Sh. Ashish Chaudhry, Ludhiana V. ITO, W-1(1), Ludhiana

ITA 1152/CHANDI/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 108 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2869 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 9 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-06-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 16-06-2021
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 22-08-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Unexplained investment; Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Salary income; Opportunity of being heard; Competent authority; Condonation of delay; Set aside
• Section: 68; 69; 148

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH SMC CHANDIGARH !', # BEFORE: SMT. DIVA SINGH, JM ./ ITA NO. 1152/CHD/2019 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12 SHRI ASHISH CHAUDHRY, C-12, FOCAL POINT, PHASE-V, LUDHIANA. VS THE ITO, WARD 1(1), LUDHIANA. ./ PAN NO: AASPC4446N / APPELLANT / RESPONDENT ! ' / ASSESSEE BY : SHRI VIBHOR GARG, C.A. # ! ' / REVENUE BY : SMT. MEENAKSHI VOHRA, ADDL. CIT ./ ITA NO. 1154/CHD/2019 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12 SHRI SURESH CHAUDHRY, C-12, FOCAL POINT, PHASE-V, LUDHIANA. VS THE ITO, WARD 1(3), LUDHIANA. ./ PAN NO: AASPC4450C / APPELLANT / RESPONDENT ! ' / ASSESSEE BY : SHRI VIBHOR GARG, C.A. # ! ' / REVENUE BY : SHRI ASHOK KHANNA, ADDL. CIT ./ ITA NO. 1156/CHD/2019 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12 SHRI AMIT CHAUDHRY, C-12, FOCAL POINT, PHASE-V, LUDHIANA. VS THE ITO, WARD 1(1), LUDHIANA. ./ PAN NO: AASPC4449D / APPELLANT / RESPONDENT ! ' / ASSESSEE BY : SHRI VIBHOR GARG, C.A. # ! ' / REVENUE BY : SMT. MEENAKSHI VOHRA, ADDL. CIT $ % ! &/ DATE OF HEARING : 16.06.2021 '()* ! &/ D ATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 18.06.2021 ITA 1152,1154 & 1156/CHD/2019 A.Y. 2011-12 PAGE 2 OF 10 HEARING CONDUCTED VIA WEBEX $%/ ORDER THESE THREE APPEALS OF THREE DIFFERENT ASSESSEES A RE BEING TAKEN UP TOGETHER AS IN EACH OF THESE APPEALS PERTA INING TO 2011-12 ASSESSMENT YEARS, THE ISSUES AND ARGUMENTS REMAIN IDENTICAL. ACCORDINGLY, ON THE REQUEST OF THE PART IES, COMMON ORDER IN ALL THESE APPEALS IS BEING PASSED. 2. FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE, THE ISSUES AS FOUND ADDRESSED IN ITA 1152/CHD/2019 ARE BEING TAKEN UP FIRST. HEREIN THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER PASSE D BY THE CIT(A)-I LUDHIANA. VARIOUS GROUNDS HAVE BEEN RAISE D THEREIN, HOWEVER, THE PARTIES ARGUED GROUND NO. 2 & 3 IN THE PRESENT APPEAL. THESE READ AS UNDER : 2 . THAT IN THE FACTS & CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, TH E RE-OPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S 147/148 ARE ILLEGAL, WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND WITHOUT APPLICATION OF MIND AS ADDITION IS MADE ON PROTECTIVE BASIS AND FURTHER IGNORED THE FACT THAT THE INVESTMENT WA S MADE IN AY 2012-13 AND NOT IN AY 2011-12. 3. THAT THE LD APPELLATE AUTHORITY WRONGLY & ILLEGA LLY CONFIRMED THE PROTECTIVE ASSESSMENT WITHOUT A CLEAR FINDING REGAR DING THE ADDITION ON PROTECTIVE BASIS. 3. REFERRING TO THE SUBMISSIONS ADVANCED ON 06.05.2 021 AND 09.06.2021, THE LD. SR.DR INVITED ATTENTION TO THE REPLY OF THE DEPARTMENT BY WAY OF INFORMATION RELATABLE TO M/S K OC INDUSTRIES LTD. WHEREIN THE POSITION AND FACTS REQU IRED TO BE ADDRESSED HAS BEEN CLARIFIED. IT HAS BEEN INFORMED THAT THIS VERY ADDITION HAD BEEN MADE ON A SUBSTANTIVE BASIS THEREIN AND ITA 1152,1154 & 1156/CHD/2019 A.Y. 2011-12 PAGE 3 OF 10 BY WAY OF ABUNDANT CAUTION HAD ALSO BEEN MADE IN TH E CASE OF THE ASSESSEE ON A PROTECTIVE BASIS SO AS TO KEEP TH E DEPARTMENTS INTEREST ALIVE. ACCORDINGLY, ELABORAT ING HER STAND REFERRING TO SUBMISSION MADE ON EARLIER DATES, IT W AS SUBMITTED THAT THE PRESENT APPEAL CAN ACCORDINGLY BE DISPOSED OFF. HOWEVER, HER ONLY CONCERN WAS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ARGUED BEFORE THE CIT(A) THAT CHEQUE OF RS. 20 LACS DATED 31.03.2011 WAS CLEARED IN THE NEXT ASSESSMENT YEAR. THIS FACT UAL POSITION IN EACH OF THESE CASES MAY EITHER BE DIRECTED TO B E VERIFIED OR THIS ISSUE MAY BE KEPT OPEN. AS FAR AS THE PRESENT APPEAL IS CONCERNED, SHE AGREED THAT SINCE THE SUBSTANTIVE AD DITION HAS BECOME FINAL IN THE HANDS OF M/S KOC INDUSTRIES LTD . AS PER REPORT OF THE AO, ADDITION IN THE PRESENT CASES ON PROTECTIVE BASIS, IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES MAY NOT BE MAINTAINABLE UNLESS THE FACTS VARY. 4. THE LD. AR MR. VIBHOR GARG SUBMITTED THAT THE AS SESSEE WOULD BE ABLE TO SATISFY THE AUTHORITIES ON THE FAC T THAT THE CHEQUE WAS CLEARED IN THE NEXT FY I.E. ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2012-13 AND HE WOULD HAVE NO OBJECTION IF THE SAID ISSUE IS KEPT OPEN AND THE HEARING IS CONCLUDED ON THE BASIS OF THE FA CT THAT THE ADDITION ON SUBSTANTIVE BASIS STANDS CONCLUDED IN T HE HANDS OF M/S KOC INDUSTRIES LTD. AS IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE PROTECTIVE ADDITION IS NOT MAINTAINABLE. ITA 1152,1154 & 1156/CHD/2019 A.Y. 2011-12 PAGE 4 OF 10 5. AFTER HEARING THE PARTIES, IT IS SEEN THAT THE F INDING OF THE CIT(A) IN PARA 5 THAT THE PROTECTIVE ADDITION NEEDS TO BE SUSTAINED, CANNOT BE UPHELD. THE FACTS AS CONSIDER ED AND DECIDED BY THE CIT(A) IN THE PRESENT APPEAL ARE SET OUT IN PARA 2 TO 5 OF THE ORDER. THESE ARE EXTRACTED HEREUNDER FOR THE SAKE OF COMPLETENESS : 2. THE APPELLANT HAD, FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION I.E. A.Y.2011-12 , INCOME FROM SALARY AND OTHER SOURCES. HOWEVER, ON RECEIPT OF IN FORMATION BY THE AO REGARDING THE INVESTMENT OF RS.20 LAKHS BY THE APPELLANT AS SHARE APPLICATION MONEY WITH M/ S KOC INDUSTRIES LTD ., THE JURISDICTIONAL AO FORMED A PRIMA FACIE BELIEF O F ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME FROM TAXATION IN THE HANDS OF THE APPELLANT AND, TH EREFORE, ASSUMED THE JURISDICTION TO REASSESS THE APPELLANT BY ISSUING THE NECESSARY NOT ICE UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 148 OF THE ACT, AFTER FOLLOWING THE NECESSARY PROCEDURE IN THIS REGARD IN TERMS OF RECORDING HIS SATISFACTION OBTAINING THE REQUISITE APPROVAL FROM THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY. IN THE ENSUING RE-ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE APPELLANT COULD NOT EXPLAIN THE SOURCES OF INVESTMENT OF RS.20 LAKHS AS SHARE APPLICATION MONEY WITH THE AFORESAID COMPA NY. THE SAID INVESTMENT WAS THUS CONSIDERED AS UNEXPLAINED WITHIN THE MEANI NG OF SECTION 69 OF THE ACT. HOWEVER, IT WAS NOTED BY THE AO THAT M/S KOC INDUSTRIES LTD . WAS ASSESSED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 143(3)/263 FOR THE A.Y.2011-12 , IN WHICH THE AFORESAID INVESTMENT OF THE APPELLANT WAS CONSIDERED AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT WITHIN TH E MEANING OF SECTION 68 OF THE ACT ON SUBSTANTIVE BASIS . THUS, TO AVOID DOUBLE TAXATION, RS.20 LAKHS WAS ADDED BACK BY THE AO IN THE HANDS OF THE APPELLANT ON PROTECTIVE BASIS. 3. APPEAL AGAINST THE AFORESAID ORDER OF ASSESSMENT WA S PREFERRED ON 24/01/2019 , IN WHICH THE SOLITARY GROUND AGAINST THE IMPUGNED ASSE SSMENT WAS THAT THE APPELLANT HAD GIVEN A CHEQUE OF RS.20 LAKHS , WHICH WAS NOT DECLARED BEFORE THE CLOSE OF THE F.Y. 2010-11 4. IN THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE APPELLANT MERELY STATED THE FOLLOWING: THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE AN ADDITION OF RS. 2 0,00,000/- ON PROTECTIVE BASIS IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE, ALSO THE SAID AMOUNT HAS BEEN TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED CREDITS IN THE HANDS OF KOC INDUSTRIES LIMITED ON SUBSTANTIVE BASIS. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED HIS INCOME TAX RETURN ON 29- 02-2012 VIDE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT NUMBER-345125000290212 CONSISTING OF SALARY INCOME FROM M/S KOC INDUSTRIES LIMITED AND INTEREST INCOME. THE ASSESSEE HAS ISSUED A CHEQUE OF RS. 20,00,000/- DATED 31-03-2011 AS SHARE APPLICATION MONEY IN M/S KOC INDUSTRIES LIMITED. TH E CHEQUE WAS CLEARED IN THE NEXT FINANCIAL YEAR HAVING ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 OUT O F PROCEEDS OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT EARNED ANY LONG TERM CAPITA L GAIN DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 AND THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT MADE ANY INVESTMEN TS OF ANY KIND DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12. ON THE BASIS OF ABOVE MENTIONED FACTS, YOUR HON OUR IS REQUESTED TO DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS. 20,00,000/- MADE AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENTS U/S 69 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, INCOME TAX ACT, 1961.' ITA 1152,1154 & 1156/CHD/2019 A.Y. 2011-12 PAGE 5 OF 10 5. FROM THE AFORESAID SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLA NT, THE SOURCES AND GENUINENESS OF THE PURPORTED INVESTMENT REMAINED UNEXPLAINED. BESIDES, THE AO HAS BEEN REASONABLE ENOUGH TO MAKE THE ASSESSMENT PROTECTIVE BASIS. THE APPELLANT SHOULD NOT HAVE ANY GRIEVANCE INST SUCH ASSESSMENT, THE SUBSTANTIVE ASSESSMENT HAVING BEEN 'MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE COMPANY. CONSIDERED IN THIS BACKGROUND, THE INSTANT APPEAL IS DISMISSED ON ACCOUNT OF INABILITY OF THE APPELLANT TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCES A ND GENUINENESS OF THE PURPORTED INVESTMENT EITHER AT THE ASSESSMENT STAGE OR AT THE APPELLATE STAGE. IT IS ORDERED ACCORDINGLY. 6. THE LD.SR.DR MS. VOHRA HAS PLACED THE FOLLOWING REPLY OF THE DEPARTMENT DATED 07.06.2021 WHICH IS REPRODUCED HER EUNDER FOR THE SAKE OF COMPLETENESS AND CLARITY: ITA 1152,1154 & 1156/CHD/2019 A.Y. 2011-12 PAGE 6 OF 10 7. SPECIFIC PARAS 2(VI) TO (VIII) AND PARA 3 OF THE ABOVE REPORT CLEARLY ADDRESS THE DEPARTMENTAL POSITION. IN THE L IGHT OF THESE FACTS AND SUBMISSIONS, IT IS DEEMED APPROPRIATE TO ALLOW THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE AFORESAID GROUNDS AS THE SUBSTANTIVE ADDITION HAS ATTAINED FINALITY. AT THE SAME TIME, IT IS CLARIFIED THAT THE FACTUM OF THE CHEQUE DATED 31 .03.2011 OF RS. 20 LACS IN FAVOUR OF M/S KOC INDUSTRIES LTD. ST ATED TO BE CLEARED IN 2012-13 ASSESSMENT YEAR IS KEPT OPEN FOR CONSIDERATION IN THE SAID APPEAL AND IS NOT BEING C ONSIDERED OR DECIDED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL AS THE PRESENT APPEAL IS BEING DECIDED ONLY ON THE BASIS OF THE FACT THAT SUBSTANT IVE ADDITION HAS ATTAINED FINALITY. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, PROTE CTIVE ADDITION CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. SAID ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED AT THE TIME OF VIRTUAL HEARING ITSELF IN THE PRESENCE OF THE PARTI ES VIA WEBEX. ITA 1152,1154 & 1156/CHD/2019 A.Y. 2011-12 PAGE 7 OF 10 8. THE APPEAL, ACCORDINGLY, IS ALLOWED. 9. IN ITA 1154/CHD/2019 , THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES REMAIN IDENTICAL, HOWEVER, IN THE PRESENT APPEAL TH E CIT(A) HAS CONSIDERED AND DECIDED THE ISSUE DISMISSING THE APP EAL ON LIMITATION AS WELL AS ON PROTECTIVE BASIS. 10. THE RELEVANT FINDINGS UNDER CHALLENGE ARE SET O UT IN PARA 3 WHICH READS AS UNDER : 3 . APPEAL AGAINST THE AFORESAID ORDER OF ASSESSMENT WA S PREFERRED BELATEDLY ON 29/03/2019 AND THE REASONS FOR THE DELAY HAVE BEEN STATED TO BE THE NO N- LINKING OF MOBILE NUMBER OF THE APPELLANT WITH THE AADHAR NO. THIS EXPLANATION WAS ALSO NOT SUBSTANTIATED EITHER IN TH E APPEAL MEMO OR DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. THE AFORESAID GROUND FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING THE INSTANT APPEAL IS NOT SATISFACTORY ENOUG H OR SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR THIS APPELLATE AUTHORITY TO CONDONE THE DELAY. IN ADDITI ON TO THAT, THE APPELLANT HAS ALSO NOT EXPLAINED THE SOURCES OF MAKING THE AF ORESAID INVESTMENT IN THE SHARE CAPITAL OF M/S KOC INDUSTRIES. BESIDES, THE AO HAS BEEN REASONABLE ENOUGH TO MAKE THE ASSESSMENT ON PROTECTIVE BASIS. THE APPELLANT SHOULD NOT HAVE ANY GRIEVANCE AGAINST SUCH ASSESSMENT, THE SUB STANTIVE ASSESSMENT HAVING BEEN MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE COMPANY. CONSI DERED IN THIS BACKGROUND, THE INSTANT APPEAL IS DISMISSED ON BOTH COUNTS, NOT BEING MAINTAINABLE ON ACCOUNT OF INABILITY OF THE APPELLA NT TO SHOW SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR FILING THE APPEAL LATE AS ALSO ON ACCOUNT OF NO GRIEVANCE OCCURRING TO HIM. IN ADDITION TO THAT, AS STATED EARLIER, THE APPELLA NT HAS NEITHER EXPLAINED THE SOURCES OF THE PURPORTED INVESTMENT AT THE ASSESSME NT STAGE NOR AT THE APPELLATE STAGE. 11. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE SAID APPEAL READS AS UNDER : 1. THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF PENALTY IS BAD BOTH ON F ACTS AND LAW. 2. THAT IN THE FACTS & CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE RE-OPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S 147/148 ARE ILLEGAL, WI THOUT JURISDICTION AND WITHOUT APPLICATION OF MIND AS ADDITION IS MADE ON PROTECTIVE BASIS AND FURTHER IGNORED THE FACT THAT THE INVESTMENT WAS MADE IN AY 2012-13 AND NOT IN AY 2011-12. ITA 1152,1154 & 1156/CHD/2019 A.Y. 2011-12 PAGE 8 OF 10 3. THAT THE LD APPELLATE AUTHORITY WRONGLY & ILLEG ALLY CONFIRMED THE PROTECTIVE ASSESSMENT WITHOUT A CLEAR FINDING REGAR DING THE ADDITION ON PROTECTIVE BASIS. 4. THAT LD APPELLATE AUTHORITY WRONGLY & ILLEGALLY HELD THAT THE APPELLANT HAS NEITHER EXPLAINED THE SOURCES O F PURPORTED INVESTMENT OF RS .20,00,000/-AT THE ASSESSMENT STAGE NOR AT THE A PPELLATE STAGE IGNORING THE DETAILED EXPLANATION IN ITS REPLY DATED 18.12.2018 REPRODUCED IN ASSESSMENT ORDER. 5. THAT THE LD APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS WRONGLY & I LLEGALLY REJECTED THE APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING APPE AL ON ACCOUNT OF TECHNICAL GLITCHES OF INCOME TAX PORTAL BEING IN INFANCY STAG ES OF NEW E-FILING PROCEDURE. 6. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES PERMISSION TO ADD, AMEND, ELUCIDATE ANY GROUND OF APPEAL AT THE TIME OF HEARING 12. BOTH THE PARTIES HAVE BEEN HEARD. ADDRESSING TH E SPECIFIC REASONING IN THE CONTEXT OF GROUND NO. 5, FIRST IT IS SEEN THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS NON-SPEAKING AND VAGUE AS THE LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT EVEN CARED TO SET OUT THE SPECIFIC NUMBER O F DAYS BY WHICH THE APPEAL WAS FOUND TO BE DELAYED. AS PER L AW, THE ADJUDICATING AUTHORITY IN ALL FAIRNESS IS FIRST REQ UIRED TO PUT THE APPELLANT TO SPECIFIC NOTICE OF THE FACT OF DELAY N OTICED, IF ANY IN THE FILING OF THE APPEAL. THE ADJUDICATING AUTHORI TY NECESSARILY NEEDS TO SET OUT THE NUMBER OF DAYS BY WHICH THE PETITION/APPLICATION IS FOUND TO BE DELAYED AND THE REAFTER AFFORD THE PARTY AN OPPORTUNITY AND REASONABLE TIM E TO EXPLAIN THE DELAY. IT IS ONLY AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMIS SIONS, THE ADJUDICATING AUTHORITY IS TO PASS A SPEAKING ORDER SETTING OUT THE REASONS AS TO WHY THE DELAY IS BEING CONDONED O R THE APPLICATION IS BEING DISMISSED. IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, IT IS SEEN THAT THE ADJUDICATING AUTHORITY HAS PASS ED A VAGUE ITA 1152,1154 & 1156/CHD/2019 A.Y. 2011-12 PAGE 9 OF 10 GENERALISTIC ORDER WHERE IT IS NOT CLEAR WHETHER AN Y SUCH OPPORTUNITY IN CLEAR TERM WAS AFFORDED TO THE ASSES SEE. IT IS SEEN THAT NO CARE WAS TAKEN EVEN TO SET OUT THE NUM BER OF DAYS BY WHICH THE APPEAL WAS NOTICED TO BE DELAYED. 12.1 ACCORDINGLY, AFTER HEARING THE PARTIES, IT WA S DEEMED APPROPRIATE TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER RESTORI NG THE ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A) WITH DIRECTION TO FI RST SET OUT THE SPECIFIC NUMBER OF DAYS BY WHICH THE APPEAL WAS NOT ICED TO BE LATE AND THEREAFTER AFFORD A SPECIFIC OPPORTUNITY T O THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE DELAY. ON MERITS ALSO, IT IS SEEN T HAT NO SPECIFIC REASON, IT IS SEEN, HAS ALSO BEEN GIVEN TO PROCEED TO UPHOLD THE PROTECTIVE ADDITION. IN THE LIGHT OF THE SUBMISSIO NS OF THE AO AS CONSIDERED IN ITA 1152/CHD/2019 WHICH ARE STATED TO BE IDENTICAL IN THE PRESENT CASE ALSO, IT IS SEEN THAT THUS EVEN ON MERITS, THE ADDITION CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. IN THE A BSENCE OF ANY CHANGE IN FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AS AVAILABLE ON R ECORD, IT IS DEEMED APPROPRIATE TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DIRECTING THE CIT(A) TO VERIFY THIS FACTUAL POSITION OF FINA LITY AND PASS A SPEAKING ORDER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER GIVING THE ASSESSEE A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. 13. ACCORDINGLY, ITA 1154/CHD/2019 IS RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A). 14. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWE D FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ITA 1152,1154 & 1156/CHD/2019 A.Y. 2011-12 PAGE 10 OF 10 15. IN ITA 1156/CHD/2019 , IT WAS COMMON STAND OF THE PARTIES BEFORE THE BENCH THAT THE FACTS, CIRCUMSTAN CES AND THE REASONING OF THE CIT(A) IS IDENTICAL TO THE FACTS, CIRCUMSTANCES AND REASONING AS CONSIDERED IN THE CASE OF SHRI ASHISH CHAUDHRY (ITA 1152/CHD/2019). SIMILAR SUBMISSIONS DATED 07.06.20 21 ON FACTS HAVE BEEN PLACED BY THE CONCERNED AO BEFORE THE ITA T. ACCORDINGLY, IN THE LIGHT OF THE DECISION AS SET OU T IN ITA 1152/CHD/2019, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWE D. 16. IN THE RESULT, ITA 1152/CHD/2019 AND ITA 1156/CHD/2019 ARE ALLOWED AND ITA 1154/CHD/2019 IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 17. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 18 TH JUNE,2021. SD/- ( !' ) (DIVA SINGH) # / JUDICIAL MEMBER ' ( / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT 3. / CIT 4. ( )/ THE CIT(A) 5. , , / DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 6. / GUARD FILE / BY ORDER, / ASSISTANT REGISTRAR