SHREE KRISHNA GYANODAYA FLOUR MILLS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA V. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(3), KOLKATA

ITA 2179/KOL/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Shree Krishna Gyanodaya Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd., the appellant, contesting the reopening of their income tax assessment for the assessment year 2011-12 by the ACIT, Central Circle 4(3), the respondent. The reopening was based on a notice issued under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which the appellant argued was invalid as it did not satisfy the preconditions required for such a reopening, particularly concerning the disclosure of material facts. The Tribunal examined the legal arguments presented, including the application of section 147 and the necessity of a speaking order in response to the objections raised by the appellant against the reopening of the assessment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 824722 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-12-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 26-09-2025
• Other Referred Cases: New Delhi Television Ltd. vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Avadh Transformers (P.) Ltd., Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. vs. Income-tax Officer, ACIT Vs. CEAT Ltd., Principal Commissioner of Income-tax-6 vs. Meenakshi Overseas (P.) Ltd., Principal Commissioner of Income-tax-5 vs. Shodiman Investments (P.) Ltd., CIT, Delhi vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd., GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. vs. Income-tax Officer, Amway India Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. vs. C.S.T., Delhi, Ahmad Ullah vs. Union of India and Ors.
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SANAT KUMAR RAHA
• Assessee Lawyers: S. K. TULSIYAN
• Keywords: Difference of opinion; Change of opinion; Reopening of assessment; Principle of natural justice; Competent authority; Reason to believe; Tangible material; Borrowed satisfaction
• Section: 147; 148; 144; 143(3); 142(1); 153A; 68

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM AND SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JM ITA No.2179/KOL/2025 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) Shree Krishna Gyanodaya Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd. 15th Floor, 46C, Chowringhee Road, Everest House, Kolkata- 700071, West Bengal Vs. ACIT, Central Circle 4(3) Aaykar Bhawan Poorva 110, Kolkata-700107, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No. AAHCS8774P Assessee by : Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, AR Revenue by : Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, DR Date of hearing: 01.12.2025 Date of pronouncement: 31.12.2025 O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, AM: This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Kolkata-27(hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)”] dated 30.07.2025 for the AY 2011-12. 2. The common issue raised in ground no.1 to 4 of assessee’s appeal is against the order ld. CIT (A) upholding the reopening of assessment u/s 147 read with section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) which was made by the ld. AO invalidly without satisfying the necessary pre-conditions for reopening of assessment and accordingly, the assessee prayed that the reopening of assessment may kindly be quashed. Printed from counselvise.com Page | 2 ITA No. 2179/KOL/2025 Shree Krishna Gyanodaya Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd. 2.1. The facts in brief are that the assessee filed the return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act on 30.09.2011, declaring total income at ₹nil. The assessment was completed u/s 153A/143(3) of the Act, assessing the total income at ₹nil vide order dated 27.03.2014. Thereafter, the case of the assessee was reopened u/s 147 of the Act by issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act on 30.03.2018, which was duly served upon the assessee. The reopening was made after obtaining the necessary sanction from the competent authority u/s 151(1) of the Act. The assessee complied with the said notice by filing the return of income on 25.04.2018, declaring nil income. Thereafter, the notice u/s 143(2) and 142(1) along with questionnaire were issued which were not complied with by the assessee. Thereafter, the show cause notice was issued on 20.11.2018, as to why the assessment should not be completed u/s 144 of the Act which was replied by the assessee by filing the objections to the reopening of assessment vide letter dated 28.11.2018, which the ld. AO disposed off vide letter dated 16.12.2018. The assessee again filed the objections for reopening of assessment. Finally, the ld. AO added ₹50.00 crores received by the assessee from M/s Pahargoomiah Exports Ltd. u/s 68 of the Act. 2.2. The ld. CIT (A) confirmed the order of the ld. AO on legal issue by upholding the reopening of assessment in a very cryptic manner. 2.3. The ld. AR vehemently submitted before us that the reopening of assessment and the consequent order framed u/s 147/144/153A/143(3) of the Act dated 28.12.2018, is nullity and invalid in the eyes of law on several counts. The ld. AR submitted that first and foremost argument is that the assessment in this case has been framed u/s 143(3)/153A vide order dated 27.03.2014 and thereafter the reopening u/s 147 of the Act was made by issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act on 30.03.2018. The ld AR agrued that Printed from counselvise.com Page | 3 ITA No. 2179/KOL/2025 Shree Krishna Gyanodaya Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd. arguably and apparently the reopening of assessment was made after a period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year. Therefore, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the reopening could have been made only in accordance with proviso to Section 147 of the Act, which provides that where the assessment has been framed u/s 143(3) of the Act, the reopening could only be made u/s 147 of the Act, in accordance with the proviso to Section 147 of the Act. The proviso provides that where the order u/s 143(3) of the Act is framed and where reopening is to be made after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year then the income escaped has to be attributed to the failure of the assessee to file the return of income or to fully and truly disclose all material facts qua the said income during the course of assessment proceedings. The ld. AR submitted that in the present case, the facts are not so as the assessee has disclosed all the material facts truly and fully during the course of assessment proceeding. The ld. AR therefore prayed that the reopening of assessment is bad in law on this count. In defense of his argument the ld. AR relied on series of decision namely; New Delhi Television Ltd. vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax [2020] 424 ITR 607 (SC)[03-04-2020], Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Avadh Transformers (P.) Ltd. [2014] 51 taxmann.com 369 (SC)/[2014] 227 Taxman 376 (SC)[11-04-2014], Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. vs. Income-tax Officer [1961] 41 ITR 191 (SC)[01-11-1960] and ACIT Vs. CEAT Ltd. reported in [2022] 449 ITR 171 (SC). 3. The second plea of the assessee is that the case of the assessee has been reopened on the basis of borrowed satisfaction of DDIT (Inv) Unit-1(2), and not on the basis of the tangible material showing escapement of income and formation of belief of the AO that income has escaped assessment but in the present case except the Printed from counselvise.com Page | 4 ITA No. 2179/KOL/2025 Shree Krishna Gyanodaya Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd. information received , there was no other material in the possession of the ld. AO to remotely suggest that income has escaped assessment. The ld. AR submitted that before reopening of assessment and recording the reasons, the ld. AO has not conducted any independent enquiry to belief that assessee’s income has income escaped. The ld. AR submitted that the documents furnished by the assessee at this stage reveals that the assessee has received a loan of ₹50,00,00,000/- from M/s Pahargoomiah Exports Ltd., as such it is unfound belief of the ld. AO that ₹50,00,00,000/- has escaped assessment. The ld. AR submitted that the ld. AO has only reasons to suspect as to the escapement of income and not the reasons to believe. The ld. AR submitted that the ld. AO has straightway come to the conclusion that income has escaped assessment. The ld. AR submitted that the ld. AO is bound to conduct enquiry and apply is mind to the information received from outside sources before initiating the proceedings u/s 147 r.w.s 148 of the Act. In defense of his argument the ld. AR relied on the decisions namely Principal Commissioner of Income-tax-6 vs. Meenakshi Overseas (P.) Ltd. [2017] 395 ITR 677 (Delhi)[26-05-2017], Principal Commissioner of Income-tax-5 vs. Shodiman Investments (P.) Ltd. [2020] 422 ITR 337 (Bombay)[16-04-2018] and CIT, Delhi vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. [2010] 320 ITR 561 (SC)/[2010] [18-01-2010] wherein it has held that reopening made on the basis of borrowed satisfaction cannot be sustained where the reasons failed to demonstrate live link between the tangible material and formation of the reason to believe that the income has escaped assessment. 3.1. The ld. AR also referred to the Circular of the CBDT 147/140/2017-A7PC-1 dated 10.01.2018, which lays down standard operating procedure for recording satisfaction u/s 147 of the Act. The Printed from counselvise.com Page | 5 ITA No. 2179/KOL/2025 Shree Krishna Gyanodaya Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd. ld. AR submitted even the procedure laid down in the said circular has not been followed by the ld. Assessing Officer. Therefore, the reopening of assessment would be bad in law on this count as well. 4. Arguing the third limb, the ld. AR submitted that while disposing the objections vide letter dated 16.12.2018, the ld. AO in para no.6 has rejected the contention raised by the assessee qua reopening of assessment beyond four years from the end of the relevant year but before the expiry of six years. The ld. AO simply stated in the rejection order that notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued on 30.03.2018, only after obtaining sanction from PCIT (C)-2, Kolakta. The ld. AR therefore contended that even the objection was not disposed off on this issue by way of speaking order rendering the assessment framed to be nullity and bad in law. The ld AR relied heavily on the ratio laid down in GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. vs. Income-tax Officer [2003] 259 ITR 19 (SC)/[2003] {25-11-2002}. The ld. AR referred to the letter dated 16.12.2018, addressed by the AO to assessee disposing off the objections, wherein the same has not been passed in a speaking manner. For example, the ld. AR referred to the objections raised by the assessee on reopening of assessment beyond four years but before the expiry of six years from the end of the relevant assessment year and issue of notice u/s 148 of the Act without satisfying the requirement as laid down u/s 151 of the Act. The ld. AO while rejecting the objections simply noted that notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued after obtaining sanction of PCIT, Kolkata-2. Similarly, the ld. AR submitted that on the issue of borrowed satisfaction the ld. AO simply stated that information was received which was the4 basis for formation of belief and thus, disposed off the objections filed by the assessee in a cryptic manner and not by way of speaking order. Therefore, proceeding u/s 148 of Printed from counselvise.com Page | 6 ITA No. 2179/KOL/2025 Shree Krishna Gyanodaya Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd. the Act are bad in law and needs to be quashed. The ld. AR therefore prayed that in view of the aforesaid submissions, the reopening of assessment may kindly be quashed. 4.1. The ld. DR on the other hand relied heavily on the orders of the authorities below by submitting that the reopening of assessment has has been made validly after following the procedure laid down under the Act. The ld. DR submitted that information was received from the investigation wing that assessee has received accommodating entry of ₹50 crores from M/s Pahargoomiah Exports Ltd. and accordingly, the case of the assessee was reopened. The reopening was made after obtaining the sanction of the competent authority. Therefore, the argument of the ld. AR qua reopening beyond four years being bad in law as the same was based on borrowed satisfaction and without disposal of objection filed by the assessee are devoid of any merit and may kindly be dismissed. 4.2. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we find that the reopening u/s 147 of the Act was made by issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act on 30.03.2018. Pertinent to note that assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act / 153A of the Act was made in this case vide order dated 27.03.2014. Obviously, the reopening was made beyond four years from the end of the relevant assessment year but before six years. Therefore, the reopening could have been made only in accordance with the provisions of Section 147 of the Act which provides that where the assessment is framed u/s 143(3) of the Act and 147 of the Act is to be invoked after four years from the end of the relevant assessment year then the escapement of income has to be attributed to the failure of the assessee to fully and truly disclose the material fact qua the said income during the assessment proceedings. However, we note that Printed from counselvise.com Page | 7 ITA No. 2179/KOL/2025 Shree Krishna Gyanodaya Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd. the ld. AO has not recorded any such satisfaction in the reasons recorded for reopening of assessment. We note that the assessee has raised specific objection on this before the ld. AO and the ld. AO while disposing of the said objection simply noted that the reopening was made after obtaining sanction of the competent authority. In our view the said reopening cannot be sustained as the same is in violation to Proviso to Section 147 of the Act. The case of the assessee find support from the decisions of New Delhi Television Ltd. vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax [2020] 424 ITR 607 (SC)[03-04-2020], Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Avadh Transformers (P.) Ltd. [2014] 51 taxmann.com 369 (SC)/[2014], Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. vs. Income-tax Officer [1961] 41 ITR 191 (SC)[01-11-1960 and ACIT Vs. CEAT Ltd. reported in [2022] 449 ITR 171 (SC). 4.3. So far as the reopening of assessment on borrowed satisfaction is concerned, we note that the ld. AO has simply noted the information received from the investigation wing and hurriedly concluded that the income has escaped assessment to the extent of 50.00 crores received from M/s Pahargoomiah Exports Ltd. We note that the ld. AO has not conducted any enquiry before the reopening of assessment and recorded the reasons to believe by relying on the information received. In other words, there is no live link between the information received and formation of belief by the ld. AO. In our opinion, the ld. AO is supposed to conduct an enquiry on the basis of information received which is trigger which is missing in the present case. We note that the ld. AO simply relied on the borrowed satisfaction of the investigation wing. In our opinion, the reopening of assessment on the basis of borrowed satisfaction without application of mind is not permissible under the Act. The case of the assessee find Printed from counselvise.com Page | 8 ITA No. 2179/KOL/2025 Shree Krishna Gyanodaya Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd. support from the decisions of Meenakshi Overseas (P.) Ltd. (supra) and Shodiman Investments (P.) Ltd. (supra). 4.4. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of Principal Commissioner of Income-tax-6 vs. Meenakshi Overseas (P.) Ltd. [2017] 395 ITR 677 (Delhi)[26-05-2017], has held that reopening made on the basis of borrowed satisfaction cannot be sustained where the reasons failed to demonstrate live link between the tangible material and formation of the reason to believe that the income has escaped assessment, as under:- “26. The first part of Section 147 (1) of the Act requires the AO to have \"reasons to believe\" that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. It is thus formation of reason to believe that is subject matter of examination. The AO being a quasi judicial authority is expected to arrive at a subjective satisfaction independently on an objective criteria. While the report of the Investigation Wing might constitute the material on the basis of which he forms the reasons to believe the process of arriving at such satisfaction cannot be a mere repetition of the report of investigation. The recording of reasons to believe and not reasons to suspect is the pre- condition to the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 147 of the Act. The reasons to believe must demonstrate link between the tangible material and the formation of the belief or the reason to believe that income has escaped assessment. ……………… 36. In the present case, as already noticed, the reasons to believe contain not the reasons but the conclusions of the AO one after the other. There is no independent application of mind by the AO to the tangible material which forms the basis of the reasons to believe that income has escaped assessment. The conclusions of the AO are at best a reproduction of the conclusion in the investigation report. Indeed it is a 'borrowed satisfaction'. The reasons fail to demonstrate the link between the tangible material and the formation of the reason to believe that income has escaped assessment.” 4.5. Similarly, the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in case of Principal Commissioner of Income-tax-5 vs. Shodiman Investments (P.) Ltd. [2020] 422 ITR 337 (Bombay)[16-04-2018], has held as under:- “13. In this case, the reasons as made available to the Respondent- Assessee as produced before the Tribunal merely indicates information received from the DIT (Investigation) about a particular entity, entering into suspicious transactions. However, that material is not further linked by any reason to come to the conclusion that the Respondent-Assessee has indulged in any activity which could give rise to Printed from counselvise.com Page | 9 ITA No. 2179/KOL/2025 Shree Krishna Gyanodaya Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd. reason to believe on the part of the Assessing Officer that income chargeable to tax has escaped Assessment. It is for this reason that the recorded reasons even does not indicate the amount which according to the Assessing Officer, has escaped Assessment. This is an evidence of a fishing enquiry and not a reasonable belief that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. 4.6. Moreover, the circular no. 147/140/2017-A7PC-1 dated 10.01.2018, has not been followed by recording the satisfaction u/s 147 of the Act. Therefore, the same is in violation of standard procedure laid down by the CBDT vide above circular. For the sake of ready reference, the above-mentioned circular is extracted below:- “The CBDT vide Circular 247/140/2017-A7PC dated 10.01.2018 has laid down a standard procedure for recording of satisfaction u's 147 of the IT Act, 1961. Here the reopening relates to a case where regular assessment was completed u/s 1433/153A of the Act and a period of 4 years from the end of the assessment year had already expired. Thus the standard operating procedure to be followed for recording of satisfaction/recordings reasons for reopening in sach cases as prescribed by the CBDT are as under- a. Brief details of the assessee which includes nature of business, ITR, assessment details should be given. b. Brief details if information collection/received by AO should be given c. Analysis of information collected/received d. Enquiries to be made by the AO as a sequel of information received and result thereof e. Findings of the AO on the basis of analysis of information received and result thereof f. Basis of forming reason to believe and details of escapement of income-the AO will draw nexus between the findings and reason to believe. g. Findings of the AO on true and full disclosure of the material facts necessary for assessment under proviso to section 147 of the Act:- The Ld. AO is required to give details and instances along with corroborative material to show that the assessee had not disclosed fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment. h. Applicability of the provision of section 147/151 to the facts of the Case- The AO had to mention the following: Return was filed, assessment u/s 143(3) was made and 4 years from the end of relevant assessment year has expired in this case Printed from counselvise.com Page | 10 ITA No. 2179/KOL/2025 Shree Krishna Gyanodaya Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd. The requirement to initiate proceeding u/s 147 of Act on account of failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment The assessee has not fully and truly disclosed the following material facts necessary for his assessment: Provision of Explanation I of section 147 of the Act to be discussed The fact that the issue under consideration were never examined by the AO during the course of regular assessment corroborated from the contents of notices issued by the ld. AO u/s 143(2) / 142(1) of the Act and order sheet dated….. recorded during 1433(3)/ 147 proceedings. For the said reason it is not the case of change of opinion by the ld. Assessing Officer.” 4.7. Thirdly, the objection filed by the assessee to reopening of assessment has not been deposed off by way of speaking order as has been mentioned earlier and hereinabove and therefore, the assessment framed consequently by the AO would be nullity in the eyes of law. The case of the assessee is supported by decision of GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. vs. Income-tax Officer [2003] 259 ITR 19 (SC) wherein it has been held as under. \"12. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and having gone through the materials on record, we are of the view that the AO while disposing off the preliminary objections filed by the writ applicant against the reasons recorded for reassessment, has not properly dealt with the objections. In the base of GKN Driveshafts India Ltd. (supra). the Supreme Court has laid down the procedure as to the manner of dealing with the objections raised against the notice under section 148 of the Act. The Supreme Court has held that when a notice under section 148 of the Act is issued, the proper course of action for the noticee is to file return and if he so desires, to seek reasons for issuing notice. It was further held that the AO is bound to furnish reasons within a reasonable time and upon receipt of reasons, the noticee is entitled to file an objection to issuance of notice and AO is bound to dispose of the same by speaking order. In the case of SABH Infrastructure Ltd. (supra), the Delhi High Court, has held that the exercise of considering the assessee's objections to the reopening of the assessment is not a mechanical ritual. It is a quasi judicial function. The order disposing of the objection should deal with each objection and give proper reason for conclusion. The order should reflect proper application of mind.\" 4.8. Further the Hon'ble CESTAT in the case of Amway India Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. vs. C.S.T., Delhi (14.05.2015-CESTAT - Delhi): 2015/39/S.T.R.1006(Tri. - Del), has held as under: Printed from counselvise.com Page | 11 ITA No. 2179/KOL/2025 Shree Krishna Gyanodaya Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd. Impugned order was non-speaking order as it had not considered and analysed various submissions of Appellant before coming to finding\" 4.9. Further, in the case of Ahmad Ullah vs. Union of India and Ors. (13.09.2019 ALLIG : (2019) ILR 11 All 1268, the Allahabad High Court held as under:- \"20. In view of the aforesaid cases of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this Court, it is clear that the reason is the heartbeat of the order and without reason, the order becomes dead. 21. The administrative order, without any reason, causes prejudice to the person against whom it is passed. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, time and again, has emphasized the importance of recording reason for the decision by the administrative authorities. 22. In the case in hand, after perusal of the material available on record, we find that while passing the impugned order dated 13.7.2019, the respondent No. 3 has not assigned any reason for changing the category of the petitioner from Group -1 to Group-3 for the retail outlet dealership 23. For the reasons mentioned above, we find that the impugned order dated 13.7.2019 cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and it is, accordingly, quashed. 24. The matter is remanded back to the respondent for passing afresh reasoned and speaking order after furnishing opportunity of hearing to all the stake holders.\" In view of the above, it shall be clear that a speaking order means an order speaking for itself. Speaking order or reasoned order is considered the third pillar of natural justice. A reasoned decision is called a reasoned decision because it contains reasons of its own in its support. When the adjudicating body provides the reason behind their decision, the decision is treated as a reasoned decision. In the present case of the assessee, the Ld. AO had disposed the objections just for the sake of formality. In the disposal of objections dated 16.12.2018, the Ld. AO has at page 2 (para 8) simply brought on record that \"hence in view of the discussions made above the objections raised by the assessee to the reasons recorded for reopening of assessment in the captioned case are not acceptable. The objections raised by the assessee are therefore, disposed off.\" No discussion was made whatsoever pointing out as to how the books/evidences were held to be not reliable or pointing out to any information/document which proved the claim of the assessee to be wrong. Thus the disposal of objection was passed without providing any reasons or justification for rejecting the claim of the assessee. In the instant case, the objections of the assessee were not disposed off by passing speaking order. None of the objections were disposed off vide order by passing speaking order nor the objection were addressed at the time of passing order u/s 147 of the Act on 28.12.2018 as merely relying on what was written in the reasons Printed from counselvise.com Page | 12 ITA No. 2179/KOL/2025 Shree Krishna Gyanodaya Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd. recorded an order was passed u/s 147 of the Act making additions in the hands of the assessee. 4.10. Considering the facts of the case in the light of the aforesaid decisions, we are of the view that the reopening of assessment has been made invalidly by the ld. AO. Consequently, we quash the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act as well as the consequent assessment framed. The appeal of the assessee is allowed on legal issue. 5. Since, we have decided legal issue in favour of the assessee, the issue raised on merit are not being adjudicated at this stage and is left open to decide at later stage if need arises for the same. 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 31.12.2025. Sd/- Sd/- (PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY) (RAJESH KUMAR) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Kolkata, Dated: 31.12.2025 Sudip Sarkar, Sr.PS Copy of the Order forwarded to: BY ORDER, True Copy// Sr. Private Secretary/ Asst. Registrar Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, 5. Guard file. Printed from counselvise.com "