D.C.I.T, CIRCLE -1 (EXEMPTION), , CHANDIGARH V. GURUDWARA SHAHEED BABA NIHAL SINGH, JALANDHAR`

ITA 1398/CHANDI/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 116 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5015 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-08-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 29-07-2019
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 08-11-2018
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Charitable institution; Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 12A; 12; 11

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH B , CHANDIGARH !' , # $ %! & ' ( ) * , $ BEFORE SMT.DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SMT.ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO.1382/CHD/2018 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2014-15 GURUDWATRA SHAHEED BABA NIHAL SINGH, JALANDHAR. THE D.C.I.T.(EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH. ./PAN NO: AABTG6247N /APPELLANT /RESPONDENT & ./ ITA NO.1398/CHD/2018 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2014-15 THE D.C.I.T.(EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH. GURUDWATRA SHAHEED BABA NIHAL SINGH, JALANDHAR. ./PAN NO: AABTG6247N /APPELLANT /RESPONDENT /ASSESSEE BY: NONE ! / REVENUE BY: SHRI HEMANT GUPTA, SR.DR ' # $ /DATE OF HEARING : 29.07.2019 %&'( $ /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 20.08.2019 ITA NO.1382 & 1398/CHD/2018 A.Y.2014-15 2 /ORDER PER BENCH : THE ABOVE CROSS APPEALS, BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE REVENUE, HAVE BEEN FILED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LEARN ED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-2, JALANDHAR D ATED 30.8.2018 PASSED U/S 250(6) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS ACT), RELATING TO ASS ESSMENT YEAR 2014-15. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAD MOVED AN APPLICATION BEFORE US SEEKING FURTHER TIME TO FILE PAPER BOOK. BUT AFTER GOING THROUGH THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND ON HEARING THE CONTENTIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES, IT WAS FOUND THAT THE MATTER NEEDED TO BE CONSIDERED FURTHER BY THE CIT(A ) FOR BRINGING OUT CERTAIN FACTS BEFORE ADJUDICATING THE ISSUE AT HAND. THE ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS, THEREFORE, REJECTED. 3. ON GOING THROUGH THE FACTS OF THE CASE AS FIND MENTION IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE ORDER OF TH E CIT(A), IT WAS NOTED THAT THE ISSUE RELATED TO DENI AL OF GRANT OF EXEMPTION U/S 11 OF THE ACT TO THE ASSESSE E. THE ASSESSMENT ORDER NOTES THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A ITA NO.1382 & 1398/CHD/2018 A.Y.2014-15 3 TRUST AND REGISTERED U/S 12A OF THE ACT AND RUNS GURUDWARA TALHAN SAHIB. THE AO NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS A WHOLLY RELIGIOUS TRUST. HE FURTHER NOTED THAT DURING THE IMPUGNED YEAR, THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE A DONATION OF RS.51,50,000/- TO SISTER SOCIETY SAHEED BABA NIHAL SINGH CHARITABLE HOSPITAL AND CLAIMED THE SAME AS APPLICATION OF ITS INCOME. THE AO HELD THAT THE DONATION MADE TO THE HOSPITAL WAS NOT IN PURSUANCE TO ITS OBJECTS OF CARRYING OUT RELIGIOUS ACTIVITIES AND FURTHER WAS FOR THE BENEFI T OF A PERSON WHICH WAS RELATED TO THE ASSESSEE TRUST. HE, THEREFORE, HELD THAT FOR BOTH THE REASONS THE DONA TION SO MADE COULD NOT BE TREATED AS APPLICATION OF ITS INCOME BOTH UNDER PROVISIONS OF SECTION 11 OF THE A CT BEING NOT FOR RELIGIOUS PURPOSE AND ALSO U/S 13(1)( C) READ WITH SECTION 13(3) OF THE ACT SINCE IT WAS FOR THE BENEFIT OF A RELATED PERSON .HE ACCORDINGLY DENIED THE EXEMPTION U/S 11 OF THE ACT TO THE ENTIRE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE TRUST. THE SURPLUS EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE TRUST WAS ACCORDINGLY SUBJECTED TO TAX WIT H THE ASSESSEE BEING TREATED IN THE STATUS OF ASSOCIATION OF PERSONS (AOP). ITA NO.1382 & 1398/CHD/2018 A.Y.2014-15 4 4. THE LD.CIT(A) ON CONSIDERING THE ENTIRE FACTS OF THE CASE HELD THAT THE DISALLOWANCE OF EXEMPTION WA S TO BE RESTRICTED ONLY TO THE EXTENT OF APPLICATION OF INCOME IN VIOLATION OF ITS STATED OBJECTS AND PURPO SE FOR WHICH IT WAS SET UP. THE RELEVANT FINDINGS OF T HE CIT(A) AT PARAS 4.2 TO 4.9 OF THE ORDER ARE AS UNDE R: 4.2 1 HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSE D BY THE AO AND SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE APPELLANT AND FIND T HAT AN AMOUNT OF RS. 51,50,000 PAID AS DONATION TO A HOSPI TAL FOR MEDICAL RELIEF HAS BEEN DISALLOWED BY THE AO. FURTH ER, I FIND THAT AO HAS ALSO DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF EXEMPTION OF SURPLUS/INCOME OF RS. 1,07,58,847 U/S 11 OF THE IT ACT ON THE GROUND THAT PROVISIONS OF SECTION 13(L)(C) R.W.S. 1 3(3) OF THE 1.T. ACT HAVE BEEN VIOLATED. IT IS SEEN FROM THE ORDER T HAT THE CLAIM OF EXEMPTION OF INCOME U/S 11 OF THE IT ACT HAS BEE N DISALLOWED BY THE AO ON THE GROUND THAT RECEIPTS OF THE TRUST HAVE NOT BEEN UTILIZED FOR THE PURPOSES FOR WHICH I T WAS SETUP. AO HAS ASSESSED INCOME OF THE TRUST AS AN AOP. 4.3 DURING THE COURSE OF EXAMINATION OF BOOKS OF AC COUNTS IT WAS FOUND BY THE AO THAT FUNDS HAVE BEEN DIVERTED A ND AN AMOUNT OF RS. 51,50,000 HAS BEEN TRANSFERRED TO ITS SISTER SOCIETY, WHICH IS ENGAGED IN ACTIVITIES OTHE R THAN RELIGIOUS PURPOSES. IT IS STATED THAT THESE FUNDS HAVE BEEN UTILIZED FOR MEETING SALARY/PROFESSIONAL FEE PAID T O EMPLOYEES/DOCTORS. IT WAS HELD BY THE AO THAT INCOM E HAS NOT BEEN APPLIED BY THE APPELLANT TOWARDS THE RELIGIOUS & CHARITABLE PURPOSES FOR WHICH IT HAS BEEN SETUP. THE UTILIZATI ON OF FUNDS WAS HELD TO BE NOT FOR THE PURPOSES FOR WHICH IT HA S BEEN FORMED. 4.4 AO HAS STATED THAT FUNDS HAVE BEEN UTILIZED BY THE SHAHEED BABA NEHAL SINGH CHARITABLE HOSPITAL WHICH IS A SISTER CONCERN OF THE APPELLANT SOCIETY AND IT IS A CLOSELY HELD SOCIETY. AO HAS FURTHER PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF HON'BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT WHICH WAS DECIDED IN FAVOR OF THE DEPARTMENT IN THE CASE OF S T. FRANCIS CONVENT SCHOOL VS. CBDT 67DTR 2, WHEREIN IT WAS HEL D THAT THIS TYPE OF DIVERSION OF MONEY CANNOT BE ACCEPTED AS AN ITA NO.1382 & 1398/CHD/2018 A.Y.2014-15 5 APPLICATION OF FUNDS BY THE TRUST. ACCORDINGLY, AO HAS TREATED THE PAYMENT OF RS.51,50,000 AS THE AMOUNT COVERED UNDER SECTION 13(L)(C) R.W.S. 13(3) AND HEL D THAT IT CANNOT BE TREATED AS AN APPLICATION OF INCOME U/S 1 1(1) OF THE IT ACT. THIS AMOUNT WAS ADDED TO THE SURPLUS INCOME DECLARED BY THE APPELLANT AND WAS BROUGHT TO TAX AT THE MAXI MUM MARGINAL RATE OF TAXATION. FURTHER, THE SURPLUS INC OME OF RS.1,07,58,847 DECLARED BY THE APPELLANT AS EXEMPT U/S 11 OF THE I.T. ACT WAS DISALLOWED AND TAXED IN THE CAP ACITY OF AN AOP. 4.5 THE APPELLANT HAS STATED THAT RELIGIOUS ACTIVIT IES AND MEDICAL SERVICES ARE AN IMPORTANT ASPECT OF RELIGIO N AND MAY BE TREATED AS RELIGIOUS ACTIVITY. THE APPELLANT HAS ALSO CONTENDED THAT IT WAS UNDER THE BELIEF THAT SERVICE TO HUMANITY IN THE FORM OF MEDICAL SERVICES BEING REND ERED ARE PART OF RELIGION, FT IS SUBMITTED THAT HOSPITAL IS ALSO REGISTERED U/S 12A OF THE I.T ACT AND IS AN INDEPENDENT TRUST. THE APPELLANT, HAS ALSO RELIANCE ON CERTAIN JUDICIAL DE CISIONS ON THIS ISSUE TO SUPPORT ITS CONTENTIONS. IT IS STATED THAT CLAIM HAS BEEN ACCEPTED M A.Y. 2012-13 UNDER SCRUTINY BY THE AO. 4.6 THE APPELLANT HAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION IN TAXING THE SURPLUS INCOME OF RS. 1 ,07,58,847 ON THE GROUND OF APPLYING SECTION 13(3) OF THE I.T ACT. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT PROVISIONS OF SECTION 13 CAN BE INVO KED ONLY TO THE CASES WHERE SECTION 11 DOES NOT APPLY AND IN THE PRESENT CASE, BOTH THE TRUSTS ARE REGISTERED, HAVIN G SEPARATE PAN BUT COMMON TRUSTEES. THE APPELLANT HAS PLACED R ELIANCE ON JUDICIAL DECISIONS TO SUPPORT ITS CONTENTIONS TH AT CLAIM OF EXEMPTION CANNOT BE DISALLOWED ON THE GROUND OF HAVING COMMON TRUSTEES. THE APPELLANT HAS ALSO SUBMITTED T HAT APPEAL FOR THE PRECEDING YEAR I.E. A.Y. 2013-14 WAS DISALLOWED BY THE UNDERSIGNED VIDE ORDER DATED 25.05.2017 ON T HE GROUND THAT NO SUBMISSIONS WERE FILED BY THE APPELLANT. 4.7 HAVING CONSIDERED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON REC ORD, 1 FIND THAT APPELLANT HAS BEEN ABLE TO BRING ON RECOR D SUFFICIENT MATERIAL TO SUPPORT ITS CONTENTIONS WITH REGARD TO THE CLAIM OF EXEMPTION OF INCOME U/S 11 OF THE I.T ACT CANNOT BE DENIED ON THE GROUND THAT DONATIONS HAVE BEEN MADE TO THE SISTER TRUST WHICH DO NOT FALL WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF THE A CTIVITIES OF THE TRUST. THE CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT THAT CLAIM MAY BE DISALLOWED TO THE EXTENT OF VIOLATIONS, IF ANY, MADE IN THE LIGHT OF JUDICIAL DECISIONS CITED HAS BEEN CONSIDER ED AND ITA NO.1382 & 1398/CHD/2018 A.Y.2014-15 6 FOUND TO BE CORRECT. 1 HAVE GONE THROUGH THE DECISI ON OF HON'BLE ITAT DELHI BENCH IN THE CASE OF PURAN CHANE L DHARMARTH TRUST 04.05.2018 AND ALSO IN THE CASE OF TIME CENTRE FOR MEDIAL & MANAGEMENT STUDIES DATED 31.05.2018 ON THIS ISSUE AND FIND FORCE IN THE CONT ENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT. 4.8 FURTHER, 1 FIND THAT APPELLANT HAS MADE DONATI ONS TO THE OTHER SOCIETY (RELATED TO THE APPELLANT SOCIETY ) HAVING DIFFERENT OBJECTIVES WHICH ARE NOT RELIGIOUS IN NAT URE AND THEREBY VIOLATED THE PURPOSES FOR WHICH IT WAS SET UP. THE APPELLANT HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO JUSTIFY THAT ACTIVIT IES CARRIED OUT BY THE OTHER TRUST ARE RELIGIOUS IN NATURE AND THEREFORE, I HOLD THAT AO WAS JUSTIFIED IN DISALLOWING THE CLAIM MADE ON THIS ACCOUNT. I HAVE ALSO GONE THROUGH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE UNDER SIGNED IN THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT, C ITED ABOVE, AND FIND THAT ORDER WAS PASSED IN THE ABSENC E OF ANY MEANINGFUL REPRESENTATION BEING MADE BY THE APPELLANT. I FIND THAT IN FACT NO SUBMISSIONS WERE FILED BY THE APPELLANT AND THEREFORE, APPEAL WAS DECIDED ON THE BASIS OF MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD IN THAT YEAR. 4.9 THE FACTS IN THE PRESENT YEAR ARE DIFFERENT AS THE APPELLANT HAS BEEN ABLE TO BRING ON RECORD SUFFICIE NT MATERIAL TO JUSTIFY ITS CONTENTIONS DULY SUPPORTED WITH JUDICIAL DECISIONS ON THESE ISSUES. THUS, IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS, I HOLD THAT AO WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING THAT APPELLANT HAS CONTRAVENED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 11 OF THE IT ACT BY SPENDING THE AMOUNT ON PAYMENT OF SALARIE S TO THE EMPLOYEES OF THE ASSOCIATE/SISTER SOCIETY WHICH IS ENGAGED IN NON-RELIGIOUS ACTIVITIES. AO IS BEING DI RECTED TO ALLOW THE CLAIM OF EXEMPTION OF SURPLUS INCOME U/S 11 OF THE I.T. ACT AND TAX THE AMOUNT OF RS. 51,50,000 WHICH HAD BEEN CONTRIBUTED FOR THE PURPOSES NOT RELATED TO THE ACT IVITIES OF THE TRUST AND THUS, CANNOT BE TREATED AS AN APPLICATION OF INCOME. 5. AGGRIEVED BY THE SAME BOTH THE ASSESSEE AND THE REVENUE HAVE COME UP IN APPEAL BEFORE US, WITH THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGING THE DISALLOWANCE OF EXEMPTION U/S 11 OF THE ACT TO THE EXTENT OF INCOME APPLIED B Y ITA NO.1382 & 1398/CHD/2018 A.Y.2014-15 7 WAY OF DONATION TO ITS SISTER CONCERN AMOUNTING TO RS.51,50,000/- ,RAISED IN THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. REGARDING ADDITION OF RS. 51,50,000/-: 1.1THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE MEDICAL RELIEF IS CHARITY AND IS NOT COVERED UNDER RELIGIOU S ACTIVITIES. 1.2THAT THE LEARNED CIT (A) IS ERRED IN HOLDING THA T THE MEDICAL RELIEF IS NOT PART OF THE OBJECTS OF THE SO CIETY. 1.3THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT SERVICE OF HUMANITY AS PER RELIGION PREACHING DOES NOT COVER MEDICAL RE LIEF. 1.4THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED AND HAS FAILED TO G IVE HIS COMMENTS THAT WHY HE DIFFERS WITH VARIOUS JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS GIVEN BY THE APPELLANT TO HOLD THAT THE RELIGION AND CHARITY ARE ONE. 1.5THE LEARNED C1T(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING ADDIT ION OF RS. 51,50,000/- BY HOLDING THAT AMOUNT SPENT ON HOSPITA L IS NOT RELATED TO THE ACTIVITIES OF THE TRUST. 1.6THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS FAILED TO ADJUDICATE ON T HE CONTENTION THAT THE AO HAS FAILED TO HOLD CONSISTEN CY AS THIS EXPENDITURE HAS BEEN ACCEPTED IN YEARS PRIOR TO A.Y . 2013-14 AND HAS EVEN BEEN ACCEPTED IN THE A.Y. 2015-16 AND 2016- 17. 1.7THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE A DDITION OF RS. 51,50,000/- BEING THE DONATION/SUPPORT GIVEN TO THE HOSPITAL BEING RUN BY THE OTHER SOCIETY. THE AO HAS ACCEPTED THIS DONATION IN THE YEAR SUBSEQUENT TO THE YEAR UN DER APPEAL 2. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ALTER, TO AMEND, TO ADD, OR TO DELETE ANY OR ALL THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ON OR BEFOR E THE FINAL HEARING. 6. THE REVENUE IN TURN HAS CHALLENGED THE ACT OF TH E LD.CIT(A) IN RESTRICTING THE DISALLOWANCE TO RS.51,50,000/- AS AGAINST THE DENIAL OF EXEMPTION B Y ITA NO.1382 & 1398/CHD/2018 A.Y.2014-15 8 THE AO TO THE ENTIRE SURPLUS GENERATED BY THE ASSES SEE RAISING THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS BEFORE US: I. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE , THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW IN ALLOWING THE CLAIM OF TH E EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 11 OF THE IT. ACT ON THE SURPLUS WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE DIVERSION OF MONEY HAD RESULTED IN GIVING BENEFIT T O SPECIFIED PERSON UNDER SECTION 13(3) OF THE ACT AND THEREFORE THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 13(L)(C) WERE APPLICABLE. II. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE , THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN LAW IN DELETING THE EXEMPTION CLAIMED ON THE SURPLUS AND UPHOLDING DISALLOWANCE OF EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 11 ONLY TO THE EXTENT OF DIVERSION WHEN SECTION 13(L)(C) CLEAR LY STATES NOTHING CONTAINED IN SECTION 11 AND 12 WILL OPERATE SO AS TO EXCLUDE FROM THE TOTAL INCOME 'ANY INCOME' THEREOF IF 'ANY PART OF SUCH INCOME' IS APPLIED DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY FOR THE BENEFIT OF PERSONS SPECIFIED IN SECTION 13(3). III. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES TO LEAVE, ADD OR AME ND THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ON OR BEFORE THE APPEAL HEARD AND DISPOSED OFF. 7. FROM THE PERUSAL OF THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIE S BELOW, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE DISALLOWANCE HAS BEEN M ADE BY THE AO OF THE AMOUNT OF RS.51,50,000/- DONATED B Y THE ASSESSEE TO ITS ALLEGED SISTER CONCERN SHAHEED BABA NIHAL SINGH CHARITABLE HOSPITAL WHICH HAD UTILIZED THE AMOUNT FOR MAKING PAYMENT OF SALARIES TO ITS DOCTORS. THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE IS WHOLLY A RELIGIOUS TRUST IS AN ADMITTED FACT. THE DISALLOWAN CE HAS BEEN MADE FOR TWO REASONS: ITA NO.1382 & 1398/CHD/2018 A.Y.2014-15 9 1) THE AMOUNT DONATED TO ITS SISTER CONCERN WAS NOT FOR THE PURPOSE FOR WHICH THE ASSESSEE TRUST WAS SET UP I.E. IT WAS NOT FOR THE PURPOSE OF ANY RELIGIOUS ACTIVITY BEING DONATION MADE TO HOSPITAL. 2) THE DONATION WAS MADE TO A RELATED CONCERN WHICH HAD BENEFITED BY SAID DONATION AND, THEREFORE, THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 13(1)(C) READ WITH SECTION 13(3) OF THE ACT WERE ATTRACTED. 8. VIS--VIS THE FIRST CHARGE OF THE REVENUE THAT T HE APPLICATION WAS NOT FOR ITS STATED PURPOSES, THE FA CTS EMANATING FROM THE RECORD, WE FIND ARE NOT SUFFICIE NT TO ESTABLISH THIS CHARGE. UNDISPUTEDLY, THE AMOUNT WAS PAID TO THE HOSPITAL WHICH HAD ALSO BEEN GRANTE D REGISTRATION U/S 12A OF THE ACT. THE CONSISTENT PLEADING OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE AO AND THE CIT( A), WE FIND, HAS BEEN THAT THE DONATION WAS MADE WAS IN CONSONANCE WITH ITS STATED RELIGIOUS OBJECTS WHIC H INCLUDED SERVICE TO HUMANITY AND HUMANITARIAN PURPOSE. IN THIS BACKDROP, WE FIND, THE FACTS RELAT ING TO THE HOSPITAL NEED FURTHER INVESTIGATION WHETHER IT WAS BEING RUN ON PURELY CHARITABLE LINES WITH VERY LOW FEES OR NO FEES BEING CHARGED FROM PATIENTS OR ITA NO.1382 & 1398/CHD/2018 A.Y.2014-15 10 OTHERWISE. SINCE IT IS ONLY THEN IT CAN BE SAID THA T THE DONATION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE WAS IN FURTHERANCE OF ITS RELIGIOUS OBJECTIVES OF SERVING HUMANITY. 9. AS FAR THE DENIAL OF EXEMPTION FOR THE REASON TH AT BY VIRTUE OF THIS DONATION A RELATED PERSON OF THE ASSESSEE HAD BEEN BENEFITED, THE LD. DR HIMSELF POINTED OUT THAT THERE IS NO FINDING OF FACT AS TO HOW THE HOSPITAL WAS RELATED TO THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY IN TERMS OF THE DEFINITION SO PROVIDED U/S 13(3) OF TH E ACT. IN THE ABSENCE OF THIS ESSENTIAL FACT THE APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 13(1)(C) OF THE ACT CANNOT BE ENFORCED. 10. FOR THE AFORESAID REASONS WE CONSIDER IT FIT TO RESTORE THE ISSUE BACK TO THE CIT(A) TO ADJUDICATE THE ISSUE AFRESH AFTER BRINGING OUT ALL RELEVANT FACTS ON RECORD AS POINTED ABOVE AND ANY OTHER FACTS CONSIDERED NECESSARY BY HIM FOR ADJUDICATING THE ISSUE AT HAND. NEEDLESS TO ADD THE ASSESSEE BE GRANTED ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD AND THE ISSUE THEREAFTER BE DECIDED IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. ITA NO.1382 & 1398/CHD/2018 A.Y.2014-15 11 11. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE REVENUE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE S. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- SD/- !' & ' ( ) * (DIVA SINGH ) (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) # $ /JUDICIAL MEMBER +, $ /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER &! /DATED: 20 TH AUGUST, 2019 * * &) *+,+ / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT 3. ' - / CIT 4. ' - ( )/ THE CIT(A) 5. +./ 0 , $0 , 123/4 / DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 6. /35# / GUARD FILE &) ' / BY ORDER, / ASSISTANT REGISTRAR