G.Mohan, Tiruppur V. ACIT, Coimbatore

ITA 1265/CHNY/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4679 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-11-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 29-10-2013
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 08-06-2012
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P B SEKARAN
• Assessee Lawyers: T BANUSEKAR
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Business income; Depreciation; Deemed to accrue or arise in india
• Section: 153A; 68; 69; 132

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, CHENNAI BEFORE SHRI A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER S. NO. ITA NO. ASSESS - MENT YEAR APPELLANT RESPONDENT 1-3 1265 TO 1267/MDS/2012 2006-07 TO 2008-09 MR. G.MOHAN, 35, THIRUMALAI NAGAR SOUTH 1 ST STREET, P.N.ROAD, TIRUPUR-641 602 PAN:AJCPM 3554G THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-I, COIMBATORE. 4-6 515 TO 517/MDS/2013 2002-03 TO 2004-05 MR. G.MOHAN, TIRUPUR. PAN:AJCPM3554G THE ACIT., CEN.CIR-I COIMBATORE. 7 1321/MDS/2012 2008-09 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-I, COIMBATORE. MR. G.MOHAN, 35, THIRUMALAI NAGAR SOUTH 1 ST STREET, P.N.ROAD, TIRUPUR-641 602 PAN:AJCPM 3554G ASSESSEE BY : MR. T.BANUSEKAR, CA REVENUE BY : MR. P.B.SEKARAN, CIT DATE OF HEARING : 29 TH OCTOBER, 2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 19 TH NOVEMBER, 2013 O R D E R PER BENCH : THESE APPEALS ARE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2002-03 TO 2008-09 AND CROSS APPEA L IS FILED BY THE REVENUE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008- 09 AGAINST VARIOUS ORDERS OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCO ME TAX ITA NOS.1265 TO 1267 AND 1321 /MDS//2012 & 515 TO 517/MDS/2013 2 (APPEALS)-II, COIMBATORE ARISING OUT OF THE ASSESSM ENT ORDERS PASSED UNDER SECTION 153A OF THE ACT. 2. THE FIRST COMMON ISSUE IN ALL THESE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (AP PEALS) ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE DISALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATIO N IN COMPUTING THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 3. BRIEF FACTS ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A REAL ESTA TE BROKER DOING BUSINESS IN AND AROUND TIRUPUR. THERE WAS A SEARCH UNDER SECTION 132 OF THE ACT IN THE RESIDENTIAL PRE MISES OF THE ASSESSEE ON 23.8.2007. THE ASSESSMENTS FOR THE ASSE SSMENT YEARS 2002-03 TO 2008-09 WERE COMPLETED UNDER SECTI ON 153A OF THE ACT ON 31.12.2009. WHILE COMPLETING TH E ASSESSMENTS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER QUANTIFIED THE I NCOME OF THE ASSESSEE BY NET WEALTH ACCRETION METHOD IN ALL THESE YEARS. DUE TO INCREASE IN WEALTH YEAR-WISE, THIS ME THOD WAS ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS THE ASSESSEE IS NOT MAINTAINING ANY BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND NO CASH FLOW W AS PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE CONTENTION OF THE ASS ESSEE ITA NOS.1265 TO 1267 AND 1321 /MDS//2012 & 515 TO 517/MDS/2013 3 THAT DEPRECIATION ON ASSETS WHICH WERE USED IN THE REAL ESTATE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE HAVE TO BE CONSIDER ED FOR DEPRECIATION WAS NOT ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFI CER AND THUS DECLINED TO GRANT DEPRECIATION ON SUCH ASSETS WHILE COMPUTING THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. ON APPEAL, TH E COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AFFIRMED THE O RDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER REJECTING THE CLAIM FOR DEPRE CIATION ON ASSETS USED FOR BUSINESS. 4. THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HIMSELF HAS BIFU RCATED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE INTO RENTAL RECEIPTS, BUSINE SS INCOME AND AGRICULTURAL INCOME. THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTAT IVE SUBMITS THAT THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT IN THE BUSINESS AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS BIFURCATED T HE INCOME IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR ALL THESE ASSESSMENT YE ARS DETERMINING THE BUSINESS INCOME. THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITS THAT WHEN THE ASSESSING OFFI CER IS DETERMINING THE BUSINESS INCOME AND DID NOT DISPUTE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT IN THE BUSINESS, THERE IS NO JUSTIF ICATION IN NOT ITA NOS.1265 TO 1267 AND 1321 /MDS//2012 & 515 TO 517/MDS/2013 4 ALLOWING DEPRECIATION ON THE ASSETS USED FOR THE PU RPOSE OF BUSINESS. THEREFORE, HE PLEADS THAT A DIRECTION MA Y BE GIVEN TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ALLOW DEPRECIATION CLAI MED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE ASSETS USED IN THE BUSINESS. 5. THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUPPORTED THE OR DERS OF LOWER AUTHORITIES IN REJECTING THE CLAIM FOR DEP RECIATION. 6. HEARD BOTH SIDES. PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWE R AUTHORITIES. THE CONTENTION OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIE S THAT INCOME WAS ASSESSED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE IS DEEMED INCOME UNDER SECTION 69 OF THE ACT AND SINCE THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FILE CASH FLOW NET WEALTH WAS DETE RMINED ON ACCRETION METHOD, THEREFORE, THE CLAIM OF DEPRECIAT ION CANNOT BE ALLOWED APPEARS TO BE NOT CORRECT. IN THE ASSES SMENT ORDER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HIMSELF HAS BIFURCATED THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FOR ALL THESE ASSESSMENT YEARS AS U NDER:- YE AR RENT RECE I PTS BUS I NESS INCOME AGRICULTURAL INCOME 200 2- 03 408000 1353078 300000 ITA NOS.1265 TO 1267 AND 1321 /MDS//2012 & 515 TO 517/MDS/2013 5 2003-04 622000 2029617 300000 2004 - 05 1123600 3382694 300000 2005 - 06 15 17 200 6765390 300000 2006-0 7 2146000 6765390 300000 2007-0 8 2146000 23678865 300000 2008-09 2146000 23678865 300000 10108800 67653899 2100000 7. AS COULD BE SEEN FROM THE ABOVE, THE ASSESSING O FFICER HAS ASSESSED PART OF INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE UNDER T HE HEAD INCOME FROM BUSINESS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAVIN G ASSESSED THE INCOME UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM BUS INESS IS NOT CORRECT IN NOT ALLOWING THE CLAIM FOR DEPREC IATION ON THE ASSETS USED FOR THE BUSINESS PURPOSES OF THE ASSESS EE, WHEN THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS INTO THE B USINESS. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ALLOW DEPRECIATION CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE ASSETS IN COMPUTING THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FOR ALL THESE ASSESSMENT YEARS, SUBJECT TO VERIFICATION THAT THE ASSESSEE USED THESE ASSETS IN THE BUSINESS. THE GROUNDS RAIS ED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THIS ISSUE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 8. THE NEXT ISSUE IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL OF THE A SSESSEE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 IS THAT THE COMMISS IONER OF ITA NOS.1265 TO 1267 AND 1321 /MDS//2012 & 515 TO 517/MDS/2013 6 INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN NOT DELETING THE ADDI TION OF ` 10,00,000/- MADE UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT M ADE ADDITION OF ` 10,00,000/- UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT STATING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PROVED THE CREDITS AS GEN UINE, CREDITORS HAVE NO MEANS TO LEND SUCH HUGE AMOUNTS T O THE ASSESSEE AND THEREFORE BROUGHT TO TAX AS UNEXPLAIN ED CASH CREDITS. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) CONFIRMED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICE R. 9. THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED ADVANCE OF ` 5,00,000/- EACH FROM MR. M.MURUGAVEL AND MR. M.SHANMUGAM TO PURCHASE LAND THROUGH THE ASSESSEE. THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITS THAT THE TRANSAC TION IS GENUINE, THE CREDITORS HAVE LENT THE MONEY TO THE A SSESSEE AND THEREFORE, THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION IN TREATIN G THE SAID CREDITS AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDITS OF THE ASSESSEE . ITA NOS.1265 TO 1267 AND 1321 /MDS//2012 & 515 TO 517/MDS/2013 7 10. THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF LOWER AUTHORITIES IN HOLDING THAT THE TRANSACTIO N IS NOT GENUINE AND THE CREDITS HAVE NOT BEEN PROVED AND TH E ADDITION MADE UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT IS PROPER . 11. HEARD BOTH SIDES. PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE LOW ER AUTHORITIES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE COMPLETIN G THE ASSESSMENT MADE ADDITION OF ` 10,00,000/- UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF TWO CREDITORS I.E. MR. M.M URUGAVEL, TIRUPUR AND MR. M.SHANMUGAM, TIRUPUR OBSERVING AS U NDER:- 5.3 IN RESPECT OF THE OTHER CREDITS, THE ASSESSEE PRODUCED THE FOLLOWING PERSONS FOR EXAMINATION:- 1. SRI M.MURUGAVEL, TIRUPUR ` 5,00,000/- 2. SRI M.SHANMUGAM, TIRUPUR ` 5,00,000/- 5.4 A COPY OF THE STATEMENT RECORDED AT THE TIME OF EXAMINATION OF THESE PERSONS WAS GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE INVITING HIS OBJECTIONS TO THE PROPOSAL TO DISALLOW THE CREDIT FOR THE REASONS THAT A) THERE IS NO DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE TO BACK THE TRANSACTIONS AND B) THE ALLEGED CREDITORS DO NOT HAVE FINANCIAL CAPACITY TO LEND IN THE GIVEN CIRCUMSTANCES. 5.5 THE ASSESSEE FILED HIS OBJECTIONS ON 28.12.09. ON PERUSAL OF THE SAME AND ALSO THE ITA NOS.1265 TO 1267 AND 1321 /MDS//2012 & 515 TO 517/MDS/2013 8 DEPOSITION GIVEN BY THE CREDITORS, IT IS SEEN THAT M.MURUGAVEL AND M.SHANMUGAM HAVE CLAIMED THAT THE PURPOSE OF LENDING MONEY WAS TO PURCHASE LAND THROUGH THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, IT IS SEEN THAT NO SUCH DEAL WAS DONE. HAD IT BEEN A REAL TRANSACTION SUCH A POSSIBILITY WOULD NOT HAVE OCCURRED. TAKING STOCK OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE CREDITORS APPEARING AGAINST THEM ARE NOT CONSIDERED GENUINE AND IS BROUGHT TO TAX AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT U/S.68. 12. ON APPEAL, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPE ALS) CONFIRMED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICE R OBSERVING AS UNDER:- 6.3 IN RESPECT OF MR. MURUGAVEL AND MR. M.SHANMUGAM WHO ARE SAID TO HAVE ADVANCED ` 5 LAKHS EACH TO THE APPELLANT, THE CREDITORS WERE PRODUCED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HOWEVR, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOTED THAT THESE SO CALLED ADVANCES FOR PURCHASES OF PROPERTY WAS NOT BACKED BY ANY EVIDENCES EITHER BY WRITING OR BY WAY OF CHEQUES. FURTHER, IT WAS NOTICED THAT THE SAID PERSONS DID NOT HAVE ADEQUATE INCOME OR INCOME TO GENERATE SURPLUS OF ` 5 LAKHS TO BE GIVEN TO THE APPELLANT. THE APPELLANTS CLAIM THAT THESE AMOUNTS WERE GIVEN AS ADVANCE FOR PURCHASE OF PROPERTY IS NOT EVIDENCED BY ANY SALE AGREEMENTS OR SALE TO THESE PERSONS IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEARS. THEREFORE, I FIND NO MERIT IN THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT THAT THESE CREDITS ARE GENUINE AND THEREFORE, CONFIRM THE ADDITION OF ` 10,00,000/- U/S.68 OF THE I.T.ACT. 13. ON GOING THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHOR ITIES, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED ` 5,00,000/- EACH FROM MR. ITA NOS.1265 TO 1267 AND 1321 /MDS//2012 & 515 TO 517/MDS/2013 9 M.MURUGAVEL AND M.SHANMUGAM, WHEN QUESTIONED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO PROVE THAT THE CREDITORS HAVE ENOUGH FINANCIAL CAPACITY TO LEND MONEY TO THE ASSESSEE, T HE ASSESSEE DID NOT ESTABLISH THAT THE CREDITORS HAVE FINANCIAL CAPACITY TO LEND MONIES TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESS ING OFFICER ALSO OBSERVED THAT EVEN THOUGH THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT CREDITORS HAVE GIVEN MONEY FOR PURCHASE OF LAN D THROUGH THE ASSESSEE, NO SUCH TRANSACTION HAD HAPPENED. TH E COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS GIVEN A FI NDING THAT THE CREDITORS DID NOT HAVE ADEQUATE INCOME OR INCOME TO GENERATE SURPLUS OF ` 5,00,000/- SO AS TO ADVANCE THE SAME TO THE ASSESSEE. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE FIND NO MERIT IN THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THESE CREDITS ARE G ENUINE. THUS, WE UPHOLD THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES ON THIS ISSUE. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THIS I SSUE ARE DISMISSED. ITA NO.1321/MDS/2012 - REVENUES APPEAL):- 14. THE ONLY GRIEVANCE OF THE REVENUE IN ITS APPEAL FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 IS THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME ITA NOS.1265 TO 1267 AND 1321 /MDS//2012 & 515 TO 517/MDS/2013 10 TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE U NDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT RELATING TO ADVANCES FOR LAND PURCHASE AMOUNTING TO ` 21,70,750/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT MADE ADDITION OF ` 21,70,750/- UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT STATING THAT THE ASSESS EE CLAIMED LIABILITIES OF ` 24,66,750/- TOWARDS LAND ADVANCES AND ON VERIFICATION OF THE DOCUMENTS FILED IN RESPECT OF R EGISTERED SALE DEED, THE VALUE OF CONSIDERATION IS LESS THAN THE A MOUNT ADVANCED, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS OF T HE VIEW OF THE LAND ADVANCE RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE EX TENT OF ` 21,70,750/- IS NOT GENUINE OUT OF TOTAL LIABILITY OF ` 24,66,750/-. ON APPEAL, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) DELETED THE SAID ADDITION. 15. THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN MAKING ADDITION OF ` 21,70,750/- UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF THE LIABI LITIES FOR LAND ADVANCES. ITA NOS.1265 TO 1267 AND 1321 /MDS//2012 & 515 TO 517/MDS/2013 11 16. THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTS THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TA X (APPEALS). 17. HEARD BOTH SIDES. PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE LOW ER AUTHORITIES. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL S) AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE EVIDENCE ON RECORD, DELETED THE ADDITION OBSERVING AS UNDER:- 7.1 THE APPELLANT HAD CLAIMED LIABILITY TOWARDS LAND ADVANCE TO THE TUNE OF RS . 24 , 66 , 7501- FROM 18 PERSONS . HOWEVER , THE AO ALLOWED ONLY RS . 2 , 96 , 0001- BEING THE AMOUNT MENTIONED IN THE DOCUMENTS FOR SALE OF PROPERTY TO THESE PERSONS AND THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF ` 21 , 70,7501- WAS ADDED U/S 68 OF THE I . T . ACT . AGAINST THIS ADDITION , THE APPELLANT SUBMITTED AS UNDER : ' A SUM OF RS . 21 , 70 , 7501- OUT OF ADVANCES FOR LAND HAS BEEN ADDED UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE I . T . ACT . YOUR APPELLANT CLAIMED A SUM OF RS.24,66 , 7501- AS LIABILITY TOWARDS ADVANCES FOR PURCHASE OF LAND . A LIST OF PERSONS FROM WHOM ADVANCES WERE RECEIVED WERE ALSO PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSING OFF I CER . BECAUSE OF THE VE R Y SHORT AVAILABILITY OF TIME ONLY A PART OF THE SALE DOCUMENTS COULD BE GATHERED AND PRODUCED . THE REST OF THE PERSONS ARE ALSO GENUINE AND THE SALE DOCUMENT COULD NOT BE OBTAINED AND PRODUCED OF THE PAUCITY OF TIME. THE BALANCE OF PERSONS ARE ALSO GENUINE AND COPIES OF DOCUMENTS COULD ALSO BE PRODUCED . THE ASSESSING OFF I CER HAS ACCEPTED THE CLAIM OF APPELLANT IN RESPECT OF THE PERSONS FOR WHOM THE DOCUMENTS WERE PRODUCED ITA NOS.1265 TO 1267 AND 1321 /MDS//2012 & 515 TO 517/MDS/2013 12 BUT THE SAME WAS RESTRICTED TO RS . 2 , 96 , 0001- BEING THE VALUE OF CONSIDERATION AS PER THE DOCUMENTS PRODUCED . IT IS A GENERAL PRACTICE IN THE REAL ESTATE INDUSTRY TO RECORD TRANSACTIONS AT LOWER THAN THE AGREED CONSIDERATION IN ORDER TO SAVE ON STAMP DUTY. THE MAJORITY OF CUSTOMERS OF YOUR APPELLANT ARE ONL Y FROM THE LOWER MIDDLE CLASS AND THE REDUCTION IN STAMP DUTY IS A GREAT SAVINGS FOR THEM. IN THE CASE OF YOUR APPELLANT ALSO THE VALUES WERE ADOPTED BASED ON AGREEMENTS OR STATEMENTS WHICH WERE HIGHER THAN THE APPARENT CONSIDERAT I ON. IT IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED THAT ON THE SAME LINES THE VALUE BASED ON THE REAL VALUE OF TRANSACTIONS BE ACCEPTED AND THE ADDITION DELETED . ' 7 . 2 ON EXAMINATION OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT , I FIND THAT THERE I S SOME MERIT I N THE SUBMISSION MADE BY THE APPELLANT . IT IS A KNOWN FACT THAT MOST OF THE LAND TRANSACTIONS ARE REGISTERED WITH THE REGISTERING AUTHORITIES AT VERY LOW VALUE SO AS TO EVADE STAMP DUTY . IT IS ALSO AN ACCEPTED FACT THAT AL L THE 18 PERSONS WHO HAVE ADVANCED THE MONEY HAS ALSO PURCHASED LAND FROM THE APPELLANT . CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE APPEL L A N T H A D ADMITTED THE AMOUNT OF RS . 2 , 36 , 78 , 865/- AS ADDIT I ONAL INCOME BY WAY OF NET INCREASE I N WEALTH DUR I NG THE YEAR AND THE PRACTICAL REALITY OF UNDERVALUING OF THE PROPERTY FOR PURPOSE OF REG I STRATION , THE ADVANCE OF RS . 21 , 70,750/- COLLECTED FROM THE 18 PERSONS CAN BE TREATED AS GENU I NE AND THE ADDITION UNDER THIS HEAD STANDS DELETED . 18. ON READING OF THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), WE DO NOT FIND ANY GOOD REASON TO IN TERFERE ITA NOS.1265 TO 1267 AND 1321 /MDS//2012 & 515 TO 517/MDS/2013 13 WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IN DELETING THE ADDITION. THEREFORE, WE S USTAIN THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) O N THIS ISSUE. GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE ARE REJECTED. 19. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES AND THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON TUESDAY, THE 19 TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2013 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY ) (CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER CHENNAI. DATED THE 19 TH NOVEMBER, 2013. SOMU COPY TO: (1) ASSESSEE (4) CIT(A) (2) ASSESSING OFFICER (5) D.R (3) CIT (6 ) G.F.