DCIT, Yamunanagar V. M/s Swami Vivekanand Educational Society, Yamunanagar

ITA 1077/CHANDI/2010

• Counselvise Citation: 107721514 RSA 2010
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-01-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 05-01-2012
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 16-08-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S K KHEMWAL
• Keywords: Charitable institution; Difference of opinion; Change of opinion
• Section: 12AA; 147; 148; 144; 11

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH B CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI H.L.KARWA, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI MEHAR SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 1046/CHD/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2005-06 SWAMI VIVEKANAND EDUCATIONAL V DCIT, SOCIETY, SECTOR 17, HUDA, YAMUNA NAGAR. JAGADHRI, YAMUNA NAGAR. PAN: AAAJV-0306N & ITA NO.1077/CHD/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR :2005-06 DCIT,CIRCLE, V M/S SWAMI VIVEKANAND YAMUNA NAGAR. EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, SECTOR 17, HUDA, JAGADHRI, YAMUNANAGAR. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : NONE DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI S.K.KHEMWAL DATE OF HEARING : 05.01.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 06.01.2012 ORDER PER MEHAR SINGH, AM THE PRESENT CROSS-APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND REVENUE RESPECTIVELY ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 01.06.2010 PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) U/S 250(6) OF T HE INCOME-TAX ACT,1961 (IN SHORT 'THE ACT'). 2. IN ASSESSEE'S APPEAL (NO. ITA 1046/CHD/2010), TH E ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL : 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN TREATING THE DONATION OF ASSETS BY 2 THE APPELLANT SOCIETY TO OTHER SOCIETIES AS CAPITAL GAINS. 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE RE-ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S 148 WERE NOT BAD IN LAW. 3. THE ASSESSEE RESERVES THE RIGHT TO AMEND, ALTER, ADD OR DELETE ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 3. IN REVENUES APPEAL (ITA NO. 1077/CHD/2010), REV ENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL : I) WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE , THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS IN FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.82,31,154/- ON THE BASIS OF ACCOUNTS, BILLS, VOUCHERS ETC. NOT PERTAINING TO THE ACCOUNTS ATTACHED WITH ORIGINAL RETURN. II) THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD OR AMEND THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE THE APPEAL IS HEARD AND DISPOSED OFF. III) IT IS PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) BE SET AS IDE AND THAT OF THE AO MAY BE RESTORED. 4. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT APPEAR DESPITE ISSUE OF NOT ICE, THEREFORE, THE APPEAL IS DECIDED ON THE BASIS OF TH E SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE AS INCORPORATED FR OM PAGE 84 TO 90 OF THE PAPER BOOK AND OTHER RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. 5. IN THE FIRST GROUND OF APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE CONT ENDED THAT THE CIT(A) ERRED IN TREATING THE DONATION OF A SSETS BY THE APPELLANT SOCIETY TO OTHER SOCIETIES AS CAPITAL GAINS. THE AO HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE TRANSFERRED ASSETS VALUED AT RS.1,05,82,364/- AT BOOK VALUE AND RECEIVED CONSIDE RATION 3 BY WAY OF BOOK ENTRIES. THE WRITTEN DOWN VALUE OF THESE ASSETS IS RS. NIL AS THE ENTIRE COST HAS ALREADY BE EN ALLOWED AS APPLICATION OF INCOME IN THE YEAR OF ACQUISITION . CONSEQUENTLY, THE AO IS OF THE OPINION THAT THE ENT IRE SALE CONSIDERATION IS CAPITAL GAIN, CHARGEABLE U/S 11(1A ) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT,1961. THE AO ALSO GAVE MARGIN OF TH E COST OF ASSETS ADDED DURING THE YEAR, WHICH AMOUNTED TO RS.26,22,173/- TO BE THE NEW ASSETS ACQUIRED OUT OF CAPITAL GAINS AND MADE ADDITION OF RS.79,60,191/-. THE MAI N ARGUMENT OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THESE ASSETS WERE TRANSFERRED TO TWO SOCIETIES WHICH HAD BEEN REGISTE RED U/S 12AA OF THE ACT AND PURSUING THE SAME OBJECT AS PUR SUED BY THE PRESENT ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE IS OF THE OPINI ON AND ARGUED THAT THE TRANSFER OF ASSETS TO THE TWO SOCIE TIES BY WAY OF DONATION IS APPLICATION OF INCOME AND RELIED ON THE BOARDS INSTRUCTION NO.1132 DATED 4.12.2009. THE F INDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) ARE RECORDED, IN THE MATTER IN QU ESTION, IN PARA 7.1 AND THE SAME ARE REPRODUCED HEREUNDER : 7.1 ON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE ABOVE FACTS AN D SUBMISSIONS, I DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN ARGUMENTS O F THE COUNSEL AND THE SAME ARE REJECTED. THE MAIN CONTENTION OF THE COUNSEL IS THAT THE TRANSFER OF ASSETS TO THE TWO SOCIETIES IS BY WAY OF DONATION. THIS IS FACTUALLY INCORRECT. THE AO HAS ALREADY MENTIONED THAT THE TRANSFER OF ASSETS IS FOR CONSIDERATION WHICH HAS BEEN RECEIVED BY WAY OF BOOK ENTRIES AND HENCE THE TRANSFER IS NOT DONATION . SINCE, THE TRANSFER OF ASSETS IS FOR CONSIDERATION, THE APPELLANT HAS EARNED CAPITAL GAINS AS PER PROVISION S OF SECTION 11(1A) OF THE IT ACT. THE BOARD INSTRUC TION RELIED UPON BY THE COUNSEL DOES NOT HELP HIM SINCE 4 THE PRESENT CASE IS NOT FOR DONATION BUT OF TRANSFE R OF ASSETS AND CONSIDERATION. THE AO IS JUSTIFIED IN ASSESSING THE CAPITAL GAIN ON TRANSFER OF ASSETS AN D MAKING ADDITION OF THE SAME TO THE RECEIPTS OF THE APPELLANT AND IN NOT TREATING IT AS APPLICATION OF INCOME. THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO IS UPHELD. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS REJECTED. 6. WE HAVE CAREFULLY PERUSED AND CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE CIT(A) AS ALSO BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. THE ASSESSEE HAS PLACED RELIA NCE ON THE INSTRUCTIONS NO.1132 ISSUED BY THE CBDT. HOWEVE R, THE INTERPRETATION OF THE SAID INSTRUCTION ISSUED BY CB DT WAS NOT ACCEPTED BY THE CIT(A) WHO UPHELD THE FINDINGS OF THE AO. THE LD. CIT(A) CATEGORICALLY HELD THAT IN THE PRESENT CASE, THERE IS A TRANSFER OF ASSETS FOR CONSIDERATI ON, WHICH HAS BEEN RECEIVED BY WAY OF BOOK ENTRIES AND HENCE THE TRANSFER IS NOT DONATION. THE IMPUGNED INSTRUCTION S ISSUED BY THE CBDT CATEGORICALLY SPEAKS OF THE PAYMENT OF A SUM AND NOT TRANSFER OF THE ASSET, AS MISCONSTRUED BY T HE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, WE ARE IN COMPLETE AGREEMENT WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND DO NOT FIND ANY INFI RMITY IN THE FINDINGS OF THE CIT(A) AND THE SAME ARE UPHELD. TH IS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 7. IN GROUND NO.2, THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT THE CIT(A) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE RE-ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S 148 WERE NOT BAD IN LAW. IN THIS CASE, THE AO INVOKED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 148 FOR THE REASON THAT THE A SSESSEE TRANSFERRED LAND AND OTHER ASSETS OF RS.1,05,82,364 /- TO ANOTHER SOCIETY AND SUCH TRANSFER CANNOT BE CONSTRU ED AS 5 APPLICATION OF INCOME FOR CHARITABLE PURPOSE. THE AO HELD, AFTER EXCLUDING THIS AMOUNT, THE INCOME APPLIED FOR CHARITABLE PURPOSE IS LESS THAN 85% OF THE RECEIPTS , AT RS.77,41,843/-. THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE VALIDI TY OF RE- OPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ON THE GROUND THAT THE REASONS TAKEN BY AO FOR RE-OPENING THE ASSESSME NT ARE NOT TENABLE IN VIEW OF THE BOARDS INSTRUCTIONS NO. 1132. THE AO ALSO INTIMATED THE ASSESSEE THAT THE CASE HA D BEEN REOPENED ON ACCOUNT OF TRANSFER OF ASSETS AND NOT O N ACCOUNT OF DONATION. THE ASSESSEE FILED APPLICATIO N BEFORE THE JCIT FOR ISSUING NECESSARY INSTRUCTIONS U/S 144 A OF THE ACT. THE AO HELD THAT THE ENTIRE SALE CONSIDERATIO N IS THE CAPITAL GAIN CHARGEABLE TO TAX U/S 11(1A) OF THE AC T. 8. BEFORE CIT(A), IT WAS CONTENDED THAT THE VERY IS SUE OF NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT IS BAD IN LAW. IT WAS FU RTHER ARGUED THAT TRANSFER OF ASSETS BY WAY OF DONATION T O ANOTHER SOCIETY IS PROPER APPLICATION OF INCOME. THE ASSES SEE PLACED RELIANCE ON A NUMBER OF DECISIONS TO SUPPORT HIS CO NTENTIONS THAT TRANSFER OF ASSETS CONSTITUTES APPLICATION OF INCOME. THE ARGUMENT OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE SPECIFIC CONTEX T PERTAINS TO THE REALM OF RE-ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND NOT IN THE CONTEXT OF ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT. THE FACTUM, WHETHER SAID TRANSFER CONSTITUTES APPLICATI ON OF INCOME OR OTHERWISE, IS TO BE ADJUDICATED ON MERIT. 9. THE ASSESSEE PLACED RELIANCE ON A NUMBER OF DECI SIONS BEFORE THE CIT(A) TO SUPPORT HIS CONTENTIONS AGAINS T ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT. THE LD. CIT(A), ON APPR ECIATION OF 6 FACT SITUATION OF THE PRESENT CASE AND CAREFUL CONS IDERING THE DECISIONS RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE, ADJUDICA TED THE ISSUE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. THE RELEVANT AND OPERA TIVE PART OF THE FINDINGS OF THE CIT(A), ON THIS ISSUE ARE RE PRODUCED HEREUNDER : 4.1 I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE APPLICATION OF THE APPELLANT FOR ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APP EAL. IN VIEW OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT DECISION RELIE D UPON BY THE COUNSEL, THERE APPEARS TO BE NO REASON FOR NOT ADMITTING THE ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL WHICH HAS IMPORTANT BEARING FOR DECIDING THE PRESENT APPEAL. THE ADDITIONAL GROUND IS, THEREFORE ADMITTED. 5. THE ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL IS TAKEN UP FIRS T AND IS REGARDING THE RE-OPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT U /S 148 OF THE IT ACT. THE COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT HA S ARGUED THAT THE RE-OPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT WAS CHALLENGED BEFORE THE AO FOR TWO REASONS. FIRSTLY FOR THE REASON THAT THE TRANSFER OF ASSETS BY WAY OF DONATION TO ANOTHER EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY IS PROPER APPLICATION OF INCOME AND MAKES NO DIFFERENCE HOW T HE DONATION IS TREATED BY THE DONEE AND SECONDLY THAT IT IS A CASE OF CHANGE OF OPINION ON THE SAME FACTS ON WH ICH THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED EARLIER. THE COUNSEL ARGUED THAT THE REASON GIVEN FOR RE-OPENING THE ASSESSMENT IS THAT A DONATION TO ANOTHER CHARITABLE TRUST IS NOT APPLICATION OF INCOME WITHIN THE MEANI NG OF SECTION 11 WHICH IS NOT A TENABLE REASON IN LAW. TH E COUNSEL HAS RELIED ON THE BOARD INSTRUCTION NO.1132 DATED 05.01.1978 AND HAS ALSO RELIED ON A NUMBER OF CASE LAWS IN THIS REGARD WHICH HAVE BEEN DISCUSSED AS PART OF HIS WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS. THE COUNSEL FURTHE R ARGUED THAT THE ASSESSMENT CANNOT BE REOPENED ON A MERE CHANGE OF OPINION AND HAS PLACED RELIANCE ON C ASE LAWS WHICH HAVE BEEN DISCUSSED AS PART OF HIS WRITT EN SUBMISSIONS. THE AO IN REPLY TO THE OBJECTION RAISE D BY 7 THE APPELLANT FOR RE-OPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT INFO RMED THE APPELLANT THAT THE ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN REOPENED ON THE GROUND OF TRANSFER OF ASSETS AND NOT ON ACCOUNT OF DONATION TO ANOTHER TRUST. 5.1 I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED ARGUMENTS OF THE COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT AND HAVE ALSO CONSIDERED THE CASE LAWS RELIED UPON BY HIM. I HAVE CAREFULLY PERU SED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSESSMENT WAS REOPENED BY THE AO FOR THE REASON TH AT THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY TRANSFERRED ITS LAND AND OTHER ASSETS WORTH RS.1,05,82,364/- TO ANOTHER SOCIETY WH ICH IS NOT APPLICATION OF INCOME TOWARDS CHARITABLE PURPOSES. THE AO HELD THAT THE INCOME APPLIED TOWAR D CHARITABLE PURPOSES WAS LESS THAN 85% OF ITS RECEIP TS BY RS.77,41,843/-. THE AO MENTIONED THAT THE TRANSFER OF THE ASSETS IS CLEAR FROM THE SCHEDULE OF FIXED ASSE TS FILED WITH ORIGINAL RETURN AND THE FACT THAT THE TR ANSFER OF ASSETS FOR A CONSIDERATION IS CLEAR FROM SCHEDUL E C TO THE BALANCE SHEET IN WHICH THE TWO SOCIETIES TO WHO M THE ASSETS HAVE BEEN TRANSFERRED ARE SHOWN AS CREDI TORS OF RS.2,58,07,834/-. THE SALE CONSIDERATION HAS BEE N REDUCED FROM THE CREDIT BALANCE AND THUS HAS BEEN RECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT THROUGH BOOK ENTRIES. IT IS CLEAR THAT THE TRANSFER OF ASSETS IS NOT DONATION G IVEN TO THE TWO SOCIETIES AS CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT. THE TRANSFER OF ASSETS BEING FOR A CONSIDERATION, THE C APITAL GAINS ARISING ON THE SAME HAS TO BE TREATED AS RECE IPT U/S 11(1A) OF THE IT ACT. THE APPELLANT HAS TREATED THE TRANSFER OF THE ASSETS AS DONATION AND HENCE APPLIC ATION OF INCOME WHEREAS THE AO HAS MENTIONED THAT THIS IS A TRANSFER OF ASSETS FOR CONSIDERATION AND HENCE THE APPELLANT HAS EARNED CAPITAL GAINS ON THE SAME. THE TWO GROUNDS TAKEN BY THE COUNSEL FOR CHALLENGING TH E RE- OPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT DO NOT CARRY ANY FORCE AN D ARE REJECTED. THE FIRST ARGUMENT IS THAT THE TRANS FER IS BY WAY OF DONATION WHICH IS FACTUALLY INCORRECT AND IS REJECTED. THE SECOND ARGUMENT IS THAT THE RE-OPENI NG OF 8 THE ASSESSMENT AMOUNTS OF CHANGE OF OPINION IS ALSO WITHOUT ANY MERIT AND IS REJECTED. IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT, THE AO COMPLETELY MISSED ASSESSING THE CAPITAL GAINS EARNED ON TRANSFER OF THE ASSETS FOR CONSIDERATION. THE RE-OPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT FOR BRINGING THE CAPITAL GAINS TO TAX WHICH WAS OMITTED EARLIER DOES NOT AMOUNT TO CHANGE OF OPINION. THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 11(1A) ARE CLEARLY APPLICABLE . THE OMISSION TO APPLY THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT AND LAT ER ON APPLYING THEM BY RE-OPENING THE ASSESSMENT DOES NOT AMOUNT TO CHANGE OF OPINION. THE ARGUMENTS OF THE COUNSEL FOR RE-OPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT ARE REJECT ED. THE CASE LAWS RELIED ON BY THE COUNSEL ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE AND DO NOT HELP THE APPELLANT. THE AO HAS VALIDLY REOPENED TH E ASSESSMENT BY ISSUING NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE IT ACT. THE ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL IS REJECTED. 10. THE REASONS RECORDED BY THE AO CONSTITUTE THE FOUNDATIONAL MATERIAL OR FACTS, WHICH LED TO INVOCA TION OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 148 OF THE ACT. THE REASONS RECORDED BY THE AO ARE SPECIFIC AND SQUARELY FALL WITHIN THE CONTEMPLATION OF SECTION 147 OF THE ACT. THE FINDI NGS OF THE CIT(A), THAT THERE IS NO CHANGE OF OPINION IN THE C ONTEXT OF THE FACTUAL POSITION OF THE CASE, DOES NOT SUFFER F ROM ANY INFIRMITY. THE REASONS RECORDED BY THE AO HAVE LIV E NEXUS WITH THE ESCAPED INCOME, CHARGEABLE TO TAX. THE AO IS NOT REQUIRED TO ESTABLISH THE FACTUM OF ESCAPEMENT AT T HE STAGE OF ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT AS HELD IN A NUMBER OF DECISIONS BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT, PARTICUL ARLY IN THE CASE OF ACIT V RAJESH JHAVERI STOCK BROKERS PVT .LTD. (2007) 291 ITR 500 (S.C). 9 11. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTUAL AND LEGAL DISCUSSI ONS, WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THE CONTENTIONS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THIS GROUND OF APPEAL AS THE FINDINGS O F THE LD. CIT(A) ARE WELL REASONED AND BASED ON APPRECIATION OF THE FACT SITUATION OF THE CASE, CASE LAWS AND RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. CONSEQUENTLY, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASO N TO INTERFERE WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND T HE SAME ARE UPHELD. THE GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSE E IS DISMISSED. 12. GROUND NO.3 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS GENERAL I N NATURE AND NEEDS NO SEPARATE ADJUDICATION. 13. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMIS SED. ITA NO. 1077/CHD/2010 (REVENUES APPEAL) 14. IN GROUND NO.1, THE REVENUE CONTENDED THAT CIT( A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.82,31,154/- ON THE BASIS OF ACCOUNTS, BILLS, VOU CHERS ETC. NOT PERTAINING TO THE ACCOUNTS ATTACHED WITH ORIGIN AL RETURN. THE LD. CIT(A) HELD THAT THERE IS FORCE IN THE ARGU MENT OF THE ASSESSEE THAT ADVANCES OF RS.11,89,398/- ARE OLD AN D AN ADVANCE OF RS.70,41,756/- HAD BEEN GIVEN TO THE LOT US VALLEY SCHOOL FOR CONSTRUCTING THE BUILDING, WHICH IS AN APPLICATION OF INCOME. IN VIEW OF THIS THE CIT(A) H ELD THAT AO IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN MAKING ADDITION OF RS.82,31,154 /- AND DELETED THE ADDITION. 15. WE HAVE CAREFULLY PERUSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, RELEVANT RECORD AND SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND FOUND THAT THE FINDINGS OF THE AO CANNOT BE SUSTAINED IN VIEW OF 10 SPECIFIC FINDINGS GIVEN BY THE LD. CIT(A) THAT AN A MOUNT OF RS.11,89,398/- ARE OLD ADVANCES AND FURTHER, AN ADV ANCE OF RS.70,41,756/- HAD BEEN GIVEN TO THE LOTUS VALLEY S CHOOL FOR CONSTRUCTING THE BUILDING WHICH IS AN APPLICATI ON OF INCOME AND NOT THE RECEIPTS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE AS SESSEE PRODUCED THE BILLS FOR CONSTRUCTION BEFORE AO, WHIC H WERE VERIFIED BY HIM, COPY OF THE BILL ACCOUNT, BUILDING ACCOUNT WITH SUPPORTING BILLS AND COPIES OF BANK STATEMENT REFLECTING THE PAYMENTS OF THE CONTRACTORS WERE ALSO PRODUCED. IT WAS ARGUED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT ALL THE PAYMENTS WERE M ADE BY ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUE AND TDS WAS DEDUCTED. IN VIEW OF THIS, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND HENCE, THE SAME ARE UPHELD. 16. GROUND NOS. 2 & 3 ARE GENERAL IN NATURE AND NEE D NO SEPARATE ADJUDICATION. 17. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISS ED. 18. RESULTANTLY, BOTH THE APPEALS ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 6 TH JAN.,2012. SD/- SD/- (H.L.KARWA) (MEHAR SINGH) VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 6 TH JAN.,2012. POONAM COPY TO: THE APPELLANT, THE RESPONDENT, THE CIT(A), THE CIT,DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT CHANDIGARH