Income Tax Officer (Ward) 1(1), Panaji v. Smt. Indira Prakash Bhandare., Goa

ITA 280/PAN/2013 | 2007-2008
Pronouncement Date: 28-11-2014 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 28024114 RSA 2013
Assessee PAN ACCPB6578N
Bench Panaji
Appeal Number ITA 280/PAN/2013
Duration Of Justice 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 25 day(s)
Appellant Income Tax Officer (Ward) 1(1), Panaji
Respondent Smt. Indira Prakash Bhandare., Goa
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 28-11-2014
Appeal Filed By Department
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted DB
Tribunal Order Date 28-11-2014
Date Of Final Hearing 18-11-2014
Next Hearing Date 18-11-2014
Assessment Year 2007-2008
Appeal Filed On 03-10-2013
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PANAJI BENCH PANAJI BEFORE SHRI P. K. BANSAL HONBLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI D.T. GARASIA HONBLE JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.279/PNJ/2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 08 ) TH E INCOME - TAX OFFICER WARD - 1(1 ) PANAJI - GOA. (APPELLANT) V S DR . LAXMI BHANDARE. LEGAL HE IRS OF LATE PRABHAKAR V BHANDARE HIRAKE BAY VIEW COLONY P.O. NIO DONA PAULA GOA. PAN:ACCPB6578N (RESPONDENT) ITA NO.280 /PNJ/2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 08 ) THE INCOME - TAX OFFICER WARD - 1(1) PANAJI - GOA. (APPELLANT) VS. SMT. INDIRA PRAKASH BHANDARE SF - 1 SUKERKAR MANSION M.G. ROAD - GOA PAN:ALJPB1247M(RESPONDENT) ITA NO.281 /PNJ/2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 08) THE INCOME - TAX OFFICER WARD - 1(1) PANAJI - GOA. (APPELLANT) VS. SMT. VRINDA V. BHANDARE . H. NO.43 VASANT NIWAS RIBANDAR ILHAS - GOA. PAN: AAXPV2711L (RESPONDENT) ITA NO.282/PNJ/2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 08) THE INCOME - TAX OFFICER WARD - 1(1) PANAJI - GOA. (APPELLANT) VS. SMT. NIRMALABAI V. BHANDARE. H.NO.43 VASANT NIWAS RIBANDAR ILHAS - GOA. PAN:ADQPB6047H(RESPONDENT) ITA NO.283 /PNJ/2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 08) THE INCOME - TAX OFFICER WARD - 1(1) PANAJI - GOA. (APPELLANT) VS. SMT. REKHA ANANT BHANDARE. H.NO.43 VASANT NIWAS RIBANDAR ILHAS - GOA. PAN:ALIPB9844J (RESPONDENT) 2 . ITA NO. 279 TO 283 /PNJ/2013 ( ASST. YEAR 2007 - 08) APPELL ANT BY : B. BARTHAKUR LD. DR RESPOND ENT BY : DR. VADHAMAN JAIN CA DATE OF HEARING : 18/11 /2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 2 8 /11/2014 O R D E R PER: D.T. GARASIA(JM) THE ABOVE ALL APPEALS HAVE BEEN FILED BY THE D EPARTMENT AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) - PANAJI DATED 19.07.2013 FOR THE ASST. YEAR 2007 - 08. 2. THE FOLLOWING COMMON GROUNDS RAISED BY THE DEPARTMENT IN ALL THE APPEALS. 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES THE LD. CIT(A) GROSSLY ERRED BY OBSERVING THAT THE A.O. WAS NOT CORRECT IN ISSUING NOTICE U/S 148 WHEN TIME FOR NORMAL SCRUTINY U/S 143(3) WAS AVAILABLE AND THE A.O. WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN NOT ISSUING ANY NOTICE U/S143(2) BEFORE INITIATING AND CONCLUDING THE ASSESSMENT WHEREAS THE A.O HAS POINTED OUT THAT THE ASSESSE DID NOT FILE RETURN IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S.148 HENCE ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S.143(2) WAS NOT CALLED FOR. 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED BY OBSERVING THAT THE A.O WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN NOT GIVING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE BEFORE CONCLUDING THE ASSESSMENT WHEREAS FROM THE RECORDS IT IS SEEN THAT THE SAME IS NOT CORRECT. THE AO HAS GIVEN SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITIES TO THE ASSESSEE BEFORE CONCLUDING THE ASSESSMENT. 3. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES THE ID. CIT(A) GROSSLY ERRED BY ALLOWING THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE OF RS 28 LAKHS PAID TO THE TENANTS TO BE DEDUCTED FROM SALE CONSIDERATION ON ONLY GROUND THAT IN THE REMAND REPORT THE A.O. HAS NOT EXAMINED THE ASSESSEES SUBMISSION WHEREAS IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THE A.O. HAS REJECTED THE SAME GIVING DETAILED REASONS THEREOF. 3. IN ALL THESE APPEALS ALL THE ASSESSEES ARE THE LEGAL HEIRS OF LATE PRABHAKAR V BHANDARE. ALL ASSESSEES ARE COMMON OWNER OF THE PROPERTY OF BHANDARE FAIMILY THERE FORE ALL THESE APPEALS ARE DISPOSED BY THIS COMMON ORDER. 3 . ITA NO. 279 TO 283 /PNJ/2013 ( ASST. YEAR 2007 - 08) 3.1. THE SHORT FACT OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR A.Y.2007 - 08 ON 20.02.2008 DECLARING RS. 84 240/ - CAPITAL GAINS. POST SURVEY PROCEEDINGS REVEALED ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME AND NOT ICE U/S. 148 DATED 22.10.2008 WAS ISSUED AND DULY SERVED. THE REASONS FOR REOPENING WAS INDICATED VIDE LETTER DATED 23.10.2008. THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO FILE THE RETURN BY 23.11.2008 IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S.148. THE ASSESSEE FAILED T O FILE THE RETURN. INSTEAD OF FILING THE RETURN THE ASSESSEE HAS OBJECTED THE ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S. 148. THE NOTICE 1 42(1) DATED 11.12.2008 WAS SENT /ISSUED VIDE LETTER DATED 11. 12.2008. THERE WAS NO RESPONSE FROM THE ASSESSEE. THE LETTER S DATED 30.12.2008 AND DATED 0 2. 0 1.2009 WAS SENT TO THE ASSESSEE GIVING SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY FOR MAKING A SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY FOR MAKING ANY SUBMISSIONS . FINAL OPPORTUNITY WAS ON DATED 15.1 .2009 FOR MAKING THE SUBMISSIONS SINCE THERE WAS SUBJECT MATTER TO FILE A RETURN IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S. 148. 3.2. AS PER SECTION SUB - SECTION (A) AND (B) OF SECTION 144 ANY PERSON FAILS TO MAKE RETURN REQUIRED U/S. 139 (1) AND FAILS TO COMPLY WITH ALL TERMS OF NOTICE ISSUED U/S.142(1) THE ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER TAKING INTO ACCOUNT ALL THE RELEVANT MATERIAL GATHERED AND AFTER GIVING THE ASSESSEE AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD MAKE THE BEST ORDER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CAS E OF SHREERAM DURGAPRASAD & FATHECHAND NARSINGDAS (ESPORT) FIRM (R.B.SETH) V CIT(1988) 170 ITR 23 (BOM) WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT WHERE ASSESSEE DOES NOT RESPONSE TO NOTICE ISSUED U/S. 148 IT IS PERMISSIBLE FOR THE TAXING A UTHORITY TO ASSESSEE HIM ON T HE BEST JUDGMENT BASIS. THE ASSESSEE DO NOT COM PLY THE TERMS OF NOTICE U/S. 142(1) RESULTS IN AN OR DER PASSED U/S. 144 TO THE BEST OF JUDGMENT OF THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY. THE A SSESSM ENT WAS COMPLETED U/S. 147 R.W.S 144 O F THE I.T. ACT 1961. 3 . 3 THE MATTER CARRIED TO CIT(A) AND CIT(A) HAS HELD THAT THE ORDER PASSED U/S. 147 R.W.S 144 WAS BAD IN LAW BY OBSERVING AS UNDER. 4 . ITA NO. 279 TO 283 /PNJ/2013 ( ASST. YEAR 2007 - 08) 8.1 IN THIS CASE THE ASSESSEE FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME ON 26.102007 FOR A.Y. 2007 - 08. THE TIME LIMIT AVAILABLE TO THE A.O. FOR SELECT ING T HE CASE FOR SCRUTINY WAS UPTO 3 1.10.2008 AND NOTICE U/S. 143(2) WAS TO BE ISSUED UPTO 31.10.2008. INSTEAD THE A.O. ISSUED A NOTICE U/S 148 ON 22.10.2008. IT IS INDEED BEYOND MY UNDERSTANDING AS TO WHAT PROMPTED THE A.O. TO INI TIATE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. WHEN EVEN THE REGULAR ASSESSMENT WAS NOT BARRED BY LIMITATION OF TIME. 8.2 THE A.O. WAS ASKED IN THE REMAND REPORT. WHETHER ANY NOTICE U/S. 143(2) WAS ISSUED AT ANY POINT OF TIME. IN ITS REMAND REPORT DATED 23.04.2012 THE A .O. HAS CONFIRMED THAT NO OFFICE COPY OF ANY NOTICE U/S 143(2) IS AVAILABLE ON RECORD PROVING THEREBY THAT NO NOTICE U/S 143(2) WAS EVEN ISSUED BY THE A.O. 8.3 IN THE REMAND REPORT THE A.O. HAS MENTIONE D THAT ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S 143(2) IS MANDATORY ONLY WHEN THE ASSESSEE FILES A RETURN IN RESPONSE OF NOTICE U/S 148. SINCE IN THIS CASE THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FILE A RE TURN IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S. 148 ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S 143(2) WAS NOT REQUIRED FOR COMPLETING R E A SS ESS MENT PROCEEDINGS . 9. THE APPELLANT HA S CONTENDED THAT THE PRINCIPAL OF NATURAL JUSTICE WAS SERIOUSLY VIOLATED AS NO OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD WAS GIVEN TO THE APPELLANT. I FOUND THE NOTICE OF HEARING GIVEN BY THE A.O. QUITE UNUSUAL WHEREIN HE GIVES MANY DIFFERENT DATES IN ONE NOTICE WITH TH E LAST DATE BEING 03.02.2009. SUBSEQUENTLY THESE DATES ARE WITHDRAWN BY THE A.O. AND GOES ON TO FINALISE THE ASSESSMENT ON 27.01.2009 WHEN TIME AVAILABLE FOR FINALISING THE ASSESSMENT WAS UPTO 31.12.2009. THE CONDUCT OF THE A.O. IN ITSELF PROVES THAT THE PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE HAS BEEN VIOLATED. 9.1. ON THIS ISSUE THE LETTER WRITTEN BY MRS. INDIRA BHANDARE DATED 29.01.2009 MAKES AN INTERESTING READING. CONTENTS OF THE LETTER IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER: TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER WARD 1(1) PANAJI G OA. DEAR SIR SUB: SURVEY OF MY PREMISES ON 25/09/08 I HAVE RECEIVED YOUR ORDER RAISING NOTICE OF DEMAND OF RS.5 78 484.00 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 08. IT APPEARS THAT YOU HAVE NOT TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION YOUR LETTER NO. MISC/ITO/W - 1(1)/08 - 09 DATED 11.12.08 WHEREIN YOU HAD MENTIONED THAT YOU WOULD BE COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT BY 03.02.2009 AND WE WERE REQUESTED TO FILE THE RETURN U/S.142(1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 TO COMPLY WITH THE SAID LETTER. THE COPY OF THE SAID LETTER IS ENCLOSED MARKED ANNE XURE I. SUDDENLY YOU HAVE ISSUED LETTER NO. MISC/ITO/W1(1)/08 - 09 DATED 02.01.09 MARKED ANNEXURE II STATING THAT YOU WANT TO WITHDRAW THE AFORESAID LETTER AS MY FAMILYS INTENTION ARE BAD. ALTHOUGH YOUR LETTER IS QUESTIONABLE AND WHIMSICAL I HAVE FILED RET URN OF INCOME U/S. 142(1) OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961 WITH YOUR OFFICE. HOWEVER YOU HAVE REFUSED TO ACCEPT MY RETURN AS T HE 5 . ITA NO. 279 TO 283 /PNJ/2013 ( ASST. YEAR 2007 - 08) RETURNED INCOME WAS MORE THAN RS. 5 LAKHS NAD YOU HAVE N O JURISDICTI ON TO ACT ON THE SAID LETTER. I WAS TOLD TO FILE MY RETURN WITH ACIT CIRCLE 1 (PANAJI) GOA IT WAS ALSO CONFIRMED WITH THE ACIT CIRCLE 1 THAT HIS OFFICE CAN ACCEPT THE SAID ROT. ACCORDINGLY RETURN WAS AC CEPTED VIDE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT NO.011 1001192 DATED 14 . 01.2009. 1 AM ENCLOSING THE COPY OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT MARKET ANNEXURE II I. I AM REALLY SURPRISED HOW THE ASSESSMENTS ARE BEING MADE BY YOU WHEN YOU HAVE NO JURISDICTION AS YOU YOURSELF HAD TOLD ME. OUR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE HAD BEEN TO YOUR OFFICE SEVERAL TIMES. HOWEVER YOU HAVE NOT MADE NOTINGS IN YOUR FILE. YOU ARE ALSO NOT MAINTAINING DIARY OF VISITORS. ALL THE TIME YOU ARE HARPING THAT I SHOULD ACCEPT WHATEVER BASE PRICE DETERMINED BY YOU AS THE BASE PRICE FOR COMPUTATION OF CAPITAL GAINS. WE HAD PAID A SUM OF RS. 28 00 000/ - TO OUR CARETAKERS DEEMED TENANTS WHO W ERE LOOKING AFTER OUR PROPERTY AND ALL THE PAYMENTS WERE MADE BY CROSSED CHEQUES DRAWN IN THEIR FAVOUR. WE HAD ALSO REQUESTED IN OU R OBJECTIONS LETTER DATED 21.11. 2008 THAT THOSE CARETAKERS BE SUMMONED AND EXAMINED TO FIND OUT THE TRUE NATURE OF THE TRANSA CTION. DELIBERATELY YOU HAVE NOT SUMMONED THEM ON ACCOUNT OF WHICH YOU MADE US PAY CAPITAL GAINS ON RS 28 00 000/ - I.E. AMOUNT OF COMPENSATION PAID TO THEM. IT HAS BEEN ALL THE TIME MENTIONED IN YOUR VARIOUS LETTERS THAT WE HAVE NOT CO - OPERATED WITH YOU I N POST SURVEY PROCEEDINGS. THIS IS NOT TRUE. YOU HAD SUMMONED ALL THE FAMILY MEMBERS INCLUDING MY MOTHER/MOTHER - IN - LAW WHO IS 82 YEAR OLD AND WE ALL HAVE ATTENDED BEFORE YOU IN YOUR OFFICE. HOWEVER EVEN OUR ATTENDANCE WAS NOT NOTED BY YOU SINCE YOU HAVE NO T OBTAINED MY SIGNATURE FOR HAVING ATTENDED THE SUMMONS. MANY OF THE NOTICES SERVED BY YOU WERE SERVED ON EITHER SOME CASES ON ONLY ONE ASSESSEE OR ON STAFF OF OFFICE OF ONE OF THE CO - OWNERS SITUATED AT PANAJI. DURING THE CONVERSATION YOU USED TO ALWAYS F ORCE US TO ACCEPT THE DEMAND WORKED OUT BY YOU AND YOU WERE THREATENING US THAT WOULD LEVY PENALTY U/S. 274 READ WITH SEC. 271 OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961 TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT. OUR EXPLANATIONS WERE NEVER HEARD BY YOU. OUR VALUATION REPORTS ARE ALSO NOT CONS IDERED BY YOU. YOUR ENTIRE APPROACH TO MY CASE WAS VINDICTIVE AND NOT BASED ON PRINCIPLES OF EQUITY AND NATURAL JUSTICE. WE THEREFORE REQUEST YOU TO KINDLY TAKE NOTE OF THIS LETTER AND NOT TO ENFORCE DEMAND RAISED BY YOU UNTIL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING IN RESP ECT OF THE SAID NOTICE U/S. 142(1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 IS DISPOSED OFF. SD/ (INDIRA SHANDARE) THE ABOVE MENTIONED LETTER OF MRS. INDIRA BHANDARE IS AN AMPLE TESTI MONY OF THE INTENTION OF THE A.O. WHEREIN GRANTING OF ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY WAS NOT INTENDED AT ALL. I HAVE TO CONCLUDE ON THE BASI S OF THE FACTS AS EMERGES FROM VARIOUS DOCUMENTS THAT ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD WAS NOT GRANTED TO THE APPELLANT AND ORDER U/S 144 R.W.S. 147 WAS PASSED IN HASTE WITHOUT ANY REASONABLE CAUSE. 