Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR
Before: SHRI RAVISH SOOD & SHRI ARUN KHODPIA
आदेश/ ORDER
PER RAVISH SOOD, JM: The present appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the CIT(Appeals), Bilaspur, dated 24.03.2016, which in turn arises from the order passed by the A.O under Sec 143(3)/147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) dated 20.02.2015 for assessment year 2011-12. Before us the assessee has assailed the impugned order on the following grounds of appeal: “1. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law as well as on facts while confirming the jurisdiction u/s.147. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law as well as on facts while confirming applicability under section 44AD for receipts on account of truck plying business. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law as well as on facts in upholding the issuance of notice u/s.148 of the I.T. Act, 1961. 4. That the assessee craves leave to add, alter and amend, modify, substitute delete and /or rescind all or any of the grounds of appeal on or before the final hearing.”
Succinctly stated, on the basis of information received by the A.O that though the assessee had made a deposit of Rs.10 lacs and above in his bank accounts but had not filed his return of income
3 Shri Devendra Singh Dhot Vs. The ITO, Ward-1 ITA No. 256/RPR/2016
for the year under consideration his case was reopened u/s.147 of
the Act.
During the course of assessment proceedings it was observed
by the A.O that the assessee had, inter alia, claimed to have
garnered income from two streams of business, viz. (i) income from
the business of plying of 5 heavy goods vehicles u/s.44AE of the
Act: Rs.3,50,000; (ii) income from booking of transport work
u/s.44AD of the Act : Rs.85,000/-. It was further observed by the
A.O that an amount of Rs.3,91,17,728/- was found deposited in
the assessee’s bank account during the year under consideration,
viz. (i) HDFC Bank account: Rs. 3,65,62,414/-; and (ii) Punjab &
Sind bank account: Rs.25,55,314/-. On being queried as regards
the nature and source of deposits in his bank accounts it was the
claim of the assessee that the same were sourced from his
aforesaid business activities, as under:
S. No. Name of party Nature of Gross bill TDS Remarks work 1 M/s. Coal Transporting 3,09,93,450/- NIL Copy of work order Feeder Raipur and copy of ledger account enclosed as evidence 2 M/s. Coal Coal lifting 8,47,968/- 16,959/- Copy of ledger Feeder, Raipur account and 26AS
4 Shri Devendra Singh Dhot Vs. The ITO, Ward-1 ITA No. 256/RPR/2016
are enclosed as evidence. 3 Paras Coal Transporting 1,54,304/- NIL Form-26AS Transportation enclosed 4 Shivnath Coal Transporting 16,45,516/- NIL Form-26AS Transport enclosed 5 Agrawal Sponge Transporting 31,550/- NIL Form-26AS Ltd enclosed 6 Mahanadi Coal Transporting 53,222/- NIL Form-26AS Transport enclosed 7 Hasdeo Coal Transporting 2,944/- NIL Form-26AS Carriers enclosed
It was claimed by the assessee that now when it had opted for and
disclosed his income under the presumptive schemes of taxation
i.e Section 44AD and Section 44AE of the Act, therefore, the same
had to be accepted by the department without any choice. However,
the A.O taking cognizance of certain material facts, viz. (i). failure
of the assessee to furnish copies of agreements that were entered
into with the parties for whom transport work was claimed to have
been executed by him; (ii). absence of any record of expenses
incurred in the course of his aforesaid transport business; and (iii).
that garnering of an amount of Rs. 3.91 crore by him from his
transport business by deploying five trucks was beyond
comprehension, thus, called upon the assessee to explain as to why
his income may not be determined @ 8% of his total receipts. As
5 Shri Devendra Singh Dhot Vs. The ITO, Ward-1 ITA No. 256/RPR/2016
the reply filed by the assessee did not find favour with the A.O, therefore, he estimated his income at Rs.31,29,418/- i.e. @8% of the gross receipts of Rs.3,91,17,728/-.
Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(Appeals) but without any success.
The assessee being aggrieved with the order of the CIT(Appeals) has carried the matter in appeal before us.
We have heard the Ld. Authorized representatives of both the parties, perused the orders of the lower authorities and the material available on record, as well as considered the judicial pronouncements that have been pressed into service by the ld. AR to drive home his contentions. As stated by the ld. AR that as instructed the Grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 3 are not being pressed, therefore, pursuant to his concession the said grounds of appeal are dismissed as not pressed.
Ostensibly, the assessee as per the details divulged in his income-tax return was during the year stated to have been
6 Shri Devendra Singh Dhot Vs. The ITO, Ward-1 ITA No. 256/RPR/2016
involved in two streams of business, viz. (i). plying of five heavy
goods vehicles on hire; and (ii). contract work of coal lifting. Opting
for disclosing his income from both the aforesaid businesses as per the respective deeming provisions provided in the statute, viz.
Section 44AD (contract work of coal lifting) and Section 44AE
(business of plying of heavy goods vehicles), the assessee had
shown his income at an amount higher than that contemplated in
the said deeming provisions, as under :
Particulars Income disclosed in return of income Deemed income from plying & hiring of five goods carriages under Section 44AE of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as under: 2 Trucks X Rs. Rs. 1,20,000/- 5,000/- p.m X 12 Rs. 3,50,000/- Months 1 Truck X Rs. Rs. 50,000/- 5,000/- p.m X 10 months 2 Trucks X Rs. Rs. 80,000/- 5,000/- p.m X 8 months Total Rs.2,50,000/- income Deemed income from contract work of coal lifting under Section 44AD of the Rs. 85,000/- Income-tax Act, 1961,as under : Rs. 8,47,968/- X 8 % : Rs. 67,837/- (gross receipts from contract work)
7 Shri Devendra Singh Dhot Vs. The ITO, Ward-1 ITA No. 256/RPR/2016
Apropos his business of transportation the assessee had claimed to have owned five heavy goods vehicles during the year, as under:
Sr. No. Vehicle Particulars of Vehicle Registration No. 1. CG-04-G-5336 Heavy Goods Vehicle – Open body (Year of manufacture : 2003) 2. CG-12-C-3336 Heavy Goods Vehicle – Tipper (Year of manufacture : 2008) 3. CG-07-E-5236 Heavy Goods Vehicle – Trailer (Year of manufacture : 2006) 4. CG-04-JB-9745 Heavy Goods Vehicle – Multi Axle (Trailer) (Year of manufacture : 2010) 5. CG-04-JB-9747 No details available on record
During the course of the assessment proceedings, it was observed by the AO that there were deposits aggregating to Rs. 3,91,17,728/- in the bank accounts of the assessee, viz. (i). Bank account with HDFC Bank: Rs. 3,65,62,414/-; and (ii). Bank account with Punjab & Sind Bank: Rs. 25,55,314/-. On being queried about the nature and source of the aforesaid bank deposits it was submitted by the assessee that the same were his business receipts, viz. (i). transportation receipts from plying of five heavy goods vehicles that were owned by him; and (ii). contract receipts from coal lifting work. Consolidated details of the receipts to the
8 Shri Devendra Singh Dhot Vs. The ITO, Ward-1 ITA No. 256/RPR/2016
extent discernible from the details filed by the assessee in the form
of a chart before us are culled out as under:
S.No. Name of Party Nature of work Gross bill TDS Remarks 1. M/s Coal Feeder, Transporting Rs. 3,09,93,450/- Nil Copy of Raipur ledger account filed. 2. M/s Coal Feeder, Coal Lifting Rs. 8,47,968/- Rs.16,959/- Copy of Raipur Contract Work ledger account and Form No. 26AS filed. 3. M/s Paras Coal Transporting Rs. 1,54,304/- Nil As per Transportation Form No. 26AS 4. M/s Shivnath Transporting Rs. 16,45,516/- Nil As per Coal Transport Form No. 26AS 5. M/s Agrawal Transporting Rs. 31,550/- Nil As per Sponge Ltd. Form No. 26AS 6. M/s Mahanadi Transporting Rs. 53,222/- Nil As per Coal Transport Form No. 26AS 7. M/s Hasdeo Coal Transporting Rs. 2,944/- Nil As per Transport Form No. 26AS Total Rs. 3,37,28,954/-
On a perusal of the aforesaid details it transpires that the assessee
had during the year claimed to have garnered gross receipts of
Rs.3,37,28,954/- from his aforementioned businesses, viz. (i).
gross transportation receipts from plying of five heavy goods
vehicles: Rs. 3,28,80,986/-; and (ii). gross receipts from coal lifting
9 Shri Devendra Singh Dhot Vs. The ITO, Ward-1 ITA No. 256/RPR/2016
contract work: Rs. 8,47,968/-. It was the claim of the assessee before the lower authorities that out of the deposits in his bank accounts only an amount of Rs. 8,47,968/- was sourced out of his coal lifting contract work. Impliedly, the assessee had sought to relate the balance deposits of Rs. 3,82,69,760/- [Rs.3,91,17,728/- (-) Rs. 8,47,968/-] to his business of plying of five heavy goods vehicles.
Albeit, the assessee came forth with the bifurcated details of transportation receipts of Rs. 3,28,80,986/- (supra), but chose to remain silent and not divulge the details as regards the balance amount of Rs. 53,88,774 [Rs. 3,82,69,760/-(-)Rs. 3,28,80,986/-].
Controversy involved in the present appeal hinges around the sustainability of the assessee’s claim of having garnered a sum of Rs. 3,82,69,760/- [Rs.3,28,80,986/- (+) Rs. 53,88,774/-] from his transportation business i.e, plying of five heavy goods vehicles. Although the amounts claimed by the assessee to have been received towards plying charges from the parties at Sr. No. 3 to 7 i.e aggregating to Rs. 18,87,536/- figures in his Form No. 26AS,
10 Shri Devendra Singh Dhot Vs. The ITO, Ward-1 ITA No. 256/RPR/2016
but the story is not so in so far the amount of Rs. 3,09,93,450/- that is claimed by him to have been received from M/s Coal Feeder, Raipur. Elaborating on the reasons for the same, it is submitted by the Ld. AR that as no tax was liable to be deducted at source from payments made by the aforesaid party, viz. M/s Coal feeder, Raipur towards freight charges to the assessee, i.e a transporter having less than ten vehicles, therefore, the said receipts have not figured in his Form No. 26AS.
Before proceeding any further, we may herein observe that it is the claim of the Ld. AR that as the assessee had opted for and disclosed his income from plying of trucks at an amount higher than that worked out as per the presumptive scheme of taxation contemplated in Sec. 44AE of the Act, therefore, as per the concession provided in the said statutory provision he was exempted from the obligation of maintaining any books of accounts for the said stream of business under Sec. 44AA of the Act. It is further the claim of the Ld. AR that now when the assessee had opted for the presumptive taxation scheme under Sec. 44AE and
11 Shri Devendra Singh Dhot Vs. The ITO, Ward-1 ITA No. 256/RPR/2016
had disclosed his income at an amount higher than that worked out under the said deeming provision, therefore, the same had to be accepted by the department without any reservation. Also, it was the claim of the Ld. AR that now when the assessee having disclosed his income under Sec. 44AE was not obligated to maintain any books of accounts for the said stream of business, therefore, he could not have been called upon by the AO to demonstrate as to why his income in absence of any supporting documents may not be accepted.
Admittedly, as per the scheme of Sec. 44AE i.e a presumptive taxation scheme made available on the statute vide the Finance Act, 1994 w.e.f 01.04.1994, where an assessee who owns not more than ten goods carriages [at any time during the previous year] is engaged in the business of plying, hiring or leasing of heavy goods carriages, the income from such business chargeable to tax under the head “Profits and gains of business or profession” shall be an amount equal to five thousand rupees for every month or part of a month during which the heavy goods vehicle is owned by the
12 Shri Devendra Singh Dhot Vs. The ITO, Ward-1 ITA No. 256/RPR/2016
assessee in the previous year; or an amount claimed to have been actually earned from such vehicle, whichever is higher. Also, an assessee opting for disclosing his income under the presumptive scheme of taxation is exempted from the applicability of the provisions of Sec. 44AA and Sec. 44AB of the Act. As in the case before us the income disclosed by the assessee from plying of the five heavy goods vehicles is higher than the amount computed under Sec. 44AE, therefore, as stated by the Ld. AR, and rightly so, the said deemed income had to be accepted by the AO and no adverse inferences could have been drawn on the ground that he had not maintained any books of accounts in support of the same.
However, the controversy involved in the present case stands on a different footing. Claim of the assessee of having garnered an amount of Rs. 3,82,69,760/- from plying of five heavy goods vehicles during the year in absence of any supporting documents was rejected by the AO for certain reasons, viz. (i). the assessee had failed to produce the “agreements” with parties for whom work was claimed to have been executed; (ii). the assessee had failed to
13 Shri Devendra Singh Dhot Vs. The ITO, Ward-1 ITA No. 256/RPR/2016
furnish details of expenses incurred in the course of his transportation business; and (iii). the claim of the assessee of having garnered gross receipts of Rs. 3.82 crores (approx.) from plying of five trucks during the year was beyond comprehension. After rejecting the income disclosed by the assessee the AO in all his wisdom had estimated his income at Rs. 31,29,418/- i.e @8% of Rs. 3,91,17,728/- (aggregate amount of bank deposits).
After deliberating at length on the issue in hand, it transpires that it is the claim of the assessee that he had during the year garnered transportation receipts of Rs. 3,82,69,760/-, viz. (i). transportation receipts from M/s Coal Feeder, Raipur: Rs. 3,09,93,450/-; (ii). transportation receipts from other parties (at Sr.No.3 to 7 of the aforesaid chart) as had figured in his Form No. 26AS: Rs. 18,87,536/-; and (iii). balance receipts for which no explanation as regards the service recipient/payer had been given by the assessee: Rs. 53,88,774 (supra).
At the outset, we would not hesitate to observe that the claim of the assessee of having garnered gross receipts of
14 Shri Devendra Singh Dhot Vs. The ITO, Ward-1 ITA No. 256/RPR/2016
Rs.3,82,69,760/- from plying of five heavy goods vehicles during the year (majority of which were put to use only for part of the year) is beyond our comprehension. In so far the gross receipts of Rs. 18,87,536/- (supra) as had figured in the assessee’s Form No. 26AS i.e against the parties referred at Sr. No. 3 to 7 of the aforesaid chart are concerned, we are of the considered view that there was no justification on the part of the AO to have summarily rejected the same. We, thus, direct the AO to accept the assessee’s claim of having garnered gross receipts of Rs. 18,87,536/- (supra) in lieu of transportation services provided to the aforementioned parties and thus accept his income as disclosed u/s 44AE to the said extent.
Apropos the assessee’s claim of having garnered transportation receipts amounting to Rs. 3,09,93,450/- (supra) from M/s Coal Feeder, Raipur, the same reveals an absolutely different story. Before us the assessee in order to support his aforesaid claim had filed a copy of his ledger account appearing in the books of account of the aforesaid service recipient. On a
15 Shri Devendra Singh Dhot Vs. The ITO, Ward-1 ITA No. 256/RPR/2016
perusal of the ledger a/c of the assessee in the books of account of
M/s Coal Feeder, Raipur our doubts instead of getting scuttled are
in fact further fortified. We, say so, for certain specific facts which
are blatantly glaring on the very face of the aforesaid copy of ledger
account that has been filed by the assessee before us. Before
proceeding any further with the issue in hand we herein cull out
certain extracts of the ledger account of the assessee (as appearing
in the books of account of M/s Coal feeder, Raipur), as under :
Date Particulars Vch. Vch No. Debit Credit Type 6-8-2010 By Transportation paid All Journal 2488 17,28,650.00 A/c. 3143.000 MT @550 PMT. B. No. DS/10-11/001 TOWARDS D.O No.03270/89356 DT.02.06.2010 QTY.3143.000 MT Coal FROM DIPIKA TO SILTARA a/C. Sunil Sponge Pvt. Ltd. By Transportation paid All A/c. 1257.000MT @550/- PMT. B. NO.DS/10-11/002 Journal 2489 6,91,350.00 TOWARDS D.O NO.03679/89770 DT.10.06.10 QTY.1257.000 MT COAL FROM DIPIKA TO SILTARA A/C. Shri Sita Ispat Pvt. Ltd.
16 Shri Devendra Singh Dhot Vs. The ITO, Ward-1 ITA No. 256/RPR/2016
By Transportation paid All Journal 2490 8,17,050.00 A/c. 1257.000MT @650/- PMT. B. NO.DS/10-11/003 TOWARDS D.O NO.04035/90060 DT.07.06.10 QTY.1257.000 MT COAL FROM DIPIKA TO SILTARA A/C. NAVBHARAT FUSE CO. Ltd. By Transportation paid All A/c. 3143.000MT @550/- PMT. B.NO.DS/10-11/004 Journal 2491 17,28,650.00 TOWARDS D.O NO.04442/90601 DT.28.06.10 QTY.3143.000 MT COAL FROM DIPIKA TO SILTARA A/C. Shri Hare Krishna Sponge Iron Ltd. 7-8-2010 By Transportation paid All Journal 2492 29,70,000.00 A/c. 5400.000MT @550/- PMT. B. NO.DS/10-11/005 TOWARDS D.O NO.04514/90570 DT.28.06.10 QTY.5400.000 MT COAL FROM DIPIKA TO SILTARA A/C. Sunil Sponge Pvt. Ltd. By Transportation paid All A/c. 2160.000MT @550/- PMT. B. NO.DS/10-11/006 Journal 2493 11,88,000.00 TOWARDS D.O NO.04521/90557 DT.28.06.10 QTY.2160.000 MT COAL FROM DIPIKA TO SILTARA A/C. Shri Sita Ispat & Power Pvt. Ltd. By Transportation paid All Journal 2494 14,85,000.00 A/c. 2700.000MT @550/- PMT. B. NO.DS/10-11/007 TOWARDS D.O NO.04558/90617 DT.28.06.10 QTY.2700.000
17 Shri Devendra Singh Dhot Vs. The ITO, Ward-1 ITA No. 256/RPR/2016
MT COAL FROM DIPIKA TO SILTARA A/C. Agrawal Sponge Ltd.
Carried Over 1,06,08,700.00
On a bare glance over the aforesaid extracts we are unable to comprehend that as to how the assessee with his fleet of five heavy goods vehicles (majority of which were put to use only during part of the year) was able to execute the transportation work of a substantial magnitude for the aforesaid party, viz. M/s Coal feeder, Raipur. Apart from that the small time gaps within which the job works of an extreme magnitude that are claimed by the assessee to have been executed by deploying his fleet of five trucks for/on behalf of the aforesaid party, viz. M/s Coal feeder, Raipur raises serious doubts about the authenticity of the said claim of the assessee; or in fact the underlying arrangement between the assessee and the aforesaid party. Claim of the assessee of having transported goods of weight (as can be gathered from the ledger a/c) by using his fleet of five trucks is beyond comprehension. As coal-carrying vehicles are typically end-dump trucks with a
18 Shri Devendra Singh Dhot Vs. The ITO, Ward-1 ITA No. 256/RPR/2016
carrying capacity of roughly 25 to 50 tonnes (22.7 to 45.4 tonnes), therefore, we are unable to understand as to how the assessee with his fleet of five trucks (majority of which were put to use only during part of the year under consideration) was able to transport coal of the magnitude as is so claimed by him for/on behalf the aforesaid party, viz. M/s Coal feeder, Raipur. Not only the carriage of coal of the substantial magnitude (in terms of weight - as shown in the ledger account of the assessee in the books of account of M/s Coal feeder, Raipur) by the assessee using his fleet of five trucks is beyond comprehension, but in fact the small time gaps between the execution of the respective job works is beyond our understanding. Our aforesaid doubts are further fortified by the fact that in the ledger a/c of the assessee (as appearing in the books of account of M/s Coal feeder, Raipur) there is no reference about the registration numbers of the respective vehicles which are claimed to have been deployed for transporting coal on various dates spread over the year. We, thus, in the backdrop of our aforesaid serious doubts as regards the authenticity of the
19 Shri Devendra Singh Dhot Vs. The ITO, Ward-1 ITA No. 256/RPR/2016
assessee’s claim of having garnered an amount of Rs. 3,09,93,450/- on transportation of coal for/on behalf of M/s Coal feeder, Raipur restore the issue to the file of the AO. The AO shall in the course of the set-aside proceedings carry out necessary verifications after calling for the requisite details both from the assessee and M/s Coal feeder, Raipur about the amount of Rs. 3,09,93,450/- (supra) which the assessee had claimed to have garnered from providing transportation services i.e carriage of coal to/on behalf of M/s Coal feeder, Raipur. Needless to say, the AO shall in the course of the set-aside proceedings afford a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee who shall remain at a liberty to substantiate his claim on the basis of fresh documentary evidence. As a word of caution, we may herein observe that the AO shall in the course of the set-aside proceedings not remain oblivion of the probability of existence of an unholy nexus between a coal trader/transport contractor and a small time transporter/sub- contractor (owning less than ten heavy goods vehicles), pursuant whereto on the basis of such connivance a bogus claim of freight
20 Shri Devendra Singh Dhot Vs. The ITO, Ward-1 ITA No. 256/RPR/2016
expenses raised by the coal trader/transport contractor in the garb of payment of transport charges to such small time transporter/sub-contractor (owning less than ten heavy goods vehicles) who had opted to be assessed at a fixed deemed amount on a per vehicle basis as per the deeming provisions contemplated under Sec. 44AE of the Act, the exchequer would be divested of its legal dues.
Coming back to the issue under consideration and confining ourselves to the subject matter of controversy involved in so far the assessee before us is concerned, if in case the assessee is unable to substantiate his claim of having garnered transportation receipts, as claimed, from M/s Coal feeder, Raipur to the satisfaction of the AO, then, the estimation of his income as worked out by the AO i.e @8% of the gross receipts under consideration i.e Rs. 3,09,93,450/- shall be sustained. On the other hand to the extent the assessee is able to substantiate his claim of having garnered amount from plying of his five heavy goods vehicles for/on behalf of the aforesaid party, viz. M/s Coal
21 Shri Devendra Singh Dhot Vs. The ITO, Ward-1 ITA No. 256/RPR/2016
feeder, Raipur, the amount to the said extent shall be excluded by the AO from Rs. 3,09,93,450/- (supra) for estimating his income i.e @8%. As regards the balance amount of Rs.53,88,774/-(supra) for which no explanation as regards the service recipient/payer had been given by the assessee, we finding no infirmity in the estimation of income as regards the said amount @8%, thus, uphold the same to the said extent. The Ground of appeal No. 2 is partly allowed/allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations.
The Ground of appeal no. 4 being general is dismissed as not pressed.
Our observations as recorded in the foregoing paragraphs as regards the gross receipts of Rs.3,82,69,760/- (supra) which the assessee had claimed to have garnered from plying of five heavy goods vehicles during the year are for the sake of clarity culled out as under : Amount Observations/directions
22 Shri Devendra Singh Dhot Vs. The ITO, Ward-1 ITA No. 256/RPR/2016
Rs. 3,09,93,450/- The AO is directed to carry out necessary verifications both from the assessee and M/s Coal feeder, Raipur as stated in Para 15 of our order and take appropriate action as per extant law. To the extent the assessee is unable to substantiate his claim of having garnered transportation receipts from the aforesaid party, viz. M/s Coal feeder, Raipur to the satisfaction of the AO, the estimation of his income i.e @8% of such amount shall be sustained. Rs. 18,87,536/- (as As we have held the said amount as the had figured in the assessee’s transportation receipts of the assessee, Form No. 26AS against the therefore, the AO is directed to vacate the parties referred at Sr. No. 3 to 7 of the chart hereinabove) addition made by him to the said extent i.e @8% of Rs. 18,87,536/- : Rs. 1,51,003/-. Rs. 53,88,774/- (i.e As the assessee had failed to furnish the the balance amount for which no details as regards the service recipient explanation as regards the /payer for the impugned transportation service recipient/payer had been given by the assessee) receipts, therefore, the estimation of the income by the AO to the said extent i.e @8% of Rs. 53,88,774/- : Rs. 4,31,102/- is sustained.
Resultantly, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed/allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations.
23 Shri Devendra Singh Dhot Vs. The ITO, Ward-1 ITA No. 256/RPR/2016
Order pronounced under rule 34(4) of the Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963, by placing the details on the notice board.
Sd/- Sd/- ARUN KHODPIA RAVISH SOOD (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) रायपुर/ RAIPUR ; �दनांक / Dated : 09th September, 2022 SB आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ� / The Appellant. 2. ��यथ� / The Respondent. 3. The CIT(Appeals), Bilaspur (C.G) 4. The CIT, Bilaspur (C.G) 5. �वभागीय ��त�न�ध, आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, रायपुर ब�च, रायपुर / DR, ITAT, Raipur Bench, Raipur. गाड� फ़ाइल / Guard File. 6. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // �नजी स�चव / Private Secretary आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, रायपुर / ITAT, Raipur.
24 Shri Devendra Singh Dhot Vs. The ITO, Ward-1 ITA No. 256/RPR/2016
Date 1 Draft dictated on Sr.PS/PS 2 Draft placed before author Sr.PS/PS 3 Draft proposed and placed JM/AM before the second Member 4 Draft discussed/approved by AM/JM second Member 5 Approved draft comes to the Sr. Sr.PS/PS PS/PS 6 Kept for pronouncement on Sr.PS/PS 7 Date of uploading of order Sr.PS/PS 8 File sent to Bench Clerk Sr.PS/PS 9 Date on which the file goes to the Head Clerk 10 Date on which file goes to the A.R 11 Date of dispatch of order