ACIT, Ludhiana V. M/s A.K. Alloys Pvt. Ltd., Malerkotla

ITA 557/CHANDI/2008

• Counselvise Citation: 55721514 RSA 2008
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 8 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-02-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 23-02-2012
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 09-06-2008
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: N K SAINI
• Assessee Lawyers: SUDHIR SEHGAL
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Additional evidence; Corroborative evidences; Retraction
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH B, CHANDIGARH BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MEHAR SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.557/CHD/2008 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2004-05) THE A.C.I.T., VS. M/S A.K. ALLOYS PVT. LTD., CIRCLE-IV, VILLAGE GOUNSPUR, LUDHIANA ROAD, LUDHIANA. MALERKOTLA. PAN: AABCA8344F (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI N.K. SAINI, DR RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SUDHIR SEHGAL DATE OF HEARING : 23.02.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 29.02.2012 O R D E R PER SUSHMA CHOWLA, J.M, : THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS AGAINST THE ORDE R OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-II, LUDHIANA D ATED 28.03.2008 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 AGAINST THE ORD ER PASSED U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 2. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. THE LD.CIT (A)-II, LUDHIANA HAS ERRED BOTH IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.1,22,65,105/- AND RS.8,70,314/- ON ACCOUNT OF PROFIT ON THE ALLEGED INACCURATE SALE AND ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT RESPECTIVELY MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. FURTHER THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FILED DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS WERE ENTERTAINED WITHOUT DISCUSSING THE SAME IN THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(A) UNDER THE RULE 46A. 2. THE LD.CIT (A)-II, LUDHIANA HAS ERRED BOTH IN LAW AND ON FACTS BY IGNORING THE STATEMENT OF SH.KULBUSHAN JAIN, DIRECTOR OF THE COMPANY RECORDED DURING THE INSPECTION MADE BY THE CUSTOM AND CENTRAL EXCISE AUTHORITY WHICH WAS SUBSEQUENTLY RETRACTED, WHEREAS SUCH RETRACTION 2 IS CONTRARY TO THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF SH.SURJIT SINGH CHHABRA VS. UNION OF INDIA IN WHICH IT WAS HELD THAT THE CUSTOM OFFICERS ARE NOT THE POLICE OFFICERS THEREFORE THE CONFESSION MADE BEFORE THE CUSTOM OFFICER EVEN THOUGH RETRACTED, IS IN ADMISSION AND BINDS THE PETITIONER. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSE E IS ENGAGED IN THE MANUFACTURING OF INGOTS FROM IRON SCRAP AND ITS TRA DING. THE ASSESSING OFFICER RECEIVED INFORMATION FROM CENTRAL EXCISE (P REVENTIVE), LUDHIANA THROUGH THE OFFICE OF DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INV.) , LUDHIANA REGARDING REMOVAL OF GOODS WORTH RS.4,19,12,650/- INVOLVING C ENTRAL EXCISE DUTY OF RS.67,06,024/-. STATEMENT OF SHRI KULBHUSHAN KU MAR JAIN, ONE OF THE DIRECTORS WAS RECORDED DURING THE COURSE OF INSPECT ION AT ASSESSEES FACTORY PREMISES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED FROM THE PERUSAL OF THE DOCUMENTS OF EXCISE AUTHORITIES THAT THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE COMPANY ON THE BASIS OF THE DISCREP ANCIES FOUND BY THE CENTRAL EXCISE INSPECTING TEAM. THE