Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Lucknow
Raghav Kapoor Chand Gupta,Kanpur vs Dy. Cit, Circle-4, Kanpur on 28 April, 2026
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
LUCKNOW 'B' BENCH, LUCKNOW
BEFORE SH. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER
AND
SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
ITA No.360/LKW/2023
A.Y. 2013-14
Raghav Kapoor Chand Gupta vs. Dy. CIT,
Kailash Motors Building, 84/105, Circle-4, Kanpur
G.T. Road, Kanpur, U.P.
PAN: ACFPG1142E
(Appellant) (Respondent)
Assessee by: Sh. Rakesh Garg, Adv
Revenue by: Sh. R.R.N. Shukla, Addl CIT DR
Date of hearing: 28.01.2026
Date of pronouncement: 28.04.2026
ORDER
PER NIKHIL CHOUDHARY, A.M.:
This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the orders of the ld. CIT(A), NFAC under section 250 r.w.s. 254 of the Income Tax Act dated 26.09.2023, wherein the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee against the orders passed by the Assessing Officer on 11.03.2016. The grounds of appeal are as under:-
"1. The learned CIT(Appeals), NFAC, Delhi and authority below have erred in law and on facts in disallowing the claim U/s 54 of the Income-tax Act of Rs.92,35,408/-.
2. The learned CIT(Appeals), NFAC, Delhi and authority below have erred in law and on facts to held that the new assets purchased by the appellant is not a residential house.
3. The learned CIT(Appeals), NFAC, Delhi and authority below have erred in law and on facts to held that investment of Rs 59,18,432/- made for purchase of new residential house after 31 July, 2013 i.e. due date of Income tax return U/s. 139 of the Income tax Act is not eligible deduction U/s. 54 of the Income tax Act.1 ITA No.360/LKW/2023
A.Y. 2013-14 Raghav Kapoor Chand Gupta
4. The orders of the learned CIT(Appeals), NFAC, Delhi and authority below are contrary to facts, law and natural justice.
5. The appellant prays to be allowed to add, amend, modify, rectify, delete and raise any grounds of appeal at the time of hearing."
2. The facts of the case are that the assessee filed a return of income for the assessment year 2013-14, disclosing a total income of Rs. 1,03,88,500/- on 24.03.2014. The case was taken up for scrutiny and among the various additions made by the Assessing Officer, was an addition of Rs. 92,35,408/- on account of the disallowance of the claim of deduction under section 54 of the Income Tax Act. The ld. AO noted that the assessee sold a property at 703 Florida Estate, Pune for Rs. 1,95,00,000/- and that the capital gain on the same was Rs. 1,05,76,340/-. Of this amount, the assessee claimed that Rs. 92,35,408/- had been invested in Aamby Valley City Developers Ltd., for purchase of a plot, and the balance amount of Rs. 13,40,932/- had been taxable Long Term Capital Gain that was shown in the return of income. Before the Assessing Officer, copy of lease agreement with Aamby Valley City Developers Ltd., and the schedule of payment was filed. On perusal of the payment schedule, the Assessing Officer noticed that the payment started on 19.06.2013 and continued till 21.03.2014 and that the return of income for the assessment year 2013-14 was filed on 24.03.2015. In view of the fact that the return was a belated return, the ld. AO enquired as to whether any capital gains account was opened under the scheme before the due date of filing of ITR as per section 139(1) and furthermore, whether the property in which the assessee had invested his capital gain, was a residential property. The assessee was asked to submit documentary evidences in this regard. In response, the assessee submitted that he had not opened any capital gains account but invested the capital gains for the purchase of residential unit at 54A Aamby Valley City, Pune. The new residential property had been 2 ITA No.360/LKW/2023 A.Y. 2013-14 Raghav Kapoor Chand Gupta purchased for a consideration of Rs. 1,15,53,648/- and the lease deed for the same had been registered on 22.07.2013. The purchase consideration was payable in installments and the assessee had paid a sum of Rs. 92,35,408/- towards the purchase cost and stamp duty expenses till the date of filing of his income tax returns for the year under consideration. Exemption had been claimed under section 54. The assessee further submitted that section 54(2) of the Income Tax Act provided two options to the assessee i.e. either to utilize the amount for purchase of new assets within the period stipulated in section 54(1), before the date of furnishing of income tax return under section 139 or to deposit the unutilized money in a capital gain account, before the due date of furnishing of income tax return under section 139(1) of the Act. It was further submitted that there were two specific dates stipulated in section 139 i.e. one due date of furnishing of return and the second being the last date for furnishing of the return. It was submitted that the capital gain utilized for the purchase or construction of new assets up to the date of furnishing of income tax return prescribed in section 139(4), was eligible for calculating the amount of exemption under section 54 of the Act. The assessee submitted that this legal position was supported by various judgments which were cited in the reply submitted by the assessee. In a subsequent reply furnished, the assessee submitted that section 54(1) of the Income Tax Act submits that a property should be purchased within a period of one year before or two years after the date on which the transfer took place or constructed within a period of three years after the date of transfer of the original asset. In the case of the assessee, having entered into an agreement on 22nd July, 2013 for consideration of Rs. 1,15,52,648/-, the assessee had purchased a new residential unit within the stipulated time period. It was pointed out that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. T.N. Aravinda Reddy (1979) 1 3 ITA No.360/LKW/2023 A.Y. 2013-14 Raghav Kapoor Chand Gupta taxman 40 (AP)(SC) had held that the word purchase in section 54 had to be interpreted as buying for a price or equivalent of price for payment in kind or adjustment towards and old debt or for other monetary consideration. There was no stress in the section on, 'cash and carry". Thus, it was argued that the purchase had been completed on 22.07.2013 i.e. before the due date of the filing of the income tax return, on a deferred payment basis as well as within the period of two years from the date of transfer of the original asset and therefore, the assessee was eligible for deduction under section 54(1). It was further argued that section 54(2) would only come into place when there was no purchase of a new house within the periods specified under section 54(1). Since he had already purchased the new house within the stipulated period, the provisions of section 54(2) were not applicable in his case. The assessee further submitted that in the return of income the assessee had claimed deduction of only Rs. 92,35,408/- as this amount had been paid upto the date of filing of return. However, since he was eligible for the deduction of Rs. 1,15,52,648/-, therefore, the entire deduction should be allowed instead of the deduction of Rs. 92,35,408/- as claimed by him in his return of income.
12. The ld. AO examined the request of the assessee. Reproducing sections 54(1) and 54(2) of the Act, he noticed that in the assessee's case, the due date of filing of the return was 31.07.2013. However, after making payment towards the purchase of the new asset upto 31.07.2013, the assessee did not deposit the unutilized portion of long-term capital gain in the specified capital gain account as per the Capital Gains Account Scheme, 1988, notified by the Central Government. Rather he continued making payments till 21.03.2014 and filed his ITR on 24.03.2014 under section 139(4). However, the Assessing Officer held that plain reading of the sub sections of section 54 showed, that those sections were not independent of each other as 4 ITA No.360/LKW/2023 A.Y. 2013-14 Raghav Kapoor Chand Gupta interpreted by the assessee. Rather the provisions of sub section 54(1) were subject to the provisions of section 54(2) as stipulated in section 54(1). The Assessing Officer held that the long-term capital gain was required to be appropriated towards the purchase of new asset before the due date of filing of ITR under section 139 and the amount that were not appropriated by the due date was to be deposited in a capital gains account notified by the Central Government, within the due date applicable in his case for filing of ITR under section 139(1). It was pointed out that the provisions of section 54(2) required the deposit of, "unappropriated" or "unutilized" capital gain in notified capital gain account, before the due date of filing of ITR under section 139(1). The ld. AO pointed out that the Hon'ble Apex Court has held in the case of Prakash Nath Khanna & Anr vs. CIT (2004) 266 ITR 1 (SC), that the due date means a due date for filing of return under section 139(1) and not section 139(4). He pointed out that the Hon'ble Apex Court had held that had the intentions of the Legislature been to permit the assessee to file the return under section 139(4) also, the use of the expression, "section 139" alone would have sufficed. The Legislature would not have said that it should be filed under section 139(1) and once specific reference were made to section 139(1), it could not be the intention of the Legislature to permit the assessee to file the return under section 139(4) also. It also held that sub section (4) of section 139 cannot control the operation of sub section (1) wherein a fixed period for furnishing the return was stipulated. The ld. AO noted that even though the said observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court had been rendered in a different context, it settled the argument regarding which was the due date for the filing of return under section 139. The ld. AO noticed that by 31.07.2013 only a sum of Rs. 33,16,976/- had been utilized out of the total capital gains of Rs. 1,05,76,240/- whereas the assessee had claimed deduction 5 ITA No.360/LKW/2023 A.Y. 2013-14 Raghav Kapoor Chand Gupta under section 54 at Rs. 92,35,408/-. As such, the balance of Rs. 59,18,432/- was not allowable as deduction on this account. The ld. AO went on to observe that the assessee had actually purchased a portion of plinth number 54(A) admeasuring 534 Sq. Mtrs in Aamby Valley and the purchase of a, "plinth" did not mean the purchase of a residential house. The deduction under section 54 was only available on the purchase / construction of the residential house. Residential house meant a habitable unit whereas the plinth purchased by the assessee was not habitable. If the assessee had bought the same for the construction of the house, the unutilized capital gain should have been deposited before the due date of filing of return as prescribed under section 139(1). However, since the new asset purchased by the assessee was not a residential house nor was the unutilized capital gain deposited in the notified capital gain account, the entire claim of deduction of long term capital gains of Rs. 92,35,408/- was disallowable and accordingly he proceeded to disallow the same on this account.
3. Aggrieved with this order, the assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) which was dismissed on 3.01.2018 on account of lack of compliance by the assessee to the various notices issued by the ld. CIT(A)-2, Kanpur. Thereafter, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ITAT Lucknow 'A' Bench and the ITAT Lucknow 'A' Bench allowed the appeal in ITA No. 306/LKW/2018 and set aside the matter to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) with a direction to re-fix the appeal and decide the matter afresh after giving a proper and sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Subsequently, this restored appeal was migrated to the NFAC and taken up for hearing by the ld. CIT(A), NFAC.
4. Before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee reiterated his submissions that were filed before the ld. AO. In addition, it was argued that the nature of the 6 ITA No.360/LKW/2023 A.Y. 2013-14 Raghav Kapoor Chand Gupta new property was clearly specified in para 3 of page 8 and 9 of the purchase deed which specified that the purpose of the plot was the construction of a Villa and the Villa is the residence. The assessee also referred to the CBDT Circular No. 471 dated 15.10.1986 in respect of flats allotted under the self- financing scheme of DDA wherein the CBDT had held that for the purpose of capital gains tax, the cost of the new asset is the tentative cost of construction and the fact that the amount was allowed to be paid in installment does not affect the legal position. Therefore, cases of allotment of flats under the self- financing scheme of DDA should be treated as cases of construction for the purposes of capital gains. It had also stipulated those allotments of flats/household cooperative societies and other institutions, whose schemes of allotment and constructions was similar to those of DDA should be treated as cases of construction (Circular No. 672 dated 16.12.1993). In Circular No. 667 dated 18.10.1993, the CBDT had pointed out that if the amount of capital gains of section 54 and the net consideration for the purposes of section 54F, is appropriated towards the purchase of a plot and also towards construction of a residential house thereon, the aggregate cost had to be considered for determining the quantum of deduction under section 54/54F, provided that the acquisition of the plot and the construction thereon were completed within the period specified in these sections. The assessee submitted that the acquisition of unit 54A, Aamby Valley City was eligible for deduction as it was to be used for the construction of a residential house.
5. The ld. CIT(A) considered the submissions of the assessee but did not find them to be acceptable. He recorded his agreement with the findings of the AO that since the had not deposited the balance amount (after 31.07.2013) in the capital gain account hence the residual amount (Rs. 59,18,432/-) which had been claimed was liable to be disallowed. He also 7 ITA No.360/LKW/2023 A.Y. 2013-14 Raghav Kapoor Chand Gupta agreed with the AO that the said property is not a residential house and was therefore the amount invested before the due date of filing of return under section 139(1) of Rs. 33,16,976/- was liable to be disallowed. Accordingly, he dismissed the appeals of the assessee.
6. The assessee is aggrieved at this dismissal of his appeal and has accordingly come in appeal before us. Sh. Rakesh Garg, Advocate (hereinafter referred to as the ld. AR) appearing on behalf of the assessee took us through the facts of the case and thereafter reiterated the arguments that had been furnished earlier before the lower authorities. He pointed out that various Courts have upheld the legal position being argued by him and clearly held that the amounts invested for the purchase of construction of new assets upto the date of furnishing of income tax return prescribed under section 139(4) of the Income Tax Act was eligible for exemption under section 54 & 54F of the Act. Reliance was placed on the following judicial pronouncements: -
"1. Seema Sabharwal vs. ITO; ITA No. 272/Chd/2017; Order dated 05.02.2018.
2. Kuldeep Singh Shekhawat vs. ITO; ITA no. 701/JPR/2024; Order dated 06.03.2025.
3. Dr. Dharmista Mehta vs. ITO; ITA No. 1885/Mum/2017; Order dated 12.10.2022
4. Dipal Sureshbhai Patel vs. ITO; ITA No. 387/Ahd/2018; Order dated 15.04.2021.
5. Shri Pradeep Kumar Jain vs. ITO; ITA No. 190/CHD/2019; Order dated 21.12.2019.
6. Smt. Sheela Sharma vs. ITO; ITA No. 907/JP/2018; Order Dated 25.10.2018.
7. Smt. Maninder Kartik vs. Dy. CIT; ITA No. 5649/DEL/2017; Order dated 20.09.2023.
8. Bhupesh Navinchandra Raval vs. ITO; ITA No. 2287/Ahd/2017; 22.02.2019 Order dated
9. Rajesh Kale VS. ITO; ITA No. 211/Ind/2017; Order dated 28.09.2018."8 ITA No.360/LKW/2023
A.Y. 2013-14 Raghav Kapoor Chand Gupta It was further submitted that the issue was covered by the order of the jurisdictional Tribunal in the case of ITO-1(1), Lucknow vs. Smt. Arti Kumaria in ITA No. 97/LKW/2017 wherein vide its orders dated 14.03.2018, the Lucknow 'A' Bench had held that section 54(1) was the substantive provision and section 54(2) was the enabling provision which provides that the assessee should deposit the amount earned from capital gain in a scheme framed in this respect by the Central Government till the amount is invested/construction of residential house. The ITAT had held that the substantive provision promotes housing and leads us to assess the intention of the assessee and if the intention of the assessee was to purchase a new property which was fulfilled by the facts of the record, then the enabling provision of keeping the amounts in a particular scheme, whether fulfilled or not, should not destroy the ultimate bona fide intention of the assessee as enshrined in section 54(1). Thus, the procedural and enabling provision of sub section 2 of section 54 could not be strictly construed to impose strict limitations on the assessee and deny him the benefit of exemption under section 54(1), if the conditions of section 54(1) were fulfilled. The ld. AR also placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble ITAT New Delhi in the case of Smt. Vatsala Astha vs. ITO in ITA No. 5635/DEL/2016 wherein vide its order dated 6.08.2019, the ITAT had held that the payment made by the assessee towards purchase of residential house upto the date of filing of return of return of income as prescribed under section 139(4) was allowable for considering the deduction under section 54F of the Act. The ld. AR also drew our attention to the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Smt. Umayal Annamalai 118 taxman 80 (Madras) wherein vide its order dated 22.07.2020 the Hon'ble High Court had held that where the assessee had kept satisfied the conditions for availing the 9 ITA No.360/LKW/2023 A.Y. 2013-14 Raghav Kapoor Chand Gupta benefit under section 54F as it had purchased new property and taken possession within the stipulated period of three years, the exemption could not be denied to it only because the unutilized sale proceeds were not deposited in a Capital Gains Accounts Scheme before the due date of filing of return under section 139(1). The ld. AR claimed that his case was similar to the aforesaid cases and therefore, he was eligible for the said deduction. In respect of the nature of the new capital purchase, the ld. AR pointed out that the nature of the new property was clearly specified in para 3 at pages 8 and 9 of the purchase deed which specified that the purpose of the plot was the construction of a Villa (which was a residence). He invited our attention to the various CBDT Circulars which had earlier been submitted by him before the ld. CIT(A) to argue that having invested on the acquisition of Unit No. 54A Aamby Valley, he was eligible for the deduction as the said investment was for the construction of a residential property. On a query from the Bench, the ld. AR admitted that it had not been possible for the assessee to subsequently complete the construction of the said house property on account of order of the Hon. Supreme Court, that had stopped