Mac Sun Lighting Industries, Delhi V. ITO, Parwanoo

ITA 148/CHANDI/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 134 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5482 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-04-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 27-01-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: JAI SHREE SHARMA
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Principle of natural justice; Non compliance
• Section: 142(1); 144

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCHES B CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI D.K.SRIVASTAVA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS SUSHMA CHOWLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NOS. 117, 112 TO 116 & 148/CHD/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 MAC SUN LIGHTING INDUSTRIES, VS. THE ITO, (CLOSED), PARWANOO (H.P.) C/O RAMAN GUPTA, DELHI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI VINEET GARG RESPONDENT BY: SMT. JAISHREE SHARMA ORDER PER BENCH THESE SEVEN APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE ARE AGAINST THE SEPARATE ORDERS OF THE CIT(A), SHIMLA DATED 26.11.2010 / 29.11.2010 ALL RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 PASSED U/S 144 & 115WF(FBT) AND PENALTY LEVIED U/S 271(1)(B) & 271(1)(C) OF THE I.T. ACT. 2. ALL THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE RELATING TO THE SAME YEAR WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY THIS CONSOLID ATED ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. ITA NO. 117/CHD/2011 3. THE PRESENT APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGAI NST THE EX. PARTE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 144 OF TH E INCOME TAX ACT. THE 2 ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF CIT(A) BY WHI CH THE AFORESAID ASSESSMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS BEEN UPHELD. THE ASSESSEE HAS ADDRESSED US ON THE PRELIMINARY ISSUE RAISED VI DE GROUND NOS. 1 TO 4. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO RAISED THE ISSUE AGAINST THE MERITS OF THE ADDITION VIDE GROUND NOS. 5 & 6. 4. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO. 117/CHD/2011 ARE AS UNDER:- 1. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN UPH OLDING THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER, WHICH IS CONTRARY TO LAW, EQUITY AND JUSTICE AND FACTS AND MATERIAL O N RECORD, ARBITRARY, BASED ON CONJECTURES AND SURMISES, PASSE D WITHOUT APPLICATION OF MIND. 2. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ASSESSMEN T AS A FIRM. 3. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE JURISDICT ION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND IN HOLDING THAT SERVICE OF NO TICE BY ALLEGED AFFIXTURE IS AN ILLEGAL MANNER IS VALID IN LAW. 4. THAT THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW IN UPHOLDING ASSES SMENT MADE U/S 144. 5. THE APPELLANT DENIES HIS LIABILITY TO TAX AS UPHELD BY THE LD. CIT(A) AND DETERMINED AND COMPUTED BY THE LD. ASSES SING OFFICER AND THE MANNER IN WHICH IT HAS BEEN SO DETE RMINED OR COMPUTED. 6. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN SUS TAINING THE IMPUGNED ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF THE FOLLOWING:- 3 A) RS. 5,73,040/0 AS DISALLOWANCE OF THE DEDUCTION CLA IMED U/S 80 IC OF THE INCOME. B) RS. 11,17,277/- AS UNEXPLAINED CAPITAL OF THE ALLEG ED PARTNERS (IN FACT AS PROPRIETOR) INTRODUCED IN THE BUSINESS. C) RS. 35,62,957/- UN UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN THE FI XED ASSETS. D) RS. 34,60,074/- AS UNEXPLAINED ADVANCES FROM CUSTOMERS. 5. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSE E HAD DECLARED NIL INCOME AFTER CLAIMING DEDUCTION U/S 80 IC OF THE AC T. THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND THE NOTICE U /S 143(2) OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED ON 1.8.2007 FOR APPEARANCE ON 28.8.2007. NONE ATTENDED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. FURTHER, NOTICE U/S 143 (2 ) WAS ISSUED ON 9.10.2007 FOR COMPLIANCE ON 18.10.2007 WHICH ALSO R EMAINED UNATTENDED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER THEREAFTER ISSUED NOTICE U/S 143(2) AND 142(1) OF THE ACT ALONG WITH QUESTIONNAIRE ON 18.1.2008 FIXIN G THE HEARING FOR 31.3.2008. ON THE AFORESAID DATES, SHRI SURESH GAU R ATTENDED AND SOUGHT ADJOURNMENT. HOWEVER, ON THE APPOINTED DATE NONE A PPEARED AND FURTHER NOTICES WERE ISSUED FOR APPEARANCE ON 9.9.2008. AN OTHER LETTER FOR ADJOURNMENT WAS RECEIVED ON 30.9.2008 AND MATTER WA S ADJOURNED TO 3.10.2008 AND BECAUSE OF NON COMPLIANCE, FURTHER NO TICE WAS ISSUED U/S 142(1) ON 3.11.2008 ALONG WITH A LETTER SHOW CAUSIN G THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF CERTAIN ADDITION/DISALLOWANCE PROPOSED F OR. THIS NOTICE ALSO REMAINED UN-COMPLIED AND A FRESH NOTICE WAS ISSUED DATED 14.11.2008 WHICH WAS SERVED UPON THE ATTENDANT AT THE FACTORY PREMISES. AS NONE APPEARED NOR ANY REPLY WAS RECEIVED, FURTHER NOTICE U/S 142(1) WAS ISSUED 4 AT THE ADDRESS A-25, 6T KARNAL ROAD, INDUSTRIAL ROAD, DELHI AND ALSO AT THE FACTORY ADDRESS. THE NOTICE AT DELHI ADDRESS W AS SENT THROUGH POST AND THE COPY OF THE NOTICE WAS SERVED AT THE FACTOR Y ADDRESS. THE CASE WAS FIXED FOR HEARING ON 28.11.2008 AND AS NONE APPEARE D ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE NOR ANY REPLY WAS FILED, THE PROCEEDINGS W ERE TAKEN UP BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED EX. PARTE U/S 144 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT ON THE BASIS OF MATERIAL AVAILAB LE ON RECORD VIDE ORDER DATED 3.12.2008. 6. BEFORE THE CIT(A), THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE WA S THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD NOT VERIFIED THE GENUINENESS OF THE FIR M OR THE RETURN OF INCOME AND HAD COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT U/S 144 OF THE ACT. THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT NO NOTICE U/S 142(1) / 143(2) OF THE ACT WAS EVER SERVED ON THE FIRM OR UPON THE PARTNERS, SHRI MAJOJ KEDIA AND SHRI RAMAN GUPTA. FURTHER, IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT NO NOTICE WAS SERVED ON THE PROPRIETOR SHRI RAMAN GUPTA AND IN THE ABSENCE OF T HE SAME NONE APPEARED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE CIT(A) TOOK NOTE OF THE FACT THAT THE ADDITIONS WERE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER IN AN ORDER PASSED U/S 144 OF THE ACT DUE TO NON COMPLIANCE BY THE ASS ESSEE IN SPITE OF REPEATED OPPORTUNITIES ALLOWED BY ASSESSING OFFICER , AS NOTED IN PARA 8 OF THE APPELLATE ORDER. THE CIT(A) FURTHER NOTES VIDE PARA 8.1 THAT THE APPELLANT FIRM DOES NOT EXIST AT PRESENT. THE APPEL LANT STAYS AT DELHI. THE NOTICES AS PER ASSESSMENT ORDER WERE DULY SERVED UP ON THE ATTENDANT OF THE APPELLANT SHRI MAHENDER AT THE FACTORY PREMISES AT PARWANOO OR AT DELHI ADDRESS OF THE APPELLANT I.E. A-25, 6T KARNAL ROAD, INDUSTRIAL AREA, DELHI-110035. . THE CIT(A) PROCEEDED TO DISPOSE OF THE APPEAL ON THE MERITS OF THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICE R. THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED BY THE AFORESAID ORDER OF THE CIT(A). 