The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Jammu V. Sh. Ajay Kapoor, Jammu

ITA 595/ASR/2013

• Counselvise Citation: 59520914 RSA 2013
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-02-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 30-09-2013
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Period of limitation; Assessment record; Time period of passing order
• Section: 142(1); 68; 6; 144

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.595(ASR)/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2010-11 PAN :ABHPK9590R DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, VS. SH. AJAY KAPOOR, CIRCLE-2, JAMMU. H.NO.5A, SECTOR 5, ROOP NAGAR, JAMMU. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY:SH. MAHAVIR SINGH, DR RESPONDENT BY:SH.JOGINDER SINGH, CA DATE OF HEARING: 20/01/2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT:14/02/2014 ORDER PER BENCH ; THIS APPEAL OF THE REVENUE ARISE FROM THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), JAMMU DATED 10.07.2013 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 -11. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES WHETHER THE LD. CIT(A) WAS RIGHT IN REDUCING NET PROFIT RATE ON CONTRACT BASIS FROM 10% TO 6% BY RELYING UPON THE DECISION OF THE JURISDICTION AL ITAT AMRITSAR BENCH, IN THE CASE OF M/S. CONSTRUCTION E NGINEERING, SRINAGAR AND SH. MOHAN SINGH, CONTRACTOR. ITA NO.595(ASR)/2013 2 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES WHETHER THE LD. C IT(A) WAS RIGHT IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.22,00,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNSECURED LOANS. 3. THE APPELLANT CRAVES TO AMEND OR ADD ANY ONE OR MORE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE AS ARISING FROM THE ORDER OF THE AO ARE BEING REPRODUCED FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE AS UND ER: IN THIS CASE, A PECULIAR SITUATION HAS BEEN CREATE D BY THE ASSESSEE DUE TO HIS CONTINUOUS NON COOPERATION FROM THE START OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE CHRONOLOGY OF VARIOUS NOTICES ISSU ED AND ITS COMPLIANCE STATUS IS BEING GIVEN AS UNDER: S.NO. NOTICE U/S REMARKS 1. U/S 143(2) ISSUED ON 29.08.2011 ASSESSEE ATTENDE D THE PROCEEDINGS AND CASE ADJOURNED 2. U/S 142(1) ALONGWITH QUESTIONNAIRE ISSUED ON 13.03.2012 NONE ATTENDED 3. U/S 142(1) ISSUED ON 16.05.2012 NONE ATTENDED 4. U/S 143(2) ISSUED ON 07.08.2012 NONE ATTENDED 5. U/S 142(1) ISSUED ON 22.11.2012 A AJAY KHANNA AT TENDED AND REQUESTED FOR ADJOURNMENT AND CASE ADJOURNED TO 24.12.2012 6. U/S 143(2) ISSUED ON 25.02.2013 NONE ATTENDED 7. U/S 142(1) ALONGWITH QUESTIONNAIRE ISSUED ON 15.03.2013 AS FINAL OPPORTUNITY NOTICE FIXED FOR 20.03.2013 ASSESSEE ATTENDED AND REQUESTED FOR ADJOURNMENT. ON HIS REQUEST CASE ADJOURNED TO 21.03.2013. NO FURTHER COMPLIANCE MADE ON 21.03.2013. FROM THE ABOVE TABLE, IT IS OBSERVED THAT ASSESSEE OR HIS REPRESENTATIVE HAS ATTENDED ON FEW DATES BUT WITHOUT PRODUCING ANY INFORMATION DOCUMENTS OR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. THIS KIND OF ATTITU DE MAKES THE JOB ITA NO.595(ASR)/2013 3 OF AN AO VERY DIFFICULT AS HE IS REQUIRED TO PASS T HE ASSESSMENT ORDER WITHIN THE LIMITATION PERIOD AND THERE WAS HARDLY A NY TIME LEFT FOR THE UNDERSIGNED TO ALLOW FURTHER ADJOURNMENTS. UNDER TH ESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THERE IS NO OPTION LEFT BUT TO PASS AN ASSESSMENT ORDER ON THE BASIS OF DETAILS AVAILABLE IN THE COPY OF RE TURN DOWNLOADED FROM AST SOFTWARE OF THE DEPARTMENT. THE ASSESSEE IS A CONTRACTOR AND DURING THE PERIOD UNDER CONSIDERATION HAS SHOWN GROSS RECEIPTS OF RS.5,14,44,100/- ON WHI CH A NET PROFIT OF RS.14,09,714/- IS SHOWN FROM THIS ACTIVITY. KEEPING IN VIEW, THE OVER ALL POSITION OF THIS CASE, A NET RATE OF 10% IS BEI NG APPLIED ON THE GROSS RECEIPTS OF RS.5,14,44,100/- WHICH GIVES AN INCOME OF RS.51,44,410/- . THE APPLICATION OF RATE OF 10% IS BEING DONE BY FOLLOWING THE CASE OF M/S. POOJA CONSTRUCTION CO. IN ITA NO.750(ASR)/1 992 ( 69 ITD 147) DELIVERED BY THE ITAT, AMRITSAR BENCH, WHICH H AS BEEN UPHELD BY THE HONBLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THEIR ORDER IN ITR NO.166 OF 1999 DATED 10.09.2010. AS STATED ABOVE, T HE ASSESSEE HAS NOT AVAILED THE OPPORTUNITIES GIVEN TO HIM FOR PRES ENTING HIS CASE AND THE UNSECURED LOANS OF RS.22,00,000/- SHOWN BY HIM ALSO REMAIN UNSUBSTANTIATED IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EXPLANATION F ROM THE ASSESSEE. THESE LOANS ARE BEING TREATED AS CASH CREDITS U/S 6 8 OF THE I.T.ACT, 1961 AND ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. WITH THESE REMARKS, THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE IS BEING RECOMPUTED AS UNDER : NET PROFIT AS WORKED OUT ABOVE RS.51,44,410/- ADD UNEXPLAINED UNSECURED LOANS RS.22,00,000/- TOTAL INCOME ASSESSED RS.73,44,410/- 3. BEFORE, THE LD. CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE MADE THE SUBMI SSIONS DEALT WITH BY THE LD. CIT(A), WHO ALLOWED THE RELIEF TO THE AS SESSEE BY OBSERVING IN PARA 4.2 TO 4.3. OF HIS ORDER, WHICH IS BEING REPR ODUCED FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. ITA NO.595(ASR)/2013 4 4.2. GROUND OF APPEAL NO. 2 & 3 RELATES TO APPLICA TION OF NET PROFIT RATE OF 10% ON THE GROSS RECEIPTS FROM CONTRACT BUS INESS. THE APPELLANT HAS ARGUED THAT THE APPLICATION OF NET PR OFIT RATE OF 10% ON CONTRACT RECEIPTS IS ON VERY HIGHER SIDE AND UNJUST IFIED HAVING REGARD TO THE NATURE OF BUSINESS AND THE AREA OF OPERATION IN WHICH THE APPELLANT IN OPERATION. FURTHER, THE APPELLANT HAS ARGUED THAT THE APPELLANT IS A SUB-CONTRACTOR AND HAS FURTHER ALLOT TED SUB CONTRACT FOR COMPLETION OF WORK AND ACCORDINGLY THE MARGIN IS DI STRIBUTED BETWEEN THREE PARTIES I.E. MAIN PLACED RELIANCE ON THE JUDG MENT OF JURISDICTIONAL ITAT BENCH, AMRITSAR IN THE CASE OF MOHAN SINGH CON TRACTOR IN ITA NO.59/ASR/2012 IN WHICH THE HONBLE BENCH HAS HELD THAT THE RATE OF 5% TO THE GROSS RECEIPTS IS REASONABLE. I HAVE CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE ASSTT. ORDER AND THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT. IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE APPELLANT IS A SUB CONTRACTOR OPERATING IN A HILLY BORDER AREA OF RAJOURI WHERE T HE WORKING CONDITIONS ARE VERY DIFFICULT DUE TO GEOGRAPHICAL T ERRAIN AND LABOUR CHARGES ARE HIGH. THE RECEIPTS OF THE APPELLANT AL SO INCLUDES MATERIAL SUPPLIES WHERE THE MARGINS ARE LOW. FURTHER, THE PL EA OF THE APPELLANT THAT HE IS A SUB CONTRACTOR AND GOT THE WORK FURTHE R SUBJECT TO ANOTHER SUBCONTRACTOR HAS AN EFFECT ON DISTRIBUTION OF PROF IT DOWN THE CHAIN, APPEARS GENUINE. IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE JURISDICT IONAL ITAT BENCH AMRITSAR IN THE CASE OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING SR INGAR HAS HELD THE NET PROFIT RATE OF 7% & 6.5% IN TWO DIFFERENT ASSES SMENT YEARS AND IN ANOTHER CASE OF MOHAN SINGH CONTRACTOR HELD THE NET PROFIT RATE OF 5% TO BE REASONABLE. THEREFORE, KEEPING IN VIEW THE F ACTUAL POSITION OF THE APPELLANT AND THE PROFIT RATES HELD REASONABLE BY THE JURISDICTIONAL BENCH IN DIFFERENT CASE, I AM OF THE OPINION THAT N ET PROFIT RATE OF 6% WOULD MEET THE JUSTICE IN THE CASE OF APPELLANT. T HEREFORE, THESE GROUNDS OF APPEAL OF THE APPELLANT ARE ALLOWED AND HENCE, A RELIEF OF RS.20,57,764/- IS ALLOWED TO THE APPELLANT. 4.3. GROUND OF APPEAL NO.4 RELATES TO ADDITION OF R S.22,00,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNSECURED LOANS. THE APPELLANT HAS ARGUE D THAT THE SAID LOAN HAS BEEN RAISED IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2005-06 RELEVANT TO THE A.Y. 2006-07 AND ARE APPEARING IN THE FINANCIAL STATEME NTS OF THE APPELLANT OF THE EARLIER YEARS FILED WITH THE RETURN OF INCOM E AND ACCORDINGLY ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF SAID UNSECURED LOANS CANNOT BE MADE IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE APPELLANT HAS FURTHER ARGUED THAT ONCE ITA NO.595(ASR)/2013 5 THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS ARE REJECTED AND INCOME IS AS SESSED BY APPLYING NET PROFIT RATE, NO SEPARATE ADDITION CAN BE MADE. I HAVE CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE ASSTT. ORDER AND THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT, IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE SAID LOANS O F RS. 22 LAKHS HAVE BEEN RAISED IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2005-06 AND ALL T HESE LOANS HAVE BEEN RECEIVED THROUGH CHEQUE FROM MR. LALIT KUMAR S/O SH . CHUNNI LAL WHO HAS ALSO GIVEN CONFIRMATION FOR THE SAME. THUS , FACT WAS DISCOVERABLE BY THE AO FROM ASSESSMENT RECORD WHIC H WAS NOT DONE. NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERA TION ON ACCOUNT OF UNSECURED LOANS RECEIVED IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2 005-06. THEREFORE, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE APPELLANT IS ALLOWED A ND A RELIEF OF RS.22,00,000/- IS ALLOWED TO THE APPELLANT. 4. THE LD. DR ARGUED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS SIMPLY AGREED TO THE SUBMISSION MADE BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AND ALLOWED THE RELIEF WITHOUT CONFRONTING THE SAME TO THE AO OR WITHOUT CALLING FOR THE REMAND REPORT. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE BROUGHT ON RECORD THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A SUB- CONTRACTOR AND IS OPERATING IN HILLY BORDER AREA AN D HAS ALSO NOT SUBMITTED HOW THE WORKING CONDITIONS MAKE THE COST OF EXPENSE S HIGH TO BRING THE MARGIN AT A LOWER RATE. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT BRO UGHT ON RECORD HOW THE DECISION OF M/S. POOJA CONSTRUCTION RELIED UPON BY THE AO AND WHICH CASE HAS BEEN CONFIRMED BY THE HONBLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT, IS NOT APPLICABLE IN THE PRESENT FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES O F THE CASE AND FURTHER HAS NOT BROUGHT ON RECORD HOW THE CASES RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE HIM ARE APPLICABLE. HE FURTHER ARGUED THAT WITHOUT CO NFRONTING THE AO AND THE ITA NO.595(ASR)/2013 6 REMAND REPORT, IT CANNOT BE HELD THAT UNSECURED LOA NS OF RS.22 LACS PERTAINS TO THE PRECEDING YEAR I.E. FINANCIAL YEAR 2005-06. 5. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, ON THE OTHER H AND, RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE FACTS OF THE CASE. THERE IS NO DISPUTE TO THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE H AS NOT COOPERATED IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND HAS NOT PRODUCED THE BOO KS OF ACCOUNT. THEREFORE, THE AO WAS JUSTIFIED IN MAKING THE ASSES SMENT U/S 144 OF THE ACT. THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT RAISED ANY GROUND BEFOR E THE LD. CIT(A) WITH REGARD TO THE EX-PARTE ASSESSMENT IN PARTICULAR WIT H SPECIFIC REFERENCE BUT AGITATED APPLICATION OF NET PROFIT RATE. ALSO BEFO RE US, THERE IS NO CROSS APPEAL OR CROSS OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFOR E, IT IS AN ADMITTED FACT THAT WE HAVE TO DECIDE UPON THE APPLICATION OF NET PROFIT RATE. THE AO HAS APPLIED NET PROFIT RATE OF 10% ON GROSS CONTRACT RE CEIPTS OF RS.5,14,44,100/- ON THE BASIS OF DECISION OF ITAT, AMRITSAR BENCH, I N THE CASE OF M/S. POOJA CONSTRUCTION CO.(SUPRA), WHICH HAS BEEN CONFIRMED B Y THE HONBLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT (SUPRA). THE LD. COUNSEL FOR T HE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS SUBMITTED IN THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION THAT THE DECISION OF ITAT, AMRITSAR BENCH, IN THE CASE OF M/S. POOJA CON STRUCTION CO. (SUPRA), WHICH HAS BEEN CONFIRMED BY THE HONBLE PUNJAB & HA RYANA HIGH COURT IS ITA NO.595(ASR)/2013 7 VERY OLD DECISION. THEREFORE, HE SUBMITTED BEFORE T HE LD. CIT(A) TO APPLY NET PROFIT RATE OF 5% FOLLOWING CERTAIN DECISIONS OF IT AT, AMRITSAR BENCH, MENTIONED IN HIS WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS IN THE CASE OF MOHAN SINGH CONTRACTOR, IN ITA NO.59/ASR/2012. HE ALSO SUBMITTE D THAT HE IS A SUB- CONTRACTOR AND HAS FURTHER ALLOTTED SUB CONTRACT FO R COMPLETION OF WORK TO SUB-CONTRACTOR. ACCORDINGLY, MARGIN OF PROFIT IS DI STRIBUTED AMONG THE THREE PARTIES I.E. MAIN CONTRACTOR AND THE CONTRACTORS OF THE ASSESSEE AND RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF ITAT, AMRITSAR BENCH, IN THE C ASE OF MOHAN SINGH CONTRACTOR (SUPRA) AND PRAYED TO APPLY A NET PROFIT RATE OF 5% BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND EVEN BEFORE US. 6.1. THE LD. CIT(A) WITHOUT BRINGING ON RECORD AN Y MATERIAL, MERELY ACCEPTED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE THAT HE IS A SUB-CONTRACTOR AND THE ASSESSEE ALLOTS SUB CONTRACT TO OTHER PERSONS AND PROFIT IS DISTRIBUTED AMONG THE THREE PARTIES AS MENTIONED HEREINABOVE AND FOLL OWING THE DECISION OF ITAT, AMRITSAR BENCH IN THE CASE OF CONSTRUCTION EN GINEERING, SRINAGAR, WHERE NET PROFIT RATE OF 7% AND 6.5% HAS BEEN APPL IED, THE LD. CIT(A) DIRECTED THE AO TO APPLY NET PROFIT RATE OF 6%. 6.2. THE LD. CIT(A) AT THE FIRST INSTANCE HAS NOT B ROUGHT ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD OR PLACED ANY COGENT REASONING ON RECORD THA T THE DECISION OF M/S. POOJA CONSTRUCTION (SUPRA) IS NOT A COMPARABLE CASE WHICH HAS BEEN RELIED ITA NO.595(ASR)/2013 8 UPON BY THE AO. IN FACT, THE ASSESSEE WHILE SUBMIT TING BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT BROUGHT ON RECORD THAT THE SAID CASE OF M/S . POOJA CONSTRUCTION CO. IS NOT COMPARABLE IN THE PRESENT FACTS AND CIRCUMST ANCES OF THE CASE. SIMPLY THE DECISION IS OLD, THE COMPARABILITY CANNOT BE DI SREGARDED AS RELIED UPON BY THE AO. AS REGARDS THE SUBMISSIONS BEFORE THE LD . CIT(A) BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A SUB-CONTRACTOR AND IN TURN FURTHER ALLOTS CONTRACT SO THAT MARGIN OF PROFIT IS DISTRIBUTED AM ONGST THE PARTIES, IS WITHOUT ANY BASIS. SIMPLY ON THE BASIS OF THE SUBMISSIONS, THE LD. CIT(A) CANNOT DECIDE THE ISSUE AND CANNOT DISAPPROVE THE DECISION MADE BY THE AO. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT GIVEN ANY FINDING WITH REGARD TO THE APPLICABILITY OF NET PROFIT RATE BY THE AO WHICH SHOWS ON ONE HAND HE AC CEPTS THE DECISION OF THE AO AND ON THE OTHER HAND SIMPLY BY ACCEPTING T HE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT TOO WITHOUT CONFRONTING TO THE AO AND WITHOUT ASKING THE REMAND REPORT OF THE AO AND RELYING UPON THE DECISI ONS WHICH ARE COMPARABLE OR NOT COMPARABLE TO THE PRESENT FACTS A ND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, PROCEEDED TO APPLY NET PROFIT RATE OF 6% FOR THE REASONS BEST KNOWN TO HIM. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) CANNOT BE ACCEPTED AND IS BAD IN LAW IN THE PRESENT FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, FOR THE REASONS MENTIONED HEREINABOVE. ACCORDINGLY, THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS DIRECTED TO BE REVERSED AND THAT OF THE A O IS RESTORED , WHO HAS ITA NO.595(ASR)/2013 9 APPLIED NET PROFIT RATE OF 10% ON THE GROSS RECEIPT S OF RS.5,14,44,100/-. ACCORDINGLY, GROUND NO.1 OF THE REVENUE IS ALLOWED. 7. AS REGARDS GROUND NO.2 BEFORE THE AO, AS MENTION ED HEREINABOVE, NOTHING HAS BEEN SUBMITTED AND THE AO HAS MADE THE ADDITION OF RS.22,00,000/- BEING CASH CREDITS UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT. BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THESE LOANS WER E RAISED DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2005-06 PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEA R 2006-07 AND THE LD. CIT(A) HAS SIMPLY ACCEPTED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE A SSESSEE. THE LD. CIT(A) IN HIS ORDER HAS STATED THE FACT WAS DISCOV ERABLE BY THE AO FROM THE ASSESSMENT RECORD WHICH WAS NOT DONE BY THE AO. IN FACT, LD. CIT(A) HIMSELF HAS JUST ACCEPTED THE SUBMISSION OF THE AS SESSEE AND THAT TOO WITHOUT CONFRONTING TO THE AO AND WITHOUT CALLING THE REMAND REPORT OF THE AO. THUS, THE DECISION OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS AGAINST THE FACTS OF THE CASE, WHICH IN FACT, HAS NOT BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD I.E. WHETHER LOANS PERTAIN TO THE IMPUGNED YEAR OR TO THE PRECEDING YEAR. IT WILL BE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, IF THE MATTER IS SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF THE AO, WHO WILL EXAMINE THE ISSUE WHETHER THE SAID LOANS PERTAIN TO THE IMPUGNE D YEAR OR TO THE PRECEDING YEAR. WHETHER THE LOANS ARE GENUINE AND WHETHER AT ALL, THE SAME CAN BE TREATED AS INCOME UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT OR NO T BUT BY PROVIDING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. THE AO IS ACC ORDINGLY DIRECTED TO ITA NO.595(ASR)/2013 10 DECIDE THE ISSUE DENOVO AS REGARDS THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.22,00,000/- BUT BY PROVIDING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO TH E ASSESSEE. THUS, THE APPEAL OF REVENUE IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IN ITA NO.595(ASR)/2013 IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 14TH FEBRUARY, 2014. SD/- SD/- (H.S. SIDHU) (B.P. JAIN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 14TH FEBRUARY, 2014 /SKR/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE ASSESSEE: SH. AJAY KUMAR, JAMMU 2. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-II, JAMMU. 3. THE CIT(A), JAMMU 4. THE CIT, JAMMU 5. THE SR DR, ITAT, AMRITSAR. TRUE COPY BY ORDER (ASSISTANT REGISTRAR) INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AMRITSAR BENCH: AMRITSAR