10. COMPUTATION OF CAPITAL GAINS : 6 . ITA NO. 279 TO 283 /PNJ/2013 ( ASST. YEAR 2007 - 08) I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE COMPUTATION MADE BY THE A. 0. AND WRITTEN SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT. THE WRITTEN SUBMIS SION ALONGWITH SUPPORTING WAS FORWARDED TO THE A.O. VIDE MY PREDECESSORS LETTER DATED 12.07.11. WHEREIN HE HAD REQUESTED A.O. TO EXAMINE THE SUBMISSION AND THE DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED BY THE APPELLANT AFTER ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE . HOWEVER IT IS CLEAR FROM THE REMAND REPORT THAT THE A.O. HAS NOT ALL EXAMINED THE SUBMISSION AND THE DOCUMENTS. THEREFORE THE DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED BY THE APPELLANT ARE BEING TREATED AS CORRECT AND DECISION IS ARRIVED AS UNDER: 10.1. SINCE THE PROPERTY CAME IN THROUGH INHERITANCE THE INDEXATION HAS TO GIVEN FROM 01.04.81. 10.2. THE APPELLANT HAS CORRECTLY VALUED THE LAND@ RS. 50 PER SQ. MTR. ON THE BASIS OF COMPARATIVE SALE PRICE AS NEARING THAT DATE. THE RATE OF RS. 9/ - PER SQ. MTR . ADOPTED BY THE AO IS NOT CORRECT ON THE BASIS OF FACTS OF THIS CASE. 11. THUS ON THE BASIS OF FACTS OF THIS CASE AND THE LEGAL POSITION IN MY OPINION: I. THE A.O. WAS NOT CORRECT IN ISSUING NOTICE U/S 148 WHEN TIME FOR NORMAL SCRUTINY U/S 143(3) WAS AVAILABLE. II. THE AO. WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN NOT ISSUING ANY NOTICE U/S 143(2) BEFORE INITIATING AND CONCLUDING THE ASSESSMENT. III. THE A .O . WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN NOT GIVING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE BEFORE CONCLUDING THE ASSESSMENT. 3.4 THE LEARNED DR SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME ON 20.02.2008. DURING THE SURVEY PROCEEDING IT WAS FOUND THAT THERE WAS A N ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME THEREFORE NOTICE U/S. 148 WAS ISSUED AND DULY SERVED. THE ASSESSEE WAS TO FILE THE RETURN ON 23.11.2008 IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE U/S. 148. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FILE THE RETURN THEREFORE THE ASSESSMENT WAS MADE U/S. 144 R.W.S 147. THE COMMISSIONER OF I NCOME TAX HAS HELD THAT TH E AO WAS NOT CORRECT IN ISSUING THE NOTICE U/S. 148 WHEN THE TIME FOR NORMAL SCRUTINY U/S. 143(3) WAS AVAILABLE. THE AO HAS NOT ISSUED NOTICE U/S.143(2) THEREFORE ASSESSMENT IS BAD IN LAW. THE COMMISSIONER ON INCOME TAX HAS RELI ED UPON THE DE CISION OF SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS. HOTEL BLUE MOON 321 ITR 362 (SC) . THE ASSESSEE IN THIS CASE ACIT VS. HOTEL BLUE MOON THE SEARCH AND SEIZURE WAS CONDU CTED AND AFTER SEARCH BLOCK RETURNS WERE FILED WHEREAS IN THE CASE OF ASSES SEE NO RETURN OF INCOME HAVE BEEN FILED. H ENCE NOTICE U/S. 143(2) IS NOT MANDATO RY IN THIS CASE. IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SA NJEEV SHARMA 192 TAXMAN 7 . ITA NO. 279 TO 283 /PNJ/2013 ( ASST. YEAR 2007 - 08) 197(ALLAHABAD) WHEREIN IT HAS HELD THAT IF THE ASSESSEE FILED THE RETURN IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S. 148 IT IS MANDATORY TO ISSUE NOTICE U/S. 143(2) . THE LEARNED DR SUBMITTED THAT IN THIS CASE NOTICE U/S. 142 (1) LETTERS WERE ISSUED ON 11.12.2008 5.1.2009 12.1.2009 16.1.2009 AND FIFTH OPPORTUNITY ON 28.1.2009 AND FINAL OP PORTUNITY WAS GIVEN ON 3.2.2009. TH ERE WAS SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY WAS GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE . THE ASSESSEE DID NOT AVAIL ANY OPPORTUNITY. DURING THE PROCEEDING OF THE ASSESSMENT A NOTICE U/S. 148 WAS ISSUED . O N THE GROUND THAT THERE WAS A SURVEY AND IN SURVEY THE FOLLOWING FACTS WERE NOTICE D BY DEPARTMENT WHICH IS IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THEREFORE CIT (A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN ANNUL LING THE ASSESSMENT. 3.5 . ON THE OTHER HAND LEARNED AR RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. 3.6 . WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTION OF BOTH THE PARTIES IN THIS CASE . T HE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR A.Y. 2007 - 08 ON 20.02.2008 DECLARING RS. 84 240 / - C APITAL GAIN S . THE ASSESSEE WAS GIVEN NOTICE U/S. 14 8 FIXING TH E DATE OF HEARING ON 29.12.2008 AND ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO REMAIN PRESENT ON THAT DATE. THE SECOND OPPORTUNITY WAS GIVEN ON 5.1.2009 THIRD ON 12.1.2009 FORTH ON 16.1.2009 AND FIFTH ON 28.1.2009 AND FINAL OPPORTUNITY ON 3.2.2009. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT REMAIN PRESENT. THERE WAS SURVEY U/S. 133(A) WAS CONDU CTED ON 24.09.2008. THE FOLLOWING FACTS REVEALED BY POST SURVEY - - IN COMPUTATION OF CAPITAL GAINS THE COST INFLATION INDEX YEAR WAS TAKEN AS 1981 - 82. THE ANCESTRAL PROPERTY HAD COME TO THE ASSESSEE DURING FY 1987 - 88 AS PER SECTION 49(1)(III )(A) BY WAY OF SUCCESSION / INHERITANCE. AS PER EXPLANATION (HI) OF SECTION 48 OF I T ACT THE YEAR TO BE TAKEN IS THE YEAR IN WHICH THE ASSET BECOMES THE PROPERTY OF THE ASSESSEE OR FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 1961 - 82 WHICHEVER IS LATER. SO THE COST INFLATION INDEX YEAR T O BE ADOPTED IS 1987 - 88 AND NOT 1981 - 82 AS ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSEE. 8 . ITA NO. 279 TO 283 /PNJ/2013 ( ASST. YEAR 2007 - 08) - FROM THE SALE CONSIDERATION AMOUNT AN EXPENSE OF RS.28 LAKHS WAS CLAIMED ON ACCOUNT OF TENANT SETTLEMENT. IT WAS NOTICED THAT IN FORM I & IV THE NAMES OF THE PERSONS TO WHOM PAYMENTS W ERE MADE AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSES DID NOT APPEAR IN THE OCCUPANTS COLUMN AS WAS SEEN FROM THE SALE DEED DATED 06. 07.2006. - THE LAND RATE AS ON 01.04.1981 WAS ADOPTED @RS11.65 PER SQ.MTR IN THE COMPUTATION OF CAPITAL GAINS IN RESPECT OF PROPERTY # PLOT NO 4B RIBEIR O PEQENO RIBANDAR TISWADI IL HAS NORTH GOA. THE SUB - REGISTRAR LETTER DATED 25.09.2008 REFLECTS THE MARKED VLAUE OF LAND AS ON 01.04.1981 WAS RS. 10 PER SQ. MTR. - EXEMPTION U/S.54EC OF RS. 15 LAKHS ON 28.02.2007 DOES NOT SATISFY THE CONDIT IONS LAID IN THE SECTION. THE TRANSFER OF PROPERTY TOOK PLACE ON 06.07.2006. INVESTMENT IN BONDS WAS REQUIRED TO BE MADE BEFORE 6 MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF TRANSFER AND THAT IS BY 06.01.2007. SO THE EXEMPTION CLAIMED U/S 54EC OF RS. 15 LAKHS IS NOT CORRECT. - IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE I HAVE REASON TO BELIEVE THAT INCOME HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT CHARGEABLE TO TAX FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 08 AS PER SECTION 147 OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961. T HEREFORE ASSESSING OFF ICER HAS REASON TO BELIEVE THAT THE INCOME ESCAPED THE A SSESSMENT AND IF THERE IS AN ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME IT IS CHARGEABLE TO TAX THEREFORE ON THE BASIS OF MATERIAL S SUB - REGISTRAR LETTER S ALE DEED DATED 6.7.2006 AND EX EMPTION CLAIMED U /S. 54EC T HE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RECORDE D THE REASONS AND NOTICE U/S. 148 WAS ISSUED SE A S PER SECTION 147 WHICH READ AS UNDER: SECTION 147. INCOME ESCAPING ASSESSMENT. -- IF THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS REASON TO BELIEVE THAT ANY INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT FOR ANY ASSESSMENT YEAR HE MAY SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIONS 148 TO 153 ASSESS OR REASSESS SUCH INCOME AND ALSO ANY OTHER INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX WHICH HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT AND WHICH COMES TO HIS NOTICE SUBSEQUENTLY IN THE COURSE OF THE PROCEEDINGS UNDER THIS S ECTION OR RECOMPUTED THE LOSS OR THE DEPRECIATION ALLOWANCE OR ANY OTHER ALLOWANCE AS THE CASE MAY BE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR CONCERNED (HEREAFTER IN THIS SECTION AND IN SECTIONS 148 TO 153 REFERRED TO AS THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR): 9 . ITA NO. 279 TO 283 /PNJ/2013 ( ASST. YEAR 2007 - 08) PROVIDED THAT WHE RE AN ASSESSMENT UNDER SUB - SECTION (3) OF SECTION 143 OR THIS SECTION HAS BEEN MADE FOR THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR NO ACTION SHALL BE TAKEN UNDER THIS SECTION AFTER THE EXPIRY OF FOUR YEARS FROM THE END OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR UNLESS ANY INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT FOR SUCH ASSESSMENT YEAR BY REASON OF THE FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO MAKE A RETURN UNDER SECTION 139 OR IN RESPONSE TO A NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SUB - SECTION (1) OF SECTION 142 OR SECTION 148 OR TO DISCLOSE FULLY AND TRULY ALL MATERIAL FACTS NECESSARY FOR HIS ASSESSMENT FOR THAT ASSESSMENT YEAR. ***PROVIDED FURTHER THAT NOTHING CONTAINED IN THE FIRST PROVISO SHALL APPLY IN A CASE WHERE ANY INCOME IN RELATION TO ANY ASSET (INCLUDING FINANCIAL INTEREST IN ANY E NTITY) LOCATED OUTSIDE INDIA CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT FOR ANY ASSESSMENT YEAR: *PROVIDED ALSO THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAY ASSESS OR REASSESS SUCH INCOME OTHER THAN THE INCOME INVOLVING MATTERS WHICH ARE THE SUBJECT - MATTERS OF ANY APPE AL REFERENCE OR REVISION WHICH IS CHARGEABLE TO TAX AND HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. AS PER SECTION 147 EMPOWERS ASSESSING OFFICER TO ASSESS OR RE - ASSESS ANY INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX WHICH HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. HE CAN ASSESS OR RE - ASSESS THIS INCOME IF REASON TO BELIEVE THAT INCOME HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT FOR ANY ASSESSMENT YEAR SUBJECT TO PROVISIONS OF SECTION 148 AND 15 3 OF THE ACT. W.E.F 1.4. 1989. THE ASSESSING OFFICER CAN ASSESS THE ESCAPED IN COME FOR WHICH HE HAS FORMED A BELIEF ALSO OTHER INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAS SUBSEQUENTLY COME TO HIS NOTICE IN THE COURSE OF PROCEEDING UNDER THIS SECTION AND RE - COMPUTE THE LOSS DEPRECIATION ALLOWANCE OR ANY OTHER ALLOWANCE AS THE C ASE MAY BE. IN THIS CASE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS OBTAINED THE INFORMATION BY THE CONDUCTING A SURVEY U/S. 133A OF THE ACT AND AO WAS IN POSSES SION OF SUB - REGISTRAR LETTER QUO TING THE LAND RATE S AS ON 1.4. 19 81 SALE D EED DATED 0 6. 07.2006 E XEMPTION C LAIM ED U/S. 54EC T HE TRANSFER OF LONG - TERM CAPITAL ASSET TOOK PLACE ON 0 6. 0 7.2006. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS REASSESSED THE INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX. IN THE CASE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALSO RECORDED THE REASONS FOR ISSUING THE NOTICE U/S. 147 AND DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO FILE THE RETURN OF INCOME. SUCH NOTICE WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE AND ASSESSMENT WAS MADE. WE FIND THAT THE AS PER THIS SECTION 147 THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS JUSTIFIED IN IS SUING THE NOTICE U/S. 148 AND JUSTIFIE D IN MAKING THE ASSES SMENT U/S.144 OF THE ACT. WE FIND THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX HAS HELD THAT 10 . ITA NO. 279 TO 283 /PNJ/2013 ( ASST. YEAR 2007 - 08) WHEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER CAN ASSESS THE INCOME U/S. 143(2) IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO ISSUE THE NOTICE U/S. 148 OF THE ACT. BUT IN THE INSTANT CASE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HA S NOT COMPL ETED THE ASSESSMENT AND PENDENCY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE A SSESSING OFFICER HAS ISSUED THE NOTICE U /S. 147 AND MADE THE ASSESSMENT. T HEREFORE WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT AO IS JUSTIFIED IN REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT AS WELL AS MAKING THE ASSESSME NT U/S. 147 R.W.S. 144. THEREFORE WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT CIT (A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN ACTION THERE FORE W E REVERSE THE FINDING OF CIT(A) AND CONFIRM THE ACTION OF THE AO. IN THE RESULT G ROUND NO. 1 OF DEPARTMENTS APPEAL IS ALLOWED. 4. GROUND NO.2 & 3: - ALL THE ASSESSEES ARE CO - OWNER OF THE PROPERTY WHICH IS SITUATED AT VILLAGE CARAMBOLIM. THE ASSESSEES PROPERTY WAS CULTIVATED BY TENANT AS DEFINED IN THE GOA DAMAN & DIU AGRICULTURAL TENANCY ACT. ALL THE ASSESSE ES HAVE SOLD THIS PROPE RTY. ALL THE ASSESSEES ARE COMMON ASSESSEE HAVE MADE SETTLEMENT WITH THE TENANTS AND THEY HAVE PAID 28 00 000/ - TO THE TENANT. THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED A DEDUCTION FR OM SALE CONSIDERATION WHICH WAS PAID TO TENANT. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE TENANTS NAME IS NOT APPEARING I N FORM NO. I & X IV OR T ENANT SHOULD HAVE RESIDED IN THAT PROPERTY. THE TENANT IS DEFINED IN SECTION 4 OF THE TENANCY ACT OF GOA DAMAN DIU AGRICULTURAL TENANCY ACT 1964. THE TENANTS WER E HAVING LICENSE TO EXTRACT J UICE FROM CASHEW APPLE WHICH I S IMPORTA NT DOCUMENT FOR IDENTITY OF THEIR AS A TENANT. THE ENTIRE PAYMENT OF RS.28 00 000/ - WAS PAID BY CROSS ED CHEQUE S. SO ALL THESE PAYMENTS WERE MADE FOR PROVIDING CLEAR TITLE TO THE PURCHASE OF THE LAND WHICH AO DID NOT A LLOW AND CIT(A) HAS ALLOWED IT. THEREFORE THE DEPARTMENT IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 4 . 1 THE LEARNED DR SUBMITTED THAT CIT(A) HAS AL LOWED THE COMPENSATION OF RS.28 00 000/ - WHICH WAS PAID BY THE ASSESSEE FOR SETTLEMENT WITH THE TENANTS WHO WERE CULT IVATED LAND IN DISPUTE. 4 . 2 THE LEARNED AR SUBMITTED THAT THE DEPARTMENT IS IN APPEAL AGAINST UNDER SECTION 144 R.W.S 147 OF THE I.T. ACT. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING THE BENCH 11 . ITA NO. 279 TO 283 /PNJ/2013 ( ASST. YEAR 2007 - 08) HAS INFORMED TO THE AR THAT THE CIT(A) HAS PASSED THE ORDER U/S. 144 R.W.S. 147 IS ILLEGAL. THE LEARNED AR AGREED THAT THE CIT(A) HAS NOT PASSED THE REASONED ORDER WHILE ALLOWING THE CLAIM OF THE DEDUCTION OF SALE CONSIDERATION WHICH WAS PAID TO THE TENANT S. THE LEARNED AR HAS NO OBJECTION IF THE MATTER IS RESTORED TO CIT(A) FOR FRESH CONSIDERATION. 4.3 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTION OF BOTH THE PARTIES. LOOKING TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE WE GONE THROUGH THE ORDER OF CIT(A). THE CIT(A ) HAS ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF RS. 28 00 000/ - OF THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT PASSING ANY SPEAKING ORDER. WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE CIT(A) SHOULD PASS THE ORDER WITH GIVING THE REASONS. WE FIND THAT THE DEPARTMENTAL AUTHORITIES WERE INSTRUCTED BY THE CBDT ( INSTRUCTION NO. 1592 DATED 7.1.85 F. NO.262/38/84I TJ ) WHEREIN THE DEPARTMENTAL AUTHORITIES WERE INSTRUCTED A S FOLLOWING : NECESSITY OF MAKING SPEAKING ORDERS BY DEPARTMENTAL AUTHORITIES. (INSTRUCTION NO. 1592 DATED 7 - 1 - 85 F. NO. 262/38/84 ITJ.) IN THE CASE OF SIEMENS ENGINEERING AND MANUFACTURING CO. OF INDIA LTD. VS. UNION OF INDIA (AIR 1976 - SUPREME COURT 1785) THE SUPREME COURT OBSERVED: 'IT IS NOW SETTLED LAW THAT WHERE AN AUTHORITY MAKES AN ORDER IN EXERCISE OF A QUASI - JUDICIAL FUNCTION IT MUST RECORD ITS REASONS IN SUPPORT OF THE ORDER IT MAKES. EVERY QUASI - JUDICIAL ORDER MUST BE SUPPORTED BY REASONS ..THE RULE REQUIRING REASONS TO BE GIVEN IN SUPPORT OF AN ORDER IS LIKE THE PRINCIPLE OF AUDI ALTERAM PARTEM A BASIC PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL J USTICE WHICH MUST INFORM EVERY QUASI - JUDICIAL PROCESS AND THIS RULE MUST BE OBSERVED IN ITS PROPER SPIRIT AND MERE PRETENCE OF COMPLIANCE WITH IT WOULD NOT SATISFY THE REQUIREMENT OF LAW'. ORDERS WHICH ARE MADE WITHOUT RECORDING THE REASONS IN SUPPORT OF T HE DECISION TAKEN DO NOT INSPIRE CONFIDENCE IN THE OBJECTIVITY AND FAIRNESS OF THE AUTHORITY IN REGARD TO THE ORDER. SUCH ORDERS PASSED BY INCOME - TAX AUTHORITIES HAVE BEEN QUASHED BY HIGH COURTS AS VIOLATIVE OF A BASIC PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE. THE ALL AHABAD HIGH COURT IN THEIR JUDGMENT IN PARAS BHAN SADH VS. CIT AGRA (1978) (114 ITR 834 AT PAGES 837 - 838) HELD: 'IT IS INCONTROVERTIBLE THAT WHERE AN AUTHORITY MAKES AN ORDER IN EXERCISE OF A QUASI - JUDICIAL FUNCTION IT MUST RECORD REASONS IN SUPPORT OF TH E ORDER. IF AN AUTHORITY IS NEEDED FOR THE SAID PROPOSITION REFERENCE MAY BE MADE TO THE CASES OF THE SUPREME COURT IN EXPRESS NEWSPAPERS P. LTD. V. UNION OF INDIA AIR 1958 SC 578 AND SIEMENS ENGINEERING AND MANUFACTURING CO. OF INDIA LTD. V. UNION OF IND IA AIR 1976 SC 1785. IN THESE TWO CASES THE SUPREME COURT HAS CLEARLY LAID 12 . ITA NO. 279 TO 283 /PNJ/2013 ( ASST. YEAR 2007 - 08) DOWN THAT EVERY QUASI - JUDICIAL ORDER MUST BE SUPPORTED BY REASONS AND THEREFORE IT IS NOW SETTLED THAT SUCH AN ORDER MUST BE A SPEAKING ORDER. THE REQUIREMENT OF GIVING REASON S FOR AN ORDER DERIVES ITS AUTHORITY FROM THE PRINCIPLE THAT JUSTICE SHOULD NOT ONLY BE DONE BUT IT ALSO SHOULD SEEM TO HAVE BEEN DONE. MOREOVER THE DUTY TO ACT JUDICIALLY EXCLUDES THE POSSIBILITY OF ARBITRARY EXERCISE OF THE POWER. IF REASONS ARE REQUIRE D TO BE GIVEN FOR AN ORDER THE SAME WOULD BE AN EFFECTIVE RESTRAINT OR POTENT WEAPON TO CHECK THE ABUSE OF POWER. IT EXCLUDES FROM CONSIDERATION EXTRANEOUS OR IRRELEVANT MATTERS. AS OBSERVED BY SUBHA RAO J. AS HE THEN WAS IN MADHYA PRADESH INDUSTRIES LTD . V. UNION OF INDIA AIR 1966 SC 671 THAT 'A SPEAKING ORDER WILL AT ITS BEST BE A REASONABLE AND AT ITS WORST AT LEAST A PLAUSIBLE ONE'. THE INSISTENCE FOR GIVING REASONS IN AN ORDER INTRODUCES CLARITY AND PROHIBITS AN AUTHORITY FROM TAKING INTO CONSIDERA TION IRRELEVANT AND ILLEGAL MATTERS WHILE DECIDING A CASE BEFORE IT. IT FURTHER CREATES CONFIDENCE IN THE PUBLIC MIND. ANOTHER GROUND WHICH IS OFTEN ADVANCED IN TAKING THE VIEW FOR GIVING REASONS IS BASED ON THE POWER OF JUDICIAL REVIEW CONFERRED BY THE CO NSTITUTION ON THE HIGH COURT UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION AND THE SUPREME COURT UNDER ARTICLE 32. DEALING WITH THIS ASPECT THE SUPREME COURT OBSERVED IN TRAVANCORE RAYONS LTD. V. UNION OF INDIA AIR 1971 SC 862 AT PAGE 866 THUS: 'THE COURT INSIST S UPON DISCLOSURE OF REASONS IN SUPPORT OF THE ORDER ON TWO GROUNDS ONE THAT THE PARTY AGGRIEVED IN A PROCEEDING BEFORE THE HIGH COURT OF THIS COURT HAS THE OPPORTUNITY TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THE REASONS WHICH PERSUADED THE AUTHORITY TO REJECT THE CASE WER E ERRONEOUS; THE OTHER THAT THE OBLIGATION TO RECORD REASONS OPERATES AS A DETERRENT AGAINST POSSIBLE ARBITRARY ACTION BY THE EXECUTIVE AUTHORITY INVESTED WITH THE JUDICIAL POWER'. IN THIS CONNECTION REFERENCE MAY ALSO BE MADE TO THE DECISION OF THE SUPREM E COURT IN SIEMENS ENGINEERING AND MANUFACTURING CO. OF INDIA LTD. V. UNION OF INDIA AIR 1976 SC 1785 IN WHICH THE SUPREME COURT OBSERVED AT PAGE 1789 THUS: 'THE RULE REQUIRING REASONS TO BE GIVEN IN SUPPORT OF AN ORDER IS LIKE THE PRINCIPLE OF AUDI ALTE RAM PARTEM A BASIC PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE WHICH MUST INFORM EVERY QUASI - JUDICIAL PROCESS AND THIS RULE MUST BE OBSERVED IN ITS PROPER SPIRIT AND MERE PRETENCE OF COMPLIANCE WITH IT WOULD NOT SATISFY THE REQUIREMENT OF LAW'. IN THE CASE OF NARESH KUM AR GUPTA VS. CIT MEERUT (1983) 144 ITR 556 THE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT FOLLOWED THE ABOVE DECISION AND QUASHED CIT'S ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 273A. THE HIGH COURT OBSERVED THAT THE PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 273A WERE QUASI - JUDICIAL IN NATURE AND REASONS HA D TO BE RECORDED FOR PASSING THE FINAL ORDER. THE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX VS. R. K. METAL WORKS (1978) 112 ITR 445(447) CONFIRMED TRIBUNAL'S ORDER GETTING ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT 1961 OBSERVING AS UNDER: 13 . ITA NO. 279 TO 283 /PNJ/2013 ( ASST. YEAR 2007 - 08) 'IT WAS NECESSARY FOR THE COMMISSIONER TO STATE IN WHAT MANNER HE CONSIDERED THAT THE ORDER OF THE INCOME - TAX OFFICER WAS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE AND WHAT THE BASIS WAS FOR SUCH A CONCLUSION.' THE DELHI HIGH COURT IN BHARAT NIDHI LTD. VS. UNION OF INDIA (92 ITR 1) QUASHED BOARD'S ORDER REFUSING EXEMPTION TO THE ASSESSEE FROM PAYMENT OF SURTAX INTER ALIA ON THE GROUND THAT THE ORDER DID NOT GIVE ANY REASONS IN SUPPORT OF ITS FINDING AND DID NOT SHOW THAT THE BOARD HAD APPLIED ITS MIND TO THE QUESTION AT ISSUE. IN VIEW OF WHAT IS STATED ABOVE THE DEPARTMENTAL AUTHORITIES WHILE EXERCISING THEIR AUTHORITY AND GIVING DECISIONS IN A QUASI - JUDICIAL CAPACITY MUST ISSUE SPEAKING ORDERS. WE THEREFORE RESTORE TH E MATTER OF COMPENSATION OF RS. 28 00 000/ - TO CIT(A) TO PASS AFRESH ORDER AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES AND CIT(A) IS DIRECTED TO PASS SPEAKING ORDER. 5. IN THE RESULT GROUND NO S. 1 & 2 OF DEPARTMENTS APPEAL IS ALLOWED AND GROUND N O. 3 IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 2 8 .11 .2014. S D / - S D / - [ ( P.K. BANSAL) (D.T. GARASIA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER PLACE : PANAJI / GOA DATED : 2 8 .11 .2014 P.S. - *PK* COPY TO: ( 1 ) APPELLANT ( 2 ) RESPONDENT ( 3 ) CIT CONCERNED ( 4 ) CIT(A) CONCERNED ( 5 ) D.R ( 6 ) GUARD FILE TRUE COPY BY ORDER