Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Amritsar
The Income Tax Officer, Bathinda vs Smt. Kanta Rani Garg, Bathinda on 27 March, 2019
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR
BEFORE SH. N.S.SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND
SH. N.K.CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER
ITA No.312(Asr)/2013
Assessment Year:2009-10
Income Tax Officer, Smt. Kanta Rani Garg,
Ward-II(I), Bathinda. Vs. C/o M/s Garg Sanitary House,
# 4505, Bank Bazar,
Bathinda
[PAN:AHROG 4574H]
(Appellant) (Respondent)
Cross Objection No.50(Asr)/2013
(Arising out of ITA No.312(Asr)/2013)
Assessment Year:2009-10
Smt. Kanta Rani Garg, Income Tax Officer,
C/o M/s Garg Sanitary House Vs. Ward-II(I), Bathinda.
# 4505, Bank Bazar,
Bathinda
[PAN:AHROG 4574H]
(Cross Objector) (Respondent)
Appellant by: Smt. Ratinder Kaur (Ld. DR)
Respondent by: Sh. P.N. Arora (Ld. Adv.)
Date of hearing: 19.02.2019
Date of pronouncement: 27.03.2019
ORDER
PER N.K.CHOUDHRY, JM:
The Revenue Department has preferred the appeal i.e. ITA No.312(Asr)/2013 against the order dated 27.02.2013 impugned herein passed by the Ld. CIT(A), Batinda u/s 250(6) of the I.T. Act, 1961 2 ITA No.312/Asr/2013 (A.Y.2009-10) C.O. No.50 (Asr)/2013 ITO vs. Smt. Kanta Rani Garg, Bhatinda (hereinafter called as 'the Act') whereby the Ld. CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee . The Assesse also preferred the afore-captioned Cross Objection against the impugned order.
2. The Revenue Department has raised the following grounds of appeal.
"1. On the facts & in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.92,74,522/- made by the AO on account of interest on compensation/enhanced compensation directing the same to be assessed on accrual basis; as against assessed by the AO on receipt basis.
2. On the facts & in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in directing to allow deduction @ 40% of the interest income in each year in respect of the cost of litigation for pursuing the case by the assessee in various courts ignoring the fact that the expenditure incurred, if any, on litigation have mainly been incurred for getting compensation/enhanced compensation, which are exempt from tax, hence deduction on account of relevant expenses to this income is not allowable u/s 14A of the Act."
3. The Assessee has raised the following grounds in Cross Objection No. 50(Asr)/2013.
"1. On the facts and circumstances of the case the learned AO has wrongly taken the interest on compensation as per ground of appeal no. 1 at Rs.92,74,522/- without any basis against Rs.65,08,864/- taken by the learned CIT(A) as per detailed discussion in his appellate order on the basis of various certificates issued by the competent authorities.
2. On the facts and circumstances of the case the learned CIT(A) has erred in allowing expenses @ 40% of the interest component out of total expenditure incurred more than Rs.36,59,749/-. As such, the balance expenditure be allowed.
3. On the facts and circumstances of the case the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming addition on account of deposit of Rs.5 lacs in the bank account whereas the deposit is out of the heavy withdrawals made from the bank as already explained."3 ITA No.312/Asr/2013 (A.Y.2009-10)
C.O. No.50 (Asr)/2013 ITO vs. Smt. Kanta Rani Garg, Bhatinda
4. As per Assessment order, the brief facts of the case are that in the instant case the assessment proceedings u/s 147 have been initiated on the intimation dated 11.06.2010 of the DDIT (Inv.), Ludhiana to the effect that the assessee has received the compensation finally in the F.Y.2008-09 (A.Y.2009-10) at Rs.72,30,731/- which included interest of Rs.64,45,000/-. Accordingly, it was held that case of the assessee has achieved finality in F.Y.2008-09 relevant to the A.Y.2009-10. Accordingly the payment of interest of Rs.60,14,072/- received by the assessee along with Sh. Prem Kumar (joint owner) in the F.Y. 2004-05 plus Rs. 64,45,000/- received in the year under consideration, considered to be finalized in the F.Y. 2004-05 in which the assessee has 50% share. The statutory notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee. In the meantime the assessee filed her return of income on 09.12.2010 declaring income at Rs.21,220/- and in response to the notice u/s 148, the assessee vide reply stated that return has already been filed on 09.12.2010 with the appended note.
"During the received enhanced compensation of Rs.72,20,731/- which includes interest of Rs.64,45,000/- on which TDS of Rs.5,11,484/- has been deducted. The interest component has not been included in the return income as the same is taxable on the finality of the case of enhanced compensation as per Appellate Order of CIT(A) and ITAT in my case. Following the judgment of Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Karanvir Singh [2009] 217 CTR 585, Rama Bai Vs. 181 ITR 400 (SC) and CIT vs. Hardwari Lal, HUF & Ors. reported in 219 CTR
583. The balance amount is not taxable being compensation in lieu of agricultural land acquired out of Municipal limit as explained in the Asst. Year:2005-06."
Thereafter, various statutory notices u/s 143(2) & 142(1) along with questionnaire were also issued to the assessee which were replied by the assessee by disclosing amount of compensation received by her to the tune of Rs.31,34,753/- and interest thereon at Rs.85,92,289/-. In the 4 ITA No.312/Asr/2013 (A.Y.2009-10) C.O. No.50 (Asr)/2013 ITO vs. Smt. Kanta Rani Garg, Bhatinda interest amount of Rs.85,92,289/-, the assessee has claimed that she has claimed 3/4th share in this amount which works out to Rs.78,00,731/- however as per assessment order, no evidence has been filed by the assessee in support of claim of interest received by her stated to be received from her brother Sh. Prem Kumar through cheque of Rs.5,80,000/-.
The assessee has also failed to file any evidence to prove that she has actually received total interest of Rs.78,00,731/- and not interest of Rs.94,52,036/- as per reasons recorded by the erstwhile Assessing Officer on 8.12.2010. The assessee was also asked to furnish details of bank account against which the assessee filed the copy of bank account for one year only and from where it was seen that there was credit entry of Rs.5 lacs on account of cash deposit. On query, the assessee failed to explain the source of the same. Accordingly, the aforesaid amount of Rs.5 lacs was also added in the income declared/assessed on account of unexplained cash deposit in bank account of the assessee. Further the Assessing Officer also added Rs.30,07,036/- on account of interest by virtue of case no. 84/90, received by the Asseeee along with co-owner Sh. Prem Kumar and the amount of Rs.64,45,000/- on account of interest received by the assessee upto the finality of the case as per information received from DDIT's letter dated 11.06.2010 received by the Assessing Officer on 10.12.2010.
5. The assessee being aggrieved by Assessment order, preferred the first appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who while considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and judgments relied upon by the parties, partly allowed the appeal of the assessee by holding as under:
5 ITA No.312/Asr/2013 (A.Y.2009-10)C.O. No.50 (Asr)/2013 ITO vs. Smt. Kanta Rani Garg, Bhatinda "I have carefully considered the facts and circumstances of the case, written submissions of the AR of the assessee appellant before the Assessing Officer as well as before me, the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer and perusal of assessment record. The appeal is decided as under:-
Ground of appeal No.1 is of general nature, hence dismissed. Ground of appeal No.2 relates to the amount of interest received by the assessee appellant on enhanced compensation. According to the assessee appellant she received a sum of Rs.64,45,000/- and whereas according to the AO the amount received is Rs.9452036/- worked out as under: Interest received by the assessee in the case No.84/90 Received by her along with a co-owner Sh. Prem Kumar 6014072
(a) 50% failing to assessee share 3007036
(b) Interest received by the assessee upto finality of the case.
As per information received from DDIT's letter dated 11-06-2010 received in this office on 10-12-2010 6445000
-----------
9452036
------------
12% Add 9% Int. Interest 15% Total 50% of Decree Compensation on col On col 8 for one On col 8 w.e.f. 21- Decree 8 14.07.87 to year 21- 01-88 01- 89 to 29-11-04 20.01.1988 191 to 20- 01-89 5768 days days 10 11 12 13 14 149671.02 214515.41 5649885.27 9112627.76 4556313.80 Sr. R.A.No. Appeal Name Area In Compensation Solaciam No No. Sq.Yds. Awarded by Less paid Enhanced @ 30% Court @ by Sr. LAO on Col Rs. 65/- Per No. 6 Sq.Yds 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 84/90 1035/04 Smt 39703.1 2580702.80 197198.26 2383704.7 715051 Kanta 2 .36 other During the appellate proceedings the A/R of the assessee appellant filed a chart as prepared upto 25-11-2004 filed during the assessment proceedings for the assessment year 2005-06 re-produced here as under:-
As per this chart the total interest upto 25-11-2004 is worked as per column 10,11 & 12 amounting to Rs.6014071.70 (149671.02+214515.41+5649885.27). Similarly as per this chart the compensation works out to Rs.3098556/- as per column 6,7,8 & 9. Out of this 50% amount has been paid during the assessment 6 ITA No.312/Asr/2013 (A.Y.2009-10) C.O. No.50 (Asr)/2013 ITO vs. Smt. Kanta Rani Garg, Bhatinda year 2005-06 as explained at the time of assessment for the assessment year 2005-06. In the assessment year 2005-06 by taking 50% of this amount of interest i.e. Rs. 3007036/-. The balance amount retained by the department was released in the assessment year 2009-10 as per chart prepared by calculating the interest till 29-02-2008 instead of upto 25-11-2004. Copy of chart is enclosed herewith.
As per chart the interest has been calculated as per column 11,13, 14 and 18 amounting to Rs.8678486/- (86197+286627+7580586+725076/-). As per the chart it has clearly been mentioned in column 16 that a sum of Rs.4556313/- has been paid by the UPSIDC on 25-11-2004. Therefore, the AO is not correct by taking the figures of interest paid earlier again in calculating the gross interest at the time of making assessment. The earlier figures of interest has been included in the interest figures of Rs.8678486/-. As per registered deed the assessee appellant is having 3/4th share in the land, therefore, the interest which has to be considered for assessment is Rs. 6508864/- instead of Rs.6445000/- as claimed by the assessee appellant or Rs.9452036/- as calculated by the AO. Therefore, the AO is directed to take the interest at Rs.6508864/- instead of Rs.9452036/-.
Accordingly this ground of appeal is allowed partly.
Ground No. 3 is on account of assess-ability of interest received on enhanced compensation from 23-09-1987 till received by the assessee appellant. The assessee appellant has claimed before the Assessing Officer that this interest is part of compensation, therefore, is capital receipt as held by the Assessing Officer in the case of other co-owner Shri Prem Kumar in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Ghanshyam HUF 315 ITR 1 (SC). I had gone through the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court and found that Hon'ble Court has bifurcated the interest into two parts one is interest payable under section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act i.e. payable from the date of notification to the date of possession and according to the Hon'ble Court this amount is part of the compensation. The other interest payable under section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act 1984 is on account of delayed payment of compensation and this interest is taxable under the Act. The assessee appellant has not given any such bifurcation, therefore, there is no force in the argument of the A/R of the assessee appellant that interest received is not taxable. Hence, this ground of appeal of the assessee appellant is rejected.
Ground of appeal No. 4 is on account of chargeability of the full amount of interest in the assessment year 2009-10. According to the A/R of the assessee appellant that as per judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rama Bai Vs. CIT 181 ITR 400 and the Hon'ble ITAT, Amritsar Bench in the assessee appellant owns case interest is not chargeable in the year of receipt but chargeable from year to year basis. I had gone through the judgment of Hon,ble Supreme Court and the finding of the Hon'ble ITAT, Amritsar Bench in the assessee own case and also examined the amendment made by the Hon'ble Parliament w.e.f. 01-04-2010. After examination that as per settled law till 31-03- 2009 there is no dispute that the interest on enhanced compensation is chargeable on accrual basis. As such, the AO is not justified in making the assessment of the full amount of interest in the assessment year 2009-10. Therefore, I direct the AO to bifurcate the same in to 22 years i.e. from the assessment year 1988-89 to 2009-10 i.e. Rs.295857/- in each year. Accordingly 7 ITA No.312/Asr/2013 (A.Y.2009-10) C.O. No.50 (Asr)/2013 ITO vs. Smt. Kanta Rani Garg, Bhatinda addition confirmed in this year on account of chargeability of interest amounting to Rs.295857/- against Rs.9452036/-. The balance addition made is deleted to be made in the respective years as per law.
Ground of appeal No. 5 is on account of allow-ability of expenses incurred for receiving the compensation before the lower authorities and various courts out of the interest received by the assessee appellant. During the assessment proceedings as well as before me, the assessee appellant has claimed that he incurred expenditure of Rs. 2799333/- as per details already on file. Moreover, from the assessment year 2010-11 in such type of cases the Parliament has allowed adhoc expenditure of 50% by amending the law and the finding of the learned CIT(A) in the assessee appellant own case at the time of deciding the appeal for the assessment year 2005-06 the expenditure claimed be allowed. The findings of my predecessor during the appellate proceedings are reproduced here as under:-
"This ground is regarding the allowability of expenses incurred in respect of enhanced compensation. As I have already held above that the enhanced compensation is not taxable in the year 2005- 06, therefore, the expenses are also not allowable in this year. The same are allowable only in the year when this interest amount is taxable."
After considering the totality of the facts, amendment made in the Act from the assessment year 2010-11 and finding of the learned CIT(A) at the time of deciding appeal for the assessment year 2005-06, I feel that the claim of the assessee is genuine. Therefore, to be reasonable and to meet the end of justice, I direct the AO to allow 40% of the interest component as expenditure at the time of computing income for each year.
Ground of appeal No.6 is on account of deposit of Rs.5 lacs in bank account. During the appellate proceedings the A/R of the assessee appellant argued that as per bank account the assessee appellant has made heavy withdrawals, therefore, she is having sufficient funds to make the deposit in the bank but after careful examination of the material on record that assessee appellant has claimed all these withdrawals in connection with the expenditure, therefore, there is no force in the argument of the A/R of the assessee appellant, hence, addition made by the AO is in order. The same is confirmed."
6. The Revenue Department dissatisfied, preferred the instant appeal on the grounds that the Ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.92,74,522/- made by the AO on account of interest on compensation/enhanced compensation directing the same to be assessed on accrual basis, as against assessed by the AO on receipt basis and 8 ITA No.312/Asr/2013 (A.Y.2009-10) C.O. No.50 (Asr)/2013 ITO vs. Smt. Kanta Rani Garg, Bhatinda further the Ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in directing to allow deduction @ 40% of the interest income in each year in respect of the cost of litigation for pursuing the case by the assessee in various courts ignoring the fact that the expenditures incurred, if any, on litigation have mainly been incurred for getting compensation/enhanced compensation, which are exempt from tax, hence deduction on account of relevant expenses to this income is not allowable u/s 14A of the Act.
7. Let us to examine the ground No.1 raised by the Revenue. The Assessing Officer worked out the interest of Rs.94,52,036/- which includes the amount of Rs.30,07,036/- being 50% of the total interest of Rs.60,14,072/- received by the assessee in case no.84/90 along with her brother co-owner Sh. Prem Kumar and the amount of Rs.64,45,000/- interest received by the assessee up to finality of the case as per information received from DDIT's letter dated 11.06.2010 received in the office of the assessing officer on 10.12.2010. The assessee had filed a chart detailing the receipt of the amount of compensation and interest whereby it was claimed that the 50% of the amount of Rs.30,98,556/- has been received during the assessment year 2005-06 as explained at the time of assessment for the A.Y.2005-06. In the A.Y.2005-06 by taking 50% of this amount of interest i.e. 30,07,036/-, the balance amount retained by the Department was released to the assesse during A.Y.2009-10. As per column 10, 11 & 12 of the chart, the total interest upto 25-11-2004 is worked to Rs.6014071.70 (149671.02 + 214515.41 + 5649885.27). Similarly as per column 6, 7, 8 & 9 the chart, the compensation works out to Rs.3098556/-. Out of this 50% amount has been paid during the assessment year 2005-06 as explained at the time of assessment for the assessment year 2005-06. In the assessment year 9 ITA No.312/Asr/2013 (A.Y.2009-10) C.O. No.50 (Asr)/2013 ITO vs. Smt. Kanta Rani Garg, Bhatinda 2005-06 by taking 50% of this amount of interest i.e. Rs. 3007036/-. The balance amount retained by the department was released in the assessment year 2009-10 as per chart prepared by calculating the interest till 29-02-2008 instead of upto 25-11-2004. As per chart the interest has been calculated at Rs.86,78,486/- (86197 + 286627 + 7580586/- + 725076/-) and it is clearly mentioned in column No.16 of the chart that sum of Rs.45,56,313/- has been paid by the UPSIDC on 25.11.2004, therefore, it was held by the Ld. CIT(A) that the AO is not correct by taking the figures of interest paid earlier again in calculating the gross interest at the time of making assessment. The earlier figure of interest has been included in the interest figures of Rs.86,78,486/-. As per registered deed the assessee/ appellant is having 3/4th share in the land therefore the interest which has to be considered for assessment is Rs.65,08,864/- instead of Rs.64,45,000/- as claimed by the assessee/appellant and against the amount of Rs.94,52,036/- as calculated by the AO therefore on the aforesaid reasons the Ld. CIT(A) directed the AO to take the interest of Rs.65,08,864/- instead of Rs.94,52,036/-.
7.1 The Ld. CIT(A) while following the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rama Bai vs. CIT, 181 ITR 400 and the Hon'ble ITAT, Amritsar Bench in the assessee's own case held that as per settled law till 31st March, 2009 there is no dispute that the interest on enhanced compensation is chargeable on accrual basis. As such, the AO is not justified in making the assessment of the full amount of interest in the assessment year 2009-10. Therefore the Ld. CIT(A) directed the AO to bifurcate the same in 22 years i.e., from the A.Y.1988-89 to 2009-10 i.e., Rs.2,95,857/- in each year and accordingly addition of Rs.2,95,857/- for 10 ITA No.312/Asr/2013 (A.Y.2009-10) C.O. No.50 (Asr)/2013 ITO vs. Smt. Kanta Rani Garg, Bhatinda the relevant year and the balance addition was directed to be made in the respective years as per law.
7.2 Challenging the said action of the CIT(A) , the Revenue Department relied upon the latest judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad vs. Chetram (Huf) Civil Appeal No.53/2017 decided on dated 12.09.2017 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the Respondents are liable to pay tax on the enhanced amount of compensation and interest received by them during the year in question. We have considered the submission of the Revenue and are of the view that as per Apex Court latest dictum enhanced amount of compensation and interest can be subjected to tax during the year in question only, therefore for substantial justice we feel it appropriate to set aside the issue under consideration to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to decide afresh in view of the latest judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court refered above .
7.3 Second ground raised by the Revenue Department relates to the deduction of allowance @ 40% of the interest income in each year qua cost of litigation for pursuing the case by the assessee in various Courts. The Revenue has raised the contention that the said expenditures incurred, if any, on litigation have mainly been incurred for getting compensation/enhanced compensation, which is exempt from tax, hence, deduction on account of relevant expenses to this income is not allowable u/s 14A of the Act.
Before the Assessing Officer, the assesse had made a claim of deduction equal to 50% of the total amount of interest received by her relying upon the provisions of Sec.57(iv) of the Act, in lieu of fees paid to 11 ITA No.312/Asr/2013 (A.Y.2009-10) C.O. No.50 (Asr)/2013 ITO vs. Smt. Kanta Rani Garg, Bhatinda the Advocates and other connected persons for pursuing its various court cases. The Assessing Officer disallowed the said deduction while referring the provision of Sec.57(iv) with remarks "that the said provision was introduced by the Finance Act, 2009 and made applicable w.e.f., 1st April, 2010 therefore, shall not be applicable to the assessment year 2009-10 for which the assessment is framed. The Assessing Officer also observed that as per provision of sec.14 of the Act, any expenditure incurred for earning exempt income is not allowable from the taxable income. It was further observed by the Assessing Officer that no evidence has been given that the expenditure related to the claim of interest received by her on the compensation/enhanced compensation. The Ld. CIT(A) while considering the details of expenditure to the tune of Rs.27,99,333/- already on record in file and also considering the amendment made by the Parliament in the provision of Sec.57(iv) of the Act which is applicable from the assessment year 2010-11 as well as considering the finding of the erstwhile Ld. CIT(A) for the assessee's own case in Assessment Year:2005-06, hold that the claim of the assessee as genuine and allowed 40% of the interest component as expenditure at the time of the computing income for each year.
The Ld. DR specifically raised the objection that the decision on the instant issue of the Ld. CIT (A) is contrary to the law and based on no evidence and reasons. On the contrary, the Ld. AR submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has made a correct decision in view of the amendment made in the provision to Sec.57(iv) of the Act.
7.4 We have perused the relevant amendment made in the provisions of Sec.57 (iv) whereby sub-clause (iv) was introduced w.e.f. 1st April, 2010 by Finance (2) Act, 2009 which would be made applicable from 12 ITA No.312/Asr/2013 (A.Y.2009-10) C.O. No.50 (Asr)/2013 ITO vs. Smt. Kanta Rani Garg, Bhatinda assessment year 2010-11. As we have already remanded the issue qua quantification and treatment of the interest as per latest judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad vs. Chetram (HUF) (supra), hence for substantial justice, appropriate course would be to set aside the issue under consideration to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to decide afresh in view of the decision in CIT vs. Chet Ram (HUF) (supra) and also amended provision in section 57(iv) introduced by Finance Act (2), 2009 applicable w.e.f. 1st April, 2010 and also in view of Section 14A of the Act. Ordered accordingly.
8. Now coming to the Cross Objections filed by the assessee. The following grounds raised by the assessee by way of Cross Objections.
"1. On the facts and circumstances of the case the learned AO has wrongly taken the interest on compensation as per ground of appeal no. 1 at Rs.92,74,522/- without any basis against Rs.65,08,864/- taken by the learned CIT(A) as per detailed discussion in his appellate order on the basis of various certificates issued by the competent authorities.
2. On the facts and circumstances of the case the learned CIT(A) has erred in allowing expenses @ 40% of the interest component out of total expenditure incurred more than Rs.36,59,749/-. As such, the balance expenditure be allowed.
3. On the facts and circumstances of the case the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming addition on account of deposit of Rs.5 lacs in the bank account whereas the deposit is out of the heavy withdrawals made from the bank as already explained."
8.1 The first ground of C.O relates to the action of the Ld. AO which subsequently merged with the decision of the Ld. CIT(A) hence, does not require any adjudication.
8.2 Ground No.2, the assessee challenged the action of the Ld. CIT(A) by claiming that the Ld. CIT(A) has eared in allowing expenses @ 40% of 13 ITA No.312/Asr/2013 (A.Y.2009-10) C.O. No.50 (Asr)/2013 ITO vs. Smt. Kanta Rani Garg, Bhatinda the interest component out of the total expenditure incurred more than 36,59,749/-. As we have already set aside the issue under consideration as raised vide ground 2 in appeal by Revenue, to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) therefore this ground does not survive .
8.3 Ground No.3, the assessee challenged the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the addition of Rs.5 lacs on account of deposit in bank by submitting that the deposit was out of self withdrawal made from the bank as already explained to the Revenue Department. At the time of hearing of this appeal the assessee has failed to substantiate its claim, hence in our considered view the same is liable to be dismissed.
9. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue Department stands remanded to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for decision afresh and whereas the Cross Objection filed by the assessee stands dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 27.03.2019.
Sd/- Sd/-
(N.S.SAINI) (N.K.CHOUDHRY)
ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
Dated: 27.03.2019
/PK/ Ps.
Copy of the order forwarded to:
(1) Smt. Kanta Rani Garg, C/o M/s Garg Sanitary House # 4505, Bank Bazar, Bathinda.
(2) The Income Tax Officer, Ward-II(I), Bhatinda. (3) The CIT(A), Bhatinda (4) The CIT concerned (5) The SR DR, I.T.A.T., Amritsar True copy By order