The Jagroan Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd, Ludhiana V. The Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Moga

SA 2/ASR/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3254 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 4 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (International Taxation) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-04-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 26-02-2016
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 14-12-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R K SHARDA
• Assessee Lawyers: S M R SHARMA
• Keywords: Application of stay; Question of law; Capital receipt
• Section: 271(1)(c); 260A

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 S.A. NO. 02(ASR)/2016 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO.642(ASR)/2015) ASSESSMENT YEAR:2003-04 PAN: AAAATO626J M/S. THE JAGRAON CO-OPERATIVE SUGAR VS. ASSTT. COM MR. OF INCOME TAX MILLS LTD; JAGRAON, DISTT. LUDHIANA. CIRCLE MOGA. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY:S. M.R. SHARMA, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY: SH. R.K. SHARDA, DR DATE OF HEARING: 26/02/2016/2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 29/02/2016 ORDER PER A.D. JAIN, JM: THE ASSESSEE HAS MOVED THE PRESENT STAY APPLICATION FOR STAY OF DEMAND ON ACCOUNT OF PENALTY IMPOSED U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04. 2. THE FACTS ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS RUNNING A SUG AR MILL AT JAGRAON AND HAS REGULARLY FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME AND HA S BEEN ASSESSED BY THE DCIT, CIRCLE MOGA. DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003- 04, THE LOAN RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM THE GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB WAS W AIVED BY THE GOVERNMENT AND THE SAME WAS TREATED BY THE ASSESSEE AS CAPITAL RECEIPT SA NO.02/ASR/2016 2 AND THE DEPARTMENT, WHILE COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT , HAD TREATED THE SAME AS REVENUE RECEIPT AND WHILE COMPLETING ASSESS MENT THE AO HAS COMPUTED THE LOSS OF THE ASSESSEE AT RS.35,84,01,42 6/- INCLUDING BROUGHT FORWARD LOSSES. THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASS ESSEE AGAINST THE SAID ORDER WAS DISMISSED BY THE LD. CIT(A), LUDHIANA. FU RTHER APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE ITAT, CHANDIGARH BENCH WAS ALSO DISMISSED. HOWEVER, THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFO RE THE ITAT U/S 158A OF THE ACT WAS ALLOWED. 3. THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT BEFORE THE CIT(A), LUDHIANA, WHICH WAS DISMISSED. T HE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL AGAINST THE SAID ORDER BEFORE THE ITAT, CHAN DIGARH BENCH, WHICH WAS DECIDED BY THE ITAT, VIDE ORDER DATED 24.03.201 4, IN ITA NO.1068/CHD/2012. WHILE DECIDING THE APPEAL, THE IT AT CHANDIGARH BENCH, RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF THE ITAT, AMRITS AR BENCH IN THE CASE OF GURDASPUR COOP SUGAR MILLS LTD. VS. DCIT, 3 IT R (TRIB.) 101 AND DISMISSED THE APPEAL. HOWEVER, AGAIN, THE APPLICATI ON FILED BY THE ASSESSEE U/S 158(1) OF THE ACT, WAS ALLOWED. 4. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE CASE OF GURDASPUR COOP SUGAR MILLS LTD. IN THE SIMILAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES IMPOSE D PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) AGAINST WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED THE APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) WHO DELETED THE PENALTY LEVIED IN THIS CASE. FURTHER, THE APPEAL FILED BY A.O. BEFORE THE ITAT IN ITA NO.245/ASR/2 010 WAS ALSO DISMISSED VIDE ORDER DATED 16.12.2011. AGAINST THE SAID ORDER OF THE SA NO.02/ASR/2016 3 TRIBUNAL, THE LD. CIT FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE HO NBLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN ITA NO.88 OF 2012. THE DIVISI ON BENCH OF THE HONBLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT VIDE ORDER DATE D 21.01.2013 DISMISSED THE APPEAL FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT. 5. WHILE COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT, THE AO INITIATE D PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271(1) (C) OF THE ACT AND SUBSEQUEN TLY LEVIED A PENALTY OF RS.5,88,12,283/- VIDE ORDER DATED 24.03.2014. THE A SSESSEE FILED APPEAL AGAINST THE SAID PENALTY ORDER BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A )-3, LUDHIANA , WHO DISMISSED THE SAME VIDE ORDER, DATED 30.11.2015. TH US, THERE IS AN OUTSTANDING DEMAND OF RS.5,88,12,283/-. 6. AGAINST THE SAID DEMAND OF RS.5,88,12,283/-, THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE ITAT, AMRITSAR BENCH, ON 14.12.20 15, IN ITA NO.642(ASR)/2015. 7. THE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO MOVED AN APPLICATION FOR S TAY OF DEMAND BEFORE THE PR. C.I.T. -3, LUDHIANA AND THE SAID APP LICATION WAS ALLOWED VIDE LETTER NO. PR. CIT-3/LDH/TECH-29/14-15/2928 DA TED 04.03.2015 HOLDING AS UNDER: THE ASSESSEE HAS WON ON SIMILAR ISSUE FROM THE ITA T. THE DEMAND IS STAYED TILL THE DECISION OF CIT(A) OR UPTO 30.09 .2015, WHICHEVER IS EARLIER. THE ASSESSEE WILL NOT ASK FOR ADJOURNMENT BEFORE THE CIT(APPEALS). 8. SINCE THE APPEAL WAS NOT DECIDED BEFORE 30.09.20 15, THE ASSESSEE FILED ANOTHER APPLICATION FOR STAY OF DEMAND AND T HE SAID APPLICATION WAS STILL PENDING AND IN THE MEANTIME, THE APPEAL WAS DECIDED AND DISMISSED. A COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED HAS ALSO BEEN ENCLOSED. SA NO.02/ASR/2016 4 9. IN THE PRESENT APPLICATION, THE ASSESSEE HAS CON TENDED THAT THE ASSESSEE BEING A COOPERATIVE SOCIETY HAS BEEN PLACE D UNDER LIQUIDATION AND ALL THE ASSETS OF ITS MILL HAVE SINCE BEEN SOL D BY THE GOVERNMENT, WHO WAS THE MAJOR SHAREHOLDER OF THE COOPERATIVE SU GAR MILLS. THIS APPLICATION AND APPEAL HAVE BEEN FILED BY THE LIQUI DATOR. IT WAS STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT HAVE FUNDS TO DEPOSIT TH E AMOUNT OF PENALTY IMPOSED. IT WAS FURTHER STATED THAT THE ISSUE IN TH E PRESENT CASE IS COVERED BY THE DECISION OF THE ITAT, AMRITSAR BENCH IN THE CASE OF DCIT VS. GURDASPUR COOP. SUGAR MILLS LTD. THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL HAS BEEN CONFIRMED BY THE HONBLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN ITA NO.88 OF 2012 VIDE ORDER DATED 21.01.2013. 10. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE IN THE APPLICATION, WHEREAS THE LD. DR HAS OPPOSED THE GRANT OF STAY OF DEMAND. 11. HAVING HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE IS CORRECT IN CONTENDING THAT THE MATTER I N APPEAL IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASES OF DCIT VS. GURDASPUR COOP. SUGAR MILLS LTD. AND BATALA C OOPERATIVE SUGAR MILLS LTD., PASSED ON 16.12.2011, IN ITA NOS.245/A SR/2010 AND 242/ASR/2010 (COPIES PLACED AT PAGES 49-55 OF THE A SSESSEES PB). THEREIN, THE TRIBUNAL HELD AS FOLLOWS: 9. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND CAREFULLY CON SIDERED THEIR SA NO.02/ASR/2016 5 SUBMISSIONS. THE ASSESSEE IS A COOPERATIVE SOCIETY. ITS ACCOUNTS ARE DULY AUDITED. THE ASSESSEE HAS PLACED BEFORE US A COPY OF STATEMENT OF TAXABLE INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL AS FILED ALONG WITH THE RETURN OF INCOME BEFORE THE AO AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS STATED IN THE SAID STATEMENT THAT A SUM OF RS.22,52,00,000/- BEING RDF LOAN WAS CONVE RTED BY THE GOVERNMENT AS GRANT-IN-AID AND TAKEN TO THE GENERAL RESERVE ACCOUNT. THE AFORESAID FACTUAL POSITION IS QUITE AP PARENT ON BARE PERUSAL OF THE STATEMENT OF INCOME FILED BY THE ASS ESSEE ALONG WITH THE RETURN OF INCOME BEFORE THE AO. AS STATED EARLI ER, THE ASSESSEE IS A COOPERATIVE SOCIETY. ITS ACCOUNTS ARE DULY AUD ITED IN WHICH THE SAID SUM HAS BEEN DULY REFLECTED. IT WAS BY WAY OF CAUTION THAT THE ASSESSEE CHOSE TO SPECIFICALLY INDICATE IN THE STAT EMENT OF INCOME THAT A SUM OF RS.22,52,00,000/- BEING RDF LOAN HAS BEEN CONVERTED BY THE GOVERNMENT INTO GRANT-IN-AID AND T AKEN TO THE GENERAL RESERVE ACCOUNT. ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE, WE ARE UNABLE TO HOLD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT MADE FULL AND TRU E DISCLOSURE OF ALL THE RELEVANT FACTS IN THE RETURN OF INCOME AND THE STATEMENTS ACCOMPANYING THE RETURN. WE CONFIRM THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN THIS BEHALF. 10. WE ALSO FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SOUGHT THE A DVICE OF SHRI S.K.JAIN, ADVOCATE IN THE MATTER BY ITS LETTER DATE D 30.10.2003. IT IS ON THE ADVICE OF ITS COUNSEL THAT THE ASSESSEE H AS TREATED THE IMPUGNED RECEIPT AS CAPITAL RECEIPT. COPY OF ADVICE GIVEN BY SHRI SK JAIN HAS BEEN PLACED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US. AS HELD BY THE LD. CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT ONLY SOUGHT LEGAL ADVICE BUT ALSO ACTED ON THE SAME WHILE FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME . THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE SOUGHT THE LEGAL ADVICE IN THE MATTER ALSO INDICATES THAT IT ACTED BONA FIDE IN THE MATTER. THE LD. CIT( A) HAS GIVEN DETAILED REASONS IN HIS APPELLATE ORDER IN THIS BEH ALF. WE ARE IN AGREEMENT WITH THEM. . 11. EXPLANATION 1 TO SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT READS AS UNDER:- EXPLANATION 1 WHERE IN RESPECT OF ANY FACTS MATE RIAL TO THE COMPUTATION OF THE TOTAL INCOME OF ANY PERSON U NDER THIS ACT:- (A) SUCH PERSON FAILS TO OFFER AN EXPLANATION OR OF FERS AN EXPLANATION WHICH IS FOUND BY THE (ASSESSING) OFFIC ER OR THE (COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) (OR THE COMMISSIONER) TO BE FALSE, OR (B) SUCH PERSON OFFERS AN EXPLANATION WHICH HE IS N OT ABLE SUBSTANTIATE (AND FAILS TO PROVE THAT SUCH EXPLANAT ION IS BONA FIDE AND THAT ALL THE FACTS RELATING TO THE SA ME AND SA NO.02/ASR/2016 6 MATERIAL TO THE COMPUTATION OF HIS TOTAL INCOME HAV E BEEN DISCLOSED BY HIM). THEN, THE AMOUNT ADDED OR DISALLOWED IN COMPUTING T HE TOTAL INCOME OF SUCH PERSON AS A RESULT THEREOF SHALL, FO R THE PURPOSES OF CLAUSE (C) OF THIS SUB-SECTION, BE DEEM ED TO REPRESENT THE INCOME IN RESPECT OF WHICH PARTICULAR S HAVE BEEN CONCEALED. 12. THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IS FULLY COVERED BY CL AUSE (B) OF EXPLANATION 1 TO SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. IT I S A FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS OFFERED EXPLANATION FOR TREATING T HE IMPUGNED RECEIPT AS CAPITAL RECEIPT BUT THAT EXPLAN ATION HAS NOT BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE AO. IN SUCH A SITUATION, W HAT HAS TO BE SEEN IS WHETHER THE ASSESSEE HAS ACTED BONA-F IDE AND DISCLOSED ALL THE FACTS MATERIAL TO THE COMPUTA TION OF TOTAL INCOME. WE HAVE ALREADY HELD ABOVE THAT THE A SSESSEE HAS MADE FULL AND TRUE DISCLOSURE OF ALL THE FACTS MATERIAL TO THE COMPUTATION OF ITS TOTAL INCOME AND THAT THE AS SESSEE HAS ALSO ACTED BONA-FIDE IN AS MUCH AS IT HAS ACTED ON THE ADVICE OF SHRI S.K. JAIN, ADVOCATE, WHO WAS COMPETE NT TO GIVE ADVICE IN THE MATTER. IN SUCH A SITUATION THE MERE FACT THAT THE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN REJECTED BY THE AO AND RESULTANTLY THE AMOUNT HAS BEEN ADDED/DISALLOWED IN COMPUTING THE TOTAL INCOME OF T HE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE DEEMED TO REPRESENT THE INCOME I N RESPECT OF WHICH THE PARTICULARS HAVE BEEN CONCEALE D. 13. IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS CONFIRMED. APPEAL FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT IS DISMIS SED. 14. AS STATED EARLIER, THE FACTS AND GROUNDS OF APP EAL IN THE CASE OF THE GURDASPUR COOP SUGAR MILLS LTD. ARE IDE NTICAL WITH THOSE IN THE BATALA COOP SUGAR MILLS LTD. WE H AVE ALREADY CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) IN THE CA SE OF THE BATALA COOP SUGAR MILLS LTD. FOLLOWING THE SAME, TH E ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IN THE CASE OF THE GURDASP UR COOP SUGAR MILLS LTD. IS ALSO CONFIRMED. APPEAL FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT IS DISMISSED. 12. THE AFORESAID ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL HAS BEEN CO NFIRMED BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT VIDE ORDER DATED 21.01.2013 PASS ED IN ITA NOS. 88 & SA NO.02/ASR/2016 7 95 OF 2012 (COPIES AT PAGES 56 TO 58 OF APB-2). TH E HONBLE HIGH COURT HAS HELD AS FOLLOWS: THIS ORDER SHALL DISPOSE OF THE ABOVE MENTIONED INC OME TAX APPEALS FILED UNDER SECTION 260A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (FOR SHORT THE ACT) AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 16.12 .2011 PASSED BY THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AMRITSAR (FOR SHORT THE TRIBUNAL) ARISING OUT OF THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003- 04 RAISING THE FOLLOWING SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW: THE ITAT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCE OF THE CASE AND UNDER LAW HAS ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THE PENALTY OF RS.10,50,00,000/- WAS LEVIED ON THE BASIS OF FURNIS HING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME BY THE ASSESSE E BY TREATING THE REVENUE RECEIPT OF RS.2,15,00,000/- AS CAPITAL RECEIPT WHEREAS THE SUBSIDY RECEIPT IS A RE VENUE RECEIPT AND THE ADDITION HAS BEEN CONFIRMED BY THE HONBLE ITAT, AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR? LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT RELIES UPON THE D IVISION BENCH JUDGMENT OF DELHI HIGH COURT REPORTED AS COMM ISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. ECS LTD. (2011) 336 ITR 162 (DELH I) WHEREIN THE DEDUCTION OF 50% CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE U/S 80 -O WAS DECLINED AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER ESTIMATED THE EX PENDITURE IN THE RATIO OF PROPORTION OF FOREIGN INCOME TO THE TOTAL INCOME. WE FIND THAT THE RELIANCE ON ABOVE SAID JUDGMENT I S NOT TENABLE, AS IN THE AFORESAID CASE, THE DEDUCTION U/ S 80-O OF THE ACT WAS DECLINED FOR THE REASON THAT THE ASSESS EE HAS NOT PRODUCED ANY DETAILS OF THE EXPENSES ALLEGEDLY INCU RRED BY IT. THE DELHI COURT OBSERVED: THE ASSESSEE, FOR CLAIMING DEDUCTION U/S 80-O OF T HE ACT, WANTED THE SAME AT 50 PER CENT OF THE GROSS IN COME RECEIVED IN CONVERTIBLE FOREIGN EXCHANGE IN INDIA PROVIDED BY IT TO ITS FOREIGN CLIENTS. THE AO, HOW EVER, WAS OF THE VIEW THAT ON CORRECT INTERPRETATION U/S 80-O, DEDUCTION IS RESTRICTED TO THE NET INCOME AND, THER EFORE, EXPENDITURE INCURRED IN INDIA FOR EARNING THE FOREI GN EXCHANGE HAD TO BE DEDUCTED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THEREFORE, WANTED THE ASSESSEETO FURNISH THE DETAIL S OF EXPENSES. AS THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO DO THE NEEDFUL IN RESPECT OF VARIOUS PARTICULARS DEMANDED, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS LEFT WITH NO ALTERNATIVE BUT TO ESTIMATE SUCH EXPENDITURE IN THE RATIO OF PROPORTIO N OF FOREIGN INCOME TO THE TOTAL INCOME. SA NO.02/ASR/2016 8 IN THE PRESENT CASE, THERE IS NO DISPUTE ABOUT THE QUANTUM OF RECEIPT OF GRANT IN AID FROM THE STATE GOVERNMENT. THE ASSESSEE REFLECTED THE SAME AS CAPITAL RECEIPT, WHE REAS IT HAS BEEN TREATED AS TO BE REVENUE RECEIPT. THE ISSUE; W HETHER THE AMOUNT OF GRANT IN AID IS CAPITAL RECEIPT OR A REVE NUE RECEIPT, IS A DEBATABLE ISSUE. THE FINDINGS RETURNED IN THE JUD GMENT RELIED UPON IS ON FACT OF NON-FURNISHING OF DETAILS OF EXPENSES. THE ISSUE WAS NOT DEBATABLE AS IN THE PRESENT CASE. THEREFORE, THE RELIANCE ON THE DIVISION BENCH JUDGM ENT IS MISCONCEIVED. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY ERROR IN T HE FINDINGS RECORDED BY TRIBUNAL WHILE SETTING ASIDE THE PENALT Y. CONSEQUENTLY, WE DO NOT FIND THAT THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL GIVES RISE TO ANY SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW FOR T HE OPINION OF THIS COURT. 13. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, FINDING THE ASSESSEE TO H AVE A PRIMA FACIE GOOD CASE IN THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFOR E THE TRIBUNAL, I.E., IN ITA NO.642/ASR/2015 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-0 4, AND HENCE, THE BALANCE OF CONVENIENCE BEING IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSES SEE AND ALSO CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE, HAVING BEEN PLACED UNDER LIQUIDATION AND ALL THE ASSETS AND MATERIAL HAVING SINCE BEEN SOLD BY THE PUNJAB GOVERNMENT, WHO WAS THE MAJOR SHARE-HOLDER OF THE CO- OPERATIVE SUGAR MILL, DUE TO WHICH FACT, THE STAY A PPLICATION AND APPEAL HAVE THEMSELVES BEEN FILED BY THE LIQUIDATOR, THE OPERATION OF THE ORDER IMPUGNED IN THE APPEAL IS LIABLE TO BE STAYED. ORD ERED ACCORDINGLY. 14. THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), PASSED ON 30.11.20 15 IN APPEAL NO. 847/ROT/IT/CIT(A)-3/LDH/2014-15, IS HEREBY STAYED TILL THE DISPOSAL OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE OR SIX MONTHS, WHICHEVER IS EARLIER. SA NO.02/ASR/2016 9 THE DEMAND OF PAYMENT OF TAX IS, AS SUCH, STAYED. THE REGISTRY IS DIRECTED TO FIX THE APPEAL FOR HEARING, I.E., ITA N O.642(ASR)/2015 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 ON 12.04.2016. 15. IN THE RESULT, THE STAY APPLICATION IS ALLOWED, IN THE ABOVE TERMS. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 29/02/2 016 SD/- SD/- (T.S. KAPOOR) (A.D. JAIN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEM BER DATED: 29/02/2016 /SKR/ COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE ASSESSEE: THE JAGRAON CO-OPERATIVE SUGAR MIL LS LTD., LUDHIANA. 2. THE ACIT, CIRCLE MOGA. 3. THE CIT(A), LUDHIANA 4. THE CIT, LUDHIANA 5. THE SR. DR, ITAT, ASR. TRUE COPY BY ORDER (ASSISTANT REGISTRAR) INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH: AMRITSAR.