Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chandigarh
Satbir, Narwana vs Ito, Jind on 9 July, 2018
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
DIVISION BENCH 'B', CHANDIGARH
BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER
AND Dr. B.R.R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
ITA Nos. 1413 to 1415/CHD/2016
A.Y. : 2007-08 to 2009-10
Shri Satbir, Vs. The ITO,
S/o Shri Chhaju Ram, Ward - 1,
Morpatti, Narwana. Jind.
PAN No. CEEPS6223P
&
ITA Nos. 1416 to 1418/CHD/2016
A.Y. : 2007-08 to 2009-10
Shri Ved Pal, Vs. The ITO,
S/o Shri Ram Sarup, Ward - 1,
Morpatti, Narwana. Jind.
PAN No. AMIPP3931D
&
ITA Nos. 1419 to 1421/CHD/2016
A.Y. : 2007-08 to 2009-10
Shri Sheo Chand, Vs. The ITO,
S/o Shri Matu Ram, Ward - 1,
Morpatti, Narwana. Jind.
PAN No. ALHPC5457Q
&
ITA Nos. 1422 to 1424/CHD/2016
A.Y. : 2007-08 to 2009-10
Shri Karambir, Vs. The ITO,
S/o Shri Ram Sarup, Ward - 1,
Morpatti, Narwana. Jind.
PAN No. AJFPB1009E
&
ITA Nos. 1432 to 1434/CHD/2016
A.Y. : 2007-08 to 2009-10
Shri Dharam Pal, Vs. The ITO,
S/o Chhaju Ram, Ward - 1,
Morpatti, Narwana. Jind.
PAN No. AQSPD09641C
&
ITA Nos. 1435 to 1437/CHD/2016
A.Y. : 2007-08 to 2009-10
Shri Chandgi Ram, Vs. The ITO,
S/o Shri Matu Ram, Ward - 1,
Morpatti, Narwana. Jind.
PAN No. AQOPR5528G
2
ITA Nos. 1413 to 1437/Chd/2016 & 77 to 82/Chd/2017-
Shri Satbir, Narwana and others.
ITA Nos. 1429 to 1431/CHD/2016
A.Y. : 2007-08 to 2009-10
Shri Amarjeet, Vs. The ITO,
S/o Shri Basau Ram, Ward - 1,
Morpatti, Narwana. Jind.
PAN No. AHAPA8904C
&
ITA Nos. 77 to 79/CHD/2017
A.Y. : 2007-08 to 2009-10
Shri Krishan Kumar (HUF), Vs. The ITO,
Morpatti, Narwana. Ward - 1,
PAN No. AAJHK1178C Jind
&
ITA Nos. 80 to 82/CHD/2017
A.Y. : 2007-08 to 2009-10
Shri Ravi Dutt, Vs. The ITO,
S/o Shri Moman, Ward - 1,
Morpatti, Narwana. Jind.
PAN No. AQSPD9643A
(Appellant) (Respondent)
Appellant by : Shri Gaurav Mittal, Adv.
Department by : Smt.Lagan Preet Sandhu, Sr.DR
Date of hearing : 10.04.2018
Date of Pronouncement : 09.07.2018
ORDER
Per Bench :
Thi s bunch of appeal s have be en preferred by di fferent assessees for di fferent assessment years. Whereas the respecti ve appeal s of S/Shri Satbi r and Ved Pal for three years each are di rected agai nst the separate ord ers of CI T ( Appea ls) , Ji nd dated
02.11.2016, the respecti ve appe al s of Shri She o Chand, Shri Karambi r, Shri Kri shan Kumar, HUF and Shri Ravi Dutt for three years each are di rected agai nst the orders of the ld. CI T ( Appeal s) Hi ssar dated 02.11.2016. The respecti ve appeal s of Shri Dharam Pal and Shri Chandgi Ram for the three years are di rected agai nst the separate orders of CI T ( Appeals) Fari dabad 3 ITA Nos. 1413 to 1437/Chd/2016 & 77 to 82/Chd/2017- Shri Satbir, Narwana and others.
dated 28.07.2016 and respecti ve appeal s of Shri Amar jeet for the three years are di rected agai nst the order of the CI T ( Appeal s) Fari dabad of July,2016. Al l the appeal s i n the case of each of the assessees pertai n to assessment years 2007-08 to 2009-10.
2. Si nce the facts and ci rcumstances are i denti cal and even the i ssue i nvol ve d i n al l the appe al s i s i denti cal , the same were heard together and are bei ng di sposed by thi s common order for the sake of conveni ence.
3. I t i s poi nted out by the Regi stry that the appeal s of the assessee i n I TA Nos.1430 to 1 437/Chd/2016 are barre d by l i mi tati on by 79 da ys, for whi ch appl i cati ons for condonati on of del a y have been fi l ed by the assessees i n the respecti ve appeal s, wherei n reasons for the del a y have been gi ven that due to the di ffi cul t y in conducti ng/engagi ng concerned Chartered Accountant/representati ve at Chandi garh for fi l ing the appeal s and further del a y on the part of the concer ned Chartered Accountant because of hi s over bus y schedul e and b ei ng engaged i n of th e ta x audi t repor ts of other asses sees for whi ch the l ast date was approachi ng. Th e Ld. counsel for assessee has further submi tted that the ass essees are agri cul turi sts and i l l i trate vi l l agers and do not kno w the compl e xi t y of the I ncome Ta x La ws and fur ther the y are not regul ar i ncome tax pa yees.
4. I n vi e w of the above submi ssi ons and to meet the ends of justi ce, the del a y i n fi l i ng of the appeal s i s, there fore, condoned and we proceed to adjudi cate the appeal s on meri ts. 4
ITA Nos. 1413 to 1437/Chd/2016 & 77 to 82/Chd/2017- Shri Satbir, Narwana and others.
5. Fi rst we take up ITA Nos.1429 to 1437/Chd/2016 agai nst the orders passed by the CI T( Appeal s) u/s 154 of the Act. ITA Nos.1429 to 1437/Chd/2016
6. The bri ef fact rel evant to the i ssue under considerati on are that the l ands of the assessees were compul sori l y acqui red by the HSII DC, Si rsa/Government of Har yana i n the year 2005. Subsequentl y the compensati on was enhanced by the C ourt. The enhanced compensati on al ong wi th i nterest thereupon u/s 28 of the Land Acqui siti on Act, 1894 was recei ved by the assessees i n the fi nanci al yea r 2008-09 rel eva nt to assessment year 2009-10. The assessees treated the i nterest on the enhanced compensati on as part of the compensati on l i abl e to be ta xed under secti on 45 ( 5) of the i ncom e Ta x Act and t he transferred l and bei ng rural agri cul tural l and e xempt from capital Gai ns ta x u/s 10( 37) of the I ncome Ta x Act, 1961.
Subsequentl y, from the perusal of the computati on of i ncome attached wi th the return of i ncome fi l ed by the assessee for assessment year 2009-10, the Assessi ng Offi cer observed that w.e.f. assessment year 2010-11 the i nterest recei ved on enhanced compensati on was ta xabl e i n the year of recei pt as per the provi si ons of secti on 145A( b) of the Act. However, pri or to assessment year 2010-11 i nterest recei ved on compensati on/enhanced compensati on was ta xabl e on proporti onate basi s for the each year i n vi e w of t he deci si on of the Hon'bl e Supreme Court rendered i n the case of Rama Bai Vs. CI T dated 8.11.1 989 reported i n 181 I TR 400 ( SC) . The Assessi ng Offi cer, therefore, reopened the assessment proc eedi ngs of the 5 ITA Nos. 1413 to 1437/Chd/2016 & 77 to 82/Chd/2017- Shri Satbir, Narwana and others.
assessees and appl i ed the rati o of the deci si on of the Hon'bl e Supreme Court i n the case of Ra ma Bai ( supra) a nd hel d that the i nterest recei ved by the assessees on the enhanced compensati on was to be propor ti onatel y al l ocated to di fferent ass essment years as havi ng accrued year after year from the date of del i ver y of possessi on of the l ands ti l l the date of such order. The Assessi ng Offi cer observed that the l ands of the assessees were acqui red i n the year 2005 , whereas the i nterest on the enhanced compensati on had been recei ved i n the year 2008. He, therefore, cal cul ated the proporti onate i nterest pertai ni ng to each assessment year and added the same as ta xabl e receipt under the head 'oth er sources' a nd accordi ngl y, added the proporti onate amount of i nterest i n the i mpugned years i n the reopened assessment proceedi ngs u/s 147 r. w.s. 143(3) of the Act.
7. Before the Ld.CI T ( Appeal s) , the assessee rel i ed upon the deci si on of the Hon'bl e Supreme Court i n the c ase of CI T Vs. Ghanshyam ( HUF) ( 2009) 315 I TR 1 ( SC) and contended that as per the rati o l ai d do wn i n the sai d deci si on the i n terest recei ved u/s 28 of the Land Acqui si ti on Act, 1894 does not partake the character of i nterest, rather i t was a part of compensati on of l and whi ch was not ta xabl e as per the provi si ons of secti on 10( 37) of the Income Ta x Act. The Ld. CI T( A ppeal s) after consi deri ng the submi ssi ons of the assesse e as wel l as consi deri ng the nature of compe nsati on and i nte rest thereupon recei ved by the assessee, hel d that the i ssue was squarel y covered by the deci si on of the Hon'bl e Supreme Court i n the case 6 ITA Nos. 1413 to 1437/Chd/2016 & 77 to 82/Chd/2017- Shri Satbir, Narwana and others.
of Ghanshyam ( HUF) ( supra) and accordi ngl y, al l o wed the appeal of the assessee.
8. Subsequentl y the Assessi ng Offi cer moved an a ppli cati on for recti fi cati on of the u/s 154 of the Act before the CI T( A) pl eadi ng therei n that the i n terest recei ved on enhance d compensati on u/s 28 of Land Acqui si ti on Act was chargeabl e to ta x as 'i ncome from other sources' u/s 56( 2) ( vi i i ) r. w.s. 57( i v) of the Act i n the li ght of the decisi on of the Hon'bl e Punjab & Har yana Hi gh Court i n the case of 'Manjeet Si ngh ( HUF) , Karta Manjeet Si ngh Vs. Uni on of I ndi a & Others' i n CWP No.15506 of 2013, date of deci si on 14.1.2014, wherei n, the Hon'bl e Hi gh Court has hel d t hat the i nterest recei ved by the a ssessee u/s 2 8 as wel l as u/s 3 4 of the Land Ac qui si ti on Act on the addi ti onal compensati on recei ved was chargeabl e to ta x u/s 56(2) ( vi i i ) r. w.s.57( i v) of the Act. I t was further contended that even the SLP fi l ed i n that case before the Hon'bl e Supreme Court had been di smi ssed v i de order dated 18.12.2014 i n S LP No.34642 of 2014. Rel i ance w as al so pl aced o n the deci si on d ated 2.2.2016of the Hon'bl e Punj ab & Har yana Hi gh Court i n the case of Jagmal & Another Vs. state of Har yana & Another i n RA-CR NO.46 Cl l of 2014 i n CR No.7740 of 2012, whereby the Hon'bl e Hi gh Court had recal l ed i ts earl i er order and hel d that the i nterest of the addi ti onal a ward was ta xabl e under u/s 56( 2) ( vi i i ) r. w.s.57( i v) of the Act.
9. The Ld.CI T( Appe al s) consi deri ng t he aforesai d deci si ons and al so the deci si on of the Hon'bl e Punjab & Har yana Hi gh Court i n the case of Sunder Lal & Another Vs. Uni on of I ndi a & Others i n 7 ITA Nos. 1413 to 1437/Chd/2016 & 77 to 82/Chd/2017- Shri Satbir, Narwana and others.
CWP No.20014 of 2015, order dated 21.9.2015 and al so i n the case of CI T Vs. Bi r Si ngh ( HUF) i n I TA No.209 of 2004, etc. held that i n the l i ght of the above deci si ons, the mi stake apparent on record had occurred i n hi s order whi l e al l o wi ng the appeal of the assessees whi l e rel yi ng upon the deci si on of the Hon'bl e Supreme Court i n the case of Ghanshyam ( HUF) ( supra) . He, therefore, vi de the i mpugned order passed u/s 154 of the Act hel d that the interest recei ved by the assessee on enhanced compensati on on account of acq ui si ti on of l and was ta xabl e as 'i ncome from o ther sources'. He, therefore, confi rmed the addi ti ons made by the Assessi ng Offi cer passed in the reopened assessment proceedi ngs carri ed out u/s 147 r. w.s. 143( 3) of the Act.
10. No w the assessee has come up i n appeal before us agi tati ng the above orders passed by the CI T( Appeal s) u/s 1 54 of the Act.
