M/s H. Sagar Knitwears, Ludhiana V. DCIT, Ludhiana

ITA 1112/CHANDI/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9948 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 6 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-05-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 17-02-2016
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 29-10-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S K MITTAL
• Assessee Lawyers: GAGAN DEEP SINGH
• Keywords: Income from undisclosed sources

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MS. RANO JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.1112/CHD/2012 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09) M/S H.SAGAR KNITWEARS, VS. THE D.C.I.T., AYALI KHURD, HAMBRAN ROAD, CIRCLE VII, LUDHIANA. LUDHIANA. PAN: AAACT5619H APPELLANT BY : SHRI GAGANDEEP SINGH RESPONDENT BY : SHRI S.K. MITTAL, DR DATE OF HEARING : 25.04.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 27.05.2016 O R D E R PER RANO JAIN, A.M . : THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINS T THE ORDER OF LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-II, CHANDIGARH DATED 6.8.2012, RELATING T O ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09, PASSED UNDER SECTION 250(6 ) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT). 2. THE GROUND NO.1 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE READS AS UNDER : 1. THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-II, LU DHIANA. ON FACTS AS WELL AS IN LAW, HAS ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE 2 ADDITION OF RS.1308575/- ON ACCOUNT OF DECREASE IN STOCK AND RS.323529/- ON ACCOUNT OF PROFIT EARNED ON SALE OF STOCK OF RS.1308575/- WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE REPLY FILED BY THE APPELLANT AS THERE WAS NO UNACCOUNTED STOCK. TH EREFORE, THE ADDITION OF RS.1632104/- (1308575 + 323529) IS UNCALLED FOR, UNWARRANTED AND MAY BE DELETED. 3. BRIEFLY, THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY, THE ASSESSEE DECLARED UNACCOUNTED INCOME OF RS.60 LACS OUT OF WHICH RS.20 LACS WERE SURRENDERED ON ACCOUNT OF EXCESS STOCK FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY. THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN DECLA RING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.55,35,480/-. THE ASSESSING OFFI CER NOTED THAT THERE WAS UNDER-STATEMENT OF STOCK BY RS.13,08,575/-. THESE FIGURES IN STOCK WERE COMPUT ED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS FOLLOW : OPENING STOCK ON 17.1.2008 RS.40,15,205/- ADD: PURCHASE IN THE POST- SURVEY PERIOD RS.77,29,294/- TOTAL : RS.1,17,44,499/- LESS: SALES IN THE POST- SURVEY PERIOD RS.11,90,684/- RS.1,05,53,815/- STOCK SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE RS. 92,45,000/- - DECREASE IN STOCK RS.13,08,815/- 4. BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS), SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT WHILE CALCULATING THE FIGURE OF UNDER-STATEMENT OF STOCK, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TAKEN CERTAIN WRONG FIGURES. THE ASSESSEE TRIED TO EXPLA IN THE ACTUAL STOCK AS CALCULATED BY HIM AS UNDER : 3 OPENING TOCK AS ON 17.1.2008 RS.21,09,706/- ADD:STOCK SURRENDER AT THE TIME OF SURVEY RS.20,00,000/- RS.41,09,706/- PURCHASE IN THE POST-SURVEY PERIOD RS.56,16,479/- RS.97,26,185/- LESS: SALE IN THE POST-SURVEY PERIOD RS.11,90,684 /- STOCK RS.84,35,501/- STOCK SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE RS.92,45,000/- 5. WITH THE HELP OF THIS TABLE, THE ASSESSEE TRIED TO SHOW THAT THERE WAS NO DECREASE IN STOCK. THE ASSE SSING OFFICER SENT THE MATER IN REMAND TO THE ASSESSING O FFICER, WHO VIDE HIS REPORT DATED 29.2.2012 SUBMITTED THAT THE FIGURE OF OPENING STOCK TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE AT RS.41,09,706/- IS NOT A CORRECT FIGURE, WHICH ALSO INCLUDES SURRENDERED STOCK AT RS.20 LACS, WHILE THE ACTUAL S TOCK AS PER INVENTORY PREPARED BY THE SURVEY TEAM WAS RS.40,15,205/-. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO WRONGLY TAKE N THE FIGURE OF PURCHASE WHICH AS PER THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER WAS RS.77,29,294/-. COMPUTING BY DEDUCTING AN AMOUNT O F RS.1,26,14,526/- BEING THE PURCHASES MADE DURING TH E PRE-SURVEY PERIOD FROM THE TOTAL PURCHASES OF RS.2,03,43,817/- MADE BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YE AR, IN THIS WAY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DEFENDED THE COMPUT ATION MADE BY HIM AND SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS A DECREASE IN STOCK AMOUNTING TO RS.13,08,815/-. IN THE REJOIND ER TO REMAND REPORT, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED BEFORE THE CI T (APPEALS) THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ERRED IN N OT TAKING THE VALUE OF STOCK SURRENDERED AT THE TIME O F SURVEY AT RS.20,00,000/-, WHICH WAS TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS TRADING ACCOUNT AND WHICH FORMS THE PART 4 OF THE OPENING STOCK AS ON THE DATE OF SURVEY. FUR THER, IT WAS STATED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TAKEN WRO NG FIGURE OF PURCHASES FOR THE POST-SURVEY PERIOD BY INCLUDING THE PRE-SURVEY PURCHASES OUT OF THE PURCH ASES FOR THE WHOLE YEAR DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE AMOUNT OF JOB WORK, SUNDRY STOCK SURRENDERED, PACKING MATERIAL WE RE SEPARATELY SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS TRADING ACC OUNT FOR THE YEAR. THEREFORE, THE SAME ARE TO BE EXCLUD ED FOR COMPUTING THE PURCHASES MADE DURING THE POST-SURVEY PERIOD. THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) DID NOT SATISFY WITH THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND CONFIRMED THE ACTIO N OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN MAKING ADDITION OF THIS AM OUNT OF RS.13,08,575/-. 6. AGGRIEVED BY THIS, THE ASSESSEE HAS COME UP IN APPEAL BEFORE US. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSE SSEE EXPLAINED TO US WITH THE HELP OF INVENTORY DRAWN BY THE ASSESSEE COMPARED WITH THE INVENTORY DRAWN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IT WAS STATED THAT ONLY DIFFERE NCE IS ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENCE IN FIGURES OF OPENING STOCK A ND PURCHASES. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ERRED IN NOT TAKING THE AMOUNT OF RS.20 LACS BEING THE AMOUNT SURRENDERED BY THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF ST OCK, WHICH WAS DULY RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND , THEREFORE, FORMS PART OF OPENING STOCK AT THE TIME OF SURVEY. FURTHER, WITH REGARD TO THE DIFFERENCE IN THE FIGURES OF PURCHASES, OUR ATTENTION WAS INVITED TO THE TRADING ACCOUNT FOR THE YEAR PLACED IN THE PAPER BO OK AT 5 PAGE 61, WHEREBY THE AMOUNT WITH RESPECT TO JOB WOR K, SUNDRY STOCK AND PACKING MATERIAL WERE DISCLOSED SEPARATELY, WHILE THE PURCHASES ON ACCOUNT OF OTHER COMPONENTS WERE SHOWN TOGETHER. A COMPARISON OF TH E FIGURE OF PURCHASES TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS EXPLAINED WITH THE HELP OF A TABLE DRAWN AT PAGE 5 OF THE PAPER BOOK, WHICH SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE DEDUCING THE PURCHASES FOR THE POST-SURVEY PERIOD HAS ACTUALLY ARRIVED AT THIS FIG URE AFTER DEDUCTING THE PURCHASES ON ACCOUNT OF PURCHASES OF RAW MATERIAL, CONSUMABLE GOODS, NEEDLES, OIL AND LUBRIC ANTS OUT OF THE PURCHASES MADE BY THE ASSESSEE DURING TH E WHOLE YEAR COMPRISING OF PURCHASES OF RAW MATERIAL, CONSUMABLE GOODS, JOB WORK, NEEDLES, SUNDRY STOCK, PACKING MATERIAL, OIL AND LUBRICANTS. IN THIS WAY, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT CLOSING STOCK FIGURE COMES TO RS.85,34,501/- WHILE THE CLOSING STOCK SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS TRADING ACCOUNT COMES TO RS.92,45,0 00/-. THEREFORE, THERE IS NO UNDER-REPORTING OF THE CLOSI NG STOCK. 7. THE LEARNED D.R. RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS THAT OF THE CIT (APPEA LS) AND STATED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS THE CI T (APPEALS) HAVE TAKEN GREAT PAIN IN DRIVING TRADING ACCOUNT ON THE BASIS OF FIGURES SOWN BY THE ASSESSEE ITSELF , WHICH LEADS TO UNDER-REPORTING OF STOCK AMOUNTING TO RS.13,08,815/-. 6 8. WE HAVE HEARD THE LEARNED REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH THE PARTIES, PERUSED THE FINDINGS OF THE AUTHO RITIES BELOW AND CONSIDERED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECO RD. WE OBSERVE THAT THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE CLOSING STOCK AS DRAWN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHICH LEADS TO UN - REPORTING OF STOCK AND CLOSING STOCK AS DRAWN BY TH E ASSESSEE IS ON ACCOUNT OF ONLY DIFFERENCE BETWEEN T HE TWO FIGURES THAT OF THE OPENING STOCK AND PURCHASES. W E FIND SUBSTANCE IN THE ARGUMENTS RAISED BY THE LEARNED CO UNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THE AMOUNT OF STOCK SURRENDER ED AT THE TIME OF SURVEY, WHICH HAS BEEN TAKEN CARE OF BY THE ASSESSEE BY TAKING INTO ITS TRADING ACCOUNT, IS ACT UALLY FORMED PART OF THE OPENING STOCK ON THE DATE OF SUR VEY AND SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN THE OPENING STOCK WHILE COMPU TING CLOSING STOCK FOR THE POST-SURVEY PERIOD. SINCE TH E ASSESSEE HAS ALSO SHOWN THIS AMOUNT OF RS.20 LAS AS HIS MISCELLANEOUS INCOME IN THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT A ND HAD PAID DUE TAXES, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE WAY THE STOCK SURRENDERED HAS BEEN ACCOUNTED FOR BY THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, WE ARE IN AGREEMENT WITH THE ARGUMENTS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE FIGURE OF OPENING STOCK TAKEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AT RS.40,15,205/- HAS TO BE IN FACT, RS.41,09,706/- BE ING THE TOTAL OF AMOUNT SURRENDERED OF RS.20 LACS AND T HE STOCK OF RS.21,09,706 AS PREPARED BY THE SURVEY TEA M. THE OTHER DISCREPANCY IS WITH REGARD TO THE PURCHAS ES AS TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE AS COMPARED TO THE PURCHASES TAKEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. WE OBSERVE THAT THE ASSE SSING 7 OFFICER HAS ARRIVED AT A FIGURE AT RS.77,29,294/- B Y DEDUCTING THE PURCHASES OF PRE-SURVEY PERIOD CONSIS TING OF THE PURCHASES ON ACCOUNT OF RAW MATERIAL, CONSUMABL E GOODS, NEEDLES, OIL AND LUBRICANTS OUT OF THE TOTAL PURCHASES MADE BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE WHOLE YEA R, WHICH COMPRISES OF PURCHASES ON ACCOUNT OF RAW MATE RIAL, CONSUMABLE GOODS, JOB WORK, NEEDLES STOCK SURRENDER ED, PACKING MATERIAL, OIL AND LUBRICANTS. WE ALSO OBSE RVE FROM THE TRADING ACCOUNT PREPARED BY THE ASSESSEE T HAT IT HAD SHOWN THE FIGURES OF JOB WORK, SUNDRY STOCK SURRENDERED AND PACKING MATERIAL SEPARATELY. THERE FORE, WE DO NOT FIND THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN ARRIVING AT THE FIGURE OF PURCHASE BY THIS METHOD, SINCE FOR THE PRE-SURVEY PERIOD, HE HAS CONSIDERED THE PURCHASES ON ACCOUNT OF JOB WORK, PACKING MATERIAL AS WELL AS SUNDRY STOCK SURRENDERED FOR ARRIVING AT TH E FIGURE OF PURCHASES DURING THE POST-SURVEY PERIOD, HE HAS TO IGNORE THESE FIGURES FOR THE WHOLE YEAR ALSO. THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN THE COMPUTATION MADE BY HIM AFTER TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION ALL THESE FACTORS AND WE AGREE WITH T HE ARGUMENTS THAT THE ACTUAL PURCHASES SHOULD BE AT RS.56,16,479/-. AFTER CONSIDERING THE OPENING STOC K AT RS.41,09,706/- AND PURCHASES AT RS.56,16,479/-, WE DO NOT FIND ANY UNDER-REPORTING OF STOCK. THE ASSESSE E SUCCEEDS ON THIS GROUND. 9. THE GROUND NO.2 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE READS AS UNDER : 8 2. THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - II, LUDHIANA, ON FACTS AS WELL AS IN LAW, HAS ERRED IN PARTLY3 THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.1527756/- ON ACCOUNT OF EXCE SS EXPENSES CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT, WITHOUT GIVING A NY CONSIDERATION TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND THE REPL Y FILED BY THE APPELLANT. THE A.O. CALCULATED THE EXCESS EXPEN DITURE ON THE BASIS OF INCREASE IN SALES YEAR OVER YEAR, H OWEVER, THE SAID EXPENSES ARE OPERATING EXPENSES AND NOT MANUFACTURING EXPENSES, AND THUS, CANNOT BE CONTRAS TED WITH INCREASE IN SALES. THEREFORE, THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.1527756/- IS WITHOUT ANY BASIS AND MAY BE DELETE D. 10. BRIEFLY, THE FACTS ARE THAT DURING THE ASSESSM ENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT THE A SSESSEE HAS SHOWN AN INCREASE OF 12.34% IN SALES DURING THE YEAR AS COMPARED TO IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING YEAR. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE EXPENDIT URE CLAIMED DURING THE YEAR SHOULD ALSO BE INCREASED ON PROPORTIONATE BASIS I.E. INCREASE @ 12.34% OVER THE LAST YEAR EXPENSES. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.15,79,495/-. 11. BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS), THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE IN FREIGHT EXPENSES OF RS.4433/- IS DUE TO THE INCREASE IN RATE OF FREIGHT CHARGES AS COMPA RED TO THE EARLIER YEAR. THE INSURANCE EXPENSES, TELEPHON E EXPENSES AND CONTRIBUTION TO RECOGNIZED STAFF WELFA RE FUND ARE GENUINE, FULLY VOUCHED AND STATUTORY EXPENSES W HICH HAVE BEEN ACTUALLY PAID. THEREFORE, THE SAME CANNO T BE AVERAGED ON THE BASIS OF SALES. FURTHER, IT WAS ST ATED THAT THE INTEREST PAID ON PARTNERS CAPITAL HAS NO RELEV ANCE WITH RATIO OF INCREASE IN SALES. THE LEARNED CIT ( APPEALS) 9 AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE H ELD THAT HE WAS FULLY SATISFIED BY THE ACTION OF THE AS SESSING OFFICER IN ESTIMATING THE EXPENSES ALLOWABLE UNDER THE VARIOUS HEADS. HOWEVER, KEEPING IN VIEW THE NATURE OF EXPENSES, THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.51,739/- ON ACCOUN T OF CONTRIBUTION OF RECOGNIZED PROVIDENT FUND BEING IN THE NATURE OF GOVERNMENT DUES, HE GAVE RELIEF TO THAT E XTENT TO THE ASSESSEE AND SUSTAINED THE ADDITION TO THE EXTE NT OF RS.15,27,756/-. 12. AGGRIEVED BY THIS, THE ASSESSEE HAS COME UP IN APPEAL BEFORE US. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSE SSEE MADE SUBMISSIONS WITH REGARD TO THE FACT THAT THE R EPLIES OF THE ASSESSEE WERE NOT DULY TAKEN CARE OF BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS CALCULATE D EXCESS EXPENDITURE ON THE BASIS OF INCREASE IN SALE S OVER THE LAST YEAR. 13. THE LEARNED D.R. RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS THAT OF THE LEARNED CI T (APPEALS). 14. WE HAVE HEARD THE LEARNED REPRESENTATIVES OF B OTH THE PARTIES, PERUSED THE FINDINGS OF THE AUTHORITIE S BELOW AND CONSIDERED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. W E SEE THAT THERE ARE EIGHT HEADS OF EXPENDITURE UNDER WHI CH THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS PROPOSED THE ADDITION ON THE BASIS OF INCREASE IN SALES AS COMPARED TO THE EARLIER YEAR. THESE ARE FREIGHT, CONTRIBUTION TO RECOGNIZED PROVIDENT FUND, 10 INSURANCE, WORKMAN & STAFF WELFARE EXPENSES, TRAVEL ING EXPENSES INCLUDING FOREIGN TRAVELING, TELEPHONE EXP ENSES, OTHER EXPENSES AND INTEREST. THE ASSESSEE HAS GIVE N EXPLANATION WITH REGARD TO THE INCREASE IN FREIGHT EXPENSES AS COMPARED TO THE EXPENSES COMPUTED BY T HE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) HAS G IVEN RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF CONTRIBUTION T O RECOGNIZED PROVIDENT FUND. HOWEVER, WE OBSERVE TH AT ALL OTHER HEADS OF EXPENSES REMAINING ARE IN THE NATURE OF OPERATING EXPENSES AND IN FACT FORM PART OF THE PRO FIT & LOSS ACCOUNT OF ANY CONCERN AND NOT OF TRADING ACCO UNT. THE EXPENSES ARE IN THE NATURE OF INDIRECT EXPENSE S LIKE TRAVELING EXPENSES INCLUDING FOREIGN TRAVELING, TEL EPHONE EXPENSES, OTHER EXPENSES AND INTEREST, ETC. WHICH CANNOT BE RELATED TO THE INCREASE OR DECREASE IN SALES DUR ING THE YEAR. WE DO NOT FIND ANY SUBSTANCE IN THE ACTION O F THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN COMPARING THESE EXPENSES IN RE LATION TO THE INCREASE IN SALES. THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATIO N TO EXPLAIN NATURE OF ALL THESE EXPENSES BEING FLUCTUAT ED FOR THE FLUCTUATION IN THE SALES. THESE ARE EXPENSES O F INDIRECT NATURE AND CAN NEVER BE IN PROPORTION TO T HE AMOUNT OF SALE. WE DO NOT APPRECIATE THE WAY THE I SSUE HAS BEEN HANDLED EVEN AT THE LEVEL OF CIT (APPEALS) SINCE WHILE GIVING RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF CONTRIBUTION TO RECOGNIZED PROVIDENT FUND, HE HIMSE LF STATES THAT THE SAME IS NOT RELATED TO THE SALE, TH EN HOW CAN HE FOR ALL OTHER EXPENSES FROM A VIEW THAT THOS E SHOULD BE RELATED TO THE QUANTUM OF SALES. THE ASS ESSING 11 OFFICER AS WELL AS CIT (APPEALS) HAS NOWHERE GIVEN ANY FINDING AS TO THE EXPENSES BEING EITHER PERSONAL IN NATURE OR NOT BEING INCURRED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR TH E PURPOSES OF BUSINESS. EVEN THE ARGUMENT OF THE ASS ESSEE THAT ALL THESE EXPENSES ARE PROPERLY VOUCHED, HAS N OT BEEN CONTROVERTED BY ANY OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. THERE CANNOT BE ANY PRESUMPTION UNDER LAW THAT THE EXPENS ES ARE NECESSARILY TO BE INCURRED IN DIRECT PROPORTION TO THE QUANTUM OF SALES. IN THIS VIEW, THERE IS NO JUSTI FICATION IN MAKING ADDITION OF THESE PROJECTED EXPENSES ON T HE BASIS OF INCREASE IN SALE. THE GROUND RAISED BY TH E ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 15. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 27 TH DAY OF MAY, 2016. SD/- SD/- (BHAVNESH SAINI) (RANO JAIN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 27 TH MAY, 2016 *RATI* COPY TO: THE APPELLANT/THE RESPONDENT/THE CIT(A)/THE CIT/THE D R. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH