ITO-Ward-1, Panchkula V. Smt. Chawli Devi, Panchkula

ITA 63/CHANDI/2020

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 108 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5319 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-05-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 15-01-2020
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: VINEET KRISHAN ADV
• Section: 271(1)(c); 45(5); 6; 56; 28

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BE NCH A, CHANDIGARH (VIRTUAL COURT) .., !' #$! %'$ , BEFORE: SHRI. N.K.SAINI, VP & SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, V P ITA NO. 63 & 64/CHD/2020 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12 THE I.T.O., WARD-1 PANCHKULA. SMT. CHAWLI DEVI, W/O-SUMER CHAND, VILLAGE-RAMGARH, PANCHKULA. PAN NO: AGPPD 1598 P APPELLANT RESPONDENT ! REVENUE BY : SMT. MEENAKSHI VOHRA, ADDL.CIT-DR '# ! ASSESSEE BY : SHRI VINEET KRISHAN, ADV. $ % #& DATE OF HEARING : 17/05/2021 '()* #& DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 17/05/2021 &'/ ORDER PER: BENCH THESE TWO APPEALS BY THE DEPARTMENT ARE DIRECTED AG AINST THE SEPARATE ORDERS DATED 30/10/2019 AND 31/10/2019 OF LD. CIT(A ), PANCHKULA. 2. SINCE THESE APPEALS BELONGING TO THE SAME ASSESS EE AND HEARD TOGETHER, THEREFORE, FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE AND BREVITY, THESE ARE DISPOSED OFF BY THIS COMMON ORDER. 3. FIRST WE SHALL DEAL WITH THE APPEAL OF THE DEPAR TMENT IN ITA NO. 63/CHD/2020 FOR THE A.Y. 2011-12. FOLLOWING GROUND S HAVE BEEN RAISED IN THIS APPEAL. 1. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES O F THE CASE, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IS R IGHT IN LAW IN HOLDING THAT THE INTEREST RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 28 OF THE LAND ACQUISITION A CT, 2 ITA 63 & 64/CHD/2020 ITO VS SMT. CHAWALI DEVI 1894 DURING THE IMPUGNED YEAR ON THE COMPULSORY ACQUISITION OF AGRICULTURAL LAND IS IN THE NATURE O F COMPENSATION AND EXEMPT UNDER SECTION 10(37) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 AND IS NOT CHARGEABLE TO TAX U NDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES' UNDER SECTION 5 6 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961? 2. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IS R IGHT IN LAW IN DISREGARDING THE STATUTORY PROVISION OF CLAUSE(VIII) UNDER SUB- SECTION 2 OF SECTION 56 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 READ WITH CLAUSE (B) OF SECTIO N 145A ACCORDING TO WHICH THE INTEREST ON COMPENSATIO N OR ENHANCE COMPENSATION IS CHARGEABLE TO TAX UNDER THE HEAD 'INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES' IN THE YEAR OF REC EIPT IRRESPECTIVE OF THE METHOD OF ACCOUNTING EMPLOYED SUBJECT TO DEDUCTION OF A SUM EQUAL TO 50% OF SU CH INCOME UNDER CLAUSE (IV) OF SECTION 57 OF THE INCOM E TAX ACT, 1961? 3. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) GROSS LY ERRED IN DISREGARDING THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE JURISDICTION HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF MANJEET SING H VS. UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS REPORTED AS [2016] 237 TAXMAN 116 (PUNJ&HAR) AND THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PANCHKULA VERSUS PREM SINGH DECIDED ON 16.12.2010 IN C. M. NO. 27928-29-C II- 2010 WHEREIN THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VERSUS GHANSHYAM DASS (HUF) REPORTED AS [2009] 315 ITR 1(SC) WAS CONSIDERED AND IT WAS HELD THAT THE INTER EST ON ENHANCED COMPENSATION UNDER SECTION 28 OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894 IS CHARGEABLE TO TAX UNDER SECTION 56OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 AS INCOME OF THE YEAR IN WHICH IT IS RECEIVED IRRESPEC TIVE OF THE METHOD OF ACCOUNTING EMPLOYED SUBJECT TO DEDUCT ION OF A SUM EQUAL TO 50% OF SUCH INCOME UNDER CLAUSE ( IV) OF SECTION 57 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 NOTWITHSTANDING THAT THE COMPENSATION OR ENHANCED COMPENSATION IS EXEMPT UNDER SECTION 10(37) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961? 3 ITA 63 & 64/CHD/2020 ITO VS SMT. CHAWALI DEVI 4. IT IS PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) BE SET -ASIDE AND THAT OF THE AO BE RESTORED. 5. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD OR AMEND THE G ROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE THE APPEAL IS HEARD AND DISPOSED OFF. 4. FROM THE AFORESAID GROUND, IT WOULD BE CLEAR THA T THE GRIEVANCE OF THE DEPARTMENT RELATES TO THE CHARGEABILITY OF THE INTE REST ON COMPENSATION OR ENHANCED COMPENSATION. 5. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE LD. COUNSEL FO R THE ASSESSEE AT THE VERY OUTSET HAS STATED THAT AN IDENTICAL ISSUE HAVING SI MILAR FACTS AND SIMILAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL WAS A SUBJECT MATTER OF THE APPEAL IN THE CASE OF ITO VS SHRI LAKSHMI CHANDER GUPTA (HUF) WHEREIN THE ISSUE HAS BEEN DECI DED BY THE ITAT CHANDIGARH BENCH A CHANDIGARH IN ITA NO. 68/CHD/2 020 FOR THE A.Y. 2011-12 VIDE ORDER DATED 23/12/2020. COPY OF THE SAID ORDER WAS FURNISHED WHICH IS PLACED ON RECORD. 6. IN HER RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, THE LD SR.DR WAS FAIR ENOUGH TO CONCEDE THAT THE FACTS RELATED TO THE PRESENT CASE ARE SIMILAR AND T HE ISSUE IS SQUARELY COVERED VIDE AFORESAID REFERRED TO ORDER DATED 23/12/2020 I N THE CASE OF ITO VS SHRI LAKSHMI CHANDER GUPTA (HUF) IN ITA NO. 68/CHD/2020. 7. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE PA RTIES AND THE MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD, IT IS NOTICED THAT A SIMILAR ISSU E HAVING IDENTICAL FACTS HAS ALREADY BEEN DECIDED BY THE ITAT CHANDIGARH BENCH A CHANDIGARH IN THE CASE OF ITO VS SHRI LAKSHMI CHANDER GUPTA (HUF) IN ITA NO. 68/CHD/2020 VIDE ORDER DATED 23/12/2020 WHEREIN THE RELEVANT FINDING HAVE BEEN GIVEN IN PARA 7 TO 9 OF THE ORDER WHICH READ AS UNDER: 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS OF THE PAR TIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD INCLUDING THE CASES RELIED 4 ITA 63 & 64/CHD/2020 ITO VS SMT. CHAWALI DEVI UPON BY THE PARTIES. AS POINTED OUT BY THE LD. COUN SEL THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THIS A PPEAL IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY FOLLOWING THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. GHANSH YAM 'HUF'(SUPRA) AND THE DECISIONS OF THE COORDINATE BE NCHES OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASES OF SOM NATH VS.ITO, ITA N O. 552/CHD./2016 AND IN A GROUP CASE OF SURINDER KUMAR AND OTHERS IN ITA N.539 TO 543/CHD/2016, ITA NO.547 TO 551/CHD/2016, ITA NO. 368/2014, ITA NO. 948/CHD/201 6 AND ITA NO.949/CHD/2016.THE LD. CIT(A) HAS FURTHER REPRODUCED THE FINDINGS OF THE ORDER OF THE COORDIN ATE BENCH. THE FINDINGS OF THE COORDINATE BENCH IN THE GROUP C ASE DISCUSSED ABOVE READ AS UNDER: '7. THE CORE GROUND INVOLVED IN THESE APPEALS IS REGARD ING THE TAXABILITY OF INTEREST RECEIVED ON ENHANCED COMPENSATION U/S 28 O F THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894. NOW, THERE ARE TWO QUESTIONS I NVOLVED IN THESE APPEALS, FIRST ISSUE IS, REGARDING THE YEAR OF TAX ABILITY OF THE INTEREST INCOME WHETHER IT HAS TO TAXED IN THE YEAR OF RECEI PT IN THE LIGHT OF THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE O F GHANSHYAM (HUF) (SUPRA) OR IS TO BE TAXED ON THE BASIS OF APPORTION MENT FOR EACH YEAR FROM THE DATE OF ACQUISITION OF LANDS TILL THE RECEIPT O F THE COMPENSATION IN THE LIGHT OF THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF RAMA BAI (SUPRA); THE SECOND ISSUE INVOLVED IS AS TO WHE THER THE INTEREST AWARDED U/S 28 OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT ON ENHANCE D COMPENSATION IS TO BE TREATED AS PART OF THE ENHANCED COMPENSATI ON AND WILL NOT BE TAXABLE SEPARATELY AS INTEREST INCOME UNDER THE HEA D 'INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES'? 8. WE FIND THAT BOTH THESE ISSUES ARE COVERED BY T HE AFORESAID DECISION OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF GHANSHYAM (HUF) (SUPRA) HOLDING THE SAME TO BE IN THE NATURE OF COMPENSATIO N ITSELF. THE COURT ALSO DEALT WITH THE OTHER ASPECT NAMELY, THE' YEAR OF TAX AND ANSWERED THIS QUESTION BY HOLDING THAT IT HAS TO BE TESTED O N RECEIPT BASIS, WHICH MEANS IT WOULD BE TAXED IN THE YEAR IN WHICH IT IS RECEIVED. THE SAID FINDINGS GIVEN IN THE CASE OF GHANSHYAM (HUF) (SUPR A) HAVE BEEN REITERATED BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF GOVINDBHAI MAMAIYA (SUPRA) OBSERVING AS UNDER: 'IN SO FAR AS THE SECOND QUESTION IS CONCERNED, TH AT IS ALSO COVERED BY ANOTHER JUDGMENT OF THIS COURT IN COMMISSIONER O F INCOME TAX, FARIDABAD VS. GHANSHYAM (HUF) REPORTED IN (2009) 8 SCC 412, 6 ALBEIT, IN FAVOUR OF THE REVENUE. IN THAT CASE, THE COURT DREW DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE 'INTEREST' EARNED UNDER SEC TION 28 OF THE 5 ITA 63 & 64/CHD/2020 ITO VS SMT. CHAWALI DEVI LAND ACQUISITION ACT AND THE 'INTEREST' WHICH IS UNDE R SECTION 34 OF THE SAID ACT. THE COURT CLARIFIED THAT WHEREAS COMPE NSATION GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE OF THE LAND ACQUIRED WOULD BE 'INCO ME', THE ENHANCED COMPENSATION/CONSIDERATION BECOMES INCOME BY VIRTUE OF SECTION 45(5)(B) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. THE QUESTION WAS WHETHER IT WILL COVER 'INTEREST' AND IF SO, WHAT WOULD BE THE YEAR OF TAXABILITY. THE POSITION IN THIS RESPECT IS EXPLAINED IN PARAS 49 AND 50 OF THE JUDGMENT WHICH MAKE THE FOLLOWING READING: '49. AS DISCUSSED HEREINABOVE. SECTION 23(1-A) PROV IDES FOR ADDITIONAL AMOUNT. IT TAKES CARE OF THE INCREASE IN THE VALUE AT THE RATE OF 12% PER ANNUM. SIMILARLY, UNDER SECTION 23( 2) OF THE 1894 ACT THERE IS A PROVISION FOR SOLATIUM WHICH ALSO REP RESENTS PART OF THE ENHANCED COMPENSATION. SIMILARLY, SECTION 28 EM POWERS THE COURT IN ITS DISCRETION TO AWARD INTEREST ON THE EX CESS AMOUNT OF COMPENSATION OVER AND ABOVE WHAT IS AWARDED BY THE COLLECTOR. IT INCLUDES ADDITIONAL AMOUNT UNDER SECTION 23(1-A) AN D SOLATIUM UNDER SECTION 23(2) OF THE SAID ACT. SECTION 28 OF T HE 1894 ACT APPLIES ONLY IN RESPECT OF THE EXCESS AMOUNT DETERM INED BY THE COURT AFTER REFERENCE UNDER SECTION 18 OF THE 1894 ACT. IT DEPENDS UPON THE CLAIM, UNLIKE INTEREST UNDER SECTION 34 WH ICH DEPENDS ON UNDUE DELAY IN MAKING THE AWARD. 50. IT IS TRUE THAT 'INTEREST' IS NOT COMPENSATION . IT IS EQUALLY TRUE THAT SECTION 45(5) OF THE 1961 ACT REFERS TO COMPENS ATION. BUT AS DISCUSSED HEREINABOVE, WE HAVE TO GO BY THE PROVISI ONS OF THE 1894 ACT WHICH AWARDS 'INTEREST' BOTH AS AN ACCRETIO N IN THE VALUE OF THE LANDS ACQUIRED AND INTEREST FOR UNDUE DELAY. INTEREST UNDER SECTION 28 UNLIKE INTEREST UNDER SECTION 34 IS AN A CCRETION TO THE VALUE, HENCE IT IS A PART OF ENHANCED COMPENSATION OR CONSIDERATION WHICH IS NOT THE CASE WITH INTEREST UNDER SECTION 3 4 OF THE 1894 ACT. SO ALSO ADDITIONAL AMOUNT UNDER SECTION 23 (J-A ) AND SOLATIUM UNDER SECTION 23(2) OF THE 1961 ACT FORMS PART OF EN HANCED COMPENSATION UNDER SECTION 45(5)(B) OF THE 1961 ACT . ' 8. IT IS CLEAR FROM THE ABOVE THAT WHEREAS INTEREST UNDER SECTION 34 IS NOT TREATED AS A PART OF INCOME SUBJECT TO TAX, THE INT EREST EARNED UNDER SECTION 28, WHICH IS ON ENHANCED COMPENSATION, IS T REATED AS A ACCRETION TO THE VALUE AND THEREFORE, PART OF THE ENHANCED CO MPENSATION OR CONSIDERATION MAKING IT EXIGIBLE TO TAX. AFTER HOLD ING THAT INTEREST ON ENHANCED COMPENSATION UNDER SECTION 28 OF 1894 ACT I S TAXABLE, THE- COURT DEALT WITH THE OTHER ASPECT NAMELY, THE YEAR OF TAX AND ANSWERED THIS QUESTION BY HOLDING THAT IT HAS TO BE TESTED ON RECEIPT BASIS, WHICH MEANS IT WOULD BE TAXED IN THE YEAR IN WHICH IT IS RECEIVED. IT WOULD MEAN THAT CONVERSE POSITION I.E. SPREAD OV ER OF THIS INTEREST ON ACCRUAL BASIS IS NOT PERMISSIBLE. 6 ITA 63 & 64/CHD/2020 ITO VS SMT. CHAWALI DEVI 9. THE LD. COUNSELS FOR ASSESSEE HAS FURTHER BROUGH T OUR ATTENTION THE LATEST DECISION OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE O F CIT VS. CHET RAM (HUF) DATED 12.9.2017 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 13053/201 7 WHEREIN ALSO THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT HAS AGAIN REITERATED THE PROP OSITION LAID DOWN IN THE CASE OF GHANSHYAM (HUF) (SUPRA), WHICH WE FIND HAS BEEN FURTHER REITERATED IN THE CASE OF UNION OF INDIA VS. HARI S INGH & OTHERS IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1504 OF 2017 DATED 15.9.2017, AS UNDER: 9 '(2) WHILE DETERMINING AS TO WHETHER THE COMPENSAT ION PAID WAS FOR AGRICULTURAL LAND OR NOT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER(S) W ILL KEEP IN MIND THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 28 OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT AND THE LAW LAID DOWN BY THIS COURT IN 'COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, FARIDABAD V. GHANSHYAM (HUF)' [2009 (8) SCC 412] IN ORDER TO ASCERTAIN WHETHER THE INTEREST GIVEN UNDER THE SAID PROVISION AMOUNTS TO COMPENSATION OR NOT. ' 9.1 THE SAID DECISION AS RIGHTLY POINTED OUT BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE HAVE BEEN RENDERED BY THE HON'BLE APEX COURT SUBSEQ UENT TO THE DECISION PASSED BY THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF MANJEET SINGH(HUF) (SUPRA) WHICH HAD DEALT, WITH TH E DECISIONS OF THE HON'BLE APEX COURT IN GHANSHYAM, HUF (SUPRA). THERE FORE, IN VIEW OF THE SAME, THE PROPOSITION LAID DOWN IN GHANSHYAM, HUF ( SUPRA) REMAINS AND WHICH HAVING BEEN LAID DOWN BY THE HON'BLE APEX COURT IS THE LAW OF THE LAND AND HAS TO BE FOLLOWED BY ALL LOWER AUT HORITIES. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE HOLD THAT THE INTEREST RECEIVED BY THE AS SESSEE DURING THE IMPUGNED YEAR ON THE COMPULSORY ACQUISITION OF ITS LAND U/S 28 OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT, IS IN THE NATURE OF COMPENSATIO N AND NOT INTEREST WHICH IS TAXABLE UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER S OURCES U/S 56 OF THE ACT AS HELD BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE COMPENSATI ON BEING EXEMPT U/S 10(37) OF THE ACT IS NOT DISPUTED. IN VIEW OF TH E SAME THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(APPEALS) UPHOLDING THE ADDITION M ADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST ON ENHANCED COMPENSATION IS, NO T SUSTAINABLE. THE RATIO OF THE ORDER LAID DOWN VIDE ORDER DT. 09/07/2 018 IN A GROUP OF CASES IN ITA NO. 1413 TO 1437/CHD/2016 WOULD APPLY M UTATIS- MUTANDIS TO THE CORE ISSUE OF TAXABILITY OF INTERES T RECEIVED ON ENHANCED COMPENSATION. 10. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, THESE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEES ARE HEREBY ALLOWED. ' 8. AS POINTED OUT BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSES SEE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THIS CASE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY FOLLOWING THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY TH E HON'BLE SUPREME COURT AS WELL AS THE DECISIONS OF THE COORD INATE BENCHES. WE FURTHER NOTICE THAT THE COORDINATE BENC H HAS 7 ITA 63 & 64/CHD/2020 ITO VS SMT. CHAWALI DEVI DECIDED THE IDENTICAL ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESS EE AFTER CONSIDERING THE JUDGMENTS RELIED UPON BY THE LD DR. 9. THE LD. DR DID NOT BRING TO OUR NOTICE ANY CASE LAW CONTRARY TO THE FINDINGS OF THE COORDINATE BENCH IN THE CASE S REFERRED ABOVE TO SUBSTANTIATE THE CONTENTION OF THE REVENUE . IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) ARE BASED ON THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF GANSHYAM HUF (SUPRA) AND THE DECISIONS OF THE CO ORDINATE BENCHES DISCUSSED ABOVE. WE THEREFORE, DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CI T (A). HENCE, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISIONS OF THE COORDIN ATE BENCHES, DISCUSSED ABOVE, WE UPHOLD THE ORDER PASSE D BY THE LD. CIT(A) AND DISMISS THE APPEAL OF THE REVENU E. SO RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ORDER DATED 23/12/202 0 OF THE ITAT CHANDIGARH BENCH A CHANDIGARH REFERRED TO ABOVE, WE DO NOT S EE ANY MERIT IN THIS APPEAL OF THE DEPARTMENT AND THEREFORE, DO NOT SEE ANY VAL ID GROUND TO INTERFERE WITH THE FINDINGS GIVEN BY THE LD. CIT(A). 8. SINCE THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) FOR DELETING T HE QUANTUM ADDITION HAS BEEN AFFIRMED IN THE FORMER PART OF THIS ORDER, TH EREFORE, PENALTY LEVIED U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT BY THE A.O. ON THE BASIS OF T HE ADDITION WHICH HAS BEEN DELETED IN THE QUANTUM ADDITION WAS RIGHTLY DELETED BY THE LD. CIT(A), SO, WE DO NOT SEE ANY VALID GROUND TO INTERFERE WITH THE FIND INGS GIVEN BY THE LD. CIT(A) IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER. ACCORDINGLY, WE DO NOT SEE ANY MERIT IN THE APPEAL OF THE DEPARTMENT ALSO. 9. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THESE APPEALS OF THE DEPARTM ENT ARE DISMISSED. (ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 17/05/2021) SD/- SD/- #$! %'$ , .., (MAHAVIR SINGH) (N.K. SAINI) / VICE PRESIDENT / VICE PRESIDENT DATE: 17/05/2021 *RANJAN 8 ITA 63 & 64/CHD/2020 ITO VS SMT. CHAWALI DEVI (+ #,-.-# COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. $ /# CIT 4. $ /#01 THE CIT(A) 5. -2#45&456789 DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 6. 8:% GUARD FILE