Usaka Electricals, Parwanoo V. DCIT Circle, Parwanoo

ITA 183/CHANDI/2020

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 107 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9339 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-06-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 27-05-2021
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 20-02-2020
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ASHOK KHANNA CIT
• Keywords: Condonation of delay
• Section: 201; 80IC; 80IC

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH SMC CHANDIGARH !', # BEFORE: SMT. DIVA SINGH, JM ./ ITA NO. 183/CHD/2020 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2014-15 M/S USAKA ELECTRICALS, PLOT NO. 30, SECTOR 1, PARWANOO. VS THE DCIT, CIRCLE, PARWANOO. ./ PAN NO: AABFU6800B / APPELLANT / RESPONDENT ! ' / ASSESSEE BY : SHRI SURINDER BABBAR, C.A. # ! ' / REVENUE BY : SHRI ASHOK KHANNA, ADDL. CIT $ % ! &/ DATE OF HEARING : 27.05.2021 '()* ! &/ D ATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 10.06.2021 HEARING CONDUCTED VIA WEBEX $%/ ORDER THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WHEREIN THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER DATED 27.09.2017 OF CIT(A) , SHIMLA PERTAINING TO 2014-15 ASSESSMENT YEAR IS ASSAILED O N THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS : 1. THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. A.O. IS WRONG, AGAINST FA CTS AND SPECIFIC PROVISIONS OF LAW. 2. THAT THE LD. A.O. HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN NOT ALLOWING 100% DEDUCTION TO THE ASSESSEE AS CLAIMED U/S 80IC OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 AND HE NEE THE DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION OF RS. 39540 58 IS WHOLLY UNJUSTIFIED AND UNSUSTAINABLE. 3. THE LD. A.O IS WRONG IN GIVING A NEW DEFINITE ON AN D INTERPRETATION OF VARIOUS PROVISIONS OF SECTION 80IC OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 AND HOLDIN G THAT ONLY INDUSTRIAL UNITS EXISTING AT THE TIME OF ENACTMENT ARE ELIGIBLE TO UNDERTAKE SUBSTAN TIAL EXPANSION AS AGAINST THE NEW INDUSTRIAL UNITS. ITA-183/CHD/2020 A.Y. 2014-15 PAGE 2 OF 8 4. THAT THE LD. A.O: IS NOT AT ALL JUSTIFIED IN INVOKI NG THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 271(1) (C) FOR INITIATING THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS. 5. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD ANY OTHER GR OUND OF APPEAL OR AMEND ANY OF THE AFORESAID GROUNDS BEFORE THE DISPOSAL OF THE APPEAL . 2. HOWEVER, BEFORE ADDRESSING THE GROUNDS RAISED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL, IT IS NECESSARY TO ADDRESS DELAY OF 808 DAY S POINTED OUT BY THE REGISTRY IN THE FILING OF THE PRESENT APPEAL. 3. THE LD. AR RELYING UPON THE CONDONATION OF DELAY APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED BY THE AFFIDAVIT FI LED BY THE COUNSEL HIMSELF SUBMITTED THAT THE DELAY HAS OCCURRED ON AC COUNT OF LAPSE AT HIS OFFICE. THE ASSESSEE HAD AS STATED AND ARGUED H ANDED OVER A DULY SIGNED APPEAL SET WELL WITHIN TIME TO THE COUNSEL A PPOINTED. THE OFFICE STAFF, IT HAS BEEN STATED HAD PUT IT IN A FO LDER AND THE SAME REMAINED THEREIN. IT IS ONLY WHEN THE COUNSEL, IT HAS BEEN STATED LOOKING TO THE FILE WHILE ATTENDING TO SOME OTHER W ORK THAT HE NOTICED THE DULY SIGNED APPEAL SET IN THE SAID FILE. THE M ISTAKE COMMITTED AT THE COUNSELS OFFICE, IT HAS BEEN STATED WAS INADVE RTENT AND IMMEDIATELY ON THE DISCOVERY OF THESE DOCUMENTS PEN DING, THESE HAVE BEEN FILED BEFORE THE ITAT. AFFIDAVIT TO THIS EFFE CT HAS BEEN FILED ON RECORD AND HAS BEEN HEAVILY RELIED UPON. THE SAME I S REPRODUCED HEREUNDER : I, SURINDER BABBAR, FCA, S/O LATE SH. HARI SINGH BABB AR OF BABBAR & CO., CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS OF BABBAR BHAWAN, GREEN TOWER, SECTOR-1 , PARWANOO-173220, DISTT. SOLAN (HP), DO HEREBY SOLEMNLY DECLARE AND AFFIRM AS UNDE R: ITA-183/CHD/2020 A.Y. 2014-15 PAGE 3 OF 8 1. THAT UNDERSIGNED IS THE CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT OF THE APPELLANT ASSESSEE M/S USAKA ELECTRICALS, PARWANOO AND ALL THE ACCOUNTS AND OTHER INCOME TAX MATTERS OF THE ABOVE SAID ASSESSEE, INCLUDING THE INCOME TAX APPEALS, AR E HANDLED BY THE UNDERSIGNED. 2. THAT FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15, THE UNDERSIGNED PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) SHIMLA AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. DCIT, C IRCLE PARWANOO. THAT THE LD. CIT(A), SHIMLA IN I APPEAL NO. IT/243/16-17/SML HAD PASSED THE ORDER IN THE AFOREMENTIONED APPEAL ON 27/09/2017 WHICH WAS SERVED UPON THE ASSE SSEE ON 05/10/2017. THEREFORE, THE APPEAL WAS TO BE FILED THROUGH ME BY 04/12/2017. 3. THAT THE INCOME TAX APPEAL IN RESPECT OF THE APPELL ANT ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15 AGAINST THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A), SHIMLA WAS PREPARED BY ME AND SENT FOR SIGNATURES TO THE ASSESSEE ON 30/11/2017. THE SIGNE D APPEAL WAS DULY HANDED BACK IN MY OFFICE WELL BEFORE THE LAST DAY OF LIMITATION. 4. THAT AFTER RECEIVING THE SIGNED APPEAL PAPERS, MY S TAFF MEMBER PUT THE APPEAL PAPERS IN THE FOLDER OF THE ASSESSEE AND I WAS UNDER THE IMPR ESSION THAT THE SAME HAS SINCE BEEN FILED BEFORE THE HON'BLE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBU NAL, CHANDIGARH. 5. THAT LATER ON, WHEN I WAS CHECKING THE FILES OF THE APPELLANT-ASSESSEE FOR SOME OTHER WORK, I FOUND THAT THE APPEAL DOCUMENTS ARE LYING I N THE FILE AND HAVE NOT BEEN FILED BEFORE THIS HON'BLE COURT. THEREFORE, THE APPEAL WH ICH WAS TO BE FILED BY 04/12/2017 COULD NOT BE FILED. HENCE, DUE TO BONA-FIDE MISTAKE OF THE UNDERSIGNED I.E. COUNSEL OF THE APPELLANT ASSESSEE, DELAY OF 808 DAYS HAS OCCURRED WHICH IS UNINTENTIONAL AND BEYOND THE CONTROL OF APPELLANT. 6. THAT WHATEVER PREJUDICE HAS BEEN CAUSED TO THE APPE LLANT M/S USAKA ELECTRICALS, IS DUE TO BONA-FIDE MISTAKE OF THE UNDERSIGNED FOR WHICH T HE APPELLANT SHOULD NOT SUFFER AND CONDONING THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL WILL NOT C AUSE ANY PREJUDICE TO THE REVENUE AND APPELLANT IS NOT TO GET BENEFITTED BY CAUSING DELAY AND CONDONING THE DELAY WILL (E THE CAUSE OF JUSTICE AND MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE. 4. THE LD. DR WAS REQUIRED TO MAKE HIS SUBMISSIONS. ON CONSIDERING THE APPLICATION AND THE AFFIDAVIT, LD. SR.DR HAD NO OBJECTION TO THE CONDONATION OF DELAY. IT NEED BE REFERRED THAT SUBMISSIONS TO THIS EFFECT WERE MADE ON 18.05.2021 WHICH THE LD. SR.DR HAD NOT OPPOSED. HOWEVER, ON MERITS, THE LD. AR NEEDED TO VERIFY SOME FACTS AND THE HEARING WAS ADJOURNED TO 25.05.2021. HOWEVER, ON THE SAID DATE, THE DEPARTMENTAL RESPONS E TO THE CONDONATION OF DELAY APPLICATION WAS NOT SPECIFICAL LY ADDRESSED. IN ITA-183/CHD/2020 A.Y. 2014-15 PAGE 4 OF 8 VIEW THEREOF, THE APPEAL WAS FIXED FOR HEARING ON 2 7.05.2021 WITH THE FOLLOWING NOTING : 25.05.2021 PRESENT FOR ASSESSEE : SHRI SURINDER BA BBAR, C.A. PRESENT FOR DEPTT. : SHRI ASHOK KHANNA, ADDL. C IT HEARING VIA WEBEX THE PARTIES DIRECTED TO ARGUE DELAY OF 808 DAYS ON WHICH LD. AR HAD ARGUED ON 18 TH MAY, 2021. LD. SR.DR TO RESPOND. PARTIES OVERLOO KING THIS LEGAL INFIRMITY CONCLUDED THE ARGUMENTS ON MER IT. FIXED FOR THIS LIMITED PURPOSE TO HAVE THE RESPONSE OF THE DEPARTM ENT. ADJ TO 27 TH MAY, 2021. SD/- (DIVA SINGH ) J.M. 5. THE LD. SR.DR WAS REQUIRED TO ADDRESS THE DELAY OF 808 DAYS POINTED OUT BY THE REGISTRY. CONSIDERING THE APPLI CATION ON RECORD SUPPORTED BY THE AFFIDAVIT OF THE COUNSEL, LD. SR.D R STATED THAT HE HAD NO OBJECTION TO THE DELAY BEING CONDONED. 6. I HAVE HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MAT ERIAL ON RECORD. I FIND THAT IN THE PECULIAR FACTS AND CIRC UMSTANCES WHERE IT IS AN UNREBUTTED FACT THAT THE SIGNED DOCUMENTS IN APP EAL RECEIVED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNSEL REQUIRED TO BE FILED BEFO RE THE ITAT REMAINED IN THE FILE ON ACCOUNT OF MISTAKE ETC. COMMITTED BY THE STAFF OF THE LD. ARS OFFICE WHICH HAVE BEEN FILED LATE AND THIS DEL AY HAS BEEN FLAGGED BY THE REGISTRY. IN THESE FACTS, IT IS EMINENTLY E VIDENT THAT AS FAR AS THE ASSESSEE IS CONCERNED, THERE WERE NO LAPSES. A N ASSESSEE HAVING SIGNED THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL ETC. AND AFTER HAVI NG ENGAGED THE COUNSEL, MADE IT AVAILABLE TO THE COUNSEL FOR FILIN G OF ITS APPEAL CAN BE ITA-183/CHD/2020 A.Y. 2014-15 PAGE 5 OF 8 SAID TO HAVE FULLY DISCHARGED ITS ONUS AS ALL THAT WAS NECESSARY TO BE DONE FOR THE FILING OF THE APPEAL ETC. HAD DULY BEE N DONE. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE DELAY ADMITTEDLY SO FAR AS THE A SSESSEE IS CONCERNED HAS OCCURRED FOR REASONS BEYOND THE CONTR OL OF THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, AFTER ADVISING THE COUNSEL TO BE MORE CONSCIOUS AND VIGILANT QUA HIS OFFICE STAFF IN THE PERFORMANCE OF THE DUTIES ENTRUSTED TO THE COUNSEL, IT IS DEEMED APPRO PRIATE THAT ON CONSIDERATION OF THE FACTS WHICH ARE NOT OPPOSED OR REBUTTED BY THE REVENUE, THE DELAY DESERVES TO BE CONDONED. ORDERE D ACCORDINGLY. 7. THE LD. AR ADDRESSING THE FACTS SUBMITTED THAT T HE FACTUM OF SUBSTANTIAL EXPANSION HAVE BEEN CARRIED OUT IN 2010 -11 ASSESSMENT YEAR. IT HAS BEEN ARGUED THAT THIS HAS BEEN EXAMIN ED AND ALLOWED BY THE DEPARTMENT IN THE EARLIER YEARS.ELABORATING HIS SUBMISSION, IT WAS STATED THAT 100% DEDUCTION HAS BEEN CLAIMED AND ALLOWED BY THE AO TO THE ASSESSEE EXAMINING THESE VERY FACTS AND C IRCUMSTANCES RIGHT UPTO 2013-14 ASSESSMENT YEAR.ATTENTION WAS IN VITED TO THE ORDER OF THE ITAT DATED 28.02.2018 WHEREIN VIDE ITA 1208/ CHD/2017 THE MATTER WAS REMANDED BACK TO THE AO TO VERIFY AND GR ANT NECESSARY RELIEF. IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, IT WAS H IS SUBMISSION THAT SINCE THE AO HAS GRANTED 100% DEDUCTION ON CARRYING OUT OF THE SUBSTANTIAL EXPANSION IN 2010-11 ASSESSMENT YEAR, A CCORDINGLY, THUS NO VERIFICATION IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION IS REQUIRED TO BE MADE. ITA-183/CHD/2020 A.Y. 2014-15 PAGE 6 OF 8 RELIEF, IT WAS SUBMITTED, WAS MAINTAINABLE IN TERMS OF THE DECISION OF THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF PR. CIT VS AARAHAM SOFTRONICS (2019) 412 ITR 623 (S.C). 8. THE LD. DR IN THE FACE OF THE LEGAL POSITION HAD NO OBJECTION, HOWEVER, SINCE THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS ALLOWING RELIE F WERE NOT AVAILABLE ON RECORD, IT WAS HIS SUBMISSION THAT THE FACT THAT IN ALL THE INTERVENING YEARS, DEDUCTION @ 100% HAS BEEN ALLOWE D MAY BE VERIFIED BY THE AO. 9. NO OBJECTION TO THE SAID VERIFICATION WAS POSED BY THE LD. AR. 10. I HAVE HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MA TERIAL ON RECORD. IT IS SEEN THAT THE ISSUE OF GRANT OF 100% DEDUCTION U/S 80IC ON CARRYING OUT THE SUBSTANTIAL EXPANSION HAS BEEN AN AREA OF EXAMINATION AND CONSIDERATION BEFORE THE APEX COURT WHEREIN THE DECISION TAKEN IN THE CASE OF CIT VS M/S CLASSIC BINDING INDUSTRIES & ORS. IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7208 AND OTHERS OF 2018 DA TED 20.08.2018 HAS BEEN RE-CONSIDERED IN THE CASE OF PCIT SHIMLA V S M/S AARHAM SOFTRONICS & OTHERS IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1784 OF 201 9 DATED 20.02.2019. THE HON'BLE APEX COURT WAS PLEASED TO H OLD THEREIN AS UNDER : 22. IT WOULD BE PERTINENT TO POINT OUT THAT IN PAR A 20 OF THE JUDGMENT IN CLASSIC BINDING INDUSTRIES, THIS COURT OBSERVED THAT IF DEDUCTION @ 100% FOR THE ENTIRE PERIOD OF 10 YEARS, IT WOULD BE DOING VIOLENCE TO THE LANGUAGE OF SUB-SECT ION (6) OF SECTION 80-IC. HOWEVER, THIS OBSERVATION CAME WITHOUT NOTICING THE DEFINITION OF INITIAL ASSESSMENT YEAR CONTAINED IN THE SAME VERY PROVISION. ITA-183/CHD/2020 A.Y. 2014-15 PAGE 7 OF 8 23. HAVING EXAMINED THE MATTER IN THE AFORESAID PERSPECTIVE, JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF MAHABIR INDUSTRIES V. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INC OME TAX WOULD, IN FACT, HELP THE ASSESSEE. THE FINE DISTINCTION POINTED OUT IN CLASS IC BINDING INDUSTRIES ELOPES THEREBY. TO RECAPITULATE, IN MAHABIR INDUSTRIES, IT WAS HELD TH AT IF AN ASSESSEE GET 100% 2 CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 4765-4766 OF 2018 DECIDED ON MAY 18, 2018 24 EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 80-IB OF THE ACT FOR FIVE YEARS AND THEREAFTER CARRIES OUT THE S UBSTANTIAL EXPANSION BECAUSE OF WHICH SAID ASSESSEE BECOMES ENTITLED TO EXEMPTION UNDER THE NE W PROVISION I.E. SECTION 80-IC OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSEE WOULD BE ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION @ 100% EVEN AFTER FIVE YEARS. THIS RULING WAS PREDICATED ON THE GROUND THAT THERE CAN BE TWO INIT IAL ASSESSMENT YEARS, ONE FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECTION 80-IB AND OTHER FOR THE PURPOSES OF SECT ION 80-IC OF THE ACT. ONCE WE FIND THAT THERE CAN BE TWO INITIAL ASSESSMENT YEARS, EVEN AS PER THE DEFINITION THEREOF IN SECTION 80-IC ITSELF, THE LEGAL POSITION COMES AT PAR WITH THE ON E WHICH WAS DISCUSSED IN MAHABIR INDUSTRIES. 24. THE AFORESAID DISCUSSION LEADS US TO THE FOL LOWING CONCLUSIONS: (A) JUDGMENT DATED 20TH AUGUST, 2018 IN CLASSIC BIN DING INDUSTRIES CASE OMITTED TO TAKE NOTE OF THE DEFINITION INITIAL ASSESSMENT YEAR CO NTAINED IN SECTION 80-IC ITSELF AND INSTEAD BASED ITS CONCLUSION ON THE DEFINITION CONTAINED IN SECTION 80-IB, WHICH DOES NOT APPLY IN THESE CASES. THE DEFINITIONS OF INITIAL ASSESSMENT YEAR IN THE TWO SECTIONS, VIZ. SECTIONS 80- IB AND 80-IC ARE MATERIALLY DIFFERENT. THE DEFINITI ON OF INITIAL ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER SECTION 80-IC HAS MADE ALL THE DIFFERENCE. THEREFOR E, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE AFORESAID JUDGMENT DOES NOT LAY DOWN THE CORRECT LA W. (B) AN UNDERTAKING OR AN ENTERPRISE WHICH HAD SET U P A NEW UNIT BETWEEN 7TH JANUARY, 2003 AND 1ST APRIL, 2012 IN STATE OF HIMACHAL 25 PRADESH OF THE NATURE MENTIONED IN CLAUSE (II) OF SUB-SECTION (2) OF SECTION 80-IC, WOULD BE ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION AT THE RATE OF 100% OF THE PROFITS AND GAINS FOR FIVE ASSESSMENT YEARS COMMENC ING WITH THE INITIAL ASSESSMENT YEAR. FOR THE NEXT FIVE YEARS, THE ADMISSIBLE DEDUCTION W OULD BE 25% (OR 30% WHERE THE ASSESSEE IS A COMPANY) OF THE PROFITS AND GAINS. (C) HOWEVER, IN CASE SUBSTANTIAL EXPANSION IS CARRI ED OUT AS DEFINED IN CLAUSE (IX) OF SUB- SECTION (8) OF SECTION 80-IC BY SUCH AN UNDERTAKING OR ENTERPRISE, WITHIN THE AFORESAID PERIOD OF 10 YEARS, THE SAID PREVIOUS YEAR IN WHICH THE SUBSTANTIAL EXPANSION IS UNDERTAKEN WOULD BECOME INITIAL ASSESSMENT YEAR, AND FROM TH AT ASSESSMENT YEAR THE ASSESSEE SHALL BEEN ENTITLED TO 100% DEDUCTIONS OF THE PROFITS AND GAINS. (D) SUCH DEDUCTION, HOWEVER, WOULD BE FOR A TOTAL P ERIOD OF 10 YEARS, AS PROVIDED IN SUB- SECTION (6). FOR EXAMPLE, IF THE EXPANSION IS CARRI ED OUT IMMEDIATELY, ON THE COMPLETION OF FIRST FIVE YEARS, THE ASSESSEE WOULD BE ENTITLED TO 100% DEDUCTION AGAIN FOR THE NEXT FIVE YEARS. ON THE OTHER HAND, IF SUBSTANTIAL EXPANSION IS UNDERTAKEN, SAY, IN 8TH YEAR BY AN ASSESSEE SUCH AN ASSESSEE WOULD BE ENTITLED TO 100% DEDUCTION FOR THE FIRST FIVE YEARS, DEDUCTION @ 25% OF THE PROFITS AND GAINS FOR THE NE XT TWO YEARS AND @ 100% AGAIN FROM 8TH YEAR AS THIS YEAR BECOMES INITIAL ASSESSMENT Y EAR ONCE AGAIN. 26 HOWEVER, THIS 100% DEDUCTION WOULD BE FOR REMAINING THREE YEARS, I.E., 8TH, 9TH AND 10TH ASSESSMENT YEARS. 25. IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID, WE AFFIRM THE JUDGMEN T OF THE HIGH COURT ON THIS ISSUE AND DISMISS ALL THESE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE. LIKEWISE, APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEES ARE HEREBY ALLOWED. ITA-183/CHD/2020 A.Y. 2014-15 PAGE 8 OF 8 11. THUS, IT IS SEEN THE LEGAL ISSUE ON THE ALLOWAB ILITY OF 100% DEDUCTION IN CARRYING OUT SUBSTANTIAL EXPANSION, TH E APEX COURT HAS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, ON FAC TS WHETHER THE AO HAS ALLOWED RELIEF OVER THE YEARS ON THE SUBSTANTIA L EXPANSION CARRIED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE IN 2010-11 ASSESSMENT YEAR, THE ISSUE IS REMANDED BACK TO THE AO TO VERIFY THE FACTS AND GRA NT NECESSARY RELIEF IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. SAID ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED AT THE TIME OF VIRTUAL HEARING ITSELF IN THE PRESENCE OF THE PARTI ES VIA WEBEX. 12 IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 10 TH JUNE,2021. SD/- ( !' ) (DIVA SINGH) # / JUDICIAL MEMBER ' ( / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT 3. / CIT4. ( )/ THE CIT(A) 5. , , / DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH6. / GUARD FILE 2. 1 / BY ORDER, / ASSISTANT REGISTRAR