ACIT, C-6, Ludhiana V. M/s Malwa Cotton Spinning Mills Ltd., Ludhiana

ITA 1512/CHANDI/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4059 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-05-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 06-12-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANJIT SINGH
• Keywords: Earning of tax free income; Revenue expenditure; Capital expenditure; Rule 8D
• Section: 14A

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH B CHANDIGARH , ! ' . . . . # , $% ! BEFORE: SMT. DIVA SINGH, JM & DR. B.R.R.KUMAR, AM ./ ITA NO. 1512/CHD/2018 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2014-15 THE ACIT, CIRCLE 6, LUDHIANA. VS M/S MALWA COTTON SPINNING MILLS LTD., OSWAL ROAD, INDUSTRIAL AREA-A, LUDHIANA. ./ PAN NO: AABCM1201D / APPELLANT / RESPONDENT / REVENUE BY : SHRI MANJIT SINGH, CIT-DR / ASSESSEE BY : NONE (APPLICATION REJECTED) ! ' # / DATE OF HEARING : 01.05.2019 $%&' # / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 07.05.2019 $& / ORDER PER DIVA SINGH THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE REVENUE ASSAILIN G THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER DATED 17.09.2018 OF CIT(A)-3, LU DHIANA PERTAINING TO 2014-15 ASSESSMENT YEAR ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS : I) WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW IN DELETING ADDITION ON ACC OUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OUT OF BANK CHARGES AT RS. 28,38,000/- II) WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW IN DELETING ADDITION ON ACC OUNT OF DISALLOWANCE MADE U/S 14A R.W.R. 8D OF THE INCOME T AX ACT, 1961 AT RS. 5,81,594/-. III) WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW IN DELETING ADDITION ON ACC OUNT OF DISALLOWANCE U/S 36(L)(III) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 AS THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS MADE INVESTMENT IN SHARES WHIH WAS FOR NON BUSINESS PURPOSES AT RS. 1,36,89,306/-. IV) THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD OR AMEND ANY GROUND OF APPEAL BEFORE IT IS FINALLY DISPOSED OFF. 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, AN ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION WAS PLACED ON RECORD ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE STATING THAT HE IS SUFFER ING FROM SOME MEDICAL PROBLEMS ON THE BASIS OF WHICH, TIME WAS SOUGHT. HO WEVER, CONSIDERING THE RESPECTIVE ORDERS PASSED WHEREIN IT WAS NOTICED THAT THE VIEW TAKEN IN THE EARLIER YEARS HAS BEEN FOLLOWED, A PASS O VER WAS GIVEN ITA 1512/CHD/2018 A.Y. 2014-15 PAGE 2 OF 5 TO LD. CIT-DR TO ASCERTAIN WHETHER THE ORDER RELIED UPON BY THE CIT(A) HAS BEEN VARRIED SUBSEQUENTLY. IN THE SECOND ROUND, LD. CIT-DR PLACED A COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 07.09.2018 OF THE ITAT IN ITA 431 TO 433/CHD/2017 IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE ITSELF PERTAINING TO 2010-11 TO 2012-13 ASSESSMENT YEARS WHEREIN THE ORDER RELIED U PON BY THE CIT(A) IN THE PRESENT PROCEEDINGS WAS AFFIRMED BY THE ITAT. ON A READING OF THE AFORESAID ORDER FOR 2010-11 TO 2012-13 ASSESSMENT YEAR S READ ALONGWITH THE IMPUGNED ORDER, IT WAS FAIRLY AGREED THAT THE VIEW TAK EN BY THE CIT(A) IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION RELYING UPON THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE CIT(A) IN 2010-11, 2011-12 AND 2012-13 ASSESSMENT YEARS WAS AFFIRMED BY THE ITAT IN THE AFORESAID ORDER. NO CHANGE IN FACTS AND CIRC UMSTANCES WAS BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE BY THE LD. CIT-DR TO CANVASS A C ONTRARY VIEW. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY SUCH FACT RECORDED BY THE AO, THE FACTUAL POSITIO N WAS NOT DISPUTED. CONSIDERING THESE FACTS ON RECORD, THE ADJ OURNMENT REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE WAS REJECTED WITH THE FOLLOWING OBSERV ATION : REJECTED AS PER ORDER SHEET. ORDER CONFIRMED. SPEAK ING ORDER TO FOLLOW. SD/- SD/- (DR.B.R.R.KUMAR) (DIVA SINGH) A.M. J.M. (01.05.2019) 2.1 THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE, ACCORDINGLY, WAS HEARD EX -PARTE QUA THE ASSESSEE-RESPONDENT ON MERITS. 3. IN THE SAID BACKGROUND, AS WE HAVE NOTICED THE ISSUE ADDRESSED BY GROUND NO. 1 BY THE REVENUE HAS BEEN ADDRESSED AT PA GES 4 & 5 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND CONSIDERING THE FACTS, THE CIT(A) A DDRESSING THESE AT PAGE 5 AND 6 OF HIS ORDER FOLLOWING THE VIEW TAKEN BY T HE CIT(A) IN 2010-11 TO 2012-13 HAS GRANTED RELIEF IN PARA 7.2 OF HIS O RDER WHICH HAS BEEN CHALLENGED BY THE REVENUE. FOR THE SAKE OF COMPLETE NESS, THE RELEVANT FINDING UNDER CHALLENGE IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER : 7.2 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS MADE BY HIM IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHILE MAKING THE IMPUGNED ADDITION . I HAVE ALSO CONSIDERED WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY THROUGH I TS LEARNED AR VIDE LETTER DATED 18/09/2017 ON THE ISSUE UNDER REFERENCE. I HAVE FUR THER CONSIDERED VARIOUS JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS RELIED UPON BY THE LEARNED AR OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. I HAVE AGAIN CONSIDERED THE ORDERS OF THE LEARNED CIT(A)-II, LUD HIANA FOR THE A.YS. 2008-09 AND 2009-10 VIDE WHICH AN IDENTICAL ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED IN F AVOR OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. ON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS, IT HAS BEEN NOTICED THAT AN IDENTICAL ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN A.YS. 2008-09 & 2009-10 IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE COMPANY ITSELF HAS BEEN DELETED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A)-II, LUDHIANA VID E HIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER IN APPEAL NOS. 248/IT/CIT(A)-LL/LDH/2010-11 & 322/IT/CIT(A)-LL/LDH /2011-12 DATED 23.07.2013. AS THE FACTS OF THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY FOR THE Y EAR UNDER CONSIDERATION ARE IDENTICAL TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY FOR T HE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2008-09, 2009-10,AND ITA 1512/CHD/2018 A.Y. 2014-15 PAGE 3 OF 5 2010-2011, I DO NOT HAVE ANY HESITATION IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OUT OF BANK CHAR GES BY TREATING BANK CHARGES PAID BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AS CAPITAL EXPENDITURE. SO, RESPEC TFULLY FOLLOWING THE ORDERS OF LEARNED CIT(A)-II, LUDHIANA AND CIT A -4 FOR THE A.YS. 2008 -09 & 2009-10 AND IN AY 2011-12 , 2012-2013, IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY ITSE LF AND ON THE BASIS OF SAME REASONING AND LOGIC AS ADOPTED BY LEARNED CIT(A)-II, LUDHIANA IN A.YS. 2008-09 & 2009-10 AND AY 2011-12, 2012-2013, WHILE DELETING THE IDENTICAL AD DITION, THE ADDITION OF RS.28,38,000/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLO WANCE OUT OF BANK CHARGES BY TREATING BANK CHARGES PAID BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AS CAPITA L EXPENDITURE IS DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. IN THE RESULT, GROUND NO. 3 OF APPEAL TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS ALLOWED 3.1. WE HAVE SEEN THAT THE SAID VIEW WAS CHALLENGED BY TH E REVENUE IN 2011-12 ASSESSMENT YEAR WHEREIN THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 07.09.2018 CONFIRMED THE VIEW TAKEN BY HOLDING AS UNDER : 6. GROUND NO.(III). VIDE GROUND NO.(III), THE R EVENUE HAS AGITATED THE ACTION OF THE CIT(A) IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF 'BANK CHARGES'. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS BROUGHT OUR AT TENTION TO PARAS 8.1 AND 8.2 OF THE 431 TO 433/CHD/2017 . M/S MALWA COTTON SPINNING MIL LS LTD, LUDHIANA IMPUGNED ORDER, WHEREIN, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS CONSIDERED THE E XPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT BANK CHARGES WERE INCURRED TO PROCESS THE WORKING C APITAL LOAN APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE. THESE FACILITIES WERE USED TO MEET THE DA Y TO DAY REQUIREMENT OF THE FUNDS FOR THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY. THE LD. CIT(A) CONSIDE RING THE SUBMISSIONS AND FURTHER RELYING UPON HIS DECISION FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2008-09 AND 2009-10 ON THIS ISSUE, HAS HELD THAT THE SAME WAS NOT A CAPITAL EXPENDITUR E BUT WAS REVENUE EXPENDITURE. WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE CI T(A) ON THIS ISSUE ALSO AND THE SAME IS ACCORDINGLY UPHELD. 3.2. ACCORDINGLY, IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE FIND I N THE ABSENCE OF ANY DISTINCTION EITHER ON FACT OR POSITION OF LA W, GROUND NO. 1 RAISED BY THE REVENUE HAS NO MERIT. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS REJECTED. 4. THE NEXT ISSUE AGITATED BY THE REVENUE IS ADDRESSED IN GROUND NO. 2. A PERUSAL OF THE RECORD SHOWS THAT THE SAID ISSUE H AS BEEN ADDRESSED BY THE AO AT PAGES 11 TO 13 OF HIS ORDER. THE ISSUE WA S CARRIED IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). IT IS SEEN THAT THE FIRST APPELLATE AUT HORITY CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND THE PAST HISTORY O N THE ISSUE, PROCEEDED TO DELETE THE ADDITION TAKING NOTE OF THE FACT THAT THE FACTS AS AVAILABLE IN THE EARLIER YEARS IN AS MUCH AS THERE WAS NO EXEMPT INCOME WHICH HAD BEEN EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE, WHICH FACTS REMA INED THE SAME ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE BY A DETAILED ORDER AT PAGES 6 TO 14 IN PARAS 8, 8.1 TO 8.7 OF HIS ORDER. THE ISSUE AS NOTICED, CAM E UP BEFORE THE ITAT ON THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE BEING FILED. THE SAID AP PEAL WAS DISMISSED BY THE ITAT AFFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) HOLDING AS UNDE R : 8. AFTER GOING THROUGH THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE CIT(A), WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE SAME. EVEN OTHERWISE, THE LD. COUN SEL 431 TO 433/CIKI/2017- M/S MALWA COTTON SPINNING MILLS LTD, LUDHIANA FOR T HE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE TOTAL DISALLOWANCE MADE DURING THE YEAR U/S 14A READ WITH RULE 8D(2)(III) HAS EXCEEDED THE TOTAL DIVIDEND INCOME EARNED BY THE AS SESSEE DURING THE YEAR. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE SUBMISSIONS, THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF' CI T, FARIDABAD VS. LAKHANI M ARKETING IN 226 TAXMAN 45 ITA 1512/CHD/2018 A.Y. 2014-15 PAGE 4 OF 5 (P&H) AND OF THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CA SE OF' CHEMINVEST LTD VS. ITO' (2015) 378 ITR 33 (DELHI) ARE SQUARELY APPLICABLE, WHEREIN, IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT THE DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14A CANNOT EXCEED TH E TOTAL EXEMPT INCOME EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR. IN VIEW OF THIS, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN TH E ORDER OF THE CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE AND THE SAME IS UPHELD. 5. ON THIS ISSUE ALSO, NO INFIRMITY EITHER ON FACT OR CHANGE IN POSITION OF LAW HAS BEEN POINTED OUT BY THE REVENUE. ACCORDINGLY , IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY CHANGE IN FACTS, CIRCUMSTANCES OR POSITION OF LAW, WE FIND NO GOOD REASON TO VARY THE ORDER. GROUND NO. 2 OF THE REVENUE CONSIDERING THE PECULIAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES ON THE ISSUE ALSO FAILS. 6. THE NEXT ISSUE AGITATED IN GROUND NO. 3 BY THE REVENU E HAS BEEN ADDRESSED BY THE AO IN PARA 6 PAGE 13 TO 26 OF HIS ORD ER. THE CIT(A) CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS, FACTS AND THE PAST HISTORY ON THE ISSUE, DELETED THE ADDITION HOLDING AS UNDER : 9.2 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE AS SESSING OFFICER ASSESSING OFFICER AS MADE BY HIM IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHILE MAKING THE IMPUGNED ADDITION. I HAVE ALSO CONSIDERED WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FILED BY THE AS SESSEE COMPANY THROUGH ITS LEARNED AR VIDE LETTER DATED 22.12.2016 ON THE ISSU E UNDER REFERENCE. I HAVE FURTHER CONSIDERED VARIOUS JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS RELIED U PON BY THE LEARNED AR OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AS WELL AS OTHER MATERIAL PLACED B Y THE ASSESSEE COMPANY ON RECORD. ON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, I T HAS BEEN NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE THE IMPUGNED ADDITIO N AS THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS MADE INVESTMENT OF RS.999.89 LAKHS IN THE SHARE S OF SISTER CONCERN WHICH ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS FOR NON BUSIN ESS PURPOSES. ON THE OTHER HAND, IT WAS SUBMITTED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE CO MPANY THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS NOT USED ANY BORROWED FUNDS FOR MAKING INVESTMENT IN SHARES OF HIS SISTER CONCERN BUT USED ITS OWN INTEREST FREE FUNDS WHICH WERE AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IN THE FORM OF INTERNAL ACCRUALS A S WELL AS OTHER INTEREST FREE SURPLUS FUNDS. IT HAS ALSO BEEN SUBMITTED THAT THE INVESTMENT IN SHARES OF SISTER CONCERN WAS MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1994-95 IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WAS HAVING INTERNAL ACCRUALS OF MORE THAN RS.20 CRO RES . IT HAS FURTHER BEEN SUBMITTED THAT AS THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WAS HAVING S UFFICIENT INTEREST FREE FUNDS OF ITS OWN TO MAKE INVESTMENT IN SHARES, NO DISALLOWAN CE OUT OF INTEREST EXPENSES SHOULD HAVE BEEN MADE IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE C OMPANY BY INVOKING PROVISIONS OF SECTION 36(1)(III) OF THE ACT AS THE ASSESSEE CO MPANY HAS NOT USED ANY BORROWED FUNDS TO MAKE INVESTMENT IN SHARES. ON CAREFUL CONS IDERATION OF THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS, IT HAS BEEN NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WAS HAVING SUFFICIENT INTEREST FREE FUNDS OF ITS OWN IN THE FORM OF INTER NAL ACCRUALS AND OTHER SURPLUS FUNDS AT THE TIME OF MAKING INVESTMENT IN SHARES OF THE S ISTER CONCERN IN EARLIER YEARS TO COVER THE INVESTMENT IN SHARES WHICH HAS BEEN CONSI DERED FOR MAKING THE IMPUGNED DISALLOWANCE. LOOKING TO THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WAS HAVING SUFFICIENT INTEREST FREE FUNDS OF ITS OWN AT THE TIME OF MAKIN G INVESTMENT IN SHARES OF ITS SISTER CONCERN, I AM OF THE OPINION THAT IF THE ASSESSEE C OMPANY HAS SUFFICIENT INTEREST FREE FUNDS OF ITS OWN TO COVER THE INVESTMENT IN SHARES CONSIDERED FOR THE PURPOSE OF MAKING IMPUGNED DISALLOWANCE THEN THE PRESUMPTION S HOULD BE THAT THE INVESTMENT IN SHARES HAS BEEN MADE OUT OF INTEREST FREE FUNDS AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. THIS VIEW IS ALSO SUPPORTED BY VARIOUS JUD ICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS INCLUDING THAT OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HON'BLE PUNJAB AND HARYA NA HIGH COURT. I AM, THEREFORE, OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE DISALLOWANCE OUT OF INTEREST EXPENSES BY INVOKING PROVISIONS OF SECTION 36(1)(III) OF THE ACT CANNOT BE MADE IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AS THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS NOT USED BORROW ED FUNDS FOR MAKING INVESTMENT IN SHARES. UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN MAKING AN ADDITION OF RS. 1,36,89,306/- IN THIS CASE ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST BY INVOKING PROVISIONS OF SECTION 36(1 )(I II) OF THE ACT ON THE GROUND THAT THE ITA 1512/CHD/2018 A.Y. 2014-15 PAGE 5 OF 5 ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS MADE INVESTMENT IN SHARES WHIC H ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS FOR NON BUSINESS PURPOSES CANNOT BE SAID TO BE JUSTIFIED. AN ADDITION ON SIMILAR ISSUE WAS ALSO MADE IN APPELLANTS OWN CASE DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2011-12 AND 2012-13 AND THE ENTIRE ADDITION WAS DEL ETED BY MY LD. PREDECESSOR CIT A -4 LUDHIANA. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE STATED FACT S AND RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISIONS OF MY ID PREDECESSORS IN EARLIER YEAR S , CONSIDERING THE SAME CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, I AM OF THE OPINION THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN MAKING AN ADDITION OF RS. 1,36,89,306/ - IN THIS CASE ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST BY INVOKING PROVISIONS OF SECTION 36(1)(III) OF THE ACT ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS MADE INVESTMEN T IN SHARES WHICH ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS FOR NON BUSINESS PURPOS ES. THE ADDITION OF RS. 1,36,89,306/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THIS CASE ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST BY INVOKING PROVISIONS OF SECTION 36(1) (III) OF THE ACT IS, THEREFORE, DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. IN THE RESULT, THE GROUND N O. 3 OF APPEAL TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS ALLOWED. (EMPHASIS PROVIDED BY THE BENCH ) 7. ON A CAREFUL READING OF THE AFORESAID ORDER, WHEN READ A LONGWITH THE ORDER OF THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH PARA 12, IT CAN BE S EEN THAT THE FACTS REMAIN THE SAME AS HEREIN ALSO THE INVESTMENT WAS MADE IN SHARES OF ITS SISTER CONCERN BY THE ASSESSEE OUT OF ASSESSEE'S OWN FUNDS AND THERE WERE NO BORROWED FUNDS USED FOR MAKING THE INVESTMENT. T HE EARLIER YEARS ORDER OF THE CIT(A) RELIED UPON BY THE CIT(A) IN TH E PRESENT PROCEEDINGS HAS BEEN UPHELD BY THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH A LSO ON THE SAID ISSUE. SIMILAR VIEW WAS TAKEN IN THE FOLLOWING YEARS IN PARA 18 OF THE AFORESAID CONSOLIDATED ORDER OF THE ITAT. ACCORDINGLY, IN T HE ABSENCE OF ANY MATERIAL CHANGE IN FACTS, CIRCUMSTANCES AND POSITION OF LAW, THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS UPHELD. SAID ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT AT THE TIME OF HEARING ITSELF. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 7 TH MAY, 2019. SD/- SD/- ( . . . . # ) ( ) (DR. B.R.R. KUMAR) (DIVA SINGH) $% ! / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ! / JUDICIAL MEMBER ' ( %( )* +* / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT 3. ! , / CIT 4. ! , )/ THE CIT(A) 5. *-. / , # / , 012.3 / DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 6. .2 4' / GUARD FILE %( ! / BY ORDER, 5 / ASSISTANT REGISTRAR