TCS Textiles P Ltd., Tiruppur V. DCIT, Tiruppur

ITA 1192/CHNY/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7583 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-03-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 11-02-2016
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 19-05-2015
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ARUN C BHATTCIT
• Assessee Lawyers: S SWAMINATHAN
• Keywords: Capital asset; Business income; Depreciation; Cost of acquisition; Speculation loss; Capital receipt; Unabsorbed depreciation

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH, CHENNAI , ! ' #! ' $ . %& ' () BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY , JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ I.T.A.NO.1192 /MDS./2015 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR :2010-11) M/S.TCS TEX T ILES P. LTD ., NOW KNOWN AS GAJAANANDA JEWELLERY MAART P. LTD., 68,COLLEGE ROAD, TIRUPUR 641 602. VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COMPANY CIRCLE, TIRUPUR. PAN AABCT 7921 K ( *+ / APPELLANT ) ( ,-*+ / RESPONDENT ) ./ I.T.A.NO. 1425 /MDS./2015 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR :2010-11) DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COMPANY CIRCLE, TIRUPUR. VS. M/S.TCS TEX T ILES P. LTD ., NOW KNOWN AS GAJAANANDA JEWELLERY MAART P. LTD., 68,COLLEGE ROAD, TIRUPUR 641 602. PAN AABCT 7921 K ( *+ / APPELLANT ) ( ,-*+ / RESPONDENT ) ITA NOS.1192,1425/MDS/2015 2 ASSESSEE BY : MR.S.SWAMINATHAN, C.A / RESPONDENT BY : MR.ARUN C.BHATT,CIT, D.R / DATE OF HEARING : 11.02.2016 ! /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 24.03.2016 . / O R D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THIS CROSS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE & THE REVENUE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIO NER OF INCOME TAX(A)-3, COIMBATORE DATED 24.02.2015 PERTAINING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. 2. THE FIRST ISSUE IN THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS WI TH REGARD TO EARNINGS ON ACCOUNT OF CARBON CREDIT SALE IS DIRECT LY ATTRIBUTABLE AND RELATING TO AND IS DERIVED FROM THE ELECTRICITY GEN ERATING UNDERTAKING AND ACCORDINGLY, IS TO BE INCLUDED FOR GRANT OF DED UCTION U/S.80-IA OF THE ACT. 3. 1 AFTER HEARING BOTH THE SIDES, WE ARE OF THE OP INION THAT SIMILAR ISSUE WAS CONSIDERED BY THE HYDERABAD BENCH IN THE CASE OF M/S.MY ITA NOS.1192,1425/MDS/2015 3 HOME POWER LTD VS. DCIT REPORTED IN 63 SOT 227 (HYD .) WHEREIN HELD THAT:- WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MAT ERIAL ON RECORD. CARBON CREDIT IS IN THE NATURE OF 'AN ENTITLEMENT' RECEIVED TO IMPROVE WORLD ATMOSPHERE AND ENVIRONMENT REDUCING CARBON, H EAT AND GAS EMISSIONS. THE ENTITLEMENT EARNED FOR CARBON CREDIT S CAN, AT BEST, BE REGARDED AS A CAPITAL RECEIPT AND CANNOT BE TAXED A S A REVENUE RECEIPT. IT IS NOT GENERATED OR CREATED DUE TO CARRYING ON B USINESS BUT IT IS ACCRUED DUE TO 'WORLD CONCERN'. IT HAS BEEN MADE AV AILABLE ASSUMING CHARACTER OF TRANSFERABLE RIGHT OR ENTITLEMENT ONLY DUE TO WORLD CONCERN. THE SOURCE OF CARBON CREDIT IS WORLD CONCERN AND EN VIRONMENT. DUE TO THAT THE ASSESSEE GETS A PRIVILEGE IN THE NATURE OF TRANSFER OF CARBON CREDITS. THUS, THE AMOUNT RECEIVED FOR CARBON CREDI TS HAS NO ELEMENT OF PROFIT OR GAIN AND IT CANNOT BE SUBJECTED TO TAX IN ANY MANNER UNDER ANY HEAD OF INCOME. IT IS NOT LIABLE FOR TAX FOR THE AS SESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION IN TERMS OF SECTIONS 2(24), 28, 45 AN D 56 OF THE INCOME- TAX ACT, 1961. CARBON CREDITS ARE MADE AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF SAVING OF ENERGY CONSUMPTION AND NOT BEC AUSE OF ITS BUSINESS. FURTHER, IN OUR OPINION, CARBON CREDITS C ANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS A BI-PRODUCT. IT IS A CREDIT GIVEN TO THE ASSESS EE UNDER THE KYOTO PROTOCOL AND BECAUSE OF INTERNATIONAL UNDERSTANDING . THUS, THE ASSESSEES WHO HAVE SURPLUS CARBON CREDITS CAN SELL THEM TO OTHER ITA NOS.1192,1425/MDS/2015 4 ASSESSEES TO HAVE CAPPED EMISSION COMMITMENT UNDER THE KYOTO PROTOCOL. TRANSFERABLE CARBON CREDIT IS NOT A RESUL T OR INCIDENCE OF ONE'S BUSINESS AND IT IS A CREDIT FOR REDUCING EMISSIONS. THE PERSONS HAVING CARBON CREDITS GET BENEFIT BY SELLING THE SAME TO A PERSON WHO NEEDS CARBON CREDITS TO OVERCOME ONE'S NEGATIVE POINT CAR BON CREDIT. THE AMOUNT RECEIVED IS NOT RECEIVED FOR PRODUCING AND/O R SELLING ANY PRODUCT, BI-PRODUCT OR FOR RENDERING ANY SERVICE FO R CARRYING ON THE BUSINESS. IN OUR OPINION, CARBON CREDIT IS ENTITLEM ENT OR ACCRETION OF CAPITAL AND HENCE INCOME EARNED ON SALE OF THESE CR EDITS IS CAPITAL RECEIPT. FOR THIS PROPOSITION, WE PLACE RELIANCE ON THE JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. MAHESHWARI DEVI JUTE MILLS LTD. [1965] 57 ITR 36 WHEREIN HELD THAT TRANSFER OF SURPLUS LOOM HOURS T O OTHER MILL OUT OF THOSE ALLOTTED TO THE ASSESSEE UN DER AN AGREEMENT FOR CONTROL OF PRODUCTION WAS CAPITAL RECEIPT AND NOT I NCOME. BEING SO, THE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE IS SIMILAR T O CONSIDERATION RECEIVED BY TRANSFERRING OF LOOM HOURS. THE SUPREME COURT CONSIDERED THIS FACT AND OBSERVED THAT TAXABILITY OF PAYMENT R ECEIVED FOR SALE OF LOOM HOURS BY THE ASSESSEE IS ON ACCOUNT OF EXPLOIT ATION OF CAPITAL ASSET AND IT IS CAPITAL RECEIPT AND NOT AN INCOME. SIMILARLY, IN THE PRESENT CASE THE ASSESSEE TRANSFERRED THE CARBON CR EDITS LIKE LOOM HOURS TO SOME OTHER CONCERNS FOR CERTAIN CONSIDERAT ION. THEREFORE, THE RECEIPT OF SUCH CONSIDERATION CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS BUSINESS INCOME ITA NOS.1192,1425/MDS/2015 5 AND IT IS A CAPITAL RECEIPT. ACCORDINGLY, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED ON ACCOUNT OF CARBON CREDITS CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS INCOME AS TAXABLE IN THE ASSESSMENT Y EAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. CARBON CREDIT IS NOT AN OFFSHOOT OF BUSINESS BUT AN OFFSHOOT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS. NO ASSET IS GEN ERATED IN THE COURSE OF BUSINESS BUT IT IS GENERATED DUE TO ENVIRONMENTA L CONCERNS. CREDIT FOR REDUCING CARBON EMISSION OR GREENHOUSE EFFECT C AN BE TRANSFERRED TO ANOTHER PARTY IN NEED OF REDUCTION OF CARBON EMISSI ON. IT DOES NOT INCREASE PROFIT IN ANY MANNER AND DOES NOT NEED ANY EXPENSES. IT IS A NATURE OF ENTITLEMENT TO REDUCE CARBON EMISSION, HO WEVER, THERE IS NO COST OF ACQUISITION OR COST OF PRODUCTION TO GET TH IS ENTITLEMENT. CARBON CREDIT IS NOT IN THE NATURE OF PROFIT OR IN THE NAT URE OF INCOME. THE ABOVE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL WAS CONFIRMED BY ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. M/S.MY HO ME POWER LTD., REPORTED IN [2014] 365 ITR 82(AP) WHEREIN HELD THAT INCOME RECEIVED FROM SALE OF CARBON CREDITS IS CONSIDERED AS CAPITA L RECEIPT AND NOT BUSINESS RECEIPT AND NOT LIABLE FOR TAX UNDER THE I NCOME-TAX ACT. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE JUDGEMENT OF ABOVE ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT, WE ARE INCLINED TO DECIDE THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF AS SESSEE ACCORDINGLY. ITA NOS.1192,1425/MDS/2015 6 4.1 THE ASSESSEE RAISED FURTHER GROUND I.E GROUND NO.3 IN ITS APPEAL, IS AS FOLLOWS:- 3. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE CONTENTION, THE CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THAT THE ASSESSING AUTHOR ITY IS DUTY BOUND TO EXAMINE WHETHER A PARTICULAR ITEM IS ASSES SABLE TO TAX OR NOT AND IRRESPECTIVE OF THE FACT THAT THE SA ME HAS BEEN OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE, IF AN ITEM OF RECEIPT IS C APITAL IN NATURE AND NOT ASSESSABLE TO TAX, THE AO OUGHT TO H AVE EXCLUDED THE SAME FROM THE TAX NET. THIS GROUND DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY ADJUDICATION AS WE HAVE ALLOWED THE RELATED GROUND IN GROUND NO.2 IN EARLIER PARA. ACCORDINGLY, THIS GROUND IS DISMISSED AS INFRUCTUOUS. 5. THE SECOND ISSUE IN THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS W ITH REGARD TO THE LOSSES SUFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE ON TRANSACTION IN THE NATURE OF DERIVATIVE TRANSACTIONS ARE PRIMARILY FOR THE PURPO SE OF HEDGING THE FOREIGN CURRENCY FLUCTUATIONS AND AS THE ASSESSEE C OMPANY IS ITA NOS.1192,1425/MDS/2015 7 ENGAGED IN EXPORT ACTIVITIES, SUCH LOSSES ARE BUSIN ESS LOSSES AND ARE NOT SPECULATIVE LOSSES. 6. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES, WE ARE OF THE O PINION THAT THIS SIMILAR ISSUE CAME FOR CONSIDERATION BEFORE THIS TR IBUNAL RECENTLY IN THE CASE OF M/S.AMBATTUR CLOTHING LTD., IN ITA NO.1 436 & 1643/MDS./2014 & 910/MDS./2015 VIDE ORDER DATED 28. 12.2015 WHEREIN THE TRIBUNAL HELD AS FOLLOWS:- WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES AND PERUSED THE MATER IAL ON RECORD. IN THIS CASE, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) GIVE N AN DIRECTION TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO VERIFY ANY FORWARD CONTRACTS H AVE BEEN CANCELLED PREMATURELY AND VERIFY THE REASONS FOR PREMATURE CA NCELLATION IN THE LIGHT OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF LONDON STAR DIAMOND COMPANY (I) P. LTD VS. DCIT IN ITA NO.6169/M/2012, DATED 11 .10.2013 WHEREIN IT WAS OBSERVED THAT LOSS ARISING FROM CANCELLATION OF PREMATURE IS ALLOWED AS BUSINESS LOSS. BEING SO, THE ASSESSEE CANNOT HAV E ANY GRIEVANCE ON THIS ISSUE AS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS GIVEN DIRECTION TO FOLLOW THE TRIBUNAL ORDER. FURTHER, WE MAKE IT C LEAR THAT LOSS ARISING OUT OF DERIVATIVE TRANSACTION IN EXCESS OF EXPORT TURNO VER HAS TO BE CONSIDERED AS SPECULATIVE LOSS BECAUSE EXCESS DERIVATIVE TRANS ACTION HAS NO PROXIMITY WITH EXPORT TURNOVER. WITH THESE OBSERVAT IONS, WE REJECT THE GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL, WE ARE INCLINED TO REMIT THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE TRIBUNAL TO EXAMINE THE DE RIVATIVE TRANSACTION EQUIVALENT TO THE TOTAL EXPORT TURNOVER FOR THE ASS ESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, AND PREMATURE CANCELLATION OF THE TR ANSACTION UNDERTAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE TO BE EXCLUDED AND DECID E ACCORDINGLY IN ITA NOS.1192,1425/MDS/2015 8 THE LIGHT OF ABOVE ORDERS OF TRIBUNAL. THIS GROUND IS REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR FRESH CONSIDERATION. 7. NOW, WE TAKE UP THE REVENUES APPEAL. THE REVEN UE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- 1. THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) IS AGAINST FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 2. THE LD.CIT(A) ERRED IN REDUCING ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF 80IA AMOUNTING TO RS.10,93,73,24 4/-. 3. THE LD.CIT(A) HAS FAILED TO CONSIDER THE FACT T HA THE AO WAS CORRECT IN NOTIONALLY BRINGING IN AND SETTING OFF T HE BROUGHT FORWARD LOSS FOR DETERMINING THE PROFITS QUALIFYING FOR DEDUCTION U/S.80-IA FROM THE INITIAL ASSESSMENT YEAR BEING TH E YEAR RELEVANT TO THE F.Y IN WHICH OPERATIONS RELATING TO THE WINDMILL INFRASTRUCTURE COMMENCED. 4. THE LD.CIT(A) WAS ERRED IN LAW IN HOLDING THAT THE INITIAL ASSESSMENT YEAR IN SEC.80IA(5) WOULD MEAN ONLY THE YEAR OF CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S.80-IA AND NOT THE YEAR OF COMMENCEMENT OF ELIGIBLE BUSINESS. ITA NOS.1192,1425/MDS/2015 9 8. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE SIDES, WE ARE OF THE OPI NION THAT SIMILAR ISSUE IN DISPUTE WAS DECIDED BY THE MADRAS HIGH COU RT IN THE CASE OF M/S.SRI VELAYUTHASWAMY SPINNING MILLS PRIVATE LIMIT ED VS. CIT REPORTED IN 231 CTR 368(MAD.) WHEREIN HELD THAT: FROM READING OF SUB-S (1) OF S. 80IA, IT IS CLEAR THAT IT PROVIDES THAT WHERE THE GROSS TOTAL INCOME OF AN ASSESSEE INCLUDES ANY PROFITS AND GAINS DERIVED BY AN UNDERTAKING OR AN ENTERPRISE FROM ANY BUSINESS REFERRED TO IN SUB-S (4) I.E. REFERRED TO AS THE ELIGIBLE BUSIN ESS, THERE SHALL, IN ACCORDANCE WITH AND SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF TH E SECTIONS, BE ALLOWED, IN COMPUTING THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE, A DE DUCTION OF AN AMOUNT EQUAL TO 100 PER CENT OF THE PROFITS AND GAINS DERI VED FROM SUCH BUSINESS FOR TEN CONSECUTIVE ASSESSMENT YEARS. DEDUCTION IS GIVEN TO ELIGIBLE BUSINESS AND THE SAME IS DEFINED IN SUB-S. (4). SUB -S(2) PROVIDES OPTION TO THE ASSESSEE TO CHOOSE 10 CONSECUTIVE ASSESSMENT YEARS OUT OF 15 YEARS. OPTION HAS TO BE EXERCISED. IF IT IS NOT EXE RCISED, THE ASSESSEE WILL NOT BE GETTING THE BENEFIT. FIFTEEN YEARS IS OUTER LIMIT AND THE SAME IS BEGINNING FROM THE YEARS IN WHICH THE UNDERTAKING O R THE ENTERPRISE DEVELOPS AND BEGINS TO OPERATE ANY INFRASTRUCTURE A CTIVITY ETC SUB-S. (5) DEALS WITH QUANTUM OF DEDUCTION FOR AN ELIGIBLE BUS INESS. THE WORDS INITIAL ASSESSMENT YEAR ARE USED IN SUB-S (5) A ND THE SAME IS NOT DEFINED UNDER THE PROVISIONS. IT IS TO BE NOTED THA T INITIAL ASSESSMENT YEAR EMPLOYED IN SUB-S (5) IS DIFFERENT FROM THE WORDS BEGINNING FROM THE YEAR REFERRED TO IN SUB-S(2). IMPORTANT FACTORS A RE TO BE NOTED IN SUB-S(5) AND THEY ARE AS UNDER: (1)IT STARTS WITH NON OBSTAN TE CLAUSE WHICH MEANS IT OVERRIDES ALL THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT AND OTHE R PROVISIONS ARE TO BE IGNORED; (2) IT IS FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINING T HE QUANTUM OF DEDUCTION; ITA NOS.1192,1425/MDS/2015 10 (3) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR IMMEDIATELY SUCCEEDING THE INITIAL ASSESSMENT YEAR ; (4) IT IS A DEEMING PROVISION; (5 ) FICTION CREATED THAT THE ELIGIBLE BUSINESS IS THE ONLY SOURCE OF INCOME; AND (6) DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO THE INITIAL ASSESSMENT YEAR AND EV ERY SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEAR. FROM READING OF THE ABOVE, IT IS C LEAR THAT THE ELIGIBLE BUSINESS WERE THE ONLY SOURCE OF INCOME, DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO INITIAL ASSESSMENT YEAR AND EVERY SUBSE QUENT ASSESSMENT YEARS. WHEN THE ASSESSEE EXERCISES THE OPTION, THE ONLY LOSSES OF THE YEARS BEGINNING FROM INITIAL ASSESSMENT YEAR ALONE ARE TO BE BROUGHT FORWARD AND NOT LOSSES OF EARLIER YEARS WHICH WERE ALREADY SET OFF AGAINST THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. LOOKING FORWARD TO A PE RIOD OF TEN YEARS FROM THE INITIAL ASSESSMENT CONTEMPLATED. IT DOES N OT ALL THE REVENUE TO LOOK BACKWARD AND FIND OUT IF THERE IS ANY LOSS OF EARLIER YEARS AND BRING FORWARD NATIONALLY EVEN THOUGH THE SAME WERE SET OF F AGAINST OTHER INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE SET OFF AGAINST THE CURRENT INCOME OF THE ELIGIBLE BUSINESS. ONCE THE SET OFF IS TAKEN PLACE IN EARLIER YEAR AGAINST THE OTHER INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE, THE REVENUE CANNO T REWORK THE SET OFF AMOUNT AND BRING IT NOTIONALLY. FICTION CREATED IN SUB-S(5) DOES NOT CONTEMPLATES TO BRING SET OFF AMOUNT NOTIONALLY. FI CTION IS CREATED ONLY FOR THE LIMITED PURPOSE AND THE SAME CANNOT BE EXTENDED BEYOND THE PURPOSE FOR WHICH IT IS CREATED. THERE IS NO DISPUT E THAT LOSSES INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE WERE ALREADY SET OFF AND ADJUSTED A GAINST THE PROFITS OF THE EARLIER YEARS. DURING THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT Y EAR, THE ASSESSEE EXERCISED THE OPTION UNDER S.80-IA(2). IN TAX CASE NO.918 OF 2008 THE ASSESSMENT YEAR WAS 2004-05. DURING THE RELEVANT PE RIOD, THERE WERE NO UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION OR LOSS OF THE ELIGIBLE UND ERTAKINGS AND THE SAME WERE ALREADY ABSORBED IN THE EARLIER YEARS. TH ERE IS A POSITIVE PROFIT DURING THE RELEVANT YEAR. THEREFORE, LOSS IN THE YE AR EARLIER TO INITIAL ASSESSMENT YEAR ALREADY ABSORBED AGAINST THE PROFIT OF OTHER BUSINESS ITA NOS.1192,1425/MDS/2015 11 CANNOT BE NOTIONALLY BROUGHT FORWARD AND SET OFF AG AINST THE PROFIT OF THE ELIGIBLE BUSINESS AS NO SUCH MANDATE IS PROVIDED IN S. 80- IA(5) CIT VS. TTK PHARMA LTD (TAX CASE (APPEAL ) NO.298 OF 2004, DT. 23RD DEC., 2009) FOLLOWED; CIT VS. MEWAR OIL & GENERAL MILLS L TD (2004) 186 CTR (RAJ) 141; (2004) 271 ITR 311 (RAJ) CONCURRED WITH; MOHAN BREWERIES & DISTILLERIES LTD VS. ASST. CIT (2008) 114 TTJ (CHEN NAI) 532: (2008) 3 DTR (CHENNAI) (TRIB) 477 AFFIRMED. BEING SO, IN OUR OPINION, THE ISSUE IS SQUARELY COV ERED BY THE ABOVE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT DECISION. HENCE, THIS GRO UND RAISED BY THE DEPARTMENT IS DISMISSED. 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES AND THE APPEAL OF REVENUE IS D ISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ONTHURSDAY , THE 24 TH OF MARCH,2016 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ' # $ . % & ' ( DUVVURU RL REDDY ) ) ( ( ( ) * + ) ) ' CHANDRA POOJARI ', JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER CHENNAI, DATED THE 24 TH MARCH,2016 . K S SUNDARAM. COPY TO: , APPELLANT/RESPONDENT /CIT(A) /CIT /DR /GF ,