M/s. Dashmesh Cotton & Oil Mills, Bathinda V. The Income-tax Officer, Bathinda

ITA 297/ASR/2013

• Counselvise Citation: 29720914 RSA 2013
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-09-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 20-09-2013
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 06-05-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AMRIK CHAND
• Section: 143(3); 142(1)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH; AMRITSAR. BEFORE SH. H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 297(ASR)/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2008-09 PAN :AABFD7126P M/S. DASHMESH COTTON & OIL MILLS, VS. INCOME TAX OF FICER, RAMAN. WARD 1(2), BATHINDA. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: WRITTEN SUBMISSION RESPONDENT BY: SH.AMRIK CHAND, DR DATE OF HEARING: 20/09/2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT:25/09/2013 ORDER THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL AGAINS T THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 19.02.2013 PASSED BY THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, BATHINDA ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. THAT THE AO HAS ERRED IN MAKING DISALLOWANCE O F RS.45,895/- AND THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE DISALL OWANCE OF RS.44,214; THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.44214/- MAY KIN DLY BE ALLOWED. 2 2. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE C APACITY OF THE PARTNER IS REQUIRED TO BE MENTIONED IN THE PART NERSHIP DEED AND IN ITS ABSENCE THE FIRM WOULD NOT BE ENTITLED T O INTEREST PAID AS DEDUCTION FROM ITS INCOME; ADDITION OF RS.44,214 /- SUSTAINED BY THE CIT(A) MAY KINDLY BE DELETED. 3. THAT GURBACHAN SINGH HUF WAS PAID INTEREST @ 4% P. A. ON THE CAPITAL TO ITS CREDIT WHICH IS REASONABLE AND SHOUL D HAVE BEEN ALLOWED AS DEDUCTION. EVEN AS A DEPOSITOR; THE ADDI TION OF RS.44,214 MAY KINDLY BE DELETED. 4. THAT THE FIRM IS HAVING THE SAME PARTNERS IN THE SA ME CAPACITY FOR THE LAST MANY YEARS AND EVEN IN THE LATER YEAR S AND THE DEPARTMENT HAS BEEN ACCEPTING THE POSITION ALL THES E YEARS. THERE IS NO CHANGE IN THE PARTNERSHIP DURING THE YE AR. THE ADDITION OF RS.44,214/- MAY KINDLY BE DELETED. 5. THAT IT IS A SETTLED LAW THAT QUA OTHER PARTNERS KA RTA REPRESENTING HUF NEED NO EVEN DISCLOSE HIS REAL STATUS. THEREFOR E, THE DISALLOWANCE IS UNWARRANTED AND THE ADDITION OF RS. 44,214/- SUSTAINED BY THE CIT(A) MAY KINDLY BE DELETED. 2. THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPLICATION WHICH WAS RECE IVED BY THE REGISTRY ON 02.09.2013 POINTING OUT SOME MISTAKE IN THE GROU NDS OF APPEAL, THE CONTENTS OF THE SAME IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER: SUB: RECTIFICATION OF GROUND NO.3 SIR, IT IS PRAYED THAT THE TIME OF FILING THE ABOVE ME NTIONED APPEAL IN GROUND NO. 3 IN THE FIRST LINE INTEREST @12% P .A. WERE MENTIONED WHILE ACTUALLY IT IS INTEREST @ 4% P.A. IT IS PR AYED THAT THE GROUND NO. 3 MAY KINDLY BE READ AS THE FOLLOWING GROUND N O.3: THAT GURBACHAN SINGH HUF WAS PAID INTEREST @ 4% P .A. ON THE CAPITAL TO ITS CREDIT WHICH IS REASONABLE AND SHOU LD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED 3 AS DEDUCTION EVEN AS A DEPOSITOR. THE ADDITION OF RS.44,214/- MAY KINDLY BE DELETED. 3. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FILED WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS IN SUPPORT OF ITS CLAIM, THE CONTENTS OF THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ARE REPRODU CED AS UNDER: 1. THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN ALL GROUNDS OF APPEAL IS COMMON. 2. M/S. DASHMESH COTTON & OIL MILLS, RAMAN EXECUTED A PARTNERSHIP DEED DATED 1 ST APRIL, 1998 IN WHICH THERE WERE TWO PARTIES NAMELY SH. GURBACHAN SINGH AND SMT. RUPINDE R KAUR. THE INTEREST WAS PAYABLE TO PARTNERS @ 4% P.A. AS A GAINST ADMISSIBLE 12% U/S 40B. 3. THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT OF GURBACHAN SINGH IN THE ACCOU NT BOOKS OF M/S. DASHMESH COTTON OIL MILLS, RAMAN AS ON 1.4.2 007 STOOD AT RS.11,05,372.43. THE INCOME FROM THIS ACCOUNT IS BEING ASSESSED IN THE HANDS OF GURBACHAM SINGH HUF AND EV EN IN THE ACCOUNT BOOKS OF THE SAID FIRM WORDS HUG ARE APPEAR ING IN THE NAME OF SH. GURBACHAN SINGH PARTNER. THE INTEREST I NCOME CREDITED TO THIS ACCOUNT WAS BEING SHOWN AND ASSESS ED IN THE HANDS OF GURBACHAN SINGH HUF IN THE PAST AND IN THE FUTURE IN ALL ASSESSMENTS WITHOUT ANY EXCEPTION. EVEN FOR THE CURRENT ASSESSMENT YEAR THE INTEREST INCOME OF RS.44,214.90 HAS BEEN ASSESSED IN THE HANDS OF GURBACHAN SINGH HUF. THERE FORE, THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT THIS CAPITAL AS WELL AS INTE REST BELONGS TO HUF OF GURBACHAN SINGH PARTNER. 4. THE AO WHILE DISALLOWING INTEREST OF RS.44,214.90 P AID TO GURBACHAN SINGH PARTNER ALLEGED THAT THE SAME IS NO T ALLOWABLE AS IN THE PARTNERSHIP DEED THE PARTY TO THE DEED IS GURBACHAN SINGH AND NOT GURBACHAN SINGH, HUF; IT WAS ARGUED T HAT IN THE PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT NATURAL PERSONS HAVE SIGN AND HUF CANNOT BE A PARTY TO THE DEED. 5. THE INTEREST OF RS.44,214.90 IS JUST 4% OF THE CAPI TAL OF THE PARTNER. EVEN IF THE SAME IS HELD NOT ALLOWABLE TO GURBACHAN SINGH, PARTNER EVEN RATE OF 4% ALLOWABLE TO A CREDI TOR IS ALSO 4 VERY MUCH REASONABLE AND RATHER ON A LOWER SIDE. TH EREFORE, THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION FOR DISALLOWANCE. 6. IT IS SETTLED LAW THAT THE PARTNER NEED NOT DISCLOS E HIS STATUS TO THE OTHER PARTNERS AND QUA OTHER PARTNERS HE MAY BE INDIVIDUAL THOUGH ACTUALLY HE IS REPRESENTING HIS HUF; 7. UNDER SECTION 184(3) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT THE FIRM ASSESSED AS FIRM WILL REMAIN TO BE ASSESSED AS A FIRM IF THERE IS NO CHANGE IN THE CONSTITUTION OF THE FIRM. IN THE CASE OF THE AP PELLANT THERE IS NO CHANGE IN THE CONSTITUTION AFTER 1.4.1998 AND T HEREFORE THE FIRM SHOULD CONTINUE TO BE ASSESSED AS FIRM AND CON SEQUENTLY INTEREST PAID TO THE PARTNERS SUBJECTION TO SECTION 40B IS ALLOWABLE AS A DEDUCTION. IN THE CASE OF THE FIRM T HE INTEREST TO PARTNERS HAS BEEN PAID ONLY @ 4% IN PLACE OF 12% AD MISSIBLE U/S 40B. 8. HENCE, IT IS PRAYED THAT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE BE ALLOWED AND ADDITION OF RS.44,214.90 SUSTAINED BY THE CIT(A ) BE DELETED. 4. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IN THE CAPACITY OF FIRM FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 19 .03.2008 AT AN INCOME OF RS.21,230/-, THE SAME WAS PROCESSED U/S 143(1) OF THE ACT ON 05.09.2009 AT THE SAME INCOME AND REFUND OF RS.360/- DETERMINED WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE. THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS TAKEN UP FO R SCRUTINY UNDER THE GUIDELINES OF THE CBDT FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2009- 10 AND THE STATUTORY NOTICES U/S 143(2) AND 142(1) WERE ISSUED TO THE A SSESSEE. IN RESPONSE TO THE SAME, THE AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSE SSEE APPEARED AND FILED THE REQUISITE INFORMATION AS REQUIRED BY THE A.O. 5 5. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO FURNISH COPY OF PARTNERSHIP DEED, WHICH WAS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE. AS PER THE PARTNERSHIP DEED, THE PARTNERS HIP IS CONSTITUTED BY THE PARTNERS, NAMELY, SH. GURBACHAN SINGH AND SMT. RUPI NDER KAUR. THE ASSESSEE WAS ALSO REQUIRED TO FURNISH COPIES OF PAR TNERS CAPITAL ACCOUNT, WHICH WERE ALSO FILED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING ASSESS MENT PROCEEDINGS. AFTER EXAMINING ALL THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE AO FOUND THAT NET PROFIT RATE OF RS.10,730/- AND INTEREST OF RS.44,214/- HAS BEEN CREDITED TO THE ACCOUNT OF SH. GURBACHAN SINGH HUF WHEREAS AS PER PARTNERSHIP DEED, SH. GURBACHAN SINGH IS APPARENTL Y PARTNER IN HIS INDIVIDUAL STATUS. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSEE WAS RE QUIRED TO EXPLAIN HOW THE AMOUNT OF SHARE PROFIT AND INTEREST HAS BEEN CREDIT ED TO THE ACCOUNT OF SH.GURBACHAN SINGH HUF. THE ASSESSEE VIDE REPLY DA TED 13.07.2010 HAS STATED THAT SH. GURBACHAN SINGH IS A PARTNER IN HUF CAPACITY AND JUST BECAUSE IT IS NOT SPECIFICALLY STATED IN THE PARTNE RSHIP DEED, HE DOES NOT CEASE TO BE A PARTNER. AFTER CONSIDERING THE REPLY FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ALONGWITH DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE, THE A.O. IS OF THE VIEW THAT SH. GURBACHAN SINGH IS A PARTNER IN INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY AS PER THE PARTNE RSHIP DEED BUT THE INTEREST OF RS.44,214/- HAS BEEN CREDITED TO THE ACCOUNT OF SH.GURBACHAN SINGH HUF. HENCE, THE TERMS OF THE INSTRUMENT PARTNERSHIP DEED ARE NOT BEING 6 FOLLOWED BY THE ASSESSEE-FIRM IN AS MUCH AS THE RIG HTS OF ONE OF ITS PARTNERS, WHICH IS VERY ESSENCE OF THE INSTRUMENT HAS BEEN VIOLATED BY THE ASSESSEE FIRM. THUS, THE AFFAIRS OF THE FIRM ARE NOT BEING R UN IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE INSTRUMENT OF PARTNERSHIP AND THUS THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 184 HAVE NOT BEEN COMPLIED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE INDIVIDUAL SHARE S OF THE PARTNERS HAVE BEEN SPECIFIED BUT THE SAME HAVE NOT BEEN TRANSFER RED TO THE PARTNERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PARTNERSHIP DEED. IN VIEW OF TH E FACTS, THE AO CONCLUDED THAT THE ASSESSEE-FIRM HAS FAILED TO COM PLY WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 184(1) OF THE ACT AND HE DISALLOWED DEDUCTI ON ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST AMOUNTING TO RS.44,214/- AND RS.1,6,81/- CREDITED T O SH. GURBACHAN SINGH AND SMT. RUPINDER KAUR RESPECTIVELY U/S 184 OF THE ACT AND COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT ON 13.08.2010. 6. AGGRIEVED BY THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 13.08.20 10, THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), WHO VIDE IMP UGNED ORDER DATED 19.02.2013 PARTLY ALLOWED THE APPEAL FILED BY THE A SSESSEE, BY UPHOLDING THE DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST AMOUNTING TO RS.44,214/- CREDITED TO THE ACCOUNT OF SH.GURBACHAN SINGH HUF AND DELETED INTEREST OF RS. 1,681/- CREDITED TO THE ACCOUNT OF SMT. RUPINDER KAUR. 7 7. NOW, THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED BY THE IMPUGNED O RDER DATED 19.02.2013 PASSED BY THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHOR ITY AND FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL. 8. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED AN APPLICATION ALONGWITH WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS AS REPRODUCED HEREINABOVE, IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE HA S STATED THAT THERE IS A MINOR CORRECTION IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL, WHERE TH E ASSESSEE HAS WRONGLY WRITTEN RATE OF INTEREST @ 12% P.A. INSTEAD OF 4% P.A. ON THE CAPITAL TO THE CREDITS OF THE PARTNERS. IN MY VIEW, THE MISTAKE CO MMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE IS UNINTENTIONAL AND DESERVES TO BE CORRECTED AND IT MAY BE TREATED AS UNDER: THAT GURBACHAN SINGH HUF WAS PAID INTEREST @ 4% P .A. ON THE CAPITAL TO ITS CREDIT WHICH IS REASONABLE AND SHOU LD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED AS DEDUCTION EVEN AS A DEPOSITOR. THE ADDITION OF RS.44,214/- MAY KINDLY BE DELETED. 8.1. IN THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS, IT WAS STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD EXECUTED A PARTNERSHIP DEED DATED 01.04.1998 IN WHICH THERE WERE TWO PARTIES NAMELY, SH. GURBACHAN SINGH AND SMT. RUPINDER KAUR. THE ASS ESSEE HAS DRAWN ATTENTION TOWARDS THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT OF SH. GURBAC HAN SINGH IN THE ASSESSEE-FIRM AS ON 1.4.2007 WHICH IS AT RS.11,05,3 72/-. THE INCOME FROM THIS ACCOUNT IS BEING ASSESSED IN THE HANDS OF SH.G URBACHAN SINGH HUF AND EVEN IN THE ACCOUNT BOOKS OF THE FIRM WITH WORDS H UF ARE APPEARING IN THE 8 NAME OF SH.GURBACHAN SINGH PARTNER. IT WAS FURTHER STATED THAT THE INTEREST INCOME CREDIT TO THIS ACCOUNT WAS BEING SHOWN AND A SSESSED IN THE HANDS OF SH.GURBACHAN SINGH HUF IN THE PAST AND IN THE FUTUR E IN ALL ASSESSMENT EARS WITHOUT ANY EXCEPTION. EVEN FOR THE CURRENT ASSESS MENT YEAR THE INTEREST INCOME OF RS.44,214/- HAS BEEN ASSESSED IN THE HAND S OF SH.GURBACHAN SINGH HUF. THEREFORE, THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT THIS C APITAL AS WELL AS INTEREST BELONGS TO HUF OF GURBACHAN SINGH PARTNER. IT WAS F URTHER STATED THAT THE REVENUE AUTHORITY HAS WRONGLY DISALLOWED THE INTER EST IN DISPUTE WHICH WAS PAID TO SH.GURBACHAN SINGH PARTNER BY HOLDING T HAT THE SAME IS NOT ALLOWABLE AS IN PARTNERSHIP DEED, THE PARTY TO THE DEED IS SH.GURBACHANA SINGH AND NOT GURBACHAN SINGH HUF. IT WAS STATED TH AT IN THE PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT NATURAL PERSONS HAVE TO SIGN AND HUF CANN OT BE A PARTY TO THE DEED. FINALLY, THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT KEEPING IN VIEW OF SECTION 184(3) OF THE ACT, THE FIRM ASSESSED AS FIRM WILL REMAIN TO B E ASSESSED AS A FIRM IF THERE IS NO CHANGE IN THE CONSTITUTION OF THE FIRM. IN TH E CASE OF THE ASSESSEE, THERE IS NO CHANGE IN THE CONSTITUTION AFTER 1.4.1998, TH EREFORE, THE FIRM SHOULD CONTINUE TO BE ASSESSED AS FIRM AND CONSEQUENTLY IN TEREST PAID TO THE PARTNERS SUBJECT TO SECTION 40(B) IS ALLOWABLE AS A DEDUCTIO N. THEREFORE, THE ADDITION IN DISPUTE MAY BE DELETED BY ACCEPTING THE APPEAL F ILED BY THE ASSESSEE. 9 9. ON THE CONTRARY, THE LD. DR, RELIED UPON THE ORD ER PASSED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITY. 10. I HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE R ELEVANT RECORD AVAILABLE ESPECIALLY, THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FILED BY THE AS SESSEE ALONGWITH CAPITAL ACCOUNT OF SH. GURBACHAN SINGH HUF FOR THE FINANCIA L YEAR 2007-08 AND FINANCIAL YEAR 2006-07. I AM OF THE VIEW THAT KEEPI NG IN VIEW SECTION 184(3) OF THE ACT, THE FIRM SHALL BE ASSESSED AS A FIRM FO R THE PURPOSES OF THIS ACT, IF THE PARTNERSHIP IS EVIDENCED BY AN INSTRUMENT AN D THE INDIVIDUAL SHARES OF THE PARTNERS ARE SPECIFIED IN THAT INSTRUMENT. IT I S ALSO CLEAR FROM THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT, WHERE A FIRM IS ASSESSED FOR ANY ASSESSMENT YEAR, IT SHALL BE ASSESSED IN THE SAME CAPACITY FOR EVERY SU BSEQUENT YEAR, IF THERE IS NO CHANGE IN THE CONSTITUTION OF THE FIRM OR THE SH ARES OF PARTNERS AS EVIDENCED BY THE INSTRUMENT OF PARTNERSHIP ON THE BASIS OF WHICH THE ASSESSMENT AS A FIRM WAS FIRST SOUGHT. NO DOUBT, IN VIEW OF SECTION 185 OF THE ACT, IF THE FIRM DOES NOT COMPLY WITH THE PROVI SIONS OF SECTION 184 OF THE ACT FOR ANY ASSESSMENT YEAR, THE FIRM SHALL BE SO A SSESSED THAT NO DEDUCTION BY WAY OF ANY PAYMENT OF INTEREST, SALARY, BONUS, C OMMISSION OR REMUNERATION, BY WHATEVER NAME CALLED, MADE BY SUCH FIRM TO ANY PARTNER OF SUCH FIRM SHALL BE ALLOWED IN COMPUTING THE INCOME CHARGEABLE UNDER THE HEAD PROFITS AND GAINS OF BUSINESS OR PROFESSION AND SUCH INTEREST, SALARY, 10 BONUS, COMMISSION OR REMUNERATION SHALL NOT BE CHAR GEABLE TO INCOME TAX UNDER CLAUSE (V) OF SECTION 28. IN MY VIEW, THE ASS ESSEE FULLY COMPLIED WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 184 OF THE ACT AND THE AO IN THE PREVIOUS YEARS HAS ALSO ASSESSED THE ASSESSEE IN THE CAPACITY OF FIRM BECAUSE THERE IS NO CHANGE IN THE CONSTITUTION OF FIRM OR SHARES OF PAR TNER AS EVIDENCED BY THE INSTRUMENT OF PARTNERSHIP ON THE BASIS OF WHICH TH E ASSESSMENT AS A FIRM WAS FIRST SOUGHT. AS PER RECORD, IT IS ALSO NOT DISPUTE D BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITY THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED ANY CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORIGINAL PARTNERSHIP DEED AND THERE IS NO CHANGE IN THE CONSTITUTION OF THE FIRM OR SHARE OF THE PARTNERS. IN MY VIEW, THE INTEREST IN DISPUTE I.E. AMOUNTING TO RS.44,214/- HAS WRONGLY BEEN DISALLOWED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORIT Y WHICH WAS CREDITED TO THE ACCOUNT OF SH.GURBACHAN SINGH HUF AS THE ASS ESSEE HAS CONTINUOUSLY ALLOWED THE CREDITS IN THE PREVIOUS YEARS, WHICH HA S ALREADY BEEN ALLOWED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITY WITHOUT RAISING ANY DISPUTE O N THE SAME. 10.1. IN MY VIEW, THE ASSESSEE IS HAVING THE SAME P ARTNERS IN THE SAME CAPACITY FOR THE LAST MANY YEARS AND THE DEPARTMEN T HAS BEEN ACCEPTING THE POSITION IN ALL THESE YEARS AND THERE IS NO CHANGE IN THE PARTNERSHIP DEED DURING THE YEAR IN DISPUTE. THEREFORE, THE ADDITION IN DISPUTE HAS WRONGLY BEEN MADE BY THE A.O. AND WRONGLY UPHELD BY THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, WHICH IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN THE EYE OF LAW. THEREFORE, I CANCEL THE 11 ADDITION IN DISPUTE I.E. AMOUNTING TO RS.44,214/- M ADE ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST AND CREDITED TO THE ACCOUNT OF SH.GURBACHAN SINGH H UF. ACCORDINGLY, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 12. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 25TH SEPT., 2013. SD/- (H.S. SIDHU) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 25 TH SEPT., 2013 /SKR/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE ASSESSEE:M/S. DASHMESH COTTON & OIL MILLS, RAMA N 2. THE ITO WARD 1(2), BATHINDA. 3. THE CIT(A), BATHINDA. 4. THE CIT, BATHINDA. 5. THE SR DR, ITAT, AMRITSAR. TRUE COPY BY ORDER (ASSISTANT REGISTRAR) INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AMRITSAR BENCH: AMRITSAR.