Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chandigarh
Haryana Financial Corporation, ... vs Department Of Income Tax on 25 July, 2014
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
CHANDIGARH BENCH 'A' CHANDIGARH
BEFORE SHRI T.R.SOOD ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
AND Ms. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER
ITA Nos.353, 411 & 412/ CH D/ 2011
Assessm ent Y ear .: 1981- 82 t o 1983- 84
T he Dy. Co mmi ssi oner of Vs Har yana Fi nanci al Cor por at i on,
Inco me T ax, Bay No. 17 -19,
Ci r cl e, Sect or 2, Sect or 17-A,
Panchkul a. Chandi gar h.
PAN : AA AC H4685B
&
ITA Nos.388,416 & 417/ CH D/ 2011
Assessm ent Y ear .: 1981- 82 t o 1983- 84
Har yana Fi nanci al Cor por at i on, Vs T he Dy. Co mmi ssi oner of
Bay No. 17 -19, Inco me T ax,
Sect or 17-A, Ci r cl e, Sect or 2,
Chandi gar h. Panchkul a.
PAN : AA AC H4685B
&
ITA Nos.1200 & 1 201/ CH D/ 2011
As sessm ent Y ear : 2003- 04 & 2004- 05
Har yana Fi nanci al Cor por at i on, Vs T he Dy. Co mmi ssi oner of
Bay No. 17 -19, Inco me T ax,
Sect or 17-A, Ci r cl e, Sect or 2,
Chandi gar h.. Panchkul a.
PAN : AA AC H4685B
(Appellant ) (R espondent )
Departm ent b y : S hri Akhilesh Gupta,DR
As sess ee b y : Shri B.K.Nohri a
Date of Heari ng : 03.06.2014
Date of P ronouncem ent : 25.07.2014
O R D E R
PE R SUSHMA CH OWLA, JM Out of this bunch of eight appeals, three cross appeals are filed both by the assessee and the revenue against orders of 2 the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) dated 27.01.2011, 0 2 . 0 2 . 2 0 1 1 & 1 5 . 0 2 . 2 0 1 1 r e l a t i n g t o a s s e s s m e n t ye a r 1 9 8 1 - 8 2 to 1983-84. Further, the assessee is in appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) dated 1 6 . 0 9 . 2 0 1 1 r e l a t i n g t o a s s e s s m e n t ye a r s 2003-04 against the order passed under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act. The assessee has also filed an appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) dated 16.09.2011 r e l a t i n g t o a s s e s s m e n t ye a r 2 0 0 4 - 0 5 a g a i n s t t h e o r d e r p a s s e d under section 143(3) of the Act.
2. All the appeals relating to the same assessee on different grounds were heard together and are being disposed of by the consolidated order for the sake of convenience.
3. The cross appeals filed by the assessee and the revenue r e l a t i n g t o a s s e s s m e n t ye a r s 1 9 8 1 - 8 2 t o 1 9 8 3 - 8 4 a r e o n i d e n t i c a l issue. However, we proceed to take up the facts in assessment year 1981-82 to adjudicate the issue raised by the assessee.
4. The assessee during the course of hearing had filed revised grounds of appeal which are as under :
1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Learned C1T(A) Panchkula has erred in rejecting the appeal of the assessee that the order of the learned AO is barred by limitation as no order under Section 154 can be passed after the expiry of four years from the end of the assessment year in which the order has been passed. The said order was passed on 25.08.1988.
2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the learned CIT(A) Panchkula has erred in law and facts in cancelling the order dated 31.03.2010 against the appeal of the assessee that the learned AO has erred in adding Rs.27,45,447/- without providing any evidence and for the addition of Rs.27,45,447/- is a part of Rs.65,64,213/- as the onus is on the learned A O to prove the same. Simply stating so is no evidence for the addition.
3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the learned CIT(A) Panchkula has erred in law and facts in cancelling the order dated 31.03.2010 against the appeal of the assessee that the learned AO has erred in taking the appeal effect order dated 28.03.2006 3 against the rectification order 25.08.1988 being barred by limitation and be declared that the appeal effect order dated 28.03.2006 is actually against the order dated 16.07.1999 only and has no linkage with the order dated 25.08.1988 at this stage.
4. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the learned CIT (A) Panchkula has erred in law and facts in cancelling the order dated 31.03.2010 and not passing any order against the appeal of the assessee that the learned AO has charged interest amounting to Rs.13,66,209/- under Section 234D wrongly when Section 234D has been inserted w.e.f. 01.06.2003 and is applicable from assessment year 2004-05.
5. The revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal :
1. Whether on the facts and the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in cancelling the order u/s 250(6) dated 28.03.2006?"
2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in cancelling the order u/s 154 dated 31.03.2010 despite the fact that when an error has occurred and came to the knowledge of the Department, the same has been rectified ?"
6. The issue raised in the present set of cross-appeals is against the order passed under section 154 of the Act dated 31.03.2010.
7. The brief facts of the case are that the assessment in this case was completed u/s 144 dated 17.12.1983 at an income of Rs.1,53,02,120/-, as against returned income of Rs.84,40,000/-.
