ROBUST HOTELS PVT. LTD.,,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

आदेश / O R D E R

PER G. MANJUNATHA, AM:

These two appeals filed by the assessee are directed

against separate, but identical orders passed by the learned

Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Chennai, both dated

30.09.2016 and pertain to assessment years 2010-11 & 2011-

sake of convenience, these appeals were heard together and

are being disposed off, by this consolidated order.

2 ITA Nos.23 & 24/Chny/2017

of appeal for both assessment years, therefore, for the sake of

brevity, grounds of appeal filed for assessment year 2010-11

are reproduced as under:-

“1. The order of The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) 3, Chennai dated 30.09.2016 in l.T.A.No.07/2013-14/CIT(A)-3 for the above mentioned Assessment Year is contrary to law, facts, and in the circumstances of the case. 2. The CIT (Appeals) erred in sustaining the disallowance of proportionate/ interest expenses aggregating to Rs.3,93,87,137/- u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Acton the ground of diversion of interest bearing funds to its parent company M/s Forex Finance P Ltd. from the pre-operative expenses which was part balance sheet without assigning proper reasons and justification. 3. The CIT (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the presumption of the diversion of interest bearing funds diverted for non business purpose was wholly unjustified and ought to have appreciated that the financial statement as well as the purpose of the funds placed for the use of the parent company were not adjudicated thereby vitiating the wrong disallowance made. 4. The CIT (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the distinction between the setting up of the business and the commencement of the business operations was not noticed and ought to have appreciated that the presumption of absence of income under the head ‘business’ was wholly unjustified and moreover not relevant for the purpose of considering the claim of interest expenses charged. 5. The CIT (Appeals) went wrong in recording the findings in this regard in page 7 of the appellate order for the Assessment Year 2011-12 in I.T.A. No.45/2014-15 dated 30.09.2016 mechanically without assigning proper reasons and justification. 6. The CIT (Appeals) failed to appreciate that in any event having not examined the accounting treatment, the presumption of deduction claimed for interest expenses was

3 ITA Nos.23 & 24/Chny/2017 wholly unjustified thereby vitiating the sustenance of the wrong disallowance made by the Assessing Officer. 7. The CIT (Appeals) erred in sustaining the disallowance of payments made to the professionals for want of TDS on the application of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act to the extent of Rs.20,31,500/- and consequently erred in sustaining the addition made in the computation of taxable total income without assigning proper reasons and justification. 8. The CIT (Appeals) failed to appreciate that in any event the financial treatment of such expenses would vitiate the applicability of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act for making the said disallowance in the computation of taxable total income. 9. The CIT (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the attempt of the Assessing Officer in making the said two disallowances out of the pre-operative expenses shown in the balance sheet was not understood by him in the impugned order and ought to have appreciated that there was no power to apply the said provisions of the Act for making the disallowance on the wrong presumption of deductions claimed in relation thereto in the computation of taxable total income. 10. The CIT (Appeals) failed to appreciate that there was no proper opportunity given before passing of the impugned order and any order passed in violation of the principles natural justice would be nullity in law.”

engaged in the business of developing and operating hotels

filed its return of income for the assessment year 2010-11 on

04.10.2010 declaring total income of Rs.14,20,289/-, which

includes Nil income from business and Rs.14,20,289/- from

income from other sources. During the previous year relevant

to assessment year 2010-11, the assessee company was in the

process of constructing hotel and thus, there was no business

4 ITA Nos.23 & 24/Chny/2017 operations. The case was taken up for scrutiny and

assessment has been completed u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax

Act, 1961, dated 28.03.2013, where the Assessing Officer had

made certain disallowances including disallowances of certain

expenses u/s.40(a)(ia) of the Act for non-deduction of TDS

u/s.194C of the Act, disallowance of interest expenses

u/s.36(1)(iii) of the Act for diversion of interest bearing funds for

non-business purpose. The assessee carried matter in appeal before learned CIT(A), but could not succeed. The learned

CIT(A) for detailed reasons recorded in his appellate order

dated 30.09.2016 sustained additions made by the Assessing

Officer towards disallowances of certain expenses u/s.40(a)(ia)

of the Act, and further disallowance of interest expenditure

u/s.36(1)(iii) of the Act for diversion of interest bearing funds

non-business purpose. Being aggrieved by the learned CIT(A)

order, the assessee is in appeal before us.

proportionate interest expenses aggregating to

Rs.3,93,87,137/- u/s. 36(1)(iii) of the Act, and reduced same

5 ITA Nos.23 & 24/Chny/2017 from pre-operative expenses. The facts with regard to

impugned dispute are that during the course of assessment

proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee

has borrowed huge loans from banks and financial institutions

for construction of hotel, however, loans borrowed from bank

and financial institutions has been diverted to non-business

purpose being loans and advances to associate/sister

concerns. The Assessing Officer further noted that the

assessee has made investments in mutual funds and same has

been subsequently used for giving loans and advances to

associate concerns. Therefore, called upon the assessee to

explain as to why proportionate interest expenses incurred on

loans borrowed from banks cannot be disallowed u/s.36(1)(iii)

of the Act. In response, the assessee claimed that provisions of

section 36(1)(iii) of the Act cannot be invoked to disallow

proportionate interest, because said provision is applicable

when the assessee has computed income from business or

profession, but not when the assessee has debited all

expenses to pre-operative expenses during implementation of

the project. The assessee further submitted that although it has

borrowed huge loans from banks, but promoters of the

6 ITA Nos.23 & 24/Chny/2017 company had infused funds in the form of share capital and out

of the said share capital the assessee has given loans &

advances to the sister concerns and thus, if at all, interest free

loans are given to associate or sister concern, same was given

out of own funds and thus, interest expenditure cannot be

disallowed.

the explanation furnished by the assessee and according to

him, the assessee has used interest bearing funds for non-

business purpose being investments in mutual funds and

further, giving loans & advances to associate concerns and

thus, opined that the assessee has diverted interest bearing

funds for non-business purpose and hence, opined that

proportionate interest paid to banks cannot be allowed as

deduction u/s.36(1)(iii) of the Act. Accordingly, he had worked

out diversion of funds given to associate/sister concerns for

non-business purpose in light of total loan amount borrowed by

the assessee from banks and has disallowed proportionate

interest expenses of Rs.3,93,87,137/- and reduced same from

7 ITA Nos.23 & 24/Chny/2017

pre-operative expenses. The relevant findings of the Assessing

Officer are as under:-

“ As per section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 the amount of interest in respect of capital borrowed for the purpose of business or profession is only allowed as deduction. While verifying the books and records of the company, it is seen that from borrowed capital the assessee had made investment in various mutual fund and provided loans & advances to its various sister companies. The assessee vide this office letter dated 22.02.2o13 was directed to show cause why claim of interest expenses made by you should not be recomputed for the purpose of actual interest attributable to the project as under:-

On verification of balance sheet for assessment year 2009-10, the assessee company had availed loan of 45 crores from IDBI bank on which Rs.35 crores was invested in following mutual funds. The details are as follows:-

ITA Nos.23 & 24/Chny/2017

It is seen that IDBI Bank Ltd. has disbursed Rs.120 crores on various dates during assessment year 2010-11 to the assessee company for purpose of construction of hotel project. On verification of books of account, it found that some of the loan disbursements has been not utilized for the purpose of this project.

ITA Nos.23 & 24/Chny/2017

Since the assessee company has not utilized the borrowed funds fully for the purpose of Capital Assets i.e Construction of Hotel project, the assessee was ask to show cause why the expenditure claim should not be re-computed as above.

The assessee vide its reply 23.02.2013 the assessee stated that it has to be borne in mind that the assessee had brought in a sum of Rs.236.78 Crores as on 31.03.2009 and Rs.266.80 Crores as on 31.03.2010 by way of promoters capital including the securities premium related to the preference shares issued by the assessee. The said sum of Rs.63.25 Crores on which the proposed interest disallowance is contemplated must be assumed to have flown from the capital funds of Rs.266.80 Crores brought in by the promoters and cannot be inked to the borrowings made by the assessee company in isolation to the capital brought in by the promoters of a sum of Rs.266.80 Crores. The assessee also contended that in the same reply that no disallowance can be made u/s.36(1)(iii) of the Act, by way of proportionate interest of sum of Rs.3,93,87,137/- on the alleged diversion of funds of an amount of Rs.63.25 crores as again deduction u/s. 36(1)(iii) is linked to the income chargeable under the head ‘ business or profession’ which is admittedly absent in

10 ITA Nos.23 & 24/Chny/2017 the case of the assessee for A.Y.2010-11 under consideration which is not accepted and disallowance of Rs.3,93,87,137/- is hereby made.”

has preferred an appeal before the learned CIT(A). Before the

learned CIT(A), the assessee has reiterated its arguments

made before the Assessing Officer in light of certain judicial

precedents and argued that interest free loans given to its

parent company M/s. Forex Finance P.Ltd. is out of own funds

and thus, interest cannot be disallowed u/s.36(1)(iii) of the Act.

The learned CIT(A), after considering relevant facts and also by

following his predecessor learned CIT(A) order for assessment

year 2011-12 observed that as per facts brought on record by

the Assessing Officer, it is very clear that the assessee has

diverted interest bearing funds for non-business purpose and

further, failed to explain how such loans are coming under

purview of commercial expediency between two concerns and

thus, opined that there is no error in reasons given by the

Assessing Officer to disallow proportionate interest expenses

u/s.36(1)(iii) and hence, confirmed additions made by the

11 ITA Nos.23 & 24/Chny/2017 Assessing Officer. Being aggrieved by the learned CIT(A)

order, the assessee is in appeal before us.

learned CIT(A) has erred in sustaining disallowance of

proportionate interest u/s.36(1)(iii) of the Act, on the ground of

diversion of interest bearing funds to assessee’s parent

company M/s. Forex Finance P.Ltd. and further, reducing same

from pre-operative expenses, without appreciating fact that in

order to apply provisions of section 36(1)(iii) of the Act , there

should be income from business or profession and further, the

assessee should have diverted interest bearing funds for non-

business purpose. In this case, first of all there is no diversion

of interest bearing funds for non-business purpose, because

interest free loans given to its parent company is out of own

funds in the form of share capital and reserves, which is

evident from fact that promoters of the company has infused

huge capital for purpose of construction of hotel building and

out of said funds, these loans are given to parent company. He

further submitted that even assuming for a moment, there is

diversion of interest bearing funds, but proportionate interest

12 ITA Nos.23 & 24/Chny/2017 expenses cannot be disallowed u/s.36(1)(iii) of the Act,

because the assessee has not claimed deduction for said

interest expenditure in the profit & loss account and thus, in

absence of any income from business or profession, no

disallowances can be made u/s.36(1)(iii) of the Act.

order of the learned CIT(A) submitted that there is no merit in

arguments taken by the learned AR for the assessee that when

there is no income from business or profession, disallowance

u/s.36(1)(iii) of the Act, cannot be made because, even if

expenses are debited into pre-operative expenses, but said

expenses will be claimed as deduction as and when the

assessee commences its business operations. Therefore, once

it is proved that there is diversion of interest bearing funds,

proportionate interest expenses should be disallowed whether

or not said expenditure is debited into profit & loss account or

pre-operative expenses. In this regard, he relied upon the

decision of the ITAT.,Hyderbad Benches in the case of M/s.

Alaknanda Hydro Power Co.Ltd. Vs. DCIT in ITA No.

1573/Hyd/2014 vide order dated 19.06.2015.

13 ITA Nos.23 & 24/Chny/2017 9. We have heard both the parties, perused materials

available on record and gone through orders of the authorities

below. The facts borne out from records clearly indicate that

the assessee has borrowed huge loans from banks and

financial institutions for construction of hotel building. It is also

an admitted fact that promoters of the assessee company has

infused share capital for purpose of construction of building.

The facts borne out from records further indicate that the

assessee has made investments in mutual funds and further,

said investments has been subsequently used for giving

interest free loans to associate/sister concerns. As per facts

brought on record by the Assessing Officer in the assessment

order, the assessee has made investments in mutual funds of

Rs.35 crores and further, same has been used for giving

interest free advances to M/s.Rishi Trading Co.Ltd. and

M/s.Forex Finance P.Ltd. From the above, what is clear is that

there is diversion of funds to associate/sister concerns for non-

business purposes. The case of the Assessing Officer was that

the assessee has diverted interest bearing funds and such

conclusion has been arrived on the basis of loans borrowed

from banks, as per which the assessee has borrowed a sum of

14 ITA Nos.23 & 24/Chny/2017 Rs.180 crores from IDBI Bank Ltd. It was explanation of the

assessee before the Assessing Officer that though there is

diversion of funds to parent company, but said interest free

loans was given out of promoters contribution. As per the

assessee, promoters have brought in share capital amounting

to Rs.266.80 crores. Therefore, interest free loans and

advances given to parent company was given out of own

capital, but not from borrowed capital and hence, proportionate

interest cannot be disallowed u/s.36(1)(iii) of the Act.

available on record, we do not find any substance in arguments

taken by the learned AR for the assessee on the theory of

availability of own funds to explain interest free loans given to

its parent company M/s. Forex Finance P.Ltd., for simple

reason that though promoters have infused share capital, but

such share capital was infused for purpose of construction of

hotel building, but not for giving interest free advances to its

sister concerns. We further noted that bank had given finance

of Rs.180 crores and that being the case, it is necessary for the

assessee to bring in its capital to match with bank finance for

15 ITA Nos.23 & 24/Chny/2017 completion of hotel projects. Therefore, if at all, there is

promoters contribution in the form of share capital, it is

presumed that said share capital was used for construction of

hotel building and thus, argument of the assessee that interest

free loans given to parent company is out of promoters

contribution cannot be accepted.

capitalization of interest expenses to pre-operative expenses,

we find that though the assessee has debited interest expenses

to pre-operative expenses, but fact remains that when the

assessee commences its business operations, said pre-

operative expenditure will be claimed as deduction over a

period and thus, merely for the reason that interest expenses is

not debited into profit & loss account, it cannot be argued that

provisions of section 36(1)(iii) of the Act has no application. The

purpose of introduction of provisions of section 36(1)(iii) of the

Act to the statute was that interest paid on loans borrowed for

business purpose can alone be allowed as deduction. In case,

borrowed funds is used for non-business purpose, it restricts

deduction of proportionate interest pertains to said diversion of

16 ITA Nos.23 & 24/Chny/2017 funds for non-business purpose. Therefore, even if interest

expenditure is debited to pre-operative expenses, once it is

proved that diversion of interest bearing funds for non-business

purpose, then proportionate interest expenses relatable to

diversion of funds should be disallowed in terms of provisions

of section 36(1)(iii) of the Act, and further, if said interest

expenses is debited into pre-operative expenses, it should be

reduced from pre-operative expenses. Therefore, we are of the

considered view that there is no merit in the arguments taken

by the learned AR for the assessee that proportionate interest

expenses cannot be disallowed u/s.36(1)(iii) of the Act. Hence,

we are inclined to uphold findings of the learned CIT(A) and

reject grounds taken by the assessee.

ground no. 7 to 9 of the assessee appeal is disallowance of

certain expenses u/s.40(a)(ia) of the Act for non-deduction of

TDS u/s.194C / 194J of the Income Tax Act, 1961. During the

course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer

noticed that the assessee has made certain payments to

various professionals without deduction of TDS as applicable

17 ITA Nos.23 & 24/Chny/2017 u/s.194C / 194J of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Therefore, total

expenditure in the nature of professional charges amounting to

Rs.20,31,500/- has been disallowed u/s.40(a)(ia) of the Act. It

was contention of the assessee before the Assessing Officer

that professional charges paid to various parties was not

debited into profit & loss account and thus, once expenditure

was not claimed as deduction, provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of

the Act, cannot be applied to disallow for non-deduction of TDS

under respective provisions of the Act.

available on record and gone through orders of the authorities

below. Admittedly, the assessee has made certain payments to

various professionals without deduction of TDS u/s.194C / 194J

of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The only contention of the

assessee before the Assessing Officer was that for impugned

payments provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, cannot be

applied, because said payments has not been treated as

expenditure, while computing income from profits & gains from

business or profession. Except this, the assessee has not

justified its case with reference to any evidence either for non-

18 ITA Nos.23 & 24/Chny/2017 deduction of TDS or for non-application of relevant TDS

provisions for impugned payments. Therefore, it is necessary to

decide the issue in light of preliminary arguments taken by the

assessee before the Assessing Officer that provisions of

section 40(a)(ia) of the Act has no application to certain

payments made for various professionals, when such payment

was not treated as expenditure in the books of account of the

assessee. The provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act deals

with disallowances of certain expenditure for non-deduction of

TDS applicable as per law. Admittedly, various payments made

by the assessee for services are covered under provisions of

section 194C / 194J of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Therefore,

applicability of TDS provisions is not in doubtful. As regards

contention of the assessee that when deduction was not

claimed for any particular expenditure, no disallowance can be

made under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, for non-deduction of

TDS, we are not inclined to accept arguments of the learned

AR for the assessee for simple reason that even if, the

assessee is not claiming deduction for such expenditure for

said impugned assessment year, but definitely deduction will be

claimed for said expenditure when the assessee will commence

19 ITA Nos.23 & 24/Chny/2017 its business operations in subsequent years. Therefore, as long

as expenditure incurred by the assessee are in nature of

business expenditure which can be claimed as deduction, then

application of provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act should

be tested in light of applicable TDS provisions. Therefore, to

this extent, arguments of the assessee has been rejected. But,

fact remains that the assessee has not made any effort to

gather evidences to argue its case on merits on the issue of applicability of TDS provisions on said payments and further not

justified its case for non-deduction of TDS on such payments.

Therefore, we are of the considered view that, to give one more

opportunity to the assesse to justify its case, the issue needs to

go back to the Assessing Officer. Hence, the issue is set aside

to the file of the Assessing Officer and direct him to reconsider

the issue of applicability of TDS provisions on impugned

payments in accordance with law.

allowed for statistical purposes.

ITA No.24/Chny/2017 (A.Y. 2011-12): 15. The first issue that came up for our consideration from

ground no. 1 to 6 of assessee appeal is disallowance of

20 ITA Nos.23 & 24/Chny/2017 proportionate interest expenses aggregating to

Rs.4,76,50,661/- u/s.36(1)(iii) of the Act, on the ground of

diversion of interest bearing funds paid to assessee’s parent

company M/s.Forex Finance P.Ltd. and reducing same from

pre-operative expenses. We find that an identical issue has

been considered by us in ITA No.23/Chny/2017 for assessment

year 2010-11, where under identical set of facts, we have

considered diversion of interest bearing funds for non-business purpose being interest free loans given to its parent company

M/s. Forex Finance P.Ltd. and after considering relevant facts,

we held that although, the assessee claims to have used

shareholder funds for giving interest free loans to its parent

company, but on perusal of various facts brought out by the

Assessing Officer, it was very clear that shareholder funds were

locked up and used for construction of hotel building and thus,

interest free loans given to associate concerns is out of

borrowed funds and thus, the Assessing Officer is right in

disallowing proportionate interest expenses u/s.36(1)(iii) of the Act, and further reducing same from pre-operative expenses.

The reasons given by us in preceding paragraph No. 9 & 10

shall mutatis mutandis apply to this appeal, as well. Therefore,

21 ITA Nos.23 & 24/Chny/2017 for similar reasons, we are inclined to uphold findings of the

learned CIT(A) and reject ground taken by the assessee.

ground no. 7 to 11 of assessee appeal is disallowance u/s.14A

read with Rule 8D of Income Tax Rules, 1962. The facts with

regard to impugned dispute are that the assessee has earned

exempt income of Rs.36,77,665/- being dividend from mutual

funds, but did not make suo motu disallowance of expenses

relatable to exempt income. Therefore, the Assessing Officer

has computed disallowance u/s.14A of the Act by invoking Rule

8D of I.T. Rules, 1962, and determined total disallowance of

Rs.1,33,42,916/- and further reduced same from pre-operative

expenses, because the assessee has debited expenditure into

pre-operative expenses account.

learned CIT(A) has erred in sustaining disallowance u/s.14A by

invoking Rule 8D without appreciating fact that the assessee

has not debited any expenditure into profit & loss account and

thus, question of disallowance of expenses relatable to exempt

income does not arise. The learned AR further submitted that

22 ITA Nos.23 & 24/Chny/2017 the assessee has earned exempt income of Rs.36,77,665/-

whereas the Assessing Officer determined disallowance of

Rs.1,33,42,916/- which is more than the amount of exempt

income which is not permissible under law. He further

submitted that the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court of Madras

in the case of M/s. Redington India Ltd. Vs. Addl.CIT (2017) 77

Taxmann.com 257 (Mad) has already held that disallowances

contemplated u/s.14A cannot swallow entire exempt income

earned for the year. Therefore, if at all disallowance is required,

then it should be restricted to extent of exempt income earned

for the year.

order of the learned CIT(A) submitted that the assessee

although claims to have used own funds for making dividend

bearing investments, but on perusal of facts, it is very clear that

the assessee has borrowed huge funds from bank and same

has been used for investments. Therefore, when the assessee

has utilized borrowed funds for making investments interest

relatable to said borrowed funds should be disallowed as per

provisions of section 14A of the Act. The Assessing Officer,

after considering relevant facts has rightly invoked Rule 8D to

23 ITA Nos.23 & 24/Chny/2017 compute disallowance u/s.14A which was confirmed by the

learned CIT(A) and hence, their orders should be upheld.

available on record and gone through orders of the authorities

below. The assessee has made short term investments in

mutual funds and earned divided income. The assessee has

not made any disallowances towards expenses relatable to

exempt income. The assessee claimed that since it has used

interest free funds for investments, no disallowance can be

made for interest expenses. As regards other expenses, it was

explanation of the assessee before the Assessing Officer that

since investments made in mutual funds are for temporary

period, there is no cost associated with said investments and

thus, question of disallowance of other expenses does not

arise. It was finding of the Assessing Officer that although the

assessee claims to have used only interest free funds for

investments, but because the assessee has not maintained

separate books of account and further, there is mixture of

borrowed and interest free funds, possibility of utilization of

interest bearing funds cannot be ruled out. Therefore, he opined

24 ITA Nos.23 & 24/Chny/2017 that interest expenses relatable to funds used for investments

should be disallowed in terms of provisions of section 14A r.w.

Rule 8D of I.T Rules, 1962.

record, we are inclined to accept arguments of the assessee

counsel, insofar as issue of quantum of disallowance u/s.14A of

the Income Tax Act, 1961, because it is well settled principles

of law by decisions of various courts, including decision of the

Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court of Madras in the case of M/s.

Redington India Ltd. (supra), where it was clearly held that

disallowances contemplated u/s.14A cannot exceed exempt

income earned for the year. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the

case of JCIT VS. Joint Investments Pvt. Ltd. 233 taxmann.com

117 had also considered identical issue and held that

disallowances contemplated u/s.14A cannot swallow entire

exempt income for the year under consideration. The sum and

substance of ratio laid down by various High Courts is that

disallowance of expenses u/s.14A cannot exceed exempt

income of the assessee earned for the year. In this case, the

assessee has earned exempt income of Rs.36,77,665/-

25 ITA Nos.23 & 24/Chny/2017 whereas, the Assessing Officer has computed disallowance of

Rs.1,33,42,916/ which is more than amount of exempt income

earned for the year. Therefore, we are of the considered view

that the Assessing Officer as well as learned CIT(A) has clearly

erred in disallowing expenses relatable to exempt income

u/s.14A of the Act over and above exempt income earned for

the year. Hence, we direct the Assessing Officer to restrict

disallowance u/s.14A of the Act, to the extent of exempt income earned for the year.

allowed.

year 2010-11 is partly allowed for statistical purposes and that

of assessment year 2011-12 is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 12th January, 2022 Sd/- Sd/- ( वी.दुगा� राव) ( जी. मंजुनाथ) (V.Durga Rao) ( G.Manjunatha ) #या�यक सद&य /Judicial Member लेखा सद&य / Accountant Member चे#नई/Chennai, )दनांक/Dated 12th January, 2022 DS आदेश क� ��त+ल,प अ-े,षत/Copy to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. आयकर आयु.त (अपील)/CIT(A) 4. आयकर आयु.त/CIT 5. ,वभागीय ��त�न2ध/DR 6. गाड� फाईल/GF.app