The ACIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad V. Megha Futures Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad

ITSSA 109/AHD/2021

AI Insights

The case involves the Income Tax Department (Revenue) appealing against the decision of the CIT(A) which quashed the assessment order against Megha Futures Pvt. Ltd. for the assessment year 2011-12. The primary contention was whether the CIT(A) erred in law and facts in holding that the notice issued under section 153C of the Act was beyond the period of six assessment years. The Revenue argued that the CIT(A) incorrectly applied the provisions of section 153C in relation to section 153A. The Tribunal also examined the validity of the satisfaction recorded by the AO of the assessee, which was found to be a carbon copy of the satisfaction note of the AO of the searched person, leading to the conclusion that there was no independent application of mind by the AO of the assessee.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 135649 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 8 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-04-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 22-02-2023
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 11-08-2021
• Other Referred Cases: Canyon Financial Services Ltd vs. ITO, Shri ANIL Kumar GOPI Kishan Agarwal Vs. ACIT
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Document seized; Documents seized; Set aside
• Section: 132; 143(3); 153A; 48; 73; 153C

Judgement Text

आयकर आयकरआयकर आयकर अपी अपीअपी अपीलीय लीयलीय लीय अिधकरण अिधकरणअिधकरण अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद अहमदाबादअहमदाबाद अहमदाबाद यायपीठ यायपीठ यायपीठ यायपीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘’B’’ BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER And MS. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./IT(SS)A No. 109/AHD/2021 िनधा रणवष िनधा रणवष िनधा रणवष िनधा रणवष /Asstt. Year: 2011-2012 A.C.I.T, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad Vs. M/s. Megha Futures Pvt. Ltd. Megha House, Law Garden, Mithakhali Six Road, Ahmedabad-380009 PAN: AADCM5460C (Applicant) (Respondent) Revenue by : Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT D.R. Assessee by : Shri Parin S Shah, A.R. सुनवाईक तारीख/Date of Hearing : 23/02/2023 घोषणाक तारीख/Date of Pronouncement: 19/04/2023 आदेश आदेशआदेश आदेश/O R D E R PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: The captioned appeal has been filed at the instance of the Revenue against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Ahmedabad, dated 23/04/2021 arising in the matter of assessment order passed under s. 153C r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (here-in-after referred to as "the Act") relevant to the Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. Whether CIT(A) has erred in law and facts in holding that the notice issued u/s.153C of the Act was beyond the period of six assessment years without appreciating that the first provision to section 153C is to be read only in the context of second provision to sub section(1) of section 153A. 2. Whether the CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleing the addition of Rs.6,81,00,000/- as income from other sources. 3. It is, therefore, prayed that the order of Ld.CIT(A) may be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored. IT(SS)A No.109/AHD/2021 A.Y. 2011-12 2 3. The issue raised by the Revenue is that the learned CIT(A) erred in quashing the assessment framed under section 153C r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act. 4. The facts in brief are that the respondent assessee is private company and engaged in the business of trading of loose melting Scrap of Iron and Steel. The assessee in the year under consideration purchased 1000 shares of M/s Aspire Confra Pvt Ltd for Rs. 1 Lacs which were sold after 3 to 4 months to M/s Aspire Infracon Pvt Ltd for Rs. 73 Lacs. Likewise, the assessee company during the year under consideration has also given loans and advances of Rs. 21.05 Lacs to M/s Aspire Confra Pvt Ltd which were received back during the year itself. Subsequently, the search and seizure action under section 132 of the Act was carried out at the premises of “Madhav Group” dated 09-11-2016 which also includes one Shri Ashok Khurana who is prominent shareholder of M/s Aspire Confra Pvt Ltd. During the search at the premises of Shri Ashok Khurana, certain loose papers were found which were inventoried as Annexure A-2. As per the seized materials, M/s Aspire Confra Pvt Ltd. purchased a government property through auction for which the funds were made available to it by four different group including respondent assessee company in the form of share application and loans & advances. The accounts were settled between the respondent assessee and M/s Aspire Confra Pvt Ltd wherein an amount of Rs. 6,81,00,000/- was paid to the assessee company in the form of unaccounted cash. In this regard, the AO of Shri Ashok Khurana recorded his satisfaction dated 07-03-2019 and forwarded the same to the AO of the respondent assessee along with search materials. The satisfaction of the AO of the search person Shri Ashok Khurana is extracted as under: “The loose paper inventorised as Annexure A-2 during the course of search at the above premise, contained details of a piece of land wherein Petrofils Company had existed. This land was auctioned by the Govt. appointed Liquidator and was purchased by a company Aspire Confra Pvt. Ltd. The whole arrangement to purchase was made by Shri Ashok Khurana and few others joined in this purchase. The petrofils land was auctioned for IT(SS)A No.109/AHD/2021 A.Y. 2011-12 3 rs.84.20 cr. Four groups were involved in purchasing this land and each contributed Rs.22- 23 cr. Group 4 consisted of Co.Aspire Infracon Pvt. Ltd. in which Pagrani's co,- Megha Future Pvt. Ltd. had purchased the shares/ given unsecured loans equal to amount of its share. Later the shares were sold by MFPL to the 3 sub groups; Chauhan Sub group, Shrikant Khurana sub grp, and Ashok Khurana Sub grp. Perusal of the loose paper file revealed that certain persons wanted to exit the investment made in the Petrofils land and remaining persons took over their share by providing them exit. Shri Ashok Khurana purchased other peoples share and increased his own share. However, while purchasing other people's share there is active involvement of cash component as people sold their share at a premium price. Page 37 and 48 reflected the activity in group 4. On perusal of page 46, it is clear that cash amount adjustment between three sub groups has been worked out. It can be clearly seen from the above page and can be construed that Rs.6.81 crores was paid in cash and is unaccounted. It was paid to MFPL from Chauhan grp. and Shrikant Khurana Grp. This cash is not disclosed by the company in its hands and is unaccounted Income of MFPL in FY 2010 11.” 5. On the basis of the above satisfaction of AO of the search person i.e. Shri Ashok Khurana and materials supplied by the AO of the searched person, the AO of the respondent assessee recorded his satisfaction as on 16-03-2019 which is extracted as under: “The loose paper inventorised as Annexure A-2 during the course of search at B- 901 & 904, Bhadralok, Old Padra road, Vadodara which contained details of a piece of land wherein Petrofils Company had existed. This land was auctioned by the Govrment appointed Liquidator and was purchased by a company Aspire Confra Pvt. Ltd. The whole arrangement to purchase was made by Shri Ashok Khurana and few others persons. The petrofils land was auctioned for Rs.84 20 cr Four groups were involved in purchasing this land and each contributed Rs 22-23 cr.. Further, it is also noticed that Group 4 consisted of Aspire Infracon Pvt. Ltd It is noticed that the assessee company Megha Future Pvt. Ltd had purchased the shares of Aspire Infracon Pvt. Ltd as well as given unsecured loans equal to amount of its share in the land. Later the shares were by assessee sold by company to the three sub groups; i.e. Chauhan Sub group. Shrikant Khurana sub group, and Ashok Khurana Sub group. On perusal of the loose paper file it is noticed that certain persons wanted to exit the investment made in the Petrofils Land and remaining persons took over their share by providing them exit. Shri Ashok Khurana purchased other peoples share and increased his own share. The assessee company has sold its stake in the Aspire Infracon Pvt. Ltd. However, while purchasing assessee company share there is active involvement of cash component as the assessee company sold their share at a premium price. The Page 37 and 48 of the loose paper file seized during the search operation from B-901 & 904, Bhadralok, Old Padra road, Vadodara, reflected the cash transaction activity in group 4 in lieu of relinquishment of rights in land by transferring the share/stake of the Aspire Infracon Pvt. Ltd. On perusal of page 46, it is clear that cash amount adjustment between three sub groups has been worked out. It can be clearly seen from the above page and can be construed that Rs.6.81 crores was paid in cash to the assessee company and the same is unaccounted. It was paid to assessee company from Chauhan grp and Shrikant Khurana Grp This cash is not disclosed by the company in its hands and is unaccounted income of assessee company in FY 2010-11 relevant to AY 2011-12. In view of above facts. I am satisfied that the seized documents as mentioned above pertams Megha Futures (P) Ltd. (AADCM5460C) and to assess the undisclosed on money payment, action u/s 153€ are required to be initiated in its case.” IT(SS)A No.109/AHD/2021 A.Y. 2011-12 4 6. In view of the above, the AO of the respondent assessee, initiated proceedings under section 153C of the Act vide notice dated 18-03-2019. The assessment under section 153C r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act was completed as on 18- 12-2019 after making addition of Rs. 6,81,00,000/- to the total income of the assessee. 7. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT(A) and challenged the validity of proceeding under section 153C of the Act on two grounds. 8. The assessee in first ground contended that under section 153C of the Act, the AO of the person other search person is empowered to assess or reassess the income of six assessment years. However, as per the first proviso to section 153C(1) of the Act, such period of six assessment years will reckon from the date on which the AO of other person received materials from the AO of search person. In the present case, the materials from the AO of the searched person were received as on 07-03-2019 i.e. relevant to AY 2019-20. Thus, as per the first proviso to section 153C(1) of the Act, the AO can only assess or reassess the income up to A.Y. 2013-14 i.e. six assessment year immediately preceding the relevant assessment year 2019-20. Therefore, the year under consideration i.e. A.Y. 2011-12 for which proceeding was initiated under section 153C of the Act is barred by limitation. 9. The assessee in second ground contended that the satisfaction recorded by the AO of the search person and the AO of the assessee being a person other than search for initiation of proceeding under section 153C are identically worded. As such, there is no independent satisfaction of its AO (i.e. AO of other person). Therefore, in absence of independent satisfaction of the AO of the assessee that the materials supplied by the AO of search person have bearing on its income, the initiation of assessment proceeding under section 153C of the Act is invalid. IT(SS)A No.109/AHD/2021 A.Y. 2011-12 5 10. The learned CIT(A) after considering the facts in totality agreed with the contention the of the assessee and quashed the assessment order. The relevant finding of the learned CIT(A) reads as under: “7.2 In this regard the appellant has submitted that as per section 153C of IT Act, the AO could have reopen the case up to six assessment years and time period of reckoning six years shall start from the assessment year in which books or documents were handed over by AO of the searched person to the AO of the other person. In the present case, the material from AO of searched person was handed over to the AO of the appellant on 07.03.2019 i.e. A.Y. 2019-20, so the preceding six A.Y’s from A.Y. 2019-20 could be covered under the provision of section 153C of the Act i.e. upto A.Y. 2013-14 to A.Y. 2018- 19. The impugned assessment year covered u/s 153C is A.Y. 2011-12 which is outside the block of six assessment years. So entire proceedings is required to be quashed. 7.3 The contention of the appellant has been examined and found legally correct for the reason that the relevant provisions specifically mentions about the counting of the six assessment years which could be considered for proceedings u/s. 153C of the IT Act. In this case the six assessment years covered form A.Y. 2013-14 to 2018-19, just before A.Y. 2019-20 in which the material has been received from the AO of the searched person by the AO of the appellant. This view has been taken and held in various decisions/judgments of Hon’ble Courts. Some of the judgments are as under.” ******************************************************************* “7.4 The appellant further submitted that the satisfaction recorded by AO of the searched Person and AO of the appellant are identically worded. In other words, the AO of the appellant has copied the satisfaction note drawn by the AO of the searched person without giving any observations on the facts of the case with his application of mind. 7.4.1 Appellant has placed on record both the satisfaction note i.e. satisfaction note recorded by AO of searched person and satisfaction note recorded by AO of Appellant and on perusal of the same it is clear that both satisfaction notes are identically worded and there is no independent satisfaction recorded by AO of the appellant and accordingly in absence of independent satisfaction recorded by the AO proceedings initiated in its case are required to be quashed. This contention of the appellant is found legally tenable as per the decision of Hon’ble Courts.” ******************************************************************* “7.7 In view of the above discussion, the legal ground taken by the appellant is found substance objecting to the initiation of the proceedings u/s. 153C of IT Act not in accordance with the provisions of law. The initiation of proceedings in the year under consideration is beyond the period of six assessment years and hence the AO was not correct in initiation of the proceedings for this year. The other legal aspects taken by the appellant also challenges the initiation of the proceedings u/s. 153C of IT Act and consequently the assessment completed by the AO. Therefore, in view of the facts on record, submission and also respectfully following the judgments of Hon’ble Courts discussed briefly above, the proceedings initiated u/s. 153C is found not in accordance with the provision of law and consequently the addition made by the AO in the assessment completed is legally not tenable and hence the addition is deleted.” IT(SS)A No.109/AHD/2021 A.Y. 2011-12 6 11. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before us. 12. The learned DR before us vehemently supported the order of the AO by reiterating the findings contained in the assessment order. 13. On the other hand, the learned AR before us vehemently supported the order of the ld. CIT-A by reiterating the findings contained in the appellate order. 14. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the materials available on record. The facts of the issue on hand have already been elaborately discussed in previous paragraph, therefore we are not inclined to repeat the same. The provision of section 153C(1) of the Act has direct bearing on the issue which reads as under: “153C.(1) 33 [Notwithstanding anything contained in section 139, sec- tion 147, section 148, section 149, section 151 and section 153, where the Assessing Officer is satisfied that,— (a) any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing, seized or requisitioned, belongs to; or (b) any books of account or documents, seized or requisitioned, pertains or pertain to, or any information contained therein, relates to, a person other than the person referred to in section 153A, then, the books of account or documents or assets, seized or requisitioned shall be handed over to the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over such other person] and that Assessing Officer shall proceed against each such other person and issue notice and assess or reassess the income of the other person in accordance with the provisions of section 153A, if, that Assessing Officer is satisfied that the books of account or documents or assets seized or requisitioned have a bearing on the determination of the total income of such other person 34 [for six assessment years immediately preceding the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which search is conducted or requisition is made and] for the relevant assessment year or years referred to in sub-section (1) of section 153A : Provided that in case of such other person, the reference to the date of initiation of the search under section 132 or making of requisition under section 132A in the second proviso to sub-section (1) of section 153A shall be construed as reference to the date of receiving the books of account or documents or assets seized or requisitioned by the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over such other person : Provided further that the Central Government may by rules made by it and published in the Official Gazette, specify the class or classes of cases in respect of such other person, in which the Assessing Officer shall not be required to issue notice for assessing or reassessing the total income for six assessment years immediately preceding the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which search is conducted or requisition is made 34 [and for the relevant IT(SS)A No.109/AHD/2021 A.Y. 2011-12 7 assessment year or years as referred to in sub-section (1) of section 153A] except in cases where any assessment or reassessment has abated.” 14.1 From the perusal of above, it revealed that during the search proceeding under section 132 of the Act if any books of account or document seized and the AO of the search person is satisfied that such seized document pertain or pertains to or any information contained therein relates to a person other searched person then such seized material should be handed over to the AO of such other person. If the AO of such other person is satisfied that the seized materials are having bearing on the income of such other person then, he may assess or reassess the income of six assessment years immediately preceding the assessment year in which search is conducted. Thus, to initiate proceeding under section 153C of the Act it necessary to have 2 different satisfactions being satisfaction of the AO of the search person i.e. materials found pertain to or information relates to other person viz-a-viz satisfaction of the AO of the other person that materials found are having bearing on the income of the assessee. These two satisfactions are completely distinct to each other and required different approach. 14.2 In the case on hand, we have perused the satisfaction recorded by the AO of the searched person viz-a-viz AO of the assessee (other than search person) which are placed on pages 45 to 48 of the paper book. We note that satisfaction recorded by the AO of the search person dated 07-03-2019 and satisfaction of AO of the assessee dated 16-03-2019 are identically worded. As such the AO of the assessee without application of his mind merely relied on the satisfaction of the AO of the searched person. The Hon’ble Delhi High court in case of Canyon Financial Services Ltd vs. ITO reported in 84 taxmann.com 71, held that in case the satisfaction recorded by the AO of the assessee is identically worded or carbon copy of the satisfaction of the AO of the searched person, no valid jurisdiction is acquired for issuing notice under section 153C of the Act. The relevant observation of the Hon’ble High Court in the above-mentioned case is extracted as under: “19. As a result, the Court holds that the satisfaction note prepared by the AO of the searched person does not fulfil the legal requirement spelled out in Section 153C (1) of the IT(SS)A No.109/AHD/2021 A.Y. 2011-12 8 Act. The satisfaction note of the AO of the Assessee, being a carbon copy of the satisfaction note of the AO of the searched person also fails to fulfil the jurisdictional requirement. No reasons are recorded for the identical conclusion in either satisfaction note that the seized documents mentioned therein belong not to the searched person but to the Assessee. 20. For all the aforementioned reasons, the two satisfaction notes dated 13th and 19th March, 2014 issued by the AOs of the searched person and the Assessee respectively, and all proceedings consequent thereto, are hereby quashed.” 14.3 Further we note that the AO of the searched person in his satisfaction nowhere stated that the material found pertain or pertains, or the information contained therein relates to the assessee. Similarly, the AO of the assessee in his satisfaction have nowhere alleged that the search material, have bearing on the income of the assessee. Thus, in our considered view, there no valid jurisdiction acquired by the AO of the assessee to initiate proceeding under section 153C of the Act. The very triggering point to initiate proceeding under section 153C i.e. satisfaction of the AO that material found during search at third party has bearing on the income of the assessee is missing in the case on hand. Hence, we do not find any infirmity in the finding of the learned CIT(A) quashing the assessment order framed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 153C of the Act for this reason. Therefore, the same is hereby confirmed. 14.4 Without prejudice to the above, we note that the learned CIT(A) also quashed the proceedings under section 153C of the Act by holding that year under consideration is outside the preview of the period required to be assessed or reassessed under section 153C r.w.s. 153A of the Act. The learned CIT(A) held that though the search under section 132 of the Act carried out in case of “Madhav Group” dated 09-11-2016 but the materials found pertaining to the assessee were handed over to the AO of the as on 07-03-2019. Therefore, the period on 6 assessment years in the light of first proviso to section 153C(1) of the Act should be reckoned from the date of materials handed over and accordingly the year under consideration does not fall under the prescribed period of 6 assessment years. Thus, the controversy before us is whether period of six IT(SS)A No.109/AHD/2021 A.Y. 2011-12 9 assessment year for the purpose of assessment or reassessment under section 153C of the Act should be reckon from the date of search conducted or the date on which materials handed over by the AO of the searched person to the AO of the other person. This question has been answered by the Hon’ble Gujarat High court in the case of Shri ANIL Kumar GOPI Kishan Agarwal Vs. ACIT reported in 418 ITR 25 where the Hon’ble Court held that period of 6 years should be reckoned from the date of search under section 132 of the Act. The relevant observation of the Hon’ble High Court is extracted as under: “21.1 Section 153C of the Act provides that after recording satisfaction as provided therein, the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over the other person shall proceed against each such other person and issue notice and assess or re-assess the income of the other person in accordance with the provisions of section 153A of the Act, if, that Assessing Officer is satisfied that the books of account or documents or assets seized or requisitioned have a bearing on the determination of the total income of such other person. Sub-section (1) of section 153A of the Act as it stood at the relevant time when the search came to be conducted provided that the Assessing Officer shall:- (a) issue notice to such person requiring him to furnish within such period, as may be specified in the notice, the return of income in respect of each assessment year falling within six assessment years referred to in clause (b), in the prescribed form and verified in the prescribed manner and setting forth such other particulars as may be prescribed and the provisions of the Act shall, so far as may be, apply accordingly as if such return were a return required to be furnished under section 139; (b) assess or re-assess the total income of six assessment years immediately preceding the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which such search is conducted or requisition is made. 21.2 On a plain reading of section 153A of the Act, it is evident that the trigger point for issuance of notice under that section is a search under section 132 or a requisition under section 132A of the Act. Notice is required to be issued to the searched person calling upon him to file return of income for six assessment years immediately preceding the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which such search is conducted or requisition is made. Thus, insofar as computation of the six assessment years in respect of which notice is required to be issued is concerned, the relevant date is the immediately preceding assessment year relevant to the previous year in which such search is conducted or requisition is made. 21.3 Accordingly, in terms of clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 153A of the Act, in case of HN Safal Group, since the search is conducted on 4.9.2013 the previous year in which such search is conducted or requisition made is 1-4-2013 to 31-3-2014 and the assessment year relevant to such previous year would be 2014-15; therefore, the six years assessment years would be the six assessment years preceding assessment year 2014-15 which would be 2013-14, 2012-13, 2011-12, 2010-11, 2009-10 and 2008-09. In case of Barter Group and Venus Group, since the search is conducted on 4-12-2014 and 13-3-2015 respectively, the previous year in which such search is conducted or requisition made is 2014-15 and the assessment year relevant to such previous year would be 2015-16 and therefore, the six assessment years preceding 2015-16 would be 2014-15, 2013-14, 2012- 13, 2011-12, 2010-11 and 2009-10. Therefore, in case any notices under section 153C of the Act which have been issued for assessment years beyond the six assessment years IT(SS)A No.109/AHD/2021 A.Y. 2011-12 10 referred to hereinabove, such notices would be beyond jurisdiction as the same do not fall within the six assessment years as contemplated under section 153A of the Act.” 14.5 In view of the above we are not in agreement with the finding of the learned CIT(A) that the period of six assessment years for the purpose of section 153C should be reckoned from the date of materials handed over to the AO of the assessee. Hence, the ground of appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed. 15. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the Court on 19/04/2023 at Ahmedabad. Sd/- Sd/- (MADHUMITA ROY) (WASEEM AHMED) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Ahmedabad; Dated 19/04/2023 Manish/Tanmay TRUE COPY आदेशक ितिलिप ेिषत आदेशक ितिलिप ेिषतआदेशक ितिलिप ेिषत आदेशक ितिलिप ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : आदेशानुसार आदेशानुसारआदेशानुसार आदेशानुसार/BY ORDER, उप उपउप उप/सहायकपंजीकार सहायकपंजीकारसहायकपंजीकार सहायकपंजीकार (Dy./Asstt.Registrar) आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरणआयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण, अहमदाबाद अहमदाबादअहमदाबाद अहमदाबाद / ITAT, Ahmedabad 1. Date of dictation : 10/04/2023 2. Date on which the typed draft is placed before the Dictating Member 11/04/2023 3. Date on which the approved draft comes to the Sr.P.S./P.S. 12/04/2023 4. Date on which the fair order is placed before the Dictating Member for Pronouncement /04/2023 5. Date on which the file goes to the Bench Clerk .. : 19/04/2023 6. Date on which the file goes to the Head Clerk.................................. 7. The date on which the file goes to the Assistant Registrar for signature on the order.......................... Date of Despatch of the Order.................. 1. अपीलाथ / The Appellant 2. यथ / The Respondent. 3. संबंिधतआयकरआयु / Concerned CIT 4. आयकरआयु (अपील) / The CIT(A) 5. िवभागीय ितिनिध, आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण/ DR, ITAT, 6. गाड फाईल / Guard file.