Sh. Kirti Anand, Chandigarh V. CIT II, Chandigarh

ITA 540/CHANDI/2013

• Counselvise Citation: 54021514 RSA 2013
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 5 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-10-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 07-10-2015
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 13-05-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANJIT SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: TEJ MOHAN SINGH
• Keywords: Salary income; Audit objection; Principle of natural justice; Cost of acquisition; Difference of opinion; Assessment record; Change of opinion
• Section: 263; 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH,CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MS. RANO JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 540/CHD/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 SHRI KIRTI ANAND, VS THE CIT-II, # 2543, CHANDIGARH. SECTOR 47-C, CHANDIGARH. PAN: ABZPA9718M (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI TEJ MOHAN SING H RESPONDENT BY : SHRI MANJIT SINGH DATE OF HEARING : 07.10.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 14.10.2015 O R D E R PER BHAVNESH SAINI,JM THIS APPEAL BY ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORD ER OF LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II , CHANDIGARH D ATED 21.03.2013 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 UNDER SECTIO N 263 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. 2. BRIEFLY THE FACT OF THE CASE ARE THAT RETURN OF INC OME WAS FILED BY ASSESSEE ON 28.07.2008 DECLARING INC OME OF RS.1,75,400/- AND ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) W AS COMPLETED ON 16.12.2010 AT AN ASSESSED INCOME OF R S. 7,00,400/-. FROM THE PERUSAL OF THE ASSESSMENT REC ORD, IT WAS NOTED THAT THERE WAS AN AIR INFORMATION IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH REVEALED THAT DURING THE PERIOD UNDER CONSIDERATION, ASSESSEE HAD MADE INVESTMENTS IN MUT UAL 2 FUNDS AMOUNTING TO RS. 29 LACS. FURTHER, THE ASSESS EE HIMSELF ADMITTED OF HAVING MADE TOTAL INVESTMENT IN SHARES AND MUTUAL FUNDS IN A SUM OF RS. 58.3 LACS APPROX. THE DETAILS ARE AS UNDER : 1. MUTUAL FUNDS RS. 51 LACS APPROX. 2. SHARES RS. 6.30 LACS APPROX. 3. IPOS RS. 1 LACS APPROX. TOTAL RS. 58.3 LACS APPROX. 3. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE SOURCE OF ABOVE INVESTMENTS WAS EXPLAINED TO BE FROM SALE OF THREE HOUSES, THREE CARS AND LOAN OF RS. 9.92 LACS. AN AMOUNT OF RS. 5,25,000/- WAS OFFERED FOR TAXATION I N ADDITION TO THE RETURNED INCOME. IT WAS NOTED FROM THE ASSESSMENT RECORD THAT ASSESSEE IN SUPPORT OF HIS C LAIM REGARDING SALE OF HOUSE PROPERTIES SUBMITTED AFFIDA VIT OF BUYER AND COPIES OF THE SALE AGREEMENT AND IN SUPPO RT OF SALE OF CARS, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED AFFIDAVITS AND PHOTOCOPIES OF PAYMENT RECEIPTS. THERE WAS, HOWEVER , NO DOCUMENT ON RECORD REGARDING CLAIM OF LOAN OF RS. 9 .92 LACS. FURTHER, IN SUPPORT OF CASH DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT, A DOCUMENT UNDER THE CAPTION 'DETAILS OF C ASH FLOW IN THE BANK ACCOUNT WITH ICICI BANK WAS ALSO PLACED ON RECORD'. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ACCEPT ED THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT FUNDS WERE GENERATED BY SALE OF THREE HOUSES WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE/DOCUMENTS OF OWNERSHIP OF THE SAID PROPERT IES, DATE AND COST OF ACQUISITION AND SOURCE OF INVESTME NTS 3 IN PURCHASE OF THE SAID PROPERTIES. THE CAPITAL GAI N AND CAPITAL LOSS HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFF ICER WITHOUT MAKING ANY ENQUIRY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER A LSO FAILED TO BRING ON RECORD A FINAL OUTCOME OF THE SA LE AGREEMENTS WHETHER THESE WERE ACTUALLY MATURED OR N OT? NO DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE OF THE ASSESSEE HAVING OWNE D THE CARS HAVE BEEN FILED. NO EVIDENCE REGARDING ID ENTITY AND CREDIT WORTHINESS OF THE LENDER SH. BHUPESH SEH GAL IN RESPECT OF CLAIM OF LOAN OF RS.9.92 LACS, WAS TA KEN ON RECORD BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 3(I) THE REPLY TO THE QUERY REGARDING FURNISHING OF DETAILS OF MOVEABLE AND IMMOVEABLE PROPERTIES BY ASSESSEE AND FAMILY MEMBERS HAVE NOT BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD BY ASSESSING OFFICER. NO EXPLANATION REGARD ING DEBIT ENTRIES IN THE BANK ACCOUNT SUGGESTING OWNERSHIP/INVESTMENT FOR OWNERSHIP OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY HAS BEEN PLACED ON RECORD. SIMILARLY, MAN Y DEBIT AND CREDIT ENTRIES REMAINED UNEXPLAINED, WHIC H SHOULD HAVE BEEN EXPLAINED BY ASSESSEE. THE ASSESS EE WAS HAVING DECLARED SOURCE OF INCOME FROM SALARY. THE LD. CIT, THEREFORE, NOTED THAT ASSESSING OFFICER FA ILED TO MAKE ENQUIRIES NECESSARY FOR PROPER ASSESSMENT AND NOTED THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE AND RELIED U PON DECISIONS OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASES OF RAMPYARI DEVI SARAOGI V CIT 67 ITR 84 AND MALABAR INDUSTRIES CO. LTD. 243 ITR 83. THE LD. CIT ISSUED SHOW 4 CAUSE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE INCOME TAX A CT ON 31.01.2013 AS TO WHY THE ASSESSMENT ORDER BE NOT SE T ASIDE. THE ASSESSEE REQUESTED FOR COPIES OF THE DO CUMENT SUBMITTED DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDIN GS WHICH WERE PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE FILED WRITTEN STATEMENT WHICH LD. CIT(APPEALS) HAVE DISCU SSED IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER. 3.2 SALE OF PROPERTIES (A) HOUSE NO. MIG 8131, SECTOR 10, AMBALA C ITY THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE HOUSE WAS ALLOTTED TO MRS. NEERAJ SEHGAL VIDE ALLOTMENT LETTER DATED 26.09.1993. OWNER HAS PAID RS.50,930/-. THE OWNER HAS SPENT ABOUT RS. 20.000/-TO MAKE IT LIVABLE AND PAID THE BALANCE INSTALLMENT OF RS.2236/- PER MONTH FOR 13 YEARS. ACCORDINGLY THE INDEXED COST OF ACQUISITION HAS BEEN CALCULATED AND ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER. A COPY OF THE ALLOTMENT HAS BEEN FURNISHED. THE OWN ER IS A SISTER-IN-LAW OF THE ASSESSES WHO HAS SOLD IT ON HER BEHALF. ALL RELEVANT PAPERS WERE PRODUCED BEFORE T HE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. TH E LD. CIT IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER NOTED THAT THE ASSESS EE HAS PRODUCED ONLY A COPY OF AGREEMENT DATED 01.10.2007, BETWEEN SMT. NEERAJ K. SEHGAL THROUGH AUTHORIZED PERSON SH. KIRTI ANAND I.E. ASSESSEE AND SMT. SHAMSHER KAUR, NO OTHER DOCUMENT WAS PRODUCED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ALLOTMENT LETTER IS ISSUED BY THE ESTATE MANAGER, HOUSING BOARD HARYANA , 5 AMBALA CITY WHICH WAS PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE SAME REVEALED THAT THE SAID HOUSE WAS ALLOTTED TO MISS NEERAJ K SEHGAL AND AFFIDAVIT OF MRS. SHEMSHAR KAUR, PURCHASER OF THE PROPERTY FILED AND THE ASSES SEE IS THE GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY OF SMT. NEERAJ K. SANGAL. SO, HOW THE ASSESSEE IS CLAIMING THE RECEIP T OF SALE CONSIDERATION OF THIS PROPERTY IS NOT VERIFIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. (B) HIG FLAT NO. 5, FIRST FLOOR, AMRITSAR IMPROEVMENT TRUST, 340 ACRE SCHEME, AMRITSAR 3.3. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THIS HOUSE WAS ALLOTTED TO SH. VIJAY KUMAR ARORA. ALLOTMENT LETTER WAS FILED. THE ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED THE SAID PROPERTY FOR RS. 2,00,000/-ON 20.02.2006 AND THEN PAID RS. 1,00,000/-IN MARCH 2006. HE HAS PAID ONE INSTALLMEN T OF RS. 1,46,250/-IN FAVOUR OF IMPROVEMENT TRUST, AMRITSAR, BUT INCIDENTLY THE CHEQUE WAS NOT PRESENT ED TO THE BANK BY THE TRUST. LATER ON WHEN THE INSTALLMEN T WAS FOUND TO BE UNPAID, THE ASSESSEE MADE A BANK DR AFT FOR RS. 1,46,250/-ON 29.10.2007 WHICH EXISTS AT S.N O. 127 OF THE BANK STATEMENT. THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID TO TAL AMOUNT OF RS. 4,46,250/- TOWARDS THE COST OF THIS PROPERTY AND SOLD FOR RS. 5,00,000/-. BALANCE INSTALLMENTS WERE TO BE PAID BY THE PURCHASER. ALL THE RELEVANT PAPERS WERE PRODUCED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AT THE ASSESSMENT STAGE. 6 3.4 THE LD. CIT NOTED IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER THAT AS SESSEE HAS PRODUCED ONLY A COPY OF THE SALE AGREEMENT DATE D 10.07.2007 BETWEEN HIMSELF AS GPA HOLDER OF SHRI VI JAY K. ARORA AND SHRI DIDAR SINGH. NO OTHER DOCUMENTS WERE PRODUCED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THIS FLAT IS ALLOTTED TO SH. VIJAY KUMAR ARORA AS PER ALLOTMENT LETTER. I N ADDITION TO THE DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED DURING THE ASSE SSMENT PROCEEDINGS, ASSESSEE HAS PRODUCED NOW 'MUKHTIARNAM A' DATED 26.04.2006 REGISTERED WITH SUB-REGISTRAR, ARN RITSAR- 11 AND TRANSFER LETTER DATED 29.01.2009 ISSUED BY A MRITSAR IMPROVEMENT TRUST, AMRITSAR WHEREBY THE OWNERSHIP O F THE SAID FLAT HAS BEEN TRANSFERRED TO ONE SH. DIDAR SIN GH FROM SH. VIJAY KUMAR ARORA. AS PER MUKHTIARNAMA DATED 26.04.2006, THE ALLOTTEE SH. VIJAY KUMAR ARORA H AS GRANTED RIGHT OF THE SAID FLAT TO THE ASSESSEE INCLUDING POSSESSION, CONSTRUCTION, TRANSFER IN OWN NAME OR IN THE NAME OF ANY OTHER PERSON, OR TO SELL THE PROPERTY ETC. THESE DOCUMENTS INDICATED INVOLVEMENT OF THE A SSESSEE IN PURCHASE & SALE OF THE PROPERTY. IT WAS ALSO NO TED THAT AS PER ALLOTMENT LETTER, RS.9,14,450/- WAS PAID TO AMRITSAR IMPROVEMENT TRUST, AMRITSAR IN INSTALMENTS. THE AS SESSEE CLAIMED PAYMENT OF ONE INSTALMENT OF RS.1,46,250/- BUT HE IS TOTALLY SILENT ABOUT THE SOURCE OF PAYMENT OF RE MAINING INSTALLMENTS. FURTHER, TAKING IN ACCOUNT THESE INST ALLMENTS AND AMOUNT CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN PAID TO THE ORIGINA L ALLOTTEE AT RS. 2,00,000 , HIS PAYMENTS PRIOR TO 10 .07.2006 ITSELF WORKS OUT AT RS. 5,29,450/- AND FURTHER TAKI NG IN ACCOUNT THE PAYMENT OF RS. 1,46,250 THROUGH HIS BAN K 7 ACCOUNT, HIS COST COMES AT RS. 6,75,700. BUT ASSESS EE CLAIMED SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS. 5,00,000/- ONLY, THEREFORE, COST IS IMPROBABLE. FURTHER, NO DOCUMEN T OF THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE PURCHASER AND GENUINENESS O F TRANSACTIONS WERE FILED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE REFORE, DID NOT EXAMINE THIS ISSUE (C) EWS HOUSE, SECTOR 38/49 CHANDIGARH 3.5 THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT SAID PROPERTY WAS A LLOTTED TO SHRI SUBHASH CHANDER FOR RS.4,15,000/-. COPY OF THE ALLOTMENT LETTER WAS FILED. THE OWNER HAS PAID RS. 63,750/- THE ASSESSEE PURCHASED THE SAME FOR RS. 2,14,000/- ON GPA. TWO INSTALMENTS OF RS. 1,14,294/- WERE PAID B Y ASSESSEE ON 03.07.2007 AND 31.10.2007. BOTH THESE ENTRIES EXIST IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN THE PAID AMOUNT AS RS.4,42,000/-. ALL THESE PAPERS WERE SUBMITTED BEF ORE ASSESSING OFFICER. 3.6 THE LD. CIT NOTED THAT ASSESSEE HAS FILED CO PY OF THE AGREEMENT TO SELL DATED 10.01.2008 BETWEEN HIMSELF AND SMT. REETA SETHI AND NO OTHER DOCUMENT IS FILED. T HE ASSESSEE HAS NOW FILED COPY OF THE ALLOTMENT LETTER , GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY REGISTERED WITH SUB REGISTRAR, CHANDIGARH BY SHRI SUBHASH CHANDER ARORA IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE GIVING OF RIGHT TO SELL, TRANSFER, GIF T, MORTGAGE ETC. THE LD. CIT NOTED THAT, HOWEVER, ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO 8 BRING ON RECORD CREDIT WORTHINESS OF THE ALLEGED BU YER AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS. 4. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER CLAIMED SALE OF THREE CARS DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND HE HAS PRODUCED AFFIDAVITS OF THE PURCHASER BEFORE ASSESSING OFFICE R. THE LD. CIT NOTED THAT ONE HYUNDAI SANTRO CAR AS WELL A S INSURANCE IS IN THE NAME OF SHRI P.K. GUPTA AND ANO THER CAR ACCENT-GLS-E-2, REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE IS IN THE NAME OF AJAY KOHLI SHOWING THE ASSESSEE AS THE PREVIOUS OWNER. NOTHING WAS PRODUCED IN RESPECT OF THIRD CAR FORD I KON. THUS, THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE REGARDING SOURCE OF RS. 3,83,000/- IS STILL NOT EXPLAINED. 4.1 IN RESPECT OF LOAN OF RS. 9,92,000/- FROM SHRI BHUPESH SEHGAL, ASSESSEE HAS NOW FILED AFFIDAVIT OF SHRI BHUPESH SEHGAL CLAIMING HE HAS GIVEN LOAN TO THE AS SESSEE FROM SALE OF HIS ANCESTRAL LAND, WHO IS BROTHER-IN- LAW OF THE ASSESSEE BUT STILL, NECESSARY DOCUMENTS OF SHOWING SALE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND AND BANK ACCOUNT IS NOT SUBMITTED . 