Dev Murti, Bareilly V. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bareilly

ITA 784/LKW/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 87764 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-03-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 04-02-2015
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 16-12-2013
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PUNIT KUMAR
• Keywords: Reopening of assessment; Principle of natural justice; Retrospective amendment; Difference of opinion; Change of opinion
• Section: 143(3); 234B; 148; 139

Judgement Text

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.784/LKW/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2008-09 DEV MURTI N-3, MURTI BHAWAN, RAMPUR GARDEN, BAREILLY V. ACIT CIRCLE I BAREILLY TAN/PAN:ADVPM5452A (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: WRITTEN SUBMISSION RESPONDENT BY: SHRI. PUNIT KUMAR, D.R. DATE OF HEARING: 04 02 2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 11 03 2015 O R D E R PER SUNIL KUMAR YADAV: THIS APPEAL IS PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), INTER ALIA, ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- 1. THE NOTICE U/S 148 WAS ISSUED ON ACCOUNT OF CHANGE IN OPINION, AS ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT WAS ALREADY COMPLETED U/S 143(3] AND THE ABOVE AUTHORITY HAD CONVINCED HIMSELF ABOUT NON APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) AT THE 'TIME OF ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT, THE ISSUE OF NOTICE IS AGAINST LAW. 2. THE 'ROYALTY' PAID BY THE ASSESSEE DO NOT FALL WITHIN 'FEES FOR PROFESSIONAL OR TECHNICAL SERVICES' AS DEFINED IN SECTION 194J. HENCE, THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT LIABLE FOR TDS. THUS, THERE CAN BE NO DISALLOWANCE U/S 40(A)(IA). 3. EVEN IF IT IS HELD THAT 194] WAS APPLICABLE, THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO COVERED BY SECOND PROVISO TO SECTION 40(A)(IA), :- 2 -: THAT BEING MACHINERY PROVISION APPLIES TO THE CASES PENDING AS ON THE DATE OF ENACTMENT OF FINANCE ACT 2012. HENCE, THE ADDITION OF RS. 46,80,000/- IS AGAINST LAW. 4. THE ORDER PASSED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW IS BAD IN LAW AND ALSO AGAINST THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. HENCE, NEEDS BE QUASHED PARTICULARLY WHEN THERE IS NO LOSS TO REVENUE. 5. THERE WAS NO ORDER FOR CHARGING INTEREST. HOWEVER, IN NOTICE OF DEMAND INTEREST U/S 234B & 234C IS CHARGED. HENCE, CHARGING OF INTEREST IS AGAINST LAW. 6. THERE IS NO CONCEALMENT ON PART OF THE ASSESSEE NOR INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME ARE FURNISHED. HENCE, ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 IS AGAINST LAW. 2. THROUGH GROUND NO.1, THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT ON ACCOUNT OF CHANGE OF OPINION, BUT DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL, NO ARGUMENT WAS ADVANCED ON THIS ASPECT. WE, HOWEVER, HAVE CAREFULLY EXAMINED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND WE FIND THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS EXAMINED THIS ISSUE IN THE LIGHT OF ASSESSEES CONTENTIONS AND WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE ROYALTY WAS NOT EXAMINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE COURSE OF ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THEREFORE, THE RE-ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WERE RIGHTLY INITIATED AND THE ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS PROPER AND IS IN ORDER. SINCE NO ARGUMENT WAS RAISED TO CHALLENGE THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A), WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE REOPENING IS VALID AND ACCORDINGLY WE REJECT THIS GROUND OF APPEAL. 3. SO FAR AS GROUNDS NO.2 TO 4 ARE CONCERNED, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE PAYMENT OF RS.46,80,000/- TO SHRI. RAM MURTI SMARAK TRUST (SRMS) AS ROYALTY FOR THE USE OF MEDICAL SHOP/MEDICAL STORE IN THE HOSPITAL. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOTED THAT ON THIS PAYMENT OF ROYALTY, THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE (TDS) AS PER PROVISIONS OF :- 3 -: SECTION 194J OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER CALLED IN SHORT THE ACT'). SINCE HE HAS NOT DEDUCTED TAX ON THE SAID PAYMENT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE DISALLOWANCE HAVING INVOKED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT. 4. THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WITH THE SUBMISSION THAT THE SAID PAYMENT WAS MADE FOR THE LOCATIONAL ADVANTAGE AND NOT AS ROYALTY. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT REQUIRED TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE UNDER SECTION 194J OF THE ACT. IT WAS FURTHER CONTENDED THAT THE SAID PAYMENT WAS NOT ROYALTY AT ALL. THE ASSESSEE IS A TRADER IN MEDICINE AND RUNS MEDICAL STORE IN THE PREMISES OF SRMS AND MERE USE OF WORD ROYALTY CANNOT BE A REASON FOR ATTRACTING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194J OF THE ACT. IN FACT, THE SAID PAYMENT WAS MADE ON ACCOUNT OF LOCATIONAL ADVANTAGE. HE HAS ALSO PLACED RELIANCE UPON THE ORDER OF THE SPECIAL BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF MERILYN SHIPPING & TRANSPORTS VS. ACIT, 136 ITD 23. THE LD. CIT(A) RE-EXAMINED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE LIGHT OF ASSESSEES CONTENTIONS AND WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE PAYMENT ON ACCOUNT OF ROYALTY WHICH IS VERIFIABLE FROM THE AUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS. 5. WITH REGARD TO THE LOCATIONAL ADVANTAGE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS OBSERVED THAT RENT WAS SEPARATELY PAID AT RS.1.20 LAKHS. THEREFORE, MERE CHANGE IN THE NOMENCLATURE OF THE PAYMENT TO COME OUT OF THE PURVIEW OF TDS, CANNOT RESCUE THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. CIT(A) ACCORDINGLY CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAKING DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. 6. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE HAS PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL WITH THE SUBMISSION THAT THE DEFINITION OF ROYALTY IS TO BE SEEN IN THE LIGHT OF EXPLANATION 2 TO CLAUSE (VI) OF SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 9 OF THE ACT, WITH THE SUBMISSION THAT NO PAYMENT OTHER THAN WHATEVER MENTIONED IN THE SAID EXPLANATION CAN BE SAID TO BE PAYMENT COVERED BY SECTION 194J OF THE ACT. :- 4 -: THE ASSESSEE HAS INCURRED THE EXPENDITURE AND DEBITED THE SAME IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT UNDER THE HEAD ROYALTY AND THE ASSESSEE COULD BE LIABLE FOR TDS ON THE SAID ROYALTY IF IT WAS THE ROYALTY WITHIN THE MEANING OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194J OF THE ACT. THE NOMENCLATURE GIVEN FOR PAYMENT BY THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT BRING IT WITHIN THE SCOPE OF SECTION 194J OF THE ACT. HE HAS FURTHER CONTENDED THAT THE ENTIRE PAYMENT WAS MADE DURING THE YEAR, THEREFORE, DISALLOWANCE CANNOT BE MADE UNDER SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT IN THE LIGHT OF THE ORDER OF THE SPECIAL BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF MERILYN SHIPPPING & TRANSPORTS VS. ACIT, 136 ITD 23 AND THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. VECTOR SHIPPING SERVICES (P) LTD. IN I.T.A. NO. 122 OF 2013. HE HAS FURTHER CONTENDED THAT SINCE THE PAYEE HAS DISCHARGED THE TAX LIABILITY BY WAY OF ADVANCE TAX OR SELF ASSESSMENT TAX, THE PAYER CANNOT BE HELD TO BE LIABLE FOR THE SAME TAX. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS FURTHER CONTENDED THAT THE RECIPIENT I.E. SRMS HAS FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME UNDER SECTION 139 OF THE ACT AND THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, WHEN THE RECEIPT OF ROYALTY WAS DULY CREDITED IN THE INCOME & EXPENDITURE ACCOUNTS OF SRMS AND RETURN WAS FILED, DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT CANNOT BE MADE IN THE LIGHT OF PROVISO TO SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT. THE APPLICABILITY OF THIS AMENDMENT HAS ALREADY BEEN ADJUDICATED BY THE HON'BLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF VIRGIN CREATIONS IN I.T.A. NO. 302 OF 2011, IN WHICH IT WAS HELD THAT THIS AMENDMENT IS RETROSPECTIVE. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO PLACED RELIANCE UPON THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS. RAJAMAHENDRI SHIPPING & OIL FIELD SERVICES LIMITED, IN I.T.A. NO. 352/VIZAG/2008, IN WHICH IT WAS HELD THAT PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT IS RETROSPECTIVE AND IF IT IS PROVED THAT THE RECIPIENT HAS CREDITED RECEIPTS IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT AND FILED RETURN UNDER SECTION 139(1) OF THE ACT, NO DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT CAN BE MADE. :- 5 -: THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS FURTHER CONTENDED THAT IN THE LIGHT OF THESE PROVISIONS, NO DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT CAN BE MADE. 7. THE LD. D.R., ON THE OTHER HAND, HAS PLACED RELIANCE UPON THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). IT WAS FURTHER CONTENDED THAT WITH REGARD TO THE ORDER OF THE SPECIAL BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL ON THE CASE OF MERILYN SHIPPPING & TRANSPORTS VS. ACIT (SUPRA) AND THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. VECTOR SHIPPING SERVICES (P) LTD. (SUPRA), THE TRIBUNAL HAS TAKEN A VIEW THAT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. VECTOR SHIPPING SERVICES (P) LTD. (SUPRA), THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT HAS SIMPLY MADE A PASSING REFERENCE AS THE ISSUE OF PAYABLE AND PAID WAS NOT BEFORE THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT. THEREFORE, THE IMPUGNED ISSUE IS NOT COVERED BY THESE JUDGMENTS. 8. HAVING CAREFULLY EXAMINED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES, DOCUMENTS FILED BEFORE US AND THE JUDGMENT REFERRED TO BY THE PARTIES IN THE LIGHT OF THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, WE FIND FROM THE ROYALTY AGREEMENT THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS GIVEN A LICENSE TO RUN THE MEDICAL SHOP IN THE HOSPITAL FOR A PERIOD OF SEVEN YEARS. IT WAS ALSO AGREED THROUGH THIS AGREEMENT THAT EXCEPT THE ASSESSEE, NO OTHER PERSON WAS ALLOWED TO OPEN OTHER MEDICAL SHOP IN THE HOSPITAL CAMPUS. AS PER ITS CLAUSE, THE DRUG LICENSE IS TO BE OBTAINED BY SRMS AND THE ASSESSEE WAS ALLOWED TO RUN THE MEDICAL SHOP IN THE HOSPITAL CAMPUS. THERE WAS A SPECIFIC CLAUSE IN THE ROYALTY AGREEMENT THAT THE ASSESSEE WOULD PAY ROYALTY OF RS.3.90 LAKHS PER MONTH IN ADDITION TO RENT. THEREFORE, THE ROYALTY PAYMENT CANNOT BE A PART OF RENT, AS IT WAS PAID IN ADDITION TO THE RENT. THE INTENTION OF THE PARTIES WAS VERY CLEAR AT THE TIME OF EXECUTION OF THIS AGREEMENT THAT THE PAYMENT OF RS.3.90 LAKHS PER MONTH WAS A ROYALTY PAYMENT AND IT WAS IN ADDITION TO THE MONTHLY RENT OF RS.10,000/- PER MONTH. IT IS ALSO CLEAR FROM THIS AGREEMENT THAT THE DRUG LICENSE WAS TO BE OBTAINED BY SRMS AND THE ASSESSEE WAS ALLOWED TO :- 6 -: RUN THE MEDICAL SHOP IN THE HOSPITAL CAMPUS AND NO OTHER PERSON WAS ALLOWED TO OPEN THE MEDICAL SHOP IN THE HOSPITAL CAMPUS. ON READING OF CLAUSES OF THE AGREEMENT, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ALLOWED TO ENJOY CERTAIN BENEFITS IN RUNNING THE MEDICAL SHOP AND FOR THOSE BENEFITS ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO MAKE PAYMENT OF ROYALTY PER MONTH TO SRMS. IT IS ALSO AN UNDISPUTED FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE IS WELL CONNECTED WITH SRMS, A TRUST TO WHOM PAYMENTS ARE MADE. WE HAVE ALSO CAREFULLY EXAMINED THE DEFINITION OF ROYALTY GIVEN IN EXPLANATION 2 TO CLAUSE (VI) OF SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 9 OF THE ACT AND WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THESE PAYMENTS WERE MADE ON ACCOUNT OF FACILITIES GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, IT IS A ROYALTY PAYMENT AND THE ASSESSEE IS REQUIRED TO DEDUCT TDS UNDER SECTION 194J OF THE ACT. 9. SO FAR AS APPLICABILITY OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT IS CONCERNED, WE FIND THAT AFTER INTRODUCTION OF THE PROVISO TO SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT, THE DISALLOWANCE CANNOT BE MADE IF IT IS ESTABLISHED THAT THE RECIPIENT HAS ALREADY TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT THE PAYMENTS AND HAS PAID TAXES AND FILED RETURN OF INCOME UNDER SECTION 139(1) OF THE ACT. THIS ISSUE WAS EXAMINED BY US IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS. SHRI. RAJA CHAKRAVARTY, KANPUR IN I.T.A. NO. 49/LKW/2013, IN WHICH WE HAVE CATEGORICALLY HELD THAT NO DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT CAN BE MADE IF IT IS ESTABLISHED THAT THE DEDUCTEE HAS PAID TAX ON THE AMOUNT RECEIVED AND FILED RETURN OF INCOME UNDER SECTION 139(1) OF THE ACT. FOR THE SAKE OF REFERENCE, WE EXTRACT THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL AS UNDER:- 7. HAVING GIVEN A THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION TO THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND FROM A CAREFUL PERUSAL OF THE RECORD AND THE JUDGMENTS REFERRED TO BY THE PARTIES, WE FIND THAT THERE IS NO DISPUTE WITH REGARD TO THE NON-DEDUCTION OF TDS AT THE TIME OF PAYMENT OF COMMISSION WHEN IT BECOMES PAYABLE. MOREOVER, IT WAS PAID BEFORE THE END OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR. THOUGH IT WAS :- 7 -: CLAIMED THAT SINCE COMMISSION WAS PAID BEFORE THE END OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR, SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT CANNOT BE INVOKED IN THE LIGHT OF THE ORDER OF THE SPECIAL BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF MERILYN SHIPPING AND TRANSPORT VS. ACIT (SUPRA), BUT IN THIS REGARD, WE ARE ALSO CONSCIOUS OF THE FACT THAT THE JUDGMENT OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF MERILYN SHIPPING AND TRANSPORT VS. ACIT (SUPRA) WAS EXAMINED BY US IN THE CASE OF DCIT VS. AMA MEDICAL & DIAGNOSTIC CENTRE (SUPRA) AND WE HAVE TAKEN A VIEW IN THAT CASE THAT SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT CAN ALSO BE INVOKED WHEN DUE AMOUNT BECOMES PAYABLE. DURING THE CURSE OF HEARING, OUR ATTENTION WAS INVITED TO THE SECOND TO THE PROVISO TO SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT INTRODUCED W.E.F.1.4.2003 BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2012, ACCORDING TO WHICH IF THE DEDUCTEE HAS PAID TAX, THEN THE ASSESSEE SHALL BE DEEMED TO HAVE DEDUCTED AND PAID TAX ON SUCH SUM ON THE DATE OF FURNISHING THE RETURN OF INCOME. THOUGH THIS PROVISO WAS INTRODUCED W.E.F. 1.4.2013 BUT BEING CLARIFICATORY AND BENEFICIAL PROVISION, IT HAS RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT AS HELD BY THE AGRA BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF RAJEEV KUMAR AGARWAL VS. ACIT, MATHURA (SUPRA). THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE DEDUCTEE HAS FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME, BUT IT IS NOT CLEAR WHETHER THE DEDUCTEE HAS PAID TAX THEREON. NO DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IS PLACED ON RECORD IN SUPPORT OF THESE CONTENTIONS. WE, THEREFORE, FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF THE AGRA BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF RAJEEV KUMAR AGARWAL VS. ACIT, MATHURA (SUPRA), HOLD THAT ONCE IT IS PROVED THAT THE DEDUCTEE HAS PAID TAXES ON THE COMMISSION RECEIVED FROM THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSEE SHALL BE DEEMED TO HAVE DEDUCTED AND PAID TAXES OF SUCH SUM ON THE DATE OF FURNISHING THE RETURN OF INCOME. IN THE LIGHT OF THIS PROPOSITION, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT NO DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT CAN BE MADE IF IT IS ESTABLISHED THAT THE DEDUCTEE HAS PAID TAX ON THE COMMISSION RECEIVED AND FOR ITS VERIFICATION THE MATTER HAS TO BE RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. WE :- 8 -: ACCORDINGLY SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND RESTORE THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR MAKING NECESSARY VERIFICATION AND IF IT IS ESTABLISHED THAT THE DEDUCTEES HAVE MADE PAYMENT OF TAX ON THE COMMISSION RECEIVED, NO DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT SHALL BE MADE. 10. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS CONTENDED THAT SRMS HAS TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT THE ROYALTY RECEIPTS AND HAS FILED RETURN OF INCOME UNDER SECTION 139(1) OF THE ACT, BUT NO EVIDENCE IS PLACED ON RECORD IN THIS REGARD. BUT, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT ONCE THESE FACTS ARE ESTABLISHED, DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT CANNOT BE MADE. WE ACCORDINGLY SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND RESTORE THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR NECESSARY VERIFICATION. IF IT IS ESTABLISHED THAT SRMS HAS CREDITED THE AFORESAID RECEIPTS OF ROYALTY TO ITS INCOME & EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT AND FILED RETURN OF INCOME UNDER SECTION 139(1) OF THE ACT, NO DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT CAN BE MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISPOSED OF IN TERMS INDICATED ABOVE. 11. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONED ON THE CAPTIONED PAGE. SD/- SD/- [A. K. GARODIA] [SUNIL KUMAR YADAV] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 1TH MARCH, 2015 JJ:2502 :- 9 -: COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR