M/s New Age Metal Forming Pvt. Ltd., Mohali V. ITO, Mohali

ITA 97/CHANDI/2012

• Counselvise Citation: 9721514 RSA 2012
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-03-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 19-03-2012
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 25-01-2012
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Proportionate interest

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH SMC CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI H.L.KARWA, VICE PRESIDENT ITA NO. 97/CHD/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 NEW AGE METAL FORMING V ITO, WARD 6(3), PVT. LTD., D-84A, MOHALI. INDL. AREA, PHASE VII, MOHALI. PAN: AAACN-4769N (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SHRI TEJ MOHAN SINGH RESPONDENT BY : SHRI AKHILESH GUPTA DATE OF HEARING : 19.03.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 20.03.2012 ORDER THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAIN ST THE ORDER OF CIT(A), CHANDIGARH DATED 30.11.2011 RELATI NG TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. 2. GROUND NO. 1 OF THE APPEAL READS AS UNDER : THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON FACTS IN UPHOLDING THE ADDITION OF RS.19,95,000/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED SUNDRY CREDITORS WHICH IS ILLEGAL, ARBITRARY & UNJUSTIFIED. 3. BRIEFLY STATED, THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT T HE ASSESSEE COMPANY FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING NIL INCOME. THE RETURN WAS PROCESSED U/S 143(1) OF THE INCOME-TAX A CT,1961 (IN SHORT 'THE ACT') ON 05.03.2009. THEREAFTER, TH E CASE WAS PICKED UP FOR SCRUTINY. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS ENG AGED IN BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING OF TELECOMMUNICATION BOXE S. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, CERTAI N 2 INFORMATION WAS ASKED FROM THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. I N THIS CASE, THE AO MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.19,95,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED SUNDRY CREDITORS, OBSERVING AS UNDER : 9. ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED SUNDRY CREDI TORS; THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO FURNISH THE DETAILSIN RESPEC T OF THE FOLLOWING SUNDRY CREDITORS AS PER THE REQUIREME NT VIDE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED16.11.2009:- A) SIMAR PARAFMS PVT. LTD. : RS. 3,35,000/- B) SIMAR PLASTICIZERS : RS. 8,75,000/- C) RATTAN PLASTCIZER : RS. 2,85,000/- D) CHETAN ENTERPRISES : RS. 5,00,000/- TOTAL : RS. 19,95,000/- IN VIEW THE FACTS MENTIONED IN THE SHOW CAUSE NOTIC E THAT THERE IS NO SUCH CONCERN IN THE NAME OF M/S SI MAR PLASTICIZERS FOUND AT THE GIVEN ADDRESS AND IN RESP ECT OF OTHER THREE CONCERNS, NO ADDRESS HAS BEEN PROVID ED BY THE ASSESSEE SO FAR, IT IS HELD THAT NO ACTUAL L IABILITY EXISTS IN THE NAME OF ABOVE MENTIONED PARTIES. THEREFORE, THE AMOUNT SHOWN AS OUTSTANDING IN THEIR NAMES TOTALING TO RS. 19,95,000/- IS ADDED BACK TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 4. ON APPEAL, THE CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ADDITION OBS ERVING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN SOME PARTICULARS IN RES PECT OF M/S SIMAR PLASTICIZERS, AS GIVEN BEFORE THE AO AND HAS GIVEN CHANGED ADDRESSES OF THE OTHER THREE CONCERNS. THE CIT(A) ALSO OBSERVED THAT IN THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS, THE AO AGA IN WROTE LETTERS TO ALL THE FOUR CONCERNS AND ALL THE LETTER S HAVE BEEN RECEIVED BACK UNSERVED AND SO, THE IDENTITY OF THE CREDITORS HAS REMAINED UNVERIFIED. ACCORDING TO CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FILE CONFIRMATIONS FROM THESE FOUR SUNDRY C REDITORS, 3 THEY WERE NOT TRACEABLE AND THEIR IDENTITY COULD NO T BE VERIFIED. THE CIT(A), THEREFORE, CONFIRMED THE ADD ITION. 5. I HAVE HEARD THE LD. REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH THE PARTIES AT LENGTH AND HAVE ALSO PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAIL ABLE ON RECORD. SHRI TEJ MOHAN SINGH, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD, DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, PLACED ON RECORD THE CONFIR MED COPIES OF ACCOUNT OF THE SUNDRY CREDITORS. AS SUCH , THERE WAS NO OCCASION TO DISBELIEVE THE EXPLANATION OF THE AS SESSEE COMPANY. ACCORDING TO SHRI TEJ MOHAN SINGH, LD. CO UNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, THE ADDITION, AS SUCH, MADE IS UNWARR ANTED, WHICH MAY BE DELETED. ON THE OTHER HAND, SHRI AKHIL ESH GUPTA, LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT IN THE INSTANT CASE, A SSESSEE HAS FAILED TO PROVE THE IDENTITY OF THE CREDITORS. THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT FILED CONFIRMATIONS FROM ALLEGED FOUR SUNDRY CR EDITORS, THEY ARE NOT TRACEABLE AND THEIR IDENTITIES ARE UNV ERIFIABLE. HE, THEREFORE, SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDITION WAS JUSTIFIE D. 6. I FIND THAT IN THE INSTANT CASE, NEITHER COMPLET E ADDRESSES OF THE PARTIES WERE PROVIDED NOR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT W ERE PRODUCED FOR VERIFICATION.IT IS ALSO APPARENT FROM THE RECORD THAT AS PER LOCAL ENQUIRIES MADE BY THE INSPECTOR, NO CONCERN IN THE NAME OF M/S SIMAR PLASTICIZERS FOUND TO BE L OCATED AT THE ADDRESS AT VILLAGE SAIDPURA, BARWALA ROAD, DERA BASSI.IT IS ALSO APPARENT FROM THE RECORDS THAT THE OTHER THREE CONCERNS, VIZ SIMAR PARRAAFINS (P) LTD., M/S RATTAN PLASTICIZ ERS AND M/S CHETAN ENTERPRISES, NO COMPLETE ADDRESS WAS PROVIDE D BY THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, IT IS SEEN THAT AO MADE EFFORTS TO LOCATE THE SAID PARTIES, BUT NO WHEREABOUTS COULD BE KNOWN , AS PER 4 THE REPORT OF INSPECTOR SHRI DAVINDER WADHWA. THE AO OBSERVED THAT ON 17.8.2011, THE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN THE SAME ADDRESS IN RESPECT OF M/S SIMAR PLASTICIZERS, FOR W HICH THE INSPECTOR HAS ALREADY REPORTED. THE ADDRESSES FOR T HE OTHER THREE CONCERNS HAVE BEEN CHANGED AND THE LETTERS HA VE BEEN SENT BY REGISTERED POST AT GIVEN ADDRESSES, CALLING FOR THE INFORMATION. IT IS ALSO APPARENT FROM THE RECORD T HAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PRODUCE ANY BILL FOR VERIFICATION. IT IS ALSO APPARENT FROM THE RECORD THAT THE AO HAS FILED ANOT HER REPORT DATED 25.08.2011. AS PER THIS REPORT, THE LETTERS WERE SENT BY SPEED POST TO THE ABOVE CONCERNS AND ALL THE LETTER S HAVE BEEN RECEIVED BACK WITH THE REMARKS GIVEN IN THE REMARKS COLUMN ; SR. NO. NAME & ADDRESS NO. AND DATE OF LETTER REMARKS 1. M/S CHETAN ENT ERPRISES, THE MALL ROAD, SOLAN (HP) RRO/W- 6(3)/ MOHALI/ 2011-12/6669 DATED 18.08.2011 LETTER RECEIVED BACK WITH REMARKS 'NOT KNOWN' 2. M/S SIRNAR PARAFFINS PUT. LTD., VILLAGE ALMGIR LALRU, TEHSIL DERA BASSI, DISTT. MOHALI ITO/W-6(3)/ MOHALI/ 2011- 12/6671 DATED 18.08.2011 LETTER RECEIVED BACK WITH REMARKS 'EHNA DI COMPANY BAND HO GAI HAI, VAPIS JAVE'(THE COMPANY IS CLOSED RETURNED TO THE SENDER) 3. M/S RATTAN PLASTICIZER VILLAGE ALMGIR (LALRU) TEHSIL DERA BASSI, DISTT. MOHALI ITO/W-6(3)/ MOHALI/ 2011- 12/6670 DATED 18.08.2011 LETTER RECEIVED BACK WITH REMARKS 'EHNA DI COMPANY BAND HO GAI HAI, VAPIS JAVE'(THE COMPANY IS CLOSED RETURNED TO THE SENDER) 4. M/S SIMAR PLASTICIZER VILLAGE SAIDPURA, TEHSIL DERA BASSI, DISTT. MOHALI. ITO/W-6(3)/ MOHALI/ 2011- 12/6668 DATED 18.08.2011 LETTER RECEIVED BACK WITH REMARKS 'FACTORY BAND HAI' (FACTORY IS CLOSED) 7. IT IS ALSO OBSERVED THAT THE REMAND REPORT OF TH E AO DATED 25.08.2011 WAS GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE FOR ITS COMMEN TS. HOWEVER, NO SPECIFIC COMMENTS WERE GIVEN ON THIS RE MAND REPORT. IN THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS, THE AO AGAIN WR OTE LETTER TO ALL THE FOUR CONCERNS AND ALL THE LETTERS HAVE B EEN RECEIVED 5 BACK UNSERVED AND SO THE IDENTITY OF THE CREDITORS HAS REMAINED UNVERIFIED. IT IS ALSO TRUE THAT THE ASSE SSEE DID NOT FILE CONFIRMATIONS FROM THESE FOUR SUNDRY CREDITORS . IT IS ALSO TRUE THAT THEY ARE NOT TRACEABLE. IN MY OPINION, TH E ASSESSEE HAS MISERABLY FAILED TO DISCHARGE THE ONUS WHICH WA S CAST UPON HIM. CONSIDERING THE ENTIRE FACTS AND CIRCUMS TANCES OF THE PRESENT CASE, I DO NOT SEE ANY INFIRMITY IN THE FINDINGS OF THE CIT(A). ACCORDINGLY, I UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND DISMISS GROUND NO.1 OF THE APPEAL. 8. GROUND NO. 2 OF THE APPEAL RAISED IS AS UNDER : THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS FURTHER ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ADDITION OF RS.1,97,540/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST IN UTTER DISREGARD OF THE EXPLANATIONS RENDERED DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLAT E PROCEEDINGS WHICH IS ARBITRARY AND UNJUSTIFIED. 9. THE AO HAS DISCUSSED THIS ISSUE IN PARA 10 OF TH E ASSESSMENT ORDER, OBSERVING AS UNDER : 10. DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST ON ADVANCE FOR NON-BUS INESS PURPOSES INSPITE OF REPEATED OPPORTUNITIES VIDE SHOW CAUSE NOTICES, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PRODUCE CONFIRMED COP Y OF ACCOUNTS, PAN AND THE PURPOSE OF ADVANCES MADE I N RESPECT OF THE FOLLOWING PARTIES IN WHOSE CASE ADVA NCES HAVE BEEN SHOWN OUTSTANDING RIGHT FROM EARLIER YEAR S:- I) DATA MAX P.LTD. RS. 8,59,393/- II) ATLAS COPCO RS. 99,327/- III) MACHINE TOOLS RS. 2,00,000/- IV) MANMOHAN MACHINE RS. 26,000/- TOOLS V) A.K. PIPES PVT. LTD. RS. 4,11,436/- VI) U.K. PLASTECK RS. 50,000/- TOTAL RS. 16,46,156/- 6 DURING THE YEAR, THE ASSESSEE INCURRED EXPENDITURE ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST AND BANK CHARGES AT RS. 8,99,37 0/-. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EXPLANATION WITH REGARD TO ADVANCES FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES, IT IS HELD THAT THE ADVANCES TO THE ABOVE MENTIONED PARTIES HAVE BEEN GIVEN FOR NON-BUSINESS PURPOSES AND INTEREST ON THE SAME IS DISALLOWED AND ADDED BACK TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH @ 12% PER ANNUM, WORKS OUT TO RS. 1,97,540/-. 10. ON APPEAL, THE CIT(A) DISMISSED THE GROUND OF A PPEAL, OBSERVING AS UNDER : 6.3 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS ON THE ISSUE. THE APPELLANT HAD NOT FURNISHED CONFIRMED COPY OF ACCOUNT, PAN AND PURPOSE OF MAKING ADVANCES BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT HAS MENTIONED IN HIS SUBMISSION THAT HE W AS PLACING COPIES OF ACCOUNT AND COMPLETE ADDRESSES OF THESE PERSONS AT PAGE 17 TO 21 OF THE PAPER BOOK, B UT COMPLETE ADDRESSES OF THE PARTIES ARE NOT MENTIONED ON THESE PAGES. AS THE APPELLANT HAS FAILED TO PROVE W ITH EVIDENCE THAT THE ADVANCES WERE ACTUALLY MADE AND I F MADE WHETHER THESE WERE FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES. HENCE, IT IS HELD THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RI GHTLY DISALLOWED PROPORTIONATE INTEREST U/S 36(1)(III) AN D HIS ACTION IN THIS REGARD IS CONFIRMED. GROUND OF APPEA L NO. 6 IS DISMISSED. 11. I HAVE HEARD THE LD. REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH TH E PARTIES AND HAVE ALSO PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RE CORD. SHRI TEJ MOHAN SINGH, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMI TTED THAT THE AMOUNTS WERE ADVANCED FOR PURCHASE OF MACHINERY AND OTHER EQUIPMENTS AND SO, AO WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CO NCLUDING THAT THERE WAS NO BUSINESS PURPOSE FOR ADVANCING TH E AMOUNT. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DR STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE O RDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. IN THIS CASE, THE CIT(A) CALLED FOR A REMAND REPORT FROM THE AO. THE AO, IN HIS REMAND REPORT S UBMITTED 7 THAT DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, T HE ASSESSEE COULD NOT OFFER ANY JUSTIFICATION TO PROVE NECESSIT Y OF MAKING ADVANCE PAYMENT FOR PURCHASE OF MACHINERY ANDTOOLS. THE AO FURTHER OBSERVED THAT IN ASSESSEE'S OWN CASE, FOR T HE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09, IT WAS NOTICED THAT THE AS SESSEE HAD SHOWN NO ADDITION IN ANY FIXED ASSET. THE AO REJEC TED THE PLEA TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE STATING THAT THE ASSESSEE, VI DE UNDATED WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-0 9, IN RESPONSE TO GROUND NO.9 OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE, OFFER ED ON 18.10.2010, HAS SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO ADDITION IN THE FIXED ASSETS DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. IN THE REMAND REPORT, THE AO ALSO OBSERVED THAT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT COMPLETE ADDRESS OF THE PARTIES WERE GIVEN AT PAGES 17 TO 21 OF THE PAPER BOOK WAS ALSO WRONG, BE CAUSE PERUSAL OF THE PAPER BOOK REVEALED THAT ONLY NAMES OF THE PARTIES EXISTED AT PAGE 17 TO 21, BUT NO COMPLETE A DDRESSES WERE GIVEN. THE AO ALSO OBSERVED THAT DURING REMAN D PROCEEDINGS ALSO, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PRODUCE ANY BILLS OR OTHER EVIDENCE, WHICH COULD PROVE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN ADVANCES FOR BUSINESS PURPOSE ONLY. THERE IS NO MA TERIAL ON RECORD TO CONTROVERT THE OBSERVATIONS MADE BY THE A O IN THE REMAND REPORT. THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO GIVE COMPLET E ADDRESSES OF THE PARTIES. EVEN AT THE APPELLATE STAGE ALSO, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT FURNISH THE EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT THE ADV ANCES WERE ACTUALLY MADE AND IF MADE, WHETHER THESE WERE FOR B USINESS PURPOSE. AT THIS STAGE ALSO, NOTHING IS BROUGHT ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT THE ADVANCES WERE MADE FOR BUSINESS PURPO SES. IN ABSENCE OF SUCH EVIDENCE, THE CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.1,97,540/-. 8 12. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, I DISMISS GROUND NO. 2 OF THE APPEAL. 13. GROUND NO. 3 OF THE APPEAL READS AS UNDER : THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS FURTHER ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ADHOC DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 5 LACS OUT OF EXPENSES CLAIMED FOR ALLEGED HIGHER EXPENDITURE CLAIMED DURI NG THE YEAR WHICH IS ARBITRARY AND UNJUSTIFIED. 14. THE AO HAS DISCUSSED THIS ISSUE IN PARA 12 OF T HE ASSESSMENT ORDER, WHICH READS AS UNDER : 12. ADDITION IN TRADING ACCOUNT: INSPITE OF REPEATED OPPORTUNITIES, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PRODUCE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, PURCHASE/SALE BILLS AS WELL AS BILLS/VOUCHERS IN RESPECT OF EXPENSES DEBITED TO MA NUFACTURING AND PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT. MOREOVER, IT IS FOUND TH AT DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE SALES OF RS. 61,2 5,441/- HAVE BEEN SHOWN AS AGAINST SALES OF RS. 93,44,802/- IN T HE PREVIOUS YEAR. FROM THE MANUFACTURING & PROFIT AND LOSS ACCO UNT, IT WAS NOTICED THAT THE EXPENSES UNDER THE FOLLOWING H EADS ARE HIGHER AS COMPARED TO THE PREVIOUS YEAR WHEREAS THE SALES HAVE BEEN DECLARED CONSIDERABLY ON THE LOWER SIDE:- PARTLCULARS AMOUNT (RS.} PREVIOUS YEAR CURRENT YEAR I) ELECTRICITY & WATER CHARGES 4,95,444/ - 5,97,656/- II) WAGES 11,54,483/- 12,51,265/- III) OIL ARID FUEL 49,229/- 88,258/- IN THE ABSENCE OF VERIFICATION OF ACCOUNTS, THE TRA DING RESULTS DECLARED BY THE' ASSESSEE CANNOT BE ACCEPTED AS SUC H. THEREFORE, AN ADDITION OF RS. 5,00,000/- IS MADE ON THIS ACCOUNT. 9 15. ON APPEAL, THE CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ADDITION AN D HENCE, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 16. I HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND HAVE ALS O PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. SHRI TEJ MOHAN SINGH, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND ON THE OTHER HAND, SHRI AKHILESH GUPTA, LD. DR SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. 17. IN THIS CASE, THE AO OBSERVED THAT DURING THE Y EAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE SALES OF RS.61,25,441/- HAVE BEE N SHOWN AS AGAINST SALES OF RS.93,44,802/- IN THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING YEAR. THE AO MADE THE ADDITION MERELY ON THE GROUN D THAT THE EXPENSES CLAIMED UNDER THE HEADS ELECTRICITY & WATE R CHARGES, WAGES AND OIL & FUEL, WERE HIGHER AS COMPARED TO PR EVIOUS YEAR. THE AO HAS NOT GIVEN ANY OTHER REASON FOR MA KING THE ADDITION OF RS. 5 LACS. IN MY OPINION, THE AO HAS MADE THE ADDITION MERELY ON ADHOC BASIS WITHOUT SUBSTANTIATI NG HIS ACTION. IT IS CLAIMED THAT NO SUCH DISALLOWANCES W ERE MADE IN THE EARLIER YEARS. SHRI TEJ MOHAN SINGH, LD. COUNS EL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT ENTIRE EXPENDITURE WAS INCU RRED FOR THE BUSINESS PURPOSES AND THEREFORE, NO DISALLOWANC E SHOULD BE MADE. ALTERNATIVELY, IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED BY S HRI TEJ MOHAN SINGH, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ADDITION MADE BY AO AND CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(A) IS HIGHLY EX CESSIVE WHICH DESERVES TO BE REDUCED. IN MY OPINION, AO WA S JUSTIFIED IN MAKING THE ADDITION. HOWEVER, THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO AND CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(A) IS HIGHLY EXCESSIVE AND THEREFORE, THE SAME DESERVES TO BE REDUCED. CONSIDERING THE E NTIRE FACTS 10 AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT CASE, I HOLD THAT ADDITION OF RS.2,50,000/- IN THIS CASE WILL MEET THE ENDS OF JU STICE. THUS, THE ASSESSEE GETS A RELIEF OF RS.2,50,000/-. THE G ROUND IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 18. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL IS ALLOWED PARTLY. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 20 TH MARCH,2012. SD/- ( H.L.KARWA ) VICE PRESIDENT DATED: 20 TH MARCH,2012. POONAM COPY TO: THE APPELLANT, THE RESPONDENT, THE CIT(A), THE CIT ,DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT CHANDIGARH