M/s. Prang Finance & Investment Co, Pvt.Ltd, Jammu V. The Income-tax Officer, Jammu

ITA 356/ASR/2013

• Counselvise Citation: 35620914 RSA 2013
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-01-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 02-01-2014
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 30-05-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Capital asset; Business income; Capital receipt
• Section: 143(3); 2(14); 56

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. NO.355(ASR)/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2004-05 PAN :APPLIED FOR M/S. RAINAWARI FINANCE & INVESTMENT VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, COMPANY PVT. LTD. WARD-2(2), JAMMU.. JAMMU. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) I.T.A. NO.356(ASR)/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2004-05 PAN :APPLIED FOR M/S. PRANG FINANCE & INVESTMENT VS. INCOME TAX OFF ICER, COMPANY PVT. LTD. WARD-2(2), JAMMU.. JAMMU. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANTS BY: SH.ASHWANI KUMAR, CA RESPONDENT BY:SH. TARSEM LAL, DR DATE OF HEARING: 02/01/2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT:30/01/2014 ORDER PER BENCH ; ITA NOS. 355 & 356(ASR)/2013 2 THESE TWO APPEALS OF DIFFERENT ASSESSEES ARISE FRO M TWO DIFFERENT ORDERS OF CIT(A), JAMMU EACH DATED 01.04.2013 FOR T HE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05. THE ISSUES INVOLVED IN BOTH THE APPEALS AR E IDENTICAL AND THEREFORE, BOTH THE APPEALS ARE BEING DECIDED BY THIS CONSOLID ATED ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 2. THE ASSESSEE IN THE CASE OF M/S. RAINAWARI FINAN CE & INVESTMENT COMPANY PVT. LTD. JAMMU IN ITA NO.355(ASR)/2013 HA S RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. THAT THE ORDER DATED 01.04.2013 PASSED U/S 250( 6) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT BY THE LD. CIT(A) JAMMU IS AGAINST L AW AND FACTS ON THE FILE IN AS MUCH AS HE WAS NOT JUSTIFIED TO UPHO LD THE ACTION OF AO IN MAKING AN ADDITION OF RS.1,00,75,000/- ON ACCOUN T OF ALLEGED REMISSION OF LIABILITY IN RESPECT OF UNSECURED LOAN S FROM BODIES CORPORATE ON THE UNJUSTIFIED AND ARBITRARY GROUND THAT THE SAME REPRESENTS THE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT COMPANY WITH IN THE MEANING OF SECTION 28(IV) READ WITH SECTION 2(24) OF THE IN COME-TAX ACT, 1961. 2. THAT THE ORDER DATED 01.04.2013 PASSED U/S 250(6 ) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT BY THE LD. CIT(A) JAMMU IS AGAINST L AW AND FACTS ON THE FILE IN AS MUCH AS HE WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN REJE CTING /DENYING CLAIM MADE BY THE APPELLANT COMPANY THAT IT HAD BECOME DE FUNCT AND NO ASSESSMENT COULD BE MADE AS THE REGISTRAR OF COMPAN IES HAD STRUCK OFF ITS NAME FROM THE RECORD UNDER THE PROVISIONS O F SECTION 56 OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 AND IT WAS NOT IN EXISTENCE ON THE RELEVANT DATE ON THE GROUND THAT THE CASE LAWS CITED IN SUPPORT O F SUCH ASSERTION ARE FOR COMPANY WHICH WERE DISSOLVED AND THERE WAS A DI FFERENCE BETWEEN A DISSOLVED COMPANY AND A DEFUNCT COMPANY. ITA NOS. 355 & 356(ASR)/2013 3 3. M/S. PRANG FINANCE & INVESTMENT COMPANY PVT. LT D; JAMMU IN ITA NO.356(ASR)/2013 HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF AP PEAL: 1. THAT THE ORDER DATED 01.04.2013 PASSED U/S 250( 6) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT BY THE LD. CIT(A) JAMMU IS AGAINST L AW AND FACTS ON THE FILE IN AS MUCH AS HE WAS NOT JUSTIFIED TO UPHO LD THE ACTION OF AO IN MAKING AN ADDITION OF RS.1,00,75,000/- ON ACCOUN T OF ALLEGED REMISSION OF LIABILITY IN RESPECT OF UNSECURED LOAN S FROM BODIES CORPORATE ON THE UNJUSTIFIED AND ARBITRARY GROUND THAT THE SAME REPRESENTS THE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT COMPANY WITH IN THE MEANING OF SECTION 28(IV) READ WITH SECTION 2(24) OF THE IN COME-TAX ACT, 1961. 