M/S KRITI COSNSTRUCTION, BILASPUR(CG) V. I.T.O. Ward 1(1), BILASPUR(CG)

ITA 94/BIL/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9679 (ITAT-RAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 2 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-09-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 06-07-2015
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: D K JAIN
• Assessee Lawyers: R B DOSHI

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.94/RPR/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11 KRITI CONSTRUCTION, 10, 1, NUTAN CHOWK, SARKANDA, BILASPUR (CG). VS. ITO, WARD 1(1), BILASPUR (CG). PAN : AAGFK2915E (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI R. B. DOSHI, CA DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI D. K. JAIN, DR DATE OF HEARING : 10-08-2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 25-09-2018 O R D E R PER R. K. PANDA, AM : THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAIN ST THE ORDER DATED 31.01.2015 OF THE LD. CIT(A), BILASPUR (CG) RELATIN G TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. 2. GROUND OF APPEAL NO.1 WAS NOT PRESSED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FOR WHICH LD. DR HAS NO OBJECTION. ACCORDINGLY, GR OUND OF APPEAL NO.1 IS DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. GROUND OF APPEAL NO.3 BE ING GENERAL IN NATURE IS DISMISSED. 3. GROUND OF APPEAL NO.2 BY THE ASSESSEE READS AS U NDER :- 2. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING ADDITION OF RS.25,19,612/- MADE BY THE A .O. ON ACCOUNT OF PROVISION MADE 2 ITA NO.94/RPR/2015 BY THE APPELLANT. THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O. AN D SUSTAINED BY CIT(A) BEING ARBITRARY AND BASELESS, IS NOT JUSTIFIED. 4. FACTS OF THE CASE, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT THE ASSESS EE IS A PARTNERSHIP FIRM AND DERIVES INCOME FROM SALE OF RESIDENTIAL PLOTS, HOUS ES AND SHOPS. IT FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 30.09.2010 DECLARING TOTAL INCO ME OF RS.4,94,990/-. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER, ON VERIFICATION OF THE AUDIT REPORT, FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE FIRM HAS DEBITED RS.25,19,612/- IN THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT UNDER THE HEAD PROVISION FOR EXPENSES TO BE INCURRED ON SOLD AREA OF THE BANDHAWA PROJECT. HE, THEREFOR E, ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE BASIS OF CALCULATION OF THE SAID EXPENS ES. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE PROVISION FOR THE EXPENSES IS DEBITED TO M EET OUT THE EXPENSES TO BE INCURRED PROPORTIONATELY FOR THE COMMON AREA OF THE PROJECT AND SUBMITTED THE ESTIMATION REPORT. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS OF THE OPINION THAT THE PROVISION IS A LIABILITY WHICH CAN BE MEASURED ONLY BY USING A SUBSTANTIAL DEGREE OF ESTIMATION. ACCORDING TO HIM, THE PROVISION IS RECOGNIZED WHEN : (A) AN ENTERPRISE HAS A PRESENT OBLIGATION AS A RESULT OF PAST EVENT, (B) IT IS PROBABLE THAT AN OUTFLOW OF RESOURCES WILL BE REQUIRED TO SETTLE THE OBLIGATION AND (C) A RELIABLE ESTIMATION CAN BE MADE OF THE AMOUNT OF THE OBLIGAT ION. IF THESE CONDITIONS ARE NOT MET, NO PROVISION CAN BE RECOGNIZED. HE OBSERV ED THAT IN THIS CASE THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT THERE IS AN OBLIGATION AS A RESULT OF PAST EVENT AND AN OUTFLOW OF RESOURCES WILL BE REQUIRED. HOWEVER, THE QUESTION IS WHETHER THE ESTIMATION 3 ITA NO.94/RPR/2015 MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IS RELIABLE OR NOT. HE OBSERV ED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE AN ESTIMATION OF THE CONSTRUCTION WORK TO BE DONE I N THE COMING YEARS OUT OF THE SALE RECEIPT OF THE CURRENT YEAR. FROM THE NATURE OF WORK TO BE DONE BY THE ASSESSEE IN COMING YEARS, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE COST WILL BE VARIED FROM TIME TO TIME. THEREFORE, IT IS NOT CRYSTAL CLEAR THAT SINC E THERE IS A DOUBT REGARDING THE ESTIMATION OF THE COST TO BE DONE IN FUTURE AND NOW RELIABILITY IN THE ESTIMATION ALSO IN JEOPARDIZE. THE THIRD CONDITION TO RECOGNI ZE A PROVISION IS THUS NOT FULFILLED. THEREFORE, HE HELD THAT THE EXPENSES CL AIMED BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER THE HEAD PROVISION IS NOTHING BUT ONLY A DEFERMENT OF PROFIT AND THE LIABILITY TO PAY TAX. HE, THEREFORE, DISALLOWED THE PROVISION F OR EXPENSES OF RS.25,19,612/- AND ADDED BACK TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 5. BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED TH AT IT HAD THE LIABILITY TO DEVELOP THE COMMON AREAS/FACILITIES LIKE COMMON ROA D, PARKING, ELECTRICITY, ETC. IN THE KANHAIYACITY HOUSING PROJECT AND THE EXPENSE S WERE INCURRED IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ESTIMAT ED COST OF SUCH DEVELOPMENT EXPENSES WERE PROJECTED ON THE BASIS OF THE REPORT OF THE APPROVED VALUER AND THE PROPORTIONATE EXPENSES OF RS.25,19,612/- WERE A LLOCATED ON SOLD PART OF THE LAND OF THE PROJECT. THE ASSESSEE ALSO FILED A COP Y OF THE REPORT OF THE APPROVED VALUER AND CALCULATION OF PROVISION ON SOLD PART OF LAND. 6. HOWEVER, THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT SATISFIED WITH T HE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE AND UPHELD THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. WHILE DOING SO, HE 4 ITA NO.94/RPR/2015 HELD THAT A PERUSAL OF THE SALE DEED SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NO LEGAL LIABILITY TO BEAR ANY COST OF IMPROVEMENT AFTER THE SALE OF T HE PLOTS. THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT AS PER THE CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT AGREEMENT WITH THE PURCHASERS THE ASSESSEE HAD OBLIGATION TO DEVELOP COMMON AREAS /FACILITIES LIKE COMMON ROAD, PARKING, ELECTRICITY, ETC. WAS REJECTED BY HI M ON THE GROUND THAT THE ABOVE LIABILITIES AROSE FROM SUBSEQUENT ACT OF THE ASSESS EE UNDERGOING CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT FOR HOUSING UNIT FOR WHICH THE ASSESSEE HA S NOT MADE ANY REVENUE RECOGNITION IN THE YEAR UNDER REFERENCE. THE ABOVE SUBMISSION ALSO IS SELF- CONTRADICTORY WHEN EXPENSES INCURRED IN SUBSEQUENT YEAR CLAIMED AS PROVISIONS IN THE YEAR UNDER REFERENCE WERE ALL RELATED TO LEV ELING, FILLING AND COMPACTING OF THE PLOTS AND NOT FOR DEVELOPMENT OF COMMON AREA S. SINCE THE ASSESSEE, ACCORDING TO HIM, HAS ALREADY BOOKED THE DEVELOPMEN T COSTS AND MADE FURTHER PROVISION FOR EXPENSES ON SOLD PART OF LAND WITHOUT ANY LEGAL OBLIGATION, THEREFORE, HE HELD THAT THE PROVISION FOR EXPENSES HAS NO NEXUS WITH SALE CONSIDERATION CREDITED TO PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT. T HEREFORE, IT IS NOT ADMISSIBLE UNLESS CONTRARY TO THIS IS PROVED WITH EVIDENCE. 7. AGGRIEVED WITH SUCH ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 8. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT ENTIRE REVENUE OF PLOTS SOLD CREDITED FULLY TO THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT, T HEREFORE, NECESSARY FULL COST OF LAND + DEVELOPMENT COST IS REQUIRED TO BE DEBITED T O FOLLOW THE PRINCIPLE OF 5 ITA NO.94/RPR/2015 MATCHING CONCEPT. REFERRING TO PAGE 13 AND 14 OF T HE PAPER BOOK, HE SUBMITTED THAT THE DEVELOPMENT COST ESTIMATED BY VALUER AT RS .145/- PER SQ.FT. IS ONLY CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE TOWARDS PROVISION FOR EXPEN SES. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE PLAN INCLUDED DEVELOPMENT LIKE INTERNAL ROAD, ELECT RIFICATION, GARDEN ETC. WHICH IS EVIDENT FROM PAGE 42A OF THE PAPER BOOK. THE DE VELOPMENT EXPENSES CLAIMED IS ONLY IN RESPECT OF AREA OF LAND SOLD. R EFERRING TO THE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING O FFICER AT PAGE 3, PARA- 4 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ADMITS OBLIGATION OF THE ASSES SEE TO BEAR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT COST WHEREAS THE LD. CIT(A) IN HIS ORDE R DENIES IT AND THERE IS CONTRADICTORY FINDING BY THE LD. CIT(A) ON THIS ISS UE. HE HAS NOT GRANTED ANY OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE WHEN HE CAME TO A DIFFE RENT FINDING. REFERRING TO PAGE 13 OF THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A), LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT ALLEGATION OF LD. CIT(A) THAT LIABILITY RELATES TO ONGOING CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT IS INCORRECT. REFERRING TO PAGE 13 & 14 OF THE PAPER BOOK, HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ESTIMATE OF COST IS IN RESPECT OF LAND + ITS DEVELO PMENT WITHOUT ANY CONSTRUCTION WORK. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE CLAIM HAS BEEN MADE ON THE BASIS OF ESTIMATE GIVEN BY THE EXPERT AND ACTUAL EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY TH E ASSESSEE IN SUBSEQUENT YEAR MATCHES WITH THE ESTIMATE. FOR THE ABOVE PROPOSITI ON, HE DREW THE ATTENTION OF THE BENCH TO PAGE 18 OF THE PAPER BOOK, ACCORDING T O WHICH, THE AMOUNT INCURRED IS MORE THAN THE PROVISION MADE. THEREFOR E, THE APPREHENSION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS INCORRECT. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ESTIMATED COST WORKED OUT 6 ITA NO.94/RPR/2015 AS PER ACCOUNTING STANDARD- 7 ISSUED BY THE INSTITU TE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT OF INDIA (ICAI) AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NEITH ER REJECTED THE ESTIMATE NOR ANY DEFECT POINTED OUT BY HIM. REFERRING TO THE DE CISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF BHARAT EARTH MOVERS VS . CIT REPORTED IN 245 ITR 428, HE SUBMITTED THAT THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE SAID DECISION HAS HELD THAT EVEN IF LIABILITY IS QUANTIFIED AND DISCHARGED IN FUTURE STILL IT HAS TO BE ALLOWED AS DEDUCTION. THE EXPENDITURE IS ALLOWABLE ONLY ON THE BASIS OF ESTIMATE OF COST AND THE BILLS WOULD BE IRRELEVANT. REFERRING TO THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CALCUTTA C O. LTD. VS. CIT REPORTED IN 37 ITR 1, HE SUBMITTED THAT THE HON'BLE SUPREME COU RT IN THE SAID DECISION HAS HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE DEDUCTED EXPENDITURE WHICH I S INCIDENTAL TO THE BUSINESS ON ACCRUAL BASIS THOUGH IT WAS NOT INCURRED DURING THE RELEVANT ACCOUNTING YEAR. HE ALSO RELIED ON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS :- (A) CIT VS. HYUNDAI HEAVY INDUSTRIES CO. LTD., 291 ITR 482. (B) MKB (ASIA) (P) LTD. VS. CIT, 167 TAXMANN.COM 2 56. (C) CIT VS. U.P. STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORP ORATION, 92 TAXMANN.COM 45. 9. THE LD. DR ON THE OTHER HAND WHILE SUPPORTING TH E ORDERS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE LD. CIT(A) SUBMITTED THAT THE CONDITIONS FOR MAKING THE PROVISION ARE NOT FULFILLED. THERE ARE NO AUTH ENTIC BILLS AND VOUCHERS PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THERE ARE CERTAIN DEFE CTS IN THE BILLS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCU MSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE 7 ITA NO.94/RPR/2015 ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND SUSTAINE D BY THE LD. CIT(A) SHOULD BE UPHELD. 10. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL ARGUMENTS MADE BY BOTH THE SIDES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE HAVE ALSO CONSIDERED THE VARIOUS CASE LAWS CITED BEFORE US. WE FIND THE ASSESSEE IN THE INSTANT CASE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF SALE OF RESIDENTIAL PLOTS, HOUSES A ND SHOPS. THE ASSESSEE FIRM HAS DEBITED AN AMOUNT OF RS.25,19,612/- UNDER THE H EAD PROVISION FOR EXPENSES TO BE INCURRED ON SOLD AREA OF THE BANDHW A PROJECT OF THE LAND. WE FIND THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED THE PROVISION OF SUCH EXPENSES ON THE GROUND THAT THE CONDITIONS FOR MAKING A PROVISION H AS NOT BEEN FULFILLED IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND THERE IS DO UBT REGARDING THE ESTIMATION OF THE COSTS TO BE DONE IN THE FUTURE. THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER FURTHER NOTED THAT THE SERVICE PROVIDER RAISED BILLS AGAINST LEVELING, FILLING, COMPACTING, SPREADING OF MUDROOMS AND CONSTRUCTION OF WBM ROADS. WE FIND THE LD. CIT(A) UPHELD THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE GROUND T HAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT UNDER ANY OBLIGATION TO DEVELOP ANY AREAS/FACILITIE S LIKE COMMON ROAD, PARKING, ELECTRICITY ETC. WHICH AROSE FOR SUBSEQUENT ACT OF THE ASSESSEE UNDERGOING CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT FOR HOUSING UNIT FOR WHICH TH E ASSESSEE HAS NOT MADE ANY REVENUE RECOGNITION IN THE YEAR UNDER REFERENCE. S INCE THE ASSESSEE HAS ALREADY BOOKED THE DEVELOPMENT COSTS AND MADE FURTHER PROVI SION FOR EXPENSES ON SOLD PART OF LAND WITHOUT HAVING ANY LEGAL OBLIGATION, T HEREFORE, THE LD. CIT(A) 8 ITA NO.94/RPR/2015 UPHELD THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IT IS THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT ENTIRE REVENUE OF PLO TS SOLD HAS ALREADY BEEN CREDITED FULLY TO THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT AND THE ASSESSEE IS UNDER LEGAL OBLIGATION TO INCUR THE DEVELOPMENT EXPENSES IN RES PECT OF SOLD AREA OF LAND. IT IS ALSO HIS SUBMISSION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS INCURR ED SUCH EXPENDITURE IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR AND THE PROVISION IS BASED ON THE B ASIS OF REPORT OF AN EXPERT AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NEITHER REJECTED NOR POINTED OUT ANY DEFECT THEREIN. WE FIND MERIT IN THE ABOVE ARGUMENT OF TH E LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. A PERUSAL OF PAGE 17 OF THE PAPER BOOK SHOWS THAT T HE ASSESSEE HAS SOLD 23317 SQ.FT. AT THE RATE OF RS.276 PER SQ.FT. AND THE ENT IRE REVENUE OF PLOTS SOLD HAS BEEN CREDITED FULLY TO THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT. THE A SSESSEE HAS CLAIMED PROVISION FOR EXPENSES AT THE RATE OF RS.145 PER SQ.FT. DEVEL OPMENT COSTS SUCH AS INTERNAL ROADS, ELECTRIFICATION, GARDEN ETC.. SUCH DEVELOPM ENT EXPENSES CLAIMED IS ONLY IN RESPECT OF SOLD AREA OF LAND. WE FURTHER FIND T HE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE BODY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER HAS MENTIONED AS UNDER :- IN THIS CASE THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT THERE IS AN OB LIGATION AS A RESULT OF PAST EVENT AND OUTFLOW OF RESOURCES WILL BE REQUIRED. NOW THE QUE STION IS WHETHER THE ESTIMATION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IS RELIABLE OR NOT. THE ASSES SEE HAS MADE AN ESTIMATION OF THE CONSTRUCTION WORK TO BE DONE IN THE COMING YEARS OU T OF THE SALE RECEIPT OF THE CURRENT YEAR... 11. THUS, WE FIND THE ASSESSING OFFICER HIMSELF HAS ADMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS AN OBLIGATION TO BEAR FEW DEVELOPMENT COSTS. WE, THEREFORE, DO NOT FIND ANY REASON AS TO HOW AND AS TO WHY THE LD. CIT (A) WITHOUT GIVING ANY 9 ITA NO.94/RPR/2015 OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NO OBLIGATION TO UNDERTAKE SUCH DEVELOPMENT WORK. FRO M THE VARIOUS DETAILS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE, WE FIND THE ASSESSEE, IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR, HAS IN-FACT INCURRED SUCH EXPENSES WHICH IS MORE THAN T HE PROVISION MADE IN THIS YEAR. SUCH PROVISION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE I MPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR IS BASED ON THE CERTIFICATE GIVEN BY AN EXPERT. FURTH ER, SUCH ESTIMATED COST HAS BEEN WORKED OUT AS PER THE ACCOUNTING STANDARD- 7 I SSUED BY ICAI. FURTHER, WE FIND THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT REJECTED THE EST IMATE GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE NOR POINTED OUT ANY DEFECT THEREIN. 12. THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CALCUT TA CO. LTD. (SUPRA) HAS HELD AS UNDER :- 4. THE LAW IS SETTLED : IF A BUSINESS LIABILITY HA S DEFINITELY ARISEN IN THE ACCOUNTING YEAR, THE DEDUCTION SHOULD BE ALLOWED AL THOUGH THE LIABILITY MAY HAVE TO BE QUANTIFIED AND DISCHARGED AT A FUTURE DATE. WHAT SHOULD BE CERTAIN IS THE INCURRING OF THE LIABILITY. IT SHOULD ALSO BE CAPABLE OF BEIN G ESTIMATED WITH REASONABLE CERTAINTY THOUGH THE ACTUAL QUANTIFICATION MAY NOT BE POSSIB LE. IF THESE REQUIREMENTS ARE SATISFIED THE LIABILITY IS NOT A CONTINGENT ONE. TH E LIABILITY IS IN PRAESENTI THOUGH IT WILL BE DISCHARGED AT A FUTURE DATE. IT DOES NOT MAKE A NY DIFFERENCE IF THE FUTURE DATE ON WHICH THE LIABILITY SHALL HAVE TO BE DISCHARGED IS NOT CERTAIN. 13. SINCE IN THE INSTANT CASE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HIMSELF HAS ADMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS AN OBLIGATION AS A RESULT OF PAST EVENT AND OUTFLOW OF RESOURCES WILL BE REQUIRED AND SINCE THE ASSESSEE IN THE INST ANT CASE HAS ESTIMATED SUCH PROVISION ON THE BASIS OF REPORT OF AN EXPERT AND I N-FACT HAS INCURRED SUCH EXPENDITURE IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR, THEREFORE, RESP ECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE 10 ITA NO.94/RPR/2015 DECISION OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE O F CALCUTTA CO. LTD. (SUPRA) WE HOLD THAT THE LD. CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CON FIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.25,19,612/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACC OUNT OF PROVISION OF EXPENSES MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ORDER OF THE LD . CIT(A) IS, THEREFORE, SET- ASIDE ON THIS ISSUE AND THE GROUND RAISED BY THE AS SESSEE IS ALLOWED. 14. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 25 TH SEPTEMBER, 2018. SD/- SD/- (SUCHITRA KAMBLE) (R. K. PANDA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 25-09-2018. SUJEET COPY OF ORDER TO: - 1) THE APPELLANT 2) THE RESPONDENT 3) THE CIT 4) THE CIT(A) 5) THE DR, I.T.A.T., RAIPUR. BY ORDER //TRUE COPY// SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY ITAT, RAIPUR