Smt. Sunita Jindal, Chandigarh V. DCIT, Chandigarh

ITA 1144/CHANDI/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 73529 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-02-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 09-12-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Deemed dividend; Commercial expediency
• Section: 143(3); 142(1); 132; 28

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH B CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI T.R.SOOD ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NOS. 1144 TO 1146/CHD/2013 A.Y. : 2004-05, 2007-08 & 2008-09 SMT.SUNITA JINDAL, VS THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF # 14, NAC, INCOME TAX, MANI MAJRA, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH. CHANDIGARH. PAN : AAOPJ5293Q & ITA NOS. 1147 TO 1152/CHD/2013 A.Y. : 2003-04, 2004-05 200 6-07 TO 2009-10 SMT.GARGI JINDAL, VS THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF W/O SHRI AMIT JINDAL, INCOME TAX, # 21, NAC, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, MANI MAJRA, CHANDIGARH. CHANDIGARH. PAN : ACGPJ8216R (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI SUDHIR SEHGAL RESPONDENT BY : SHRI AKHILESH GUPTA DATE OF HEARING : 10.02.2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 25.02.2014 O R D E R PER SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM THE ABOVE MENTIONED NINE APPEALS HAVE BEEN FILED BY TWO DIFFERENT ASSESSEES AGAINST THE SEPARATE CONSOLIDATED ORDERS OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), GURGAON, BOTH DATED 26.09. 2013 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 2004-05, 2007-08, 2008-09 AND 200 3-04, 2004-05, 2006-07 TO 2009-10 AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED UNDER S ECTION 153A(1)(B)/143(3) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 ( 'TH E ACT' FOR SHORT). 2 2. ALL THESE APPEALS RELATING TO TWO ASSESSEE'S AG AINST VARIOUS ASSESSMENT YEARS ON SIMILAR ISSUE WERE HEARD TOGETH ER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 3. THE ASSESSEES HAVE RAISED IDENTICAL GROUNDS OF A PPEAL IN ALL THE APPEALS AND THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL AS RAISED IN ITA NO. 1144/CHD/2013 ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER: 1. THAT THE WORTHY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (AP PEALS)(CENTRAL), GURGAON HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN ASSESSING THE INCOME AT RS.1,25,310/- AGAINST THE R ETURNED INCOME OF RS. 43,200/-. 2. THAT THE WORTHY CIT (A) HAS ALSO ERRED IN DISMISSIN G THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL PERTAINING TO OBJECTION OF ASSESSEE WITH REG ARD TO REFERENCE TO THE SPECIAL AUDITOR IN TERMS OF SECTION 142 (2A). 3. THAT THE WORTHY CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING THAT THE CONDITIONS FOR REFERENCE TO THE SPECIAL AUDIT HAVE NOT BEEN FU LFILLED AND SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT BEEN MAINTAINING ANY PERSONAL BOOK S OF ACCOUNTS, NO COMPLEXITY WAS THERE FOR THE PURPOSE OF REFERRING T HE CASE TO THE SPECIAL AUDIT AND, AS SUCH, THE ASSESSMENT HAVING BEEN COMP LETED BEYOND THE LIMITATION TIME DESERVES TO BE QUASHED. 4. A). NOTWITHSTANDING THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL, THE CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 82,1097- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 2(22)(E) AS DEEMED DIVIDEND. 4. B). THAT THE CIT (A) HAS NOT CONSIDERED THAT TRA NSACTIONS SO MADE WERE NEITHER LOAN NOR ADVANCE BUT SAME WERE IN THE NATURE OF COM MERCIAL EXPEDIENCY FOR WHICH NO ADDITION AS DEEMED DIVIDEND U/S 2(22)(E ) CAN BE MA DE. 5. THAT ADDITION HAS BEEN CONFIRMED AGAINST THE FAC TS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND DETAILED SUBMISSIONS FILED DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING ALONG WITH VARIOUS CASE LAWS HAS NOT BEEN CONSIDERE D PROPERLY. 4. IN ITA NOS. 1150 & 1151/CHD/2013 (A.Y.2007-08 & 2008-09 SMT. GARGI JINDAL ) GROUND NO. 4(A) READS AS UNDER : 4(A) NOTWITHSTANDING THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ADDITION OF RS . 14,37,163/- / RS. 27,11,696/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 2(22)(E) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. 5. THE GROUND NO. 1 RAISED IN ALL THE APPEALS BEING GENERAL IS DISMISSED. 3 6. THE GROUND NOS. 2 & 3 WERE NOT PRESSED BY THE LD . AR FOR THE ASSESSEE IN ALL THE CAPTIONED APPEALS AND THE SAME ARE ALSO THUS, DISMISSED. 7. THE ISSUE IN GROUND NO. 4 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST THE ADDITION MADE UNDER SECTION 2(22)(E) OF THE ACT. T HE FACTS IN ALL THE APPEALS ARE IDENTICAL. HOWEVER, REFERENCE IS BEING MADE TO THE FACTS IN ITA NO. 1144/CHD/2013 TO ADJUDICATE THE ISSUE RA ISED BY THE ASSESSEE. 8. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT SEARCH & SE IZURE OPERATIONS UNDER SECTION 132(1) OF THE ACT WERE CARRIED OUT AT THE RESIDENTIAL/BUSINESS PREMISES OF JINDAL GROUP OF CA SES, PANCHKULA ON 15.07.2008. THE ASSESSEE WAS ONE OF THE PERSONS CO VERED UNDER SECTION 132 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. NOTICE UNDER SE CTION 153A(1) OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE ON 16.02.2009 TO FURNISH RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05. THE ASSESS EE FAILED TO FURNISH ANY RETURN OF INCOME IN RESPONSE TO THE NOT ICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 153A(1) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER THUS, INITIATED THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 271F OF THE ACT A ND PENALTY WAS LEVIED VIDE ORDER DATED 29.03.2010. NOTICE UNDER S ECTION 142(1) OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE ON 07.09.2010 AL ONGWITH DETAILED QUESTIONNAIRE. THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ALSO R EFERRED TO THE SPECIAL AUDITOR UNDER SECTION 142(2A) OF THE ACT AS PER THE PROCEDURE LAID DOWN UNDER THE ACT. THE GROUP CONCE RNS HAD SURRENDERED A SUM OF RS. 4 CRORE. THE SPECIAL AUDI TOR IN ITS REPORT HAD POINTED OUT THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS A SHAREHOLDER IN A NUMBER OF COMPANIES IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAD SUBSTANTIAL INT EREST. THE SAID COMPANY IN-TURN HAD GIVEN LOANS TO THE ASSESSEE OR THE CONCERNS IN WHICH ASSESSEE HAD SUBSTANTIAL INTEREST. THE DETAIL S OF THE SAID 4 TRANSACTIONS ARE INCORPORATED AT PAGES 3 & 4 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE ASSESSEE WAS SHOW CAUSED TO EXPLAIN AS TO WHY T HE AMOUNTS SO ADVANCED SHOULD NOT BE TREATED AS DEEMED DIVIDEND U NDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2(22)(E) OF THE ACT. SHOW CA USE NOTICE IS REPRODUCED UNDER PARA 8.3 AT PAGES 5 TO 9 OF THE AS SESSMENT ORDER. THE REPLY OF THE ASSESSEE TO THE SAID SHOW CAUSE NO TICE WAS THAT THE AMOUNTS DEBITED TO THE FIRMS IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE WAS SUBSTANTIAL SHAREHOLDER WERE PROVIDED OUT OF COMMERCIAL/BUSINES S EXPEDIENCY AND NO LOAN OR ADVANCES WERE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. 9. ANOTHER PLEA RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT THE AMOUNT PROVIDED TO THE FIRM IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE WAS PART NER, HAD NOT BEEN PERSONALLY WITHDRAWN BY THE ASSESSEE AND THUS, NO I NDIVIDUAL BENEFIT HAD BEEN OBTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS FURTHER PLEADED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT ENTRIES WERE MADE TO SETTLE THE ACCOU NTS OF DIFFERENT PERSONS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT FOLLOWIN G TRANSACTIONS WERE MADE BETWEEN THE COMPANIES IN WHICH THE ASSESS EE HAD SUBSTANTIAL SHAREHOLDER AND THE CONCERNS IN WHICH T HE ASSESSEE WAS SUBSTANTIAL PARTNER : - THE FUNDS WERE TRANSFERRED FROM THE COMPANY TO TH E FIRM TO KEEP THE CASH CREDIT A/C WITHIN LIMIT AND TO CLE AR THE CHEQUES DRAFTS ISSUED BY THE FIRM IN WHICH THE ASSE SSEE HAS SUBSTANTIAL INTEREST. - THE FUNDS WERE TRANSFERRED BY THE WAY OF TRANSFER ENTRIES TRANSFER BECAUSE OF COMMON PARTIES IN BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF BOTH THE PARTIES. - THE FUNDS WERE TRANSFERRED TO THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE CONCERN BY THE WAY OF BANK TRANSFER OR THROUGH CHEQ UES. 10. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THUS OBSERVED THAT THE F UNDS HAD BEEN TRANSFERRED FROM THE COMPANY TO THE FIRMS AS THERE WERE SHORTAGE OF FUNDS AND THIS COULD BE TREATED ONLY AS LOAN AND AD VANCES. FURTHER, THE TRANSACTIONS INTER-SE WERE NOT SIMPLE TRANSFER ENTRIES BUT THROUGH 5 CHEQUES/BANK TRANSFERS, WHICH WERE ISSUED AS FUNDS OF THE FIRMS WERE SHORT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THAT THE SAID TR ANSFER OF FUNDS WERE NOT IN THE ORDINARY COURSE OF BUSINESS AND THERE WA S NO MERIT IN THE ASSERTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE LOANS WERE PROVI DED OUT OF COMMERCIAL AND BUSINESS EXPEDIENCY. FURTHER, AS TH E ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO DISCHARGE THE ONUS CAST UPON HER, THE INT ENTION BEHIND THE TRANSACTION HAD TO BE LOOKED INTO. RELIANCE WAS PLA CED ON SERIES OF DECISIONS AND ALSO THE DECISIONS RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE WERE FOUND TO BE DISTINGUISHABLE AND IT WAS HELD BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT AS THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO ESTABLISH THAT T HE AMOUNTS WERE ADVANCED DURING THE ORDINARY COURSE OF BUSINESS AND THAT THESE WERE FOR COMMERCIAL EXPEDIENCIES, THE WITHDRAWALS MADE B Y THE ASSESSEE FROM THE COMPANY AMOUNTED TO GRANT OF LOAN OR ADVAN CE BY THE COMPANY TO THE SHAREHOLDER. EVEN WHERE THE LOAN WAS NOT OUTSTANDING AT THE YEAR END, THE SAME HAD TO BE TREATED AS DEEM ED DIVIDEND AND HENCE, ADDITION OF RS. 82,109/- WAS MADE AS DEEMED DIVIDEND UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2(22)(E) OF THE ACT. 11. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) NOTED THAT IT WAS AN UNDISPUTED FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS A SHAREHOLDER IN A NUMBER OF COMPANIES IN WHICH SHE HAD SUBSTANTIAL INTEREST AND THESE COMPANIES HAD GIVEN LOANS TO THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS FIRMS IN WHICH SHE HAD SUBSTANTIAL INTEREST. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME T AX (APPEALS) FURTHER HELD THAT ,IT IS THEREFORE EVIDENT THAT ASSESSEE WAS HOLDING MORE THAN 10% IN M/S HEERA MOTI AGRO LTD. THE COMPA NY ALSO HAVE ACCUMULATED PROFITS. THEY HAVE IN TURN GIVEN LOANS TO OTHER CONCERNS WHEREIN ASSESSEE HAS SUBSTANTIAL INTEREST. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HELD THAT IN VIEW THEREOF, THE ASSESSING OFFICER PROCEEDED TO CALCULATE THE PROPORTIONATE SH ARE OF DEEMED 6 DIVIDEND ON THE BASIS OF HOLDING FOR ALL THE YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) WAS THAT THOUGH EACH OF THE PARTNERS//DIR ECTORS OF THE GROUP CONCERNS WERE SEPARATE AND INDEPENDENT, BUT I N ORDER TO ACHIEVE THE OBJECTS OF THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANIE S OR TRUST, THE BANK ACCOUNTS IN DIFFERENT NAMES OF THE FIRMS/COMPA NIES WERE OPENED IN ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE, MANI MAJRA AND STATE BANK OF INDIA, BADDI WITH THE INTENT THAT NO CHEQUE DRAWN ON ANY O F THE BANK ACCOUNTS OF THE GROUP CONCERNS WOULD BE DISHONORED. AS PER THE ASSESSEE, THERE WERE STANDING INSTRUCTIONS TO CLEAR THE CHEQUES BY DEBITING TO SOME OTHER ACCOUNT WHERE THERE WAS SUFF ICIENT BALANCE. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HELD AS UN DER : THIS MODUS OPERANDI CANNOT BY ANY STRETCH OF IMAGI NATION BE TERMED AS A MEASURE OF COMMERCIAL EXPEDIENCY. I T IS CLEARLY TO CIRCUMVENT THE LAW. IT IS TO AVOID BEIN G HIT BY THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2(22)(E). THE PAYMENTS A RE BEING ROUTED IN AROUND ABOUT FASHION WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE IN THE ULTIMATE ANALYSIS IS THE BENEFITER. THE ASSESSEE H AS ALLEGED THAT THE CASE LAWS CITED HAVE NOT BEEN DISTINGUISHE D. I FIND THAT THE A.O. IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER HAS ELABORATELY TACKLED THE ISSUE. HENCE CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMST ANCES OF THE CASE, I HAVE NO HESITATION IN UPHOLDING THE ADD ITIONS MADE ON THIS ACCOUNT BY THE A.O. IN ALL THE YEARS. 12. THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THUS, DISMISSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL AGAINST THE SAID ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TA X (APPEALS). 13. THE LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT TH E ASSESSEE WAS DIRECTOR IN GROUP COMPANIES AND WAS ALSO PARTNER IN SOME CONCERNS. IT WAS FURTHER POINTED OUT BY THE LD. AR FOR THE AS SESSEE THAT BOTH THE COMPANIES AND THE FIRMS HAD BANK ACCOUNTS IN ORIENT AL BANK OF COMMERCE, MANI MAJRA AND STATE BANK OF INDIA, BADDI . FURTHER CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT NO AMOUNT OF CH EQUE/DRAFT HAD BEEN GIVEN TO THE LADIES AND WHEN THERE WERE INSUFF ICIENT FUNDS, 7 MONEY WAS TRANSFERRED FROM ONE ACCOUNT TO THE OTHER . IT WAS POINTED OUT BY THE LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THERE WAS D EBIT BALANCE IN EITHER THE ACCOUNTS OF THE FIRM OR THE COMPANY. TH E LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE FAIRLY CONCEDED THAT THERE WAS NO DISPUTE THAT SHARE HOLDING WAS MORE THAN 10% AND THERE WAS ALSO NO DISPUTE ABO UT THE DEBIT BALANCES BETWEEN THE CONCERNS BUT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2(22)(E) OF THE ACT WERE NOT APPLICABLE AS THE AMOUNTS TRANS FERRED WERE ONLY BANK TRANSFERS. FURTHER PLEA OF THE LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT THE SAID TRANSFERS WERE MADE ON ACCOUNT OF COMMERCI AL EXPEDIENCY. RELIANCE WAS PLACED UPON THE FOLLOWING JUDICIAL DEC ISIONS BY THE LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE : I) DCIT VS LAKRA BROTHERS 106 TTJ 250 (CHD-TRIB) II) BOMBAY OIL INDUSTRIES LTD. V DCIT 28 SO T 383 (MUM- TRIB) III) CIT VS SMT. SAVITHIRI SAM 236 ITR 1003 (MADRAS) IV) CIT VS RAJ KUMAR 318 ITR 462 (DELHI) V) DCIT VS MADHUSUDAN INVESTMENT & TRADING CO. (P) LTD . 48 SOT 360 (KOLKATA) VI) CIT VS ANKITECH P.LTD. 340 ITR 14 (DEL) 14. THE LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE POINTED OUT THAT SEC TION 2(22)(E) OF THE ACT STIPULATED CERTAIN CONDITIONS WHICH WERE NO T SATISFIED IN THE PRESENT CASE AND HENCE, THE PROVISIONS OF THE SAID SECTION WERE APPLICABLE TO THE ASSESSEE. FURTHER, IT WAS POINTE D OUT BY THE LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE THAT THE PLEA OF BUSINESS EXPEDIENC Y IS NOT PROVED IN THE CASE AS THE PERUSAL OF THE LEDGER ACCOUNTS FILE D BY THE ASSESSEE REFLECT CONTINUOUS DEBIT BALANCES WHICH HAVE INCREA SED FROM YEAR TO YEAR AND THERE IS NO RE-PAYMENT OF THE SAID AMOUNT BY THE FIRMS TO THE COMPANIES. SIMILAR PLEAS WERE RAISED BY BOTH THE AU THORIZED REPRESENTATIVES IN THE CASE OF SMT. GARGI JINDAL. 8 15. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORD. THE PRESENT BUNCH OF APPEALS HAVE BEEN FILED BY DIF FERENT ASSESSEES AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) READ WITH SECTION 153A(1)(B) OF THE ACT. SEARCH & SEIZURE OPERATIONS UNDER SECTION 132(1) OF THE ACT WERE CARRIED OUT AT THE BUSINESS/ RESIDENTIAL PREMISES OF THE JINDAL GROUND OF COMPANIES ON 15.07 .2008. THE ASSESSEE WAS ISSUED NOTICE UNDER SECTION 153A(1) OF THE ACT BUT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO FURNISH THE RETURN OF INCOME IN RESPONSE TO THE SAME AND PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271FA OF THE ACT WAS LEVIED UPON THE ASSESSEE. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDI NGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED CERTAIN COMPLEXITIES AND THE CASE OF THE GROUP CONCERNS ALONGWITH THE ASSESSEE WERE REFERRED TO THE SPECIAL AUDITOR UNDER SECTION 142(2A) OF THE ACT. THE SPECIAL AUDITOR, T HEREAFTER FURNISHED ITS REPORT UNDER WHICH IT WAS NOTED BY HIM THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS SHAREHOLDER IN CERTAIN COMPANIES WHEREIN THE ASSESS EE HAD SUBSTANTIAL INTEREST AND THE SAID COMPANIES HAD GIVEN LOANS TO THE CONCERNS IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAD SUBSTANTIAL INTEREST. CONSE QUENTLY, THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2(22)(E) OF THE ACT WERE INVO KED IN ORDER TO WORK OUT THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF DEEMED DIVIDEND . THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US AGAINST THE SAID ADDITION MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 2(22)(E) OF THE ACT. THE AS SESSEE IS IN APPEAL FOR THE FOLLOWING ASSESSMENT YEARS : SMT. SUNITA JINDAL ASSESSMENT YEAR ADDITION U/S 2(22)(E) I) 2004-05 RS. 82,109/- II) 2007-08 RS. 2,44,394/- III) 2008-09 RS. 1,48,000/- SMT. GARGI JINDAL ASSESSMENT YEAR ADDITION U/S 2(22)(E) I) 2003-04 RS. 8,34,225/- 9 II) 2004-05 RS. 13,84,971/- III) 2006-07 RS. 1,39,685/- IV) 2007-08 RS. 14,37,163/- V) 2008-09 RS. 27,11,696/- VI) 2009-10 RS. 7,00,000/- 16. SECTION 2(22)(E) OF THE ACT READS AS UNDER : (E) ANY PAYMENT BY A COMPANY, NOT BEING A COMPANY IN WHICH THE PUBLIC ARE SUBSTANTIALLY INTERESTED, OF ANY SUM (WH ETHER AS REPRESENTING A PART OF THE ASSETS OF THE COMPANY OR OTHERWISE) M ADE AFTER THE 31ST DAY OF MAY, 1987, BY WAY OF ADVANCE OR LOAN TO A SH AREHOLDER, BEING A PERSON WHO IS THE BENEFICIAL OWNER OF SHARES (NOT B EING SHARES ENTITLED TO A FIXED RATE OF DIVIDEND WHETHER WITH OR WITHOUT A RIGHT TO PARTICIPATE IN PROFITS) HOLDING NOT LESS THAN TEN PER CENT OF T HE VOTING POWER, OR TO ANY CONCERN IN WHICH SUCH SHAREHOLDER IS A MEMBER O R A PARTNER AND IN WHICH HE HAS A SUBSTANTIAL INTEREST (HEREAFTER IN T HIS CLAUSE REFERRED TO AS THE SAID CONCERN)] OR ANY PAYMENT BY ANY SUCH CO MPANY ON BEHALF, OR FOR THE INDIVIDUAL BENEFIT, OF ANY SUCH SHAREHOLDER , TO THE EXTENT TO WHICH THE COMPANY IN EITHER CASE POSSESSES ACCUMULA TED PROFITS. 17. UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2(22)(E) OF THE ACT WHERE ANY PAYMENT IS MADE BY A COMPANY WHICH SHOULD NOT BE A PUBLIC LIMITED COMPANY, OF ANY SUM OF MONEY BY WAY OF ADVANCE OR L OANS TO A SHAREHOLDER, WHO IS BENEFICIAL OWNER OF SHARES HOLD ING NOT LESS THAN 10% OF THE VOTING POWER, OR TO ANY CONCERN IN WHICH THE SHAREHOLDER IS A MEMBER OR PARTNER AND WHERE HE HAS SUBSTANTIAL INTEREST, AND TO THE EXTENT WHERE THE COMPANY POSSESSES ACCUMULATED PROFITS, THEN, SUCH ADVANCES OR LOANS ARE TO BE TREATED AS DEEMED DIVIDEND IN THE HANDS OF THE SHAREHOLDER. SECTION 2(22)(E) OF THE ACT CREATES A FICTION UNDER WHICH THE AMOUNTS WHICH ARE ADVANCED BY WAY OF LOAN OR ADVANCES ARE TO BE TREATED AS DIVIDEND AND INCLU DED AS RECEIPT IN THE HANDS OF THE BENEFICIAL OWNER. 18. THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SA DHNA TEXTILE MILLS (P) LTD, VS. CIT (1991)188 ITR 318 (BOM) HELD THAT THE PROVISIONS OF S. 2(22)(E) ARE APPLICABLE ALSO TO THE ADVANCES OR LOA NS MADE TO CORPORATE ENTITY. 10 19. THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI IN THE CASE OF R. DALMIA VS. CIT 133 ITR 169 (DEL) HELD THAT PAYMENTS MADE BY WA Y OF LOAN OR ADVANCE TO SHAREHOLDER OR ANY PAYMENT MADE ON BEHAL F OR FOR THE BENEFIT OF SHAREHOLDERS ARE TO BE TREATED AS DIVIDE ND IN EITHER CASE TO THE EXTENT TO WHICH THE COMPANY POSSESSES ACCUMULAT ED PROFIT, THE EMPHASIS IN THIS CONNECTION MUST BE ON THE WORD 'PO SSESSES'. IF THE COMPANY DOES NOT POSSESS THE AMOUNT, IT CANNOT PAY THE SAME. A COMPANY CAN BE SAID TO HAVE PROFITS OR TO BE POSSES SED OF PROFIT WHEN IT ACTUALLY POSSESSES THE AMOUNT OR IS IN ITS CONTR OL. 20. THE HON'BLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF SMT. TARU LATA SHYAM & ORS. VS. CIT 108 ITR 345 (S.C.) HELD THAT THERE ARE FOUR CONDITIONS WHICH MUST BE SPECIFIED BEFORE THIS PROVISION CAN B E INVOKED AGAINST THE SHAREHOLDER WHICH ARE AS UNDER : (I) THE FIRST CONDITION IS THAT THE COMPANY IN QUES TION MUST BE ONE IN WHICH THE PUBLIC ARE NOT SUBSTANTIAL LY INTERESTED. (II) THE SECOND CONDITION IS THAT THE LOAN WAS ADVA NCED TO A SHAREHOLDER AT THE DATE WHEN THE LOAN WAS ADVANCE D; (III) THE THIRD CONDITION IS THAT THE LOAN ADVANCED TO A SHAREHOLDER BY SUCH A COMPANY CAN BE DEEMED TO BE DIVIDEND ONLY TO THE EXTENT TO WHICH IT IS SHOWN TH AT THE COMPANY POSSESSED ACCUMULATED PROFIT ON THE DATE OF THE LOAN; (IV) THE FOURTH CONDITION IS THAT THE LOAN MUST NOT HAVE BEEN ADVANCED BY THE COMPANY IN THE ORDINARY COURSE OF ITS BUSINESS . 21. THE HON'BLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF G. R. GOBINDARAJULU NAIDU & ORS. VS CIT 90 ITR 13 (MAD) H AVING REGARD TO WORD PAYMENT BY WAY OF LOAN OR ADVANCE HELD THAT THERE SHOULD BE AN OUTGOING OR FLOW OF MONEY FROM THE COMPANY TO TH E SHAREHOLDER SO AS TO ATTRACT THE SAID PROVISION AND A NOTIONAL PAY MENT BY WAY OF BOOK ENTRIES WILL NOT BE INCLUDED. 11 22. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVESAID JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS WH ERE THE COMPANY ADVANCING THE LOAN OR ADVANCE IS A COMPANY IN WHICH PUBLIC ARE SUBSTANTIALLY INTERESTED, THEN THE PROVISIONS OF SE CTION 2(22)(E) OF THE ACT ARE NOT ATTRACTED, WHERE SUCH COMPANY MAKES ANY ADVANCE OR LOAN TO ITS SHAREHOLDER. FURTHER IN CASES WHERE THE LOA N OR ADVANCE HAS BEEN MADE BY THE COMPANY IN THE ORDINARY COURSE OF CARRYING ON THE BUSINESS THEN ALSO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2(22)( E) OF THE ACT ARE NOT ATTRACTED. HOWEVER, WHERE THE AMOUNT IS GIVEN BY W AY OF LOAN OR ADVANCE TO A SHAREHOLDER OR TO A CONCERN IN WHICH S UCH SHAREHOLDER IS A MEMBER OR PARTNER, HAVING SUBSTANTIAL INTEREST IN THE SAID CONCERN, THEN ANY SUCH PAYMENT MADE BY THE COMPANY TO THE EX TENT OF ACCUMULATED PROFITS IN THE HANDS OF THE COMPANY, IS TO BE TREATED AS DIVIDEND IN THE HANDS OF SUCH SHAREHOLDER. 23. NOW COMING TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, TH E ASSESSEE IS ADMITTEDLY HOLDING SHARES MORE THAN 10% OF THE VOTI NG POWER AND IS AN ELIGIBLE PERSON, AS DEFINED UNDER SECTION 2(22)( E) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE IS A DIRECTOR IN HIRAMOTI HEALTHCARE PRODU CTS LTD. AND IS HOLDING MORE THAN 10% SHARES/VOTING POWER, WHICH IS AN ADMITTED POSITION. THE SAID COMPANY HAD ADVANCED CERTAIN LOA NS TO M/S HIRAMOTI AGRO INDUSTRIES AND HIRAMOTI AGRO PRODUCTS RESPECTIVELY AND BOTH THE SAID CONCERNS ARE PARTNERSHIP FIRMS, IN WH ICH THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US HAS SUBSTANTIAL INTEREST. THE LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE FAIRLY POINTED OUT THAT THE ASSESSEE SATISFIES BOTH THE PR ELIMINARY CONDITIONS LAID DOWN UNDER SECTION 2(22)(E) OF THE ACT. HOWEV ER, IT WAS POINTED OUT BY THE LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THE PROVISI ONS OF THE SAID SECTION WERE NOT APPLICABLE AS THE SAID LOAN OR ADV ANCES WERE MADE IN THE ORDINARY COURSE OF BUSINESS. THE PLEA OF THE L D. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US WAS THAT IN ORDER TO BETTER MANA GE THE BUSINESS AFFAIRS OF THE DIFFERENT CONCERNS IN WHICH THE ASSE SSEE WAS EITHER A 12 SHAREHOLDER OR PARTNER, THE BANK ACCOUNTS WERE OPEN ED ONLY IN TWO BANKS I.E. ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE AND STATE BANK OF INDIA AND WHENEVER THERE WAS SHORTAGE OF FUNDS, THE AMOUNTS W ERE TRANSFERRED FROM ONE CONCERN TO THE OTHER OR VICE-VERSA. THE S AID ADVANCES HAVING BEEN MADE IN ORDER TO MEET THE BUSINESS EXIGENCIES, WERE THUS ADVANCED DURING THE COURSE OF CARRYING ON OF THE BU SINESS AND HENCE THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2(22)(E) OF THE ACT WERE NOT ATTRACTED. 24. THE ASSESSEE, IN THE PAPER BOOK HAS FURNISHED T HE COPY OF ACCOUNTS OF M/S HIRAMOTI AGRO INDUSTRIES IN THE BOO KS OF M/S HIRAMOTI HEALTHCARE PRODUCT LTD. FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2003-04, 2006-07 AND 2007-08 AT PAGES 1, 3 & 5 OF THE PAPER BOOK. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FURNISHED THE COPY OF ACCOUNT OF M/S HIRAMOTI AGRO PRODUCTS IN THE BOOKS OF M/S HIRAMOTI HEALTHCARE PR ODUCTS LTD. FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2003-04, 2006-07 AND 2007-08 AT PAGES 2, 4 AND 6 OF THE PAPER BOOK. THE SAID LEDGER ACCOUNTS ARE HEREB Y ENCLOSED AS AS ANNEXURE A-1 TO A-6 TO THIS ORDER. 25. FURTHER IN THE CASE OF SMT. GARGI JINDAL, THE O THER ASSESSEE BEFORE US, THERE ARE TWO COMPANIES IN WHICH ASSESSE E IS A SHAREHOLDER WHICH IN-TURN HAD ADVANCED LOANS TO DIFFERENT PARTN ERSHIP FIRMS IN WHICH ASSESSEE HAD SUBSTANTIAL INTEREST AND THE ASS ESSING OFFICER HAD ACCORDINGLY COMPUTED HER SHARE OF DEEMED DIVIDEND I N THE ADVANCES MADE BY THE SAID CONCERN TO DIFFERENT REGISTERED FI RMS. THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED ON RECORD THE COPIES OF ACCOUNT IN TH E PAPER BOOK, THE SAME ARE ENCLOSED AS ANNEXURE B-1 TO B-13 TO THIS O RDER. 26. THE PERUSAL OF THE COPIES OF LEDGER ACCOUNT FIL ED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE CASE OF SARITA JINDAL REFLECT THAT FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 01.04.2003 TO 31.3.2004, THERE WAS AN OPENING CREDI T BALANCE OF RS. 19,07,775/- AND THEREAFTER, THERE WERE BANK TRANSFE RS ON DIFFERENT 13 DATES FALLING WITHIN THE YEAR AND AT THE CLOSE OF T HE YEAR, THE DEBIT BALANCE WAS RS.1,82,225/-. ON 31.3.2004, THERE WAS AN ADJUSTMENT OF THE AMOUNT TRANSFERRED TO M/S ANCHAL OFRS. 12,840/- AND THE CLOSING BALANCE WAS DR 169385/-. IN THE SUCCEEDING FINANCI AL YEAR I.E. 2006- 07, THE OPENING BALANCE WAS DEBIT BALANCE OF RS. 1, 19,374/- AND THEREAFTER, THERE WERE BANK TRANSFERS OF ORIENTAL B ANK OF COMMERCE OF RS. 1,00,000/-, RS. 20,000/-, RS. 60,000/- AND C HEQUES OF RS. 85,000/- AND RS.90,000/- AND FURTHER THERE ARE DEPO SITS OF DEMAND DRAFTS OF RS. 20,000/- AND RS. 40,000/- AS AGAINST THE SAID DEBIT ENTRIES, ARISING IN THE ACCOUNT OF M/S HIRAMOTI AGR O INDUSTRIES IN THE BOOKS OF M/S HIRAMOTI HEALTHCARE PRODUCTS LTD. THER E WERE TWO CREDITS, ONE OF DD OF RS. 15,000/- OF SHRI RAMA, SH IMLA AND ANOTHER DD OF RS. 32,592/- OF SHRI BANARASI DASS. THE TOTA L DEBIT BALANCE AT THE CLOSE OF THE YEAR WAS RS. 5,11,782/-. THE ASSE SSEE HAS ALSO FILED THE LEDGER ACCOUNT FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2007-08 A ND AS AGAINST THE OPENING BALANCE OF RS. 5,11,782/-, THERE IS CHEQUE DEPOSIT OF RS.10,000/-, AMOUNT TRANSFERRED FROM ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE OF RS. 1,60,000/- AND AMOUNT OF BANK TRANSFER FROM STA TE BANK OF INDIA OF RS.90,000/- AS AGAINST CREDIT OF RS. 9,672/-, RE SULTING IN DEBIT BALANCE OF RS. 7,62,110/-. SIMILAR IS THE POSITION IN RESPECT OF THE TRANSACTIONS OF THE CONCERN M/S HIRAMOTI HEALTHCARE PRODUCTS LTD. WITH ANOTHER PARTNERSHIP FIRM M/S HIRAMOTI AGRO PRO DUCTS. THE PERUSAL OF THE LEDGER STATEMENTS FILED BY THE ASSES SEE REFLECT THAT CONTINUOUSLY, THERE IS AN INCREASE IN THE DEBIT BAL ANCE IN THE LEDGER ACCOUNTS OF THE SAID CONCERNS I.E. THE COMPANY ADVA NCED VARIOUS AMOUNTS TO THE REGISTERED FIRMS THROUGH CHEQUES OR BANK TRANSFERS AND THERE WERE NO CORRESPONDING RECEIPT OF MONEY FROM T HE SAID PARTNERSHIP FIRMS IN THE HANDS OF THE COMPANY. THE AMOUNTS HAD BEEN 14 ADVANCED FROM DAY-TO-DAY EITHER BY WAY OF BANK TRAN SFER OR BY WAY OF CHEQUES OR OTHER ADJUSTMENTS IN THE ACCOUNT. 27. THE ASSESSEE, DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING WAS CONFRONTED WITH THE AFORESAID POSITION OF THE DEBIT BALANCES ARISIN G IN THE CASE OF THE DIFFERENT CONCERNS AND IT WAS VEHEMENTLY POINTED OU T BY THE LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THE SAID ADVANCE HAVING BEEN MADE DURING THE COURSE OF CARRYING ON OF THE BUSINESS, CANNOT BE TE RMED AS DEEMED DIVIDEND UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2(22)(E) O F THE ACT. HOWEVER, WE FIND NO MERIT IN THE PLEA OF THE ASSESS EE. THE POSITION AS PROJECTED BY THE LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT TH ERE WERE FREQUENT DEBITS AND CREDITS OF THE AMOUNTS DUE BY THE SAID C ONCERN TO ITS PARTNERSHIP FIRMS OR VICE-VERSA, AS PER THE DEMANDS OF THE BUSINESS, DOES NOT STAND PROVED FROM THE PERUSAL OF THE ABOVE SAID LEDGER ACCOUNTS. AT THE START OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2003- 04, THERE WAS AN OPENING CREDIT BALANCE OF RS. 1,90,775/- WHICH GOT CONVERTED INTO A DEBIT BALANCE BY WAY OF TRANSFER OF RS. 2,50,000/- ON 20.05.2003 ITSELF AND THEREAFTER THE DEBIT BALANCE HAS CONTINU OUSLY GONE UP AND AS ON 31.03.2008, THE SAME STANDS AT RS. 7,62,110/- . SIMILAR IS THE POSITION IN RESPECT OF THE ANOTHER PARTNERSHIP CONC ERN M/S HIRAMOTI AGRO PRODUCTS IN RELATION TO THE COMPANY M/S HIRAMO TI HEALTHCARE PRODUCTS LTD. THE OPENING BALANCE AS ON 01.04.2003 WAS A DEBIT BALANCE OF RS. 2,08,478/- WHICH HAS EVENTUALLY INCR EASED TO DEBIT BALANCE OF RS. 6,19,008/- AS ON 31.03.2008 WITH CON TINUOUS OUTFLOW OF MONEY FROM THE COMPANY TO THE PARTNERSHIP CONCER N DOES NOT ESTABLISH THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THERE WERE FREQUENT TRANSFERS I.E. INFLOW AND OUTFLOW OF THE AMOUNTS AS AND WHEN THERE WERE BUSINESS EXIGENCIES. THE MODUS-OPERANDI ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT BY ANY DIFFERENT STRETCH OF IMAGINATION TO BE TERMED AS A MEASURE OF COMMERCIAL EXIGENCY. 15 28. THE LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE, DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING PLACED RELIANCE ON VARIOUS CASE LAWS WHICH ARE DISTINGUISH ABLE. IN THE CASE OF DCIT VS LAKRA BROTHERS (SUPRA), IT IS A FINDING OF FACT BY THE TRIBUNAL THAT THERE WAS A SINGLE ADVANCE MADE FOR M EETING THE BUSINESS EXIGENCY AND THERE WAS NO INTENTION OF THE COMPANY TO GIVE A LOAN AND HENCE, IT WAS HELD THAT THE PROVISIONS O F SECTION 2(22)(E) OF THE ACT ARE NOT ATTRACTED. THE FACTS OF THE CAS E BEFORE US ARE AT VARIANCE AS POINTED OUT BY US IN THE PARAS HEREIN A BOVE AND HENCE, THE SAID RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE CHANDIGARH BENCH OF TRI BUNAL IN THE CASE OF DCIT VS LAKRA BROTHERS (SUPRA) SHALL NOT APPLY. 29. FURTHER, LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE RELIED UPON BO MBAY OIL INDUSTRIES LTD. VS DCIT (SUPRA) WHEREIN THERE WERE INTER-CORPORATE DEPOSITS BETWEEN THE TWO CONCERNS AND IT WAS HELD T HAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2(22)(E) OF THE ACT WERE NOT ATTRACTED. THE FACTS OF THE SAID CASE BEING AT VARIANCE TO THE FACTS BEFORE US AND HENCE THE SAID RATIO IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE PRESENT CASE. 30. FURTHER RELIANCE WAS PLACED BY THE LD. AR FOR T HE ASSESSEE ON CIT VS SMT. SAVITHIRI SAM (SUPRA) WHEREIN THERE WAS A TRANSFER ENTRY IN THE ACCOUNTS OF THE CONCERN BECAUSE OF OPERATION OF LAW ON WHICH THE CONCERNED ASSESSEE HAD NO CONTROL AND THE RATIO LAID DOWN IN THE SAID DECISION IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. 31. NEXT RELIANCE PLACED BY THE LD. AR FOR THE ASSE SSEE WAS ON CIT VS RAJ KUMAR (SUPRA) WHICH IS A CASE OF TRADE ADVAN CES AND HENCE, THE SAID RATIO IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF TH E PRESENT CASE. 32. THE LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE FURTHER PLACED RELI ANCE ON THE RATIO LAID DOWN IN DCIT VS MADHUSUDAN INVESTMENT & TRADIN G CO. (P) LTD. (SUPRA) WHICH DEALS WITH THE BASIS OF AMENDMENT TO INTRODUCE SECTION 16 2(22)(E) OF THE ACT BY FINANCE ACT 1987 AND THE SAI D RATIO IS AN ACCEPTED POSITION OF LAW AND DOES NOT HELP THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. 33. ANOTHER RELIANCE WAS PLACED BY THE LD. AR FOR T HE ASSESSEE ON CIT VS ANKITECH P.LTD. (SUPRA) WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN LAID DOWN THAT WHERE THE LOANS OR ADVANCES ARE MADE FOR BUSINESS P URPOSES, THESE ARE OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF SECTION 2(22)(E) OF THE ACT. W E ARE IN CONFORMITY WITH THE SAID RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT. HOWEVER, AS REFERRED TO BY US IN THE PARAS HEREIN A BOVE, THE AMOUNTS ADVANCED BY THE COMPANY TO THE REGISTERED FIRMS IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, ARE LOANS AND ADVANCES AND NOT FOR TH E PURPOSE OF BUSINESS AND CONSEQUENTLY, THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIO N 2(22)(E) OF THE ACT ARE ATTRACTED IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. 34. IN THE TOTALITY OF THE ABOVESAID FACTS AND CIR CUMSTANCES , THE AMOUNTS ADVANCED BY THE COMPANY TO THE PARTNERSHIP CONCERN ARE IN THE NATURE OF LOAN AND ADVANCES AND THE ASSESSEE HA VING SHAREHOLDING SHIFT ABOVE 10% IN THE SAID COMPANY AND ALSO BEING A PARTNER WITH SUBSTANTIAL INTEREST IN THE PARTNERSHIP CONCERN, TO WHICH THE SAID LOAN OR ADVANCES HAVE BEEN MADE BY THE COMPANY, WHICH IN -TURN ARE LOANS OR ADVANCES MADE BY THE COMPANY TO THE PARTNERSHIP CONCERNS, WOULD ATTRACT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2(22)(E) OF THE A CT. ADMITTEDLY, M/S HIRAMOTI HEALTHCARE PRODUCTS LTD. HAD ACCUMULATED P ROFITS AND THEY HAVE, IN TURN GIVEN LOANS TO OTHER CONCERNS IN WHIC H THE ASSESSEE HAD SUBSTANTIAL INTEREST AND IN-TURN ASSESSEE HOLDING M ORE THAN 10% VOTING POWERS IN THE COMPANY. CONSEQUENTLY, THE INC OME ARISING TO THE EXTENT OF THE SHARE OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE SAID PARTNERSHIP FIRM, BEING DEEMED DIVIDEND IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE IS TO BE INCLUDED AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 2(22)(E) OF THE ACT. 17 UPHOLDING THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ( APPEALS), WE DISMISS THE GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE . 35. THE FACTS IN ITA NO. 1145/CHD/2013 AND ITA 1146 /CHD/2013 ARE IDENTICAL TO THE FACTS IN ITA NO. 1144/CHD/2013 AND OUR DECISION IN ITA 1144/CHD/2013 SHALL APPLY MUTATIS-MUTANDIS T O APPEALS IN ITA NOS. 1145 & 1146/CHD/2013 ALSO. 36. NOW COMING TO THE APPEALS FILED BY THE SECOND I NDIVIDUAL SMT. GARGI JINDAL, WE FIND THAT THE FACTS ARE IDENTICAL TO THE FACTS AS RAISED IN THE CASE OF SMT. SARITA JINDAL AND OUR DE CISION IN ITA NO. 1144/CHD/2013 SHALL APPLY MUTATIS-MUTANDIS TO ITA N OS. 1147 TO 1152/CHD/2013. 37. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE APPEALS FILED BY DIFFERE NT ASSESSEES ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 25 TH FEBRUARY,2014. SD/- SD/- ( T.R.SOOD) (SUSHMA CHOWLA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER J UDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 25 TH FEBRUARY,2014 POONAM COPY TO: THE APPELLANT, THE RESPONDENT, THE CIT(A), THE CIT, DR. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT,CHD.