Smt. Shikha Gupta, Ludhiana V. DCIT, Ludhiana

ITA 906/CHANDI/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 95593 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-10-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 24-08-2015
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 17-09-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MRS RAJINDER KAUR
• Assessee Lawyers: HARI OM ARORA
• Keywords: Business income

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.906/CHD/2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07) SMT.SHIKHA GUPTA, VS. THE D.C.I.T., SHOP NO.7, MODI COMPLEX, CIRCLE II, KARTA RAM STREET, LUDHIANA. LUDHIANA. PAN: ABFPG5151J (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI HARI OM ARORA RESPONDENT BY : MRS.RAJINDER KAUR, DR DATE OF HEARING : 24.08.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 15.10.2015 O R D E R PER RANO JAIN, A.M . : THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (AP PEALS)-II, LUDHIANA DATED 27.8.2013 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-0 7. 2. BRIEFLY, THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASS ESSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR DECLARING INCOME OF RS.11,95,283/- ON 31.10.2006. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER N OTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN INCOME UNDER THE HEAD SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN AMOUNTING TO RS.10,99,268/- AND UNDER THE HEAD LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN AMOUNTING TO RS.20,133/- O N 2 ACCOUNT OF SALE AND PURCHASE OF SHARES. THE ASSES SING OFFICER WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE SALE AND PURCHASE OF SHARES WAS REGULAR BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THE INCOME FROM THE SAME WAS LIABLE TO BE ASSESSED UNDER THE H EAD INCOME FROM BUSINESS AND PROFESSION AND NOT UNDER THE HEAD SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN. WHEN CONFRONTED, THE A SSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT HE WAS NOT A TRADER IN SHARES BUT HA D MADE INVESTMENTS IN SHARES. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT SHE HAD INVESTED IN ONLY 83 SCRIPS OUT OF WHICH 33 SCRIPS H AD BEEN PURCHASED IN THE EARLIER YEAR THUS IMPLYING THAT TH E TRANSACTIONS OF SALES AND PURCHASES WERE OF SMALL Q UANTITY AND SMALL AMOUNT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER REFERRING TO THE CBDT INSTRUCTION NO.1827 DATED 31.8.1989 AND ANOTHE R CIRCULAR NO.4 OF 2007 DATED 15.6.2007 ANALYZED THE VARIOUS ISSUES AND IN THE LIGHT OF FOLLOWING FINDINGS HELD THE PROFIT FROM PURCHASE AND SALE OF SHARES AMOUNTING TO RS.11,189,401/- (RS.10,99,268 + RS.20,133) AND TAXE D THE SAME AS BUSINESS INCOME : I) AS PER THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE FREQUENCY OF TRANSACTIONS IS VERY HIGH AS THERE WERE 121 TRANSACTIONS OF PURCHASES AND SALES OF SHARES. II) THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT INVESTED THE AMOUNT IN A F EW SELECTED DIVIDEND YIELDING SCRIPS AND THEN KEPT HOLDING THEM LONG WITH A VIEW TO EARN DIVIDEND INCOME THEREFROM BUT SHE SWIFTLY PURCHASING AND SELLING THE SHARES. III) DURING THE YEAR THE ASSESSEE HAS EARNED A MEAG ER DIVIDEND INCOME OF RS.12,825/- ONLY. THEREFORE, TH E OBJECT CANNOT BE HELD TO BE TO EARN DIVIDEND INCOME . 3 IV) AFTER ANALYZING THE FIGURE OF OPENING AND CLOSI NG STOCK OF SHARES AND THE AVERAGE HOLDING OF SHARES, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE IS HOLDING A SHARE ON AN AVERAGE FOR FOUR MONTHS ONLY. THEREFORE, SHE CANNOT BE SAID TO HAVE MADE INVESTMENT FOR EARNING DIVIDEND BUT IS CERTAINLY DOING BUSINESS OF TRADING IN SHARES BECAUSE DIVIDENDS ARE NOT DECLARED EVERY THIRD MONTH. V) IT WAS THE DUTY OF THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THAT HE R INTENTION WAS TO EARN DIVIDEND, WHICH SHE HAD NOT PROVED. VI) THE ASSESSEE HAS SPENT A LOT OF TIME, ENERGY AN D APPLICATION OF MIND IN STUDYING THE POSSIBLE UPS AN D DOWNS IN LARGE NUMBER OF SCRIPS. VII) THE ASSESSEE HAS DEALT IN PURCHASE AND SALE OF SHARES THROUGHOUT THE YEAR. THEREFORE, IT IS A REGULAR BUSINESS ACTIVITY OF THE ASSESSEE. VIII) IF THE SHARES WERE NOT HELD AS STOCK-IN-TRADE BUT AS AN INVESTMENT, THEN THEY COULD NOT BE VALUED AT COS T OR REALIZABLE VALUE, WHICHEVER IS LOWER AS DONE BY THE ASSESSEE. 3. BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS), THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT SHE HAD MADE INVESTMENT IN SHARES AN D MUTUAL FUNDS FROM TIME TO TIME WITH CLEAR INTENTION OF TREATING THE SAME AS INVESTMENT. THE INTENT IS C LEARLY MANIFEST IN THE BALANCE SHEET OF THE ASSESSEE WHERE ANNEXURE APPENDED AND FORMING PART OF THE SAME SHOW THAT TH E INVESTMENT IN SHARES HAS BEEN HELD AS INVESTMENT FO R MANY YEARS. THE ASSESSEE HAD EARNED SUBSTANTIAL DIVIDE ND ON THESE INVESTMENTS DURING THE YEAR. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED 4 THAT THE PROFITS ON INVESTMENT CANNOT BE THE CRITER IA FOR ASSESSING IT AS BUSINESS INCOME. SHE ALSO POINTED OUT THAT IN THE EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS, SHE HAS INVESTED IN M UTUAL FUNDS AND SHARES AND THE SAME HAD BEEN ACCEPTED AS INVESTMENT BY THE DEPARTMENT. THEREFORE, THERE IS NO REASON TO DEPART FROM EARLIER FINDING. MOREOVER, A TOTAL OF 117 TRANSACTIONS MADE DURING THE WHOLE YEAR ARE VERY NE GLIGIBLE WHEN COMPARED TO BILLIONS OF TRANSACTIONS DONE ON T HE STOCK EXCHANGE EVERY DAY. RELYING ON A NUMBER OF JUDGME NTS OF VARIOUS HIGH COURTS AND DIFFERENT BENCHES OF THE TR IBUNAL, IT WAS PRAYED BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) THAT TH E TRANSACTIONS OF SALE AND PURCHASE MAY BE TREATED AS INVESTMENT. 4. THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) DID NOT FIND HIMSELF IN AGREEMENT WITH THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE. H IS VIEW WAS THAT THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE SA LE AND PURCHASE WAS OF SMALL QUANTITY OF SAME AMOUNT IS FA CTUALLY INCORRECT. THERE WERE 121 TRANSACTIONS OF SALES A ND ALMOST EQUAL TRANSACTIONS OF PURCHASES. FURTHER, THE TOT AL AMOUNT OF SALES WAS RS.73.47 LACS AND TOTAL AMOUNT OF PURC HASE WAS RS.95.08 LACS. THEREFORE, THE TRANSACTIONS PERTAIN ING TO SALES AND PURCHASES WERE NEITHER OF SMALL QUANTITY, NOR O F SMALL AMOUNT. IT WAS FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT BEEN ABLE TO CONTROVERT ANY OF THE FACTS ANALYZED B Y THE ASSESSING OFFICER, NOR SHE HAS BEEN ABLE TO CONTROV ERT THE REASONS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TOWARDS HIS DECISION. IN THIS VIEW, HE UPHELD THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN 5 HOLDING THAT THE SHARES WERE HELD BY THE ASSESSEE A S STOCK-IN- TRADE AND SHE WAS CARRYING OUT THE BUSINESS OF SAL E AND PURCHASE OF SHARES. 5. AGGRIEVED BY THIS ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT (APP EALS), THE ASSESSEE HAS COME UP IN APPEAL BEFORE US RAISIN G AS MANY AS SIX GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 6. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AT THE TIM E OF HEARING BEFORE US ARGUED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE INVESTMENT IN SHARES AND MUTUAL FUNDS FROM TIME TO TIME WITH CLEAR INTENTION OF TREATING THE SAME AS INVESTMENT. THE ASSESSEE IS IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING AND TR ADING OF KNITTED CLOTH UNDER THE NAME OF M/S YSR ENTERPRISES OF WHICH THE ASSESSEE IS A PROPRIETOR SINCE THE INCEPTION O F THE BUSINESS. IT WAS BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE THAT THE S PECULATIVE/ DERIVATIVE TRANSACTIONS DONE WERE CONSIDERED UNDER BUSINESS INCOME BY THE ASSESSEE. ONLY THE TRANSACTION DONE WITH PURE INTENTION OF INVESTMENT, WHICH RANGED FROM COUPLE O F DAYS TO COUPLE OF MONTHS TO EVEN COUPLE OF YEARS, TO EARN D IVIDEND AND SHORT TERM AND LONG TERM APPRECIATION ARE TREATED A S INVESTMENTS BY THE ASSESSEE. THE CHART GIVING US BIFURCATION OF ALL TRANSACTIONS PERTAINING TO SALES AND PURCHAS ES RESULTING IN PROFIT OR LOSS ON THE BASIS OF PERIOD OF HOLDING WAS SUBMITTED BEFORE US. ON THE BASIS OF THAT, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT TOTAL NUMBER OF 117 TRANSACTIONS WERE MADE DUR ING THE WHOLE YEAR. IT WAS ARGUED THAT THE AMOUNT OF DIVI DEND RECEIVED DURING THE YEAR CANNOT BE ONE OF THE CRITE RIA FOR CONCLUDING THAT THE INTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS TO MAKE 6 INVESTMENT OR TO DO BUSINESS. DURING THE YEAR, ON LY TRANSACTIONS IN 83 SCRIPS WERE MADE, OUT OF WHICH 3 3 SCRIPS WERE BOUGHT IN THE EARLIER YEARS. THEREFORE, ONLY 50 SCRIPS WERE BOUGHT DURING THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR. PHYSICAL DELIVERY OF ALL THE SHARES HAS TAKEN PLACE AND DUE SECURITIES TRANSACTION TAXES HAVE BEEN PAID WHICH IS ONE OF TH E INDICATOR TO DIFFERENTIATE THE TRANSACTION FROM THE BUSINESS TRANSACTION. RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON A NUMBER OF JUDGMENTS OF VAR IOUS HIGH COURTS AND BENCHES OF THE TRIBUNAL. IT WAS ALSO B ROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN TREATING THE TRANSACTIONS RELATING TO SALE AND PURCHASE OF SHARE S AS INVESTMENT IN THE LAST MANY YEARS AND NO DISPUTE IS ARISING WITH THE DEPARTMENT ON THIS ISSUE. IN VIEW OF THES E SUBMISSIONS, IT WAS PRAYED THAT THE TRANSACTIONS OF SALE AND PURCHASE OF SHARES BE HELD TO BE RELATING TO INVEST MENT AND NOT FOR THE PURPOSE OF ANY BUSINESS INCOME. 7. THE LEARNED D.R. RELIED UPON ON THE ORDERS OF T HE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS OF THE LEARNED CIT (AP PEALS). 8. WE HAVE HEARD THE LEARNED REPRESENTATIVES OF BO TH THE PARTIES, PERUSED THE FINDINGS OF THE AUTHORITIE S BELOW AND CONSIDERED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. FOR HOLDING A TRANSACTION RELATING TO SALE AND PURCHASE OF SHARES TO BE RELATING TO BUSINESS OR THAT OF INVESTMENT, THE MOS T IMPORTANT CRITERIA IS TO SEE THE INTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE WH ILE MAKING THESE TRANSACTIONS. A NUMBER OF JUDICIAL PRONOUNCE MENTS HAVE BEEN CITED AT EVERY STAGE OF PROCEEDINGS BY TH E ASSESSING OFFICER, BY THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) AND ALSO BY T HE LEARNED 7 COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US. HOWEVER, WE SE E THAT TO DECIDE THE ISSUE IN QUESTION, THE FACTS OF EACH CAS E ARE TO BE CONSIDERED INDEPENDENTLY. THE CASES ARE THERE ON B OTH THE SIDES. HOWEVER, THESE CASES DECIDED BY THE AUTHORI TIES GIVE US CERTAIN GUIDELINES ON THE BASIS OF WHICH THE ISS UE HAS TO BE DECIDED. HOWEVER, THE CRUX OF THE MATTER IS ALWAY S THE INTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH WE HAVE TO FIGURE O UT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF EACH CASE. EVEN THE CBD T CIRCULAR RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS J UST GIVEN THE AUTHORITIES CERTAIN PARAMETERS ON THE BASIS OF WHICH THE INTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE HAS TO BE MADE OUT. 9. THE UNDISPUTED FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING AND TR ADING OF KNITTED CLOTHS UNDER THE NAME OF M/S YSR ENTERPRISE S AS A PROPRIETOR. IT IS ALSO NOT IN DOUBT THAT DURING TH E YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSEE WAS INVOLVED IN THE TRA NSACTION OF SALE AND PURCHASE OF SHARES ALSO. FROM THE PERUSAL OF THE BALANCE SHEET AND THE AUDIT REPORTS FILED BEFORE US , IT IS SEEN THAT THE ASSESSEE IS MAINTAINING SEPARATE SET OF BO OKS FOR HER BUSINESS OF KNITTED CLOTHS. THE TRANSACTION ENTERE D INTO BY THE ASSESSEE WITH RESPECT TO DERIVATIVE AND COMMODI TY HAVE ALSO BEEN TREATED BY HER AS HER BUSINESS ACTIVITIES . ONLY THE TRANSACTIONS RELATING TO SALE AND PURCHASE OF SHARE S ON DELIVERY BASIS ARE TREATED AS INVESTMENT BY THE ASS ESSEE. FROM THE PERUSAL OF PAGE 23 OF THE PAPER BOOK, IT I S SEEN THAT THE TRADING ACCOUNT ON ACCOUNT OF LONG TERM AND SHO RT TERM SALE AND PURCHASE OF SHARE HAVE BEEN MAINTAINED SEP ARATELY 8 WHILE THAT RELATING TO COMMODITY AND DERIVATIVE HAV E BEEN MAINTAINED SEPARATELY. THE INCOME/LOSS OF TRADING ON COMMODITY AND DERIVATIVE HAVE BEEN ADDED IN THE PRO FIT & LOSS ACCOUNT RELATING TO BUSINESS AND INCOME FROM T RADING OF LONG TERM AND SHORT TERM SHARES IS TREATED AS CAPIT AL GAIN IN COMPUTATION OF INCOME. IT IS A TRITE LAW BY NOW T HAT THE ASSESSEE CAN MAINTAIN TWO PORTFOLIOS, ONE FOR REGUL AR BUSINESS AND OTHER FOR SALE AND PURCHASE OF SHARES AS HAS BE EN HELD BY THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V S. GOPAL PROHIT (2011) 336 ITR 257 (THE SLP FILED BY THE DEP ARTMENT HAVING BEEN DISMISSED BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT) . IT IS ALSO UNDISPUTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS EARNED AN AMO UNT OF RS.12,824/- AS DIVIDEND DURING THE YEAR. ON THE B ASIS OF THESE UNDISPUTED FACTS, NOW WE PROCEED TO ANALYZE T HE ISSUES RAISED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DETERMINE WHETHE R THE ASSESSEE WAS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF SALE AND PU RCHASE OF SHARES OR INVESTMENT: I) AS PER THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THERE WERE VERY H IGH FREQUENT TRANSACTIONS OF SALE AND PURCHASE OF SHARES. IT WAS BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE THROUGH THE HELP OF CHART FILED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT IN TOTAL 1 17 TRANSACTIONS WERE ENTERED INTO DURING THE YEAR IN 8 3 NUMBER OF SCRIPS. OUT OF THESE 83 SCRIPS, 33 SCRI PS WERE BOUGHT DURING THE EARLIER YEARS WHILE 50 SCRIP S WERE BOUGHT DURING THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR. II) ON THE ISSUE OF SWIFT PURCHASE AND SALE OF SHA RES, IT WAS BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE AGAIN WITH THE HELP OF TH E CHART THAT THE TRANSACTIONS WERE ENTERED INTO WITHI N A SPAN OF ONE DAY TO MORE THAN SEVEN HUNDRED DAYS. THERE WAS ONLY ONE TRANSACTION WHICH WAS ENTERED 9 INTO WITHIN A SPAN OF ONE DAY. THERE WERE ONLY 28 TRANSACTIONS WHICH WERE DONE WITH THE SPAN OF 15 DAYS AND THERE WERE AROUND 50 TRANSACTIONS WHICH WERE HELD WITHIN A SPAN OF MORE THAN 180 DAYS. THERE WAS NO INTRA-DAY TRANSACTION. III) AS PER THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE HA S RECEIVED ONLY AN AMOUNT OF RS.12,825/- AS DIVIDEND DURING THE YEAR. AS PER OUR UNDERSTANDING, THE AMOUNT OF DIVIDEND RECEIVED DURING THE YEAR CANNOT BE THE ONE OF THE CRITERIA FOR DECIDING THE ISSUE. IV) AS REGARDS THE ANALYSIS OF THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER THAT THE ASSESSEE IS HOLDING A SHARE FOR FOUR MONTHS ONLY. THIS ANALYSIS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT RELEVANT AND ALSO NOT APPROPRIATE TO DECIDE THE ISSUE CONCLUDING THAT NO COMPANY DECLARE DIVIDEND EVERY THREE MONTHS IS A VERY WEIRD CONCLUSION DRAWN ON AN EQUALLY WEIRD ANALYSIS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. V) AS REGARDS THE INTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE, IT HA S TO BE COME OUT FROM THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND NO DIRECT EVIDENCE AS SUCH, CAN BE GIVEN B Y THE ASSESSEE. VI) AS REGARDS LARGE NUMBER OF SCRIPS, IT HAS ALRE ADY BEEN STATED IN POINT NO.(I) ABOVE THAT THERE WERE ONLY 83 SCRIPS, OUT OF 33 WERE FROM THE EARLIER YEA RS. VII) MAKING PURCHASE AND SALE THROUGHOUT THE YEAR DOES NOT MAKE AN ACTIVITY A BUSINESS ACTIVITY. AS A WI SE INVESTOR ASSESSEE CAN MAKE PURCHASE AND SALE OF SHARES THROUGHOUT THE YEAR. VIII) AS REGARDS THE TREATMENT OF SHARES IN THE BO OKS OF ACCOUNT, THE FINDING OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE SHARES HAVE BEEN SHOWN AT COST OR REALIZABLE VALUE IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT IS FACTUALLY INCORREC T. 10 10. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS, WE ARE UNABLE TO F IND OURSELVES IN AGREEMENT WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE ASS ESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS THAT OF THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS ) THAT THE INTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS TO EARN PROFITS FROM THE TRANSACTIONS OF SALE AND PURCHASE OF SHARES. APAR T FROM THE ABOVE FACTS, IT IS ALSO SEEN THAT THE ASSESSING OFF ICER HAS OBSERVED IN HIS ORDER THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS USED BO RROWED FUNDS FOR THE PURPOSE OF MAKING THESE INVESTMENTS. HOWEVER, DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, AS SHOWN TO US BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE WITH THE HELP OF THE BALAN CE SHEET OF THE ASSESSEE FILED IN THE PAPER BOOK, THE ASSESSEE HAS UTILIZED HER OWNED FUNDS TO MAKE INVESTMENT IN SHARES. THIS FACT ALSO SUPPORTS THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THESE TRANSACTIONS RELATING TO PURCHASE AND SALE OF SHARE S ARE FOR THE PURPOSE OF INVESTMENT AND NOT FOR THE PURPOSE O F BUSINESS. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE HOLD THAT THE I NTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT CASE IN ENGAGING HERSEL F IN THE TRANSACTIONS OF SALE AND PURCHASE OF SHARES WAS TO EARN DIVIDEND INCOME AND NOT TO EARN BUSINESS INCOME. 11. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS A LLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 15 TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2015. SD/- SD/- (BHAVNESH SAINI) (RANO JAIN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 15 TH OCTOBER, 2015 *RATI* COPY TO: THE APPELLANT/THE RESPONDENT/THE CIT(A)/TH E CIT/THE DR. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 11