The Deputy Commissioner of Income tax, Pathankot V. Smt. Satish Bala (Alias Sangeeta), Pathankot

ITA 485/ASR/2013

• Counselvise Citation: 48520914 RSA 2013
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-12-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 04-12-2013
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 03-07-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: J S BHASIN
• Keywords: Capital asset; Question of law
• Section: 142(1); 27; 148

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. 485 (ASR)/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 PAN: AGBPB6496Q THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER VS. SMT. SATISH B ALA (ALIAS SANGEETA) OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-VI, D/D SH. PREM CHAND,55- NEW PATHANKOT GARDEN COLONY, PATHANKOT (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SH. TARSEM LAL, SR. DR RESPONDENT BY: SH. J.S. BHASIN, ADVOCATE DATE OF HEARING: 04.12.2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 09.12.2013 ORDER PER BENCH 1. THE REVENUE HAS FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL AGAINST THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 05.04.2013 PASSED BY LEARNED COMMISSION ER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS), AMRITSAR, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 6-07 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: I. WHETHER THE LD. CIT(APPEALS), IS CORRECT IN DELETIN G THE ADDITION OF RS. 14,94,000/- MADE BY THE A.O. ON THE ACCOUNT OF SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN ARISING ON SELLING OF LAND BY THE ASSE SSEE LOCATED AT VILL. ISLAMPUR, TEHSIL PATHANKOT, WHICH WAS HELD TO BE CAPITAL ASSET. II. WHETHER THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN ALLOWING THE AP PEAL OF THE ASSESSEE BY NOT APPRECIATING THE FACT BROUGHT UP BY THE A.O. IN THE 2 I.T.A. NO. 485 (ASR)/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT AS PER TEHSILDAR PATHANKOTS LETTER NO. 247 DATED 25.01.2008, THE LAND IN QUESTION WAS ACTUALLY LOCATED AT A DISTANCE OF 5KMS. FROM THE MUNICIPAL LIMITS OF PATH ANKOT. III. WHETHER THE LD. CIT(APPEALS), IS CORRECT IN ALLOWIN G THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE BY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF HON'BLE I .T.A.T. BENCH, AMRITSAR IN APPEAL NO. ITA NO. 416(ASR)/2011 FOR TH E ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 IN THE IDENTICAL CASE OF DC IT, CIRCLE-VI, PATHANKOT VS. SMT. USHA RANI, ONE OF THE CO-OWNERS OF THE LAND IN QUESTION. WHEREAS, HON'BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH CO URT VIDE ORDER DATED 29.04.2013 IN ITA NO. 209 OF 2012 AND I TA NO. 190 OF 2012 AND ITA NO. 208 OF 2012 IN THE CASE OF SMT. NEERU AGGARWAL, SMT. USHA RANI AND SMT. NEERU AGGARWAL RE SPECTIVELY HAVE REVERSED THE FINDINGS OF LD. I.T.A.T. AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR GIVEN ITA NO. 416(ASR)/2011. IV. APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO AMEND OR ADD ANY OR MORE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 2. THE FACTS RELATING TO THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE ARE T HAT THE ASSESSEE FILED HER RETURN OF INCOME ON 14.07.2006, DECLARING INCOME OF RS. 98,360/-, WHICH WAS PROCESSED UNDER SECTION 143(1) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT). THE CASE OF THE ASS ESSEE WAS REOPENED BY ISSUING NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT FOR THE REASONS THAT IN THE RETURN OF SMT. USHA RANI, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2 006-07, A NOTE WAS GIVEN AS AG. LAND MEASURING 8 KANALS SITUATED AT V ILLAGE ISLAMPUR, TEHSIL PATHANKOT (MORE THAN 9 KMS. AWAY FROM PATHAN KOT) SOLD ON 29.08.2005 FOR RS. 16 LACS ONLY, NOT BEING ASSETS, NO CAPITAL GAIN. TWO SALE DEEDS WERE ENCLOSED ALONG WITH THE RETURN. AS PER ONE SALE DEED, THE LAND WAS PURCHASED ON 17.11.2004 IN THE NAME OF SMT . SANGEETA ALIAS 3 I.T.A. NO. 485 (ASR)/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 SATISH BALA(ASSESSEE), SMT. NEERU AGGARWAL AND SMT. USHA RANI FOR EQUAL SHARE OF RS. 3 LACS PLUS RS. 18,000/- STAMP D UTY. AS PER THE SECOND SALE DEED DATED 29.08.2005 OUT OF THE SAME LAND, LA ND MEASURING 6 KANAL 9 MARLA WAS SOLD FOR RS. 38,40,000/- BY THE THREE C O-OWNERS. AS SMT. USHA RANI IN THE FOOTNOTE OF THE RETURN HAS MENTION ED THAT SHE HAD SOLD THE LAND FOR RS. 16 LACS, IT IMPLIES THAT SHE HAD S OLD THE LAND ALSO AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER ACCORDINGLY WORKED OUT HER SHARE OF SHORT TERM CAPITAL AT RS. 14,91,000/-. SMT. USHA RANI IN HER RETURN, ATTACHED PHOTOCOPY OF CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY TEHSILDAR, PATHANKOT DATED 31 .08.2005 STATING THAT THE LAND IS AT A DISTANCE OF 9 KMS. FROM PATHANKOT. BUT AS PER THE SALE DEED, THE PLOT IS SITUATED AT NATWAL HIGHWAY 1A BET WEEN MALIPUR AND SUJANPUR AND ADJOINING SONIA DHABA AND LOCAL ENQUIR Y INDICATED THAT THE PLOT IS SITUATED AT A DISTANCE OF ABOUT 5 KMS. FROM NALWA BRIDGE OCTROI (MUNICIPAL LIMIT) AND LITTLE MORE THAN 5 KMS. FROM KATH DA PUL OCTROI POST (MUNICIPAL LIMIT). SUBSEQUENTLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS A ND THEREBY CONCEALED SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN TO THE TUNE OF RS. 14,94,00 0/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THEREAFTER, ISSUED NOTICE UNDER SECTION 14 8 OF THE ACT TO THE ASSESSEE ON 22.02.2008. 4 I.T.A. NO. 485 (ASR)/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 3. IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE A CT, THE ASSESSEE I.E. SMT. SATISH BALA FILED HER RETURN OF INCOME DE CLARING INCOME OF RS. 16,03,490/- PLUS RS. 3,500/- FOR AGRICULTURE INCOME . NOTICES UNDER SECTION 143(2) & 142(1) OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESS EE AND IN RESPONSE TO THE SAME, CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE TEHSILDAR, PATH ANKOT IN THE NAME OF SMT. USHA RANI, WHO WAS ONE OF THE CO-SHARER, WAS R ELIED UPON. THE ASSESSEE HAS RELIED ON THE CASE OF SMT. USHA RANI, WHO WAS CO-OWNER & CO-SHARER OF THE LAND WHICH WAS SITUATED WITHIN 8 K MS. FROM MUNICIPAL LIMIT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY RELYING UPON THE FI NDINGS IN THE CASE OF SMT. USHA RANI, CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT AT THE TIME OF FILING RETURN, THE ASSESSEE WAS FULLY AWARE THAT THE LAND SOLD BY HER IS A CAPITAL ASSET AND THE GAIN ARISING FROM THE SALE IS ASSESSABLE AS SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THAT DECLARING OF THE SH ORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN BY SMT. SATISH BALA IN THE RETURN FILED IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 IS NOT VOLUNTARY, AS THE OTHER CO-OWNER I.E. SM T. USHA RANI AND SMT. NEERU AGGARWAL HAVE NOT DECLARED ANY AGRICULTURE IN COME, THE INCOME OF RS. 3500/- SHOWN AS AGRICULTURE INCOME BY THE ASSES SEE WAS TREATED AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER ADDED THE SAME TO THE INCOME OF ASSESSEE VIDE ORDER DATED 31.03.2006. 5 I.T.A. NO. 485 (ASR)/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 4. BEING AGGRIEVED WITH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 31.03.2006, ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE LEARNED CIT(A), AMR ITSAR, WHO VIDE IMPUGNED ORDER 05.04.2013, PARTLY ALLOWED THE APPEA L OF THE ASSESSEE. NOW, BEING AGGRIEVED WITH THE IMPUGNED ORDER, THE R EVENUE FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL. 5. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, LEARNED DR STATED THAT T HE LEARNED FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAD DECIDED THE ISSUE IN DISPUT E IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE BASIS OF DECISION IN THE CASE OF ON E CO-OWNER/CO-SHARER, SMT. USHA RANI, PATHANKOT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2 006-07 PASSED IN APPEAL NO. 728/07-08, DATED 5.5.2011, BY CIT(A), AM RITSAR, AND THEREAFTER, THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), AMRITSAR, WAS CONFIRMED BY I.T.A.T., AMRITSAR BENCH VIDE ORDER DATED 19.03.2012 IN THE D EPARTMENT APPEAL BEARING I.T.A. NO. 416(ASR)/2011 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. AND THE REVENUE HAS CHALLENGED THE ORDER OF THE I.T.A.T ., AMRITSAR BENCH BEFORE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, TITL ING I.T.A. NO. 209 OF 2012, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II, AMRITSA R VS. SMT. NEERU AGGARWAL; ITA NO. 190 OF 2012, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II, AMRITSAR VS. SMT. USHA RANI; AND ITA NO. 208 OF 201 2, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II, AMRITSAR VS. SMT. NE ERU AGGARWAL, AND THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT DECIDED THE ISSUE IN DIS PUTE IN FAVOUR OF THE 6 I.T.A. NO. 485 (ASR)/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 REVENUE AND AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. AT LAST, HE REQUE STED THAT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE MAY BE ALLOWED BY CANCELLING T HE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY LEARNED CIT(A), AMRITSAR. 6. ON THE CONTRARY, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSE E HAS NOT RAISED ANY SERIOUS OBJECTIONS ON THE ARGUMENT ADVANCED BY LEARNED DR. 7. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE R ELEVANT RECORDS AVAILABLE WITH US, ESPECIALLY THE IMPUGNED ORDER PA SSED BY LEARNED FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY ALONG WITH THE ORDER PASSED BY THIS BENCH AS WELL AS THE ORDER DATED 29.04.2013 PASSED BY HON'BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN I.T.A. NO. 209 OF 2012, THE COMMISSIONER O F INCOME TAX-II, AMRITSAR VS. SMT. NEERU AGGARWAL; ITA NO. 190 OF 20 12, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II, AMRITSAR VS. SMT. US HA RANI; AND ITA NO. 208 OF 2012, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II, AMRITSAR VS. SMT. NEERU AGGARWAL. THE SAME ARE REPRODUCED AS UND ER: THIS ORDER SHALL DISPOSE OF ITA NO. 209 OF 2012, W HEREIN THE REVENUE HAS CLAIMED THE FOLLOWING SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW: - I) WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LEARNED ITAT WAS JUSTIFIED IN UPHOLDING THE ORDER OF CIT(A) IN T HE LIGHT OF JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CAS E OF CIT, CHANDIGARH VS. SMT. ANJANA SEHGAL IN ITA NO. 276 OF 2004, ACCORDING TO WHICH, THE LAND SOLD WAS URBAN LAND SI TUATED IN SPECIFIED AREA OF ANY MUNICIPALITY. II) WHETHER IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LEARNED ITAT WAS JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING THAT THE DISTANCE IS TO BE MEASURED FROM 7 I.T.A. NO. 485 (ASR)/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 MUNICIPALITY LIMITS OF PATHANKOT TOWN ONLY AND NOT FROM MUNICIPAL LIMITS OF SUJANPUR TOWN? ANOTHER APPEAL BEARING NO. ITA 190 OF 2012 ARISES A GAINST THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT FILED BY ANOTHER CO-SHARER WHEREAS IT A NO. 208 OF 2012 IS AGAINST THE ORDER IMPOSING PENALTY UNDER SECTION 27 1(1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (FOR SHORT THE 'ACT'). THE ASSESSESES ARE THE CO-SHARERS AND APPEALS RAISE IDENTICAL QUESTIONS OF LAW, THEREFORE , THE SAME ARE DISPOSED OF BY A COMMON ORDER. HOWEVER, FOR FACILITY OF REFEREN CE, FACTS ARE BEING TAKEN FROM ITA NO. 208 OF 2012. THE LAND OF THE APPELLANT IS SITUATED AT VILLAGE IS LAMPUR, DISTRICT PATHANKOT AND THE SAME WAS SOLD ON 29.8.2005. THE A SSESSEE CLAIMED THAT SINCE THE LAND IS AN AGRICULTURAL LAND, THEREFORE, IT DOES NOT ATTRACT ANY CAPITAL GAIN. BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER, A CERTI FICATE ISSUED BY THE TEHSILDAR, PATHANKOT WAS FILED TO THE EFFECT THAT T HE LAND IS AT A DISTANCE OF 9 KMS FROM PATHANKOT AND THUS NOT A CAPITAL ASSET. TH E ASSESSING OFFICER TOOK NOTE OF THE FACT THAT GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB VIDE NOT IFICATION DATED 31.11.2004 EXTENDED THE MUNICIPAL LIMITS OF MUNICIP AL COUNCIL, SUJANPUR UPTO MALIKPUR AND THAT THE SAID MUNICIPAL COUNCIL H AS ESTABLISHED OCTROI POST AT MALIKPUR AND THE LAND SOLD WAS SITUATED INS IDE OCTROI POST. THUS, IT WAS SAID TO BE CAPITAL ASSET. THE COMMISSIONER OF I NCOME TAX (APPEALS) {FOR SHORT CIT(A)} ON 14.7.2011 SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASS ED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER HOLDING THAT SINCE THE LAND IS SITUATED IN THE REVENUE LIMITS OF PATHANKOT, THEREFORE, THE MUNICIPAL LIMITS OF PATHA NKOT ARE RELEVANT TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE LAND IS CAPITAL ASSET OR NOT. IT WAS FOUND THAT THE LAND IS NOT WITHIN 8 KMS OF MUNICIPAL COUNCIL PATHANKOT, THUS THE LAND IS NOT AN CAPITAL ASSET. SUCH ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A) WAS AFFIRMED BY THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (FOR SHORT THE 'TRIBUNAL') O N 10.5.2012. IT IS THE SAID ORDER WHICH IS DISPUTE IN THE PRESENT APPEALS BY TH E REVENUE. LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE REVENUE RELIES UPON AN ORDE R PASSED BY THE DIVISION BENCH OF THIS COURT IN ITA NO. 276 OF 2004 , COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CHANDIGARH VS. SMT. ANJANA SEHGAL DECID ED ON 1.3.2011, WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT THE LAND SITUATED WIT HIN THE LIMITS OF 8 KMS FROM ANY MUNICIPALITY WOULD BE A CAPITAL ASSET, THE SALE OF WHICH WOULDATTRACT CAPITAL GAIN. THE COURT HELD TO THE FO LLOWING EFFECT: - '8. A PERUSAL OF THE ABOVE PROVISIONS MAKES IT CLEA R THAT WHAT IS INTENDED TO BE COVERED IN TERM 'CAPITAL ASSET' IS A GRICULTURAL LAND COMPRISED WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF A MUNICIPALITY AND WITHIN THE SPECIFIED DISTANCE FROM THE LOCAL LIMITS OF MUNICIP ALITY OR OTHER LOCAL BODIES MENTIONED THEREIN AS SPECIFIED IN THE NOTIFI CATION. IT IS UNDISPUTED THAT THE LAND IN QUESTION IS WITHIN THE SPECIFIED DISTANCE FROM PANCHKULA MUNICIPALITY WHICH FALLS IN THE STAT E OF HARYANA 8 I.T.A. NO. 485 (ASR)/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 WHILE LAND IS IN THE STATE OF PUNJAB. THUS LAND IS URBAN LAND FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEFINITION OF 'CAPITAL ASSET' UNDER SECT ION 2(14). CONCEPT OF MUNICIPALITY AS A UNIT OF STATE OR THE FACT THAT A STATE HAS NO JURISDICTION TO MAKE LAW BEYOND ITS TERRITORY HAVE NO RELEVANCE FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINING WHETHER PARTICULAR LAND WAS 'CAPITAL ASSET' OR NOT FOR THE PURPOSE OF TAXING CAPITAL GAIN. IF THE LAND IS ADJACENT TO A MUNICIPALITY AND IS URBAN LAND COVERED UNDER SECTIO N 2(14), EVEN IF MUNICIPALITY AND THE LAND FALL IN DIFFERENT STATES, THE LAND WILL CONTINUE TO BE URBAN LAND. IF SUCH LAND IS EXCLUDED FROM THE DEFINITION OF 'CAPITAL ASSET', PURPOSE OF STATUTORY SCHEME WIL L NOT BE ACHIEVED.' THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION FILED AGAINST THE SAID O RDER HAS BEEN DISMISSED ON 9.1.2012. IN VIEW OF THE JUDGMENT OF T HIS COURT IN SMT. ANJANA SEHGAL'S CASE (SUPRA), THE QUESTIONS OF LAW, FRAMED IN ITA NO. 209 AND 190 OF 2012 ARE ANSWERED IN FAVOUR OF THE REVENUE AND AGAI NST THE ASSESSEE AS THE LAND IS SITUATED WITHIN THE MUNICIPAL LIMITS OF MUN ICIPAL COUNCIL, SUJANPUR. AS A CONSEQUENCE THEREOF, THE ORDER OF CIT(A) DATED 14.7.2011 AND LEARNED TRIBUNAL DATED 10.5.2012 ARE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS RESTORED. IN ITA NO. 208 OF 2012, THE ORDER IMPUGNED IS ORDER SETTING ASIDE PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. IT HAS BEEN FOUND THAT THE LAND SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE IS A CAPITAL ASSET LIABLE TO C APITAL GAIN. THUS, THE ORDERS OF THE CIT(A) AND OF THE TRIBUNAL CANNOT BE SUSTAIN ED. SINCE THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ACCEPTED ON THE GROUNDS THAT THE L AND IS NOT A CAPITAL ASSET, THEREFORE, THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A) DATED 14. 7.2011 AND THAT OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 10.5.2012 ARE SET ASIDE. THE MATTER IS REMITTED BACK TO THE CIT(A) FOR DECISION ON THE QUESTION OF LEVY OF PENA LTY, IF ANY ACCORDING TO LAW. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE (RITU BAHRI) 29.04.2013 JUDGE 8. KEEPING IN VIEW THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE PUNJAB A ND HARYANA HIGH COURT DATED 29.04.2013 REPRODUCED ABOVE; WE AR E OF THE VIEW THAT THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE HAS ALREADY BEEN DECIDED IN FA VOUR OF THE REVENUE AND AGAINST THE ASSESSEE BY HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF P UNJAB AND HARYANA 9 I.T.A. NO. 485 (ASR)/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 AS, DISCUSSED ABOVE. THEREFORE, THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN THE EYE OF LAW AND WE CANCEL THE SAME BY ACCEPTING THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AND UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING O FFICER IN THE SAME TERMS, AS IN THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY HON'BLE JURISDI CTIONAL HIGH COURT (SUPRA). 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE I S ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 9 TH DECEMBER, 2013 SD/./- SD/./- (B.P. JAIN) (H.S. SIDHU) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 9 TH DECEMBER, 2013 /RK/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE ASSESSEE: SMT. SATISH BALA (ALIAS SANGEETA), D/ D SH. PREM CHAND,55-NEW GARDEN COLONY, PATHANKOT 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-VI, P ATHANKOT 3. THE CIT(A), ASR 4. THE CIT, ASR 5. THE SR DR, I.T.A.T., ASR TRUE COPY BY ORDER (ASSISTANT REGISTRAR) INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AMRITSAR BENCH: AMRITSAR.