At the time of assessment an addition of Rs.65,64,213/-was made disallowing the claim of the assessee on account of interest credited in suspense account. The case was reopened u/s 146 and thereafter income was assessed at Rs.1,00,47,620/- vide order dated 13.01.1986 and no addition on account of interest credited to suspense account of Rs.65,64,213/- was made in this order. An order u/s 263(1) dated 11.2.1987 was passed and income was enhanced by Rs.65,64,213/- and the total income was assessed at Rs.1,66,11,830/-. The enhancement was made on account of the interest of Rs.65,64,213/- credited to the suspense account. Later on, the order u/s 263 dated 11.03.87 was rectified on 4 12.03.1987 and income was determined at Rs.1,50,04,210/-. The relief allowed to the assessee under this rectification order was a further deduction u/s 36(l)(viii) as per the provisions of the law i.e. 40% of the net income. Further, with reference to the order dated 12.03.1987, order u/s 154 dated 25.8.1988 was passed on application of the assessee. The assessee was allowed deduction of Rs.27,45,447/- on account of interest credited to suspense account, which was stated by the assessee to be the interest i n c o m e t a x e d i n e a r l i e r ye a r s o n a c c r u a l b a s i s . A s p e r o r d e r d a t e d 25.08.1988, the income was determined at Rs.1,22,58,760/-. On an appeal by the appellant, the Tribunal vide ITA No. 238/Chandi/87 dated 12.08.1993 while upholding the Commissioner of Income Tax's order u/s 263 cancelled the assessment framed vide order dated 12.03.1987 and restored the issue to the file of the AO for fresh determination of income keeping in view, the orders of the Tribunal. The Assessing Officer vide order dated 28.02.1996 determined the income at Rs.1,22,58,760/- as determined vide order u/s 154 dated 25.08.1988. As the order dated 28.02.1996 was set aside by the CIT(A), a fresh assessment was made vide order dated 16.07.1999 and the income was determined with reference to the income determined vide order u/s 154 dated 25.08.1988. In all these orders, the amount debited in interest suspense account was treated as taxable on accrual basis. On an appeal by the appellant, the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer with specific directions by the Tribunal.
8. Further, while giving effect to the order of Tribunal in ITA No. 711/Chandi/2000 dated 24.11.2004, the Assessing Officer vide order dated 28.03.2006 reduced the amount of interest of 5 Rs.65,64,213/- credited to suspense account from Rs.1,22,58,760/- and added the amount of interest of Rs.2,01,047/- chargeable to tax in view of directions of Tribunal.
9. The AO noted that though it is apparent from perusal of assessment records that vide order dated 25.08.1988, an amount of Rs.27,45,447/- on account of interest credited to the suspense account was already reduced. But while giving appeal effect vide order dated 28.03.2006, the Assessing Officer did not consider this fact that out of the total amount of Rs.65,64,213/- to be reduced in pursuance of Tribunal's order, an amount of Rs.27,45,447/- had already been reduced from the total income vide order dated 25.08.1988 and only the balance amount of Rs.38,18,766/- was required to be reduced from the income of Rs.1,22,58,760/-. Therefore, total income was to be computed at Rs.86,41,047/- as against Rs.58,95,600/- computed vide appeal effect order dated 28.03.2006.
10. In view of the above facts, the AO observed that while giving appeal effect, an error has occurred to an extent that the double relief has been given for interest income of Rs.27,45,47/-, while computing the total income. A notice u/s 154/155 of the IT. Act, 1961 was accordingly issued to the assessee on 19.03.2010, pointing out that a double relief has been given on account of interest, which has resulted in assessment of income below returned income. The counsel for the appellant submitted that the relief allowed is as per records. The Assessing Officer after considering the facts and circumstances of the case and there being a mistake apparent from the record, rectified the order u/s 154 and added back Rs.27,45,447/- to the income of the 6 appellant.
11. Before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), the assessee challenged the validity of the order passed under section 154 of the Act stating that it was barred by limitation since no order under section 154 could be passed after the expiry of four years from the end of the assessment year in which order had been passed. As per assessee, the order under section 154 of the Act was passed with reference to order passed on 25.08.1988 and hence, the same being passed on 31.03.2010 was barred by limitation.
12. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) vide para 6.1 rejected the claim of the assessee observing as under :
"6.1 I have carefully considered the submission made by the appellant and have gone through the details on record. It is seen that the order u/s 154 dated 31.03.2010 has been passed in reference to order u/s 250(6) dated 28.03.2006 passed in consequence to ITAT's order No. 711/Chdndi/2000 dated 24.11.2004. Hence, the order passed under section 154 dated 31.3.2010 is well within the four years of the date of passing of the order dated 28.03.2006. Thus, there is no merit in the appellant's contention and the ground of appeal is dismissed."
13. The second issue raised before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) was against the quashing of the order passed under section 154 of the Act. The assessee had furnished written submissions before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) which are incorporated under para 7 at pages 6 & 7 of the appellate order. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) vide para 7.6 at pages 10-11 after deliberating upon the sequence of events and the various orders passed against the assessee held that "Therefore, on careful perusal of the facts and the history of the case, it is observed that the Assessing Officer while passing 7 the order under section 143(3) dated 16.07.99 and while giving appeal effect vide order dated 28.03.2006 wrongly took the figure of assessed income at Rs. 1,22,58,760/-. Therefore, the order under section 250(6) dated 28.03.2006 needs to be corrected. In view of the above facts, the order under section 250(6) is cancelled with the directions to the Assessing Officer to pass it afresh keeping in view the above observations." Further directions were given b y the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) vide para 7.7 and 7.8 which are as under :
"7.7 Further, a perusal of the facts as brought out by the appellant during the course of appellate proceedings reveal that certain amount which was offered for tax by the appellant on receipt basis had in fact already been taxed on accrual basis in the earlier years. Therefore, in the interest of justice, it is felt that the appellant's claim in this regard needs to be examined afresh and necessary relief if admissible needs to be given. The AO is therefore directed to examine the claim of the appellant that the returned income included an income of Rs.27,45,447/- which had already been taxed on accrual basis and take necessary action accordingly. The appellant is directed to make available all the details to the Assessing Officer with reference to his claim. As regards the order u/s 154 against which the appellant is in appeal, the same is also cancelled in view of the directions given above.
7.8 As regards, appellant's contention that the order dated 28,03.2006 under section 250(6) is with reference to order dated 16.07.99 which does not have any reference to order u/s 154 dated 25.08.88, the same is found to be incorrect, A perusal of the -order u/s 143(3) dated 16.07.99 clearly show that the income determined vide order dated 25.08,88 u/s 154 has been taken as the assessed income. The ground of appeal No. 4 is dismissed."
14. Another ground of appeal raised by the assessee before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was against charging of interest under section 234D of the Act which were not adjudicated b y the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in view of the fact that the order under section 154 of the Act had been cancelled. 8
15. The last issue raised by the assessee before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was against the consequential deduction allowable under section 36(1)(vii) of the Act. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) vide para 8.2 held as under :
8.2 However, it is seen from the details filed that the Assessing Officer while passing order dated 28.03.2006 giving effect to ITATs order dated 24.11.2004 omitted to withdraw deduction u/s 36(l)(viii) on Rs.65,65,213/- which was reduced from the income of the appellant. The appellant was accordingly given any opportunity dated 27.01.2011 to explain as to why the same be not withdrawn. The appellant vide his written submission dated 24.1.2011 filed no objection in this regard. As per the calculation sheet filed by the appellant during the course of appellate proceedings, the appellant is eligible for deduction u/s 36(l)(viii) amounting to Rs.46,08,904/-
as against Rs.56,26,664/- allowed vide order dated 13.03.87. Thus, the appellant has admitted that deduction u/s 36(l)(viii) amounting to Rs.10,17,760/- needs to be withdrawn. The Assessing Officer is therefore directed to recalculate the deduction u/s 36(l)(viii) and withdraw the excess deduction allowed to the appellant while passing the order u/s 250(6) of the I.T.Act.
16. Both the assessee and the revenue are in appeal against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) because of the reliefs/additions made by the Commissioner of In come Tax (Appeals).
17. The grievance of the revenue is two-fold i.e. against the cancellation of the order under section 250(6) dated 28.03.2006 and also against the cancellation of order passed under section 154 dated 31.3.2010. The assessee by way of revised grounds of appeal has raised the following issues :
a) Rejection of the claim of the assessee that the order passed under section 154 was barred by limitation.
b) Cancellation of the order passed under section 154 of the Act dated 31.3.2010 in which Assessing Officer had erred in adding Rs.27,45,447/- and also in not adjudicating the appeal effect order dated 28.03.2006 as against the rectification order dated 25.08.1988.9
c) The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) having not adjudicated the issue of non-charging of interest under section 234D of the Act as the said section has been inserted w.e.f. 01.06.2003 which was applicable from assessment year 2004-05. In the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in directing the Assessing Officer to amend order under section 154 of the Act against the appeal effect order dated 28.03.2006 in which no deduction under section 36(1)(vii) was allowed.
18. Shri B.K.Nohria appeared for the assessee and Shri Akhilesh Gupta appeared for the revenue and put forward their contentions.
19. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record. As pointed out in the paras hereinabove, there were proceedings against the assessee with the start of assessment framed under section 144 which was reopened under section 146 and thereafter the assessment was completed under section 143(3) of the Act at total income of Rs. 1,00,47,620/- vide order dated 13.01.1986. Thereafter, various orders were passed against the assessee under section 154 of the Act and also order was passed under section 263 of the Act. In respect of various orders passed, the assessee appealed against the said order before Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and also before the Tribunal. Consequent orders to the directions of the Commissioner of Income Tax under section 263 and the Tribunal were also passed. In order to adjudicate the issue, it is necessary to make a reference to the v a r i o u s o r d e r s p a s s e d d a y- t o - d a y a g a i n s t t h e a s s e s s e e . The tabulated details of the orders passed against the assessee on different dates and the break-up of the income computed in the 10 hands of the assessee vide different orders passed giving effect to the order of Commissioner of Income Tax under section 263 or the Tribunal are annexed as Annexure-A to this order.
20. In order to adjudicate the issue, it is necessary to refer to some of the orders passed by the Assessing Officer which provides a link to determination of income in the hands of the assessee. The first such order is at S.No. 4. The perusal of the said details reflect that the assessment order dated 13.01.1983 was passed by the Assessing Officer determining the income as under :
S.No. 4
Gross Income Rs. 140,66,660/-
Deduction under Rs. 40,19,045/-
section 36(1)(viii)
Net Income Rs.100,47,620/-
21. The second document to be considered is at Sr.No. 7 i.e. the order passed under section 154 of the Act and also giving effect to order under section 263 & 154 of the Act, details of the income are as under:
Sr. No. 7
Income as picked up Rs. 140,66,660/- From Sr.No. 4 Add : on account of the Rs. 65,64,213/- Interest in suspense account --------------------- Net Income Rs.206,30,873/- Deduct : under section Rs. 56,26,664/- 36(1)(viii) Net Income(Balance) Rs.150,04,210/- 11
22. The next order to be referred to is the order passed under section 154 of the Act dated 25.08.1988 at S.No. 10 :
Sr. No.10 Net Income picked up Rs. 206,30,873/-
From Sr.No. 7
Less: Relief on account of
a) Interest income (-) Rs. 27,45,447/-
b)Deduction under section (-) Ra. 56,26,664/-
36(1)(viii)
Net Income Rs.128,58,762/-
23. The next order is the order passed under section 250(6) giving effect to the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 28.03.2006 i.e. the details at Sr.No. 18 :
Income as per order Rs. 122,58,762/-
dt. 16.07.1999
Less : interest credit (-) Rs. 65,64,213/-
to suspense account
account
Add :amount chargeable (+) Rs.201,047/-
to tax as per ITAT Rs.
Net Income : Rs.5895,596/-
24. Thereafter the order passed under section 154 of the Act dated 31.03.2010 as per Sr.No. 19 i.e. the order under appeal wherein the net income was determined as under :
Net income (as per order Rs. 58,95,596/-
Dt. 28.3.2006
Add : Interest deducted vide Rs. 27,45,447/-
Order dt. 25.08.1988 to be
Reversed
Total : Rs. 86,41,047/-
25. After considering various orders passed against the
assessee wherein the income in the hands of the assessee had 12 been assessed from time to time pursuant to the various directions and also rectification orders passed under section 154 of the Act, the following picture emerges :
i) Original income assessed Rs. 140,66,660/-
under section 143(3)
ii) Add : Addition on account of (+) Rs. 65,64,213/-
Interest in suspense account
iii) Total income Rs.206,30,873/-
iv) Deduct : relief allowed on (-) Rs. 27,45,447/-
account of interest taxed
earlier but not deducted
out of suspense account
v) Deduct : Deduction u/s (-) Rs. 56,26,644/-
36(1)(viii)
vi) Balance income Rs.122,58,762/-
vii) Deduct :Interest in (-) Rs. 65,64,213/-
Suspense account
viii) Add : Interest as per
directions of ITAT (+) Rs. 201,047/-
ix) Balance income Rs. 58,95,596/-
x) Add back the relief Rs. 27,45,447/-
allowed to the assessee
on account of interest
income (taxed twice)
xi) Balance income after Rs. 86,41,047/-
Deduction under section
36(1)(vii)
xii) Taxable income Rs. 86,41,047/-
26. The perusal of the seriatum orders passed against the assessee reflect that after making addition on account of interest in suspense account of Rs. 65,64,213/-, relief was allowed to the assessee on account of interest taxed earlier but not deducted out of suspense account of Rs. 27,45,447/-. Further deduction under section 36(1)(vii) of the Act of Rs. 56,26,644/- was allowed to the assessee. After passing of the order of the Tribunal, the 13 Assessing Officer while giving effect to the order of the Tribunal deleted the addition made on account of interest in suspense account of Rs. 65,64,213/- without taking into consideration the relief allowed on account of interest taxed earlier, but not deducted out of suspense account at Rs. 27,45,447/-. The Assessing Officer vide order passed under section 154 of the Act against which the assessee is in appeal before us has only reduced the said sum of Rs. 27,45,447/- and we confirm the said order passed in the hands of the assessee. Now we proceed to deal with various issues raised both by the assessee and the revenue by the respective grounds of appeal.
27. The issue raised vide ground No.1 by the Revenue is against cancellation of order under section 250(6) dated 28.3.2006. The CIT (Appeals) vide para 7.6 had cancelled the order passed under section 250(6) of the Act dated 28.3.2006. However, in para 1 of the appellate order the CIT (Appeals) had observed that the appeal arises from the order of the D.C.I.T., Panchkula under section 154 of the Act vide order dated 31.3.2010 meaning thereby that the appeal was filed before the CIT (Appeals) against the order passed under section 154 of the Act which was dated 31.3.2010. While deciding the said appeal the CIT (Appeals) had referred to the order passed under section 250(6) of the Act dated 28.3.2006, against which the assessee is not in appeal. Thus the CIT (Appeals) has erred in canceling the said order dated 28.3.2006 while deciding the appeal against the order passed under section 154 of the Act dated 31.3.2010. A c c o r d i n g l y, w e reverse the order of the CIT (Appeals) in canceling the order 14 passed under section 250(6) of the Act dated 28.3.2006. The ground of appeal No.1 raised by the Revenue is thus allowed.
28. The issue in ground No.2 raised by the assessee is against the order of CIT (Appeals) in canceling the order under section 154 dated 31.3.2010. On the perusal of the appellate order we find that the CIT (Appeals) vide para 7.7 has observed as under:
"7.7 Further, a perusal of the facts as brought out by the appellant during the course of appellate proceedings reveal that certain amount which was offered for tax by the appellant on receipt basis had in fact already been taxed on accrual basis in the earlier years. Therefore, in the interest of justice, it is felt that the appellant's claim in this regard needs to be examined afresh and necessary relief if admissible needs to be given. The AO is therefore directed to examine the claim of the appellant that the returned income included an income of Rs.27,45,447/- which had already been taxed on accrual basis and take necessary action accordingly. The appellant is directed to make available all the details to the Assessing Officer with reference to his claim. As regards the order u/s 154 against which the appellant is in appeal, the same is also cancelled in view of the directions given above.
29. The CIT (Appeals) was of the view that the claim of the assessee that returned income included sum of Rs.27,45,447/- had already been taxed on accrual basis and the Assessing Officer was directed to examine the claim of the assessee. In view thereof, the order passed under section 154 of the Act, against which the assessee was in appeal was also cancelled.
30. We have noted in the paras hereinabove that vide order passed under section 154 of the Act dated 31.3.2010 the income of the assessee has correctly been rectified and determined and in view thereof, we find no merit in the order of the CIT (Appeals) in canceling the order passed under section 154 of the Act. The ground of appeal No.2 raised by the Revenue is allowed.15
31. Now coming to the revised grounds of appeal raised by the assessee. The first issue arising in the appeal filed by the assessee is against the rejection of the claim of the assessee that the order passed under section 154 of the Act was barred by limitation. In sequence of events we have considered hat the Tribunal vide order dated 24.11.2004 had given certain directions to the Assessing Officer, consequent to which the Assessing Officer passed an order under section 250(6) of the Act giving effect to the order of the Tribunal, which is dated 28.3.2006.
The present order passed under section 154 which is dated 31.3.2010 is correcting the mistake which had arisen in the order passed under section 250(6) of the Act dated 28.3.2006. The present order which is under appeal which was passed under section 154 of the Act is dated 31.3.2010 and is against the order p a s s e d o n 2 8 . 3 . 2 0 0 6 a n d i s w i t h i n t h e p e r i o d o f f o u r ye a r s prescribed under section 154 of the Act. Accordingly, we find no merit in the plea of the assessee that the order passed under section 154 of the Act was barred by limitation.
32. The second issue raised by the assessee is against the order of CIT (Appeals) in canceling the order passed under section 154 of the Act dated 31.3.2010 under which it was held that the Assessing Officer had erred in adding Rs.27,45,447/-. We have already adjudicated the issue at length and allowed the ground of appeal No.2 raised by the Revenue in this regard and this issue is linked to the issue raised by the Revenue and we find no merit in this issue and the same is dismissed.
33. The last issue raised b y the assessee is that the CIT (Appeals) had not adjudicated the issue of non-charging of 16 interest under section 234D of the Act. We find that the CIT (Appeals) vide para 8 has observed that both the grounds of appeal charging of interest under section 234D and interest under section 244A of the Act are not being adjudicated in view of the fact that the order under section 154 of the Act has been cancelled. In view thereof, there is no merit in the plea raised b y the assessee that the CIT (Appeals) had not adjudicated the said issue. However, in view of our upholding the order passed under section 154 of the Act dated 31.3.2010, we proceed to decide the charging of interest under section 234D of the Act.
34. We find merit in the plea of the assessee that the said i n t e r e s t i s c h a r g e a b l e w . e . f . a s s e s s m e n t ye a r 2 0 0 4 - 0 5 a s t h e s a i d provisions had been inserted w.e.f. 1.6.2003 and the said p r o v i s i o n s a r e n o t a p p l i c a b l e r e t r o s p e c t i v e l y. In view thereof, we allow the claim of the assessee with regard charging of interest under section 234D of the Act. However, charging of interest under section 234A of the Act is consequential in nature.
ITA No.411 & 412/Chd/2011 :: Revenue's Appeal Assessment Years : 1982-83 & 1983-84
35. The issues raised in ITA Nos.411 & 412/Chd/2011 are identical to the issues raised by the Revenue in ITA No.353/Chd/2011 and our decision in ITA No.353/Chd/2011 shall appl y mutatis mutandis to the issues raised in ITA Nos.411 & 412/Chd/2011.
ITA No.416 & 417/Chd/2011 :: Assessee's Appeal Assessment Years : 1982-83 & 1983-84
36. The issues raised in ITA Nos.416 & 417/Chd/2011 are similar to the issue raised by the Revenue in ITA 17 No.388/Chd/2011 and our decision in ITA No.388/Chd/2011 shall appl y mutatis mutandis to the issues raised in ITA Nos.416 & 417/Chd/2011.
37. I n a s s e s s m e n t ye a r s 1 9 8 2 - 8 3 a n d 1 9 8 3 - 8 4 t h e a s s e s s e e h a s raised an additional ground of appeal No.6 which reads as under:
1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the learned CIT(A) Panchkula has erred in law and on facts in directing the learned A O to amend the order passed u/s 154 dated 31.03.2010 against appeal effect order dated 28.03.2006 in which no deduction was reduced for the amount allowable u/s 36(l)(viii) of the Act though the no objection from the counsel was taken under pressure after the expiry of four years from the end of the appeal effect order dated 28.03.2006.
38. The perusal of the additional ground of appeal itself reflects that the assessee had given no objection while rectification under section 154 of the Act was carried out vide order dated 31.3.2010.
In view of the admission of the assessee we find no merit in the ground of appeal No.6 raised by the assessee.
ITA No. 1200/Chd/2011 : Assessee's Appeal :: 2003-04
39. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :
1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Learned CIT (A) Panchkula has erred in law and facts in dismissing the ground of appeal regarding no reasons recorded under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has been supplied to the Corporation by not passing a speaking order.
2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the learned CIT(A) Panchkula has erred in law and facts in dismissing the ground of appeal regarding change of opinion as no addition was made in the original assessment and there is no declaration as to how the assessee has not disclosed the addition made in the return of income by not passing a speaking order.
3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the learned CIT(A) Panchkula has erred in law and facts in dismissing the ground of appeal regarding notice u/s 148 has been issued after the expiry of 4 years from the end of the assessment year as the original assessment has been framed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
4. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the learned C1T(A) Panchkula has erred in law and facts in dismissing the 18 ground of appeal regarding the learned A O has failed to remove the preliminary objections raised by the assessee.
40. The issue raised in the present appeal is against the invoking of jurisdiction under section 147 of the Income Tax Act.
41. The brief facts of the case are that the original assessment in the case was completed vide order passed under section 143(3) of the Act dated 10.10.2005. Thereafter, reasons were recorded under section 147 of the Act for issue of notice under section 148 of the Act. The reasons recorded are reproduced at page 2 & 3 of the assessment order. In response to the said notice under section 148 of the Act, the assessee furnished return of income declaring net loss of Rs. 2.13 Cr. However, in the original return of income, the assessee had declared loss at Rs.3.32 Cr. The assessee vide letter dated 27.05.2009 sought the reasons to believe for re-assessment and also sought certain information. The Assessing Officer vide letter dated 22.07.2010 supplied the copy of reasons for the issue of notice under section 148 of the Act, to the assessee. On the date of hearing next fixed, the counsel for the assessee insisted that the information as asked for vide letter dated 27.05.2009 be supplied to him. Vide the said communication, the assessee was aggrieved by the issue of notice under section 148 of the Act which, as per the assessee was b e yo n d t h e p e r i o d o f l i m i t a t i o n . Another communication was filed by the assessee challenging the re-opening which is reproduced at pages 4 to 11 of the assessment order. As per the assessee, no reasons were recorded under section 147 of the Act and hence, the issue of notice under section 148 was bad in law. The Assessing Officer vide para 7 observed that no reasons were 19 to be recorded under section 147 of the Act but it was sub- section 2 of section 148 of the Act which mandates that before issuing notice under the said section, the Assessing Officer shall record reasons for doing so. As per the Assessing Officer, sections 147 and 148 of the Act had to be read together. As per section 147, if the Assessing Officer had reason to believe that any income had escaped assessment, then he may assess or reassess such income and under section 148 of the Act, before making such assessment or re-assessment, the Assessing Officer had to serve notice on the assessee and before issuing such notice, he had to record reasons for doing so. The Assessing Officer further observed that the reasons were duly recorded and had been supplied to the assessee in the case. Regarding the second contention of the assessee that whether the escapement of income was to exceed Rs.1,00,000/-, the Assessing Officer vide para 8 observed that the amount on account of forfeiture of shares had escaped assessment on account of assessee's failure to fully disclose the material facts as the said amount was d e c l a r e d u n d e r t h e h e a d ' l i a b i l i t y' i n t h e b a l a n c e s h e e t . Since the amount involved was more than Rs. 1 lac, the proceedings were validly initiated. Further, no enquiry in this regard was made during the original assessment proceedings. Therefore, no opinion on this issue had been formed by Assessing Officer at the time of original assessment and thus, it could not be said that there was change of opinion. The Assessing Officer placed reliance on various case laws for the said proposition. It was further clarified to the assessee that the said assessment proceedings had been reopened under section 147 of the Act as per the provisions of section 149(1)(b) of the Act after obtaining 20 the approval of Commissioner of Income Tax, Panchkula and only thereafter, notice under section 148 of the Act was issued. Further, the Assessing Officer observed that the said notice under section 148 of the Act was issued during the time allowed under the provisions of section 149(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, as per which, notice under section 148 of the Act could be issued within s i x ye a r s f r o m t h e e n d o f t h e a s s e s s m e n t ye a r i f t h e i n c o m e escaped is likely to amount to Rs. 1,00,000/- or more. In view of the abovesaid, the Assessing Officer observed that the re- assessment proceedings had been validly initiated. Further addition of sum of Rs. 3,89,000/- on account of forfeiture of shares was made holding the same to be revenue receipt.
42. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) dismissed the ground of appeal raised by the assessee as he approved the reasoning given by the Assessing Officer and also as per the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), the issue of time limitation had become academic since the matter was already decided on merits by holding the said forfeiture of shares to be capital receipt.
43. The ld. AR for the assessee furnished the order of the T r i b u n a l r e l a t i n g t o a s s e s s m e n t ye a r 2 0 0 2 - 0 3 a n d p o i n t e d o u t t h a t the issue was decided against the assessee.
44 The ld. DR for the revenue placed reliance on the orders of the authorities below.
45. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record. The assessee has raised several grounds of appeal but the issue raised in all the grounds of appeal relate to the initiation of re- 21 assessment proceedings under section 147 of the Act and issue of notice under section 148 of the Act. The assessment in the case was originally completed under section 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 10.10.2005. Thereafter, the proceedings under section 147 of the Act were initiated by issue of notice under section 148 of the Act dated 30.04.2009. The first plea of the assessee before us was that the said reasons for re-opening assessment under section 147/148 of the Act were not supplied to the corporation. Further, the assessee is aggrieved by the issue of notice after expiry of four ye a r s from the end of the a s s e s s m e n t ye a r a s t h e o r i g i n a l a s s e s s m e n t w a s f r a m e d u n d e r section 143(3) of the Act. The next objection raised by the assessee was that there was no merit in the said re-assessment proceedings as the same amounted to change of opinion. Further, the Assessing Officer had failed to remove the preliminary objections raised by the assessee and hence, the order passed was incorrect.
46. As referred to by us in the paras herein above, the assessee had sought the reasons for re-opening vide letter dated 27.05.2009 and the Assessing Officer has given a finding that the said reasons were supplied to the assessee vide letter dated 22.07.2010. Hence, there is no merit in the first contention of the assessee with regard to re-opening of assessment under section 148 of the Act that reasons were not supplied to the assessee. Further, certain information was asked by the assessee vide letter dated 27.05.2009 which is reproduced under para 4 at page 3 of the assessment order. The assessee has raised five issues and had made elaborate submissions in respect thereof. The Assessing 22 Officer vide para 7, 8 to 11 of the assessment order had individually dealt with each of the objections raised by the assessee and had disposed of the objections raised by the assessee. In view thereof, we find no merit in the ground of appeal No. 1 raised by the assessee that no reasons were recorded under section 147 of the Act or the same has not been supplied to the assessee by passing a speaking order.
47. Further, there is no merit in another plea of the assessee that the said re-opening was bad in law as notice under section 1 4 8 h a d b e e n i s s u e d a f t e r t h e e x p i r y o f f o u r ye a r s f r o m t h e e n d o f t h e a s s e s s m e n t ye a r . U n d e r t h e p r o v i s i o n s o f s e c t i o n 1 4 9 ( 1 ) ( b ) o f t h e I n c o m e T a x A c t , n o t i c e c o u l d b e i s s u e d w i t h i n s i x ye a r s f r o m t h e e n d o f t h e a s s e s s m e n t ye a r w h e r e i n t h e i n c o m e e s c a p e d i s likely to exceed an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- or more. In the facts of present case, the escapement of income was Rs. 389,000/- and hence the proceedings for re-assessment were validly initiated within the prescribed period.
48. The next issue raised by the assessee is that the said recording of reasons for re-assessment amounted to change of opinion. However, the Assessing Officer has given a finding that the assessee had declared the amount on account of forfeiture of s h a r e s u n d e r t h e h e a d ' l i a b i l i t y' i n t h e b a l a n c e s h e e t a n d t h e Assessing Officer in the original assessment proceedings had not considered the same. In view thereof, it cannot be said that the re-assessment proceedings were a case of change of opinion and we find merit in the order of Assessing Officer in this regard and uphold the same.
23
48. The next plea raised by the assessee was that the order of the re-assessment was not correct as the Assessing Officer had failed to remove the preliminary objections. We find no merit in the said plea of the assessee where the Assessing Officer has elaborately considered the reply of the assessee and had individually met the objections raised by the assessee in paras 7 t o 1 1 o f t h e a s s e s s m e n t o r d e r . A c c o r d i n g l y, w e r e j e c t t h e s a m e .
49. Further, we also find that similar issue of re-opening of assessment on account of forfeiture of shares arose before the Tribunal in ITA No. 751/Chd/2011 and vide order dated 20.04.2012 in the appeal filed by the revenue, the Tribunal held that the re-assessment proceedings initiated in the case were covered b y the provisions of section 149(1)(b) of the Act. It may b e p l a c e d o n r e c o r d t h a t i n t h e a s s e s s m e n t ye a r 2 0 0 2 - 0 3 a l s o , t h e Assessing Officer had recorded the reasons for re-opening as reason to believe that the amount on account of forfeiture of shares had escaped assessment as the assessee had failed to fully disclose the material facts as the said sum was declared under the h e a d ' l i a b i l i t y' i n t h e b a l a n c e s h e e t . T h e r e l e v a n t f i n d i n g s o f t h e Tribunal are as under:
16. We have heard the rival submissions and have also perused the materials available on record. In view of the proviso to section 147, no action can be taken u/s 147 beyond the period of four years if the case does not fall within the exception of the proviso mentioned in the proviso itself, namely, if there is no case of failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts which are necessary for his assessment, for that assessment year. The second part of the proviso is that if the case falls under the exception mentioned in the proviso to section 147, namely, there is failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts which are necessary for his assessment, for that assessment year, then action can be taken beyond four years subject to the issue of notice u/s 148 within the limitation provided u/s 149. Section 149 (l)(b) of the Act provides time limit for notice. Both sections 147 & !49 of the Act are to be 24 read together. In the instant case, the CIT(A) without appreciating the provisions of proviso to section 147 held that notice u/s 148 issued by the Assessing Officer was barred by time.
In the instant case, the case of the Revenue falls under the exception mentioned in the proviso to section 147 namely there was failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts which were necessary for his assessment, for that assessment year. In the reasons recorded for reopening of the assessment, the Assessing Officer categorically stated that "I have reasons to believe that Rs. 2,25,87,000/- has escaped assessment on account of assessee's failure to disclose fully the material facts of his income as it was clubbed under the head 'liabilities' in the balance sheet. The case, therefore, be reopened within the meaning of section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961". The CIT(A) has not given any findings to this effect that there was no failure on the part of the assessee to make a return u/s 139 or in response to a notice under sub section to section |42 or section 148 or to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment for that assessment year. In absence of such findings, the CIT(A) was not justified in holding that the notice issued u/s 148 was barred by limitation. In view of the above, we allow this ground of appeal.
50. In view of our holding that the Assessing Officer had validly initiated re-assessment proceedings by recording reasons and thereafter issuing notice under section 147/148 of the Act which had been recorded within the prescribed period under section 149(1)(b) of the Act and there being no case of change in opinion, we uphold the orders of the authorities below in this regard. Further, the issue raised in the present case is identical to the issue raised before the Tribunal in the earlier year in the appeal filed by the revenue and in view of the facts and circumstances of the present case, we find no merit in the grounds of appeal Nos. 1 to 4 raised by the assessee with regard to re- assessment of assessment under section 148 of the Act. In an y case, the said issue of re-opening of assessment under section 147/148 of the Act has become academic as the Commissioner of I n c o m e T a x ( A p p e a l s ) i n t h e ye a r u n d e r a p p e a l a n d t h e T r i b u n a l i n a s s e s s m e n t ye a r 2 0 0 2 - 0 3 h a d h e l d t h a t t h e a m o u n t r e c e i v e d o n 25 account of forfeiture of shares was a capital receipt. We a c c o r d i n g l y, d i s m i s s g r o u n d s o f a p p e a l r a i s e d b y t h e a s s e s s e e . ITA No. 1201/Chd/2011 : Assessee's Appeal :: 2004-05
51. The assessee has raised the following ground of appeal :
"1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) Panchkula has erred in law and facts in disallowing the actual payment of Pension out of pension fund being unrecognized as per the directions of the Hon'ble ITAT Chandigarh Bench B to adjudicate the issue afresh."
52. The ld. AR for the assessee, at the outset pointed out that the issue raised in the present appeal is covered by the order of Tribunal in assessee's o w n c a s e r e l a t i n g t o a s s e s s m e n t ye a r 2002-03 and 2003-04.
53. The only issue raised in the present appeal is in relation to t h e c l a i m o f e x p e n d i t u r e o n a c c o u n t o f a c t u a l p a ym e n t o f p e n s i o n out of pension fund which was un-recognized. The Tribunal in ITA No. 785 and 945/Chd/2011 relating to assessment ye a r 2002-03 and 2003-04 in appeals filed by assessee vide order dated 27.03.2014 had deliberated upon the said issue and held as under :
11. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record. The assessee in the first round of appeal before the Tribunal was aggrieved by the order of the authorities below in upholding the addition regarding the amount contributed to pension fund maintained for the employees.
The said contribution to pension fund was not allowed as deduction in the hands of the assessee as the pension fund was not recognized. The Tribunal in ITA Nos.56 & 369/Chd/2006 relating to assessment year 2002-03 and 2003-04 vide order dated 30.9.2008 vide paras 4 and 5 observed that the contribution made by the assessee to its PF scheme was allowable expenditure. However, as the pension scheme had been scrapped and the amount had been paid over to P.F. scheme,, the implication thereof was required to be viewed and as the said aspect has not been considered by either of the authorities below, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer to examine the 26 claim of the assessee afresh and to pass an order in accordance with law.
12. The claim of the assessee before the Assessing Officer in the second round of proceedings was that the said amount was first not contributed to a recognized pension scheme and was also not contributed to the P.F. scheme. However, the assessee during the year under consideration had made actual payments of pension to some of the employees who had retired during the period under consideration and the said amounts being paid to the employees should be allowed as a deduction in the hands of the assessee and the details in respect thereof were available in the Audit Report. The Assessing Officer and the CIT (Appeals), however, rejected the claim of the assessee on the plea that the assessee had failed to make contribution to recognized pension fund. We find no merit in the orders of the authorities below specially in case where the matter has been remitted back to the Assessing Officer to cull out the facts of the case and decide the issue in accordance with law. It is an admitted position that the pension fund of the assessee was not recognized and such fund scheme was scrapped as no recognition was given by the State Government. However, the assessee made an alternate plea that the amount would be contributed to the P.F. scheme and in the absence of the said pension scheme, another plea was raised by the assessee before the authorities below that the amount equivalent to the payment being made on account of pension to the respective employees retiring during the year be allowed as deduction. The requisite details of the pension fund Balance Sheet were filed along with Auditors' Report dated 22.10.2003 which are placed at pages 40 to 49 of the Paper Book. The perusal of the said pension fund Balance Sheet reflects that for the year ending 31.3.2002 the status was as under:
(RS.)
1. OPENING OF ACC0UNT-CA- 1193 3,000,00 ADMN = HFC EMPLOYEES PENSI ON FUND
2. OPENING BALANCE 1,41,80,523.51
3. PENSI ON CONTERIBUTION 1,21,97,699.00 (AS PER ANANEXUEE-I)
4. ICIC1 BONDS OF RS=1 , 15 CEORES 1,15,00,000.00
5. INTEREST RECEIVED ON ICICI 15,39,795.00 BONDS OF RS.1.15 CRORES.
(AS PER ANNEXURE- 111)
6. RECOVERY-COMMUTED PENSI ONER 3,90,511.00 (AS PER ANNEXURE- -11 )
7. INTEREST CHARGED ON PENSION 15,04,795,00 27 FUND FOR THE YEAR ENDED ON 31.3.2002.
(A S PER ANNEXURE -IV)
------------------
TOTAL : 4,13,16,323.51
(B)
1. VARIOUS PAYMENTS MADE TO 22,89,137,00
PENSI ONERS DURING THE YEAR
ENDED ON 31.3.2002 AS PER
ANNEXURES- V, VI & VII ATTACHED.
2. BANK BALANCE 3,000.00
3. BALANCE OUTSTANDING ,75,24,186.51
4. ICICI BONDS OF RS. 1.15 CRORES 1,15,00,000.00
TOTAL 4,13,16,323.51
13. Similarly in assessment year 2003-04 the pension fund Balance Sheet was filed on record and the status as on 31.3.2003 was as under:
(RS.) A) I OPE NI NG BA LA N CE- CA- 0 2 1 0 0 0 1 1 9 3 8 3 ,0 0 0 .0 0 AD MN HF C EM PL O YEE S PE NS I O N FU N D II OPE NI NG BA LA N CE 2 ,7 5 ,2 4 , 1 8 6 .5 1 III P E NS I O N C O NT RI BU TI O N 3 2 ,0 7 ,9 8 9 .0 0 (A N NEX- I ) IV I CI CI BO NDS OF RS 1 . 1 5 CR ORE 1 ,1 5 ,0 0 ,0 0 0 .0 0 V REC OVE RY - CO M MU T ED P E NS I O N 5 ,0 7 ,8 4 1 .0 0 (A N NE X- I I ) VI I N TERES T RE CEI VE D ON I CI CI B O NDS 1 0 ,5 8 ,4 0 2 .0 0 OF RS 1 .1 5 CR ORES ( AN NE X- I I I ) VI I I N TERES T C HAR GED O N PE NS I O N FU N D 2 5 ,0 2 ,9 1 2 .0 0 FOR TH E Y EAR E NDE D O N 3 1 .0 3 .2 0 0 3 (A N NEX- I V )
------------------
T OT AL 4 ,6 3 ,0 4 ,3 3 0 .5 1
B )
I BAN K BA LA N CE 2 7 8 9 7 1 .0 0
AS O N 3 1 .0 3 .2 0 0 3 + 3 0 0 0 .0 0
-------------
2 ,8 1 ,9 7 1 .0 0
II VARI O US P AY ME N TS MA DE TO PE NS I O N ERS 6 ,3 3 ,1 8 8 . 00
DURI N G THE Y EAR E N DED O N 3 1 .0 3 .2 0 0 3
( A N N EX- V & VI )
III ICI CI B O NDS OF RS 1.15 CR ORE 1 ,1 5 ,00,000.00
IV BA LA N CE OU TS T AN DI NG 2 9 1 6 8 1 4 2 .51
LES S : CH. N O 315360 (- )2 7 8 9 7 1.00
DA TE D 2 8 .3 .2 0 0 3 ---------------- 2 ,8 8 ,8 9 ,171.51
I S S UED O N 1 .4 .2 0 0 3
28
RE AL I S ED O N 2 .4 .2 0 0 3
-----------------
TO TA L 4 ,6 3 ,0 4 ,3 3 0 .5 1
14. On perusal of the above said Balance Sheet for pension fund reflects that the pension contribution for the assessment year 2002-03 was Rs.1,21,97,699/- and the payments made to the pensioners as per Annexures-V,VI and VII totaled to Rs.22,89,137/-. In assessment year 2003-04, the total contribution to the pension fund was Rs.32,07,989/- and the payments made to the pensioners as per AnnexureV and VI totaled to Rs.56,33,188/-. We find merit in the claim of the assessee that the expenditure incurred on payments being made to the pensioners is allowable in the hands of the assessee as revenue expenditure. In assessment year 2002-03 the total contribution to the pension fund during the year was Rs.1.22 crores out of which Rs.22,89,137/- were actually disbursed to the pensioners and hence the said expenditure of Rs.22,89,137/- is allowable as an expenditure in the hands of the assessee for assessment year 2002-03. In assessment year 2003-04 the total contribution to the pension fund was Rs.32,07,989/-. However, the payments made to the pensioners totaled to Rs.56,33,188/-. We restrict the allowance of the expenditure in the hands of the assessee to the extent of pension contribution i.e. Rs.32,07,989/- in assessment year 2003-04. In the totality of the above said facts and circumstances, we find merit in the claim of the assessee and the expenditure of Rs.22,89,137/- is allowed in assessment year 2002-03 and expenditure of Rs.32,07,989/- s allowed in assessment year 2003-04. The ground of appeal raised by the assessee in ITA No.785/Chd/2011 is allowed and in ITA No.945/Chd/2011 is partly allowed.
54. The issue raised in the present appeal is identical to the i s s u e r a i s e d i n t h e e a r l i e r ye a r s a n d f o l l o w i n g t h e s a m e p a r i t y o f reasoning, we are of the view that the assessee is entitled to the c l a i m o f e x p e n d i t u r e i n c u r r e d o n p a ym e n t s b e i n g m a d e t o t h e pensioners as revenue expenditure. During the ye a r under consideration, the total contribution to the pension fund was Rs. 34,09,048/- out of Rs. 56,33,188/- were actually disbursed to the pensioners. In view thereof, we restrict the allowance of expenditure in the hands of the assessee of Rs. 34,09,048/-. The Assessing Officer shall verify the figures while giving appeal 29 effect. The ground of appeal raised by the assessee is thus, partly allowed.
55. In the result,
i) The appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos.353, 411 & 412/Chd/2011 are allowed.
ii) The appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos.388, 416 & 417/Chd/2011 are partly allowed.
iii) The appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos.1200 & 1201 are partly allowed.
O r d e r p r o n o u n c e d i n t h e o p e n C o u r t o n 2 5 t h J u l y, 2 0 1 4 .
Sd/- Sd/-
( T.R.SOOD) (S USHMA CHO WLA)
ACCO UNTANT ME MBER JUDICIAL ME MBER
Dated: .25th July, 2014
'Poonam '
Copy to:
T h e Ap p e l l a n t , T h e R e s p o n d e n t , T h e C I T ( A) , T h e C I T , D R .
Assistant Registrar I T AT , C H D .