Mohd. Umar Babu, Lucknow V. DCIT, Lucknow

ITA 94/LKW/2011

• Counselvise Citation: 9423714 RSA 2011
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-04-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 18-07-2014
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 21-02-2011
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ALOK MITRA
• Assessee Lawyers: S C AGARWAL
• Keywords: Gift; Depreciation
• Section: 40A(3); 68

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.94/LKW/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2005 - 06 SHRI MOHD. UMAR BABU, SHOP NO. 3, MASJID ZIAULISLAM, KACCHA HATA (OPP. MAHILA COLLEGE), AMINABAD, LUCKNOW. PAN:AAMPU8772F VS. DY.C.I.T., RANGE - V, LUCKNOW. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SHRI S. C. AGARWAL, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY SHRI ALOK MITRA, D.R. DATE OF HEARING 18/07/2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 0 5 /0 9 /2014 O R D E R PER A. K. GARODIA, A.M. THIS IS AN ASSESSEES APPEAL DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY LEARNED CIT(A) - II, LUCKNOW DATED 27/10/2010 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005 - 06. 2. GROUND NO. 1, 2 & 3 ARE INTER CONNECTED, WHICH ARE AS UNDER: 1. THAT THE LD. CIT (APPEALS) AS WELL AS LD. AO WERE WRONG IN MAKING AN ADDITION OF RS.3,00,000/ - TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE U/S 68 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. 2. THAT THE LD.CIT (APPEALS) WAS WRONG IN HOLDING THAT THE EVIDENCE P RODUCED BY THE APPELLANT DID NOT PROVE THE CONTENTION AND COULD NOT SUBSTANTIATE THAT A SUM OF RS.3,00,000/ - CAPITALIZED IN HIS ACCOUNT, IS GENUINE AND OUT OF THE DISCLOSED SOURCE OF HIS INCOME. 2 3. THAT THE ID. CIT (APPEALS) WAS WRONG IN COMING TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE APPELLANT HAS FAILED TO LINK THE WITHDRAWALS WITH THE CAPITALIZATION OF MONEY. 3. BRIEF FACTS REGARDING THIS ISSUE, TILL THE ASSESSMENT STAGE, ARE NOTED BY THE CIT(A) IN PARA 4 OF HIS ORDER WHICH IS REPRODUCED BELOW FOR THE SAKE OF RE ADY REFERENCE: 4. THE GROUND NUMBERS 1 TO 5 RELATE TO THE ADDITION OF RS.3,00,000/ - MADE UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE L.T. ACT AS UNEXPLAINED DEPOSIT. THE ADDITION OF RS.3,00,000/ - WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE REASONS THAT THE APPELLANT COULD NOT SUBSTANTIATE HIS CONTENTION THAT THE SOURCES OF THE CASH DEPOSIT OF RS.3,00,000/ - WAS OUT OF NRI GIFT CREDITED IN HIS SB ACCOUNT NO. 354202010007480 ON 26.07.2004 MAINTAINED WITH THE UNION BANK OF INDIA, AMINABAD BRANCH ,LUCKNOW. MOREOVER, THE APPELLANT IS FAILED TO PROVE THAT THE CAPITALIZATION OF RS.3,00,000/ - WAS MADE FROM THE WITHDRAWALS OF RS.50.000/ - AND RS.2,50,000/ - THROUGH CHEQUES NO. 86238 AND 86239 DATED 31.07.2004 & 03.08.2004 RESPECTIVELY. THE APPELLANT ALSO FAILED TO EXPLAIN WHY HE HAS DEPOSIT ED RS.3,00,000/ - AFTER A GAP OF 8 MONTHS. ALSO, THERE IS NO PROOF THAT THE WITHDRAWAL FROM GIFT AMOUNTING TO RS.3,00,000/ - WAS FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUYING A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE, AND THE AMOUNT WAS KEPT TO BE UTILIZED FOR IMMEDIATE PAYMENT ON THE FINALIZATION O F THE DEAL. AND SINCE THE DEAL COULD NOT BE MATERIALIZED DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR, THE SAME WAS CAPITALIZED ON 31.03.2005. 4. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY LEARNED A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE SOURCE OF DEPOSIT HAS BEEN EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE SAME WAS NOT ACCEPTED FOR THE ONLY REASON THAT THERE WAS TIME GAP OF ABOUT 8 MONTHS BETWEEN THE DATE OF WITHDRAWAL OF CASH FROM THE BANK AND THAT OF CASH DEPOSIT IN BANK. HE SUBMITTED THAT UNDER THESE FACTS, NO ADDITION IS JUSTIFIED. 5. LEARNED D.R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A). 3 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. THE ISSUE WAS DECIDED BY LEARNED CIT(A) AS PER PARA 4.2 ON PAGE NO. 3 OF HIS ORDER, WHICH IS REPRODUCED BELOW FOR THE SAKE OF READY REFERENCE: 4.2 I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE SUBMISSIONS OF APPELLANT AND FACTS OF THE CASE. REMAND REPORT HAS ALSO BEEN CALLED FOR UPON THE SUBMISSIONS OF APPELLANT. THE SUBMISSIONS FILED BY THE APPELLANT ON REMAND REPORT HAVE ALSO BEEN PERUSED. NOW THE ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION IS AS TO W HETHER THE AMOUNT OF RS. 3,00,000/ - , WHICH WAS CAPITALIZED BY THE APPELLANT IN HIS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT ON 31.03.2005 ARE THE SAME AMOUNT WHICH WERE WITHDRAWN FROM THE BANK ON 31.7.2004 AND 3.8.2004 VIS - A - VIS THE AMOUNT RETURNED BY THE RASHEEDA BEGUM ?. AND TH E SECOND ISSUE IS AS TO WHETHER THE AGREEMENT TO SELL AND AFFIDAVIT OF SMT. RASHEEDA BEGUM ARE CONCLUSIVELY SUBSTANTIATE THE CONTENTION OF APPELLANT ? ON THESE ISSUES, THE ONUS IS ON THE APPELLANT TO PROVE THAT THE SUM OF RS. 3,00,000/ - WHICH WAS CAPITALI ZED ON 31.3.2005 WERE LYING WITH HIM IN THE FORM OF LIQUID CASH. THE FACTS OF THIS CASE ARE THAT THE SCRUTINY PROCEEDINGS WERE INITIALED ON 19.10.2006 AND THE ASSESSMENT ORDER HAS BEEN MADE ON 28.11.2007. SEVERAL DATES OF HEARING WERE FIXED WHICH WAS ATTEN DED BY THE APPELLANT. HOWEVER, THE APPELLANT COULD NOT ABLE TO PRODUCE THE 'AGREEMENT TO SELL' AND 'AFFIDAVIT BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. SMT. RASHEEDA BEGUM HAS FAILED TO APPEAR BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO CONFIRM THE 'AGREEMENT TO SELL' AND AFFID AVIT' ON THE GROUND OF HER SICKNESS. BUT NO MEDICAL EVIDENCE HAS BEEN FURNISHED THAT SHE IS ILL AND NOT IN A POSITION TO ATTEND BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ON THE CONTRARY, HER SON IS ATTENDED ON HER BEHALF AND HIS STATEMENT WAS RECORDED ON 25.08.2008. T HERE ARE MAJOR CONTRADICTIONS IN HIS STATEMENT. IN HIS SWORN STATEMENT HE HAS STATED THAT ADVANCE MONEY OF RS.50,000/ - WAS RETURNED TO THE APPELLANT AFTER 4 MONTHS FROM 02.08.2004, WHEREAS IN AFFIDAVIT SMT. RASHEEDA BEGUM HAS STATED THAT THIS ADVANCE MONEY WAS RETURNED TO THE APPELLANT ON 22.03.2005. THERE IS NO CLARIFICATIONS ON THE POINT THAT WHEN THE DEAL WAS NOT MATERIALIZED, WHY THE ADVANCE MONEY OF RS.50,000/ - WAS NOT FORFEITED ITS PER CONDITION LAID DOWN IN THE SAID 'AGREEMENT TO SELL' AND/OR WITHOUT MAKING ANY DOCUMENT CANCELING THE 4 'AGREEMENT TO SELL'. THUS, THESE TWO DOCUMENTS WHICH HAVE BEEN PRODUCED DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS DO NOT PROVED THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT. THE APPELLANT FAILED TO GIVE COGENT EVIDENCE WHICH SUBSTANTIATE THAT T HE SUM OF RS.3,00,000 / - CAPITALIZED IN HIS ACCOUNT ON 31.03.2005 ARE GENUINE AND OUT OF DISCLOSED SOURCES OF HIS INCOME. FURTHER, THE APPELLANT IS FAILED TO LINK UP THE WITHDRAWALS WITH THE CAPITALIZATION OF MONEY. 7. WE FIND THAT IT IS NOT DISPUTED BY T HE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT NO GIFT OF RS.3,00,000/ - WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE AMOUNT WAS NOT WITHDRAWN BY THE ASSESSEE FROM HIS BANK ACCOUNT. THE ONLY OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS THAT WHEN THE AMOUNT IN QUESTION WAS WITHDRAWN FROM THE BANK ON 31/07/2004 AND 03/08/2004 THEN WHY THE SAME WAS CAPITALIZED IN THE CASH BOOK ON 31/03/2005. THIS IS ALSO AN OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PROVE BY BRINGING DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE THAT THE SAME CASH, WHICH WAS WITHDRAWN BY THE ASSESSEE ON 31/07/2004 AND 03/08/2004, WAS AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE ON 31/03/2005 WHEN THE SAME WAS CAPITALIZED IN THE ASSESSEES BOOKS. WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THIS STAND OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BECAUSE WHEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT BROUGHT ANY EVIDENCE ON RECORD TO ESTABLISH THAT THE CASH WITHDRAWN BY THE ASSESSEE WAS USED BY HIM FOR SOME OTHER PURPOSE, THERE IS NO REASON OR BASIS TO REJECT THIS CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE SAME CASH WAS USED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR CAPITALIZA TION. HENCE, TH IS ADDITION IS DELETED. THESE GROUNDS ARE ALLOWED. 8. GROUND NO. 4 TO 6 ARE ALSO INTER CONNECTED WHICH READ AS UNDER: 4. THAT THE TAX AUTHORITIES ARE NOT JUSTIFIED IN MAKING AN ADDITION OF RS.3,08,799/ - U/S 40A(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. 5. THAT THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) WAS WRONG IN HOLDING THAT THERE WAS CONTRAVENTION TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40A(3) OF THE I.T. ACT AND FURTHER THAT THERE WAS NO 5 BUSINESS EXIGENCIES OR REQUIREMENTS FOR CASH PAYMENTS TO THE EXTENT OF RS.15,43,995/ - . 6. THAT IN MAKING THE ADDITION AS PER THE GROUNDS ABOVE, THE AUTHORITIES HAVE NOT GIVEN DUE CONSIDERATION TO THE SUBMISSIONS MADE DURING THE COURSE OF PROCEEDINGS. 9. BRIEF FACTS REGARDING THIS ISSUE, TILL THE ASSESSMENT STAGE, ARE NOTED BY THE CIT(A) IN PARA 5 OF HIS ORDER WHICH IS REPRODUCED BELOW FOR THE SAKE OF READY REFERENCE: ` 5. THE GROUNDS NO. 6 TO 10 RELATE TO THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.3,08,799 / - MADE UNDER SE CTION 40A(3) OF THE I.T.ACT, 1961. THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE APPELLANT HAS MADE PAYMENTS TO THE FOLLOWING PARTIES IN CASH IN CONTRAVENTION TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40A(3) OF THE ACT : - NAME OF PARTIES AMOUNT --------------------- ---------- STAR BROILERS RS.9,33.050 / - M. R. BROI L ERS RS.5,02,700 / - PINKU BROILERS RS.1.08,245 / - TOTAL RS.15,43,995/ - SINCE THE APPELLANT COULD NOT EXPLAIN THE REASONS FOR MAKING PAYMENTS IN CASH, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS DISALLOWED 20% OF RS.15,43,995/ - I.E. RS.3,08,799/ - AND ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF APPELLANT U/S 40A(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. 10. BEFORE CIT(A), IT WAS THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THESE PAYMENTS WERE MADE IN CASH BECAUSE THESE PARTIES WERE INSISTING FOR PAY MENT IN CASH. THEREFORE, THESE PAYMENTS WERE MADE IN CASH BECAUSE OF BUSINESS EXIGENCIES. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED BEFORE CIT(A) THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS IGNORED THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 6DD(E)(II) & (F) OF THE I.T. RULES, 1962, BEFORE US ALSO , THE SAM E CONTENTIONS WERE REITERATED. RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE MADRAS HIGH COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX VS K. K. S. K. LEATHER 6 PROCESSOR P. LTD. [2007] 292 ITR 669 (MAD) . RELIANCE WAS ALSO PLACED ON A JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF ANUPAM TELE SERVICES VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER IN TAX APPEAL NO. 556 OF 2013 DATED 22/01/2014 AND A COPY OF THIS ORDER HAS BEEN SUBMITTED. 11. LEARNED D.R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A). 12. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. FIRST OF ALL WE EXAMINE THE APPLICABILITY OF RULE 6DD. CLAUSE (J) OF RULE 6DD READS AS UNDER: WHERE THE PAYMENT WAS REQUIRED TO BE MADE ON A DAY ON WHICH THE BANKS WERE CLOSED EITHER ON ACCOUNT OF HOLIDAY OR STRIKE 12.1 FROM THE ABOVE , IT IS SEEN THAT AS PER THIS CLAUSE, IF THE PAYMENTS ARE REQUIRED TO HE MADE ON A DAY ON WHICH THE BANKS WERE CLOSED EITHER ON ACCOUNT OF HOLIDAY OR STRIKE, THEN NO DISALLOWANCE IS TO BE MADE U/S 40A(3) OF THE ACT. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THIS IS NOT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT ON THE DATE OF CASH PAYMENTS, THE BANKS WERE CLOSED FOR ANY REASON AND THEREFORE, THIS CLAUSE (J) IS NOT APPLICABLE IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. OUR ATTENTION WAS NOT DRAWN TO ANY OTHER CLAUSE OF THIS RULE. 12.2 NOW WE EXAMINE THE APPLICABILITY OF THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE MADRAS HIGH COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX VS K. K. S. K. LEATHER PROCESSOR P. LTD. (SUPRA). AS PER THIS JUDGMENT, IT WAS HELD BY HON'BLE MADRAS HIGH COURT THAT THE ASSESSEE HA S PRODUC ED NECESSARY GROUNDS FOR MAKING CASH PAYMENT. IN THAT CASE , IT WAS NOTED BY T HE TRIBUNAL THAT THESE PAYMENTS WERE MADE TO SMALL TIME VENDORS, WHO CAME FROM SURROUNDING VILLAGES TO SELL THE SKIN AND THE PROCESS OF DRESSING THE SKIN WAS DONE WITHOUT THE AID OF POWER. IT WAS HELD BY THE TRIBUNAL THAT SINCE THE PURCHASES WERE MADE FROM THE UNORGANIZED SECTOR, CASH PAYMENTS WERE INDISPENSABLE. UNDER THESE FACTS, HON'BLE MADRAS HIGH 7 COURT CONFIRMED THE TRIBUNAL ORDER IN THAT CASE. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THI S IS NOT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THESE VENDORS ARE FROM UNORGANIZED SECTOR. THE ONLY EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE IS THIS AS NOTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON PAGE NO. 5 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS THAT THESE PARTIES DEMANDED PAYMENTS IN CASH. HENCE, IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, THIS JUDGMENT O F HON'BLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IS NOT APPLICABLE. 12.3 NOW WE CONSIDER THE APPLICABILITY OF THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT CITED BY LEARNED A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE RENDERED IN THE CASE OF ANUP AM TELE SERVICES VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER (SUPRA). WE FIND THAT IN THIS CASE , THE ASSESSEE MADE PAYMENTS TO TATA TELE SERVICES IN CASH AND IN ADDITION TO THAT , THE ASSESSEE ALSO MADE CASH PAYMENTS TO TWO OTHER PARTIES I.E. M/S RAJVI ENTERPRISES AND M/S R. D . INFOTECH. REGARDING THE PAYMENT S TO M/S TATA TELE SERVICES, IT WAS NOTED BY HON'BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT THAT SUCH CASH PAYMENT TO TATA TELE SERVICES WAS MADE UNDER PECULIAR SITUATIO N AND IT WAS ALSO NOTED THAT TATA TELE SERVICES DEPOSITED SUCH CASH IN IT S BANK ACCOUNT . UNDER THESE FACTS, THE DISALLOWANCE WAS DELETED IN RESPECT OF PAYMENTS TO TATA TELE SERVICES. BUT IN RESPECT OF PAYMENT TO OTHER TWO PARTIES, IT WAS HELD BY HON'BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT THAT NO SUCH PECULIAR FACTS ARISE IN CASE OF PAYMENTS MADE TO THE OTHER TWO PARTIES AND THEREFORE, THE DISALLOWANCE IN RESPECT OF THOSE PARTIES WAS CONFIRMED. A SPECIFIC QUERY WAS MADE BY THE BENCH FROM THE LEARNED A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE AS TO WHETHER IN THE PRESENT CASE , THE ASSESSEE HAS BROUGHT ANY EVIDENCE ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT THE CASH WAS DEPOSITED BY THESE THREE PARTIES IN THEIR RESPECTIVE BANK ACCOUNT BUT IN REPLY , IT WAS SUBMITTED BY LEARNED A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE THAT NO SUCH EVIDENCE IS ON RECORD. HENCE, BECAUSE OF THESE DIFFERENCES IN FACTS, THIS JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IS NOT RENDERING ANY HELP TO THE ASSESSEE. 8 13. SINCE WE HAVE SEEN THAT NONE OF THE JUDGMENTS CITED BY LEARNED A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE IS RENDERING ANY HELP TO THE ASSESSEE AND CLAUSE (J) OF RULE 6DD IS ALSO NOT APPLICABLE, WE FIND NO REASON TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE . ACCORDINGLY THESE GROUNDS ARE REJECTED. 14. GROUND NO. 7 IS AS UNDER: 7. THAT THE FOLLOWING DISALLOWANCES OF EXPENSES TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE/WERE WRONG, UNWARRANTED AND UNJUSTIFIED. (A) CONVEYANCE - RS. 10,597=00 BEING 15% OF RS. 70,647=00 (B) TELEPHONE RS. 2,913/= BEING 10% OF RS. 29,134/= (C) PETROL EXPENSES RS. 1,458/= BEING 10% OF RS. 14,580/= (D) DEPRECIATION RS. 730/= BEING 10% OF RS. 7,308/=. 15. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY LEARNED A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE DISALLOWANCES ARE EXCESSIVE. 16. LEARNED D.R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A). 17. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIND THAT THESE DISALLOWANCES WERE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE REASONING THAT PERSONAL USE OUT OF TELEPHONE EXPENSES AND VEHICLE EXPENSES CANNOT BE RULED OUT. THE DISALLOWANCE WAS MADE BY HIM TO THE E XTENT OF 10% OF TELEPHONE EXPENSES, PETROL EXPENSES AND DEPRECIATION OF VEHICLES. IN THIS REGARD, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A) BECAUSE IN OUR OPINION, IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, 10% DISALLOWANCE IS REASONABLE AND NO T EXCESSIVE . REGARDING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.10,597/ - BEING 15% OF RS.70,647/ - OUT OF CONVEYANCE EXPENSES, WE FIND THAT THIS DISALLOWANCE WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE BASIS 9 THAT THESE EXPENSES ARE NOT FOUND FULLY VERIFIABLE IN ABSENCE OF PROP ER DETAILS. THIS FINDING OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER COULD NOT BE CONTROVERTED BY LEARNED A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE EITHER BEFORE CIT(A) OR BEFORE US. HENCE, ON THIS ISSUE ALSO, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A). THIS GROUND IS REJEC TED. 18. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE STANDS ALLOWED PARTLY. (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: 0 5 /0 9 /2014. *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