Sh. Anil Handa Prop., Ludhiana V. ITO, Ludhiana

ITA 1005/CHANDI/2008

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0685 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 3 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-02-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 05-02-2013
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 14-11-2008
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: N K SAINI
• Keywords: Reopening of assessment; Wrong claim
• Section: 148

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH A, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI T.R. SOOD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 1005/CHD/2008 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2004-05) SH.ANIL HANDA PROP. VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, M/S NEELAM STEELS, WARD-VI(1), 236, I.A.A.,LUDHIANA. LUDHIANA. PAN: AAVPH5668L (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI SUDHIR SEHGAL RESPONDENT BY : SHRI N.K. SAINI, DR DATE OF HEARING : 05.02.2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 28.02.2013 O R D E R PER SUSHMA CHOWLA, J.M, : THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST THE ORD ER OF THE CIT (APPEALS), CHANDIGARH DATED 23.10.2008 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED U/S 147/148 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT). 2. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE REA D AS UNDER: 1. THAT THE WORTHY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPE ALS) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFF ICER IN REOPENING OF THE CASE U/S 148 OF THE I.T. ACT, 196 1. 2. THAT THE WORTHY CIT(A) HAS ALSO ERRED IN CONFIR MING THE ADDITION OF RS.74,89,650/- IN RESPECT OF AMOUNT REC EIVED AS ADVANCE AGAINST THE EXPORT IN THE EARLIER YEAR AND WHICH WAS ADJUSTED DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. 3. THAT THE FINDING OF THE CIT (A) WITH REGARD TO THE CONFIRMATION OF ADDITION IS AGAINST THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN AS MUCH AS DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, NO AMO UNT HAD BEEN RECEIVED AGAINST THE SALES MADE DURING THE YEA R UNDER CONSIDERATION AND ALSO AS PER PAGE-3 OF THE ORDER O F THE ASSESSING 2 OFFICER, IT IS VERY CLEAR THAT THE AMOUNT HAS BEEN ADJUSTED AGAINST THE SALES. 4. THAT THE WORTHY CIT(A) HAS ALSO ERRED IN CONFIRMIN G THE ADDITION OF RS.20 LACS IN RESPECT OF SALE OF EXPORT LICENSE AND THIS ADDITION COULD NOT HAVE BEEN MADE BECAUSE NO FINDING HAS BEE N RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE RECORDING THE REASON S U/S 148. 3. THE GROUND NO.1 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINS T THE REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT HAS NOT BEE N PRESSED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE SAME IS DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. 4. THE ISSUE IN GROUND NOS. 2 AND 3 RAISED BY THE A SSESSEE ARE AGAINST THE ADDITION OF RS.74,89,650/-. 5. THE BRIEF FACTS RELATING TO THE ISSUE ARE THAT T HE ASSESSEE IIS ENGAGED IN TRADING AND MANUFACTURING OF HOSIERY GOO DS. DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN EXPORT S ALES OF RS.61,54,503/- AND DOMESTIC SALES OF RS.74,89,648/- . THE SAID EXPORT AND DOMESTIC SALES WERE ADJUSTED AGAINST THE ADVANC E EXPORT OF RS.1,36,42,153/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS UNDER OBLIGATION TO EXPORT GOODS BUT I N TURN HAD SHOWN DOMESTIC SALES TO THE EXTENT OF RS.74.89 LACS. AS PER THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT BEEN ABLE TO PROVE WI TH EVIDENCE THAT THE EXPORT IN QUESTION WAS EVER MADE AND CONSEQUENTLY T HE ASSESSEE WAS SHOW CAUSED TO FURNISH COMPLETE PARTICULARS IN RESP ECT OF THE SALE OF RS.74.89 LACS, AGAINST WHICH NO EXPORT WAS MADE. T HE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT THE SAID GOODS VIDE INVOICE N OS.103 AND 104 WERE SUPPLIED TO ONE SHRI GHAI AND THE COPIES OF THE GRS WERE ALSO PRODUCED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED FROM THE PERUSAL OF THE INVOICES THAT IT BORE NO STAMP OF EXIST ALLOWED BY THE EXCISE DEPARTMENT FOR DELIVERY. HOWEVER, OTHER TWO INVOICES BORE THE SAID STAMP OF EXCISE DEPARTMENT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE GOOD S AS PER INVOICE NOS.103 AND 104 WERE NOT SENT AT ALL FOR EXPORT. T HE ASSESSING OFFICER 3 FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE SAID GOODS WERE NEVER SEN T OUT OF PUNJAB AS PER THE EXCISE & TAXATION BARRIER AT SHAMBU BARRIER AND ALSO FROM THE DETAILS EVEN IN THE RETURN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FO R THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR. THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE AGENT SHR I BHUSHAN GHAI HAD PLAYED A FRAUD UPON THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ACCEPTED A ND ADDITION OF RS.74,89,648/- WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ADDITION WAS CONFIRMED BY THE CIT (APPEALS). 6. THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL AGAINST THE SAME. THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT IT HAD SOLD THE GOODS TO SAID PER SON BUT BECAUSE OF THE FRAUD PLAYED BY THE AGENT COMPLETE EVIDENCE IN RESP ECT OF EXPORT OF THE GOODS WAS NOT AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE AND HENCE THE SAID SALES WERE SHOWN AS DOMESTIC SALES BY THE ASSESSEE, THOUGH MAD E TO THE SAME PARTY WHO IS SITUATED OUT OF INDIA. 7. THE LEARNED D.R. FOR THE REVENUE PLACING RELIANC E ON THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER POINTED OUT THAT THE PURCHASE S SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF THE GOODS SOLD BY THE ASSESS EE DO NOT TALLY AND FURTHER ADDITION WAS JUSTIFIED AS THOUGH THE ASSESS EE HAD NOT EXPORTED THE GOODS BUT HAD FAILED TO SHOW THE ACCOUNTABILITY IN ITS ACCOUNTS IN THE RELEVANT YEAR. 8. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORD. THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION HAD SH OWN OPENING BALANCE OF RS.1,36,42,153/- UNDER THE HEAD ADVANCE AGAINST EXPORT. THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT THE SAID AMOUNT WAS RECEIV ED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRECEDING YEAR AS ADVANCE AGAINST EXPORT TO BE MADE. DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN EXP ORT SALES OF RS.61,54,503/- I.E. ON ACCOUNT OF INVOICE NO.102 AN D INVOICE NO.105 FOR CONSIDERATION OF RS.37,28,790/- AND RS.24,25,713/- RESPECTIVELY. 4 HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN NIL IN THE ADVANCE AGAINST EXPORT DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE EXPLANATI ON OF THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD WAS THAT TWO TRANSACTIONS OF SALE BY WA Y OF INVOICE NOS.103 AND 104 I.E. RS.37,49,824/- PLUS RS.37,44,824/- EQU AL TO RS.74,89,648/- WAS ADJUSTED AGAINST THE AFORESAID DUE IN THE ACCOU NT I.E. ADVANCE AGAINST EXPORT. THE SAID SALES WERE SHOWN AS DOMES TIC SALES BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS TRADING ACCOUNT FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE SAID SALES WERE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE SAME PA RTY TO WHOM EXPORTS WERE MADE BUT BECAUSE OF NON RECEIPT OF BILL OF LAD ING AND OTHER CONNECTED EVIDENCES OF THE EXPORT BEING MADE BY THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSEE DECLARED THE SAID SALES AS DOMESTIC SALES AND NOT AS EXPORT SALES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS GIVEN A FINDING T HAT THE GOODS AS PER INVOICE NOS.103 AND 104 WERE NOT SENT AT ALL FOR EX PORT. IT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE REVENUE THAT THE SAID SALES HAVE NOT BE EN MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER AT PARA 4 HAS REIT ERATED THAT THE GOODS VIDE INVOICE NOS.102 AND 104 I.E. EXPORT SALES WERE SENT OUT AS PER ICC DATA OF SHAMBU BARRIER BUT NO GOODS OF INVOICE NOS. 103 AND 104 WERE ROUTED OUT OF PUNJAB. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS TO HAVE HANDED OVER THE GOODS VIDE INVOICE NOS.103 AND 104 TO ONE SHRI BHUS HAN GHAI FOR SHIPMENT BUT THE RELEVANT EVIDENCES WERE NOT HANDED OVER BY HIM TO THE ASSESSEE AND THERE WAS LITIGATION BETWEEN THE PARTI ES ON THIS ACCOUNT. IN RESPECT OF THE INTIMATION TO THE SALES TAX DEPARTME NT IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT T HE INFORMATION WAS SUPPLIED ONLY IN RESPECT OF THE GOODS EXPORTED AND IN RESPECT OF THE NON EXPORT OF GOODS THOUGH DEBITED TO THE ADVANCE RECEI PT AGAINST EXPORT ACCOUNT WERE TREATED AS SOLD IN THE DOMESTIC MARKET , ON WHICH EXCISE DUTY WAS PAID. THE COPIES OF THE BILL ISSUED BY TH E ASSESSEE BEARING NOS.102 TO 105 ARE ENCLOSED ALONGWITH ASSESSMENT OR DER AND THE PERUSAL OF THE SAME REFLECTS THAT THE BUYER IN THE BILLS IS THE PARTY IN DUBAI. 5 ADMITTEDLY THE ABOVE SAID SALES WERE NOT EXPORT SAL ES MADE BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND CO NSEQUENTLY NON DECLARATION AS EXPORT SALES. HOWEVER, NONE OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE DOUBTED THE SALES MADE BY THE ASSESSEE AS THE SALES DECLARED IN THE TRADING ACCOUNT HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED IN TOTAL. THE A SSESSEE HAD NEITHER SHOWN THE SAID SALES AS EXPORT SALES NOR CLAIMED AN Y BENEFIT ON ACCOUNT OF THEREOF. ONCE THE SALES HAVE BEEN MADE TO THE S AME PARTY IRRESPECTIVE OF THE FACT WHETHER THE ASSESSEE HAD DECLARED THEM AS EXPORT SALES OR DOMESTIC SALES, THERE IS NO MERIT IN THE ADDITION M ADE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE OBSERVING THE ASSESSEE TO HAVE ADJUSTED TH E ADVANCE AGAINST EXPORT IN THE ABSENCE OF THE TOTAL EXPORT SALES MAD E BY THE ASSESSEE. THE STAND OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE PERSON TO WHOM THE G OODS WERE HANDED OVER I.E. ONE BHUSHAN GHAI HAD NOT HANDED OVER THE REQUISITE DOCUMENTS, DOES NOT IMPLY THE MIS-APPROPRIATION OF THE SALES B Y SUCH PERSON. THE SALES TO THE PARTY AND ITS ADJUSTMENT AGAINST MONEY DUE TO THE SAID PARTY IS UNDOUBTED AND CONSEQUENTLY WE FIND NO MERIT IN T HE AFORESAID ADDITION MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. THUS WE DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS.74,89,650/-. THE GROU ND NOS.2 AND 3 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE THUS ALLOWED. 9. THE ISSUE IN GROUND NO.4 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS IN RESPECT OF ADVANCE LICENCE AND OF THE PROFITS ARISING ON THE S ALE OF THE SAID LICENCE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSME NT PROCEEDINGS REQUISITIONED THE ASSESSEE TO JUSTIFY THAT NO IMPORT LICENSE HAD BEEN SOLD DURING THE CAPTIONED YEAR AND NO ACCOUNT WAS RECEIV ED ON THE SALE OF IMPORT LICENSE NO.3010022297 DATED 17.02.2003 . THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER VIDE LETTER D ATED 10.12.2007 WAS AS UNDER: 6 THE ASSESSEE HAD NEVER SOLD ANY ADVANCE LICENSE NOR RECEIVED ANY AMOUNT FROM ANY ONE. IN FACT THE ASSESSEE HAD SURRENDERED THE DAME TO JT. DIRECTOR OF FOREIGN TRADE GREEN FIELD, LUDHIANA. COPY OF THE SAME IS ENCLOSED HEREWITH FOR YOUR KIND PERUSALS REFER ANNEXURE-P-24. FURTHER BROUGHT TO YOUR KIND ATTENTION THAT AS EXPLAINED EARLIER THERE WAS NO DOMESTIC SALE IN FACT THE GOODS SENT FOR EXPORT IN RESPECT TO BILL NO.103 & 104 HAD NOT BEEN REACHED AT ITS DESTINATION DUE TO THE FRAUD COMMITTED BY THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE BUYER. DURING THE COURSE OF AUDIT THE CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT OF THE ASSESSEE TREATED IT AS NON-EXPORT/DOMESTIC. EVEN THE ARE- UI IN RESPECT TO BILL NO.103 & 104 CANCELLED BY THE EXCISE DEPARTMENT BY CHARGING EXCISE DUTY THEREIN. COPY OF ORDER ALREADY PALCED ON RECORD/FILED. THE AMOUNT AS RECEIVED ADVANCE IIN RESPECT TO BILL NO.103 & 104 AMOUNTING TO RS.74,89,650/- IS STILL IN DISPUTE AS CASE IS STILL PENDING IN THE DISTRICT COURTS. YOU ARE REQUESTED NOT TO CONSIDER THE SAME AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AND FILED THE PROCEEDINGS. 10. THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED AS UNDER: THE ABOVE NOTED CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE NOT ACCEPTABLE. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED COPY OF REC EIPT IN RESPECT OF SURRENDER OF LICENSE NO.3010022297 DA TED 17.02.2003 TO THE JT. DIRECTOR GENERAL FOREIGN TRAD E GREEN FIELD, LUDHIANA. INQUIRIES WERE GOT MADE FRO M THE ABOVE DEPARTMENT. THE JT. DIRECTOR GENERAL FOREIGN TRADE VIDE ITS LETTER NO.ADV.119SM2003/LDH./97914 DATED 17.12.2007, INFORMED THAT M/S NEELAM STEELS, LUDHIANA HAS NOT SURRENDERED ADVANCE LICENSE NO.3010022297 DATED 17.02.2003 TO THEIR OFFICE. THE COPIES OF RECEIPTS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE DO NOT PERTAIN TO LICENSE NO.301022 297 DATED 17.02.2003.ALL THIS MAKES IT CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED WRONG PARTICULARS AND REPLY FILE D IS NOT TENABLE. FURTHER WHILE GOING THROUGH THE COPY OF FIR FILED BY SH.R.P. HANDA F/O ANIL HANDA DATED 16.09.2005 REVEALS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS HIMSELF STATED IN THE FIR THAT HE HAS EARNED RS.20,00,000/- OUT OF THE SALE OF THIS LICENSE. WHICH MAKES IT CL EAR THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SOLD ITS LICENSE FOR RS.20,00,000/- AND NO AMOUNT HAS BEEN SHOWN IN THE RETURN AS RECEIPT AGAINST THE SALE OF LICENSE. HEN CE THIS AMOUNT OF RS.20,00,000/- IS CONSIDERED THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FOR WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS STATED THE WRONG FACTS. THEREFORE IT CAN BE CONCLU DED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD EXPORT LICENSE NO.3010022297 DATED 17.02.2003 WHICH WAS SOLD AND THE PROCEEDS OF 7 THE SAME HAVE NOT BEEN REFLECTED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. AN AMOUNT OF RS.20,00,000/- IS THEREFORE ADDED BACK TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THUS THE ASSESSEE HAS CONCEALED THE PARTICULARS OF INCOME FO R WHICH PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271(1)(C) IS BEING INITIATED SEPARATELY. 11. BEFORE THE CIT (APPEALS) IT WAS EXPLAINED BY TH E LEARNED A.R. FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT THE AMO UNT OF RS.20 LACS WAS REALIZED ON ACCOUNT OF SALE OF LICENCE AND FURTHER IN THE FIR IT HAD BEEN CLEARLY MENTIONED THAT THE EXPENSES TO THE TUNE OF RS.19,25,000/- WERE MADE AGAINST THE ALLEGED SALE OF LICENCE. THE CIT (APPEALS) HELD AS UNDER: I HAVE CONSIDERED THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. COUNSELS AND HAVE PERUSED THE RELEVANT RECORD. THOUGH IT IS NOW BEING CONTENDED THAT THE EXPENSES TO THE TUNE OF RS.19,25,000/- HAVE ALSO BEEN MENTIONED IN THE FIR, WHICH HAS BEEN REFERRED TO BY THE A.O., IN RESPECT OF THIS ALE OF LICENSE, IT IS SEEN THAT BEF ORE THE A.O. RATHER IT WAS BEING CLAIMED THAT THIS LICENSE WAS SURRENDERED TO THE JOINT DIRECTOR, FOREIGN TRADE. THEREFORE, THOUGH NOW IN THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS, T HE APPELLANT IS NOT DISPUTING THAT SUCH EXPORT LICENSE WAS SOLD, BEFORE THE A.O. A TOTALLY DIFFERENT STAND WAS TAKEN. APPARENTLY, THE APPELLANT HAS TAKEN DIFFERE NT STAND DURING APPEAL PROCEEDINGS NOW BECAUSE ON THE BASIS OF ENQUIRIES MADE BY THE A.O. FROM THE JOINT DIRECTOR, FOREIGN TRADE, THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT THAT THE ABOVE LICENSE WAS SURRENDERED, WAS FOUND TO BE A FALSE CLAIM. IT IS OF COMMON KNOWLEDGE THAT THE EX PORT LICENSES ARE SALEABLE COMMODITY AND THEREFORE, THE APPELLANT MIGHT HAVE EARNED PROFIT ON THE SALE OF S UCH LICENSE. COMING TO THE CLAIM OF EXPENSES OF RS.19,25,000/-, FIRST OF ALL IT IS NOT UNDERSTOOD A S TO HOW SUCH EXPENSES COULD BE INCURRED IN CONNECTION WITH THE SALE OF EXPORT LICENSE. FURTHER, EVEN IF ANY EXPENSES WERE INCURRED, WITH THE SALE OF EXPORT LICENSE. FURTHER, EVEN IF ANY EXPENSES WERE INCURR ED THESE COULD BE ALLOWED IF THE APPELLANT HAD FILED NECESSARY EVIDENCE BEFORE THE A.O. HOWEVER, WHEN BEFORE THE A.O. THE APPELLANT HAD RATHER BEEN CONTENDING THAT SUCH LICENSE WAS NOT SOLD BY HIM AN D THAT THE LICENSE WAS SURRENDERED TO THE CONCERNED AUTHORITIES, THERE WAS NO QUESTION OF THE APPELLANT FILING NECESSARY EVIDENCE DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. KEEPING IN VIEW THE ABOVE DISCUSSED POSITION AND PARTICULARLY THE EVIDENCE IN THE SHAPE OF 8 INFORMATION FROM THE JOINT DIRECTOR, FOREIGN TRADE, GREEN FIELD, LUDHIANA, THERE APPEARS TO BE NOTHING WRONG IN THE A.O. MAKING ADDITION OF RS.20 LAC TO T HE RETURNED INCOME OF THE APPELLANT. 12. THE LEARNED A.R. FOR THE ASSESSEE FAIRLY CONCED ED THAT THE REPLY OF THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN CONSIDERED IN THE ENTIRET Y. 13. THE LEARNED D.R. FOR THE REVENUE ALSO POINTED O UT THAT THE ENDS OF JUSTICE WOULD BE MET IF THE ISSUE IS RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 14. IN THE ENTIRETY OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ISSUE NEEDS TO BE RESTORED BACK T O THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO CARRY OUT THE NECESSARY VERIFI CATION OF THE ISSUE IN HAND. ACCORDINGLY, WE REMIT THE ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DECIDE THE SAME AFTER CONSIDERING THE RE PLY AND EVIDENCES PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE. REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY O F HEARING SHALL BE AFFORDED TO THE ASSESSEE. THE GROUND NO.4 RAISED B Y THE ASSESSEE IS THUS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 15. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PA RTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 28 TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2013. SD/- SD/- (T.R.SOOD) (SUSHMA CHOWLA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 28 TH FEBRUARY, 2013 *RATI* COPY TO: THE APPELLANT/THE RESPONDENT/THE CIT(A)/TH E CIT/THE DR. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 9