COROMANDEL CABLES P LTD.,CHENNAI V. ACIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(2), CHENNAI

ITA 1194/CHNY/2018

AI Insights

The case involves M/s. Coromandel Cables P. Ltd., which filed appeals against the orders of the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax regarding the assessment years 2007-08 to 2011-12. The primary issues revolved around the computation of LTCG and the denial of cost of improvement claimed by the assessee. The Tribunal had previously directed the Assessing Officer to re-examine these issues in light of the JDA and AOS. However, the Assessing Officer's subsequent orders, which were challenged in this appeal, were found to be in accordance with the Tribunal's earlier directions. The Tribunal dismissed the appeals, agreeing with the lower authorities that the JDA was the relevant document for computing LTCG and that the cost of improvement claimed was not substantiated.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 107416 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-01-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Other Referred Cases: CIT vs. Sri Lakshmi Bricks Industries, CIT vs. Veena Developers, NTPC Ltd vs. CIT, Anchor Pressings Pvt. Ltd vs. CIT, Goetze (India) Ltd vs. CIT
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A. SASIKUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: M. GOPINATH
• Keywords: Set aside; Capital asset; Revised return; Retraction; Capital Gains; Principle of natural justice; Wrong claim; Bogus
• Section: 195; 192; 64; 271(1)(c); 10B; 10AA; 80IB; 207; 139(5); 20

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’डी’ Ɋायपीठ, चेɄई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH, CHENNAI ŵी एस.एस. िवʷनेũ रिव, Ɋाियक सद˟ एवं ŵी जगदीश, लेखा सद˟ क े समƗ । Before Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Judicial Member & Shri Jagadish, Accountant Member आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1193, 1194, 1195, 1196 & 1197/Chny/2018 Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 M/s. Coromandel Cables P. Ltd., A7, 6th Cross Street, Indira Nagar, Adyar, Chennai 600 020. [PAN:AAACC7190E] Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1(2), Chennai. (अपीलाथŎ/Appellant) (ŮȑथŎ/Respondent) अपीलाथŎ की ओर से / Appellant by : Shri M. Gopinath, Advocate ŮȑथŎ की ओर से/Respondent by : Shri A. Sasikumar, CIT सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date of hearing : 06.11.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 31.01.2025 आदेश /O R D E R PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER: These five appeals filed by the assessee are directed against two different common orders both dated 28.02.2018 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 1, Chennai for the assessment years 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12. 2. Since, the issues raised in these appeals are similar based on the same identical facts, with the consent of both the parties, we proceed to I.T.A. Nos.1193-1197/Chny/18 2 hear all the appeals together and pass consolidated order for the sake of convenience. 3. The ld. AR Shri M. Gopinath, Advocate submits to take up I.T.A. No. 1193/Chny/2018 as lead case as the issues raised before this Tribunal are based on the same identical facts covering all the assessment years. With the consent of both the parties, we proceed to take-up the said appeal as lead case. ITA No. 1193/Chny/2018 for AY 2007-08 4. Ground Nos. 1 & 6 are general in nature and requires no adjudication. 5. In grounds No. 2, 3 & 4, the assessee challenged the order of ld. CIT(A) in sustaining the recomputation of LTCG despite the directions of the Tribunal’s order dated 04.03.2016. 6. In this appeal, the Assessing Officer passed giving effect order dated 23.01.2017 for AY 2007-08 in pursuance of the consolidated order dated 04.03.2016 [we find the Assessing Officer mentioned the ITAT order dated as 19.02.2016. The assessee filed 3 paper books, wherein, we find no such order dated 19.02.2016. Both the parties I.T.A. Nos.1193-1197/Chny/18 3 admitted there is no such order dated 19.02.2016, which supports vide Notes of arguments on 05.08.2019 of page 1 of the paper book. Therefore, we treat the date of ITAT’s order as 04.03.2016 instead of 19.02.2016.] for AYs 2006-07 to 2011-12. 7. The Assessing Officer vide letter dated 27.05.2016 asked the assessee to provide concrete evidence to substantiate genuineness of improvement under taken through/s. Takshil Trading Pvt. Ltd. The assessee submitted agreement dated 11.05.2005, by which M/s Takshil Treading Pvt. Ltd was appointed to undertake excavation work and plinth piling at Perungudi site at a cost of Rs. 4,53,42,980/- vide letter dated 06.06.2016 along with documents. The Assessing Officer, after examination of said details, held the transaction involving Takshil Trading Pvt. Ltd. are not genuine and established to be bogus for the reasons stated in para 16 of the giving effect order and accordingly treated the cost of improvement at NIL. The findings of the Assessing Officer as summarised at para 16 of his order are reproduced herein below for ready reference:  At the first place, there is no need for this contract work of refilling, when the vacant land is about to accommodate a residential structure.  The contractor is proven to be an accommodator. I.T.A. Nos.1193-1197/Chny/18 4  The finding of the Maharashtra Sales Tax Department that the contractor Takshil Trading Pvt Ltd, is actually a trader of Hawala bills has not been proven otherwise by the assessee.  The contractor does not possess the wherewithal to undertake the contract.  The final accounts of the contractor as appearing in his returns of income do not exhibit the transactions involving the assessee-company.  The AR pleaded inability at the stage of original proceedings to provide supporting bills and the situation continues to remain unmodified.  The summons issued to the contractor and the sub contractors were returned unserved substantiating that the sub contractors are bogus entities.  The Director Shri Chinnadurai was not able to explain the nature and characteristics of the contract.  The involvement of Shri Vinod Kumar in the sequence of transactions is also proven to be a bogus claim of Shri T. Chinnadurai.  When the payments were made by the assessee-company to cover up the transaction after a gap of 6 years, the amounts were not diverted to the sub- contractors.  No documentary proof has ever been produced. 8. For that to the denial of cost of improvement, the Assessing Officer computed long term capital gain on the value of sale of land made during the year under consideration. Accordingly, demand raised to that effect. 9. Aggrieved by the giving effect order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee challenged the said order before the ld. CIT(A). According to the ld. CIT(A) that the assessee did not produce any evidences in support of number of grounds raised therein, except a written note dated I.T.A. Nos.1193-1197/Chny/18 5 05.02.2018. The ld. CIT(A) considered the same and held that the assessee failed to justify the genuineness of the claim of improvement and affirmed the view of the Assessing Officer in denying benefit of cost of improvement. The relevant part at para 8 & 9 of the ld. CIT(A)’s order is reproduced herein below for ready reference: 8. In the course of appeal, though the appellant has raised a number of grounds, it was unable to produce any evidences before me. The only submission made by the appellant in their written note filed on 05.02.2018 is as under: 17. On the second issue relating to the computation of Long Term capital gains arising or accruing as a result of the sale of land at various stages covering the assessment year 2007-08 to 20110-12, the claim for land development expenses may be considered for allowance based on the facts furnished at various stages in the interest of justice. In so far as the findings of the Assessing Officer in the impugned orders for all the give assessment years, the Appellant is vehemently opposing the same as per the grounds of appeal filed forming part of the respective statutory Form No. 35 for which the appropriate decision may be rendered in the interest of justice. 9. It is observed that the specific directions of the ITAT have been duly complied with by the Assessing Officer and the claim of the appellant for cost of improvement has been examined accordingly. The appellant has failed to justify the genuineness of the claim. In view of the same, the Assessing Officer’s action in denying the benefit of cost of improvement is upheld. All the grounds of appeal are dismissed. 10. Not satisfied with the order of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee is before us challenging the order of the ld. CIT(A). 11. Before us Shri M. Gopinth, Advocate drew our attention to the facts sheet and prayer and submits that an agreement of sale dated 23.11.2005 was entered into by the assessee with M/s. Doshi Housing, a special purpose vehicle (SPV) established for development of the factory I.T.A. Nos.1193-1197/Chny/18 6 land and simultaneously a JDA was also entered into on 23.11.2005 between the assessee and the SPV. The assessee, based on the agreement of sale had reported long term capital gains for taxation in the respective assessment years covering the sale deeds executed to the nominees of the SPV and paid the taxes thereon. It was submitted that the department conducted a survey on 24.01.2012 and the JDA was noticed and the assessee stated that the said JDA was not acted upon. The assessment proceedings for the assessment years commencing from the assessment year 2006-07 was reopened and the assessments were completed by reckoning the JDA which fell within the previous year relating to the assessment year 2006-07 for computing Long Term Capital Gains for the deemed transfer of UDS in land in favour of the developer/SPV to the extent of the ratio agreed upon. The other assessments for the disputed assessment years were also completed based on the reckoning of the JDA. The assessment of Long-Term Capital Gains/Short Term Capital Gains based on the JDA was confirmed in the first appeal for the assessment years commencing from 2006-07 to 2011-12. 12. The ld. AR submits that the assessee filed appeals before this Bench in ITA Nos. 1779 to 1784/Mds/2013 with regard to the taxation of I.T.A. Nos.1193-1197/Chny/18 7 LTCG/STCG based on the JDA and the sustenance of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act at 100%, which was challenged by the assessee before the Bench in ITA Nos. 1785 to 1788/Mds/2013 and cross appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos. 1944, 1947, 1948 & 1949/Mds./2013 for restoration of the said penalty at 300% which was originally levied by the Assessing Officer and reduced to 100% by the First Appellate Authority were also consolidated for passing common order. Further, the appeals in ITA Nos. 1945 & 1946/Mds/2013 for the assessment years 2007-08 & 2008-09 were filed by the Revenue questioning the cancellation of protective assessments for retaining the reported income of the assessee. In the common order of this Bench dated 4.3.2016, the ITAT concluded the point of transfer falling within the previous year relating to the assessment year 2007-08 and accordingly allowed the appeal filed by the assessee. 13. In so far as other assessment years are concerned, the ld. AR submits that the ITAT directed the Assessing Officer for computation of LTCG/STCG in terms of section 2(47)(v) of the Act by reckoning the JDA under consideration and gave further directions morefully captured in the said common order from para 20 onwards. In so far as the penalty appeals, the three appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed in para I.T.A. Nos.1193-1197/Chny/18 8 33 and para 34 of the said common order and in so far as the penalty appeals filed by the assessee, the bench in their common order dated 4.3.2016 in para 31 deleted the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act inconsequence to their decision in deleting the addition made in the disposal of the quantum appeal. In so far as the other assessment years, the ld. AR submits the Bench concluded in para 32 that there was no question of sustaining the levy of penalty in view of the assessments being set aside for re-computation. He submits that the assessee had maintained in the said first round proceedings that in the event of the JDA, the head of income for assessment should be 'income from business' and however without concluding/disposing the said plea, the findings for assessment of LTCG/STCG were recorded impacting the assessment years commencing from 2007-08. 14. The ld. AR further submits that the assessee moved miscellaneous petitions in M.A. Nos. 41 & 42/Mds/2016 against ITA Nos. 1780 & 1781/Mds/2013 pertaining to the assessment years 2007-08 & 2008-09 (the related findings in the main order are captured in para 20 and para 22). Considering the plea, the Tribunal in their order dated 20.5.2016 made relevant corrections/modifications as prayed for. The assessee moved another batch of miscellaneous petitions in M.A.Nos.264 to I.T.A. Nos.1193-1197/Chny/18 9 268/Mds/2016 against ITA Nos. 1780 to 1784/Mds/2013 pertaining to the assessment years 2007-08 to 2011-12 and in the said miscellaneous petitions, the assessee pleaded for appropriate clarification of converting the protective assessments originally made as substantive assessments in view of their decision to vacate computation of LTCG from the assessment year 2006-07. Originally, the Assessing Officer made the computation of LTCG by reckoning JDA which was considered as substantive while the appellant's computation based on sale agreement as protective in the respective assessment years which was modified in view of the decision rendered for the assessment year 2006-07 which led to their decision to convert protective assessments as substantive assessments in the subsequent assessment years as part of the common order dated on 4.3.2016 15. The ld. AR submits that the said action of mechanical conversion of protective assessments as substantive assessments in the light of their decision rendered for the assessment year 2006-07 was questioned in the said miscellaneous applications referred to in the preceding para (k) and the Tribunal in their order dated 20.01.2017 modified their decision in para 23 originally given by incorporating such modified para 23 as part of the order disposing of the miscellaneous petition at para 4.1. Another I.T.A. Nos.1193-1197/Chny/18 10 batch of miscellaneous petitions seeking certain clarification on computation of capital gains (M.A.Nos.39 to 43/Mds/2017) was disposed of by the Bench in their order dated 12.5.2017 and from para 6, the Bench had given detailed directions to the Assessing Officer for implementation of the main order dated 4.3.2016. 16. The ld. AR submits that the effect giving orders of the Assessing Officer dated 23.01.2017 were subjected to the second round proceedings and the First Appellate Authority, in her order dated 28.2.2018 for the assessment years 2007-08 & 2008-09 and another order dated 28.02.2018 covering the assessment years 2009-10 to 2011- 12, rejected the contentions raised by the assessee on the wrong implementation of the Tribunal's first order dated 4.3.2016. 17. Further he submits that while rejecting the contentions raised, the plea for determination of the assessable LTCG based on the sale agreement instead of JDA, the First Appellate Authority at para 19 of her second common order for the assessment years 2009-10 to 2011-12 in ITA Nos.424, 421 & 420/CIT(A)-1-2016-17 from para 17 maintained the stand of reckoning such capital gains based on JDA. In the process, the grounds challenging the violation of the principles of Natural Justice was not adjudicated upon and it is a fact that the Assessing Officer in giving I.T.A. Nos.1193-1197/Chny/18 11 effect to the order of the Appellate Tribunal on 23.1.2017 had not provided meaningful opportunity to the appellant as directed in the main order dated 4.3.2016. 18. The ld. AR also submits that the effect giving orders dated 07.09.2017 in consequence to the Appellate Tribunal's third order dated 12.5.2017 (M.A.Nos.39 to 43/Mds/2017) was subjected to another round of appellate proceedings and the said proceedings was completed in the common order passed by the Bench on 18.12.2018 in ITA Nos. 1762 to 1766/Chny/2018. In the said common order at para 9, the effect giving orders dated 7.9.2017 to give effect to the Appellate Tribunal's third order dated 12.5.2017 (M.A.Nos.39 to 43/Mds/2017) were set aside to the file of the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication relating to the assessment years 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 while the appeals pertaining to the assessment years 2007-08 & 2008-09 were withdrawn. 19. The ld. AR submits that in the present appeals, the assessee challenges the decision to maintain the computation of LTCG based on JDA and the wrong implementation of directions of the Appellate Tribunal in assessing STCG from the sale of flats which was directed to be verified in the hands of the SPV/developer as well the violation of the principles of natural justice. Subsequently, the head of income, namely, the I.T.A. Nos.1193-1197/Chny/18 12 assessment of profit in view of the insistence to reckon the income based on JDA instead of sale agreement under the head 'income from business' is raised before the Bench for adjudication. 20. The ld. AR submits that the core issue for adjudication in the present batch of appeals is the reluctance and persistent stand of the Department to implement the directions of the Tribunal in its order dated 12.05.2017 quoted supra and negation of the Agreement of Sale dated 23.11.2005, instead, by solely relying on the Joint Development Agreement dated 23.11.2005 for reckoning JDA for computing and determining the head of income for assessment. According to the assessee, the JDA postulates the financial risks taken both by the developer/SPV and the land owner/the assessee and hence the profit/loss should be considered for assessment only under the head 'income from business. The assessee relies on the ratio of laws of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the cases of Baashyam Construction and Doshi Estates including the order of the Tribunal in the case of Astoria Leathers that stood upheld by the Hon’ble High Court of Madras, relying on the ratio of law of the Shravanee Constructions of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka and as such, the issue of Joint Developer eligible for deductions under Chapter-VI of the Act, along with the Developer in the I.T.A. Nos.1193-1197/Chny/18 13 eligible housing project is well settled which is also fortified by the bench of this Tribunal in catena of decisions including the latest decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Madras in TCA No.387 to 394 of 2013 in the case of CIT, Chennai vs. Sri Lakshmi Bricks Industries, Chennai. 21. The ld. AR also submits that a bare reading of the findings of the original Assessment Order dated 14.05.2012 vide para 6 therefore would reveal that the assessee had in fact claimed deductions along with the developer based on the JDA. However, the survey team had forcibly obtained the statement of the Director, the retraction of which had also been negated by the ld. PCIT for sustaining the said Assessment Orders of the AO to deny the deductions along with the Developer and as such, the AO ought to have recomputed the income under business head as this is neither a new claim nor revised one at all. A 'Fact Sheet culled out from the same finding of the impugned order of the AO enclosed herewith would reveal that the AO had totally negated the claims of the Assessee even while admitting the scheme of the arrangements between the Developer and the Appellant/Assessee is oriented towards an 80 IB project. Para 5.11.4 and 6.3.1 of the impugned order refers on the subject in the Facts Sheet. I.T.A. Nos.1193-1197/Chny/18 14 22. It was further submission that the assessee had already raised and pleaded the issues in the first round of the appeals before the CIT(A) who had also not considered the prayer while sustaining the impugned order of the Assessing Officer dated 14.05.2012 and also the decision may be rendered by setting aside the effect giving orders dated 23.01.2017 to give effect to the third order of the Appellate Tribunal dated 12.5.2017 as considered by the Co-ordinate Bench in the decision rendered in ITA Nos. 1762 to 1766/Chny/2018 dated 18.12.2018 by allowing the Memorandum of Additional Grounds of Appeal submitted to the Tribunal on 06.04.2022 along with a note on 80A(5) of the Act, in as much as the entire findings of the CIT Appeal would lead only to the JDA for reckoning the income from business head as per the ratio of laws on the subject quoted herein above, especially, when the housing project-Etopia-1 itself has been assessed under 80IB and there is no dispute on it. 23. The ld. DR Shri A. Sasikumar, CIT vehemently opposed the submissions of the ld. AR. He drew our attention to the effect giving order dated 23.01.2017 to the ITAT’s order dated 19.02.2016 for AY 2007-08 and submits that in order to recompute the total income of the assessee, the Tribunal held that the JDA dated 23.11.2005 does not result in transfer of property as per section 53A of Transfer of Properties Act and I.T.A. Nos.1193-1197/Chny/18 15 therefore the computation of capital gains based on the contents of the JDA and the date of agreement is incorrect. The Tribunal further held that for the years starting from AY 2007-08, the income has to be computed on LTCG and STCG. The LTCG on sale of that portion of land corresponding to the flats allotted to the assessee’s share and sale of flats constructed thereon to be assessed as LTCG in sale of land and STCG in sale of flats as per para 23 in page 75 and para 25 in page 77 of the said order. Further, the Tribunal directed to re-examine the issue with regard to cost of improvement undertaken through M/s. Takshil Trading P. Ltd. vide its order in ITA Nos. 1779 to 1788/Mds/2013 for AYs 2006-07 to 2011-12 vide order dated 20.05.2016. 24. In view of the above directions of the Tribunal, the ld. DR submits that the Assessing Officer issued a letter dated 27.05.2016 requiring the assessee to provide concrete evidence to substantiate the genuineness of improvement undertaken through M/s. Takshil Trading P. Ltd. In its reply dated 06.06.2016 the assessee filed copy of the agreement dated 11.05.2005, by which M/s. Takshil Trading P. Ltd. was appointed as the contractor to undertake excavation work and plinth filling at Perungudi site at a cost of ₹.4,53,42,980/- and subsequently, on 23.06.2016, a letter was filed by M/s. Takshil Trading P. Ltd. along with the documents. After I.T.A. Nos.1193-1197/Chny/18 16 examining the details, the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee intended to develop the asset into a residential project and the excavation work be undertaken as per the structural design of the project, which is to be formulated. In such a situation the claim that excavation and plinth filling was undertaken does not address even the preponderance of probabilities and no prudent person would be spending ₹.4.53 crores on mere excavation and filling when the same would not be of any use or possess enduring value when the project is to be developed. 25. The ld. DR submits that the Assessing Officer noted that the contract amount of ₹.4.53 crores, being a phenomenal sum, was left unpaid for 6 years or more, which is also against the preponderance of probability and thereby lacking genuineness. M/s. Takshil Trading P. Ltd. had also provided the copies of returns of income for the A.Ys. 2007-08 and 2008-09. As per the Balance Sheet comprised in the e-filed return of income, the total value of Sundry Debtors as on 31.03.2007 is ₹.1,49,51,474/-. As on 31.03.2008, the value was increased to ₹.3,20.59,559/-. As per the copy of ledger folio of M/s. Takshil Trading P. Ltd. as appearing in the books of M/s. Coromandel Cables P. Ltd., the outstanding balance as on 01.04.2010 is ₹.4,53,42,980/-. If the transactions were genuine, obviously the value of Sundry Debtors as on I.T.A. Nos.1193-1197/Chny/18 17 31.03.2007 and 31.03.2008 in the case of M/s. Takshil Trading P. Ltd. should necessarily be equal to or more than Rs.4,53,42,980/-. Therefore, the claim that M/s. Takshil Trading P. Ltd. had undertaken the improvement work is found to be totally bogus in nature. The finding of the Investigation Unit of Sales Tax Unit, Mumbai that M/s. Takshil Trading P. Ltd. had not undertaken any genuine business and had issued only bogus invoices further accentuates the above contention of the department. 26. The ld. DR further submits that the Assessing Officer has noted that for the A.Ys. 2007-08 and 2008-09, M/s. Takshil Trading P. Ltd. had reported a meagre taxable profit of ₹.1,68,547/- and ₹.2,77,001/-, respectively. Even the paid-up capital of the company was a sum of ₹.1,00,000/-. With such paltry amounts at its disposal, it is least expected that the contractor would have undertaken a mega contract worth ₹.4.53 crores spending its own funds and without insisting on payment for 6 full years. This feature is totally disturbing and therefore, it is established that the claim of contract undertaken to improve the cost of asset is not genuine. Thus, the Assessing Officer observed that the transaction are dubious fabrication as not one of the features stated or found support that I.T.A. Nos.1193-1197/Chny/18 18 the contract had actually be undertaken and summarized his findings at para 16 of the effect giving order dated 23.01.2017. 27. The ld. DR also submits that with regard to the computation of LTCG and STCG, the assessee sold land alone and hence corresponding gain was LTCG only computed on the value of sale of land made during the year. Since the assessee has not undertaken any business during the year, the only activity having been confined to the JDA resulting in LTCG and thus, the claim of business loss expressed in the statement of total income was ignored. 28. The ld. DR argued that the assessee could not controvert the findings of the Assessing Officer either before the ld. CIT(A) or even before the Tribunal by filing any concrete evidence with regard to the expenditure towards cost of improvement by M/s. Takshil Trading P. Ltd. He further argued that when the assessee has no case before the Tribunal, the assessee, by way written submission raising additional grounds, made a new prayer before the Tribunal claiming deductions under section 80IB (10) of the Act by not pressing the ground raised in the grounds of appeal should be rejected and prayed for dismissing the appeals filed by the assessee. I.T.A. Nos.1193-1197/Chny/18 19 29. We have heard both the parties, perused the material available on record and considered the written submissions of the assessee filed during the course of hearing. We find in the order dated 04.03.2016 the relevant paras relating to AY 2007-08 in ITA No. 1780/Mds/2013 at paras 20 & 21 reflecting at page 80, 81 & 82 of the paper book. On perusal of the same, we find the Tribunal held assessment for this AY [2007-08] is to be treated as substantive and directed the assessee to place necessary evidence towards the cost of improvement and the Assessing Officer has to decide the issue afresh. Further, we find this order modified to extent of making correction of the figure as Rs.69,99,590/- instead of Rs.8,99,590/- vide in consolidated order dated 20.05.2016 in M.A. Nos. 41 & 42/Mds/2016 arising out of ITA No. 1780 & 1781/Mds/2013 for AY 2007- 08 & 08-09, which is at page No. 92 of the paper book. Thus, it is clear that the Tribunal in the original order dated 04.03.2016 directed the assessee to place necessary evidences towards cost of improvement before the Assessing Officer and correction of mistake in the figure of cost of improvement. On perusal of the giving effect order in respect of cost of improvement, we note that the Assessing Officer issued letter dated 27.05.2016 requesting the assessee to provide concrete evidences to substantiate the genuineness of the improvement undertaken through M/s. Takshil Trading Pvt. Ltd. The assessee provided agreement dated I.T.A. Nos.1193-1197/Chny/18 20 11.05.2005 with M/s., Takshil Trading Pvt. Ltd. stating that it was appointed as a contractor to undertake excavation work and plinth filling work. The Assessing Officer examined said agreement along with the documents as provided by the assessee, the Assessing Officer opined there was no proof of evidence provided except copy of the agreement in substantiating the cost of improvement. Before the ld. CIT(A) also there was no evidence as brought on record by the assessee which is evident from para 9 of the impugned order. Before us, the assessee filed 3 paper books, one is consisting of 227 pages and other one is consisting of 226 pages and third one compilation of case law running into 138 pages. We find nowhere in the paper books the assessee filed any evidence showing the proof of cost of improvement atleast for our examination. Therefore, as rightly pointed out by the ld. DR, there was no evidence at all by the assessee in proving genuineness of incurring cost of improvement in pursuance of the directions of this Tribunal in the first round of litigation vide order dated 04.03.2016. Further, the Assessing Officer considered the finding of the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax-13, Mumbai, wherein, it was confirmed there was no business undertaken by the said Takshil Trading Pvt. Ltd. except issuing bogus invoices. Therefore, taking into account to the same, we agree with the reasons as summarised by the Assessing Officer in para 16 of the giving effect order in denying the I.T.A. Nos.1193-1197/Chny/18 21 cost of improvement. Thus, we find no infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(A) in confirming the view of the Assessing Officer in treating the cost of improvement at NIL. 30. We note that the ld. AR argued that the assessee’s contention from the first round of litigation that the assessment should be made under the head income from business in the event of joint development agreement, but, however, nothing was brought on record either before both the authorities below or before this Tribunal. On perusal of the giving effect order and the impugned order, we note that no material showing why the assessee’s income should be under the head of income from business instead of long term capital gain. Therefore, we find no infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(A) in confirming the view of the Assessing Officer in determining under the head long term capital gain. Thus, grounds No. 2, 3 & 4 raised by the assessee are dismissed. 31. With regard to the ground No. 5, the ld. AR contended that there was no meaningful opportunity was provided to the assessee during the course of giving effect proceedings. On perusal of the giving effect order, we note that the Assessing Officer required the assessee to provide concrete evidences to substantiate the claims vide letter dated 27.05.2016 and the giving effect order was passed on 23.01.2017, which I.T.A. Nos.1193-1197/Chny/18 22 clearly shows that the Assessing Officer afforded ample time of approximately eight months. Therefore, the argument of the ld. AR that there was no proper opportunity for the assessee is rejected and ground No. 5 raised by the assessee is dismissed. 32. With regard to the additional grounds under section 80A(5) of the Act, which are at page 6 of “Fact Sheet & Prayer” the ld. AR filed following note: For Additional Grounds on section 80A(5) of the Act: It is respectfully submitted that the Additional Ground for deduction under 80-1B 10 of the Act deserves to be allowed r/w the amendment to sec.80A (5) of the Income Tax Act by the Finance Act, 2009 with effect from 01.04.2003. In other words, deduction under 801B not claimed in the original returns can be allowed as per the amended provision (5) of 80A of the Act, by re-computation. This is the settled position of law as per the decisions of the ITAT, Mumbai bench in the case of DCIT vs. Kamadhenu Builders and Developers in ITA No.7010/2010. The above decision is fortified by various other similar decisions of the High Court and Supreme Court. An income which is not taxable cannot be taxed merely because the Assessee forgot to claim the exemption/deductions under mistaken belief. Rather it is the duty of the Assessing Officer allow such deductions or exemptions to which the Assessee is entitled to on the basis of material placed on record. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Anchor Pressings Pvt. Ltd vs. CIT [1986] 161 ITR 159 the material placed on record would entitle the client of any deductions by the Assessee and such claim can be allowed even u/s.154 of the Act. The same ratio has also been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of NTPC Ltd vs. CIT [1988] 229 ITR 383. It is held that if any income is not taxable under the Act, the Assessee is entitled to claim the same by raising additional grounds of appeal before the Appellate Authorities. That the impugned order of AO dated 14.05.2012 was sustained by the Appellate Authorities holding that the Appellant Assessee acted only as Joint Developer under the JDA dated 23.11.2005 only. I.T.A. Nos.1193-1197/Chny/18 23 That as per the settled ratio of the laws on identical issues, the Tribunals, High Courts and Supreme Court have held that a Joint Developer is equally eligible for deduction u/s 80IB of the Act, holding that such deduction is permitted under the law oriented for a project and not specific for the Assessee. In other words, when the eligible housing project has been assessed under 80IB, then, the deductions would be eligible for such developers, be it a landowner, developer or a joint developer. It is well settled law as held by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court of Madras in the case of M/s. Bashyam Constructions Pvt. Ltd vs. DCIT in TCA No.177 of 2018, Chennai that deduction contemplated under the sec.801B of the Income Tax Act is oriented towards project and not with reference to the Assessee. This ratio has been upheld by the Division Bench in ITO vs. Doshi Enterprises 2013[55] Taxman.com 500[Mad] and also in CIT vs. Ceebros Property Development Pvt. Ltd [2014] 41 Taxman.com 263 [Mad.]. This principle of law has attained finality in the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sanghvi and Doshi Enterprise (2017) 84 Taxman.com 241(SC) and also in CIT vs Veena Developers (2015) 93 CCH 0184 ISCC. That in the case of Appellant Assessee, both the AO and CIT Appeals have sustained that the Assessee had only acted on the JDA dated 23.11.2005 in the eligible housing project ie, Etopia-1 for deduction u/s 801B of the Act that was developed in the land bank of the Appellant Assessee Company. When such a finding has attained finality, the Additional Grounds of the Appellant Assessee for same deductions is permissible by re-computation process as against a revised return as per sec. 80A5 of the Act amended in 2009. The amendment to this section has been clarified vide CBDT Circular as highlighted below: CBDT CIRCULAR NO. 5/2010 dated 03.06.2010: Allowing deductions is applicable in our case as no multiple deductions are claimed for the same income in the project as per the above Circular: 25.1 The profit linked deductions in Chapter VI-A are prone to considerable misuse. Further, since the scope of the deductions under various provisions of Chapter VI-A overlap, the taxpayers, at times, claim multiple deductions for the same profits. 25.2 With a view to preventing such misuse, the provisions of section 80A of the Income-tax Act have been amended to provide the following, namely- I.T.A. Nos.1193-1197/Chny/18 24 (1) Deduction in respect of profits and gains shall not be allowed under any provisions of section 10A or section 10AA or section 10B or section 10BA or under any provisions of Chapter VI-A under the heading \"C.-Deductions in respect of certain incomes\" in any assessment year, if a deduction in respect of same amount under any of the aforesaid has been allowed in the same assessment year, (ii) The aggregate of the deductions under the various provisions referred to in (i) above, shall not exceed the profits and gains of the undertaking or unit or enterprise or eligible business, as the case may be; That by applying proviso (ii) of the above Circular, the deductions already allowed do not amount to multiple deductions nor exceed the profits and gains to the Assessee Company along with the Developer in our eligible housing project. Hence, our case is Revenue Neutral as against the Double Taxation of the same income both under Capital Gains and Business Head by the Department. This anomaly needs to be rectified, atleast, now! As regards the Tax Audit Report along with the return, it is submitted that it is not a mandatory condition as per the ratio laid down in the case of CIT vs. Rai Bahadur Bissesswarlal Motilal Malwasie Trust, [1992] 195 ITR 825 as well as in the case of CIT vs. Sankalp Welfare Trust Society [2008] 303 ITR 64 [PAH]. Such audit report can be furnished later on also as held in the case of CIT vs. Dr. L.M. Singvi [2007] 207 CTR [Raj.] 452: [2007] 289 ITR 425 Raj. Filing audit report and certificate for claiming exemption was treated as procedural in nature. However, this procedure has already been complied with by the Appellant. Decision in Goetze (India) Ltd., barring an assessee from making a claim for deduction by filing revised computation has to be examined in two judgments in Influence and E-Funds International. In Influence after referring to the earlier case law, it was held as under: *7. A similar controversy had arisen before the Delhi High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Sam Global Securities Ltd. [2014] 360 ITR 682 (Delhi), wherein judgment in the case of CIT Vs. Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd. [2008] 306 ITR 42 (Delhi) was quoted. In Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd., decision in Goetze (India) Ltd. (supra) was distinguished in the following words:- \"In Goetze (India) Ltd. Vs. CIT [2006] 284 ITR 323 (SC) wherein deduction claimed by way of a letter before the Assessing Officer, was disallowed on the ground that there was no provision [under the A ITA 261/2002 Page 4 of 6 the return without filing a revised return]. Appeal to the Supreme Court, as the decision was upheld by the Tribunal and the High Court, was dismissed making clear that I.T.A. Nos.1193-1197/Chny/18 25 the decision was limited to the power of the assessing authority to entertain claim for deduction otherwise than by a revised return, and did not impinge on the power of the Tribunal.\" In Sam Global case, reference was also made to the decision of the Supreme Court in National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT [1998] 229 ITR 383 (SC). Reliance was placed on an earlier decision of the Supreme Court in Jute Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. CIT, [1991] 187 ITR 688 (SC), in which it has been observed:- \"An appellate authority has all the powers which the original authority may have in deciding the question before it subject to the restrictions or limitations, if any, prescribed by the statutory provisions. In the absence of any statutory provision, the appellate authority is vested with all the plenary powers which the subordinate authority may not have in the matter. There is no good reason to justify curtailment of the power of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in entertaining an additional ground raised by the assessee in seeking modification of the order of assessment passed by the Income Tax Officer. This Court further observed that there may be several factors justifying the raising of a new plea in an appeal and each case has to be considered on its own facts. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner must be satisfied that the ground raised was bona fide and that the same could not have been raised earlier for good reasons. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner should exercise his discretion in permitting or not permitting the assessee to raise an additional ground in accordance with law and reason. [ITA 261/2002 Page 5 of 6]. The same observations would apply to appeals before the Tribunal also.\" This High Court in CIT Vs. Natraj Stationery Products (P) Ltd., (2009) 312 ITR 222, had observed that Goetze (India) Ltd. would not apply if the assessee had not made a \"new claim\" but had asked for 're-computation' of deduction. Reference can also be made to the decision in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Rose Services Apartment India P. Ltd., [2010] 326 ITR 100 (Delhi), wherein a Division Bench of this Court rejected the contention of the Revenue that the Tribunal could not have entertained the plea, holding that the tribunal was empowered to deal with the issue and was entitled to determine the claim raised.\" \"Thus, a distinction was drawn between a new claim, which is barred and not permissible and a request or prayer made by the assessee for re- computation of the deduction already claimed. Latter was permissible and not barred in terms of the decision in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. (Supra). 17. This decision was followed in E-Funds International India (Supra), observing as under: I.T.A. Nos.1193-1197/Chny/18 26 In all the aforementioned decisions cited by learned counsel for the Assessee, the High Court has considered the effect of the decision of the Supreme Court in Goetze (India) Ltd. (supra). The common thread running through the ratio in all the decisions of the High Courts is that while an AO may not be entitled to grant a deduction or an exemption on the basis of a revised computation of income, there was no such fetter on the Appellate Authorities. This was recently reiterated by this Court in a decision dated 25th August 2015 in ITA No. 644/2015 (Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-09 v. Western India Shipyard Limited). In Sam Global Securities Ltd. (supra), the Court has pointed out that the power of the Tribunal in dealing with appeals was expressed in the widest possible terms and the purpose of assessment proceedings was to assess the correct tax liability. The Court noted that \"Courts have taken a pragmatic view and not a technical view as what is required to be determined is the taxable income of the Assessee in accordance with law.\" In Influence v. Commissioner of Income Tax a similar approach was adopted when the AO in that case refused to accept the revised computation submitted beyond the time limit for filing the revised return under Section 139(5) of the Act. This Court noted that the decision in Goetze (India) Ltd. \"would not apply if the Assessee had not made a new claim but had asked for re-computation of the deduction.\" Turning to the facts of the present case, as rightly noted by the ITAT itself, this is not a case where any new claim for deduction under Section 10A of the Act has been made by the Assessee. This claim had been made in the original return itself. It is only the figure of profit that was changed in ITA Nos. 607 & 608 of 2015 Page 8 of 9 the revised computation as a result of wrongly showing a receipt in USDs without converting it into rupees. The ITAT has, in fact, remitted the matter back to the file of the AO to compute the deduction in accordance with law. The Court does not see any prejudice being caused to the Revenue as a result of the above directions. It is consistent with the law explained by this Court in the above decisions after considering the effect of the decision of the Supreme Court in Goetze (India) Ltd. Consequently, as regards the issue of the deduction under Section 10A of the Act, the Court declines to frame a question.\" The entire issue has been clarified by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court Bench in the case of M/S.ORACLE (OFSS) BPO SERVICES LTD vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-7 in ITA NO.593/2018 dated 17.01.2019. In this case, the Hon'ble Court has distinguished the decision of the Goetze India Ltd vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC) relying on the decisions of this Court in Influence vs. Commissioner of I.T.A. Nos.1193-1197/Chny/18 27 Income Tax (2015) 55 Taxman.com 192 (Delhi) and Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs. E-Funds International India Pvt. Ltd (2015) 379 ITR 292 (Delhi). In view of the above settled position of law, the amended provision u/s 5 of sec.80A of the Act is not a bar to allow the additional grounds of the appellant for treating the Assessee as a Joint Developer as per the materials placed on record by the Dept, for allowing consequential benefit of income from business instead of LTCG. There by admitting the additional grounds of the Appellant/Assessee, no prejudice will be caused to the department in as much as the entire project called by name Etopia-1 has been allowed with the deductions u/s 801B of the Act, and therefore, the deductions so claimed would only alter the sharing of profit in the project between the developer and joint developer, inter se, as per the ratio agreed to between them and hence, the additional ground deserves to be allowed as it is revenue neutral as per the settled law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of NTPC Ltd vs. CIT [1998] 229 ITR 383 wherein it is held that: \"If any income is not taxable under the Act, the Assessee is entitled to claim the same by raising additional grounds of appeal before the Appellate Authorities\". Having submitted the legal issues, it is humbly prayed that the Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to set aside the impugned order of the CIT Appeal dated 18.12.2018 by allowing the additional grounds to advance the cause of Justice. 33. On the day of hearing on 06.11.2024, the ld. AR filed the following common written submissions on the addition grounds: 1. Further to the arguments held yesterday (05.11.2024], the Appellant submits a brief summary of facts and grounds with a request to adjudicate the additional grounds alone in as much as the Assessee does not press for the Ground No.1 based on Agreement of Sale [AOS]. 2. The crux of the issue is that the Appellant company entered into two Agreements for developing the company's land bank into a housing project. One refers to the Agreement of Sale [AOS] and the other, the Joint Development Agreement [JDA] [JDA], both dated 23.11.2005. Upon completion of the housing project, the Appellant rendered its Returns reckoning on the Agreement of Sale [AOS]. I.T.A. Nos.1193-1197/Chny/18 28 3. That the department, however, after a survey, had negated the Agreement of Sale [AOS] as 'a sham document and relied only on the Joint Development Agreement [JDA]. Thus, the AO had issued his impugned orders for AYs- 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 respectively, relying totally on the JDA document only. 4. The Appellant had already submitted the following documents before this Hon'ble Tribunal, primarily relying only on the Additional Ground for 80IB 10 deductions to the Appellant/Assessee as per the settled ratio of laws of this Hon'ble ITAT, Jurisdictional High Court of Madras and the Hon'ble Supreme Court: i. Memorandum of Additional Grounds dated 05.04.2022, ii. Written Submission on Additional Grounds dated 11.04.2022, iii. Fact Sheet and Prayer dated 11.07.2023, iv. Facts on Appellant as a Joint Developer dated 11.07.2023 v. 801B 10 benefits to the Appellant submitted yesterday 05.11.2024, vi. Ratio of laws relied. vii. Note on 80A5 of the Act on Additional Grounds dated 11.07.2023 viii. Board Circular No.37/2016 dated 02.11.2016. 5. The Appellant humbly submits that the documents quoted above would unequivocally support the 'Additional Grounds based on the findings of the AO in his impugned original order dated 14.05.2012 enclosed at SL.No.11 of the typed set, inner page no.166 thereof and order dated 14.05.2012 & 15.06.2012 at SLNo.11 to 16 thereof. 6. Thus, the dispute refers to the Agreement of Sale [AOS] reckoned by the Assessee and the Joint Development Agreement [JDA] relied by the department for assessment proceedings. 7. In the Appellate proceedings, all the authorities held that the Joint Development Agreement [JDA] relied by the department ought to have been acted upon by the Appellant and not the Agreement of Sale [AOS]. 8. That having failed to convince the department on the document of Agreement of Sale [AOS], the Appellant relies on the Additional Grounds based on the Joint Development Agreement [JDA] reckoned totally by the department and therefore, the Appellant pleads for adjudicating the additional grounds based on the documents quoted above. 9. That upon treating the Appellant Company as a Joint Developer along with the Developer M/s.Doshi Housing, the department ought to have granted the consequential relief by shifting the income on the eligible housing project from Capital Gains to the head 'Business' by granting consequential relief of deductions contemplated u/s 801B 10 of the Act in as much as the taxation I.T.A. Nos.1193-1197/Chny/18 29 of both Capital Gains and also Business Head in one eligible project by the Revenue that results in double taxation is impermissible under law. 10. That the AO's findings in the impugned order dated 14.05.2012 at SL.No.6.0 on Chapter No.6 at page no.17, inner page No. 232 of the typed set thereof on \"discussion about 8018 benefits on 14.04.2008' held that the entire tax planning was done by claiming 801B benefits. This finding totally supports the additional grounds of the Appellant and therefore, this prayer deserves to be allowed based on the 'Fact Sheet on the Assessee as a Joint Developer. 11. The above settled Principles of Law of the Hon'ble Supreme Court relied by the Appellant Company would show that the land owner, Joint Developer and Developer are eligible for the deductions under the eligible housing project [Sanghvi and Doshi and Premkumar Sanghi & Veena Developers). The other case laws are also squarely applicable to the Facts and Prayer of the appellant on additional grounds with 801B 10 doductions by taxing the developmental expenses r/w. Board Circular No.37/2016 by shifting the head of income from Capital Gains to Business Head. Such claims cannot be restricted to only an AOP and all others who participated in the development of project are eligible for the deductions u/s.801B 10 of the Act. 12. That since the eligible housing project was developed in the land bank of the company, it is eligible for deductions both as a land owner and as a Joint Developer as per the JDA relied by the revenue. When the project itself has been assessed u/s.801B 10 of the Act and attained finality, the recomputation of the total income exempted based on the ratio of share 37.54:62.46 as per the JDA between the Appellant and the Developer is revenue neutral, avoids double taxation and conform to the Article 265 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the additional grounds may be allowed based on the findings of the department for giving quietus to the multiple proceedings for the past 14 years in the interest of Justice. 34. On perusal of the above, we note that there is no force in the arguments of the ld. AR in considering assessee’s case for a claim of deduction under section 80A(5) of the Act for the reason that it is entirely a new plea, which cannot be considered by the Assessing Officer in the giving effect proceedings. Admittedly, the Assessing Officer has to give giving effect orders to the ITAT’s directions vide orders dated 04.03.2016 I.T.A. Nos.1193-1197/Chny/18 30 read with order dated 20.05.2016 in MA Nos. 41 & 42/Mds/2017 and also clarificatory direction by the ITAT vide its order in MA Nos. 39 to 43/Mds/2017 dated 12.05.2017 respectively. Therefore, additional grounds raised under section 80A(5) of the Act for all the assessment years are dismissed. ITA No. 1194/Chny/2018 AY 2008-09 35. Ground Nos. 1 & 6 are general in nature and requires no adjudication. 36. The ld. AR submits that the issues in this appeal are similar to grounds raised by the assessee in ITA No. 1193/Chny/2018 for AY 2007- 08 and he adopted same arguments as advanced therein. We find ground Nos. 2 to 5 are similar to ground Nos. 2 to 5 raised by the assessee in ITA No. 1193/Chny/2018 for AY 2007-08, wherein, we have taken a view in confirming the order of the ld. CIT(A) and dismissed the grounds raised by the assessee and the same view taken by us is equally applicable to the year under consideration. Thus, the ground Nos. 2 to 5 are dismissed. I.T.A. Nos.1193-1197/Chny/18 31 ITA No. 1195/Chny/2018 AY 2009-10 37. Ground Nos. 1 & 12 raised by the assessee are general in nature and requires no adjudication. 38. The ld. AR submits that the issues in this appeal are similar to grounds raised by the assessee in ITA No. 1193/Chny/2018 for AY 2007- 08 and he adopted same arguments as advanced therein. We find ground Nos. 2 to 11 are similar to ground Nos. 2 to 5 raised by the assessee in ITA No. 1193/Chny/2018 for AY 2007-08. Since, we have taken a view in confirming the order of the ld. CIT(A) in the aforementioned paras and dismissed the grounds raised by the assessee, same view taken by us is equally applicable to the year under consideration. Thus, the ground Nos. 2 to 11 are dismissed. ITA No. 1196/Chny/2018 AY 2010-11 39. Ground Nos. 1 & 12 raised by the assessee are general in nature and requires no adjudication. 40. The ld. AR submits that the issues in this appeal are similar to grounds raised by the assessee in ITA No. 1193/Chny/2018 for AY 2007- I.T.A. Nos.1193-1197/Chny/18 32 08 and he adopted same arguments as advanced therein. We find ground Nos. 2 to 11 are similar to ground Nos. 2 to 5 raised by the assessee in ITA No. 1193/Chny/2018 for AY 2007-08. Since, we have taken a view in confirming the order of the ld. CIT(A) in the aforementioned paras and dismissed the grounds raised by the assessee, same view taken by us is equally applicable to the year under consideration. Thus, the ground Nos. 2 to 11 are dismissed. ITA No. 1196/Chny/2018 AY 2011-12 41. Ground Nos. 1 & 12 raised by the assessee are general in nature and requires no adjudication. 42. The ld. AR submits that the issues in this appeal are similar to grounds raised by the assessee in ITA No. 1193/Chny/2018 for AY 2007- 08 and he adopted same arguments as advanced therein. We find ground Nos. 2 to 11 are similar to ground Nos. 2 to 5 raised by the assessee in ITA No. 1193/Chny/2018 for AY 2007-08. Since, we have taken a view in confirming the order of the ld. CIT(A) in the aforementioned paras and dismissed the grounds raised by the assessee, same view taken by us is I.T.A. Nos.1193-1197/Chny/18 33 equally applicable to the year under consideration. Thus, the ground Nos. 2 to 11 are dismissed. 43. In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos. 1193 to 1197/Chny/2018 are dismissed. Order pronounced on 31st January, 2025 at Chennai. Sd/- Sd/- (JAGADISH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI) JUDICIAL MEMBER Chennai, Dated, 31.01.2025 Vm/- आदेश की Ůितिलिप अŤेिषत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथŎ/Appellant, 2.ŮȑथŎ/ Respondent, 3. आयकर आयुƅ/CIT, Chennai/Madurai/Coimbatore/Salem 4. िवभागीय Ůितिनिध/DR & 5. गाडŊ फाईल/GF. "