C.Elango, Tiruppur V. ACIT, Tiruppur

ITA 118/CHNY/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7737 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 11 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-12-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 02-11-2016
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 14-01-2015
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R DURAI
• Assessee Lawyers: T BANUSEKAR
• Keywords: Capital asset; Cost of acquisition; Wrong claim; Difference of opinion; Bonafide mistake
• Section: 40A(3); 143(3); 54F; 154

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH, CHENNAI , . , # $ BEFORE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI G. PAVAN KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER & ' / APPELLANT BY : SHRI T. BANUSEKAR, CA. *& ' / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI R. DURAI PANDIAN, SR. DR ' /DATE OF HEARING : 02.11.2016 ' /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 29.12.2016 /O R D E R PER G. PAVAN KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) -2, COIMBATORE IN ITA NO. 148/ 2013-14 DATED 31.10.2014 PASSED U/S. 271(1)(C) AND 250 OF THE ACT. ./ I.T.A.NO.118/MDS/2015 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11 SHRI C. ELANGO, 27, SNEHAM GARDEN, KPN COLONY, TIRUPUR - 641 601 [PAN: AAFPE 0895A] VS. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - I, TIRUPUR. ( / APPELLANT) ( /RESPONDENT) :-2-: I.T.A. NO. 118/MDS/2015 2. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE: 2.1 THE HON'BLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS ) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ACTION OF THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER WHO FA ILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE APPELLANT'S CASE WOULD NOT FALL U/S. 271(1)(C) READ WITH ITS EXPLANATION 1 ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E CASE. 2.2 THE HON'BLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS ) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ACTION OF THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER WHO FA ILED TO APPRECIATE THAT WHERE THERE WAS DIFFERENCE OF OPINION AMONG THE DI FFERENT HIGH COURT IN MAKING A CLAIM, NO PENALTY CAN BE LEVIED. 2.3 THE HON'BLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS ) ERRED IN NOT FOLLOWING THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF JASWINDER SINGH AHUJA (256 CTR 213), WHERE THE DEL HI HIGH COURT HAS HELD THAT WHEN THE LONG TERM CAPITAL ASSET WAS TRE ATED IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT AS SHORT TERM CAPITAL ASSET, NO PENALTY SHOULD BE LEVIED. 2.4 THE HON'BLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS ) ERRED IN NOT DISPOSING THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 'THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER FAILED TO APPRECIA TE THAT THE ADDITION MADE AS BECAUSE THE APPELLANT WAS NOT ABLE TO PROV IDE ANY EXCEPTIONAL AND UNAVOIDABLE CIRCUMSTANCES FOR MAKI NG CASH PAYMENTS WOULD, BY ITSELF, NOT AMOUNT TO FILING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME LEADING TO LEVY OF PENALTY.' :-3-: I.T.A. NO. 118/MDS/2015 3. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE, THE ASSESSEE IS IN THE BUSINESS OF REAL ESTATE AND FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME ON 31.03.2012 DISCLO SING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 18,00,131/- AND THE RETURN OF INCOME WAS PROCEED U/ S. 143(1) OF THE ACT. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AN D NOTICE U/S 143(2) OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED. IN COMPLIANCE TO THE NOTICE, LD. AR AP PEARED FROM TIME TO TIME AND FURNISHED THE DETAILS AND PRODUCED BOOKS OF ACCOUNT S FOR VERIFICATION. THE ASSESSING OFFICER EXAMINED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AN D VERIFIED DOCUMENTS AND FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED EXEMPTION U/S. 54F OF THE ACT ON SALE OF LAND. THE SAID LAND WAS PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE JOINTLY WITH SHRI V.T. KESAVAN IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2006-07 FOR THE PURPO SE OF BUSINESS AND THE ASSESSEE HOLDS 60% SHARE IN LAND AND HAS SHOWN AS ' STOCK IN TRADE' TILL ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-2010. BUT IN THE SAID ASSESSM ENT YEAR THE ASSESSEE HAS CONVERTED LAND INTO FIXED ASSET ON 01.04.2009 AND S OLD FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS. 1,82,15,000/- AND THE ASSESSEE'S SHARE HAS WORKED O UT TO 1,09,35,000/- AND THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED COST OF PURCHASE WITH INDEXATION A ND WORKED OUT CAPITAL GAINS OF RS. 72,82,386/-. 4. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON PERUSAL OF THE DETAILS FURNISHED FOUND THAT THE INTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ONLY TO MAKE PROFIT F ROM THE REAL ESTATE BUSINESS AND THE PURCHASE COST OF LAND DISCLOSED BY THE ASSE SSEE IS ON HIGHER SIDE AND RESTRICTED THE COST TO RS. 27,99,137/- FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE HAS CONVERTED THE LAND HELD AS STOCK IN TRADE INTO FIXED ASSET DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2009-2010. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S. 54F OF THE ACT, EVEN THOUGH THE PERIOD OF :-4-: I.T.A. NO. 118/MDS/2015 HOLDING OF LAND IS LESS THAN 36 MONTHS AND DENIED T HE EXEMPTION U/S. 54F OF THE ACT. CONSIDERING THE FACTS THAT THE SALE OF LAND I S LESS THAN 3 YEARS AND LD. AO DISALLOWED RS. 81,29,863/- TOWARDS ASSESSEE'S SHARE . FURTHER, THE LD. AO EXAMINED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED LANDS AND DISCLOSED AS STOCK IN TRADE AND CASH PAYMENTS OF RS. 13,55,500/-, WERE MADE IN EXCESS OF RS. 20,000/- IN VIOLATION OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40A(3) OF THE AC T AND DISALLOWED THE SUM AND PASSED ORDER U/S. 143(3) OF THE ACT DATED 24.12.201 2. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE LD. AO INITIATED PENALTY U/S. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT AND IS OF THE OPINION THAT THE EXPLANATIONS 1(A) OF SUB SECTION (1) OF SECTION 271 (1) IS APPLICABLE TO THE ASSESSEE. IN PENALTY PROCEEDINGS, THE LD. AR OF TH E ASSESSEE FILED DETAILED REPLY TO SHOW CAUSE NOTICE AND EXPLAINED THAT THE ASSESSE E HAS SOLD LAND AND NET CONSIDERATION IS INVESTED IN CONSTRUCTION OF RESIDE NTIAL HOUSE AND CLAIMED EXEMPTION U/S. 54F OF THE ACT. THE LANDS WERE PURC HASED FROM THE AGRICULTURALIST/FARMERS WHO DOES NOT HAVE BANK ACCO UNTS AND THROUGH CASH PAYMENTS, HENCE THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A)(3) ARE NOT VIOLATED AND THE ASSESSEE HAS CO-OPERATED IN ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND TO PURCHASE PEACE WITH THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT AND TO AVOID VEXATIOUS LI TIGATION HAS ACCEPTED THE ADDITIONS AND RELIED ON THE JUDICIAL DECISIONS. TH E LD. AO CONSIDERED THE FINDINGS OF ASSESSMENT AND THE SUBMISSIONS FILED IN PENALTY PROCEEDINGS HAS DISTINGUISHED THE JUDICIAL DECISION RELIED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. JASWINDER SINGH AHUJA (2013) 259 CTR (DEL) 213 AND THE APEX COURT D ECISION AND IS OF THE OPINION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF SALE CONSIDERATION OF THE PROPERTY AND CONVERTED THE STO CK IN TRADE INTO FIXED ASSET TO :-5-: I.T.A. NO. 118/MDS/2015 CLAIM OF EXEMPTION U/S. 54F OF THE ACT IN ACCORDANC E WITH LAW AND LEVIED THE MINIMUM PENALTY ON THE DISALLOWANCES U/S. 54F AND 4 0A(3) OF THE ACT AND PASSED THE ORDER U/S. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT DATED 28 .06.2013. 5. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF PENALTY ORDER, ASSESSE E FILED AN APPEAL WITH THE CIT(A). THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE ARGUED THE GROUNDS AND REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND PENALTY PROCEEDINGS AND CONTESTED THE LEVY OF PENALTY. THE LD. AR EMPHASIZ ED ON THE CONVERSION OF STOCK IN TRADE OF LAND IN TO FIXED ASSET AND SOLD THE LAN D AND CLAIMED EXEMPTION U/S. 54F OF THE ACT. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS CONSIDERED THE ASSESSEE'S SUBMISSIONS AT PAGE 4 AND 5 OF HIS ORDER AND OBSERVED THAT THE ASS ESSEE HAS CONSTRUCTED RESIDENTIAL HOUSE AND CLAIMED EXEMPTION U/S. 54F AN D THE LD. AR FILED DETAILS OF PURCHASE OF LANDS DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR WHICH A SSESSING OFFICER CONSIDERED AS VIOLATION OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40A(3) OF THE AC T. THE LD. CIT(A) CONSIDERED THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. AO AND ASSESSEE SUBMISSION IS OF THE FIRM VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE ELABORATE TAX PLANNING TO SHOW SH ORT TERM CAPITAL GAINS AS LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS AND RELIED ON THE APEX COUR T DECISIONS AND PROVISIONS OF SECTION 271(1)(C) AND EXPLANATION (1) OF THE ACT IS OF THE OPINION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE A FALSE CLAIM UNDER SECTION 54F O F THE ACT, IRRESPECTIVE OF THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT CONTESTED THE ADDITI ONS IN ASSESSMENT ORDER BEFORE HIGHER AUTHORITIES AND TO OBTAIN PEACE WITH THE DEPARTMENT ACCEPTED THE SAME AND CONFIRMED THE LEVY OF PENALTY U/S. 271(1)( C) OF THE ACT. :-6-: I.T.A. NO. 118/MDS/2015 6. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER, THE ASSESSEE FILED AN AP PEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. BEFORE US THE LD. AR ARGUED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN APPLYING THE EXPLANATION (1) OF SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT WHI CH ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO THE ASSESSEE AND CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF ASSESSING OFF ICER IN DISTINGUISHING THE JUDICIAL DECISIONS WHERE SIMILAR ISSUES WERE ON LON G TERM CAPITAL GAINS BEING TREATED AS SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAINS IN ASSESSMENT P ROCEEDINGS AND PENALTY CANNOT BE LEVIED. THE CIT(A) HAS NOT DISPOSED OFF THE GRO UND OF ADDITION U/S. 40A(3) OF THE ACT RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE AND CONFIRMED THE PE NALTY. THE LD. AR SHRI T. BANUSEKHAR, CA SUPPORTED HIS SUBMISSIONS WITH THE J UDICIAL DECISIONS OF M/S. KALYANI EXPORT INVESTMENT LIMITED VS. DCIT, 73 ITD 95 (PUNE) ON THE CONVERSION OF STOCK IN TRADE TO FIXED ASSET AND ANUPAMA TELE S ERVICES VS ITO(2014), 143 TAXMAN.COM 199, (GUJARAT) AND SARASWATHI HOUSING & DEVELOPERS VS. ACIT, 142 ITD 198 (DEL) AND FILED TRIBUNAL DECISIONS. FURTHE R FILED PAPER BOOK WITH EVIDENCES ON THE DISPUTED ISSUES AND AFFIDAVIT OF T HE ASSESSEE UNDER RULE 10 OF THE ITAT RULE 1963 ON DETAILS OF PAYMENTS IN CASH U /S. 40A(3) OF THE ACT AND EMPHASIZED THAT ASSESSEE ACCEPTED THE ADDITIONS MAD E BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ONLY TO BUY PEACE WITH THE DEPARTMENT AND THE PROVI SIONS APPLIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON LEVY OF PENALTY IS NOT IN ACCO RDANCE WITH LAW AND PRAYED FOR ALLOWING THE APPEAL. THE LD. DR OF THE REVENUE REL IED ON THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND FINDINGS OF ASSESSING OFFICER AND OPPOSE D THE GROUNDS. 7. WE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSED THE MATE RIAL ON RECORD AND JUDICIAL DECISIONS. THE LD. AR ARGUED THAT THE LEV Y OF PENALTY BASED ON :-7-: I.T.A. NO. 118/MDS/2015 EXPLANATION (1) OF SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT CAN NOT BE SUSTAINED AS THERE IS NO FURNISHING OF ANY INACCURATE PARTICULARS AND NOR CO NCEALMENT OF INCOME AND WE FIND THE ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED THE LAND IN THE YEA R 2006 JOINTLY WITH OTHER CO- OWNERS. THE ASSESSEE HOLDING 60% SHARE IN LAND HAS DECLARED IT AS STOCK IN TRADE AND ON 01.04.2009 THE ASSESSEE CONVERTED THE LAND INTO FIXED ASSET AND CLAIMED THE EXEMPTION U/S. 54F OF THE ACT ON INVEST MENT OF SALE PROCEEDS OF LAND. THE FACTS DISCLOSES THAT THE LD. AO HAS DENIE D THE CLAIM AND TREATED THE CAPITAL GAIN AS SHORT TERM AND THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DISPUTED THE DISALLOWANCE AND ACCEPTED. IN THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS THE ASSES SEE FURNISHED EXPLANATIONS THAT HE HAS NOT FURNISHED ANY INACCURATE PARTICULAR S OR CONCEALED INCOME BUT DISCLOSED CAPITAL GAINS ON LAND AS LONG TERM AND CL AIMED EXEMPTION U/S. 54F OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT DISPUTED TH E GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION OF LAND EXCEPT THE PERIOD OF HOLDING OF ASSET. THE LD. AR DREW OUR ATTENTION TO SUPREME COURT DECISION OF K.C. BUILDER S VS CIT 265 ITR 562 (SC) WHERE SAME FIGURES HAVE BEEN DISCLOSED, BY ITSELF I F TAKES OUT THE CASE FROM THE PURVIEW OF NON-DISALLOWANCE. IT CANNOT BE SAID THA T THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS AND THERE IS NO BONAFIDE EVI DENCE OF THE REVENUE TO SHOW THAT THE INTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS TO AVOID PAYM ENT OF TAX ON INCOME ON ADDITIONS AND CANNOT BE CONSIDERED FOR LEVY OF PENA LTY. 8. FURTHER, THE LD. AR EXPLAINED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED THE INFORMATION IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ON SALE, PURCHASE AND CLAIMING OF EXEMPTION ON LAND AND THERE IS NO COMMENT/FINDINGS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER :-8-: I.T.A. NO. 118/MDS/2015 THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT DISCLOSED INFORMATION OR FILE D INACCURATE PARTICULARS AND THE EXPLANATIONS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE NOT SATISFACTORY. THE ASSESSEE ACCEPTED THE ADDITIONS TO BUY PEACE WITH THE DEPARTMENT AND THE INFORMATION SUBMITTED IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS BY THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE CO NSIDERED AS INACCURATE PARTICULARS. CONSIDERING THESE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTA NCES OF JUDICIAL DECISIONS WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE CONVERSION OF STOCK IN TRADE IN TO THE CAPITAL ASSET BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAVING TAXED THE SALE TRANSACTION AS THE SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAINS AND ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESS EE CANNOT BE A VALID REASON FOR LEVY OF PENALTY U/S. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT AND WE RELY ON THE DECISION OF PRICE WATERHOUSE COOPER LTD VS CIT, 348 ITR 306 (SC), WHE REIN, IT HELD THAT THE IMPOSITION OF PENALTY WOULD BE UNWARRANTED IN THE C ASE THE WHERE ASSESSEE HAS COMMITTED AN INADVERTENT AND BONAFIDE ERROR AND WE TAKES SUPPORT FROM HON'BLE SUPREME COURT DECISION OF CIT VS RELIANCE PETRO PRO DUCTS, 322 ITR 158(SC) WHERE IT WAS HELD THAT MERELY BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED DEDUCTION, NOT ACCEPTED BY THE AO, PENALTY U/S. 271(1)(C) NOT ALLO WED. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED THE PARTICULARS AND THERE IS NO BONAFIDE MISTAKE IN DISCLOSURE OF CAPITAL GAINS. HENCE, THE PENALTY CA NNOT BE LEVIED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO LEVIED PENALTY ON THE ADDITION MADE U/ S. 40A(3) OF THE ACT. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT DEALT THE GROUND ON THE LEVY OF PENALTY ON ADDITIONS U/S. 40A(3) OF THE ACT AND WAS NOT DIS POSED OFF AND THE ASSESSEE FILED PETITION U/S. 154 OF THE ACT AND SAME IS PEND ING BEFORE THE CIT(A). WE ARE OF THE OPINION, THAT SINCE WE TOOK THE POSITIVE VIE W ON THE PENALTY LEVIED ON ADDITION OF SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAINS IS AS NOT LEVI ABLE WE DISPOSE OFF THE GROUND :-9-: I.T.A. NO. 118/MDS/2015 RAISED BEFORE US, EVEN THOUGH CIT(A) HAS NOT GIVEN ANY COMMENTS OR FINDINGS IN HIS ORDER. 9. WE FIND THE ASSESSEE IS IN THE REAL ESTATE BUS INESS AND PURCHASED THE LAND FROM AGRICULTURALIST AND DISCLOSED AS STOC K IN TRADE AND THE CASH PAYMENTS WERE MADE IN EXCESS OF MORE THAN RS. 20,00 0/- AND LD. AR SUPPORTED THE FACTS WITH PAPER BOOK ON CASH PAYMENTS AT PAGE 5 TO 8 AND THE ASSESSEE HAS ACCEPTED DISALLOWANCE U/S. 40A(3) OF THE ACT ONLY T O BUY PEACE. THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. AR THAT THE DIFFERENCE OF TOTAL CASH PAY MENT IS RS. 13,55,500/- WHICH WAS MADE TO PURCHASE THE LAND FROM AGRICULTURALIST WHO DO NOT HAVE ANY BANK ACCOUNT AND RESIDENT IN VILLAGES. THE LD. AR FURTH ER SUBSTANTIATED THAT THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE ASSE SSEE HAS NOT SUBMITTED ANY EVIDENCE OR MATERIAL FOR MAKING PAYMENTS IS INCORRE CT AND DEMONSTRATED WITH THE LETTERS DATED 19.12.2012 AND 20.12.2012 FILED IN AS SESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND CONFIRMED BY AFFIDAVIT WITH EVIDENCE AS PER RULE 10 OF THE ITAT RULES, 1963. WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 4 0A(3) CANNOT RESTRICT THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE EXCEPTION UNDER RULE 6DD MUST BE INTERPRETED LIBERALLY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT DISPUTED THE GENUINENESS OF THE PAYMENT TO AGRICULTURALIST AND THE ASSESSEE HAS EXPLAINED V ARIOUS CIRCUMSTANCES OF PAYMENTS AND RELIED ON DECISION OF HON'BLE HIGH COU RT IN THE CASE OF ANUPAM TELE SERVICES VS ITO (2014), 143 TAXMAN.COM 199, (G UJARAT) AND ATTAR SINGH GURMUKH SINGH, ITO 191 ITR 667 (SC). WE ON PERUSAL OF THE SUBMISSIONS/EVIDENCE IN THE PAPER BOOK ARE OF THE O PINION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS :-10-: I.T.A. NO. 118/MDS/2015 FILED DETAILS ON CASH PAYMENT OF MORE THAN 20,000/- BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND HAS NOT FURNISHED ANY INACCURATE PARTICULARS AN D WE SUPPORT OUR VIEW RELYING ON JUDICIAL DECISIONS THAT DISALLOWANCE U/S. 40A(3) OF THE ACT CANNOT BE BASIS FOR LEVY OF PENALTY. THE DISALLOWANCE/ADDITIONS BY THE AO CANNOT BE A GATEWAY FOR LEVY OF PENALTY AND WE ALSO RELYING ON THE DECISION OF HIGH COURT OF CIT VS MANJUNATHA, 359 ITR 565 (KARNATAKA) AND DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DELETE THE PENALTY AND ALLOW THE GROUNDS IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. 10. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS AL LOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THURSDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF DECEM BER, 2016 AT CHENNAI. SD/ - ( ) (PRAMOD KUMAR) ! / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SD/ - ( . ) (G. PAVAN KUMAR) $ ! /JUDICIAL MEMBER /CHENNAI, / /DATED: 29TH DECEMBER, 2016 JPV ' #12 32 /COPY TO: 1. & /APPELLANT 2. *& /RESPONDENT 3. 4 ( )/CIT(A) 4. 4 /CIT 5. 2 ## /DR 6. 7 /GF.