DCIT, CHENNAI V. Ramachandra Educational Trust, CHENNAI

ITA 1728/CHNY/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7862 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-12-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 28-07-2015
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DR MILIND MADHUKAR BHUSARI
• Assessee Lawyers: S SRIDHAR
• Keywords: Maximum Marginal Rate; Valuation report
• Section: 153A; 63; 132

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, CHENNAI , . ! ' , # '$ BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI G. PAVAN KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER . /ITA NOS. 1725 TO 1728/MDS/2015 / ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2005-06 TO 2008-09 AND C.O.NOS. 4 & 5/MDS/2016 (IN ITA NOS. 1725 & 1726/MDS/2015) ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2005-06 & 2006-07 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-I(2), CHENNAI. ( /APPELLANT) V. M/S. RAMACHANDRA EDUCATIONAL TRUST, NO.4, 42 ND STREET, 6 TH AVENUE, ASHOK NAGAR, CHENNAI -83. PAN AAATR3607E RESPONDENT/ CROSS OBJECTOR ) / APPELLANT BY : DR. MILIND MADHUKAR BHUSARI, CIT / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI S. SRIDHAR, ADVOCATE / DATE OF HEARING : 14.09.2016 !' / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 08.12.2016 % / O R D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THESE APPEALS BY THE REVENUE AND THE CROSS-OBJEC TIONS BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST DIFFERENT ORDE RS OF THE - - ITA 1725 TO 1726/M/15 & CO 4 & 5/M/16 2 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-18, CHENNAI FO R ASSESSMENT YEARS 2005-06 TO 2008-09. SINCE ISSUES I NVOLVED IN ALL THESE REVENUES APPEAL & C.OS RAISED BY THE A SSESSEE ARE COMMON IN NATURE, THESE APPEALS & C.OS ARE CLUBBED TOGETHER, HEARD TOGETHER, DISPOSED OFF BY THIS COMMON ORDER F OR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 2. THE FIRST GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN ITA NO. 1725/MAD/15 IS THAT THE CIT(APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN R ESTRICTING THE ADDITION OF 1,72,61,152/- BEING THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE-TRUST TREATED AS NOT EXEMPT U/S.11 OF THE ACT, TO 5,09,884/-. 2.1 THE COMMON GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN TH E CROSS OBJECTIONS IS THAT THE ASSESSMENT IS BAD IN LAW AS, THERE IS NO SEIZED MATERIAL FOUND DURING THE SEARCH ACTION U/S. 132 OF THE ACT. 3. THE FACTS AS NARRATED IN THE AY 2005-06 ARE THAT THERE WAS A SEARCH ACTION U/S.132 OF THE ACT ON 23.01.200 7 AT THE ASSESSEES PLACE. CONSEQUENT TO SEARCH, IN RESPONS E TO NOTICE U/S.153C OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF I NCOME ON - - ITA 1725 TO 1726/M/15 & CO 4 & 5/M/16 3 13.10.2008 DECLARING TAXABLE INCOME AS NIL. THE ASSESSMENT WAS LATER COMPLETED U/S.153C R.W.S.143(3) OF THE AC T DETERMINING THE TOTAL INCOME AT 5,53,193/-, MAKING ADDITION TREATING AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF 2,94,000/- AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES, ADDITION IN RESPECT OF NON-APPLICATION OF FUNDS AT 16,35,835/- AND ADDITION OF 1,72,61,152/- BEING UNSPENT AMOUNT. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE WENT IN APPEAL BEF ORE THE CIT(APPEALS). 4. ON APPEAL, THE CIT(APPEALS) OBSERVED THAT AS THE DONATIONS TOWARDS THE CORPUS OF THE TRUST ARE CAPIT AL RECEIPTS AND HENCE WILL NOT CONSTITUTE THE INCOME OF THE TRUST F OR THE PURPOSE CALCULATING 85% APPLICATION. THEREFORE, IN HIS REM AND REPORT, THE AO HAS CORRECTLY EXCLUDED THE CORPUS FUND DONATIO NS FROM THE PURVIEW OF 85% APPLICATION U/S.11(2) OF THE ACT. T HIS IS AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.11 OF THE ACT. THE CIT(APPE ALS) OBSERVED THAT THE AOS METHOD OF EXCLUDING THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME FOR THE PURPOSE OF 85% APPLICATION IS NOT CORRECT. ACCORDI NG TO THE CIT(APPEALS), ALL KINDS OF INCOME ARE TO BE RECKONE D AS THE INCOME OF THE TRUST FOR THE PURPOSE OF 85% APPLICAT ION. THE ONLY EXCEPTION IS THE CORPUS DONATIONS. THEREFORE, THE AGRICULTURAL - - ITA 1725 TO 1726/M/15 & CO 4 & 5/M/16 4 INCOME NEEDS TO BE INCLUDED IN THE INCOME OF THE TR UST FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINING THE 85% APPLICATION. IF THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME IS INCLUDED, THE 85% OF THE INCOME FOR APPLI CATIONS AND THE ACTUAL AMOUNTS APPLIED WILL BE AS UNDER: PARTICULARS A Y 2005-06 TOTAL INCOME (INCLUDING) 12,43,664 AGRICULTURAL INCOME LESS : 15% SET APART 1,86,550 BALANCE 85% TO BE APPLIED (A) 10,57,114 ACTUAL APPLICATION 1. REVENUE (ADMINISTRATIVE) EXPENSES 2. CAPITAL EXPENSES -- 3. LAND ADVANCE GIVEN 3,00,000 4. FD MADE FOR MCI PURPOSE -- TOTAL AMOUNT APPLIED(B) 5,47,226 EXCESS(SHORTFALL) IN APPLICATION (B-A) 5,09,884 THUS, ACCORDING TO THE CIT(APPEALS), FOR THE A.Y 20 05-06, THERE WAS A SHORTFALL OF 5,09,884/- IN APPLYING 85% OF THE INCOME FOR THE OBJECTS. HENCE, THE AO IS JUSTIFIED IN COMING TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THERE WAS SHORTFALL IN APPLYING 85% OF THE INCOME FOR THE OBJECTS IN THE AY 2005-06. THE CIT(APPEALS ) FURTHER OBSERVED THAT OUT OF THE TOTAL ADDITION OF 1,72,61,152/-, THE ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF 5,09,884/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNSPENT AMOUNT IS TO BE CONFIRMED AND THE BALANCE OF 1,67,51,268/- - - ITA 1725 TO 1726/M/15 & CO 4 & 5/M/16 5 ( 1,72,61,152 - 5,09,884) IS TO BE DELETED AND CIT(A) PARTLY ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. AGGRIEVED BY TH E ORDER OF LD.CIT(A), THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 5. LD.D.R SUBMITTED THAT THE LD.CIT(A) WRONGLY RE STRICTED THE DENIAL OF EXEMPTION ONLY THE SHORTFALL IN THE APPLICATION OF INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE TRUST. THE LD.D.R SUBMITTED THAT SEC.11(1)(A) OF THE ACT STATES THAT SUBJECT TO PROV ISIONS OF THE SECTION 62 & 63 THAT CERTAIN INCOMES SHALL NOT BE I NCLUDED IN THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR OF THE PERSON IN RECEIPT OF THE INCOME, SO MUCH OF THE INCOME SO ACCUMULATED OR SET APART IS NOT IN EXCESS OF 15% OF THE INCOME FROM SUCH PROPER TY AND AS SUCH, THE ASSESSEE HAS TO APPLY AT LEAST 85% OF ITS INCOME FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE TRUST. FURTHER, LD.D.R SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE TRUST HAD NOT APPLIED 85% OF ITS REVENUE RECEIPTS. HENCE, THE ASSESSEE TRUST DOES NOT SATISFY THE COND ITIONS LAID DOWN IN SEC.11(1) OF THE ACT. ACCORDING TO LD.D.R, ONCE THE EXEMPTION U/S.11 OF THE ACT IS WITHDRAWN, ALL THE R ECEIPTS OF TRUST EITHER BY VOLUNTARY CONTRIBUTION OR BY INCOME DERIV ED FROM ITS PROPERTY WOULD BE THE INCOME OF ASSESSEE TRUST IN T HE NORMAL - - ITA 1725 TO 1726/M/15 & CO 4 & 5/M/16 6 COURSE AND WILL BE EXIGIBLE TO TAX. FURTHER, LD.D .R REITERATED THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE TRUST DOES NOT SATISFY THE CONDI TIONS LAID DOWN IN SEC.11(1) OF THE ACT, THE ENTIRE INCOME INC LUDING THE CORPUS DONATION RECEIVED DURING THE YEAR SHOULD HAV E BEEN TAXED AT MAXIMUM MARGINAL RATE IN TERMS OF SEC.164( 2) AND NOT BE RESTRICTED TO ONLY THE SHORTFALL AMOUNT. 5.1 ON THE OTHER HAND, LD.A.R PLACED RELIANCE IN T HE ORDER OF LD.CIT(A). 6. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE MAIN CONTENTION OF THE LD.D.R IS THA T THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ENTITLED FOR EXEMPTION U/S.11 OF THE ACT IN VIEW OF THE SHORT FALL IN APPLYING 85% OF THE INCOME OF THE TRUST FOR THE OBJECT OF THE ASSESSEE TRUST FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. TH ERE IS NO DISPUTE REGARDING THE RECEIPT OF CORPUS FUND DONATI ON TO THE TUNE OF ` 3,85,35,572/- AND THIS CANNOT BE INCLUDED FOR THE P URPOSE OF COMPUTATION OF 85% OF APPLICATION OF INCOME FOR OBJ ECT OF ASSESSEE TRUST. HENCE, THE LD.CIT(A) OBSERVED ON T HE BASIS OF REMAND REPORT FROM THE AO THAT CORPUS DONATIONS IS TO BE EXCLUDED FROM THE PURVIEW OF THE 85% OF APPLICATIO N OF INCOME U/S.11(2) OF THE ACT. AFTER CONSIDERING THIS, LD. CIT(A) OBSERVED - - ITA 1725 TO 1726/M/15 & CO 4 & 5/M/16 7 THAT THERE IS A SHORTFALL IN APPLICATION TO THE TUN E OF 5,09,884/- AND HE DIRECTED THE AO ONLY TO TAX TO THE EXTENT OF 5,09,884/-. THE AO BROUGHT INTO TAX THE ENTIRE SUM OF 1,72,61,152/- TO TAX ON THE REASON THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED THE C OPY OF RESOLUTION ALONG WITH THE RETURN OF INCOME, THOUGH FORM-10A WAS FILED ALONG WITH THE RETURN OF INCOME. IN OUR OPIN ION, THE FILING OF RESOLUTION COPY CANNOT BE A REASON FOR THE PURPOSE OF DENIAL OF EXEMPTION U/S.11 OF THE ACT. FURTHER, WHEN THE ASS ESSEE HAS FILED FORM-10A ALONG WITH THE RETURN OF INCOME, IT WILL SUFFICE THE PURPOSE TO GRANT EXEMPTION U/S.11 OF THE ACT. FURTH ER, IN THIS CASE LD.CIT(A), AFTER CONSIDERING THE REMAND REPOR T FROM THE AO OBSERVED THAT ONLY SHORTFALL OF 5,09,884/- TO BE TAXED. WE ALSO INTENT TO MENTION HERE THAT CORPUS DONATION CA NNOT BE CONSIDERED FOR APPLICATION OF INCOME WHILE COMPUTIN G 85% OF THE APPLICATION OF INCOME. THE CORPUS DONATION WAS RECE IVED BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER SPECIFIC DIRECTION AND FOR THE SPECI FIC PURPOSE AND IT COULD NOT BE TAXED AS INCOME OF ASSESSEE AS THIS AMOUNT WERE TO USED FOR A SPECIFIC PURPOSE FOR WHICH THEY HAD BEEN GIVEN. BEING SO, IN EXCLUDING CORPS DONATIONS WHIL E COMPUTING 85% OF THE APPLICATION OF INCOME FOR THE OBJECT OF THE ASSESSEES - - ITA 1725 TO 1726/M/15 & CO 4 & 5/M/16 8 TRUST IS JUSTIFIED AND ONLY A SHORTFALL IN APPLYING THE INCOME FOR THE OBJECT OF THE ASSESSEE TRUST AT 5,09,884/- TO BE TAXED AND ACCORDINGLY, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE OR DER OF LD.CIT(A) AND ACCORDINGLY, THE SAME IS CONFIRMED AND ACCORDIN GLY, THE SAME IS CONFIRMED. 7. THE NEXT COMMON GROUND IN ALL THESE REVENUES A PPEALS IS WITH REGARD TO REJECTION OF AOS REQUEST FOR ENH ANCEMENT OF ASSESSMENT FOR A.YS. 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08 AND 2008-09 ON THE GROUND THAT THE VALUATION REPORT HAS NO LEGA L SANCTITY AS IT WAS NEITHER REFERRED BY THE AO NOR DURING THE COURS E OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. 8. THERE WAS A REQUEST FROM THE AO FOR ENHANCEMENT OF ASSESSMENT TOWARDS COST OF CONSTRUCTION BASED ON TH E VALUATION REPORT OF THE DVO, WHICH WAS REJECTED BY THE CIT(AP PEALS) BY OBSERVING THAT AS PER THE PROVISIONS, THE AO HAS NO T REFERRED THE MATTER TO THE DVO AND THE ADIT (INV.) HAS REFERRED THE MATTER TO THE DVO FOR VALUATION OF THE PROPERTIES. FURTHER, THE CIT(APPEALS) OBSERVED THAT THE REFERENCE TO THE VAL UATION CELL (DVO) WAS MADE DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AND SEIZ URE PROCEEDINGS U/S.132 OF THE ACT AND THE REFERENCE WA S MADE ON - - ITA 1725 TO 1726/M/15 & CO 4 & 5/M/16 9 31.01.2007, I.E. BEFORE THE INITIATION OF THE PRESE NT ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS OF A.Y. 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08 AND 2 008-09. THEREFORE, THE PRESENT VALUATION REPORT, WHICH WAS NEITHER REFERRED BY THE AO, NOR DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESS MENT PROCEEDINGS, HAS NO LEGAL SANCTITY. ACCORDING TO T HE CIT(APPEALS), SUCH VALUATION REPORT CANNOT BE CONSI DERED AS A VALID REPORT. CONSEQUENTLY, NO ADDITION / ENHANCEM ENT IS POSSIBLE ON SUCH REPORT AND THE CIT(APPEALS) REJECT ED THE AOS REQUEST FOR ENHANCEMENT OF ASSESSMENT FOR A.YS. 200 5-06, 2006-07, 2007-08 AND 2008-09. AGAINST THIS, THE RE VENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 9. ACCORDING TO LD.D.R, THE LD.CIT(A) HAS NOT GIVE N PROPER OPPORTUNITY TO THE AO BEFORE DECIDING THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND HE PRAYED THAT THE ISSUE MAY BE REMIT TED TO THE FILE OF AO FOR FRESH CONSIDERATION. 9.1 ON THE OTHER HAND, LD.A.R SUBMITTED THAT AO H AS TO REFER THE CASE TO DVO FOR THE PURPOSE OF OBTAINING THE CO ST OF CONSTRUCTIONS/NATURE OF INVESTMENTS IN THE BUILDING S DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IN TERMS OF SEC.1 45A OF THE ACT. IN THIS CASE, REFERENCE TO DVO FOR VALUATION WAS MADE BY - - ITA 1725 TO 1726/M/15 & CO 4 & 5/M/16 10 THE ADIT(INVESTIGATION) AND IT CANNOT BE ACTED UPON . ACCORDING TO HIM, HE PLACED RELIANCE IN THE ORDER OF TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF M/S.A.R. HOUSING PVT LTD. IN ITA NO.623/MDS./2015 V IDE ORDER DATED 11.09.2015 WHEREIN HELD THAT THE AO CANNOT RE QUEST THE CIT(A) FOR ENHANCEMENT, IT IS PREROGATIVE OF THE CI T(A) TO DECIDE WHETHER ENHANCEMENT IS MADE OR NOT. 10. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. SIMILAR ISSUE IS CONSIDERED BY THIS TRIB UNAL IN ITA NO.623/MDS./2015 IN THE CASE OF M/S.A.R. HOUSING PV T. LTD., VIDE ORDER DATED 11.09.2015 WHEREIN HELD THAT AO CANNOT INFLUENCE THE CIT(A) TO ENHANCE THE ASSESSMENT . THE LD.CIT( A) HAS TO APPLY HIS MIND INDEPENDENTLY AND COME TO A CONCLUSI ON ON THE ISSUE BEFORE HIM. THE AO CANNOT INFLUENCE THE DECI SION MAKING PROCESS OF CIT(A). THE REQUEST MADE BY THE AO WAS COLLATERAL PURPOSE AND NOT BONAFIDE. THE AO CANNOT DO THE THIN GS INDIRECTLY, WHAT CANNOT BE DONE DIRECTLY AS HELD BY THIS TRIBUNAL. 