ACIT, C-7, Ludhiana V. Nahar Spinning Mills Ltd., Ludhiana

ITA 1212/CHANDI/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 110 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3123 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-11-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 10-11-2020
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 06-09-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ASHOK KUMAR KHANNA
• Keywords: Depreciation; Rule of consistency; Additional depreciation; Earning of tax free income; Proportionate interest; Revised return; Rule 8D
• Section: 143(3); 14A; 115JB; 80IB; 32(1)(iia)

Judgement Text

, B , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCHES B, CHANDIGARH .. , !' #$ %'& '(, ) (* BEFORE SHRI N.K. SAINI, VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI SATBE ER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ ITA NO. 1212/CHD/2019 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2014-15 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7, LUDHIANA M/S NAHAR SPINNING MILLS LTD., 373, INDUSTRIAL AREA-A, LUDHIANA. ./ PAN NO: AAACN 5710 D / APPELLANT / RESPONDENT / REVENUE BY: SHRI ASHOK KUMAR KHANNA (ADDL.CIT) ! / ASSESSEE BY: SHRI NAVDEEP SHARMA (ADV) ' # !$ / DATE OF HEARING : 10/11/2020 %&'( !$ / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 11/11/2020 (+ / ORDER PER: SATBEER SINGH GODARA, J.M. : THIS REVENUES APPEAL FOR A.Y. 2014-15 ARISES AGAIN ST THE C.I.T.(A)-3, LUDHIANA ORDER DATED 01/06/2019 PASSED IN APPEAL NO. 207/IT/CIT(A)/LDH/2016-17 INVOLVING PROCEEDING U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT, THE ACT). 2. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING SUBSTANTIVE GROUNDS IN THE INSTANT APPEAL: I. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A), IS JUSTIFIED IN RESTRICTING TH E DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE OBSERVATION OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN MAXOPP INVESTMENT LTD., REPORTED IN (2018) 91 TAXMANN.COM 154 (SC) THAT AS PER SECTION 14A(1) OF THE ACT, DEDUCTION OF THAT EXPENDITURE IS NOT TO BE ALLOWED WHICH HAS BEEN ITA 1212/CHD/2019_ ACIT VS. NAHAR SPINNING MILLS 2 INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE IN RELATION TO INCOME WHIC H DOES NOT FORM PART OF THE TOTAL INCOME UNDER THIS ACT? II) WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTAN CES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) IS JUSTIFIED IN ALLOWING THE CL AIM OF ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION TO BE CARRIED FORWARD AS THE ASSESSEE HAS NEVER CLAIMED THIS CARRY FORWARD OF ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATI ON IN ITS RETURN OF INCOME AND THERE ARE NO PROVISIONS UNDER THE INC OME TAX ACT TO MAKE AMENDMENT IN THE RETURN OF INCOME AT THE ASSES SMENT STAGE WITHOUT REVISING THE RETURN AND THAT THIS ARGUMENT OF THE REVENUE IS WELL SUPPORTED BY THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE SU PREME COURT IN THE CASE OF GOETZE (INDIA) LTD VS. CIT 284 ITR 323 IN WHICH THE HON'BLE COURT HAS DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSES SEE ON THE ISSUE- WHETHER THE APPELLANT ASSESSEE COULD MAKE A CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION OTHER THAN BY FILING A REVISED RETURN? III) WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTAN CES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) IS JUSTIFIED DIRECTING THE AO NOT TO APPLY R ULE 8D WHILE COMPUTING THE DISALLOWANCE FOR THE PURPOSE OF BOOK PROFIT U/S115JB?' HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES. CASE FILE RECORDS PERUSED. 3. WE ADVERT TO THE ABOVE STATED 1 ST AND 3 RD SUBSTANTIVE GROUNDS SEEKING TO REVIVE SECTION 14A R.W.R. 8D DIS ALLOWANCE OF RS. 22,44,117/- AND SECTION 115JB MAT COMPUTATION A DDITION OF RS. 24,54,294/- RESPECTIVELY. IT TRANSPIRES AT THE OUTSET WITH THE ABLE ASSISTANCE OF BOTH THE LEARNED REPRESENTATIVES THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD INVOKED DIRECT, PROPORTIONATE INTEREST AND ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES DISALLOWANCE OF RS.1,34,422 /-, RS.21,11,348/- AND RS. 3,42,967; RESPECTIVELY AGGRE GATING TO RS. 25,88,737/- UNDER RULE 8D(2)(I) TO (III) OF THE INC OME TAX RULES AS AGAINST THE SUO MOTO DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 3,44,62 0/- OFFERED AT THE TAX PAYERS BEHEST. THE ASSESSEE HAD ADMITEDLY DERIVED EXEMPT INCOME FROM DIVIDENDS OF RS. 8,86,816/- IN T HE RELEVANT ITA 1212/CHD/2019_ ACIT VS. NAHAR SPINNING MILLS 3 PREVIOUS YEAR. THE CIT(A) HAS RESTRICTED THE SAME T O THE EXTENT OF ASSESSEES EXEMPT INCOME ONLY I.E. RS. 8,86,616/- G OING BY HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURTS DECISION PUNJAB TRACTORS LTD. VS. CIT (2017) 78 TAXMANN.COM 65 (P&H). 4. THE REVENUES ONLY ARGUMENT DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING IS THAT THE HONBLE APEX COURT DECISION IN MAXOPP INVE STMENT LTD. (SUPRA) HAS ALREADY SETTLED THE LAW THAT SUCH A DIS ALLOWANCE RELATING TO AN ASSESSEES EXEMPT INCOME HAS TO BE M ADE. WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THE REVENUES FOREGOING CONTE NTION. WE MAKE IT CLEAR THAT THE ISSUE BEFORE US IS NOT THAT OF APPLICATION BUT COMPUTATION OF SECTION 14A R.W.R 8D DISALLOWANC E SINCE THE CIT(A) HAS ONLY DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO Q UANTIFY THE SAME TO THE EXTENT OF EXEMPT INCOME ONLY AS PER HON BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURTS DECISION AS WELL AS JOI NT INVESTMENT P. LTD. VS CIT 372 ITR 694 (DELHI). WE THUS FIND NO RE ASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE CIT(A)S DIRECTIONS UNDER CHALLE NGE. THE REVENUE FAILS IN ITS FIRST AND FOREMOST SUBSTANTIVE GROUND. 5. NEXT COMES THE LATTER LIMB OF SECTION 14A R.W.R. 8D DISALLOWANCE FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECTION 115JB OF TH E ACT UNDER MAT COMPUTATION. SUFFICE TO SAY, THIS TRIBUNALS SP ECIAL BENCH DECISION IN ACIT VS VIREET INVESTMENTS (P.) LTD. [2 017] 82 TAXMANN.COM 415 (DELHI - TRIB.) (SB) HAS ALREADY SETTLED THE LAW TH AT SUCH A DISALLOWANCE IS NOT TO BE INCLUDED IN THE MAT COMPUTATION. WE THUS DECLINE REVENUES THIRD SUBSTANTIVE GROUNDS ARGUMENT AS WELL. ITA 1212/CHD/2019_ ACIT VS. NAHAR SPINNING MILLS 4 6. THIS LEAVES US WITH THE REVENUES SECOND SUBSTAN TIVE GRIEVANCE SEEKING TO REVIVE THE ASSESSING OFFICERS ACTION DISALLOWING T HE ASSESSEES ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION CLAIM OF RS. 1,86,81,037/- DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT AS REVERSED IN THE CIT(A)S APPELLATE DISCUSSION AS FO LLOWS: 6. GROUND OF APPEAL NO.4:- THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS AGAINST NOT ALLOWING THE ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION OF RS. 1,86,81,037/- BEING BALANCE 10% ON THE COST OF MACHINERY WHICH WAS PUT TO USE FOR LESS THAN 180 DA YS DURING THE PRECEDING YEAR AND RESTRICTED DURING THE SAID YEAR. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS REGARDING DISALLOWANCE OF ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION OF RS.1,86,81,037/-. THE BRIEF FACTS ARE THAT THE APPE LLANT CLAIMED AN ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION OF RS. 1,86,81,037/- U/S 32(1)(IIA) OF THE ACT AS CARRY FORWARD FROM THE PREVIOUS YEAR. THE SAID ADDITIONAL DEPRECI ATION WAS ON THE MACHINERY INSTALLED AND PUT TO USE IN THE PRECEDING YEAR WHICH WAS USED LESS THAN 180 DAYS AND THE CLAIM OF ADDITIONAL DEPRECIAT ION WAS RESTRICTED TO 50% OF THE NORMAL AS PER PROVISO TO SECTION 32(1)(II) O F THE ACT. VIDE ORDER SHEET ENTRY THE APPELLANT WAS ASKED AS TO FURNISH THE DET AILS OF THE SAME. THE COUNSEL OF THE APPELLANT REPLIED WHICH WAS CONSIDER ED BUT NOT ACCEPTED BY THE AO AND SUBSEQUENTLY THE CARRY FORWARD OF BALANC E OF RS. 1,86,81,037/- OF ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION FROM A.Y. 2013-14 WAS REJEC TED. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PRECEDING THE APPELLANT WAS A SKED TO FILE THE DETAILS OF PROVISIONS MADE ON ACCOUNT OF COMMISSION ALONGWITH NAME OF ALL THE PARTIES TO WHOM COMMISSION WAS PAID. THE APPELLANT REPLIED. ONGOING THROUGH THE SAID DETAIL THE AO OBSERVED THAT IN CASE OF SOME AM OUNTS THE COMMISSION STILL REMAINED UNPAID. THE APPELLANT WAS CONFRONTED AND W AS SHOW CAUSED VIDE ORDER SHEET ENTRY WHY THE AMOUNT OF UNPAID COMMISSI ON MAY NOT BE DISALLOWED AND ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT . THE AR OF THE APPELLANT REPLIED THAT THE UNPAID COMMISSION WAS ON ACCOUNT O F DISPUTE AND AGREED FOR ADDITION SUBJECT TO ITS CLAIM TOWARDS EXPENSES IN S UBSEQUENT YEARS AS AND WHEN THE DISPUTE IS RESOLVED. HENCE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED THE SAID ITA 1212/CHD/2019_ ACIT VS. NAHAR SPINNING MILLS 5 CLAIM WHICH COMES TO RS. 5,21,583/- AND ADDED TO TH E INCOME OF THE APPELLANT. 6.2 AT THE TIME OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE APPELLANT HAS FILED ITS WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON 06.09.2017 WHICH I S REPRODUCED AS UNDER:- THAT DURING THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL, THE APPELLANT CL AIMED ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION U/S 32(L)(IIA) OF THE ACT. HOWEVER, DU RING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, FURTHER ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION OF RS. L,86,81,037/-WAS CLAIMED ON THE MACHINERY INSTALLED AND PUT TO USE IN THE PR ECEDING YEAR, WHICH WAS USED LESS THAN 180 DAYS AND THE CLAIM OF ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION IN THE SAID YEAR WAS RESTRICTED TO 50% OF THE NORMAL AS PER PRO VISO TO SECTION 32(1)(II) OF THE ACT. THE BALANCE 10% OF THE ADDITIONAL DEPRE CIATION WHICH WAS SHORT ALLOWED BECAUSE OF RESTRICTION IN THE SAID YEAR HAS BEEN CLAIMED DURING THIS YEAR. THE CLAIM WAS MADE BECAUSE THIS WAS AN INCENT IVE GIVEN BY HON'BLE LEGISLATURE IN THE FORM OF ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION, THOUGH RESTRICTED IN A GIVEN YEAR, HAS TO BE ALLOWED IN THE NEXT YEAR. THE COPY OF LETTER DATED 18.05.2016 FILED WITH LD ASSESSING OFFICER REGARDIN G THIS CLAIM IS ENCLOSED AS ANNEXURE-II. HOWEVER THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER TOTA LLY IGNORED THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT IT IS AN ACCEPTED AND ADMITTED FACT THAT APPELLANT ACQUIRED AND INSTALLED NEW MACHINERY IN THE PRECEDI NG YEAR, WHEN THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER ALLOWED THE NORMAL DEPRECIATION A S WELL AS ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION. BUT ON THE MACHINERY WHICH WAS INSTAL LED AND USED FOR LESS THAN 180 DAYS, THE ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION WAS REST RICTED TO FIFTY PERCENT. THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 32(1)(II) ENVISAGE THAT A SSESSEE IS ELIGIBLE FOR INITIAL ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION @ 20% OF THE COST OF MACHINERY. THE PROVISO TO SECTION 32(1)(II) ONLY RESTRICT THAT IF MACH INERY WAS ACQUIRED DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR AND PUT TO USE FOR LESS THAN 180 DAYS , THE DEDUCTION SHALL BE RESTRICTED TO 50% OF THE AMOUNT CALCULATED. THE BAL ANCE 50% OF THE RESTRICTED ALLOWANCE IS TO BE GIVEN IN SUBSEQUENT Y EAR AS THE APPELLANT WAS ELIGIBLE TO CLAIM ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION @ 20% BUT RESTRICTED TO 50% THEREOF BECAUSE OF WORKING OF ASSETS FOR LESS THAN 180 DAYS IN THE SAID YEAR. SINCE THE MACHINERY IS STILL IN USE THEREFORE THE E LIGIBILITY FOR CLAIMING BALANCE ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION CANNOT BE DENIED BY INVOKING PROVISO TO SECTION 32(L)(II)(A) OF THE ACT. THE VIEW OF THE APPELLANT IS SUBSTANTIATED BY VARIO US BENCHES OF THE ITAT. THE HUMBLE APPELLANT RELIES UPON THE FOLLOWING DECI SIONS: 1) APOLLO TYRES LTD V/S ACIT (COCHIN BENCH) 2) MITC ROLLING MILLS PVT. LTD. V/S ACIT (BOMBAY BE NCH) ITA 1212/CHD/2019_ ACIT VS. NAHAR SPINNING MILLS 6 3) DIVIS LABORATORY LTD. V/S DCIT (HYDERABAD BENCH) ...ITA NO.11/HYD/2012 4. DCIT V/S SIL INVESTMENT LTD. ..... 148 TTJ 213 (DELHI) 5. ADDL. CIT V/S COSMO FILMS LTD. .....13 ITR (TRIB ) 340-ITAT(DELHI) IN VIEW OF THE FACTS AND THE DECISIONS GIVEN BY VAR IOUS APPELLATE COURTS IT IS HUMBLY PRAYED THAT THE DIRECTIONS BE GIVEN TO THE A SSESSING OFFICER TO FURTHER ALLOW ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION OF RS.7,57,48 ,356/- AS ALSO HELD BY WORTHY CIT(A), LUDHIANA IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14 IN ITS APPELLATE ORDER IN CASE OF GROUP COMPANY IS ENCLOSED AS ANNEXURE-12 .' 6.3 I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE APPELLANT'S SU BMISSIONS, THIS ISSUE HAS ALREADY BEEN CONSIDERED AND ALLOWED IN THE CASE OF THE ASSE SSEE ITSELF IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14 BY CIT(A). COPY OF WHICH WAS ALSO PLAC ED ALONGWITH WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS. IN THE SAID ORDER, THE CIT(A) AT PARA 8.5 HAS HELD AS UNDER:- I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE APPELLANT'S SUBMISS IONS. THE APPELLANT HAD MADE THIS CLAIM OF ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION THROUGH LETTER DATED 14.02.2014. THE AO HAS DISALLOWED THIS CLAIM ON THE GROUND THAT THE CLAIM WAS NOT MADE IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. THEREFORE, THE CLAIM MADE BY LETTER FILED DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WAS HELD TO BE NOT ALLOWABLE. THE ONLY ISSUE TO BE CONSIDERED IS WHETHER SUCH CLAIM MADE D URING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THROUGH A LETTER AND NOT THR OUGH REVISED RETURN WAS A VALID CLAIM. REFERENCE IN THIS REGARD MAY BE MADE TO THE CASE OF BUDHEWAL CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. IN THIS CASE CLAIM OF DED UCTION U/S SOP WAS DISALLOWED BY THE AO ON THE GROUND THAT THE CLAIM W AS NOT MADE IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME NOR ANY REVISED RETURN WA S FILED FOR THIS CLAIM. THE CLAIM HAD BEEN MADE DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDIN GS THROUGH THE LETTER FILED BEFORE THE AO. THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE A O WAS CONFIRMED BY ME VIDE ORDER DATED 24.08.2012 IN APPEAL NO.44/ROT/IT/ CLT(A)-LL/LDH RELYING ON THE CASE OF GOETZE INDIA LTD. HON'BLE ITAT CHANDIGA RH BENCH, VIDE ITS DECISION DATED 24.04.2013, IN THE CASE OF BUDHEWAL CO-OPERAT IVE SOCIETY LTD., IN ITA NO.1077/CHD/2012, REVERSED MY ORDER AND HELD THAT A N ASSESSEE CAN RAISE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS AND MADE CLAIMS DURING THE ASSES SMENT PROCEEDINGS AND EVEN DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. THE HON'BLE ITAT HELD AS UNDER:- ITA 1212/CHD/2019_ ACIT VS. NAHAR SPINNING MILLS 7 'WE FIND THAT THE HON'BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COU RT IN CIT VS. RAMCO INTERNATIONAL (SUPRA) ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTIO N UNDER SECTION 80IB OF THE ACT AS THE FORM NO.10CCB IN RESPECT OF THE SAID CLA IM WAS FILED DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND IT WAS HELD THAT THE ASS ESSEE WAS NOT TO MAKE ANY FRESH CLAIM AND HAD DULY FURNISHED AND SUBMITTE D THE FORM FOR DEDUCTION, THERE WAS NO REQUIREMENT OF FILING ANY REVISED RETU RN. THE PLEA OF THE REVENUE BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT THAT THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN GOETZE (INDIA) LTD. VS CIT (SUPRA) WAS APPLICABLE A ND DEDUCTION WAS NOT ALLOWABLE, WAS NOT ACCEPTED BY THE HON'BLE COURT. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE SAID RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HO N'BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN CIT VS. RAMCO INTERNATIONAL (SUPRA), WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE U/S 80P(2)( A)(III) OF THE ACT IS TO BE CONSIDERED IN THE PRESENT FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES O F THE CASE, EVEN THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAD RAISED SAID CLAIM BY WAY OF LETTER DATED 15.12.2014 AND HAD NOT FURNISHED ANY REVISED RETURN OF INCOME' KEEPING IN VIEW OF EARLIER YEAR DECISIONS AND T HE FOLLOWING THE PRINCIPLE OF CONSISTENCY AND VARIOUS CASE LAWS RELIED UPON BY TH E APPELLANT MENTIONED IN THE STATEMENT AS WELL AS IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR APPEL LATE ORDER, THE AO IS DIRECTED TO ALLOW THE ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION AS CL AIMED BY THE APPELLANT VIDE LETTER DATED 18/05/2016. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS A LLOWED. 7. AFTER GIVING THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION TO RIVAL P LEADINGS AGAINST AND IN SUPPORT OF IMPUGNED DISALLOWANCE, WE FIND NO MERIT IN THE REVENUES GRIEVANCE. WE MAKE IT CLEAR THAT T HE HONBLE APEX COURTS DECISION IN GOETZE (INDIA) LTD. VS CIT (SUPRA) HOLDS THAT SAME DOES NOT IMPINGE UPON THE APPELLATE AUTHO RITIES JURISDICTION VESTED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT . HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN BUDHEWAL CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. (SUPRA) ALSO HOLDS THAT A TAX PAYER IS VERY MUCH EN TITLED TO RAISE ITA 1212/CHD/2019_ ACIT VS. NAHAR SPINNING MILLS 8 AN ADDITIONAL CLAIM WITHOUT FILING A REVISED RETURN . THE REVENUES PLEADINGS NOWHERE INDICATE THAT THERE IS ANY DISTIN CTION ON FACTS SINCE THE ASSESSEES IDENTICAL ADDITIONAL DEPRECIAT ION CLAIM STOOD ALLOWED IN A.Y. 2013-14 AS WELL (SUPRA). WE ACCORDI NGLY REJECT THE REVENUES SECOND SUBSTANTIVE GROUND AS WELL. 8. THIS REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 11 TH NOVEMBER, 2020. SD/- SD/- .. , #$ %'& '( (N.K. SAINI) (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) ) (* / JUDICIAL MEMBER )& / DATED: 11/11/2020 *RANJAN &* !+, -,! / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT 3. ' .! / CIT 4. ' .! ( )/ THE CIT(A) 5. ,/0 ! 1 , $ 1 , 23405 / DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 6. 04 6# / GUARD FILE &* ' / BY ORDER, 7 / ASSISTANT REGISTRAR