND OR NOT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER (S) WILL KEEP IN MIND THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 28 OF THE LAND ACQUI SITION ACT AND THE LAW LAID DOWN BY THIS COURT IN 'COMMISSIONE R OF INCOME TAX, FARIDABAD V. GHANSHYAM (HUF)' [2009 (8) SCC 41 2] IN ORDER TO ASCERTAIN WHETHER THE INTEREST GIVEN UNDER THE SAID PROVISION AMOUNTS TO COMPENSATION OR NOT.' THE SAID DECISION AS RIGHTLY POINTED OUT BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE HAVE BEEN RENDERED BY THE HON'BLE APEX COU RT SUBSEQUENT TO THE DECISION PASSED BY THE HON'BLE JU RISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF MANJEET SINGH(HUF) (SUPRA ) WHICH HAD DEALT WITH THE DECISIONS OF THE HON'BLE APEX COURT IN GHANSHYAM, HUF (SUPRA) . THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE SAME, THE PROPOSITION LAID DOWN IN GHANSHYAM, HUF (SUPRA) REM AINS AND WHICH HAVING BEE N LAID DOWN BY THE HON'BLE APEX CO URT IS THE LAW OF THE LAND AND HAS TO BE FOLLOWED BY ALL LOWER AUTHORITIES. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE HOLD THAT THE INTEREST REC EIVED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE IMPUGNED YEAR ON THE COMPULSORY ACQUISITION OF ITS LAND U/S 28 OF THE LAND ACQUISIT ION ACT, IS IN THE NATURE OF COMPENSATION AND NOT INTEREST WHICH I S TAXABLE UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES U/S 56 OF THE ACT AS ITA NO. 7085/DEL/2018 BHULE RAM SHARMA 7 HELD BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE COMPENSATION BEI NG EXEMPT U/S 10(37) OF THE ACT IS NOT DISPUTED. IN VIEW O F THE SAME THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(APPEALS) UPHOLDING THE ADDI TION INDERJIT SINGH SODHI MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST O N ENHANCED COMPENSATION IS, NOT SUSTAINABLE.' 11. BEFORE PARTING, THE SALIENT FEATURES OF THE ORD ERS OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT ARE MENTIONED BELOW: THE ORDER OF THE BIKRAM SINGH VS LAND ACQUISITION C OLLECTOR IS DATED 12.09.1996 - INTEREST OF ANY NATURE IS TAXABL E IRRESPECTIVE OF ITS RECEIPT. THE ORDER OF GHANSHYAM (HUF) IS DATED 16.07.2009 'I T IS TO ANSWER THE ABOVE QUESTIONS THAT WE HAVE ANALYSED TH E PROVISIONS OF SECTIONS 23, 23(1A), 23(2), 28 AND 34 OF THE 1894 ACT. AS DISCUSSED HEREINABOVE, SECTION 23(1A) PRO V IDES FOR ADDITIONAL AMOUNT. IT TAKES CARE OF INCREASE IN THE VALUE AT THE RATE OF 12 PER CENT PER ANNUM. SIMILARLY, UNDER SEC TION 23(2) OF THE 1894 ACT, THERE IS A PROVISION FOR SOL ATIUM WHICH ALSO REPRESENTS PART OF ENHANCED COMPENSATION. SIMI LARLY, SECTION 28 EMPOWERS THE COURT IN ITS DISCRETION TO AWARD INTEREST ON THE EXCESS AMOUNT OF COMPENSATION OVER AND ABOVE WHAT IS AWARDED BY THE COLLECTOR. IT INCLUDES ADDIT IONAL AMOUNT UNDER SECTION 23(1A) AND SOLATIUM UNDER SECTION 23( 2) OF THE SAID ACT. SECTION 28 OF THE 1894 ACT APPLIES ONLY I N RESPECT OF THE EXCESS AMOUNT DETERMINED BY THE COURT AFTER REF ERENCE UNDER SECTION 18 OF THE 1894 ACT. IT DEPENDS UPON T HE CLAIM, UNLIKE INTEREST UNDER SECTION 34 WHICH DEPENDS ON U NDUE DELAY IN MAKING THE AWARD. IT IS TRUE THAT 'INTEREST' IS NOT COMPENSATION. IT IS EQUALLY TRUE THAT SECTION 45(5) OF THE 1961 ACT, REFERS TO COMPENSATION. BUT AS DISCUSSED HEREI NABOVE, WE HAVE TO GO BY THE PROVISIONS OF THE 1894 ACT, WHICH AWARDS INDERJIT SINGH SODHI 'INTEREST' BOTH AS AN A CCRETION IN ITA NO. 7085/DEL/2018 BHULE RAM SHARMA 8 THE VALUE OF THE LANDS ACQUIRED AND INTEREST FOR UN DUE DELAY. INTEREST UNDER SECTION 28 UNLIKE INTEREST UNDER SEC TION 34 IS AN ACCRETION TO THE VALUE, HENCE IT IS A PART OF ENHAN CED COMPENSATION OR CONSIDERATION WHICH IS NOT THE CASE WITH INTEREST UNDER SECTION 34 OF THE 1894 ACT. SO ALSO ADDITIONAL AMOUNT UNDER SECTION 23(1A) AND SOLATIUM UNDER SECT ION 23(2) OF THE 1961 ACT FORMS PART OF ENHANCED COMPEN SATION UNDER SECTION 45(5)(B) OF THE 1961 ACT. IN FACT, WH AT WE HAVE STATED HEREINABOVE IS REINFORCED BY THE NEWLY INSER TED CLAUSE (C) IN SECTION 45(5) BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2003 WITH EFFECT FROM 1-4-2004.' THE ORDER IN THE CASE OF MANJIT SINGH (HUF) HAS BEE N CONSIDERED IN THE CASE OF GHANSHYAM (HUF). THE ORDER IN THE CASE HARI SINGH & OTHERS IN CA NO. 1504/2017 DATED 15 .09.2007 - HELD - WHILE DETERMINING AS TO WHETHER THE COMPENSATION PAID WAS FOR AGRICULTURAL LAND OR NOT, THE ASSESSING OFFICE R(S) WILL KEEP IN MIND THE PROVISI ONS OF SECTION 28 OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT AND THE LAW LAID DOW N BY THIS COURT IN CIT V. GHANSHYAM (HUF) [2009] 182 TAXMAN 3 68/315 ITR 1 (SC) IN ORDER TO ASCERTAIN WHETHER THE INTERE ST GIVEN UNDER THE SAID PROVISION AMOUNTS TO COMPENSATION OR NOT. THE ORDER IN THE CASE GOVINDBHAI MAMAIYA 367 ITR 49 8 (SC) DATED 04.09.2014 - REITERATED THAT 'IT IS EQUALLY T RUE THAT SECTION 45(5) OF THE 1961 ACT REFERS TO COMPEN SATION. BUT AS DISCUSSED HEREINABOVE, WE HAVE TO INDERJIT SINGH SODHI GO BY THE PROVISIONS OF THE 1894 ACT WHICH AWARDS 'INT EREST' BOTH AS AN ACCRETION IN THE VALUE OF THE LANDS ACQUIRED AND INTEREST FOR UNDUE DELAY. INTEREST UNDER SECTION 28 UNLIKE I NTEREST UNDER SECTION 34 IS AN ACCRETION TO THE VALUE, HENC E IT IS A PART OF ENHANCED COMPENSATION O R CONSIDERATION WHICH IS NO T THE CASE WITH INTEREST UNDER SECTION 34 OF THE 1894 ACT . SO ALSO ITA NO. 7085/DEL/2018 BHULE RAM SHARMA 9 ADDITIONAL AMOUNT UNDER SECTION 23 (1-A) AND SOLATI UM UNDER SECTION 23(2) OF THE 1961 ACT FORMS PART OF E NHANCED COMPENSATION UNDER SECTION 45(5)(B) OF THE 1961 ACT .' IN THE CASE OF GHANSHYAM (HUF), THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT EQUATED THE INTEREST RECEIVED U/S 28 OF LA WITH COM PENSATION. IT WAS HELD THAT THE INTEREST IS ACCRETION TO THE V ALUE OF COMPENSATION AND HENCE IT IS A PART OF COMPENSATION . IN THE CASE OF HARI SINGH (HUF), THE HON'BLE SUPREM E COURT REITERATED THE ABOVE PROPOSITION. 9. HENCE, KEEPING IN VIEW, THE ENTIRE FACTS OF THE CASE AND TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE LEGAL ISSUE WHICH HAS BEEN FAIRLY SETTLED AS DISCUSSED ABOVE, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSES SEE IS HEREBY ALLOWED. 10. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS AL LOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 25/10/2021. SD/- SD/- (AMIT SHUKLA) (DR . B. R. R. KUMAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOU NTANT MEMBER DATED: 25/10/2021 *SUBODH KUMAR, SR. PS* COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR