The Assistant Commissioner of Income tax, Ferozepur V. M/s. Atam Rice Mills,

ITA 220/ASR/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 134 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5742 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-06-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 12-05-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P N ARORA
• Assessee Lawyers: AMRIK CHAND
• Keywords: Set aside
• Section: 142(1); 143(1); 69B; 201; 192; 145

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH; AMRITSAR. BEFORE SH. H.L. KARWA, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. MEHAR SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO.220(ASR)/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2007-08 PAN :AABFA5357R THE ASSTT. COMMR. OF INCOME-TAX, VS. M/S. ATM RICE MILLS, CIRCLE-III, FEROZEPUR. TALWANDI ROAD, ZIRA. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) I.T.A. NO.214(ASR)/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2007-08 PAN :AABFA5357R M/S. ATAM RICEMILLS, VS. ASSTT. COMMR. OF INCOME- TAX, TALWANDI ROAD, CIRCLE III, FEROZEPR. ZIRA. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) DEPARTMENT BY: SH. P.N. ARORA, ADV. ASSESSEE BY: SH. AMRIK CHAND, DR ORDER PER MEHAR SINGH, AM, THESE ARE CROSS APPEALS ONE BY THE REVENUE AND A NOTHER BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT( A), BATHINDA, DATED 22.02.2010, PASSED UNDER SECTION 250(6) OF THE INCO ME-TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO IN SHORT THE ACT), FOR T HE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. 2 1. FIRST, WE WILL DEAL WITH THE APPEAL OF THE REVEN UE, WHERE THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS HAVE BEEN RAISED: (1) THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN RESTRICTING THE ADDITIONS TO RS.50, 000/- AS AGAINST THE ADDITION OF RS.4,26,379/- MADE BY THE A O ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE VALUE OF THE STOC K SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE DEPARTMENT AND THAT THE VALUE O F THE STOCK DECLARED TO THE BANK ON ACCOUNT OF WHEAT, MAIDA, SU JI , ATTA, BRAN. (2) THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN RESTRICTING THE ADDITIONS TO RS .1,00,000/-, AS AGAINST THE ADDITION OF RS.7,04,718 MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE VALUE OF THE STOCK SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE DEPARTMENT AND THAT THE VALUE OF TH E STOCK DECLARED TO THE BANK ON ACCOUNT OF BARDANA. (3) WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES O F THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) IS LEGALLY JUSTIFIED IN RESTRICTING THE ADDITION TO RS.50,000/- AS AGAINST THE ADDITION OF RS.4,26,379/ - MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE VALUE O F STOCK SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE DEPARTMENT AND THAT TH E VALUE OF THE STOCK DECLARED TO THE BANK ON ACCOUNT OF WHEAT, MAIDA, SUJI, ATTA, BRAN, EVEN WHEN THE LD. CIT(A) HAS HELD THE A CTION OF THE AO AS JUSTIFIED IN REJECTING THE BOOK VERSION OF TH E ASSESSEE BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 145 OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. (4) WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES O F THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A), IS LEGALLY JUSTIFIED IN RESTRICTING THE ADDITION TO RS.1,00,000/- AS AGAINST THE ADDITION OF RS.7,04,71 8/- MADE BY THE AO, ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE VALUE OF STOCK SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE DEPARTMENT AND THAT TH E VALUE OF THE STOCK DECLARED TO THE BANK ON ACCOUNT OF BARDAN A EVEN WHEN THE LD. CIT(A) HAS HELD THE ACTION OF THE AO A S JUSTIFIED IN REJECTING THE BOOK VERSION OF THE ASSESSEE BY IN VOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 145 OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. (5) THAT IT IS PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (A), BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE A.O. BE RESTORED. (6) THAT THE APPELLANT CARVES LEAVE TO ADD OR AMEND ANY GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE THE APPEAL IS HEARD AND DISPOSED OFF. 3 2. IN NUTSHELL, GROUND NOS. 1 & 3 AND 2 & 4 ARE INT ERLINKED, PERTAINING TO THE RESTRICTION OF ADDITIONS OF RS.50, 000/- AND RS .1, 00,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE VALUE OF THE STOCK SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE DEPARTMENT AND THAT THE VALUE OF STOCK DECLARED TO THE BANK ON ACCOUNT OF WHEAT, MAIDA, SUJI, ATTA, BRAN AND ON ACCOUNT OF VALUE OF THE STOCK DECLARED TO THE BANK ON ACCOUNT OF BARDANA . 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE, AS CULLED OUT, FROM THE RELEVANT RECORDS ARE THAT THE ASSESSES IS RUNNING A BUSINESS OF FLOUR MI LLS AT ZIA IN THE NAME STYLE OF M/S. ATOM RICE MILLS. THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS RE TURN OF INCOME ON 27.10.2007 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08, DECLARI NG INCOME OF RS.92,44,900/- WHICH WAS PROCESSED UNDER SECTION 14 3(1) OF THE ACT. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY, B EING A SURVEY CASE, AS A RESULT OF WHICH, THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(1) AN D 142(1) WAS ISSUED. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE A. O. OBTAINED COPIES OF QUARTERLY STATEMENTS OF HYPOTHECATED STOCKS FOR THE QUARTER ENDING 31.03.2007 WHEREIN IT WAS NOTICED THAT THE QUANTITY OF STOCK OF WHEAT, MAIDA, SUZI, ATTA & BRAN WAS QUOTED BY THE ASSESSEE AS CORRECT AS GIVEN IN THE AUDITED ACCOUNTS BUT THERE WAS DIFFERENCE IN TH E VALUATION GIVEN TO THE BANK AS PER THE AUDITED ACCOUNTS. IN THE CASE OF BARDANA, THE QUANTITY DIFFERED. THE ASSESSEE HAD MENTIONED THE NUMBER OF BAGS AT 70,000 AND RATE PER BAG WAS QUOTED AT RS.10/-. ACCORDINGLY, THE AO CONFRONTED THE ASSESSEE WITH THE VARIATION OF PRICE/VALUE QUOTED BY IT IN T HE QUARTERLY STATEMENT FURNISHED TO THE BANK AND THE VALUE AS PER AUDITED ACCOUNTS FURNISHED TO THE DEPARTMENT IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. INFORMATION WITH REGARD TO STOCK PLEDGED WITH THE BANK WAS OBTAINED U/S 133 (6) OF THE ACT. AS PER INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM THE BANK, THERE WAS HUGE DIFFERENCE IN STOCK 4 VALUATION AS GIVEN TO THE BANK AS WELL AS PER BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THE DETAILED FIGURES ARE GIVEN HEREUNDER: ITEM WT. VALUE SHOWN AS PER BANK DIFFERENCE WHEAT 2050.15 1886138 2132136 249998 MAIDA 158.00 162236 197830 35594 SUZI 16.20 16605 20250 3645 ATTA 325.95 293345 348766 55411 BRAN 711.05 415964 497735 81771 BARDANA 210680 942720 70000 (BAGS) 1264080 (2106800 (VALUE) TOTAL DIFFERENCE : 1686499 FROM THE ABOVE, IT IS CLEAR THAT STOCK HAD BEEN VAL UED DIFFERENTLY FOR SHOWING TO THE DEPARTMENT AND TO THE BANK. THE AO ASKED TH E ASSESSEE TO SHOW CAUSE AS TO WHY THE VALUE SHOWN TO THE BANK SHOULD NOT BE ADOPTED FOR ASSESSMENT PURPOSES. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED ITS REPLY BUT NOT FOUND FAVOUR WITH THE A.O. CONSEQUENTLY, THE A.O. BY RELYING ON VARIOUS JUDGMENTS (AS REPORTED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER) WHERE THERE WAS DIFFERENC E IN THE VALUE OF STOCK SHOWN TO THE DEPARTMENT AS WELL AS TO THE BANK, REJ ECTED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. FURTHER, THE AO ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN AS TO WHY THE BOOK VERSION MAY NOT BE REJECTED AND THE VA LUATION QUOTED TO THE BANK MAY NOT BE ADOPTED AS AGAINST THE VALUATION SH OWN TO THE DEPARTMENT. THE ASSESSEE FILED DETAILED REPLY DATED 30.11.2009. THE ASSESSEE TRIED TO EXPLAIN THE VARIATION BUT HAD TOTALLY FAILED TO EXP LAIN THE NECESSITY TO CITE HIGHER RATES OF THE GOODS TO THE BANK WHEREAS THE Q UANTITY CITED IN THE QUARTERLY STATEMENT WAS THE SAME AS SHOWN TO THE DE PARTMENT AS PER AUDIT REPORT. TO SUPPORT ITS CASE, THE ASSESSEE RELIED UP ON CERTAIN CASE LAWS FOR VARIATION OF STOCK VALUATION GIVEN TO THE BANK AS W ELL AS SHOWN IN THE AUDITED ACCOUNTS. THE A.O. OBSERVED THAT THE CASE LAWS CITE D BY THE ASSESSEE DID NOT 5 SUPPORT ITS CASE AND THE SAME WERE DISCUSSED IN DET AIL IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. HOWEVER, BY RELYING ON THE CASE LAWS IN THE CASE OF DHANSIRAN AGARWALA VS. CIT 201 ITR 192 (GAUHATI) AND KALIA SW EET SUPPLIER V. CIT 100 TAXMAN 59 (ALL), THE AO HELD THAT THE BURDEN WA S ON THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THAT APPARENT WAS NOT REAL AND THE ASSESSEE H AVING NOT PUT FORWARD ANY EXPLANATION AS REGARD DISCREPANCY IN VALUE OF STOCK DISCLOSED TO THE BANK AND AS SHOWN IN THE ACCOUNTS ADDITION OF THE DIFFERENCE OF VALUATION WAS TO BE ADDED BACK U/S 69B OF THE ACT. THE BOOK VERSION OF THE ASSESSES WAS REJECTED BY APPLYING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 145 OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY, THE AO MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.4,26,379/-, AS DIFFERENCE IN VALUATION SHOWN TO THE BANK IN RESPECT OF WHEAT, MAIDA, ATTA, BRAN AS MENTIONED IN LETTER DATED 27.10.2009. 4. FURTHER, DURING THE COURSE OF EXAMINATION OF AC COUNTS, IT WAS OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS HAVING 270718 PIECES OF BADANA WHICH THE ASSESSEE PREVIOUSLY MENTIONED WRONGLY AS 411398 BAG S. OUT OF 270718, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED TO HAVE PLEDGED A GRADE 70000 BA GS WITH THE BANK AT RS.10/- PER BAG TOTALING TO RS.7,00,000/-. THE ASSE SSEE IN HIS REPLY HAS STATED THAT THE VALUATION OF CLOSING STOCK AT RS.9,98,872/ - IS CORRECT. THE ASSESSEES ASSERTION THAT ONLY A GRADE BARDANA HAS BEEN PLED GED, IF ACCEPTED, MEANS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS LEFT WITH 200718 BARDANA VALUI NG JUST RS.2,98,872/- (RS.9,98,872/- - RS,7,00,000). THEREFORE, THE VALUA TION OF REMAINING BARDANA I.E. 200718 WORKS OUT TO RS.1.49 PAISA PER PIECE OF BARDANA. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO JUSTIFY THE SAME. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSE ES REPLY WAS SILENT ON THIS ISSUE. BY ANY FACTS, CIRCUMSTANCES AND IMAGIN ATION IN THE TRADE OF BARDANA EVEN THE WORST BARDANA WILL FETCH MUCH MORE THAN THE PRICE SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE IS A ROLLER FLOUR MI LL AND IT USED TO KEEP GOOD QUALITY OF BAGS ONLY IN WHICH ITEMS LIKE MAIDA, SUZ I, ATTA AND OTHER SIMILAR 6 PRODUCTS ARE KEPT TO KEEP THEM HYGIENICALLY USABLE. AS SUCH, THE AO OBSERVED THAT THE VALUATION SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE T O THE DEPARTMENT CANNOT BE ACCEPTED. HE OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD INTE NTIONALLY UNDERVALUED ITS BARDANA TO BRING DOWN THE VALUE OF CLOSING STOCK. T HE AO TOOK THE VALUE OF BARDANA LEFT WITH THE ASSESSEE AFTER A GRADE 7000 0 BAGS AT MINIMUM OF RS.5/- PER BAG . THUS, BY APPLYING THE VALUE OF RS. 5/- PER BAG , THE VALUE OF 200718 BAGS COMES TO RS.1003590/- AND BY ADDING RS. 7,00,000 SHOWN IN BANK STATEMENT, THE VALUE OF BARDANA WORKED OUT AT RS.17,03,590. THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN THE VALUATION OF BARDANA AT RS.9 ,98,872/-. IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE FACTS, THE A.O. MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.7,04,718 /- (RS.17,03,590/- - RS.9,98,872/-) ON ACCOUNT OF BARDANA. 5. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OF FICER, THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), WHO VIDE APP ELLATE ORDER DATED 22.02.2010, RESTRICTED THE ADDITION TO RS.1,50,000/ - AS AGAINST THE ADDITION OF RS.11,31,097 ( RS.50,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF VALUATION OF WHEAT, MAI DA, SUZI, ATTA, BRAN AND RS.1,00,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF VA LUATION OF BARDANA ). NOW AGGRIEVED WITH THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THIS BENCH. 6. THE LD. DR, RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER. 7. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, ON THE OTHER H AND, PLACED RELIANCE ON THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND REITERATED THE SUBMI SSIONS MADE BEFORE HIM. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, HAS FILED PAPER BOOK CONTAINING PAGES 1 TO 69 AND ALSO RELIED ON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS IN SU PPORT OF HIS CASE: 7 I) ITAT, AMRITSAR BENCH, IN THE CASE OF ITO VS. M/ S. GILSON ENGG. CORPN. GORAYA IN ITA NO.5629ASR)/1996 ORDER DATED 29.01.2007 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 1991-92. II) ITAT, AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR IN THE CASE OF J AI SHRADA RICE MILLS VS. ITO REPORTED IN 36 ITD (ASR)/254. III) ITAT, AMRITSAR BENCH, IN THE CASE OF A.C. KAMRA VS . ITO , ITA NO.764(ASR)/1992 ORDER DATED 28.02.2001 RELATIN G TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 1990-91. IV) HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF C.I.T. VS . VEERDIP ROLLERS (P) LTD. 323 ITR 341. 8. WE HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES, PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELO W, INCLUDING THE CASE LAWS CITED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE CASE LAWS RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE, THE FACTS OF WHICH ARE ALMOST IDENTICAL TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. HOWEVER, A CAREFUL PERUS AL OF THE IMPUGNED APPELLATE ORDER, DATED 22.02.2010, OF THE LD. CIT(A ), CLEARLY REVEALS THAT THE LD. CIT(A), HAS CONSIDERED AND ADJUDICATED THE ISSU E, IN QUESTION, IN GREATER DETAIL, AFTER APPRECIATION OF THE EVIDENCES AND MAT ERIAL ON RECORD, AS ALSO THE LEGAL AND FACTUAL POSITION OF THE CASE. NEEDLESS TO SAY THAT THE IMPUGNED APPELLATE ORDER IS WELL REASONED AND BASED ON THE C OGENT AND CREDIBLE MATERIAL AND FACTS OF THE CASE. HOWEVER, IT WOULD P ERTINENT TO REPRODUCE ONLY THE CONCLUSIVE PART OF THE FINDINGS OF THE CIT (A), FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROPER APPRECIATION OF THE SAME, AS THE CIT(A) HAS CONSIDERED AND DISCUSSED ALL THE CASE LAWS RELIED UPON BY THE ASSE SSEE BEFORE HIM: ON DUE CONSIDERATION OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE, I F IND THAT THE APPELLANT HAS TRIED TO EXPLAIN THE VARIATION BUT H AS NOT BEEN ABLE TO FULLY EXPLAIN THE NECESSITY TO MENTION HIGH ER RATES OF GOODS TO THE BANK, THOUGH THE QUANTITY MENTIONED IN THE QUARTERLY STATEMENT WAS THE SAME AS SHOWN TO THE DE PTT. AS PER ITS AUDIT REPORT AND TO THE BANK. HENCE, I HOLD THA T THE AO IS JUSTIFIED IN REJECTING THE BOOK VERSION OF THE APPE LLANT BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 145 OF THE I.T.A CT, 1961. 8 HENCE, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE APPELLANT IS DI SMISSED. HOWEVER, AS REGARDS THE ADDITION MADE OF RS.11,31, 097, ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENCE IN VALUATION OF STOCK, KEE PING IN VIEW THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT AND THE CASE LAWS/ DECISIONS RELIED UPON THEREIN AND THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE AO, AS CONTAINED IN HIS ASSESSMENT ORDER, WHEREIN CERTAIN DISCREPANCIES IN THIS RESPECT HAS BEEN POINTED OUT, I DEEMED IT F IT TO RESTRICT THE ADDITION TO THE LUMP SUM AMOUNT OF RS.1,50,000/ - AS AGAINST THE ADDITION MADE OF RS.11,31,097/- BY THE AO (RS.5 0,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF VALUATION WHEAT, MAIDA, SUZI, ATTA, BRAN AND RS.1,00,000/- ON A/C OF VALUATION OF BARDANA). 8.1. IN THE LIGHT OF ABOVE DISCUSSIONS, WE DO NOT F IND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE FINDINGS OF THE CIT(A), AS THE SAME ARE BASED ON P ROPER APPRECIATION OF THE LEGAL AND FACTUAL POSITION OF THE CASE. ACCORDINGLY , GROUND NOS. 1 TO 4 RAISED BY THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. 9. GROUND NOS. 1 & 5 ARE GENERAL IN NATURE, HENCE, WE DO NOT CONSIDER IT ESSENTIAL TO ADJUDICATE THE SAME. 10. NOW, WE TAKE UP THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSE E, IN ITA NO.214(ASR)/2010 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08, W HERE FOLLOWING GROUNDS ARE RAISED: (1) WHETHER OR NOT THE LEARNED CIT(A) , BATHINDA WA S RIGHT IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE ACIT, RANGE-III, FEROZ EPUR, UNDER SECTION 145 OF THE ACT AND ON THE BASIS OF WHICH PA RTIAL ADDITION TO THE TUNE OF RS.1,50,000/- AGAINST THE TOTAL ADDI TION AMOUNTING TO RS.11,31,097/- WAS CONFIRMED BY RELYING ON FOLLO WING JUDGMENTS: COIMBATORE SPINNING AND WEAVINGCO. LTD. VS. CIT (1 974) 95 ITR 376 (MAD). DHANSI RAM AGGARWAL VS. CITY (1993) 201 ITR 192 (GAUHATI) PURAN LAL RAJ KUMAR VS. CIT 107 CTR 27 (CAL.) 9 CENTURY FOAM (P) LTD. VS. CIT 210 ITR 625 (ALL.) SWADESHI COTTON MILLS V. CYT (1989) 180 ITR 651 (A LL) SWADESI COTTON MILLS VS. CIT (1989) 125 ITR 33 (AL L) TRAVANCORE VS. CIT (1986) 158 ITR 102(SC) (2) THAT THE ASSESSEE CRAVES TO ADD OR AMEND ANY GR OUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE THE APPEAL IS DISPOSED OFF. 11. AS WE HAVE UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), ON THE ISSUE, IN DISPUTE, WHILE DECIDING THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE I N ITA NO.220(ASR)/2010, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE HAS BECOME INFRUCT UOUS AND THE SAME IS DISMISSED AS INFRUCUTOUS. IT IS ALSO IMPERATIVE TO MENTION HERE THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS CONSIDERED AND DISCUSSED ALL THE CASE L AWS RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 12. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE AS WELL AS BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. DECISION PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 13 TH JUNE, 2011. SD/- SD/- (H.L. KARWA) (MEHAR SINGH) VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 13 TH JUNE, 2011 /SKR/ COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : 1. THE ASSESSEE:M/S. ATAM RICE MILLS, ZIRA. 2. THE ACIT, RANGE-III, FEROZEPUR 3. THE CIT(A), BATHINDA. 4. THE CIT,BATHINDA. 5. THE SR DR, ASR.