Sh. Mit Mohan Singh Kahlon, Panchkula V. DCIT, Palampur

ITA 57/CHANDI/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2306 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-04-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 08-04-2013
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 17-01-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Revised return
• Section: 143(3); 139(5)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH B CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI HARI OM MARATHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI N.K.SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 57/CHD/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 SHRI MIT MOHAN SINGH KAHLON, V DCIT, #445, SECTOR 6, PANCHKULA CIRCLE, PANCHKULA. PANCHKULA. PAN: AQSPK-4192R (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI TEJ MOHAN SINGH RESPONDENT : SHRI AKHILESH GUPTA DATE OF HEARING : 08.04.2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 16.04.2013 ORDER PER HARI OM MARATHA,JM THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 7-08 IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(APPEALS), CHANDIG ARH, DATED 05.10.2011. THIS APPEAL IS DELAYED BY 27 DAYS. A CONDONATION PETITION HAS BEEN FILED WHICH IS SUPPORTED BY THE D ULY ATTESTED AFFIDAVIT. WE CONDONE THE DELAY FOR THE REASONS ME NTIONED IN THE APPLICATION WHICH MADE OUT A REASONABLE AND SUFFICI ENT CAUSE. ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. 2. THE APPELLANT HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS : 1 . THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEA LS) HAS ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON FACTS IN HOLDING THAT THE REVISED RETURN FILED O N 24.12.2007 AT AN INCOME OF RS. 33, 30,939/- WAS NOT A VALID RETURN WHICH IS IL LEGAL, ARBITRARY & UNJUSTIFIED. 2. THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) H AS ERRED IN UPHOLDING THAT THE RETURN ORIGINALLY FILED ON 25.09.2007 AT A N INCOME OF RS. 51,09,290/- WAS THE ONLY VALID RETURN AND AS SUCH THE INCOME WAS RIGHTLY ASSESSED AT RS. 51,09,290/- AS AGAINST INCOME RETURNED AT RS.33,30,939/- IN THE REVISED RETURN WHICH IS ARBITRARY AND UNJUSTIFIED. 3. THAT THE ID. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) H AS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 143(3)(II) IN THE CORRECT PE RSPECTIVE AND AS SUCH THE ORDER PASSED BY HER IS ARBITRARY AND UNJUSTIFIED. 2 4. THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TA X (APPEALS) IS ERRONEOUS, ARBITRARY, OPPOSED TO LAW AND FACTS OF THE CASE AN D IS, THUS, UNTENABLE. 3. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND HAVE EXAMINE D THE ENTIRE RECORD AVAILABLE BEFORE US. AT THE TIME OF THE HEARING, GROUND NO. 1 & 2 WERE NOT PRESSED BY LD. AR SHRI TE J MOHAN SINGH, ADVOCATE AND, THEREFORE, GROUND NO. 1 & 2 ST ANDS DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. 4. THE ONLY SURVIVING GROUND IS NO.3 AND THE FACTS PROPOSED IN THIS GROUND ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IN ITS RETURN OF INCOME (ROI) FILED FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR ON 25.09.2007, DECLARED TOT AL INCOME AT RS.51,09,290/-. A NOTICE U/S 143(2) OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE ON 26.09.2008. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROC EEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE (AR) AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ACTUAL TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, IN FACT, IS RS.33,30, 939/- AND NOT RS.51,09,290/-, AS SHOWN IN THE RETURN FILED ORIGIN ALLY ON 25.09.2007. AN AFFIDAVIT DATED 30.12.2009 OF THE A SSESSEE WAS FILED IN SUPPORT OF THIS CONTENTION. THROUGH REPLY DATED 22.12.2009, IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT THE FATHER OF THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED A REVISED RETURN OF INCOME ON 24.12.2007 DECL ARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.33,30,939/-. REGARDING THE ORIGINAL R ETURN FILED ON 25.09.2007, IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT EVEN AWARE AS TO ON WHAT BASIS, THAT RETURN WAS FILED BY HIS E ARLIER COUNSEL. IN ORDER TO JUSTIFY INCOME OF RS.33,30,939/-, VARIO US DETAILS WERE FILED INCLUDING SOURCES THEREOF, LIKE SHORT TERM CA PITAL GAIN, LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN AND INTEREST INCOME. IT WAS FURT HER EXPLAINED THAT THESE ARE THE ONLY SOURCES OF ASSESSEE'S INCOM E AND THE ASSESSEE DID NOT HAVE ANY OTHER TAXABLE SOURCE OF I NCOME. THROUGH COMPUTATION OF INCOME, THE ASSESSEE TRIED 3 TO EXPLAIN THE POSSIBLE MISTAKES COMMITTED, WHICH R ESULTED IN HIGHER INCOME AND DISCLOSED IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN FILED ON 25.09.2007. THEREFORE, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY LD. AR, WITH REFERENCE TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 143(3) AND I TS CLAUSE (II) THAT THE AO HAS THE POWER TO ISSUE REFUND AND THERE FORE, HE CAN EVEN CORRECT THE INCORRECT COMPUTATION OF INCOME WR ONGLY FILED INADVERTENTLY AND REQUESTED THAT THE TOTAL INCOME O F THE ASSESSEE OF THIS YEAR SHOULD BE TREATED AS FILED AT RS.33,30,939/-, AS SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE REV ISED COMPUTATION. IN FACT, THE LD. AR ACCEPTED THAT THE ONLY VALID RETURN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND DULY SIGNED BY HIM IS THE RETURN FILED ON 25.09.2007. THE SUBSEQUENT RETURN FILED ON 24.12.2007, FILED BY ASSESSEE'S FATHER HAS BEEN NOW IGNORED BY LD. AR. THE AO HAS ALSO ACCEPTED THE ORIGINAL RETU RN BUT HAS IGNORED THE REVISED COMPUTATION FILED BY THE ASSESS EE AND HAS EVEN IGNORED ARGUMENT PUT FORTH BEFORE HIM BY LD. A R WITH REFERENCE TO PROVISIONS OF SECTION 143(3)(II) AND 1 43(2)(II) ETC. THAT UNDER THESE PROVISIONS, THE AO, IF CONSIDERS I T NECESSARY OR EXPEDIENT TO ENSURE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT UNDER STATED THE INCOME OR HAS NOT COMPUTED EXCESSIVE LOSS OR UNDERP AID THE TAX IN ANY MANNER, IS A CASE MADE-OUT BY THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, AO HAS CONCLUDED THAT HE IS NOT EMPOWERED TO ASSESS THE INCOME BELOW WHAT HAS BEEN RETURNED BY THE ASSESSEE . HE HAS OBSERVED THAT THE POWER TO DETERMINE THE REFUND UND ER THIS SECTION IS VESTED IN SUCH CASES WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID THE TAX IN EXCESS OF THE TAX PAYABLE ON THE RETURNED IN COME AND NOT FOR ANY OTHER REASON. HE HAS FURTHER OBSERVED THAT NO DECISION HAS BEEN QUOTED BY THE ASSESSEE IN SUPPORT OF HIS A BOVE STAND. 4 ACCORDINGLY, HE HAS ASSESSED THE RETURNED INCOME AS PER RETURN OF INCOME FILED ON 25.09.2007 AT RS.51,09,290/-. 5. AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE WENT BEFORE CIT(APPEALS) WHO HAS FOLLOWED SUIT AND HAS TREATED THE ASSESSED INCOME A T RS.51,09,290/- AS DECLARED IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN, WHICH IS DULY SIGNED BY THE ASSESSEE. 6. NOW THE ASSESSEE IS FURTHER AGGRIEVED. 7. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND HAVE CAREFUL LY PERUSED THE ENTIRE RECORD. WITH THE HELP OF NUMERO US DECISIONS, LD. AR HAS TRIED TO BRING HOME TO US THA T THIS IS AN INADVERTENT MISTAKE WHICH HAS TO BE RECTIFIED BY TH E AO WHEN IT WAS BROUGHT TO HIS NOTICE DURING THE COURSE OF ASSE SSMENT PROCEEDINGS BY FILING REVISED COMPUTATION OF INCOME . HE HAS ALSO STATED THAT THE REVISED RETURN BEING BEYOND TH E PERMITTED TIME AND NOT FILED BY THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF, APPAREN TLY FILED BY ASSESSEE'S FATHER, IT CANNOT BE ACTED UPON. BUT, W ITH REFERENCE TO SECTION 143(3)(II) OF THE ACT, HE HAS VEHEMENTLY ARGUED THAT THE REVISED COMPUTATION OF INCOME FILED DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, CLEARLY EXHIBITING SOURCE O F ASSESSEE'S INCOME AND EXPLAINING AS TO HOW THE MISTAKE IN ARRI VING AT HIGHER INCOME HAS BEEN COMMITTED, IT IS THE BOUNDEN DUTY OF THE AO TO ASSESS CORRECT INCOME. HE ARGUED THAT TH E AO CANNOT TAKE ADVANTAGE OF A MISTAKE COMMITTED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. 8. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DR HAS SUPPORTED THE FIND ING OF LD. AO AS WELL AS LD. CIT(APPEALS) AND HAS SUBMITTED TH AT THERE IS NO PROVISION IN THE ACT WHICH PERMITS THE AO TO ASS ESS BELOW 5 THE RETURNED INCOME, IN CASE THE INCOME WAS NOT REV ISED UNDER THE PERMITTED PERIOD U/S 139(4) OF THE ACT. HE HAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT PROVISIONS OF SECTION 143(3)(II) AND 143(2)(II) ARE NOT RELATED TO THE PRESENT DISPUTE, BUT ARE ON DIFF ERENT FOOTING WHICH IS NOT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. 9. AFTER GIVING OUR THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION, WE HA VE FOUND THAT THE RETURN FILED ORIGINALLY ON 25.09.2007, DIS CLOSING INCOME OF RS.51,09,290/- IS THE ONLY VALID RETURN WHICH HA S BEEN ACTED UPON BY THE AO AND THAT ONLY CAN BE ACTED UPON AS A VALID RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE PURPOSE OF MAKING ASSESSME NT. WE ARE ALSO IN AGREEMENT WITH THE DEPARTMENT THAT THE REVI SED RETURN OF INCOME FILED ON 24.12.2007 AT A LOWER INCOME IS NON-EST IN THE EYES OF THE LAW AND IS ONLY A WASTE PIECE OF PA PER. BUT THE QUESTION ARISES AS TO WHETHER THE REVISED COMPUTATI ON OF INCOME FILED DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS DETAILING T HE EXACT SOURCE(S) OF INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AND THERE IS NO OTHER SOURCE OF ASSESSEE'S INCOME, WHICH HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON REC ORD BY THE AO OR OTHERWISE, CAN THE REVISED COMPUTATION OF INC OME NOT BE ACTED UPON BY THE AO WHO IS DUTY BOUND TO ARRIVE AT A CORRECT INCOME, WITHOUT TAKING ADVANTAGE OF ANY INADVERTENT MISTAKE(S) COMMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE OR HIS COUNSEL. BEFORE W E ADVERT TO THE RELEVANT PRECEDENTS, ON THIS ISSUE, WE WOULD LI KE TO DISCUSS THE EXACT LEGAL POSITION WHICH CAN BE INVOKED AND R ESORTED TO IN SUCH A COMPLEX SCENARIO WHEREIN TECHNICALLY THE AO MAY BE CORRECT BUT OBJECTIVELY THE ASSESSEE MAY BE CORRECT . AS PER AO, THE VALID RETURN OF INCOME IS RS.51,09,290/- AND IN COME BELOW THAT AMOUNT CANNOT BE ASSESSED, COME WHAT MAY. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT BY MISTAKE, HIGHER INCOME 6 HAS BEEN DISCLOSED IN THE RETURN AND IT COULD NOT B E REVISED DUE TO ANY REASON, BUT REVISED COMPUTATION WAS FILED DU RING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. IS IT NOT A GENUINE CASE WH ICH IS SIMPLY HIT BY PEDANTIC REASONS AND THE ASSESSEE IS BEING MADE TO SUFFER BY NOBODYS MISTAKE, INCLUDING THE MISTAK E OF THE ASSESSEE, DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NO T EARN THAT MUCH INCOME. FOR A JUDICIAL AUTHORITY, IT BECOMES I MPERATIVE AND DEMANDING TO ADJUDICATE UPON SUCH A PIQUANT SIT UATION, WHICH SOMETIMES, CROP UP WHERE SUBSTANTIVE JUSTICE HAS TO BE DONE BY IGNORING TECHNICAL REASONS. IT IS TRUE AND UNDENIABLE THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED HIS VALID RETURN OF INCOME ON 25.09.2007 IN WHICH TOTAL TAXABLE INCOME HAS BEEN DISCLOSED OF RS.51,09,290/-. BUT DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE FILED REVISED COMPUTATION OF HIS TOTAL INC OME. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, HAD THE ASSESSEE NOT FILED THIS REVISED COMPUTATION OF INCOME DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEED INGS, THE CASE WOULD HAVE BEEN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT. IN THAT C ASE, THE ASSESSEE MAY HAVE MISSED THE BUS AND HIS DOORS OF R EDRESSAL WOULD HAVE BEEN SEALED PERMANENTLY. BUT, TO OUR MI ND, IT IS NOT THAT LOST CASE. THE JUSTICE DEMANDS THAT SUCH G ENUINE MISTAKES SHOULD BE CORRECTED AND THE CORRECT INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE ONLY SHOULD BE TAXED. THE PROVISIONS OF S ECTION 143(3)(II), IF ANALYZED IN ITS WIDER PERSPECTIVE, E MPOWERS THE AO IN THAT DIRECTION. WHEN THE ASSESSEE PAYS MORE TAX THAN DUE, THERE-FROM THE AO HAS BEEN GIVEN POWER TO REFUND, W HATEVER HAS BEEN PAID BY THE ASSESSEE MORE THAN THE DUE TAX. T HIS POWER CAN BE UTILIZED IN THOSE CASES ALSO WHERE THE ASSES SEE HAS INADVERTENTLY OR BY MISTAKE OF HIS COUNSEL/CHARTERE D 7 ACCOUNTANT, WRONG COMPUTATION OF INCOME HAS BEEN MA DE AND WRONG INCOME HAS BEEN DISCLOSED FOR TAXATION. THIS WRONG COMPUTATION IS, IN A WAY, TANTAMOUNTS TO OFFERING P AYMENT OF MORE TAXES THAN WHAT ARE ACTUALLY DUE FROM THE ASSE SSEE. IF SUCH AN ANALOGY IS DRAWN, THIS CASE CAN BE EQUATED WITH THE CASES COVERED U/S 143(3)(II). THE REVENUE HAS NOT DISPUTED THE REVISED COMPUTATION OF INCOME. THE REVENUE HAS ONL Y CLOSED THE DOORS OF THE ASSESSEE AND HAS NOT PEEPED INTO THAT DIRECTION BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE HAS HIMSELF DISCLOSED A PARTIC ULAR AMOUNT OF INCOME IN ITS VALID RETURN OF INCOME FILED WITHI N THE PERMITTED TIME AND HAS NOT REVISED HIS INCOME UNDER THE PROVI SIONS WHICH ARE PROVIDED TO CORRECT ANY MISTAKE, SO COMMITTED. WE MAY NOT FORGET THAT UNDER THE ACT, ONLY CORRECT INCOME CAN BE TAXED IN THE HANDS OF A RIGHT PERSON AND THE DERIVATION OF C ORRECT INCOME IS NOT ONLY THE REQUIREMENT OF THE ACT BUT IT IS TH E FIDUCIARY DUTY CAST ON THE AO BY THE PRECINCTS OF THE ACT. A CCORDINGLY, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT IN CASE THE ASSE SSEE FILES AND PRODUCES CORRECT COMPUTATION OF HIS INCOME, AND CAN CONVINCE THE AO THAT THE INCOME DISCLOSED IN THE ORIGINAL RE TURN IS NOT ACTUALLY THE CORRECT INCOME AND THE CORRECT INCOME IS THE ONE WHICH IS BEING FURNISHED DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDI NGS, SUCH A REVISED COMPUTATION HAS TO BE CONSIDERED AND ACTED UPON THIS WAY OR THAT WAY. SUCH A COMPUTATION CANNOT BE IGNO RED WITH REFERENCE TO SS 139(1), 139(4) AND 139(5) ON TECHNI CALITIES. AS DICTATED BY THE APEX COURT THAT SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE SHOULD NOT BE DEFEATED ON PEDANTIC REASONS, WE ARE OF THE CONS IDERED OPINION THAT THE AO MUST HAVE CONSIDERED THE REVISE D COMPUTATION TO ARRIVE AT THE TAXABLE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE OF 8 THIS YEAR. IN FACT, U/S 143(3), THE AO WHILE MAKIN G THE ASSESSMENT OF TOTAL INCOME OR OF TOTAL LOSS, IN CAS E OF ANY ASSESSEE, ON THE BASIS OF SUCH ASSESSMENT IS BOUND TO CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING POINTS : I) ANY EVIDENCE PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE DAT ES SPECIFIED IN THE NOTICE FROM TIME TO TIME AND SUCH OTHER EVIDENCE, AS THE AO MAY REQUIRE THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE ON SPECIFIED POINTS, AND II) ALL RELEVANT MATERIAL GATHERED BY HIM EVEN DEDU CTION OR EXEMPTION OR RELIEF NOT CLAIMED IN THE RETURN, C AN BE CLAIMED UNDER SCRUTINY PROCEEDINGS. 10. WHEN A NOTICE U/S 143(2) HAS BEEN ISSUED AND PR OCEEDINGS OF ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) ARE IN PROGRESS, THE ASSES SEE CAN PUT- FORTH ANY CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION OR EXEMPTION OR RELIE F, WHICH WERE NOT CLAIMED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME AND THE SAME SH ALL HAVE TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE AO. UNDER SECTION 143(2), THE AO CAN VERIFY ANY UNDERSTATED INCOME, EXCESSIVE LOSS CLAIM ED OR UNDER- PAID TAX, IN ANY MANNER, CAN BE VERIFIED BY THE AO U/S 143(3). THE AO HAS TO ENSURE THAT ON THE BASIS OF EVIDENCE OBTAINED DURING PROCEEDINGS OF REGULAR ASSESSMENT, HE HAS TO COMPUTE CORRECT INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THE GIVEN CASE, THE AO HAS NOWHERE MENTIONED IN HIS ORDER THAT AFTER CONSIDERI NG EVIDENCE SUBMITTED DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESS EE HAS MADE UNDER-STATEMENT OF INCOME OR HAS CLAIMED EXCES S LOSS OR HAS UNDER-PAID HIS DUE TAX. HE HAS NOT FOUND ANY I NCORRECT STATEMENT IN THIS DIRECTION AND HAS ALSO NOT FOUND ANY CONCEALMENT OF INCOME. HE HAS SIMPLY ACCEPTED THE RETURNED INCOME BY IGNORING THE REVISED COMPUTATION, AS HAS BEEN REITERATED IN OUR EARLIER PORTION OF THIS ORDER. T HE ASSESSEE 9 SUBMITTED ALL THE BANK STATEMENTS BEFORE THE AO AND NOTHING DETRIMENTAL WAS FOUND THEREIN. TO SUPPORT OUR ABOV E FINDINGS, THE DECISIONS RELIED ON BY LD. AR CAN BE EXTRACTED HEREUNDER AS BELOW : I) PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT CHANDIGARH-COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX KARNAL V/S SHR. AMARNATH CARE OF M/S SHI V SHANKAR RICE MILLS, KAITHAL-ITA NO.57 OF 2008. II) PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT CHANDIGARH-COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX V/S DEEPAK KUMAR-IT APPEAL NO.191 OF 200 9 38 DTR (P&H) 118. III) PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT CHANDIGARH-COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX V/S SHIDHARTHA ENTERPRISES 322 ITR 80 (P&H) IV) INCOME TAX APPELLATE BENCH, BENCH SMC-CHANDIGARH SIGMA CARTONS PRIVATE LIMITED LUDHIANA V INCOME TAX OFFIC ER, RANGE V(3) LUDHIANA IT APPEALNO.33 REP 89 )ITAT CHD) V) MADRAS HIGH COURT AREVA T&D INDIA LIMITED V JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 287 ITR 555 (MAD). VI) DELHI HIGH COURT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX V S.D HANBAL 309 ITR 268 (DEL). 11. ACCORDINGLY, WE ALLOW THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSE E AND DIRECT AO TO COMPUTE THE INCOME ON THE BASIS OF REVISED CO MPUTATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEED INGS. 12. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 16 TH APRIL,2013. SD/- SD/- (N.K.SAINI) (HARI OM MARATHA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 16 TH APRIL,2013. POONAM COPY TO: THE APPELLANT, THE RESPONDENT, THE CIT(A), THE CIT ,DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT CHANDIGARH