Mrs. Anita Rani, Chandigarh V. ITO, Chandigarh

ITA 755/CHANDI/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6965 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-08-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 01-05-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S K MITTAL
• Assessee Lawyers: K K GUPTA
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Value adopted by valuation officer; Capital asset; Business income; Depreciation; Cost of acquisition; Fair market value; Valuation report
• Section: 143(3); 50C; 148; 11

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, CHANDIGARH BEFORE MS. DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.R.R.KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 755/CHD/2017 ASSESSMENT YEA R : 2012-13 MRS. ANITA RANI, VS. THE ITO, # 429, SECTOR 35-A, WARD 4(4), CHANDIGARH. CHANDIGARH. PAN NO. ABBPR8735K ITA NO. 756/CHD/2017 ASSESSMENT YE AR : 2012-13 MRS. ANITA GOYAL, VS. THE ITO, # 429, SECTOR 35-A, WARD 4(4), CHANDIGARH. CHANDIGARH. PAN NO. ABLPG9112D ITA NO. 757/CHD/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012-13 MRS. SUMAN RANI, VS. THE ITO, # 429, SECTOR 35-A, WARD 4(4), CHANDIGARH. CHANDIGARH. PAN NO. AATPR2244N ITA NO. 758/CHD/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012-13 SH. SHRI RAM, VS. THE ITO, L/H OF MRS. KAMLESH RANI, WARD 4(4), # 429, SECTOR 35-A, CHANDIGARH. CHANDIGARH. PAN NO. ABBPR8735K (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI SUDHIR SEHGAL & SHRI K.K.GUPTA RESPONDENT BY : SHRI S.K.MITTAL, SR.DR DATE OF HEARING : 29.06.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 03.08.2017 ORDER PER BENCH IT IS THE COMMON STAND OF THE PARTIES BEFORE THE BENCH THAT IN A LL OF THESE FOUR APPEALS, THE ASSESSEE IS AGITATING THE SAME ISSUE. ACCORDINGLY, FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE, ALL THESE APPEALS ARE BEING DECIDED BY A COMMON ORDER. 2. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE FACTS IN ITA 755/CHD/2017 ARE BEING REFERRED TO WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS : ITA 755/CHD/2017 & ORS A.Y. 2012-13 PAGE 2 OF 10 1. THAT THE LD. AUTHORITY HAS ERRED IN LAW AS WE LL AS ON FACTS IN MAKING AN ADDITION OF RS.65,68,000/- MADE BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF CONSIDERING COLLECTORATE RATE AS SALE CONSIDERATION INSTEAD OF ACTUAL SALE C ONSIDERATION U/S 50C OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCE EDINGS WHICH IS ARBITRARY AND UNJUSTIFIED. 2. THAT THE LD. AUTHORITY HAS FAILED TO REALISE THA T COLLECTORATE RATE FIXED BY STATE GOVT. IS OF COMPLETE VACANT PROPERTY IN ALL RESPECTS AND NOT OF DISPUTED/ENCUMBERED/COURT PROCEEDINGS RELATED PROPERTY AS IN OURS CASE SINCE MAJOR PORTIONS ARE OCCUPIED BY AN OLD TENANT PAYING VERY NEGLIGIBLE RENT AND FURTHER COURT PROCEEDINGS GOING ON AND EVEN AS ON DATE, THE SAME TENANT STILL OCCUPYING THOSE P ORTIONS WITH COURT PROCEEDINGS GOING ON CAUSING LOT OF TENSION/DEPRESSION ETC. AT ALL TH E TIMES. 3. THAT THE LD. AUTHORITY HAS NOT GIVEN THE DEDUCTI ON OF 25% ON ACCOUNT OF ENCUMBERED (DISPUTED) PROPERTY AS STATED IN DVO REPORT DUE TO A TENANT OCCUPYING MAJOR FRONT PORTIONS & ONGOING COURT PROCEEDINGS AND THEREBY FA IR MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY (100% SHARE) BY ADOPTING THE SAME BASIS WORKING OUT TO RS. 710.68 LACS. 4. THAT THE LD. AUTHORITY HAS NOT TAKEN INTO CONSID ERATION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED ONLY THE FIXED CONSIDERATION OF RS. 178.00 LACS (ON LY AN INSIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF RS. 1.50 LACS IN CASH AND THE REMAINING RS. 176.50 LACS THROUGH CHEQUES/RTGS CLEARLY REFLECTED IN BANKING ACCOUNTS) AND HAS NOT RECEIVED ANY OTHER AMOUNT AT ALL EXCEPTING THIS OF RS. 178.00 LACS. 5. THAT THE UPHOLDING OF ADDITION OF RS. 65,68,00 0/- MADE IN ASSESSMENT ORDER IS WITHOUT ANY BASIS, JUSTIFICATION & MERITS OF THE CA SE AND THEREBY IT IS LIABLE TO BE COMPLETELY DELETED IN FULL & FINAL AND ACCORDING IN COME TAX DEMAND OF RS. 20.39 LACS IS LIABLE TO BE QUASHED IN COMPLETE. 3. THE LD. AR INVITING ATTENTION TO THE ASSESSMENT ORDER S UBMITTED THAT ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER U /S 143(3) READ WITH 147 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT WAS PASSED TAKING NOTE OF THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SOLD SCO NO. 35, SEC. 11, PANCHKUL A WHICH WAS JOINTLY OWNED WITH THREE CO-OWNERS FOR A TOTAL CONS IDERATION OF RS. 7,12,00,000/-THE ASSESSEE TO THE EXTENT OF HER SHAR E IN THE AFORESAID PROPERTY, DECLARED LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN OF RS. 12,35,438/-. FROM A PERUSAL OF COPY OF SALE DEED, IT WAS NOTICED THAT THE COLLECTORATE RATE IN RESPECT OF THE SAID PROPERTY WORKED OUT AT RS. 9,74,72,000/-. LATER ON DURING TH E COURSE OF ASSTT. PROCEEDINGS, IT WAS FOUND THAT THE VALUE OF COLLEC TORATE RATE WAS RS. 12,42,76,022/- IN RESPECT OF DATE OF EXECUTION OF T HE SALE DEED I.E. 16.06.2011. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAD COMPUTED LONG -T ERM CAPITAL GAIN BY CONSIDERING SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS. 7,1 2,00,000/- INSTEAD OF THE COLLECTORATE VALUE THE AO IN VIEW OF PROVISIONS OF SEC. 50-C OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961, CONSIDERED THE VAL UE TO BE AS PER THE STAMP DUTY PAID. 3.1 NOTICE UNDER SEC. 148 OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 ACCORDINGLY, WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE ON 31.12.2014. IN RESPONSE THERETO, THE ASSESSEE, IT IS NOTED FURNISHED A COPY OF E-FILED R ETURN, ALREADY FILED ON 28.03.2013, DECLARING AN INCOME OF RS. 13, 22,040/-. ITA 755/CHD/2017 & ORS A.Y. 2012-13 PAGE 3 OF 10 3.2 A PERUSAL OF PARA 2 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, IT IS NOTED, SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO EXPLAIN WHY LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN OF RS. 1,32,69,005/- BE NOT COMPUTED IN VIEW OF SEC TION 50C OF THE ACT. REPLY DATED 25.01.2016, IT IS NOTED, WAS FILE D ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH IS EXTRACTED BY THE AO IN PARA 3. SINCE HEAVY RELIANCE HAS BEEN PLACED THEREON ON BEHALF OF THE A SSESSEE, IT IS EXTRACTED HEREUNDER FOR READY REFERENCE : 'I AM TO CONFIRM THAT SALE OF MY 25% SHARE IN THIS SCO NO. 35, SEC. 11, PANCHKULA WAS MADE FOR RS. 178.00 LACS (25% SHARE OF TOTAL SALES CONSIDERATION OF RS. 712.00 LACS) AND CALCULATION O F LONG TERM CAPITAL \ GAIN OF RS. 12,35,438/- HAS BEEN WORKED OUT ACCORDINGLY. I WISH TO SUBMIT HERE THAT AN AGREEMENT TO SELL DATED 24 TH OCTOBER, 2010 PERTAINING TO THIS SCO ENTERED INTO WITH SH. HEM CHANDER BANSAL (DIRECTOR OF M/S NINI MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED WITH WHOM SALE DEED OF THIS PROPERT Y HAS BEEN EXECUTED ON 16 TH JUNE 2011) ACKNOWLEDGING THEREIN ADVANCE OF RS, 52. 00 LACS RECEIVED THROUGH EIGHT ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES HAS ALREADY BEEN SUBMIT TED TO YOUR OFFICE ON 12 TH OCTOBER, 2015. FURTHER, I HAVE ALREADY FURNISHE D A COPY OF LEASE DEED DATED 22 ND SEPTEMBER, 2000 PERTAINING TO THIS SHOWROOM ONLY D ULY ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE PREVIOUS OWNERS OF THE SAID PROPERTY FO R A PERIOD OF TEN YEARS W.E.F. 16 LH JUNE, 2000 WITH M/S AXESS APPARELS IN C ONNECTION WITH COMPLETE HALF FLOOR ON THE GROUND FLOOR & HALF BASEMENT IN BASEMENT OF THIS PROPERTY FOR A TOTAL RENT OF RS. 20,000 ONLY D ULY REGISTERED WITH OFFICE OF THE SUB-REGISTRAR, PANCHKULA ON NON JUDICIAL STAMP PAPE RS OF RS. 9,720/-. FURTHER DUE TO DISPUTES/ NON-RECEIPT OF RENT ETC., THE LD. COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE, PANCHKULA HAS GIVEN ITS DECISION ON 1 ST SEPTEMBER, 2011, A COPY OF WHICH IS ENCLOS ED. HEREWITH FOR READY REFERENCE. FURTHER I AM E NCLOSING HEREWITH A DETAILED VALUATION REPORT DATED 4 TH JANUARY, 2016 MADE BY M/S ENGINEERS SERVICE S CONSULTANTS, APPROVED REGISTERED INCOME TAX VALUERS WHO HAS MADE IT TO RS. 712.57 LACS KEEPING IN VIEW OF HALF PORTIONS OF BAS EMENT & GROUND UNDER TENANCY SINCE 2000 & STILL IN POSSESSION OF THAT TE NANT AS ON DATE. 'I AM SURE YOU WILL APPRECIATE THAT IN CASE THERE I S ANY DISPUTE/ COURT CASE/ TENANT SITTING IN MAIN PORTIONS OF A COMMERCIAL SHOWROOM S INCE 2000 & STILL THERE EVEN AFTER SALE OF THIS SHOWROOM IN 201 1 RESULTING INTO DISTU RBANCE OF MIND AT ALL THE TIMES (EVEN- DURING SLEEP), TENSION/ PHYSICAL TORTU RE ETC. AND AT PARTICULAR PERIOD OF TIME, ANY HUMAN BEING JUST TO GET PEACE O F MIND & OTHER BASIC NECESSITIES TO RUN A SMOOTH FAMILY LIFE, DISPOSES OFF THAT PARTICU LAR PROPERTY AT ANY PRICE BEING OFFERED BUT THE SOLD OBJECTIVE BEHIND ALL THIS IS H EALTHY SLEEP/ PEACE OF MIND/ DECREASING A HYPERTENSION/ BLOOD PRESSURE ETC. UNDE R ALL THESE ADVERSE/ PREVAILING CIRCUMSTANCES, I HAD NO OTHER OPTION BUT JUST TO SE LL IT AT THE OFFERED PRICE SINCE THERE ARE VERY LIMITED/ FEW BUYERS WHO COME FORWARD TO PU RCHASE SUCH TYPE OF DISPUTE/ ON GOING COURT CASE PROCEEDINGS RELATED PROPERTIES. AC CORDINGLY, SALE AMOUNT OF RS. 178.00 LACS BEING 25% SHARE IN THIS PROPERTY IS FAC TUAL PREVAILING MARKET PRICE AT THE TIME OF SALE IN VIEW OF DISPUTES /COURT MATTERS ETC . AND I- AM SURE THAT YOU WILL AGREE TO ALL THIS ACTUAL POSITION IN THE MARKET. 3.3. IT IS NOTED THAT THE AO REFERRED THE MATTER TO THE DVO WHO DETERMINED THE FAIR MARKET VALUE AT RS. 10,98,91,600/- AS AGAINST SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS. 7,12,00,000/-. RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON VA RIOUS DECISIONS AND ON FACTS THE FOLLOWING OBJECTIONS ARE ALSO FOUND ON RECORD : 5. IN RESPONSE THERETO, THE A.R. OF THE A SSESSEE HAS OBJECTED TO THE VALUATION OF BUILDING STATING THEREIN THAT BUILT UP SHOWROOM NO. 35, SEC. 11, PANCHKULA WAS PURCHASED ON 30.03.2006 AT A VALUE OF RS. 94.58 LACS WHEREAS THE VALUE OF THE BUILDING WAS CONSIDERED BY THE DVO AT RS. 183.57 LACS. THE ASSESSEE HAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE DVO HAS APP LIED RATE AS ON L6.620LL ITA 755/CHD/2017 & ORS A.Y. 2012-13 PAGE 4 OF 10 I.E. DATE OF EXECUTION OF SALE DEED (F.Y. 2011-12) WHEREAS THE DATE OF AGREEMENT TO SELL WAS 24.10.2010) (F.Y. 2010-11) 4. HOWEVER, NOT CONVINCED THE RESPECTIVE ADDITIONS WERE MADE BY APPLYING THE COLLECTORATE RATE FOR FINANCIAL YEAR 2010-11 A S THE SALE DEED EXECUTED ON 16.06.2011 IT WAS HELD, WAS CULMINATION OF THE A GREEMENT ENTERED INTO ON 24.10.2010. THE ASSESSEE'S APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) WAS REJECTED. AGGRIEVED, THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED. 5. THE LD. AR CARRYING US THROUGH THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BE FORE THE AO AND THE CIT(A) AND THE DECISIONS ON FACTS SIMILAR TO THE PRESENT CASE SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) FAILED TO ADDRESS THE GRIEVANC E OF THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE SHARE OF THE ASSES SEE WAS 1/4 TH . REFERRING TO THE CASE LAW RELIED UPON BEFORE THE AO IN PAR AS 8 AND 9 NAMELY THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF SHRI SANJEEV LAL ETC. V CIT IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5899-5900 OF 2010 ( S.C.) AND DECISION OF HON'BLE DELHI TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO. 2171/DEL/2009 IN THE CASE OF ITO VS M/ S MODIPON LTD., MODINAGAR, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE SHOWROOM NO. 35 SECTOR 11, PANCHKULA WAS PURCHASED ON 30.03.2006 AT A VALUE OF RS. 9 4.58 LACS WHICH HAD BEEN VALUED BY THE DVO APPLYING THE RATE AS ON 16.06.2011 I.E. THE DATE OF EXECUTION OF SALE DEED INSTEAD OF 24.10.2010 I.E. THE DATE OF AGREEMENT TO SELL. THE AO, CONSIDERING THE COLLECTORATE RATE OF FINANCIAL YEAR 2010-11, TAKING NOTE OF THE FACT THAT THOUGH THE SALE DEED WAS EXECUTED ON 16.06.2011, THE RELEVANT DATE WOULD BE 24.10.2010 I.E. THE DATE OF THE AGREEMENT AND CONCLUDED THAT THE SALE CONSIDERATION WAS RS. 97,47,2000/- AND CONSIDERING THE ASSESSEE'S SHARE AS 1/4 TH THEREIN, MADE AN ADDITION IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE AFTER REDU CING THE COST OF ACQUISITION. THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE CIT(A), IT WAS SUBMITTE D, APART FROM VARIOUS OTHER ARGUMENTS HAD CANVASSED THAT NECESSARY RELIEF ON ACCOUNT OF THE FACT THAT IT WAS A DISPUTED PROPERTY SHOULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN . IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT IT WAS NOT A NEW FACT AS IT HAD BEEN NOT ED BY THE DVO HIMSELF AND ALSO HAD BEEN ARGUED BEFORE THE CIT(A). THE AD JUSTMENTS FOR THE ENCUMBERED PROPERTY, IT WAS SUBMITTED, HAD BEEN A CCEPTED BY THE DVO ALSO. ATTENTION WAS INVITED TO THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION S MADE BEFORE THE CIT(A) WHICH ADDRESS THE REASONS WHY DUE TO NON-P AYMENT OF RENT BY THE TENANT WHO WAS SITTING ON THE LEASED PROPERTY AT A VERY LOW RENT, THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY THUS, STOOD DRASTICALLY REDUCED DUE TO THESE FACTS. ATTENTION WAS INVITED TO PAPER BOOK PAGE NO. 37 WHICH IS COPY OF THE LEASE DEED ENTERED INTO BY THE TENANT ON 2 2.09.2000 WITH THE ORIGINAL OWNERS SHRI G.S.CHAWLA, SMT. BALJEET KAUR, SHRI INDE R SINGH, ITA 755/CHD/2017 & ORS A.Y. 2012-13 PAGE 5 OF 10 SHRI JATINDER SINGH FOR TEN YEARS. INVITING ATTENTION TO PAPER BOOK PAGE NO. 46, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT COPY OF THE SALE DEED DATED 16.06.2011 ITSELF RECORDS THE REASON WHY THE VALUE WAS LESS. FOR RE ADY REFERENCE, THE RELEVANT EXTRACT IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER : THAT THE DEAL BETWEEN THE PARTIES WAS STRUCK VIDE A GREEMENT TO SELL DATED 24.10.2010 AT THE MOMENT AND THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AS PER THE COLLECTOR RATES WAS RS. 9,74,72,000 (RUPEES NINE CRORES SEVENTY FOUR LACS A ND SEVENTY TWO THOUSAND ONLY). ON THE DATE WHEN THE DEAL WAS ENTERED, THE SCO UNDE R SALE WAS IN OCCUPATION OF THE TENANTS I.E. WHY THE VALUE WAS LESS THAN THE COLLEC TORATE RATES WHICH HAS BEEN PAID TODAY IN FULL AND FINAL TO THE SAID VENDORS. ( EMPHASIS PROVIDED) 6. INVITING ATTENTION TO PAPER BOOK PAGE 51, IT WAS SUBM ITTED THAT THE PROPERTY WAS EARNING A MONTHLY RENT OF RS. 40,000/-. TH E FACT THAT THERE WAS LITIGATION BETWEEN THE TENANT AND THE ORIGINAL OWNERS AS PARTIES NO. 1 TO 4 AND THE FOUR ASSESSEES AS 5 TO 8 IS EVIDENCED FR OM PAPER BOOK PAGE NO. 55 TO 63 WHICH IS JUDGEMENT AND ORDER OF CIVIL JU DGE, PANCHKULA DATED 01.09.2011. THE SPECIFIC PROPERTY, IT WAS H IGHLIGHTED, HAD BEEN SOLD ON 24.10.2010. REFERRING TO THE SAID JUDGEM ENT AND ORDER, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION AND MANDATORY INJUNCTION HAD BEEN FILED BY THE TENANT. AXESS APPARRELS RESTRAINING THE ORIGINAL OWNERS AND THE SUBSEQUENT OWNER S OF THE TENANTED PROPERTY I.E. THE ASSESSEE'S IN THE PRESENT PR OCEEDINGS FROM INTERFERING WITH THE PEACEFUL POSSESSION OF THE TENANTED PR OPERTY AND RESTRAINING THEM FROM DISPOSSESSING THE TENANTS AND REST RAINING THEM FROM DISCONNECTING THE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY OF THE TENANTED PREMISES AND DIRECTING THE DEFENDANTS (I.E. THE ASSESSEES) TO REST ORE WATER CONNECTION IN THE DEMISED PREMISES. ACCORDINGLY, IT WAS HIS SUBMISSION THAT THERE WAS NO SCOPE OF AMICABLY RECOVERIN G LET ALONE INCREASING THE RENT AND THE SITUATION HAD DETERIORATED T O THE EXTENT OF DISCONNECTION OF WATER AND ELECTRICITY CONNECTION IN THE CIR CUMSTANCES WHATEVER PRICE WAS OFFERED, HAD BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE FO UR LADIES. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO IOTA OF DOUBT THAT IT WAS A D ISPUTED PROPERTY WHICH HAD BEEN SOLD BY THE ASSESSEES AT WHATEVER PRICE WAS OFFERED AS THE FAIR MARKET VALUE STOOD REDUCED. 6.1 INVITING ATTENTION TO THE DVOS REPORT PLACED AT PAGES 20 TO 22, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THOUGH THE DVOS REPORT WAS OBJEC TED TO ON THE GROUND THAT THE COLLECTORATE RATE AS PER FINANCIAL YEAR 2011-12 SHOULD NOT THE BE TAKEN AND IT SHOULD BE COLLECTORATE RATE OF FI NANCIAL YEAR 2010-11, WHICH HAD NOT BEEN AGREED TO BY THE DVO, HO WEVER, THE DVO ITA 755/CHD/2017 & ORS A.Y. 2012-13 PAGE 6 OF 10 ALSO HAD GRANTED RELIEF TO THE EXTENT OF 25% ON THE VALUE TAKEN AS PER FINANCIAL YEAR 2011-12 TO THE EXTENT OF 25% AS IT WAS ACC EPTED BY HIM THAT IT WAS AN ENCUMBERED PROPERTY. THOUGH THE GRIEVA NCE THAT THE COLLECTORATE RATE OF 2010-11 FINANCIAL YEAR SHOULD BE RELIED UPON HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE AO, HOWEVER, RELIEF OF 25% CONSIDERE D TO BE REASONABLE BY THE DVO ON ACCOUNT OF THE FACT THAT IT WA S ENCUMBERED PROPERTY HAS NOT BEEN ACCEPTED. IT WAS HIS PRAYER TH AT THE ASSESSEE IS BEFORE THIS FORUM IN ALL THESE APPEALS ONLY PRAYING FOR AN APPROPRIATE DIRECTION ON ACCOUNT OF THIS REASONABLE CLAIM CONSISTENTLY MADE AND DEMONSTRATED BY FACTS AND EVIDENCE ON RECORD. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT NEITHER THE FACTS HAVE BEEN UPSET NOR ANY REASON HAS BEEN GIVEN IN THE ORDERS WHY THE RELIEF MADE HAS BEEN DENIED. 7. THE LD. SR.DR RELIES UPON THE IMPUGNED ORDER. 8. WE HAVE HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATER IAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE SHORT ISSUE WHICH FALLS FOR OUR CONSIDERAT ION IN THE PRESENT PROCEEDINGS REVOLVES AROUND THE FACT THAT CAN THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE BE ALLOWED IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE PROPERTY SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE WAS AN ENCUMBERED PROPERTY. THE SAID FACT IS STATED TO HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED AND CONSIDERED BY DVO WHO THOUGH DISAGR EED WITH ASSESSEE'S SUBMISSION ON WHICH FINANCIAL YEAR, RATES WERE T O BE APPLIED, HOWEVER, THE FACTUM OF ENCUMBERED PROPERTY WAS ACCEPTE D BY HIM AS HE GRANTED RELIEF TO THE EXTENT REDUCING THE VALUE OF PROPER TY BY 25% EVIDENCED BY HIS REPORT AT PAPER BOOK PAGE 21. WE N OTE THAT ALTHOUGH THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE AO ALSO PLEADED THAT ON ACCOUN T OF ACTUAL MARKET CONDITIONS AND SLOW DOWN OF THE ECONOMY, REAL ESTATE PRICE S HAD DROPPED AND THE ASSESSEE HAD NO OPTION IN ORDER TO E NSURE PEACE OF MIND, A HEALTHY SLEEP AND AVOID STRESS ON ACCOUNT OF HYPE RTENSION ETC. TO SELL THE PROPERTY AT THE PRICE OFFERED WHICH FACT WAS AGIT ATED EVEN BEFORE THE CIT(A). IT MAY NOT BE OUT OF PLACE TO EXTRACT FROM THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS PLACED ON RECORD BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE CIT(A) AVAILABLE AT PAPER BOOK PAGES 1 TO 6 ALONGWITH ANNEXURES : IT IS PERTINENT TO MENTION HERE THAT COLLECTORATE RATES ARE FIXED BY THE COMPETENT STATE GOVERNMENT AUTHORITIES FOR COMPLETE VACANT PROPERTY BUT IN OURS CASE, THE SAID PROPERTY I.E. SCO NO. 35, SECTOR 11, PANCHKULA WAS WITHIN THE PREVIEW OF DISPUTED PROPERTY BECAUSE OF PRESENCE OF A TENANT (M/S AXESS APPARELS ) OCCUPYING MAJOR FRONT PORTIONS IN TENANCY RIGHTS SINCE 2000 (FOR MORE THAN 10 YEARS) & PAYING JUST A RENT OF RS. 40,000 PER MONTH FOR ALL THESE PORTIONS I.E. HALF FRONT GROUND FLOOR & HALF PORTION OF BASEMENT OF SCO 35 SECTOR 11,PANCHKULA MEASURING 2400 SQ. FT. IN ALL AND FURTHER COURT PROCEEDINGS RELATING TO NON RECEIPT OF RENT/VACATION/DISPUTES ETC. GOING ON IN THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR ITA 755/CHD/2017 & ORS A.Y. 2012-13 PAGE 7 OF 10 DIVISION), PANCHKULA AT THAT TIME AND EVEN STILL NOW WHICH CLEARLY INDICATE THAT SAID PRONERTV WAS A DISNUTED PRONERTV. SO IT IS PERTINEN T TO MENTION HERE THAT COLLECTORATE RATES ARE FIXED BY THE COMPETENT STATE GOVERNMENT AUTHORI TIES FOR COMPLETE VACANT PROPERTY BUT IN OURS CASE, THE SAID PROPERTY I.E. SCO NO. 35 , SECTOR 11, PANCHKULA WAS WITHIN THE PREVIEW OF DISPUTED PROPERTY BECAUSE OF PRESENCE OF A TENANT (M/S AXESS APPARELS) OCCUPYING MAJOR FRONT PORTIONS IN TENANCY RIGHTS SINCE 2000 (FOR MORE THAN 10 YEARS) & PAYING JUST A RENT OF RS. 40, 000 PER MONTH FOR ALL THESE PORTIONS I.E. HALF FRONT GROUND FLOOR & HALF PORTION OF BASEMENT OF SCO 35 SECTOR 11,PANCHKULA MEASURING 2400 SQ. FT. IN ALL AND FURT HER COURT PROCEEDINGS RELATING TO NON RECEIPT OF RENT/VACATION/DISPUTES ETC. GOING ON IN THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION), PANCHKULA AT THAT TIME AND EVEN STILL NOW WHICH CLEARLY INDICATE THAT SAID PRONERTV WAS A DISNUTED PRONERTV. SO CONS IDERING OF COLLECTORATE RATE INSTEAD OF ACTUAL SALE CONSIDERATION FOR SUCH TYPES OF PROPERTIES FOR COMP UTING LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN IS TOTALLY UNJUSTIFIED AND INVALID. FURTHER, I WISH TO SUBMIT HERE THAT FOR A COMMON HOUSEWIFE WOMAN (MORE THAN 40 YEARS OLD), THE THINKING OF COURT PROCEEDINGS/DISPUTES ETC. RESULTS IN A LOT OF TENSION/DISTURBANCE OF PEACE OF MIND AT AL L THE TIMES (EVEN DURING SLEEP), PHYSICAL TORTURE ETC. AND AT PARTICULAR THIS PERIOD OF TIME, ANY HUMAN BEING JUST TO GET PEACE OF MIND/HEALTHY SLEEP & OTHER BASIC LIFE NECESSITIES TO RUN A SMOOTH FAMILY LIFE, DISPOSES OFF THAT PARTICULAR PROPERTY AT ANY PRICE BEING OFFERED. UNDER ALL THESE ADVERSE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE ASSESSEE HAD NO OPTION B UT JUST TO SELL IT AT THE OFFERED PRICE SINCE THERE ARE LIMITED/FEW BUYERS WHO COME FORWARD TO PURCHASE SUCH TYPE OF DISPUTED/ONGOING COURT CASE PROCEEDINGS RELATED PRO PERTY RESULTING INTO FALLING OF THIS PROPERTY UNDER THE CATEGORY OF DISTRESSED SALE WITH THE PRESENCE OF SO MANY UNFAVOURABLE FACTORS I.E. ONGOING COURT CASE PROCEEDINGS WITH THE TENANT - THE SAID TENANT IN EXISTENCE OCCUPYING MAJOR FRONT PORTIONS AT NOMINAL RENT - JOINT OWNERSHIP WITH THREE OTHER CO-OWNERS - UNDIVIDED SHARE - NO D EMAND FOR RENT PURPOSES ETC. ETC. IT IS SUBMITTED HERE THAT DURING INSPECTION OF THE SAID PROPERTY BY THE WHOLE TEAM OF DISTRICT VALUATION OFFICE, IT WAS FOUND THAT COMPLETE FIRST FLOOR & SECOND FLOOR WERE LYING VACANT FOR THE LAST SO MANY YEARS. DUE T O NEGLIGIBLE PARKING FACILITIES IN SECTOR 11 MARKET, PANCHKULA, THERE IS NO DEMAND OF SCOS IN THIS AREA FOR RENT PURPOSES WHICH RESULTS INTO LOWER FAIR MARKET VALUE, FURTHER REAR PORTIONS OF SAID PROPERTY MEASURING APPROX. 2000 SQ. FT. WERE TO KEEP OPEN AT ALL THE TIMES I.E. NO CONSTRUCTION OF COVERED AREA IS ALLOWED AS PER POLICIES & REGULATIONS OF HUDA. F URTHERMORE NO FIRST FLOOR & SECOND FLOOR ARE ALLOWED ON 800 SQ. FT. I.E. COVERED AREA IS ALL OWED ON GROUND FLOOR ONLY ON THE BACK PORTION OF THIS PROPE RTY. FURTHER THE CONCERNED HARYANA GOVT. AUTHORITIES ARE CONSIDERING TO REDUCE THE EXISTING HIGHER COLLECTORATE RATE BY 25 TO 35% AS LOT OF PROTESTS/MEMORANDUMS HAVE BEEN SUBMIT TED BY VARIOUS ASSOCIATIONS AND FURTHER COVERED AREA IN SECTOR 11 PANCHKULA IS ONLY 50% WHEREAS IT IS 100% IN SECTOR 8,9,10 RESPECTIVELY AND IT IS FREQUENTLY APP EARING IN LEADING NEWSPAPERS (NEWSPAPER CUTTING ENCLOSED HEREWITH FOR READY REFERENCE). OUT OF TOTAL SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS. 712.00 LACS, RS. 706.00 LACS WERE RECEIVED THROUGH ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES & RTGS AND JUST RS. 6.00 LACS WAS RECEIVED IN CASH AT THE TIME OF EXECUTION OF SALE DEED AND ALL THIS IS CLEARLY REFL ECTED IN STATEMENTS OF BANK ACCOUNTS SUBMITTED TO CONCERNED INCOME TAX AUTHORIT IES AND NO OTHER CONSIDERATION AMOUNT IN ANY FORM EXCEPTING THIS OF RS. 712.00 LACS HAS BEEN RECEIVED FROM THE SAID PURCHASER. IT IS CLEARLY STATED AT POINT NO. 1 IN SALE DEED OF THIS PROPERTY EXECUTED ON 16TH JUNE 2011 DULY REGISTERED WITH OFF ICE OF THE SUB-REGISTRAR, PANCHKULA AT SERIAL NO. 964 DATED 16-06-2011, BOOK NO. 1, VOLUME NO. 1, PAGE NO. 41 WHICH IS READ AS UNDER :- 'THAT THE DEAF BETWEEN THE PARTIES WAS STRUCK VIDE AGREEMENT TO SELL DATED 24/10/2010 AT THE MOMENT AND THE VALUE OF THE PROPE RTY AS PER THE COLLECTORATE RATES WAS RS. 9,74,72,000/- (RUPEESNINE CRORES SEVE NTY FOUR LACS AND SEVENTY TWO THOUSAND ONLY). ON THE DAY WHEN THE DEAL WAS EN TERED, THE SCO UNDER SALE WAS IN OCCUPATION OF THE TENANTS I.E. WHY THE VALUE WAS LESS THAN THE COLLECTORATE RATES WHICH HAS BEEN PAID TODAY IN FULL AND FINAL T O THE SAID VENDORS.' AS THE MATTER WAS REFERRED TO THE OFFICE OF THE DIS TRICT VALUATION OFFICER FOR CALCULATING THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE SAID PROPE RTY, ALL THE ACTUAL FACTS ABOUT THIS ITA 755/CHD/2017 & ORS A.Y. 2012-13 PAGE 8 OF 10 PROPERTY I.E. DISPUTED PROPERTY WITH ONGOING COURT CASE WITH THE TENANT - TENANT PAYING NEGLIGIBLE RENT EVEN AFTER OCCUPYING MAJOR F RONT PORTIONS OF THE PROPERTY - COMPLETE FIRST & SECOND FLOOR LYING VACANT FOR THE LAST SO MANY YEARS - RESTRICTION POLICIES OF HUDA FOR CONSTRUCTION - NEGATIVE POINTS OF CORNER PLOT ETC. WERE EXPLAINED TO THEM. AFTER CONSIDERING ALL THE FACTS, CERTAIN ADJUSTMENTS WERE MADE BY THAT TEAM IN THE VALUE OF THE SAID PROPERTY BY MAKI NG A DEDUCTION OF 25% DUE TO ENCUMBERED PROPERTY (ONGOING COURT PROCEEDINGS WITH THE TENANT - MAJOR FRONT PORTIONS ON RENT AT A VERY NOMINAL RENT. - THE SAID TENANT STILL IN EXISTENCE OCCUPYING THE SAME PORTIONS AS ON DATE - JOINT OWNE RSHIP WITH THREE OTHER CO- OWNERS - NO DEMAND FOR RENT PURPOSES AS COMPLETE FI RST & SECOND FLOOR WERE LYING VACANT FOR THE LAST SO MANY YEARS ETC.). FURT HER AN ADDITION OF 5% ON ACCOUNT OF CORNER PLOT WAS MADE WHICH IS COMPLETELY ILLEGAL & UNJUSTIFIED. IT IS PERTINENT TO MENTION HERE THAT THERE ARE SO MANY ADVERSE/DISADVANTAGES FACTORS ASSOCIATED WI TH A CORNER PLOT AND THEREBY THE ALLOTTING AUTHORITY (HU DA) DOES NOT CHARGE ANY ENHANCED/INCREASED PRICE ON ACCOUNT OF CORNERED LOCATION. ADVERSE/DISADVANTA GES FACTORS OF A CORNER PLOT COMPRISES OPEN/VACANT SMALL SPACE ON THE WALL SIDE OF CORNERED PROPERTY AND THEREBY PUBLIC USES IT FOR DUMPING THEIRS SEWAGE/DISPOSING THEIR BIOLOGICAL WASTES AND ALSO AS WASHROOM RESULTING INTO A LOT OF SMELL/FULL OF MOSQUITOES AT ALL THE TIMES, PERIODICAL INCURRING O F HEAVY MAINTENANCE COST ETC. ETC. TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION ALL THE FACTS AND ABOVEME NTIONED ADJUSTMENTS, THE SAID OFFICE OF DVO HAD CALCULATED THE FAIR VALUE OF THE PROPERTY BY APPLYING COLLECTORATE RATE AS PREVAILING ON THE DATE OF EXECUTION OF SALE DEED (16-06-2011 I.E. F.Y. 2011- 12). TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2(47) OF I.T. ACT 1961 AND OF VARIOUS JUDGEMENTS, THE LD.' ASSESSING OFFICER HAD TAKEN THE BASIS OF COLLECTORATE RATE PREVAILING ON THE DATE OF AGREEME NT TO SELL (24-10-2010 I.E. F.Y. 2010-11) RATHER THAN THE COLLECTORATE RATE AS PREVA ILING AS ON THE DATE OF EXECUTION OF SALE DEED BUT HAD NOT CONSIDERED THE ADJUSTMENTS MADE BY THE LD. DISTRICT VALUATION OFFICER IN ITS VALUATION REPORT DUE TO EN CUMBERED PROPERTY. IT IS TO BE EMPHASIZED HERE THAT THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER HAS COMPLETELY IGNORED THE BASIC FUNDAMENTALS OF FAIR MARKET VALUE ASSESSED BY DISTR ICT VALUATION OFFICER BY NOT CONSIDERING THE GENUINE/FACTUAL ADJUSTMENTS MADE BY THAT OFFICE IN ITS VALUATION REPORT DUE TO VARIOUS ENCUMBRANCES ATTACHED TO THIS PROPERTY I.E. ONGOING COURT PROCEEDINGS WITH THE TENANT - MAJOR FRONT PORTIONS ON RENT AT A VERY NOMINAL VALUE - THE SAID TENANT STILL IN EXISTENCE OCCUPYIN G THE SAME PORTIONS AS ON DATE - JOINT OWNERSHIP WITH THREE OTHER CO-OWNERS - NO DEM AND FOR RENT PURPOSES AS COMPLETE FIRST & SECOND FLOOR WERE LYING VACANT FOR THE LAST SO MANY YEARS ETC. BECAUSE, THE MAIN PURPOSE OF REFERRING VALUATION TO THE SAID VALUATION OFFICE WAS TO ASCERTAIN THE ACTUAL FAIR MARKET VALUE OF SUCH DISPUTED PROPERTY AND CONSEQUENTLY BY NOT ADOPTING THE GENUINE/FACTUAL AD JUSTMENTS MADE BY THAT OFFICE HAS NOT RESULTED INTO CORRECT FAIR MARKET VALUE OF SUCH TYPE OF PROPERTY AT ALL. A DETAILED CALCULATION OF FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE SA ID PROPERTY BY ADOPTING THE SAME BASIS OF THE DISTRICT VALUATION OFFICER BUT NOT CONSIDERING THE ILLOGICAL/UNRELIABLE ADDITION OF 5%, FOR CORNER PLOT IS AS UNDER : S.NO. PARTICULARS AMOUNT ( RS. IN LACS) I) AGREED SALE CONSIDERATION 974.72 LESS :- ENCUMBERED PROPERTY ON ACCOUNT OF CO-OWNERSHIP, UNDIVIDED SHARE RIGHTS & INTEREST, ENCUMBRANCE/LESSER DEMAND, ONGOI NG COURT CASE PROCEEDINGS, MAJOR FRONT PORTIONS ON RENT AT VERY NOMINAL VALUE, THE SAID TENANT STILL IN EXISTENCE OCCUPYING THE SAME PORTIONS AS ON DATE ETC. 974.72 LACS X 25% 243.68 B) DEPRECIATION DUE TO OLD CONSTRUCTIONS (IN LUMPSUM-RS. 33.49 LACS TAKEN IN DVO REPORT 19 .04 262.72 ACTUAL FAIR MARKET VALUE 712.00 FURTHER A DETAILED VALUATION REPORT DATED 4TH JANUA RY 2016 MADE BY M/S ENGINEERS SERVICES CONSULTANTS, APPROVED REGISTERED INCOME TAX VALUERS WHO HAS MADE IT TO 712.57 LACS KEEPING IN VIEW OF ALL R ELEVANT FACTS WAS ALSO SUBMITTED TO LD. ASSESSING OFFICER. I WISH TO DRAW YOURS KIND ATTENTION TO THE JUDGEMENT MADE BY THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'C' BENCH, CHENNAI, DATED 7TH JUNE 2013 IN THE CASE OF ACIT, COMPANY CIRCLE IV(3), CHENNAI VS. MIL INDUSTRIES LTD (ITA NO.988(MDS)/2011 FOR A.Y. 2005-06) WHEREIN THE INCOME TAX ITA 755/CHD/2017 & ORS A.Y. 2012-13 PAGE 9 OF 10 APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'C' BENCH., CHENNAI CONSIDERED T HE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF A LAND FOR COMPUTING LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN AS RS. 2. 50 CRORES AGAINST COLLECTORATE RATE OF RS. 3.96 CRORES AND DVO VALUE OF RS. 3.55 CRORES ON THE BASIS OF DISTRESS SALE. BUT THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER HAS IGNORED THIS ACTU AL FACT/POSITION IN VIEW OF LIMITING TIME FACTOR FOR COMPLETING OF TIME BARRING INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT AT END OF THE PERIOD I.E. ON 31-03-2016. THE LD. INCOM E TAX OFFICER HAS CONDUCTED THE PROCEEDINGS IN A HASTE MANNER WITHOUT HAVING A LOOK AT THE SERIOUSNESS OF THE CASE AND HAS MADE AN ADDITION OF RS. 65.68 LACS BY TAKING COLLECTORATE RATE OF RS. 974.72 LACS AS FULL VALUE CONSIDERATION WHIC H IS TOTALLY UNJUSTIFIED, ILLEGAL, ARBITRARY & WITHOUT FACTS OF THE CASE. KEEPING IN V IEW ALL OF OUR AFOREMENTIONED GENUINE VALID SUBMISSION, IT IS HEREBY PRAYED THAT ADDITIONAL INCOME OF RS. 65.68 LACS/ADDITIONAL INCOME TAX DEMAND OF RS 20.30 LACS CALCULATED ON THE BASIS OF THE AFOREMENTIONED AMOUNT OF INCOME MADE BY THE LD. INC OME TAX OFFICER BE DELETED IN FULL AND FINAL. 8.1 THUS, WE NOTE THAT THE CLAIM IS CONSISTENTLY ON RECOR D. EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT THEREOF HAS BEEN TAKEN NOTE OF BY THE DVO ITSE LF AND WE FURTHER NOTE THAT IT IS NOT REBUTTED ON FACTS OR SHOWN TO BE IN CORRECT ON FACTS OR FALSE BY THE TAX AUTHORITIES. IT IS FURTHER SEEN THAT THIS SPECIFIC ISSUE WAS AGITATED BEFORE THE CIT(A) SPECIFICALLY VIDE GROUND NO. 2. SAM E IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER FOR READY REFERENCE : 2. THAT THE LD. INCOME OFFICER HAS NOT GIVEN THE D EDUCTION OF 25% ON ACCOUNT OF ENCUMBERED (DISPUTED) PROPERTY AS STATED IN DVO REP ORT DUE TO A TENANT OCCUPYING MAJOR FRONT PORTIONS & ONGOING COURT PROC EEDINGS AND THEREBY FAIR MARKET VALUE BY ADOPTING THE SAME BASIS WORKING OUT TO RS. 710.68 LACS. 8.2. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE SPECIFIC FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT (A) AND FOUND THAT NO REASON HAS BEEN GIVEN WHY THE RELIEF SUGGE STED BY THE DVO AND SUPPORTED BY FACTS HAS NOT BEEN ACCEPTED. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE FIND THAT THE RELIANCE PLACED UPON BY THE LD. SR.DR ON THE FINDINGS OF THE CIT(A) IS NOT OF MUCH HELP TO THE REVENUE. WE NOTE THAT IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE SPECIFIC PROPERTY WAS A DISPUTED PROPER TY AS THE FACT THAT IT WAS A DISPUTED PROPERTY WHICH IS CONSISTENT CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE TAX AUTHORITIES, ADMITTEDLY IS NOT UNDER CHALLE NGE. WE NOTE THAT THE RELATIONS OF THE ORIGINAL OWNER AND THE ASSESSEE WITH THE TENANT WERE ACRIMONIOUS TO THE EXTENT THAT THE TENANT HAD TO RESORT TO LEGAL REMEDY FOR RESTORING BASIC AMENITIES LIKE WATER CONNECTION ETC. AND PETITION THE COURT THAT THE OWNERS I.E ASSESSEES IN THE PRESENT PROCEEDINGS BE RESTRAINED FROM DISPOSSESSIONING THE TENAN T ILLEGALLY AND FORCIBLY AND RESTRAINED FROM DISCONNECTING THE ELECTRICITY AND SEEKS DIRECTION TO RESTORE WATER CONNECTION. THUS, NOT WITHSTA NDING THE OTHER ARGUMENTS NAMELY FALLING PRICES AND RESTRICTIONS, IF ANY, PRE VALENT ON CONSTRUCTION ETC. IN THE SPECIFIC SECTOR VIS--VIS THE OTH ER NEARBY SECTORS. WE HOLD THAT THE ASSESSEE DESERVES TO SUCCEED ON THE GROUNDS OF ITA 755/CHD/2017 & ORS A.Y. 2012-13 PAGE 10 OF 10 ENCUMBERED PROPERTY ITSELF. THE QUESTION WHICH NEXT ARISE S IS THJE QUANTUM OF RELIEF TO BE ESTIMATED ON THIS GROUND. CONSIDER ING THE ESTIMATE ALREADY AVAILABLE ON RECORD I.E. OF THE DVO, WE ACCE PT THE SAME AND DIRECT THE AO TO GRANT NECESSARY RELIEF. 8.3 THE GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS, ACCORDINGLY, ALLOWED. 9. SINCE SIMILAR ARGUMENTS ON SIMILAR FACTS IN THE CASE OF CO -OWNERS IS AVAILABLE ON RECORD, FOLLOWING THE VIEW TAKEN IN ITA 755/CH D/2017, THE PRAYER IS ALLOWED. 10. IN THE RESULT, APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 03 AUGUST,2017. SD/- SD/- ( B.R.R.KUMAR) (DIVA SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER POONAM COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR ASSTT. REGISTRAR ITAT,CHANDIGARH.