Sh. Vinod Kumar Jain, Jammu V. The Income Tax Officer, Jammu

ITA 65/ASR/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 63619 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 10 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-12-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 04-02-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: SSH SALIL KAPOOR; C S ANAND S
• Keywords: Capital receipt
• Section: 80IB

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH (SPECIL BENCH) AMRITSAR. BEFORE SH. H.L. KARWA, HONBLE PRESIDENT, SH. T.R. SOOD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. B.P.JAIN, ACCOUNTANT ME MBER I.T.A. NO.65(ASR)/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2006-07 PAN :AAFPJ5872Q SH. VINOD KUMAR JAIN, VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, P/O M/S. V.K. METAL WORKS, WARD-1(3), PHASE-II, SIDCO INDL. COMPLEX, JAMMU. BARI BRAHMANA, JAMMU. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) AND I.T.A. NO.68(ASR)/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2006-07 PAN :AAFFB9385C M/S. BALAJI ROSIN INDUSTRIES, VS. INCOME TAX OFFICE R, PHASE-II, SIDCO INDL. COMPLEX WAD 1(1), JAMMU. BARI BRAHMANA, JAMMU. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY:S/SH. SALIL KAPOOR AND C.S. ANAND, ADV OCATES, RESPONDENT BY: SH. TARSEM LAL, DR DATE OF HEARING:25/10/2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT:26/10/2012 2 ORDER ITA NO.65(ASR)/2010 THE HONBLE PRESIDENT OF THE TRIBUNAL HAS REFERRED THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS FOR CONSIDERATION OF THE SPECIAL BENCH VI DE ORDER DATED 26.04.2010. I) WHETHER IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE, THE EXCISE DUTY REFUND SET OFF IS A CAPITAL RECEIPT OR REVENUE RECEIPT. II) IF THE EXCISE DUTY REFUND/SET OFF IS HELD TO BE RE VENUE RECEIPT, WHETHER THE SAID AMOUNT IS TO BE INCLUDED IN THE BU SINESS PROFITS FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEDUCTION U/S 80IB OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. 2. THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE, SH. SALIL KAPOO R, FILED A CHART AND POINTED OUT THAT ORIGINALLY IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005 -06, THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IB OF THE INCOME- TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT, THE ACT) ON THE REFUND OF EXCISE DUTY, WHICH WAS NOT ALLOWED BY THE A.O. BY THE TIME, THE MATTER TRAVELLED TO THE TRIBUNAL A N ADDITIONAL GROUND WAS RAISED STATING THAT REFUND OF EXCISE DUTY SHOULD BE TREATED AS CAPITAL RECEIPT. THOUGH THE ADDITIONAL GROUND WAS ADMITTED BUT THE W HOLE MATTER WAS DECIDED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE AND THE MATTER TRAVELL ED BEFORE THE HONBLE JAMMU & KASHMIR HIGH COURT AND THE SAME WAS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE CASE OF SHREE BALAJI ALLOYS V. CIT AND ANOTHER REPORTED IN (2011) 333 ITR 335 (J&K). BY REFERENCE TO VARIOUS D OCUMENTS, HE SHOWED 3 THAT THE ASSESSEES APPEAL WAS ALSO TAGGED IN THIS BUNCH OF APPEALS VIDE ITA NO.24 OF 2010 BY THE HIGH COURT. THEREFORE, EVEN AS SESSEES CASE WAS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. HE FURTHER POINT ED OUT THAT IN ASSESSMENT YEARS 2007-08 & 2008-09, THE TRIBUNAL FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF THE HONBLE JAMMU & KASHMIR HIGH COURT, IN THE CASE OF SHREE B ALAJI ALLOYS V. CIT AND ANOTHER (SUPRA) DISMISSED THE REVENUES APPEAL ON THIS ISSUE IN ITA NO.233(ASR)/2011 & IN ITA NO.408(ASR)/2011 DATED 09 /12/2011 & 13/12/2011 RESPECTIVELY (COPIES OF BOTH THE ORDERS HAVE BEEN FILED AT PAGES 112 TO 138 OF THE PB). HE ALSO POINTED OUT THAT REV ENUE MOVED A MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION BEFORE THE HONBLE J & K HIGH COURT, AGAINST THE ORDERS IN CASE OF SHREE BALAJI ALLOYS V. CIT AND AN OTHER (SUPRA) (WHERE ASSESSEE WAS ALSO A PARTY) WHICH WAS ALSO DISMISS ED BY THE HONBLE COURT VIDE ORDER DATED 04.04.2012 (COPY OF WHICH IS FILED AT PAGES 102 TO 111 OF THE PAPER BOOK). THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE FU RTHER ARGUED THAT THE ISSUE IS IDENTICAL TO THE ISSUE DECIDED BY THE HON BLE J & K HIGH COURT AND EVEN SPECIAL BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IS BOUND BY THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT OF J & K. HE ALSO CLARIFI ED THAT SINCE ASSESSEES INDUSTRIAL UNIT IS SITUATED IN JAMMU AND HE IS ALSO BEING ASSESSED TO TAX AT JAMMU, THEREFORE, THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE JAMMU & KASHMIR HIGH COURT, HAS TO BE TREATED AS JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COU RT DECISION. 3. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DCIT(DR), MR. TARSEM LAL, SUBMITTED THAT S.L.P. AGAINST THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE J & K HIGH COURT IN THE CASE 4 OF SHREE BALAJI ALLOYS VS. CIT HAS BEEN ADMITTED B Y THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT ON 18.11.2011 [CC17898/2011] ARISING OUT OF T HE DECISION OF THE HONBE J & K HIGH COURT IN ITA NO. 2 OF 2010 AND TH EREFORE, THE MATTER SHOULD BE DECIDED ACCORDINGLY. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS CAREFUL LY IN THE LIGHT OF MATERIAL ON RECORDS AS WELL AS DECISIONS CITED BY T HE PARTIES. IN THIS CASE, ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED EXCISE DUTY REFUND AMOUNTING TO RS.19,98,09,716/- AND HAS CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S 80IB OF THE INCOME-TA X ACT, 1961 ON THE INCOME CORRESPONDING TO THE RECEIPT OF THE SAID REF UND. THE AO AFTER DETAILED DISCUSSION REJECTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSES SEE. ON APPEAL, ADDITIONAL GROUND WAS TAKEN BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) THAT RECEIPT OF EXCISE DUTY REFUND SHOULD BE CONSIDERED AS CAPITAL RECEIPT.. THE LD. C IT(A), AFTER CONSIDERING THE ADDITIONAL GROUND DECIDED THIS ISSUE AGAINST TH E ASSESSEE BY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE ITAT, AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR, IN THE CASE OF M/S. SHREE BALAJI ALLOYS, KATHUA VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, KATHU A, IN ITA NO.255(ASR)/2009 AND IN THE CASE OF M/S. RAVENBHEL HEALTHCARE PVT. LTD. JAMMU VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(2), JAMMU, IN ITA NO. 305(ASR)/2009 DATED 26.11.2009 BY OBSERVING THAT TH E TRIBUNAL HAS CONSIDERED ALL THE ASPECTS OF THE ISSUE. IT IS OBS ERVED THAT ASSESSES UNIT IS LOCATED IN JAMMU AND ASSESSEE IS ALSO BEING ASSESSE D TO TAX IN JAMMU, THEREFORE, THE DECISION OF HONBLE J & K HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SHREE BALAJI ALLOYS VS. CIT AND ANOTHER (SUPRA) (WHERE EV EN ASSESSEE WAS ALSO 5 ONE OF THE PARTY) HAS TO BE TREATED AS DECISION OF JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT, WHICH IS BINDING ON US. NO DOUBT, THE HONBLE SUPRE ME COURT, HAS ADMITTED THE SLP AGAINST THIS DECISION VIDE ORDER DATED 18.1 1.2011, BUT NO STAY HAS BEEN GRANTED AGAINST THE OPERATION OF THE ORDER OF J & K HIGH COURT. THEREFORE, IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE J & K HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SHREE BALAJI ALLOYS V. C IT AND ANOTHER (SUPRA), IS SQUARELY APPLICABLE. A CAREFUL PERUSAL OF THIS JUDG MENT SHOWS THAT THE HONBLE J & K HIGH COURT HAS DISCUSSED THE NATURE O F SCHEME IN DETAIL AND THE DECISIONS OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF SAHNEY STEEL & PRESS WORKS LTD. VS. CIT (1997) 228 ITR 253 (SC) AND CIT VS. PONNI SUGARS AND CHEMICALS LTD. (2008) 306 ITR 392(SC) AND OBSERVED AS UNDER: 26 A PERUSAL OF THE OFFICE MEMORANDUM DATED JUNE 1 4, 2002 INDICATING NEW INDUSTRIAL POLICY AND OTHER CONCESSI ONS FOR THE STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR, MAKES IT EXPLICIT THAT THE CONCE SSIONS WERE ISSUED TO ACHIEVE TWIN OBJECTS VIZ. (I) ACCELERATIO N OF INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR, WHIC H HAD BEEN FOUND LAGGING BEHIND IN SUCH DEVELOPMENT, AND (II) GENERATION OF EMPLOYMENT IN THE STATE OF JAMMU & KASHMIR. 27 AMENDMENT INTRODUCED TO THE OFFICE MEMORANDUM VI DE NOTIFICATION OF NOVEMBER 28, 2003 OF THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY (DEPARTMENT OF IN DUSTRIAL POLICY AND PROMOTION) ELOQUENTLY DEMONSTRATES THE CENTRAL GOVERENMENTS INTENTION IN EXTENDING THE INCENTIVES. THE GOVERNM ENTS OBJECTIVE, AS CONVEYED BY THE HONBLE PRIME MINISTER A SRINAGAR O N APRIL 19, 2003, WAS, FOR CREATION OF ONE LAKH EMPLOYMENT AND SELF-EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES IN JAMMU AND KASHMIR STATE. 28 TO ACHIEVE THE PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVE REFERRED TO HEREINABOVE, IT WAS, INTER ALIA, PROVIDED IN THE CENTRAL EXCISE NOT IFICATIONS THAT THE EXEMPTIONS CONTAINED IN THE NOTIFICATIONS WOULD BE AVAILABLE ONLY ON PRODUCTION OF CERTIFICATE FROM GENERAL MANAGER OF T HE CONCERNED 6 DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENTRE TO THE JURISDICTIONAL DE PUTY COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE OR THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, AS THE CASE MAY BE, TO THE EFFECT THAT THE UNIT HAD CR EATED REQUIRED ADDITIONAL REGULAR EMPLOYMENT, WHICH WOULD NOT, HOW EVER, INCLUDE EMPLOYMENT PROVIDED BY THE INDUSTRIAL UNITS TO DAIL Y WAGERS OR CASUAL EMPLOYEES ENGAGED IN THE UNITS. 29 A CLOSE READING OF THE OFFICE MEMORANDUM AND THE AMENDMENT INTRODUCED THERETO WITH PARAGRAPH NO. 3 APPEARING I N THE CENTRAL EXCISE NOTIFICATION NOS. 56 AND 57 OF NOVEMBER 11, 2002, THUS, MAKES IT AMPLY CLEAR THAT THE ACCELERATION OF DEVEL OPMENT OF INDUSTRIES IN THE STATE WAS CONTEMPLATED WITH THE OBJECT OF GENERATION OF EMPLOYMENT IN THE STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND THE GENERATION OF EMPLOYMENT, SO, CONTEMPLATED, WAS NOT ONLY CASUA L OR TEMPORARY; BUT WAS ON THE OTHER HAND, OF PERMANENT NATURE. 30 CONSIDERED THUS, THE PARAMOUNT CONSIDERATION OF THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT IN PROVIDING THE INCENTIVES TO THE NEW I NDUSTRIAL UNITS AND SUBSTANTIAL EXPANSION OF THE EXISTING UNITS, WAS TH E GENERATION OF EMPLOYMENT THROUGH ACCELERATION OF INDUSTRIAL DEVEL OPMENT, TO DEAL WITH THE SOCIAL PROBLEM OF UNEMPLOYMENT IN THE STAT E, ADDITIONALLY CREATING OPPORTUNITIES FOR SELF-EMPLOYMENT, HENCE A PURPOSE IN PUBLIC INTEREST. 31 IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, THE INCENTIVES PROVI DED TO THE INDUSTRIAL UNITS, IN TERMS OF THE NEW INDUSTRIAL PO LICY, FOR ACCELERATED INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE STATE, FOR CREATION O F SUCH INDUSTRIAL ATMOSPHERE AND ENVIRONMENT, WHICH WOULD PROVIDE ADD ITIONAL PERMANENT SOURCE OF EMPLOYMENT TO THE UNEMPLOYED IN HE STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR, WERE IN FACT, IN THE NATURE OF C REATION OF NEW ASSETS OF INDUSTRIAL ATMOSPHERE AND ENVIRONMENT, H AVING THE POTENTIAL OF EMPLOYMENT GENERATION TO ACHIEVE A SOCIAL OBJECT . SUCH INCENTIVES, DESIGNED TO ACHIEVE PUBLIC PURPOSE, CANNOT, BY ANY STRETCH OF REASONING, BE CONSTRUED AS PRODUCTION OR OPERATIONA L INCENTIVES FOR THE BENEFIT OF ASSESSES ALONE. 32 THUS, LOOKING TO THE PURPOSE, OF ERADICATION OF THE SOCIAL PROBLEM OF UNEMPLOYMENT IN THE STATE BY ACCELERATIO N OF THE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AND REMOVING BACKWARDNESS OF THE AREA THAT LAGGED BEHIND IN INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT, WHICH IS C ERTAINLY A PURPOSE IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST, THE INCENTIVES PROVIDED BY THE OFFICE MEMORANDUM AND STATUTORY NOTIFICATIONS ISSUED IN TH IS BEHALF, TO THE 7 APPELLANTS-ASSESSEES, CANNOT BE CONSTRUED AS MERE P RODUCTION AND TRADE INCENTIVES, AS HELD BY THE TRIBUNAL. 33. MAKING OF ADDITIONAL PROVISION IN THE SCHEME TH AT INCENTIVES WOULD BECOME AVAILABLE TO THE INDUSTRIAL UNITS, ENT ITLED THERETO, FROM THE DATE OF COMMENCEMENT OF THE COMMERCIAL PRODUCTI ON, AND THAT THESE WERE NOT REQUIRED FOR CREATION OF NEW ASSETS CANNOT BE VIEWED IN ISOLATION, TO TREAT THE INCENTIVES AS PRODUCTION IN CENTIVES, AS HELD BY THE TRIBUNAL, FOR THE MEASURE SO TAKEN, APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN INTENDED TO ENSURE THAT THE INCENTIVES WERE MADE AVAILABLE O NLY TO THE BONA FIDE INDUSTRIAL UNITS SO THAT LARGER PUBLIC INTEREST OF DEALING WITH UNEMPLOYMENT IN THE STATE, AS INTENDED, IN TERMS OF THE OFFICE MEMORANDUM, WAS ACHIEVED. 34. THE OTHER FACTORS, WHICH HAD WEIGHED WITH THE T RIBUNAL IN DETERMINE THE INCENTIVES AS PRODUCTION INCENTIVES M AY NOT BE DECISIVE TO DETERMINING THE CHARACTER OF THE INCENTIVE SUBSI DIES, WHEN IT IS FOUND, AS DEMONSTRATED IN THE OFFICE MEMORANDUM, AM ENDMENT INTRODUCED THERETO AND THE STATUTORY NOTIFICATION T OO THAT THE INCENTIVES WERE PROVIDED WITH THE OBJECT OF CREATING AVENUES F OR PERPETUAL EMPLOYMENT, TO ERADICATE THE SOCIAL PROBLEM OF UNEM PLOYMENT IN THE STATE BY ACCELERATED INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT. 5. ON THE BASIS OF THE ABOVE OBSERVATIONS, THE HON BLE J & K HIGH COURT HAS HELD AS UNDER: 35 FOR ALL WHAT HAS BEEN SAID ABOVE, THE FINDING O F THE TRIBUNAL ON THE FIRST ISSUE THAT THE EXCISE DUTY REFUND, INTERE ST SUBSIDY AND INSURANCE SUBSIDY WERE PRODUCTION INCENTIVES, HENCE REVENUE RECEIPT, CANNOT BE SUSTAINED, BEING AGAINST THE LAW LAID DOW N BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA IN SAHNEY STEEL CASE (1997) 228 ITR 253 AND PONNI SUGARS CASE (2008) 306 ITR 392. 36 THE FINDING OF THE TRIBUNAL THAT THE INCENTIVES WERE REVENUE RECEIPT IS, ACCORDINGLY, SET ASIDE HOLDING THE INCE NTIVES TO THE CAPITAL RECEIPT IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSES. 6.. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DECISION, WHICH IS BINDING IN NATURE ON THIS SPECIAL BENCH, AS OBSERVED EARLIER, WE HOLD THAT R EFUND OF EXCISE DUTY IS TO 8 BE TREATED AS CAPITAL RECEIPT IN THE HANDS OF THE A SSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, THE FIRST QUESTION IS DECIDED IN FAVAOUR OF THE ASSESS EE. 7. IN RESPECT OF SECOND QUESTION, IT WAS OBSERVED B Y THE HONBLE J & K HIGH COURT AT PARA 37, AS UNDER: 37. IN VIEW OF OUR ABOVE FINDING ON THE FIRST ISSU E, THERE IS NO NEED TO OPINE ON THE SECOND ISSUE, WHICH WAS RAISED IN T HE ALTERNATIVE. 8. THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE OBSERVATIONS AN D THE FACT THAT ONCE REFUND OF EXCISE DUTY IS HELD TO BE OF CAPITAL NAT URE THEN THERE IS NO NEED TO DECIDE THE SECOND QUESTION. 9.. DURING HEARING IT WAS FURTHER OBSERVED THAT IN THIS APPEAL BASICALLY DISPUTE WAS IN RESPECT OF NATURE OF EXCISE DUTY REF UND, WHICH HAS BEEN REFERRED TO THE SPECIAL BENCH BY THE HONBLE PRESID ENT OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL. BUT THERE IS ANOTHER ISSUE WHIC H HAS ALSO BEEN RAISED VIDE GROUND NO.6, WHICH READS AS UNDER: 6. THAT THE CHARGING OF INTEREST U/S 234-B AT RS.2 ,21,75,951/- IS ARBITRARY, UNJUST & ILLEGAL ON VARIOUS FACTUAL & LE GAL GROUNDS. 10. THE ISSUE RAISED IN ABOVE GROUND WAS NOT REFER RED TO THE SPECIAL BENCH. BUT SINCE SPECIAL BENCH CONSISTS OF HONBLE PRESIDENT, WHO IN EXERCISE OF HIS POWERS UNDER SECTION 255(3) OF THE ACT, OBTAINED CONSENT OF 9 THE PARTIES FOR ADJUDICATION OF ISSUE RAISED IN GRO UND NO.6 BECAUSE SAME WAS OF CONSEQUENTIAL NATURE SO AS TO DISPOSE OFF APPEAL AS SUCH. BOTH THE PARTIES CONSENTED THAT THIS ISSUE BEING OF CONSEQUENTIAL IN NATURE MAY ALSO BE DECIDED BY THE SPECIAL BENCH. 11. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND FOUND THAT T HE ISSUE RAISED IN GROUND NO.6 IS ONLY CONSEQUENTIAL IN NATURE AND THE REFORE, WE HOLD ACCORDINGLY. 12. NOW, WE TAKE UP APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN ITA N O.68(ASR)/2010. IN THIS CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED EXCISE DUTY RE FUND AMOUNTING TO RS.1,07,46,677/- AND CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S 80IB ON THIS AMOUNT, WHICH WAS REJECTED BY THE A.O. AND ON APPEAL THE ORDER OF A.O. WAS CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A) BY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNA L IN ITA NOS.255(ASR)/2009 & 305(ASR)/2009 IN THE CASE OF M/ S. SHREE BALAJI ALLOYS, KATHUA VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, KATHUA & M/S. RAVENB HEL HEALTHCARE PVT. LTD. JAMMU VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(2), JAMMU, VIDE ORDER DATED 26.11.2009. SINCE IN THIS APPEAL, ONLY DISPUTE INVO LVED IS REGARDING NATURE OF EXCISE DUTY REFUND AND THAT ISSUE HAS BEEN REFERRED TO THE SPECIAL BENCH, WHICH HAS BEEN ADJUDICATED BY US, IN THE ABOVE NOTE D PARAS. FOLLOWING THE ABOVE DECISION, WE DECIDE THIS ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF T HE ASSESSEE HOLDING THAT EXCISE DUTY REFUND IS TO BE TREATED AS CAPITAL RECE IPT. 10 13. AS FAR AS SECOND QUESTION IS CONCERNED, IN VIEW OF OUR EARLIER DECISION IN THE ABOVE NOTED APPEAL AT PARAS 7 & 8 SINCE REFU ND OF EXCISE DUTY HAS BEEN HELD TO BE OF CAPITAL NATURE, THEREFORE, THERE IS N O NEED TO DECIDE THE SECOND QUESTION. 14. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS OF BOTH THE ASSESSE ES IN ITA NOS. 65 (ASR)/2010 & 68(ASR)/2010 ARE ALLOWED IN TERMS INDI CATED ABOVE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 26TH OCTOBER, 2012. SD/- SD/- SD/- (B.P. JAIN) (T.R.SOOD) (H.L.KARWA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PRESIDENT DATED: 26TH OCTOBER, 2012 /SKR/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE ASSESSEES:SH. VINOD KUMAR JAIN P/O M/S. V.K. ME TAL WORKS, JAMMU. & M/S. BALAJI ROSIN INDUSTRIES, JAMMU. 2. THE ITO WARD-1(1)/1(3), 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.