M/s Munjal Castings, Ludhiana V. ACIT, Ludhiana

ITA 774/CHANDI/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7060 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 1 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-09-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 25-08-2014
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 27-07-2012
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANJIT SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: SUBHASH AGGARWAL
• Keywords: Earning of tax free income
• Section: 143(3); 14A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH A CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI T.R.SOOD ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 774/CHD/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09 M/S MUNJAL CASTINGS, VS THE A.C.I.T., 730, INDUSTRIAL AREA-B, CIRCLE V, LUDHIANA. LUDHIANA. PAN : AACFM1084E (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI SUBHASH AGGARWAL RESPONDENT BY : SHRI MANJIT SINGH DATE OF HEARING : 25.08.2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 15.09.2014 O R D E R PER SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAIN ST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-I I, LUDHIANA DATED 04.05.2012 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-0 9 AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT 'THE ACT'). 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL : 1. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) -HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING TH E COMPUTATION OF DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 1,11,549/-(48346/-+63203/-)MADE BY A.O. U/S 14A R.W.RULE 8D OF INCOME TAX RULES. 2. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.64,690/- MADE BY THE A.O. AFTER GIVING CREDIT OF RS.46,859/- ALREADY DISALLOWED BY THE APPELLANT. 3. THAT THE AFORESAID DISALLOWANCE IS AGAINST THE LAW AND FACTS OF THE CASE. 4. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DISALLOWING AN INTEREST OF RS.39,262/- ON DEBIT BALANCE IN THE ACCOUNT OF ONE OF THE PARTNER IGNORING THE FACTS THAT THERE WAS HUGE CREDIT IN THE ACCOUNT S OF OTHER PARTNERS ON WHICH NO INTEREST WAS BEING PAID. 2 3. THE GROUND OF APPEAL NOS. 1 TO 3 RELATE TO THE D ISALLOWANCE MADE UNDER SECTION 14A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT READ W ITH RULE 8D OF IT RULES AMOUNTING TO RS. 1,11,549/- 4. THE BRIEF FACTS RELATING TO THE ISSUE ARE THAT DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSEE HAD DECLARED INVE STMENT OF RS. 1.31 CR IN ASSETS, INCOME FROM WHICH WAS EXEMPT FR OM TAX. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE DURING TH E YEAR HAD INCURRED AND CLAIMED INTEREST EXPENDITURE OF RS. 14 ,76,408/-. THE ASSESSEE WAS SHOW CAUSED TO EXPLAIN AS TO WHY THE DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14A OF THE ACT SHOULD NOT BE MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. IN REPLY, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT NO I NVESTMENT WAS MADE DURING THE YEAR AND ON THE CONTRARY, CERTAIN I NVESTMENTS WERE DISPOSED OF DURING THE YEAR ON WHICH THE ASSES SEE HAD PAID SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAINS AS REFLECTED IN THE COMPUT ATION OF INCOME. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, IN VIEW OF THE PROV ISIONS OF SECTION 14A OF THE ACT READ WITH RULE 8D OF THE IT RULES WAS OF THE VIEW THAT INDIRECT EXPENDITURE LIKE INTEREST WH ICH WAS NOT ATTRIBUTABLE TO ANY PARTICULAR INCOME OR RECEIPT UN DER RULE 8D(2)(II) AND FURTHER % OF THE VALUE OF INVESTME NTS TO COVER UP INCIDENTAL INDIRECT EXPENSES HAD TO BE DISALLOWED U NDER RULE 8D(2)(III) OF THE ACT. IN VIEW THEREOF, THE ASSESS ING OFFICER MADE A DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 48,346/- UNDER RULE 8D(2 )(II) OF THE IT RULES AND RS. 63,203/- UNDER RULE 8D(2)(III) OF IT RULES, IN ALL DISALLOWANCE OF RS.1,11,549/- WAS WORKED OUT AN D AS THE ASSESSEE HAD ALREADY DISALLOWED RS. 46,859/-, THE B ALANCE DISALLOWANCE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE WAS RS. 6 4,690/-. THE SAID DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS UPHELD BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AGAINST WH ICH THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL. 3 5. THE LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT NO NEW INVESTMENT HAD BEEN MADE DURING THE YEAR AND ALL TH E OLD INVESTMENTS WERE MADE OUT OF OWN FUNDS AND NO BORRO WED FUNDS WERE UTILIZED FOR MAKING THE SAID INVESTMENTS. FUR THER, IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD A TOTAL CAPITAL O F ABOUT 30 CRORES AND THE TOTAL INVESTMENT DURING THE YEAR IN ASSETS ON WHICH INCOME WAS EXEMPT WERE ABOUT RS. 1 CRORE. IT WAS F URTHER POINTED OUT BY THE LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSESSE E HAD HIMSELF DISALLOWED A SUM OF RS. 46,859/- AS COMPUTED AT PAG E 3 OF THE PAPER BOOK. FURTHER, IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT THE P ERUSAL OF THE EXPENDITURE CLAIMED DURING THE YEAR REFLECTED THAT NONE OF THE EXPENDITURE PERTAINED TO EARNING OF EXEMPT INCOME. THE LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE ALSO STRESSED THAT IN THE PRECEDIN G YEAR, ONLY DISALLOWANCE ON ACCOUNT OF ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES HAD BEEN MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE AND NO DISALLOWAN CE HAD BEEN MADE ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE TAX FREE INVESTMENTS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. 6. THE LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE PLACED RELIANCE ON TH E ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AND POINTE D OUT THAT THE DISALLOWANCE HAS BEEN CORRECTLY WORKED OUT BY T HE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORD. THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION HA D ADMITTEDLY MADE INVESTMENT IN ASSETS, INCOME FROM WHICH WAS EX EMPT FROM TAX. IN VIEW THEREOF, THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 14 A OF THE ACT READ WITH RULE 8D OF THE IT RULES WERE SQUARELY APP LICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDER ATION IS ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. THE FIRST OBJECTION RAISE D BY THE LD. AR 4 FOR THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT NO FURTHER DISALLOWANCE W AS WARRANTED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 14A OF THE ACT AS T HE ASSESSEE, VOLUNTARILY HAD DISALLOWED A SUM OF RS. 46,859/-. ANOTHER OBJECTION RAISED BY THE LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 14A OF THE ACT WERE NOT TO BE APPLIED IN RELATION TO THE INTEREST EXPENDITURE ATTRIBUTABLE T O EARNING OF EXEMPT INCOME AS NO SUCH DISALLOWANCE WAS MADE IN T HE EARLIER YEAR. IN RESPECT OF THE BALANCE EXPENDITURE I.E. 0 .5% OF THE VALUE OF THE INVESTMENT, THE DISALLOWANCE HAD ALREADY BEE N MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. ANOTHER ASPECT OF THE ISSUE RAISED BY TH E LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD WORKED OUT THE DISALLOWANCE ON INTEREST UNDER SECTION 8D(2)(II) ON GROSS INTEREST EXPENDITURE WHEREAS NET INTEREST EXPENDITURE HAD TO BE CONSIDERED. 8. ON THE PERUSAL OF RECORD, WE FIND THAT DURING TH E YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED DIVIDEND O F RS. 2,29,37,500/- WHICH WAS EXEMPT IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME FILED FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE EXPENDITURE BY WAY OF INTE REST INCURRED ON INCOME CLAIMED EXEMPT WORKS OUT TO RS. 20,309/- AND THE DISALLOWANCE @ 0.5% OF THE AVERAGE OF THE VALUE OF INVESTMENT WORKS OUT TO RS. 26,550/-. THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE V OLUNTARY DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14A OF THE ACT AT RS. 46 ,859/-. THE TOTAL ASSETS AS ON 31.03.2007 WERE OF RS. 37.68 CRO RES AND AS ON 31.03.2008 WERE RS. 39.59 CRORES. THE ASSESSEE HAD TAKEN THE AVERAGE OF THE INVESTMENT IN ASSETS AT RS. 38.60 CR ORES AND HAD WORKED OUT THE DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST AT RS. 20,3 09/-. SIMILARLY, THE DISALLOWANCE UNDER RULE 8D(2)(III) O F THE IT RULES WAS TAKEN ON THE AVERAGE OF THE VALUE OF INVESTMENT S AND 5 COMPUTED AT RS. 26,550/-. THE DETAILED WORKINGS AR E ENCLOSED AT PAGE 3 OF THE PAPER BOOK. 9. THE LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE, ON THE OTHER HAND, HAD RELIED ON SERIES OF CASE LAWS FOR THE PROPOSITION THAT NO DIS ALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14A OF THE ACT WAS WARRANTED OUT OF THE INT EREST EXPENDITURE. WE FIND NO MERIT IN THE PLEA OF THE A SSESSEE IN THIS REGARD IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HIMSEL F HAD COMPUTED THE SAID DISALLOWANCE OUT OF INTEREST EXPENDITURE A T RS. 20,309/- BY TAKING THE AVERAGE VALUE OF THE ASSETS. IN OTHER W ORDS, THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF ADMITS THAT THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 8D(2)(II ) WERE APPLICABLE TO THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. FURTHER, THE ASSE SSEE HAD ALSO MADE THE DISALLOWANCE ON ACCOUNT OF THE ADMINISTRAT IVE EXPENSES @ 0.5% OF THE AVERAGE VALUE OF INVESTMENTS. THE SAID DISALLOWANCE WAS WORKED OUT UNDER RULE 8D(2)(III) OF THE IT RULE S. IN VIEW OF THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE SUE-MOTTO, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 8D ARE APPLICABLE TO THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION I.E. ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. THE RE LIANCE BY THE LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE ON VARIOUS CASE LAWS IN THIS RE GARD ARE MISPLACED. THE MAJORITY OF THE SAID CASE LAWS RELA TE TO THE ASSESSMENT YEARS PRIOR TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 I .E. THE YEAR FROM WHICH THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 8D ARE APPLICABLE. FU RTHER, THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF HAS WORKED OUT DISALLOWANCE BOTH U NDER RULE 8D(2)(II) AND 8D(2)(III) OF THE IT RULES AND IN VIE W OF THE ABOVESAID FACTS, WE FIND NO MERIT IN THE RELIANCE P LACED UPON BY THE LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE ON THE VARIOUS CASE LAWS AN D THE SAME ARE NOT BEING REFERRED TO. 10. NOW COMES THE QUESTION OF THE DETERMINATION OF THE DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14A READ WITH RULE 8D OF THE IT RULES. 6 THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS THAT ONLY NET INTEREST SHOULD B E TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT, WHILE COMPUTING THE DISALLOWANCE UNDER SEC TION 8D(II) OF THE IT ACT. IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND IN VIEW OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE, WE RESTORE THIS ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF ASS ESSING OFFICER FOR THE LIMITED PURPOSE OF DETERMINING THE DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14A OF THE ACT READ WITH RULE 8D OF THE IT RULES AN D THE COMPUTATION WOULD BE WORKED OUT AFTER VERIFYING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE OF NETTING OF INTEREST EXPENDITURE. SIMILA RLY, THE DISALLOWANCE UNDER RULE 8D(III) OF THE IT RULES NEE DS TO BE VERIFIED AND WE RESTORE THIS ISSUE ALSO TO THE ASSESSING OFF ICER. THE GROUND OF APPEAL NOS. 1 TO 3 ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL P URPOSES. 11. THE ISSUE RAISED IN GROUND OF APPEAL NO. 4 IS A GAINST THE DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST ON DEBIT BALANCE IN THE AC COUNT OF ONE OF THE PARTNERS. IN THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE CUMULA TIVE BALANCE OF ALL THE PARTNERS AT THE CLOSE OF THE YEAR WAS IN CREDIT WHEREAS THE CAPITAL BALANCE OF ONE OF THE PARTNERS WAS IN DEBIT . THE CUMULATIVE BALANCE OF THE PARTNERS AT THE CLOSE OF THE YEAR WA S RS. 30,51,09,353/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, HOWEVER DUR ING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS HAD MADE A DISALLOWANCE O F RS. 39,262/- UNDER SECTION 36(1)(III) OF THE ACT ON ACCOUNT OF T HE INTEREST ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE NEGATIVE BALANCE OF ONE OF THE PARTNERS. THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US WAS THAT IN VIEW OF THE H UGE CREDIT BALANCE OF THE PARTNERS WHICH REMAINED POSITIVE THROUGH OUT THE YEAR AND EVEN AT THE END OF THE YEAR, THERE WAS NO MERIT IN ANY DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 36(1)(III) OF THE ACT. 12. THE LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE, ON THE OTHER HAND, PLACED RELIANCE ON THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APP EALS). 13. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORD. THE ISSUE RAISED BEFORE US WAS IN RELATION TO DISAL LOWANCE OF 7 INTEREST BEING ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE NEGATIVE BALANCE OF THE PARTNER, WHERE CUMULATIVE BALANCE OF THE OTHER PARTNERS ALON GWITH THE PARTNER HAVING DEBIT BALANCE WERE TO BE CONSIDERED IN ORDER TO COMPUTE THE DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 36(1)(III) O F THE ACT. WE FIND THAT SIMILAR ISSUE AROSE BEFORE CHANDIGARH BEN CH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN TEX DESIGNERS VS ITO ITA NO. 1235/CHD/2 011 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 VIDE ORDER DATED 19.06.2 014 AND THE TRIBUNAL HAD HELD AS UNDER : 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORD. THE ASSESSEE WAS A PARTNERSHIP CONCERN AND CONSTITUTED OF THREE PARTNERS AS DETAILED IN THE PA RTNERS CAPITAL ACCOUNT PLACED AT PAGE 4 OF THE PAPER BOOK. ONE OF THE PARTNER SHRI KANWAL KHURANA HAD A NET DEBIT BALANCE OF RS. 94,12,693/- AT THE CLOSE OF THE YEAR AS AGAINST WHICH THE OTHER TWO PARTNERS SHRI MOHINDER MOHAN KHURANA AND SHRI SURINDER LAL KHURANA HAD CREDIT BALANCES OF RS. 38,44,234/- AND RS. 52,41,88 4/- RESPECTIVELY. THE NET CAPITAL BALANCE OF THE PARTN ERS WAS DEBIT RS. 3,26,575/-. DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED INTEREST EXPENDITURE TO BANK AT RS. 792,226/- AND INTEREST O N LOANS AT RS. 753,804/-. THE CASE OF THE REVENUE WA S THAT THE INTEREST BEARING FUNDS WERE USED BY THE ASSESSE E TO ADVANCE INTEREST FREE FUNDS TO ONE OF THE PARTNERS WHO IN- TURN HAD UTILIZED THE SAME FOR PERSONAL PURPOSES. CONSEQUENTLY, THE INTEREST RELATED TO SUCH BORROWED CAPITAL BY THE PARTNER SHRI KANWAL KHURANA WAS TO B E DISALLOWED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE AT RS. 10,16,397/-. 7. THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ORDER IN ITA NO. NO. 198/CHD/2010 DATED 30.08.2010 HAD CONSIDERED THE DISPUTE ARISING IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 WHEREIN ONE OF THE PARTNER HAD OVERDRAWN HIS CAPITAL AND UTILIZ ED THE SAME FOR NON-BUSINESS PURPOSES BUT DEBIT BALANCE OF THE PARTNER WAS LESS THAN THE COMBINED CREDIT BALANCES OF THE OTHER TWO PARTNERS I.E. THE CUMULATED CAPITAL A CCOUNT OF ALL THE PARTNERS WAS CREDIT BALANCE. THE TRIBUN AL IN VIEW OF THE SAME IN-TURN FOLLOWING THE RATIO LAID D OWN BY THE CHANDIGARH BENCH OF TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF M/S ANSYSCO IN ITA NO. NO. 883/CHD/2008 VIDE ORDER DATE D 17.09.2009 APPLIED THE RATIO AND HELD THAT SINCE TH E COMBINED BALANCE OUTSTANDING IN THE PARTNERS CAPIT AL ACCOUNT WAS IN CREDIT, IT COULD NOT BE SAID TO BE A CASE OF DIVERSION OF FUNDS FOR NON-BUSINESS PURPOSES. 8. NOW COMING TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, THE CUMULATIVE CAPITAL BALANCE OF THE PARTNER IS NEGATI VE FIGURE. CONSEQUENTLY, THE PRECEDENT RELIED UPON BY THE 8 LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FA CTS OF THE PRESENT CASE WHERE ONE OF THE PARTNER HAS OVERD RAWN HIS CAPITAL WHICH IS OVER AND ABOVE THE CUMULATIVE CAPITAL BALANCE (CREDIT) OF THE OTHER PARTNERS AND WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAD BORROWED INTEREST BEARING FUNDS, T HEN IT CANNOT BE HELD THAT THERE WAS NO DIVERSION OF FUNDS FOR NON-BUSINESS PURPOSES. IN VIEW THEREOF, WE HOLD TH AT THE INTEREST RELATABLE TO SUCH CAPITAL BALANCES OVER DR AWN BY THE PARTNER SHRI KANWAL KHURANA IS TO BE CONSIDERED FOR COMPUTING THE DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST UNDER SECTIO N 36(1)(III) OF THE ACT. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFI CER IS DIRECTED TO RECOMPUTE THE INTEREST EXPENDITURE RELA TABLE TO SUCH AMOUNTS BY TAKING THE DAY TO DAY BALANCE OF ALL THE THREE PARTNERS AND ALSO BY IGNORING THE PROFITS CREDITED TO THE PARTNERS CAPITAL ACCOUNT AT THE CL OSE OF THE YEAR. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL AFFORD REASO NABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE AND RECOMPUT E THE DISALLOWANCE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE IN ACCORD ANCE WITH OUR DIRECTIONS. THE GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS THUS, ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 14. THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE ARE IDENTICAL TO THE FACTS BEFORE CHANDIGARH BENCH OF TRIBUNAL IN TEX DESIGNER S VS ITO (SUPRA) AND FOLLOWING THE PARITY OF REASONING, WE H OLD THAT WHERE THE CUMULATIVE BALANCE OF THE PARTNER AT THE CLOSE OF THE YEAR WERE ON THE CREDIT SIDE, THERE IS NO MERIT IN ANY DISALL OWANCE ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST BEING ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE DEBIT BALANCE OF ONE OF THE PARTNER. ACCORDINGLY, WE DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFI CER TO DELETE THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 39,262/-. THE GROUND OF APPEAL NO. 4 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS THUS, ALLOWED. 15. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 15 TH SEPTEMBER,2014. SD/- SD/- ( T.R.SOOD) (SUSH MA CHOWLA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL M EMBER DATED: 15 TH SEPTEMBER,2014 POONAM COPY TO: THE APPELLANT, THE RESPONDENT, THE CIT(A), THE CIT, DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT/CHD