ITO, Kumbakonam V. K.M. Bindusadagan, Kumbakonam

ITA 160/CHNY/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 130 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7361 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 2 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-03-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 02-03-2017
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 17-01-2014
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S SREEKANTH JT
• Assessee Lawyers: S SRIDHAR
• Keywords: Gift; Income from undisclosed sources; Source of fund; Onus to prove
• Section: 143(3); 68

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENCH C, CHENNAI , !' . ' $ %, & %' BEFORE SHRI SANJAY ARORA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI G. PAVAN KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ ITA NO.160/MDS/2014 & ) '*) / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 INCOME TAX OFFICER, (I/C) WARD-I(3), KUMBAKONAM. (,-/ APPELLANT ) VS. K.M.BINDUSADHAKAN, NO.22, GANDHI NAGAR, KUMBAKONAM 613 001. [PAN: AAHPB 0963A ] (./,-/ RESPONDENT) ,- 0 1 / APPELLANT BY : SHRI S.SREEKANTH , JT. CIT ./,- 0 1 /RESPONDENT BY : SHRI S.SRIDHAR, ADVOCATE $ ' 0 2 /DATE OF HEARING : 02.03.2017 3* 0 2 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30.03.2017 / O R D E R PER SANJAY ARORA, AM : THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE REVENUE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), TIRUCHIRAPALL I (CIT(A) FOR SHORT) DATED 24.10.2013, ALLOWING THE ASSESSEES APPEAL CO NTESTING HIS ASSESSMENT U/S. 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT HEREI NAFTER) DATED 20.12.2011 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR (AY) 2009-10. 2 ITA NO.160 /MDS/2014 (AY 2009-10) ITO V. K.M.B INDUSADHAKAN 2. THE ASSESSEE, AN INDIVIDUAL, WITH HOUSE PROPERT Y AND BANK INTEREST AS HIS REGULAR SOURCES OF INCOME, WAS DURING THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS FOR THE CURRENT YEAR QUESTIONED BY THE ASSESSING OF FICER (AO) IN RESPECT OF CASH DEPOSIT OF . 100 LACS IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT WITH INDIAN BANK (KU MBAKONAM, MAIN BRANCH) ON 04.10.2008 . THE ASSESSEE, VIDE LETTER DATED 15.12.2011 (COPY ON RECORD), EXPLAINED TO BE NEGOTIATING PURCHASE OF A PROPERTY, SO THAT HE HAD ACCUMULATED CASH FROM ALL POSSIBLE SOURCES, I.E., A S AVAILABLE TO HIMSELF AND HIS FAMILY MEMBERS, TOWARD THE SAME. HOWEVER, AS THE TR ANSACTION (OF PURCHASE OF PROPERTY) DID NOT MATERIALIZE, THE ENTIRE ACCUMULAT ED CASH WAS DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT, FILING ALONG WITH THE CASH STATEMENT FOR THE PERIOD 01.04.2008 TO 04.10.2008.THE EXPLANATION BEING UNSUPPORTED BY ANY MATERIAL, VIZ. PARTICULARS OF THE PROPERTY (BEING NEGOTIATED); THE PERSON/S WI TH WHOM IT WAS; AGREEMENT, ETC., WAS NOT REGARDED AS SATISFACTORY. FURTHER, TH E CASH FLOW STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE BORE CASH RECEIPT OF . 60 LACS IN TWO INSTALLMENTS OF . 30 LACS EACH, ON 30.04.2008. THE ASSESSEE WAS QUESTIONED IN ITS RESPECT. THIS AMOUNT WAS AGAIN STATED TO BE PAID AS ADVANCE FOR PURCHASE OF A PROPERTY, I.E., BY THE ASSESSEE AND HIS MOTHER, AT . 30 LACS EACH, WHICH WAS RECEIVED BACK AS SUCH DURING THE YEAR (ON 30.04.2008). BEING EQUALLY UN-E VIDENCED, THE SAME WAS THUS DEEMED AS THE ASSESSEES INCOME U/S. 69/69A OF THE ACT. IN APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(A) WAS MOVED BY THE FACT THAT BOTH THE ASSESSEE AND HIS MOTHER, BEING REGULAR ASSESSEES, HAD DISCLOSED THE ADVANCE OF . 30 LACS IN THEIR RESPECTIVE BALANCE SHEETS AS ON 31.03.2008, FILED ALONG WITH R ETURN OF INCOME FOR AY 2008- 09. THAT BEING SO, NO FURTHER EXPLANATION WAS, IN HIS V IEW, REQUIRED . THE CASH RECEIVED ON 30.04.2008 WAS ONLY IN THE NATURE OF CO LLECTION OF A DEBT ARISING IN AN EARLIER YEAR, AND THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT BE CONS TRUED AS CLAIMING A CREDIT U/S. 68 OF THE ACT. THIS, WHICH SUMS UP THE ASSESSEES C ASE, FOUND FAVOUR WITH THE LD. CIT(A), SO THAT, AGGRIEVED, THE REVENUE IS IN APPEA L. 3 ITA NO.160 /MDS/2014 (AY 2009-10) ITO V. K.M.B INDUSADHAKAN 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES, AND PERUSED THE MATER IAL ON RECORD. 3.1 OUR FIRST OBSERVATION IN THE MATTER IS THAT THE SOURCE OF THE CASH DEPOSITED IN THE ASSESSEES BANK AMOUNT ON 04.10.2008 IS COMP LETELY UNPROVED. HOW WOULD IT MATTER, ONE MAY ASK, WHETHER THE SAME, I.E ., THE CASH DEPOSITED, IS AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE (SAY) A DAY PRIOR TO IT S DEPOSIT OR A FEW WEEKS OR EVEN MONTHS EARLIER, I.E., THE TIME OF ITS AVAILABI LITY WITH THE ASSESSEE, AS LONG AS IT IS PRIOR TO THE DATE OF ITS DEPOSIT IN THE ASSES SEES BANK ACCOUNT, WHEREAT IT GETS COGNIZED. IN OTHER WORDS, IT IS THE EXPLANATION ON MERITS THAT IS RELEVANT, BEING CLAIMED IN THE PRESENT CASE TO BE ADVANCED TO A PAR TY (WITHOUT SPECIFYING THE NAME OF THE PARTY AND THE DATE OF ADVANCE TO IT), S O THAT IT WAS OUTSTANDING WITH HIM. THE EXPLANATION AS TO THE SOURCE IS THUS A RE CALL OR REPAYMENT OF THE DEPOSIT (BY THE ASSESSEE AND HIS MOTHER). NOTHING A S SUCH TURNS ON THE FACT, WHICH IS PREVAILED WITH THE LD. CIT(A), THAT THE DE POSITS WERE OUTSTANDING AS ON 31.03.2008. IN FACT, IN THE ABSENCE OF THE STATED P ARTICULARS, THE DEBT, WHICH REPRESENTS THE OSTENSIBLE SOURCE, REMAINS UNPROVED. WHAT IS REQUIRED TO BE SHOWN IS THE SOURCE OF THE CASH WITH THE ASSESSEE, WHICH IN TERMS OF HIS EXPLANATION WAS AVAILABLE WITH HIM EVEN PRIOR TO 01 .04.2008, I.E., TO THE EXTENT OF . 30 LACS; THE BALANCE, AS STATED, BEING GIVEN BY H IS MOTHER. IT NEEDS TO BE APPRECIATED THAT THE AVAILABILITY OF CASH WOULD NOT BY ITSELF PROVE ITS SOURCE . THE AVAILABILITY OF CASH WITH THE ASSESSEE IS NOT I N DOUBT; THE SAME HAVING SINCE FOUND ITS WAY IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT. WHY, IT IS ONLY THERE-UPON THAT IT STANDS DISCOVERED BY THE REVENUE AND, ACCORDINGLY, REQUIRE D TO BE EXPLAINED SATISFACTORILY AS TO ITS SOURCE. JUST AS STATING TH AT HE HAS CASH DOES NOT EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF THE DEPOSIT, LIKEWISE, STATING THAT IT HA D BEEN ADVANCED IT TO ANOTHER, DOES NOT. THAT IS, THE DEBT HAS TO BE PROVED. THE S AME, IT MAY BE APPRECIATED, ONLY REPRESENT THE DIFFERENT AVENUES WHERE THE CASH MAY HAVE BEEN PARKED IN ITS JOURNEY TO THE ASSESSEES BANK ACCOUNT ON 04.10.200 8, WHEREAT IT WAS FOUND BY THE REVENUE. THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN CIT V. S.KAMARAJA 4 ITA NO.160 /MDS/2014 (AY 2009-10) ITO V. K.M.B INDUSADHAKAN PANDIAN [1984] 150 ITR 703 (MAD), SPEAKING IN CONTEXT OF S. 68, A PARI MATERIA PROVISION, EXPLAINED THAT THE BURDEN TO PROVE THE C REDIT (APPEARING IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT) UNDER LAW IS DESPITE THE ENTRIES IN THE ASSESSEES ACCOUNTS. IN ITS WORDS: THIS SECTION REQUIRES THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THE TRA NSACTIONS RESULTING IN A CASH CREDIT IN HIS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THAT WOULD MEAN THAT THE ASSE SSEE HAS TO ESTABLISH THE IDENTITY OF THE CREDITOR, THE CAPACITY OR THE FINANCIAL ABILITY OF THE CREDITOR TO ADVANCE THE AMOUNT AND THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION IN SPITE OF ENTR IES TO THAT EFFECT IN THE ACCOUNT BOOKS. IF THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT OFFER ANY EXPLANATION ABOUT T HE NATURE AND SOURCE OF THE CASH CREDITS OR THE EXPLANATION OFFERED IS NOT SATISFACTORY, THE N THE CASH CREDIT MAY BE CHARGED TO INCOME-TAX AS THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE OF THAT PR EVIOUS YEAR. IN CONSIDERING THE SCOPE OF THIS SECTION, PARTICULARLY IN CASES WHERE BOOK E NTRIES ARE FOUND, THE SUPREME COURT IN KALE KHAN MOHAMMAD HANIF V. CIT [1963] 50 ITR I (SC), POINTED OUT THAT THE TAXING AUTHORITIES ARE NOT PRECLUDED FROM TREATING THE AMO UNTS OF THE CREDIT ENTRIES AS INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES SIMPLY BECAUSE THE ENTRIES APPEARED IN THE BOOKS OF A BUSINESS WHOSE INCOME HAD BEEN COMPUTED BY THE AUTHORITIES. TO SIMILAR EFFECT IS THE DECISION IN JAYAVEERAPANDIA NADAR V. CIT [1964] 54 ITR 401 (MAD), WHERE IT HAS BEEN POINTED OUT THAT IT IS INCUMBENT ON THE ASSESSEE TO ESTABLISH B Y EVIDENCE THAT THE LOAN TRANSACTIONS ARE NOT FICTITIOUS ONES AND THAT WOULD INVOLVE AN EXAMI NATION OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH THE LOAN WAS TAKEN OR THE CAPACITY OF THE PAR TIES WHO POSSESS FUNDS REQUISITE FOR THAT PURPOSE AND THAT APART FROM ENTRIES IN THE BOO KS OF ACCOUNT, IT WAS THE DUTY OF THE ASSESSEE TO SHOW THAT THE PERSON WHOSE NAME FOUND R ECORDED IN THE ACCOUNTS IS THE REAL PERSON; AS, OTHERWISE, ANY ENTRY CAN BE MADE IN THE BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE AND PASSED OFF AS A GENUINE TRANSACTION WITH IMPUNITY. IN VELJI DEORAJ & CO. V. CIT [1968] 68 ITR 708 (BOM), IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT THE DUTY OF AN ASSES SEE UNDER S. 68 OF THE ACT CANNOT BE STATED TO BE DISCHARGED MERELY BY SHOWING AN ENTRY APPEARING IN THE ACCOUNT OF A THIRD PARTY AND THAT THE PARTY IN WHOSE NAME THE AMOUNT I S CREDITED IS NOT A FICTITIOUS PARTY BUT A REAL PARTY, BUT HE HAS ALSO TO FURTHER PROVE THAT T HE ENTRY MADE IN THE ACCOUNT BOOKS IS A GENUINE ENTRY. IN SHANKAR INDUSTRIES V. CIT [1978] 114 ITR 689 (CAL), WHILE DEALING WITH THE SCOPE OF THE DUTY OF THE ASSESSEE IN CASES OF C ASH CREDITS IN THE NAMES OF THIRD PARTIES, IT WAS HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS TO PROVE THE TRAN SACTION WHICH RESULTS IN A CASH CREDIT IN HIS ACCOUNTS AND SUCH PROOF WOULD INCLUDE PROOF OF THE IDENTITY OF HIS CREDITOR, THE CAPACITY OF SUCH CREDITOR TO ADVANCE THE MONEY AND THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION AND ONLY AFTER THESE THINGS ARE ESTABLISHED BY THE ASSE SSEE BY ADDUCING EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT THEREOF, THE ONUS SHIFTS TO THE DEPARTMENT AND THAT WHERE THE ASSESSEE MERELY ESTABLISHES THE IDENTITY OF THE CREDITOR AND NOTHING MORE, THE CASH CREDITS CAN BE TREATED AS THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES. AGAIN, IN KANT & CO. V. CIT [1980] 126 ITR 63 (CAL), THE PRINCIPLES LAID DOWN IN SHANKAR INDUSTRIES V. CIT [1978] 114 ITR 689 (CAL), WERE REITERATED. BEARING THE AFORESAID PRINCIPLES IN MIND, WE PROCEE D TO EXAMINE BRIEFLY THE MATERIALS AND ALSO THE FINDING ARRIVED AT ON THOSE MATERIALS BY THE TRIBUNAL .. (PGS. 709,71 0) IN THE FACTS OF THAT CASE, THE HONBLE COURT FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT ESTABLISHED EITHER THE IDENTITY OR THE CAPACITY OF THE BANKERS WHO WERE STATED TO 5 ITA NO.160 /MDS/2014 (AY 2009-10) ITO V. K.M.B INDUSADHAKAN HAVE LEND THE MONIES UNDER REFERENCE TO THE ASSESSE E. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, IT HELD, THAT THE TRIBUNAL WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN COMING TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE HUNDI LOANS WERE GENUINE, DIRECTING THE DELETION TH EREOF AS WELL AS THE ALLOWANCE OF THE INTEREST STATED TO HAVE BEEN PAID ON THE BOR ROWALS. THE ASSESSEE THEREFORE STATING THAT IT (CASH) WAS AVAILABLE WITH HIM EARLIER IS BY ITSELF NEITHER HERE NOR THERE. WE SAY SO AS T HIS WOULD BY ITSELF NEITHER PROVE THE SOURCE (OF CASH) NOR SHIFT ITS ASSESSMENT (AS I NCOME) TO AN EARLIER YEAR IN-AS- MUCH AS LAW DEEMS IT TO BE THE INCOME OF THE YEAR I N WHICH IT STANDS FOUND, I.E., ON 04.10.2008, ON ITS DEPOSIT IN THE ASSESSEES BA NK ACCOUNT. THAT IS, ASSUMING IT AS AVAILABLE EVEN EARLIER, SO THAT IT HAS ONLY C HANGED FORM OVER TIME, IT IS ONLY THE FORM IN WHICH IT MANIFESTS DURING THE RELEVANT YEAR WHICH IS REQUIRED TO BE SATISFACTORILY EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. C IT(A) HAS CLEARLY MISDIRECTED HIMSELF IN THE MATTER. 3.2 ON FACTS, THE ASSESSEE, WHO APPEARS TO BE A MAN OF MODEST MEANS, IS TO EXHIBIT THE BUILD-UP CASH WITH HIM UP TO THE DATE/S IT WAS GIVEN TO A PARTY/S TOWARD PURCHASE OF PROPERTY, WHICH REMAINS UNSPECIF IED. THIS COULD BE FROM HIS SAVINGS WHICH AGAIN WOULD ONLY BE FROM HIS EARNIN GS, OR EARNINGS, AND MAY TOWARDS ITS REASONABILITY, REQUIRE ASSESSMENT OF TH E NECESSARY EXPENDITURE TOWARD PERSONAL/HOUSEHOLD PURPOSES, AND OTHER MANDA TORY, PROVEN OUTGOINGS, VIZ. TAXES, DEPOSITS UNDER PPF/LIFE INSURANCE, ETC. IT IS THIS THAT WOULD CONSTITUTE THE SOURCE . THIS COULD ALSO BE FROM HIS CAPITAL WHICH WOULD THOUGH HAVE TO BE PROVED, INVESTED IN AN ASSET, SINCE REALIZED TO GEN ERATE CASH. AND OF WHICH, AGAIN, THERE IS NO WHISPER (IN THE ASSESSEES EXPLA NATION). LIKE-WISE, FOR THE MOTHER, WHO HAS INDEPENDENTLY ADVANCED . 30 LACS FOR THE PURCHASE OF PROPERTY, AND WHOSE CAPACITY THEREFORE TO DO SO (I. E., DEPOSIT WITH A THIRD PARTY) WOULD REQUIRE BEING SHOWN. AS AFORE-STATED, THE EXP LANATION IS SANS ANY SPECIFICS NOR SUPPORTED BY ANY MATERIAL OR CONTEMPO RANEOUS EVIDENCE. RATHER, THE EXPLANATION ITSELF RAISES SOME QUESTIONS, VIZ. QUA THE PARTICULARS OF THE 6 ITA NO.160 /MDS/2014 (AY 2009-10) ITO V. K.M.B INDUSADHAKAN PROPERTY; THE DOCUMENTS EVIDENCING THE TRANSACTION, BINDING THE PARTIES TO THE CONTRACT; WAS THE TRANSACTION JOINTLY WITH THE MOTH ER AND WHY, AS IT APPEARS, THE ENTIRE OF IT IN CASH, ETC. THEN, AGAIN, WHAT IS THE BASIS TO SAY THAT THE AMOUNT STANDS RECEIVED BACK ON 30.04.2008, WHICH COULD NOT AGAIN BE WITHOUT EVIDENCE? WHY DID THE MOTHER NOT DEPOSIT THE MONEY IN HER BANK ACCOUNT OR, ALTERNATIVELY, WHY WAS THE AMOUNT NOT PAID BACK TO HER BUT DEPOSITED IN THE ASSESSEES ACCOUNT? MORE SO, WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAD NO NEED OF MONEY AND, FURTHER, WHERE REQUIRED, COULD BE TRANSFERRED TO TH E ASSESSEE BY HIS MOTHER. DOES THE ASSESSEES MOTHER HAVE A BANK ACCOUNT? THIS WOU LD BE SO EVEN IF RECEIVED DIRECTLY FROM THE PARTY; THE SAME BEING ONLY ON HER BEHALF. IN FACT, THE DEPOSITEE WOULD ONLY OBTAIN RECEIPTS FROM BOTH THE ASSESSEE AND HIS MOTHER. FURTHER, WHAT IS THE NATURE OF THE AMOUNT THUS GIVEN BY THE MOTHER TO THE ASSESSEE, I.E., AS A LOAN OR GIFT. THIS ASSUMES RELEVANCE AS THE MOTHE R COULD HAVE OTHER HEIRS AS WELL, AND WHO WOULD HAVE INTEREST IN HER PROPERTY. DID THE ASSESSEE GIVE BACK THE MONEY TO HIS MOTHER LATER? THESE, AND SUCH LIKE QUESTIONS, ARISE FROM THE ASSESSEES EXPLANATION, WHICH IS COMPLETELY UNSUBST ANTIATED, MUCH LESS BACKED BY ANY CONTEMPORANEOUS MATERIAL. THESE ASPECTS ARE QUA THE GENUINENESS OF THE ASSESSEES EXPLANATION, I.E., TO THE EXTENT ASCRIBE D TO THE MOTHER. AGAIN, IS THE EXPLANATION CONSISTENT WITH THE ASSES SEE AND HIS MOTHERS BALANCE-SHEET AS ON 31.03.2009; THE CASH STATEMENT RENDERED BEING, SURPRISINGLY, ONLY UP TO 04.10.2008, AND NOT UP TO THE END OF THE YEAR? HOW HAS THE SUM RECEIVED FROM THE MOTHER BEEN REFLECTED IN THE ASSE SSEES AND HER MOTHERS BALANCE SHEET AS ON 31.03.2009, I.E., AS A GIFT OR LOAN? IN FACT, IT COULD ALSO BE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FINANCED THE ADVANCE BY THE M OTHER FOR THE PURCHASE AND, ACCORDINGLY, STANDS RECEIVED BY HIM, EITHER FROM TH E MOTHER OR FROM THE SELLER DIRECTLY, IN WHICH CASE THE ASSESSEE SHALL HAVE TO ESTABLISH THE SOURCE WITH HIM FOR THE ENTIRE .60 LACS. FURTHER, WHERE THERE IS A PRIMA FACIE PROOF OF THE ASSESSEE HAVING BEEN PAID BY HIS MOTHER, IT IS THE CAPACITY OF THE MOTHER THAT 7 ITA NO.160 /MDS/2014 (AY 2009-10) ITO V. K.M.B INDUSADHAKAN SHALL HAVE TO BE DEMONSTRATED TO SATISFACTORILY EXP LAIN THE SOURCE OF DEPOSIT AS BEING A LOAN (OR GIFT) FROM THE MOTHER. AGAIN, ALSO RELEVANT IN THE MATTER WOULD BE THE INFORMATION OF WHETHER ANY THE PROPERTY WAS PURCHASED DURING THE YEAR, EITHER BY THE ASSESSEE OR HIS MOTHER OR BOTH. 4. IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, IT IS ONLY CONSIDERED PROPER TO ALLOW THE ASSESSEE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, EVEN AS OBSERVED DURING HEARING, AN OPPORTUNITY TO STATE HIS CASE IN THE MATTER. THE SAME IS ACCORDING LY RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO TO ENABLE THE ASSESSEE TO PRESENT HIS CASE B EFORE HIM. THE AO SHALL ALLOW REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE, AND D ECIDE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW PER A SPEAKING ORDER. NEEDLESS TO ADD, IN THE EVENT OF THE ASSESSEE NOT AVAILING THE OPPORTUNITY OR NOT COOPERATING, THE AO SHALL DE CIDE ON MERITS ON THE BASIS OF THE MATERIALS ON RECORD. WE DECIDE ACCORDINGLY. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE REVENUES APPEAL IS DISPOSED ON THE FOREGOING TERMS. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON MARCH 30, 2017 AT CHENNAI . SD/- SD/- ( . ' $ %) ( ) ( G. PAVAN KUMAR ) ( SANJAY ARORA ) & / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / CHENNAI, 5 / DATED, MARCH 30, 2017 . EDN 6 0 .&278 98*2 /COPY TO: 1. ,- /APPELLANT 2. ./,- /RESPONDENT 3. $ :2 ( )/CIT(A) 4. $ :2 /CIT 5. 8';< .&2& /DR 6. <=) > /GF