Harish Kumar, Ludhiana V. ITO, W-2(2), Ludhiana

ITA 894/CHANDI/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0644 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-03-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 20-06-2018
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Principle of natural justice; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 148

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH A , CHANDIGARH , ! ' #$ % & ' ($ , ! BEFORE: SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SMT.ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO.894/CHD/2018 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11 SH.HARISH KUMAR S/O SH.KEWAL KRISHAN, HOUSE NO.8/248, NEAR CHRISHTAN HOSPITAL, MANDI MULLANPUR, LUDHIANA. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2 (2), LUDHIANA. ./PAN NO: AQYPK0200G /ASSESSEE BY : NONE / REVENUE BY : SMT.CHANDERKANTA, SR.DR ! /DATE OF HEARING : 17.01.2019 '#$% ! /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 27.03.2019 /ORDER PER ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-1, LUDHIANA (IN SHORT CIT(A) DATED 11.4 .2018 PASSED U/S 250(6) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HERE INAFTER REFERRED TO AS ACT). 2. THE SOLE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL RELATES TO ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE AMOUNTING TO RS.3 LACS. ITA NO.894/CHD/2018 A.Y.2010-11 2 3. NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ALONGWITH PAPER BOOK WERE FILED AND IT WAS REQUESTED BY THE ASSESSEE TO DECIDE THE APPEAL ON THE BASIS OF THE SAME, VIDE HIS LETTER FILED BEFORE US DATED 5.1.2019. 4. BRIEF FACTS RELATING TO THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A COMMISSION AGENT (KACHA ARHTIA) WORKI NG THROUGH HIS PROPRIETARY CONCERN M/S G.S. TRADING COMPANY, WHO FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION HAD F ILED HIS RETURN DECLARING AN INCOME OF RS.1,18,412/-. HOWEVE R, SINCE THE ASSESSING OFFICER( AO )HAD INFORMATION IN HIS P OSSESSION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DEPOSITED CASH OF RS.4,40,000 /- IN HIS BANK ACCOUNTS DURING THE YEAR, HE ASSUMED JURISDIC TION TO REASSESS THE ASSESSEE BY ISSUANCE OF NOTICE UNDER S ECTION 148 DATED 30/3/2017. IN RESPONSE TO THE SAID NOTICE , THE ASSESSEE DECLARED THAT THE INCOME RETURNED EARLIER BE CONSIDERED AS RETURNED IN RESPONSE TO THE REASSESSM ENT NOTICE. DURING THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE WAS CALLED UPON TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCES OF CASH DEPOSIT IN HIS BANK ACCOUNTS. FROM THE REPLIES FILE D BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE A.O., IT TRANSPIRED THAT THE AS SESSEE MAINTAINED FOUR (4) BANK ACCOUNTS VIZ TWO (2) IN HIS INDIVIDUAL NAME AND THE REST OF THE TWO (2) IN THE NAME OF HIS PROPRIETARY CONCERN. THE CASH FLOW, AS PER THE REPLIES GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE A.O. ON 17/11/2017 & 28/12/2017, WAS REPRODUCED IN THE IMPUGNED ASSESSME NT ORDER WITH PARTICULAR MENTION OF THE CORRESPONDING TRANSFER ITA NO.894/CHD/2018 A.Y.2010-11 3 ENTRIES. FROM THE SAID CASH FLOW, THE A.O. NOTED T HAT WITHDRAWAL OF CASH OF RS.1,10,000/- FROM THE ACCOUN T STANDING IN THE NAME OF THE PROPRIETARY CONCERN [A/ C NO.01901010000430] WAS STATED TO BE THE CONTRIBUTOR Y SOURCE OF DEPOSIT OF CASH AGGREGATING TO RS.3 LACS IN THE SAVINGS ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE BEARING NO.SB 8823 [CASH DEPOSITS OF RS.1 LAKH EACH ON 20 TH JANUARY, 2010, 5 TH & 6 TH MARCH, 2010]. THIS EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ACCEPTED BY THE A.O. ON THE GROUND THAT THERE WAS A DELAY IN DEPOSIT OF THE SAID CASH ESPECIALLY WHEN THE ASSESS EE HAD OTHER WITHDRAWALS FROM HIS ACCOUNTS. IT WAS FURTHER NOTED BY THE A.O. IN THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT THE AFORESAID DEPOSITS OF CASH OF RS.L LAKH EACH ON 20/ 01/2010, 05/03/2010 & 06/03/2010 WAS MADE AT MOHALI, WHICH W AS SUBSEQUENTLY WITHDRAWN FROM THE HOME BRANCH AT MANS URAN. ON THIS BASIS AND REASONING, THE A.O. WAS NOT SATIS FIED ABOUT THE EXPLANATION OF THE DEPOSITS OF CASH OUT O F 'CASH IN HAND' AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE SAID AMOUNT O F DEPOSITS IN THE BANK WAS, THEREFORE, CONSIDERED AS UNEXPLAINED AND ADDED BACK TO THE RETURNED INCOME O F THE ASSESSEE UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 69A OF THE ACT AND THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE, ASSESSED AT RS.4,18,41 2/-. 5. THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A) CONTENDING THAT IF ALL BANK STATEMENTS WERE PROPERLY RECONCILE D, THERE WOULD BE NO NEGATIVE CASH IN HAND, NOR ANY DELAY IN THE DEPOSITS OUT OF CASH IN HAND. RECONCILED, DATE-WISE CASH ITA NO.894/CHD/2018 A.Y.2010-11 4 STATEMENT WAS PREPARED BY THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN T HE SOURCE OF CASH IN THE BANK ACCOUNT AS UNDER: ACCOUNT NO. DATE PARTICULARS DEBIT CREDIT BALANCE 01/04/2009 OPENING CASH IN HAND 30,000 30,000 1905011000201 02/04/2009 FROM SB8823 OD ACCOUNT 1,50,000 180,000 1905011000201 13/04/2009 CASH WITHDRAWAL 24,000 204,000 01901010000430 30/04/2009 CASH WITHDRAWAL 110,000 314,000 1905011000201 30/04/2009 CASH DEPOSIT 200,000 114,000 1905011000201 16/09/2009 CASH WITHDRAWAL 50,000 164,000 1905011000201 23/09/2009 CASH WITHDRAWAL 50,000 214,000 1905011000201 01/10/2009 CASH WITHDRAWAL 30,000 244,000 1905011000201 06/10/2009 CASH WITHDRAWAL 20,000 264,000 1905011000201 14/10/2009 CASH WITHDRAWAL 40,000 304,000 1905011000201 16/10/2009 CASH WITHDRAWAL 10,000 314,000 1905011000201 03/11/2009 CASH WITHDRAWAL 40,000 354,000 1905011000201 17/11/2009 CASH DEPOSIT 240,000 114,000 1905011000201 18/11/2009 CASH WITHDRAWAL 72,916 186,916 1905011000201 03/12/2009 CASH WITHDRAWAL 36,000 222,916 ITA NO.894/CHD/2018 A.Y.2010-11 5 1905011000201 15/12/2009 CASH WITHDRAWAL 20,000 242,916 01901010000430 20/01/2010 CASH DEPOSIT 100,000 142,916 01901010000430 21/01/2010 CASH WITHDRAWAL 100,000 242,916 01901010000430 05/03/2010 CASH DEPOSIT 100,000 142,916 01901010000430 06/03/2010 CASH DEPOSIT 100,000 42,916 01901010000430 06/03/2010 CASH WITHDRAWAL 100,000 142,916 01901010000430 13/03/2010 CASH WITHDRAWAL 100,000 242,916 01901010000430 15/03/2010 CASH WITHDRAWAL 15,000 227,916 6. THE CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, REJECTED THE SAME HOLDING THAT THE DEPOSI TS OF RS.3 LACS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT BEARING NO.01902010053360 MAINTAINED WITH OBC REMAINED UNEXPLAINED AS THE SAI D ACCOUNT WAS JOINTLY HELD WITH THE ASSESSEES FATHER AND WHICH WAS CLOSED ON 30.12.2011 AND ALSO FOR THE REA SON THAT THE DEPOSITS WERE MADE AT MOHALI AND NOT IN THE HOM E BRANCH OF THE ASSESSEE AT MANSURAN. THE RELEVANT FI NDINGS OF THE LD.CIT(A) AT PARA 4 OF HIS ORDER ARE AS UNDER: 4. THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED. IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE APPELLANT HAS NO T BEEN MAINTAINING REGULAR ACCOUNTS AND NOW SEEKS TO EXPLA IN THE CASH DEPOSITS AS SOURCED FROM VARIOUS BANK ACCOUNTS MAINTAINED BY HIM IN HIS OWN NAME AND IN THE NAME O F HIS PROPRIETARY CONCERN. FROM THE AFORESAID RECONCILED D ATE WISE CASH STATEMENT, IT TRANSPIRES THAT THERE HAVE B EEN DEPOSITS OF CASH OF RS.4,40,000/- IN THE BANK ACCOUN T NO. 01905011000201 MAINTAINED WITH OBC AT MANSURAN [RS.2,00,000/- ON 30/04/2009 + RS.2,40,000/- ON 17/11/2009]. THIS DEPOSIT HAS BEEN SOUGHT TO BE EXPLAINED BY THE PURPORTED OPENING CASH IN HAND OF ITA NO.894/CHD/2018 A.Y.2010-11 6 RS.30,000/- AS ON 01/04/2009, WHICH IS WITHOUT THE BACKING OF ANY EVIDENCE AND CASH WITHDRAWALS FROM T HE SAME ACCOUNT. EVEN IF THE SOURCE OF DEPOSITS, AS CLA IMED BY THE APPELLANT, ARE ACCEPTED AS CORRECT STATE OF AFF AIRS, THE SUBSEQUENT DEPOSIT OF RS.3 LAKHS [RS.1,00,000/- EAC H ON 20/01/2010, 05/03/2010 & 06/03/2010] IN THE BANK ACCOUNT BEARING NO. 01902010053360 MAINTAINED WITH OBC REMAIN UNEXPLAINED AS THE SAID ACCOUNT IS JOINTLY HELD WITH THE APPELLANT'S FATHER, WHICH ACCOUNT ALS O WAS CLOSED ON 30/12/2011. THE DEPOSITS ARE ALSO SEEN TO HAVE BEEN MADE AT MOHALI AND NOT IN THE HOME BRANCH OF TH E APPELLANT. THE SOURCES OF THE SAID DEPOSITS, THUS, R EMAIN ENTIRELY UNEXPLAINED. NO INTERFERENCE IS, THUS, CALL ED FOR IN THE ACTION OF THE AO IN TREATING THE SAID DEPOSITS OF CASH AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT BY THE APPELLANT. THE APPELL ANT HAS ALSO NOT BEEN ABLE TO JUSTIFY HIS CHALLENGE TO THE I SSUANCE OF NOTICE UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 148 OF THE A CT AND THE ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION BY THE AO TO REASSE SS HIM. ALL THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL, THUS FAIL. I IS ORD ERED ACCORDINGLY. 7. AGGRIEVED BY THE SAME THE ASSESSEE HAS COME UP I N APPEAL BEFORE US, RAISING FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF APPEALS-I HAS ERRED IN LAWS AND FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.3,00,000 SIMPL Y BY SAYING THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS. 3,00,000 HAS NOT BEEN DEPOS ITED IN THE HOME BRANCH OF THE BANK, BECAUSE IT WAS EXPLAINED T O THE CIT APPEAL-I THAT THE ASSESSES WAS HAVING SUFFICIENT CA SH IN HAND ON THE DATE OF DEPOSIT. 2. THE ADDITION OF RS. 3,00,000 IS AGAINST ALL THE CANNONS OF NATURAL JUSTICE SPECIALLY WHEN SOURCE OF CASH DEPOS IT IN THE BANK WAS EXPLAINED TO THE INCOME TAX OFFICE AND CIT APPEAL-I AND ADDITIONS OF RS. 3,00,000 DESERVES TO BE DELETE D. 3. THE ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S 148 IS ILLEGAL AND UN CALLED FOR. 4. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVES TO ADD OR AMEND ANY GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE APPEAL IS HEARD AND FINALL Y DISPOSED OFF. 8. TAKING UP FIRST GROUND NOS.1 AND 2 CHALLENGING T HE ACTION OF THE LD.CIT(A) IN UPHOLDING THE ADDITION O F RS.3 LACS ON MERITS ,THE ASSESSEE ,IN HIS WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FILED, CONTENDED THAT THE CONSOLIDATED CASH FLOW STATEMENT FILED, AFTER TAKING INTO ACCOUNT ALL HIS BANK ACCOUNTS, SH OWED SUFFICIENT CASH IN HAND ON THE DATE OF DEPOSITS AND , ITA NO.894/CHD/2018 A.Y.2010-11 7 THEREFORE, THERE WAS NO REASON FOR HOLDING THAT THE SOURCE OF THE CASH DEPOSITS WAS UNEXPLAINED. IT WAS ALSO CONT ENDED THAT MERELY BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT DEPOSITED THE AMOUNT IN HIS HOME BRANCH COULD NOT BE A REASON FOR HOLDING THE DEPOSITS UNEXPLAINED SINCE AS LONG AS T HE DEPOSITS WERE IN HIS OWN ACCOUNT IT DID NOT MATTER NOR THERE WAS ANY BAR ON DEPOSIT OR WITHDRAWAL FROM ANY BANK ACCOUNT. WHAT WAS IMPORTANT, IT WAS CONTENDED, WAS WHETHER THE ASSESSEE HAD SUFFICIENT CASH IN HAND OR NOT FOR MAKING THE DEPOSITS WHICH HAD BEEN DEMONSTRATED BY THE CAS H FLOW STATEMENT FILED. THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD AT PARAS 4 AND 5 OF HIS SUBMISSIONS ARE AS U NDER: IV SO FAR AS CASH IN HAND IS CONCERNED THE ASSESSE E DULY FILED CASH FLOW WITH THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX APPEALS-I WHICH IS AGAIN REPRODUCED AS UNDER FOR YOUR READY REFERENCE: ACCOUNT NO. DATE PARTICULARS DEBIT CREDIT BALANCE 01/04/2009 OPENING CASH IN HAND 30,000 30,000 1905011000201 02/04/2009 FROM SB8823 OD ACCOUNT 150,000 180,000 1905011000201 13/04/2009 CASH WITHDRAWAL 24,000 204,000 01901010000430 30/04/2009 CASH WITHDRAWAL 110,000 314,000 1905011000201 30/04/2009 CASH DEPOSIT 200,000 1 14,000 1905011000201 16/09/2009 CASH WITHDRAWAL 50,000 164,000 1905011000201 23/09/2009 CASH WITHDRAWAL 50,000 214,000 1905011000201 01/10/2009 CASH WITHDRAWAL 30,000 244,000 1905011000201 06/10/2009 CASH WITHDRAWAL 20,000 264,000 1905011000201 14/10/2009 CASH WITHDRAWAL 40,000 304,000 1905011000201 16/10/2009 CASH WITHDRAWAL 10,000 314,000 1905011000201 03/1 1/2009 CASH WITHDRAWAL 40,000 354,000 1905011000201 17/11/2009 CASH DEPOSIT 240,000 14,000 1905011000201 18/11/2009 CASH WITHDRAWAL 72,916 186,916 1905011000201 03/12/2009 CASH WITHDRAWAL 36,000 222,916 1905011000201 15/12/2009 CASH WITHDRAWAL 20,000 242,916 01901010000430 20/01/2010 CASH DEPOSIT 100,000 142,916 01901010000430 21/01/2010 CASH WITHDRAWAL 100,000 242,916 01901010000430 05/03/2010 CASH DEPOSIT 100,000 142,916 01901010000430 06/03/2010 CASH DEPOSIT 100,000 42,916 ITA NO.894/CHD/2018 A.Y.2010-11 8 01901010000430 06/03/2010 CASH WITHDRAWAL 100,000 142,916 01901010000430 13/03/2010 CASH WITHDRAWAL 100,000 242,916 01901010000430 15/03/2010 CASH WITHDRAWAL 15,000 227,916 V. FROM THE ABOVE IT IS VERY CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSE E WAS HAVING SUFFICIENT CASH IN HAND ON THE DATE OF DEPOSITS, TH E COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX APPEALS- I DIDN'T ACCEPT THIS CONTENTION SIMPLY BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DEPOS ITED THIS AMOUNT IN HIS HOME BRANCH. PLEASE NOTE THAT IT IS ASSESSEE'S OWN ACCOUNT AND THERE IS NO BAR THAT HE CAN WITHDRAW OR DEPOSIT THE MONEY IN TH E BANK BRANCH ONLY WHERE HE HAS HIS OWN ACCOUNT. THE IMPOR TANT FACTOR IS WHETHER THE ASSESSEE HAS CASH IN HAND OR NOT. PL EASE ALSO NOTE THAT THE ASSESSEE CAN EASILY REACH AND APPROAC H TO THE MOHALI BANK BRANCH FROM MANSURAN BANK BRANCH WITHIN ONE AND HALF HOUR HARDLY. 9. THE LD. DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). 10. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS. THE ISSUE BEFORE US RELATES TO EXPLAINING THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSIT ED IN BANK AMOUNTING TO RS.3 LACS. UNDISPUTEDLY THE ASSESSEE H AD FILED A CONSOLIDATED CASH FLOW STATEMENT INCLUDING TRANSA CTIONS OF ALL THE FOUR BANK ACCOUNTS MAINTAINED BY HIM. AS PE R THE SAID CASH FLOW STATEMENT THERE WAS SUFFICIENT CASH IN HAND AVAILABLE AT THE TIME THE CASH OF RS.3 LACS WAS DEP OSITED IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT. NEITHER THE LD.CIT(A), NOR THE L D.DR BEFORE US HAS BEEN ABLE TO CONTROVERT THIS FACT, NO R ANY INFIRMITY POINTED OUT IN THE SAME. THEREFORE, THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSIT UNDOUBTEDLY STANDS SUFFICIENTLY EXPLAI NED. AS FOR THE BASIS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES FOR HOLDIN G THE SAME UNEXPLAINED, BEING THAT THE BANK ACCOUNT WAS JOINT LY HELD IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE ALONGWITH HIS FATHER AN D THAT THE DEPOSITS WERE MADE IN MOHALI BRANCH WHEN THEY S HOULD HAVE BEEN MADE IN THE HOME BRANCH AT MANSURAN, WE A RE ITA NO.894/CHD/2018 A.Y.2010-11 9 UNABLE TO UNDERSTAND HOW THE ABOVE FACTORS LEAD TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT RE MAINED UNEXPLAINED. EVEN THE LD.DR WAS UNABLE TO EXPLAIN B EFORE US HOW THE AFORESAID FACTS IN ANY WAY EFFECTED THE EXPLANATION OF SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSITED IN BANK BY THE ASSESSEE. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE HAVE NO HESITATION IN HOLD ING THAT THE CASH DEPOSITS OF RS.3 LACS IN THE BANK ACC OUNT WERE ADEQUATELY EXPLAINED AND THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOU NT OF THE SAME, IS, THEREFORE, DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. GROUND OF APPEAL NO.1 & 2 THEREFORE ARE ALLOWED. 11. GROUND NO.3 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS A LEGAL G ROUND AND SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD IN THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ARE AS UNDER: VI. PLEASE ALSO NOTE THAT THE ISSUANCE OF NOTI CE U/S 148 IS ALSO ILLEGAL AND AGAINST ALL THE CANNONS OF NATU RAL JUSTICE SPECIALLY WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS FILLED THE RETURN OF INCOME ON 22/03/2011 SHOWING AN INCOME OF RS. 1,18,412 AND NOTICE ISSUED IS ILLEGAL SPECIALLY WHEN THE DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ARE OUT OF THE BUSINESS TRANSA CTIONS AND CASH IN HAND. THE CASE WAS REOPENED WITHOUT ANY BASIS WHEN THERE WERE NO NEW FACTS BEFORE THE ASSES SING OFFICER AND WITHOUT ANY PROPER REASONS ASSESSING OFF ICER REOPENED THE CASE. 12. THE LD. DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, RELIED UPON THE FINDINGS OF THE LD.CIT(A) AS UNDER: THE APPELLANT HAS ALSO NOT BEEN ABLE TO JUSTIFY HIS CHALLENGE TO THE ISSUANCE OF NOTICE UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 148 OF THE ACT AND THE PRESUMPTION OF JURISDICTION BY THE AO TO REASSESS HIM. ALL THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL, THUS, FAIL. 13. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE CONTENTIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES. WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD .CIT(A) ITA NO.894/CHD/2018 A.Y.2010-11 10 DISMISSING THE ASSESSES CHALLENGE TO VALID ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT. AS RIGHTLY POINTED OUT BY THE L D.CIT(A) ,THE ASSESSEE HAS MERELY RAISED A CONTENTION THAT THE REOPENING WAS WITHOUT ANY BASIS, WITHOUT DEMONSTRAT ING THE SAME. EVEN BEFORE US NO DOCUMENT WHATSOEVER WAS FIL ED AND/OR REFERRED TO IN THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS, TO J USTIFY HIS CONTENTION. WE THEREFORE FIND NO MERIT IN THIS CONT ENTION OF THE ASSESSEE . GROUND OF APPEAL NO.3 IS THEREFORE D ISMISSED. 14. IN EFFECT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- SD/- % & ' ($ (SANJAY GARG) (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) ! /JUDICIAL MEMBER )* ! /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER , % /DATED: 27 TH MARCH, 2019 * $ * #&' ()*) / 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, / ASSISTANT REGISTRAR