M/s Lakshami Energy & Foods Ltd., Chandigarh V. DCIT, CC-III, Ludhiana

ITA 133/CHANDI/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 116 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1965 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-09-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 06-02-2019
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Earning of tax free income; Rule 8D
• Section: 14A

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH A CHANDIGARH !, ' # , $ % & ' ( , )* # BEFORE: SMT. DIVA SINGH, JM & SMT.ANNAPURNA GUPTA, AM ./ ITA NOS. 133&134/CHD/2019 A.YS : 2013-14 & 2014-15 M/S LAKSHMI ENERGY & FOODS LTD., SCO 18-19, SECTOR 9-D, CHANDIGARH. VS THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- III, LUDHIANA. PAN /TAN NO: AAACL3147J APPELLANT RESPONDENT ! ASSESSEE BY : SHRI SUDHIR SEHGAL ' ! REVENUE BY : SMT. CHANDERKANTA, SR.DR # $ % DATE OF HEARING : 27.08.2019 &'() % D ATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 05.09.2019 )-/ ORDER PER DIVA SINGH BOTH THESE APPEALS HAVE BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WHEREIN THE CORRECTNESS OF THE SEPARATE ORDERS DATE D 24.12.2018 OF CIT(A)-5 LUDHIANA PERTAINING TO 2013- 14 AND 2014-15 ASSESSMENT YEARS IS ASSAILED. 2. IT WAS COMMON STAND OF THE PARTIES BEFORE THE BE NCH THAT THE FACTS, CIRCUMSTANCES IN BOTH THE APPEALS A RE IDENTICAL. 3. THE LD. AR IN THE CONTEXT OF THE ABOVE FACTS INV ITED ATTENTION TO THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE AND ITA 133&134 /CHD/2019 A.Y. 2013-14 & 2014-15 PAGE 2 OF 10 SUBMITTED THAT THE EFFECTIVE GROUNDS RAISED ARE GRO UND NOS. 1 TO 4. THESE ARE REPRODUCED HEREUNDER FOR RE ADY REFERENCE : 1. THAT THE LD. CIT(A)-5, LUDHIANA HAS ERRED IN CONFIR MING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.87,63,341/- U/S 14A AS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, FOLLOWING THE RULE 8- D AND, WHICH IS AGAINST THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 2. NOTWITHSTANDING THE ABOVE SAID GROUND OF APPEAL, THE LD. CIT (A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT IF AT ALL, ANY ADDITION U/S 14A WAS TO BE SUSTAINED, THAT WOULD AVE BEEN UPTO THE EXEMPT INCOME OF RS. 22,720/-, WHICH WAS EARNED AS DIVIDEND INCOME AND CLAIMED AS EXEMPT U/S 10(34). 3. THAT THE LD. CIT(A)-5 LUDHIANA HAS FAILED TO FOL LOW THE JUDGMENT OF JURISDICTIONAL BENCH OF THE ITAT CHANDIGARH BENCH C HANDIGARH AND HON'BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT. 4. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN RESTRICTING THE DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENDITURE UNDER THE HEAD OFFICE EXPENSES TO THE T UNE EXTENT OF 1/10 TH OF TOTAL EXPENDITURE AGAINST THE DISALLOWANCE OF 1/6 TH AS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 4. INVITING ATTENTION TO THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IT WA S HIS SUBMISSION THAT IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION THE ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED DIVIDEND OF RS. 22,720/- WHICH WAS CLA IMED AS EXEMPT U/S 10(34) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT AS EVIDENT FROM PARA 3 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ITSELF. THE DISALLO WANCE MADE BY THE AO APPLYING RULE 8D U/S 14A OF THE ACT IT WAS SUBMITTED, WAS CHALLENGED IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT( A). INVITING ATTENTION TO THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS EXTRA CTED IN THE ORDER WHICH HAVE BEEN REPRODUCED AT PAGES 3 TO 9 IT WAS HIS SUBMISSION THAT THOUGH THE CIT(A) HAS EXTRACTED THE SUBMISSION, HOWEVER, WITHOUT ADDRESSING THESE ARGUM ENTS ON FACTS AND LAW HE HAS SUSTAINED THE ADDITION MADE BY WAY OF A DISALLOWANCE AT PAGE 18. REFERRING TO THE SUBMIS SIONS ADVANCED, IT WAS SUBMITTED, THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD S UBMITTED THAT INTEREST FREE FUNDS WERE UTILIZED BY THE ASSES SEE AS THE ITA 133&134 /CHD/2019 A.Y. 2013-14 & 2014-15 PAGE 3 OF 10 INVESTMENT WAS MADE IN THE EARLIER YEAR. THESE FAC TS HAVE NOT BEEN ASSAILED BY THE CIT(A). ACCORDINGLY, IT WA S HIS PRAYER THAT CONSIDERING THE FACTS, ENTIRE ADDITION BE DELETED. IT WAS ALSO HIS SUBMISSION THAT INFACT AGREEING WIT H THE SETTLED LEGAL POSITION AS ADDRESSED BY THE JURISDIC TIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS LAKHANI MARKETING, HE I S UNDER INSTRUCTION TO PRESS FOR THE ALTERNATE PRAYER THAT THE ADDITION BE RESTRICTED TO THE EXEMPT INCOME RECEIVE D. 5. THE LD. SR.DR CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND THE POSI TION OF LAW RELIED UPON THE ORDERS. NO CONTRARY ARGUMENT O PPOSING THE ALTERNATE PRAYER OF THE ASSESSEE WAS MADE. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. ON A CONSIDERATION O F THE FACTS, CIRCUMSTANCES AND POSITION OF LAW AS CANVASS ED WHICH HAS NOT BEEN DISPUTED BY THE LD. SR.DR ACCEPTING TH E ALTERNATE ARGUMENT OF THE LD. AR WE RESTRICT DISALL OWANCE TO THE RECEIPT OF DIVIDEND INCOME RECEIVED BY THE ASSE SSEE IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WHICH IS RS. 22,000/- EVIDENT FROM PARA 3 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. ACCORDINGLY, GROUND NO. 1, 2 AND 3 OF THE ASSESSEE STANDS PARTLY ALLOWE D. 7. ADDRESSING THE SOLE REMAINING ISSUE RAISED BY TH E ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT APPEAL VIDE GROUND NO. 4, A TTENTION WAS INVITED TO PAGE 6 PARA 7 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDE R. ITA 133&134 /CHD/2019 A.Y. 2013-14 & 2014-15 PAGE 4 OF 10 READING THEREFROM, IT WAS HIS SUBMISSION THAT THE A DDITION HAS BEEN PROPOSED ON WHIMS AND FANCIES IGNORING TH E FACTS. INVITING ATTENTION TO THE IMPUGNED ORDER IT WAS SUB MITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN A JUSTIFICATION FOR INC REASE IN EXPENDITURE. IT WAS HIS SUBMISSION THAT THE ASSESS EE HAS PLACED FULL FACTS BEFORE THE AO AND EVEN BEFORE THE CIT(A) EXPLAINING THAT EXPENDITURE WAS ON ACCOUNT OF MEETI NG EXPENSES IN THE NATURE OF CAPITAL EGM EXPENDITURE, MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE EXPENDITURE AND ALL THESE ARE FULLY VOUCHED. THE ADHOC DISALLOWANCE ARBITRARILY HOLDIN G THAT SOME EXPENDITURE APPEARED TO BE NOT RELATABLE TO TH E BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE, IT WAS AGITATED, IS CONTR ARY TO FACTS AS ALL EXPENSES WERE VOUCHED AND HAVE BEEN MADE AVA ILABLE AS WOULD BE EVIDENT FROM PARA 1 OF THE ASSESSMENT O RDER. WITHOUT POINTING OUT ANY SPECIFIC EXPENDITURE, THE ACTION WAS CONTRARY TO LAW AND FACTS. ACCORDINGLY, IT WAS HIS SUBMISSION THAT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE PART RELI EF GRANTED BY THE CIT(A) DOES NOT MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE. 8. THE LD. SR.DR RELIES UPON THE IMPUGNED ORDER. 9. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE RELEVANT FINDING OF THE AO UNDER CHALLENGE IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER FOR THE SAK E OF COMPLETENESS : ITA 133&134 /CHD/2019 A.Y. 2013-14 & 2014-15 PAGE 5 OF 10 7. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, IT HAS BEEN NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DEBITED OFFICE EXPENDITURE FOR RS.23,89,773/- A S COMPARED TO PREVIOUS YEAR I.E. RS 9,04,481/- WHICH SEEMS TO BE HIGHER. THE ASSESSEE W AS ASKED TO JUSTIFY THE SAME. THE ASSESSEE FILED EXPLANATION REGARDING THESE EXPENSES WHICH WAS CONSIDERED AND FOUND TO BE NOT TENABLE. AS SUCH, 1/6 H OUT OF TOTAL OF THESE EXPENSES WHICH COMES TO RS.3,98,295/- (RS.23,89,773/-) IS DISALLOWED AND AD DED BACK TO THE RETURN INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. (ADDITION OF RS. 3,98,295/-) 9.1 THE ABOVE FINDING HAS BEEN CONSIDERED IN THE LI GHT OF THE OBSERVATIONS IN PARA 1 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT NECESSARY INFORMATION WAS FILED ALONGWITH SUPPORTIN G EVIDENCES AND BOOKS OF ACCOUNT ALONGWITH SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS WERE PRODUCED AND TEST CHECKED. IT IS FURTHER SEEN THAT THE ARGUMENTS OF THE ASSESSEE HAVE BEEN E XTRACTED IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER AT PAGE 17. ON A READING OF THE FINDING IN PARA 3.4 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER, IT IS SE EN THAT NO JUSTIFICATION OR BASIS HAS BEEN GIVEN FOR GRANTING PART RELIEF. IN THE FACTS AS ARGUED WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN ASSAILED BY THE REVENUE, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT ADHOC DISALLOWA NCE WAS NOT WARRANTED. ADDITION IS DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. SAID ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT AT THE TIME OF HEA RING ITSELF. 10. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ITA 134/CHD/2019 11. IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, LD. AR INVITI NG ATTENTION TO NEAR IDENTICAL GROUNDS RAISED BY THE A SSESSEE ITA 133&134 /CHD/2019 A.Y. 2013-14 & 2014-15 PAGE 6 OF 10 SUBMITTED THAT VIDE GROUND NOS. 1 TO 5 THE ASSESSEE WOULD BE SATISFIED IF THE ADDITION IN TERMS OF THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF LAKHANI MARKETING (SUPRA) IS RESTRICTED TO THE R ECEIPT OF THE DIVIDEND INCOME. REFERRING TO PAGE 2 PARA 3 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT IT WAS RS. 65,036/-. INVITING ATTENTION TO THE IMPUGNED ORDER, IT WAS HI S SUBMISSION THAT DETAILED SUBMISSIONS WERE ADVANCED REITERATING THE SUBMISSIONS BEFORE THE AO AND ALSO BEFORE THE CIT(A). IT WAS SUBMITTED AS IN IMMEDIATELY PRE CEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR, IT HAD BEEN ARGUED THAT INTEREST F REE FUNDS HAD BEEN USED AS IN THE EARLIER YEARS WHICH HAS NOT BEEN REBUTTED BY THE AUTHORITIES. 12. THE LD. SR.DR DID NOT OPPOSE THE ALTERNATE PR AYER. 13. ACCORDINGLY FOLLOWING THE PRECEDENT AS HELD IN THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR, THE ADDITION HEREIN ALSO IS DIRECTED TO BE RESTRICTED TO RS. 65,036/- W HICH IS THE RECEIPT OF THE DIVIDEND INCOME IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. 14. ADDRESSING THE NEXT ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSE E VIDE GROUND NO. 6 WHEREIN AN IDENTICAL GROUND HAD COME U P FOR CONSIDERATION IN THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING YEAR. T HE LD. AR INVITED ATTENTION TO PARA 5 PAGE 11 OF THE ASSESSME NT ORDER SO AS TO POINT OUT THAT HEREIN ALSO AN ADHOC ADDITI ON WAS ITA 133&134 /CHD/2019 A.Y. 2013-14 & 2014-15 PAGE 7 OF 10 MADE BY WAY OF A DISALLOWANCE ON THE BASIS OF THE COMPARISON WITH THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING ASSESSMEN T YEAR. RELEVANT EXTRACT FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS REPRO DUCED HEREUNDER FOR THE SAKE OF COMPLETENESS : 5. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, IT HAS BEEN NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DEBITED OFFICE EXPENDITURE FOR RS.45,6 1,880/- AS COMPARED TO PREVIOUS YEAR I.E. RS. 17,14,516/- WHICH SEEMS TO B E HIGHER. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO JUSTIFY THE SAME. THE ASSESSEE FILED EXPLA NATION REGARDING THESE EXPENSES WHICH WAS CONSIDERED AND FOUND TO BE NOT T ENABLE. AS SUCH, 1/6 TH OUT OF TOTAL OF THESE EXPENSES WHICH COMES TO RS.7,60,3 13/- IS DISALLOWED AND ADDED BACK TO THE RETURN INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. (ADDITION OF RS.7,60,31 3/-) 15. IT WAS ARGUED THAT IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE ALSO, CIT(A) HAS GRANTED PART RELIEF WITHOUT ADDRESSING T HE FACTS WHICH HAVE BEEN EXTRACTED IN THE ORDER. INVITING A TTENTION TO THE IMPUGNED ORDER, IT WAS HIS SUBMISSION THAT THE AO HAS CONSIDERED THE ADVERTISEMENT EXPENSES AND HAS INCOR RECTLY MENTIONED IT AS AN OFFICE EXPENDITURE. THE ADVERTIS EMENT EXPENDITURE, IT WAS SUBMITTED, IS ON ACCOUNT OF LOC AL AND NATIONAL ADVERTISEMENT IN MAGAZINES FOR WHICH MONTH LY PAYMENTS TO AD AGENCIES FOR BRANDING ETC. HAD TO BE GIVEN. INVITING ATTENTION TO PAGE 12 TO 14 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER IN PARAS 4.1 TO 4.5, SPECIFIC ATTENTION WAS INVITED TO PARA 4.3 SO AS TO SUBMIT THAT ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINE SS OF MILLING OF PADDY, GENERATION OF POWER, TRANSPORTATI ON HANDLING AND STORAGE OF FOODGRAINS. THE ASSESSEE B EING A MANAGER EXPORTER AND TRADER OF RICE IN ORDER TO EST ABLISH AND ITA 133&134 /CHD/2019 A.Y. 2013-14 & 2014-15 PAGE 8 OF 10 MAINTAIN ITS BRAND VALUE INCURRED THE EXPENDITURE. ATTENTION WAS INVITED TO THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A LIMITED COMPANY AND THUS IN TERMS OF THE REQUIREMEN T OF THE COMPANIES ACT RULES ETC., IT HAS TO PUBLISH ITS AUD ITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS BOTH QUARTERLY AND HALF YEARLY IN THE NEWSPAPER WITH NATIONAL CIRCULATION AND IN THE NEWS PAPER OF A REGIONAL LANGUAGE. THE FOLLOWING EXPLANATION WAS ADVANCED. THESE EXPENSES, IT WAS ARGUED, CANNOT BE DISALLOWED IN AN ADHOC MANNER. FOLLOWING SPECIFIC EXPENDITURES WERE INCURRED IN THE YEAR : S. NO. NARRATION 1 AD AGENCY FOR BRAND UP LIFTMENT 2 ADVERTISEMENT FOR FIRE AFFECTED PADDY 3 PUBLISH OF UNAUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AS PER COMPANIES ACT 4 MAGAZINE 5 ADVERTISEMENT FOR BOARD MEETING 6 ADVERTISEMENT FOR DUSSHERA 7 CO-ORD AND SUPRYMLAXMI BROCHURE 8 IMAGE FROM IMAGEBAZAAR.COM 9 ADVERTISEMENT IN LOCAL CHDBANI AND DAILY AJEET 10 ADVERTISEMENT IN INTERNATIONAL MAGAZINES 11 AMOUNT REED FOR NEWSPAPER ISSUANCE OF SHARES 12 PRINTING OF CORPORATE BROCHURE 13 CORPORATE HELLO TUNE 14 BROCHURE PRINT 15 PURCHASE OF BOWL PICS THE ABOVE CLASSIFICATION OF THE NATURE OF THE SAID EXPENDITURE CAN BE LA FACIE NOTICED FROM THE COPY OF ACCOUNT OF ADVERTISEMENT E XPENDITURE ENCLOSED HEREWITH. FURTHER, THE LD. AO MADE THE DISALLOWANCE MERELY ON THE BASIS OF THE INCREASE IN THE SAID EXPENDITURE IN THE RELEVAN T ASSESSMENT YEAR VIS-A-VIS PREVIOUS YEAR. THE REASONS FOR THE INCREASE IN THE EXPENDITURE ARE DUE TO THE VARIOUS REASONS WHICH INCLUDE:- (I) MONTHLY PAYMENTS TO AD AGENCY PAID FOR THE FULL YEA R FOR THE PURPOSE OF BRAND BUILDING AND UP LIFTMEN FOR BROACHER PRINTING AND DISTRIBUTION, FLEX PRINTING AND DISPLAYING ETC. BOTH NATIONALLY A ND INTERNATIONALLY, ITA 133&134 /CHD/2019 A.Y. 2013-14 & 2014-15 PAGE 9 OF 10 WHEREAS THE SAID AGENCY WAS ENGAGED IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR FOR THE PERIOD OF 5 MONTHS ONLY. REFER SI. 1. (II) THE QUARTERLY RESULTS OF THE PREVIOUS FINANCIA L YEAR 2012-13 HAVE BEEN DELAYED IN PUBLISHING AND THUS, THE SAME HAS B EEN PUBLISHED IN THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR WHICH RESULTED IN HIGHER A MOUNT OF EXPENDITURE BEING INCURRED IN THE RELEVANT ASSESSME NT YEAR. SI. 3. (II) DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION GOODS IN THE FO RM OF PADDY WAS DESTROYED BY FIRE, THEREFORE, FOR THE PURPOSE OF ST ATUTORY REQUIREMENTS OF THE INSURANCE CLAIM THE ASSESSEE HAS TO PUBLISH THE SAME NEWS IN THE NEWSPAPER AND FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE SAME AN ADDITI ONAL EXPENDITURE OF RS.5,00,277 HAS BEEN INCURRED. SI. 2. (III) THE ASSESSEE HAS INCURRED EXPENDITURE FOR THE ADVER TISEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE'S BUSINESS IN THE MAGAZINES PUBLISHED IN I RAQ WHERE THE GOODS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE EXPORTED. THE SAME HAS BEEN INC URRED IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR ALSO BUT IT HAS BEEN INCURRED AT THE END OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR AND THEREFORE, THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR WAS LESS THAN AS INCURRED IN THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YE AR. 16. THE LD. SR.DR DID NOT DISPUTE THE ARGUMENTS A DVANCED AND MERELY RELIED UPON THE ORDER. 17. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT IN THE F ACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT CASE, THE ADHOC DISALL OWANCE CARRIED OUT BY THE AO AND SUSTAINED BY THE CIT(A) I N APPEAL, THE REVENUE HAS NOT ONLY PROCEEDED ON INCORRECT FAC TS BUT THE ACTION IS ALSO NOT IN CONFORMITY WITH THE REQUI REMENTS OF LAW. IN CASE DISALLOWANCE WAS TO BE MADE, THE SPECI FIC EXPENDITURE CONSIDERED TO BE NOT ALLOWABLE, OUGHT T O HAVE POINTED OUT AND IDENTIFIED BY THE REVENUE AS IT WAS NOT A CASE WHERE FULL . DETAILS WERE NOT MADE AVAILABLE TO THE AO. IT IS NOT A CASE THAT EVIDENCES WERE PARTLY INCOMPL ETE FOR WHICH PURPOSES ESTIMATE WAS TO BE RESORTED TO. WIT HOUT ITA 133&134 /CHD/2019 A.Y. 2013-14 & 2014-15 PAGE 10 OF 10 IDENTIFYING THE EXPENDITURE CONSIDERED TO BE NOT AL LOWABLE, THE ACTION CANNOT BE UPHELD. ACCORDINGLY, CONSIDERI NG THE FACTS FOR THE REASONS ADDRESSED HEREINABOVE, THE AD DITION SUSTAINED BY THE CIT(A) IS DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. SAID ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT AT THE TIME OF HEA RING ITSELF. 17. IN THE RESULT, APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE PART LY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 5 TH SEPTEMBER,2019. SD/- SD/- ( $ % & ' ( ) ( ! ) (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) (DIVA SINGH) )* #/ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ' #/ JUDICIAL MEMBER POONAM '+ ,- .- / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT 3. # / / CIT 4. # / ( )/ THE CIT(A) 5. -01 2 , % 2 , 34516 / DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 6. 15 7$ / GUARD FILE '+ # / BY ORDER, 8 ' / ASSISTANT REGISTRAR