Sh. Jasbir Singh NRI, Jalandhar V. The Income Tax Officer, Kapurthala

ITA 190/ASR/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 60666 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 1 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-05-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 09-05-2012
• Assessment Year: 1999-2000
• Appeal Filed On: 16-04-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Capital asset; Opportunity of being heard; Additional evidence; Assessment record; Set aside
• Section: 143(3); 2(14); 142(1); 133(6); 147; 131; 148; 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. NOS.190(ASR)/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR:1999-2000 PAN:AVCPS9422M SH. JASBIR SINGH, NRI VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, THROUGH SH. JARNAIL SINGH,POA KAPURTHALA. JALANDHAR. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) I.T.A. NOS.191(ASR)/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR:1999-2000 PAN:AVCPS9421J SH. JOGINDER SINGH, NRI VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, THROUGH SH. JARNAIL SINGH,POA KAPURTHALA. JALANDHAR. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) I.T.A. NOS.192 (ASR)/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR:1999-2000 PAN:AUFPS0877C SH. LAKHBIR SINGH, NRI VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, THROUGH SH. JARNAIL SINGH,POA KAPURTHALA. JALANDHAR. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY:SH. SURINDER MAHAJAN, CA RESPONDENT BY:SH. TARSEM LAL, DR 2 DATE OF HEARING :09/05/2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT:21/05/2012 ORDER PER BENCH: THESE THREE APPEALS OF DIFFERENT ASSESSEES, ARI SE FROM THREE DIFFERENT ORDERS OF THE CIT(A), JALANDHAR, EACH DATED 28.01. 2010 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1999-2000. SINCE THE ISSUES INVOLVED IN ALL T HE APPEALS ARE IDENTICAL, THEREFORE, ALL THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEES ARE BEI NG TAKEN UP BY THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER. ALL THE ASSESSEES IN THE PRESE NT APPEALS HAVE TAKEN IDENTICAL GROUNDS OF APPEALS, WHICH ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER: (TAKEN IN ITA NO.190(ASR)/2010): 1) THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY MISREAD THE MOST UNAMBIGUOUS DIRECTIONS OF THE LD. CIT AS GIVEN IN HIS ORDER U/S 264, ON DIFFERENT ISSUES BROUGHT BEFORE THE FORMER, SO AS T O SIMPLY REJECT VARIOUS MATERIAL CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE. 2) THAT, AT THE OUTSET, THE LD. CIT(A) MISDIRECTED HIMSELF IN UPHOLDING THE JURISDICTION OF ITO, KAPURTHALA-1, BY WRONGLY ENDORSING THE INCOMPETENT DIRECTIONS OF ADDL. CIT G IVEN U/S 144A, EVEN AFTER HIMSELF CONCEDING THAT A VALID OBJ ECTION HAD BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN TERMS OF SECTION 124( 3). 3) THAT FOR WANT OF SERVICE OF NOTICE U/S 148 ON TH E ASSESSEE, THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE ANNULLED THE IMPUGNED ASSE SSMENT. HIS FINDINGS TO THE CONTRARY, IN THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE PERVERSE AND HENCE NOT SUSTAINABLE . 3 4. THAT AGAIN FOR WANT OF SERVICE OF NOTICE U/S 143 (2) ON THE ASSESSEE, AFTER THE ALLEGED COMPLIANCE OF NOTICE IS SUED U/S 148 WAS MADE, THE IMPUGNED ORDER WAS LIABLE TO BE HELD AS BAD IN LAW. 5. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN HOLDING THAT ITO WARD 2(6), JALANDHAR HAD NO JURISDICTION OVER THIS CASE AND SO THE NOTICE ISSUED BY HIM U/S 148 ON 16.5.2000 AND SUBSE QUENT ACTIONS TAKEN IN PURSUANCE THEREOF, WERE INVALID. 6. THAT WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE DISPUTED JURISDICT ION OF ITO KAPURTHALA, ONCE THE PROCEEDINGS U/S 148 HAD BEEN V ALIDLY INITIATED BY ITO WARD 2(6) AND AGAIN PURSUED AND DR OPPED BY ANOTHER ITO VS. R-IV, BOTH OF JALANDHAR, SUBSEQUENT ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION U/S 148 ON THE SAME VERY ISSUE AMOUNTS TO REVIEW, WHICH IS ENTIRELY OPPOSED TO A R ECENTL HONBLE APEX COURT DECISION IN CIT VS. KELVINATOR I NDIA LTD. (2010) 34 DTR (SC) 49. 7. THAT IN THE LIGHT OF GROUND NO.6 ABOVE, THE ITO KAPURTHALA WAS ALSO ESTOPPED BY PROVISO TO SECTION 147 NOT TO ASSUME JURISDICTION AFTER THE EXPIRY OF FOUR YEARS FROM TH E END OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR. 8. THAT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 149(3) WERE EXPRESSLY APPLICABLE TO THIS CASE, WHICH RENDERED THE IMPUGNED NOTICE U/S 148 BARRED BY TIME . FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) TO THE CONTRARY ON THIS ISSUE, AR E WHOLLY PERVERSE AND HENCE NOT TENABLE. 9. THAT THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) UPHOLDING T HE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT FRAMED U/S 143(3) AS VALID, BY TAKING CO GNIZANCE OF RETURN FILED BY ASSESSEE BEFORE ITO W-2(6), WHICH H E HIMSELF TO BE INVALID, ARE SELF CONTRADICTORY AND HENCE VITIAT E HIS FINDINGS ON THE ISSUE. 10. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN TAKING A VIEW ADVERSE TO ASSESSEE, EVEN AFTER CONCEDING THAT CROSS EXAMIN ATION OF SH. CHANAN SINGH, WHOSE STATEMENT WAS TAKEN ON ASSESSE ES BACK, SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED BY THE ITO. 4 11. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) GROSSLY ERRED IN NO ADMITTI NG THE EVIDENCE, SIGNED & STAMPED BY VILL. SARPANCH, PLACED ON RECOR D TO ESTABLISH THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS RESIDENT OF VILL. M OHADIPUR, JALANDHAR SINCE 1947 AND NOT OF VILL. MANSOORWAL DO NA, KAPURTHALA. 12. THAT WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ABOVE LEGAL GROUNDS, ON MERITS, THE LD. CIT(A) GROSSLY ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE AGRICULTUR E LAND ACQUIRED BY PUDA WAS A CAPITAL ASSET WITHIN THE ME ANING OF SECTION 2(14). 13. THAT THE SAID FINDING OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS ALSO OPPOSED TO THE RECENT DECISION OF HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COUR T IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SATINDER PAL SINGH (2009) 33 DTR (P&H) 2 81. 14. THAT THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW ARE AG AINST LAW AND FACTS OF THE CASE. 2. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, SH. SURINDER M AHAJAN, CA FILED A PETITION UNDER RUE 29 OF THE ITAT RULES, FOR ADMISS ION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. FOR THE SAKE OF CLARITY, THE SAID APPLICA TION IS REPRODUCED, AS UNDER: ITA NO.190/ASR/2010 FOR A.Y. 1999-2000 JASBIR SI NGH NRI SUB: PETITION UNDER RULE 29 OF ITAT RULES, FOR FILI NG OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH, THAT THE APPELLANT HEREIN, CRAVES LEAVE TO FILE TH E FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS, BEING ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE, WHICH HE INTE NDS TO REFER TO AND RELY UPON, WHILE ARGUING THE ABOVE APPEAL BEFORE TH E HONBLE TRIBUNAL: I) CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY TEHSILDAR, KAPURTHALA, BEI NG HIS OFFICE NO.379 DATED 17.03.2010 ( ON THE WRITTEN REQ UEST DATED 22.02.2010 FOR DISTANCE BY ROAD, MADE BY ASSESSEES THROUGH ATTORNEY S. JARNAIL SINGH), CERTIFYING THAT THE AGR ICULTURE LAND BEARING HADBAST NO.144, THE & DISTT. KAPURTHALA, FA LLING IN 5 VILLAGE NURPUR DONA, IN THE NAME OF S. JOGINDER SIN GH, JASBIR SINGH & LAKHVIR SINGH, IS APPROXIMATELY THREE AND A HALF KILO METERS FROM THE LIMIT OF MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE, KAPUR THALA, IN THE YEAR 1998-99 (ANNEXURE A) II) COPY OF ORDER DATED 29.08.1997 PASSED BY CIT, JALANDHAR, AS TO JURISDICTION OF VARIOUS INCOME TAX OFFICERS, TO BE EXERCISED W.E.F. 1.9.1997, THEREBY CRATING WARD 2(6) JALANDHAR CUM NEW ASSESSEE WARD (ANNEXURE B) 2. THAT THE NECESSITY TO FILE THE CERTIFICATE OF TE HSILDAR AT NO.1 AROSE ONLY AFTER THE FIRST APPEAL HAD BEEN DIS POSED OF BY THE LD. CIT(A). IN FACT, THE CORE ISSUE IN THIS CA SE IS TAXABILITY OF GAIN ON COMPULSORY ACQUISITION OF AGRICULTURE LA ND IN VILL. NURPUR DONA, BY PUDA. THE ASSESSEE INTER ALIA CLAIM ED, ON THE STRENGTH OF A CERTIFICATE OF VILL. SARPANCH, THAT HIS LAND WAS SITUATED BEYOND TWO KMS FROM THE LOCAL LIMITS OF TH E MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE AND HENCE, IT DID NOT FALL WITHIN THE DEF INITION OF CAPITAL ASSET U/S 2(14). HOWEVER, THIS PLEA WAS REJ ECTED BASED ON A CERTIFICATE GIVEN BY TEHSILDAR THAT THE LAND WAS SITUATED WITHIN TWO KMS. HOWEVER, IN THE RECENT JUDGMENT, (DELIVERE D ONLY ON 7 TH JANUARY, 2010) THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COU RT, IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SATINDER PAL SINGH (2010) 229CTR (P &H) 82, (COPY APPENDED AS ANNEXURE C) HAS GIVEN A FRESH DIM ENSION TO HE ISSUE, BY HOLDING THAT THE DISTANCE OF AGRICULTURE LAND HAS TO BE MEASURED IN TERMS OF THE APPROACH BY ROAD AND NOT BY A STRAIGHT LINE DISTANCE ON HORIZONTAL PLANE OR AS PER CROWS FLIGHT. THEREFORE, SINCE THE EARLIER CERTIFICATES RELIED U PON WERE NOT OBTAINED FROM THIS ANGLE, A FRESH CERTIFIC ATE HAS BEEN OBTAINED FOR DISTANCE BY ROAD, FROM THE OFFICE OF T EHSILDAR ON 17.03.2010, CERTIFYING THAT THE SAID DISTANCE BY R OAD IS ABOUT 3 AND A HALF KMS. SINCE THE SAID EVIDENCE IS A KEY DO CUMENT TO THE CORE ISSUE INVOLVED, AND BACKED BY THE LATEST DECISION OF JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT SUPRA, THE SAME IS HUMBLY PRAYED TO BE ADMITTED AND ALLOWED TO BE RELIED UPON FOR ARGUI NG THE CASE. 3. THE DOCUMENT AT NO.(II) ABOVE IS THE ORDER OF CI T, JALANDHAR, DATED 29.08.2007, WHEREBY A NEW WARD 2(6 ) WAS CREATED AS NEW ASSESSEES WARD W.E.F. 10.09.1997. T HIS DOCUMENT IS OF GREAT SIGNIFICANCE TO DECIDE THE VAL IDITY OF FIRST 6 NOTICE ISSUE U/S 148 BY THE ITO WARD 2(6) ON 16.05. 2000, TO APPELLANT BEING A NEW ASSESSEE, AGAINST WHICH RETU RN WAS FILED AND AFTER VERIFICATION, THE MATTER WAS CLOSED. MUCH LATER, ITO KAPURTHALA AGAIN ISSUED NOTICE U/S 148 ON 21.03.200 6 WHICH THE ASSESSEE DISPUTED AS WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND ALSO BARRED BY TIME. HOWEVER, THE CIT(A) HAS HELD THE NOTICE ISSUE D BY ITO WARD 2(6) AS INVALID WITHOUT TAKING COGNIZANCE OF T HIS ORDER OF CIT DATED 29.08.1997. IN FACT, THIS ORDER, THOUGH O N RECORD WITH THE DEPARTMENT, REMAINED UNTRACED AND HENCE COULD N OT BE RELIED UPON. HOWEVER, THE COUNSEL NOW ENGAGED TO RE PRESENT BEFORE THE BENCH WAS AWARE OF EXISTENCE OF THIS ORD ER AND HENCE, THE SAME IS NOW SOUGHT TO FILE AS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. SINCE THIS DOCUMENT STRIKES AT THE JURISDICTIONAL ISSUE, IT IS OF PRIME IMPORTANCE TO RESOLVE THE CONTROVERSY BROUGHT BEFORE THE HONBLE BENCH. IT IS THEREFORE HUMBLY PRAYED THAT APPRECIATING THE SUBMISSIONS MADE ABOVE, THE BONAFIDES OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE MA TTER AND TO ADVANCE THE LARGER CAUSE OF DISPENSING SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE, THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE, AS REFERRED ABOVE, BY KINDLY A DMITTED AND TAKEN ON APPEAL FILE WITH THE PERMISSION TO ADVANCE ARGUMENTS BY RELYING UPON THE SAME. SD/- DATED:08.06.2011 JARNAIL SINGH POA THROUGH SH. SURINDER MAHAJAN,CA 3. THE LD. DR, ON THE OTHER AND, OPPOSED THE SAID F ILING AND ADMISSION OF THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE FACTS OF THE CASE. THE CORE ISSUE IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS THE TAXABIL ITY OF CAPITAL GAIN ON COMPULSORY ACQUISITION OF AGRICULTURAL LAND BY PUDA AND THE ISSUE OF CERTIFICATE OF TEHSILDAR AROSE ONLY AFTER FIRST APP EAL WAS DISPOSED OF BY THE 7 LD. CIT(A). SINCE THE MATTER GOES INTO THE ROOT OF THE MATTER FOR DECIDING THE ISSUE ON MERITS, THEREFORE, WE ADMIT THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. 5. NOW, WE TAKE UP THE LEGAL ISSUE RAISED BY THE AS SESSEE, SH. JASBIR SINGH, NRI THROUGH SH. JARNAIL SINGH, POA IN ITA N O.190(ASR)/2010 AND OUR DECISION IN THIS APPEAL SHALL BE APPLICABLE IN OTHER APPEALS IN THE CASES OF SH. JOGINDER SINGH, NRI AND SH. LAKHVIR SINGH, NRI , IN ITA NO. 191 (ASR)/2010 & ITA NO.192(ASR)/2010. 6. THE BRIEF FACTS WITH REGARD TO THE LEGAL GROUND AS ARGUED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, SH. SURINDER MAHAJAN, CA, WHO INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO PB-8 BEING THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 14 8 OF THE ACT DATED 16.05.2000 ON THE POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SH. JARN AIL SINGH. AT PB-9, THE ASSESSEE FILED THE RETURN IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S 148 ON 21.08.2000. THE SAID RETURN HAS BEEN SIGNED BY SPECIAL POWER OF ATT ORNEY HOLDER MR. JARNAIL SINGH. THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME AT PB-10 ALSO SIGN ED BY POA SH. JASBIR SINGH. AT PB-11 NOTICE UNDER SECTION 142(1) WHICH I S DATED 22.08.2000 IS ALSO MADE THROUGH SH.JARNAIL SINGH, VILLAGE DHINA. AGAIN AT PB-12, THE ITO, IV(2) JALANDHAR ISSUED A LETTER TO SH., JARNAI L SINGH AT VILLAGE DHINA, 8 DATED 04.12.2003. THE LETTER WAS REPLIED BY THE POA THROUGH HIS CA, WHICH IS AVAILABLE AT PB 13 & 14. 