M.Kannabiran, CHENNAI V. ITO, CHENNAI

ITA 1863/CHNY/2015

• Counselvise Citation: 186321714 RSA 2015
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-11-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 16-09-2015
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 14-08-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DR B NISCHAL
• Assessee Lawyers: R SIVARAMAN
• Keywords: Reopening of assessment; Unexplained investment; Gift; Salary income
• Section: 147; 131; 148

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, CHENNAI . . . , . !'# ! , % !& BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO.1863/MDS/2015 ( )( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 SHRI M. KANNABIRAN, D-3, TNHB QUARTERS, INNER CIRCULAR ROAD, KILPAUK GARDEN COLONY, CHENNAI - 600 004. PAN : AKQPM 2080 A V. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, NON CORPORATE WARD 20(3), CHENNAI - 600 034. (+,/ APPELLANT) (-.+,/ RESPONDENT) +, / 0 / APPELLANT BY : SHRI R. SIVARAMAN, ADVOCATE -.+, / 0 / RESPONDENT BY : DR. B. NISCHAL, JCIT 1 / 2% / DATE OF HEARING : 16.09.2015 3') / 2% / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 20.11.2015 / O R D E R PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) 14, CHEN NAI, DATED 05.08.2015 AND PERTAINS TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. 2 I.T.A. NO.1863/MDS/15 2. SHRI R. SIVARAMAN, THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESS EE, SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE, A RETIRED EMPLOYEE OF SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME ON 07.02.2011 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. THE ASSESSING OFFICER REOPENED THE A SSESSMENT BY ISSUING NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT 'THE ACT') ON THE PRESUMPTION THAT THE ASSESS EE HAS NOT FILED ANY RETURN OF INCOME. REFERRING TO PAGE 1 OF THE P APER-BOOK, THE LD.COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT THIS IS AN ACKNOWLEDGEMEN T FOR THE RETURN UPLOADED BY THE ASSESSEE ELECTRONICALLY ON 07.02.20 11. THEREFORE, IT IS NOT CORRECT TO SAY THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED ANY RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. REFERRING TO THE REASONS RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR REOPENING ASS ESSMENT, THE LD.COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT THE REASON FOR REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT WAS FURNISHED ONLY ON 22.04.2015 AFTER COMPLETION O F ASSESSMENT. THEREFORE, THE ENTIRE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING IS NOT VALID. THE LD.COUNSEL PLACED HIS RELIANCE ON THE JUDGMENT OF B OMBAY HIGH COURT IN CIT V. VIDESH SANCHAR NIGAM LTD. (2012) 34 0 ITR 66 AND SUBMITTED THAT THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT FOUND THAT WHE N THE REASONS RECORDED FOR REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT WERE NOT FURNI SHED TO THE ASSESSEE TILL THE COMPLETION OF ASSESSMENT, THEN TH E REASSESSMENT 3 I.T.A. NO.1863/MDS/15 PROCEEDING CANNOT BE UPHELD. IN VIEW OF THIS JUDGM ENT OF THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT, THE REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT IS NOT VALID. 3. REFERRING TO PAGE 3 OF THE PAPER-BOOK, THE LD.CO UNSEL SUBMITTED THAT THIS IS A COPY OF THE REASONS RECORD ED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT. ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT T HE ASSESSEE HAS PAID ` 2,24,800/- FOR PURCHASING A PLOT OF 1603 SQ.FT. AND ` 30,22,400/- FOR PURCHASING PLOT OF 1841 SQ.FT., TO TAMIL NADU HOUSING BOARD. THE ABOVE SAID PAYMENTS WERE MADE D URING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2007-08 AND 2009-10. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ADMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED THE RETURN OF INCO ME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 ON 07.02.2011 ADMITTING A T OTAL INCOME OF ` 1,46,000/-. ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, WHEN THE AMOUNTS WERE PAID DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2007-08 AND 2009-10, IT IS FOR THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO REOPEN THE ASSESSMENTS FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2007-08 AND 2009-10 RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 8-09 AND 2010-11. ON THE BASIS OF THE PAYMENTS SAID TO BE M ADE FOR THE FINANCIAL YEARS 2007-08 AND 2009-10, THE ASSESSMENT RELATING TO FINANCIAL YEAR 2008-09 RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 CANNOT 4 I.T.A. NO.1863/MDS/15 BE REOPENED. THEREFORE, THE ENTIRE REASSESSMENT PR OCEEDING IS INVALID. 4. REFERRING TO MERIT OF THE APPEAL, THE LD.COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE AN ADDITION OF ` 22,86,645/- AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN THE LAND. ACCORDING TO T HE LD. COUNSEL, TAMIL NADU HOUSING BOARD ALLOTTED A PLOT TO THE ASS ESSEE AT NOLAMBUR, CHENNAI ON 18.06.2008 FOR ` 30,86,645/-. THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THE SOURCE FOR MAKING INVESTMENT DURING T HE FINANCIAL YEAR 2008-09 RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10, AS FOL LOWS:- (A) LOAN FROM SHRI SUNILKUMAR ` 8,00,000/ - (B) LOAN FROM SHRI KANDASAMY ` 7,50,000/ - (C) LOAN FROM SHRI K. SREENIVASAN ` 2,50,000/ - (D) LOAN FROM SHRI SURYA ` 4,00,000/ - (E) LOAN FROM SHRI NARAYANAN ` 3,00,000/ - (F) FROM SALE OF JEWELLERY ` 5,02,070/ - OUT OF THIS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HERSELF ADMITTED THE LOAN OF ` 8,00,000/- FROM SHRI SUNILKUMAR. HOWEVER, SHE DID NOT ACCEPT THE LOAN FROM OTHERS AND SALE OF JEWELLERY TO THE EXTEN T OF ` 22,86,645/-. 5. REFERRING TO THE LOAN RECEIVED FROM SHRI KANDASA MY TO THE EXTENT OF ` 7,50,000/-, THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITT ED THAT SHRI KANDASAMY IS NONE OTHER THAN FATHER-IN-LA W OF THE ASSESSEE. THE SAID SHRI KANDASAMY CONFIRMED THE GR ANT OF LOAN 5 I.T.A. NO.1863/MDS/15 BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO THE EXTENT OF ` 7,50,000/-. A COPY OF THE CONFIRMATION LETTER GIVEN BY SHRI KANDASAMY IS AVAILABLE AT ANNEXURE 2 OF THE PAPER-BOOK. ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, SHRI KANDASAMY IS A RETIRED TEACHER FROM GOVERNMENT SCHO OL. BESIDES HIS PENSION, HE IS ALSO HAVING AGRICULTURAL INCOME. SHRI KANDASAMY IS ALSO EARNING INCOME FROM PAINTING. SHRI KANDASA MYS SON, DAUGHTER AND DAUGHTER-IN-LAW ARE GOVERNMENT EMPLOYE ES. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER REJECTED THE CLAIM O F THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT SHRI KANDASAMY HAS WITHDRAWN ` 5,89,000/- OUT OF HIS TOTAL RETIREMENT BENEFITS OF ` 6,11,689/-. THEREFORE, NOTHING IS LEFT OUT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO FOUND THAT SH RI KANDASAMY HAD NO CAPACITY TO GIVE ` 7,50,000/- TO THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE AN ADDITION OF ` 7,50,000/-. THE LD.COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT SHRI KANDASAMY RETIRED FROM SERVICE IN THE YEAR 2004. THE LAST DRAWN SALARY BEFORE HIS RETIREMENT WAS ` 8,000/-. AFTER THE RETIREMENT, HE WAS CULTIVATING THE LAND A ND DOING PAINTING WORK ALSO. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISBELIEVED THE C LAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WITH REGARD TO AGRICULTURAL INCOME ON THE GROUND THAT THE SHRI KANDASAMY GIFTED THE LAND TO HIS DAUGHTER. AC CORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, EVEN AFTER GIFT OF LAND TO HIS DAUGHTE R, SHRI KANDASAMY CONTINUED TO CULTIVATE THE LAND AND EARNED AGRICULT URAL INCOME. 6 I.T.A. NO.1863/MDS/15 ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, SHRI KANDASAMY, BEING A RETIRED TEACHER, HIS SAVINGS WERE AVAILABLE FOR MAKING LOAN OF ` 7,50,000/- TO HIS SON-IN-LAW, THE PRESENT ASSESSEE. THE CIT(APPE ALS), WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE, CONFIR MED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ACCORDING TO THE LD . COUNSEL, THE CIT(APPEALS) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD, INCLUDING THE CONFIRMATION LETTER FILED BY SHRI KANDASAMY. ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, AT THE BEST, THE ADDI TION COULD BE MADE ONLY IN THE HANDS OF SHRI KANDASAMY AND NOT IN THE HANDS OF THE PRESENT ASSESSEE. 6. REFERRING TO THE LOAN SAID TO BE RECEIVED FROM S HRI K. SEENIVASAN, THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITT ED THAT SHRI SEENIVASAN IS NONE OTHER THAN FATHER-IN-LAW OF SHRI M. MANOHAR, YOUNGER BROTHER OF THE ASSESSEE. SHRI SEENIVASAN I S RUNNING A GROCERY STORE. DURING EXAMINATION, SHRI SEENIVASAN ADMITTED THAT HE GAVE A LOAN OF ` 2.5 LAKHS TO SHRI KANNABIRAN, THE PRESENT ASSESSEE, FROM THE SALE PROCEEDS OF HIS WIFES JEWE LLERY. SHRI SEENIVASAN HAS ALSO FILED A CONFIRMATION LETTER BEF ORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. WHEN THE PAYEE CONFIRMS THE PAYMENT OF LO AN, ACCORDING TO 7 I.T.A. NO.1863/MDS/15 THE LD. COUNSEL, THE CIT(APPEALS) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 7. NOW COMING TO THE LOAN SAID TO BE GIVEN BY SHRI SURYA AND SHRI NARAYANAN, THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUB MITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED A SUM OF ` 4,00,000/- FROM SHRI SURYA AND ALSO RECEIVED A LOAN OF ` 3,00,000/- FROM SHRI NARAYANAN. THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITION IN RESPECT OF THE LOAN RECEIV ED FROM SHRI SURYA AND SHRI NARAYANAN ON THE GROUND THAT THE LET TERS SENT TO THEM WERE RETURNED UNSERVED BY THE POSTAL AUTHORITI ES WITH ENDORSEMENT NO SUCH PERSON. REFERRING TO COPY OF THE INSPECTORS REPORT, WHICH IS AVAILABLE AT PAGE 48 OF THE PAPER- BOOK, THE LD.COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT ON 02.01.2015, THE INSPEC TOR FOUND THAT THE DOOR WAS LOCKED. HOWEVER, WHEN HE VISITED THE PREMISES AGAIN ON 13.01.2015, HE DID NOT VISIT FLAT NO.B-6. THE I NSPECTOR DID NOT INVESTIGATE WHETHER SHRI TAMILSELVAN IS THE ACTUAL OWNER OF THE PROPERTY OR NOT. ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, DUE TO HARASSMENT BY THE DEPARTMENT, SHRI SURYA AND SHRI NARAYANAN REFUS ED TO GIVE CONFIRMATION LETTERS. ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL , THE FACT IS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED THE MONEY FROM SHRI SURYA AND SHRI NARAYANAN AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT TAKEN A NY FURTHER 8 I.T.A. NO.1863/MDS/15 STEPS AFTER THE LETTER RETURN BY THE POSTAL AUTHORI TIES. THEREFORE, THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION FOR MAKING ANY ADDITION. 8. NOW COMING TO THE SALE OF JEWELLERY TO THE EXTEN T OF ` 5,02,070/-, THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITT ED THAT THE ASSESSEE SOLD JEWELLERY TO M/S SUJATHA JEWELLERY, 3 3, BIG STREET, KUMBAKONAM. THE PURCHASE BILLS WERE FILED BEFORE T HE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND COPIES OF THE SAME ARE AVAILABLE AT PAGES 35 TO 47 OF THE PAPER-BOOK. THE ASSESSING OFFICER CLAIMED T HAT ONE SHRI INDER CHAND CHETHIA, PROPRIETOR OF M/S SUJATHA JEWE LLERY, WAS EXAMINED AND TOLD THAT NO JEWELLERY WAS PURCHASED F ROM THE ASSESSEE. WHEN M/S SUJATHA JEWELLERY FILED RECEIPT OF PURCHASE OF JEWELLERY AND SHRI INDER CHAND CHETHIA CLARIFIED TH AT HE COULD NOT RECOLLECT FROM WHOM THE JEWELLERY WAS PURCHASED, TH ERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION FOR MAKING ANY ADDITION. THE FACT TH AT M/S SUJATHA JEWELLERY ISSUED PURCHASE BILLS FOR PURCHASING JEWE LLERY IS NOT IN DISPUTE. IT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE REVENUE THAT TH E COPIES OF THE PURCHASE BILLS FILED BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES A RE NOT THE ONE ISSUED BY M/S SUJATHA JEWELLERY. THE FACT REMAINS THAT THE PURCHASE OF JEWELLERY FROM THE ASSESSEE IS EVIDENCE D BY WAY OF 9 I.T.A. NO.1863/MDS/15 PURCHASE BILLS FILED. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFF ICER CANNOT IGNORE PURCHASE BILLS ISSUED BY M/S SUJATHA JEWELLERY. 9. THE LD.COUNSEL FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESS ING OFFICER ALSO MADE AN ADDITION OF ` 84,575/- AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT. ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, THE ASSESSEE WAS EMPL OYED AS JUNIOR ATTENDANT IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FOR THE LAST 29 YEARS. OUT OF HIS SALARY INCOME, ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, THE AS SESSEE SAVED ` 84,575/-, WHICH WAS USED FOR MAKING INVESTMENT IN T HE LANDED PROPERTY. THE LD.COUNSEL FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT TH E MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD CLEARLY SUGGESTS THAT THE PERSO NS WHO LENT MONEY TO THE ASSESSEE HAD SUFFICIENT SOURCE OF INCO ME. THE CIT(APPEALS) WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE MATERIAL AVAI LABLE ON RECORD, SIMPLY CONFIRMED THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER. THEREFORE, THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(APPEALS) CON FIRMING THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS TO BE QUASHED. 10. ON THE CONTRARY, DR. B. NISCHAL, THE LD. DEPART MENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, SUBMITTED THAT ADMITTEDLY, THE ASSE SSEE IS A RETIRED EMPLOYEE OF SUPREME COURT OF INDIA. REFERRING TO T HE LETTER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER DATED 22.04.2015, WHEREBY THE REA SONS FOR REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT WERE GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE, THE LD. D.R. 10 I.T.A. NO.1863/MDS/15 SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF ASKED FOR REASO NS VIDE HIS LETTER DATED 17.04.2015. IT WAS ADMITTEDLY FURNISH ED ON 22.04.2015. THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS IN FACT COMPLETED ON 31.03 .2015. THEREFORE, THERE IS NO NEGLIGENCE ON THE PART OF TH E ASSESSING OFFICER IN FURNISHING THE REASONS RECORDED FOR REOP ENING OF ASSESSMENT. ON A QUERY FROM THE BENCH, WHEN THE A SSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID THE AMOUNT S DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2007-08 AND 2009-10 RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 AND 2010-11, HOW THE ASSESSING OFFICER REOP ENED THE ASSESSMENT FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10? THE LD. D. R. COULD NOT GIVE ANY EXPLANATION. REFERRING TO THE OBSERVATION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH REGARD TO FILING OF RETURN O F INCOME, THE LD. D.R. SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED THE RETURN O F INCOME ELECTRONICALLY, THEREFORE, IT WAS NOT WITHIN THE KN OWLEDGE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ON A QUERY FROM THE BENCH, WHEN THE DEPARTMENT REQUESTS THE CITIZENS OF THIS COUNTRY TO FILE THE RETURN ELECTRONICALLY, CAN THE ASSESSING OFFICER SAY THAT THE RETURN WAS NOT WITHIN HER KNOWLEDGE? THE LD. D.R. SUBMITTED THAT HE HAS TO VERIFY THE DETAILS FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R., THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DISCLOSED THE INVESTMENT MADE BY HIM IN THE 11 I.T.A. NO.1863/MDS/15 RETURN FILED, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RIGHTLY REOPENED THE ASSESSMENT BY ISSUING NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT. 11. REFERRING TO THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE LD. D.R. POINTED OUT THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER RECEIVED INFORMATION FRO M ADDL. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INVESTIGATION), KOCHI. ACCORDINGLY, CERTAIN ENQUIRIES WERE CONDUCTED BY THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INVESTIGATION) REGARDING ALLOTMENT OF LAND BY TAMI L NADU HOUSING BOARD AT ALAPAKKAM AND NOLAMBUR TO THE ASSESSEE. A CCORDING TO THE LD. D.R., THE ASSESSEE APPLIED FOR ALLOTMENT OF PLOTS AT NOLAMBUR AND ALAPAKKAM FROM TAMIL NADU HOUSING BOAR D. DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2007-08, THE ASSESSEE WAS ALLOTT ED A PLOT AT ALAPAKAM FOR A SUM OF ` 2.25 LAKHS. ON 18.06.2008, THE ASSESSEE WAS ALLOTTED ANOTHER PLOT AT NOLAMBUR BY TAMIL NADU HOUSING BOARD FOR A SUM OF ` 30,86,645/-. THE ASSESSEE ACCEPTED THE ALLOTMENT AND PAID A SUM OF ` 30,86,645/-. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT THE SOURCE FOR MAKING INVESTMENT WAS THE FUND BORROWED FROM FIVE PERSONS AND SALE OF JEWELLERY. IN FACT, THE LOAN F ROM SHRI SUNIL KUMAR WAS ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HOWEV ER, IN RESPECT OF LOANS FROM SHRI KANDASAMY, SHRI SEENIVASAN, SHRI SURYA AND SHRI NARAYANAN WERE NOT ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSING O FFICER. 12 I.T.A. NO.1863/MDS/15 ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R., SHRI KANDASAMY IS A RETI RED SCHOOL TEACHER AND HE HAS NO SUFFICIENT FUNDS FOR MAKING S AVINGS TO THE EXTENT OF ` 7,50,000/-. EVEN THOUGH SHRI KANDASAMY CONFIRMED T HE LOAN GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE TO THE EXTENT OF ` 7,50,000/-, THE ASSESSING OFFICER, ON INVESTIGATION, FOUND THAT THE SAID SHRI KANDASAMY HAS NO CAPACITY TO LEND THE MONEY. THERE FORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER REJECTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSE E IN RESPECT OF THE LOAN SAID TO BE RECEIVED FROM SHRI KANDASAMY. REFERRING TO THE LOAN SAID TO BE RECEIVED FROM SHRI SEENIVASAN, THE LD. D.R. POINTED OUT THAT THE SAID SHRI SEENIVASAN IS THE FATHER-IN- LAW OF SHRI M. MANOHAR, THE YOUNGER BROTHER OF THE ASSESSEE. SHRI SEENIVASAN WAS HAVING A SMALL GROCERY SHOP. IT WAS SUBMITTED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT HE HAS NOT ADVANCED ANY LOAN . 12. REFERRING TO THE LOAN SAID TO BE TAKEN FROM SHR I SURYA AND SHRI NARAYANAN, THE LD. D.R. POINTED OUT THAT THE A SSESSEE CLAIMED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT HE HAS TAKEN LOAN OF ` 4,00,000/- FROM SHRI SURYA AND A SUM OF ` 3,00,000/- FROM SHRI NARAYANAN. THE LD. D.R. FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT THE LETTER IS SUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS RETURNED WITH POSTAL ENDORSEM ENT NO SUCH PERSON/ADDRESS. COMING TO THE SALE OF JEWELLERY, THE LD. D.R. 13 I.T.A. NO.1863/MDS/15 POINTED OUT THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT SATISFY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT HE RECEIVED ` 5,02,070/- TOWARDS SALE PROCEEDS OF GOLD JEWELLERY. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY SATISFACTORY REAS ON, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RIGHTLY REJECTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSES SEE. THE LD. D.R. FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDEN CE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE AN ADDITION OF ` 84,575/- WHICH WAS CLAIMED AS SAVING FROM SALARY. ACCORDINGLY, THE LD . D.R. SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT(APPEALS) HAS RIGHTLY CONFIRMED THE UNE XPLAINED INVESTMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE EXTENT OF ` 22,86,645/-. 13. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EIT HER SIDE AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. ADMITTEDL Y, THE ASSESSEE IS A RETIRED EMPLOYEE OF SUPREME COURT. THE ASSESS ING OFFICER MADE AN ADDITION OF ` 22,86,645/- BEING UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN THE LANDED PROPERTY. THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE SOURCE FOR PURCHASING THE LANDED P ROPERTY FROM TAMIL NADU HOUSING BOARD IS THE LOAN BORROWED FROM VARIOUS PERSONS INCLUDING THE SALE OF GOLD JEWELLERY BELONG ING TO THE ASSESSEE AND SAVING FROM SALARY TO THE EXTENT OF ` 84,575/-. IN FACT, THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE TAMIL NADU HOUSING BOARD ALLOTTED A PLOT OF LAND TO THE A SSESSEE AT 14 I.T.A. NO.1863/MDS/15 NOLAMBUR FOR A TOTAL SUM OF ` 30,86,645/-. THE SOURCE FOR MAKING THE PAYMENT TO TAMIL NADU HOUSING BOARD IS AS FOLLO WS:- (1) LOAN FROM SHRI SUNILKUMAR ` 8,00,000/ - (2) LOAN FROM SHRI KANDASAMY ` 7,50,000/ - (3) LOAN FROM SHRI K. SEENIVASAN ` 2,50,000/ - (4) LOAN FROM SHRI SURYA ` 4,00,000/ - (5) LOAN FROM SHRI NARAYANAN ` 3,00,000/ - (6) SALE OF GOLD JEWELLERY ` 5,02,070/ - ADMITTEDLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ACCEPTED THE LOAN OF ` 8,00,000/- SAID TO BE RECEIVED FROM SHRI SUNILKUMAR. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER REJECTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IN RESPE CT OF OTHER LOANS AND SALE OF JEWELLERY TO THE EXTENT OF ` 22,86,645/-. THE CIT(APPEALS) CONFIRMED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASS ESSING OFFICER. 14. LETS NOW EXAMINE THE LOANS TAKEN FROM EACH IND IVIDUAL AS EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT HE RECEIVED A SUM OF ` 7,50,000/- FROM HIS FATHER-IN-LAW SHRI KANDASAMY. IN FACT, SHRI KANDAS AMY APPEARED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND CONFIRMED THE LOAN . THE ASSESSING OFFICER HOWEVER REJECTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT HE HAS NO SOURCE OF INCOME TO ADVAN CE ` 7,50,000/- TO THE ASSESSEE. REFERRING TO THE WRITTEN SUBMISSI ON AND THE ANNEXURES, WHICH ARE AVAILABLE AT PAPER-BOOK, THE L D.COUNSEL FOR 15 I.T.A. NO.1863/MDS/15 THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT SHRI KANDASAMY IS A R ETIRED TEACHER DRAWING PENSION AND HE IS ALSO HAVING AGRICULTURAL LAND AND AGRICULTURAL INCOME. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, AFTER REFERRING TO THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE, OBSERVED THAT SHRI KAN DASAMY NEITHER HAD MEANS NOR CREDIBLE SOURCE TO ADVANCE A SUM OF ` 7,50,000/- TO THE ASSESSEE. THE FACT REMAINS THAT SHRI KANDASAMY IS A RETIRED TEACHER AND IS DRAWING PENSION REGULARLY. HE IS A LSO CULTIVATING THE LAND AND RECEIVING AGRICULTURAL INCOME. FROM THE O RDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES IT IS SEEN THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS HOLDIN G 3.05 ACRES OF NANJAI LANDS AND 32 CENTS OF PUNJAI LANDS. THE ASS ESSING OFFICER DISBELIEVED THE CLAIM OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS GIFTED ALL THE NANJAI LANDS TO HIS DAU GHTER SMT. MANJULA IN JUNE, 2007. HOWEVER, THE SAID SHRI KAND ASAMY CLAIMD BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT EVEN AFTER GIFTIN G THE LANDS TO HIS DAUGHTER, HE WAS ENJOYING THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, MAINLY PLACING RELIANCE ON THE STATEMENT M ADE BY SHRI KANDASAMY THAT HE IS NOT IN THE HABIT OF SAVING, OB SERVED THAT AFTER COMPLETION OF MARRIAGE OF HIS SON AND DAUGHTER, SHR I KANDASAMY LEFT WITH NO CASH BALANCE. IT IS AN ADMITTED FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS WITHDRAWN A SUM OF ` 5,00,000/- ON 10.06.2008. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISBELIEVED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE ON TH E GROUND THAT THE 16 I.T.A. NO.1863/MDS/15 PAYMENT WAS SAID TO BE MADE IN APRIL, 2008. THEREF ORE, THE MONEY WITHDRAWN ON 10.06.2008 COULD NOT HAVE BEEN USED FO R ADVANCING THE SAME TO THE ASSESSEE. THE FACT REMAINS THAT TH E ASSESSEE IS A RETIRED HEAD MASTER OF A SCHOOL AND HE IS RECEIVING PENSION. THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO CULTIVATING NANJAI LANDS TO THE EX TENT OF 3.02 ACRES. THE SAID SHRI KANDASAMY IS RESIDING IN A VILLAGE. HIS REQUIREMENT FOR DAILY MAINTENANCE IS VERY LOW. THIS TRIBUNAL I S OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT EVEN THOUGH THE LAND WAS GIFTED TO THE DAUGHTER OF SHRI KANDASAMY, THE FACT THAT CONTINUANCE OF CULTIVATING THE LAND AND ENJOYING AGRICULTURAL INCOME CANNOT BE DOUBTED. TH E SAID SHRI KANDASAMY IS HAVING BANK BALANCE AND WITHDREW ` 5,00,000/- ON 10.06.2008. THE OBSERVATION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AT PARA 2.4.5 OF HER ORDER SHOWS THAT THERE WAS A FIXE D DEPOSIT AND AFTER MATURITY, THE SAME WAS CREDITED IN THE BANK A CCOUNT. THEREFORE, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE SAID SHRI KAN DASAMY HAS NO HABBIT OF SAVING. 15. THE ECONOMIC SCENARIO WHICH PREVAILS IN INDIA C ANNOT BE TOTALLY IGNORED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE CONS IDERING THE CASH CREDIT CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. DURING THE FINANCI AL YEAR 2008-09 RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION , THE AGRICULTURE 17 I.T.A. NO.1863/MDS/15 COOLIE WAS ` 250/- PER DAY FOR WORKING FOR FIVE HOURS. IF A HUS BAND AND WIFE GO FOR AGRICULTURE WORK IN ANY OF THE FAMI LY, THEY CAN EARN MINIMUM OF ` 500/- PER DAY. AN AVERAGE INCOME OF A FAMILY, WHIC H GOES FOR DAILY WORK IS ` 15,000/- PER MONTH. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO NEEDS TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THAT GOVERNME NT OF TAMIL NADU IS PROVIDING FREE RICE TO THE EXTENT 25 KGS TO A FAMILY. AFTER TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THAT A REASONABLE FAMILY COULD SAVE MORE THAN ` 400/- PER DAY, THAT MEANS THE REASONABLE FAMILY HAV ING NO REGULAR EMPLOYMENT COULD SAVE ` 12,000/- PER MONTH. THE PEOPLE IN THE STATE, MORE PARTICULARLY, IN THE AGRICULTURE SE CTOR ARE ILLITERATE AND THEY DO NOT HAVE BANK ACCOUNT. THEREFORE, THE PEOPLE USE TO SAVE THE MONEY BY KEEPING THE CASH IN THEIR RESPECT IVE HOUSE. WHEN THIS IS THE ECONOMIC SITUATION PREVAILED IN TH E COUNTRY, AN EDUCATED PERSON LIKE SHRI KANDASAMY WHO IS RECEIVIN G PENSION APART FROM RETIREMENT BENEFITS AS A HEAD MASTER AND IS ALSO CULTIVATING LAND TO THE EXTENT OF 3.02 ACRES. EVEN IF HE ESTIMATES AGRICULTURAL INCOME TO THE EXTENT OF ` 1 LAKH PER ACRE, THE AVERAGE INCOME WOULD BE ` 3 LAKHS PER ANNUM. APART FROM THIS, SHRI KANDASAMY IS ALSO RECEIVING PENSION. THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT WHEN SHRI KANDASAMY IS HAVI NG SO MUCH OF RESOURCES OR SOURCE FOR EARNING INCOME, THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER IS NOT 18 I.T.A. NO.1863/MDS/15 JUSTIFIED IN REJECTING THE CLAIM OF SHRI KANDASAMY FOR ADVANCING A SUM OF ` 7,50,000/- TO THE ASSESSEE WHO IS NONE OTHER THAN T HE SON- IN-LAW OF SHRI KANDASAMY. IN VIEW OF THIS FACTUAL SITUATION, THIS TRIBUNAL IS UNABLE TO UPHOLD THE ORDERS OF THE LOWE R AUTHORITIES. 16. NOW COMING TO THE LOAN SAID TO BE RECEIVED FROM SHRI SEENIVASAN TO THE EXTENT OF ` 2,50,000/-, SHRI SEENIVASAN IS THE FATHER-IN-LAW OF THE ASSESSEES BROTHER SHRI M. MAN OHAR. THE SAID SHRI SEENIVASAN CONFIRMED THE LOAN OF ` 2,50,000/- IN WRITING. THE SOURCE FOR MAKING THE LOAN WAS THE SALE PROCEEDS OF GOLD JEWELLERY BELONGING TO SHRI SEENIVASAN. 17. WE HAVE CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE STATEMENT RE CORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FROM THE SAID SHRI SEENIVASAN UNDER SECTION 131 OF THE ACT. THE SAID SHRI SEENIVASAN CLAIMED B EFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT HE WAS RUNNING A PROVISION S TORE FOR THE LAST FOUR YEARS. HE ALSO CLAIMED BEFORE THE ASSESSING O FFICER THAT HE WAS EARNING ` 10,000/- PER MONTH. IN RESPONSE TO QUESTION NO.12, THE SAID SHRI SEENIVASAN CLAIMED BEFORE THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER DURING EXAMINATION UNDER SECTION 131 OF THE ACT, TH AT HE ADVANCED A SUM OF ` 2,50,000/- TO THE ASSESSEE, WHO IS NONE OTHER THAN THE BROTHER OF HIS SON-IN-LAW, FROM THE SALE PROCEEDS O F GOLD JEWELLERY 19 I.T.A. NO.1863/MDS/15 BELONGING TO HIS WIFE. IN RESPONSE TO QUESTION NO. 23, THE SAID SHRI SEENIVASAN CLARIFIED THAT ON THE SUGGESTION / RECOM MENDATION MADE BY HIS SON-IN-LAW, HE ADVANCED A SUM OF ` 2,50,000/- TO THE ASSESSEE. LASTLY, IN RESPONSE TO QUESTION NO.30, T HE SAID SHRI SEENIVASAN ANSWERED THAT HE HAS NOT GIVEN ANY MONEY TO THE ASSESSEE. A BARE READING OF THE STATEMENT SAID TO BE RECORDED FROM SHRI SEENIVASAN CLEARLY SHOWS THAT HE ADVANCED A SU M OF ` 2,50,000/- FROM THE SALE PROCEEDS OF THE GOLD JEWEL LERY BELONGING TO HIS WIFE. WHEN HE WAS EXAMINED PERSISTENTLY, IN RESPONSE TO QUESTION NO.30, HE EXPLAINED THAT HE HAS NOT GIVEN ANY MONEY TO THE ASSESSEE. THIS STATEMENT RECORDED BY THE ASSES SING OFFICER WHEREIN THE SAID SHRI SEENIVASAN DENIED THE FACT OF ADVANCING LOAN DOES NOT INSPIRE CONFIDENCE. WHEN SHRI SEENIVASAN CLEARLY EXPLAINED THAT HE ADVANCED MONEY ON THE SUGGESTION MADE BY HIS SON SON-IN-LAW SHRI MANOHARAN, TO THE ASSESSEE, FRO M THE SALE PROCEEDS OF GOLD JEWELLERY BELONGING TO HIS WIFE, I T IS NOT KNOWN WHERE THE SALE PROCEEDS OF GOLD JEWELLERY HAS GONE IF THE MONEY WAS NOT ADVANCED TO THE ASSESSEE. HENCE, THE ANSWE R GIVEN BY SHRI SEENIVASAN TO QUESTION NO.30 BEFORE THE ASSESS ING OFFICER DOES NOT INSPIRE CONFIDENCE. THEREFORE, THE ASSESS ING OFFICER CANNOT PLACE RELIANCE ONLY ON THE ANSWER GIVEN BY S HRI SEENIVASAN 20 I.T.A. NO.1863/MDS/15 TO QUESTION NO.30, IGNORING ALL OTHER ANSWERS GIVEN BY SHRI SEENIVASAN. THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPI NION THAT THE STATEMENT RECORDED FROM SHRI SEENIVASAN CLEARLY SUG GESTS THAT HE ADVANCED A SUM OF ` 2,50,000/- AND THE SOURCE FOR MAKING SUCH ADVANCE WAS THE SALE PROCEEDS OF GOLD JEWELLERY BEL ONGING TO HIS WIFE. IN THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN REJECTING THE SOURCE OF LOAN SAID TO BE RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM SHRI SEENIVASAN. 18. NOW COMING TO THE LOANS SAID TO BE RECEIVED FRO M SHRI SURYA AND SHRI NARAYANAN, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES THAT HE RECEIVED ` 4,00,000/- FROM SHRI SURYA AND ` 3,00,000/- FROM SHRI NARAYANAN. THE ASSESSING OFFI CER PLACED RELIANCE ON THE INSPECTORS REPORT TO SHOW THAT THE ABOVE SAID TWO PERSONS WERE NOT RESIDING IN THE ADDRESS GIVEN BY T HE ASSESSEE. A COPY OF THE REPORT SAID TO HAVE BEEN FILED BY THE I NCOME-TAX INSPECTOR BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS AVAILABLE AT PAGE 48 OF THE PAPER-BOOK. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO CLAIMED THA T THE NOTICE SENT BY HER WAS RETURNED WITH ENDORSEMENT NO SUCH PERSON. THE FACT THAT THE LETTER WAS RETURNED WITH AN ENDORSEME NT NO SUCH 21 I.T.A. NO.1863/MDS/15 ADDRESS/ PERSON AND THE INSPECTORS REPORT THAT NO SUCH PERSON LIVED IN THE ADDRESS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE ASSESSEE AT ANY POINT OF TIME DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. WHEN THE POSTAL AUTHORITIES RETURNED THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE C ONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE MATTER SHOULD HAVE BEEN BROUGHT TO THE NOT ICE OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSEE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO COLLECT THE NEW ADDRESS OF SHRI SURYA AND SHRI N ARAYANAN SO THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER CAN CONTACT THE CREDITORS AT NEW ADDRESS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT TAKEN ANY SUCH STEP A FTER RETURN OF THE LETTER BY THE POSTAL AUTHORITIES. AN IDENTICA L ISSUE CAME BEFORE THE APEX COURT IN CIT V. ORISSA CORPORATION P. LTD. (1986) (159 ITR 78). THE APEX COURT AFTER CONSIDERING AN IDENTICAL SITUATION, FOUND THAT SINCE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT TAKEN ANY FURTHER STEP TO FIND OUT THE ADDRESS OF THE CREDITOR BY BRINGING TH E SAME TO THE NOTICE OF THE ASSESSEE, FOUND THAT THERE CANNOT BE ANY ADDITION. IN VIEW OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE APEX COURT IN ORISSA CO RPORATION P. LTD. (SUPRA), THIS TRIBUNAL IS UNABLE TO UPHOLD THE OBSE RVATION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH REGARD TO THE CREDITORS SHRI SURYA AND SHRI NARAYANAN. 22 I.T.A. NO.1863/MDS/15 19. NOW COMING TO THE SALE PROCEEDS OF GOLD JEWELLE RY TO THE EXTENT OF ` 5,02,070/-, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED BEFORE THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER THAT THE GOLD JEWELLERY WAS SOLD TO M/S SUJ ATHA JEWELLERY AT KUMBAKONAM. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO SHOWN COPIES OF THE BILLS OF M/S SUJATHA JEWELLERY. IT APPEARS ONE SHRI INDER C HAND CHETHIA CLAIMED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT HE IS THE PROPRIETOR OF M/S SUJATHA JEWELLERY AND HE HAS NOT PURCHASED ANY JEWE LLERY AS CLAIMED. THE ASSESSEE HAS PRODUCED A COPY OF THE R ECEIPT ISSUED BY M/S SUJATHA JEWELLERY. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FI LED A COPY OF THE STATEMENT RECORDED FROM SHRI INDER CHAND CHATHI A. SHRI INDER CHAND CHETHIA CLARIFIED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICE R THAT THE PURCHASE BILL FOR GOLD JEWELLERY WAS PREPARED BY HI S ACCOUNTANT SHRI RAMAKRISHNAN. ON THE BASIS THIS STATEMENT, THE SAI D SHRI RAMAKRISHNAN WAS ALSO EXAMINED AND COPY OF THE STAT EMENT RECORDED FROM HIM IS AVAILABLE AT PAPER-BOOK. SHRI RAMAKRISHNAN IN RESPONSE TO QUESTION NO.7, EXPLAINED BEFORE THE ASS ESSING OFFICER THAT BILL NO.301 TO BILL NO.313 ARE WITH REGARD TO PURCHASE OF GOLD JEWELLERY FROM SHRI M. KANNABIRAN. THE ASSESSEE HA S ALSO FILED COPIES OF THE BILLS ISSUED BY M/S SUJATHA JEWELLERY . WHEN M/S SUJATHA JEWELLERY PURCHASED THE GOLD JEWELLERY FROM THE ASSESSEE AND ISSUED PURCHASE BILLS, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT S HRI INDER CHAND 23 I.T.A. NO.1863/MDS/15 CHETHIA DENIED THE PURCHASE OF JEWELLERY FROM THE A SSESSEE. THE PURCHASE BILLS PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE CLEARLY SHO W THAT THE ASSESSEE SOLD THE GOLD JEWELLERY TO M/S SUJATHA JEW ELLERY. THEREFORE, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINI ON THAT THERE IS NO REASON TO DOUBT THE PURCHASE BILLS ISSUED BY M/S SU JATHA JEWELLERY. SIMILARLY, THE ASSESSEE EMPLOYED IN SUPREME COURT A ROUND 29 YEARS, THEREFORE, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERE D OPINION THAT HE MIGHT HAVE SAVED ` 84,575/- FROM HIS SALARY INCOME. 20. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION IN MAKING AD DITION OF ` 22,86,645/-. ACCORDINGLY, THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES ARE SET ASIDE AND THE ENTIRE ADDITION OF ` 22,86,645/- IS DELETED. SINCE THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DELET ED ON MERIT, IT MAY NOT BE NECESSARY FOR THIS TRIBUNAL TO GO INTO T HE ALTERNATIVE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE WITH REGARD TO YEAR OF PAYMENT AS MENTIONED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE NOTICE IS SUED UNDER SECTION 147 OF THE ACT AND ALSO LEGALITY OF REOPENI NG OF ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 147 OF THE ACT. 17. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS AL LOWED. 24 I.T.A. NO.1863/MDS/15 ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 20 TH NOVEMBER, 2015 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (. !'# ! ) ( . . . ) (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) (N.R.S. GANESAN) % / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /JUDICIAL MEMBER /CHENNAI, 5 /DATED, THE 20 TH NOVEMBER, 2015. KRI. / -267 87)2 /COPY TO: 1. +, /APPELLANT 2. -.+, /RESPONDENT 3. 1 92 () /CIT(A)-14, CHENNAI 4. 1 92 /PR.CIT-10, CHENNAI 5. 7: -2 /DR 6. ;( < /GF.