Shri C.P. Aggarwal, New Delhi V. DCIT, Chandigarh

ITA 1125/CHANDI/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5159 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-06-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 04-11-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: C CHANDRAKANTADR
• Assessee Lawyers: AMAN BANSAL
• Keywords: Document seized; Cost of acquisition; Documents seized
• Section: 153A; 132; 139

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH,CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MS. ANNAPURNA GUPTA,ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOS. 1125 TO 1130/CHD/2016 A.YS: 2007-08 TO 2012-13 SHRI C.P.AGGARWAL, VS THE DCIT, F-334, SARITA VIHAR, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, NEW DELHI. CHANDIGARH. PAN: ACDPA6142N (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI AMAN BANSAL RESPONDENT BY : MS. C.CHANDRAKANTA,DR DATE OF HEARING : 31.05.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 02.06.2017 O R D E R PER BENCH : THE PRESENT APPEALS FILED BY THE SAME ASSESSEE RELATING TO DIFFERENT ASSESSMENT YEARS HAVE BEEN PR EFERRED AGAINST THE COMMON ORDER OF LD. COMMISSIONER OF INC OME TAX(APPEALS) (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS CIT(A) DAT ED 25.08.2016 WHICH IN TURN HAS BEEN PASSED IN APPEAL AGAINST THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS OF EVEN DATE 30.09.20 14 PASSED BY THE AO IN RELATION TO THE ASSESSMENT PROC EEDINGS CARRIED OUT U/S 153A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. 2. IDENTICAL GROUNDS HAVE BEEN TAKEN BY THE ASSESSE E IN ALL THE ASSESSMENT YEARS. SINCE COMMON ISSUES ARE INVOLVED, HENCE ALL THE APPEALS WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY THIS COMMON ORDER. THE FACTS, FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE, ARE TAKEN FROM ITA 1125/CHD/20 16 2 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. THE ASSESSEE IN THIS APPEAL HAS TAKEN THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS : 1. THE LD. CIT (APPEALS) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN LAW A S WELL AS ON FACTS IN NOT DISPOSING OFF THE GROUND OF APPEAL RAI SED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S 153A MADE BY THE LD. AO IS BAD IN LAW SINCE NO INCRIMINATING DOCUMENT OR UNDISCLOSED INCO ME WAS FOUND DURING SEARCH OPERATIONS FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDE RATION. THEREFORE ADDITIONS MADE MAY PLEASE BE DELETED. 2. THE LD. CIT (APPEALS) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.43688/- MADE BY LD. AO BY REVISING THE ANNUAL RENTAL VALUE OF HOUSE I PROPERT Y ON ESTIMATION BASIS. THE ADDITION MAY PLEASE BE DELETED. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSE E, AN INDIVIDUAL, HAD FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME U/S 139 OF INCOME TAX ACT,1961 ON 31.07.2007 SHOWING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 2,71,210/- UNDER THE HEADS OF SALARY, HOUSE PROPERTY AND INCOM E FROM OTHER SOURCES. THE RETURN WAS PROCESSED U/S 143(1) OF THE ACT. THEREAFTER, SEARCH & SEIZURE OPERATION U/S 132 OF T HE ACT WAS CARRIED OUT ON 04.10.2012 ON THE PREMISES OF M/S ST EEL STRIPS GROUP OF CASES. THE RESIDENTIAL PREMISES OF THE AS SESSEE WAS ALSO COVERED UNDER THE SEARCH. DURING THE COURSE O F SEARCH, SOME DOCUMENTS WERE FOUND AND SEIZED WHICH INCLUDED A LEASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND ONE MR. NOORUL Q AMAR SUBHANI. AS PER THIS AGREEMENT, THE ASSESSEE WAS R ECEIVING RENT OF RS. 6000/- PER MONTH OF THE TWO FLATS RENTED OUT BY HIM. FURTHER, A HANDWRITTEN LETTER WAS ALSO SEIZED FROM THE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH WAS WRITTEN BY SAID MR. NOORU L QAMAR SUBHANI TO THE ASSESSEE STATING THEREIN THAT THE LE ASE RENT FROM 01.01.2011 TO 30.11.2011 WAS RS. 6500/- AND FOR 01. 