6.1. MR. SURINDER MAHAJAN, CA, AGAIN INVITED OUR AT TENTION THAT THE DEPARTMENT TOOK A TURN AND ITO KAPURTHALA-1 ISSUED A NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE AT THE ADDRESS OF VILLAGE NOORPUR DONA, DISTT. KAPURTHALA. THE SAID NOTICE WAS NOT SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE. SINCE THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT RESIDE AT VILLAGE NOORPUR DONA, D ISTT. KAPURTHALA, THE REASONS RECORDED AVAILABLE AT PB 16 & 17 ARE ALSO I N THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE SH. JASBIR SINGH, BY ITO, KAPURTHALA. THE REASONS FOR REOPENING ASSESSMENT AVAILABLE AT PB 18 & 19 BY THE ITO KAP URTHALA-1, ARE IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE NOTICE SENT BY THE ITO, K APURTHALA TO THE ASSESSEE, WHICH IS DATED 2.6.2006 WAS NOT SERVED ON THE ASSES SEE AS PER REPORT OF THE NOTICE SURVEYOR AVAILABLE ON THE SAID LETTER PB-20. AT PB-21 & 22, THE ITO, KAPURTHALA AGAIN ISSUED A LETTER DATED 2.6.200 6 TO THE ASSESSEE WHICH WAS NOT SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE. THE REPORT OF THE SARPANCH OF THE VILLAGE NOORPUR DONA IS ON THE SAID LETTER AT PB-22 THAT S H. JASBIR SINGH S/O SH. JIT SINGH IS NOT RESIDING IN VILLAGE NOORPUR DONA ALON GWITH THE REPORT OF THE MUNICIPAL COUNCILOR, KAPURTHALA THAT SH. JASBIR SIN GH S/O SH. JIT SINGH DOES NOT RESIDE IN VILLAGE NOORPUR DONA. THE REPORT OF T HE NOTICE SURVEYOR OF THE 9 INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT IS ALSO ON RECORD, ON THE NOT ICE ITSELF AT PB-22 THAT THIS MAN DOES NOT RESIDE IN THIS VILLAGE AND THERE FORE NOTICE COULD NOT BE SERVED. THIS REPORT WAS GIVEN BY THE NOTICE SERVER AFTER INQUIRING FROM SARPANCH AND OTHER PEOPLE OF THE SAID VILLAGE. THE REPORT DATED 6.9.2006 OF THE SAID NOTICE SURVEYOR IS AT PB-22. THE NOTICE SE RVER HAS ALSO SUBMITTED ITS REPORT ON DIFFERENT DATES WHO HAD TRIED TO CONTACT SH. JASBIR SINGH THAT HE DOES NOT RESIDE THERE IS AVAILABLE AT PB-22. AT PB 23 & 24, THE NOTICE OF THE ITO, KAPRTHALA IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE WAS AFFI XED AT THE MAIN GATE OF JUNGEGHAR/DHARMSALA IN VILL. NOORPUR DONA, DISTT. K APURTHALA IN THE PRESENCE OF INSPECTOR OF THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, SARPANCH OF THE VILL. NOORPUR DONA AND CHOWKIDAR OF JANJGHAR/DHARAMSALA, ON 10.11.2006. THE ITO, KAPURTHALA MADE THE ASSESSMENT IN THE NAME OF SH. JASBIR SINGH S/O SH. JIT SINGH AND COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE I NCOME TAX DEPARTMENT IS AVAILABLE AT PB 25 TO 29 WHICH IS DATED 17.11.2006 ALONGWITH DEMAND NOTICE.. THE SAID ORDER AND THE DEMAND NOTICE WAS A LSO NOT SERVED UPON SH. JASBIR SINGH. 6.2. IT WAS SUMMED UP BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE AS SESSEE, SH. SURINDER MAHAJAN, CA THAT NOTICE U/S 148, 143(2) AND 142(1) WAS NOT SERVED BY THE ITO, KAPURTHALA, ON HE ASSESSEE WHO ULTIMATELY MADE THE ASSESSMENT ON THE 10 ASSESSEE. AS A MATTER OF FACT, THE ASSESSEE IS NON RESIDENT INDIAN IS A MATTER OF RECORD, AS SUBMITTED HEREINABOVE AND THE NOTICES MENTIONED HEREINABOVE SHOULD HAVE BEEN SERVED ON THE AGENT OF THE ASSESSE E I.E. MR. JARNAIL SINGH POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER. THEREFORE, NOTICES ISSUED BY THE ITO, KAPURTHALA U/S 148 OF THE ACT/143(2) AND 142(1) OF THE ACT ARE BAD IN LAW AND THE ASSESSMENT MADE BY HIM IS LIABLE TO BE QUASHED. IT WAS ARGUED BY SH. SURINDER MAHAJAN, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE THAT THE NOTICES AND ASSESSMENT RECORDS WERE TAKEN BY INSPECTION MADE ON 27 TH APRIL, 2007 , AVAILABLE AT PB-30 AND ALSO ON 2.12.2008 AND 15.01 .2009 AVILABLE AT PB 67 & 68, WHEREAS THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS DATED 17.06.2 011. 6.3. MR. SURINDER MAHAJAN, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO PB 70-71 WHICH IS A REVIEW NOTE BY T HE C.I.T. JALANDHAR-II, DATED 05.02.2007, WHICH FOR THE SAKE OF CLARITY IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER: GOVERNMENT OF INDIA OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX JALANDHAR II, JALANDHAR. REVIEW NOTE NAME AND ADDRESS OF THE ASSESSEE: SH. JARNAIL SING H S/O SH. JIT SINGH VPO NOORPUR DONA, DISTT JALANDHAR. PAN : 11 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 1999-2000 DATE OF FILING OF RETURN OF INCOME: --- DATE OF COMPLETION OF ASSESSMENT 17.1`1.2006 INCOME RETURNED -- INCOME ASSESSED RS.10009746/- NAME & DESIGNATION OF A.O. : SH. ASHOK ARORA, WHO COMPLETE THE ASSESSMENT INCOME TAX OFFICER, KAPURTHALA-1. IN THIS CASE, PROCEEDING U/S 147 WERE INITIATED BY THE AO BY ISSUE OF A NOTICE U/S 148 WITH THE PRIOR APPROVAL O F JCIT RANGE IV, JALANDHAR. THIS NOTI8CE WAS SENT UNDER REGD. COVER VIDE DISPATCH NO.2076 DATED 21.03.2006. THE REASONS RECORDED BEFO RE ISSUE OF THE SAID NOTICE INDICATE THAT TAXABLE CAPITAL GAIN OF R S.1,000,9746/- HAD ESCAPED ASSESSMENT IN THIS CASE FOR THE A.Y. 1999-2 000. IN THIS ASSESSMENT ORDER FRAMED U/S 144 THE AO HAS STATED T HAT THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED COMPENSATION AMOUNTING TO RS.1,04,54,574/- FROM PUDA AGAINST COMPULSORY ACQUISITION OF LAND BELONGING TO THE ASSESSEE. 2. A PERUSAL OF ASSESSMENT RECORD INDICATES THAT TH E NOTICE U/S 148 ISSUED BY THE AO HAS BEEN RECEIVED BACK UNSERVED WI TH THE POSTAL REMARKS COULD NOT BE CONTRACTED AT HOME. HENCE RE TURNED. THUS, THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE AO U/S 148 HAS NOT BEEN SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE. NO ATTEMPT HAS BEEN MADE BY THE AO TO SER VE THE NOTICE U/S 148 BY OTHER MEANS I.E. BY AFFIXTURE ETC. 3. EVEN THE NOTICE U/S 142(1) COULD NOT BE SERVED U PON THE ASSESSEE. THE NOTICE SERVER HAS GIVEN A REPORT THAT THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT RESIDE IN VILLAGE NOORPUR DONA. THIS FACT HAS B EEN CERTIFIED BY THE SARPANCH OF THE VILLAGE PANCHYAT OF NOORPUR DONA DI ST, KAPURTHALA. THE SARPANCH HAS WRITTEN ON THE COPY OF THE QUESTIO NNAIRE ISSUED THAT THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT RESIDE IN VILLAGE NOORPUR DON A. THE SARPANCH HAS ALSO AFFIXED HIS STAMP ON THE SAID REPORT. 