M/s G.s. Sethi & Co., Shimla V. ITO, Shimla

ITA 813/CHANDI/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 125 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7520 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-07-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 12-05-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: YOGINDER MITTAL
• Keywords: Business income

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH A, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MS. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.813/CHD/2017 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2013-14) M/S G.S. SETHI & CO., VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, SHASHI VILLA, NAVARATTAN GUEST WARD 1, HOUSE, CHOTTA SHIMLA, SHIMLA. SHIMLA. PAN: AAGFG2468L (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : S/SHRI SUDHIR SEHGAL, ADV. & ASHOK GOYAL, CA RESPONDENT BY : SMT.CHANDERKANTA, ADDL.CIT & SHRI YOGINDER MITTAL, SR.DR DATE OF HEARING : 13.07.2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 13.07.2018 ORDER PER ANNAPURNA GUPTA, A.M . : THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAI NST THE ORDER OF LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL S), SHIMLA DATED 08.03.2017 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013- 14. 2. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE READ AS UNDER : 1. THAT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE ID.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ASSESSMENT AS MADE IN TH E STATUS OF AOP BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, AGAINST THE ASSESS EE'S CLAIM THAT IT WAS A PARTNERSHIP FIRM. 2. THAT THE ID.CIT(A) HAS MISDIRECTED HIMSELF IN LAW AND ON FACTS TO UPHOLD THE ADDITION OF RS.39,69,660/-, AS MA DE BY THE ID.AO BY DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST PAID TO BANK UN DER SECTION 36(L)(III), ON WHOLLY ERRONEOUS AND INSUFFICIE NT GROUNDS. 3. AT THE OUTSET IT MAY BE STATED THAT GROUND NO.1 WAS NOT PRESSED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE SAME IS, THEREFORE , TREATED AS DISMISSED. 2 4. THE SOLE ISSUE, THEREFORE, RELATES TO DISALLOWAN CE OF INTEREST MADE U/S 36(1)(III) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT) RAISED IN GROUND NO.2 ABOVE. 5. BRIEF FACTS RELATING TO THE CASE ARE THAT THE AS SESSEE WAS A PARTNERSHIP CONCERN COMPRISING OF THREE PARTN ERS, SHRI GURDEEP SINGH SETHI, SHRI MANPREET SINGH SETHI AND SHRI PRIYADARSHAN AND WAS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS O F LIQUOR, HAVING BEEN ALLOTTED L-14 AND L2 LICENCES I N THE STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH. THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED I TS RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING INCOME AT RS.7,44,330/-. DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICE D THAT THERE WAS DEBIT BALANCE OF RS.5,68,42,578/- IN THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT OF ONE OF THE PARTNER SHRI G.S. SETHI. PERU SAL OF PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT REVEALED THAT DURING THE YEAR ASSESSEE FIRM PAID INTEREST OF RS.39,69,660/- AS INTEREST ON BANK OVERDRAFT AND CLAIMED EXPENDITURE OF THE SAME IN TH E P & L ACCOUNT. THE AO NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PAID IN TEREST TO THE BANK ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST ON OVERDRAFT BUT HAD NOT CHARGED ANY INTEREST ON THE DEBIT BALANCE OF SHRI G .S. SETHI. THE ASSESSING OFFICER THEREFORE, RELYING ON THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT I N THE CASE OF M/S ABHISHEK INDUSTRIES VS. C1T (286 ITR-1 ), DISALLOWED INTEREST AMOUNTING TO RS.39,69,660/- AS PERTAINING TO INTEREST BEARING FUNDS USED FOR MAKI NG INTEREST FREE ADVANCE TO PARTNER AND THE SAME WAS ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 3 6. BEFORE THE LD.CIT(APPEALS) THE ASSESSEE CONTENDE D THAT IT HAD SUFFICIENT OWN FUNDS FOR MAKING THE IMPUGNED ADVANCE TO THE PARTNER AND, THEREFORE, THE INTEREST BEARING FUNDS CANNOT BE SAID TO HAVE BEEN DIVERTED FOR THE PURPOSE OF MAKING SUCH ADVANCE. IT WAS CONTENDED THAT THE O THER PARTNERS HAD SUFFICIENT CREDIT BALANCE IN THEIR ACC OUNTS WHICH WAS MORE THAN THE DEBIT BALANCE IN THE ACCOUN T OF THE RELEVANT PARTNER AND, THEREFORE, THE DISALLOWAN CE ON ACCOUNT U/S 36(1)(III) OF THE ACT WAS UNWARRANTED. 7. THE LD.CIT(APPEALS) AFTER CONSIDERING ASSESSEES SUBMISSIONS NOTED THAT HUGE FUNDS TO THE TUNE OF RS.5,68,42,578/- HAD BEEN ADVANCED TO THE PARTNER S HRI G.S.SETHI WITHOUT ANY INTEREST AND THAT SIMULTANEOU SLY, THE ASSESSEE WAS CLAIMING DEDUCTION ON INTEREST PAID TO BANKS FOR AVAILING OVER DRAFT FACILITY TO THE TUNE OF RS. 39,69,660/-. THE CIT(APPEALS) FURTHER NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WA S AVAILING LOAN/OVERDRAFT FACILITY/CREDIT FACILITY FR OM HINDU COOPERATIVE BANK AND THE AMOUNT OUTSTANDING FROM TH E SAID BANK AS AT THE END OF THE YEAR WAS RS.3,03,37, 185/-. THE CIT(APPEALS) FURTHER NOTICED THAT THE ENTIRE AD VANCE HAD BEEN MADE TO THE PARTNER FROM THE SAID BANK ONL Y ON WHICH INTEREST WAS BEING PAID BY THE ASSESSEE BY IS SUING CHEQUES. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE FACTS, THE LD.CIT(AP PEALS) HELD THAT CLEARLY THE INTEREST BEARING FUNDS HAD BE EN USED FOR MAKING INTEREST FREE ADVANCE TO THE PARTNER WHI CH WAS NOT SHOWN TO BE FOR BUSINESS PURPOSE AND, THEREFORE , FOR THE SAID REASON UPHELD THE DISALLOWANCE MADE OF INTERES T U/S 4 36(1)(III) OF THE ACT AMOUNTING TO RS.39,69,660/-. THE RELEVANT FINDINGS OF THE LD.CIT(APPEALS) AT PARAS 5 .4.2 AND 5.4.3 ARE AS UNDER: 5.4.2 THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE ORDER OF THE A.O. AND THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT HUGE FUNDS TO THE TUNE OF RS,5,68,42,5 78/- HAS BEEN ADVANCED TO SH. G.S. SETHI, PARTNER AND NO INT EREST HAS BEEN CHARGED BY THE CONCERN FOR THE SAME. THE APPEL LANT IS SIMULTANEOUSLY CLAIMING THE DEDUCTION OF RS.39,69,6 60/- IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT ON THE INTEREST PAID TO BANKS FOR AVAILING OVERDRAFT FACILITIES. THE APPELLANT CLAIMED DE DUCTION WHILE COMPUTING THE PROFITS OF BUSINESS INCOME UNDER S ECTION 36(I)(III) WHICH ALLOWS DEDUCTION OF THE AMOUNT OF INTEREST PAID IN RESPECT OF CAPITAL BORROWED FOR THE PURPOSE OF BU SINESS OR PROFESSION. THUS, THE ONLY ISSUE TO BE SEEN IS WHETHE R THE INTEREST EXPENDITURE CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT IS FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS OR NOT. CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE CA SE, AND ALSO CONSIDERING THAT SUBSTANTIAL FUNDS ARE BEING ADVANCE D TO ONE OF THE PARTNERS WITHOUT CHARGING ANY INTEREST, IT WILL BE IMPORTANT TO PERUSE THE FACTS OF THE CASE. A PERUSA L OF THE BALANCE SHEET SHOWS THAT THE APPELLANT IS AVAILING LOAN/OVERDRAFT FACILITY/CREDIT FACILITY FROM THE HI NDU CO- OPERATIVE BANK. THE AMOUNT RECEIVED AS LOAN/CREDIT OUTSTANDING AS ON 31.03.2013 IS SHOWN AT RS.3,03,37,1 85/-. TO DECIDE THE ISSUE AT HAND THE SOURCE OF THE MONEY A DVANCED TO THE PARTNER IN QUESTION AND THE NEXUS THEREOF NEEDS TO BE LOOKED INTO. IN CASE, THE AMOUNTS HAS BEEN ADVANCED TO THE PARTNER BY ISSUING CHEQUES AND DEBITING THE HINDU CO- OPERATIVE BANK THE BANK FROM WHICH CREDIT AND OVERDRA FT FACILITY IS BEING TAKEN , IT WILL BE CLEAR THAT THE FUN DS ADVANCED TO THE PARTNER HAS BEEN ADVANCED OUT OF INTEREST-BEA RING FUNDS TAKEN FOR THE CONCERN. A PERUSAL OF THE STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT OF SH. GURDEEP SINGH SETHI , PLACED ON RECORD BY THE AP PELLANT, IN THIS CASE SHOWS THAT FOLLOWING AMOUNTS HAVE BEEN ADVANCED BY ISSUING CHEQUES FROM THE HINDU CO-OPERAT IVE BANK ON WHICH THE INTEREST IS BEING PAID BY THE ASSESSEE C ONCERN. SR. NO. DATE AMOUNT (DEBIT) NARRATION 1. 09.04.2012 700000 CHEQUE NO. 11 11645, THE HINDU CO.OP. BANK 2. 26.04.2012 2500000 CHEQUE NO. 1111650, THE HINDU CO.OP. BANK 3. 01.05.2012 3000000 -CHEQUE NO. 1111655, THE HINDU CO.OP. BANK 4. 21.05.2012 2000000 CHEQUE NO. 1111664, THE HINDU CO.OP. BANK 5 01.06.2012 2150000 CHEQUE NO. 1111673, THE HINDU CO.OP. BANK Q. 04.06.2012 1000000 CHEQUE NO. 1111674, THE HINDU CO.OP. BANK 7 05.06.2012 2000000 CHEQUE NO. 111 1676, THE HINDU CO.OP. BANK 8 05.06.2012 2000000 CHEQUE NO. 1111677, THE HINDU CO.OP. BANK 5 9. ' 05.07.2012 2500000 CHEQUE NO. 111 1693, THE HINDU CO.OP. BANK 10 18.07.2012 2000000 CHEQUE NO. 1111700, THE HINDU CO.OP. BANK 11 08.08.2012 500000 CHEQUE NO. 1122310, THE HINDU CO.OP. BANK 12 24.08.2012 235000 CHEQUE NO. 341288, THE HINDU CO.OP. BANK 13 25.08.2012 100000 CHEQUE NO. 1122316, THE HINDU CO.OP. BANK 14 03.09.2012 100000 CHEQUE NO. 1122328, THE HINDU CO.OP. BANK 5.4.3 PERUSAL OF THE ABOVE CLEARLY SHOWS THAT THE C ONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT THAT THE INTEREST-BEARING FUNDS ARE USED FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS IS NOT SUPPORTED BY THE FACTS ON RECORD. IT IS CLEARLY SEEN THAT THE INTEREST-BEARIN G FUNDS HAVE BEEN ADVANCED TO THE PARTNER IN QUESTION WITHOUT CH ARGING ANY INTEREST. THE AMOUNTS TABULATED ABOVE ARE NOT A DVANCED TO THE PARTNER FOR ANY BUSINESS EXIGENCY. IT IS NOT OU T OF PLACE TO MENTION HERE THAT A PERUSAL OF THE BALANCE SHEET AS ON 31.03.2013 SHOWS THAT THE IMPREST .DEBIT TO SH. G.S . SETHI IS SEPARATELY SHOWN AT RS.1,88,00,000/- AND THE CURREN T ACCOUNT OF SH. G.S. SETHI, PARTNER IS SHOWING A DEBIT BALANCE OF RS.1842989/-. HENCE, EVEN IF THE IMPREST 'DEBIT IS CONSIDERED TO BE ADVANCED FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS, THE DEB IT OF RS.5,68,42,578/- REFERRED SUPRA CANNOT BE HELD TO B E ADVANCED FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS. DIVERSION OF INTEREST BEARING FUNDS IS ESTABLISHED IN THIS CASE AND THUS T HE DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST U/S 36(I)(III) IS FULLY JUSTIF IED. THUS, THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER CANNOT BE FAULTED WIT H. THE DISALLOWANCE OF THE INTEREST MADE BY THE A.O. IN THIS C ASE IS UPHELD AND GROUND NO. 8,9 & 10 ARE DELETED. 8. AGGRIEVED BY THE SAME, THE ASSESSEE HAS COME UP IN APPEAL BEFORE US. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING BEF ORE US, LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE REITERATED THE CONTENTIONS MADE BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES STATING THAT THERE WAS SUFFICIENT INTEREST FREE FUNDS AVAILABLE WITH THE P ARTNERSHIP CONCERN FOR MAKING IMPUGNED INTEREST FREE ADVANCE T O THE PARTNER OF THE FIRM. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE I N THIS REGARD POINTED OUT THAT THE ASSESSEE FIRM HAD AVAIL ABLE INTEREST FREE FUNDS OF RS.6.3 CRORES AS UNDER: 1) TOTAL CREDIT SIDE OF THE BALANCE SHEET RS.9,39,52,526/- 2) LESS: LOANS TAKEN RS.3,08,37,105/- 3) INTEREST FREE AMOUNTS 6 AVAILABLE RS.6,31,15,421/- 9. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT TH E DEBIT BALANCE TO THE PARTNER WAS TO THE TUNE OF RS.5,68,4 2,578/-. THUS, THE AVAILABLE INTEREST FREE FUNDS WITH THE AS SESSEE FIRM, IT WAS POINTED OUT WAS SUFFICIENT TO MAKE THE IMPUGNED INTEREST FREE ADVANCE. IT WAS ALSO POINTE D OUT THAT SUFFICIENCY OF FUNDS IS EVIDENCED FROM THE CRE DIT BALANCE OF CAPITAL OF OTHER TWO PARTNERS TO THE TUN E OF RS.4,97,12,378/-. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE STAT ED THAT THE FINDINGS OF THE LD.CIT(APPEALS) THAT THE ADVAN CE HAD BEEN MADE FROM OVERDRAFT ACCOUNT OF HINDU COOPERATI VE BANK ,AND THEREFORE THE NEXUS BETWEEN THE INTEREST BEARING FUNDS AND SAID ADVANCES SO MADE WAS ESTABLISHED, IS INCORRECT. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT THE FUNDS IN THE HINDU COOPERATIVE BANK WERE MIXED FUND S WHEREIN THE TRADING RECEIPTS OF THE ASSESSEE WERE A LSO DEPOSITED. COPY OF THE LOAN ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE WITH THE SAID BANK FOR THE IMPUGNED PERIOD WAS FILED SHOWING DEPOSIT OF SALE PROCEEDS IN THE SAID ACCOUNT. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE STATED THAT IN FACT ALL BANK A CCOUNTS MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE CONTAINED MIXED FUNDS WH EREIN THE SALE PROCEEDS WERE ALSO DEPOSITED BY THE ASSES SEE. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE ALSO POINTED OUT THAT THE TURNOVER OF THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR WAS RS.18.55 CRORES WHICH WAS ALL DEPOSITED IN THESE BANK ACCOUNTS AND THE AD VANCES, THEREFORE, MADE TO THE PARTNER COULD NOT BE ATTRIBU TED ONLY TO THE LOAN TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE BUT COULD BE ATTR IBUTED TO THE TRADING RECEIPTS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. COUN SEL FOR 7 ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, STATED THAT IN VIEW OF THE ABO VE, NO DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST U/S 36(1)(III) OF THE ACT WAS WARRANTED. 10. THE LD. DR, ON THE OTHER HAND RELIED UPON THE O RDER OF THE CIT(APPEALS). 11. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE CONTENTIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES. THE ISSUE BEFORE US RELATES TO DISALLO WANCE OF INTEREST U/S 36(1)(III) OF THE ACT ON ACCOUNT OF AT TRIBUTING THE INTEREST BEARING FUNDS OF THE ASSESSEE TO HAVE BEEN USED FOR ADVANCING TO PARTNER WITHOUT INTEREST BY WAY OF SURPLUS WITHDRAWALS FROM CAPITAL ACCOUNT TO THE EXTENT OF RS.5,68,42,578/-. 12. AS REGARDS THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. COUNSEL FO R ASSESSEE THAT SUFFICIENT SURPLUS INTEREST FREE FUND S WERE AVAILABLE WITH IT TO MAKE THE IMPUGNED ADVANCE TO T HE PARTNERS, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN UNABL E TO CORROBORATE THE SAME WITH THE FACTS ON RECORD. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE HAS MERELY SUBMITTED A CALCULA TION OF AVAILABILITY OF INTEREST FREE FUNDS TO THE TUNE OF RS.6.3 CRORES BY REDUCING THE LOANS TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE FROM THE CREDIT BALANCE OF THE BALANCE SHEET OF THE ASSESSEE . IN OUR VIEW, THE BALANCE FIGURE DOES NOT NECESSARILY REFL ECT ONLY THE INTEREST FREE FUNDS AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE . THE BALANCE COULD COMPRISE OF CREDITORS BALANCES AND OT HER LIABILITIES OUTSTANDING AS ALSO ANY PROVISION CREAT ED BY THE ASSESSEE, WHICH, BY NO STRETCH OF LOGIC CAN BE TERM ED AS INTEREST FREE FUNDS AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE FOR THE 8 PURPOSE OF MAKING ADVANCES. THEREFORE, SINCE THE AS SESSEE HAS FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE THE ACTUAL AMOUNT OF INTE REST FREE FUNDS AVAILABLE WITH IT, WE CANNOT AGREE WITH THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE THAT IT HAD SUFFICIENT INTEREST FREE FUNDS TO MAKE THE IMPUGNED ADVANCE TO THE PARTNERS THUS WARRANTING NO DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST U/S 36(1)(III) OF THE ACT. AS FOR THE ALTERNATE CON TENTION OF THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, THAT IT HAD USED I TS TRADING RECEIPTS DEPOSITED IN ITS BANK ACCOUNT FOR MAKING T HE IMPUGNED ADVANCE TO THE PARTNERS, WE FIND MERIT IN THIS CONTENTION OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE. IT IS A N ADMITTED FACT THAT THE AMOUNT ADVANCED TO THE PARTNERS WAS E NTIRELY BY ISSUING CHEQUES FROM HINDU COOPERATIVE BANK FROM WHICH OVERDRAFT/CREDIT FACILITY WAS AVAILABLE BY TH E ASSESSEE. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE HAS CONTENDE D THAT IT WAS DEPOSITING ITS BUSINESS RECEIPTS IN THE SAID ACCOUNT. IF THERE IS DIRECT NEXUS BETWEEN THE TRADING RECEIP TS DEPOSITED IN THE SAID ACCOUNT AND ADVANCE GIVEN TO THE PARTNERS, IT CAN BE SAFELY PRESUMED THAT THE TRADIN G RECEIPTS HAD BEEN USED FOR MAKING THE SAID ADVANCES AND IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, IT CAN BE SAFELY HELD THAT THE INTEREST FREE FUNDS HAD BEEN USED FOR MAKING ADVANCES TO THE PARTNERS WARRANTING NO DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST U/S 36(1)(III) OF THE ACT. BUT WE FIND THAT THE FACTS I N THIS REGARD NEED TO BE EXAMINED. WE, THEREFORE, CONSIDER IT FIT TO RESTORE THE ISSUE TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH THE LIMITED DIRECTION TO EXAMINE THE NEXUS, IF ANY, BETWEEN THE TRADING R ECEIPTS OF THE ASSESSEE DEPOSITED IN THE HINDU COOPERATIVE BANK 9 ACCOUNT MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE AMOUNT ADVANCED TO THE PARTNER AND DIRECT THAT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES THE NEXUS IS FOUND TO EXIST, NO DISAL LOWANCE OF INTEREST U/S 36(1)(III) OF THE ACT BE MADE TO TH E EXTENT PERTAINING TO THE AMOUNT SO ADVANCED. WITH THIS LIM ITED DIRECTION WE RESTORE THE ISSUE TO THE ASSESSING OFF ICER TO RE- ADJUDICATE THE SAME. THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED TO FU RNISH ALL NECESSARY EVIDENCES TO PROVE ITS CASE AND THE ASSES SING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO AFFORD ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO DO THE SAME. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS ALLOWED FOR ST ATISTICAL PURPOSES. 13. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- SD/- (SANJAY GARG) (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 13 TH JULY, 2018 *RATI* COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A) 4. THE CIT 5. THE DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH