J.Pachaiappan, Vellore V. ITO, Vellore

ITA 1813/CHNY/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8863 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-08-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 13-06-2016
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 10-08-2015
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P RADHAKRISHNAN
• Assessee Lawyers: K NIRAIMATHI AZHAGAN
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Business income; Peak credit
• Section: 143(3); 69; 144

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , B B ENCH, CHENNAI . . . , . , & BEFORE SHRI N.R.S.GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ I.T.A.NOS.1812, 1813 & 1846/MDS/ 2015 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2003-04 TO 2005-06) MR.J.PACHAIAPPAN, 15, SAKTHI VINAYAKAR KOIL STREET, THAKKOLAM-631 152. VELLORE DIST. VS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, BUSINESS WARD-I(3), VELLORE. PAN: AIXPP0325L ( /APPELLANT) ( /RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : MR. K.NIRAIMATHI AZHAGAN, C.A. /RESPONDENT BY : MR. P.RADHAKRISHNAN, JCIT /DATE OF HEARING : 13 TH JUNE, 2016 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 17 TH AUGUST, 2016 / O R D E R PER A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, AM:- ALL THESE THREE APPEALS ARE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGGRIEVED BY THE SEPARATE ORDERS OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-13, CHENNAI BO TH DATED 25.05.2015 IN ITA NOS.306, 162 & 286 CIT(A)- 13/2013-14 PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) R.W.S. 254 & 250(6) OF THE ACT. SINCE THE ISSUES INVOLVED ARE COMMON I N THESE APPEALS, THEY ARE HEARD TOGETHER AND DISPOSED OFF B Y THIS COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 2 ITA NO.1812, 1813 & 1846/MDS/2015 ITA NO.1812/MDS/2015 ( A.Y.2003-04): 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED SEVERAL GROUNDS IN HIS A PPEAL, HOWEVER, THE CRUX OF THE ISSUE IS AS FOLLOWS:- THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF PEAK CREDIT AMOUNT OF ` 16,66,799/- MADE BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 69 O F THE ACT BEING UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT. ITA NO.1813/MDS/2015 ( A.Y.2004-05): 3. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED SEVERAL GROUNDS IN HIS A PPEAL, HOWEVER, THE CRUXES OF THE ISSUES ARE AS FOLLOWS:- I) THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF ` 18,67,885/- MADE BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER TOWARDS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN CONSTRUCTION OF HOUSE. II) THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN PARTLY CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF ` 3.00 LAKHS TOWARDS COST OF INVESTMENT IN FURNITURE AND AIR-CONDITIONERS BEING UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT. (III) THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF ` 8.00 LAKHS TOWARDS PURCHASE OF CAR BEING UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT. IV) THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF `1 .51 LAKHS AS AGAINST THE ADDITION OF RS.4,05,000/- MADE BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER TOWARDS CASH CREDIT. 3 ITA NO.1812, 1813 & 1846/MDS/2015 ITA NO.1846/MDS/2015 ( A.Y. 2005-06): 4. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUND IN HIS APPEAL:- I) THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF ` 1,75,115/- MADE BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER TOWARDS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN CONSTRUCTION OF HOUSE. 5. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL, ENGAGED IN TRANSPORT BUSINESS, LIQUOR B USINESS IN PARTNERSHIP WITH OTHERS AND ALSO EARNING AGRICULTUR AL INCOME. THIS IS THE SECOND ROUND OF APPEAL FOR THE ASSESSME NT YEAR 2003-04 AFTER BEING REMITTED BACK BY THE TRIBUNAL V IDE ORDER DATED 29.02.2012, AND FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004- 05 THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HAD PASSED AN EX-PARTE OR DER UNDER SECTION 144 R.W.S. 147 WHILE AS FOR THE ASSES SMENT YEAR 2005-06 THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HAS PASS ED ORDER UNDER SECTION 143(3) R.W.S. 147 OF THE ACT. ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04:- GROUND :A DDITION OF PEAK CREDIT AMOUNTING TO ` 16,66,799/-:- 6.1. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, I T WAS OBSERVED BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE ASSESSEE 4 ITA NO.1812, 1813 & 1846/MDS/2015 HAD PEAK CREDIT OF RS.16,66,799/- IN HIS SAVINGS BA NK ACCOUNT FURNISHED BY HIM. SINCE THE SOURCE OF THE SAME WAS NOT EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE LEARNED ASSESSING OF FICER MADE ADDITION OF THE SAME INVOKING THE PROVISION OF SECTION 69 OF THE ACT. SINCE NO EXPLANATION WAS OFFERED E VEN BEFORE THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), H E CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICE R. 6.2 BEFORE US, THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER SUBMIT TED THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS ESTIMATED THE INCOME UNDER PRESUMPTIVE PROVISIONS UNDER SECTION 44AE OF THE AC T ONLY SUCH INCOME CAN BE TAXED AND THEREFORE PEAK CREDIT CANNOT BE BROUGHT UNDER THE AMBIT OF TAX. 6.3 THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ON THE OTHER HAND OPPOSED TO THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED AUTH ORIZED REPRESENTATIVE AND RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF THE REVE NUE. 6.4 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND CAREFUL LY PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. FROM TH E ORDERS OF THE REVENUE, IT IS APPARENT THAT THE ASSESSEE IN HIS BANK 5 ITA NO.1812, 1813 & 1846/MDS/2015 ACCOUNT HAD MADE DEPOSITS ON VARIOUS DATES AND THE PEAK CREDIT ON ANY GIVEN DATE WAS RS.16,65,735/-. SINCE THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT FURNISH ANY EXPLANATION FOR THE SOURCE OF THE AFORESAID AMOUNT OBVIOUSLY THE PEAK CREDIT CONC EPT WILL SURVIVE AND ACCORDINGLY THE SAME HAS TO BE TAXED WH EN SUCH AMOUNT IS HIGHER THAN THE BUSINESS INCOME OFFERED B Y THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 44AE OF THE ACT. HOWEVER, TH E INCOME ADMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 44AE OF THE ACT HAS TO BE EXCLUDED IF THE PEAK CREDIT IS HIGHER THAN THE BUSINESS INCOME OFFERED UNDER SECTION 44AE OF THE A CT AND IF SUCH DECLARED BUSINESS INCOME FORMS PART AND PARCEL OF THE PEAK CREDIT. THEREFORE, WE HEREBY DIRECT THE LEARNE D ASSESSING OFFICER TO TREAT ONLY THE PEAK CREDIT OF RS.16,66,799/- AS THE BUSINESS INCOME OF THE ASSESS EE AND EXCLUDE THE BUSINESS INCOME OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 44AE OF THE ACT IF SUCH BUSINESS INCOME IS LESSER THAN RS.16,66,799/- AND FORMS PART AND PARCEL OF TH E PEAK CREDIT. BUT IF THE BUSINESS INCOME OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 44AE OF THE ACT IS HIGHER THAN RS.16, 66,799/- THEN ONLY SUCH HIGHER AMOUNT DECLARED BY THE ASSESS EE UNDER SECTION 44AE OF THE ACT IS TO BE TREATED AS B USINESS 6 ITA NO.1812, 1813 & 1846/MDS/2015 INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AND PEAK CREDIT OF RS.16,66, 799/- SHOULD NOT BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION IF THE PEAK CREDIT FORMS PART AND PARCEL OF THE DECLARED BUSINESS INCO ME. IT IS ORDERED ACCORDINGLY. ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05:- GROUND NO.1: ADDITION OF ` 18,67,885/- TOWARDS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN CONSTRUCTION OF HOUSE: 7.1 DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, IT WAS OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ADMITTED COST OF CON STRUCTION OF HIS RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY FOR THE RELEVANT ASSESS MENT YEAR AS FOLLOWS:- A.Y. 2004-05 A.Y.2005-06 TOTAL AMT. ` ASSESSEE `8,50,000 NIL 8,50,000 MRS. AMSA (ASSESSEES WIFE) `7,50,000 `1,50,000 9,00,000 TOTAL `16,00,000 `1,50,000 17,50,000 7.2 ON REFERENCE TO VALUATION CELL BY THE LEARNED A SSESSING OFFICER, THE LEARNED DEPARTMENT VALUER ESTIMATED TH E COST OF CONSTRUCTION AS RS.37,93,000/-. THE COST OF CONSTRU CTION WAS ALSO APPORTIONED FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2004-05 A ND 2005-06 AS RS. 34,67,885/- AND RS.3,25,115/- RESPEC TIVELY. 7 ITA NO.1812, 1813 & 1846/MDS/2015 THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER DISREGARDING THE INVE STMENT OF 8,50,000/- DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE AND BY STATING THAT INVESTMENT MADE BY HIS WIFE OF RS.7,50,000/- & RS. 1,50,000/- CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS SHE IS ONLY AN O STENSIBLE OWNER MADE ADDITION OF RS.34,67,885/- AS UNDISCLOSE D INVESTMENT IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE REL EVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR AND RS.3,25,115/- FOR THE ASSESSMEN T YEAR 2005-06 THUS AGGREGATING TO RS.34,93,000/-. 7.3 ON APPEAL, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME T AX (APPEALS) SUSTAINED THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED ASSESS ING OFFICER ONLY TO THE EXTENT OF RS.18,67,885/- (34,6 7,885 16,00,000) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 AND RS.1,75,115/- (RS.3,25,115 RS1,50,000) BECAUSE T HE ASSESSEE HAD ALREADY DECLARED THE COST OF CONSTRUCT ION OF RS.16.00 LAKHS FOR THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 4-05 AND RS.1,50,000/- FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 AS HI S OWN SOURCE AND FROM THE SOURCE OF HIS WIFE AND THE LEAR NED ASSESSING OFFICER HAD EARLIER OPINED THAT THE ASSES SEES WIFE ALSO HAS HER OWN SOURCE OF INCOME. THE LEARNED AUTH ORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FURTHER SUBMITTED BEFORE US THAT THE ASSESSEE 8 ITA NO.1812, 1813 & 1846/MDS/2015 HAD EXPLAINED HIS SOURCE FOR THE INVESTMENT OF RS.3 0,00,000/- BEFORE THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER AND LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AND THEY HAVE NOT TAKEN THE SAME INTO ACCOUNT. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED T HAT 10% ALLOWANCE SHOULD BE GIVEN FOR ESTIMATING THE HOUSE DUE TO SELF-SUPERVISION, CHEAP LABOUR AND AS THE BRICKS WE RE MANUFACTURED BY THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF. 7.4 THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ON THE OTHER HAND, RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSION ER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). 7.5 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND CAREFUL LY PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT APPEA RS FROM THE PAPER BOOK SUBMITTED BEFORE US THAT THE ASSESSEE HA S PRODUCED BEFORE THE REVENUE THE CASH FLOW STATEMENT TO JUSTIFY HIS STAND FOR HAVING INCURRED EXPENDITURE O F RS.30.00 LAKHS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE HOUSE. IT ALSO APPEA RS THAT THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES HAVE EITHER NOT PERUSED THE STA TEMENTS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE OR GIVEN DUE WEIGHTAGE FO R THE SAME. FURTHER, THE PRAYER OF THE ASSESSEE IS REASO NABLE THAT 9 ITA NO.1812, 1813 & 1846/MDS/2015 DUE ALLOWANCE HAS TO BE GIVEN FOR ESTIMATING THE CO ST OF CONSTRUCTION OF HOUSE FOR PERSONAL SUPERVISION AND OTHER FACTORS EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE. CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, AND TO MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF RS.9,00,000/- WOULD SUFFICE AS AGAINST RS.18,66,885 /- SUSTAINED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). THEREFORE, WE HEREBY DIRECT THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER TO DELETE THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS.9,67,885 /- FROM THE ADDITION MADE OF RS.18,66,885/- WHICH IS SUSTAI NED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). AS A RESULT, WE HEREBY SUSTAIN THE ADDITION OF RS.9,00,000/- ON THIS COUNT. GROUND NO.2 : ADDITION OF ` 3.00 LAKHS TOWARDS COST OF INVESTMENT IN FURNITURE AND AIR-CONDITIONERS BEING UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT: 8.1 THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE ADDITION OF RS.3,79,300/- TOWARDS COST OF FURNITURE WHICH IS NO T ACCOUNTED. ON APPEAL, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF I NCOME TAX (APPEALS) RESTRICTED THE ADDITION TO RS.3,00,00 0/-. BEFORE US, THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT THE 10 ITA NO.1812, 1813 & 1846/MDS/2015 FURNITURES WERE OLD AND ACCUMULATED OVER A PERIOD OF TIME AND THEREFORE IT WAS PLEADED THAT THE SAME MAY BE D ELETED. 8.2 CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE DO NOT FIND IT APPROPRIATE TO SUSTAIN THE ADDITI ON OF RS.3,00,000 BECAUSE THERE IS NO EVIDENCE TO SHOW TH AT THE ASSESSEE HAD PURCHASED THE FURNITURE DURING THE REL EVANT PREVIOUS YEAR. THESE ARE ASSETS RELATED TO THE PERS ONAL USE OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH HE WOULD HAVE ACQUIRED OVER A PERIOD OF TIME. THEREFORE, WE HEREBY DIRECT THE LEARNED AS SESSING OFFICER TO DELETE THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF F URNITURE. GROUND NO.3: ADDITION OF ` 8.00 LAKHS TOWARDS PURCHASE OF CAR BEING UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT: 9.1 IT WAS OPINED BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE ASSESSEE OWNS A TOYOTO QUALIS CAR. THE LEARNED ASS ESSING OFFICER FURTHER RECORDED IN HIS ORDER AS FOLLOWS:- ON QUERY, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE REGARDING THE SAME. FINALLY, THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED THE QUALIS CAR NO. AS TN 22 N 2151 AT THE TIME OF HEARING ON 13.12.2007. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT HE SOLD THE CAR. ON ENQUIRY WITH THE REGISTRATION DEPARTMENT RTO, 11 ITA NO.1812, 1813 & 1846/MDS/2015 ARAKKONAM, NO SUCH VEHICLE WAS REGISTERED IN THIS NUMBER. 9.2 CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE NOT SATISFACTORY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADD ITION OF RS.8.00 LAKHS AS UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT FOR THE PUR CHASE OF CAR. ON APPEAL, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED ASSESS ING OFFICER. 9.3 BEFORE US, THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIV E SUBMITTED THAT THE REVENUE DID NOT HAVE ANY EVIDENC E TO PROVE THAT THE ASSESSEE OWNED TOYOTO CAR AND THE AD DITION WAS MADE MERELY ON CONJECTURES AND SURMISES. THEREF ORE, IT IS WAS SUBMITTED THAT ADDITION MAY BE DELETED. 9.4 THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ON THE OTHER HAND ARGUED IN SUPPORT OF THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE . 9.5 WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND CAREFULLY PE RUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. FROM THE FACTS O F THE CASE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY EVIDENCE THAT THE ASSESSEE OWNED TOYOTO 12 ITA NO.1812, 1813 & 1846/MDS/2015 QUALIS CAR. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE OF THE C ONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE ADDITION MADE BY THE REVENUE FOR RS.8 .00 LAKHS TOWARDS PURCHASE OF QUAILS CAR IS NOT WARRANTED. TH EREFORE, WE HEREBY DIRECT THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER TO D ELETE THE ADDITION MADE TOWARDS PURCHASE OF TOYOTO CAR FOR RS.8,00,000/- GROUND NO.4: ADDITION OF `1 .51 LAKHS TOWARDS CASH CREDIT: 10.1 THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.4,05,125/- BEING CASH DEPOSITED IN THE SB ACCOUN T IN BANK AT PERUMBAKKAM BECAUSE IT WAS OBSERVED THAT TH E ASSESSEE HAS DEPOSITED RS.35,18,358/- IN HIS BANK A CCOUNT OUT OF WHICH RS.31,13,233/- WAS WITHDRAWN BY PURCHA SE OF DD FOR PAYMENT TOWARDS PURCHASE OF LIQUOR FROM TASM AC. IT WAS EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ENTIRE DEPOS IT WAS MADE IN THE BANK ACCOUNT FROM THE PARTNERSHIP LIQUO R BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE. SINCE THERE WERE NO DOCU MENTARY PROOF TO ESTABLISH THE SAME, THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER CONFIRMED THE ADDITION AT RS.4,05,125/- ON MODERATE ESTIMATE BASIS BECAUSE EVEN BY ESTIMATING 20% OF THE TURNOVE R, ASSESSEE WOULD HAVE EARNED INCOME OF RS. 7,78,308/- . ON 13 ITA NO.1812, 1813 & 1846/MDS/2015 APPEAL, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APP EALS) BASED ON PEAK CREDIT CONCEPT SUSTAINED THE ADDITION OF RS.1,50,976/- AGAINST WHICH THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPE AL BEFORE US. CONSIDERING THESE FACTS WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS JUDICIOUSLY CONSIDERED THE ISSUE AND ARRIVED AT A F AIR CONCLUSION AND HENCE, WE RESTRAIN FROM INTERFERING WITH HIS ORDER AND ACCORDINGLY WE HEREBY CONFIRM THE ADDITIO N OF RS.1,50,976/- SUSTAINED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ON THIS COUNT. ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06:- GROUND : ADDITION OF ` 1,75,115/- TOWARDS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN CONSTRUCTION OF HOUSE: 11 THIS ISSUE HAS BEEN ELABORATELY DISCUSSED IN PAR A 7.1 TO 7.5 HEREIN ABOVE AND BASED ON THE SAME RATIO, WE HEREBY SUSTAIN THE ADDITION OF RS.80,000/- ONLY AS AGAINST RS.1,75,115/- SUSTAINED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). IT IS ORDERED ACCORDINGLY. 14 ITA NO.1812, 1813 & 1846/MDS/2015 12. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO.1812/MDS/2015 IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE S AND ITA NOS.1813 & 1846/MDS/2015 ARE PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE 17 TH AUGUST, 2016 SD/- SD/- ( . . . ) ( . ) (N.R.S.GANESAN) ( A.M OHAN ALANKAMONY ) # % / JUDICIAL MEMBER % / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER # /CHENNAI, ( /DATED 17 TH AUGUST, 2016 SOMU *+ ,+ /COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. - () /CIT(A) 4. - /CIT 5. + 1 /DR 6. /GF .