ACIT, Ludhiana V. Sh. Ashok Garg, Chandigarh

ITA 845/CHANDI/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0061 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 6 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-04-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 09-03-2016
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 09-10-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: P C GOYAL
• Keywords: Document seized; Documents seized

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MS. RANO JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.845/CHD/2014 ( ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12) THE A.C.I.T., VS. SHRI ASHOK GARG, CENTRAL CIRCLE -III, PROP. M/S GARG CONSTRUCTION CO. LUDHIANA. 260, SECTOR 9-C, CHANDIGARH. PAN: AEOPG2567A (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI MANOJ MISHRA, CIT DR RESPONDENT BY : SHRI P.C.GOYAL DATE OF HEARING : 09.03.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 25.04.2016 O R D E R PER RANO JAIN, A.M . : THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-I, LUDHIANA DATED 23.7.2014 FOR ASSESSMEN T YEAR 2011-12. 2. THE GROUND NO.1 RELATES TO DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS.26,70,000/- ON THE BASIS OF SEIZED MATERIAL. 3. BRIEFLY, THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITION OF RS.26,70,000/- O N THE BASIS OF SEIZED DOCUMENT AT ANNEXURE A-5, PAGE NOS. 114 2 AND 115 AND ANNEXURE A-14, PAGE NOS.82 TO 84. BEFO RE THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE EXPENSES RECORDED ON THESE PAPERS HAVE BEEN INCURRE D OUT OF IMPREST ACCOUNT OF SHRI RAHUL GARG AND WERE DULY RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSING OF FICER DID NOT BELIEVE THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT THE SAID ENTRIES WERE IN CASH AND THOUG H ENTERED IN COMPUTERIZED CASH BOOK, THE SAME WAS NOT PRODUCED AT THE TIME OF SEARCH AND, THEREFORE, NOT RELIABLE. 4. BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS), IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT INSPITE OF BEING SATISFIED THAT THE EXPENSES ARE INCURRED THROUGH IMPREST ACCOUNT OF SHRI RAHUL GARG, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD MADE THE ADDITION ONLY ON THE BASIS OF FACT THAT THE CASH BOOK WAS NOT PRODUCED A T THE TIME OF SEARCH AND AS SUCH, THE SAME IS NOT RELIABL E. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT AT THE TIME OF SEARCH, NOBODY AS KED FOR VERIFICATION OF THESE ENTRIES AND ONLY IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE EXPLANATION WAS CALLED FOR, WHICH WAS DULY PROVIDED BY THE ASSESSEE. SOME CALCULATION ERRORS AND ERRORS PERTAINING TO TAKING WRONG FIGURES WERE ALSO POINTED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE. A C OPY OF THE IMPREST ACCOUNT MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE WITH SHRI RAHUL GARG WAS FILED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WHICH WAS AGAIN FILED BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS). 5. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) ALLOWED THE GRO UND OF THE ASSESSEE. THE BASIS OF THIS ACT OF THE LEARNED CIT 3 (APPEALS) WAS THAT DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING S, VARIOUS ENTRIES RECORDED IN THE SEIZED DOCUMENT HAV E BEEN CROSS VERIFIED AND IT WAS FOUND BY HIM TO BE DULY R ECORDED DATE-WISE IN THE CASH BOOK. 6. AGGRIEVED BY THIS, THE DEPARTMENT HAS COME UP IN APPEAL BEFORE US. THE LEARNED D.R. RELIED ON TH E ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) HAS NOT APPRECIATED THE FACTS AS STATED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT THE ASSESSEE HA D FAILED TO PRODUCE ANY CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE. HE H AS ALSO IGNORED THE FACT THAT IF THE CASH BOOK IN THIS REGA RD WAS AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE DURING THE SEARCH PROCE EDINGS, THE ASSESSEE MUST HAVE PRODUCED THE SAME FOR JUSTIF YING HIS CLAIM. PRODUCING THE SAME AFTERWARDS RAISES SE RIOUS QUESTION ON THE GENUINENESS OF THE SAME AS BEING AN AFTERTHOUGHT OF THE ASSESSEE. 7. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES A ND RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS). 8. WE HAVE HEARD THE LEARNED REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH THE PARTIES, PERUSED THE FINDINGS OF THE AUTHO RITIES BELOW AND CONSIDERED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECO RD. THE FINDING WITH REGARD TO THIS GROUND HAS BEEN REC ORDED BY THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) IN HIS ORDER AT APGE 9 , PARA 9, WHICH READS AS UNDER : 4 9. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE BA SIS OF ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE ARGUMENTS OF THE AR ON THE ISSUE DURING ASSESSMENT AS WELL AS APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. IT IS SEEN THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS CLEARLY ACCEPTED THE FACT THAT THE RECOR D OF PAYMENT OF RS.26,70,000/- SPENT THROUGH IMPREST ACCOUNT OF SH. RAHUL GARG HAD BEEN DULY ENTERED IN THE COMPUTERIZED CASH BOOK BUT HE SAME WAS NOT ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE GROUND THAT SUCH CASH BOOK HAD NOT BEEN PRODUCED DURING THE SEARCH PROCEEDINGS. THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT THAT NO SUCH CASH BOOK W AS REQUIRED TO BE PRODUCED AT THE TIME OF SEARCH OPERA TION AND HENCE THE SAME COULD NOT BE THE BASIS TO REJECT THE GENUINENESS OF ITS ENTRIES IS LOGICAL. IT IS ALSO A MATTER OF RECORD THAT THE CASH BOOK AS PRODUCED DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS IS AS PER THE BOOKS OF ACCOUN TS MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE IN REGULAR COURSE OF BUS INESS AND NOTHING HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE ASSES SING OFFICER TO REJECT THE GENUINENESS OF THE SAME. EVEN DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS VARIOUS ENTRIES AS RECORD ED IN THE SEIZED DOCUMENT WHICH HAVE BEEN SPENT THROUGH IMPREST ACCOUNT OF SH. RAHUL GARG HAVE BEEN CROSS VERIFIED AND FOUND DULY RECORDED DATEWISE IN THE CA SH BOOK OF THE APPELLANT. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THERE IS NO BASIS TO HOLD THE VIEW THAT THE IMPUGNED PAYMENT DI D NOT FIND RECORD IN THE REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. THE A DDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THIS ACCOUNT IS THE REFORE DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. 10. ON PERUSAL OF THE SAME, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) . TWO ARGUMENTS HAVE BEEN RAISED BY THE LEARNED D.R. DURI NG THE COURSE OF HEARING. FIRSTLY, IT WAS STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO CORROBORATE THE ENTRI ES RECORDED IN THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS. IN THIS REGARD, THE 5 LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) HAS GIVEN A FINDING THAT THE ENTRIES IN THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS WERE CROSS VERIFIED WITH TH E CASH BOOK OF THE ASSESSEE. A COPY OF THE IMPREST ACCOUN T TOGETHER WITH THE COPY OF SEIZED DOCUMENT WAS FILED EVEN BEFORE US. THE SECOND ARGUMENT WAS WITH REGARD TO THE GENUINENESS OF THE CASH BOOK. NOWHERE IN THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER HE HAS BEEN ABLE TO BRING ON RECORD ANY EVIDENCE OR MATERIAL TO PROVE THAT THE QUERY RE GARDING THESE ENTRIES IN THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS WERE RAISED B EFORE THE ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF SEARCH AND HOW THE CASH BOOK HAS BEEN MADE AFTERWARDS BY THE ASSESSEE. EVEN DUR ING THE HEARING BEFORE US, THE LEARNED D.R. COULD NOT P OINT OUT ANY EVIDENCE IN THIS REGARD. IN VIEW OF THESE , THE GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 11. THE GROUND NO.2 RELATES TO DELETION OF ADDITIO N OF RS.5,57,151/- ON THE BASIS OF ENTRIES ON A SEIZE D DOCUMENT. 12. THE ADDITION OF RS.5,57,151/- WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE EXPL ANATION OF THE ENTRIES IN THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS PERTAINED TO THE AMOUNTS SPENT THROUGH IMPREST ACCOUNT OF ONE SHRI MOHAN SINGH WERE IN CASH AND HAD BEEN ENTERED IN TH E COMPUTERIZED CASH BOOK, IS NOT TENABLE SINCE THE CA SH BOOK WAS NOT PRODUCED AT THE TIME OF SEARCH AND, THEREFORE, IS NOT RELIABLE. 6 13. BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS), IT WAS STATE D THAT SHRI MOHAN SINGH IS AN EMPLOYEE OF THE ASSESSE E FIRM LOOKING AFTER DAY-TO-DAY EXPENSES AT VARIOUS SITES. HE TAKES IMPREST FROM SHRI RAHUL GARG FOR INCURRING RO UTINE EXPENSES AND MAINTAINS HIS DAY-TO-DAY ACCOUNT, WHIC H WAS LATER ON ACCOUNTED FOR IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE THE ADDI TION DESPITE THE FACT THAT HE HIMSELF AGREES THAT ALL TH E ENTRIES ARE IN CASH AND FOUND ENTERED IN THE COMPUTERIZED C ASH BOOK. THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) ALLOWED THIS GROUN D OF THE ASSESSEE STATING THAT ALL THE ENTRIES RECORDED IN THE SEIZED DOCUMENT WERE PROPERLY RECORDED IN THE CASH BOOK WERE DULY VERIFIED. 14. AGGRIEVED BY THIS, THE DEPARTMENT HAS COME UP IN APPEAL. THE LEARNED D.R. AT THE TIME OF HEARING BEFORE US RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND FURTHER STATED THAT THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) HAS NOT APPRE CIATED THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO PRODUCE AN Y CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE WITH REGARD TO THE ENTRIES APPEARING IN THE SEIZED DOCUMENT. 15. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) AND STATED T HAT EACH AND EVERY ENTRY APPEARING IN THE SEIZED DOCUME NT WERE DULY VERIFIED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. TH E EXPLANATIONS GIVEN IN THIS REGARD BEFORE THE ASSESS ING OFFICER AS WELL AS THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) WERE R EITERATED BEFORE US. 7 16. WE HAVE HEARD THE LEARNED REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH THE PARTIES, PERUSED THE FINDINGS OF THE AUTHO RITIES BELOW AND CONSIDERED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECO RD. THE FINDING OF THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) IN THIS RE GARD APPEARING AT THE END OF PARA 9 AT PAGE 10 OF HIS OR DER READS AS UNDER : 'SIMILARLY, THE ADDITION OF RS.5,57,151/- ON ACCOUNT OF PAYMENTS MADE THROUGH IMPREST ACCOUNT OF SH. MOHAN SINGH HAVE BEEN DULY RECORDED IN THE CASH BOOK AND H AVE BEEN VERIFIED DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS AS WEL L. HENCE NO ADDITION IN RESPECT OF THE SAME IS CALLED FO R. THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THIS ACCOUN T IS ALSO DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. 17. ON PERUSAL OF THE SAME, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY AS THE ONLY ISSUE WHILE MAKING THIS ADDIT ION BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER RAISED BY HIM WAS THAT THE CA SH BOOK WAS NOT PRODUCED AT THE TIME OF SEARCH DESPITE THE FACT THAT HE HIMSELF ACCEPTED THE FACT THAT ALL THE SE ENTRIES WERE DULY ENTERED IN THE COMPUTERIZED CASH BOOK. IN VIEW OF THIS, THE QUESTION OF CORROBORATING OF E NTRIES DO NOT STAND AS THE ASSESSING OFFICER HIMSELF AGREES T HAT ALL THESE ENTRIES ARE RECORDED IN THE CASH BOOK. THE O NLY ISSUE IS WHETHER THE CASH BOOK WAS AVAILABLE AT THE TIME OF SEARCH OR NOT. WE SEE FROM THE ORDER OF THE ASS ESSING OFFICER THAT NOWHERE HE HAS BEEN ABLE TO BRING ON R ECORD ANY MATERIAL OR EVIDENCE TO CONTROVERT THE STAND T AKEN BY THE ASSESSEE THAT NO QUERY WITH REGARD TO THESE ENT RIES APPEARING IN THE SEIZED DOCUMENT WAS EVER RAISED AT THE TIME OF SEARCH. IN VIEW OF THIS, WE DO NOT FIND AN Y NEED TO 8 INTERFERE WITH THE FINDING GIVEN BY THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS). THE GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE REVE NUE IS DISMISSED. 18. THE GROUND NO.3 RELATES TO DELETION OF ADDITIO N OF RS.4,94,709/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDE R SECTION 36(1)(III) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PAID INTEREST OF RS.1,17,92,351/- ON ACCOUNT OF AMOUNTS BORROWED FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS BUT AT THE SAME TIME HAS GIVEN INTEREST FREE UNSECURED LOANS TO CERTAIN PERSONS. HE CONCLUDED THAT THE AMOUNT TOTALING RS.141.01 LACS H AD THUS NOT BEEN USED FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS AND, THEREFORE, MADE A DISALLOWANCE @ 12% ON SUCH ADVANC E. 19. BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS), APART FROM RAISING CERTAIN ISSUES WITH REGARD TO THE CALCULATI ON ERRORS COMMITTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND ERROR IN TAK ING WRONG FIGURES OF THE LOANS, THE ASSESSEE ARGUED THA T THE INTEREST HAS BEEN CALCULATED BY THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER @ 12% ON THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF UNSECURED LOANS FOR THE WHOLE YEAR IGNORING THE FACT THAT IN CERTAIN CASES, ADVANCES HAVE REMAINED OUTSTANDING ONLY FOR A PART OF YEAR. A DETAILED CALCULATION OF INTEREST MADE BY T HE ASSESSEE ON THE BASIS OF THIS ARGUMENT WAS FILED BE FORE THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS). 9 20. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) RESTRICTED THE DISALLOWANCE TO RS.11,97,411/-. THE LEARNED CIT (AP PEALS) HELD THAT THE EFFECTIVE USAGE OF FUNDS OF THE ASSES SEE BORROWED ON INTEREST HAVE BEEN ONLY TO THE EXTENT T HAT THE SAME HAVE BEEN ADVANCED TO OUTSIDE PARTIES. THEREF ORE, THE CALCULATION OF INTEREST HAS TO START FROM THE D ATE OF ADVANCE TILL THE AMOUNT IS RECEIVED BACK RATHER THA N THE WHOLE YEAR. 21. AGGRIEVED BY THIS, THE DEPARTMENT HAS COME UP IN APPEAL. THE LEARNED D.R. RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WHILE THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR TH E ASSESSEE RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT (AP PEALS). 22. WE HAVE HEARD THE LEARNED REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH THE PARTIES, PERUSED THE FINDINGS OF THE AUTHO RITIES BELOW AND CONSIDERED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECO RD. IN THIS CASE, THE FINDINGS OF THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS ) ARE RECORDED AT PARA 13, PAGE NO.13 OF HIS ORDER, WHICH READ AS UNDER : 13. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE BASIS OF DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICE R AND THE ARGUMENTS OF THE AR ON THE ISSUE DURING ASSESSM ENT AS WELL AS APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. IT IS SEEN THAT THE A PPELLANT DOES NOT HAVE ANY EXPLANATION FOR ADVANCING INTEREST FREE AMOUNTS AS HIGHLIGHTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER T O DIFFERENT PARTIES. THIS MEANS THAT THE BUSINESS EXIGEN CY OF ADVANCING SUCH INTEREST FREE LOANS HAS NOT BEEN ESTAB LISHED AS A MATTER OF FACT. IN THIS SITUATION THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE 10 JURISDICTIONAL PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. M/S ABHISHEK INDUST RIES LTD. 286 ITR 1 IS SQUARELY APPLICABLE AS THE ASSESS EE HAD BORROWED AMOUNTS FOR THE PURPOSES OF BUSINESS ON WH ICH INTEREST AMOUNTING TO RS.1,17,92, 351/- HAS BEEN PAID. HOWEVER, THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT RAISED A F ACTUAL CLAIM THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS WRONGLY WORKED OUT INTEREST @ 12% ON THE AMOUNT OUTSTANDING AT THE END OF THE YEAR WHEREAS THE AMOUNT OF INTEREST TO BE DISALLOWED IF ANY HAD TO BE CALCULATED FOR THE PE RIOD FOR WHICH THE AMOUNTS HAD BEEN GIVEN. I AM IN AGREEMENT WITH THE APPELLANT'S CLAIM ON THE ISSUE AS EFFECTIVE USAGE OF FUNDS OF THE APPELLANT BORROWED ON INTEREST HAVE BEE N ONLY TO THE EXTENT THAT THE SAME HAVE BEEN ADVANCED TO O UTSIDE PARTIES. THE CALCULATION OF INTEREST THEREFORE HAS T O BE STARTED FROM THE DAY OF ADVANCE TILL THE AMOUNT IS RECEIVED BACK RATHER THAN FOR THE ENTIRE FINANCIAL YE AR, WHICH WOULD BE DISALLOWED ON PRESUMPTIVE BASIS. THE DISALLOWANCE SO WORKED OUT COMES TO RS.L1,97,411/- A ND THE SAID CALCULATION HAD BEEN DULY CONFRONTED TO TH E ASSESSING OFFICER AND HAS NO ARITHMETICAL OBJECTION S TO THE SAME. THE DISALLOWANCE IS THEREFORE RESTRICTED TO RS.11,97,411/-. 23. ON PERUSAL OF THE SAME, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) . THE ONLY LIMITED ISSUE BEFORE US IS WHETHER WHILE CALCU LATING THE DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 36(1)(III) OF THE AC T, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS RIGHT IN COMPUTING THE SAME F OR THE WHOLE YEAR IN EVERY CASE OR THE ACTION OF THE LEAR NED CIT (APPEALS) IN RESTRICTING THE SAME ONLY TO THE EXTEN T OF PERIOD, FOR WHICH THE SAID ADVANCES WERE GIVEN. ONCE IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT THE INTEREST FREE FUNDS WERE USE D TO GIVE INTEREST FREE ADVANCES AS WE OBSERVE THAT THE 11 ASSESSEE IS NOT IN APPEAL AGAINST THE DISALLOWANCES SUSTAINED BY THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS), THE QUESTIO N REMAINS ONLY OF THE COMPUTATION OF SUCH INTEREST. ONCE THE PRESUMPTION THAT THE LOANS WERE GIVEN OUT OF BO RROWED FUNDS, IS TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION, COMPUTING THE INTEREST IN EVERY CASE FOR THE WHOLE YEAR WILL AMOUNT TO TAK ING THE PRESUMPTION TO AN UNBELIEVABLE EXTENT. IN FACT, EV EN IF THE BORROWED FUNDS ARE USED FOR GIVING INTEREST FRE E LOANS, THE LOANS CAN BE SAID TO BE GIVEN ONLY FOR THE PERI OD FOR WHICH ACTUALLY THESE LOANS ARE GIVEN. THEREFORE, T HERE IS NO FORCE IN THE ARGUMENTS OF THE REVENUE THAT THE I NTEREST IS TO BE DISALLOWED FOR THE WHOLE YEAR. IN THIS VI EW, WE DO NOT INTEND TO INTERFERE IN THE FINDING OF THE LEARN ED CIT (APPEALS). THE GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 24. THE GROUND NOS.4 AND 5 ARE GENERAL AND, HENCE NEED NO ADJUDICATION. 25. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 25 TH DAY OF APRIL, 2016. SD/- SD/- (BHAVNESH SAINI) (RANO JAIN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 25 TH APRIL, 2016 *RATI* COPY TO: THE APPELLANT/THE RESPONDENT/THE CIT(A)/THE CIT/THE D R. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH