Guruprasad Angisetty, CHENNAI V. ITO, CHENNAI

ITA 1123/CHNY/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8765 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-07-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 26-04-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P RADHAKRISHANAN IRS
• Assessee Lawyers: G BASKAR
• Keywords: Capital asset; Cost of acquisition
• Section: 54F; 54

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, CHENNAI . , . , BEFORE SHRI A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBE R AND SHRI. G. PAVAN KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ I.T.A. NO. 1123/MDS/2016 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-2011 GURUPRASAD ANGISETTY, NO.2, 4 TH STREET, RADHAKRISHNAN SALAI, MYLAPORE, CHENNAI 600 004. [PAN AAGPG 9415K ] VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, NON-CORPORATE WARD 1(2) CHENNAI. ( / APPELLANT) ( /RESPONDENT) ! ' # / APPELLANT BY : SHRI. G. BASKAR, ADVOCATE $% ! ' # /RESPONDENT BY : SHRI. P. RADHAKRISHANAN, IRS & ' ' ( /DATE OF HEARING : 30-06-2016 ) ' ' ( /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 27-07-2016 / O R D E R PER G. PAVAN KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED A GAINST ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-2, CHEN NAI IN ITA NO.246/CIT(A)-2/13-14, DATED 21.01.2016 FOR THE ASS ESSMENT YEAR ITA NO.1123/MDS/2016. :- 2 -: 2010-2011 PASSED U/S.143(3) AND 250 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREIN AFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT). 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF A PPEAL:- 2 .1 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN DENYING CLAIM FOR EXEMPTION U/S. 54F OF THE IT ACT. 2.2 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) FAILED TO NOTE THAT WHAT HAD BEEN ACQUIRED BY THE ASSESSEE IS A RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY AND AS SUCH EXEMPTION U/S.54F IS RIGHTLY ALLOWABLE. 2.3 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) FAILED TO CONSIDER THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE HIM IN THE PROPER PERSPECTIVE. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE I S A PROPRIETOR OF M/S. FIRST COMPUTERS AND IN THE BUSIN ESS OF TRADING, HIRING COMPUTERS AND COMPUTER PERIPHERALS FILED RET URN OF INCOME ON 29.09.2010 WITH TOTAL INCOME OF <71,72,239/- AND TH E RETURN OF INCOME WAS PROCESSED U/S.143(1) OF THE ACT AND SUBS EQUENTLY, THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY THROUGH CASS AND NOT ICE U/S.143(2) OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED. THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTAT IVE OF ASSESSEE APPEARED FROM TIME TO TIME AND PRODUCED DETAILS AS CALLED FOR BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER. THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER FO UND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED EXEMPTION OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS U/ S.54F OF THE ACT AND CALLED FOR THE PROPERTY INFORMATION. IN COMPLI ANCE THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT HE HAS SOLD RESIDENTIAL HOUSE PROPER TY AT ITA NO.1123/MDS/2016. :- 3 -: VALSARAVAKKAM ON 24.09.2009 AND THE SAID PROPERTY W AS PURCHASED ALONGWITH OTHER CO-OWNER IN THE YEAR 1994. THE T OTAL COST OF ACQUISITION TOWARDS THE ASSESSEES SHARE IS <9,39,2 40/-. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER EXPLAINED BY LETTER DATED 13.02.2013 THAT AT THE TIME OF ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY IN THE YEAR 1994 THE ASSESS EE ALSO PAID MONEY ON BEHALF OF HIS WIFE AND NO INCOME WAS RECEIVED B Y HER IN EARLIER YEARS AND NOT ASSESSED TO INCOME TAX. THE PROPERTY WAS SOLD BY TWO SEPARATE DOCUMENTS FOR A CONSIDERATION OF <85,00,00 0/-. THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ENTIRE PROPERT Y IS OWNED BY THE ASSESSEE AND SALE CONSIDERATION OF <85,00,000/- IS ASSESSED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE AND CLAIMED EXEMPTION U/S.54 OF THE ACT. THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER CALLED FOR FURTHER DETAILS FO R THE ENQUIRY AND CORRECTNESS OF CLAIM. THE ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED VA CANT LAND AT BAYWATCH BOULEVARD, WATERLAND DRIVE, KOTTIVAKKAM, C HENNAI. THE PAYMENTS ARE MADE IN THE YEAR 2007 BEING <77,00,000 /- ON 29.11.2007 AND <23,00,000/- ON 06.12.2007, TOTAL AG GREGATING TO <1,00,00,000/- AND THE SALE DEED WAS REGISTERED ON 24.09.2010. THESE PAYMENTS ARE MADE PRIOR TO SALE OF RESIDENTIA L HOUSE PROPERTY IN THE YEAR 2009. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED EXEMPTION U /S.54 OF THE ACT ON INVESTMENT OF CAPITAL GAINS IN RESIDENTIAL PROPE RTY AND HAS NOT DEPOSITED AMOUNT IN CAPITAL GAINS DEPOSIT SCHEME BE FORE DUE DATE U/SEC. 139(1) OF THE ACT. THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICE R RELIED ON THE ITA NO.1123/MDS/2016. :- 4 -: PROVISIONS OF SEC. 54(1) & (2) OF THE ACT AND THE C ONDITIONS STIPULATED WERE THE ASSESSEE HAS TO PURCHASE A NEW ASSET ONE YEAR BEFORE OR TWO YEARS AFTER TRANSFER OF SALE OF ORIGINAL ASSET OR SHOULD HAVE CONSTRUCTED THE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY WITHIN A PERIO D OF THREE YEARS. THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE H AS NOT INVESTED IN CAPITAL GAINS INVESTMENT SCHEME. THE LD. AUTHORISE D REPRESENTATIVE EXPLAINED THAT THE ASSESSEE PAID THE PURCHASE CONS IDERATION IN THE YEAR 2007 AND TOOK POSSESSION OF PROPERTY AFTER REGISTRATION OF SALE DEED ON 24.09.2010 AND COMPILED THE PROVISIONS U/S. 53A OF THE TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT, 1882. THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS COMPLETED THE TRANSACTION OF PURCH ASE OF PROPERTY BY PAYING ENTIRE PURCHASE CONSIDERATION IN THE YEAR 20 07-08 AND ASSESSEE HAS CONSTRUCTED SWIMMING POOL DURING AUGUST, 2009 T O JANUARY, 2010 ON THE LAND PURCHASED. THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER A PPLIED THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 54(1) OF THE ACT AND ANALYISED T HE FACTS WERE THE ACTUAL TRANSFER ON SALE OF RESIDENTIAL HOUSE PROPER TY AT VALSARAVAKKAM WAS ON 24.09.2009 AND ONE YEAR PRIOR TO DATE OF TRANSFER SHALL BE 25.09.2008 FOR INVESTMENT IN PRO PERTY OR ASSESSEE SHOULD HAVE INVESTED AND CONSTRUCTED RESIDENTIAL HO USE BY 23.09.2012. WHEREAS, THE ASSESSEE HAS INVESTED IN P URCHASE OF VACANT LAND PRIOR TO MANDATORY DATE OF ONE YEAR FROM DAT E OF SALE. THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER DEPUTED THE INSPECTOR OF THE DEPA RTMENT TO VERIFY ITA NO.1123/MDS/2016. :- 5 -: THE PROPERTY AND ON ENQUIRY REPORT DATED 08.03.2013 IT WAS FOUND THE SWIMMING POOL WAS CONSTRUCTED BY THE ASSESSEE ON TH E PROPERTY ACQUIRED AT KOTTIVAKKAM IN YEAR 2007 AND THE SWIMMI NG POOL CANNOT BE TERMED AS RESIDENTIAL HOUSE. THE LD. ASSESS ING OFFICER ISSUED SHOW CAUSE NOTICE TO ASSESSEE FOR DENIAL OF EXEMPTI ON U/S.54 OF THE ACT VIDE ORDER SHEET NOTING DATED 08.03.2013 AND 13 .03.2013. IN COMPLIANCE, THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE VIDE LETTER DATED 11.03.2013 FILED EXPLANATIONS THAT THE ASSESSEE CLA IMED EXEMPTION BY INVESTING THE NET CONSIDERATION IN ADJACENT PLOT ON WHICH RESIDENTIAL HOUSE IS SITUATED AND THE LAND IS APPURTENANT TO T HE BUILDING AND RELIED ON THE DECISION OF DELHI BENCH OF TRIBUNAL I N THE CASE OF ADDL. CIT VS. NARENDRA MOHAN UNIYAL (34 SOT 154). THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER DISTINGUISHED THE DECISION WITH THE PRESENT CASE AS THE ASSESSEE HAS CONSTRUCTED RESIDENTIAL HOUSE IN THE YEAR 2003 AND NO ACTIVITY OF CONSTRUCTION TOOK PLACE DURING THE STIP ULATED PERIOD. THE ASSESSEE HAS CONSTRUCTED ONLY SWIMMING POOL AND LA WN ON THE LAND ADJACENT TO THE BUILDING AND IS EVIDENT FROM THE PHOTOGRAPHS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE ON 13.03.2013 AND ALSO THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT COMPLIED THE CONDITIONS O F CAPITAL GAINS DEPOSIT SCHEME. WITH THESE OBSERVATIONS, THE LD. A SSESSING OFFICER DENIED EXEMPTION U/S.54 OF THE ACT AND DISALLOWED T HE CLAIM WITH OTHER DISALLOWANCES AND ASSESSED INCOME U/S.143(3) OF THE ACT VIDE ITA NO.1123/MDS/2016. :- 6 -: ORDER DATED 20.03.2013. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER, T HE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL S). 4. IN THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE ARGUED THE GROUNDS AND SUBSTANTIATED THE PURCHASE AND SALE OF PROPERTY WITH SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE L D. ASSESSING OFFICER. THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL S) BASED ON THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE, FINDINGS OF THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER AND SUBMISSIONS BY THE ASSESSEE HAS DEALT ON THE PROVIS IONS OF SEC. 54 OF THE ACT AT PAGE 5 AND PROVISIONS OF SEC 53A IN TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT AND JUDICIAL DECISIONS RELIED AT PAGE 6 TO 8 AND CONCLUDED THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS INVESTED IN PURCHASE OF PIECE OF LAND ADJACENT TO THE EXISTING HOUSE PROPERTY AND AS PER THE ASSESSEES OWN SUBMISSIONS CONSTRUCTED LAWN AND OUTDOOR SWIMMING POOL BY UTILIZING THE SALE PROCEEDS. THE DEFINITION OF HOUSE PROPER TY CANNOT BE EQUATED TO A SWIMMING POOL FOR HABITATION PURPOS E AND SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT COMPLIED THE CONDITIONS OF SEC. 54 OF THE ACT AND THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) CONCURRED WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER AND DISMISSED THE APPE AL. AGGRIEVED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ORDER, THE ASSESSEE ASSAILED AN APPEAL BEFORE TRIBUNAL. ITA NO.1123/MDS/2016. :- 7 -: 5. BEFORE US, THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE OF ASS ESSEE ARGUED THAT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HA S ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICE R IRRESPECTIVE OF SUBMISSION OF EVIDENCE AND THE ASSESSEE IS ELIGIBL E FOR EXEMPTION OF RESIDENTIAL HOUSE AS THE SALE PROCEEDS WERE UTILIZE D. THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE EXPLAINED THAT IT IS A C ONTINUOUS PROCESS OF CONSTRUCTION ON THE PLOT OF RESIDENTIAL HOUSE AND B EING PART OF LAND APPARENT TO BUILDING TAKES THE CHARACTER OF A RESID ENTIAL HOUSE AND RELIED ON THE DECISION OF DELHI BENCH OF TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ADDL. CIT VS. NARENDRA MOHAN UNIYAL (34 SOT 154) WERE THE TRIBUNAL HAS ALLOWED THE COST OF LAND APPARENT TO FORMING PART O F RESIDENTIAL UNIT IS TO BE CONSIDERED FOR CLAIM OF EXEMPTION U/S.54F OF THE ACT EVEN IF NO CONSTRUCTION IS DONE ON VACANT LAND AND PRAYED FOR ALLOWING THE GROUND. 6. CONTRA, THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AND VEHEMENTLY OPPOSED THE GROUNDS. 7. WE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSED THE MATERIA L ON RECORD AND JUDICIAL DECISIONS CITED. THE LD. AUTHOR ISED REPRESENTATIVE CONTENTION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SOLD VACANT LAND A T VALSARAVAKKAM IN 2009 AND UTILIZED THE SALE PROCEEDS IN CONSTRUCTION OF RESIDENTIAL ITA NO.1123/MDS/2016. :- 8 -: HOUSE AND CLAIMED EXEMPTION U/S.54 OF THE ACT. PRIM E FACIE TO CLAIM EXEMPTION U/S.54 OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSEE HAS TO CO MPLY THE CONDITIONS AS PER DEFINITION OF SEC. 54 OF THE ACT AS UNDER:- 54. [(1)] [SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SUB-SECTION ( 2), WHERE, IN THE CASE OF AN ASSESSEE BEING AN INDIVIDU AL OR A HINDU UNDIVIDED FAMILY], THE CAPITAL GAIN ARISES FR OM THE TRANSFER OF A LONG-TERM CAPITAL ASSET [***], BEING BUILDINGS OR LANDS APPURTENANT THERETO, AND BEING A RESIDENTI AL HOUSE, THE INCOME OF WHICH IS CHARGEABLE UNDER THE HEAD 'INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY' (HEREAFTER IN THIS SEC TION REFERRED TO AS THE ORIGINAL ASSET), AND THE ASSESSE E HAS WITHIN A PERIOD OF [ONE YEAR BEFORE OR TWO YEARS AF TER THE DATE ON WHICH THE TRANSFER TOOK PLACE PURCHASED], O R HAS WITHIN A PERIOD OF THREE YEARS AFTER THAT DATE [ CONSTRUCTED, A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE ] , THEN], INSTEAD OF THE CAPITAL GAIN BEING CHARGED TO INCOME-TAX AS INCOME OF THE PREVIOUS YEA R IN WHICH THE TRANSFER TOOK PLACE, IT SHALL BE DEALT WI TH IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING PROVISIONS OF THIS SE CTION, THAT IS TO SAY, (I) IF THE AMOUNT OF THE CAPITAL GAIN [IS GREATER T HAN THE COST OF [THE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE] SO PURCHASED OR CONSTRU CTED (HEREAFTER IN THIS SECTION REFERRED TO AS THE NEW A SSET)], THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE AMOUNT OF THE CAPITAL GAIN A ND THE COST OF THE NEW ASSET SHALL BE CHARGED UNDER SECTIO N 45 AS THE INCOME OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR; AND FOR THE PURPOS E OF COMPUTING IN RESPECT OF THE NEW ASSET ANY CAPITAL G AIN ARISING FROM ITS TRANSFER WITHIN A PERIOD OF THREE YEARS OF ITS PURCHASE OR CONSTRUCTION, AS THE CASE MAY BE, THE C OST SHALL BE NIL; OR (II) IF THE AMOUNT OF THE CAPITAL GAIN IS EQUAL TO OR LESS THAN THE COST OF THE NEW ASSET, THE CAPITAL GAIN SHALL N OT BE CHARGED UNDER SECTION 45 ; AND FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING IN RESPECT OF THE NEW ASSET ANY CAPITAL G AIN ARISING FROM ITS TRANSFER WITHIN A PERIOD OF THREE YEARS OF ITS PURCHASE OR CONSTRUCTION, AS THE CASE MAY BE, THE C OST SHALL BE REDUCED BY THE AMOUNT OF THE CAPITAL GAIN . ON PERUSAL OF THE DEFINITIONS AND THE FACTS OF THE CASE STATED HEREUNDER:- ITA NO.1123/MDS/2016. :- 9 -: 01 DATE OF SALE OF RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY. : 24.09.2009 02 DUE DATE OF FILING OF RETURN OF INCOME U/S.139(1) OF THE ACT : 30.09.2010 03 CONDITIONS AS PER SEC. 54 OF THE ACT : (I) ONE YEAR PRIOR TO DATE OF SALE OF ORIGINAL ASSET, THE ASSESSEE SHOULD INVEST IN RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY : 25.09.2008 (II) ASSESSEE INVESTED IN PROPERTY AND CONSTRUCTED RESIDENTIAL HOUSE WITHIN THREE YEARS FROM THE DATE OF TRANSFER OF PROPERTY : 23.09.2012 (III) PURCHASE OF LAND BY ASSESSEES AT KOTTIVAKKAM FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS.1 CRORE : 29.11.2007 AND 06.12.2007 (IV) RESIDENTIAL HOUSE ADJACENT TO THE LAND PURCHASED WAS CONSTRUCTED AND IN THE POSSESSION OF THE ASSESSEE : FROM THE YEAR 2003 ONWARDS (V) CONSTRUCTION OF SWIMMING POOL AND LAWN AS PER ASSESSEES SUBMISSIONS. : DURING AUG 2009 TO JAN 2010. WE ON PERUSAL OF THE FACTS AND DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE FOUND THAT THE FIRST CRITERIA THE ASSESSEE SHOULD INVEST THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS IN RESIDENTIAL HOUSE WITHIN STIPULATED PERIOD. THE DE FINITION OF RESIDENTIAL HOUSE FOR EXEMPTION U/S.54 OF THE ACT HAS TO BE ITA NO.1123/MDS/2016. :- 10 -: CONSTRUED WITH LIBERAL MEANING DENOTES THE PLAC E WHERE THE ASSESSEE EATS, DRINKS AND SLEEPS AND SHOULD BE UN DERSTOOD IN THE NORMAL SENSE FOR CLAIMING BENEFIT U.S.54(1) OF THE ACT AND THE SAID DEFINITION WAS DEALT BY HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COUR T IN THE CASE OF SOUTH KANARA CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE WHOLESALE STORES VS. CIT (1978) 114 ITR 0298 WERE IT WAS HELD THAT SEC. 54 OF THE ACT APPLIES T O NATURAL PERSONS ONLY AND NOT TO ARTIFICIAL PERSONS. THE MEANING OF RESIDENCE IN EXEMPTION U/SEC.54 OF THE ACT IS N OT THE SAME AS DEFINED IN SEC. 6 OF THE ACT RESIDENCE IN INDIA . ON APPLYING THE FACTS, LAW AND LEGAL DECISIONS, THE ASSESSEE HAS IN VESTED IN CONSTRUCTION OF SWIMMING POOL AND LAWN ADJACENT TO THE EXISTING HOUSE PROPERTY CONSTRUCTED IN THE YEAR 2003 AND THE CONSTRUCTION WAS CONFIRMED BY THE INDEPENDENT ENQUIRY REPORT OF INSP ECTOR OF INCOME TAX REFERRED IN ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE LD. AUTHORIS ED REPRESENTATIVE COULD NOT CONTROVERT THE FINDING OF THE LD. ASSESSI NG OFFICER AND RELIED ONLY ON THE PRINCIPLES OF CONSTRUCTION OF PROPERT Y ON PLOT ADJACENT TO THE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE AS CONSTRUCTION ON LAND APPA RENT TO THE BUILDING. WE ARE NOT CONVINCED BY THE ARGUMENTS PU T FORTH ON THE LOGICAL ASPECTS OF CONSTRUCTION OF SWIMMING POOL W ITHIN THE DEFINITION OF RESIDENTIAL HOUSE. CONSIDERING THE APPARENT FA CTS, MATERIALS ON RECORD AND LEGAL DECISIONS, THE ASSESSEE THOUGH UN DERTAKES THE CONSTRUCTION ON THE APPARENT LAND. BUT CONSTRUCTIO N WORKS SHALL NOT ITA NO.1123/MDS/2016. :- 11 -: QUALIFY FOR TREATING AS RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY A ND THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) DEALT ON THE DISPUTED ISSU E. WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR EXEM PTION U/S. 54F OF THE ACT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF SWIMMING POOL AND WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AND THE GROUN DS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMIS SED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF JUL Y, 2016 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( . ! ) (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) # $% / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( & . ' ( ) (G. PAVAN KUMAR) ) $% / JUDICIAL MEMBER *& / CHENNAI + / DATED: 27TH JULY, 2016. KV , ' $'./ 0/' / COPY TO: 1 . ! / APPELLANT 2. $% ! / RESPONDENT 3. 1' () / CIT(A) 4. 1' / CIT 5. /4 5 $'6 / DR 6. 5 7 8 & / GF