Smt. Madhu Mangal, Chandigarh V. DCIT, Chandigarh

ITA 489/CHANDI/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0067 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-05-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 24-08-2015
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 06-05-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Search and seizure; Document seized; Documents seized

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI H.L.KARWA, VICE PRESIDENT AND MS. RANO JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.489 /CHD/2015 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09) SMT. MADHU MANGAL, VS. THE D.C.I.T., H.NO.2374, SECTOR 23, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, CHANDIGARH. CHANDIGARH PAN: AAVPM2062M AND ITA NO.523/CHD/2015 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09) THE D.C.I.T., VS. SMT. MADHU MANGAL, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, H.NO.2374, SECTOR 23, CHANDIGARH. CHANDIGARH PAN: AAVPM2062M (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI ASHWANI KUMAR GARG DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI MANOJ MISHRA, CIT DR DATE OF HEARING : 26.04.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 05.05.2016 O R D E R PER RANO JAIN, A.M . : BOTH THE CROSS APPEALS ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LEARNED PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME T AX (OSD), GURGAON DATED 12.3.2015 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. 2 2. WE WILL FIRST TAKE UP THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSE E IN ITA NO.489/CHD2015 ITA NO.489/CHD/2015 (ASSESSEES APPEAL) : 3. BRIEFLY, THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED HER RETURN OF INCOME AS ON 28.7.2008 AT TOTAL INCOME OF RS.19,53,440/-. SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION WAS CONDUCTED ON DR.NARESH MITTAL GROUP O F CASES ON 17.11.2010. CONSEQUENT TO THE SEARCH OPER ATION, NOTICE UNDER SECTION 153C WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSE E DATED 17.8.2012 CALLING FOR FILING OF RETURN. IN P URSUANCE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 153C, THE ASSESSEE AGAIN FI LED RETURN DECLARING INCOME AT RS.19,53,440/- AS ON 30.9.2013. THE ASSESSEE RAISED AN OBJECTION AGAINS T INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 153C OF THE ACT BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. AFTER REJECTING THE SAID OBJECTION AND DISCUSSING THE CASE ON MERITS, AN ASSESSMENT ON AN INCOME OF RS.91,94,940/- WAS COMPLETED MAKING AN ADDITION OF AN AMOUNT OF RS.72,41,500/-. 4. AGGRIEVED BY THIS, THE ASSESSEE WENT IN APPEAL BEFORE THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD). ELABORATE SUBMISSIONS WITH REGARD TO THE ME RITS OF THE CASE AS WELL AS ON LEGAL ISSUE WERE MADE BEFORE THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD). THE 3 MAIN ARGUMENT ADVANCED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD) WAS THAT NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 153C OF THE ACT IS BAD IN LAW AND AGAINST THE PROVISIONS OF LAW. IT WAS STAT ED THAT THE SATISFACTION RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT STATE THAT THE MATERIAL SEIZED BELONGS TO THE ASSES SEE, THE SAME MERELY REFERRED TO THE PROPERTY TRANSACTION OF THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS ALSO PUT-FORTH THAT THIS SATISFAC TION CANNOT BE THE BASIS AS THE DOCUMENT FOUND DURING TH E COURSE OF SEARCH IS NON-INCRIMINATING IN NATURE, NO R THE ASSESSEE COULD BE SAID TO BE THE OWNER OF THE DOCUM ENT. IN OTHER WORDS, IT WAS NOT CONCLUSIVELY PROVED THAT THE LOOSE DOCUMENTS BELONG TO THE ASSESSEE. RELIANCE WA S PLACED ON A NUMBER OF JUDGMENTS INCLUDING THAT OF GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF VIJAYBHAI N. CHA NDRANI VS. ACIT (2011) 333 ITR 436 (GUJ) AND DELHI TRIBUNA L IN THE CASE OF NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION LTD. V S. DCIT IN ITA NO.2539/DEL/2011, BANGALORE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF P.SRINIVAS NAIK VS. ACIT (2008) 306 ITR (AT) 41 1 AND ALSO DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF PEPSICO INDIA HOLDINGS PVT. LTD. VS. ACIT, 270 CTR 467 (DEL). RE JECTING ALL THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE THE LEARNED PRI NCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD) DECIDED THE ISSUE OF LEGALITY OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 153C AGAINST THE A SSESSEE AND ALSO DISTINGUISHED THE CASES RELIED ON BY IT. THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE MERITS OF THE CA SE WAS ALLOWED PARTIALLY BY THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL COMMISSI ONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD). 4 5. AGGRIEVED BY THIS, BOTH THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS THE DEPARTMENT HAVE COME UP IN APPEAL BEFORE US. S INCE THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE LEGAL ISSUE REGARDING T HE LEGALITY OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 153C OF THE ACT, W E HEARD THIS GROUND FIRST AND INTEND TO DISPOSE OF THE SAME FIRST. 6. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE BASICALLY REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS WHICH WERE MADE BY HIM B EFORE THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (O SD). OUR ATTENTION WAS INVITED TO THE SATISFACTION RECOR DED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF THE SEARCHED PERSON PLACED AT PAPER BOOK PAGE NO1, WHEREBY IT HAS BEEN SATED THAT THESE PAPERS CONTAIN DETAILS OF TRANSACTION IN IMM OVABLE PROPERTY MADE BY MADHU BALA, WHICH NEED TO BE VERIF IED. IT WAS STATED THAT NOWHERE IN THE SATISFACTION NOTE , NOR IN THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD), ANY FINDING IS COMING OUT THAT THE SEIZE D DOCUMENT BELONG TO THE ASSESSEE. THE LEARNED PRINC IPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD) HAD ACTUALLY SIDE- STEPPED THE ISSUE BY SAYING THAT THE NATURE OF THE CONTENTS OF THE DOCUMENTS CLEARLY SHOWS THAT IT WAS MORE THAN A MERE REFERENCE OF THE ASSESSEE REVEALING ELE MENT OF INCOME THEREBY SUGGESTING UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF OTH ER PERSON. BESIDES RELYING ON THE JUDGMENTS WHICH WER E RELIED ON BEFORE THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD), HEAVY RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE 5 JUDGMENT OF DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF PEPSI FOODS PVT. LTD. VS. ACIT, WP(C) NO.415, 568, 570, 571, 57 5, 576 OF 2014 AND PEPSICO INDIA HOLDINGS PVT. LTD. (SUPRA ). IN CONCLUSION, IT WAS STATED THAT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE RELYING ON THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THESE CASES, IT IS QUITE CLEAR THAT NO DOCUMENT BELONGING TO THE ASSESSEE WAS FOUN D DURING THE SEARCH. NO SATISFACTION ABOUT ANY DOCUM ENT BELONGING TO THE ASSESSEE WAS RECORDED. NO FINDING OF ANY DOCUMENT BELONGING TO THE ASSESSEE WAS GIVEN EVEN I N THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSMENT. FURTHER, NO SUCH FINDING WAS GIVEN BY THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCO ME TAX (OSD). IN THIS MANNER, IT WAS STATED THAT THE FUNDAMENTAL JURISDICTIONAL FACTS FOR INVOKING SECTI ON 153C OF THE ACT ARE THUS MISSING IN THE PRESENT CAS E. 7. THE LEARNED D.R. RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND FURTHER STATED THAT ON PERUSA L OF THE SEIZED DOCUMENT FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, IT