Ashwani Kumar Ahuja,, Ludhiana v. ACIT,, Ludhiana

ITA 223/CHANDI/2010 | 2004-2005
Pronouncement Date: 19-09-2011 | Result: Partly Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 22321514 RSA 2010
Assessee PAN ABBPA4904F
Bench Chandigarh
Appeal Number ITA 223/CHANDI/2010
Duration Of Justice 1 year(s) 6 month(s) 23 day(s)
Appellant Ashwani Kumar Ahuja,, Ludhiana
Respondent ACIT,, Ludhiana
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 19-09-2011
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Partly Allowed
Bench Allotted B
Tribunal Order Date 19-09-2011
Date Of Final Hearing 05-09-2011
Next Hearing Date 05-09-2011
Assessment Year 2004-2005
Appeal Filed On 26-02-2010
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL: CHANDIGARH BENCH A BEFORE MS SUSHMA CHOWLA JM AND SHRI MEHAR SINGH AM ITA NO. 223/CHANDIGARH/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 ASHWANI KUMAR AHUJA V. A.C.I.T. C-III LUDHIANA SHOP NO. 9 CHOWK MATA RANI LUDHIANA PAN: ABBPA 4904 F (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI D.K. GOYAL RESPONDENT BY: SHRI AJAY SHARMA DATE OF HEARING: 5.9.2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: .9.2011 ORDER PER MEHAR SINGH AM THE PRESENT APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSES SMENT YEAR 2004 05 IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A )-I LUDHIANA DATED 23.12.2009 U/S 250 (6) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT (IN SH ORT THE ACT). 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL:- 1 BECAUSE THE ACTION IS UNDER CHALLENGE ON FACTS A ND LAW BY UPHOLDING THE CONCLUSION OF THE ASSESSMENT AT AN AM OUNT OF RS. 28 02 019/-. 2. BECAUSE THE ACTION IS UNDER CHALLENGE ON FACTS AND LAWL BY UPHOLDING THE ADDITION OF RS. 15 52 954/- ON ACCOUN T OF THE MULTIPLICATION OF THE RECEIPTS BEING THE SALES AND THEREAFTER ON PRESUMPTION ESTIMATING THE PROFITABILITY RATE OF 4% IN PLACE OF DECLARED RATE OF 2% BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF S ECTION 145 OF THE ACT AND OVERLOOKING THE PLEADING QUA THE COMPARABLE CASE AND LIKE TREATMENT IN THE ASSESSEES KIND OF BUSINESS. EVEN THE QUANTUM OF ADDITION AND THE APPLICATION OF RATE IS DISPUTED. ITA NO. 223/CHANDI/2010 ASHWANI KUMAR AHUJA V. ACIT 2 3 BECAUSE THE ACTION IS UNDER CHALLENGE ON FACTS A ND LAW WHERE BY THERE IS A PATENT MISTAKE OF RS. 4 91 278/- IN T HE CALCULATION OF THE AMOUNT OF THE CHARGEABLE PROFIT AND THE WRITTEN PLEADINGS DATED 9.11.2009 HAVE BEEN OVER LOOKED THUS A PERVERSITY I N ITSELF. 4 BECAUSE THE ACTION IS UNDER CHALLENGE ON FACTS A ND LAW BY HAVING DECLINED THE BENEFIT OF SET OFF OF THE SURRE NDERED AMOUNT OF RS. 10.00 LACS WHILE ARRIVING AT THE CHARGEABLE INC OME FORMING PART OF THE INTANGIBLE ADDITIONS DECLARED IN THE RETUR N AND BEING IN ACCORDANCE WITH DECISION OF CIT V. RAM SANEHI GIAN CHAND (1972) 86 ITR 724 (P &H). 5 BECAUSE THE ACTION IS UNDER CHALLENGE ON FACTS A ND LAW BY HAVING COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT IN AN ARBITRARY MAN NER BEHIND THE BACK MORE SO WITHOUT PROVIDING THE COPY OF THE RECO RDS THUS DEFEATING THE CAUSE OF NATURAL JUSTICE. 3. THE BRIEF AND UNDISPUTED FACTS OF THE CASE ARE T HAT A SURVEY/INSPECTION WAS CONDUCTED BY THE EXCISE AND T AXATION DEPARTMENT LUDHIANA ON 27.11.2007 AT THE ASSESSEES PREMISES. IT WAS DISCOVERED THAT THE APPELLANT WAS INDULGING IN EVASION OF TAXES. I NFORMATION U/S 133(6) OF THE ACT WAS CALLED FOR FROM THE SALES TAX DEPARTMEN T. THE AO ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE ALL THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT INCLUD ING THE BILLS ETC. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. HOWEVER THE COMPLETE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND SALES BILLS WERE NOT PRODUCED THEREFORE IN ABSENC E OF THE SAME THE AO HAS REJECTED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE U /S 145(3) OF THE ACT. THEN THE AO HAS PROCEEDED TO ESTIMATE THE TURNOVER OF THE APPELLANT ON THE BASIS OF SALES OF DECEMBER 2003 AND JANUARY 200 4 FOR WHICH COMPLETE BILLS WERE AVAILABLE. ALSO THE AO HAS TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION THE SALES TAX ASSESSMENT DONE IN THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT FO R THE THREE QUARTERS OF THE YEAR FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2003-04. THE AO ES TIMATED THE TURNOVER OF THE ASSESSEE AT RS. 7 81 46 709/- AND BY APPLYING N P RATE OF 4% WORKED OUT THE NET PROFIT OF RS. 28 12 019/-. 4. THE AO REJECTED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSE SSEE U/S 145(3) OF THE ACT AND ESTIMATED THE SALES OF THE YEAR AT RS. 7 81 46 709/-. THE AO APPLIED GP RATE OF 4% AND THE NET PROFIT OF THE ASS ESSEE WAS WORKED OUT AT RS. 28 12 019/-. THE LD. CIT(A) ON APPRECIATION OF THE SUBMISSIONS ITA NO. 223/CHANDI/2010 ASHWANI KUMAR AHUJA V. ACIT 3 FILED BY THE ASSESSEE UPHELD THE FINDINGS OF THE A O. THE RELEVANT AND OPERATIVE PART OF THE DECISION OF LD. CIT(A) AS CON TENDED IN PARA 3.3 IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER:- I HAVE ANALYSED THE MATTER AND I FIND THAT THE BOO KS OF ACCOUNT AND BILLS WERE NOT PRODUCED BY THE APPELLANT BEFORE THE AO INSPITE OF HAVING BEEN AFFORDED MANY OPPORTUNITIES. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES THE AO HAD NO OPTION BUT TO GO FOR ESTIMATION OF SA LES ON THE BASIS OF MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE ESTIMATION DO NE BY THE AO WITH REGARD TO THE SALES IS REASONABLE ON THE BASIS OF MATERIAL AVAILABLE WITH HER. WITH REGARD TO THE NET PROFIT RATIO ADOPTED BY THE AO AT 4% WHICH ASPECT HAS BEEN DISCUSSED BY THE AO IN THE ORDER SEEMS TO BE REASONABLE ON THE GIVEN FACTS OF THE CASE. THE LD AR HAS FAILED TO CONTRADICT THE FACTUAL FINDINGS AS GIVEN BY THE AO IN DETAIL IN ASSESSMENT ORDER. THEREFORE I AM OF THE OPINION THAT NO INTERVENTION IS CALLED FOR IN THE FINDINGS OF THE AO AND DETERMINATION OF TAXABLE INCOME BASED ON THE SAME. THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO IS UPHELD. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) TH E ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 5 THE LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE IN THE COURSE APPEL LATE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE US CONTENDED THAT THE FIRST GROUND OF APPEA L IS PURELY GENERAL IN NATURE AND DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY ADJUDICATION. CONS EQUENTLY HAVING REGARD TO THE NATURE OF SUCH GROUND OF APPEAL NO S EPARATE ADJUDICATION OF THE SAME IS CONSIDERED ESSENTIAL. 6 IN GROUND NO. 2 THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ACTI ON OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN UPHOLDING THE ADDITION OF RS. 15 52 954/- AS ALSO ESTIMATING THE GP AT 4% IN PLACE OF DECLARED RATE OF GP AT 2% BY I NVOKING PROVISIONS OF SECTION 145(3) OF THE ACT. 7 BEFORE US THE LD AR FOR THE ASSESSEE REFERRED TO PARA 3.3 OF THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A). HE REFERRED TO PAGE 37 OF THE PAPER BOOK WHICH IS ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY T HE ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 EVIDENCING INCLUSION OF RS. 10.00 LACS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE INCOME-TAX AUTHORITIES. HO WEVER THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO FILE THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME FOR THE SA ID ASSESSMENT YEAR. ITA NO. 223/CHANDI/2010 ASHWANI KUMAR AHUJA V. ACIT 4 THE LD AR FOR THE ASSESSEE REFERRED TO PAGE 2 OF THE CIT(A) APPEAL ORDER WHERE THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE HIM ARE LISTED. HE DREW OUT ATTENTION TO PAGE 21 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHERE THE AO HAS DISCUSSED THE ISSUE OF GP RATE AND RE-ESTIMATION OF INCOME. THE LD AR FOR THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT THE ACTION OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS NOT TENABLE. HENCE THE SAME MAY BE REVERSED. THE LD AR FOR THE ASSESSEE ALSO REFERRED TO PAGE 29 OF THE PAPER BOOK EVIDENCING INCLUSION OF RS. 10 .00 LACS ON ACCOUNT OF SUPPRESSION OF SALES INVESTMENT MADE AND OTHER LEA KAGES. 8 THE DR ON THE OTHER HAND GAVE FACTUAL HISTORY OF THE CASE AND REFERRED TO THE NON-RECORDING OF THE SALES BY THE A SSESSEE. THE DR PLACED RELIANCE ON THE ORDER OF AO AS ALSO THE ORDE R OF LD. CIT(A). THE DR CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO FILE A C OMPLETE SET OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND JUSTIFY THE REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOU NT AND ESTIMATION OF INCOME BY THE AO. 9 WE HAVE CAREFULLY PERUSED THE FACTS OF THE CASE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND THE PAPER BOOK FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE AO R EJECTED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE BEING NOT COMPLETE AND RELI ABLE AS THE CASH SALES DO NOT TALLY WITH THE SALES BILLS AND LEDGERS PRODU CED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUESTED BY THE AO IN THE COURSE OF A PPELLATE PROCEEDINGS TO PRODUCE COMPLETE SET OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT ALONG W ITH RELEVANT BILLS AND VOUCHERS. HOWEVER THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO MAKE THI S REQUIREMENT OF THE AO. THE AO HELD THAT THE FIGURES IN CASH BOOKS CA NNOT BE SUBSTANTIATED BY THE SALE BILLS PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE. THIS F ACTUM OF THE CASE HAS BEEN AS PER DETAILS FURNISHED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORD ER AT PAGE 19 WHICH IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER:- AS PER SALES BILLS PRODUCED BEFORE THE ACIT III AS PER THE LEDGER DECEMBER 2003 RS. 6206805/- RS. 5346058/- JANUARY 2004 RS. 6105655/- RS. 3852320/- ACCORDINGLY THE AO REJECTED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT U/ S 145(3) OF THE ACT. THE AO ESTIMATED THE GP RATE AS WELL AS THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AT PAGE 21 WHICH IS REPRODUCED HER EUNDER:- ITA NO. 223/CHANDI/2010 ASHWANI KUMAR AHUJA V. ACIT 5 GP RATE OF THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF THE PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSEE VIDE SUBMISSIONS DATED 18.8.2006 STATED THAT HE WAS DOING BUSINESS OF RESALE OF MOBILE PHONES ON WHOLESALE BASIS @ PROFIT OF 2% ON SALE BASIS. IN ORDER TO SUBSTANTIATE THIS CLAIM THE ASSESSEES BOO KS OF ACCOUNT WERE CALLED FOR VIDE ORDER SHEET ENTRY 23.8.2006. HOWEVER FULL BOOKS WERE NOT PRODUCED. ON THE BASIS OF THE MATERIAL IMPOUNDED THE ASSESSEES GP RATE WAS ESTIMATED TO BE 4%. THE ASSESSEE VIDE NOTICE DATED 22.12.2006 WAS ASKED TO SHOW CAUSE FOR THE FOLLOWING:- YOU HAVE STATED THAT YOUR GP RATE IS 2% IN YOUR SU BMISSIONS DATED 18.8.2006. YOU ARE REQUIRED TO SHOW CAUSE AS TO HO W THIS GP RATE HAS BEEN CALCULATED AND WHY THE GP RATE SHOULD NOT BE CALCULATED AT THE RATE OF 4% AS PER THE SALES AND PURCHASE BILLS PRODUCED BEFORE THE ACIT CIRCLE III BY YOURSELF. YOUR REPLY MUST BE FURNISHED TO THIS OFFICE ON 27.1 2.2006 FAILING WHICH IT WILL BE PRESUMED YOU HAVE NOTHING MORE TO SAY ON THIS MATTER. THE ASSESSEE IN REPLY TO THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE STAT ED THAT THE BASIS OF ADOPTION OF 4% SHOULD BE DISCLOSED TO THE ASSESS EE. IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE ON 28.12.2006 THE ASSESSEE WAS ALLOWED TO JUSTIFY HIS CONTENTION THAT 2% GP EXISTED FOR HIS BUSINESS. VIDE ORDER SHEET ENTRY DATED 28. 12.2006 THE BROTHER OF THE ASSESSEE SHRI DEEPAK BHUTANI APPEAR ED TO PERUSE THE SALES BILLS. A LETTER DATED 28.12.2006 WAS SUBMITT ED TO THE DEPARTMENT SHOWING THAT THE GROSS PROFIT RATE WAS L ESS THAN 2%. THE CASE WAS FIXED NEXT FOR HEARING ON THE 29.12.20 06. HOWEVER NO ONE APPEARED. THE GP RATE HAS BECOME DIFFICULT TO ASCERTAIN AS TH E BOOKS OF ACCOUNT ARE INCOMPLETE. AN EXERCISE CARRIED OUT BY THE OFFICE OF THE AC-III LUDHIANA ACTUALLY FOUND THE GP RATE TO VARY BETWEEN 2% TO 10% DEPENDING ON THE MOBILE MODEL. IN SOME CASES T HEY ARE ABOVE 20%. BASED ON SALES AND PURCHASES OF MOBILE PHONES THE GP RATE ITA NO. 223/CHANDI/2010 ASHWANI KUMAR AHUJA V. ACIT 6 HAS BEEN ESTIMATED AT 4%. AS NO ONE APPEARED FOR H EARING ON 29.12.2006 FOR DISCUSSION ON GP RATE THE GP RATE OF 4% AS ESTIMATED BY THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT STANDS. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT AVAIL OF THE OPPORTUNITY TO HEAR THE SIDE OF TH E DEPARTMENT. JUST TO ADD HERE THAT THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS THAT THER E WAS TOO SHORT A TIME PERIOD TO REPLY TO THE SHOW CAUSE. THE ASSESS EE WAS GIVEN 3 MONTHS TO PRODUCE FULL BOOKS OF ACCOUNT BUT DESPITE THAT TIME PERIOD FULL BOOKS WERE NOT PRODUCED. THIS CLEARLY SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS DELAYING. FURTHER THE ASSESSEE KNEW T HAT IT WOULD TAKE TIME FOR THE DEPARTMENT TO STUDY ALL THE MATERIAL. FURTHERMORE THE ASSESSEE SHOULD ALREADY HAVE HAD ALL THE EVIDENCE I N PLACE TO DEFEND. A) THE GP RATE TAKEN B) SALES FIGURES REPORTED IN RETURN OF INCOME AS HE HA S FILED HIS RETURN FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05. SINC E THE ASSESSEE EVIDENTLY DOES NOT AND SINCE WE HAVE ALREADY REJECTED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT THE INCOME T AX DEPARTMENT HAS REESTIMATED THE INCOME. OPPORTUNITY WAS GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE BASIS FOR HIS SALES FIGURES AND GP RATE. REESTIMATION OF INCOME INCOME HAS BEEN REESTIMATED USING THE SALES BILLS P RODUCED AND SALES FIGURES REPORTED IN THE LEDGER ACCOUNT. AS T HERE HAS CLEARLY BEEN UNDERREPORTING OF SALES THE SALES FIGURES FOR 4 MONTHS APRIL 2003 MAY 2003 JUNE 2003 AND NOVEMBER 2003 WHICH R EPORT THE HIGHEST FIGURES FOR THE YEAR ARE TAKEN FOR ESTIMATI ON OF INCOME FOR THE YEAR. FURTHERMORE ON THE BASIS OF SALES BILLS PRODUCED ONLY TWO MONTHS I.E. DECEMBER 2003 AND JANUARY 2004 ARE COMPLETE. THEIR FIGURES ARE BEING USED TO ESTIMATE TOTAL SALE S FOR THE YEAR. AS PER THE ESTIMATION SALES FIGURES FOR THESE SIX MON THS WORKS OUT TO RS. 39146706/- WHICH ON AVERAGE WORKS OUT TO RS. 65 24451/- PER MONTH. ADOPTING A CONSERVATIVE FIGURES OF RS. 65 0 0 000/- THE TOTAL SALES FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2003-04 WORKS OUT TO R S. 78146709/-. ITA NO. 223/CHANDI/2010 ASHWANI KUMAR AHUJA V. ACIT 7 ON THE BASIS OF THE ABOVE AND GP RATE OF 4% THUS T HE ASSESSEES TRADING AND PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT WILL REFLECT CH ANGES AS FOLLOWS: ------------------------THE ASSESSEES NET PROFIT W ILL BE RS. 2812019/-. I AM SATISFIED THAT PENALTY PROCEEDINGS SHOULD BE I NITIATED FOR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. PENAL TY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT IS BEING INITIATED SEPARATELY FOR FURNIS HING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. 10 ON CAREFULLY PERUSAL THE FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE C ASE AS RECORDED BY THE AO IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER CLEARLY REVEALS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SUPPRESSED THE SALES BY NON-RECORDING TRUE SALES IN HIS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THEREFORE REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT BY THE AO CANNOT BE ASSAILED. THE ESTIMATION OF SALES ON THE BASIS OF EVIDENCE DE MONSTRATING SALES EFFECTED BY THE ASSESSEE OUTSIDE ACCOUNTS MADE BY T HE AO HAS BEEN HELD AS FAIR AND REASONABLE BY THE LD. CIT(A). IT IS A LEGAL PROPOSITION THAT THE AO IS COMPETENT TO MAKE FAIR AND REASONABLE ESTIMAT ION BASED ON THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AND IN A SITUATION WHERE THE SA LES HAS BEEN EFFECTED BY THE ASSESSEE OUTSIDE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THE ASSE SSEE HAS SHOWN GP RATE AT 2% AND THE AO HAS ADOPTED GP RATE AT 4% BY RECOR DING FINDINGS WITH AN EXERCISE CARRIED OUT BY THE AO TO REVEAL THAT TH E GP RATE VARIED FROM 2% TO 10% DEPENDING ON THE MOBILE MODEL. IT WAS FU RTHER OBSERVED THAT IN SOME CASES GP RATE IS ABOVE 20%. THEREFORE BAS ED ON SALES AND PURCHASES OF MOBILE PHONES THE AO ESTIMATED GP RAT E AT 4%. IT IS PERTINENT TO HIGHLIGHT HERE THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILE D TO ADDUCE A COGENT AND CREDIBLE EVIDENCE TO REBUT THE FINDINGS OF THE AO B EFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND EVEN BEFORE THE BENCH. HAVING REGARD TO THE AB OVE LEGAL AND FACTUAL DISCUSSION AS ALSO FINDINGS OF LD. CIT(A) WE DO NO T FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE FINDINGS OF LD. CIT(A). CONSEQUENTLY THE SAM E ARE UPHELD. 11 IN GROUND NO. 3 THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THAT TH ERE IS PATENT MISTAKE OF RS. 491278/- IN THE CALCULATION OF AMOUNT OF PRO FIT. SUCH ERROR HAS BEEN POINTED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A) AND THE SAME IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER:- THAT THE LD. ACIT HAS WRONGLY TAKEN FIGURE OF GROS S PROFIT EXCESS BY RS. 491278/- DUE TO MISTAKE IN CALCULATION:- ITA NO. 223/CHANDI/2010 ASHWANI KUMAR AHUJA V. ACIT 8 TOTAL SALES TAKEN FOR ASSESSMENT RS. 78146709/- GROSS PROFIT COMES TO RS. 3135868/- GROSS PROFIT TAKEN FOR ASSESSMENT RS. 3617146/- GROSS PROFIT EXCESS TAKEN RS. 491278/- 12 IN VIEW OF THE MISTAKE POINTED OUT BY THE ASSESS EE IT WOULD BE PRUDENT TO RESTORE THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR CORRECTION OF THE SAID MISTAKE AFTER NECESSARY VERIFICATION OF THE RELEVAN T RECORD. REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING SHALL BE GIVEN TO THE ASSESS EE. THIS GROUND OF ASSESSEES APPEAL IS TREATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATIST ICAL PURPOSES. 13 14 15 IN THE RESULT APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ORDER PRONOUNCED ON .9.2011 (SUSHMA CHOWLA) (MEHAR SINGH) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNANT MEMBER CHANDIGARH THE .9.2011 SURESH COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR ITA NO. 223/CHANDI/2010 ASHWANI KUMAR AHUJA V. ACIT 9