11. We have heard the ri val contenti ons. I t i s perti nent to note here that i nter est under the Land Acqui si ti on Act can be a warded under secti on 28 or/and under secti on 34 of the Land Acqui si ti on Act, 1894. I nterest awarded under section 28 of Land acqui si ti on Act, 1894 i s the i nte rest on the e xce ss amount of compensati on a warded by the cou rt over the amou nt awarded by the col l ector. I t is a warded by the Court pa yabl e by the col l ector from the date on whi ch the col l ector took the possessi on of the l and to the date of pa yment of such e xcess i nto Court. Whereas i nterest under secti on 34 of the Land Acqui si ti on Act, 1894 i s gi ven when the amount of compensati on a warded by the col l ector i s not pai d or de posi ted on or bef ore taki ng possessi on of l and, 8 ITA Nos. 1413 to 1437/Chd/2016 & 77 to 82/Chd/2017- Shri Satbir, Narwana and others.
such i nterest i s pa yabl e from the ti me of so taki ng possessi on ti l l the date of pa yment of compensati on. I n the case i n hand, the Ld. CI T ( App eal s) vi de hi s ord er dated 14.3.20 16 had al l o wed the appeal of the assessee fol l o wi ng the deci si on in case of Ghanshyam ( HUF) ( supra) , wherei n i t has hel d I nterest u/s 28 of the Land Acqui s i ti on Act 1984, unl i ke i nterest u/s 34 i s an accreti on to the val ue of the l and , hence i t i s par t of enhanced compensati on or consi derati on whi ch is not the case wi th i nterest u/s 34 A. So al so addi ti onal amount u /s 23(1A) and sol ati um u/s 23( 2) form part of enhanced compensation.
12. The Ld. CI T( A) , ho wever, subsequentl y, whi l e rel yi ng upon the deci si on of the Hon'bl e Hi gh Court i n the case of Bi r Si ngh ( HUF) ( supra) and Manjeet Si ngh ( HUF) ( supra) & Others as noted above, recal l ed hi s orders dated 14.3.2016 and confi rmed the addi ti ons made by the Assessi ng Offi cer.
13. Undi sputedl y, the i ssue i nvol ved in these appeal s is regardi ng the t a xabi l i t y of i nt erest recei ved on enhanced compensati on u/s 28 of the Lan d Acqui si ti on Ac t, 1894. No w, there are t wo questi ons i nvol ved i n these appeal s, fi rst i ssue i s regardi ng the year of ta xabi l i t y of the i nterest i ncome whether i t has to ta xed i n the year of recei pt i n the l i ght of the deci si on of the Hon'bl e Supreme Court i n the case of Ghanshyam ( HUF) ( supra) or i s to be ta xed on the basi s of apporti onment for each year from the date of acqui si ti on of l ands ti l l the recei pt of the compensati on i n the l i ght of the d eci si on of the Ho n'bl e Supreme Court i n the case of Rama Bai ( supra) ; the second issue i nvol ved i s as to whethe r the i nterest a warded u/s 28 of the Land 9 ITA Nos. 1413 to 1437/Chd/2016 & 77 to 82/Chd/2017- Shri Satbir, Narwana and others.
Acqui si ti on Act on enhanced co mpensati on i s to be treated as part of the enh anced compensati on and wi l l n ot be ta xabl e separatel y as i nterest i ncome under the Head 'i ncome from other sources'?
14. We fi nd that bot h these i ssues ar e covered by the aforesai d deci si on of the H on'bl e Supreme Court i n the case of Ghanshyam ( HUF) ( supra) hol di ng the sa me to be in the nature of compensati on i tsel f. The Court al so deal t wi th the other aspect namel y, the year of ta x and ans wered thi s quest i on by hol di ng that i t has to be tested on recei pt basi s, whi ch means i t woul d be ta xed i n the year i n whi ch i t i s recei ved. The sai d fi ndi ngs gi ven in the case of Ghanshyam ( HUF) ( supra) have been rei terated by the Hon'bl e Supreme Court in the case of Govi ndbhai Mamai ya ( supra) observi ng as under:
" In so far as the second question is concerned, that is also covered by another judgment of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad vs. Ghanshyam (HUF) reported in (2009) 8 SCC 412, 6 albeit, in favour of the Revenue. In that case, the court drew distinction between the "interest" earned under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act and the "interest" which is under Section 34 of the said Act. The Court clarified that whereas compensation given to the assessee of the land acquired would be 'income', the enhanced compensation/consideration becomes income by virtue of Section 45(5)(b) of the Income Tax Act. The question was whether it will cover "interest" and if so, what would be the year of taxability. The position in this respect is explained in paras 49 and 50 of the judgment which make the following reading:
"49. As discussed hereinabove, Section 23(1-A) provides for additional amount. It takes care of the increase in the value at the rate of 12% per annum. Similarly, under Section 23(2) of the 1894 Act there is a provision for solatium which also represents part of the enhanced compensation. Similarly, Section 28 empowers the court in its discretion to award interest on the excess amount of compensation over and above what is awarded by the Collector. It includes additional amount under Section 23(1-A) and solatium under Section 23(2) of the said Act. Section 28 of the 1894 Act applies only in respect of the excess amount determined by the court after reference under Section 18 of the 1894 Act. It 10 ITA Nos. 1413 to 1437/Chd/2016 & 77 to 82/Chd/2017- Shri Satbir, Narwana and others.
depends upon the claim, unlike interest under section 34 which depends on undue delay in making the award.
50. It is true that "interest" is not compensation. It is equally true that Section 45(5) of the 1961 Act refers to compensation. But as discussed hereinabove, we have to go by the provisions of the 1894 Act which awards "interest"
both as an accretion in the value of the lands acquired and interest for undue delay. Interest under Section 28 unlike interest under Section 34 is an accretion to the value, hence it is a part of enhanced compensation or consideration which is not the case with interest under Section 34 of the 1894 Act. So also additional amount under Section 23 (1-A) and solatium under Section 23(2) of the 1961 Act forms part of enhanced compensation under Section 45(5)(b) of the 1961 Act."
8. It is clear from the above that whereas interest under Section 34 is not treated as a part of income subject to tax, the interest earned under Section 28, which is on enhanced compensation, is treated as a accretion to the value and therefore, part of the enhanced compensation or consideration making it exigible to tax. After holding that interest on enhanced compensation under Section 28 of 1894 Act is taxable, the Court dealt with the other aspect namely, the year of tax and answered this question by holding that it has to be tested on receipt basis, which means it would be taxed in the year in which it is received. It would mean that converse position i.e. spread over of this interest on accrual basis is not permissible."
15. The Ld. counse l for assessee has further brought our attenti on the l atest deci si on of th e Hon'bl e Supre me Court i n the case of CI T Vs. Chet Ram ( HUF) dated 12.9.2017 i n Ci vi l Appeal No.13053/2017 wherei n al so the Hon'bl e Supreme Court has agai n rei terated the proposi ti o n l ai d do wn in the case of Ghanshyam ( HUF) ( supra) , whi ch we fi nd has been further rei terated i n the case of Uni on of I ndi a vs. Hari Si ngh & others i n Ci vi l Appeal No. 1504 of 2017 dated 15.9.2017, as under:
"(2) While determining as to whether the compensation paid was for agricultural land or not, the Assessing Officer(s) will keep in mind the provisions of Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act and the law laid down by this Court in 'Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad v. Ghanshyam (HUF)' [2009 11 ITA Nos. 1413 to 1437/Chd/2016 & 77 to 82/Chd/2017-
Shri Satbir, Narwana and others.
(8) SCC 412] in order to ascertain whether the interest given under the said provision amounts to compensation or not."
Th e s a i d d e c i s i on a s r i g h t l y p oi nt e d o u t b y t h e Ld . c o u n s e l f or assessee have been r e n de r e d by the Ho n ' b l e Apex C o urt s u b s e q u e nt t o t he d e c i si o n p a s s ed b y t h e H o n ' b l e J u r i s di c t i o na l H i g h C o u rt i n the c a s e o f M a n j e et S i n g h ( HU F ) ( sup r a ) w h i ch h a d dealt with t he d e c i s i on s of the H o n 'b l e Ap e x C o u rt in G h a n s h y a m, H UF ( s u p r a ) . Th e r ef o r e , i n v i e w o f t h e s a m e , t h e p r o p o s i t i o n l a i d d o w n i n G ha n s hy a m , H U F ( s u p r a) r e m a i n s a n d w h i c h h a v i n g b ee n l a i d d o w n b y t h e H o n ' b l e A p e x C o u r t i s t h e l a w o f t h e l a n d a n d h a s t o b e f ol l o w e d b y a l l l o we r a u t h o r i ti e s . I n v i e w o f t h e ab o v e , we h o l d t ha t t h e i n t e re s t re c e i v e d b y the assessee d u ri ng the i m p u g n ed year on the compulsory acquisition of its land u/s 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, is in t h e n a t u r e o f c om p e n s a t i on a n d n o t i n t e re s t w hi c h i s t a xa b l e u n d e r t h e h e a d i n c o m e f r om o t h er s o u r c e s u / s 5 6 o f t h e A ct as h e l d b y t h e a uth o r i t i e s be l o w . Th e c o m p e n s at i o n b e i n g e x e m pt u / s 1 0 ( 3 7) o f t he A c t i s n o t di sp u t e d . I n v i e w of t h e s am e t h e o r d e r pa s s e d b y t h e CI T( A p p e a l s) u p h o l d i n g t h e a d d i t i o n m a de b y t h e A O o n a c c o u n t o f i n t e r es t o n e n h a n c e d c om p e n s a t i on i s , n o t s u s t ai n a b l e.
16. Further the i ssue under consi derati on regardi ng the ta xabi l i t y of i nterest on enhanced compensati on i s a debatabl e i ssue and do no t consti tute a m i stake apparent on record. I n vi e w of the l i mi te d and restri cted po wers of recti fi cati on u/s 154 or u/s 254 of the Act, as the case ma y be, i t cannot be sai d that 12 ITA Nos. 1413 to 1437/Chd/2016 & 77 to 82/Chd/2017- Shri Satbir, Narwana and others.
any mi stake apparent on record had occurred i n the order of the Tri bunal .
In vi e w of the above di scussion, these appeal s of the assessees are hereby al l o wed.
ITA Nos.1413 to 1424/Chd/2016 & 77 to 82/Chd/2017:
17. I n these appeal the assessees have agi tated the acti on of the CI T( Appeal s) in confi rmi ng the orders passed by the Assessi ng Offi cer u/s 147 of the Act and thereby maki ng the i mpugned addi ti ons on si mi l ar proposi ti on as di scussed above. Al most i denti cal worded orders have been pa ssed by the CI T( Appeal s) i n these appeal s wherei n at para 4.3 of the order, the Ld.CI T( Appeal s) has made the fol l o wi ng observati ons:
"4. 3 T he issue wh e the r the in teres t p ai d under the prov is ions of sec tion 28 of LA Ac t is p ar t of the enh anced co mp ens ation or is it tax abl e as in teres t inco me h as been a deb atabl e issue and h as been co ns idered b y nu mber of jud ic i al au thor i ties. "
18. A perusal of the above reveal s that the Ld.CI T(Appeal s) hi msel f has hel d that the i ssue under consi derati on was a debatabl e i ssue at ti me of reopeni ng of assessment and the i ssue was squarel y covered by the deci si on of the Hon'bl e Supreme Court i n the case of Ghanshyam ( HUF) ( supra) whi ch was rel i ed upon by the ass essee and has al so di scussed by the Assessi ng Offi cer i n the impugned order passed u/s 147 of the Act. The pri nci pl e l ai d do wn by the Hon'bl e Supreme Court i n the case of Ghanshyam ( HUF) ( supra) si nce have been rei terated by the Hon'bl e Supreme Court in the case of Govi ndbhai Mamai ya 13 ITA Nos. 1413 to 1437/Chd/2016 & 77 to 82/Chd/2017- Shri Satbir, Narwana and others.
( supra) and further i n the case of Chet Ram ( HUF) (supra) and i n the case of Hari Si ng ( supra) ,as di scussed above.
19. I n vi e w o f t he ab o v e d i s c u ss i o n , t h e i m p u g n ed a d d i t i o ns a r e n o t s u s t a i n ab l e i n t h e l i g h t of a b o v e r e f e r r ed t o d e c i s i o n s of t h e H o n ' b l e Su p re m e C o u r t a n d th e y a r e a c c o rd i ng l y o r d e r e d to b e d e l e t ed .
20. Th e s e a p p e a l s of t h e a s s es s e e ar e a l l o w e d.
In the result, all the appeals preferred by the assessee are allowed.
O r d e r p r on o u n c ed i n t h e o p e n cou r t o n 0 9. 0 7 . 2 018 Sd/- Sd/-
(B.R.R. KUMAR) (SANJAY GARG)
ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
Dated : 09.07.2018
*Rati*
Copy to:
1. The Appellant
2. The Respondent
3. The CIT(A)
4. The CIT
5. The DR Assistant Registrar,
ITAT, Chandigarh