M/s MSJ Bath Fittings & Accessories Pvt. Ltd., Manimajra V. ACIT, Chandigarh

ITA 775/CHANDI/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0727 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 6 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-11-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 04-05-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANJIT SINGH
• Keywords: Depreciation; Additional depreciation; Onus to prove
• Section: 32; 32(1)(iia)

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH B , CHANDIGARH , !'# , #$ % & ' ( , )*' BEFORE: SMT.DIVA SINGH, JM & SMT.ANNAPURNA GUPTA, A M ./ ITA NO.775/CHD/2017 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012-13 M/S MSJ BATH FITTINGS & ACCESSORIES PVT. LTD., SCO 827/NAC, MANIMAJRA. (EARLIER KNOWN AS M/S ESS ESS BATHROOM PRODUCTS PVT. LTD.) THE A.C.I.T., CIRCLE 3(1), CHANDIGARH. ./PAN NO: AAACE7289A /APPELLANT /RESPONDENT /ASSESSEE BY : SHRI VINEET KRISHAN, ADV. ! / REVENUE BY : SHRI MANJIT SINGH, SR.DR '# $ /DATE OF HEARING : 06.09.2018 %&'(# /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 29.11.2018 )+ /ORDER PER ANNAPURNA GUPTA, A.M . : THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE A GAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL S)-1, CHANDIGARH (IN SHORT CIT(A) DATED 7.3.2017 PASSED U /S 250(6) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT REFERRED TO AS ACT). 2. GROUND NOS. 1 AND 4 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE READ AS UNDER: 1. THAT THE ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 250(6) BY T HE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-I, CHANDIGARH IN APPEAL NO. 83/14-15 DATED 07.03.2017 IS CONTRARY TO LAW AND FA CTS OF THE CASE. 4. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES TO ADD, AMEND OR ALTER ANY GROUND OF APPEAL BEFORE OR AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF APPEAL, WITH TH E PERMISSION OF THE HON'BLE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH. 3. THE ABOVE GROUNDS ARE GENERAL IN NATURE AND NEED S NO ADJUDICATION. 4. GROUND NO.2 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE READS AS UNDE R: ITA NO.775/CHD/2017 A.Y.2012-13 2 2. THAT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE , THE ID. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) GRAVELLY ERRED IN NOT ALLOW ING THE ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION ON THE ADDITIONS MADE IN PLANT AND MAC HINERY DURING THE YEAR. THE APPELLANT IS A MANUFACTURING COMPANY AND AS PER SECTION 32 SUB-SECTION 1 EXPLANATION 5 THE PROVISIO NS OF SECTION 32 SHALL APPLY WHETHER OR NOT THE APPELLANT HAD CLAIME D DEDUCTION IN RESPECT OF DEPRECIATION IN COMPUTING HIS TOTAL INCO ME. 5. THE ASSESSEE IN THE ABOVE GROUND HAS CHALLENGED THE DENIAL OF ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION ON ADDITIONS MADE TO PLA NT AND MACHINERY DURING THE YEAR, AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 32(1) OF THE ACT ,READ WITH EXPLANATION-5 THERETO. 6. BEFORE US THE LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE POINTED O UT THAT THE LD.CIT(A) HAD DISMISSED THE GROUND RAISED TO THIS E FFECT BEFORE HIM, STATING THAT THE SAID ISSUE HAD NOT BEEN DISCU SSED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND NO ADDITION HAD BEEN MADE BY T HE A.O. OUR ATTENTION WAS DRAWN TO PARA 5 OF CIT(A)S ORDER DIS MISSING THE GROUND RELATING TO ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION RAISED B Y THE ASSESSEE AS UNDER: 5. GROUND OF APPEAL NO. 3: THE LD. COUNSEL F OR THE APPELLANT HAS TAKEN AN ISSUE OF ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION, BUT NO S UCH ISSUE HAS BEEN DISCUSSED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND NO ADDIT ION WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IN THE ABSENCE OF AN Y ADDITION BEING MADE, THERE IS NO REASON FOR THE APPELLANT TO BE AGG RIEVED. THEREFORE, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 7. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE THEREAFTER POINTED OUT THAT THE ABOVE FINDING OF THE CIT(A) WAS INCORRECT SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAD RAISED THE CLAIM OF ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION BEFORE THE A.O. VIDE TWO LETTERS FILED TO HIM. REFERRING TO THE SUBMISSI ONS MADE BEFORE THE CIT(A), THE COPY OF WHICH WAS PLACED BEFORE US AT PAGES 1 TO 8, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT TH E DETAILS REGARDING CLAIM OF ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION WERE MAD E BY THE ASSESSEE DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AS PER THE L ETTERS DATED 18.9.2014 AND 23.9.2014 AND THAT CALCULATION OF REV ISED DEPRECIATION WERE ALSO SUBMITTED ALONGWITH COMPLETE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT BUT DESPITE THE SAME,THE ASSESSEES CLAIM W AS NOT ITA NO.775/CHD/2017 A.Y.2012-13 3 ALLOWED BY THE A.O. OUR ATTENTION WAS DRAWN TO THE RELEVANT SUBMISSIONS AT PAGE 7 OF THE PAPER BOOK AS UNDER: IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE APPELLANT DID NOT FILE ANY CLAIM IN RESPECT OF ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION ON INVESTMENT OF RS. 3,45,1 9,230/- IN THE RETURN OF INCOME AND HAS CLAIMED IT DURING THE COURSE OF ASSE SSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE ID. ASSESSING OFFICER HAD REJECTED THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT AND DID NOT MAKE ANY OBSERVATION ON IT. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE DEP RECIATION UNDER SECTION 32 IS A MANDATORY CLAIM WHICH IS TO BE ALLOWED TO THE APPELLANT EVEN IF THE SAME HAS NOT BEEN CLAIMED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE DETAILS REGARDING CLAIM OF ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION WAS CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT PROCEEDIN GS AS PER APPELLANT'S LETTER DATED 18.09.2014 AND. 23.09.2014. THE CALCUL ATIONS OF DEPRECIATION OF REVISED DEPRECIATION CHART WERE ALSO SUBMITTED. C OMPLETE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WERE PRODUCED DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCE EDINGS. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT DESPITE ALL THE DETAILS WERE FILED THE CLAIM B Y THE APPELLANT WAS NOT ALLOWED. DESPITE DID NOT MAKE CLAIM IN THE RETURN O F INCOME, IT COULD STILL BE ALLOWED THE SAME BY VIRTUE OF EXPLANATION 5 OF SECT ION 32 WHICH STATES CLEARLY 8. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE THEREAFTER STATED T HAT THE I.T.A.T. IN THE CASE OF M/S A&A MOLULAR SYSTEMS VS. ITO IN ITA NO.401/CHD/2015 VIDE ORDER DATED 25.8.2015 HAD HELD THAT THE CLAIM FOR ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION WAS ALLOWABLE EVE N IF NOT MADE IN THE RETURN OF INCOME AND CLAIMED FOR THE FIRST T IME IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. OUR ATTENTION WAS DRAWN TO THE RELEVANT FINDINGS OF THE I.T.A.T. AT PARAS 15 TO 20 OF THE O RDER AS UNDER: 15. GROUND NO. 5 IS AGAINST THE DISALLOWANCE OF ADD ITIONAL DEPRECIATION OF RS. 1,57,71,549/- ON INVESTMENT OF RS. 8,01,10,668/- CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE AS SESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE FACT RELATING TO THE ISSUE IS THAT THE ASSESSE E DID NOT FILE ANY CLAIM IN RESPECT OF ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION ON INVESTMENT OF RS. 8,01,10,668/- IN THE RETURN OF INCOME AND HA D CLAIMED THE SAME FOR THE FIRST TIME DURING THE ASSESSMENT P ROCEEDINGS . THE AO REJECTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE BY TREATI NG IT AS A SHAM CLAIM, AN AFTERTHOUGHT OF THE ASSESSEE CONSIDERING THE FAC T THAT DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IC WOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO THE ASSESSEE. THE CIT(A) UPHELD THE DISALLOWANCE OF CLAIM BY HOLDING THAT IT WAS NOT CL EAR WHETHER THE CONDITION LAID DOWN IN THE PROVISO TO SECTION 32(II A) WERE FULFILLED OR NOT IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. CIT(A) STATED THA T SINCE NEITHER FORM 3CD NOR FORM 10CCB MENTIONED ANY ASSET ELIGIBLE FOR ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION THE ASSESSEES CLAIM FOR ADDITIONAL DE PRECIATION WAS NOT MAINTAINABLE. 16. BEFORE US AR PLEADED THAT THE CLAIM FOR DEPRECI ATION UNDER SECTION 32 IS A MANDATORY CLAIM WHICH IS TO BE ALLOWED TO T HE ASSESSEE EVEN IF SAME HAS NOT BEEN CLAIMED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. THE AR SUBMITTED THAT ALL DETAILS REGARDING THE CLAIM FOR ADDITIONAL DEPR ECIATION WERE FILED BEFORE THE AO DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ITSELF VID E LETTER DT 20-03-2013 ,IN RESPONSE TO THE A.OS LETTER DT 11-03 2013 ASKI NG THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH THE CALCULATION OF DEPRECIATION AND REVISED DEPRECIATION CHART ITA NO.775/CHD/2017 A.Y.2012-13 4 SHOWING THE WDV AS ON 31/03/2010 AFTER THE CLAIMING OF ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION. 17. THE DR RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). 18. WE HAVE HEARD THE REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH THE P ARTIES AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW AND ALSO THE DOCUME NTS PLACED BEFORE US. 19. WE FIND THAT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSE FOR ADDIT IONAL DEPRECIATION HAS BEEN REJECTED FOR THE REASON THAT IT WAS NOT VERIFIABLE. THE CIT(A) WHILE REJECTING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSE HAS HELD AT PARA 7 OF HIS ORDER AS FOLLOWS: 7. THE ISSUE IS PERTAINING TO ALLOWABILITY OF ADDI TIONAL DEPRECIATION U/S 32(IIA) OF RS.1,57,71,549/-. AS EV IDENT FROM THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FI LE ANY CLAIM IN RESPECT OF A INVESTMENT OF RS. 8,01,10,668 /- U/S 32(II) IN RETURN OF INCOME. A.O. DISALLOWED THE SAM E AS ASSSESSEE CLAIMED IT TO SUBSEQUENTLY, ONCE HE REALI ZED THAT ASSESSEES CLAIM U/S 80IC IS NOT ADMISSIBLE ON THE BASIS OF SUBSTANTIAL EXPANSION. DURING APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, ASSESSEE ARGUED THAT INVESTMENT IN PLA NT & MACHINERY AND USE FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING HAS NOT BEEN DENIED BY A.O. AND IT MANDATORY TO PROVIDE DEPRECIATION U/S 32 WHETHER ASSESSEE CLAIMS IT OR NOT. THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO J USTIFY ANY CLAIM PRIMARILY LIES UPON ASSESSEE. ASSESSEE AL SO FILED COPY OF FORM 3CD AND COPY OF FORM 10CCB FOR C LAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 80IC. AS PER FORM 3CD DETAILS OF DEPRECIATION ALLOWABLE (ANNEXURE-A) DOES NOT REFLEC T ANY MENTION OF ASSETS ELIGIBLE FOR ADDITIONAL DEPRECIAT ION. SIMILARLY THE FORM NO. 10CCB IN COLUMN NO. 26(E) RE FLECT VALUE OF TOTAL WDV OF PLANT AND MACHINERY USED IN BUSINESS, AS ON 31.03.2010, TO BE RS. 9,47,15,967/- AND DOES NOT REFLECT ANY SUCH ASSETS ELIGIBLE FOR ADDIT IONAL DEPRECIATION. THUS THE CLAIM OF ADDITIONAL DEPRECIA TION U/S 32(IA) IS NOT SUBSTANTIATED WITH EITHER OF THE CERTIFICATES. IT IS NOT CLEAR WHETHER THE CONDITION LAID DOWN IN PROVISO TO 32(IIA) ARE FULFILLED OR NOT IN CASE OF ASSESSEE. ASSESSEE RELIED UPON VARIOUS CASE LAWS WH ICH ARE FACTUALLY AND CIRCUMSTANTIALLY DIFFERENT FROM F ACTS OF THE ASSESSEES CASE ESPECIALLY IN LIGHT OF FACT THA T ASSESSEES CLAIM IS NOT MAINTAINABLE IN VIEW OF AUD ITORS REPORT U/S 44AB IN FORM 3CD AND FORM 10CCB. THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE BEING NON VERIFIABLE IN NATURE, I S NOT MAINTAINABLE. THUS THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS DISMISS ED. HOWEVER OUR ATTENTION WAS INVITED TO THE FACT THAT DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSEE HAD VIDE HIS LE TTER DT. 20.03.2013 SUBMITTED DETAILS OF ADDITIONAL DEPRECIA TION IN RESPONSE TO THE A.OS LETTER DT 11-03 2013 ASKING T HE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH THE CALCULATION OF DEPRECIATION AND REVISED DEPRECI ATION CHART SHOWING THE WDV AS ON 31/03/2010 AFTER THE CLAIMING OF ADDITION AL DEPRECIATION. MOREOVER COMPLETE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WERE ALSO PRODU CED DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. BUT IT APPEARS THAT DESPITE ALL DETAILS FILED, THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT VERIFIED. WE THEREFORE CONSIDER IT PROPER TO SEND THE ISSUE OF CLAIM OF AD DITIONAL DEPRECIATION BACK TO THE A.O.THE A.O IS HEREBY DIRE CTED TO VERIFY THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSE IN THE LIGHT OF CON DITIONS PRESCRIBED U/S 32(1)(IIA) AND THE PROVISO THERETO A ND PASS APPROPRIATE ORDER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER GIVI NG THE ASSESSE DUE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING. THE ASSESSE IS FREE TO FILE ANY OTHER EVIDENCES IN SUPPORT OF HIS CLAIM. ITA NO.775/CHD/2017 A.Y.2012-13 5 IT IS PERTINENT TO MENTION, THAT THOUGH THE ASSESSE E MAY NOT HAVE CLAIMED ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION IN ITS RETURN OF INCOME, IT CAN STILL BE ALLOWED THE SAME BY VIRTUE OF EXPLANAT ION 5 OF SECTION 32 WHICH STATES CLEARLY AS FOLLOWS: EXPLANATION 5- FOR THE REMOVAL OF DOUBTS, IT IS H EREBY DECLARED THAT THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SUB-SECTION SH ALL APPLY WHETHER OR NOT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED THE DEDUCTI ON IN RESPECT OF DEPRECIATION IN COMPUTING HIS TOTAL INCO ME. IN VIEW OF THE SAME WE HOLD THAT THE ASSESSEE IS EN TITLED TO CLAIM ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION U/S 32(I)(IIA) SUBJEC T TO VERIFICATION OF FULFILLMENT OF CONDITION PROVIDED I N PROVISIONS OF SECTION 32(I)(IIA). 20. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSE IS THEREFO RE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES . COPY OF THE ORDER WAS ALSO PLACED BEFORE US. THE L D. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAVING MADE CLAIM FOR ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION BEFOR E THE A.O. AND THE SAME BEING ALLOWABLE AS PER THE ORDER OF TH E I.T.A.T. IN THE CASE OF M/S A&A MOLULAR SYSTEMS (SUPRA), THE CI T(A) HAD ERRED IN DENYING THE SAID CLAIM BY RECORDING INCOR RECT FINDINGS THAT NO SUCH ISSUE HAD BEEN DISCUSSED IN THE ASSESS MENT ORDER. 9. THE LD. DR COULD NOT CONTROVERT THE FACTUAL CONT ENTIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE BUT AT THE SAME TIME RELIED UP ON THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). 10. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS .WE FIND TH AT THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE CLAIM FOR ADDIT IONAL DEPRECIATION HAD BEEN MADE BY THE A.O. DURING ASSES SMENT PROCEEDINGS HAS REMAINED UNCONTROVERTED BY THE REVE NUE BEFORE US.THE SAID CLAIM WAS UNDENIABLY, NOT ENTERTAINED BY THE A.O..THEREFORE THE ASSESSEE WAS RIGHTLY AGGRIEVED B Y THIS ACTION OF THE A.O AND THUS WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN T HE FINDINGS OF THE LD.CIT(A) THAT SINCE THIS ISSUE HAS NOT BEEN DI SCUSSED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND NO ADDITION WAS MADE BY THE A. O., THERE WAS NO REASON FOR THE ASSESSEE TO BE AGGRIEVED AND THUS DISMISS THE GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE. WE HAVE ALSO TAK EN NOTE OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE I.T.A.T. IN THE CASE OF M/S A&A MODULAR ITA NO.775/CHD/2017 A.Y.2012-13 6 SYSTEMS (SUPRA) STATING THAT THE CLAIM FOR ADDITION AL DEPRECIATION IS TO BE ALLOWED EVEN IF NOT MADE IN T HE RETURN OF INCOME BUT MADE FOR THE FIRST TIME DURING ASSESSMEN T PROCEEDINGS. IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE,SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAD M ADE A CLAIM FOR ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION, WE HOLD THAT THE ISSUE NE EDED TO BE CONSIDERED AND EXAMINED BY THE AO AND ADJUDICATED U PON BY WAY OF A SPEAKING ORDER. WE THEREFORE RESTORE THE I SSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF THE A.O. TO VERIFY THE FACTS RELATING T O THE ISSUE AND THEREAFTER ADJUDICATE THE SAME AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. THE GROUND OF APPEAL NO.2 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS , THEREFORE, ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 11. GROUND NOS.3(A) AND 3(B) OF THE APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE READ AS UNDER: 3(A) THAT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE, THE ID. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX APPEALS) GRAVELLY ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ACTION OF THE ID. ASSESSING OFFICER IN MAKING ADDITION OF RS. 17, 73,9397- BY DISALLOWING THE INTEREST PAID UNDER SECTION 36(L)(I II) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 3(B). WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE GROUND, THE D ISALLOWANCE IS HIGHLY EXCESSIVE. 12. BRIEFLY STATED, THE A.O. HAD DISALLOWED INTERES T AMOUNTING TO RS.17,73,939/- UNDER THE PROVISO TO SECTION 36(1 )(III) OF THE ACT HOLDING THAT THE BORROWED FUNDS HAD BEEN USED F OR INSTALLATION OF PLANT AND MACHINERY AND THE ASSESSE E HAD NOT CAPITALIZED INTEREST ON PLANT AND MACHINERY TILL TH E DATE OF PUTTING THE ASSET TO USE. THE CIT(A) HAD UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE A.O. 13. BEFORE US THE ONLY PRAYER MADE BY THE LD. COUNS EL FOR ASSESSEE WAS THAT THE ASSESSEE BE GRANTED ADDITIONA L DEPRECIATION ON THE ADDITION SO MADE TO THE PLANT A ND MACHINERY,AS PLEADED IN GROUND NO.2 ABOVE. ITA NO.775/CHD/2017 A.Y.2012-13 7 15. IN VIEW OF THE SAME,SINCE THE ISSUE RAISED IN T HIS GROUND IS CONNECTED TO THAT RAISED IN GROUND NO.2 ABOVE, WE R ESTORE THIS ISSUE ALSO BACK TO THE A.O. TO BE ADJUDICATED ALONG WITH THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE OF ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION RAISED IN GR OUND NO.2 ABOVE. WE DIRECT THAT THE ASSESSEE BE GIVEN DUE OPP ORTUNITY OF HEARING AND THE ORDER BE PASSED BY THE A.O. AFTER V ERIFYING OF THE FACTS AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. GROUND OF APPEAL NOS.3(A) & 3(B) ARE, THEREFORE, ALSO ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL P URPOSES. 16. IN EFFECT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWE D FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. $ %' & ( (DIVA SINGH) (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) ,' / JUDICIAL MEMBER )*' / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER $ /DATED: 29 TH NOVEMBER, 2018 * * &) *+,+ / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT 3. - $ / CIT 4. - $ ( )/ THE CIT(A) 5. +./ 0 , #0 , 123/4 / DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 6. /35' / GUARD FILE &) $ / BY ORDER, 6 ! / ASSISTANT REGISTRAR