construction at Aamby Valley, but he drew our attention to the decision of the ITAT Chandigarh Bench in the case of Shri Pradeep Kumar Jain vs. ITO-2(3), Chandigarh in ITA No. 190/CHD/2019 wherein vide their order dated 21.12.2019, where the assessee could not proceed with construction activity on a residential plot because the Government of Punjab through a notification had banned the construction activity in Village Kansal in the month of May, 2017, ITAT held that the assessee was prevented from constructing the residential house over the said plot for the reasons beyond his control. Under the circumstances, it could not be considered to be a case where the assessee had failed to construct the house/residence within a period of three years from the date of 10 ITA No.360/LKW/2023 A.Y. 2013-14 Raghav Kapoor Chand Gupta sale of his property. Rather the assessee had proceeded to purchase a plot and begin construction of residential house however, was prevented due to ban on construction by the Government which was a subsequent event. Hence, the non-construction of house over the said plots was due to reasons beyond the control of the assessee and therefore, considering the exceptional facts and circumstances of the case, it could not be said that there was default on the part of the assessee for not complying with the provisions of section 54 of the Act. Under the circumstances, the denial of deduction under section 54 was not justified and the ld. AR prayed that his case being similar, the assessee should be granted the benefit of deduction as he had substantially complied with the provisions of section 54.
7. On the other hand, Sh. R.R.N. Shukla, Addl CIT DR (hereinafter referred to as the ld. DR) placed reliance on the orders of the ld. CIT(A), NFAC. He particularly drew our attention to para no. 4.1.1 of the orders of the ld. CIT(A), where the ld. CIT(A) had after considering the entire issue recorded his findings that neither could the assessee be granted the benefit of section 54 on account of the fact that he had purchased a plinth and not a residential house and nor could he be granted the benefit for any amount in excess of what he had invested before the due date of the filing of income tax return under section 139(1). Placing his reliance orders of the AO and the ld. CIT(A), the ld. DR submitted that the appeal of the assessee was fit to be dismissed on account of the very elaborate discussion made by the AO in his order.
8. We have duly considered the facts of the case, the observations of the lower authorities and the arguments advanced by both parties. We find that there are two disputes, the first being that the assessee, having invested in the purchase of a plinth and not completed a residential house within the given period of three years after the sale of the original asset, had been denied 11 ITA No.360/LKW/2023 A.Y. 2013-14 Raghav Kapoor Chand Gupta the benefit of deduction under section 54 on the grounds that the plinth is not a residential house and the second issue is that he had been denied the benefit of amounts invested in the purchase of plinth for construction of a residential house, that were invested after due date of filing of return under section 139(1), even though he had he had invested a substantial portion of the capital gains before filing a return under section 139(4) of the Income Tax Act. As the first issue in question relates to the eligibility for deduction under section 54(1), we may proceed to examine the matter with reference to the facts of the assessee's case. A perusal of the agreement to lease signed between the assessee and Aamby Valley Limited on 22.07.2013, shows that the assessee obtained a long-term lease of a period of 999 years of plinth number 54A and a portion of land appurtenant thereto, admeasuring 534 Sq Mtrs, for a sum of Rs. 1,15,52,648/-. Of this amount Rs. 26,75,000/- was paid by the assessee before the execution of the agreement and the balance consideration was to be paid by the assessee in 24 equal monthly instalments of Rs. 3,69,902/- each, the first instalment being payable on 25.07.2013. In consideration thereof, the assessee was granted the lease and clause 2 of the said agreement states that the formal lease deed would be executed between the parties, subject to the lessee constructing structures on the said plot in accordance with agreement and full payment of the consideration as provided in clause 5. Clause 3 of the said agreement granted the assessee the permission to enter the plot as a licensee, for the purposes of constructing a Villa/ Timber Chalet thereon and the assessee was obliged to enter into a construction contract and finalize designs of the Villa within 90 days, from the execution of the agreement with the lessor. The lessor was thereafter to commence construction on the said plot and complete the same within 30 months from the date of execution of the construction contract. If the lessee 12 ITA No.360/LKW/2023 A.Y. 2013-14 Raghav Kapoor Chand Gupta desired, it could get the construction done through a third party, after payment of a fee and adherence to overall design of Aamby Valley. After the completion of such construction, the lessee would provide a completion certificate to the lessor. Thus, it is quite clear from the perusal of the agreement and the conditions laid down therein, that the purchase of the said plot had to be followed up with a construction contract with the lessor or by construction through some other party, after obtaining permission from and paying a fee to the lessor. Thus, the fact of entering into an agreement for lease, does not in itself establish the assessee's intention to construct a residential house. The assessee has not furnished before the lower authorities or us any such evidence from which it could be ascertained that construction had commenced and was underway before it was stopped by force majeure conditions. It is also noted that the assessee has invested 92,35,408/ into the purchase of the plot before the filing of the return u/s 139(4) and paid tax on the remaining Rs 13,40,532/ of LTCG. Having not deposited the money into the capital gains account, he has claimed exemption on the fulfillment condition of section 54(1). However, the question that remains is whether the assessee has made substantive compliance to the provision of section 54(1). Section 54(1) states that the assessee must invest the money in the purchase of a residential house within two years or the construction of one within three years and the investment can only be allowed as a deduction if has resulted in the purchase of or the construction of a residential house. The assessee has purchased a plot of land. The Ld AR has argued that it was for constructing a residential house, which could not be completed for reasons beyond his control because the Hon'ble Supreme Court put a ban on construction within Aamby valley. It has been claimed that since the assessee could not complete the construction on the said plot due to the halting of new development by 13 ITA No.360/LKW/2023 A.Y. 2013-14 Raghav Kapoor Chand Gupta the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India therefore, his case is akin to that of Shri Pradeep Kumar Jain vs. ITO (supra) in which the ITAT Chandigarh Bench had held that where the construction had begun but could not be completed because of a ban on activities by the Government in pursuance to order of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court, the assessee could not be denied the benefit of section 54F. But as pointed out earlier there is no material before us from which it could be ascertained whether the assessee had actually commenced or made any efforts into the construction before the ban on construction came into effect. Secondly, it is observed that the Hon'ble Supreme Court ordered attachment of Aamby valley in February 2017. The assessee had sold his flats at Pune on 12/06/2012. As per this timeline, the law required him to complete construction before 11/06/2015 to avail the benefit of section 54. Even the suggestive timelines in the agreement of lease required that the construction be completed before 22/04/2016. As the Supreme Court order came into effect nearly 20 months after the assessee was required to complete the construction, u/s 54(1) and also much after the suggestive dates of completion of construction as per the agreement to lease deed, it cannot be a ground to explain his failure to complete the construction. It is also seen from the brief synopsis filed at the time of the appeal, that no investment was claimed after 24.03.2014 i.e., after payment for the plot, in the construction of the residential house. Thus, it would appear that the assessee not having constructed or invested substantially in the construction of a residential house within 3 years from the date of sale, is not eligible for the deduction u/s 54 and decision of the Id. A.O. to bring the deduction of Rs. 92,35,408/- to tax would appear to be justified. Ground no. 1,2 & 4 are accordingly dismissed. Ground no 3 is rendered infructuous on account of the 14 ITA No.360/LKW/2023 A.Y. 2013-14 Raghav Kapoor Chand Gupta aforesaid facts and is dismissed accordingly. Ground no 5 is also dismissed as infructuous as the option has not been exercised.
9. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 28.04.2026.
Sd/- Sd/-
[SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA] [NIKHIL CHOUDHARY]
JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
DATED: 28/04/2026
Sh
Copy forwarded to:
1. Appellant -
2. Respondent -
3. CIT DR , ITAT,
4. CIT,
5. The CIT(A)
By order
Sr. P.S.
15