Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax-6, Kanpur V. M/s Kushal Food Pvt. Ltd., Kanpur

ITA 840/LKW/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4301 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 8 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-07-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 02-06-2016
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 21-11-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AND CROSS OBJECTION FILED
• Keywords: Bogus purchase; Business income; Additional evidence; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 143(3); 147; 68; 148

Judgement Text

I.T.A. NO.840/LKW/14 C.O.NO.48/LKW/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2009-2010 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH A, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI P. K. BANSAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.840/LKW/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2009-2010 DY.C.I.T.-6, KANPUR. VS. M/S KUSHAL FOODS PVT. LTD., 51/58-A, SHAKKERPATTI, KANPUR. PAN:AABCK5875H (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) C.O.48/LKW/2015 ( IN ITA NO.840/LKW/2014) ASSESSMENT YEAR:2009-2010 M/S KUSHAL FOODS PVT. LTD., 51/58-A, SHAKKERPATTI, KANPUR. PAN:AABCK5875H VS. DY.C.I.T.-6, KANPUR. (APP LICANT ) (RESPONDENT) O R D E R PER P. K. BANSAL, A.M. THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AND THE CROSS OBJE CTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARISE OUT OF THE ORDER OF CIT(A)-II, KANPU R DATED 25/08/2014. 2. AT THE VERY OUTSET, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PRESS T HE CROSS OBJECTION THEREFORE, WE DISMISS THE CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AS NOT PRESSED. REVENUE BY SHRI O. P. MEENA, CIT, D.R. ASSESSEE BY SHRI RAKESH GARG, ADVOCATE DATE OF HEARING 02/06/2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 27 / 07 /2016 I.T.A. NO.840/LKW/14 C.O.NO.48/LKW/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2009-2010 2 3. THE REVENUE IN ITS APPEAL HAS TAKEN THE FOLLOWIN G GROUNDS: 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ER RED IN LAW AND ON FACTS ADMITTING THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES UNDER RULE 46D R.W.S. 250(4) OF THE I.T. ACT 1961 PLACED BEFORE HIM BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS WHEREAS SUCH EVIDENCE COULD NOT HAVE BE EN ADMITTED UNDER THE SAID PROVISIONS. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERR ED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN ALLOWING THE RELIEF RS.4,19,94, 000/- ON ACCOUNT OF BOGUS PURCHASES WITHOUT TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND ALL THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERR ED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN ALLOWING THE RELIEF RS.4,19,94, 000/- ON ACCOUNT OF BOGUS PURCHASES WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT DURING THE STATEMENT ON OATH RECORDED U/S.131(1A) BEFORE ADIT-3, KANPUR, SHRI HAR NARAIN GUPTA PROP. M/S. ANNAPURNA CO. HIMSELF ADMITTED THA T HE ONLY RAISED BILLS TO THE ASSESSEE COMPANY FOR SALE OF MAIDA AGAINST WHICH HE HAD RECEIVED COMMISSION INCO ME AND NO ACTUAL/REAL SALE WAS MADE AGAINST THE SAID B ILLS AND THIS STATEMENT ON OATH REMAINED UNCONTROVERTED AT THE STAGE OF ASSESSMENT AND EVEN BEFORE THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). 4. SO FAR GROUND NO. 1 IS CONCERNED, SAME RELATES TO THE ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, CAREFULLY C ONSIDERED THE SAME ALONG WITH THE ORDERS OF THE TAX AUTHORITIES BELOW AND SPECIFICALLY ASKED LEARNED D. R. TO SPECIFY WHAT ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE H AS BEEN SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR WHICH THE CIT(A) HAS NOT GIVEN ANY OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER. UNDER RULE 46A, THE CIT(A) CAN ACCEPT THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE WHETHER ORAL OR DOCUMENTARY DURING THE COU RSE OF PROCEEDINGS PROVIDED THE CONTENTIONS STIPULATED UNDER CLAUSE A TO D ARE COMPLIED WITH. SUB RULE (3) OF SECTION 46A DEBARS THE CIT(A) NOT T O TAKE INTO ACCOUNT ANY I.T.A. NO.840/LKW/14 C.O.NO.48/LKW/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2009-2010 3 EVIDENCE PRODUCED U/S 40A(1) UNLESS THE ASSESSING O FFICER HAS BEEN ALLOWED A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO EXAMINE THESE EVIDENCES OR TO CROSS EXAMINE THE WITNESS PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE OR TO PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE OR DOCUMENT OR ANY EVIDENCE IN REBUTTAL OF THE ADDITIO NAL EVIDENCE PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE. WE NOTED FROM THE ORDER OF CIT(A) THAT IN THIS CASE THE ASSESSEE MADE THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS BEFORE THE CI T(A) AND THE CIT(A) ASKED FOR THE REMAND REPORT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICE R. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS GIVEN THE REMAND REPORT DATED 16/072014. THE S AID REMAND REPORT HAS BEEN PRODUCED BY THE CIT(A) UNDER PARA 6.1 PAGE 13 OF HIS ORDER. IN VIEW OF THIS FACT, IT IS NOT THE CASE WHERE THE CIT(A) H AS NOT GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER. WE, THEREFORE, DISMISS G ROUND NO. 1 TAKEN BY THE REVENUE. 6. GROUND NO. 2 & 3 RELATE TO THE SAME ISSUE REGARD ING THE DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS.4,19,94,000/-. THE FACTS RELATED TO THIS ISSUE, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS RUNNING A ROLLER FLOUR MILL FO R MANUFACTURE AND TRADING OF ATTA, MAIDA, SUJI. THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO RUNNING A BISCUIT MANUFACTURING UNIT ON JOB WORK BASIS. THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT U/S 143 (3) WAS COMPLETED ON AN INCOME OF RS.1,10,64,630/- VIDE ORDER DATED 23/0 8/2011 AS AGAINST THE RETURNED INCOME OF RS.1,07,12,440/-. SUBSEQUENTLY, PROCEEDINGS U/S 147 WERE INITIATED BY ISSUING NOTICE U/S 148 DATED 10/1 0/2012 BY RECORDING THE REASONS AS PRODUCED UNDER PARA 4.1 PAGE 3 OF THE OR DER OF CIT(A). ON THE BASIS OF THESE REASONS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS O F THE VIEW THAT THE PURCHASES SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE AMOUNTING TO RS.4,1 9,94,000/- FROM M/S ANNAPURNA TRADING CO. DURING THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMEN T YEAR ARE BOGUS PURCHASES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FILED THE OBJECTI ON FOR INITIATING THE PROCEEDINGS U/S 147 AND REQUESTED THE ASSESSEE TO D ROP THE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED U/S 147 BUT THE ASSESSING OFFICER COMPLET ED THE ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) READ WITH SECTION 147 BY MAKING THE ADDITION OF RS.4,19,94,000/- I.T.A. NO.840/LKW/14 C.O.NO.48/LKW/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2009-2010 4 TREATING THE PURCHASES MADE BY THE ASSESSEE FROM M/ S ANNAPURNA TRADING CO. TO BE THE BOGUS PURCHASES. THE ASSESSEE WENT I N APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) CHALLENGING THE INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS U /S 148 AS WELL AS THE ADDITION ON MERIT. THE CIT(A) DISMISSED THE GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE REGARDING THE VALIDITY OF THE ORDER PASSED U/S 143( 3) READ WITH SECTION 147 AND HOLDING THE INITIATION OF THE PROCEEDINGS U/S 1 47 TO BE VALID BUT DELETED THE ADDITION OF RS.4,14,94,000/- ON MERIT BY HOLDIN G AS UNDER: I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS AND THE ARGUMENT S PLACED BY THE A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE CONTENTS OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND REMAND REPORT DATED 16-07-2014 . THE REMAND REPORT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED IN RESPONSE TO MY LETTER DATED 09-06-2014 WHEREIN, VARIOUS POINTS ARE DISCUS SED. THE FACTS REMAINS THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE ASS ESSEE AND THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF M/S. ANNAPURNA TRADING COM PANY, PROPRIETOR SHRI HAR NARAIN 6UPTA ARE NOT REJECTED B Y THE RESPECTIVE AO'S. THE AO HAS NOT POINTED OUT ANY SPE CIFIC DEFECTS IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND BILLS AND VOUC HERS MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH ARE DULY AUDITED A ND WERE PRODUCED BEFORE THE AO THREE TIMES, DURING ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT, DURING RE-ASSESSMENT AND DURING THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO SUBMITTED THE QUANTITATIVE DETAIL OF PURCHASE AND SALE WHICH ARE ALSO AUDITED AND CERTIFIED BY THE AUDITOR. THE AO HAS NOT POINTE D OUT ANY DISCREPANCY IN THE QUANTITATIVE DETAILS OF PURCHASE AND SALE. TOTAL SALES OF THE ASSESSEE RS.57,02,93,957/-, OTHE R RECEIPTS RS.1,57,16,340/- AND SALES RECEIPTS ON AC COUNT OF TRADING AT RS.9,91,25,935/-. HERE, THE BASIC POIN T OF CONTENTION RELATES TO SALES RECEIPT ON ACCOUNT OF T RADING AMOUNTING TO RS.9,91,25,935/- CREDITED BY THE ASSES SEE WHICH INCLUDES TRADING RECEIPTS ON ACCOUNT OF PURCHASES M ADE FROM M/S. ANNAPURNA TRADING COMPANY. THE A.R. OF THE ASS ESSEE HAS EXPLAINED AND SUBSTANTIATED THAT IN ADDITION TO THE SALE OF MANUFACTURED ITEMS OF AATA, MAIDA AND SUZI SOLD TO M/S. PARLE, BISCUITS PVT. LTD., TO MEET THE FURTHER REQUIREMENT OF M/S. PARLE BISCUITS PVT. LTD., THE REQUIRED QUALITY OF MAIDA I S PURCHASED DIRECTLY FROM THE MARKET AND SUPPLIED TO THE M/S. P ARLE BISCUITS PVT. LTD., TO HOLD THE SHARE BY THE ASSESSEE WITH M /S. PARLE BISCUITS PVT. LTD. DURING THE YEAR, THE PURCHASES O F BAKERY MAIDA ( AS REQUIRED BY M/S. PARLE BISCUITS PVT. LTD .) HAVE BEEN I.T.A. NO.840/LKW/14 C.O.NO.48/LKW/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2009-2010 5 MADE BY THE ASSESSEE FROM 13 PARTIES WHICH INCLUDES M/S. ANNAPURNA TRADING COMPANY. THESE PARTIES ARE MENTIO NS AS UNDER :- SL.NO. NAME OF THE PARTY NO. OF BAGS QTY. (IN M.T.) TOTAL VALUE 1 SUMAN FOOD PRODUCTS 9900 495.000 6,082,326.00 2 SHANTI MOHAN & SONS ROLLER FLOUR MILL 2880 144.000 1,844,928.00 3 SHRI ANNAPURNA BHANDAR 300 15.000 195,000.00 4 SHRI HARDOI BABA ROLLER FLOUR MILLS 5100 255.000 3,116,100.00 5 SANDILA ROLLER FLOUR MILL 4200 210.000 2,566,200.00 6 ANNAPURNA TRADING COMPANY 67800 3390.000 41,994,000.00 7 AJMANI FLOUR MILLS PVT. LTD 4560 228.000 2,785,200.00 8 SHRI RAM ROLLER FLOUR MILLS (I) PVT. LTD 32900 1645.000 20,469,925.00 9 LUCKNOW ROLLER FLOUR MILLS 20400 1020.000 12,820,800.00 10 BHARAT GENERAL MERCHANT 2470 123.500 1,593,800.00 11 R.J. ROLLER FLOUR MILLS PVT. LTD. 2856 142.800 1,769,704.00 12 N.6. ROLLER FLOUR MILLS 4200 210.000 2,604,000.00 13 SHANTI ROLLER FLOUR MILLS LIMITED 600 30.000 369,000.00 TOTAL 158166 7908.300 98,210,983.00 DETAILS OF PARTYWISE SALES TRADING FINANCIAL YEAR 2 008-09 SL.NO. NAME OF THE PARTY NO. OF BAGS QTY. 01. ANNKOOT BISCUIT CO. PVT. LTD. A/C PARLE BISCUITS PVT. LTD 24040 1202.000 02 KUSHAL FOODS PVT. LTD., A/C PARLE BISCUITS PVT. LTD . 134111 6705.550 03 CASH 15 0.750 TOTAL 158166 7906.300 I.T.A. NO.840/LKW/14 C.O.NO.48/LKW/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2009-2010 6 THE CLAIM OF THE A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE OF TRADING OF ALL THE PURCHASES MADE ON ACCOUNT OF BAKERY MAIDA HAS BEEN SOLD TO M/S. PARLE BISCUITS PVT. LTD., HAS NOT BEEN DENIED OR DEMOLISHED BY THE AO. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT MADE ANY VALUE ADDI TION TO THE PURCHASES MADE FROM ALL THE ABOVE 13 PARTIES IN CLUDING M/S. ANNAPURNA TRADING COMPANY, THEREBY, IF THE PUR CHASES MADE FROM M/S. ANNAPURNA TRADING COMPANY IS BOGUS, HOW CAN SALE PROCEEDS OF THE SAME QUANTITY CAN BE INCLU DED IN THE SALE PROCEEDS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE AO IS SILENT ON THIS POINT AND HAS BEEN ONLY INSISTING THAT THE PURCHASES SHOW N FROM M/S. ANNAPURNA TRADING COMPANY IS BOGUS WITHOUT EVEN VE RIFYING THE STATUS OF ASSESSMENT OF M/S. ANNAPURNA TRADING COMPANY. THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF M/S. ANNAPURNA TRADING COMPANY HAS NEIT HER BEEN REJECTED NOR HIS RECEIPTS HAS BEEN DISTURBED. SHRI HAR NARAIN GUPTA, PROPRIETOR OF M/S. ANNAPURNA TRADING COMPANY HAS APPEARED IN REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND REMAND PROCEEDINGS. THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WERE PRODUCED BY SHRI HAR NARAIN SUPTA IN RE-ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WHICH IS EVIDENT FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ITSELF. NON-PRODUCTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS IN REMAND PROCEEDINGS MAY NOT LEAD TO THE SOLE CONCLUSION OF BOGUS PURCHASES MADE BY THE ASSESSEE FROM M/S. ANNAPURNA TRADING COMPANY. THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS PR ODUCED BY SHRI HAR NARAIN GUPTA IN RE-ASSESSMENT PROCEEDIN GS HAVE ALREADY BEEN VERIFIED BY THE AO. THEREBY, THE SAME CANNOT BE MADE THE SOLE REASON FOR THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF BOGUS PURCHASES FROM M/S. ANNAPURNA TRADING COMPANY. WHEN THE QUANTITATIVE DETAILS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE NOT DISTUR BED AND REJECTED BY THE AO, THERE IS NO POINT OF TREATING T HE PURCHASES OF 3390 M.T. OF MAIDA FROM M/S. ANNAPURNA TRADING C OMPANY AS BOGUS. FURTHER, THE AO HAS ALSO NOT PROVED ANY B OGUS PURCHASES FROM ANY OTHER PARTIES AS DISCUSSED BY TH E A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE I.E. 13 PARTIES. THEREFORE, TREATING T HE PURCHASES ONLY FROM M/S. ANNAPURNA TRADING COMPANY AS BOGUS I S BASELESS, UNSUSTAINABLE AND HENCE UNJUSTIFIED. THE PURCHASES MADE BY THE ASSESSEE FROM M/S. ANNAPURNA TRADING CO MPANY ARE DULY RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS INCLUDIN G THE STOCK REGISTER. THE PAYMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE BY CHEQUE AND THE SALES HAVE BEEN MADE TO ONLY ONE PARTY M/S. PARLE B ISCUITS PVT. LTD., WHICH HAS MADE PAYMENTS IN CHEQUE ONLY. THIS EXCLUDES THE POSSIBILITY OF CASH PURCHASES AND CASH SALES TO M/S. PARLE BISCUITS PVT. LTD. THE POSSIBILITY OF CASH REPAYMEN TS BY SHRI HAR NARAIN GUPTA TO THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO NOT BEEN EVID ENCED. I.T.A. NO.840/LKW/14 C.O.NO.48/LKW/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2009-2010 7 THEREFORE, ON COMPREHENSIVE APPRAISAL OF SUBMISSION S AND ARGUMENTS OF THE A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE (AS DISCUSSED ABOVE) AND THE REMAND REPORT DATED 16-07-2014, THE PURCHASE MA DE FROM M/S. ANNAPURNA TRADING COMPANY CANNOT BE DENIED. TH E SIMILAR FACTS ARE APPRECIATED BY HON'BLE GUJARAT HI GH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT M/S NANGALIA FABRICS PVT. 220 TAXMA N 17 (GUJ) WHEREIN THE ADDITIONS MADE U/S 68 ON ACCOUNT OF UN VERIFIABLE PURCHASES BUT TRANSACTIONS RECORDED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE PAYMENTS MADE THROUGH CHEQUES, HAVE BEEN DELETED. THE HON'BLE ITAT, MUMBAI HAS ALSO REACHED TO THE SIMILA R DECISION IN THE CASE OF DCIT VS. RAJEEV G. KOLATHIL (I.T.A.T . MUM) 2014. THEREBY, THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICE R IS HEREBY DELETED. ACCORDINGLY, GROUND NO. 3 TO 5 ARE ALLOWED . 7. BEFORE US, LEARNED D. R. RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE LEARNED A. R. OF THE ASSESSEE RELIED ON THE O RDER OF LEARNED CIT(A). 8. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, CAREFULLY C ONSIDERED THE SAME ALONG WITH THE ORDERS OF THE TAX AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE NOTED THAT THIS IS A CASE WHERE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT REJECTED T HE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED ALL THE D ETAILS OF THE PURCHASES AND THE SALES. ALL THE QUANTITATIVE DETAILS OF PUR CHASE AND SALES WERE FILED. THE BOOKS WERE DULY PRODUCED BEFORE THE ASSESSING O FFICER WHICH WERE NOT REJECTED. THE SALES HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE ASSES SING OFFICER DURING THE YEAR. IT IS ALSO NOT DENIED THAT THE PURCHASES HAV E BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE PURPOSE OF SALES. IF THE SALES HA S BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND QUANTITATIVE RECONCILIATION H AS BEEN FILED ABOUT THE PURCHASE AND SALES, THE ASSESSEE CANNOT MAKE THE SA LES WITHOUT MAKING THE PURCHASE. THE REVENUE HAS TO LEVY THE TAX ON THE RE AL INCOME. THE INCOME HAS TO BE COMPUTED ONLY BY DEDUCTING OUT OF THE GRO SS RECEIPT THE EXPENSES INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE INCLUDING THE PURCHASES. THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE PURCHASES NOT ONLY FROM M/S ANNAPURNA TRADING CO. B UT FROM 13 PARTIES. NONE OF THE PARTIES WERE HELD TO BE BOGUS. IF THE PURCHASES ARE TO BE RECORDED TO BE BOGUS, THE ASSESSEE, IN OUR OPINION, CANNOT MAKE THE SALES. I.T.A. NO.840/LKW/14 C.O.NO.48/LKW/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2009-2010 8 WITHOUT PURCHASE BEING MADE, THE SALES CANNOT BE MA DE. THIS IS NOT THE CASE WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT GIVEN QUANTITATIVE DETAILS IN RESPECT OF PURCHASE AND SALES AND QUANTITATIVE DETAILS ARE NOT TALLIED. IN VIEW OF THIS FACT, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY OR ILLEGALITY IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A). IN OUR OPINION, THE CIT(A) HAS PASSED EXTENSIVE AND DETAIL ED ORDER, TO WHICH WE AGREE. WE, THEREFORE, CONFIRM THE ACTION OF CIT(A) DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.4,19,94,000/-. 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE AS WELL AS CROSS OBJECTION STANDS DISMISSED. (ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 27/07/2016) SD/. SD/. ( MAHAVIR PRASAD ) ( P. K. BANSAL ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED:27/07/2016 *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