Sh.Rajinder Mittal, Panchkula V. ACIT, Chandigarh

ITA 238/CHANDI/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0062 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 year(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-03-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 12-02-2019
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 07-03-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: K K MITTAL
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Document seized; Documents seized
• Section: 69C; 142(1); 153A; 68

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH B , CHANDIGARH , !' # $ % &' , BEFORE: SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SMT.ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO.238/CHD/2014 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07 SH. RAJINDER MITTAL, H.NO.666, SECTOR 21, PANCHKULA. THE D.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, CHANDIGARH. ./PAN NO: ABJPM7932R /ASSESSEE BY : SHRI NEERAJ JAIN, CA / REVENUE BY : SHRI K.K. MITTAL, CIT DR ! ' /DATE OF HEARING : 12.02.2019 #$%& ' /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 29.03.2019 /ORDER PER ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN PREFERRED BY THE ASSESS EE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 9.10.2013 OF THE COMMISSION ER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)(CENTRAL), GURGAON [HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS CIT(A)], PASSED U/S 250(6) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT,1961(HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS ACT). 2. BRIEFLY STATED, SEARCH OPERATION U/S 132(1) OF T HE ACT WAS CARRIED OUT ON THE MITTAL GROUP OF CASES ON 16. 1.2009 IN WHICH THE RESIDENTIAL PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ALSO COVERED. THEREAFTER NOTICE U/S 153A OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE IN RESPONSE TO WHICH RETURN DECLARING INCOME OF RS.2,08,940/- WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. NOTICES WE RE ISSUED ITA NO.238/CHD/2014 A.Y.2006-07 2 THEREAFTER FOR ASSESSING THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE U/S 142(1) AND 143(2) OF THE ACT ALONGWITH DETAILED QUESTIONNAIRE. MEANWHILE IT WAS SEEN THAT THE ACCOU NTS OF THE GROUP CONCERN AND THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS WERE COM PLEX IN NATURE AND HENCE IN THE INTEREST OF REVENUE THE CAS E OF THE GROUP INCLUDING THE ASSESSEE WAS REFERRED TO THE SP ECIAL AUDITOR U/S 142(2A) OF THE ACT. THE AUDIT REPORT U/ S 142(2A) WAS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THEREAFTER THE IN COME WAS ASSESSED AT RS.17,93,536/- AFTER MAKING ADDITIO NS U/S 68 OF THE ACT ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH FOUND DEPOSITED IN TWO BANK ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE AMO UNTING TO RS.8,70,000/- AND UNEXPLAINED LOAN OF RS.5,00,00 0/- AND ADDITIONS U/S 69C ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED EXPENSE S EMANATING FROM CERTAIN DOCUMENTS FOUND DURING SEARC H. 3. THE MATTER WAS CARRIED IN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD.C IT(A) WHERE THE ASSESSEE CONTESTED ONLY THE ADDITIONS MAD E U/S 68 OF THE ACT WHICH WERE ALL UPHELD BY THE LD.CIT(A ) ON MERITS HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD BEEN UNABLE TO EXPLAIN THE SAME . 4. AGGRIEVED BY THE SAME THE ASSESSEE HAS COME UP I N APPEAL BEFORE US, RAISING THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. THAT THE ORDER OF LD. COMMISSIONER ON INCOME (AP PEAL) (CENTRAL), GURGAON IS CONTRARY TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND LEGALLY INCORRECT AND WITHOUT ANY BASIS OF PROPER JUSTI FICATION. 2. THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER ON INCOME (APPEAL) (CE NTRAL), GURGAON GROSSLY ERRED AND HIS ACTION IS UNJUSTIFIED AND ILLEGA L IN ADDITION OF RS. 3,70,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDI T U/S 68 ON THE BASIS OF BANK STATEMENT. AS IN REPLIED BY THE A SSESSEE THAT SECTION 68 DID NOT APPLY TO ASSESSEE, ALONG WITH BA NK STATEMENT DID NOT CONSTITUTE ANY BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, BUT LD. C IT (A) IGNORED ITA NO.238/CHD/2014 A.Y.2006-07 3 IT. SO, THIS ADDITION IS HIGHLY UNJUSTIFIED. THEREF ORE, THE ADDITION OF RS. 3,70,000/- IS PRAYED TO BE DELETED. 3. THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER ON INCOME (APPEAL) (CE NTRAL), GURGAON GROSSLY ERRED AND HIS ACTION IS UNJUSTIFIED AND ILLEGA L IN ADDITION OF RS. 5,00,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDI T U/S 68 ON THE BASIS OF BANK STATEMENT. AS IN REPLIED BY THE A SSESSEE THAT SECTION 68 DID NOT APPLY TO ASSESSEE, ALONG WITH BA NK STATEMENT DID NOT CONSTITUTE ANY BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND THAT T HE CASH DEPOSIT IN BANK ACCOUNT BY ALL THREE JOINT HOLDERS, BUT LD. CIT (A) IGNORED IT. SO, THIS ADDITION IS HIGHLY UNJUSTIFIED . THEREFORE, THE ADDITION OF RS. 5,00,000/- IS PRAYED TO BE DELETED. 4. THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER ON INCOME (APPEAL) (CE NTRAL), GURGAON GROSSLY ERRED AND HIS ACTION IS UNJUSTIFIED AND ILLEGA L IN ADDITION OF RS. 5,00,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDI T U/S 68 ON THE BASIS OF BANK STATEMENT. AS IN REPLIED BY THE A SSESSEE THAT SECTION 68 DID NOT APPLY TO ASSESSEE, ALONG WITH SU PPORTING DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE, BUT LD. CIT (A) IGNORED IT. S O, THIS ADDITION IS HIGHLY UNJUSTIFIED. THEREFORE, THE ADDI TION OF RS.5,00,000/- IS PRAYED TO BE DELETED. 5. CHARGING INTEREST UNDER SECTION 234 A, 234 B AND 234 C ARE NOT WARRANTED DUE TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE. 5. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO RAISED ADDITIONAL GROUND B EFORE US WHICH READS AS UNDER: THAT THE LD. CIT (A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMIN G THE ADDITIONS / DISALLOWANCES IN ASSESSMENT MADE U/S. 1 53A (1) (B) R.W.S. 143 (3) OF THE I. T. ACT, 1961 IN TH E ABSENCE OF INCRIMINATING MATERIAL FOUND DURING THE COURSE O F SEARCH AS NO ASSESSMENT WAS PENDING FOR THE A. Y. 2 006- 07 ON THE DATE OF INITIATION OF SEARCH. 6. VIS A VIS THE SAME IT WAS CONTENDED THAT SINCE T HE ISSUE RAISED IN THE ADDITIONAL GROUND WAS A LEGAL ISSUE AND FURTHER SINCE NO NEW FRESH FACTS WERE REQUIRED TO B E CONSIDERED FOR ADJUDICATING THE SAME, IT MAY BE ADM ITTED FOR ADJUDICATION. IN SUPPORT THE ASSESSEE RELIED UPON T HE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF N TPC LIMITED VS. CIT, 283 ITR 390. 7. THE LD. DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, FILED HIS OBJECTI ONS TO THE ADMISSION OF THE ADDITIONAL GROUND IN WRITING S TATING THAT INCRIMINATING MATERIAL WERE SEIZED DURING SEA RCH AND, ITA NO.238/CHD/2014 A.Y.2006-07 4 THEREFORE, THERE WAS NO ILLEGALITY IN THE ASSESSMEN T FRAMED IN THE PRESENT CASE. IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT AN DOC UMENT HAVING NOTIFICATION MARKED A-2 WAS FOUND AND SEIZED , PAGES 82 TO 89 OF WHICH PERTAINED TO A SALE DEED IN RESPE CT OF LAND PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE IN VILLAGE DHAKOLI ALONGW ITH THE OTHER CO-OWNERS. THE LD. DR ALSO POINTED OUT THAT T HE ASSESSEE HAS MADE DISCLOSURE OF RS.1,63,400/- ON AC COUNT OF THE SAME. 8. HAVING HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS, WE AGREE WIT H THE LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE THAT THE ADDITIONAL GROUND RAISED BEFORE US IS A LEGAL GROUND AND SINCE NO FRESH FACT S NEED TO BE CONSIDERED FOR ADJUDICATION OF THE SAME, WE HAVE NO HESITATION TO ADMIT THE SAME FOR ADJUDICATION. THE OBJECTION OF THE LD. DR IS ONLY AN ARGUMENT FOR THE PURPOSE O F ADJUDICATING THE ISSUE RAISED IN THE ADDITIONAL GRO UND AND, THEREFORE, CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AT THE STAGE OF ADM ISSION OF THE ADDITIONAL GROUND. THE OBJECTION OF THE LD.DR I S THEREFORE, DISMISSED AND THE ADDITIONAL GROUND RAI SED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ADMITTED FOR ADJUDICATION. 9. SINCE THE ADDITIONAL GROUND RAISED CHALLENGES T HE VALIDITY OF THE ADDITION MADE U/S 68 OF THE ACT, WE SHALL DEAL WITH THE SAME FIRST. 10. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING BEFORE US, , THE L D. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT IN THE ASSESS MENT FRAMED SUBSEQUENT TO THE SEARCH CONDUCTED ON THE AS SESSEE ADDITIONS WERE MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE AMOUNT ING TO ITA NO.238/CHD/2014 A.Y.2006-07 5 RS.3,70,000/- AND RS.5 LACS, IN TWO SEPARATE BANK ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE AND FURTHER ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAIN ED CASH CREDIT IN THE FORM OF UNSECURED LOAN RECEIVED FROM ONE SHRI DEVINDER SINGH OF RS.5 LACS AND FURTHER ON ACCOUNT OF AN DOCUMENT FOUND DURING SEARCH PERTAINING TO A SALE D EED IN RESPECT OF PURCHASE OF LAND MADE BY THE ASSESSEE AM OUNTING TO RS.1,63,000/- AND RS.31,100/-.THE LD. COUNSEL FO R ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT IT WAS NOT PRESSING AGAIN ST THE ADDITION MADE VIS--VIS DOCUMENTS SEIZED DURING SEA RCH. IT WAS STATED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE THAT IT WAS ONLY CONTESTING THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAI NED CASH IN BANK AND UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT AND ITS SO LITARY ARGUMENT AGAINST THE SAME WAS THAT NO INCRIMINATING MATERIAL RELATING TO THESE ADDITIONS WAS FOUND DURI NG THE COURSE OF SEARCH AND THAT IT WAS SIMPLY BASED ON DO CUMENTS PROCURED DURING THE COURSE OF POST SEARCH ENQUIRY WHEN THE COPIES OF BANK ACCOUNTS WERE SUBMITTED AND IT WAS N OTED THEREFROM THAT THERE WERE CASH DEPOSITS AND UNSECUR ED LOANS TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE BANK ACCOUNTS, THE EXP LANATION OF WHICH WAS SOUGHT FROM THE ASSESSEE AND FOUND TO BE UNSATISFACTORY. THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THE REAFTER POINTED OUT THAT THERE WAS NO PENDING ASSESSMENT RE LATING TO THE IMPUGNED YEAR AS ON THE DATE OF SEARCH AND, THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS AND IN VIEW O F VARIOUS JUDICIAL DECISIONS IN THIS REGARD, NO ADDITION UNCO NNECTED WITH ANY MATERIAL SEIZED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARC H COULD HAVE BEEN MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. OUR AT TENTION WAS DRAWN TO PARAS 6, 7 AND 8 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORD ER ITA NO.238/CHD/2014 A.Y.2006-07 6 WHEREIN THE ADDITIONS ON ACCOUNT OF CASH DEPOSITS I N THE BANK AND UNSECURED LOAN FOUND DEPOSITED IN BANK WAS DISCUSSED AND MADE. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE A LSO DREW OUR ATTENTION TO THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSMENT YEAR INVOLVED IN THE IMPUGNED CASE WAS ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 AN D STATUTORILY SPECIFIED PERIOD FOR ISSUING NOTICE FOR INITIATING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S 143(2) OF THE ACT EXPIRE D ON 31.3.2007 AND NO SUCH NOTICE WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSE SSEE. THEREFORE, THERE WERE NO ONGOING ASSESSMENT PROCEED INGS WHEN THE SEARCH WAS CONDUCTED ON THE ASSESSEE ON 16.1.2009, WHICH WOULD HAVE ABATED FOR THE PURPOSE OF FRAMING ASSESSMENT AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 153A OF THE ACT. 11. THE LD. DR, ON THE OTHER HAND CONTENDED THAT TH OUGH UNDENIABLY THE BANK BOOKS IN WHICH THE CASH CREDITS ENTRIES WERE FOUND AND PERTAINING TO WHICH ADDITIONS WERE M ADE, WERE NOT FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH BUT THE FACT OF THE MATTER WAS THAT THE ACCOUNTS OF THE GROUP CASES AND THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS WERE COMPLEX IN NATURE AND, THEREF ORE, CASE OF THE GROUP WAS REFERRED FOR SPECIAL AUDIT U/ S 142(2A) OF THE ACT WHICH WAS NOT OBJECTED TO BY THE ASSESSE E ALSO AND IT WAS IN TERMS OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE SPECIAL AUDITORS TO WHOM NO EXPLANATION OF THE CASH DEPOSIT S WAS FURNISHED AND ON HIS RECOMMENDATION THE ASSESSEE WA S SHOW CAUSED AS TO WHY THE IMPUGNED ADDITIONS BE NOT MADE AND WHICH RESULTED IN THE IMPUGNED ADDITIONS. IT WAS F URTHER POINTED OUT THAT SEIZED DOCUMENT WERE FOUND DURING THE ITA NO.238/CHD/2014 A.Y.2006-07 7 COURSE OF SEARCH RELATING TO PURCHASE OF LAND WHI CH THE ASSESSEE HAD CONTENDED THAT THE PAYMENT WAS MADE OU T OF THE VERY SAME BANK ACCOUNT IN WHICH THERE WERE UNEX PLAINED CASH DEPOSITS. IN THESE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, TH EREFORE, THE LD. DR CONTENDED THAT THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCO UNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSITS IN THE BANK COULD NOT BE SEEN IN ISOLATION BUT WERE RELATED TO THE INVESTMENT FOUND TO HAVE BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESSEE FROM EARLIER UNDISCLOSED CASH CREDITS DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AND, THEREFORE, IT COULD NOT BE SAID THAT THE ADDITION WAS NOT BASED ON ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIAL FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF S EARCH. 12. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE ASSESSEE ,IN I TS ADDITIONAL GROUND HAS CHALLENGED THE ADDITION MADE U/S 68 OF THE ACT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSITED IN BANK AN D UNEXPLAINED LOAN TAKEN ,ON THE GROUND THAT THE MATE RIAL ON WHICH THE ADDITION WAS BASED WAS NOT FOUND DURING S EARCH ,IN OTHER WORDS THE ADDITION WAS NOT BASED ON ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIAL FOUND DURING SEARCH. 13. VIS A VIS THE PROPOSITION OF LAW THAT IN ASSES SMENTS MADE PURSUANT TO SEARCH CONDUCTED IN CASES WHERE E ARLIER ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED, ADDITION CAN BE MADE ONLY ON THE BASIS OF INCRIMINATING MATERIAL FOUND DURING SEARCH THERE IS NO DISPUTE. IN FACT COURTS HAVE TIME AND AGAIN IN T HE CASES OF CIT VS. CONTINENTAL WAREHOUSING CORPORATION IN ITA NO. 523 OF 2013 REPORTED IN (2015) 279 CTR 0389 (BOMBAY ), CIT VS. KABUL CHAWLA, 234 TAXMAN 300 (DELHI). PRINCIPAL CIT VS. ITA NO.238/CHD/2014 A.Y.2006-07 8 MEETAGUTGUTIA PROP M/S FERNS N PETALS, ITA 306/2 017 AND OTHERS (DELHI) HELD THAT IF NO INCRIMINATING MATERI AL IS FOUND DURING THE SEARCH ACTION, THE ADDITION IN THE CASE OF ALREADY CONCLUDED ASSESSMENT CANNOT BE MADE WHILE FRAMING ASSESSMENT U/S 153A OF THE ACT. THE ONLY DISPUTE IS WHETHER THE ADDITION MADE U/S 6 8 OF THE ACT WAS BASED ON ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIAL OR NOT. 14. THE FACT THAT THE INFORMATION RELATING TO THE I MPUGNED ADDITIONS EMANATED FROM BANK ACCOUNTS AND BANK BOOK OF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT DISPUTED. FURTHER WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DOES NOT MENTION THE SAME HAVING B EEN FOUND DURING SEARCH, NOR HAS THE LD.DR BEEN ABLE TO ESTABLISH THE SAID FACT BEFORE US. IN FACT THE LD.D R HAS ADMITTED THAT THE SAID DOCUMENTS WERE NOT FOUND DUR ING SEARCH BUT THE INFORMATION WAS OBTAINED IN THE COU RSE OF SPECIAL AUDIT CONDUCTED U/S 142(2A) OF THE ACT. 15. IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE FACTS WE FIND MERIT I N THE CONTENTION OF THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ADDITION U/S 68 OF RS13,70,000/-WAS NOT BASED ON AN Y INCRIMINATING MATERIAL FOUND DURING SEARCH AND SINC E ADMITTEDLY THE ASSESSMENT FOR THE IMPUGNED YEAR HAD NOT ABATED, NO ADDITION THEREFORE COULD HAVE BEEN MADE ON ACCOUNT OF THE SAME. 16. WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THE ARGUMENT OF THE LD.DR THAT THAT THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAIN ED CASH DEPOSITS IN THE BANK COULD NOT BE SEEN IN ISOLATION BUT WERE ITA NO.238/CHD/2014 A.Y.2006-07 9 RELATED TO THE INVESTMENT FOUND TO HAVE BEEN MADE B Y THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AND WHICH WERE FROM EARLIER UNDISCLOSED CASH CREDITS. THE LD.DR HAS NOT SUBSTANTIATED HIS CONTENTION THAT THE INVESTMENT WA S FROM UNDISCLOSED CASH CREDIT, WITH ANY COGENT EVIDENCE. NO NEXUS HAS BEEN SHOWN TO US BY THE LD.DR BETWEEN THE UNEXP LAINED CASH DEPOSITED IN BANK AND THE INVESTMENT MADE FOR PURCHASE OF LAND, DOCUMENTS PERTAINING TO WHICH WER E FOUND DURING SEARCH. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY LINK HAVING B EEN ESTABLISHED BY THE LD.DR BETWEEN THE UNEXPLAINED CA SH DEPOSITS AND THE INVESTMENTS FOUND TO HAVE BEEN BY THE ASSESSEE DURING SEARCH ,WE SEE NO REASON TO VIEW TH E TWO DOCUMENTS TOGETHER TO HOLD THAT THE DOCUMENTS PERTA INING TO THE CASH CREDITS WERE INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS FOUND DURING SEARCH FOR THE PURPOSE OF MAKING ADDITION U/S 153A OF THE ACT, AS ARGUED BY THE LD.DR. WE THEREFORE DISMISS T HE CONTENTION OF THE LD.DR. 17. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE WE HOLD THAT THE ADDITION U/S 68 OF THE ACT ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSIT IN BANK OF RS.3,70,000/- & RS.5,00,000/- AND UNEXPLAINED LOAN TAKEN OF RS. 5,00,000/- WAS NOT BASED ON ANY INCRIMINATIN G MATERIAL FOUND DURING SEARCH AND COULD NOT BE MADE U/S 153A OF THE ACT. THE ADDITION SO MADE IS THEREFORE DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. THE ADDITIONAL GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS THEREFORE ALLOWED. ITA NO.238/CHD/2014 A.Y.2006-07 10 18. SINCE THE ADDITION HAS BEEN DELETED ON THE LEGA L GROUND RAISED AS ABOVE ,THE GROUNDS RAISED CHALLENGING THE ADDITION ON MERITS ARE MERELY ACADEMIC IN NATURE AND ARE THE REFORE NOT BEING DEALT WITH BY US. 19. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS TH EREFORE ALLOWED IN ABOVE TERMS. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- SD/- # $ % &' (SANJAY GARG) (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) /JUDICIAL MEMBER '( /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER *# /DATED: 29 TH MARCH, 2019 * ' * $'( )*+* / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. , / THE APPELLANT 2. (-, / THE RESPONDENT 3. . / CIT 4. . ( )/ THE CIT(A) 5. */0( 1 , '1 , 23405 / DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 6. 046! / GUARD FILE $' / BY ORDER, / ASSISTANT REGISTRAR