ITO, Villupuram V. K.Velmurugan, Kallakurichi

ITA 1823/CHNY/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 90676 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-07-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 21-05-2015
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 25-06-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P RADHAKRISHNAN
• Assessee Lawyers: RAVEENCHAND
• Keywords: Reasonable cause; Condonation of delay
• Section: 143(3); 133A; 148; 139

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , A B ENCH, CHENNAI . , ! # , $ & BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ I.T.A.NO . 1823/MDS/2014 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10) THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-I(2), VILLUPURAM. VS MR. K.VELMURUGAN, 129-132, BAZAR STREET, KALLAKURICHI-606 202. PAN: AALPK3308C ( /APPELLANT) ( /RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : MR. P.RADHAKRISHNAN, JCIT /RESPONDENT BY : MR. RAVEENCHAND, FCA /DATE OF HEARING : 21 ST MAY, 2015 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 17 TH JULY, 2015 / O R D E R PER CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JM: THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORD ER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-VI, CHENNA I DATED 24.3.2014 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 IN DELETING THE PENALTY LEVIED UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE A CT. 2. THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS TIME BARRED BY FIVE DAYS. THE REVENUE FILED PETITION EXPLAINING REASONS FOR D ELAY IN FILING OF APPEAL AND PRAYS FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY . WE HAVE PERUSED THE REASONS AND ARE SATISFIED THAT THERE IS A REASONABLE CAUSE FOR THE DELAY IN FILING OF THE APP EAL. IN THE 2 ITA NO.1823/MDS/2014 INTEREST OF JUSTICE, WE CONDONE THE DELAY IN FILING OF THE APPEAL. THE PETITION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IS AL LOWED AND THE APPEAL IS ADMITTED. 3. BRIEF FACTS ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF TRADING IN JEWELLERY. A SURVEY ACTION U NDER SECTION 133A OF THE ACT WAS CONDUCTED ON 16.03.2009 IN THE BUSINESS PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE. NOTICE UNDER SE CTION 148 OF THE ACT DATED 26.07.2010 WAS SERVED ON THE A SSESSEE ON 12.09.2009 IN RESPONSE TO WHICH ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 ON 12.08.201 0 ADMITTING TOTAL INCOME OF ` 18,10,380/- WITH AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF ` 1,41,000/-. ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT ON 25.03.2011 ASSESSING TOTAL INCOME OF ` 18,L0,380/-. PENALTY PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 271(1)( C) WERE INITIATED CALLING FOR EXPLANATION I N RESPECT OF UNACCOUNTED SALE OF GOLD AND UNACCOUNTED STOCK OF S ILVER FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY. AFTER CONSIDERIN G THE REPLY OF THE ASSESSEE, ASSESSING OFFICER PASSED PENALTY O RDER IMPOSING PENALTY OF ` 5,39,663/- UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE 3 ITA NO.1823/MDS/2014 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AND HE DIRECTE D THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DELETE THE IMPUGNED PENALTY, A GAINST WHICH THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 4. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE VEHEMENTLY RELIED O N THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN LEVYING PENALTY. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITS THAT THERE WAS CONCEALMENT OF INCOME AS THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED RE TURN OF INCOME AFTER SURVEY AND ADMITTED THE INCOME. DEPAR TMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITS THAT DURING THE COURSE OF SU RVEY, IT WAS FOUND UNACCOUNTED SALE OF GOLD AND SILVER IN AS SESSEES BUSINESS. THUS, THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN IN RESPON SE TO NOTICE UNDER SECTION 158 OF THE ACT AND DECLARED TH E INCOME BUT FOR SURVEY, THE ASSESSEE WOULD NOT HAVE DECLARE D THE INCOME AND THEREFORE, THERE IS CONCEALMENT OF INCOM E. 5. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTS THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IN DE LETING THE PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. HE SUBMITS THAT THERE IS NO CONCEALMENT OF INCOME BY THE ASSES SEE. COUNSEL SUBMITS THAT PENALTY WAS LEVIED IN RESPECT OF ADDITION 4 ITA NO.1823/MDS/2014 MADE TOWARDS SHORTAGE OF GOLD JEWELLERY AND THIS IS BECAUSE GOLD JEWELLERY TO THE EXTENT OF 1.5 KG WAS TAKEN FR OM SHOP JUST BEFORE SURVEY. THEREFORE, THERE WAS SHORTAGE OF GOL D JEWELLERY FROM THE STOCK BOOK TO PHYSICAL VERIFICAT ION OF STOCK BUT NO CONCEALMENT OF SALE HAS BEEN MADE BY THE ASS ESSEE OR ANY TRANSACTION OF SUCH CONCEALMENT OF SALES WAS FOUND BY THE DEPARTMENT. SIMILARLY, SILVER ARTICLES THAT WER E FOUND EXCESS OF 27 KG FROM STOCK BOOK TO PHYSICAL VERIFIC ATION WERE SUPPLIED BY SUPPLIERS ONLY ON THE PREVIOUS NIGHT W HERE SURVEY TOOK PLACE ON SALE OR RETURN BASIS KEPT FOR DECISION MAKING BEFORE THE SURVEY DAY. COUNSEL SUBMITS THAT ASSESSEE HAS PAID TAXES DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY ADMITTING THE INCOME. HE SUBMITS THAT THERE IS NO CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE P ARTICULARS OF INCOME BY THE ASSESSEE AND THEREFORE PLEADS FOR DELETION OF PENALTY BY SUSTAINING THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIO NER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). 6. HEARD BOTH SIDES. PERUSED ORDERS OF LOWER AUTHOR ITIES. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS CONSIDERED THE ISSUE ELABORATELY IN HIS ORDER WITH REFERENCE TO TH E 5 ITA NO.1823/MDS/2014 SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE CONTENTIO NS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN LEVYING PENALTY UNDER SEC TION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TA X (APPEALS) ARRIVED AT THE CONCLUSION THAT THERE IS N O CONCEALMENT OF INCOME. IT IS THE FINDING OF COMMISS IONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) THAT ASSESSEE IS A REGULAR INC OME TAX PAYER. THE SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT WAS PASSED ON 25.3.2 011 BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHOWS THAT RETURNED INCOME WA S ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, NO POSITIVE CONC EALMENT OF INCOME WAS DETECTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHI CH WAS NOT RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. SHORTAGE OF G OLD AND EXCESS OF SILVER WAS KEPT FOR ACCOUNTING PURPOSES I N THE BOOKS. ALL THE MATERIALS WERE ACCOUNTED IN THE BOOK S OF ACCOUNT BEFORE CLOSE OF ACCOUNTING YEAR. THE COMMIS SIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS DELETED THE PENALTY AFT ER CONSIDERING THE ELABORATE SUBMISSIONS HOLDING AS UN DER: 5.2 DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE AR OF THE APPELLANT VEHEMENTLY ARGUED THAT THE RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED VOLUNTARILY AND ASSESSING OFFICER HAD NOT FOUND ANY CONCEALMENT OF INCOME. DURING THE COURSE OF THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS THE AR OF THE APPELLANT FURNISHED THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION VIDE HIS LETTER DATED NIL AS UNDER: 1) THE SHORTAGE OF GOLD JEWELLS TO THE EXTENT OF 6 ITA NO.1823/MDS/2014 1.5 KG IS NOTHING BUT I HAVE TAKEN OUT FROM THE SHOP FOR MY DAUGHTER'S MARRIAGE JUST BEFORE THE SURVEY. THEREFORE THERE WAS SHORTAGE OF GOLD JEWELLERY FROM THE STOCK BOOK TO PHYSICAL VERIFICAT ION OF STOCK BUT NO CONCEALMENT OF SALES HAS BEEN MADE BY ME AND NOR ANY TRANSACTIONS OF SUCH CONCEALMENT OF SALES WERE FOUND BY THE DEPARTMENT. THEREFORE NO UNACCOUNTED SALES OF GOLD OCCURRED AND NO CONCEALMENT OF SALES WERE FOUND. 2) THE SILVER ARTICLES THAT WERE FOUND E XCESS OF 27KG FROM STOCK BOOK TO PHYSICAL VERIFICATION WERE SUPPLIED BY SUPPLIERS LAST NIGHT ON SALE OR RETURN BASIS KEPT FOR DECISION MAKING BEFORE THE SURVEY DAY. I AM NOT MANUFACTURING ANY SILVER ARTICLES. I AM JUST A TRADER BUYING AND SELLING. THEREFORE IT IS USUAL PRACTICE TO GET ITEMS OF VARI OUS SUPPLIERS ON SALE OR RETURN BASIS FOR INSPECTION AND DECISION MAKING. THEREFORE THERE WAS NOT ANY UNACCOUNTED PURCHASE BY ME TO HAVE UNACCOUNTED STOCK OF SILVER AND NO SUCH FINDINGS OF TRANSACTIONS OF UNACCOUNTED PURCHASE OF SILVER HAS BEEN MADE BY THE DEPARTMENT. 3. CASH ON HAND FOUND IN THE CASHBOX OF RS.87565/- IS CASH ON HAND AVAILABLE ON THAT DAY PHYSICALLY FOR BUSINESS IN THE NORMAL COURSE OF TRADE AND THAT IS AS PER THE DAY BOOK ONLY ON THAT DAY AN D IT IS NOT ANY EXCESS FUND AVAILABLE FROM ANY UNDISCLOSED SOURCE. HENCE THERE IS NO CONCEALMENT BY ME IN CASH ON HAND AND NO TRANSACTIONS OF ANY SUCH CONCEALMENT WERE FOUND BY THE DEPARTMENT. 4. BESIDES, WITH REGARD TO THE INVESTMENTS MADE BY THE FAMILY MEMBERS IN IMMOVABLE PROPERTIES THEY ARE SEPARATE ASSESSEES AND THEY HAVE FILED THEIR RETURN OF INCOME AND SOURCES OF FUNDS AND APPLICATION OF FUNDS WERE ALSO SUBMITTED AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT SEPARATELY. NO CONCEALMENT IS FOUND BY THE DEPARTMENT. 5. CONCEALMENT OF INCOME ARISES EITHER FROM THE DATE OF FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME OR FROM THE END OF THE DUE DATE FOR FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME, {I.E.,31.03.2011 U/S 139(4)}WHICHEVER IS EARLIER. NO CONCEALMENT OF INCOME WAS FOUND FROM THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED ON 12.08.2010 ON ASSESSMENT U/S 7 ITA NO.1823/MDS/2014 143(3)DT.2S.3.2011. THE INCOME ASPER THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED AND THE ASSESSED INCOME U/S 143(3)ARE SAME AS RS.18,10,380/- AND AGRI.INCOME OF RS.1,41,000/-. WHEN THERE IS NO CONCEALMENT AT ALL THE CASE LAW QUOTED UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS VS DHARMENDRA TEXTILES PROCESSORS AND OTHERS IS NOT APPLICABLE TO MY CASE AND NOT PERTINENT TO MY CASE. THEREFORE THERE IS NO UNDISCLOSED OR UNEXPLAINED SOURCE, INCOME OR AMOUNT. WHEN THERE IS NO LOSS OF REVENUE IS PROVED WHERE IS THE QUESTION ARISES FOR REMEDY TO LOSS OF REVENUE U/S 271 (L)(C). HENCE IT SHOULD BE QUASHED. THEREFORE THE CASE LAW QUOTED IS ALSO IMMATERIAL TO MY CASE. 6. WHAT I HAVE PAID AS ADVANCE TAX BEFORE THE SURVEY HAS ALSO BEEN CONSIDERED AS TAX PAID DUE TO SURVEY IS MERELY MOCKABLE AND AFTER THOUGHTS AND UNJUSTIFIED. 7. THE PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) COULD NOT BE LEVIED AUTOMATIC AS STATED IN THE RELIANCE PETROLEUM. 8. BESIDES, I SATISFY ALL THE CONDITIONS U/S 273A ALSO. I HAVE VOLUNTARILY AND IN GOOD FAITH MADE FUL L AND TRUE DISCLOSURE OF SUCH PARTICULARS PRIOR TO THEIR DETECTION BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. SINCE I HAVE MADE FULL AND TRUE DISCLOSURE OF SUCH PARTICULARS NO CHANGE IN ANY PARTICULARS GIVEN HAS BEEN MADE OR INCREASE OR ADDITIONS IN INCOME OR TAX HAS BEEN MADE. IT IS ACCEPTED AS RETURNED. I HAVE COOPERATED WITH THE DEPARTMENT FROM THE DATE OF SURVEY TO TILL THE DATE OF COMPLETION OF ASSESSMENT. I HAVE PAID ALL TAX DUE ALONG WITH INTEREST IF ANY AS ADVANCE T AX ON OR BEFORE 30.03.2009. MOREOVER, IF ANY PENALTY I S LEVIED IT WOULD OTHERWISE CAUSE GENUINE HARDSHIP TO ME. THEREFORE I HUMBLY REQUEST YOUR HIGHNESS TO CONSIDER MY GROUNDS OF APPEAL AND ADDITIONAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL AND I MAY BE GRANTED WAIVER OF ENTIRE PENALTY IMPOSED BY THE ITO U/S 271 (1)(C). 5.3 THE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE APPELLANT IS CONSIDERED CAREFULLY. IT WAS SAID BY THE AR OF THE APPELLANT IN HIS LETTER DATED NIL RECEIVED IN THIS OFFICE ON 23.01.2012 THAT THE APPEAL WAS DELAYED DUE TO SUDDE N DEMISE OF HIS SON SHRI. GOPINATH AND OTHER HEALTH PROBLEMS. THE EXPLANATION OF THE APPELLANT IS FOUND TO BE ACCEPTABLE AND HENCE THE APPEAL IS ADMITTED U/S 249 (3) OF THE IT ACT 1961. 8 ITA NO.1823/MDS/2014 5.4 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE AR O F THE APPELLANT AND ALSO THE FINDINGS OF THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER IN THE ORDER OF PENALTY AND ORDER OF ASSESS MENT CAREFULLY. THE APPELLANT IS A REGULAR INCOME TAX PA YER. THE SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED ON 25-03-2011 BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHOWS THAT THE RETURNED INCOME WAS ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. NO POSITIVE CONCEALMENT OF INCOME WAS DETECTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHICH WERE NOT RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. THE SHORTAGE OF THE GOLD WAS STATED TO BE ON ACCOUNT OF THE TAKING OF GOLD TO TH E EXTENT OF 1.5 KG FOR HIS DAUGHTER'S MARRIAGE. THE EXCESS SILVER WAS DUE TO SUPPLY OF 27 KG OF SILVER TAKEN FROM SUPPLIERS WHICH WAS KEPT FOR ACCOUNTING PURPOSES IN THE BOOKS. IT WAS FURTHER STATED BY THE AR OF THE APPELLANT THAT ALL THE ABOVE MATERIALS WERE ACCOUNTED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS BEFORE THE CLOSE OF THE ACCOUNTING YEAR. FURTHER THE EXPLANATION 3 T O SECTION 271 (1) (C) APPLIES ONLY IN RESPECT OF THE CASES WHEREIN THE RETURN WAS FILED AFTER THE EXPIRY OF TH E TIME SPECIFIED IN SUB SECTION (1) OF SEC.153 OF THE IT ACT. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE PERIOD PRESCRIBED U/S 153(1) IS UPTO 31.12.2012. ON THE OTHER HAND THE APPELLANT HAS FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME ON 12-08-2 010 WHICH WAS FILED WITHIN THE TIME ALLOWED U/S 139 (4) OF THE IT ACT. EVEN THE APPELLANT'S CASE IS NOT COVERE D UNDER EXPLANATION 3 TO SEC 271 (1) (C) OF THE IT AC T. THE CONCEALMENT STARTS ONLY AFTER THE RETURN OF INC OME WAS FILED OR AFTER THE DUE DATE OF FILING BELATED R ETURN EXPIRED AND THE DEPARTMENT DETECTED MATERIAL FACT AFTER THE HAPPENING OF ANY OF THE EVENTS AS DISCUSS ED ABOVE. THE RATIO OF THE CASE LAWS RELIED UPON BY TH E ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ORDER OF PENALTY ARE NOT APPLICABLE THE FACTS OF THE CASE AS THE SAME ARE DISTINGUISHABLE ON FACTS. IN THE PRESENT CASE , THE RETURN WAS FILED BY THE APPELLANT WITHIN THE DUE DA TE PRESCRIBED U/S 139 OF THE IT ACT DISCLOSING THE ENT IRE INCOME COMPUTED AT THE TIME OF SURVEY. NO ADDITION WAS MADE IN THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSMENT. NO SUCH FACTS WERE PRESENT IN THE DECISIONS QUOTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ORDER OF PENALTY. ON THE O THER HAND THE RATIO OF THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS OF THE HI GH COURTS AND ITAT ARE FULLY APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS O F THE CASE. HON'BLE ITAT AHMEDABAD 'C' BENCH IN THE CASE OF DCIT VS DR. SATISH B GUPTA REPORTED IN (2011) 13 5 TTJ 0611 HELD THAT THE DUTY TO DISCLOSE THE PARTICU LARS OF INCOME ARISES AT THE TIME WHEN THE ASSESSEE FURNISHES THE RETURN OF INCOME U/S 139 OF THE IT AC T 9 ITA NO.1823/MDS/2014 AND IF IN FILING HIS RETURN HE CONCEALS THE PARTICU LARS OF INCOME OR FURNISHES INACCURATE PARTICULARS IN THE RETURN OF INCOME .IN THE CASE OF PATNA GUINEA HOUSE & OTHERS VS CIT (2000) 161 CTR (PAT 536): (2000) 243 ITR 274 (PAT) IT IS HELD THAT THERE IS NO CASE FOR LEVY OF PENALTY IF INCOME IS DISCLOSED IN THE RETUR N OF INCOME BUT ASSESSEE HAS REFUSED TO DISCLOSE THE SOURCE OF INCOME. IN CIT VS S.K.G ARTHANARISWAMY CHETTIAR (1980) 19 CTR (MAD) 240: (1980) 136 ITR 145 (MAD) HON'BLE MADRAS HIGH COURT HELD THAT PENALTY CAN BE IMPOSED WITH REFERENCE TO THE CONCEALMENT DONE IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN FILED U/S 1 39.IT IS HELD BY HON'BLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SMT. GOVINDA DEVI VS CIT (2008) 220 CTR (ALL) 189 THAT NO PENALTY IS LEVIABLE IF THE IMPUGNED AMOUNT IS DISCLOSED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. HON'BLE DELHI HI GH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS VS SAS PHARMACEUTICALS REPORTED IN 335ITR 0259 HELD THAT NO PENALTY IS LEVIABLE IF THE ASSESSEE DISCLOSES THE PARTICULARS OF INCOME AND SURRENDERING THE ENTIRE INCOME IN THE RETURN DULY FILED. HON'BLE ITAT CHENNAI 'B' BENCH I N THE CASE OF RMP INFOTECH P LTD REPORTED IN (2011) 0 12 ITR (TRIB) 0581 HELD THAT PENALTY IS NOT LEVIABLE I N A CASE WHERE NO CLEAR FINDING IN THE PENALTY ORDER WHETHER ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCO ME EVEN IN THE CASE OF OFFER OF ADDITIONAL INCOME ON ACCOUNT OF OMISSIONS/ MISTAKES AND MISSING VOUCHERS DURING THE SURVEY ACTION. THE HON'BLE ITAT DELHI BENCH IN AMIRCHAND VS ITO 49 ITD 171 HELD THAT CONCEALMENT CAN BE ESTABLISHED WITH REFERENCE TO TH E RETURN OF THE INCOME & NOT OTHERWISE. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE RATIO OF THE DECISIONS OF VARIOUS HIG H COURTS (SUPRA) AND ITAT (SUPRA), I AM OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT NO PENALTY IS LEVIABLE U/S 271 (1) (C) OF THE IT ACT ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE HENCE, ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO DELETE THE PENALTY LEVIED OF RS.5,39,663/-. 7. ON GOING THROUGH THE ABOVE ORDER, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN DELETING THE PENALTY LEVIED UNDER SECT ION 271(1)(C)OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, WE AFFIRM THE ORDER OF THE 10 ITA NO.1823/MDS/2014 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AND REJECT THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE. 8. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSE D. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 17 TH JULY, 2015. SD/- SD/- ( # ) ( & (# ) ( CHANDRA POOJARI ) ( CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD ) * / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( * / JUDICIAL MEMBER ( /CHENNAI, , /DATED 17 TH JULY, 2015 SOMU ./ 0/ /COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. 1 () /CIT(A) 4. 1 /CIT 5. / 5 /DR 6. /GF .