Shri Rajan Dhir, Parwanoo V. DCIT, Chandigarh

ITA 136/CHANDI/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9715 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-07-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Next Hearing Date: 25-07-2016
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 26-02-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANJIT SINGH
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Income from undisclosed sources; Source of fund
• Section: 143(3); 133(6); 68; 69; 27

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MS. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.135/CHD/2016 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2002-03) AND ITA NO.136/CHD/2016 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-06) SHRI RAJAN DHIR, VS. THE D.C.I.T., # 52, SECTOR 4, CENTRAL CIRCLE -1, PARWANOO. CHANDIGARH. PAN: ACVPD4864C (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI TEJ MOHAN SINGH RESPONDENT BY : SHRI MANJIT SINGH, DR DATE OF HEARING : 25.07.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 29.07.2016 O R D E R PER ANNAPURNA GUPTA, A.M . : BOTH THE APPEALS RELATE TO THE SAME ASSESSEE AND HAVE BEEN FILED AGAINST SEPARATE ORDERS OF LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-3, GURGAON, BO TH DATED 15.12.2015 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 2002- 03 AND 2005-06, CHALLENGING THE LEVY OF PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT TH E ACT). 2 2. SINCE IDENTICAL ISSUE WAS INVOLVED IN BOTH THE APPEALS, THEY WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DIS POSED OFF BY A COMMON AND CONSOLIDATED ORDER. 3. WE SHALL FIRST TAKE UP THE APPEAL FILED IN ITA NO.135/CHD/2016. ITA NO.135/CHD/2016(ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03) : 4. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS : 1. THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX HAS ERRE D IN LAW AS WELL AS ON FACTS IN UPHOLDING THE IMPOSITION OF PENALT Y OF RS.2,43.2507- UNDER SECTION 271(L)(C) OF THE ACT WHI CH IS ILLEGAL, ARBITRARY & UNJUSTIFIED. 2. THAT THE PENALTY IMPOSED UNDER SECTION 271(L)(C) OF THE ACT IS NOT IMPOSABLE IN AS MUCH AS THERE IS NEITHER ANY CONCEALMENT OF INCOME NOR FURNISHING OF ANY INACCUR ATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME AND AS SUCH THE ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 271(L)(C) OF THE ACT IS ILLEGAL, ARBITRARY & UNJUSTIFIED . 3 THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) PASSED UNDER SECTION 271(L)(C) OF THE ACT IS ERRONEOUS, ARBITRARY, OPPOSED TO LAW AND FACTS OF THE CASE AND IS, THUS, UNTENABLE. 5. BRIEF FACTS RELATING TO THE CASE ARE THAT ASSE SSMENT WAS COMPLETED IN THE PRESENT CASE UNDER SECTION 153 A R.W.S. 143(3) OF THE ACT, ON 18.12.2009 AT AN INCOME OF RS.9,20,900/- AFTER MAKING THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONS : 3 I) ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CREDIT ENTRIES IN THE BANK ACCOUNT WHICH WAS NOT DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE. RS.2,07,396/- II) ON ACCOUNT OF PURCHASE OF HOUSE MADE FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES OF INCOME. RS.5,46,123/- III) ON ACCOUNT OF LIC PREMIUM PAID OUT OF UNDISCLOSED SOURCES OF INCOME. RS.53,329/- RS.8,06,848/- 6. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE MAKING THE ABOVE ADDITIONS HELD AT PARAS 5 TO 7 OF HIS ORDER AS FOLL OWS : 5. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, ASSES SEE WAS ASKED TO FURNISH THE COPY OF ALL BANK ACCOUNTS MAINTAINED BY HIM AND HIS FAMILY MEMBERS. ASSESSEE FURNISHED COPY OF BANK ACCOUNT STATEMENT M AINTAINED WITH UCO BANK, PARWANOO AND HAS NOT FURNISHED STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT S OF ANY OTHER BANK. NOTICE U/S 133(6) WAS ISSUED TO THE MANAGER, BANK OF BAROD A, PARWANOO FOR FURNISHING COPY OF BANK ACCOUNT STATEMENT OF THE AS SESSEE AND HIS FAMILY MEMBERS. THE BANK HAS FURNISHED COPY OF ACCOUNT NO. NO. 6678 MAINTAINED IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF WHICH WAS NOT DISC LOSE BY HIM. FROM THE PERUSAL OF BANK ACCOUNT STATEMENT IT IS NOTICED THA T THE ASSESSEE HAS OPENED THIS ACCOUNT ON 27.03.2002 BY DEPOSITING CASH AMOUN T OF RS.100/- ONLY. THEREAFTER AN AMOUNT OF RS.57,396/- WAS DEPOSITED B Y TRANSFER FROM OTHER BANK. APART FROM ABOVE, ASSESSEE DEPOSITED CASH AMO UNTING TO RS.1,50,000/- IN THIS ACCOUNT ON THE SAME DAY. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ASSESSEE COULD NOT OFFER PROPER EXPLANATION WITH RE GARD TO ABOVE DEPOSITS. THE ASSESSEE'S LETTER STATED THAT THOUGH AL THE BANK EN TRIES CREDITED IN THE ACCOUNT ARE EXPLAINABLE BUT TO BUY PEACE OF MIND SURRENDERE D THIS AMOUNT TO AVOID LITIGATION WITH THE DEPARTMENT. THE ASSESSEE HAS NO T FURNISHED COPY OF THIS ACCOUNT AND IN HIS REPLY LETTER DATED NIL RECEIVED IN THIS OFFICE ON 22.07.2009. HE EXPLAINED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS MAINTAINING SAVIN G BANK ACCOUNT WITH M/S UCO BANK, PARWANOO. THIS SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSEE HA S INTENTIONALLY NOT DISCLOSED THE ABOVE BANK ACCOUNT AND FROM THE ABOVE ACTION OF THE ASSESSEE IT HAS BEEN ESTABLISH THAT HE HAS KNOWINGLY CONCEALED THE ACCURATE PARTICULARS OF HIS TAXABLE INCOME. THEREFORE, PENALTY PROCEEDINGS 271(L)(C) ARE INITIATED SEPARATELY FOR THE ABOVE DEFAULT OF THE ASSESSEE. T HUS THE AMOUNT OF RS.2,07,396/- DEPOSITED IN THE ABOVE BANK ACCOUNT O F THE ASSESSEE IS ADDED 4 BACK IN THE TAXABLE INCOME U/S 68 OF THE IT. ACT, 1 961 UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. ADDITION OF RS. 2,07,396/ 6. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO FURNISH THE DETAILS OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTIES PURCHAS ED DURING THE YEAR AND SOURCE OF INVESTMENT MADE FOR PURCHASE OF PROPE RTY. IN RESPONSE TO ABOVE, ASSESSEE FURNISHED HIS REPLY DATED NIL RECEI VED IN THIS OFFICE ON 22.07.2009 THAT HE HAS ACQUIRED IMMOVABLE PROPERTY BEARING NO.HIG 52, SECTOR A, PARWANOO FOR RS.5,46,213/- INCLUDING STAMP DUTIES OF RS.58 ; 600/- ASSESSEE FURNISHED REGISTERED DOCUMENT SALE DEED DA TED 24.01.2002. AS REGARDS THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT MADE IN PURCHASE O F THIS AMOUNT ASSESSEE EXPLAINED IN HIS LETTER THAT THE SOURCE OF INVESTME NT IS PERSONAL SAVINGS. NO PROOF IN THIS REGARD, HAS BEEN FURNISHED NEITHER SUCH ENT RY RECORDED IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT NOR ANY PROOF OF LOAN RAISED FROM ANY FINANCIAL INS TITUTION WAS FILED. FROM THE ABOVE FACTS OF THE CASE, IT IS FOUND THAT THE INVES TMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE ABOVE PROPERTY WAS NOT MADE OUT OF DISCLOSED SO URCES OF INCOME THEREFORE THIS INVESTMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IS CONSIDERED ASSESSEE'S INCOME U/S 69 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 AND THIS AMOUNT OF RS.5 ,46,213/- IS ADDED BACK IN THE TAXABLE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. ADDITION OF RS.5,46,213/ - 7. DURING THE YEAR UNDER REFERENCE, ASSESSEE HAS P AID LIC PREMIUM OF RS.53,329/- BUT NO SOURCE OF PAYMENT OF THIS EXP ENDITURE WAS FURNISHED DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS NEITHER SUCH ENTRIES ARE RECORDED IN BANK ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE. THIS SHOWS THAT T HE ASSESSEE HAS MADE PAYMENT OF ABOVE LIC PREMIUM OUT OF HIS UNDISCLOSED SOURCES OF INCOME AND THE SAME IS ADDED BACK IN THE TAXABLE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. FROM THE ABOVE FACTS OF THE CASE, IT IS DEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CONCEALED THE PARTICULARS OF HIS TAXABLE INCOME THEREFORE, PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U /S 271(L)(C) ARE INITIATED SEPARATELY FOR THE ABOVE DEFAULT OF THE ASSESSEE. 7. ALL THE ADDITIONS MADE WERE CONFIRMED BY THE LD.CIT(A).PENALTY PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 271(1)( C) OF THE ACT, WERE INITIATED, DURING THE COURSE OF WHICH THE ASSESSEE REQUESTED THAT THE PROCEEDINGS BE KEPT IN ABEYANCE TILL THE 5 DISPOSAL OF THE QUANTUM APPEAL BY THE CIT (APPEALS) . THE ASSESSING OFFICER THEREAFTER LEVIED PENALTY OF RS.7 ,29,750/- BEING @ 300% OF THE TAX SOUGHT TO BE EVADED ON THE ADDITIONS MADE. 8. THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) CONFIRMED THE PENALTY IMPOSED VIDE HIS ORDER DATED 15.12.2015 HOLDING THA T IT WAS A CLEAR CASE OF CONCEALMENT OF INCOME IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE REGARDING THE C ASH CREDITS,INVESTMENT MADE AND THE SOURCE OF PAYMENT O F LIC PREMIUM. THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) HELD AT PARA 6 OF HIS ORDER AS FOLLOWS : 6. DECISION :- I HAVE PERUSED THE PENALTY ORDER PASSED BY THE AO A ND THE SUBMISSIONS FILED BY APPELLANT DURING APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. THE PENALTY HAS BEEN IMPOSED ON ACCOUNT OF FOLLOWING ADDITIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER: I. ADDITION OF RS.2,07,896/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAI NED CREDIT ENTRIES IN THE BANK ACCOUNT WHICH WAS NOT DISCLOSED BY THE APPELLA NT. II. INVESTMENT OF RS.5,46,123/- ON ACCOUNT OF PURCH ASE OF HOUSE MADE FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES OF INCOME. III. ADDITION OF RS.53,329/- ON ACCOUNT OF LIC PREMIUM P AID OUT OF UNDISCLOSED SOURCES OF INCOME. IT IS NOTED THAT THE AMOUNT DEPOSITED WITH BANK OF BARODA WAS NOT DISCLOSED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. FURTHER, THE CAS H DEPOSIT CAME TO THE LIGHT FROM THE EXERCISE CARRIED OUT BY ASSESSING OF FICER, IF NO INFORMATION UNDER SECTION 133(6) WOULD HAVE BEEN CALLED FOR FRO M THE BANK, THE CASH DEPOSIT MADE BY THE APPELLANT WOULD NOT HAVE SEEN THE LIGHT OF THE DAY. IT IS THEREFORE A CLEAR CUT CASE OF CONCEALMENT OF INCOME. ON SIMILAR FACTS, HON'BLE 1TAT CHANDIGARH IN THE C AST OF SMT. JYOTI DHIR VS. THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-I, CHANDIGARH (ITA NO . 1030/CHD/2014) FOR AY 2012-13 HAS CONFIRMED THE PENALTY U/S 271(L)(C) IMPOSED BY THE AO RELYING ON THE FOLLOWING CASES. 6 (A) AC1T VS KIRIT DAHYABHAI FATEL 121 1TD 159 (AHD.) (B) PREMPAL GANDHI VS. CIT 335 ITD 23 (P&H) (C) MACDATA PVT. LTD. 358 ITR 593 (SC). IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, THE PENALTY UNDER 271 (L)(C) OF THE ACT IMPOSED ON THIS ACCOUNT IS CONFIRMED. SIMILARLY PURCHASE OF HOUSE AMOUNTING RS. 5,46,213 /- WAS ALSO MADE FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES. THE AO HAS STATED TH AT THE APPELLANT HAS CONCEALED INCOME AND ALSO FURNISHED INACCURATE PART ICULARS WITH REGARD TO THE SAME. FURTHER, THE APPELLANT HAD PAID RS. 53,32 9/- DURING THE YEAR BUT THE APPELLANT COULD NOT EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF THE S AME. THESE ADDITIONS WERE ALSO CONFIRMED BY CIT (APPEALS). THE AR OF TH E APPELLANT DID NOT FILE ANY SUBMISSIONS DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS N OT THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. IN VIEW OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND ABOVE DISCUSSED LEGAL PRONOUNCEMENTS IN THIS REGARD, THE PENALTY U/S 271( 1)(C) OF THE ACT ON BOTH THE ACCOUNTS IS ALSO CONFIRMED. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, THE PENALTY U/S 2 71(1)(C) IMPOSED BY THE AO IS CONFIRMED. 9. AGGRIEVED BY THE SAME, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED T HE PRESENT APPEAL BEFORE US. 10. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING BEFORE US, THE LE ARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT VIS-A-VIS THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSITED IN BA NK, ALL THE ENTRIES WERE EXPLAINABLE, BUT HAD BEEN SURRENDE RED ONLY TO BUY PEACE OF MIND. AS REGARDS THE SOURCE OF INV ESTMENT IN IMMOVABLE PROPERTY, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE SAME HAD BEEN ACQUIRED FROM THE PERSONAL SAVINGS OF THE ASSESSEE. 11. THE LEARNED D.R., ON THE OTHER HAND, RELIED UP ON THE ORDER OF THE CIT (APPEALS)/ASSESSING OFFICER AND ST ATED THAT THE PENALTY HAD BEEN RIGHTLY LEVIED SINCE THE ASSES SEE HAD CONCEALED THE ABOVE PARTICULARS OF THE INCOME, HAVI NG NOT DISCLOSED IT IN HIS RETURN OF INCOME AND NOT OFFERE D ANY 7 EXPLANATION REGARDING THE SAME EITHER DURING THE AS SESSMENT PROCEEDINGS OR PENALTY PROCEEDINGS. 12. WE HAVE HEARD THE CONTENTIONS OF BOTH THE PART IES AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 13. WE SEE NO REASON TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) AS FAR AS LEVY OF PENALTY UND ER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT IS CONCERNED, SINCE WE FIND TH AT THE ASSESSEE HAS OFFERED NO EXPLANATION RELATING TO THE ADDITIONS MADE . 14. AS REGARDS CASH OF RS.2,07,396/- FOUND CREDIT ED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE MAINTAINED IN BANK OF BARODA, PARWANOO,WE FIND THAT NO EXPLANATION OF THE SAME WAS GIVEN EITHER DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS OR T HE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE INCOME TAX AUTHORITIES. MOR EOVER, THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT EVEN DISCLOSED THIS BANK ACCOUNT T O THE ASSESSING OFFICER, DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, D ESPITE BEING SPECIFICALLY ASKED TO DO SO.UNDOUBTEDLY, IT I S A CLEAR CASE OF CONCEALMENT OF INCOME AND PENALTY UNDER SEC TION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT HAS BEEN RIGHTLY LEVIED. 15. AS FOR THE INVESTMENT MADE IN IMMOVABLE PROPE RTY PURCHASED DURING THE YEAR, WE FIND THAT THE SAME HA S BEEN STATED TO HAVE BEEN PURCHASED OUT OF THE PERSONAL S AVINGS OF THE ASSESSE, BUT NO EVIDENCE TO SUBSTANTIATE THE SA ME HAS BEEN GIVEN. THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT, THEREFORE, R EMAINS UNEXPLAINED AND THE ASSESSEE HAVING CONCEALED THE S AME, 8 PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT HAS BEEN RIGHTLY LEVIED. 16. NO EXPLANATION REGARDING THE SOURCE OF PAYMENT OF LIC PREMIUM OF RS.53,329/- HAS BEEN FURNISHED AND I N THE ABSENCE OF THE SAME, WE UPHOLD THE PENALTY LEVIED O N THIS ACCOUNT ALSO. BUT HAVING SAID SO, WE FIND THAT THE MAXIMUM PENALTY, AT THE RATE OF 300% OF THE TAX SOUGHT TO B E EVADED, HAS BEEN LEVIED ON THE ASSESSEE. WE MAY ADD THAT IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL, BOTH BEFORE THE CIT(A) AND BEFOR E US, THE ASSESSEE HAS MENTIONED THE AMOUNT OF PENALTY EQUAL TO 100% OF THE TAX SOUGHT TO BE EVADED, WHICH APPEARS TO BE AN INADVERTENT ERROR. WE THEREFORE PROCEED TO ADJUDICA TE THE ISSUE OF LEVY OF MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF PENALTY. 17. THOUGH WE AGREE THAT THE SECTION ITSELF GRANTS THE POWER TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO LEVY PENALTY WHIC H SHALL NOT BE LESS THAN THE TAX SOUGHT TO BE EVADED AND AT THE SAME TIME NOT EXCEED THREE TIMES THE TAX SOUGHT TO BE EVADED, BUT THIS POWER CANNOT BE ARBITRARILY EXERCISED. THE CIRCUMST ANCES INVITING SUCH HARSH PENALTY MUST BE SPELT OUT BEFO RE LEVYING THE SAME. IN THE PRESENT CASE, WE FIND THAT NO CASE HAS BEEN MADE OUT BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES FOR LEVYING AND U PHOLDING THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF PENALTY. MOREOVER, EVEN THE FACTS OF THE CASE DO NOT WARRANT LEVY OF SUCH A HARSH PENALT Y. IN VIEW OF THE SAME, WE RESTRICT THE LEVY OF PENALTY TO THE MINIMUM I.E. 100% OF THE TAX SOUGHT TO THE EVADED. 9 18. IN EFFECT WE UPHOLD THE LEVY OF PENALTY U/S 27 1 OF THE ACT,BUT RESTRICT THE SAME TO 100% OF THE TAX SO UGHT TO BE EVADED. THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS THEREFORE PARTLY ALL OWED. ITA NO.136/CHD/2016(ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06) : 19. THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED CHALLENGING THE L EVY OF PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT, AMOUNTI NG TO RS.2,38,464/-. 20. WE FIND THAT THE FACTS RELATING TO THE CASE AR E IDENTICAL TO THAT IN ITA NO.135/CHD/2016.AS IN THAT CASE, PENALTY U/S 271(1) IN THE PRESENT CASE WAS LEVIE D ON ADDITIONS MADE TO THE RETURNED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE ON A CCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDITS IN BANK WHICH WAS ALSO NOT DISCLOSED, AMOUNTING TO RS. 10,07,630/ AND ON ACCOUNT OF LIC P REMIUM PAID OUT OF UNDISCLOSED SOURCES OF INCOME AMOUNTING TO R S. 53,329/. THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) CONFIRMED THE PENALTY IMPOSED VIDE HIS ORDER DATED 15.12.2015 HOLDING THA T IT WAS A CLEAR CASE OF CONCEALMENT OF INCOME IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE. 21. SINCE THE FACTS IN THE PRESENT CASE ARE IDENTI CAL TO THAT IN ITA NO.135/CHD/2016, IN WHICH CASE, WE HAVE UPHELD THE LEVY OF PENALTY AT PARAS 12 TO 17 OF OUR ORDER ABOVE, FOLLOWING THE SAME, WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE LEAR NED CIT (APPEALS) CONFIRMING THE LEVY OF PENALTY OF RS.2,3 8,464/-. 10 22. THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 23. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN IT A NO.135/CHD/2016 IS PARTLY ALLOWED WHILE THE APPEAL IN ITA NO.136/CHD/2016 IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- SD/- (BHAVNESH SAINI) (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 29 TH JULY, 2016 *RATI* COPY TO: THE APPELLANT/THE RESPONDENT/THE CIT(A)/THE CIT/THE DR. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH