ITO, Pudukkottai V. A.Anbukkannan, Pudukkottai

ITA 1871/CHNY/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4911 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 9 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-04-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 17-02-2017
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 30-06-2014
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RENGA RAJAN
• Assessee Lawyers: S SRIDHAR
• Keywords: Peak credit

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH : CHENNAI (CAMP : MADURAI) . . . , ! . '#'$ , % !& ' [BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ] ./I.T.A. NO.1731/MDS/2014 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-2011 SHRI. A. ANBUKKANNAN, NO.744, PERIYAR NAGAR, RAJAGOPALAPURAM, PUDUKOTTAI 622 003. VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD I(1) PURUKOTTAI. ./I.T.A. NO.1871/MDS/2014 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-2011 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD I(1) PURUKOTTAI VS. SHRI. A. ANBUKKANNAN, NO.744, PERIYAR NAGAR, RAJAGOPALAPURAM, PUDUKOTTAI 622 003. [PAN AGPPA 7635N] ( () / APPELLANT) ( *+() /RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI.S. SRIDHAR, ADVOCATE DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI. RENGA RAJAN, JCIT. /DATE OF HEARING : 15-02-2017 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 05-04-2017 / O R D E R PER ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THESE ARE CROSS APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AN D REVENUE RESPECTIVELY DIRECTED AGAINST AN ORDER DATE D 14.03.2014 OF LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS), TIRUCHIRA PALLI. ITA NOS.1731 & 1871/2014 :- 2 -: 2. FACTS APROPOS ARE THAT ASSESSEE HAD FILED RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR DISCLOSING INCOME OF ?3,10,500/- AS INCOME FROM COMMISSION ON MONEY LENDING. LD . ASSESSING OFFICER WAS HAVING AIR INFORMATION THAT ASSESSEE HAD DEPOSI TS AGGREGATING ?3,67,75,800/- IN HIS SAVING BANK ACCOUNTS M/S. AXI S BANK LTD, PUDUKKOTTAI BRANCH AND T. NAGAR BRANCH. ASSESSEE W AS REQUIRED TO SHOW SOURCE FOR THE DEPOSITED AMOUNTS. REPLY OF TH E ASSESSEE AS SUMMARIZED BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER READ AS UND ER:- 3. THE ASSESSEE DERIVES INCOME FROM MONEY LENDIN G COMMISSION. 4. THE ASSESSEE MAKES/COLLECTS ADVANCES BY CASH AS WELL AS BY CHEQUE. 5. THE CASH /CHEQUE COLLECTED ARE DEPOSITED INTO TH E BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE SAME IS UTILI ZED FOR MAKING ADVANCES BY CASH AS WELL AS BY CHEQUE. 6. THE ASSESSEE HAS ADMITTED A SUM OF ?3500/- AS INCOME IN RESPECT OF THE TRANSACTIONS APPEARING IN ALL THE BANK ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE. 7. THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT MAINTAIN DETAILS FOR THE O THER INCOME OF ?3,50,000/- AND THE SAME IS ADMITTED ON ESTIMATED CASH FLOW BASIS ONLY. 8. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT AVAILED ANY FRESH LOANS DUR ING THE YEAR. 3. LD. ASSESSING OFFICER WAS OF THE OPINION THAT AS SESSEE HAD LARGE NUMBER OF TRANSACTIONS THOUGH HIS BANK ACCOUN TS, AS LISTED BY HIM AT PAGE 2 & 3 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. LD. ASS ESSING OFFICER ITA NOS.1731 & 1871/2014 :- 3 -: REQUIRED THE ASSESSEE TO GIVE DETAILS REGARDING PER CENTAGE OF COMMISSION CHARGED ON HIS MONEY LENDING BUSINESS, DETAILS OF THE COMMISSION RECEIVED, DETAILS OF THE PERSONS WHO HAD TRANSACTIONS WITH THE ASSESSEE AND DETAILS OF THE BUSINESS DEALING W ITH PERSONS WITH WHOM ASSESSEE WAS HAVING SUBSTANTIAL TRANSACTIONS. LD. ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO LISTED THE NAMES OF PERSONS WHO WERE R EPEATEDLY APPEARING IN THE BANK OF THE ASSESSEE AS UNDER:- SL. NO NAME AXIS BANK LTD, PUDUKKOTTAI AXIS BANK LTD, CHENNAI TOTAL AMOUNT 1 R. KARUPPIAH 1,29,24,000 3,50,000 1,32,74,000 2 RM.CT. RAMANATHAN CHETTIAR 1,30,22,000 20,05,000 1,50,27,000 3 A. SURESHKUMAR 70,47,300 12,70,000 83,17,300 4 TR. SUBRAMANIAN 29,15,500 25,55,000 54,70,500 5 S. KULANDAIAN 36,50,000 15,55,0 00 52,05,000 4. REPLY OF THE ASSESSEE TO THE ABOVE QUERY READS AS UNDER:- (1) ASSESSEE DOES NOT MAINTAIN ANY DETAILS OF TH E PERSONS FROM WHOM THE COMMISSION WAS RECEIVED. (2) THE ASSESSEE CANNOT CHARGE UNIFORM RATE FOR A LL THE TRANSACTIONS ENTERED INTO BY HIM AS THE SAME DEPEND S ON THE QUANTUM OF THE LOAN. (4) THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BORROWED ANY MONEY FROM ANY PERSON AS EVIDENCED BY THE CASH FLOW STATEMENT. HENCE, THE RE QUIREMENT OF FILING THE NAME, ADDRESS AND PAN OF SUCH PERSONS AR E NOT APPLICABLE TO THE ASSESSEE. ITA NOS.1731 & 1871/2014 :- 4 -: (5) THE FOLLOWING FACTORS IN THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE TO BE CONSIDERED (A) THE MONEY IS ADVANCED BOTH BY CASH AS WELL A S BY CHEQUE. (B) THE ADVANCES ARE ALSO RECOVERED BOTH BY CASH AS WELL AS BY CHEQUE. (C) THE CASH / CHEQUES AS IN PARA (B) ABOVE ARE D EPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. (D) THE FUNDS AVAILABLE IN THE BANK ACCOUNT ARE UT ILISED FOR MAKING THE ADVANCES BOTH BY DRAWING CASH AS WELL AS BY ISSUE OF CHEQUES DIRECTLY TO THE BORROWER (6) (A)ALL THE AMOUNTS REPRESENT COLLECTIONS FROM P ERSONS TO WHOM MONEY WAS ADVANCED BY THE ASSESSEE. (B)THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT CLAIMED ANY CREDIT IN RESPE CT OF THE AMOUNTS RECEIVED FROM THE SAID PERSONS ON ACCOUNT OF THE FACT THAT THEY REPRESENT COLLECTION OF ADVANCES ONLY. (D)UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE SUBMIT THAT THE ONU S ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO ESTABLISH THE CREDITS ARE N OT APPLICABLE IN THE INSTANT CASE. THEREUPON LD. ASSESSING OFFICER SUMMONED THE ASSE SSEE BY ISSUING NOTICE U/S.131(1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN S HORT THE ACT). RELEVANT QUESTIONS POSED TO THE ASSESSEE AND HIS RE PLIES WERE AS UNDER:- Q. NO.2 EXPLAIN THE DETAILS OF YOUR BUSINESS ACTIVITI ES. ANS. I HAVE BEEN ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF BROKER AGE ON MONEY LENDING FOR THE PAST FIVE YEARS. I GET AN AVE RAGE COMMISSION OF HALF PERCENT ON THE TRANSACTION OF MONEY FROM ONE PERSON TO ANOTHER. Q. NO.3 ARE YOU MAINTAINING REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOU NT FOR THE MONEY LENDING COMMISSION CARRIED OUT BY YOU? ANS. I HAVE NOT MAINTAINED ANY BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WITH REGARD TO MY BUSINESS. ITA NOS.1731 & 1871/2014 :- 5 -: Q. NO.4 AS YOU SAY, WHEN YOU TRANSFER CERTAIN AMOU NT FROM ONE PERSON TO ANOTHER ARE YOU MAINTAINING ANY PROPER ACCOUNTS FOR RECEIPT OF COMMISSION. ANS. I AM NOT MAINTAINING ANY SUCH BOOKS; INSTEAD, I MAKE A NOTE IN LOOSE SHEETS (KAI CHITTAI) AND GET MY COMMISSION. Q. NO.7 GIVE DETAILS OF PERSONS FROM WHOM YOU HAVE RECEIVED AND TO WHOM YOU HAVE GIVEN MONEY DURING THE PERIOD 0110412 009 TO 3110312010. LIKEWISE, FROM WHOM YOU HAVE RECEIVED COMMISSION. ANS. AS I DO NOT REMEMBER THE DETAILS OF ANY TRANS ACTION AT THE MOMENT, I WOULD SUBMIT THE SAME IF AVAILABLE IN THE RESIDENCE. Q. NO.11 CAN YOU FURNISH THE DETAILS SUCH AS NAME, ADDRESS AND PAN NUMBER OF THE PERSONS IN BOTH PUDUKKOTTAI AND CHENNAI WHO WERE ADVANCED MONEY. ANS. I AM NOT ABLE TO FURNISH THE PARTICULARS IN THIS REGARD. Q. NO.13 WHILE VERIFYING YOUR BANK STATEMENT, THE FOL LOWING PARTICULARS WERE NOTICED. ACCORDINGLY, PLEASE EXPLAIN THE FOLLOWING CLEARLY: (A) DETAILS OF TRANSACTIONS WITH VT. M. GANESAN'. ANS. I DO NOT KNOW THE PARTICULARS IN THIS REGARD . (B) DETAILS OF TRANSACTIONS WITH OASIS SUPERMARKET. ANS. I DO NOT KNOW REMEMBER. DURING THE NEXT HEAR ING I SHALL FURNISH THE DETAILS WITH REGARD TO FROM WHOM, HOW MUCH WAS RECEIVED AND HOW MUCH WAS RETURNED AND HOW MUCH I RECEIVED AS COMMISSION IN RESPECT OF THE TRANSACTIONS OF VTM. GANESAN AND OASIS SUPERMARKET. Q. NO.14 WERE YOU LIABLE TO PAY ANY OUTSTANDING AM OUNT TO ANYONE AS ON 31/03/2010. IF SO, DID YOU PAY ANY INTEREST? ANS. I DID NOT GET ANY LOAN FROM ANYBODY NOR PAID ANY INTEREST. Q. NO.15 LIKEWISE, WERE YOU LIABLE TO GET ANY OUTST ANDING AMOUNT FROM ANYONE AS ON 31.03.2010. IF SO, DID YOU RECEIVE A NY INTEREST. ANS. I AM NOT LIABLE TO RECEIVE ANY AMOUNT NOR ANY COMMISSION. IIQ. NO.16 HAVE YOU MADE ANY INVESTMENT IN ANY INSTITUT ION? ANS. NO. ITA NOS.1731 & 1871/2014 :- 6 -: Q. NO.17 ARE YOU A SHARE HOLDER IN ANY INSTITUTION? ANS. NO. Q. NO. 19 YOU HAVE STATED THAT YOU HAVE RECEIVED CO MMISSION ON MONEY LENDING. BUT ON SCRUTINISING THE BANK ACCOUNT, IT I S SEEN THAT THE ENTIRE TRANSACTIONS, I.E. BOTH DEBIT AND CREDIT, HAVE BEEN MADE IN YOUR ACCOUNT ONLY. WEREN'T THEY THE COMMISSION RECEIVABLE BY YOU ? GIVE DETAILS. ANS. OUT OF THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF DEBIT AND CREDIT, 1% IS MY COMMISSION AND THE REMAINING AMOUNT RELATE TO BOTH THE LENDER AND THE BORROWER. Q. NO. 20 AS STATED BY YOU IN YOUR AFORESAID REPLY, GIVE THE DET AILS OF COMMISSION RECEIVABLE BY YOU, DETAILS OF BORROWER A ND THE DETAILS OF DISBURSEMENT. ANS. I SHALL FURNISH DURING THE NEXT HEARING. Q. NO. 26 GIVE THE DETAILS SUCH AS THE BUSINESS CONNECTION AND THE OUTSTANDING AMOUNT THROUGH THE SAME RECEIVABLE BY Y OU FROM KAVITA SHANKAR, KRV MANI, A. MARIMUTHU, M. BALU, KUMAR TRADERS, SAGUBARNISA, SIVANANDAM, KUMAR, SRI GOKULAM CHIT & CO., PEE TEE KAY, S. RAJA, SELVAM SEA FOOD, SELVAM, SPENCER, UNI, ELTECH, SHI NCE PH ARMS, DIPIHA, M. VEERAPPAN, R. MURUGAN, SAKTHI AGENCIES, SP. DEIVANA I ACHI, S. RAJA, A. RAMESHKUMAR, XSPESS, SIVASAKTHI TRADERS, DEVAKI AG ENCIES, SRI OLI VILAKKU TRADERS, SUNDARAM, SM ENTERPRISES, SKATMIND IA, SRI SRINIVASA AUTOMOBILES, HSB CLOTHING LTD., LEELA CLOTHING PVT . LTD., CHIDAMBARAM, HERMES TICKET, DINAKARAN MEDICAL AGENCIES, EXPRESS BUILDINGS LTD., CHERAN HOTELS, SLATCO MAGNILUDES, PRECISION PRESS PRODUCT. ANS. I SHALL FURNISH DURING THE NEXT HEARING. 5. AFTER GOING THROUGH THE ABOVE DETAILS, LD. ASSE SSING OFFICER REACHED A CONCLUSION THAT ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODUC E DETAILS OF THE TRANSACTIONS WITH THE FOLLOWING PERSONS:- (A) A. SURESH KUMAR (B) S. KULANDAIAN (C) TR. SUBRAMANIAN (D) R. KARUPPIAH (E) RM.CT. RAMANATHAN CHETTIAR ITA NOS.1731 & 1871/2014 :- 7 -: THOUGH ASSESSEE FILED CONFIRMATION LETTERS FROM THE ABOVE PERSONS. LD. ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT SHRI. R.KARUPPIAH WAS ONLY AN OFFICE ASSISTANT OF THE ASSESSEE AND HE HAD NOT ADVANCED ANY AMOUNT TO THE ASSESSEE. AS PER LD. ASSESSING OFFICER THE CONFIRM ATION LETTER OF SHRI. S. KULANDAIAN, DID NOT GIVE CORRECT PARTICULARS. S IMILAR DISCREPANCIES WERE FOUND BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN CONFIRMATIO N RELATING TO OTHERS ALSO. THUS, ACCORDING TO LD. ASSESSING OFFICER EXPL ANATIONS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT BE BELIEVED. HE HELD THAT A SSESSEE WAS UNABLE TO PRODUCE SATISFACTORY EVIDENCE FOR THE DEBIT AN D CREDIT ENTRIES IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. RELYING ON THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF KALE KHAN MOHAMMAD HANIF VS. CIT 50 ITR 1 AND ROSHA N DI HATTI VS. CIT 107 ITR 938 , LD. ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THAT ONUS WAS ON THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE SOURCE FOR THE MONEY CLAIME D TO HAVE BEEN RECEIVED BY HIM. FURTHER, AS PER LD. ASSESSING OF FICER CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT WITHDRAWALS FROM THE BANK WERE RECY CLED WAS NEVER SUBSTANTIATED WITH EVIDENCE. HE TREATED THE ENTIR E CASH DEPOSITS OF ?3,67,75,800/- AS UNEXPLAINED INCOME OF THE ASSESSE E, INVESTED IN MONEY LENDING BUSINESS AND MADE AN ADDITION U/S.69A OF THE ACT. 6. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE MOVED IN APPEAL BEFORE LD . COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). ARGUMENT OF T HE ASSESSEE WAS THAT THE ADDITION WAS PURELY BASED ON IMAGINATIVE F IGURES. RELYING ON THE JUDGMENTS OF HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF POONA ELECTRIC ITA NOS.1731 & 1871/2014 :- 8 -: COMPANY VS. CIT 57 ITR 521, STATE BANK OF TRAVANCO RE VS. CIT 158 ITR 102 AND UDAYAN CHINUBHAI VS. CIT 111 ITR 584, ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT REAL INCOME ALONE COULD BE TAXED AN D EVERY RECEIPT COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED AS INCOME. LD. COMMISSIONE R OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE HELD THAT LD. ASSESSING OFFICER COULD NOT BRING OUT ANY MATER IAL TO PROVE ANY MONEY LENDING BUSINESS BEING CARRIED ON BY THE ASS ESSEE. AS PER LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) CREDITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT WERE SPREAD THROUGHOUT THE YEAR AND PRECEDED BY DEB ITS REPRESENTING WITHDRAWAL OF FUNDS. ACCORDING TO HIM, LD. ASSESSI NG OFFICER ERRED IN CONSIDERING ONLY THE CREDITS DISREGARDING THE DEBIT S. RELYING ON THE DECISION OF BANGALORE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF DR. M. SOMASHEKAR VS. CIT (2010) 5 ITR 129 , LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HELD THAT ADDITIONS AT THE BEST HAD TO BE LIMITED TO THE PEAK CREDIT APPEARING IN THE BANK ACCOUNT WHICH CA ME TO ?18,12,888/-. FURTHER AS PER LD. COMMISSIONER OF I NCOME TAX (APPEALS) ASSESSEE C ONLY BE DEEMED AS A COMMISSIO N AGENT AND COMMISSION OF 1% OF TOTAL DEPOSITS COULD BE CONSIDE RED AS REASONABLE INCOME EARNED BY HIM. THE TOTAL DEPOSITS BEING ?3,6 7,75,800/-, A FURTHER ADDITION OF ?3,67,758/- WAS ALSO MADE BY TH E LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). THUS, HE SUSTAINED AGGREGA TE ADDITION OF ?21,80,646/- AND DELETED THE BALANCE OF THE ADDITIO N. ITA NOS.1731 & 1871/2014 :- 9 -: 7. NOW BEFORE US, LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE STRONGLY ASSAILING THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCO ME TAX (APPEALS) SUBMITTED THAT EXISTENCE OF MONEY LENDING BUSINESS WAS PROVED BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER AND ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDING TO HIM, AGGREGATE DEPOSITS ?3,67,75,800/- WITH THE BANK ACC OUNT REPRESENTED INVESTMENT OF THE ASSESSEE IN HIS MONEY LENDING BUS INESS AND NO EXPLANATION WAS OFFERED FOR THE SOURCE THEREOF. AC CORDING TO HIM, LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAD APPLIED TH E PEAK CREDIT PRINCIPLE WHEN ASSESSEE COULD NOT SHOW THAT THE DE POSITS WERE MADE OUT OF EARLIER WITHDRAWALS. 8. CONTRA, AND IN SUPPORT OF ITS OWN APPEAL, LD. A UTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT LD. COMMISSIONER OF I NCOME TAX (APPEALS) THOUGH HE CORRECTLY APPLIED PEAK CREDIT PRINCIPLE ERRED IN SUSTAINING ADDITIONS TO THE EXTENT OF ? ?21,80,64 6/-. AS PER LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE PRESUMPTION THAT ASSESSEE HAD EARNED AGENCY COMMISSION OF ?3,67,758/- WAS INCORRECT. 9. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PER USED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. IT IS NOT DISPUTED BY THE REVENUE THAT ASSESSEE HAD BOTH CASH DEPOSITS AS WELL AS CASH WIT HDRAWALS IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT WITH AXIS BANK ACCOUNTS WITH PUDUKKOTT AI AND T. NAGAR BRANCH. THOUGH LD. ASSESSING OFFICER HAD LISTED OU T THE MAJOR TRANSACTIONS AT PARAGRAPH 4 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER , A DATE WISE ITA NOS.1731 & 1871/2014 :- 10 -: ANALYSIS OF THE BANK ACCOUNTS WERE NOT DONE. ASSES SEE CAN ALWAYS SAY THAT CASH DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT HAD COME OUT OF AN EARLIER CASH WITHDRAWAL AS LONG AS THE TIME INTERVAL BETWEEN THE WITHDRAWALS AND DEPOSITS ARE NOT SO SIGNIFICANTLY SUBSTANTIAL TO D ISBELIEVE THE SOURCE. WHETHER THE ASSESSEE WAS CARRYING ON ANY MONEY LEN DING BUSINESS, HAS NO RELEVANCE WHEN AN ASSESSMENT IS MADE CONSID ERING THE AMOUNTS DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNTS. HOWEVER, IN OUR OPINION CASH DEPOSITS ALONE CANNOT BE THE SUBJECT OF AN ADD ITION IGNORING THE CASH WITHDRAWALS. HENCE, FINDING OF LD. COMMISSION ER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) THAT PEAK CREDIT OF ?18,12,888/- ALONE C OULD HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED FOR THE ADDITION CANNOT BE FAULTED. IN SO FAR AS TRANSACTIONS OTHER THAN CASH ARE CONCERNED, IT MAY BE TRUE THAT ASSESSEE WAS EARNING COMMISSION FROM MONEY LENDING. HOWEVER, THE FINDING OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) THAT ASSES SEE WAS EARNING 1% COMMISSION OF THE DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT W AS ONLY A SURMISE. EVEN IF THERE WERE SOME COMMISSION EARNIN GS IT GETS SUBSUMED IN THE PEAK CREDIT OF ?18,12,888/- CONSIDE RED FOR ADDITION. THE FURTHER ADDITION OF ?3,67,758/- WAS NOT JUSTIFI ED IN THE FACT AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, SUCH ADDITION STANDS DEL ETED. 10. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMI SSED WHEREAS ITA NOS.1731 & 1871/2014 :- 11 -: THAT OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON WEDNESDAY, THE 5 TH DAY OF APRIL, 2017, AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( . . . ) ) (N.R.S. GANESAN) / JUDICIAL MEMBER ( ! . '#'$ ) (ABRAHAM P. GEORGE) % / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / CHENNAI ! / DATED: 5TH APRIL, 2017 KV !' # $% &% / COPY TO: 1 . '( / APPELLANT 3. ) () / CIT(A) 5. %+, # - / DR 2. #.'( / RESPONDENT 4. ) / CIT 6. ,/ 0 / GF