M/s. Pardeep Singh Wazir, Jammu & Kashmir V. The Dy. Commissioner of Income- tax, Srinagar (J&K)

ITA 525/ASR/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 95037 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-11-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 09-10-2015
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 26-08-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Revision of order; Assessment record
• Section: 40A(3); 143(3); 133(6); 263

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH; AMRITSAR BEFORE SH. A.D.JAIN, HONBLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. T.S. KAPOOR, HONBLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 525(ASR)/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 PAN: AAIFP4025E M/S. PARDEEP SINGH WAZIR BABA RESHI ROAD KANLIBAGH, BARAMULLA, JAMMU & KASHMIR. VS. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PHAGWARA. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SH. UPEN DER BHAT (CA) RESPONDENT BY: SH. TARSEM LAL (DR) DATE OF HEARING: 0 9.10.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEM ENT: 05.11.2015 ORDER PER T. S. KAPOOR (AM): THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST T HE ORDER OF CIT, JAMMU & KASHMIR DATED 10.06.2014, PASSED UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE I.T. ACT. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN FOUR GROUNDS OF APPEAL, O UT OF WHICH GROUND NOS. 2 AND 4 ARE GENERAL AND GROUND NO.3 IS SPECIFIC WHI CH READS AS UNDER: (III) THAT THE LEARNED CIT, JAMMU, WHILE INITIATIN G PROCEEDINGS AS WELL AS AT THE TIME OF PASSING OF ORDER U/S 263 OF THE ACT HAS COM PLETELY IGNORED THE FACT THAT BEFORE 1.04.2009 THE WORDS OR AGGREGATE OF PAYMENTS MADE TO A PERSON IN A DAY..... WERE NOT MENTIONED IN SECTION 40A(3) DURING THE AS SESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THUS IGNORING THE CBDT CIRCULA R NO-1/2009 DATED 27.03.2009 MAKES THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT, JAMMU BA D IN LAW AND IS LIABLE TO BE CANCELLED. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER PASSED AN ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 24.12.2009 FOR ASST. YEAR 20 07-08. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX EXERCISED POWERS UNDER SECTION 263 AN D PASSED ORDER UNDER 2. ITA NO. 5 25(ASR)/2014 ASST. YE AR 2007-08 SECTION 263 VIDE ORDER DATED 21.03.2012, WHICH THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED BEFORE THE HONBLE ITAT, AMRITSAR BENCH. THE HONBLE ITAT AMRITSAR BENCH SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VIDE ITS OR DER 31.10.2013 WITH THE DIRECTIONS THAT ASSESSEE BE PROVIDED SUFFICIENT OPP ORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD AND THEREFORE, AFTER AFFORDING THE ASSESSEE ADEQUATE OP PORTUNITY, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AGAIN PASSED ORDER UNDER SECTION 263 WITH THE SAME DIRECTIONS WHICH WERE IN ORIGINAL ORDER UNDER SECTION 263 DATE D 21.03.2012. THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE COMMISSIONER FOR INITIAT ING PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 263 IS REPRODUCED AS BELOW. 2. ON GOING THROUGH THE PROPOSAL AND THE ACCOMPANY ING RECORDS, IT IS OBSERVED THAT DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, EXPENDITU RE OF RS.1,65,23,105/- HAS BEEN DEBITED UNDER THE HEAD FUEL ACCOUNT. DURING TH E COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE LEDGER ACCOUNT OF FUEL CONSUMPTION HAS BEEN CALLED FOR BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND IS PLACED ON RECORDS. FROM PE RUSAL OF THE DETAILS, IT IS SEEN THAT CASH PAYMENTS IN EXCESS OF RS.20.000/-, A GGREGATING TO RS.45,45,731/- HAVE BEEN MADE TO M/S SHALIMAR TRANS PORTERS, BARAMULLA, AS PER THE FOLLOWING DETAILS:- 05.04.2006 30,000/- M/S. SHALIMAR TRANSPORTERS BARAMULLA AGAINST PURCHASE 24.06.2006 2,00,000/- -DO- 30.06.2006 1,00,000/- -DO- 07.08.2006 1,50,000/- -DO- 14.08.2006 1,80,000/- -DO- 23.08.2006 1,80,000/- -DO- 3. ITA NO. 5 25(ASR)/2014 ASST. YE AR 2007-08 11.10.2006 1,80,000/- -DO- 12.10.2006 1,80,000/- -DO- 14.10.2006 1,80,000/- -DO- 15.10.2006 1,80,000/- -DO- 16.10.2006 1,80,000/- -DO- 17.10.2006 1,80,000/- -DO- 18.10.2006 1,80,000/- -DO- 19.10.2006 1,80,000/- -DO- 21.10.2006 1,80,000/- -DO- 31.10.2006 1,80,000/- -DO- 30.11.2006 1,80,000/- -DO- 25.12.2006 1,80,000/- -DO- 17.01.2007 1,80,000/- -DO- 28.01.2007 1,80,000/- -DO- 29.01.2007 1,80,000/- -DO- 22.02.2007 1,80,000/- -DO- 28.02.2007 1,80,000/- -DO- 22.03.2007 1,80,000/- -DO- 23.03.2007 1,80,000/- -DO- 28.03.2007 1,05,731/- -DO- TOTAL 45,45,731/-/- 3.2. IT IS FURTHER OBSERVED THAT VIDE QUESTIONNAIRE DATED 10.12.2009, THE ASSESSING OFFICER CONFRONTED THE ISSUE WITH REGARD TO THE PAYMENTS BEING MADE IN CASH IN CONTRAVENTION OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTI ON 40A(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. IN RESPONSE, VIDE REPLY DATED 17.11.2009 , IT WAS SUBMITTED BY YOU AS UNDER:- 4. ITA NO. 5 25(ASR)/2014 ASST. YE AR 2007-08 THE CASH PAYMENTS MADE TO SHALIMAR TRANSPORTERS HA VE NOT BEEN MADE IN VIOLATION SECTION 40A(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 196 1 BUT HAVE BEEN MADE ON PARTS DURING THE DAY AND IN SEPARATE TRANSACTION.. 3.3 THE ABOVE REPLY ALONG WITH THE COPY OF DAY BOOK IS ALSO PLACED ON RECORDS. HOWEVER, IT IS SEEN THAT PAYMENTS MADE TO A SINGLE PARTY HAVE BEEN SPLIT UP INTO INDIVIDUAL ENTRIES BELOW 20,000/- TO CIRCUMVENT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40A(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. FOR EXA MPLE, IN RESPECT OF ENTRY DATED 24.06.2006, THE PAYMENTS ARE SHOWN TO HAVE BE EN MADE AS UNDER:- FUEL ACCOUNT 24.06.2006 2,00,000/- RS 20,000/- CASH RS 20,000/- CASH RS 20,000/- CASH RS 20,000/- CASH RS 20,000/- CASH RS 20,000/- CASH RS 20,000/- CASH RS 20,000/- CASH RS 20,000/- 3.4 THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40A(3) OF THE I.T. AC T, 1961, CLEARLY PROVIDE THAT WHEREVER THE ASSESSEE INCURS AN EXPENDITURE, IN EXC ESS OF RS.20,000/-, IN RESPECT OF ANY PAYMENT/AGGREGATE OF PAYMENTS TO ANY PERSON OTHERWISE THAN BY AN ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUE/DRAFT, NO DEDUCTION IS ALLO WABLE IN RESPECT OF SUCH EXPENDITURE. IT APPEARS THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECT ION 40A(3) OF THE I.T.ACT,1961, WERE CLEARLY APPLICABLE BUT THE ASSESSING OFFICER H AS FAILED TO INVOKE THE SAID PROVISIONS AND BRING TO TAX THE AMOUNT OF RS.45,45, 731/-. 3.5. FURTHER, IT HAS ALSO BEEN STATED THAT DURING T HE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09, THE AS SESSING OFFICER CALLED INFORMATION U/S 133(6) OF THE ACT, 1961, FROM RTO S RINAGAR, BARAMULLA & 5. ITA NO. 5 25(ASR)/2014 ASST. YE AR 2007-08 JAMMU AND FOUND THAT IN SOME OF THE CASES, THE HIRI NG CHARGES WERE PAID TO BOGUS PARTIES/VEHICLES. HOWEVER, THE PERUSAL OF THE ASSESSMENT RECORDS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 REVEALS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS HAS FAILED TO MAKE ANY S UCH ENQUIRY ALTHOUGH SIMILAR HIRING CHARGES HAVE BEEN PAID BY YOU DURING THIS YEAR ALSO. 4. KEEPING IN VIEW THE ABOVE, IT APPEARS THAT THE A SSESSMENT FRAMED BY DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-III, SRIN AGAR REFERRED TO ABOVE IS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF REVEN UE AND ACCORDINGLY YOU ARE REQUESTED TO SHOW CAUSE AS TO WHY THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 263 MAY NOT BE INVOKED IN YOUR CASE AND THE ASSESSMENT ORDER UNDER CONSIDERATION BE ENHANCED OR MODIFIED OR CANCELLED DIRECTING A FRESH ASSESSMENT. 5. ACCORDINGLY YOU ARE REQUESTED TO APPEAR BEFORE T HE UNDERSIGNED EITHER IN PERSON OR THROUGH YOUR DULY AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATI VE AT THE ABOVE REFERRED ADDRESS ON 12-03-2012 AT 11.00 AM ALONGWITH EVIDENC E IN SUPPORT OF CONTENTIONS, IF ANY. YOU MAY ALSO FILE YOUR SUBMISS IONS TOGETHER WITH ALL THE EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT THEREOF, IN WRITING BEFORE THE UNDERSIGNED, IF YOU SO DESIRE. FROM THE ABOVE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE, IT IS OBSERVED TH AT THE COMMISSIONER HAD RAISED TWO OBJECTIONS AGAINST THE ASSESSMENT, O NE IS RELATED TO THE ALLEGATION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE PAYMENTS TO O NE M/S. SHALIMAR TRANSPORTERS, BARAMULLA, IN EXCESS OF RS.20,000/-, HOWEVER, IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT THE PAYMENTS HAS BEEN SPILT UP INTO INDIVID UAL ENTRIES BELOW RS.20,000/- TO CIRCUMVENT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40A(3) OF THE I.T. ACT. THE OTHER ALLEGATION OF COMMISSIONER IS THAT THE ASSESS ING OFFICER DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS FOR ASST. YEAR 200 8-09 HAD CALLED FOR INFORMATION UNDER SECTION 133(6) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1 961, FROM RTO, SRINAGAR, BARAMULLA AND HAD FOUND THAT IN SOME OF THE CASES, THE HIRING CHARGES WERE PAID TO BOGUS PARTIES/ VEHICLES, WHICH THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER HAD NOT DONE FOR 6. ITA NO. 5 25(ASR)/2014 ASST. YE AR 2007-08 ASST. YEAR 2007-08, ALTHOUGH THE SIMILAR HIRING CHA RGES WERE PAID BY THE ASSESSEE IN THIS YEAR ALSO. THE ASSESSEE IN ITS REP LY TO THE ABOVE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE FILED FOLLOWING REPLY WHICH IS REPRODUCED AS BELOW. THAT THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THE FOLLOWING CAUSES AS TO WHY THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 263 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 MAY NOT BE INVOKED I N THE ABOVE NOTED CASE. 1. THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER SECTION 143(3) READ WITH SECTION 115WE(3) DATED 24.12.2009 IS IN NO WAY ERRONEOUS AS THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH GREAT CAUTION HAS APPLIED HIS JUDICIAL MIND IN ASSESSING THE INCO ME OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-2008 AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT THE OVERALL CIRCUMSTANCES EFFECTING THE INCOME AND PROFIT POSITIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND HAS OBSERVED IN HIS ORDER DATED 24.12. 2009 THAT THE INCOME SHOWN FOR THE YEAR AS PROGRESSIVE APPROACH AND A VI EW THAT WHATSOEVER HAS BEEN DONE BY AN ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-2009 SHOULD HAVE BEEN DONE IN THE CASE OF ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007- 08 AS WELL IS COGNIZED UNDER LAW BECAUSE THE DIFFERENTIATION OF VIEW DOES NOT MAKE AN ASSESSMENT ORDER ERRONEOUS & PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF T HE REVENUE AND THESE VIEWS ARE ALSO SUPPORTED BY DECISIONS HELD BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. GREENWORLD CORPORATION [2009] 181 TAXMAN 111/314 ITR 81 (SC), MALABAR INDUSTRIAL CO. LTD. VS. CIT 243 ITR 83 (SC) . JAI KUMAR KANKARIA VS. CIT 251 ITR 707 HENCE THE PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 MAY KINDLY BE DROPPED. 2. THAT THE PAYMENTS MADE TO M/S. SHALIMAR TRANSPORTER S FOR PURCHASE OF FUEL HAVE BEEN MADE IN PARA BELOW RS.20,000/- ON DIFFERE NT TIMES IN A DAY. THE WORD SUM IN SECTION 40A(3) IS USED ONLY TO INDICA TE AN AMOUNT OF MONEY AND DOES NOT REFER TO THE TOTALITY OF THE EXPENDITURE. IT IS ONLY W.E.F. 1.4.2009 WHEN THE AMENDMENT WAS MADE IN THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 B Y THE FINANCE ACT, 2008 THE TOTAL SUM WAS TAKEN AS DISALLOWABLE. THE POSITI ON IS WELL EXPLAINED IN CBDT CIRCULAR NO-1/2009 EXPLANATORY NOTES TO THE PROVISI ONS OF THE FINANCE ACT, 2008 PARA-13.4 WHICH CLEARLY MENTIONS THAT THE AMENDMENT IN SEC. 40A(3) SHALL BE APPLICABLE IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-2010 AND THE PURPOSE 7. ITA NO. 5 25(ASR)/2014 ASST. YE AR 2007-08 OF AMENDMENT HAS ALSO BEEN MENTIONED IN PARA-13.2 O F CBDT CIRCULAR NO- 1/2009 ITSELF. HENCE IT IS ONLY AFTER THE AMENDMENT S IN THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2008, W.E.F, 1.4.2009 THAT THE PAYMENTS ABOVE THE LIMIT IN A WHOLE DAY ARE OUGHT TO BE DISALLOWED AND IN THE INSTANT CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IN ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION IS 2007-2008 SUCH DISALLOWANCE IS NOT APPLICABLE AS THE WORDS IN SECT ION 40A(3) PRIOR TO AMENDMENT OF 2009 CLEARLY MENTION WHERE THE ASSES SEE INCURS ANY.....IN A SUM EXCEEDING TWENTY THROUGH RUPEES OTHERWISE THAN BY AN ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUE DRAWN ON A BANK OR ACCOUNT PAYEE BANK DRAFT TWENTY PER CENT OF SUCH EXPENDITURE SHALL NOT BE ALLOWED AS A DEDUCTION. HE NCE THE ORDER UNDER SECTION 143(3) READ WITH SECTION 115WE (3) DATED 24.12.2009 IS NEITHER ERRONEOUS NOR PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE & THEREFORE THE PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 MAY KINDLY BE DROPPE D. 3. FURTHERMORE THE PAYMENTS MADE TO M/S. SHALIMAR TRAN SPORTERS FOR PURCHASE OF FUEL HAVE BEEN MADE IN PARTS BELOW RS.20,000/- ON D IFFERENT TIMES IN A DAY DUE TO EXCEPTIONAL AND UNAVOIDABLE CIRCUMSTANCES DULY C ONSIDERED BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE MAKING THE ASSESSMENT AND T HE CASH HAS BEEN GENUINELY PAID AND CONFIRMATION LETTERS FROM THE PA RTY IS PLACED ON RECORD, AS THESE PAYMENTS BY BANK DRAFT/CHEQUE WERE NOT PRACTI CALLY POSSIBLE FOR FUEL PURCHASE FOR LORRIES/BUSES/LOAD CARRIES SINCE OFTEN CASH IS PAID TO LORRY DRIVER OF BUS DRIVER OR LOAD CARRIERS DRIVER SO THA T HE FILLS THE FUEL IN VEHICLES WHICH ARE USED TO COMPLETE THE CONTRACT OBLIGATIONS WITH ARMY AUTHORITIES. THE FOLLOWING PRACTICAL REASONS HAVE CAUSED THE GENUINE HARDSHIP WHILE THE PAYMENTS WERE MADE. A. THE PARTY INSISTED ON CASH PAYMENT AS SOME EARLIER GIVEN CHEQUES WERE DISHONORED. B. THE PAYMENTS WERE MADE AFTER CLOSING OF BANKING HOU RS. C. THE FUEL PUMP EMPLOYEES DID NOT AGREE TO TAKE CHEQU ES/DRAFTS AS THERE USED TO BE FREQUENT DISTURBANCE IN THE BARAMULLA AR EA AND GOING TO BANKS TO ENCASH CHEQUES CAUSED HARDSHIP TO THEM. 8. ITA NO. 5 25(ASR)/2014 ASST. YE AR 2007-08 HENCE THE ORDER UNDER SECTION 143(3) READ WITH SECT ION 115WE(3) DATED 24.12.2009 IS NEITHER ERRONEOUS NOR PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE & THEREFORE THE PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 MAY KINDLY BE DROPPED. 4. THAT WHILE PASSING ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S 143(3) DATE D 24.12.2009 THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS APPLIED THE LAW UNDER SECTION . 40A(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 AS LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE COURTS IN THE CASE OF INCLUDING CIT VS. ALOO SUPPLY CO. [1990] 121 ITR 680(ORI.). M.R.SOAP (P.) LTD. VS. IAC[1988] 32 TTJ (DELHI) 505 ITR CIT VS. TRIVENIPRASAD PANNALAL [1997] 94 TAXMAN 381 (MP)/CIT VS. KOTHARI SANITATION & TILES (P.) LTD.[2 006] 282 ITR 117 (MAD.) WHICH CLARIFY THAT TILL THE AMENDMENTS MADE IN THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2008 THE SETTLED POSITION OF IS: LIMI T APPLIES TO PAYMENT TO A PARTY AT ONE TIME. THE STATUTORY LIMIT OF RS.20,000 APPLI ED TO PAYMENT MADE TO PARTY IN THE COURSE OF THE DAY AS RECORDED IN THE CASH BO OK WHICH IN THE INSTANT CASE IS THE POSITION OF THE ASSESSEE WITH REGARDS TO APP LICABILITY OF THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 40A(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961. HENCE THE O RDER UNDER SECTION 143(3) READ WITH SECTION 115WE(3) DATED 24.12.2009 IS NEIT HER ERRONEOUS UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 MAY KINDLY B E DROPPED. 5. THAT WHILE PASSING ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S 143(3) DATE D 24.12.2009 THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS APPLIED HIS MIND AND ASKED DE TAILED QUESTIONS VIDE LETTER NO. ACIT-3SNG/2007-08/267 DATED 16.08.2009, LETTER NO.DY./CRICLE3/SGR/09-10/588 DT 30.11.2009, AND LET TER NO.DCIT/CIRCLE3/SGR/09-10/716 DT.14.12.2009 REGARDI NG THE APPLICABILITY OF SEC.40A(3) AND THE DETAILS OF PAYMENTS MADE TO M/S. SHALIMAR TRANSPORTS FOR PURCHASE OF FUEL, TRUCK WISE DETAILS OF THE PAYMENT S MADE FOR THE HIRING CHARGES A/C, AND DETAILED REPLIES TO THE SATISFACTI ON OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WERE MADE VIDE WRITTEN STATEMENTS/REPLIES DATED 27 TH AUGUST,2009, 12 TH OCT, 2009, 07.12.2009 AND 17.12.2009 WHERE IN EACH AND E VERY EXPLANATION WAS GIVEN BEFORE COMPLETION OF THE ASSESSMENT AND NO DO UBT ALL THOSE QUESTIONERS AND REPLIES HAVE NOT BEEN EXPRESSLY MENTIONED IN TH E ASSESSMENT ORDER BUT THE RECORD AVAILABLE ON FILE IS SELF EXPLANATORY AND AL L THE QUESTIONS HAVE BEEN DULY CONSIDERED AND ADJUDICATED BY THE AO IN HIS ASSESSM ENT ORDER THEREFORE 9. ITA NO. 5 25(ASR)/2014 ASST. YE AR 2007-08 KEEPING IN VIEW THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES A ND DECISIONS OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURTS IN THE CASES OF CIT VS. DEVELOPMENT CRE DIT BANK LTD. 323 ITR 206, CIT VS. ASHISH RAJPAL 320 ITR 674, HARI IRON TRADIN G CO. VS. CIT 263 ITR AND JURISDICTIONAL ITAT BENCH, AMRITSAR DECISION IN ROS HAN LAL VEGETABLE PRODUCTS (P) LTD. VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER 9 ITR 431 ITA 6/ASR /2010 IT IS REQUESTED THAT THE PROPOSED PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE I NCOME TAX ACT 1961 MAY KINDLY BE DROPPED IN THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER WAS HOWEVER, NOT SATISFIED WITH THE REPLY AND HE CANCELLED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND DIRECTED THE ASS ESSING OFFICER TO PASS A FRESH ASSESSMENT ORDER AFTER GIVING AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE OF BEING HEARD. THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US, AGAINST THIS ORDER PASSED BY LEARNED COMMISSIONER. 4. AT THE OUT SET, THE LEARNED AR SUBMITTED THAT IT IS AN ADMITTED FACT BY THE COMMISSIONER HIMSELF THAT PAYMENTS WERE NOT MADE IN EXCESS OF RS.20,000/- AS IN THE CASH BOOK EACH PAYMENT WAS NOT EXCEEDING RS.20,000/- AND HIS ALLEGATION IS THAT THE ENTIRE PAYMENTS WERE MADE IN ONE DAY IN LUMP SUM AND WAS RECORDED IN THE CASH BOOK BY SPLITTING THE SAME IN ENTRIES OF LESS THAN RS.20,000/-. THE LEARNED AR SUBMITTED THAT BEFORE A SST. YEAR 2009-10, IT WAS A SETTLED LAW THAT EACH PAYMENT WAS TO BE CONSIDERE D FOR THE PURPOSES OF VIOLATION OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40A(3) AND NOT T HE AGGREGATE OF PAYMENTS IN A DAY WAS TO BE CONSIDERED. IN THIS RESPECT, HE INVIT ED OUR ATTENTION TO A CIRCULAR NO.1/2009 DATED 27 TH MARCH, 2009 AND INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO PARA 13.2 TO 13.4. THE LEANER AR SUBMITTED THAT FROM ASST. YEAR 2009-10 THE AGGREGATE OF PAYMENTS IN A SINGLE DAY IS TO BE CONSIDERED FOR TH E PURPOSES OF VIOLATION OF 10. ITA NO. 525(ASR)/2014 ASST. YE AR 2007-08 PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40A(3). THE LEARNED AR SUBMIT TED THAT CIRCULAR ITSELF, SAYS THAT COURTS HAD APPROVED SUCH SPLITTING THEREBY APP LYING THE LIMIT TO EACH TRANSACTION. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE MAKING OF MULTIPLE PAYMENTS IN A SINGLE DAY WAS ALLOWED IN THE ASST. Y EAR UNDER QUESTION. THE LEARNED AR, FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OF FICER HAD DULY CARRIED NECESSARY INVESTIGATION FOR VERIFYING VIOLATION OF SECTION 40A(3) AND IN THIS RESPECT HE INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO A QUESTIONER DA TED 07.12.2009 PLACED AT PAPER BOOK PAGE 34 TO 36. OUR SPECIFIC ATTENTION WA S INVITED TO QUESTION10, WHEREIN, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD SPECIFICALLY REQ UIRED THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE VIOLATION OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40A(3). THE LEARNED AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD REPLIED TO THIS OBJECTION OF ASSESSING OFFICER VIDE LETTER DATED 24.11.2009 PLACED AT PAPER BOOK 37 TO 39. OUR SPECI FIC ATTENTION WAS INVITED TO PARA 10 & 11 WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE HAD EXPLAINED THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40A(3). THE LEARNED AR SUBMIT TED THAT ASSESSING OFFICER AGAIN VIDE LETTER DATED 10.12.2009 RAISED THE SAME ISSUE VIDE QUESTION NO.8 TO WHICH THE ASSESSEE REPLIED VIDE LETTER DATED 17.12. 2009, WHICH WAS PLACED AT PAPER BOOK PAGE-45. IN VIEW OF THE EXAMINATION OF T HIS FACT AND CIRCUMSTANCES BY ASSESSING OFFICER, THE LEARNED AR ARGUED THAT AS SESSING OFFICER HAD MADE COMPLETE VERIFICATION AND EXAMINATION AND AFTER BEI NG SATISFIED HE HAD ACCEPTED THAT NO PAYMENTS WERE MADE IN VIOLATION OF PROVISIO NS OF SECTION 40A(3) AND THEREFORE, HE HAD NOT MADE ANY ADDITION. HE SUBMITT ED THAT OMISSION ON THE PART OF ASSESSING OFFICER TO MENTION THE ASPECT OF VERIFICATION OF A PARTICULAR TRANSACTION IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER CANNOT BE ATTRI BUTED TO ASSESSEE. THE 11. ITA NO. 525(ASR)/2014 ASST. YE AR 2007-08 LEARNED AR IN THIS RESPECT RELIED UPON THE CASE LAW S OF HONBLE DELHI COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. ASHISH RAJPAL 320 ITR 674 (DEL) FOR THE PROPOSITION THAT WHERE A QUERY WAS RAISED DURING THE COURSE OF SCRUT INY WHICH WAS SATISFACTORY ANSWERED BY THE ASSESSEE BUT WHICH DID NOT GET REFL ECTED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WOULD NOT BY ITSELF LEAD TO A CONCLUSION THAT THERE WAS NO ENQUIRY WITH RESPECT TO TRANSACTIONS CARRIED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE . THE LEARNED AR SUBMITTED THAT AS DEMONSTRATED THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD VERI FIED THIS ISSUE ON TWO OCCASIONS AND ON TWO OCCASIONS THE ASSESSEE HAD FIL ED REPLIES AND ASSESSING OFFICER BEING SATISFIED DID NOT MAKE ANY ADDITION, HOWEVER, HE DID NOT RECORD HIS FINDINGS IN THE ASST. ORDER FOR WHICH, THERE IS NO FAULT OF ASSESSEE AS THE ASSESSEE HAS NO CONTROL OVER ASSESSING OFFICER AS T O HOW HE WRITES AN ORDER. THE LEARNED AR FURTHER RELIED UPON AN ORDER OF ITAT , AMRITSR BENCH IN THE CASE OF ROSHAN LAL VEGETABLE PRODUCTS (P) LTD. VS. ITO, 9 ITR 431 IN ITA NO.06/ASR/2010. OUR ATTENTION WAS FURTHER INVITED T O A DECISION OF HONBLE BOMABY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS . GABRIAL INDIA LTD. 204 ITR 208 (BOM), FOR THE SAME PROPOSITION THAT OMISSION ON TH E PART OF ASSESSING OFFICER TO MAKE ELABORATE DISCUSSION IN ASSESSMENT ORDER DO ES NOT MAKE AN ORDER ERRONEOUS. THE LEARNED AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT A UDIT REPORT ISSUED UNDER SECTION 44AB ALSO DID NOT POINT OUT ANY PAYMENT EXC EEDING RS.20,000/- AND THE AUDIT REPORT ALSO STRENGTHENS THE FACT THAT NO PAYMENT EXCEEDING RS.20,000/- WAS MADE. 5. AS REGARDS THE OTHER ALLEGATION OF COMMISSIONER REGARDING NON VERIFICATION OF LORRY HIRING CHARGES IN VIEW OF HIS INVESTIGATION IN ASST. YEAR 12. ITA NO. 525(ASR)/2014 ASST. YE AR 2007-08 2008-09, THE LEARNED AR SUBMITTED THAT EACH YEAR IS A DIFFERENT YEAR AND PRINCIPLE OF RES JUDICATA IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE INCOME TAX PROCEEDINGS AN D DIFFERENTIATION OF VIEWS OF ASSESSING OFFICER IN TW O YEARS DOES NOT MAKE AN ASSESSMENT ORDER ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE I NTEREST OF REVENUE. HE FURTHER, ARGUED THAT THE COMMISSIONER CANNOT EXAMIN E THE RECORDS OF ANOTHER YEAR TO FORM AN OPINION IN ANOTHER YEAR. 6. THE LEARNED DR ON THE OTHER HAND, SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE HAD SPLINTED THE PAYMENTS INTO TRANSACTIONS OF LESS THEN 20,000/ - AS IN FACT HE HAD MADE PAYMENTS IN LUMP SUM AS IT IS NOT POSSIBLE THAT IN A SINGLE DAY THE ASSESSEE WOULD HAVE MADE PAYMENT TO SAME PARTY 10 TIMES IN A DAY. HE ARGUED THAT HUMAN PROBABILITY DOES NOT WARRANT SUCH TYPE OF ACT IONS AND ASSESSING OFFICER HAD FAILED TO EXAMINE THIS ISSUE AS HE SIMPLY ACCEP TED THE VERSION OF ASSESSEE AND DID NOT GO FURTHER TO FIND OUT AS TO WHETHER TH ESE PAYMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE IN A MANNER RECORDED IN THE CASH BOOK. THE LEA RNED DR SUBMITTED THAT THE FACT OF MAKING PAYMENTS 10 TIMES IN A SINGLE DA Y TO SAME PERSON WARRANTED FURTHER PROBE. RELIANCE IN THIS RESPECT WAS PLACED ON THE CASE LAW OF CHANNA BROS. VS. CIT DECIDED BY PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COUR T AND REPORTED AT 225 ITR 72, WHICH THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD FAILED TO D O AND THEREFORE, THE ORDER WAS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF RE VENUE. THE LEARNED DR SUBMITTED THAT THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CAS E OF DURGA PRASAD MORE (1971) 82 ITR 540 HAS CLEARLY HELD THAT WHILE ARRIVING AT A CONCLUSI ON THE HUMAN PROBABILITY ASPECT HAS TO BE KEPT IN MIND. TH E LEARNED DR INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO THE FACT THAT PAYMENTS WERE SPLITTED I N A MANNER THAT EACH 13. ITA NO. 525(ASR)/2014 ASST. YE AR 2007-08 PAYMENT DID NOT EXCEED RS.20,000/-, WHICH WAS A THR ESHOLD LIMITED FOR VIOLATION OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40A(3). AS REGAR DS SECOND ALLEGATION THE LEARNED DR SUBMITTED THAT IN ASST. YEAR 2008-09, TH E ASSESSING OFFICER HAD HELD THAT SOME PAYMENTS WERE DEBITED UNDER THE HEAD HIRE CHARGES WHICH WERE FOUND TO BE BOGUS WHICH ASPECT SHOULD HAVE BEEN EXA MINED BY ASSESSING OFFICER TO ARRIVE AT A CORRECT DECISION IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE ASPECTS, THE LEARNED DR ARGUED THAT THE O RDER OF CIT SHOULD BE UPHELD. 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL PARTIES AND HAVE GON E THROUGH THE MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD. AS REGARDS THE FIRST OBJECTION OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, WE FIND THAT THE COMMISSIONER HIMSELF IN HIS ORDER HAS STATED THAT THOUGH ASSESSEE HAD RECORDED PAYMENTS OF RS.20,000/- OR LE SS TO M/S SHALIMAR TRANSPORTERS BUT IN FACT THE ASSESSEE MUST HAVE PAID IN LUMP SUM AND MUST HAVE RECORDED THE ENTRIES BY SPLITTING THE SAME. TH EREFORE, THE LEARNED CIT HAS ASSUMED THAT THE ASSESSEE MUST HAVE MADE PAYMENTS E XCEEDING RS.20,000/- IN LUMP SUM AND THEREFORE, HAD VIOLATED THE PROVISI ONS OF SECTION 40A(3) AND THEREFORE, HE DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO MAK E A FRESH ASSESSMENT. THE LEARNED CIT DID NOT CONSIDER CIRCULAR NO.1/2009 ISS UED BY CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES WHEREIN, THE BOARD AMENDED THE PROVISI ONS OF SECTION 40A(3) AND VIDE PARA 13.3 DIRECTED THAT PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40A(3) SHALL ALSO BE APPLICABLE WHERE THE AGGREGATE OF PAYMENTS MADE TO A SINGLE PARTY OTHERWISE THAN BY AN ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUE EXCEEDS RS.20,000/- IN A DAY. VIDE PARA 13.4, THE CIRCULAR STATES THAT THE AMENDMENT WILL B E APPLICABLE W.E.F. 14. ITA NO. 525(ASR)/2014 ASST. YE AR 2007-08 1 ST APRIL, 2009, THEREFORE, THIS AMENDMENT WILL NOT BE APPLICABLE FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AS THE ASSESSMENT YEAR INVOLVED IN 2007-08. THE CIRCULAR VIDE PARA 13.2 ITSELF STATES THAT ASSESSEE TEND TO CIRCUMVENT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40A(3) BY SPLITTING A PARTICULAR HIGH VALUE PAYMENT TO ONE PERSON INTO SEVERAL CASH PAYMENTS, EACH BELOW RS.20,000/-. THE RELEVANT PROVISION OF THE SAID CIRCULAR AS CONTAINED IN PARA 13.2 TO 13.4 ARE REPRODUCED BELOW: 13.2 SUB-SECTION (3) OF SECTION 40A IS AN ANTI TAX -EVASION MEASURE. BY REQUIRING PAYMENTS TO BE MADE BY AN ACCOUNT PAYEE I NSTRUMENT, IT IS POSSIBLE TO VERIFY THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION. THERE BY THE RISK OF EVASION IS SUBSTANTIALLY MITIGATED. FIELD FORMATIONS HAVE REPO RTED THAT ASSESSEES TEND TO CIRCUMVENT THE PROVISIONS OF SUB-SECTION(3) OF SECT ION 40A BY SPLITTING A PARTICULAR HIGH VALUE PAYMENT TO ONE PERSON INTO SE VERAL PAYMENTS, EACH BELOW RS.20,000/- THIS SPLITTING IS ALSO RESORTED TO FOR PAYMENTS MADE IN THE COURSE OF A SINGLE DAY. THE COURTS HAVE APPROVED SUCH SPLI TTING BY INTERPRETING THE WORDS IN A SUM USED IN THE SECTION TO MEAN A SING LE SUM THEREBY APPLYING THE LIMIT TO EACH TRANSACTION. THIS INTERPRETATION IS A GAINST LEGISLATIVE INTENT AND HAS, CONSEQUENTLY, ADVERSELY AFFECTED THE EFFICACY OF THIS ANTI ABUSE PROVISION. 13.3 THEREFORE, THE PROVISIONS OF SUB-SECTION (3) O F SECTION 40A HAVE BEEN AMENDED PROVIDING THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SUB-SECTIO N(3) OF SECTION 40A SHALL ALSO BE ATTRACTED WHERE THE AGGREGATE OF PAYMENTS M ADE TO A SINGLE PARTY OTHERWISE BY AN ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUE DRAWN ON A BAN K OR ACCOUNT BANK DRAFT EXCEEDS TWENTY THOUSAND RUPEES IN A DAY. 13.4 APPLICABILITY: THIS AMENDMENT HAS BEEN MADE AP PLICABLE WITH EFFECT FROM 1 ST APRIL,2009 AND SHALL ACCORDINGLY APPLY FOR ASST. YEAR2009-10 AND SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEARS. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE CIRCULAR, IT IS APPARENT THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS AT LIBERTY TO PAY TO A SINGLE PERSON ANY NUMBER TIMES IN A DAY PROVIDED THAT EACH 15. ITA NO. 525(ASR)/2014 ASST. YE AR 2007-08 PAYMENTS MUST BE BELOW RS.20,000/-. THERE IS NO DIS PUTE THAT PAYMENTS WERE FOUND TO BE RECORDED IN CASH BOOK WHICH WERE LESS T HAN RS. 20,000/-. THEREFORE, FROM THE ABOVE, IT IS APPARENT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT VIOLATED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40A(3) AS ADMITTEDLY THE PAYM ENTS RECORDED IN THE CASH BOOK WERE RS.20,000/- OR BELOW. AS REGARDS EXAMINAT ION BY ASSESSING OFFICER REGARDING VIOLATION OF THERE PROVISIONS, WE FIND TH AT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD RAISED THIS ISSUE ON TWO OCCASIONS AND THE ASSESSEE HAD REPLIED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND AFTER BEING SATISFIED THAT NO PAYMENT OF MORE THAN 20,000/- WAS PAID BY ASSESSEE HE DID NOT MAKE THE A DDITION AND THEREFORE, THE ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER ON THIS ACCOUNT CANNOT B E SAID TO BE ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE. THE FACT T HAT ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT MENTION THIS PART OF EXAMINATION IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WILL ITSELF NOT MAKE THE ORDER ERRONEOUS. 7.1 THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CI T VS. GABRIEL INDIA LTD.(SUPRA) HAS HELD THAT WHERE THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER HAD MADE ENQUIRIES IN REGARD TO NATURE OF EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY ASSESSE E AND ASSESSEE HAD GIVEN DETAILED EXPLANATION IN THAT REGARD AND ASSESSING O FFICER HAD ACCEPTED THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE, THE DECISION OF ASSESS ING OFFICER COULD NOT BE HELD TO BE ERRONEOUS SIMPLY BECAUSE IN HIS ORDER HE DID NOT MAKE AN ELABORATE DISCUSSION IN THIS REGARD. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSESSING OFFICE RAISED AN ENQUIRY AND ASSESSEE FILED DETAILED REPLY AND THERE AFTER, ASSESSING OFFICER ACCEPTED THE EXPLANATION AND DID NOT MAKE ANY ADDIT ION ON THAT ACCOUNT. THE 16. ITA NO. 525(ASR)/2014 ASST. YE AR 2007-08 ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER CANNOT BE SAID TO BE ERR ONEOUS AS HE HAS TAKEN A PLAUSIBLE VIEW, KEEPING IN VIEW OF THE FACTS AND CI RCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 7.2 AS REGARDS THE OTHER ISSUE THAT ASSESSING OFF ICER DID NOT EXAMINE THE AMOUNT OF LORRY CHARGES IN A PARTICULAR MANNER AS H E DID IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR, WE FIND THAT EACH YEAR IS A SEPARATE YEAR AND PRINCIPLE OF RES- JUDICATA DOES NOT APPLY TO INCOME TAX PROCEEDINGS. THE VIEW TAKEN BY ONE ASSESSING OFFICER IN ONE YEAR, IF IT DIFFERS FROM THE VIEW T AKEN BY ASSESSING OFFICER IN SUCCEEDING YEAR ON THE SAME ISSUE CANNOT BE SAID TO BE ERRONEOUS PROVIDED THE VIEW TAKEN BY ASSESSING OFFICER IS A PLAUSIBLE VIEW . THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID CARRY OUT NECESSARY EXAMINATION TO ARRIVE AT THE GE NUINENESS OF PAYMENTS AND ASSESSEE ALSO FILED CONFIRMATIONS BY PARTIES TO WHO M PAYMENTS WERE MADE. THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED CONFIRMATIONS OF P AYEES BECOMES APPARENT FROM THE REPLY FILED BY THE ASSESSEE TO CIT AGAINST THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 263. THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN LACK OF ENQUIRY AND NO ENQUIRY. IT IS NOT A CASE OF NO ENQUIRY AS ASSESSING OFFICER DID C ARRY OUT SUFFICIENT EXAMINATION TO ARRIVE AT THE GENUINENESS OF TRANSAC TIONS AND IF HE DID NOT TAKE ONE FURTHER STEP TO EXAMINE THE GENUINENESS OF TRAN SACTIONS WHICH HE TOOK IN SUCCEEDING YEAR, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED IN EAR LIER YEAR CANNOT BE SAID TO BE ERRONEOUS ONLY ON THE BASIS THAT IN SUBSEQUENT Y EAR, THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND CERTAIN BOGUS ENTRIES. IT IS ALSO A FACT EME RGING FROM RECORDS THAT ASSESSING OFFICER DID EXAMINE THE PAYMENTS OF LORRY CHARGES & OBTAINED CONFIRMATION OF PAYEES. IT IS ANOTHER MATTER THAT H E DID NOT CALL FOR INFORMATION U/S 133(C) FROM RTO TO FURTHER VERIFY THE GENUINENE SS OF PAYMENTS. THEREFORE IT 17. ITA NO. 525(ASR)/2014 ASST. YE AR 2007-08 IS A CASE OF INADEQUATE ENQUIRY AND NOT A CASE OF L ACK OF ENQUIRY. THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. ANIL KUMAR SHARMA 335 ITR 83 HAS HELD AS UNDER: THERE IS A DISTINCTION BETWEEN LACK OF INQUIRY A ND INADEQUATE INQUIRY IF THERE WAS ANY INQUIRY, EVEN INADEQUATE THAT WOULD NOT BY ITSELF GIVE OCCASION TO THE COMMISSIONER TO PASS ORDERS UNDER SECTION 263 OF TH E INCOME-TAX ACT,1961, MERELY BECAUSE HE HAS A DIFFERENT OPINION IN THE MA TTER: HELD, DISMISSING THE APPEAL, THAT THE PRESENT CASE WOULD NOT BE ONE OF LACK OF INQUIRY EVEN IF THE INQUIRY WAS TERMED INADEQUATE. THE TRIBUNAL FOUND THAT COMPLETE DETAILS WERE FILED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OF FICER AND THAT HE APPLIED HIS MIND TO THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AND FACTS, ALTHOUGH S UCH APPLICATION OF MIND WAS NOT DISCERNIBLE FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE TRIB UNAL HELD THAT THE COMMISSIONER IN PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 263 ALSO HAD ALL THESE DETAILS AND MATERIAL AVAILABLE BEFORE HIM, BUT HAD NOT BEEN ABL E TO POINT OUT DEFECTS CONCLUSIVELY IN THE MATERIAL, FOR ARRIVING AT A CON CLUSION THAT PARTICULAR INCOME HAD ESCAPED ASSESSMENT ON ACCOUNT OF NON-APPLICATIO N OF MIND BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE TRIBUNAL WAS RIGHT AND THE ORDER OF RE VISION WAS NOT VALID. 7.3 IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES & JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS, WE SEE MERIT IN THE AGREEMENTS OF LEARNED AR AND THERE FORE, THE ORDER PASSED BY A.O IS HELD NOT TO BE ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 5 TH NOVEMBER, 2015. SD/- SD/- (A.D. JAIN) (T. S. KAPOOR) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTA NT MEMBER DATED:05.11.2015. /PK/ PS. COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 18. ITA NO. 525(ASR)/2014 ASST. YE AR 2007-08 1. THE ASSESSEE: M/S. PARDEEP SINGH WAAZIR, JAMMU & KA SHMIR. 2. THE 3. THE CIT(A), 4. THE CIT, 5. THE SR DR, I.T.A.T., TRUE COPY BY ORDER (ASSISTANT REGISTRAR) INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AMRITSAR BENCH: AMRITSAR.