ASSESSING OFFI CER ALSO ISSUED SHOW CAUSE NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE INTER ALIA FOR SUPPRES SION OF PRODUCTION OF STEEL INGOTS BY SHOWING PRODUCTION PER HEAT AS 3MT AS AGAINST ACTUAL CAPACITY OF 4 MT. THE CAPACITY OF THE FURNACE AS P ER THE STATEMENT OF THE DIRECTOR WAS ENHANCED TO 4 MT AND PRODUCTION WA S MADE AS PER THE ENHANCED CAPACITY OF THE FURNACE, BUT THE SAME WAS RECORDED IN THE DAILY STOCK REGISTER AS PER THEIR PREVIOUS CAPACITY OF TH E FURNACE I.E. 3 MT INSTEAD OF ENHANCED CAPACITY I.E. 4 MT. THE INSPEC TING TEAM ALSO NOTICED THE PRODUCTION OF THE LAST 4 HEATS TAPPED D URING THE INTERVENING NIGHT OF 29.2.2004 AND 1.3.2004 AND IT WAS FOUND TH AT THE TOTAL WEIGHT OF 156 PIECES OF NON-ALLOYS STEEL INGOTS CAME TO 15.91 2 MT AND ON THAT BASIS THE CAPACITY OF THE FURNACE CAME TO 4 MT. TH E SUPPRESSED PRODUCTION AS CALCULATED BY THE CENTRAL EXCISE DEPA RTMENT MONTH-WISE FROM SEPTEMBER, 2003 TO FEBRUARY, 2004 IS TABULATED AS PART OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND TH E ASSESSEE WAS SHOW 3 CAUSED TO EXPLAIN THE SUPPRESSION IN PRODUCTION AT 2358.41 MT AND THE CONSEQUENT SALE OF MANUFACTURED GOODS VALUED AT RS. 3,49,53,278/-. NON- PAYMENT OF CENTRAL EXCISE DUTY WAS WORKED OUT AT RS .55,54,608/-. THE SUBMISSION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE THAT ITS BOOKS OF A CCOUNT REFLECTED THE CORRECT FIGURE OF PRODUCTION, WAS REJECTED BY THE A SSESSING OFFICER IN VIEW OF THE FINDING OF THE CENTRAL EXCISE DEPARTMEN T DURING ITS INVESTIGATION AT THE MANUFACTURING UNIT OF THE ASSE SSEE AND ALSO THE STATEMENT OF THE DIRECTOR OF ASSESSEE COMPANY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ACCORDINGLY APPLYING THE RATIO OF PROFIT OF 35.09% TO THE UNACCOUNTED SALES OF RS.3.49 CRORES WORKED OUT UNACCOUNTED PROF IT EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE AT RS.1,22,65,105/-, WHICH WAS ADDED TO TH E INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. FURTHER ADDITION OF RS.8,70,314/- WAS MA DE ON ACCOUNT OF UNACCOUNTED INVESTMENT IN PURCHASE OF RAW MATERIAL FOR THE SAID OUTPUT. 4. BEFORE THE CIT (APPEALS) THE ASSESSEE MOVED AN A PPLICATION FOR ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE UNDER RULE 46A OF THE INCOME TAX RULES, WHICH WAS ADMITTED BY THE CIT (APPEALS). FU RTHER CONTENTION OF THE LEARNED A.R. FOR THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE CIT (A PPEALS) WAS THAT IT WAS MAINTAINING THE QUANTUM RECORDS IN RESPECT OF T HE PURCHASES OF RAW MATERIAL, ITS CONSUMPTION AND PRODUCTION AND ALSO W AS MAINTAINING DAY- TO-DAY STOCK REGISTER, WHICH WAS UNDER THE CONTROL AND CHECK OF THE EXCISE AUTHORITIES AND NO DISCREPANCY WAS FOUND IN THE SAME. FURTHER EVEN DURING THE COURSE OF INSPECTION NO DOCUMENT WA S FOUND INDICATING ANY PURCHASES OR SALES OUTSIDE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT . FURTHER THE ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE WERE AUDITED. THE CIT (AP PEALS) FOUND MERIT IN THE AFORESAID CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS F URTHER NOTED BY THE CIT (APPEALS) THAT THE STATEMENT RECORDED OF THE DIRECT OR OF THE COMPANY WAS RETRACTED ON THE SECOND DAY OF THE INSPECTION I TSELF AND IT WAS CLAIMED THAT THE SAID STATEMENT WAS RECORDED UNDER DURESS AND PRESSURE. 