Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chandigarh
Sh. Karanbir Singh, Chandigarh vs Assessee
1
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
CHANDIGARH BENCHES 'B' CHANDIGARH
BEFORE SHRI D.K.SRIVASTAVA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
AND MS SUSHMA CHOWLA , JUDICIAL MEMBER
ITA No.1350/Chd/2010
Assessment Year: 2006-07
The DC IT, Vs. . Shri Harjit Singh Sangha,
Circle 4(1), Chandigarh
Chandigarh
PAN No. BEGPS3665L
&
C.O. No. 4/Chd/2011
(in ITA No.1350/Chd/2010)
Assessment Year: 2006-07
Shri Harjit Singh Sangha, Vs. The DC IT, Circle 4(1),
Chandigarh Chandigarh
PAN No. BEGPS3665L
ITA No.1351/Chd/2010
Assessment Year: 2006-07
The DC IT, Vs. . Shri Sukhwant Singh,
Circle 4(1), Chandigarh
Chandigarh
PAN No. BEGPS9365R
&
C.O. No. 5/Chd/2011
(in ITA No.1351/Chd/2010)
Assessment Year: 2006-07
Shri Sukhwant Singh, Vs. The DC IT, Circle 4(1),
Chandigarh Chandigarh
PAN No. BEGPS9365R
ITA No.68/Chd/2011
Assessment Year: 2006-07
The DC IT, Vs. . Shri Karanbir Singh,
Circle 4(1), Chandigarh
Chandigarh
PAN No. ADYPS3456K
2
&
C.O. No. 21/Chd/2011
(in ITA No.68/Chd/2011)
Assessment Year: 2006-07
Shri Karanbir Singh, Vs. The DC IT, Circle 4(1),
Chandigarh Chandigarh
PAN No. BEGPS9365R
ITA No. 1175/Chd/2009
Assessment Year: 2006-07
Shri Karnail Singh, Vs. The AC IT, Circle 4(1),
Chandigarh Chandigarh
PAN No. BEHPS6941E
ITA No. 1176/Chd/2009
Assessment Year: 2006-07
Smt. Seema Dhaliwal, Vs. The Addl CIT, Range (IV),
Chandigarh Chandigarh
PAN No. ABBPD2272P
(Appellant) (Respondent)
Appellant By : Smt. Sarita Kumari / Shri N.K.Saini
Respondent By: Shri Vineet Krishan
ORDER
PER SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM
The three appeals by the Revenue are against the separate orders of C IT(A), Chandigarh dated 5.8.2010 / 17.8.2010 all relating to assessment year 2006-07 against the order passed u/s 143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961. The assessees belonging to same famil y (realtives) have filed cross objections against each appeal filed by the Revenue. The related assessees have also filed two appeals by way of ITA Nos. 1175 & 3 1175/Chd/2009 relating to assessment year 2006-07 against the order of CIT(A), Chandigarh dated 14.10.2009 and 25.9.2009 against the order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act.
2. The Revenue has raised the following common grounds of appeal in all the appeals :-
1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A)-II Ld. has erred in allowing appeal of the assessee without appreciating the facts of the case.
2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in treating the sale of land measuring 64 Kanal 15 Marla / 9 kanals situated in village Karoran as agricultural land.
3. The assessee in its cross objections has raised the following grounds:-
1. That the order passed by Ld. CIT(A) Chandigarh dated 5.8.2010/ 17.8.2010 are contrary to law and facts of the case.
2. That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) Chandigarh even after accepting the fact that the land sold by the assessee is agricultural land rejected the claim of the assessee that the sale of agricultural land by the assessee is not liable to even capital gain tax.
4. Further, the assessee has raised the following common grounds in I.T.A.Nos.1175 & 1176/Chd/2009 :-
1. That the order passed u/s 250(6) by the Ld. CIT(A) Chandigarh dated 14.10.2009 is bad in law and facts of the case.4
2. That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) Chandigarh gravely erred in upholding the order of Ld. Assessing Officer who had treated the sale of agricultural land measuring 19 kanal - 14 Marls amounting to Rs. 48,45,000/- situated in village Kararon as income from the profits and gains of business. The agricultural land sold by the appellant is not even an asset and consequently not liable to income taxes / capital gains.
3. That the CIT(A), Chandigarh gravely erred in upholding the order of Ld. Assessing Officer in which he had wrongly taken the sale amount of the land at Rs. 48,45,000/- as against the actual sale of Rs.
39,42,000/-.
4. That without prejudice to above, at the best the capital gain could be levied.
5. That the Ld. CIT(A) gravely erred in upholding the charging of interest u/s 234B and 234C of the Income Tax Act.
5. All the appeals of the Revenue, Cross Objections raised by the assessees as well as the appeals relating to different assessees on identical issues were heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. In the impugned appeals preferred by the Revenue and the Cross Objections raised by the assessee and also the appeal filed by different assessee, the issue raised relates to the computation of income on sale of land in village Karoran, Distt. Mohali. 5
6. The facts in the impugned appeals before us are identical. However, reference is made to the facts in I.T.A.No. 1350/Chd/2010 to address the issue raised before us.
7. The brief facts of the case are that the assessees in the impugned appeals before us were co-owners of the agricultural land in village village Karoran, Distt. Mohali. IN the return of income filed for the year under consideration each of the co-owners had declared income from long term capital gains on sale of their respective shares in the said propert y in village Karoran, Distt. Mohali. The said piece of land was transferred b y the co-owners vide 14 sale deeds executed in the name of basicall y 2-3 persons. The Assessing Officer during the course of assessment proceedings requisitioned the assessee to furnish the details in respect of the land sold and the sale consideration receipts. The details of land sold as furnished by the assessee are tabulated under table-1 and the Assessing Officer on perusal of the sale deeds has tabulated the details of purchaser and size of the land sold by the assessee under table-2 which are reproduced at pages 3 to 6 of the assessment order. During the course of assessment proceedings the assessee took a fresh stand vide letter dated 8.5.2008 that the land sold was agricultural in nature and hence not liable to tax on its sale. The assessee furnished the copies of the purchase deeds of the land pointing out that the said agricultural land was situated at distance of more than 12 km from Mohali and there was no other Municipal Committee nearby. The assessee also placed reliance on the notification No.SOI0(E) dated 6.1.1999 as amended by notification No.SOI302 dated 28.12.1999 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes and submitted that the land in question was beyond the limit laid down for urbanization and the said gain arising on its sale was not liable to capital 6 gains. The assessee further contended that in the period relevant to the assessment year 2006-07 there were rumours that there was going to be Municipal Committee in Nayagaon and as the land of the assessee was very close to it, the capital gain was declared by the assessee as liable to tax in the return of income filed.
8. The Assessing Officer observed that the assessee had furnished the return of income declaring the long term capital gains on sale of land and the claim that on the sale of the said land no capital gain liabilit y arose, was made by the assessee vide its letters dated 8.5.2008 and 13.10.2008, is not maintainable because of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Goetze India Ltd. Vs. C IT, 284 ITR 323 (SC).
9. Coming to the merits of the claim of the assessee, the Assessing Officer in order to verify the nature of the land sold by the assessee i.e. khasra No.232/1/2 in village Karoran is agricultural land, information was called from Punjab Estate office. A copy of notification of Principal Secretary to Govt. of Punjab, Deptt. of Local Govt., dated 18.10.2006 was obtained by the Assessing Officer. As per the said notification Karoran village was notified as land for urban usage/non-agricultural activities. The said notification was issued consequent upon letter No.F/NO A- 19/2006-FC dated 14.9.2006 by the Ministry of Environment & Forest reiterating the final approval for delisting 707.70 hectare of cultivated and habitation area in Nada and Karoran village from the list of forest lands. Accordingl y, under section 4 and 5 of the Punjab Municipal Act, the Govt. of Punjab declared the local area mentioned in the Schedule of boundary comprising of villages Karoran, Nada and Kansal to be a transitional area for the purpose of constituting the Nagar Panchayat. The area owned by 7 the assessee i.e. khasra No.232/1/2 was specificall y listed as falling within the jurisdiction of the Notified Area Committee. The claim of the assessee that such notification came into effect after the transaction i.e. sale of land spanning between the period 20.9.2005 to 8.3.2006 was rejected by the Assessing Officer as the intention to constitute Nagar Panchayat, Nayagaon was declared vide notification No.10/16/2001-2LG(3)/14863 dated 12.9.2005. Accordingl y, the Assessing Officer observed that the said notification was announced on 12.9.2005 i.e. before the sale of land by the assessee, which was finall y approved vide notification dated 14.9.2006, after delisting the forest land vide letters dated 10.8.2006 and 14.9.2006. The copy of the notification dated 18.10.2006 was appended as Annexrure-A to the assessment order. Further enquiries were made from Patwari , the revenue record holder, about the usage and nature of land which are incorporated under para 4.2 of the assessment order. The statement of the Patwari was recorded under section 131 of the Income Tax Act and the copy of the statement is annexed as Annexure-B to the assessment order. The Assessing Officer also sought information from the purchasers of land under section 133(6) of the Income Tax Act in which they confirmed that they had purchased the said plots of land for residential purposes and it was admitted that no plot No./s was marked. The assessee was show caused to explain why the transaction should not be treated as adventure in the nature of trade and the entire profits be assessed as income from unexplained sources. The repl y of the assessee dated 12.12.2008 before the Assessing Officer is incorporated under para- 7 at pages 22 to 25 of the assessment order, in which it was reiterated that the assessee had purchased 795 kanals of land jointl y in the year 1995-96 alongwith other co-owners and thereafter agricultural operations were carried out on part of the land and orchard of guava was raised on some 8 land besides the conventional produce. The assessee claimed to have sold undivided share in the agricultural land and no plots were stated to be carved out by the assessee. It was also explained that for carving out the plots in the area, and for developing and making roads etc. permission was required from PUDA, which the assessee never sought. No application was made for change in land use. The assessee further contended that the construction of houses by the purchasers at a later stage cannot convert the agricultural land sold by the assessee as adventure in the nature of trade. The assessee claimed that there was no Municipal Committee in Chandigarh when the land was purchased in 1995 and the area came in the limits of Municipal Committee much after the sale. The nature of the land being shamlat and its partition between villagers and the acquisition by the assessee co-owners in the undivided land was also referred to by the assessee. The Assessing Officer rejecting the claim of the assessee in view of non agricultural activities being carried out on major portion of the land and 120 kanal of the land being vacant, the statement of the Patwari and the purchasers and also the size of land purchased by the sellers being small and for residential purposes, held that the land sold by the assessee falls within the ambit of Notified Area Committee and intention for urban usage being announced by the Govt. on 12.9.2005 i.e. before sale of land by the assessee, and the land being I km. radius of PGIMER, Sector 12, Chandigarh as testified by the Patwari in his statement recorded on 19.11.2008 and the subsequent partition of land into small plots and development of colonies, established that the assessee was carrying on the business of sale and purchase of land and the profits arising from the aforesaid sales were directed to be assessed as business profits within the ambit of section 28(1) of the Act.
9
10. All the co-owners filed appeals before the C IT(A). The CIT(A), Chandigarh vide separate orders dated 14.10.2009 in the case of Smt.Seema Dhaliwal and Shri Karnail Singh upheld the order of the Assessing Officer in assessing the income as business profits in the case of the assessee co-owners. Both the co-owners are in appeal against the said orders of the C IT(A).
11. Further the C IT(A), Chandigarh vide different orders dated 5.8.2010 in the case of S/Shri Harjeet Singh, Sukhwant Singh and Karanbir Singh observed hat the claim of the assessee was that the purchase of land was made for agriculture and part of it was being used as such. Further, the land was part of forest land and onl y agricultural activities were permissible even after deforestation. The C IT(A) further held that there was no evidence of preparation of site plan and sale of plots for developing colony. In the case of one of the co-owners, Smt.Leena Sandhu the Assessing Officer, Ward-4(3) vide order passed under section 143(3) of the Act treated the land as liable to capital gains. The C IT(A) thus concluded that the Assessing Officer's decision to assess the returned income as business income was not acceptable and at the same time the contention of the assessee that the land being agricultural is not liable to capital gains, is also not acceptable.
12. The Revenue is in appeal against the order of CIT(A) inholding the sale of said land as agricultural land. The assessee has filed Cross Objection raising the issue that after accepting the claim of the land being agricultural land, the CIT(A) has erred in holding that the same is liable to capital gains.
10
13. Shri Vineet Krishan appeared on behalf of the assessee and Smt. Sarita Kumari & Shri N.K.Saini appeared for the Revenue and put-forth their contentions.
14. The learned A.R. for the assessee placed reliance on the ratio laid down by the Chandigarh Bench of the Tribunal in DCIT Vs. M/s A.P.Paper Mills Ltd. (I.T.A.No. 161/Chandi/2006 & I.T.A.No. 736/Chandi/2007) relating to assessment years 2001-02 & 2002-03 dated 22.7.2009.
15. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record. The assessees in the captioned appeals before us are co-owners of piece of land in village Karoran, Distt. Mohali, who had purchased the above-said land jointl y in 1996. The said land was originall y claimed to be shamlat land and thereafter it was partitioned between the villagers who owned agricultural land in the village in the ratio of their land holding and were made co-owners in the undivided land in mushtarka khata. The assessee claimed to have purchased a share in the above-said undivided landholdings and after its purchase claimed to be carrying out agricultural activities on portion of the land and had constructed certain structures on certain portion of the land.
16. During the year under consideration the co-owners of the land i.e. the assessees before us had sold part of their landholdings by executing 14 sale deeds. The details of agricultural land in village Karoran, Distt. Mohali, part holdings sold by the assessee before us were as under : 11
K ha sr a No . Ar e a o f La nd Sa le P r ice LT CG
so ld ( R s.) D ecl ar ed ( R s.)
See ma D hal i wa l 2 3 2 /1 /2 37 K 10M 7 5 ,0 0 ,0 0 0 / - 6 0 ,2 4 ,2 0 3 / -
Kar na il S i n g h 2 3 2 /1 /2 19 K 14M 3 9 ,4 2 ,0 0 0 / - 2 8 ,4 1 ,4 9 8 / -
S u k h wa n t Si n g h 2 3 2 /1 /2 2 1 K 1 4 .5 M 4 8 ,4 5 ,0 0 0 / - 3 8 ,7 8 ,9 9 9 / -
Har j it S i n g h 2 3 2 /1 /2 64 K 15M 1 2 9 ,4 2 ,0 0 0 / - 1 1 4 ,4 6 ,3 8 2 / -
Kar a nb ir Si n g h 2 3 2 /1 /2 9 K 6 .5 M 1 8 ,6 5 ,0 0 0 / - 1 4 ,9 4 ,8 0 1 / -
17. The details of sale of land in khasra 232/1/2 in village Karoran, Distt. Mohali, purchaser-wise and size-wise of land sold is detailed in table-2 at pages 4 to 6 of the assessment order. In the return of income filed by the captioned assessees for the year under consideration, the gains arising on sale of land was declared as income from long term capital gains in the respective hands of the co-owners. However, during the course of assessment proceedings the assessee vide letter dated 8.5.2008 claimed that the sale of agricultural land is non-taxable and hence, no tax was payable by the assessee. The above-said claim of the assessee forwarded vide letter dated 8.5.2006 was rejected by the authorities below in view of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Goetze India Ltd. Vs. C IT (supra). The Assessing Officer had assessed the said gain on sale of land as income from business being adventure in the nature of trade. However, the CIT(A) in the case of the assessees-co-owners had held that the land sold by the assessee was agricultural land and the gain arising on its transfer was assessable as income from long term capital gains. However, in the case of Smt. Seema Dhaliwal and Shri Karnail Singh, the order of the Assessing Officer was upheld by the C IT(A).
12
18. The first issue raised in the present appeals is the nature of landholdings of the assessee. The second issue which arises for adjudication is whether the gain arising on the sale of the said land is to be assessed as taxable or non-taxable in the hands of the assessee. The Assessing Officer during the course of assessment proceedings had made enquiries regarding the usage of the land and its conversion into urban land. The Assessing Officer had sought the notification from the Principal Secretary to Govt. of Punjab, Local Govt. dated 18.10.2006, as per which Karoran village was notified as land for urban usage/non- agricultural activities. The copy of the said notification is annexed as Annexure-A to the assessment order. The notification was issued consequent upon letter NO.F/NO A-19/2006-FC dated 14.9.2006 by the Ministry of Environment & Forest reiterating the final approval for delisting 707.70 hectare of cultivated and habitation area in Nada and Karoran village from the list of forest lands. Consequentl y in exercise of powers conferred under section 4 and 5 of the Punjab Municipal Act, the Govt. of Punjab declared the local area mentioned in the Schedule of boundary comprising of villages Karoran, Nada and Kansal to be a transitional area for the purpose of constituting the Nagar Panchayat. The intention was declared to constitute Nagar Panchayat, Nayagaon vide notification No.10/16/2001-2LG(3)/14863 dated 12.9.2005. Also Ministry of Environment & Forest, Govt. of India vide issuance of letter no.F/8- 19/2006-FC dated 14.9.2006 approved the delisting of 707.70 hectare of area in Nada and Karoran village. The Assessing Officer further noted that the assessee's share of land i.e. khasra No.232/1/2 is specificall y listed as falling within the jurisdiction of the Notified Area Committee. The abovesaid chronology of events enumerated above is detailed in the Notification dated 18.10.2006 itself.
13
19. The Assessing Officer during the course of assessment proceedings also made enquiries from the Patwari about the usage and nature of land. The statement of the Patwari was recorded on 19.11.2008, copy of which is annexed as Annexure-B of the assessment order. The Patwari produced the map/latha of village Karoran wherein he pointed out the exact location of the village stating that this village was adjacent to Post Graduaate Institute of Medical Education and Research (PGIMER), Sector 12, Chandigarh i.e. land being at 1 k.m. radius. The Patwari also informed that Karoran village falls within the municipal limit/Notified Area Committee. In respect of the landholdings sold by the co-owners in the captioned appeals before us, the Patwari affirmed that the said land did indeed fall within the specified area as per notification No.10/16/2001- 2LG3/4976-77 dated 18.10.2006 and further confirmed that this land falls adjoining to village Khuda Lahora, Khuda Jassa of U.T. village Nada of Punjab. This land also falls within 1 km. of radius of PGI, Sector 12, Chandigarh. This land is specificall y referred to as khasra No.232/1/2 and falls within the Notified Area Committee (of Nayagaon). The Patwari further was asked to give details of nature of activities conducted on this land before and after sale. In this regard the statement of Patwari was as under :
"With specific reference to the area referred to as Khasra No.232/1/2 it is submitted that vacant land is 120 kanals. In the rest of the area land is used for residential building. About 2 acres of land is covered with chara/chari for animals. The submission is given after reference to register Khasra Girdhawari for the current period."14
20. During the course of the assessment, the copies of Girdhawari for the period 2005-06 was also obtained, which reflected that there was no cultivation of crops in the land specified as khasra No.232/1/2. The copy of the Girdhawari is annexed as Annexure-C of the assessment order. The Girdhawari lists the nature of land/assets/activities for the period 2005-06 as under :
"Sauni or kharif (13.10.05 to 02.03.06)
(i) 72 Kanal with Tubewell and House
(ii) 44 Kanal 'baagh'
(iii) 120 Kanal Khali or vacant land
(iv) 235.11 Kanal 'Nadi da rasta'(gairmumkin or 'unclassified')"
21. In the totalit y of the above-said facts and circumstances and the evidence perused by us, the nature of land being agricultural land stands established; a) as the said land was part of notified forest area where admittedl y no other activities except agricultural, if allowed, could be carried out; b) Girdhawari of the landholdings of the assessee proves the stand of the assessee that it was agricultural land and also the notification issued for the urban usage/non-agricultural activities certifies that prior to its notification the said land was used for agricultural purposes. The land being registered in Land Revenue Records as Agricultural Land, then there is no basis for holding the said land as not agricultural land. We find support from the ratio laid down by the Chandigarh Bench of the Tribunal in DCIT Vs. A.P.Paper Mills Ltd. (supra). Accordingl y, we hold that the nature of the land sold by the assessee as on the date of its ale was agricultural land, which was acquired by the assessee in the year 1995 and was sold during the year under consideration. 15
22. The said asset being held by the assessee cannot be said to be a business asset and its sale in small plots of land to different purchasers is not adventure in the nature of trade, in the absence of the assessee having floated the same or having developed its land for the purposes other than agricultural land. Further for converting the usage, prior permission is required from the authorities and in the absence of any permission being obtained by the assessee from PUDA authorities in respect of the said land sold, merel y because the land is sold in small plots to persons who intended its residential use, does not change the nature of land sold in the hands of the assessee and its taxabilit y. We find support from the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Patna High Court in the case of Addl.CIT Vs. Tarachand Jain, 123 ITR 567 (Pat), which has been referred to by the Chandigarh Bench of the Tribunal in DCIT Vs. M/s A.P.Paper Mills Ltd. (supra). The relevant extract of the said judgment is as under :
"........... the land may lie near an urban area and the land may have fetched a good price, may hold good in cases of agricultural land also. Since the land has been recorded in the official records as agricultural land, if the department wanted to show that the entry was wrong. It should have given concrete facts in that direction. For example, it could have shown that the land lay within the municipal limits of the town of Ranchi or that the assessee had made his entire plot of land into parcels and was selling each one of them for the purpose of constructing a house thereof. The fact that the purchaser has purchased it for the purpose of constructing his house has no relevant, because so far as the seller is concerned, he will be deemed to have parted with the agricultural land in the form of agricultural land, unless it is proved otherwise. The department has not brought up any such material on the record by which it could be said that the criteria adopted by the Tribunal for determining the character of the agricultural land was wrong." [Emphasis supplied] 16
23. In view thereof we hold that the gain arising on the sale of the aforesaid agricultural land cannot be taxed as income from business.
24. The next controversy which arises in the present appeal is the treatment of the gain arising on transfer of the said agricultural land. The plea of the assessee is that once it has been established that the land sold by the assessee is agricultural land, the same is not to be assessed as income from capital gain but is exempt from tax. We find no merit in the said stand of the assessee. Under the provisions of section 45 of the Income Tax Act any profit or gain arising from the transfer of capital asset is chargeable to tax under the head "capital gains" in the year of its transfer. The definition of capital asset as per section 2(14) of the Act is "the propert y of any kind held by the assessee", subject to the exemptions provided in clauses (i) and (vi) to section 2(14) of the Act. One such clause is in respect of the agricultural land held by the assessee not being situated in any area which is comprised within the jurisdiction of Municipalit y/Cantonment Board or which population of not less than ten thousand or; any area within eight kilometers from the local limits of an y Municipalit y or Cantonment Board as referred to in item No.(a) above. Thus meaning thereof that each and every piece of agricultural land in India does not fall outside the definition of capital asset but is limited to the exception provided under clause (iii) to section 2(14) of the Act. In the facts of the present case before us the Patwari has testified in his statement recorded on 19.11.2008 that such land was within one kilometer radius of PGIMER, Sector 12, Chandigarh and further the notification for the urban usage was announced by the Governor on 12.9.2005 i.e. before the sale of land by the assessee starting from 20.9.2005. 17
25. The learned A.R. for the assessee has failed to controvert the above-said findings of the Assessing Officer and in the absence of the same the said land sold by the assessee falls within the definition of capital asset and the gain arising on its transfer is to be assessed as income from long term capital gains, which is exigible to capital gain tax. Further in the case of one of the co-owners, Ms.Leena Sandhu, the said gain was returned under the head "income from long term capital gains"
as is evident from the copy of computation of income filed at pages 73 and 74 of the Paper Book. The returned income was accepted by the Assessing Officer incharge of Ms.Leena Sandhu vide order passed under section 143(3) of the Act relating to assessment year 2006-07 dated
5..9.2008. The copy of the said order is placed at page 72 of the Paper Book. Accordingl y, we direct the Assessing Officer to assess the gain arising on transfer of said agricultural land as income from long term capital gains.
26. As noted above, the facts in the case of S/Shri Sukhwant Singh, Karanbir Singh, Karnail Singh and Smt.Seema Dhaliwal are identical to the facts in the case of Shri Harjit Singh and hence our decision in the above-said case would appl y mutatis mutandis to these cases also.
27. The appeals filed by the Revenue in I.T.A.No. 1350/Chd/2010, I.T.A.No. 1351/Chd/2010 & I.T.A.No. 68/Chd/2011 are dismissed.
28. Similarl y, Cross Objections filed by the assessee in C.O.No.4/Chd/2011, C.O.No.5/Chd/2011 & C.O.No.21/Chd/2011 are also dismissed.
18
29. The appeals filed by the assessee in I.T.A.No.1175/Chd/2009 & I.T.A.No.1176/Chd/2009 are partl y allowed.
Order Pronounced in the Open Court on this 21 s t day of June, 2011.
Sd/- Sd/-
(D.K.SRIVASTAVA) (SUSHMA CHOWLA)
ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
Dated : 21 s t June, 2011
Rkk/Rati
Copy to:
1. The Appellant
2. The Respondent
3. The CIT
4. The CIT(A)
5. The DR
True Copy
By Order
Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Chandigarh