M/s. Kortek Electronics (India) Ltd., New Delhi V. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

ITA 1886/DEL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8020 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 1 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-05-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 03-05-2016
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 02-04-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 143(3); 234B; 14A; 133(6)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES : D NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, ACCOUN TANT MEMBER ITA NO: 1886/DEL/2013 AY : - 2008-09 KORTEK ELECTRONICS (INDIA) LTD. VS. ADDL. CI T 1/24, GROUND FLOOR, RANGE-5 ASAF ALI ROAD NEW DELHI NEW DELHI 110002 PAN AABCK5593N (APPELLANT) (RESPONDE NT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI SALIL KAPOOR, ADVOCATE, SHRI VIKRAM MEHTA, ADVOCATE SHRI SANAT KAPOOR, ADVOCATE ANANYA KAPOOR, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY : RASHMITA JHA, SR.DR DATE OF HEARING : 03.05.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : O R D E R PER J.SUDHAKAR REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE DIRECTED AG AINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) VIII, NEW DELH I DATED 4.1.2013 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. ITA NO. 1886/DEL/2013 KORTEK ELECTRONICS (I NDIA) LTD. VS. ACIT 2 20X5 2. THE ASSESSEE IS A COMPANY AND IS IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING AND TRADING IN ELECTRONIC COMPONENTS AND GOODS. IT MANU FACTURES, MONITORS, DVDS AND OTHER ELECTRONIC ITEMS FOR LG AND SET UP BOXES FOR TATASKY. THE ASSESSEE HAS TWO MANUFACTURING UNITS, ONE AT GREATER NOIDA AND THE O THER AT RURDRAPUR, UTTARANCHAL. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S 80IC IN RESPECT OF RUDRAPUR UNIT. IT FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING NET TAXABLE INCOME OF RS . 12,09,55,320/- ON 29.9.2008. THE AO COMPLETED ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) READ WITH SE CTION 92CA(3) OF IT ACT 1961 (HEREIN REFERRED TO ACT) DETERMINING THE TOTAL INCO ME AT RS. 13,36,35,770/- INTERALIA DISALLOWING AN AMOUNT OF RS. 34,470/- U/S 14A AND R ESTRICTING THE ASSESSEES CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80IC TO RS. 2,57,263/- AND MAKIN G A DISALLOWANCE U/S 40(A) (IA) TO THE TUNE OF RS. 38,75,000/-. ON APPEAL THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY GRANTED PART RELIEF. AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS :- 1. THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S 143(3) AND THE ADDITIONS DISALLOWANCES MADE ARE ILLEGAL, BAD IN LAW AND WITH OUT JURISDICTION. 2. THAT IN VIEW OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE CASE, THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN UPHOLDING THE ACTION O F THE AO IN REJECTING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WITHOUT POINTING OUT ANY ERRO R IN THE REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT MAINTAINED BY THE APPELLANT. IN AN Y CASE THE BOOKS HAVE BEEN ILLEGALLY AND WRONGLY REJECTED AND THE SA ID REJECTIONS OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT CANNOT BE JUSTIFIED BY ANY MATERIA L ON RECORD. 