Shri Salwinder Singh Aulakh, Amritsar. V. The Asstt. Commissioner of Income-tax, Amritsar.

ITA 480/ASR/2011

• Counselvise Citation: 48020914 RSA 2011
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-05-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 07-05-2012
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 07-09-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: PADAM BAHL
• Keywords: Capital asset; Cost of acquisition; Fair market value; Valuation report; Tax effect

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. 480(ASR)/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2005-06 PAN:AAWTA2648A SH. SALWINDER SINGH PROP. VS. THE ASSTT. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, M/S. AULAKH OVERSEAS, CIRCLE-V, V.NANGALI, AMRITSAR. AMRITSAR. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) I.T.A. NO.520(ASR)/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-06 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, VS. SH. SALWINDER SINGH AU LAKH, WARD 5(4), AMRITSAR. WARD 5(4), AMRITSAR. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY: SH. PADAM BAHL, CA DEPARTMENT BY: SH. TARSEM LAL, DR DATE OF HEARING :07/05/2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT:09/05/2012 ORDER PER BENCH: THESE CROSS APPEALS ONE BY THE ASSESSEE AND ANOTH ER BY THE REVENUE ARISE FROM THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A), AMRITSAR, DA TED 21.07.2011 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. ITA NO.520 & 480(ASR)/2011 2 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APP EAL: 1. THAT WORTHY CIT(A), AMRITSAR HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.23,63,520/- ON ACCOUNT OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN ON SALE OF HIS RESIDENTIAL HOUSE BY T AKING THE COST OF ACQUISITION AT RS.7,57,600/- AS ON 01.04.1981 ON THE BASIS OF VALUATION REPORT OF THE VALUATION OFFICER AND INDEX ED COST AT RS.36,36,480/-. 2. THAT BOTH THE ITO WARD 5(4) AND WORTHY CIT(A) H AVE GROSSLY ERRED IN IGNORING THE VALUATION REPORT OF THE REGD. VALAUER FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND IN IGNORING THE OBJECTIO NS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. 3. THAT WORTHY CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN NOT APPR ECIATING THAT THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 5(4) AMRITSAR GROSSLY E RRED IN MAKING A REFERENCE TO THE VALUATION OFFICER FOR VAL UING THE FMV OF RESIDENTIAL HOUSE AS ON 01.04.1981 U/S 55A O F THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. 4. THAT BOTH ITO WARD 5(4) AMRITSAR AND WORTHY CIT( A), AMRITSAR HAVE FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE REFEREN CE TO THE VALUATION OFFICE U/S 55A OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT,1961 IS ILLEGAL AS IT COULD BE MADE ONLY IN CASES WHERE ASSESSING O FFICER IS OF THE VIEW THAT FMV OF THE PROPERTY IS MORE THAN THE VALUE DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE AND NOT WHERE IT WAS LOWER THAN THE VALUE DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE. 3. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPE AL: 1. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN LAW AN D ON FACTS IN ALLOWING RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF LOS S OF STOCK DUE TO THEFT ONLY DOE TO ASSESSES PLEA THAT THE ASSES SEE HAD BOOKED THE LOSS OF STOCK DUE TO THEFT ON THE DATE ON WHI CH HE BECAME AWARE OF THE LOSS AND ON THE DATE ON WHICH H E ACTUALLY QUANTIFIED THE LOSS. 2. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT APPRECIATE THE FACTU AL POSITION THAT THE LOSS DUE TO THEFT PERTAINED TO THE ERSTWHILE FI RMS PERIOD IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE WAS ONE OF THE PARTNERS. 3. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW BY NOT APPR ECIATING THE LEGAL POSITION THAT WHERE THE FIRM HAS CEASED TO EX IST THE LOSS SUFFERED BY THE FIRM CANNOT BE CLAIMED BY THE PARTN ERS. ITA NO.520 & 480(ASR)/2011 3 4. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER OR AMEND ANY GROUND OF APPEAL. 4. AT THE OUTSET, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, MR. PADAM BAHL, CA, RAISED PRELIMINARY OBJECTION WITH RESPECT TO THE TA X EFFECT BEING LESS THAN RS.3,00,000/- IN THE DEPARTMENT APPEAL IN ITA NO.52 0(ASR)/2011, IN VIEW OF INSTRUCTION NO.3 OF 2011 DATED 09.02.2011 OF CBDT, REPORTED IN 332 ITR (STATUTE) 1 AND REQUESTED THAT THE APPEAL OF THE DE PARTMENT SHOULD NOT BE ADMITTED. 5. THE LD. DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, OBJECTED TO THE S AME SINCE THE TAX DUE ON THE ADDITIONS OF RS.11,23,787/- WAS RS.3,11,136/ - ON WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED A REBATE U/S 88B OF THE ACT AT RS.20,00 0/- AND REBATE U/S 88 AT RS.20,000/-, WHICH SHOULD NOT BE A SUBJECT MATTER F OR COMPUTING TAX EFFECT. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE FACTS OF THE CASE. THE CALCULATIONS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR T HE ASSESSEE, MR. PADAM BAHL, CA, CLEARLY SHOWS THE TAX DUE ON THE ADDITIO NS OF RS.11,23787/- IS RS.3,11,136/-. AS REGARDS THE REBATES U/S 80B AND S ECTION 88, THEY HAVE ALREADY BEEN TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION WHILE FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME AND THIS IS NOT THE ADDITIONAL REBATE WHICH CAN BE ALLO WED ON THE DISPUTED AMOUNT. THEREFORE, TAX EFFECT AS PER FACTS AVAILABL E ON RECORD IS MORE THAN RS.3,00,000/- AND THEREFORE, THE SAID INSTRUCTION N O.3 OF 2011 DATED ITA NO.520 & 480(ASR)/2011 4 09.02.2011 OF CBDT CANNOT BE MADE APPLICABLE TO THE REVENUES APPEAL. THEREFORE, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS ADMITTED. 7. AS REGARDS FACTS ON MERITS ARE THAT THE AO HAS A LLOWED LOSS TO THE EXTENT OF RS.32,000/- AS PER FIR LODGED FOR THE TH EFT OF CEMENT WEIGHING 12.50 QTLS HAVING TAKEN PLACE ON 12.10.2004 AT 1 PM I.E. AFTER THE TIME AND DATE OF DEATH OF ONE OF THE PARTNER OF ERSTWHILE FI RM I.E. SMT. KASHMIR KAUR WHICH TOOK PLACE ON 11.10.2004 AT 8 PM . THE LD. C IT(A) ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE ARGUED THAT THE EXPENDITURE/LOSS HAS TO BE ALLOWED IN THE YEAR IN WHICH THE LIABILITY GETS CRY STALISED. THE THEFT WAS DETECTED ON 12.10.2004 AND WAS WRITTEN OFF IN THE B OOKS OF ACCOUNT ON 12.10.2004. THE ASSESSE HAS FILED COPY OF THE FIR A ND THE AO HAS RECORDED STATEMENT OF LOSS ASSESSOR AND SURVEYOR ON 30.11.20 07 AND ON THE SAME DATE THE ASSESSEES STATEMENT WAS ALSO RECORDED BY THE A O. ACCORDING TO AO AS PER POLICE INQUIRY REPORT, THE THEFT HAD CONTINUED FOR ONE MONTH BEFORE DETECTION ON 12.10.2004 AND THE LOSS ASSESSOR CONFI RMED THE PERIOD OF TWO WEEKS. BUT THE AO ALLOWED THE LOSS OF 12.50 QTLS O F RS.32,000/- PERTAINING TO THE PERIOD WHEN THE PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERN TOOK OVER BY THE ASSESSEE W.E.F. 12.10.2004 AS PER FIR LODGED. THE ASSESSEES SUBMISSIONS WERE TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THE SUBSEQUENT STATEMENTS OF THE THIEVES THAT THEY HAD BEEN STEALING THE ASSESSES GOODS FOR THE LAST ONE MONTH AS RECORDED AT ITA NO.520 & 480(ASR)/2011 5 PAGE 6 OF THE POLICE INQUIRY REPORT IN SENTENCE NO. 5 JIMMI NO.4 (POLICE INQUIRY REPORT). THE ASSESSEE BOOKED THE LOSS IN TH E STOCK REGISTER AND IN THE BOOKS ON 12.10.2004 AFTER PHYSICAL VERIFICATION ON THE DETECTION OF THE SAME AND WHEN HE BECAME AWARE OF THE LOSS ONLY ON 12.10 .2004 AND THEREFORE, THE SAME IS ALLOWABLE IN THE PERIOD UNDER CONSIDERA TION, IN THE PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERN ON 12.10.2004 WHEN THE PRESENT ASSESSEE BEC AME THE PROPRIETOR OF THE CONCERN ON 12.10.2004 ONLY AFTER DEMISE OF THE PARTNER OF THE ERSTWHILE FIRM ON 12.10.2004 MENTIONED HEREINABOVE SINCE THE LOSS HAS BEEN CRYSTALISED ON 12.10.2004. THEREFORE, IT HAS TO BE ALLOWED ONLY FOR THE PERIOD STARTING FROM 12.10.2004 FOR WHICH THE ASSESSEE IS THE PROPRIETOR. THE LD. COUNSEL APPEARING BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) RELIED UPON THE DECISIONS OF THE VARIOUS COURTS OF LAW IN THIS REGARD. THE LD. CIT(A ) ACCEPTING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND FACTS AVAILABLE ON RECORD ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. 8. THE LD. DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, ARGUED THAT THE L OSS PERTAINED TO THE ERSTWHILE FIRM AND IF THE LOSS IS NOT CARRIED FORWA RD BY THE PREDECESSOR FIRM THEN THE SAID LOSS CANNOT BE ALLOWED TO THE SUCCESS OR CONCERN. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ERSTWHILE FIRM DID NOT CLAIM THE CARRY FO RWARD OF THE LOSS AND THEREFORE, TO AVAIL OF THE LOSS IN THE SUCCESSOR C ONCERN OF WHICH ASSESSEE IS THE PROPRIETOR, THE SAME CANNOT BE ALLOWED. THE LD . DR ACCORDINGLY RELIED ITA NO.520 & 480(ASR)/2011 6 UPON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COU RT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SMT. SAROJ AGARWAL REPORTED IN 83 ITR 875 AND THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF HINDUS TAN AERONAUTICS LTD. VS. CIT REPORTED IN 149 ITR 795. 9. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). 10. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE FACTS OF THE CASE. THERE IS NO DISPUTE TO THE FACT THAT THE PARTNERSHI P FIRM WAS CONTINUED UP TO 11.10.2004, WHEN SMT. KASHMIR KAUR ONE OF THE PARTN ER DIED AT 8PM ON 11.10.2004 TILL THAT TIME NOTHING WAS KNOWN TO THE FIRM WHETHER THERE IS ANY LOSS OR THEFT. IT WAS ONLY ON 12.10.2004 I.E. AFTER DEATH OF SMT. KASHMIR KAUR, WHEN THE PRESENT ASSESSEE BECAME THE PROPRIET OR OF THE ERSTWHILE CONCERN, THE ASSESSEE CAME TO KNOW OF THE THEFT, WH EN THE POLICE CAUGHT A TRUCK CARRYING 12.50 QTLS OF GOODS. WHEN THIEVES WE RE CAUGHT, THE THIEVES ADMITTED OF DOING THEFT FOR THE LAST ONE MONTH. THE ASSESSOR AND SURVEYOR OF THE INSURANCE COMPANY ALSO SUBMITTED THE REPORT OF THEFT FOR THE LAST TWO WEEKS. THE QUESTION ARISES WHETHER THE THEFT HAD BE EN TAKING PLACE DURING THE PERIOD OF THE ERSTWHILE FIRM WHICH, IN FACT, GO T CRYSTALISED DURING THE PERIOD, THE ASSESSEE BECAME PROPRIETOR I.E. DURING THE PERIOD OF THE PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERN THEN THE SAID LOSS IS A LOSS OF THE ERSTWHILE FIRM OR THE ITA NO.520 & 480(ASR)/2011 7 PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERN OF THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDING T O US AND IN OUR VIEW THE ERSTWHILE FIRM NEVER KNEW THE FACT OF THEFT AND IT IS UNDISPUTED THAT THE PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERN CAME TO KNOW OF THE THEFT A ND AT THE SAME MOMENT WHEN IT CAME TO KNOW, THE LOSS GOT CRYSTALISED AND THE PRESENT ASSESSEE ACCORDINGLY BOOKED THE LOSS. THERE WAS NO POSSIBIL ITY OF BOOKING THE SAID LOSS IN THE ERSTWHILE FIRM AND THEREFORE, THE ACTIO N OF THE ASSESSEE IN BOOKING THE LOSS IN THE PRESENT PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERN IS C ORRECT AND WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN ALLOWIN G THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IN VIEW OF THE DECISIONS OF VARIOUS COURTS OF LAW R ELIED UPON AND REFERRED IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) I.E. I) CIT VS. SMT. PUKHRAJ WATI BUBBER (2008) 296 ITR 290 (P&H) II) CIT VS. SARYA SUGAR MILLS (P.) LTD. 70 ITR109 (ALL.) III) HOPKIN & WILLIAMS (TRAVANCORE) LTD. VS. CIT 64 ITR 76 (KER) IV) 125 ITR 519 P&H) 10.1. THE ARGUMENTS MADE BY THE LD. DR HAVE BEEN CO NSIDERED. SINCE THERE WAS NO LOSS CRYSTALISED IN THE PREDECESSOR FIRM, TH EREFORE, THERE IS NO QUESTION OF CLAIM OR CARRY FORWARD OF LOSS BY ERST WHILE FIRM. THEREFORE, THE CASES RELIED UPON BY THE LD. DR ARE NOT APPLICABLE IN THE PRESENT CIRCUMSTANCES AND FACTS OF THE CASE. ITA NO.520 & 480(ASR)/2011 8 10.2. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSIONS AND FACTS AN D CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, ALL THE GROUNDS OF THE REVENUE IN ITA NO.52 0(ASR)/2011 ARE DISMISSED. 11. NOW, WE TAKE UP THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN I TA NO.480(ASR)/2011. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT DURING THE ASS ESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, IT WAS FOUND THAT THE ASSESSE HAS SHOWN LONG TERM CAPITAL LOSS AT RS.2,19,360/-. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED A VALUATION REPORT OF THE PROPER TY AS ON 1.4.1981 SHOWING FMV AT RS.12,95,700/-. ACCORDING TO THE VALUATION O FFICER, THE VALUATION WAS FOUND TO BE EXCESSIVE. A REFERENCE WAS MADE TO THE DVO WHO AFTER GIVING OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE AND CONSIDERING THE ASSESSEES OBJECTION ESTIMATED THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AS ON 1.4.1981 AT RS.7,56,600/-. A COPY OF THE VALUATION REPORT WAS SUPPLIED TO THE ASSESSE E FOR OBJECTION AND THE OBJECTIONS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE WERE REFERRED TO THE DEPARTMENTAL VALUER, WHO HAS BRUSHED ASIDE ALL OBJECTIONS ON THE GROUND THAT STANDARD PLINTH AREA RATES APPLIED BY HIM IS INCLUDED IN THE RATES. A C OPY OF THE VALUATION REPORT WAS ALSO FURNISHED TO THE COUNSEL AND IN RESPONSE T HERETO, THE ASSESSEE REITERATED ITS EARLIER OBJECTIONS RAISED VIDE LETTE R DATED 29.11.2007. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, THE A. O. HAD MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.21,43,160/- UNDER THE HEAD LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN. ON APPEAL, THE LEARNED CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER. ITA NO.520 & 480(ASR)/2011 9 12. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, MR. PADAM BAH L ARGUED THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 55A(A) OF THE ACT ARE APPLICA BLE ONLY IF THE AO IS OF THE OPINION THAT IF THE VALUE SO CLAIMED IS LESS T HAN THE FAIR MARKET VALUE (IN SHORT FMV). IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSESSEE HA D CLAIMED FMV AT RS.12,95,700/- AS AT 01.04.1981 AS AGAINST RS.7,56, 600/- VALUED BY THE DVO. THEREFORE, THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 55A(A) AR E NOT APPLICABLE IN THE PRESENT CASE. AS REGARDS SECTION 55A(B), THE SAME I S APPLICABLE ONLY IF THE AO IS OF THE OPINION THAT FMV EXCEEDS THE VALUE OF THE ASSESSEE AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE BY MORE THAN SUCH PERCENTAGE OF THE VALUE OF THE ASSET AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE MORE THAN SUCH PERCENTAGE O F THE VALUE OF THE ASSET AS SO CLAIMED OR BY MORE THAN SUCH AMOUNT AS MAY B E PRESCRIBED IN THIS BEHALF OR HAVING REGARD TO THE NATURE OF THE ASSET AND OTHER RELEVANT CIRCUMSTANCES, IT IS NECESSARY SO TO DO.. IN THIS R EGARD, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, MR. PADAM BAHL INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF HIABEN JAYANTI L AL SHAH VS. ITO 310 ITR 31 (GUJ.), WHERE IT HAS BEEN CLEARLY HELD THAT FOR THE CASES TO BE COVERED UNDER SECTION 55A(B), THE AO HAS TO RECORD AN OPINI ON THAT FMV OF THE ASSET EXCEEDS THE VALUE OF THE ASSET AS CLAIMED BY THE A SSESSEE BY MORE THAT SUCH PERCENTAGE OR MORE THAN SUCH AMOUNT AS MAY BE PRESC RIBED OR HAVING REGARDING TO THE NATURE OF THE ASSET OR OTHER RELEV ANT CIRCUMSTANCES, IT IS ITA NO.520 & 480(ASR)/2011 10 NECESSARY TO MAKE SUCH A REFERENCE. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSE, MR. PADAM BAHL ARGUED THAT THE AO HAS NOT RECORDED ANY OF REASON, THEREFORE, SECTION 55A(B) OF THE ACT, CANNO T BE MADE APPLICABLE IN THE PRESENT FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND REFERENCE TO THE DVO IS BAD IN LAW. MOREOVER, REFERENCE MADE BY THE AO WAS UNDER SECTION 142A OF THE ACT, WHEREAS THE MATTER RELATES TO CHAPTER IV W ITH REGARD TO COMPUTATION OF INCOME FROM CAPITAL GAINS, AS IS EVIDENT FROM TH E LETTER OF THE ITO AVAILABLE AT PB 8 & 9. 13. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR, SH. TARSEM LAL, RELIED UPON THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 14. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE FACTS OF THE CASE. THE ARGUMENTS OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, APPEARS TO BE CONVINCING FOR THE REASONS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SUBMITTED VAL UATION BY THE REGISTERED VALUER AND CLAIMED FMV AT RS.12,95,700/-. THERE IS NOTHING ON RECORD WHICH COULD SHOW THAT THE AO IS OF THE OPINION THAT THE VALUE SO CLAIMED IS LESS THAN ITS FMV. THEREFORE PROVISION OF SECTION 5 5A(A) CANNOT BE MADE APPLICABLE. AS REGARDS THE PROVISION OF SECTION 55A (B) OF THE ACT, THE AO IS REQUIRED TO FORM AN OPINION AND RECORD REASONS IN V IEW OF THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF HIABEN JA YANTI SHAH VS. ITO REPORTED IN (2009) 310 ITR31, WHICH IN THE PRESENT CASE HAS NOT BEEN DONE ITA NO.520 & 480(ASR)/2011 11 BY THE AO. MOREOVER, IT IS ALSO NOT DISPUTED THAT T HE AO HAS REQUIRED THE VALUATION OFFICER TO VALUE THE CAPITAL ASSETS U/S 1 42A OF THE ACT. IT SHOWS NON-APPLICATION OF MIND BY THE AO. IN THE PRESENT F ACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE REFERENCE MADE BY THE AO TO THE VALUA TION OFFICER IS BAD IN LAW AND VALUATION SO MADE CANNOT BE A SUBJECT MATTE R FOR COMPUTATION OF INCOME FROM CAPITAL GAINS. THEREFORE, THE AO IS DIR ECTED TO ACCEPT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, THE ORDER OF THE CIT( A) IS REVERSED. THUS, ALL THE GROUNDS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED. 15. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IN ITA NO.520(ASR)/2011 IS DISMISSED AND THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO. 480(ASR)/2011 IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 9TH MAY, 2012. SD/- SD/- (H.S. SIDHU) (B.P. JAIN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 9TH MAY, 2012 /SKR/ COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : 1. THE ASSESSEE:SH. SALWINDER SINGH, PRO.M/S. AULAKH OVERSEAS, ASR 2. THE ACIT, CIR.V/ITO 5(4), ASR 3. THE CIT(A), 4. THE CIT, 5. THE SR DR, ITAT, AMRITSAR TRUE COPY ITA NO.520 & 480(ASR)/2011 12 BY ORDER (ASSISTANT REGISTRAR) INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH : AMRITSAR.