Shri A.Pundarikakshayya, CHENNAI V. ITO, CHENNAI

ITA 1010/CHNY/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7866 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 9 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-02-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 24-11-2015
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 08-05-2012
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DR B NISCHAL
• Assessee Lawyers: R VIJAYARAGHAVAN
• Keywords: Capital asset; Business income; Depreciation; Bad and doubtful debts; Capital receipt
• Section: 143(3); 263; 63

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME - TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, CHENNAI , . , BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY , JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ I.T.A.NO. 10 10/MDS/2012 / ASSESSMENT YEAR :200 7 - 08 SHRI A. SAI PRASAD, L/R OF SHRI A. PUNDARIKAKSHAYYA, NO. 156, 18 TH STREET, CHOWDARY NAGAR, VALASARAWAKKAM CHENNAI 600 0 87 . [PAN: A IDPP9589Q ] VS. THE INCOME TA X OFFICER, MEDIA WARD I I , CHENNAI . ( / APPELLANT ) ( / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI R. VIJAYARAGHAVAN , ADVOCATE / RESPONDENT BY : DR. B NISCHAL , J CIT / DATE OF HEAR ING : 24 . 1 1 .201 5 / DATE OF P RONOUNCEMENT : 24 . 0 2 .201 6 / O R D E R PER DUVVURU RL REDDY , JUDICIAL MEMBER : THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - I V , CHENNAI , DATED 26 . 0 3 . 20 1 2 RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 08 PASSED UNDER SECTION 2 63 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 [ ACT IN SHORT]. THE FIRST EFFECTIVE GROUND RAISED IN THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS WITH REGARD TO ASSUMING JURISDICTION UNDER SECTION 263 OF T HE ACT AND HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE. I.T.A. NO . 10 10 /M/ 12 2 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF FILM PRODUCTION AND FILED HIS RETURN OF I NCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 08 DECLARING AN INCOME OF .3,897/ - . THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED ON 26.09.2008. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOTED THAT AS PER THE STATEMENT, THE GROSS TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE IS .1,22,03,894/ - AND THE INCOME HAS BEEN SET OFF AGAINST THE BROUGHT FORWARD LOSS RELATING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2000 - 01, 2001 - 02 AND 2002 - 03 RESULTING IN TOTAL INCOME OF .3,897/ - . ON VERIFICATION OF RECORDS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT THE RETURN FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000 - 01 HAS BEEN FILED BELATEDLY IN NOVEMBER, 2000 AND THE LOSS PERTAINING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000 - 01 COULD NOT BE SET OFF AGAINST THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. WHEN THE MISTAKE WAS POINTED OUT TO THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSEE VIDE HIS LETTER DATED 18.12.2009 SUBMITTED THAT I REQUEST THE AO TO CONSIDER THE LOSS INCURRED BY ME FOR THE AY 2003 - 04 AS ST OFF AGAINST THE INCOME FOR THE YEAR. I THEREFORE SUBMIT THAT THE SET OFF OF CARRY FORWARD STATEMENT SHALL UNDERGO A MODIFICATION TO THIS EXTENT THAT AGAINST THE INCOME RETURNED FOR THE YEAR 2007 - 08 THE LOSS THAT WOULD BE ELIGIBLE TO BE SET OFF WOULD PERTAIN TO THE AYS. 2001 - 02, 2002 - 03 & 2003 - 04. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT THE RETURN FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003 - 04 HAS BEEN FILED ON 30.09.2003 WHICH IS WITHIN THE EXTENDED TIME ALLOWED FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003 - 04 VIZ., 31.10.2003. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE S REQUEST FOR SET OFF OF T HE BROUGHT FORWARD LOSS PERTAINING TO THE ASSESSMENT I.T.A. NO . 10 10 /M/ 12 3 YEAR 2003 - 04 AGAINST THE INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 08 WAS THEREFORE CONSIDERED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND ALLOWED SET OFF THE ENTIRE INCOME EARNED DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 08 AGAINST T HE BROUGHT FORWARD LOSS PERTAINING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2001 - 02, 2002 - 03 & 2003 - 04. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT DATED 23.12.2009. 3. AGAINST THE ABOVE ASSESSMENT ORDER, ON VERIFICA TION OF RECORD, THE LD. CIT HAS FOUND THAT SHRI M.V.V.S. MOORTHY HAD WRITTEN OFF THE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF .79,93,000/ - AND CLAIMED IT AS BAD DEBTS WRITTEN OFF IN HIS ACCOUNT AS ON 31.03.2007 . HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN THIS LOAN AMOUNT AS A LIABILITY FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 08. SINCE THE LOAN WAS WRITTEN OFF, THE SAME AMOUNT BEING SHOWN AS A LIABILI TY BY THE ASSESSEE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SET OFF AND SHOULD HAVE BEEN TAKEN AS BUSINESS INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 08. SINCE THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD RETAINED THE SAID AMOUNT OF .79,93,000/ - AS A LIA BILITY INSTEAD OF CREDITING THE SAME AS INCOME BACK TO THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT, THE LD. CIT WAS OF THE OPINION THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE AND ACCORDINGLY, THE LD. CIT, SERVED A NOTICE UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT ON 28.12.2012 TO FILE OBJECTIONS, IF ANY. I.T.A. NO . 10 10 /M/ 12 4 4. BEFORE THE LD. CIT, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED DETAILED WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS, WHEREIN, THE ASSESSEE HAS STATED AS UNDER: 'THE PETITIONER IN THE PAST PRODUCED A FEATURE FILM BY AVAILING A LOAN FROM ONE DR. M. V. S. MURTHY DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 1999 - 2000 AND UPON RELEASE OF THE FILM CERTAIN PRINCIPAL AMOUNT WAS REPAID WHEREAS THE BALANCE PRINCIPAL AND INTEREST WAS CARRIED AS OUTSTANDING IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS YEAR AFTER YEAR AND EVENTUALLY THE PETITIONER SUBMITTED TO THE LENDER THAT THE PETITIONER HAS NO MEANS TO REPAY THE PRINCIPAL AS WELL AS THE INTEREST. ACCORDINGLY, WHATEVER THE AMOUNT THAT THE PETITIONER DEBITED TOWARDS INTEREST AGGREGATING TO RS. 1.22 CRORES HAS BEEN OF FERED TO TAX AS 'BALANCE WRITTEN BACK' AND THE BALANCE AMOUNT AMOUNTING TO RS. 79.93 LAKHS REPRESENTING REMISSION IN THE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT, WHICH WAS NEVER CLAIMED AS ALLOWANCE BY THE PETITIONER, WHICH THE PETITIONER TREATED AS A 'CAPITAL RECEIPT' AND TREAT ED THE SAME AS NON TAXABLE REMISSION. IN THIS REGARD, THE PETITIONER ALSO DRAWS THE ATTENTION OF THE LEARNED CIT TO THE BINDING JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENT OF THE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ISKRAEMECO REGENT LTD. VS. CIT 196 TAXMAN 103 WHEREIN THE JURIS DICTIONAL COURT CLEARLY DISTINGUISHED THAT THE LOAN BORROWED FOR CAPITAL SHOULD NOT BE TREATED AS INCOME UPON REMISSION OF THE SAME. NEITHER 41 (1) NOR 28(IV) HAS NO IMPLICATION ON SUCH REMISSION. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT VERDIC T WHERE THE FACTS AND FINDINGS ARE SIMILAR TO THE PROPOSAL, TO BRING RS. 79.93 LAKHS REPRESENTING CAPITAL REMISSION AS INCOME OF THE PETITIONER WOULD BE INCORRECT AND WOULD BE AGAINST THE BINDING JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENT. ' 5 . RELYING ON THE DECISION OF T HE HON BLE MADRAS HIGH COURT (SUP R A) , THE ASSESSEE'S REPRESENTATIVE HAS REQUESTED THE LD. CIT FOR DROPPING OF THE PROCEEDINGS WITH FURTHER SUBMISSION THAT THE ASSESSEE WHO IS NO MORE IS REPRESENTED BY HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE WHO HAS NO MEANS OF ANY NATURE TO MEET ANY OF THE TAX DEMANDS THAT MAY BE RAISED ON THE ASSESSEE. HE HAS ALSO BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE LD. CIT THAT THE ASSESSEE HA S STOPPED DOING BUSINESS ACTIVITY FOR MORE THAN A DECADE AND CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE P ROCEEDINGS INITIATED BE DROPPED. I.T.A. NO . 10 10 /M/ 12 5 6. AFTER CONSIDERING THE DETAILED SUBMISSIONS, THE LD. CIT HAS OBSERVED AS UNDER: 4. I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE ASSESSEE'S REPRESENTATIVE'S SUBMISSIONS AND ALSO PERUSED THE RECORDS. THE ONLY ISSUE THAT REQUIRES CO NSIDERATION IS WHETHER THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS. 79.93 LAKHS REPRESENTING REMISSION IN THE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT IS A CAPITAL RECEIPT OR NOT. FOR THAT IT IS NECESSARY TO LOOK INTO THE PURPOSE FOR WHICH THE ASSESSEE TOOK THE LOAN FROM ONE DR. MVS MURTHY DURING T HE FINANCIAL YEAR 1999 - 2000. IT IS A FACT THAT THE SAID LOAN WAS AVAILABLE FOR PRODUCTION OF A FEATURE FILM BY THE ASSESSEE. HENCE, IT CANNOT BE TERMED AS A LOAN ACQUIRED TOWARDS A CAPITAL ASSET. IN THAT CASE, THE ASSESSEE TOOK LOAN FROM STATE BANK OF INDI A TOWARDS CAPITAL ASSET. THE HON'BLE MADRAS HIGH COURT HAS HELD, RELYING ON THE PRINCIPLES LAID DOWN IN VINOD BEHARI JAIN V. ITO (2008) 306 ITR 392, THAT BY APPLYING THE PURPOSE TEST, THE OBJECT OF GRANT WILL HAVE TO BE SEEN. APPLYING THE PRINCIPLE LAID DO WN BY THE APEX COURT THE OBJECTION OF THE TRANSACTION NAMELY THE LOAN TRANSACTION IS TOWARDS THE PURCHASE OF THE CAPITAL ASSET AS AGAINST THE RUNNING OF THE REGULAR BUSINESS, THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT HAS HELD THAT SUCH A RECEIPT WOULD BE A CAPITAL RECEIPT. I N THIS CASE, PURPOSE IS FOR RUNNING A BUSINESS OF FILM PRODUCTION. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT THE LOAN WAS PURCHASE OF ANY CAPITAL ASSET. HENCE, THE RATIO OF THE DECISION OF THE CASE CITED BY THE ASSESSEE'S REPRESENTATIVE WILL NOT APPLY TO THE FACTS OF THE ASSESSEE'S CASE WHERE THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF HAS TREATED THE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF RS.79.93 AS CAPITAL RECEIPT AND TREATED THE SAME AS NON TAXABLE REMISSION. HENCE, I AM OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE SAID AMOUNT OF RS.79,93,000 / - CLAIMED AS 'BAD DEBTS WRITTEN OFF' SHOULD HAVE TAKEN AS BUSINESS INCOME IN THE ASSESSEE'S HANDS AND ASSESSED ACCORDINGLY. SINCE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS FAILED TO DO, THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF REVENUE . HENCE, I SET - ASIDE THE SAID ORDER WITH A DIRECTION TO THE ASSESSING TO REDO THE ASSESSMENT TO INCLUDE THE SAID AMOUNT OF RS.79,93,000/ - AS ASSESSEE'S BUSINESS INCOME AND ARRIVE AT THE TAXABLE INCOME AFTER SETTING OF BROUGHT - FORWARD LOSSES OF EARLIER YEAR S. 5. THE ASSESSEE'S REPRESENTATIVE'S SUBMISSION THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NO MORE AND THAT HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE HAS NO MEANS TO PAY IN THE EVENT OF RAISING DEMAND IN CONSEQUENT TO ORDER UNDER S.263, IS A DIFFERENT MATTER AND THERE IS NO EXCEPTION PROVID ED IN SECTION 263 TO CONSIDER A CASE WHETHER IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF REVENUE NOR NOT ON THE FINANCIAL CONDITIONS OF THE ASSESSEE TO PAY THE TAX DUES. HENCE, THE ASSESSEE'S AFORESAID SUBMISSIONS IN THIS REGARD IS NOT CONSIDERED IN THIS ORDER. 7. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS, WITH REGARD TO ASSUMING JURISDICTION UNDER I.T.A. NO . 10 10 /M/ 12 6 SECTION 263 OF THE ACT, SUBMITTED THAT TWO VIEWS ARE POSSIBLE AND THEREFORE, THE VIEW WHICH WAS TAKEN BY THE AS SESSING OFFICER IS REASONABLE ONE AND IT CANNOT BE SUBJECTED TO 263 ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT AND IT CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. BY FILING COPY OF THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF CIT V. XYLON HOLDINGS PVT. LTD. [2013] 90 DTR 205 (BOM), THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSES SEE HAS PLEADED THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT SHOULD BE QUASHED. 8. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR HAS SUBMITTED THAT THERE ARE NO TWO VIEWS AND ONLY ONE VIEW IS POSSIBLE AND SUPPORTED THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT. 9. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH SIDES , PERUSED THE MATERIALS ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE LD. CIT, WHILE EXERCISING POWER UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT CAME TO A CONCLUSION THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT DATED 2 3.12.2009 IS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE FOR THE REASON THAT THE LD. CIT , AFTER EXAMINING THE ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS IT RECORDS, OBSERVED THAT THE LOAN LIABILITY OF .79,93,000/ - WRITTEN OFF AS BAD DEBT IN THE ACCOUNTS OF DR. MVS MURTHY WAS ALSO SHOWN AS A LIABILITY BY THE ASSESSEE IN HIS ACCOUNT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER , IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER HAS NOT DISCUSSED THE LOAN LIABILITY OF THE ASSESSEE , WHICH, WAS WRITTEN OFF AS BAD DEBT IN THE ACCOUNTS OF DR. MURTHY, AND ALSO SHOWN AS A LIABILITY IN THE BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE . I.T.A. NO . 10 10 /M/ 12 7 HOWEVER, BY INVOKING PROVISION OF SECTION 263 OF THE ACT , WHETHER THE LD. CIT IS CORRECT TO HO LD THAT THE BAD DEBT WRITTEN OFF SHOULD BE TAKEN AS BUSINESS INCOME WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 41(1) AND SECTION 28(IV) OF THE ACT IS REQUIRED TO BE EXAMINED. 10. NOW, IT HAS TO BE CONSIDERED AS TO WHETHER THE BAD DEBT WRITTEN OFF REPRESENTING REMIS SION IN THE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT IS A CAPITAL RECEIPT OR NOT. IN THIS CASE, THE LOAN TAKEN WAS FOR THE PURPOSE OF RUNNING THE BUSINESS OF FILM PRODUCTION. BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT 'THE PETITIONER IN THE PAST PRODUCED A FEAT URE FILM BY AVAILING A LOAN FROM ONE DR. M. V. S. MURTHY DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 1999 - 2000 AND UPON RELEASE OF THE FILM CERTAIN PRINCIPAL AMOUNT WAS REPAID WHEREAS THE BALANCE PRINCIPAL AND INTEREST WAS CARRIED AS OUTSTANDING IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS YEA R AFTER YEAR AND EVENTUALLY THE PETITIONER SUBMITTED TO THE LENDER THAT THE PETITIONER HAS NO MEANS TO REPAY THE PRINCIPAL AS WELL AS THE INTEREST . THEREFORE, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE LOAN AVAILED DURING THE COURSE OF BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ONLY FOR TH E PURPOSE OF HIS BUSINESS I.E. PRODUCTION OF FILM AND UPON RELEASE OF THE FILM, CERTAIN PRINCIPAL AMOUNT WAS REPAID. 11. BEFORE US, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS RELIED ON THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF CIT V. XYLON HOLDINGS PVT. LTD. [2013] 90 DTR 205 (BOM), WHEREIN, THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN LOAN FROM THE HOLDING COMPANY BY VIRTUE OF WHICH LIABILITY TO PAY CAR LOAN FOR WH ICH LOAN WAS TAKEN CONTINUED TO BE A PART I.T.A. NO . 10 10 /M/ 12 8 OF ASSETS OF ASSESSEE AND DEPRECIATION THEREON WAS ALSO CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ADDED BACK THE SAID AMOUNT TO INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AS BEING TAXABLE UNDER SECTION 41(1) OF THE ACT AND THE LD . CIT(A) ALLOWED THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. ON APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL BY THE REVENUE, THE TRIBUNAL HAS HELD THAT CESSATION OF LIABILITY TO REPAY A LOAN TAKEN TO PURCHASE A CAPITAL ASSET DOES NOT RESULT IN A REVENUE RECEIPT AND CONCERNED AMOUNT W AS NOT TAXABLE UNDER SECTION 41(1) AS THE SAME WAS NOT AN EXPENDITURE INCURRED IN EARLIER YEARS. THE HON BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT, BY FOLLOWING ITS OWN ORDER IN THE CASE OF MAHINDRA AND MAHINDRA LTD. V. CIT 261 ITR 501, HELD THAT CESSATION OF LIABILITY TO REP AY THE LOAN LIABILITY TAKEN FOR ACQUIRING CAPITAL ASSET WAS NOT TAXABLE EITHER UNDER SECTION 41(1) OR UNDER SECTION 28(IV) OF THE ACT. 12. THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF CIT V. XYLON HOLDINGS PVT. LTD. (SUPRA) HAS NO APPLICATION TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE BECAUSE, I N THE PRESENT CASE, THE LOAN WAS TAKEN FOR BUSINESS PURPOSE AND NOT FOR THE PURPOSE OF PURCHASE OF ANY CAPITAL ASSET. THEREFORE, THE WRITTEN OFF OF BALANCE PRINCIPAL AND INTEREST AMOUNT OF LOAN IN THE ACCOUNTS OF DR. MVS MURTHY SHOULD BE TR EATED AS INCOME IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 28(IV) OF THE ACT, SINCE THE LOAN WAS TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE FOR BUSINESS PURPOSE DURING THE COURSE OF REGULAR BUSINESS OPERATION . FURTHER, T HE CESSATION OF LIABILITY TO REPAY THE LO AN TAKEN WAS NOT FOR THE PURPOSE OF I.T.A. NO . 10 10 /M/ 12 9 PURCHASE OF CAPITAL ASSET AND THEREFORE, THE LIABILITY TO REPAY THE LOAN WAS TAXABLE UNDER SECTION 41(1) IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE . IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE LD. CIT HAS RIGHTLY INVOKED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 263 OF THE ACT AND DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO REDO THE ASSESSMENT. HENCE, WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT AND DISMISS THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE. 1 3 . IN TH E RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED . ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THE 24 TH FEBRUARY , 201 6 AT CHENNAI. SD/ - SD/ - ( CHANDRA POOJARI ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( DUVVURU RL REDDY ) JUDICIAL MEMBER CHENNAI, DATED, THE 24 . 0 2 .201 6 VM/ - / COPY TO: 1. / APPELLANT , 2. / RESPONDENT , 3. ( ) / CIT(A) , 4. / CIT , 5. / DR & 6. / GF.