M/s. Atam Rice Mills, Distt.Ferozepur V. The Income-tax Officer, Distt.Ferozepur

CO 27/ASR/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0196 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 28-01-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 21-07-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VIRENDER KUMAR SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: P N ARORA
• Keywords: Gross profit estimation

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH; AMRITSAR. BEFORE SH. A.D.JAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. B.P.JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO.276(ASR)/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2009-10 PAN :AABFA5357A INCOME TAX OFFICER, VS. M/S. ATAM RICE MILLS, WARD-III(2), FEROZEPUR. TALWANDI, ZIRA. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) C.O.NO.27(ASR)/2014 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO.276(ASR)/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 M/S. ATAM RICE MILLS, VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TALWANDI ROAD, ZIRA. WARD III(2), FEROZEPUR. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) DEPARTMENT BY:SH. VIRENDER KUMAR SINGH, DR ASSESSEE BY:SH. P.N.ARORA, ADVOCATE DATE OF HEARING:12/01/2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT:27/01/2015 ORDER PER B.P.JAIN, AM: THIS APPEAL OF THE REVENUE ARISES FROM THE ORDER O F THE CIT(A), BATHINDA, DATED 21.02.2014 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FILED CROSS OBJECTION. 2. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: ITA NO.276(ASR)/2014 C.O.NO.27(ASR)/2014 2 1. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE A DDITION OF RS.41,79,002/- MADE BY THE AO ON GP RATE, WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT THE AO HAS MADE THE ADDITION, AF TER COMPARING THE TRADING RESULTS OF THE CURRENT YEAR W ITH THAT OF THE PAST AND CONSISTENT HISTORY OF THE ASSESSEES OWN BUSINESS, AS THERE WAS DRASTIC FALL IN GP RATE FROM 15.98% TO 4. 27% WHEN COMPARED TO AY 2007-08 AND FROM 12% TO 4.27% WHEN COMPARED TO AY 2008-09. 2. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN GIVING A RELIEF OF RS.212601/- BY RESTRICTING THE DISALLOWANCE AT RS.25,000/- AGAI NST RS.237601/- MADE BY THE AO OUT OF DIESEL EXPENSES O F RS.15,84,009/- WITHOUT FULLY APPRECIATING THAT A RE ASONABLE PERCENTAGE OF DISALLOWANCE WAS MADE AS THE EXPENSES CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE WERE NOT FULLY VOUCHED. 3. THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) BE SET ASIDE AN D THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BE RESTORED. 4. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES TO ADD OR AMEND ANY GR OUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE THE APPEAL IS DISPOSED OFF. 3. IN THE C.O., THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE , THE LD. CIT(A) WAS FULLY JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION AND TH E ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS WELL REASONED AND IN VIEW OF THESE CIRCUM STANCES THE DEPARTMENT HAS GOT NO REASON OR BASIS FOR COMING IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AND THE APPEAL OF THE DEPARTMENT MAY BE DI SMISSED. 2. ANY OTHER GROUND OF CROSS OBJECTION WHICH MAY BE URGED AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL. 4. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSE E IS RUNNING A FLOUR MILL AND IT WAS NOTICED BY THE AO THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DECLARED A GP RATE OF 4.27% AS COMPARED TO 12% IN THE PRECEDING YEAR AND 15.98% IN THE YEAR ITA NO.276(ASR)/2014 C.O.NO.27(ASR)/2014 3 BEFORE THE PRECEDING YEAR. IT WAS OBSERVED THAT TH ERE WAS A DRASTIC FALL IN THE GP RATE AND ON SHOW CAUSE NOTICE GIVEN, THE ASSESSE E SUBMITTED THE EXPLANATION, WHICH IS AVAILABLE AT PAGES 2 TO 5 OF AOS ORDER. THE ASSESSEE MAINLY SUBMITTED A COMPARATIVE CHART OF THE GROSS P ROFIT, NET PROFIT, RAW MATERIAL CONSUMED, DIFFERENCE IN AVERAGE PURCHASE A ND SALE PRICE, APART FROM COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF THREE YEARS, INCLUDING THE IMPUGNED YEAR. IN QUANTITY, THE WHEAT PURCHASE, AVERAGE RATE, FINISHE D PRODUCTS PRODUCED, SALE RATE AND PROFIT MARGIN DIFFERENCE WAS SUBMITTED. IN FACT, THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE IN BRIEF FOR LOW GP RATE AND THE LOSSE S IN THE IMPUGNED YEAR WAS DUE TO INFLATION IN THE MARKET RATE, THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA THROUGH ITS AGENCY I.E. FCI RELEASED WHEAT TO STATE GOVT. UNDE R THE OPEN MARKET SALE SCHEME TO CHECK THE INFLATIONARY TREND VIDE GOVT. O F INDIA NOTIFICATION NO.1-3/2006-PY.IV DATED 17.09.2008 AND RATE OF WHEA T WAS FIXED AT RS.1021 PER QTL. AS COMPARED TO COST PRICE OF THE A SSESSEE, WHICH CAME AT RS.1177/-, AS AVAILABLE IN THE COMPARATIVE CHART AT PAGE 3 OF AOS ORDER. ALSO DUE TO INFERIOR QUALITY OF WHEAT PROCESS, THE ASSESSEE HAD TO CONSUME MORE RAW-MATERIAL TO MATCH THE QUALITY STANDARD AND TO COMPETE IN THE MARKET FOR SURVIVAL. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT RAT E OF FINISHED PRODUCTS WAS THE SAME OR THERE WAS SLIGHT INCREASE WHEREAS RAW-M ATERIAL WAS MUCH MORE COSTLY AS COMPARED TO THE PRECEDING YEAR. THE ASSES SEE ALSO SUBMITTED ITA NO.276(ASR)/2014 C.O.NO.27(ASR)/2014 4 VARIOUS ACCOUNTING RATIOS I.E. GROSS PROFIT TO TUR NOVER, NET PROFIT TO TURNOVER, STOCK-IN-TRADE TO TURNOVER, MATERIAL CONSUMED TO FI NISHED GOODS, APART FROM YIELD OF BYE-PRODUCTS IN PERCENTAGE AVAILABLE AT PA GE 4 OF AOS ORDER. THE AO ON ANALYZING THE VARIOUS COMPARATIVE CHARTS AND THE RATIOS IN THE EXPLANATION BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE ASSESSEE CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT TOTAL MARGINAL DIFFERENCE IS LESS THAN 75% BUT FAL L IN GP RATE IS VERY DRASTIC I.E. 12% TO 4.27% IN THE IMPUGNED YEAR AND ACCORDIN GLY COMPARING THE RESULTS OF THE PRECEDING YEAR MADE AN ESTIMATION OF GP RATE AT 7.98%, MAKING AN ADDITION OF RS.15,84,009/-. ON PRODUCTION OF VOUCHERS, THE AO NOTICED THAT THE EXPENSES AS CLAIMED ARE NOT FULLY VOUCHABLE. ACCORDINGLY, TAKING A REASONABLE VIEW, THE AO MADE DISALLOWANCE OF 15% OF THE CLAIM MADE BY THE ASSESSEE AND MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.2,3 7,601/- TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 5. BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE MADE SUBMISS IONS WHO AFTER TAKING REMAND REPORT FROM THE AO DELETED THE ADDITI ON OF RS.41,79,002/- FOR THE REASONS THAT THE AO HAS FAILED TO REBUT THE EXP LANATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND EVEN IN THE RE MAND REPORT. THE AO HAS FAILED TO POINT OUT ANY DEFECT IN THE REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, WHICH WERE MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE AND WHICH WERE PRODUCED DURING THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ITA NO.276(ASR)/2014 C.O.NO.27(ASR)/2014 5 AUDITED. THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING OF WHEAT FLO UR BY THE ASSESSEE IS UNDER THE CONTROL AND SUPERVISION OF FOOD & SUPPLY DEPARTMENT FOR WHICH AUTHENTICATED STOCK REGISTER HAS BEEN MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS PRODUCED DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDING S BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). THE LD. CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT LOW GP RATE OR LOW PRO FITS ARE SYMPTOMS OF DISEASE AND NOT THE DISEASE ITSELF AND ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF FALL IN GP RATE CANNOT BE MADE WITHOUT POINTING OUT ANY SPECIFIC DE FECT IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. HE RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. OM OVERSEAS, 315 ITR 1 85 AND THE DECISION OF SPECIAL BENCH OF ITAT IN THE CASE OF SHANKER RICE CO. 72 ITD 139 IN THIS REGARD. THE LD. CIT(A) ALSO OBSERVED THAT ON MERIT S ALSO, THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED HIS EXPLANATION AS REGARDS FALL IN GP RAT E FROM 15.98% TO 4.27% AND KEEPING IN VIEW THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION OF RS.41,79,002/-. 6. AS REGARDS THE DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENDITURE ON AC COUNT OF DIESEL EXPENSES, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THE EXPLANATION BE FORE THE LD. CIT(A). THE LD. CIT(A) AFTER TAKING COMMENTS OF THE AO, TOOK IN TO CONSIDERATION THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE THAT NONE THE VOUCHERS WERE MISSING WHICH WAS FOUND TO BE INCORRECT IN VIEW OF THE ORDER-SHEET EN TRY OF THE AO DATED 25.11.2011 SIGNED BY ASSESSEES COUNSEL. THE LD. CI T(A), HOWEVER, LIMITED ITA NO.276(ASR)/2014 C.O.NO.27(ASR)/2014 6 THE DISALLOWANCE TO THE EXTENT OF RS.25,000/- AND A LLOWED A RELIEF OF RS.212601/-. 7. THE LD. DR ARGUED THAT THERE WAS A DRASTIC FALL IN THE GP RATE OF 15.98% DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 TO 4.27% IN THE IMPUGNED YEAR. THE LD. DR ARGUED THAT THE AO HAD MADE A COMPARISON OF THE GP RATE AND TRADING RESULTS WITH THE PAST HISTORY OF THE ASSESS EES OWN BUSINESS, WHICH IS A CONSISTENT HISTORY OF THE ASSESSEES BUSINESS. AC CORDINGLY, HE PRAYED TO CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE AO AND REVERSE THE ORDER O F THE LD. CIT(A) ON THE ISSUE. 8. AS REGARDS THE DISALLOWANCE OF DIESEL EXPENSES @ 15% BY THE AO, WHICH WERE RESTRICTED BY THE LD. CIT(A) TO RS.25,00 0/-, IT WAS ARGUED BY THE LD. DR THAT EXPENSES WERE NOT FULLY VOUCHED AND THI S FACT HAS BEEN CONFIRMED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE ORDER SHEET OF THE AO VIDE ENTRY DATED 25.11.2011. ACCORDINGLY, THE LD. DR PRAYED THAT THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY AO WAS REASONABLE AND THERE IS NO REASON FOR THE LD . CIT(A) TO RESTRICT THE DISALLOWANCE AT RS.25,000/- WHICH IS 75% OF THE DIE SEL EXPENSES. ACCORDINGLY, THE LD. DR PRAYED TO CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE AO AND REVERSE THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). 9. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSES SEE MR. P.N. ARORA, ADVOCATE, STRONGLY RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND ARGUED THAT ITA NO.276(ASR)/2014 C.O.NO.27(ASR)/2014 7 THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD.CIT(A) IS WELL REASONED ORDER. HE ARGUED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS MAINTAINING REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AN D NO DEFECT IN THE PURCHASE, SALE AND STOCK REGISTER HAS BEEN POINTED OUT BY THE AO WHICH WAS PRODUCED IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE AO HAS NOT INVOKED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 145(3) OF THE ACT. WITHOUT PO INTING OUT ANY SPECIFIC DEFECT AND WITHOUT INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTI ON 145(3) OF THE ACT, NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE BY THE AO. HE RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF HONBLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. OM OVERSEAS (SUPRA) AND DECISION OF SPECIAL BENCH OF ITAT IN THE CASE O F SHANKER RICE CO. (SUPRA). HE FURTHER ARGUED THAT THE REASONS FOR FA LL IN GP RATE DURING THE IMPUGNED YEAR WERE SUBMITTED, WHICH IN FACT HAVE NO T BEEN TAKEN IN RIGHT SPIRIT BY THE AO. THE AO HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO POINT OUT ANY DEFECT IN THE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH IS REPRODUC ED AT PAGES 2 TO 5 OF AOS ORDER. THE AO IN FACT PROCEEDED ON MISCONCEPTI ON OF FACTS AND PROCEEDED TO APPLY GP RATE OF 7.98% ON SURMISES AND CONJECTURES. ACCORDINGLY, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE PRAYE D TO CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). 10. AS REGARDS THE DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES ON ACC OUNT OF DIESEL CONSUMPTION, HE ARGUED THAT ALL THE VOUCHERS WERE P RODUCED BEFORE THE AO AND THE LD. CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY RESTRICTED THE DISA LLOWANCE AT RS.25,000/-. ITA NO.276(ASR)/2014 C.O.NO.27(ASR)/2014 8 11. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE FACTS OF THE CASE. UNDISPUTED FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS RUNNING A FLOUR MILL AND HAD DECLARED A GP RATE OF 15.98% FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08, 12% FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 AS COMPARED TO 4.27% I N THE IMPUGNED YEAR. THE ASSESSEE HAS PRODUCED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT BEFO RE THE AO WHICH ARE AUDITED BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. NO DEFECT IN THE SAME HAS BEEN POINTED OUT I.E. OPENING STOCK, PURCHASES, SALES AND CLOSING STOCK O F THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE AO. THE AO HAS NOT REJECTED THE BOO KS OF ACCOUNT AND HAS NOT INVOKED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 145(3) OF THE ACT. WITH THESE UNDISPUTED AND UNCONTROVERTED FACTS, THE QUESTION A RISES WHETHER THE AO AT ALL CAN MAKE ANY ADDITION BY APPLYING DIFFERENT GP RATE TO THE TURNOVER. ACCORDING TO US, WHILE HAVING ACCEPTED THE TRADING ACCOUNT AS CORRECT, THE AO HAS NO POWER TO COMPUTE DIFFERENT GP RATE WHICH HAS BEEN DONE IN THE PRESENT CASE. THE RELIANCE HAS BEEN PLACED BY THE L D. CIT(A) ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. OM OVERSEAS (SUPRA) WHERE THE FACTS ARE THAT THE AO REJECTED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WITHOUT POINTING OUT ANY SPECIFIC DEFECT A ND MADE AN ADDITION BY APPLYING GP RATE OF 7.98% AS AGAINST 5.28% DECLARE D BY THE ASSESSEE, WHICH WAS DELETED BY THE LD. CIT(A) ON FINDING THAT NO SP ECIFIC DEFECT HAS BEEN POINTED OUT IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, WHICH HAS BEEN UPHELD BY THE TRIBUNAL ITA NO.276(ASR)/2014 C.O.NO.27(ASR)/2014 9 AND THE HONBLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT CONFIRM ED THE FINDINGS OF THE TRIBUNAL, SINCE THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE WAS UNABLE TO POINT OUT ANY ILLEGAL PERVERSITY IN THE SAID FINDINGS OF FAC T. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ALSO RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF SPECIAL BENCH OF ITAT I N THE CASE OF SHANKER RICE CO.(SUPRA), WHERE THE FINDINGS OF THE SPECIAL BENCH ARE THAT PROVISO TO SECTION 145(1) CANNOT BE APPLIED WHERE THE ACCOUNT S ARE AUDITED, PROPER BOOKS OF ACCOUNT ARE MAINTAINED AND NO DEFECTS ARE POINTED OUT. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES AND FACTS OF THE CASE, WE FIND NO INF IRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), WHO HAS RIGHTLY DELETED THE ADDITION SO MADE BY RELYING UPON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH C OURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. OM OVERSEAS (SUPRA) AND SPECIAL BENCH OF ITAT I N THE CASE OF SHANKER RICE CO. (SUPRA). 12. AS REGARDS THE MERITS OF THE CASE, THE LD. COUN SEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THE EXPLANATION THAT DUE TO INFLATION IN THE MARKET, GOVT. OF INDIA THROUGH ITS AGENCY I.E. FCI HAS RELEASED WHEAT TO S TATE GOVERNMENT UNDER OPEN MARKET SALE SCHEME WHERE RATE OF WHEAT WAS FIX ED AT RS.1021/- PER QTL. ON SUBSIDIZED RATE AS COMPARED TO THE COST PRICE OF THE ASSESSEE, WHICH COMES AT RS.1177/-. THERE IS NO DISPUTE, IN FACT TH IS REASON ALONE IS SUFFICIENT ENOUGH TO EXPLAIN THE REASON FOR LOW GP RATE IN THE IMPUGNED YEAR AS COMPARED TO THE PRECEDING YEAR AND IN THE YEAR BEFO RE PRECEDING YEAR, WHICH ITA NO.276(ASR)/2014 C.O.NO.27(ASR)/2014 10 HAS NOT BEEN TAKEN BY THE AO IN RIGHT SPIRIT, WHO H AD PROCEEDED TO APPLY DIFFERENT GP RATE AS DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE. IN T HE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE AO IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN MAKING ANY ADDITION AND THE LD. CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY DELETED THE ADDITION SO MADE BY THE AO. ACCORDINGLY, GROUND NO.1 OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 13. AS REGARDS GROUND NO.2, AFTER HEARING THE PARTI ES, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MAINTAINED THE VOUCHERS OF DI ESEL EXPENSES WHICH WERE PRODUCED BEFORE THE AO. SOME OF THE VOUCHERS ARE NO T VOUCHED, IS NOT UNDER DISPUTE THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS MAINTAINED BEFORE T HE LD. CIT(A) AND BEFORE US THAT NONE OF THE VOUCHERS WERE MISSING. ON PERUS AL OF FACTS ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT ASSESSEE HAD MAINTAINED THE VOUCHERS WHIC H WERE NOT FULLY VOUCHED AND THE AO HAS MADE A DISALLOWANCE @ 15% WITHOUT AN Y BASIS AND MOREOVER SAME IS NOT BACKED BY ANY PAST HISTORY OF THE ASSESSEE AND ACCORDINGLY, THE LD. CIT(A) IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUM STANCES OF THE CASE, HAS RIGHTLY RESTRICTED THE DISALLOWANCE AT RS.25,000/- AND WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). THUS, GROUND NO.2 OF T HE REVENUE IS ALSO DISMISSED. 14. THE ASSESSEE ALSO RAISED THE CROSS OBJECTION B EARING NO.27(ASR)/2014 AND THE GROUND AS REPRODUCED HEREINABOVE. THE GROUN D TAKEN IN THE SAID C.O. OF THE ASSESSEE IS SUPPORTIVE TO THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND IN ITA NO.276(ASR)/2014 C.O.NO.27(ASR)/2014 11 FACT DOES NOT HAVE ANY EFFECTIVE GROUND OF APPEAL A ND ACCORDINGLY THE SAME IS DISMISSED. 15. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE I N ITA NO.276(ASR)/2014 AND C.O. NO.27(ASR)/2014 OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMIS SED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 27TH JANUARY, 2015. SD/- SD/- (A.D.JAIN) (B.P. JAIN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 27TH JANUARY, 2015 /SKR/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE ASSESSEE:M/S. ATAM RICE MILLS, TALWANDI ROAD, Z IRA. 2. THE ITO WARD III(2), FEROZEPUR. 3. THE CIT(A), BATHINDA 4. THE CIT, BATHINDA 5. THE SR DR, ITAT, AMRITSAR. TRUE COPY BY ORDER (ASSISTANT REGISTRAR) INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AMRITSAR BENCH: AMRITSAR.