BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtPhrasesAI ResearchHistory

Filters

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

  • Search Judgments
  • Browse by Bench
  • Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

29 results for “disallowance”+ Section 69Bclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi166Mumbai126Jaipur105Bangalore65Chandigarh43Chennai41Kolkata29Hyderabad28Ahmedabad28Surat24Indore19Rajkot16Agra14Pune14Raipur7Visakhapatnam5Cochin4Cuttack4Amritsar2Allahabad2Karnataka2Jodhpur2Guwahati1Dehradun1Kerala1Lucknow1Ranchi1SC1Varanasi1Jabalpur1

Key Topics

Section 69A25Section 6820Section 143(3)19Addition to Income13Section 26312Section 4011Section 69B11Section 44A11Section 40A(3)11Disallowance

JEWEL INDIA JEWELLERS,KOLKATQA vs. DCIT, CEN. CIR. 4(4), KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1395/KOL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 115BSection 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 68

69B, 69C or 69D reflected in the return of income furnished under section 139 of the Act. However, in the present case no such income was reflected in the return filed under section 139 of the Act rather the income was declared in the return filed under section 153A of the Act after the search. The assessee declared the income

JEWEL INDIA JEWELLERS ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CEN. CIR. 4(4), KOLKATA

Showing 1–20 of 29 · Page 1 of 2

9
Limitation/Time-bar9
Condonation of Delay9

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1396/KOL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 115BSection 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 68

69B, 69C or 69D reflected in the return of income furnished under section 139 of the Act. However, in the present case no such income was reflected in the return filed under section 139 of the Act rather the income was declared in the return filed under section 153A of the Act after the search. The assessee declared the income

M/S SARBARI SUPLIMENTARY C. S. SHOP,PURULIA vs. ITO, WD-3(4), KOLKATA, PURULIA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

ITA 860/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Jan 2018AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A. No. 858 & 860/Kol/2016 Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12 M/S. Sarbari Supplimentary C.S. Shop..............................………………………...........Appellant At. Sarbari, P.O. Neturia, Purulia – 723 121 [Pan : Abjfs 8433 M] Income Tax Officer……………………………………………….............................................Respondent Ward 3(4), Asansol, Sahana Apartment, Lower Chelidanga, Asansol – 713 304 Appearances By: Shri U. Dasgupta, Advocate Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. Cit Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 17, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 19, 2018 Order Per P.M. Jagtap, A.M. These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Two Separate Orders Passed By The Ld. Cit(Appeals), Asansol Both Dated 23.03.2016 For A.Y. 2010-11 & 2011-12 & Since Some Of The Issues Involved Therein Are Common, The Same Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By A Single Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Convenience. 2. First We Take Up The Appeal Of The Assessee For A.Y. 2010-11 Being Ita No. 858/Kol/2016. Ground No 1 Raised In This Appeal Is General In Nature Which Does Not Call For Any Specific Adjudication.

Section 40Section 40A(3)Section 85Section 86

disallowance made by the A.O. under section 40A(3) and confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A). Ground no 2 to 5 of the assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2010-11 are accordingly allowed. 7. The issues involved in ground no 6 and 7 of the assessee’s appeal for 2010-11 relate to the additions

M/S SARBARI SUPLIMENTARY C. S. SHOP,PURULIA vs. ITO, WD-3(4), KOLKATA, PURULIA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

ITA 858/KOL/2016[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Jan 2018AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A. No. 858 & 860/Kol/2016 Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12 M/S. Sarbari Supplimentary C.S. Shop..............................………………………...........Appellant At. Sarbari, P.O. Neturia, Purulia – 723 121 [Pan : Abjfs 8433 M] Income Tax Officer……………………………………………….............................................Respondent Ward 3(4), Asansol, Sahana Apartment, Lower Chelidanga, Asansol – 713 304 Appearances By: Shri U. Dasgupta, Advocate Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. Cit Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 17, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 19, 2018 Order Per P.M. Jagtap, A.M. These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Two Separate Orders Passed By The Ld. Cit(Appeals), Asansol Both Dated 23.03.2016 For A.Y. 2010-11 & 2011-12 & Since Some Of The Issues Involved Therein Are Common, The Same Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By A Single Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Convenience. 2. First We Take Up The Appeal Of The Assessee For A.Y. 2010-11 Being Ita No. 858/Kol/2016. Ground No 1 Raised In This Appeal Is General In Nature Which Does Not Call For Any Specific Adjudication.

Section 40Section 40A(3)Section 85Section 86

disallowance made by the A.O. under section 40A(3) and confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A). Ground no 2 to 5 of the assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2010-11 are accordingly allowed. 7. The issues involved in ground no 6 and 7 of the assessee’s appeal for 2010-11 relate to the additions

SRIDHARPUR CO-OPERATIVE BANK,BARDHAMAN vs. ITO, WARD-3(2), BURDWAN

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 672/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 250Section 68

disallowance should me made under section 68 for SBN deposited during demonetisetion period, if assesses filed details of such deposits. a) Yagnavalkya Souhardha Credit Co. Ltd. Vs. ITO WARD-5(2)(4) Bangalore ITAT "B" Bench Bangalore ITA No 1086/Bang/2022 b) Om Sai Co-Op. Credit Souharda Sahakari Niyamit vs PCIT Hubli ITA No.454/Bang/2022 ITAT "C" Bench Bangalore

PEERLESS HOTELS LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-8(2), KOL, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 545/KOL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Nov 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No. 545/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Peerless Hotels Limited,..........................Appellant 12, J.L. Nehru Road, Kolkata-700013 [Pan: Aabcp9484D] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,....Respondent Circle-8(2), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appearances By: Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri B.K. Singh, Jcit (Sr. D.R.), Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : August 09, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 07, 2023

Section 143(2)Section 14A

disallowance. Therefore, the assessee could not buttress its case on the strength of the above decisions. We do not find any merit in these grounds of appeal. They are rejected. 9. In Ground No. 5, the assessee has pleaded that when no income was brought to tax under sections 68, 69, 69A, 69B

M/S STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA EMPLOYEES CO OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED ,KOLKATA vs. PCIT, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 207/KOL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No.207/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S Steel Authority Of India Co-Operative Credit Society Limited.......….Appellant Ispat Cooperative House, 12, Charu Chandra Place Ispat Co-Operative House, Charu Market, Kolkata-700 033. [Pan: Aadas9699B] Vs. Pcit-9, Kolkata..……...…..…....................……........……............…...…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, Advocate & Puja Somani, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Amol Kamat, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : July 20, 2022 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 28, 2022 Order Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 29.03.2022 Passed By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Asansol [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Pcit’] Exercising His Revision Jurisdiction U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’).

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 263Section 270ASection 271ASection 68Section 69Section 69ASection 69BSection 69C

69B,section 69C or section I.T.A. No.207/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/s Steel Authority of India Co-Operative Credit Society Limited 69D. In view of these specific provisions of law, initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 270A in this case is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. 3. In the light

PIJUSH KUMAR SADHUKHAN,HOOGHLY vs. ITO, WD 2(3), HOOGHLY, HOOGHLY

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1430/KOL/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Dec 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am ] I.T.A No. 1430/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2005-06 Shri Pijush Kumar Sadhukhan -Vs- Ito, Ward-2(3), Hooghly [Pan: Asfps 7425 J] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Ghosh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P.K. Mondal, Addl. CIT
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)Section 69B

Section 40A(3) in this case. Thus, in my considered opinion, the disallowance made u/s 40A(3), is not based on any evidence and hence, the same is liable to be deleted. Disallowance cannot be made on presumption and surmises. Accordingly, this ground of the assessee is allowed and the addition of Rs. 11,72,593/- is deleted. 5. Coming

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. AMAR KUMAR AGARWAL, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and\nappeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1496/KOL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM\nAND\nSHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JM\nIT(SS)A No.86 to 89/KOL/2025, 2007/KOL/2025\n(Assessment Year: 2017-18 to 2020-21, 2021-22)\nAmar Kumar Agarwal\nC/o M/s Salarpuria Jajodia&\nCO.7, CR Avenue, 3rd Floor,\nKolkata-700072, West Bengal\n(Appellant)\nDCIT, CC 4(3)\nAaykarBhawanPoorva,\nVs.110, Shantipally, E.M. Bypass,\nKolkata-700107, West Bengal\n(Respondent)\nPAN No. ADDPA3301L\nITA Nos.1496,1497,1498, 1499/KOL/2025, & 1440/KOL/2025\n(Α.Υ.: 2017-18, 2018-19, 2020-21,

Section 132Section 153ASection 44ASection 69A

disallowance of expenditure of Rs.\n112,959,517/-estimating income at the rate of 12.5% of such bogus purchases.\"\n8. 2. 6. Further, reliance is also placed in the case of 'M/S. Alokik Steels Pvt. Ltd Village\nvs Principal Commissioner Of Income on 3 March, 2021, ITA No. 861/JP/2019', the\nHon'ble ITAT, Jaipur had held as under:-\n\"Further

JAYANTA KUMAR SARDAR,BARDHAMAN vs. ITO, WARD-2(4), DURGAPUR. , DURGAPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1251/KOL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Jan 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Sri Anikesh Banerjee

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 56(2)(viib)

disallowances are perverse, rather against evidence and material on record and without an iota of material or evidence to support and sustain the same. 2. (a) For that, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the impugned addition amounting to Rs. 5,44,730/- on account of the difference between the Registered Value

SATI NATH CHATTERJEE,BANKURA vs. I.T.O., WARD-3(1), BANKURA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 298/KOL/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Feb 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 69ASection 69BSection 69C

Section 69B is not applicable, whereas according to him it should be taxed u/s 69A treating it as unexplained money in possession of the assessee and he also directed that if the interest paid (Rs. 48,831/-) is also not recorded in the books, the same may be taxed u/s 69C of the Act. Before this Tribunal, the Ld. Advocate

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. AMAR KUMAR AGARAWAL, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1498/KOL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Siddarth Jhajharia, ARFor Respondent: S/shri Raja Sengupta &
Section 132Section 153ASection 44ASection 69A

disallowance of expenditure of Rs. 112,959,517/-estimating income at the rate of 12.5% of such bogus purchases." 8.2.6. Further, reliance is also placed in the case of 'M/S. Alokik Steels Pvt. Ltd Village vs Principal Commissioner Of Income on 3 March, 2021, ITA No. 861/JP/2019', the Hon'ble ITAT, Jaipur had held as under:- "Further, there

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. AMAR KUMAR AGARWAL, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1440/KOL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Siddarth Jhajharia, ARFor Respondent: S/shri Raja Sengupta &
Section 132Section 153ASection 44ASection 69A

disallowance of expenditure of Rs. 112,959,517/-estimating income at the rate of 12.5% of such bogus purchases." 8.2.6. Further, reliance is also placed in the case of 'M/S. Alokik Steels Pvt. Ltd Village vs Principal Commissioner Of Income on 3 March, 2021, ITA No. 861/JP/2019', the Hon'ble ITAT, Jaipur had held as under:- "Further, there

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. AMAR KUMAR AGARWAL, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1499/KOL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Dec 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Siddarth Jhajharia, ARFor Respondent: S/shri Raja Sengupta &
Section 132Section 153ASection 44ASection 69A

disallowance of expenditure of Rs. 112,959,517/-estimating income at the rate of 12.5% of such bogus purchases." 8.2.6. Further, reliance is also placed in the case of 'M/S. Alokik Steels Pvt. Ltd Village vs Principal Commissioner Of Income on 3 March, 2021, ITA No. 861/JP/2019', the Hon'ble ITAT, Jaipur had held as under:- "Further, there

DEPUTY COMMSSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. AMAR KUMAR AGARWAL, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1497/KOL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Siddarth Jhajharia, ARFor Respondent: S/shri Raja Sengupta &
Section 132Section 153ASection 44ASection 69A

disallowance of expenditure of Rs. 112,959,517/-estimating income at the rate of 12.5% of such bogus purchases." 8.2.6. Further, reliance is also placed in the case of 'M/S. Alokik Steels Pvt. Ltd Village vs Principal Commissioner Of Income on 3 March, 2021, ITA No. 861/JP/2019', the Hon'ble ITAT, Jaipur had held as under:- "Further, there

AMAR KUMAR AGARWAL,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CC - 4(3),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2007/KOL/2025[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Dec 2025AY 2021-2022

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Siddarth Jhajharia, ARFor Respondent: S/shri Raja Sengupta &
Section 132Section 153ASection 44ASection 69A

disallowance of expenditure of Rs. 112,959,517/-estimating income at the rate of 12.5% of such bogus purchases." 8.2.6. Further, reliance is also placed in the case of 'M/S. Alokik Steels Pvt. Ltd Village vs Principal Commissioner Of Income on 3 March, 2021, ITA No. 861/JP/2019', the Hon'ble ITAT, Jaipur had held as under:- "Further, there

HIRANMOY DAS,DURGAPUR vs. PCIT, ASANSOL

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 905/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: 25.04.2022. 3. That There Is A Delay Of 728 (Seven Hundred & Twenty-Eight) Days In Filing The Appeal.

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 263

disallowed, for which the Ld. AO was given suitable directions. Secondly, it was held that an amount of Rs. 1,83,70,974/- should have suffered enhanced tax rate u/s 115BBE of the Act at par with the addition on account of unexplained sundry creditors amounting to Rs. 1,00,42,334/-. 4. Before us, the Ld. AR has taken

DEBOTTOR TRUST ESTATE OF RAMMOHAN MULLICK,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 43(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose and that or Revenue is dismissed

ITA 216/KOL/2016[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Aug 2016AY 2002-2003

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 143(3)Section 194C(1)Section 194JSection 36(1)(iii)Section 40

section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. Hence this ground of the assessee is partly allowed. Coming to Revenue appeal ITA 327/Kol/2013. 25. Grounds raised by the Revenue per its appeal are as under:- “1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the L’d CIT(A)-XXXVI, Kolkata, erred in admitting additional evidence

PRAFULLA KUMAR GHOSH,MALDA vs. ITO,WARD-2, MALDA, MALDA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 686/KOL/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Sept 2015AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am] Assessment Year : 2006-07 (Appellant ) (Respondent) Prafulla Kumar Ghosh -Versus- I.T.O., Ward-2, Malda Malda (Pan:Adhpg 8048 C) For The Appellant : Shri K.M.Roy, Fca For The Respondent : Shri S.S.Alam, Jcit Date Of Hearing : 10.09.2015. Date Of Pronouncement : 18.09.2015. Order Per Shri M.Balaganesh, Am 1. This Appeal Of The Assessee Arises Out Of The Order Of The Learned Cita In Appeal No. 279/Mld/Cit(A)/Jal/08-09 Dated 02.03.2012 For The Asst Year 2006-07 Arising Out Of The Order Of The Learned Assessing Officer Framed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’).

For Appellant: Shri K.M.Roy, FCAFor Respondent: Shri S.S.Alam, JCIT
Section 133(6)Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 69B

69B could be used even if business income is estimated as they do not come under any specific heads of income. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Fakir Mohammed Haji Hassan vs CIT reported in 247 ITR 290. 7 Prafulla Kumar Ghosh A.Yr

A.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-49(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S VISWAKARMA RESIDENCY, KOLKATA

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 255/KOL/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Oct 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. M.L.Meenaआयकर अपील सं.य/ Assessment Years:2016-17 बनाम / Acit, Cir-49(1), Kolkata M/S. Viswakarma Residency Uttarpan Complex, Ds-Iv, V/S. 2Nd Fl., Manicktala Civick Centre, Block-2 & 3, 2Nd Fl., Kolkata-700 054. Pan: Aaifv3279Q अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent .. Hearing Through Video Conferencing अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Manish Kanojia, Cit, Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent Shri S.M Surana, Advocate, Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 04-08-2021 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 26-10-2021

Section 131Section 133(6)

disallowed. In response to the said notice the assessee filed written submission stating filed a copy of reply of the CPIO and Deputy Director, Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Government of India dated 16.05.2018 whereby in response to RTI Query dated 24.04.2018 to the Department of Revenue forwarded to it through the coordination Section vide OM dated 04.05.2018, it has been