M/s Vashisht Alloys, Kala Amb V. DCIT, Yamunanagar

ITA 710/CHANDI/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0087 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 8 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-04-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 22-03-2016
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 11-08-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANJIT SINGH
• Section: 143(3)

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.710/CHD/2014 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11) M/S VASHISHT ALLOYS, VS. THE D.C.I.T., NAHAN ROAD, CIRCLE YAMUNA NAGAR. KALA AMB. YAMUNA NAGAR. PAN: AAAFV8967F AND ITA NO.837/CHD/2014 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11) THE D.C.I.T., VS. M/S VASHISHT ALLOYS, CIRCLE YAMUNA NAGAR. NAHAN ROAD, YAMUNA NAGAR. KALA AMB. PAN: AAAFV8967F (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI ASHWANI KUMAR DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI MANJIT SINGH, DR DATE OF HEARING : 22.03.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 21.04.2016 O R D E R PER RANO JAIN, A.M . : BOTH THE CROSS APPEALS ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL S), PANCHKULA DATED 11.7.2014 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010- 11. 2 2. BRIEFLY, THE FACTS ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME AT RS.1,42,467/- ON 25.9.2010. ON NET PROFIT OF RS.94,38,789/-, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED DEDU CTION UNDER SECTION 80IC OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT). DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSE SSING OFFICER ANALYZED THE COMPARATIVE FIGURES OF SALES, NET PROFIT, CONSUMABLE STORES, ELECTRICITY CHARGES AND ADDITION TO PLANT AND MACHINERY FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2006-07 TO 2010- 11. HE OBSERVED THAT SINCE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 TO ASSE SSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL, THE SALES AND NET PROFITS HAVE I NCREASED MANIFOLD BUT NO SUCH MAJOR ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE I N PLANT AND MACHINERY, FURTHER, CONSUMABLE STORES AND ELEC TRICITY CHARGES HAVE NOT INCREASED IN THE SAME PROPORTION. THE MAJOR ADDITION TO PLANT AND MACHINERY WAS MADE IN FINANCI AL YEAR 2005-06. THE ASSESSING OFFICER CONSIDERED ONE YEAR TO GET EFFECT OF NEW MACHINERY ON PRODUCTION. THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER FURTHER FOUND THAT THE TURNOVER RELEVANT TO FINANCI AL YEAR 2009-10 INCREASED 42% AS COMPARED TO TURNOVER IN FI NANCIAL YEAR 2006-07, WHEREAS THE CONSUMABLE STORES INCREAS ED ONLY BY 12% AND ELECTRICITY CONSUMPTION DECREASED BY 10% IN THE SAME PERIOD. THE ASSESSEE MADE A DETAILED REPLY TO THE APPREHENSION RAISED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. AFTE R CONSIDERING THE SAME, THE ASSESSING OFFICER CONSIDE RED ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 AS BASE YEAR FOR PRODUCTION OF METAL PRODUCTS ON NEW PLANT AND MACHINERY AFTER GIVING DU E BENEFIT ON ADDITIONS TO PLANT AND MACHINERY IN THE PRECEDIN G YEAR. THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THERE WAS NO MA JOR ADDITION TO THE PLANT AND MACHINERY IN SUBSEQUENT Y EARS AND 3 HE CONSIDERED THE NET PROFIT OF THE BASE YEAR I.E. ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 AS THE PROFIT OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSME NT YEAR AND EXCESS NET PROFIT OVER AND ABOVE TO THE NET PRO FIT SHOWN IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 WAS CONSIDERED AS INFLAT ED CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IC OF THE ACT AND ACC ORDINGLY, ASSESSED AS INCOME UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHE R SOURCES. IN THIS WAY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER CHARG ED THE INCOME AMOUNTING TO RS.51,12,102/- AS ASSESSEES IN COME FROM OTHER SOURCES AND DID NOT ALLOW DEDUCTION UNDE R SECTION 80IC OF THE ACT ON THE SAME. 4. BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS), VARIOUS ARGUM ENTS TAKEN BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER WERE REITERATED. THE ASSESSEES MAIN CONTENTION WAS THAT INSTALLATION OF NEW FURNACE DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 LED TO IMPROVEMENT IN PRODUCTION WITH REDUCED CONSUMPTION OF INPUTS AND OPTIMIZATION OF OPERATIONAL EFFICIENCIES . IT WAS EMPHASIZED THAT THE PRODUCTIVITY AND CONSEQUENTIAL PROFITABILITY DEPENDS ON NUMBER OF FACTORS SUCH AS QUALITY OF RAW MATERIAL AT OPTIMAL PRICE, AVAILABILITY OF FUND S AND ACCEPTABILITY OF PRODUCT IN THE MARKET. IT WAS ALS O CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD PROCEEDED TO ASSUME THAT THE DYNAMIC BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT, OPERATIONAL EFFICIENC IES AND PROFITABILITY OF THE UNIT WOULD SHOW IDENTICAL RESU LTS OVER VARIOUS YEARS. THE AUDITED ACCOUNTS WERE PRODUCED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WHICH WERE TEST CHECKED AND NO D EFECT WAS POINTED OUT. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE DEP ARTMENT HAS ACCEPTED THE BOOK RESULTS IN EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS AND 4 THERE IS NO CHANGE IN FACT, DURING THE YEAR UNDER A PPEAL TO WARRANT A DIFFERENT CONCLUSION IN THE MATTER. FOR ALL THE YEARS, THE ASSESSEE WAS COVERED UNDER THE INCOME TA X ACT AS WELL AS SALES TAX ACT AND NO ADVERSE INFERENCE HAS BEEN FOUND BY ANY SAID AUTHORITIES. THE RATIOS OF GROSS PROFI T, NET PROFIT, PURCHASES AND SALES TRANSACTIONS WITH ASSOCIATES AN D CONSUMPTION RATIOS OF ELECTRICITY AND CONSUMABLE ST ORES FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 TO 2010-11 WERE PROVIDED. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE TRANSFORMER WAS INSTALLED DURING THE YEAR RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09, WHICH LED TO R EDUCTION IN ELECTRICITY CONSUMPTION IN SUBSEQUENT YEARS. 5. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESS EE, THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) FORMED AN OPINION THAT TH E ASSESSING OFFICERS ASSESSMENT IS BASED ON THE INIT IAL FINDING THAT THERE WAS ABNORMAL INCREASE IN THE NET PROFIT DURING THE CURRENT YEAR. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER COMPU TED THE ABNORMALITY BY CONSIDERING ONLY CONSUMABLE STORES A ND ELECTRICITY CHARGES, BOTH BEING DIRECT EXPENSES WIT HOUT CONSIDERING THE OTHER DIRECT AND INDIRECT EXPENSES WHICH WOULD HAVE A BEARING ON GROSS PROFIT AND NET PROFIT RESULTS. AFTER GIVING THIS FINDING, THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS ) SUMMARIZED THE RATIOS OF GROSS PROFIT, NET PROFIT, PURCHASES FROM ASSOCIATES AND SALES TO ASSOCIATES FOR ASSESSM ENT YEARS 2006-07 TO 2010-11. FROM THIS ANALYSIS, THE LEARNE D CIT (APPEALS) STATED THAT THE GROSS PROFIT AND NET PROF IT RATIOS WERE LOWEST IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08, WHICH WAS T AKEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS THE BASE YEAR AND WERE HIG HEST IN THE 5 SUCCEEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR I.E. 2008-09. IN ASSESS MENT YEAR 2009-10, THESE AGAIN DECLINED AND THEN INCREASED AG AIN IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11, BEING THE RELEVANT ASSESSM ENT YEAR. AS PER THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS), THESE RESULTS NEG ATE THE FINDING OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THERE WAS IMP ACT IN THE PRODUCTION IN SUBSEQUENT YEARS ON THE INSTALLATION OF PLANT AND MACHINERY IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. THE RESULTS ALSO NEGATE THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT AFT ER THE INSTALLATION OF PLANT AND MACHINERY IN ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2006- 07 AND INSTALLATION OF TRANSFORMER IN ASSESSMENT YE AR 2008- 09, IT HAD IMPACT ON THE INCREASE IN PRODUCTIVITY D UE TO BETTER OPERATIONAL EFFICIENCIES. HE ALSO FOUND THAT THE C ONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE OPTIMUM RESULTS ARE OBTAINED IN A GRADUAL MANNER OVER 4-5 YEARS, IS ALSO NEGATED BY T HE RESULTS WHICH DO NOT SHOW STEADY RISING GROWTH RATHER THAN THERE HAVE BEEN FLUCTUATIONS IN THE RESULTS. IN THIS WAY , THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) HELD THAT THE OBSERVATION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THERE WAS ABNORMAL INCREASE IN THE NET PROFIT VIS--VIS THE INCREASE/DECREASE IN CONSUMABL ES STORES, ELECTRICITY CONSUMPTION RESPECTIVELY CANNOT BE RULE D OUT. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE AN ESTIMATION O F EXCESS NET PROFIT BY TAKING THE NET PROFIT OF ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2007-08 AS BASE YEAR BUT TO GIVE THE EFFECT OF ALL THE FACT ORS, A CORRECT ESTIMATION OF EXCESS NET PROFIT WOULD BE IF THE BAS E IS TAKEN AS THE AVERAGE NET PROFIT SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE OVER T HE PERIOD. IN THIS WAY, THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) COMPUTED THE NET INCOME INCLUDED IN BUSINESS PROFIT AT RS.10,95,300/ - BEING 6 EXCESS OF NET PROFIT RATE DURING THE YEAR BEING 4.2 9% OVER THE AVERAGE NET PROFIT BEING 3.80%. 6. AGGRIEVED BY THIS, BOTH THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS THE DEPARTMENT HAVE COME UP IN APPEAL BEFORE US. THE A SSESSEE HAS FILED APPEAL AGAINST THE ACTION OF THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) IN CONFIRMING A PART OF ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WHILE THE DEPARTMENT IS IN APPEA L AGAINST THE PORTION OF ADDITION DELETED BY THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS). 7. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US, REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER AS WELL AS THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) IN DETAIL. HO WEVER, IN ADDITION TO THAT, EMPHASIS WAS PLACED ON THE FACT T HAT BOTH THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS THE LEARNED CIT (A PPEALS) HAS TINKERED WITH THE PROFITS SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE WHI THOUT REJECTING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. IT WAS CONTENDED T HAT THE CONSUMABLE STORES AND ELECTRICITY EXPENSES AFFECT O NLY THE GROSS PROFIT AND NOT NET PROFIT. THE LEARNED CIT ( APPEALS) HIMSELF HAS GIVEN A FINDING THAT THE GROSS PROFIT R ATE IS ALMOST WITHIN THE RANGE OF AVERAGE GROSS PROFIT RATE IN AL L THESE YEARS. HOW CAN AN ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF NET PROFIT BE MAD E. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IN ALL THE ASSESSMENT YEARS, THE ASSESSMENTS HAD BEEN DONE UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF T HE ACT AND NO SUCH ABNORMALITY IN ANY OF THE YEARS HAVE BE EN FOUND BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IN THIS VIEW, IT WAS PRA YED THAT THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BE DELETED. RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE JUDGMENT OF THE HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SWASTIK FOOD PRODUCTS (2015) 61 7 TAXMANN.COM 83 (HP) FOR THE PROPOSITION THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY ADVERSE REMARKS BY SPECIAL AUDITOR, ASSESSEE S BOOKS OF ACCOUNT COULD HAVE BEEN RE-INVESTIGATED BUT SAME CO ULD NOT HAVE BEEN REJECTED. 8. THE LEARNED D.R. RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE ASS ESSING OFFICER AND FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OF FICER HAS TAKEN GREAT PAIN TO ANALYZE THE RECORD OF THE ASSES SEE FOR FIVE YEARS TO BRING OUT THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE IS SH OWING ABNORMAL PROFITS DURING THE YEAR IN ORDER TO AVAIL DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IC OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, THE ACTI ON OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BE CONFIRMED. 9. WE HAVE HEARD THE LEARNED REPRESENTATIVES OF BO TH THE PARTIES, PERUSED THE FINDINGS OF THE AUTHORITIE S BELOW AND CONSIDERED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE U NDISPUTED FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN UNDER TAKING CLAIMING DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IC OF THE ACT SI NCE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. THE BASIS OF ADDITION MAD E BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER EMANATED FROM THE FACT THAT THE A SSESSEE IS HAVING PROFITS MORE THAT WHAT IT HAS BEEN SHOWING I N THE EARLIER YEARS. IT IS ALSO UNDISPUTED THAT THE ASSE SSEE IS MAINTAINING BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WHICH ARE AUDITED BOOK S OF ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOWHERE IN HIS ORDER BROUGHT ON RECORD ANY DISCREPANCY WITH REGARD TO SA LES, PURCHASES AND ANY OTHER EXPENSE OTHER THAN CONSUMAB LE STORES AND ELECTRICITY CHARGES. ANOTHER UNDISPUTED FACT IS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT REJECTED THE BOO KS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER STA RTED WITH 8 ANALYSIS OF SALES, NET PROFIT, CONSUMABLE STORES AN D ELECTRICITY CHARGES WITH RESPECT TO ADDITION IN PLANT AND MACHI NERY MADE BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE LAST FIVE YEARS AND CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE ASSESSEE IS SHOWING MORE THAN E XPECTED PROFITS DURING THE YEAR. SINCE IT IS CLAIMING DEDU CTION UNDER SECTION 80IC OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER STAR TED WITH AN APPREHENSION THAT THE INCOME HAS BEEN INFLATED IN O RDER TO AVAIL SAID DEDUCTION. FURTHER, THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER MADE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 AS BASE YEAR TO CONCLUDE TH AT THE INCOME EARNED IN THAT YEAR IS THE NORMAL INCOME WHI CH OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN EARNED IN THE CURRENT YEAR ALSO AND WH ATEVER THE ASSESSEE SHOWS OVER AND ABOVE THAT IS NOT ITS BUSIN ESS INCOME ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IC OF THE AC T. THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) PARTLY AGREED WITH THE VIEW T AKEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HE COMPARED THE AVERAGE NET PRO FIT RATE OF FIVE YEARS WITH THE NET PROFIT RATE SHOWN BY THE AS SESSEE DURING THE CURRENT YEAR AND IN THIS WAY, SUSTAINED PARTIAL DISALLOWANCE. WE DO NOT FIND THE APPROACH OF THE A SSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS THAT OF THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS ) BEING AS PER LAW IN THIS REGARD. THE WHOLE EXERCISE DONE BY BOTH THE OFFICERS IS BASED ON THE APPREHENSION THAT THE ASSE SSEE IS INTENTIONALLY SHOWING HIGHER PROFITS IN ORDER TO AV AIL DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IC OF THE ACT. THE EARN ING OF INCOME HAS THE EFFECT ON A NUMBER OF FACTORS, WHICH INCLUDE RAW MATERIAL, COST, OPERATIONAL EXPENSES, SELLING P RICE, QUALITY OF PLANT AND MACHINERY INSTALLED, ITS OPERATIONAL E FFICIENCY IN ADDITION TO SEVERAL OTHER FACTORS. 9 10. THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR THE LEARNED CIT (APPE ALS), FOR THAT MATTER, HAVE NOT CAST ANY DOUBT OVER THE B OOKS OF ACCOUNT MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE AND WITHOUT REJE CTING THE AUDITED BOOKS OF ACCOUNT MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE , HOW THE RESULTS SHOWN BY IT CAN BE TINKERED WITH, WE DO NOT UNDERSTAND. NO INCONSISTENCY OR ERROR HAS BEEN POI NTED OUT IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE. 11. WE FIND OURSELVES IN AGREEMENT WITH THE OBSERV ATION OF THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) THAT THE ASSESSING OFF ICER HAS CONSIDERED ONLY LIMITED PARAMETERS FOR DRAWING ABNO RMALITIES IN THE RESULTS SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE AND FURTHER TH E RESULTS OF ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 TAKEN AS BASE FOR COMPAR ISON IS ALSO NOT FAIR. WE DO NOT UNDERSTAND HOW THE ASSESS ING OFFICER CAN CONCLUDE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS SHOWING UNREASONA BLE PROFIT ON THE BASIS OF RESULTS OF SOME PREVIOUS YEAR AND C OMPARISON OF TWO FACTORS OF PRODUCTS BEING CONSUMABLES AND EL ECTRICITY EXPENSES. WE SHOULD NOT FORGET THAT THERE BEING SO MANY FACTORS AFFECTING THE EFFICIENCY AND PROFITABILITY OF A CONCERN, THAT IT IS ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE TO HAVE EXACTLY THE SA ME RESULTS YEAR TO YEAR. THE ABNORMAL PROFITS IN A YEAR IN CO MPARISON TO SOME EARLIER YEAR MAY BE A TRIGGER POINT FOR THE AS SESSING OFFICER TO INVESTIGATE THE ISSUE FURTHER. HOWEVER, THE CONCLUSION HAS TO BE ARRIVED ONLY ON THE BASIS OF O UTCOME OF INVESTIGATION OF THE ACTIVITIES OF THE RELEVANT ASS ESSMENT YEAR. NOWHERE IN HIS WHOLE ORDER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER H AS BROUGHT ON RECORD ANY MATERIAL OR EVIDENCE TO PROVE THAT TH E ASSESSEE 10 HAS INTENTIONALLY INFLATED THE INCOME FOR THE YEAR. THAT MAY BE THE REASON FOR HIM TO PREFER NOT TO REJECT THE B OOKS OF ACCOUNT. 12. WE DO NOT FIND EVEN THE APPROACH OF THE LEARNE D CIT (APPEALS) IN DEALING WITH THE MATTER. THOUGH HE DI SCARDED THE METHOD ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND PREFERR ED TO COMPARE THE NET PROFIT SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR WITH THE AVERAGE NET PROFIT FOR THE LAST FIVE YEAR S. EVEN HE DID NOT BOTHER TO INVESTIGATE THE ISSUE PROPERLY. IF ONCE, HE HAS ACCEPTED THAT THERE IS NOT MUCH SUBSTANCE IN TH E VIEW OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD INFLATE D GROSS PROFIT IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE GROSS PROFIT RA TE IS ALMOST CONSISTENT WITH THE AVERAGE GROSS PROFIT RATE DECLA RED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE LAST FIVE YEARS. HOW CAN HE COMPAR E THE AVERAGE NET PROFIT RATE WITH THE NET PROFIT RATE SH OWN BY THE ASSESSEE AND SUSTAINED A PART DISALLOWANCE? EVEN H E HAS FAILED TO BRING ON RECORD ANY EVIDENCE OR MATERIAL TO PROVE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DECLARED MORE THAN ACTUAL NET PROFIT RATE. NO DISCREPANCY IN ANY OF THE EXPENSES CLAIME D BY THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN POINTED OUT. IN THE ABSENCE OF A NY ABNORMALITY POINTED OUT IN ANY OF THE COMPONENTS OF THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE, THE SAID ADDITION I S NOT SUSTAINABLE. 11 13. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN I TA NO.710/CHD/2014 IS ALLOWED AND THE APPEAL OF THE RE VENUE IN ITA NO.837/CHD/2014 IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 21 ST DAY OF APRIL, 2016. SD/- SD/- (BHAVNESH SAINI) (RANO JAIN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 21 ST APRIL, 2016 *RATI* COPY TO: THE APPELLANT/THE RESPONDENT/THE CIT(A)/THE CIT/THE D R. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH