Shri Ajaib Singh, Bathinda V. The Income Tax Officer, Bathinda

ITA 78/ASR/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 116 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8999 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 4 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-07-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 03-04-2019
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 09-02-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: P N ARORA; P K SINGLA ADVS
• Keywords: Capital asset; Gift; Additional evidence; Set aside
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR (SMC) BEFORE SH. SANJAY ARORA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 78/ASR/2015 A SSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 AJAIB SINGH, VILL.-GILL PATTI, GONIANA ROAD, VILL.- GILL PATTI [PAN: AFLPS 1861H] VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), BATHINDA (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SH. P. N. ARORA & P. K. SINGLA (ADVS.) RESPONDENT BY: SH. CHARAN DASS (D.R.) DATE OF HEARING: 03.04.2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 01.07.2019 ORDER PER SANJAY ARORA, AM: THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), BATHINDA ('CI T(A)' FOR SHORT) DATED 17.12.2014, DISMISSING THE ASSESSEES APPEAL CONTES TING HIS ASSESSMENT U/S. 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ('THE ACT' HEREI NAFTER) DATED 15.12.2009 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR (AY) 2007-08. 2. THE ISSUE IN THIS APPEAL IS THE DETERMINATION OF THE CORRECT AMOUNT OF CAPITAL GAIN ARISEN TO THE ASSESSEE ON THE SALE OF HIS LAND TO PUNJAB ALKALI CHEMICALS LTD. (PACL). 3. THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE AND HIS TWO BROTHERS, CHAND SINGH AND KAUR SINGH, ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT WIT H PACL FOR SALE OF 232 MARLAS OF LAND AT VILLAGE GILL PATI THERETO ON 08.8 .2006 AT A CONSIDERATION OF RS.1 CRORE PER ACRE, RECEIVING AN ADVANCE OF RS.92. 50 LACS, I.E., PROPORTIONATE TO ITA NO. 78/ASR/2015 (AY 2007-08) AJAIB SINGH V. ITO 2 HIS SHARE (148 MARLAS) IN THE SAID 232 MARLAS. THE SUBJECT LAND WAS ITSELF A PART OF 75 KANALS OF LAND BEING SOLD TO PACL, THE BALANC E BELONGING TO THE ASSESSEES COUSINS. SALE DEED IN PURSUANCE TO THE A GREEMENT DATED 08/8/2006 WAS EXECUTED ON 04.12.2006 IN RESPECT OF 86 MARLAS OF LAND, ADJUSTING THE ENTIRE AMOUNT RECEIVED IN ADVANCE VIDE THE SAID AGREEMENT. ANOTHER AGREEMENT TO SELL (ATS) WAS ENTERED BY THE THREE CO-OWNERS, I.E., THE ASSESSEE AND HIS TWO BROTHERS, WITH PACL ON 04.12.2006 FOR THE BALANCE 1 46 (232 86) MARLAS OF LAND (AT THE SAME CONSIDERATION OF RS.1 CRORE PER A CRE), RECEIVING ADVANCE FOR 50%. THE ASSESSEES SHARE THEREIN WAS AT RS.19,37,5 00/-, I.E., RELATABLE TO HIS SHARE OF 62 MARLAS IN THE UNSOLD LAND, I.E., NOT SU BJECT TO THE SALE DEED. THE REASON FOR THE SAME, AS STATED, IS THAT THE LAND WA S UNDER DISPUTE, I.E., BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND HIS TWO BROTHERS ON ONE HAND, AND THEIR COUSINS ON THE OTHER. THE ASSESSEE RETURNED CAPITAL GAIN ON 86 MARLAS OF LAND SOLD VIDE SALE DEED DATED 04.12.2006 PER HIS RETURN FOR RELEVANT YEAR F ILED ON 27/6/2007. IT IS THE NON-RETURNING OF THE CAPITAL GAIN ON THE BALANCE 62 MARLAS, AGREED TO BE SOLD ON 04.12.2006, THAT IS THE SUBJECT MATTER OF DISPUTE B ETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND THE REVENUE. WHILE THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS NON-ACCRUAL OF C APITAL GAIN IN-AS-MUCH AS LAND WAS UNDER DISPUTE, THE REVENUE CONTENDS IT T O HAVE ARISEN, I.E., IRRESPECTIVE OF THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT RECEIVED THE BALANCE CONSIDERATION, STATED TO BE SO EVEN TO DATE. 4. I HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES, AND PERUSED THE MATERI AL ON RECORD. 4.1 THE BASIS OF THE REVENUES CASE IS THAT THE ATS DATED 04.12.2006 CONSTITUTES A TRANSFER U/S. 2(47)(VI) OF THE ACT. T HERE IS ACCORDINGLY NO REASON TO CONTEND THAT THE CAPITAL GAIN HAD NOT ARISEN, WHICH INCOME IS SUBJECT TO TAX ON THE BASIS OF THE ACCRUAL, I.E., IRRESPECTIVE OF THE NON-RECEIPT OF THE CONSIDERATION. THIS IS AS ONCE THE INCOME HAS ACCRUED, WHICH IS ON LY ON THE BASIS OF TRANSFER OF THE RELEVANT CAPITAL ASSET, THE ONLY RECOURSE IN LA W IN CASE OF NON-RECOVERY IS THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE RELEVANT CONTRACT UNDER LAW. THE ASSESSEE DURING HEARING ITA NO. 78/ASR/2015 (AY 2007-08) AJAIB SINGH V. ITO 3 REBUTTED THIS ON THE BASIS OF THE DECISION IN CIT V. BALBIR SINGH MAINI [2017] 398 ITR 531 (SC), WHEREIN IT STANDS CLARIFIED THAT SECTION 53A OF THE TRANSFER OF THE PROPERTY ACT, 1882 AND, THUS, SECTION 2(47)(V) OF THE ACT WOULD NOT GET ATTRACTED AFTER THE COMING INTO EFFECT OF THE REGIS TRATION AND OTHER RELATED LAWS (AMENDMENT) ACT, 2001, WHERE THE RELEVANT AGREEMENT IS NOT REGISTERED UNDER THE REGISTRATION ACT, 1908. THE ARGUMENT IS NO DOUB T VALID. IT WOULD HOWEVER NOT BE OF MUCH ASSISTANCE TO THE ASSESSEE AS CLAUSE (V) OF S. 2(47) PROVIDES ONE OF THE MODES OF TRANSFER AS DEFINED U/S. 2(47). TO EFFECTIVELY MEET THE CHARGE OF TRANSFER, IT, THEREFORE, OUGHT NOT TO FALL UNDER AN Y OF THE CLAUSES OF SEC. 2(47), FOR WHICH THE ATTENTION OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSE SSEE, SH. ARORA, WAS DURING HEARING DRAWN TO S. 2(47)(VI), WHICH READS AS UNDER : DEFINITIONS. 2. IN THIS ACT, UNLESS THE CONTEXT OTHERWISE REQUIRES, - (47) TRANSFER, IN RELATION TO A CAPITAL ASSET, INCLUDES , (I) THE SALE, EXCHANGE OR RELINQUISHMENT OF THE ASS ET; OR (II) THE EXTINGUISHMENT OF ANY RIGHTS THEREIN; OR (III) THE COMPULSORY ACQUISITION THEREOF UNDER ANY LAW; OR (IV) IN A CASE WHERE THE ASSET IS CONVERTED BY THE OWNER THEREOF INTO, OR IS TREATED BY HIM AS, STOCK-IN TRADE OF A BUSINESS CARRIED ON BY HIM, SUCH CONVERSION OR TREATMENT; (IVA) THE MATURITY OR REDEMPTION OF A ZERO COUPON B OND; OR (V) ANY TRANSACTION INVOLVING THE ALLOWING OF THE P OSSESSION OF ANY IMMOVABLE PROPERTY TO BE TAKEN OR RETAINED IN PART PERFORMANCE OF A CONTR ACT OF THE NATURE REFERRED TO IN SECTION 53A OF THE TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT, 1882 (4 OF 188 2); OR (VI) ANY TRANSACTION (WHETHER BY WAY OF BECOMING A MEMBER OF, OR ACQUIRING SHARES IN, A CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY, COMPANY OR OTHER ASSOCIATION OF PERSONS OR BY WAY OF ANY AGREEMENT OR ANY ARRANGEMENT OR IN ANY OTHER MANNER WHATSOEVER) WHICH HAS THE EFFECT OF TRANSFERRING, OR ENABLING THE ENJOYMENT OF, ANY IMM OVABLE PROPERTY. IN BALBIR SINGH MAINI (SUPRA) THE APEX COURT ALSO CONSIDERED, THOUGH DID NOT FIND CLAUSE (VI) ATTRACTED AS THE POSSESSION UNDER THE JOINT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (JDA) TO THE STATED TRANSFEREE WAS IN HIS CAPACITY AS A DEVELOPER, AND NOT IN HIS OWN RIGHT. IN THE PRESENT CASE, ON THE O THER HAND, THE DELIVERY OF POSSESSION TO PACL, THE TRANSFEREE, IS IN ITS CAPA CITY AS THE BUYER, THE ITA NO. 78/ASR/2015 (AY 2007-08) AJAIB SINGH V. ITO 4 PURCHASER OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. THE AGREEMENT SU BSTANTIVELY TRANSFERS THE PROPERTY IN THE SUBJECT LAND TO PACL. 4.2 THE ASSESSEES NEXT ARGUMENT IS THAT THE SALE I S CONDITIONAL, I.E., SUBJECT TO THE RESOLUTION OF THE DISPUTE BY THE COURT BY 04.12 .2007, FAILING WHICH THE DATE FOR REGISTRATION WOULD STAND EXTENDED BY THE PARTIE S. THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF THE ATS DATED 04.12.2006 HAS BEEN PROVIDED (PB PG. 13A), THOUGH THE SAME IS NOT, AS PROVIDED PER THE RULES, CERTIFIED BY AN AUT HORIZED PERSON AS TRUE COPY OF THE VERNACULAR. THE SAME WAS PERUSED DURING HEARING . IT NOTES OF A COURT CASE IN RESPECT OF THE DIVISION OF THE SUBJECT LAND AND, FU RTHER, THAT THE SALE DEED COULD BE EXECUTED AT ANY TIME UP TO 04.12.2007. THE SAID DATE IS THUS THE OUTER TIME LIMIT BY WHICH THE PARTIES ARE TO GET THE SALE DEED REGISTERED. IF NOT, THE PURCHASER HAS THE RIGHT TO GET IT SO THROUGH THE CO URT. FURTHER, THE TIME LIMIT COULD BE EXTENDED ONLY WITH THE MUTUAL CONSENT OF T HE PARTIES. HOW COULD, THEN, THE SALE BE REGARDED AS CONDITIONAL? THE AGREEMENT NOWHERE MAKES THE SALE DEED AS CONDITIONAL TO THE COURTS DECISION. HOW CO ULD, RATHER, IF THE TITLE WAS NOT CLEAR, THE ASSESSEE (AND HIS BROTHERS) ENTER IN TO AN ATS IN THE FIRST PLACE? THE DEFERRING OF THE SALE DEED BY THE PARTIES, I.E. , ON THEIR OWN VIOLATION, WOULD NOT MAKE THE TRANSFER CONDITIONAL TO THE EXECUTION OF THE SALE DEED. UPON THIS BEING OBSERVED BY THE BENCH DURING HEARING, SH. ARO RA WOULD SUBMIT THAT THE MATTER BEING SUB JUDICE , THE SALE DEED COULD NOT IN FACT BE EXECUTED. ON T HE BASIS OF THE INTERIM ORDER OF THE COURT (SDM) DATED 25.11 .2014, THE TEHSILDAR MADE A DETAILED MAP OF THE AREA VIDE HIS ORDER DATED 24.12 .2014 (PB PGS. 19-21). THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 25.11.2014 WAS OB TAINED A FEW DAYS AFTER THE PASSING OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER, FOR WHICH IN FACT TH E LD. CIT(A) WAS REQUESTED TO, IN ANTICIPATION, DEFER HIS ORDER. IN FACT, THE MATTER HAS SINCE BEEN RESOLVED AND THE ASSESSEE IS FOUND TO BE THE OWNER OF ONLY 2 0 MARLAS OF LAND OUT OF THE TOTAL 146 MARLAS OF LAND SUBJECT TO THE SALE AGREEM ENT, I.E., INSTEAD OF 62 MARLAS OSTENSIBLY SOLD BY HIM (TOWARD WHICH RS.19.375 LACS STAND RECEIVED BY HIM). ITA NO. 78/ASR/2015 (AY 2007-08) AJAIB SINGH V. ITO 5 TOWARD THIS, HE WOULD REFER TO THE RELEVANT ORDERS, WHICH HE PLEADED BEING ADMITTED AS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES. ON BEING QUESTION ED AS TO HOW COULD IT BE THAT THE ASSESSEE, WHO CLAIMED HIS SHARE AT 62 MARLAS, W AS ACTUALLY FOUND TO BE THE OWNER OF ONLY 20 MARLAS OF LAND, SH. ARORA WOULD EX PLAIN THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD IN FACT BEEN ALLOTTED NOT IN EXCHANGE OR IN LIEU OF HIS SHARE IN THE SUBJECT LAND, ADDITIONAL LAND AT ANOTHER PLACE, WHICH IS NOT THE SUBJECT MATTER OF SALE. THIS WAS IN RESOLUTION OF THE DISPUTE (BETWEEN THE ASSES SEE AND HIS BROTHERS WITH THEIR COUSINS) WITH REGARD TO THE LANDHOLDING OF TH E FAMILY. ON ANOTHER QUERY ABOUT THE DATE OF THE TRANSFER OF THE 20 MARLAS, FO UND TO BE THE ASSESSEES PROPERTY IN-AS-MUCH AS THE COURTS DECISION WOULD O PERATE RETROSPECTIVELY, THE LD. COUNSEL WOULD AGREE THAT THE LAND, TO THAT EXTE NT, BE REGARDED AS TRANSFERRED DURING THE RELEVANT YEAR, I.E., ON 04.12.2006, ADJU STING THE ADVANCE TO THE EXTENT OF ITS SALE CONSIDERATION, I.E., RS.12.50 LACS, SO THAT THE BALANCE RS.6,87,500 WOULD STAND TO BE REFUNDED TO PACL. 4.3 THERE IS MERIT IN THE ARGUMENT THAT THE AGREEME NT TO SELL (ATS) COULD NOT BE REGARDED AS A TRANSFER IF THE SALE DEED COULD NO T BE, ON ITS BASIS, EXECUTED DESPITE THE ABSENCE OF A RECITAL TO THAT EFFECT THE REIN, TILL THE RESOLUTION OF THE DISPUTE BY THE COURT. THIS IS AS THE POSSESSION ALL OWED BY THE ASSESSEE, ASSUMING SO, TO THE VENDEE (PACL), HAS TO BE NOT AS A TRUSTE E BUT IN HIS OWN RIGHT. IN FACT, SH. ARORA WOULD SUBMIT THAT, THOUGH STATED (IN THE ATS), ACTUAL, PHYSICAL POSSESSION WAS NOT DELIVERED, REFERRING TO AN INSTA NCE OF A SALE DEED (OUT OF THE SUBJECT LAND) HAVING BEEN EXECUTED BY ONE OF THE CO -OWNERS. NOW, THIS IS, AGAIN, SURPRISING. WHILE, WHERE TRUE, IT DOES DEMONSTRATE THAT POSSESSION WAS NOT ACTUALLY ALLOWED (TO PACL). AT THE SAME TIME, IF SALE DEED COULD NOT BE EXECUTE D QUA THE LAND UNDER REFERENCE, ITS OWNERSHIP BEING DISPUTED, TILL THE RESOLUTION OF THE DISPUTE, HOW COULD A SALE DEED QUA A PART OF THE SAID LAND BE EXECUTED PRIOR THERETO ? IT MAY BE FURTHER CLARIFIED THAT THE TIME ALLOWED U NDER THE AGREEMENT FOR THE PARTIES TO EXECUTE THE SALE DEED (I.E., BY 04/12/2007) DOES NOT ITA NO. 78/ASR/2015 (AY 2007-08) AJAIB SINGH V. ITO 6 MAKE THE SALE CONDITIONAL, BEING ONLY A TERM OF THE CONTRACT, TO FACILITATE THE MATURITY OF THE SALE. THIS IS AKIN TO A SALE ON CRE DIT, ALLOWING THE BUYER (OF GOODS OR SERVICES) TIME TO MAKE THE PAYMENT FOR THE SAME, EVEN AS THE DELIVERY OF POSSESSION OF GOODS OR OF SERVICES IS IMMEDIATE. 4.4 THE MATTER, ACCORDINGLY, IS RESTORED BACK TO TH E FILE OF THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY FOR FACTUAL DETERMINATION. AS EXPLAINED B Y THE APEX COURT IN CGT V. ABDUL KARIM MOHD . [1991] 191 ITR 317 (SC), SPEAKING IN THE CONTEXT OF A GIFT DEED, THAT THE RECITALS IN THE DEED OF GIFT ARE NOT CONCLUSIVE TO DETERMINE THE NATURE OF THE VALIDITY OF THE GIFT. IT CLARIFIED TH AT IT IS THE CONDUCT AND THE ENTIRETY OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES THAT ARE TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCO UNT. I MAKE IT ABUNDANTLY CLEAR THAT THE TRANSFER U/S. 2(47) IN THE INSTANT CASE WO ULD, IRRESPECTIVE OF ACTUAL DATE OF THE SALE DEED, OR EVEN THE NON-EXECUTION THEREOF , ARISE ON THE BASIS OF THE ATS DATED 04/12/2006 IF THE SALE DEED COULD BE EXEC UTED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THAT DATE UPON THE RECEIPT OF THE BALANCE CONSIDERATION. IF NOT, AS WHERE THERE IS A SUBSISTING DISPUTE QUA THE OWNERSHIP OF THE SUBJECT LAND, IRRESPECTIVE OF THE RECITAL/S IN THE ATS, TRANSFER U/S. 2(47) CANNOT BE SAID TO HAVE TAKEN PLACE ON THAT DATE, BUT ONLY ON THE DATE ON WHICH THIS CONDI TION, EVEN IF PURSUANT TO THE SAID AGREEMENT, IS SATISFIED. THIS IS AS, TO THAT E XTENT, THE SAID AGREEMENT IS CONDITIONAL. IT IS FOR THIS REASON THAT, ADMITTEDLY , TRANSFER OF 20 MARLAS (ASSESSEE S SHARE) OF LAND HAS TAKEN PLACE ON 04/12/2006, SO THAT THE ISSUE SURVIVING IS ONLY QUA THE BALANCE 42 MARLAS OF LAND. THE OWNERSHIP OF TH E SUBJECT LAND BEING ONLY TO THE EXTENT OF THE 20 MARLAS, WHERE SO, PROV ES THE ASSESSEES POINT. IT MAY, HOWEVER, BE CLARIFIED THAT THE LAND ALLOWED TO THE ASSESSEE, WHICH IS ADMITTEDLY SO (REFER PARA 4.2), OUGHT NOT TO BE, AS INDEED CONTENDED, IN EXCHANGE OR IN LIEU OF THE RIGHT OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE BALA NCE 42 MARLAS (I.E., 62 20) OF LAND. THIS IS AS, WHERE SO, THE SAME IS ONLY AGAINS T THE RELEASE OR RELINQUISHMENT BY THE ASSESSEE OF HIS RIGHT IN THE SUBJECT LAND TO THAT EXTENT (42 M), I.E., IN FAVOUR OF THE PERSON/S ALLOWING HIM THE SAID LAND . THAT THE TRANSFEREE IS, THUS, ITA NO. 78/ASR/2015 (AY 2007-08) AJAIB SINGH V. ITO 7 THIS PERSON/S, AS AGAINST PACL, IS OF NO MOMENT. AN EXCEPTION TO THIS BEING A TRANSFER, THOUGH, WOULD BE WHERE IT IS IN PURSUANCE OF A FAMILY SETTLEMENT; THE RELEASE OF THE RIGHT IN ONE CAPITAL ASSET IN LIEU O F ANOTHER BEING EXCEPTED U/S. 47(I). THIS IS BEING STATED AS A MATTER OF ABUNDANT CAUTION AND IT DOES NOT APPEAR, AS CONTENDED, THAT THE TWO TRANSACTIONS ARE RELATED, ONLY IN WHICH CASE THE REFERENCE TO THE NEW ALLOWED LAND BECOMES REL EVANT. I SAY SO AS THE SUBJECT LAND IS, TO THAT EXTENT, IN DISPUTE, WITH THE MATTE R BEING SUB JUDICE . THE ANSWER TO THE QUESTION POSED AT PARA 4.3 SUPRA, IT MAY BE NOTED, WOULD BE RELEVANT IN DECIDING THIS ISSUE AND, IN FACT, WOULD STAND TO BE ANSWERED UPON THE ADJUDICATION BY THE AO. A CONFIRMATION FROM PACL, T HE TRANSFEREE, IN THE MATTER MAY BE ALSO USEFUL IN DECIDING THE MATTER, A ND IT IS IN FACT SURPRISING THAT NO SUCH WAS CALLED FOR BY THE REVENUE, OR INDEED FU RNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF. IT MAY THOUGH BE AGAIN CLARIFIED THAT IN C ASE OF ANY INCONSISTENCY, THE AO SHALL ALLOW PRIMACY TO THE CONDUCT OF THE PARTIE S, PARTICULARLY CONSIDERING THAT THE DISPUTE WITH REGARD TO THE OWNERSHIP OF LA ND; THE SAME BEING SUB JUDICE , CANNOT BE DOUBTED. THE ASSESSEE IS TOWARD THIS ENTITLED TO RELY ON THE COURT ORDERS CLAIMING THE OWNERSHIP OF THE LAND FORMING PART OF ATS DATED 04/12/2006. THE AO SHALL TAKE THE SAME ON RECORD, AND CAUSE SUCH VERIFICATIO N AS HE MAY DEEM FIT AND PROPER UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, OR NECESSARY, TO AR RIVE AT HIS SATISFACTION QUA THE FULFILLMENT OF THE CONDITION OF TRANSFER AS AFO RE-STATED. THE ASSESSEE IS BOUND TO COOPERATE IN THE SAID, SET ASIDE PROCEEDINGS, OF FERING EXPLANATION/S QUA THE FACTUAL OR LEGAL ASPECTS OF THE MATTER, IF ANY, AS MAY BE RAISED BY THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY. THE AO, NEEDLESS TO ADD, SHALL OBSERVE T HE TIME LIMIT AS PRESCRIBED U/S. 153, I.E., W.E.F. 01/6/2016. 4.5 I DECIDE ACCORDINGLY. ITA NO. 78/ASR/2015 (AY 2007-08) AJAIB SINGH V. ITO 8 5. IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN CO URT ON JULY 01, 2019 SD/- (SANJAY ARORA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATE: 01.07.2019 /GP/SR. PS. COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: (1) THE APPELLANT: AJAIB SINGH, VILL.- GILL PAT TI, GONIANA ROAD, VILL.- GILL PATTI (2) THE RESPONDENT: INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2( 1), BATHINDA (3) THE CIT(APPEALS), BATHINDA (4) THE CIT CONCERNED (5) THE SR. DR, I.T.A.T TRUE COPY BY ORDER