The Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax, Srinagar V. Sh. Manzoor Ahmed Walvir, Srinagar

ITA 417/ASR/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8841 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 3 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-02-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 02-12-2015
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 05-11-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: K V K SINGH
• Keywords: Question of law
• Section: 194C

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AMRITSAR BENCH; AMRITSAR (CAMP : JAMMU) BEFORE SH. A.D. JAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. T.S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 417(ASR)/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2009-10 PAN:AAIFM4288J DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, VS. MANZOOR AHMED WALVIR, CIRCLE-3, SRINAGAR. 54, GOLE MARKET, KARANAGAR, SRINAGAR. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY:SH. K.V.K. SINGH, DR RESPONDENT BY:SH. R.K. GUPTA, CA DATE OF HEARING: 03/12/2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 25/02/2016 ORDER PER A.D. JAIN, JM : THIS IS THE DEPARTMENTS APPEAL FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 31.08.2012, PASSED BY THE L D. CIT(A), JAMMU. THE DEPARTMENT HAS TAKEN THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1 ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES WHETHER THE LD. C IT(A) WAS RIGHT IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION U/S 40(A)(IA) OF THE INCO ME TAX ACT, 1961 FOR NON DEDUCTION OF TDS AS PER THE PROVI SIONS OF SECTION 194C OF THE ACT. 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES WHETHER THE LD. C IT(A) WAS RIGHT IN NOT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE OBJECT OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) IS TO ENSURE THAT THE TDS PROVISIONS ARE SCRUPULOUSLY IMPLEMENTED WITHOUT ANY DEFAULT AND TH AT IF THE INTERPRETATION IS ASSIGNED TO THE TERM PAYABLE THEN THE OBJECT WITH WHICH SECTION 40(A)(IA) WAS INSERTED WO ULD BE FRUSTRATED. ITA NO.417(ASR)/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 2 3. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES WHETHER THE LD. C IT(A) WAS RIGHT IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION U/S 40(A)(IA) OF THE INCO ME TAX ACT, 1961 FOR NON DEDUCTION OF TDS AS PER THE PROVI SIONS OF SECTION 194C OF THE ACT, WHEN THE HONBLE HIGH COU RT OF P & H IN THE CASE OF RAKESH KUMAR & CO. VS. UNION OF I NDIA (2010) 325 ITR 35 HAS CONFIRMED THE DISALLOWANCE MA DE U/S 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT. 4. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES WHETHER THE LD. C IT(A) WAS RIGHT IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION U/S 40(A)(IA) OF THE INCO ME TAX ACT, 1961 FOR NON DEDUCTION OF TDS AS PER THE PROVI SIONS OF SECTION 194C OF THE ACT, WHEN THE HONBLE HIGH COUR T OF ALLAHABAD IN THE CASE OF M/S. DEYS MEDICAL (UP) (P ) LTD. VS. UNION OF INDIA & ORS (2009) 316 ITR 445 HAS CONFIRM ED THE DISALLOWANCE MADE U/S 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT. 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSE E IS A TRADER/EXPORTER OF SHAWLS, ETC. THE AO, IN THE ASS ESSMENT, MADE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.6,04,40,918/- U/S 40(1)(IA) OF T HE I.T. ACT , FOR THE DEFAULT OF NON DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE, AS PER T HE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194C OF THE ACT, ON DYEING, PRINTING, EMBROIDERY, F INISHING & BLEACHING CHARGES. 3. BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED T HAT IN VIEW OF THE CLEAR LANGUAGE OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT, ONL Y THOSE PAYMENTS, AS ARE PAYABLE AT THE END OF THE YEAR, CAN BE CONSIDERED F OR DISALLOWANCE AND THE AMOUNTS PAID ARE NOT TO BE CONSIDERED. RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE ITAT, SPECIAL BENCH (VISHAKHAPATNAM) ORDER DATED 29 .03.2012, PASSED IN THE CASE OF M/S.MERILYN SHIPPING & TRANSPORTERS AND OTHERS IN ITA NO.477/VIZ/2008, AS FOLLOWED BY THE ITAT, AMRITSAR BENCH, VIDE ORDER ITA NO.417(ASR)/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 3 DATED 07.08.2012, IN THE CASE OF M/S. JAMKASH VEH ICLEADES PVT. LTD. IN ITA NO.136(ASR)/2012. 4. THE LD. CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT OUT OF THE TOTAL DI SALLOWANCE OF RS.6,04,40,918/-, AN AMOUNT OF RS.4,16,53,215/- HAD BEEN PAID DURING THE YEAR AND THE REMAINING AMOUNT OF RS.1,88,05,503 /- REMAINED PAYABLE AT THE YEAR END; AND THAT THERE WAS AN AMOU NT OF RS.17,800/-, IN RESPECT OF ONE SH. FAROOQ AHMED DAR, WHICH WAS ALSO TO BE EXCLUDED, AS NO TDS HAD BEEN MADE THAT THEREON, DUE TO THE AM OUNT INVOLVED. THE LD. CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT AS SUCH, THERE ULTIMATELY REMAINED AN AMOUNT OF RS.1,87,87,703/-, AS PAYABLE AT THE END OF THE YEAR, WHICH NEEDED TO BE DISALLOWED. 5. FOLLOWING THE AFORESAID TWO DECISIONS, I.E., THE ITAT, SPECIAL BENCH (VISHAKHAPATAM) ORDER IN THE CASE OF M/S. MERILYN SHIPPING AND THE ITAT, AMRITSAR BENCH ORDER IN THE CASE OF M/S. JAMK ASH VEHICLEADES, WHEREIN MERILYN SHIPPING (SUPRA) WAS FOLLOWED, T HE LD. CIT(A) UPHELD THE DISALLOWANCE TO THE EXTENT OF RS.1,87,87,703/-, AND DELETED THE DISALLOWANCE OF THE REMAINDER AMOUNT OF RS.4,16,53 ,215/-. 6. VIDE ORDER DATED 31.03.2013, THE ITAT ALLOWED TH E DEPARTMENTS APPEAL, HOLDING AS FOLLOWS: 28. AS REGARD TO THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT AS WE HAVE DISCUSSED IN THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE I.E. I.T.A. NO. 358(ASR)/2012 AND HELD THAT THE HON 'BLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CRESCENT EXPORT SYNDICATE ( SUPRA ), DECIDED ON 3RD APRIL, 2013, HAS HELD THAT 'THE MAJO RITY VIEWS EXPRESSED IN THE CASE OF MERILYN SHIPPING & TRANSPORTERS ( SUPRA ) ARE NOT ACCEPTABLE AND DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE REVENUE. LEARNED FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWED THE ITA NO.417(ASR)/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 4 DECISION OF I.T.A.T.(SB), VISHAKHAPATNAM, IN THE CA SE OF MERILYN SHIPPING & TRANSPORTERS ( SUPRA ) AND GIVEN PARTLY RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE. IN PARA 4.5, IT IS HELD THAT OUT OF TOTAL DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 6,04,40,918/-, AN AMOUNT OF RS. 4,16,53,215/- HAS B EEN PAID DURING THE YEAR AND AN AMOUNT OF RS. 17,800/- IN RE SPECT OF ONE SH. FAOOQ AHMED DAR, TO BE EXCLUDED AS NO TDS WAS T O BE MADE ON THIS. THUS, REMAINING AMOUNT OF RS. 1,87,87,703/ - IS PAYABLE AT THE END OF THE YEAR AND HAS TO BE DISALLOWED. 29. AS DISCUSSED ABOVE, HON'BLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CRESCENT EXPORT SYNDICATE ( SUPRA ), DECIDED ON 3RD APRIL, 2013, HAS OVER-RULED THE DECISION OF I.T.A.T.(SB), VISHAKHAPA TNAM, IN THE CASE OF MERILYN SHIPPING & TRANSPORTERS ( SUPRA ) AND THEREFORE, THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 31.08.2012 PASSED BY LEARNED C IT(A), JAMMU, DESERVES TO BE CANCELED. THUS, WE CANCEL THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 31.08.2012 BY ACCEPTING THE APPEAL FILE D BY THE REVENUE AND UPHOLDING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 28 .11.2011 ON THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE AS DISCUSSED ABOVE FOR THE ASS ESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. 30. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE I.E. I.T.A. NO. 358(ASR)/2012 IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PUR POSES AND THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE I.E. 417(ASR)/2012 IS A LLOWED AS DISCUSSED. 7. THE ASSESSEE FILED MISC. APPLICATION NO.57(ASR)/ 2013, CONTENDING AS FOLLOWS: 'IN THE AFORESAID CASE, THE HON'BLE BENCH HAS ALLOW ED THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE BY RELYING THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA-IV VS CRESCENT EXPORT SYNDICATE (ITA NO.20 OF 2013, GA 19 0 OF 2013). IN THIS REGARD WE WOULD LIKE TO REPRESENT AS UNDER:- ALTHOUGH THE HON'BLE BENCH HAS PASSED THE ORDER BY PUTTING RELIANCE ON CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE AS AFOR ESAID YET HAS OMITTED TO CONSIDER AND DISCUS ITS OWN DECISION IN THE CASE OF JAMKASH VEHICLEADES PVT. LTD. VS ADDITIONAL COMMISS IONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-2, JAMMU IN ITA NO.136/ASR/2012 P LACED AT PAGE 64 TO 67 OF THE PAPER BOOK WHICH WAS HEAVILY R ELIED UPON DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING. IT CONSTITUTED A MIST AKE APPARENT FROM RECORD. ITA NO.417(ASR)/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 5 FURTHER, NEITHER THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE NOR THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE HAVE BROUGHT TO THE KNO WLEDGE OF HON'BLE BENCH THE FATE OF THE DECISION ON A SIMILAR ISSUE IN THE CASE OF DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, I.T.A.NO .57 /ASR/2013 (IN ITA NO.417/ASR/2013 AYS: 2009-10 CIRC LE-2 JAMMU & JAMKASH VEHICLEADES PVT. LTD. IN WHICH REVE NUE WAS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KAS HMI9R AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE HON'BLE ITAT (THIS IS A CA SE PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07). THE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT IS ENCLOSED FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. SINCE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR IN ITA NO.11/2013 IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TA X VS. JAMKASH VEHICLEADES PVT. LTD. HAS DISMISSED THE APP EAL OF THE REVENUE AND UPHELD THE DECISION OF HON'BLE ITAT, AM RITSAR BY NOT ADMITTING THE APPEAL OF REVENUE BY HOLDING THAT 'WE REGRET OUR INABILITY TO ACCEPT THAT ANY QUESTION OF LAW MUCH L ESS A SUBSTANTIVE QUESTION OF LAW WOULD IMMERGE FOR ADMIS SION OF THE APPEAL PARTICULARLY WHEN THERE WAS HARDLY AN LOSS O F REVENUE.' UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES THIS APPLICATION OF 254 LIE S BEFORE THE HON'BLE BENCH TO ADJUDICATE THE APPEAL OF THE REVEN UE AFRESH AFTER DULY CONSIDERING THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE HIGH COURT WHICH DECISION IS BINDING BECAUSE IT IS A DECISION OF JUR ISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT AND JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT HAS UPHELD THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE ITAT. THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE ITAT IN T HIS CASE WAS THAT IF EXPENDITURE HAS ALREADY BEEN PAID DURING TH E YEAR AND IS NOT PAYABLE AT THE YEAR THEN THE PROVISIONS OF SEC 40(A)(IA) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT , 1961 ARE NOT APPLICABLE. IN THIS CASE THE HON'BLE COURT HAS CONFIRMED THE DECISION OF HON'BLE ITAT AN D ITS DECISION IN RELYING THE CASES OF JAIPUR VIDYUT VITRAN NIGAM LTD. VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (123 TTJ (JP)888(2009) & M/S. TEJA CONSTRUCTION VS. ASSTT . COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (129TTJ (HYD) (UO)57 92010). IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE MENTIONED AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE MISC. APPLICATION MAY PLEASE BE ALLOWED AND APPEAL ADJUDICATED EARLIER MAY PLEASE BE RECALLED.' 8. VIDE ORDER DATED 16.9.2015, THE SAID MISC. APPLI CATION WAS ALLOWED, HOLDING AS UNDER: ITA NO.417(ASR)/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 6 2. THE LEARNED COUNSEL ARGUED THAT HON'BLE J&K HIG H COURT HAS GIVEN RULINGS IN THE CASE OF CIT VS JAMKASH VEHICLE ADES PVT. LTD. IN ITA ITA NO.11/ASR/2013 ORDER DATED 20-02-2013, W HICH IS PRIOR TO THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL WHICH WAS ALSO N OT REFERRED TO BY HIM. BEING JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT'S DECISION ON SECTION40A (IA) OF THE ACT. HE FURTHER ARGUED THAT THE HON'BLE SUPR EME COURT HAS HELD IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS. SAURASHTRA KUTCH STOCK EXCHANGE LTD., 262 ITR 146 (GUJ) THAT NON-CONSIDERATION OF T HE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT [OR THE HON'B LE SUPREME COURT) IS A MISTAKE APPARENT ON RECORD IS RECTIFIAB LE U/S. 254(2) OF THE ACT. THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT ON THE POINT RENDERED A FEW MONTHS PRIOR TO HAVING NOT BEEN BROU GHT BROUGHT TO I.T.A.NO.57 /ASR/2013 (IN ITA NO.417/ASR/2013 AYS: 2009-10 THE NOTICE OF THE TRIBUNAL, THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUN AL IS RECTIFIABLE U/S 354 (2) OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, HE REQUESTED FOR RECALLING OF THE ABOVE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. 3. THE LEARNED DR ARGUED THAT THE DEPARTMENT HAS NO T ACCEPTED ORDERS OF THE TRIBUNAL PASSED BY VARIOUS BENCHES ON THIS ISSUE AND THE DEPARTMENT HAS GONE IN APPEAL BEFORE DIFFER ENT HON'BLE HIGH COURTS. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS ON RECORD. THE HON'BLE J & K HIGH COURT HAS DECIDED THIS ISSUE ON 22-02-2013 WHICH HAS NOT BEEN CONSIDERED BY THIS BE NCH AS HELD BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS . SAURASHTRA KUTCH STOCK EXCHANGE LTD. (SUPRA). THAT THIS IS AN APPARENT MISTAKE ON RECORD AND IS RECTIFIABLE U/S 254 (2) OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY, WE RECALL THE AFORESAID ORDER OF THIS BENCH TO THAT EXTENT. THE REGISTRY IS DIRECTED TO FIX THE CASE IN DUE COURSE. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE MISC. APPLICATION IS ALLOWED AS INDICATED ABOVE. 9. THIS IS HOW THE MATTER IS NOW AGAIN BEFORE US. 10. ON CONSIDERING THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF THE PAR TIES ON THIS MATTER, IN THE LIGHT OF THE MATERIAL ON RECORD, IT IS SEEN THAT THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT, IN THE CASE OF DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMMU VS. M/S. JAMKASH VEHICLEADES PVT. LTD., JAMMU, VIDE ORDER DATED 20.02.2013, IN ITA NO.11/2013, DIS MISSED THE ITA NO.417(ASR)/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 7 DEPARTMENTS APPEAL AGAINST THE ITAT ORDER DATED 07 .08.2012, WHICH WAS FOLLOWED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IN THE PRESENT CASE. THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HELD AS FOLLOWS: 4. THE TRIBUNAL HAS PLACED RELIANCE ON THE ORDER PASSE D BY JAIPUR, HYDERBAD AND VISHAKAPATNAM BENCHES. IN THAT REGARD, RELIANCE HAS BEEN PLACED ON THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUN AL RENDERED IN THE CASE OF VIDYUT VITRAN NIGAM LTD. V. DCIT (2009) 123 TTJ 888 AND ITAT, HYDERABAD BENCH IN THE CASE OF M/S. TEJA CONS TRUCTIONS V. ACIT IN ITA NO. 30/HYD/2009, ON THE IDENTICAL ISSUE . LIKEWISE A REFERENCE HAS BEEN INVITED TO THE JUDGMENT OF THE S PECIAL BENCH, VISHAKAPATNAM OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF M/S. M ERILYN SHIPPING AND TRANSPORTS, VISHAKAPATNAM V. ADDITIONAL COMMISS IONER OF INCOME TAX ( ITA NO. 477/VIZ/2008 DECIDED ON 29.03 .2012). 5. AT THE HEARING, WE HAVE ASKED LEARNED COUNSEL FO R THE REVENUE ABOUT THE STATUS OF THE AFORESAID ORDERS PA SSED BY VARIOUS BENCHES OF THE TRIBUNAL, IN ORDER TO SATISFY OURSEL VES WHETHER THE REVENUE HAS ACCEPTED THE ORDERS OR SUCH ORDERS HAV E BEEN SUBJECT MATTER OF CHALLENGE IN APPEAL BEFORE THE JURISDICTI ONAL HIGH COURTS. THERE IS NO SATISFACTORY ANSWER GIVEN WHICH, IN FAC T, LEAD US TO CONCLUDE THAT THE ORDERS OF VARIOUS TRIBUNALS STAND ACCEPTED BY THE REVENUE. IN SUCH A SITUATION THE PRINCIPLE OF CONSI STENCY WOULD BE ATTRACTED AS HAS BEEN LAID DOWN IN THE CASES OF RAD HA SOAMI SATSANG V. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 193 ITR 321 S C AND BERGER PAINTS INDIA LTD. VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 25 3 ITR 739. THEREFORE, WE REGRET OUR INABILITY TO ACCEPT THAT A NY QUESTION OF LAW WOULD EMERGE FOR ADMISSION OF THE APPEAL, PARTICULA RLY WHEN THERE WAS HARDLY ANY LOSS OF REVENUE. ACCORDINGLY, THE AP PEAL IS DISMISSED. 11. IT IS NOTEWORTHY THAT THE ABOVE SAID DECISION W AS NOT BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THIS BENCH IN THE FIRST INSTANCE. 12. IN THE ITAT ORDER IN THE CASE OF M/S. JAMKASH V EHICLEADES, THE SPECIAL BENCH DECISION OF THE ITAT (VISHAKHAPATNAM) WAS FOLLOWED TO HOLD THAT SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT IS APPLICABL E ONLY TO THE EXPENDITURE WHICH IS PAYABLE AS ON 31 ST MARCH OF EVERY YEAR AND THAT THE PROVISIONS ITA NO.417(ASR)/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 8 OF THIS SECTION CANNOT BE INVOKED TO DISALLOW THE A MOUNTS WHICH HAVE ALREADY BEEN PAID DURING THE YEAR WITHOUT DEDUCTING TAX AT SOURCE. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) FOLLOWED THIS DECISION OF ITAT. THIS DECISION OF ITAT HAS NOT BEEN UPSET. THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT HAS DISMISSED THE DEPARTMENTS APPEAL, AS NOTED HEREINA BOVE. 13. THUS, THE ISSUE AT HAND STANDS DECIDED IN FAVOU R OF THE ASSESSEE. ON ACCOUNT OF THIS, LD. CIT(A) CANNOT BE SAID TO HA VE ERRED IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE TO THE EXTENT OF RS.4,16,53,215/-. THE GRIEVANCE OF THE DEPARTMENT IS REJECTED, AS THE SAME IS FOUND TO BE DEVOID OF FORCE. THE ORDER UNDER APPEAL IS CONFIRMED. 14. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 25/02/ 2 016. SD/- SD/- (T.S. KAPPOR) (A.D. JAIN ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 25/02/2016 /SKR/ COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE ASSESSEE: MAZOOR AHMED WALVIR, SRINAGAR. 2. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-3, SRINAGAR. 3. THE CIT(A), JAMMU. 4. THE CIT, JAMMU. 5. THE SR. DR, ITAT, ASR. TRUE COPY BY ORDER (ASSISTANT REGISTRAR) INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH: AMRITSAR.