DCIT, Parwanoo V. M/s Shree Dhanwantri Herbals, Solan

ITA 508/CHANDI/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6737 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-10-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 20-03-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANJIT SINGH

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCHES B CHANDIGARH BEFORE SMT. DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. B.R.R. KUMAR , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 508/CHD/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2014-15 DCIT VS. SHREE DHANWANTRI HERBALS CIRCLE VILL- KISHANPURA, PO GURUMAJRA PARWANOO TEHSIL- NALAGARH, BADDI, SOLAN PAN NO: AAZFS3118E (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SH. MANOJ KUMAR DEPARTMENT BY : SH. MANJIT SINGH DATE OF HEARING : 24/10/2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 25/10/2017 ORDER PER DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, A.M: THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE REVENUE AG AINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), SHIMLA DT. 30/01/2017. 2. THE ONLY EFFECTIVE GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS AS UNDER: 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE LD. C IT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF TECHNICAL KNOWHOW A ND GOODWILL, IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT CLAIMING THESE EXPEN SES AND INFLATED ITS PROFIT FOR CLAIMING 100% DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IC OF THE I NCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 3. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE FI RM DERIVES INCOME FROM MANUFACTURING AND SALE OF HERBAL MEDICINES. THE ASS ESSEE WAS CARRYING OUT ITS BUSINESS ACTIVITIES AT TWO PLACES ONE AT AMRITSAR A ND THE OTHER AT KISHANPURA (BADDI). DURING THE PROCEEDINGS, ASSESSEE STATED TH AT THE MANUFACTURING ACTIVITIES WERE BEING CARRIED OUT AT UNIT-II, KISHA NPURA (BADDI) AND IN UNIT- I(AMRITSAR) AND THE PROFIT EARNED FROM UNIT-I, AMRI TSAR HAD BEEN DECLARED FOR TAXATION PURPOSE WHEREAS KISHANPURA UNIT WAS ELIGIB LE FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IC. 4. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT DEBITED THE EXPENSES ON ACCOUNT OF TECHNICAL KNOWHOW AND GOODWILL WH ICH LEAD TO INFLATED PROFITS AND DISALLOWED THE AMOUNT @ OF UNDER THESE HEADS. T HE LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 2 5. BEFORE US THE LD. SR. DR SUPPORTED THE ASSESSMEN T ORDER WHERE AS THE LD. AR RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND ORDER OF T HIS TRIBUNAL IN HIS OWN CASE FOR THE EARLIER YEAR. 6. THE LD. CIT(A) HELD THAT THE ASSESSEES SUBMISSI ONS HAVE BEEN DULY CONSIDERED WITH REFERENCE TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND THE ORDER DATED 08.09.2015 OF THE ITAT CHANDIGARH IN ITA NO. 501 & 502/CHD/2015 IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE. IT IS NOTED THAT THE ISSUES HA VE BEEN DECIDED BY THE HON'BLE ITAT IN FAVOUR OF THE APPELLANT. THE RELEVANT OBSERVATIONS OF THE HON'BLE ITAT IN TH IS REGARD ARE REPRODUCED BY THE CIT(A)AS FOLLOWS:- '5. AFTER HEARING THE LD. REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH T HE PARTIES WE FIND THAT BOTH THE ABOVE ISSUES ARE SQUARELY COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND AGAINST THE REVENUE BY THE DECISION OF ITAT, CHANDIGARH BENCH I N THE CASE OF M/S SHREE DHANWANTRI HERBAL, SOLAN VS ITO IN ITA NO. 117/CHD/ 2010 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. WHILE DECIDING SIMILAR ISSUES THE TRI BUNAL VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 11.8.2010 OBSERVED AS UNDER:- ' 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, IT WAS A COMMON POINT BETWEEN THE PARTIES THAT THE ISSUE INVOLVED ARE COVERED BY THE EARLIER DECISIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF M/S. LAMBDA MICROWAVES ITANO./725/CHANDI/20 09 DATED 29.01.2010 AND M/S. POLY LAB PRODUCTS VIDE ITA NO. 710/CHD/2009 DA TED 29.01.2010 RESPECTIVELY. IN THIS MANNER, THE CAPTIONED APPEAL IS BEING DISPO SED OF AS FOLLOWS. 