4. THE FACTS INDICATE THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT FOU ND RESIDING IN VILLAGE NOORPUR DONA. THE AO DECIDED TO AFFIX THE N OTICE U/S 142(1) ON THE MAIN GATE OF JHANJGHAR /DHARAMSHALA OF VILLA GE NOORPUR DONA. THE AFFIXTURE OF THE SAID NOTICE WAS WITNESSED BY T HE SARPANCH OF GRAM PANCHYAT AND CHOWKIDAR OF THE DHARAMSHALA. 12 5. THE AFORESAID FACTS INDICATE THE FOLLOWING POSIT ION: I) THAT NO ATTEMPT HAS BEEN MADE BY THE AO TO SERVE N OTICE U/S 148 BY AFFIXTURE. II) NO EFFORTS WERE MADE BY THE AO TO FIND OUT THE ACTU AL ADDRESS OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE WAKE OF REPORT OF THE SARPAN CH THAT THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT RESIDE IN VILLAGE NOORPUR DONA. III) A STATUTORY NOTICE IS REQUIRED TO BE AFFIXED AT THE LAST KNOWN ADDRESS OF THE ASSESSEE AND NOT THE VILLAGE JHANJGHAR/DHARAMSHALA, WHILE RESORTING TO SERVICE O F NOTICE BY AFFIXTURE MODE. IV) THE COMPENSATION WAS MADE BY PUDA THROUGH CHEQUES. THE AO COULD HAVE ATTEMPTED TO FIND OUT THE RESIDENTIAL ADDRESS OF THE ASSESSEE BY MAKING ENQUIRIES FROM PUDA OR FROM THE BANK WHERE THE CHEQUES OF COMPENSATION WERE DEPOSITED BY THE ASSESSEE. INTIMATION REGARDING RECEIPT OF COMPENSAT ION AGAINST COMPULSORY ACQUISITION OF LAND WAS RECEIVED FROM PU DA AUTHORITIES BY ITO KAPURTHALA IN THE IST WEEK OF FE B.,2006. THUS, THERE WAS SUFFICIENT TIME WITH THE AO TO MAKE ENQUIRIES WITH REGARD TO THE ACTUAL RESIDENTIAL ADDRESS OF TH E ASSESSEE. IT WOULD BE SEEN THAT SERIOUS IRREGULARITIES APPEAR TO HAVE BEEN COMMITTED BY THE AO IN SO FAR AS SERVICE OF STATUTO RY NOTICES IS CONCERNED. 6. THE A.O. IS ASKED TO SEND HIS COMMENTS ON THE AF ORESAID OBSERVATIONS THROUGH THE JCIT R-IV, JALANDHAR WITHI N TWO WEEKS OF THE RECEIPT OF THIS REVIEW NOTE. SD/- (K.S. PATHANIA) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR II, JALANDHAR. DATED: 5/02/2007 13 6.4. THE SAID REVIEW NOTE BY THE CIT, JALANDHAR, CL EARLY INDICATES IN PARA 2 HEREINABOVE, THAT THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE AO UND ER SECTION 148 HAS NOT BEEN SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE. NO EFFORT HAS BEEN M ADE BY THE AO TO SERVE NOTICE U/S 148 BY OTHER MEANS I.E. BY AFFIXTURE ETC .EVEN NOTICE U/S 142(1) COULD NOT BE SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE. THE NOTICE SERVER HAD GIVEN REPORT THAT THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT RESIDE IN VILLAGE NOORPU R DONA. THIS FACT HAS BEEN CERTIFIED BY THE SARPANCH OF THE VILLAGE OF NOORPUR DONA, KAPURTHALA. THE AO DECIDED TO AFFIX NOTICE U/S 142(1) ON THE MAIN G ATE OF JANJGHAR/DHARAMSALA, VILL. NOORPUR DONA. THE AFORES AID NOTICE INDICATES THAT NO ATTEMPT HAS BEEN MADE BY THE AO TO SERVICE NOTI CE U/S 148 BY AFFIXTURE. NO EFFORTS WERE MADE BY THE AO TO FIND OUT THE ACTU AL ADDRESS OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE WAKE OF REPORT OF THE SARPANCH THAT THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT RESIDE IN VILLAGE NOORPUR DONA. A STATUTORY NOTICE IS REQUIRED TO BE AFFIXED AT THE LAST KNOWN ADDRESS OF THE ASSESSEE AND NOT T HE VILLAGE JHANGHAR/DHARAMSALA. THE COMPENSATION HAS BEEN MADE BY PUDA THROUGH CHEQUES. THE AO COULD HAVE ATTEMPTED BY MAKING ENQ UIRIES FROM PUDA OR FROM THE BANK WHERE THE CHEQUES OF COMPENSATION W ERE DEPOSITED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ITO WAS HAVING SUFFICIENT TIME TO MA KE INQUIRIES WITH REGARD TO THE ACTUAL RESIDENTIAL ADDRESS. THE CIT FURTHER NOTICED THAT THERE WERE SERIOUS IRREGULARITIES APPEAR TO HAVE BEEN COMMITTE D BY THE AO IN SO FAR AS 14 SERVICE OF STATUTORY NOTICES IS CONCERNED. AT PB-7 4 COPY OF ENVELOP SENT BY PUDA TO POA SH. JARNAIL SINGH AT VILLAGE DHINA, IS PLACED ON RECORD. AT PB-75, THERE IS ORDER OF LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR DATED 25.01.2005. 6.5. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE DREW OUR ATTE NTION TOWARDS THE RETURNS OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH HAVE BEEN FILED AND S IGNED BY THE AGENT AT THE ADDRESSES OF VILL. DHINA, WHICH ARE AT PB 76 & 77. AT PB 50 & 51, THERE IS A CERTIFICATE OF THE SARPANCH FOR OUR PERUSAL. AT PB 31 TO 34, THERE IS A PETITION MADE TO CIT, JALANDHAR U/S 264 DATED 16.05.2007. AT PB 39 TO 42, THERE IS A ORDER U/S 264 OF THE ACT MADE BY THE CIT, JALANDHAR , IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAD PLEADED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSE SSEE NEVER RESIDED IN VILLAGE NOORPUR DONA/MANSOORWAL DONA. THE STATUTORY NOTICES WERE NOT SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE SINCE THE ASSESSEE WAS HAV ING ONLY LAND AT VILLAGE NOORPUR DONA. IT WAS SUBMITTED BEFORE THE CIT THAT NOTICE U/S 148 WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE ON 16.05.2000 THROUGH SH. JA RNAIL SINGH, POA, BY ITO WARD-2(6). THE ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED RETURN ON 21.08.2000. THE NOTICE DATED 22.08.2000 WAS ISSUED BY THE ITO SEEKI NG CERTAIN INFORMATION. IN VIEW OF THE REPLY SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE, TH E PROCEEDINGS WERE DROPPED. THE ITO WARD IV(2), RANGE-IV, JALANDHAR, I SSUED A LETTER DATED 04.12.2003 SERVED UPON SH. JARNAIL SINGH, POA OF TH E ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE GAVE A DETAILED REPLY VIDE LETTER DATED 13.01.2004 TO ITO WARD- 15 IV(2), RANGE-IV, JALANDHAR. THE ASSESSEE FILED A CE RTIFICATE FROM THE SARPANCH THAT THE LAND OF THE ASSESSEE ACQUIRED BY PUDA VIDE NOTIFICATION DATED 06.01.1994 IS SITUATED MORE THAN 2.5 KILOMETE RS FROM THE MUNICIPAL LIMITS OF KAPURTHALA AND THEREFORE, THE SAME CANNOT BE SAID TO BE A CAPITAL ASSET WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 2(14) OF THE AC T. THE LD. CIT IN HIS ORDER U/S 264 OF THE ACT, VIDE PARA 4 ALSO OBSERVED THAT THE APPROACH OF THE AO SINCE INITIATING THE PROCEEDING U/S 147 OF THE ACT APPEARS TO BE SUPERFICIAL EITHER FOR LOCATING THE CORRECT ADDRESS AND SERVICE OF NOTICES AND LETTERS OR FOR THE PROPER GATHERING OF RELEVANT FAC TS RELATING TO ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING AND USING THEM IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER W ITHOUT ALLOWING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. NO SUBSTANCE IN THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE WITH REGARD TO ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEI NG HEARD WAS FOUND BY THE LD. CIT(A) AND ACCORDINGLY HE SET ASIDE THE MA TTER TO BE MADE AFRESH AFTER ALLOWING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE AND DIRECTED THE AO TO ENSURE THAT FOLLOWING CONTENTIO NS ARE JUDICIOUSLY DEALT WITH: (I) WHETHER THE ASSESSEE EVER RESIDED IN VILLAGE NO ORPUR DONA/MANSOORWAL DONA AND WHETHER THE LAST KNOWN ADDRESS OF THE ASSESSEE COULD LAWFULLY BE DETERMINE D AS THE DHARAMSHALA OF VILLAGE MANSOORWALA DONA FOR THE PURPOSES OF SERVICE OF NOTICE U/ 148/142(1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. (II) WHETHER THE LAND OF THE ASSESSEE QUALIFIES TO BE TERMED AS AN ASSET WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 2(14) OF THE ACT IN 16 THE LIGHT OF NOTIFICATION NO.9447/F.NO.164/3/87-ITA -I DATED 06.01.1994. III) PROPER INQUIRIES ARE MADE FROM PUDA AUTHORITIES WIT H REGARD TO THE PERSON TO WHOM THE CHEQUES WERE ISSUE D AND FROM THE BANK ENCASHING THE SAID CHEQUES/DRAFTS . IV) PROPER INQUIRIES ARE MADE FROM THE OFFICE OF ITO WA RD IV(2), RANGE-IV, JALANDHAR WITH REGARD TO THE FATE OF PROCEEDINGS INITIATED IN THIS CASE BY THAT A.O. V) THAT THE RETURN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT WHILE MAKING THE REASSESSMENT. 6.6. IT WAS ARGUED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSES SEE THAT THE MATTER HAS BEEN SET ASIDE BY THE LD. CIT AND THE LD. CIT HAS K EPT THE MATTER ALIVE ON ALL THE ISSUES WHICH ARE RAISED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL I.E. WHETHER THE ASSESSEE RESIDED IN VILLAGE NOORPUR DONA FOR THE PURPOSES OF SERVICE OF NOTICE U/S 148/142(1) OF THE ACT, WHETHER THE LAND OF THE ASS ESSEE QUALIFIES TO BE DETERMINED AS AN ASSET WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTIO N 2(14) OF THE ACT. THE AO WAS DIRECTED TO MAKE PROPER ENQUIRIES FROM PUDA AUTHORITIES AND BANK AND ITO WARD IV(2), RANGE IV, JALANDHAR WITH REGARD TO THE FATE OF THE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED IN THIS CASE. THE RETURNED FI LED BY THE ASSESSEE IS TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT WHILE MAKING REASSESSMENT. THERE FORE, THE MATTER HAS NOT AT ALL COME TO AN END BY THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT D ATED 18/25.02.2008. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE RELIED UPON THE FOLLOW ING DECISIONS OF ITAT IN THIS REGARD. I) DR. A. NARESH BABU VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, 124 I TD 28 (ITAT HYDERABAD BENCH): 17 IN THIS CASE, IT WAS HELD THAT THE APPEALS ARE M AINTAINABLE FROM THE FRESH ORDERS PASSED BY THE AO TO GIVE EFFECT T O A REVISIONAL ORDER PASSED US 264, BUT ONLY SUCH ISSUES CAN BE AG ITATED IN SUCH APPEALS WHICH HAVE NOT ATTAINED FINALITY BY VI RTUE OF ORDER PASSED U/S 264 OR EARLIER ORDERS. IT IS NOT OPEN TO THE ASSESSEES IN SUCH APPEALS TO AGITATE ANY POINT WHICH HAS ALRE ADY BEEN DECIDED BY THE REVISIONAL ORDER PASSED U/S 264 OR H AS ATTAINED FINALITY. 6.7. THE BENCH RAISED A QUERY FROM THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, WHETHER POA HAS BEEN FILED BY THE POA HOLDER SH. JA RNAIL SINGH BEFORE THE ITO, KAURTHALA OR NOT. IT WAS BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ITO KAPURTHALA HAD ISSUED A LETTE R TO THE POA HOLDER SH. JARNAIL SINGH AT VILLAGE DHINA, P.O. JALANDHAR CANT T. THE LETTER DATED 03.06.2008 REQUIRING THE POA TO SUBMIT POA IN HI S FAVOUR AND OTHER DETAILS. THE SAID LETTER IS AVAILABLE AT PB-43. TH E LETTER OF THE ITO KAPURTHALA WAS REPLIED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 19.06.200 8 (PB 44-45) SUBMITTING THE POWER OF ATTORNEY IN THE CASE OF THE PRESENT AS SESSEE ALONGWITH OTHER INFORMATION ASKED FOR. HE RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF ESTHURI ASWATHIAH VS. INCOME T AX OFFICE (1961) 41 ITR 539 (SC), DECISION OF HONBLE ALLAHABAD HIGH C OURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. VALI BROTHERS (2005) 282 ITR 149 (ALL). HE ACCO RDINGLY PRAYED TO DECLARE THE NOTICE U/S 148 TO BE BAD IN LAW AND QUA SH ASSESSMENT MADE IN THE 18 CASE OF PRESENT ASSESSEE AND TWO OTHER ASSESSEES WH ICH ARE HAVING THE IDENTICAL FACTS, MENTIONED HEREINABOVE. 7. THE LD. DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, ARGUED THAT AT PB -6, NOTICE HAS BEEN SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE SH. JASBIR SINGH S/O S. JI T SINGH AT VILL. NOORPUR DONA WHICH IS AVAILABLE AT ASSESSEES PAPER BOOK PA GE 6-7 BY THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INVESTIGTION-II), JALANDHAR . ONCE THE NOTICE HAS BEEN SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE ON THIS ADDRESS OF NOO RUR DONA AND WHICH HAS BEEN REPLIED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE REPLY IS AVAIL ABLE AT ASSESSEES PAPER BOOK-7. THIS PROVES THAT THE ASSESSEE IS MISLEADING THE INCOME-TAX DEPARTMENT AND ALSO FURTHER PROVES THAT THE ASSESSE E IS LIVING IN VILLAGE NOORPUR DONA. IT WAS POINTED OUT BY THE LD. DR THAT WHEN ASSESSMENT ORDER HAD REACHED TO THE ASSESSEE AT NOORPUR DONA ADDRESS THEN HOW OTHER NOTICES ISSUED BY THE ITO KAPURTHALA HAVE NOT REACHED TO TH E ASSESSEE. SERVICE OF ASSESSMENT ORDER ON THE ASSESSEE AT NOORPUR DONA AD DRESS SPEAKS OF CONFUSION BY THE ASSESSEE THAT SERVICES HAVE BEEN M ADE UPON HIM AT NOORPUR DONA ADDRESS ONLY. AS REGARDS THE REVIEW NOTE RE FERRED TO BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AVAILABLE AT PB 70-71 BY T HE CIT DOES NOT HAVE ANY SANCTITY AND SHOULD NOT BE TAKEN ANY COGNIZANCE. AS REGARDS THE CERTIFICATE OF SARPANCH, THE SARPANCH IS A POLITICIAN AND IS A LIAR AND THE CERTIFICATE ADDUCED IS A BLATANT LIE. THE CERTIFICATE OF THE MU NICIPAL COUNCILOR IS ALSO A 19 BLATANT LIE AND SHOULD NOT BE RELIED UPON AND CANN OT BE TAKEN COGNIZANCE BY THE TRIBUNAL. 7.1. THE LD. DR, SH. TARSEM LAL ARGUED THAT THE LD. CIT IS A HUMAN BEING. HE ALSO CAN COMMIT ERROR WHILE MAKING ORDER UNDER S ECTION 264 OF THE ACT AND AT THE TIME OF FRAMING ORDER U/S 264, HE COULD NOT HAVE NOTICED THE ACTUAL ADDRESS. THE ASSESSEE HAS MISLED THE LD. CI T IN THE PROCEEDINGS U/S 264 OF THE ACT. THE LD. DR FURTHER INVITED OUR ATTE NTION TO THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AT PAGE 2 & 3 IN LAST PARA OF THE AO WHICH IS REPRODUCED FOR THE SAKE OF CLARITY, AS UNDER: WITH A VIEW TO COMPLY WITH THE DIRECTIONS OF THE C IT-JALANDHAR-II, JALANDHAR, A LETTER DATED 3.6.2008 WAS ISSUED TO TH E ASSESSEE TO FURNISH INFORMATION. SIMULTANEOUSLY, THE ENQUIRIES WERE MAD E FROM THE TEHSILDAR, KAPURTHALA REGARDING THE LOCATION OF LAN D BELONGING TO THE ASSESSEE ACQUIRED BY THE PUDA. IN RESPONSE TO THE QUERY MADE BY THIS OFFICE, SH. JARNAIL SINGH, POWER OF ATTORNEY O F SHRI JASBIR SINGH FURNISHED WRITTEN REPLY DATED 19.6.2008 ALONGWITH W HICH HE FURNISHED COPY OF RETURN OF INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE AS SESSMENT YEAR 1999- 2000, A CERTIFICATE FROM THE SARPANCH OF VILLAGE MO HADIPUR, DETAILS OF BANK ACCOUNTS WHERE COMPENSATION RECEIVED FROM PUDA WAS DEPOSITED ETC. 7.2. THE LD. DR INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO PAGE 4 OF AOS ORDER THAT NOTICE U/S 148 HAS RIGHTLY BEEN ISSUED WITHIN THE PRESCRI BED TIME PROVIDED UNDER SECTION 149 OF THE ACT, AT THE ADDRESS OF THE ASSE SSEE AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND THE JURISDICTION OVER THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE RIGH TLY VESTS WITH THE ITO KAPURTHALA-I. IT WAS ALSO INVITED TO OUR ATTENTION THAT ITO WARD IV(2), 20 JALANDHAR, HAD DROPPED THE PROCEEDINGS U/S 147 FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION BECAUSE REOPENING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WERE PENDI NG WITH ITO KARPUTHALA-I. LD. DR SUMMING UP HIS ARGUMENTS ARGUE D THAT THE LD. CIT UNDER SECTION 264 OF THE ACT, HAS RIGHTLY DIRECTED THE A.O. TO PASS THE ORDER WITH RIGHT DIRECTION AS THE ISSUE HAS ATTAINED FINA LITY. THE JURISDICTION OF THE ASSESSEE AFTER DROPPING OF THE JURISDICTION OF ITO, WARD IV(2), JALANDHAR, NOW VESTS WITH THE ITO, KAPURTHALA-I. THE JUDGMENTS RELIED UPON BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO THE ASSESSEES BENEFIT BUT FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE REVENUE. AS A MATTER OF FACT, TH E ASSESSEE INTENTIONALLY DIVERTED THE DEPARTMENT TO KAPURTHALA FROM THE BEG INNING SO THAT THE DEPARTMENT MAY NOT REACH KAPURTHALA AT A RIGHT ADD RESS. THEREFORE, THE CONDUCT OF THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE TAKEN ON RECORD A ND ASSESSEES APPEAL BE DISMISSED ON LEGAL GROUNDS. 8. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, SH. SURINDER M AHAJAN, CA, IN THE REJOINDER INVITED OUR ATTENTION THAT ALL THE NOTICE S BY THE ITO, KAPURTHALA ALONGWITH ASSESSMENT ORDER WERE TAKEN BY INSPECTION AFTER THE ASSESSMENT WAS MADE. THE SAID INSPECTION IS AVAILABLE AT PB-3 0 IS A MATTER OF RECORD, WHICH CANNOT BE DENIED BY THE REVENUE. THE ASSESSE E IS A NON RESIDENT INDIAN AND SETTLED IN UK FOR THE LAST MORE THAN 20 YEARS. THE ASSESSEES ONLY AGRICULTURAL LAND IS IN VILLAGE NOORPUR DONA, DISTR ICT JALANDHAR, PART OF 21 WHICH WAS ACQUIRED BY PUDA FOR WHICH COMPENSATION WAS PAID IN 1999. AS REGARDS SERVICE OF NOTICE BY THE ADI (INV) JALAN DHAR, THE SAID NOTICE WAS RECEIVED BY POA BY HAND AND THERE CAN NOT BE ANY SE RVICE ON THE ASSESSEE, SINCE THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT LIVE AT VILL. NOORPUR D ONA, DISTRICT KAPURTHALA WHEREAS HE IS HAVING HIS AGRICULTURAL LAND, WHICH H AS BEEN GIVEN TO SOME OTHER PERSON FOR CULTIVATION. AS REGARD THE STATEME NT OF SH. CHANCHAL SINGH, WHICH WAS BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE BENCH BY TH E LD. DR, SH. TARSEM LAL, THE SAME WAS NOT CONFRONTED TO THE ASSESSEE. MOREOVER, SH. CHANCHAL SINGH IN HIS STATEMENT AVAILABLE AT PB 55 TO 58 ST ATED THAT HE IS CULTIVATING LAND AT VILLAGE NOORPUR DONA BELONGING TO ALL THE T HREE PRESENT ASSESSEES FOR WHICH NO AGREEMENT HAS BEEN EXECUTED. THE SAID VER BAL AGREEMENT WAS MADE BY SH. JARNAIL SINGH OF VILL. DHINA, WHO IS AU THORIZED PERSON OF THE OWNERS OF THE LAND. IT WAS ALSO STATED THAT THE PAY MENT IS BEING MADE TO SH. JARNAIL SINGH IN CASH AFTER SIX MONTHS AND NO RECEI PT IN LIEU OF THE PAYMENT IS BEING ISSUED. AS REGARDS ANY HOUSE ON THE AGRICULTU RAL LAND, IT WAS STATED BY SH. CHANCHAL SINGH THAT THERE IS AN OLD HAVELI (ANC ESTRAL HOUSE) RELATED TO THE OWNERS OF THE LAND IN WHICH THEY WERE LIVING FO R THE LAST 15/20 YEARS. MR. SURINDER MAHAJAN, CA, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSES SEE, ARGUED THOUGH THE STATEMENT OF SH. CHANCHAL SINGH WS NOT CONFRONTED T O THE ASSESSEE BUT THE STATEMENT ALL OVER GOES IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE T HAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT LIVE 22 IN VILLAGE NOORPUR DONA AND THE LAND WAS GIVEN FOR CULTIVATION BY THE POA TO SH. CHANCHAL SINGH. MOREOVER, SH. JARNAIL SINGH, TO WHOM THE PAYMENT OF SALES PROCEEDS WERE BEING GIVEN IN CASH TO SH. JARNAIL SINGH ONLY, THERE WAS OLD HAVELI (ANCESTRAL HOUSE ) ON THE SAID LAND BUT IN WHICH SH. CHANCHAL SINGH, THE CULTIVATOR WAS LIVING FOR THE L AST 15 TO 20 YEARS.SH. JARNAIL SIGH IS AN AUTHORIZED AGENT OF THE ASSESSEE WAS IN THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE ITO, KAURTHALA AND, THEREFORE, NOTICES SHOULD H AVE BEEN SERVED ON THE AGENT OF THE ASSESSEE, WHO IS NRI, WHICH WERE NEVER ISSUED AND THE ASSESSMENT FRAMED BY THE ITO, KAPURTHALA, IS BAD IN LAW. NOTICES ISSUED BY HIM ARE BAD IN LAW AND THEREFORE, PRAYED BEFORE THE BENCH TO QUASH THE ASSESSMENT. 9. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE FACTS OF THE CASE. AS PER ARGUMENTS MADE BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE AS SESSEE, WHO INVITED OUR ATTENTION AT PAGE 8 OF THE PAPER BOOK WHICH IS NOTI CE U/S 148 OF THE ACT ISSUED BY ITO WARD 2(6), JALANDHAR, ON THE POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, SH. JARNAIL SINGH, DATED 16.05.2000 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR1999-2000 AT VILLAGE DHINA, DISTT. JALANDHAR, THE SAME WAS SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE. IN RESPONSE TO THE SAID NOTICE, THE POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, SH. JARNAIL SINGH HAD FILED RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE SAID ASSESSMENT YEAR 1999- 2000 WITH THE ITO WARD 2(6), JALANDHAR. THE VERIFICATION IN THE RETURN OF INCOME HAS BEEN DONE BY 23 SH. JARNAIL SINGH, SPECIAL POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER IS A MATTER OF RECORD AT PB-9 ALONGWITH COPY OF COMPUTATION OF PAPER BOOK AT PB-10. THE ITO WARD 2(6) VIDE NOTICE DATED 22.08.2000 AVAILABLE AT PB-1 1 HAD ISSUED A LETTER ON THE POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SH. JARNAIL SINGH THAT THE CAPITAL GAIN ON THE ACQUISITION OF AGRICULTURAL LAND SITUATED AT VILLAG E NOORPUR DONA, DISTT. KAPURTHALA, HAS NOT BEEN DECLARED AND TO CLARIFY TH E POSITION. AGAIAN THERE WAS A LETTER DATED 04.12.2003 AT PB-12 BY ITO IV(2) , JALANDHAR TO MR. JARNAIL SINGH, VILL. DHINA, DISTT. JALANDHAR WITH R EGARD TO THE CLARIFICATION ABOUT THE COMPENSATION FOR ACQUISITION OF THE LAND IN VILL. NOORPUR DONA, DISTT. KAPURTHALA. ON 13.01.2004, THE CHARTERED ACC OUNTANT, AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE REPLIED THE LETTER TO THE SAID OFFICER WHICH IS AVAILABLE AT PB 13 & 14. THEREFORE, IT CANNOT BE PR ESUMED THAT THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT DOES NOT HAVE ANY KNOWLEDGE OF MR. J ARNAIL SINGH, IS THE POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER OF S.JASBIR SINGH NRI AND OTHER TWO NRIS S. JOGINDER SINGH & S. LAKHVIR SINGH BUT THE SAME IS A MATTER OF RECORD AND ACCEPTED POSITION UNLESS REJECTED BY THE AO UNLESS THE RETURN IS DECLARED INVALID. THE RETURN SO FILED HAS NOT BEEN DECLARED INVALID. NO ISSUE OF POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SH. JARNAIL SINGH WAS EVER RAISE D BY THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT. AS REGARDS THE NOTICE U/S 131 (IA) OF THE ACT DATED 01.03.2000 ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX AT V ILL. NOORPUR DONA, DISTT. 24 KAPURTHALA, WHICH HAS BEEN REPLIED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 24.03.2000 AVAILABLE AT PB 6 & 7, IT WAS ARGUED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR T HE ASSESSEE THAT THE SAID NOTICE HAS BEEN TAKEN BY HAND BY THE POWER OF ATTOR NEY HOLDER S. JARNAIL SINGH BUT THERE IS NO SERVICE RECORD OF THE SAME WI TH THE DEPARTMENT TO PROVE THAT THE SAID NOTICE HAS ACTUALLY BEEN SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE, S. JASBIR SINGH AND OTHERS AT VILLAGE NOORPUR DONA, DISTT. KA PRTHALA. THE LD. DR COULD NOT PRODUCE ANY DOCUMENT TO PROVE THE SERVIC E OF THIS NOTICE ON MR. JASBIR SINGH AT NOORPUR DONA, DISTT. KAPURTHALA, WH ICH IN FACT CANNOT BE SERVED AT VILLAGE NOORPUR DONA, DISTT. KAPURTHALA S INCE THE ASSESSEE IS A NON-RESIDENT IS A MATTER OF RECORD. THEREFORE, THIS NOTICE THOUGH ISSUED BY ASSTT. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX IS BEFORE THE DATE O F INITIATION OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY SERVICE AT V ILLAGE NOORPUR DONA, DISTT. KAPURTHALA CANNOT PROVE THE SERVICE ON S. JA SBIR SINGH AND OTHERS AT NOORPUR DONA, DISTT. KAPURTHALA. MOREOVER, THE ASS ESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ARE INITIATED ONLY OF THE ISSUE OF NOTICE ON 16.05.2000 AVAILABLE AT PB-8 AND THIS ACT OF ADIT BEFORE INITIATION OF ASSESSMENT PROCEED INGS FOR THIS NO SERVICE RECORD IS AVAILABLE, CANNOT HELP THE REVENUE. 9.1. LD. AR FURTHER ARGUED THAT THE INCOME TAX DEPA RTMENT HAS TAKEN A TURN TO ISSUE THE NOTICE AGAIN BY DROPPING EARLIER NOTICE U/S 148, TO ISSUE NOTICE ON S. JASBIR SINGH AND OTHERS AT VILL. NOORP UR DONA, DISTT. KAPURTHALA, 25 DATED 21.03.2006 AVAILABLE AT PB 16 & 17 BY RECORDI NG REASONS AT PB-18 &19 AND ALSO BY ISSUING NOTICE AGAIN U/S 142(1) OF THE ACT AND OTHER NOTICES AVAILABLE AT PB-22 TO 24. THE SAID NOTICES WERE NO T SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE. IT IS ALSO NOT DISPUTED THAT THE NOTICE SERVER OF T HE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT HAS ALSO GIVEN THE REPORT THAT SH. JASBIR SINGH DOE S NOT RESIDE AT THE GIVEN ADDRESS OF VILL. NOORPUR DONA, DISTT. KAPURTHALA. T HERE IS A REPORT OF THE SARPANCH AND THE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF KAPURTH ALA ALSO THAT SH. JASBIR SINGH AND OTHERS DO NOT LIVE AT VILL. NOORPUR DONA /MANSOORWAL DONA, DISTT. KAPURTHALA. AS REGARDS THE AFFIXATION OF NOT ICE AT JHANJGHAR/DHARAMSALA IN VILL. NOORPUR DONA, DISTT. KAURTHALA, THE SAID ADDRESS IS NOT EVEN THE LAST KNOWN ADDRESS OF THE A SSESSEE. AS ARGUED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, MR. SURINDER MAHAJAN, CA THAT THE COPIES OF THE SAID NOTICES AND ORDERS OF THE ASSESSMENTS WERE TAK EN BY INSPECTION ONLY, AFTER THE ASSESSMENT WAS MADE AND THE SAID INSPECTI ON IS AVAILABLE AT PB-30 IS A MATTER OF RECORD AND IT CANNOT BE DENIED BY TH E REVENUE. THEREFORE, THE ARGUMENT MADE BY THE LD. DR THAT HOW THE NOTICES AN D ORDERS HAVE BEEN SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE AT VILL. NOORPUR DONA, DIS TT. KAPURTHALA, DO NOT HAVE ANY VALUE AND SUCH ARGUMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE FO R THE SAKE OF MAKING THE ARGUMENTS ONLY SINCE NO NOTICE U/S 148, 142(1), 133(6) OR ANY ORDER U/S 144 R.W.S. 147 HAS BEEN SERVED UPON SH. JASBIR SIN GH AND OTHERS AT VILL. 26 NOORPUR DONA, DISTT. KAPRTHALA. IN THE ABSENCE OF SUCH SERVICES OF NOTICES OF THE ORDERS, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT PROPER SERVIC E HAS BEEN MADE UPON THE ASSESSEE OR VARIOUS NOTICES MENTIONED HEREINABOVE I NCLUDING ORDER U/S 144 R.W.S. 147 OF THE ACT. IT IS A MATTER OF RECORD THA T SARPANCH OF THE VILLAGE NOORPUR DONA, DISTT. KAPURTHALA AND MUNICIPAL COUNC ILLOR OF THE SAID VILLAGE HAS ALSO CERTIFIED THAT SH. JASBIR SINGH AN D OTHERS DID NOT LIVE IN VILLAGE NOORPUR DONA, DISTT. KAPURTHALA. THE ARGUME NT OF THE LD. DR, SH. TARSEM LAL THAT SARPANCH OF THE VILLAGE IS A POL ITICIAN AND HE IS A LIAR AND SO ARGUMENT HAD BEEN MADE AND COMMENTED UPON ABOUT THE MUNICIPAL COUNCILOR ALSO AND WHO PRAYED THE BENCH TO IGNORE T HE REPORT SAID SARPANCH AND MUNICIPAL COUNCILOR. SUCH ARGUMENT BY LD. DR SH . TARSEM LAL ARE WITHOUT ANY BASIS AND SUCH PERSONAL REMARKS CANNOT PROVE THE PERSONS AS RESIDING AT VILL. NOORPUR DONA, DISTT. KAPURTHALA W HO ACTUALLY ARE NOT RESIDING AT SUCH VILLAGE AND ARE NRI 9.2 AS REGARDS THE PETITION U/S 264 OF THE ACT BEF ORE THE LD. CIT, JALANDHAR DATED 16.05.2007 AVAILABLE AT PB 31 TO 3 4, ALSO THE ORDER OF THE CIT U/S 264 AVAILABLE AT PB 39 TO 42, WHICH IS DATE D 25.02.2008 CLEARLY MENTIONS IN PARA 4 AT PB 41 THAT APPROACH OF THE AO SINCE INITIATING THE PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 147 OF THE ACT, APPEARS T O BE VERY SUPERFICIAL EITHER FOR LOCATING THE CORRECT ADDRESS AND SERVIC E OF NOTICES AND LETTERS OR 27 FOR THE PROPER GATHERING OF RELEVANT FACTS RELATING TO ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING AND USING THEM IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WITHOUT ALLO WING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. THE CIT IN ITS ORDER U /S 264 FOUND SUBSTANCE IN THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IN SO FAR AS NOT GIV ING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD IS CONCERNED. THE CIT AT PAGE 2 & 3 OF HIS ORDER U/S 264 AT PB 40-41 HAS APPRECIATED THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSE E WITH REGARD TO THE NOTICE U/S 148 ISSUED ON THE ASSESSEE ON 16.05.200 0 THROUGH SH. JARNAIL SINGH POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER BY ITO 2(6), JALANDH AR. THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED RETURN OF INCOME. AGAIN NOTICE ISSUED BY ITO 2(6) ON 22.08.2000 AND THE REPLY FILED BY THE ASSESSEE . ALSO A LETTER OF ITO WARD IV(2) ISSUED ON 04.12.2000 SERVED ON POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSEE GAVE DETAILED REPLY OF THE SAID LETTER. TH E WHOLE FACTS WERE BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE CIT U/S 264 OF THE ACT. THE LD . CIT KEPT THE ISSUE ALIVE BY SENDING THE MATTER BACK TO THE AO FOR DECIDING T HE ISSUE AVAILABLE AT PB 3 & 4 OF CITS ORDER OR AT PB 41 & 42 I.E. (I) WHETHE R THE ASSESSEE EVER RESIDED IN VILL. NOORPUR DONA/MANSOORWAL DONA AND WHETHER THE LAST KNOWN ADDRESS OF THE ASSESSEE COULD LAWFULLY BE DE TERMINED AS THE DHARAMSHALA OF VILLAGE MANSOORWAL DONA FOR THE PURP OSES OF SERVICE OF NOTICE U/S 148/142(1) OF THE ACT, (II) WHETHER THE LAND OF THE ASSESSEE QUALIFIES TO BE TERMED AS AN ASSET WITHIN THE MEANI NG OF SECTION 2(14) OF THE 28 ACT, (III) WHETHER PROPER INQUIRIES ARE MADE FROM P UDA AUTHORITIES AND ITO WARD IV(2), JALANDHAR AND ABOUT THE RETURN FILE D BY THE ASSESSEE TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT WHILE MAKING THE REASSESSMENT. THEREFORE, NONE OF THE ISSUES HAVE BEEN DECIDED U/S 264 BY THE CIT AND, TH EREFORE, ASSESSEE WAS AUTHORIZED TO AGITATE SUCH ISSUES IN APPEAL. THE RE LIANCE PLACED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ON THE DECISION OF THE ITA T, HYDERABAD BENCH, IN THE CASE OF DR. A NARESH BABU VS. INCOME TAX OFFICE R, 123 TTJ 836 (SUPRA) SUPPORTS OUR VIEWS. THEREFORE, THE ARGUMENTS MADE BY THE LD. DR THAT THE ISSUES HAVE ATTAINED FINALITY VIDE ORDER OF CIT U/S 264 OF THE ACT CANNOT HELP THE REVENUE SINCE ALL THE ISSUES ARE ALIVE AND HAVE NOT ATTAINED ANY FINALITY, AS MENTIONED HEREIN ABOVE. 9.3 AS REGARDS THE OBSERVATION OF THE AO AT PAGE 2 & 3 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER TO WHICH OUR ATTENTION WAS INVITED BY SH. TAR SEM LAL, THE LD. DR, GOES AGAINST THE REVENUE SINCE IN RESPONSE TO QUERY MADE BY THE ITO, SH. JARNAIL SINGH FURNISHED THE REPLY ALONGWITH COPY OF RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1999-2000, ALONGWITH A CERTIFICATE FROM THE SARPANCH ETC. 9.4 AS REGARDS THE ARGUMENTS OF THE LD. DR THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS LIVING AT VILLAGE NOORPUR DONA, DISTT. KAPURTHALA AND THE ASS ESSE WAS HAVING HIS AGRICULTURAL LAND AT VILL. NOORPUR DONA, IN THIS R EGARD STATEMENT OF SH. CHANCHAL SINGH WHICH WAS RECORDED BY THE ITO WAS B ROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE 29 THOUGH THE SAID STATEMENT WAS NOT CONFONTED TO THE ASSESSEE. BUT IT GOES IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE REASONS THAT SH. CHA NCHAL SINGH IN HIS STATEMENT HAD STATED THAT HE IS CULTIVATING LAND AT VILL. NOORPUR DONA BELONGING TO ALL THE THREE NRIS. THE SAID VERBAL AG REEMENT WAS MADE BY SH. JARNAIL SINGH OF VILL. DHINA, WHO IS AUTHORIZED PER SON OF THE OWNERS OF THE LAND. THE PAYMENT IS BEING MADE TO SH. JARNAIL SING H IN CASH AFTER SIX MONTHS. THERE IS AN OLD HAVELI RELATED TO THE OWNER S OF THE LAND IN WHICH SH. CHANCHAL SINGH IS LIVING FOR THE LAST 15-20 YEARS. 10. IN VIEW OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE P RESENT CASE , THE ITO KAPURTHALA HAS NO JURISDICTION TO ISSUE NOTICE ON T HE PRESENT ASSESSEES, WHICH, IN FACT, SHOULD HAVE BEEN SERVED UPON SH. JA RNAIL SINGH, THE POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER TO WHOM THE NOTICES BY THE DEPARTME NT HAD BEEN ISSUED BY ITO WARD 2(6), JALANDHAR/ITO WARD IV(2), JALANDHAR. SH. JARNAIL SINGH, THE SPECIAL POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER WHO HAD SIGNED THE RETURN OF INCOME. AS MENTIONED HEREINABOVE, HE IS THE SPECIAL POWER OF A TTORNEY HOLDER IN THE RETURN OF INCOME ITSELF. THE DEPARTMENT HAS NOT HEL D THE RETURN OF THE ASSESSEE AS INVALID RETURN WHICH HAS BEEN SIGNED BY SH. JARNAIL SINGH, SPECIAL POWER OF ATTORNEY AVAILABLE AT PB-9. IN TH E FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT CASES, HAVING NOT SERVED THE NOTICE S ON SH. JARNAIL SINGH AT VILL. DHINA (JALNADHAR) AND IN VIEW OF THE REVIEW NOTE MENTIONED 30 HEREINABOVE AND ORDER OF THE CIT U/S 264 AND ARGUME NTS MADE BY BOTH THE PARTIES AND PAPER BOOKS AVAILABLE ON RECORD, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT ON SH. J ASBIR SINGH AND OTHER ASSESSES AT VILL. NOORPUR DONA/MANSOORWAL DONA, DIS TT. KAPURTHALA, IS BAD IN LAW AND ASSESSMENTS SO MADE ARE QUASHED THE DECI SION IN THE CASE OF SH. JASBIR SINGH HEREINABOVE IS APPLICABLE IN THE CASE OF OTHER ASSESSEES I.E. SH. JOGINDER SINGH AND LAKHVIR SINGH IN ITA NO.191(ASR) /2010 & 192(ASR)/2010 BEING IDENTICAL FACTS AS INDICATE HER EINABOVE AND ACCORDINGLY THE NOTICES IN SUCH APPEALS ARE ALSO BAD IN LAW ISS UED ON THE ASSESSES AT NOORPUR DONA/MANSOORWAL DONA, DISTT. KAPURTHALA AND ACCORDINGLY ASSESSMENTS ARE QUASHED. THE LEGAL GROUNDS OF THE A SSESSEE IN ALL THE APPEALS I.E. GROUND NOS. 1 TO 13 ARE ALLOWED. 11. THE ADDITIONAL GROUND ADMITTED ON MERITS, IS NO T DECIDED, BEING INFRUCTUOUS, IN THE LIGHT OF THE DECISION HEREINABO VE. 12 IN THE RESULT, ALL THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEES IN ITA NOS. 190(ASR)/2010, 191(ASR)/2010 & 192(ASR)/2010 ARE AL LOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 21ST MAY, 2012. SD/- SD/- (H.S. SIDHU) (B.P. JAIN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 21ST MAY, 2012 /SKR/ 31 COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : 1. THE ASSESSEE:1) SH. JASBIR SINGH, NRI 2) SH. JOGIND ER SINGH, NRI (3) SH. LAKHVIR SINGH, NRI 2. THE ITO, KAPURTHALA. 3. THE CIT(A), JALANDHAR. 4. THE CIT, JALANDHAR. 5. THE SR DR, ITAT, AMRITSAR TRUE COPY BY ORDER (ASSISTANT REGISTRAR) INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH : AMRITSAR.