The Income-tax Oficer, Amritsar. V. Sh. Pargat Singh, S/o. sh. Karnail Singh, Distt. Amritsar.

MA 46/ASR/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1226 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 19-12-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 13-12-2013
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 09-11-2012
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: K R JAIN
• Keywords: Capital asset; Gift; Revised return
• Section: 2(14)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH; AMRITSAR. BEFORE SH. H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. B.P. JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.A. NO. 45 (ASR)/2012 [IN I.T.A. NO.514 (ASR)/2011] ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 PAN: BPMPS5682G THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, VS. SH. JARMAN SINGH, WARD 5(2), AMRITSAR VILL. BISHAMBER PURA P.O.- CHITTA KALAN AMRITSAR (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) AND M.A. NO. 46 (ASR)/2012 [IN I.T.A. NO.515 (ASR)/2011] ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 PAN:BNHPS7426K THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, VS. SH. PARGAT SINGH, WARD 5(3), AMRITSAR VILL. BISHAMBERPURA P.O.- CHITTA KALAN AMRITSAR (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SH. TARSEM LAL, DR RESPONDENT BY: SH. K.R. JAIN, ADVOCATE DATE OF HEARING: 13.12.2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 19.12.2013 ORDER PER BENCH 1. THE REVENUE HAS FILED THE PRESENT TWO MISCELLANEO US APPLICATIONS FOR RECALLING OF THE CONSOLIDATED ORDE R DATED 28.06.2012 BY 2 M.A. NOS. 45 & 46 (ASR)/2012 RAISING IDENTICAL CONTENTIONS IN BOTH THE MISCELLAN EOUS APPLICATIONS. FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE, THE CONTENTIONS RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN THE MISC. APPLICATION NO. 45(ASR)/2012 ARE REPRODUCED A S UNDER: TO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, AMRITSAR. SIR SUB:- FILING OF MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION U/S 254(2 ) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 IN THE CASE OF JARMAN SINGH, VILL. BISHAMBER PURA, AMRITSAR- ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 7- 08-REGARDING REF:- HON'BLE I.T.A.T. AMRITSAR ORDER IN I.T.A. NO. 514(ASR)/2011, DATED 28.06.2012 KINDLY REFER TO ABOVE. IN CONNECTION WITH THE ABOVE, IT IS SUBMITTED THAT I HAVE BEEN AUTHORIZED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II, AM RITSAR VIDE HIS LETTER F.NO. CIT-II/ASR/ITO(TECH.)/2012-13/522, DAT ED 07.11.2012 TO FILE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION BEFORE THE HON'BLE I .T.A.T., AMRITSAR AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED U/S 254(1) DATED 28.06.201 2 IN I.T.A. NO. 514(ASR)/2012. WHILE PASSING THE SAID COMBINED ORDER, THE HON'BLE I.T.A.T. HAS MENTIONED GROUND OF APPEAL TAKEN BY THE REVENUE AS UNDER:- 1) THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE THE CIT(APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN IGNORING THE CERTIFICATE GIVEN BY THE SENIOR TOWN PLANNER (LG), MUNICIPAL CORPORATION , AMRITSAR CERTIFYING THAT VILLAGE BISHAMBARPURA IS S ITUATED AT DISTANCE OF 3.5-400 KM. FROM THE MUNICIPAL LIMITS A ND IS OUTSIDE THE MUNICIPAL LIMITS. AS SUCH, THE AGRICULT URAL LAND SOLD, SITUATED BEING WITHIN 9 KMS. FROM THE MUNICIP AL LIMITS 3 M.A. NOS. 45 & 46 (ASR)/2012 OF AMRITSAR WAS CAPITAL ASSET AS PER THE PROVISION OF SECTION 2(14) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. WHEREAS IN GROUND OF APPEAL TAKEN BY THE REVENUE TH E DISTANCE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND SOLD WAS STATED AT WI THIN 6 KM INSTEAD OF THE 9KM FROM THE MUNICIPAL LIMITS OF AMR ITSAR. AS THE MISTAKE IS APPARENT FROM THE RECORD, IT IS REQUESTED THAT THE SAME MAY KINDLY BE RECTIFIED AND NECESSARY ORDER MA Y KINDLY BE ISSUED IN THIS MATTER. IN THIS CONNECTION, THE FOLL OWING DOCUMENTS ARE ENCLOSED HEREWITH FOR YOUR KIND PERUSAL AND FURTHER NECESSARY ACTION IN THE MATTER: 1) CERTIFICATE UNDER RULE 15 OF THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL S RULE IN ORIGINAL ISSUED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I I, AMRITSAR, ALONG WITH TWO ATTESTED COPIES. 2) CERTIFICATE INTIMATING THE DATE OF COMMUNICATION OF THE ORDER U/S 254(1) PASSED BY THE HON'BLE I.T.A.T. AMR ITSAR IN ORIGINAL ALONG WITH TWO ATTESTED COPIES. 3) ORDER PASSED BY THE HON'BLE I.T.A.T., AMRITSAR BENC H, AMRITSAR ALONG WITH TWO ATTESTED COPIES. YOURS FAITHFULLY, SD/./- (SUDHIR KHANNA) INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2), AMRITSAR 2. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT RECORDS AVAILABLE WITH US, ESPECIALLY THE ORDER DATED 28.06 .2012 PASSED IN THE REVENUE APPEALS AS WELL AS THE CONTENTIONS RAISED B Y THE REVENUE IN THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS. AS PER THE AVERMENT MAD E BY THE REVENUE IN PARA NO. 1 OF THE MISC. APPLICATIONS, THERE IS A TY POGRAPHICAL ERROR IN THE 4 M.A. NOS. 45 & 46 (ASR)/2012 6 TH & 7 TH LINES OF GROUND NO. 1 MENTIONED IN ORDER DATED 28. 06.2012 PASSED BY THIS BENCH AND IT HAS BEEN WRONGLY TRANSC RIBED AS AS SUCH THE AGRICULTURAL LAND SOLD, SITUATED BEING WITHIN 9 KMS . FROM THE MUNICIPAL LIMITS OF AMRITSAR WHEREAS IT SHOULD BE AS SUCH THE AGRICULTURAL LAND SOLD, SITUATED BEING WITHIN 6 KMS. FROM THE MUNICIP AL LIMITS OF AMRITSAR. 3. WE FIND THAT THERE IS A TYPOGRAPHICAL ERROR IN THE 6 TH & 7 TH LINES OF GROUND NO. 1 MENTIONED IN THE ORDER DATED 28.06. 2012 AND IN PLACE OF AS SUCH THE AGRICULTURAL LAND SOLD, SITUATED BEING WITHIN 9 KMS. FROM THE MUNICIPAL LIMITS OF AMRITSAR IT SHOULD BE CORRECTLY READ AS AS SUCH THE AGRICULTURAL LAND SOLD, SITUATED BEING WITHIN 6 KMS . FROM THE MUNICIPAL LIMITS OF AMRITSAR 4. THE ISSUE RAISED BY LEARNED DR IN THE MISC. APPLICA TION HAS BEEN DEALT BY THIS BENCH IN THE ORDER DATED 28.06.2 012 AND WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT LEARNED DR FAILED TO ESTABLISH ANY MISTAK E IN THE ORDER DATED 28.06.2012 PASSED BY THIS BENCH EXCEPT THE MISTAKE POINTED OUT BY HIM IN THE GROUND NO. 1, AS MENTIONED ABOVE. THIS BENCH HAS UPHELD THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY LEARNED CIT(A), AMRITSAR, DATED 13.07.2011, WHO HAS PASSED THE IMPUGNED ORDER ON THE BASIS OF D OCUMENTARY EVIDENCE FILED BY THE PARTIES AND KEEPING IN VIEW T HE DECISION/JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. LAL 5 M.A. NOS. 45 & 46 (ASR)/2012 SINGH & OTHERS REPORTED IN 325 ITR 588 (2010). FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE, PARA NOS. 7 & 8 (PAGE NOS. 25 TO 28 ) REPRODUCED AS UNDER: 7. THE APPELLANTS APPEAL IS HEREBY DISPOSED OF G ROUND OF APPEAL WISE: (1) GROUND NO. 1 BEING GENERAL IN NATURE, REQUIRES NO COMMENTS. (2) GROUND NO. 2 PERTAINS TO THE APPELLANTS GRIEVA NCE OF ITS STATUS BEING ADOPTED AS INDIVIDUAL IN PLACE OF CLAI MED AS THAT OF HUF, AS SUCH CAPITAL GAIN COULD NOT BE ASSESSED IN THE INDIVIDUAL STATUS. PERUSAL OF THE A.O.S ASSESSMENT ORDER IN QUESTION SHOWS THAT THE APPELLANT FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME ON 24.12.2007 SHOWING INCOME OF RS. 1,74,640/- DERIVED UNDER THE HEADS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES AND AGRICULTU RAL INCOME. IT IS FURTHER SEEN THAT DURING THE ENTIRE A SSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE APPELLANT SEEM TO HAVE NOT CONTEST ED ABOUT ITS STATUS BEFORE THE A.O. AND THE A.O. HAS FINALIZ ED THE ASSESSMENT BY ADOPTING THE APPELLANTS STATUS AS TH AT OF INDIVIDUAL, AS DECLARED HIMSELF IN HIS ABOVE REFERR ED RETURN OF INCOME. NEITHER FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, NOR FROM PERUSAL OF THE APPELLANTS WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS, NOR FROM PE RUSAL OF THE DOCUMENTS APPENDED WITH THE PAPER BOOK, FURTHER NOR FROM THE REBUTTAL TO THE A.O.S REMAND REPORT, THE APPEL LANT HAS EXERTED TO FURNISH PROOF AND EVIDENCE OF ALLEGEDLY HAVING FILED ANY SO-CALLED REVISED RETURN CLAIMING THEREIN THE A PPELLANTS STATUS AS THAT OF HUF. IN THE PAPER BOOK SYNOPSIS, THE LD. A/R HAS STATED THAT ORIGINAL RETURN DECLARING INCOME OF RS. 1,74,640/- WAS FILED ON 24.12.2007 (EVIDENTLY IN BO TH THE CASES OF TWO BROTHERS, S/SH. JARMAN SINGH (ALIAS JA RNAIL SINGH) NAD PARGAT SINGH, BOTH OF S. KARNAIL SINGH, R/O VILLAGE BISHAMBARPURA, TEHSIL & DISTT. AMRITSAR INHERITED T HE FOLLOWING AGRICULTURAL LAND I.E. A) 54 KANAL 12 MARLAS AT VILLAGE BISHAMBARPURA (UND ER OUR OWNERSHIP) B) 33 KANAL 04 MARLAS AT VILLAGE RAKH CHITTAN (UNDE R OUR POSSESSION) FURTHER, AS PER COPY OF JAMABANDI IN R/O BOTH THE A BOVE LANDS THE LANDS ARE STANDING IN THE NAME OF BOTH THE ABOV E NOTED BROTHERS WITHOUT INDICATING AS TO WHETHER IT IS INH ERITED OR SELF ACQUIRED. FURTHER, THE APPELLANT HAS ALSO FAILED TO ESTABLISH AS 6 M.A. NOS. 45 & 46 (ASR)/2012 TO HOW IT WAS ACQUIRED BY INHERITANCE EITHER ON THE DEATH OF THE ENDER MALE MEMBER OF THE BIGGER HUF OR BY WAY O F WILL OR GIFT. FURTHER, THE APPELLANT HAS NOT BROUGHT ON RECORD AS TO WHAT IS THE CONSTITUTION OF THE HUF AND WHETHER THE RE ARE ONLY TWO MALE COPARCENERS I.E. BOTH THE ABOVE NOTED BROTHER, WHETHER THE JOINT FAMILY ASSETS REMAINED INTACT OR FURTHER PARTITIONED OR PARTIALLY PARTITIONED. EVEN LOOKING TO THE A.O.S REMAND REPORT, HE IS NOT ACKNOWLEDGING THE RECEIPT OF THE SO- CALLED REVISED RETURN. FURTHER, IN THE PAPER BOOK, THE LD. A/R FOR THE APPELLANT HAS FILED PHOTOCOPY OF A RETURN ( MADE AVAILABLE AT PAGE B-26 OF ITS ABOVE PAPER BOOK) WHI CH PERTAINS TO SH. PARGAT SINGH, V. BISHAMBER PURA (PA N: BNHPS7426R) SHOWING REVISED INCOME OF RS. 2,08,400/ - (BESIDES AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS. 30000 ONLY) WHI CH STANDS DIARIZED VIDE COMPUTERIZED ACKNOWLEDGEMENT NO. 4017 551 DT. 9.12.2009 PRESENTED WITH WARD 4(3), AMRITSAR INSTEA D OF WARD 5(3), AMRITSAR, SO IT COULD NOT BE LINKED UP A T THE TIME OF REGULAR ASSESSMENT BY THE A.O. NOR THE APPELLANT HA S ESTABLISHED THAT HE HAS ENFORCED ITS ADMITTANCE BEF ORE THE A.O. BY LEADING ANY EVIDENCE IN THE FORM OF RECEIPT ED REPLY HAVING BEEN FILED BEFORE THE A.O. NOR THIS FACT IS FORTHCOMING FROM THE COPES OF SUCH REPLIES FILED BEFORE THE A.O . (NOW ATTACHED) FORM PART OF ITS PAPER BOOK. EVEN PERUSAL OF THE COPIES OF THE TRANSFER OF THE ABOVE LAND BY WAY OF POWER OF ATTORNEY DT. 26.05.2006 FVT. SH. MADHU SUDAN, S/O S H. UMA SHANKAR TIWARI, R/O- 2008, NEW GURNAM NAGAR, SULTA WIND, AMRITSAR AS WELL AS RECEIPT DT. 26.05.2006 EXECUTIN G PROMISED SALE OF ABOVE LAND FVG. NEW WORLD BUILD CO . PVT. LTD., OF MAIN MASJIT MARKET, NEW DELHI FOR RS. 3,92 ,01,500/- AGAINST ADVANCE MONEY OF RS. ONE CRORE WHEREIN THE SAID LAND IS SHOWN AS SELF-OWNED WITHOUT SPECIFYING AFTER ACQ UIRING IT THROUGH INHERITANCE ETC. FROM ALL THESE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, I AM NOT INCLINED TO AGREE WITH THE APPELLANTS PLEA OF GRANTING HIM THE STATUS THAT THE HUF. IT IS WELL SETTLED LAW THAT THERE IS NO NECESSITY TO GIVE ANY CREDENCE TO THE INVALID DOCUMENTS. BY APPLYING THE PROVISIONS OF SE CTION 139(5), EVEN THE SO-CALLED REVISED RETURN (HAVING B EEN FILED AS LATE AS ON 9.12.2009) HAS NOT BEEN FILED WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED LIMITATION OF ONE YEAR FROM THE END OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT WHICH EXPIRED ON 31.03.2009 BEING EARLIER THAN THE DATE OF 7 M.A. NOS. 45 & 46 (ASR)/2012 COMPLETION OF ASSESSMENT MADE ON 21.12.2009 SHOWING UTMOST REGARD TO THE FOLLOWING CASE LAWS RELIED UPO N BY THE LD. A/R FOR AND ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT, IT CAN BE S AFELY OPINION THAT THE SAME BEING QUITE DISTINGUISHABLE FROM THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE ARE NOT SQUARELY APPLICABLE TO THE FAC TS OF THE CASE. I) C.L. NARAYANA REDDY V. THIRD INCOME TAX OFFICER (19 80) 9 TTJ (BANGALORE 380 II) WEALTH TAX OFFICER V. KANTI LAL GULAB CHAND SHAH 31 TTJ AHD 100 III) INCOME TAX OFFICER V. BACHU LAL KAPOOR 606 ITR 74 (SUPREME COURT) (COPY NOT SUPPLIED IN RESPECT OF TH E HON'BLE SUPREME COURTS JUDGMENT (SUPRA) ACCORDINGLY, I DO NOT FIND ANY OCCASION TO INTERFER E WITH THE A.O.S FINDING BY TREATING AND TAKING THE APPELLANT S STATUS AS THAT OF INDIVIDUAL AND HIS ACTION IS HEREBY CONFIRM ED. 8. NOW IN ORDER TO DECIDE THE MATTER ON PRINCIPLE A S THE WHETHER THE APPELLANTS LAND HOLDING ARE AGRICULTURAL LAND AND WHETHER IT COMES UNDER THE AMBIT OF CAPITAL ASSET AS PROVIDED UNDER SECTION 45 OR AS DEFINED IN SECTION 2(14)(III)(B) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 R/W CBDTS NOTI FICATION NO. 9447 DATED 6.1.1994 AND ITS PROFITS AND GAINS ARISI NG FROM ITS SALES ARE SUBJECT TO CAPITAL GAIN OR NO U/S 48 OF T HE I.T. ACT, 1961. THE LD. A.O. WHILE FRAMING THE ASSESSMENT HAS RELIED ON THE CERTIFICATE OF THE SENIOR TOWN PLANNER, AMRITSA R AND HAS REJECTED THE APPELLANTS SUBMISSIONS SUPPORTED BY T HE CONCERNED TEHSILDAR, AMRITSAR-II, AMRITSARS DISTAN CE CERTIFICATE DT. 19.12.2009 ON THE BASIS OF HIS RESP ECTIVE PATWARI THAT THE APPELLANTS LANDS IN QUESTION ARE 7-8 KILOMETERS AWAY FROM THE LIMITS OF THE AMRITSAR MUN ICIPAL CORPORATION. HOWEVER, DURING THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS , THE PRESENT A.O. HAS OBTAINED FRESH CONFIRMATION FROM T HE CONCERNED TEHSILDAR, AMRITSAR-II, AMRITSAR WHO VIDE HIS DISTANCE CERTIFICATE NO. 949 DATED 9.6.11 BASED ON THE LATEST REPORTS OF THE CONCERNED PATWARI DATED 6.6.2011 CER TIFYING THEREIN THAT APPELLANTS LAND SITUATED IN VILLAGE BISHAMBERPURA IS 7 KILOMETERS AWAY FROM THE LIMITS OF 8 M.A. NOS. 45 & 46 (ASR)/2012 AMRITSAR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND LAND SITUATED AT VILLAGE RAKH KITTA IS 8 KILOMETERS AWAY FROM THE LIMITS OF AMRITSAR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION TO WHICH THE PRESENT A.O. HAS NOT OBJECTION IF THE MATTER IS DECIDED ON THE LATEST CE RTIFICATES (SUPRA). WITH THIS THE MATTER HAS PUT AT REST FOR A LL TIMES. SINCE EVIDENTLY, THE APPELLANTS LAND-HOLDINGS BEING AWAY FROM 7-8 KILOMETERS FROM LIMITS OF AMRITSAR MUNICIPAL CORPOR ATION, AMRITSAR, IT WOULD BE NOW PROPER AND JUSTIFIED TO C ONSIDER THESE LANDS AS AGRICULTURAL LANDS AND ON THE SALE O F AGRICULTURAL LAND NO CAPITAL GAIN ARISES AS THESE D O NOT CONSTITUTE CAPITAL ASSET. IN THIS REGARD, I RESPECT FULLY FOLLOW THE JUDGMENT OF THE JURISDICTIONAL PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. LAL SINGH & OTHERS 325 ITR 588 (2010): 228 CTR (P&H) 575 AS WELL AS THEIR SIMILAR JUDGMENT DT. 7.1.2010 OF THE HON'BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH C OURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. SATINDER PAL SINGH, REPORTED IN (2010) 229 CTR (P&H) 82, AS RELIED UPON BY THE APPELLANT AND A LSO ACKNOWLEDGE BY THE PRESENT A.O. IN HIS REMAND REPOR T. THE ABOVE JUDGMENT IS SQUARELY APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. SINCE THE MATTER HAS BEEN DECIDED LEG ALLY, I DO NOT FIND ANY NECESSITY FOR GOING INTO DETAIL ON MER ITS OF THE CASE. ACCORDINGLY, THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O. BY WORKING OUT THE SO-CALLED LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN OF RS. 1,8 4,87,832/- DESERVES TO BE DELETED IN TOTO BEING UNWARRANTED AN D UNCALLED FOR UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE ( DISCUSSED SUPRA) 5. KEEPING IN VIEW THE AFORESAID DISCUSSIONS, WE AR E OF THE VIEW THAT THERE IS NO MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD AND L EARNED DR FAILED TO ESTABLISH ANY MISTAKE IN THE ORDER DATED 28.06.2012 EXCEPT THE MISTAKE POINTED OUT BY HIM IN GROUND NO. 1 MENTIONED IN THE ORDER DATED 28.06.2012, WHICH WE HAVE CORRECTED IN THE FOREGOIN G PARAGRAPH NO. 3. ACCORDINGLY, BOTH THE MISC. APPLICATIONS I.E. M.A. NOS. 45 & 46(ASR)/2012 ARE ALLOWED. 9 M.A. NOS. 45 & 46 (ASR)/2012 6. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE AFORESAID MISC. APPLICAT IONS FILED BY THE REVENUE ARE PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 19 TH DECEMBER, 2013 SD/./- SD/./- (B.P. JAIN) (H.S. SIDHU) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 19 TH DECEMBER, 2013 /RK/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE ASSESSEE: (I) SH. JARMAN SINGH, VILL. BISHAMBE R PURA, P.O.- CHITTA KALAN, AMRITSAR & (II) SH. PARGAT SINGH, VIL L. BISHAMBER PURA, P.O.- CHITTA KALAN, AMRITSAR 2. ITO, WARD 5(2), AMRITSAR 3. ITO, WARD 5(3), AMRITSAR 4. THE CIT(A), 5. THE CIT, 6. THE SR DR, I.T.A.T., TRUE COPY BY ORDER (ASSISTANT REGISTRAR) INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AMRITSAR BENCH: AMRITSAR.