Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Raipur
Deputy Commissioner Of ... vs Nmdc Cmdc Limited, Raipur on 24 April, 2024
आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, रायपुर यायपीठ, रायपुर
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR
ी र वश सूद, याियक सद य एवं ी अ ण खोड़ पया, लेखा सद य के सम ।
BEFORE SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JM & SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, AM
(ITA No.303/RPR/2023)
(Assessment Year:2018-19)
Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-1(1), V NMDC CMDC LIMITED,
Central Revenue Buildings, Civil Lines, s Greens Villey City, Housing Board Colony,
Raipur, (C.G.) Raipur, Sejbahar B.O., (C.G.)
PAN: AACCN8925C
(अपीलाथ /Appellant) . ( यथ / Respondent)
.
िनधा रती क ओर से /Assessee by : Shri Darshan Jakharia, CA
राज व क ओर से /Revenue by : Shri Debashish Lahiri, CIT DR
सुनवाई क तार ख/ Date of Hearing : 19.03.2 024
घोषणा क तार ख/Date of : 24.04.2 024
Pronouncement
Per Arun Khodpia, AM:
The aforesaid appeal is filed by the revenue against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax, NFAC, Delhi, (in short "CIT(A)"), u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act (in short "The Act"), dated 11.08.2023 for the Assessment Year 2018-19, which in turn arises from penalty order u/s 270A by the Assessing Officer (in short "The AO"), NFAC dated 04.01.2022, resulted from the AO's order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Act dated 21.05.2021.
2. The grounds of appeal raised by the revenue in present appeal are as under:
2 ITA No.303/RPR/2023
NMDC CMDC LIMITED
1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstance of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the Penalty levied u/s - 270A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in accepting the submissions of the assessee and there by ignoring the facts brought on the record by the Assessing Officer. Any other ground which may be adduced at the time of hearing.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a limited company, its case for the AY 2018-19 was selected for limited scrutiny assessment under e-assessment scheme, 2019 on the issue "Investment in intangible assets". During the assessment proceedings queries were raised by the Ld. AO and responded by the assessee, however, assessee's explanation regarding allowability of depreciation on acquisition of mining rights treating the same as intangible asset could not found favour before the Ld. AO, accordingly a disallowance of Rs. 21,69,41,302/- was made. Consequently, penalty proceedings u/s 270A of the Act, was initiated for under reporting of the income. The initiation of penalty proceedings was further taken up by the Assessing Officer, NFAC, wherein Ld. AO had elaborately discussed the nature of intangible asset declared at Rs. 173,55,30,417/- for a period of less than 180 days and depreciation of @25% for half year amounting to Rs. 21,69,41,302/- was claimed. The allowability of depreciation so claimed by the assessee was denied by the revenue on account of no activity leading to income from 3 ITA No.303/RPR/2023 NMDC CMDC LIMITED extraction of Iron Ore in the relevant year or in the preceding year, it is also observed that by the Ld. AO, that the business of the assessee has not commenced in the relevant AY. Notice u/s 274 r.w.s. 270A was issued to the assessee, in response, a reply was submitted by the assessee, wherein the assessee contended that there must be mens rea or malafide intentions to levy penalty. It was the contention that the word 'inaccurate' signifies a deliberate act or omission on part of the assessee, reliance was placed on the order of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dilip N. Shroff vs. CIT (291 ITR 519) (SC). Assessee also advanced the argument that the claim of depreciation was on the basis of judicial pronouncement in existence wherein similar claims by the assessee's were allowed by the Hon'ble Courts, thus, the assessee was under bonafide belief. The Assessing Officer makes addition adopting different interpretation, in such a case since the issue remains a debatable issue, no penalty for concealment could be levied, support drawn from CIT vs Babitaben Rameshbhai Patel (Tax Appeal No. 1072 of 2009) (dated 10.01.2011)(Guj). Further, the assessee submitted before the Ld. AO that the assessee have already paid the tax a/w interest demanded u/s 143(3) and have not preferred to go for appeal, therefore, there were no malafide intentions to under report the income by claiming depreciation, rather depreciation have been charged only due to the lease hold mining rights considering the same as intangible asset, therefore, penalty should not be imposed. Ld. AO, though, considered the submissions of the assessee however, 4 ITA No.303/RPR/2023 NMDC CMDC LIMITED have not found force and merit in the contentions raised by the assessee, as a result, after recording his satisfaction, penalty of Rs. 3,12,82,936/- u/s 270A of Income Tax Act, 1961 was imposed. The observations of the Ld. AO while enforcing the penalty are as under:
5. Thereafter, a fresh opportunity was offered to the assessee vide this office notice u/s274 r.w.s. 270A dated 24.07.2021 and compliance of the same was fixed on 30.07.2021, asking the assessee to explain as to why an order imposing penalty u/s. 270A of t Act should not be passed. In response the assessee has submitted its reply 30.07.2021 the same as replied and attached on 21.07.2021.
6. The submissions of the assessee dated 21.07.2021 have been duly considered with facts of the case and provisions of the Act but the same is not acceptable. The assessee has not filed any appeal against the assessment done u/s 143(3). The assessee Kas submitted that "there is no conscious and deliberate intentions to concealed the addition income" and hence, the request of the assessee to drop penalty. The argument that the entire addition is accepted and tax paid thereon is not acceptable as there is no provision for dropping the penalty if assessee have not objected to the addition in assessment order. This only proves that the assessee does not have any valid explanation to offer to the Income Tax authorities and has therefore agreed that the true and full disclosure of his income for AY 2018-19 has not been made.
7. From the above discussion, it is clear that there is no merit in the assessee's argument since, the assessee has failed to furnish any supporting documentary evidence with respect to above discussed issues. The assesse has declared a loss in business only due to the depreciation claimed thus chosing to make a wrong claim by under-
reporting income so that benefits out of such wrong claims can be reaped later in subsequent years. hence, the addition was made 5 ITA No.303/RPR/2023 NMDC CMDC LIMITED amounting to Rs. 21,69,41,302/- and added back to the income of the assessee, Based on the above facts, it is clear that the assessee has under reported income to the extent of Rs. 21,69,41,302/- Therefore, the case of the assessee squarely falls within the ambit of under-reporting of income for the purpose of levy of penalty u/s 270A of the Act.
8. It is also put forward that the entire scheme of penalty was modified so that different categories of misdemeanor in the furnishing of the return of income can be graded and penalized accordingly.
9. The assessee's silence in the matter on the above disallowances made is an admission of the fact that it did commit a default within the meaning of section 270A of the Act without any reasonable cause. It is a settled law that in economic offences, the statutory liability to pay either duty or tax is nothing but a strict liability where the question of proving beyond the shadow of doubt one's existence of bona fide belief that amount is not taxable does not arise. Further, the penal provision has been enacted as a remedy for leakage of revenue, which in the instant case has happened.
10. In view of the foregoing discussion/findings, the assessee is held to be liable for penalty u/s. 270A of the Act. The penalty leviable as provided in section 270A of the Act is 50% of the amount of tax payable on under-reported income. In the instant case, the tax payable in respect of under-reported income is to be calculated, as per which the amount of tax in respect of under-reported income of Rs. 21,69,41,302/- comes to Rs. 6,25,65,872/-. Therefore, the penalty @ 50% of above tax of Rs. 6,25,65,872/- comes to Rs. 3,12,82,936/-. 11 . In view of the above entire facts and circumstances of the case, I am satisfied that the assessee has under-reported her income for the A.Y. 2018-19. Therefore, it is a fit case for levy of penalty u/s 270A of the l.T. Act, 1961. Hence, I hereby levy a penalty of Rs. 3,12,82,936/- 6 ITA No.303/RPR/2023
NMDC CMDC LIMITED u/s 270A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Demand notice is issued accordingly.
4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid penalty order by the Ld. AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), wherein the contentions raised by the assessee were extracted, discussed, deliberated, accordingly, considering substance in the contentions of the assessee the appeal of the assessee was allowed by deleing the penalty imposed u/s 270A of the Act.
5. The impugned decision of deleting the penalty by the Ld. CIT(A) has not been accepted by the revenue, alleging that the same is unjustified and without appreciating the facts brought on record by the assessing officer, therefore, the revenue carried this matter before us in the present appeal.
6. At the outset, Ld. CIT DR vehemently supported the penalty order passed by the Ld. AO wherein Ld. AO has categorically deliberated upon the reasons for disallowance of depreciation stating that (i) The acquisition of mining right is not intangible asset as defined in section 32(1)(ii) of I.T. Act, (ii) The asset is now owned by the company and (iii) The asset is not put to use during the year under consideration neither it is ready for use of commercial exploitation. It is further submitted that since the assessee itself had agreed with the 7 ITA No.303/RPR/2023 NMDC CMDC LIMITED interpretations of the Ld. AO and have withdrawn their claim of depreciation and had paid tax on the same a/w interest, this clearly shows that there was under reporting of income by the assessee. It was the submission that the penalty was imposed under the provisions of law as a remedy to stop the leakage of revenue, therefore, the present case was a fit case for imposition of penalty u/s 271A of the Act. Ld. CIT DR in terms of aforesaid submissions requested to uphold the penalty order of Ld. AO and set aside the order of Ld. CIT(A).
7. Per contra, in rebuttal Ld. AR of the assessee submitted a written submission in support of assessee's contentions that the claim was based on a bonafide belief considering certain judicial precedents and assessee had no malafide intention to under report the income. The written submission of the assessee, for the sake of better appreciation of the facts, is extracted as under:
Before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Raipur- "DB" BENCH In ITA 303/RPR/2023 Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-1(1) vs. NMDC CMDC LIMITED Respondent PAN: AACCN8925C AY: 2018-19 WRITTEN SUBMISSION With reference to the above-mentioned appeal, in continuation to the submissions made on 22.11.2023 followed by the hearing on 23.11.2023, we hereby make further submissions as under:8 ITA No.303/RPR/2023
NMDC CMDC LIMITED The issue involved in this appeal is with regard to the penalty u/s 270A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("Act') levied by the officer in National Faceless Assessment Centre ("Assessing Officer"/"AO") in respect of the disallowance of depreciation claimed on mining rights. The AO has held that by claiming the depreciation, assessee has under reported the income in terms of section 270A.
Assessee's submission was that the claim was based on a bonafide belief considering certain judicial precedents and assessee had no malafide intention to under report the income. However, the AO did not concur with the assessee's submission and proceeded to levy penalty u/s 270A.
Aggrieved by the order, assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeals Centre [CIT (A)] who vide order dated 11.08.2023 deleted the penalty considering the submission of the assessee.
Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the department has preferred present appeal before this honorable Tribunal.
The only dispute in the present appeal is whether the case of assessee falls within the provisions of section 270A(6) as per which under reported income shall not include the income in respect of which assessee offers a bonafide explanation and discloses all the material facts to substantiate the explanation. Explanation with regard to the claim of depreciation and submission on the observations made by the AO while levying the penalty is made as under.
Depreciation has been claimed on mining rights acquired from the state government (initially acquired by holding company i.e. NMDC Limited and assessee acquired the same from NMDC during the year under consideration). Obtaining of a mining lease i.e. mining right is a very long process and various compliances need to be made at different stages in order to obtain the same which entails incurring of various incidental expenses. All these expenses are capitalized in the books of accounts as intangible asset under the head "Mining Rights" and amortized from the year of obtaining the mining rights. Under the Act, Intangible assets (which includes business or commercial right) has a separate block for the purpose of depreciation. Accordingly, the assessee has classified the mining rights in the block of Intangible Asset and claimed depreciation. It is understood that there are 3 aspects based on which the claim of assessee was disallowed.9 ITA No.303/RPR/2023
NMDC CMDC LIMITED
1. AO took a view that Mining rights do not fall within the purview of intangible asset as specified for claiming depreciation u/s 32.
This issue is debatable with various judicial precedents in favour of assesee mainly the case of assessee's holding company. Infact at one place in the order (precisely in para 3.2), the AO himself stated that "Mining Right" is an intangible asset.
2. AO stated that asset is not owned by the assessee. This statement is incorrect as in the order itself the AO has stated that "In this case, assessee has acquired land from government for the exploration" (Para 3.1). Then in para 3.3 also the AO has stated that "transfer of lease land after granting of mining rights is one of the starting point and state government transferred the lease on 04.12.2017". Therefore, this observation of the AO is incorrect.
3. AO stated that the asset is not put to use during the year. The fact whether a particular asset is put to use or not depends on various factors including the nature of asset, its use. In the present case it is pertinent to note that the asset under question is an intangible asset i.e. mining right. The AO has formed a view that it is not put to use on the basis that no activity leading to income from extraction of iron ore is declared and accordingly the business has not commenced. In this regard it is pertinent to note that "the terms for the purpose of business are much wider than for the purpose of generating income". The law makers have consciously used the term "for the purpose of business". It has been held in several cases that commercial operations are not necessarily needed to describe business activity, various activities together constitute business and not all activity directly lead to generation of income and moreover all activities need not be started simultaneously for describing commencement of business. Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Saurashtra Cement and Chemical Industries ltd. 91 ITR 170 has held that business is nothing more than a continuous course of activities and all the activities which go to make up the business need not be started simultaneously in order that the business may commence. The business would commence when the activity which is first in point of time and which must necessarily precedes the other activities is started. ITAT Mumbai in the case of Deccan Goldmines Ltd (engaged in the similar business) in ITA No. 7656/Mum/2010 has held that "There are various business stages including obtaining of permits, prospecting 10 ITA No.303/RPR/2023 NMDC CMDC LIMITED license/mining lease. When the assessee has been granted Reconnaissance permit, such stage must constitute foundation for subsequent stages. The activity of commercial production is not needed to describe the business is set up when assessee is in the business of exploration, In this line of business of exploration, the business commences with 'exploring' for minerals/gold/silver in the crests of the Earth and ends with successful identification of such mineral rich blocks of earth. "
Similarly in the instant case, there are various stages involving several activities whereby one activity paves way for the next one. There are some activities (Locating potential mineral deposits, surface exploration, environmental clearance, forest clearance, mine plan) to be done before obtaining of mining lease and some activities (tree enumeration, tree felling, preparation of approach road, deploying of man and machinery/appointment of MDO (mine developer cum operator) after obtaining mining lease. Eventually all the activities will lead to commercial exploitation. It is humbly submitted that an asset can be said to be put to use when its availability is contributing to any of the activity.
In the present case, as stated above there are certain activities which could be done only after obtaining of mining lease. The obtaining of mining lease has enabled the assessee to carry on further activities such as enumeration and felling of trees. inviting tender and appointing of MDO. Without having the mining lease, the assessee couldn't have proceeded with these activities and accordingly in our understanding it should constitute put use of the asset because when availability of something is leading to/enabling happening of other thing it implies that it is put to use. In the assessment order the AO himself has stated that the grant of mining right is one of the starting point, government has transferred the lease on 04.12.2017 and thereafter many essential activities are required to be carried out which includes felling of trees, construction of roads, convenor belts, etc. We also wish to submit that the issue under consideration is with regard to penalty matter and not the admissibility of the claim. Hence under the relevant provisions, it is only required to demonstrate that the claim made was under a bonafide belief for which there is some reasonable basis. It is trite law that every claim which was not sustainable will not lead to penalty. Therefore law itself has exceptions like in the present case section 270A(6) provides exception.11 ITA No.303/RPR/2023
NMDC CMDC LIMITED In view of the above and material available on record, it can be said that assessee had some reasonable basis for making claim and has offered bonafide explanation and disclosed all the material facts to substantiate the explanation making it a fit case for the exception provided u/s 270A(6). The other vital fact that immediately on assessment, assessee considering the litigative nature of claim has paid the demand within the stipulated time and moreover voluntarily withdrew its claim and paid the applicable taxes with interest even for subsequent years for which there was no assessment taken up by department. Assessee being eligible, had also tried to apply for immunity u/s 270AA. However, due to technical glitch, the application could not be submitted in time in the specified manner.
Lastly it is stated that all the surrounding circumstances clearly demonstrate the bonafide intent of the assessee and accordingly it is humbly requested that order of CIT(A) deleting the penalty may kindly be upheld.
8. Ld. AR of the assessee on the basis of aforesaid submissions have further drawn our attention to the order of Ld. CIT(A), have reiterated the findings therein and have submitted that considering the fact and circumstances of the present case, the assessee's bonafide intent cannot be doubted, therefore, the order of Ld. CIT(A) deleting the penalty may kindly be upheld.
9. We have considered the submission of both the parties, perused the material available on record and case laws pressed before us in support of contentions raised by the parties. On perusal of the order of Ld. CIT(A), wherein the issue in the present case have been deliberated upon at length and the same has been culminated by deleting the penalty imposed on the assessee. Ld. CIT(A) was 12 ITA No.303/RPR/2023 NMDC CMDC LIMITED convinced with the explanations of the assessee, observing that the disallowance of depreciation is a subject matter of debate as in the case of holding company of the assessee i.e., NMDC the mining right has consistently been held as a depreciable asset eligible for depreciation u/s 32 of the Act, by coordinate bench of ITAT, Hyderabad in the following Income Tax Appeals:
1. ITA No. 714/Hyd/2012 dated 28/02/2014 for AY 2008-09.
2. ITA No. 288/Hyd/2013 dated 18/07/2014 for AY 2009-10.
3. ITA No. 1795/Hyd/2013 dated 09/05/2014 for AY 2010-11.
4. ITA No. 1593/Hyd/2014 dated 20/03/2015 for AY 2011-12.
5. ITA No. 148/Hyd/2017 dated 09/05/2017 for AY 2012-13.
6. ITA No. 1785/Hyd/2017 dated 17/10/2018 for AY 2013-14.
7. ITA No. 1786/Hyd/2017 dated 17/10/2018 for AY 2014-15
10. The extract of findings by Ld. CIT(A) is culled out for the sake of completeness and clarity:
5.4 The above submissions of the appellant have been carefully considered. The assessee's plea could be summarized as under:
a. The disallowance of depreciation on the mining lease is a subject matter of debate. There are decisions of various courts including in the case of the appellant's holding company NMDC to the effect that mining right is a depreciable, asset.
b. The appellant has commenced business operations in that performance security has been deposited with the State Government, agreement signed with State Government, mining lease executed with the State Government, 13 ITA No.303/RPR/2023 NMDC CMDC LIMITED DGPS survey of deposit-13 mining lease boundary completed. The activity of commercial production is not needed for claim of depreciation.
c. Considering the disallowance on a bonafide manner, an application seeking immunity u/s 270AA was filed after fulfilling all the conditions laid under the said section.
5.5 After going through the penalty order and the submissions of the appellant, i am inclined to agree with the contentions of the appellant, that the case of the appellant is not a fit case for levy of penalty u/s 270A of the Act. It is the case of the Assessing Officer that penalty u/s 270A is only for Under Reporting and therefore, being a civil liability, no mens-rea or guilty mind is required. However, in the instant case, the claim of depreciation is purely a legal issue on which there are possibily different interpretations. As pointed out by the appellant, there are multiple decisions of the judiciary allowing depreciation on mining rights. In fact, in the case of the Holding company of the appellant viz. NMDC, the Hon'ble ITAT of Hyderabad has granted depreciation on the lease hold rights over land, treating it as an intangible asset. Such being the case, when the issue involved is a debatable one, where two views are possible, holding the appellant for penalty is not correct.
5.6 More importantly in this case, the appellant has filed an application before the Assessing Officer, seeking immunity u/s 270AA of the Act after fulfilling all the conditions as under:
a. Tax and interest payable has been paid within the period specified in the demand notice.
b. No appeal has been preferred against the order of the assessment.
c. An application in the prescribed form in Form 68 has been filed on 18-022022, within one month from the end of the month in which the assessment order was received.14 ITA No.303/RPR/2023
NMDC CMDC LIMITED 5.7 Under the above circumstances, there was no reason for the Assessing Officer not to accept the application of the assessee to grant immunity.
5.8 In the case Ultimate Infra Tech Private Limited reported in 2022- 326 CTR 547, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court has held that immunity u/s 270AA has to be granted on satisfaction of the conditions prescribed in the said section. The observations of the Hon'ble High Court is reproduced hereunder:
"5. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner this Coutt is of the view that it is only in cases where proceedings for Levy of penalty have been initiated on account of alleged misreporting of income that an assessee is prohibited from applying and availing the Penefit of Immunity from penalty and prosecution under s. 270AA.
6. In fact, the statutory scheme for grant of impunity is based on satisfaction of three fundamental conditions, namely, (i) payment of tax demand; (ii) non- institution of appeal; and (iii) initiation of penalty on account of underreporting of income and not on account of delay/default on the part of the Revenue.
7. This Court is also or the View that the petitioner cannot be prejudiced by the inaction of the AO in passing an order under s.
270AA of the Act within the statutory time limit as it is settled law that no prejudice can be caused to any assessee on account of delay/default on the part of the Revenue.
8. In the present case, the petitioner has satisfied the aforesaid conditions, in as much as, (i) the tax has been paid on the additions;
(ii) appeal has undisputedly not been filed; and (iii) penalty (as would be evident from the penalty notice) has been initiated on account of "underreporting" of income.
9. Consequently, this Coutt is of the view that the petitioner acquired a right to be granted immunity under s. 270AA of the Act. In fact, this 15 ITA No.303/RPR/2023 NMDC CMDC LIMITED Court, in Schneider Electric Southeast Asia (HQ) Pte Ltd. vs. Asstt. CIT (International Taxation) & ors., Writ Petn. No. 5111 of 2022 [reported at (2022) 213 DTR (Del) 134 : (2022) 326 CTR (Del) 374--EdJ, has held, "This Court is further of the view that the impugned action of respondent No. 1 is contrary to the avowed legislative intent of s. 270M of the Act to encourage/incentivize a taxpayer to (i) fast-track settlement of issue, (ii) recover tax demand; and (iii) reduce protracted litigation. "
5.9 In the above circumstances, the penalty levied u/s 270A of the Act is deleted. Therefore, the grounds of appeal raised by the appellant are allowed.
11. On a thoughtful consideration of the aforesaid observations, submissions and facts and circumstances of the present case, since there were different order of different courts including case of NMDC, the holding company of the assessee before us, wherein, the allowability of depreciation was a debatable issue. Moreover, since the mining right are held as an intangible asset eligible for depreciation u/s 32 of the Act by the ITAT, Hyderabad in the case of NMDC Limited for various assessment years from AY 2008-09 to AY 2014-15 (supra), the assessee company has a bonafide belief that depreciation would be allowed on such mining rights to the assessee company. It is also an admitted fact transpired from the order of Ld. CIT(A) that the assessee appellant had filed an application before the Ld. AO, seeking immunity u/s 270AA of the Act after fulfilling all the pre-requisite conditions of the said section. There was no reason for the Ld. AO to 16 ITA No.303/RPR/2023 NMDC CMDC LIMITED deny grant of immunity to the assessee towards the application submitted u/s 270AA. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, since there were justifiable reasons supporting the bonafide belief of the assessee in claiming the depreciation on mining rights and since mala-fide intentions of the assessee could not be established by the revenue in terms of any cogent material or explanation. The decision of Ld. CIT(A) found to be worth concurrence, in absence of any plausible argument, explanation, evidence or decision by the department to extricate the findings the Ld. CIT(A), thus, we uphold the same. Therefore, Ground No. 1 of the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed.
12. In result, appeal of the revenue stands dismissed in terms of the aforesaid observations.
order pronounced in the open court on 24/04/2024.
Sd/- Sd/-
(RAVISH SOOD) (ARUN KHODPIA)
याियक सद य / JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखा सद य / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
रायपुर/Raipur; दनांक Dated 24/04/2024
Vaibhav Shrivastav
आदे श क ितिल प अ े षत/Copy of the Order forwarded to :
1. अपीलाथ / The Appellant-
2. यथ / The Respondent-
3. आयकर आयु (अपील) / The CIT(A),
4. आयकर आयु / CIT
5. िवभागीय ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, रायपुर/ DR, ITAT, Raipur
6. गाड फाईल / Guard file.17 ITA No.303/RPR/2023
NMDC CMDC LIMITED // स या पत ित True Copy // आदे शानुसार/ BY ORDER, (Assistant Registrar) आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, रायपुर/ITAT, Raipur