Appeal details
Counselvise Citation
[2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8031 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
Duration Of Justice
1 year(s) 17 day(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date
10-02-2016
Appeal Filed By
Assessee
Bench Allotted
B
Next Hearing Date
07-01-2016
Assessment Year
2003-2004
Appeal Filed On
23-01-2015
Judgement Text
, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, CHENNAI , . ' # , $ #% BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI G. PAVAN KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. ASST. YEAR APPELLANT RESPONDENT 173/MDS/2015 & 174/MDS/2015 2003-04 & 2004-05 SHRI L.NACHIAPPAN 4/5, T.T.NAGAR, 1 ST STREET, KARAIKUDI PAN AAXPN9951G INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-I(2), KARAIKUDI 175/MDS/2015 & 176/MDS/2015 2003-04 & 2004-05 SHRI L. PANDIAN, 6/3, SUBRAMNIAPURAM, 5 TH STREET, KARAKUDI. PAN AFNPP9149P INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-I(2), KARAIKUDI 177/MDS/2015 2003-04 SMT. S. THILAGAM, L/H OF LATE L.SARAVANAN, B/293-B SOODAMANIPURAM PAN AGUPS3724K INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-I(2), KARAIKUDI / APPELLANTS BY : SHRI S. SRIDHAR, ADVOCATE / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI A.B.KOLI, JCIT / DATE OF HEARING : 07.01.2016 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 10.02.2016 & / O R D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THESE APPEALS ARE FILED BY THE ABOVE ASSESSEES A ND DIRECTED AGAINST DIFFERENT ORDERS OF THE COMMISSION ER OF INCOME- TAX(APPEALS) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2003-04 AND 2 004-05. - - ITA 174 TO 177/15 2 SINCE, THE ISSUES INVOLVED IN THESE APPEALS ARE COM MON, THESE ARE CLUBBED TOGETHER, HEARD TOGETHER AND DISPOSED O FF BY THIS COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 2. THE FACTS ARE SIMILAR IN ALL THESE APPEALS AND T HE SAME AS NARRATED IN THE CASE OF SHRI L. NATCHIAPPAN ARE THA T T HE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE ILL, MAD URAI FRAMED AN ASSESSMENT U/S 153A R.W.SEC. 143(3) OF THE ACT ON 28.3.2006 CONSEQUENT TO THE SEARCH CONDUCTED IN THE RESIDENTIAL AND BUSINESS PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE A ND HIS BROTHERS ON 18.9.2003 AND THE JCLT DETERMINED T HE TAXABLE TOTAL INCOME IN THE SEARCH ASSESSMENT AT `1 9,69,650/-. WHILE DOING. SO, THE JCIT HAD MADE THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONS/DISALLOWANCES IN THE COMPUTATIO N OF TAXABLE TOTAL INCOME: A) EXPENSES DISALLOWED ` 14,616.00 B) DEPRECIATION DISALLOWED ` 1,60,000.00 C) UNEXPLAINED CLOSING BALANCE AND DEPOSIT IN. BANK ACCOUNT ` 1,42,805.00 D) ADVANCE FOR SALE OF AGRICULTURAL LANDS CLAIMED AS LIABILITY ` 14,11,000.00 E) FAMILY EXPENSES ` 45,000.00 - - ITA 174 TO 177/15 3 THE SAID ASSESSMENT WAS SUBJECTED TO FIRST APPEAL A ND IN THE FIRST APPELLATE ORDER DATED 21.5.2007, THE G ROUNDS RELATING TO THE DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES WERE CONSIDERED AND DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AN D THE SECOND DISALLOWANCE CONTEMPLATED IN THE SAID ASSESSMENT NAMELY, DISALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION EVE N THOUGH ENHANCED IN THE SAID. FIRST APPELLATE ORDER WAS ULTIMATELY DELETED ON THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE PLEA FO R TELESCOPING IN VIEW OF THE AVAILABILITY OF CASH. TH E NEXT TWO ADDITIONS, NAMELY, THE UNEXPLAINED CLOSING BALA NCE AND DEPOSIT IN BANK ACCOUNT AS WELL AS THE DISALLOW ANCE OF. FAMILY' EXPENSES WERE DECIDED ON THE STRENGTH O F THE PLEA FOR TELESCOPING. 2.1 THE LAST ADDITION, NAMELY, THE ADVANCE FOR SALE OF AGRICULTURAL LANDS CLAIMED AS LIABILITY WAS CONSIDE RED AND DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF' THE ASSESSEE INASMUCH AS ON T HE CONSIDERATION OF THE CONFIRMATION LETTERS OBTAINED AND FILED FROM THE PERSONS FROM WHOM THE ADVANCES WERE RECEIVED, THE .SAID CLAIM WAS UPHELD. 2.2 IN THE SECOND APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE DEPARTMEN T - - ITA 174 TO 177/15 4 BEFORE THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, THE SAID ISSUE OF ADVANCE RECEIVED FROM SALE OF AGRICULTURAL LANDS CLAIMED AS A LIABILITY, WAS RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, VIDE THEIR ORDER DATED 11.2. 2009. 2.3 IN THE 'EFFECT GIVING' ORDER U/S 143(3) R.W.SEC . 254 OF THE ACT DATED 16.12.2010, APART FROM CONSIDERING THE CONFIRMATION LETTERS OBTAINED FROM THE PERSONS FROM WHOM SUCH ADVANCES WERE RECEIVED, THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(2), KARAIKUDI HAD CONSIDERED CERTAIN OTHER EVIDENCE. 2.4 B ASED ON THE INFERENCE DRAWN FROM THE ANALYSIS OF THE EVIDENCE FILED IN SUPPORT OF THE CLAIM/PLEA, THE ITO HAD MAINTAINED THE SAID ADDITION IN THE COMPUTATION OF TAXABLE TOTAL INCOME AND WHILE HOLDING SO, IT WAS H ELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT PROVED THAT THE AMOUNTS WERE ACTUALLY RECEIVED AS ADVANCES FOR SALE OF HIS. SHARE OF LAND BELONGING TO HUF AND HENCE THE QUESTION WHETHER THE LAND WAS AGRICULTURAL IN NATURE OR NOT NEED NOT BE LOOKED INTO. 2.5 WITHOUT PURSUING THE APPELLATE REMEDY, THE - - ITA 174 TO 177/15 5 ASSESSEE OPTED FOR REVISIONAL JURISDICTION U/S.264 OF THE ACT AND IN THE REVISION PETITION FILED ON 1.7.2011 BEFORE THE CIT-I, MADURAI, THE ASSESSEE PLEADED AS FOLLOWS : I) OWNERSHIP OF LANDS ESTABLISHED BY PRODUCTION OF JOINT LAND PATTA II) THE .IAND BELONGS. TO HUF BY WAY OF INHERITANCE FROM MY FATHER LATE SHRI N.N.LAKSHMANAN CHETTIAR III) THE INCOME ARISING OUT OF THE TRANSACTION IS O FFERED AS EXEMPTED GAIN IN THE RESPECTIVE HUF VIDE XEROX CO PY OF RETURN FILED. IV) EVIDENCE FILED. FOR RECEIPT OF SALE CONSIDERATI ON IS ESTABLISHED BY PRODUCTION OF SALE AGREEMENT FOR ` 29,11,000/- V) EVIDENCE FILED: FOR TRANSFER OF LAND TO THE AGREEMENT HOLDER SHRI S.RAJARAM BY EXECUTION .OF REGISTERED P OWER. VI) EVIDENCE FILED FOR RECEIPT OF CONSIDERATION IS FURTHER ESTABLISHED ON PRODUCTION OF BANK STATEMENTS WHERE THE PETITIONER HAS DEPOSITED THE CONSIDERATION. VII) IDENTITY OF THE BUYER SHRI S. RAJARAM IS ESTABLISHED ON PRODUCTION OF SALE DEED EXECUTED-BY HIM TO SHRI P. K;SELVARAJ. ACCORDINGLY IT WAS PRAYED IN THE REVISION PETITION THAT THE ADDITION MADE IN THIS REGARD SHOULD BE DELETED ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. HOWEVER , IN THE REVISION ORDER DATED 6.2.2012, THE CIT HAD DECL INED - - ITA 174 TO 177/15 6 TO INTERFERE IN THE MATTER EFFECTIVELY SUSTAINING T HE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT. THE CIT REJECTED THE CLAIM OF SUCH TRANSACTIONS EMANATED IN THE FILE OF THE ASSESSEE, HUF . 2.6 ONCE AGAIN, THE ASSESSEE WENT IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(APPEALS). DURING THE COURSE OF ORIGINAL ASSESS MENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE FILED CONFIRMATION LETTER S FROM THE FOLLOWING THREE PERSONS THAT THEY HAVE ADVANCED MONEY FOR PURCHASE OF LAND BELONGING TO THE ASSESSE E AND THREE OTHERS: S.NO. NAME DATE OF LETTER ADVANCE RECEIVED 1. KANNAPPAN, S/O MALAISAMY KONAR, KEELAIYUR VILLAGE, MELUR TALUK,MADURAI DIST. 22.08.2002 ` 6,08,000/- 2. SELVAM, S/O KANDAN, KEELAIYUR VILLAGE, MELUR TALUK,MADURAI DIST. 03.02.2003 ` 2,03,000/ - 3. SNTHIL, S/O KARUPPIAH, KEELAIYUR VILLAGE, MELUR TALUK,MADURAI DIST. 12.12.2002 ` 6,00,000/- DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS BASED ON SET ASID E ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL, AO DIRECTED THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE 3 PERSONS KANNAPPAN, SELVAM AND SENTHIL FOR THE AOS EXAMINATION. THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PRODUCE T HEM. - - ITA 174 TO 177/15 7 THE AO ISSUED SUMMONS U/S.131 OF THE ACT TO THE ABO VE 3 PERSONS, WHICH WERE RETURNED UNSERVED. THE AO HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT COMPLIED WITH THE DIRECTION OF THE TRIBUNAL TO PRODUCE THE ABOVE TWO PERSONS TO EXAMIN E ALL THE ISSUES IN CONNECTION WITH THE GENUINENESS OF ADVANCES FROM THESE 3 PERSONS. THE AO CONFIRMED T HE ADDITION. DURING THE APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED ANY VALID REASON FOR NOT PRODUCING THE 3 PERSONS VI Z., KANNAPPAN, SELVAM AND SENTHIL AS PER THE ORDER OF T HE TRIBUNAL AND, THEREFORE, THE CIT(APPEALS) OBSERVED THAT THE FINDING OF THE AO IS IN ORDER AND DOES NOT NEED ANY INTERFERENCE. 2.7 THE TRIBUNAL SET ASIDE THE ORDER TO THE AO FOR FURTHER EXAMINATION AND VERIFICATION OF ADVANCES FR OM 3 PERSONS KANNAPPAN, SELVAM AND SENTHIL WITH A DIRECT ION THAT THE ASSESSEE BE GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY OF HEARIN G AND ALSO PRODUCE THE WITNESS, IF ANY. AS PER THE TRIBU NAL ORDER, THE ONLY ISSUE TO BE EXAMINED DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IS THE GENUINENESS OF THE ADVANCES CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN RECEIVED FROM THE 3 - - ITA 174 TO 177/15 8 PERSONS, KANNAPPAN, SELVAM AND SENTHIL TOWARDS SALE OF LAND. WHEN THE AO DURING SET ASIDE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, DIRECTED THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE THE A BOVE 3 PERSONS FOR EXAMINATION, THE ASSESSEE INSTEAD OF PRODUCING ABOVE 3 PERSONS, PUT FORWARD A TOTALLY NE W FACT THAT THE AMOUNT IN QUESTION IS RECEIVED FROM ONE SH RI S. RAJARAM AS UNDER: A) APPELLANT ENTERED INTO A MEMORANDUM WITH ONE SHRI S. RAJARAM ON 3.10.2002 FOR SALE OF THE LAND. B) THIS MOU IS UNREGISTERED. C) A TOTAL OF ` 29,11,2000 WAS RECEIVED AS ADVANCE FOR THE SALE OF THE LAND DURING AY 200304 AND AY 2004-05 IN CASH. D) THIS AMOUNT WAS DEPOSITED IN THE APPELLANTS BANK ACCOUNT IN CASH E) APPELLANT EXECUTED A REGISTERED POWER OF ATTORNEY DATED 01.09.2006 IN FAVOUR OF SHRI S. RAJARAM FOR SALE OF LAND. F) SRI S. RAJARAM EXECUTED A REGISTERED SALE DEED DATED 09.10.2006 FOR A CONSIDERATION OF ` 1,39,885/-. AS THERE ARE FOUR OWNERS ASSESSEES SHARE COMES TO ` 34,971/- G) THE LANDS ARE AGRICULTURAL AND HENCE THE GAINS ARE EXEMPT. 2.8. THE FIRST QUESTION ARISES WHETHER NEW GROUND T HAT - - ITA 174 TO 177/15 9 ADVANCES WERE FROM SOME OTHER PERSON AND THAT THERE WAS A MOU WITH THAT PERSON ETC. WERE NEVER TAKEN BE FORE THE ADIT, OR AO OR CIT(A) OR TRIBUNAL CAN BE ENTERT AINED IN AN ASSESSMENT WHICH WAS SET ASIDE BY THE TRIBUNA L ON A SPECIFIC POINT. 2.9 THUS, ACCORDING TO THE CIT(APPEALS), THE ASSE SSEE CANNOT RAISE A NEW GROUND BEFORE HIM DURING THE COU RSE OF PROCEEDINGS. AS SUCH, EXISTENCE OF HUF AND ADVANCE RECEIVED FROM OTHERS WAS NOT ACCEPTED AND THE ADDIT ION WAS SUSTAINED U/S.68 OF THE ACT. ACCORDING TO HIM, THE FINDING OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NOS.95 & 96/MDS/2013 DATED 30.7.2013 SUPPORTS THE AOS DECISION OF NOT TO ALLO W NEW GROUNDS TO BE RAISED AND ONLY LOOK AT THE EXAMINATI ON OF THE GENUINENESS OF THE ADVANCES CLAIMED IN THE ORIG INAL ASSESSMENT, WHICH THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO ESTABLISH EITHER IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT OR IN THE SET ASIDE ASSE SSMENT PROCEEDINGS OR IN APPEAL IN SPITE OF OPPORTUNITIES PROVIDED. ACCORDINGLY, HE CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE AO. AGA INST THIS, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED VARIOUS GROUNDS WITH REGARDING TO SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF ` 60 LAKHS AND ALSO - - ITA 174 TO 177/15 10 RAISED A LEGAL GROUND WHICH IS AS FOLLOWS: 5. THE CIT(APPEALS) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE ASSESSMENT OF THE ADVANCES RECEIVED FOR SALE OF AGRICULTURAL LANDS OWNED BY THE ASSESSEE, HUF ON THE APPLICATION OF SEC.68 OF THE ACT WAS WRONG, ERRONEOUS, UNJUSTIFIED, INCORRECT AND NOT SUSTAINABLE IN LAW AND OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THAT THE TECHNICAL STAND TAKEN FOR NOT CONSIDERING THE CLAIM OF THE STATUS OF HUF WAS ERRONEOUS AND BAD IN LAW. 3. THE LD. DR RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE CIT(APPEAL S) AND PLACED RELIANCE ON THE JUDGMENT OF THE MADRAS H IGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SUPER SPINNING MILLS LTD. V. ACIT (323 ITR 449). 4. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE LE GAL GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS WELL FOUNDED AS NO RESTRICTION OR LIMITATION HAS BEEN RAISED BY THE TR IBUNAL ON THE APPELLATE POWER OF THE COMMISSIONER. WHEN HE ENTERTAINS AN APPEAL UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE AC T, THE CIT(APPEALS) IS, AS COMPETENT AS THE AO IS IN RELAT ION TO ALL MATTERS CONCERNING THE ASSESSMENT WHICH ARE WIT HIN THE SCOPE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE MAKING THE - - ITA 174 TO 177/15 11 ASSESSMENT. THE SCOPE OF THE APPELLATE POWER UNDER THE INCOME-TAX ACT WAS CONSIDERED BY THE APEX COURT IN THE CASES OF CIT VS. KANPUR COAL SYNDICATE [1964] 53 ITR 225; JU TE CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD. VS. CIT [1991] 187 ITR 68 8 (SC) AND CIT VS. NIRBHERAM DALURAM [1997] 224 ITR 610 (SC). THE POWER OF THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY IS WIDE AS THAT OF THE A SSESSING OFFICER IS EMPHATICALLY STATED IN THESE DECISIONS. IN THE C ASE OF KANPUR COAL SYNDICATE [1964] 53 ITR 225 (SC), THE APEX COU RT DEALT WITH SECTIONS 3, 31(3)(B), (4), 33(4) OF THE INDIAN INCO ME-TAX ACT, 1922, WHICH IS SIMILAR TO SECTION 251(1)(A) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. THE APEX COURT IN THAT CASE OBSERVED THAT THE APPELLATE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER HAS PLENARY POWERS IN DISPOS ING OF AN APPEAL. THE SCOPE OF HIS POWER IS COTERMINOUS WITH THAT OF THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER. HE CAN DO WHAT THE INCOME-TAX O FFICER CAN DO AND ALSO DIRECT HIM TO DO WHAT HE HAS FAILED TO DO. IN THE CASE OF JUTE CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD. [1991] 187 ITR 68 8 THE APEX COURT HELD THAT THE INCOME-TAX ACT DID NOT PLACE AN Y RESTRICTION OR LIMITATION ON THE EXERCISE OF APPELLATE POWER. EVEN OTHERWISE, THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY, WHILE HEARING THE APPEAL AGAIN ST THE ORDER OF A SUBORDINATE AUTHORITY, HAS ALL THE POWERS WHICH T HE ORIGINAL - - ITA 174 TO 177/15 12 AUTHORITY MAY HAVE IN DECIDING THE QUESTION BEFORE IT SUBJECT TO THE RESTRICTIONS OR LIMITATIONS, IF ANY, PRESCRIBED BY THE STATUTORY PROVISIONS. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY RESTRICTION OR LI MITATION PRESCRIBED BY STATUTORY PROVISION, THE APPELLATE AU THORITY IS VESTED WITH ALL THE PLENARY POWERS WHICH THE SUBORD INATE AUTHORITY MAY HAVE IN THE MATTER. THE LAW LAID DOWN IN THOSE TWO DECISIONS WAS REITERATED BY THE APEX COURT IN THE C ASE OF CIT VS. NIRBHERAM DALURAM [1997] 224 ITR 610. 5. THE ACT PROVIDES THAT THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) 'MAY PASS SUCH ORDER AS HE THINKS FIT WHICH MAY INCLUDE AN ORDER ENHANCING THE ASSESSMENT OR PENALTY'. THE PROVISO T HEREUNDER REQUIRES THE COMMISSIONER TO GIVE REASONABLE OPPORT UNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO SHOW CAUSE AGAINST ANY PROPOSED ENHANCE MENT OF THE ASSESSMENT OR PENALTY. THERE IS NO OTHER RESTRI CTION PLACED UPON THE POWERS OF THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS). THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), WHEN HE ENTERTAINS THE APPE AL UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, IS, THEREFORE , COMPETENT AS THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER IS, IN RELATION TO ALL MATTE RS CONCERNING THE ASSESSMENT ARE WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER WHILE MAKING THE ASSESSMENT. - - ITA 174 TO 177/15 13 6. THIS ACTION OF THE COMMISSIONER IN REJECTING THE CONTENTION IS AGAINST THE WELL RECOGNIZED PRINCIPLE OF LAW, AS AFORESAID. THE COMMISSIONER OUGHT TO HAVE GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO PLACE THE MATERIALS AS REQUIRED UNDER THE RULES AND OUGHT TO HAVE ADJUDICATED THE ISSUE WITHOUT REJECTING THE SA ME ON THE PREMISE THAT IT HAS NOT BEEN TAKEN BEFORE. THE ACTI ON OF THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY, IN REJECTING THE GROUND AS NOT BEING TAKEN BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITY, IS NOTHING BUT NEGATION OF THE POWER THAT VESTS WITH HIM AND ALSO AGAINST THE WELL RECOG NIZED PRINCIPLES OF LAW. THE ORDER OF THE APPELLATE AUTHO RITY HAS BEEN AFFIRMED BY THE TRIBUNAL. HENCE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS TO SUCCEED ON THAT GROUND. THERE IS A LINE OF DECISIONS TO SHOW THAT THE POWER OF THE APPELLATE A SSISTANT COMMISSIONER/COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) IS COTERMINOUS WITH THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THEY ARE CWT VS. PRASA D PRODUCTIONS P. LTD. [2003] 259 ITR 88 (MAD), TRAVAN CORE ELECTRO CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES LTD. VS. CIT [1998] 229 ITR 272 (KER), SMT. PRABHAVATI S. SHAH VS. CIT [1998] 231 ITR 1 (BOM) A ND SMT. VIJAYKUNVERBA VS. CIT [1994] 208 ITR 312 (GUJ). - - ITA 174 TO 177/15 14 7. IN VIEW OF THIS, WE DIRECT THE CIT(APPEALS), TO ADMIT THE NEW GROUND RAISED REGARDING THE EXISTENCE OF HUF AN D DECIDE THE ISSUE ACCORDING TO LAW AFTER EXAMINING ALL THE MATERIAL FACTS. THIS GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTI CAL PURPOSES. 8. SINCE, WE HAVE REMITTED THE ISSUE RELATING TO TH E LEGAL ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(APPEALS), WE REFRAIN F ROM DECIDING FROM OTHER ISSUES IN THIS APPEAL. ACCORDINGLY, THE APPEALS ARE PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 9. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEES ARE PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON WEDNESDAY, THE 10 TH OF FEBRUARY, 2016 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( ) ( !' # ) $%&'(')*+,'-.$/0')1-'&223'-4. 5678 /JUDICIAL MEMBER 789:;;2+)<')<=>,?>- 5 /CHENNAI, @7! /DATED, THE 10 TH FEB., 2016. MPO* A7B 6CDED /COPY TO: 1. /APPELLANT 2. /RESPONDENT 3. A A F$. /CIT(A) 4. A A F /CIT 5. DGH 66IJ /DR 6. HKLM /GF.
