Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Kanpur V. M/s Verma Roadways, Kanpur

ITA 726/LKW/2013

• Counselvise Citation: 72623714 RSA 2013
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 8 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-07-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 25-06-2015
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 31-10-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Depreciation; Corroborative evidences
• Section: 68; 37

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH A, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.726/LKW/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2004 - 05 M/S VERMA ROADWAYS, 133/225, TRANSPORT NAGAR, KANPUR. PAN:AABFV6386P VS A.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1, KANPUR. (RESPONDENT) (APPELLANT) SMT. SWATI RATNA, D. R. APPELLANT BY NONE RESPONDENT BY 25/06/2015 DATE OF HEARING 28 /07/2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT O R D E R PER A. K. GARODIA, A.M. THIS IS REVENUES APPEAL DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY LEARNED CIT(A) - II, KANPUR DATED 27/06/2013 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004 - 05. 2. NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE APPOINTED DATE OF HEARING ALTHOUGH ADJOURNMENT WAS GRANTED ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS WITH LAST OPPORTUNITY AND ON THE PRESENT DATE OF HEARING I.E. 25/06/2015 ALSO, AN APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT WAS FILED BY LEARNE D A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH IS DATED 09/06/2015 AND IT IS STATED BY HIM IN THIS APPLICATION THAT HE HAS BEEN AUTHORIZED TO REPRESENT THIS CASE VERY RECENTLY BUT SINCE THIS IS AN OLD APPEAL AND SEVERAL OPPORTUNITIES WERE PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE WITH THE R EMARK LAST OPPORTUNITY, THE ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION WAS REJECTED AND THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE WAS HEARD EX - PARTE QUA THE ASSESSEE. 3. LEARNED D.R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. 2 4. IN THIS APPEAL THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWIN G GROUNDS: 1. THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.43,000/ - MADE UNDER SECTION 41(1) ON ACCOUNT OF CESSATION OF LIABILITY WITHOUT GOING THROUGH THE FACTS AND MATERIAL BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE A.O. THAT AS TO HOW A S UM COULD BE DETERMINED/SHOWN TO PAYABLE TO A TRUCK RATHER THAN ANY PERSON WITHIN NAME & ADDRESS WHEREAS THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT FURNISHED THE NAME OF THE PERSONS TO WHOM THIS AMOUNT WAS PAID. 2. THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.3,42,121/ - MADE UNDER SECTION 41(1) ON ACCOUNT OF CESSATION OF LIABILITY WITHOUT LOOKING INTO THE MERITS AND WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS AND MATERIAL BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE A.O. THAT NO CONFIRMATION OR DETAILS OF THE PARTIES TO WHOM TH E SUM WAS PAYABLE WAS FURNISHED. 3. THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW & ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.8,13,238/ - MADE U/S 28 READ WITH SECTION 68 OF THE I.T. ACT WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE ADDITION WAS MADE AFTER PROVIDING THE ASSESSE E A PROPER OPPORTUNITY AND THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO FURNISH TO .WHOM THIS FREIGHT TO WHOM THIS FREIGHT IS PAYABLE BUT NO CONFIRMATION WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. 4. THAT LD, CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.1,00,000/ - TOWARDS TELEPHONE EXPENSES AS MADE BY THE A.O. BECAUSE NO LOG BOOK WAS MAINTAINED. IT IS PERTINENT TO MENTION HERE THAT IN THE A.Y. 2001 - 02 THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WERE REJECTED U/S 145(3) ON ACCOUNT OF SUCH DEFECTS. FURTHER, CIT(A) - II, KANPUR WHILE ADJUDI CATING UPON THE CASE HAD MADE DISALLOWANCES ON THIS SCORE. 5. THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.50,000/ - OUT OF RS.2,39,078/ - TOWARDS CONVEYANCE EXPENSES WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS THAT NO LOG BOOK WAS MAINTA INED BY THE ASSESSEE FIRM AND LEDGER ACCOUNT OF CONVEYANCE REVEALED THAT ENTIRE PAYMENT WAS MADE IN CASH. 3 6. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN L AW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.50, 000 / - OUT OF RS . 3,30,298/ - MADE ON ACCOUNT OF OIL AND FUEL USE D FOR GENERATORS WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT MOST OF THESE EXPENSES WERE INCURR ED IN CASH AND THEY WERE NOT OPEN TO FULL VERIFICATION. 7. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS IGNORED THE FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.36,000 / - OUT OF DEPRECIATION THAT THE PARTNERS ARE NOT IN THE OWNERSHIP OF ANY OTHER CA R APART FROM THESE TWO CARS AND SOME ALIGNMENT OF PERSONA L USE IS INVOLVED IN THE USAGE OF THESE VEHICLES. 8. THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (A) BEING ERRONEOUS IN LAW AND ON FACTS NEEDS TO BE VACATED AND THE ORDER OF THE A.O. BE RESTORED. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED D.R. OF THE REVENUE, PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 6. GROUND NO. 1 TO 3 ARE IN RELATION TO THE DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS.43,000/ - AND RS.3,42,121/ - U/S 41(1) AND RS.8,13,238/ - BEING ADDITION MADE U/S 28 READ WITH SECTION 68 OF THE I.T. ACT. THESE ISSUES WERE DECIDED BY LEARNED CIT(A) AS PER PARA 7 TO 10 OF HIS ORDER, WHICH ARE REPRODUCED BELOW FOR THE SAKE OF READY REFERENCE: - 7. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT. IT IS EVIDENCED THAT THE SUNDRY CREDITORS TO THE EXTENT OF ABOVE RS.4 CRORES CONTINU E IN THE BOOKS OF THE APPELLANT SINCE LAST SEVERAL YEARS. THE APPELLANT EXPLAINING THE FACT THAT THE AMOUNTS REPRESENT EARLIER YEAR BALANCES. REMAINING, PART BALANCES OF THE PARTIES ARE THAT WHICH WERE NOT SETTLED IN THE PAST AND RELATED ADDITION HAVE ALRE ADY BEEN MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001 - 02 FOR SUCH AMOUNTS. 4 8. THE APPELLANT HAS FILED A CHART DURING THE HEARING SHOWING THE DETAIL OF SUNDRY CREDITORS RELATING TO THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL AS ANNEXURE ' H . COPY OF THE LEDGER ACCOUNT HAVE ALSO BEEN FILED WHICH CLEARLY SHOW THE AMOUNTS DUE TO RESPECTIVE CREDITORS ON THE RESPECTIVE DATE WITH VOUCHERS NUMBER AND CLEAR CUT NARRATIONS. THERE IS NO DISPUTE ON THE FACT THAT THESE ARE TRADE/BUSINESS CREDITS APPEARING IN THE BOOKS OF THE APPELLANT. THE TOTAL OF SUC H CREDITS DURING THE YEAR IS RS.8,13,238 / - . THE AO HAS ADDED THE AMOUNTS FOR WANT OF VERIFICATION/CONFIRMATION BUT THE SA ME IS NOT SUPPORTED BY ANY MATERIAL ADVERSE TO THE APPELLANT. WHILE CONSIDERING THIS ISSUE, MY ATTENTION IS DRAWN TO THE DECISION IN TH E FOLLOWING CASES ; - A. DELHI ITA T 5 MEMBER SPECIAL BENCH IN MANOJ AGARWAL; B. ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN 205 CTR 444 PANCHAMDAS; & C. GUJRAT HIGH COURT IN 163 ITR 249 WHERE IT WAS HELD THAT 'WHETHER SECTION 68 IS APPLICABLE TO CREDITOR ARISING OUT OF PURCHASES MADE IN NORMAL COURSE OF BUSINESS, WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN DOUBTED U/S 37 OF THE I . T. ACT'. HELD - NO 9. THESE BEING TRADE CREDITS, AND TRADING RESULT AND ACCOUNT BOOKS HAVING BEEN ACCEPTED, CANNOT BE ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE APPELLA NT EITHER ON FACTS OR AS PER LAW. THE NET PROFIT OF THE APPELLANT DURING THE YEAR HAS REMAINED AT 1.46% AND BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AUDITED U/S 44AB OF THE I . T. ACT HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITHOUT THERE BEING ANY DEFECT. IT IS ADMITTED POSITION OF THE DEPARTMENT THAT THESE ARE TRADE CREDITS. UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, IF SAME ARE ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT WITHOUT ANY BASIS, THE NET PROFIT RATE OF THE APPELLANT WILL BE 2.38% AS AGAINST 1.46% FROM YEAR TO YEAR EXHIBITED BY THE BOO KS OF ACCOUNT DULY AUDITED U/S 44AB AND ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT. 10. THE NATURE OF BUSINESS OF THE APPELLANT IS ALSO TO BE CONSIDERED WHERE THE EXTENSIVE, EMERGENT AND TEMPORARY NATURE OF SUNDRY CREDITOR IS PART OF SUCH BUSINESS. CONSIDERING THE SAME A ND IF FULL DETAILS OF EACH ENTRY WAS AVAILABLE WITH THE AO, THE SAME CANNOT BE REJECTED AS SUCH WITHOUT VERIFICATION AND WITHOUT ANY MATERIAL CONTRADICTING SUCH ENTRIES OR UNLESS THE TRADING RESULTS AND THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE APPELLANT 5 WERE REJECTED B Y THE AO ON SUCH MATERIAL AS IS REQUIRED FOR THIS PURPOSE. ON VERIFICATION OF LEDGER ACCOUNTS, IT IS FOUND THAT THERE HAS BEEN RUNNING WITH THESE PARTIES AND REPAYMENTS ARE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. THERE HAS BEEN CONTINUOUS SCRUTINY ASSESSMENTS WHEREIN THESE REPAYMENTS HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED. AS ON TODAY, THE ACCOUNTS STAND CLOSED. IN VIEW OF ABOVE DISCUSSIONS, THE AO IS DIRECTED TO DELETE THE ADDITIONS OF RS.43,000/ - , RS.3,42,121/ - AND RS.8,13,238/ - , AS PER GROUNDS NO.2, 2(I) TO 2(III), 3(I) & 3(II) AND 4(I) & 4( II) OF APPEAL ARE ALLOWED. 7. WE ALSO FIND THAT IT IS NOTED BY ASSESSING OFFICER ON PAGE 3 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT THE OUTSTANDIN G LIABILITY OF RS.43,000/ - IS SAID TO BE ON ACCOUNT OF TRANSPORTATION CHARGES BUT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT IN THE KNOWLEDGE O F PHYSICAL PERSONS TO WHOM THIS SUM WAS PAID. SIMILARLY, REGARDING THE SECOND OUTSTANDING LIABILITY OF RS.3,42,121/ - BEING SUNDRY CREDITORS UNDER THE HEAD REBATE AND COMMISSION PAYABLE , IT IS NOTED BY ASSESSING OFFICER ON PAGE NO. 3 OF THE ASSESSMENT OR DER THAT NO CONFIRMATION OR DETAILS OF THE PARTIES TO WHOM THE SUM WAS PAYABLE WAS FURNISHED BEFORE HIM. HENCE, IT IS SEEN THAT IN RESPECT OF BOTH THESE LIABILITIES, THE ASSESSEE EVEN COULD NOT EVEN GIVE THE NAME OF PERSONS TO WHOM THESE AMOUNTS ARE PAYAB LE. SIMILARLY FOR THE THIRD AMOUNT OF RS.8,13,238/ - ALSO, IT IS NOTED BY ASSESSING OFFICER ON PAGE NO. 4 THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO GIVE NAME, ADDRESS TO WHOM THIS CREDIT IS PAYABLE BUT NO DETAIL WAS FURNISHED. THEREFORE, THE DECISION OF CIT(A) SH OULD BE CONSIDERED IN THE LIGHT OF THESE CATEGORICAL FINDING OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PROVIDE EVEN THE NAME AND ADDRESS OF THE PARTIE TO WHOM THE AMOUNT WAS PAYABLE UNDER THESE THREE HEADS. THE ADDITION WAS DELETED BY CIT(A) ON THE BASIS THAT IF THESE ADDITIONS ARE MADE, THE NET PROFIT RATE OF THE ASSESSEE WILL BE 2.38% AS AGAINST 1.46% FROM YEAR TO YEAR EXHIBITED I N BOOKS OF ACCOUNT DULY AUDITED U/S 44AB AND ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT. WE FAIL TO UNDERS TAND THIS LOGIC OF LEARNED CIT(A) THAT WHEN ADDITION IS MADE U/S 41(1) IN RESPECT OF 6 CESSATION OF OLD TRADING LIABILITY, IT IS NOT AN ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF CURRENT YEARS INCOME BUT IT IS ON THIS BASIS THAT THE LIABILITY SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE IN EARLIER Y EARS HAS CEASED TO EXIST IN THE PRESENT YEAR AND THEREFORE, IT AMOUNTS TO INCOME OF THE PRESENT YEAR U/S 41(1) OF THE ACT. UNDER THESE FACTS, WE FEEL THAT THE ORDER OF CIT(A) IS NOT SUSTAINABLE ON THIS ISSUE. WE, THEREFORE REVERSE THE SAME AND RESTORE TH AT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ACCORDINGLY, GROUND NO. 1 TO 3 ARE ALLOWED. 8. IN RESPECT OF GROUND NO. 4 TO 7, AS PER WHICH THE REVENUE IS DISPUTING THE DELETION OF ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF RS.1,00,000/ - , RS,50,000/ - , RS.50,000/ - AND RS.36,000/ - , THE ISSUE WAS DECIDED BY CIT(A) AS PER PARA 21 TO 23 OF HIS ORDER, WHI CH ARE REPRODUCED BELOW FOR THE SAKE OF READY REFERENCE: - 21. IT IS ALSO SEEN THAT THE ADDITIONS OF RS . 100,000 / - , RS.50,000/ - , RS.50,000 / - AND RS.36 , 300 / - ARE ALSO ADDED BY THE AO IN THE SIMILAR MANNER WITHOUT ASSIGNING ANY REASON. IT IS NOTED THAT 'POSSIBILITY OF MAKING PERSONAL/NON BUSINESS PURPOSES', 'POSSIBILITY LEAKAGES/ INFLATION', 'ABSENCE OF SUPPORTING EVIDENCE', 'NOT PROPERLY VOUCHED' ARE THE REASONS FOR THESE DISALLOWANCES. OBVIOUSLY, THESE ARE GENERAL OBSERVATIONS AND NO SPECIFIC EXAMPLE/I NSTANCE OBSERVED BY AO ON WHICH THIS OBSERVATION IS BASED AT THE SAME TIME, THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE APPELLANT ARE MAINTAINED AND AUDITED AND HAVE ALSO BEEN PRODUCED BEFORE THE AO, SAME HAVE BEEN EXAMINED AND PRIMA - FACIE ACCEPTED BY HER. IN VIEW OF THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. UTKAL ALLOYS LTD. 226 CTR (ORI.) WHERE IT WAS HELD THAT 'IN ABSENCE OF ANY DEFECT FOUND OUT IN BOOKS OF ACCOUNT MAINTAINED IN REGULAR COURSE OF BUSINESS NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE TO INCOME DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS R ETURN OF INCOME ON BASIS OF DISCREPANCY WORKED OUT ON ESTIMATION OF STOCK'. 22. THE RATIO OF THE DECISION NOTED ABOVE FINDS EXPRESSION MORE PRECISELY IN DHAKESHWARI COTTON MILLS PVT . LTD. VS. CIT 26 ITR 1954 (SC) WHERE IT WAS HELD THAT - 7 'IN MAKING ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3), THE AO IS NOT ENTITLED TO MAKE AN ASSESSMENT WITHOUT REFERENCE TO ANY EVIDENCE OR MATERIAL AT ALL. THERE MUST BE SOMETHING MORE THAN BARE SUSPICION TO SUPPORT THE ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3)'. 23. THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY AO ON ACCOUNT OF L/5TH DEPRECIATION ON THE CAR IS AGAINST WITHOUT BASIS. SAME HAS BEEN DISALLOWED SUMMARILY WHERE NO FACT FINDING HAS BEEN GIVEN BY AO FOR PERSONAL USE OF CAR BY THE APPELLANT. IT IS ALSO SEEN THAT THE OWNERSHIP AND USER OF THE CAR HAS NOT BEEN QUESTIONED BY THE AO. FINALLY, THE AO HAS NOT DISALLOWED ANY AMOUNT OF EXPENDITURE FOR PERSONAL USE OF. CAR. THEREFORE, IT WAS NOT JUSTIFIED TO DISALLOW THE DEPRECIATION WITHOUT SUCH FINDING OF PERSONAL USE OF CAR. ACCORDINGLY, AO IS DIRECTED TO DELETE THE ADDITION. FOR THE REASONS ABOVE, THE ADDITIONS MADE BY AO ARE DELETED AND GROUNDS NO. 5, 7, 8(I) AND 8(II) OF APPEAL ARE ALLOWED. 9. WHEN WE EXAMINE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, WE FIND THAT IT IS NOTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON PAGE NO. 4 THAT IT HAS BEEN IMPLICITLY A GREED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE EXPENSES ON TELEPHONE ARE NOT WHOLLY AND FULLY VOUCHED AND A FLEXIBLE ATTITUDE IS HELD BY THE ASSESSEE AS FOR TELEPHONE CALLS ARE CONCERNED. THIS IS ALSO NOTED THAT IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001 - 02 ALSO, THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WERE REJECTED U/S 145(3) AND THE CIT(A) HAS MADE ADDITION OF RS.50,000/ - OUT OF CONVEYANCE EXPENSES, RS.1,00,000/ - OUT OF TELEPHONE, RS.36,000/ - OUT OF DONATION. ON THE SAME BASIS, IN THE PRESENT YEAR ALSO, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITION OF RS.50,000/ - OUT OF TELEPHONE EXPENSES, RS.50,000/ - OUT OF OIL AND FUEL USED FOR GENERATORS AND RS.36,000/ - OUT OF DEPRECIATION OF CAR. THESE ADDITIONS WERE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE BASIS THAT PART OF THESE EXPENSES ARE FOR PERSONAL USE. IT IS NOT THE CAS E OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ALSO HAVING SEPARATE TELEPHONE AND VEHICLE FOR PERSONAL USE FOR WHICH NO EXPENSES WAS TAKEN IN THE BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM. IN THE ABSENCE OF THIS FINDING OF CIT(A) THAT THE PARTNERS WERE HAVING THEIR TELEPHONE AND PRIVATE VEHICLES 8 FOR PERSONAL USE, IT IS QUITE REASONABLE TO SAY THAT THE TELEPHONES AND VEHICLES OF THE FIRM WERE PARTLY USED FOR PERSONAL PURPOSES ALSO. THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS ONLY RS.1,00,000/ - ON ACCOUNT OF TEL EPHONE EXPENSES OUT OF THE EXPENSES DEBITED OF RS.14.96 LAC AND THEREFORE, THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS AROUND 6% TO 7% WHICH IS NOT UNREASONABLE. SIMILARLY, THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.50,000/ - OUT OF CONVEYANCE EXPENSES IS 20% APPROX. AN D RS.36,000/ - OUT OF DEPRECIATION IS ALSO AP P ROX 20%. CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, WE FEEL THAT THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS REASONABLE AND NOT EXCESSIVE AND SINCE THE PARTNERS OF THE ASSESSE E FIRM ARE NOT HAVING SEPARAT E PERSONAL TELEPHONE AND VEHICLES, IT IS REASONABLE TO ASSUME THAT THE TELEPHONE AND VEHICLES WERE PARTLY USED FOR PERSONAL PURPOSES ALSO AND THEREFORE, ON THIS ISSUE ALSO, THE ORDER OF CIT(A) IS NOT SUSTAINABLE. WE REVERSE THE ORDER OF CIT(A) AND RESTOR E THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THESE GROUNDS ARE ALLOWED. 10. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE STANDS ALLOWED. (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: 28 /07/2015 *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