Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Amritsar
Shri Ravinder Aggarwal, Jammu vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax , ... on 20 May, 2019
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR.
BEFORE SH. SANJAY ARORA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
AND SH. N. K. CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER
I. T. A. No. 408/(Asr)/2018
Assessment Year: 2013-14
Ravinder Aggarwal, Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income
116, Jullakha Mohalla, Tax, Central Circle, Jammu
Jain Bazar, Jammu
[PAN: AMXPA 7889C]
(Appellant) (Respondent)
Appellant by : Sh. Surinder Mahajan (C.A.)
Respondent by: Sh. Sandeep Chauhan, CIT-DR
Date of Hearing: 05.03.2019
Date of Pronouncement: 20.05.2019
ORDER
Per Sanjay Arora, AM:
This is an Appeal by the Assessee directed against the Order by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Ludhiana ('CIT(A)' for short) dated 11.05.2018, dismissing the assessee's appeal contesting his assessment under section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' hereinafter) dated 09.03.2016 for Assessment Year (AY) 2013-14.
2. The facts of the case in brief are that the assessee, in jewellery business, and his family members were subject to search proceedings u/s. 132(1) of the Act at their residence on 04.09.2013. Incriminating material, disclosing undisclosed transactions of purchase and sale of gold and silver, was found and seized, and statement/s u/s. 132(4) recorded. On the basis of the working made from the seized 2 ITA No. 408/Asr/2018 (AY 2013-14) Ravinder Aggarwal v. Dy. CIT material, profit was worked out. The same, together with the unexplained stock and cash, was surrendered as income in the hands of the different family members, including the assessee, at an aggregate of Rs.1025 lacs for the relevant assessment year, i.e., AY 2014-15. The assessee's share in the disclosure, made thus, was at Rs 615 lacs, i.e., Rs. 310.72 lacs by way of profit and Rs. 304.28 lacs by way of unexplained assets (PB pg. 28). The assessee and the other family members honored the disclosure, also paying tax due thereon. As, however, some of the seized material pertained to the current year, the immediately preceding year, notice u/s. 153A was issued to the assessee on 23.01.2014. The assessee replied on 16.12.2014, stating that the return filed on 23.01.2014 be treated as the return filed in response to the notice u/s. 153A. The question therefore arose as to his undisclosed income (as per the seized material) pertaining to the current year. The assessee, failing to obtain the manner of working of the undisclosed income, i.e., as per the seized material - including that for the current year, from the Assessing Officer (AO), i.e., even after repeated requests, attempted the said working himself. The same could only be of the profit (loss) from the transactions of purchase and sale recorded in the loose sheets, diaries, etc., forming different annexures of the seized material. This is as the assets found are only at the time of search, relating therefore to AY 2014-15. The said working (PB pgs. 91,92) revealed a loss of Rs. 16,90,788. The AO, however, did not accept the same, and proceeded to assess the profit there-from at 2% of the undisclosed turnover of Rs.5500 lacs, i.e., at Rs.110 lacs. Another Rs.50 lacs was added toward unexplained investment in the said undisclosed business. The assessee failing to impress the ld. CIT(A), so that his appeal before him stood dismissed, is in second appeal.
3 ITA No. 408/Asr/2018 (AY 2013-14)Ravinder Aggarwal v. Dy. CIT The issue
3. The issue, thus, arising for adjudication in the instant case is the income assessable and, thus, the tax impact, if any, for the current year, on the basis of the seized material relating to the said year. The collateral issue that arises is if the income assessable for this year would stand to be telescoped against the income assessed for the following year (i.e., AY 2014-15) in-as-much as the same is, again, based on the entire seized material, including that for the current year.
The arguments
4. As regards the principal issue, the assessee's case is that it has worked out the income on the basis of the relevant seized material, which results in a trading loss for the current year, as under (PB pg. 91, 92):
- Gold (147209 gms) : Rs. 14,14,265 (on a turnover of Rs. 45.70 cr.)
- Silver (3,40,395 gms) : Rs. 2,76,523 (on a turnover of Rs.1.939 cr.) The AO, without pointing out any defect therein, chose to ignore the same. How could that be? The matching of the quantity of both the purchases (debit) and sales (credit) exhibits the completeness of the said working. Its veracity is further confirmed by the fact that the same, extended up to the date of search, also agrees with the cash found during search (except for a minor different of Rs. 2,850 / PB pgs. 139-140). This is so as both the purchases and sales are in cash. The Revenue authorities have, again, without commenting adversely on the said working by the assessee, summarily dismissed the same, applying a profit rate of 2%, i.e., as obtaining in another case (Nischal Group), also stated to be subject to search proceedings.
In-as-much as the profits translate into cash, which has been taken into account while assessing the undisclosed (unexplained) income for AY 2014-15, to the extent taxed for AY 2013-14 (current year), should be deducted from the 4 ITA No. 408/Asr/2018 (AY 2013-14) Ravinder Aggarwal v. Dy. CIT income assessed for that year (AY 2014-15) by giving a suitable direction. In other words, as far as the assessee is concerned, it is a zero-sum game, i.e., when both the years are taken together.
Discussion & Findings
5. We have heard the parties, and perused the material on record. 5.1 Our first observation in the matter is that each year is a separate and independent unit of assessment, and income for a particular year is to be assessed for that year only (CIT vs. Isthmian Steamship Lines reported at [1981] 20 ITR 572 (SC); Karimtharuvi Tea Estate Ltd. v. State of Kerala [1966] 60 ITR 262 (SC); Reliance Jute & Industries Ltd. v. CIT [1979] 120 ITR 921 (SC)). The law in the matter is trite and income assessed in the hands of another, or for another year, is no ground for it being not assessed in the hands of the right person and/or for the right year [ITO v. Ch. Atchaiah [1996] 218 ITR 239 (SC); CIT v. British Paints India Ltd. [1991] 188 ITR 44 (SC); Jamnaprasad Kanhaiyalal v. CIT [1981] 130 ITR 244 (SC); Radhe Shyam Tibrewal v. CIT [1984] 145 ITR 186 (SC)). That, rather, as explained in the decisions afore-cited, is the premise of the income-tax law, providing for a charge of tax, an annual levy, on the income assessable for that year; the provisions of law as well as the rates of tax itself liable to change from year to year. This, of course, is subject to the specific provisions of law as, for example, proviso to sec. 4(1). There is, as such, nothing 'wrong' or amiss in the Revenue, despite the assessee offering income to tax on the basis of the seized material for AY 2014-15, which, as stated, includes that pertaining to the current year as well, to bring the same to tax for the current year. The assessee's plea that, even so, it would stand to be allowed telescoping benefit is, in principle, equally valid in-as-much as there can be no double tax, i.e., on the same income for the current year as well as the following year. A decision thereon, including the extent 5 ITA No. 408/Asr/2018 (AY 2013-14) Ravinder Aggarwal v. Dy. CIT thereof, would though depend on the nature of the income and the applicable provisions of law.
As such, it is not, and the matter cannot be viewed in the paradigm of a zero- sum game, even as, where and to the extent applicable, telescoping benefit is to be allowed (refer: Veerasinghaiah & Co. v. CIT [1980] 123 ITR 457 (SC)). Income can be assessed either on the basis of profit arising to the assessee (for the relevant period), which we may, for reference, call the 'source-based' income, or on the basis of the accretion to assets (avenues of investment), wherein the said profit gets applied or manifested in, i.e., the 'application-based' income. Correctly computed, the two must agree, represent as they do, the two sides of the same coin, i.e., the debit and the credit sides of a balance-sheet. This is precisely what the assessee seeks to emphasize by referring to its' working of profit and the cash generated. It is this that forms the basis of the concept of telescoping. As, however, full data may not be available, and even as there are attempts to compute 'income' following both the methods, the income as per the two methods may not match. It is, in that case, the higher of the two, i.e., the profit or the assets, which would stand to be adopted, even as admitted to by the ld. counsel for the assessee, Sh. Mahajan, during hearing. In fact, implicit in this is the telescoping of the lower amount against the higher amount. For example, if profit and asset-based income is at Rs.10 lacs and Rs.8 lacs respectively, it is the former (Rs.10 lacs) that shall prevail, while the latter would if it exceeds Rs.10 lacs, as (say) Rs.12 lacs. No assets have been found for the current year (Period 1) in the instant case, so that profit becomes the only basis of income determination. Now, if the undisclosed income for the following year (P2) is asset-based, being higher than the profit worked out for that year, telescoping shall apply. If, however, it is, again, the profit which is the basis of income for that year, telescoping may not have application.
6 ITA No. 408/Asr/2018 (AY 2013-14)Ravinder Aggarwal v. Dy. CIT 5.2 We, next, proceed to examine the assessee's working (PB pgs. 91, 92, 139-
140), based as it is on the seized material. This assumes relevance for two reasons. First, the nature of the transactions and, two, the quantification of income. As regards the former, while the assessee claims them to be rate cut transactions, i.e., where the purchase is settled against sale, so that only the rate difference obtains, the Revenue claims it to be purchase and sale transactions, albeit wholesale in nature (para 2.8 of the assessment order). One may argue that in-as-much as it is only the difference between the purchase and sale which, in either case, is relevant, the 'nature' of purchase and sale, or the manner in which these transactions are conducted and settled, may not be of much consequence. Where the transactions do not involve any physical delivery, the same are speculative by definition (section 43(5)). Delivery is even otherwise an essential ingredient of transfer of movably property. Further, where the transactions constitute a business, as in the instant case, the same is to be regarded as a separate business (Explanation 2 to section 28). It is for this reason that this argument, even if assumed, is misplaced, and the nature of the transactions assumes significance.
5.3 The nature of the transactions, subject as they are to contrary claims, shall therefore have to be examined. This is though surprising as the same are based on the same seized material, which, surprisingly again, is not brought on record nor, consequently, referred to during hearing. The assessee's claim has not been accepted by the Revenue for, principally, two reasons. One, that the assessee admits the same (vide letter dated 09.12.2015 - referred to at para 2.3 and para 3.2 (pg. 30) of the assessment and appellate order is respectively) to be purchase and sale transactions. Two, the rate cut does not involve any purity (of metal), being supposed to be of 24 carat gold, while there is invariably reference to the purity of the metal in the seized material (varying from 88% to 100%). The third reason 7 ITA No. 408/Asr/2018 (AY 2013-14) Ravinder Aggarwal v. Dy. CIT stated is that some seized material (as Ann. 30) contains slips for sale of small quantities to various persons, presumably retailers (refer paras 2.4, 2.6 of the assessment order, and para 3.2 (pg. 30) of the appellate order).
Giving our careful consideration to the matter, we are inclined to accept the assessee's claim, i.e., in preference to that of the Revenue. This is, again, for more than one reason. To begin with, the AO himself admits that these transactions cannot be regarded as regular transactions of purchase and sale, i.e., in the retail market, undertaken by the assessee in the regular course of his business, in view of the order size, volume and turnover, justifying - on that basis, his not applying the assessee's normal profit rate on the relevant turnover. Then, the assessee's working shows a complete matching (both for gold and silver) of the quantity purchased and sold during the financial year, involving a volume of nearly Rs. 48 crores over a period of a year. This in fact obtains for the succeeding year as well. Now, it is highly improbable, nay, almost impossible, in the regular course of business, that the purchase and sale quantities match, which is only an incidence of a speculative trade, i.e., where the deal is cut before the close of the day. In fact, the assessee has in this regard clearly stated (vide letter dated 25/2/2016) that the purchase and sale rates agree, and accordingly may be verified, with the published rates of the stock exchange (MCX), i.e., where the commodities are traded in; the relevant part of the letter in fact finding reproduction at para 2.1 of the assessment order. Couple this with the fact that no material qua sale receivables (i.e., the amounts due from customers against sales) was found during search. The non-acceptance of the assessee's claims, i.e., as to the nature of the transactions, as well as the results thereof, becomes quizzical; the Revenue admittedly not pointing out any defect therein. The assessee in fact nowhere admits these transactions to be regular purchase and sale transactions. In fact, even if he did, that would be of no consequence in view of the said working, based on seized material, showing 8 ITA No. 408/Asr/2018 (AY 2013-14) Ravinder Aggarwal v. Dy. CIT complete details of the transactions, as well as the manner of their execution, i.e., as explained, including before us. Rather, the AO, though regards the same as purchase and sale transactions, yet admits them to be of whole-sale nature, i.e., different from the regular sales, in view of the quantities involved, justifying his non-application of the profit rate obtaining on the regular sales to the undisclosed turnover. He, in fact, admits to, albeit a part, of the transactions as being speculative (para 2.5 of the assessment order). There is also no mention of the parties to whom the sales, or from whom the purchases, are made, nor any evidence of any amount/s outstanding, i.e., receivable or, as the case may be, payable, qua these sale and purchase transactions respectively, which is again incomprehensible if the same are regarded as regular transactions of purchase and sale, particularly considering the large volumes.
In our view, therefore, the Revenue has wrongly not accepted the assessee's claim with regard to the nature of the transactions as well as the manner in which the same are executed and settled, receiving or, as the case may be, paying, the net difference, rejecting the working made on the basis of, and evidenced by, the seized material, which though ought to have been placed on record by either side.
5.4 The next issue, then, is the rate of profit or, rather, the profit or, as the case may be, loss, arising to the assessee on these transactions. The assessee claims, on the basis of his working (PB pgs. 91,92), of having incurred a loss of Rs. 16.91 lacs. The Revenue has at no stage, including before us, pointed out any defect in the said working, stated to be based on the seized material. What, again, is there then to doubt the said working? In fact, as pointed out during hearing by Shri Mahajan, the turnover(s) adopted by the AO are on the basis of this working, though stands incorrectly read by him (qua silver) at Rs. 19.39 cr. (as against Rs. 1.939 cr.). So much so, the transactions (both debit and credit) being in cash, Sh.
9 ITA No. 408/Asr/2018 (AY 2013-14)Ravinder Aggarwal v. Dy. CIT Mahajan would show that the said working, for the period up to 03/9/2013, i.e., immediately prior to the date of search, agrees, save for a minor difference of Rs. 2850, with the unaccounted cash found during search, i.e., Rs. 49.58 lacs (PB pgs. 139-140), establishing the veracity of the said working. What better proof, then, could the assessee furnish, both as to the nature of the transactions as well as the income (loss) arising therefrom? On the Bench making an inquiry with Sh. Mahajan in this regard, as there is no mention of the said working, either in the assessment or the appellate order, he would make a categorical submission that the same forms part of the assessment and the appellate record, toward which in fact certification (in terms of Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963) stands made by him. We, accordingly, have no hesitation in accepting the assessee's claim of having in fact incurred a trading loss of Rs. 16.91 lacs on the undisclosed turnover of gold (Rs. 4570 lacs) and silver (Rs. 194 lacs).
5.5 The next issue is the adjustment, if any, that would ensue to the assessee's returned income on account of the said undisclosed transactions. The assessee has admittedly suffered a loss of Rs. 16.91 lacs therein. The same, however, being in speculative trade, i.e., yielding speculative income (loss), would not stand to be set off against other income, business or otherwise (sec. 73). The same would also not stand to be carry forward (to be set off against the assessee's income from speculative business for the subsequent years - which in fact obtains for AY 2014- 15, as the same has not been returned per a return of income u/s. 139(1) (sec. 80 r/w s. 139 (3)). In fact, not even per the return filed in response to the notice u/s. 153A, which is that furnished u/s. 139(4). Sh. Mahajan would clarify that the assessee does not press for this loss. We yet consider it proper to make a mention of this as there is no estoppel against law. It is the correct legal position that is relevant, and not the view that the parties may take of their rights in the matter 10 ITA No. 408/Asr/2018 (AY 2013-14) Ravinder Aggarwal v. Dy. CIT (CIT v. C. Parakh & Co. (India) Ltd. [1956] 29 ITR 661 (SC); Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1971] 82 ITR 363 (SC)). The transactions being in cash, a loss of Rs. 16.91 lacs would, however, imply a cash depletion to that extent. As the cash balance can be, in the least, nil, i.e., cannot be negative, the assessee therefore has either an opening cash balance (as at 01/4/2012) or otherwise unaccounted cash to that extent, i.e., Rs. 16.91 lacs, to fill the cash deficiency to that extent. And which is therefore liable to be added as deemed income under section 69A. Sh. Mahajan, on being so enquired during hearing, could not furnish any answer, much less satisfactory. His reply that it is the cash position as on the date of search that only is relevant, misses the point in that it no way explains a negative cash balance
- as per the assessee's own working, as at 31/3/2013. Rather, the working up to the search date (03/9/2013), if anything, confirms the cash depletion to that extent (as on 31/3/2013), as it is this working, when completed up to 03/9/2013, explains the excess cash of Rs. 49.58 lacs, i.e., as found in search. Further, why should it, then, not result in a further additional cash of Rs. 16.91 lacs (as on 03/9/2013), is something that only the assessee can explain. If the assessee can 'introduce' cash (to that extent) on 31/3/2013, he could also, on the transactions yielding profit (which is in cash) in the following year, 'withdraw' the same. Further, it cannot be presumed that the cash depletion is met by the cash available, i.e., to the extent it is, from the assessee's regular (disclosed) business. This, apart from being without evidence, would amount to falsifying the assessee's regular books of account. Thus, while the assessee is not entitled to set off the admitted loss of Rs. 16.91 lacs
- which is on account of it being of a speculative business as well as not returning the same, an addition to that extent on account of unexplained cash balance, which is proved by his own working for the relevant year, arises. We hold so. At the same time, the additional profit of Rs. 110 lacs on the undisclosed turnover, as estimated by the Revenue, is deleted. We decide accordingly. (also refer para 5.6) 11 ITA No. 408/Asr/2018 (AY 2013-14) Ravinder Aggarwal v. Dy. CIT 5.6 The next issue is of the addition of Rs. 50 lakhs on account of the estimated investment involved in the undisclosed business. The same would be, as found by us, in cash in-as-much as the difference between the purchase and sale is closed and settled the same day, receiving or, as the case may be, paying, cash. Liquid capital to some extent would be required, as where the transactions result in a loss. This in fact gets exhibited by the assessee's working, put paying his claim that no capital is required or otherwise involved. We've already found the assessee to have undisclosed cash of Rs. 16.91 lacs. The same, in the absence of any material suggesting otherwise, is regarded adequate for the purpose. This adequacy, though, without doubt, cannot be assessed to the last rupee, and can only be taken as broadly indicative. In fact, it may well be that the loss, at Rs. 16.91 lacs up to 31/3/2013, works to a higher sum for the intervening period - up to 28/2/2013 (say) - resulting in a larger shortfall in cash, and stands reduced on account of subsequent profit. It is even otherwise inconceivable that a concern found with an excess (unaccounted) cash of nearly Rs. 50 lacs (as on 04/9/2013), i.e., other than cash reflected in its' regular books of account, has nil cash balance at any time. The same is accordingly taken at Rs. 3.09 lacs, i.e., by assessing the unaccounted cash at a total of Rs. 20 lacs, of which Rs. 16.91 lacs stands depleted as on 31/3/2013 on account of loss, so that the balance Rs. 3.09 was available. This is particularly so as the cash with the assessee, for which addition stands confirmed, may, for all we know, obtain from the beginning of the year. The addition of Rs. 50 lakhs is accordingly restricted to Rs. 20 lacs, i.e., including Rs. 16.91 lacs already confirmed, so that no separate addition to that extent shall arise. The import of what is being said is that the addition for capital of the undisclosed business is restricted to Rs. 20 lacs, of which Rs. 16.91 lacs in fact gets proved. The assessee, needless to add, shall be entitled to telescoping of this addition - to 12 ITA No. 408/Asr/2018 (AY 2013-14) Ravinder Aggarwal v. Dy. CIT the extent of Rs. 3.09 lacs, against the asset-based additions for the following year. We decide accordingly. (also refer para 5.7) 5.7 Finally, is the question of telescoping of the addition of Rs. 20 lacs, i.e., as sustained by us. The assessee's case is that the profit for the current year forms part of the total profit of Rs. 310.72 lacs, estimated on the basis of the seized material. As such, the addition on account of profit for the following year would stand reduced to that extent. The argument, valid in principle, would apply in case of a profit for the current year. For example, if there is a profit of Rs. 100 for the entire period (spanning two years, up to the date of search), a finding of a profit of Rs. 20 (say) for the first (current) year, would imply a profit of Rs. 80 in the following year (up to the date of search). A loss of Rs. 20 for the current year would, on the contrary, imply a profit of Rs. 120 for the following year. That is, the profit for the following year would in fact stand to increase by the amount of loss admittedly incurred for the current year in-as-much as that only would result in the total profit for the entire period amounting to that determined and assessed (Rs. 100 in our example). True, the loss for the current year does not lead to, as found, a reduction in the cash balance to that extent. That, however, is as there can be no negative cash balance, so that cash to that extent is otherwise available to the assessee, and not because there is no cash depletion to that extent, which rather would be a contradiction in terms. The same ought not to be confused with the profit from trading operations. As such, rather than a reduction in profit for the following year as assessed, the same stands to be increased by the amount of loss incurred in the current year (Rs. 16.91 lacs). No telescoping benefit qua the addition sustained, which is thus on account of unexplained cash, and not on account of profit - which only would translate into asset/s, would stand to arise. We decide accordingly.
13 ITA No. 408/Asr/2018 (AY 2013-14)Ravinder Aggarwal v. Dy. CIT 5.8 We may, before parting with this order, also make reference to the abundant material placed on the file by the assessee, i.e., in the form of paper-book and case law compilation. Firstly, it is only the documents referred to during hearing (duly noted in the log-book) that shall form a part of the record in terms of r. 18(6) of the Rules. The matter, as a perusal of the order would reveal, is principally factual, which stands decided by us by issuing definite findings of fact on the basis the material on record. Qua case law, the assessee's case, agreed to in principle - on which there can in fact be no quarrel, is that no tax can be levied except under the authority of law (Art. 265 of the Constitution of India). Even if therefore income stands inadvertently returned by the assessee, it does not authorize the charge of tax (R. Natrajan v. Asst. CIT [2012] 79 DTR 249 (Ch.) (TM)). The principle is well-settled, for which one only needs to refer to sections 3 to 5 of the Act. As explained in CIT v. Shelly Products [2003] 261 ITR 367 (SC), explaining the scope of Article 265, the assessee therefore shall not be entitled to a refund of the tax paid on admitted income even if the assessment fails for some reason, as, for example, becomes barred by time; the tax becoming chargeable on the earning of the income and is not dependent on its assessment following the machinery provisions of the Act. The question therefore that would arise and need to be addressed in each case is of the application of this principle in the facts and circumstances of the case. Further, in assessing income both 'income theory' and 'investment and expenditure theory' cannot be applied simultaneously (Asst. CIT v. Badri Ram Choudhary [2008] 13 DTR 177 (Jodh.)). As afore-explained, terming the two theories, thus referred, as 'source-based' and 'asset-based' approaches to income determination, the same, even if attempted together, it is only the higher of the two that would survive or could be applied. In fact, not doing so would lead to a mathematical absurdity. Regard has also been made to the other case law not referred to during hearing, to find nothing herein as inconsistent therewith. The 14 ITA No. 408/Asr/2018 (AY 2013-14) Ravinder Aggarwal v. Dy. CIT allowance of the benefit of telescoping, a well accepted principle, is again to be on the basis of facts, as explained in Veerasinghaiah & Co. (supra). Where, for example, an addition has been made on the basis of investment, the Tribunals' refusal to allow the benefit of telescoping was upheld by the Hon'ble Court in P.C. Moondra v. CIT [2004] 191 CTR 213 (Raj), a decision relied upon by the assessee.
6. In the result, the assessee appeal is partly allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on March , 2019
Separate order Sd/- 08/4/2019
(N. K. Choudhry) (Sanjay Arora)
Judicial Member Accountant Member
1. I have gone through the order passed by Hon'ble A.M., wherein Ld. Brother partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. I am in agreement with the conclusion of appeal, however as the Hon'ble A.M. also decided the issue qua adjustment if any, which was neither raised or pressed by the Assessee nor in issue or grounds of appeal of the instant case, hence I do not endorse the same. (Kindly refer para 5.5 page 9 to 10 of the order passed by Hon'ble A.M.) However, in my view, non-concurrence to the decision on issue qua adjustment if any, does not impact the conclusion/result, because in principle, I am in agreement with the conclusion/result of the appeal.
2. In the result, the assessee's appeal is partly allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 15th day of May 2019.
Sd/-
(N. K. Choudhry) Judicial Member 15 ITA No. 408/Asr/2018 (AY 2013-14) Ravinder Aggarwal v. Dy. CIT Date:
/GP/Sr. Ps.
Copy of the order forwarded to:
(1) The Appellant: Ravinder Aggarwal, 116, Jullakha Mohalla, Jain Bazar, Jammu (2) The Respondent: Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Jammu (3) The CIT(Appeals)-5, Ludhiana (4) The CIT concerned True Copy (5) The Sr. DR, I.T.A.T. By Order