MOONLIGHT PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED,MOHALI vs. ACIT, CC-II, CHANDIGARH

आदेश/ORDER

PER A.D.JAIN, VICE PRESIDENT

This is assessee's appeal for assessment year 2014-15,

challenging the order dated 28.03.2023 passed by the ld.

CIT(A), confirming disallowance of interest of Rs.75,75,208/-

u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 made by the

Assessing Officer.

Singh, Director, amounting to Rs.7,80,19,515/-. The AO

ITA 216/CHD/2023 A.Y. 2014-15 2 made disallowance of interest @ 12% of average advance

outstanding, of Rs.6,31,26,735/-, amounting to

Rs.75,75,208/-. The assessee held that there was no nexus

between the advances given and the business of the

assessee. It was held that the assessee did not have

sufficient liquid funds to make advances to the Director;

that this was evident from the fact that the assessee had

raised further loans of Rs.3,75,40,720/- during the year;

that had there been liquid assets with the assessee, need for

taking further loan would not have arisen.

confirmed the disallowance, bringing the assessee in further

appeal before us.

had with it share capital of Rs.5,82,57,000/- and

Rs.35,52,38,985/- by way of reserves and surplus, whereas

the advance amount was of Rs.7,80,19,515/-. The AO,

however, did not take into consideration this assertion of the

assessee. The assessee stated that the advance had been

given for business purposes, out of commercial expediency.

The AO, however, held that the assessee could not prove any

ITA 216/CHD/2023 A.Y. 2014-15 3 nexus between the advance given to the Director and the

business of the assessee. The AO also held that no interest

free funds were available with the assessee while making the

advance, and that on the contrary, interest bearing funds

had been borrowed during the year.

interest free advance to Shri Harpal Singh, Director,

amounting to Rs.7,80,19,515/- as on 31.03.2014, with

opening balance of Rs.4,82,33,955/-; that the assessee had

not explained the business purpose for which the

advance/loan had been given to its Director; that the

assessee had only stated that the loan/advance had been

given to ensure that its business activities were carried out

smoothly; that however, it had not been explained as to how

advancing of the loan would result in carrying out its

business activities smoothly; that the assessee had not

discharged its onus by explaining that the loan had been

given out of business expediency and for business purposes;

that as per the assessee's balance sheet for the year, the

interest free funds had remained more or less static, from

opening balances; that further, the assessee had taken huge

secured loans from banks, on which, interest of

ITA 216/CHD/2023 A.Y. 2014-15 4 Rs.5,00,97,515/- had been debited from the Profit & Loss

Account; that the assessee had not furnished copy of the

bank statement to show availability of funds in the bank

account at the time when the loans were advanced; that so,

it was not possible to ascertain whether the amounts were

advanced out of debit balance or credit balance in the

assessee's bank account; that in the absence of the bank

statement, the assessee's onus for claiming expenditure u/s

36(1)(iii) of the Act, to prove that the borrowed interest

bearing funds had been utilized for business purposes, had

not been discharged; that so, the assessee had not been able

to justify its claim of interest paid, as made in the Profit &

Loss Account; that the assessee had already applied all the

interest free funds available with it in different assets, and

so, no interest free funds were available with it as on the

date of advancing the loans to Shri Harpal Singh, Director;

and that the AO was, therefore, justified in making a

disallowance of interest amounting to Rs.75,75,208/-.

additional evidence, copies of statement of bank account of

the assessee, Annual Tax Statements of the assessee u/s

203AA of the Income Tax Act, in Form 26AS for Financial

ITA 216/CHD/2023 A.Y. 2014-15 5 Year 2013-14, relevant to assessment year 2014-15, i.e., the

year under consideration, ledger of Shri Harpal Singh,

Director in the books of the assessee, Shri Harpal Singh’s

capital account in the books of M/s Synergy Thrislington, in

which, Shri Harpal Singh was a partner, Partnership Deed of

M/s Synergy Thrislington, PAN card of M/s Synergy

Thrislington, and the assessee's balance sheet for Financial

Year 2013-14, relevant to assessment year 2014-15. The

assessee has contended that it was due to multiplicity of

pending tax proceedings that these documents inadvertently

could not be placed before the taxing authorities. It has

been contended that from the Form 26AS (APB II, page 139)

for Financial Year 2013-14, it is evident that the assessee

had received an Income Tax refund of Rs.2,97,85,560/- for

assessment year 2012-13, on 21.12.2013, constituting an

interest free receipt. It has been contended that from the

bank statement of State Bank of India Account

No.30177990423 (APB, page 88), it is available that after

receipt of the aforesaid interest free funds, by way of Income

Tax Refund, of Rs. 2,97,85,560/-, this amount was

immediately transferred to M/s Synergy Thrislington, where

Shri Harpal Singh, Director of the assessee company is a

ITA 216/CHD/2023 A.Y. 2014-15 6 partner. It has been contended that the Partnership Deed

(APB II, page 144) and PAN Card (APB II, page 148) of M/s

Synergy Thrislington are clear in this regard. It has been

contended that the aforesaid transfer of funds occurred in

five installments, each amounting to Rs.50 lacs, and one

instalment of Rs.47,85,560/-, on the same day, as on which

the aforesaid income tax refund of Rs.2,97,85,560/- was

received in the bank account of the assessee. It has been

contended that the assessee's State Bank of India bank

account No. 30177990423 is devoid of drawing power and

maintains a credit balance; and that the interest rate

charged is also ‘zero’. It has further been contended that a

perusal of ledger of “Harpal Singh Capital Account” in the

books of the firm (APB II, page 143) would show that the

interest free funds are being credited in the capital account,

comprising of five installments, as stated earlier, each

amounting to Rs.50 lacs and one instalment of

Rs.47,85,560/-; that from this, it is evident that the

partner’s capital account reflects debits and credits from a

State Bank of India bank account. It has been stated that

since the company and the firm have a common management

and share holding, the firm is considered as a sister concern

ITA 216/CHD/2023 A.Y. 2014-15 7 of the assessee company. It has been stated that the

interest free funds of Rs.2,97,85,560/- were diverted to the

sister concern and the balance of Shri Harpal Singh was

debited by the amount of Rs.2,97,85,560/-, making the total

debit balance in the books of the assessee to be

Rs.7,80,19,515/-.

6.1 It has been contended that the ledger of Shri Harpal

Singh in the books of the assessee makes it evident that

payment was made to the firm on behalf of Shri Harpal

Singh. It has been averred that the taxing authorities have,

thus, erred in treating the transfer of funds to be from

interest bearing funds. It has been contended that a

thorough examination of the ledger within the firm’s books,

under the name of Shri Harpal Singh Capital Account would

establish that the funds, housed within the capital account,

are explicitly earmarked and were utilized for the fulfillment

of the firm’s business requirements, disproving the finding

that the funds were not transferred for business purposes.

It has been contended that the capital account of a partner

in a firm represents the partner’s investment or contribution

to the business; that when a partner introduces capital into

the firm, it is recorded in the capital account to reflect the

ITA 216/CHD/2023 A.Y. 2014-15 8 investment in the business; that this capital is typically

used for the operations and growth of the firm; that

therefore, the authorities below went wrong in disallowing

the interest u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act. It has been

contended that the assessee adhered strictly to the

provisions of Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act and it was justified

in claiming the interest expenditure of Rs.5,00,97,515/- for

the year under consideration. It has been contended that

from the balance sheet (APB II, page 171) of the assessee, it

is patent that the assessee had total interest free funds

available amounting to Rs.41,37,65,985/- at the relevant

time, comprising of share capital of Rs.5,82,57,000/-,

reserves and surplus of Rs.35,52,38,985/- and unsecured

loans of Rs.2,70,000/-. It has been stated that the total

transfer made to the firm during the year under

consideration amounted to Rs.2,97,85,560/-; that the total

debit balance as per the ledger of Shri Harpal Singh in the

books of the assessee was of Rs.7,80,19,515/- as on

31.03.2014 and of Rs.4,82,33,955/- as on 01.04.2013; that

the AO computed the advances made over to Shri Harpal

Singh by an average of the opening balance and the closing

balance, amounting to Rs.6,31,26,735/-; that these funds

ITA 216/CHD/2023 A.Y. 2014-15 9 were transferred by the assessee out of the interest free

funds available with it, amounting to Rs.41,37,65,985/-, as

stated earlier. It has been contended that as such, the ld.

CIT(A) has gone wrong in sustaining the action of the AO in

including the opening balance for computing the total funds

transferred to Shri Harpal Singh.

6.2 Reliance has been sought to be placed on the decision

of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of “S.A. Builders

Ltd. Vs CIT(Appeals), Chandigarh”, [2007] 158 taxman 74

(S.C), in which, it was held that extending loan to subsidiary

company from Cash Credit Account having huge debit

balance would fall under the expression ‘used for the

purpose of business’. It has been contended that in the

assessee's case, the funds were transferred out of the bank

account having credit balance, without any drawing power

and interest liability thereon.

6.3 It has been stated that while following “S.A. Builders”

(supra), the Hon'ble Bombay High Court, in “Vaman

Prestressing Co. (P) Ltd. Vs Addl. Commissioner of Income

Tax” [2023] 154 taxmann.com 325 (Bom), it was held that

the reasons to believe escapement of income recorded in that

ITA 216/CHD/2023 A.Y. 2014-15 10 case were purely on the basis that the petitioner had

advanced borrowed capital to its sister concern and

associate concern without charging any interest and,

therefore, the interest claimed on borrowed capital was not

allowable u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Act; that in “S.A.Builders”

(supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court was considering an

almost identical situation, wherein, the assessee had

transferred a huge amount of Rs.82 lacs to its subsidiary

company out of the Cash Credit Account of the assessee, in

which, there was a huge debit balance; that the AO had held

that since the assessee had diverted its borrowed funds to

its sister concern without charging any interest,

proportionate interest relating to the said amount out of the

total interest paid to the bank deserved to be disallowed;

that the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that extending such a

loan would fall under the expression “used for purpose of

business”; that it was held that if the amount has been

advanced as a measure of commercial expediency, the

interest on the funds borrowed by the assessee should be

allowed as a deduction u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Act; that it was

held that the petitioner had been granting loans and

advances to its sister and associate concerns from

ITA 216/CHD/2023 A.Y. 2014-15 11 assessment year 2003-04; that it was held that even in

assessment years 2004-05 to 2008-09, the Revenue had not

made any disallowance of interest expenditure in those

years, thereby accepting that the deployment of funds was

for business purpose; that it was held that the disallowance

made for assessment year 2003-04 had been set aside in

appeal by the ld. CIT(A)as well as the ITAT; that it was held

that moreover, there can be no other reason but commercial

expediency for the petitioner to give loans and advances and

capital to ICON; that it was held that the Revenue cannot

justifiably claim to put itself in the armchair of the

businessman, or in the position of the Board of Directors

and assume the role to decide as to how a prudent

businessman should act; and that it was held that the

authorities must not look at the matter from their own point

of view, but that of a prudent businessman.

6.4 It has been contended that in “Kissan Fats Ltd. Vs Dy.

CIT, Central Circle-I, Ludhiana”, [2017] 77 taxmann.com 82

(CHD-Trib), the Tribunal held that if there are sufficient

interest free funds available to the assessee to meet its

investment and, at the same time, the assessee has raised a

loan, it can be presumed that the investments were from the

ITA 216/CHD/2023 A.Y. 2014-15 12 interest free funds available to the assessee; that the Bench

held that where apart from interest bearing borrowed funds,

sufficient interest free own funds were available with the

assessee, a presumption would arise that non business

investments were made out of the same and no interest

expenditure could be presumed to have been incurred by the

assessee for making such investments and that thus, the

disallowance of interest made u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Act was

uncalled for and unjustified; that while holding so, the

Tribunal placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble

Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of “Bright

Enterprises (P) Ltd.”, wherein it was categorically held that

where the funds/reserves were sufficient to cover interest

free advances, the presumption that would arise was that

the investments were made out of interest free funds

generated or available with the company and that their

Lordships were entirely in agreement with the judgement of

the Bombay High Court in “CIT Vs Reliance Utilities and

Power Ltd.”, [2009] 313 ITR 340 (Bom), holding that if there

are interest free funds available, a presumption would arise

that investment would be out of the interest free funds

ITA 216/CHD/2023 A.Y. 2014-15 13 generated or available with the company, if the interest free

funds were sufficient to meet the investment.

Vs Max India Ltd.” [2017] 80 taxmann.com 98 (P&H), it was

found after going through the Cash Flow Statement, that the

company had received interest free share capital from the

issue of shares; that it was held that where the assessee

gave interest free loans to its subsidiaries out of surplus

funds, the disallowance made by the AO u/s 36(1)(iii) of the

Act was to be deleted; that it was held that admittedly, the

assessee company had given interest free loans and

advances amounting to Rs.2297.83 lacs upto the end of the

relevant year, including Rs.704 lacs during the relevant year

to its three subsidiary companies, that the AO did not make

any disallowance in respect of expenditure incurred on

borrowed funds u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Act in relation to interest

free loans and advances given to the said three subsidiary

companies in the earlier years; that after perusing the Cash

Flow Statement of the assessee company for the assessment

year in question, the Tribunal observed that the assessee

company had received substantial proceeds from preferential

issue of share capital, amounting to Rs.99999.98 lacs, that

ITA 216/CHD/2023 A.Y. 2014-15 14 it had also received dividend income of Rs.166.13 Cr from

various investments, that after giving interest free loans of

Rs.7.04 Cr to its subsidiary companies, the assessee was left

with surplus interest free funds of Rs.53.86 Cr, which were

utilized for giving interest free advances and that thus, there

was no nexus of the interest expenditure incurred during the

year with the said loans/advances given to the subsidiary

companies, warranting disallowance u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Act.

holding against the assessee by observing that since all the

interest free funds available with the assessee stood already

applied in different assets, they were not available with the

assessee as on the date when the advance was given to Shri

Harpal Singh, Director, and that the assessee could not

establish business purposes for the same. It has been

contended that in the case of “PCIT Vs Malhotra Book

Depot”, [2019] 112 taxmann.com 34 (P&H), the Hon'ble

Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Tribunal, wherein

it was found from the balance sheet that during assessment

year 2010-11, the capital of the assessee company was of

Rs.31,71,64,888/- and the current liabilities and profits

were to the tune of Rs.17,41,39,750/-, totaling to an amount

ITA 216/CHD/2023 A.Y. 2014-15 15 of Rs.49,43,04,638/-, representing non interest bearing

funds available with the assessee. It has been contended

that the Tribunal had held that out of such total available

funds on which no interest was paid by the assessee, the

assessee had advanced a sum of Rs.20,32,60,000/-and that

so, there were sufficient non- interest bearing funds, out of

which, the assessee had advanced funds to/invested funds

in the sister concerns. It has been contended that the

Tribunal had observed that similarly, for assessment year

2012-13, the capital of the firm was of Rs.13,21,61,500/-

and interest free current liabilities were of

Rs.91,37,20,514/-, leading to a total availability of interest

free funds with the assessee, at Rs.104.58 Cr. It has been

contended that the Tribunal observed that for this latter

year, the assessee had made investments in the group

concerns, to the tune of Rs.53.76 Cr, as noted by the AO. It

has been contended that the Tribunal further found that

during the relevant years, the assessee had sufficient

interest free funds to make investment in the group

companies. It has been contended that it was in view of

these findings of the Tribunal that the Hon'ble High Court

held in favour of the assessee, observing that no substantial

ITA 216/CHD/2023 A.Y. 2014-15 16 question of law arose, since the findings recorded by the

Tribunal were not shown to be illegal or perverse.

8.1 It has been submitted that in the case of “Beekons

Industries Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Income Tax”, [2023] 149

taxmann.com 383 (P&H), the Hon'ble High Court set aside

the order passed by the Tribunal and restored that of the ld.

CIT(A), directing the AO to recompute the disallowance as

per the decision in the case of “Hero Cycles”, [2015] 63

taxmann.com 308 (S.C) and that in “Pr. CIT Vs Holy Faith

International (P) Ltd.”, order dated 24.07.2017, passed in IT

Appeal No. 87 of 2017. It was contended that in the scrutiny

proceedings, the assessee had been found to have given

loans and advances amounting to Rs.3,11,22,866/- to its

Directors, relatives of Directors and sister concerns in which

the Directors had substantial interest, without charging any

interest, whereas at the same time, the assessee company

was paying interest on loans taken from banks and other

financial institutions.

8.2 It has been asserted that in the case of “ACIT,

Panchkula Vs Janak Global Resources (P) Ltd.”, [2019] 102

taxmann.com 472 (CHD-TRIB), it was held that where the

ITA 216/CHD/2023 A.Y. 2014-15 17 assessee had sufficient own interest free funds to make

investments, a presumption would arise that the advances

made by the assessee to its sister concerns were out of

interest free funds and, therefore, interest expenses could

not be disallowed u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Act, in the light of the

decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of “Hero

Cycles” (supra).

admission of the additional evidence sought to be produced

on record by the assessee. It has been contended that as

available from the order under appeal, the assessee did not

furnish copy of the bank statement in order to show

availability of funds in its bank account as on the dates

when the amounts had been advanced to Shri Harpal Singh,

Director, in order to find out whether the same had been

given out of debit balance or credit balance in the bank

account; that under the provisions of Section 36(1)(iii) of the

Act, it was the assessee's onus to substantiate that the

borrowed funds had been utilized for business purposes

during the year under consideration; that such onus could

have been discharged by furnishing requisite evidence in the

shape of bank statement so as to show how interest bearing

ITA 216/CHD/2023 A.Y. 2014-15 18 funds had been utilized for business purposes, i.e., source of

funds in the bank statement on the dates on which such

advances were given to Shri Harpal Singh, Director; that

such onus had not been discharged by the assessee as it

failed to substantiate the claim made for the interest paid in

the Profit & Loss Account. The ld. DR has contended that as

such, it does not lie in the mouth of the assessee to at this

stage seek production of additional evidence.

contentions and the material place on record. We find that

the issue up for consideration is as to whether the claim of

the assessee for deduction under the provisions of Section

36(1)(iii) of the Act has rightly been disallowed by the

authorities below. We find that in order to resolve this

controversy in keeping with the decision of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in the case of “Hero Cycles” (supra), it is to

be seen as to whether the assessee had availability of

sufficient interest free funds with it, as on the dates on

which funds were advanced by it to Shri Harpal Singh,

Director. It cannot be denied, as also has not been done

before us, that such availability of funds can be ascertained

on documentary evidence, which is proved on record

ITA 216/CHD/2023 A.Y. 2014-15 19 unrebutted. In this scenario, we are of the considered

opinion that the statement of bank account of the assessee

for Financial Year 2013-14, relevant to the year under

consideration, i.e., assessment year 2014-15, the assessee's

Annual Tax Statement in Form 26AS for the year under

consideration, the ledger of Shri Harpal Singh, Director in

assessee's books, the capital account of Shri Harpal Singh,

Director in the books of M/s Synergy Thrislington, the

partnership firm where Shri Harpal Singh was a partner, the

Partnership Deed of M/s Synergy Thrislington, the PAN of

M/s Synergy Thrislington and the assessee's balance sheet

for assessment year 2014-15, are required to be adduced as

evidence, and the Form 26AS would show the veracity of the

assessee's contention that it had received Income Tax refund

on 21.12.2013, as contended. Transfer of such refund to

M/s Synergy Thrislington would also be reflected in the bank

statement. The factum of Shri Harpal Singh, Director, being

a partner in M/s Synergy Thrislington would be evincible

from the Partnership Deed and PAN Card of M/s Synergy

Thrislington. Further, perusal of the bank statement would

also divulge as to whether the funds were given out from the

debit balance or the credit balance in the bank account and

ITA 216/CHD/2023 A.Y. 2014-15 20 would also allow ascertainment of the truthfulness or

otherwise of the assessee's contention that its bank account

is devoid of drawing power and it maintains a credit balance

and that the interest rate charged is ‘zero’. Still further, the

ledger of “Harpal Singh Capital Account” in the books of M/s

Synergy Thrislington would show as to whether indeed

interest free funds were credited in the capital account in

instalments, or not. In fact, the perusal of the partner’s

capital account juxta-posed with the assessee's account

would evince the flow of funds, i.e., debits and credits. The

alleged payment on behalf of Shri Harpal Singh to the firm,

M/s Synergy Thrislington would also be evincible from the

ledger of Shri Harpal Singh in the books of the assessee.

Too, the availability of interest free funds with the assessee

at the relevant time can very well be ascertained from the

balance sheet of the assessee. Since these documents were

not made available by the assessee before either of the

authorities below, finding these documents to be very

material and relevant for adjudicating the matter, as

discussed herein above, we deem it appropriate to restore

the issue to the AO to verify the correctness and authenticity

of these documents, produced for the first time before us

ITA 216/CHD/2023 A.Y. 2014-15 21 and to adjudicate the issue afresh after providing adequate

opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

Member of the Tribunal in the case of “Char Bhai Biri Works

Vs ACIT”, 87 ITD 189 (Pune) (TM). Therein, the assessee

filed certain additional evidence before the Tribunal for

consideration. It was stated that some of the papers might

have already been given to the Revenue authorities, but

since details were not available, all those papers should be

treated as additional evidence. Those documents were found

to be very material and relevant for adjudicating the matter.

Since those documents were not available with the AO and

were produced before the Tribunal for the first time, it was

held that the issue was to be restored to the file of the AO to

verify the correctness and authenticity of such documents,

and also to adjudicate the gross profit issue afresh after

providing adequate opportunity to the assessee of being

heard and looking into comparable cases. In the present

case, we are alive to the fact that the best evidence in the

shape of the account statement was not produced by the

assessee before the authorities below. However, as

discussed herein above, we have found the afore-enumerated

ITA 216/CHD/2023 A.Y. 2014-15 22 documents, including the bank statement of the assessee, to

be very material and relevant for adjudicating the matter in

a just and proper manner. It is, therefore, that exercising

our powers under Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules, that we are

ordering all these documents to be adduced in evidence.

11.1 In “Braganza Construction (P) Ltd. Vs ACIT, Circle-

II(1), Panaji”, [2020] 116 taxmann.com 11 (Bom), the

Tribunal had treated a certain amount expended by the

assessee as unexplained expenditure and it had not

considered the assessee's application seeking leave to

produce additional evidence at the stage of appeal. The

Hon'ble High Court held that under Rule 29 of the ITAT

Rules, 1963, the Tribunal does have the power to permit

production of additional evidence before the Tribunal, if the

case for the same is now made out; that this means that the

Tribunal is duty bound to consider the application seeking

leave to produce additional evidence at the appellate stage,

in accordance with law and on its own merits.

11.2 In “Haryana State Roads & Bridges Development

Corporation Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Income Tax,

Panchkula”, [2016] 75 taxmann.com 104 (P&H), the assessee

ITA 216/CHD/2023 A.Y. 2014-15 23 sought to produce a Challan before the Tribunal showing

that payment of tax was deducted at source in the

Government Treasury, but the Tribunal did not permit it to

do so. The Hon'ble High Court held that it was a fit case for

the Tribunal to have exercised its powers under Rule 29 of

the Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963, requiring the production

of the Challan evidencing the payment of the tax deducted at

source in the Government Treasury; that all that was

required was to direct the authorities to examine whether

the Challan was genuine and whether the amount was paid

into the Government Treasury or not in accordance with law;

that the ends of justice certainly required the same; that

even if the assessee had contended before the AO and the ld.

CIT(A) that the amount was not payable, it would not make

any difference if, in fact, the amount had been paid.

11.3 In “CIT Vsa Salig Ram Prem Nath”, [1989] 45 taxman

322 (P&H), it was held that there can be no manner of doubt

that a Tribunal is vested with the requisite authority and

jurisdiction to admit additional evidence and material in

order to do substantial justice to the parties.

ITA 216/CHD/2023 A.Y. 2014-15 24

circumstances, as enumerated, the matter is remanded to

the file of the AO to verify the correctness and authenticity

of the documents discussed and to provide adequate

opportunity of hearing to the assessee with regard thereto

and to re-adjudicate the matter. Ordered accordingly.

treated as allowed.

Order pronounced on 01.04.2024.

Sd/- Sd/- (VIKRAM SINGH YADAV) (A.D.JAIN ) ACCOUNTANTMEMBER VICE PRESIDENT “Poonam” आदेश क� �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत/ Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ�/ The Appellant 2. .��यथ�/ The Respondent 3. आयकर आयु�/ CIT 4. िवभागीय �ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय आिधकरण, च�डीगढ़/ DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 5. गाड� फाईल/ Guard File आदेशानुसार/ By order, सहायक पंजीकार/ Assistant Registrar