2. THAT THE ORDER DATED 01.04.2013 PASSED U/S 250(6 ) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT BY THE LD. CIT(A) JAMMU IS AGAINST L AW AND FACTS ON THE FILE IN AS MUCH AS HE WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN REJE CTING /DENYING CLAIM MADE BY THE APPELLANT COMPANY THAT IT HAD BECOME DE FUNCT AND NO ASSESSMENT COULD BE MADE AS THE REGISTRAR OF COMPAN IES HAD STRUCK OFF ITS NAME FROM THE RECORD UNDER THE PROVISIONS O F SECTION 56 OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 AND IT WAS NOT IN EXISTENCE ON THE RELEVANT DATE ON THE GROUND THAT THE CASE LAWS CITED IN SUPPORT O F SUCH ASSERTION ARE FOR COMPANY WHICH WERE DISSOLVED AND THERE WAS A DI FFERENCE BETWEEN A DISSOLVED COMPANY AND A DEFUNCT COMPANY. 4. FIRST OF ALL, WE TAKE UP OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE CASE OF M/S. RAINWARI FINANCE & INVESTMENT CO.(P) LTD. IN ITA NO.355(ASR )/2013 FOR THE A.Y. 2004-05 AND OUR DECISION HEREBELOW IN THIS APPEAL S HALL BE IDENTICALLY APPLICABLE IN ITA NO.356(ASR)/2013 IN THE CASE OF P RANG FINANCE & INVESTMENT CO. PVT. LTD; AS MENTIONED HEREINABOVE. ITA NOS. 355 & 356(ASR)/2013 4 5. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE AS ARISING FROM AO S ORDER AT PAGES 2 TO 5 ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE : DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, IT WA S NOTICED THAT THE UNSECURED LOANS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AMOUNTING T O RS.1,00,75,000/- WERE WAIVED OFF BY THE OTHER COMPA NIES (THE MORKUTIR INVESTMENTS AND THE MAHARASHTRA DISTILLERI ES) OF WHICH NO FULL ADDRESS AND OTHER DETAILS ETC. WERE FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WAS ASKED AS TO W HY AN ADDITION OF RS.1,00,75,000/-MAY NOT BE MADE TO ITS INCOME AS THE SAME HAS BEEN CREDITED TO CAPITAL RESERVE IN THE BALANCE SHE ET OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH WAS THE SURROUNDED MONEY OF ANOTHER COMPANY T AKEN AS UNSECURED LOAN BY THE ASSESSEE. IN RESPONSE TO THIS, THE ASSESSEE COMPANY INTIMATED VIDE PARA 7 OF LETTER DATED 01.12.2005 THAT: THE PRE-CONDITION FOR TAXING ANY AMOUNT U/S 41(1) IS THAT SAME SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED AS EXPENDITURE OR AN Y TRADING LIABILITY. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE SAME WAS IN THE NATURE OF LOAN GIVEN BY THE COMPANY. AGAIN VIDE LETTER DATED 30.01.2006, THE ASSESSEE INTIMATED THAT THE CAPITAL GAIN ARISE ONLY IN CASE OF TRANSFER OF A CAPITAL AND SECTION 2(47) OF THE ACT DEFINES TRAN SFER WHEREAS SECTION 2(14) DEFINES CAPITAL ASSET. IN THE ABOVE CASE NEITHER THE UNSECURED LOAN NOR INTEREST ACCRUED THERE ON WAS A CAPITAL ASSET AS ALSO THE WAIVER THEREOF WAS A TRANSFER BY THE ASSES SEE COMPANY. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WAS INTIMATED VIDE THIS OFFIC E LETTER NO. ITO/W-II(2)/JMU/2005-06/1323 DATED 17.02.2006 THAT NO QUESTION OF CAPITAL GAIN WAS RAISED BY THIS OFFICE ON THE CONTR ARY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WAS ASKED AS TO WHY RS.1,00,75,000/- MAY NO T BE ADDED TO ITS INCOME AS A BUSINESS INCOME IN TERMS OF SECTION 2(24) READ WITH SECTION N28 F THE ACT. IN RESPONSE TO THIS LETTER THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AG AIN INTIMATED THAT: AS FAR AS YOUR PROPOSAL TO CHARGE TAX ON NON RECO VERY OFF LOAN OF RS.1,00,75,000/- U/S 2(24) R.W.S. 28 OF THE ACT IS CONCERNED, WE OBJECT TO THE SAME ON THE GROUND THAT IT DOES NOT C ONTAIN ANY INCOME ITA NOS. 355 & 356(ASR)/2013 5 ELEMENT. THE NON RECOVERY OF LOAN CANNOT BE CONSIDE RED AS PROFIT & GAINS OF BUSINESS. THE BUSINESS LIABILITY IS TAXABL E U/S 41(1) ONLY IF THE SAME WAS ALLOWED AS ADMISSIBLE DEDUCTION IN ANY EARLIER YEAR. THE AMOUNT OF RS.1,00,75,000/- WAS NEVER CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE AS ADMISSIBLE DEDUCTION AND HENCE THE SAME CANNOT BE T AXED U/S 41(1). IN THIS REGARD, THE ASSESSEE RELIED ON THE DECISION IN 155 TAXMAN 90. AFTER TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION ALL THE FACTS ENUM ERATED ABOVE, I HOLD THE VIEW THAT EVEN IF A RECEIPT DOES NOT FALL WITHIN THE AMBIT IN ANY OF THE SUB-CLAUSES IN SECTION 2(24) IT MAY STIL L BE INCOME IF IT PARTAKES OF THE NATURE OF THE INCOME. THE IDEA BEHI ND PROVIDING INCLUSIVE DEFINITION IN SECTION 2(24) IS NOT TO LIM IT ITS MEANING BUT TO WIDEN ITS NET. THE WORD INCOME IS OF WIDEST AMPLI TUDE AND IT MUST BE GIVEN ITS NATURAL AND GRAMMATICAL MEANING. THE W ORD INCOME IN SECTION 2(24) IS AN INCLUSIVE DEFINITION. IT ADDS S EVERAL ARTIFICIAL CATEGORIES TO THE CONCEPT OF INCOME BUT ON THAT ACC OUNT THE EXPRESSION INCOME DOES NOT LOSE ITS NATURAL CONNOTATION. THUS , ANYTHING WHICH CAN PROPERLY BE DESCRIBED AS INCOME IS TAXABLE UNDE R THE ACT UNLESS OF COURSE IT IS EXEMPTED UNDER ONE OR THE OTHER PROVIS IONS OF THE ACT AS HAS BEEN HELD BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA IN THE CASE OF EMIL WEBBER VS. CIT 200 ITR 483 (SC). AS PER THE PARA IST OF THE QUESTIONER ISSUED ON 09 .11.2005 THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WAS ASKED TO PROVIDE THE DETAILS R EGARDING THE NATURE OF BUSINESS BEING CARRIED. TO THIS THE ASSES SEE COMPANY REPLIED VIDE LETTER DATED 02.12.2005 THAT THE COMPANY DID N OT CARRY ANY BUSINESS DURING THE YEAR. HOWEVER, AS PER PARA 4 TH OF THE MEMORANDUM OF ASSOCIATION OF COMPANY, IT IS MENTION ED THAT TO INVEST THE CAPITAL AND OTHER FUNDS OF THE COMPANY F OR FINANCING INDUSTRIAL, COMMERCIAL AND TRADING ENTERPRISES AND UNDERTAKINGS OF ALL DESCRIPTION AS THE COMPANY MAY THINK FIT. AN D AS PER PARA 5 OF SECTION (B) )THE OBJECTS INCIDENTAL OR ANCILLARY TO THE ATTAINMENT OF THE MAIN OBJECTS THE COMPANY) IS TO UNDERTAKE FINA NCIAL AND COMMERCIAL OBLIGATIONS, TRANSACTION AND OPERATION OF ALL KINDS WHICH ARE CONDUCIVE TO THE CONDUCT OF THE COMPANYS BUSIN ESS AND SIMILARLY AS PER PARA 13 TH TO AMALGAMATE OR TO ENTER INTO PARTNERSHIP OR INTO ANY ARRANGEMENT FOR SHARING PRO FITS. WHICH THE COMPANY IS AUTHORIZED TO CARRY ON . HENCE, ALL THE TRANSACTIONS MADE WITH THE HOLDING COMPANIES DURING THE YEAR ARE OF T HE NATURE OF BUSINESS TRANSACTIONS. ITA NOS. 355 & 356(ASR)/2013 6 THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF HOSHIARPU R ELECTRIC SUPPLY CO. VS. CIT (1961) 41 ITR 608 (SC) HAS HELD THAT CLASSIFICATION OF THE RECEIPTS IN THE FORM OF ACCOUNTS IS NOT OF A NY IMPORTANCE IN CONSIDERING WHETHER THE RECEIPT IS TAXABLE AS REVEN UE RECEIPT. ALSO IN THE CASE OF KETTLEWELL BULLEN & CO. LTD. V S. CIT (1964) 53 ITR 261 (SC) HAS BEEN HELD THAT THE FORM IN WHIC H THE TRANSACTION WHICH GIVES RISE TO INCOME IS CLOTHED AND THE SAME WHICH IS GIVEN TO IT ARE IRRELEVANT IN ASSESSING THE ELIGIBILITY OF RECE IPT ARISING FROM A TRANSACTION TO TAX. SIMILARLY IN THE FOLLOWING TWO COURT CASES THE RAT IO OF THE JUDGMENT IS TOTALLY IDENTICAL WITH THE ISSUE IN HAN D ALTHOUGH THE FACTS ARE SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT. THERE IS NO DISPUTE IN THE INSTANT CASE ALSO THAT THE MONEY WAS RECEIVED IN THE COURSE OF THE CARRYING ON THE BUSIN ESS OF THE ASSESSEE AND MONEYS HAD ARISEN OUT OF ORDINARY TRADING TRANS ACTIONS. ALTHOUGH THE AMOUNTS RECEIVED ORIGINALLY WERE NOT OF INCOME NATURE, THE AMOUNT REMAINED WITH THE ASSESSEE FOR A LONG PERIOD , IS NOW NO LONGER PAYABLE AND BECAME A DEFINITE TRADE SURPLUS . WHERE A NEW ASSET CAME INTO BEING AUTOMATICALLY BY OPERATION OF LAW OR MUTUAL UNDERSTANDING AMONGST THE PARTIES, COMMONSENSE DEMA NDED THAT THE AMOUNT SHOULD BE ENTERED IN THE P & L ACCOUNT FOR T HE YEAR AND BE TREATED AS TAXABLE INCOME. IN OTHER WORDS, THE PRIN CIPLE APPEARS TO BE THAT IF AN AMOUNT IS RECEIVED IN THE COURSE OF TRAD ING TRANSACTION, EVEN THOUGH IT IS NOT TAXABLE IN THE YEAR OF RECEIPT AS BEING OF REVENUE CHARACTER, THE AMOUNT CHANGES ITS CHARACTER WHEN TH E AMOUNT BECOMES THE ASSESSEES OWN MONEY BECAUSE OF ANY OTH ER STATUTORY OR CONTRACTUAL RIGHT. WHEN SUCH A THING HAPPENS, COMMO NSENSE DEMANDS THAT THE AMOUNT SHOULD BE TREATED AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. IN VIEW OF THE FACTS DISCUSSED ABOVE, I HOLD THIS AMOUNT OF RS.1,00,75,000/- REPRESENTS THE INCOME OF THE ASSES SEE COMPANY WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 28(IV) READ WITH SECT ION 2(24) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 AND ACCORDINGLY CHANGE THE SAM E TO TAX. 6. THE LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE ASSES SING OFFICER. ITA NOS. 355 & 356(ASR)/2013 7 7. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, MR. ASHWANI KU MAR, CA ARGUED AT THE OUTSET THAT THE BUSINESS LIABILITY IS TAXABLE UNDER SECTION 41(1) OF THE ACT ONLY IF THE SAME WAS ALLOWED AS ADMISSIBLE DEDUCTI ON IN ANY EARLIER YEAR. THE AMOUNT OF RS.1,00,75,000/- WAS NEVER CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE AS ADMISSIBLE DEDUCTION AND HENCE THE SAME CANNOT BE T AXED U/S 41(1) OF THE ACT. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ARGUED THAT T HE CAPITAL RESERVE REPRESENTING UNSECURED LOANS RAISED FROM BODIES COR PORATE DID NOT REPRESENT THE TRADING RECEIPTS. THE SAID AMOUNTS WE RE NOT RECEIVED IN THE COURSE OF TRADING TRANSACTIONS AND AS SUCH WILL NO T BE TAXABLE EITHER IN THE YEAR OF RECEIPT OR AT ANY TIME SUBSEQUENTLY WHEN THE CORRESPONDING LIABILITY STOOD REMITTED. THEREFORE, THE PRINCIPLE SOUGHT TO BE INVOKED BY THE A.O. IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTAN CES OF THE PRESENT CASE. IT WAS ARGUED THAT THE RECEIPT IS CAPITAL IN NATURE BY ITS CHARACTER IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY DEFINITE CONDUCT OF THE PARTIES INVO LVED OR ANY STATUTORY FORMULATION DOES NOT CHANGE EVEN THOUGH IT REMAIN ED WITH AN ASSESSEE FOR A LONG PERIOD AND WAS SUBSEQUENTLY REMITTED I.E. CAPI TAL RECEIPT DOES NOT ACQUIRE THE CHARACTER OF A REVENUE RECEIPT EVEN THO UGH IT MIGHT REMAIN WITH AN ASSESSEE FOR A SUBSTANTIAL LENGTH OF TIME. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE READ THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 41(1) OF TH E ACT AND ARGUED THAT WHERE AN ASSESSEE HAS INCURRED A TRADING LIABILITY AND THIS TRADING LIABILITY ITA NOS. 355 & 356(ASR)/2013 8 HAS ALLOWED DEDUCTION IN AN EARLIER YEAR AND SOMETH ING HAS, LATER ON, BEEN RECOVERED IN RESPECT OF SUCH LIABILITY AND SUCH LIA BILITY HAS EITHER BEEN REMITTED OR HAS CEASED TO EXIST, ONLY THEN SECTION 41(1) WILL COME INTO OPERATION. THEREFORE, UNSECURED LOANS ARE ENDOWED WITH THE CHARACTER OF CAPITAL RECEIPTS AND CANNOT BE CLASSIFIED AS TRADIN G LIABILITIES IN ANY MANNER. HE RELIED UPON THE DECISIONS OF VARIOUS COURTS OF L AW, AS RELIED UPON BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). HE ALSO ARGUED THAT THE DECISIONS RELIED UPON BY THE AO ARE NOT APPLICABLE IN THE PRESENT FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANC ES OF THE CASE, ON THE SIMILAR LINES, AS SUBMITTED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). 7.1. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ARGUED THAT T HE COMPANY HAD CEASED TO EXIST AND HAD BEEN DECLARED DEFUNCT BY VIRTUE OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 566 OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956, AS IS EVIDENT FROM THE COMPANY MASTER DATA OBTAINED FROM RECORDS OF THE MINISTRY OF CORPORATE AFFAIRS, COPY PLACED ON RECORD. THE SAID FACT OF THE COMPANY BEING DECLARE D AS A DEFUNCT COMPANY WAS ALSO DISCLOSED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED FO R THE YEAR UNDER DISPUTE. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE COMPANY CEASED TO EXIST AS ON THE DATE OF ASSESSMENT AND THEREFORE, ASSESSMENT COULD NOT HAVE BEEN MADE ON THE SAME. HE RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF THE DELHI BENCH OF ITAT IN THE CASE OF IMPSAT (P) LTD. VS. ITO (2005) 92 TTJ (DEL) 552 WHICH PROPOSITION H AS SUBSEQUENTLY BEEN ITA NOS. 355 & 356(ASR)/2013 9 AFFIRMED BY THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CAS E OF CIT VS. VIVED MARKETING SERVICING PVT. LTD. ( ITA NO.273/2009).S 7.2. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE WITH REGARD T O SECTION 28(IV) READ WITH SECTION 2(24) OF THE ACT ARGUED THAT INCOME IS DEFINED IN SECTION 2(24) IN AN INCLUSIVE MANNER WHICH LISTS OUT SEVERAL CLAU SES WHICH WOULD FALL WITHIN THE DEFINITION OF INCOME. EVEN IF A RECEIP T DOES NOT FALL WITHIN THE AMBIT OF ANY OF THE CLAUSE SPECIFIED THEREIN, IT WO ULD STILL BE INCOME IF IT PARTAKES THE CHARACTER THEREOF. THEREFORE, THE WORD INCOME SHOULD BE GIVEN ITS NATURAL AND GRAMMATICAL MEANING AND SHOULD BE C ONSTRUED TO ENCOMPASS ONLY SUCH THINGS WHICH ARE INCOME ACCORDING TO T HE NORMAL IMPORT OF THE TERM. SECTION 4 OF THE ACT BRINGS TO CHARGE ON TOT AL INCOME OF PRIMA FACIE, IN ORDER TO COME WITHIN THE SCOPE OF INCOME, THE RE CEIPT IN QUESTION SHOULD NORMALLY BE A REVENUE RECEIPT AND CAPITAL RECEIPTS ARE NORMALLY EXEMPTED. HOWEVER, CERTAIN CAPITAL RECEIPTS HAVE BEEN SPECIFI CALLY INCLUDED IN THE DEFINITION OF INCOME IN THE ACT ITSELF INCLUDING S ECTION 28 OF THE ACT. THE INCOME SHOULD ARISES FROM CERTAIN SOURCE OF INCOME I.E. FIVE HEADS I.E. SALARY, BUSINESS OR PROFESSION, HOUSE PROPERTY, CAP ITAL GAINS AND OTHER SOURCES. 7.3. HE FURTHER ARGUED THAT THERE IS NO DISTINCTION GIVEN BY THE ACT WITH REGARD TO THE CAPITAL RECEIPT AND REVENUE RECEIPT B UT RECEIPT REVENUE BUT ITA NOS. 355 & 356(ASR)/2013 10 RECEIVE RECEIPTS IS TAXABLE AS INCOME, UNLESS IT IS EXPRESSLY EXEMPT UNDER THE ACT. ON THE OTHER HAND, A CAPITAL RECEIPT IS GENERA LLY EXEMPT UNLESS IT HAS EXPRESSLY BEEN MADE TAXABLE. HE RELIED UPON THE DEC ISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF KETTLEWELL BULLEN & CO . LTD. V. CIT (1984) 53 ITR 261 (SC). IN ANY CASE, THIS DEFINITION OF SECT ION 2(24) DOES NOT COVER ANY RECEIPTS ON ACCOUNT OF REMISSION OF A TRADING L IABILITY. 7.4. AS REGARDS SECTION 28(IV) OF THE ACT, WHICH WA S READ BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, IT WAS ARGUED BY THE LD. COUNSEL THAT THE SAID CLAUSE WAS INSERTED BY THE FINANCE ACT, 1964 WITH REGARD TO THE VALUE OF ANY BENEFIT OR PERQUISITE, WHETHER CONVERTIBLE INTO MON EY OR NOT, ARISING FROM BUSINESS OR THE EXERCISE OF A PROFESSION. THEREFORE , SECTION 28(IV) OF THE ACT, CAN BE INVOKED IN RESPECT OF BENEFIT OR PERQUISITE OTHER THAN CASH. THEREFORE, REMISSION OF LIABILITY CANNOT BE SOUGHT TO BE TAXED WITH REFERENCE TO SECTION 28(IV). HE RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE COMMISSIONER OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX VS. K ERALA ESTATE (1986) 161 ITR 155 (SC), HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF MAHINDRA AND MAHINDRA LTD. VS. CIT (2003) 261 ITR 501 (BOM.), HO NBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. ALCHEMIC PVT. LTD. (19 81) 130 ITR 168 (GUJ.) AND IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. NEW INDIA INSURANCE LTD. (1993) 201 ITR 208 ITA NOS. 355 & 356(ASR)/2013 11 (GUJ) AND HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. JUBILIANT SECURITIES PVT. LTD. (2011) 333 ITR 386 (DELHI) . 7.5. THE LD. COUNSEL FURTHER ARGUED THAT THE COMPA NY DID NOT CARRY ON ANY BUSINESS ACTIVITY AND THEREFORE THE QUESTION OF TRADING LIABILITY ARISING THEREFROM AND CONSEQUENT TAXABILITY ON ACCOUNT OF R EMISSION DOES NOT ARISE. HE RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE DELHI HI GH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. JUBILIANT SECURITIES PVT. LTD. (2011) 333 I TR 386, AS MENTIONED HEREINABOVE. 7.6 HE ALSO ARGUED THAT HE HAS RAISED AN ADDITIONA L GROUND OF APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AS UNDER: THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 21.12.06 PASSED U/ S 143(3) BY THE LD. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(2), JAMMU IS AGAINST THE LAW AND FACTS ON THE FILE IN AS MUCH AS THE ORDER DATED 21. 12.06 PASSED BY HIM IS ILLEGAL IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE COMPANY HAD ALREADY BEEN STRUCK OFF FROM THE RECORD OF THE REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES A S A DEFUNCT COMPANY UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 560 OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 AND WAS NOT IN EXISTENCE ON THE RELEVANT DATE. 7.7. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ANNUAL ACCOUNTS FOR THE YEAR ENDED ON 31 ST MARCH, 2003 OF M/S. SKOL BREWERIES LIMITED WERE PL ACED ON RECORD, WHICH REVEALS THAT THE VARIOUS AMOUNTS WRITTEN OFF HAD B EEN ADDED BACK IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME AND ACCORDINGLY NO DEDUCTION HAS BEEN CLAIMED. ITA NOS. 355 & 356(ASR)/2013 12 7.8. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE SUBMISSIONS, THE LD. COUN SEL FOR THE ASSESSEE PRAYED TO REVERSE THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND A LLOW THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. 8. THE LD. DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, AT THE OUTSET, RE LIED UPON THE ORDERS OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 9. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE FACTS OF THE CASE. AT THE OUTSET, A QUERY AS POSED BY THE BENCH TO TH E LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AS TO WHAT ARE THE DATES OF RAISING SUCH L OANS BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN HIS INABILITY TO PLACE ON RECORD THE EXACT DATES OF RAISING OF LOANS OR EV EN THE FINANCIAL YEARS IN WHICH SUCH LOANS WERE RAISED. THE SECOND QUERY WAS RAISED TO THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AS TO WHETHER SUCH LOANS WERE TAKE N ON INTEREST OR WITHOUT INTEREST. IT WAS REPLIED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, MR. ASHWANI KUMAR CA THAT INITIALLY THESE WERE TAKEN ON INTERES T AND INTEREST WAS PROVIDED AND DEBITED IN THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT A ND INTEREST INCOME WAS ALSO DECLARED ON THE LOANS SO ADVANCED SINCE THE LO ANS TAKEN ON INTEREST WERE ADVANCED AS LOANS ON INTEREST ITSELF. IN FACT, NO I NTEREST WAS RECOVERED AND INITIALLY FOR ONE OR TWO YEARS, THE INTEREST EXPENS E OR INTEREST INCOME WAS PROVIDED AND THEREAFTER NO PROVISION OF THE INTERE ST EXPENSE AND INTEREST INCOME WAS MADE. THOUGH THERE WAS NOTHING PLACED ON RECORD IN THIS REGARD. ITA NOS. 355 & 356(ASR)/2013 13 IN ANY CASE, WITH THE PRESENT FACTS AND CIRCUMSTAN CES OF THE CASE, THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS DOING BUSINESS OF RAISING LOA N ON INTEREST AND ADVANCING THE SAME ON INTEREST I.E. THE MONEY LENDI NG BUSINESS. THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PROVIDED THE INTEREST EXPENSES AND INTEREST INCOME DURING THE IMPUGNED YEAR FOR THE REASONS BEST KNOWN TO ASS ESSEE. THE SAID LOANS ACCORDING TO US HAS BEEN RAISED DURING THE COURSE O F BUSINESS AND THE SAME WERE ADVANCED DURING THE COURSE OF BUSINESS AS A MA TTER OF MAIN OBJECT OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAS USED THE SAID LOANS FOR DAY TO DAY BUSINESS OPERATION IN THE NORMAL COURSE DURING THE YEAR WHEN LOANS WERE RAISED AND ADVANCED. NO CAPITAL ASSETS HAS BEEN PURCHASED ON RAISING OF SUCH UNSECURED LOANS. 9.1. AS REGARDS THE ARGUMENTS MADE BY THE LD. COUNS EL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 41(1) ARE NOT APPLIC ABLE, IN THIS REGARD AS PER NOTE-4 OF SCHEDULE 7 OF THE AUDITED BALANCE SHEET A S ON 31.3.2004 RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 I.E. THE IMPUGNED YEAR, IT HAS BEEN MENTIONED THAT A SUM OF RS.1.00 CRORE WAS ADVANCED TO M/S. OR SON ELECTRONICS LIMITED AND THIS COMPANY WENT INTO LIQUIDATION WHEREBY A P ROVISION FOR BAD AND DOUBTFUL DEBT WAS MADE ALONGWITH INTEREST THEREON. THE CONDUCT OF THE ASSESSEE BY TREATING THE MONEY ADVANCED AS BAD AND DOUBTFUL DEBT SUGGESTS THAT IT HAS RECEIVED THE MONEY IN THE COURSE OF TRA DING I.E. THE MONEY ITA NOS. 355 & 356(ASR)/2013 14 LENDING BUSINESS. THE ASSESSEE IN ITS SUBMISSION DA TED 22.03.2012 HAS STATED THAT A SUM OF RS.100.75 LACS WAS PAYABLE TO M/S. SK OL BREWERIES LTD. WHICH WAS WRITTEN BACK AND CREDITED DIRECTLY TO THE RESER VES AND SURPLUS BEING IN THE NATURE OF CAPITAL RECEIPT AND NOT LIABLE TO TAX UNDER ANY PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. IN THE LETTER SUBMITTED ON 4.11.2011, THE ASSE SSEE HAS STATED THAT IT HAS RECEIVED A LOAN OF RS.100.75 FROM TWO ENTITIES I.E . SKOL MANUFACTURING & INVESTMENT LTD. RS.99,25,000/- AND MAHARASHTRA DIST ILLERIES LTD. RS.1,50,000/-. LATER ON, VIDE LETTER DATED 22.03.2 013, THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT THE WHOLE AMOUNT CAME FROM M/S. SKOL BREWERIES LTD. THIS CONTRADICTION HAS NOT BEEN EXPLAINED. IT WAS ARGUED THAT M/S. SKO L BREWERIES HAS WRITTEN OFF THE AMOUNT AS BAD DEBT BUT SUBSEQUENTLY ADDED BACK THE WRITTEN OFF AMOUNT IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME. THE ASSESSEE B EING NON BANKING FINANCIAL COMPANY WAS INCORPORATED WITH THE MAIN O BJECTS OF GIVING FINANCE AND MAKING INVESTMENTS AND THEREFORE TAKING LOANS A ND GIVING LOANS FOR SUCH PURPOSE IS A PART OF NORMAL BUSINESS ACTIVITY.. AS MENTIONED HEREINABOVE, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT UTILIZED MONEY FOR ANY CAPITAL EXP ENDITURE AND ACCORDINGLY THE DECISION RELIED UPON BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE IN THE CASE OF MAHINDRA & MAHINDRA LIMITED VS. CIT [261 ITR 501] A ND CIT VS. TOSHA INTERNATIONAL LIMITED 176 TAXMAN 187 (BOM) ARE NOT APPLICABLE IN THE PRESENT FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. WITH R EGARD TO THE DECISION ITA NOS. 355 & 356(ASR)/2013 15 RELIED UPON BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE OF THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF LOGITRONICS PVT. LTD. VS. CIT 240 CTR 20 (DATED 18.02.2011), THE SAID DECISION IS NOT APPLICABLE F OR THE REASONS AS HELD BY THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN PARA 37 THAT THE T RIBUNAL HAS REACHED THE FINDING OF THE FACT THAT THE AMOUNT OF LOANS WAS N OT USED IN FINANCING BUSINESS. THEREFORE, WITH THIS FACT THE LOAN WAS N OT TREATED AS INCOME AS THERE WAS CLEAR FINDING OF FACT BY THE TRIBUNAL THA T THE LOANS WERE NOT USED IN FINANCING BUSINESS. WHEREAS IN THE PRESENT CASE, N ON BANKING FINANCIAL COMPANY WAS INCORPORATED WITH THE MAIN OBJECTS OF G IVING FINANCE AND MAKING INVESTMENTS AND THEREFORE, TAKING LOANS FO R SUCH PURPOSE IS PART OF NORMAL BUSINESS ACTIVITY. ACCORDINGLY, THE SAID DEC ISION OF THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE PRESENT F ACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 9.2. THE DECISIONS APPLICABLE AS REFERRED TO BY THE LD. CIT(A) IN THE PRESENT FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE ARE AS UNDER: I) ROLLATINERS LTD. VS. CIT (69 DTR 128 (DELHI ) D ATED 30.08.11 II) CIT VS. T.B.SUNDRAM IYENGAR & SONS LTD. 136 CT R 444 (SC) III) SOLID CONTAINERS LTD. VS. DY. CIT 222 CTR (BOM) 455 ITA NOS. 355 & 356(ASR)/2013 16 9.3. IN THE CASE OF ROLLATINERS LTD. VS. CIT (69 DT R 128 (DELHI ) IN WHICH THE DECISIONS OF LOGITRONICS (SUPRA) HAS BEEN DISC USSED AND IT HAS BEEN HELD BY THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT THAT LOAN TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE UTILIZED TOWARDS DAY TO DAY BUSINESS OPERATION IS CHARGEABLE TO TAX U/S 28(IV) AS ALSO SECTION 41(1). PARA 6 & 8 OF THE SAID JUDGMENT ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER: 6. THUS, ON WRITING OFF THE SAID LOANS/PART LOANS , BENEFIT HAD ARISEN TO THE ASSESSEE. AS PER THE TRIB UNAL, WHEN THE MONEY/LOAN WAS RECEIVED IN THE COURSE OF CARRYING ON BUSINESS EVEN IF IT WAS TREATED AS LOAN AT THE TIME OF RECEIPT WHICH WAS OF CAPITAL NATURE ON THE WAIVER HAD BECOME ASSESSEE S OWN MONEY WHICH WAS EVEN TAKEN TO PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT. THIS BENEFIT WAS IN THE REVENUE FIELD AS THE MONEY HAD BEEN BORROWED FOR DAY TO DAY AFFAIRS AND NOT FOR THE PURCHASE OF MACHINERY. THUS, THE LOANS WERE FOR THE CIRCULATING CAPITAL AND NOT THE FIXED CAPITAL. 8. BEFORE WE CONSIDER THE SUBMISSIONS OF MR. VOHRA ON THIS ASPECT, IT WOULD BE APPOSITE TO DISCUSS THE JUDGMENT OF THIS COURT IN LOGITRONICS (SUPRA). THAT WAS ALSO A CASE WHERE CERTAIN AMOUNT OF LOAN AND INTERE ST WAS WAIVED BY THE FINANCIAL INSTITUTION AS IT HAD B ECOME NON PERFORMING ASSET (NPA) FOR THE BANK IN VIEW OF THE GUIDELINES OF THE RESERVE BANK OF INDIA. ON WAIVER THE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT WRITTEN OFF WAS DIRECTLY TAKEN TO BALANCE SHEET UNDER THE HEAD CAPITAL RESERVE, WAS N OT OFFERED FOR TAXATION. THE ASSESSING OFFICER TREATED THE SAID WAIVER OF PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF LOAN AS INCOME WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 2 (24) OF THE INCOME- TAX ACT, EXIGIBLE TO TAX. THE CIT (A) DELETED THE ADDIT ION HOLDING THAT IT WAS NOT AN INCOME AND PROVISIONS OF SECTION 28 (IV) AS WELL AS SECTION 41 (1) OF THE AC T WERE ITA NOS. 355 & 356(ASR)/2013 17 NOT APPLICABLE. THE TRIBUNAL, HOWEVER, REVERSED THE DECISION OF THE CIT (A) GIVING INTER ALIA FOLLOWING REASONS:- (A) SINCE THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF TOSHA INTERNATIONAL LTD. (SUPRA) PROCEEDED TO DECIDE THE ISSUE ON THE PREMISE THAT LOAN WAS UTILIZED TO ACQUIRE CA PITAL ASSETS, DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL AS UPHELD BY THIS COURT WOULD APPLY TO THE CASES WHERE THE LOAN OBTAINED IS UTILIZED FOR ACQUIRING CAPITAL ASSETS. 9.4. THE PRESENT FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE ARE IDENTICAL TO THE FACTS IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. T.V. SUNDARAM IYENGAR AND SONS LTD. 222 ITR 344 (SC) AND HEAD NOTES ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER: HELD, THAT IF A COMMONSENSE VIEW OF THE MATTER WER E TAKEN, THE ASSESSEE, BECAUSE OF THE TRADING OPERATION, HAD BEC OME RICHER BY THE AMOUNT WHICH IT TRANSFERRED TO ITS PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT. THE MONEYS HAD ARISEN OUT OF ORDINARY TRADING TRANSACTIONS. AL THOUGH THE AMOUNTS RECEIVED ORIGINALLY WERE NOT OF INCOME NATURE, THE AMOUNTS REMAINED WITH THE ASSESSEE FOR A LONG PERIOD UNCLAIMED BY TH E TRADE PARTIES. BY LAPSE OF TIME, THE CLAIM OF DEPOSIT THE DEPOSIT BE CAME TIME-BARRED AND THE AMOUNT ATTAINED A TOTALLY DIFFERENT QUALITY . IT BECAME A DEFINITE TRADE SURPLUS. THE ASSESSEE ITSELF HAD TRE ATED THE MONEY AS ITS OWN MONEY AND TAKEN THE AMOUNT TO ITS PROFIT AND LO SS ACCOUNT. THE AMOUNTS WERE ASSESSABLE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSE E. 9.5. IN THE CASE OF SOLID CONTAINERS LTD. VS. DY. CIT (2009) 222 CTR 455 {308 ITR 417 (BOMBAY), THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COUR T APPLIED THE DECISION IN T.V. SUNDARAM IYENGAR & SONS LTD. (SUP RA) DISTINGUISHED ITS DECISION IN MAHINDRA & MAHINDRA LTD.(SUPRA) AND HEL D THAT THE WAIVER OF LOAN TAKEN FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES, THE AMOUNT IS RET AINED IN THE BUSINESS AND ITA NOS. 355 & 356(ASR)/2013 18 AS SUCH, THE AMOUNT THAT INITIALLY DID NOT HAVE THE CHARACTER OF INCOME BECOMES INCOME LIABLE TO TAX. 9.6. AS REGARDS THE ARGUMENT WITH REGARD TO SECTION 28(IV), THE SAME CANNOT HELP THE ASSESSEE SINCE THE DEFINITION HAS E XPANDED THE AMBIT OF INCOME AND NOT REDUCED THE DEFINITION AND THEREFORE , THE DECISIONS RELIED UPON BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD CANNOT BE MADE APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT CASE. 9.7. AS REGARDS THE ARGUMENT MADE BY THE LD. COUNSE L FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THE COMPANY HAS NOW BECOME DEFUNCT, WE CONCUR WITH THE VIEWS OF THE LD. CIT(A) GIVEN IN PARA 4.13 OF HIS ORDER, WHICH FOR T HE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER: 4.13. THE APPELLANT HAS TAKEN AN ADDITIONAL ARGUM ENT DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING THAT THE APPELLANT COMPANY HAS N OW BECOME DEFUNCT AND NO ASSESSMENT CANA BE MADE AS THE REGIS TRAR OF COMPANY HAS STRUCK OFF THE APPELLANT COMPANY FROM THE RECOR D. THE CASE LAWS CITED IN SUPPORT OF SUCH ASSERTION ARE FOR COMPANY WHICH ARE DISSOLVED. THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A DISSOLVE D COMPANY AND A DEFUNCT COMPANY. IN DEFUNCT COMPANY, THE IDENTITY OF THE COMPANY STILL EXISTS AND THEREFORE LEGALLY ASSESSMENT CAN B E MADE. THE ARGUMENT OF THE APPELLANT DOES NOT HAVE MERIT AND T HUS REJECTED. 9.8, MOREOVER, THERE IS NOTHING ON RECORD THAT THE COMPANY WAS DISSOLVED AND NO CERTIFICATE TO THIS EXTENT HAS BEEN PLACED O N RECORD BEFORE ANY OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW OR EVEN BEFORE US. MOREOVER, IN V IEW OF THE DECISIONS RELIED UPON HEREINABOVE, WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN TH E ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), ITA NOS. 355 & 356(ASR)/2013 19 WHO HAS RIGHTLY CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE A.O. AC CORDINGLY, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 10. NOW, WE TAKE UP APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN ITA N O.356(ASR)/2013 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 IN THE CASE OF M/S. PRA NG FINANCE & INVESTMENT CO.(P) LTD. SINCE THE FACTS IN THE PRESENT APPEAL I .E. IN ITA NOS. 356(ASR)/2013 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2004-05 ARE IDENTICAL TO THE FACTS IN THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO.355(ASR)/2013 FOR THE A.Y. 2004-05, DECIDED BY US HEREINABOVE, THEREFORE, OUR ORDER HE REINABOVE IN ITA NO.355(ASR)/2013 FOR THE A.Y. 2004-05 SHALL IDENTIC ALLY BE APPLICABLE TO APPEAL IN ITA NO. 356(ASR)/2013 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2004-05 AND THEREFORE, ALL THE GROUNDS OF ASSESSEES APPEALS ARE DISMISSED. 11. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSES IN ITA NOS. 355 & 356(ASR)/2013 ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30TH JANUARY, 2014. SD/- SD/- (H.S. SIDHU) (B.P. JAIN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 30TH JANUARY, 2014 /SKR/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE ASSESSEES: I) M/S. RAINWARI FINANCE & INVESTMEN T CO. LTD. JAMMU (II) M/S. PRANG FINANCE & INVESTMENT CO.(P) L TD. JAMMU 2. THE WARD 2(2), JAMMU 3. THE CIT(A), JAMMU 4. THE CIT, JAMMU. ITA NOS. 355 & 356(ASR)/2013 20 5. THE SR DR, ITAT, AMRITSAR. TRUE COPY BY ORDER (ASSISTANT REGISTRAR) INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AMRITSAR BENCH: AMRITSAR