5 7. THE LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT THE FACTORY WAS CLOSED IN SEPTEMBER, 2008 AND HENCE THE VARIOUS NOTICES IS SUED WERE NOT SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS FURTHER POINTED OUT BY THE LD. AR THAT THE DELHI ADDRESS OF THE PARTNERS OF THE ASSESSEE WAS A VAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS THE PENALTY ORDER WAS RECEIVE D ON THE DELHI ADDRESS PURSUANT TO WHICH THE ASSESSEE BECAME AWARE OF THE EX.PARTE ASSESSMENT MADE IN THE CASE. THE LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE POINT ED OUT THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD GIVEN SEVERAL OPPORTUNITIES F OR APPEARANCE TO THE ASSESSEE WHICH REMAINED UN-COMPLIED WITH AND HENCE THE EX.PARTE ASSESSMENT. 8. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORDS. THE ASSESSMENT IN THE CASE WAS COMPLETED EX.PARTE U/S 144 OF THE ACT BECAUSE OF NON COMPLIANCE OF VARIOUS NOTICES OF HEARING REM AINING UN-COMPLIED WITH BY THE ASSESSEE NOR ANY REPLY BEING FILED BY T HE ASSESSEE TO THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICES ISSUED. THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE BUSINESS PREMISES TO WHICH THE NOTICES HAD BEEN SENT HAD CLO SED AND THERE WAS NONE IN THE FACTORY PREMISES AT PARWANOO. FURTHER , IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT THE NOTICES SENT TO THE DELHI ADDRESS WAS ALSO RECEIVED AFTER THE DATE OF HEARING AND AS SUCH THE ASSESSEE WAS PREVENTED S UFFICIENT CAUSE FOR NON APPEARANCE ON THE RELEVANT DATE. THE PLEA OF THE A SSESSEE IS THAT EVEN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE NOTICE OF DEMAND DATED 3.1 2.2008 WAS NOT SENT TO THE ASSESSEE AT HIS DELHI ADDRESS AND HENCE REMA INS UN-SERVED AND ACCORDINGLY THE APPEAL WAS NOT FILED AGAINST THE SA ID ASSESSMENT ORDER. IT WAS ONLY ON THE RECEIPT OF PENALTY ORDER DATED 26.6 .2009 AT THE DELHI ADDRESS, THE ASSESSEE VISITED THE PREMISES OF THE C LOSED FACTORY WHICH WERE UNDER THE POSSESSION OF THE LANDLORD AND COLLE CTED THE ORDER WHICH WERE FOUND THROWN INSIDE THE FACTORY GATE. THE SAI D DOCUMENTS WERE 6 COLLECTED ON 4.7.2009. IN SUPPORT OF ITS AVERMENTS , SHRI RAMAN GUPTA WHO CLAIMED TO BE PROPRIETOR OF THE BUSINESS AT PRE SENT HAD FURNISHED AN AFFIDAVIT WHICH IS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE AVER MENTS MADE BY SHRI RAMAN GUPTA IN THE AFFIDAVIT ARE AS UNDER:- I, RAMAN GUPTA SON OF SHRI P.S. GUPTA RESIDENT OF D-8, C.C. COLONY, DELHI-7 DO HEREBY SOLEMNLY DECLARED AND AFFIRM ON O ATH AS UNDER:- 6. THAT THE NOTICE U/S 142(1) DATED 24.11.2008 HAD NOT BEEN SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE, AS THE BUSINESS HAD CLOSED AND THERE WAS NONE IN THE PREMISES AT PARWANOO. THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER MIGHT HAVE AFFIXED THE NOTICE, AS ALLEGED I N THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, ON THE CLOSED FACTORY. THE SAME N OTICE, WHEN SENT AT THE DELHI ADDRESS OF THE PROPRIETOR WA S RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE ONLY AFTER 28.11.2008. AS SUCH THE RE WAS NO PROPER SERVICE AND THE ASSESSEE WAS PREVENTED FORCE MAJURE TO APPEAR ON THE RELEVANT DATES. 7. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY PROPER SERVICE OF NOTICE THER E WAS NO QUESTION OF ANY COMPLIANCE TO THE NOTICE. SURPRISI NGLY, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S 144 AND NOTICE OF DEMAND DATED 3.12.2008 WAS NOT SENT TO THE ASSESSEE AT HIS DELHI ADDRESS AND THEREFORE REMAINED UNSERVED. ACCORDINGLY THE ASSESSEE WAS UNABLE TO FILE ANY APPEAL AGAINST THE ALLEGED O RDER. ON RECEIPT OF THE PENALTY ORDERS DATED 26.6.2009 AT DE LHI ADDRESS THE ASSESSEE MADE ARRANGEMENTS TO VISIT THE PREMISE S OF THE CLOSED FACTORY UNDER THE POWER AND POSSESSION OF TH E LANDLORD AND COLLECT THE ORDERS ETC. FOUND THROWN INSIDE THE FACTORY GATE. AS SUCH THERE MAY BE SOME OTHER PAPERS WHICH MIGHT HAVE BEEN SPOILED BY RAINS ALSO. 8. THAT THOSE DOCUMENTS AS COULD BE AVAILABLE WERE COL LECTED ON 4.7.2009. HENCE THE DATE OF RECEIPT OF THESE ORDER S BY THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN TAKEN AS 4.7.2009, WHEN THE SAME WERE GOT COLLECTED THROUGH A MESSENGER SENT FROM DELHI ON RE CEIPT OR 7 ORDER U/S 271(1)(C) AND OTHERS. ACCORDINGLY APPE ALS WERE FILED FOR THE OTHER ORDERS ALSO ON RECEIPT OF THE S AME. 9. THAT MOST OF THE ALLEGED NOTICES WERE SENT AT THE C LOSED FACTORY ADDRESS IN PARWANOO, WHICH NEVER REACHED TH E ASSESSEE. ALLEGED SERVICE OF NOTICES BY AFFIXTURE ONLY IS NEITHER AS PER LAW NOR EQUITABLE OR JUSTIFIABLE, AS THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS FULLY AWARE OF THE RESIDENTIA L AND OFFICE ADDRESS OF THE PROPRIETOR IN DELHI, AT WHICH ADDRES S HE ISSUED HIS NOTICE U/S 142(1) DATED 24.11.2008, ALBEIT RECE IVED BY THE ASSESSEE AFTER THE SCHEDULED DATE OF HEARING I.E. 2 8.11.2008. IN THE ABSENCE OF PROPER SERVICE OF NOTICE U/S 142( 1), NO ASSESSMENT CAN BE FRAMED U/S 144. NO NOTICE WAS S ERVED U/S 144. HENCE, THE ASSESSMENT MADE U/S 144 IS AGAINST THE LAW AND VOID ABINITIO. 10.THAT THE PREMISES AT PARWANOO WAS RENTED AND NO RENT WAS PAID TO THE LANDLORD AFTER OCTOBER, 2008 THOUGH IT WAS NOT VACATED AND ULTIMATELY THE LANDLORD ALSO PUT HIS LO CK ON THE FACTORY. 11. THAT NO BILL FOR ELECTRICITY, TELEPHONE NO. 23 3233, SALARY ETC. OF THE EMPLOYEES AT PARWANOO WERE PAID AFTER OCTOBE R, 2008. 9. ANOTHER AFFIDAVIT HAS BEEN FURNISHED BY SHRI MAN OJ KEDIA WHO WAS THE PARTNER IN THE ASSESSEE FIRM AND CLAIMS TO HAVE WITHDRAWN FROM THE FIRM AS PER THE DISOLUTION DEED. HE ALSO CONFIRMED NOT TO HAVE RECEIVED ANY COMMUNICATION WITH REGARD TO THE NOTICE OF HEAR ING IN CONNECTION WITH THE ASSESSEE FIRM. THE AFFIDAVIT OF RAMAN GUPT A IS PLACED AT PAGES 44 TO 46 TO THE PAPER BOOK AND SHRI MANOJ KEDIA AT PAGES 47 48 OF THE PAPER BOOK. THE PARTNERSHIP DEED EVIDENCING THE NA MES OF THE PARTNERS IS PLACED AT PAGES 49 ONWARDS OF THE PAPER BOOK. 8 10. THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE REQUIRES A RE ASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO BE GIVEN BEFORE THE ADJUDICATION PROC EEDINGS ARE COMPLETED AGAINST A PERSON. IT IS RULE OF LAND THAT NOBODY I S CONDEMNED UNHEARD. IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE THOUGH SEVERAL NOTICE S OF HEARING WERE ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE BUT MOST OF THESE NOTICES WERE ISSU ED AT THE ADDRESS OF THE FACTORY AT PARWANOO, THE SAID FACTORY PREMISES WERE TAKEN ON RENT BY THE ASSESSEE AND AS THERE WAS DEFAULT IN THE PAYMENT OF THE RENT AFTER OCTOBER 2008, THOUGH THE FACTORY PREMISES WERE NOT VACATED BUT THE LANDLORD PUT HIS LOCK ON THE FACTORY. THAT SHRI RAMAN GUPTA IN HIS AFFIDAVIT HAS FURTHER AFFIRMED THAT NO BILL FOR ELECTRICITY, TELE PHONE, SALARY ETC. OF THE EMPLOYEES AT PARWANOO WERE PAID AFTER OCTOBER, 2008 . THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IN THE PRESENT CASE WERE INITIATED THOU GH BEFORE OCTOBER, 2008 BUT WERE COMPLETED ON PASSING THE ORDER ON 3.1 2.2008. THE ALTERNATE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT EVEN THE DE LHI ADDRESS OF THE PARTNERS WAS IN THE KNOWLEDGE OF ASSESSING OFFICER BUT NO EFFORTS WERE MADE TO SERVE THE NOTICE ON THE AFORESAID ADDRESS. WE FIND THAT OUT OF SEVERAL NOTICES OF HEARING, TWO NOTICES WERE COMPLI ED WITH BY THE COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE BUT THE LATER NOTICES WERE NOT COMP LIED WITH BY THE ASSESSEE. IN THE ENTIRETY OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTAN CES OF THE CASE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS PREVENTED BY A SUFFI CIENT CAUSE FROM NON APPEARANCE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, WE DEEM IT FIT TO RESTORE THE ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE O F ASSESSING OFFICER TO COMPLETE THE PROCEEDINGS DE NOVO AFTER AFFORDING AS REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESS EE IS ALSO DIRECTED TO COOPERATE WITH THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES AND FURNISH THE REQUISITE INFORMATION / DOCUMENTS RELATING TO THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND BE VIGILANT TO ATTEND THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE ASSES SING OFFICER. THUS, THE 9 GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THIS RE GARD ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 11. IN VIEW OF OUR REMITTING THE ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER, WE DO NOT ADDRESS THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RA ISED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE MERIT OF THE ADDITION. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL IN ITA NP. 117/CHD/2011 IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 12. THE APPEAL IN ITA NO116/CHD/2011 IS AGAINST OR DER U/S 115WF(FBT) OF THE ACT HAS ALSO BEEN PASSED EX.PARTE VIDE ORDER DATED 30.12.2008. IN LINE WITH OUR REASONINGS IN CONNECT ION WITH THE APPEAL IN ITA NO. 117/CHD/2011, WE REMIT THIS ISSUE ALSO BACK TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER TO DECIDE THE SAME DE NOVO AFTER AFFORDING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. . 13. THE ASSESSEE IS FURTHER AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF PENALTY LEVIED U/S 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT IN ITA NOS,.112, 113 & 148/CHD /2011 FOR DIFFERENT DEFAULTS OF NON APPEARANCE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFF ICER. PENALTY OF RS. 10,000/- FOR EACH DEFAULT HAS BEEN LEVIED U/S 271(1 )(B) OF THE ACT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY ORDERS PASSED DATED 26.6.2009. THE SAID ORDER HAS BEEN PASSED EX.PARTE IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY REPLY RE CEIVED FROM THE ASSESSEE. WE FIND NO EFFECTIVE SERVICE OF THE NOTI CE OF HEARING IN RESPECT OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT. FOLLOWING THE PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND OUR OBSERVATIONS IN THE PARA S HEREINABOVE, WE REMIT THE ISSUE OF LEVY OF PENALTY U/S 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT ALSO TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER TO DECIDE THE SAME AFTER AFFORDIN G A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. 10 14. FURTHER, PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT FOR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME AND CONCEALMENT OF FBT WAS LEVIED VIDE ORDERS DATED 26.6.2009 BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED AND I S IN APPEAL VIDE ITA NOS. 114/CHD/2011 & 115/CHD/2011. AS THE MATTER OF ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN RESTORED BACK TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN ITA NO. 117/CHD/2011, WE REMIT THE ISSUE OF LEVY OF PENALTY ALSO BACK TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER. 15. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE APPEALS IN ITA NOS.112 T O 117/CHD/2011 AND 148/CHD/2011 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 8 TH DAY OF APRIL, 2011. SD/- SD/- (D.K.SRIVASTAVA) (SUSHMA CHOWLA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 8 TH APRIL, 2011 RKK COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) TRUE COPY 5. THE DR BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT CHANDIGARH.