Sh. H.S. Chadha, Chandigarh V. ACIT, Chandigarh

ITA 920/CHANDI/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8956 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-11-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 19-08-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Question of law
• Section: 234B; 154

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MS. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.920/CHD/2016 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12) SH.H.S. CHADHA, VS. THE A.C.I.T., # 114, SECTOR 18A, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, CHANDIGARH. CHANDIGARH. PAN: AAOPC9351Q (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI VINEET KRISHAN RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SUSHIL KUMAR, CIT DR DATE OF HEARING : 16.11.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 22.11.2016 O R D E R PER ANNAPURNA GUPTA, A.M . : THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-3, GURGAON DATED 25.7.2016 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12, PASSED UNDER SECTION 154 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT). 2. BRIEFLY, THE FACTS NECESSARY FOR DECIDING THE APPEAL AS CULLED OUT FROM THE RECORD ARE THAT A SEA RCH WAS CONDUCTED AT THE RESIDENTIAL PREMISES OF THE ASSESS EE ON 30.6.2010. DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, CASH AMOUN TING TO RS.1,02,73,500/- WAS FOUND, OUT OF WHICH RS. 1 CRORE 2 WAS SEIZED. THE ASSESSEE SURRENDERED A SUM OF RS.1,25,00,000/- AS INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR IN QUESTION UNDER SECTION 132(4) OF THE ACT. THE ASSE SSEE THEREAFTER VIDE LETTERS DATED 23.8.2010 AND 4.7.201 1 REQUESTED THAT THE ADVANCE TAX PAYABLE IN RESPECT O F ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION BE ADJUSTED OUT OF THE CASH SEIZED. THE ASSESSEE FILED HIS RETURN ON 28.7.2011 DECLARING AN INCOME OF RS.1,51,51,170/- A ND CALCULATED THE TAX PAYABLE ON THE SAME AT RS.45,31, 332/-. THE TDS AMOUNTING TO RS.3,87,131/- WAS ADJUSTED AGA INST THE TAX DUE AND AGAINST THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF TAX P AYABLE AMOUNTING TO RS.41,44,201/-, THE ASSESSEE ADJUSTED THE SEIZED CASH OF RS.1 CRORE AS ADVANCE TAX AND CLAIM ED REFUND OF THE BALANCE AMOUNT. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT RECEIVE ANY RESPONSE THAT THE APPLICATION HAD BEEN REJECTED. HOWEVER, IN THE INTIMATION RECEIVED UNDE R SECTION 143(1) DATED 05-12-12 RECEIVED BY THE ASSES SEE ON 02-01-13, THE ADJUSTMENT OF SEIZED CASH OF RS.1 CRO RE WAS NOT GIVEN AND INTEREST AMOUNTING TO RS.8,34,820/- A ND RS.1,54,439/- UNDER SECTION 234B AND 234C RESPECTIV ELY WAS CHARGED. 3. BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE FILED A RECTIFICATION APPLICATION ON 04.01.2013 ADDRESSED T O THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, SEEKING RECTIFICATION OF THE INTIMATION ON ACCOUNT OF NOT GIVING BENEFIT OF SEIZ ED CASH FOR THE TAX DUES AND ON ACCOUNT OF CHARGING OF INTEREST 3 UNDER SECTION 234B AND 234C OF THE ACT. ANOTHER APPLICATION WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 27-01-15. THE ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER CONSIDERING THE SAME REJECT ED THE APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE BY STATING THAT AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 132B OF THE ACT, THE SEIZED C ASH COULD HAVE BEEN ADJUSTED ONLY AGAINST EXISTING LIAB ILITY OF THE ASSESSEE AND SINCE ON THE DATE OF SEARCH I.E. 30.6.2010, THERE WAS NO EXISTING LIABILITY THE CASH SEIZED COULD NOT BE ADJUSTED AGAINST THE SAME, BUT COULD B E ADJUSTED ONLY AGAINST THE LIABILITY DETERMINED ON COMPLETION OF ASSESSMENT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HE LD THAT THERE WAS, THEREFORE, NO APPARENT MISTAKE AND REJE CTED THE RECTIFICATION APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE . 4. AGGRIEVED BY THE SAME, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE THE LD. CIT (APPEALS) WHERE THE ASSES SEE CONTENDED THAT THE ISSUE OF ADJUSTMENT OF SEIZED CA SH AGAINST ADVANCE TAX LIABILITY HAS BEEN SETTLED IN F AVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN TH E CASE OF CIT VS. ASHOK KUMAR REPORTED IN 334 ITR 355 & C IT VS. ARUN KAPOOR, 334 ITR 351, WHICH HAS BEEN FOLLOW ED BY THE I.T.A.T., CHANDIGARH BENCH IN THE CASE OF ACIT , CENTRAL CIRCLE-III, LUDHIANA VS. SHRI HANS RAJ GAND HI IN ITA NO.739/CHD/2014,DT 18-11-14 AND CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, PATIALA VS. SHRI SANJEEV KUMAR GOYAL IN ITA NO.936/CHD/2013,DT.27-03-15. THE ASSESSEE, THEREFO RE, SUBMITTED THAT BY NOT GIVING ADJUSTMENT OF THE SEIZ ED CASH 4 AGAINST THE ADVANCE TAX LIABILITY, AN APPARENT ERRO R HAD OCCURRED WHICH OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN RECTIFIED WHEN BR OUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER VIDE THE APP LICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. CIT (APPEALS) AFTER CONSIDERING ASSESSEES SUBMISSIONS HELD THAT ON ACC OUNT OF EXPL-2 ATTACHED TO SECTION 132B, WHICH STATED TH AT THE ADVANCE TAX LIABILITY COULD NOT BE TREATED AS EXIST ING LIABILITY FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECTION 132B AND WHICH WAS BROUGHT ON THE STATUTE W.E.F. 1.6.2013 AND HELD TO BE RETROSPECTIVE IN NATURE BY THE I.T.A.T., DELHI IN T HE CASE OF DCIT VS. SPAZE TOWER PVT. LTD., IN ITA NO.2557/DEL/ 2012, DT.17-10-14,THE ISSUE BECOMES A DEBATABLE ISSUE AND THUS NOT A MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD. THE LD. CI T (APPEALS), THEREFORE, DISMISSED THE ASSESSEES APPE AL. 5. AGGRIEVED BY THE SAME, THE ASSESSEE CAME UP IN APPEAL BEFORE US RAISING THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS : 1. THAT THE ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 250(6) BY T HE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-3, GURGAON IN APPEAL NO. 259 CIT (A) -3 GGN 2015-16 DATED 25.07.2016 IS CONTR ARY TO LAW AND FACTS OF THE CASE. 2. THAT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, T HE ID. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) GRAVELY ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ACTION OF THE ID. ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE ISSUE INVOLVED U NDER SECTION 154 UNDER CONSIDERATION IS DEBATABLE ISSUE AND THE RE IS NO MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORDS. 3. THAT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE ID. 5 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) GRAVELY ERRED IN NOT FOLLOWING THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT ORDERS PASSED IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. ASHOK KUMAR REPORTED IN 334 ITR 355 BY W HICH THE APPELLANTS CASE IS SQUARELY COVERED. 4. THAT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE ID. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) GRAVELY ERRED I N ADJUDICATING THE APPEAL WITHOUT GIVING ANY REASONS FOR NOT FOLLOWING THE JUDGMENT OF JURISDICTIONAL HON'BLE PU NJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AND THAT OF JURISDICTIONAL HON'BL E INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL WHICH ARE BINDING ON THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AS WELL AS HON'BLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). 5. THAT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE ID. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) GRAVELY ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ACTION OF THE ID. ASSESSING OFFICER FOR NOT TREATING THE CASH SEIZED DURING SEARCH AS ADVANCE T AX, ALTHOUGH THE APPELLANT HAD DURING SEARCH ITSELF AND POST SEARCH ALSO REQUESTED FOR TREATING THE CASH SEIZED AS ADVANCE TAX. 6. THAT IN THE LIGHT OF THE JUDGMENT OF JURISDICTI ONAL HIGH COURT AND JURISDICTIONAL IT AT, THE ISSUE INVOLVED UND ER SECTION 154 IS BINDING ON CIT(APPEALS) AS WELL AS ID. ASSESSING OFFICER AND IS NOT DEBATABLE AND THE MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE RECORDS IS A RECTIFIABLE MISTAKE UNDER SECTION 154 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 7. THAT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE ID. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) GRAVELY ERRED I N UPHOLDING THE ACTION OF THE ID. ASSESSING OFFICER I N CHARGING INTEREST OF RS. 8,34,820/- UNDER SECTION 234B AND R S. 1,54,439/- UNDER SECTION 234C OF THE INCOME TAX ACT . 8. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES TO ADD, AMEND OR ALTER ANY GROUND OF APPEAL BEFORE OR AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF APPEAL WITH THE PERMISSION OF THE HON'BLE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUN AL, CHANDIGARH. 6 6. BEFORE US, THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE STAT ED THAT THE ISSUE OF ADJUSTMENT OF SEIZED CASH AGAINST THE ADVANCE TAX LIABILITY OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT A DEB ATABLE ISSUE HAVING BEEN SETTLED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN A SERIES OF DECISIONS I.E. CIT VS. ASHOK KUMAR(SUPRA) AND CIT VS. ARUN KAPOOR (SUP RA). MOREOVER, THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE POINTED O UT THAT EVEN THE ISSUE OF APPLICABILITY OF EXPLANATION-2 TO SECTION 132B HAS BEEN HELD TO BE PROSPECTIVE BY THE JURISDI CTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT (CENTRAL), LUDHIANA V S. SANDEEP JAIN IN INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.261 OF 2014 (O &M) DATED 29.9.2014 AND IN THE CASE OF CIT (CENTRAL), LUDHIANA VS. M/S COSMOS BUILDERS & PROMOTERS LTD. I N ITA NO.425 OF 2014 (O&M) DATED 14.7.2015. THUS, TH E LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT CLEARLY T HE ASSESSEE WAS ENTITLED TO ADJUSTMENT OF THE CASH SEI ZED AGAINST ITS ADVANCE TAX LIABILITY AND PROVISIONS OF EXPLANATION-2 TO SECTION 132B COULD NOT BE ATTRACTE D IN THE PRESENT CASE, TO TREAT THE ADVANCE TAX LIABILIT Y AS NOT BEING AN EXISTING LIABILITY, SINCE THIS EXPLANATION WAS APPLICABLE ONLY W.E.F. 1.6.2013, WHILE IN THE PRESE NT CASE THE SEARCH HAD BEEN CONDUCTED AND CASH SEIZED ON 30.6.2010. 7. THE LEARNED D.R., ON THE OTHER HAND, COUNTERED BY STATING THAT AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 13 2B OF THE ACT, ONLY EXISTING LIABILITIES COULD BE ADJUST ED AGAINST 7 THE CASH SEIZED AND CLEARLY ADVANCE TAX COULD NOT B E SAID TO BE AN EXISTING LIABILITY. IN ANY CASE, THE LEAR NED D.R. POINTED OUT THAT THIS ISSUE WAS DEBATABLE IN VIEW O F THE CONFLICTING DECISIONS OF DIFFERENT HIGH COURTS AND TRIBUNALS ON THIS ASPECT AS ALSO ON THE RETROSPECTI VITY OR OTHERWISE OF THE PROVISIONS OF EXPLANATION-2 TO SEC TION 132B OF THE ACT, AS POINTED OUT BY THE CIT (APPEALS ) IN HIS ORDER. HE, THEREFORE, STATED THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT (APPEALS) BE UPHELD SINCE THE ISSUE IN APPEAL WAS N OT IN THE NATURE OF AN APPARENT ERROR WHICH COULD BE RECT IFIED UNDER SECTION 154 OF THE ACT. 8. WE HAVE HEARD THE LEARNED REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH THE PARTIES, PERUSED THE FINDINGS OF THE AUTHO RITIES BELOW AND CONSIDERED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECO RD. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE SEARCH WAS CONDUCTED ON THE ASSESSEE ON 30.6.2010 AND CASH AMOUNTING TO RS.1 CR ORE WAS SEIZED ON THAT DATE. IT IS ALSO NOT DISPUTED T HAT THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE A REQUEST, VIDE LETTER DATED 23.8 .2010 AND REMINDER DATED 4.7.2011, FOR ADJUSTMENT OUT OF THE SEIZED AMOUNT TOWARDS ADVANCE TAX LIABILITY IN RESP ECT OF ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE OF ADJUSTMENT OF SEIZED AMOUNT TOWARDS ADVANC E TAX LIABILITY HAS BEEN SETTLED BY THE JURISDICTIONAL HI GH COURT IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE CASE OF . CIT VS . ASHOK KUMAR AND CIT VS. ARUN KAPOOR (SUPRA) WHEREIN IT H AS BEEN HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO ADJUS TMENT OF 8 SEIZED AMOUNT TOWARDS ADVANCE LIABILITY FROM THE DA TE OF MAKING THE APPLICATION IN THAT REGARD. THE RELEVAN T PORTION OF THE ORDER OF THE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH C OURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. ASHOK KUMAR (SUPRA) AT PARA 5 IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER : 5. IN CIT VS. ARUN KAPOOR, IT APPEAL NO. 149 OF 2003 DECIDED ON 27TH JULY, 2010, THIS COURT HAD OCCASION T O CONSIDER SIMILAR ISSUE WHERE IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT TH E ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO ADJUSTMENT OF SEIZED AMOUNT TOWARDS ADVANCE TAX LIABILITY FROM THE DATE OF MAKING THE APPLICATION IN THAT REGARD. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE REQUEST FOR ADJUSTMENT OF THE ADVANCE TAX OF RS.3,14,312 AGAINST THE SEIZED AMOUNT OF RS. 5,90,000 ON 28TH AUG., 1989. SINCE THE FIRST INSTALLMENT OF ADVANCE TAX WAS PAYABLE ON 15 TH SEPT., 1989 AND THE REQUEST FOR ADJUSTMENT HAVING BEEN MADE ON 28 TH |AUG., 1989 AND REMINDER ON 12 TH SEPT., 1989, NO INTEREST WAS EXIGIBLE UNDER SS.234A AND 234B OF THE ACT. THE TRIBUNAL HAS RIGHTLY HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ENTITLED TO ADJUSTMENT OF THE SAID AMOUNT AND NO INTEREST COULD BE CHARGED ON THAT BASIS. THEREFORE, NO FAULT COULD BE FOUND WITH THE APPROACH ADOPTED BY THE TRIBUNAL. 9. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE REQUEST FOR ADJUSTMENT OF THE ADVANCE TAX LIABILITY AGAINST THE SEIZED AMOUNT OF RS.1 CRORE ON 23.8.2010. SIN CE THE FIRST INSTALLMENT OF THE ADVANCE TAX WAS PAYABLE ON 15.9.2010 AND THE REQUEST FOR ADJUSTMENT HAVING BEE N MADE ON 23.8.2010 AND REMINDER ON 4.7.2011, NO INTE REST WAS EXIGIBLE UNDER SECTION 234B AND 234C OF THE ACT. 9 FURTHER, WE FIND THAT EXPLANATION-2 TO SECTION 132B OF THE ACT WHICH STATES THAT THE EXISTING LIABILITY FOR TH E PURPOSE OF SECTION 132B WOULD NOT INCLUDE ADVANCE TAX LIABI LITY, MEANING THEREBY THAT THE ASSET SEIZED UNDER SECTION 132B COULD NOT BE UTILIZED FOR PAYING THE ADVANCE TAX LI ABILITY AS PER PROVISIONS OF SECTION 132B, WAS BROUGHT ON T HE STATUTE W.E.F. 1..6.2013 AND THE SAME HAS BEEN HELD TO BE PROSPECTIVE IN NATURE BY THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH CO URT IN THE CASE OF SANDEEP JAIN (SUPRA) AND IN THE CASE OF M/S COSMOS BUILDERS & PROMOTERS LTD. (SUPRA). IN THE C ASE OF SANDEEP JAIN (SUPRA), THE HIGH COURT HELD AS FOLLOW S : WE HAVE HEARD COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT, PERUSED THE IMPUGNED ORDERS AND CONSIDERED ARGUMENT ADVANCED BY COUNSEL FOR THE REVENUE. THE TRIBUNAL HAS ANSWERED TH E QUESTION OF CHARGEABILITY OF INTEREST, AGAINST THE RE VENUE BY RELYING UPON A JUDGMENT OF THIS COURT IN INCOME TAX A PPEAL NO.36 OF 2004 (COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX V. ASHOK KUM AR) (SUPRA). THE ARGUMENT BY COUNSEL FOR THE REVENUE, BASED UPON EXPLANATION (2) TO SECTION 132B OF THE ACT DISREGARD S THE FACT THAT THE EXPLANATION CAME INTO FORCE ON 01.06.2013, WH EREAS THE PRESENT CASE RELATES TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. THIS APART THE EXPLANATION IS NOT RETROSPECTIVE IN OPERA TION AND IS NOT REFERRED TO AS A GROUND OF APPEAL MUCH LESS HAS IT BEEN FRAMED AS A SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW. 10. THIS WAS FOLLOWED BY THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF M/S COSMOS BUILDERS & PROMOTER S LTD. (SUPRA) WHEREIN THE HIGH COURT HELD AS FOLLOWS : 10 QUESTION N OS . I, 2 AND 3 MUST BE DECIDED AGAINST THE APPELLANT IN VIEW OF THE JUDGMENT OF A DIVISION BE NCH OF THIS COURT DATED 29.09.2014 IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), LUDHIANA VS. SH. SANDEEP JAIN A ND OTHERS IN ITA NO. 261 OF 2014. THE RESPONDENT WAS EN TITLED TO HAVE THE CASH SEIZED ADJUSTED AGAINST ITS ADVANCE T AX DUES. THE ONLY QUESTION IS WHETHER THE EXPLANATION TO SECTION 132B OF THE INCOME TAX. 1961 (IN SHORT 'THE ACT') WAS RETR OSPECTIVE IN OPERATION OR NOT. THIS QUESTION HAS BEEN ANSWE RED IN FAVOUR OF THE RESPONDENT BY THIS JUDGMENT. THE DIVIS ION BENCH EXPRESSLY HELD THAT THE EXPLANATION IS NOT RETROSPECT IVE IN OPERATION. 11. IT IS EVIDENT FROM THE ABOVE THAT THE EXPLANATION-2 TO SECTION 132B OF THE ACT IS PROSPEC TIVE IN NATURE APPLICABLE W.E.F. 1.6.2013 AND IS NOT APPLIC ABLE IN THE PRESENT CASE, SINCE SEARCH WAS CONDUCTED ON 30.6.2010. 12. WHAT EMERGES FROM THE ABOVE IS THAT AS PER THE ABOVE DECISIONS OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURTS , THE CASH SEIZED IS TO BE ADJUSTED AGAINST THE ADVANCE T AX LIABILITY OF THE ASSESSEE FROM THE DATE OF MAKING O F APPLICATION. IN VIEW OF THE DECISIONS OF THE JURIS DICTIONAL HIGH COURT AS ABOVE, THIS IS THE SETTLED POSITION O F LAW ON THE ISSUE AT HAND. THUS, WE FIND THAT BY NOT ADJUS TING THE SAME IN THE PRESENT CASE, AN APPARENT ERROR HAS OCCURRED IN THE INTIMATION OF THE ASSESSEE UNDER SE CTION 143(1) OF THE ACT WHICH OUGHT TO BE RECTIFIED. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE DIRECT THAT THE SEIZED CASH BE ADJUST ED AGAINST THE ADVANCE TAX LIABILITY OF THE ASSESSEE F ROM THE DATE OF MAKING APPLICATION TO THIS EFFECT, AND NECE SSARY 11 ADJUSTMENT BE MADE AS A CONSEQUENCE TO THE INTEREST TO BE PAID UNDER SECTION 234B AND 234C OF THE ACT. 13. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE STANDS ALLOWED IN THE ABOVE TERMS. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- SD/- (BHAVNESH SAINI) (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 22 ND NOVEMBER, 2016 *RATI* COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A) 4. THE CIT 5. THE DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH