ITO, W-4(3), Chandigarh v. Smt. Rachna Arora, Chandigarh

ITA 1112/CHANDI/2019 | 2015-2016
Pronouncement Date: 31-03-2021 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 111221514 RSA 2019
Assessee PAN ALJPA7492G
Bench Chandigarh
Appeal Number ITA 1112/CHANDI/2019
Duration Of Justice 1 year(s) 7 month(s) 22 day(s)
Appellant ITO, W-4(3), Chandigarh
Respondent Smt. Rachna Arora, Chandigarh
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 31-03-2021
Appeal Filed By Department
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted B
Tribunal Order Date 31-03-2021
Last Hearing Date 07-12-2020
First Hearing Date 17-03-2021
Assessment Year 2015-2016
Appeal Filed On 09-08-2019
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH B CHANDIGARH BEFORE: SMT.ANNAPURNA GUPTA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI R.L. NEGI JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 1112/CHD/2019 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2015-16) THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-4(3) CHANDIGARH. SMT.RACHNA ARORA HOUSE NO.1846 SECTOR 34-D CHANDIGARH. ./PAN NO: ALJPA7492G /ASSESSEE BY: SHRI PARIKSHIT AGGARWAL CA / REVENUE BY : SHRI ASHOK KHANNA ADDL.CIT /DATE OF HEARING: 17.03.2021 !' /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 31.03.2021 (HEARING THROUGH WEBEX) /ORDER PER ANNAPURNA GUPTA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)[IN SHORT THE LD.CIT(A)] CHANDIGARH DATED 24.05.2019 RELATING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2015-16 PASSED U/S 250(6)) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS A CT. ITA NO.1112/CHD/2019 A.Y.2015-16 2 2. AT THE OUTSET ITSELF IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT T HE SOLITARY ISSUE IN THE PRESENT APPEAL PERTAINED TO CLAIM OF E XEMPTION U/S 54 OF THE ACT OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE BEING INVESTED IN ANOTHER PROPERTY. THAT T HE AO HAD RESTRICTED THE CLAIM OF EXEMPTION TO THE EXTENT OF ASSESSEES SHARE IN NEW PROPERTY PURCHASED BEING 3 4% WHILE THE LD.CIT(A) ALLOWED THE ENTIRE CLAIM ON NO TING THE FACT THAT THE ENTIRE CAPITAL GAINS EARNED BY THE AS SESSEE HAD BEEN INVESTED IN THE NEW PROPERTY PURCHASED. THE LD . DR DREW OUR ATTENTION TO THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REV ENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AS UNDER: (I) WHETHER IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD.CIT (A)'S ORDER IS NOT PERVERSE AND HE HAS ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS FACTS IN ALLOWIN G THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS OF THE CASE? (II) WHETHER IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD.CIT(A)'S HAS ERRED IN LAW IN ALLOWING THE EXEMPTION U/S 54 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT IN RESPECT OF CAPITAL GAINS INVESTED IN THE PROPERT Y PURCHASED IN NAME OF HER MARRIED DAUGHTER AND SON-IN-LAW WHEN THE EXEMPTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN LIMITED AS PER LAW TO HER OWN SHARE OF 34% ONLY. (III) WHETHER IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD.CIT(A)'S ORDER IS NOT PERVERSE A ND HE HAS ERRED IN ALLOWING THE EXEMPTION U/S 54 OF TH E INCOME TAX ACT AT RS 4 34 59 040/- WHICH IS ADMISSIBLE ONLY ON HER OWN SHARE OF 34% AT RS. 1 47 76 073/- AS EXEMPTIONS ARE SUBJECT TO STRICT INTERPRETATION AS HELD BY CONSTITUTION BENCH IN ITA NO.1112/CHD/2019 A.Y.2015-16 3 COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOM (IMPORT) MUMBAI VS DILIP KUMAR AND COMPANY AND OTHERS. (IV) WHETHER IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD.CIT(A)'S ORDER IS NOT PERVERSE A ND IN CONTRAVENTION OF JURISDICTIONS! HIGH COURT DECIS ION IN THE CASE OF CIT FARIDABAD VS. SH. DINESH VERMA IN ITA NO. 381/2014 WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ENTITLED TO THE BENEFIT OF DEDUCTIO N U/S 54 IF THE SUBSEQUENT PROPERTY IS PURCHASED BY A PERSON OTHER THAN THE ASSESSEE INCLUDING A CLOSE RELATIVE SUCH AS A WIFE OR CHILD. (V) WHETHER IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE AND IN LAW THE LD.CIT(A)'S ORDER IS NOT PERVERSE AND IN CONTRAVENTION OF JURISDICTIONAL DIVISION BENCH DECISION IN THE CASE OF JAI NARAYAII VS INCOM E TAX OFFICER [2008] 306 ITR 335 (P&H) WHEREIN IT WA S HELD THAT A READING OF SECTION 54B OF THE ACT NOWHERE SUGGESTS THAT LEGISLATURE INTENDED TO ADVANCE THE BENEFIT OF THE SAID SECTION TO AN ASSESSEE WHO PURCHASED THE AGRICULTURE LAND IN THE NAME OF A THIRD PERSON. ( VI) IT IS PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAY BE RESTORED. (VII) THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD OR AMEND AN Y GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE THE APPEAL IS HEARD OR IS DISPOSED OFF. 3. REFERRING TO THE SAME HE CONTENDED THAT PRIMARIL Y THE CONTENTION OF THE REVENUE WAS THAT THE CIT(A)S ORD ER WAS NOT IN CONSONANCE WITH THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT FARID ABAD VS. SHRI DINESH VERMA IN ITA NO.381/2014. THE LD.COUNSE L FOR THE ASSESSEE ON THE OTHER HAND COUNTERED BY SAYING THAT THE LD.CIT(A) HAD ALLOWED ASSESSEES APPEAL AFTER T AKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE AFORESAID DECISION OF THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT. ITA NO.1112/CHD/2019 A.Y.2015-16 4 4. ADVERTING TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE DURING THE RELEVANT YEAR THE ASSESSEE HAD SOLD A RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS.4 35 00 000/-ON WHICH LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS (LTCG) WAS CALCULATED AT RS 4 34 59 000/-. THE ASSESSEE HAD INVESTED THE WHOLE SALE CONSIDERATION IN THE PURCHASE OF ANOTHER RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY JOINTLY WITH HER DAUGHTER AND HER SON IN LAW WHICH WAS PURCHASED FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS.5 35 50 000/-. THE SHARES OF THREE CO-OWNERS NAMELY THE ASSESSEE HER SON IN LAW AND HER DAUGHTER IN THE PURCHASED PROPERTY WERE 34% 33% & 33% RESPECTIVELY. AS THE ASSESSEE'S SHARE IN SAID PROPERTY WAS 34% THE AO HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE WOULD BE ENTITLED FOR CLAIM OF EXEMPTION TO THE EXTENT OF 34% OF TOTAL LTCG INVESTED BY HER. ACCORDINGLY THE AO RESTRICTED THE BENEFIT OF EXEMPTION U/S 54 OF THE ACT TO RS.1 47 76 073/- (34% OF RS.4 34 59 040/-) AND ADDED BACK THE REMAINING AMOUNT OF RS.2 86 82 967/- TO THE RETURNED INCOME OF ASSESSEE. ITA NO.1112/CHD/2019 A.Y.2015-16 5 5. THE LD.CIT(A) ALLOWED THE ASSESSEES APPEAL HOLD ING AS UNDER: 7.3 THE SUBMISSIONS AND CASE LAWS RELIED UPON BY T HE ASSESSEE HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED. DURING THE RELEVANT YEAR ASSESSEE SOLD A RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY FOR A CONSIDER ATION OF RS. 4 35 00 0007- ON WHICH LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS (LTCG) WAS CALCULATED AT RS 4 34 59 0007-. THE ASSESSEE IN VESTED THE WHOLE SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS. 4 35 00 000/- I N PURCHASE OF ANOTHER RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY JOINTLY WI TH HER DAUGHTER AND HER SON IN LAW FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS. 5 35 50 000/-. THE BALANCE AMOUNT WAS CONTRIBUTED B Y HER SON IN LAW. THE PROPORTIONATE SHARE OF ASSESSEE HE R SON IN LAW & HER DAUGHTER IN THE PURCHASED PROPERTY WAS 34% 33% 33% RESPECTIVELY. THE AO WAS OF OPINION T HAT SINCE THE SHARE OF ASSESSEE IN NEW PROPERTY WAS 34% THEREFORE SHE WOULD BE ENTITLED FOR CLAIM OF EXEMPT ION U/S 54 OF THE ACT TO THE EXTENT OF 34% (RS. 1 47 76 073 7-) OF TOTAL LTCG INVESTED BY HER. DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDI NGS THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT SHE PURCHASED THE PROPERTY CONJOINTLY WITH HER DAUGHTER AND HER SON IN LAW TO AVOID ANY LITIGATION SUBSEQUENT TO HER DEATH. IN ORDER TO CORROBORATE HER CONTENTION THAT NOTHING CONTAINED I N SECTION 54 OF THE ACT PRECLUDES ASSESSEE FROM INVESTING CAP ITAL GAINS IN PROPERTY CONJOINTLY THE ASSESSEE PLACED R ELIANCE ON JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS OF VARIOUS HIGH COURTS WHER EIN THE RESPECTIVE COURTS HAVE INVARIABLY HELD THAT IT IS N OT MANDATORY THAT THE INVESTMENT SHOULD EXCLUSIVELY BE -MADE BY ASSESSEE IN HIS OWN NAME TO CLAIM DEDUCTION U/S 54 OF THE ACT. IT IS PERTINENT TO MENTION THAT SIMILAR ISSUE OF CLAIM OF EXEMPTION U/S 54B WAS BEFORE HON'BLE PUNJAB & HARYA NA HIGH COURT IN CASE OF DINESH VERMA VS. CIT IN ITA N O.381 OF 2014. IN THE SAID CASE THE ASSESSEE SOLD HIS AGRIC ULTURAL LAND FOR RS.60 LAKHS AND SUBSEQUENTLY PURCHASED ANOTHER AGRICULTURAL LAND FOR RS.61.60 LAKHS IN WHICH HE IN VESTED A SUM OF RS.44.76 LAKHS RECEIVED ON ACCOUNT OF SALE O F HIS AGRICULTURAL LAND. REMAINING CONSIDERATION OF RS.16 .84 LAKHS WAS PAID BY HIS WIFE. THE HIGH COURT IN THE SAID CA SE DEALT WITH TWO SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW VIZ. 1. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE HON'BLE ITAT WAS RIGHT IN LAW IN UPHOLDING THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) IN ALLOWING AND ITA NO.1112/CHD/2019 A.Y.2015-16 6 ENHANCING THE EXEMPTION U/S 54B TO THE EXTENT OF RS.60 LAKHS WHERE AS THE ASSESSEE'S OWN CLAIM OF HI S EXEMPTION WAS ONLY TO THE EXTENT OF RS.44.76 LAKHS AS IS EVIDENT FROM THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY HIM. 2. WHETHER THE RESPONDENT-ASSESSES WAS ENTITLED TO THE BENEFIT UNDER SECTION 54BOF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 IN RESPECT OF THE PROPERTY PURCHASED FROM THE SALE PROCEEDS IN THE NAME OF HIS WIFE?' THE ADJUDICATION OF THE COURT ON THE ABOVE ISSUES I S REPLICATED BELOW: AS WE MENTIONED EARLIER THE RESPONDENT SOLD HIS AGRICULTURAL LAND FOR A SUM OF RS. 60 LAKHS OUT OF THE SALE PROCEEDS HE INVESTED ONLY A SUM OF RS. 44.76 LAKHS TOWARDS THE PURCHASE OF ANOTHER AGRICULTURAL PLOT. THE BALANCE CONSIDERATION OF RS.16.84 LAKHS IN RESP ECT OF THAT PLOT WAS PAID BY THE RESPONDENT'S WIFE. IT IS NOT THE RESPONDENT'S CASE THAT IT IS ACTUALLY HE WHO PAID T HE AMOUNT OF RS. 16.84 LAKHS AND THAT HIS WIFE'S NAME WAS ADDED BENAMI AND THAT THE TITLE THEREOF EVEN TO THAT EXTENT VESTED IN HIMSELF. WE MUST THEREFORE PROCE ED ON THE BASIS THAT OUT OF THE SUM OF RS.60 LAKHS THE APPELLANT INVESTED ONLY RS. 44/76 LAKHS IN THE SECO ND PROPERTY. THE TRIBUNAL OBSERVED THAT IT IS SETTLED NOW THAT A N ASSESSEE CAN PURCHASE A NEW ASSET OR PART THEREOF I N THE NAME OF HIS WIFE AND THAT THERE WAS SUFFICIENT JUSTIFICATION FOR THE SAME ON CONSIDERATIONS SUCH AS STAMP DUTY REBATE SOCIAL CONSIDERATIONS SECURITY FOR LADIES. THE TRIBUNAL NOTED THAT AS LONG AS THE FUND S ARE INVESTED THE RESPONDENT'S EXEMPTION CANNOT BE DENIE D. IT IS DIFFICULT TO ACCEPT THIS VIEW. SECTION 54B REQUIRES THE ASSESSEE TO PURCHASE THE PROPERTY FROM OUT OF THE SALE CONSIDERATION OF THE CAPITAL ASSET. IT DOES NOT ENTITLE THE ASSESSEE TO THE BENEFIT CONFERRED T HEREIN IF THE SUBSEQUENT PROPERTY IS PURCHASED BY A PERSON OT HER THAN THE ASSESSEE INCLUDING A CLOSE RELATIVE EVEN S UCH AS HIS WIFE OR CHILDREN. IF THE LEGISLATURE INTENDED CONFERRING SUCH A BENEFIT IT WOULD HAVE PROVIDED F OR THE SAME EXPRESSLY. INDEED AN ASSESSEE CAN PURCHASE AN ASSET OR A PART THEREOF IN THE NAME OF HIS ITA NO.1112/CHD/2019 A.Y.2015-16 7 WIFE BUT HE WOULD NOT BE ENTITLED THEN TO THE BENEF IT OF SECTION 54B. MOREOVER IT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT HE PURCHASED THE ASSET BENAMI IN THE NAME OF HIS WIFE. WE HAVE PROCEEDED ON THE BASIS THAT HIS WIFE INVESTED THE AMOUNT OF RS.16 84 700/- HERSELF. THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL TO THIS EXTENT IS THEREF ORE OVERRULED. IT IS DECLARED THAT RESPONDENT SHALL BE ENTITLED TO THE BENEFIT OF SECTION 54B ON THE BASIS THAT HE INVESTED ONLY A SUM OF RS.44 76 000/- IN THE AGRICULTURAL PROPERTY PURCHASED BY HIM AFTER THE SA LE OF THE AGRICULTURAL PROPERTY EARLIER OWNED BY HIM. EVEN THE ADDITIONAL QUESTION NO. 7 RAISED BY US IN OUR O RDER DATED 02.03.2015 IS ANSWERED IN FAVOUR OF THE APPELLANT/DEPARTMENT. THOUGH THE CASE AT HAND PERTAINS TO THAT OF CLAIM O F EXEMPTION U/S 54 OF THE ACT ON LTCG BUT THE RATIO O F THE CASE MENTIONED SUPRA WOULD BE APPLICABLE IN THE INSTANT CASE ALSO. IN THE INSTANT CASE IT IS NOT DISPUTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT INVESTED THE LTCG IN PURCHASE OF RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY WITHIN STIPULATED TIME. THE AO HAD RESTRICTED THE CLAIM OF EXEMPTION U/S 54 MERELY ON THE BASIS THAT THE ASSESSEE'S SHARE IN THE NEW PROPERTY WAS 34% WITHOUT ACKNOWLEDGING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD INVESTED THE ENTIRE LTCG IN PURCHASE OF RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY. THE PLAIN READING OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 54 OF TH E ACT INDICATES THAT IN ORDER TO CLAIM THE BENEFIT OF EXEMPTION U/S 54 THE ASSESSEE SHOULD INVEST THE CAPITAL GAIN ARISING OUT OF SALE OF RESIDENTIAL PRO PERTY IN PURCHASE OF ANOTHER RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY WITHIN STIPULATED TIME. NOTHING CONTAINED IN THIS SECTION PRECLUDES THE ASSESSEE TO CLAIM THE EXEMPTION IN CASE THE PROPERTY IS PURCHASED JOINTLY WITH CLOSE FAMILY MEMBERS WHO ARE NOT STRANGERS OR UNCONNECTED TO HER PROVIDED THE ASSESSEE INVESTS TH E ENTIRE AMOUNT OF LTCG. THE ADDITION MADE BY AO IS DELETED. ANOTHER ISSUE ASSAILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN APPEAL IS THAT THE AO HAS ERRED IN RESTRICTING THE CLAIM OF EXEMPTION UP TO 34% OF CAPITAL GAIN AMOUNT [I.E. RS.4 34 59 040*34/100 = RS.1 47 76 073/-] WHEREAS AS PER PROVISIONS OF SECTION 54 OF INC OME ITA NO.1112/CHD/2019 A.Y.2015-16 8 TAX ACT 1961 THE AMOUNT OF ALLOWABLE CLAIM OF EXEMPTION U/S 54 SHOULD BE CALCULATED WITH REFERENC E TO AMOUNT OF INVESTMENT IN NEWLY ACQUIRED RESIDENTIAL HOUSE PROPERTY AND NOT THE AMOUNT OF CAPITAL GAIN ON SALE OF EXISTING HOUSE PROPERTY. SI NCE THE RELIEF HAS BEEN ACCORDED THIS GAIN ON SALE OF EXISTING HOUSE PROPERTY. SINCE THE RELIEF HAS BEEN ACCORDED THIS ISSUE IS RENDERED INFRUCTUOUS. IN VIEW OF ABOVE DIS CUSSION THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL NO. 2 TO 8 ARE ALLOWED. 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE CONTENTIONS MADE BY BOTH THE PARTIES BEFORE US. WE HAVE ALSO GONE THROUGH THE O RDER OF THE LD.CIT(A). THE ONLY CONTENTION OF THE REVENUE B EING THAT THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH CO URT IN THE CASE OF DINESH VERMA(SUPRA) HAS NOT BEEN FOLLOWED B Y THE LD.CIT(A) WE FIND THAT THE LD.CIT(A) HAD TAKEN NOTE OF THE SAID DECISION. HE HAD WE FIND TAKEN NOTE OF THE D ECISION AND APPLIED THE SAME TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT C ASE NOTING CATEGORICALLY THAT THOUGH THE SAID DECISION PERTAIN ED TO CLAIM OF EXEMPTION U/S 54B OF THE ACT YET THE RATI O WOULD BE APPLICABLE IN THE INSTANT CASE ALSO. THE LD.CIT( A) WE FIND HAD THEREAFTER PROCEEDED TO NOTE THE FACTS O F THE PRESENT CASE BEING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD INVESTED T HE ENTIRE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS IN THE PURCHASE OF RESIDENT IAL PROPERTY WITHIN THE STIPULATED TIME WHILE THE AO H AD RESTRICTED THE EXEMPTION TO 34% OF THE LONG TERM CA PITAL GAINS WITHOUT ACKNOWLEDGING THE FACT THAT THE ASSES SEE HAD INVESTED THE ENTIRE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS IN THE PURCHASE ITA NO.1112/CHD/2019 A.Y.2015-16 9 OF RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE D ECISION OF THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT REPRODUCE D IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND FIND THAT IT HAD ALLOWED EXEMP TION OF CAPITAL GAINS TO THE EXTENT OF THE SALE CONSIDERAT ION INVESTED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE NEW ASSET DENYING THE EXEMPTION TO THE EXTENT INVESTED BY HIS WIFE ON NO TING THE FACT THAT THE INVESTMENTS IN THE NEW PROPERTY HAD B EEN MADE BOTH BY THE ASSESSEE AND HIS WIFE. THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE WOULD BE ENTITLED TO THE BENEFIT OF EXEMPTION U/S 54B ONLY ON THE AMOUNT INV ESTED BY HIM AFTER THE SALE OF HIS ORIGINAL PROPERTY. DRA WING PARITY FROM THE SAME THE LD.CIT(A) WE FIND HAS IN THE P RESENT CASE NOTED THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS INVESTED HER ENTIRE SALE CONSIDERATION IN THE NEW PROPERTY AND THEREFORE IS ENTITLED TO EXEMPTION OF THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF LO NG TERM CAPITAL GAINS. WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE SAME. MOREOVER THE LD. DR HAS NEITHER BEEN UNABLE TO CON TROVERT THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE AS NOTED BY THE LD.CI T(A) NOR HAS POINTED OUT HOW THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT WAS APPLICABLE AGAINST TH E ASSESSEE IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. ITA NO.1112/CHD/2019 A.Y.2015-16 10 7. IN VIEW OF THE SAME WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON T O INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A). ALL THE GR OUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE REVENUE ARE ACCORDINGLY DISMI SSED. 8. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISM ISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 31.03.2021. SD/- SD/- (R.L. NEGI) (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) /JUDICIAL MEMBER /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 31 ST MARCH 2021 * * # $%&'()* '! / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. )(+ / THE APPELLANT 2. % + / THE RESPONDENT 3. ## - / CIT 4. ## - ( )( )/ THE CIT(A) 5. './%0 #)(#0' 123/4 / DR ITAT CHANDIGARH 6. /35 / GUARD FILE # $ / BY ORDER ( / ASSISTANT REGISTRAR