Appeal details
Counselvise Citation
[2015] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1727 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
Duration Of Justice
1 year(s) 5 month(s) 9 day(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Cross Objection
Pronouncement Date
09-12-2015
Appeal Filed By
Assessee
Bench Allotted
D
Next Hearing Date
12-10-2015
Assessment Year
misc
Appeal Filed On
30-06-2014
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.NOS.880 & 1141 /MDS./2014 ( !' #' / ASSESSMENT YEARS :2011-12 & 2011-12) & C.O. NOS.56 & 57/MDS./2014 (ITA NO.880 & 1141/MDS./2014) THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS CIRCLE, COIMBATORE. VS. M/S.PRICOL LTD., 702/7,AVINASHI ROAD, COIMBATORE 637. PAN AABCP 2380 C ( / APPELLANT ) ( / RESPONDENT/ CROSS OBJECTOR ) $% & ' / APPELLANT BY : DR.B.NISCHAL, JCIT D.R () $% & ' / RESPONDENT BY : MR.T.BANUSEKAR,C.A * + & ,- / DATE OF HEARING : 12.10.2015 .# & ,- /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 09.12.2015 / O R D E R PER A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THESE TWO APPEALS ARE FILED BY THE REVENUE AND THE TWO CROSS OBJECTIONS BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE SEPARATE ORD ER OF THE ITA NO.808,1141 /MDS/2014 CO NOS.56,57/MDS./2014 2 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A)-III, COIMBATORE BOTH ORDER DATED 30.08.2013 IN ITA NO.115/11-12 & IN ITA NO.114/11-1 2 FOR SECOND AND THIRD QUARTER OF THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 RE SPECTIVELY PASSED UNDER SEC.200A READ WITH SECTION SEC. 250 OF THE ACT. SINCE THE ISSUES IN ALL THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE AND TH E CROSS OBJECTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE COMMON IN NATURE, THEY ARE CLUB BED & HEARD TOGETHER AND DISPOSED OF BY THIS COMMON ORDER FOR T HE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 2.1 THE GROUNDS RAISED BY REVENUE IN BOTH THE APP EALS ARE CONCISED HEREIN BELOW FOR ADJUDICATION. THE LD. CIT(A) HAD ERRED IN HOLDING THAT PROVISIONS OF SEC.206AA OF THE ACT IS NOT APPLICABLE IN CASE OF N ON-RESIDENTS AS THE DTAA OVERRIDES THE ACT AS PER SECTION 90(2) OF THE ACT. 2.1.2 CROSS OBJECTIONS THE IDENTICAL CROSS OBJECTIONS RAISED BY THE ASSESS EE IN BOTH THE APPEALS ARE CONCISED HEREIN BELOW FOR ADJUDICATION. GROUNDS OF BOTH THE CROSS OBJECTIONS ITA NO.808,1141 /MDS/2014 CO NOS.56,57/MDS./2014 3 1. FOR THAT THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IS CONTRARY TO LAW, FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE TO THE EXTENT PREJUDI CIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE ASSESSEE AND IS OPPOSED TO THE PRINCIPLES OF EQUITY, NATURAL JUS TICE AND FAIR PLAY. 2. FOR THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL S) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS WITHOUT OF JURISDICTION . 3. FOR THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS ) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE /CASE. 4. FOR THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS ) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE ADJUSTMENT MADE AND DEMAND RAISED IS NOT OF THE NAT URE CONTEMPLATED BY SECTION 200A. 5. FOR THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS ) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE COMPELLED TO OBTAIN PAN OF THE N ON-RESIDENT DEDUCTEES WHEN THE SAME IS NOT MANDATED TO BE OBTAINED BY THE NON-RESI DENT. 6. FOR THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS ) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT SECTION 201(1) DEMAND CANNOT BE RAISED UNLESS THE ASSESSING OFFICER DEMONSTRATES THAT THE AMOUNT OF TAX HAS NOT BEEN REMITTED BY THE PAYEE. 7. FOR THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS ) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT TDS OF RS.78,9801- HAS BEEN REMITTED AS DISCLOSED IN TDS R ETURN AND CHALLANS WERE SUBMITTED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN RELATION TO THE DEMAND RAI SED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF RS.95,360/- FOR NON REMITTANCE OF TDS. (FOR A.Y 2001-12 ONLY) 3.1 THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSES SEE IS A COMPANY, FILED STATEMENTS OF DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE IN T HE FORM-27Q FOR 2 ND AND 3 RD QUARTERS OF THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 IN RESPECT OF PAYMENTS MADE TO NON-RESIDENT DURING THE RELEVANT P ERIOD. THE ACIT(TDS) AFTER EXAMINING THE FORM-27Q ISSUED INTIM ATION U/S.200A OF THE ACT WHEREIN IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT THERE WA S A SHORT DEDUCTION ITA NO.808,1141 /MDS/2014 CO NOS.56,57/MDS./2014 4 OF TAX AT SOURCE AND ACCORDINGLY DEMAND WAS RAISED WITH INTEREST CHARGEABLE ON SUCH SHORT DEDUCTION. 3.2 ON APPEAL, THE LD. CIT (A) OBSERVED THAT THE QU ESTION TO BE DECIDED WAS WHETHER SECTION-206AA(1) OF THE ACT WILL OVERRIDE SECTION.90(2) OF THE ACT . THE LD. CIT (A) DRAWING STRENGTH FROM CIRCULAR NO. 333 DT 02.04.1982 ISSUED BY THE CBDT AGREED WITH THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE PROVISIONS OF S ECTION 90(2) WILL OVERRIDE ALL OTHER PROVISIONS OF THE ACT BECAUSE TH AT SECTION AIMS TO GIVE EFFECT TO INTERNATIONAL FISCAL AGREEMENT ENTER ED BETWEEN INDIA AND OTHER FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS. THE EXTRACT OF THE C IRCULAR IS REPRODUCED HEREIN BELOW FOR REFERENCE:- THE CORRECT LEGAL POSITION IS THAT WHERE A SPECIFI C PROVISION IS MADE IN THE DOUBLE TAXATION AVOIDANCE AGREEMENT THAT PROVIS ION WILL PREVAIL OVER THE GENERA! PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 IN FACT THE DOUBLE TAXATION AVOIDANCE AGREEMENTS WHICH HAVE BEE N ENTERED INTO BY THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT U/S 90 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT , 1961, ALSO PROVIDE THAT THE LAWS IN FORCE IN EITHER COUNTRY WILL CONTI NUE TO GOVERN THE ASSESSMENT AND TAXATION OF INCOME IN THE RESPECTIVE COUNTRY, EXCEPT WHERE PROVISIONS TO THE CONTRARY HAVE BEEN MADE IN THE AGREEMENT. THUS, WHERE A DOUBLE TAXATION AVOIDANCE AGREEMENT P ROVIDES FOR A PARTICULAR MODE OF COMPUTATION OF INCOME, THE SAME SHOULD BE FOLLOWED, IRRESPECTIVE OF THE PROVISIONS IN THE INCOME TAX AC T. WHERE THERE IS NO SPECIFIC PROVISION IN THE AGREEMENT, IT IS THE BASI C LAW, I.E. THE INCOME-TAX ACT, THAT WILL GOVERN THE TAXATION OF INCOME. ITA NO.808,1141 /MDS/2014 CO NOS.56,57/MDS./2014 5 THEREAFTER THE LD. CIT (A) DIRECTED THE LD. ASSESSI NG OFFICER TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE AT 10% AS AGAINST 20% DEMANDED BY THE LD.ACIT(TDS). 4.1. THE LD. D.R VEHEMENTLY ARGUED BEFORE US THAT S ECTION 206AA OF THE ACT WILL BE APPLICABLE IN THE CASE OF THE ASSES SEE SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PROVIDED THE PAN OF THE PAYEES AND ACCORDINGLY THE TAX HAS TO BE DEDUCTED @ 20%. IT WAS THEREFORE PLEADED THAT ORDER OF THE ACIT(TDS) MAY BE CONFIRMED. 4.2 BEFORE US, THE LD. A.R ARGUED BY STATING AS FO LLOWS:- I) THE ASSESSEE HAD DEDUCTED TAX AT SOURCE AT 10% ON THE PAYMENT MADE TO NON-RESIDENTS BY VIRTUE OF DTAA BETWEEN IND IA AND THE RELEVANT COUNTRIES TO WHICH THE PAYEES BELONG AS TH E SAME WAS BENEFICIAL TO THE ASSESSEE. II) THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO FURNISH PAN OF THE ASSESSEE AND HENCE WAS LIABLE TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE @ 20% IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION.206AA OF THE ACT, HOWEVER AS PER THE D TAA THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED FOR DEDUCTING TAX AT SOURCE AT 10% ONLY. ITA NO.808,1141 /MDS/2014 CO NOS.56,57/MDS./2014 6 III) SINCE THE DTAA OVERRIDES THE OTHER PROVISIONS OF THE INCOME TAX ACT INCLUDING SECTION 206AA OF THE ACT WHICH BEGINS WITH A NON OBSTINATE CLAUSE, THE ASSESSEE IS LIABLE TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE AS PROVIDED UNDER THE DTAA. IV) THE LD. A.R. ALSO RELIED WITH THE DECISION OF T HE CASE DCIT VS. M/S.SERUM INSTITUTE OF INDIA LTD., IN ITA NO.792/PN /2013 ORDER DATED 30.03.2015 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12. 5. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND CAREFULLY P ERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. AS POINTED OUT BY T HE LD. A.R. THE PUNE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE CITED SUPRA, IT HAS BEEN CATEGORICALLY HELD THAT SECTION.206AA OF THE ACT DO ES NOT OVERRIDE THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION.90(2) OF THE ACT AND ACCORDIN GLY THE RATE OF TAX DEDUCTED AT SOURCE PRESCRIBED IN THE DTA AGREEMENT SHALL PREVAIL. THE RELEVANT PARA OF THE ORDER IS REPRODUCED HEREIN BELOW FOR REFERENCE:- 7. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSI ONS. SECTION 206AA OF THE ACT HAS BEEN INCLUDED IN PART B OF CHAPTER XVII DEA LING WITH COLLECTION AND RECOVER, OF TAX DEDUCTION AT SOURCE. SEC.206AA O F THE ACT DEALS WITH REQUIREMENTS OF FURNISHING PAN BY ANY PERSON, ENTIT LED TO RECEIVE ANY SUM OR ITA NO.808,1141 /MDS/2014 CO NOS.56,57/MDS./2014 7 INCOME ON WHICH TAX IS DEDUCTIBLE UNDER CHAPTER XVI I-B, TO THE PERSON RESPONSIBLE FOR DEDUCTING SUCH TAX. SHORN OF OTHER DETAILS, IN SO FAR AS THE PRESENT CONTROVERSY IS CONCERNED, IT WOULD SUFFICE TO NOTE THAT SECTION 206AA OF THE ACT PRESCRIBES THAT WHERE PAN IS N& FURNISHED TO THE PE RSON RESPONSIBLE FOR DEDUCTING TAX AT SOURCE THEN THE TAX DEDUCTOR WOULD BE REQUIRED TO DEDUCT TAX AT THE HIGHER OF THE FOLLOWING RATES, NAMELY, AT THE R ATE PRESCRIBED IN THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT; OR AT THE RATE/RATES IN FOR CE; OR AT THE RATE OF 20%. IN THE PRESENT CASE, ASSESSEE WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR DEDUCTIN G TAX ON PAYMENTS MADE TO NON-RESIDENTS IN ACCOUNT OF ROYALTY AND/OR FEE FOR TECHNICAL SERVICES. THE DISPUTE BEFORE US RELATES TO THE PAYMENTS MADE BY THE ASSES SEE TO SUCH NON-RESIDENTS WHO HAD NOT FURNISHED THEIR PANS TO THE ASSESSEE. T HE CASE OF THE REVENUE IS THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF FURNISHING OF PAN, ASSESSEE WAS UNDER AN OBLIGATION TO DEDUCT TAX @ 20% FOLLOWING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIO N 206AA OF THE ACT. HOWEVER, ASSESSEE HAD DEDUCTED THE TAX AT SOURCE AT THE RATE S PRESCRIBED IN THE RESPECTIVE DTAAS BETWEEN INDIA AND THE RELEVANT COU NTRY OF THE NON-RESIDENTS; AND, SUCH RATE OF TAX BEING LOWER THAN THE RATE OF 20% MANDATED BY SECTION 206AA OF THE ACT. THE CIT(A) HAS FOUND THAT THE PRO VISIONS OF SECTION 90(2) COME TO THE RESCUE OF THE ASSESSEE. SECTION 90(2) PROVID ES THAT THE PROVISIONS OF THE DTAAS WOULD OVERRIDE THE PROVISIONS OF THE DOMESTIC ACT IN CASES WHERE THE PROVISIONS OF DTAAS ARE MORE BENEFICIAL TO THE ASSE SSEE. THERE CANNOT BE ANY DOUBT TO THE PROPOSITION THAT IN CASE OF NON-RESIDE NTS, TAX LIABILITY IN INDIA IS LIABLE TO BE DETERMINED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT OR THE DTAA BETWEEN INDIA AND THE RELEVANT COUNTRY, WHICHEVER I S MORE BENEFICIAL TO THE ASSESSEE, HAVING REGARD TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIO N 90(2) OF THE ACT. IN THIS CONTEXT, THE CIT(A) HAS CORRECTLY OBSERVED THAT THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF AZADI BACHAO ANDOLAN AND OTHERS VS. UOI, (2 003) 263 ITR 706 (SC) HAS UPHELD THE PROPOSITION THAT THE PROVISIONS MADE IN THE DTAAS WILL PREVAIL OVER THE GENERAL PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN THE ACT TO THE EXTE NT THEY ARE BENEFICIAL TO THE ASSESSEE. IN THIS CONTEXT, IT WOULD BE WORTHWHILE T O OBSERVE THAT THE DTAAS ITA NO.808,1141 /MDS/2014 CO NOS.56,57/MDS./2014 8 ENTERED INTO BETWEEN INDIA AND THE OTHER RELEVANT C OUNTRIES IN THE PRESENT CONTEXT PROVIDE FOR SCOPE OF TAXATION AND/OR A RATE OF TAXA TION WHICH WAS DIFFERENT FROM THE SCOPE/RATE PRESCRIBED UNDER THE ACT. FOR THE SA ID REASON, ASSESSEE DEDUCTED THE TAX AT SOURCE HAVING REGARD TO THE PROVISIONS O F THE RESPECTIVE DTAAS WHICH PROVIDED FOR A BENEFICIAL RATE OF TAXATION. IT WOUL D ALSO BE RELEVANT TO OBSERVE THAT EVEN THE CHARGING SECTION 4 AS WELL AS SECTION 5 OF THE ACT WHICH DEALS WITH THE PRINCIPLE OF ASCERTAINMENT OF TOTAL INCOME UNDER TH E ACT ARE ALSO SUBORDINATE TO THE PRINCIPLE ENSHRINED IN SECTION 90(2) AS HELD BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF AZADI BACHAO ANDOLAN AND OTHERS (SUPRA) . THUS, IN SO FAR AS THE APPLICABILITY OF THE SCOPE/RATE OF TAXATION WITH RE SPECT TO THE IMPUGNED PAYMENTS MAKE TO THE NON-RESIDENTS IS CONCERNED, NO FAULT CA N BE FOUND WITH THE RATE OF TAXATION INVOKED BY THE ASSESSEE BASED ON THE DTAAS , WHICH PRESCRIBED FOR A BENEFICIAL RATE OF TAXATION. HOWEVER, THE CASE OF ( TIE REVENUE IS THAT THE TAX DEDUCTION AT SOURCE WAS REQUIRED TO BE MADE AT 20% IN THE ABERIC UL FURNISHING OT PAN BY THE RECIPIENT NON RC5IDURLTT, HAVING REGA RD TO SECTION 206AA OF THE ACT. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, IT WOULD BE QUITE INCORR ECT TO SAY THAT THOUGH THE CHARGING SECTION 4 OF THE ACT AND SECTION 5 OF THE ACT DEALING WITH ASCERTAINMENT OF TOTAL INCOME ARE SUBORDINATE TO THE PRINCIPLE EN SHRINED IN SECTION 90(2) OF THE ACT BUT THE PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER XVII-B GOVERNING TAX DEDUCTION AT SOURCE ARE NOT SUBORDINATE TO SECTION 90(2) OF THE ACT. NOTABL Y, SECTION 206AA OF THE ACT WHICH IS THE CENTRE OF CONTROVERSY BEFORE US IS NOT A CHARGING SECTION BUT IS A PART OF A PROCEDURAL PROVISIONS DEALING WITH COLLECTION AND DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE. THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 195 OF THE ACT WHICH CAST S A DUTY ON THE ASSESSEE TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE ON PAYMENTS TO A NON-RESIDENT CANNOT BE LOOKED UPON AS A CHARGING PROVISION. IN-FACT, IN THE CONTEXT OF SECT ION 195 OF THE ACT ALSO, THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. ELI LI LY & CO., (2009) 312 ITR 225 (SC) OBSERVED THAT THE PROVISIONS OF TAX WITHHOLDIN G I.E. SECTION 195 OF THE ACT WOULD APPLY ONLY TO SUMS WHICH ARE OTHERWISE CHARGE ABLE TO TAX UNDER THE ACT. THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF GE INDIA T ECHNOLOGY CENTRE PVT. LTD. ITA NO.808,1141 /MDS/2014 CO NOS.56,57/MDS./2014 9 VS. CIT, (2010) 327 ITR 456 (SC) HELD THAT THE PROV ISIONS OF DTAAS ALONG WITH THE SECTIONS 4, 5, 9, 90 & 91 OF THE ACT ARE RELEVA NT WHILE APPLYING THE PROVISIONS OF TAX DEDUCTION AT SOURCE. THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF T HE AFORESAID SCHEMATIC INTERPRETATION OF THE ACT, SECTION 206AA OF THE ACT CANNOT BE UNDERSTOOD TO OVERRIDE THE CHARGING SECTIONS 4 AND 5 OF THE ACT. THUS, WHERE SECTION 90(2) OF THE ACT PROVIDES THAT DTAAS OVERRIDE DOMESTIC LAW I N CASES WHERE THE PROVISIONS OF DTAAS ARE MORE BENEFICIAL TO THE ASSESSEE AND TH E SAME ALSO OVERRIDES THE CHARGING SECTIONS 4 AND 5 OF THE ACT WHICH, IN TURN , OVERRIDE THE DTAAS PROVISIONS ESPECIALLY SECTION 206AA OF THE ACT WHIC H IS THE CONTROVERSY BEFORE US. THEREFORE, IN OUR VIEW, WHERE THE TAX HAS BEEN DEDUCTED ON THE STRENGTH OF THE BENEFICIAL PROVISIONS OF SECTION DTAAS, THE PRO VISIONS OF SECTION 20GM OF THE ACT CANNOT BE INVOKED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO I NSIST ON THE TAX DEDUCTION @ 20%, HAVING REGARD TO THE OVERRIDING NATURE OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 90(2) OF THE ACT. THE CIT(A), IN OUR VIEW, CORRECTLY INFERRE D THAT SECTION 206AA OF THE ACT DOES NOT OVERRIDE THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 90(2) O F THE ACT AND THAT IN THE IMPUGNED CASES OF PAYMENTS MADE TO NON-RESIDENTS, A SSESSEE CORRECTLY APPLIED THE RATE OF TAX PRESCRIBED UNDER THE DTAAS AND NOT AS PER SECTION 206AA OF THE ACT BECAUSE THE PROVISIONS OF THE DTAAS WAS MORE BE NEFICIAL. THUS, WE HEREBY AFFIRM THE ULTIMATE CONCLUSION OF THE CIT(A) IN DEL ETING THE TAX DEMAND RELATABLE TO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 20% AND THE ACTUAL TAX RATE O N WHICH TAX WAS DEDUCTED BY THE ASSESSEE IN TERMS OF THE RELEVANT DTAAS. AS A C ONSEQUENCE, REVENUE FAILS IN ITS APPEALS. FOLLOWING THE ABOVE DECISION, WE HAVE NO HESITATION TO UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (A), WHO HAS ONLY DIRECTED THE ACIT(TDS) TO COMPUTE TAX @ 10% AS PRESCRIBED BY THE DTAA, HENCE INVOKING SECTION 200A OF THE ACT IS NOT WARRANTED IN THE CAS E OF THE ASSESSEE. ITA NO.808,1141 /MDS/2014 CO NOS.56,57/MDS./2014 10 6. SINCE WE HAVE ALREADY DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVO UR OF THE ASSESSEE BY HOLDING THAT SECTION.200A OF THE ACT CA NNOT BE INVOKED IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE CONSIDERING THE FACTS A ND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE C.OS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DEC IDED IN ITS FAVOUR. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED AND THE CROSS OBJECTIONS BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWE D. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 09 TH DECEMBER, 2015 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( . . . ) ( N.R.S.GANESAN ) ( . '#$ %' ) (A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER CHENNAI, DATED THE 09 TH DECEMBER, 2015 . K S SUNDARAM. & (,/0 1 0#, /COPY TO: 1. $% /APPELLANT 2. ()$% /RESPONDENT 3. * 2, ( ) /CIT(A) 4. * 2, /CIT 5. 05 (,6! /DR 6. ' 7+ /GF
Mehul