ACIT,, Patiala v. M/s Patiala Flour Mills Co. Ltd.,, Patiala

ITA 105/CHANDI/2010 | 2006-2007
Pronouncement Date: 30-03-2011 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 10521514 RSA 2010
Assessee PAN AAACT6370P
Bench Chandigarh
Appeal Number ITA 105/CHANDI/2010
Duration Of Justice 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 5 day(s)
Appellant ACIT,, Patiala
Respondent M/s Patiala Flour Mills Co. Ltd.,, Patiala
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 30-03-2011
Appeal Filed By Department
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted A
Tribunal Order Date 31-03-2011
Date Of Final Hearing 22-03-2011
Next Hearing Date 22-03-2011
Assessment Year 2006-2007
Appeal Filed On 25-01-2010
Judgment Text
1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL: A BENCH: CH ANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI D K SRIVASTAVA AM AND MS. SUSHMA CHOWL A JM ITA NO. 534/CHANDI/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 M/S PATIALA FLOUR MILLS CO. LTD V. A.C.I.T. CIRC LE PATIALA MODI BHAWAN TOORI BAZAR PATIALA PAN: AAACT 6370P I.T.A. NO. 105/CHANDI/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 A.C.I.T. CIRCLE PATIALA V. M/S PATIALA FLO UR MILLS CO. LTD PAN: AAACT 6370P ASSESSEE BY: SHRI ASHOK MALIK FCA DEPARTMENT BY: SHRI NK SAINI DR ORDER D K SRIVASTAVA: THESE ARE CROSS APPEALS FILED BY TH E DEPARTMENT AND THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) ON 24.11.2009. MAJOR ISSUES RAISED IN THEM ARE INTER-LINKED. WE THEREFORE FIND IT CONVE NIENT TO DISPOSE OFF BOTH THE APPEALS BY A CONSOLIDATED ORDER. 2. THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUF ACTURING OF WHEAT PRODUCT LIKE WHEAT FLOUR SUJI MAIDA ETC. THE ASSESSEE FILED I TS RETURN OF INCOME ON 30.11.2006 RETURNING NIL INCOME. THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS TAKEN UP FOR SCRUTINY. DURING THE COURSE OF SCRUTINY THE AO NOTICED THAT THE YIELD S HOWN BY THE ASSESSEE WAS LOWER THAN THE AVERAGE YIELD OF LAST THREE YEARS. HE THEREFOR E ADDED A SUM OF RS. 19 79 944/-. HE ALSO DISALLOWED A SUM OF RS. 2 13 407/- OUT OF TRAV ELING EXPENSES VEHICLE EXPENSES REPAIR FOR MACHINERY TELEPHONE AND MOBILES AND OTHER EXPE NSES AGGREGATING O RS. 10 67 035/-. 3. AGGRIEVED BY THE AFORESAID ADDITIONS/DISALLOWANC ES MADE BY THE AO THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). THE LD. CIT(A) PARTLY ALLOWED THE APPEAL. THE DEPARTMENT IS IN APPEAL AGAINST THAT PORTION OF THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) WHICH HAS BEEN DECIDED AGAINST IT AND THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL AG AINST THAT PORTION OF THE LD. CIT(A) WHICH HAS BEEN DECIDED AGAINST IT. 4. THE DEPARTMENT HAS TAKEN ONLY ONE EFFECTIVE GROU ND WHICH READS AS UNDER: IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD . CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING 75% OF THE TOTAL ADDITION OF RS. 19 79 946/- MADE BY TH E AO ON ACCOUNT OF TRADING ADDITION IN AN ARBITRARY MANNER WITHOUT ANY BASIS IGNORING THAT THE ADDITION HAD BEEN WORKED OUT BY THE AO ON THE BASIS OF THE BOOK RESULTS OF THE ASSESSEE ITSELF. 5. GROUND NO. 1 TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE READS AS UNDE R:- 1 THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND IN LAW IN SUSTAINING 25% TRADING ADDITION OF RS. 4 94 986.50 WITHOUT ANY BASIS. 2 6. BOTH THE AFORESAID GROUNDS ARE INTER-LINKED AND THEREFORE THEY ARE BEING DISPOSED OFF TOGETHER. FACTS GIVING RISE TO THE AFORESAID GR OUNDS OF APPEAL ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN YIELD AT 101.42% IN THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL AS AGAINST 101.41% IN AY 2005-06 AND 102.18% IN AY 2004-05. THE AO EXAMINED THE BOOK S OF ACCOUNT AND NOTICED THAT MANY OF THE SALES VOUCHERS EVIDENCING SALES DID NOT CONTAIN COMPLETE ADDRESSES OF THE PURCHASERS AND HENCE SALES WERE NOT VERIFIABLE. HE ALSO PERUSED THE MONTH-WISE MILLING CHART AND FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN ITS YIE LD AT ALMOST UNIFORM RATE AND NOT AS PER FACTORS AFFECTING ITS YIELD I. E QUALITY OF WHEAT AND RAW MATERIALS ETC. HE ALSO NOTICED THAT THE CASH SALES AS PERCENTAGE TO TOTAL SALES WE RE DECREASING YEAR AFTER YEAR. HE THEREFORE INFERRED THAT THE ASSESSEE MUST BE SUPPR ESSING CASH SALES. HE ALSO NOTICED CERTAIN DEFICIENCIES IN BARDANA. IN VIEW OF THE AFO RESAID DEFICIENCIES AND ALSO THOSE BROUGHT OUT IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THE ASSESSING OFFICER REJECTED THE YIELD SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL. INSTEAD HE A DOPTED THE AVERAGE YIELD OF LAST THREE YEARS (106.7%) AS AGAINST 101.4% SHOWN BY THE ASSES SEE IN THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL. MARGINAL INCREASE BY 0.52% IN YIELD AS ADOPTED BY T HE AO HAS RESULTED IN TOTAL ADDITION OF RS. 19 79 946/- ON ACCOUNT OF LOW YIELD. 7. AGGRIEVED BY THE AFORESAID ORDER THE ASSESSEE A PPEALED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DEALT WITH THE ISSUE IN PARA 2.11 & 2.12 OF HIS APPELLATE ORDER AS UNDER:- 12.1 I HAVE GIVEN MY THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION TO THE CONTROVERSY. IT IS AN ADMITTED FACT WHICH WAS NO CONTRAVENED BY THE AO ALSO THAT T HE CURRENT YEAR YIELD IS SAME AS OF THE LAST YEAR AND THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO SHOWN BE TTER RESULTS I.E. GP RTE AS COMPARED TO LAST YEAR. THE AO HAS ALSO NOT BROUGHT ON RECORD ANY MATERIAL TO SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT RECORDED ANY PURCHASE OR SALE IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. IT WAS ALSO FOUND THAT BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WERE REGULARLY MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE AND HAD BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT IN PREVIOUS YEA RS. ON THE BASIS OF THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AND THE FACTS THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT A RE AUDITED AND THERE WAS NOT ANY ADVERSE COMMENT BY THE AUDITORS. I HAVE CAREFULLY G ONE THROUGH THE REPORT OF THE AO AND VARIOUS DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED BY THE APPELLANT. I N VIEW OF THE ABOVE LAW AS LAID DOWN BY THE HON'BLE TERRITORIAL HIGH COURT AND OTH ER HIGH COURTS. AO IS NOT JUSTIFIED MAKING ADDITION ONLY ON THE BASIS OF COMPARING THE CURRENT YEAR YIELD WITH THE AVERAGE OF LAST THREE YEARS. WHEN THE RESULTS OF TH E LAST YEAR HAS BEEN ACCEPTED WHERE THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S 143(3) THERE FORE THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION WHATSOEVER NOT ACCEPTING THE BETTER RESULTS SHOWN I N THE YEAR UNDER ASSESSMENT AS COMPARED TO LAST YEAR OR MORE SO. WHEN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT MAINTAINED IN THE REGULAR COURSE OF BUSINESS WHICH ARE DULY AUDITED W ERE BEING ACCEPTED AS SUCH YEAR AFTER YEAR. 12.2 ON THE OTHER HAND I HAVE ALSO PERUSED THE REP ORT OF THE AO WHO HAS SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED AT PAGE 2 OF HIS REPORT THAT IN THE CASH SALES ASSESSEE HAS NOT MENTIONED COMPLETE ADDRESSES OF THE PURCHASERS IN T HE ABSENCE OF WHICH IT IS VERY DIFFICULT TO VERIFY THE ACTUAL SALES. IN RESPECT OF BARDANA ACCOUNT THE AO HAS STATED 3 THAT ASSESSEES CONTENTION IS NOT ACCEPTABLE AS NO STOCK REGISTER IN RESPECT OF BARDANA HAS BEEN MAINTAINED IN ABSENCE OF WHICH THE ACTUAL POSITION OF WASTAGE OF BAGS AND BARDANA CAN NOT BE VERIFIED. THEREFORE KE EPING IN VIEW OF ABOVE FACT DISCUSSION JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS CITED BY COUNSE L AND REPORT OF THE AO IN MY CONSIDERED OPINION IT WILL BE IN THE INTEREST OF R EVENUE TO SUSTAIN THE DISALLOWANCE UPTO 25% MADE BY THE AO. HENCE THE AO IS DIRECTED TO RECOMPUTE AND ALLOW RELIEF ACCORDINGLY. 8. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT( A) CONFIRMING ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF 25% OF THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THE ASSESSEE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL. IN SUPPORT OF APPEAL THE LD. AUTHORI ZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO THE OBSERVATIONS MADE BY T HE LD. CIT(A) IN PARA 2.11 OF HIS ORDER AND SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN SUSTAINING A PART OF THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER COMING TO THE C ONCLUSION THAT THERE WAS NO JUSTIFICATION ON THE PART OF THE AO IN NOT ACCEPTIN G THE BETTER RESULTS SHOWN IN THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL AS THAN THE ONE SHOWN IN THE IMMEDIATE LY PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR. 9. IN SUPPORT OF APPEAL FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT TH E LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DELETING 1/5 TH OF ADDITION MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF LOW YIELD IN VIEW OF THE FINDING RECORDED IN THE ASSESS MENT ORDER. 10. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES. IT IS NOT IN DI SPUTE THAT THE YIELD SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL IS 101.42% AS AGA INST 101.41% IN THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR I.E. AY 2005-06. ASSESS MENT FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 WAS COMPLETED AFTER SCRUTINY U/S 143(3). IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE YIELD SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL IS LOWER THAN THE LAST YEAR. 11. THE AO HAS HOWEVER APPLIED AVERAGE RATE OF YIEL D OF LAST THREE YEARS WHICH IS MARGINALLY DIFFERENT FROM THE ONE SHOWN BY THE ASSE SSEE IN THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL. THE YIELD CANNOT REMAIN STATIC IN ALL THE YEARS. THE AO HAS BROUGHT NO MATERIAL ON RECORD TO ESTABLISH THAT THE YIELD SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE IN T HE YEAR UNDER APPEAL WAS LOWER THAN THE YIELD ACHIEVED BY OTHERS IN SIMILAR LINE OF BUS INESS. HE HAS PLACED NO EVIDENCE ON RECORD TO ESTABLISH THAT THE YIELD IN THIS LINE OF BUSINESS IS HIGHER THAN WHAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ALONG BEEN SHOWING SUBJECT TO MARGINAL VARIATIO NS. THE AO HAS ALSO NOT WORKED OUT THE YIELD OF EACH AND INDIVIDUAL ITEM OF WHEAT PROD UCT LIKE ATTA MAIDA SUJI ETC. 12. APROPOS THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) SUST AINING THE ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF 25% IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) FIRST CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE YIELD SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE WAS BETTER IN THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL AND THAT THE AO WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN NOT ACCEPTING THE BETTER RESULTS SHOWN BY THE ASSES SEE. AFTER HAVING COME TO THE AFORESAID CONCLUSION THE LD. CIT(A) HOWEVER SUSTAI NED THE ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF 25% OF ADDITION MADE BY THE AO ON THE GROUND THAT THE V OUCHERS EVIDENCING CASH SALES DID NOT GIVEN ADDRESSES OF THE PURCHASERS AND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT MAINTAINED STOCK REGISTER OF BARDANA. BOTH THE AFORESAID FACTS ARE I RRELEVANT FOR JUDGING THE REASONABLENESS OF YIELD. 4 13. IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING THE AO IS DIRECTED TO ACCEPT THE YIELD SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL. IT IS HOWEVER CL ARIFIED THAT THIS ORDER WILL NOT OPERATE AS PRECEDENT FOR THE REASON THAT THE YIELD SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL IS BEING ACCEPTED FOR WANT OF ANY RELEVANT M ATERIAL IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER JUSTIFYING HIGHER YIELD THAN THE ONE SHOWN BY THE A SSESSEE. GROUND NO. 1 TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED WHILE THE APPEAL FIELD BY THE D EPARTMENT IS DISMISSED. 14. GROUND NO. 2 TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE READS AS U NDER:- 2 THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED ON THE FACTS O F THE CASE AND IN LAW IN UPHOLDING DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 1 45 100/- OUT OF TELEPHONE EXP ENSES VEHICLE EXPENSES AND TRAVELING EXPENSES ON THE GROUNDS THAT FOR THE PERS ONAL USAGE EXCESSIVE AND PARTLY UNVOUCHED WITHOUT ANY BASIS. 15. THE AO HAS MADE THE IMPUGNED ADDITION ON THE GR OUND THAT THEY WERE EXCESSIVE AND ALSO ON THE GROUND THAT THEY WERE PARTLY VOUCHE D. ON APPEAL THE LD. CIT(A) HAS CONFIRMED 1/5 TH OF THE IMPUGNED EXPENSES KEEPING IN VIEW THE NATUR E OF THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE PERSONAL USER OF THE FACILITIE S COVERED BY THE IMPUGNED EXPENSES. 16. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A ) THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS A PUBIC LIMITED CO AND THEREFORE NO ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF PERSONAL USER WAS POSSIBLE. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PAID FRINGE BENEFIT TAX ON THE FACILITIES PROVI DED TO THE DIRECTORS AND THE EMPLOYEES AND THEREFORE IMPUGNED ADDITION WAS LIABLE TO BE D ELETED. 17. IN RELY THE DR SUPPORTED THE ORDER PASSED BY T HE LD. CIT(A). 18. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES. THE AO HAS NOT SUBSTANTIATED HIS FINDING AS TO HOW THE IMPUGNED EXPENSES WERE EXCESSIVE OR PARTLY VOUC HED. HE HAS BROUGHT NO MATERIAL ON RECORD TO ESTABLISH EITHER OF THE AFORESAID FINDING S. ON APPEAL THE LD. CIT(A) HAS CONFIRMED THE IMPUGNED DISALLOWANCE ON A TOTALLY DI FFERENT GROUND I.E. PERSONAL USER OF THE FACILITIES. HE HAS HOWEVER NOT CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE HIM THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ALREADY PAID FRING E BENEFIT TAX ON THE AFORESAID ITEMS. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER THE ORDERS PASSED BY TH E AO AND THE LD. CIT(A) IN THIS BEHALF ARE LIABLE TO BE VACATED AND ARE ACCORDINGLY VACATE D AND GROUND NO. 2 ALLOWED. 19. IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING THE APPEAL FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT IS DISMISSED WHILE THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. PRONOUNCED ON MARCH 2011 (SUSHMA CHOWLA) (D K SRIVASTAV A) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER CHANDIGARH: THE MARCH 2011 SURESH 5 COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT A.C.I.T CIRCLE PATIALA 2. THE RESPONDENT PATIALA FLOUR MILLS CO. LTD PAT IALA 3. THE CIT(A) PATIALA 4. THE LD. CIT PATIALA 5. THE D.R INCOME-TAX DEPARTMENT CHANDIGARH TRUE COPY BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT CHANDIGAR H 6 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL: BENC H: CHANDIGARH BEFORE HONBLE SHRI D K SRIVASTAVA AM AND HONBLE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA JM S.A. NO. 2/CHANDI/2011 ARISING OUT OF ITA NO. /1445/CHANDI/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2 004-05 M/S ABHISHEK INDUSTRIES LTD. V. A.C.I.T. C-I LUD HIANA E-212 KITCHLU NAGAR LUDHIANA PAN: AABCA 4139 J (APPELLANT-ASSESSEE) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SHRI ASHWANI KUMAR RESPONDENT BY: SHRI N.K. SAINI ORDER D K SRIVASTAVA: THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE PRESENT APPLICATION SEEKING STAY OF THE RECOVERY OF THE AMOUNT REMANDED BY THE AO AS A RESULT OF PENALTY AMOUNTING TO RS. 7 63 66 380/- LEVIED BY THE AO U/S 271(1)(C) WH ICH HAS SINCE BEEN REDUCED TO RS. 4 99 97 287/- BY THE LD. CIT(A). 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING IT WAS POINTED OUT BY TH E ASSESSEE THAT A SUM OF RS. 2 23 92 442/- HAS ALREADY BEEN PAID BY THE ASSESSEE OUT OF EFFECTIVE PAYMENT OF RS. 4 99 97 287/-. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO PLEASED THAT THE ASSESSEE PRIMA FACIE CASE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE THEREFORE THE REMANDED SUM AMOUNTING TO RS. 2 76 454/- SHOULD BE STAYED TO THE DISPOSAL OF THE APPEAL. 3. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND CAREFULLY CON SIDERED THEIR SUBMISSIONS. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALREADY FILED APPEAL NOT ONLY AGAI NST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMING THE LEVY OF PENALTY TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 4 99 97 287/- OUT OF A TOTAL SUM OF RS. 4 99 97 287/- THAT WAS REQUIRED TO BE PA ID BY THE ASSESSEE. THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS TRIE D TO ESTABLISH THE PRIMA FACIE CASE THAT THE PENALTY LEVIED BY THE AO WAS LIABLE TO BE DELETED IN FAVOUR OF THE FACT THAT PENALTY HAD BEEN LEVIED ON THE BASIS OF MERE DISALL OWANCE OF CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. 4. ON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF ALL THE MATERIAL PLA CED ON RECORD WE DO NOT CONSIDER TO EXPRESS ANY OPINION IN CORRECTNESS OF T HE ARGUMENTS AS TO WHETHER THE PENALTY IS EXIGIBLE OR NOT? HOWEVER WE CONSIDER IT APPROPRIATE TO STAY THE RECOVERY OF BALANCE PAYMENT AMOUNTING TO RS. 2 76 454/- ON T HE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: (A) THE PAYMENT AMOUNTING TO RS. 2 76 454/- IS STAY ED TILL THE DISPOSAL OF APPEAL BEARING I.T.A NO. 141/CHANDI/2010 OR TILL THE EXPIR Y OF STATUTORY PERIOD AS FIXED BY THE FIRST PROVISO TO SUB-SECTION (2)(A) OF SECTION 54 I.E. 180 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THIS ORDER WHICH EVER IS EARLIER. (B) BOTH THE PARTIES SHALL FILE THE PAPER BOOK IF N ECESSARY AT LEAST THREE WEEKS BEFORE THE DATE FIXED FOR HEARING OF THE QUANTUM AP PEALS AND PENALTY APPEALS. 7 (C) THE ASSESSEE SHALL NOT SEEK ANY ADJOURNMENT. I N CASE THE ASSESSEE SEEKS ADJOURNMENT THE STAY ORDER SHALL HAS TO BE AUTOMATI CALLY AFFECTED WITHOUT ANY FURTHER NOTICE. 5. THE REGISTRY SHALL FIXED ALL THE APPEALS RELEVAN T TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 FOR HEARING ON 2.5.2011. 6. THE STAY APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DI SPOSED OFF IN TERMS OF AFORESAID DIRECTIONS. (SUSHMA CHOWLA) (D K SRIVASTAVA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEM BER CHANDIGARH: THE MARCH 2011 SURESH COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT M/S ABHISHEK INDUSTRIES LTD LUDH IANA 2. THE RESPONDENT A.C.I.T. C-1 LUDHIANA 3. THE CIT(A) LUDHIANA 4. THE LD. CIT LUDHIANA 5. THE D.R INCOME-TAX DEPARTMENT CHANDIGARH TRUE COPY BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT CHANDIGARH