Ambawatta Buildwell Private Limited, New Delhi v. DCIT, cc-1 , Gurgaon

ITA 4136/DEL/2019 | 2010-2011
Pronouncement Date: 31-08-2021 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 413620114 RSA 2019
Assessee PAN AAGCA0991B
Bench Delhi
Appeal Number ITA 4136/DEL/2019
Duration Of Justice 2 year(s) 3 month(s) 23 day(s)
Appellant Ambawatta Buildwell Private Limited, New Delhi
Respondent DCIT, cc-1 , Gurgaon
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 31-08-2021
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted A
Tribunal Order Date 31-08-2021
Assessment Year 2010-2011
Appeal Filed On 07-05-2019
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH A NEW DLEHI BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 4136/DEL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 AMBAWATTA BUILDWELL PVT. LTD. VS. DCIT CENTRAL C IRCLE-1 KH NO. 267 100 FEET ROAD GURGAON. CHATTERPUR ENCLAVE MEHRAULI NEW DELHI. PAN : AAGCA 0991B (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SH. P.C. YADAV ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY: SH. SANJAY TRIPATHI SR. DR DATE OF HEARING: 31.08.2021 DATE OF ORDER : 31.08.2021 ORDER PER MAHAVIR PRASAD J.M. THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAI NST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) NO. 744/CIT(A)-3/GGN/2016-17 ARI SING OUT OF PENALTY ORDER DATED 18.03.2016. ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN FOLLOWIN G GROUNDS OF APPEAL : 1. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE PROCEEDINGS U/S 271(1 )(C) OF THE ACT HAVE BEEN INI TIATED ON THE BASIS OF INCORRECT FACTS AND THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED PURSU ANT THERETO IS ILLEGAL INVALID AND BAD IN LAW. 2 2. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD. CIT (A) - 3 GURGAON HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT A LL THE ISSUES RAISED WERE FULLY EXAMINED AND EXPLAINED BOTH DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND PENALTY PROCEEDINGS AND THE REASONS GIVEN FOR DISMI SSING THE APPEAL ARE CONTRARY TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE. 3. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD. CIT(A) - 3 GURGAON HAD ERRED IN NOT ACCEPTING THE C ONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT NAMELY THAT (A) THE COLLABORATION AGREEMENT DATED 2ND APRIL 2009 SEIZED DURING THE SEARCH SPECIFIES AT PARA 15 THAT UPON SIGNING OF THE AGREEMENT THE DEVELOPER HAS PAID SUM OF RS 1.00 CR ORE TO THE OWNER (PARTLY BY CASH AND PARTLY BY CHEQUE) AS ADVANCE MO NEY. THE RECEIPT JUST SUPPLEMENTS THE AGREEMENT WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN ACKN OWLEDGED BY THE SELLERS IN THE UNDATED RECEIPT DULY SIGNED ON STAMP PAPER THAT THEY HAVE RECEIVED RS 1.00 CRORE (PARTLY BY CASH - RS 50 00 0 00/- AND PARTY BY CHEQUE - RS 50 00 000/-) WHEREAS DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2009-10 NO SUCH PAYMENTS WERE MADE FOR THE REASON THAT THE LAND WAS LEARNT TO BE UNDER ACQUISITION AND THE FACTS NEEDED TO BE VERIFIED AND FOR THE FIRST TIME THE PAYMENT OF RS 50 00 000/- HAS BEEN MADE BY CHEQUE D ATED 08 TH OCTOBER 2010 UNDER THE SAID AGREEMENT IN FINANCIAL YEAR 201 0-11 WHICH IS DULY REFLECTED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. AND (B) THAT THE SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT DATED 01-07-2010 HAS NO EVIDENTIARY VALUE AS IT IS AN AFTERTHOUGHT AFTER THE SEARCH / SURVEY IN WHICH THE ABOVE REFERRED DOCUMENT WAS SEIZED WHEREAS THE FACT IS THAT SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT WAS MADE MUCH BEFORE THE DATE OF SEARCH / SURVEY OP ERATION WHICH TOOK PLACE ON 09-11-2011/ 15-11-2011 AND THEREFORE THE R EASONS ON THE BASIS OF WHICH LD CIT (A) -3 GURGAON HAS BASED HIS JUDGM ENT ARE PALPABLY INCORRECT ARE UNJUST AND CONTRARY TO THE FACTS ON RECORD. 4. THAT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT (A) - 3 GURGAON IS PERVERSE AND BAD IN LAW AS HE HAS NOT CONSIDERED AND/OR DEALT WITH THE DETAILED SUBMISSIO NS MADE DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS RELATING TO PENALTY UNDER SEC TION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT AND HAS GONE BY EXTRANEOUS IRRELEVANT AND INCO RRECT FACTS AND CONTRARY TO THE MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD DURING PR OCEEDINGS U/S 143(3) AND SECTION 271(1 )(C) OF THE ACT. THE ACTION OF TH E LD. CIT(A)- 3 GURGAON IS WHOLLY UNREASONABLE ARBITRARY BAD IN LAW AND CONT RARY TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE. 5. THAT IN THIS CASE THE MATTER RELATING TO THE QUA NTUM ADDITION OF RS 50 00 000/- AS PER THE ORDER OF LD. PR. CIT (OSD) - HOLDING CHARGE OF CIT(A) - GURGAON HAD ALREADY BEEN HEARD BY THE HONBLE ITA T DELHI ON 14TH MARCH 2019 AND LEARNED TRIBUNALS ORDER WAS AWAITE D AND THEREFORE THE LD. CIT(A) - 3 GURGAON WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN REJECTI NG THE APPELLANTS REQUEST FOR KEEPING THE PROCEEDINGS IN ABEYANCE FOR JUST A WEEK OR SO AND 3 DISMISSING THE APPEAL OF THE APPELLANT IN AN ARBITR ARY AND UNCALLED FOR MANNER. 6. THAT THE QUANTUM APPEAL PENDING BEFORE THE HON'B LE ITAT HAS SINCE BEEN DISPOSED OF VIDE ORDER DATED 9 TH APRIL 2019 IN ITA NO. 2591 /DEL/2015 AND THE ADDITION OF RS. 50 00 000 HAS BEE N DELETED AND THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO CASE FOR SUSTAINING THE PENALTY RELAT ING TO ADDITION WHICH STANDS DELETED. 7. THAT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE PRESENT APPEAL MAY BE ALLOWED WITH COSTS. 2. THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE COMP ANY IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF REAL ESTATE ACTIVITIES. A CONSEQ UENTIAL SURVEY ACTION U/S. 133A OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT 1961 WAS CARRIED O UT ON 15.11.2011 AT THE BUSINESS PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY M/ S. AMBAWATTA BUILDWELL PVT. LTD. AND ITS DIRECTOR SHRI VINOD KU MAR. DURING THE SEARCH SEVERAL INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS WERE SEIZED BY THE DEPARTMENT AND ON THE BASIS OF THOSE DOCUMENTS ADD ITION WAS MADE AND PENALTY PROCEEDINGS WERE INITIATED AND PENALTY WAS IMPOSED TO THE TUNE OF RS.15 45 000/- U/S. 271(1)(C) OF THE AC T. THE SAME WAS CONFIRMED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A). 3. AT THE OUTSET LEARNED AR SHRI P.C. YADAV ADVO CATE SUBMITTED THAT IN QUANTUM PROCEEDING ITAT VIDE ORDER DATED 0 9.04.2019 HAS ALREADY GRANTED RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO. 2 591/DEL/2015 FOR A.Y. 2010-11 WITH THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS : 7. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE RECORD IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE SUBMISSIONS. IN SO FAR AS THE DATES REFERRED TO BY THE LEARNED AR ARE CONCERNED ABSOLUTELY THERE IS NO DISPUTE. SEARCH I N THIS MATTER WAS CONDUCTED ON 9.11.2011 AND THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS BEL ONGING TO THE ASSESSEE WERE RECEIVED IN THE CENTRAL CIRCLE ON 29. 8.2013. THE SATISFACTION NOTE WAS RECORDED BY THE LD. AO ON 3.10.2013. BASIN G ON THIS AS 4 CONTENDED BY THE LEARNED AR IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE SATISFACTION NOTE DATED 3.10.2013 WAS RECORDED BY THE LD. AO OF THE ASSESSE E AND CERTAINLY IT COULD NOT BE BY THE AO OF THE SEARCHED PERSON INASM UCH AS LONG PRIOR TO THESE DATES THE LD. AO OF THE SEARCHED PERSON PART ED WITH THE DOCUMENTS WHICH WERE RECEIVED IN THE CENTRAL CIRCLE ON 29.8.2 013. EVEN IF THE AO OF THE SEARCHED PERSON AND THE AO OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ONE AND THE SAME IN VIEW OF THE DATES NAMELY DATE OF RECEIPT OF DOCUM ENTS BY THE CENTRAL CIRCLE BEING 29.8.2013 AND THE DATE OF SATISFACTION NOTE BEING 3.10.2013 THE IRRESISTIBLE INFERENCE IS THAT THE SATISFACTION NOTE DATED 29.8.2013 WAS RECORDED BY THE LD. AO AS THE AO OF THE OTHER PERSO N I.E. THE ASSESSEE BUT NOT AO OF THE SEARCHED PERSON. HAD SUCH A NOTE BEEN RECORDED BY THE LD.AO ANY DATE PRIOR TO 29.8.2013 THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN A POSSIBILITY OF UNDERSTANDING THAT SUCH A NOTE COULD HAVE BEEN RECO RDED BY THE LD. AO AS THE AO OF THE SEARCHED PERSON. HOWEVER IN VIEW OF THE ADMITTED DATES OF RECEIPT OF THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS BY THE CENTRAL CIRC LE AND THE SUBSEQUENT SATISFACTION NOTE THERE IS NO OTHER WAY OF UNDERST ANDING THE SAME EXCEPT AS THE SATISFACTION RECORDED BY THE OTHER PERSON. N OW COMING TO THE LAW APPLICABLE TO THESE FACTS BOTH THE ASSESSEE AND TH E REVENUE ARE RELYING ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF GANPATI FINCAP SERVICES P. LTD. (SUPRA). THIS CASE IS RELIED ON BY THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN A SUBSEQUENT D ECISION IN THE CASE OF PCIT VS. SHEETAL INTERNATIONAL P. LTD. (SUPRA) ON W HICH LEARNED DR HAS PLACED RELIANCE. 8. IN THE CASE GANPATI FINCAP (SUPRA) HONBLE JURI SDICTIONAL HIGH COURT AT PARA 41 SUMMARIZED THE LAW ON THIS ASPECT AS UNDER : 41. TO SUMMARISE THE LEGAL POSITION: (I) NO SEARCH UNDER SECTION 132(1) OF THE ACT CAN B E INITIATED WITHOUT A SATISFACTION NOTE BEING RECORDE D BY THE AO OF SUCH SEARCHED PERSON. THIS IS FOLLOWED BY ISS UANCE OF A NOTICE TO SUCH SEARCHED PERSON UNDER SECTION 153A OF THE ACT. AT THAT STAGE THE AO DOES NOT HAVE TO RECORD A NOTHER SATISFACTION NOTE QUA THE SEARCHED PERSON. (II) WHERE PROCEEDINGS ARE PROPOSED TO BE INITIATED UNDER SECTION 153C OF THE ACT AGAINST THE 'OTHER PERSON' IT HAS TO BE PRECEDED BY A SATISFACTION NOTE BY THE AO OF THE SEARCHED PERSON. HE WILL RECORD IN THIS SATISFACTIO N NOTE THAT THE SEIZED DOCUMENT BELONGS TO THE OTHER PERSON. DEPENDING ON THE NATURE AND CONTENTS OF THE DOCUMEN T HE MAY BE REQUIRED TO GIVE SOME REASONS FOR SUCH CONCL USION. (III) WHERE THE AO OF THE SEARCHED PERSON IS DIFFER ENT FROM THE AO OF THE OTHER PERSON THE AO WILL SIMULTANEOU S WITH 5 TRANSMITTING THE DOCUMENTS ALONG WITH HIS SATISFACT ION NOTE TO THE AO OF THE OTHER PERSON MAKE A NOTE IN THE F ILE OF THE SEARCHED PERSON THAT HE HAS DONE SO. BUT THIS IS FO R ADMINISTRATIVE CONVENIENCE. THE FAILURE BY THE AO O F THE SEARCHED PERSON AFTER PREPARING AND DESPATCHING TH E SATISFACTION NOTE AND DOCUMENTS TO THE AO OF THE OT HER PERSON TO MAKE A NOTING TO THAT EFFECT IN THE FILE OF THE SEARCHED PERSON WILL NOT VITIATE THE PROCEEDINGS UN DER SECTION 153C AGAINST THE OTHER PERSON. (IV) WHERE THE AO OF THE SEARCHED PERSON AND THE OT HER PERSON IS THE SAME SUCH A SATISFACTION NOTE QUA TH E OTHER PERSON HAS TO BE RECORDED BY THE AO OF THE SEARCHED PERSON PRIOR TO THE INITIATION OF THE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE OTHER PERSON. THIS IS A SINE QUA NON FOR TRIGGERING THE P ROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE OTHER PERSON UNDER SECTION 153C OF THE ACT. (V) THERE DO NOT HAVE TO BE TWO SEPARATE SATISFACTI ON NOTES PREPARED BY THE AO OF THE SEARCHED PERSON EVEN WHER E HE IS ALSO THE AO OF THE OTHER PERSON. IN SUCH EVENT THE AO NEED MAKE ONLY ONE SATISFACTION NOTE. THAT SATISFACTION NOTE IS QUA THE OTHER PERSON. FURTHER IT IS SUFFICIENT THAT SUCH SATISFACTION NOTE IS PLACED IN THE FILE OF THE OTHE R PERSON BY THE AO IN HIS CAPACITY AS THE AO OF SUCH OTHER PERS ON. (VI) IT IS ONLY IN CERTAIN CASES WHERE THE DOCUMEN T IS SUCH THAT IT MAY BELONG TO MORE THAN ONE PERSON (INCLUDI NG THE SEARCHED PERSON) THAT THE AO WILL HAVE TO INDICATE IN THE SATISFACTION NOTE THE REASONS WHY HE IS OF THE OPIN ION THAT THE DOCUMENT BELONGS TO THE OTHER PERSON AND NOT TH E SEARCHED PERSON. (VII) WHERE THE AO OF THE SEARCHED PERSON RECORDS T HAT THE SEIZED DOCUMENT IN QUESTION BELONGS TO THE OTHER PE RSON AND WHERE NECESSARY GIVES THE REASONS THEREFOR TH E REQUIREMENT OF SECTION 153C STANDS SATISFIED. THE F AILURE BY THE AO IN SUCH CASE TO RECORD IN THE SATISFACTION N OTE THAT SUCH DOCUMENT DOES NOT BELONG TO THE SEARCHED PERSO N WILL NOT VITIATE THE PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 153C AGAI NST THE OTHER PERSON. 9. IT IS THEREFORE CLEAR THAT THE HONBLE JURISDI CTIONAL HIGH COURT IN UNEQUIVOCAL TERMS HELD THAT RECORDING OF THE SATISF ACTION BY THE AO OF THE SEARCHED PERSON QUA THE OTHER PERSON PRIOR TO THE I NITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE OTHER PERSON IS A SINE QUA NON FOR TRIGGERING THE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE OTHER PERSON U/S 153C OF TH E ACT. NO DECISION 6 CONTRARY TO THIS PROPOSITION IS BROUGHT TO OUR NOTI CE AND ON THE OTHER HAND IN THE CASE OF SHEETAL INTERNATIONAL (SUPRA) HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT FOLLOWED THE SAME. HOWEVER IN THAT CASE AS COULD BE SEEN FROM THE JUDGMENT THETRIBUNAL INVALIDATED THE PROC EEDINGS U/S 153C OF THE ACT ONLY FOR THE REASON THAT THE AO OF THE SEAR CHED PERSON WHO WAS ALSO THAT OF THE ASSESSEE DID NOT RECORD A SEPARAT E SATISFACTION NOTE. SUCH AN APPROACH OF THE TRIBUNAL WAS REVERSED BY THE HON BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT IN GANPATI FINC AP (SUPRA) VIDE PARA 41(V) AND IT WAS HELD THAT THERE DO NOT HAVE TO BE TWO SEPARATE SATISFACTION NOTES PREPARED BY THE AO OF THE SEARCH ED PERSON EVEN WHERE HE IS ALSO THE AO OF THE OTHER PERSON. 10. IN THE CASE IN HAND IT IS NOT THE QUESTION OF RECORDING A SEPARATE NOTE OR A COMPOSITE NOTE. THIS IS A CASE WHERE ALTOGETHE R THERE IS NO SATISFACTION RECORDED BY THE AO OF THE SEARCHED PER SON QUA THE OTHER PERSON PRIOR TO THE INITIATION OF THE PROCEEDINGS A GAINST THE OTHER PERSON U/S 153C OF THE ACT. THEREFORE THE CASE OF SHEETAL INTERNATIONAL (SUPRA) HAS NO APPLICATION TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE. 11. IN SO FAR AS THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF INSTRO NICS LTD. (SUPRA) IS CONCERNED THE AO OF THE SEARCHED PERSON RECORDED A SATISFACTION NOTE TO THE EFFECT THAT SEIZED DOCUMENTS BELONGED TO THE AS SESSEE AND ON SUCH BASIS NOTICE U/S 153C WAS ISSUED. ON THIS SET OF F ACTS HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT HELD THAT THE ISSUANCE OF SUCH A NOTICE WAS JUSTIFIED. IN THE CASE OF SUPER MALLS P. LTD. (SUPR A) THE ISSUE INVOLVED WAS NOT RECORDING OF THE SATISFACTION EITHER SEPARATELY OR BY WAY OF COMPOSITE ORDER BY THE AO OF THE SEARCHED PERSON QUA THE OTHE R PERSON IN ORDER TO IMPACT THE VALIDITY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 153C. THE ISSUE INVOLVED THEREIN WAS POST AMENDMENT TO SECTION 153C BROUGHT INTO FORCE W.E.F. 1.6.2015 BY THE FINANCE ACT 2015 DELETING THE REFE RENCE TO THE EXPRESSION BELONGING TO AND INSTEAD SUBSTITUTING IT WITH PERTAINS OR PERTAINED TO AND THE IMPACT OF A VALIDITY OF THE N OTICE RECORDED U/S 153C OF THE ACT. THIS DECISION IS ALSO NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE. LIKEWISE NO DECISION IS BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE WHER E THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF GA NPATI FINCAP SERVICES LTD. (SUPRA) WAS DISTURBED. 12. WE ARE THEREFORE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION TH AT THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF GANPATI FINCAP SERVICES LTD. (SUPRA) HOLDS THE FIELD AND THE RECORDING OF SATISFACTION NOT BY THE AO OF THE SEAR CHED PERSON QUA THE OTHER PERSON PRIOR TO THE INITIATION OF THE PROCEED INGS AGAINST THE OTHER PERSON IS A SINE QUA NON FOR TRIGGERING THE PROCEED INGS AGAINST THE OTHER PERSON U/S 153C OF THE ACT AND THEREFORE IN THE A BSENCE OF SUCH RECORDING OF SATISFACTION BY THE AO OF THE SEARCHED PERSON QUA THE OTHER 7 PERSON ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION BY THE AO BY ISS UANCE OF NOTICE U/S 153C OF THE ACT CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. 13. IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT IN THE CASE OF GAN PATI FINCAP SERVICES LTD;(SUPRA) HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT STAT ED THAT THERE DO NOT HAVE TO BE TWO SEPARATE SATISFACTION NOTES PREPARED BY THE AO OF THE SEARCHED PERSON WHERE SUCH PERSON HAPPENS TO THE AO OF THE OTHER PERSON BUT ONE SATISFACTION NOTE BY SUCH AO QUA THE OTHER PERSON WOULD MEET THIS REQUIREMENT. HOWEVER THERE IS NO SUCH SA TISFACTION RECORDED BY THE AO OF THE SEARCHED PERSON QUA THE OTHER PERSON WHICH THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT LAID SINE QUA NON FOR INI TIATION OF PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE OTHER PERSON. WE THEREFORE WHILE RESP ECTFULLY 10 FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COU RT IN THE CASE OF GANPATI FINCAP SERVICES P. LTD. (SUPRA) HOLD THAT THE ASSES SMENT OF JURISDICTION FOR ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S 153C OF THE ACT CANNOT BE SU STAINED AND ON THAT GROUND THE ASSESSEE SUCCEEDS IN THIS APPEAL. SINCE ASSESSEE SUCCEEDS ON THE QUESTION OF LAW WE DO NOT DEEM IT NECESSARY TO DELVE DEEPER INTO THE MERITS OF THE CASE. APPEAL IS ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED. 14. IN THE RESULT APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWE D 4. SINCE ITAT HAS ALREADY GRANTED RELIEF TO THE ASS ESSEE IN QUANTUM PROCEEDINGS NOW THERE IS NO BASIS TO HOLD PENALTY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. 5. THUS IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE WE ALLOW THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AND DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DELETE THE PENA LTY. 6. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL FILED BY ASSESSEE IS A LLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 31 ST DAY OF AUGUST 2021. SD/- SD/- (R.K. PANDA) (MAHAVIR PRASAD) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 31 ST AUGUST 2021 AKS