Sh. Surjit Singh, Amritsar V. Assistant Commissioner of Income tax, Amritsar

ITSSA 18/ASR/2002

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8280 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 year(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-06-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 13-12-2010
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 12-06-2002
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AMRIK CHAND
• Assessee Lawyers: R C KHANNA
• Keywords: Search and seizure; Question of law; Block assessment
• Section: 143(3); 132; 144; 10; 15

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH: AMRITSAR. BEFORE SHRI H.L. KARWA, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI MEHAR SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. I.T.(SS)A. NO.17(ASR)/2002. (BLOCK PERIOD: 1-4-1987 TO 9-10-1997) SHRI MANJIT SINGH, THE ASSTT. C.I.T., AMRITSAR. RANGE III, AMRITSAR. (APPELLANT) VS. (RESPONDENT) AND I.T.(SS)A. NO.18(ASR)/2002. (BLOCK PERIOD: 1-4-1987 TO 9-10-1997) SHRI SURJIT SINGH, THE ASSTT. C.I.T., AMRITSAR. RANGE III, AMRITSAR. (APPELLANT) VS. (RESPONDENT) APPELLANTS BY: SHRI R.C. KHANNA, C.A. RESPONDENT BY: SHRI AMRIK CHAND, D.R. ORDER PER H.L. KARWA, VICE PRESIDENT. THESE TWO APPEALS INVOLVING COMMON ISSUES WERE HEA RD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY THIS COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 2. IN EACH APPEAL, THE ASSESSES HAVE RAISED 16 GROU NDS OF APPEAL. HOWEVER, VIDE LETTER DATED NIL, THE ASSESSEE HAS RA ISED THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONAL GROUNDS, WHICH ARE COMMON TO BOTH THE AP PEALS:- 2 1. THAT BOTH THE LD. CIT(A), JAMMU HQRS. AMRITSAR AND THE ACIT, RANGE III, AMRITSAR HAVE FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE NOTICE ISSUE U/S.158BD OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 BY ACIT , INV. CIRCLE I, AMRITSAR DATED 25-10-1999 IS ILLEGAL, VOI D AB INITIO AND THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 31-10-2001 BASED THEREON IS ALSO ILLEGAL AND VOID AS IT SUFFERS FROM THE DEFECT OF RES JUDICATA AND IS WITHOUT JURISDICTION. 2. THAT BOTH THE LD. CIT(A), JAMMU HQRS. AMRITSAR AND THE ACIT RANGE III, AMRITSAR HAVE FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE NOTICE U/S.158BD DATED 6-3-1998 WAS ALSO ILLEGAL BEING NOT ICE U/S.158BC READ WITH SECTION 158BD OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ISSUED WITHOUT RECORDING SATISFACTION AS ENVIS AGE U/S.158BD OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 3. THAT BOTH THE LD. CIT(A), JAMMU HQRS. AMRITSAR AND THE ACIT RANGE III, AMRITSAR HAVE FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT NO SATISFACTION WAS RECORDED BY ACIT, INV. CIRCLE I, AMRITSAR U/S.1 58BD EITHER BEFORE ISSUE OF NOTICE DATED 6-3-1998 OR NOTICE DAT ED 25-10-1999 AND THE SAME WERE NEVER COMMUNICATED TO THE ASSESSEE INSPITE OF WRITTEN REQUEST MADE. 3. AS REGARDS THE ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL GROUNDS I N THE APPEALS ARE CONCERNED, WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE IS SQUARELY COVER ED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COU RT IN THE CASE OF NATIONAL THERMAL POWER CO. LTD. VS. C.I.T. (1998) 2 29 ITR 383 (SC), WHEREIN THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT HELD (HEAD NOTE) AS UNDER:- UNDOUBTEDLY, THE TRIBUNAL HAS THE DISCRETION TO AL LOW OR NOT TO ALLOW A NEW GROUND TO BE RAISED. BUT WHERE THE TRIBUNAL IS ONLY REQUIRED TO CONSIDER THE QUESTION OF LAW ARISING FROM FACTS WHI CH ARE ON RECORD IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THERE IS NO REASON WHY SUCH A QUESTION SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO BE RAISED WHEN IT IS NECES SARY TO CONSIDER THAT QUESTION IN ORDER TO CORRECTLY ASSESS THE TAX LIABILITY OF AN ASSESSEE. 3.1 IN OUR VIEW, THE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS RAISED BY T HE ASSESSEE IS A QUESTION OF LAW ARISING FROM THE FACTS, WHICH ARE ON RECORD IN THE ASSESSMENT 3 PROCEEDINGS, AND, THEREFORE, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF NATIONAL THERM AL POWER CO. LTD. (SUPRA), WE ADMIT THE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS OF APPEALS AND PROCEED TO DECIDE THE SAME IN THE SUCCEEDING PARAGRAPHS. 4. FIRSTLY, WE WILL DECIDE THE COMMON ADDITIONAL GR OUNDS, WHICH ARE VERY MATERIAL AND GO TO THE ROOT OF THE MATTER. 5. BRIEFLY STATED THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT IN THIS CASE THE A.O FRAMED THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 158BD READ WITH SECTIO N 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX, 1961 (IN SHORT, THE ACT) FOR THE BLOCK PERIO D 1-4-1987 TO 9-10-1997. IN BOTH THE CASES, THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS WERE PASSED ON 31-10-2001. DURING THE COURSE OF PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 158BC IN TH E CASE OF SHRI JOGINDER SINGH IN WHOSE CASE A SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION UNDER SECTION 132 OF THE ACT WAS CONDUCTED ON 9-10-1997 AT HIS BUSINESS AS W ELL AS RESIDENTIAL PREMISES, IT CAME TO THE NOTICE OF THE A.O. THAT TH E UNDISCLOSED INCOME ON CERTAIN DOCUMENTS, SUCH AS ANNEXURES A-30, A-40 AND 43 SEIZED FROM THE RESIDENCE OF SHRI JOINGDER SINGH BELONGED TO SHRI M ANJIT SINGH AND SHRI SURJIT SINGH. THE A.O. INITIATED THE PROCEEDINGS U/ S.158BD OF THE ACT ON 25- 10-1999. NOTICES WERE SENT TO THE ASSESSEES BY REG ISTERED POST ON 28-10- 1999 REQUIRING THEM TO FILE THEIR RETURNS WITHIN 30 DAYS OF THE RECEIPT OF THE NOTICES IN THE PRESCRIBED FORM AND DULY VERIFIED I N THE SAME MANNER AS WRITTEN IN CLAUSE (I) OF SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 142 OF THE ACT STATING THAT THEIR TOTAL INCOME INCLUDING UNDISCLOSED IN THE BLO CK PERIOD. IN RESPONSE TO ABOVE NOTICES, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THE RETURN O N 1-12-1999. IN HIS RETURN, SHRI MANJIT SINGH HAS SHOWN UNDISCLOSED IN COME OF THE BLOCK PERIOD AT RS.2,25,000/- ON WHICH TAX PAYABLE CAME TO RS.1 ,25,000/-. IN THE CASE OF SHRI SURJIT SINGH, THE RETURN WAS FILED ON 24-8-200 0. TOTAL UNDISCLOSED INCOME DECLARED THEREIN WAS RS.1,45,740/-. AFTER AF FORDING AN OPPORTUNITY OF 4 BEING HEARD TO BOTH THE ASSESSES, THE A.O. FRAMED T HE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 158BD READ WITH SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT O N 31-10-2001. IN THE CASE OF SHRI MANJIT SINGH, THE A.O. DETERMINED THE TOTAL UNDISCLOSED INCOME FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD AT RS.68,10,540/- AND IN THE C ASE OF SHRI SURJIT SINGH, THE A.O. DETERMINED THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME AT RS.1 1,54,950/-. 6. AGGRIEVED BY THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS, BOTH THE ASS ESSEES FILED SEPARATE APPEALS BEFORE THE CIT(A) AND THE CIT(A) VIDE SEPAR ATE ORDERS DATED 20-3-2002 IN THE CASE OF SHRI MANJIT SINGH ALLOWED THE APPEAL PARTLY AND IN THE CASE OF SHRI SURJIT SINGH, THE CIT(A) VIDE ORD ER DATED 25-3-2002 DISMISSED THE APPEAL. 7. NOW BOTH THE ASSESSES ARE IN APPEALS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 8. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND HAVE ALS O PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IN THIS CASE, THE MA IN ARGUMENT OF SHRI R.C. KHANNA, C.A., THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT NO SATISFACTION, AS ENVISAGED BY SECTION 158BD OF THE ACT WAS RECORD ED IN THE CASE OF SEARCHED PERSON (SHRI JOGINDER SINGH) FOR INITIATIN G BLOCK ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASES OF THE ASSESSEES AND HENCE THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT ORDERS ARE BAD IN LAW AND DESERVES TO BE QUASHED. 9. IN THIS CASE, SHRI MANOJ KUMAR, ASSTT. COMMISSI ONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE III, AMRITSAR HAS SUBMITTED A LETTER DATED 1 6-6-2011, WHICH READS AS UNDER:- OFFICE OF THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE III, AMRISAR. F.NO.ACIT/CIRCLE-III/ASR/11-12/336 DATED 16-6-20 11. TO THE DY. CIT (D.R.), ITAT, 5 AMRITSAR. SIR, SUB: ASSTT. RECORD IN THE CASE OF SHRI JOGINDER SIN GH S/O SHRI JASWANT SINGH C/O NARULA FILLING STATION, GOAL BAGH, AMRITSAR BLOCK PERIOD 1-4-87 TO 1-10-97 SATISFACTION NOTE REG.- ***************************** KINDLY REFER TO YOUR OFFICE LETTER F.NO.DR/ITAT/201 1-12/20 DATED 14-6-2011 ON THE SUBJECT CITED ABOVE. IN THIS CONNECTION, IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE SATISF ACTION NOTE IS NEITHER AVAILABLE ON THE RECORD THAT WAS SENT TO YO UR GOODSELF ON 13-6-2011 NOR IS IT AVAILABLE ON ANY OTHER FOLDER. IT IS ALSO NOT POSSIBLE FOR THE UNDERSIGNED TO TELL IF THE SATISFA CTION NOTE WAS PREPARED BY THE THEN AO OR NOT. THIS IS FOR YOUR K IND INFORMATION. YOURS FAITHFULLY, SD/- (MANOJ KUMAR) ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE III, AMRITSAR. COPY TO THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I, AMRITSAR W.R.T. THE OFFICE LETTER F.NO.CIT-I/ASR/UITO(TECH)/2011-12/978A DATED 10-6-2011. SD/- (MANOJ KUMAR) ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE III, AMRITSAR. 6 10. FROM THE ABOVE LETTER, IT IS CLEAR THAT NO SATI SFACTION AS ENVISAGED UNDER SECTION 158BD OF THE ACT HAS BEEN RECORDED BY THE A.O. TO THIS EFFECT THAT ANY UNDISCLOSED INCOME BELONGS TO ANY PERSON, OTHER THAN THE PERSON WITH RESPECT TO WHOM SEARCH HAD BEEN MADE UNDER SEC TION 132 OF THE ACT. 10.1 IT IS ALSO INTERESTING TO NOTE THAT IN BOTH TH E CASES, THE CONCERNED A.O. HAS INITIATED PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 158BC OF TH E ACT BY ISSUING NOTICES DATED 15-3-1998 AND SUBSEQUENTLY PROCEEDINGS INITIA TED UNDER SECTION 158BC OF THE ACT WERE DROPPED AGAINST BOTH THE ASSE SSEES. THIS FACT IS CLEAR FROM THE ORDER DATED 15-10-1999, WHICH READS AS UND ER:- GOVERNMENT OF INDIA OFFICE OF THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INVESTIGATION CIRCLE-I, AMRITSAR. NAME OF THE ASSESSEE SHRI MANJIT SINGH ADDRESS OF THE ASSESSEE PROP. M/S.MANJIT MOTORS, GOAL BAGH, AMRITSAR. STATUS INDIVIDUAL PREVIOUS YEAR 1-4-1987 TO 12-10-1997 (BLOCK PERI OD) ASSESSMENT YEAR BLOCK ASSESSMENT YEAR SECTION UNDER WHICH ORDER 14393)/158BC OF THE I.T. ACT IS PASSED. DATE OF ORDER 15-10-99. IN THIS CASE A NOTICE U/S.158BC OF THE I.T.ACT DATE D 5-3-1998 WAS ISSUED AND WAS SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE ON 6-3- 1998 ASKING HIM TO FILE HIS RETURN OF THE BLOCK PERIOD WITH IN 30 D AYS FROM THE DATE OF SERVICE. NO RETURN WAS FILED. 7 ANOTHER NOTICE U/S.142(1) OF THE I.T. ACT DATED 8-1 0-98 WAS ISSUED AND SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE, ASKING HIM AS TO WHY EXPARTE ORDER UNDER SECTION 144 SHOULD NOT BE PASSED IN HIS CASE. VIDE A WRITTEN REPLY FILED ON 10-2-1999, THE AUTHOR IZED COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT NO SEARCH ACTION U/S .132 OR 132-A OF THE I.T. ACT WAS TAKEN AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. IN VIEW O F THE ABOVE THE PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 158BC MAY BE DROPPED. AFTER VERIFICATION THE PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 15 8BC OF THE I.T. ACT ARE HEREBY FILED. THIS ORDER IS PASSED WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE ADDIT IONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE I, AMRITSAR, WHIC H WAS RECEIVED VIDE LETTER NO.791 DATED 14-10-99. SD/- (K.K. MAHAJAN) ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INVESTIGATION CIRCLE-I, AMRITSAR. COPY TO THE ASSESSEE. SD/- (ACIT) 10.2 IN THE CASE OF SHRI SURJIT SINGH ALSO, VIDE ORDER D ATED 15-10-1999 IN SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES, PROCEEDINGS INITIATED UNDER SECTION 158BC OF THE ACT WERE DROPPED. FROM THESE ORDERS, IT IS CLEAR THAT NO SATISFACTION WAS RECORDED AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 158BD OF THE ACT. HAD THE A.O. RECORDED THE SATISFACTION UNDER SECTION 158BD OF TH E ACT, THE DEPARTMENT WOULD HAVE INITIATED THE PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 158BD READ WITH SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. ADMITTEDLY , A SEARCH WAS CONDUCTED ON 9-10-1997 AND THE PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 158B C OF THE ACT WERE DROPPED AGAINST BOTH THE ASSESSES VIDE ORDER DATED 15-10-1999. THIS MEANS 8 THAT THE A.O. OF THE SEARCHED PERSON HAS NOT RECOR DED ANY SATISFACTION, AS ENVISAGED UNDER SECTION 158BD OF THE ACT. 10.3 SECTION 158BD OF THE ACT READS AS UNDER:- 158BD. WHERE THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS SATISFIED T HAT ANY UNDISCLOSED INCOME BELONGS TO ANY PERSON, OTHER THA N THE PERSON WITH RESPECT TO WHOM SEARCH WAS MADE UNDER SECTION 132 O R WHOSE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR OTHER DOCUMENTS OR ANY ASSETS WERE RE QUISITIONED UNDER SECTION 132A, THEN, THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, OTHER DOC UMENTS OR ASSETS SEIZED OR REQUISITIONED SHALL BE HANDED OVER TO TH E ASSESSING OFFICER HAVING JURISDICTION OVER SUCH OTHER PERSON AND THAT ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL PROCEED UNDER SECTION 158BC AGAINST SUCH OTHE R PERSON AND THE PROVISIONS OF THIS CHAPTER SHALL APPLY ACCORDINGLY. 10.4 CHAPTER XIV-B PROVIDES FOR SPECIAL PROCEDURE I N ASSESSMENT IN SEARCH CASES. SECTION 158BC PROVIDES FOR BLOCK ASSESSMENT IN THE CASES IN WHICH SEARCH HAS BEEN CONDUCTED UNDER SECTION 132 OR DOCU MENTS REQUISITIONED UNDER SECTION 132A. HOWEVER, SECTION 158BD PROVIDE S FOR ASSESSMENT IN RESPECT OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF ANY PERSON OTHER T HAN THE PERSON SEARCHED. THIS SECTION IS CLEAR THAT WHERE THE A.O. IS SATISF IED THAT ANY UNDISCLOSED INCOME BELONGS TO ANY PERSON, OTHER THAN THE PERSON WITH RESPECT TO WHOM SEARCH WAS MADE UNDER SECTION 132 THEN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, OTHER DOCUMENTS OR ASSETS SEIZED OR REQUISITIONED SHALL B E HANDED OVER TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAVING JURISDICTION OVER SUCH OTH ER PERSON AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL PROCEED AGAINST OTHER PERSO N AND THE PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER IV-B SHALL BE APPLICABLE. THE HONBLE SUPR EME COURT IN THE CASE OF MANISH MAHESHWARI VS. A.C.I.T. AND ANOTHER (2007 ) 289 ITR 341(SC) HELD AS UNDER:- THE CONDITION PRECEDENT FOR INVOKING A BLOCK ASSES SMENT IS THAT A SEARCH HAS BEEN CONDUCTED U/S.132, OR DOCUMENTS, OR ASSETS HAVE BEEN REQUISITIONED U/S.132A. THE SAID PROVISION WOULD AP PLY IN THE CASE OF ANY PERSON IN RESPECT OF WHOM SEARCH HAS BEEN CARRI ED OUT U/S.132A 9 OR DOCUMENT OR ASSETS HAVE BEEN REQUISITIONED U/S.1 32A. SECTION 158BD, HOWEVER, PROVIDES FOR TAKING RECOURSE TO A B LOCK ASSESSMENT IN TERMS OF SECTION 158BC IN RESPECT OF ANY OTHER P ERSON, THE CONDITIONS PRECEDENT WHEREFORE ARE I) SATISFACTION MUST BE RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT ANY UNDISCLOSED INCOM E BELONGS TO ANY PERSON, OTHER THAN THE PERSON WITH RESPECT TO WHOM SEARCH WAS MADE UNDER SECTION 132A OF THE ACT; (II) THE BOOKS OF AC COUNT OR OTHER DOCUMENTS OR ASSETS SEIZED OR REQUISITIONED HAD BEE N HANDED OVER TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAVING JURISDICTION OVER SUCH OTHER PERSON; AND (III) THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS PROCEEDED UNDER SEC TION 158BC AGAINST SUCH OTHER PERSON. THE CONDITION PRECEDENT FOR INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 158BD, THUS, ARE REQUIRED TO BE SATISFIED BEFORE TH E PROVISIONS OF THE SAID CHAPTER ARE APPLIED IN RELATION TO ANY PERSON OTHER THAN THE PERSON WHOSE PREMISES HAD BEEN SEARCH OR WHOSE DOC UMENTS AND OTHER ASSETS HAD BEEN REQUISITIONED U/S.132A OF THE ACT. 10.4 THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF MANISH MAH ESHWARI (SUPRA) CONCLUDED AS UNDER:- AS THE A.O. HAS NOT RECORDED HIS SATISFACTION, WHI CH IS MANDATORY; NOR HAS HE TRANSFERRED THE CASE TO THE A.O. HAVING JURISDICTION OVER THE MATTER, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE IMPUGNED JUD GMENTS OF THE HIGH COURT CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. 10.5 FROM THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN T HE CASE OF MANISH MAHESHWARI (SUPRA), IT IS CLEAR THAT CONDITI ONS PRECEDENT FOR MAKING BLOCK ASSESSMENTS ARE MANDATORY AND SHOULD BE SATIS FIED. THE SUPREME COURT HAS CATEGORICALLY HELD THAT THE SATISFACTION MUST BE RECORDED BY THE A.O. THAT ANY UNDISCLOSED INCOME BELONGS TO ANY PER SON OTHER THAN THE PERSON WITH RESPECT TO WHOM SEARCH HAD BEEN MADE UN DER SECTION 132 OF THE ACT. 10.6 IN THE CASE OF SHRI JOGINDER SINGH IN WHOSE CASE SE ARCH WAS 10 CONDUCTED, NO SATISFACTION HAS BEEN RECORDED BY THE A.O. THAT ANY UNDISCLOSED INCOME BELONGS ANY PERSON (IN THIS CASE BOTH THE ASSESSEES), OTHER THAN THE PERSON (SHRI JOGINDER SINGH) WITH RE SPECT TO WHOM SEARCH WAS MADE UNDER SECTION 132 OF THE ACT. 10.7 IN VIEW OF THE CLEAR PROVISIONS OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 AND ALSO CONSIDERING THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE SUPR EME COURT IN THE CASE OF MANISH MAHESHWARI (SUPRA), WE QUASH THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS DATED 31-10-2001 AS WELL AS THE IMPUGNED ORDERS IN BOTH T HE CASES. CONSEQUENTLY, BOTH THE APPEALS ARE ALLOWED. 11. SINCE WE HAVE QUASHED THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS PAS SED U/S.158BD OF THE ACT READ WITH SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT IN BOTH THE CASES AND, THEREFORE, WE DO NOT THINK IT NECESSARY TO DECIDE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEES ON MERITS. 12. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS ARE ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 23 RD JUNE, 2011. SD/- SD/- (MEHAR SINGH) (H.L. KARWA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. VICE PRESIDENT. DATED: 23 RD JUNE, 2011. KC/- COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: (1) THE ASSESSEE 1) SHRI MANJIT SINGH, ASR. (2) SHRI SURJIT SINGH, ASR. (3) THE ACIT, RANGE III, ASR. (4) THE CIT, ASR. (5) THE CIT(A), JAMMU (HQRS.ASR,) (6) THE SR.D.R., ITAT, ASR. TRUE COPY BY ORDER ASSTT. REGISTRAR, INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AMRITSAR.