ACIT, CHENNAI V. M/s. The Express Carriers Ltd., CHENNAI

ITA 119/CHNY/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8796 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 6 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-08-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 14-06-2016
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 24-01-2013
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DR MILIND MADHUKAR BHUSARI
• Assessee Lawyers: S SRIDHAR
• Keywords: Business income; Business expenditure; Bad and doubtful debts

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH : CHENNAI . . . , . !' , # $ % [ BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ] ./ I.T.A.NO.119/MDS/2013 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX COMPANY CIRCLE III(2) CHENNAI VS. THE EXPRESS CARRIERS LTD NO.73, SOUTH INDIA HOUSE ARMENIAN STREET CHENNAI 600 001 [PAN AAACT 2477 P ] ( &' / APPELLANT) ( ()&' /RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : DR. MILIND MADHUKAR BHUSARI, CIT /RESPONDENT BY : SHRI S. SRID HAR, ADVOCATE / DATE OF HEARING : 15 - 06 - 2016 ! / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 05 - 08 - 2016 / O R D E R PER N.R.S.GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS-1),MADURAI , [CAMP OFFICE AT CHENNAI] DATED 29.10.2012 AND PERTAINS TO ASSESSM ENT YEAR 2009- 10. 2. DR. MILIND MADHUKAR BHUSARI, LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENGA GED IN THE BUSINESS OF STEVEDORING. DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01, THE ITA NO. 119/13 :- 2 -: ASSESSEE ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH SHRI A.L.VA DIVELU, CHAIRMAN AND PROMOTER OF M/S MCC FINANCE LTD. FOR ADVANCING A SUM OF ` 25 CRORES AS LOAN. SHRI A.L.VADIVELU IN HIS CAPACITY AS CHAIRMAN AND PROMOTER OF M/S MCC FINANCE LTD., BORROWED THE LOAN FOR REVIVAL SCHEME OF M/S MCC FINANCE LTD WITH PERMISSION OF TH E HIGH COURT. IN FACT, SHRI A.L.VADIVELU AGREED TO ASSIGN ALL THE RI GHTS AND BENEFITS OVER THE ASSETS AND PROPERTIES OF M/S MCC FINANCE LTD WH ICH MAY DEVOLVE ON HIM AFTER SETTLEMENT OF THE CREDITORS OF M/S MCC FINANCE LTD. WITH APPROVAL OF THE HIGH COURT. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSE SSEE ADVANCED A SUM OF ` 25 CRORES TO SHRI A.L.VADIVELU. DURING THE YEAR U NDER CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY DECIDED TO ASSI GN THIS ADVANCE TO AN ASSET RECONSTRUCTION COMPANY ON THE GROUND THAT THEY COULD NOT REALIZE ANYTHING FROM SHRI A.L.VADIVELU FOR A PERIO D OF OVER EIGHT YEARS. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY ASSIGNED THE LOAN IN FAVOUR OF M/S GOLDEN STAR ASSETS CONSULTANTS PVT. LTD. FOR A VALU E OF ` 25 LAKHS. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THE LOSS OF ` 24,75,00,000/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER CONSIDERING THE NATURE OF T HE TRANSACTION, FOUND THAT THE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR WAS ABLE TO RECOVER A SUM OF ` 26,77,92,777/- FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. TH E ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALSO FOUND THAT THE DISBURSEMENT OF AMO UNT TO THE SHAREHOLDERS/CREDITORS WAS TO THE EXTENT OF ` 31,66,29,527/- . THIS SHOWS THAT M/S MCC FINANCE LTD. IS A FINANCIALLY SO UND AND VIABLE ITA NO. 119/13 :- 3 -: COMPANY, THEREFORE, THERE IS NO REASON FOR THE ASS ESSEE TO ASSIGN THE LOAN TO AN ASSET RECONSTRUCTION COMPANY. ACCORDING TO THE LD. DR, THE TRANSACTION OF ADVANCING LOAN AND ASSIGNING THE SAM E TO ANOTHER COMPANY IS NOTHING BUT A COLOURABLE DEVICE TO AVOID PAYMENT OF TAX DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. ACCORDING TO THE LD. DR, THE ASSESSEE CAN ARRANGE ITS AFFAIRS SO AS TO REDUCE TH E TAX BURDEN TO A MINIMUM SO LONG AS THE TAX PLANNING WAS LEGITIMATE AND WITHIN THE FRAME WORK OF LAW. HOWEVER, COLOURABLE DEVICE TO A VOID THE TAX CANNOT BE ALLOWED. BUT THE CIT(A) FOUND THAT THE T RANSACTION BETWEEN THE PARTIES WAS NOT FOR EVASION OF TAX. THE LD. DR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT M/S GOLDEN STAR ASSETS CONSULTANTS PVT. LTD. W AS IN FACT CONSTITUTED ON 26.12.2008 AND THE ASSESSEE ASSIGNE D THE LOAN OF ` 25 CRORES IN MARCH 2009 WITHIN THREE MONTHS OF ITS INC ORPORATION. ACCORDING TO THE LD. DR, WITHIN A SHORT SPAN OF THR EE MONTHS, THE NEW COMPANY VIZ. M/S GOLDEN STAR ASSETS CONSULTANTS PVT . LTD. WAS ABLE TO PURCHASE THE DEBT OF ` 25 CRORES FOR A CONSIDERATION OF ` 25 LAKHS. ACCORDING TO THE LD. DR, THE ENTIRE DEVICE IS A COL OURABLE ONE SO AS TO AVOID TAX LIABILITY, HENCE, THE CIT(A) OUGHT NOT TO HAVE ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. 3. ON THE CONTRARY, SHRI S.SRIDHAR, LD. COUNSEL FOR TH E ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT ADMITTEDLY, THE ASSESSEE ADVANCED A SUM OF ` 25 CRORES TO SHRI A.L.VADIVELU, CHAIRMAN AND PROMOTER OF M/S MCC ITA NO. 119/13 :- 4 -: FINANCE LTD FOR REVIVAL OF M/S MCC FINANCE LTD. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT M/S MCC FINANCE LTD IS UNDER THE ADMINISTRATIV E CONTROL OF OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR. IN FACT, M/S MCC FINANCE LTD. IS IN TH E PROCESS OF LIQUIDATION AND THE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR TOOK STEPS TO RECOVER ALL DEBTS AND ASSETS BELONG TO M/S MCC FINANCE LTD. THEREFORE, I T IS NOT CORRECT TO SAY THAT M/S MCC FINANCE LTD. IS A FINANCIALLY SOUN D AND VIABLE COMPANY MERELY BECAUSE THE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR WAS ABLE TO RECOVER ` 26,77,92,777/- AND DISBURSED AN AMOUNT OF ` 31,66,29,527/- TO THE SHAREHOLDERS/CREDITORS. THE VERY FACT THAT THE OFF ICIAL LIQUIDATOR RECOVERED AND DISBURSED THE AMOUNT TO THE SHAREHOLD ERS/CREDITORS SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY IS NOT IN A VERY GO OD FINANCIAL POSITION. 4. EVEN THOUGH THE LOAN WAS ADVANCED EIGHT YEARS AGO, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT REALIZE ANYTHING, THEREFORE, THE RIGHTS OVER THE LOAN WERE ASSIGNED TO M/S GOLDEN STAR ASSETS CONSULTANTS PVT. LTD. IT IS A USUAL PRACTICE, ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, TO AS SIGN THE LOAN TO AN ASSET RECONSTRUCTION COMPANY IN THE REGULAR COURSE OF BUSINESS ACTIVITY. THE REVENUE IS DOUBTING THE TRANSACTION MERELY BECAUSE M/S GOLDEN STAR ASSETS CONSULTANTS PVT. LTD. WAS INCORP ORATED ON 26.12.2008. ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, MERELY B ECAUSE THE COMPANY, M/S GOLDEN STAR ASSETS CONSULTANTS PVT. LT D. WAS INCORPORATED ON 26.12.2008, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE SAID COMPANY ITA NO. 119/13 :- 5 -: COULD NOT PURCHASE THE LIABILITY OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE LOAN OUTSTANDING TO M/S MCC FINANCE LTD. THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSE E ASSIGNED THE LOAN TO M/S GOLDEN STAR ASSETS CONSULTANTS PVT. LTD FOR A CONSIDERATION OF ` 25 LAKHS IS NOT IN DISPUTE. THEREFORE, ACCORDING T O THE LD. COUNSEL, THE CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY FOUND THAT THE LOSS SUSTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE EXTENT OF ` 24,75,00,000/- HAS TO BE ALLOWED AND SET OFF AGAIN ST THE CAPITAL GAINS. 5. REFERRING TO THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL, THE LD. COUNSEL SUBMITTED THATS THE REVENUE HAS NOT RAISED ANY GROUNDS WITH REGARD TO SET OFF OF LOSS AGAINST THE CAPITAL GAINS. THEREFORE, THE REV ENUE HAS NO OBJECTION TO SET OFF THE LOSS SUFFERED AGAINST THE CAPITAL GAIN EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ONLY DISPUTE IS WITH REGARD TO GENUINENESS OF THE LOSS TO THE EXTENT OF ` 24,75,00,000/- CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. SINCE ADMITTEDLY, THERE WAS A LOSS IN RESPECT OF THE LOAN ADVANCED BY THE ASSESSEE, ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES ARE NOT JUSTIFIED IN DOUBTING THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSA CTION. 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EITHER SIDE AND ALSO PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. AD MITTEDLY, THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT FOR ADVA NCING A SUM OF ` 25 CRORES TO SHRI A.L.VADIVELU, THE CHAIRMAN AND P ROMOTER OF M/S MCC FINANCE LTD. IT IS ALSO NOT IN DISPUTE THAT M/ S MCC FINANCE LTD IS ITA NO. 119/13 :- 6 -: IN THE PROCESS OF LIQUIDATION AND THE DAY-TODAY FUN CTIONING OF THE COMPANY, M/S MCC FINANCE LTD. WAS CARRIED ON BY THE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR. MERELY BECAUSE THE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR RECOVERED A SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT TO THE EXTENT OF ` ` 26,77,92,777/-, THAT WILL NOT MAKE THE COMPANY FINANCIALLY SOUND AND VIABLE. SO LONG AS M/S MCC FINANCE LTD. IS UNDER THE ADMINISTRATIVE CONTROL OF THE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPI NION THAT THE COLLECTION AND DISBURSEMENT OF AMOUNT BY THE OFFICIAL LIQUIDAT OR MAY NOT INDICATE THE FINANCIAL POSITION OF M/S MCC FINANCE LTD. THE REFORE, IT IS NOT CORRECT TO SAY THAT M/S MCC FINANCE LTD. IS A FINAN CIALLY SOUND AND VIABLE COMPANY. 7. ANOTHER OBJECTION OF THE LD. DR IS THAT M/S GOLDEN STAR ASSETS CONSULTANTS PVT. LTD. WAS INCORPORATED ON 26 .12.2008 ONLY AND THE ADVANCES GIVEN TO SHRI A.L.VADIVELU, CHAIRMAN A ND PROMOTER TO THE EXTENT OF ` 25 CRORES WAS SOLD/ASSIGNED TO M/S GOLDEN STAR ASS ETS CONSULTANTS PVT. LTD. FOR A CONSIDERATION OF ` 25 LAKHS. THE OBJECT OF M/S GOLDEN STAR ASSETS CONSULTANTS PVT. LTD. WAS TO CARRY ON BUSINESS BY PURCHASING BAD DEBTS IN THE MARKET. AS RIGHTLY S UBMITTED BY THE LD. COUNSEL, IT IS A PRACTICE TO PURCHASE THE OUTSTANDI NG LOAN BY ASSET RECONSTRUCTION COMPANIES. THE VALUE OF THE ASSET W OULD BE DETERMINED WITH REGARD TO THE SCOPE FOR RECOVERY OF THE AMOUNT AND THE SECURITY THAT IS AVAILABLE. IN THE CASE BEFORE US, THE LOAN ITA NO. 119/13 :- 7 -: OUTSTANDING WAS GIVEN TO SHRI A.L.VADIVELU FOR REVI VING THE SCHEME OF M/S MCC FINANCE LTD WHICH IS UNDER LIQUIDATION. FR OM THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IT APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE-COMP ANY ADVANCED LOAN FOR THE PURPOSE OF ELEVATING THE HARDSHIP FACED BY THE FIXED DEPOSIT HOLDERS OF M/S MCC FINANCE LTD. THEREFORE, ASSESS EE ADVANCED LOAN TO A COMPANY WHICH IS UNDER LIQUIDATION FOR THE RE VIVAL SCHEME. HENCE, AN INHERENT RISK IN RECOVERY OF THE AMOUNT IS ALWAYS IN EXISTENCE. IT IS ALSO A FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE CO ULD NOT REALIZE THE AMOUNT FROM SHRI A.L.VADIVELU OVER A PERIOD OF EIGH T YEARS. THE ASSESSEE APPEARS TO HAVE CLAIMED BEFORE THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER THAT THERE WAS AN IMMENSE PRESSURE FROM THE AUDITORS TO SETTLE THE OUTSTANDING AMOUNT OF ` 25 CRORES IMMEDIATELY. IT APPEARS FROM THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT BECAUSE OF THE PRESSURE FROM THE AUDITORS, M/S GOLDEN STAR ASSETS CONSULTANTS PVT. L TD. WAS IDENTIFIED BY THE ASSESSEE TO ASSIGN THE OUTSTANDING LOAN. T HEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE, AFTER EXAMINING THE PROSPECTS OF REALIZIN G THE MONEY FROM SHRI A.L.VADIVELU, DECIDED TO ASSIGN THE SAME TO M/ S GOLDEN STAR ASSETS CONSULTANTS PVT. LTD. FOR ` 25 LAKHS. ONE OF THE OBJECTION OF THE REVENUE BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL IS THAT M/S GOLDEN ST AR ASSETS CONSULTANTS PVT. LTD. WAS ACTUALLY INCORPORATED ON 26.12.2008 AND THE LOAN WAS ASSIGNED TO THE SAID COMPANY WITHIN A PERI OD OF THREE MONTHS FROM ITS INCORPORATION. THIS TRIBUNAL IS O F THE CONSIDERED ITA NO. 119/13 :- 8 -: OPINION THAT WHEN M/S GOLDEN STAR ASSETS CONSULTANT S PVT. LTD. COMMENCED ITS BUSINESS AFTER INCORPORATION AND ASSI GNING THE LOAN IN ITS FAVOUR CANNOT BE DOUBTED SO LONG AS THE ASSESS EE HAS TAKEN THE VALUE AFTER CONSIDERING THE POSSIBILITY OF RECOVERI NG THE SAME. FROM THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IT APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE DETERMINED THE PRICE FOR ASSIGNING THE LOAN AFTER C ONSIDERING THE TIME TAKEN TO RECOVER THE MONEY, THE FINANCIAL POSITION OF M/S MCC FINANCE LTD. AND SHRI A.L.VADIVELU AND THE ENORMOUS AMOUNT OF EFFORTS WHICH NEEDS TO BE TAKEN IS DETERMINED BY THE COST OF THE LOAN AT ` 25 LAKHS. WHEN THE ASSESSEE ESTIMATED THE COST OF THE LOAN A T ` 25 LAKHS AND ASSIGNED THE SAME TO M/S GOLDEN STAR ASSETS CONSULT ANTS PVT. LTD, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER CANNOT STEP INTO THE SHOES OF THE ASSESSEE AND SAY THAT THE CONSIDERATION FOR ASSIGNING THE LOAN IS A COLOURABL E DEVICE. THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION THE EXISTING FINANCIAL POS ITION OF SHRI A.L.VADIVELU AND M/S MCC FINANCE LTD AND THE LOAN W AS ADVANCED WITHOUT ANY SECURITY, THE AMOUNT REALIZED BY THE ASSESSEE OF ` 25 LAKHS CANNOT BE CONSTRUED TO BE A COLOURABLE DEVICE TO AVOID TAX LIABILITY. THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPI NION THAT THE LOSS SUFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE EXTENT OF ` 24,75,00,000/- IS IN THE COURSE OF ITS LOAN ADVANCE TO SHRI A.L.VADIVELU, TH EREFORE, THE CIT(A) ITA NO. 119/13 :- 9 -: HAS RIGHTLY ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE TO S ET OFF. THIS TRIBUNAL DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITY. ACCORDINGLY, THE SAME IS CONFIRMED. 8. THE NEXT GROUND OF APPEAL IS WITH REGARD TO DISALLO WANCE OF INTEREST TO THE EXTENT OF ` 68.21 LAKHS. 9. DR.MILIND MADHUKAR BHUSARI, LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT T HE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED A SUM OF ` 68.21 LAKHS BEING TH OF THE BUSINESS EXPENDITURE. ACCORDING TO THE LD. DR, THE ASSESSEE HAS NO BUSINESS INCOME DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION . HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED PAYMENT OF INTEREST AS DEDUCTION. WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS NO BUSINESS INCOME, ACCORDING TO THE L D. DR, THE PAYMENT OF INTEREST TO THE EXTENT OF ` 68,21,593/- CANNOT BE ALLOWED AS BUSINESS EXPENDITURE. 10. ON THE CONTRARY, SHRI S. SRIDHAR, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSI DERATION, ADMITTEDLY, THERE WAS NO INCOME FROM BUSINESS. THE ASSESSEE DEMONSTRATED BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW THAT THER E WAS A TEMPORARY LULL IN THE BUSINESS ACTIVITY. IT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE REVENUE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLOSED DOWN THE BUSINESS. WHEN THE A SSESSEE HAS NOT CLOSED DOWN THE BUSINESS ACTIVITY AND BECAUSE OF A TEMPORARY LULL IN THE BUSINESS, THE ASSESSEE HAS TO NECESSARILY MAI NTAIN THE ITA NO. 119/13 :- 10 -: INFRASTRUCTURE FACILITIES, THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE INCLUDING THE PAYMENT OF INTEREST TO THE EXTENT OF ` 68,21,593/- HAS TO BE ALLOWED AS BUSINESS EXPENDITURE. THE LD. COUNSE L FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE GENUINENESS OF THE EXPENDITURE AND PAYMENT OF INTEREST IS NOT IN DISPUTE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED THE C LAIM OF THE ASSESSEE ONLY ON THE GROUND THAT THERE WAS NO INCOME FROM BU SINESS ACTIVITY AND ONLY SOURCE OF INCOME WAS INTEREST. ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, EARNING OF INCOME IS IMMATERIAL SO LONG AS THE ASS ESSEE IS CONTINUING ITS BUSINESS. THEREFORE, THE CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY AL LOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. 11. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EITHER SIDE AND ALSO PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. ADM ITTEDLY, THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF STEVEDORING. THE ASSESSEE HAS TO NECESSARILY MAINTAIN THE BUSINESS ESTABLISHMENT WHETHER THE ASSESSEE EARNED INCOME OR NOT FROM THE BUSINESS ACT IVITY. FOR MAINTAINING AN ESTABLISHMENT AND OTHER INFRASTRUCTU RE FACILITIES, THE ASSESSEE HAS TO NECESSARILY INCUR A MINIMUM EXPENDI TURE. EVEN OTHERWISE, TO KEEP THE INFRASTRUCTURE FACILITIES IN TACT, THE ASSESSEE HAS TO NECESSARILY INCUR CERTAIN EXPENDITURE. THEREFORE , THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE EXPENDITURE CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE HAS TO BE ALLOWED. MOREOVER, AS RIGHTLY SUBMITTED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT CLOSED DOWN ITS BUSINESS ITA NO. 119/13 :- 11 -: ACTIVITY. THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THERE WA S A TEMPORARY LULL IN THE BUSINESS IS NOT DISPUTED BY THE REVENUE. IN TH OSE CIRCUMSTANCES, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT DIS ALLOWANCE OF EXPENDITURE TO THE EXTENT OF ` 68,21,593/- IS NOT JUSTIFIED. THEREFORE, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THIS TRIBUNAL DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITY. ACCORDINGLY, THE SAME IS CONFIRMED. 12. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE STANDS DIS MISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 5 TH AUGUST, 2016, AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( . !' ) (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) # / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( . . . ' ) (N.R.S. GANESAN) / JUDICIAL MEMBER #$ / CHENNAI %& / DATED: 5 TH AUGUST, 2016 RD &' ()*) / COPY TO: 1 . / APPELLANT 4. + / CIT 2. / RESPONDENT 5. ),- . / DR 3. +/' / CIT(A) 6. -01 / GF