ITO, Shimla V. State Bank of Patiala, Shimla

MA 35/CHANDI/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5567 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 4 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 23-05-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 09-09-2016
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 26-12-2013
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANJIT SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: ROHIT GOEL SHRI ROHIT KAURA
• Keywords: Question of law
• Section: 154

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MS. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.A.NOS.33 & 34/CHD/2014 IN ITA NOS.1306 & 1307/CHD/2012 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 & 2010-11) & M.A.NOS.35 & 36/CHD/2014 IN ITA NOS.323 & 324/CHD/2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12 & 2012-13) THE ITO (TDS), VS. STATE BANK OF PATIALA, SHIMLA. H.P. SECTT., SHIMLA (EAST), DISTT. SHIMLA. TAN: PTLS 13379C (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPLICANT BY : SHRI MANJIT SINGH, DR RESPONDENT BY : SHRI ROHIT GOEL FOR SHRI ROHIT KAURA DATE OF HEARING : 28.04.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 23.05.2017 ORDER PER ANNAPURNA GUPTA, A.M . : ALL THE ABOVE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS HAVE BEEN FILED BY THE REVENUE FOR RECTIFYING ORDERS PAS SED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NOS.1306 & 1307/CHD/2012 DATED 14.6.2013 FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2010-11 AND 2011-12 AND IN ITA NOS.323 & 324/CHD/2013 DATED 10.7.2013 FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2009-10 AND 2012-13 RESPECTIVELY. 2 2. IT WAS COMMON GROUND BETWEEN BOTH THE PARTIES THAT RECTIFICATION SOUGHT FOR IN ALL THESE MISCELLA NEOUS APPLICATIONS WAS IDENTICAL AND, THEREFORE ALL THE A BOVE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OFF BY WAY OF A COMMON ORDER. FOR T HE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE, WE SHALL BE DISCUSSING THE FAC TS IN MA NO.33/CHD/2014 MOVED FOR RECTIFYING THE ORDER PA SSED BY THE ITAT IN ITA NO.1306/CHD/2012 RELATING TO A.Y 2010-11. M.A.NOS.33/CHD/2014 : 3. THE FACTS LEADING TO THE ABOVE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION ARE THAT DURING PROCEEDINGS U/S 201 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT) IT WAS NO TICED THAT THE PERSON RESPONSIBLE FOR DEDUCTING THE TAX I N THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE, HAD NOT DEDUCTED THE TAX ON I NTEREST PAID/CREDITED ON FDRS TO VARIOUS SOCIETIES, TRUSTS ETC. THE ASSESSEE WAS, THEREFORE, HELD TO BE AN ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT U/S 201 OF THE ACT AND DEMAND WAS RAISED ON IT FOR RECOVERY OF THE TAX AND INTEREST U/S 201(1)/201 (1A) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT,1961, AMOUNTING TO RS.23,96,132/ -. 4. THE LD.CIT (APPEALS) ALLOWED THE ASSESSEES APPEAL FILED AGAINST THE AFORESAID ORDER, HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE BANK WAS NOT LIABLE FOR DEDUCTION OF TAX A T SOURCE ON THE SAID PAYMENTS OF INTEREST SINCE THE PAYEE SOCIETIES WERE REGISTERED UNDER THE SOCIETIES REGIS TRATION 3 ACT, 1860 AND WERE WHOLLY FINANCED BY THE GOVERNMEN T AND WERE THUS EXEMPTED FROM TDS AS PER THE PROVISIO NS OF SECTION 194A(3)(III)(F) OF THE ACT. THE I.T.A.T. U PHELD THE ORDER OF THE CIT(APPEALS). 5. THE REVENUE HAS NOW FILED THE PRESENT MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION BEFORE US SEEKING TO REC TIFY THE FOLLOWING TWO ALLEGED MISTAKES IN THE ORDER PASSED BY THE I.T.A.T : 1) THAT THE ASSESSMENT YEARS WAS INCORRECTLY MENTIONED IN THE SAID ORDER AS 2009-10 INSTEAD OF ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. 2. THAT THE ASSESSEES APPEAL HAD BEEN ALLOWED FOR THE REASON THAT NO TAX WAS REQUIRED TO BE DEDUCTED AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194A(3)(III)(F) OF THE ACT, WHICH STATED THAT THE PAYMENT MADE TO INSTITUTIONS, ASSOCIATIONS OR BODIES AS NOTIFIED B Y THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT ARE EXEMPT FROM TAX DEDUCTION AT SOURCE. THE I.T.A.T. HAD HELD THAT INDIVIDUAL INSTRUCTIONS BY THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT FOR EXEMPTION ARE NOT REQUIRED AND THE NOTIFICATION ISSUED U/S 194A MENTIONING SOCIETIES REGISTERED UNDER THE SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT, 1860 WHICH AR E WHOLLY FINANCED BY THE GOVERNMENT, WOULD ENTITLE TH E PAYEES IN THE PRESENT CASE FOR CLAIMING THE BENEFIT PROVIDED U/S 194(3)(III)(F) OF THE ACT. THE CONTEN TION OF THE REVENUE IN THE PRESENT MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION IS THAT THE CBDT HAS CLARIFIED THAT EAC H ORGANIZATION HAS TO SEPARATELY APPLY FOR SEEKING EXEMPTION FROM THE SAID SECTION. THEREFORE, AS PER THE REVENUE, THE ORDER PASSED BY THE I.T.A.T. IN TH E CASE OF ASSESSEE RELYING ON THE GENERAL EXEMPTION PROVIDED BY WAY OF NOTIFICATION BY CENTRAL 4 GOVERNMENT, WAS AN ERROR AND MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD WHICH NEEDED RECTIFICATION. 6. THE RELEVANT MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FILED BY THE REVENUE IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER: NO.LTO (TDS)/SML/2013-L4/965 DATED : 18.12.201 3 TO THE ASSTT. REGISTRAR, ITAT KENDYRA SADAN, SECTOR-9A, CHANDIGARH-160009 SIR, SUB: M.A. IN LTANO. 1306 &1307/CHD/2012 IN THE CASE OF STATE BANK OF PATIALA, H.P. SECTT. SHIMLA [EAST) FOR A.Y 2010-11&2011-12 -REGARDING- KINDLY REFER TO THIS OFFICE LETTER DATED 16.12.2013 AND THE VERBAL DIRECTION BY ASST. REGISTRAR OF ITAT FOR FILING M.A FOR 1TA NO. 1306 & 1307/CHD/2012 IN THE CASE OF STATE BANK OF PATIALA, H.P, SECTT. SHIMLA (EAST) FOR A.Y 2010- 11&2011-12. IN THIS REGARD, IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS TYPOG RAPHICAL ERROR IN THE ORDER PASSED BY HON'BLE 1TAT BENCH-'A', CHANDIGARH IN THE CASE O F THE ABOVE MENTIONED ASSESSEE AND NECESSARY DETAILS ARE SUBMITTED AS UNDER : SR. NO ITA NO. ORIGINAL CIT(A) ORDER IT NOS CORRIGENDUM CIT(A) ORDER IT NOS INCORRECT ASST. YEAR MENTIONED CORRECT ASST. YEAR TO BE MENTIONED 1. 1306 & 1307/CHD/2012 IT/617,615/11- 12/SML 259 & 260/12- 13/SML 2009-10 & 2010-11 2010-11 & 2011-12 IT IS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IN THIS CASE THE CIT ( A)HAD PASSED ORDER DATED 11.09.2012 IN IT/617,615/11-12/SML, IN WHICH THE A. YS. WERE WRONGLY MENTIONED AS 2009-10 & 2010-11 IN PLACE OF CORRECT A.Y. 20 10-11 &- 2011-12 'RESPECTIVELY. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE CORRECTIONS WERE MADE BY CIT (A) VIDE ORDER U/S 154 DATED 19.02.2013 IN IT/259 & 260/12-13/SML. NOW, THE REVISED MEMO OF APPEAL (FORM NO. 36) IS BEING FILED BY THIS OFFICE ALONG W ITH THE ORDER OF C1T(A) ORDER U/S 154 FOR EFFECTING NECESSARY CORRECTIONS AT YOUR END. IT IS ALSO PERTINENT TO MENTION HERE THAT HON'BLE I T AT VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 14.06.2013 IN ABOVE REFERRED ITA HAS UPHELD THE JUD GEMENT OF CIT (A). HOWEVER, CLARIFICATION ON THE ISSUE OF EXEMPTION U/S 194A(3) (F) WAS SOLICITED FROM THE CBDT IN THE CASE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT BOAR D (HPIDB) WHEREIN IT WAS CLEARLY STATED BY THE BOARD THAT EACH ORGANIZATION HAS TO A PPLY SEPARATELY FOR SEEKING EXEMPTION UNDER THIS SECTION AND THE SAME WILL BE N OTIFIED IN THE OFFICIAL GAZETTE AFTER IT IS DULY APPROVED BY THE CENTRAL GOVT. (FINANCE MINI STER). COPY OF THE CLARIFICATION OF THE BOARD IS ENCLOSED FOR READY REFERENCE. IN VIEW OF THE CLARIFICATION OF THE BOARD, THE HON'BLE ITAT IS REQUESTED TO REVIEW ITS EARLIER JUD GEMENT DATED 14.6.2013. 5 7. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES. AS FAR AS THE ISSUE RELATING TO THE MISTAKE IN THE ORDER PERTAINI NG TO MENTIONING OF INCORRECT ASSESSMENT YEAR, THE LD. DR POINTED OUT THAT IDENTICAL ERROR WAS THERE IN THE O RDER OF THE CIT(APPEALS) ALSO, WHO HAD WRONGLY MENTIONED ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 INSTEAD OF ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11, WHICH WAS LATER ON RECTIFIED VIDE ORDER PA SSED U/S 154 DATED 19.2.2013 IN ITA NO.259 & 260/12-13/S ML. COPY OF THE SAID ORDER WAS PLACED BEFORE US. 8. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, IN ALL FAIRNE SS AGREED TO THIS. 9. WE HAVE PERUSED THE ORDER OF THE CIT(APPEALS) RECTIFYING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR FROM 2009-10 TO 2010 -11 AND IN VIEW OF THE SAME SINCE THE ERROR HAS PERPETU ATED IN THE ORDER OF THE I.T.A.T. ALSO, WE DIRECT THE RECTI FICATION OF THE SAME WITH THE ASSESSMENT YEAR BEING MENTIONED I N THE ORDER AS ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-2011 INSTEAD OF ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. 10. AS TO THE NEXT ISSUE RAISED BEFORE US, THE CONTENTION OF THE REVENUE IS THAT THE I.T.A.T. IN I TS ORDER HAD COMMITTED A MISTAKE BY GRANTING THE ASSESSEE RE LIEF FROM THE CONSEQUENCES OF NON DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SO URCE ON PAYMENTS MADE TO SOCIETIES WHOLLY FINANCED BY TH E 6 GOVERNMENT, BY RELYING ON THE GENERAL EXEMPTION GRA NTED BY THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT VIDE NOTIFICATION ISSUED U/S 194A, SPECIFICALLY SERIAL NO.40 OF THE SAME. THE CONTENTION OF THE REVENUE IS THAT THE CBDT, ON A CLARIFICATION SOUGHT BY HIMACHAL PRADESH INFRASTRUC TURE DEVELOPMENT BOARD, HAS STATED THAT SEPARATE EXEMPTI ON HAS TO BE SOUGHT FROM THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT BY EAC H SOCIETY AND IN VIEW OF THE SAME A MISTAKE HAS OCCU RRED IN THE ORDER OF THE I.T.A.T. 11. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE AT THIS JUNCTURE SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE HAD ATTAINED FINALITY HAVI NG BEEN ADJUDICATED UPON IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE FOR TH E IMPUGNED YEAR BY THE HON'BLE HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT. THE LD. COUNSEL POINTED OUT THAT THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HAD ANSWERED THE QUESTION OF LAW FRAMED BEFOR E IT IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE VIDE THEIR ORDER IN ITA N O. 17 &22 OF 2014 DECIDED ON 31.12.2014 AND FOLLOWED IN I TA NO.18 OF 2014 DECIDED ON 17-03-2016. THE COPY OF T HE ORDERS OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT WAS PLACED BEFORE US. 12. HAVING HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND HAVING GONE THROUGH THE ORDER OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT, WE FIN D THAT THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT HAS ALREADY ADJUDICATED ON T HE ISSUE WHETHER THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO APPLY FO R EXEMPTION U/S 194A(3)(F) AND THE SAME COULD BE GRAN TED TO THE ASSESSEE ONLY AFTER THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT I SSUED A NOTIFICATION IN THIS BEHALF IN THE OFFICIAL GAZET TE. THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF T HE 7 ASSESSEE, AFTER CONSIDERING THE NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT EXEMPTING UNDERTAKINGS OR BODIES INCLUDING SOCIETIES REGISTERED UNDER THE SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT, 1860 FINANCED WHOLLY BY THE GOVERNMENT, FROM THE PROVISION OF TDS. THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HELD THAT ONCE THE NOTIFICATION IS ISSUED IT IS NOT THE REQUIREMENT OF THE ACT FOR THE ASSESSEE TO EITH ER APPLY OR SEEK EXEMPTION FROM THE AUTHORITIES UNDER THE AC T OR THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT. THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT HEL D THAT WITH THE ISSUANCE OF NOTIFICATION BY THE CENTR AL GOVERNMENT, THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194A (1) OF T HE ACT AUTOMATICALLY BECOME INAPPLICABLE THUS EXEMPTING TH E ASSESSEE FROM THE PROVISIONS OF TDS. 13. THE QUESTION OF LAW FRAMED BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT IS AS UNDER: WHETHER FOR THE PURPOSE OF OBTAINING EXEMPTION UNDE R SECTION 194A(3) (F) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, THE ASSESSEE WAS R EQUIRED TO APPLY FOR EXEMPTION AND THE SAME COULD ONLY BE GR ANTED TO THE ASSESSEE AFTER THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT ISSUED A NOTIFICATION IN THIS BEHALF IN THE OFFICIAL GAZETTE? THE RELEVANT FINDINGS OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT ARE AS UNDER: 5. FOR THE PURPOSES OF ADJUDICATION OF THE PRESENT APPEAL, RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF THE ACT, ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER:- 194A. (1) ANY PERSON, NOT BEING AN INDIVIDUAL OR A HINDU UNDIVIDED FAMILY, WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR PAYING TO A RESIDENT AY INCOME BY WAY OF INTEREST OTHER THAN IN COME [BY WAY OF INTEREST ON SECURITIES], SHALL, AT THE TIME OF CR EDIT OF SUCH INCOME TO THE ACCOUNT OF THE PAYEE OR AT THE T IME OF PAYMENT THEREOF IN CASH OR BY ISSUE OF A CHEQUE OR DRAFT OR BY ANY OTHER MODE, WHICHEVER IS EARLIER, DEDUCT INCOME-T AX THEREON AT THE RATES IN FORCE: ....... 8 .......(3) THE PROVISIONS OF SUB-SECTION (1) SHALL NOT APLY....... .......(III) TO SUCH INCOME CREDITED OR PAID TO....... .......(F) SUCH OTHER INSTITUTION, ASSOCIATION OR BODY [OR CL ASS OF INSTITUTIONS, ASSOCIATIONS OR BODIES] WHICH THE CENTRA L GOVERNMENT MAY, FOR REASONS TO BE RECORDED IN WRITIN G, NOTIFY IN THIS BEHALF IN THE OFFICIAL GAZETTE; 6. IT IS NOT DISPUTED THAT THE SOCIETIES IN QUESTION ARE WHOLLY FUNDED BY THE GOVERNMENT. 7. EVIDENTLY, AS NOTICED BY THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY, BY V IRTUE OF ITS POWER, IN TERMS OF SECTION 194A, CENTRAL GOVE RNMENT HAS ISSUED NOTIFICATION COVERING ANY UNDERTAKING O R BODY INCLUDING A SOCIETY REGISTERED UNDER THE SOCIETIES R EGISTRATION ACT, 1860 (XXI OF 1860) FINANCED WHOLLY BY THE GOVERNMENT. 8. NOW THE LANGUAGE OF SECTION 194A OF THE ACT IS SIM PLE, UNAMBIGUOUS AND EVIDENTLY CLEAR. THE CENTRAL GOVERNME NT HAS ISSUED NOTIFICATION, SPECIFICALLY EXEMPTING, INTER ALIA, SOCIETIES WHICH ARE WHOLLY FINANCED BY THE GOVERNMEN T, THUS MAKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 1 OF SECTION 194A INAPPLICABLE. IN VIEW OF SUB-SECTION 3(III) (F) OF THE SAID SECTION, IN THE INSTANT CASE, ASSESSEE MADE PAYMENTS, WITHOUT DEDUCTING INCOME-TAX, TO SUCH SOCIETIES WHICH STAND EXEMPTED UNDER THE NOTIFICATION. 9. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, ONCE THE NOTIFICATION STA NDS ISSUED, IT IS NOT THE REQUIREMENT OF THE ACT FOR THE ASSESSE E TO EITHER APPLY OR SEEK EXEMPTION FROM THE AUTHORITIES UNDER T HE ACT OR THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT. EXPRESSION REASONS TO BE RE CORDED IN WRITING ARE IN REFERENCE TO THE STAGE PRECEDING ISSUANCE OF NOTIFICATION BY THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT. REASONS HAVE TO BE THAT OF THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT AND NOT THE ASSESSEE. WITH THE ISSUANCE OF NOTIFICATION BY THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT, WH ICH IS NOT THE SUBJECT MATTER OF CHALLENGE HEREIN, PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194(A) (1) OF THE ACT, AUTOMATICALLY BECOMES INAPPLICABLE. 10. THUS, ORDER PASSED BY THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY IS U PHELD AND SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW IS ANSWERED ACCORDING LY. AS SUCH, APPEAL STANDS DISPOSED OF AS ALSO PENDING APPLICATION(S), IF ANY. 14. IT IS CLEAR FROM THE ABOVE THAT THE ISSUE RAIS ED BY THE REVENUE IN ITS PRESENT MA BEFORE US, HAS ALR EADY BEEN DEALT WITH AND DECIDED BY THE HON'BLE HIGH CO URT IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THE PRESENT MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION ON THIS ISSUE THEREFORE, WE HOLD, HAS N O RELEVANCE. ALSO IN VIEW OF THE SUBSEQUENT ORDER OF THE 9 HIGH COURT IN THE IMPUGNED CASE, THE ORDER OF THE I .T.A.T. STANDS MERGED IN THE SAME AND THERE IS NO SCOPE LEF T FOR RECTIFYING THE SAID ORDER. 15. THE RECTIFICATION SOUGHT FOR BY THE REVENUE ON THIS ISSUE IS, THEREFORE, REJECTED. 16. MA NO.33/CHD/2014 IS PARTLY ALLOWED IN ABOVE TERMS. M.A.NO.34/CHD/2014 (IN ITA NO.1307/CHD/2012) & M.A.NOS.35 & 36/CHD/2014 (IN ITA NOS.323 & 324/CHD/2013) 17. IT IS RELEVANT TO OBSERVE HERE THAT THE ISSUES RAISED AND THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES SURROUNDING THE ISSUES IN THESE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS ARE SIMI LAR TO THAT IN M.A.NO.33/CHD/2014 AND THE FINDINGS GIVEN I N M.A.NO.33/CHD/2014 SHALL APPLY TO THESE MISCELLANEO US APPLICATIONS ALSO WITH EQUAL FORCE. WE MAY ADD THAT THE REVENUE HAS POINTED OUT THE MISTAKE OF MENTIONING O F INCORRECT ASSESSMENT YEARS IN ALL THE ABOVE MAS AS UNDER: NO. OF THE CASE ITAT ORDER INCORRECT A.Y. MENTIONED CORRECT A.Y. MA 34/CHD/2014 ITA NO.1307/CHD/2012 2010-11 2011-12 MA 35/CHD/2014 ITA NO.323/CHD/2013 2011-12 2009-10 MA 36/CHD/2014 ITA NO.324/CHD/2013 2012-13 2012-13 18. THE MISTAKE HAVING EMANATED AND PERPETUATED FROM THE INCORRECT MENTIONING OF THE ASSESSMENT YEA RS IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), WHICH IT HAS BEEN BROUGHT TO OUR 10 NOTICE, HAS SUBSEQUENTLY BEEN RECTIFIED BY THE CIT( A) IN ITS ORDER PASSED U/S 154 OF THE ACT, WE DIRECT RECT IFICATION OF THE SAME IN THE RELEVANT ORDERS OF THE ITAT ALSO . 19. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE ABOVE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS FILED BY THE REVENUE ARE PARTLY ALLOWE D IN ABOVE TERMS. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- SD/- (SANJAY GARG) (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 23 RD MAY, 2017 *RATI* COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A) 4. THE CIT 5. THE DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH