M.R.Diwakar, CHENNAI V. ACIT, CHENNAI

ITA 1406/CHNY/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4836 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-04-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 06-04-2017
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 20-05-2016
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A V SREEKANTH
• Assessee Lawyers: N DEVANATHAN
• Keywords: Capital asset
• Section: 143(3); 2(14)

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , C B ENCH, CHENNAI . , ! ' . #$ , % & BEFORE SHRI A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ I.T.A.NO.1406/MDS/2016 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12) SHRI M.R. DIWAKAR, 53/26, BHIMASENA GARDEN STREET, MYLAPORE, CHENNAI 600 004. VS THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 1, CHENNAI PAN: AACPD1276F ( /APPELLANT) ( /RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI N. DEVANATHAN, ADVOCATE /RESPONDENT BY : SHRI A.V. SREEKANTH, JCIT /DATE OF HEARING : 06.04.2017 ! /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 27.04.2017 / O R D E R PER A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, AM:- THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A PPEALS)-2, CHENNAI DATED 04.03.2016 IN ITA NO.10/CIT(A)-2/2014 -15 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 PASSED U/S.250(6) R.W.S. 14 3(3) OF THE ACT. 2 ITA NO.1406/MDS/2016 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED SEVERAL GROUNDS IN HIS A PPEAL, HOWEVER THE CRUX OF THE ISSUE IS THAT THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE ORDER OF THE LD.AO WHO HAD COMPUTED LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE AT RS.39, 99,940/- BY TREATING THE LAND SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE AS NON-AGRIC ULTURAL LAND AND BROUGHT THE SAME UNDER THE AMBIT OF LONG TERM C APITAL GAIN TAX. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSE E IS AN INDIVIDUAL EARNING INCOME UNDER THE HEAD SALARY, HO USE PROPERTY, BUSINESS AND OTHER SOURCES, FILED HIS RETURN OF INC OME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 ON 29.09.2013 ADMITTING HIS INCOME AS RS.45,30,724/-. THE CASE WAS TAKEN UP FOR SCRUTI NY UNDER CASS AND FINALLY ORDERS U/S. 143(3) WAS PASSED ON 2 4.03.2014, WHEREIN THE LD.AO TREATED THE AGRICULTURAL LAND MEA SURING 0.94 CENT SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE AT KATTAVAKKAM VILLAGE, KANCHEEPURAM DISTRICT AS NON-AGRICULTURAL AND BROUG HT THE SAME UNDER THE AMBIT OF CAPITAL GAIN TAX. 4. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, T HE ASSESSEE MADE THE FOLLOWING SUBMISSIONS BEFORE THE LD.AO:- 3 ITA NO.1406/MDS/2016 'THE ASSESSEE PURCHASED AGRICULTURAL LAND IN THE FO LLOWING SURVEY NUMBER. TOTALLY 0.94 CENT ALONG WITH BORE WELL, 5 HP MOTOR PUMP AND ELECTRICITY CONNECTION WITH DEPOSIT WAS PURCHASED O N OCTOBER 14TH,2005 FOR RS. 1,41,000/- AND THE SAME WAS SOLD ON SEPTEMBER 15 , 2010 FOR RS. 42,43,816/- 1. AS PER SECTION 2(14) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 CAPITAL ASSET PROPERTY OF ANY KIND HELD BY AN ASSESSEE, WHETHER O R NOT, CONNECTED WITH HIS BUSINESS OR PROFESSION, BUT DOES NOT INCLUDE - AGRICULTURAL LAND IN INDIA, NOT BEING LAND SITUATED - (A) IN ANY AREA WHICH IS COMPRISED WITHIN THE JURIS DICTION OF A MUNICIPALITY (WHETHER KNOWN AS MUNICIPALITY, MUNICI PAL CORPORATION OR NOTIFIED AREA OR A CANTONMENT BOARD AND WHICH HAS A POPULATION OF NOT LESS THAN TEN THOUSAND ACCO RDING TO THE LAS PRECEDING CENSUS OF WHICH THE RELEVANT FIGURES HAVE BEEN PUBLISHED BEFORE THE FIRST DAY OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR ; OR (B) IN ANY ARE WITHIN SUCH DISTANCE, NOT BEING MORE THAN EIGHT KILOMETRES FROM THE LOCAL LIMITS OF ANY MUNICIPALIT Y OR CANTONMENT BOARD REFERRED TO IN ITEM (A) , AS THE C ENTRAL GOVERNMENT MAY, HAVING REGARD TO THE EXTENT CONSIDE RATION, SPECIFY IN THIS BEHALF BY NOTIFICATION IN THE OFFIC IAL GAZETTE. THIS AGRICULTURAL LAND IS SITUATED MORE THAN 20 KIL OMETERS FROM THE CITY /MUNICIPAL LIMITS OF CHENNAI AND THIS VILL AGE IS NOT A NOTIFIED AREA. SURVEY NO. ACRE CENT 56/1B2 1.71 0.12 55/1D 0.87 0.69 55/2D1A 0.13 TOTAL 0.94 4 ITA NO.1406/MDS/2016 2. AS PER REVENUE RECORDS CLASSIFICATION THE LAND I S AN AGRICULTURAL LAND - LETTER DATED 27/12/2007 FROM VI LLAGE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, KANATHUR REDDIDUPPAM VII/AG E. MOREOVER THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT APPLIED FOR CONVERSIO N OF THIS AGRICULTURAL LAND INTO ANY CATEGORY OF LAND. SINCE THE HEAD OF THE VILLAGE HAS ISSUED THE ABOVE CERTIFICATE NO OTHER E VIDENCE SHALL REFUTE THESE FACTS .. 3. INFLATION OR ESCALATION IN PRICE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND WOULD NOT CHANGE THE BASIC CHARACTER OF LAND, IF THE LAND IS RECORDED AS AGRICULTURAL, IT WOULD CONTINUE TO BE AGRICULTURAL LAND. IF THE LAND IS RECORDED AND HAS NOT BEEN PUT TO ANY OTHER USE B Y THE OWNER OF THE LAND AND EVEN IF IT REMAINS BARREN OR UNCULTIVA TED FOR SOME TIME AND EVEN THE GRASS ALONE ARE RAISED ON THE LAN D, IT WOULD CONTINUE TO BE AGRICULTURAL LAND. IN THIS CONNECTIO N PLEASE REFER TO THE VERDICT RENDERED IN COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH T AX V. GARG R.S. AND SHAH M.R. JJ. (2007) 2881TR 0319 (GUJARAT HIGH COURT) 4. THE ASSESSEE HAS CULTIVATED PADDY THE SAME WERE USED HIS HOUSEHOLD CONSUMPTION. SOME PORTION OF THE SAME WAS SOLD AND THE SALE HAS NOT YIELDED ANY SURPLUS. IN THIS CONNE CTION PLEASE REFER TO THE VERDICT ENTERED IN CLT VS. SMT. DEBBIE ALEMAO (2011) 38 (I) ITCL 5. WHETHER A PIECE OF LAND IS AGRICULTURAL LAND OR NOT IS ESSENTIALLY A QUESTION OF FACT. THE FACT THAT THE L AND IS LYING FALLOW AND THE FACT THAT THE LAND IS LOCATED IN A L OCALITY WHERE DEVELOPMENT HAD TAKEN PLACE ARE NOT SUFFICIENT TO R ENDER THE LAND NON-AGRICULTURAL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, V. O.RM.SP.SV.A. ANNAMALAI CHETTIAR (2005) 273 ITR 040 4 {MADRAS HIGH COURT) 6. AGRICULTURAL LAND AT THE TIME OF SALE AND TRANSF ER: THE ASSET WAS CLASSIFIED AS AGRICULTURAL LAND AT THE TIME OF SALE AND SUCH IT HAS NOT BEEN CONSIDERED AS CAPITAL ASSET END AS SUC H, NO CAPITAL 5 ITA NO.1406/MDS/2016 GAINS WOULD ARISE FROM THE SALE OF AGRICULTURAL LAN D. THE AGRICULTURAL IN QUESTION IS NOT AT ALL CONSIDERED A S CAPITAL ASSET U/S 2(47) OF THE ACT. 7. POSSESSION & ENJOYMENT: THE LAND WAS IN EFFECTIV E POSSESSION AND ENJOYMENT OF THE PROPERTY BY THE ASSESSEE TILL THE DATE OF SALE AS AGRICULTURAL LAND AND FURTHER THAT THERE WAS NO SCOPE BUSINESS ACTIVITY BY THE ASSESSEE TILL THE SALE DATE. 8. AS THE FACTS ARE VERY CLEAR THAT LAND DOES-NOT F ALL IN THE SPECIFIED URBAN AREAS WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW AND PRAY THAT THE SALE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND DOES NOT ATTRACT ANY CAPITAL GAINS TAX. THEREAFTER THE ASSESSEE PLACED RELIANCE ON VARIOUS DECISIONS OF THE HIGHER JUDICIARY. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBM ITTED AS UNDER BEFORE THE LD.A.O.:- 1. FURTHER THE ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED HIS SHARE OF AGR ICULTURAL LAND IN 56/1B2, 55/1D AND 55/2D1A ON OCTOBER 14 TH 2005 FOR RS.1,41,000/- AND THE SAME WAS SOLD ON SEPTEMBER 15 TH 2010 FOR RS.42,43,816/-. 2. AS PER SECTION 2(14) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 CA PITAL ASSET MEANS PROPERTY OF ANY KIND HELD BY AN ASSESSEE, WHE THER OR NOT CONNECTED WITH HIS BUSINESS OR PROFESSION, BUT DOES NOT INCLUDE- AGRICULTURAL LAND IN INDIA, NOT BEING LAND SITUATED - A. IN ANY AREA WHICH IS COMPRISED WITHIN THE JURISDICT ION OF A MUNICIPALITY (WHETHER KNOWN AS MUNICIPALITY , MUNIC IPAL CORPORATION, NOTIFIED AREA OR A CANTONMENT BOARD AN D WHICH HAS A POPULATION OF NOT LESS THAN TEN THOUSAN DS ACCORDING TO THE LAST PRECEDING CENSUS OF WHICH THE 6 ITA NO.1406/MDS/2016 RELEVANT FIGURES HAVE BEEN PUBLISHED BEFORE THE FIR ST DAY OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR; OR B. IN ANY AREA WITHIN SUCH DISTANCE, NOT BEING MORE TH AN EIGHT KILOMETRES FROM THE LOCAL LIMITS OF ANY MUNIC IPALITY OR. CANTONMENT BOARD REFERRED TO IN ITEM (A), AS TH E CENTRAL GOVERNMENT MAY, HAVING REGARD TO THE EXTENT CONSIDERATION, SPECIFY IN THIS BEHALF BY NOTIFICATI ON IN THE OFFICIAL GAZETTE. THIS AGRICULTURAL LAND IS SITUATED MORE THAN 20 KIL OMETRES FROM THE /MUNICIPAL LIMITS OF CHENNAI AND THIS VILLAGE I S NOT A NOTIFIED AREA. 'FOR THE PURPOSES OF LAND BEING AGRICULTURAL LAND, ACTUAL AGRICULTURAL OPERATION OR CULTIVATION OR TILTING OF LAND IS ALWAYS NOT NECESSARY. WHAT IS TO BE SEEN IS WHETHER SUCH L AND IS CAPABLE OF AGRICULTURAL OPERATION BEING CARRIED ON. THE COR RECT TEST THAT HAS TO BE APPLIED IS WHETHER ON THE DATE OF SALE, T HE LAND WAS AGRICULTURAL LAND OR NOT, WHETHER LAND USE WAS CHAN GED OR NOT. IF IN THE REVENUE RECORD THE PARTICULAR LAND IS REC ORDED AS AGRICULTURAL LAND AND TILL THE DATE OF SALE IT IS E XPLOITED AS AGRICULTURAL LAND AND THE OWNER OF THE LAND HAS NOT TAKEN ANY STEP TO INDICATE HIS INTENTION TO EXPLOIT THE LAND FOR NON- AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES THEN SUCH LAND IS TO BE REGAR DED AS AGRICULTURAL LAND. THE PURPOSE FOR WHICH SUCH LAND IS SOLD IS NOT OF MUCH IMPORTANCE AND WEIGHT. SECTION 548 OF THE IT ACT SPEAKS ABOUT NON-CHARGING OF GAINS OF THE CASES WHERE THERE IS A TRANSFER OF LAND USED FO R AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES. AN AMENDMENT WAS EFFECTED WITH EFFECT FRO M 01/04/1970 SO AS TO INCLUDE LANDS SITUATED IN CERTA IN SPECIFIED AREAS WITHIN THE AMBIT OF NON-AGRICULTURAL LAND. HO WEVER, BURDEN IS ON THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THAT THE LAND IS NON- 7 ITA NO.1406/MDS/2016 AGRICULTURAL OR IT FORMS PART OF BUSINESS ASSET. FO R THE PURPOSES OF LAND BEING AGRICULTURAL LAND, ACTUAL AGRICULTURA L OPERATION OR CULTIVATION OR TILTING OF LAND IS ALWAYS NOT NECESS ARY. WHAT IS TO BE SEEN IS WHETHER SUCH LAND IS CAPABLE OF AGRICULT URAL OPERATION BEING CARRIED ON. OUR VIEW IS FORTIFIED BY HON'BLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT CLT VS. BORHAT TEA CO.LTD. [1982) 1381TR 783/ [1981] 7 TAXMAN 388. THE CORRECT TEST THAT HAS TO BE APPLI ED IS WHETHER ON THE DATE OF SALE, THE LAND WAS AGRICULTURAL LAND OR NOT, WHETHER LAND USE WAS CHANGED OR NOT. JUST BECAUSE A FTER THE SALE, THE PURCHASER WAS GOING TO PUT THE LAND TO NON-AGRI CULTURAL USE, IT DOES NOT MEAN THAT ON THE DATE OF SALE THE LAND HAS CEASED TO BE AGRICULTURAL LAND. IF IN THE REVENUE RECORD, THE PA RTICULAR LAND IS RECORDED AS AGRICULTURAL/AND AND TILL THE DATE OF S ALE, IT IS EXPLOITED AS AGRICULTURAL LAND AND THE OWNER OF THE LAND HAS NOT TAKEN ANY STEP TO INDICATE HIS INTENTION TO EXPLOIT THE LAND FOR NON-AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES THEN SUCH LAND TO BE REGA RDED AS AGRICULTURAL LAND. THE PURPOSE FOR WHICH SUCH LAND IS SOLD IS NOT OF MUCH IMPORTANCE AND WEIGHT. IF THE DEPARTMENT IS IN A POSITION TO PROVE THAT IT WAS USED AS AGRICULTURAL LAND AS A STOP GAP ARRANGEMENT AND ITS LAND USE WAS CHANGED BEFORE THE SALE THEN THE SITUATION MAY BE DIFFERENT. IN YOUR LETTER, YOU HAVE MENTIONED THAT NO AGRICULT URAL OPERATIONS HAD BEEN CARRIED ON BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE PAST TWO YEARS 31.03.2009 ARID 31.03.2010. I HEREBY BRING TO YOUR KIND ATTENTION THAT THE CULTIVATION ON LAND WAS NOT POSS IBLE DUE TO VAGARIES OF NATURE AND NON AVAILABILITY OF RESOURCE S AND NO FAULT ON ME IF LANDS ARE NOT PUT TO USE DURING THE DROUGH T. ' 4.1 HOWEVER, THE LD.AO REJECTED THE ARGUMENTS ADVAN CED BY THE LD.AR AND MADE THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS: 8 ITA NO.1406/MDS/2016 1) FROM THE CHITA ADANGAL IT WAS REVEALED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT CARRIED OUT ANY AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY AND T HE LAND WAS KEPT AS VACANT. 2) THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAD SUBMITTED RECEIPTS FOR S ALE OF PADDY AND SUGARCANE, HOWEVER IT WAS NOT ASCERTAINAB LE WHETHER THE AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE WAS DERIVED FROM T HE AGRICULTURAL LAND OWNED BY THE ASSESSEE. 3) THERE WAS NO BAR ON THE ASSESSEE TO CONVERT HIS AGRICULTURAL LAND FOR ANY OTHER PURPOSES LIKE CONST RUCTION OF BUILDING, ETC., 4) THOUGH THE LAND WAS CLASSIFIED AS AGRICULTURAL L AND IN THE REVENUE RECORDS, IS NOT A CONCLUSIVE FACTOR TO HOLD THE LAND TO BE AGRICULTURAL LAND. 5) THE SALE VALUE OF THE LAND SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE SHOWS THAT THERE WAS A CONSIDERABLE INCREASE IN THE PRICE OF T HE LAND WHICH ESTABLISHES THE FACT THAT THE LAND WAS COMMER CIAL IN NATURE. 6) THERE WAS CONSIDERABLE DEVELOPMENT IN THE NEAR V ICINITY OF THE LAND. 9 ITA NO.1406/MDS/2016 7) THE LAND WAS KEPT FALLOW CONTINUOUSLY FOR MORE T HAN 3 YEARS IN ORDER TO CHANGE THE CLASSIFICATION OF THE LAND FROM AGRICULTURAL TO COMMERCIAL. 8) THE LAND WAS SOLD TO A REALITY COMPANY M/S. INNO ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED FOR COMMERCIAL USE. 4.2 THEREAFTER THE LD.AO HELD THE LAND SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE AS NON-AGRICULTURAL LAND AND ALSO DISALLOWED THE CL AIM U/S.54F OF THE ACT, FOR HAVING INVESTED THE SALE PROCEEDS IN R ESIDENTIAL FLAT FOR RS.45 LAKHS SINCE THE SAME WAS NOT CLAIMED IN T HE RETURN OF INCOME AND COMPUTED THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN OF T HE ASSESSEE AS RS.39,99,940/-. 4.3 AT THE OUTSET THE LD.AR SUBMITTED THAT IN THE CASE OF SHRI N. VENKATRAMAN ITA NO.1380/MDS/2016 AND SHRI A . VIJAYARAGHAVAN ITA NO.1379/MDS/2016 WHO OWNED ADJAC ENT LAND IT WAS HELD BY THE CHENNAI BENCH OF THE TRIBUN AL THAT THE LAND IS AGRICULTURAL IN NATURE AND ACCORDINGLY THE SALE OF SUCH LAND WOULD NOT ATTRACT CAPITAL GAIN TAX. HENCE IT WAS PLEADED THAT IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE ALSO THE SAME DECISION WOULD APPLY 10 ITA NO.1406/MDS/201 6 BECAUSE THE FACTS ARE IDENTICAL. THE LD. DR COULD NOT CONTROVERT TO THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD.AR. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND CAREFULL Y PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE ASSESSEE HA S SUBMITTED BEFORE US THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS IN SUPPORT OF HIS CLAIM THAT THE LAND SOLD BY HIM IS AGRICULTURAL LAND:- I. PATTA NO.1110 IN THE NAME OF SHRI M.R. DIWAKAR A ND OTHERS EVIDENCING THE OWNERSHIP OF LAND IN SURVEY N O.56- 1B2B WHICH IS CLASSIFIED AS WET LAND. (PAPER BOOK P AGE 41) II. PATTA NO.1112 IN THE NAME OF DIWAKAR AND OTHERS EVIDENCING THE OWNERSHIP OF LAND IN SURVEY NO.55D W HICH IS CLASSIFIED AS WET LAND. (PB 43) III. CERTIFICATE FROM THE REVENUE OFFICER, THENI, KANCHEEPURAM DISTRICT WHICH STATES THAT THE LAND OW NED BY SHRI M.R. DIWAKAR IN SURVEY NO. 56/1B2, 55/1D, 55/2D1A IS PADDY FIELD WHEREIN PADDY CULTIVATION WA S CARRIED OUT DURING THE YEAR 2006 TO 2010. IV. THE CHITTA ADANGAL OF SURVEY NO.55/1D AND 56 1B /2B WHICH STATES THAT THE LAND IS IN POSSESSION OF 11 ITA NO.1406/MDS/201 6 SHRI M.R.DIWAKAR AND PADDY CULTIVATION IS CARRIED O UT. (PB 59 & 61) FURTHER THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED BEFORE US THAT T HE LAND SOLD BY HIM IS ADJACENT TO THE LAND SOLD BY SHRI A. VIJARAGHAVAN AND SHRI N. VENKATARAMAN SUPRA , AND IT WAS HELD IN THEIR CASE BY THE CHENNAI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL THAT THOSE LAND A RE AGRICULTURAL LAND AND ACCORDINGLY THE LAND FALLS OU TSIDE THE SCOPE OF CAPITAL ASSET BY VIRTUE OF SECTION 2(14) OF TH E ACT AND THEREFORE CAPITAL GAIN TAX WILL NOT BE ATTRACTED. THE LD. DR COULD NOT SUCCESSFULLY CONTROVERT TO THE SUBMISSION MADE BY THE LD.AR. THEREFORE IT IS APPARENT THAT THE FACTS STA TED BY THE LD.AR TO BE GENUINE. HOWEVER, IN THE INTEREST OF J USTICE, WE HEREBY REMIT BACK THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF LD.AO O NLY FOR THE LIMITED PURPOSE TO VERIFYING THE GENUINENESS OF THE AFORESAID DOCUMENTS PRESENTED BEFORE US AND TO VERIFY THE CLA IM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE LAND SOLD BY HIM IS ADJACENT TO T HE LAND SOLD BY SHRI A. VIJAYARAGHAVAN AND SHRI N. VENKATARAMAN SUPRA AND IF IT IS FOUND TO BE SO, TREAT THE LAND SOLD BY THE ASSES SEE AS AGRICULTURAL LAND FALLING OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF CAP ITAL ASSET AS PER SECTION 2(14) OF THE ACT AND ACCORDINGLY DELETE THE CAPITAL GAIN 12 ITA NO.1406/MDS/201 6 TAX LEVIED ON HIM. HOWEVER, IF FOUND OTHERWISE PAS S APPROPRIATE SPEAKING ORDER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND MERIT AFT ER AFFORDING SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE OF BEING HEA RD. 6. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLO WED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE AS INDICATED HEREIN ABOVE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON THE 27 TH APRIL, 2017. SD/- SD/- ( ! ' . #$ ) ( . ) ( DUVVURU RL REDDY ) ( A . MOHAN ALANKAMONY ) ' #$ /JUDICIAL MEMBER #$ / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER %' /CHENNAI, &# /DATED 27 TH APRIL, 2017 JR # () *) /COPY TO: 1. /APPELLANT 2. /RESPONDENT 3. - ( )/CIT(A) 4. - /CIT 5. )./ 0 /DR 6. /1 /GF