3. THAT IN VIEW OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, THE CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN UPHOLDING THE DISALLOWING THE SUM O F RS.34,4701- U/S 14A R.W.R 8D MADE BY THE AO. 4. THAT, IN VIEW OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, CI T(A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN UPHOLDING THE ACTION OF THE AA IN DISAL LOWING THE SUM OF RS.38,75,0001- U/S 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT. 5. THE CIT(A) HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE PAY MENT WAS PAID IN MARCH 2006 FOR THE MUSIC RIGHT FROM YASH RAJ FILMS AND SAREGAMA INDIA P. LTD AS ROYALTY AND THERE WAS NO LIABILITY TO DEDUCT THE TDS AS PER PROVISION OF THE ACT IN THE YEAR THE PAYMENTS W ERE MADE. 6. THAT THE OBSERVATION OF THE AO & CIT(A) IN HOLDI NG THAT THE ROYALTY ITA NO. 1886/DEL/2013 KORTEK ELECTRONICS (I NDIA) LTD. VS. ACIT 3 20X5 EXPENSES ARE PRIOR PERIOD EXPENSE ARE UNJUST, ILLEG AL AND CANNOT BE JUSTIFIED BY ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD. 7. THAT THE AO ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN REDUCING T HE DEDUCTION RS.87,70,981/- U/S 80LC BY REALLOCATION OF EXPENSES AND THE CIT( A) ERRED IN THE UPHOLDING THE SAME. 8. THAT IN VIEW OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCE, THE CIT( A) ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN UPHOLDING THE METHOD ADOPTED BY THE AO T O REALLOCATE THE EXPENSES AND HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE APP ELLANT HAS ENOUGH CAPITAL OF ITS OWN. 9. THE ADDITIONS / DISALLOWANCES MADE ARE UNJUST, U NLAWFUL, WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND ARE ALSO HIGHLY EXCESSIVE. THE INC OME HAS BEEN WRONGLY & ILLEGALLY COMPUTED AT RS.13,36,35,770/- A S AGAINST INCOME DECLARED AT RS. 12,09,55,320/-. 10. THAT THE CIT(A) AND AO ERRED IN NOT PROVIDING P ROPER AND ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY TO ASSESSEE COMPANY TO PLACE THE MATERI AL ON RECORD TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS CLAIM AND THE SAME WAS DONE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 11. THAT THE EXPLANATIONS GIVEN, EVIDENCE PRODUCED AND MATERIAL PLACED AND MADE AVAILABLE ON RECORD HAVE NOT BEEN PROPERLY CONSIDERED AND JUDICIALLY INTERPRETED AND THE SAME DO NOT JUSTIFY THE ADDITION MADE. 12. THAT THE ADDITION MADE IS BASED ON MERE SURMISE S AND CONJUNCTURES AND THE SAME CANNOT BE JUSTIFIED BY ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD AND AGAINST THE PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL OF JUSTICE. 13. THAT INTEREST U/S 234B & 234C OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 HAS BEEN WRONGLY AND ILLEGALLY CHARGED AND HAS BEEN WRONGLY WORKED OUT. 3. WE HAVE HEARD SHRI SALIL KAPOOR LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AND SHRI RASHMITA JHA THE LD. SR.DR ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESS EE. 4. ON A CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE FACTS AND CIR CUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND A PERUSAL OF THE PAPERS ON RECORD AND THE ORDERS OF T HE AUTHORITIES BELOW WE HOLD AS FOLLOWS. 5. GROUND NO. 1 IS GENERAL IN NATURE. ITA NO. 1886/DEL/2013 KORTEK ELECTRONICS (I NDIA) LTD. VS. ACIT 4 20X5 6. GROUND NO. 3 IS ON THE DISALLOWANCE MADE U/S 14A R.W.R 8D. THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT HAVE INCOME WHICH IS EXEMPT FROM TAX. UNDE R THESE CIRCUMSTANCES NO DISALLOWANCE CAN BE MADE U/S 14A OF THE ACT. THE HO NBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CHEMINVEST LTD. VS. CIT 378 ITR 33 (DELHI) LAID DOWN AS FOLLOWS :- THAT NO EXEMPTED INCOME WAS EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR AND SINCE THE GENUINENESS OF THE EX PENDITURE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT IN DOUBT, NO DISALLOWANCE COUL D BE MADE UNDER SECTION 14A. 7. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE SAME WE ALLOW GROUND NO. 3. 8. GROUND NO. 4 IS AGAINST THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY INVOKING SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT . THE ASSESSEE RELIES ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF 377 ITR 635 (DEL) AND SUBMITS THAT THE SECOND PROVISO TO SECTION 40(A)(IA), WHICH WAS BROUGHT OUT BY THE FINANCE ACT 2012 W.E.F 1.4.2013, WAS HELD AS HAVING RETROSPECTIVE OPERATION AND AS A PAYEE I. E YASH RAJ FILMS AND SAREGAMA INDIA P. LTD. HAD FILED THEIR RETURNS AND PAID TAX ES, NO DISALLOWANCE CAN BE MADE U/S 40(A)(IA). ON A QUERY FROM THE BENCH HE SUBMITT ED THAT THE ISSUE SHOULD BE SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION. ON FURTHER QUERY, HE FILED A LETTER DATED 30 TH APRIL, 2011 OF M/S. YASH RAJ FILMS WRITTEN TO THE OFFICE OF THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX C.R. BUILDING, NEW DELHI , IN RESPONSE TO A REQUISITION OF INFORMATION U/S 133(6) OF THE ACT AND SUBMITTED THAT THE PAYEES HAVE RECORDED THE AMOUNTS RECEIVED FROM THE ASSESSEE IN THEIR BOO KS OF ACCOUNTS. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW THE ASSESSEE SHOULD HAVE MADE EVERY EFFORT TO GATHER NECESSARY EVIDENCE FROM THE PAYEES I.E. M/S. YASH RAM FILMS P VT. LTD. AND M/S. SAREGAMA INDIA LTD. THAT THEY HAVE PAID TAXES ON THESE RECEI PTS FROM THE ASSESEE AND THEN SOUGHT FOR SET ASIDE OF THE CASE. THE ASSESSEE SHOU LD PRIMA FACIE DEMONSTRATE THAT ITA NO. 1886/DEL/2013 KORTEK ELECTRONICS (I NDIA) LTD. VS. ACIT 5 20X5 IN ITS CASE THE SECOND PROVISO TO SECTION 40(A) (IA ) IS ATTRACTED BEFORE SEEKING SET ASIDE OF THE MATTER. AS IN THIS CASE THE REVENUE HA S ALREADY OBTAINED SOME INFORMATION U/S 133(6) OF THE ACT, WE ARE OF THE O PINION THAT THIS ISSUE SHOULD BE SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR FRESH ADJUDICAT ION. THE ASSESSEE SHALL MAKE EVERY EFFORT TO OBTAIN FROM THE PAYEES, EVIDENCE THAT THE Y HAVE FILED THEIR RETURN OF INCOME AND PAID TAXES ON THESE PAYMENTS AND FURNISH THE SA ME TO THE AO. IN THE RESULT GROUND NO. 4 ,5 AND 6 ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL P URPOSES. 9. LAST ISSUE IS PART DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCT ION CLAIMED U/S 80IC OF THE ACT. THIS IS COVERED BY GROUND NO. 2,7,8 AND 9. THE CONTENTIO NS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE SUMMERIZED AS FOLLOWS :- A) BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS ARE REJECTED WITHOUT POINTING OUT ANY DEFECTS, WHICH ACT IS BAD IN LAW. B) THE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE THAT INSURAN CE CHARGES, BANK CHARGES AND INTEREST HAVE BEEN CORRECTLY ALLOCATED BETWEEN THE UNIT AT GREATER NOIDA AND THE UNIT AT RUDRAPUR HAS BEEN ARB ITRARILY REJECTED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES. C) THE ASSESSEE PREPARED UNIT WISE WORKING CAPITAL REQ UIREMENT AND THAT THESE DEMONSTRATES AS FOLLOWS : THE WORKING CAPITAL REQUIREMENT AT NOIDA AS ON 31. 3.2008 WAS RS.28.23 CRORES AND THE FIXED ASSETS STOOD AT RS.21 .57 CRORES, TOTALING UPTO RS.49.80 CRORES. THE RESERVES/PROFITS AS ON 31 .3.2008 AT NOIDA STOOD AT RS.26.57 CRORES AND THE CREDIT FACILITIES STOOD AT RS.22.17 CRORES, TOTALING UPTO RS.48.74 CRORES. IN THE CASE OF RUDERPUR, THE FIXED ASSETS AS ON 31. 3.2008 WERE RS.9.81 CRORES AND THE WORKING CAPITAL REQUIREMENT RS.1.29 CRORES, TOTALING ITA NO. 1886/DEL/2013 KORTEK ELECTRONICS (I NDIA) LTD. VS. ACIT 6 20X5 UPTO RS.11.10 CRORES. THE RESERVES/PROFITS AS ON 31 .3.2008 AT RUDERPUR STOOD AT RS.10.43 CRORES. BASED ON THE ABOVE, IT IS CLEAR THAT EACH UNIT IS I NDEPENDENTLY FUNDING ITS ACTIVITIES, HENCE, THERE IS NO QUESTION OF ALLO CATION OF ANY INTEREST TO THE RUDERPUR UNIT. WE WOULD ALSO LIKE TO MENTION HERE THE CREDIT PERIO DS FOR VARIOUS PRODUCTS PURCHASED AND SOLD BY THE TWO UNITS- PRODUCT PURCHASE FROM LG OTHER PURCHASE SALE DVD PLAYER RUDRAPUR 90 DAYS 45-60 DAYS 15 DAYS PCB-NOIDA 30 DAYS 30-45 DAYS 15 DAYS SET TOP BOX - NOIDA N.A. 45-60 DAYS 90 - 110 DAYS AS CAN BE SEEN FROM-THE ABOVE THE BORROWING FOR WOR KING CAPITAL IS PURELY TO MEET THE NEEDS OF THE NOIDA UNIT AJ:1D MORE SPEC IFICALLY FOR SET TOP BOXES AS THE PAYMENT TERMS FOR IT REQUIRE EXTERNAL FUNDING. THIS IS CONFIRMED BY THE FACT THAT THE SUNDRY DEBTO RS/SALES RATIO FOR NOIDA IS 0.28 AND FOR RUDRAPUR IS 0.04 AS ON 31.3.2008. T HE NOIDA UNIT NEEDS FUNDING TO FILL UP THIS GAP. HENCE, INTEREST BOOKED AT NOIDA IS SPECIFICALLY FOR THAT UNIT. ON THE ISSUE OF OTHER EXPENSES THE ASSESSEE STATES AS FOLLOWS :- REGARDING THE OTHER MENTIONED EXPENSES, WE STATE TH AT THE TWO UNITS FUNCTION INDEPENDENT OF EACH OTHER AND ALL DIRECT/I NDIRECT EXPENSES PERTAINING TO EACH UNIT ARE BOOKED ACCORDINGLY. THERE IS NO SEPARATE HEAD OFFICE OR CORPORATE OFFIC E OF THE ASSESSEE WHERE EXPENSES NEED TO BE BIFURCATED BETWEEN UNITS. THE C OMPANY IS A PRIVATE LIMITED ENTITY WITH LIMITED -CORPORATE OVERHEADS, H ENCE, THERE IS NO NEED FOR BIFURCATION OF EXPENSES OTHER THAN MANAGING DIR ECTORS REMUNERATION, HIS TRAVEL EXPENSES AND STATUTORY AUDIT FEES, WHICH HAVE ALREADY BEEN ALLOCATED. ITA NO. 1886/DEL/2013 KORTEK ELECTRONICS (I NDIA) LTD. VS. ACIT 7 20X5 D) THAT THE PROFIT DECLARED IN THE GREATER NOIDA UNIT WAS 6.30% OF TURN OVER AND WHEREAS THE PROFIT DECLARED AT RUDRAPUR UNIT WH ICH IS EXEMPT WAS ONLY 1.80% OF TURNOVER AND HENCE THE ALLEGATION OF DIVERSION OF PROFITS IS FACTUALLY INCORRECT. E) THAT THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) THAT THE ASSES SEE HAS NOT FURNISHED THE REQUIRED DETAILS TO THE AO IS FACTUALLY INCORRE CT. ALL DETAILS AS ASKED FOR WERE FURNISHED BEFORE THE AO. F) THAT THE AO FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 HIS ORD ERS U/S 143(3) ON 30.11.2009 AND FOR THE ASSTT. YEAR 2009-10 VIDE ORD ER DATED 30.3.2013 U/S 143 (3) READ WITH SECTION 144C(1), ON SIMILAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES HAS NOT DISTURBED THE ALLOCATION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. THUS ON THE GROUND OF CONSISTENCY, THE ALLOCATION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE HA S TO BE ACCEPTED. G) ON A QUERY FROM THE BENCH, HE DREW OUR ATTENTION TO THE BALANCE SHEET OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WHICH IS IN THE PAPER BOOK SPECIFICALLY TO SCHEDULE 3 I.E SECURED LOANS AND SUBMITTED THAT THE TERM LOAN AND CASH CREDIT FACILITY ARE SECURED BY WAY OF HYPOTHECATION OF THE FIXED ASSETS AND THE CURRENT ASSETS, OF GREATER NOIDA UNIT ONLY. 10. LD. DR RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) A S WELL AS THE AO AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO GIVE ANY DETAILS AND HA S NOT PROPERLY ALLOCATED EXPENSES BETWEEN THE TWO UNITS RESULTING IN INFLATION OF PRO FITS OF RUDRAPUR UNIT AND DEFLATION OF PROFITS IN GREATER NOIDA. SHE PRAYED THAT THE O RDER OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY BE UPHELD. ITA NO. 1886/DEL/2013 KORTEK ELECTRONICS (I NDIA) LTD. VS. ACIT 8 20X5 11. AFTER HEARING RIVAL SUBMISSIONS WE FIND THAT TH E AO ON THE VERY SAME SET OF FACTS, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 VIDE ORDER D ATED 30.11.2009 PASSED U/S 143(3) AND FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 VIDE ORD ER DATED 30.3.2013 PASSED U/S 143(3) R.W.S 144 C(1) HAS ACCEPTED THE ALLOCATION M ADE BY THE ASSESSEE BETWEEN THESE TWO UNITS. THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE THE ALLOCATI ON ON IN QUESTION IN THIS YEAR ON THE SAME BASIS. THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT HAVE BEEN REJE CTED BY THE AO WITHOUT POINTING OUT ANY DEFECTS. BOOKS OF ACCOUNT CANNOT B E REJECTED FIRST BECAUSE THE AO IS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE DEFECTS OF EXPENSES MADE BY THE ASSESEE BETWEEN THE UNITS. HE HAS TO POINT OUT AS TO WHAT IS WRONG WITH THE BO OKS OF ACCOUNTS. SUCH REJECTION IS BAD IN LAW. MOREOVER IN THIS CASE THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE DETAILED SUBMISSIONS WITH FACTS AND FIGURES ON THE ISSUE OF ALLOCATION OF EXP ENSES BEING INSURANCE CHARGES, BANK CHARGES AND INTEREST. THESE FACTUAL SUBMISSION S HAVE NOT BEEN CONTROVERTED BY THE AO OR THE LD. CIT(A). THE AO AT PAGE 5 RECORDS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PROVIDED THE WORKING CAPITAL REQUIREMENT OF THE TWO UNITS. T HIS NOTE WAS REJECTED ONLY OF THE GROUND THAT THE MAJORITY OF THE PURCHASES OF RUDRAP UR UNIT ARE MADE THROUGH GREATER NOIDA UNIT. THIS IS A REJECTION BASED ON SU RMISE. WE FIND THAT THE PERCENTAGE OF PROFIT DECLARED BY GREATER NOIDA UNIT ARE MUCH H IGHER THAN THE PERCENTAGE OF PROFIT DECLARED BY RUDRAPUR UNIT. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO DEMONSTRATED THAT THE WORKING CAPITAL REQUIRED BY THE RUDRAPUR UNIT IS MU CH LESSOR THAT THE WORKING CAPITAL REQUIRED BY THE GREATER NOIDA UNIT. THE BANKS WHICH HAVE GRANTED LOANS, HAVE DONE SO FOR GREATER NOIDA UNIT ONLY. LD. DR COULD NOT C ONTROVERT THIS FACTUAL SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. UNDER THESE CI RCUMSTANCES, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE AO SHOULD HAVE BEEN CON SISTENT IN HIS STAND ON ALLOCATION OF EXPENDITURE IN ALL THE YEARS IN WHICH THE ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE HAVE ITA NO. 1886/DEL/2013 KORTEK ELECTRONICS (I NDIA) LTD. VS. ACIT 9 20X5 BEEN SCRUTINISED. THE AO SHOULD HAVE GIVE SPECIFIC REASONS AS TO WHY HE DOES NOT AGREE WITH THE CALCULATIONS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESS EE OR THE NOTE ON REQUIREMENT OF THE WORKING CAPITAL FOR BOTH THE UNITS BEFORE REJEC TING THE ALLOCATION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. IN THE ABSENCE OF SUCH REASONS WE UPHOLD THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) ON THIS I SSUE AND ALLOW THESE GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 12. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED IN PART. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 18/05/20 16. SD/- SD/- (H.S. SIDHU) (J. SUDHAKAR REDDY) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: THE 18/5/2016 VEENA COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSTT. REGISTRAR