DCIT, CHENNAI V. Ashraf Abdul Rahman Buhari, CHENNAI

ITA 1449/CHNY/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7755 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-03-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 08-02-2016
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 15-06-2015
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A B KOLI
• Assessee Lawyers: N C PRABHAKAR
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Unexplained investment
• Section: 68

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH : CHENNAI . . . , . !' , # $ % [ BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ] ./ I.T.A.NO.1448, 1449 & 1450/MDS/2015 & C.O.NOS.94, 95 & 96/MDS/2015 / ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2008-09, 2010-11 & 2011-12 THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CORPORATE CIRCLE I(2) CHENNAI VS. SHRI ASHRAF ABDUL RAHMAN BUHARI NO.4, MOORES ROAD BUHARIA TOWERS CHENNAI 600 006 [PAN AACPA 3838 J ] (APPELLANT) ( R ESPONDENT /CROSS OBJECTOR ) ./ I.T.A.NO.1401/MDS/2015 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12 SHRI ASHRAF ABDUL RAHMAN BUHARI NO.4, MOORES ROAD BUHARIA TOWERS CHENNAI 600 006 VS. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CORPORATE CIRCLE I(2) CHENNAI (APPELLANT) ( R ESPONDENT ) DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI A.B KOLI, JCI T ASSESSEE BY : SHRI N.C. PRABHAKAR, ADVOCATE / DATE OF HEARING : 11 - 02 - 2016 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 18 - 0 3 - 2016 / O R D E R PER N.R.S.GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER THE APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE AND THE CROSS OB JECTIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE RES PECTIVE ORDERS OF THE ITA NO. 1448/15 ETC :- 2 -: COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-1, CHENNAI, FO R ASSESSMENT YEARS 2008-09, 2010-11 AND 2011-12. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FILED AN APPEAL INDEPENDENTLY FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12. SINCE COMMON ISSUE ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION IN ALL THE APPEALS A ND THE CROSS OBJECTIONS, WE HEARD THEM TOGETHER AND DISPOSING OF THE SAME BY THIS COMMON ORDER. 2. SHRI A.B. KOLI, LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUB MITTED THAT THE FIRST ISSUE ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION IS RE GARDING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 68 OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDITS. THE CIT(A) ALLOWED THE C LAIM OF THE ASSESSEE BY FOLLOWING HIS OWN ORDER FOR THE ASSESSM ENT YEAR 2009-10. ACCORDING TO THE LD. DR, THE REVENUE FILED AN APPEA L BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL AGAINST THE CIT(A)S ORDER FOR THE ASSESSM ENT YEAR 2009-10 IN I.T.A.NO.1715/MDS/2013. THIS TRIBUNAL PASSED AN OR DER DATED 11.6.2014 REMITTING THE ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF T HE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR CONSIDERATION. THIS TRIBUNAL OBSERVED THAT THE FLOW OF FUNDS FROM NRO ACCOUNTS TO THE DOMESTIC ACCOUNTS MUST BE PROVE D. SINCE THE FACTS ARE IDENTICAL FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATIO N, ACCORDING TO THE LD. DR, THE MATTER MAY BE REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR DECIDING AFRESH IN THE LIGHT OF THE DIR ECTION ISSUED BY THIS TRIBUNAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. ITA NO. 1448/15 ETC :- 3 -: 3. ON THE CONTRARY, SHRI N.C.PRABHAKAR, LD. COUNSEL FO R THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT(A) BY FOLLOWING HIS OWN ORDER IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10, DE LETED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH REGARD TO UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT. NO DOUBT, THIS TRIBUNAL IN I.T.A.NO.1 715/MDS/2013 REMITTED THE MATTER BACK TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR RECONSIDERATION. CONSEQUENT TO THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL, THE ASSE SSING OFFICER EXAMINED THE MATTER AND DELETED THE ADDITION. THER EFORE, ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, EVEN IF THE MATTER IS REMITTED BACK TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER, NOTHING WOULD SURVIVE. THE ASSESSING OFFI CER HAS DELETED THE ADDITION IN VIEW OF THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009- 10. ON A QUERY FROM THE BENCH WHETHER THE SOURCE O F THE CREDITORS HAS TO BE EXAMINED INDEPENDENTLY FOR EACH ASSESSMEN T YEAR, THE LD. COUNSEL CLARIFIED THAT THE SOURCE OF CREDITORS HAS TO BE EXAMINED INDEPENDENTLY EVERY YEAR, THEREFORE, HE MAY NOT HAV E ANY OBJECTION TO REMIT THE MATTER BACK TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS D IRECTED BY THIS TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EITHER SIDE AND ALSO PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE THE ADDITION U/S 68 OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF THE UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT. FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10, AN IDENTI CAL ADDITION WAS MADE AND WHEN THE MATTER REACHED THIS TRIBUNAL, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ITA NO. 1448/15 ETC :- 4 -: WAS DIRECTED TO RE-EXAMINE THE MATTER BY VERIFYING THE FUND FLOW FROM NRO ACCOUNT TO DOMESTIC ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE SOURCE OF THE CREDI TORS AND THE FUND FLOW TO THE DOMESTIC ACCOUNT HAVE TO BE EXAMINED IN DEPENDENTLY YEARWISE. MERELY BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE HAS PROVED THE FUND FLOW AND THE AVAILABLE SOURCE FOR ONE YEAR, IT DOES NOT AUTO MATICALLY INDICATE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED THE CASH CREDIT. T HEREFORE, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE ASSE SSING OFFICER HAS TO EXAMINE THE SOURCE OF THE CREDITORS, GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE CREDITORS INDEPENDENTLY FOR EACH YEAR. ACCORDINGLY, THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AR E SET ASIDE AND THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 68 IS R EMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER SHALL RE-EXAMINE THE ISSUE AFRESH IN THE LIGHT OF THE DIRECTION GIVE N BY THIS TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 AND THEREAFTER DECIDE THE SAME AFTER GIVING A REASONABLE OPPORTUNI TY TO THE ASSESSEE. 5. FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 IN I.T.A.NO.1401/ MDS/2015, THE ONLY ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS WITH REGARD TO ADDITION OF ` 7,50,000/-. ITA NO. 1448/15 ETC :- 5 -: 6. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PRODUCED ALL THE MATERIAL BEFORE THE A SSESSING OFFICER TO SUBSTANTIATE THE CASH DEPOSIT IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, THE ASSESSEE HAS PRODUCED LEDGER ACCOUNT OF THE CONCERNED PERSON TO WHOM THE MONEY WAS ADVANCED. THEREFORE, THE CIT(A) IS NOT CORRECT IN SAYING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PR ODUCED ANY MATERIAL. 7. WE HEARD SHRI A.B. KOLI, LD. DR ALSO. ACCORDING TO THE LD. DR, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRODUCED ANY EVIDENCE WITH RE GARD TO THE DEPOSIT OF ` 7,50,000/- IN THE ACCOUNT MAINTAINED BY THE ASSES SEE IN ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EVID ENCE, ACCORDING TO THE LD. DR, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RIGHTLY MADE THE ADDITION. 8. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EITHER SIDE AND ALSO PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. TH E ASSESSEE APPARENTLY MADE CASH DEPOSIT OF ` 7,50,000/- ON THREE DATES IN THE ACCOUNT MAINTAINED IN ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT THERE WAS NO MATERIAL TO SUBSTANTIATE TH E SOURCE FOR MAKING THE DEPOSIT. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER TR EATED THE DEPOSIT AS UNEXPLAINED CREDIT AND ADDED THE SAME TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS THAT THE MATERIALS WERE FILED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CO NSIDERED OPINION THAT ITA NO. 1448/15 ETC :- 6 -: GIVING ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO PRO DUCE THE MATERIAL BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAY NOT PREJUDICE THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE IN ANY WAY. ON THE CONTRARY, GIVING SUCH AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE WOULD DEFINITELY PROMOTE THE CAUSE OF JUSTICE. MOREOVER, THE MAIN ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/ S 68 IS REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR RECON SIDERATION. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE ADDITION OF ` 7,50,000/- IS ALSO NEEDS TO BE RECONSIDERED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ACCORDINGLY, THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES ARE SET ASIDE AND THE ISSUE OF ADDITION OF ` 7,50,000/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS ALSO REMITTED BACK TO T HE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL REC ONSIDER THE ISSUE IN THE LIGHT OF THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AND THEREAFTER DECIDE THE SAME IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER GIVING A REASONABLE OPPOR TUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. 9. IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR ASSESSMEN T YEAR 2011-12 IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 10. FURTHER, IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12, APART FROM UNE XPLAINED CASH CREDIT U/S 68 OF THE ACT, THE REVENUE HAS ALS O RAISED A GROUND REGARDING UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT TO THE EXTENT OF ` 62,84,23,624/-. 11. SHRI A.B KOLI, LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT SHARES OF MILK YWAY DEVELOPERS P. LTD WAS PURCHASED BY ETA STAR HOLDING S LTD., DUBAI, IN 2006. SUBSEQUENTLY, ETA STAR HOLDINGS LTD., DUBAI, EXPRESSED ITS ITA NO. 1448/15 ETC :- 7 -: CONSENT TO SELL PART OF ITS SHARES IN MILKYWAY DEVE LOPERS P. LTD. TO SHRI ASHRAF ABDUL RAHMAN BUHARI. FURTHER ETA STAR HOLDIN GS LTD. DUBAI, EXPRESSED ITS CONSENT TO SELL THE SHARES OF ETA STA R PROPERTY DEVELOPERS LTD TO SHRI ASHRAF ABDUL RAHMAN BUHARI. IN THE STATEMENT OF AFFAIRS AS ON 31.3.2011, THE INVESTMENT OF ` 37.872 CRORES IN MILKYWAY DEVELOPERS P. LTD. AND ` 25 CRORES IN ETA STAR PROPERTY DEVELOPERS LTD. WERE NOT REFLECTED. THE ASSESSEE IS SHOWING THE INVESTMENT IN MILKYWAY DEVELOPERS P. LTD AT ` 50,000/- AND ETA STAR PROPERTY DEVELOPERS LTD. AT ONLY ` 22,985/-. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE THE ADDITION. ON APPEAL BY THE ASSESS EE, THE CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE GROUND THAT DISALLOWANCE U/S 69B WOULD ATTRACT IF THE SOURCE O F THE INVESTMENT WAS NOT EXPLAINED. THE CIT(A) FOUND THAT THE TRANS ACTION OF INVESTMENT IN DUBAI COMPANY WILL NOT REFLECT IN THE ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE SINCE THE INVESTMENT WAS NOT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN HIS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY. THE CIT(A) FURTHER FOUND THAT THE INVESTMENT WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE ON BEHALF OF THE PARTNERSHIP FIRM. HOWEVER, ACCORDING TO THE LD. DR, THE FUNDS WERE CREDITED IN THE INDIVIDUAL ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE FUNDS WERE TRANSF ERRED TO THE COMPANY FROM THE INDIVIDUAL ACCOUNT, THEREFORE, IT MAY NOT BE CORRECT TO SAY THAT THE INVESTMENT WAS MADE ON BEHALF OF TH E PARTNERSHIP FIRM AND THE CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADD ITION. ITA NO. 1448/15 ETC :- 8 -: 12. ON THE CONTRARY, SHRI N.C. PRABHAKAR, LD. COUNSEL F OR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ENTIRE INVESTMENT WAS M ADE ON BEHALF OF THE PARTNERSHIP FIRM, THEREFORE, IT WILL BE REFLECT ED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE PARTNERSHIP FIRM. ON A QUERY FROM T HE BENCH WHETHER THE INVESTMENT WAS ACTUALLY MADE BY THE ASSESSEE O N BEHALF OF THE PARTNERSHIP FIRM, THE LD. COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT IT HAS TO BE VERIFIED. ON A FURTHER QUERY FROM THE BENCH IF THE INVESTMENT WAS ACTUALLY MADE ON BEHALF OF THE PARTNERSHIP FIRM WHY THE AMOU NTS WERE CREDITED IN THE INDIVIDUAL ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE, THE LD. COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT THE AMOUNTS WERE IN FACT CREDITED IN THE INDIV IDUAL ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE INVESTMENT WAS MADE ON BEHALF OF T HE PARTNERSHIP FIRM. THEREFORE, IT HAS TO BE VERIFIED WHETHER THE INVESTMENT WAS REFLECTED IN THE PARTNERSHIP FIRMS ACCOUNT OR NOT. 13. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EITHER SIDE AND ALSO PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. TH OUGH THE FUNDS WERE CREDITED IN THE INDIVIDUAL ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE , THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS THAT THE INVESTMENT WAS MADE ON BEHALF OF TH E PARTNERSHIP FIRM. BUT THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE NOT VERIFIED WHETHER THE INVESTMENT MADE IS REFLECTED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE PA RTNERSHIP FIRM OR NOT. IT ALSO NEEDS TO BE VERIFIED THAT IF THE INTEN TION IS TO INVEST IN THE NAME OF THE PARTNERSHIP FIRM, WHY THE FUNDS WERE NO T CREDITED IN THE ACCOUNTS OF THE PARTNERSHIP FIRM. THIS HAS NOT BEE N EXAMINED BY THE ITA NO. 1448/15 ETC :- 9 -: AUTHORITIES BELOW. THEREFORE, AS RIGHTLY SUBMITTED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, IT HAS TO BE VERIFIED. ACCORDING LY, THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES ARE SET ASIDE AND THE ENTIRE ISSU E IS REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSING O FFICER SHALL RE- EXAMINE THE ISSUE AFRESH IN THE LIGHT OF THE MATERI AL THAT MAY BE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND FIND OUT WHETHER THE INVESTMEN T WAS MADE ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE OR ON BEHALF OF THE PARTNER SHIP FIRM AND THEREAFTER DECIDE THE SAME IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW A FTER GIVING A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. 14. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED ONE MORE GROUND WITH REGARD TO PROPERTY TAX. 15. SHRI A.B KOLI, LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED RENTAL INCOME OF ` 6,95,000/- DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED TO HAVE PAID A SUM OF ` 51,384/- TOWARDS MUNICIPAL TAXES. THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE MUNICIP AL CORPORATION IS IN THE NAME OF M/S CENTURY GALAXY DEVELOPERS LTD. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT HE IS A S HAREHOLDER IN M/S CENTURY GALAXY DEVELOPERS LTD. SINCE THE PROPERTY TAX WAS PAID ON BEHALF OF M/S CENTURY GALAXY DEVELOPERS LTD., IT C ANNOT BE CLAIMED AS DEDUCTION IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. ITA NO. 1448/15 ETC :- 10 -: 16. ON THE CONTRARY, SHRI N.C.PRABHAKAR, LD. COUNSEL FO R THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED RENTAL INCOME IN RESPECT OF THE PROPERTY AT DIAMOND DISTRICT, BANGAL ORE. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO CLAIMED ` 51,384/- AS MUNICIPAL TAXES. ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, SINCE THE ASSESSEE BEING A SHAREHOLDER, THE COMPANY ENJOYS AN OCCUPANCY RIGHT, THEREFORE, THE RECEIPT WAS ISSU ED IN THE NAME OF THE COMPANY, HENCE, IT HAS TO BE ALLOWED. 17. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EITHER SIDE AND ALSO PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. ADM ITTEDLY, THE MUNICIPAL TAX RECEIPT WAS ISSUED IN THE NAME OF M/ S CENTURY GALAXY DEVELOPERS LTD. NORMALLY, THE MUNICIPALITY WOULD I SSUE RECEIPT IN THE NAME OF THE OWNER OF THE BUILDING IN WHOSE NAME THE PROPERTY WAS ASSESSED. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS THAT HE RECEIVED RE NTAL INCOME OF ` 6,95,000/- DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. IT IS NOT KNOWN WHETHER THE ASSESSEE HAS OFFERED THE SAME FOR TAXA TION OR NOT. IF THE ASSESSEE HAS OFFERED ` 6,95,000/- FOR TAXATION FROM THE PROPERTY AT DIAMOND DISTRICT, BANGALORE, THEN NATURALLY THE PRO PERTY TAX PAID HAS TO BE DEDUCTED FOR COMPUTING THE INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY. SINCE THE DETAILS ARE NOT AVAILABLE WITH REGARD TO ASSESS MENT OF INCOME AND THE OWNERSHIP OF THE PROPERTY, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE MATTER NEEDS TO BE RECONSIDERED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ACCORDINGLY, THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTH ORITIES ARE SET ASIDE ITA NO. 1448/15 ETC :- 11 -: AND THE ISSUE IS REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE A SSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL RECONSIDER THE ISSUE AFRESH IN THE LIGHT OF THE MATERIAL THAT MAY BE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE REAFTER DECIDE THE SAME IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER GIVING A REASONAB LE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. 18. IN THE CROSS OBJECTIONS, THE ASSESSEE HAS SIMPLY S UPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE CIT(A). IN VIEW OF OUR ORDER IN THE REVENUES APPEALS, THE CROSS OBJECTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE BEC OME INFRUCTUOUS AND HENCE, DISMISSED. 19. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE I.T. A.NOS. 1448, 1449 AND 1450/MDS/2015 AND ASSESSEES APPEAL I.T.A.NO. 1401/MDS/2015 ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. THE CROSS OBJECTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED AS INFRUC TUOUS. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 18 TH MARCH, 2016, AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( . !' ) (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) # / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( . . . ) ) (N.R.S. GANESAN) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / CHENNAI ! / DATED: 18 TH MARCH, 2016 RD !' # $% &% / COPY TO: 1 . '( / APPELLANT 3. ) () / CIT(A) 5. %+, # - / DR 2. #.'( / RESPONDENT 4. ) / CIT 6. ,/ 0 / GF