Susham Singla, Patiala V. ACIT, Patiala

ITA 919/CHANDI/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 86221 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 6 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-03-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 31-03-2015
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 23-09-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANJIT SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: K P BAJAJ
• Keywords: Charitable institution

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 NOS. 915 TO 921/CHD/2013 (ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2001-02 TO 200 7-08) SUSHAM SINGLA, VS. THE A.C.I.T., C/O JAGDISH JEWELLERS PVT. LTD., CENTRAL CIRCLE, ADALAT BAZAR, PATIALA. PATIALA. PAN: AAAPS4579A (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI K.P.BAJAJ RESPONDENT BY : SHRI MANJIT SINGH, DR DATE OF HEARING : 31.03.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 31.03.2015 O R D E R PER BENCH : ITA NO.915/CHD/2013 : AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES, WE FIND THAT A SEAR CH WAS CONDUCTED IN JAGDISH JEWELLERS GROUP OF CASES AND T HE ASSESSEE IS RELATED TO THAT GROUP. IT WAS FURTHER NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS OWNER OF SIX HOUSE PROPERTIES BUT HAS NOT SHOWN ANY RENTAL INCOME. THEREFORE, A SHOW NOTICE WAS ISSUED WHY THE RENTAL INCOME SHOULD NOT BE COMPUTED . IN RESPONSE, IT WAS MAINLY STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE HA S NOT SHOWN RENTAL INCOME IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF SE CTION 23(1)(C) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER CONSIDERING 2 THE SAME OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS THE OWNER O F FOLLOWING PROPERTIES : 1. PROPERTY NO.B-7, PREET VIHAR, NEW DELHI. 2. PROPERTY NO.G-I, PREET VIHAR, NEW DELHI/1/2 SHAR E. 3. PROPERTY LOVE DALE APARTMENTS MUMBAI/1/4 SHARE. 4. HOUSE PROPERTY AT PATIALA. (SELF OCCUPIED). 2. IT WAS FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE PROPERTY SITUA TED AT PATIALA WAS TREATED AS SELF OCCUPIED. FURTHER, SIN CE THE ASSESSEE WAS OWNER OF MORE THAN ONE HOUSE PROPERTY, THEREFORE, PROVISIONS OF SECTION 23(1)(4) OF THE AC T WERE APPLICABLE AND NOTIONAL RENT HAS TO BE CHARGED. T HE ASSESSING OFFICER COMPUTED THE ANNUAL VALUE OF THE PROPERTY NO.B-7, PREET VIHAR, NEW DELHI AT RS.84,000/- AND S INCE THE ASSESSEE WAS HAVING SHARE, THE SAME WAS TAKEN AT RS.44,000/-. IN CASE OF PROPERTY NO.G-1, PREET V IHAR, NEW DELHI, THE RENT WAS TAKEN AT RS.72,000/- AND AGAIN THE ASSESSEE WAS OWNER OF SHARE AND THE SAME WAS TAKE N AT RS.36,000/-. IN CASE OF FLAT SITUATED IN BOMBAY, THE ASSESSEE WAS OWNER OF SHARE AND THE RENT WAS TAKEN AT RS.1 ,20,000/- AND THE ASSESSEES SHARE WAS TAKEN AT RS.30,000/-. THE RENTAL INCOME WAS DETERMINED AT RS.82,500/- AFTER A LLOWING STATUTORY DEDUCTION. 3. ON APPEAL, IT WAS CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TAKEN ANNUAL VALUE ON A VERY HIGH RATE. IT WAS CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PURCHASED THESE PRO PERTIES AND DID NOT LET THEM OUT AND, THEREFORE, THE SAME R EMAINED VACANT. THEREFORE, NO ANNUAL VALAUE COULD BE DETE RMINED 3 UNDER SECTION 23(1)(C) OF THE ACT. IT WAS CONTENDE D THAT ONCE THE PROPERTY REMAIN VACANT THEN NO ANNUAL VALUE COU LD BE DETERMINED FOR THE SAME. THE CIT (APPEALS) AFTER EXAMINING THE SUBMISSIONS DISCUSSED THE CASE IN DETAIL AND CO NFIRMED THE ADDITION. 4. BEFORE US THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE LEARN ED CIT (APPEALS) WERE REITERATED. HE FURTHER SUBMITT ED THAT A DIFFERENT VIEW HAS BEEN TAKEN IN THE CASE OF CO-OWN ER OF THE PROPERTIES, I.E. SHRI MANOJ SINGLA AND FILED COPY O F THAT ORDER. HE CONTENDED THAT DIFFERENT VIEWS CANNOT BE TAKEN I N THE CASE OF TWO ASSESSES WHO WERE HAVING SIMILAR FACTS. H E ALSO SUBMITTED THAT EVEN THE DELHI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS. DR.PRABHA SANGHI IN ITA NO.2217/D EL/2010 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 HAD CLEARLY HELD THAT I F THE PROPERTY REMAINS VACANT THROUGHOUT THE YEAR, THEN T HE ANNUAL VALUE HAS TO BE TAKEN AT NIL. 5. ON THE OTHER HAND,, THE LEARNED D.R FOR THE REVE NUE STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT (AP PEALS). 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS CAREFU LLY. WE FIND THAT THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) HAD DECIDED THIS ISSUE VIDE PARAS 7 AND 8 WHICH ARE AS UNDER : 7. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE BA SIS OF ADDITION MADE BY THE AO, THE ARGUMENTS OF THE AR ON THE ISSUE DURING ASSESSMENT AS WELL AS APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. THE AR HAS RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF MY PREDECESSOR IN THE CASE OF SH. MANOJ SINGLA. THE PERUSAL OF THE SAID ORDER AT PAGE NO. 19 REVEAL S THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS OBSERVED AS UNDER:- 4 'THE PROPERTY AT B-7 PREET VIHAR, NEW DELHI ACCORDI NG TO THE AR HAS REMAINED VACANT AND HENCE AS PER AMENDED PROVIS IONS OF SECTION 23(4) NO ALV COULD BE TAKEN. AS FAR AS PR OPERTY AT B-7 PREET VIHAR, NEW DELHI IS CONCERNED, THE SAME IS COMMERCIAL PROPERTY AND THEREFORE IN MY OPINION IS OUT OF PURVIEW OF PR OVISIONS OF SECTION23(4) AS SAME REFERS TO THE RESIDENTIAL PRO PERTY. REGARDING PROPERTY AT LOVABLE APPARTMENTS, MUMBAI TH E ASSESSEE HAS HIMSELF SHOWN RENTAL INCOME OF THIS PROPERTY FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06 AND 2006-07 AT RS. 24,000/-; RS. 24,000/-; RS.24,000/- AND RS. 30,000/- RESPECTI VELY. IN VIEW OF ABOVE, NO EXEMPTION IS AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSEE IN R/O THIS PROPERTY SINCE ADMITTEDLY THE SAME IS RESIDENT IAL PROPERTY UNDER SECTION 23(4) OF THE ACT. IN FACT ASSESSEE HI MSELF HAS SHOWN THE RENTAL INCOME FROM THE AFORESAID PROPERTIES FOR THE YEARS 2003-04 TO 2006-07. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE IT IS HELD THAT RENTA L INCOME FROM LOVEDALE PROPERTY IS ASSESSABLE UNDER SECTION 23(4) EVEN FOR THE REMAINING ASSESSMENT YEARS 2001-02, 2002-03 AND 200 7-08. ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ESTIMATED THE RENTAL INCOME O F RS. 30,000/- EACH YEAR WHICH IN MY OPINION IS NOT LOGICAL AND AGAINST THE FACTS AS ASSESSEE HIMSELF HAS SHOWN RENTAL INCOME OF RS.24,0 00/- IN ASSESSMENT YEARS 2003-04,2004-05 AND 2005-06 IN HIS RETURN OF INCOME AS CLAIMED BY THE AR. ACCORDINGLY, RENTAL INC OME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2001-02 AND 2002-03 IS REQUIRED TO BE TAKEN AT RS.24,000/- ONLY. THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN RENTAL INC OME FROM THE ABOVE PROPERTY AT RS.30,000/- FOR THE ASSESSMENT YE AR 2006-07 AND NO RENTAL INCOME FOR AY 2007-08. ACCORDINGLY, ASSES SING OFFICER'S ACTION OF ADOPTING RENTAL INCOME OR RS.30,000/- FOR AY 2007-0 8 FROM THE ABOVE SAID PROPERTY IS UPHELD. ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED T O COMPUTE THE RENTAL INCOME AS PER DIRECTIONS GIVEN ABOVE.' 8. IT IS SEEN THAT THE CIT(A) HAS NOT ACCEPTED THE CON TENTION OF THE APPELLANT WITH REGARD TO THE CLAIM OF NIL NOTIONAL RE NT U/S 23(4). IN FACT THE ASSESSEE'S CLAIM RESTS ON THE AMENDED PROVISION U/S 23(L)(C) WHICH READS AS UNDER.- 'WHERE THE PROPERTY OR ANY PART OF THE PROPERTY IS LET AND WAS VACANT DURING THE WHOLE OR ANY PART OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR A ND OWING TO SUCH VACANCY THE ACTUAL RENT RECEIVED OR RECEIVABLE BY T HE OWNER IN RESPECT THEREOF IS LESS THAN THE SUM REFERRED TO IN CLAUSE ( A), THE AMOUNT SO RECEIVED OR RECEIVABLE.' THE READING OF THE SAID SECTION SHOWS THAT THE PROP ERTY IN QUESTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN LET OUT AND IN THE EVENTUAL ITY OF THE SAME BEING VACANT DURING THE WHOLE OR ANY PART OF THE YEAR TH E ANNUAL VALUE WAS TO BE TAKEN LOWER OF AS DETERMINED U/S 23(L)(A) OR (C ). THE CRUCIAL REQUIREMENT HERE IS THAT THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION S HOULD HAVE BEEN LET AND THEN VACANT IN THE LATER PART OF THE YEAR OR LATER YEAR. THIS 5 AMENDMENT BROUGHT IN BY THE STATUTE BY FINANCE ACT, 2001 DOES NOT SEEM TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT A SITUATION WHERE THE PRO PERTY HAS NEVER BEEN LET OUT AT ALL. THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT THEREFORE DO ES NOT FULFILL THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE PROVISIONS OF SAID AMENDED SECT ION AND EVEN THE SO CALLED RELIEF GIVEN BY THE CIT(A) IS ALSO NOT SEEN AS HIGHLIGHTED EARLIER. THEREFORE, THE NOTIONAL VALUE DETERMINED BY THE ASSESS ING OFFICER IN RESPECT OF FOLLOWING THREE PROPERTIES I IS TAKEN UP ON THEIR MERITS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TAKEN THE RENTAL VALUE RS.44, 000/- IN RESPECT OF THE PROPERTY AT B-7, PREET VIHAR, NEW DELHI IN THE YEAR 2001 AND FOR THIS THE MONTHLY RENT COMES TO RS.7,000/- PER MONTH. PREET V IHAR IS ONE OF THE BETTER KNOWN LOCATIONS OF DELHI IN TERMS OF RESIDEN TIAL AREA AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER'S CLAIM WITH REFERENCE TO ORIGINA L PRICE AT WHICH IT WAS BROUGHT AT RS.72,945/- IS NOT LOGICAL. THE INCREASE IN THE PRICES OF THE PROPERTIES IN DELHI IS A WELL KNOWN FACT AND THEREFO RE THE ORIGINAL COST OF PURCHASE CANNOT BE TAKEN TO BE THE RELIABLE BASIS TO DETERMINE THE NOTIONAL RENT THAT COULD BE RECEIVED IN RESPECT OF SUC H PROPERTY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS INFACT TAKEN RS.7,000/- PER MO NTH AS THE RENT FOR THE ENTIRE PROPERTY STARTING FROM 2001-02 TO ASS ESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 MEANING THEREBY THAT NO INCREASE IN RENT HA S BEEN EFFECTIVE. THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AND THE RENT THAT COULD BE RECEIVED FROM THE SAME HAD REALLY SKY ROCKETED DURING THESE SEVEN YEA RS. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE ANNUAL VALUE ARRIVED AT BY THE A SSESSING OFFICER CANNOT BE SAID TO BE UNREASONABLE ESPECIALLY WHEN THE FORMULA GIVEN BY THE APPELLANT ALSO DOES NOT LEAVE TO A LOGICAL DETERM INATION OF FAIR RENT. THEREFORE, THE ANNUAL VALUE DETERMINED BY THE ASSESS ING OFFICER IN RESPECT OF ALL THE PROPERTIES IS DIRECTED TO BE CONFI RMED. 7. IN OUR OPINION, THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) CORRE CTLY DECIDED THE ISSUE. HE HAS CLEARLY MET WITH THE CO NTENTION THAT DIFFERENT VIEW HAS NOT BEEN TAKEN IN THE CASE OF SHRI MANOJ SINGLA. THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) HAS REPRO DUCED THE CONTENTS OF THE APPELLATE ORDER IN THE CASE OF MAN OJ SINGLA IN PARA 7 AND READING OF THE SAME CLEARLY SHOWS THAT I N THE CASE OF MANOJ SINGLA THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) OBSERVED THAT B-7 PREET VIHAR PROPERTY IS COMMERCIAL PROPERTY AND IS NOT COVERED BY THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 23(4) OF THE A CT. AS FAR AS BOMBAY FLAT IS CONCERNED, SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN RENTAL INCOME IN THE EARLIER YEARS, THEREFORE, THE INCOME HAS TO BE CHARGED. AS OBSERVED BY THE LEARNED CIT (AP PEALS), 6 THEREFORE, IT BECOMES CLEAR THAT EVEN IN THE CASE O F MANOJ SINGLA IT WAS NEVER HELD THAT IF THE PROPERTY WAS N EVER LET OUT, THEN NO INCOME CAN BE CHARGED. 8. SECTION 23 WHICH PROVIDES FOR COMPUTATION OF AN NUAL VALUE READS AS UNDER : '23. (1) FOR THE PURPOSES OF SECTION 22 , THE ANNUAL VALUE OF ANY PROPERTY SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE (A) THE SUM FOR WHICH THE PROPERTY MIGHT REASONABLY BE EXPECTED TO LET FROM YEAR TO YEAR; OR (B) WHERE THE PROPERTY OR ANY PART OF THE PROPERTY IS L ET AND THE ACTUAL RENT RECEIVED OR RECEIVABLE BY THE OWNER IN RESPECT THER EOF IS IN EXCESS OF THE SUM REFERRED TO IN CLAUSE (A), THE AMOUNT SO RECEIVED OR RECEIVABLE; OR (C) WHERE THE PROPERTY OR ANY PART OF THE PROPERTY IS L ET AND WAS VACANT DURING THE WHOLE OR ANY PART OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR AND OWING T O SUCH VACANCY THE ACTUAL RENT RECEIVED OR RECEIVABLE BY THE OWNER IN RESPECT THEREOF IS LESS THAN THE SUM REFERRED TO IN CLAUSE (A), THE AMO UNT SO RECEIVED OR RECEIVABLE: 9. A READING OF THE ABOVE PROVISIONS VERY CLEARLY SHOWS THAT CLAUSE (A) REFERRED TO A SUM FOR WHICH THE PRO PERTY MIGHT REASONABLY BE EXPECTED TO LET OUT. SECTION 22 WHI CH IS CHARGING SECTION PROVIDES FOR CHARGING OF ANNUAL VA LUE OF ANY PROPERTY OWNED BY THE ASSESSEE. ONCE THE EXPRESSI ON MIGHT IS USED IN SECTION 23(1)(A), IT BECOMES CLEAR THAT WHAT IS REQUIRED TO BE CHARGED IS THE NOTIONAL INCOME BECAU SE THE BASIS OF THE CHARGE OF INCOME IS ANNUAL VALUE. IN THIS REGARD, WE WOULD LIKE TO REFER TO THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE H ON'BLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. BIMAN B EHARI SHAW SHEBAIT, 68 ITR 815 (CAL.) IN THAT CASE IT H AS BEEN OBSERVED AS UNDER : 7 EVEN THOUGH A PROPERTY IS NOT LET OUT AND DOES NOT PRODUCE ANY INCOME, THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER IS TO PR OCEED ON THAT BASIS OF A NOTIONAL INCOME WHICH THE PROPER TY MIGHT REASONABLY BE EXPECTED TO YIELD FROM YEAR TO YEAR AND INCLUDE SUCH NOTIONAL INCOME IN THE ANNUAL INCO ME OF THE OWNER. THE LETTING VALUE OF A PROPERTY, WHETH ER LET OR NOT, CAN BE OBJECTIVELY ASCERTAINED ON A REASONABLE BASIS. WHILE ANY RESTRICTIONS IN A WILL OR DEED OF DEDICAT ION ON THE LETTING OF THE PROPERTY MAY REDUCE THE LETTING VALUE, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT BECAUSE OF THE RESTRICTIONS, TH ERE CAN BE NO ANNUAL INCOME WHICH CAN BE DEEMED TO ARISE FR OM THE PROPERTY. 10. FROM THE ABOVE, IT BECOMES CLEAR THAT IT IS NO T NECESSARY THAT THE PROPERTY HAS BEEN LET OUT FOR CO MPUTING THE ANNUAL VALUE BECAUSE WHAT IS REQUIRED UNDER SEC TION 23(1)(A) OF THE ACT IS A SUM FOR WHICH PROPERTY MIG HT BE LET OUT. IN CASE OF LET OUT PROPERTIES SECTION 23(1) (B) OF THE ACT IS APPLICABLE WHICH TALKS OF ANNUAL RENT RECEIVED O R RECEIVABLE. 11. NOW THE QUESTION IS WHERE THE PROPERTY REMAINS VACANT FOR THE WHOLE YEAR, IN THAT CASE, NIL VALUE IS TO BE COMPUTED OR NOTIONAL VALUE OF RENT IS TO BE COMPUTE D? AS POINTED OUT BY THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS), SECTION 2 3(1(C) OF THE ACT CLEARLY STIPULATE THE SITUATION WHERE THE P ROPERTY HAS BEEN LET OUT THAT BEING IF SOME PROPERTY IS RENTED OUT AND THE TENANTS LEAVES, THEN SECTION 23(1)(C) OF THE ACT WO ULD GET ACTIVATED. BUT FF THE PROPERTY HAS NEVER BEEN LET OUT, THEN THE PROVISIONS CANNOT BE INVOKED BECAUSE SECTION 23 (1)(C) OF THE ACT IS CLEARLY APPLICABLE WHERE THE PROPERTY WA S LET OUT. THEREFORE, IN OUR OPINION, THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS ) HAS 8 RIGHTLY INTERPRETED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 23(1 )(C) OF THE ACT. CLEARLY, THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH NOTIONAL INC OME HAS BEEN COMPUTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NEVER LE T OUT BY THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, SECTION 23(1)(C) OF WOULD NOT BE APPLICABLE. 12. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE HAD ALSO STRO NGLY RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF THE DELHI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS. DR.PRABHA SANGHI (SUPRA). I N OUR OPINION, THIS CASE IS DISTINGUISHABLE ON FACTS. TH E LEARNED COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE HAS STRONGLY RELIED UPON PARA 10 OF THIS DECISION, WHICH READS AS UNDER : 10. NOW, AS PER SECTION 23 OF THE ACT, THE PROCEDURE TO BE FOLLOWED FOR DETERMINING THE ANNUAL VALUE IN RESPECT OF THE TWO PRO PERTIES, THE FIRST STEP IS,- 'TO DETERMINE' THE SUM FOR WHICH THE PROPER TY MIGHT REASONABLY BE EXPECTED TO LET FROM YEAR TO YEAR. IT IS NOW WELL SETTLED THAT IT WOULD BE THE MUNICIPAL RATABLE VALUE, OR THE S TANDARD RENT AS PER THE LOCAL RENT CONTROL ACT, WHICHEVER IS HIGHER. THIS WOULD BE COVERED UNDER SECTION 23(I)(A). IN THIS CASE, IT WOULD BE RS. 28,620/- FOR 1-A, RING ROAD, KALOKRI, NEW DELHI, AND RS.34,6OO/- FOR A-6A, MAHARANI BAGH, NEW DELHI. THIS IS WELL SETTLED BY A PLETHORA OF JUD GMENTS OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT AND VARIOUS HIGH COURTS. REF: SHEILA K AUSHISH VS. CIT (1981) 131ITR 435 (SC); AMOLAK RAM KHOSLA VS. CIT ( 1981) 131 ITR 589 (SC); DEWAN DAULAT RAM KAPOOR VS. NDMC (1980) 122 ITR 700 (SC); DR. BALBIR SINGH VS. MCD (1985) 152 ITR 388 (SC); CIT VS. MAY UR RECREATIONAL & DEVELOPMENT LTD. (AIT-2008-189-ITA-SB); CIT VS. RAGHUBIR SALAN CHARITABLE TRUST 183 ITR 297 - (DELHI HIGH COUR T); L. BANSIDHAR & SONS HUF 20; ITR 655 (DELHI HC); CIT VS. VINAY BHARAT RAM & SONS (HUF) 261 ITR 632 (DELHI HIGH COURT). 13. A READING OF THE ABOVE PARA WOULD CLEARLY SHOW S THAT THE DISPUTE SEEMS TO BE THE VALUE ON WHICH THE NOTI ONAL VALUE 9 IS TO BE COMPUTED WHETHER THIS SHOULD BE MUNICIPAL RATABLE VALUE OR THE STANDARD RENT AS PER THE LOCAL RENT CO NTROL ACT, WHICHEVER, IS HIGHER. THEREFORE, THE FACTS WERE QU ITE DISTINGUISHABLE AND IN OUR OPINION THIS DECISION IS NOT APPLICABLE. 14. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, WE FIND NOTHI NG WRONG WITH THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) A ND CONFIRM THE SAME. ITA NO.916/CHD/2013 TO ITA NO.221/CHD/2013 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2002-03 TO 2007-08) 15. IN ALL THESE APPEALS THE ISSUE RAISED BEFORE U S AND FACTS ARE IDENTICAL TO THE ISSUES RAISED AND FACTS IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-2002 IN ITA NO.915/CHD/2013, W HICH WE HAVE ADJUDICATED IN OUR ABOVE NOTED PARAS. THER EFORE, FOLLOWING THAT ORDER WE DECIDE ALL THESE APPEALS AG AINST THE ASSESSEE. 16. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 31 ST DAY OF MARCH, 2015. SD/- SD/- (BHAVNESH SAINI) (T.R.SOOD) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 31 ST MARCH, 2015 *RATI* COPY TO: THE APPELLANT/THE RESPONDENT/THE CIT(A)/TH E CIT/THE DR. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH