M/s Inder International, Ludhiana V. ACIT, CC-II, Ludhiana

ITA 1573/CHANDI/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 108 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3801 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 5 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-06-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Chandigarh
• Next Hearing Date: 19-05-2021
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Appeal Filed On: 13-12-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Document seized; Question of law; Assessment record; Documents seized
• Section: 143(3); 153A; 48; 13

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH A, CHANDIGARH BEFORE: SHRI N.K. SAINI, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT ./ ITA NO.1573/CHD/2018 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2016-17 M/S INDER INTERNATIONAL, 594, NIRANKARI MOHALLA NO.1, OVERLOCK ROAD, LUDHIANA THE A.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, LUDHIANA. ./PAN NO: AABF17996J /APPELLANT /RESPONDENT /ASSESSEE BY : SHRI PARIKSHIT AGGARWAL, CA ! / REVENUE BY : SMT.C.CHANDRAKANTA, CIT DR ' # $ /DATE OF HEARING : 19.05.2021 %&'( $ /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 07.06. 2021 (HEARING THROUGH WEBEX) / ORDER PER MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT : THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS ARISING OUT OF THE O RDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS )-5 [IN SHORT THE LD.CIT(A)] , LUDHIANA DATED 15.10.2018 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2016-17, PASSED U/S 250(6)) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS ACT. TH E ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED BY THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-I I, LUDHIANA FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2016-17 U/S 153A O F THE ACT VIDE ORDER DATED 30.06.2017. ITA NO.1573/CHD/2018 A.Y .2016-17 PAGE 2 OF 19 2. AT THE OUTSET, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE DRE W OUR ATTENTION TO ASSESSEES APPLICATION DATED 19.03 .2020 BY VIRTUE OF WHICH, ADDITIONAL GROUND IS RAISED. HE DR EW OUR ATTENTION TO THE RELEVANT ADDITIONAL GROUND NO.8 WH ICH READS AS UNDER: 8. THAT ON LAW, FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S 153A DESERVES TO BE QUASHED SINCE THE STATUTORY AND MANDATORY APPROVAL AS REQUIRED U/S 153D HAS NOT BEEN OBTAINED AND THE APPROVAL SOUGHT AND GRANTED WAS TOTALLY MECHANICAL AND RITUALISTIC ONLY. 3. THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT THIS GROUND IS PURELY LEGAL IN NATURE AND NO NEW FACTS A RE REQUIRED FOR THE ADJUDICATION OF THIS GROUND AND HE NCE, THE SAME DESERVES TO BE ADMITTED KEEPING IN MIND THE LA W LAID DOWN BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF NA TIONAL THERMAL POWER CO. LTD. (NTPC) VS. CIT (1998) 229 IT R 383(SC). THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE TOOK US TH ROUGH THE PAPER BOOK FILED ON 18.05.2021 WHEREBY HE HAS E NCLOSED COPY OF APPROVAL GRANTED U/S 153D OF THE ACT VIDE D ATED 29.06.2017. THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE TOOK US THROUGH THE LETTER WRITTEN BY THE AO TO THE ADDL CI T VIDE NO. ACIT/C-II/LDH/2017-18/446, DATED 29.06.2017 AND POINTED OUT THAT THE AO APPLIED FOR APPROVAL U/S 153D OF TH E ACT TO THE ADDL.CIT ONLY ON 29.06.2017. HE FURTHER TOOK US THROUGH ITA NO.1573/CHD/2018 A.Y .2016-17 PAGE 3 OF 19 PAGE NO.2 OF ASSESSEES PAPER BOOK WHEREIN RELEVANT APPROVAL WAS GRANTED U/S 153D OF THE ACT BY THE ADD L.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE RANGE, LUDHIANA VIDE F.NO.ADDL.CIT(C), R/LDH./16-17/560, DATED 29.06.2017. HE FURTHER STATED THAT THIS APPROVAL IS ALSO ACCORDED ON THE SAME DAY I.E. 29.06.2017. HE FURTHER STATED THE FACT THAT THE LAS T HEARING OF THIS CASE TOOK PLACE ON 28.06.2017 AND ASSESSEE FILED VARIOUS DETAILS ON 28.06.2017. ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THE AO HAS GONE THROUGH THESE DETA ILS AND AFTER THAT HE HAS PREPARED DRAFT ASSESSMENT ORDER C ONSISTING PAGES 1 TO 165 WHICH HAS ANNEXURES A TO E ENCLOSED WITH THIS ORDER RUNNING INTO PAGES 1 TO 41. THE LD.COUNS EL FOR THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT IN CASE THE ASSESSMENT ORD ER IS PASSED U/S 153A OF THE ACT, A MANDATORY APPROVAL AS REQUIRED U/S 153D OF THE ACT HAS TO BE OBTAINED BY THE AO FROM THE ADDL.CIT AND GRANTING OF APPROVAL IS NOT A MERE FORMALITY AS THE ADDL.CIT HAS TO APPLY HIS MIND WHI LE GIVING APPROVAL TO THE DRAFT ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE LD.COUN SEL FOR THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT THIS IS A SEARCH AND SEIZU RE CASE AND REQUISITION U/S 132A OF THE ACT WAS MADE BY THE INVESTIGATION WING, LUDHIANA IN LIEU OF SEARCH COND UCTED BY THE DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE, LUDHIANA U NIT ON THE ASSESSEE ON 14.12.2015. THE INVESTIGATION OF TH E INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT ACCORDINGLY REQUISITIONED U/S 132A O F THE ITA NO.1573/CHD/2018 A.Y .2016-17 PAGE 4 OF 19 ACT DATED 26.05.2016. IT WAS CONTENDED THAT A NUMB ER OF DOCUMENTS WERE SEIZED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH W HICH WAS CONSIDERED BY THE AO DURING THE COURSE OF PROCE EDINGS U/S 153A OF THE ACT. THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSE E STATED THAT THE APPROVAL GRANTED BY THE ADDL.CIT ON THE SA ME DATE I.E. 29.06.2017 WHEN THE AO REQUISITIONED THE APPRO VAL U/S 153D OF THE ACT FROM THE ADDL.CIT AND THE MANNER IN WHICH STATUTORY APPROVAL U/S 153D OF THE ACT IS ACCORDED IS BAD IN LAW. THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ALSO RELIED UP ON THE CASE LAW OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF NT PC (SUPRA) AND ALSO THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE JURISD ICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF VMT SPINNING CO. LTD. VS. CIT & ANOTHER (2016) 389 ITR 326 (P&H). IN VIEW OF THE AB OVE, THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT THE ADDITIO NAL GROUND BE ADMITTED AND ADJUDICATED AS THIS IS A PUR ELY LEGAL GROUND AND NO NEW FACTS ARE REQUIRED TO BE GONE INT O TO ADJUDICATE THIS GROUND BECAUSE ALL THESE FACTS AS P RODUCED BEFORE THE BENCH ARE VERY MUCH PART OF THE ASSESSME NT RECORD. 4. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD.CIT DR MRS.C.CHANDRAKANTA OPPOSED THE ADMISSIBILITY OF THE ADDITIONAL GROUND. SHE FIRST TOOK US THROUGH THE TECHNICALITIES THAT THE ASSESSE ES APPLICATION FOR ADDITIONAL GROUND IS DATED 19.03.20 21 WHEREAS THE ASSESSEE HAS DEPOSITED THE CHALLAN FOR TAKING ITA NO.1573/CHD/2018 A.Y .2016-17 PAGE 5 OF 19 COPIES FROM THE AO ONLY ON 20.03.2021. ACCORDING TO HER, THIS APPLICATION IS TOTALLY MECHANICAL AND RITUALIS TIC AND DOCUMENTS OBTAINED FROM THE DEPARTMENT WERE NOT AVA ILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF RAISING THIS ADDIT IONAL GROUND. HENCE, SHE ARGUED THAT AT THIS VERY COUNT T HE ASSESSEES ADDITIONAL GROUND SHOULD BE REJECTED. 5. WHEN THIS FACT WAS POINTED OUT TO THE LD.COUNSEL FO R THE ASSESSEE, HE STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE OBTAINED THE LETTER WRITTEN BY THE AO TO THE ADDL.CIT FOR APPROVAL OF A SSESSMENT ORDER U/S 153D OF THE ACT AND APPROVAL ACCORDED BY THE ADDL.CIT U/S 153D OF THE ACT WERE ACTUALLY HANDED O VER BY THE AO ONLY ON 19.03.2021, WHEREAS THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO DEPOSIT A SUM OF RS.100/- WHICH WAS EVENTUALLY D EPOSITED ONLY ON 20.03.2021. WHEN A QUESTION WAS POINTED OUT TO THE LD.CIT DR ABOUT THE AUTHENTICITY OF THESE DOCUMENTS , SHE STATED THAT THESE DOCUMENTS ARE TAKEN FROM THE DEPA RTMENT BUT HER ONLY POINT IS THAT THE ASSESSEE FIRST RAISE D THIS ADDITIONAL GROUND AND AFTER THAT OBTAINED THE COPIE S OF APPROVAL ACCORDED U/S 153D OF THE ACT BY THE ADDL.C IT. 6. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE DOCUMENTS I.E. APPLICATION OF THE AO TO THE ADDL.CIT DATED 29.06.2017 AND THE APP ROVAL ACCORDED BY THE ADDL.CIT U/S 153D OF THE ACT DATED 29.06.2017. WE HAVE ALSO GONE THROUGH THE ADDITIONA L GROUND RAISED IN REGARD TO THE VALIDITY OF ASSESSME NT ORDER ITA NO.1573/CHD/2018 A.Y .2016-17 PAGE 6 OF 19 PASSED U/S 153A OF THE ACT THAT THE STATUTORY AND MANDATORY APPROVAL AS REQUIRED U/S 153D OF THE ACT WAS OBTAINED MECHANICALLY AND RITUALISTIC ONLY AND THER E IS NO APPLICATION OF MIND BY THE ADDL.CIT. AFTER GOING TH ROUGH THE ADDITIONAL GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THIS GROUND IS PURELY LEGAL IN NATURE AND NO N EW FACTS ARE REQUIRED TO BE GONE INTO TO ADJUDICATE THIS GRO UND, AS THE FACTS ARE AVAILABLE ON THE ASSESSMENT RECORD AS DISCUSSED ABOVE, HENCE, WE ADMIT THIS ADDITIONAL GR OUND AND ADJUDICATE THE ISSUE. 7. THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US STATED TH AT THIS ISSUE IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE DECISION OF T HE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF PCIT VS. SHREELEKH A DAMANI (2019) 307 CTR 218. HE ALSO STATED THAT THE TRIBUNAL IS CONSISTENTLY TAKING VIEW AND HE CITED T HE FOLLOWING CASE LAWS: S.NO. NAME OF THE JUDGEMENT CITATION 1. SANJAY DUGGAL VS. ACIT ITA NO.1813/DEL/2019 2. M3M INDIA HOLDINGS VS. DCIT 71 ITR(TRIB.) 451 3. DILIP CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD. VS. ACIT IT(SS)A NO.66 TO 71/CTK/2018 4. SAURABH AGARWAL VS. DCIT ITA NOS. 263 TO 267/AGR/2017 5. RAJESH LADHANI VS. DCIT ITA NO. 106 TO 108/AGRA/2019 6. UTTARAKHAND UTHAN SAMITI VS. ITO ITA NO. 48 TO 52/DDN/2019 7. RISHABH BUILDWELL PVT. LTD. VS. DCIT ITA NO. 2212/DEL/2018 ITA NO.1573/CHD/2018 A.Y .2016-17 PAGE 7 OF 19 8. AAA PAPER MARKETING LTD. VS. ACIT ITA NO. 167/LKW/2016 9. M/S RAJAT MINERALS PVT. LTD. VS. DCIT IT(SS)A NOS.41 TO 47/RAN/2019 10. GEETARANI PANDA VS. ACIT IT(SS)A NOS. L/CTK/2017 11. ACIT VS. CR MITTAL & SONS (HUF) IT(SS)A NO. 100/JAB/2014 8. THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ALSO RELIED UPON TH E RECENT DECISION OF THE ITAT, MUMBAI BENCH IN THE CA SE OF ARCH PHARMALABS LTD. VS. ACIT, CC-32 IN ITA NO.6656/MUM/2017 & OTHERS DATED 07.04.2021, WHEREIN EXACTLY ON IDENTICAL FACTS THE TRIBUNAL HAS HELD TH AT THE APPROVING AUTHORITY HAS NOT MENTIONED ANY PROCESS O F DERIVING SATISFACTION SO AS TO EXHIBIT DUE APPLICAT ION OF MIND BY THE APPROVING AUTHORITY. 9. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD.CIT DR TOOK US THROUGH TH E DEPARTMENTAL CIRCULAR F.NO.286/161/2006-IT (INV.II) DATED 22.12.2006 WHEREIN ENTIRE PROCESS OF SEARCH AND SEI ZURE ASSESSMENT IS MENTIONED AND ACCORDING TO HER THIS I S STRICTLY FOLLOWED AND THERE IS NO DEVIATION FROM TH E SAME. SHE ALSO STATED THAT THE ADDL.CIT IS SUPERVISING AU THORITY OF THE AO IN CASE OF SEARCH ASSESSMENT AND THERE IS NO ALLEGATION BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THERE IS ANY DEVIAT ION IN THE PROCESS. SHE READ OUT THE RELEVANT CLAUSES OF THE A BOVE CIRCULAR ISSUED BY THE BOARD. ITA NO.1573/CHD/2018 A.Y .2016-17 PAGE 8 OF 19 10. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH ALL THE FACTS OF THE CASE FIRS T AND ALSO GONE THROUGH THE PAPER BOOK FILED BY THE ASSES SEE ON 18.05.2021 WHEREIN RELEVANT TWO DOCUMENTS I.E. LETT ER BY THE AO TO THE ADDL.CIT WHICH IS ENCLOSED IN ASSESSEES PAPER BOOK AT PAGE NO.1 AND WHICH READS AS UNDER: GOVERNMENT OF INDIA OFFICE OF THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II , OPP.B.V.M. SCHOOL KITCHLU NAGAR, LUDHIANA. NO.ACIT/C-II/LDH/2017-18/446 DATED:29.06.2017 TO THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL RANGE, LUDHIANA. MADAM, SUB: APPROVAL UNDER SECTION 153D OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961- IN THE CASE OF M/S INDER INTERNATIONAL (PAN AABFI7996J) AND SH.ABHAY JAIN (PAN AHEPJ7203M) MATTER REGARDING- ********* KINDLY REFER TO THE SUBJECT CITED ABOVE. KEEPING IN VIEW THE ORDERS OF HON'BLE PUNJAB & HAR YANA HIGH COURT CHANDIGARH (WHEREBY DIRECTING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER TO COMPLETE THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS BY 30.06.2017), DRAFT ASSESS MENT ORDERS OF THE FOLLOWING CASES HAVE BEEN PREPARED: S.NO. NAME & ADDRESS OF THE ASSESSEE PAN ASSESSMENT YEARS 1. M/S INDER INTERNATIONAL, 594, NIRANKARI MOHALLA NO.1, OVERLOCK ROAD, LUDHIANA AABF17996J 2011-12 TO 2016-17 (SIX YEARS U/S 153A) 2. S.ABHAY JAIN PROP. M/S SHREE LAKSHMI STEELS, 467, INDUSTRIAL AREA-B, MILLERGANJ, LUDJHIANA AHEPJ7203M 2012-13 TO 2016-17 (FIVE YEARS U/S 153C) ITA NO.1573/CHD/2018 A.Y .2016-17 PAGE 9 OF 19 SUBMITTED FOR KIND PERUSAL AND STATUTORY APPROVAL U /S 153D OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. YOURS FAITHFULLY ENCLS: ASSESSMENT FOLDERS IN 11 CASES ALONGWITH CORRESPONDING DRAFT ASSESSMENT ORDERS. SD/- (MANKE SHAH KAPOOR) ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, LUDHIANA 12. ON PAGE 2, THE RELEVANT STATUTORY APPROVAL ACCO RDED U/S 153D OF THE ACT BY THE ADDL.CIT IS ALSO ENCLOSE D AND THE SAME READS AS UNDER: GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF FINANCE OFFICE OF THE ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL RANGE, LUDHIANA. ___________________________________________________ ____________________ SCO 1-6, 2 ND FLOOR, OPP.B.V.M. SCHOOL KITCHLU NAGAR, LUDHIANA. F.NO.ADDL.CIT(C), R/LDH./16-17/560 DATED:29.06.20 17 TO THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, LUDHIANA. SUB: APPROVAL U/S 153D OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 IN THE CASE OF M/S INDER INTERNATIONAL (PAN AABFI7996J) AND SH.ABH AY JAIN (PAN AHEPJ7203M) REGARDING- ********* KINDLY REFER TO THE SUBJECT CITED ABOVE. PLEASE REFER TO YOUR OFFICE LETTER NO.446 DATED 29 .06.2017, RECEIVED IN THIS OFFICE ON 29.06.2017 THEREBY SUBMITTED DRAF T ASSESSMENT ORDER IN THE FOLLOWING CASES: ITA NO.1573/CHD/2018 A.Y .2016-17 PAGE 10 OF 19 S.NO. NAME & ADDRESS OF THE ASSESSEE PAN ASSESSMENT YEARS 1. M/S INDER INTERNATIONAL, 594, NIRANKARI MOHALLA NO.1, OVERLOCK ROAD, LUDHIANA AABF17996J 2011-12 TO 2016-17 (SIX YEARS U/S 153A) 2. SH.ABHAY JAIN PROP. M/S SHREE LAKSHMI STEELS, 467, INDUSTRIAL AREA-B, MILLERGANJ, LUDJHIANA AHEPJ7203M 2012-13 TO 2016-17 (FIVE YEARS U/S 153C) NECESSARY STATUTORY APPROVAL U/S 153D IS GIVEN TO P ASS THE ABOVE ASSESSMENT ORDER, AS SUB. ASSESSMENT RECORD IN THIS CASE IS RETURNED HEREWITH. ENCLS: AS ABOVE. SD/- (DR.RAJINDER KAUR) ADDL.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL RANGE, LUDHIANA 11. FROM THESE TWO DOCUMENTS IT IS CLEAR THAT THE AO HA S PREPARED A DRAFT ASSESSMENT ORDER ONLY EITHER ON 28 .06.2017 OR ON 29.06.2017. THIS DRAFT ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS S ENT TO THE ADDL.CIT ONLY ON 29.06.2017 ALONGWITH DRAFT ASS ESSMENT ORDER OF OTHER GROUP CASES AND THE ADDL.CIT, CENTRA L RANGE, LUDHIANA HAS ACCORDED APPROVAL U/S 153D OF THE ACT THAT VERY DAY I.E. 29.06.2017 AS IS CLEAR FROM THE ABOVE APPROVAL REPRODUCED. THE ADDL.CIT SIMPLY RECORDED THAT; NECESSARY STATUTORY APPROVAL U/S 153D IS GIVEN TO PASS THE ABOVE ASSESSMENT ORDER AS SUCH. ASSESSMENT RECORD IN THIS CASE IS RETURNED HEREWITH. 12. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE DECISION OF HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT CITED BY THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE IN THE ITA NO.1573/CHD/2018 A.Y .2016-17 PAGE 11 OF 19 CASE OF SHREELEKHA DAMANI (SUPRA) WHEREIN ALMOST ID ENTICAL APPROVAL WAS CONSIDERED BY THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT AND THE RELEVANT FINDINGS ARE AS UNDER: 6. HAVING HEARD THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE BOTH S IDES AND HAVING PERUSED THE DOCUMENTS ON RECORD, WE HAVE NO HESITATION IN UPHOLDING THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNA L. THE ADDITIONAL CIT WHILE GRANTING AN APPROVAL FOR PASSI NG THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT, HAD MADE FOLLOWING REMARKS :- 'TO, THE DCIT(OSD)-1 MUMBAI SUBJECT : APPROVAL U/S 153D OF DRAFT ORDER U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 153A IN THE CASE OF S MT. SHREELEKHA NANDAN DAMANI FOR A.Y. 2007-08 REG. REF : NO. DCIT (OSD)-1/CR-7/APPR/2010-11 DT. 31.12. 2010 AS PER THIS OFFICE LETTER DATED 20.12.2010, THE ASS ESSING OFFICERS WERE ASKED TO SUBMIT THE DRAFT ORDERS FOR APPROVAL U/S 153D ON OR BEFORE 24.12.2010. HOWEVER, THIS DRA FT ORDER HAS BEEN SUBMITTED ON 31.12.2010. HENCE THERE IS NO MUCH TIME LEFT TO ANALISE THE ISSUE OF DRAFT ORDER ON ME RIT. THEREFORE, THE DRAFT ORDER IS BEING APPROVED AS IT IS SUBMITTE D. APPROVAL TO THE ABOVE SAID DRAFT ORDER IS GRANTED U /S 153D OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961.' 7. IN PLAIN TERMS, THE ADDITIONAL CIT RECORDED THAT THE DRAFT ORDER FOR APPROVAL UNDER SECTION 153D OF THE ACT WA S SUBMITTED ONLY ON 31ST 3 OF 4 UDAY S. JAGTAP 668-16 -ITXA- 15=.DOC DECEMBER, 2010. HENCE, THERE WAS NOT ENOUGH TIME LEFT TO ANALYZE THE ISSUES OF DRAFT ORDER ON MERIT. THEREFORE, THE ORDER WAS APPROVED AS IT WAS SUBMITTED. CLEARLY , THEREFORE, THE ADDITIONAL CIT FOR WANT OF TIME COUL D NOT EXAMINE THE ISSUES ARISING OUT OF THE DRAFT ORDER. HIS ACTION OF GRANTING THE APPROVAL WAS THUS, A MERE MECHANICAL E XERCISE ACCEPTING THE DRAFT ORDER AS IT IS WITHOUT ANY INDE PENDENT APPLICATION OF MIND ON HIS PART. THE TRIBUNAL IS, T HEREFORE, PERFECTLY JUSTIFIED IN COMING TO THE CONCLUSION THA T THE APPROVAL WAS INVALID IN EYE OF LAW. WE ARE CONSCIOU S THAT THE STATUTE DOES NOT PROVIDE FOR ANY FORMAT IN WHICH TH E APPROVAL MUST BE GRANTED OR THE APPROVAL GRANTED MUST BE REC ORDED. NEVERTHELESS, WHEN THE ADDITIONAL CIT WHILE GRANTIN G THE APPROVAL RECORDED THAT HE DID NOT HAVE ENOUGH TIME TO ANALYZE THE ISSUES ARISING OUT OF THE DRAFT ORDER, CLEARLY THIS WAS A CASE IN WHICH THE HIGHER AUTHORITY HAD GRANTE D THE APPROVAL WITHOUT CONSIDERATION OF RELEVANT ISSUES. QUESTION OF ITA NO.1573/CHD/2018 A.Y .2016-17 PAGE 12 OF 19 VALIDITY OF THE APPROVAL GOES TO THE ROOT OF THE MA TTER AND COULD HAVE BEEN RAISED AT ANY TIME. IN THE RESULT, NO QUESTION OF LAW ARISES. 13. WE HAVE ALSO GONE THROUGH THE RECENT CASE LAW OF MUMBAI TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ARCH PHARMALABS LTD. (SUPRA) WHEREIN THE TRIBUNAL HELD AS UNDER: 11.1 IT MAY BE PERTINENT TO OBSERVE AT THIS STAGE THAT THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDERS WERE PASSED U/S. 143(3) RWS 153A OF THE ACT FOR THE AY 2003-04 TO AY 2008-09 AND FOR THE AY 2009-10 U/S. 143(3) OF THE ACT PURSUANT TO SEARCH CARRIED OUT UNDER S.132 OF THE ACT. FOR PASSING SUCH ASSESSMENT ORDERS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS GOVERNED BY S.153D OF THE ACT WHEREBY THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHOULD COMPLETE THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND PREPARE A DRAFT ASSESSMENT ORDER WHICH NEED TO BE PLACED BEFORE THE APPROVING AUTHORITY I.E. JOINT / ADDL. COMMISSIONER (DESIGNATED AUTHORITY GIVING APPROVAL TO SEARCH ASSESSMENTS U/S. 153D OF THE ACT). THE APPROVING AUTHORITY IS NECESSARILY REQUIRED TO OBJECTIVELY EVALUATE SUCH DRAFT ASSESSMENT ORDER WITH DUE APPLICATION OF MIND ON VARIOUS ISSUES CONTAINED IN SUCH ORDER SO AS TO DERIVE HIS/ HER CONCLUSIVE SATISFACTION THAT THE PROPOSED ACTION OF AO IS IN CONFORMITY WITH SUBSISTING LAW. THE AO IS OBLIGATED TO PASS THE ASSESSMENT ORDER EXACTLY, AS PER APPROVAL/ DIRECTIONS OF THE DESIGNATED AUTHORITY. INEVITABLY, THIS EVALUATION IS TO BE MADE ON BASIS OF MATERIAL GATHERED AT TIME OF SEARCH AS WELL AS OBTAINED IN THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING. THE REQUIREMENT OF LAW IS TO GRANT APPROVAL NOT MERELY AS A FORMALITY OR A SYMBOLIC ACT BUT A MANDATORY REQUIREMENT. 11.2 IN THE BACKDROP OF FACTS NARRATED IN THE PRECEDING PARAS, IT IS THE CONTENTION ON BEHALF OF THE ASSSESSEE THAT APPROVAL GRANTED UNDER S. 153D DOES NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENT OF LAW AND HENCE ASSESSMENT ORDERS PASSED IN CONSEQUENCE OF SUCH NON-EST APPROVAL IS A NULLITY IN LAW. THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS THUS PASSED IS VITIATED IN LAW ITA NO.1573/CHD/2018 A.Y .2016-17 PAGE 13 OF 19 WHICH ILLEGALITY CANNOT BE CURED. IN SUPPORT OF CHARGE OF NONEST APPROVAL, SEVERAL CONTENTIONS HAVE BEEN RAISED VIZ (I) THE APPROVAL ACCORDED UNDER SECTION 153D IS WITHOUT ANY OCCASION TO REFER TO THE ASSESSMENT RECORDS AND SEIZED MATERIAL, IF ANY, INCRIMINATING THE ASSESSEE AND HENCE SUCH APPROVAL IS IN THE REALM OF AN ABSTRACT APPROVAL OF DRAFT ASSESSMENT ORDERS WHICH WAS UNSUBSTANTIATED AND UNSUPPORTED AND CONSEQUENTLY SUFFERED FROM TOTAL NON-APPLICATION OF MIND (II) APPROVAL GRANTED HURRIEDLY IN A SPUR INVOLVING VOLUMINOUS ASSESSMENTS SPANNING OVER 7 ASSESSMENT YEARS AND THUS ONLY A SYMBOLIC EXERCISE TO MEET THE REQUIREMENT OF LAW (III) TOTAL LACK OF OBJECTIVITY IN DRAWING SATISFACTION ON OBJECTIVE MATERIAL WHILE GIVING A COMBINED APPROVAL FOR 7 ASSESSMENTS AND ALSO WITHOUT EVALUATING THE NUANCES OF EACH ASSESSMENT YEAR INVOLVED (IV) THE MUNDANE ACTION OF ADDL. CIT UNDER S. 153D IN A COSMETIC MANNER GIVES INFALLIBLE IMPRESSION OF APPROVAL ON DOTTED LINE AND THUS DEFEATS THE PURPOSE OF SUPERVISION OF SEARCH ASSESSMENTS (IV) INITIALED DRAFT ASSESSMENT ORDERS NOT AVAILABLE IN OFFICE RECORDS. 11.3 AS OBSERVED, SECTION 153D BESTOWS A SUPERVISORY JURISDICTION ON THE DESIGNATED AUTHORITY IN RESPECT OF SEARCH RELATED ASSESSMENT AND THUS ENJOINS A SALUTARY DUTY OF STATUTORY NATURE. THE DESIGNATED SUPERIOR AUTHORITY IS THUS EXPECTED TO CONFIRM TO THE STATUTORY REQUIREMENT IN LETTER AND SPIRIT. IT IS EVIDENT FROM THE COMMUNICATION OF AO AND CONSEQUENT APPROVAL THEREON UNDER S. 153D THAT NO ASSESSMENT RECORD FOR ANY ASSESSMENT YEAR IN QUESTION OR ANY SEIZED MATERIAL HAD TRAVELED TO THE AUTHORITY CONCERNED FOR HIS OBJECTIVE CONSIDERATION OF THE SAME QUA THE DRAFT ASSESSMENT ORDERS. NO REFERENCE IN THIS REGARD IS MADE IN THE APPROVAL NOTE EITHER WHICH MAY DISCARD SUCH ALLEGATION AS UNTRUE. NO OTHER MATERIAL OR ORDER SHEET IN ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ETC. WERE PLACED BEFORE US EITHER TO ESTABLISH OTHERWISE. EXCEPT THESE TWO DOCUMENTS NAMELY, A SOLITARY COMMUNICATION FROM AO TO THE ADDL. CIT DATED 29/12/2010 AND AN IN TURN APPROVAL BY ADDL. CIT DATED 31/12/2010, THERE IS NOTHING ELSE BEFORE US TO GAUGE THE FACTS DIFFERENTLY. A BARE ITA NO.1573/CHD/2018 A.Y .2016-17 PAGE 14 OF 19 GLANCE AT THE APPROVAL SO ACCORDED MAKES IT EVIDENT THAT SUCH APPROVAL IS GENERIC AND LISTLESS AND ACCORDED IN A BLANKET MANNER WITHOUT ANY REFERENCE TO ANY ISSUE IN RESPECT OF ANY OF THE 7 ASSESSMENT YEARS. APPARENTLY, THE APPROVAL HAS BEEN GRANTED ON A DOTTED LINE WITHOUT ANY AVAILABILITY OF REASONABLE TIME WHICH FIRMS UP THE BELIEF TOWARDS NON APPLICATION OF MIND. BESIDES, THE APPROVAL HAS BEEN GRANTED IN A CONSOLIDATED MANNER FOR ALL ASSESSMENT YEARS FOR WHICH VOLUMNOUS ASSESSMENT ORDERS WERE PREPARED. THE WHOLE SEQUENCE OF ACTION APPARENTLY APPEARS TO BE ILLUSORY TO MERELY MEET THE REQUIREMENT OF LAW AS AN EMPTY FORMALITY. IT IS ALSO ALLEGED ON BEHALF OF ASSESSEE THAT THE DRAFT ASSESSMENT ORDERS ARE NOT AVAILABLE ON RECORD WHICH ALLEGATION HAS NOT BEEN REBUTTED. THE DRAFT ASSESSMENT ORDERS SHOWING SOME MARKING / INTIALS ETC. COULD HAVE GIVEN A VALUABLE INPUT ON THE APPLICABILITY OF MIND AND COULD THROW LIGHT ON OBJECTIVITY APPLIED OWING TO TOTAL SILENCE ON ANY DELINEATION ON THESE ASPECTS I N THE APPROVAL MEMO. THE RECORDS BEFORE US ARE TOTALLY MUTED. 11.4 BASED ON SOLITARY COMMUNICATION PLACED BEFORE US, IT IS OSTENSIBLE THAT DRAFT ASSESSMENT ORDERS WERE PLACED BEFORE THE ADDL. CIT ON 29.12.2010 FOR THE FIRST TIME. IT IS AXIOMATIC FROM THE PLAIN READING OF APPROVAL MEMO THAT VARIOUS ASSESSMENT ORDERS AND THE ISSUES INCORPORATED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS, WERE NEVER SUBJECTED TO ANY DISCUSSION WITH THE AUTHORITY GRANTING APPROVAL PRIOR TO 29.12.2010. IT IS EVIDENT FROM TH E CBDT CIRCULAR NO. 3 OF 2008 DATED 12.03.2008 THAT THE LEGISLATURE IN ITS HIGHEST WISDOM MADE IT OBLIGATORY THAT THE ASSESSMENTS OF SEARCH CASES SHOULD BE MADE WITH THE PRIOR APPROVAL OF SUPERIOR AUTHORITY, SO THAT THE SUPERIOR AUTHORITY APPLY THE IR MIND ON THE MATERIALS AND OTHER ATTENDING CIRCUMSTANCES ON THE BASIS OF WHICH THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS MAKING THE ASSESSMENT AND AFTER DUE APPLICATION OF MIND AND ON THE BASIS OF SEIZED MATERIALS, THE SUPERIOR AUTHORITY IS REQUIRED TO ACCORD APPROVAL THE RESPECTIVE ASSESSMENT ORDER. SOLEMN OBJECT OF ENTRUSTING THE DUTY OF APPROVAL OF ASSESSMENT IN SEARCH CASES IS THAT THE ADDITIONAL CIT, WITH HIS EXPERIENCE AND MATURITY OF ITA NO.1573/CHD/2018 A.Y .2016-17 PAGE 15 OF 19 UNDERSTANDING SHOULD AT LEAST MINIMALLY SCRUTINIZE THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS AND ANY OTHER MATERIAL FORMING THE FOUNDATION OF ASSESSMENT. IT IS ELEMENTARY THAT WHENEVER ANY STATUTORY OBLIGATION IS CAST UPON ANY STATUTORY AUTHORITY, SUCH AUTHORITY IS REQUIRED TO DISCHARGE ITS OBLIGATION N OT MECHANICALLY, NOT EVEN FORMALLY BUT AFTER DUE APPLICATION OF MIND. THUS, THE OBLIGATION OF GRANTING APPROVAL ACTS AS AN INBUILT PROTECTION TO THE TAXPAYER AGAINST ARBITRARY OR UNJUST EXERCISE O F DISCRETION BY THE AO. THE APPROVAL GRANTED UNDER SECTION 153D OF THE ACT SHOULD NECESSARILY REFLECT DUE APPLICATION OF MIND AND IF THE SAME IS SUBJECTED TO JUDICIAL SCRUTINY, IT SHOULD STAND FOR ITSELF AND SHOULD BE SELF-DEFENDING. THERE ARE LONG LINE OF JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS WHICH PROVIDES GUIDANCE IN APPLYING THE LAW IN THIS REGARD. 11.5 AT THE COST OF REPETITION, IT MAY BE REITERATE D THAT IN THE INSTANT CASE, APPROVING AUTHORITY DID NOT MENTION ANYTHING IN THE APPROVAL MEMO TOWARDS HIS/ HER PROCESS OF DERIVING SATISFACTION SO AS TO EXHIBIT HIS/HER DUE APPLICATION OF MIND. WE MAY OBSERVE THAT PARA 2 OF THE ABOVE APPROVAL LETTER MERELY SAYS THAT 'APPROVAL IS HEREBY ACCORDED U/S. 153D OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 TO COMPLETE ASSESSMENTS U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 153A OF THE I.T. ACT IN THE FOLLOWING CASE ON THE BASIS OF DRAFT ASSESSMENT ORDERS...'WHICH CLEARLY PROVES THAT THE ADDL. CIT HAD ROUTINELY GIVEN APPROVAL TO THE AO TO PASS THE ORDER ONLY ON THE BASIS OF CONTENTS MENTIONED IN THE DRAFT ASSESSMENT ORDER WITHOUT ANY APPLICATION OF MIND AND SEIZED MATERIALS WERE NOT LOOKED AT AND/OR OTHER ENQUIRY AND EXAMINATION WAS NEVER CARRIED OUT. FROM THE SAID APPROVAL, IT CAN BE EASILY INFERRED THAT THE SAID ORDER WAS APPROVED, SOLELY RELYING UPON THE IMPLIED UNDERTAKING OBTAINED FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE FORM OF DRAFT ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT AO HAS TAKEN DUE CARE WHILE FRAMING RESPECTIVE DRAFT ASSESSMENT ORDERS AND THAT ALL THE OBSERVATIONS MADE IN THE APPRAISAL REPORT RELATING TO EXAMINATION / INVESTIGATION OF SEIZED MATERIAL AND ISSUES UNEARTHED DURING SEARCH HAVE BEEN STATEDLY CONSIDERED BY THE AO SEEKING APPROVAL. THUS, THE SANCTIONING AUTHORITY HAS, IN EFFECT, ABDICATED HIS/ HER STATUTORY FUNCTIONS AND ITA NO.1573/CHD/2018 A.Y .2016-17 PAGE 16 OF 19 DELIGHTFULLY RELEGATED HIS/HER STATUTORY DUTY TO TH E SUBORDINATE AO, WHOSE ACTION THE ADDITIONAL CIT, WAS SUPPOSED TO SUPERVISE. THE ADDL. CIT IN SHORT APPEARS TO HAVE ADOPTED A SHORT CUT IN THE MATTER AND AN UNDERTAKING FROM AO WAS CONSIDERED ADEQUATE BY HIM/ HER TO ACCORD APPROVAL IN ALL ASSESSMENTS INVOLVED. MANIFESTLY, THE ADDITIONAL CIT, WITHOUT ANY CONSIDERATION OF MERITS IN PROPOSED ADJUSTMENTS WITH REFERENCE TO APPRAISAL REPORT, INCRIMINATING MATERIAL COLLECTED IN SEARCH ETC. HAS PROCEEDED TO GRANT A SIMPLICITOR APPROVAL. THIS APPROACH OF THE ADDITIONAL CIT, CENTRAL HAS RENDERED THE APPROVAL TO BE A MERE FORMALITY AND CAN NOT BE COUNTENANCED IN LAW. 11.6 THERE ARE SEVERAL DECISIONS, WHICH SUPPORTS THE VIEW THAT APPROVAL GRANTED BY THE SUPERIOR AUTHORITY IN MECHANICAL MANNER DEFEATS THE VERY PURPOSE OF OBTAINING APPROVAL U/S 153D. SUCH PERFUNCTORY APPROVAL HAS NO LEGAL SANCTITY IN THE EYES OF THE LAW. THE DECISION OF THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH IN SHREELEKHA DAMANI VS. DCIT 173 TTJ 332(MUM.) AND APPROVED BY JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT SUBSEQUENTLY AS REPORTED IN 307 CTR 218 AFFIRMS THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE. 11.7 VERY RECENTLY, THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH IN SANJAY DUGGAL & ORS (ITA 1813/DEL/2019 & ORS; ORDER DATED 19.01.2021 HAS ALSO ECHOED THE SAME VIEW AFTER A DETAILED ANALYSIS OF SIMILAR FACTS AND ALSO EXPRESSED A DISCORDANT NOTE ON SUCH MECHANICAL EXERCISE OF RESPONSIBILITY PLACED ON DESIGNATED AUTHORITY UNDER SECTION 153D OF THE ACT. HENCE, VINDICATED BY THE FACTUAL POSITION AS NOTED IN PRECEDING PARAS, WE FIND CONSIDERABLE FORCE IN THE PLEA RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST MAINTAINABILITY OF HOLLOW APPROVAL UNDER S. 153D TOTALLY DEVOID OF ANY APPLICATION OF MIND. THE APPROVAL SO GRANTED UNDER THE SHELTER OF SECTION 153D, DOES NOT, IN OUR VIEW, PASS THE TEST OF LEGITIMACY. THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS OF VARIOUS ASSESSMENT YEARS AS A CONSEQUENCE OF SUCH INEXPLICABLE APPROVAL LACKS LEGITIMACY. CONSEQUENTLY, THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENTS RELATABLE TO SEARCH IN CAPTIONED APPEALS ARE NON EST AND A NULLITY AND HENCE QUASHED. ITA NO.1573/CHD/2018 A.Y .2016-17 PAGE 17 OF 19 14. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DECISION AND THE FACT THAT IN THE PRESENT CASE BEFORE US ALSO THE ADDL.CIT HAS ACCORD ED THE APPROVAL U/S 153D OF THE ACT ONLY ON 29.06.2017 WHE N THE AO PLACED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ON THAT VERY DATE I. E. 29.06.2017. THE RELEVANT APPROVAL BY THE ADDL.CIT R EADS AS UNDER: NECESSARY STATUTORY APPROVAL U/S 153D IS GIVEN TO PASS THE ABOVE ASSESSMENT ORDER AS SUCH. ASSESSMENT RECORD IN THIS CASE IS RETURNED HEREWITH. 15. FROM THE ABOVE, IT IS CLEAR THAT THIS IS TOTALLY NO N APPLICATION OF MIND BY THE ADDL. CIT, WHO IS THE SU PERVISING AUTHORITY OF THE AO, WHILE GRANTING STATUTORY APPRO VAL U/S 153D OF THE ACT, THE ISSUE STANDS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY VARIOUS DECISIONS CITED ABOVE. IN THE P RESENT CASE BEFORE US, WE NOTED THAT THE ADDL. CIT DID NOT MENTION ANYTHING IN THE APPROVAL MEMO TOWARDS HIS PROCESS O F DERIVING SATISFACTION SO AS TO EXHIBIT HIS DUE APPL ICATION OF MIND. WE NOTED THAT THE ADDL. CIT MERELY APPROVED T HE LETTER AND THE RELEVANT IS NOTED IN ABOVE PARAS. WE NOTED THAT THE RELEVANT PARA OF THE ABOVE APPROVAL LETTER MERELY SAYS THAT ' NECESSARY STATUTORY APPROVAL U/S 153D IS GIVEN TO PASS THE ABOVE ASSESSMENT ORDER AS SUCH. ASSESSMENT RECORD IN THIS CASE IS RETURNED HEREWITH ...'WHICH CLEARLY PROVES THAT THE ADDL. CIT HAD ROUTINELY GIVEN APPROVAL TO THE A O TO PASS ITA NO.1573/CHD/2018 A.Y .2016-17 PAGE 18 OF 19 THE ORDER ONLY ON THE BASIS OF CONTENTS MENTIONED I N THE DRAFT ASSESSMENT ORDER WITHOUT ANY APPLICATION OF M IND AND SEIZED MATERIALS WERE NOT LOOKED AT BECAUSE THAT WA S NOT AVAILABLE BEFORE HIM AT THE TIME OF GRANTING OF APP ROVAL TO THE DRAFT ASSESSMENT ORDER AND OTHER ENQUIRY AND EXAMINATION WAS NEVER CARRIED OUT. FROM THE SAID AP PROVAL, IT CAN BE EASILY INFERRED THAT THE SAID ORDER WAS A PPROVED, SOLELY RELYING UPON THE IMPLIED UNDERTAKING OBTAINE D FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE FORM OF DRAFT ASSESSME NT ORDER THAT AO HAS TAKEN DUE CARE WHILE FRAMING RESPECTIVE DRAFT ASSESSMENT ORDERS AND THAT ALL THE OBSERVATIONS MAD E IN THE APPRAISAL REPORT RELATING TO EXAMINATION / INVESTIG ATION OF SEIZED MATERIAL AND ISSUES UNEARTHED DURING SEARCH HAVE BEEN STATEDLY CONSIDERED BY THE AO SEEKING APPROVAL . THUS, THE SANCTIONING AUTHORITY HAS, IN EFFECT, ABDICATED HIS STATUTORY FUNCTIONS AND DELIGHTFULLY RELEGATED HIS STATUTORY DUTY TO THE SUBORDINATE AO, WHOSE ACTION THE ADDITI ONAL CIT, WAS SUPPOSED TO SUPERVISE. THE ADDL. CIT IN SH ORT APPEARS TO HAVE ADOPTED A SHORT CUT IN THE MATTER A ND AN UNDERTAKING FROM AO WAS CONSIDERED ADEQUATE BY HIM TO ACCORD APPROVAL IN ALL ASSESSMENTS INVOLVED. MANIFE STLY, THE ADDITIONAL CIT, WITHOUT ANY CONSIDERATION OF MERITS IN PROPOSED ADDITIONS WITH REFERENCE TO INCRIMINATING MATERIAL COLLECTED IN SEARCH ETC. HAS PROCEEDED TO GRANT A S IMPLICITOR ITA NO.1573/CHD/2018 A.Y .2016-17 PAGE 19 OF 19 APPROVAL. THIS APPROACH OF THE ADDITIONAL CIT, CENT RAL HAS RENDERED THE APPROVAL TO BE A MERE FORMALITY AND CA N NOT BE CONSIDERED AS ACTUAL APPROVAL IN LAW. HENCE, WE QUA SH THE ASSESSMENT FRAMED U/S 153A OF THE ACT ON THIS ADDIT IONAL GROUND ALONE. 16. NEEDLESS TO SAY THAT WE NEED NOT TO ADJUDICATE THE GROUNDS RAISED ON MERITS BY THE ASSESSEE AS WE HAVE ALREADY QUASHED THE ASSESSMENT ON JURISDICTIONAL ISSUE THAT THE STATUTORY APPROVAL GRANTED U/S 153D IS WITHOUT APPL ICATION OF MINE BY THE ADDL.CIT, 17. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWE D. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 07.06.2021. SD/- SD/- (N.K. SAINI) (MA HAVIR SINGH) VICE PRESIDENT VICE PRESIDENT DATED: 07 TH JUNE, 2021 * * *+ ,+ / 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. /3 / GUARD FILE ' / BY ORDER, / ASSISTANT REGISTRAR