ITO, Mohali V. M/s Kandi Friends Educational Trust, Mohali

ITA 1371/CHANDI/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3760 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 year(s) 8 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-08-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 08-03-2016
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 01-12-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: B M MONGA
• Keywords: Depreciation; Charitable institution; Revenue expenditure; Capital expenditure

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MS. RANO JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.1371/CHD/2010 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08) THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, VS. M/S KANDI FRIENDS WARD-6 (4), EDUCATIONAL TRUST, MOHALI. C/O I.E.T. BHADDAL, H.NO.26, PHASE-XI, MOHALI. PAN: AAATK2935N (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI MANOJ MISHRA, CIT DR RESPONDENT BY : SHRI B.M. MONGA DATE OF HEARING : 11.05.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 08.08.2016 O R D E R PER RANO JAIN, A.M . : THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), CHANDIGARH DATED 27.7.2010 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08, PASSED UNDER SECTION 250(6 ) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT). 2. THE GROUND NO.1 RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS GENERAL AND, HENCE NO ADJUDICATION IS BEING REQUIRE D. 2 3. THE GROUND NO.2 RAISED BY THE REVENUE READS AS UNDER : 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE ID. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.19,17,920/- MADE BY THE A.O. ON ACCOUNT OF PURCHASE OF VEHICLE IN THE NAME OF ONE OF THE TRUSTEES AND ADDITION OF RS.2,00,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF RUNNING AND MAINTENANCE EXPENSES OF SUCH VEHICLE. 4. THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTIC ED THAT THE ASSESSEE TRUST HAS PURCHASED A HONDA CR-V DURING THE YEAR IN THE NAME OF ONE OF THE TRUSTEES SHRI RAVINDER SINGH AND VEHICLE WAS ALLOTTED TO HIM. TH E ASSESSING OFFICER WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE CAR WAS PURCHASED BY THE TRUSTEE JUST FOR THE USE OF THE SA ME BY THAT TRUSTEE AND THIS HAS RESULTED INTO DIRECT BENEFIT TO THE TRUSTEE. NO RENT OR OTHER COMPENSATION HAS BEE N CHARGED FROM THE TRUSTEE FOR USE OF THIS CAR. SIN CE THE CAR WAS IN THE NAME OF THE TRUSTEE DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE CAPITAL EXPENDITURE FOR PURCHASE OF THE CAR AMOUNTING TO RS.19,17,920/- WAS NOT CONSIDERED TO BE AN APPLICATION OF INCOME TOWARDS CHARITABLE PURPOSE AS PER SECTION 11(1)(A) OF THE ACT. FURTHER, AN AMOUN T OF RS.2 LACS OUT OF THE TOTAL EXPENDITURE ON RUNNING A ND MAINTENANCE OF VARIOUS CARS WAS HELD TO BE FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE TRUSTEES. 3 5. BEFORE THE CIT (APPEALS), IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT SHRI RAVINDER SINGH CEO HAD GONE TO THE DEALER AT GURGAON TO TAKE THE DELIVERY OF CAR ON 27.7.2007. SINCE AT THAT TIME THE CEO DID NOT HAVE THE PAN OF THE TR UST READILY AVAILABLE WITH HIM SO HE GAVE HIS PERSONAL PAN AND INVOICE WAS ERRONEOUSLY MADE IN THE PERSONAL NA ME. THE CAR WAS PURCHASED ON 27.2.2010 AND WAS REGISTER ED ON 2..4.2007. AS SOON AS THE ERROR WAS NOTICED, S HRI RAVINDER SINGH IMMEDIATELY SUBMITTED AN APPLICATION FOR CHANGE