Sh. Abdul Karim Bhat, Srinagar V. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Srinagar

ITSSA 2/ASR/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 122 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1606 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 7 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-03-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 23-12-2015
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 24-07-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R K SHARDA
• Assessee Lawyers: PADAM BAHL
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Business income; Loose papers; Block assessment
• Section: 132

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH; AMRITSAR. BEFORE SH. A.D. JAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. T.S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(SS) NO.02(ASR)/2013 BLOCK PERIOD FROM 01.04.1996 TO 09.06.2002 SH. ABDUL KARIM BHAT, VS. DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX , 19-A, AI-FAROOQ COLONY, CIRCLE-3, SRINAGAR. JAWAHAR NAGAR, SRINAGAR. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SH. PADAM BAHL, CA RESPONDENT BY: SH. R. K. SHARDA, DR DATE OF HEARING: 05/01/2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 04/03/2016 ORDER PER A.D. JAIN,JM; THIS IS THE ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD 01.04.1996 TO 09.06.2002 AGAINST CIT(A)S ORDER DATED 22.05.2013. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. THAT THE SEARCH CARRIED OUT ON THE APPELLANTS HOUSE AT 19-A, AI-FAROOQ COLONY, JAWAHAR NAGAR, SRINAGAR WAS ILLEG AL IN AS MUCH AS THE SEARCH WARRANT WAS IN THE NAME OF ONE A SIYA ANDERABI AND NOT IN THE NAME OF THE APPELLANT. 2. THAT THE SEIZURE OF THE DOCUMENTS MADE DURING TH E ILLEGAL SEARCH WAS ALSO ILLEGAL AS NO PROPER PROCEDURE WAS FOLLOWED. 3. THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS VOID AB INITIO SIN CE NO VALID NOTICE U/S 158BC/158BD WAS SERVED ON THE APPELLANT. 4. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) JAMMU HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION MADE BY ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCO ME IT(SS) NO. 02(ASR)/2013 2 TAX, CIRCLE SRINAGAR ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED BUSINESS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE DETERMINED AT RS.10,27,396/- FROM MAKKI PUBLICATION TRUST, J & K TECHNICAL CONSULTANCY AND ORACLE SERVICE CENTRE ETC. BASED ON CERTAIN DOCUMENTS SEIZ ED DURING THE ILLEGAL SEARCH. 5. THAT BOTH LD. CIT(A) JAMMU & ASSISTANT COMMISS IONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE SRINAGAR, HAVE FAILED TO APPREC IATE THAT THE APPELLANT WAS NOT THE OWNER OF THESE BUSINESSES AND NO INCOME COULD BE ASSESSED IN HIS HANDS. 6. THAT BOTH LD. CIT(A) JAMMU & ASSISTANT COMMISS IONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE SRINAGAR, HAVE FAILED TO APPREC IATE THE TRUE IMPORT OF DOCUMENTS WHICH WERE MADE THE BASIS FOR MAKING THIS ADDITION. 7. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) JAMMU HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.3,64,439/- MADE BY ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE SRINAGAR ON ACC OUNT OF ALLEGED UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT MADE BY THE APPELLA NT IN PURCHASE OF 50% SHARE IN HOUSE AT 19-A, AI-FAROOQ C OLONY, JAWAHAR NAGAR, SRINAGAR. 8. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) JAMMU HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.19,85,000/- MADE BY ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE SRINAGAR ON ACC OUNT OF ALLEGED UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT MADE BY THE APPELLA NT IN PURCHASE OF PROPERTY AT 467, JAWAHAR NAGAR, SRINAGA R PURCHASED BY ONE SH. GULAM RASOOL. 9. THAT BOTH LD. CIT(A) JAMMU & ASSISTANT COMMISS IONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE SRINAGAR, HAVE FAILED TO APPREC IATE THAT THE PROPERTY WAS OWNED BY ONE SH. GULAM RASOOL WHO HAD CONFIRMED THE FACT OF BEING OWNER OF THE PROPERTY A ND THE SALE DEED WAS ULTIMATELY EXECUTED IN HIS NAME. 10. THAT BOTH LD. CIT(A) JAMMU & ASSISTANT COMMIS SIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE SRINAGAR, HAVE FAILED TO APPREC IATE THAT THE TOTAL INVESTMENT IN THE AFORESAID PROPERTY WAS ONLY RS.9,50,000/- AND NOT RS.19,85,000/- AS ALLEGED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY IGNORING THE SALE DEED AND REC EIPT ISSUED BY THE PURCHASER. 2. APROPOS GROUND NO.3, THE RELEVANT FACTS ARE THAT A SEARCH WAS CONDUCTED AT THE RESIDENCE OF ONE ASIYA ANDERABI, R ESIDING AT 19-A, AI- IT(SS) NO. 02(ASR)/2013 3 FAROOQ COLONY, JAWAHAR NAGAR, SRINAGAR. THIS PREMIS ES WAS FOUND OCCUPIED BY THE ASSESSEE AND HIS FAMILY, INCLUDING HIS WIFE, FIVE DAUGHTERS AND ONE SON AND ONE SON-IN-LAW. A NUMBER OF LOOSE PAPERS, TWO COMPUTERS AND CPUS WERE FOUND AND SEIZED. STATE MENT OF THE ASSESSEE WAS RECORDED. 3. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS CONTENDED T AT NO VALID NOTICE U/S 158BC/158BD WAS SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE; AND TH AT NO SATISFACTION NOTE U/S 158BD WAS RECORDED. 4. AT PAGE-1 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, IN THE LAST P ARA, THE AO HAS NOTED THAT A NOTICE U/S 158BD OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED ON 09.06.2003, WHICH WAS DULY SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE ALONGWITH A Q UESTIONNAIRE. IT IS ALSO A FACT THAT THIS ISSUE HAS BEEN RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE FIRST TIME ONLY BEFORE US, DUE TO WHICH, NO OCCASION HAD ARISEN EARLIER FOR EXAMINATION OF THIS ISSUE. THE ISSUE BEING A JURISD ICTIONAL LEGAL ISSUE, THE ASSESSEE IS WELL WITHIN HIS RIGHTS TO RAISE IT AT A NY STAGE. AS SUCH, THE AOS RECORD WAS SUMMONED AND EXAMINED. THIS EXAMIN ATION REVEALS THAT THE RECORD DOES NOT CONTAIN ANY ORDER SHEET OF THE AO. THERE IS NO SATISFACTION RECORDED U/S 158BD OF THE ACT. IN FACT , THE DOCUMENTS OF THE RECORD ARE, STATEDLY, BY WAY OF STAMP OF THE ACIT, CIRCLE-3, SRINAGAR, ATTESTED TRUE COPIES OF THE ORIGINALS. IT REMAINS U NDISPUTED THAT IN THIS CASE, THE SEARCH WARRANT WAS IN THE NAME OF ASIYA I NDRABI, THE PERSON WHOSE RESIDENTIAL PREMISES WAS SEARCHED. THE DOCUME NTS IMPOUNDED WERE THOSE OF THE ASSESSEE. IT(SS) NO. 02(ASR)/2013 4 5. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS DRAWN OUR A TTENTION TO APB 7 TO 9, WHICH IS A COPY OF QUESTIONNAIRE/QUERY LETTER DATED 11.06.2003 ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE BY THE AO ALONGWITH THE ANNE XURES THERETO (APB 10-88). IT HAS BEEN CONTENDED THAT ONLY THIS QUESTI ONNAIRE AND NO NOTICE U/S 158BD WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE. THIS QUESTION NAIRE HAS BEEN REPRODUCED AT PAGES 2 TO 4 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. 6. THE LD. DR HAS CONTENDED THAT THIS QUESTIONNAIRE ITSELF IS THE NOTICE U/S 158BD OF THE ACT. THE LD. DR HAS, THEREB Y, ADMITTED THAT NO NOTICE U/S 158BD WAS EVER SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE. 7. THE QUESTIONNAIRE IS FIRSTLY, WHAT THE RESULT OF NON-RECORDING OF SATISFACTION U/S 158BD IS AND THE AFORESAID QUESTIO NNAIRE DATED 11.06.2003 AMOUNTS TO A NOTICE U/S 158BD OF THE ACT AND IF IT IS NOT SO, AS TO WHAT THE FATE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS W OULD BE. 8. SECTION 158BD OF THE ACT READS AS FOLLOWS: UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF ANY OTHER PERSON. 158BD. WHERE THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS SATISFIED THAT ANY UNDISCLOSED INCOME BELONGS TO ANY PERSON, OTHER THA N THE PERSON WITH RESPECT TO WHOM SEARCH WAS MADE UNDER SECTION 132 OR WHOSE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR OTHER DOCUMENTS OR ANY AS SETS WERE REQUISITIONED UNDER SECTION 132A , THEN, THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, OTHER DOCUMENTS OR ASSETS SEIZED OR REQUISITIONED S HALL BE HANDED OVER TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAVING JURISDICTION O VER SUCH OTHER PERSON AND THAT ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL PROCEED [UN DER SECTION 158BC AGAINST SUCH OTHER PERSON AND THE PROVISIONS OF TH IS CHAPTER SHALL APPLY ACCORDINGLY. 9. THUS, UNDER SECTION 158BD, WHERE THE AO IS SATIS FIED THAT ANY UNDISCLOSED INCOME BELONGS TO ANY PERSON, OTHER THA N THE PERSON IT(SS) NO. 02(ASR)/2013 5 SEARCHED, THE AO OF SUCH OTHER PERSON SHALL PROCEE D AGAINST HIM UNDER SECTION 158BC AND THE PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER XIV B O F THE ACT SHALL APPLY ACCORDINGLY. 10. THE FIRST REQUIREMENT OF THE SECTION, THEREFORE , IS THAT OF THE SATISFACTION OF THE AO OF THE PERSON SEARCHED, THAT ANY UNDISCLOSED INCOME BELONGS TO ANY PERSON, OTHER THAN THE ONE SE ARCHED. NOW, IN THE PRESENT CASE, SINCE THERE IS NO SUCH SATISFACTION, NOTE OF THE AO OF ASIYA INDRABI ON RECORD, AS NOTED HEREINABOVE, THE VERY FIRST REQUIREMENT OF THE SATISFACTION IS NOT MET. IN THIS REGARD, IN THE CASE OF M/S. CALCUTTA KNITWEARS, 362 ITR 673 (SC), THE HONBLE SUPREME C OURT HAS HELD THAT FOR THE PURPOSES OF SECTION 158BD OF THE ACT, RECOR DING OF A SATISFACTION NOTE IS A PREREQUISITE. 11. SO, IN THE PRESENT CASE, THIS SINE QUA NON OF T HE INVOCATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 158BD HAS NOT BEEN CROSSED. N OW, ONCE THIS IS SO, THE LATTER PORTION OF THE SECTION CANNOT BE TRIGGE RED. THE SECTION IS UNEQUIVOCAL IN THIS, WHICH IS CLEAR FROM THE PHRASE OLOGY EMPLOYED. THE SECTION COMMENCES WITH THE EXPRESSION WHERE THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS SATISFIED. THE NEXT PORTION OF THE SECTION RELEV ANT FOR OUR PRESENT PURPOSE IS THEN, THE DOCUMENTS OR ASSETS SEIZED S HALL BE HANDED OVER. THE LAST OPERATIVE PART OF SECTION 158BD IS . AND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL PROCEED UNDER SECTION 158BC AGAINST SUCH OTHER PERSON AND THE PROVISIONS OF THIS CHAPTER SHALL APP LY ACCORDINGLY. IT(SS) NO. 02(ASR)/2013 6 12. THUS, THE SERIATUM OF THE MANDATE PRESCRIBED IN THE SECTION IS UNAMBIGUOUS. FIRST, THE AO OF THE PERSON SEARCHED N EEDS MUST BE SATISFIED THAT ANY UNDISCLOSED INCOME BELONGS TO AN Y PERSON OTHER THAN THE ONE SEARCHED. IT IS ONLY THEREUPON THAT DOCUME NTS OR ASSETS SEIZED SHALL BE HANDED OVER TO THE AO OF SUCH OTHER PERSON . THE THEN OF THE AO OF THE OTHER PERSON GETS SET IN MOTION ONLY WHERE THE AO OF THE SEARCHED PERSON IS SATISFIED, AS ABOVE. AND IT IS ONLY THERE AFTER, THAT THE AO OF THE OTHER PERSON SHALL PROCEED AGAINST THEM UNDER SECTI ON 158BC. SO, UNLESS THERE IS THE SATISFACTION, THE DOCUMENTS OR ASSETS SEIZED CANNOT BE TRANSMITTED AND THE AO OF THE OTHER PERSON CANNO T PROCEED AGAINST THEM. QUAD ERAT DEMONSTRANDUM. 13. IN THE CASE OF M/S. CALCUTTA KNITWEARS (SUPRA ), THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT HAS LAID DOWN THAT THE SATISFACTION N OTE UNDER SECTION 158BD MUST BE PREPARED BY THE AO OF THE PERSON SEAR CHED BEFORE HE TRANSMITS THE RECORD TO THE AO OF THE OTHER PERSON. THEIR LORDSHIPS HAVE HELD THAT THE SATISFACTION NOTE COULD BE PREPARED A T ANY OF THE FOLLOWING STAGES: A) AT THE TIME OF, OR ALONGWITH, THE INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE SEARCHED PERSON UNDER SECTION 158BC OF THE ACT, OR B) IN THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S 158BC OF THE ACT, OR C) IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ARE COMPLETED U/S 158BC, OF THE SEARCHED PERSON. IT(SS) NO. 02(ASR)/2013 7 14. THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT HAS, THUS, TAKEN NOTE OF THE INEXORABILITY OF THE PREREQUISITE THAT THE RECORDIN G OF SATISFACTION U/S 158BD IS. 15. SO MUCH SO, THE CBDT HAS, ACCEPTED THE AFORESAI D LAW EXPOUNDED BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF M/S. C ALCUTTA KNITWEARS, ISSUED CIRCULAR NO.24 OF 2015, DATED 31.12.2015, DI RECTING THAT PENDING LITIGATION WITH REGARD TO RECORDING OF SATISFACTION NOTE U/S 158BD/153BC SHOULD BE WITHDRAWN/NOT PRESSED IF IT DOES NOT MEET THE GUIDELINES LAID DOWN BY THE APEX COURT. FOR READY REFERENCE, THIS C IRCULAR IS BEING REPRODUCED AS UNDER: CIRCULAR NO. 24/2015 F.NO.279/MISC./140/2015/ITJ GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF FINANCE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES ********* NEW DELHI, 31 ST DECEMBER, 2015 SUBJECT: RECORDING OF SATISFACTION NOTE UNDER SECTI ON 158BD/153C OF THE ACT REG. THE ISSUE OF RECORDING OF SATISFACTION FO R THE PURPOSES OF SECTION 158BD/153BC HAS BEEN SUBJECT MATTER OF LITIGATION. 2. THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF M/S. CALCUTTA KNBITWEARS IN ITS DETAILED JUDGMENT IN CIV IL APPEAL NO.3958 OF 2014 DATED 12.03.2014 (AVAILABLE IN NJRS AT 2014-LL-0312-15) HAS LAID DOWN THAT FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECTION 158BD OF THE ACT, RECORDING OF A SATISFACTI ON NOTE IS A PREREQUISITE AND THE SATISFACTION NOTE MUST BE PREP ARED BY THE AO BEFORE HE TRANSMITS THE RECORD TO THE OTHER AO WHO HAS JURISDICTION OVER SUCH OTHER PERSON U/S 158BD. THE IT(SS) NO. 02(ASR)/2013 8 HONBLE COURT HELD THAT THE SATISFACTION NOTE COULD BE PREPARED AT ANY OF THE FOLLOWING STAGES: A) AT THE TIME OF, OR ALONGWITH, THE INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE SEARCHED PERSON UNDER SECTION 158BC OF THE ACT, OR B) IN THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S 158BC OF THE ACT; OR C) IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ARE COMPLETED U/S 158BC, OF THE SEARCHED PERSON. 3. SEVERAL HIGH COURTS HAVE HELD THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 153C OF THE ACT ARE SUBSTANTIALLY SIMILAR/P ARI- MATERIA TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 158BD OF THE A CT AND THEREFORE, THE ABOVE GUIDELINES OF THE HONBLE SUPR EME COURT, APPLY TO PROCEEDINGS U/S 153C OF THE I.T. AC T, FOR THE PURPOSES OF ASSESSMENT OF INCOME OF OTHER THAN THE SEARCHED PERSONS. THIS VIEW HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY CBDT. 4. THE GUIDELINES OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT AS REFERRED TO IN PARA 2 ABOVE, WITH REGARD TO RECORDI NG OF SATISFACTION NOTE, MAY BE BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF ALL FOR STRICT COMPLIANCE. IT IS FURTHER CLARIFIED THAT EVE N IF THE AO OF THE SEARCHED PERSON AND THE OTHER PERSON IS ONE A ND THE SAME, THEN ALSO HE IS REQUIRED TO RECORD HIS SATISF ACTION AS HAS BEEN HELD BY THE COURTS. 5. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, FILING OF APPEALS ON THE I SSUE OF RECORDING OF SATISFACTION NOTE SHOULD ALSO BE DECID ED IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE JUDGMENT. ACCORDINGLY, THE BOARD HEREBY DIRECTS THAT PENDING LITIGATION WITH REGARD TO RECO RDING OF SATISFACTION NOTE UNDER SECTION 158BD/153BC SHOULD BE WITHDRAWN/NOT PRESSED IF IT DOES NOT MEET THE GUIDE LINES LAID DOWN BY THE APEX COURT. SD/- (RAMANJIT KAUR SETHI) DCIT (OSD) (ITJ) CBDT, NEW DELHI. 16. THE ABOVE LEGAL POSITION IS TRITE. IT STANDS RE ITERATED IN MANISH MAHESHWARI VS. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND ANOTHER, 289 ITR 341 (SC), HOLDING THAT SECTION 158BD PROVI DES FOR TAKING IT(SS) NO. 02(ASR)/2013 9 RECOURSE TO A BLOCK ASSESSMENT IN TERMS OF SECTION 158BC IN RESPECT OF ANY OTHER PERSON, THE CONDITIONS PRECEDENT WHEREFOR ARE : (I) SATISFACTION MUST BE RECORDED BY THE AO THAT ANY UNDISCLOSED INC OME BELONGS TO ANY PERSON, OTHER THAN THE PERSON WITH RESPECT TO WHOM SEARCH WAS MADE UNDER SECTION 132; (II) THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR OTH ER DOCUMENTS OR ASSETS SEIZED OR REQUISITIONED HAD BEEN HANDED OVER TO TH E AO HAVING JURISDICTION OVER SUCH OTHER PERSON; AND (III) THE AO HAS PROCEEDED UNDER SECTION 158BC AGAINST SUCH OTHER PERSON; THAT THE C ONDITIONS PRECEDENT FOR INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 158BD, THUS, ARE REQUIRED TO BE SATISFIED BEFORE THE PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER XIV-B A RE APPLIED IN RELATION TO ANY PERSON OTHER THAN THE PERSON WHOSE PREMISES HAD BEEN SEARCHED, OR WHOSE DOCUMENTS AND OTHER ASSETS HAD BEEN REQUISIT IONED UNDER SECTION 132A; THAT WHERE THE AO NEITHER RECORDED TH E SATISFACTION THAT UNDISCLOSED INCOME BELONGS TO ANY PERSON OTHER THA N THE PERSON SEARCHED, NOR HANDED OVER THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, DOC UMENTS, ETC., TO THE AO HAVING JURISDICTION OVER THE MATTER, THE PROCEED INGS UNDER SECTION 158BD CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. 17. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, SINCE IN THE PRESENT CASE , THE AO OF ASIYA INDRABI, THE PERSON SEARCHED HAS NOT RECORDED THE REQUISITE SATISFACTION U/S 158BD, I.E., THAT ANY UNDISCLOSED INCOME BELONG S TO THE ASSESSEE, THAT IS, A PERSON OTHER THAN THE PERSON SEARCHED, T HE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 158BD OF THE ACT CANNOT BE SUSTAINED AND IT(SS) NO. 02(ASR)/2013 10 THEY ARE CANCELLED AND GROUND NO.3 IS ACCEPTED. PUR SUANT TO CANCELLATION OF THESE PROCEEDINGS, NOTHING FURTHER SURVIVES FOR ADJUDICATION. THE UNDER APPEAL IS, ACCORDINGLY REV ERSED. 18. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 04/03/ 2016. SD/- SD/- (T.S. KAPOOR) (A.D. JAIN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 04/03/2016 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE ASSESSEE: SH. ABDUL KARIM BHAT, SRINAGAR. 2. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-3, SRINAGAR. 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.