CAN BE SEEN THAT THERE ARE TRANSACTIONS ENTERED INTO BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH MAY ALSO HAVE AN ELEMENT OF UNDISCLO SED INCOME ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE. THE NATURE OF THE DOCUMENT BEING THAT OF SELF-EXPLANATORY DOCUMENT, T HERE IS NO NEED FOR THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF THE SEARCHE D PERSON TO RECORD A SATISFACTION WHETHER THE ASSESSEE IS TH E OWNER OF THE DOCUMENT FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH O R NOT. 6 8. WE HAVE HEARD THE LEARNED REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH THE PARTIES, PERUSED THE FINDINGS OF THE AUTHO RITIES BELOW AND CONSIDERED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECO RD. THE ONLY ISSUE TO BE DECIDED BY US IS WHETHER THE SATISFACTION NOTE AS PREPARED BY THE ASSESSING OFFI CER OF THE SEARCHED PERSON IN THE PRESENT CASE IS AS PER L AW OR NOT. FIRST WE WOULD LIKE TO QUOTE THE SATISFACTION NOTE, COPY OF WHICH WAS PLACED AT PAPER BOOK PAGE 2, WHIC H READS AS UNDER : 1. A SEARCH WAS CONDUCTED ON 17.11.2010 AT THE RESIDENTIAL PREMISES OF DR. NARESH MITTAL AT H. NO. 212, SECTOR-6, PANCHKULA. DURING THE COURSE OF SEARC H, DOCUMENTS MARKED AS AT, A2 AND A3 WERE FOUND AND SEIZED. 2. PAGES 21-25 OF DOCUMENT A1, PAGES 11-14,65-69, 9 5-96, 150, 178-251,253 OF DOCUMENT A2 AND PAGES 31-32 OF DOCUMENT A3 CONTAIN THE DETAILS OF TRANSACTIONS IN IMMOVABLE PROPERTY MADE BY MADHU BALA WHICH NEED TO BE VERIFIED. 3. IN ORDER TO PROTECT THE INTEREST OF REVENUE I AM SATISFIED THAT THE CASE OF MADHU BALA NEEDS TO BE ASSESSED AN D THEREFORE NOTICE U/S 153C OF THE IT ACT, 1961 IS BEI NG ISSUED. 9. FROM THE PERUSAL OF THE ABOVE-SAID SATISFACTION NOTE, WE OBSERVE THAT THERE IS NO REFERENCE AS TO T HE MATERIAL FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH TO BE BE LONGING TO THE ASSESSEE OR FOR THAT MATTER, TO ANY OTHER PE RSON. 7 WE ALSO OBSERVE THAT THE ONLY REFERENCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF THE SEARCHED PERSON IN THE SATISFACTION NOTE IS THAT THE DOCUMENTS CONTAIN THE DETAILS OF TRANSACTIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. ANOTHER IMPO RTANT FACTOR WHICH WE OBSERVE FROM THE READING OF THE SATISFACTION NOTE IS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER OP INES THAT THIS TRANSACTION NEEDS TO BE VERIFIED. WE HAVE ALS O SEEN THE COPIES OF DOCUMENTS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, WHICH WERE MADE THE BASIS FOR PREPARING SUC H SATISFACTION NOTE. IN THESE DOCUMENTS BASICALLY CE RTAIN FINANCIAL TRANSACTIONS ARE RECORDED AND THE NAME OF A NUMBER OF OTHER PERSONS OTHER THAN THE ASSESSEE ARE APPEARING ON THESE DOCUMENTS. THE DOCUMENTS ARE SE EM TO BE COMPUTER PRINTOUTS AND APART FROM THAT VERY S MALL NOTINGS IN THE HANDWRITING OF SOME PERSON ARE THERE . IN THE BACKGROUND OF THESE FACTS, NOW WE WILL EXAMINE WHETHER THE NOTICE IS IN CONSONANCE WITH THE PROVIS IONS OF THE ACT OR NOT. FOR THIS, FIRST WE WILL REPRODUCE THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 153C OF THE ACT AS IT STOOD F OR THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR, WHICH READ AS UNDER : 153C 'NOTWITHSTANDING ANYTHING CONTAINED IN SECTION 139, SECTION 147, SECTION 149, SECTION 151 AND SECTION 153, WHERE THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS SATISFIED THAT ANY, BULLION, JEWELLERY OR OTHER VALUABLE ARTICLE OR THING OR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR DOCUMENTS SEIZED OR REQUISITIONED BELONGS OR BELONG TO A PERSON OTHER THAN THE PERSON REFERRED TO IN SECTION 153A, THEN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR DOCUMENTS OR 8 ASSETS SEIZED OR REQUISITIONED SHALL BE HANDED OVER TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAVING JURISDICTION OVER SUCH OTHER PERSON BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2015, W.E.F. 1-6-2015. 10. ON A PLAIN READING OF THE SECTION, IT IS EVIDE NT THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF THE SEARCHED PERSON M UST BE SATISFIED THAT THE DOCUMENTS SEIZED DURING THE COUR SE OF SEARCH BELONG TO A PERSON OTHER THAN THE ONE WHO WAS SEARCHED. IT IS ONLY WHEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF THE SEARCHED PERSON GOT SATISFIED ABOUT THIS CONDITION, HE CAN HANDOVER SUCH DOCUMENT TO THE ASSESSEE HAVING JURISDICTION OVER SUCH OTHER PERSON. 11. SINCE A VERY HEAVY RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE JUDGMENT OF THE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF PE PSI FOODS PVT. LTD. (SUPRA), WE INTEND TO ANALYZE THE S AID JUDGMENT IN THE BACKGROUND OF THE FACTS OF THE PRES ENT CASE. ON THE READING OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE DELHI HIGH COURT, WE OBSERVE THAT IN PARA 6 OF THE ORDER, THE HON'BLE COURT HAS SUMMARIZED THE STEPS TO BE TAKEN BEFORE I SSUE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 153C OF THE ACT. THE FIRST STEP IS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF THE PERSON, WHO IS SE ARCHED, MUST ARRIVE AT A CLEAR SATISFACTION THAT THE DOCUME NTS SEIZED FROM HIM DO NOT BELONG TO SEARCHED PERSON BU T TO SOME OTHER PERSON. THE SECOND STEP IS WHEN SUCH SATISFACTION IS ARRIVED AT THEN THE DOCUMENTS ARE T O BE HANDED OVER TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF THE PERSON TO WHOM THE SAID DOCUMENTS BELONG. AFTER ANALYZING TH E PROVISIONS OF SECTION 132(4A)(I) AND 292C(1)(I) OF THE ACT 9 THE COURT REACHED TO A CONCLUSION THAT IT IS FOR TH E ASSESSING OFFICER TO REBUT THE PRESUMPTION PROVIDED IN THESE SECTIONS AND COME TO A CONCLUSION OR SATISFAC TION THAT THE DOCUMENTS IN FACT BELONG TO SOMEBODY ELSE. THERE MUST BE SOME COGENT MATERIAL AVAILABLE WITH T HE ASSESSING OFFICER BEFORE HE ARRIVES AT SATISFACTION THAT THE SEIZED DOCUMENT DOES NOT BELONG TO THE SEARCHED P ERSON BUT TO SOMEBODY ELSE. THE HON'BLE COURT ALSO EMPHA SIZED THAT SURMISE AND CONJECTURE CANNOT TAKE THE PLACE O F SATISFACTION. A VERY IMPORTANT FINDING IN THIS RE GARD HAS BEEN GIVEN BY THE COURT AT THE END OF PARA 7 IN THI S JUDGMENT, WHICH READS AS UNDER : IN OUR VIEW, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS REQUIRED TO ARRIVE AT A CONCLUSIVE SATISFACTION THAT THE DOCUMENT BELONGS TO A PERSON OTHER THAN THE SEARCHED PERSON BECAUSE SUCH ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TO REBUT THE NORMAL PRESUMPTI ONS WHICH ARE SUGGESTED BY THE STATUTE UNDER SECTIONS 132(4A)( I) AND 292C(L)(I) OF THE SAID ACT. 12. AFTER REFERRING TO THE SATISFACTION NOTE AS WA S RECORDED IN THAT CASE, THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT CAME TO A CONCLUSION AT PARA 11, WHICH READS AS UNDER : 11. IT IS EVIDENT FROM THE ABOVE SATISFACTION NOTE THAT APART FROM SAYING THAT THE DOCUMENTS BELONGED TO THE PETITIONER AND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS SATISFIED THAT IT IS A FIT CASE FOR ISSUANCE OF A NOTICE UNDER SECTION 153 C, THERE IS NOTHING WHICH WOULD INDICATE AS TO HOW THE PRESUMPT IONS WHICH ARE TO BE NORMALLY RAISED AS INDICATED ABOVE, HAVE BEEN REBUTTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. MERE USE OR MENTION OF THE WORD 'SATISFACTION' OR THE WORDS 'I AM SATISF IED' IN THE ORDER OR THE NOTE WOULD NOT MEET THE REQUIREMEN T OF THE 10 CONCEPT OF SATISFACTION AS USED IN SECTION 153C OF THE SAID ACT. THE SATISFACTION NOTE ITSELF MUST DISPLAY THE REASO NS OR BASIS FOR THE CONCLUSION THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF THE SEARCHED PERSON IS SATISFIED THAT THE SEIZED DOCUME NTS BELONG TO A PERSON OTHER THAN THE SEARCHED PERSON. WE ARE A FRAID, THAT GOING THROUGH THE CONTENTS OF THE SATISFACTION NOTE, WE ARE UNABLE TO DISCERN ANY 'SATISFACTION' OF THE KIND REQUIRED UNDER SECTION 153C OF THE SAID ACT. 13. ON PERUSAL OF THE ABOVE AND APPLYING THE PROPOSITION AS LAID DOWN BY THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, WE SEE THAT THERE IS NOTHING COMING OUT OF THE SATISFACTION NOTE THAT TH E SEIZED DOCUMENTS BELONG TO THE ASSESSEE. FURTHER, THERE I S NOTHING WHICH WOULD INDICATE AS TO HOW THE PRESUMPT ION WHICH WAS TO BE RAISED AGAINST THE PERSON SEARCHED HAVE BEEN REBUTTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE SATIS FACTION NOTE DOES NOT AT ALL DISPLAY THE REASON OR BASIS FO R THE CONCLUSION THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS SATISFIED THAT THESE DOCUMENTS BELONG TO THE ASSESSEE. 14. SIMILAR JUDGMENT HAS BEEN DELIVERED BY THE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF PEPSICO INDIA HOL DINGS PVT. LTD. (SUPRA), WHEREBY THE COURT ENDORSING THE VIEW EARLIER TAKEN IN THE CASE OF PEPSI FOODS PVT. LTD. (SUPRA) HAD ALSO ADDED THAT ONCE IT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE DEPARTMENT THAT THE DOCUMENTS IN QUESTION WERE NOT BELONGING TO THE PERSON WHO WAS SEARCHED, THE PROVI SIONS OF SECTION 153C OF THE ACT CANNOT BE INVOKED. IT H AS ALSO BEEN HELD THAT JUST CERTAIN DOCUMENTS BEING FOUND I N POSSESSION OF THE SEARCHED PERSON, BEING PHOTOCOPIE S OF 11 CERTAIN DOCUMENTS, IT DOES NOT NECESSARILY MEAN AND IMPLY THAT THESE BELONG TO THE PERSON WHO HOLDS THE ORIGI NAL. FURTHER, IT WAS HELD THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHO ULD NOT CONFUSE THE EXPRESSION BELONGS WITH THE EXPRESSIO N RELATES TO OR REFERS TO. AN EXAMPLE WAS GIVEN BY THE COURT WITH REGARD TO REGISTERED SALE DEED WHICH BE LONGS TO THE PURCHASER OF THE PROPERTY ALTHOUGH OBVIOUSLY RELATES TO OR REFERS TO THE VENDOR. IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT IT BELONGS TO THE VENDOR JUST BECAUSE HIS NAME IS MENTIONED IN THE DOCUMENTS. FURTHER, EXPLAINING TH E CONVERSE CASE IF THE VENDORS PREMISES ARE SEARCHED AND COPY OF SALE DEED IS SEIZED, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE SAID COPY BELONGS TO THE PURCHASER JUST BECAUSE IT REF ERS TO HIM AND THE PURCHASER HOLDS THE ORIGINAL SALE DEED. 15. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, RELYING ON TH E PARAMETERS AS LAID DOWN BY THE DELHI HIGH COURT, WE DO NOT FIND THAT THE INGREDIENTS OF SECTION 153C OF TH E ACT HAVE BEEN SATISFIED IN THE PRESENT CASE. CONSEQUEN TLY, THE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 153C OF THE ACT IS HELD NOT TO BE AS PER LAW AND THE ASSESSMENT FRAMED IN PURSUANCE TO THE SAID NOTICE IS HEREBY QUASHED. 16. SINCE WE HAVE ALREADY QUASHED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE OTHER GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE NEED NO ADJUDICATION. 17. THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 12 ITA NO.523/CHD/2015 (REVENUES APPEAL) : 18. SINCE WE HAVE ALREADY QUASHED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, NO ADJUDICATION IS REQUIRED ON T HE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE DEPARTMENT. 19. THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 20. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN I TA NO.489/CHD/2015 IS ALLOWED AND THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IN ITA NO.523/CHD/2015 IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 5 TH DAY OF MAY, 2016. SD/- SD/- (H.L.KARWA) (RANO JAIN) VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 5 TH MAY, 2016 *RATI* COPY TO: THE APPELLANT/THE RESPONDENT/THE CIT(A)/THE CIT/THE D R. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH