M/s Bee Ess Developers & Builders, Ludhiana V. JCIT, Ludhiana

ITA 380/CHANDI/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 63923 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-08-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 19-07-2012
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 13-04-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 27; 263; 43B; 40A(3); 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH A CHANDIGARH BEFORE MS.SUSHMA CHOWLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MEHAR SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 380/CHD/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 M/S BEE ESS DEVELOPERS V CIT, R-VI, & BUILDERS, LUDHIANA. LUDHIANA. PAN: AAEFB-2075 J (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI HARRY RICKY RESPONDENT : SMT. JYOTI KUMARI DATE OF HEARING : 19.07.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 24.08.2012 ORDER PER MEHAR SINGH, AM THIS IS AN APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 30.3.2011 , PASSED BY THE CIT U/S 263 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT,196 1 (IN SHORT 'THE ACT') FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-06. 2. IN THIS APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLL OWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME T AX IS DEFECTIVE BOTH IN LAW AND FACTS OF THE CASE. 2. THAT THE LD-COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX IS NOT JUSTI FIED IN ASSUMING JURISDICTION IN INITIALING PROCEEDINGS U/S 263 OF T HE I.T. ACT, 1961 AND PASSING RE- ASSESSMENT ORDER AS THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. ASS ESSING OFFICER IS NEITHER ERRONEOUS NOR PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENU E. 3. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. COMMISSIONER O INCOME TAX IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN ASSUMING JURI SDICTION U/S 263 AND MAKING ENHANCEMENT OF RS.2,92,190/- U/S 40A(3) OF T HE I.T. ACT, 1961, WHICH HAS BEEN DULY BEEN EXAMINED AND ALLOWED BY THE LD. ASSE SSING OFFICER AS SUCH U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT, 1961. 4. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. COMMISSIONER O1 INCOME TAX IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN ASSUMING JURISDIC TION U/S 263 AND MAKING 2 ENHANCEMENT BY DISALLOWING APPELLANT'S CLAIM OF EXT ERNAL DEVELOPMENT EXPENSES IN LAND A/C OF RS.26,66,750/- U/S 43B, WHI CH HAS DULY BEEN EXAMINED AND ALLOWED BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER AS SUCH U/ S 143(3) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. 5. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN ASSUMING JURISDIC TION U/S 263 AND SETTING ASIDE THE CLAIM MADE BY THE APPELLANT ON ACCOUNT OF INTER EST DEBITED IN VARIOUS TRADING ACCOUNTS OF LAND ON THE BASIS OF PRODUCT ME THOD, CONSISTENTLY FOLLOWED YEAR AFTER YEAR, WHICH HAS BEEN DULY BEEN EXAMINED AND ALLOWED BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER AS SUCH U/S 143(3) OF THE I.T. AC T, 1961. 6. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN ASSUMING JURISDIC TION U/S 263 AND SETTING ASIDE THE CLAIM MADE BY THE APPELLANT REGARDING UNSECURED LOANS APPEARING IN THE BALANCE SHEET, WHICH HAS BEEN DULY BEEN EXAMINED AN D ALLOWED BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER AS SUCH U/S 143(3) OF THE I.T. AC T, 1961. 7. THAT ANY OTHER GROUND MAY KINDLY BE ALLOWED TO BE T AKEN AT THE TIME OF APPEAL WITH DUE PERMISSION. 3. IN THE COURSE OF PRESENT APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE LD. 'AR' FOR THE APPELLANT CONTENDED THAT ORDER PASSED BY TH E CIT U/S 263 OF THE ACT IS CONTRARY TO THE LEGISLATIVE INTEN T, CONTAINED THEREIN. THE AO, HAS MADE REQUISITE ENQUIRIES, APP LIED HIS MIND, AND RAISED NECESSARY QUERIES WHICH WERE REPLI ED BY THE ASSESSEE, IN RESPECT OF THE ISSUES RAISED IN TH E O RDER PASSED U/S 263 OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, THE ORDER PASSED U/ S 263 OF THE ACT, CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. LD. 'AR' SUPPORTED FINDI NGS OF THE CIT, AS CONTAINED U/S 263 OF THE ACT. 4. GROUND NO.1 IS GENERAL IN NATURE AND NEEDS NO SE PARATE ADJUDICATION. ACCORDINGLY, THE SAME IS DISMISSED. 5. IN GROUND NO.2, ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT CIT IS N OT JUSTIFIED IN ASSUMING JURISDICTION U/S 263 OF THE A CT. THE ISSUES RAISED BY THE CIT, IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER U/S 263 ARE, CONSIDERED, DISCUSSED AND ADJUDICATED HEREINAFTER. 3 5(I) THE FIRST ISSUE DEALT WITH BY THE CIT, IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER U/S 263 PERTAINS TO APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 40A(3) OF THE ACT, IN RESPECT OF CASH PAYMENTS, FOR STAMP DUTY AN D COURT FEES, AMOUNTING TO RS.14,30,950/- AND ANOTHER SUM O F RS.30,000/-, WHICH WAS CONSIDERED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, WHILE MAKING DISALLOWANCE U/S 40A(3) OF THE ACT. S UCH PAYMENTS WERE MADE BY THE APPELLANT, IN CASH, TO TH E PUNJAB GOVERNMENT. THE AO HAS DEALT WITH ISSUE, IN QUESTI ON, IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 15.10.2008, PASSED U/S 143(3 ) OF THE ACT. A PERUSAL OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER REVEALS THA T AO HAS DEALT WITH THE ISSUE IN DETAIL AND CONSEQUENTLY MAD E A DISALLOWANCE OF RS.8,47,400/- U/S 40A(3) OF THE ACT . IN VIEW OF THIS, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE AO HAS NOT CONSIDE RED THE ISSUE AND NOT APPLIED HIS MIND, TO THE ISSUE, IN QUESTION . HOWEVER, THIS FACTUM HAS BEEN ADMITTED BY THE CIT IN THE IMP UGNED ORDER PASSED U/S 263 OF THE ACT. HOWEVER, CIT IS OF THE OPINION THAT AO, HAS FAILED TO COVER THE STAMP PAPERS, STAMP DUT Y AND COURT FEE, PAID TO STATE GOVERNMENT UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40A(3) OF THE ACT. IN VIEW OF THIS, THE CIT DISALL OWED A SUM OF RS.2,92,190/- IN THE ORDER PASSED BY HIM U/S 263 OF THE ACT. THE CONTENTION OF THE CIT, IS THAT THIS PAYMENT DOE S NOT FALL UNDER THE EXCEPTION PROVIDED UNDER RULE 6DD(B) OF T HE INCOME TAX RULES, 1962. 5(II) WE HAVE CAREFULLY PERUSED THE ISSUE IN QUESTI ON IN THE LIGHT OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40A(3) OF THE ACT RE AD WITH RULE 6DD(B) OF THE RULES. THERE IS AN EXCEPTION, AS PRO VIDED UNDER RULE 6DD(B) OF THE RULES THAT PAYMENT MADE TO THE G OVERNMENT IS NOT COVERED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40A( 3) OF THE ACT. 4 IN THIS CONNECTION, THE BOARD HAS ISSUED A CIRCULAR NO. 34 (F.NO. 13A/92/69-IT(A-II) 05.03.1997, WHEREIN IT HA S BEEN CLARIFIED THAT PAYMENTS MADE TO RAILWAYS, ON ACCOUN T OF FREIGHT CHARGES OR FOR BOOKING OF WAGONS, AND PAYMENT OF SA LE TAX, EXCISE DUTY, DONT NOT FALL UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40A(3) OF THE ACT, IN VIEW OF CLAUSE (B) OF RULE 6D D OF THE RULES. IN SUM AND SUBSTANCE OF THE TRANSACTION, THIS IS AN PAYMENT MADE BY THE APPELLANT TO THE STATE GOVERNMENT, WHIC H CANNOT BE COVERED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40A(3) O F THE ACT, HAVING REGARD TO THE TRUE LEGISLATIVE INTENT, EMBOD IED IN THE PROVISIONS. THEREFORE, THE ADDITION MADE BY THE CI T CANNOT BE SUSTAINED AND THE SAME IS DELETED. GROUND NO. 3 RE AD WITH GROUND NO.2, IN THE SPECIFIC CONTEXT OF SECTION 40A (3) IS ALLOWED. 6. IN GROUND NO.4, IT IS CONTENDED BY THE APPELLANT THAT CIT IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN ASSUMING JURISDICTION AND MAKIN G DISALLOWANCE OF CLAIM OF EXTERNAL DEVELOPMENT EXPEN SES, IN LAND ACCOUNT OF RS.26,66,750/- U/S 43B OF THE ACT, AS TH E ISSUE HAS BEEN DULY EXAMINED AND CONSIDERED BY THE AO, WHILE PASSING THE ORDER U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT. 6(I) BEFORE CIT, THE APPELLANT FURNISHED DETAIL REGARDI NG DAD-II (EXTERNAL DEVELOPMENT CHARGES). THE APPELLANT HAS SHOWN CERTAIN EXPENSES FOR TREATING ACCOUNT OF LAND DAD-II. LD. 'AR' FURNISHED DETAILS IN REGARD TO THESE EXPENSES. CIT FOUND THAT PUDA FEES OF RS.31,91,750/- WAS PAYABLE BY THE ASSESSEE FOR DEVELOPMENT CHARGES OF EXTENDED PROJECT AT DAD- II. THIS SUM WAS PAYABLE IN SIX INSTALLMENTS. THE ASSESSEE HAD PAID THE 5 FIRST INSTALLMENT OF RS.5,25,000/- ON 11.8.2005. T HE BALANCE OF THE INSTALLMENTS WERE TO BE PAID IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEARS. THE APPELLANT CONTENDED BEFORE THE CIT THAT EXPENDITURE , ON EXTERNAL DEVELOPMENT CHARGES, HAD ACCRUED IN THIS Y EAR. HOWEVER, THE GOVERNMENT GAVE THE BENEFIT OF PAYMENT OF INSTALLMENT, SO AS TO REDUCE BURDEN ON THE PROMOTER S. THE CIT IS OF THE OPINION THAT EXTERNAL DEVELOPMENT CHARGES WERE COVERED U/S 43B OF THE ACT. LD. CIT, ON APPRECIATIO N OF THE SUBMISSION FILED BY THE APPELLANT, RECORDED HIS FIN DING AT PAGE 10 OF THE ORDER, WHICH IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER : THE HON'BLE COURT HAVE HELD THAT A FEE IS A CHARGE FOR SPECIAL SERVICES RENDERED TO INDIVIDUALS BY SOME GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY AND SUCH A CHARGE HAS AN ELEMEN T INIT OF A QUID PRO QUO. EVIDENTLY THE DEVELOPMENT CHARGES PAYABLE UNDER PUNJAB APARTMENT AND PROPERTY REGULAT ION ACT, 1995 AND PUNJAB REGIONAL & TOWN PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT ACT, 1995, IS A FEE PAYABLE UNDER LAW ENACTED BY THE GOVERNMENT. THIS IS A FEE FOR SPECI AL SERVICES RENDERED BY THE GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY. THER E IS ELEMENT OF QUID PRO QUO IN RESPECT OF FEES PAYABLE FOR THE EXTERNAL DEVELOPMENT CHARGES. THUS THE FEES PAYABLE TO PUDA OF RS.31,91,750/- IS COVERED BY THE SECTION 43 B. OUT OF THIS SUM ONLY RS. 5,25,000/- HAS BEEN PAID D URING THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006- 07. THE BALANCE OF RS.26,66,750/- IS DISALLOWABLE UNDER SECTION 43B UNLESS ANY OTHER INSTALMENT IS PAID BEF ORE THE DUE DATE OF FILING OF RETURN FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 06-07. SUCH DETAILS HAVE NOT BEEN FILED BY THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE. THE SAME SHOULD BE OBTAINED BY THE AO WHILE GIVING EFFECT TO THIS ORDER AND IF ANY SUM IS PAID IN THIS REGARD AFTER THE END OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR BUT BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF FILING OF RETURN THE SAME SHOULD BE REDUCED FROM THE AMOUNT TO BE ADDED BACK ON THIS AC COUNT UNDER SECTION 43B. THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE IS ENHANCED TO THAT EXTENT. PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 27 1(1)(C) IS INITIATED FOR FILING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF I NCOME. 6(II) LD. 'AR' CONTENDED THAT ISSUE HAS BEEN RAISED AND DISCUSSED IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT. LD. 'AR' FURTHER REFERRED TO PAGES 62, 34, 30, 38 R ED WITH 33 OF THE PAPER BOOK, INCLUDING PAPER BOOK NO. 2 PAGE 13 & 14, FOR 6 THE PURPOSE OF SHOWING THAT THE ISSUE HAS BEEN CONS IDERED BY THE AO. 6(III) WE HAVE PERUSED THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE PA PER BOOK REFERRED TO BY THE COUNSEL OF THE APPELLANT. A PER USAL OF PAGE NO.14 OF THE PAPER BOOK CONTAINS A QUESTIONNAIRE AN NEXED TO NOTICE U/S 142 OF THE ACT, ISSUED BY THE AO ON 13.0 7.2006, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05. THE SAID QUESTIONNAIR E AT S.NO. 3, READS AS, FURNISH CONFIRMATION FROM PUDA, I/R OF PUDA FEES PAYABLE AND STATE WHY THIS PAYMENT SHOULD NOT BE AD DED BACK U/S 43B. THE AO, ON CONSIDERATION OF THE SUBMISSION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, DID NOT MAKE ANY ADDITION ON THIS ACC OUNT, ON THE GROUND THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 43B ARE N OT APPLICABLE TO SUCH TYPE OF EXPENSES, FOR THE ASSESS MENT YEAR 2004-05, WHILE PASSING ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 18.12 .2006 U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT. INCIDENTALLY, THIS ORDER WAS PASSED BY JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-VI, LUDHIAN A. DURING THE YEAR UNDER REFERENCE, QUERY WAS RAISED A ND REPLIED TO ON THE ISSUE IN QUESTION. IN VIEW OF THIS, IT I S EVIDENT THAT THE AO HAS FOLLOWED THE CONSISTENT APPROACH ON THE ISSUE IN QUESTION AND AO, WAS OF THE OPINION THAT THE PROVIS IONS OF SECTION 43B ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO THIS KIND OF EXPE NSES. THEREFORE, U/S 263 OF THE ACT, UNDER REVISIONARY PO WERS, CIT IS NOT COMPETENT TO SUBSTITUTE HIS OWN VIEW, WHERE LEGALLY POSSIBLE VIEW HAS BEEN TAKEN BY THE AO. ACCORDINGLY , THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALLOWED. 7. IN GROUND NO.5, THE APPELLANT CONTENDED THAT CIT IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION U/S 263 OF THE ACT AND SETTING ASIDE THE CLAIM MADE BY THE APPELLANT, ON A CCOUNT OF 7 INTEREST DEBITED IN VARIOUS TRADING ACCOUNTS OF LAN D, ON THE BASIS OF METHOD, CONSISTENTLY FOLLOWED, YEAR AFTER YEAR, WHICH HAS BEEN DULY EXAMINED AND ALLOWED BY THE AO IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. 8. THE CIT FOUND THAT THE AO HAS NOT EXAMINED THE ISSU E IN QUESTION, AS IS EVIDENT FROM THE PERUSAL OF THE REC ORDS AND QUESTIONNAIRE ISSUED BY THE AO. FURTHER, THE CIT C ONCLUDED THAT AO HAS NOT EXAMINED THIS ISSUE AND NOT APPLIED HIS MIND, TO SUCH ISSUE. FINALLY, THE CIT GAVE A CLEAR FINDI NG THAT THERE IS LACK OF VERIFICATION AND LACK OF ENQUIRY BY THE AO, ON THE ISSUE WHICH AFFECTS THE TAXABILITY OF INCOME OF THE ASSES SEE, ON SALE OF LAND. THE ORDER OF THE AO, ON THIS POINT, ACCEPTIN G THE INTEREST DEBITED TO VARIOUS LAND ACCOUNTS, WITHOUT VERIFICAT ION AND WITHOUT ENQUIRY AND WITHOUT OBTAINING EVEN BASIC CA LCULATION, IS ERRONEOUS AS WELL AS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS O F THE REVENUE. IN VIEW OF THIS, THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE AO, WAS SET ASIDE U/S 263 OF THE ACT, ON THIS POINT BY THE CIT. THE LD. 'AR REFERRED TO PAGES 62,64,37,34,32 & 30 OF THE PAPER BOOK AND CON TENDED THAT ISSUE HAS BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE AO. THE LD. 'DR' SUPPORTED THE FINDINGS OF THE CIT. 9. WE HAVE CAREFULLY PERUSED THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE PAPER BOOK AND RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND FOUND THAT THE AO HA S DULY CONSIDERED THE ISSUE IN QUESTION, BY ISSUING A QUES TIONNAIRE AND CONSIDERING THE REPLY THERETO. IN VIEW OF THIS, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT AO HAS NOT APPLIED HIS MIND, TO THE ISSUE UNDE R REFERENCE. IT APPEARS THAT CIT HAS ASSUMED INCORRECT FACTS AND APPLIED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 263 INCORRECTLY. IN VIEW OF T HIS, FINDINGS OF 8 THE CIT, ON THIS ISSUE, CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. ACCOR DINGLY, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 10. IN GROUND NO.6, THE APPELLANT CONTENDED THAT CI T ERRED IN ASSUMING JURISDICTION U/S 263 AND SETTING ASIDE THE CLAIM MADE BY THE APPELLANT, REGARDING UNSECURED LOANS, APPEAR ING IN BALANCE-SHEET, WHICH WAS DULY EXAMINED AND ALLOWED BY THE AO. 10(I) LD. 'AR' REFERRED TO PAGE NO. 56, 59, 36, 32, 28 & 29 OF THE PAPER BOOK FOR THE PURPOSE OF SHOWING THAT THE ISSU E HAS BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE AO. THE CIT FOUND THAT THE AO FA ILED TO EXAMINE THE CREDIT-WORTHINESS OF THE LOAN CREDITS A ND THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS. IT WAS CONTENDED THAT LOAN CONFIRMATIONS WERE FILED IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMEN T PROCEEDINGS AND THIS FACT HAS BEEN FOUND CORRECT BY THE CIT ALSO. LD. CIT, FOUND THAT ON TEST CHECK BASIS, CER TAIN DEFICIENCIES, WHICH INDICATE THAT THE AO FAILED TO EXAMINE THE CREDIT-WORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE CREDITORS. ACCORDINGLY, LD. CIT OBSERVED THAT THERE IS LACK OF ENQUIRY AND VERIFICATION ON THE LEVEL OF THE AO. CONSEQUENTLY, THE CIT HELD THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, AS ERRONEOUS AS WELL AS PREJU DICIAL, TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE, ON THIS POINT AND DIRECTE D THE AO, TO EXAMINE ISSUE AFRESH. LD. 'AR' CONTENDED THAT AO R AISED SPECIFIC QUERY REGARDING UNSECURED LOANS, WHICH WAS REPLIED AND NECESSARY CONFIRMATIONS WERE FILED. LD. 'AR' R EFERRED TO PAGE NO. 56, 59, 36, 32, 28 & 29 OF THE PAPER BOOK TO PROVE HIS POINT. LD. 'DR' SUPPORTED THE FINDINGS OF THE CIT. 10(II) A BARE PERUSAL OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE PAPER BOOK, WHEREBY QUESTIONNAIRE WAS ISSUED BY THE AO AND REPL IED TO BY 9 THE APPELLANT, REVEALS THAT THE AO HAS APPLIED HIS MIND TO THE ISSUE IN QUESTION. HAVING REGARD TO THE FACT-SITUA TION OF THE CASE, AO ADJUDICATED THE ISSUE, ON THE BASIS OF DET AILS AND CONFIRMATIONS FILED BY THE APPELLANT. IN VIEW OF T HIS, THE CIT IS NOT COMPETENT U/S 263 OF THE ACT, UNDER SUCH A FACT -SITUATION OF THE CASE, TO CONCLUDE THAT THE AO HAS NOT MADE ENQU IRY AND APPLIED HIS MIND. THEREFORE, THE CIT IS NOT COMPET ENT TO INVOKE THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 263, ON THIS POINT. ACCO RDINGLY, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 11. GROUND NO. 7 IS GENERAL IN NATURE AND NEEDS NO SEPARATE ADJUDICATION. ACCORDINGLY, THE SAME IS DISMISSED. 12. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWE D. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 24 TH AUG.,2012. SD/- SD/- (SUSHMA CHOWLA) (MEHAR SINGH) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 24 TH AUG.,2012. POONAM COPY TO: THE APPELLANT, THE RESPONDENT, THE CIT(A), THE CIT, DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT CHANDIGARH