Sh. Jagmohan Singh Malhotra, Yamunanagar v. ITO, Yamunanagar

ITA 101/CHANDI/2011 | 2007-2008
Pronouncement Date: 29-07-2011 | Result: Partly Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 10121514 RSA 2011
Bench Chandigarh
Appeal Number ITA 101/CHANDI/2011
Duration Of Justice 6 month(s) 3 day(s)
Appellant Sh. Jagmohan Singh Malhotra, Yamunanagar
Respondent ITO, Yamunanagar
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 29-07-2011
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Partly Allowed
Bench Allotted B
Tribunal Order Date 29-07-2011
Date Of Final Hearing 25-07-2011
Next Hearing Date 25-07-2011
Assessment Year 2007-2008
Appeal Filed On 25-01-2011
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH CHA NDIGARH BEFORE SHRI D K SRIVASTAVA AM AND MS. SUSHMA CHOWL A JM ITA NO. 101/CHD/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 SHRI JAGMOHAN SINGH MALHOTRA V. ITO WARD-3 PROP. M/S JAGATSONS INDUSTRIES YAMUNANAGAR COURT ROAD YAMUNANAGAR PAN:AKOPS-1329L ASSESSEE BY: SHRI TEJ MOHAN SINGH RESPONDENT BY: SHRI AJAY SHARMA ORDER D K SRIVASTAVA: THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A) ON 08.11.201 0. THE APPEAL RELATES TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. 2. THE ASSESSEE IS THE PROPRIETOR OF M/S JAGATSONS INDUSTRIES JAGADHRI AND ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF DEALING IN STAINLESS STEEL. HE FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE YEAR UNDER APPEA L ON 31.10.2007 RETURNING TOTAL INCOME AT RS.1 15 550/- AGAINST WHI CH ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN COMPLETED AT RS.9 77 350/- U/S 143(3) OF THE I NCOME-TAX ACT. ON APPEAL THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DELETED MOST OF THE ADDI TIONS WHILE FEW OF THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE AO HAVE BEEN CONFIRMED. T HE ASSESSEE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL IN RESPECT OF ADDITIONS/DISALLOWANCES CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(A). 3. GROUND NOS. 1 AND 2 TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE READ A S UNDER: 1. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON FACTS IN UPHOLDING AN ADDITION OF RS.40 000/- BEING DIFFEREN CE IN ACCOUNT OF M/S ANAND METAL WORKS IN UTTER DISREGARD OF THE EXPLANATIONS RENDERED WHICH IS ARBITRARY AND UNJUST IFIED. 2. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS FURTHER ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON FACTS IN UPHOLDING AN ADDITION OF RS.40 000/- BEING DIFFERENCE IN ACCOUNT OF M/S ESS ELL ALLOY PRIVATE LTD. IN UTTER DISREGARD OF THE EXPLANATIONS RENDERED WHICH IS ARBITRARY AND UN JUSTIFIED. 4. THE IMPUGNED ADDITIONS HAVE BEEN MADE BY THE AO WITH THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS: ITA 101/CHD/2011 JAGMOHAN SINGH MALHOTRA JAGADHRI 2 M/S ANAND METAL WORKS JAGADHARI THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED A COPY OF ACCOUNT OF M/S ANA ND METAL WORKS JAGADHARI AS APPEARING IN HIS BOOKS OF ACCOU NT DURING THE PERIOD FROM 01.04.2006 TO 31.3.2007 SHOWING OPE NING CREDIT BALANCE AS ON 01.04.2006 AT RS.195664/-. AS PER COPY OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE AS APPEARING IN THE BOOKS O F M/S ANAND METAL WORKS JAGADHRI OPENING DEBIT BALANCE AS ON 1.4.2006 HAS BEEN SHOWN AT RS.155664/-. THERE IS NO TRANSACTION DURING THE YEAR IN BOTH THE COPIES OF ACCOUNTS. THERE IS DIFFERENCE OF RS.40000/-. THE ASSESSEE WAS CONFRONT ED WITH THIS COPY OF ACCOUNT AND REQUESTED TO RECONCILE THE DISC REPANCY IN ACCOUNTS. THE COPY OF ACCOUNT AS RECEIVED U/S 133(6 ) OF THE IT ACT 1961 WAS ALSO SUPPLIED TO THE ASSESSEE. AS PER ORDERSHEET ENTRY DT.09.09.2009 THE ASSESSEE WAS AGAIN REQUESTE D TO PLEASE RECONCILE THE DIFFERENCE IN ACCOUNTS AS ALREADY REQ UESTED. AS PER WRITTEN REPLY FILED ON 05.10.09 THE ASSESSEE HA S SUBMITTED AS UNDER: CREDIT BALANCE AS PER OUR LEDGER: RS.195644/- LESS : WRONGLY ENTERED IN ANAND METAL WORKS R S.40000/- INSTEAD OF ESSELL ALLOY (P)LTD. ------------- -- RS.155664/- DEBIT BALANCE AS PER ANAND METAL WORKS RS.155664/- THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE IS INCORREC T AND DEVOID FROM RECORDS HENCE REJECTED. BOTH THE CONCERNS ARE SHOW ING OPENING BALANCE AS ON 01.04.2006. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES AND IN THE AB SENCE OF PLAUSIBLE EXPLANATION WITH DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE THE DIFFEREN CE IN ACCOUNTS OF RS.40 000/- IS ADDED TO THE INCOME RETURNED. ESS ELL ALLOYS P. LTD. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED A COPY OF ACCOUNT OF M/S ESS ELL ALLOYS P.LTD. JAGADHARI AS APPEARING IN HIS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT DURING THE PERIOD FROM 01.04.2006 TO 31.3.2007 SHOW ING OPENING DEBIT BALANCE AS ON 01.04.2006 AT RS.371913/-. AS P ER COPY OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE AS ALPPEARING IN THE BOOKS OF M/S ESS ELL ALLOYS P.LTD. JAGADHARI OPENING CREDIT BALANCE AS ON 1.4.2006 HAS BEEN SHOWN AT RS.331913/-. THERE IS NO TRANSACT ION DURING THE YEAR IN BOTH THE COPIES OF ACCOUNTS. THERE IS D IFFERENCE OF RS.40000/-. THE ASSESSEE WAS CONFRONTED WITH THIS C OPY OF ACCOUNT AND REQUESTED TO RECONCILE THE DISCREPANCY IN ACCOUNTS. THE COPY OF ACCOUNT AS RECEIVED U/S 133(6) OF THE I T ACT 1961 WAS ALSO SUPPLIED TO THE ASSESSEE. AS PER ORDER SHE ET ENTRY DT. ITA 101/CHD/2011 JAGMOHAN SINGH MALHOTRA JAGADHRI 3 09.09.2009 THE ASSESSEE WAS AGAIN REQUESTED TO PLEA SE RECONCILE THE DIFFERENCE IN ACCOUNTS AS ALREADY REQUESTED. AS PER WRITTEN REPLY FILED ON 5.10.09 THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED A COP Y OF M/S JAGATSONS INDUSTRIES A/C AS APPEARING IN THE BOOKS OF M/S ESS ELL ALLOYS P.LTD. JAGADHRI WHICH IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER : DR. CR. 521913 OPENING BALANCE AS ON 01.04.2002 10.09.2002 TO CH.NO. 40000 10.01.2003 TO CH.NO.425071 150000 190000 521913 CL BALANCE AS ON 10.01.2003 331913 I HEREBY CONFIRM THE ABOVE STATEMENT SD/- PAN-AABCE2613H FOR M/S ESS ELL ALLOYS P.LTD. THE ABOVE COPY OF ACCOUNT NOW FILED BY THE ASSESSEE M/S ESS ELL ALLOYS P.LTD. HAS SHOWN CREDIT BALANCE OF RS.331913 /- AGAINST DR.BALANCE OF RS.371913/- SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE IN HIS BOOKS. THERE IS DIFFERENCE OF RS.40000/- FOR WHICH NO EXPL ANATION HAS BEEN OFFERED AND BY FILING A REVISED COPY OF ACCOUN TS FROM THE BOOKS OF M/S ESS ELL ALLOYS P.LTD. THE ASSESSEE HAS ADMITTED THE DIFFERENCE IN ACCOUNTS. BOTH THE CONCERNS ARE SHOWI NG OPENING BALANCES AS ON 01.04.2006. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES A ND IN THE ABSENCE OF PLAUSIBLE EXPLANATION WITH DOCUMENTARY E VIDENCE THE DIFFERENCE IN ACCOUNTS OF RS.40000/- IS ADDED TO TH E INCOME RETURNED. 5. ON APPEAL THE LD. CIT(A) HAS CONFIRMED THE IMPU GNED ADDITIONS WITH THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS : AFTER CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE FACTS OF THE CA SE I AGREE WITH THE AO THAT THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE APP ELLANT IS UNSUBSTANTIATED AND IS NOT BORNE OUT FROM RECORD. I T IS ALSO UNLIKELY THAT THE ACCOUNTS OF THESE TWO PARTIES WER E NEVER RECONCILED BY THE APPELLANT OVER THE LAST FIVE YEAR S AS THE ENTRY AS PER THE ASSESSEE RELATES TO 10.09.2002. THE SUPP ORTING DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED BY THE APPELLANT DURING THE COU RSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND THE APPELLATE PROCEEDING S ARE MORE IN THE NATURE OF SELF SERVING STATEMENTS. THEREFORE THE EXPLANATION OF THE APPELLANT WITH REGARD TO DIFFERE NCE OF RS.40 000/- IN THE CASE OF M/S ANAND METAL WORKS AN D ESS ELL ALLOY LTD. IS REJECTED AND THE ADDITION OF RS.40 00 0/- MADE IN ITA 101/CHD/2011 JAGMOHAN SINGH MALHOTRA JAGADHRI 4 THE CASE OF M/S ANAND METAL WORKS AND M/S ESS ELL A LLOY PVT.LTD. IS CONFIRMED. 6. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND CAREFULLY CON SIDERED THEIR SUBMISSIONS. THE AO HIMSELF HAS RECORDED IN THE ASS ESSMENT ORDER THAT THERE IS DIFFERENCE IN THE OPENING BALANCE AS ON 01.04.2002 AND THAT NO OTHER TRANSACTION HAS BEEN RECORDED DURING THE YEAR. HE HAS ALSO REPRODUCED THE COPY OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE AS APPEARING IN THE BOOKS OF M/S ESS ELL ALLOYS P. LTD. IN WHICH IT IS CATEGORICALLY RECORDED THAT A CHEQUE FOR RS.40 000/- WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 10.09.2002. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY TRANSACTION DU RING THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL THE IMPUGNED ADDITIONS ARE COMPLETELY UNTENABLE. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER THE IMPUGNED ADDITIONS ARE DELETED. GROUND NOS. 1 AND 2 ARE ALLOWED. 7. GROUND NO. 3 READS AS UNDER: THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS FURTHER ERRED IN LAW AS WE LL AS ON FACTS IN UPHOLDING AN ADDITION OF RS.9 000/- BEING DIFFERENCE IN ACCOUNT OF M/S ASHOKA TRADING COMPANY IN UTTER D ISREGARD OF THE EXPLANATIONS RENDERED WHICH IS ARBITRARY AND UNJUSTIFIED. 8. THE AO HAS MADE THE IMPUGNED ADDITION WITH THE F OLLOWING OBSERVATIONS: M/S ASHOKA TRADING CO. JAGADHARI THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED A COPY OF ACCOUNT OF M/S ASH OKA TRADING CO. JAGADHARI AS APPEARING IN HIS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT DURING THE PERIOD FROM 01.04.2006 TO 31.3.2007 AND THE CREDIT BALANCE AS ON 31.3.2007 HAS BEEN SHOWN AT RS.143189/-. AS PER COPY OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE AS APPEARING IN THE BOOKS O F M/S ASHOKA TRADING CO. JAGADHARI DEBIT BALANCE AS ON 31 .3.2007 HAS BEEN SHOWN AT RS.152189/-. THERE IS DIFFERENCE OF RS.9000/-. THE ASSESSEE WAS CONFRONTED WITH THIS CO PY OF ACCOUNT AND REQUESTED TO RECONCILE THE DISCREPANCY IN ACCOUNTS. THE COPY OF ACCOUNT AS RECEIVED U/S 133(6) OF THE I T ACT 1961 WAS ALSO SUPPLIED TO THE ASSESSEE. AS PER ORDERSHEE T ENTRY DT.09.09.2009 THE ASSESSEE WAS AGAIN REQUESTED TO P LEASE ITA 101/CHD/2011 JAGMOHAN SINGH MALHOTRA JAGADHRI 5 RECONCILE THE DIFFERENCE IN ACCOUNTS AS ALREADY REQ UESTED. A WRITTEN REPLY FILED ON 5.10.09 BUT NO EXPLANATION R EGARDING THE DIFFERENCE IN ACCOUNTS HAS BEEN OFFERED. IN THESE C IRCUMSTANCES AND IN THE ABSENCE OF PLAUSIBLE EXPLANATION WITH EV IDENCE THE DIFFERENCE IN ACCOUNTS OF RS.9000/- IS ADDED TO THE INCOME RETURNED. 9. ON APPEAL THE LD. CIT(A) HAS CONFIRMED THE IMPU GNED ADDITION WITH THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS: IT HAS BEEN MENTIONED BY THE AO THAT THE APPELLANT DID NOT OFFER ANY EXPLANATION DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PRO CEEDINGS. THE APPELLANT HOWEVER AS PER THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION STATED THAT THE DIFFERENCE OF RS.9000/- HAS ARISEN AS THE CHEQU E NO.38399 DT.24.3.2007 WAS NOT PRESENTED IN THE BANK TILL 31. 3.2007 AS IS ALSO EVIDENT FROM THE BANK RECONCILIATION STATEMENT . IT HAS ALSO BEEN MENTIONED THAT THE EXPLANATION IN THIS REGARD WAS OFFERED DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ALSO. T HE APPELLANT HAS FILED THE COPY OF ACCOUNT OF M/S ASHOKA TRADING CO. JAGADHRI IN THE APPELLANTS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT SHOWING THAT A CHEQUE NO.383399 AMOUNTING TORS.9000/- WAS ISSUED ON 24.3. 2007. THE APPELLANT HAS HOWEVER NOT FILED THE COPY OF THE BAN K RECONCILIATION STATEMENT WITH THIS CONCERN SHOWING THE DETAIL AS TO WHEN THE CHEQUE WAS ACTUALLY PRESENTED. THEREFOR E THIS EXPLANATION OF THE APPELLANT IS REJECTED. THE ADDIT ION OF RS.9000/- MADE BY THE AO ON THIS ACCOUNT IS CONFIRM ED. 10. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES. THE IMPUGNED AD DITION HAS BEEN CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(A) FOR THE REASON THAT TH E ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE BANK RECONCILIATION STATEMENT IN SUPPOR T OF HIS CLAIM. THE ASSESSEE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO PRODUCE THE BANK RE CONCILIATION STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF HIS CASE NOT ONLY BEFORE TH E ASSESSING OFFICER BUT ALSO BEFORE THE CIT(A) BUT THE ASSESSEE CHOSE N OT TO DO SO. THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THUS REMAINED UNSUBSTANTIATED BEFORE BOTH THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. THERE IS NO MATERIAL BEFORE US T O HOLD THAT THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE CIT(A) IS INCORRECT. IN THIS VIEW OF T HE MATTER GROUND NO.3 IS DISMISSED. 11. GROUND NO.4 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE READS AS UND ER : ITA 101/CHD/2011 JAGMOHAN SINGH MALHOTRA JAGADHRI 6 THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS FURTHER ERRED IN LAW AS WE LL AS ON FACTS IN UPHOLDING AN ADDITION OF RS.5179/- BEING D IFFERENCE IN ACCOUNT OF M/S KRISHNA CHEMICALS IN UTTER DISREG ARD OF THE EXPLANATIONS RENDERED WHICH IS ARBITRARY AND UNJUST IFIED. 12. THE FACTS OF THE CASE AS WELL AS THE REASONS FO R MAKING IMPUGNED DISALLOWANCE ARE CONTAINED IN THE ASSESSME NT ORDER WHICH READ AS UNDER: THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED A COPY OF ACCOUNT OF M/S KR ISHNA CHEMICALS JAGADHARI AS APPEARING IN HIS BOOKS OF A CCOUNTS DURING THE PERIOD FROM 01.04.2006 TO 31.3.2007 SHOW ING CLOSING CREDIT BALANCE AS ON 31.3.2007 AT RS.209909/-. AS P ER COPY OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE AS APPEARING IN THE BOOKS O F M/S KRISHNA CHEMICALS JAGADHARI DEBIT BALANCE AS ON S31.3.207 HAS BEEN SHOWN AT RS.215088/-. THERE IS DIFFERENCE OF RS.517 9/-. THE ASSESSEE WAS CONFRONTED WITH THIS COPY OF ACCOUNT A ND REQUESTED TO RECONCILE THE DISCREPANCY IN ACCOUNTS. THE COPY OF ACCOUNT AS RECEIVED U/S 133(6) OF THE IT ACT 1961 WAS ALSO SUP PLIED TO THE ASSESSEE. AS PER ORDERSHEET ENTRY DT.09.09.2009 THE ASSESSEE WAS AGAIN REQUESTED TO PLEASE RECONCILE THE DIFFERE NCE IN ACCOUNTS AS ALREADY REQUESTED. A WRITTEN REPLY HAS BEEN FILED ON 5.10.09 BUT NO EXPLANATION HAS OFFERED REGARDING TH E DIFFERENCE. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES AND IN THE ABSENCE OF PLAUSI BLE EXPLANATION WITH EVIDENCE THE DIFFERENCE IN ACCOUN TS OF RS.5179/- IS ADDED TO THE INCOME RETURNED BEING DIF FERENCE IN ACCOUNTS. 13. ON APPEAL THE LD. CIT(A) HAS CONFIRMED THE IMP UGNED DISALLOWANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS: THE APPELLANT HAS EXPLAINED THAT THE DIFFERENCE ON ACCOUNT OF SAID PARTY HAS OCCURRED AS THE CHEQUE NO.343629 DAT ED 11.4.2006 DRAWN ON STATE BANK OF INDIA FOR RS.5179/ - PERTAINING TO KRISHNA ELECTRICAL & GENERAL STORE WAS POSTED TO THE ACCOUNT OF AFORESAID FIRM ON 11.4.2006. THE APPELLANT HAS F ILED COPY OF ACCOUNT OF KRISHNA ELECTRIC & GENERAL STORE IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND THAT OF JAGATSONS INDUSTRIES (THE APPEL LANT) IN THE BOOKS OF KRISHNA ELECTRIC & GENERAL STORE TO SUBSTA NTIATE THAT A CHEQUE NO.343629 DATED 11.4.2006 DRAWN ON STATE BAN K OF INDIA FOR RS.5179/- WAS ISSUED BY KRISHNA ELECTRIC & GENE RAL STORES AND IT HAS NOT BEEN REFLECTED IN APPELLANTS BOOKS OF A CCOUNT. ITA 101/CHD/2011 JAGMOHAN SINGH MALHOTRA JAGADHRI 7 HOWEVER THESE COPIES OF ACCOUNTS ARE AGAIN UNSUBST ANTIATED AND THESE WERE NOT PRODUCED BEFORE THE AO. THE APPELLAN T HAS NOT GIVEN ANY PLAUSIBLE REASONS FOR NOT GIVING ANY EXPL ANATION BEFORE THE AO IN THIS REGARD. THE EXPLANATION OFFERED IS T HEREFORE TREATED AS AN AFTER THOUGH AND THE ADDITION OF RS.5 179/- MADE ON THIS ACCOUNT IS CONFIRMED. 14. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES. THE FINDING REC ORDED BY THE CIT(A) HAS NOT BEEN REBUTTED BEFORE US. IN THIS VIE W OF THE MATTER GROUND NO.4 IS DISMISSED. 15. GROUND NO.5 TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE READS AS UNDE R: THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS FURTHER ERRED IN LAW AS WE LL AS ON FACTS IN UPHOLDING THE ADDITION OF RS.17454/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF HOUSE TAX PAID WHICH IS ARBITRARY AND UNJUSTIFIED. 16. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES. THE ASSESSEE HA S SOUGHT DEDUCTION FOR A SUM OF RS.17 454/- BEING HOUSE TAX ON THE GROUND THAT IT WAS PAID IN THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL THOUGH IT RELATED TO YEAR 2005-06. THE AO DID NOT ALLOW THE IMPUGNED DEDUCTIO N FOR WANT OF RECEIPT OR ANY EVIDENCE TO SUBSTANTIATE THE IMPUGNE D PAYMENT AND ALSO FOR THE REASON THAT THE CLAIM DID NOT PERTAIN TO THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL. ON APPEAL THE IMPUGNED ADDITION MADE BY TH E AO HAS BEEN CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(A) ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSE SSEE COULD NOT GIVE ANY SPECIFIC ARGUMENT IN SUPPORT OF HIS CASE I N THIS BEHALF. THE DEDUCTION FOR PAYMENT OF HOUSE TAX IS ALLOWED IN TH E YEAR OF PAYMENT IF AN ASSESSEE ESTABLISHES THE FACTUM OF PAYMENT. I N THE PRESENT CASE THE ASSESSEE DID NOT ADDUCE ANY EVIDENCE BEFORE THE AO/CIT(A) TO ESTABLISH THAT HE HAS ACTUALLY PAID THE HOUSE TAX I N THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER THE CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN REJECTING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. HIS ORDER IN THIS BEHALF IS CONFIRMED. GROUND NO. 5 IS DISMISSED. ITA 101/CHD/2011 JAGMOHAN SINGH MALHOTRA JAGADHRI 8 17. APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 29 TH JULY 2011. SD/- SD/- (SUSHMA CHOWLA) (D K SRIVAS TAVA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 29 TH JULY 2011 POONAM COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A) 4. THE CIT 5. THE D.R INCOME-TAX DEPARTMENT CHANDIGARH ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT CHANDIGARH