Shri Harish Goyal, Chandigarh V. ACIT, C-4(1), Chandigarh

ITA 1378/CHANDI/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 110 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4084 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-10-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 22-10-2019
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ARVIND SUDERSHAN
• Keywords: Depreciation; Business expenditure

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, A, CHANDIGARH . . , , BEFORE SHRI N.K. SAINI, VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ ITA NO. 1378/CHD/2019 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2015-16 SHRI HARISH GOYAL, H.NO. 3126, SECTOR 28-D CHANDIGARH VS. ! THE ACIT, CIRCLE 4(1), CHANDIGARH ' # ./ PAN NO: AAVPG3228R '$/ APPELLANT &' '$ / RESPONDENT HEARING THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING ()*+ /ASSESSEE BY : SH. PARIKSHIT AGGARWAL, CA *+ / REVENUE BY : SH. ARVIND SUDERSHAN, JCIT , -*) .# /DATE OF HEARING : 13.10. 2020 /0 *) .# / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 21.10.2020 / ORDER PER SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN PREFERRED BY THE ASSESS EE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 02.09.2019 OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOM E TAX(APPEALS)-2, CHANDIGARH [HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS CIT(A)]. 2. IN THIS APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWIN G GROUNDS OF APPEAL:- 1. THAT ON THE FACTS, CIRCUMSTANCES AND LEGAL POSITION OF THE CASE, THE WORTHY CIT(A) IN APPEAL NO. 10133/2/18-19 HAS ERRED IN PASSING THAT ORDER IN CONTRAVENTION OF THE PROVISIONS OF S. 250(5) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. ITA NO. 1378-CHD-2019- SHRI HARISH GOYAL, CHANDIGARH 2 2. THAT ON LAW, FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE , THE WORTHY CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN ALLOWING ONLY PART RELIEF OF RS. 16,25,305/- OUT OF TOTAL ADDITION OF RS. 32,50,610/- THEREBY CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 16,25,305/- BY HOLDING THAT 5% OUT OF TOTAL CLAIM O F WAGES DESERVE DISALLOWANCE AS AGAINST MADE BY THE LD. AO @ 10% EVEN WHEN COMPLETE RECORDS WERE PRODUCED BEFORE THE LD. AO, NO DISCREPANCY THEREIN WAS FOUND AND THE DISCREPANCIES MENTIONED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DO NOT EXIST AT ALL AND THEY WERE NEVER CONFRONTED TO THE APPELLANT AND THEREFORE THE WORTHY CIT(A) SHOULD HAVE DELETED THE ENTIRE ADDITION. 3. THAT ON LAW, FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE , THE WORTHY CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN ALLOWING ONLY PART RELIEF OF RS. 10,58,345/- OUT OF TOTAL ADDITION OF RS. 21,16,690/- THEREBY CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 10,58,345/- BY HOLDING THAT 50% OUT OF TOTAL CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION AND INTEREST ON LOAN IN RESPECT OF CAR PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE DESERVE DISALLOWANCE AS AGAINST MADE BY THE LD. AO @ 100% EVEN WHEN THE WORTHY CIT(A) SHOULD HAVE DELETED THE ENTIRE ADDITION. 4. THAT ON LAW, FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE , THE WORTHY CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF LD. AO WHEREIN HE HAD ERRED IN MAKING ADDITION OF RS. 5,36,844/- UNDER THE HEAD HOUSE PROPERTY BY ESTIMATING THE RENTAL INCOME FROM PLOT NO. 100, INDL. AREA, PHASE-I, CHANDIGARH AT RS. 9,46,920/- AS AGAINST CORRECTLY DECLARED ACTUAL REALIZED RENT OF RS. 1,80,000/- OF THE PORTION LET OUT. 5. THAT ON LAW, FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE , THE WORTHY CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF LD. AO WHEREIN HE HAD ERRED IN MAKING ADDITION OF RS. 2,94,000/- UNDER THE HEAD LOUSE ITA NO. 1378-CHD-2019- SHRI HARISH GOYAL, CHANDIGARH 3 PROPERTY BY ESTIMATING THE RENTAL INCOME FROM HOUSE NO. 1073/21 B, CHANDIGARH AT RS. 5,40,000/- AS AGAINST CORRECTLY DECLARED ACTUAL REALIZED RENT OF RS. 1,20,000/- OF THE PORTION LET OUT. 6. THAT ON LAW, FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE , THE WORTHY CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF LD. AO WHEREIN HE HAD ERRED IN MAKING ADDITION OF RS. 44,100/- UNDER THE HEAD HOUSE PROPERTY BY ESTIMATING THE RENTAL INCOME FROM HOUSE NO. 1124/37 B, CHANDIGARH AT RS. 2,40,000/- AS AGAINST CORRECTLY DECLARED ACTUAL REALIZED RENT OF RS. 1,77,000/- OF THE PORTION LET OUT. 7. THAT ON LAW, FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE , THE WORTHY CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF LD. AO WHEREIN HE HAD ERRED IN MAKING ADDITION OF RS. 67,200/- UNDER THE HEAD HOUSE PROPERTY BY ESTIMATING THE RENTAL INCOME FROM HOUSE NO. 659/16 B, PANCHKULA AT RS. 1,80,000/- AS AGAINST CORRECTLY DECLARED ACTUAL REALIZED RENT OF RS. 84,000/- OF THE PORTION LET OUT. 8. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE FOR ANY ADDITION , DELETION OR AMENDMENT IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ON OR BEFORE THE DISPOSAL OF THE SAME. 3. GROUND NO.1 : GROUND NO.1 IS GENERAL IN NATURE AND DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY SPECIFIC ADJUDICATION. 4. GROUND NO.2 : VIDE GROUND NO.2, THE ASSESSEE HAS AGITATED THE ACTION OF THE CIT(A) IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF 5% OF EXPENDITURE INCURRED ON PAYMENT OF WAGES TO THE LAB OURERS. 5. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS CARRYING ON CIVIL CONSTRUCTION BUSINESS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON EXA MINATION OF THE ITA NO. 1378-CHD-2019- SHRI HARISH GOYAL, CHANDIGARH 4 MUSTER ROLLS FOUND THAT THE SAME WERE INCOMPLETE. A T CERTAIN PLACES, THERE WERE NO SIGNATURES AND NO REVENUE STAMPS WERE FIXED ON THE WAGE REGISTER FOR PAYMENTS MADE TO THE LABOURERS. THE AS SESSEE EXPLAINED THAT SOME OF THE LABOURERS WERE ILLITERATE AND, HENCE, T HEIR SIGNATURES WERE NOT APPENDED ON THE REGISTER. THAT SOMETIMES THE PA YMENTS WERE MADE THROUGH GROUP LEADERS. FURTHER, THAT THE REVENUE S TAMPS FIXED MAY HAVE BEEN DETACHED LATER ON AND MOREOVER THE FIXING OR N ON-AFFIXATION OF REVENUE STAMPS CANNOT BE SAID TO BE CRITERIA TO DET ERMINE THAT THE WAGES WERE NOT PAID. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED 10% OF THE TOTAL E XPENDITURE INCURRED ON WAGES. HOWEVER, THE LD. CIT(A) CONSIDERING THE O VER ALL FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE RESTRICTED THE SAID DISAL LOWANCE TO 5% OF THE TOTAL WAGES. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE SAID ORDER, THE ASSESSEE HAS COME IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 6. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED B EFORE US THAT THE DISCREPANCIES POINTED OUT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WERE VERY LESS AS COMPARED TO THE TOTAL PAYMENTS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE LABOURERS. EVEN AGGREGATE OF THE INSTANCE OF PAYMENTS, WHEREIN , DISCREPANCIES WERE POINTED OUT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS LESS THAN RS. 2 LACS, WHEREAS, THE DISALLOWANCE OF 10% OF THE TOTAL WAGES PAID AMO UNTED TO RS. 32.50 LACS HAS BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHICH H AS BEEN FURTHER REDUCED TO 16.25 LACS BY THE CIT(A). ITA NO. 1378-CHD-2019- SHRI HARISH GOYAL, CHANDIGARH 5 7. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES. IT IS NOTED THAT THE AFORESAID DISALLOWANCE HAD BEEN MADE TOTALLY ON ADHOC BASIS BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS BY THE CI T(A). THERE IS NO DENIAL TO THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE A GGREGATE OF THE AMOUNT, WHEREIN, DISCREPANCIES WERE POINTED OUT DOES NOT EX CEED RS. 2 LACS. UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE ADHOC DISALLOWANCE AMO UNTING TO RS. 16.25 LACS, IN OUR VIEW, CANNOT BE HELD TO BE JUSTIFIED. CONSIDERING THE OVER ALL FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, I N OUR VIEW, THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE WILL BE WELL SERVED IF THE DISA LLOWANCE ON ACCOUNT OF DISCREPANCIES IS RESTRICTED TO LUMP SUM AMOUNT OF R S. 1 LAC. WE ORDER ACCORDINGLY. 8. GROUND NO.3 : VIDE GROUND NO.3, THE ASSESSEE HAS AGITATED THE ACTION OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN RESTRICTING THE DISALLO WANCE OUT OF DEPRECIATION AND INTEREST ON LOAN IN RESPECT OF LUX URY CAR PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE EXTENT OF 50% AS AGAINST 100% D ISALLOWED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 9. THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED INTEREST ON LOAN AND DEPRECIATION ON PURCHASE OF TW O LUXURY CARS WORTH RS. 183.52 LACS BY THE ASSESSEE. ON BEING ASKED TO EXPLAIN IN THIS RESPECT, THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT IT HAS BEEN US ING MANY CARS FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES. SOME OF THE CARS WERE BEING USED AT SITE BY HIS EMPLOYEES AND SOME BY HIS MARKETING STAFF AND SOME OF THE CARS WERE ITA NO. 1378-CHD-2019- SHRI HARISH GOYAL, CHANDIGARH 6 BEING USED BY THE ASSESSEE ALSO. ALL THE CARS WERE BEING USED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES ONLY. THE ASS ESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED DEPRECIATION ON 6 CARS, OUT OF WHICH THERE WERE TWO HIGH END LUXURY CARS COSTING R S. 183.52 CRORES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HA S FAILED TO EXPLAIN THAT HOW ALL THE SIX CARS OWNED BY THE ASSESSEE WER E USED BY HIM FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES IN SOLE PROPRIETARY BUSINESS. HE OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO PROVE THAT THE HIGH END LUXU RY CARS WERE USED FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES. HE, ACCORDINGLY DISALLOWANCE THE DEPRECIATION AND EXPENDITURE OF INTEREST ON CAR LOAN IN RESPECT OF T HE AFORESAID TWO CARS AMOUNTING TO RS. 21,16,690/-. IN APPEAL, THE LD. CI T(A) RESTRICTED THE DISALLOWANCE TO 50% BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: 9.2 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND SUB MISSION OF THE APPLICANT. THE FACTS OF THE ISSUE REVEAL THA T THE ASSESSING OFFICER REBUTTED THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE TH AT THE HIGH END CARS ARE PUT ONLY TO BUSINESS USE. HOWEVER , IF HE HAD COME TO THIS CONCLUSION, THE NATURAL COURSE WOULD H AVE BEEN TO DISALLOW BOTH THE INVESTMENT IN THE CARS AS ALSO TH E CLAIMS OF INTEREST ON THE LOANS TAKEN TO ACQUIRE THEM AS NOT QUALIFYING AS BUSINESS EXPENDITURE. NOT HAVING DONE THAT THE ACTI ON OF DISALLOWING DEPRECIATION ON THE SAME CAN'T BE HELD TENABLE (THIS ASPECT NEEDS TO BE RE-LOOKED INTO BY THE AO TO SEE WHETHER RECTIFICATORY MEASURES AVAILABLE IN THE STATUTE COU LD BE INVOKED). FURTHER, THIS BEING A SURVEY MATTER THE I SSUE COULD HAVE BEEN NAILED DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY ITSELF BY EXAMINING BOTH THE EMPLOYERS AND EMPLOYEES ON OATH. THESE NEC ESSARY ACTIONS WERE CLEARLY NOT UNDERTAKEN (AT LEAST THE A SSESSMENT ORDER DOESN'T RECORD ANY FINDING ON THE AVERRED ISS UE). HAVING NOT DONE SO THE OFFICER CLEARLY HAS OVERSTRETCHED H IMSELF IN DISALLOWING THE ENTIRE DEPRECIATION CLAIMED ON THE SO-CALLED HIGH END LUXURY VEHICLES. THE RATIONALE ADOPTED HOW EVER CAN'T ITA NO. 1378-CHD-2019- SHRI HARISH GOYAL, CHANDIGARH 7 BE BRUSHED AWAY IN ITS ENTIRETY. THAT TWO VEHICLES COSTING RS. 183.52 LACS WERE USED ONLY FOR BUSINESS DOESN'T FIT COMPLETELY INTO THE REALM OF HUMAN PROBABILITY. SUCH CLAIMS AL SO DEFY WHAT IS NORMALLY OBSERVED IN THE DAILY ROUTINE OF LIFE. HIGH END CARS, BOUGHT FROM FUNDS OF THE BUSINESS, ARE PREDOMINANTL Y USED FOR DOMESTIC AND PERSONAL USAGE. TAKING BOTH THE STRAND S OF REASONING TOGETHER IT WOULD BE IN FITNESS OF THINGS THAT THE DISALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION IS REDUCED BY HALF TO ACCOUNT FOR PERSONAL USE. THE ASSESSEE WOULD BE ENTITLES TO 50% RELIEF FROM THE ADDITION MADE ON THIS COUNT GROUND NO. 4 IS PARTLY ALLOWED. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ABOVE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) TH E ASSESSEE HAS COME IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 10. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES WAS TO TALLY UNREASONABLE. THAT THERE WAS NO PROVISION IN THE ACT TO PRESCRIB E ANY BRAND OR MODEL OR THE MAXIMUM PRICE OF THE CAR. HE HAS FURTHER SU BMITTED THAT THE CARS WERE BEING USED FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES, THEREFORE, D EPRECIATION ON THESE CARS AS WELL AS INTEREST ON CAR LOANS DESERVES TO B E ALLOWED. HE, IN THIS RESPECT HAS ALSO RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF THE TR IBUNAL IN THE CASE OF RAMABAN HOSPITAL, NAVSARI VS DEPARTMENT OF INCOME TAX (ITA NO. 4059/AHD/2008]. 11. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH THE PARTIES. ADMITTEDLY, TH E ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED THE DEPRECIATION AND INTEREST EXPENDITURE O N THE PURCHASE OF TWO HIGH END LUXURIOUS CARS COSTING RS. 183.52 LACS. AD MITTEDLY, THE ITA NO. 1378-CHD-2019- SHRI HARISH GOYAL, CHANDIGARH 8 ASSESSEE IS ASSESSED AS A PROPRIETOR IN INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY. THERE IS NO PLEA THAT FOR HIS INDIVIDUAL / PERSONAL REQUIREMENT , THE ASSESSEE IS KEEPING ANY OTHER CAR. IT IS ALSO NOT EXPLAINED TH AT HOW THE HIGH END LUXURIOUS CARS WERE RELATED TO ANY SPECIAL BUSINESS REQUIREMENT OF THE ASSESSEE. THOUGH, NO DOUBT THE INCOME-TAX AUTHORITI ES CANNOT SIT INTO THE ARM CHAIR OF THE BUSINESS MAN, HOWEVER, THERE M UST BE SOME RATIONAL OR SOME RELATION TO SHOW THAT THE EXPENDIT URE INCURRED WAS TOWARDS THE REQUIREMENT OR NEED OF THE BUSINESS. T HE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE CARS WERE USED EXCLUSIVELY FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES. WHEN ASKED TO EXPLAIN IN THIS RESPECT BY THE ASSESS ING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT EXPLAINED ABOUT THE GENERAL OR SPE CIAL NEED OF THE BUSINESS FOR PURCHASE OF THE HIGH END LUXURY CARS E XCEPT THAT TO SAY THAT THERE IS NO PROVISION IN THE ACT TO PRESCRIBE ANY B RAND OR MODEL AND MAKE OR THE PRICE OF CAR WHICH MAY BE USED FOR BUSI NESS PURPOSES. AS OBSERVED ABOVE, THERE IS NO PLEA THAT FOR INDIVIDUA L OR PERSONAL NEED OF THE ASSESSEE ANY OTHER VEHICLE WAS BEING USED. EVE N IN THE CASE LAWS RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE I.E RAMABAN HOSPITAL, NAVSARI VS DEPARTMENT OF INCOME TAX (SUPRA), THE TRIBUNAL HAS UPHELD THE DISALLOWANCE OF 20% OF THE VEHICLE EXPENSES AND DEP RECIATION. 12. CONSIDERING THE OVER ALL FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCE S OF THE CASE, IN OUR VIEW, UPHOLDING OF DISALLOWANCE BY CIT(A) OF 5 0% OF THE TOTAL EXPENDITURE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THIS A CCOUNT SEEMS TO BE ITA NO. 1378-CHD-2019- SHRI HARISH GOYAL, CHANDIGARH 9 ON HIGHER SIDE AND THE SAME IS ACCORDINGLY RESTRICT ED TO 25% OF THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ACCORDINGLY, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWE D. 13. GROUND NOS. 4 TO 7 : VIDE GROUND NOS.4 TO7 OF THE APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE HAS AGITATED THE ACTION OF THE CIT(A) IN C ONFIRMING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TOWARDS THE ANNUAL LE TTING VALUE OF THE DIFFERENT HOUSES / PROPERTIES OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ONLY PLEA RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THIS RESPECT IS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFI CER HAS CALCULATED THE ANNUAL LETTING VALUE (ALV) AS PER HIS OWN ESTIMATIO N WITHOUT REFERRING TO ANY RENTAL VALUE OF THE ADJOINING OR SIMILAR SIT UATED PROPERTIES IN THE VICINITY AND EVEN WITHOUT TAKING THE ALV FROM THE M UNICIPAL AUTHORITY. 14. THE LD. DR HAS SUBMITTED THAT IN RESPECT OF ONE PROPERTY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD CONSIDERED THE PROPERTY TAX L EVIED ON THE PROPERTY. IN REBUTTAL, THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE SAID PROPERTY WAS INDUSTRIAL PROPERTY, WHEREAS, THE OTHER PROPERTIES WERE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES AND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER WHILE ESTIMATING THE ANNUAL LETTING VALUE HAS NOT POINTED OUT ANY YA RD STICK ADOPTED BY HIM FOR SUCH ESTIMATION. 15. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND ALS O AFTER GOING THROUGH THE RECORD, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFI CER ESTIMATED THE ANNUAL RATEABLE VALUE WITHOUT ADOPTING ANY CRIT ERIA OR YARD STICK, I.E. THE ANNUAL LETTING VALUE OF THE SIMILAR PROPERTIES IN THE VICINITY OR ITA NO. 1378-CHD-2019- SHRI HARISH GOYAL, CHANDIGARH 10 REFERRING TO ANY MUNICIPAL RELATABLE VALUE ETC. IN VIEW OF THIS, THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THESE GROUNDS IS RESTORED TO THE FILE O F THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH A DIRECTION TO DECIDE THIS ISSUE AFRESH AFTER REFERRING TO THE RELEVANT EVIDENCES INCLUDING THE ANNUAL LETTING VALUE OF T HE SIMILAR SITUATED PROPERTIES IN THE VICINITY AS WELL AS THE MUNICIPAL RELATABLE VALUE OR ANY OTHER YARD STICK, AS MAY BE FOUND RELEVANT BY THE A SSESSING OFFICE IN THIS RESPECT AND THEREAFTER TO ASSESS THE ANNUAL RA TEABLE VALUE / DEEMED RENTAL VALUE ACCORDINGLY. THESE GROUNDS OF APPEALS ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICA L PURPOSES ONLY. IN VIEW OF THIS, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS TREA TED AS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 21.10.2019. SD/- SD/- ( . . / N.K. SAINI) ( / SANJAY GARG) !'# / VICE PRESIDENT $% / JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 21.10.2020 .. 2*&)3454) / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. '$ / THE APPELLANT 2. &' '$ / THE RESPONDENT 3. , 6) / CIT 4. , 6) ( )/ THE CIT(A) 5. 47 &)8 , . 8 , 9:;< / DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 6. ;= - / GUARD FILE 2 , / BY ORDER, > / ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITA NO. 1378-CHD-2019- SHRI HARISH GOYAL, CHANDIGARH 11