MR. SUNIL KUMAR, CHENNAI V. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 10(4), CHENNAI

ITA 1431/CHNY/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 125 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1046 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-09-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 27-04-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MARUTHU
• Assessee Lawyers: N VIJAYAKUMAR
• Keywords: Search and seizure; Share purchase agreement; Principle of natural justice; Wrong claim
• Section: 2

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, A BENCH : CHENNAI . , ! ' # ' $ . %& , ( * + [BEFORE SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBE R AND SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY , JUDICIAL MEMBER ] ./I.T.A. NO.1431/CHNY/2018. / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2014-2015. MR. SUNIL KUMAR, NO.26, RAMUNUJA NAGAR, AYNAVARAM, CHENNAI 600 023. VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER. NON CORPORATE WARD 10(4) CHENNAI. [PAN AAYPS 9112K] ( ,- / APPELLANT) ( ./,- /RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI. N. VIJAYAKUMAR, C.A. /RESPONDENT BY : SHRI. MARUTHU PANDIAN, ADDL. CIT. /DATE OF HEARING : 12-09-2018 ! /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 17-09-2018 0 / O R D E R PER ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IN THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, WHICH IS DIRECTED AGAINST AN ORDER DATED 22.02.2018 OF LD. COMMISSION ER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-12, CHENNAI, IT IS AGGRIEVED ON DENIAL OF EXEMPTION OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS OF D15,53,711/-, ARISING ON TRAN SFER OF SHARES CLAIMED ITA NO.1431 /2018 :- 2 -: U/S.10(38) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT) AND TREATING SUCH SUM AS UNEXPLAINED INCOME U/S.68 OF THE ACT. 2. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSE E HAD SOLD 5,000 SHARES OF ONE M/S. KAPPAC PHARM LTD FOR A CON SIDERATION OF D15,88,339/- AND EARNED LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS OF D15,53,711/- ARISING FROM SUCH SALE, WHICH WAS CLAIMED AS EXEMPT U/S.10 (38) OF THE ACT. AS PER THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE, THE LOWER AU THORITIES DISBELIEVED THE SALE OF THE SHARES, RELYING ON REPORTS OF DIRE CTORATE OF INCOME TAX (INVESTIGATION) KOLKATA AND DELHI, WHICH MENTIONED THAT M/S. KAPPAC PHARM LTD WAS A PENNY STOCK COMPANY. AS PER THE LD . AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE, ASSESSEE HAD INITIALLY PURCHASED 5, 000 SHARES OF THAT M/S. KAPPAC PHARM LTD FOR D75,000/-.CONTENTION OF T HE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE WAS THAT PURCHASE OF THESE SHARES W AS GENUINE THOUGH IT WAS DONE OFF MARKET. THE SALE OF THESE SHARES W ERE DONE, AS PER THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE, THROUGH RECOGNIZED S TOCK EXCHANGE AND OUGHT NOT HAVE BEEN DISBELIEVED. CONTENTION OF THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE WAS THAT STATEMENTS RECORDED FROM V ARIOUS PERSONS WERE RELIED ON BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES FOR DISBELI EVING THE TRANSACTIONS AND COMING TO A CONCLUSION THAT PRICES OF M/S. KAP PAC PHARM LTD WERE JACKED UP ARTIFICIALLY AND ASSESSEE HAD MADE CLAIM A BOGUS CLAIM OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS. LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT THESE STATEMENTS, NOR THE REPORTS OF THE INVESTIGATION WI NG OF THE DEPARTMENT ITA NO.1431 /2018 :- 3 -: WERE PUT