Madura Coats Private Limited, Madurai V. ACIT, Madurai

ITA 1725/CHNY/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8531 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-09-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 1997-1998
• Appeal Filed On: 08-06-2016
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PATHLAVATH PEERYA
• Assessee Lawyers: K R VASUDEVAN
• Keywords: Reasonable cause; Difference of opinion; Condonation of delay
• Section: 154; 92

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME - TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, CHENNAI , . , BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI G. PAVAN KUMAR , JUDICIAL ME MBER I.T.A.NO S . 1721, 1722, 1723, 1724 AND 1725 /MDS/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR S : 1990 - 91, 92 - 93, 94 - 95, 95 - 96 & 97 - 98 M/S. MADURA COATS PVT. LTD., P.O. NO. 35, NEW JAIL ROAD, MADURAI 625 001 . [PAN: A A B C M8279K ] VS. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CO MP ANY CIRCLE 1 , MADURAI . ( / APPELLANT ) ( / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI K. R . VASUDEVAN, ADVOCATE / RESPONDENT BY : S HRI PATHLAVATH PEERYA , CIT / DATE OF HEARING : 24 . 0 8 .201 6 / DATE OF P RONOUNCEMENT : 09 . 0 9 .201 6 / O R D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : ALL THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE COMMON ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) 1, MADURAI DATED 1 6 .0 3 .2016 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 1990 - 91, 1992 - 93, 1994 - 95, 1995 - 96 AND 1997 - 98. THE FIRST GROUND RAISED IN THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE IS WITH REGARD TO REJECTING THE REQUEST OF CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING THE APPEALS BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). 2. THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT T HE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS ENGAGED IN BUSINESS OF TEXTILES, INDUSTRIAL FABRICS, YARN, GARMENTS, SEWING THREADS I.T.A. NO S. . 1721 - 1725 /M/ 1 6 2 ETC. IN THE NAME AND STYLE OF 'MADURA COATS PRIVATE LTD' IN THIS CASE FOR THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEARS, THE REGULAR ASSESSMENTS W ERE COMPLETED AGAINST WHICH THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEALS BEFORE THE CIT(A). THE CIT(A) ALLOWED PARTIAL RELIEF. AGAINST THE ORDERS OF THE CIT(A) BOTH THE ASSESSEE AND REVENUE FILED APPEALS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. THE TRIBUNAL PARTIALLY ALLOWED THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE AND THE ASSESSEE. WHILE GIVING EFFECT TO THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL, THE ASSESSING OFFICER CHARGED INTEREST UNDER SECTION 234D OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE FILED RECTIFICATION PETITION BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER CONTENDING THAT SECTION 234D WAS INSER TED BY FINANCE ACT, 2003 WITH EFFECT FROM 01.06.2003 AND, THEREFORE, THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 234D ARE NOT APPLICABLE FOR ANY ASSESSMENT YEAR UPTO 2003 - 04. THE ASSESSING OFFICER REJECTED THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE HOLDING THAT SECTION 234D IS APPLICAB LE FOR ANY ORDER PASSED AFTER 01.06.2003 IRRESPECTIVE OF THE ASSESSMENT YEAR. THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER TO THE CIT(A) WHO DISMISSED THE APPEALS ON THE GROUND THAT AS PER EXPLANATION - 2 TO SECTION 234D, INSERTED BY FINANCE ACT, 2012 INTEREST COULD BE C HARGED FOR ANY ASSESSMENT YEAR COMMENCING BEFORE 01.06.2003. THE ASSESSEE FILED FURTHER APPEALS TO THE TRIBUNAL AND THE SAME WERE DISMISSED ON THE GROUND THAT THE ISSUE INVOLVED WAS NOT A MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORDS. IT WAS ALSO HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE FA ILED TO AVAIL THE CORRECT REMEDY AVAILABLE TO IT. I.T.A. NO S. . 1721 - 1725 /M/ 1 6 3 2.1 AFTER DISMISSAL OF THE APPEALS BY THE TRIBUNAL BY ORDER DATED 19.06.2015, THE IMPUGNED APPEALS HAVE BEEN FILED ON 06.08.2015 AGAINST THE ORDERS GIVING EFFECT TO THE ORDERS OF THE TRIBUNAL AGAINST QUA NTUM ASSESSMENTS. 2.2 IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, ALL THE APPEALS ARE BELATED BY ABOUT 2600 DAYS BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) . THE ASSESSEE HAS PRAYED FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY ON THE GROUND THAT THEY WERE PURSUING ALTERNATIVE REMEDY. HOWEVER, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS SEE N THAT THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT SECTION 234D IS APPLICABLE ONLY FROM ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004 - 05 AND THERE WAS DIFFERENCE OF OPINION AMONG VARIOUS JUDICIAL AUTHORITIES AS NOTED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN ITS ORDER DATED 19.062015 AND TH E ISSUE WAS FINALLY DECIDED BY SPECIAL BENCH. EVEN OTHERWISE, THE INSERTION OF EXPLANATION - 2 BY FINANCE ACT 2012 MADE IT CLEAR THAT THE SECTION 234D WAS APPLICABLE EVEN FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR COMMENCING BEFORE 01.04.2004. EVEN AFTER THE INSERTION OF EXPLANATI ON, THE ASSESSEE, ASSISTED BY INTERNATIONALLY REPUTED TAX CONSULTANTS LIKE DELOITTE, HUSKINS AND SELLS CHOSE TO FILE FURTHER APPEAL TO THE TRIBUNAL EVEN THOUGH THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS MENTIONED ABOUT EXPLANATION - 2 TO SECTION 234D IN HIS ORDER. THUS, THE LD. CIT(A) FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE OUGHT TO HAVE FILED APPEALS AGAINST THE ORDERS GIVING EFFECT TO THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL, AS THERE WAS DIFFERENCE OF OPINION AMONG THE JUDICIAL I.T.A. NO S. . 1721 - 1725 /M/ 1 6 4 AUTHORITIES AND THIS FACT WAS WELL KNOWN TO THE ASSESSEE S TAX CONSULTANTS. EVE N OTHERWISE AT LEAST WHEN THE FINANCE ACT 2012 INSERTING EXPLANATION - 2 CAME INTO EFFECT, THE ASSESSEE SHOULD HAVE FILED APPEALS AGAINST THE ORIGINAL ORDERS. THUS, THE LD. CIT(A) WAS OF THE OPINION THAT THERE WAS ANY REASONABLE CAUSE FOR SUCH LONG DELAY IN FILING THESE APPEALS. HE FURTHER SEEN THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOW RAISED NEW GROUND OF APPEAL STATING THAT THE ORDER GIVING EFFECT TO THE ORDERS OF THE APPELLATE AUTHORITIES COULD NOT BE TERMED AS REGULAR ASSESSMENTS, ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO AVAIL THE REMEDY TO IT UNDER THE ACT AS OBSERVED BY THE TRIBUNAL AND AT THIS POINT OF TIME THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AFTER A DELAY OF ALMOST 8 YEARS CANNOT BE ALLOWED TO BE PROCEEDED WITH. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE LD. CIT(A) REJECTED THE REQUEST FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING THE APPEALS AND ACCORDINGLY, HE DISMISSED THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN LIMINE. 3. BEFORE US, BY FILING WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS, T HE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED AS UNDER: A. THE SAID DELAY WAS ON ACCOUNT OF A VARIED ROUTE O F APPEAL CHOSEN BY THE APPELLANT ON GENUINE BELIEF THAT THE A GE HAD A MISTAKE APPARENT ON RECORD WHICH IS RECTIFIABLE. B. THE APPELLANT WISHES TO PLACE RELIANCE ON THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT RULING IN THE CASE OF J.M. BHANSALI VS. STATE OF MADRAS [19 68} 21 STC 411 WHEREIN THE DELAY IN TILING APPEAL DUE TO WRIT MECHANISM CHOSEN BY THE PETITIONER UNDER BONA FIDE BELIEF WAS CONDONED, OBSERVING/HOLDING THE FOLLOWING: I.T.A. NO S. . 1721 - 1725 /M/ 1 6 5 IN CONDONING DELAY, THE MOST RELEVANT FACTOR TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT IS WHETHER THE PA RTY CONCERNED HAS BONA FIDE PROSECUTED SOME OTHER PROCEEDING BECAUSE OF WHICH DELAY HAS OCCURRED IN FILING THE APPEAL. IT MAY BE THAT, IN SELECTING A PARTICULAR REMEDY, THE PARTY MAY HAVE BEEN ILL ADVISED. THE TEST IS NOT WHETHER IN LAW THE OTHER REMEDY PROSECUTED IS LEGALLY CORRECT AND UNJUSTIFIABLE. THERE MAY HOWEVER BE CASE, WHERE, EX FACIE, THE REMEDY CHOSEN BY THE ASSESSEE IS UNJUSTIFIED AND MAY SHOW LACK OF BONA FIDES. THESE ARE NOT SUCH CASES. THERE ARE NO CIRCUMSTANCES OR FACTS IN THE CASE TO ASSUME THAT WHEN THE ASSESSEE INVOKED ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION AND SOUGHT THE ASSISTANCE OF THIS COURT TO QUASH THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS, THEY ACTED OTHERWISE THAN BONA FIDE. WE ARE INCLINED TO THINK THAT THEY MUST HAVE HONESTLY BELIEVED, PERHAPS ON ADVICE, THAT THEY COULD GET THE RELIEF THEY WANTED IN THE WRIT PETITIONS. NO DOUBT THERE WAS A DELAY OF THIRTY DAYS IN FILING THE APPEALS EVEN AFTER THE RESULT OF THE WRIT PETITIONS WAS KNOWN. BUT THAT, IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES IS EXPLAINABLE. THE LONG DELAY WE ARE INCLINED TO THINK, IN FILING THE APPEALS WAS MORE DUE TO THE TIME TAKEN BY THE PENDENCY OF THE WRIT PETITIONS IN THIS COURT. WE ARE OF OPINION THAT, ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THESE CASES, THE DELAY OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN CONDONED. RELYING O N THE ABOVE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT RULING AND VARIOUS OTHER RULINGS (WHICH HAVE BEEN DISCUSSED IN ANNEXURE 3), THE APPELLANT HAS REQUESTED TO CONDONE THE DELAY. C. THE APPELLANT WISHES TO INFORM THAT FROM THE DATE OF THE ORDER OF THE OGE DATED 8 APRI L, 2008 THERE IS A DELAY OF 2632 DAYS IN FILING THIS APPEAL. D. ACCORDING TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 249(3) OF THE ACT THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) MAY ADMIT AN APPEAL AFTER THE EXPIRATION OF THE SAID PERIOD IF HE IS SATISFIED THAT THE APPELLANT HAD SUF FICIENT CAUSE FOR NOT PRESENTING IT WITHIN THAT PERIOD . THE PRINCIPLE OF ADVANCING SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE IS OF PRIME IMPORTANCE AND THEREFORE THE COURT HAS TO EXERCISE THE DISCRETION ON THE FACTS OF I.T.A. NO S. . 1721 - 1725 /M/ 1 6 6 EACH CASE KEEPING IN MIND THAT IN CONSTRUING THE EXPRESSIO N 'SUFFICIENT CAUSE'. E. THE EXPRESSION 'SUFFICIENT CAUSE' SHOULD RECEIVE LIBERAL CONSTRUCTION. WHEN SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE AND TECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS ARE PITTED AGAINST EACH OTHER, THE CAUSE OF SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE IN FACTS OF A CASE DESERVES TO BE PREFE RRED IN COMPARISON TO THE LATTER. F. JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS WHICH HAVE DISCUSSED ON 'SUFFICIENT CAUSE' HAVE BEEN SUMMARISED IN ANNEXURE 4 FOR REFERENCE OF YOUR HONOURS. THE APPELLANT FURTHER SUBMITS THAT IT HAS A GENUINE AND ARGUABLE CASE BEFORE YOUR GOO DSELF FOR THIS ASSESSMENT YEAR. THE COMPANY THEREFORE SUBMITS THAT NON - ADMISSION OF THE APPEAL ON GROUNDS OF LIMITATION WOULD THEREFORE RESULT INTO UNDUE HARDSHIP AND IRREPARABLE LOSS TO IT. THE APPELLANT RELIED ON THE FOLLOWING JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS (INC LUDING THE JURISDICTIONAL TRIBUNAL RULING AND SPECIAL BENCH RULING) WHICH HELD THAT INTEREST UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 234D OF THE ACT SHALL NOT BE LEVIED FOR PERIODS PRIOR TO AY 2004 - 05AND HENCE GENUINELY BELIEVED THAT LEVY OF THE SAID INTEREST WAS RECTIFIABLE MISTAKE APPARENT ON RECORD: WILSON & CO. VS. ACIT (121 TT] 258) (2008) (HONOURABLE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHENNAI); ITO VS. EKTA PROMOTERS (P.) LTD. (117 TT] 289) (2008) (DELHI SPECIAL BENCH) AND AT AND T COMMUNICATION SERVICES IN DIA (P.) LTD. VS. DCIT (26 SOT 353) (2008) (HONOURABLE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI). HENCE, IT IS HUMBLY PRAYED BEFORE YOUR GOODSELF THAT A LIBERAL APPROACH IN THE MATTER OF CONDONATION OF DELAY BE GIVEN TO YOUR PETITIONER AND THE APPEAL BE HEAR D ACCORDINGLY FOR MEETING THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND PROPRIETY. 4. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR RELIED ON THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A). 5. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH SIDES, PERUSED THE MATERIALS ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. ADMITTEDLY, THE ASSESSEE HAS I.T.A. NO S. . 1721 - 1725 /M/ 1 6 7 CHALLENGED LEVY OF INTEREST UNDER SECTION 234D OF THE ACT WHILE PASSING GIVE EFFECT TO ORDER OF THE ITAT ORDER DATED 08.04.2008 BY WAY OF RECTIFICATION PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 154 OF THE ACT. THE RECTIFICATION PETITION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS DISMISSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WHICH WAS CHALLENGED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND THE SAME WAS DISPOSED OF BY THE LD. CIT(A) ON 20.01.2014 AND THE SAID ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) WAS SUBJECT MATTER OF THE DISPUTE BEFORE T HIS TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO. 765 TO 769/ MDS/ 2014 AND THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ORDER DATED 19.06.2015 HELD AS UNDER: 6. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. ADMITTEDLY, THE INTEREST U/S.234D WAS CHARGED BY THE AO WHILE GIVING EFFECT TO T HE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL FOR THESE ASSESSMENT YEARS. THE ASSESSEE FILED PETITION U/S.154 OF THE ACT SEEKING RECTIFICATION OF THE ORDER SAYING THAT THE AO HAS WRONGLY CHARGED THE INTEREST U/S.234D OF THE ACT WHILE GIVING EFFECT TO THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNA L AND IT IS A MISTAKE APPARENT ON RECORD. THEREFORE, THE ID. AR REQUESTED FOR RECTIFICATION OF THE ORDER PASSED U/S 154. 7. IN OUR OPINION, THE ISSUE SOUGHT TO BE RECTIFIED BY THE ASSESSEE U/S.154 IS A DEBATABLE ISSUE. THERE WERE CLEAVAGE OF OPINIONS BET WEEN JUDICIAL FORUMS, WHICH IS EVIDENT FROM CONSTITUTION OF SPECIAL BENCH BY THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ITO V. EKTA PROMOTERS (P.) LTD. 113 ITD V. 719 (SB). THE ASSESSEE NOT BEING CHALLENGED THE ORDER GIVING EFFECT TO THIS TRIBUNAL, CANNOT QUESTION THE S AME IN PROCEEDINGS U/S.154 OF THE ACT AND THE ISSUE IS A DEBATABLE ONE. HAD THE ASSESSEE ANY GRIEVANCE, IT COULD VERY WELL CHALLENGED THE REVISION ORDER GIVING EFFECT TO THIS TRIBUNAL'S ORDER. THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO AVAIL THE CORRECT REMEDY AVAILABLE TO IT . IN OUR OPINION, THE ISSUE IS A DEBATABLE ONE AND IT IS NOT A MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD. THERE IS NO MERIT IN THE ARGUMENT OF THE ID. AR. ACCORDINGLY, WE FOLLOW THE JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. KESHRI METAL P. LTD. (237 ITR 1 65), WHEREIN IT WAS OBSERVED THAT UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.154 OF THE ACT, THERE HAS TO BE A MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD. IN OTHER WORDS, A LOOK AT THE RECORD MUST SHOW THAT THERE HAS BEEN AN ERROR, AND THAT ERROR MAY BE RECTIFIED. REFERENCE TO DOC UMENTS OUTSIDE THE RECORDS AND THE LAW IS IMPERMISSIBLE WHEN APPLYING THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.154 OF THE ACT. HENCE, ALL THESE APPEALS ARE DISMISSED. I.T.A. NO S. . 1721 - 1725 /M/ 1 6 8 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. 6. CONSEQUENT TO THIS, THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEALS AGAINST GIVE EFFECT ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER DATED 08.04.2008 BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) ON 06.08.2015. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ABLE TO GET RELIEF FROM THE LD. CIT(A) ON THE REASON THAT THE ASSESSEE S APPEALS WERE FILED BELATEDLY ABOUT 2600 DAYS. ADMITTEDLY, IN THIS CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN PURSUING THE REMEDY UNDER SECTION 154 OF THE ACT . THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND THE TRIBUNAL WERE OF THE OPINION THAT IT CANNOT BE RECTIFIED UNDER SECTION 154 OF THE ACT. AS SEEN FROM THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT KEPT QUIET AND IT WAS PURSUING ALTERNATIVE REMEDY. HOWEVER, THE EFFORTS OF THE ASSESSEE HAVE NOT YIELDED ANY RESULT IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. IN OUR OPINION, IN DECIDING THE QUESTION OF WHETHER THE ASSESSEE HAS SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR N OT PRESENTING THE APPEALS WITHIN THE TIME ALLOWED MUST RELEVANT FACTORS TO BE TAKEN IN TO ACCOUNT, IF WHETHER THE PARTY CONCERNED HAS BONAFIDE REASONS IN PRESENTING THE APPEALS AND IF THE DELAY WAS CAUSED BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE EFFECTIVELY PROSECUTING THE SA ME IN OTHER PROCEEDINGS, WHICH RESULTED IN DELAY. THEREFORE, IF THE PARTY HAD BONAFIDELY PROSECUTING OTHER REMEDIES, THAT SHOULD BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT. SINCE IN THIS CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN PROSECUTING ALTERNATIVE REMEDY BY CHALLENGING THE GIVE EFFECT TO ITAT ORDER BY WAY OF RECTIFICATION PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 154 OF THE ACT. AS SUCH, THE TIME TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE IN PROSECUTING THE REMEDY UNDER SECTION 154 OF THE ACT WA S ABOUT 2600 DAYS AND IN OUR OPINION, THE ASSESSEE H A S I.T.A. NO S. . 1721 - 1725 /M/ 1 6 9 EXPLAINED THE DELAY PROP ERLY AND THERE WAS SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEALS BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). ACCORDINGLY, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, WE CONDONE THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEALS BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND DIRECT THE LD. CIT(A) TO ADMIT THE APPEALS FOR ADJU DICATION AND IF THE ASSESSEE RECTIFY OTHER DEFECTS, IF ANY, AS NOTICED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IN PARA 3 OF HIS ORDER, HE SHALL ADJUDICATE THE APPEALS. OUR ABOVE FINDINGS ARE FORTIFIED BY THE JUDGEMENT OF HON BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. K.S.P. SHANMUGAVEL NADAR & OTHERS 153 ITR 596 AND ALSO THE JUDGEMENT IN THE CASE OF J.M. BHANSALI V. STATE OF MADRAS (SUPRA). SINCE WE HAVE REMITTED THE ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(A), AT T HIS STAGE, WE ARE REFRAIN ED FROM GOING INTO OTHER GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE. THUS, THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE PARTLY ALLOWED. 7 . IN THE RESULT, ALL THE APPEAL S FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE PARTLY ALLOWED . ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THE 9 TH SEPTEMBER , 201 6 AT CHENNAI. SD/ - SD/ - ( G. PAVAN KUMAR ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ( CHANDRA POOJARI ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER CHENNAI, DATED, THE 09 . 0 9 .201 6 VM/ - / COPY TO: 1. / APPELLANT , 2. / RESPONDENT , 3. ( ) / CIT(A) , 4. / CIT , 5. / DR & 6. / GF.