M/s. Hemkunt Transport services, Jammu V. The Income Tax Officer, Jammu

CO 16/ASR/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 122 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9505 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 9 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 08-04-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 26-03-2014
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 15-06-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Depreciation; Opportunity of being heard; Additional evidence; Non compliance
• Section: 44AD; 68; 144

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH; AMRITSAR. BEFORE SH. H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. B.P.JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO.154(ASR)/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2006-07 PAN :AAEFH4113R INCOME TAX OFFICER, VS. M/S. HEMKUNT TRANSPORT SER VICES, WARD 1(1), JAMMU. SHOP NO.55, YARD NO.2 TRANSPORT NAGAR, JAMMU. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) C.O.NO.16(ASR)/2012 (ARISING OUT OF I.T.A. NO.154(ASR)/2012) ASSESSMENT YEAR:2006-07 PAN :AAEFH4113R M/S. HEMKUNT TRANSPORT SERVICES, VS. INCOME TAX OF FICER, SHOP NO.55, YARD NO.2 TRANSPORT WARD 1(1), JAMMU. NAGAR, JAMMU. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) DEPARTMENT BY: SH. MAHAVIR SINGH, DR ASSESSEE BY: SH. JOGINDER SINGH, CA DATE OF HEARING: 26/03/2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT:08/04/2014 ORDER PER BENCH ; ITA NO.154(ASR)/2012 C.O.NO.16(ASR)/2012 2 THIS APPEAL OF THE REVENUE ARISES FROM THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), JAMMU DATED 29.02.2012 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 06-07. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES WHETHER THE LD. CIT(A) WAS RIGHT IN DIRECTING THE A.O. TO ADOPT NET PROFIT RAT E OF 2% OF THE TOTAL RECEIPTS INSTEAD OF 8% APPLIED BY THE A.O. BY RELYING UPON THE DECISION OF THE JURISDICTIONAL ITAT IN THE CASE OF M/S. MANSA TRUCK OPERATOR UNION VS. ITO VIDE ITA NO.298(ASR)/2010 DATED 15.06.2011 WHEN THE FACTS OF THE SAME ARE TOTALLY DIFFERENT IN THIS CASE. 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES WHETHER THE LD. C IT(A) WAS RIGHT IN DIRECTING THE A.O. TO ADOPT NET PROFIT RAT E OF 2% BY RELYING UPON THE DECISION OF THE JURISDICTIONAL ITA T IN THE CASE OF M/S. MANSA TRUCK OPERATOR UNION VS. ITO VIDE ITA NO.298(ASR)/2010 DATED 15.06.2011 WHEN THE JURISDIC TIONAL BENCH OF ITAT HAS HELD THAT THE RATE OF 1.5% IS REA SONABLE ON THE RECEIPTS WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT REFLECTED I N ITS RETURN OF INCOME. 3. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES WHETHER THE LD. C IT(A) WAS RIGHT IN DIRECTING THE A.O. TO ADOPT NET PROFIT RAT E OF 2% OF THE TOTAL RECEIPTS WHEN JURISDICTIONAL ITAT IN THE CA SE OF M/S. ASSOCIATED CONTRACTORS, SRINAGAR VS. ITO IN ITA NO.121(ASR)/2010 DATED 11.06.2010 HAS HELD THAT NET PROFIT RATE OF 4% ON GROSS RECEIPTS IS FAIR AND REASONABLE. 4. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES WHETHER THE LD. C IT(A) WAS RIGHT IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF U NEXPLAINED CREDITORS U/S 68 WHEN THE CREDITORS HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH NET PROFIT RATE APPLIED AND BOTH ARE INDEPENDENT OF EAC H OTHER. 5. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES WHETHER THE LD. C IT(A) WAS RIGHT IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF U NEXPLAINED CREDITORS U/S 68 WHEN THE SAME OUTSTANDING CREDITOR S SHOWN IN THE A.Y. 2008-09 HAVE BEEN FOUND FALSE & BOGUS IN T HE INVESTIGATIONS MADE BY THE A.O. ITA NO.154(ASR)/2012 C.O.NO.16(ASR)/2012 3 2. THE ASSESSEE AS ALSO FILED C.O. BEARING NO.16(AS R)/2012 WITH THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS : 1. THE LD. CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN APPLYING THE N.P. RATE OF 2% ON TOTAL RECEIPTS AS AGAINST THE RATE OF 1.5% APPLI ED BY THE JURISDICTIONAL BENCH IN THE CASE OF M/S. MANSA TRUC K OPERATOR UNION VS. ITO VIDE ITA NO.298(ASR)/2010. 2. THE LD. CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN APPLYING THE NET PROFIT RATE AS THE A.O. HAS DULY VERIFIED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS DU RING REMAND PROCEEDINGS AND HAS NOT POINTED OUT ANY DEFECT IN T HE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT TO NECESSITATE THE REJECTION OF BOOK RESULT S AND APPLY NET PROFIT RATE TO DETERMINE THE PROFIT. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSE E IS IN TRANSPORT BUSINESS, THE ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED IN THIS CASE U/S 144 OF T HE ACT, FOR THE REASONS OF NON COMPLIANCE FROM THE SIDE OF ASSESSEE, AFTER GIV ING DUE SHOW CAUSE NOTICES TO THE ASSESSEE BY THE A.O. THE AO HAS APP LIED A NET PROFIT RATE OF 8% ON GROSS RECEIPTS OF RS.35,66,82,550/- FROM CONT RACTS WITH M/S. SRTC AND JK CEMENT LIMITED. HE ALSO MADE AN ADDITION U/S 68 OF THE ACT ON UNEXPLAINED OPENING CAPITAL OF DEPARTMENT AT RS.17 ,00,000/-. HE FURTHER MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.2,58,58,470/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNVERIFIED/UNEXPLAINED CREDITORS. 4. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE MADE A REQUEST TO THE LD. CIT(A) THAT PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD WAS NOT AFFO RDED TO THE ASSESSEE AND THEREFORE, HE MADE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ALONGWITH 35 AFFIDAVITS INCLUDING SIX AFFIDAVITS FROM PARTNERS REGARDING GRANT OF OPP ORTUNITY AND BALANCE ON ITA NO.154(ASR)/2012 C.O.NO.16(ASR)/2012 4 BEHALF OF TRUCK OWNERS AS CLAIMED TO SHOW THAT THE Y WERE PAID RS.9450/- PER TRIP. THESE EVIDENCES WERE SENT TO THE AO FOR EXAMI NATION AND THE REMAND REPORT WAS RECEIVED BY THE LD. CIT(A), WHICH FOR T HE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER: 1. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALLEGED THAT THE ASSESSEE ATTENDED THE PROCEEDINGS ONCE DURING THE ENTIRE COURSE OF PROCEE DINGS, BUT THE THEN AO DID NOT TOOK COGNIZANCE OF HIS VISIT. THERE IS NO ORDER SHEET ENTRY IN THE RECORD WHICH SHOWS THAT TH E ASSESSEE ATTENDED THE PROCEEDINGS. HOWEVER, AFTER THAT HE WA S ACCORDED AT LEAST 8 TO 10 OPPORTUNITIES OF BEING HEARD BUT H E NEVER AVAILED THOSE OPPORTUNITIES. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS APPENDED CERTAIN AFFIDAVITS FRO M THE TRUCK DRIVERS WHO USE TO RUN THEIR VEHICLES FOR ASSESSEE ALONGWITH GROUNDS OF APPEAL FILED WITH YOUR GOODSELF. AS PER YOUR KIND SELF DIRECTION, NECESSARY ENQUIRIES WERE CONDUCTED. IT HAS BEEN OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD UNDERGONE TWO CONTRA CTS ONE WITH SRTC FOR CARRIAGE OF FOOD GRAINS FROM THE DEPO TS OF FCI, JAMMU AND ANOTHER CONTRACT WAS CARRIAGE OF CEMENT F OR J&K CEMENTS LTD. A COPY OF AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO BY TH E ASSESSEE WITH BOTH THESE CONCERNS WERE PRODUCED AND PLACED O N RECORD. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO PRODUCED FEW OF THE PERS ONS ON TEST CHECK BASIS WHO HAVE SUBMITTED THEIR AFFIDAVITS FO R VERIFICATION. THE ASSESSEE PRODUCED THESE PERSONS WHOSE STATEMENT S WERE RECORDED AND COPIES OF THE SAME ARE ENCLOSED FOR OU R KIND SELFS PERUSAL. THE PERSONS HAVE CERTIFIED THAT THEY HAD PLIED THEIR TRUCKS FOR THE ASSESSEE. THEY HAVE FURTHER CONFIR MED TO HAVE RECEIVED AN AMOUNT OF RS.9450/- EACH TRIP FOR 9 TON LOAD. APART FROM THE PERSONS WHO HAD SUBMITTED THEIR AFFIDAVIT S, THE ASSESSEE WAS ALSO ASKED TO FURNISH ADDRESSES OF FEW MORE DRIVERS/TRUCK OWNERS SO THAT INDEPENDENT ENQUIRIES COULD BE MADE FROM THEM. THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED ADDRESSES OF TRUCK OWNERS OTHER THAN THOSE WHO HAD FILED AFFIDAVITS. T HESE PERSONS WERE ALSO CONTRACTED AND THEIR STATEMENT WAS ALSO RECORDED TO ASCERTAIN THE FACTS AND CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. ALL THE TRUCK OWNERS HAVE CONFIRMED TO HAVE RECEIVED AROUND RS.94 00/- TO ITA NO.154(ASR)/2012 C.O.NO.16(ASR)/2012 5 RS.9450/- PER TRIP DEPENDING UPON THE SITUATION OF AVAILABILITY OF TRUCKS. 3. SO FAR AS CREDITORS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE CONCERNE D, IT WAS SEEN THAT THESE MAINLY PERTAIN THE TRADE CREDITORS IN TH E SHAPE OF TRUCK OWNERS WHO DID NOT RECEIVE PAYMENT FOR THE LA ST TRIP TAKEN BY THEM IN THE MONTH OF MARCH. THIS FACT TOO HAS B EEN CONFIRMED BY THE TRUCK OWNERS WHOSE STATEMENTS WERE RECORDED ON TEST CHECK BASIS. 4. SO FAR AS ADDITION ON A/C OF DISALLOWANCE OF SAL ARY AND WORKING ALLOWANCE OF THE PARTNERS IS CONCERNED, THE SAME W AS MADE AS THE ORDER WAS PASSED U/S 144 OF THE ACT DUE TO NON- COOPERATION OF THE ASSESSEE. AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 1 84(5), NO SALARY OR WORKING ALLOWANCE IS ALLOWABLE IF THE ORD ER ARE PASSED U/S 144 OF THE ACT. 5. SO FAR AS ADDITION ON A/C OF THE INTRODUCTION OF CAPITAL BY PARTNERS IS CONCERNED, IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASS ESSEE HAS NOW FURNISHED DETAIL OF INDIVIDUAL CONTRIBUTIONS MADE B Y THE PARTNERS. IT HAS BEEN CLAIMED THAT THE CAPITAL HAS BEEN PARTLY INTRODUCED IN THE SHAPE OF CASH AND PARTLY IN KIND BY TAKING THE MARKET VALUE OF THE TRUCKS OWNED BY THE ASSESSEE PA RTNERS. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO FURNISH THE EVIDENCE OF ARRIV ING AT THE MARKET VALUE WITH DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE. THE ASSESSE E HAS STATED THAT NO EVIDENCE OF MARKET VALUE CAN BE FURN ISHED. THIS DEPENDS UPON THE WORKING CONDITION OF MARKET VALUE CAN BE FURNISHED. THIS DEPENDS UPON THE WORKING CONDITION OR RUNNING CONDITION OF THE TRUCK. HE HAS STATED THAT THE VALU E TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE PARTNERS FOR THEIR TRUCKS IS AS PER THE MA RKET VALUE AS ON 29.03.2005. SO FAR AS INTRODUCTION OF REST OF TH E CAPITAL IN CASH IS CONCERNED, THE ASSESSEE HAS STATED THAT IT IS PRETTY AMOUNT ACCUMULATED BY THE PARTNERS BY PLYING OF TRU CKS FOR THE LAST SO MANY YEARS. NO BANK A/C OF THE PARTNERS WAS FURNISHED FROM WHERE THE MONEY WAS TRANSFERRED. THE ASSESSEE ALSO CLAIMED THAT THE CAPITAL WAS INTRODUCED DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR NOT RELEVANT TO THE CONCERNED ASSESSMENT YEAR. PERUSAL OF THE PARTNERSHIP DEED REVEALS THAT THIS PARTNERSHIP DEED WAS ENTERED INTO IN THE MONTH OF MARCH, 2005. THE ASSES SEE WAS ASKED TO FURNISH ANY EVIDENCE OF FILING OF RETURN BY INDIVIDUAL ITA NO.154(ASR)/2012 C.O.NO.16(ASR)/2012 6 PARTNERS FOR THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING YEAR RELEVAN T TO THE CONCERNED ASSESSMENT YEAR WHERE THIS CAPITAL CONTRI BUTION HAS BEEN REFLECTED. IT HAS BEEN STATED THAT NO RETURN W AS FILED BY THE INDIVIDUAL PARTNERS DURING THE ASSTT. YEAR I.E. A.Y . 2005-06. AS SUCH THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WITH RESPECT TO THE INTRODUCTION OF CAPITAL IN CASH BECOMES DOUBTFUL. 6. APART FROM THIS, IT WAS ALSO OBSERVED THAT THE A SSESSEE PARTNERS HAS RAISED CAPITAL OF RS.402,000/- IN CASH DURING T HE PREVIOUS FINANCIAL YEAR. AS STATED ABOVE, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT SUBSTANTIATE ITS SOURCE OF INTRODUCTION OF CAPITAL IN CASH WITH ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE. THE CONTRACT WITH SRTC COMMENCED ON 30.4.2005 AND THE ENTRIES IN THE CASH BOOK/LEDGER REVEALS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SENT 284 TRUCK LOAD OF GOODS ON 30.04.2005 AND THE CARRIAGE AMOUNT I NVOLVED WAS AROUND RS.26,84,525/-. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED T O EXPLAIN THE MODUS OPERANDI OF ITS OPERATIONS. THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT THE TRUCK OWNERS WERE PAID HALF OF THE AMOUNT AS AD VANCED AND LATER AFTER SUCCESSFULLY COMPLETING THE TRIP THE TR UCK OWNER WAS PAID THE REMAINING AMOUNT OF THE CONTRACT AFTER 30- 45 DAYS OF COMPLETION OF INDIVIDUAL CONTRACT. THE ASSESSEE WA S ASKED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF HALF OF THE AMOUNT PAID TO 28 4 TRUCK OWNERS WHO MADE THE FIRST TRIP AS THE ASSESSEE PART NERS DID NOT HAD ENOUGH CASH IN HAND TO PAY THE HALF OF AMOUNT T O 284 TRUCK OWNERS WHICH APPROXIMATELY WORKS OUT TO RS.13,42,00 0/- WHO MADE THE FIRST TRIP. IT WAS SEEN FROM THE CASH BOOK THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD RAISED BILLS TO SRTC ON 30.04.2005 AND THE FIRST PAYMENT OF RS.5.00 LACS WAS RECEIVED ON 2.5.2005. I N REPLY TO THIS, THE ASSESSEE HAS STATED THAT ON 30.04.2005, T HE SRTC DEMANDED 284 TRUCKS LOAD TO BE SENT. ACCORDINGLY, T HE ASSESSEE PROCURED THESE TRUCKS FROM THE MARKET AND SENT THE SE TRUCKS TO THE GODOWNS OF SRTC. AS MANUAL LOADING DONE, IT TOO K AROUND TWO DAYS FOR LOADING OF TRUCKS AND IN THE MEANTIME, THE ASSESSEE RAISED THE BILL TO SRTC WHO MADE PAYMENT O F FIRST INSTALLMENT ON 2.5.2005 OF 5.00 LACS. AFTER RECEIPT OF THIS AMOUNT, THE TRUCK OWNERS WERE PAID THE MONEY PARTLY AS ADVANCED. ANOTHER PAYMENT OF RS.14.00 LACS WAS RECE IVED FROM SRTC, THE CYCLE OF PAYMENT OF ADVANCE MONEY TO THE TRUCK OWNERS WAS STARTED. ITA NO.154(ASR)/2012 C.O.NO.16(ASR)/2012 7 7. APART FROM THIS, IT WAS ALSO SEEN FROM THE BALAN CE SHEET OF THE FIRM, THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PURCHASED A FDR WORTH R S.25.00 LACS FROM J & K BANK AND DEPOSITED A CDR WITH M/S. J & K CEMENTS LTD. HE WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF SAME. IN HIS REPLY THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT THE FDR OF RS .25.00 LACS WAS PURCHASED IN 18.02.2006. THE SOURCE WAS FROM TH E BANK ACCOUNT MAINTAINED WITH J & K BANK. A COPY OF BANK ACCOUNT WAS ALSO FILED. AGAINST THIS FDR OF RS.25.00 LACS, A LOAN OF RS.22.50 LACS WAS RAISED ON 22.02.2006 WHICH IS ALS O REFLECTED IN THE BALANCE SHEET, SO FAR AS CDR AMOUNTING TO RS .50,000/- IS CONCERNED IT WAS STATED THAT THE CONTRACT WITH M/S. J & K CEMENT LTD. WAS ENTERED INTO IN THE MONTH OF JANUAR Y, 2006 AND THE CDR AMOUNTING TO RS.50,000/- WAS ISSUED ON 16.01.2006. AS AT THE TIME, THE CONTRACT WITH SRTC WAS IN VAGUE, THE AMOUNT WAS TAKEN OUT FROM THE CASH AVAIL ABLE IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. 8. THE ASSESSEE WAS ALSO ASKED TO CLARIFY WHETHER A NY TDS WAS MADE FROM THE TRUCK OWNERS WHO HALF MADE SEVERAL TR IPS AND THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF PAYMENT MADE TO THEM EXCEEDED T HE LIMIT ON WHICH TDS WAS TO BE MADE. THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT NO TDS WAS MADE ON THE PAYMENTS MADE TO THESE TRUCK OWNERS AS IT IS WELL SETTLED RULE THAT EACH TRIP CONDUCTED IS TO BE TREATED AS INDEPENDENT G.R. AND CANNOT BE CLUBBED WITH OTHER T RIPS. THE PAYMENTS MADE FOR EACH TRIP DID NOT EXCEED THE LIMI T OF RS.20,000/- AS SUCH THERE WAS NO LIABILITY OF TDS. 5. THE REPLY TO THE REMAND REPORT FILED BY THE ASS ESSEE IS REPRODUCED FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE AS UNDER: THIS IS IN RESPECT OF THE REMAND REPORT SUBMITTED B Y THE AO IN RESPECT OF THE ABOVE MENTIONED ASSESSEE. OUR HUMBLE SUBMISS IONS IN THIS REGARD ARE AS UNDER: 1. WE HAD MADE OUR SUBMISSION EARLIER THAT THE ASSE SSEE ATTENDED THE PROCEEDINGS SEVERAL TIMES BUT THE AO NEVER RECO RDED HIS ATTENDANCE . SEVERAL OTHER REASONS FOR NOT TENDING AND OTHER ISSUES HAVE ALREADY BEEN SUBMITTED IN OUR EARLIER LETTERS. ITA NO.154(ASR)/2012 C.O.NO.16(ASR)/2012 8 2. WITH RESPECT OF THE PAYMENT OF CARRIAGE CHARGES TO INDIVIDUAL TRUCK OWNERS AT THE RTE OF RS.9,450/- PER JHNINE TO N LOAD, CERTAIN AFFIDAVITS WERE SUBMITTED TO PROVE OUR CLAIM TO WHI CH THE AO HAS AGREED UPON AFTER MAKING DUE VERIFICATION. THIS CONTENTION WAS MADE ONLY TO JUSTIFY THAT THE PROFIT PERCENTAGE DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE COMES TO 0.5% AS AGAINST THE ASSESSMEN T DONE BY THE A.O. U/S 144 WHEREBY HE HAD APPLIED THE ASSUMPT IVE RATE OF 8% OF GROSS RECEIPTS WHICH WAS VERY HIGH AND UNREAS ONABLE. 3. THE AO HAD TREATED THE CREDITORS AS UNEXPLAINED CRE DITS U/S 68 IN HIS EARLIER ORDER WHICH IS NOW, CHECKED AND CONF IRMED BY HIM THAT THESE ARE CERTAINLY TRADE CREDITORS. 4. SALARY AND WORKING ALLOWANCE IS NOT ALLOWED IF THE ASSESSMENT IS MADE U/S 144. NOW SINCE THE REMAND REPOT HAS BE EN SUBMITTED, THE ASSESSMENT BE TREATED DENOVO AND SUC H CLAIM BE ALLOWED. 5. AS FAR AS THE INTRODUCTION OF CAPITAL BY PARTNERS I S CONCERNED, IT IS TIME AND AGAIN SUBMITTED THAT THIS ISSUE DOES NO T PERTAIN TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR IN QUESTION AS IT RELATES TO TH E A.Y. 2005- 06. AS SUCH THERE SHOULD BE NO ADDITION ON THIS PAR T DURING THE RELEVANT YEAR. FURTHER, SINCE THE PARTNERS WHO HAD CONTRIBUTED THEIR CAPITAL IN CASH DID NOT HAVE INCOME ABOVE THE MAXIMUM TAXABLE LIMIT AS A RESULT OF WHICH NO INCOME TAX RE TURN WAS FILED. THIS FACT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED TO THE AO WHO H AS NOT TAKEN COGNIZANCE OF THE FACT. AS SUCH THE CLAIM OF THE AS SESSEE IS RELEVANT AND NOT DOUBTFUL. 6. THE MODE AND TIME OF PAYMENT TO TRUCK OWNERS FOR VA RIOUS TRIPS INCLUDING ADVANCE PAID IF ANY WAS EXPLAINED AND CHE CKED BY THE A.O. IN DETAIL AND THE REPORT ISSUED BY THE SAI D AO IS CORRECT. 7. AS REGARDS THE SOURCE OF FDRS AMOUNTING TO RS. 25 L ACS AND RS.50,000/- THE SOURCE IS WELL EXPLAINED AND RELIED UPON. 8. THE SUBMISSIONS WITH REGARD TO THE NO DEDUCTION OF TDS FROM PAYMENTS TO VARIOUS TRUCK OWNERS HAS ALSO BEEN STAT ED TO THE CONCERNED AO WHICH WAS RELIED UPON. ITA NO.154(ASR)/2012 C.O.NO.16(ASR)/2012 9 6. FURTHER, AO SENT THE REPORT TO THE LD. CIT(A). C ERTAIN VEHICLES WERE ACTUALLY NOT THE TRUCKS BUT THE OTHER VEHICLES LIKE SCOOTER, CAR ETC. SUCH REPORT OF THE A.O. WAS FORWARDED TO THE ASSESSEE, WHO SUB MITTED THE REPLY WHICH FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE , BEING THE RELEVANT PA RT, IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER: DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING BEFORE THE THEN CIT(A) AND THE REMANDED THE MATTER TO THE AO FOR CERTAIN ENQUIRIES AND VERIFICATION. THE AO IN HIS REMAND PROCEEDING ISSUED A DETAILED Q UESTIONNAIRE DATED 11.01.2010. IN RESPONSE TO THE AID QUESTIONNA IRE THE ASSESSEE THROUGH HIS COUNSEL FILED DETAILED REPLIES WITH SUP PORTING EVIDENCE AND ALSO PRODUCED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS ALONGWITH C OMPLETE RECORDS. DURING THE COURSE REMAND PROCEEDINGS THE AO ON HIS OWN MADE INDEPENDENT ENQUIRIES AND ALSO RECORDED STATEMENT O N OATH OF VARIOUS TRUCK OWNERS/DRIVERS. COPY OF STATEMENTS RECORDED D URING THE COURSE OF REMAND PROCEEDINGS ARE ENCLOSED. VARIOUS QUESTIO NS WERE ASKED BY THE AO TO THE PERSONS WHOM STATEMENTS WERE RECORDE D TO PROVE THE GENUINESS OF THE CLAIM MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. THE AO SPECIFICALLY ASKED TO THE DRIVERS/TRUCK OWNERS ABUT THE TERMS AN D CONDITIONS OF PROVIDING SERVICES, OWNERSHIP OF THE VEHICLE, NUMBE R OF TRIPS PLIED DURING THE YEAR AND WHAT WAS THE OUTSTANDING AT THE END OF THE YEAR. THE TRUCK OWNERS/DRIVERS CONFIRMED ALL THESE FACTS IN THE RECORDED STATEMENT DURING THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS AND FURTHE R CONFIRMED THAT WE HAVE PLIED OUR VEHICLE AT RS.9450/- PER TRIP FOR 9 MT LOAD. THE AO MADE CLEAR FINDING IN HIS REMAND REPORT DATE D 28.05.2010 THAT TRUCK OWNERS HAVE CONFIRMED TO HAVE RECEIVED A ROUND RS.9400 TO RS.9500/- PER TRIP FOR 9 MT LOAD DEPENDING UPON THE AVAILABILITY OF TRUCKS. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS, BASED ON THE EVIDENCES AND MATERIAL ON RECORD, THAT THERE IS A GROSS PROFIT OF RS.50/- PER TRUCK FOR 9 MT. IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSEE FIRM UNDERTA KEN A LOAD OF APPROX 38000 TRUCKS, IN THIS WAY TOTAL GROSS PROFIT WORK OUT RS.21,40,000/-. THE ASSESSEE FIRM ALSO OWNS 5 NO. O F HEAVY VEHICLES FOR TRANSPORTING THE GOODS AND BY APPLYING THE NET PROFIT RATE OF RS.42000/- AS PRESCRIBED U/S 44AE OF THE I.T.ACT WH ICH IS WORKED OUT AT RS.2,10,000/-. THE WORKING OF THE NET PROFIT ARE AS UNDER: ITA NO.154(ASR)/2012 C.O.NO.16(ASR)/2012 10 GROSS PROFIT AS DISCUSSED ABOVE RS.21,40,000 PROFIT OF VEHICLES AS PER SEC. 44AE RS. 2,10,000 TOTAL PROFIT RS.23,50,00/- LESS: EXPENSES CLAIMED IN P/L A/C EXCEPT DEPRECIATION & VEHICLE MAINTT EXPENSES RS.21,80,00 0 NET PROFIT RS.1,70,000 THE ASSESSEE FIRM SHOWN A NET PROFIT OF RS.1,45,893 /- WHICH IS COMPUTED AS PER THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS REGULARLY MAI NTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE. AS ALREADY DISCUSSED ABOVE THAT THE AO HAS NOT GIVE N ANY REASONS WHILE APPLYING NP RATE OF 8% EXCEPT THE PROFIT RATE LAID DOWN IN SEC. 44AD OF THE ACT, WHICH IS NOT PERMISSIBLE IN THE LA W WHERE TURNOVER EXCEEDS RS. 40 LACS. THE CASE OF THE FIRM IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE REC ENT JUDGMENT DATED 15.06.2011 OF THE JURISDICTIONAL AMRITSAR BENCH OF ITAT IN THE CASE OF MANSA TRUCK OPERATOR UNION VS. ITO WARD 1(4) MANSA IN APPEAL NO. ITA NO.296(ASR)/2010 FOR THE A.Y.2005-06. IN THE INSTANT CASE THE ASSESSEE WAS ALSO CARRYING THE BUSINESS OF TRANSPORT ACTIVITIES. THE FINDINGS OF THE BENCH IS AFTER CONSIDERING ENTIRE FACTS SITUATION OF THE CASE, WE ARE OF THE C ONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE AND RESTRICTED ON THE BA SIS OF SURMISES & CONJECTURES AND WITHOUT BRINGING ANY COGENT AND COR ROBORATIVE MATERIAL ON RECORD. HOWEVER, IN THE INTEREST OF JUS TICE, WE CONSIDER IT FAIR AND REASONABLE TO RESTRICT THE ADDITION TO 1.5 % OF THE SAID GROSS RECEIPTS. THE AO HAS COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT U/S 144 AFTER I SSUING NOTICES TO THE ASSESSEE BUT THE ASSESSEE REMAIN ABSENT FROM TH E ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE AO INVOKED THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 184(5) OF THE ACT AND DISALLOWED THE INTEREST & SALARY. DURING THE RE MAND PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSEE PRODUCED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AS REQU IRED BY THE AO. THE DEFAULT COMMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE U/S 142 IN TH E ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS HAVE BEEN COMPLIED BY THE AS SESSEE IN THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS AS THE ASSESSEE PRODUCED THE BOO KS OF ACCOUNTS. THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE JURISDICTIONAL ITA NO.154(ASR)/2012 C.O.NO.16(ASR)/2012 11 ITAT BENCH, AMRITSAR IN THE CASE OF JEE ENN ENGINEE RS VS. ITO (2010) 131 TTJ (ASR)/ (UO) 82 IN WHICH IT IS HELD T HAT ONCE THE ASSESSEE HAS PRODUCED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT BEFORE T HE APPELLATE AUTHORITY OR BEFORE THE AO IN A REMAND PROCEEDINGS, THE ORIGINAL DEFAULT U/S 142 DOES NOT REMAIN INTACT BECAUSE THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT HAS ALREADY BEEN SET ASIDE BY THE FIRST APPELLATE A UTHORITY BY SENDING THE MATTER BACK TO THE AO AND THE ASSESSEE HAS PROD UCED ALL THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. THE ASSESSEE WAS THEREFORE, ENTI TLED TO DEDUCTION OF SALARY AND INTEREST PAID TO PARTNERS ON THEIR CAPIT AL. DURING THE COURSE OF REMAND PROCEEDINGS, THE LIST O F TRADE CREDITORS WERE FURNISHED TO THE AO AND HE HAS VERIFIED THE SA ID CREDITORS ON TEST CHECK BASIS THROUGH STATEMENT RECORDED ON OATH OF V ARIOUS TRUCK OWNERS/DRIVERS. THE AO HAS CONFIRMED THIS FACT VID E PARA 3 OF THE REMAND REPORT IN WHICH HE CLEARLY OBSERVED THAT THE CREDITORS ARE ON ACCOUNT OF TRUCK OWNERS WHO DID NOT RECEIVED THEIR PAYMENTS AND THE SAID FACTS ALSO CONFIRMED BY THE PERSONS WHO MADE T HE STATEMENTS.. WITH REGARD TO THE INTRODUCTION OF CAPITAL BY THE P ARTNERS IS CONCERNED, THE ASSESSEE DURING THE REMAND PROCEEDIN GS HAS FURNISHED THE DETAILS OF CONTRIBUTIONS MADE BY THE PARTNERS. THE PARTNERS HAVE MAINLY MADE ADDITIONS OF RS.12,98,000/- IN THE CAPI TAL BY TAKING THE MARKET VALUE OF THE TRUCKS OWNED BY THEM ON 29.03.2 005 THE MARKET RATE HAS BEEN DETERMINED BY THE PARTNERS AS PER THE PREVAILING CONDITION OF THE VEHICLE. THE OWNERSHIP OF THE VEHI CLES WERE PRODUCED BEFORE THE AO DURING THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS AND THI S FACT HAS BEEN VERIFIED BY THE AO. THE PARTNERS HAVE ALSO CONTRIBU TED RS.4,02,000/- AS CAPITAL IN CASH ON 29.03.2005, AS ALREADY STATED THERE ARE SEVEN PARTNERS WHO HAVE CONTRIBUTED THIS MEAGER AMOUNT O UT OF THEIR PAST SAVINGS FROM THE OPERATION OF THEIR VEHICLES IT IS PERTINENT TO MENTION HERE THAT THE ADDITIONS OF CAPITAL CONTRIBUTION CAN NOT BE MADE IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE FIRM AS THE FIRM WAS STARTED ON 2 9.03.2005 ITSELF. FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT ADDITION U/S 68 CAN BE MADE ONLY IN THE YEAR IN WHICH THE FUNDS HAVE BEEN RECEIVED. IT IS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT ONCE THE AO HAS APPLIE D NET PROFIT RATE WITHOUT TAKING COGNIZANCE OF THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, FURTHER ADDITION CANNOT BE MADE AS HELD BY THE VARIOUS HONBLE COURT S/ITAT BENCH. THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE FOLLOWING JUDGMENTS: ITA NO.154(ASR)/2012 C.O.NO.16(ASR)/2012 12 1) CIT VS. AGGARWAL ENGINEERING CO. (2006) 302 ITR 646 (P&H), WHERE THE COURT HAS CONCLUDED THAT NO SEPARATE AD DITION ON ACCOUNT OF CASH CREDIT AND ON ACCOUNT OF EXPLAINED PAYMENTS FOR PURCHASES MADE OUTSIDE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS CA N BE MADE ONCE THE NET PROFIT RATE IS APPLIED ON CONTRACT REC EIPT OF AN ASSESSEE FOR ESTIMATING HIS INCOME FROM CONTRACT WO RK. 2) CIT VS. GK CONTRACTOR (2009) 19 DTR (RAJ) 305 IN WH ICH IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT AO HAVING ESTIMATED THE PROFIT BY A PPLYING A HIGHER NET PROFIT RATE TO TOTAL CONTRACT RECEIPTS A FTER REJECTING BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SEC TION 145(3), NO SEPARATE ADDITION CAN BE MADE ON ACCOUNT OF CASH CREDIT U/S 68 EVEN THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO DISCHARGE HIS ONUS OF PROOF IN EXPLAINING THE AMOUNT SHOWN IN THE BOOKS O F ACCOUNTS AS MARKET OUTSTANDING. 