Shri Vijay Kumar Chadha, HUF, Amritsar. V. The Income-tax Officer, Amritsar.

ITA 754/ASR/2013

• Counselvise Citation: 75420914 RSA 2013
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-01-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 08-01-2015
• Assessment Year: 2001-2002
• Appeal Filed On: 24-12-2013
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ASR; Y K SUD CA ITA NO
• Keywords: Gross profit estimation; Depreciation; Question of law
• Section: 145

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH; AMRITSAR. BEFORE SH. A.D.JAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. B.P.JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NOS.144(ASR)/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2009-10 PAN :ADFPR9304A INCOME TAX OFFICER, VS. LATE SH.JANAK RAJ WARD III(1), FEROZEPUR. S/O SH. NANAK CHAND THROUGH L/H SMT. SARITA DHAWAN C/O M/S. JANAK RAJ & CO. SUBASH CLOTH HOUSE, MAIN BAZAR, MAMDOT, FEROZEPUR. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) I.T.A. NOS.145(ASR)/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2010-11 PAN :AHZPD7369P INCOME TAX OFFICER, VS. LATE SH.JANAK RAJ WARD III(1), FEROZEPUR. S/O SH. NANAK CHAND THROUGH L/H SMT. SARITA DHAWAN C/O M/S. JANAK RAJ & CO. SUBASH CLOTH HOUSE, MAIN BAZAR, MAMDOT, FEROZEPUR. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY:SH.TARSEM LAL, DR RESPONDENT BY:SH. Y.K. SUD, CA ITA NO.144 & 145(ASR)/2014 2 DATE OF HEARING:31.12.2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT:12/01/2015 ORDER PER A.D.JAIN, JM: THESE ARE DEPARTMENTS APPEALS, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2009-10 & 2010-11 AGAINST THE SEPARATE ORDERS OF CIT(A), BATH INDA, EACH DATED 04.12.2013. 2. IN ITA NO.144(ASR)/2014, THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITI ON OF RS.18,08,891/- MADE BY AO ON ACCOUNT OF REBATE WITH OUT APPRECIATING THAT THE ADDITION WAS MADE ON THE AMOU NT OF MONEY IN RESPECT OF REBATE RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM ITS SUPPLIERS AND NOT PASSED ON TO THE RETAILERS AND RE TAINED BY IT AND THE AOS ORDER ON THIS ISSUE BE SUSTAINED. 2. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITIO N OF RS.3,56,364/- MADE BY AO ON ACCOUNT OF LOW GP WITH OUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THERE WAS A DRASTIC FALL IN THE GP RATE ( I.E. FROM 2.91% TO 1.14%) COMPARING TO THE LAST Y EAR IN ASSESSEES CASE TO WHICH THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT FUR NISH SATISFACTORY REPLY AND THE AOS ORDER ON THIS ISSUE BE SUSTAINED. 3. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND OR ARGU E ANY OTHER QUESTION OF LAW/FACT BEFORE OR AT THE TIME OF HEARI NG OF THIS APPEAL. 3. SO FAR AS GROUND NO.1, THE FACTS ARE THAT THE AO MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.18,08,891/- IN RESPECT OF REBATE RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM ITS ITA NO.144 & 145(ASR)/2014 3 SUPPLIERS AND ALLEGEDLY NOT PASSED ON TO THE RETAIL ERS. THE FACTS AS AVAILABLE FROM THE IMPUGNED ORDER ARE AS UNDER: I. THE APPELLANT RECEIVED REBATE OF RS.79,29,749.87 FR OM THE SELLER AGAINST WHOLESALE PURCHASES OF IMFL INCLUDIN G BEER AND ALLOWED THE REBATE OF RS.55.98,682/- TO THE PARTIES WHO PURCHASED THE IMFL FROM APPELLANT IN NET REBATE OF RS.23,31,067/- WHICH IS PART OF THE GROSS PROFIT AS PER TRADING ACCOUNT FURNISHED BY THE APPELLANT. II. ACCORDING TO THE AO THE AMOUNT OF RS.23,31,067/ - IS THE EXTRA INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE AO HAS RECORDED THE FINDING IN PARA 2.1 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT THIS AMOUNT I S EXTRA INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE IN ADDITION TO THE NET PROFI T OF RS.5,22,175/- DECLARED FROM D.K. WINES AS PER PROFI T AND LOSS ACCOUNT. BUT ACCORDING TO THE AO HE TOOK A CONSIDE RATE VIEW OF THE MATTER AND MADE ADDITION OF RS.18,08,891/- (NET REBATE RS.23,31,067 NET PROFIT RS.5,22,175/-). 4. THE LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION FOLLOWING TH E DECISION OF THE HONBLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT, IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. OM OVERSEAS, REPORTED IN 315 ITR 185 (P&H) AND THE OR DER OF THE LD. CIT(A), IN THE CASE OF SH. HARPREET SINGH GULATI, PROP. M/S. AKASH ENTERPRISES, FEROZEPUR CITY, WHICH ORDER WAS ALSO PASSED BY THE SAME CIT(A). 5. BEFORE US, THE LD. DR, HAS CONTENDED THAT THE LD . CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION CORRECTLY MADE BY THE AO; THA T WHILE DOING SO, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT THE A DDITION WAS MADE ON THE ITA NO.144 & 145(ASR)/2014 4 AMOUNT IN RESPECT OF REBATE RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSE E FROM ITS SUPPLIERS AND NOT PASSED ON TO THE RETAILERS AND RETAINED BY THE ASSESSEE. 6. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, ON THE OTHER H AND, HAS PLACED STRONG RELIANCE ON THE IMPUGNED ORDER. HE HAS ALSO CONTEND ED THAT THE LD. CIT(A)S ORDER IN THE CASE OF SH.HARPREET SINGH GULATI (SU PRA), HAS SINCE BEEN UPHELD BY THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO.317(ASR)/2013, VID E ORDER DATED 28.02.2014. COPIES OF THIS ORDER HAVE BEEN PLACED O N RECORD. IN THIS REGARD, WE FIND THAT WHILE CONFIRMING THE LD. CIT(A)S ORDE R, DELETING THE SIMILAR ADDITION IN THE CASE OF SH.HARPREET SINGH GULATI, THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 28.02.2014 (SUPRA), HAS HELD AS UNDER: 6.1. AS MENTIONED HEREINABOVE, WE CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) THAT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IS COVERED BY THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. K.S. BHATIA REPORTED IN 269 ITR 577 AND THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ACIT, RAIPUR VS. ROOP CHAND THARANI REPORTED IN 249 CTR 326 IN WHICH IT HAS BEE N HELD THAT THE PROFITS CANNOT BE ESTIMATED WITHOUT REJECTING THE B OOKS OF ACCOUNT BY POINTING OUT THE SPECIFIC DEFECTS AND RECORDING THE FINDING REGARDING THE SAME. THE CONTENTIONS OF THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE ARE FACTUALLY CORRECT AND THE AO HAS FAILED TO POINT OUT ANY DIS CREPANCY IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT TO JUSTIFY HIS ACTION OF ESTIMATIN G THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AT RS.16586467/- AS AGAINST THE INCOME OF RS.11770029/- DECLARED IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT. 7. HAVING HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES, WE FIND THAT AS C ORRECTLY FOUND BY THE LD. CIT(A), THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE ARE SQUAR ELY COVERED BY OM ITA NO.144 & 145(ASR)/2014 5 OVERSEAS (SUPRA) RENDERED BY THE HONBLE JURISDICT IONAL HIGH COURT, UNDER SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES. THEREIN, IT HAS BEEN HELD TH AT WHERE THE AO MADE THE ADDITION WITHOUT POINTING OUT ANY SPECIFIC DEFECT I N THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE AND SUCH ADDITION STOOD DELETED UPTO T HE TRIBUNAL, NO QUESTION OF LAW AROSE. IN THE PRESENT CASE ALSO, THE AO MADE THE ADDITION WITHOUT POINTING OUT ANY SPECIFIC DEFECT IN THE ASSESSES B OOKS OF ACCOUNT. THEREFORE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS CORRECTLY FOLLOWED OM OVERSEAS (SUPRA) TO DELETE THE ADDITION. NO DECISION CONTRARY TO OM OVERSEAS (S UPRA) HAS BEEN CITED BEFORE US BY THE DEPARTMENT. 8. THE DEPARTMENT HAS ALSO NOT BEEN ABLE TO SHOW AN Y DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT ASSESSEE AND THE C ASE OF SH. HARPREET SINGH GULATI (SUPRA). THEREFORE, THE GRIEVANCE OF THE DE PARTMENT BY WAY OF GROUND NO.1 IS FOUND TO BE SHORN OF MERIT AND IS REJECTED. 9. COMING TO GROUND NO.2, THE GP RATE OF THE ASSESS EE WAS FOUND TO HAVE GONE DOWN FROM 2.91% IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008- 09 TO 1.14% IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, I.E., 2009-10. THE G.P. RATE RELATING TO DESI LIQUOR WAS 9.52% AND THAT OF D.K. WINES WAS 2 .76%. THESE WERE FOUND TO BE BETTER THAN THE RATE OF THE L-2 BUSINES S. 10. THE LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION MADE, OF RS .3,56,364/-, BY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH C OURT IN THE CASE OF CIT ITA NO.144 & 145(ASR)/2014 6 VS. OM OVERSEAS (SUPRA). IT WAS ALSO HELD THAT SI NCE THE BUSINESS OF LIQUOR, WHICH WAS BEING RUN BY THE ASSESSEE AT DIFFERENT PL ACES, WAS OF A DIFFERENT NATURE, I.E., WHOLESALE/RETAIL OF IMFL AND RETAIL O F DESI WINE, AS PER THE LD. CIT(A), A COMMON GP RATE COULD NOT BE APPLIED. IT W AS OBSERVED THAT THE AO FAILED TO BEING ON RECORD ANY COMPARABLE CASE TO JUSTIFY THE AD-HOC ADDITION. 11. THE LD. DR HAS CONTENDED BEFORE US THAT THE LD. CIT(A), WHILE WRONGLY DELETING THE ADDITION, FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT THERE WAS A DRASTIC FALL IN THE GP RATE AS COMPARED TO THAT OF LAST YEAR; THAT WHEREAS IN THE EARLIER YEAR, THE G.P. RATE WAS 2.91%, IT HAD PLUMM ETED TO 1.14% IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO SUB STANTIATE AND JUSTIFY SUCH A DRASTIC FALL IN THE G.P. RATE. 12. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, ON THE OTHER HAND, HAS AGAIN RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SH. HARPREET SINGH GULATI (SUPRA) AND SUPPORTED THE IMPUGNED ORDER IN THIS R EGARD. 13. HAVING CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS IN THE LIGHT OF THE MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD, WE FIND NOTHING WRONG WITH LD. CI T(A)S ORDER. THE CIT(A), WHILE DELETING THIS ADDITION, HAS OBSERVED AS FOLLOWS: THE AO HAS ALSO FAILED TO RECORD ANY FINDING IN TH E ASSESSMENT ORDER RELATING TO THE BUSINESS OF L-2 AT CHANDIGARH THAT HE WAS NOT SATISFIED ABOUT THE CORRECTNESS AND COMPLETENESS OF THE ACCOU NTS OF THE ASSESSEE OR THE METHOD OF ACCOUNTING PROVIDED IN SU B SECTION (1) OF ITA NO.144 & 145(ASR)/2014 7 SECTION 145 OR ACCOUNTING STANDARDS AS NOTIFIED UND ER SUB SECTION (2) OF SECTION 145 HAVE NOT BEEN REGULARLY FOLLOWED BY THE APPELLANT, TO INVOKE THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 145(3) TO EMPOWER THE AO TO MAKE AN ASSESSMENT AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 144. THUS, THE A DDITION HAS BEEN MADE BY THE AO WITHOUT POINTING OUT ANY SPECIFIC DE FECT IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT TO INVOKE THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 145( 3).THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE ORDER OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. OVERSEAS 315 ITR 185. EVEN OTHERWISE ON MERITS, THE EXPLANATION OF THE AP PELLANT THAT THE BUSINESS OF LIQUOR WHICH IS BEING RUN AT DIFFERENT PLACES IS OF DIFFERENT NATURE I.E. WHOLESALE/RETAIL OF IMFL AND RETAIL OF DESI WINE AND THE COMMON GP RATE CANNOT BE APPLIED TO ALL THE BUSINES S. THE AO HAS FAILED TO BRING ANY COMPARABLE CASE ON RECORD TO J USTIFY THE ADHOC ADDITION OF 1% AMOUNTING TO RS.3,56,364/ ON THE TUR NOVER OF RS.3,56,36,380/- RELATING TO L-2 BUSINESS RUN BY TH E APPELLANT. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS AND LAW DISCUSSED SUPRA, I DIRECT THE AO TO DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS.3,56,364/- AND THE GROUND OF APPEAL NO.3 IS TREATED AS ALLOWED. 14. THE DEPARTMENT HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO CONTROVERT THE ABOVE WELL REASONED FACTUAL FINDINGS RECORDED BY THE CIT(A). T HE AO DID NOT STATE ANYTHING IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER TO THE EFFECT THAT EITHER HE WAS DISSATISFIED ABOUT THE CORRECTNESS OR THE COMPLETENESS OF THE AC COUNTS OF THE ASSESSEES L-2 BUSINESS, OR THAT HE ENTERTAINED ANY DOUBT REGA RDING THE METHOD OF ACCOUNTING FOLLOWED BY THE ASSESSEE, OR EVEN THAT THE NOTIFIED ACCOUNTING STANDARDS HAD NOT BEEN FOLLOWED BY THE ASSESSEE. AS SUCH, NO DEFECT WHATSOEVER WAS POINTED OUT BY THE AO IN THE ASSESSE ES BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THEREFORE, THE LD. CIT(A) IS ON ALL FOURS IN FOL LOWING OM OVERSEAS ITA NO.144 & 145(ASR)/2014 8 (SUPRA) WHILE DELETING THE ADDITION. FURTHER, THERE IS NO REBUTTAL BY THE DEPARTMENT TO THE CIT(A)S FACTUAL FINDING THAT THE ASSESSEES BUSINESSES OF WHOLESALE/RETAIL OF IMFL AND RETAIL OF DESI WINE AR E DIFFERENT IN NATURE AND HENCE, THE APPLICATION OF A COMMON G.P. RATE IS NOT JUSTIFIED, PARTICULARLY WHEN NO COMPARABLE CASE WAS CITED BY THE AO TO MAKE THE ADHOC ADDITION OF 1%. MOREOVER, THE TRIBUNAL, IN THE CASE OF SH . HARPREET SINGH GULATI (SUPRA) ON THIS ISSUE, HAS HELD IN FAVOUR OF THE AS SESSEE AND THAT FINDING HAS BEEN REPRODUCED HEREINABOVE (PARA 6). THEREFORE, G ROUND NO.2 OF THE REVENUE DOES NOT HOLD WATER AND THE SAME IS ALSO R EJECTED. 15. GROUND NO. 3 IS GENERAL. 16. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DIS MISSED. 17. NOW, WE TAKE UP THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IN I TA NO.145(ASR)/2014 FOR THE A.Y. 2010-11, WHERE THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITI ON OF RS.9,17,340/- MADE BY AO ON ACCOUNT OF REBATE WITHO UT APPRECIATING THAT THE ADDITION WAS MADE ON THE AMOU NT OF MONEY IN RESPECT OF REBATE RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM ITS SUPPLIERS AND NOT PASSED ON TO THE RETAILERS AND RE TAINED BY IT AND THE AOS ORDER ON THIS ISSUE BE SUSTAINED. 2. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ALSO ERRED IN REDUCING THE AD DITION FROM RS.1,00,000/- TO RS.25,000/- MADE BY AO ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCES OUT OF EXPENSES OF PERSONAL NATURE. T HE AOS ORDER ON THIS ISSUE BE SUSTAINED. ITA NO.144 & 145(ASR)/2014 9 3. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND OR ARGU E ANY OTHER QUESTION OF LAW/FACT BEFORE OR AT THE TIME OF HEARI NG OF THIS APPEAL. 18. THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN GROUND NO.1 IS EXACTLY SI MILAR TO THAT DEALT WITH BY US WHILE DISPOSING OF GROUND NO.1 IN ITA NO.144 (ASR)/2014 FOR THE A.Y.2009-10 BUT FOR THE QUANTUM ADDITION FOR THE AS SESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, WHICH IS RS.9,17,340/-. FOR THE REAS ONS RECORDED THEREIN, THE FACTS BEING PARI-MATERIA THEREWITH, GROUND NO.1 IS REJECTED. 19. IN GROUND NO.2, THE REVENUE HAS CONTENDED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN REDUCING THE ADDITION TO RS.25,000/- FROM RS.1,0 0,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCES OUT OF EXPENSES OF PERSONAL NATURE. 20. THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE AO MADE AN A DDITION OF RS.1 LAC ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES ON ACCOUNT OF THEIR BEING PERSONAL IN NATURE, OUT OF TOTAL EXPESES OF RS.7,56,221/-. THES E EXPENSES INCLUDE MISC EXPENSES, INTEREST ON CAR LOAN, DEPRECIATION ON CAR /MOTOR CYCLE, CAR PETROL, STAFF WELFARE EXPENSES AND CONVEYANCE, ETC. 21. THE LD. CIT(A) REDUCED THESE DISALLOWANCES. 22. AGGRIEVED THEREBY, THE DEPARTMENT HAS RAISED GR OUND NO.2 BEFORE US. THE LD. DR HAS CONTENDED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ER RED IN REDUCING THE ITA NO.144 & 145(ASR)/2014 10 ADDITION FROM RS. 1,00,000/- TO RS.25,000/-, SINCE THE EXISTENCE OF THE ELEMENT OF PERSONAL USER HAS NOT BEEN DENIED BY THE ASSESSEE. 23. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, ON THE OTHER HAND, HAS RELIED STRONGLY ON THE LD. CIT(A)S ORDER IN THIS REGARD. 24. ON CONSIDERATION OF THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS IN TH E LIGHT OF THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD QUA THIS ISSUE, WE FIND THAT WH ILE REDUCING THE ADDITION FROM RS.1 LAC TO RS. 25,000/-, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS O BSERVED THAT THE AO HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO BRING ON RECORD ANY SPECIFIC EXPEN DITURE WHICH WAS NOT ALLOWABLE AND THIS DISALLOWANCE WAS MADE ON AN ADHO C BASIS. IN THE REMAND REPORT SUMMONED BY THE LD. CIT(A), THE AO HAD STATE D THAT THE DISALLOWANCE CAME TO 1/6 OF THE EXPENDITURE. REGAR DING THIS, THE LD. CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT THE EXPENDITURE BEING CONVEYANCE EXP ENDITURE/STAFF WELFARE EXPENDITURE, THERE COULD NOT BE ANY ELEMENT OF PER SONAL USER. IT WAS THEREON THAT THE LD. CIT(A) REDUCED THE AMOUNT OF DISALLOWA NCE TO RS.25,000/-. HAVING CONSIDERED THE MATTER, WE FIND THAT THIS IS A CASE OF AN ESTIMATE AGAINST AN ESTIMATE. NO MATERIAL HAS BEEN BROUGHT O N RECORD BY EITHER OF THE PARTIES TO SUPPORT THEIR RESPECTIVE CASES. THEREFOR E, WE HAVE NO OPTION BUT TO SUSTAIN THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A). GROUND NO.2 OF THE REVENUE IS, ACCORDINGLY, REJECTED. ITA NO.144 & 145(ASR)/2014 11 25 GROUND NO. 3 IS GENERAL. 26. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 12T H JANUARY, 2015. SD/- SD/- (B.P. JAIN) (A.D.JAIN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 12TH JANUARY,2015 /SKR/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE ASSESSEE:LATE SH. JANAK RAJ S/O SH. NANAK CHAND L/H SMT. SARITA DHAWAN MAMDOT, FEROZEPAUR 2. THE ITO WARD III(1), FEROZEPUR. 3. THE CIT(A), BATHINDA 4. THE CIT, BATHINDA. 5. THE SR DR, ITAT, AMRITSAR. TRUE COPY BY ORDER (ASSISTANT REGISTRAR) INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AMRITSAR BENCH: AMRITSAR.