3. ON BOTH THE GROUNDS, THE DISPUTE ARISES FROM C LAIM OF DEDUCTION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE U/S 80IC OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN S HORT 'THE ACT') IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. THE ASSESSEE IS A PARTNERSHIP FIRM WHICH STARTED ITS BUSINESS FROM 25.07.2005 AND DECLARED INCOME FROM MANUFACTURE OF AYURVEDIC PHARMACEUTICALS ETC. IN THE FIRST GROUND, DISPUTE R ELATES TO THE STAND OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT NON-CLAIMING OF ANY EXPENDIT URE FOR USE OF TECHNICAL KNOW- HOW, CUSTOMER BASE GOODWILL OF THE SISTER CONCERN, HAS RESULTED IN EXCESS PROFITS AND THEREFORE HE APPLIED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 80IA(10) READ WITH SECTION 80IC (7), AND ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE. 4. ON THIS POINT, BOTH THE PARTIES AGREED THAT THE ISSUE INVOLVED IS IDENTICAL TO GROUND NO. 1 IN THE CASE OF M/S. LAMBDA MICROWAVES (SUPRA) WHEREIN THE FOLLOWING DISCUSSION HAS BEEN MADE: 10. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS CAREF ULLY. THE SHORT POINT INVOLVED IN THIS APPEAL RELATES TO THE PROFITS DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING WHICH IS OTHERWISE ELIGIBLE FOR 80IC BE NEFITS. SECTION 80IC PROVIDES FOR DEDUCTION OF PROFITS AND GAINS DERIVED BY CERTAIN U NDERTAKINGS OR ENTERPRISES. THE CORE CONTROVERSY BEFORE US RELATES TO INVOKING OF S ECTION 80IA(10) OF THE ACT FOR THE PURPOSES OF COMPUTING PROFITS DERIVED BY THE AS SESSEE'S INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING WHICH IS ELIGIBLE FOR 801C BENEFITS. IT IS, THEREFO RE, APPROPRIATE TO REPRODUCE HEREINAFTER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 80IA(10) WHIC H READ AS UNDER :- 80-IA. (10) WHERE IT APPEARS TO THE ASSESSING OFFI CER THAT, OWING TO THE CLOSE CONNECTION BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE CARRYING ON THE ELIGIBLE BUSIN ESS TO WHICH THIS SECTION APPLIES AND ANY OTHER PERSON, OR FOR ANY OT HER REASON, THE COURSE OF BUSINESS BETWEEN THEM IS SO ARRANGED THAT THE BUSIN ESS TRANSACTED BETWEEN THEM PRODUCES TO THE ASSESSEE MORE THAN THE ORDINAR Y PROFITS WHICH MIGHT BE EXPECTED TO ARISE IN SUCH ELIGIBLE BUSINESS, THE AS SESSING OFFICER SHALL, IN COMPUTING THE PROFITS AND GAINS OF SUCH ELIGIBLE BU SINESS FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE DEDUCTION UNDER THIS SECTION, TAKE THE AMOUNT OF PR OFITS AS MAY BE REASONABLY DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN DERIVED THEREFROM' 11. SUB-SECTION (7) OF 80IC PROVIDES, INTER-ALIA, T HAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 80IA(10) WOULD ALSO APPLY TO AN UNDERTAKING OR ENTE RPRISE ELIGIBLE FOR 80IC BENEFITS. THUS, THE SAID PROVISION IS RELEVANT FOR THE PURPOSES OF EXAMINING THE AFORESAID CONTROVERSY. THE ESSENTIALS OF THE AF ORESAID SECTION CAN BE UNDERSTOOD AS FOLLOWS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS EMP OWERED TO SCRUTINIZE 3 TRANSACTIONS BETWEEN AN ASSESSEE ELIGIBLE FOR 80IC BENEFITS AND ANY OTHER PERSON WITH A VIEW TO ASCERTAINING WHETHER THE BUSI NESS TRANSACTED BETWEEN THEM PRODUCES TO THE ASSESSEE MORE THAN THE ORDINAR Y PROFITS OR NOT. IF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS SATISFIED THAT THE BUSINESS SO TRANSACTED BETWEEN THEM PRODUCES MORE THAN ORDINARY PROFITS WHICH MIGHT BE EXPECTED TO ARISE IN SUCH ELIGIBLE BUSINESS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS EMPOWER ED TO TAKE THE AMOUNT OF PROFITS AS MAY BE REASONABLY DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN DE RIVED THERE FROM. EVIDENTLY, THE ENTIRE MECHANICS OF THE SECTION REVO LVE AROUND 'THE COURSE OF BUSINESS' BEING 'SO ARRANGED THAT THE BUSINESS TRAN SACTED BETWEEN THEM' PRODUCES MORE THAN THE ORDINARY PROFITS TO THE ASSE SSEE. THE PRESENCE OF A 'BUSINESS TRANSACTED' BETWEEN THE TWO ENTITIES IS A SINE QUA NON FOR E N A B I ING THE ASSESSINGOFFICER TO APPLY THE SAID SECTION AND DETERMINE THE PROFITS AS MAY BE REASONABLY DEEMED TO HAVE BEE N DERIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM THE ELIGIBLE BUSINESS. OSTENSIBLY, TH E PRESENCE OF THE WORDS ---- ----------------------------------------- WHERE IT APPEARS TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER ----------------------------------------- IMPLY THAT BURDEN IS ON THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THE COURSE OF BUSINESS BETWEEN THE TWO ENTITIES IS SO ARRANGED THAT THE BUSINESS TRANSACTED BETWEEN THEM PRODUCES TO THE ASSESSEE MORE THAN THE ORDINARY PROFITS WHICH MIGHT BE EXPECTED TO ARI SE IN SUCH ELIGIBLE BUSINESS. 12. IN THE AFORESAID LIGHT, WE HAVE EXAMINED THE CA SE SET UP BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IN THIS CASE, THE ASSESSING OFFI CER HAS HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT INCURRED EXPENDITURE BY WAY OF ROY ALTY/FEE OF TECHNICAL SERVICE FOR USE OF TRADE MARK/TRADE NAME, WHICH HAS ENABLED THE ASSESSEE TO EARN MORE THAN THE ORDINARY PROFITS WHICH CAN BE EX PECTED TO ARISE IN SUCH BUSINESS. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER, SUCH TECHNICAL KNOW-HOW AND USE OF TRADE MARK/TRADE NAME HAVE BEEN OBTAINED BY THE ASS ESSEE FROM ITS SISTER CONCERNS, FOR WHICH NO EXPENDITURE IS INCURRED BY T HE ASSESSEE. THE MOOT POINT TO BE CONSIDERED IS AS TO WHETHER IS THERE ANY ARRANGE MENT BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND THE SISTER CONCERNS FOR OBTAINING OF TECHNICAL KNOW-HOW AND FOR THE USE OF TRADE MARK/TRADE NAME. THE ASCERTAINMENT OF THE AFO RESAID ARRANGEMENT IS ESSENTIAL SO AS TO GAUGE WHETHER ANY BUSINESS HAS B EEN TRANSACTED BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND SISTER CONCERNS WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 80IA(10) AND WHICH PRODUCES TO THE ASSESSEE MORE THAN THE ORDINARY PRO FITS WHICH MIGHT BE EXPECTED TO ARISE IN SUCH BUSINESS. 13. HAVING EXAMINED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORI TIES AND THE MATERIAL ON RECORD WE FIND NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THAT THERE IS ANY ARRANGEMENT OR A BUSINESS TRANSACTED BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND THE SI STER CONCERNS WITH RESPECT TO OBTAINING OF TECHNICAL KNOW-HOW OR USE OF TRADE MAR K/TRADE NAME OWNED BY THE SISTER CONCERN . THE ASSERTION OF THE ASSESSING OFF ICER THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS OBTAINED THE USE OF TECHNICAL KNOW-HOW AND USE OF T RADE NAME FROM ITS SISTER CONCERNS WITHOUT ANY CONSIDERATION, IS A BALD ASSER TION. EVEN IN THE FACE OF DENIAL BY THE ASSESSEE AND ABSE NCE OF ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS PROCEEDED TO ME RELY DISBELIEVE THE ASSESSEE ON PRESUMPTIONS WITHOUT EVEN EXAMINING THE SISTER C ONCERNS ON THIS ASPECT. IN FACT, THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT TO THE ASSESSING OFF ICER THAT IT HAD EMPLOYED ENGINEERS FOR THE MANUFACTURE OF FINISHED PRODUCTS AND THE PROCESS UNDERTAKEN DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY SPECIAL TECHNOLOGY OR TECHNICA L KNOW-HOW. THE ASSESSEE ALSO EXPLAINED THAT NO EXPENDITURE HAS BEEN INCURRE D ON DEVELOPMENT AND ACQUISITION OF TECHNICAL KNOW-HOW. THE ASSESSEE CON TENDED THAT IT HAS NOT USED THE TRADE MARK/TRADE NAME 'LAMBDA', AS MADE OUT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSEE ALSO CONTENDED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICE R THAT IT HAS NOT USED ANY BUSINESS CONNECTION OF THE SISTER CONCERNS AND SALE AND PURCHASE HAVE BEEN INDEPENDENTLY CARRIED OUT. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINIO N, THERE IS NOTHING ON RECORD TO CONTROVERT THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE, WHICH HAVE BEEN DULY NOTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ASSESSMENT OR DER. IN RESPONSE TO THE REPLIES OF THE ASSESSEE MADE DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDI NGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THE TECHNICAL KNOW-HOW WAS TRANSFERRE D TO THE ASSESSEE THROUGH THE DIRECTORS OF THE SISTER CONCERNS, WHO WERE ALSO THE PARTNERS OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER OBSERVED THAT T HE SISTER CONCERNS HAVE DEMANDED NOTHING FOR THE SAME. THIS, ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER, IT HAS RE SULTED IN MORE PROFITS TO THE ASSESSEE AND, THEREFORE, HE HAS INVOKED SECTION 80I A(10) OF THE ACT. IN FACT, THE APPROACH OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS CONTRADICTORY AND HAS TO FAIL ON ITS OWN WEIGHT. FIRSTLY, IT IS ONLY ON CONJECTURES, THE ASS ESSING OFFICER INFERS THAT THE TECHNICAL KNOW-HOW HAS BEEN TRANSFERRED BY THE SIST ER CONCERNS TO THE ASSESSEE OR THAT THE TRADE MARK OF THE SISTER CONCERN HAS BE EN USED BY THE ASSESSEE. IN 4 FACT, THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF ANY TRADE MARK/TRADE NAME 'LAMBDA' BEING OWNED BY ANY OF THE SISTER CONCERNS OF THE ASSESSEE. AT T HE SAME TIME, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO INFERS THAT THE SISTER CONCERNS HAVE N OT DEMANDED ANY COMPENSATION FROM THE ASSESSEE FOR USE OF THE SAME. ALL THE ABOVE INFERENCES OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER ARE BASED ON CONJECTURES AND SURMISES WITHOUT ANY CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE. CONSIDERING THE CIRCUMSTANC ES AND THE MATERIAL ON RECORD, IT HAS TO BE HELD THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICE R HAS FAILED TO ESTABLISH THAT ANY COURSE OF BUSINESS BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND THE SIS TER CONCERNS HAS BEEN SO ARRANGED, WHICH PRODUCES TO THE ASSESSEE MORE THAN THE ORDINARY PROFITS IN THE ELIGIBLE BUSINESS. IN FACT, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY T RANSACTION OF BUSINESS BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND SISTER CONCERNS, THE APPLICATION O F SECTION 80IA(10) HAS TO FAIL. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE FOUND BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF BUSINESS HAVING BEEN TRANSACTED BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND SISTER CONCERNS , SO AS TO JUSTIFY THE INVOKING OF SECTION 80IA(10) OF THE ACT. THE INFERENCE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER REGARDING THE EXISTENCE OF AN AGREEMENT OR ARRANGEMENT BETWEEN TH E ASSESSEE AND SISTER CONCERNS IN TERMS OF WHICH THE ASSESSEE USED TECHNI CAL KNOW-HOW AND THE TRADE NAME OF THE SISTER CONCERN AND IN TURN DID NOT INCU R ANY COSTS, IN OUR OPINION, IS MERELY BASED ON CONJECTURES AND NOT ON ANY EVIDENCE OR MATERIAL ON RECORD. CLEARLY, SECTION 80IA(10) READ WITH SECTION 80IC(7) DOES NOT EMPOWER THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO PROCEED ON MERE PRESUMPTION BU T IT REQUIRES EXISTENCE OF A 'BUSINESS TRANSACTED' BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND THE SISTER CONCERNS. THE EXISTENCE OF AN ARRANGEMENT FOR TRANSACTING BUSINES S, WHICH PRODUCES MORE THAN THE ORDINARY PROFITS TO THE ASSESSEE, IS TO BE FACT UALLY ESTABLISHED AND SUCH ARRANGEMENT OR TRANSACTION OF BUSINESS CANNOT BE PR ESUMED. THEREFORE, IN THE AFORESAID LIGHT, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 80IA(10) READ WITH SECTION 80 IC(7) OF THE ACT TO DISREGARD THE PROFITS DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM ITS ELIGIBLE INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING FOR THE PURPOSES OF COMPUTING DEDUCTION U/S 80IC OF THE ACT . ACCORDINGLY, THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (A) IS SET ASIDE AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO DELETE THE IMPUGNED ADDITION'. 5. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS N OT FOUND ANY EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT HIS PROPOSITION THAT THERE IS A NY ARRANGEMENT OR ANY BUSINESS TRANSACTED BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND THE SI STER CONCERN WITH RESPECT TO OBTAINING OF TECHNICAL KNOW-HOW, CUSTOME R BASE OR GOODWILL OWNED BY THE SISTER CONCERN AND THEREFORE, THE ASSERTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS OBTAINED THE USE OF AFORESAID ITEMS WITHOUT INCURRING OF ANY EXPENDITURE, IS ONLY A BALD ASSERTION BASED ON SURMISES AND CONJECTURES. IT IS QUITE CLEAR THAT THERE IS NO PROOF OF ASSESSE E HAVING OBTAINED ANY TECHNICAL KNOW-HOW, CUSTOMER BASE OR GOODWILL FROM THE SISTER CONCERN. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL I N THE CASE OF LAMBDA MICROWAVES TECHNOLOGIES (SUPRA) CLEARLY SUPPORTS TH E CASE OF THE ASSESSEE AND ACCORDINGLY, ASSESSEE SUCCEEDS AS MUCH AS THE INVOKING OF SECTION 80IA(10) READ WITH SECTION 80IC (7) BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS HEREBY SET ASIDE. 6. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DECISION, THE ACTION OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES IN ESTIMATING THE NET PROFIT OF 10% OF THE TURNOVER IS ALSO SET A SIDE. THE SAID ACTION WAS SUSTAINED B Y THE CIT(APPEALS) CONSEQUENT TO HER DECISION OF UPHOLDING THE INVOKING OF SECTION 80IA(10) READ WITH SECTION 80IC(7) OF THE A CT, WHICH HAS SINCE BEEN SET ASIDE BY US IN THE EARLIER GROUND. 6. THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE ARE SIMILAR TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE OF SHREE DHANWANTRI HERBAL, SOLAN VS. ITO (SUPRA). RESPECTFU LLY, FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL REFERRED TO ABOVE, WE ALLOW BOTH THE GROUN DS OF APPEAL AND DELETE THE IMPUGNED ADDITIONS. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED.' RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE GIVEN ORDER OF THE HON'B LE ITAT, CHANDIGARH THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION IS ALLOWED SINCE BOTH THE ISSUES INVOLVED ARE DULY COVERED BY THE SAID ORDER. AS THE LD. CIT(A)S DECISION IS BASED ON THE REASON ED ORDER OF THE CO- ORDINATE BENCH OF ITAT CHANDIGARH IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE EARLIER 5 CI YEAR 2010-11 & 2011-12 , AND THE FACTS AND CIRCUMST ANCES OF THE CASE REMAIN UNALTERED, WE FIND NO REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISM ISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- SD/- (DIVA SINGH) (DR. B.R.R . KUMAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT ME MBER DATED : 25/10/2017 AG COPY TO: THE APPELLANT, THE RESPONDENT, THE CIT, TH E CIT(A), THE DR