Haryana Agro Industries Corporation, Panchkula V. ACIT, Panchkula

ITA 118/CHANDI/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 95574 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-09-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 18-08-2015
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 02-02-2015
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S K MITTAL
• Assessee Lawyers: B K NOHRIA
• Keywords: Reopening of assessment; Audit objection; Assessment record; Reason to believe
• Section: 143(3); 37(1); 147; 148

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI H.L.KARWA, VICE PRESIDENT AND MS. RANO JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.118/CHD/2015 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09) HARYANA AGRO INDUSTRIES VS. THE A.C.I.T., CORPORATION, BAY NO.15-20, PANCHKULA CIRCLE, SECTOR 4, PANCHKULA. PANCHKULA. PAN: AAACH4686C (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI B.K.NOHRIA RESPONDENT BY : SHRI S.K. MITTAL, DR DATE OF HEARING : 19.08.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 29.09.2015 O R D E R PER RANO JAIN, A.M . : THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), PANCHKULA DATED 28.11.2014 FOR ASSESSMEN T YEAR 2008-09. 2. BRIEFLY, THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASS ESSEE FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE RELEVANT ASSESSM ENT YEAR AS ON 1.10.2008 DECLARING INCOME OF RS.2,70,18,880/-. THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX A CT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT) WAS MADE VIDE ORDER DATED 24. 12.2010 AT AN INCOME OF RS.5,35,46,930/-. LATER ON, AFTER REC ORDING 2 REASONS TO BELIEVE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED A NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT TO THE ASSESSEE AS ON 14.2.2 013. THE REASONS FOR REOPENING WERE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED EXPENSES OF RS.17.56 LACS FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2006-07 ON ACCOUNT OF SERVICE CH ARGES PAYABLE ON PROCUREMENT OF GUNNY BAGS FOR THE FINANC IAL YEAR 2006-07. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS OF THE VIEW THA T SINCE THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WAS FOLLOWING THE MERCANTILE SYSTE M OF ACCOUNTING, THE SAID EXPENDITURE WAS NOT ALLOWABLE IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 AND THE INCOME HAD ESCAPED ASSESSMENT WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 147 OF THE ACT. IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT , THE ASSESSEE FILED A RETURN OF INCOME. A COPY OF THE R EASONS RECORDED WAS DULY PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE. THE AS SESSEE FILED PRELIMINARY OBJECTION TO REOPENING, WHICH WER E DISPOSED OFF BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY HIS INTERIM ORDER D ATED 15.1.2014. THE ASSESSEE OBJECTED TO THE REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT ON VARIOUS LEGAL ISSUES AS WELL AS ON ME RITS OF THE CASE. HOWEVER, REJECTING ALL THE CONTENTIONS OF TH E ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT AS O N 6.2.2014 AT AN INCOME OF RS.4,79,66,220/- AFTER MAK ING AN ADDITION OF RS.17,55,845/- ON ACCOUNT OF PRIOR PERI OD EXPENSES. 3. AGGRIEVED BY THIS ORDER, THE ASSESSEE WENT IN A PPEAL BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) WHERE IT RAISED SP ECIFIC ISSUES WITH REGARD TO THE VALIDITY OF REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 147 OF THE ACT AS WELL AS MADE SUBMIS SIONS 3 WITH RESPECT TO THE MERITS OF THE CASE. THE LEARN ED CIT (APPEALS) DEALING WITH ALL THE ISSUES SO RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE HELD THAT REOPENING MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U NDER SECTION 147 OF THE ACT IS AS PER LAW. AS REGARDS T HE MERITS OF THE CASE, THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE PAYMENT MADE ON ACCOUNT OF PRIOR PERIOD EXPENSES AR E DISALLOWABLE AS PER PROVISIONS OF SECTION 37(1) OF THE ACT. HOWEVER, HE ALSO HELD THAT THOUGH THE SERVICE CHARG ES PAYABLE ON PURCHASE OF GUNNY BAGS HAVE BEEN DISALLOWED ON ACCOUNT OF BEING PRIOR PERIOD EXPENSES, THE SAME ARE ALLOWA BLE TO THE ASSESSEE IN THE YEAR IN WHICH THESE ARE INCURRED. IN THIS WAY, HE DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO VERIFY AND GRA NT RELIEF TO THE EXTENT THE EXPENSE ON THIS ACCOUNT FOR WHICH TH E EXPENSES WERE INCURRED DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION A ND PROVIDE RELIEF TO THAT EXTENT. 4. NOW, THE ASSESSEE HAS COME UP IN APPEAL BEFORE US RAISING AS MANY AS EIGHT GROUNDS OF APPEAL. THE G ROUND NOS.1 TO 5 RELATE TO THE ILLEGALITY OF PROCEEDINGS INITIATED BY ISSUE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT AND TH E CONSEQUENTIAL PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 147 OF THE ACT. GROUND NOS.6 AND 7 ARE AGAINST THE MERITS OF THE CA SE WHILE GROUND NO.8 IS GENERAL IN NATURE. 5. THOUGH FIVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE RAISED AGAINS T THE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT, HOWEVER, VERY DETAILED SUBMISSIONS WERE MADE BEFORE US ONLY ON THE ISSUE THAT REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 14 8 OF THE ACT WERE BAD AND LIABLE TO BE QUASHED AS THE SAME W ERE MADE 4 ON THE BASIS OF OBJECTIONS RAISED BY THE AUDIT PART Y. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING BEFORE US, RAISED AN OBJECTION THAT THE NOTICE ISSU ED ON THE BASIS OF AUDIT OBJECTION FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 08-09 WAS BAD IN LAW. FOR THIS, WE WERE TAKEN TO NUMBER OF PAGES APPENDED WITH THE PAPER BOOK FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, WHEREBY THE COPIES OF AUDIT OBJECTION AND ITS DISPOSAL WERE ANNEXED. THESE EVIDENCES WERE SHOWN TO US TO EMPHASIZE THAT THE AUDIT OBJECTIONS RAISED BY THE AUDIT PARTY WAS THE ONLY B ASIS FOR REOPENING. RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASES OF CIT VS. LUCA S T.V.S. LTD. (2001) 249 ITR 306 (SC) AND ALSO INDIAN & EAS TERN NEWSPAPER SOCIETY VS. CIT (1979) 119 ITR 996 (SC) F OR THE PROPOSITION THAT REOPENING ONLY ON THE BASIS OF AUD IT OBJECTION IS NOT AS PER LAW. THIS JUDGMENT WAS FOLLOWED BY HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE C ASE OF CIT VS. SANT RAM MANGAT RAM (2009) 180 TAXMAN 177 ( P&H). IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SPECIFI CALLY RAISED THIS OBJECTION BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT TH E NOTICE HAS BEEN ISSUED ONLY ON THE BASIS OF AUDIT OBJECTION. HOWEVER, THE SAME WAS NOT PROPERLY DISPOSED OFF BY THE ASSES SING OFFICER. IN THIS WAY, IT WAS ARGUED THAT REOPENIN G CANNOT BE MADE ON THE BASIS OF AUDIT OBJECTION ALONE. 6. THE LEARNED D.R. RELYING ON THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. P.V.S . BEEDIES (P) LTD., 237 ITR 13 (SC) ARGUED THAT REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT ON THE BASIS OF AUDIT OBJECTION IS QUITE VALID. FU RTHER RELIANCE 5 WAS ALSO PLACED ON THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS. RAJESH JHAVERI STOCK BROKERS PVT. LTD., 291 ITR 500 (SC) WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT REAS ON TO BELIEVE ABOUT THE ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME ON ACCOUNT O F AUDIT OBJECTION IS QUITE VALID. IN THIS WAY, IT WAS PRAY ED THAT THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW BE UPHELD. 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE LEARNED REPRESENTATIVES OF BO TH THE PARTIES, PERUSED THE FINDINGS OF THE AUTHORITIE S BELOW AND CONSIDERED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE I SSUE RAISED BEFORE US IS WHETHER THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 O F THE ACT ISSUED ON THE BASIS OF AUDIT OBJECTION IS VALID OR NOT. WE HAVE SEEN THE DOCUMENTS WHEREBY IT IS QUITE EVITABLE THAT THE AUDIT PARTY HAS CERTAINLY RAISED AN OBJECTION RELATING TO SAID PRIOR PERIOD ITEMS AND ONLY AFTER POINTING OUT BY THE AUD IT PARTY, THE REASONS FOR REOPENING BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAVE BEEN RECORDED AND NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT HA S BEEN ISSUED. HOWEVER, WE HAVE ALSO SEEN THAT THE LEARN ED CIT (APPEALS) HAS VERY CONVINCINGLY OBSERVED THAT THE R EOPENING IN THE BACKGROUND OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E GIVEN CASE IS VALID AND AS PER LAW. THE FINDINGS GIVEN BY THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) ARE RECORDED AT PAGE 8, PARA 4.4, WHICH READ AS UNDER : 4.4 REGARDING GROUND NO. 3 ON APPELLANT'S OBJECTIO N THAT NOTICE U/S 148 WAS ISSUED ON THE BASIS OF AUDIT OBJECTION AND THE PRELIMINARY OBJECTION WAS NOT DISPOSED OFF BY THE AO . IT IS NOTED THAT THOUGH THE AUDIT HAS RAISED AN OBJECTION VIDE THEIR NOTE DATED 22.07.201 AND SOUGHT THE COMMENTS OF THE AO, THE AO HAS REPLIED THAT IT WOULD BE LOOKED INTO AT THE TIME OF REGULAR LAR. I DO NOT FIND 6 ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ACTION OF THE AO ON THIS GROUN D AS THE INFORMATION BEFORE THE AO CAN BE AVAILABLE FROM VAR IOUS SOURCES, ANY OTHER PROCEEDINGS, FROM ANY OTHER OFFICE WHICH O NLY PROVIDES THE BACKGROUND FOR RECORDING THE REASON TO BELIEVE T HAT INCOME HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. THE APPELLANT HAS RELIED ON FEW JUDG MENTS. ON PERUSAL OF THOSE JUDGMENTS, IT IS NOTED THAT THE DE CISIONS GIVEN WERE DISTINGUISHABLE ON THE FACTS THAN THE FACTS OF THE INSTANT CASE. THE DECISION OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF LUC AS TVS LTD. (SUPRA) WAS ON THE FACT THAT THE AUDITOR'S OPINION I N REGARD TO APPLICATION OR INTERPRETATION OF LAW CANNOT BE TREAT ED BY AO AS INFORMATION FOR REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT. THE DEC ISION OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF INDIAN AND EASTE RN NEWSPAPER SOCIETY (SUPRA ) FOLLOWED BY HON'BLE P&H H IGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SANT RAM MANGAT RAM WAS ON THE FACT THAT INFORMATION BEFORE THE AO WAS AVAILABLE ON ACCOUNT OF INTERNAL AUDIT OF THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT ON THE INTERPRETATION OF LAW. HOWEVER, IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE INFORMATION AVAILABLE BEFORE AO IS NOT ON THE INTERPRETATION OF LAW BUT THE FACTUAL POSITION THAT TH E APPELLANT HAS CLAIMED PRIOR PERIOD EXPENSES DURING THE CURRENT YEAR . IN THIS REGARD, THE RELIANCE IS PLACED ON THE DECISION GIVEN BY HON 'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. PVS BEEDIES PVT. LTD. 237 IT R 13 WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT ON THE BA SIS OF ERROR POINTED OUT BY THE AUDIT PARTY IS VALID. FURTHER, T HE HON'BLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. FIRST LEASING CO. OF INDIA LTD. 241 ITR 248 OBSERVED THAT THE AUDIT REPORT BROUGHT TO THE A TTENTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE RELEVANT PROVISION OF THE LA W BUT HAS NOT INTERPRETED THE SAID PROVISION UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTA NCES, THE ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S 148 WAS VALID. FURTHER, THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS. RAJESH JHAVERI STOCK BROKERS PVT. L TD. 291 ITR 500 HELD THAT EVEN IF REASON TO BELIEVE ABOUT ESCAPEMEN T OF INCOME ON ACCOUNT OF ERROR IS PROMPTED BY AUDIT OBJECTION, TH E REASSESSMENT BECOMES VALID. THEREFORE, THE APPELLANT'S OBJECTION ON THIS GROUND IS NOT ACCEPTABLE. 8. FROM THE READING OF THE ABOVE, IT IS QUITE CLEA R THAT REOPENING MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE BASI S OF AUDIT 7 OBJECTION IS AS PER LAW. THE CASE OF LOCUS T.V.S. LTD. (SUPRA) RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE IS NOT APPLICABLE TO TH E PRESENT CASE AS IN AN EARLIER DECISION OF THE HON'BLE SUPRE ME COURT IN THE CASE OF INDIAN & EASTERN NEWSPAPER SOCIETY (SU PRA), IT WAS HELD THAT NO REOPENING CAN BE MADE ON THE BASIS OF AUDIT OBJECTION WHICH IS ON SOME INTERPRETATION OF LAW. THIS JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT HAS BEEN FOLL OWED BY THE HON'BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SANT RAM MANGAT RAM (SUPRA). IN THE JUDGMENT OF P.V.S. BEEDIES PVT. LTD. (SUPRA), IT WAS HELD THAT REOPENING OF TH E ASSESSMENT ON THE BASIS OF ERROR POINTED OUT BY THE AUDIT PART Y IS VALID. FROM THE CONJOINT READING OF ALL THESE JUDGMENTS GI VEN BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT, IT INFERS THAT REOPENING ON THE BASIS OF AN AUDIT OBJECTION CAN BE DONE IF SOME ERROR IS POINTED OUT BY THE AUDIT PARTY, HOWEVER, NO REOPENING ON THE BA SIS OF AUDIT OBJECTION CAN BE DONE IF THE OBJECTION PERTAI NS TO SOME INTERPRETATION OF LAW. IN THIS BACKGROUND, WE NOW ANALYZE THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. IT IS NOTED THAT TH E AUDIT PARTY HAS RAISED AN OBJECTION THAT CERTAIN EXPENSES, WHIC H PERTAINED TO EARLIER YEARS HAVE BEEN CLAIMED IN THE CURRENT ASSESSMENT YEAR, WHICH ARE NOT SO ALLOWABLE AS PER LAW. THIS INFORMATION IN THE FORM OF OBJECTION RAISED BY THE AUDIT PARTY, TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER, ONLY PROVIDES THE BACKGRO UND FOR FORMING A BELIEF THAT THE INCOME HAD ESCAPED ASSESS MENT. THIS IS NOT AN INTERPRETATION OF LAW MADE BY THE AU DIT PARTY. THIS IS JUST A FACTUAL ERROR POINTED OUT BY THE AUD IT PARTY. IN THIS BACKGROUND, WE HOLD THAT REOPENING ON THE BASI S OF AUDIT OBJECTION IS AS PER LAW IN THE GIVEN FACTS AND CIRC UMSTANCES OF 8 THE CASE AND THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) HAS VERY APT LY ANALYZED THE VALIDITY OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT AND WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE FINDINGS RECORDED BY THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS). THEREFORE, WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF T HE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) ON THIS ACCOUNT. 9. ON THE MERITS OF THE CASE, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS PAYING SERVICE CHARGES FOR THE PURCHASE OF GUNNY BAGS TO THE FOOD & SUPPLY DEPARTMENT OF GOVERNMENT OF HARYANA, WHO BUYS THE G UNNY BAGS FOR USE OF STATE OF HARYANA AT LOWER RATES AND CHARGES AT 1% OF THE PURCHASE. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT IT IS NO T A TAX, BY WHATEVER NAME CALLED. SINCE THE EXPENDITURE HAS BE EN ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONS IDERATION AND ACCORDINGLY, RISEN DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSID ERATION, IN THIS VIEW, IT WAS PRAYED THAT THE SAME MAY BE ALLOW ED IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. IN THE ALTERNATIVE, IT W AS SUBMITTED THAT SAME EXPENSES MAY BE ALLOWED IN THE YEAR IN WH ICH THEY HAVE ARISEN. 10. THE LEARNED D.R. RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS). 11. 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. WE SE E THAT THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) HAS GIVEN VERY DETAILED FINDI NGS ON THIS ISSUE, WHICH ARE RECORDED AT PAGE 13, PARAS 6.2 AND 6.3 OF HIS ORDER, WHICH READ AS UNDER : 9 6.2 I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE FACTS OF THE CASE, WR ITTEN SUBMISSIONS FILED BY THE APPELLANT AND THE ASSESSMENT RECORD. IT IS NOTED THAT THE* AO HAS DISALLOWED THE AMOUNT CONSIDERING IT AS PRIOR PERIOD EXPENSES AS PER ANNU AL REPORT AFTER ISSUE OF SHOW CAUSE NOTICE AND CONSIDERATION OF APPELLANT'S REPLY. THOUGH, THE APPELLANT HAS SUBMIT TED THAT THE SERVICE CHARGE LIABILITY ON ACCOUNT OF PURCHASE O F GUNNY BAGS AROSE DURING THE YEAR, BUT THE APPELLANT HAS NO T PROVIDED ANY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF ITS CLAIM EXCEP T THE COPY OF LEDGER ACCOUNT. THE AO HAS GIVEN ITS FINDING IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THEREFORE, I AM NOT IN AGREEMENT WITH THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE APPELLANT AND THE PAYMENT MA DE ON ACCOUNT OF PRIOR PERIOD EXPENSES AS QUANTIFIED B Y ITS AUDITORS IS DISALLOWABLE AS PER PROVISIONS OF SECTI ON 37(1) OF THE ACT. 6.3 REGARDING THE NON DISPUTED NATURE OF EXPENDITUR E IT IS NOTED THAT THE EXPENSES ON ACCOUNT OF SERVICE CHARGE PAYA BLE ON PURCHASE OF GUNNY BAGS HAVE BEEN DISALLOWED ON ACCOU NT OF BEING PRIOR PERIOD EXPENSES. HOWEVER, ANY EXPENSE I NCURRED BY THE APPELLANT DURING THE YEAR ON THIS ACCOUNT IS A LLOWABLE. THE AO IS DIRECTED TO VERIFY AND GRANT RELIEF TO THE EXTENT THE EXPENSE ON THIS ACCOUNT FOR WHICH THE EXPENSES WAS INCURRED DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND PROVIDE RELI EF TO THAT EXTENT OF EXPENDITURE. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS PAR TLY ALLOWED. 12. ON THE MERITS OF THE CASE EVEN BEFORE US, BARE SUBMISSIONS WERE MADE AND NO DOCUMENT OR EVIDENCE T O SUPPORT THE CLAIM THAT THE LIABILITY ON ACCOUNT OF PURCHASE OF GUNNY BAGS HAS ACTUALLY CRYSTALLIZED IN THE YEAR UN DER CONSIDERATION, WAS BROUGHT ON RECORD. THEREFORE, W E ARE IN AGREEMENT WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE LEARNED CIT (APP EALS) THAT THE SAID EXPENSES ARE NOT ALLOWABLE IN THE YEAR UND ER CONSIDERATION. AS REGARDS THE ALTERNATIVE CONTENTI ON OF THE 10 LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THE EXPENSES MAY BE ALLOWED IN THE YEAR IN WHICH THEY ARISEN, WE SEE TH AT THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) HAD DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OF FICER TO VERIFY THIS ASPECT AND GIVE THE ASSESSEE DUE RELIEF . WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS). THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 13. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 29 TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2015. SD/- SD/- (H.L.KARWA) (RANO JAIN) VICE PRESIDENT ACOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 29 TH SEPTEMBER, 2015 *RATI* COPY TO: THE APPELLANT/THE RESPONDENT/THE CIT(A)/TH E CIT/THE DR. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH