A.Jagadeeswari, CHENNAI V. ITO, CHENNAI

CO 30/CHNY/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3197 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 20-11-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 18-07-2017
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 03-04-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S VIJAYAPRABHA
• Assessee Lawyers: T BANUSEKAR
• Keywords: Rule of consistency; Question of law; Competent authority
• Section: 143(3); 80IB; 148; 2

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , D BENCH, CHENNAI . . . , . , BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ I.T.A.NO.245/MDS/2017 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09) THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, NON-CORPORATE WARD 3(1)(I/C) CHENNAI 34. VS SMT. A. JAGADEESWARI, NEW NO.40, FLAT NO.G-2. JAGANNATHAPURAM, III STREET, CHETPET, CHENNAI 600 031. PAN: ADHPJ4253E ( /APPELLANT) ( /RESPONDENT) C.O. NO. 30/MDS/2017 (IN I.T.A. NO.245/MDS/2017) SMT. A. JAGADEESWARI, NEW NO.40, FLAT NO.G-2. JAGANNATHAPURAM, III STREET, CHETPET, CHENNAI 600 031. VS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, NON-CORPORATE WARD 3(1)(I/C) CHENNAI 34. PAN: ADHPJ4253E ( /APPELLANT) ( /RESPONDENT) /REVENUE BY : SMT. S. VIJAYAPRABHA, JCIT /ASSESSEE BY : SHRI T. BANUSEKAR, CA /DATE OF HEARING : 20.09.2017 !' /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 20.11.2017 / O R D E R PER A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, AM: THE APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE O RDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A PPEALS)-4, CHENNAI DATED 24.10.2016 IN ITA NO.27/2014-15/A.Y. 2008- 09/CIT(A)-4 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 PASSED U/S.250(6) 2 ITA NO.245/MDS/2017 & CO NO. 30/MDS/2017 R.W.S. 143(3) & 147 OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE HAS AL SO RAISED CROSS OBJECTION AGAINST THE SAME ORDER OF THE LD.CI T(A) SUPRA, ON THE REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT. 2. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED SEVERAL GROUNDS IN ITS AP PEAL; HOWEVER THE CRUX OF THE ISSUE IS THAT THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN ALLOWING THE DEDUCTION U/S. 80IB(10) OF THE ACT, AM OUNTING TO RS.4,99,11,555/- FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE ON THE IDENTICAL ISSUE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 WHEN THE REVENUE IS IN APPE AL BEFORE THE HONBLE APEX COURT. 3. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THREE CROSS OBJECTIONS I N HER APPEAL HOWEVER THE CRUX OF THE ISSUE IS THAT THE RE OPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT U/S.147 OF THE ACT IS BAD IN LAW. 4. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSE E IS AN INDIVIDUAL ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF CONSTRUCTION AND REAL ESTATE, FILED HER RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 ON 29.09.2008 ADMITTING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.28,69,400/- AFTER CLAIMING DEDUCTION OF RS.4,99,11,555/- U/S.80IB(10) OF THE A CT. INITIALLY THE RETURN WAS PROCESSED ON 27.02.2010. THEREAFTER NOTI CE U/S. 148 3 ITA NO.245/MDS/2017 & CO NO. 30/MDS/2017 OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED ON 01.03.2013 WITHDRAWING THE BENEFIT OF DEDUCTION U/S.80IB(10) OF THE ACT 5. THE LD.AO HAS ADMITTED IN HIS ORDER THAT ON THE SAME PROJECT FOR THE EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08, TH E LD.CIT(A) AS WELL AS THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO.1239/MDS/2008 VIDE O RDER DATED 10.12.2010 HAD GRANTED RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE BY HO LDING THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED FOR THE BENEFIT OF DEDUCTION U /S.80IB(10) OF THE ACT. HOWEVER THE LD.AO FOR THE RELEVANT ASSESS MENT YEAR OPINED THERE WAS ANOTHER ISSUE WHICH WAS NOT ADDRES SED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES AS WELL AS THE TRIBUNAL BECAUSE IT WAS REVEALED SUBSEQUENTLY THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD OBTAINE D APPROVAL FROM THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY FOR EACH BLOCK SEPARAT ELY AT DIFFERENT POINT OF TIME THEREBY DISENTITLING THE ASSESSEE FRO M THE BENEFIT OF SECTION 80IB(10) OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY THE LD.AO DISALLOWED THE BENEFIT OF DEDUCTION U/S.80IB(10) OF THE ACT AND AS SESSED THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AT RS.5,27,80,960/- THOUGH T HE ASSESSEES APPEAL WAS ALLOWED ON THE SAME PROJECT B Y THE LD.CIT(A) AND THE TRIBUNAL FOR THE EARLIER ASSESSME NT YEAR 2007- 08. 4 ITA NO.245/MDS/2017 & CO NO. 30/MDS/2017 6. ON APPEAL THE LD.CIT(A) AFTER RELYING ON VARIOUS DECISIONS OF THE HIGHER JUDICIARY, GRANTED RELIEF TO THE ASSE SSEE. THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) IS E XTRACTED HEREIN BELOW FOR REFERENCE:- 33. AT THE TIME THE PROJECT WAS DESIGNED, IT WAS D ONE AS A COMPOSITE PROJECT AT THE PROPOSED SITE AT S.NO. 486 /1 AND 482. THE PLOTS WERE SUB-DIVIDED FROM THESE COMPOSITE PLO TS, SUB- PLOTS NO. '8' TO 'H' BEING SUBDIVISION OF PLOT NO. 482 AND SUB- PLOTS NO.'B' TO 'H' BEING SUBDIVISION OF PLOT NO. 4 86/1. THEREFORE, AT NO TIME DID THE ASSESSEE CONSIDER EAC H PLOT AS A SEPARATE PROJECT BUT THE ENTIRE DEVELOPMENT WAS CON SIDERED AS A SINGLE PROJECT AND DEVELOPED AS SUCH. 34. THE 'DEVELOPMENT CONTROL RULES' FOR CHENNAI METROPOLITAN AREA REGULATES THE CONSTRUCTION WITHIN CHENNAI METROPOLITAN AREA. THE RULES SPECIFY THE MINIMUM WI DTH OF THE ROAD THAT ABUTS THE SITE OF CONSTRUCTION AT 10 METE RS WHERE THE SITE WAS INTENDED TO COMPRISE OF A RESIDENTIAL BUIL DING WITH MORE THAN FOUR DWELLING UNITS. 35. THE PROJECT OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ON AN AREA OF M ORE THAN ONE ACRE AND THE ASSESSEE INTENDED TO CONSTRUCT AT LEAST 50 TO 60 DWELLING UNITS ON THAT AREA. IF THE ASSESSEE HAD APPLIED FOR APPROVAL AS A SINGLE PROJECT, THE APPROACH ROAD HAD TO BE A MINIMUM OF 10 METERS WIDE, I.E. AT LEAST 32 FEET (1 METRE = 3.28084 FEET). HOWEVER THE APPROACH ROAD FOR THE AS SESSEE'S PROJECT WAS ONLY 20 FEET AT ITS WIDEST. FURTHER THE SE RULES WERE PARTICULARLY APPLICABLE IN THE CASE OF SPECIAL BUIL DINGS. THE MEANING OF SPECIAL BUILDINGS AS DEFINED BY THE DEVE LOPMENT CONTROL RULES IS: A RESIDENTIAL OR COMMERCIAL BUILDING WITH MORE THAN 2 FLOORS;, OR A RESIDENTIAL BUILDING WITH MORE THAN FOUR DWELLING UNITS;, OR 5 ITA NO.245/MDS/2017 & CO NO. 30/MDS/2017 A COMMERCIAL BUILDING EXCEEDING A FLOOR AREA OF 300 SQ METRES. 36. SINCE THE REQUIRED ROAD WIDTH WAS NOT AVAILABLE FOR THE SITE, THE ASSESSEE TOOK THE ALTERNATIVE OF CONSIDER ING EACH BLOCK OF 4 DWELLING UNITS SEPARATELY AND OBTAINING APPROVAL FOR EACH BLOCK, THEREBY FALLING OUTSIDE THE DEFINIT ION OF 'SPECIAL BUILDINGS' AND CONSEQUENTLY NOT ATTRACTING THE APPL ICATION OF THE DEVELOPMENT CONTROL RULES. FOR THIS REASON THE ASSESSEE HAD TO OBTAIN PLAN AND BUILDING PERMISSION SEPARATE LY FOR EACH BLOCK COMPRISED WITHIN THE SINGLE PROJECT. 37. AS DISCUSSED IN DETAIL SUPRA, IN THE CASE OF TH E APPELLANT FOR THE AY. 2007 - 08, THE AO HAD ALLOWED THE CLAIM U/S 80 IB (10) IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. SINCE THERE IS NO C HANGE IN THE RELEVANT SET OF FACTS IN THE PRESENT AY. 2008 - 09 AS COMPARED TO THE AY. 2007-08, THE PRINCIPLE OF CONSISTENCY AN D PRECEDENCE NEEDS TO BE FOLLOWED. 38. RELIANCE IS PLACED ON THE DECISION OF THE SUPRE ME COURT IN NEW JEHANGIR VAKIL MILLS CO. LTD. V COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX [1963]49 ITR 137 (SC), WHERE THE SUPREME COURT HELD THAT THOUGH THE PRINCIPLE OF 'RES JUDICATA' DOES NO T APPLY TO TAXATION MATTERS, HOWEVER WHERE THERE HAS BEEN NO C HANGE IN FACTS, ON GROUNDS OF CONSISTENCY, THE POSITION CANN OT BE CHANGED IN A SUBSEQUENT YEAR. A SIMILAR VIEW WAS AL SO HELD BY THE SUPREME COURT IN RADHASOAMI SATSANG V CIT [1992 ] 193 ITR 321 (SC) AS WELL AS THE MUMBAI SPECIAL BENCH OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN MLS B.SORABJI V IT O WARD 20(1)(2) (ITA NO. 6503 I M I 2002). IN ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX V M.N.RAJENDHRAN [2010] 130 TTJ (CHENNAI) (TM) 15, A THIRD MEMBER BENCH OF CHEN NAI BENCH OF INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HAS ALSO HEL D THAT ON THE SAME SET OF FACTS, A CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THE T RIBUNAL CANNOT COME TO A DIAMETRICALLY OPPOSITE CONCLUSION THAN ARRIVED AT IN THE EARLIER CASE. 6 ITA NO.245/MDS/2017 & CO NO. 30/MDS/2017 39. RELIANCE IS PLACED ON THE DECISION OF THE BOMBA Y HIGH COURT IN COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX V MLS VANDANA PROPERTIES [2013] 353 ITR 36 (BOM) WHERE IT WAS HE LD THAT SECTION 80-IB(1 0) PROVIDED THAT DEDUCTION IS AVAIL ABLE ON CONSTRUCTION OF A HOUSING PROJECT ON A PLOT HAVING AREA OF ONE ACRE, IRRESPECTIVE OF THE FACT THAT THERE EXIST OTH ER HOUSING PROJECTS OR NOT. IN THIS CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAD CON STRUCTED FIVE BUILDINGS ON A PROJECT - A, B, C, D AND E BUT DID N OT CLAIM DEDUCTION FOR A TO D SINCE THE APPROVAL WAS GRANTED PRIOR TO 1.10.1998. APPROVAL FOR E WAS OBTAINED ON 11.10.200 2. REVENUE DENIED CLAIM OF DEDUCTION SINCE E WAS A CON TINUATION OF A TO D AND THE PROJECT HAD COMMENCED PRIOR TO 1. 10.1998. MOREOVER THE AREA OF PLOT FOR E WAS LESS THAN ONE A CRE AND THEREFORE THE CONDITIONS OF THE SECTION HAD NOT BEE N MET BOTH ON APPROVAL AND SIZE OF PLOT. THE HIGH COURT HELD I N FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT THE MANDATE OF THE LAW WAS NOT THAT THE PLOT SHOULD BE A VACANT AREA OF ONE ACRE. EVEN IF THERE WERE OTHER HOUSING PROJECTS ON THE LAND BUT THE ENT IRE PLOT OF LAND WAS AT LEAST ONE ACRE, THE DEDUCTION WAS AVAIL ABLE EVEN IF THE PARTICULAR CONSTRUCTION FOR WHICH DEDUCTION WAS CLAIMED WAS NOT BUILT OF THE ENTIRE ONE ACRE OF LAND. APPLY ING THIS DECISION TO THE FACTS OF THE ASSESSEE'S CASE, EVEN IF IT IS ASSUMED THAT EACH PLOT B TO 0 WAS A SEPARATE PROJECT, THE F ACT THAT ALL THE PROJECTS WERE CONSTRUCTED ON THE TOTAL LAND ARE A OF MORE THAN ONE ACRE SHOULD BE CONSIDERED AND DEDUCTION SH OULD BE ALLOWED TO THE ASSESSEE. 40.A SIMILAR VIEW HAS BEEN TAKEN IN THE ASSESSEE'S OWN CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 08, WHEREIN THE ASSE SSEE HAS BEEN ALLOWED THE DEDUCTION U/S.80-IB(10) BY THE HON 'BLE MADRAS HIGH COURT FOR THE QUESTION OF LAW: '4. WHET HER THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80 -18(10) WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAD APPLIED FOR SANCTION OF BUILD ING PERMISSION SEPARATELY FOR EACH OF THE PLOTS MEASURI NG LESS THAN 1 ACRE?' IT WOULD BE PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT THE SAI D QUESTION OF LAW HAS BEEN ANSWERED BY THE HON'BLE MADRAS HIGH CO URT FOR 7 ITA NO.245/MDS/2017 & CO NO. 30/MDS/2017 THE VERY SAME PROJECT OF THE ASSESSEE UNDER CONSIDE RATION FOR THE IMPUGNED YEAR. 41. THE HON'BLE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHEN NAI IN THE CASE OF ACIT V S.MUTHU PALANIAPPAN IN ITA NO. 1650/MDS/2012 DATED 12.11.2013 HAS TAKEN A SIMILAR VIEW. RELIANCE IS FURTHER PLACED ON THE DECISION OF THE N AGPUR BENCH OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN INCOME TAX OFFICER V AIR DEVELOPERS [2010] 122 ITD 125 (NAG) WHERE IT WA S HELD THAT MERELY BECAUSE FOR ONE PROJECT, THE APPROVAL W AS TAKEN MORE THAN ONCE, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DEVELOPED SIX DIFFERENT HOUSING PROJECTS AND THAT T HE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS SHOULD BE CONSIDERED. IF THE PROJECT AS A WHOLE SATISFIED THE CONDITIONS OF SECTION 80-IB(1 0), THE DEDUCTION COULD NOT BE DENIED. 42. RELIANCE IS ALSO PLACED ON CIT V SHANTINIKETAN PROPERTY FOUNDATION (P) LTD [2012] 83 CCH 267 CHEN HC, AND C IT V VOORA PROPERTY DEVELOPERS PVT LTD 2015- TIOL-720-HC - MAD-IT WHICH INVOLVES A SIMILAR SITUATION AS THAT O F THE APPELLANT WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT THERE WAS A SINGLE HOUSING PROJECT WITH DIFFERENT BLOCKS AND HENCE THE DEDUCTION U/S.80-IB(10) COULD NOT BE DENIED. 43. RELIANCE IS PLACED ON THE ORDERS OF THE HON'BLE MADRAS HIGH COURT AND THE HON'BLE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRI BUNAL IN THE ASSESSEE'S OWN CASE FOR THE A.Y 2007-08, WHEREI N IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ENTITLED TO THE DED UCTION U/S 80-IB(10) AS SHE HAD SATISFIED ALL THE CONDITIONS S PECIFIED IN THE SAID SECTION. HENCE, IT IS NOTICED THAT THE ISS UE HAS REACHED FINALITY AND THE PROJECT OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN H ELD TO BE ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S.80-IB(10). 44. THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX V PAUL 8ROTHERS [1995]216 ITR 548 (NAGPUR) HELD IN TH E CONTEXT OF SECTION 80HH AND 80 J THAT THERE WAS NO PROVISIO N EITHER IN SECTION 80HH OR 80J FOR WITHDRAWAL OF SPECIAL DEDUC TION FOR 8 ITA NO.245/MDS/2017 & CO NO. 30/MDS/2017 THE SUBSEQUENT YEARS FOR BREACH OF CERTAIN CONDITIO NS. ONCE THE RELIEF WAS CONFIRMED FOR EARLIER YEARS, THE INC OME TAX OFFICER COULD NOT WITHHOLD THE RELIEF FOR SUBSEQUEN T YEARS. IN THE ASSESSEE'S CASE ALSO THIS WOULD HOLD GOOD AND S INCE THE DEDUCTION HAS BEEN CONFIRMED BY THE HON'BLE MADRAS HIGH COURT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08, IT IS SUBMIT TED THAT THE DEDUCTION CANNOT BE DISTURBED IN THE YEAR UNDER APP EAL. SIMILAR VIEW HAS BEEN TAKEN IN THE CASE OF S.B INDU STRIES V ITO IN ITA NO.151 & 1568/MDS/07 DATED 27.08.2007 AND IN THE CASE OF DYCIT V KISHORI LAL AGARWAL [2014] 42 TAXMA NN.COM 37 (LUCKNOW- TRIB). 45. THE JUDGEMENT OF THE HON'BLE ITAT CHENNAI IN TH E CASE OF PRIME DEVELOPER VS ITO IN ITA NO.933/MDS/2013-AY 20 09- 10, DATED 23.09.2015, AS RELIED ON BY THE AO IN THE REMAND REPORT, TO SUBSTANTIATE THE FINDING THAT THE APPELL ANT WAS ENGAGED IN THE CONSTRUCTION WORK AS A CONTRACTOR AN D NOT AS A DEVELOPER, CANNOT BE APPLIED TO THE PRESENT CASE OF THE APPELLANT WHEN THE RELEVANT ISSUES HAS ALREADY BEEN DECIDED IN HER FAVOUR BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT. 46. THEREFORE, KEEPING IN VIEW THE ENTIRETY OF THE FACTS AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND ALSO RELYING ON THE J UDGEMENTS OF THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL TRIBUNAL AND THE HON' BLE HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF THE PRESENT ASSESSEE FOR THE A Y. 2007 - 08 AND ALSO TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE DECISION OF THE LD . CIT(A) IN THE CASE OF THE PRESENT ASSESSEE FOR THE AY. 2009 - 10, I AM OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE APPELLANT HAD FULFI LLED ALL THE NECESSARY PREREQUISITES TO CLAIM DEDUCTION U/S 80IB (10) OF THE ACT. 7. BEFORE US THE LD.DR ARGUED IN SUPPORT OF THE ORD ER OF THE LD.AO, WHILE AS THE LD.AR RELIED ON THE ORDER OF TH E LD.CIT(A). 9 ITA NO.245/MDS/2017 & CO NO. 30/MDS/2017 8. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND CAREFULL Y PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT IS PERTINENT TO MENTION THAT ON THE SAME PROJECT THE LD.CIT(A) AS WELL AS THE TRIBU NAL HAS DECIDED THE APPEAL IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE FOR TH E EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. MOREOVER FOR THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR, THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ALSO MADE A FINDING THAT TH E PROJECT WAS DESIGNED AS A COMPOSITE PROJECT AT THE PROPOSED SIT E AT SURVEY NO.486/1 & 482. THE PROJECT OF THE ASSESSEE WAS AL SO IN AN AREA MORE THAN ONE ACRE. THE APPROVALS WERE OBTAINED ON UNIT BASIS ONLY FOR THE BENEFIT OF TAKING ADVANTAGE OF THE REL EVANT RULES OF THE LOCAL AUTHORITY. FURTHER FROM THE ORDER OF THE LD.C IT(A), IT IS APPARENT THAT HE HAD ARRIVED AT THE CONCLUSION IN F AVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AFTER CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE AN D THE DECISION OF VARIOUS HIGHER JUDICIARIES ON THE IDENTICAL ISSU E. THEREFORE IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES WE DO NOT FIND IT NECESSARY TO INTERFERE IN HIS ORDER. HENCE THE REVENUES APPEAL IS DEVOID OF MERI TS. IT IS ORDERED ACCORDINGLY. 9. ASSESSEE CROSS OBJECTION:- THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED SEVERAL GROUNDS IN HER CROSS OBJECTION STATING THAT THE REASSESSMENT U/S.1 47 OF THE ACT IS BAD IN LAW. HOWEVER AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE LD .AR DID NOT 10 ITA NO.245/MDS/2017 & CO NO. 30/MDS/2017 ADVANCE ANY ARGUMENT ON THIS ISSUE. WE ALSO FIND T HAT THIS GROUND IS NEITHER RAISED BEFORE THE LD.AO NOR THE L D.CIT(A) ON THE EARLIER OCCASIONS. THEREFORE WE DO NOT FIND AN Y MERIT IN THIS GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY THIS GR OUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO DEVOID OF MERITS. 10. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE AS WELL AS THE CROSS OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 20 TH NOVEMBER, 2017 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( . . . ) (N.R.S. GANESAN) /JUDICIAL MEMBER ( . ) (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER #$ /CHENNAI, %& /DATED 20 TH NOVEMBER, 2017 RSR &' ()*) /COPY TO: 1. /APPELLANT 2. /RESPONDENT 3. - ( )/CIT(A) 4. - /CIT 5. )./ 0 /DR 6. /12 /GF