Pt. Chaturbhuj Kaushik Education Society, Pundri V. DCIT, Kurukshetra

ITA 269/CHANDI/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 95469 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 5 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-08-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 06-08-2015
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 08-03-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S K MITTAL
• Assessee Lawyers: PERMIL GOEL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Bonafide belief
• Section: 143(3); 148; 28; 144; 154

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH,CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI T.R.SOOD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.269/CHD/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 PT. CHATURBHUJ KAUSHIK VS THE DCIT, EDUCATION SOCIETY, KURUKSHETRA. PUNDRI, DISTT. KAITHAL. PAN: AAATP6800H (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI PERMIL GOEL RESPONDENT BY : SHRI S.K. MITTAL DATE OF HEARING : 06.08.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 11.08.2015 O R D E R PER BHAVNESH SAINI,JM THIS APPEAL BY ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORD ER OF LD. CIT(APPEALS) KARNAL DATED 22.01.2013 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07, CHALLENGING THE LEVY OF PE NALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. 2. BRIEFLY THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT ASSESSEE SOCIETY FILED RETURN OF INCOME CLAIMING ITS INCOME EXEMPT UNDER SECTION 10(23C)(VI) OF THE ACT. IT APPLIED FO R EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 10(23C)(VI) OF THE ACT TO C CIT, 2 PANCHKULA SINCE ITS GROSS RECEIPTS IN FINANCIAL YEA R 2005- 06 EXCEEDED RS. 1 CRORE. THE APPLICATION OF THE AS SESSEE WAS REJECTED BY CCIT, PANCHKULA VIDE ORDER DATED 30.10.2007 AND HENCE, SURPLUS OF RS. 23,00,978/- BECAME TAXABLE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THEREFORE, ISSUED NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT AND AFTER RECOR DING THE REASONS, ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WERE TAKEN UP. HOWEVER, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY REPRESENTATION FROM THE SIDE OF THE ASSESSEE, EX-PARTE ASSESSMENT ORDER UND ER SECTION 144 OF THE ACT WAS COMPLETED. AS NOTED ABO VE, THE GROSS RECEIPTS OF THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY OF THE Y EAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WAS RS. 1,24,33,494/- AND WAS M ORE THAN RS. 1 CRORE, ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO GET EXEM PTION FROM CCIT UNDER SECTION 10(23C)(VI) OF THE ACT WHIC H WAS REJECTED BY THE CCIT. THE ASSESSEE FILED APPLICATI ON UNDER SECTION 154 OF THE ACT WHICH WAS ALSO REJECTE D BY CCIT. IN VIEW OF THIS FACT, SURPLUS OF RS. 23,00,9 78/- DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY WAS LIABLE TO TAX. FURTHER, THE SURPLUS WORKED OUT TO 18.5% OF THE GRO SS RECEIPTS AND IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE UTTRANCHAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF M/S QUEENS EDUCATION SOCIETY VS CIT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HEL D THAT ASSESSEE SOCIETY IS A PROFIT MAKING BODY AND HENCE, IS NOT LIABLE FOR EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 10(23C)(IIIA D) OF THE ACT AND INCOME THEREFORE, WAS TAXABLE AS PER SE CTION 28 TO 43 OF THE ACT. 3. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS), VIDE ORDER DATED 30.09.201 0 UPHELD THE DECISION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN TAX ING THE 3 SURPLUS OF INCOME OVER EXPENDITURE AND THE CCIT PANCHKULA REJECTED THE EXEMPTION TO THE ASSESSEE UN DER SECTION 10(23C)(VI) OF THE ACT. IN THE PENALTY ORD ER, ASSESSING OFFICER LEVIED MINIMUM PENALTY AS THE ASS ESSEE SOCIETY HAD FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INC OME AS IT WAS NOT ALLOWED EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 10(23C)( VI) OF THE ACT. THE PENALTY ORDER WAS CHALLENGED BEFORE L D. CIT(APPEALS) AND THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION OF THE ASSE SSEE IS QUOTED IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER IN WHICH THE ASSESS EE BRIEFLY EXPLAINED THAT PENALTY WAS IMPOSED WITHOUT PROVIDING OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. THE ASSESSEE IS RUNNING EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION AT PUNDRI AND DHAND , BOTH EXISTING PURELY FOR EDUCATION PURPOSE AND REGU LARLY ASSESSED TO INCOME TAX AND INCOME WAS EXEMPT UNDER SECTION 10(23C)(IIIAD) UPTO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 AS ASSESSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT. THE RECEI PT OF ASSESSEE FROM PUNDRI WAS RS. 87,92,704/- AND FROM DHAND SCHOOL, TOTAL RECEIPTS WERE R. 36,40,790/-. THE TOTAL COMES TO RS. 1,24,33,494/- AND THE ASSESSEE U NDER BONAFIDE BELIEF APPLIED FOR EXEMPTION FOR ASSESSMEN T YEAR UNDER APPEAL BEFORE CCIT. THE CCIT CALLED FOR THE REPORT FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHICH WAS SENT THROUGH C IT KARNAL RECOMMENDING GRANT OF EXEMPTION UNDER SECTIO N 10(23C)(VI) OF THE ACT. SURPRISINGLY, CCIT REJECTE D THE APPLICATION OF ASSESSEE BEING TIME BARRED. IN THE MEANTIME, THE ASSESSING OFFICER PASSED THE ASSESSME NT ORDER UNDER SECTION 144 OF THE ACT ON 16.11.2009 REJECTING THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE FOR EXEMPTION ON TH E BASIS 4 OF APPLICATION FOR EXEMPTION REJECTED BY THE CCIT. THE ASSESSEE APPLIED FOR GRANT OF RELIEF TO INCOME TAX OMBUDSMAN CHANDIGARH WHO HAS PASSED THE AWARD ON 18.11.2011 DIRECTING THE CCIT PANCHKULA TO ADMIT AN D RE-CONSIDER THE APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 10(23C)(V I) OF THE ACT AS PER BOARD CIRCULAR. THE CIT PANCHKULA P ASSED THE ORDER UNDER SECTION 154 OF THE ACT DATED 21.12. 2011, COPY OF WHICH WAS SENT TO CIT, KARNAL WITH REQUEST TO ISSUE NECESSARY DIRECTIONS TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO EXAMINE THE CASE UNDER SECTION 10(23C)(IIIAD) FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL AND MATTER IS PENDING BEFORE THEM. IT IS ALSO EXPLAINED THAT ASSESSING O FFICER WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN GRANTING EXEMPTION TO THE ASSE SSEE AND THAT IT IS NOT A FIT CASE OF LEVY OF THE PENALT Y. 4. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) CALLED FOR THE REPORT FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO AND INTIMATED THAT CIT, KARN AL HAS INTIMATED THAT AT THIS STAGE, THERE APPEARS TO BE NO REMEDY AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSEE TO THE ASSESSEE UN DER THE PROVISIONS OF ACT. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS), CONS IDERING THE ABOVE FACTS HELD THAT SINCE ASSESSEE FAILED TO FURNISH ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF CLAIM OF EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 10(23C)(VI) OF THE ACT, THE REFORE, ASSESSEE HAD CONCEALED ITS INCOME AND HAD FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME FILED IN THE RETUR N OF INCOME AND CONFIRMED THE LEVY OF THE PENALTY AND DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 5 5. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE LD. CIT(APPEALS) AND REFERR ED TO THE ORDER OF CCIT DATED 21.12.2011 (PB-14) UNDER SE CTION 154 OF THE ACT AND REMAND REPORT FILED BY THE ASSES SING OFFICER BEFORE LD. CIT(APPEALS) DATED 26/27.12.2012 IN WHICH THE ASSESSING OFFICER AGAIN REITERATED THAT S INCE RECEIPTS OF TWO EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS RUN BY THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY WAS MORE THAN RS. ONE CRORE, THERE FORE ASSESSEE SOCIETY WOULD NOT BE ENTITLED FOR EXEMPTIO N UNDER SECTION 10(23C)(IIIAD) OF THE ACT FOR ASSESSM ENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL. HE HAS, THEREFORE, SUBMITTED TH AT IT IS NOT A CASE OF CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR FILING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT FOUND TO BE FALSE AND ASSESSEE UND ER BONAFIDE BELIEF CLAIMED THE EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 10(23C)(VI) OF THE ACT. 6. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT ADDITIO N UNDER QUESTION HAS BEEN CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) AND THE ASSESSEE FILED CO NO. 1/2011 I N DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL IN ITA 1411/2010 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL BEFORE ITAT CHANDIGARH BENCH RAIS ING THE SAME ISSUE IN GROUND NO. 2 AND THE TRIBUNAL HAS DISMISSED THIS GROUND OF THE C.O. OF THE ASSESSEE A S WELL. 7. WE HAVE CONSIDERED RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND MATERIA L AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT ASS ESSEE IS RUNNING EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS AT PUNDRI AND DHAN D AND BOTH ARE EXISTING SOLELY FOR EDUCATION PURPOSE. THE 6 COPY OF THE INCOME & EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT OF BOTH TH E PUBLIC SCHOOLS RUN BY THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY ARE FILE D IN THE PAPER BOOK WHICH SHOWS THAT THE TOTAL RECEIPTS OF PUBLIC SCHOOL OF PUNDRI WAS RS. 87,92,704/- AND OF PUBLIC SCHOOL, DHAND THE TOTAL RECEIPTS ARE RS. 36,40,790/- RUN BY THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY. THE INDIV IDUAL TOTAL RECEIPTS OF INDIVIDUAL SCHOOLS RUN BY THE ASS ESSEE WERE LESS THAN RS. ONE CRORE. HOWEVER, THE TOTAL RE CEIPTS OF BOTH THE EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS RUN BY THE ASS ESSEE ARE MORE THAN RS. ONE CRORE. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED EXEMPTION OF INCOME OF BOTH THE INSTITUTIONS UNDER SECTION 10(23C)(IIIAD) OF THE ACT WHICH HAVE BEEN A LLOWED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE UPTO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005 -06 VIDE ORDER UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT DATED 23.11.2007, COPY OF WHICH IS FILED IN THE APPEAL PA PERS. THE PROBLEM ARISES IN ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL WHEN THE TOTAL RECEIPTS OF BOTH THE INSTITUTIONS EX CEEDED RS. ONE CRORE. SECTION 10(23C)(IIIAD) OF THE ACT P ROVIDES THAT THE INCOME OF ANY UNIVERSITY OR OTHER EDUCATIO NAL INSTITUTION EXISTING SOLELY FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSE S AND NOT FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROFIT, IF THE AGGREGATE ANN UAL RECEIPTS OF SAID UNIVERSITY OR EDUCATIONAL INSTITUT ION DO NOT EXCEED THE AMOUNT OF ANNUAL RECEIPTS, AS MAY BE PRESCRIBED, WOULD NOT FORM PART OF THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ANNUAL RECEIPTS FOR THIS SECTION WAS PRESCRIBED FOR RS. ONE CRORE. SECTION 10(23C)(VI) PROVIDES THAT THE INCOME OF ANY UNIVERSITY OR OTHER EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION EXISTING SOLELY FOR EDUCATI ONAL 7 PURPOSES AND NOT FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROFIT, OTHER T HAN THOSE MENTIONED IN SUB-CLAUSE (IIIAB) OR SUB CLAUSE (IIIAD) AND WHICH MAY BE APPROVED BY THE PRESCRIBED AUTHORI TY WHICH WOULD BE THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX OR DIRECTOR GENERAL, AS THE CASE MAY BE WOULD NOT FORM PART OF TOTAL INCOME. THE ASSESSEE FILED APPLICATION FOR GRANT OF EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 10(23C)(VI) BEFORE CCIT, PANCHKULA WHO HAS, HOWEVER, REJECTED THE APPLICATIO N OR ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL HOLDING I T TO BE TIME BARRED, DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE CIT KARNAL HAVE RECOMMENDED FOR GRA NT OF EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 10(23C)(VI) OF THE ACT. 8. THE ASSESSEE ALSO MOVED APPLICATION UNDER SECTIO N 154 OF THE ACT BEFORE CCIT WHICH WAS ALSO REJECTED. THE ASSESSEE, THEREAFTER APPROACHED THE INCOME TAX OMBUDSMAN CHANDIGARH WHO HAS DIRECTED THE CCIT, PANCHKULA TO ADMIT AND CONSIDER THE APPLICATION OF ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 10(23C)(VI) OF THE ACT. THE CCIT PASSED THE ORDER UNDER SECTION 154 OF THE ACT DATED 21/23.12.2011 AND CONSIDERED THAT SINCE THE RECEIPT S OF THE ASSESSEE FROM BOTH THE EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS INDIVIDUALLY WERE LESS THAN RS. ONE CRORE, THEREFOR E, ASSESSEE WAS NOT UNDER OBLIGATION TO APPLY UNDER SE CTION 10(23C)(VI) OF THE ACT AND DIRECTED THE CIT KARNAL TO ISSUE DIRECTIONS TO ASSESSING OFFICER TO EXAMINE TH E CASE OF THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 10(23C)(IIIAD) FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL. COPY OF THE ORDER IS FILED 8 AT PAGE 14 OF THE PAPER BOOK. THE ASSESSEE CONTEND ED BEFORE LD. CIT(APPEALS) THAT THE MATTER WAS STILL P ENDING BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE CIT, HOWEVER ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE REMAND REPORT REFERRED TO THE LETTER OF THE CIT KARNAL STATING THEREIN THAT AT TH IS STAGE, THERE APPEARS TO BE NO REMEDY AVAILABLE TO THE ASSE SSEE UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. DESPITE PASSING O F THE ORDER BY CCIT PANCHKULA UNDER SECTION 154 OF THE AC T IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER CAN N OT IN THE REMAND REPORT FILED BEFORE LD. CIT(APPEALS), EX PLAINED THAT RECEIPTS OF BOTH THE INSTITUTIONS CANNOT BE SP LIT UP AND THEREFORE, INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY CAN N OT BE CONSIDERED AS EXEMPT UNDER SECTION 10(23C)(IIIAD) O F THE ACT FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL. 9. THE LD. DR CONTENDED THAT SINCE THE CROSS OBJECT ION OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN DISMISSED BY THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ORDER DATED 17.05.2012 ON THE SAME ISSUE, THEREFORE , PENALTY MAY BE CONFIRMED. IT IS, HOWEVER, WELL SET TLED LAW THAT ASSESSMENT/QUANTUM PROCEEDINGS AND THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS ARE INDEPENDENT AND DISTINCT PROCEEDINGS. THE FINDINGS GIVEN IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER MAY HAVE A PROBATIVE VALUE IN THE PENALTY PROCEEDIN GS BUT ASSESSEE IS STILL AT LIBERTY TO EXPLAIN AT THE PENALTY STAGE THAT PENALTY IS NOT LEVIABLE. THEREFORE, THE RE IS NO BAR ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE IN EXPLAINING THAT IT IS NOT A CASE OF CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR FILING INACC URATE 9 PARTICULARS OF INCOME SO AS TO LEVY THE PENALTY UND ER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. 10. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE DISCUSSION IN THE LIGHT O F THE ORDER OF CCIT PANCHKULA DATED 21/23.12.2011 (PB-14) IT IS CLEAR THAT THE CCIT HAS CONSIDERED THE RECEIPTS OF BOTH THE INSTITUTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE DIFFERENTLY AND HE LD THAT ASSESSEE WAS NOT UNDER OBLIGATION TO APPLY FOR EXEM PTION UNDER SECTION 10(23C)(VI) OF THE ACT BECAUSE THE GR OSS RECEIPTS OF BOTH THE EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS WERE LESS THAN RS. ONE CRORE. DIRECTIONS WERE, THEREFORE, IS SUED TO THE CIT AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO EXAMINE THE CA SE OF ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 10(23C)(IIIAD) OF THE ACT. THE HON'BLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS CHILDRENS EDUCATION SOCIETY 358 ITR 373 (KARN) CONSIDERING THE ABOVE PROVISIONS RELEVANT TO THE DI SPOSAL OF THE APPEAL, HELD AS UNDER : (II) THAT THE TRIBUNAL WAS CORRECT IN HOLDING THAT THE EXEMPTION IN TERMS OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 10(23C)(IIIAD) WAS AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSEE AS ANNUAL RECEIPTS OF EACH OF THE INSTITUTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE WAS LESS THAN THE PRESCRIBED LIMIT UNDER THE PROVISION. 11. THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN THE LIGHT OF THE ORDER OF THE CCIT DATED 21/23.12.2011 AND DECISION OF THE HON'BL E KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CHILDRENS EDUC ATION SOCIETY (SUPRA) CLEARLY SUPPORT THE EXPLANATION OF ASSESSEE THAT ASSESSEE WAS ENTITLED FOR EXEMPTION U NDER SECTION 10(23C)(IIIAD) OF THE ACT BECAUSE THE ANNUA L RECEIPTS OF EACH OF THE EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION OF THE 10 ASSESSEE WAS LESS THAN RS. ONE CRORE AS THE PRESCRI BED LIMIT UNDER THE SAID PROVISIONS. THE AUTHORITIES B ELOW THUS, HAVE FAILED TO CONSIDER THE CASE OF THE ASSES SEE IN PROPER PERSPECTIVE AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. EVE N IF, ADDITION HAS BEEN CONFIRMED ON MERITS, BUT THE FACT S NOTED ABOVE CLEARLY SHOW THAT THE CIT KARNAL SHOULD NOT HAVE REPORTED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER AT THE PENAL TY STAGE THAT NO REMEDY IS AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSEE U NDER THE PROVISIONS OF ACT. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUS SIONS, IT IS CLEAR THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT CONCEALED THE PARTICULARS OF INCOME AND HAS ALSO NOT FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME IN THE RETURN OF I NCOME. THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN ABLE TO EXPLAIN ITS CASE ON T HE BASIS OF THE ORDER OF CCIT DATED 21/23.12.2011 THRO UGH WHICH ASSESSEE WOULD BE ENTITLED FOR THE RELIEF UND ER THE ACT, THEREFORE, EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE COULD N OT BE SAID TO BE FALSE. THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE IS BONAFIDE AND IS SUPPORTED BY THE PROVISIONS OF LAW AND THE ORDER OF THE CCIT. SINCE, ASSESSEE DISCLOSED COMPLETE FACTS AND DETAILS BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES B ELOW, THEREFORE, IT IS NOT A FIT CASE OF LEVY OF PENALTY FOR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR FILING INACCURATE PARTICUL ARS OF INCOME. 12. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, WE DO NOT FIN D ANY JUSTIFICATION TO LEVY THE PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. WE, THEREFORE, SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF AUTHO RITIES 11 BELOW AND CANCEL THE PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C ) OF THE ACT. WE MAY CLARIFY HERE THAT FINDINGS GIVEN I N THIS ORDER SHALL BE RELEVANT TO THE DISPOSAL OF THE PENA LTY APPEAL ONLY AND SHALL HAVE NO BEARING ON THE QUANTU M MATTERS ALREADY DECIDED. 13. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS AL LOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 11 TH AUGUST,2015. SD/- SD/- (T.R.SOOD) (BHAVNESH SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 11 TH AUGUST,2015. POONAM COPY TO: THE APPELLANT, THE RESPONDENT, THE CIT(A), THE CIT, DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT CHANDIGARH