Sh. Hardeep Singh, Mohali V. JCIT, R-III, Chandigarh

ITA 71/CHANDI/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 116 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6589 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-08-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 23-01-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: CHANDRAKANTA SR DR
• Assessee Lawyers: RAKESH MARWAHA
• Keywords: Question of law; Reasonable cause; Assessment record; Set aside
• Section: 143(3); 143(1); 271D; 271E

Judgement Text

, .. , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BEN CHES, SMC CHANDIGARH .., ! BEFORE: SHRI. N.K.SAINI, VICE PRESIDENT ITA NO. 70 & 71 /CHD/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2014-15 SH. HARDEEP SINGH VILL: GARIPUR, PO: DHAKOLI DERABASSI, MOHALI THE JCIT RANGE-III AAYAKAR BHAWAN, SECTOR-17 CHANDIGARH PAN NO: BPGPS6136B APPELLANT RESPONDENT !' ASSESSEE BY : SHRI RAKESH MARWAHA, CA & SHRI NIKHIL GOYAL, CA #!' REVENUE BY : SMT. CHANDRAKANTA, SR. DR $ %! & DATE OF HEARING : 16/07/2019 '()*! & DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 02/08/2019 '#/ ORDER PER N.K. SAINI, VICE PRESIDENT THESE TWO APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAI NST THE SEPARATE ORDERS DT. 12/11/2018 AND 13/11/2018 OF THE LD. CIT (A)-1 CHANDIGARH. 2. THESE APPEALS RELATING TO THE SAME ASSESSEE WERE HEARD TOGETHER, SO THESE ARE BEING DISPOSED OFF BY THIS COMMON ORDER F OR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE AND BREVITY. AT THE FIRST INSTANCE I WILL DEAL WITH THE APPEAL IN ITA NO. 70/CHD/2019 WHEREIN FOLLOWING GROUNDS HAVE BEEN RAI SED : 1. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE PENALTY OF RS 8,50,000/- U/S 271-D OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 2. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ALSO ERRED IN CONSIDERIN G THE FACT THAT THE CASH TRANSACTION AS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IS SO CALLED LO AN TAKEN FROM THE M/S KUNDAN LAL & SONS, (COMMISSION AGENT). 3. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE. 4. THAT THE PENALTY AS CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(A) IS A GAINST THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 5. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD OR AMEND THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE THE APPEAL IS FINALLY HEARD OR DISPOSED OFF. 3. FACTS OF THE CASE IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE , E-FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME ON 19/02/2015 DECLARING AN INCOME OF RS. 2,3 2,600/- + AGRICULTURE INCOME OF RS. 4,55,000/- WHICH WAS PROCESSED UNDER SECTION 143(1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS A CT). LATER ON THE CASE WAS 2 SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND THE ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT, AT THE RETURNED INCOME. THEREAFTER THE A.O. NO TICED FROM THE ASSESSMENT RECORD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ACCEPTED CASH LOAN FRO M M/S KUNDAN LAL & SONS, PANCHKULA OTHERWISE THAN BY AN ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUE OR BANK DRAFTS AS REQUIRED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 269SS OF T HE ACT AS PER FOLLOWING DETAILS: SR. NO. DATE OF ACCEPTING LOAN AMOUNT 1. 08.05.2013 4,50,000/- 2. 11.05.2013 4,00,000/- 4. THE A.O. ISSUED THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 271D R. W.S 274 OF THE ACT. IN RESPONSE THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE AMOUNT WAS NOT RECEIVED AS A LOAN BUT IN NORMAL COURSE OF BUSINESS IN ANTICIPATION TH AT THE CROP DURING THE PERIOD SHALL BE SOLD AND THE AMOUNT SO REALIZED ON SALE OF CROP SHALL BE ADJUSTED AGAINST THE AMOUNT RECEIVED IN ACCOUNT WHICH WAS A COMMON PRACTICE IN AGRICULTURE SECTOR WHERE COMMISSION AGENT GAVE MONE Y ON ACCOUNT TO THE AGRICULTURISTS SO THAT THE CROP WAS SOLD THROUGH TH EM. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT AGAINST THE RECEIPT OF RS. 8,50,000/- RECEIVED IN ADVANCE, THE ASSESSEE SOLD CROP WROTH RS. 1,02,354/- TO THE COMMISSION AGENT N AMELY M/S KUNDAN LAL & SONS AND IN ORDER TO SETTLE THE ACCOUNT, BALANCE AM OUNT OF RS. 7,47,646/- WAS PAID BACK, THE ASSESSEE ALSO FURNISHED THE ACCOUNT STATEMENT FROM THE COMMISSION AGENT. THE RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE FO LLOWING CASE LAWS: CIT VS. MAHESHWARI NIRMAN UDYOG (2008) 302 ITR 201 (RAJ) CIT VS. IDHAYAM PUBLICATIONS LTD. (2006) 285 ITR 22 1 (MAD) 5. THE A.O. HOWEVER DID NOT FIND MERIT IN THE SUBMI SSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND LEVIED THE PENALTY OF RS. 8,50,000/- UNDER SECTION 271D OF THE ACT. 6. BEING AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER TO THE LD. CIT(A) AND FURNISHED THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS WHICH READ AS UND ER: 'IN THIS CASE THE ASSESSEE FILED HIS RETURN ELECTRO NICALLY DECLARING AN INCOME OF RS.2,32,600/- AND AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS.4,55,00 0/- ON 19.02.2015 WHICH WAS PROCESSED U/S 143(1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. THE CAS E WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY THROUGH CASS UNDER LIMITED SCRUTINY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WARD-3(5), CHANDIGARH PASSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ON 22.08.2016 ACCEPTING THE RETURN AS IT IS. AFTER THAT ON 19.09.2016 ASSESSEE RECEIVED NOTICE U NDER SECTION 271D READ WITH SECTION 274 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 FROM JCIT, RANGE-3, CHANDIGARH STATING THAT ASSESSEE HAS ACCEPTED CASH LOAN OF RS. 4,50,00 0/- ON 08.05.2013 AND RS. 4.00.000/- ON 11.05.2013 FROM M/S KUNDAN LAL & SONS . PANCHKULA FOR WHICH THE REPLY WAS SUBMITTED ON 06.06.2016 IN WHICH IT WAS E XPLALNED IN DETAIL THAT THIS WAS A NORMAL BUSINESS TRANSACTION BETWEEN MR. HARDEEP S INGH (AGRICULTURIST AND SMALL 3 PROPERTY DEALER AND AGGRIEVED ASSESSEE) AND M/S KUN DAN LAL & SONS (COMMISSION AGENTS) . THE FACTS OF THIS CASE WERE THAT ASSESSSEE SOLD AGR ICULTURAL PRODUCE WORTH RS.1,02,354/- ON 20.04.2013 TO M / S KUNDAN LAL & SONS, COMMISSION AGENT AND FURTHER PROMISED TO SELL THE WHOLE PRODUCE TO THEM AND TOOK RS.8,50,000/- ADVANCE. BUT, DUE TO NATURAL CALAMITY HE COULD NOT GET THE ENOUGH PRODUCE AND THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS. 7.47.646/- (RS.8,50,000/- -RS.1,02,354/-) WAS RETURNED BY AGGRIEVED ASSESSEE TO THE COMMISSION AG ENT ON 15.06.2013. COPY OF LEDGER A/C AS GIVEN BY M/S KUNDAN LAL & SONS IS ATT ACHED WITH REPLY FOR YOUR REFERENCE. SIR, ASSESSEE RECEIVED ADVANCE ON 08.05.2013 AND 11 .05.2013 AND RETURNED THE BALANCE ON 15.06.2013. IN THIS CASE THE ASSESSEE RE TURNED THE MONEY IN LESS THAN ONE MONTH'S TIME PERIOD. SO. IT IS JUST A NORMAL BU SINESS TRANSACTION BETWEEN AN AGRICULTURIST AND A COMMISSION AGENT AND NOT AN UNS ECURED LOAN . ACCORDING TO BASIC PRINCIPLES OF ACCOUNTING DEFINITION OF BUSINE SS IS - IT REFERS TO ACTIVITIES AND EVENTS THAT AFFECT THE FINANCIAL POSITION OF A BUSI NESS AND ARE CAPABLE OF BEING ASSIGNED MONETARY VALUES AND AN UNSECURED LOAN IS A LOAN THAT IS ISSUED AND SUPPORTED ONLY BY THE BORROWER'S CREDITWORTHINESS, RATHER THAN BY ANY TYPE OF COLLATERAL. SO, FROM THIS WE CAN DERIVE THAT IN THI S TRANSACTION BETWEEN AGRICULTURIST AND COMMISSION AGENT THERE IS FINANCIAL ACTIVITY WH ICH MAKES IT A NORMAL BUSINESS TRANSACTION AND NO REFERENCE OF BORROWER'S CREDITWO RTHINESS & COLLATERAL WHICH CAN MAKE IT AN UNSECURED LOAN. FURTHER WE WOULD LIKE TO SUBMIT THAT CASH TRANSACTI ON BETWEEN AGRICULTURIST AND COMMISSION AGENT IS NORMAL TRADE PRACTICE. BESIDES THIS, WE WOULD LIKE TO BRING TO YOUR KIND NOTICE THAT IF THE AGRICULTURIST RECEIVE MONEY IN CASH, MONEY LENDER ALSO GAVE HIM THE MONEY IN CASH AND VICE VERSA. THESE FI GURES CAN BE RECONFIRMED FROM KUNDAN LAL AND SONS BOOKS AND INCOME TAX RETUR NS. TO PROVE THIS POINT WE PUT RELIANCE ON THE CASES OF - PR. CIT VS. M/S TEHAL SINGH KHARA & SONS, VILLAGE CHANGLI JADED PO SHERKAHANWALA, DISTT. FEROGEPUR, CIT VS. M/S IDHAYA M PUBLICATIONS AND CIT VS. BOMBAY CONDUCTORS & ELECTRICALS LTD.' 7. THE LD. CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE SUSTAINED THE PENALTY BY OBSERVING IN PARA 5.3 OF THE IMPUGNE D ORDER AS UNDER: 5.3. IT IS IN THE COMMON PARLANCE THAT KHASRA GIRDA WARI IS A DOCUMENT, IN WHICH THE PATWARI ENTERS THE NAME OF OWNER, NAME OF CULTI VATOR, LAND/KHASRA NUMBER, AREA, KIND OF LAND, CULTIVATED AND NON-CULTIVATED A REA, SOURCE OF IRRIGATION, NAME OF CROP AND ITS CONDITIONS, REVENUE AND RATE OF REV ENUE, MINIMUM TWICE IN A YEAR. ON PERUSAL OF GIRDAWRI DATED 20.07.2018, IT IS APPA RENT THAT THE NAME OF THE APPELLANT I.E. SH HARDEEP SINGH NOWHERE FIGURES IN COLUMN NO.3 UNDER THE HEAD 'NAME OF CULTIVATOR'. THERE IS A CLALM IN THE AFFID AVIT THAT SH. JARNAIL SINGH, SH. AJAIB SINGH AND SH. GURBHAG SING HAVE GIVEN LAND OF 20 ACRE TO THE APPELLANT FOR CULTIVATION ON RENT AMOUNTING TO RS.22,000/- PER AN NUM FOR FIVE YEARS AND ONE YEAR RENT ABOUT RS.2,64,000/- HAS BEEN RECEIVED IN ADVANCE. NO SUCH EVIDENCE HAS BEEN SUBMITTED. THE ABSENCE OF APPELLANT'S NAME IN THE 'GIRDAWRI' AND ANY FURTHER CORROBORATING EVIDENCE CLEARLY ESTABLISHES THAT EXPLANATION OF THE APPELLANT IS AN AFTERTHOUGHT. FURTHER, EXPLANATION OF THE APPELLANT THAT HE HAS SOLD AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE WORTH RS. 1,02,354/-ON 20 .04.2013 TO M/S KUNDAN LAL & SONS, COMMISSION AGENT AND FURTHER PROMISED TO SELL THE WHOLE PRODUCE TO THEM AND TOOK RS.8,50,000/- ADVANCE IN CASH, BUT, DUE TO NATURAL CALAMITY HE COULD NOT GET THE ENOUGH PRODUCE AND THE BALANCE AMOUNT O F RS.7,47,646/- (RS.8,50,000/- - RS. 1,02,354/-) WAS RETURNED BY HI M TO THE COMMISSION AGENT ON 15.06.2013 ALSO DOES NOT HOLD GOOD FOR THE REASON T HAT NO EVIDENCE OF NATURAL CALAMITY HAS BEEN FILED BEFORE THE JCIT/CIT(A). EVE N IF FOR THE SAKE OF ARGUMENT IT IS ACCEPTED THAT THERE IS NATURAL CALAMITY, THEN HO W COME HE WAS ABLE TO RETURN AMOUNT OF RS.7,47,646/- TO THE COMMISSION AGENT ON 15.06.2013 THAT TOO AFTER PAYING ALLEGED ADVANCE PAYMENT OF RS.2,64,000/- TO OWNERS OF THE 22 ACRE LAND. IT IS CLEAR THAT THE APPELLANT WHO IS IN FACT A PRO PERTY DEALER HAS NOT COME 4 CLEAN ON EXPLANATION TO CASH RECEIPT FROM THE COMMI SSION AGENT WITH ANY COGENT EVIDENCE. THE CASE LAWS RELIED BY THE APPELL ANT ARE ON DIFFERENT FOOTINGS. THE APPELLANT HAS FAILED TO ESTABLISH THAT THERE WA S ANY BUSINESS EXIGENCY TO MAKE THE TRANSACTION IN CASH. THE LD. JCIT HAS RIGH TLY HELD THAT ACCEPTANCE OF CASH LOAN BY APPELLANT AMOUNTING TO RS.8,50,000/- F ROM M/S KUNDAN LAL & SONS, PANCHKULA DURING THE FY 2013-14 IS IN CONTRAVENTION OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 269SS OF THE ACT AND IMPOSED PENALTY U/S 271D OF TH E ACT AT RS.8,50,000/-. THE GROUND OF APPEAL NO .3 IS DISMISSED . 8. NOW THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL. 9. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT TH E AMOUNT RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS AN ADVANCE AGAINST THE AGRICULTURAL CR OPS WHICH WERE TO BE SOLD THROUGH THE COMMISSION AGENT, THEREFORE THE PROVISI ONS OF SECTION 269SS WERE NOT APPLICABLE, SINCE IT WAS NEITHER LOAN NOR A DEP OSIT TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE A.O. HIMSELF ACCEPTE D THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS AN AGRICULTURIST AND ACCEPTED THE RETURNED INCOME SHOW N BY THE ASSESSEE THEREFORE THE PENALTY WAS NOT LEVIABLE UNDER SECTIO N 271D OF THE ACT. THE RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE FOLLOWING CASE LAWS: CIT VS. MANOHAR LAL THAKRAL 93 TAXMANN.COM 156 (P&H ) BALDEV SINGH VS. ADDL. CIT 93 TAXMANN.COM 212 (CHD TRIB) ITO VS. M/S SHIV ENTERPRISE IN ITA NO. 2911/AHD/200 9 (AHD-TRIB) CIT VS. HISSARIA BROS (2007) 291 ITR 0244 (RAJ) ITO VS. BHARADIYA TRADING CO. (2003) 85 ITD 0042 (P UNE TRIB) ITO VS. HARPAL SINGH JASWANT SINGH (1995) 81 TAXMAN 42 (ASR TRIB) HARPAL SINGH JASWANT SINGH VS. ITO (1995) 82 TAXMAN 81 (ASR TRIB) CIT VS. SAINI MEDICAL STORE (2005) 277 ITR 0420 (P& H) MOHANJEET SINGH VS. JCIT (2016) 70 TAXMANN.COM 335 (CHD TRIB) 10. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE P ARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON THE RECORD. IN THE PRESENT CA SE IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN AGRICULTURIST AND SHOWN THE AGRICULT URE INCOME OF RS. 4,55,000/- FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WHICH HAS BEEN ACCEPTE D AS SUCH BY THE A.O. IN THE PRESENT CASE, COPY OF THE ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESS EE IN THE BOOKS OF M/S KUNDAN LAL & SONS, PANCHKULA (WHICH IS PLACED AT PA GE NO. 17 OF THE ASSESSEES COMPILATION)REVEALED THAT THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED IN CASH RS. 4,50,000/- AND RS. 4,00,000/- ON 08/05/2013 AND 11/05/2013. THE ASSESS EE ALSO SOLD CROP OF RS. 1,02,354/- ON 20/04/2013 AND THEREAFTER ALSO THE CR OPS AMOUNTING TO RS. 2,29,264/-, RS. 86,560/-,RS. 69,874/-, RS. 1,99,878 /- AND RS. 2,05,878/- WERE SOLD ON 07/10/2013, 12/10/2013, 16/10/2013, 23/10/2013 AND 04/11/2013 RESPECTIVELY 5 THROUGH THE AFORESAID COMMISSION AGENT. THE ASSESSE E FROM THE SAID PARTY M/S KUNDAL LAL & SONS ALSO RECEIVED RS. 3,00,000/-, RS. 2,00,000/- RS. 1,42,437/-, RS. 2,00,000/- AND RS. 3,70,000/- ON 19/10/2013, 22/10/ 2013, 23/10/2013, 26/11/2013 AND 23/10/2013 RESPECTIVELY. THE BALANCE OUTSTANDIN G WAS RS. 4,20,983/- AS ON 31/03/2014. FROM THE AFORESAID NARRATED FACTS IT IS CLEAR THAT ASSESSEE IS AN AGRICULTURIST SELLING HIS CROP THROUGH M/S KUNDAN L AL & SONS, PANCHKULA AND HE WAS RECEIVING THE AMOUNT AGAINST THE CROPS FROM THE SAID COMMISSION AGENT, THEREFORE IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE ASSESSEE RECEI VED OR PAID AMOUNTS IN CASH AS A DEPOSIT OR LOAN RATHER THE AMOUNTS RECEIVED IN CASH WERE AGAINST THE AGRICULTURE CROPS, THEREFORE THE PROVISIONS OF SECT ION 269SS AND 269T OF THE ACT WERE NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE ASSESSEES CASE. ON A SIMILAR ISSUE THE HON'BLE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. HISSARIA BROS (2007) 291 ITR 0244 HELD AS UNDER: THAT THE ASSESSING AUTHORITIES WERE BOUND BY THE GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS CONTAINED IN THE CIRCULAR ISSUED BY THE BOARD IN RESPECT OF D EALINGS OF KACHCHA ADHATIYA OF THE NATURE FOUND BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE PR ESENT CASE. THEREFORE, THERE WAS HARDLY ANY OCCASION FOR INVOKING SECTIONS 269SS AND 269T ON THE SUPPOSED OMISSION ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENT OF THE SAID PROVISIONS FOR INVITING APPLICATION OF PENALTY PROV ISIONS. THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIONS 271D AND 271E COULD NOT HAVE BEEN INVOKED. EVEN ASS UMING THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIONS 269SS AND 269T COULD BE INVOKED, THE FI NDINGS OF THE TRIBUNAL THAT REASONABLE CAUSE EXISTED FOR THE FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIONS 269SS AND 269T WERE FINDINGS OF FACT WHICH DID NOT GIVE RISE TO ANY QUESTION OF LAW. PENALTY UNDER SECTIONS 271D AND 271E WAS NOT I MPOSABLE AND WAS RIGHTLY SET ASIDE BY THE TRIBUNAL. 11. IN THE PRESENT CASE ALSO THE AMOUNT IN QUESTION WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE SALE OF THE CROPS SO IT WAS NE ITHER THE LOAN NOR THE DEPOSIT, THEREFORE THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 269SS OF THE AC T WERE NOT APPLICABLE AND AS SUCH PENALTY LEVIED BY THE A.O. AND SUSTAINED BY TH E LD. CIT(A) UNDER SECTION 271D OF THE ACT WAS NOT JUSTIFIED, ACCORDINGLY THE SAME IS DELETED. 12. IN ITA NO. 71/CHD/2019 THE PENALTY AMOUNTING TO RS. 7,47,646/- (RS. 8,50,000.00 RS. 1,02,354.00) UNDER SECTION 271E H AS BEEN LEVIED FOR CONTRAVENTION OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 269T OF THE ACT I.E; FOR MAKING THE PAYMENTS OF THE AMOUNT RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE AGA INST THE CROP FROM THE COMMISSION AGENT. AS I HAVE ALREADY MENTIONED IN TH E FORMER PART OF THIS ORDER WHILE DECIDING THE ISSUE RELATING TO THE LEVY OF PE NALTY UNDER SECTION 271D OF THE ACT, THAT THE TRANSACTIONS BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND THE COMMISSION AGENT WERE RELATING TO THE SALE OF AGRICULTURE CROPS, THE REFORE, THERE WAS NO RECEIPT OR REPAYMENT OF LOAN OR DEPOSIT, ACCORDINGLY PENALTY L EVIED BY THE A.O. AND SUSTAINED BY THE LD. CIT(A) UNDER SECTION 271E OF T HE ACT IS ALSO DELETED. 6 13. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE ABOVE APPEALS OF THE AS SESSEE ARE ALLOWED. (ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 02/08/2019 ) SD/- .., ( N.K. SAINI) ! / VICE PRESIDENT AG DATE: 02/08/2019 (+! ,-.- 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