Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chandigarh
Yash Electricals, Solan vs Assessee on 3 August, 2011
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
CHANDIGARH BENCH; CHANDIGARH.
BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER
AND SH. MEHAR SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
I.T.A. No.359/Chd/11
Assessment year:2007-08
PAN:AAAFY5313L
M/s. Yash Electricals, Vs. Income Tax Officer,
Solan (HP) Baddi (HP)
(Appellant) (Respondent)
Assessee by: Sh. Rakesh Gupta, CA
Department by: Sh. S.K. Mittal, CIT (DR)
Date of hearing : 03.08.2011
Date of Pronouncement : 24.8.2011
ORDER
Per Mehar Singh, AM,
The present appeal, for the assessment year 2007-08, filed by the assessee is directed against the appellate order of the CIT(A), Shimla, dated, 17.01.2011, passed under section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( hereinafter referred to in short 'the Act'). The assessee-appellant raised the following grounds of appeal:
"1. The Ld. CIT(A) is wrong in confirming the addition of Rs.1,24,52,350/- by treating it as "income from other sources" as against the income from manufacturing operations claimed by the assessee, without considering the finding of Hon'ble jurisdictional Himachal Pradesh High Court in CIT Vs. Allied Industries 31 DTR 323 wherein it is held in para 8 that, "there is no finding of any authority that the income was derived from any other undisclosed 2 sources.... Since, the entire profits of the business are entitled for 100 per cent deduction. The addition on account of such discrepancy will only result in the enhancement of the income of the business and would be entitled for such deduction."
2. The Ld. CIT(A) is wrong in confirming the disallowance of exemption u/s 80IC to the extent of Rs.1,24,52,350/- by rejecting the books of accounts and reducing the Gross Profit because all the discrepancies pointed out by the ld. AO does not result in reduction of profit rather they will increase the profit and further the net profit rate of assessee was also reasonable.
3. In view of all these & such other grounds, which may be taken at the time of hearing, the appeal may please be allowed & justice rendered."
Facts
2. The neat and undisputed facts as culled out from the relevant records and submissions made by the parties are that the assessee is engaged in manufacturing of ceiling fans, exhaust fans etc. The return of income was filed, on 28.10.2007, declaring nil income after claiming deduction at Rs.3,34,77,373/- under section 80IC of the Act. The assessee firm commenced its activities w.e.f., 17.03.2005. The present assessment year, 2007-08, is the third year, for which the assessee made a claim under section 80IC of the Act. The AO at page 2 of the assessment order recorded a categorical finding as "On the basis of information/documents furnished by the assessee, it had been noticed that the assessee fulfils all the requisite conditions as laid down under the Income-tax Act, 1961 for claiming deduction under section 80-IC of the I.T.Act. Assessee firm consists of two partners S/Sh. Ritesh Naredi HUF (75%), Smt. Kanta Naredi (25%). Assessee firm had declared total sales amounting to Rs.33,97,04,807/- declaring gross profit of Rs.5,32,16,926/- ( 15.66%) and net profit of Rs.3,34,77,372/- (9.85%)".
32.1. In the course of assessment proceedings, the A.O. noticed that the books of account maintained by the assessee are not reliable and correct. Consequently, the A.O. invoked the provisions of section 145(3) of the Act and substituted the book version of the assessee by placing reliance on the book version of M/s. Aerowin International, Baddi. The assessee disclosed the G.P. at 15.66% and net profit at 9.8% whereas the G.P. stood at 10.57% and net profit stood at 8.01% of the comparable case. The AO reduced the GP rate to 12%, from the GP rate at 15.66%, declared by the assessee, in its regular books of account and treated the same, as just and appropriate. The A.O., while substituting the lower GP at 12%, recorded the finding as, "Therefore, excess gross profit declared amounting to Rs.1,24,52,350/- (5,32,16,926/- minus 4,07,64,576/-) is treated as income from other sources and taxed accordingly. The substantive defect as noticed by the AO in the books of account of the appellant pertains to the treatment given by the assessee, to the 'defective goods returned' by debiting the same to the purchases account. The AO was of the opinion that the sales return of the defective goods should have been reduced from the sales. 2.2. The Ld. CIT(A), upheld the findings of the A.O. It is relevant to reproduce the submission of the appellant filed before the CIT(A):
"3.2. The appellant submitted that the ld. AO was wrong in disallowing the exemption u/s 80IC to the extent of Rs.1,24,52,350/- by applying the G.P. rate of 12% after rejecting the books of accounts on account of various reasons without considering the explanation filed by the assessee-firm. The appellant submitted that the ld. A.O. has ignored the facts that the rejections were for the whole of the year and the parts were reused in further manufacturing. Accommodating entries were passed at the end of the year. The various defects mentioned by the ld. A.O. were merely in respect of the accounting treatment of certain entries. The books of accounts of the appellant ought not to have rejected for the purpose of allowing deduction 4 under section 80IC of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The profits could be disturbed only under the conditions stated under section 80IA(8) of the I.T. Act, 1961, which were equally applicable to section 80IC as stated in sub-section (7) of the aforesaid section. The conditions laid down under the aforesaid sections were not violated by the appellant. Therefore, the question of rejecting the book results did not rise. The action of the A.O. in drawing a comparison between the gross profit disclosed by the comparable entries was incorrect as the gross profit varied between the various entities on account of innumerable trading factors like sales, purchases, consumption, pricing factor nature of sale, job work and like. All the aforesaid factors were considered by the ld. A.O. The ld. A.O. was also wrong in treating the business income of Rs.1,24,52,350/- from manufacturing operations as "income from other sources" without bringing any evidence on record. The appellant stated that the amount of Rs.1,24,52,350/- being the profit disclosed by it and having been derived from the industrial undertaking was eligible for deduction u/s 80IC of the I.T.Act, 1961. The Ld. A.O. had not given a single instance or reason, prove to justify that the assessee had earned an income from undisclosed sources which were introduced in the manufacturing business. The appellant relied on jurisdictional Himachal Pradesh High Court decision in the case of CIT Vs. Allied Industries 31 DTR 323."
2.3. The substantive and operative part of the findings of the CIT(A), as recorded after appreciation of the submission of the assessee are reproduced as under :
"4.2 Even before the undersigned, the appellant has not been able to reconcile the above defects. Therefore, above defect are sufficient to reject the books of accounts by invoking the provisions of section 143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961. Keeping in view the failure of the appellant to meet the defects in books it is held that the A.O. has rightly invoked the provisions of section 145(3) and applied G.P. rate of 12% on the basis of comparable cases. Therefore, the undersigned has no reason to interfere with the findings of the ld. A.O. as to disallowance u/s 80IC and treating the amount as income from other sources. As a result, the appellant fails on this ground of appeal."
Submissions 5 The assessee
3. The Ld. 'AR' of the assessee, after narrating brief factual-matrix of the case, contended that the A.O. arbitrarily and on the foundation of surmises and conjectures, reduced the GP disclosed at 15.66% to 12% and, further, assessed the resultant amount of estimated GP under the head "Income from other sources", as provided under section 56 of the Act. It was contended that the A.O. substituted the book version without properly appreciating the submission filed by the assessee. It is, further, pleaded that the assessee derives eligible profit from manufacturing activity and it is the sole source of its income. The AO merely proceeded, on the basis of general notion of inflation of profit by the tax-payer, in tax exempt area. Such a general notion of the AO was not supported by corroborative evidences and material. However, the AO chose to reduce the GP rate and also subsequently convert the 'business income' as 'Income from other sources', without bringing cogent evidences on record, purely with the intent to disallow deduction claimed by the assessee under section 80IC of the Act. This action of the A.O. is contradiction in terms, argued by the Ld. 'AR', as by adopting lower GP rate and estimating profit at the lower amount, the A.O. cannot change the complexion of business profit, as income from other sources. The Ld. 'AR' also referred to unnumbered para, at page 10 of the assessment order and contended that the AO observed as "It is a fact rather has become norm that the profit declared by business entity in a tax exempted areas are higher than that of in non-exempted areas. Therefore, burden to prove correctness of books of account is heavy and enormous on the part of the assessee. Any type of defects can, therefore, lead to rejection of books of account and estimation of reasonable, fair and judicious profit. These defects may, if account for, in conventional 6 manner, result in higher profit but such profits are definitely not comes within the meaning of eligible profit for deduction under section 80-IC of the Act in the light of the language of section, objective and legislative intent of the legislature." The Ld. 'AR', argued that the AO merely estimated the profit and, hence, such profit cannot be assessed under section 56 of the Act, as income from other sources.
3.1. The Ld. AR, further, contended that defective fans received back from the purchaser were charged to the purchases account, for the period under reference. Thus, the eligible profit for deduction under section 80IC stands reduced. Such approach of the assessee runs contrary to the general notion held by the A.O., as pointed out earlier. The assessee could have also reduced the sales by the amount of such defective goods returned. Under such approach also, the net effect on the profit of the assessee would have been the same. Therefore, the assessee had not enhanced the profit, as perceived by the AO, on the basis of general information, not supported by corroborative evidences. It was, further, contended by the Ld. 'AR' that no defect has been pointed out by the AO., in respect of purchases, sales and manufacturing expenses, as disclosed by the assessee, in his audited books of account. The Ld. 'AR' also pleaded that heads of income are mandatory in character and the same cannot be changed unless warranted by the facts of a case. In the present case, the AO has estimated GP rate, on the lower side. Consequently, it is the lower profit of the assessee from its manufacturing activity and not income from other source, as misconceived and assessed by the Assessing Officer. In view of this, the A.O. is not competent, within the meaning of section 14 of the Act, to arbitrarily change the heads of income. He prayed that the addition made by the A.O. and sustained by the CIT(A), 7 by restoring to change in the head of income, deserves to be quashed. To support his contention, the Ld. AR placed reliance, on the decision of the Jurisdictional High Court, in the case of CIT Vs. Allied Industries (2009) 31 DTR 323 and particularly referred to para 7 to 9 of the said judgment, which are reproduced hereunder:
"7. If the order of the assessing officer quoted hereinabove is read it is apparent that the assessee firm offered a sum of Rs.2,50,000 for taxation to cover up all types of discrepancies. It was nowhere the case of the assessee or the revenue that this was income derived from undisclosed sources. Section 69C has no applicability because to make section 69C applicable it has to be first established that there is some unexplained expenditure. There is no finding of unexplained expenditure being made by the assessee. The judgment cited by Shri Kuthiala, learned counsel for the revenue, i.e. Kedar Nath Modi v. CIT (1993) 200 ITR 685 (Del) has no applicability to the present case since in that case there was unexplained expenditure which is not there in the present case.
8. The addition of Rs.2,50,000 was made to the income of the business itself. Therefore, it will have to be deemed to be income from the business of the company. If it is income derived from the business then such income is to be considered while working out the deduction allowable under section 80-IB of the Act. There is no finding of any authority that the income was derived from any other undisclosed source. The addition was made to the income of the assessee and had been assessed under the head of profits and gains of business. Since the entire profits of the business are entitled for 100 per cent deduction, the addition on account of such discrepancy will only result in the enhancement of the income of the business and would be entitled for such deduction.
9. We may make it clear that we have decided this case on the peculiar facts and if in a given case the department proves that the income was derived not from the business but from some other sources then such a deduction may not be permitted. However, in this case neither the AO nor any other authority has come to the conclusion that the income was from any other source. Therefore, the questions have to be answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. The appeal is accordingly rejected."8
The Revenue
4. The Ld. 'DR', on the other hand, supported the assessment order and the order passed by the CIT(A). He was of the opinion that the A.O. has rightly rejected the books of account, in view of the defects pointed out.,in the assessment order. The Ld. 'DR', observed that the A.O., estimated the fair income after rejection of books of account. He also referred to para 2 of the assessment order and justified the invocation of provisions of section 145(3) of the Act. He also referred to page 10 & 14 of the assessment order. He was of the opinion that the decision of the Jurisdictional High Court, in the case of CIT Vs. Allied Industries (2009) 31 DTR 323, is not applicable to the facts of the present case. He, therefore, supported the findings of the lower authorities.
5. The substantive grounds of appeal are inter-connected, hence, the same are dealt with together hereinafter. The Third ground of appeal is purely general in nature, hence, needs no consideration and adjudication.
6. We have carefully perused and considered the relevant records, rival submissions and the impugned assessment order as well as appellate order passed by the CIT(A). The A.O. substituted the GP disclosed by the assessee at 15.66% to 12% and the difference was added as 'income from other sources' under section 56 of the Act. Consequently, such income was held as ineligible for deduction under section 80IC of the Act. It is evident that the A.O. adopted grossly simplistic approach, in treating such eligible profits derived from the manufacturing activity carried on by the assessee, as income from other sources. Needless to say that the A.O. is purely driven in 9 arriving at such finding, by the general and prevalent notion of inflation of profit by the assessee, in tax exemption area. The AO treated 12.66% GP, as eligible profit derived from manufacturing activity of the assessee. However, interestingly, 3% of the same GP was treated by the A.O., as 'income from other sources' under section 56 of the Act, ineligible for deduction u/s 80IC of the Act. The A.O. artificially splitted the whole GP disclosed by the assessee at 15.66% in two components. The differential GP at 3% was treated, as income from other sources. However, another component of the whole G.P. i.e. 12.66% was treated by the A.O. as eligible profit for deduction u/s 80IC of the Act. In the present case, the A.O. has failed to bring on record, any item of income, which falls under the head income from other sources u/s 56 of the Act. The A.O. himself, at page 14, of the impugned assessment order observed to make a fair estimate of GP, in the present case. The AO, thus, arbitrarily and on the basis of mere suspicion and perceived general notion treated 3% of GP as "Income from other sources" and assessed the same as taxable income, not eligible for deduction u/s 80IC of the Act.
6.1. The rejection of book-version of the assesse and substitution thereof is also not founded on rational and objective reasons. AO failed to bring on record any credible material demonstrating manipulation resorted to by the assessee, with a view to inflating the eligible profit, for the purpose of claiming higher deduction, under section 80IC of the Act. It was contended by the assessee that all the purchases and sales are duly vouched and accounted for, in its audited regular books of account. No suppression of manufacturing expenses and inflation of sales were found and brought on record, by the A.O. The A.O. has not doubted the genuineness of the sales 10 effected by the assessee. It is not the case of the revenue that the assessee booked bogus sales, with a view to inflating the profit, to claim higher deduction under section 80IC of the Act. Similarly, the A.O. has no dispute about the manufacturing activity carried on by the assessee-appellant. The AO, in the impugned assessment order categorically held at page 2 of the assessment order that on the basis of information/documents, furnished by the assessee, it was found that all the conditions of section 80IC of the Act are complied with. Therefore, the profit derived by the assessee firm from its manufacturing activity cannot be treated as ineligible for deduction u/s 80IC of the Act, merely on the basis of reducing the G.P. at 12%. The A.O. estimated the G.P. at 12% of the assessee-appellant on the basis of comparable case of M/s. Aerowin International, Baddi. A perusal of the impugned assessment order reveals that the book-version of such comparable case was not confronted to the assessee, with a view to afford the assessee opportunity to present its case, being cardinal requirement of the principle of natural justice. The book version of the assesse can be displaced on the basis of manipulative device resorted to inflate the profit discovered by the A.O. In the present case, A.O. merely adopted the thumb rule and substituted his own subjective version in place of book version disclosed by the assessee.
6.2 The rejection of books of account under section 145(3) of the Act and subsequently making assessment in the manner provided under section 144 of the Act, are two different and distinct aspects contemplated under section 145 of the Act. The AO is required to estimate the true income of the assessee after rejection of books of account judicially and not arbitrarily. The estimate and determination of income of the assessee must be founded 11 on available cogent and relevant material and not on pure guess, surmises and conjectures. It is also a settled legal proposition that the assessee is entitled to know the basis of estimating income after rejection of books of account with a view to presenting his case. The estimate of income made while framing assessment under section 144 of the Act, after rejection of books of account, without giving credible basis or without furnishing, to the assessee, the material or comparable case, on the foundation of which G.P. or income is arrived at, by the A.O., is bad in law and, hence, cannot be sustained.
6.3 Further, the A.O. failed to bring on record any cogent, corroborative and credible evidence, to suggest contrary to the book version as shown by the assessee and treating part of its profit ineligible u/s 80IC, merely on the basis of subjective finding of treating 3% of G.P., as income from other sources. Last but not the least, it is also not the case of the revenue that the appellant indulged in introducing undisclosed cash in its regular books of account which led the A.O., to treat the same as undisclosed income assessable u/s 56 of the Act.
6.4. We are of the considered opinion that the A.O. misconstrued the accounting entries, in respect of 'debit note', passed by the assessee, in its books of account, on the last day of the relevant previous year. The A.O. harped upon the obsession that such 'returned defective goods' should have been reduced from the sales. The assessee debited the said defective goods returned, at the end of the accounting year, to the purchases account. It is mentioned that passing of such entry did not have any impact, on the profit 12 of the assessee, muchless increase in the profit. Thus, if the 'defective retuned goods' are reduced from the sales, as perceived by the A.O., the profit would be reduced to that extent of sales return. Similarly, if the purchases account is debited to the extent of such goods by way of debit note, the profit would decline to that extent. Consequently, there is hardly any case, for the A.O., to draw adverse finding, on this issue.
6.5. The above contention of the assessee, stands duly supported by the decision of the ITAT, Jaipur Bench, in the case of Shree Ram Printing Works Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax (1998) 100 Taxman 200, in the matter of entering debit notes, at the end of the year, which is reproduced as Head Note, as under:
"Held- Whether entering debit notes at the end of accounting year and not on the respective dates would by itself make transaction non-genuine - Held, no"
6.6. It is also not the case of the A.O. that the bogus debit notes were booked by the assessee. In view of this, the corner stone of the super structure raised by the A.O., on the doctrine of such general notion, stands demolished as booking of genuine 'debit note', reduces the profit of the assessee and does not enhance its profit. The A.O. has also accepted the genuineness of the purchase price of raw-material as well as sale price of manufactured goods.
6.7. It is undisputed fact that the assessee-appellant is engaged in the activity of manufacturing of ceiling fans, exhaust fans etc. and it is the single source of income of the assessee. A perusal of the impugned assessment order reveals that the A.O. completely ignored the source of income of the 13 assessee, while adjudicating, on the applicability of the heads of income, as provided under section 14 of the Act. Income will fall under the relevant head, depending upon its source. The provisions of section 56 of the Act apply only if none of the other specified head u/s 14 of the Act is applicable, as section 56 of the Act contains the residuary head of income. The heads of income as envisaged under section 14 of the Act are mandatory and mutually exclusive in nature. It is obligatory on the part of the A.O., to strictly observe this statutory obligation. The heads of income cannot be chosen at the volition of the assessee or the revenue, to suit one's convenience. It is imperative and obligatory on the part of the A.O., to charge the income under the specific head, under which it falls, since the statutory provisions of section 14 of the Act leave no option in the matter. The income which is specifically made chargeable under a distinct and specific head cannot be brought to charge under a different head in lieu of or in addition to, being charged under its specific head. It is evident from the assessment order that the assessee has a sole source of income, from manufacturing activity and, hence, such income falls under the head as contemplated u/s 28 of the Act. The AO has not specified and quantified various items of income, indicating their sources, which could support his finding of treating such items of income of the assessee, as 'income from other source' under section 56 of the Act. The income derived by the assessee from its manufacturing activity cannot be assessed by the A.O. u/s 56 of the Act, merely on the basis of irrelevant consideration of general notion. The findings of the A.O., in the matter are not supported by any prima-facie evidence and, hence, the same cannot be sustained.
146.8. It is settled legal proposition that the onus of proving that the apparent was not the real was on the party who claimed it to be so. Thus, the onus to prove his finding is on the A.O. However, the A.O. failed to discharge such onus, in establishing his findings of treating profit of the assessee as income from other sources. Hence, in such a fact-situation of the case, the A.O., being a quasi-judicial authority, cannot resort to substitute the book version of the assessee and above all change the complexion of eligible profit derived by the assessee, by treating the same as 'income from other sources' u/s 56 of the Act.
6.9. We are of the considered opinion that both the A.O. as well as the CIT(A), failed to appreciate the submissions filed by the assessee, in the matter clearly demonstrating the impact of passing such adjustment accounting entries on the profit of the assessee. The AO, has merely applied low GP rate, without supporting the same by way of tangible evidences. The findings of the CIT(A), are cryptic and patently laconic in nature.
6.10. We have carefully perused the decision of the jurisdictional High Court, in the case of the CIT Vs. Allied Industries (2009) 31 DTR 323, cited and relied upon by the assessee and found the same applicable to the facts of the present case. In the case relied upon by the assessee, the AO found that one of the partners of the assessee-firm was also running a firm where the gross profit and net profit rate was much lower than that in the assessee- firm, which was eligible for deduction under section 80IB of the Act. The assessee was asked to explain this discrepancy. The assessee filed reply and stated that the sister concern was producing parts for some other tractor 15 manufacturer and also furnished an explanation to support higher rate of profit. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee offered a sum of Rs.2.5 lacs for taxation, to cover up such discrepancies. The AO did not allow deduction of such surrendered income under section 80IB of the Act. The Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court, held that such addition is to be treated as income from the business of the company and allowed the deduction u/s 80IB of the Act, in respect of such surrendered income, having regard to source of such income. In the present case, the AO arbitrarily substituted the lower rate of GP, in respect of sole source of manufacturing activity of the assessee and treated the same, as 'income from other sources', without substantiating his findings by way of any evidence, to support his finding, as discussed earlier in details. Therefore, the true and core ratio of the decision of the Jurisdictional High Court, cited supra, is applicable to the fact-situation of the present case and such component income of the assessee cannot be treated, as 'income from other sources' but income from manufacturing activity of the assessee, assessable u/s 28 of the Act and eligible for deduction u/s 80IC of the Act.
6.11. In view of the above detailed legal and factual discussions, it is nothing but a clear case of incorrect assumption of facts as also incorrect application of law, by the A.O., in substituting the declared book-version of the assessee, and treating partial gross profit at 3%, as not business profit but income from other sources u/s 56 of the Act. The assessee is engaged in real and substantive manufacturing activity and it is a single identifiable source of its income, a factum not disputed by any revenue authority. Profit derived from such manufacturing activity squarely falls under section 28 of 16 the Act. The mother source of income of the present appellant firm is from manufacturing activity and the same profit cannot be split artificially into two heads of income viz 12.66% of G.P., as profit derived from manufacturing activity and eligible for deduction u/s 80IC of the Act, and 3% G.P. as 'income from other sources' u/s 56 of the Act, ineligible for such deduction. The A.O. has failed to appreciate the conceptual and fundamental difference between these two mutually exclusive and distinct heads of income. Similarly, the A.O. also ignored the schematic connotation of such heads of income, while arriving at such findings. The A.O. completely ignored the mother source of income from manufacturing activity while deciding the head of income.
6.12. We are of the opinion that merely adoption of lower G.P. would not change the original source and character of income viz. from business income to 'income from other sources'. Thus, variation of G.P. upward or downward by the A.O., would not change the nature, source and complexion of such income. In fact, such variation of G.P. is purely a case of determination of business income alone. It is a case, where the A.O., based his findings on surmises and conjectures and such tendency has been frowned upon by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in a plethora of decisions. Needless to say that findings, inferences and conclusions of any quasi- judicial authority, including that of A.O., must be based on relevant, credible and cogent material duly discernible from the reason based speaking order. It is imperative to state here that the core of all rules is fairness, in decision making process. Such findings of the A.O. cannot be justified, on the foundation of policy expediency, in the matter of making 17 addition. The A.O. merely premeditated higher profit, in tax-exempt area and consequently adopted lower G.P. and treated the same, as 'income from other sources' u/s 56 of the Act. Such findings of the A.O. are inherently inconsistent and based on non-appreciation and non-application of mind, to the fact-situation of the present case and incorrect application of statutory provisions of section 28 & 56 of the Act. The Ld. CIT(A), merely upheld such findings without bringing any material on record, despite the fact, that the powers of CIT(A), are wide and co-terminus with that of the powers of the assessing officer. Consequently, such findings of the CIT(A), cannot be sustained.
7. In view of the above detailed, factual and legal discussions, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
8. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.
Decision pronounced in the open court on 24 August, 2011.
Sd/- Sd/-
(SUSHMA CHOWLA) (MEHAR SINGH)
JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Dated: 24 August, 2011
/SKR/
Copy of the order is forwarded to :
1. The Assessee: M/s. Yash Electricals, Solan
2. The ITO, Baddi.
3. The CIT(A), Shimla
4. The CIT, Shimla
5. The SR DR, Chandigarh.
True copy
By Order
18
(Assistant Registrar)
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal
Chandigarh Bench : Chandigarh
19