Smt. Kiran Rozy, Chandigarh V. ACIT, Chandigarh

ITA 629/CHANDI/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0115 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 9 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-04-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 14-03-2016
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 05-06-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Salary income
• Section: 153A

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. 629 TO 632/CHD/2012 A.YS: 2004-05 TO 2007-08 SMT.KIRAN ROZY, VS THE ACIT, 1273, SECTOR 44-C, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, CHANDIGARH. CHANDIGARH. PAN: AAWPR3567M (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI PARIKSHIT AGG ARWAL RESPONDENT BY : SHRI MANOJ MISHRA, DR DATE OF HEARING : 31.03.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 04.04.2016 O R D E R PER BHAVNESH SAINI,JM ALL THE APPEALS BY ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST DIFFERENT ORDERS OF LD. CIT(APPEALS) CENTRAL, GURGA ON DATED 29.03.2012 FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2004-05, 2005 - 06,2006-07 AND 2007-08. ALL THE APPEALS OF THE ASS ESSEE WERE EARLIER DISMISSED FOR DEFAULT. HOWEVER, BY AL LOWING MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS VIDE ORDER DATED 18.12.2 015, ALL THE APPEALS HAVE BEEN RESTORED AND FIXED FOR HE ARING ON MERITS. 2. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PRESS GROUND NO. 1 IN ALL THE APPEALS. THE SAME GROUNDS ARE, THEREFORE, DISMISSED BEING NOT PRESSED. 2 3. ON GROUND NO. 2, THE ISSUES ARE COMMON THEREFORE , ALL APPEALS ARE DECIDED TOGETHER. 4. WE HAVE HEARD LD. REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. ITA 629/2012 : (A.Y. 2004-05) 5. BRIEFLY THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT SEARCH & SEIZURE OPERATION WAS CARRIED OUT ON 01.06.2006 AT THE BUSINESS PREMISES OF VARIOUS ENTITIES AND RESIDENTI AL PREMISES OF SEVERAL PERSONS INCLUDING THE ASSESSEE AND INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS WERE RECOVERED. THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 153A WERE INITIATED IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSM ENT ORDERS WERE PASSED EX-PARTE BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE DI D NOT COOPERATE AT THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE ASSES SEE IS A PCS OFFICER WITH PUNJAB GOVERNMENT. AS PER TH E SALARY CERTIFICATE COLLECTED FROM VARIOUS OFFICES O F PUNJAB GOVERNMENT, IT WAS TRANSPIRED THAT ASSESSEE HAS SAL ARY INCOME WHICH WOULD BE TAXED UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM SALARY. 6. IN ADDITION TO THE SALARY INCOME, ASSESSEE HAS B EEN RECEIVING MONTHLY RENTAL INCOME OF RS. 1,25,000/- P ER MONTH FROM SCO 198-200, SECTOR 34, CHANDIGARH AFTER THE DEATH OF HER FATHER ON 29.01.2004. THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER NOTED THE STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IN WHICH ASSESSEE HAS ACCEPTED THA T SHE HAS RECEIVED MONTHLY RENTAL INCOME OF RS. 1 LAC TO 3 RS. 1,25,000/- PER MONTH FROM SCO 198-200 SECTOR 34 , CHANDIGARH. THE RENTAL INCOME FOR FINANCIAL YEAR 2 003- 04 COMES TO RS. 15 LACS ( RS. 1,25,000/- X 12 ) WHI CH WAS ADDED BACK TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSE SSEE HAS NOT DISCLOSED THIS INCOME IN HER RETURN OF INCO ME AND HAS NOT FILED HER RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE YEAR UNDER REFERENCE. 7. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER NOTED THAT ASSESSE E MAINTAINED SEVERAL BANK ACCOUNTS. IN THE ASSESSMEN T YEAR UNDER APPEAL, THERE WERE UNEXPLAINED DEPOSITS IN VARIOUS BANK ACCOUNTS IN A SUM OF RS. 2,66,944/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS CONSIDERED INCOME FROM SALARY AND HOUSE PROPERTY SEPARATELY AND MADE THE ADDITION OF RS. 2,66,944/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED DEPOSIT IN THE BANK ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE AS DISCUSSED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FILE ANY EV IDENCE OR MATERIAL BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO EXPLAIN THESE DEPOSITS. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER PASSED EX- PARTE ASSESSMENT ORDER. 8. THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED BOTH THE ADDITIONS BEFOR E LD. CIT(APPEALS). THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) NOTED THAT ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT SHE HAS INHERITED 20% OF THE SHARE IN THE PROPERTY AFTER DEATH OF HER FATHER WHICH FAC T WAS ALSO EXPLAINED BUT ASSESSING OFFICER HAS REFERRED I N THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT SHE HAS RECEIVED RENT FOR THE PROPERTY FROM SCO 198-200,SECTOR 34, CHANDIGARH AND RENT WAS RECEIVED FROM RS. 1,00,000/- TO RS. 1,25,0 00/- 4 PER MONTH. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) ALSO REPRODUCED OT HER QUESTIONS OF HER STATEMENT IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT SHE RECEIVED THE RENT THROUGH CHEQUES AND SHE WAS NOT AWARE OF HOW MANY TENANTS WERE THERE IN THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH FAMILY ALSO RECEIVED THE RENT. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) NOTED THAT THE EVIDENCE FOR THE ASSESSEE'S 20% SHARE IN THE SAID PROPERTY WAS SUBMITTED WERE THE DEATH CERTIFICATE OF SHRI GURNAM SINGH ISSUED BY MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF PAT IALA GIVEN ON 29.01.2004 AND AFFIDAVIT OF SMT. SATYA DEV I, WIFE OF LATE SHRI GURNAM SINGH GIVEN NO OBJECTION F OR TRANSFER OF THE PROPERTY IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSE E. LAST EVIDENCE WAS TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP LEASE RIGHT IN RESPECT OF THE SAID PROPERTY (20%) ISSUED BY THE SUPERINTENDENT OF ESTATE OFFICER, U.T. CHANDIGARH V IDE LETTER NO. 409777 DATED 07.05.2004 (PB-101). THE LD . CIT(APPEALS) NOTED THAT THE ISSUE AT HAND IS NOT TH E ASSESSEE'S SHARE IN THE SAID PROPERTY BUT THE AMOUN T OF RENT RECEIVED BY HER. SINCE SHE HAS ADMITTED IN HE R STATEMENT THAT SHE RECEIVED RENT OF RS. 1 LAC TO RS . 1,25,000/- PER MONTH, THEREFORE, ASSESSEE RECEIVED THE ENTIRE RENT AND SINCE DEATH CERTIFICATE OF THE FATH ER SHOWS DEATH ON 29.01.2004 THEREFORE, ADDITION FOR T WO MONTHS WAS CONFIRMED IN A SUM OF RS. 2,50,000/- INS TEAD OF RS. 15 LACS FOR THE WHOLE OF THE YEAR. 9. AS REGARDS ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED BA NK DEPOSITS IN A SUM OF RS. 2,66,944/-, THE POSITION I S SAME 5 BEFORE LD. CIT(APPEALS) BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE DID NO T ATTEND THE RELEVANT PROCEEDINGS BEFORE LD. CIT(APPE ALS) AND ADDITION WAS CONFIRMED BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FURNISH ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE TO EXPLAIN THE BAN K DEPOSITS. BOTH THESE ADDITIONS WERE THUS, MAINTAIN ED EXCEPT THAT RENTAL INCOME WAS REDUCED FOR TWO MONTH S. 10. THE ASSESSEE ON GROUND NO. 2 CHALLENGED THE ADDITION OF RS. 2,50,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF RENTAL INC OME AND ADDITION OF RS. 2,66,944/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISC LOSED DEPOSITS IN VARIOUS BANK ACCOUNTS. 11. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT ASSESSEE'S SHARE IN THE ABOVE PROPERTY FROM WHICH R ENTAL INCOME HAS BEEN RECEIVED IS 20% ONLY WHICH IS ALSO CERTIFIED BY THE SUPERINTENDENT ESTATE OFFICER, U.T . CHANDIGARH VIDE ORDER DATED 07.05.2004. THEREFORE, ENTIRE RECEIPT OF RENT SHOULD NOT BE ADDED IN THE H ANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. ON THE OTHER HAND,, LD. DR RELIED UP ON ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 12. WE HAVE CONSIDERED RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. SECTION 22 AND 23 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT READS AS UNDER : 22. INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY.- THE ANNUAL VALUE OF PROPERTY CONSISTING OF ANY BUILDINGS OR LANDS APPURTENANT TH ERETO OF WHICH THE ASSESSEE IS THE OWNER , OTHER THAN SUCH PORTIONS OF SUCH PROPERTY AS HE MAY OCCUPY FOR THE PURPOSES OF ANY BUSINESS OR PROF ESSION CARRIED ON BY HIM THE PROFITS OF WHICH ARE CHARGEABLE TO INCOM E-TAX, SHALL BE 6 CHARGEABLE TO INCOME-TAX UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FRO M HOUSE PROPERTY. 23. (1) FOR THE PURPOSES OF SECTION 22 , THE ANNUAL VALUE OF ANY PROPERTY SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE (A) THE SUM FOR WHICH THE PROPERTY MIGHT REASONABLY BE EXPECTED TO LET FROM YEAR TO YEAR; OR ( B) WHERE THE PROPERTY OR ANY PART OF THE PROPERTY IS LET AND THE ACTUAL RENT RECEIVED OR RECEIVABLE 20 BY THE OWNER IN RESPECT THEREOF IS IN EXCESS OF THE SUM REFERRED TO IN CLAUSE (A), THE AMOUNT SO RECEIVED OR RECEIVABLE; OR (C) WHERE THE PROPERTY OR ANY PART OF THE PROPERTY IS LET AND WAS VACANT DURING THE WHOLE OR ANY PART OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR A ND OWING TO SUCH VACANCY THE ACTUAL RENT RECEIVED OR RECEIVABLE BY T HE OWNER IN RESPECT THEREOF IS LESS THAN THE SUM REFERRED TO IN CLAUSE (A), THE AMOUNT SO RECEIVED OR RECEIVABLE : PROVIDED THAT THE TAXES LEVIED 22 BY ANY LOCAL AUTHORITY IN RESPECT OF THE PROPERTY SHALL BE DEDUCTED (IRRESPECTIVE OF THE PRE VIOUS YEAR IN WHICH THE LIABILITY TO PAY SUCH TAXES WAS INCURRED BY THE OWNER ACCORDING TO THE METHOD OF ACCOUNTING REGULARLY EMPLOYED BY HIM) IN DETERMINING THE ANNUAL VALUE OF THE PROPERTY OF THAT PREVIOUS YEAR IN WHICH SUCH TAXES ARE ACTUALLY PAID BY HIM. EXPLANATION.FOR THE PURPOSES OF CLAUSE (B) OR CLAU SE (C) OF THIS SUB- SECTION, THE AMOUNT OF ACTUAL RENT RECEIVED OR RECE IVABLE BY THE OWNER SHALL NOT INCLUDE, SUBJECT TO SUCH RULES AS MAY BE MADE IN THIS BEHALF, THE AMOUNT OF RENT WHICH THE OWNER CANNOT REALISE. (2) WHERE THE PROPERTY CONSISTS OF A HOUSE OR PART OF A HOUSE WHICH (A) IS IN THE OCCUPATION OF THE OWNER FOR THE PURPO SES OF HIS OWN RESIDENCE; OR (B) CANNOT ACTUALLY BE OCCUPIED BY THE OWNER BY REA SON OF THE FACT THAT OWING TO HIS EMPLOYMENT, BUSINESS OR PROFESSION CAR RIED ON AT ANY OTHER PLACE, HE HAS TO RESIDE AT THAT OTHER PLACE IN A BU ILDING NOT BELONGING TO HIM, THE ANNUAL VALUE OF SUCH HOUSE OR PART OF THE HOUSE SHALL BE TAKEN TO BE NIL. (3) THE PROVISIONS OF SUB-SECTION (2) SHALL NOT APP LY IF 7 (A) THE HOUSE OR PART OF THE HOUSE IS ACTUALLY LET DURING THE WHOLE OR ANY PART OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR; OR (B) ANY OTHER BENEFIT THEREFROM IS DERIVED BY THE O WNER. (4) WHERE THE PROPERTY REFERRED TO IN SUB-SECTION ( 2) CONSISTS OF MORE THAN ONE HOUSE (A) THE PROVISIONS OF THAT SUB-SECTION SHALL APPLY ONLY IN RESPECT OF ONE OF SUCH HOUSES, WHICH THE ASSESSEE MAY, AT HIS OPTION, SPECIFY IN THIS BEHALF; (B) THE ANNUAL VALUE OF THE HOUSE OR HOUSES, OTHER THAN THE HOUSE IN RESPECT OF WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS EXERCISED AN OPTION UNDER CLAUSE (A), SHALL BE DETERMINED UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) AS IF SUCH HOUSE O R HOUSES HAD BEEN LET.] 12(I) THE ABOVE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 22 AND 23 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT CLEARLY PROVIDE DETERMINATION OF INC OME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY ON THE BASIS OF DETERMINATION O F ANNUAL VALUE OF THE PROPERTY OF WHICH ASSESSEE IS T HE OWNER. IN CASE ACTUAL RENT IS RECEIVED AFTER LETTI NG OUT PROPERTY BY THE OWNER, SAME WOULD BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINING ANNUAL VALUE OF THE PROPERTY. THUS, OWNERSHIP OVER THE PR OPERTY IS NECESSARY FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINING THE INC OME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT SHE HAS 20% OWNERSHIP OVER THE PROPERTY FROM THE RENT RECEI VED WHICH FACT HAS NOT BEEN DISPUTED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE CERTIFICATE OF THE ESTATE OFFICER, U.T. CHANDIGARH WAS ALSO FILED BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BE LOW IN SUPPORT OF THE SAME. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSES SEE SUBMITTED THAT APART FROM THE RENT RECEIVED BY ASSE SSEE OF HER SHARE, SHE HAS ALSO RECEIVED SHARE OF RENT O N BEHALF OF THE MINOR CHILDREN OF HIS BROTHER WHO HAS ALSO EXPIRED THEREFORE, FOR MINOR CHILDRENS RIGHT OF SH ARE IN 8 THE PROPERTY COULD NOT BE ADDED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE RENTAL INCOME OF THE MINOR CHILDREN OF BROTHER OF THE ASSESSEE THUS, COULD NOT BE ADDED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. THIS ASPECT OF THE MATTER C OULD NOT BE CONSIDERED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE NEVER COOPERATED BEFORE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND REMAINED EX-PARTE. HOWEVER, THERE IS SUFFICIENT EV IDENCE ON RECORD TO PROVE THAT ASSESSEE'S SHARE IN THE PRO PERTY WAS ONLY 20%, THEREFORE, EVEN IF ASSESSEE HAS RECEI VED ENTIRE RENT IN HER BANK ACCOUNT ON BEHALF OF THE OT HERS, THE CHARACTER OF THE RECEIPT ON BEHALF OF THE OTHER S COULD NOT BE TREATED AS RENTAL INCOME IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. THIS FACT NEEDS VERIFICATION AND FURTHER ENQUIRY IN THE MATTER FOR DETERMINATION AS TO WHAT IS LIABILITY OF THE ASSESSEE TO PAY THE TAX ON A RENTA L INCOME IN HER OWN RIGHTS OVER THE PROPERTY. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT ONE MORE CHANCE SHOULD BE GIVEN TO ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THIS ISSUE B EFORE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND AUTHORITIES BELOW ARE ALSO RE QUIRED TO DETERMINE THIS ISSUE STRICTLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND SHALL DETERMINE AS TO HOW MUCH RENT IS RECEIVED BY ASSESSEE OF HER OWN RIGHT OVER THE PROPERTY. 13. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION AND PECULIAR FA CTS NOTED ABOVE, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW AND RESTORE THE ISSUE OF DETERMINATION OF RENTAL IN COME TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER WITH DIRECTION TO RE-DECIDE THIS ISSUE STRICTLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND EVID ENCE 9 ON RECORD BY GIVING REASONABLE SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNI TY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. PART OF GROUND NO. 2 OF APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPO SES. 14. AS REGARDS THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAIN ED BANK DEPOSIT IN A SUM OF RS. 2,66,944/-, BOTH THE P ARTIES SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE IS SAME AS HAVE BEEN CONSI DERED IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02 AND 2003-04 IN APPEALS O F THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NOS. 627 & 628/2012. IN THESE ASSESSMENT YEARS, THE TRIBUNAL HAS DECIDED BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE VIDE ORDER DATED 31.03.2016 AND THE FINDINGS IN PARA 6 READ AS UNDER : 6. WE HAVE HEARD LD. REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH THE PARTIES. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTE D THAT ASSESSEE HAS ALSO WITHDRAWALS FROM BANK ACCOUNTS THEREFORE, THESE ARE EXPLAINED THROUGH THE WITHDRAWALS. HOWEVER, HE HAS NOT POINTED OUT ANY SPECIFIC ITEMS WHICH HAVE BEEN WITHDRAWN FROM THE BANK ACCOUNT WHICH MAY HAVE ANY NEXUS WITH THE ABOVE BANK DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNTS. WHATEVER CONTENTION WAS RAISED BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW WAS ALSO NOT SUPPORTED BY ANY EVIDENCE OR MATERIAL ON RECORD. SAME IS THE POSITION BEFORE US BECAUSE NO EVIDENCE HAVE BEEN FILED TO EXPLAIN ABOVE BANK DEPOSITS AND IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE ON RECORD, WE ARE UNABLE TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSE E HAVE NO MERIT AND THE SAME ARE ACCORDINGLY, DISMISSED. 15. WE FIND THAT ISSUE IS SAME AS HAVE BEEN CONSIDE RED IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02 AND 2003-04 (SUPRA). 10 THEREFORE, FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL FOR THESE YEARS DATED 31.03.2016, WE DISMISS THIS GROUND OF A PPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 16. IN THE RESULT, PART OF GROUND NO. 2 OF APPEAL O F THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 17. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ITA 630/2012, 631/2012 AND 632/2012 ( A.Y. 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2007-08 ) 18. IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06, 2006-07 AND 2007-08 , ASSESSEE ON GROUND NO. 2(II) IN ALL THE APPEALS CHA LLENGED THE ADDITIONS OF RS. 15 LACS EACH ON ACCOUNT OF REN TAL INCOME. THIS ISSUE IS SAME AS HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 ABOVE IN WHICH, WE RESTORED THIS ISSUE TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER FOR RE- DETERMINATION. FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2004-05, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BEL OW AND RESTORE THIS ISSUE TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER FOR RE- EXAMINATION AND RE-DETERMINATION AFRESH IN ACCORDAN CE WITH LAW, AS IS DIRECTED EARLIER. THESE GROUNDS OF APPEAL OF ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 19. IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06, 2006-07 AND 2007-08 , THE ASSESSEE ON GROUND NO. 2(III) CHALLENGED THE AD DITIONS OF RS. 15,08,824/-, RS. 11,48,807/- AND RS. 5,81,03 7/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED DEPOSITS IN VARIOUS BANK 11 ACCOUNTS. THIS ISSUE IS SAME AS HAVE BEEN CONSIDER ED IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 (SUPRA). THEREFORE, FOLLOW ING REASON FOR DECISION FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05, WE DISMISS THESE GROUNDS OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN ALL THE ASSESSMENT YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION. 20. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED PARTLY FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- SD/- (RANO JAIN) (B HAVNESH SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMB ER DATED: 4 TH APRIL,2016. POONAM COPY TO: THE APPELLANT, THE RESPONDENT, THE CIT(A), THE CIT, DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT CHANDIGARH