Ita/360/2011 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax-I, Ludhiana v. M/S Arora Alloys Ltd., Near Phase-Vii, Focal Point, Ldh

ITA No. 360 of 2011 =|. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA No. 360 of 2011 (O&M)Date of Decision: 21.07.2014 Commissioner of Income Tax-l, Ludhiana ...Appellant. 4!*$/$ M/s Arora Alloys Ltd., Ludniana ... Respondent CORAM:-HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL.HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASPAL SINGH. PRESENT: Mr. Rajesh Katoch, Advocate for the appellant. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. 1.This order shall dispose of a bunch of seven appealsbearing ITA Nos. 360, 362 of 2011, 167, 246, 299, 300 and 301 of 2012as according to the learned counsel for the appellant, similar issuearises in these appeals. For brevity, the facts are being taken from ITANo. 360 of 2011. 2 This appeal has been filed by the revenue under Section260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act’) against the orderdated 24.6.2011 (Annexure A-IV) passed by the Income Tax AppellateTribunal, Chandigarh Bench “A’, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as‘the Tribunal’) in ITA No. 1048/CHANDI/2008 for the assessment year2005-06 claiming the following substantial questions of law:- ITA No. 360 of 2011 “(1)VVnetner on tne facts and circumstances oT thcase, the Honble ITAI has erred in law incancelling tne order dated 20.11.2008 of CIT-I,Ludhiana passed u/s 263 of the I.T. Act, 1961,which was solidly based on the information|received from Central Excise Authorities as wellas the facts and circumstances narrated Indetail In paragrapns 3 and 4 of the Impugnedorder? (11)Whether on the facts and circumstances of thecase, the Honpble IIAI has erred in law incancelling the order u/s 263 ignoring its ownopinion expressed in this combined orderrelated to tne ITA No. 319/Cnanai/2008: A.Y.2004-05 in paragraph 18, “As held by theHon'ble High Court (reproduced = supra),proceedings under the Central Excise Act haverelevance only for formation of opinion ofescapement of income and thereafter theIncome-tax authorities have to Inadependentlyfinalise the re-assessment irrespective of thefinal view in excise proceedings when such Is|the legal position then, why his consideredopinion about an order being erroneous and Inso far as prejudicial to the interest of revenue}nas been given no weightage In the impugnedorder’? ITA No. 360 of 2011a (11)Whether on the facts and circumstances of thecase, the Honpble IIAI has erred in law incancelling the order u/s 263 ignoring its ownopinion expressed in this combined orderrelated to tne ITA No. 319/Cnanai/2008: A.Y.2004-05 in paragraph 18, “As held by theHon'ble High Court (reproduced = supra),proceedings under the Central Excise Act haverelevance only for formation of opinion ofescapement of income and thereafter theIncome-tax authorities have to Inadependentlyfinalise the re-assessment irrespective of thefinal view in excise proceedings when such Is|the legal position then, why his consideredopinion about an order being erroneous and Inso far as prejudicial to the interest of revenue}nas been given no weightage In the impugnedorder’? ITA No. 360 of 2011a 3)Put shortly, the facts necessary for aajudication of theinstant appeal as narrated therein are tnat the assessee IS engaged Inthe business of manufacturing of Non-Alloys Steel Ingots, trading Inscrap etc. and filed its return on 24.10.2005 for the assessment year2005-06 declaring nil income. The assessment was framed undersection 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 31.12.2007 (Annexure A-1) atan Incomeot |460,410/-. On 25.3.2004, an inspection was conducted bythe team of Central Excise Department in the business premises of theassessee. On the basis of the information received trom tne CentralExcise Department, Commissioner of Income lax (CIT) vide order dated20.11.2008 (Annexure A-II) passed under Section 263 of the Act neld theorder of the Assessing Officer to be erroneous and prejudicial to theinterest of the revenue. The CIT set aside the assessment order to beframed|ade novon the issue of the installed capacity of the furnace,unrecorded purcnase of raw material, production of ingots and sale ofthe same out of books of account. The assessmentde novo.was to beframed after taking into consideration the statement of Shri HarmeshArora, Director before the Central Excise Authorities who admitted theCapacity of furnace to be SMT instead of 4MT per heat vide which it wasconcluded that the assessee had produced 624 MIT of non-alloys ingotfrom December 2003 to 24.3.2004 on the basis of the capacity offurnace but not recorded in the books of account. In compliance with theorder dated 20.11.2008 (Annexure A-II), the Assessing Officer vide orderdated 31.12.2009 (Annexure A-lIIl) assessed the income of the assesseat|45,27,74,260/- and made additions of=1,/7,48,529/- on account ofunexplained sales and |L3,49,65,324/- on account of unexplainedpurchases. Feeling aggrieved against the order of CIT under Section ITA No. 360 of 2011=4. 263 of the Act, the assessee Tiled an appeal before the Iribunal. IheTripunal vide order dated 24.6.2011 (Annexure A-!IV) allowed the appeaand cancelled tne order passed by the CIT under section 263 of the Act,In view of cancellation of order of CIT under Section 263 of the Act bythe Tribunal, the appeal of the assessee against the assessment orderwas allowed by CIT(A) which was upheld by the Tribunal. Hence, thepresent appeals by the revenue. IIA No. 360 of 2011 raises Issuerelating to validity of proceedings initiated under Section 263 of the Actwnereas ITA No. 246 of 2012 IS regarding assessment order passed Inpursuance to order under Section 263 of the Act for assessment year2005-06. ITA No. 362 of 2011, ITA No. 299 of 2012, ITA No. 300 of2012, ITA No. 167 of 2012 and ITA No. 301 of 2012 concern assessmentyears 2004-05, 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2009-10 respectively. 4 In ITA No. 246 of 2012, the following substantial questionsof law nave been claimea:- 4 In ITA No. 246 of 2012, the following substantial questionsof law nave been claimea:- (1)Whether on the facts and in law, the Hon'bleIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified indeleting the additions made by the A.O. ofRs.1,//7,48,529/- and Rs.3,49,65,394/- onaccount of unexplained sales and unexplainedpurchases without deciding the issue on meritsof the case?Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified indeleting the additions made by the A.O. ofRs.1,//7,48,529/- and Rs.3,49,65,394/- onaccount of unexplained sales and unexplainedpurchases without deciding the issue on meritsof the case? (11)Whether, on the facts and circumstances of thecase, the Honble ITAT was_ justified indismissing the appeal of Revenue merelyrelying upon the submission of assessee's ARthat order passed by the CIT-l, u/s 263 hascase, the Honble ITAT was_ justified indismissing the appeal of Revenue merelyrelying upon the submission of assessee's ARthat order passed by the CIT-l, u/s 263 has ITA No. 360 of 2011 =5- been cancelled by the Honbie ITAI whereas|decision of Hon ble ITAT nas not been acceptedby the Revenue and has filed appeal beforeHon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court againstthe cancellation of order u/s 2637 5 Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there wasconcealment of income inasmuch as tne assessee hada utilizea thecapacity of SMI instead of 4MI per nour and, therefore, tne Iribunalwas In error In cancelling the order under Section 263 of the Act and alsoin deleting the additions made by the Assessing Officer, 6,After hearing learned counsel for the revenue, we do notfind any merit in the appeal. f.Tne following Issues arise in the appeals for consideration of this Court:- (a)VWhetner the revenue was Justified In making aaddition on account of unexplained sales andunexplained purchases in the facts andcircumstances of the present case?addition on account of unexplained sales andunexplained purchases in the facts andcircumstances of the present case? (b)Whether the action of the Commissioner ofIncome Tax (CIT) under Section 263 of the Actwas valid as the assessment order passed waserroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the*!:!%/!GIncome Tax (CIT) under Section 263 of the Actwas valid as the assessment order passed waserroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the*!:!%/!G 8 Tne Tribunal nad accepted that there was no unexplained income on account of either sales or purchases. The addition wassought to be made by the Income lax Department on the basis ofstatement made by Shri Harmesh Arora before the Central Excise Authorities in the context of levy of excise duty on unaccountedproduction. It was not disputed by the learned counsel tor the revenuethat the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise Department, haddeleted the addition of excise duty levied which has been upheld by theCustoms, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (in short“CESTAT). A copy of order dated 28.4.2014 passed by CESTAT hasbeen produced by learned counsel for the revenue wherein it has peennela tnat there was no evidence to snow that there was clandestinemanufacture and clearance of tne ingots In question. [ne Income laxDepartment nad not collected any Independent material to arrive at theconclusion tnat there was unexplained sales or purchases made by theassessee. It was only on the basis of the statement of Shri HarmeshArora before tne excise autnorities in whnicn the Tribunal nad noticedvarious contradictions and gaps. In the facts and circumstances, on thebasis of the statement made by Shri Harmesn Arora alone before theexcise authorities which did not find corroboration from any othermaterial, no addition could have been validly made. QOThe Triounal nad noticed as under:- QOThe Triounal nad noticed as under:- “There Is no universal rule that an admission orconfession Is never decisive unless It is corroborated.similarly there is no universal rule that an admission/confession is always decisive in all cases. Theanswer to the question as to whether a statementcontaining admission/confession Is decisive in a givencase depends upon the nature of admission, contentsof admission, and several other relevant factors.” Further, it would be apposite to reproduce the findings of the Tribunal ITA No. 360 of 2011 wnicn are as under:- “18,Applying tne aforesaid principles, we snall nowexamine as to whether the statement made byShri Harmesh Arora before the Central Exciseauthorities in the context of levy of excise dutyon unaccounted production can form the solebasis for making the impugned adaitions by theAO. First and most important aspect Is that tnesaid statement was not recorded by the Income-tax authorities but by the Central Exciseauthorities. As held by the Hon'ble High Court(reproduced supra), proceedings under theCentral Excise Act have relevance only forTormation of opinion of escapement of Incomeand thereafter the income-tax authorities haveto independently finalize the re-assessmentirrespective of the final view in exciseproceedings. We find that the AO hasreassessed the income by him from the CentralExcise Department without bringing anymaterial on record to justify or support theadaitions. The impugned additions are liable tobe cancelled on this ground alone and areaccordingly cancelled.19.Without prejudice to the aforesaid materials)available on record do not establish that themelting capacity of the furnace was SMI or ITA No. 360 of 2011 -8- increased to 5 MI trom 4 MI. After caretulconsideration of tne materials available onrecord, the ld. CII(A) has held as unaer:- "... Further, as brought out above onasubsequent surprise inspection by theExcise authorities, the capacity of theappellants unit nas been found to be of 4MIs only. |Therefore, tne samedepartment Is certifying tnat the installedcapacity of the furnace is of 4 MIs only.Further as already mentioned this Is notpossible tnat the appellant nad installed aoS MI furnace during the previous yearelevant to assessment year underconsideration and that, however, furnaceof 4 MT had been installed before andafter that period. Also there is nothing onrecord that the appellant Incurred anyexpenses for removal and installation ofthe furnace as above and that thesanctioned load during the’ relevantperiod was more than 2250 KW which isa must for using 5 MT furnace....”subsequent surprise inspection by theExcise authorities, the capacity of theappellants unit nas been found to be of 4MIs only. |Therefore, tne samedepartment Is certifying tnat the installedcapacity of the furnace is of 4 MIs only.Further as already mentioned this Is notpossible tnat the appellant nad installed aoS MI furnace during the previous yearelevant to assessment year underconsideration and that, however, furnaceof 4 MT had been installed before andafter that period. Also there is nothing onrecord that the appellant Incurred anyexpenses for removal and installation ofthe furnace as above and that thesanctioned load during the’ relevantperiod was more than 2250 KW which isa must for using 5 MT furnace....” 20.In our view, the view taken by the Id. CIT(A) isreasonable on the facts of the case. Entireaddition has been made on the basis of thestatement of Shri Harmesh Arora as recordedreasonable on the facts of the case. Entireaddition has been made on the basis of thestatement of Shri Harmesh Arora as recorded ITA No. 360 of 2011-9. by the Central Excise authorities in wnicn hestated that the capacity of furnace wasincreased from 4 MI to 5 MI In December2003. Capacity of furnace is not a matter withinthe domain of personal Knowledge of theassessee; rather it is an objective fact which Iscapable of verification and proof by directevidence. Following facts available on recordestablisn that the capacity of furnace was not5MT out 4 MI:- 20.In our view, the view taken by the Id. CIT(A) isreasonable on the facts of the case. Entireaddition has been made on the basis of thestatement of Shri Harmesh Arora as recordedreasonable on the facts of the case. Entireaddition has been made on the basis of thestatement of Shri Harmesh Arora as recorded ITA No. 360 of 2011-9. by the Central Excise authorities in wnicn hestated that the capacity of furnace wasincreased from 4 MI to 5 MI In December2003. Capacity of furnace is not a matter withinthe domain of personal Knowledge of theassessee; rather it is an objective fact which Iscapable of verification and proof by directevidence. Following facts available on recordestablisn that the capacity of furnace was not5MT out 4 MI:- (1)Perusal of the materials placed on record(pp. 187-189 of the paper book | for AY 2005-Q6) snows that the assessee had addressedletters dated 14.8.2002, 16.8.2002 and21.8.2002 to the superintendent, CentralExcise, Rante |, Division Il, Ludhiana conveyingreplacement of the then existing furnace of 3Ton with new furnace of 4 Ton. In Its last letterdated 218.2002 gdaressead to tnesuperintendent, Central Excise, the assessee-company informed that it had commencedproduction on new furnace on 21.8.2002 at08:00 hours. It is quite unlikely that anassessee would change the furnace almost in ayear (1.e., In December 2003) from 4 ton to 5ton. Besides, there is no evidence before us toShow that the furnace of 4 ton, which was ITA No. 360 of 2011 -10- procured in 2002, was actually replaced by afurnace of 5 ton In December 2003. (11)Each furnace has technical specificationswhich are available within the unit as also In theinvoices. These specifications contain variousdetails, e.g., the identity number of the furnaceana its maker/manufacturer, its capacity,wattage, etc. No detail nas been placed beforeus to show that tne technical specifications ofthe furnace found at the time of visit by theCentral Excise authorities on 25.33.7004 werdifferent from the one procured by theassessee in J2JOO2. Neither the AO made thInquiry in this benalf at the assessment stagenor preferred to do so when he was given theopportunity by the CIT(A) to do so, (lil)Report dated 2.5.2007 given by Er. J.S\Oberoi, Chartered Engineer/valuer shows thathe visited the factory of the assessee andfound that the furnace of 4 ton, which wasprocured in 2002, was being used by theaSSeSSee.Aiter noting the technicalspecifications of the furnace, the weight of theIngots produced, the electricity load sanctioned,he opined that the average melting capacity offurnace was 4 MIT. No material has beenplaced before us to rebut the facts reported or ITA No. 360 of 2011 =11- the opinion expressed by the CharteredEngineer. (Iv)Suppressed or unaccounted productionwas worked out by the Central Exciseauthorities for the period December 2003 to29.3.2004 on the basis that the meltingcapacity of furnace was 9S MI during thatperiod. Ihe capacity of furnace being 4 MIafter 25.33.7004 was not even doubted as thSuppressed production was worked out Till20.39.2004 which means that it was acceptethereafter, |.e., after 25.3.2004, that the meltingcapacity of the furnace was 4 MT. This soundsquite illogical. (VvField inspection was carried out by theCentral Excise authorities on 25.11.2005 andareport to that effect has been recorded in theDaily Stock Account. It is stated in the saidreport that the unit has installed 4 MIFurnace’. No material has been placed beforeus to rebut the aforesaid report. (vi)Tnougn the Inspection was carried out bythe Central Excise authorities on 25.33.2004also at the premises of the assessee, there isnothing In the assessment order to snow thatthe inspection report prepared, if any, by theCentral Excise authorities was at all considered ITA No. 360 of 2011 D1. 2). =17- (VvField inspection was carried out by theCentral Excise authorities on 25.11.2005 andareport to that effect has been recorded in theDaily Stock Account. It is stated in the saidreport that the unit has installed 4 MIFurnace’. No material has been placed beforeus to rebut the aforesaid report. (vi)Tnougn the Inspection was carried out bythe Central Excise authorities on 25.33.2004also at the premises of the assessee, there isnothing In the assessment order to snow thatthe inspection report prepared, if any, by theCentral Excise authorities was at all considered ITA No. 360 of 2011 D1. 2). =17- by the AO. It nas also not been placed beforeus eltner. [nere is absolutely no materialoefore us to snow that the Central Exciseauthorities had at all made any attempt to verifythe melting capacity of the furnace during thecourse of their inspection on 25.3.2004, (VII)Tne AO nas placed no material on recordto snow that the assessee had made anyinvestment towards acquisition of furnace of 5MT or that the AO has allowed depreciationthereon, i.e., furnace of 5 MI. There is nomaterial on record to hold that the claim ofdepreciation made by tne assessee on thefurnace of 4 MT was rejected by the AO, Besides, the statement of Shri Harmesn Aroranas several gaps on material issues. Forexample, the statement of Shri Harmesh Arorais completely silent as to (i) wnen was furnaceof 5 MT was procured and from whom it wasprocured; (ii) any of the parties from whom rawmaterials was purchased for generatingunaccounted production; (ili) any of the partiesto wnom unaccounted production was sold.In view of the foregoing, the statement of ShriHarmesh Arora cannot by itself form the basisfor making the impugned additions. The AOnas given no other basis to support the ITA No. 360 of 2011=-13aadaitions made by him. In this view of thematter, the order passed by tne CITI(A) In thipenalf Is contirmed.Ground No? Isdismissed.” 10.In view of the above, the Tribunal had rightly come to theconclusion that there was no unexplained income on account of sales orpurchases of material. Issue (a) Is, thus, decided in favour of theassessee. 11.in the light of issue (a) having been aagjudicated In favour othe assessee on merits, issue (b) regarding initiation of proceedingsunder Section 263 of the Act has been rendered academic. 1).Consequently, finding that no substantial question of lawarises, all the appeals are nereby dismissed. (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL)JUDGEJuly 21, 2014(JASPAL SINGH)<;$JUDGE ITA No. 360 of 2011 =14. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA No. 362 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: 21.07.2014 Commissioner of Income Tax-l, Ludhiana ...Appellant. 4!*$/$ M/s Arora Alloys Ltd., Ludniana ... Respondent CORAM:-HON BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL.HON BLE MR. JUSTICE JASPAL SINGH. PRESENT: Mr. Rajesh Katocn, Advocate for the appellant, AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. For orders, seeITA No. 360 of 2011 (Commissioner ofIncome Tax-lI, Ludhiana v. M/s Arora Alloys Ltd., Ludhiana) (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE July 21, 2014<;$ (JASPAL SINGH) JUDGE ITA No. 360 of 2011 -15- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA No. 246 of 2012 (O&M) Date of Decision: 21.07.2014 Commissioner of Income Tax-l, Ludhiana ...Appellant. 4!*$/$ M/s Arora Alloys Ltd., Ludniana ... Respondent CORAM:-HON BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL.HON BLE MR. JUSTICE JASPAL SINGH. PRESENT: Mr. Rajesh Katocn, Advocate for the appellant, AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. For orders, seeITA No. 360 of 2011 (Commissioner ofIncome Tax-lI, Ludhiana v. M/s Arora Alloys Ltd., Ludhiana) (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE July 21, 2014<;$ (JASPAL SINGH) JUDGE ITA No. 360 of 2011 -16- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA No. 167 of 2012 (O&M) Date of Decision: 21.07.2014 Commissioner of Income Tax-l, Ludhiana ...Appellant. 4!*$/$ M/s Arora Alloys Ltd., Ludniana ... Respondent ITA No. 246 of 2012 (O&M) Date of Decision: 21.07.2014 Commissioner of Income Tax-l, Ludhiana ...Appellant. 4!*$/$ M/s Arora Alloys Ltd., Ludniana ... Respondent CORAM:-HON BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL.HON BLE MR. JUSTICE JASPAL SINGH. PRESENT: Mr. Rajesh Katocn, Advocate for the appellant, AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. For orders, seeITA No. 360 of 2011 (Commissioner ofIncome Tax-lI, Ludhiana v. M/s Arora Alloys Ltd., Ludhiana) (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE July 21, 2014<;$ (JASPAL SINGH) JUDGE ITA No. 360 of 2011 -16- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA No. 167 of 2012 (O&M) Date of Decision: 21.07.2014 Commissioner of Income Tax-l, Ludhiana ...Appellant. 4!*$/$ M/s Arora Alloys Ltd., Ludniana ... Respondent CORAM:-HON BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL.HON BLE MR. JUSTICE JASPAL SINGH. PRESENT: Mr. Rajesh Katocn, Advocate for the appellant, AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. For orders, seeITA No. 360 of 2011 (Commissioner ofIncome Tax-lI, Ludhiana v. M/s Arora Alloys Ltd., Ludhiana) (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE July 21, 2014<;$ (JASPAL SINGH) JUDGE ITA No. 360 of 2011 =1/- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA No. 299 of 2012 (O&M) Date of Decision: 21.07.2014 Commissioner of Income Tax-l, Ludhiana ...Appellant. 4!*$/$ M/s Arora Alloys Ltd., Ludniana ... Respondent CORAM:- HON BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL.HON BLE MR. JUSTICE JASPAL SINGH. PRESENT: Mr. Rajesh Katocn, Advocate for the appellant, AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. For orders, seeITA No. 360 of 2011 (Commissioner ofIncome Tax-lI, Ludhiana v. M/s Arora Alloys Ltd., Ludhiana) (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE July 21, 2014<;$ (JASPAL SINGH) JUDGE ITA No. 360 of 2011 -18- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA No. 300 of 2012 (O&M) Date of Decision: 21.07.2014 Commissioner of Income Tax-l, Ludhiana ...Appellant. 4!*$/$ M/s Arora Alloys Ltd., Ludniana ... Respondent CORAM:-HON BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL.HON BLE MR. JUSTICE JASPAL SINGH. PRESENT: Mr. Rajesh Katocn, Advocate for the appellant, AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. For orders, seeITA No. 360 of 2011 (Commissioner ofIncome Tax-lI, Ludhiana v. M/s Arora Alloys Ltd., Ludhiana) (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE July 21, 2014<;$ (JASPAL SINGH) JUDGE ITA No. 360 of 2011 -19- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA No. 301 of 2012 (O&M) Date of Decision: 21.07.2014 Commissioner of Income Tax-l, Ludhiana ...Appellant. 4!*$/$ M/s Arora Alloys Ltd., Ludniana ... Respondent CORAM:-HON BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL.HON BLE MR. JUSTICE JASPAL SINGH. PRESENT: Mr. Rajesh Katocn, Advocate for the appellant, AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. For orders, seeITA No. 360 of 2011 (Commissioner ofIncome Tax-lI, Ludhiana v. M/s Arora Alloys Ltd., Ludhiana) (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE July 21, 2014<;$ (JASPAL SINGH) JUDGE