4 IN VIEW OF THE RETRACTION, THE CIT (APPEALS) OBSERV ED THAT ADDITION COULD NOT BE MADE ON THE BASIS OF THE ORIGINAL STATEMENT WITHOUT BRINGING ON RECORD ANY MATERIAL OR EVIDENCE TO SHOW, A)THAT THE RETRACTION WAS NOT JUSTIFIED; B) THE FACTS IN THE ORIGINAL STATEMENT W ERE EVIDENCED BY ANY OTHER INDEPENDENT EVIDENCE. THE CIT (APPEALS) VID E PARA 23 OF THE APPELLATE ORDER ALSO NOTICED THE FACT THAT ANOTHER INSPECTION WAS CARRIED OUT BY THE CENTRAL EXCISE DEPARTMENT ON 28.1.2004 A ND THE PRODUCTION RESULTS SHOWED THE CAPACITY OF THE FURNACE AT 3 MT. THE ADDITION IN THE CASE WAS BASED ON THE INSPECTION CARRIED OUT BY THE EXCISE DEPARTMENT ON 1.3.2004 AND IN THE ABSENCE OF INCREASE IN SANCT ION LOAD OF ELECTRICITY, IT WAS OBSERVED BY THE CIT (APPEALS), THAT THE CAPACITY COULD NOT BE OF 4 MT ON 1.3.2004. FURTHER THE PRODUCTION IN THE SUBSEQUENT PERIOD HAVING BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE EXCISE DEPARTMEN T, THE CIT (APPEALS) HELD THAT THERE WAS NO JUSTIFICATION TO H OLD OTHERWISE FOR THE PERIOD RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSID ERATION WITHOUT ANY SUPPORTING EVIDENCE. THE CIT (APPEALS) ALSO PLACED RELIANCE ON THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER(APPEALS) OF CUSTOMS & CEN TRAL EXCISE IN THE CASE OF M/S ARORA ALLOYS LTD. IN ITA NOS.319 &1048/ CHANDI/2008, WHO HAD NEGATED THE FINDINGS OF THE INSPECTION TEAM, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY COLLATERAL INDEPENDENT EVIDENCE. FOLLOWING THE SAM E AND ALSO IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY INDEPENDENT EVIDENCE FOUND IN THE CA SE OF THE ASSESSEE, THE CIT (APPEALS) HELD IN THE PRESENT CASE THAT THE INFERENCES DRAWN SOLELY ON THE BASIS OF INSPECTION BY THE EXCISE AUT HORITIES AND STATEMENT OF THE DIRECTOR COULD NOT BE SUSTAINED. THE CIT (A PPEALS) ALSO CONSIDERED THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FILED BY THE ASS ESSEE IN THE FORM OF CERTIFICATE OF CHARTERED ENGINEER FILED BEFORE THE EXCISE AUTHORITIES IN JANUARY, 2004 IN ESTABLISHING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSE SSEE THAT THE CAPACITY OF THE FURNACE WAS ONLY 3 MT. CONSEQUENTLY ADDITION S OF RS.1,22,65,105/- AND RS.8,70,314/- WERE DELETED BY THE CIT (APPEALS). 5 5. THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL AGAINST THE AFORESAID D ELETION OF ADDITIONS MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. 6. THE LEARNED A.R. FOR THE ASSESSEE AT THE OUTSET POINTED OUT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED AN APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF T HE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, LUDHIANA BEFORE THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AND VIDE ORDER PASSED IN APPEAL NO.E/884 & 885/2006 (DATE OF HEARING 6.9.2011) THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL HAS HELD THAT THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE FOUND TO SHOW EITHER SUPPRESSION OF PUR CHASE OF INPUT OR CLANDESTINE REMOVAL OF GOODS. THE LEARNED A.R. FOR THE ASSESSEE FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT EVEN IN THE CASE OF SISTER CONCERN , M/S ARORA ALLOYS LTD.(SUPRA), THE DELETION OF ADDITION BY THE CIT (A PPEALS) HAS BEEN UPHELD BY THE TRIBUNAL. 7. THE LEARNED D.R. FOR THE REVENUE POINTED OUT THA T DURING THE COURSE OF INSPECTION BY THE CUSTOMS & EXCISE DEPART MENT, THE TOTAL PRODUCTION WAS CHECKED AND IN VIEW OF THE CAPACITY OF THE FURNACE OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE STATEMENT RECORDED OF THE DIRECTOR OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY, SUPPRESSION IN PRODUCTION WAS DETECTED AND ADDITION WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE LEARNED D.R. FOR THE REVENUE, HOWEVER FAIRLY ADMITTED THAT CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HAD ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. 8. THE LEARNED A.R. FOR THE ASSESSEE IN REPLY POINT ED OUT THAT THE ADDITION IN THE PRESENT CASE WAS ON THE INSPECTION OF THE FACTORY PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE CUSTOMS & EXCISE DE PARTMENT AND AS THE FOUNDATION IN THE ADDITION HAS GONE, THERE IS NO ME RIT IN THE PRESENT ADDITION. 9. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORD. THE ADDITION IN THE PRESENT CASE WAS MADE PURSUANT TO T HE INSPECTION OF THE 6 PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE AND ITS MANUFACTURING FACI LITIES BY THE CUSTOMS & EXCISE DEPARTMENT. THE CAPACITY OF THE FURNACE O F THE ASSESSEE WAS 3 MT WHEREAS AS PER THE INSPECTION TEAM THE CAPACITY OF PRODUCTION WAS 4 MT. THE PROCESS OF PRODUCTION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS OBSERVED BY THE INSPECTING TEAM FROM THE EVENING OF 29.2.2004 TO 1. 3.2004 AND EVEN THE STATEMENT OF ONE OF THE DIRECTOR SHRI KULBHUSHAN JA IN WAS RECORDED. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THE SAID STATEMENT RECORDED ON 1.3.2004 WAS RETRACTED BY SENDING A COMPLAINT TO THE COMMISSIONE R THAT THE STATEMENT WAS RECORDED UNDER FORCE AND DURESS. THE ASSESSEE ALSO CLAIMED THAT THE CAPACITY OF ITS FURNACE WAS 3 MT AND NOT 4 MT AS AL LEGED BY THE INVESTIGATING TEAM. THE SAID PLEA WAS REJECTED IN VIEW OF VARIOUS FACTORS INCLUDING CONSUMPTION OF ELECTRICITY. THE BASIS FOR SUPPRESSION IN PRODUCTION BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE PERIOD SEP TEMBER, 2003 TO FEBRUARY 2004 TOTALING RS.3.49 CRORES AND ITS CONSE QUENT SALE IN THE OPEN MARKET WAS HELD TO BE ON ACCOUNT OF THE ALLEGE D SUPPRESSION IN CAPACITY REFLECTED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS STATUTORY RECORDS I.E. AS PER THE RECORDS THE CAPACITY OF THE FURNACE WAS 3 MT WHEREA S THE ACTUAL PRODUCTION WAS MADE AS PER 4 MT CAPACITY OF FURNACE . THE CENTRAL & EXCISE DEPARTMENT HAD COMPUTED THE SUPPRESSED PRODU CTION AND THE SAME WAS THE BASIS FOR MAKING THE ADDITION IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD APPLI ED GP RATE OF 35.09% TO THE UNACCOUNTED SALES TO DETERMINE THE UNACCOUNT ED PROFIT EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE AT RS.1,22,65,105/- AND ALSO UN-ACCOUN TED INVESTMENT IN PURCHASE OF RAW MATERIAL WAS WORKED OUT AT RS.8,70, 314/-. 10. THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED AN APPEAL AGAINST THE OR DER OF CIT CUSTOMS & EXCISE, BEFORE THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL WITH PRINCIPAL BENCH AT NEW DELHI (SUPRA). THE COP Y OF THE ORDER OF THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IS PLACED ON RECORD 7 BY THE LEARNED A.R. FOR THE ASSESSEE. THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AFTER CONSIDERING THE FACTUA L ASPECTS OF THE CASE, THE QUANTUM OF PRODUCTION, THE CONSUMPTION OF ELECT RICITY OBSERVED THAT THERE IS NOTHING ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT HIGH POWER CONNECTION SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE WAS MADE ON A PARTICULAR DATE AND THAT RESULTED IN HIGHER AMOUNT OF PRODUCTION . IT WAS FURTHER OBSERVED BY THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VIDE PARA 4.2 THAT SO FAR AS THE PRODUCTION QUANTUM IS CONCERNED, THERE IS ALSO NO E VIDENCE ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT THE AUTHORITIES INTERVENED LAWFULLY RECOR DING THE OUTPUT IN THE PRESENCE OF WITNESS . THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HELD THAT THEREFORE, A HYPOTHETICAL CASE APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN MADE BY REVENUE IN EXCESSIVE EXERCISE OF ITS JURISD ICTION TO THE DETRIMENT OF JUSTICE. THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FURTHER CONSIDERED THE RETRACTION STATEMEN T OF THE DIRECTOR OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AND VIDE PARA 6 HELD AS UNDER: 6. WE WOULD HAVE CERTAINLY COME TO THE RESCUE OF REVENUE HAD THE STATEMENT BEEN RECORDED IN A MANNER KNOWN TO LAW AND COGENT EVIDENCE HAD BEEN BROUGHT TO RECORD TO PROVE OUTPUT CLEARED CLANDESTINELY. NO COGENT EVIDENCE IS ON RECORD TO SHOW EITHER SUPPRESSION OF PURCHASE OF INPUT OR CLANDESTINE REMOVAL OF GOODS IN FOOL PROOF MANNER KNOWN TO LAW FOR WHICH, IT CAN BE PAINFULLY SAID THAT THE ADJUDICATION HAS NO LEGS TO STAND. BOTH THE APPEALS ARE THEREFORE, ALLOWED WITH CONSEQUENTIAL RELIEF, IF ANY. 11. THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRI BUNAL CATEGORICALLY HELD THAT THE ELECTRICITY CONSUMPTION COULD NOT BE CRITERIA TO DETERMINE THE OUTPUT LAID DOWN IN R.A. CASTINGS, WHERE THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE WAS DISMISSED BY THE HON'BLE APEX COURT AS REPORTED IN 2011(269) ELT A-108 (SC). THE BASIS FOR THE ADDITI ON IN THE PRESENT CASE WAS THE INVESTIGATION REPORT OF THE CENTRAL EX CISE DEPARTMENT AND THE SUPPRESSION IN PRODUCTION CALCULATED BY THE SAI D INVESTIGATING TEAM. 8 THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD COMPLETELY BASED ITS ADDI TION ON THE AFORESAID REPORT OF THE INVESTIGATING TEAM AND HAD ALSO SHOW CAUSED THE ASSESSEE TO ESTABLISH ITS POINT IN VIEW OF THE SAID REPORT O F THE INVESTIGATING TEAM. THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (SUPRA) IN THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND ITS DIRECTOR H AS CATEGORICALLY HELD THAT NO COGENT EVIDENCE HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD TO PROVE THAT THE OUTPUT HAD BEEN CLEARED CLANDESTINELY. FURTHER IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT THERE WAS NO COGENT EVIDENCE TO SHOW EITHER SUPPRES SION OF PURCHASE OF INPUT OR REMOVAL OF GOODS. IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAI D FINDINGS OF THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE THERE IS NO MERIT IN ANY ADDITION BEING MADE I N THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF THE ALLEGED SUPPRESSION IN P RODUCTION AND ALSO ALLEGED INVESTMENT IN PURCHASE OF RAW MATERIAL. IN VIEW THEREOF, WE HOLD THAT NO ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF PROFIT ON THE SALE O F UNACCOUNTED PRODUCTION OR ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT MERITS TO BE MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. WE ARE ALSO IN AGREEMEN T WITH THE OBSERVATIONS OF CIT (APPEALS) IN DELETING THE AFORE SAID ADDITION AS NO INDEPENDENT EVIDENCE HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD TO ESTABLISH THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD, A)SUPPRESSED ITS PRODUCTION AND; B) I T MADE SALE OF ITS UNACCOUNTED PRODUCTION, OUTSIDE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUN T. UPHOLDING THE ORDER OF THE CIT (APPEALS) WE DISMISS THE GROUND NO S.1 AND 2 RAISED BY THE REVENUE. 12. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 29 TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2012. SD/- SD/- (MEHAR SINGH) (SUSHMA CHOWLA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 29 TH FEBRUARY, 2012 *RATI* COPY TO: THE APPELLANT/THE RESPONDENT/THE CIT(A)/TH E CIT/THE DR. TRUE COPY BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 9