OF OWNERSHIP. THEREUPON, NO OBJECTION WAS ISSUED BY THE REGISTERING AUTHORITY AS ON 6.7.2007, WHICH WAS SUBMITTED TO DTO, ROPAR, WHERE PROCESS FOR TRAN SFER WAS STARTED ON 3.8.2007. ULTIMATELY, THE VEHICLE WA S TRANSFERRED IN THE NAME OF THE TRUST ON 28.3.2008. THE CAR HAS BEEN REFLECTED IN BALANCE SHEET OF THE TRUS T AS ON 31.3.2007 ON THE BASIS OF THE AFFIDAVIT AND DOCUMEN TS FILED FOR THE TRANSFER OF THE CAR. THE RELEVANT E VIDENCES IN THIS REGARD WERE FILED BEFORE THE CIT (APPEALS). WITH RESPECT OF RUNNING AND MAINTENANCE OF VARIOUS VEHIC LES, A DETAIL OF THESE EXPENSES FOR DIFFERENT VEHICLES WAS FILED BEFORE THE CIT (APPEALS). SINCE THE NEW CAR WAS PURCHASED ONLY IN THE END OF FEBRUARY, 2007, AN AMO UNT OF RS.345/- WAS SHOWN TO BE INCURRED ON THIS VEHICL E FOR RUNNING AND MAINTENANCE. THE CIT (APPEALS) AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND REL YING ON NUMBER OF JUDGMENTS OF VARIOUS HIGH COURTS DECID ED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE STATING THAT TH E VEHICLE WAS ACTUALLY PURCHASED BY THE TRUST AND ULTIMATELY GOT 4 REGISTERED IN THE NAME OF THE TRUST ALSO. FURTHER, HE STATED THAT EVEN IF THE VEHICLE STANDS IN THE NAME OF THE CEO, THE ONE HAVING BEEN UTILIZED BY THE TRUST, THE SAME HAS TO BE TREATED AS AN APPLICATION OF FUNDS FOR CH ARITABLE PURPOSE. 6. AGGRIEVED BY THIS, THE DEPARTMENT HAS COME UP IN APPEAL BEFORE US. THE LEARNED D.R. RELIED ON TH E ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE CHANGE OF OWNERSHIP OF THE VEHICLE IN THE NAME OF T RUST WAS IN FACT, AN AFTERTHOUGHT AND DURING THE YEAR, T HE CAR WAS NOT IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE CIT (APPE ALS) HAS FAILED TO UNDERSTAND THESE FACTS AND WRONGLY DE LETED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 7. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE CIT (APPEALS) AND ON PERUSAL OF TH E PAPER BOOK DREW OUR ATTENTION TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE TH AT DUE TO CIRCUMSTANCES AT THE TIME OF PURCHASE OF THE VEH ICLE THE INVOICE WAS WRONGLY MADE IN THE NAME OF THE TRU STEE, WHICH ULTIMATELY GOT TRANSFERRED IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE TRUST. THE VEHICLE WAS BEING USED ONLY FO R THE ACTIVITIES OF THE TRUST. SINCE NONE OF THE TRUSTEE S ARE STAYING AT THE PREMISES AND TRAVELED DAILY FROM CHANDIGARH AND MOHALI OF A DISTANCE OF NEARLY 50 KM S. TO 55 KMS. FOR THE WORKING OF THE ASSESSEE TRUST ONLY. SINCE THE CAR IS USED FOR THE BENEFIT AND PURPOSE OF THE TRUST IN DISCHARGE OF ITS DUTY, THE RUNNING AND MAINTENANCE CHARGES CANNOT BE DISALLOWED. 5 8. WE HAVE HEARD THE LEARNED REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH THE PARTIES, PERUSED THE FINDINGS OF THE AUTHO RITIES BELOW AND CONSIDERED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECO RD. THE RELEVANT FINDINGS OF THE CIT (APPEALS) ARE AT P AGE 5 PARA 6, WHICH READ AS UNDER : 6. AFTER CONSIDERING RIVAL CONTENTIONS, I FIND THA T BASICALLY, THE AO ADDED BACK CAPITAL EXPENDITURE OF RS. 19,17,920/- BY HOLDING THAT THE VEHICLE WAS NOT PUR CHASED IN THE NAME OF THE TRUST. IT IS SEEN THAT THE VEHICLE WA S PURCHASED INITIALLY IN THE NAME OF SH.RAVINDER SINGH CEO BUT THE SAME WAS TRANSFERRED IN THE NAME OF THE TRUST. THE E VIDENCE OF THE SAME WAS PRODUCED DURING THE APPELLATE ROCEE DINGS. MOREOVER THE CAR WAS REFLECTED IN THE BALANCE SHEET OF THE TRUST ON 31.03.2007.THUS, MERELY BOOKING THE VEHICLE IN T HE NAME OF THE CEO DOES NOT CALL DISALLOWANCE OF THE EXPENDITUR E ESPECIALLY WHEN THE EXPENDITURE IS INCURRED OUT OF TH E TRUST MONEY ONLY. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AO HIMSELF HELD THAT THE VEHICLES HAVE BEEN USED BY THE TRUSTEES OR OTHER OF FICE BEARERS OF THE TRUST. THUS, THOUGH THE VEHICLE WAS INITIALL Y REGISTERED IN THE NAME OF THE SH.RAVINDER SINGH, CEO, BUT THE SAM E WAS USED BY OTHER TRUSTEES ALSO. WHAT WAS REQUIRED TO B E SEEN WAS THAT THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY DIVESTS HIS INTEREST AND ENDOWS THE PROPERTY FOR CHARITABLE PURPOSES. 9. ON PERUSAL OF THE SAME, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT (APPEALS) SINCE I T IS A FACT ON RECORD AND ON PERUSAL OF THE PAPER BOOK FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, WE OBSERVE THAT THE VEHICLE WAS PURCHASED AS ON 27.2.2007 AND WAS GOT REGISTERED AS ON 2.4.2007 IN THE NAME OF SHRI RAVINDER SINGH. HOWEVER, THE APPLICA TION FOR TRANSFER WAS FILED AS ON 2.4.2007. POLICE ENQU IRY AT THE SP LEVEL OCCURRED AS ON 2.6.2007 AND FINAL REPO RT BY 6 THE SSP, CHANDIGARH CAME ON 4.6.2007. NO OBJECTION CERTIFICATE WAS SUBMITTED TO THE DTO, ROPAR AS ON 6.7.2007 AND ULTIMATELY THE CAR GOT TRANSFERRED IN THE NAME OF ASSESSEE AS ON 3.8.2007. THIS SEQUENCE OF EVENTS PROVE THAT THE CAR WAS INTENDED TO BE PURCHASED IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE TRUST AND FUNDS OF THE TRUST W ERE USED FOR THE SAID PURPOSE EVEN IF THE SAME WAS IN T HE NAME OF THE TRUSTEE. IF THE VEHICLE WAS BEING USE D BY THE TRUST WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE ACTIVITIES OF THE TRUST, THE EXPENSES INCURRED ON ACQUISITION AS WELL AS ON RUNNING AND MAINTENANCE OF SAID VEHICLE HAS TO BE CONSIDERED AS APPLICATION OF INCOME FOR CHARITABLE PURPOSE. 10. WITH REGARD TO THE REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE CHARGES, NOTHING HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO SHOW THAT THE VEHICLE WAS BEIN G RUN FOR ANY PERSONAL PURPOSES. THEREFORE, IN THIS SIT UATION, NO DISALLOWANCE OF REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE ON ACCOUN T OF PERSONAL USE CAN BE MADE. THE GROUND NO.2 BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 11. THE GROUND NO.3 READS AS UNDER : 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW, THE ID.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.5,00,000/- MADE BY THE A.O. ON ACCOU NT OF HONORARIUM PAID TO THE TRUSTEES AND OFFICE BEARE RS. 7 12. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED AN AMOUNT OF RS.5,00,000/- AS HONORARIUM PAID TO THE MEMBERS OF THE GOVERNING BODY AS EXCESSIVE AND UNREASONABLE ON THE BASIS OF THE FACT THAT THE MEMBERS ARE CLOSELY RELA TED TO EACH OTHER AND THE HONORARIUM PAID IS HIGHER THAN S ALARY PAID TO FACULTY AND OTHER STAFF. 13. BEFORE THE CIT (APPEALS), IT WAS CONTENDED THA T NONE OF THE MEMBERS OF THE GOVERNING BODY ARE RELAT ED TO EACH OTHER IN TERMS OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 13 OF THE ACT. WITH RESPECT TO ASSESSING OFFICERS CONTENTION OF T HE PAYMENT BEING EXCESSIVE, IT WAS SUBMITTED, QUOTING THE FIGURES THAT SALARY PAID TO PRINCIPAL OF TET, COA A ND IMS IS MUCH MORE THAN THE HONORARIUM PAID TO THE TRUSTE ES. 14. THE CIT (APPEALS) ALLOWED THE GROUND IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE HOLDING THAT THE PAYMENTS MADE TO T HE PERSONS REFERRED IN SECTION 13(3) IS NOT TO BE ALLO WED ONLY IF IS NOT REASONABLE AND HOLDING THAT THE PAYMENTS IN THE PRESENT CASE ARE REASONABLE. 15. AGGRIEVED BY THIS, THE DEPARTMENT HAS COME UP IN APPEAL BEFORE US. THE LEARNED D.R. RELIED ON TH E ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WHILE THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE CIT (APPEALS). 16. WE HAVE HEARD THE LEARNED REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH THE PARTIES, PERUSED THE FINDINGS OF THE AUTHO RITIES BELOW AND CONSIDERED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECO RD. ON PERUSAL OF THE ORDER OF THE CIT (APPEALS), WE DO NOT 8 FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THIS, AS ON A BARE READING OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 13(3) OF THE ACT, IT BECOMES QUITE CLEAR THAT THE ONLY EXPENSES WHICH ARE UNREASONABLE ARE TO BE DISALLOWED UNDER THE SAID PROVISIONS. FOR P ROVING A CERTAIN EXPENSE TO BE UNREASONABLE, A COMPARISON O F THE SAME HAS TO BE MADE WITH THE PAYMENTS OF SIMILAR NA TURE MADE BY SIMILAR ASSESSEE. WE OBSERVE THAT THE ASSE SSING OFFICER HAS NOT MADE NAY SUCH EXERCISE AND EVEN THE COMPARABLES PROVIDED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE NOT ANALYZ ED. IN THIS VIEW, WE CONFIRM THE ACTION OF THE CIT (APP EALS) TO DELETE THE DISALLOWANCE. THE GROUND NO.3 RAISED BY DEPARTMENT IS DISMISSED. 17. THE GROUND NO.4 RAISED BY DEPARTMENT READS AS UNDER : 4. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW, THE ID.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.2,61,517/- MADE BY THE A.O. ON ACCOU NT OF RENT FREE ACCOMMODATION GIVEN TO CHAIRMAN AND OSD O F THE TRUST. 18. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED AN AMOUNT OF RS.2,61,517/- BEING RENT FREE ACCOMMODATION GIVEN T O CHAIRMAN AND OSD. 19. BEFORE THE CIT (APPEALS), IT WAS SUBMITTED THA T THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT CALL FOR ANY EXPLANAT ION REGARDING THIS AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING S. SINCE BOTH THE OFFICERS STAY AT CHANDIGARH/MOHALI A ND DO 9 NOT HAVE THEIR OWN ACCOMMODATION, TEMPORARY ACCOMMODATIONS WERE HIRED AND GIVEN TO THEM FOR STA Y. IT WAS ALSO MENTIONED THAT THIS PAYMENT WAS STOPPED AF TER MARCH, 2008 AND JULY, 2007. 20. THE CIT (APPEALS) ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ON THIS GROUND SATING THAT THE CIRCUMSTANC ES UNDER WHICH THESE PAYMENTS WERE MADE ARE QUITE REASONABLE. 21. AGGRIEVED BY THIS ORDER OF THE CIT (APPEALS), THE DEPARTMENT HAS COME UP IN APPEAL BEFORE US. THE LE ARNED D.R. RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WHILE THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE RELIED ON THE ORDE R OF THE CIT (APPEALS). 22. WE HAVE HEARD THE LEARNED REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH THE PARTIES, PERUSED THE FINDINGS OF THE AUTHO RITIES BELOW AND CONSIDERED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECO RD. THE FINDINGS OF THE CIT (APPEALS) ARE AT PARA 21, W HICH READS AS UNDER : 21. AS REGARDS THE ADDITION OF RS.2,61,517/- BEING RENT FREE ACCOMMODATION GIVEN TO THE CHAIRMAN AND OSD, THE AP PELLANT SUBMITTED THAT BOTH THE OFFICE BEARERS WERE REQUIRE D TO STAY AT CHANDIGARH/MOHALI FOR MANAGING THE AFFAIRS OF THE T RUST AND ITS INSTITUTIONS AND AS THEY DID NOT POSSES THEIR OWN R ESIDENTIAL ACCOMMODATION, SUITABLE TEMPORARY ACCOMMODATION WAS HIRED AND REASONABLE AMOUNT WAS PAID TO THEM. THE APPELLANT F URTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE PAYMENT OF RENT WAS SUBSEQUENTLY STOPPED AFTER MARCH 2008 AND JULY 2007 RESPECTIVELY WHEN THEY HAD MADE 10 ALTERNATIVE ARRANGEMENTS FOR THEIR STAY. I FIND FOR CE IN THE ARGUMENT OF THE APPELLANT, AS AT THE INITIAL STAGE OF SETTIN G UP NEW INSTITUTION THE PRESENCE OF THE OFFICE BEARERS IS NORMALLY NECE SSARY AND IF IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY RESIDENTIAL ACCOMMODATION, THEY WERE PROVIDED RENT FREE ACCOMMODATION FOR A SHORT DURATION, IT CANNOT BE SAID TO BE UNREASONABLE. 23. ON PERUSAL OF THE SAME, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT (APPEALS). THERE WERE SUFFICIENT REASONS FOR INCURRING SUCH EXPENDITURE A ND NO EVIDENCE AS TO THE EXPENSES BEING UNREASONABLE HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE GR OUND NO.4 RAISED BY THE DEPARTMENT IS DISMISSED. 24. THE GROUND NO.5 RAISED BY THE DEPARTMENT READS AS UNDER : 5. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW, THE ID.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.2,61,517/- MADE BY THE A.O. ON ACCOU NT OF RENT FREE ACCOMMODATION GIVEN TO CHAIRMAN AND OSD O F THE TRUST. 25. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN IS ORDER AT PARA 3.1, GIVING OUT THE CALCULATION HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE T RUST DOES NOT SATISFY THE CONDITION FOR UTILIZATION OF 8 5% OF INCOME TOWARDS CHARITABLE PURPOSES, AS PROVIDED UND ER SECTION 11(1) OF THE ACT AND IN THIS WAY, MADE AN A DDITION OF RS.22,93,192/-. 26. THE CIT (APPEALS) GIVING HIS FINDINGS AT PARA 29 ONWARDS ALLOWED THIS GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE. 11 27. AGGRIEVED BY THIS ORDER OF THE CIT (APPEALS), THE DEPARTMENT HAS COME UP IN APPEAL BEFORE US. THE LE ARNED D.R. RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WHILE THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AGAIN FILED A COPY OF COMPUTATION OF APPLICATION OF INCOME AND STATED THA T ALL CONDITIONS OF SECTION 11(1)(A) OF THE ACT HAVE BEEN COMPLIED WITH. 28. WE HAVE HEARD THE LEARNED REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH THE PARTIES, PERUSED THE FINDINGS OF THE AUTHO RITIES BELOW AND CONSIDERED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECO RD. THE COMPUTATION AS PROVIDED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE IS AS UNDER : INCOME DURING THE YEAR RS.15,74,46,268/- 85% TO BE APPLIED RS.13,38,29,328/- TOTAL APPLICATION REVENUE EXPENDITURE BEFORE DEPRECIATION RS.8,33,53,333/- ADDITION TO FIXED ASSETS RS.2,80,38,331/- DEPRECIATION RS.2,01,26,735/- INCOME BEFORE ACCUMULATION UNDER SECTION 11(2) RS.13,15,18,399/- LESS ACCUMULATED AS PER FORM 10 RS. 2,30,00,000/- DEFICIT NIL BEING ACCUMULATION UNDER SECTION 11(2) RS.2.30 CRORES BEING MORE THAN SURPLUS OF RS.23,10,929/- INVESTMENT IN SPECIFIED MODES I.E. FDR FOR ACCUMULATION RS.46,05,464/- 12 29. AFTER VERIFYING THE CONTENTS FROM FORM NO.10 FILED FOR ACCUMULATION, WE DO NOT FIND THAT ANY OF THE CONDITIONS AS PRESCRIBED UNDER SECTION 11(1)(A) OF THE ACT HAS BEEN COMPLIED WITH. 30. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 8 TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2016. SD/- SD/- (BHAVNESH SAINI) (RANO JAIN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 8 TH AUGUST, 2016 *RATI* COPY TO: THE APPELLANT/THE RESPONDENT/THE CIT(A)/THE CIT/THE D R. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH