Sh. Manoj Kumar Sharma, Chandigarh V. ITO, Chandigarh

ITA 447/CHANDI/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8884 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 year(s) 7 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-12-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 29-11-2016
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 02-05-2011
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S K MITTAL
• Keywords: Additional evidence
• Section: 133(6)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH,CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MS.ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 447/CHD/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07 SHRI MANOJ KUMAR SHARMA, VS THE ITO, # 221, SECTOR 41-A, WARD 5(2), CHANDIGARH. CHANDIGARH. PAN: AOKPS0019K (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI TEJ MOHAN SING H RESPONDENT BY : SHRI S.K.MITTAL DATE OF HEARING : 14.12.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 21.12.2016 O R D E R PER BHAVNESH SAINI,JM THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(APPEALS) CHANDIGARH DA TED 30.0.2011 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. 2. WE HAVE HEARD LD. REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. 3. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PRESS GROUND NOS. 1 AND 5 OF THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. SAME ARE DISMISSED BEING NOT PRESSED. 4. ON GROUND NO. 2, ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ADDITIO N OF RS. 12,55,700/- BEING CASH DEPOSITED IN THE BANK 2 ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITION OF RS . 16,12,500/- ON ACCOUNT OF CASH DEPOSITED IN THE BAN K ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE, SOURCE OF WHICH WAS NOT EXPLAINED. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED BEFORE LD. CIT(APPEALS) THAT TOTAL CASH DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT IS RS. 12,55,700/- AND NOT RS. 16,12,500/-, AS HAS BEEN COMPUTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. COPY O F THE SAVING BANK ACCOUNT WAS FILED TO SHOW THAT THER E HAVE BEEN REGULAR DEPOSITS AND WITHDRAWALS. THE SO URCE OF DEPOSIT IN THE ACCOUNT IS FROM VARIOUS WITHDRAWA LS MADE DURING THE YEAR ITSELF. THE CASH-FLOW STATEME NT WAS FILED AS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE TO SUBSTANTIATE TH AT CASH DEPOSITED IN THE SB ACCOUNT AND CURRENT BANK ACCOUNT. IT WAS, THEREFORE, SUBMITTED THAT ADDITIO N MAY BE DELETED. THE MATTER WAS REFERRED TO THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER FOR FILING REMAND REPORT IN WHICH HE HAS SUBMITTED THAT CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS FOUND TO BE CORRECT THAT TOTAL CASH DEPOSITS WERE RS. 12,55, 700/- AND NOT RS. 16,12,500/- AS COMPUTED BY THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER STATED THA T SOURCE OF THESE CASH DEPOSITS STILL REMAINED UNEXPLAINED. THE ASSESSEE IN THE REJOINDER SUBMITT ED THAT CASH WAS DEPOSITED IN THE ACCOUNTS AGAINST THE WITHDRAWALS. 4(I) THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) NOTED THAT ASSESSEE FAILE D TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS CLAIM AND NO CORRESPONDING EXPLANA TION HAVE BEEN GIVEN. THE CASH-FLOW STATEMENT IS NOT 3 SUFFICIENT TO EXPLAIN CASH DEPOSIT UNLESS CORROBORA TIVE EVIDENCE IS FILED. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE AS SESSEE WAS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED WITH DIRECTION THAT ADDIT ION OF RS. 12,55,700/- BE MADE INSTEAD OF RS. 16,12,500 /-. 5. AFTER CONSIDERING RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, WE ARE OF T HE VIEW ADDITION IS WHOLLY UNJUSTIFIED. THE LD. COUNS EL FOR THE ASSESSEE REFERRED TO PB-47 WHICH IS A REPLY FIL ED BEFORE LD. CIT(APPEALS) IN WHICH ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THE DETAILS OF CASH DEPOSIT IN THE SB ACCOUNT AND ALSO FILED CASH-FLOW STATEMENT AS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT SUFFICIENT CASH WITHDRAWALS ARE AVAILABLE TO THE AS SESSEE TO MAKE RE-DEPOSIT ON DIFFERENT DATES. HE HAS REFE RRED TO PB-50 WHICH IS A COPY OF THE CASH-FLOW STATEMENT OF CASH WITHDRAWN AND DEPOSITED IN THE BANKS TO SHOW T HAT SUFFICIENT CASH IS AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSEE OR WITHDRAWALS FOR MAKING DEPOSIT IN THE ACCOUNT. PB- 7 IS COPY OF THE BANK ACCOUNT TO SUPPORT THE ENTRIES MAD E IN THE CASH-FLOW STATEMENT. IT IS, THEREFORE, CLEAR T HAT ASSESSEE PREPARED CASH-FLOW STATEMENT ON THE BASIS OF THE ENTRIES RECORDED IN THE BANK ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE SAME WERE FILED BEFORE LD. CIT(APPEA LS) ON WHICH REMAND REPORT FROM ASSESSING OFFICER WAS A LSO CALLED FOR. NEITHER THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOR LD. CIT(APPEALS) HAVE MADE ANY ADVERSE COMMENT UPON THE CASH-FLOW STATEMENT PREPARED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE BASIS OF BANK STATEMENTS. IT, THEREFORE, STANDS CL EAR THAT SUFFICIENT CASH WAS AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSEE ON 4 MAKING WITHDRAWALS FROM THE BANK ACCOUNTS WHICH WER E AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSEE FOR MAKING FURTHER DEPOSI T IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. NO EVIDENCE HAVE BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW THAT THE AMOUNTS WITHDRAWN BY ASSESSEE HAVE BEEN USED OR SPENT SOMEWHERE ELSE. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) WAS, THEREFOR E, NOT JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING THAT CASH-FLOW STATEMENT I S NOT SUFFICIENT TO EXPLAIN CASH DEPOSIT UNLESS CORROBORA TIVE EVIDENCE IS PROVIDED. THE ASSESSEE CORROBORATED TH E CASH-FLOW STATEMENT FROM THE BANK ACCOUNT ITSELF WH ICH IS THE BASIS FOR MAKING THIS ADDITION. 6. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, WE ARE SATISFIED THA T ASSESSEE HAS BEEN ABLE TO EXPLAIN SOURCE OF THE CAS H DEPOSIT ON MAKING WITHDRAWALS FROM THE BANK ACCOUNT S. THE ADDITION IS, THEREFORE, WHOLLY UNJUSTIFIED. WE , ACCORDINGLY, SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BE LOW AND DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS. 12,55,700/-. GROUND NO. 2 OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 7. ON GROUND NO. 3, ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ADDITIO N OF RS. 2 LACS ON ACCOUNT OF AMOUNT RECEIVED FROM SH RI LEKH RAM. THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITION OF R S. 10 LACS ON ACCOUNT OF THE SOURCE OF THE PERSON AND HIS CREDIT WORTHINESS NOT PROVED. FURTHER, THE PERSON IS NOT PRODUCED FOR EXAMINATION. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED BEFORE LD. CIT(APPEALS) THAT IN-FACT, THIS AMOUNT H AS BEEN RECEIVED BY WAY OF TWO DEMAND DRAFTS OF RS. 8 LACS 5 AND RS. 2 LACS RECEIVED FROM SHRI GURMEET SINGH AS ADVANCE FOR PURCHASE OF AGRICULTURE LAND STANDING I N THE NAME OF SHRI GURPAL SINGH OF WHOM THE ASSESSEE WAS THE POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER. COPY OF THE AGREEMENT WITH TWO BANK DRAFTS AND CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE BANK IN RESPECT OF RS. 8 LACS AND RS. 2 LACS WERE FILED AS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT OF PURC HASER WAS ALSO FILED. IT IS, THEREFORE, PRAYED THAT ADDI TION OF RS. 10 LACS MAY BE DELETED. 8. THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE WERE FORWARDED T O THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR HIS COMMENTS. THE ASSESS ING OFFICER IN HIS COMMENTS REPORTED THAT ASSESSEE HAS CHANGED THE EXPLANATION BEFORE LD. CIT(APPEALS). T HE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT SUPPORTED BY ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE. THERE IS NO CONFIRMATION FRO M THE SELLER OR THE BUYER REGARDING AMOUNT RECEIVED A ND DEPOSITED. THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED COPY OF THE BANK STATEMENT OF SHRI GURMEET SINGH. THE BANK CERTIFIC ATE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE SHOWS THAT DRAFT OF RS. 8 LAC S WAS PURCHASED AFTER WITHDRAWAL FROM THE BANK ACCOUNT NO . 551. HOWEVER, THE DEMAND DRAFT OF RS. 2 LACS IS NO T SEEN TO HAVE BEEN MADE OUT OF BANK ACCOUNT OF SHRI GURMEET SINGH AS CONFIRMED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE AMOUNT OF RS. 2 LACS FOR PURCHASE OF DD HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN FROM SB ACCOUNT NO. 1420 OF SHRI LEKH RAM S/O SHRI HARI KISHAN. THIS FACT IS NOT MENTIONED BY THE ASSESSEE ANYWHERE. IN VIEW OF ABOVE DISCREPANCY IN 6 ASSESSEE'S REPLY, RELIEF ON THE BASIS OF THE SAME M AY BE ALLOWED. IT WAS ALSO MENTIONED THAT THE STATEMENT OF ASSETS & LIABILITIES OF ASSESSEE, NOWHERE MENTIONED EITHER SHRI GURMEET SINGH OR SHRI SURESH KUMAR. THEREFORE, EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE IS FALSE AND SAME MAY BE REJECTED. 9. THE ASSESSEE IN THE REJOINDER SUBMITTED BEFORE L D. CIT(APPEALS) THAT RS. 8 LACS WAS RECEIVED FROM SHRI GURMEET SINGH FOR PURCHASE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND AND RS. 2 LACS WAS RECEIVED FROM SHRI LEKH RAM AND NOT FROM SHRI GURMEET SINGH. THIS FACT CAN BE VERIFIED FROM THE BANK TRANSACTION. COPY OF THE SALE DEED IS ALSO FI LE TO SUPPORT THE ABOVE EXPLANATION. THE AFFIDAVIT OF SH RI GURMEET SINGH AND SHRI LEKH RAM ARE ALSO FILED TO S HOW THE CORRECT AND FACTUAL POSITION. BANK STATEMENT ALONGWITH CONFIRMATION FROM CANARA BANK IN RESPECT OF DRAFT FROM THE ACCOUNT OF SHRI LEKH RAM IS ALSO FIL ED. THE ASSESSEE FILED AFFIDAVIT OF ABOVE PERSONS, THEI R BANK STATEMENTS AND CERTIFICATE. THEREFORE, IF NAME OF SHRI GURMEET SINGH AND SHRI LEKH RAM DO NOT FORM PART OF THE BALANCE SHEET, ADDITION NEED NOT BE MADE IN THI S WAY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO MADE VERIFICATION FROM THE BANKER UNDER SECTION 133(6) OF THE ACT AND THIS FACT CAN BE VERIFIED FROM SUMMONING THE RECORD. 10. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) ACCEPTED THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE WITH REGARD TO RECEIPT OF RS. 8 LACS FROM SHRI 7 GURMEET SINGH AND DELETED THE ADDITION. HOWEVER, A S REGARDS ENTRY OF RS. 2 LACS, THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) CONFIRMED THE ADDITION BECAUSE ASSESSEE CHANGED THE EXPLANATION AND FURTHER DETAILS OF SHRI LEKH RAM HA VE NOT BEEN PROVIDED. 