Jawahar Lal, Ahmedgarh. V. ITO, Malerkotla

ITA 785/CHANDI/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9819 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-07-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Next Hearing Date: 15-03-2016
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 19-10-2015
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S K MITTAL
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Gift; Depreciation; Income from undisclosed sources; Transactions in derivatives; Source of fund
• Section: 143(3); 68

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 785/CHD/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12 SHRI JAWAHAR LAL, VS THE ITO, PROP. M/S SAHI RAM JAWAHAR LAL, WARD-IV(3), OLD GALLA MANDI, MALERKOTLA. AHMEDGARH. PAN: AAKPL8201A (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI SUDHIR SEHGA L RESPONDENT BY : SHRI S.K.MITTAL DATE OF HEARING : 13.07.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 19.07.2016 O R D E R THIS APPEAL BY ASSESSEE HAS BEEN DIRECTED AGAINST T HE ORDER OF LD. CIT(APPEALS)-2 LUDHIANA DATED 21.09.20 15 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12. 2. I HAVE HEARD LD. REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH THE PAR TIES, PERUSED THE FINDINGS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW AND CONSI DERED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. 3. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PRESS G ROUND NO. 6 OF THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE, SAME IS ACCORD INGLY, DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. 2 4. ON GROUND NO. 1 & 2, ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ADD ITION OF RS. 23,05,500/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CREDIT ORS AND SIMILARLY, ON GROUND NO. 3, ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ADDITION OF RS. 35,057/- ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST PAI D TO THE ABOVE CREDITORS. 5. BRIEF FACTS ARE THAT ASSESSEE FILED RETURNED I NCOME OF RS. 5,59,690/- + RS. 65,000/- (AGRICULTURE INCOME) ON 28.07.2011. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEE DINGS, AO NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED UNSECURED L OANS FROM VARIOUS PERSONS. ON PERUSAL OF THE UNSECURED L OANS ACCOUNTS OF THESE LENDERS REVEALS THAT MOST OF THE SE PERSONS HAVE RECEIVED CHEQUE FROM M/S LUDHIANA COMFIN SERVICES AND FURTHER ADVANCED THIS AMOUNT TO THE APPELLANT. THE DETAILS ARE AS UNDER: S.NO. NAME OF LENDER CHEQUES RECEIVED FROM M/S LUDHIANA COMFIN SERVICES (RS.) AMOUNT ADVANCED TO ASSESSEE (RS.) 1. SAHI RAM AND SONS HUF 3,19,570/- 3,19,000/- 2. AMITA GUPTA W/O JAWAHAR MLTTAL , 2,99,850/- 2,99,850/- 3. BINDIYA MITTAL W/O TARUN MITTAL 1,00,140/- 1,00,000/- 4. JAWAHAR LAI AND SONS HUF 3,01,210/- 3,01,210/- 5. SUMIT MITTAL 1,24,390/- 1,24,000/- 6. SUMIT MITTAL AND SONS HUF 4,49,480/- 4,49,000/- 7. NEHA MITTAL 2,34,110/- 2,34,000/- 8. SHIKHA MITTAL 1,29,720/- 1,29,500/- 9. TARUN MITTAL AND SONS HUF 3,49,680/- 3,49,500/- TOTAL 23,05,500/- 5(I) THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO DISCHARGE HIS ON US UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961. THE AO PERUS ED THE 3 REPLY FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND NOTICED THAT THESE PERSONS ARE HAVING INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. THE AO FURTHE R NOTED THAT THESE PERSONS HAD RECEIVED CHEQUES FROM M/S LUDHIANA COMFIN SERVICES PRIOR TO THE-DATE THESE WE RE TRANSFERRED TO THE ASSESSEE. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO PRODUCE THESE PERSONS FROM WHOM THE UNSECU RED LOANS WERE RECEIVED AND WHY CHEQUES HAD BEEN RECEIV ED FROM M/S LUDHIANA COMFIN SERVICES. SEVERAL OPPORTUN ITIES WERE GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE BUT THE ASSESSEE WAS F AILED TO PRODUCE THESE PERSONS. THE AO ALSO ASKED THE ASSESS EE TO EXPLAIN WHY THESE UNSECURED LOANS SHOULD NOT BE DISALLOWED. THE ASSESSEE FILED REPLY BUT WAS NOT AC CEPTABLE BY THE AO. THE AO WAS IN VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE HA D FAILED TO DISCHARGE HIS ONUS UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT A ND THE EXPLANATION OFFERED WAS NOT FOUND TO BE SATISFACTOR Y. THEREFORE, THE AO DISALLOWED AN AMOUNT TO RS. 23,05 ,500/- AND ADDED BACK THE SAME TO ASSESSEES INCOME. 5(II) FURTHER THE AO NOTED THAT THE APPELLANT HA D PAID INTEREST @ 15% ON UNSECURED LOANS. ACCORDINGLY, A O DISALLOWED RS. 35,057/- ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST PAID ON SUCH LOANS. 6. THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ADDITION BEFORE L D. CIT(APPEALS) AND WRITTEN SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE IS REPRODUCED IN THE APPELLATE ORDER IN WHICH THE ASSE SSEE BRIEFLY EXPLAINED THAT DETAILS OF THE PARTIES WERE PROVIDED DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WHICH P ROVED IDENTITY OF THE CREDITORS, THEIR CREDIT WORTHINESS AND 4 GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION. THE ASSESSEE FILED DOCUMENTS IN SUPPORT OF THE ABOVE INGREDIENTS I.E. CONFIRMED COPY OF THE ACCOUNTS, AFFIDAVITS, STATEME NT OF ACCOUNTS IN THE BOOKS OF M/S LUDHIANA COMFIN SERVIC ES ALONGWITH COPY OF THE BILLS ISSUED, BANK STATEMENTS AND ITR OF EVERY INVESTOR. THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, PR OVED IDENTITY OF THE CREDITORS, THEIR CREDIT WORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION. THE ASSESSING OFFI CER MADE THE ADDITION MERELY ON THE FACT THAT CREDITORS HAVE NOT PROVED THE SOURCE OF EARNING THEIR INCOME IN TH E FORM OF COMMODITY PROFITS RECEIVED FROM M/S LUDHIANA COM FIN SERVICES. IF ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT SATISFIED W ITH THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE, HE COULD HAVE CARRIED OUT INVESTIGATION FROM M/S COMFIN SERVICES. IT WAS ALS O SUBMITTED THAT ITAT CHANDIGARH BENCH IN THE CASE OF SAME ASSESSEE FOR PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 HAS PASSED THE ORDER DATED 29.05.2014 IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, NO ADDITION SHOULD BE MADE AND MATTER SHOULD HAVE ENDED THERE ITSELF. THE ASSESSING OFFI CER FILED THE REMAND REPORT AND MORE OR LESS REITERATED THE F ACTS STATED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND IT WAS HIGHLIGHT ED THAT M/S LUDHIANA COMFIN SERVICES IS NOT A MEMBER OF ANY INDIAN COMMODITY EXCHANGE, THEREFORE, THERE IS A DO UBT IN THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION. 7. THE ASSESSEE FILED REJOINDER IN WHICH SAME FA CTS HAVE BEEN REITERATED. 5 8. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS), HOWEVER, DID NOT ACCEPT CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE AND NOTED THAT MERE FILI NG OF PAN AND CONFIRMATION WOULD NOT PROVE CREDIT WORTHIN ESS OF THE CREDITORS. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) ALSO NOTED THA T M/S LUDHIANA COMFIN SERVICES HAS NOT CONFIRMED THE TRANSACTION AND WAS NOT REGISTERED IN ANY INDIAN COMMODITY EXCHANGE. THEREFORE, THESE FACTS CANNOT BE IGNORED. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS), ACCORDINGLY, DISMIS SED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ON THESE GROUNDS. 9. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND SUBMI TTED THAT ASSESSEE FILED AFFIDAVITS, STATEMENT OF ACCOUN TS OF THE CREDITORS IN THE BOOKS OF M/S LUDHIANA COMFIN SERVI CES ALONGWITH COPY OF THE BILLS ISSUED, COPY OF THE CON FIRMED ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE, BANK STATEMENTS AND ITR O F ALL THE LENDERS, THEREFORE, ASSESSEE PROVED THE IDENTIT Y OF THE CREDITORS, GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION AND CREDI T WORTHINESS OF THE CREDITORS. HE HAS SUBMITTED THAT IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09, DIVISION BENCH OF ITAT CHANDIGARH BENCH IN THE CASE OF SAME ASSESSEE ON SA ME FACTS, DECIDED THE IDENTICAL ISSUE IN ITA 75/2012 V IDE ORDER DATED 29.05.2014 AND APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEE N ALLOWED. COPY OF THE ORDER IS FILED IN THE PAPER B OOK. HE HAS ALSO RELIED UPON DECISION OF HON'BLE SUPREME CO URT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS M/S ORISSA CORPORATION PVT. LTD. 159 ITR 78. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DR RELIED UPON ORDE RS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. 6 10. I HAVE CONSIDERED RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09, DIVISION B ENCH OF ITAT CHANDIGARH IN THE CASE OF THE SAME ASSESSEE FO R ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 DECIDED THE IDENTICAL ISSUE VIDE ORDER DATED 29.05.2014 IN ITA 75/2012. THE SAME IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER : 4. GROUND NOS. 1 TO 4: AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PA RTIES, WE FIND THAT DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IT WAS NOTE D BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN NEW UNSEC URED LOANS AMOUNTING TO RS. 30,56,500/- OUT OF WHICH LOANS AMO UNTING TO RS. 19,56,000/- WERE INTRODUCED FROM PERSONS SPECIF IED U/S 40A(2)(B) OF THE ACT. OUT OF THESE LOANS HE FURTHER NOTED THAT SOURCE OF INVESTMENT BY THESE PARTIES WAS PROFIT FR OM THE TRADING AND COMMODITY BUSINESS. THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER DIRECTED TO PRODUCE THOSE PERSONS. DURING ASSESSME NT PROCEEDINGS THOUGH CONFIRMATION OF LOANS, THEIR PAN NUMBERS ETC. WERE FILED BUT THOSE PERSONS WERE NOT PRODUCED . THE ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER NOTED THAT FROM THE INFOR MATION RECEIVED FROM ITO WARD-4 MALERKOTA, IT WAS INTIMAT ED BY THE MULTI COMMODITY EXCHANGE (MCX) THAT M/S SATYAM COMMODITIES WAS NOT A MEMBER OF THE STOCK EXCHANGE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT SINCE M/S SATYAM CO MMODITIES WAS NOT AUTHORIZED TO TRADE IN COMMODITIES, THEREFO RE, THE SUM OF RS. 15,96,000/- IS NOTHING BUT THE ASSESSEES OWN INCOME WHICH HAS BEEN CHANNELISED THOUGH DIFFERENT NAMES I N THE SHAPE OF LOANS AND ACCORDINGLY DISALLOWED THE SUM O F RS. 15,96,000/-. 5. ON APPEAL, THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER H AS BEEN CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A). 6. BEFORE US, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTE D THAT ASSESSEE OFFERED TO PRODUCE ALL THOSE PERSONS BEFOR E LD. CIT(A) WHO IN TURN ASKED TO PRODUCE THOSE PERSONS BEFORE T HE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING REMAND PROCEEDINGS AND MAT TER WAS REMANDED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ALL THOSE PERSO NS WERE 7 PRODUCED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND IN THIS R EGARD HE REFERRED TO THE VARIOUS DOCUMENTS FILED AND COPIES OF THE STATEMENTS RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF VAR IOUS PERSONS WHICH ARE PLACED IN THE PAPER BOOK. HE ALSO REFERRED TO THE STATEMENT OF SHRI ANKIT GARG WHO IS OWNER OF M/S SATYAM COMMODITIES WHICH IS FILED IN THE PAPER BOOK AT PAG ES 123 TO 126. AFTER RECORDING THE STATEMENTS, THE ASSESSMEN T WAS COMPLETED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT AND COPY OF THE AS SESSMENT ORDER IS FILED AT PAGE 136 WHERE ONLY THE NOMINAL A DDITION HAS BEEN MADE AND RETURNED INCOME HAS BEEN ACCEPTED. THUS, ASSESSEE HAS CLEARLY PROVED THE THREE INGREDIENTS I .E. (I) NAME OF THE LENDER, (II) GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION AND (III) SOURCE OF THE CREDIT. EVEN THE PERSONS FROM WHOM LO ANS WERE TAKEN WERE PRESENTED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER W HEREIN THEY HAVE CONFIRMED THE LOANS. IN ANY CASE, THE TRIBUNAL IN THE SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES HAS DELETED THE ADDITION IN T HE CASE OF SHRI SEVA RAM V ITO IN ITA NO. 327/CHD/2011, COPY O F THE ORDER IS FILED ON RECORD. 7. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR SUPPORTED THE ORDE R OF THE CIT(A) AND ASSESSING OFFICER. HE FURTHER POINTED OU T THAT HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MOHANK ALA 291 ITR 278 (SC) HAS CLEARLY OBSERVED THAT ONCE CREDIT ENTRY WAS FOUND IN THE BOA OF THE ASSESSEE THEN THE SAME MAY BE CHARGED TO TAX IF THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE I N THE OPINION OF ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT SATISFACTORY. 8. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS CAREFUL LY AND FIND THAT IN IDENTICAL CIRCUMSTANCES IN THE CASE OF SHRI SEVA RAM VS. ITO (SUPRA) THE ISSUE WAS ADJUDICATED VIDE PARA 9 TO 10 BY THE TRIBUNAL, WHICH ARE AS UNDER:- 9. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS CAREFULLY AND IT HAS TO BE NOTED THAT ADDITION HAS NOT BEEN MADE U/S 68 OF THE ACT BUT THE ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE BY OBSERVING THA T COMMODITY PROFIT EARNED BY EIGHT FAMILY MEMBERS IS INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES OF THE ASSESSEE. IT IS VE RY STRANGE THAT THE AO HAS NOWHERE STATED THAT INCOME FROM COM MODITY TRANSACTIONS IS BOGUS OR NOT GENUINE. IN FACT THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN AN AMOUNT FROM EIGHT MEMBERS AS PER DETAILED BELOW AS LOANS:- 8 SEWA RAM (HUF) RS. 2,09,700.00 SMT. SHAKUNTLA RS. 2,12,300.00 SMT. RAJ KUMARI RS. 2,16,000.00 SMT. JYOTI KINGER RS. 2,17,100.00 SHRI VIJAY KUMAR RS. 2,15,000.00 VIJAY KUMAR (HUF) RS. 2,14,050.00 SHRI VINOD KUMAR RS. 2,14,600.00 VINOD KUMAR (HUF) RS. 2,22,150.00 RS. 17,21,100/- IN RESPONSE TO ENQUIRY COPIES OF THE ACCOUNT, PAN N O., INCOME-TAX RETURN, BANK STATEMENT AND EVEN BILLS OF COMMODITY BROKER WERE FURNISHED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF FUNDS IN THE HAN DS OF THE ABOVE FAMILY MEMBERS. WE FURTHER FIND THAT PERUSAL OF SA MPLE COPY OF ACCOUNT OF SEWA RAM HUF AT PAGE 23 OF THE PAPER BOO K CLEARLY SHOWS THAT SEWA RAM HUF HAD ALREADY GIVEN LOANS TO THE ASSESSEE AND IN FACT THERE WAS OPENING BALANCE AMOUNTING TO RS. 6,56,554/-. COPY OF ACCOUNT OF SEWA RAM HUF IS REPRODUCED HEREU NDER:- ABOVE CLEARLY SHOWS THAT DURING THE YEAR SEWA RAM H UF HAS FURTHER GIVEN FOUR CHEQUES AMOUNTING TO RS. 36,466/-, RS. 4 8,200/-, RS. 60,200/- AND RS. 101,300/- ON 28.9.2006, 13.10.2006 , 3.11.2006, 30.1.2007. OUT OF THESE LAST THREE CHEQUES I.E. RS . 48,200/-, RS. 60,200/- AND RS. 101,300/- HAVE BEEN DOUBTED BY THE AO ON THE DATE PARTICULARS DEBIT CREDIT BALANCE 1.4.2006 BY OP. BALANCE -- 656,554.00 6,56,554.00 23.5.2006 TO CHEQUE NO. 805339 1500.00 -- 655,054.00 12.9.2006 TO CHEQUE NO. 291454 5,000.00 -- 650,054.00 28.9.2006 BY CHEQUE NO. 809838 -- 36,466.00 686,520.00 13.10.2006 BY CHQUE NO. 058588 -- 48,200.00 734,720.00 25.10.2006 TO CHEQUE NO. 291480 6894.00 -- 727,826.00 3.11.2006 BY CHEQUE NO. 058589 -- 60,200.00 788,026.00 30.1.2007 BY CHEQUE NO. 058590 -- 101,300.00 889,326.00 15.3.2007 TO CHEQUE NO. 311117 7,000.00 -- 882,326.00 19.3.2007 TO CHEQUE NO. 813878 70,000.00 -- 812,326.00 19.3.2007 TO CHEQUE NO. 813881 30,000.00 -- 782,326.00 31.3.2007 BY AMOUNT OF INTEREST -- 87,325.00 869,651.00 31.3.2007 TO AMOUNT OF TDS 8,907.00 -- 860,744.00 TOTAL 129,301.00 990,045.00 CREDIT BALANCE AS ON 31.3.2007 860,744.00 9 BASIS THAT THESE AMOUNTS HAVE BEEN RECEIVED AS PROF IT FROM THE COMMODITY TRANSACTIONS. FIRST OF ALL ONCE IF THERE WAS ANY DOUBT REGARDING PROFIT IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN EXAMINED IN TH E HANDS OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR HUF AND NOT IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSES SEE WHO HAS SIMPLY TAKEN THIS AMOUNT AS LOAN AND THE LOAN TRANS ACTION IS SUPPORTED BY COPY OF ACCOUNT, CONFIRMATION, INCOME- TAX RETURN, BANK STATEMENT AND SOURCES OF FUNDS FROM COMMODITY TRANS ACTIONS. THEREFORE, AS FAR AS BURDEN U/S 68 IS CONCERNED, T HE SAME STANDS DISCHARGED. IT IS SETTLED POSITION OF LAW THAT IN CASE OF CASH CREDITS THREE INGREDIENTS ARE REQUIRED TO BE PROVED I.E. ID ENTITY OF THE CREDITOR, GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS AND CAPACITY OF THE CREDITOR. IDENTITY HAS BEEN PROVED BYCOPY OF ACCOUNT AND GENUINENESS O F THE TRANSACTIONS HAS BEEN PROVED BECAUSE LOANS WERE REC EIVED THROUGH GENUINE TRANSACTIONS AND EVEN CONFIRMATIONS WERE FI LED. CAPACITY STANDS PROVED BY DISCLOSURE OF THE SOURCE OF FUND B Y WAY OF PROFIT FROM COMMODITY TRANSACTIONS. THEREFORE, THE MATTER SHO ULD HAVE ENDED THERE ONLY. IF THE AO WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THESE P ROFITS ARE NOT GENUINELY EARNED BY THESE FAMILY MEMBERS THEN INITI ALLY ASSESSMENTS OF SUCH FAMILY MEMBERS SHOULD HAVE BEEN TAKEN UP FO R SCRUTINY AND ENQUIRY SHOULD HAVE BEEN MADE BY RECORDING THE STA TEMENTS OF SUCH FAMILY MEMBERS WHICH HAS NOT BEEN DONE. THE FACT R EMAINS THAT EARNING THE PROFIT THROUGH COMMODITY TRANSACTIONS H AS NOT BEEN DOUBTED. ONLY ASPECT WHICH HAS BEEN DOUBTED IS THA T CHEQUES HAVE BEEN ISSUED BY THE ASSESSEE ON BEHALF OF THE MEMBER S OF THE FAMILY. AGAIN REFERRING TO THE COPY OF ACCOUNT, IT IS CLEAR THAT SEWA RAM HUF HAS BEEN TREATING ITS ACCOUNT WITH THE ASSESSEE AS CURRENT ACCOUNT AND SOME OTHER PAYMENTS PERHAPS FOR PAYMENT OF INCO ME-TAX AND DEPOSIT IN THE SAVING SCHEMES HAS BEEN ALSO ISSUED BY THE ASSESSEE ON BEHALF OF SEWA RAM HUF. IN FACT CHEQUE FOR RS. 1500/-, RS. 5,000/-, RS. 6,894/-, RS. 7,000/-, RS. 70,000/- AN D RS. 30,000/- HAVE BEEN ISSUED ON VARIOUS DATES. ONLY A SUM OF RS. 5, 000/- HAS BEEN PAID AS MARGIN MONEY AND REST OF THE PAYMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE TOWARDS OTHER PURPOSES. THERE IS NO BAR UNDER THE LAW OR UNDER NORMAL ACCOUNTING ON SUCH WITHDRAWAL. IF A PERSON WHO HAS GIVEN LOAN TO ANY OTHER PERSON CAN ALWAYS DIRECT OTHER PE RSON TO ISSUE SMALL CHEQUES IN FAVOUR OF OUTSIDERS. IN FACT THIS IS A COMMON PRACTICE WHERE THE TRANSACTIONS ARE ENTERED IN THE FAMILY CO NCERNS. COPIES OF ACCOUNT OF ALL THE FAMILY MEMBERS ARE ALSO SAME AND WE ARE NOT DISCUSSING EACH AND EVERY COPY OF ACCOUNT SEPARATEL Y. OTHER SERIOUS OBJECTION RAISED BY THE AO IS THAT PROFITS HAVE BE EN EARNED IN THE EQUAL INSTALLMENTS BY ALL THE FAMILY MEMBERS, THIS MAY BE MATTER OF CHANCE. THIS MAY EVEN RAISE SOME DOUBT ALSO BUT IN THAT CASE THE AO SHOULD HAVE SPECIFICALLY ENQUIRED FROM EACH OF THE FAMILY MEMBERS BUT NO SUCH ENQUIRIES HAVE BEEN MADE. THIRD SERIOU S OBJECTION RAISED BY THE AO IS THAT SINCE INCOME OF VARIOUS FA MILY MEMBERS WAS LOWER AND THAT IS WHY IT CANNOT BE ACCEPTED AND IT MUST HAVE BEEN EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE. THIS OBJECTION IS NOT CORR ECT BECAUSE THERE IS NO FINDING THAT SUCH INDIVIDUAL FAMILY MEMBERS W ERE ACTING AS BENAMIDAR OF THE ASSESSEE. FAMILY MEMBERS ARE REGU LAR INCOME TAX ASSESSEES AND EVEN SIMILAR INCOME FROM COMMODITY TR ANSACTIONS WAS ACCEPTED IN THE HANDS OF SUCH FAMILY MEMBERS IN THE IMMEDIATELY PREVIOUS YEAR ALSO. FOURTH SERIOUS OBJECTION RAISED IS IRREGULARITY IN THE FILING OF REGISTRATION FORMS BUT THE AO HAS NOT POI NTED OUT WHAT IS THE IRREGULARITY. ONLY THING WHICH HAS BEEN POINTED OU T IS THAT SHRI VIJAY KUMAR I.E. SON OF THE ASSESSEE WAS INTERACTING WITH M/S SATYA NARAYAN ONLINE TRADING PVT LTD., LUDHIANA ON BEHALF OF THE FAMILY MEMBERS. THIS ITSELF CANNOT BE CALLED A IRREGULARI TY BECAUSE IT IS 10 COMMON PRACTICE THAT WHENEVER SOME FINANCIAL TRANSA CTIONS ARE ENTERED INTO BY FAMILY MEMBERS EVEN WITH OUTSIDERS ONLY ONE MEMBER OF THE FAMILY, DOES THE INTERACTIONS. A COPY OF TH E REGISTRATION FORM PLACED AT PAGE 129 IN CASE OF SEWA RAM HUF, DOES NO T SHOW ANY DISCREPANCY OR INCOMPLETE DETAILS. THE FORM WAS FU RNISHED ON 2.9.2006 AND M/S SATYA NARAYAN ONLINE TRADING PVT L TD. WANTED FURTHER IDENTITY PROOF WHICH HAS BEEN FURNISHED BY WAY OF VOTER CARDS WHICH HAS BEEN OBTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE ON A LATER DATE. IF THERE IS NO COLUMN FOR GIVING THE DETAILS OF VOTER CARD IN T HE CLIENT REGISTRATION FORM THEN THERE WAS NO NEED TO GIVE VOTER CARD ALON G WITH REGISTRATION FORM AND THEREFORE, THIS OBJECTION IS ALSO OF NO SU BSTANCE. 10 WE DO NOT FIND ANY FORCE IN THE SUBMISSIONS OF T HE LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE THAT THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE HON'BLE SU PREME COURT IN CASE OF CIT V. P. MOHANKALA (SUPRA) IS APPLICABLE T O THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDING TO HIM ONCE THE AO HAS GIVEN A FINDING THAT THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT SATISFACTORY THE N SAME IS BINDING ON THE ASSESSEE. IN CASE OF CIT V. P. MOHANKALA (S UPRA) HON'BLE APEX COURT WAS CONCERNED WITH A CASE WHERE THE ASSE SSEE AND HIS FAMILY MEMBERS HAVE RECEIVED GIFTS OF RS. 1,79,27,7 03/- IN VARIOUS YEARS FROM NON RESIDENT INDIAN (NRI) WHO WAS NOT RE LATED TO THE ASSESSEE. VARIOUS CONTRADICTIONS WERE FOUND IN THE STATEMENTS OF SHRI SAMPATHKUMAR WHO WAS A COMMON DONOR AND THE AO RECORDED VARIOUS FINDINGS WHICH HAVE BEEN SUMMARIES BY THE C OURT AT PARA 8 WHICH IS AS UNDER:- THE AO AFTER AN ELABORATE CONSIDERATION OF THE MAT ERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND THE STATEMENTS OF THE ASSES SEES AS WELL AS THAT OF SAMPATH KUMAR NOTED THAT ALL THE GI FTS WERE RECEIVED FROM ARIAVAN THOTAN AND SUPROTOMAN. IT IS ONLY AFTER THE ENQUIRIES BY THE DEPARTMENT, IT WAS INFORMED B Y LETTER DATED APRIL 25, 1996, THAT ARIAVAN THOTAN AND SUPRO TOMAN ARE ONE AND THE SAME PERSON. EVEN AT THAT TIME, NO MEN TION WAS MADE ABOUT SAMPATHKUMAR. FOR THE FIRST TIME SAMPATHKUMARS NAME FIGURED IN THE LETTER DATED AUG UST 30, 1996 AND THEREAFTER IT W AS STATED THAT THE NAMES O F ARIAVAN THOTAN AND SUPROTOMAN ARE THE OTHER NAMES OF SAMPAT HKUMR. THE AO WHILE APPRECIATING THE CONTENTS OF THE LETTE RS BROUGHT ON RECORD CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT SAMPATHKUMAR HAD OBLIGED IN GIVING GIFTS TO SRINIVASAN AND HIS FAM ILY MEMBERS. IT IS FURTHER HELD THAT IN ALL PROBABILITIES SAMPAT HKUMAR MAY HAVE RECEIVED COMPENSATORY PAYMENTS IN LIEU OF THE GIFTS MADE BY HIM. THE LETTERS ACCORDING TO THE AO SUGGEST TH AT SAMPATHKUMAR RESERVED HIS RIGHT TO RECEIVE SUITABLE COMPENSATION FROM THE RESPONDENTS-ASSESSEES. THE A O IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE GIFTS THOUGH APPARENT ARE NOT REAL AND ACCORDINGLY TREATED ALL T HOSE AMOUNTS CREDITED IN THE BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE AS THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEES. THE ADDITIONS WERE CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A). TH E MATTER TRAVELED TO THE TRIBUNAL WHERE THERE WAS A DIFFERENCE OF OPI NION BETWEEN THE TWO MEMBERS, THEREFORE, THE MATTER WAS REFERRED TO THE SR. VICE PRESIDENT WHO CONCURRED WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE AO . IN THIS BACKGROUND THE COURT REFERRED TO VARIOUS DECISIONS INCLUDING THE DECISION OF SUMATI DAYAL, 214 ITR 801 AND MADE VARI OUS OBSERVATIONS INCLUDING OBSERVATIONS IN PARA 24 WHIC H READS AS UNDER:- 11 IT IS TRUE THAT EVEN AFTER REJECTING THE EXPLANATI ON GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE IF FOUND UNACCEPTABLE, THE CRUCIAL ASPECT WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IT SHOULD B E INFERRED THE SUMS CREDITED IN THE BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE CONS TITUTED INCOME OF THE PR3EVIOUS YEAR MUST RECEIVE THE CONSI DERATION OF THE AUTHORITIES PROVIDED THE ASSESSEE REBUT THE EVI DENCE AND THE INFERENCE DRAWN TO REJECT THE EXPLANATION OFFER ED AS UNSATISFACTORY. WE ARE REQUIRED TO NOTICE THAT SEC TION 68 OF THE ACT ITSELF PROVIDES, WHETHER ANY SUM IS FOUND CREDI TED IN THE BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR ANY PREVIOUS YEARS THE SA ME MAY BE CHARGED TO INCOME-TAX AS THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR IF THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE ASS ESSEE ABOUT THE NATURE AND SOURCE OF SUCH SUMS FOUND CREDITED I N THE BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEES IS IN THE OPINION OF THE AO NOT SATISFACTORY. SUCH OPINION FORMED ITSELF CONSTITUT ES A PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE AGAINST THE ASSESSEES, VIZ., THE REC EIPT OF MONEY, AND IF THE ASSESSEES FAIL TO REBUT THE SAID EVIDENCE THE SAME CAN BE USED AGAINST THE ASSESSEES BY HOLDING T HAT IT WAS A RECEIPT OF AN INCOME NATURE. IN THE CASE IN HAND THE AUTHORITIES CONCURRENTLY FOUND THE EXPLANATION OFFE RED BY THE ASSESSEES UNACCEPTABLE. THE AUTHORITIES UPHELD THE OPINION FORMED BY THE AO THAT THE EXPLANATION OFFERED WAS NOT SATISFACTORY. THE ASSESSEES DID NOT TAKE THE PLEA THAT EVEN IF THE EXPLANATION IS NOT ACCEPTABLE THE MATERIAL AND ATTENDING CIRCUMSTANCES AVAILABLE ON RECORD DO NOT JUSTIFY TH E SUM FOUND CREDITED IN THE BOOKS TO BE TREATED AS A RECEIPT OF AN INCOME NATURE. THE BURDEN IN THIS REGARD WAS ON THE ASSES SEES. NO SUCH ATTEMPT HAS BEEN MADE BEFORE ANY AUTHORITY. A LL THE DECISIONS CITED AND REFERRED TO HEREINABOVE ARE REQ UIRED TOBE APPRECIATED AND UNDERSTOOD IN THE LIGHT OF THE LAW DECLARED BY THIS COURT IN SUMATI DAYAL (1995) SUPP 2 SCC 453. A PLAIN READING OF THE ABOVE PARA VERY CLEARLY SHOW S THAT THE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE HAS TO BE LOOKED INTO ON THE BASIS OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND SINCE T HERE WERE VARIOUS INCONSISTENCIES IN THE STATEMENT OF DONOR AND IT W AS A CASE OF GIFT, THEREFORE, THE ABOVE OBSERVATIONS ARE MADE. THE O BSERVATION MADE BY THE HON'BLE APEX COURT CAN NOT BE INTERPRETED AS A RULE THAT WHEREVER A FINDING IS RECORDED BY THE AO THAT EXPLA NATION OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE, IS NOT SATISFACTORY THEN INVARIABLY A DDITION U/S 68 OF THE ACT HAS TO BE CONFIRMED. IN THAT CASE IF THE OBSERV ATION IS INTERPRETED IN THIS MANNER THEN NOBODY WOULD BE ALLOWED TO REBU T THE FINDINGS OF THE AO BY ANY EVIDENCE HOWSOEVER STRONG IT MAY BE. IN ANY CASE THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT HAS ITSELF MENTIONED IN THIS OBSERVATION THAT THE SAME IS REBUTTABLE AND WE AGAIN HIGHLIGHT THE O BSERVATION, SUCH OPINION FORMED ITSELF CONSTITUTES A PRIMA FACIE EVI DENCE AGAINST THE ASSESSEES, VIZ., THE RECEIPT OF MONEY, AND IF THE ASSESSEES FAIL TO REBUT THE SAID EVIDENCE THE SAME CAN BE USED AGAINS T THE ASSESSEES BY HOLDING THAT IT WAS A RECEIPT OF AN IN COME NATURE . WHEREAS IN CASE BEFORE US THE ASSESSEE HAD DISCHARG ED ITS ONUS BY CLEARLY FILING COPY OF ACCOUNT, PAN NO., INCOME-TAX RETURN, BANK STATEMENT, SOURCE OF FUNDS REGARDING LOAN TO DISCHA RGE BURDEN ENVISAGED U/S 68 OF THE ACT. THE ABOVE OBSERVATION S ARE DEFINITELY IN THE CONTEXT OF GIFT RECEIVED IN THAT CASE AND CANNO T BE MADE APPLICABLE IN ALL THE CASES OF CASH CREDITS. IN AN Y CASE, IT HAS NOT BEEN SHOWN BEFORE US HOW REPLY OF THE ASSESSEE IS N OT SATISFACTORY. AS POINTED OUT EARLIER THAT IN CASE OF LOAN TRANSAC TION ONLY THREE 12 INGREDIENTS I.E. IDENTITY OF THE CREDITOR, GENUINEN ESS OF THE TRANSACTION AND CAPACITY OF THE DEPOSITOR OR LOANEE IS REQUIRED TO BE PROVED WHICH HAVE BEEN CLEARLY PROVED IN CASE BEFORE US. IN FA CT IN THIS CASE THE OBSERVATIONS OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT WHILE DISCUSS ING SLP OF THE DEPARTMENT REPORTED AT 211 ITR 11 (STA) IS MUCH MOR E PERTINENT. THE ORDER OF THE COURT READS AS UNDER:- 7.11.1994: THEIR LORDSHIPS B.P. JEEVAN REDDY AND S .B. MAJMUDAR JJ. DISMISSED A SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION BY THE DEPARTMENT TO APPEAL AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 24. 4.1994 OF THE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN ITR NO. 138 OF 1 992, WHEREBY THE HIGH COURT UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE TRIB UNAL AND ANSWERED THE QUESTIONS REFERRED TO IT IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THIS CASE, CERTAIN CASH CREDITS IN TH E NAMES OF THE ASSESSEES WIFE, SON AND DAUGHTER-IN-LAW WERE ADDED BACK BY THE OFFICER AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDITS AND CERTAIN PAYMENTS IN CASH IN EXCESS OF RS. 2,500 WERE DISALLOWED. TH E APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ALLOWED THE ASSESSEES APPEAL HOLDING THAT SINCE THE CASH CREDITS CAME FROM BANK ACCOUNTS HELD BY THE WI FE, THE SON AND THE DAUGHTER-IN-LAW, THE OFFICER COULD NOT ADD BACK THESE AMOUNTS UNLESS HE COULD PROVE THAT THESE PERS ONS WERE THE BENAMIDATS OF THE ASSESSEE. WITH RESPECT TO TH E CASH PAYMENTS IN EXCESS OF RS. 2,500, THE TRIBUNAL HELD THAT THE MATTER WAS COVERED BY A BOARD CIRCULAR AND THE PAYM ENTS HAD TO BE ALLOWED. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX V CHUNNI LAL: SLP (CIVIL) NO. 21334 OF 1994. THUS IT IS CLEAR THAT WHEN LOANS HAVE BEEN TAKEN FR OM THE FAMILY MEMBERS AND WHICH HAVE BEEN ROUTED THROUGH BANK BY MOST OF SUCH FAMILY MEMBERS, THEY CANNOT BE ADDED AS CASH CREDIT S UNLESS IT IS FOUND AS A FACT THAT SUCH BANK ACCOUNTS ARE BENAMI OF THE ASSESSEE. IN CASE BEFORE US, IT CANNOT BE ALLEGED THAT BANK A CCOUNT OF VARIOUS FAMILY MEMBERS ARE BENAMI OF THE ASSESSEE BECAUSE L OANS HAVE BEEN TAKEN FROM SUCH FAMILY MEMBERS FOR LAST MANY Y EARS AND WHICH HAVE BEEN SHOWN AS OPENING BALANCE AND HAVE BEEN AC CEPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT. IN FACT SIMILAR OBSERVATIONS HAVE BEEN MADE BY HON'BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN CASE OF CIT V. RAM N ARESH GOEL (SUPRA) WHEREIN DELETION OF ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF CASH CREDIT WAS HELD TO BE JUSTIFIED WHEN SUCH PERSONS HAD ADMITTED TO GIVING OF LOAN AND CONFIRMATION LETTERS WERE FILED AND AMOUNTS WER E ROUTED THROUGH CHEQUE. WE WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT THAT IT WAS STR ONGLY CONTENDED BY THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE THAT SIMILAR PROFIT S WERE RECEIVED BY THE SAME FAMILY MEMBERS IN THE EARLIER YEARS AND CO PY OF CONTRACT NOTES FOR SUCH PROFITS ARE PLACED IN THE PAPER BOOK AT PAGE 162 TO 163 WERE ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT. THEREFORE, EVEN IN THIS YEAR WITHOUT POINTING OUT ANY DEFECT IN SUCH AMOUNTS OR WITHOUT RECORDING THE FINDING OF SUCH PROFIT WAS BOGUS, SAME COULD NO T HAVE BEEN ADDEDTO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THESE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) AND DELETED THE ADDITION OF RS. 17,21,100/-. 9. IN THE ABOVE NOTED PARAS EVEN THE DECISION OF HO N'BLE SUPREME COURT HAS BEEN CONSIDERED IN DETAIL. IN FA CT, IF THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS SUSPICION THAT COMMODITY PROF IT WAS NOT 13 GENUINE IN THE HANDS OF VARIOUS FAMILY MEMBERS, THE SAME COULD HAVE BEEN ADDED IN THEIR ASSESSMENTS BY REOPENING T HE SAME BUT THE SAME CANNOT BE ASSESSED IN THE HAND OF ASSESSEE BECAUSE SUCH PERSONS HAVE CONFIRMED THE TRANSACTIONS OF LOA NS AND HAS FILED THE RELEVANT PAPERS. THEREFORE, IN OUR OPINIO N THE VIEW TAKEN IN THE CASE OF SEVA RAM V ITO (SUPRA) IS SQUA RELY APPLICABLE IN THIS CASE ALSO AND WE DECIDE THE ISSU E IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. 10(I) THE ORDER OF THE DIVISION BENCH IS BINDING ON THE SINGLE BENCH. THE ISSUE IS, THEREFORE, IDENTICAL AN D COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. ALL POINTS RAISED IN TH E PRESENT APPEAL HAVE ALREADY BEEN DECIDED BY DIVISION BENCH IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THE ISSUE IS CO VERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE, HENCE, THE AUTHORITIES BELO W SHOULD HAVE FOLLOWED THE EARLIER ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN DECIDING THE APPEAL INSTEAD OF CONFIRMING THE ADDITION IN TH E MATTER. FURTHER, ASSESSEE FILED SUFFICIENT EVIDENCES AS NOT ED ABOVE WHICH CLEARLY PROVED IDENTITY OF THE CREDITORS, THE IR CREDIT WORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION IN TH E MATTER. THEREFORE, ADDITION WOULD NOT BE JUSTIFIED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. THUS, THE ASSESSEE PROVED GENUINE RE CEIPT OF CREDITS FROM VARIOUS CREDITORS MENTIONED ABOVE, THE REFORE, ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CREDIT IS WHOLLY UNJUSTIFIED. THE INTEREST PAID THEREON IS ALSO ALL OWABLE DEDUCTION. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, I SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW AND DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS. 23,05,500/- AND RS. 35,057/-. GROUND NOS. 1 TO 3 O F APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED. 14 11. ON GROUND NOS. 4 AND 5, ASSESSEE CHALLENGED T HE ADDITION OF RS. 43,358/- ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF 1/5 TH OF CAR EXPENSES ETC. 12. BRIEFLY THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT DURIN G ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THA T ASSESSEE HAD INCURRED RS. 38,568/-AS CAR EXPENSES, RS. 1,62,128/- AS CAR DEPRECIATION AND RS. 16,092/- AS TELEPHONE EXPENSES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE FOR PERSONAL USES OF THESE EXPENSES AND THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT MAINTAINED ANY LOG BOOK/CALLS DETAILS ETC. ON THESE EXPENSES, THEREFORE, RS. 43,358/- BEING 1/5 TH OF TOTAL EXPENSES WERE DISALLOWED ON ACCOUNT OF PERSONAL USE S. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED BEFORE LD. CIT(APPEALS) THAT ASS ESSEE HAD ALREADY ADDED RS. 25,000/- TO THESE EXPENSES WH ICH IS MORE THAN 12% THEREFORE, ADDITION NOT TO BE MADE AN D IT IS EXCESSIVE IN NATURE. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS), HOWEVER , DID NOT ACCEPT CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE AND DISMISSED THI S GROUND OF APPEAL. 13. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES, I AM OF THE VIEW ADDITION IS EXCESSIVE IN NATURE. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED BEFORE LD. CIT(APPEALS) THAT THERE IS POSSIBILITY OF PERSONAL USE OF CAR, THEREFORE, D ISALLOWANCE IN PRINCIPLE IS JUSTIFIED. HOWEVER, IT IS A FACT T HAT ASSESSEE HAS ALREADY DISALLOWED RS. 25,000/- ON THESE EXPENS ES, THEREFORE, CONSIDERING THIS FACT, THE ADDITION OF R S. 43,358/- IS REDUCED AND RESTRICTED TO RS. 10,000/- ONLY. I, 15 THEREFORE, MODIFY THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW A ND RESTRICT THE ADDITION TO RS. 10,000/- ON THIS ISSUE AS AGAINST ADDITION OF RS. 43,358/-. THESE GROUNDS AR E PARTLY ALLOWED. 14. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTL Y ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- (BHAVNESH SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 19 TH JULY,2016. POONAM COPY TO: THE APPELLANT, THE RESPONDENT, THE CIT(A), THE CIT, DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT CHANDIGARH