ITO, CHENNAI V. Shri K.V.Rmadoss, CHENNAI

ITA 1754/CHNY/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7952 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 2 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-11-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 24-11-2016
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 21-09-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DURAI PANDIAN IRS
• Assessee Lawyers: S SRIDHAR

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH : CHENNAI . . . , !'# . $%$& , ' #( ) [BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ] ./I.T.A. NO. 1754/MDS/2012 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-2010. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD IV(4) CHENNAI 600 034. VS. SHRI. K.V. RAMADOSS, PLOPT NO.12, VELAN NAGAR, VALASARAVAKKAM, CHENNAI 600 087. [PAN AAAPR 6133P] ( *+ / APPELLANT) ( ,-*+ /RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI. DURAIPANDIAN, IRS, JCIT. /RESPONDENT BY : SHRI. S. SRIDHAR, ADVOCATE /DATE OF HEARING : 24-11-2016 ! /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30-11-2016 / O R D E R PER ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IN THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE, ITS GRIEVANC E IS ON THE DELETION OF AN ADDITION OF A38,59,100/- MADE BY T HE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER TREATING CERTAIN CASH CREDITS AS UNEXPLAINE D. ITA NO.1754/MDS/2012. :- 2 -: 2. REVENUE HAS FILED THIS APPEAL WITH A DELAY OF SEVEN DAYS. CONDONATION PETITION HAS BEEN FILED. REASONS SHOWN FOR THE DELAY ARE JUSTIFIED. LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE DID NO T RAISE ANY SERIOUS OBJECTION. DELAY IS CONDONED. APPEAL IS ADMITTED. 3. FACTS APROPOS ARE THAT ASSESSEE HAD FILED RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR DISCLOSING INCOME OF A2,68,980/-. LD. ASSESSING OFFICER WAS HAVING INFORMATION FROM A NNUAL INFORMATION REPORT REGARDING CERTAIN CASH DEPOSITS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE TO HIS SAVING BANK. EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS SOUGHT FOR THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSITS MADE DURING THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEA RS, EXCEEDING A50,000/-. ASSESSEE IN HIS REPLY STATED THAT HE HAD RECEIVED FOLLOWING AMOUNTS AS LAND ADVANCE:- SL.NO NATURE SOURCE AMOUNT 1 LAND ADVANCE SHRI. R. RAVI, PIRANTHIYAKARAI POST, KARIYAPATINAM, VEDAGHARANIUM TALUK, NAGAPATTINAM 614 806. A10,00,000 2 LAND ADVANC E SHRI. G.R. VADIVELU, NEW NO.835/A, OLD NO.4/66, KALLAR STREET, KAMESWARAM, KIVALUR TALUK NAGAPATTINAM 611 110 A15,00,000 3 LAND ADVANCE SHRI. K. RAJA, R.R. PURAM SOUTH STREET, VELANKANNI VIA NAGAPATTINAM 611 110. A8,00,000 4 LAND ADVANCE SHRI. N. DHARM ARAJAN, KIZHA STREET, VELANKANNI, NAGAPATTINAM A11,00,000 5 LAND ADVANCE SHRI. K.K. RAJENDRAN, A10,00,000 ITA NO.1754/MDS/2012. :- 3 -: C.R. PURAM, MIDIAI STREET, VELANKANNI NAGAPATTINAM 611 110. AS PER THE ASSESSEE THE DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUN T WERE OUT OF THE ABOVE ADVANCES. LD. ASSESSING OFFICER THEREUPON RE QUIRED THE ASSESSEE TO FILE THE RECEIPTS FOR THE ABOVE AMOUNT. AS PER LD. ASSESSING OFFICER CONTENTS OF THE RECEIPTS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION:- SL. NO DATE OF RECEIPT PARTIES BETWEEN LAND TYPE EXTENT AGREED SALE VALUE ADVANCE RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE. 1 15.08.2008 SHRI. K.V. RAMADOSS AND SHRI. R.RAVI AGRICULTURAL LAND 1 ACRES 25,00,000 A10,00,000 2 15.08.2008 SHRI. K.V. RAMADOSS AND SHRI. G.R. VADIVELU AGRICULTURAL LAND 1 ACRES 25,00,000 A15,00,000 3 15.08.2008 SHRI. K.V. RAMADOSS AND SHRI. R.RAVI AGRICULTURAL LAND 1 ACRES 25,00,000 A8,00,000 4 15.08.2008 SHRI. K.V. RAMADOSS AND N. DHARMARAJAN AGRICULTURAL LAND 1 ACRES 25,00,000 A11,00,000 5 15.08.2008 SHRI. K.V. RAMADOSS AND SHRI. K.K. RAJENDRAN AGRICULTURAL LAND 1 ACRES 25,00,000 A10,00,000 LD. ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT THE RECEIPTS DID NOT GIVE ANY DETAIL REGARDING THE PROPERTY WHICH WAS PROPOSED TO BE SOL D AND ASSESSEE ITA NO.1754/MDS/2012. :- 4 -: COULD NOT SHOW WHETHER THE SALE WAS COMPLETED WITHI N THREE MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF RECEIPT. LD. ASSESSING OFFICER THE REUPON ISSUED NOTICES U/S.133(6) OF THE ACT TO THE ABOVE FIVE PER SONS. HE REQUIRED THEM TO FILE THE AGREEMENTS THEY HAD ENTERED WITH T HE ASSESSEE, THEIR SOURCE FOR THE ADVANCES GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE, THEI R PAN NUMBERS AND DETAILS OF THE RETURNS FILED BY THEM FOR THE IMPUGN ED ASSESSMENT YEAR. LD. ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO REQUIRED THEM TO CLARIFY WHETHER THE PURCHASE OF LAND MATERIALIZED. LD. ASSESSING OFFIC ER THEREAFTER SUMMARIZED THE INFORMATION PROVIDED BY THE ABOVE PE RSONS PURSUANT TO NOTICE U/S.133(6) OF THE ACT AS UNDER:- SL.NO NAME OF PERSON REPLY TO INFORMATION U/S.133(6) OF THE PERSONS SHRI. R. RAVI 1. A COPY OF SALE ADVANCE RECEIPT ENTERED WITH SHRI. K.V RAMADOSS ON 15.05.2008 FOR ADVANCE OF A10,00,000/- 2. I AM AN AGRICULTURALIST AND I MADE THE PAYMENT OUT OF MY EARLIER YEAR SAVINGS. 3. AS I AM NOT ASSESSED TO INCOME TAX AS MY INCOME IS FROM AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES, I DONT HAVE PAN AND FILING AND RETURN OF INCOME THAT THE ASST. YEAR 2009-10 AND SUBSEQUENT YEARS. 4. WITH REGARD TO THE LAND ADVANCE, DUE TO THE DEVELOPMENTAL ACTIVITIES IN THAT AREA, THERE IS A DISPUTE IN THE RATE, THE AGREEMENT IS NOT YET MATERALISED AND WE ARE YET RECEIVED BACK THE ADVANCE AMOUNT PAID TO SHRI. K.V. RAMADOSS. SHRI. G.R. VADIVELU 1. A COPY OF SALE ADVANCE RECEIPT ENTERED WITH SHRI. K.V RAMADOSS ON 15.05.2008 FOR ADVANCE OF A15,00,000/- 2. I AM AN AGRICULTURALIST AND I MADE THE PAYMENT OUT OF MY EARLIER YEAR SAVINGS. 3. AS I AM NOT ASSESSED TO INCOME TAX AS MY INCOME IS FROM AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES, I DONT HAVE PAN AND FILING AND RETURN OF INCOME THAT THE ASST. YEAR 2009-10 AND ITA NO.1754/MDS/2012. :- 5 -: SUBSEQUENT YEARS. 4. WITH REGARD TO THE LAND ADVANCE, DUE TO THE DEVELOPMENTAL ACTIVITIES IN THAT AREA, THERE IS A DISPUTE IN THE RATE, THE AGREEMENT IS NOT YET MATERALISED AND WE ARE YET RECEIVED BACK THE ADVANCE AMOUNT PAID TO SHRI. K.V. RAMADOSS. SHRI. K. RAJA 1. A COPY OF SALE ADVANCE RECEIPT ENTERED WITH SHRI. K.V RAMADOSS ON 15.05.2008 FOR ADVANCE OF A8,00,000/- 2. I AM AN AGRICULTURALIST AND I MADE THE PAYMENT OUT OF MY EARLIER YEAR SAVINGS. 3. AS I AM NOT ASSESSED TO INCOME TAX AS MY INCOME IS FROM AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES, I DONT HAVE PAN AND FILING AND RETURN OF INCOME THAT THE ASST. YEAR 2009-10 AND SUBSEQUENT YEARS. 4. WITH REGARD TO THE LAND ADVANCE, DUE TO THE DEVELOPMENTAL ACTIVITIES IN THAT AREA, THERE IS A DISPUTE IN THE RATE, THE AGREEMENT IS NOT YET MATERALISED AND WE ARE YET RECEIVED BACK THE ADVANCE AMOUNT PAID TO SHRI. K.V. RAMADOSS. SHRI. N. DHARMARAJAN 1. A COPY OF SALE ADVANCE RECEIPT ENTERED WITH SHRI. K.V RAMADOSS ON 15.05.2008 FOR ADVANCE OF A11,00,000/- 2. I AM AN AGRICULTURALIST AND I MADE THE PAYMENT OUT OF MY EARLIER YEAR SAVINGS. 3. AS I AM NOT ASSESSED TO INCOME TAX AS MY INCOME IS FROM AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES, I DONT HAVE PAN AND FILING AND RETURN OF INCOME THAT THE ASST. YEAR 2009-10 AND SUBSEQUENT YEARS. 4. WITH REGARD TO THE LAND ADVANCE, DUE TO THE DEVELOPMENTAL ACTIVITIES IN THAT AREA, THERE IS A DISPUTE IN THE RATE, THE AGREEMENT IS NOT YET MATERALISED AND WE ARE YET RECEIVED BACK THE ADVANCE AMOUNT PAID TO SHRI. K.V. RAMADOSS. SHRI. K.K. RAJENDRAN 1. A COPY OF SALE ADVANCE RECEIPT ENTERED WITH SHRI. K.V RAMADOSS ON 15.05.2008 FOR ADVANCE OF A10,00,000/- 2. I AM AN AGRICULTURALIST AND I MADE THE PAYMENT OUT OF MY EARLIER YEAR SAVINGS. 3. AS I AM NOT ASSESSED TO INCOME TAX AS MY INCOME IS FROM AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES, I DONT HAVE PAN AND FILING AND RETURN OF INCOME THAT THE ASST. YEAR 2009-10 AND SUBSEQUENT YEARS. 4. WITH REGARD TO THE LAND ADVANCE, DUE TO THE DEVELOPMENTAL ACTIVITIES IN THAT AREA, THERE IS A DISPUTE IN THE RATE, THE AGREEMENT ITA NO.1754/MDS/2012. :- 6 -: IS NOT YET MATERALISED AND WE ARE YET RECEIVED BACK THE ADVANCE AMOUNT PAID TO SHRI. K.V. RAMADOSS. 4. FROM THE CONFIRMATIONS AND SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE ABOVE PERSONS, LD. ASSESSING OFFI CER NOTED THAT NONE OF THEM COULD GIVE ANY DETAILS OF THEIR SOURCE S THOUGH THEY ALL STATED THAT ADVANCES WERE PAID OUT THEIR AGRICULTUR AL INCOME. THOUGH ASSESSEE SUBMITTED BEFORE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER THA T THESE PERSONS WERE CULTIVATING PADDY, GROUNDNUT, SUGAR CANE ETC., LD. ASSESSING OFFICER WAS OF THE OPINION THAT NO GOOD SOURCE WAS GIVEN FOR THE EARNINGS CLAIMED BY THE CREDITORS. HE MADE AN ADDI TION OF A38,59,100/-, BEING THE AGGREGATE AMOUNT OF DEPOSIT S IN THE BANK ACCOUNT WHICH WERE CONSIDERED AS UNEXPLAINED. 5. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE MOVED IN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) WAS THAT IDENTITY OF THE BUYERS WERE EST ABLISHED AND COPIES OF THE RECEIPTS FURNISHED. FURTHER AS PER THE ASSE SSEE THE BUYERS HAD INDIVIDUALLY INFORMED THE ASSESSING OFFICER SOURCE OF THEIR EARNINGS FOR GIVING ADVANCE TO THE ASSESSEE. AS PER THE ASSESSE E HE HAD DISCHARGED THE ONUS RESTING ON HIM FOR PROVING THE CREDIT. RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON HONLE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT IN TH E CASE OF CIT VS. P.K. NOORJAHAN 237 ITR 570 AND CIT VS. LOVELY EXPOR TS PVT. LTD 216 ITA NO.1754/MDS/2012. :- 7 -: CTR 195, JUDGMENT OF DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SOPHIA FINANCE LTD 205 ITR 98 AND JUDGMENT OF HONBLE JURI SDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. ELECTRO POLYCHEM LTD 2 94 ITR 661. 6. LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) WAS APPRE CIATIVE OF THE ABOVE CONTENTIONS. ACCORDING TO HIM, ASSESS EE WAS OWNING 15 ACRES OF LAND IN 168 KAATOOR VILLGE, GUDAVASAL (TK) IN THIRUVARUR DIST, TAMIL NADU AND HAD REGULARLY SHOWN AGRICULTURAL INC OME IN HIS RETURNS. FROM THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, LD. COMMISSIO NER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) CONCLUDED THAT ASSESSEE HAD DECIDED T O DISPOSE OF 7.5 ACRES OF LAND OUT OF HIS HOLDINGS FOR A SUM OF A1, 25,00,000/- TO FIVE BUYERS AND ENTERED INTO AGREEMENT WITH EACH OF THEM FOR 1.5 ACRES, FOR A CONSIDERATION OF A25,00,000/-. AS PER LD. CIT (A) THE BUYERS COULD NOT ADHERE TO THE ORIGINAL SCHEDULE OF PAYMENT AN D THE CONFIRMATION LETTERS FILED BY THEM IN THIS REGARD COULD NOT BE D ISBELIEVED. LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) NOTED THAT ASS ESSEE HAD NEVER ATTEMPTED TO CONVERT THE AGRICULTURAL LAND INTO RE SIDENTIAL LAND. THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ALSO NOTED THAT ASSESSEE HAD REPAID THE ENTIRE AMOUNT RECEIVED FROM THE FIVE BUYERS BACK TO THEM SINCE THE SALE DID NOT GO THROUGH. AS PER LD COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) DEPOSITS OF A38,59,100/- MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT WAS LESS THAN THE ADVANCE OF A5 4,00,000/- RECEIVED BY HIM. HE DELETED SUCH ADDITION. ITA NO.1754/MDS/2012. :- 8 -: 7. NOW BEFORE US, LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE STRO NGLY ASSAILING THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCO ME TAX (APPEALS) SUBMITTED THAT NONE OF THE FIVE PERSONS WHO HAD ALL EGEDLY GIVEN THE ADVANCE TO THE ASSESSEE COULD SHOW HOW WHY THEY HA D KEPT THE AMOUNT GIVEN TO ASSESSEE IN CASH WITHOUT BANKING. AS PER LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE AREA IN WHICH THE LAND WAS SITUATED COULD NEVER FETCH A HARVEST OF MORE THAN RUPEES TW ENTY THOUSAND PER YEAR PER ACRE. AS PER LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTAT IVE ASSESSEE COULD NOT SHOW OR GIVE DETAILS OF HOLDING OF ANY OF THESE PERSONS WHICH COULD CORROBORATE HIS CLAIM THAT THEY HAD ADVANCED SUMS V ARYING BETWEEN EIGHT LAKHS TO FIFTEEN LAKHS, TO THE ASSESSEE. LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IT WAS IMPOS SIBLE TO BELIEVE THAT NONE OF THE SALE WENT THROUGH, AND THESE PERSON HAD RETURNED THE MONEY THAT WAS RECEIVED BY THEM AS ADVANCE. ACCORD ING TO HIM, ASSESSEE WAS TRYING TO BUILD UP A STORY WHEN HE CO ULD NOT EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF THE CASH DEPOSITS MADE IN THE BANK ACCOU NT. 8. PER CONTRA, LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE STRONGLY SUPPORTING THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (AP PEALS) SUBMITTED THAT EACH OF THE PERSONS HAD CONFIRMED PAYMENT OF A DVANCE. EACH OF THE PERSONS HAD MENTIONED THE AMOUNT AND THE SOUR CE FROM WHICH HE HAD RAISED THE MONEY. THUS, ACCORDING TO LD. AU THORISED ITA NO.1754/MDS/2012. :- 9 -: REPRESENTATIVE THE INITIAL BURDEN CAST ON THE ASSES SEE TO PROVE THE CREDITS STOOD DISCHARGED. LD. ASSESSING OFFICER H AD MADE NO FURTHER ENQUIRY. AS PER LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE HE S IMPLY DISBELIEVED THE CONFIRMATIONS FILED AND MADE AN ADDITION. LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT ADDITION WAS RIGHTLY DELETED BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). RELIANCE WAS ONCE AGAIN PLACED ON THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT IN TH E CASE OF LOVELY EXPORTS PVT. LTD (SUPRA). 9. WE HAVE PERUSED THE ORDERS AND HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS. ASSESSEE HAD ENDEAVORED TO EXPLAIN CA SH DEPOSITS OF RS.38,59,100/- MADE BY HIM IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT, AS COMING FROM LAND ADVANCE RECEIVED FROM PERSONS MENTIONED AT PARA 3 (ABOVE). ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED IN SUPPORT OF THIS XEROX C OPIES OF ADVANCE RECEIPTS SHOWING THE EXTENT OF AREA AGREED TO BE SO LD BY THE ASSESSEE. THE AGREED PRICES VARIED EXCEPT IN ONE CASE. REPLY GIVEN BY EACH OF THE FIVE PARTIES TO NOTICE U/S.133(6) OF THE ACT EL ICITED TYPICAL ANSWER. NONE OF THEM GAVE THE DETAILS OF LAND THEY WERE HOL DING, WHERE THEY HAD KEPT THE MONEY AND WHAT WAS AGRICULTURAL ACTIVI TIES CARRIED ON BY THEM. NONE OF THE SALES HAD GONE THROUGH. CLAIM O F THE ASSESSEE IS THAT ALL THE MONEY WERE RETURNED. IT IS HARD TO BE LIEVE THAT ALL THESE PERSONS HAD PARTED WITH THEIR MONEY, WHICH RUN INTO LAKHS WITHOUT ANY AGREEMENTS. IT IS STILL MORE HARD TO BELIEVE ALL T HESE PERSONS HAD ITA NO.1754/MDS/2012. :- 10 -: ACCEPTED THE MONEY BACK AND NOT INSISTED ON THE PUR CHASE. EQUALLY HARD IS IT TO BELIEVE THAT ASSESSEE HAD NOT INSISTE D ON THE SALE TO GO THROUGH. NO DOUBT, IT WAS NOT REQUIRED FOR AN ASSE SSEE TO SHOW THE SOURCE OF THE SOURCE. HOWEVER, THIS PRINCIPLE CAN NOT BE SO EXTRA POLATED TO MEAN THAT A MERE CONFIRMATION STATING T HAT MONEY CAME OUT OF AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS WOULD SUFFICE. LOOS E ENDS IN THE VERSION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE FOR EXPLAINING THE SOURCE ARE SO LUMINANT THAT PRINCIPLE OF PREPONDERANCE OF PROBABILITY GOES AGAI NST THE ASSESSEE. LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAD BELIEV ED THE VERSION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE TYPI CAL NATURE OF THE CONFIRMATIONS AND ABSENCE OF ESSENTIAL DETAILS WH ICH COULD SHOW THAT THE BUYER WAS HAVING THE WHERE WITHAL TO RAISE THE MONEY THEY HAD ALLEGEDLY GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE. JUDGMENT OF HONB LE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF P.K. NOORJAHAN (SUPRA) WOULD HARDLY CAM E TO THE AID OF THE ASSESSEE SINCE ASSESSEE WAS NOT SO YOUNG OR SO DES TITUTE TO COME TO A PRESUMPTION THAT HE COULD HAVE HAD NO SOURCE OF INCOME. AS TO THE APEX COURT JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF LOVELY EXPORTS P VT. LTD THE QUESTION WAS REGARDING SHARE APPLICATION MONEY RECE IVED BY A COMPANY. SIMILAR WAS ISSUE DEALT WITH HONBLE DELH I HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SOPHIA FINANCE LTD (SUPRA). IN OUR OPINION, NONE OF THE JUDGMENTS CITED BY THE ASSESSEE WOULD COME TO ITS AID. ASSESSEE HAD WOEFULLY FAILED TO SUBSTANTIATE THE SOURCE OF THE DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ITA NO.1754/MDS/2012. :- 11 -: ACCOUNT. WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT LD. ASSESSING OFFICER WAS JUSTIFIED IN DISBELIEVING THE CLAIM OF THE RECEIPT OF THE ADV ANCE FOR SALE OF PROPERTY AND MAKING AN ADDITION OF A38,59,100/-. W E SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL S) AND REINSTATE THE ADDITION MADE BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER. 10. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS ALLOWE D. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF N OVEMBER, 2016, AT CHENNAI SD/- SD/- ( . . . ' ) (N.R.S. GANESAN) / JUDICIAL MEMBER ( !'# . $%$& ) (ABRAHAM P. GEORGE) ' / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER #$ / CHENNAI %& / DATED: 30TH NOVEMBER, 2016 KV &' ()*) / COPY TO: 1 . / APPELLANT 3. +,' / CIT(A) 5. )-. / / DR 2. / RESPONDENT 4. + / CIT 6. .01 / GF