Loading judgment…
Facts
During a search operation, the assessee, a jeweler, was found to have excess stock. The Assessing Officer (AO) made an addition of Rs. 4,96,60,427/-. The CIT(A) confirmed this addition. The assessee appealed, arguing that the stock was accounted for and substantiated with purchase bills and supplier confirmations, and the discrepancy was due to valuation at market price instead of cost price.
Held
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged the onus of proving the genuineness of the transactions by submitting purchase invoices and confirmations from suppliers, which were verified. The valuation by the registered valuer at market price without distinguishing purity was considered inappropriate. The Tribunal found that the department failed to establish that the stock was acquired from undisclosed income and that the assessee maintained stock valuation on a cost basis.
Key Issues
Whether the addition on account of excess stock found during search, valued at market price, is justified when the assessee claims it was accounted for at cost and substantiated with evidence?
Sections Cited
143(3), 156, 153D, 133(6), 131, 226(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES, ‘’A” JAIPUR
Before: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No.1487/JP/2024
ORDER PER: SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM The assessee has filed an appeal against the order of the ld. CIT(A), Jaipur-5 dated 09-04-2024 for the assessment year 2020-21 in the matter of Section 143 (3) of the Act wherein the assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal. ‘’1.On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the ld.CIT(A) has erred in upholding the addition of Rs.4,96,60,427/- being value of alleged undisclosed excess stock found during the course of search proceedings in appellant’s case by disregarding the fact that the purchase of impugned stock had been duly recorded in the books of accounts and substantiated alongwith corroborating documentary evidence before the DDIT (Inv)-1, Udaipur during the SHRI GAUTAM KUMAR RANKA VS ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER post search investigations proceedings as well as before the AO during the course of remand proceedings.
1. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the addition of Rs.4,96,60,427/- being value of alleged undisclosed excess stock found during the course of search proceedings in the appellant’s case has resulted in double taxation as the appellant had duly accounted the purchase of impugned stock in his books of accounts alomngwith the corresponding sales and duly offered the profits resulting from such transaction as his business income in his return of income and the books of accounts of the appellant had not been rejected and therefore, the impugned addition must be deleted.
3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the ldCIT(A) erred in upholding the valuation of alleged undisclosed excess stock found during the course of search in appellant’s case at ‘’Market Value’’ and not at its ‘’Cost’’ The appellant also craves to raise following grounds of appeal over and above the grounds of appeal raised before the ld.CIT(A).
4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the impugned assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 29-09-2021, the consequential notice of demand u/s 156 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 29-02- 2021 and the computation sheet are invalid as per Circular No. 19/2019 dated 14- 08-2019 as they were issued without mentioning the DIN Number.
5. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in laws, the impugned assessment order passed by the AO is invalid as the approval granted u/s 153D of the Income Tax Act by Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Range, Udaipur was a mechanical manner without any application of mind and without looking at the assessment order.
2.1 During the course of hearing, the Bench noted that there is delay of 10 days in filing the appeal by the assessee for which the assessee has filed an application dated 09-12-2024 for condonation of delay praying that he was not aware about passing the order by the ld.CIT(A) dated 04-09-2024. He submitted that his bank account was attached by the Income Tax Deptt u/s 226(3) of the Act on 26-11- 2024 and on that occasion he had approached the Chartered Accountant to resolve SHRI GAUTAM KUMAR RANKA VS ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER the issue. Thus he got late communication about this order from his Chartered Accountant on 03-12-2024 and the delay took place in filing the appeal before the ITAT. He submitted that that this is an inadvertent mistake and it was not malafide. To this effect, the assessee has filed an affidavit deposing the above facts. 2.2 On the other hand, the ld. DR opposed the delay made by the assessee in filing the appeal. However, he submitted that the Court may decide the issue as deemed fit and proper in the case. 2.3 After hearing both the parties and perusing the materials available on record, the Bench noted that there is merit in submission of the assessee and the assessee is prevented by sufficient cause in late filing of the appeal. Hence, the delay is condoned. 3.0 Apropos grounds of appeal of the assessee raised above, it is noticed that the ld.CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee by observing at para 12 of his order as under:- ‘’12. The contention of the appellant that valuation of ‘’Business Stock’’ at ‘’Market Price’’ instead of cost price is not acceptable. On perusal of the assessment order and facts of the case, it is noticed that the excess stock found at the time of search proceedings were out of the books of account. It is a fact that valuation of stock was valued by the registered valuer at the market price only and necessary deduction were allowed according to purity of the product and valuation was made only for the pure quantity, hence the valuation of business stock cannot be made on the basis of cost price shown in the SHRI GAUTAM KUMAR RANKA VS ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER bills. The valuation of the total stock was made by the valuer on the basis of purity of the items of business stock not of on the basis of total weight of the items of total stock, hence the cost price cannot be accepted.
On the basis of above discussion, the purchase bills produced by the appellant for purchase made on 01.04.2019 and 02.04.2019 during the post search investigation were without any real transaction and arranged only to justify the excess Stock. The above purchase bills cannot be relied upon as the same were only after thought and do not match with the business trends of the appellant. Hence the AO was justified to make an addition of Rs.4,96,60,427/- on account of excess stock found. The AO was justified to make addition after allowing the opening stock of Rs.10,25,874/- as per ITR for the FY 2018-19, the purchase bills produced by the appellant for Rs.44,43,733/- and allowing the credit of Rs.7,40,000/- for bills not received till search proceedings. On perusal of the evidences and facts of the case, it is clear that the appellant had not maintained the books of accounts properly and was unable to justify the closing stock of Rs. 1,52,11,368/- shown in books of account with support of evidences. The AO was also justified to consider the valuation of the stock on the market price as made by the registered Valuer Thus, the ground no 1 and 2 are hereby dismissed. 3.1 In short, it is pertinent to mention that the AO had passed an order u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 29-09-2021 on the total income of Rs.5,11,68,657/- by making the addition of Rs.4,96,60,427/- considering the undisclosed income of the assessee on account of excess stock found during the search proceedings.
SHRI GAUTAM KUMAR RANKA VS ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER 3.2 During the course of hearing, the ld. AR submitted that the ld.CIT(A) is not justified in confirming the addition of Rs.4,96,60,427/- made by the AO and to this effect the ld. AR has submitted the following submission. ‘’Assessee submission: 1. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny assessment proceeding which was the part of Block Assessment Period. A search has been carried out on 03.04.2019 at the residential premises and business premises of the assessee. During the year under consideration, the assessee is engaged in the business of Gold and Silver Ornaments in the name of “Anand Jeweller” (proprietorship of the assessee).
During the course of search, on 03.04.2019 the Investigation Wing, Unit - 1, Udaipur has found jewellery ornaments and bullions belonging to Anand Jeweller at its showroom. The Item wise details are as under: S. No Item Net Weight (grams) 1 Gold Bullion and Jewelry 9700.350 2 Silver Bullion & Jewelry 633.446
During the course of search proceedings, on being asked about the jewellery ornaments and bullion found at the searched premises, the assessee had accepted the quantity of stock found at the searched premises, the details of which are given in the above table. Further, in the statement recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act, the assessee had accepted the said quantity of stock and stated that it was bought in the regular course of his business. Further, as per the valuation done by the registered valuer during the search proceedings, the value of gold bullion and jewellery was Rs. 3,17,68,537/- and silver bullion and jewellery was Rs. 2,41,01,497/- i.e. total valuation of stock was Rs. 5,58,70,034/-.
Further, during the course of search proceedings, the assessee could only produce a few bills available with him, as the remaining bills were with Shri Mukesh Ranka, nephew of the assessee and key managerial person of Anand Jewellers, who generally received the bills. Moreover, at the time of search i.e. on 03.04.2019, the F.Y. 2018-19 had just ended a few days prior on 31.03.2019 and due to the festive season of Akshay Tritiya the books of accounts of the assessee were not complete for want of closing of accounts as on 31.03.2019. Therefore, SHRI GAUTAM KUMAR RANKA VS ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER all the jewellery and bullion found during the search, was yet to be recorded in the books of accounts at the time of search.
Subsequently, in post search investigation conducted by the Investigation Wing, Udaipur, the assessee had duly produced the supplier invoices and reconciliation of stock found at the time of search, and further the statement of assessee was recorded by the investigation wing dated 09.07.2019.
In the statement recorded under section 131 of the Act, dated 09.07.2019, the assessee, in response to question no. 07,had mentioned the list of parties from whom the assessee had bought the goods. Further, in response to question no. 16, the assessee had clearly mentioned that purchase bills were with Shri Mukesh Ranka and whatever jewellery was found at the time of search was yet to be recorded in the books of accounts at that time.
Statement of Shri Mukesh Ranka was also recorded on 10.07.2019 by the DDIT (Inv), Udaipur, where he had admitted that during the course of search proceedings, some of the purchase bills from various parties were kept in his custody.
The Investigation Wing, during the post search proceedings, had further enquired about the purchase bills by sending the summons under section 131 of the Act to these parties. The parties had duly replied to the said the summons and submitted the account confirmation reflecting the sale made to the appellant.
The above facts were available before the Ld. A.O. at the time of assessment proceedings, however, the Ld. A.O. ignored the above facts as well as the purchase bills filed before the Investigation Wing by the assessee along with account confirmations filed by the suppliers confirming the sales to the appellant, during the post search proceedings, and only considering the purchase bills filed by the assessee during the search proceedings, made the impugned addition.
During the course of first appellant proceedings before the Hon’ble CIT(A), Jaipur, at the time of the remand proceedings, all the suppliers, either through mail or physical submission, had complied with the summons issued under section 133(6) of the Act by the Ld. AO and confirmed the transactions with the assessee.
There was no non-compliance either before the Investigation Wing or before the Assessing Officer and the suppliers had confirmed the transaction with the assessee twice i.e. at the time of post search proceedings and at the time of remand proceedings during the first appellate proceedings before Hon’ble CIT(A), Jaipur.
SHRI GAUTAM KUMAR RANKA VS ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER SHRI GAUTAM KUMAR RANKA VS ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER SHRI GAUTAM KUMAR RANKA VS ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER 12. Accordingly, the appellant has reconciled the quantity of jewellery found Accordingly, the appellant has reconciled the quantity of jewellery found Accordingly, the appellant has reconciled the quantity of jewellery found on the date of search where the total quantity is tallied. on the date of search where the total quantity is tallied. on the date of search where the total quantity is tallied. The details of reconciliation of gold inventory is as under, which was duly filed before reconciliation of gold inventory is as under, which was duly filed before reconciliation of gold inventory is as under, which was duly filed before the lower authorities:
With respect to the valuation, it is submitted that the valuation report has With respect to the valuation, it is submitted that the valuation report has With respect to the valuation, it is submitted that the valuation report has incorrectly considered the value of gold at 24 karats without appreciating the fact incorrectly considered the value of gold at 24 karats without appreciating the fact incorrectly considered the value of gold at 24 karats without appreciating the fact that the assessee has purchased gold ornaments made of 22 karat o that the assessee has purchased gold ornaments made of 22 karat o that the assessee has purchased gold ornaments made of 22 karat or 20 karatetc. The invoice/bills clearly mention the Gold bar / Gold Ornaments, and the bills clearly mention the Gold bar / Gold Ornaments, and the bills clearly mention the Gold bar / Gold Ornaments, and the inventory records also reflect the same. inventory records also reflect the same. The correct computation of the gold rate correct computation of the gold rate as on 03.04.2019 is as follows: as on 03.04.2019 is as follows: Nature Purity Amount Gold Rate (24 Karat) Gold Rate (24 Karat) 99% 31,405 Gold Rate (22 Karat) Gold Rate (22 Karat) 91.67% 28,789 Gold rate on 03.04.2019 Gold rate on 03.04.2019 99% 31,405
Despite of reconciliation of Despite of reconciliation of total quantity of jewellery found, the quantity of jewellery found, the difference in the value is on account of rate difference for different purity of difference in the value is on account of rate difference for different purity of difference in the value is on account of rate difference for different purity of jewellery and ornaments and ornaments.
SHRI GAUTAM KUMAR RANKA VS ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER SHRI GAUTAM KUMAR RANKA VS ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER SHRI GAUTAM KUMAR RANKA VS ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER 15. Further, the Ld. AO has not made any addition in the assessment for AY Further, the Ld. AO has not made any addition in the assessment for AY Further, the Ld. AO has not made any addition in the assessment for AY 2019-20 concerning the closing stock as on 31.03.2019. This implies that the Ld. 20 concerning the closing stock as on 31.03.2019. This implies that the Ld. 20 concerning the closing stock as on 31.03.2019. This implies that the Ld. AO has duly accepted the valuation and existence of the closing stock for that AO has duly accepted the valuation and existence of the closing stock for that AO has duly accepted the valuation and existence of the closing stock for that year as on 31.03.2019 as on 31.03.2019. Consequently, the opening stock of gold jewellery as on . Consequently, the opening stock of gold jewellery as on 01.04.2019 stands accepted, as it directly corresponds to the closing stock of the 01.04.2019 stands accepted, as it directly corresponds to the closing stock of the 01.04.2019 stands accepted, as it directly corresponds to the closing stock of the preceding year. preceding year.
With respect to the Silver Stock, it is submitted that the assessee has duly With respect to the Silver Stock, it is submitted that the assessee has d With respect to the Silver Stock, it is submitted that the assessee has d reconciled and submitted all the Invoice and identity of the purchaser. The Ld. AO reconciled and submitted all the Invoice and identity of the purchaser. The Ld. AO reconciled and submitted all the Invoice and identity of the purchaser. The Ld. AO at the time of remand report has not doubted the existence of purchaser at the time of remand report has not doubted the existence of purchaser at the time of remand report has not doubted the existence of purchaser. The details of reconciliation of silver inventory is as under, which was duly filed details of reconciliation of silver inventory is as under, which was duly filed details of reconciliation of silver inventory is as under, which was duly filed before Ld. AO and CIT (Appeal): O and CIT (Appeal):
SHRI GAUTAM KUMAR RANKA VS ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER 17. Further, in the CIT(A) order, it was stated that the goods were returned to some of the parties at times. In this connection, it is submitted that the assessee is engaged in the business of gold and jewellery, where market trends change rapidly. To attract customers, the assessee must continuously update its inventory with new designs.
Unsold designs or those requiring modifications are either returned or exchanged. Additionally, in cases where a purchaser identifies a customer with the same requirements as the previously sold goods, they may buy back the goods from the assessee. The assessee earns the difference in valuation of gold, which is duly offered for taxation. This practice not only facilitates inventory rotation but also ensures optimal utilization of store space for new designs.
Therefore, the assumption by the CIT(A) that the transactions are not genuine as the goods were sold to the same party based on mere suspicion and baseless and does not take into account the practical business model of the jewellery industry.
To conclude, based on the foregoing submissions, it is evident that the jewellery and bullion found during the search proceedings were duly accounted for, backed by purchase invoices, and reconciled with the assessee’s books of accounts which duly verified and confirmed by Investigation Wing and by the ld. AO by issue of notice u/s 133(6) of the Act. The assessee has provided all necessary explanations, supporting documents, and confirmations from the suppliers. Further, the valuation discrepancies arising due to incorrect assumptions about gold purity and market rates have been clarified with documentary evidence.
In light of the above, it is respectfully submitted that the jewellery found during the search is a part of the business stock, duly supported by valid purchase invoices and reconciled inventory records and duly confirmed by the seller before the Investigation Wing, Udaipur and the Ld. A.O in the remand proceedings in response to the summons u/s 131 of the Act. The appellant has discharged the onus cast upon him and proved the genuineness of the purchase transactions and reconciled the quantity with the jewellery found during the search and the difference between the value is on account of rate taken for valuation of inventory. Therefore, addition made on account of unexplained jewellery and valuation discrepancies is unwarranted and deserves to be deleted.’’ 3.3 During the course of hearing, the ld.DR supported the order of the ld.CIT(A) and also filed a self explanatory report of the ACIT, Central Circle, Ajmer, the contents of the letter dated 04-02-2025 issued by Shri Rakesh Ranjan, ACIT, Central Circle, Ajmer is reproduced as under:- Office of the सहायक आयकर आयु�त Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, के���य वृत, कमरा नं.109 के���य राज�व भवन, अजमेर Central Circle, Room No. 109, Central Revenue Buliding. Ajmer क.स.आ.आ./के.यू/अज./2024-25/670 �दनांकः 04.02.2025 To The Commissioner of Income-tax (DR) Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur. (Through the Addl. CIT, Central-Range, Udaipur) Respected Sir, Sub: Calling for factual report in the case of Shri Goutam Kumar Ranka, PAN- AHNPR5761K, A.Y.2020-21, Appeal Number ITA/1487/JPR/2024-Regarding Kindly refer to above, on the above cited subject. 2 In this connection, it is submitted that as par facts available on record, the factual report in the case of Shri Goutam Kumar Raznika for AY 2020-21 is being submitted as under- 3. Assessment proceeding u/s 143(3) was completed on 29.09.2021 and disposal of the same was made through manual upload process on ITBA portal.
SHRI GAUTAM KUMAR RANKA VS ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER In this regard, intimation for completion of the assessment proceedings was generated through DIN on 31.03.2022 vide No. ITВА/COM/8/91/2021- 22/1036211186(1) after obtaining necessary approval required u/s 153D of the Act from the competent authority. Copy of the above intimation and approval letter are attached herewith. Thus, instruction contained in the Boards circular No. 19/2019 dated 14.08.2019 was duly complied. Submitted for kind consideration. Thanking You. भवद�य Sd/- (राकेश रंजन) सहायक आयकर आयु�त, के���य वृत, अजमेर सल�नः उपरो�तानुसार 3.4 We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available including the submissions made by both the parties. In this appeal, it is noted that the case of the AO is that during the course of search and survey conducted at the assessee’s premises on 03.04.2019, there was a difference in the physical stock and stock appearing in the Books of Account as on that date. The AO in the assessment order recorded that the assessee had produced the purchase invoices only before the Investigation Wing during the post Investigation proceedings and was unable to reproduce the same at the time of Search and recording of statement during Search and that the assessee was not able to justify the excess stock found during the search. Thus the sole addition of Rs.4,96,60,427/- was made by the AO by holding SHRI GAUTAM KUMAR RANKA VS ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER that the assessee could not explain the sources of excess stock amounting to Rs. 4,96,60,427/- and thus, held such excess stock as his unexplained income. Aggrieved by the same, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). It is noted that during the appellate proceedings, the ld. CIT(A) called for a report from the AO vide his office letter No.37 dated 11.08.2023. In compliance of the above letter, the AO has submitted his report through proper channel vide his office letter No.742 dated 01.11.2023. In the remand report, it was stated that the information was called for u/s 133(6) of the Act from various parties to verify the genuineness of the claim of the assessee by issuing a separate letter to each on 23.08.2023. In response the AO stated that out of the 10 parties, only 5 parties have furnished the requisite information. In response the remand report, the assessee filed a rejoinder clarifying that the other 5 parties have also physically/ e-filed the requisite replies in compliance to the notice u/s 133(6) of the Act along with the confirmations, bank statement and GST details and submitted the proof of the reply letters filed by the parties. It is noted that the ld. CIT (A) after considering the submission of the assessee, the remand report of the AO, rejoinder of the assessee decided the case against the assessee by confirming the addition made by the AO. The ld. CIT (A) observed that the assessee had introduced the new parties and bills to cover up the excess stock found in the search which according to him was only an afterthought. The ld.CIT(Appeal) has also observed that the assessee could not produce the bills SHRI GAUTAM KUMAR RANKA VS ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER during the course of search action on the assessee and had also accepted the excess stock and its valuation arrived at by the registered valuer. Accordingly, on the basis of the statement recorded at the time of search, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition of the AO. It is noted that in the course of proceedings before us, the Ld. AR argued that the assessee has discharged the onus of proving the excess stock found in the course of Search Proceedings. The Ld. AR emphasized on the verification exercise carried out by the Investigation Wing in the post search proceeding and by the AO at the time of the remand proceedings wherein the supplier parties have duly confirmed their sale transaction with the assessee. The Ld AR also stated that due to the festive season, the books of accounts of the assessee were not complete for want of closing of accounts as on 31.03.2019. He further argued that the quantity of stock of jewellery and bullion found during the course of search was duly reconciled along with supporting evidences which have also been confirmed by all the parties on two separate occasions before the AO and the Investigation Wing. Further, it was the submission of the assessee that after the reconciliation of stock quantity, the difference in value was on account of the difference in rate of different purities of the ornaments. The Bench noted that on the other hand, the Ld. DR strongly relied on the findings recorded by the AO in the assessment order and ld. CIT(A)’s order. The ld DR further contended that the assessee failed to justify the excess stock found during the course of search and SHRI GAUTAM KUMAR RANKA VS ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER that the submissions made post-search were mere afterthoughts, introduced with the intent to cover up undisclosed income. The ld DR also emphasized that the search proceedings were conducted on 03.04.2019, during which the physical stock was inventoried, and a clear discrepancy was noted between the stock recorded in the books of accounts and the stock found at the premises. The Bench took into consideration the submissions of both the parties and found that the assessee had provided purchase bills, books of accounts, vouchers, and supporting documents during post-search proceedings and at the remand stage, which were verified by the Investigation Wing and AO during the remand proceedings. The AO has primarily relied on statements recorded at the time of search, neglecting the post investigation proceedings and statements given by the assessee and his key managerial person, Shri Mukesh Ranka. It is also noted that the AO also did not consider the confirmations filed by supplier parties before the investigation wing in response to summons u/s 131 of the Act. Thus the assessee has discharged the onus cast upon him and has proved the genuineness of transactions entered into by submitting the copies of purchase invoices and confirmations before the investigation wing and the AO, which have been also subsequently been verified by the investigation wing by issuing summons u/s 131 of the Act and by the AO by calling for information u/s 133(6) of the Act from the relevant parties. In view of the above, we are of the considered view that the assessee has reconciled the SHRI GAUTAM KUMAR RANKA VS ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER excess quantity of stock found during the course of search by submitting the relevant evidences and all the parties have duly confirmed the transactions with the assessee, on two separate occasions, the purchases, therefore, cannot be doubted and accordingly no addition is warranted on account of unexplained excess stock. Further, on going through the supporting documents, including invoices evidencing the purchase cost, it is evident that the assessee has recorded the stock at cost as per the recognized accounting principles. The approach adopted by the registered valuer, wherein a blanket rate of 24K gold and 99.99% purity silver has been applied, without distinguishing between gold bars and jewellery, is not appropriate. The valuation methodology should consider the actual quality and composition of the stock, which has not been done in the present case. The assessee’s explanation given post-search has not been rebutted by any positive material, and the department has failed to establish that the stock was acquired out of undisclosed income. Furthermore, as the assessee has maintained stock valuation in accordance with cost basis, duly substantiated by purchase invoices, the difference arising due to the application of market rates by the valuer does not justify any addition. Hence in view of the entire conspectus of the facts and the submissions as made by the ld. AR of the assessee, the Bench does not concur with the findngs of the ld. CIT(A) and no addition is warranted on account of the difference in valuation. Thus the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
4.0 In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed . Order pronounced under Rule 34(4) of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 by placing the details on the notice board.