Smt. Parkash Devi, Ludhiana V. ITO, Ludhiana

ITA 166/CHANDI/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 80894 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-09-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 22-09-2014
• Assessment Year: 2002-2003
• Appeal Filed On: 17-02-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DR AMA RVEER SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: ASHOK JUNEJA
• Keywords: Gift; Onus to prove
• Section: 68

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH SMC CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI T.R.SOOD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 165/CHD/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2002-03 SHRI RAJAT GUPTA, V THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, C/O S.GUPTA PIPES, WARD 1(3), D-183, PHASE-VI, LUDHIANA. FOCAL POINT, LUDHIANA, PAN: AGHPG3278R & ITA NO. 166/CHD/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2002-03 SMT. PARKASH DEVI, V THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, C/O S.GUPTA PIPES, WARD 1(3), D-183, PHASE-VI LUDHIANA. FOCAL POINT, LUDHIANA, PAN: ABGPG2212F (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI ASHOK JUNEJA RESPONDENT BY : DR. AMARVEER SINGH DATE OF HEARING : 22 ND SEPT.,2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 25 TH SEPT.,2014 O R D E R PER BHAVNESH SAINI,JM THIS ORDER SHALL DISPOSE OF BOTH THE ABOVE APPEALS FILED BY DIFFERENT ASSESSEES AGAINST THE DIFFERENT ORDERS OF LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-II LUDHIANA DA TED 17.12.2013 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03 AND 19.12.20 13 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03. 2 2. IN BOTH THE APPEALS THE ISSUE IS COMMON REGARDIN G ADDITION MADE OF RS. 2,50,500/- EACH ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED GIFT RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEES. 3. WE HAVE HEARD LD. REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH THE PA RTIES, PERUSED THE FINDINGS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW AND CONSI DERED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. BOTH THE PARTIES MAI NLY ARGUED IN THE CASE OF SMT. PARKASH DEVI AND SUBMITTED THAT TH E ISSUE AND FACTS ARE IDENTICAL IN OTHER APPEAL OF SHRI RAJAT G UPTA AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ORDER IN THE CASE OF SMT. PARKAS H DEVI MAY BE FOLLOWED IN THE CASE OF SHRI RAJAT GUPTA. FOR T HE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE, NOW WE TAKE UP THE APPEAL IN THE CASE OF SMT. PARKASH DEVI. ITA 166/CHD/2014 ( SMT. PARKASH DEVI) 4. BRIEFLY, THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT IN THIS CASE THE INFORMATION WAS RECEIVED THAT ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED AN ACCOMMODATION ENTRY OF RS. 2,50,500/- FROM MR. ROHI T RANA IN THE NAME OF GIFT. THE ASSESSMENT WAS RE-OPENED. T HE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE DON OR MR. ROHIT RANA, RESIDENT OF PAHAR GANJ, NEW DELHI HAD GIFTED A SUM OF RS.2,50,000/- TO THE ASSESSEE OUT OF LOVE AND AFFEC TION. THE GIFT WAS GIVEN THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL AND DONOR HAS FIL ED AFFIDAVIT TO THAT EFFECT AND ASSESSED THE TAX ALSO. THE ASSE SSING OFFICER DIRECTED THE ASSESSEE TO INTIMATE HER RELATIONS WIT H THE DONOR, OCCASION OF THE GIFT AND PRODUCE THE DONOR FOR VERI FICATION AND EXAMINATION AT THE ASSESSMENT STAGE. THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT DONOR IS A FAMILY FRIEND AND HAD GIVEN GIFT OUT OF NATURAL LOVE AND AFFECTION. THE OCCASION OF 3 THE GIFT WAS DIWALI FESTIVAL. THE ASSESSING OFFICE R FOUND THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE TO BE INCORRECT BECAUSE GIFT WAS GIVEN ON 09.11.2001 SO AS THE ASSESSEE COULD ENCASH THE G IFT WELL BEFORE DIWALI. THE DONOR WAS NOT PRODUCED BEFORE A SSESSING OFFICER FOR EXAMINATION AND VERIFICATION. THE ASSE SSING OFFICER, IN THE ABSENCE OF PRODUCTION OF THE DONOR BEFORE HI M, NOTED THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE OF DONOR SHRI ROHIT RANA, THE CONTENTS OF AFFIDAVIT AND GIFT DEED ARE NOT VER IFIABLE. RELATIONS OF THE DONOR WITH THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT BE ESTABLISHED. NO OTHER INSTANCES THAT THE DONOR HAD EVER GIVEN ANY GIFT TO ANY OTHER PERSON OR THE FAMILY MEMBERS HAVE BEEN ESTABLISHED. ON GOING THROUGH THE COPY OF THE BANK STATEMENT OF THE DONOR, HIS CAPACITY TO GIVE GIFT WAS NOT EST ABLISHED BECAUSE AFTER EXCLUDING THE AMOUNT OF THE GIFT OF R S. 2,50,000/- , THE BALANCE LEFT IN THE ACCOUNT OF THE DONOR WAS RS. 596.75 ONLY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER RELIED UPON DECISIONS OF HON'BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF LAL CHAN D KALRA VS CIT 22 STR 135, CIT VS MONICA OSWAL ETC. 267 ITR 30 8 AND HELD THAT ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO PROVE GENUINE GIFT IN THE MATTER AND ACCORDINGLY MADE ADDITION OF RS. 2,50,000/-. 5. THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ADDITION BEFORE COMM ISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF I NCOME TAX (APPEALS) CONFIRMED THE ADDITION AND DISMISSED APPE AL OF ASSESSEE AND ALSO FOUND THAT ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED ALLEGED GIFT FROM THE STRANGER AND IN THAT CASE ALSO THE CREDIT WORTHINESS OF THE DONOR HAS NOT BEEN PROVED. LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) RELIED UPON SEVERAL DECISIONS IN SUPPORT OF HIS FINDING TO PROVE THAT GIFT WAS NOT GENUINE. 4 6. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUBM ISSIONS MADE BEFORE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND FILED COPIES OF S EVERAL DECISIONS IN THE PAPER BOOK IN SUPPORT OF THE CONTE NTION THAT GIFT IS GENUINE. ON THE OTHER HAND, LEARNED DR REL IED UPON ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND RELIED UPON DEC ISION OF THE HON'BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SMT. USHA RANI VS CIT 301 ITR 121 AND ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE CASE LAWS RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE ARE CLEARLY DISTINGUISH ABLE AND ARE NOT RELEVANT TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE. 7. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND MAT ERIAL ON RECORD. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE ASSESSEE ALL EGEDLY RECEIVED GIFT FROM THE DONOR OF RS. 2,50,000/-. THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER WANTED TO VERIFY THE GENUINENESS OF THE GIFT IN THE MATTER AND ACCORDINGLY DIRECTED THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN RELATI ONSHIP WITH THE DONOR AND OCCASION OF THE GIFT. DONOR WAS ALSO DIRECTED TO BE PRODUCED BUT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO DO SO. THER E IS NO RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ASSESSEE AND THE DONOR AND IT WAS MERELY CLAIMED THAT DONOR WAS A FAMILY FRIEND. THE ASSESSE E IS RESIDENT OF LUDHIANA WHEREAS THE DONOR IS RESIDENT OF PAHAR GANJ, NEW DELHI AND NOTHING IS PROVED ON RECORD AS TO WHAT FO R THE DONOR WAS VISITING LUDHIANA WITHOUT HAVING ANY RELATION W ITH THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO SPECIFICALLY NOTED THAT THOUGH THE GIFT WAS STATED TO BE RECEIVED ON DIWALI FESTIVAL, BUT THE ASSESSEE COULD HAVE ENCASHED THE GIFT WELL BEFO RE THE DIWALI. THEREFORE, NO RELATION AND OCCASION FOR GIVING GIFT HAVE BEEN PROVED. THUS, THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PRODUCE SUFFIC IENT EVIDENCES BEFORE ASSESSING OFFICER TO PROVE GENUINE NESS OF THE GIFT IN THE MATTER. FURTHER, WHEN THE ASSESSING OF FICER WANTED 5 TO EXAMINE THE GENUINENESS OF THE GIFT, AFFIDAVIT A ND GIFT DEED IN THE MATTER AND DIRECTED THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE THE DONOR BEFORE HIM FOR EXAMINATION, THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PRODUCE THE DONOR BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR EXAMINATION AND AS SUCH THE GIFT DEED AND AFFIDAVIT WOULD NOT BE SUBJECT TO VERIFICATION. THE AFFIDAVIT OF THE DONOR IS LIKE AN EXAMINATION-I N-CHIEF AND UNLESS AND UNTIL THE DEPONENT OF THE AFFIDAVIT IS C ROSS EXAMINED BY THE OPPOSITE PARTY, IT WOULD NOT TAKE THE CHARAC TER OF THE EVIDENCE IN LAW. THUS, WHATEVER CONTENTION WAS RAI SED BY THE ASSESSEE, WAS NOT AT ALL SUFFICIENT TO PROVE THE GE NUINENESS OF THE GIFT IN THE MATTER. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FAIL ED TO EXPLAIN THE NATURE AND PURPOSE OF THE GIFT AND NO LOVE AND AFFECTION HAS ALSO BEEN PROVED. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE O R RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD, ASSESSING OFFICER HAS CORRECTLY TREATED THE GIFT TO BE NON-GENUINE. THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE ALSO SPECIFICALLY RECORDED THE FINDING OF FACT THAT THE CASE WAS REOPENED BECAUSE SPECIFIC INFORMATION WAS RECEIVED OF TAKING ACCOMMODATION ENTRY THROUGH BANK IN THE SHAPE OF TH E GIFTS. THE ALLEGATIONS OF THE REVENUE HAVE NOT BEEN REBUTT ED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ANY MANNER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO SPECIFICALLY NOTED THAT AFTER GIVING THE AMOUNT OF THE GIFT FROM THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE DONOR, ON THE DATE OF THE ALLEGED GI FT, THE CREDIT BALANCE OF RS. 596.75 IS LEFT IN THE ACCOUNT OF THE DONOR. THUS, THE CREDIT WORTHINESS OF THE DONOR IS ALSO NOT PROV ED. MERE FILING OF AFFIDAVIT OR GIFT DEED WOULD NOT PROVE TH E IDENTITY OF THE DONOR AND HIS CREDIT WORTHINESS AND SOURCE OF MAKIN G THE GIFT. THEREFORE, NO EVIDENCE OF IDENTITY AND CREDIT WORTH INESS OF THE DONOR WERE FILED BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. NO EVIDENCE OR MATERIAL SHOWING ANY LOVE AND AFFECTION HAS BEEN 6 FILED BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. MERELY BECAUSE GIFTS WERE MADE THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL WOULD NOT PROVE GENUIN ENESS OF THE GIFT IN THE MATTER. THUS, THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PROVE ALL THE BASIC INGREDIENTS OF GENUINE GIFT IN THE MATTER. S INCE, NO SPECIFIC EVIDENCES HAVE BEEN FILED BEFORE THE AUTHO RITIES BELOW TO PROVE GENUINENESS OF THE GIFT IN THE MATTER, THE REFORE, IT IS CLEAR THAT GIFT IN THE MATTER IS NOT GENUINE GIFT A ND IS ARRANGED AFFAIR OF THE ASSESSEE. 8. THE HON'BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE C ASE OF SMT. USHA RANI V CIT 301 ITR 121 HELD AS UNDER : THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAD DISBELIEVED RECEIPT OF GIFTS. THERE WAS NOTHING ON RECORD TO SHOW THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE DONOR AND THE DONEE, CAPACITY OF THE DONOR TO MAKE GIFTS AND THE OCCASIO N THEREFORE. THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO DISCHARGE TH E ONUS TO PROVE THE GIFTS. THE RE-ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WERE VALID. 9. THE HON'BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE C ASE OF CIT V UDHAM SINGH AND SONS 365 ITR 137 HELD AS UNDE R : HELD, ALLOWING THE APPEAL, THAT THE DONOR HAD VERY CLOSE RELATIONS IN INDIA BUT MADE NO GIFT TO ANY OF HIS SUCH RELATIVES. THERE WAS NO OCCASION FOR MAKING THE GIFT TO THE ASSESSEE. THERE WAS NO EXPLAINABLE RELATIONSHIP OF THE GIFT WITH THE DONEE . THOUGH THE DONOR HAD BEEN COMING TO INDIA HE HAD NOT BEEN CONNECTED WITH THE ASSESSEE BUT HAD STAYED WITH THE BROTHER OF HIS FATHER-IN-LAW IN A TOWN. THUS, THE AMOUNT WAS THE ASSESSEE'S OWN MONEY WHICH WAS INTRODUCED BY WAY OF GIFT IN THE NAME OF THE PARTNER FROM A NON-RESIDENT ACCOUNT OF THE DONOR, A DISTANT RELATION OF THE DONEE. 10. HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS ANIL KUMAR 292 ITR 552 HELD AS UNDER : 'IN THE CASE OF GIFTS MERE IDENTIFICATION OF THE DO NOR AND SHOWING THE MOVEMENT OF THE GIFT AMOUNT THROUGH BANKING CHANNELS IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO PROVE 7 THE GENUINENESS OF THE GIFT. SINCE THE CLAIM OF GIF T IS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE, THE ONUS LIES ON HIM NOT ONLY TO ESTABLISH THE IDENTITY OF THE PERSON MAKING THE GIFT BUT ALSO HIS CAPACITY TO MAKE SUCH A GIFT. IN ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1995-96 THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED TWO GIFTS OF RS. 10 LAKHS EAC H FROM N. R. E. ACCOUNTS OF TWO DONORS, NAMELY V AND D. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT DISCHARGE HIS ONUS OF PROVING THE CREDIT- WORTHINESS OF THE DONORS AND HELD THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS.20 LAKHS WHICH HAD BEEN DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE AS GIFT, WAS IN FACT HIS INCOME AND ADDED TO HIS TOTAL INCOME UNDER SECTION 68. THE ADDITION WAS DELETED BY THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) AND THIS WAS UPHELD BY THE TRIBUNAL. ON APPEAL TO THE HIGH COURT: HELD THAT THERE WAS NOTHING ON RECORD TO SHOW AS TO WHAT WAS THE FINANCIAL CAPACITY OF THE DONORS, WHAT WAS THE CREDIT-WORTHINESS OF THE DONORS, WHAT KIND OF RELATIONSHIP THE DONORS HAD WITH THE ASSESSEE, WHAT WERE THE SOURCES OF FUNDS - GIFTED TO THE ASSESSEE AND WHETHER THEY HAD THE CAPACITY OF GIVING LARGE AMOUNTS OF GIFT TO THE ASSESSEE. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO APPEAR IN PERSON BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER, BUT NEVER APPEARED. THE ADDITION OF RS.20 LAKHS WAS JUSTIFIED. 11. THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V S P. MOHANKALA 291 ITR 278 HELD AS UNDER : 'THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED FOREIGN GIFTS FROM ONE COMMON DONOR. THE PAYMENTS WERE MADE TO THEM BY INSTRUMENTS ISSUED BY FOREIGN BANKS AND CREDITED TO THE RESPECTIVE ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEES BY NEGOTIATION THROUGH A BANK IN INDIA. MOST OF THE CHEQUES SENT FROM, ABOARD WERE DRAWN ON THE CITIBANK, N. A. SINGAPORE. THE EVIDENCE INDICATED THAT THE DONOR WAS TO RECEIVE SUITABLE COMPENSATION FROM THE ASSESSEES. ON THIS MATERIAL THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THAT THE GIFTS THOUGH APPARENT WERE NO T REAL AND ACCORDINGLY TREATED ALL THOSE AMOUNTS WHICH WERE CREDITED IN THE ACCOUNT BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEES AS THEIR INCOME APPLYING SECTION 68 OF TH E INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. THE ASSESSEES DID NOT CONTEND THAT EVEN IF THEIR EXPLANATION WAS NOT SATISFACTORY THE AMOUNTS WERE NOT OF THE NATURE OF INCOME. THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) CONFIRMED THE ASSESSMENT. ON FURTHER APPEAL, THERE WAS A DIFFERENCE OF OPINIO N BETWEEN THE TWO MEMBERS OF THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AND THE MATER WAS REFERRED TO THE VICE PRESIDENT WHO CONCURRED WITH THE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS). ON APPEAL THE HIGH COURT RE-APPRECIATED THE EVIDENCE AND SUBSTITUTED ITS OWN FINDINGS AND CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE REASONS ASSIGNED BY THE TRIBUNAL WERE IN THE REALM OF SURMISES, CONJECTURE AND SUSPICION. ON APPEAL TO THE SUPREME COURT: HELD, REVERSING THE DECISION OF HIGH COURT, 8 THAT FINDINGS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) AND THE TRIBUNAL WERE BASED ON THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AND NOT ON ANY CONJECTURES AND SURMISES. THAT THE MONEY CAME BY WAY OF BANK CHEQUES AND WAS PAID THROUGH THE PROCESS OF BANKING TRANSACTION WAS NOT BY ITSELF OF ANY CONSEQUENCE. THE HIGH COURT MISDIRECTED ITSELF AND ERRED IN DISTURBING THE CONCURRENT FINDINGS OF FACT .' 12. HON'BLC PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CA SE OF YASH PAL GOEL VS CIT 310 ITR 75 HELD THAT; 'HELD, DISMISSING THE APPEAL THAT THE FINANCIAL POSITION OF M. SUGGESTED THAT HE NEITHER HAD THE CAPACITY TO MAKE THE GIFT NOR THE SOURCE FROM WHERE THE GIFT WAS MADE. NO REASON WHATSOEVER HAD BEEN ASSIGNED FOR GIFTING SUCH A HUGE AMOUNT BY M TO THE ASSESSEE. M NEVER VISITED THE HOME OF THE ASSESSEE AND HENCE THERE WAS NO LOVE AND AFFECTION. IT WAS NOTHING BUT A SUBTERFUGE TO AVOID INCOME-TAX. THE TRANSACTIONS WERE NOT GENUINE ONES'. 13. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE DISCUSSIONS, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PROVE ANY RELATION WITH THE DONO R AND HIS CREDITWORTHINESS. NO SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OR MATERIA L IS FILED ON RECORD TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE GIFT IN TH E MATTER. MERELY SHOWING GIFT WAS MADE THROUGH BANKING CH ANNEL IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO PROVE GENUINENESS OF THE GIFT IN THE MATTER. HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF DURGA PRASAD M ORE 82 ITR 540 AND IN THE CASE OF SUMATI DAYAL 214 ITR 801 HEL D THAT 'COURTS AND TRIBUNALS HAVE TO JUDGE THE EVIDENCE BE FORE THEM BY APPLYING THE TEST OF HUMAN PROBABILITIES'. IF THE SAID TEST IS APPLIED IN THIS MATTER, IT IS CLEARLY ESTABLISHED T HAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO PROVE GENUINE GIFT IN THE MATTER. LD . COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FILED COPY OF SOME OF THE DECISIONS BU T DID NOT EXPLAIN AS TO HOW THEY ARE RELEVANT TO THE MATTER I N ISSUE. ON GOING THROUGH THE SAME, WE FIND THAT THE SAME ARE C LEARLY DISTINGUISHABLE ON FACTS OF THE CASE AND NONE OF TH E DECISION 9 FILED IN THE PAPER BOOK ARE RELEVANT TO THE MATTER IN ISSUE AND WOULD NOT SUPPORT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. WE HAV E NOT REPRODUCED THE SAME DECISIONS BECAUSE IT WOULD ONLY ENHANCE THE LENGTH OF THIS ORDER AND WOULD NOT YIELD ANY RE SULT IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. 14. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED . ITA 165/CHD/2014 (SHRI RAJAT GUPTA ) 15. BOTH PARTIES HAVE STATED THAT THE ISSUE IS SAME AND ORDER IN THE CASE OF SMT. PARKASH DEVI MAY BE FOLLOWED. CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE, WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE IS SA ME AS IS CONSIDERED IN THE CASE OF SMT. PARKASH DEVI (SUPRA) . FOLLOWING THE ORDER AND REASONS FOR DECISION IN THAT CASE, WE DISMISS THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AS WELL. 16. IN THE RESULT, BOTH APPEALS OF DIFFERENT ASSESS EES ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 25 TH SEPTEMBER,2014. SD/- SD/- (T.R.SOOD) (BHAVNESH SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 25 TH SEPTEMBER,2014. POONAM COPY TO: THE APPELLANT, THE RESPONDENT, THE CIT(A), THE CIT, DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT CHANDIGARH