The Dy. Commissioner Income-tax, Jalandhar V. Sh Nirmal Singh, Jalandhar

ITA 25/ASR/2015

• Counselvise Citation: 2520914 RSA 2015
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-08-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 09-01-2015
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: TARSEM LAL
• Assessee Lawyers: S S KALRA
• Keywords: Capital asset
• Section: 54; 54B

Judgement Text

I.T.A. NO. 2 5 /ASR/201 5 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 20 1 1 - 12 PAGE 1 OF 6 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR [CORAM: PRAMOD KUMAR AM AND A.D. JAIN JM] I.T.A. NO. 25 /ASR/201 5 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 20 11 - 12 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, . APPELLANT CENTRAL CIRCLE - I, J ALANDHAR. VS. NIRM AL SINGH, RESPONDENT S/O. S. MAHA SINGH, VPO SARMAST PUR, TEHIL KARTARPUR, JALANDHAR. [PAN: CUOPS 7202 J ] APPEARANCES BY: TARSEM LAL FOR THE APPELLANT S.S. KALRA FOR THE RESPONDENT DATE OF CONCLUDING THE HEARING: JUNE 11 , 20 15 DATE OF PRONOU NCING THE ORDER: AUGUST 31 , 2015 O R D E R PER PRAMOD KUMAR , AM : 1. BY WAY OF THIS APPEAL, THE ASSESSING OFFICER APPELLANT HAS CHALLENGED CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER DATED 13 TH OCTOBER 2014 PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN THE MATTER OF ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(3)/144 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT HEREINAFTER) , FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011 - 12, ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. (A) WHETHER THE DECISION OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS RIGHT IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.42,72,563/ - MADE B Y THE ASSESSING OFFICER (ON ACCOUNT CAPITAL GAIN), RELYING UPON DECISION IN THE CASE OF SANJEEV LAL VS. CIT REPORTED AS (2014) 269 CTR (SC) WHICH IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THIS CASE AND BY IGNORING THE FACTS SUBMITTED IN REMAND REPORT. (B) WHETHER THE LD. CIT ( A ) IS RIGHT IN ALLOWING DEDUCTION U/S 54B WHEN THE FINAL REGISTRY OF THE L A ND WAS NOT DONE TILL 30.10.2013 I.T.A. NO. 2 5 /ASR/201 5 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 20 1 1 - 12 PAGE 2 OF 6 2. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD OR AMEND THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ON OR BEFORE THE APP E AL IS HEAD AND DISPOSED OF 3. IT IS PRAYED TH AT THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) BE SET - ASIDE AND THAT OF THE A.O. BE RESTORED. 2. BRIEFLY STATED, THE RELEVANT MATERIAL FACTS ARE LIKE THIS. IT IS A CASE OF ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 147. DURING THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR, THE ASSESSEE HAD SOLD 25 MARLAS OF AGRICULTURAL LAND, FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS 46,87,500, TO DAV COLLEGE AND TRUST MANAGEMENT. ON 30 TH AUGUST, 2013, THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO SHOW CAUSE AS TO WHY THE CAPITAL GAINS OF RS 42,72,563 NOT BE BROUGHT TO TAX IN HIS HANDS. THE HEARING WAS SCH EDULED FOR 10 TH SEPTEMBER 2013. NONE APPEARED ON THAT DATE. IN THIS BACKDROP, AND WITHOUT GIVING ANY FURTHER OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE , THE ASSESSING OFFICER BROUGHT THE CAPITAL GAINS OF RS 42,72,563 IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE . HOWEVER, WHEN THE MATTER WAS CARRIED IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A), IT WAS POINTED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED ANOTHER PIECE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND FROM ONE JAGJIT SINGH, A US RESIDENT. THE ASSESSEE HAD PAID AN AMOUNT OF RS 45,35,050, VIDE CHEQUE DA TED 30 TH MAY 2010, OUT OF A TOTAL PURCHASE CONSIDERATION OF RS 56,25,000. WHEN THESE FACTS WERE BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR HIS COMMENTS, THE AO, VIDE REMAND REPORT DATED 24.9.2014, DID NOT DISPUTE THE ABOVE FACTS BUT ADDED THAT FIN AL REGISTRY HAS NOT YET TAKEN PLACE, THOUGH AS PER AFFIDAVIT OF THE SELLER FILED BY THE ASSESSEE , THE SELLER HAD GIVEN UNDERTAKING THAT HE WILL COMPLETE THE NECESSARY FORMALITIES IN HIS NEXT TRIP TO INDIA. IT WAS ALSO ACCEPTED BY THE AO THAT THE DIFFERENC E IS ONLY RS 1,52,450 WHICH IS BELOW THE TAXABLE LIMIT. IN THIS BACKGROUND, THE LEARNED CIT(A), RELYING UPON HONBLE SUPREME COURTS JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF SANJEEV LAL VS . CIT [(2014) 365 ITR 389 (SC)], ALLOWED THE EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 54 B TO THE EXTE NT OF RS 45,35,050. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS AGGRIEVED OF THE RELIEF SO GIVEN BY THE CIT(A) AND IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS, PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AND DULY CONSIDERED FACTS OF THE CASE IN THE LIGHT OF THE APPLIC ABLE LEGAL POSITION. 4. THE SHORT QUESTION THAT WE ARE REALLY REQUIRED TO ADJUDICATE IN THIS CASE WHETHER THE CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN RANTING EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 54B TO THE EXTENT OF RS 45,35,050, EVEN THOUGH SALE DEED IN RESPECT OF THE AGRICULTURAL L AND IN QUESTION WAS NOT EXECUTED IN I.T.A. NO. 2 5 /ASR/201 5 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 20 1 1 - 12 PAGE 3 OF 6 FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE . SECTION 54 B(1) COMES INTO PLAY, SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SUB - SECTION (2), ONLY WHEN THE CAPITAL GAIN ARISES FROM THE TRANSFER OF A CAPITAL ASSET BEING LAND WHICH, IN THE TWO YEARS IMMEDIATEL Y PRECEDING THE DATE ON WHICH THE TRANSFER TOOK PLACE, AND THE ASSESSEE HAS, WITHIN A PERIOD OF TWO YEARS AFTER THAT DATE, PURCHASED ANY OTHER LAND FOR BEING USED FOR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT THE PURCHASE DEED H AS NOT BEEN EXECUTED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BUT THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE AN ADVANCE FOR PURCHASE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND, AMOUNTING TO RS 45,35,050 / - . ON THIS BASIS, LEARNED CIT(A), RELYING UPON HONBLE SUPREME COURTS JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF SANJEEV LAL (SU PRA), ALLOWED THE EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 54 B. IN THE CASE OF SANJEEV LAL (SUPRA), THEIR LORDSHIPS HAVE, INTER ALIA, OBSERVED AS FOLLOWS: 20. + THE QUESTION TO BE CONSIDERED BY THIS COURT IS WHETHER THE AGREEMENT TO SELL WHICH HAD BEEN EXECUTED ON 27TH DECEMBER, 2002 CAN BE CONSIDERED AS A DATE ON WHICH THE PROPERTY I.E. THE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE HAD BEEN TRANSFERRED. IN NORMAL CIRCUMSTANCES BY EXECUTING AN AGREEMENT TO SELL IN RESPECT OF AN IMMOVEABLE PROPERTY, A RIGHT IN PERSONAM IS CREATED IN FAVOUR OF T HE TRANSFEREE/VENDEE. WHEN SUCH A RIGHT IS CREATED IN FAVOUR OF THE VENDEE, THE VENDOR IS RESTRAINED FROM SELLING THE SAID PROPERTY TO SOMEONE ELSE BECAUSE THE VENDEE, IN WHOSE FAVOUR THE RIGHT IN PERSONAM IS CREATED, HAS A LEGITIMATE RIGHT TO ENFORCE SPEC IFIC PERFORMANCE OF THE AGREEMENT, IF THE VENDOR, FOR SOME REASON IS NOT EXECUTING THE SALE DEED. THUS, BY VIRTUE OF THE AGREEMENT TO SELL SOME RIGHT IS GIVEN BY THE VENDOR TO THE VENDEE. THE QUESTION IS WHETHER THE ENTIRE PROPERTY CAN BE SAID TO HAVE BEEN SOLD AT THE TIME WHEN AN AGREEMENT TO SELL IS ENTERED INTO. IN NORMAL CIRCUMSTANCES, THE AFORESTATED QUESTION HAS TO BE ANSWERED IN THE NEGATIVE. HOWEVER, LOOKING AT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2(47) OF THE ACT, WHICH DEFINES THE WORD TRANSFER IN RELATION TO A CAPITAL ASSET, ONE CAN SAY THAT IF A RIGHT IN THE PROPERTY IS EXTINGUISHED BY EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT TO SELL, THE CAPITAL ASSET CAN BE DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN TRANSFERRED. RELEVANT PORTION OF SECTION 2(47), DEFINING THE WORD TRANSFER IS AS UNDER: 2(47) TRANSFER, IN RELATION TO A CAPITAL ASSET, INCLUDES, - (I). (II) THE EXTINGUISHMENT OF ANY RIGHTS THEREIN; OR 21. NOW IN THE LIGHT OF DEFINITION OF TRANSFER AS DEFINED UNDER SECTION 2(47) OF THE ACT, IT IS CLEAR THAT WHEN ANY RIGHT IN RESPECT OF ANY CAPITAL ASSET IS EXTINGUISHED AND THAT RIGHT IS TRANSFERRED TO SOMEONE, IT WOULD AMOUNT TO I.T.A. NO. 2 5 /ASR/201 5 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 20 1 1 - 12 PAGE 4 OF 6 TRANSFER OF A CAPITAL ASSET. IN THE LIGHT OF THE AFORESTATED DEFINITION, LET US LOOK AT THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE WHERE AN AGREEMENT TO SELL IN RESPECT OF A CAPITAL ASSET HAD BEEN EXECUTED ON 27TH DECEMBER, 2002 FOR TRANSFERRING THE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE/ORIGINAL ASSET IN QUESTION AND A SUM OF RS. 15 LAKHS HAD BEEN RECEIVED BY WAY OF EARNEST MONEY. IT IS ALSO NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE SALE DEED COULD NOT BE EXECUTED BECAUSE OF PENDENCY OF THE LITIGATION BETWEEN SHRI RANJEET LAL ON ONE HAND AND THE APPELLANTS ON THE OTHER AS SHRI RANJEET LAL HAD CHALLENGED THE VALIDITY OF THE WILL UNDER WHICH THE PROPERTY HAD DEVOLVED UPON THE APPELLANTS. BY VIRTU E OF AN ORDER PASSED IN THE SUIT FILED BY SHRI RANJEET LAL, THE APPELLANTS WERE RESTRAINED FROM DEALING WITH THE SAID RESIDENTIAL HOUSE AND A LAW - ABIDING CITIZEN CANNOT BE EXPECTED TO VIOLATE THE DIRECTION OF A COURT BY EXECUTING A SALE DEED IN FAVOUR OF A THIRD PARTY WHILE BEING RESTRAINED FROM DOING SO. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, FOR A JUSTIFIABLE REASON, WHICH WAS NOT WITHIN THE CONTROL OF THE APPELLANTS, THEY COULD NOT EXECUTE THE SALE DEED AND THE SALE DEED HAD BEEN REGISTERED ONLY ON 24TH SEPTEMBER, 2004, AFTER THE SUIT FILED BY SHRI RANJEET LAL, CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY OF THE WILL, HAD BEEN DISMISSED. IN THE LIGHT OF THE AFORESTATED FACTS AND IN VIEW OF THE DEFINITION OF THE TERM TRANSFER, ONE CAN COME TO A CONCLUSION THAT SOME RIGHT IN RESPECT OF THE C APITAL ASSET IN QUESTION HAD BEEN TRANSFERRED IN FAVOUR OF THE VENDEE AND THEREFORE, SOME RIGHT WHICH THE APPELLANTS HAD, IN RESPECT OF THE CAPITAL ASSET IN QUESTION, HAD BEEN EXTINGUISHED BECAUSE AFTER EXECUTION OF THE AGREEMENT TO SELL IT WAS NOT OPEN TO THE APPELLANTS TO SELL THE PROPERTY TO SOMEONE ELSE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. A RIGHT IN PERSONAM HAD BEEN CREATED IN FAVOUR OF THE VENDEE, IN WHOSE FAVOUR THE AGREEMENT TO SELL HAD BEEN EXECUTED AND WHO HAD ALSO PAID RS.15 LAKHS BY WAY OF EARNEST MONEY. NO DOUBT, SUCH CONTRACTUAL RIGHT CAN BE SURRENDERED OR NEUTRALIZED BY THE PARTIES THROUGH SUBSEQUENT CONTRACT OR CONDUCT LEADING TO NO TRANSFER OF THE PROPERTY TO THE PROPOSED VENDEE BUT THAT IS NOT THE CASE AT HAND. 22. IN ADDITION TO THE FACT THAT THE TER M TRANSFER HAS BEEN DEFINED UNDER SECTION 2(47) OF THE ACT, EVEN IF LOOKED AT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 54 OF THE ACT WHICH GIVES RELIEF TO A PERSON WHO HAS TRANSFERRED HIS ONE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE AND IS PURCHASING ANOTHER RESIDENTIAL HOUSE EITHER BEFORE O NE YEAR OF THE TRANSFER OR EVEN TWO YEARS AFTER THE TRANSFER, THE INTENTION OF THE LEGISLATURE IS TO GIVE HIM RELIEF IN THE MATTER OF PAYMENT OF TAX ON THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN. IF A PERSON, WHO GETS SOME EXCESS AMOUNT UPON TRANSFER OF HIS OLD RESIDENTIA L PREMISES AND THEREAFTER PURCHASES OR CONSTRUCTS A NEW PREMISES WITHIN THE TIME STIPULATED UNDER SECTION 54 OF THE ACT, THE LEGISLATURE DOES NOT WANT HIM TO BE BURDENED WITH TAX ON THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN AND THEREFORE, RELIEF HAS BEEN GIVEN TO HIM IN RESPECT OF PAYING INCOME TAX ON THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN. THE INTENTION OF THE LEGISLATURE OR THE PURPOSE WITH WHICH THE SAID PROVISION HAS BEEN INCORPORATED IN THE ACT, IS ALSO VERY CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE GIVEN SOME RELIEF. THOUGH IT HAS BEEN VERY OFTEN SAID THAT COMMON SENSE IS A STRANGER AND AN INCOMPATIBLE PARTNER TO THE INCOME TAX ACT AND IT IS ALSO SAID THAT EQUITY AND TAX ARE STRANGERS TO EACH OTHER, STILL THIS COURT HAS OFTEN OBSERVED THAT PURPOSIVE INTERPRETATION SHOULD BE GIVEN TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. IN THE CASE OF OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS V. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX [(2001) 3 SCC 359] THIS COURT HAS OBSERVED THAT A PURPOSIVE INTERPRETATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF I.T.A. NO. 2 5 /ASR/201 5 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 20 1 1 - 12 PAGE 5 OF 6 THE ACT SHOULD BE GIVEN WHILE CONSIDERING A CLAIM FOR EXEMPTION FRO M TAX. IT HAS ALSO BEEN SAID THAT HARMONIOUS CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROVISIONS WHICH SUBSERVE THE OBJECT AND PURPOSE SHOULD ALSO BE MADE WHILE CONSTRUING ANY OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT AND MORE PARTICULARLY WHEN ONE IS CONCERNED WITH EXEMPTION FROM PAYMENT OF TAX. CONSIDERING THE AFORESTATED OBSERVATIONS AND THE PRINCIPLES WITH REGARD TO THE INTERPRETATION OF STATUTE PERTAINING TO THE TAX LAWS, ONE CAN VERY WELL INTERPRET THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 54 READ WITH SECTION 2(47) OF THE ACT, I.E. DEFINITION OF TR ANSFER, WHICH WOULD ENABLE THE APPELLANTS TO GET THE BENEFIT UNDER SECTION 54 OF THE ACT. 23. CONSEQUENCES OF EXECUTION OF THE AGREEMENT TO SELL ARE ALSO VERY CLEAR AND THEY ARE TO THE EFFECT THAT THE APPELLANTS COULD NOT HAVE SOLD THE PROPERTY TO SOMEON E ELSE. IN PRACTICAL LIFE, THERE ARE EVENTS WHEN A PERSON, EVEN AFTER EXECUTING AN AGREEMENT TO SELL AN IMMOVEABLE PROPERTY IN FAVOUR OF ONE PERSON, TRIES TO SELL THE PROPERTY TO ANOTHER. IN OUR OPINION, SUCH AN ACT WOULD NOT BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW BECA USE ONCE AN AGREEMENT TO SELL IS EXECUTED IN FAVOUR OF ONE PERSON, THE SAID PERSON GETS A RIGHT TO GET THE PROPERTY TRANSFERRED IN HIS FAVOUR BY FILING A SUIT FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE AND THEREFORE, WITHOUT HESITATION WE CAN SAY THAT SOME RIGHT, IN RESPECT OF THE SAID PROPERTY, BELONGING TO THE APPELLANTS HAD BEEN EXTINGUISHED AND SOME RIGHT HAD BEEN CREATED IN FAVOUR OF THE VENDEE/TRANSFEREE, WHEN THE AGREEMENT TO SELL HAD BEEN EXECUTED. 24. THUS, A RIGHT IN RESPECT OF THE CAPITAL ASSET, VIZ. THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION HAD BEEN TRANSFERRED BY THE APPELLANTS IN FAVOUR OF THE VENDEE/TRANSFEREE ON 27TH DECEMBER, 2002. THE SALE DEED COULD NOT BE EXECUTED FOR THE REASON THAT THE APPELLANTS HAD BEEN PREVENTED FROM DEALING WITH THE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE BY AN ORDER OF A COMPETENT COURT, WHICH THEY COULD NOT HAVE VIOLATED. 25. IN VIEW OF THE AFORESTATED PECULIAR FACTS OF THE CASE AND LOOKING AT THE DEFINITION OF THE TERM TRANSFER AS DEFINED UNDER SECTION 2(47) OF THE ACT, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE APPELLANTS WERE EN TITLED TO RELIEF UNDER SECTION 54 OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN WHICH THEY HAD EARNED IN PURSUANCE OF TRANSFER OF THEIR RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY BEING HOUSE NO. 267, SECTOR 9 - C, SITUATED IN CHANDIGARH AND USED FOR PURCHASE OF A NEW ASSET/ RESIDENTIAL HOUSE. 5. CLEARLY, THEREFORE, THE ABOVE OBSERVATIONS ARE RELEVANT IN THE CONTEXT OF TRANSFER OF A CAPITAL ASSET BECAUSE, AS NOTED BY THEIR LORDSHIP, THE EVEN TRIGGERING TAXABILITY OF CAPITAL GAIN IS TRANSFER OF THE CAPITAL ASSET AND, IN VIEW OF THE DEFINITION OF TRANSFER UNDER SECTION 2(47), TRANSFER TAKES PLACE EVEN WHEN UPON EXTINGUISHMENT OF ANY RIGHTS IN THE ASSET TRANSFERRED. THAT IS NOT THE POINT OF DISPUTE BEFORE US. THE TRANSFER HAS TAKEN PLACE AND THAT ASPECT IS NOT IN DISPUTE. THE P OINT WHICH WAS TO BE ADJUDICATED IN THIS CASE WHETHER CONDITION OF PURCHASE WAS SATISFIED. HONBLE SUPREME COURTS JUDGMENT HAD LITTLE TO DO WITH THIS ASPECT OF THE MATTER. GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, IN PRINCIPLE, IS THUS I.T.A. NO. 2 5 /ASR/201 5 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 20 1 1 - 12 PAGE 6 OF 6 CORRECT TO THE LIMITED EXTENT THAT SANJEEV LAL DECISION (SUPRA) DOES NOT SQUARELY COVER THE ISSUE IN APPEAL . HOWEVER, THAT IS NOT THE END OF THE MATTER SO FAR AS THE ASSESSEE IS CONCERNED. THE MATTER IS STILL TO BE DECIDED ON MERITS OF THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE, EVEN WITHOUT DI RECT APPLIC A BILITY OF A FORESAID DECISION. WHILE DOING SO, THE LD . CIT (A) MAY ALSO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT SUBSEQUENT DEVELOPMENTS WHICH REAFFIRM OR OTHERWISE THROW MORE LIGHT ON THE EFFECT OF AGREEMENT TO SELL. WE ARE REMITTING THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF T HE LD. CIT(A) FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION ON SUCH OTHER ASPECTS AS THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED OR MAY RAISE, AFTER GIVING YET ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE , IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW AND BY WAY OF A SPEAKING ORDER. 6. THE MATTER THUS STANDS RESTO RED TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A) WITH THE DIRECTIONS AS ABOVE. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES IN THE TERMS INDICATED ABOVE. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT TODAY ON THE 31 ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2015. SD/XX SD/XX A D JAIN PRAMOD KUMAR (JUDICIAL MEMBER) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) DATED THE 31 ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2015 C OPIES TO: (1) THE APPELLANT (2) THE RESPONDENT (3) COMMISSIONER (4) CIT(A) (5) DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (6) GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR