P.Srinivasa Gopal, CHENNAI V. DCIT, CHENNAI

CO 76/CHNY/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3202 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 06-10-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 21-06-2017
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S VIJAYAPRABHA
• Assessee Lawyers: B S PURUSHOTTAM
• Keywords: Deemed dividend
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , D B ENCH, CHENNAI . , ! ' . #$ , % & BEFORE SHRI A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ I.T.A.NO.1086/MDS/2017 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11) THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(1), CHENNAI 34. VS SHRI P. SRINIVASA GOPAL, 125, ORAKKADU VILLAGE, SHOLAVARAM VIA, CHENNAI 600 067. PAN: AAIPG7720R ( /APPELLANT) ( /RESPONDENT) C.O. NO. 76/MDS/2017 (IN I.T.A. NO.1086/MDS/2017) SHRI P. SRINIVASA GOPAL, 125, ORAKKADU VILLAGE, SHOLAVARAM VIA, CHENNAI 600 067. VS THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(1), CHENNAI 34. PAN: AAIPG7720R ( /APPELLANT) ( /RESPONDENT) /REVENUE BY : SMT. S. VIJAYAPRABHA, JCIT /ASSESSEE BY : SHRI B. S. PURUSHOTTAM, CA ! /DATE OF HEARING : 14.09.2017 '# ! /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 06.10.2017 / 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)-3, 2 ITA NO.1086/MDS/2017 & CO NO. 76/MDS/2017 CHENNAI DATED 31.01.2017 IN ITA NO.155/2015-16/CIT( A)-3 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 PASSED U/S.250(6) R.W.S . 143(3) & 147 OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO RAISED CROS S OBJECTION TOWARDS THE SAME ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) SUPRA, WHIC H IS IN SUPPORT OF THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) WITH RESPECT TO MERITS AND AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) ON REOPENING. 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 DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.4,38,31,134/- MADE BY T HE LD.AO INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2(22)(E) OF THE ACT TOWARDS DEEMED DIVIDEND. 3. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOUR CROSS OBJECTIONS WH ICH ARE BEING BRIEFLY SUMMARIZED AS FOLLOWS: (I) THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN HOLDING THE REOPENIN G OF ASSESSMENT U/S.147/148 OF THE ACT, TO BE VALID. (II) THE LD.CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY HELD THAT THE TRANSA CTION BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND M/S. PLEASANT FOODS PVT. LTD., IS IN THE NATURE OF TRADE AND HENCE THERE WAS NO JUSTIFICATIO N FOR INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2(22)(A) OF THE ACT. 4. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSE E IS AN INDIVIDUAL ENGAGED AS DIRECTOR IN M/S. PLEASANT FOO DS PVT. LTD., FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME. THEREAFTER THE CASE WA S SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY U/S.143(3) OF THE ACT, WHEREIN THE LD.A.O MADE ADDITION OF RS.27,68,161/-. SUBSEQUENTLY, IT WAS FURTHER REV EALED FROM THE RECORDS OF THE COMPANY M/S. PLEASANT FOODS PVT. LTD ., THAT THE 3 ITA NO.1086/MDS/2017 & CO NO. 76/MDS/2017 COMPANY HAD RECEIVED UNSECURED LOAN OF RS.26,32,00, 000/- FROM ITS DIRECTOR SHRI P. SRINIVASA GOPAL DURING THE FIN ANCIAL YEAR 2008-09 AND THE SAME WAS REPAID PARTLY DURING THE F INANCIAL YEAR 2009-10 TO THE EXTENT OF RS.19,56,31,134/-. THE BAL ANCE AMOUNT OF RS.6,75,68,886/- WAS ADJUSTED TOWARDS SALE OF EQ UITY SHARES OF APOLLO HOSPITALS LTD., AND APOLLO SINDHOORI CAPI TAL INVESTMENT LTD AGGREGATING TO RS.11,14,00,000/-. THUS THE AMO UNT OF RS.4,38,31,134/- BEING THE DIFFERENCE OF RS.6,75,68 ,886/- AND RS.11,14,00,000/- STOOD IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE AS DEBTOR IN THE BALANCE SHEET OF THE COMPANY. THE LD.AO OPIN ED THAT SINCE THE AMOUNT OF RS.4,38,31,134/- WAS PAYABLE BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE COMPANY, THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2(22)(A) OF THE ACT WOULD BE ATTRACTED AND THEREFORE HE REOPENE D THE CASE INVOKING THE PROVISION OF SECTION 147 OF THE ACT AN D NOTICE U/S.148 OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED ON 20.05.2014 AND SER VED ON THE ASSESSEE ON 26.05.2014. 5. REVENUES APPEAL: DURING THE COURSE OF SCRUTINY RE-ASSESSMENT PROCEED INGS, IT WAS EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE DEBT OF RS.4,38,31,130/- AROSE DUE TO THE TRADING/PURCHASE TRANSACTION OF SHARES BETWEEN M/S. PLEASANT FOODS PVT. LTD., AN D THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF COMMERCIAL EXIGENCIES. IT W AS THEREFORE ARGUED THAT IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2(22)(A) OF THE ACT WOULD NOT BE ATTRACTED. THE LD .AO REJECTED THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE AND HELD AS FOLLOWS: 6. THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE SQUARELY FALLS UNDER T HE PROVISIONS OF S 2(22)(A) WHICH IS REPRODUCED BELOW: 4 ITA NO.1086/MDS/2017 & CO NO. 76/MDS/2017 ANY DISTRIBUTION BY A COMPANY OF ACCUMULATED PROF ITS, WHETHER CAPITALIZED OR NOT IF SUCH DISTRIBUTION ENT AILS THE RELEASE BY THE COMPANY TO ITS SHAREHOLDERS OF ALL O R ANY PART OF THE ASSETS OF THE COMPANY; ACCORDING THE ABOVE SECTION, THE EXCESS AMOUNT OF LOAN REPAID TO THE ASSESSEE HAS TO BE TREATED AS DEEMED DIVIDEND. IN THIS CASE, THE EXCESS AMOUNT OF RS.4.38 CRORES I S TO BE CONSTRUED AS AMOUNT ADVANCED BY COMPANY TO THE ASSE SSEE WHEN THERE IS NO BUSINESS EXIGENCY INVOLVED. THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION FOR THE AMOUNT PAID IN EXCESS BY THE COMPANY TO THE SHARE HOLDER (ASSESSEE) THAT THE COMPANY HAS PA ID CAPITAL GAINS TAX ON THE SALE OF SHARES OF APOLLO HOSPITAL ENTERPRISES LTD. EVEN THOUGH THE COMPANY HAS PAID CAPITAL GAIN S TAX, THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO LIABLE TO BE TAXED UNDER THE HEAD DEEMED DIVIDEND IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 2(22). IN VIE W OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, THE AMOUNT OF RS.4.38 CRORES IS B ROUGHT TO TAX. 5.1. BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE MADE THE FO LLOWING SUBMISSIONS:- (I) THE ASSESSEE IS A DIRECTOR IN M/S. PLEASANT FOO DS PVT. LTD., AND HAD ADVANCED SUM OF RS.26.32 CRORES TO TH E COMPANY FOR THE PURPOSE OF INVESTMENT IN SHARES OF M/S. APOLLO HOSPITAL ENTERPRISES LTD., DURING THE FINANC IAL YEAR 2008-09. (II) IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2009-10, RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 THE LOAN WAS REPAID BY THE COMPANY OVE R A PERIOD OF TIME WHICH INCLUDED TRANSFER OF 1,50,000 SHARES OF 5 ITA NO.1086/MDS/2017 & CO NO. 76/MDS/2017 M/S. APOLLO HOSPITAL ENTERPRISES LTD., AT THE PREVA ILING MARKET RATE OF RS.576 PER SHARE. (III) THE CAPITAL GAIN ARISING OUT OF SUCH TRANSFER OF SHARE WERE DISCLOSED BY THE COMPANY AND TAX PAID DULY. (IV) THUS THE COMPANY HAD NOT ONLY RECEIVED SUBSTAN TIAL BENEFIT IN THE FORM OF INTEREST FREE LOAN FROM THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS GAINED IN SALE OF SHARES TO THE ASSESSEE . (V) THUS THE BALANCE AMOUNT PAYABLE BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE COMPANY ON ACCOUNT OF PURCHASE OF SHARES IS ARISING OUT OF COMMERCIAL TRANSACTION AND IT IS NOT LOAN ADVANCED BY THE COMPANY TO THE ASSESSEE. RELIANCE WAS PLACED IN THE CASE PRADIP KUMAR MALHOTRA VS. CIT DECIDED BY THE HONBL E KOLKATA HIGH COURT IN THE IT APPEAL NO.219 AND THE DECISION OF THE DELHI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 29.05.2015 IN THE CASE ISWAR CHAND JINDAL VS. ACIT, ITA NO.4967/DEL/2012. (VI) RELIANCE WAS PLACED IN THE CASE PRADIP KUMAR M ALHOTRA SUPRA, WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT ONLY GRATUITOUS LOA N ADVANCED BY COMPANY TO SHAREHOLDER CAN BE TREATED A S DEEMED DIVIDEND U/S.2(22)(E) OF THE ACT. FURTHER I N THE CASE ISWAR CHAND JINDAL SUPRA, IT WAS HELD THAT THE LOANS AND ADVANCES GIVEN FOR BUSINESS TRANSACTIONS BETWEE N THE PARTIES DO NOT FALL UNDER THE AMBIT OF DEEMED DIVI DEND. (VII) IN THE CASE ITO VS. GAYATHRI CHAKRAVARTHI, IT A NO.151/KOL/2013 DATED 30.10.2015, THE KOLKATA BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL HELD THAT WHERE THE COMPANY IS ALSO BE NEFITED IN THE TRANSACTION, THE TRANSACTION WILL BE IN THE NATURE OF 6 ITA NO.1086/MDS/2017 & CO NO. 76/MDS/2017 COMMERCIAL TRANSACTION AND THEREFORE IT WILL FALL O UTSIDE THE AMBIT OF SECTION 2(22)(E) OF THE ACT. (VIII) FURTHER THE SHARES WERE ACQUIRED BY THE COMP ANY OUT OF THE LOAN OBTAINED BY THE COMPANY FROM THE ASSESSEE AND THEREFORE NO ACCUMULATED PROFIT WAS UTILIZED FOR TH E PURPOSE OF ACQUISITION OF THE SHARES. THUS IT WOUL D NOT AMOUNT TO DISTRIBUTION OF ACCUMULATED PROFIT OF THE COMPANY AND THEREFORE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2(22)(A) OF THE ACT CANNOT BE ATTRACTED. 5.2 AFTER CONSIDERING THE ABOVE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE AND ANALYZING THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE LD.CIT(A) DIRECTED THE LD.AO TO DELETE THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF DEE MED DIVIDEND AMOUNTING TO RS.4,38,31,134/- IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE BY OBSERVING AS UNDER I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ID. AR AN D THE FINDINGS OF THE AO. THE UNDISPUTED FACTS ARE THAT A PPELLANT HAD ADVANCED A LOAN OF RS.26,36,00,000/ - TO THE COMPAN Y IN WHICH HE IS A DIRECTOR. SECONDLY, THE LOAN RECEIVED BY TH E COMPANY HAS BEEN REPAID DURING THE F.Y. 2009-10, BY WAY OF CHEQUE AMOUNTING TO RS.19,56,31, 134/ -. FOR BALANCE LOAN AMOUNT OF RS.6,75,68,886/ - HAS BEEN REPAID BY KIND I.E. EQUI TY SHARES OF M/ S. APOLLO HOSPITAL ENTERPRISES LTD. AND M/S. APO LLO SINDHURI CAPITAL INVESTMENTS LTD. I THIRD AND ALSO IMPORTANT FACT IS THAT THE ABOVE EQUITY SHARES WERE SOLD TO THE APPELLANT FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS.11,14,00,000/-. FOURTH POINT IS THAT OUT OF THE SAID SALE CONSIDERATION, COMPANY HAD ADJUSTED L OAN AMOUNT OF RS.6,75,68,886/- AND THE BALANCE AMOUNT HAD BEEN SHOWN IN 7 ITA NO.1086/MDS/2017 & CO NO. 76/MDS/2017 ITS BOOKS AS DEBIT BALANCE. FIFTH POINT IS THAT THE AO HERSELF HAD ADMITTED THAT IT WAS A SALE TRANSACTION BETWEEN THE APPELLANT AND THE COMPANY. HOWEVER, AO HAD I TREATED THE DEBI T BALANCE SHOWN IN THE BOOKS OF THE COMPANY AGAINST THE I APP ELLANT AS DEEMED DIVIDEND AND INVOKED CLAUSE (A) OF SUB-SECTI ON (22) OF SEC.2. ON CONSIDERATION OF THE ABOVE FACTS, IT IS SEEN THA T THE COMPANY HAS SOLD SHARES OF APOLLO GROUP TO THE APPE LLANT AT THE PREVAILING MARKET RATE OF RS.576/- PER SHARE. A FTER ADJUSTING THE BALANCE LOAN AMOUNT, THE COMPANY HAD TAKEN BALA NCE CONSIDERATION TO THE BALANCE SHEET AND SHOWN AS DEB IT BALANCE AGAINST THE APPELLANT. THE FACTS CLEARLY PR OVE THAT IT IS A PURE COMMERCIAL TRANSACTION BETWEEN THE APPELLANT AND THE COMPANY AND IT WAS DONE AT ARM'S LENGTH. FURTHER, A T NO STRETCH OF IMAGINATION, SALE CONSIDERATION RECEIVABLE CANNO T BE SAID TO BE A LOAN OR ADVANCE. PROBABLY, AO MIGHT HAVE COME TO THIS CONCLUSION AND DROPPED THE IDEA OF INVOKING CLAUSE (E) OF SUB- SECTION (22) OF SEC.2. IN FACT, ASSESSMENT HAD BEEN RE-OPENED TO INVOKE THIS CLAUSE. HOWEVER, AT THE END OF THE PROC EEDINGS, AO HAD GONE TO HEAD TO TAX THE DEBIT BALANCE SHOWN IN THE COMPANY'S BOOKS UNDER CLAUSE (A) OF SUB-SECTION (22 ) OF SEC.2. NOW, I TURN TO DISCUSS CLAUSE (A) OF SUB-SECTION (2 2) OF SEC.2 AS TO WHETHER THE SAID CLAUSE IS APPLICABLE IN THE GIVEN CIRCUMSTANCES, IN THE HANDS OF THE APPELLANT OR NOT . IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, AO HAD REPRODUCED CLAUSE (A) OF S UB-SECTION (22) OF SEC.2. ON PERUSAL OF THE SAID CLAUSE, I FOU ND THAT TWO 8 ITA NO.1086/MDS/2017 & CO NO. 76/MDS/2017 CONDITIONS CUMULATIVELY HAVE TO MEET TO APPLY THE S AME. ONE IS DISTRIBUTION OF ACCUMULATED PROFITS AND SECOND IS E NTAILING THE RELEASE OF THE ASSETS. IN THE APPELLANT'S CASE, AS RIGHTLY POINTED OUT BY THE LD. AR, THE SALE CONSIDERATION RECEIVABL E OUT OF SALE OF SHARES OF APOLLO GROUP CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS D ISTRIBUTION OF ACCUMULATED PROFITS. SECONDLY, SHARES WORTH OF L OAN AMOUNT RECEIVED CANNOT BE SAID AS ENTAILING THE RELEASE OF ASSETS. IN THE APPELLANT'S CASE, IN MY CONSIDERED OPINION, BOTH THE CONDITIONS ARE ABSENT. IT APPEARS AO HAD MISCONSTRU ED THE CLAUSE (A) OF SUB-SECTION (22) OF SEC.2 AND WRONGLY APPLIED IN THE APPELLANT'S CASE. THEREFORE, I FOUND A LOT OF F ORCE IN THE ARGUMENTS OF THE ID. AR. ON THE BASIS OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSIONS, I HAVE NO HESITATION TO HOLD THAT AO HAD WRONGLY CONS IDERED SALE TRANSACTION OF SHARES BETWEEN THE APPELLANT AND HIS COMPANY AS DEEMED DIVIDEND UNDER CLAUSE (A) OF SUB-SECTION (22 ) OF SEC.2. IN OTHER WORDS, IT IS A SIMPLE COMMERCIAL TRANSACTI ON TO HAVE BEEN DONE TO REPAY LOAN RECEIVED FROM THE DIRECTOR AND CAPITAL GAINS TAX ON SALE CONSIDERATION OF SHARES HAS BEEN OFFERED BY THE COMPANY. FURTHER, IT HAS BEEN DONE AT ARM'S LEN GTH PRICE AND HAS NOT BEEN DISPUTED BY THE AO. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSIONS, I DIRECT THE AO TO DELETE THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF DEEMED DIVIDEND AMOUNTING TO RS.4,38,31, 134/- AND THE GROUNDS TAKEN ON THIS ISSUE ARE ALLOWED. 5.3 BEFORE US THE LD.DR ARGUED IN SUPPORT OF THE OR DER OF THE LD.AO, WHILE AS THE LD.AR RELIED ON THE ORDER OF TH E LD.CIT(A) AND PLEADED FOR SUSTAINING THE SAME. 9 ITA NO.1086/MDS/2017 & CO NO. 76/MDS/2017 5.4 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND CAREFUL LY PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF T HE CASE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE DECISION OF THE LD.CIT(A) HAS MERITS. THE ASSESSEE IS A DIRECTOR IN THE COMPANY M/S. PLEASANT FOOD PVT. LTD. BECAUSE OF HIS CLOSE NEXUS WITH THE COMPANY, H E HAD EXTENDED ENORMOUS FUND TO THE TUNE OF RS.26.32 CROR ES AS LOAN TO THE COMPANY, WHICH WAS SUBSTANTIALLY REPAID TO T HE ASSESSEE, LEAVING A BALANCE OF RS.6,75,68,886/-. THE COMPANY HAD INVESTED THE LOAN OBTAINED FROM THE ASSESSEE FOR TH E PURCHASE OF SHARES IN M/S. APOLLO GROUP OF COMPANIES. THEREAFT ER TO SETTLE THE OUTSTANDING LOAN THE COMPANY HAD SOLD SHARES OF THE APOLLO GROUPS TO THE ASSESSEE AT THE PREVAILING MARKET RAT E FOR RS.11,14,00,000/-. FROM THIS TRANSACTION THE COMPA NY HAD MADE SUBSTANTIAL GAIN FROM THE ASSESSEE. THE INTERCHANGE OF OWNERSHIP OF SHARES AND THE RELATED TRANSACTIONS AR E DUE TO VARIOUS BUSINESS STRATEGIES ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE COMPANY WHEREIN HE IS A DIRECTOR. THUS THE ENTIRE TRANSACTION IS PURELY OUT OF COMMERCIAL EXIGENCIES. FURTHER IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE DEBIT BALANCE WHICH STOOD IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESS EE, IN THE BOOKS OF THE COMPANY, WAS DUE TO THE GAIN ENJOYED B Y THE COMPANY FROM THE TRANSACTION WITH THE ASSESSEE AND NOT WITH RESPECT TO DISTRIBUTION OF ACCUMULATED PROFIT OF TH E COMPANY AS RIGHTLY POINTED OUT BY THE LD.CIT(A). THEREFORE THE VIEW EXPRESSED BY THE LD.CIT(A) THAT THE TRANSACTION BET WEEN THE ASSESSEE AND M/S. PLEASANT FOOD PVT. LTD., FALLS OU TSIDE THE SCOPE OF THE TWO CONDITIONS VIZ., DISTRIBUTION OF A CCUMULATED PROFIT OF THE COMPANY AND RELEASE OF ASSETS OF THE COMPANY SPECIFIED IN SECTION 2(22)(E) & 2(22)(A) OF THE ACT HAS MERIT S. THE RELIANCE 10 ITA NO.1086/MDS/201 7 & CO NO. 76/MDS/2017 PLACED IN THE DECISION OF THE CASE CITED BY THE LD. AR BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A) MENTIONED SUPRA IS SQUARELY APPLICABLE IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THIS SITUATION, WE DO NOT FIND IT NECESSARY TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) ON THIS I SSUE. ACCORDINGLY WE HEREBY SUSTAIN THE ORDER OF THE LD.C IT(A). 6. ASSESSEES CROSS OBJECTION :- SINCE WE HAVE DECIDED THE ISSUE WITH RESPECT TO T HE APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 2(22)(E) & 2(22)(A) OF THE ACT IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE REVENUES APPEAL AND SUSTAINED THE ORDER OF LD.CIT(A), WE DO NOT FIND IT NECESSARY TO ADDRESS T HE GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSE IN HIS CO ON REOPENING BECAUS E IT WOULD BE ONLY ACADEMIC. THE OTHER GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE IN HIS CO IS ONLY IN SUPPORT OF THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) WHICH WE HAVE UPHELD, HENCE THIS GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE STANDS AL LOWED. 7. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMI SSED AND THE CROSS OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOW ED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THE 06 TH OCTOBER, 2017 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( ! ' . #$ ) ( . ) ( DUVVURU RL REDDY ) ( A . MOHAN ALANKAMONY ) $ %& /JUDICIAL MEMBER %& / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER '$ /CHENNAI, (% /DATED 06 TH OCTOBER, 2017 11 ITA NO.1086/MDS/201 7 & CO NO. 76/MDS/2017 RSR % *+ ,+ /COPY TO: 1. /APPELLANT 2. /RESPONDENT 3. / ( )/CIT(A) 4. / /CIT 5. +01 2 /DR 6. 1 /GF