5. THE ASSESSEE, AS REGARDS ENTRIES IN THE BANK ACC OUNT, SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE IS WORKING AS GENERAL MANAG ER (HR) WITH HEALTH CAPS INDIA LIMITED. SBS NAGAR, PUN JAB. HIS WIFE IS ALSO WORKING AS CLASS I OFFICER WITH CE NTRAL GOVERNMENT ORGANISATION SINCE I990. THE ASSESSEE ST ARTED HIS CAREER AS PERSONAL OFFICER WITH PUROLATER INDIA LIMITED, PARWANOO H.P. IN 1981. HE LEFT THE JOB IN I992 AND GOT ABOUT 2 LAC RUPEES ON ACCOUNT HIS FULL & FINAL SETT LEMENT OF 9 ACCOUNTS ON ACCOUNT OF GRATUITY, PF ETC. THEN HE WO RKED IN STEEL STRIPS WHEELS LIMITED, MOHALI, VARDHMAN BADDI . AFTER SERVING FOR 5 YEARS IN 3 COMPANIES HE GOT RS. 4 LAC RUPEES AS HIS GRATUITY, PF & LEAVE ENCASHMENT ETC. THEN HE WORKED WITH BPL, SAHIBABAD U.P. FOR SIX YEARS AND GOT RUPE ES 4 LAC ON ACCOUNT OF GRATUITY, PF & ESI ETC. HIS WIFE HAS ALSO TAKEN A LOAN OF RUPEES 7 LACS FORM HER P.F.. THESE FUNDS WERE INVESTED PRUDENTLY BY THE ASSESSEE FROM TIME T O TIME AND THIS AMOUNT WAS PLACED IN THE SHAPE OF FDR WHIC H WERE ENCASHED FROM TIME TO TIME. THE ASSESSEE FILED CAS H-FLOW STATEMENT BEFORE ASSESSING OFFICER WHICH IS SELF-EX PLANATORY FOR ALL THE ENTRIES IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSE SSEE. WHILE FRAMING THE ASSESSMENT, ASSESSING OFFICER HAS APPLIED HIS MIND TO CASH-FLOW STATEMENT AND ASSESSE E HAS EXPLAINED THE AVAILABILITY OF THE FUNDS. 6. THE LD. CIT, ON PERUSAL OF THE CASH-FLOW STATEME NT SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT THOUGH ASSESSEE HAS WITHDREW CASH FROM THE BAN K, EVEN THOUGH HE WAS HAVING SUFFICIENT CASH IN HAND A ND WITHOUT ANY NEED, THE CASH WITHDRAWN HAS NOT BEEN U TILIZED ANYWHERE ELSE. NO PERSON WOULD WITHDREW CASH JUST TO KEEP IDLE AT HOME. THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE OF RE-DEPOSIT OF CASH IS NOT TENABLE AND NOTED SOME OF THE TRANSACTIONS TO S HOW THAT ASSESSEE NEITHER DEPOSITED THE CASH AVAILABLE WITH HIM AND ALSO DID NOT UTILIZE THE SAME ANYWHERE ELSE. T HEREFORE, CASH-FLOW WAS FOUND AFTER-THOUGHT. IT WAS ALSO NOT ED THAT SOME OF THE TRANSACTIONS IN THE CASH-FLOW HAVE NOT BEEN 10 EXPLAINED WHICH ARE REFLECTED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT O F THE ASSESSEE. NO SUBMISSIONS HAVE BEEN MADE BY ASSESS EE REGARDING EACH AND EVERY ENTRY OF THE BANK ACCOUNT. THE CIT ALSO NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE, DURING THE ASSESS MENT PROCEEDINGS HAD PRODUCED COPY OF HIS ACCOUNT MAINTA INED WITH M/S MASTER CAPITAL SERVICES LTD. FOR THE PERIO D 29.03.2007 TO 31.03.2008. AS PER COPY OF THE ACCOU NT, THIS ACCOUNT WAS CLOSED ON 12.11.2007 ON WHICH DATES, ASSESSEE'S DEBIT BALANCE WAS RS. 2,59,486/-. HOW EVER, FROM THE ENTRIES IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT MAINTAINED WIT H ICICI BANK, IT WAS NOTED THAT ASSESSEE HAS MADE THIS PAYM ENT ON DIFFERENT DATES TO M/S MASTER CAPITAL SERVICES LTD. IT WAS FURTHER NOTED THAT AS PER ACCOUNT, M/S MASTER CAPIT AL SERVICES LTD. HAS ISSUED A CHEQUE OF RS. 46,000/- T O ASSESSEE ON10.10.2007 WHICH HAS NOT BEEN CREDITED I N THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE FOR WHICH NO EXPLANATI ON HAD BEEN GIVEN. THE LD. CIT, THEREFORE, NOTED THAT ASSE SSING OFFICER HAS AS SUCH FAILED TO VERIFY/EXAMINE REGARD ING THE TRADING BY ASSESSEE IN SHARES THROUGH THIS ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS, THEREFORE, FOUND TO BE ERRONE OUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE, SAME WAS SE T ASIDE AND ASSESSING OFFICER WAS DIRECTED TO MAKE FRESH ASSESSMENT AFTER CARRYING OUT PROPER INVESTIGATIONS . 7. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND SUBMI TTED THAT THE ISSUE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW WAS WIT H REGARD TO SOURCE OF INVESTMENTS IN MUTUAL FUNDS AND SHARES . THE 11 ASSESSING OFFICER ACCEPTED CLAIM OF ASSESSEE ON THE BASIS OF DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES BROUGHT ON RECORD WHICH WERE COPIES OF AGREEMENT TO SELL, AFFIDAVITS, RECEIPTS A ND SALE LETTER AND RECEIPTS OF THE CARS AS WELL AS FUNDS AV AILABLE TO ASSESSEE OF OWN AND HIS WIFE AND FROM SHRI BHUPESH KUMAR SEHGAL. ALL THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES WERE FILED B EFORE ASSESSING OFFICER AT ASSESSMENT STAGE AND THE ASSES SING OFFICER ACCEPTED THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE AFTER ISSUIN G QUERY LETTERS AND CONSIDERING THE REPLY OF ASSESSEE AS WE LL AS MATERIAL ON RECORD. HE HAS SUBMITTED THAT CIT DID NOT APPLY MIND TO THE ASSESSMENT RECORD AND MERELY ON T HE BASIS OF AUDIT OBJECTION RAISED BY THE AUDIT PARTY, ISSUED NOTICE UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT, THEREFORE, THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS BAD IN LAW. HE HAS RELIED UPON O RDER OF ITAT CHANDIGARH BENCH IN THE CASE OF JASWINDER SING H VS CIT-II IN ITA 690/2010 DATED 09.03.2012, COPY OF TH E ORDER IS PLACED ON RECORD IN WHICH THE TRIBUNAL FOLLOWED THE DECISION OF JURISDICTIONAL HON'BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V SOHANA WOOLLEN MILLS 296 ITR 238 FOR QUASHING THE ORDER UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT. HE HAS SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE FILED CASH-FLOW STAT EMENT ALSO BEFORE ASSESSING OFFICER TO EXPLAIN AVAILABILI TY OF THE SOURCE OF MAKING INVESTMENTS IN MUTUAL FUNDS AND SH ARES WHICH WAS CORRECTLY ACCEPTED BY ASSESSING OFFICER. HE HAS SUBMITTED THAT EVEN IF ASSESSING OFFICER PASSED BRI EF ORDER, IT IS NOT SUBJECT TO REVISION UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT AND RELIED UPON DECISION OF HON'BLE PUNJAB & HARYAN A HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF HARI IRON TRADING CO. V CIT 26 3 ITR 12 437. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REFERRED TO VARIOUS DOCUMENTS FROM THE PAPER BOOK AS WELL AS AUDIT OBJE CTION, QUERIES RAISED BY ASSESSING OFFICER AND REPLIES FIL ED BY ASSESSEE TIME TO TIME ON ALL THE ISSUES RAISED IN T HE PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT AND THEREF ORE, SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TOOK ONE OF TH E POSSIBLE VIEW UNDER THE LAW WITH WHICH THE COMMISSI ONER DID NOT AGREE, COULD NOT BE TREATED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER TO BE ERRONEOUS OR PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVE NUE. 8. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DR RELIED UPON IMPUGNED O RDER AND SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSING OFFICER PASSED THE BRI EF ASSESSMENT ORDER WHICH SHOWS HE HAS NOT APPLIED HIS MIND TO THE FACT OF THE CASE. NO PROPER INVESTIGATION H AVE BEEN CARRIED OUT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AT THE ASSESSM ENT STAGE. THERE IS NO MENTION IN THE ORDER UNDER SECT ION 263 OF THE ACT IF THE CIT ACTED ONLY ON AUDIT OBJECTION S WHILE EXERCISING JURISDICTION UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE AC T. THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT WHEN ASSESSEE WAS CORNERED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, ASSESSEE MADE SURRENDER OF INCOM E OF RS. 5,25,000/- BEFORE ASSESSING OFFICER. HE HAS SUBMIT TED THAT SINCE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT EXAMINED THE ENTIRE ISSUE PROPERLY, THEREFORE, IMPUGNED ORDER WAS CORRECTLY P ASSED BY THE CIT AND RELIED UPON DECISION OF THE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF GEE VEE ENTERPRISES 99 ITR 375, DECISIO N OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF RAMPIYARI DEVI SARAOGI 67 ITR 84, DECISION OF HON'BLE SUPREME COUR T IN THE CASE OF TARA DEVI 88 ITR 323 AND DECISION OF AL LAHABAD 13 HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF LAJJAWATI 226 ITR 527. H E HAS SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE MERELY FILED AFFIDAVIT BEFO RE ASSESSING OFFICER WHICH COULD NOT SUPPORT THE SOURC E OF THE FUNDS INVESTED IN MUTUAL FUNDS AND SHARES. THEREFO RE, CIT WAS JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING THAT ASSESSING OFFICER PAS SED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WITHOUT MAKING PROPER ENQUIRY INTO THE MATTER. HE HAS, THEREFORE, SUBMITTED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE HAS NO MERIT AND THE SAME MAY BE DISMISSED . 9. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PER USED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE ASSESSING OF FICER IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IN QUESTION NOTED THAT THE CAS E WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AS PER CBDT GUIDELINES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THEREFORE, TOOK UP SCRUTINY ASSE SSMENT AND ISSUED STATUTORY NOTICES CALLING FOR THE EXPLAN ATION OF ASSESSEE ON VARIOUS ISSUES. THE ASSESSEE ALSO FILE D REPLIES AND AFTER DISCUSSION WITH REGARD TO ASSESSMENT OF T HE ASSESSEE, ASSESSEE OFFERED AN AMOUNT OF RS. 5,25,00 0/- TO TAX ON ACCOUNT OF DEPOSIT IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER, O N PERUSAL OF THE ASSESSMENT RECORD NOTED THAT THERE W AS AN AIR INFORMATION IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE WHICH REVEA LED THAT DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, ASSESSEE HAD M ADE INVESTMENTS IN MUTUAL FUNDS AMOUNTING TO RS. 29 LAC S. IT IS, THEREFORE, CLEAR FROM THESE FACTS THAT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT ON TH E BASIS OF AIR INFORMATION RECEIVED WITH REGARD TO INVESTME NTS MADE BY ASSESSEE IN MUTUAL FUNDS ETC. THE LD. COUN SEL FOR 14 THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT CIT DID NOT APPLY MIND TO THE RECORD OF THE CASE AND MERELY ON AUDIT OBJECTION, I NITIATED PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT. COPY OF T HE AUDIT OBJECTION IS FILED AT PAGE 63 OF THE PAPER BOOK WHI CH CONTAINED THE DATE OF AUDIT FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR UND ER APPEAL ON 09.03.2011. 9(I) THE AUDIT PARTY RECORDED MAJOR AUDIT OBJECTI ON AND SIMILAR FACTS HAVE BEEN RECORDED IN THE AUDIT OBJEC TION WITH REGARD TO AIR INFORMATION RECEIVED IN RESPECT OF IN VESTMENTS MADE BY ASSESSEE IN MUTUAL FUNDS AND SHARES ETC. I T WAS ALSO NOTED THAT DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT, AS SESSEE WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENTS AND ASSESSEE FILED THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT BEING THE T HREE PROPERTIES AS WELL AS LOAN RECEIVED IN A SUM OF RS. 9.92 LACS FROM SHRI BHUPESH SEHGAL. THE AUDIT PARTY ALSO EXA MINED THE ICICI BANK STATEMENT IN WHICH VARIOUS DEPOSITS WERE THERE AND ASSESSEE EXPLAINED AT ASSESSMENT STAGE TH AT HE HAS MADE INVESTMENTS IN SHARES AND MUTUAL FUNDS IN A SUM OF RS. 58.3 LACS. THE ASSESSEE HAS EXPLAINED THE S OURCE AT THE ASSESSMENT STAGE WHICH WAS NOT VERIFIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS . THE AUDIT PARTY ALSO NOTED IN THE AUDIT OBJECTIONS REGA RDING SALE OF THE PROPERTIES MADE BY ASSESSEE AS REFERRED TO ABOVE, SHOWS THAT ASSESSEE ALSO EARNED CAPITAL GAIN S. THE AUDIT PARTY ALSO EXPLAINED THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT EX PLAINED SOURCE OF INVESTMENT FOR REMAINING AMOUNT OF RS. 33 .03 LACS AND ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT VERIFIED THIS FA CT. THE 15 AUDIT PARTY, HOWEVER, GIVEN BENEFIT TO THE SOURCE I N A SUM OF RS. 15,35,000/- WHICH IS SALE CONSIDERATION RECE IVED BY ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF SALE OF THREE PROPERTIES AND LOAN RECEIVED FROM SHRI BHUPESH SEHGAL IN A SUM OF RS. 9 .92 LACS. THE AUDIT PARTY, THEN DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO TAKE REMEDIAL ACTION. COPY OF THE AUDIT OBJECTION WAS FORWARDED TO CIT (AUDIT) CHANDIGARH, CIT-II CHANDIG ARH, ADDL. CIT (AUDIT) CHANDIGARH, ADDL. CIT, RANGE-5, CHANDIGARH AND ASSESSING OFFICER, WARD 5(3) CHANDIG ARH, ALONGWITH ASSESSMENT RECORD. THE AUDIT OBJECTION R AISED BY THE AUDIT PARTY, THEREFORE, CLEARLY SUGGEST AND PRO VED THAT THE AUDIT PARTY EXAMINED THE ASSESSMENT RECORD AND RAISED AUDIT OBJECTION WITH REGARD TO VARIOUS SOURCE OF INVESTMENTS NOT EXAMINED AT ASSESSMENT STAGE. THIS COPY OF THE AUDIT OBJECTION WAS ALSO SENT TO CIT-II CHAN DIGARH WHO HAS PASSED THE IMPUGNED ORDER UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT. THERE IS NOTHING ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT PR IOR TO THE AUDIT OBJECTION, IF CIT-II HAS EXAMINED THE ASS ESSMENT RECORD IN QUESTION. SINCE THE AUDIT OBJECTION WAS S ENT TO THE CIT-II CHANDIGARH, THEREFORE, IT IS CLEAR THAT ONLY UPON THESE AUDIT OBJECTIONS, CIT INITIATED THE PROCEEDIN GS UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT BECAUSE THE LANGUAGE USED IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER UNDER SECTION 263 IS ALMOST SIMILAR WORDED AS HAVE BEEN USED IN THE AUDIT OBJECTIONS. THE AUDI T PARTY ALSO SUGGESTED FOR REMEDIAL ACTION IN THE MATTER. T HESE FACTS, THEREFORE, CLEARLY SHOW THAT THE CIT-II CHAN DIGARH, ON RECEIPT OF THE AUDIT OBJECTION, HAS INITIATED TH E PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT. 16 10. THE ITAT CHANDIGARH BENCH IN THE CASE OF JASWIN DER SINGH V CIT-II CHANDIGARH IN ITA 690/2010 VIDE ORDE R DATED 09.03.2012 DECIDED THE SIMILAR ISSUE IN FAVOU R OF THE ASSESSEE. THE FINDINGS OF THE TRIBUNAL IN PARA 19 TO23 OF THIS ORDER ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER : 19. OUR ATTENTION WAS DRAWN BY THE LEARNED A.R. FO R THE ASSESSEE TO THE AUDIT OBJECTION RAISED IN THE PRESE NT CASE AND THE MAIN CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT THERE WAS NO INDEPENDENT APPLICATION OF MIND BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. SECOND PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE IN THIS RE GARD WAS THAT THE AUDIT OBJECTIONS WERE NOT RECORD FOR INV OKING JURISDICTION UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT. THE COM MISSIONER OF INCOME TAX WHILE EXERCISING HIS JURISDICTION UND ER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT IS EMPOWERED TO CALL FOR AND EXAMINE THE RECORD OF ANY PROCEEDINGS UNDER THE ACT AND WHERE H E THINKS THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS BOTH ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENU E, HE MAY AFTER GIVING AN OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSES SEE AND AFTER MAKING ENQUIRIES, PASS SUCH ORDERS, WHICH DE EM NECESSARY IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. IN THE PRESENT SET OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX HAS ISSUED THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT ON ACCOUNT OF THE AUDIT OBJECTION RAISED IN THE PRESENT CASE. 20. WE FIND THAT SIMILAR ISSUE OF EXERCISE OF REVIS IONARY POWERS BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ON THE BAS IS OF AUDIT OBJECTIONS AROSE BEFORE THE HON'BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN CIT VS. SOHANA WOOLLEN MILLS (SUPRA) AND IT WAS HELD THAT MERE AUDIT OBJECTION AND THE FACT THA T A DIFFERENT VIEW COULD BE TAKEN, WERE NOT ENOUGH TO S AY THAT THE ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER WAS ERRONEOUS OR PREJUDI CIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF REVENUE. THE HON'BLE COURT FURTHE R HELD THAT WHETHER SATISFACTION OF THE COMMISSIONER FOR EXERC ISING 17 JURISDICTION WAS CALLED FOR OR NOT, HAS TO BE DECID ED HAVING REGARD TO THE GIVEN FACT SITUATION. 21. THE HON'BLE GAUHATI HIGH COURT IN B & A PLANTAT ION & INDUSTRIES LTD. & ANOTHER VS. CIT & OTHERS (SUPRA) HAS LAID DOWN THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN REVISIONARY, RECTIFICAT ION AND RE-ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE FACT SITUATION BEFO RE THE HON'BLE GUAHATI HIGH COURT THAT RECTIFICATION PROCE EDINGS WERE INITIATED ON THE BASIS OF AUDIT OBJECTIONS, WH ICH WERE DROPPED SUBSEQUENTLY AND NOTICE UNDER SECTION 263 O F THE ACT WAS ISSUED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ON THE BASIS OF SAME AUDIT OBJECTIONS AND THE HON'BLE COURT HELD THAT THERE WAS NO INDEPENDENT APPLICATION OF MIND BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND THE REVISION PROCEED INGS WERE HELD TO BE NOT VALID. THE HON'BLE GAUHATI HIG H COURT OBSERVED AS UNDER: IN THE CASE AT HAND, THE ORDER, INITIATING RECTIFI CATION PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 154, AS WELL AS THE ORDER REVISING THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 263, WERE PAS SED ON THE BASIS OF ONE AND THE SAME AUDIT OBJECTION. W HILE EXERCISING REVISIONAL JURISDICTION, THE REVISIONAL AUTHORITY MUST BEAR IN MIND THAT THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JU STICE DO NOT PERMIT THE DECISION OF A QUASI-JUDICIAL AUTHORI TY, SUCH AS A COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, TO BE INFLUENCED B Y ANY OTHER AUTHORITY. THUS, THE COMMISSIONER, IN THE PRE SENT CASE, COULD NOT HAVE INITIATED A SUO MOTU REVISIONA L PROCEEDING ON THE BASIS OF THE SAID AUDIT REPORT. H AD, ON THE BASIS OF THE AUDIT REPORT, THE COMMISSIONER CAM E TO HIS OWN FINDING THAT THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY, WHILE MAKING THE ASSESSMENT, OR THE AUTHORITY EMPOWERED TO RECTI FY A TURNOVER, WHICH HAD ESCAPED ASSESSMENT, HAS ACTED WITHOUT JURISDICTION, REVISIONAL JURISDICTION COULD HAVE BEEN EXERCISED. EMPHASISED THE SUPREME COURT, IN TH E CASE OF SIRPUR PAPER MILL LTD. V. CWT [1970] 77 ITR 6 , THAT WHILE EXERCISING POWER, THE COMMISSIONER MUST HAVE AN UNBIASED MIND AND DECIDE THE DISPUTE ACCORDING T O THE PROCEDURE WHICH IS CONSISTENT WITH THE PRINCIPLES O F NATURAL JUSTICE AND CANNOT PERMIT HIS MIND TO BE INFLUENCED BY THE DICTATION OF ANOTHER AUTHORITY. T HE RELEVANT OBSERVATIONS MADE BY A THREE-JUDGE BENCH O F THE SUPREME COURT, IN THE CASE OF SIRPUR PAPER MILL LTD . [1970] 77 ITR 6, READ AS FOLLOWS (PAGE 7): 'IN EXERCISE OF THE POWER THE COMMISSIONER MUST BRI NG TO BEAR AND UNBIASED MIND, CONSIDER IMPARTIALLY THE OBJECTIONS RAISED BY THE AGGRIEVED PARTY, AND DECID E THE DISPUTE ACCORDING TO PROCEDURE CONSISTENT WITH THE 18 PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE ; HE CANNOT PERMIT HI S JUDGMENT TO BE INFLUENCED BY MATTERS NOT DISCLOSED TO THE ASSESSEE, NOR BY DICTATION OF ANOTHER AUTHORITY.' 22. SIMILAR VIEW HAS BEEN TAKEN BY THE CALCUTTA HIG H COURT IN JEEWAN LAL (1929) LTD. VS. ADDL.CIT & OTHERS (SU PRA) THAT NOTICE ISSUED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AT THE SUGGESTION OF THE AUDIT DEPARTMENT WITHOUT APPLYING HIS MIND COULD NOT BE SUSTAINED IN LAW. 23. IN THE BACK DROP OF THE ABOVESAID SETTLED LEGAL PRECEDENTS, WE FIND THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX IN THE PRESENT CASE HAD ALSO INITIATED THE PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT ON THE BASIS OF THE AUDIT OB JECTIONS. SHOW CAUSE NOTICE WAS ISSUED IN THE PRESENT CASE FO R NON- DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE, OUT OF CERTAIN EXPENSE S INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE AND ORDER PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONE R OF INCOME TAX UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT DIRECTING T HE ASSESSING OFFICER TO RE-DETERMINE THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE BY APPLYING A RATE OTHER THAN THE RATE APPLIED BY T HE ASSESSING OFFICER, BEING WITHOUT JURISDICTION, IS N OT TENABLE IN LAW. WE FIND NO MERIT IN THE PLEA OF THE LEARNE D D.R. FOR THE REVENUE THAT THE SOURCE OF INFORMATION IN THE P RESENT CASE WAS AUDIT OBJECTION, BUT THERE WAS INDEPENDENT APPLICATION OF MIND BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME T AX. THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 263 OF THE ACT ARE CLEAR AND ABSOLUTE THAT THE POWER IS TO BE EXERCISED BY THE COMMISSION ER OF INCOME TAX FROM THE EXAMINATION OF THE RECORDS OF T HE PROCEEDINGS UNDER THE ACT. THE EXPLANATION UNDER S ECTION 263 OF THE ACT DEFINES RECORDS AS ALL RECORDS REL ATING TO ANY PROCEEDINGS UNDER THE ACT AVAILABLE AT THE TIME OF EXAMINATION BY THE COMMISSIONER. THE AUDIT OBJECTI ONS UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES CAN BE CALLED AS RECORD EMPO WERING THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX TO EXERCISE JURISDIC TION UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT. FURTHER IT IS APP ARENT THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX HAS INITIATED THE RE VISION PROCEEDINGS ONLY ON THE BASIS OF AUDIT OBJECTION. SUCH EXERCISE OF POWER UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT IS N OT TENABLE IN LAW. ACCORDINGLY, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER PAS SED BY THE 19 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE TH US ALLOWED. 11. IN THIS ORDER, THE ITAT CHANDIGARH BENCH HAS RE LIED UPON DECISION OF THE HON'BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT I THE CASE OF CIT V SOHANA WOOLLEN MILLS 296 ITR 23 8 IN WHICH IT WAS HELD THAT, A MERE AUDIT OBJECTION AND THE FACT THAT A DIFFERENT VIEW COULD BE TAKEN, ARE NOT ENOUG H TO SAY THAT ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS ERRONEOUS O R PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE. THEREFORE, THIS ISSUE IS SQUARELY COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND A GAINST THE REVENUE BY THE ABOVE JUDGEMENT. THE IMPUGNED O RDER UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT IS, THUS, WHOLLY UNJUS TIFIED AND IS LIABLE TO BE QUASHED BECAUSE THE PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 263 HAVE BEEN INITIATED ON MERE AUDIT OBJEC TION. 12. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE ISSUE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AT ASSESSMENT STAGE WAS WITH REGA RD TO SOURCE OF INVESTMENTS UNDER MUTUAL FUNDS AND SHARES . THE CIT ALSO NOTED IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER THAT DURING TH E ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE SOURCE OF THE ABOVE INVESTMENTS WERE EXPLAINED TO BE FROM SALE OF THREE HOUSE, THREE CARS AND LOAN OF RS. 9.92 LACS. THE ASSESSEE ALSO OFFERED RS.; 5,25,000/- FOR THE PURPOSE OF TAXATION . THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FILED COPIES OF ALL THE QU ERIES RAISED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, REPLIES FILED BY A SSESSEE AND DOCUMENTS FILED BEFORE ASSESSING OFFICER AT THE ASSESSMENT STAGE IN THE PAPER BOOK. PB-5 IS THE NO TICE OF 20 ASSESSING OFFICER DATED 9/10.08.2010 ADDRESSED TO T HE ASSESSEE IN WHICH THE ASSESSING OFFICER ASKED THE D ETAILS OF BANK ACCOUNTS MAINTAINED BY ASSESSEE IN HIS NAME AS WELL AS IN THE NAME OF HIS FAMILY MEMBERS AND COPIES OF ALL BANK ACCOUNTS ALONGWITH NARRATION OF DEBIT AND CRED IT ENTRIES AND EXPLAIN SOURCE OF THE DEPOSITS. THE AS SESSING OFFICER ALSO CALLED FOR DETAILS OF INVESTMENTS MADE BY ASSESSEE AND WHETHER ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED ANY LOAN DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL AS WELL AS IN EARLIER YEARS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO ASKED TH E ASSESSEE TO FURNISH DETAILS OF MOVABLE/IMMOVEABLE PROPERTIES IN HIS NAME AND IN THE NAMES OF HIS FAMI LY MEMBERS. THE ASSESSEE FILED THE REPLY DATED 29.11. 2010 (PB-11) BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AT ASSESSMENT STAGE IN WHICH ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED COPY OF THE BANK ACCOU NT WITH ICICI BANK LTD., MOHALI. THE ASSESSEE ALSO EX PLAINED HE HAS MADE INVESTMENTS IN SHARES AND MUTUAL FUNDS IN A SUM OF RS. 58.3 LACS AS AGAINST AIR INFORMATION OF INVESTMENT OF RS. 29 LACS. THE ASSESSEE ALSO EXPLA INED THAT HAS RECEIVED LOAN OF RS. 9.92 LACS FROM ASSESSEE SH RI BHUPESH SEHGAL DURING ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL. IT WAS ALSO EXPLAINED THAT HE DOES NOT OWN ANY OTHER IMMOVEABLE PROPERTY AND HE OWNS ACCENT CAR IN ADDIT ION TO THE INVESTMENT IN SHARES AND MUTUAL FUNDS. 12(I) THE ASSESSEE FURTHER FILED REPLY BEFORE ASS ESSING OFFICER DATED 07.12.2010 (PB-13) WITH WHICH ALSO AS SESSEE FILED COMPLETE COPY OF THE SB ACCOUNT WITH ICICI BA NK AND 21 ALSO EXPLAINED THAT THERE WERE CASH DEPOSITS IN ASS ESSEE'S ABOVE BANK ACCOUNT. THE CASH-FLOW STATEMENT WAS FURNISHED EXPLAINING THE SOURCE OF THE CASH DEPOSIT S. THE ASSESSEE ALSO EXPLAINED TO HAVE EARNED THE CAPITAL GAINS ON REDEMPTION OF MUTUAL FUNDS AND OFFERED THE SAME FOR THE PURPOSE OF TAXATION SUBJECT TO NO PENAL ACTION. IT WAS ALSO EXPLAINED THAT ASSESSEE HAS EARNED BANK INTEREST. C OPY OF THE BANK CERTIFICATE WAS FILED AND BANK-RECOVERED I NTEREST ON PREMATURITY OF FDRS MATURED BY THE ASSESSEE ON T HE FDR OF RS. 13 LACS AND 4 LACS RESPECTIVELY AND ASSE SSEE EARNED NET INTEREST OF RS. 25,748/- ON WHICH TDS CR EDIT WAS CLAIMED. THE ASSESSEE ALSO EXPLAINED TO HAVE S OLD THREE PROPERTIES AS HAVE BEEN REFERRED TO BY CIT IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND SUBMITTED THAT CAPITAL GAIN EARN ED ON THE SAME ARE OFFERED FOR TAXATION. THE ASSESSEE AL SO FILED STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT WITH M/S MASTER CAPITAL SERVIC ES TO SHOW THE INVESTMENT MADE BY ASSESSEE. PB 16 TO 27 IS THE COPY OF THE BANK STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE MAINTAIN ED WITH ICICI BANK. PB 28 TO 35 IS THE COPY OF THE CASH-FL OW STATEMENT FILED BEFORE ASSESSING OFFICER AT ASSESSM ENT STAGE TO EXPLAIN SOURCE OF THE INVESTMENT IN SHARES AND MUTUAL FUNDS. PB 36 TO 40 IS THE DETAILS OF INVEST MENTS IN MUTUAL FUND FILED BEFORE ASSESSING OFFICER. PB 41 TO 43 IS THE SALE AGREEMENT DATED 01.10.2007 BETWEEN SMT. NE ERAJ K. SEHGAL THROUGH ASSESSEE WITH SMT. SHAMSHER KAUR WITH (PB-44) AFFIDAVIT OF SMT. SHAMSHER KAUR AFFIRMING T HAT RS. 5 LACS HAVE BEEN GIVEN TO ASSESSEE FOR SALE OF THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION. PB-45 TO 47 IS THE AGREEMENT TO SELL DATED 22 10.07.2007 BETWEEN ASSESSEE AND SHRI DIDAR SINGH W ITH AFFIDAVIT OF SHRI DIDAR SINGH AFFIRMING THAT SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS. 5 LACS HAVE BEEN GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE. PB 48 TO 52 IS THE COPY OF THE SALE AGREEMENT DATED 10.01.2008 BETWEEN ASSESSEE AND SMT. REETA SETHI WI TH AFFIDAVIT GIVING RS. 5.35 LACS TO THE ASSESSEE. PB 53 TO 54 IS STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT WITH M/S MASTER CAPITAL SER VICES, PB- 55 TO 62 ARE THE PAYMENT RECEIPTS, COPY OF RC O F SALE OF CARS BY ASSESSEE TO THE PURCHASER AND AFFIDAVIT OF THE PURCHASER AFFIRMING PAYMENTS GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE. ALL THESE DOCUMENTS WERE FILED AT ASSESSMENT STAGE. PB -80 IS AFFIDAVIT OF SHRI BHUPESH SEHGAL AFFIRMING GIVING L OAN OF RS. 9.92 LACS THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL. EXCEPT THE AFFIDAVIT OF SHRI BHUPESH SEHGAL, ALL ABOVE DOCUMEN TS WERE FILED BEFORE ASSESSING OFFICER AT ASSESSMENT STAGE WHICH CLEARLY PROVED THAT ASSESSEE RECEIVED THE AMOUNTS O N ACCOUNT OF SALE OF THE PROPERTIES, SALE OF THE CARS AND FROM PERSONAL SOURCES FOR WHICH CASH-FLOW STATEMENT WAS FILED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER EXAMINED ALL THESE DOCUMENTS AND WAS SATISFIED WITH THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENTS MADE I N SHARES AND MUTUAL FUNDS. THE ASSESSEE OFFERED AMOUNT FOR CAPITAL GAINS ON REDEMPTION OF MUTUAL FUNDS, WAS ALSO EXAMI NED AT THE ASSESSMENT STAGE. THEREFORE, IT IS CLEARLY EST ABLISHED THAT THE ASSESSEE IN EXPLANATION TO EXPLAIN THE SOU RCE OF THE INVESTMENTS IN SHARES AND MUTUAL FUNDS OFFERED SUFFICIENT MATERIAL AND EVIDENCE BEFORE ASSESSING O FFICER TO EXPLAIN APPLICABILITY OF THE FUNDS FOR MAKING INVES TMENTS IN SHARES AND MUTUAL FUNDS. SINCE THE ISSUE BEFORE AS SESSING 23 OFFICER WAS WITH REGARD TO SOURCE OF INVESTMENT IN MUTUAL FUND AND SHARES TO BE EXAMINED, THEREFORE, THERE WA S NO NEED FOR THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO GO INTO THE PAST HISTORY OF THE ASSESSEE AS TO HOW THE ASSESSEE ACQUIRED THE PR OPERTIES OR THE CARS IN QUESTION. FURTHER, AGREEMENT TO SELL AND GPA WERE REGISTERED IN THE NAME OF ASSESSEE PROVES BONA FIDE EXPLANATION OF ASSESSEE. IN CASE OF SALE OF PROPER TY, SELLER NEED NOT TO LOOK INTO CREDIT WORTHINESS OF PURCHASE R BECAUSE IT WAS ONLY SALE CONSIDERATION. LD. CIT AL SO NOTED IN IMPUGNED ORDER THAT ASSESSEE HAS SUFFICIENT FUND S AND WITHDRAWALS BUT HE DID NOT USE ANY WHERE ELSE, SO EXPLANATION OF ASSESSEE WAS WRONGLY DISBELIEVED. TH US CIT WANTED TO RE-APPRECIATE FACTS FOUND AND ACCEPTED BY ASSESSING OFFICER AT ASSESSMENT STAGE AFTER EXAMINI NG SAME IN DETAIL. THUS, CIT HAS EXCEEDED HIS JURI SDICTION WITH REGARD TO EARLIER HISTORY OF THE ASSESSEE WHIC H WAS NOT THE SUBJECTS MATTER AT ASSESSMENT STAGE. THE ASSESS ING OFFICER, ON THE BASIS OF THE EVIDENCES AND MATERIAL ON RECORD WAS SATISFIED WITH EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESS EE AND HAS TAKEN ONE OF THE POSSIBLE VIEW IN LAW TO WHICH THE CIT DID NOT AGREE, WOULD NOT MAKE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER TO BE ERRONEOUS IN SO FAR AS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE. THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX IN THE PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT CANNOT RE- APPRISE THE EVIDENCE AND RECORD DIFFERENT FINDINGS. 24 12(II) HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF MALAB AR INDUSTRIAL CO. LTD. V CIT 243 ITR 83 HELD AS UNDER : EVERY LOSS OF REVENUE AS A CONSEQUENCE OF AN ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, CANNOT BE TREATED AS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE, FOR EXAMPLE, WHEN AN INCOME- TAX OFFICER ADOPTED ONE OF THE COURSES PERMISSIBLE IN LAW AND IT HAS RESULTED IN LOSS OF REVENUE, OR WHERE TWO VIEWS A RE POSSIBLE AND THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER HA TAKEN ONE VIE W WITH WHICH THE COMMISSIONER DOES NOT AGREE, IT CANNOT BE TR EATED AS AN ERRONEOUS ORDER PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE UNLESS THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE INCOME-TAX OFFIC ER IS UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW. 12(III) THE HON'BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V DEEPAK MITTAL 324 ITR 411 HELD AS UND ER : CHANGE OF OPINION BY REAPPRAISING THE EVIDENCE IS N OT WITHIN THE PARA-METERS OF REVISIONAL JURISDICTION OF THE C OMMISSIONER UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE : ACT, 1961. HELD, DISMISSING THE APPEAL, THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAD FOUN D THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD GIVEN A CATEGORICAL FINDIN G THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ENGAGED IN THE PROCESS OF MANUFACTURING OF PRODUCTS AND ACCORDINGLY HE HAD GRANTED CONCESSION UN DER SECTION 80-IB. THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE HAD BEEN FOUN D TO BE GENUINE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD ALSO EXAMINED THE VARIOUS WORKERS OF THE ASSESSEE AND THEN RECORDED THE FINDI NG. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS JUSTIFIED IN GRANTING THE SPE CIAL DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80-IB. THE ORDER OF REVISION DISALLOWING THE SPECIAL DEDUCTION WAS NOT VALID. 13. THE LD. DR CONTENDED THAT SINCE THE ASSESSING O FFICER PASSED BRIEF ORDER, THEREFORE, CIT WAS JUSTIFIED IN INVOKING JURISDICTION UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT. IN THIS CASE, AS NOTED ABOVE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ISSUED QUERY LETT ERS ON 25 ALL THE POINTS AS HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED UNDER SECTIO N 263 OF THE ACT AND THE ASSESSEE FILED REPLIES BEFORE ASSES SING OFFICER, EVIDENCES AND MATERIAL IN SUPPORT OF THE R EPLY. THEREFORE, MERE NON DISCUSSION OR NON MENTION OF TH ESE FACTS IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WOULD NOT LEAD TO ASS UMPTION THAT ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT APPLY HIS MIND OR TH AT HE HAD NOT MADE ENQUIRY ON THE SUBJECT AND THIS WOULD NOT JUSTIFY INTERFERENCE BY THE CIT FOR ISSUING NOTICE UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT. WE ARE FORTIFIED IN OUR VI EW BY DECISION OF THE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V KRISHNA CAPBOX (P) LTD. 372 ITR 310 IN WHICH IT WAS HELD AS UNDER : THE ASSESSEE'S RETURN FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 -09 WAS PROCESSED UNDER SECTION 143(1) OF THE INCOME-TA X ACT, 1961. NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE CERTAIN QUERIE S, TO WHICH THE ASSESSEE REPLIED AND AFTER INQUIRY, AND B EING SATISFIED WITH THE ASSESSEE'S ANSWERS TO THE QUERIE S, ACCEPTED HIS DECLARED INCOME AND PASSED THE ASSESSM ENT ORDER. THE COMMISSIONER, HOWEVER, ISSUED A NOTICE U NDER SECTION 263 ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICE R HAD NOT MADE INQUIRY ON CERTAIN ASPECTS. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED A REPLY STATING THAT ON ALL THESE ASPECTS , INQUIRY WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BUT THE COMMISSIO NER DID NOT AGREE WITH THE REPLY AND OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD ACCEPTED THE VERSION OF THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT MAKING ANY INQUIRY OR VERIFICATION HAD PASSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, WHICH WAS SUBSTANTIALL Y PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE. ACCORD INGLY, HE SET ASIDE THE ASSESSMENT AND DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO PASS AFRESH ORDER OF ASSESSMENT AFTER CONSIDERING ALL THE EVIDENCE AND AFFORDING AN OPPOR TUNITY 26 TO THE ASSESSEE. THE REVENUE TOOK THE DEFENCE BEFOR E TRIBUNAL THAT NO INQUIRY WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN RESPECT TO THE QUERIES SET OUT IN THE NO TICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 263, AND THEREFORE, THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER PASSED UNDER SECTION 263 WAS WHOLLY JU S- TIFIED. THE TRIBUNAL FOUND THAT THE DEFENCE ON THE PART OF THE COMMISSIONER FACTUALLY INCORRECT AND CONTRARY T O RECORD. ON THE QUESTION WHETHER OR NOT DISCUSSION O F THE QUERIES AND REPLY RECEIVED FROM THE ASSESSEE, IN TH E ASSESSMENT ORDER, WAS NECESSARY, THE TRIBUNAL HELD THAT ONCE INQUIRY WAS MADE, A MERE NON-DISCUSSION OR NON- MENTION THEREOF IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER COULD NOT APPLY HIS MIND OR THAT HE HAD NOT MADE INQUIRY ON THE SUBJECT AND THIS WOULD NOT JUSTIFY INTERFERENCE BY THE COMMISSIONER BY ISSUING NOTICE UNDER SECTION 263. THE TRIBUNAL ALLOWED THE ASSESSEE'S APPEAL. ON APPEAL: HELD , DISMISSING THE APPEAL, THAT THOUGH THE REVENUE SOUGH T TO RE-ARGUE BEFORE THE COURT THAT NO INQUIRY HAD BE EN MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH RESPECT TO THE QUERIES S ET UP IN THE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 263, WHEN HIS ATTENTION WAS DRAWN TO THE ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL RECORDING CONTRARY FINDINGS, HE COULD NOT PLACE ANYTHING TO SHOW THAT TH E FINDINGS RECORDED BY THE TRIBUNAL WERE PERVERSE OR CONTRARY TO THE RECORD. 14. FURTHER, AS REGARDS TO UNEXPLAINED LOAN OF RS.9 .92 LACS RECEIVED FROM SHRI BHUPESH SEHGAL, THE ASSESSE E IN HIS REPLY BEFORE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS EXPLAINED THE SA ME FACT AT ASSESSMENT STAGE. THE AUDIT PARTY IN THEIR OBJE CTION, EVEN AFTER EXAMINATION OF THE RECORD, DID NOT TAKE ADVERSE VIEW AGAINST THE ASSESSEE FOR A SUM OF RS. 9.92 LAC S AND MERELY DIRECTED ASSESSING OFFICER TO TAKE REMEDIAL ACTION OF REMAINING AMOUNT OF RS. 33.03 LACS. IT IS, THEREFO RE, CLEAR THAT ASSESSING OFFICER WAS SATISFIED WITH THE EXPLA NATION OF 27 THE ASSESSEE WITH REGARD TO LOAN RECEIVED IN THE BA NK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE IN A SUM OF RS. 9.92 LACS R ECEIVED FROM SHRI BHUPESH SEHGAL. THE ASSESSEE IN HIS SUBMI SSIONS BEFORE CIT FILED AFFIDAVIT OF SHRI BHUPESH SEHGAL I N WHICH HE HAS EXPLAINED THAT THE AMOUNT IN QUESTION WAS GI VEN THROUGH BANK TRANSFER, WOULD SUPPORT THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT ASSESSEE RECEIVED GENUINE LOAN. THE SATISFACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER COULD NOT BE SUBSTITUTED BY CIT IN PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT. IF CIT WAS NOT SATISFIED WITH INADEQUATE ENQU IRY CONDUCTED BY ASSESSING OFFICER, HE SHOULD HAVE EXAM INED AND HOLD ENQUIRY IN THE MATTER EVEN DURING THE PROC EEDINGS UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT. IF THE CIT BEING REV ISING AUTHORITY FELT INADEQUATE ENQUIRY BY ASSESSING OFFI CER ON THIS ASPECT, THE CIT MUST MAKE ENQUIRY AND SHOW THA T ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS ERRONEOUS. WE RELY UPON DECIS ION OF THE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF DIRECTOR OF INC OME TAX V JYOTI FOUNDATION 357 ITR 388 IN WHICH IT WAS HELD AS UNDER : REVISIONARY POWER UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE INCOME- TAX ACT, 1961, IS CONFERRED BY THE ACT ON THE COMMISSIONER/DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX WHEN AN ORDER P ASSED BY THE LOWER AUTHORITY IS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE. ORDERS WHICH ARE PASSED W ITHOUT INQUIRY OR INVESTIGATION ARE TREATED AS ERRONEOUS A ND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE, BUT OR DERS WHICH ARE PASSED AFTER INQUIRY/INVESTIGATION ON THE QUESTION/ISSUE ARE NOT PER SE OR NORMALLY TREATED A S ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE RE VENUE BECAUSE THE REVISIONARY AUTHORITY FEELS AND OPINES THAT 28 FURTHER INQUIRY/INVESTIGATION WAS REQUIRED OR DEEPE R OR FURTHER SCRUTINY SHOULD BE UNDERTAKEN. IN CASES WHE RE THERE IS INADEQUATE ENQUIRY BUT NOT LACK OF ENQUIRY, THE COMMISSIONER MUST RECORD A FINDING THAT THE ORDER/E NQUIRY MADE IS ERRONEOUS. THIS CAN HAPPEN IF AN ENQUIRY AN D VERIFICATION IS CONDUCTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND H E IS ABLE TO ESTABLISH AND SHOW THE ERROR OR MISTAKE MAD E BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, MAKING THE ORDER UNSUSTAINAB LE IN LAW. AN ORDER OF REMIT CANNOT BE PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER TO ASK THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DECIDE WHETHER THE ORDER WAS ERRONEOUS. HELD, DISMISSING THE APPEAL, THAT INQUIRIES WERE CE RTAINLY CONDUCTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IT WAS NOT A CA SE OF NO INQUIRY. THE ORDER UNDER SECTION 263 ITSELF RECORDE D THAT THE DIRECTOR FELT THAT THE INQUIRIES WERE NOT SUFFICIEN T AND FURTHER INQUIRIES OR DETAILS SHOULD HAVE BEEN CALLE D FOR. THE ENQUIRY SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONDUCTED BY THE DIRECTOR HIMSELF TO RECORD THE FINDING THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS ERRONEOUS. HE SHOULD NOT HAVE SET AS AND DIRECTED T HE ASSESSING OFFICER TO CONDUCT THE INQUIRY. 15. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, IT IS CLEAR T HAT CIT INITIATED PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT ON MERE AUDIT OBJECTION. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE EN QUIRY WITH REGARD TO INVESTMENTS IN SHARES AND MUTUAL FUN DS AT ASSESSMENT STAGE AND ASSESSEE VIDE HIS REPLY DATED 07.12.2010 OFFERED THE AMOUNT FOR TAXATION ON ACCOU NT OF CAPITAL GAINS. THEREFORE, IT IS NOT A CASE OF NO E NQUIRY ON CAPITAL GAINS BY ASSESSING OFFICER. THEREFORE, THE REASONS GIVEN BY THE CIT IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER ARE WHOLLY UNJUSTIFIED FOR INVOKING JURISDICTION UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT. THUS, THE CIT DID NOT ASSUME THE JURISDIC TION 29 UNDER SECTION 263 IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND CANNOT SUBSTITUTE HIS OPINION AGAINST OPINION EXPRESSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THEREFOR E, THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION TO SUSTAIN THE IMPUGNED ORDER U NDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT. WE, ACCORDINGLY, SET ASIDE AND QUASH THE ORDER UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT AND RE STORE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE AC T DATED 16.12.2010. 16. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- SD/- (RANO JAIN) (BHAVNESH SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 14 TH OCT., 2015. POONAM COPY TO: THE APPELLANT, THE RESPONDENT, THE CIT(A), THE CIT, DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT/CHD