12.2011 TO 31.10.2012 WAS RS. 6800/- PER MONTH FOR THE TWO FLA TS OWNED BY THE ASSESSEE. DURING THE SEARCH PROCEEDINGS, ASSES SEE WAS ASKED ABOUT THE RENTAL INCOME AND WAS CONFRONTED WI TH THE 3 SEIZED DOCUMENTS. THE ASSESSEE, IN REPLY TO QUESTI ON NO. 21, IN HIS STATEMENT RECORDED DURING THE SEARCH ACTION STA TED THAT HE HAD SHOWN LESS RENTAL INCOME AND THAT HE WOULD REVI SE THE RETURN OF INCOME ACCORDINGLY AND WOULD PAY ADDITION AL TAX. THEREAFTER, THE ASSESSEE IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 153A OF THE ACT FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME ON 21.01 .2014 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 3,10,337/-. THE RENT AL INCOME FOR THE YEAR WAS SHOWN/REVISED TO RS. 70,600/- AS AGAIN ST GROSS RENTAL INCOME OF RS. 24000/- SHOWN IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN FILED U/S 139(1) OF THE ACT FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERAT ION. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO GIVE DETAILS OF THE RENTAL IN COME. THE ASSESSEE GAVE BREAK-UP AS UNDER : S. NO. DETAILS OF THE PROPERTIES FROM WHICH RENT HAS BEEN RECEIVED DATE OF ACQUISITION/ CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROPERTY COST OF ACQUISITION/ COST OF CONSTRUCTION AS PER RETURN U/S 153A AS PER RETURN U/S 139 PERIOD FOR WHICH RENT HAS BEEN RECEIVED AMOUNT OF RENT RECEIVED AMOUNT OF RENT RECEIVED CONSIDERED ON LUMP SUM BASIS (IN RS.). ) I RTRST' 1 D-149/153, SECTOR-1 1 , 11.04.05/ 03.06.05 4,78,950 APRIL TO MAR 33100 12000 JASOLA/ NEW DELHI-25 2 C-81, SECTOR-1 1, JASOLA, NEW DELHI- 25 20.07.2006 2,16,000 AUGUST TO MAR 20000 6000 3 C-170, SECTOR-11, JASOLA, NEW DELHI 28.08.2006 3,46,400 OCT. TO MAR 17500 6000 | TOTAL 70,600 24,000 HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO GIVE DETAILS AS TO WHO WERE THE TENANTS IN THE SAID PROPERTIES, FOR WHICH PERIOD TH E SAID TENANTS OCCUPIED THE PROPERTY, COPY OF ANY RENT DEED ETC. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE OR DETAILS GIVEN BY THE ASS ESSEE, THE 4 ASSESSING OFFICER REJECTED THE ABOVE DETAILS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE AND ESTIMATED THE RENTAL INCOME OF THE ASS ESSEE ON THE BASIS OF THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS I.E. LEASE AGREEMENT AND LETTER OF THE TENANT (SUPRA), PROPORTIONATE FOR THE YEAR UNDE R CONSIDERATION TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE AVERAGE PERCENTAGE OF INCREASE IN EVERY YEAR. HE, ACCORDINGLY, ASSESS ED THE RENTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERA TION AT RS. 1,14,288/-. AFTER GIVING THE BENEFIT OF INCOME ALRE ADY DECLARED OF RS. 70,600/-, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE THE ADDIT ION OF RS. 43,688/- FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. IN THE IDENTICAL MANNER, THE ADDITIONS WERE MADE FOR ALL THE SIX ASS ESSMENT YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION, DETAIL OF WHICH HAS BEEN GIVEN IN A CHART GIVEN AT PAGE 7 & 8 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, WHICH FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER : S. A.Y PERIOD FOR WHICH TOTAL RENT AVERAGE ESTIMATED ADDITION ON NO. RENT IS RENT PER RENT FOR ACCOUNT OF RECEIVED/RECEIVABLE MONTH PRECEDING UNDISCLOSED YEAR (6.5% INCOME INCREASE) (COL. 6- RENTAL INCOME SHOWN AS PER 153A RETURN) COL. COL. 2 COL. 3 COL. 4 COL. 5 COL. 6 COL. 7 1 1 2013- APRIL 12 TO MAR 13 821 00 (FOR 11 7463 N.A 134346- 14 MONTHS) 99500 = 89564 (FOR 12 34,846 MONTHS) (FOR T WO FLATS) TOTAL RENT FOR 3 FLATS FOR 12 MONTH S=134346 2 2012- APRIL 11 TO NOV 11 = 6500X8 + 6600 N.A 118800 - 13 6500 (8 MONTHS) 6800X4 =79200 79200 = 5 DEC 11 TO MAR 12 = (PER TWO FLATS) 39,600 6800 (4 MONTHS) TOTAL RENT FOR 3 FLATS FOR 12 MONTHS=1 18800 3 2011- APRIL 10 TO DEC 10= 6000X9 6125 5752 183750- 12 6000 (9 MONTHS) +6500X3=7350 0 92537 = JAN 11 TO MAR 11 = (PER TWO FLATS) 91,213 6500 ( 3 MONTHS TOTAL FOR 5 FLATS FOR 12 MONTHS= 1 83750 4 2010-11 APRIL 09 TO MAR 10 5752X12=690 24 5752 5401 172560 - (PER TWO FLATS) 102100 = TOTAL RENT FOR 5 FLATS FOR 12 MONTHS= 70,460 172560 5 2009- APRIL 08 TO MAR 09 5401X12= 64812 5401 5071 129624- 10 PER TWO FLATS 85250 = TOTAL RENT FOR 4 44,374 FIATS FOR 12 MONTHS= 1 29624 6 2008- APRIL 07 TO MAR 08 5071X12= 60852 5071 4762 121704 - 09 (PER TWO FLATS) 71250 = TOTAL RENT FOR 4 60454 FLATS FOR 12 MONTHS= 121704 7 2007-08 APRIL 06 TO MARCH 07 4762X12= 57144 4762 NA 114288- (PER TWO FLATS) 70600 = TOTAL RENT FOR 4 43,688 FLATS FOR 12 MONTHS= 1 14288 4. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO DENIED THE BENEFIT OF STANDARD DEDUCTION U/S 24 OF THE ACT IN RELATION TO THE ADDE D RENTAL INCOME. 6 5. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ABOVE ORDER OF THE ASSESS ING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE FILED THE APPEALS FOR THE ABO VE STATED ASSESSMENT YEARS BEFORE THE CIT(A). 6. THE CIT(A) VIDE IMPUGNED COMMON ORDER, UPHELD TH E ADDITIONS SO MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER INTO THE RENTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE OBSERVING AS UNDER : 3.5. I HAVE GIVEN CAREFUL CONSIDERATION TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE AND FIND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER CALCULATED INCOME F ROM HOUSE PROPERTY OF THE APPELLANT BASED ON A DOCUMENT FOUND AND SEIZED DURI NG THE COURSE OF SEARCH FROM THE PREMISES OF THE APPELLANT. THE CONTENTS OF THE SEIZED DOCUMENT HAVE BEEN DECIPHERED TO ARRIVE AT A CONCLUSION THAT THE APPEL LANT IS DRIVING INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY WHICH IS MUCH MORE THAN THE INCOME R ETURNED BY FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME. IT IS MATTER OF RECORD THAT THE APPELLANT D ID NOT DISCLOSE CORRECT RENTAL INCOME IN THE RETURNS OF INCOME FILED UNDER SECTION 13'9 (1) OF THE ACT. IT WAS SUBSEQUENT TO THE SEARCH ONLY THAT INCOME FROM HOUS E PROPERTY WAS SUBSTANTIALLY INCREASED WHILE FILING THE RETURN IN RESPONSE TO NO TICE. FURTHER, IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 153 A OF THE I NCOME TAX ACT, THERE WAS NO DISCLOSURE OF THE CALCULATION UNDERTAKEN BY THE APP ELLANT TO ARRIVE AT THE RENTAL INCOME. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS LEFT WITH NO CHOI CE BUT TO MAKE AN ESTIMATION OF RENT RECEIVED/RECEIVABLE FROM THE HOU SE PROPERTY OWNED BY THE APPELLANT. UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF INCOME TAX ACT, THE INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY IS CALCULATED ON THE BASIS OF ANNUAL VALUE OF PROPERTY WHICH IS DETERMINED IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 23 OF THE ACT . IT IS CONTEMPLATED IN THIS PROVISION THAT THE ANNUAL VALUE OF ANY PROPERTY SHA LL BE DEEMED TO BE THE SUM FOR WHICH THE PROPERTY MIGHT REASONABLY BE EXPECTED TO LET FROM YEAR TO YEAR. THIS PROVISION MAKES IT AMPLY CLEAR THAT WHILE CALCULATI NG INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY THE ASSESSING OFFICER CAN ALSO CONSIDER THE FACTORS SUGGESTING THE AMOUNT ON WHICH THE SAID PROPERTY CAN BE REASONABLY LET OUT. IT IS A KIND OF NOTIONAL AND DEEMED CALCULATIONS WHICH GUIDE THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO A SCERTAIN THE RENTAL CAPACITY OF THE PROPERTY. IN THE PRESENT CASE THERE IS DOCUMENT ARY EVIDENCE WHICH CAN BE A GUIDING FACTOR FOR ARRIVING AT THE ANNUAL VALUE OF THE PROPERTY FOR THE PURPOSES OF ASCERTAINING INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERLY. THE ASSESS ING OFFICER HAS ALREADY PROVIDED REASONABLE INCREASE OR DECREASE IN THE REN T CALCULATED AS MENTIONED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. ON CONTRARY, THE APPELLANT HA S NOT COME FORWARD TO FURNISH ANY CALCULATIONS OR DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE WHICH WOUL D LEAD TO A CONCLUSION 7 DIFFERENT THAN THE CONCLUSION ARRIVED BY THE ASSESS ING OFFICER. UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, I FIND NO MERIT IN THE GROUND OF APP EAL RELATED TO CALCULATION OF INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY BASED ON THE DOCUMENT SEIZED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. THE GROUND OF APPEAL NO. 2 IS DISMISSED. 7. THE LD. CIT(A), HOWEVER, ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF TH E ASSESSEE OF STANDARD DEDUCTION U/S 24 OF THE ACT OB SERVING THAT ONCE THE ADDITIONAL INCOME HAS BEEN BROUGHT T O TAX UNDER THE SPECIFIC HEAD OF INCOME TAX ACT, IT WOULD FOLLOW WITH ALL ELIGIBLE DEDUCTIONS UNDER THE SAME HEAD OF INCOME. HE, THEREFORE, HELD THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAVI NG BROUGHT TO TAX THE ADDITIONAL RECEIPT AS INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY, THE STANDARD DEDUCTIONS ADMISSIBLE TO THE ASSESSEE U/S 24 OF THE ACT ARE TO BE ALLOWED TO THE ASSESSEE. 8. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ABOVE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) , THE ASSESSEE HAS COME WITH THE PRESENT APPEALS BEFORE U S. 9. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND HAV E ALSO GONE THROUGH THE RECORD. SO FAR AS GROUND NO. 1 OF THE APPEAL IS CONCERNED, THE MAIN CONTENTION OF LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN THAT NO INCRIMINATING DOCUMENT WA S FOUND DURING THE SEARCH ACTION; HOWEVER, THIS CONTENTION OF LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, IN OUR VIEW, IS NOT CORRE CT. DURING THE COURSE OF ACTION, NOT ONLY A LEASE AGREEMENT BU T ALSO A LETTER OF THE TENANT STATING THE LEASE RENT FOR DIF FERENT PERIODS WAS FOUND AND SEIZED. THOUGH, THE SAID LEASE AGREE MENT AND LETTER WERE RELATED TO THE SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YE ARS I.E. LEASE AGREEMENT RELATING TO THE PERIOD FROM 01.02.2 010 TO 31.12.2010 AND THE LETTER OF THE TENANT DEPICTING T HE RENT FOR 8 THE PERIOD FROM 01.01.2011 TO 30.11.2011 AND 01.12. 2011 TO 30.10.2012, HOWEVER, WHEN THE ASSESSEE WAS CONFRONT ED ABOUT THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS, THE ASSESSEE CATEGORICA LLY ADMITTED IN HIS STATEMENT RECORDED DURING THE SEARC H ACTION THAT HE HAD SHOWN LESS RENT AND THAT HE WOULD REVIS E HIS RETURN AND OFFER TO TAX HIS ADDITIONAL INCOME WHICH HAD NOT BEEN DISCLOSED IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN. THE SAID ST ATEMENT HAS NEVER BEEN RETRACTED BY THE ASSESSEE. EVEN THE ASS ESSEE IN HIS RETURN, FILED IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 153A OF THE ACT, HAS SHOWN THE RENTAL INCOME AT RS. 70,600/ - AS AGAINST RENTAL INCOME SHOWN OF RS. 24,000/- IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN. EVEN IN HIS STATEMENT RECORDED DURING THE S EARCH ACTION, IN REPLY TO QUESTION NO. 3 AS REPRODUCED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASSESSEE HAD STATED THAT HE W AS RECEIVING RENTAL INCOME FROM TWO FLATS D-153 AND D- 149 SITUATED AT JANTA FLATS, JASOLA, NEW DELHI ; WHEREA S, IN THE RETURN FILED U/S 153A OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN THE RENTAL INCOME RECEIVED FROM FOUR FLATS INCLUDING FL AT NO. C-81 AND C-170. IN VIEW OF THIS, THE PLEA OF THE ASSESS EE THAT NO INCRIMINATING MATERIAL WAS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH ACTION OR THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD NO REASON TO MAKE ADDITIONS IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS CARRIED OUT U/S 153 OF THE ACT IS NOT FOUND TO BE CORRECT, HENCE NOT TE NABLE. GROUND NO. 1 OF THE APPEAL IS, THEREFORE, DISMISSED . 10. IN GROUND NO. 2, THE ASSESSEE HAS AGITATED THE ADDITION OF RS. 43,688/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY WA Y OF ESTIMATING THE ANNUAL RENTAL VALUE OF THE HOUSE PRO PERTY. AS WE HAVE OBSERVED ABOVE, THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT SUBSTA NTIATED 9 THE FACT OF ACTUAL RECEIPT OF INCOME AND ABOUT THE PERIOD OF OCCUPANCY OF THE FLATS BY THE TENANTS. THE ASSESSE E NEITHER PROVIDED ANY NAME AND ADDRESS OF THE TENANT NOR ANY RENT AGREEMENT ETC. THE ASSESSING OFFICER RELYING UPON THE DOCUMENTS FOUND DURING THE SEARCH ACTION AND CONSID ERING THE PERCENTAGE OF INCREASE IN THE ANNUAL RENT FOR S UBSEQUENT YEARS HAS PROPORTIONATELY ESTIMATED THE INCOME OF T HE ASSESSEE FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION FOR THE F OUR FLATS OWNED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE, EXCEPT FROM G IVING CHART AND AT HIS OWN OFFERING THE ANNUAL INCOME OF RS. 70,600/-, HAS NEITHER BROUGHT ANY EVIDENCE REGARDIN G THE ACTUAL INCOME RECEIVED NOR HAS BROUGHT ANY EVIDENCE AS TO THE RENTAL VALUE OF THE SIMILAR PROPERTY SITUATED I N THE SAME BUILDING. WE, THEREFORE, AGREE WITH THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE CIT(A) THAT UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS LEFT WITH NO ALTERNATIVE THAN TO ASSESS THE RENTAL INCOM E OF THE ASSESSEE AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 23 OF THE ACT. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE BROUGHT ON RECORD BY TH E ASSESSEE REGARDING THE ANNUAL LETTING VALUE OF THE PROPERTY BEING LESS THAN THAT HAS BEEN ASSESSED BY THE ASSES SING OFFICER, WE ARE NOT INCLINED TO ACCEPT THE CONTENTI ON OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ADDITION BE RESTRICTED TO THAT HA S BEEN OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. W E DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THE CONTENTIONS RAISED BY THE ASS ESSEE. THIS GROUND OF THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO D ISMISSED. 10 11. THE FACTS AND ISSUES INVOLVED IN ALL THE YEARS BEING IDENTICAL IN NATURE, APPLYING THE SAME RATIO AND IN THE LIGHT OF OUR OBSERVATIONS MADE ABOVE, ALL THE APPEALS PRE FERRED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE HEREBY DISMISSED. 12. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 2 ND JUNE,2017. SD/- SD/- (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) ( SANJAY GARG) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) JUDICIAL MEMB ER DATED : 2 ND JUNE,2017. POONAM COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A) 4. THE CIT,DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT/CHD