Sh. Kewal Singh Alies, Muktsar V. The Income-tax Officer, Muktsar

ITA 27/ASR/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8906 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 11 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-01-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 18-11-2015
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 10-01-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Search and seizure
• Section: 147; 148; 132

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AMRITSAR BENCH; AMRITSAR (SMC) BEFORE SH. A.D. JAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.27(ASR)/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2006-07 PAN: CYVPS 7448M SH. KEWAL SINGH ALIAS VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, SH. SH. GURPREET SINGH, WARD-II(2), MUKTSAR. BATHINDA ROAD, MUKTSAR. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ITA NO.26(ASR)/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2006-07 PAN: BWVPS 5851B SH. LAKHWINDER SINGH VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, S/O SH. SH. GURPREET SINGH, WARD-II(2), MUKTSAR. BATHINDA ROAD, MUKTSAR. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ITA NO.108(ASR)/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2006-07 PAN: AAEHA 1787J SH.ASHOK KUMAR GOYAL, HUF VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BOMBAY HOSPITAL BUILDING, WARD-II(2), MUKTSAR. SADAR BAZAR, MUKTSAR. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY:SH.SUDHIR SEHGAL RESPONDENT BY: SMT. RATINDER KAUR, DATE OF HEARING: 23/11/2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 04/01/2016 ORDER THESE ARE THREE APPEALS FILED BY THREE DIFFERENT A SSESSEES, EACH FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07, AGAINST THE SEPARATE O RDERS, DATED 02.09.2013, 02.09.2013 & 24.12.2013 RESPECTIVELY, PASSED BY THE LD. ITA NOS. 27, 26 & 108(ASR)/2014 ASSESSMENTG YEAR: 2006-07 2 CIT(A), BATHINDA, INVOLVING THE COMMON ISSUES IN A LL THE APPEALS. THEREFORE, ALL THESE APPEALS ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. THE GROUNDS TAK EN IN ITA NO.27(ASR)/2014, WHICH ARE SIMILAR IN OTHER APPEALS , EXCEPT VARIATIONS IN AMOUNTS ARE AS FOLLOWS: 1. THAT THE WORTHY CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE AO IN REOPENING THE CAUSE BY ISSUING NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 AS THERE WAS NO VALID GROU ND FOR REOPENING OF THE CASE. 2. THAT THE ACTION OF THE WORTHY CIT(A) IN CONFIRMI NG THE ASSESSMENT AS FRAMED ON THE BASIS OF THE REASONS AS RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS AGAINST THE FA CTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 3. THAT THE WORTHY CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN NOT CONSIDE RING THAT THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE OF EXCESS MONEY PAID BY THE A SSESSEE AND STATEMENT OF SELLER WAS NEVER CONFRONTED TO THE ASSESSEE. 4. NOTWITHSTANDING THE ABOVE SAID GROUND OF APPEAL, IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE WORTHY CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFI RMING THE ADDITION OF RS.2,62,327/- MADE BY THE AO AS UNEXPLA INED INVESTMENT IN PLOT. 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT A SEARCH U/ S 132 OF THE ACT WAS CONDUCTED ON THE RESIDENTIAL PREMISES OF SH. RAJAN SATIA RESIDENT OF MUKTSAR. DURING THE SEARCH, A NOTE PAD WAS SEIZED. IT HAD DETAILS OF A DEAL OF 18 ACRES OF LAND AT VILLAGE CHAK BIR SARKAR BETWEEN YADWINDER SINGH BAWA AND SH. GURCHARAN SINGH AND SURJIT SINGH SONS OF SH. DALIP SINGH AND THEIR FAMILY MEMBERS. BAWA YADWINDER SIN GH FILED AN APPLICATION BEFORE THE INCOME TAX SETTLEMENT COMMIS SION, FOR AYS 2006- 07 & 2007-08 IN WHICH HE ADMITTED THAT ALTHOUGH TH E SALE DEED WAS EXECUTED BY THE SELLER FOR A SUM OF RS.93,22,500/- FOR 45 KANALS 12 MARLAS OF LAND, THE ACTUAL AMOUNT PAID BY HIM WAS OF RS.1,76,75,212/-. THUS, HE ADMITTED THAT HE HAD PAID ACTUAL PURCHASE CONSIDERATION AT THE RATE OF RS.19,837.40 PER MARLA (EXCLUDING REGISTRA TION CHARGES) FOR THE ITA NOS. 27, 26 & 108(ASR)/2014 ASSESSMENTG YEAR: 2006-07 3 LAND. THE INCOME TAX SETTLEMENT COMMISSION ACCEPTE D THE APPLICATION VIDE ORDER DATED 25.02.2009. THE DEPARTMENT ALSO AC CEPTED THE FACT THAT AS PER THE SEIZED RECORD, BAWA YADWINDER SINGH PUR CHASED/EXCHANGED 45 KANALS 12 MARLAS OF LAND. THE DEPARTMENT COLLECT ED INFORMATION REGARDING THE REMAINING LAND SOLD BY SH. DALIP SING H AND HIS SONS GURJIT SINGH AND GURCHARAN SINGH AND THEIR OTHER FAMILY ME MBERS. THE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO PURCHASED LAND FROM SH. DALIP SIN GH WHICH WAS PART OF KHEWAT NO. 61, 62, 23 AND 24, FROM WHICH THE SEL LERS SOLD THE LAND OF BAWA YADWINDER SINGH. THE AO ISSUED A NOTICE U/S 14 8 OF THE I.T. ACT TO THE ASSESSEE AFTER RECORDING REASONS. THE AO, VIDE ORDER SHEET ENTRIES DATED 02.12.2011 AND 16.12.2011 ASKED THE ASSESSEE AS TO WHY THE ACTUAL PURCHASE OF THE LAND PURCHASED ON 17.08.2005 FROM SH.DALIP SINGH BE NOT TAKEN, BECAUSE THE LAND WAS PURCHASED FROM THE SAME KHEWATS, IN WHICH THE LAND DEAL WAS MADE BY BAWA YA DWINDER SINGH WITH SH. SURJIT SINGH BROTHER OF SH. DALIP SINGH, W HO HAD ADMITTED BEFORE THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION THAT PURCHASE PRIC E INCLUDING ON MONEY, I.E., RS.19,837.50 PER MARLA WAS PAID BY HIM FOR THE PURCHASE OF THE LAND. THE AO MADE THIS ADDITION IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE AFTER CONSIDERING HIS REPLY. 3. ON APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(A) JUSTIFIED THE ACTION O F THE AO REGARDING ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S 148 ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION IN HIS POSSESSION AND SIMULTANEOUSLY CONFIRMED THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOU NT OF PAYMENT OF ON MONEY TO THE SELLER OF LAND. NOW, AGGRIEVED WITH THE ACTION OF THE LD. CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE ME. 4. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE AO IN REOPENING THE CASE BY ISSUING NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT, AS THERE WAS NO VALID GROUND FOR REOPENING THE CASE. HE FURTHER CONTENDED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE OF EXCESS MONEY PAID BY THE ASSESSEE AND THAT THE STATEMENT OF THE SELLER W AS NEVER CONFRONTED TO ITA NOS. 27, 26 & 108(ASR)/2014 ASSESSMENTG YEAR: 2006-07 4 THE ASSESSEE. HE PRAYED THAT THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE MAY BE REMITTED TO THE AO IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE ACTION OF THE LD. C IT(A) IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN PLOT IS AGAIN ST THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT T HE TRIBUNAL, VIDE ORDER DATED 27.03.2014, IN THE CASE OF SH. DALIP SI NGH S/O SH. JANG SINGH, THE SELLER, IN ITA NO.441(ASR)/2013 HAD UPHE LD THE ACTION OF THE AO IN ISSUING NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT; THAT, HOWE VER, VIDE ORDER DATED 25.05.2015, THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HAR YANA, IN THE APPEAL FILED BY THAT ASSESSEE IN ITA NO.284 OF 2014, WHILE ALLOWING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE, REMANDED THE MATTER TO THE AO, FOR TH E PURPOSE OF ASCERTAINING THE RATE AT WHICH THE ASSESSEE COULD H AVE SOLD HIS LANDS. THE LD. COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT IN ACCORDANCE WITH T HE ORDER OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT, IN THE CASE OF SH. DALIP SINGH, THE MATTER BE REMITTED TO THE FILE OF THE AO IN THE CASES OF THE PRESENT ASSESSEES ALSO. 5. THE LD. DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, RELIED ON THE ORD ERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 6. HAVING HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES, I FIND THAT THE T RIBUNAL, IN THE CASE OF SH. DALIP SINGH, VIDE ORDER DATED 27.03.2014 (SU PRA), DISMISSING THE ASSESSEES APPEAL, HELD AS FOLLOWS: 9. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE FACTS OF THE CASE. WE CONCUR WITH THE VIEWS OF THE LD. CIT(A ) THAT AS MENTIONED HEREINABOVE, A SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATI ON U/S 132(1) WAS CARRIED OUT AT THE PREMISES OF ONE SH. RAJAN SE TIA ON 24.10.2007 FROM WHERE CERTAIN DOCUMENTS WERE SEIZE D AND PERUSAL THEREOF REVEALED THAT CERTAIN TRANSACTIONS OF LAND SITUATED IN VILLAGE CHAK BIR SARKAR (MUKTSA) BETWEEN ONE SH. BAWA LALI ALIAS YADWINDER SINGH AND HIS FAMILY MEMBERS WITH SH. GU RCHARAN SING S/O SH. DALIP SINGH, SURJIT SINGH AND THEIR FAMILY MEMBERS OF VILLAGE BARKANDI. THEREAFTER, SH. LALI BAWA FILED AN APPLIC ATION BEFORE THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION ADMITTING THEREIN THE TRANSFE R OF IMPUGNED LAND @ RS.19,837.60 PER MARLA AS AGAINST RS.10.268/ - PER MARLA MENTIONED IN THE REGISTRATION DEEDS. THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION ACCEPTED THE APPLICATION OF SH. LALI BAWA VIDE ORDE R DATED 25.02.2009. THE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO SOLD HIS LANDS ME ASURING 571.5 MARLAS IN THE SAME VICINITY WHERE THE LANDS WERE SO LD BY THE ITA NOS. 27, 26 & 108(ASR)/2014 ASSESSMENTG YEAR: 2006-07 5 AFORESAID PERSON SH. YADWINDER SINGH. THE AO ACCORD INGLY APPLIED THE SALE RATE OF RS.19837.50 PER MARLA IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE FOR WORKING OUT THE LTCG AS AGAINST THE APPARENT CO NSIDERATION MENTIONED IN THE REGISTRATION DEEDS. WHILE APPLYING THE RATE OF RS.19837.50 PER MARLA, THE AO NOT ONLY TOOK INTO CO NSIDERATION, THE ORDER OF THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION IN THE CASE OF SH.YADWINDER SINGH BUT THE ADMISSION OF SH.SURJIT SINGH (BROTHER OF THE ASSESSEE) DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS MADE BEFORE THE AO WH EREIN HE HAD STATED THAT ON MONEY OTHER THAN THE REGISTERED PRIC E WAS RECEIVED BY HIM FURTHER, SH. BALDEV RAJ, SH. KISHORE CHAND AND SH. MALKEET SINGH (THE OTHER PERSONS WHO HAD PURCHASED PART OF THE LAND FROM THE SAME CHUNK OF LAND ON 16.05.2005 FROM THE ASSES SEE) ADMITTED THAT THE RATE OF RS.19837.50 PER MARLA MAY ALSO BE APPLIED IN THEIR CASES. ALL THESE FACTS GIVE A CLEAR CUT INDICATION THAT THE SALE PRICE MENTIONED IN THE REGISTRATION DEEDS DID NOT REFLECT THE TRUE MONEY THAT HAD EXCHANGED HANDS BETWEEN THE PURCHASERS AND THE SELLER. WHEN A CONCLUSION IS REACHED ON AN APPRECIATION OF A NUMBER OF FACTS, WHETHER THAT IS SOUND OR NOT MUST BE DETERMI NED, NOT BY CONSIDERING THE WEIGHT TO BE ATTACHED TO EACH SINGL E FACT IN ISOLATION, BUT BY ASSESSING THE CUMULATIVE EFFECT OF ALL THE F ACTS IN THEIR SETTING AS A WHOLE. THE FACTS OF THE CASE LEAD TO THE CONCL USION THAT AN AMOUNT OF CONSIDERATION @ RS.19837.50 PER MARLA EX CHANGED HANDS BETWEEN THE SELLER AND THE PURCHASERS. AT TH IS STAGE, IT MAY BE WORTHWHILE TO REFER TO THE JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF JUGGILAL KAMLAPAT V. CIT (1969) 73 ITR 702 (SC) WHEREIN THE HONBLE APEX COURT HAS HELD THAT IT IS WELL ESTABLISHED THAT TH E INCOME TAX AUTHORITIES ARE ENTITLED TO PIERCE THE VEIL OF CORP ORATE ENTITY AND LOOK AT THE REALITY OF THE TRANSACTION. THE COURT HAS P OWER TO DISREGARD THE CORPORATE ENTITY IF IT IS USED FOR TAX EVASION OR TO CIRCUMVENT TAX OBLIGATION OR TO PERPETRATE FRAUD. SIMILARLY, THE H ONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF WORKMEN OF ASSOCIATED RUBBER I NDUSTRY LIMITED VS. ASSOCIATED RUBBER INDUSTRY LIMITED REPORTED AT (1986) 157 ITR 77 (SC) HAS HELD THAT COURT CAN GO BEHIND AND LOOK INTO SUBSTANCE OF TRANSACTION. IT IS THE DUTY OF THE COURT, IN EVERY CASE WHERE INGENUITY IS EXPENDED TO AVOID TAXING AND WELFARE LEGISLATIO N TO GET BEHIND THE SMOKE SCREEN AND DISCOVER THE TRUE STATE OF AF FAIRS. THE COURT IS NOT TO BE SATISFIED WITH FORM AND LEAVE WELL ALONE THE SUBSTANCE OF A TRANSACTION. KEEPING IN VIEW THE ENTIRETY OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE ACTION OF THE AO IN DETERMINING TH E LTCG AT RS.55,93,517/- IN THIS CASE IS RIGHTLY UPHELD B TH E LD. CIT(A). 9.1. THE SALE RATE HAS BEEN APPLIED ON THE BASIS OF CONCRETE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD FOR WORKING OUT THE LO NG TERM CAPITAL GAIN BY THE A.O. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), WHO HA S RIGHTLY REJECTED THE GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE. THUS, GROUND NO.3 OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ITA NOS. 27, 26 & 108(ASR)/2014 ASSESSMENTG YEAR: 2006-07 6 10. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO.441(ASR)/2013 IS DISMISSED. 7. THE HONBLE HIGH COURT REMITTED THE MATTER TO TH E AO, HOLDING AS FOLLOWS: 4. BY AN ORDER DATED 06.02.2015, THE EARLIER DIVIS ION BENCH NOTICED THE SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS COUNSEL THAT THE ONLY ARGUMENT THAT HE PASSED WAS THAT EVEN IF IT IS ACCEPTED THAT A CONTIGUOUS PIECE OF LAND WAS SOLD @ RS.19,000/- PER MARLA, IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2006-07, THE SAID RATE COULD NOT BE APPLIED TO A TRANSACTION OF THE YEAR 2005-06. THE APPELLANTS TR ANSACTION PERTAINS TO THE YEAR 2005-06. THIS CONCESSION WAS R IGHTLY MADE AS THE PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTIONS 147 & 148 OF THE INC OME TAX ACT, 1961 (FOR SHORT, THE ACT) CANNOT BE FAULTED. THER E WERE SUFFICIENT GROUNDS FOR THE AUTHORITIES TO BELIEVE THAT INCOME HAD ESCAPED ASSESSMENT ON ACCOUNT OF THE APPELLANTS FAILURE TO POINT OUT ALL THE RELEVANT FACTS. 5. PRIMA FACIE, IT DOES NOT APPEAR THAT THE RATE OF ABOUT RS.5000/-, AS MENTIONED IN THE DOCUMENTS PERTAINING TO THE APPELLANTS TRANSACTION, ARE VERY LOW. THE ONLY REA SON WHY WE HAVE DECIDED TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORI TIES IS THAT THERE DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE EVEN ANY ATTEMPT AT ARRIVING AT THE REAL/ACTUAL RATE. THERE ARE CERTAIN ASPECTS WHICH R EQUIRE CONSIDERATION. FOR INSTANCE, THE RATE OF RS.19,837/ - PER MARLA WAS IN RESPECT OF THE TRANSACTION IN THE YEAR 2006-07 W HEREAS THE APPELLANTS TRANSACTION WAS IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR. T HERE IS A POSSIBILITY, TO SAY THE LEAST, OF THE PRICES HAVING INCREASED DURING THE YEAR. THERE ARE CERTAIN OTHER ASPECTS WHICH REQUIRE CONSIDERATION SUCH AS THE FACT THAT THE APPELLANTS LANDS WERE NO T ON THE MAIN ROAD BUT BEHIND THOSE WHICH ABUTTED THE MAIN ROAD AND THE LANDS ABUTTED THE MAIN ROAD FETCHED THE PRICE OF RS.19,83 7/- PER MARLA. 6. THE QUESTIONS OF LAW ARE, THEREFORE, ANSWERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE/APPELLANT, ONLY FOR THIS LIMITED REASON, N AMELY, THE AUTHORITIES OUGHT TO HAVE MADE AN EFFORT TO ASCERTA IN THE PRICE RATHER THAN MERELY RELYING UPON THE RTE AT WHICH THE LANDS WERE SOLD IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR. 7. THE APPEAL IS, ACCORDINGLY, ALLOWED. THE IMPUGNE D ORDER DATED 27.03.2014 (ANNEXURE A-7) IS SET ASIDE AND TH E MATTER IS REMANDED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER, ONLY FOR THE LIM ITED PURPOSE OF ASCERTAINING THE RATE AT WHICH THE APPELLANT COULD HAVE SOLD HIS LANDS. CONSIDERING THE NATURE OF THE MATTER, WE WOU LD REQUEST THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO COMPLETE THE EXERCISE WITHIN 1 2 WEEKS FROM TODAY. HE SHALL NOT ENTERTAIN ANY APPLICATION FOR A DJOURNMENT FROM THE APPELLANT. ITA NOS. 27, 26 & 108(ASR)/2014 ASSESSMENTG YEAR: 2006-07 7 8. THUS, IT IS SEEN THAT WHILE UPHOLDING THE REOPEN ING OF THE COMPLETED ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF SH. DALIP SINGH, THE HONBLE HIGH COURT REMITTED THE MATTER TO THE AO TO ASCERTAIN THE RATE AT WHICH SH. DALIP SINGH COULD HAVE SOLD HIS LANDS. AS NOTED HEREINABOVE, SH. ASHOK KUMAR GOYAL, HUF, THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO. 108(ASR)/2014 PURCHASED LAND FROM SH. DALIP SINGH, OUT OF THE SAM E KHEWATS, AS FROM WHICH, THE LAND DEAL WAS MADE BY BAWA YADWINDER SIN GH WITH SH. SURJIT SINGH BROTHER OF SH. DALIP SINGH, WHO HAD ADMITTED BEFORE THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION THAT PURCHASE PRICE INCLUDIN G ON MONEY, I.E., RS.19,837.50 PER MARLA WAS PAID BY HIM FOR THE PUR CHASE OF THE LAND. ACCORDINGLY, FINDING THE MATTER TO BE DIRECTLY CON NECTED WITH AND COVERED BY THE HIGH COURT DECISION IN THE CASE OF S H. DALIP SINGH (SUPRA), IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, THIS MATTER IS REMITTED TO THE FILE OF THE AO TO BE DECIDED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DIRECTIONS ISSUED BY THE HONBLE HIGH CURT IN THE CASE OF SH. DALIP SINGH (SUPRA). 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS TREATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 10. AS REGARDS THE APPEAL IN ITA NO.26(ASR)/2014 ( SH. LAKHWINDER SINGH, MUKTSAR), THE ISSUES RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE SIMILAR, AS DECIDED BY ME HEREINABOVE, IN ITA NO. 27(ASR)/2014. SINCE I HAVE RESTORED THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE AO IN ITA NO .27(ASR)/2014 TO BE DECIDED AFRESH, THIS APPEAL IS ALSO REMITTED TO THE FILE OF THE AO WITH THE DIRECTION TO DECIDE THE MATTER AFRESH AS DIRECTED H EREINABOVE. 11. AS REGARDS THE APPEAL IN ITA NO.108(ASR)/2014 ( SH. ASHOK KUMAR GOYAL, MUKTSAR), THE ISSUES RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE SIMILAR, AS DECIDED BY ME HEREINABOVE, IN ITA NO. 27(ASR)/2014. SINCE I HAVE RESTORED THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE AO IN ITA NO.27(ASR)/2014 TO BE DECIDED AFRESH, THIS APPEAL IS ALSO REMITTED TO THE FILE OF THE AO TO DECIDE THE ISSUE AFRESH AS DIRECTED HEREINABOVE. ITA NOS. 27, 26 & 108(ASR)/2014 ASSESSMENTG YEAR: 2006-07 8 12. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE THREE APPEALS ARE TREATE D AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 04/01/2016 . SD/- (A.D. JAIN) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 04/01/2016 /SKR/ COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE ASSESSEES:I) SH. KEWAL SINGH, (II) SH. LAKHW INDER SINGH, (III) SH. ASHOK KUMAR GOYAL, MANSA. 2. THE ITO, WARD-II(2),MUKTSAR. 3. THE CIT(A), BATHINDA. 4. THE CIT, BATHINDA 5. THE SR. DR, ITAT, ASR. TRUE COPY BY ORDER (ASSISTANT REGISTRAR) INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH: AMRITSAR.