Greater Ludhiana Area Development Authority, Ludhiana V. ACIT, Ludhiana

ITA 917/CHANDI/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 86216 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-03-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 30-03-2015
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 29-10-2014
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: JYOTI KUMARI
• Keywords: Business income; Business expenditure; Opportunity of being heard; Deemed to accrue or arise in india; Commercial expediency; Capital expenditure
• Section: 43B; 37; 28; 139

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH A CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI T.R.SOOD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 917/CHD/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12 GREATER LUDHIANA AREA VS THE ACIT, DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, CIRCLE VI, GLADA COMPLEX, LUDHIANA. FEROZEPUR ROAD, LUDHIANA. PAN: AAALG1055F (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI SUDHIR SEHGAL RESPONDENT BY : SMT. JYOTI KUMARI DATE OF HEARING : 30.03.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 31.03.2015 O R D E R PER BHAVNESH SAINI,JM THIS APPEAL BY ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE OR DER OF LD. CIT(APPEALS) II, LUDHIANA DATED 13.10.2014 FO R ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED EFFECTIVELY NINE GROUNDS OF APPEAL AS EXPLAINED IN GROUND NO. 1. THE LD. CIT(A PPEALS), EXCEPT ON GROUND NO. 4 HAS FOLLOWED HIS ORDER DATED 23.10.2013 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 FOR DISMISSI NG GROUNDS OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 3. THE LD. REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH THE PARTIES STAT ED THAT THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 -10 AND 2 2010-11 HAVE BEEN DECIDED BY ITAT CHANDIGARH BENCH VIDE ORDER DATED 05.02.2015 IN ITA 252/CHD/2013, 319/CHD/2013 AND 1028/CHD/2013 AND ALL THE GROUNDS EXCEPT GROUND NO. 4 HAVE BEEN DISPOSED OFF ACCORDIN GLY. THE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 05.02.2015 IS PLACED ON RECORD. THE SYNOPSIS ALSO FILED TO EXPLAIN THRO UGH WHICH PARA OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL THE ISSUES ARE CO VERED, WAS DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN EARLIER YEARS. 4. WE HAVE HEARD LD. REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH THE PA RTIES AND PERUSED THE IMPUGNED ORDERS AND ALSO TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION ORDER OF ITAT CHANDIGARH BENCH DATED 05.02.2015 (SUPRA) FOR EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS 200 9-10 AND 2010-11 FOR THE PURPOSE OF DISPOSAL OF THE APPEAL. 5. ON GROUND NO. 1, ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ADDITIO N OF RS.41,20,806/- PAID TO NORTHERN RAILWAYS FOR CONSTR UCTION OF RAILWAY UNDER-BRIDGE NEAR LODHI CLUB AT LUDHIANA. THIS ISSUE IS DECIDED IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 IN DEPA RTMENTAL APPEAL IN ITA 319/CHD/2013. FINDINGS IN PARA 11 TO 14 OF THE ORDER DATED 05.02.2015 ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER : 11. WE HAVE CONSIDERED RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. IT IS N OT IN DISPUTE THAT ASSESSEE MADE PAYMENTS FOR CONSTRUCTIO N OF RAILWAY UNDER BRIDGE IN ITS JURISDICTION AND ARE A OF ACTIVITY IN LUDHIANA WITH THE PURPOSE TO IMPROVE TH E TRAFFIC SITUATION, SPECIALLY IN THE AREAS WHICH ARE FALLING IN AND AROUND THE COLONIES DEVELOPED BY THE ASSESSE E. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FILED THE MAP OF T HE UNDER BRIDGE CONSTRUCTED BY THE ASSESSEE TO SHOW TH AT RAILWAY UNDER BRIDGE WAS CONSTRUCTED TO CONNECT THE COLONIES WHICH WERE LOCATED ON BOTH SIDES OF RAILWA Y TRACK. IT WAS, THEREFORE, FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE B USINESS OF THE ASSESSEE ONLY. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS), THEREF ORE, CORRECTLY APPRECIATED THAT THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE SAID BRIDGE WOULD IMPROVE THE CONNECTIVITY BETWEEN FEROZEPUR ROAD TO PAKHOWAL ROAD LEADING TO SMOOTH 3 FLOW OF TRAFFIC AND THEREFORE, WOULD DEFINITELY SER VE THE PURPOSE OF THE ASSESSEE IN PROVIDING BETTER CIVIC AMENITIES IN THE AREA OF OPERATION. THE MAIN OBJEC T OF THE ASSESSEE AUTHORITY IS TO PROMOTE AND SECURE BET TER PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT OF ANY AREA OF THE STATE. THE SCOPE OF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT LIMITED TO THE CONSTRU CTION OF HOUSING PROJECT ONLY BUT TO WORK FOR THE DEVELOP MENT AND BETTERMENT OF THE STATE. 12. BEFORE AUTHORITIES BELOW, IT WAS CONTENDED THAT AS PER SECTION 28(1) OF PUNJAB REGIONAL AND TOWN PLANN ING DEVELOPMENT AT 1995 REPRODUCED ABOVE WOULD PROVIDE THAT ASSESSEE CAN DO ANYTHING WITH THE PRIOR APPROV AL OR ON THE DIRECTION OF THE STATE GOVERNMENT FOR CAR RYING OUT THE PURPOSES OF THIS ACT. IN THE SAME ACT, IT IS ALSO PROVIDED THAT THE FUNDS OF THE AUTHORITY SHALL BE A PPLIED FOR SUCH OTHER PURPOSES AS THE STATE GOVERNMENT MAY DIRECT OR PERMIT. THOUGH WE AGREE SECTION 28 MAY N OT DETERMINE THE ALLOWABILITY OF EXPENDITURE UNDER SE CTION 37 OF IT ACT, HOWEVER, THE AMOUNT IN QUESTION IS EN TIRELY PAID TO THE NORTHERN RAILWAY FOR CONSTRUCTION OF UN DER BRIDGE AS PER THE MINUTES DULY APPROVED BY THE AUTH ORITY. THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED COMPLETE DETAILS ON THE SAME AT PAGES 21 TO 35 OF THE PAPER BOOK AND THE RELEVAN T COPY OF THE MINUTES IS FILED AT PAGE 33 OF THE PAPER BOO K AND FURTHER CORRESPONDENCE IS FILED AT PAGE 81 TO 83 OF IIND PAPER BOOK. THE PROJECT WAS APPROVED BY ASSESSEE AUTHORITY AND EXECUTION WITH ITS FUNDS. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS CONSTRUCTED THE RAILWAY UNDER BRIDGE T O OVERCOME THE TRAFFIC PROBLEM IN LUDHIANA AND FOR CR EATING ACCESS OF THE PROJECTS UNDERTAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, THE PURPOSE OF RAISING CONSTRUCTION OF R AILWAY UNDER BRIDGE WAS COMMERCIAL IN NATURE FOR THE PURPO SE OF ACHIEVING THE OBJECTS OF THE ASSESSEE AUTHORITY. T HIS EXPENDITURE HAS ALSO MADE THE MARKETABILITY OF THE PROPERTIES OF THE ASSESSEE AUTHORITY AROUND THE LOC ATION WHERE UNDER BRIDGE WAS CONSTRUCTED. THE DECISIONS RELIED BEFORE LD. CIT(APPEALS) SUPPORT THE FINDINGS OF LD. CIT(APPEALS). 13. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS), THEREFORE, CORRECTLY DECI DED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE HOLDING THAT THE AM OUNT IS SPENT FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS ACTIVITIES OF THE ASSESSEE. THERE IS, THEREFORE, CLEAR NEXUS BETWEEN THE AMOUNTS SPENT AND THE BUSINESS ACTIVITY OF THE ASSE SSEE. WE, THEREFORE, DO NOT FIND ANY JUSTIFICATION TO INT ERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) IN DELETING THE ADDITION. THIS GROUND OF DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 13(I) IN THE SAME GROUND, REVENUE CHALLENGED THE DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS. 1.57 CR ON ACCOUNT OF PAYMENT MADE BY ASSESSEE TO PUNJAB MANDI BOARD, LUDHIANA FOR CONSTRUCTION OF BRIDGE ON THE SIDHWAN CANAL AT DUGARI ROAD, LUDHIANA. THE LD. CIT(APPEAL S) NOTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED THESE EXPENDITURES ON THE SAME REASON AS PAYMENTS HAVE 4 BEEN MADE TO NORTHERN RAILWAY. THEREFORE, LD. CIT(APPEALS) FOLLOWING HIS ORDER ON THE ABOVE ISSUE , DELETED THIS ADDITION AS WELL. 14. BOTH THE PARTIES STATED THAT ISSUE IS SAME AS HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED WITH REGARD TO PAYMENT MADE TO NORTHERN RAILWAY FOR CONSTRUCTION OF RAILWAY UNDER BRIDGE. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ALSO FILE D COPY OF THE MAP SHOWING THE LOCATION WHERE THE BRIDGE IN QUESTION HAS BEEN CONSTRUCTED. IT WOULD LINK THE COLONIES CONSTRUCTED BY THE ASSESSEE AUTHORITY. THEREFORE, THE ISSUE BEING SAME, WE FOLLOWING THE O RDER WITH REGARD TO PAYMENT MADE TO NORTHERN RAILWAY, DISMISS THIS GROUND OF THE REVENUE AS WELL. IN THE RESULT, GROUND NO. 1 OF THE APPEAL OF REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 6. IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 BY FOLLOWING THE SAME ORDER, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ON GROUND NO. 1 WAS ALLO WED IN PARA 39 OF THE SAME ORDER. 7. FOLLOWING THE ORDER FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 AND 2010-11 ABOVE, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITI ES BELOW AND DELETE THE ADDITION. GROUND NO. 1 OF THE APPEA L OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 8. ON GROUND NO. 2, ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ADDITIO N OF RS. 27,66,20,203/- ON ACCOUNT OF AMOUNT PAID TO PUNJAB WATER SUPPLY AND SEWERAGE BOARD FOR PRO VIDING WATER AND SEWERAGE SYSTEM WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF GLADA IN DIFFEREN T AREAS. THIS ISSUE IS DECIDED IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 VI DE ORDER DATED 05.02.2015 IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THE FIN DINGS IN PARA 45 TO 46 OF THIS ORDER ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER : 45. WE HAVE CONSIDERED RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. AS PER SECTION 28(1) OF PRTPD ACT UNDER WHICH THE ASSESSEE AUTHORITY IS CONSTITUTED, IT IS SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED THAT ASSE SSEE AUTHORITY SHALL CARRY OUT OTHER OPERATIONS LIKE SUP PLY OF WATER, DISPOSAL OF SEWERAGE, CONTROL OF POLLUTIO N 5 AND OTHER SERVICES. THE OBJECT OF THE ASSESSEE IS TO PROMOTE AND SECURE BETTER PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE AREAS OF THE STATE OF PUNJAB. THE ASSESSEE IS CREATED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB UNDER THE ABOVESAID ACT FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE AREAS ESPECIALLY THE JURISDICTION LIES WITH THE LUDHIANA. COPY OF THE MINUTES OF EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OF ASSESSEE AUTHORITY IS FILED AT PAGE 48A IN WHICH TH E EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE HAS APPROVED PAYMENT IN QUESTION THE PWSSB FOR CONSTRUCTION OF SEWERAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM PROVIDING SEWERAGE SCHEME AT LUDHIANA UNDER JNNURM. PB-49A IS THE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 19.05.2010 IN WHICH THE MEETING WAS CONVENED UNDER THE CHAIRMANSHIP OF THE CHIEF MINISTER OF PUNJAB AND IT WAS DIRECTED THAT THE ASSESSEE TO PRO VIDE RS.25 CRORES AS THEIR CONTRIBUTION TO THE SEWERAGE SYSTEM THROUGH ULB. THE LETTER OF PWSSB IS FILED AT PAGE 50 OF THE PAPE R BOOK FOR PROVIDING SEWERAGE SCHEME, LUDHIANA UNDER JNNURM REQUESTING THE ASSESSEE TO MAKE DEPOSIT OF THE AMOUNT IN QUESTION. THEREFORE, THE AMOUNT IN QUESTION IS DIRECTLY CONNECTED WITH THE ACTIVITIES OF THE ASSESSEE TO PROMOTE AND SECURE BETTER PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE AREA WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE ASSESSEE AND AMOUNT IS SPEN T AS PER OBJECTIVES OF THE ASSESSEE. THE COPIES OF THE LETTERS OF PWSSB DEPARTMENT ARE FILED AT PAGE 194- 195 TO CERTIFY THAT THE AMOUNT IN QUESTION HAVE BEE N SPENT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF SEWERAGE TREATMENT PLANT AND SEWERAGE SYSTEM AT LUDHIANA. THE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION AND MAP IS ALSO FILED TO SHOW THAT SEWERAGE SYSTEM IS LAID OUT IN THE AREAS OF LUDHIANA. THE ASSESSEE ALSO EXPLAINED THAT SINCE ASSESSEE IS NOT EXPERT, THEREFORE, CONSTRUCTION OF SEWERAGE SYSTEM WAS CARRIED OUT THROUGH INDEPENDENT AGENCY CONTROLLED BY THE STATE GOVERNMENT. THEREFORE, THERE IS NOTHING WRONG IN T HE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE. THE EXPENDITURE IS INCURRED ON THE DIRECTION OF THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE ASSESSEE AUTHORITY WHICH IS COVERED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF PRTPD ACT AND WAS ALLOWABLE EXPENDITURE AS PER SECTION 28 OF PRTPD ACT. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT CAPITALIZED ANY EXPENDITURE IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND SEWERAGE SYSTEM WAS MEANT FOR PUBLIC AT LARGE. 46. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) CONSIDERING THE ISSUE IN THE LIGHT OF RAILWAY UNDER BRIDGE CONSTRUCTED BY ASSESSEE AND FOLLOWING HIS FINDINGS ON THAT ISSUE, DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, ON SAID ISSUE, WE HAVE ALREADY DISMISSED THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 AND ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN THIS YEAR . THEREFORE, CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS AN D CIRCUMSTANCES AND AIMS AND OBJECTS OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE LIGHT OF THE SPECIAL ACT UNDER WHICH THE 6 ASSESSEE AUTHORITY IS CREATED, IT IS CLEAR THAT AMO UNT IN QUESTION IS INCURRED BY ASSESSEE FOR SEWERAGE WORK WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE ASSESSEE AUTHORITY. IT IS, THEREFORE, CLEARLY THE REVENUE I N NATURE AND HAS TO BE ALLOWED AS EXPENDITURE INCURRE D WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS ACTIVITIES OF THE ASSESSEE. NO CAPITAL IS GENERATE D BY ASSESSEE AUTHORITY FOR INCURRING THE EXPENDITURE ON THIS ISSUE. WE, THEREFORE, SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS. 28 CRORES. IN THE RESULT, GROUND NO. 2 OF APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 9. FOLLOWING THE ABOVE ORDER, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDE RS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW AND DELETE THE ADDITION. IN THE RESULT, GROUND NO. 2 OF THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOW ED. 10. ON GROUND NO. 3, ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE DISALL OWANCE OF RS. 6 CRORES ON ACCOUNT OF AMOUNT SPENT FOR PRO VID ING SEWERAGE SYSTEM AT BAGA PURANA WITHIN THE JURISDICT ION OF GLADA. IT IS STATED THAT ISSUE IS SAME AS WAS DECI DED IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 ON WHICH FINDINGS IN PARA 4 5-46 REPRODUCED ABOVE, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF AUTHOR ITIES BELOW AND DELETE THE ADDITION. GROUND NO. 3 OF APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS ACCORDINGLY, ALLOWED. 11. ON GROUND NO. 4, ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE DISALL OWANCE OF RS. 1.25 CRORES FOR SETTING UP OF MUSIC ACADEMY HOL DING IT TO BE CAPITAL EXPENDITURE. BRIEF FACTS OF THIS ISSUE ARE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT ASSESSEE HAD DEBITED A N AMOUNT OF RS. 1.25 CRORES TO THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT AS CONTRIBUTION MADE TO ISHMEET ACADEMY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ASK ED THE ASSESSEE TO JUSTIFY THE ALLOWABILITY OF THIS EXPEND ITURE. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT RS.1.25 CRORES HAD BEEN GIV EN TO ISHMEET ACADEMY FOR DEVELOPMENT AND CONSTRUCTION OF A MUSIC 7 ACADEMY. THIS EXPENDITURE HAD BEEN INCURRED AFTER OBTAINING NECESSARY APPROVAL AND THAT THE EXPENDITURE WAS WIT HIN THE OBJECTS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HEL D THAT EXPENDITURE INCURRED WAS MERE APPLICATION OF INCOME AND IT WAS A CAPITAL EXPENDITURE AND ACCORDINGLY DISALLOWE D THE AMOUNT. 12. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) FOUND THAT THE AMOUNT IN QUESTION IS GIVEN TO AN INDEPENDENT ORGANIZATION FOR DEVELOP MENT AND CONSTRUCTION OF A MUSIC ACADEMY. THE ASSESSEE IS N OT OWNER OF THE SAME AND IT WAS MERELY A GRANT TO INDEPENDEN T AGENCY LIKE DONATION. IT WAS, THEREFORE, HELD THAT THE AM OUNT IS NOT INCURRED FOR WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS OF ASSESSEE AND ACCORDINGLY ADDITION WAS CONFIRMED. 13. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND SUBMI TTED THAT AMOUNT WAS GIVEN AS PER DIRECTION OF THE STATE GOVE RNMENT. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DR RELIED UPON THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 14. ON CONSIDERATION OF THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, WE D O NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. THE AMOUNT IN QUESTION IS GIVEN TO AN INDEPENDENT ORGAN IZATION FOR DEVELOPMENT AND CONSTRUCTION OF MUSIC ACADEMY. IT IS NOT AIMS AND OBJECTS OF THE ASSESSEE TO RAISE CONSTRUCT ION OF MUSIC ACADEMY. THE AMOUNT IS NOT INCURRED WHOLLY A ND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS OF THE ASSE SSEE OR TO ACHIEVE ITS OBJECTS. THE AMOUNT IS IN THE NATURE O F DONATION OR APPLICATION OF INCOME AND AS SUCH NO SUCH AMOUNT IS 8 ALLOWABLE DEDUCTION OUT OF THE INCOME OF THE ASSESS EE. GROUND NO. 4 OF THE ASSESSEE IS ACCORDINGLY, DISMIS SED. 15. ON GROUND NO. 5, ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ADDITI ON OF RS. 2,58,16,946/- ON ACCOUNT OF AMOUNT PAID TO PUNJAB S TATE DEVELOPMENT & WELFARE FUND AS PER NOTIFICATION OF T HE PUNJAB GOVERNMENT. THIS ISSUE IS DECIDED IN ASSESSMENT YE AR 2009- 10 IN THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IN ITA 252/CHD/2013 VI DE ORDE3R DATED 05.02.2015 AND IN PARA 32, SIMILAR ADDITION H AS BEEN DELETED. THE FINDINGS IN PARA 32 OF THIS ORDER ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER : 32. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID THE AMOUNT IN QUESTION I.E. RS. 1 .86 CR TO THE GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB AS PER NOTIFICATION DATED 17.03.2008 (PB- 36). WHEN THE STATE GOVERNMENT HAS DIRECTED BY WAY OF NOTIFICATION TO T HE ASSESSEE TO DEPOSIT 5% OF THE BID AMOUNT ON SALE OF THE PROPERTIES WITH THE STATE GOVERNMENT TOWARDS TH E PUNJAB STATE DEVELOPMENT FUNDS IN THE PUBLIC ACCOUN T OF THE STATE, IT IS DEFINITELY CONNECTED WITH THE BUSINESS ACTIVITY OF THE ASSESSEE ON SALE OF PROPER TIES. THE ASSESSEE AUTHORITY IS BOUND TO FOLLOW THE DIRECTIONS OF THE PUNJAB GOVERNMENT AND HAS TO ACT ACCORDINGLY. THE PAYMENT IN QUESTION IS, THEREFORE NOT VOLUNTARY OR GRATUITOUS BUT AS AN OBLIGATION AND PRIMARY CHARGES AS PER THE NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY T HE STATE GOVERNMENT. THE AMOUNT OF 5% IS, THEREFORE, DIRECTLY RELATE TO THE SALES ACTIVITIES OF THE ASSE SSEE AUTHORITY. THE ASSESSEE HAS FOLLOWED THE DIRECTION S OF THE STATE GOVERNMENT AS PER THE EXISTING LAWS AND T HE NOTIFICATION AS ISSUED BY THE STATE GOVERNMENT. TH E NON-COMPLIANCE OF THE DIRECTIONS OF THE STATE GOVERNMENT WOULD DIRECTLY AFFECT THE BUSINESS ACTIVITIES OF THE ASSESSEE AUTHORITY. THEREFORE, T HE CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE WELFARE FUND IS IN THE NATURE OF COMMERCIAL EXPEDIENCY AND HAS A NEXUS WITH THE BUSINESS ACTIVITY OF THE ASSESSEE. SINCE THE ASSES SEE MADE PAYMENT OF 5% OF THE BID AMOUNT OF THE AUCTION ON SALE OF PROPERTY AS PER NOTIFICATION EFFECTIVE, THEREFORE THE AMOUNT IS INCURRED FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS ACTIVITIES OF THE ASSESSEE. THE DECISIONS RELIED UPON BY LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE CLEARLY SUPPORT THE SUBMISSION OF LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSES SEE. WE, THEREFORE, HOLD THAT THE AMOUNT IN QUESTION IS 9 SPENT AND INCURRED BY ASSESSEE WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS. THEREFORE , SAME IS ALLOWABLE AS DEDUCTION. WE ACCORDINGLY SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND DELET E THE ADDITION. IN THE RESULT, GROUND NO. 1 OF THE A PPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 16. FURTHER IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11, SAME ORDER HAS BEEN FOLLOWED AND SIMILAR ADDITION HAS BEEN DELETED IN PARA 58 TO 61. THEREFORE, FOLLOWING THE EARLIER YE ARS ORDER IN THE CASE OF THE SAME ASSESSEE, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW AND DELETE THE ADDITION. GROUND NO. 5 OF THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ACCORDINGLY, ALLOWED. 17. ON GROUND NO. 6, ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ADDITI ON OF RS. 2,74,65,568/- ON ACCOUNT OF AMOUNT RECEIVED AS EXTE RNAL DEVELOPMENT CHARGES FROM COLONIZERS. THIS ISSUE HA S BEEN DECIDED IN APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 09-10 IN ITA 252/CHD/2013 VIDE ORDER DATED 05.02.2015 (SUPRA ) AND IN PARAS 24 TO 27, IT WAS HELD AS UNDER : 24. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT THE ASSESSEE AUTHORITY RECE IVED THE EXTERNAL DEVELOPMENT CHARGES FROM THE PROMOTERS OF PRIVATE COLONIES AND THE CHARGES WERE DEPOSITED BY THE PROMOTERS FOR DEV ELOPEMENT WORK TO BE CARRIED OUT AT THE PERIPHERY OF THE COLONIES BY THE GOVERNMENT OR LOCAL AUTHORITY. THE AMOUNTS ARE COLLECTED AS PER SPECIF IED RATES AND WERE MEANT TO BE SPENT ON THE EXTERNAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE COLONIES. THESE CHARGES ARE FOR PROVIDING INFRASTRUCTURE, THE FACILITIES LIKE ROADS , WATER SUPPLY AND CIVIL SYSTEM ETC. THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINE D THAT THESE AMOUNTS ARE COLLECTED AS PER PUNJAB APARTMENT AND PROPERTY REGULATION ACT, 1995 AND PROVISIONS OF THE SAME ARE ALSO REPRODUCED IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER. THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, SUBMITTED THAT EXTERNAL DEVELOPMENT CHARGES DOES NOT BELONG T O THE ASSESSEE AT ALL THE SAME IS COLLECTED AS PER TH E DIRECTION OF THE STATE GOVERNMENT. 25. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FILED COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION OF GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB DATED 23.06.20 05 TO SHOW THAT PUNJAB GOVERNMENT HAS REVISED POLICY O F EXTERNAL DEVELOPMENT CHARGES WITH REGARD TO THE 10 PAYMENT OF EXTERNAL DEVELOPMENT CHARGES BY THE PROMOTERS IN LICENSED COLONIES. THE ASSESSEE ALSO DEPOSITED THE AMOUNT IN QUESTION IN A SEPARATE BANK ACCOUNT WHICH IS NOT IN DISPUTE. IT IS, THEREFORE, CLEAR THAT THE AMOUNT IN QUESTION IS RECEIVED BY ASSESSEE AS PER DIRECTION OF THE GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB. THIS AM OUNT WAS SHOWN AS PAYABLE IN THE ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSE E. THEREFORE, THE NATURE AND CHARACTER OF THE RECEIPT SHOULD HAVE BEEN EXAMINED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AS PER THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF THE LAW AND THE NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB IN THIS REGARD. IT APPEARS THAT AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE FAI LED TO CONSIDER THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF THE LAW AND THE NOTIFICATIONS ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB IN THIS REGARD WHICH WOULD CLEARLY THROUGH LIGHT ON THE NAT URE AND CHARACTER OF THE RECEIPT OF EXTERNAL DEVELOPMEN T CHARGES RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE. BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT THE AMOUNT IS RECEIVED AS PER DIRECTION OF THE STATE GOVERNMENT AND WAS TO BE SPE NT AS PER THE DIRECTION OF THE STATE GOVERNMENT OR SPE CIFIED AUTHORITY. THUS, HOW THE SAID AMOUNT COULD BE INCO ME OF THE ASSESSEE, IS NOT ESTABLISHED BY THE AUTHORIT IES BELOW. THE MAIN REASON FOR THE ABOVE ADDITION AS M ADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS S HOWN THE AMOUNT OF INTEREST ON THE BANK DEPOSIT AS INCOM E FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. SINCE THE PRINCIPLE AMOUNT ITSELF IS SHOWN AS LIABILITY AND THE AMOUNT IS TO BE SPENT AS PER THE DIRECTION OF THE STATE GOVERNME NT, MERELY SHOWING INTEREST AS INCOME ON SUCH LIABILITY BY ITSELF IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO PUT THE ENTIRE LIABILIT Y UPON ASSESSEE TO TREAT THE LIABILITY AMOUNT AS INCOME. T HE ASSESSEE HAS NO RIGHT/TITLE OR INTEREST IN EXTERNAL DEVELOPMENT CHARGES. THE ASSESSEE IS COMPETENT/ NODAL AUTHORITY TO RECEIVE EXTERNAL DEVELOPMENT CHARGES AS PER PROVISIONS OF LAW REFERRED ABOVE. THEREFORE, IT WAS LIABILITY OF ASSESSEE TO PAY BACK THE AMOUNT AS PER DIRECTION OF STATE GOVERNMENT OR LOCA L AUTHORITY. LD. CIT(APPEALS) ADMITTED THAT EXTERNAL DEVELOPMENT CHARGES KEPT PENDING AND NOT USED PENDING CLEARANCE FROM STATE GOVT. WOULD PROVE IT W AS NOT MONEY OF THE ASSESSEE. FURTHER, THE FACTS DISCL OSE THAT ASSESSEE MAY BE A CUSTODIAN OF THE AMOUNT OF EXTERNAL DEVELOPMENT CHARGES, THEREFORE, HOW IT COU LD BE TREATED AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE, IS NOT EXPLAI NED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE ASSESSEE ALSO IN THE PAPER BOOK, FILED CERTAIN CORRESPONDENCE TO SHOW TH AT SINCE EXTERNAL DEVELOPMENT CHARGES WERE LYING UNUTILIZED, THEREFORE, DUE TO FINANCIAL CONSTRAINTS , REQUEST WAS MADE TO THE STATE GOVERNMENT TO PERMIT THE ASSESSEE AUTHORITY TO USE EXTERNAL DEVELOPMENT CHARGES FOR DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS IN THE LARGER PUBL IC INTEREST. THIS CORRESPONDENCE WOULD REVEAL THAT ASSESSEE WAS NOT ENTITLED EVEN TO USE THIS AMOUNT O F ITS OWN FOR ANY PURPOSE. IT MAY ALSO BE NOTED HERE THAT SINCE THE AMOUNT IN QUESTION ITSELF IS SHOWN AS OUTSTANDING SINCE LONG, WOULD PROVE THAT THE AMOUNT DID 11 NOT BELONG TO THE ASSESSEE AND WAS SHOWN AS LIABILI TY IN THE ACCOUNTS. THE ABOVE FACTS WOULD CLEARLY DISC LOSE THAT THE ASSESSEE CANNOT USE THE EXTERNAL DEVELOPME NT CHARGES ACCOUNT FOR ANY PURPOSES UNLESS IT IS APPRO VED BY THE STATE GOVERNMENT. THE ASSESSEE SINCE REFERR ED TO THE PROVISIONS OF PUNJAB APARTMENT AND PROPERTY REGULATION ACT, 1995 BY WHICH EXTERNAL DEVELOPMENT CHARGES ARE COLLECTED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE PROVISIONS THEREON STATE THAT THE COMPETENT AUTHORI TY SHALL TRANSFER THE FUNDS TO THE STATE GOVERNMENT OR LOCAL AUTHORITY ( THROUGH AUTHORITY) IS COMPETENT AUTHORI TY AND IT DID NOT CARRY OUT ANY DEVELOPMENT WORK OF IT S OWN AND ONLY ACTS AS NODAL AGENCY. THESE PROVISION S HAVE NOT BEEN PROPERLY APPRECIATED BY THE AUTHORITI ES BELOW. THE AUTHORITIES BELOW SHOULD ALSO ASCERTAIN WHETHER THE SIMILAR TYPE OF AUTHORITY LIKE THE ASSE SSEE, HOW THEY HAVE GIVEN THE TREATMENT OF THE EXTERNAL DEVELOPMENT CHARGES IN THEIR RECORDS AND WHAT IS TH E STAND OF THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT IN THE CASES OF THE SIMILAR OTHER AUTHORITIES. THE NATURE AND CHARACTER OF RECEIPT IS NOT EXAMINED BY AUTHORITIES BELOW. 26. IT FURTHER APPEARS THAT LD. CIT(APPEALS) HAS NO T GIVEN ANY FINDING ON THE CASE LAWS RELIED UPON BY T HE ASSESSEE BEFORE HIM. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE DISCUSS ION AND THE RELEVANT CASE LAWS CITED BEFORE LD. CIT(APP EALS) AND THE NOTIFICATION PRODUCED BEFORE US CLEARLY DIS CLOSE THAT THE MATTER REQUIRES RE-CONSIDERATION AT THE LE VEL OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE DECISIONS CITED BY LD. DR IN THE CASE OF BAZPUR COOPERATIVE SUGAR FACTOR LTD. (SUPRA), THE AMOUNTS IN QUESTION WERE FOUND TO BE DEDUCTED IN THE COURSE OF TRADING OPERATION AND IN THE CASE OF CHOWRINGHEE SALES BUREAU P. LTD. (SUPRA), THE SALE TAX WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS CHARAC TER AS AN AUCTIONEER, THE AMOUNT WAS FOUND TO BE FORM P ART OF THE TRADING OR BUSINESS RECEIPTS. THESE DECISIO NS STATED BY LD. DR ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO THE ISSUE IN CONTROVERSY. 27. FROM THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND RESTORE THE ISS UE TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER WITH DIRECTION TO RE- DECIDE THE ISSUE IN THE LIGHT OF THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS O F THE LAW REFERRED TO BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE AUTHORIT IES BELOW ALONGWITH THE NOTIFICATIONS ISSUED WITH REGAR D TO EXTERNAL DEVELOPMENT CHARGES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL GIVE REASONABLE SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY OF BEI NG HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. IN THE RESULT, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 18. THE SAME ORDER WAS FOLLOWED IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 IN PARA 62 OF THE SAME ORDER AND ISSUE WAS RESTORED TO THE FILE 12 OF ASSESSING OFFICER. FOLLOWING THE ORDERS FOR ASS ESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 AND 2010-11 OF THE TRIBUNAL, WE SET ASIDE T HE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW AND RESTORE THIS ISSUE TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER WITH DIRECTION TO RE-DECIDE THIS ISSUE IN THE LIGHT OF THE ORDER DATED 05.02.2015 (SUPRA). THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED FOR S TATISTICAL PURPOSES. 19. ON GROUND NO. 7, ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ADDITI ON OF RS. 7,59,00,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF EARNEST MONEY RECEIVED FROM VARIOUS BUYERS. THE ASSESSEE IN THE SYNOPSIS STATE D THAT THIS ISSUE IS WITH REGARD TO THE ADDITION OF RS. 6,74,23 ,665/- OUT OF AMOUNT OF RS. 7.59 CR. AS THE REMAINING BENEFIT HA S BEEN GIVEN BY THE LD. CIT(APPEALS). THE SUBMISSION OF T HE ASSESSEE IS CORRECT AS IS STATED IN PARA 10.7 OF THE ORDER O F LD. CIT(APPEALS). IT MAY ALSO BE NOTED HERE THAT THE LD . CIT(APPEALS) HAS FOLLOWED HIS ORDER FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010- 11 ON THE SAME ISSUE IN WHICH HE HAS DELETED THE SI MILAR ADDITION IN EARLIER YEARS. HOWEVER, HE HAS DISTING UISHED THE FACTS IN ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL FOR MAINTAINI NG THE ADDITION IN QUESTION. 20. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE IDENTICAL ISSUE HAS BEEN CONSIDERED BY ITAT CHANDIG ARH BENCH IN THE CASE OF THE SAME ASSESSEE IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 ON GROUND NO. 7, 8 & 9 IN WHICH THE MATTER HAS BEEN RESTORED TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER WITH DIRECTION TO RE-DECIDE THESE GROUNDS CONSIDERING THE FACTUAL ASPECTS BY GIVING R EASONABLE SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. THEREFORE, FOLLOWING THE 13 ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 05.02.2015 (SUPRA) FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIE S BELOW AND RESTORE THIS ISSUE ALSO TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OF FICER WITH DIRECTION TO RE-DECIDE THIS ISSUE BY CONSIDERING TH E ACTUAL ASPECTS ON THIS ISSUE. IN THE RESULT, GROUND NO. 7 OF THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPO SES. 21. ON GROUND NO. 8, ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ADDITI ON OF RS. 61,41,511/- ON ACCOUNT OF AMOUNT PAID BY GLADA FOR CONTRIBUTION OF PROVIDENT FUND BEING EMPLOYEES CON TRIBUTION. THE SIMILAR ISSUE IS DECIDED IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 201 0-11 BY THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ORDER DATED 05.02.2015. THE FIND INGS IN PARAS 98 TO 99 ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER : 98. ON CONSIDERATION OF THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, WE FIND THAT ISSUE IS NOW DECIDED BY ITAT CHANDIGARH BENCH IN THE CASE OF PUDA, MOHALI (SUPRA) IN WHICH IN PARAS 84 T O 86 THE ISSUE IS DECIDED THAT ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO CLAIM DEDUCTION IN RESPECT OF CONTRIBUTIONS MADE TOWARDS PF EVEN IF SUCH FUND IS NOT RECOGNIZED. HOWEVER, ASSESSING OFFICER WAS DIRECTED TO EXAMINE THIS ISSUE CLEARLY AND ALLOW TH E PAYMENT ON CASH BASIS. THE FINDINGS OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THI S CASE IN PARAS 84 TO 86 ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER : 84 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS CAREFULLY. FIRST OF ALL WE WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT THAT THIS ISSUE I S ARISING IN ALL THE YEARS IN WHICH THE APPEALS WERE HEARD BY US, THEREFORE, THE DECISION IN THESE PARAS WOULD BE APP LICABLE IN ALL THE YEARS WHEREIN APPEALS ARE BEING ADJUDICA TED THROUGH THIS ORDER. THE ASSESSEE AUTHORITY WAS FOR MED IN 1995 PRIOR TO WHICH THIS ORGANIZATION WAS KNOWN AS PUNJAB HOUSING DEVELOPMENT BOARD WHICH WAS STATED TO HAVE BEEN FORMED IN 1972. THROUGH A GAZETTE NOTIFI CATION DATED 12TH AUGUST 1983 (COPY PLACED AT PAPER BOOK A T PAGES 135-136) GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB MADE CERTAIN RU LES FOR PUNJAB HOUSING DEVELOPMENT BOARD THROUGH GSR NO . 70/PA6Z/73/S/98/83.RULE 16 OF THIS NOTIFICATION REA DS AS UNDER: PROVIDENT FUND-(1) THE STATE GOVERNMENT SHALL ESTAB LISH A PROVIDENT FUND FOR THE EMPLOYEES OF THE BOARD AND SUCH PROVIDENT FUND SHAL L BE DEEMED TO BE A GOVERNMENT PROVIDENT FUND FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE PROVIDENT FUN D ACT, 1925(CENTRAL ACT XIV OF 1925) AND NOTWITHSTANDING ANYTHING CONTAINED IN SECTION 8 THEREOF, SUCH FUND MAY BE ADMINISTERED BY SUCH OFFICERS OF THE STATE GOVERNME NT OR OF THE BOARD AS THE STATE GOVERNMENT MAY SPECIFY IN THAT BEHALF. 14 THE ABOVE CLEARLY SHOWS THAT GOVERNMENT THROUGH THI S NOTIFICATION WAS MANDATED TO ESTABLISH A GOVERNMENT PROVIDENT FUND UNDER PROVIDENT FUND ACT, 1925. FURT HER PAGE 152 OF THE PAPER BOOK IS COPY OF ANOTHER ORDER OF THE GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB SHOWING THAT ON CONSTITUT ION OF PUNJAB URBAN PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VARIOUS TERMS IN PUNJAB HOUSING DEVELOPMENT BOARD RULES, 1983 WOULD STAND AMENDED BY SUBSTITUTION OF THE WORDS PUNJAB HOUSING DEVELOPMENT BOARD TO PUNJAB URBAN PLANNING DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY THIS SHOWS T HAT SAME RULES WHICH WERE MADE FOR PUNJAB HOUSING DEVELOPMENT BOARD WERE ADOPTED FOR THE ASSESSEE AUTHORITY ALSO. THEREFORE, IT BECOMES CLEAR THAT PROVIDENT FUND ESTABLISHED BY THE ASSESSEE IS GOVER NED BY THE PROVISIONS OF PROVIDENT FUND ACT, 1925. RUL E (1) OF PART A TO THE FOURTH SCHEDULE OF THE ACT READS AS UNDER: APPLICATION OF THE PART THIS PART WAS NOT APPLIED TO ANY PROVIDENT FUND TO WHICH THE PROVIDENT FUND ACT, 1925 (19 OF 1925) APPLIES. THE ABOVE MAKES IT CLEAR THAT PROVIDENT FUND WHICH ARE GOVERNED BY PROVIDENT FUND ACT, 1925 ARE NOT COVERE D BY THE RULES MADE UNDER THE FOURTH SCHEDULE. IN OTHER WORDS, THE PROVISIONS REGARDING RECOGNITION OF THE PROVIDENT FUND WOULD NOT BE APPLICATION TO SUCH FUN DS, THEREFORE, IT DOES NOT MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE WHETHER ASSESSEES PROVIDENT FUND IS RECOGNIZED OR NOT RECOGNIZED. THEREFORE, THERE IS NO FORCE IN THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE THAT THE CONTRIBUTION SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED BECAUSE THE ASSE SSEE HAS NOT GOT ITS FUNDS RECOGNIZED OR CONTRIBUTION WA S NOT MADE TOWARDS RECOGNIZED PROVIDENT FUND. THIS ALSO LEADS TO THE CONCLUSION THAT SECTION 36(1)(IV) WHICH WAS FOR CONTRIBUTION TOWARDS RECOGNIZED PROVIDENT FUND, IS NOT APPLICABLE. HOWEVER, AS FAR AS SECTION 36(1)(VA) I S CONCERNED, THE SAME IS STILL APPLICABLE BECAUSE SEC TION 36(1)(VA) READS AS UNDER: 36. (1) THE DEDUCTIONS PROVIDED FOR IN THE FOLLOWING CL AUSES SHALL BE ALLOWED IN RESPECT OF THE MATTERS DEALT WITH THEREIN, IN COMPUTING THE INCOME REFERRED TO IN SECTION 28 (I) TO (V) - NOT RELEVANT [(VA) ANY SUM RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM ANY O F HIS EMPLOYEES TO WHICH THE PROVISIONS OF SUB-CLAUSE (X) OF CLAUSE (24) OF SECTION 2 APPLY, IF SUCH SUM IS CREDITED BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE EMPLOYEE'S ACCOUNT IN THE RELEV ANT FUND OR FUNDS ON OR BEFORE THE DUE DATE. EXPLANATION.FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS CLAUSE, 'DUE DATE' MEANS THE DATE BY WHICH THE ASSESSEE IS REQUIRED AS AN EMPLOYER TO CREDIT AN EM PLOYEE'S CONTRIBUTION TO THE EMPLOYEE'S ACCOUNT IN THE RELEVANT FUND UNDER ANY A CT, RULE, ORDER OR NOTIFICATION ISSUED THEREUNDER OR UNDER ANY STANDING ORDER, AWARD, CONT RACT OF SERVICE OR OTHERWISE;] THE ABOVE PROVISION DEALS WITH EMPLOYEES SHARE OF T HE CONTRIBUTION. ACCORDING TO THE SCHEME OF THE ACT T HE 15 EMPLOYEES SHARE IS TREATED AS INCOME WHEN SOME CONTRIBUTION IS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE AND WHEN S AME IS CONTRIBUTED TO PROVIDENT FUND THEN SAME IS ALLOW ED AS DEDUCTION UNDER THIS PROVISION. AT THE SAME TIME R ECEIPT OF SUCH CONTRIBUTION IS TREATED AS DEEMED INCOME U/ S 2(24)(X) WHICH READS AS UNDER: ANY SUM RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM HIS EMPLOYEES AS CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANY PROVIDENT FUND OR SUPERANNUATION FUND OR ANY FUND SET UP UNDE R THE PROVISIONS OF THE EMPLOYEES' STATE INSURANCE ACT, 1948 (34 OF 1948), OR ANY OTHE R FUND FOR THE WELFARE OF SUCH EMPLOYEES ; IN THIS CLAUSE WHICH IS PART OF THE DEFINITION OF I NCOME, THERE IS NO MENTION OF THE WORD RECOGNIZED PROVIDE NT FUND THEREFORE, ANY CONTRIBUTION RAISED FROM THE EMPLOYEE TOWARDS ANY PROVIDENT FUND WOULD FORM PART OF THE DEEMED INCOME UNDER THIS PROVISION. IN OUR OPI NION, THIS HAS BEEN DELIBERATELY DONE BY THE LEGISLATURE BECAUSE AS FAR AS EMPLOYEES CONTRIBUTION IS CONCERNED, THE PARLIAMENT WANTED THAT THE SAME SHOULD NOT BE USED BY THE BUSINESS PEOPLE AND SHOULD BE DEPOSITED WITH TH E PROVIDENT FUND AUTHORITIES AND OR TRUST AT THE EARL IEST AND THAT IS WHY NO DIFFERENCE HAS BEEN MADE BETWEEN RECOGNIZED PROVIDENT FUND OR OTHER FUNDS. FROM THI S IT BECOMES CLEAR THAT AS FAR AS EMPLOYEES CONTRIBUTIO N IS CONCERNED, THE SAME IS NOT COVERED BY SECTION 36(1) (IV). HOWEVER, AT THE SAME TIME IT CANNOT BE DENIED THAT THE CONTRIBUTION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE TOWARDS PROVIDENT FUND IS CLEARLY IN THE NATURE OF BUSINESS EXPENDITURE AN D THEREFORE, SAME IS ALLOWABLE U/S 37 OF THE ACT WHIC H IS RESIDUARY PROVISION. SINCE THE CONTRIBUTION OF EMP LOYER SHARE TOWARDS PROVIDENT FUND IS IN NATURE OF REVEN UE EXPENDITURE AND NOT COVERED BY ANY OTHER PROVISION AS EXPLAINED ABOVE, SAME IS COVERED BY SECTION 37 OF T HE ACT. THIS ANALYSIS LEADS TO THE CONCLUSION THAT AS FAR AS EMPLOYER SHARE IS CONCERNED, THE SAME IS ALLOWABLE U/S 37 AND AS FAR AS EMPLOYEES SHARE IS CONCERNED, THE SAME IS ALLOWABLE U/S 36(1)(VA). LOT OF ARGUMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE BY BOTH THE PARTIES IN RESPECT OF SECTION 40A (9) WHICH READS AS UNDER: (9) NO DEDUCTION SHALL BE ALLOWED IN RESPECT OF ANY SUM PAID BY THE ASSESSEE AS AN EMPLOYER TOWARDS THE SETTING UP OR FORMATION OF, OR AS CONTRIBUTION TO, ANY FUND, TRUST, COMPANY, ASSOCIATION OF PERSONS, BODY OF INDIVIDUAL S, SOCIETY REGISTERED UNDER THE SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT, 1860 (21 OF 1860), OR O THER INSTITUTION FOR ANY PURPOSE, EXCEPT WHERE SUCH SUM IS SO PAID, FOR THE PURPOSES AND TO THE EXTENT PROVIDED BY OR UNDER CLAUSE (IV) [OR CLAUSE (IVA)] OR CLAUSE (V) OF SUB -SECTION (1) OF SECTION 36 , OR AS REQUIRED BY OR UNDER ANY OTHER LAW FOR THE TIME BEING IN FOR CE. PLAIN READING OF THIS PROVISIONS SHOWS THAT THE CONTRIBUTION MADE BY AN ASSESSEE AS A EMPLOYER TOWA RDS VARIOUS FUNDS FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE EMPLOYEES ARE NOT ALLOWABLE EXCEPT FOR CONTRIBUTION PROVIDED IN THIS SECTION ITSELF. THEREFORE, THE LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE IS CORRECT THAT CONTRIBUTION WHICH ARE NOT MENTIONED IN THIS S ECTION CANNOT BE ALLOWED BECAUSE THIS PROVISIONS STARTS WI TH NON 16 OBSTANTE CLAUSE WHICH IS MADE CLEAR BY STARTING OF SECTION 40A(1) WHICH READS AS UNDER: 40A. (1) THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION SHALL HAVE EFFE CT NOTWITHSTANDING ANYTHING TO THE CONTRARY CONTAINED IN ANY OTHER PROVISION OF THIS A CT RELATING TO THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME UNDER THE HEAD 'PROFITS AND GAINS OF BUSINESS OR PR OFESSION'. HOWEVER, CAREFUL READING CLEARLY SHOWS THAT EXCEPTI ON PROVIDED IN THIS SECTION ARE IN RESPECT OF DEDUCTI ON ALLOWED U/S 36(1)(IV) OR 36(1)(IVA) OR 36(1)(V). T HERE IS ANOTHER EXCEPTION WHICH READS AS UNDER: OR AS REQUIRED BY OR UNDER ANY OTHER LAW FOR THE TIME BEING IN FORCE THEREFORE, THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE IS CORR ECT THAT SINCE PROVIDENT FUND ESTABLISHED BY THE ASSESSEE WA S IN TERMS OF INDIAN PROVIDENT FUND ACT, 1925, THEREFORE , THIS HAS TO BE READ INTO THE EXCEPTIONS AND ACCORDINGLY FETTER FOR NOT ALLOWING THE DEDUCTION U/S 40A(9) WOULD NOT BE APPLICABLE FOR THE FUNDS CONTRIBUTED TOWARDS PROVI DENT FUND AS THE EMPLOYER SHARE IN TERMS OF INDIAN PROV IDENT FUND ACT, 1925 WHICH WAS ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, WE HOLD THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED T O CLAIM DEDUCTION IN RESPECT OF CONTRIBUTIONS MADE TOWARDS PROVIDENT FUND EVEN IF SUCH FUND IS NOT RECOGNIZED. 85 THE NEXT CONTENTION RAISED IS WHETHER DEDUCTION CAN BE ALLOWED EVEN IF THE CONTRIBUTION WAS PAID AFTER THE END OF THE YEAR. THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE PAYMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF FILI NG OF RETURN AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 43B. RELEVANT PORTIO N OF SECTION 43B READS AS UNDER: 43B. NOTWITHSTANDING ANYTHING CONTAINED IN ANY OTHER P ROVISION OF THIS ACT, A DEDUCTION OTHERWISE ALLOWABLE UNDER THIS ACT IN RESPECT OF [(A) ANY SUM PAYABLE BY THE ASSESSEE BY WAY OF TAX , DUTY, CESS OR FEE, BY WHATEVER NAME CALLED, UNDER ANY LAW FOR THE TIME BEING IN FO RCE, OR] (B) ANY SUM PAYABLE BY THE ASSESSEE AS AN EMPLOYER BY WAY OF CONTRIBUTION TO ANY PROVIDENT FUND OR SUPERANNUATION FUND OR GRATUITY F UND OR ANY OTHER FUND FOR THE WELFARE OF EMPLOYEES, [OR] [(C) TO (F) NOT RELEVANT SHALL BE ALLOWED (IRRESPECTIVE OF THE YEAR IN WHIC H THE LIABILITY TO PAY SUCH SUM WAS INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE ACCORDING TO THE METHOD OF ACCOUNTING REGULARLY EMPLOYED BY HIM) ONLY IN COMPUTING THE INCOME REFERRED TO IN SE CTION 28 OF THAT PREVIOUS YEAR IN WHICH SUCH SUM IS ACTUALLY PAID BY HIM> [ PROVIDED THAT NOTHING CONTAINED IN THIS SECTION SHALL APPLY IN RELATION TO ANY SUM [***] WHICH IS ACTUALLY PAID BY THE ASSESSEE ON OR BEFORE THE DUE DATE APPLICABLE IN HIS CASE FOR FURNISHING THE RETURN OF INCOME UNDER SUB-SECTI ON (1) OF SECTION 139 IN RESPECT OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR IN WHICH THE LIABILITY TO PAY SUCH SU M WAS INCURRED AS AFORESAID AND THE EVIDENCE OF SUCH PAYMENT IS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESS EE ALONG WITH SUCH RETURN. CAREFUL READING OF THE ABOVE PROVISION SHOW THAT A FETTER HAS BEEN PROVIDED FOR ALLOWABILITY OF CERTAIN EXPEN SES. 17 THE EXPENDITURE EVEN IF IS ALLOWABLE BECAUSE OF THE METHOD OF ACCOUNTING FOLLOWED BY HE ASSESSEE THE SA ME IS STILL NOT ALLOWABLE UNLESS AND UNTIL SUCH EXPEND ITURE IS PAID. THIS MEANS THAT THIS SECTION PROVIDES FURTHE R RESTRICTION ON ALLOWABILITY OF AN EXPENDITURE WHICH ARE OTHERWISE ALLOWABLE U/S 30 TO 44. IN OTHER WORDS E VEN IF AN EXPENDITURE IS ALLOWABLE UNDER VARIOUS PROVISION S UNDER THE HEAD PROFITS AND GAINS OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSION THE SAME IS NOT ALLOWABLE BECAUSE OF S ECTION 43B UNLESS SUCH EXPENDITURE IS ACTUALLY PAID. IN C ASE BEFORE US, THE ASSESSEE IS FOLLOWING THE CASH SYSTE M OF ACCOUNTING WHICH WE HAVE ALREADY DISCUSSED WHILE ADJUDICATED GROUND NO. 5. THEREFORE, ANY EXPENDIT URE IN CASE OF THE ASSESSEE HAS TO BE ALLOWABLE ONLY IF AC TUAL CASH HAS BEEN PAID DURING THE YEAR. THEREFORE, IF NO CASH HAS BEEN PAID EXPENDITURE IS NOT ALLOWABLE. NO DOU BT SECTION 43B HAS CARVED OUT AN EXCEPTION BY WAY OF PROVISO THAT EVEN IF EXPENDITURE IS PAID BEFORE DUE DATE OF FILING OF RETURN THEN THE SAME SHALL BE ALLOWED AND THE HON'BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN CASE OF CIT V. NUCHEM LTD. IN ITA NO. 323 OF 2009 FOLLOWING THE DE CISION OF HON'BLE APEX COURT IN CIT V. ALOM EXTRUSIONS (20 09) 227 CTR 417 HAS CLEARLY HELD THAT IF SUCH PAYMENTS ARE MADE BEFORE DUE DATE OF FILING OF RETURN THEN THE S AME HAS TO BE ALLOWED. HOWEVER, AS OBSERVED EARLIER THIS B ENEFIT COULD NOT BE GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE BECAUSE THE ASSE SSEE IS FOLLOWING THE CASH SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING AND ALLOWABILITY OF EXPENDITURE ITSELF DEPENDS ON ACTUA L CASH PAYMENT. HOWEVER, WE WOULD LIKE TO OBSERVE THAT AT THE BEGINNING OF THIS ISSUE WE HAVE CLEARLY MENTIONED T HAT THIS ISSUE RELATES TO MANY YEARS, THEREFORE, IF TH E PAYMENT FOR THIS YEAR WAS MADE IN NEXT YEAR THE SAM E WOULD BE CLEARLY ALLOWABLE IN THE NEXT YEAR. THERE FORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHOULD EXAMINE THIS ISSUE CLE ARLY AND ALLOW THE PAYMENTS ON CASH BASIS EVEN IF THEY R ELATE TO EARLIER YEARS. THE LAST DISPUTE RAISED BY THE R EVENUE IS THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT MAINTAINING SEPARATE BANK ACCOUNTS AND OR FDRS IN THE ACCOUNT IN RESPECT OF PROVIDENT FUND BECAUSE THE SAME HAVE BEEN SHOWN IN THE BALANCE SHEET. IN THIS REGARD THE LD. DR FOR THE R EVENUE HAS RELIED ON THE DECISION OF CIT VS. TEXTOOL CO. L TD (SUPRA). IN THAT CASE THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED DED UCTION OF RS. 92,06,978/- AS CONTRIBUTION TOWARDS APPROVED GRATUITY FUND. A SUM OF RS. 50 LAKHS WAS PAID AS I NITIAL CONTRIBUTION AND RS. 5,84,754/- WAS PAID TOWARDS A NNUAL PREMIUM. THE BALANCE OF RS. 36,22,224/- WAS PROVID ED FOR INITIAL CONTRIBUTION. ALL THE SUMS WERE PAID T O LIC. THE QUESTION AROSE WHETHER DIRECT PAYMENT TO LIC WA S COVERED BY SECTION 36(1)(V). IN THIS CONNECTION TH E HON'BLE SUPREME COURT OBSERVED AS UNDER: HAVING CONSIDERATION THE MATTER IN THE LIGHT OF TH E BACKGROUND FACTS, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THERE IS NO MERIT IN THE APPEAL. TRUE THAT A FISCAL STATUTE IS TO BE CONSTRUCTED STR ICTLY AND NOTHING SHOULD BE ADDED OR SUBTRACTED TO THE LANGUAGE EMPLO YED IN THE SECTION, YET A STRICT CONSTRUCTION OF A PROVISION D OES NOT RULE OUT THE APPLICATION OF THE PRINCIPLES OF REASONABLE CON STRUCTION TO GIVE EFFECT TO THE PURPOSE AND INTENTION OF ANY PARTICU LAR PROVISION OF 18 THE ACT (SEE SHRI SAJJAN MILLS LTD. VS. CIT, M.P. & ANR (1985) 156 ITR 585). FROM A BARE READING OF SECTION 36(1)(V) ;OF THE ACT, IT IS MANIFEST THAT THE REAL INTENTION BEHIND THE PROVISI ON IS THAT THE EMPLOYER SHOULD NOT HAVE ANY CONTROL OVER THE FUNDS OF THE IRREVOCABLE TRUST CREATED EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE BENEF IT OF THE EMPLOYEES. IT IS CLEAR THAT INTENTION BEHIND THE PROVISIONS FO R VARIOUS FUNDS FOR EMPLOYEES IS THAT EMPLOYER SHOULD NOT HAV E CONTROL OVER THE FUNDS WHICH HAS BEEN CONTRIBUTED B Y THE ASSESSEE OR THE WORKERS. IN THIS REGARD THE LD. CO UNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE REFERRED TO SECTION 3 OF THE NOTIFICAT ION WHICH READS AS UNDER: ALL MONEYS BELONGING TO THE FUND SHALL BE INVESTED EITHER IN SECURITIES OF THE NATURE SPECIFIED IN CLAUSE (A), ( B), (C), (D) OR (E) OF SECTION 20 OF THE INDIAN TRUSTS ACT, 1882 (CENTR AL ACT 2 OF 1882) OR IN THE POST OFFICE SAVINGS BANK ACCOUNTS OR IN LONG TERM FIXED DEPOSITS WITH SCHEDULED BANKS. POST OFFICE N ATIONAL SAVING CERTIFICATES OR KEPT AS A DEPOSIT WITH THE STATE GO VERNMENT BEATING INTEREST. FURTHER THE ASSESSEE ALSO ISSUED OFFICE ORDER COPY OF WHICH IS PLACED AT PAGE 70 OF THE PAPER BOOK WHICH READS AS UNDER: IN PURSUANCE TO RULE 3(1)(2) OF THE PUNJAB HOUSING DEVELOPMENT BOARD (PROVIDENT FUND) RULES 1983 AND FURTHER ADOPTED PUDA IN ITS ME ETING HELD ON 17 TH JULY 1995 VIDE AGENDA ITEM NO. 17 A COMMITTEE, IS HEREBY CONSTITUT ED TO ADMINISTER AND MANAGE THE CONTRIBUTORY PROVIDENT FUND OF THE EMPLOYEES OF PUD A. THE COMMITTEE SHALL INCLUDE: (A) THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATOR AS EX-OFFICIO CHAIRMAN OF THE COMMITTEE OR HIS NOMINEE (B) ACCOUNTS OFFICER (PENSION) AS SECRETARY OF THE COMMITTEE (C) ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER (ADMIN-I)- MEMBER (D) SH. KARAM CHAND, SENIOR ASSISTANT AND SH. SHISH U PAL, SENIOR ASSISTANT- MEMBERS (REPRESENTING THE EMPLOYEES OF PUDA, APPROV ED VIDE ITEM NO. 9,10 IN THE MEETING OF THE AUTHORITY HELD ON 29.11.02). RAKESH SINGH VICE CHAIRMAN, PUDA THUS IT IS CLEAR THAT SEPARATE COMMITTEE HAS BEEN CONSTITUTED BUT IT IS NOT CLEAR WHETHER THIS COMMIT TEE WAS MONITORING THE FUNDS OF THE PROVIDENT FUND. THE FD RS HAVE BEEN DEBITED AND MADE IN THE NAME OF THE CPF FDRS WHICH MEANS SEPARATE FDRS HAVE BEEN MADE BUT HOW IT HAS CLEARLY BEEN CONTROLLED BY THE MANAGING COMMITTEE, IS NOT VERY CLEAR. THEREFORE, TO THIS EXTENT WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND DIRECT TH E AO TO EXAMINE WHETHER PROVIDENT FUND WAS INDEPENDENTLY MONITORED IN THE LIGHT OF THE DIRECTIONS ISSUED BY HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN CASE OF TEXTOOL CO.LTD (SUPRA). 86 ANOTHER CONTENTION WAS ALSO RAISED THAT THE FUND S HAVE NOT BEEN INVESTED IN THE LONG TERM FDRS. WE H AVE SEEN VARIOUS NOTES ISSUED BY THE COMMITTEE WHERE F DRS HAVE BEEN MADE ONLY FOR ONE YEAR AND JUSTIFICATION FOR THE SAME HAS BEEN GIVEN THAT PRESENTLY INTEREST IS ON L OWER SIDE AND INTEREST IS LIKELY TO GO UP THEREFORE, FD R WAS 19 MADE FOR ONE YEAR. THIS ASPECT ALSO NEED FURTHER EXAMINATION BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHERE REGULARL Y FDRS HAVE BEEN MADE FOR A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR OR LON GER PERIOD AND WHERE NO JUSTIFICATION FOR SUCH SHORTER PERIOD IS THERE OR NOT? THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICE R SHOULD EXAMINE THIS MATTER FURTHER AND DECIDE THE ISSUE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. IN THE RESULT, THIS GROUND I S ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 99. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE JUDGEMENT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO FOLLOW THE ORDER OF THE TRIB UNAL IN THE CASE OF PUDA, MOHALI (SUPRA) AND PASS CONSEQUENTIAL ORDER ACCORDINGLY. IN THE RESULT, GROUND NOS. 12 AND 13 STAND DISPOSED OFF IN TERMS OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE TR IBUNAL IN CASE OF PUDA, MOHALI (SUPRA). 22. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRE CTED TO FOLLOW ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL ABOVE. THIS GROUND IS ACCORDINGLY, DISPOSED OFF. 23. ON GROUND NO. 9, ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE DISALL OWANCE OF AMOUNT OF RS. 68,53,79,904/- ON ACCOUNT OF CONSTRUC TION OF ROADS. IT IS STATED THAT THE ISSUE IS SAME AS HAS BEEN DECIDED IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 IN WHICH IN PARA 52 OF T HE ORDER, IT IS HELD AS UNDER : 52. WE HAVE CONSIDERED RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND MATERIAL ON RECORD. THIS ISSUE IS SAME AS IS CONSIDERED ON GROUND NO. 1 AND 2 IN THE PRESENT APPEAL AS WELL AS GROUND RAISED IN DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE RAILWAY UNDER PASS. THE ASSESSEE HAS DEVELOPED COLONIES AND THEREFORE, HAS TO PROVIDE INFRASTRUCTURE AND OTHER FACILITIES AS PER SECTION 28 OF PRTPD ACT. ON CONSTRUCTION OF RAILWA Y UNDERPASS IN THE COLONY DEVELOPED BY THE ASSESSEE, LD. CIT(APPEALS) HAS ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 AND WE HAVE DISMISSED THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL. THIS ISSUE IS IDENTICAL AS WA S CONSIDERED EARLIER ON GROUND NO.1 & 2 ABOVE AS WELL AS IN DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL ON WHICH WE HAVE CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS). THERE FORE, FOLLOWING THE ORDERS ON THESE GROUNDS, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW AND DELETE THE 20 ADDITION. IN THE RESULT, GROUND NO. 3 OF THE APPEA L OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 24. BY FOLLOWING THE SAME, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW AND DELETE THE ADDITION. IN THE RESULT, GROUND NO. 9 OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 25. NO OTHER POINT IS ARGUED OR PRESSED. 26. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 31 ST MARCH,2015. SD/- SD/- (T.R.SOOD) (BHAVNESH SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 31 ST MARCH,2015. POONAM COPY TO: THE APPELLANT, THE RESPONDENT, THE CIT(A), THE CIT, DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT CHANDIGARH