ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2 (2), CHENNAI V. M/S JUBILEE PLOT & HOUSING PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

ITA 1452/CHNY/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8090 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-12-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 27-04-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S. BHARATH
• Assessee Lawyers: K.M.MOHANDASS
• Keywords: Depreciation; Search and seizure; Tax effect; Documents seized
• Section: 145; 6; 153A; 201; 13; 20

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH : CHENNAI , . , BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A.NOS.1445, 1446, 1447, 1448, 1449, 1450, 1451 & 1452 /CHNY/2018 ASSESSMENT YEARS :2009-10, 2010-11, 2010-11, 20 11-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, 46,NUNGAMBAKKAM HIGH ROAD, CHENNAI 600 034. VS. M/S.JUBILEE PLOT AND HOUSING PVT LTD., 1379,GOLDEN VILLA,1 ST BLOCK, 6 TH STREET, 18 TH MAIN ROAD, VALLALAR KUDIYERUPPU, ANNA NAGAR(W), CHENNAI 600 040. [PAN AABCJ 3938 J] ( / APPELLANT) ( /RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : MR.S.BHARATH,CIT,D.R ! /RESPONDENT BY : MR.K.M.MOHANDASS,C.A ' # $% / DATE OF HEARING : 13 - 12 - 201 8 &' $ % / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 24 - 12 - 201 8 / O R D E R PER GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NOS.1445 & 1447/CHNY/2018 ARE THE APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE COMMON ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONE R OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-18, CHENNAI, IN ITA NOS.211 & 212/16-17 ITA NOS.1445 TO 1452 /CHNY/2018 :- 2 -: DATED 12.01.2018 FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2009-10 & 201 0-11, ITA NO.1446/CHNY/2018 IS THE APPEAL FILED BY THE RE VENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD.CIT(A)-18, CHENNAI, IN ITA NO.296/1 6-17 DATED 12.01.2018 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11, ITA NOS.144 8, 1451 & 1452/CHNY/2018 ARE THE APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE COMMON ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APP EALS)-18, CHENNAI, IN ITA NOS.213 & 216/16-17 & 94/17-18 DATE D 12.01.2018 FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2011-12,2014-15 & 2 015-16, AND ITA NOS.1449 & 1450/CHNY/2018 ARE THE APPEALS F ILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE COMMON ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONE R OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-18, CHENNAI, IN ITA NOS.214 & 215/16-17 DATED 12.01.2018 FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2012-13 & 201 3-14. 2. AS ALL THE APPEALS ARE RELATED TO THE SAME ASSE SSEE AND INTER-CONNECTED, ALL APPEALS ARE DISPOSED OFF BY TH IS COMMON ORDER. 3. MR.S.BHARTH LD,CIT D.R REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE AND MR.K.M.MOHANDASS REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE. 4. THE GROUNDS RAISED IN THE APPEALS OF REVENUE OF ITA NOS.1445 & 1447/CHNY/2018 BEING IDENTICAL, THEY ARE DISPOSED OFF TOGETHER. BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE ARE AGAIN ST THE ACTION OF ITA NOS.1445 TO 1452 /CHNY/2018 :- 3 -: LD.CIT(A) IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSEE RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS IN BOTH T HE APPEALS. 1. THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IS ERRONEOUS ON FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW. 2. THE ID. CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITIONS O F RS.1,21,31,712/- (A.Y.2009-10) AND RS.57,05,287/-(A.Y.2010-11) TOWA RDS ESTIMATION OF TURNOVER BASED ON WEIGHTED AVERAGE, MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER(AO) IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S.143(3) R.W. SEC 153A OF THE IT ACT, 1961. FOR THE AY 2009-10 & 2010-11 RESPECTI VELY. 2.1. THE ID. CIT(A) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT ADDITION IN ASSESSMENT U/S 153A OF THE IT ACT 1961 CAN BE MADE ONLY ON THE BAS IS OF INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS SEIZED WHEN AS PER SECTION 153A OF THE IT ACT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS REQUIRED TO ASSESS TH E TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FOR EACH ASSESSMENT YEAR FALLING WITHIN TH E SIX ASSESSMENT YEARS, IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING THE PREVIOUS YEAR, IN WHICH SEARCH WAS CONDUCTED. 2.2. THE ID. CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING THA T, IT WAS NOT POSSIBLE FOR THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO REOPEN THE ISSUES CONC LUDED IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENTS AND MAKE ADDITIONS OF THOSE AM OUNTS IN THE ASSESSMENTS COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 153A, WHEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RIGHTLY FOLLOWED THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LEGAL MANDATE UNDER SECTION 153A OF THE L. T. ACT, 1961. 2.3. THE ID. CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT FOLLOWING THE DECI SION OF HONBLE KERALA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT, THRISSUR VS S T. FRANCIS CLAY DECOR TILES (2016) 385 ITR 624 AND THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN ITA NO. 38/2014 DATED 25.07 .2014 IN THE ITA NOS.1445 TO 1452 /CHNY/2018 :- 4 -: CASE OF M/S CANARA HOUSING DEVELOPMENT COMPANY VS D CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1),BANGALORE. 5. THE APPEAL OF REVENUE WAS ORIGINALLY POSTED FOR HEARING ON 11.12.2018. THE SAME HAD BEEN ADJOURNED TO 13.12.20 18 AT THE REQUEST OF THE LD.D.R FOR VERIFICATION AS TO WHETHE R ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIAL HAD BEEN FOUND IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH. TH ERE WAS A SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION ON THE ASSESSEE COMPANY ON 03 .09.2013. CONSEQUENT TO THE SEARCH NOTICE U/S.153A CAME TO BE ISSUED ON 29.04.2014 AND THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED ON 31. 03.2016 WHEREIN THE EXPENSES OF THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF ITS BUSINESS OF PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT WAS DISALLOWED TO AN EXTENT OF 24.35% ON THE GROUND THAT IN THE EARLIER YEARS, SIMILAR DISALLOW ANCE TO THE EXTENT OF 24.35% WAS MADE. NO SEIZED MATERIAL HAS BEEN CONSID ERED IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2009-10 & 2010-11. LD.D.R ALSO SUBMITTED THAT EXCEPT FOR TWO LEDGERS, WHICH HAD BEEN FOUND AND SEIZED, NO INCRIMINATING MATERIAL WAS FOU ND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. 6. IN REPLY, THE LD.A.R SUBMITTED THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT(APPEALS) WAS LIABLE TO BE UPHELD IN SO FAR AS NO INCRIMINATING MATERIAL HAS BEEN FOUND IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE OR WAS USED AGAINST ITA NOS.1445 TO 1452 /CHNY/2018 :- 5 -: THE ASSESSEE, IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENTS IN THE C ASE OF ASSESSEE. THE LD.A.R VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE CI T(APPEALS). 7. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. A P ERUSAL OF THE ORDER OF THE CIT(APPEALS) SHOWS THAT THE LD.CIT(A) HAS FOLLOWED THE SPECIAL BENCH DECISION OF MUMBAI TRIBUNAL IN THE CA SE OF ALL CARGO GLOBAL LOGISTICS LTD. VS. DCIT [2012] 137 ITD 287(M UM)(SB), AS ALSO THE DECISION OF HONBLE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN IN THE CASE OF JAI STEEL (INDIA) VS.ACIT IN 88 DTR(RAJ) 1 WHERE IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIALS FOUND IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH, NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE IN THE SEARCH ASSES SMENT. AS THE REVENUE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO DISLODGE THESE FINDING S OF FACTS BY THE LD.CIT(A) AND AS IT IS AN ADMITTED FACT THAT NO INC RIMINATING MATERIAL IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE HAD BEEN FOUND IN COURSE OF SEARCH, WE FIND NO REASON TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(APPE ALS) IN RESPECT OF ASSESSMENT YEARS 2009-10 & 2010-11 IN ITA NOS.1445 & 1447/CHNY/2018. ITA NO.1446/CHNY/201 (A.Y.2010-11) 8. THE APPEAL OF REVENUE IS AGAINST THE ACTION OF L D.CIT(A) IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFF ICER ON ACCOUNT OF EXPENSES CLAIMED UNDER LAND DEVELOPMENT COST AMOU NTING TO ` 14,24,017. ITA NOS.1445 TO 1452 /CHNY/2018 :- 6 -: 9. WHEN THE APPEAL IS TAKEN UP FOR HEARING, THE R EPRESENTATIVE OF THE REVENUE AND THE REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSES SEE FAIRLY SUBMITTED THAT THE TAX EFFECT INVOLVED IN THIS APPE AL IS LESS THAN ` 20 LAKHS. IT WAS A SUBMISSION THAT THE CBDT IN ITS LAT EST CIRCULAR NO.3/2018 DATED 11.07.2018 INSTRUCTED ITS OFFICERS TO WITHDRAW ALL THE APPEALS PENDING BEFORE THE ITAT WHERE THE TAX EFFEC T IS LESS THAN ` 20 LAKHS. THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION T HAT THIS CIRCULAR OF CBDT IS BINDING ON THE OFFICERS OF THE DEPARTMENT. THEREFORE, THE REVENUE CANNOT PROCEED FURTHER IN THIS APPEAL. ACCO RDINGLY, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IN ITA NO.1446/CHNY/2018 STANDS DISMISSED. ITA NOS.1448,1451 & 1452/CHNY/2018 (A.YS 2011-12,2014-15 & 2015-16) 10. LD.D.R SUBMITTED THAT IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSME NT, THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ESTIMATED THE ASSESSEES INCO ME BY DISALLOWING THE EXPENDITURE IN RESPECT OF LAND DEVELOPMENT AT 2 4.35% AS HAS BEEN DISALLOWED IN THE EARLIER YEARS. IT WAS A SUBMISSIO N THAT THE LD.CIT(A) HAD DELETED THE DISALLOWANCES ON THE GROUND THAT TH ERE IS NO INCRIMINATING MATERIAL FOUND THE COURSE OF SEARCH, AS ALSO ON THE GROUND THAT ESTIMATION OF INCOME WAS NOT PERMISSIBL E. 11. IN REPLY, THE LD.A.R SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE OF ESTIMATED INCOME WAS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE DECISION OF CO-O RDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEE'S OWN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2008-08 & ITA NOS.1445 TO 1452 /CHNY/2018 :- 7 -: 2008-09 IN ITA NOS.1097/CHNY/2011 & 1315/CHNY/2017 DATED 21.06.2013 WHEREIN THE TRIBUNAL HAS HELD AS FOLLOW S:- WE HEARD BOTH SIDES IN DEAL AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND THE RECORDS OF THE CASE. WE H AVE TO ACCEPT THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MAINTAINED PROPER BO OKS OF ACCOUNTS. IT IS ALSO TRUE THAT THE ACCOUNTS ARE PRO DUCED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THE ASSESSE HAD PRODUCED THE VOUCHERS ALSO, IN SUPPORT OF THE CLAIM OF EXPENDITURE MADE B Y IT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE A TEST CHECK OF THE VOUC HERS. THAT IS ONE OF THE ACCEPTED METHODS OF AUDIT PROCEDURE. IN HIGH VOLUME OF BUSINESS, WHERE THOUSANDS AND THOUSANDS OF VOUCH ERS ARE PRODUCED BY AN ASSESSE, IT IS NOT POSSIBLE FOR AN A SSESSING OFFICER TO VERIFY ALL THE VOUCHERS ONE BY ONE. IN SUCH CASE S ILLS ENOUGH IF HE MAKES A RANDOM CHECK/TEST CHECK. IN THE PRESENT CASE SUCH A CHECK HAS BEEN MADE AND, THEREFORE, IT IS NOT POSSI BLE TO PASS AN ADVERSE COMMENT AGAINST THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND V OUCHERS AND EVIDENCES AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE. NOW, REGARDING THE NATURE OF THE VOUCHERS, THERE IS AN ALLEGATION THAT IN MANY OF THE VOUCHERS THE ADDRESSES OF THE P YEES ARE NOT READILY AVAILABLE. THE PARTICULARS LIKE THE DATE OF PAYMENT, THE WORK FOR WHICH THE PAYMENT WAS MADE, THE AMOUNT PAI D, THE NAME OF THE PAYEE1 ETC., ARE ALL AVAILABLE. THE DET AILED ADDRESSES ALONE ARE NOT AVAILABLE. IN THIS TYPE F LAND DEVEL OPMENT EXPENDITURE IN RURAL AND PERIPHERAL AREAS, IT IS JU ST A LUXURY TO EXPECT ALL THE FONNAL FOOLPROOF VOUCHERS AND RECEIP TS IN SUPPORT OF THE EXPENSES INCURRED BY AN ASSESSE. THESE ARE A LL NON ORGANIZED INDUSTRIES. AS AND WHEN IT IS REQUIRED, T HE LABOURERS ARE CALLED AND THE LABOURERS ARE OFTEN SUPPLIED BY MIDDLEMEN. EQUIPMENTS ARE CALLED FOR AND SUPPLIED BY AGENTS IN A GREAT HUNY BUNY AND THE ACTIVITIES ARE CARRIED ON AT DIFFERENT POINTS AT ITA NOS.1445 TO 1452 /CHNY/2018 :- 8 -: DIFFERENT LEVELS AND IN MANY OF SUCH CASES SELF VOU CHERS ALONE WILL BE AVAILABLE. IT IS IN THIS CONTEXT THAT WE HAVE TO EXAMINE THE R EASONABLENESS OF THE QUANTUM OF EXPENDITURE CLAIMED BY THE ASSESS E. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) HAS ANALYSED T HE PROFIT PATTERN OF THE ASSESSE FOR THE THREE ASSESSMENT YEA RS 2006- 07, 2007-08 AND 2008-09. ON AN ANALYSIS, THE COMMISSION ER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) FOUND THAT THE ASEESSE HAS DEC LARED A PROFIT OF MORE THAN 23.47% WHICH IS AN EXCELLENT RE SULT IN THE CASE OF A NEW ENTRANT INTO THE BUSINESS. THE AVERAG E NET PROFIT RATE BEFORE DEPRECIATION AND INCOME-TAX WORKED OUT TO 23.47%. IN THE CASE OF A SIMILAR COMPANY MIS BLB ESTATES PV T.LTCL, THE SAID RATE IS 22.92% IN THE CASE OF ANOTHER BUILDER, MIS ANNAI BUILDERS REAL ESTATES PVT.LTD., THE AVERAGE PROFIT BEFORE DEPRECIATION AND INCOME-TAX IS 16.56%. IN THE CASE OF MIS ARIHANT SHELTERS (INDIA) LTD., THE SAID PROFIT IS 2 1.67%. THEREFORE, WE FIND THAT AS RIGHTLY HELD BY THE COMM ISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS), THE PROFIT RATIO REFLECTED IN THE ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSE IS MORE THAN IN SIMILAR CASES, WHEREAS THE ASSESSE IS A NOVICE IN THIS BUSINESS COMPARED TO OTHER PLAYERS IN THE FIELD. IT IS IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE COMPARISON THAT THE CO MMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) HAS HELD THAT THE VOUCHERS ARE ACCEPTABLE AS EVIDENCES AND THERE WAS NO JUSTIFICATION IN MAKI NG ADHOC DJUSTMENTS. TAKING AN OVERALL VIEW OF THE CASE, WE FIND THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) IS JUSTIFIED I N DELETING THE ADDITION MADE IN, THE CSINU OFFICER. THE ADDITION H AS BEEN MADE BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER ON GENERAL OBSERVATION S AND ON ADHOC BASIS. HE HAS NOT APPLIED HIS MIND IN ANALYZ ING THE REAL WORKING PATTERN OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE PROFIT RATE DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE AND HE HAS NOT MADE ANY COMPARATIVE ST UDY. IN ITA NOS.1445 TO 1452 /CHNY/2018 :- 9 -: THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THIS GROUND RAISED BY THE REVE NUE IS LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED. 12. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. ITA NO.1448/CHNY/2018 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 IS AN APPEAL IN RESPECT OF SEARCH ASSESSMENT. ADMITTEDLY, NO INCRI MINATING MATERIAL HAS BEEN FOUND IN COURSE OF SEARCH. CONSEQUENTLY, O UR FINDINGS IN RESPECT OF ITA NOS.1445,1446/CHNY/2018 REFERRED TO SUPRA WOULD APPLY DIRECTLY TO THE PRESENT CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, THE APPEAL OF REVENUE STANDS DISMISSED. 13. ITA NOS.1451 & 1452/CHNY/2018 FOR ASSESSMENT Y EARS 2014- 15 & 2015-16 ARE APPEALS IN RESPECT OF THE REGULAR ASSESSMENTS. IN RESPECT OF THESE TWO ASSESSMENTS, THE FINDINGS OF T HE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2007-08 & 2008-09 REFERRED TO SUPRA WOULD DIRECTLY APPLY AND AS IT IS NOTICED THAT THE LD.CIT(A) HAS FOLLOWED THE JUDICIAL DISCIPLINE IN F OLLOWING THE DECISION OF CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEE'S OWN CASE, WE FIND NO REASON TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A ) AND CONSEQUENTLY THE SAME STANDS UPHELD. THE APPEALS OF REVENUE IN I TA NOS.1451 & 1452/CHNY/2018 STAND DISMISSED. ITA NOS.1445 TO 1452 /CHNY/2018 :- 10 - : ITA NOS.1449 & 1450/CHNY/2018 (A.YS 2012-13 & 2013-14) 14. ITA NOS.1449 & 1450/CHNY/2018 FOR ASSESSMENT Y EARS 2012- 13 & 2013-14 ARE APPEALS IN RESPECT OF SEARCH ASSESSMENTS. IT W AS SUBMITTED BY LD.D.R THAT THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER HAD ESTIMATED THE NET PROFIT AT 31.55%. IT WAS A SUBMISSION THAT LD.C IT(A) HAD DELETED THE ADDITION ON THE GROUND THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUN TS OF THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT BEEN REJECTED. CONSEQUENTLY NO ESTIMATION WAS PERMISSIBLE. 15. IN REPLY THE LD.A.R SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE CIT(APPEALS). 16. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. A PERUSAL OF THE ORDER OF THE CIT(APPEALS) SHOWS THAT HE HAS CONSIDE RED THE FACT THAT THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT BROUGHT ANY CAUSE OR EVIDENCE FOR REJECTING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, BUT ON THE OTHER H AND, APPLIED ANOTHER SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING AGAINST THE SPIRIT OF APPLICABLE SECTION I.E SECTION 145 OF THE ACT, THOUGH HE HAS NOT CATEGORIC ALLY REJECTED THE BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE. THIS FINDINGS OF THE LD.CIT( A) STANDS AND THE REVENUE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO DISLODGE IT. THIS BEIN G SO, WHEN COMPLETE ACCOUNTS HAVE BEEN MAINTAINED BY THE ASSES SEE AND NO DEFECT HAS BEEN POINTED OUT, IT IS NOT OPEN TO THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER TO MAKE AN ESTIMATE FOR THE SAID PERIODS COMPARE TO THE PROFITS FOR EARLIER PERIODS. THIS BEING SO, WE FIND NO REASON T O INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(APPEALS) AND CONSEQUENTLY, THE SA ME STANDS UPHELD. ITA NOS.1445 TO 1452 /CHNY/2018 :- 11 - : 17. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE IN 1445, 1446, 1447, 1448, 1449, 1450, 1451 & 1452 /CHNY/2018 ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 24 TH DECEMBER, 2018, AT CHENNAI. SD/ - SD/ - ( . ) (A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY) ! '# / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( ) (GEORGE MATHAN) $ '# / JUDICIAL MEMBER * # / CHENNAI + / DATED: 24 TH DECEMBER, 2018. K S SUNDARAM , - $./ 0 /'$ / COPY TO: 1 . / APPELLANT 3. , , ' 1$ () / CIT(A) 5. /23 $45 / DR 2. ! / RESPONDENT 4. , , ' 1$ / CIT 6. 367 8# / GF