3) RELIANCE IS ALSO PLACED ON JURISDICTIONAL ITAT, AMR ITSAR BENCH IN THE CASE OF M/S. RESHI CONSTRUCTION CO. SRINAGAR IN ITA NO.462(ASR)/2008 FOR THE A.Y. 2005-06. THE ISSUE IN VOLVED IN THE SAID CASE WAS THAT ONCE THE INCOME THE INCOME O F THE ASSESSEE IS ESTIMATED ON NET PROFIT BASIS, NO FURTH ER ADDITION CAN BE MADE. THE FINDING OF THE BENCH ARE AS UNDER: AS REGARDS TO SECOND GROUND REGARDING THE ADDITION OF RS.15,00,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CREDITS. THE A.O. NOTICED THE SUNDRY CREDITORS FOR SUPPLIES AND SERVI CES UNDER THE HEAD CURRENT LIABILITIES TO THE TUNE OF RS.66,47, 821/-. ON ASKING BY THE A.O., THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT FURNISH THE ADDRESS OF THE CREDITORS AND SO LUMPSUM ADDITION OF RS.15 LACS WAS MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CREDITS. AS PER THE CONT ENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE A.O. HAS NOT GIVEN ANY BASIS FOR MAKING ANY ADDITION AND NO ADHOC ADDITION COULD BE MADE ONCE T HE NET PROFIT RATE WAS BEING APPLIED. IN SUPPORT OF HIS C ONTENTION, THE ASSESSEE CITED THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE JURISDIC TIONAL HIGH COURT REPORTED IN 206 CTR 648 IN THE CASE OF CIT VS . AGGARWAL ENGG. CO. (SUPRA). THE LEARNED CIT(A) CALLED FOR T HE REMAND REPORT FROM THE A.O. AND DELETED THE ADDITION BY FO LLOWING THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT(S UPRA). AFTER GOING THROUGH THE RELEVANT RECORD AVAILABLE W ITH US AND THE DECISION RENDERED BY THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT (SUPRA), WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS DELETED ITA NO.154(ASR)/2012 C.O.NO.16(ASR)/2012 13 THE ADDITION IN DISPUTE BY FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF T HE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT (SUPRA). NO INTERFERENCE IS CALLED FOR. THEREFORE, THE SECOND GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED BY TH E REVENUE IS DISMISSED. IT IS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT YOUR HONOUR HAS FOLLOW ED THE ABOVE CASE LAWS AND DELETED THE ADDITIONS ACCORDINGLY IN THE C ASE OF J&K CO-OP HOUSING COP LTD. APPEAL NO.147/09-10 OF 27.06.2010. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION AND FACTS BASED ON VARIOUS HONBLE COURTS JUDGMENTS, THE ADDITION OF RS.2,85,58,470/- ON A/C OF TRADE CREDITORS AND RS.17,00,000/- ON A/C OF INTRODUCTION OF CAPITAL MAY KINDLY BE DELETED. WITH REGARD TO THE SUBMISSION OF EVIDENCES BY THE A O THROUGH HIS LETTER DATED 30.12.2010 VIDE NO.ITO W-1(1)/JAMMU/20 10-11/7131, IN THIS REGARD IT IS TO SUBMIT THAT AS PER RULE 46A OF THE IT RULES, 1962 DEALS WITH THE PRODUCTION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE BE FORE THE CIT(A). IT PROVIDES FOR CIRCUMSTANCES AND MANNER IN WHICH ADDI TIONAL EVIDENCE CAN BE BROUGHT ON RECORD. ON APPEAL NEITHER PARTY CAN AS A MATTER OF RIGHT PRODUCE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. FOR THE PURPOSE OF BRINGING ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE ON RECORD, RULE 46A ONLY AUTHOR IZE TO THE ASSESSEE TO FILE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IN THE CIRCUMS TANCES AND MANNER PRESCRIBED IN THE RULE. NO PROVISIONS OF THE INCOME TAX ACT/RULES PROVIDE TO FILE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE BY THE AO ON HI S OWN AFTER COMPLETION OF THE ASSESSMENT. ANY EVIDENCE FILED BY THE AO AFTER THE COMPLETION OF ASSESSMENT CANNOT BE TREATED AS PART OF RECORD. RELIANCE IS PLACED ON THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE ALLA HABAD HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SHREE KARMA GAMODYOG VIKAS SAM ITI VS. STATE OF UP & OTHERS (2008) NTN (VOL.36) 65 IN WHICH THERE L ORDSHIP HELD THAT UNDER THE STATUE THE DEPARTMENT HAS NOT GIVEN ANY RIGHT TO ADDUCE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AND ONLY THE ASSESSEE HAS BUT A LIMITED RIGHT TO ADDUCE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. RELIANCE IS ALSO PLACED IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX VS. UJJAL SINGH AUTAR SINGH (1968) 22 STC 26 ALL THE QU ESTION OF DISPUTE REFERRED BEFORE THE HIGH COURT WAS WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE COLLE CTED BY THE ITA NO.154(ASR)/2012 C.O.NO.16(ASR)/2012 14 DEPARTMENT AFTER THE COMPLETION OF ASSESSMENT CAN B E TREATED AS PART OF THE RECORD FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECTION 10(3) OF T HE U.P. SALES TAX ACT? THEIR LORDSHIP HAS MADE FINDING IN PARA 39 OF THE J UDGMENT BY MAKING REMARKS THAT ANSWER TO THE QUESTION MUST BE IN NEGATIVE AND AGAINST THE DEPARTMENT. IN VIEW OF THE COURT DECISIONS MENTIONED ABOVE AND BASED ON THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE A O AFTER COMPLETION OF THE ASSESSMENT CAN NOT BE TREATED AS PART OF THE RECORD. THEREFORE, I PRAY THAT SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE AO V IDE LETTER DATED 30.10.2010 CANNOT BE TREATED AS A PART OF THE RECOR D. 7. THE LD. CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE REPORTS OF THE AO AND THE COUNTER COMMENTS OF THE ASSESSEE AND WRITTEN SUBMIS SIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, UPHELD THE ACTION OF THE A.O. IN MAKING A SSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 144 OF THE ACT. 8. AS REGARDS THE ADDITION U/S 68 AMOUNTING TO RS.17 L ACS, THE LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION VIDE PARA 9 FOR THE REASONS ME NTIONED IN HIS ORDER. 9. THE LD. CIT(A) DOUBTED THE AFFIDAVITS OF THE TRU CK OWNERS WITH REGARD TO PAYMENT OF 9450 PER TRIP IN PARA 10.2 OF HIS ORD ER AND NO COGNIZANCE OF THE REMAND REPORT OF THE AO WAS GIVEN FOR THE REASO NS THAT IN VIEW OF FRESH EVIDENCE, THE LD. CIT(A) LOOKING TO THE TURNOVER OF THE ASSESSEE AND ASSESSEE BEING SUB-CONTRACTOR APPLIED A NET PROFIT RATE OF 2% ON THE GROSS RECEIPTS DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE AND NO FURTHER DEDUCTION L IKE DEPRECIATION WAS ALLOWED. THE LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION ON ACC OUNT OF CREDITORS SINCE ITA NO.154(ASR)/2012 C.O.NO.16(ASR)/2012 15 THE TRADE CREDITORS AND NET PROFIT RATE ONCE APPLI ED, NO SEPARATE ADDITION IS WARRANTED. THE LD. CIT(A) ALSO ALLOWED THE SALARY A ND INTEREST SINCE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT HAS BEEN VERIFIED BY THE AO IN THE REMAN D PROCEEDINGS. 10. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE MADE THE SIMIL AR ARGUMENTS AS SUBMITTED BEFORE AO IN THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS AND IN THE REMAND REPORT. 11. THE LD. DR RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER. 12. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE FACTS OF THE CASE. THERE IS NO DISPUTE TO THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE H AS PRODUCED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AS IN THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS WHICH HAVE BEE N VERIFIED BY THE A.O. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO SUBMITTED THE AFFIDAVIT OF TH E TRUCK OWNERS WHICH WERE PAID 9450 PER TRIP AND ALSO THE AFFIDAVIT FROM THE PARTNERS. AS REGARDS THE ASSESSMENT U/S 144 OF THE ACT WHERE THE ALLEGATION THAT BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WERE NOT PRODUCED, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE BOOK S OF ACCOUNT HAVE BEEN PRODUCED BEFORE THE AO IN THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS AN D THE SAME HAVE NOT BEEN REJECTED BY THE AO IN THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS O R BY THE LD. CIT(A) AND NO APPLICATION OF SECTION 145(3) HAS BEEN MADE BY ANY OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. THEREFORE, ONCE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT HAS NOT BEE N REJECTED, THEN THE LD. CIT(A) IS REQUIRED TO ACCEPT THE RESULTS AS PER BOO KS OF ACCOUNT AND NO QUESTION ARISES AS TO ESTIMATION OF INCOME. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES & FACTS OF THE CASE, THE AO IS DIRECTED TO ACCEPT THE BOOK RES ULTS AND ACCEPT THE ITA NO.154(ASR)/2012 C.O.NO.16(ASR)/2012 16 RETURNED INCOME. ACCORDINGLY, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED AND C.O. OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 13. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IN ITA NO.154(ASR)/2012 IS DISMISSED AND C.O.NO.16(ASR)/20 12 OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 8TH APRIL, 2014. SD/- SD/- (H.S. SIDHU) (B.P. JAIN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 8TH APRIL, 2014 /SKR/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE ASSESSEE:M/S. HEMKUNT TRANSPORT SERVICES, JAMMU 2. THE ITO WARD 1(1), JAMMU 3. THE CIT(A), JAMMU 4. THE CIT, JAMMU 5. THE SR DR, ITAT, AMRITSAR. TRUE COPY BY ORDER (ASSISTANT REGISTRAR) INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AMRITSAR BENCH: AMRITSAR