DCIT, C-I, Ludhiana V. M/s Mehta Engineers Ltd., Ludhiana

ITA 408/CHANDI/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 112 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6428 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-02-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 03-04-2018
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ASHISH GUPTA; ANKUR ALYA
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Unexplained expenditure; Business income; Depreciation; Income from undisclosed sources; Salary income; Loose papers; Deemed to accrue or arise in india; Unabsorbed depreciation; Set aside
• Section: 69C; 133A; 69B; 250; 69A; 68; 28

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH A , CHANDIGARH , ! ' # $ %! , BEFORE: SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO.1494/CHD/2017 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2014-15 M/S FAMINA KNIT FABS, NEAR KISSAN COLD STORE, BINDRA COLONY, G.T. ROAD, LUDHIANA. THE A.C.I.T., CIRCLE-3, LUDHIANA. ./ PAN NO.AAAFF2968E / APPELLANT / RESPONDENT & ./ ITA NO.408/CHD/2018 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2013-14 THE D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-1, LUDHIANA. M/S MEHTA ENGINEERS LIMITED,C-75, PHASE-V, FOCAL POINT, LUDHIANA. ./ PAN NO.AABCM5352M / APPELLANT / RESPONDENT /ASSESSEE BY : SHRI HARI OM ARORA, ADV. ! / REVENUE BY : SHRI ASHISH GUPTA, CIT DR & SHRI ANKUR ALYA, SR.DR ' # $ /DATE OF HEARING : 13.11.2018 %&'( $ /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 08.02.2019 /ORDER PER ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: BOTH THE PRESENT APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AN D THE REVENUE RESPECTIVELY, ARE DIRECTED AGAINST SEPARA TE ORDERS OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-1, LUDH IANA (IN SHORT CIT(A) DATED 24.8.2017 AND 4.1.2018 RESPECT IVELY, ITA NO.1494/CHD/2014 A.Y.2014-15 & ITA NO.408/CHD/2018 A.Y.2013-14 2 PASSED IN THE CASE OF DIFFERENT ASSESSEES, U/S 250 (6) OF THE INCOME TAX AT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS AC T). 2. IT WAS COMMON GROUND THAT THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN BOTH THE APPEALS WAS IDENTICAL, BEING RELATED TO TH E CHARACTERIZATION OF INCOME SURRENDERED DURING SURVE Y PROCEEDINGS, WHETHER IN THE NATURE OF INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES U/S 68, 69, 69A, 69B AND 69C OF THE ACT, OR IN THE NATURE OF BUSINESS INCOME AND FURTHER WHETHER THE SET OFF OF LOSSES AGAINST THE S AME WAS ALLOWABLE OR NOT. IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT WHILE IN ONE CASE THE ISSUE HAD BEEN DECIDED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE, THE OTHER HAD BEEN DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF T HE ASSESSEE AND HENCE, THE ABOVE APPEALS BY THE ASSESS EE AND THE REVENUE RESPECTIVELY. BOTH THE APPEALS WERE THEREFORE TAKEN UP TOGETHER FOR HEARING. 3. TAKING US THROUGH THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN ITA NO.408/CHD/2018 IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT THE ASSESSE E IN THIS CASE WAS DERIVING INCOME FROM MANUFACTURING AND SALE OF DIFFERENT TYPES AND SIZES OF AUTO PARTS . THAT DURING THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR THE ASSESSEES PREMISES WAS SURVEYED UNDER THE PROVISIO NS OF SECTION 133A OF THE ACT ON 14.9.2012, WHEREUPON IT WAS NOTICED THAT THERE WERE UNACCOUNTED RECEIVABLES OF RS.1.25 CRORES. THE SAME WAS SURRENDERED BY THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, AT THE TIME OF FINALIZATION OF THE ITA NO.1494/CHD/2014 A.Y.2014-15 & ITA NO.408/CHD/2018 A.Y.2013-14 3 ACCOUNTS, AS AT THE CLOSE OF THE YEAR, THOUGH THE ADDITIONAL INCOME SURRENDERED DURING SURVEY PROCEEDINGS WAS CREDITED AS INCOME, THE SAME WAS OFFSET BY DEBIT ENTRIES RESULTING IN NET PROFIT OF RS.49,12,262/-. THIS AMOUNT WAS ENTIRELY SET OFF WI TH THE BROUGHT FORWARD BUSINESS LOSSES AMOUNTING TO RS.52,66,385/- FROM THE PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR I.E. A.Y 2012-13, RESULTING IN THE RETURN OF NIL IN COME FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR, AND CLAIM OF CARR Y FORWARD OF LOSSES OF THE BALANCE I.E. RS.3,54,123/ -. IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSING OFFICER(I N SHORT REFERRED TO AS A.O.) TREATED THE ADDITIONAL INCOME SURRENDERED AS DEEMED INCOME UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 69A AND 69B OF THE ACT SEPARATELY WITHOUT ALLOWING SET OFF OF THE SAME WIT H THE BUSINESS LOSSES OF THE ASSESSEE (BOTH ASSESSED AND BROUGHT FORWARD), FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE HON 'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF M/S KIM PHARMA PVT. LTD. VS. CIT, PANCHKULA & OTHERS AND TH E DECISION OF THE HON'BLE ITAT CHANDIGARH BENCH IN TH E CASE OF M/S LIBERTY PLYWOOD PVT. LTD., AMBALA IN IT A NO.727/CHD/2012. 4. AGGRIEVED BY THE SAME, THE MATTER WAS CARRIED IN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A). THE LD.CIT(A) FOUND TH AT THE ASSESSEES CASE WAS IDENTICAL WITH THE CASE OF M/S SANJAY BAIRATHI GEMS LTD. DECIDED BY JAIPUR BENCH O F THE I.T.A.T. IN ITA NO.157/JP/2017, DATED 08.08.201 7 ITA NO.1494/CHD/2014 A.Y.2014-15 & ITA NO.408/CHD/2018 A.Y.2013-14 4 AND FOLLOWING THE SAME HELD THAT THE INCOME SURRENDERED, PERTAINING TO UNRECORDED RECEIVABLES, SQUARELY FELL WITHIN THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 69A/ 69B OF THE ACT, SINCE THEY WERE HITHERTO UNDECLARED INC OME OF THE ASSESSEE BUT BEING PART AND PARCEL OF THE BUSINESS UNDERTAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE, THE LD.CIT(A) HELD THAT IT WAS TO BE CLASSIFIED UNDER THE HEAD PROFITS AND GAINS OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSION. THEREAFTER HE STATED THAT SINCE THE IMPUGNED BUSINE SS INCOME WAS ASSESSSED U/S 69A AND 69B OF THE ACT, TH E PROVISIONS OF SECTION 115BBE OF THE ACT, WOULD COME INTO OPERATION, WHICH PRESCRIBED THE LEVY OF A SPEC IAL RATE OF TAX ON SUCH DEEMED INCOMES AND AS PER THE PREVAILING PROVISIONS OF THE SAID SECTION, THE SET OFF OF LOSSES AGAINST THE DEEMED INCOME WAS ALLOWABLE. LD.CIT(A) HELD THAT THE AMENDMENT MADE TO THE SECTION, RULING OUT SET OFF OF LOSSES AGAINST SUCH DEEMED INCOMES, BROUGHT ABOUT BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2016 W.E.F. 1.4.2017, WAS PROSPECTIVE IN NATURE. FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE I.T.A.T. IN THE CASE OF SANJAY BAIRATHI GEMS LTD. (SUPRA), ACCORDINGLY, HE HELD THAT SINCE THE ASSESSMENT YEAR INVOLVED IN THE IMPUGNED CASE WAS 2013-14 THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT BE DENIED THE BENEFIT OF SET OFF OF CURRENT YEAR BUSIN ESS LOSSES INCLUDING DEPRECIATION AS ALSO BROUGHT FOR WARD ITA NO.1494/CHD/2014 A.Y.2014-15 & ITA NO.408/CHD/2018 A.Y.2013-14 5 BUSINESS LOSSES OF EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEAR FROM THE SURRENDERED INCOME ASSESSED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIONS 69A AND 69B OF THE ACT AND ACCORDINGLY, ALLOWED THE ASSESSEES APPEAL. 5. IN THE CASE OF APPEAL FILED IN ITA NO.1494/CHD/2017, IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SURRENDERED THE ADDITIONAL INCOME OF RS.4 CRORES DURING SURVEY OPERATIONS CARRIED OUT ON THE ASSESSEE U/S 133A OF THE ACT ON 02-01-14 ON ACCOUNT OF THE FOLLOWING: I) INVESTMENT OF RS.60 LACS IN KOTHI AT SUKHMANI ENCLAVE IN THE NAME OF SMT.REKHA MIGLANI; II) SUNDRY CREDITORS AND ADVANCES RECEIVED FROM CUSTOMERS AMOUNTING TO RS.132 LACS; III) GROSS PROFIT ON SALE OUT OF BOOKS AMOUNTING TO RS.198 LACS AND; IV) SURRENDER TO COVER MISCELLANEOUS DISCREPANCIES IN LOOSE PAPERS ETC. AMOUNTING TO RS.10 LACS. 6. IN THIS CASE ALSO, THE ASSESSEE HAD SET OFF DEBI T ENTRIES AGAINST THE AFORESAID SURRENDER SHOWING NET PROFIT OF RS.96,31,647/- AND ALSO SET OFF BUSINESS LOSS OF RS.3,39,85,902/-. THE A.O. IN THIS CASE ALSO HAD ASSESSED THE ENTIRE SURRENDERED INCOME TO TAX AND DENIED THE SET OFF OF LOSSES. THE LD.CIT(A) TREATE D THE ENTIRE SURRENDERED INCOME AS DEEMED INCOME AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIONS 69, 69A, 69B AND 69C ITA NO.1494/CHD/2014 A.Y.2014-15 & ITA NO.408/CHD/2018 A.Y.2013-14 6 OF THE ACT AND FURTHER HELD THAT THE SAME WAS TO BE TAXED AS PER THE APPLICABLE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 115BBE OF THE ACT. THE LD.CIT(A) THEREAFTER HELD TH AT THE AMENDMENT TO SECTION 115BBE OF THE ACT, DENYING THE SET OFF OF LOSSES AGAINST THE AFORESAID DEEMED INCOMES WAS CLARIFICATORY IN NATURE HAVING RETROSPECTIVE APPLICATION. ACCORDINGLY, HE UPHELD T HE ORDER OF THE A.O. DENYING SET OFF OF LOSSES AGAINST THE SURRENDERED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 7. ACCORDINGLY, AGGRIEVED BY THE AFORESAID ORDERS, THE REVENUE HAS COME UP IN APPEAL IN ITA NO.408/CHD/2018, WHILE THE ASSESSEE HAS COME UP IN APPEAL IN ITA NO.1494/CHD/2017 CHALLENGING THE ACTION OF THE LD.CIT(A) AND THE GROUNDS RAISED IN B OTH THE APPEALS ARE AS UNDER: ITA NO.1494/CHD/2017(ASSESSEES APPEAL) : 1. THAT THE LD. CIT (A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DISMISSING APPELLANT'S APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 2. THAT THE LD. CIT (A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING THA T DISCLOSURE OF RS.4CRORE AT THE TIME OF SURVEY UNDOUB TEDLY REPRESENTED UNEXPLAINED INCOME AND THERE CANNOT BE A NY TREATMENT OF THIS AMOUNT OTHER THAN DEEMED INCOME UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 69, 69A, 69B & 69C OF THE ACT, EVEN IF, THE SAME ACCRUED TO THE APPELLANT FROM T HE BUSINESS UNDERTAKING THEM. 3. THAT UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND DECISIONS OF HON'BLE ITAT, CHANDIGARH, THE LD. CIT (A) OUGHT TO HAVE TREATED THE SURRENDERED INCOME AS BUSINESS INCOME AND ALLOWED THE SET OFF OF CURRENT YEARS LOSSES AND UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION FROM THE SURRENDERED INCOME. ITA NO.1494/CHD/2014 A.Y.2014-15 & ITA NO.408/CHD/2018 A.Y.2013-14 7 4. THAT PROVISIONS OF SECTION 68, 69, 69A, 69B AND 69C, 72 AND 115BBE OF THE IT. ACT, 1961 HAVE BEEN MISCONSTRUED AND MISAPPLIED IN THE APPELLANT'S CASE 5. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND, MODIFY AND/OR ADD NEW GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE THE APPEAL IS HEARD AND DISPOSED OFF. ITA NO.408/CHD/2018(REVENUES APPEAL) : 1. WHETHER UPON FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. ; CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN ALLOWING SETTING OFF OF THE LOSSES AGAINST THE INCOME ASSESSED U/S. 69A AND 69B OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 IN VIEW OF AMENDMENT IN SECTION 115 BBE (2) BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2016 W.E.F. 01.04.2017, WHEREAS THE 'EXPLANATORY NOTES TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE FINANCE ACT, 2016 [CIRCULAR NO. 03/2017, F. NO. 370142/20/2 016- TPL, CBDT] DATED 20.01.2017 MAKES IT CLEAR THAT THE SAID AMENDMENT IN SECTION 115 BBE HAS BEEN MADE ONLY TO CONVEY THE DESIRED INTENTION OF THE LEGISLATURE AND TO AVOID UNNECESSARY LITIGATION? 2. WHETHER THE LD.CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN RELYING UPON THE DECISION OF HON'BLE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCH, IN THE CASE OF SAINJAY BAIRATHI [ITA NO. 157/JP/17, DATED 08.08.2017], WHEREAS, THE DECISION OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF KIM PHARMA LTD., VS. CIT, IN ITA NO. 106 OF 2011, HAS HELD THA T THE 'DEEMED INCOME COVERED UNDER THE SCHEME OF SECTION 69, 69-B AND 69 -C OF THE ACT IS TO BE TREA TED SEPARATELY AND IT IS NOT INCOME FROM SALARY, HOUSE PROPERTY, PROFIT AND GAINS FROM BUSINESS OR CAPITAL GAIN, NOR IT IS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. NO SETOF F IS ALLOWABLE AGAINST THIS INCOME? 3. THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (A) BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BE RESTORED. 4. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD OR AMEND ANY GROUND OF APPEAL BEFORE IT IS FINALLY DISPOSED OFF. 8. THE ARGUMENTS AND CONTENTIONS MADE BY BOTH THE PARTIES IN BOTH THE APPEALS WERE IDENTICAL. 9. BRIEFLY STATED, THE CONTENTIONS OF THE LD. COUNS EL FOR ASSESSEE WERE THAT THE INCOME SURRENDERED WAS I N ITA NO.1494/CHD/2014 A.Y.2014-15 & ITA NO.408/CHD/2018 A.Y.2013-14 8 THE NATURE OF BUSINESS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE RELAT ING TO THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE AND SET OFF OF LOSS ES, THEREFORE, WAS TO BE ALLOWED AGAINST THE SAME AS PE R THE PROVISIONS OF LAW. RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE DECISION OF THE ITAT CHANDIGARH BENCH IN THE CASE O F GAURISH STEELS PVT. LTD. VS. ACIT. IT WAS ALSO ALTERNATIVELY CONTENDED THAT EVEN IF THE INCOME WAS TO BE ASSESSED U/S 69, 69A, 69B AND 69C OF THE ACT AND TAXES CHARGED AS A CONSEQUENCE THERETO UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 115BBE OF THE ACT, THE SET OF F OF LOSSES WAS TO BE GIVEN SINCE THE DENIAL OF SET OFF AS PROVIDED IN THE SECTION W.E.F. 1.4.2017 WAS PROSPEC TIVE IN NATURE. RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS OF THE I.T.A.T.: 1) M/S RENNY STRIPS PVT. LTD. VS. ACIT ITA NO.1018/CHD/2014 DATED 28.12.2015. 2) DCIT VS. M/S MARSHAL MACHINES PVT. LTD. ITA NO.57/CHD/2017 DATED 22.5.2018. 3) ACIT VS. SANJAY BAITATHIS GEMS LTD. ITA NO.157/JP/2017 DATED 8.8.2017 4) PITAMBER COMMODITY FUTURES (P) LTD. VS. ACIT, ITA NO.863/JP/2017 DATED 21.3.2018. 5) M/S GAURISH STEELS PVT. LTD. VS. ACIT ITA NO.1080/CHD/2014 DATED 17.9.2015. 10. THE CONTENTION OF THE REVENUE, ON THE OTHER HAN D, WAS THAT THE CHARACTER OF THE INCOME SURRENDERED WA S IN THE NATURE OF DEEMED INCOME AS PROVIDED U/S 69, 69A, 69B AND 69C OF THE ACT, HAVING NOT BEEN DISCLOSED FOR TAX EARLIER AND ACCORDINGLY, THE SAID ITA NO.1494/CHD/2014 A.Y.2014-15 & ITA NO.408/CHD/2018 A.Y.2013-14 9 INCOMES WERE TO BE CHARGED TO TAX AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 115BBE OF THE ACT AND THE BENEFIT OF SET OFF LOSSES WAS NOT AVAILABLE SINCE T HE AMENDMENT MADE TO SECTION DENYING THE BENEFIT OF SE T OFF OF LOSSES W.E.F. 1.4.2017 WAS RETROSPECTIVE IN NATURE BEING CURATIVE IN CHARACTER. ALTERNATIVELY I T WAS CONTENDED THAT THE ISSUE WAS COVERED BY THE DECISIO N OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF KIM PHARMA LTD. VS CIT IN ITA NO. 106 OF 2011, AS PER WHICH THESE INCOMES COULD NOT BE ASSESSED UNDER ANY HEADS AS PROVIDED UNDER THE ACT AND THEREFORE WERE NOT ELIGIBLE TO SET OFF ANY LOSSES AGAINST THE SAME . 11. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS, PERUSED TH E ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND HAVE ALSO CONSIDERED VARIOUS CASE LAWS REFERRED TO BY BOTH TH E PARTIES BEFORE US. 12. THE ISSUES TO BE ADDRESSED IN THE PRESENT CASE CAN BE SUMMARIZED AS RELATING TO THE CATEGORIZATION/CHARACTERIZATION OF INCOME SURRENDER ED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING SURVEY PROCEEDINGS, WHETHER FROM DISCLOSED OR UNDISCLOSED SOURCES, AND THE ALLOWABILITY OF CLAIM OF SET OFF OF LOSSES ,BOTH CU RRENT AND BROUGHT FORWARD ,AGAINST THE SAME. 13. THE CONTROVERSY ARISES ON ACCOUNT OF THE SCHEME OF THE ACT WHICH MANDATES INCOMES TO BE CATEGORI ZED UNDER SPECIFIC HEADS DEPENDING ON THEIR ITA NO.1494/CHD/2014 A.Y.2014-15 & ITA NO.408/CHD/2018 A.Y.2013-14 10 NATURE/SOURCE, FOR COMPUTATION PURPOSES UNDER CHAPTER IV AND THEREAFTER PROVIDES FOR SETTING OFF OF LOSSES IN A SPECIFIC MANNER UNDER CHAPTER VI OF THE ACT. IF IT IS FROM ANY OF THE SOURCES AS SPECIFIED IN THE HEADS FOR TAXATION UNDER CHAPTER-IV OF THE ACT, THE INCOME THEREFROM IT IS TO BE COMPUTED AS PER THE PROVISIONS PROVIDED THEREUNDER. THEREFORE, IF THE SOURCE/NATURE OF THE INCOME IS FROM BUSINESS AND PROFESSION, THE INCOME TO BE SUBJECTED TO TAX IS TO BE ASSESSED AS PROVIDED U/S 28 TO 44DB OF THE ACT AND THE SET OFF OF CURRENT/ BROUGHT FORWARD LOSSES IS T O BE ALLOWED AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIONS 70 TO 80 OF THE ACT, WHICH ALLOWS SET OFF OF BUSINESS LOSSES AG AINST CURRENT YEAR BUSINESS LOSSES SUBJECT TO FULFILLMENT OF CERTAIN CONDITIONS. THERE IS NO DISPUTE ABOUT THE A BOVE POSITION OF LAW. 14. FURTHER THE ACT ALSO PROVIDES FOR TREATING CERT AIN CREDITS, INVESTMENTS, EXPENSES FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES, AS DEEMED INCOMES U/S 68,69,69A/B/C OF THE ACT, WHICH IS ALSO DEALT WITH IN CHAPTER VI OF THE ACT. SUCH DEEMED INCOMES ARE SUBJECTED TO TAX AT A SPECI AL RATE WITHOUT ALLOWING SET OFF OF EXPENSES OR LOSSE S AGAINST THE SAME, AS PROVIDED UNDER SECTION 115BBE OF THE ACT, INTRODUCED VIDE FINANCE ACT 2012, W.E.F . 01-04-2013. SINCE BOTH THE APPEALS BEFORE US RELATE TO A.Y. 2013-14 & 2014-15, THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 115BBE ARE APPLICABLE TO BOTH OF THEM AND TO THIS ITA NO.1494/CHD/2014 A.Y.2014-15 & ITA NO.408/CHD/2018 A.Y.2013-14 11 EFFECT THERE IS NO DISPUTE ALSO BEFORE US. THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIONS 69 TO 69C OF THE ACT & SECTI ON 115BBE OF THE ACT ARE REPRODUCED HEREUNDER FOR CLARITY : SECTION 69 UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENTS. WHERE IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE INVESTMENTS W HICH ARE NOT RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, IF ANY, MAI NTAINED BY HIM FOR ANY SOURCE OF INCOME, AND THE ASSESSEE OFF ERS NO EXPLANATION ABOUT THE NATURE AND SOURCE OF THE INVE STMENTS OR THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY HIM IS NOT, IN THE OPINION OF THE [ 2016 ][ASSESSING OFFICER], SATISFACTORY, THE VALUE OF THE INVESTMENTS MAY BE DEEMED TO BE THE INCOME OF THE A SSESSEE OF SUCH FINANCIAL YEAR. SECTION 69A [ 2017 ][UNEXPLAINED MONEY, ETC. WHERE IN ANY FINANCIAL YEAR THE ASSESSEE IS FOUND TO BE THE OWNER OF ANY MONEY, BULLION, JEWELLERY OR OTHER VALUABLE ARTICLE AND SUCH MONEY, BULLION, JEWELLERY OR VALUABLE ARTI CLE IS NOT RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, IF ANY, MAINTA INED BY HIM FOR ANY SOURCE OF INCOME, AND THE ASSESSEE OFFER S NO EXPLANATION ABOUT THE NATURE AND SOURCE OF ACQUISITI ON OF THE MONEY, BULLION, JEWELLERY OR OTHER VALUABLE ARTICLE, OR THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY HIM IS NOT, IN THE OPINION OF THE [ 2018 ][ASSESSING OFFICER], SATISFACTORY, THE MONEY AND TH E VALUE OF THE BULLION, JEWELLERY OR OTHER VALUABLE ARTICLE MAY BE DEEMED TO BE THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE OF SUCH FINA NCIAL YEAR.] SECTION 69B [ 2019 ][AMOUNT OF INVESTMENTS, ETC., NOT FULLY DISCLOSED IN BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. WHERE IN ANY FINANCIAL YEAR THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE INVESTMENTS OR IS FOUND TO BE THE OWNER OF ANY BULLI ON, JEWELLERY, OR OTHER VALUABLE ARTICLE, AND THE [ 2020 ][ASSESSING OFFICER] FINDS THAT THE AMOUNT EXPENDED ON MAKING S UCH INVESTMENTS OR IN ACQUIRING SUCH BULLION, JEWELLERY OR OTHER VALUABLE ARTICLE EXCEEDS THE AMOUNT RECORDED IN THIS B EHALF IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR ANY SOURCE OF INCOME, AND THE ASSESSEE OFFERS NO EXPLANAT ION ITA NO.1494/CHD/2014 A.Y.2014-15 & ITA NO.408/CHD/2018 A.Y.2013-14 12 ABOUT SUCH EXCESS AMOUNT OR THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY HIM IS NOT, IN THE OPINION OF THE [ 2021 ][ASSESSING OFFICER], SATISFACTORY, THE EXCESS AMOUNT MAY BE DEEMED TO BE THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FOR SUCH FINANCIAL YEAR.] SECTION 69C [ 2022 ][UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE, ETC. WHERE IN ANY FINANCIAL YEAR AN ASSESSEE HAS INCURRED ANY EXPENDITURE AND HE OFFERS NO EXPLANATION ABOUT THE S OURCE OF SUCH EXPENDITURE OR PART THEREOF, OR THE EXPLANATION , IF ANY, OFFERED BY HIM IS NOT, IN THE OPINION OF THE [ 2023 ][ASSESSING OFFICER], SATISFACTORY, THE AMOUNT COVERED BY SUCH E XPENDITURE OR PART THEREOF, AS THE CASE MAY BE, MAY BE DEEMED TO BE THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FOR SUCH FINANCIAL YEAR:] [ 2024 ][ PROVIDED THAT, NOTWITHSTANDING ANYTHING CONTAINED IN ANY OTHER PROVISION OF THIS ACT, SUCH UNEXPLAINED EX PENDITURE WHICH IS DEEMED TO BE THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE SH ALL NOT BE ALLOWED AS A DEDUCTION UNDER ANY HEAD OF INCOME.] SECTION 115BBE [ 3052 ][TAX ON INCOME REFERRED TO IN SECTION 68 OR SECTIO N 69 OR SECTION 69A OR SECTION 69B OR SECTION 69C OR SECTION 69D. [ 3052 ]['(1) WHERE THE TOTAL INCOME OF AN ASSESSEE, (A) INCLUDES ANY INCOME REFERRED TO IN SECTION 68, SE CTION 69, SECTION 69A, SECTION 69B, SECTION 69C OR SECTION 69D AND REFLECTED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FURNISHED UNDER SE CTION 139; OR (B) DETERMINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER INCLUDES ANY INCOME REFERRED TO IN SECTION 68, SECTION 69, SECTION 69A, SEC TION 69B, SECTION 69C OR SECTION 69D, IF SUCH INCOME IS NOT COV ERED UNDER CLAUSE (A) [ 3052A ][AND CLAUSE (B)], THE INCOME-TAX PAYABLE SHALL BE THE AGGREGATE OF (I) THE AMOUNT OF INCOME-TAX CALCULATED ON THE INC OME REFERRED TO IN CLAUSE (A) AND CLAUSE (B), AT THE RATE OF SIXTY PER CENT .; AND (II) THE AMOUNT OF INCOME-TAX WITH WHICH THE ASSESS EE WOULD HAVE BEEN CHARGEABLE HAD HIS TOTAL INCOME BEEN REDUC ED BY THE AMOUNT OF INCOME REFERRED TO IN CLAUSE (I).' [3052] SUBS. BY THE TAXATION LAWS (SECOND AMENDMENT) ACT, 2016. THE CLAUSE BEFORE SUBS. READ AS UNDER. (W.E.F. 1-04 - 2017) ITA NO.1494/CHD/2014 A.Y.2014-15 & ITA NO.408/CHD/2018 A.Y.2013-14 13 (1) WHERE THE TOTAL INCOME OF AN ASSESSEE INCLUDES AN Y INCOME REFERRED TO IN SECTION 68, SECTION 69, SECTION 69A, SECTION 69B, SECTION 69C OR SECTION 69D, THE INCOME-T AX PAYABLE SHALL BE THE AGGREGATE OF (A) THE AMOUNT OF INCOME-TAX CALCULATED ON INCOME RE FERRED TO IN SECTION 68, SECTION 69, SECTION 69A, SECTION 69B, SE CTION 69C OR SECTION 69D, AT THE RATE OF THIRTY PER CENT.; AND (B) THE AMOUNT OF INCOME-TAX WITH WHICH THE ASSESSEE WOULD HAVE BEEN CHARGEABLE HAD HIS TOTAL INCOME BEEN REDUC ED BY THE AMOUNT OF INCOME REFERRED TO IN CLAUSE (A). (2) NOTWITHSTANDING ANYTHING CONTAINED IN THIS ACT, NO DEDUCTION IN RESPECT OF ANY EXPENDITURE OR ALLOWANCE [ 3052A ]['OR SET OFF OF ANY LOSS']SHALL BE ALLOWED TO THE ASSESSEE UN DER ANY PROVISION OF THIS ACT IN COMPUTING HIS INCOME REFERR ED TO IN CLAUSE (A) OF SUB-SECTION (1).] [3052] OMITTED THE WORDS, FIGURES AND LETTERS 'FOR THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR BEGINNING ON THE 1S T DAY OF APRIL, 2012 OR BEGINNING ON THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 20 13 OR BEGINNING ON THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 2014' BY FINANCE (N O. 2) ACT, 2014 (W.E.F. 1-4-2015). INS. BY FINANCE ACT, 2016 (W.E.F. 1-04-2017). [3052A] INS. BY FINANCE ACT, 2018 (W.E.F. 1-04-2017). 15. AS IS EVIDENT FROM A BARE READING OF THE ABOVE SECTIONS ANY INVESTMENTS, MONEYS AND EXPENDITURE WHICH ARE NOT DISCLOSED IN THE BOOKS OF THE ASSESS EE, IF ANY, MAINTAINED BY IT AND THE SOURCE OF WHICH H AS ALSO BEEN NOT EXPLAINED SATISFACTORILY BY THE ASSES SEE ARE TREATED AS DEEMED INCOMES OF THE ASSESSEES. THU S, THE AMOUNTS TO BE TREATED AS DEEMED INCOMES ARE INVESTMENTS, MONEYS, OR EXPENDITURE FULFILLING THE TWIN CRITERIA OF: A) NOT BEING RECORDED IN THE BOOKS IF ANY MAINTAINED AND, B) THE SOURCE OF WHICH THE ASSESSEE IS UNABLE TO EXPLAIN SATISFACTORILY. ITA NO.1494/CHD/2014 A.Y.2014-15 & ITA NO.408/CHD/2018 A.Y.2013-14 14 16. IN OTHER WORDS, TO PUT IT SIMPLY, THE UNRECORD ED INVESTMENTS/ASSETS/EXPENDITURES MADE OUT OF UNEXPLAINED SOURCES ARE TREATED AS DEEMED INCOMES O F THE ASSESSEE. THE ONUS IS ON THE ASSESSEE TO ESTAB LISH THE SOURCE OF THE SURRENDERED INCOME FAILING WHICH IT IS TO BE CATEGORIZED AS DEEMED INCOME U/S 69/69A/B/C OF THE ACT. AND ESTABLISHING THE SOURCE OF INCOME IS A FACTUAL MATTER. THE LD.DR ,HAD DRAWN OU R ATTENTION TO THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTI ONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF PR.CIT VS KHUSHI RAM & SONS FOODS (P) LTD IN ITA NO.126 OF 2015 DATED 29-0 7- 16,WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE HAD SET OFF UNABSORBED LOSS ES U/S 70 & 71 AGAINST INCOME SURRENDERED ON ACCOUNT O F BUILDING RENOVATION, OFFICE EQUIPMENT AND SUNDRY RECEIVABLE, TO WHICH ,THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HAD HE LD THAT IT IS FOR THE ASSESSEE TO ESTABLISH THAT THE S OURCE OF THE SURRENDERED INCOME WAS FROM BUSINESS TO CLA IM IT AS SUCH AND SET OFF BUSINESS LOSSES AGAINST THE SAME. OUR VIEW THEREFORE IS FORTIFIED BY THE AFORES AID JUDGEMENT OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT. 17. FURTHER THE LEGISLATURE REQUIRES SUCH TYPE OF DEEMED INCOMES TO BE TAXED ON THE GROSS AMOUNT SO DETERMINED WITHOUT SETTING OFF ANY EXPENDITURE OR ALLOWANCES AGAINST THE SAME, U/S 115BBE OF THE ACT. SUBSEQUENTLY THE SECTION WAS AMENDED W.E.F 1.4.2017 BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2016, PROHIBITING SET OFF OF LO SSES ALSO AGAINST THE SAID DEEMED INCOME. ITA NO.1494/CHD/2014 A.Y.2014-15 & ITA NO.408/CHD/2018 A.Y.2013-14 15 18. HAVING EXPLAINED THE PROVISIONS OF LAW AS ABOVE , WE NOW PROCEED TO APPLY THE SAME TO THE FACTS OF B OTH THE CASES BEFORE US. 19. IN THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN ITA NO.408/CHD/2018 , THE INCOME SURRENDERED WAS ON ACCOUNT OF UNACCOUNTED RECEIVABLES OF THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE AMOUNTING TO RS.1.25 CRORES. THE LD.CIT(A) IN PARA 9 OF THE ORDER HAS OUTLINED THE FACTS RELATING TO THE SURRENDER MADE BY THE ASSESSEE STATING THAT DURING SURVEY A POCKET DIARY WAS FOUND FROM THE ACCOUNT SECTION OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WHICH CONTAINED ENTRY OF RECEIVABLES AMOUNTING TO RS.1.25 CRORES ON PAGES 27, 28, 31 AND 33, WHICH WERE NOT RECORDED IN THE REGULAR BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE AND W ERE SUBSEQUENTLY SURRENDERED STATING THAT THESE ENTRIES WERE UNACCOUNTED SUNDRY RECEIVABLES BEING SURRENDERED AS INCOME UNDER THE HEAD BUSINESS, TO BUY PIECE OF MIND AND SUBJECTED TO NO PENALTY AND FURTHER THAT THE LOSSES INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE IMPUGNED YEAR WILL BE ADJUSTED AGAINST THIS SURRENDERED INCOME. THE RELEVANT FACTS AS STATED BY THE CIT(A) IN PARA 9 OF HIS ORDER AND WHICH ARE NOT DISPUTED, ARE REPRODUCED HEREUNDER: 9. ADVERTING NOW TO THE FACTS OF THE INSTANT CASE, IT IS SEEN THAT WHEN SURVEY PROCEEDINGS WERE CONDUCTED AT THE BUSINESS PREMISES OF THE APPELLANT COMPANY, A POCKET DIARY WAS FOUND FROM THE ACCOUNTS SECTION WHICH CONTAINED ENTRIES OF RECEIVABLES AMOUNTING TO RS.1.25 CRORES ON PAGE NOS. 27, 28, 31 AND 33, WHICH ITA NO.1494/CHD/2014 A.Y.2014-15 & ITA NO.408/CHD/2018 A.Y.2013-14 16 WERE NOT RECORDED IN THE REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. WHEN THESE ENTRIES WERE CONFRONTED TO THE APPELLANT COMPANY WHILE RECORDING THE STATEMENT ON 15/09/2012, IT WAS STATED: 'THAT THESE ENTRIES ARE SUNDRY RECEIVABLES WHICH HAS NOT BEEN ACCOUNTED FOR IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND IN ORDER TO BUY PEACE OF MIND , THE SAME IS SURRENDERED AS INCOME UNDER THE HEAD BUSIN ESS FOR F.Y.2012-13 RELEVANT TO ASSTT. YEAR 2013-14 SUB JECT TO NO PENALTY AND PROSECUTION UNDER THE I.T. ACT, 1961 . SINCE THE COMPANY IS INCURRING LOSSES IN CURRENT F.Y.2012-13, THE SURRENDERED INCOME WILL BE ADJUSTE D AGAINST THESE LOSSES.' [EXTRACTED FROM THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER; PAGES 5 &6]. 20. CLEARLY, IT IS EVIDENT FROM THE ABOVE THAT THE SURRENDER WAS ON ACCOUNT OF DEBTORS/RECEIVABLES RELATING TO THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE ONLY. THE REVENUE HAS ACCEPTED THE SURRENDER AS SUCH, AS BEIN G ON ACCOUNT OF RECEIVABLES. IT FOLLOWS THAT THE DEBT ORS WERE GENERATED FROM THE SALES MADE BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF CARRYING ON THE BUSINESS OF TH E ASSESSEE, WHICH WAS NOT RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF TH E ASSESSEE. THOUGH THE SAID INCOME WAS NOT RECORDED I N THE BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE BUT THE SOURCE OF THE SAM E STOOD DULY EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE AS BEING FROM THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE. EVEN OTHERWISE NO OTHER SOURCE OF INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE IS THERE ON RECORD EITHER DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE OR UNEARTHED BY TH E REVENUE. THE PREPONDERANCE OF PROBABILITY THEREFORE IS THAT THE DEBTORS WERE SOURCED FROM THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THERE IS NO QUESTION OF TREATI NG IT AS DEEMED INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES U/S 69, 69A, 69B AND 69C OF THE ACT AND THE SAME IS HELD TO BE IN THE NATURE OF BUSINESS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE . ITA NO.1494/CHD/2014 A.Y.2014-15 & ITA NO.408/CHD/2018 A.Y.2013-14 17 HAVING HELD SO, THE SAME WAS ASSESSABLE UNDER THE HEAD BUSINESS AND PROFESSION AND AS STATED ABOVE, THE BENEFIT OF SET OFF OF LOSSES BOTH CURRENT AND BROUGHT FORWARD WAS ALLOWABLE TO THE ASSESSEE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. 21. THE CONTENTION OF THE REVENUE THEREFORE THAT TH E INCOME BE TREATED AS DEEMED INCOME U/S 69,69A/B/C OF THE ACT IS ACCORDINGLY REJECTED AND AS A CONSEQU ENCE THERETO THE PLEA THAT NO SET OFF OF LOSSES BE ALLOW ED AGAINST THE SAME U/S 115BBE OF THE ACT ALSO IS REJECTED. 22. THEREFORE, AS PER THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN ITA NO.408/CHD/2018 AND AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF LAW RELATING TO THE ISSUE, THE SURRENDERED INCOME, WE H OLD, WAS ASSESSABLE AS BUSINESS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE A ND SET OFF OF LOSSES WAS TO BE ALLOWED AGAINST THE SAM E AS RIGHTLY CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE, THEREFORE, IN ITA NO.408/CHD/2018 IS DISMISSED. 23. NOW COMING TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN ITA NO/1494/CHD/2017, THE INCOME SURRENDERED WAS ON ACCOUNT OF THE FOLLOWING AS NARRATED ABOVE IN EARL IER PART OF OUR ORDER: ITA NO.1494/CHD/2014 A.Y.2014-15 & ITA NO.408/CHD/2018 A.Y.2013-14 18 I) INVESTMENT OF RS.60 LACS IN KOTHI AT SUKHMANI ENCLAVE IN THE NAME OF SMT.REKHA MIGLANI; II) SUNDRY CREDITORS AND ADVANCES RECEIVED FROM CUSTOMERS AMOUNTING TO RS.132 LACS; III) GROSS PROFIT ON SALE OUT OF BOOKS AMOUNTING TO RS.198 LACS AND; IV) SURRENDER TO COVER MISCELLANEOUS DISCREPANCIES IN LOOSE PAPERS ETC. AMOUNTING TO RS.10 LACS. 24. AS FAR AS THE SURRENDER MADE ON ACCOUNT OF INVESTMENT IN KOTHI OF RS.60 LACS, NEITHER IS THE S AME DISCLOSED IN THE BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE NOR SOURCE O F THE SAME DISCLOSED. THEREFORE, THE SAME IS TO BE ASSESSED AS DEEMED INCOME U/S 69 OF THE ACT. THE SAME APPLIES TO THE SURRENDER OF RS.10 LACS MADE TO COVER THE MISCELLANEOUS DISCREPANCIES IN LOOSE PAPE R OF RS.10 LACS. NEITHER THE NATURE OF THE DISCREPANC IES, NOR ANY SOURCE RELATING TO THE SAME HAS BEEN DISCLO SED AND, THEREFORE, THE SAME IS ALSO TO BE ASSESSED AS DEEMED INCOME U/SS 69, 69A, 69B AND 69C OF THE ACT. 25. AS FAR AS THE SURRENDER OF RS.132 LACS MADE ON ACCOUNT OF SUNDRY CREDITORS AND ADVANCES RECEIVED FROM CUSTOMERS AND RS.198 LACS ON ACCOUNT OF GROSS PROFIT ON SALE OUT OF THE BOOKS, BOTH OF THEM CLEAR LY ARE IN RELATION TO THE BUSINESS CARRIED ON BY THE ASSESSEE AND ARE THUS IN THE NATURE OF BUSINESS ITA NO.1494/CHD/2014 A.Y.2014-15 & ITA NO.408/CHD/2018 A.Y.2013-14 19 INCOME. THEREFORE, THE SET OFF OF BUSINESS LOSSES, BOTH CURRENT AND BROUGHT FORWARD ARE TO BE ALLOWED AS PE R THE PROVISIONS OF LAW. AS FAR AS THE INCOME SURREND ERED AND TO BE ASSESSED U/S 69, 69A, 69B AND 69C OF THE ACT, AS HELD ABOVE BEFORE US, THE SAME IS TO BE SUBJECTED TO TAX AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 115BBE OF THE ACT. 26. NOW THE NEXT QUESTION WHETHER THE SET OFF OF LOSSES IS TO BE ALLOWED AGAINST THE SAME, WHICH THE REVENUE HAS VEHEMENTLY CONTESTED SAYING THAT THE AMENDMENT DENYING THE SET OFF OF LOSSES WHICH WAS MADE BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2016 W.E.F. 1.4.2017 WAS CLARIFICATORY IN NATURE AND WAS RETROSPECTIVE, THUS ENTITLING THE ASSESSEE TO CLAIM SET OFF OF LOSSES A GAINST THE INCOME SO SURRENDERED. THE ASSESSEE, ON THE OTH ER HAND, HAS DRAWN OUR ATTENTION TO SEVERAL DECISIONS OF THE I.T.A.T., WHICH HAVE HELD THE AMENDMENT TO BE PROSPECTIVE IN NATURE. NO CONTRARY DECISION EITHER OF THE I.T.A.T. OR OF ANY HIGHER JUDICIAL AUTHORITY HA S BEEN BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE BY THE REVENUE. THE DECISIONS RENDERED BY THE I.T.A.T. WILL, THEREFORE, APPLY, FOLLOWING WHICH, WE HOLD THAT IN THE IMPUGNE D YEAR THE ASSESSEE WAS ENTITLED TO CLAIM SET OFF OF LOSSES AGAINST THE INCOME ASSESSED AS DEEMED INCOME U/SS 68, 69, 69A, 69B AND 69C OF THE ACT AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 115BBE OF THE ACT AS IT STOOD PRIOR TO AMENDMENT BY FINANCE ACT, 2016. ITA NO.1494/CHD/2014 A.Y.2014-15 & ITA NO.408/CHD/2018 A.Y.2013-14 20 27. THUS, WE HOLD THAT THE INCOME SURRENDERED BY TH E ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ASSESSABLE AS BUSINESS INCOME AN D PARTLY ASSESSABLE AS DEEMED INCOME AND AGAINST BOTH OF THEM, THE ASSESSEE WAS ENTITLED TO CLAIM SET OFF OF BUSINESS LOSSES, BOTH THE CURRENT AND BROUGHT FORWA RD. WE, THEREFORE, SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) AND ALLOW THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 28. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO.1494/CHD/2017 IS ALLOWED AND THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IN ITA NO.408/CHD/2018 IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- SD/- ' # $ %! (SANJAY GARG ) (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) / JUDICIAL MEMBER ' / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER )' /DATED: 8 TH FEBRUARY, 2019 * ! * &) *+ ,+ / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT 3. ' - / CIT 4. ' - ( )/ THE CIT(A) 5. +./ 0 , $ 0 , 123/4 / DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 6. /3 5# / GUARD FILE &) ' / BY ORDER, ! / ASSISTANT REGISTRAR