TO THE ASSESSEE. RELYING ON THE DECISION O F CO-ORDINATE BENCH IN THE CASES OF VIMALCHAND GULABCHAND VS. ITO, PRAVEEN CHAND VS. IT O, GATRAJ JAIN & SONS (HUF) VS. ITO AND MAHENDRA KUMAR BHANDARI VS. ITO (ITA NOS.2003/17, 1721/2017, 2293/17 AND 2748/2017 DATED 06.04.2018), LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT IN SI MILAR CASES WHERE THERE WAS A CLAIM FOR EXEMPTION OF LON G TERM CAPITAL GAINS ON SALE OF EQUITY SHARES, THE TRIBUNAL HAD GIVEN DI RECTIONS TO THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER FOR RECONSIDERING THE ISSUE AD HERING TO THE RULES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. 3. PER CONTRA, LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE STRONGL Y SUPPORTING THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW SUBM ITTED THAT THERE WERE SUFFICIENT AND MORE REASONS FOR LOWER AUTHORITIES TO DISBELIEVE THE TRANSACTIONS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE EQUITY SHARES OF M/S. KAPPAC PHARM LTD. AS PER THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPR ESENTATIVE, ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE TO SHOW HOW HE INDENTIFIED THESE SHARES FOR MAKING AN OFF MARKET PURCHASE. LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ALSO PLACED RELIANCE ON A DECISION OF CO-ORDINATE BENCH IN THE CASE OF SHRI HEERACHAND KANUNGA VS. ITO (ITA NOS.2786 & 2787/CHNY/2017, DATD 03.05.2018). 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUS ED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. IT IS NOT DISPUTED THAT LONG TERM CAPITAL ITA NO.1431 /2018 :- 4 -: GAINS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE AS EXEMPT U/S.10(38) OF THE ACT AROSE ON ACCOUNT OF SALE OF EQUITY SHARES OF M/S. KAPPAC P HARM LTD. IT IS ALSO NOT DISPUTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD INITIALLY ACQUIRED THESE SHARES THROUGH AN OFF-MARKET TRANSACTION. IN SIMILAR CASES OF VIMALCHAND GULABCHAND, PRAVEEN CHAND, GATRAJ JAIN & SONS (HUF) AND MAHEN DRA KUMAR BHANDARI (SUPRA) WHERE ALSO ASSESSEES HAD CLAIMED EXEMPTION U/S.10(38) OF THE ACT ON SALE OF SHARES, THIS TRIBU NAL HAD HELD AS UNDER AT PARA 13 TO 16 OF ITS ORDER DATED 6.04.2018. 13. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PE RUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS LD.CIT(A) HAD RELIED ON SEBI ORDER DATED 29 .03.2016, IN THE CASE OF M/S.KAILASH AUTO FINANCE LTD.. IT I S TRUE THAT IN THE ABOVE ORDER, THERE IS A DETAILED ANALYSIS OF MO DUS OPERANDI ADOPTED BY ABOUT ELEVEN NUMBERS OF COMPANI ES, INTER ALIA INCLUDING M/S.KAILASH AUTO FINANCE LTD. IT ALSO MENTIONS HOW M/S.KAILASH AUTO FINANCE LTD., HAD BUI LT UP A HUGE SHARE PREMIUM WITHIN A SHORT TIME OF ITS INCOR PORATION. SEBI HAD ALSO ANALYSED THE FINANCIALS OF M/S.CPAN A ND M/S.PML, WHICH WERE MERGED WITH M/S.KAILASH AUTO FI NANCE LTD.,AND FOUND THAT THERE WAS DISPROPORTIONATE ISSU E OF BONUS SHARES BY THESE TWO COMPANIES. APART FROM THE SEBI REPORT, LOWER AUTHORITIES HAD ALSO RELIED ON A STAT EMENT OBTAINED FROM MR.SUNIL DOKANIA ON 12.06.2015 AND T HE REPORT OF INVESTIGATION WING OF THE DEPARTMENT. WHA T I CAN DISCERN FROM THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES IS THAT THE STATEMENT GIVEN BY MR.SUNIL DOKANIA, NOR THE REPORT OF THE INVESTIGATION WING RELIED ON BY THE ASSESSING OFFI CER, WAS MADE AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSEE, DURING THE COURSE O F ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. SINCE THESE WENT AGAINST TH E ASSESSEE, RULES OF NATURAL JUSTICE REQUIRE THAT ASS ESSEE IS GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO EXPLAIN WHAT WAS MENTIONED IN SUCH STATEMENT AND IF NECESSARY, AN OPPORTUNITY TO EXAMI NE MR.SUNIL DOKANIA. I ALSO FIND THAT THE AO HAD NOT ENQUIRED ITA NO.1431 /2018 :- 5 -: HOW THE ASSESSEE HAD BECOME AWARE OF THE AVAILABILI TY OF THE EQUITY SHARES OF M/S.PANCHSHUL MARKETING LTD., WHEN THE SAID COMPANY WAS NOT LISTED AND ENTITLED. THE FINDING OF THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE FINANCIALS OF M/S.KAILA SH AUTO FINANCE LTD., WERE NOT STRONG ENOUGH FOR JUSTIFYING THE HIGH VALUE OF ITS SHARE IS ALSO NOT SUPPORTED BY SUFFICI ENT EMPIRICAL DATA. 14. NOW, COMING TO THE ARGUMENT OF THE LD.A.R THAT ASSESSMENT HAVING BEEN DONE PURSUANT TO A SEARCH, OUGHT HAVE BEEN U/S.153A TO 153D OF THE ACT AND NOT U/S.1 43(3), I AM AFRAID I CANNOT TOE THIS LINE OF REASONING. REL EVANT PARA IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER RELIED BY THE LD.A.R, FOR B UTTRESSING THIS ARGUMENT REPRODUCED AT PARA ELEVEN ABOVE, HARD LY SUGGEST THAT THE ASSESSMENT DONE ON THE ASSESSEE W AS PURSUANT TO A SEARCH. JUST BECAUSE AN INVESTIGATION WAS DONE BY THE INVESTIGATION DEPARTMENT OF THE DEPARTMENT, BASED ON SOME LEADS THEY MIGHT HAVE HAD, REPORTS OF WHICH WE RE USED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE, WOULD NOT IPSO FACTO MEAN THA T THE ASSESSMENT WAS PURSUANT TO ANY SEARCH. THERE IS N OTHING WHATSOEVER ON RECORD TO SUGGEST THAT THE ASSESSMENT WAS BASED ON MATERIALS UNEARTHED DURING A SEARCH. 15. HOWEVER, AS ALREADY MENTIONED BY ME, RULES OF JUSTICE DO REQUIRE THAT THE REPORTS OF INVESTIGATION WING, REL IED ON BYTHE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER, AS WELL AS THE STATEMENT RECORDE D FROM MR.SUNIL DOKANIA ARE PUT TO THE ASSESSEE AND ITS EXPLANATION SOUGHT, BEFORE DECIDING WHETHER THESE ARE RELEVANT IN THE ASSESSMENT OF THE ASSESSEE. I ALSO FIND THE SEBI T HROUGH ITS ORDER DATED 21.09.2017(SUPRA) DID VACATE ITS INTERIM EXPA RTE ORDER DATED 29 TH MARCH, 2016 RESTRAINING 244 ENTITIES, INTER ALIA I NCLUDING M/S.KAILASH AUTO FINANCE LTD., FROM BUYING, SELLING OR DEALING IN SECURITIES. 16. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, I A M OF THE OPINION THAT THE QUESTION WHETHER THE TRANSACTIONS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE, AS GIVING RISE TO THE LONG TERM CA PITAL GAINS EXEMPT FROM TAX U/S.10(38) OF THE ACT, WERE REAL OR SHAM, REQUIRES A RE-VISIT BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER. I SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND REMIT THE I SSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER FOR CONSID ERATION AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH. ITA NO.1431 /2018 :- 6 -: 5. IN THE CASE OF HEERACHAND KANUNGA (SUPRA ) RELIED ON BY THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, CO-ORDINATE BENCH HAD HELD AS UNDER:- 9. A PERUSAL OF THE FACTS IN THE PRESENT CASE ADMIT TEDLY GIVEN ROOM FOR SUSPICION. HOWEVER, ASSESSMENTS ARE NOT TO BE DONE ON THE BASIS OF MERE SUSPICION. IT HAS TO B E SUPPORTED BY FACTS AND THE FACTS ARE UNFORTUNATELY NOT FORTHCOMING IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, IN THE ORDER O F THE LD.CIT(A) NOR FROM THE SIDE OF THE ASSESSEE. THE M AIN FOUNDATION OF THE ASSESSMENT IN THE PRESENT CASE IS THE STATEMENT OF ONE SHRI ASHOK KUMAR KAYAN WHO HAS ADMITTED TO HAVE PROVIDED BOGUS LONG TERM CAPITAL G AINS TO HIS CLIENTS. THE SAID SHRI ASHOK KUMAR KAYAN AL SO ALLEGEDLY SEEMS TO HAVE PROVIDED THE ASSESSEES NAM E AND PAN AS ONE OF THE BENEFICIARIES. HOWEVER, THIS STA TEMENT GIVEN BY SHRI ASHOK KUMAR KAYAN CANNOT BE THE FOUND ATION FOR THE PURPOSE OF ASSESSMENT IN SO FAR AS SHRI ASH OK KUMAR KAYAN HAS NOT BEEN PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE F OR CROSS-EXAMINATION. IN THE ABSENCE OF OPPORTUNITY O F CROSS- EXAMINATION, THE STATEMENT REMAINS MERE INFORMATION AND SUCH INFORMATION CANNOT BE FOUNDATION FOR ASSESSMEN T. 10. ADMITTEDLY, THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED TO HAVE PURCHASED 15000 SHARES FROM M/S.BPL @ RS.20/- PER SHARE TOTALING INTO RS.3,00,000/-. THE ASSESSEE CLA IMS TO HAVE PAID CASH FOR THE PURCHASE OF THESE SHARES. T HE PRIMARY QUESTION WOULD BE AS TO WHERE THE PURCHASE WAS DONE? IF THE PURCHASE HAS BEEN DONE IN KOLKATA, HOW WAS THE CASH TRANSFERRED? WHEN DID THE ASSESSEE RECEIVE D THE SHARE CERTIFICATES AND THE SHARE TRANSFER FORMS? H OW DID THE ASSESSEE OVERCOME THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.40A(3)? WAS THERE ADEQUATE CASH AVAILABILITY IN THE BOOKS OF TH E ASSESSEE ON 24.04.2008? DID THE ASSESSEE TRAVELLED TO KOLKATA? HOW WAS THE TRANSACTION DONE? WHO APPLIE D FOR THE DEMATING OF THE SHARES? WHEN WERE THEY DEMATED ? WHEN WERE THE SHARES TRANSFERRED TO THE DEMAT ACCOU NT OF THE ASSESSEE? TO WHOM WERE THE SHARES SOLD DURING T HE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2010-11 & 2011-12? WHEN WERE THE CHEQUES RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE? FROM WHOM DID TH E ASSESSEE RECEIVED THE CHEQUES? WAS THERE ANY CASH DEPOSIT IMMEDIATELY PRIOR TO THE ISSUING OF THE CHE QUE FROM THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE PURCHASER OF THE SHARES OF THE ASSESSEE? ITA NO.1431 /2018 :- 7 -: 11. A PERUSAL OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AT PARA NO.7. 1 SHOWS THAT IN THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS, THE ASSESSEE STATES THAT HE HAS PURCHASED 15000 SHARES OF M/S.BPL FROM M/S.ABPL, KOLKATA. HOWEVER, IN PARA NO.8.3, IT IS MENTIONED THAT THE ASSESSEE IN GOOD FAITH HAS PURCH ASED THE SHARES OF M/S.BPL FROM A SUB-BROKER IN HIS FRIE NDS CIRCLE. WHAT IS THE TRUE NATURE OF THE TRANSACTION ? FROM WHOM DID THE ASSESSEE ACTUALLY PURCHASE THE SHARES? DID THE ASSESSEE TAKE POSSESSION OF THE SHARES IN ITS P HYSICAL FORM? IN PARA NO.8.1 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, IT I S MENTIONED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN INVESTOR AND HAS BEEN REGULARLY TRADING IN SHARES. IF THIS IS SO, DOES T HE DEMAT ACCOUNT SHOW SUCH TRANSACTIONS BEING DONE BY THE ASSESSEE OR IS THIS THE ONLY ONE OF TRANSACTION. T HUS, CLEARLY THE FACTS REQUIRED FOR ADJUDICATING THE APP EALS ARE NOT FORTHCOMING. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER T O SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS HELD THE SHARES FOR MORE THAN 12 MONTHS. THIS IS BECAUSE ASSUMING THAT THE DEMAT HA S BEEN DONE AND THE SHARES OF M/S.BPL HAS COME INTO T HE ASSESSEES DEMAT ACCOUNT AND HAS IMMEDIATELY FLOWN OUT. THEN THE FACTUM OF THE POSSESSION OF THE SHARES FOR MORE THAN 12 MONTHS HAVE TO BE PROVED BY THE ASSESSEE. THIS IS ALSO NOT FORTHCOMING. IN REPLY TO A SPECIFIC QUERY , AS THE DATE OF THE DEMAT OF SHARES, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY TH E LD.AR THAT THE DEMAT WAS DONE ON VARIOUS DATES. THEN THE QUESTION RISES AS TO WHY THERE IS SO MUCH OF DIFFER ENCE IN THE DATES OF DEMATING WHEN 15000 SHARES HAVE BEEN PURCHASED TOGETHER ON 24.04.2008. NO DETAILS IN RE SPECT OF M/S.BPL COMPANY IS KNOWN, WHAT IS THE PRODUCT OF TH E COMPANY WHICH HAD LEAD TO THE SHARE VALUE OF THE CO MPANY TO GO UP FROM RS.20/- TO RS.352/- IN A PERIOD OF TW O YEARS. THIS WOULD CLEARLY BE A CASE WHERE THE SHARE VALUE OF THE COMPANY WAS HITTING THE CIRCUIT BREAKER OF THE STOC K EXCHANGE ON A DAILY BASIS AND OBVIOUSLY IT WOULD HA VE DRAWN ATTENTION. THIS BEING SO, AS THE FACTS ARE N OT COMING OUT OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER NOR THE ORDER OF THE LD .CIT(A) NOR FROM THE SIDE OF THE ASSESSEE, WE ARE OF THE VI EW THAT THE ISSUES IN THIS APPEAL MUST BE RESTORED TO THE F ILE OF THE AO FOR RE-ADJUDICATION AFTER GRANTING THE ASSESSEE ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS CASE AND WE DO SO. 12. THE STATEMENT RECORDED BY THE REVENUE FROM SHRI ASHOK KUMAR KAYAN CANNOT BE USED AS AN EVIDENCE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE IN SO FAR AS THE STATEMENT HAS NOT BEEN GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE NOR HAS SHRI ASHOK KUMAR KAYAN BEEN PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE FOR CROSS- EXAMINATION. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE SHALL PROVE THE TRANSACTION OF THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS IN RESPE CT OF ITA NO.1431 /2018 :- 8 -: WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED THE EXEMPTION U/S.10 (38) BY PROVIDING ALL SUCH EVIDENCES AS REQUIRED BY THE AO TO SUBSTANTIATE THE CLAIM AS ALSO BY PRODUCING THE PER SONS THROUGH WHOM THE ASSESSEE HAS UNDERTAKEN THE TRANSA CTION OF THE PURCHASE AND SALE OF THE SHARES WHICH WOULD INCLUDE THE SUB-BROKER, FRIEND AND THE BROKER THROUGH WHOM THE TRANSACTION HAS BEEN DONE, BEFORE THE AO FOR EXAMIN ATION. 6. THE FACT SITUATION HERE, IS SIMILAR TO THE ABOVE TW O CASES DECIDED BY THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH. WE ARE THEREFORE OF THE OPINION THAT THE TRANSACTIONS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE WHETHER R EAL OR SHAM, REQUIRES A REVISIT BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER. SIMILAR DIR ECTIONS AS GIVEN IN THE CASES OF VIMALCHAND GULABCHAND, PRAVEEN CHAND, GATRAJ JAIN & SONS (HUF) AND MAHENDRA KUMAR BHANDARI (SUPRA), READ A LONGWITH THE DIRECTIONS GIVEN IN THE CASE OF HEERACHAND KANUNGA (SUPRA) ARE GIVEN HEREALSO. USEFUL REFERENCE MAY BE MADE TO THE LAW L AID DOWN BY HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SUNITA DHADDA, SLP (CIVIL ) NO.9432/2018, DATED 28.03.2018 , WHILE AFFIRMING A JUDGMENT OF HONBLE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS.SMT. SUNITA DHADDA , WHERE THE IMPORTANCE OF PROVIDING AN OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS EXAMINE THE WITNESS HAS BEEN STRESSED. THEIR LORDSHIP HELD THAT THIS W AS AN IMPORTANT CONSTITUENT OF NATURAL JUSTICE. ONLY AFTER ALL TH E STEPS REQUIRED UNDER LAW IS COMPLETE, IT CAN BE ASCERTAINED WHETHER CLA IM OF CAPITAL GAINS WAS BOGUS OR NOT. WE THEREFORE SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND REMIT THE ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LD. ASS ESSING OFFICER FOR CONSIDERATION AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. ITA NO.1431 /2018 :- 9 -: 7. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY AL LOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON MONDAY, THE 17 TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2018, AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( ' # ' $ . %& ) ( DUVVURU RL REDDY ) ( / JUDICIAL MEMBER ( . ) (ABRAHAM P. GEORGE) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER '# / CHENNAI $% / DATED:-17TH SEPTEMBER, 2018. KV %& '()( / COPY TO: 1 . / APPELLANT 3. *+, / CIT(A) 5. (-. / / DR 2. / RESPONDENT 4. * / CIT 6. .01 / GF