International Flavours & Fragrances India Private Limited, CHENNAI V. DCIT, CHENNAI

ITA 1387/CHNY/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7978 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 8 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-02-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 11-01-2016
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 19-05-2014
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A B KOLI JCIT
• Keywords: Depreciation; Wrong claim
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, CHENNAI , ! . ' #$ BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI G.PAVAN KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ I.T.A.NO.1387 /MDS./2014 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR :2006-07) M/S.INTERNATIONAL FLAVOURS & FRAGRANCES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED , NO.1-5,SEVEN WELLS STREET, ST.THOMAS MOUNT, CHENNAI 600 016. VS. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LARGE TAXPAYER UNIT, CHENNAI 600 101. PAN AAACB 1376 K ( %& / APPELLANT ) ( '(%& / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY : MR.S.P.CHIDAMBARAM,ADVOCATE / RESPONDENT BY : MR.A.B.KOLI,JCIT, D.R ! / DATE OF HEARING : 11.01.2016 '# ! /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 15.02.2016 ) / O R D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(A), LARGE ITA NO.1387/MDS/2014 2 TAXPAYER UNIT, CHENNAI PASSED UNDER SECTION 271(1)( C) DATED 24.01.2014 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. 2. THE ONLY ISSUE IN THIS APPEAL IS WITH REGARD TO CONFIRM THE LEVY OF PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESS EE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURE/TRADING OF FLAVOR ESSEN CES, AROMATIC COMPONENTS, AROMATIC CHEMICALS AND FOOD COLOUR PREP ARATIONS AND FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 ON 30.11.2006 ADMITTING INCOME OF ` 64,47,82,010. SUBSEQUENTLY, ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S 143(3) ON 13.11.2009 B Y MAKING THE FOLLOWING DISALLOWANCES (I) DISALLOWANCE OF GRATUITY PAID ` 1 ,22,23,077 (II) DISALLOWANCE OF EXCESS DEPRECIATION ON UPS ` 45,950 (III) DISALLOWANCE U/S 28(IV) ` 1 ,39,50,000 TOTAL DISALLOWANCE ` 2,62,19,027 THE AO LEVIED PENALTY BASED ONLY ON THE ADDITION MA DE TOWARDS DOUBLE CLAIM OF GRATUITY PAYMENT. FURTHER, THE AO O PINED THAT THE ITA NO.1387/MDS/2014 3 ABOVE ISSUE OF DOUBLE CLAIM OF GRATUITY PAYMENT WAS NOT CONTESTED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE CIT(A) EVEN THOUGH THE ASSE SSEE HAS DISPUTED THE OTHER TWO DISALLOWANCES MADE BY THE AO BEFORE THE CIT(A). IT WAS OBSERVED BY THE AO THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED THE ABOVE EXPENDITURE IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT AN D ONCE AGAIN CLAIMED AS AN ALLOWABLE EXPENDITURE IN THE STATEMEN T OF INCOME WHICH LEADS TO DOUBLE CLAIM OF THE SAME EXPENDITURE DURING THE SUBJECT ASSESSMENT YEAR. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROC EEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE HAS AGREED THAT THE ABOVE AMOUNT WAS INADV ERTENTLY CLAIMED AS DEDUCTION IN THE MEMO OF INCOME EVEN THO UGH THE SAME HAS BEEN ALREADY CLAIMED AS EXPENDITURE IN THE PROF IT AND LOSS ACCOUNT. ON THAT BASIS ONLY, THE AO HAS MADE ADDITI ON OF THE ABOVE AMOUNT. THE LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE PENALTY IMPOS ED BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER. AGAINST THIS, THE ASSESSEE IS I N APPEAL BEFORE US. 4. BEFORE US LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE OF ASSE SSEE STRONGLY OPPOSED TO LEVY OF PENALTY FOR THE FOLLOWING REASON S:- (I) THE DOUBLE CLAIM OF THE AMOUNT OF GRATUITY PAI D WAS AN INADVERTENT MISTAKE AND ADMITTED THE FACT BEFORE TH E AO AND ITA NO.1387/MDS/2014 4 REQUESTED THE AO TO IGNORE THE CLAIM MADE IN THE CO MPUTATION OF TOTAL INCOME. (II) MERELY BECAUSE THE APPELLANT DID NOT CONTEST THE DISALLOWANCE OF DOUBLE CLAIM BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A), THE APPELLANT CANNOT AUTOMATICALLY BE HELD TO HAVE FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. RELIED ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME C OURT IN THE CASE OF SIR SHADILAL SUGAR & GENERAL MILLS LTD V. CIT(1 68 ITR 705) AND DECISION OF THE CHENNAL TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SOU THERN GAS FITTINGS (P) LTD V. DCIT (80 LTD 202) (III) THE MISTAKE HAS HAPPENED SINCE THE SENIOR MA NAGER IN-CHARGE OF ACCOUNTS HAS RESIGNED AND A NEW MANAGER TOOK OVE R DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO THIS ASSESSMENT YEAR THER EFORE, THE CLAIM MADE BY THE APPELLANT IS NEITHER WILLFUL NOR INTEN TIONAL. THE INADVERTENT CLAIM OF GRATUITY WAS DUE TO CHANGE IN THE APPELLANTS ACCOUNTING DEPARTMENT AND MISTAKE BY THE NEW MANAGE R WHICH IS NOT WILFIL OR DELIBERATE. IV) THE LD.A.R RELIED ON THE DECISION OF PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SIDARTHA ENTERPRISES R EPORTED IN (2009) ITA NO.1387/MDS/2014 5 184 TAXMAN 460 AND THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF PR ICE-WATER HOUSE COPERS P LTD VS. CIT (2012) 348 ITR 306. 5. THE LD.D.R SUBMITTED THAT IN THIS CASE, THE ASS ESSEE HAS GIVEN TWO EXPLANATIONS FOR DOUBLE CLAIM OF GRATUITY PAYME NT (I) THAT THIS HAS HAPPENED INADVERTENTIY (II) IT HAS HAPPENED DUE TO RESIGNATION OF SENIOR MANAGER IN-CHARGE OF ACCOUNTS EXCEPT STATING AS ABOVE, THE APPELLANT HAS NOT GIVEN ANY FURTHER DETAILS TO PROV E ITS POINT. HOW FAR THE OLD / NEW SENIOR MANAGER IN-CHARGE OF ACCOUNTS IS RESPONSIBLE FOR PREPARATION I CHECKING OF FINAL ACCOUNTS IS NOT KNO WN. IN THE ABSENCE OF THE ERSTWHILE SENIOR MANAGER HOW THE OTHER REGUL AR RETURNS OF INCOME FOR THIS YEAR AND SUBSEQUENT YEARS WERE FILE D WAS NOT KNOWN. IN THE ABSENCE OF THE SENIOR MANAGER HOW THE APPEAL S FOR THE YEAR AND SUBSEQUENT YEARS WERE PROMPTLY FILED WAS NOT KN OWN. WHETHER THE OTHER FINANCIAL TRANSACTIONS HAVE COME TO A STA NDSTILL IN THE ABSENCE OF ERSTWHILE SENIOR MANAGER WAS NOT KNOWN. IN VIEW OF SEVERAL UNANSWERED QUESTIONS AS ABOVE, THE AO HAS F OUND THAT THE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE APPELLANT WAS NOT CONVINCI NG AND FOUND TO BE FALSE. THE COMMONPLACE EXPLANATION THAT THE MIST AKE HAS ITA NO.1387/MDS/2014 6 HAPPENED INADVERTENTLY IS NOT AN EXPLANATION PER SE FOR THE WRONG CLAIM, IT DOES NOT REVEAL ANY MATERIAL FACTS EXCEPT THE RHETORIC. FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF THE APPELLANT, THE AO FOUND TH AT THE ASSESSEE HAS OFFERED AN EXPLANATION BUT FAILED TO SUBSTANTIATE A ND FAILED TO PROVE IT TO BE BONAFIDE. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE ACTION OF THE AC IN INITIATING AND LEVYING PENALTY IS IN ORDER. THE LD.D.R FURTHER PLEADED THAT LET US VERIFY THE INITIAION AND LEVYING OF PENALTY FROM AN OTHER ANGLE. WHETHER THERE IS A DELIBERATE I WILLFUL INTENTION OR MENS REA IS THERE TO GAIN FROM THE DOUBLE CLAIM? AS PER THE DECISION OF THE HONBL E SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF UQI V. DHARMENDRA TEXTILE PROCESSORS (2008) 306 ITR 277, MENS REA IS NOT REQUIRED. IF THERE IS A WRONG CLAIM IN THE RETURN OF INCOME BY WHICH THERE IS A BENEFIT TO THE APPELLANT IT IS SUFFICIENT TO ATTRACT PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C). THE. APEX COURT HAS HELD IN DELIVERING JUDGMENT IN THIS CASE THAT THE PENALTY LEVIABLE IN LOSS OF REVENUE IS A CIVIL LIABILITY FOR WHICH THE WILLFUL CONCEALMENT I S NOT AN ESSENTIAL INGREDIENT FOR ATTRACTING CIVIL LIABILITY. THE WILL FULNESS OR MENS REA IS A SUBJECT MAILER OF ANOTHER LINE OF PROCEEDINGS LE, P ROSECUTION U/S 276C OF THE ACT. IN THE CASE OF CIT V. RELIANCE PET ROPRODUCTS LTD, 322 ITR 158 (SC) (2010), THE APEX COURT HAS EMPHASI ZED ON THE ITA NO.1387/MDS/2014 7 INFORMATION DISCLOSED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. IT H AS STATED THAT RETURN OF INCOME IS THE BASE BECAUSE ONLY HERE THE ASSESSE E FILES PARTICULARS OF INCOME. THE APEX COURT WHILE GIVING ITS DECISION IN THIS CASE, IT HAS QUOTED THE DEFINITIONS OF TERMS CONCE ALMENT OF INCOME AND FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS, DELIVER ED BY THE SAME COURT IN THE CASE OF DILIP N.SHROFF V. JCIT, 161 TAMAN 21 8 (2007)(SC). FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS MEANS, FROM TH E ABOVE DECISION, DETAILS SUPPLIED IN THE RETURN WHICH ARE NOT ACCUR ATE, NOT EXACT OR CORRECT, NOT ACCORDING TO TRUTH OR ERRONEOUS. IN T HE INSTANT CASE WHEN THE APPELLANT HAS MADE A DOUBLE CLAIM OF THE EXPEND ITURE, WHETHER IT DELIBERATELY INDENTED TO HAVE DOUBLE TAX BENEFIT OR NOT IS NOT MATERIAL BUT A WRONG CLAIM IS WRONG CLAIM FROM THE RETURN OF INCOME POINT OF VIEW WHICH MEANS THE ASSESSEE HAS A GAIN AND REVENU E HAS A LOSS. THE AO HAS ALSO MADE AN OBSERVATION THAT HAD IT NO T BEEN DETECTED BY THE REVENUE IN DUE COURSE THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN A REVENUE LOSS TO THAT EXTENT. WHETHER IT IS AN ADVERTENT OR INAD VERTENT A MISTAKE IS A MISTAKE WHICH HAS THE AUDACITY TO CAUSE A REVENUE L OSS, WITHOUT THE COVER OF MENS REA, THEREFORE, IT WILL ATTRACT PENAL TY U/S 271(1)(C). THE OTHER DECISIONS RELIED ON BY THE AO ALSO PROVES HIS STAND POINT. ITA NO.1387/MDS/2014 8 FURTHER, THE LD.D.R ARGUED THAT THE DECISIONS RELIE D ON BY THE ID.AR ARE QUITE DISTINGUISHABLE. IN THE CASE OF CIT V. DU RR INDIA P LTD DELIVERED BY MADRAS HIGH COURT (SUPRA), THE COURT W HILE HOLDING THAT MENS REA IS NOT ESSENTIAL, THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLA NT SHOULD BE BONAFIDE. IN THE INSTANT CASE EXCEPT SAYING THAT TH E ERSTWHILE SENIOR MANAGER HAS RESIGNED, THE LD.AR HAS NOT FURNISHED A NY DETAILS TO SHOW HOW THEIR FINANCIAL ACTIVITIES HAVE GOT PARALY ZED IN THE ABSENCE OF ERSTWHILE SENIOR MANAGER AND LEFT SEVERAL UNANSW ERED QUESTIONS AS MENTIONED ABOVE. THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF PRICE-WATER-HOUSE COPERS P LTD (SUPRA) IS A LSO DISTINGUISHABLE WHERE IT IS A CASE OF NOT ADDING BA CK THE PROVISION FOR GRATUITY TO ITS INCOME WHICH IS IN THE NATURE OF O MISSION. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THERE IS A DOUBLE CLAIM OF BENEFIT WH ICH IS IN THE NATURE OF COMMISSION INVOLVING WILLFULNESS, THEREBY LEAD ING TO DOUBLE BENEFIT TO THE APPELLANT AT THE COST OF REVENUE. 6. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AND CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE CASE LAWS CIT ED BY THE PARTIES. THE MAIN CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEES COUNSEL IS TH AT MISTAKE IS ITA NO.1387/MDS/2014 9 INADVERTENT AND THERE WAS NO MALAFIDE INTENTION ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO CLAIM DOUBLE DEDUCTION FOR PAYMENT OF G RATUITY AND THERE IS NO SCOPE FOR LEVY OF PENALTY U/S.271(1)(C) OF TH E ACT AND IN SUPPORT OF THIS HE RELIED ON THE JUDGEMNENT OF APEX COURT I N THE CASE OF PRICE- WATER HOUSE COPERS P LTD VS. CIT (2012) 348 ITR 306 (SC). HE ALSO PLACED RELIANCE ON THE JUDGEMENT OF SUPREME COURT I N THE CASE OF CIT V. RELIANCE PETROPRODUCTS LTD, 322 ITR 158 (SC) (2010). IN OUR OPINION AT THIS STAGE, IT IS APPROPRIATE TO GO THRO UGH THE PROVISIONS OF THE SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. SEC.271 ( 1) IF THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) OR THE COMMISSIONER IN THE COURSE OF ANY PROCEEDINGS UNDER THIS ACT, IS SATISFIED THAT ANY P ERSON (A) --- (B) ---- (C) HAS CONCEALED THE PARTICULARS OF HIS INCOME OR FUR NISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF SUCH INCOME, OR IN THE PRESENT CASE, IT IS ADMITTED THAT THE ASSESS EE CLAIMED GRATUITY PAYMENT FOR TWICE. THE ASSESSEE IN THIS CASE CLAIM ED THE ABOVE EXPENDITURE IN THE P&L A/C AND ONCE AGAIN CLAIMED IT AS ALLOWABLE EXPENDITURE IN THE STATEMENT OF INCOME WHICH LEAD S TO DOUBLE CLAIM OF THE SAME EXPENDITURE. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROC EEDINGS, THE ITA NO.1387/MDS/2014 10 ASSESSEE WAS QUESTIONED BY THE AO, IT WAS STATED TH AT INADVERTENTLY THE CLAIM WAS MADE ON THE BASIS OF WHICH THE PENALT Y WAS LEVIED BY THE AO AND CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(A). THE EXPLANATIO N GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE FOR CLAIMING THE SAME EXPENDITURE FOR TWO TIMES IS VERY CRYPTIC AND TOO GENERAL IN NATURE. THERE IS NO COG ENT AND RELIABLE EVIDENCE SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE HOW SUCH CLAIM HAS B EEN MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. THERE IS NO BASE FOR SUCH CLAIM. BE ING SO, IN OUR OPINION SUCH AN UNADMISSIBLE CLAIM COULD NOT HAVE B EEN CLAIMED AD DEDUCTION BY INADVERTENCE FOR THE SECOND TIME. TH E SAID PLEA HAS ALSO BEEN REPEALED BY SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF MAK DATA P. LTD. V. CIT REPORTED IN [2013] 358 ITR 593 (SC) AS THE ASSESSEE SHOULD FIRST SHOW BY COGENT AND RELIABLE EVIDENCE T HAT THERE WAS NEITHER CONCEALMENT OF PARTICULARS OF INCOME NOR FU RNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. IN OUR OPINION, THE PLEA TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE IS ONLY TOO GENERAL AND DOES NOT GIVE ANY ACCEPTABLE EXPLANATION FOR SUCH UNSUSTAINABLE COMPUTATION OF T HE INCOME. THE INACCURATE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WAS FOUND BY THE A SSESSING AUTHORITY ONLY DURING THE SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT U/S. 143(3) OF THE ACT. THE JUDGEMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT IN PRICE-WATER H OUSE COPERS ITA NO.1387/MDS/2014 11 P LTD VS. CIT (SUPRA) IS DISTINGUISHABLE ON THE FAC TS OF THE PRESENT CASE, AS WE FIND THAT SUPREME COURT IN THAT CASE HE LD THAT THE TAX AUDIT REPORT DID NOT SUGGEST CONCEALMENT OF INCOME AND ON THAT BASIS A FINDING WAS GIVEN THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FURNISH INACCURATE PARTICULARS BECAUSE IN THE TAX AUDIT REP ORT FILED ALONG WITH THE RETURN, IT WAS UNEQUIVOCALLY STATED THAT THE PR OVISION FOR PAYMENT WAS NOT ALLOWABLE UNDER SECTION 40A(7) OF THE ACT. THE SUPREME COURT ALSO HELD THAT NEITHER THE ASSESSEE IN THAT C ASE NOTICED THE ERROR NOR WAS IT NOTICED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER W HO FRAMED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE CAME TO HOLD THAT WHEN THE CONTENTS OF THE TAX AUDIT REPORT WERE OVERLOOKE D BY ALL THE PERSONS CONCERNED, IT WAS A CASE OF BONA FIDE AND I NADVERTENT ERROR AND IN THAT CIRCUMSTANCE, THE PENALTY ORDER WAS SET ASIDE. HENCE, THE SAID DECISION IS OF NO ASSISTANCE TO THE ASSESS EE. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE HAS STRONGLY RELIED ON THE JUDGEMENT OF SU PREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. RELIANCE PETROPRODUCTS LTD, (SU PRA). IN THAT CASE, THEIR LORDSHIPS WERE ONLY CONCERNED WITH THE QUESTI ON WHETHER IN THIS CASE, AS A MATTER OF FACT, THE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN I NACCURATE PARTICULARS OR NOT. THE LORDSHIPS NOTED IN THIS CA SE THERE IS NO ITA NO.1387/MDS/2014 12 FINDING IN DETAILS SUPPLIED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS RETURN WERE FOUND TO BE INCORRECT OR ERRONEOUS OR FALSE AND ADDED THAT S UCH NOT BEING THE CASE, THERE WOULD BE NO QUESTION OF INVITING THE PE NALTY U/S.271(C) OF THE ACT AND THAT A MERE MAKING OF THE CLAIM, WHICH IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN LAW, BY ITSELF, WILL NOT AMOUNT TO FURNISHING IN ACCURATE PARTICULARS REGARDING THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THE PRESE NT CASE, THERE IS A DOUBLE CLAIM BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE SAME EXPENDIT URE, WHICH MAY NOT CONSIDERED AS IN THE CASE OF M/S.RELIANCE PETRO PEROPRODUCTS PVT. LTD. CITED SUPRA. BEING SO, WE ARE DEALING W ITH UNADMISSIBLE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION CONTRARY TO THE STATUTE ON WHICH TWO OPINIONS ARE NOT POSSIBLE AND CANNOT BE EQUATED WITH ISSUE CONSI DERED BY THE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF M/S.RELIANCE PETROPROD UCTS. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT DERIVE ANY HELP FR OM HONBLE SUPREME COURTS JUDGEMENT IN THE CASE OF M/S.RELIAN CE PEROPRODUCTS PVT. LTD. CITED SUPA. WE REJECT THE S AME. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE RELIED ON VARIOUS DECISIONS CANNOT BE CONS IDERED IN VIEW OF THE BINDING JUDGEMNET OF JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COU RT IN THE CASE OF LANXESS INDIA PVT. LTD. (SUCCESSOR OF BAYER INDIAN SYNTANS LTD.) V. ACIT REPORTED IN [2015] 373 ITR 346 (MAD) WHEREIN H ELD THAT THE ITA NO.1387/MDS/2014 13 ASSESSEE SHOULD FIRST SHOW BY COGENT AND RELIABLE E VIDENCE THAT THERE WAS NEITHER CONCEALMENT OF PARTICULARS OF INC OME NOR FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME IN ORDER TO REPEL PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S.271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. IN VIEW OF T HIS, WE HAVE NO HESITATION IN CONFIRMING THE LEVY OF PENALTY U/S.27 1(1)(C) OF THE ACT. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS DISMISS ED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON MONDAY, THE 15 TH OF FEBRUARY, 2016 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( . ) (G.PAVAN KUMAR) ( ( $% & ) ) ' CHANDRA POOJARI () JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER CHENNAI, DATED THE 15 TH FEBRUARY,2016 . K S SUNDARAM. *+)),-).- /COPY TO: ) 1. /APPELLANT 2. /RESPONDENT 3. ) /)'( /CIT(A) 4. ) / /CIT 5. -01 )2 /DR 6. 13)4 /GF