10.1 FURTHER, IN THIS CASE THE ASSESSEES PROPERTY IS SITUATED IN ARIYOOR VILLAGE, PONDICHERRY. HENCE, THE CPWD RATE CANNOT BE APPLIED AND STATE PWD TO BE APPLIED, BEING IT IS A MOFUSIL AREA AND SUITABLE DEDUCTION OUT OF CPWD RATES TO BE GIVE N. BEING SO, - - ITA 1725 TO 1726/M/15 & CO 4 & 5/M/16 11 IN OUR OPINION, LD.CIT(A) IS JUSTIFIED IN NOT ENHAN CEMENT PROPOSAL MADE BY THE AO. FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2008-09. ACCORDINGLY, WE ARE CONFIRMING T HE FINDINGS OF THE LD.CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE, REJECTING THE CLAIM OF ENHANCEMENT OF MADE BY THE AO. 11. THE COMMON GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE CROSS OBJECTIONS IS AS FOLLOWS: 1. THE ORDER OF THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-I(2), CHE NNAI, DATED 31-12-2008 PASSED IN TERMS OF SECTIONS 153C R.W.S. 153A R.W.S.143(3) OF THE ACT IS CONTRARY TO THE WELL SETTLED PRINCIPLES OF FRAMING THE SEARCH ASSESSMENT BASED ON SEIZED MATERIALS AND FURTHER OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THAT THE LACK OF SEIZED MATERIALS ON TH E FACTS OF THE CASE WOULD VITIATE THE ADDITION(S) MADE IN T HE COMPUTATION OF TAXABLE TOTAL INCOME ON THE CONSIDER ATION OF THE SCHEME OF THE SEARCH ASSESSMENT PROCEDURE. 2. THE ASSESSING OFFICER OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THE SPECIAL BENCH OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF M/S. ALL CARGO GLOBAL LOGISTICS LTD., W HICH IS NOW AFFIRMED BY THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY IN THE CAS E REPORTED IN 374 ITR 645 VITIATING THE ADDITION(S) M ADE IN THE COMPUTATION OF TAXABLE TOTAL INCOME ON THE CONSIDERATION OF THE SCHEME OF THE SEARCH ASSESSMEN T PROCEDURE. 11.1 THERE WAS A DELAY OF 19 DAYS IN FILING THESE T WO CROSS OBJECTIONS BY THE ASSESSEE. CONSEQUENT TO THIS, TH E LD.A.R - - ITA 1725 TO 1726/M/15 & CO 4 & 5/M/16 12 FILED AN AFFIDAVIT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE DATED 11.01.2016 FOR CONDOANTION OF DELAY STATING THAT THE SAID DELAY IN FILING THE C.OS IS NEITHER WILLFUL NOR DELIBERATE BUT DUE TO SUDDE N ILLNESS OF THE CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT AND ALSO THE CIRCUMSTANCES BEY OND THE CONTROL OF PETITIONER HEREIN. AFTER CONSIDERING TH E SAME, WE ARE SATISFIED ABOUT THE REASONS ADVANCED BY THE LD.A.R FOR DELAY OF 19 DAYS IN FILING THE C.O.S. ACCORDINGLY, THE DELA Y IS CONDONED. 12. FOR THESE ASSESSMENT YEARS I.E. 2005-06 & 2006 -07, THE AR CHALLENGED THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS PASSED IN THESE ASSESSMENT YEARS U/S.153C R.W.S.153A OF THE ACT STA TING THAT THERE IS NO INCRIMINATING SEIZED MATERIAL FOUND DUR ING THE COURSE OF SEARCH SO AS TO FRAME ASSESSMENT FOR THESE ASSES SMENT YEARS UNDER THE ABOVE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT, BY PL ACING RELIANCE ON THE ORDER OF SPECIAL BENCH OF MUMBAI TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ALL CARGO GLOBAL LOGISTICS LTD., VS. DCIT IN 137 IT D 287(SB). 13. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. SINCE WE HAVE DISMISSED BOTH THE APPEALS FILED BY - - ITA 1725 TO 1726/M/15 & CO 4 & 5/M/16 13 THE REVENUE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS UNDER CONSIDER ATION, BOTH THE CROSS OBJECTIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED AS INFRUCTUOUS. 14. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENU E IN ITA NOS.1725 TO 1728/MDS/2015 ARE DISMISSED AND THE CR OSS OBJECTIONS IN NOS. 4 & 5/MDS/2016 FILLED BY THE ASS ESSEE ARE DISMISSED AS INFRUCTUOUS. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 8 TH DECEMBER, 2016 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( #$ % ) ( & ' ( # ) )$*+,+-./0+1234+-51+*667+182 9 :; /JUDICIAL MEMBER :;<=>>6/-?+-?@A0BA1 &9 /CHENNAI, C: /DATED, THE 08 TH DECEMBER, 2016. K S SUNDARAM :D EFGF /COPY TO: 1 . / APPELLANT 3. H2 / CIT(A) 5. FIJ K / DR 2. / RESPONDENT 4. H / CIT 6. JLM / GF