11. AFTER CONSIDERING RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, WE ARE OF THE VIEW ADDITION IS WHOLLY UNJUSTIFIED. THE ASSESSEE FILED AFFIDAVIT OF SHRI LEKH RAM BEFORE THE LD. CIT(APPEA LS), COPY OF WHICH IS FILED AT PAGE 90 OF THE PAPER BOOK IN WHICH SHRI LEKH RAM HAS AFFIRMED THAT HE ALONGWITH SMT. SHANTI DEVI, SHRI DHARAM PAL AND SHRI TARSEM L AL HAS PURCHASED AGRICULTURE LAND THROUGH THE ASSESSEE BEING POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER OF SHRI GURPAL SINGH FOR TOTAL SUM OF RS. 53 LACS VIDE REGISTERED DEED DATED 03.10.2005. HE HAS CONFIRMED IN HIS AFFIDAVIT OF P AYING OF RS. 2 LACS THROUGH DD NO. 006038 DATED 11.08.200 5 IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE. THIS AFFIDAVIT IS SUP PORTED BY BANK CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY CANARA BANK. COPIES ARE FILED AT PAGE 92 OF THE PAPER BOOK. IT IS, THEREFO RE, CLEAR THAT ASSESSEE CORRECTLY PLACED THE AFFIDAVITS BEFOR E LD. CIT(APPEALS) ON WHICH REMAND REPORT WAS ALSO CALLED FOR FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER. COPY OF THE SALE DEED WAS ALSO AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THEREFORE, THERE IS NO Q UESTION OF TREATING RS. 2 LACS AS UNEXPLAINED IN THE NAME O F SHRI LEKH RAM. MERELY BECAUSE HIS NAME WAS NOT MENTIONE D IN THE BALANCE SHEET INADVERTENTLY IS NO GROUND TO MAKE THE ADDITION. ALL THE DETAILS ARE FILED IN SUPPORT OF THE 8 EXPLANATION. THEREFORE, ADDITION OF RS. 2 LACS IS WHOLLY UNJUSTIFIED. WE, ACCORDINGLY, SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW AND DELETE THE ADDITION OF S 2 LA CS. GROUND NO. 3 OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 12. ON GROUND NO. 4, ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ADDITI ON OF RS. 5 LACS ON ACCOUNT OF AMOUNT RECEIVED BACK FR OM SMT. RICHA SHARMA WHICH WAS ADVANCED IN EARLIER YEA RS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITION OF RS. 5 LACS BECAUSE THE PERSON FROM WHOM AMOUNT WAS RECEIVED WA S NOT PRODUCED NOR HIS CREDIT WORTHINESS HAS BEEN EXPLAINED. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED BEFORE LD. CIT(APPEALS) THAT ADDITION IS IN RESPECT OF DEPOSIT OF RS. 5 LACS FOR THE REASON THAT SOURCE HAS NOT BEEN EXPL AINED AND THE PERSON SHRI MANJIT SINGH HAS NOT BEEN PRODU CED NOR HIS CREDIT WORTHINESS HAS BEEN PROVED. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT INADVERTENTLY IT WAS STATED DURING T HE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THAT AMOUNT HAS BE EN RECEIVED FROM SHRI MANJIT SINGH. IN FACT, THIS AMO UNT HAS BEEN RECEIVED BY WAY OF CHEQUE BEING REPAYMENT OF LOAN ADVANCED TO SMT. RICHA SHARMA, VILLAGE NAYA GAON, VPO- NADHA. COPY OF THE BANK STATEMENT OF SM T. RICHA ALONGWITH HER AFFIDAVIT NARRATING THE CORREC T FACTS WAS FILED AS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. IT WAS, THEREFOR E, SUBMITTED THAT SOURCE OF RS. 5 LACS HAS BEEN DULY EXPLAINED BEING THE REPAYMENT OF THE AMOUNT ADVANCE D BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE LAST YEAR TO SMT. RICHA 9 SHARMA. THE ASSESSEE PRAYED THAT ADDITION MAY BE DELETED. 12(I) THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE INADVERTENTLY EXPLAINED THAT AMOUNT WAS RECEIVED FR OM SHRI MANJIT SINGH. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) CALLED FOR THE REMAND REPORT FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE REMAND REPORT SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE EXPLAINED BEFORE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT AMOUNT WAS RECEIVED F ROM SHRI MANJIT SINGH AND HE WAS NOT PRODUCED FOR EXAMINATION. NOW, ASSESSEE HAS CHANGED HIS STAND A LL TOGETHER AND SUBMITTED THAT AMOUNT HAD BEEN RECEIVE D FROM SMT. RICHA SHARMA. BUT WHERE SHE IS ASSESSED, NO DETAILS HAVE BEEN GIVEN. IT WAS, THEREFORE, SUBMIT TED THAT ADDITION MAY BE CONFIRMED. 13. IT IS ALSO STATED BY ASSESSING OFFICER THAT IN THE STATEMENT OF ASSETS & LIABILITIES, NOWHERE EITHER S HRI MANJIT SINGH OR SMT. RICHA SHARMA HAVE BEEN MENTIONED. IT WAS, THEREFORE, SUBMITTED THAT EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE MAY BE REJECTED. 14. THE ASSESSEE IN THE REJOINDER REITERATED THE SA ME FACTS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITHOUT ANY REASONS BRUSHED ASIDE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE RE MAND PROCEEDINGS. INDEPENDENT INQUIRIES WERE ALSO CONDU CTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHICH SUPPORT THE STAND OF THE ASSESSEE BUT WITHOUT ANY REASONS, REJECTED THE CLAI M OF 10 THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS), HOWEVER, DID N OT ACCEPT EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE AND CONFIRMED TH E ADDITION AND DISMISSED THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 15. AFTER CONSIDERING RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, WE DO NOT FIND ANY JUSTIFICATION TO SUSTAIN THE ADDITION. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE AUTHORITIES BELOW. HE HAS REFERRED TO COPY OF BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH IS FILED AT P AGE 6 OF THE PAPER BOOK TO SHOW THAT ON 21.01.2005 ASSESS EE GAVE LOAN OF RS. 5 LACS TO SMT. RICHA SHARMA VIDE CHEQUE NO. 583373. THE LOAN, THEREFORE, WOULD FALL IN PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. PB-12 IS COPY O F THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE TO SHOW THAT ON 21.01.2006, THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED BACK THE LOAN AMO UNT OF RS. 5 LACS FROM SMT. RICHA SHARMA VIDE CHEQUE NO . 521337. PB-67 IS COPY OF THE CHEQUE ISSUED BY SMT. RICHA SHARMA OF RS. 5 LACS IN QUESTION. PB-68 IS C OPY OF THE BANK ACCOUNT OF SMT. RICHA SHARMA TO SHOW TH AT ON 21.01.2006, SMT.RICHA HAS ISSUED A CHEQUE NO. 521337 OF RS. 5 LACS IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND IS DEBITED TO HER BANK ACCOUNT. BEFORE ISSUE OF CHEQU E OF RS. 5 LACS IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE, SHE HAD CREDI T BALANCE OF RS. 16,70,922/-. THEREFORE, SMT. RICHA SHARMA WAS HAVING SUFFICIENT BALANCE IN HER BANK ACCOUNT TO REPAY LOAN AMOUNT TO THE ASSESSEE. PB-7 0 IS AFFIDAVIT OF SMT. RICHA SHARMA IN WHICH SHE HAS 11 EXPLAINED HER PAN NUMBER AND WARD WHERE SHE IS ASSESSED. SHE HAS CLAIMED IN HER AFFIDAVIT TO HAVE RECEIVED LOAN OF RS. 5 LACS FROM ASSESSEE ON 21.01. 2005 THROUGH CHEQUE AND REPAID THE ABOVE AMOUNT OF LOAN ON 21.01.2006 BY CHEQUE. ALL THESE FACTS AND MATERIAL WERE BEFORE AUTHORITIES BELOW, THEREFORE, CLEARLY SUPPOR T EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT IN PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR, ASSESSEE GAVE LOAN OF RS. 5 LACS T O SMT. RICHA SHARMA WHICH WAS REPAID IN ASSESSMENT YE AR UNDER APPEAL THROUGH THE BANKING CHANNEL. THEREFORE , THERE WAS NO JUSTIFICATION TO MAKE ADDITION OF RS. 5 LACS AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW AND DELETE TH E ADDITION OF RS. 5 LACS. GROUND NO. 4 OF APPEAL OF T HE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 16. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- SD/- ( ANNAPURNA GUPTA) (BHAVNESH SAINI ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 21 ST DECEMBER,2016. POONAM COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A) 4. THE CIT,DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT/CHD