M/s International Institute of Neuro Science and Oncology Ltd., Chandigarh V. Addl. CIT, Chandigarh

ITA 410/CHANDI/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 77193 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 3 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-07-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 02-04-2014
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 21-04-2010
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AAKARSHAN SINGH
• Keywords: Bogus purchase; Business income; Depreciation; Business expenditure; Revenue expenditure; Capital expenditure
• Section: 69C; 40A(3); 143(3); 131

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH A, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI T.R.SOOD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NOS.409 & 410/CHD/2010 ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2005-96 & 2006-07 M/S INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE OF VS. THE ADDL.C .I.T., NEURO SCIENCE & ONCOLOGY LTD., RANGE 4, SCO 18-19, SECTOR 34-A, CHANDIGARH. CHANDIGARH. PAN: AAACI3572N (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI AJAY JAIN RESPONDENT BY : SHRI AAKARSHAN SINGH, DR DATE OF HEARING : 23.06.2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 24.07.2014 O R D E R PER SUSHMA CHOWLA, J.M. : THESE TWO APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE AGAINS T THE SEPARATE ORDERS OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS), CHANDIGARH DATED 28.01.2010 AND 25.01.2010 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YE ARS 2005-06 AND 2006-07 RESPECTIVELY AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT). 2. BOTH THE APPEALS FILED BY THE SAME ASSESSEE RELA TING TO TWO DIFFERENT ASSESSMENT YEARS ON SIMILAR ISSUES WERE H EARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OFF BY THIS CONSOLIDATED ORD ER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. ITA NO.409/CHD/2010 :: ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 : 3. THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO.409/CHD/2010 HAS RAISED F OLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL : 2 1. THAT THE ORDER OF LEARNED C.I.T. (A) IS BA D AND AGAINST THE FACTS & LAW. 2. THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL ) HAS WRONGLY CONFIRMED ADDITION AMOUNTING TO RS.981548 ON ACCOUNT OF BE ING NON BUSINESS EXPENDITURE WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS THAT ALL EXPENSES WE RE INCURRED THROUGH CREDIT CARDS & IN ORDINARY COURSE OF BUSINESS. 3. THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL ) HAS WRONGLY CONFIRMED THE DISALLOWANCE AMOUNT OF 12235474 /- UNDER SECTIO N 40(A)(IA) WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS THAT THE PROVISIONS OF TDS ARE NOT APPLICABLE & ALSO FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT THE APPELLANT HAS ACTUALLY PAID THE EXPENSES & NOTHING IS PAYABLE AS ON 31-03- 2005& THEREFORE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF ACT ARE NOT ATTRACTED IN APPELLANT CASE. 4. THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL ) HAS WRONGLY CONFIRMED THE DISALLOWANCE AMOUNT OF 25500/- PAID TO REGIS TRAR OF COMPANIES FOR INCREASING AUTHORISED CAPITAL OF COMPANY. 5. THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL ) HAS WRONGLY CONFIRMED THE DISALLOWANCE AMOUNT OF 628S2/- UNDER SECTION 40 A(3) OF ACT. 6. THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL ) HAS WRONGLY CONFIRMED THE DISALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION & INTEREST AMO UNTING TO RS. 554349 ON PURCHASE OF MACHINERY OF RS.1975000/- WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS THAT THE PAYMENTS WERE MADE TO SUPPLIERS OF MACHINERY BY ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES . 7. THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL ) HAS WRONGLY CONFIRMED THE DISALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION & INTEREST AMO UNTING TO RS 553727 ON PURCHASE OF ASSETS 1835900 /- ON SUSPICION & SURMISES & WITHOUT MATERIAL EVIDENCE ON RECORD. 8. THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS WRONGLY CONFIRMED THE A DDITION OF RS.187976/- ON ACCOUNT OF EMPLOYEES CONTRIBUTION TOWARDS PROVIDENT FUND UNDER SECTION 36(L)(VA) WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE PAYMENTS HAV E BEEN MADE BEFORE DUE DATE OF FILLING OF RETURN. 9. THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL ) HAS WRONGLY CONFIRMED THE ESTIMATED ADDITION OF RS 2175771/- MADE ON ACCO UNT OF COMMISSION PAID TO DOCTORS REFERRING THE PATIENT ON THE BASIS OF STATEMENT OF EMPLOYEE & WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE ON RECORDS. 10. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD OR AMEND THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE THE APPEAL IS FINALLY HEARD AND DISPOSED OFF. 4. THE GROUND NO.1 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS GENERA L AND THE SAME IS DISMISSED. 5. THE ISSUE IN GROUND NO.2 IS AGAINST THE ADDITION OF RS.9,81,548/-. THE BRIEF FACTS RELATING TO THE ISSUE ARE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE LARGE NUMBER OF PAYMENTS FROM CREDIT CARDS. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO FURNISH COMPLETE DETAILS ALONGWITH DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE OF PAYMENTS MADE THROUGH CREDI T CARDS. THE ASSESSEE WAS ALSO ASKED TO SPECIFY THE PURPOSE OF E XPENDITURE. IN REPLY 3 THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE BILLS FOR WHICH PAY MENTS WERE MADE THROUGH CREDIT CARDS WERE NOT TRACEABLE AND 10% TO 20% OF RS.3,73,800/- MAY BE ADDED AS EXPENDITURE. THE A SSESSEE FURNISHED BREAKUP AND EXPENDITURE THROUGH CREDIT CARDS WHICH IS INCORPORATED UNDER PARA 2.2 AT PAGE 3 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER TH AT OUT OF TOTAL EXPENDITURE OF RS.17,14,011/- THE ASSESSEE COULD FU RNISH BREAKUP OF ONLY RS.10,24,588/- AND NO INFORMATION WAS FURNISHE D IN RESPECT OF THE BALANCE EXPENDITURE OF RS.6,89,423/-. THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER ON THE ANALYSIS OF THE DETAILS AND THE INFORMATION RECEIVE D FROM THE BANKS FOUND CERTAIN DIFFERENCES IN THE AMOUNTS AS PER THE CREDIT CARDS STATEMENT AND THE AMOUNTS AS PER THE ASSESSEE. FUR THER IN THE ANNEXURE-A, WHICH WAS ATTACHED TO THE ASSESSMENT OR DER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER TABULATED THE TRANSACTION AND CONSIDERED TH E NATURE OF EACH TRANSACTION WHETHER THE SAME WAS BUSINESS EXPENDITU RE AND ALSO TOOK INTO CONSIDERATION THE NON PRODUCTION OF CERTAIN IN VOICES AND TABULATED THE SAME AT RS.9,76,396/-. FURTHER THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO TABULATED THE DETAILS WHICH AS PER HIM WERE MIXED IN NATURE I .E. PERSONAL EXPENDITURE OF THE DIRECTORS OR FOR THE BUSINESS PU RPOSE AND TOTALED THE SAME AT RS.1,50,238/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALLOW ED 20% OF THE SAID EXPENDITURE AS BUSINESS EXPENDITURE AND REMAINING A MOUNT WAS TREATED AS NON BUSINESS EXPENDITURE. THE ASSESSING OFFICE R ALLOWED THE EXPENDITURE OF RS.7,07,655/- AND DISALLOWED THE TOT AL EXPENDITURE OF RS.9,81,548/- AS PER PARAS 2.3 AND 2.4 OF THE ASSES SMENT ORDER. 6. THE CIT (APPEALS) UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE ASSESS ING OFFICER AS THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO PRODUCE ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF HIS CLAIM THAT THE EXPENDITURE WAS BUSINESS EXPE NDITURE. 4 7. SHRI AJAY JAIN APPEARED FOR THE ASSESSEE AND SHR I AAKARSHAN SINGH PUT IN APPEARANCE ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE AND PUT FORWARD THEIR CONTENTIONS. 8. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORD. THE PERUSAL OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER REFLECTS THE ASSESS ING OFFICER TO HAVE CONSIDERED COMPLETE EVIDENCE OF CREDIT CARDS PAYMEN TS PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO PRO DUCE BILLS AND VOUCHERS IN SUPPORT OF THIS CLAIM THAT THE SAID EXP ENDITURE WAS INCURRED FOR THE BUSINESS PURPOSES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD ALSO EXHAUSTIVELY CONSIDERED EACH ITEM OF EXPENDITURE AND TABULATED T HE DISALLOWANCE. THE ASSESSEE DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WAS SHOW CAUSED TO SPECIFY THE PURPOSE OF EXPENDITURE AND ALSO TO SHOW THAT THE EXPENDITURE BOOKED THROUGH CREDIT CARD PAYMENTS WERE FOR THE PU RPOSE OF BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE. VIDE REPLY DATED 23.11.2007 IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE BILLS FOR WHICH PAYMENTS WERE MAD E TO AMERICAN EXPRESS WERE NOT TRACED. FURTHER IT WAS POINTED O UT THAT SUM OF RS.3,73,800/- WAS PAID DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 20 04-05 AND EXPENSES WERE BOOKED UNDER DIFFERENT HEADS. THE ASSESSEE C ATEGORICALLY SUBMITTED THAT WE HEREBY SUBMITTED THAT YOU MAY ADD 10% TO 20% OF RS.3,73,800/- IN THE INCOME . WHILE GIVING SUMMARY OF TRANSACTIONS THE ASSESSEE CATEGORICALLY ADMITTED THAT INVOICES RELAT ING TO CERTAIN PURCHASES WERE NOT AVAILABLE AND COULD NOT BE PRODU CED. HOWEVER, IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT PART OF THE PAYMENTS RELATED T O NMC/CGFNS EXAMS FEE. THE PAYMENT TOTALING RS.16,89,203/- THROUGH SEVERAL BANKS WERE CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN MADE. THE BREAK UP OF THE CR EDIT CARDS WISE PAYMENTS ARE TABULATED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AT PAGE 3 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE ASSESSEE THEREAFTER PROVIDED BREAK UP OF SOME PAYMENTS RELATING TO EXPENDITURE THROUGH CREDIT CAR DS TOTALING RS.10,24,588/- . HOWEVER, REGARDING BALANCE PAYMENT OF RS.6,89,4 23/- NO INFORMATION 5 WAS FURNISHED THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED THE S AID EXPENDITURE TO BE BUSINESS EXPENDITURE UNDER DIFFERENT HEADS. TH E ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER NOTED THAT MANY A TIMES THERE WAS NO CO-REL ATION AT ALL I.E. EXPENSES OF RS.2841/- WAS BOOKED ON 16.7.2004 UNDER THE HEAD CANTEEN EXPENSES INCLUDING ANNUAL FEE FOR THE CREDIT CARD OF RS.810/-. FURTHER THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED ON PURCHASE FOR KIDS MADE FROM KAPKIDS, SECTOR 17, CHANDIGARH, PURCHASES MADE FROM VARIOUS SHOWROOMS OF BRANDED ITEMS I.E. CLOTHING AND JEWELLERY, EXPENSES IN BEAUTY PARLORS HAVE BEEN BOOKED AS STAFF WELFARE EXPENSES OR BUSIN ESS PROMOTION EXPENSES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER THEN PREPARED DET AILED LIST OF PAYMENTS THROUGH CREDIT CARDS AND STATEMENT GIVEN BY THE BANK, WHICH IS ENCLOSED AS ANNEXURE-A-1 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER . AFTER TABULATING THE DETAILS THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED AS UNDER : (A) THE DETAILS ON THE BASIS OF CREDIT CARD STATEME NTS GIVEN BY THE BANKS HAS BEEN PREPARED AND IS ENCLOSED AS ANNEXURE A-1 TO THIS ORDER. TOTAL PAYMENTS MADE THROUGH CREDIT CARD ARE SUMMARIZED AS FOLLOWS:- TABLE A B C CARD AMOUNT AS PER CREDIT CARD STATEMENT AMOUNT AS PER ASSESSEE DIFF. * AMOUNT HSBC 1,51,297 1,78,370 27,073 CITY BANK 7,04,624 6,36,107 ** STANDARD CHARTERED BANK 62,775 92,775 30,000 ICICI BANK 1,44,043 1 ,42,448 ** AMERICAN EXPRESS 2,65,385 3,73,800 1,08,415 SB! CREDIT CARD 3,01,629 2,65,703 ** TOTAL 16,29,755 16,89,2037- 1,65,488 ................ *DIFF. AMOUNT IS THE AMOUNT FOR WHICH CREDIT CARD S TATEMENTS WERE NOT PRODUCED BUT AMOUNT REFLECTED IN BOOKS AS EXPENSES. SO THE AMO UNT GIVEN BY ASSESSEE IS ADOPTED AS SUCH AND AMOUNT OF RS.1,65,488/- IS TREATED AS ' NOT ALLOWED' CATEGORY. **AMOUNT SHOWN IN STATEMENT IS MORE THAN THAT SHOWN BY ASSES SEE BY RS1,06,038/- (B)IN THE ANNEXURE, THE TRANSACTIONS AGAINST WHICH 'ALLOWED' IS MENTIONED IN 'REMARKS' COLUMN ARE TREATED AS BUSINESS EXPENDITURE, AS THE TRANSAC TIONS RELATE TO THE BUSINESS ACTIVITY OF THE ASSESSEE. THE TOTAL AMOUNT IS RS.6,77,607.21. 6 (C) THE TRANSACTIONS AGAINST WHICH 'NOT ALLOWED' IS MENTIONED ARE DISALLOWED AS THE SAME ARE EVIDENTLY PERSONAL EXPEN DITURE INCURRED BY MRS. NIMRAT GUJRAL/SHRI DALJEET SINGH GUJRAL, THE DIRECTORS OF THE COMPANY. THIS BECOMES VERY MUCH CLEAR FROM THE NAME OF THE VENDOR, WITH WHOM TRANSACTIONS WERE HERE, THAT THE EXPENSES CAN ONLY BE OF PERSONAL NATURE OF THE DIRECTORS AND THE SAME DO NOT HAVE ANY RELATION TO THE BUSINESS ACTIVITIES OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO PRODUCE THE I NVOICES OF SUCH TRANSACTIONS AND HAS FAILED TO PROVE THE PURPOSE OF PURCHASES MADE F ROM THESE VENDORS. THE TOTAL AMOUNT IS RS.9,76,396/-. (D) THE TRANSACTIONS AGAINST WHICH 'MIXED' IS MENTIONED CAN BE OF BOTH PERSONAL EXPENSES OF THE DIRECTORS OR FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES OF THE ASSESSEE. THE TOTAL AMOUNT IS RS.1,50,238/-, HOWEVER, SINCE NO EV IDENCE HAS BEEN PRODUCED TO SHOW THE BUSINESS PURPOSE, AND ALSO LOOKING INTO THE FACT THAT MOST OF THE EXPENSES/OTHER THAN FEE PAYMENTS TO NMC/(GFNS) THRO UGH THESE CREDIT CARDS RELATE TO PERSONAL EXPENSES OF THE DIRECTORS, SO THE PROBA BILITY OF SUCH EXPENSES, CATEGORIZED AS MIXED, BEING OF SIMILAR NATURE I.E. NON-BUSINESS PURPOSE, IS VERY HIGH. CONSIDERING THIS ASPECT ONLY 20% OF SUCH EXPE NSES BEING RS,30,048/ -ARE CONSIDERED AS FOR BUSINESS PURPOSE AND REMAINING AM OUNT IS TREATED AS NON- BUSINESS EXPENDITURE. 9. THE ASSESSING OFFICER VIDE PARA 2.4 THUS CALCULA TED DISALLOWANCE AT RS.9,89,548/- OBSERVING AS UNDER: 2.4 TOTAL AMOUNT ALLOWED AS BUSINESS EXPENSE IS RS. 7,Q7,655/- AND TOTAL AMOUNT DISALLOWED ON ACCOUNT ON BEING NON-EXPENDITU RE IS RS.9,81,548/- (RS.9,76,396 + RS.1,20,190- RS. 1,06,138).- A FURTH ER ALLOWANCE OF RS.1,06,138/- HAS BEEN GIVEN AS EXPENSES INCURRED T HROUGH CREDIT CARDS AND DEBITED TO THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT DURING THE Y EAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WERE RS. 16,89,203/- ONLY. SINCE ASSESSEE HAS TRIED TO C ONCEAL ITS INCOME BY CLAIMING NON-BUSINESS EXPENSES, PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271(1)(C) ARE INITIATED FOR CONCEALING PARTICULARS OF INCOME. 10. THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US HAS FAILED TO PRODUCE AN Y EVIDENCE TO ESTABLISH THAT THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED UNDER VARIO US HEADS OF EXPENDITURE WAS RELATABLE TO THE BUSINESS OF THE AS SESSEE AND IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE BEING FILED BY THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE ITS STAND, WE ARE IN CONFORMITY WITH THE ORDER OF THE AUTHORIT IES BELOW IN 7 UPHOLDING THE ADDITION OF RS.9,81,548/-. THE GROU ND OF APPEAL NO.2 RAISED BY ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 11. THE ISSUE IN GROUND NO.3 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST DISALLOWANCE MADE UNDER SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE AC T. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE PERUSAL OF THE DETAILS NOTED THAT TH E ASSESSEE HAD NEITHER DEDUCTED TAX AT SOURCE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVI SIONS OF CHAPTER- XVII-B OF THE ACT, NOR IT WAS DEPOSITED WITHIN THE TIME FRAME AS PRESCRIBED UNDER HE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 200 OF TH E ACT. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO FURNISH DETAILS OF PAYMENTS ON WHICH T AX WAS DEDUCTED AT SOURCE AND ALSO TO EXPLAIN AS TO WHY THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT SHOULD NOT BE INVOKED TO DISALLOW SUCH E XPENDITURE DEBITED TO THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSEE WAS AL SO ASKED TO FURNISH BREAKUP OF PAYMENTS ON WHICH TAX WAS REQUIRED TO BE DEDUCTED BUT ACTUALLY NOT DEDUCTED BY THE ASSESSEE. AFTER CON SIDERING THE DETAILS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE THE ASSESSING OFFICER COM PUTED THE DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT AS PER PARA 3.1 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ON THE PAYMENTS OF RS.1.43 CRORES. UNDER PARA 3.2 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS C OMPUTED THE BILLS OF PAYMENTS ON WHICH TDS HAD NOT BEEN DEDUCTED BUT WAS REQUIRED TO BE DEDUCTED AND THE AMOUNTS TOTALED TO RS.37,750/-. FURTHER THE ASSESSEE HAD GIVEN INCENTIVE FOR RS.1,37,483/- TO DIFFERENT FRANCHISES AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE SAME WAS IN THE NATURE OF COMMISSION OUT OF WHICH NO TAX WAS DEDUCTED. THE R EPLY OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE INCENTIVE INCLUDED SALARY PLUS OF FICE EXPENSES TO BE INCURRED AT FRANCHISES OFFICE WAS REJECTED AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER COMPUTED THE DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 40(A)(IA) O F THE ACT AT RS.1,42,10,804/- AS PER PARA 3.4 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. 8 12. THE CIT (APPEALS) UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE ASSES SING OFFICER. HOWEVER, THE CIT (APPEALS) ALLOWED THE EXPENDITURE ON WHICH TDS WAS DEDUCTED AND PAID BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF FILING OF THE RETURN OF INCOME. THE PART RELIEF ALLOWED BY THE CIT (APPEALS) WAS TO THE EXTENT OF RS.18,82,847/- AND ADDITION TO RS.1,22,35,474/- WAS UPHELD. 13. THE LEARNED A.R. FOR THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT T HAT IT WAS IN DIRE FINANCIAL CRISES AND TDS COULD NOT BE DEPOSITED IN TIME. HOWEVER, TDS DEDUCTED WAS DEPOSITED BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF F ILING OF RETURN OF INCOME AND THE CREDIT FOR SUCH PAYMENTS SHOULD BE A LLOWED TO THE ASSESSEE. RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN CIT VS. NARESH KUMAR [362 ITR 256 (DE L)] AND IN CIT VS. RAJINDER KUMAR [362 ITR 241 (DEL)]. 14. THE LEARNED D.R. FOR THE REVENUE PLACED RELIANC E ON THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 15. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORD. THE ISSUE RAISED IN THE GROUND OF APPEAL IS IN RELATION TO TAX DEDUCTION AT SOURCE. THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE VARIOUS PAYMENTS UN DER DIFFERENT HEADS OF EXPENDITURE TO WHICH THE PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER X VII-B OF THE ACT WERE APPLICABLE. THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO DEDUCT THE TAX AT SOURCE OUT OF THE SAID PAYMENTS AND FURTHER WHERE THE TAX WAS DEDUCTED AT SOURCE, THE SAME WAS NOT PAID IN TIME AS REQUIRED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 200(1) OF THE ACT. THE CASE OF THE ASSESS EE BEFORE US WAS THAT BECAUSE OF CERTAIN PAUCITY OF FUNDS, TAX DEDUCTED A T SOURCE WAS DEPOSITED BELATEDLY BUT BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF FILI NG OF THE RETURN OF INCOME AND HENCE, THE SAME WAS ALLOWABLE AS AN EXPE NDITURE. THE LEARNED A.R. FOR THE ASSESSEE PLACED RELIANCE ON TH E RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN CIT VS. RAJINDER KU MAR (SUPRA) WHEREIN IT WAS HELD AS UNDER: 9 THE PROVISIONS, AS AMENDED BY THE FINANCE ACT, 201 0, ARE CLEAR AND FREE FROM ANY AMBIGUITY AND DOUBT. THEY CLEARLY SUPPORT THE VIEW THAT THE EXPRESSION SAID DUE DATE USED IN CLAUSE (A) OF THE PROVISO TO THE UNAMENDED SECTION REFERS TO THE TIME SPECIFIED IN SECTION 139(1) OF THE ACT. THE A MENDED SECTION 40(A)(IA) EXPANDS AND FURTHER LIBERALISES T HE STATUTE WHEN IT STIPULATES THAT DEDUCTIONS MADE IN THE FIRS T ELEVEN MONTHS OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR BUT PAID BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF FILING OF THE RETURN, WILL CONSTITUTE SUFFICIENT CO MPLIANCE. 16. IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE THE FIRST ASPE CT OF THE ISSUE OF NON DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE WAS THE PAYMENTS TO DOCT ORS, FACULTY, IN RESPECT OF ADVERTISEMENT, CONTRACTOR AND PROFESSION AL AS REFERRED TO BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN PARA 3.1 AT PAGE 6 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE ASSESSEE DURING COURSE OF HEARING HAD FURNISHED ON RECORD TABULATED PERIOD-WISE CHART IN RESPECT OF THE AFORESAID PAYME NTS TO DOCTORS AND FACULTY, PAYMENTS ON ACCOUNT OF ADVERTISEMENT, CONT ACTOR AND PROFESSIONALS ALONGWITH EVIDENCE OF DEPOSIT OF TAX AT SOURCE. THE COMPLETE PAYMENTS ON WHICH TAX WAS DEDUCTED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM TIME TO TIME WAS DEPOSITED BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF FILING OF HE RETURN OF INCOME. IN VIEW OF THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HON 'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN CIT VS. RAJINDER KUMAR (SUPRA) AND IN VIEW OF THE AMENDED PROVISIONS OF THE ACT WHICH AS PER THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT ARE TO BE APPLIED RETROSPECTIVELY, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT TH E SAID EXPENDITURE ON WHICH THE TAX WAS DUE TO BE DEDUCTED AND THE SAME W AS DEDUCTED AND DEPOSITED BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF FILING OF RETURN, IS TO BE ALLOWED AS AN EXPENDITURE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER , THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO VERIFY THE CLAIM OF THE ASSE SSEE IN THIS REGARD AND RECOMPUTE THE DISALLOWANCE, IF ANY, IN RESPECT OF S UCH PAYMENTS WHERE TAX DEDUCTED AT SOURCE HAD NOT BEEN DEPOSITED BEFOR E THE DUE DATE OF FILING OF THE RETURN OF INCOME. 17. THE SECOND SET OF THE DISALLOWANCE WAS THE ITEM S ON WHICH TAX WAS NOT DEDUCTED AT SOURCE. ONE SUCH ITEM OF EXPENDIT URE WAS THE PAYMENT TO FACULTY OF RS.37,750/-. THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT F URNISHED ANY EVIDENCE 10 THAT THE TAX HAD BEEN DEDUCTED OUT OF THE SAID PAYM ENTS TO THE FACULTY TOTALING RS.37,750/-. FURTHER THE ASSESSEE HAD MA DE PAYMENTS ON ACCOUNT OF INCENTIVE TO SRI GANESH MEDICAL TRAINING CENTRE TOTALING RS.92,483/- AND NO TAX WAS DEDUCTED AT SOURCE BEFOR E MAKING THE SAID PAYMENTS. THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT THE S AID PAYMENTS INCLUDED THE SALARY AND OTHER OFFICE EXPENSES TO BE INCURRED AT THE FRANCHISES PLACE BUT THE FRANCHISE WAS NOT AN EMPLO YEE OF THE ASSESSEE AND EVEN IF ANY EMPLOYEE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS DEPUTE D TO DO THE SAID WORK, EVIDENCE IN RESPECT THEREOF WAS NOT FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. IN ANY CASE, THE PAYMENTS WERE MADE TO THE FRANCHISES AND NOT THE EMPLOYEE DIRECTLY AND IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY SATISFA CTORY EXPLANATION WITH REGARD TO THE NATURE OF SUCH PAYMENTS BOOKED U NDER THE HEAD INCENTIVE AND BECAUSE OF FAILURE TO DEDUCT THE TAX AT SOURCE, THE SAID AMOUNT OF RS.92,483/- IS NOT ALLOWABLE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, WE UPHOLD THE DISALLOWANCE AT RS.37,75 0 PLUS RS.92,483/-. HOWEVER, IN RESPECT OF THE BALANCE EXPENDITURE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO VERIFY THE STAND OF THE ASSESSEE IN LIN E WITH OUR DIRECTIONS. THE GROUND OF APPEAL NO.3 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS THUS PARTLY ALLOWED. 18. THE ISSUE IN GROUND OF APPEAL NO.4 RAISED BY TH E ASSESSEE IS AGAINST THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.25,500/- PAID TO THE REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES FOR INCREASE IN AUTHORIZED CAPITAL OF CO MPANY. THE EXPENDITURE HAVING BEEN INCURRED IN THE CAPITAL FIE LD IS THE CAPITAL EXPENDITURE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE AND IS NOT ALLOWABLE AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. WE FIND SUPPORT FROM THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN BRO OK BOND INDIA LTD. VS. CIT [225 ITR 798 (SC)] WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY A COMPANY IN CONNECTION WITH ISSUE OF S HARES, WITH A VIEW TO INCREASE ITS SHARE CAPITAL, IS DIRECTLY RELATED TO THE EXPANSION OF THE CAPITAL BASE OF THE COMPANY, AND IS CAPITAL EXPENDI TURE, EVEN THOUGH IT 11 MAY INCIDENTALLY HELP IN THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPAN Y AND IN THE PROFIT- MAKING. WE UPHOLD THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.25,500/- . THE GROUND OF APPEAL NO.4 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 19. THE ISSUE IN GROUND NO.5 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST DISALLOWANCE MADE UNDER SECTION 40A(3) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE CASH PAYMENTS OF RS.,78,433/- AND RS.1,35,828/- TO ITS DIRECTORS ON 31.3.2005. THE EXPLANATION OF TH E ASSESSEE WAS THAT THE SAID PAYMENTS WERE MADE ON ACCOUNT OF DIRECTORS REMUNERATION ON 31.3.2005 AND THE PAYMENTS WERE MADE AFTER THE BANK ING HOURS AS THERE WAS AN URGENT NEED OF MONEY BY THE DIRECTORS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER REJECTING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE DISALLOWED 20% OF THE SAID PAYMENTS RESULTING IN ADDITION OF RS.62,852/- UNDER SECTION 40A)3) OF THE ACT. 20. BEFORE THE CIT (APPEALS) THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT IT HAD NOT MADE ANY CASH PAYMENTS TO THE DIRECTORS AS REMUNERATION BUT ADJUSTMENT WAS MADE TO THE IMPREST ACCOUNT. THE C IT (APPEALS) REJECTING THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE AS EVEN IF CASH PAYMENTS WERE MADE EARLIER UNDER THE HEAD IMPREST ACCOUNT OR LATER AS REMUNERATION WOULD ATTRACT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40A(3) OF THE ACT AND CONSEQUENTLY DISALLOWANCE WAS UPHELD. 21. ON PERUSAL OF THE RECORD AND AFTER HEARING THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE PAYMENTS MADE TO THE IM PREST ACCOUNT DO NOT ATTRACT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40A(3) OF THE ACT . HOWEVER, IF ANY EXPENDITURE IS BOOKED IN CASH OVER AND ABOVE RS.20, 000/-, THEN THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40A(3) OF THE ACT ARE TO BE A PPLIED AND DISALLOWANCE ARE TO BE WORKED OUT THEREUNDER. IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT THE IMPREST ACCOUNT WAS AVAILABLE WITH THE DIRECTORS FROM TIME TO TIME AND ONLY REMUNERATION AT 12 THE END OF THE YEAR WAS ADJUSTED AND HENCE NO CASH PAYMENT FOR THE SAID EXPENDITURE OF REMUNERATION TO THE DIRECTORS. HOW EVER, THE STAND OF THE ASSESSEE NEEDS TO BE VERIFIED. IN THE INTERE ST OF JUSTICE, WE DEEM IF FIT TO RESTORE THIS ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF TH E ASSESSING OFFICER, WHO SHALL VERIFY THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE VIS--VIS TH E PAYMENT THROUGH IMPREST ACCOUNT AND ADJUSTMENT OF REMUNERATION TO T HE IMPREST ACCOUNT. IN CASE THE ASSESSEE HAD EARLIER PAID CERTAIN CASH THROUGH THE IMPREST ACCOUNT, THEN NO DISALLOWANCE IS WARRANTED UNDER SE CTION 40A(3) OF THE ACT ON THE PAYMENT THROUGH IMPREST ACCOUNT AND THER EAFTER ON ADJUSTMENT OF THE REMUNERATION THROUGH THE SAID IMP REST ACCOUNT. HOWEVER, IN CASE THE PAYMENT HAS BEEN MADE IN CASH BY WAY OF REMUNERATION TO DIRECTORS OR HAS BEEN ADJUSTED AGAI NST THE CASH PAYMENT THROUGH IMPREST ACCOUNT ON THE SAME DAY I.E. 31.3.2 005, THEN THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40A(3) OF THE ACT ARE ATTRACT ED AND THE DISALLOWANCE MADE IN THE CASE IS TO BE UPHELD. TH E ASSESSING OFFICER SHOULD DECIDE THE ISSUE AFTER VERIFYING THE FACTS A ND IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. THE GROUND OF APPEAL NO.5 RAISED BY THE ASSE SSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 22. THE GROUND NOS.6 AND 7 ARE NOT PRESSED BY THE A SSESSEE AND THE SAME ARE DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. 23. THE ISSUE IN GROUND NO.8 IS AGAINST THE EMPLOY EES CONTRIBUTION TOWARDS PF ACCOUNT. THE LEARNED A.R. FOR THE ASSES SEE POINTED OUT THAT THE ISSUE STAND COVERED BY THE ORDER OF THE HON'BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN CIT VS. NUCHEM LTD. IN ITA NO.323 OF 2009 DATE OF DECISION 2.2.2010. 24. WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE IS SQUARELY COVERED B Y THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HON'BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN CIT V S. NUCHEM LTD. (SUPRA) AND IN CASE THE EMPLOYEES CONTRIBUTION TOWA RD PF ACCOUNT IS 13 PAID BEFORE FILING OF THE RETURN, THEN NO DISALLOWA NCE IS WARRANTED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO VERIFY THE CLA IM OF THE ASSESSEE AND RECOMPUTE THE DISALLOWANCE, IF ANY. THE GROUND OF APPEAL NO.8 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES . 25. THE ISSUE IN GROUND NO.9 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST ESTIMATED ADDITION OF RS.21,75,771/- OUT OF COMMISS ION PAID TO DOCTORS. 26. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, TH E STATEMENT OF SHRI SATINDER KUMAR SHARMA, ACCOUNTANT WAS RECORDED ON 1 6.11.2007 UNDER SECTION 131 OF THE ACT. SHRI SATINDER KUMAR SHARM A ADMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS PAYING COMMISSION TO VARIOUS DOCTORS W HO WERE REFERRING PATIENTS TO THE HOSPITAL AND SUCH PAYMENT WAS NOT R ECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION THE P AYMENTS AS PER HIM COULD BE IN THE RANGE OF RS.10,000/- TO 15,000/- PE R MONTH. SIMILAR PAYMENTS WERE MADE IN THE SUCCEEDING YEARS ALSO AND DAILY/WEEKLY REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE CASHIER REFLECTED THE SAID PAYMENTS. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO GIVEN THE DETAILS OF PAYMENTS MADE TO THE DOCTORS AND IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY DETAIL FILED WITH REGARD TO THE PAYMENTS MADE TO THE DOCTORS, THE ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF 5% OF THE TOTAL SALES WAS PROPOSED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ELABORATELY C ONSIDERED THE ISSUE UNDER PARAS 13.3. AND 13.4 AT PAGES 22 AND 23 OF TH E ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED RS.21,75,771/- WHI CH WAS CONFIRMED BY THE CIT (APPEALS). 27. THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US WAS THAT NO COMMISSION WAS PAID TO THE DOCTORS FOR REFERENCE OF ANY PATIENT. FURTHER IT WAS POINTED OUT BY THE LEARNED A.R. FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THE A DDITION IN THE CASE WAS MADE WITHOUT ANY BASIS. 28. THE LEARNED D.R. FOR THE REVENUE PLACED RELIANC E ON THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 14 29. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORD. THE STATEMENT OF THE EMPLOYEE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS RECOR DED IN THE PRESENCE OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AND WAS ALS O SIGNED BY HIM. THE ASSESSEE WAS CONFRONTED VIDE ORDER SHEET DATED 23.11.2007 TO EXPLAIN AS TO WHY THE ADDITION SHOULD NOT BE MADE T O ITS INCOME IN VIEW OF THE SAID STATEMENT. THE ASSESSEE NEVER ASKED FO R ANY CROSS EXAMINATION EVEN WHEN HE WAS CONFRONTED WITH THE S TATEMENT, EXCEPT REPLY GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE THAT NO PAYMENTS WERE M ADE DIRECTLY TO THE DOCTORS FOR REFERRING THE PATIENTS TO THE HOSPITAL. IN THE SAID REPLY DATED 20.12.2007 WHICH IS REPRODUCED UNDER PARA 13. 21 AND 22 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASSESSEE MADE AN ALTERNATE SU BMISSION THAT IF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE SAID R EPLY, THEN IT MAY BE PRESUMED THAT THE PAYMENTS TO THE DOCTORS FOR REFER RING THE PATIENTS TO THE HOSPITAL HAD BEEN MADE FROM THE CASH RECEIVED A GAINST THE PURCHASES FOR WHICH THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD ALLEGED THAT TH E PAYMENTS HAD BEEN WITHDRAWN FROM THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT FOR THE BENEFIT OF DIRECTORS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. IN VIEW OF THE ALTERNATE SUBMIS SION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THE A SSESSEE INDIRECTLY ADMITTED THAT THE QUANTUM OF SUCH PAYMENT OF COMMIS SION WAS COVERED BY THE QUANTUM OF BOGUS PURCHASES WHICH WERE TO THE TUNE OF RS.38,10,500/-. IT MAY BE BROUGHT ON RECORD THAT THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAD RAISED THE GROUND OF APPEAL NOS.6 AND 7 IN RELA TION TO THE BOGUS PURCHASES BUT THE SAME WERE NOT PRESSED BY THE ASSE SSEE. IN THE TOTALITY OF THE ABOVE SAID FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE IN CONFORMITY WITH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW THAT THE D ISALLOWANCE ON ACCOUNT OF COMMISSION PAID TO THE DOCTORS FOR REFER RING THE PATIENTS TO THE HOSPITAL ARE TO BE ADDED AS INCOME IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 69C OF THE ACT. HOWEVER, WE RESTRICT 15 THE SAID ADDITION TO RS.5 LACS FOR THE YEAR UNDER C ONSIDERATION. THE GROUND OF APPEAL NO.9 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS THU S PARTLY ALLOWED. ITA NO.410/CHD/2010 :: ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 : 30. THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO.410/CHD/2010 HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. THAT THE ORDER OF LEARNED C.L.T. (A) IS B AD AND AGAINST THE FACTS & LAW. 2. THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL ) HAS WRONGLY CONFIRMED THE ESTIMATED ADDITION OF RS 2994446/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF COMMISSION PAID TO DOCTORS REFERRING THE PATIENT ON THE BASIS OF STATEMENT OF EMPLOYEE & WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE ON RECORDS. 3. THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL ) HAS WRONGLY CONFIRMED THE DISALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION & INTE REST AMOUNTING TO RS 252000/- ON PURCHASE OF MACHINERY OF RS.1050000/- W ITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS THAT THE PAYMENTS WERE MADE TO SUPPLIERS OF M ACHINERY BY ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES . 4. THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (AP PEAL) HAS WRONGLY CONFIRMED ADDITION AMOUNTING TO RS. 1619693 ON A CCOUNT OF BEING NON BUSINESS EXPENDITURE WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS THAT ALL EXPENSES WERE INCURRED THROUGH CREDIT CARDS & IN ORDINARY COURSE OF BUSINESS. 5. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD OR AMEN D THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE THE APPEAL IS FINALLY HEARD AND DISPOSED OFF . 31. THE GROUND OF APPEAL NO.1 RAISED BY THE ASSESSE E IS GENERAL IN NATURE AND THE SAME IS DISMISSED. 32. THE GROUND OF APPEAL NO.3 RAISED BY THE ASSESSE E IS NOT PRESSED AND HENCE THE SAME IS DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. 33. THE ISSUE IN GROUND NO.2 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS IN RELATION TO THE COMMISSION PAID TO THE DOCTORS FOR REFERRING TH E PATIENTS TO THE HOSPITAL. THE ISSUE RAISED VIDE GROUND OF APPEAL N O.2 IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 IS IDENTICAL TO THE ISSUE RAISED VIDE GROUND NO.9 IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 WHICH WE HAVE DECIDED IN TH E PARAS HEREINABOVE. FOLLOWING THE SAME PARITY OF REASONIN G WE RESTRICT THE ADDITION UNDER SECTION 69C OF THE ACT TO RS.6 LACS IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 16 2006-07. THE GROUND OF APPEAL NO.2 RAISED BY THE A SSESSEE IS THUS PARTLY ALLOWED. 34. THE ISSUE IN GROUND NO.4 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST THE PAYMENTS MADE THROUGH CREDIT CARDS WHICH IS IDENTIC AL TO THE GROUND NO.2 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005 -06. THE NATURE OF EXPENDITURE THROUGH CREDIT CARDS IS SIMILAR TO THE EXPENDITURE DEBITED IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 AND IN VIEW OF OUR DECISION IN THE PARAS HEREINABVOE WE DISMISS GROUND NO.4 RAISED BY THE AS SESSEE. 35. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS FILED BY THE AS SESSEE ARE PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 24 TH DAY OF JULY, 2014. SD/- SD/- (T.R.SOOD) (SUSHMA CHOWLA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 24 TH JULY, 2014 *RATI* COPY TO: THE APPELLANT/THE RESPONDENT/THE CIT(A)/TH E CIT/THE DR. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH