M/s Swami Vivekanand Education Society, Sirsa V. CIT(E), Chandigarh

ITA 388/CHANDI/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 125 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1212 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-09-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 28-03-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: JAGDEEP GOYAL
• Assessee Lawyers: NEERAJ ARORA
• Keywords: Charitable institution
• Section: 12A; 12AA; 12

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH B, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MS. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.388/CHD/2018 (U/S 12AA OF THE ACT) M/S SWAMI VIVEKANAND VS. THE CIT(EXEMPTIONS), EDUCATION SOCIETY, CHANDIGARH. GUROWALA, MANDI DABWALI ROAD, TEHSIL MANNDI DABWALI, SIRSA (HARYANA). PAN: AAEAS4381H (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI NEERAJ ARORA, CA RESPONDENT BY : SHRI JAGDEEP GOYAL, CIT DR DATE OF HEARING : 28.08.2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 06.09.2018 ORDER PER ANNAPURNA GUPTA, A.M . : THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN PREFERRED BY THE ASSESS EE AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CHANDIGARH DATED 31.1.2018, REFUSING GRANT OF REGISTRATION U/S 12A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT). 2. BRIEF FACTS RELATING TO THE ISSUE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED AN APPLICATION IN FORM NO.10A SEEKING REG ISTRATION U/S 12A OF THE ACT. THE CIT(E) NOTED FROM THE AFORE SAID APPLICATION THAT THE APPLICANT SOCIETY WAS AN ONGOI NG ENTITY IN OPERATION SINCE 13.8.1991 AND THAT ITS AIMS AND OBJECTS WERE TO RUN, MANAGE AND DEVELOP SWAMI VIVEKANAND SE NIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL; TO AWAKEN NATIONS SPIRIT AND SCI ENTIFIC APPROACH IN STUDENTS; TO MAKE BASE COURSE PRESCRIBE D BY THE HARYANA EDUCATIONAL BOARD; TO MOTIVATE THE POOR AND ITA NO.388/CHD/2018 2 DISABLED STUDENTS BY PROVIDING EDUCATIONAL FACILITI ES ALONGWITH SCHOLARSHIPS. THE CIT(E) THEREAFTER PRO CEEDED TO CONSIDER THE APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE AND SOUGHT DETAILS AND CLARIFICATION FROM THE ASSESSEE. AFTER CONSIDER ING THE SAME THE CIT(E) DENIED GRANT OF REGISTRATION STATIN G THAT THE ASSESSEE, HAVING BEEN CLAIMING EXEMPTION U/S 10(23C (IIIAD) OF THE ACT EARLIER, IT SHOULD HAVE SOUGHT APPROVAL U/S 10(23C)(VI) OF THE ACT AND NOT U/S 12A OF THE ACT. THE CIT(E) FURTHER NOTED THAT THE APPLICANT SOCIETY HAD WRONGL Y CLAIMED EXEMPTION U/S 10(23C)(IIIAD) FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 17-18 SINCE ITS RECEIPTS EXCEEDED THE SPECIFIED LIMIT OF RS.1 CRORE, ON ACCOUNT OF WHICH THE GENUINENESS OF ITS ACTIVITY WAS MARRED. FOR THE ABOVE REASONS, THE CIT(E) DENIED G RANT OF REGISTRATION. THE RELEVANT FINDINGS OF THE CIT(E) A T PARA 7 TO 11 READS UNDER: 7. ON 12.01.2018, SH. LALIT BANSAL CA AND SH. RAJG URU, CA COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT ATTENDED THIS OFFICE AND FILED RESPONSE TO ABOVE NOTED QUERIES. AFTER CONSIDERING THE WRITTE N SUBMISSIONS, IT WAS SEEN THAT APPLICANT WAS CREATED ON 13.08.1991 AND FILED APPLY FOR REGISTRATION AFTER A LONG GAP OF 26 YEARS. IN THAT CONTEXT, A SHOW-CAUSE LETTER WAS SEN T TO APPLICANT TO FURNISH FOLLOWING DETAILS/CLARIFICATION BY 22.1. 2018 AND THE SAME WAS E-MAILED ALSO TO APPLICANT AT [e-mail]. THE CONTENTS OF THE SAME ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER:- (I) WHAT IS THE RATIONALE BEHIND SEEKING REGISTRATION U /S 12AA AFTER A LONG GAP OF 26 YEARS. (II) EXPLAIN THE REASON WHY APPROVAL U/S 10(23C)(VI) HAS NOT BEEN SOUGHT GIVEN THAT IT HAS BEEN CLAIMING EXEMPTION 10(23C)(IIIAD) IN THE PAST ASSUMING ITSEL F AS 'SOLELY FOR EDUCATION'. (III) PROVIDE CONSOLIDATED RECEIPTS & PAYMENTS STATEMENTS FOR THE LAST THREE FINANCIAL YEARS INCLUDING F. Y 201 6- 17. 8. ON 25.01.2018, THE APPLICANT FILED REPLY TO ABO VE NOTED QUERIES THROUGH E-MAIL. AFTER PERUSAL OF WRIT TEN SUBMISSIONS IT IS REVEALED THAT THE APPLICANT SOCIETY IS ITA NO.388/CHD/2018 3 RUNNING AN EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION NAMELY 'SWAMI VIVEKANAND SR. SEC. SCHOOL'. A SPECIFIC QUERY REGARD ING RATIONALE BEHIND SUDDEN NEED OF REGISTRATION U/S 12 AA AFTER THE LONG GAP OF 26 YEARS HAD BEEN RAISED TO A PPLICANT. IN RESPONSE TO QUERY THE APPLICANT STATED THAT SINCE THE RECEIPTS OF SOCIETY WERE LESS THAN RS. 1 CRORE, THE APPLICANT WAS CLAIMING EXEMPTION U/S 10(23C)(IIIAD) OF THE AC T AND NOW THE SOCIETY WANTS TO EXPAND INFRASTRUCTURE AND FACILITIES TO STUDENTS AND DUE TO THAT ANNUAL RECEIP TS OF THE SOCIETY WOULD EXCEED RUPEES 1 CRORE. NATURAL PROGRES SION IN THE SCHEME OF THE ACT ENTAILS THAT APPROVAL U/S 10(2 3C)(VI) IS TO BE SOUGHT WHEN THE RECEIPTS EXCEED RS.1 CRORE. IT CLEARLY LEADS TO THE CONCLUSIONS THAT THE APPLICANT FAILED TO PROVIDE COGENT RATIONALE FOR SEEKING REGISTRATION AFTER SUCH A LONG GAP. THE EXPANSION OF INFRASTRUCTURE ETC IS NOT CON TINGENT UPON A 12AA REGISTRATION. IT IS DIFFICULT TO ASCERT AIN HOW THE MANAGEMENT AND COMPOSITION OF THE GOVERNING BOD Y OF THE SOCIETY HAVE EVOLVED OVER 26 YEARS. THE CONT ENTION OF APPLICANT IN THE ABSENCE OF COGENT REPLY OF SPEC IFIC QUERY IS NOT ACCEPTABLE ALSO SINCE THE NORMAL MEANING ACC ORDED TO THE WORD REGISTRATION IN OTHER ACTS MEANS AT THE INITIAL STAGE OR INCIPIENT STAGE. 9. MOREOVER, PERUSAL OF RECEIPTS & PAYMENTS ACCOUNT S REVEALS THAT THE SOCIETY HAD RECEIPTS TO THE TUNE R S. 1.22 CRORE IN F.Y 2016-17. DESPITE THE RECEIPTS BEING AB OVE RS. 01 CRORE, THE APPLICANT HAS WRONGLY CLAIMED EXEMPTI ON U/S 10(23C)(IIIAD) IN A.Y 2017-18. THE CASE OF THE APPLICANT AND THE GENUINENESS OF ACTIVITIES GET MAR RED BY SUCH CLAIMS IN THE PAST, AN ASPECT THAT SHALL BE EX AMINED BY THE JURISDICTIONAL AO. 10. IN RESPECT OF THE OTHER QUERY IT HAS BEEN CONFE SSED IN REPLY DATED 25.01.2018 THAT THE SOCIETY IS CLAIM ING EXEMPTION U/S 10(23C)(IIIAD) AS THE ENTITY IS ESTAB LISHED 'SOLELY FOR EDUCATION' AND RUNNING A SCHOOL NAMED ' SWAMI VIVEKANAND SR. SEC. SCHOOL'. THE CLAIMS ARE THAT TH E 'SOLE OBJECT OF THE SOCIETY HAS BEEN PROVIDING EDUCATION AND NOT TO EARN PROFIT. IN THAT CONTEXT THE APPLICANT HAD A LL THE REASONS TO APPLY FOR EXEMPTION UNDER THE' PROVISION OF SECTION 10(23C)(VI) RATHER THAN 12AA. IN ANSWER TO A SPECIFIC QUERY SEEKING THE RATIONALE FOR APPLICATIO N U/S 12A INSTEAD OF 10(23C)(VI) IT HAS BEEN STATED THAT 'NOW THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE SOCIETY IS THINKING TO EX PAND INFRASTRUCTURE AND FACILITIES TO STUDENTS FOR VARIO US EDUCATIONAL FIELD AND DUE TO THAT IT IS EXPECTED TH AT ANNUAL RECEIPTS OF THE SOCIETY WOULD EXCEED RUPEES ONE CRO RE SO BY CONSIDERING THAT SITUATION NOW APPLIED FOR 12AA REG ISTRATION. AS THIS SOCIETY IS RUN WITH THE CO-OPERATION OF GEN ERAL PUBLIC WHO THINK TO CONTRIBUTE FOR EDUCATION IN RURAL AREA AND EX-STUDENTS OF THE SCHOOL WORKING IN PUBLIC & PRIVATE SECTORS HAVI NG TAXABLE INCOME. SO TO PROMOTE PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION, THE GOVE RNING BODY OF THE SOCIETY IS CONSIDERING TO APPLY FOR REGISTRATIO N U/S 80G, THAT'S WHY APPROVAL U/S10(23C)(VI) HAS NOT BEEN APPLIED'. ITA NO.388/CHD/2018 4 THE CONTENTION OF THE APPLICANT DOESN'T HOLD GROUND SINCE AS PER RULE 11AA(2) IT IS CLEARLY STATED THAT THE APPLICATION FOR SEEKING APPROVAL MAY BE ACCOMPANIED BY COPY OF NOTIFICATION ISSUED U/S 10(23C). IT IS C LEAR FROM THE SAME THAT THE APPLICANT WOULD BECOME ELIGIBLE F OR 80G(5) APPROVAL EVEN IF IT HAD A 10(23C)(VI) APPROV AL. THE RATIONALE PROVIDED BY APPLICANT BEHIND NOT SEEKING APPROVAL U/S 10(23C)(VI) ALSO RAISE THE QUE STION THAT 'IS IT THE CASE THAT THE MOMENT RECEIPTS EXCEE DED RS.ONE CRORE THE APPLICANT SOCIETY HAS CEASED TO BE EXISTING 'SOLELY FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES' AND 'NOT FOR PROFITS'? IT CLEARLY LEADS TO PRESUME THAT THE APPL ICANT HAS NOTHING TO PROVIDE COGENT RATIONALE FOR SHIFTIN G TRACK FROM 10(23C) TO SECTIONS11 & 12 WHICH ARE CODES GUI DED BY SEPARATE PRINCIPLES & CONDITIONS. EVEN THOUGH JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS HAVE ALLOWED ALTERNATIVE CLAIMS EITHER FOR 12AA OR 10(23C) BUT AT THE SAME TIME HAVENT A LLOWED SHIFTING FROM ONE PROVISION TO OTHER MIDWAY WHEN TH E APPLICANT HAS CONSISTENTLY AVAILED BENEFITS FOR A N UMBER OF YEAR UNDER SECTION 10(23C)(IIIAD). NATURAL PROGRESS ION ENTAILS AND ENTITLES THE EDUCATIONAL SOCIETIES TO G O FOR 10(23C)(VI) IN SUCH CASES AND CHANGING CODES IN MID WAY CANNOT BE ALLOWED. IF IT IS DONE THE ENTIRE SCHEME OF THE ACT WOULD BE RENDERED DYSFUNCTIONAL. 3. AGGRIEVED BY THE SAME, THE ASSESSEE HAS COME UP IN APPEAL BEFORE US, RAISING FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. THAT THE ORDER PASSED U/S 12AA OF THE INCOME TAX AC T, 1961 BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) , CHANDIGARH IS AGAINST LAW AND FACTS ON THE FILE AS MU CH AS HE WAS NOT JUSTIFIED TO ARBITRARILY REJECT THE APPLICATI ON SEEKING REGISTRATION U/S 12AA WITHOUT GIVING ANY COGENT REA SON FOR THE REJECTION THEREOF. 2. THAT HE WAS NOT JUSTIFIED TO HOLD THAT IF AN APP LICANT HAS AVAILED BENEFITS U/S 10(23C(IIIAD), THE SAME PERSON CAN NOT CLAIM REGISTRATION U/S 12A. 4. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING BEFORE US, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE STATED THAT THE CIT(E) HAD REJECTED TH E APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE ON IRRELEVANT CONSIDERA TION AND HAVING NOT COMMENTED ON THE OBJECTS AND ACTIVITIES OF THE APPLICANT SOCIETY, THE DENIAL OF REGISTRATION WAS N OT AS PER LAW AND THE ORDER OF THE CIT(E) NEEDED TO BE SET AS IDE. ITA NO.388/CHD/2018 5 5. THE LD. DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, VEHEMENTLY SUPPOR TED THE ORDER OF THE CIT(E). 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE CONTENTIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIE S AND GONE THROUGH THE IMPUGNED ORDER IN APPEAL. WE FIND MERIT IN THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE. THE ISSUE BEFORE US RELATES TO GRANT OF REGISTRATION TO THE A PPLICANT ASSESSEE AS CHARITABLE INSTITUTION/TRUST U/S 12A OF THE ACT. IT IS SETTLED LAW THAT FOR THE PURPOSE OF GRANT OF REGISTRATION U/S 12A, THE CIT(E) HAS ONLY TO CONSIDER THE GENUIN ENESS OF THE OBJECTS AND THE ACTIVITY OF THE APPLICANTS. THE SAME IS CLEAR FROM THE LANGUAGE OF SECTION 12AA ITSELF, WHI CH DEALS WITH PROCEDURE FOR REGISTRATION, AND WHICH STATES SO IN CLEAR TERMS AS UNDER: 12AA (1) THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OR COMMISSIONER, ON RECEIPT OF AN APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION OF A TRUST OR INSTITUTION MADE UNDER CLAUSE (A) OR CLAUSE (AA) OR CLAUSE (AUTHORITIES BELOW) OF SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 12A SHALL_ (A) CAL FOR SUCH DOCUMENTS OR INFORMATION FROM THE TRUST OR INSTITUTION AS HE THINKS NECESSARY IN ORDER TO SATISFY HIMSELF ABOUT THE GENUINENESS OF ACTIVITIES OF THE TRUST OR INSTITUTION AND MAY ALSO MAKE SUCH INQUIRIES AS HE MAY DEEM NECESSARY IN THIS BEHALF; AND (B) AFTER SATISFYING HIMSELF ABOUT THE OBJECTS OF THE TRUST OR INSTITUTION AND THE GENUINENESS OF ITS ACTIVITIES, HE_ (I) SHALL PASS AN ORDER IN WRITING REGISTERING THE TRUST OR INSTITUTION. (II) SHALL, IF HE IS NOT SO SATISFIED, PASS AN ORDER IN WRITING REFUSING TO REGISTER HE TRUST OR INSTITUTION, AND A COPY OF SUCH ORDER SHALL BE SENT TO THE APPLICANT. ITA NO.388/CHD/2018 6 7. IN THE PRESENT CASE WE FIND THAT THE CIT(E) HAS NOT COMMENTED EITHER ON THE OBJECTS OF THE APPLICANT SO CIETY NOR NATURE OF ACTIVITIES CARRIED OUT BY IT, DESPITE HAV ING SOUGHT RELEVANT INFORMATION FOR THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGAR D BY ISSUING A DETAILED QUESTIONNAIRE DATED 7.12.2017 RE PRODUCED IN HIS ORDER AT PARA 5 ALSO. THE ONLY REASON FOR RE JECTION OF APPLICATION IS THAT THE ASSESSEE SHOULD HAVE APPLIE D FOR APPROVAL U/S 10(23C)(VI) OF THE ACT, WHICH, WE FAIL TO UNDERSTAND HOW IT HAS ANY IMPACT ON THE GENUINENESS OF THE ACTIVITY/OBJECT OF THE APPLICANT SOCIETY. THE FINDI NG OF THE CIT(E) THAT THE GENUINENESS OF THE ASSESSEE WAS MAR RED BY THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD WRONGLY CLAIMED EXEM PTION U/S 10(23C)(IIIAD) IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2017-18 SINCE ITS INCOME EXCEEDED THE SPECIFIED LIMIT OF RS.1 CRORE, IS ALSO DEVOID OF ALL MERITS, WE HOLD. THE SAID FACT MAY PO INT TO AN INCORRECT CLAIM MADE BY THE ASSESSEE BUT IS DEFINIT ELY NOT A REFLECTION ON THE GENUINENESS OF THE ACTIVITIES CAR RIED OUT BY IT. 8. FURTHER WE ARE UNABLE TO AGREE WITH THE LD.CIT( E) THAT AN APPLICANT ASSEESSEE SEEKING EXEMPTION U/S 10(23 C)(IIIAD) OF THE ACT HAS TO NECESSARILY SEEK APPROVAL U/S 10( 23C)(VI) OF THE ACT AND THAT IT CANNOT SEEK APPROVAL U/S 12A OF THE ACT, IMPLYING THEREBY THAT THE APPROVAL UNDER THE SAID T WO SECTIONS CANNOT BE SOUGHT ALTERNATELY. WE NOTE, THA T WHILE SECTION 10(23C)(VI) OF THE ACT, DEALS WITH THE ISSU E OF ITA NO.388/CHD/2018 7 APPROVAL TO BE SOUGHT BY UNIVERSITIES OR OTHER EDU CATIONAL INSTITUTIONS EXISTING SOLELY FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOS ES, SECTION 12AA DEALS WITH REGISTRATION TO BE SOUGHT BY TRUSTS OR INSTITUTIONS CARRYING OUT CHARITABLE ACTIVITIES, WH ICH AS PER THE DEFINITION OF CHARITY U/S 2(15) OF THE ACT, INC LUDES EDUCATION. THEREFORE AN INSTITUTION INDULGING IN TH E ACTIVITY OF IMPARTING EDUCATION CAN SEEK APPROVAL /REGISTRAT ION UNDER EITHER OF THE SECTIONS IF IT FULFILLS THE CONDITION SPECIFIED THEREIN. NO PROVISION UNDER THE ACT HAS BEEN BROUGH T TO OUR NOTICE BY THE REVENUE, DEBARRING INSTITUTIONS FROM SEEKING APPROVAL/REGISTRATION UNDER THE SAID SECTIONS ALTER NATIVELY, NOR DOES THE SAME EMANATE FROM THE ORDER OF THE CIT (E). FURTHER THE REVENUE HAD ALSO NOT POINTED OUT ANY PR OVISION OF LAW TO THE EFFECT THAT AN ASSESSEE SEEKING EXEMP TION UNDER SECTION 10(23C)(IIIAD), HAS TO COMPULSORILY S EEK APPROVAL U/S 10(23C)(VI) OF THE ACT. 9. THEREFORE, WE HOLD THAT THE DENIAL OF REGISTRATI ON U/S 12A OF THE ACT IN THE PRESENT CASE IS NOT AS PER LA W .BUT AT THE SAME TIME, WE FIND, THAT THE LD.CIT(E) HAS NOT CONSIDERED THE APPLICATION IN THE LIGHT OF THE PROV ISIONS OF LAW IN THIS REGARD, HAVING NOT COMMENTED ON THE GENUINENESS OF THE OBJECTS AND ACTIVITIES OF THE AP PLICANT SOCIETY. WE, THEREFORE, CONSIDER IT FIT TO RESTORE THE ISSUE BACK TO THE LD.CIT(E) TO MAKE ALL NECESSARY INQUIR IES AND DEAL WITH THE APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE IN ACCORD ANCE WITH LAW. WE MAY ADD THAT THE APPLICANT SOCIETY BE GIVEN DUE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING AND WE FURTHER DIRECT THAT T HE ORDER ITA NO.388/CHD/2018 8 BE PASSED WITHIN SIX MONTHS OF RECEIPT OF THE COPY OF OUR ORDER. 10. AT THIS JUNCTURE, WE ARE CONSTRAINED TO POINT O UT THAT IN THE RECENT PAST ALSO WE HAVE DEALT WITH SEVERAL SUC H APPEALS OF APPLICANT ASSESSEES, WHOSE APPLICATION U/S 12A H AS BEEN REJECTED SOLELY FOR THE REASON THAT APPROVAL SHOULD HAVE BEEN SOUGHT U/S 10(23C)(VI) OF THE ACT, AND TIME AND AGA IN IT HAS BEEN POINTED OUT BY US THROUGH OUR ORDERS, THAT THI S CANNOT BE THE BASIS FOR REJECTING THE APPLICATION FOR REGI STRATION. BUT IT SEEMS THAT THE DEPARTMENT IS TAKING NO HEED OF THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE ITAT, WHICH IS A SERIOUS LAPSE ON THEIR PART. ORDERS PASSED BY HIGHER AUTHORITIES HAVE TO B E FOLLOWED IN LETTER AND SPIRIT UNLESS THERE ARE CONTRARY ORDE RS OF HIGHER AUTHORITIES WHICH SHOULD BE BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE O F ALL CONCERNED. THIS PRACTICE OF THE DEPARTMENT, IN ANY CASE, IS NOT RESULTING IN ANY EFFECTIVE DISPOSAL OF WORK BUT ONLY ADDING TO THE SAME WHEN THE ORDERS ARE RESTORED BAC K BY THE ITAT FOR RECONSIDERATION. THE CONCERNED AUTHORITIE S SHOULD THEREFORE TAKE NOTE OF THE SAME AND TAKE EFFECTIVE STEPS IN THIS REGARD. 11. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS A LLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- SD/- (SANJAY GARG) (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 6 TH SEPTEMBER, 2018 ITA NO.388/CHD/2018 9 *RATI* COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A) 4. THE CIT 5. THE DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH