Kody Medical Electronics P Ltd., CHENNAI V. ACIT, CHENNAI

ITA 1899/CHNY/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9646 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-04-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 26-08-2015
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: T V SREEKANTH IRS
• Assessee Lawyers: T N SEETHARAMAN
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Capital asset; Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice; Fair market value; Valuation report
• Section: 50C; 133(6); 6; 2

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, CHENNAI , . ! , '!# BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI G. PAVAN KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ I.T.A. NO.1899/MDS/2015 ' $ %$ / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07 KODY MEDICAL ELECTRONICS LTD NO.18, KAMARAJ NAGAR, ELEVENTH EAST STREET, THIRUVANMIYUR, CHENNAI 600 041. [PAN AAACK 1415E] VS. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COMPANY CIRCLE 2(4) CHENNAI ( / APPELLANT) ( /RESPONDENT) &' ( ) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI. T.N. SEETHARAMAN, ADVOCATE *+&' ( ) /RESPONDENT BY : SHRI.T.V. SREEKANTH, IRS, JCIT. ( , / DATE OF HEARING : 16-02-2016 -.% ( , / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 19-04-2016 / O R D E R PER G. PAVAN KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AG AINST ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-8, CHEN NAI IN ITA NO.09/2011-12, DT 30.07.2015 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEA R 2006-2007 ITA NO.1899/MDS/2015 :- 2 -: PASSED U/S.143(3) R.W.S.263 AND 250 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREIN AFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT). 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- 2. THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) ERRED IN FIXING THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY (LAND & FACTORY BUILDING) AT DR.VIKRAM SARABHAI INSTRONICS ESTATE, THIRUVANMIYUR SOLD ON 21.09.2005 AS RS.1 ,21 ,75,1111- AS AGAINST THE ACTUAL SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS.80,00,000/-. 3. THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) ERRED IN VIRTUALLY APPRO VING THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY ESTIMATED BY THE VALUATION OFFICER ON A RE FERENCE U/S 50C(2) OF THE ACT IN THE INCORRECT VIEW THAT SUCH VALUE IS BINDING ON THE 'ASSESSING AUTHORITIES' ONCE THE REFERENCE IS MADE U/S 50C OF THE ACT, WHIL E THE SCHEME OF THE ACT (IT ACT, 1961) READ WITH THE WEALTH TAX ACT, 1957 INCOR PORATED IN SECTION 50C(2) PROVIDES FOR OBJECTION IN AN APPEAL TO THE COMMISSI ONER (APPEALS) TO THE VALUATION OF ANY ASSET MADE BY THE VALUATION OFFICE R (U/S 16A OF THE WEALTH TAX ACT). 4. THE APPELLANT IS ADVISED TO SUBMIT THAT THE JUDGMEN T OF THE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN DR.LNDRA SWARUP BHATNAGAR [(2012) 349 ITR 210 (A LL)] AND AMBATTUR CLOTHING CO. LTD [(2010) 326 ITR 245 (MAD)] CITED 1 RELIED ON BY THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) HAVE NO RELEVANCE TO THE FACT SITUATION I N THE PRESENT CASE AND ARE DISTINGUISHABLE. 5. THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) ERRED IN NOT ACCEPTING T HE DETAILED OBJECTIONS RAISED TO THE LAND RATE ESTIMATED BY THE VALUATION OFFICER IN A MANNER CONTRARY TO THE SALE INSTANCES AS PER THE SUB-REGISTRAR'S OFFIC E RECORDS CITED BY THE VALUATION OFFICER HIMSELF IN HIS ORDER U/S 16A(5) O F THE WT ACT R.W.S 50C OF THE IT ACT DATED 29.04.11 AND FURTHER INCREASING THE LAND RATE IN AN ARBITRARY AND WHIMSICAL WAY. 6. THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) FAILED TO SEE THAT ACCOR DING TO LETTER NO.1 09/201 0 DATED 24.02.2011 FROM THE SUB-REGISTRAR, ADAYAR, CHENNAI TO THE VALUATION OFFICER THE GUIDELINE VALUE FOR LAND IN V IKRAM SARABHAI INSTRONICS ESTATE IN KOTTIVAKKAM VILLAGE BETWEEN 01.04.2003 TO 31.07.2007 WAS RS.516 PER SQ.FT ONLY WHILE THE RATE AT WHICH THE A PPELLANT SOLD THE LAND WAS MUCH MORE BEING RS.879 PER SQ.FT. 7. THE APPELLANT SUBMITS THAT IN THE COURSE OF THE APP EAL PROCEEDINGS THE APPELLANT HAD REQUESTED THE VALUATION OFFICER TO F ORWARD THE CD FOR THE PERIOD 01.01.2003 TO 31.12.2006 FURNISHED BY THE SU B-REGISTRAR, ADAYAR, CHENNAI TO THE VALUATION OFFICER VIDE SUB-REGISTRAR 'S LETTER DATED 24.02.2011 TO THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS); THE CD WA S NOT FORWARDED BY THE VALUATION OFFICER TO THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) NOR DID THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) DIRECT THE VALUATION OFFICER TO SUBMIT THE CD EXERCISING HIS POWERS ULS 133(6) OF THE ACT; MOREO VER THE REQUIREMENT OF SECTION 23A(6) OF THE WEALTH TAX ACT REGARDING V ALUATION OFFICER'S ATTENDANCE BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) IN THE APPEAL PROCEEDINGS ITA NO.1899/MDS/2015 :- 3 -: HAS NOT BEEN COMPLIED WITH THEREBY VIOLATING THE REQUIREMENT OF THE ACT AND THE PRINCIPLES OF N ATURAL JUSTICE. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE, THE ASSESSEE IS IN THE BUSINESS OF TRADING OF MEDICAL EQUIPMENTS AND FILED RETURN OF I NCOME ON 30.11.2006 ADMITTING TOTAL INCOME OF ?.31.89,950/- AND RETURN WAS PROCESSED U/S.143(1) OF THE ACT AND THE CASE WAS S ELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S.143(3) OF THE ACT VIDE ORDER DATED 18.12.2008 ACCEPTING LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS ADMITT ED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE REVISED COMPUTATION OF INCOME. THE LD. COMM ISSIONER OF INCOME TAX FOUND THE ORDER PASSED U/S.143(3) OF TH E ACT IS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE AS T HE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS WAS ADMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE BASED ON SALE CO NSIDERATION OF ?.80,00,000/-. THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX FOUND THAT THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS ON SALE OF LAND MEASURING 8 535 SQ.FT IN VIKRAM SARABAI INSTRONICS ESTATE, THIRUVANMIYUR BASED ON T HE ADOPTED RATE OF ?.879/- PER SQ.FT, WEREAS AS PER THE STAMP DUTY AND REGISTRATION CHARGES PAID ?.10,95,760/- BASED ON GUIDE LINE OF ? 1,21,75,111/-. THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CONSIDERED THE F ACTS AND PASSED REVISION ORDER U/S.263 OF THE ACT IN C.NO.218(46)/C IT-I/263/2010-11, DT. 16.03.2011 BY SET ASIDING THE ASSESSMENT U/SE C.143(3) DT. 18.12.2008 AND DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO R EFER FOR THE VALUATION OF CAPITAL ASSET AND TO MAKE FRESH ASSES SMENT IN ACCORDANCE ITA NO.1899/MDS/2015 :- 4 -: WITH PROVISIONS OF SEC. 50C OF THE ACT. THE LD. A SSESSING OFFICER AS PER THE DIRECTIONS OF LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME T AX REFERRED TO THE VALUATION OFFICER FOR ASCERTAINING THE VALUE. THE VALUATION OFFICER VIDE ORDER IN F.NO.VO II/MDS/CG(04)/2010-11, DATED 29.0 4.2011 ESTIMATED FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AT ?1, 22,13,000/- AS UNDER:- VALUE OF BUILDING : ?. 15,09,881/- VALUE OF LAND (835 * 1254): ?. 1,07,02,890/- ------------------------ ?. 1,22,13,000/- -------------------------------------------- ----------========== THE ASSESSEE FILED SUBMISSIONS AND OBJECTIONS FOR A DOPTING THE VALUE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER COMPLETED ASSESSMENT U/S.143 (3) R.W.S. 263 OF THE ACT BASED ON VALUE DETERMINED BY THE VALUATI ON OFFICER WERE THE VALUE OF LAND WAS ESTIMATED AT ?1,07,02,890/- BEING ?1,254/- PER SQ.FT ADJUSTED VALUE IN COMPARISON WIT H VALUE ?879/- SQ.FT OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER, T HE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). 4. IN THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE ARGUED THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL AND FI LED WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS. FURTHER GAVE CLARIFICATIONS ON THE AD OPTION OF STAMP DUTY VALUE SUPPORTED BY ELABORATE SUBMISSIONS BY L ETTERS DATED ITA NO.1899/MDS/2015 :- 5 -: 06.02.2014 AND 17.03.2015 ON DISPUTED ISSUE. THE LD . CIT(A) CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS IN DETAILS AND OBSERVED IN PARAS 4.1.3 TO 4.1.6 OF HIS ORDER AND DISMISSED THE APPEAL AS UN DER:- 4.1.3. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE APPELLANT'S SUBMISSIONS IN DETAIL. THE APPELLANT'S CONTENTION NOW IS THAT IT W AS NOT AWARE UNDER WHAT CIRCUMSTANCES THE BUYER HAD PAID ADDITIONAL STAMP DUTY OF 3,75,600/- AND THEREBY RENDERING THE CONSIDERATION FOR THE PURPOSES OF SEC TION 50C OF THE INCOME TAX ACT AT RS. 1,21,75,111/-. THE APPELLANT FILED AN APPLICATION BEFORE THE STAMP DUT Y AUTHORITIES UNDER RTI ACT ON 28-10-2013, EIGHT YEAR S AFTER THE TRANSACTION TOOK PLACE, AND THE AUTHORITI ES REPLIED THAT THE RECORDS ASKED FOR ARE NOT AVAILABL E AS THE APPLICATION WAS FILED BEYOND THE RETENTION PERI OD OF THE DOCUMENTS. NO PURPOSE IS SERVED BY SUMMONING TH E SUB-REGISTRAR OR OTHER OFFICIALS AT THIS JUNCTURE, AS REQUESTED BY THE APPELLANT, SINCE THE DOCUMENTS ON WHICH THE VALUATION OF PROPERTY WAS BASED ARE NO LONGER AVAILABLE WITH THE CONCERNED AUTHORITIES. 4.1.4. THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE ARE MORE OR LESS SIMILAR TO THOSE IN THE CASE OF AMBATTUR CL OTHING CO. LTD. (2010) 326 ITR 0245 (MAD), WHERE THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT HAD AN OCCASION TO DECIDE THIS ISSUE. IN THIS CASE THE SUB- REGISTRAR REFUSED TO R ELEASE THE DOCUMENTS EXCEPT ON PAYMENT OF HIGHER STAMP DUT Y ON ENHANCED VALUATION. SINCE THE BUYERS WANTED THE TITLE DOCUMENT TO BE RELEASED AT THE EARLIEST, THEY CHOSE TO PAY THE STAMP DUTY WITHOUT CONTESTING THE SAME A ND WITHOUT CONSULTING THE ASSESSEE. THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT, AS SELLER, IT DID NOT HAVE ANY LOCUS STANDI IN THE PROCEEDINGS AND HENCE THE ASSESSEE SHOULD NOT BE MADE TO SUFFER BY ENHANCING THE ASSESSMENT WAS REJECTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. I N ITS JUDGEMENT, THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS OBSERVE D AS UNDER: THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY IN RESPECT OF THE DEEMED VALUE OF THE TWO PROPERTIES WAS THAT' WHILE REGISTERING, THE SUB-REGISTRAR REFUSED TO RELEASE THE DOCUMENTS EXCEPT ON PAYMENT OF HIGHER STAMP DUTY ON ENHANCED VALUATION. SINCE THE BUYERS WANTED THE TITLE DOCUMENT TO BE RELEASED AT THE EARLIEST, THEY HAVE CHOSEN TO PAY THE STAMP DUTY WITHOUT CONTESTING THE SAME AND WITHOUT CONSULTING EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS REJECTED ON THE PREMISE THAT ITA NO.1899/MDS/2015 :- 6 -: S. SOC OF THE ACT MAKES IT OBLIGATORY ON THE PART OF THE AO TO TREAT THE VALUE ADOPTED BY THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY AS THE DEEMED SALE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED/ ACCRUED AS A RESULT OF TRANSFER. 4.1.5 . THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RIGHTLY BROUGHT THE ENHANCED VALUE OF CONSIDERATION TO TAX. MOREOVER, AS OBSERVED BY THE HON 'BLE ALLAHABAD HIG H COURT IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. DR. INDRA SWAROOP BHATNAGAR (2012) 349 ITR 0210 (ALL) T HE REPORT OF THE DVO IS BINDING ON THE ASSESSING AUTHORITIES ONCE A REFERENCE IS MADE U/S 50C OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. THIS IS A CASE WHERE APPELLANT REQUESTED FOR REFERENCE TO THE DVO IN THE COURSE OF PROCEEDING U/ S.263 OF THE LT. ACT. 4.1.6. HOWEVER, SUB-SECTION 3 OF SECTION 50C OF THE INCOME TAX ACT SAYS THAT IN CASE THE VALUE ASCERTAI NED BY THE DVO UNDER SUB-SECTION 2 EXCEEDS THE VALUE ADOPTED BY THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY, THE VALUE SO ADOPTED, WILL BE TAKEN AS THE FULL VALUE OF CONSIDE RATION RECEIVED OR ACCRUING AS A RESULT OF THE TRANSFER. THEREFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO ADOPT THE FIGU RE OF RS.1,21,75,111/- IN PLACE OF THE VALUE OF 1,22,13,000/- ESTIMATED AS THE CON SIDERATION ACCRUING AND RECALCULATE THE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT. THE APPELLANT'S PLEA O N THIS GROUND IS DISMISSED AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER, THE ASSESSEE ASSAILED AN AP PEAL BEFORE TRIBUNAL. 5. BEFORE US, THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE REITERATED TH E SUBMISSIONS OF ASSESSMENT, APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS AN D VALUATION CELL. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN FIXING THE VALUE OF THE PRO PERTY AT ?.1,21,75,111/- AS AGAINST ORIGINAL CONSIDERATION O F ?.80,00,000/-. THE LD. CIT(A)RELIED ON THE ESTIMATION OF THE VALUATION OFFICER AS PER SECTION 50C(2) OF THE ACT AND REFERENCE OF WEALTH TAX ACT 1957 AND ITA NO.1899/MDS/2015 :- 7 -: OVERLOOKED THE OBJECTIONS IN VALUATION OF THE ASSET AND ACCEPTED LAND RATE ESTIMATED BY THE VALUATION OFFICER CONTRARY T O THE SALE VALUE AS PER SUB-REGISTRAR OFFICE RECORDS. FURTHER THERE IS GROSS VIOLATION OF NATURAL JUSTICE IN APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS AS THE ASS ESSEE REQUESTED VALUATION OFFICER TO FORWARD THE CD FURNISHED BY TH E SUB-REGISTRAR OFFICE BUT LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) PASSED ORDER WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE DATA IN THE CD AND CONFIRM ED THE VALUE ADOPTED U/SEC. 50C OF THE ACT. THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE VALUATION RATE ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSEE BEING ?.879/- PER SQ.FT FOR THE LAND, WEREAS LD. AS SESSING OFFICER BASED ON THE VALUATION REPORT ADOPTED THE LAND VALUE ?.1 ,254/- PER SQ.FT AND ASSESSED THE INCOME. THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOM E TAX HAS IGNORED THE GROUNDS AND INFORMATION OF THE REGISTRA TION DEPARTMENT IN LETTER DATED 24.02.2011, WERE THE GUIDELINE VALUE F IXED FOR VIKRAN SARABAI INSTITUTE ESTATE IN KOTTIVAKKAM VILLAGE, TH IRUVANMIYUR FOR THE PERIOD 1.04.2003 TO 31.07.2007 IS ?.516/- PER SQ.FT AND THE VALUE ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSEE ?879/- PER SQ.FT IS HIGHER IN COMPARISON WITH THE REGISTRATION VALUE APPLICABLE TO THE CURRENT A SSESSMENT YEAR AND PLEADED TO ALLOW THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 6. CONTRA, THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND VEHEMENTLY OPPO SED THE GROUNDS. ITA NO.1899/MDS/2015 :- 8 -: 7. WE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSED THE MATERIA L ON RECORD AND JUDICIAL DECISION CITED. THE ONLY ISSUE IN DISPUTE BEING ADOPTION OF LAND RATE FOR THE PURPOSE OF VALUATION U/S.50C OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE HAS SOLD THE PROPERTY AND OFFERED LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS OF ?.41,52,340/- FOR 8535 SQ.FT AREA SITUATED IN V IKRAM SARABAI INSTRONICS ESTATE, THIRUMANMIYUR BY ADOPTING ?.879 /- PER SQ.FT AS SALE CONSIDERATION. BUT ON PERUSAL OF THE SALE DEED, TH E REGISTRATION CHARGES ARE PAID ?.10,95,760/- BEING 9% OF MARKET V ALUE ADOPTED BY THE SUB-REGISTRAR PAID BY THE PURCHASER. SUBSEQUE NT TO THE REVISION PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSING OFFICER REFERRED THE MATT ER TO THE VALUATION CELL AND ADOPTED ?.1,22,13,000/- AS VALUE OF THE PR OPERTY INCLUDING LAND RATE OF ?.1,254/- PER SQ.FT AND COMPLETED ASSE SSMENT APPLYING THE PROVISIONS U/S.50C OF THE ACT. THE FACTS BEING THE MATTER WAS REFERRED TO THE VALUATION CELL AND LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOM E TAX DEPENDED ON THE VALUE ADOPTED BY THE SUB-REGISTRAR OFFICE AND D IRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ADOPT THE VALUE AS PER PROVIS IONS OF STAMP VALUATIONS. IN THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSE SSEE HAS REQUESTED THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) TO CAL L FOR THE CD OF SRO FOR VALUATION. THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTAT IVE DREW OUR ATTENTION TO THE LETTER DATED 08.02.2014 FILED WITH THE COMMISSIONER OF ITA NO.1899/MDS/2015 :- 9 -: INCOME TAX (APPEALS) REQUESTING TO CALL FOR THE CD FOR ADJUDICATING THE APPEAL. FURTHER TO CONSIDER VALUATION CELL LET TER DT. 10.03.2005 AND LETTER OF REGISTRATION DEPARTMENT, SUB-REGISTRAR, ADAYAR DT 24.02.2011 REFERRING GUIDELINE VALUE ADOPTED IN RES PECT OF VIKRAM SARABAI INSTRONICS ESTATE, THIRUMANMIYUR ALONGWITH CD. THE GUIDELINE VALUE ADOPTED BY SRO FOR THE PERIOD FROM 01.04.200 3 TO 31.07.2007 BEING ?.516/- PER SQ.FT AND PRESENT ASSESSMENT YEA R FALLS WITHIN THE ABOVE PERIOD AND THERE IS AN INCREASE IN GUIDELINE FROM 01.08.2007 BEING ?.2,400/- PER SQ.FT. THE LD. COUNSEL SUBSTANT IATED THE ARGUMENTS WITH THE LETTERS ADDRESSED TO THE VALUATI ON CELL, SUB- REGISTRAR, AND OBJECTIONS FILED WITH THE VALUATION OFFICER. THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX HAS NOT PROVIDED OPPORT UNITY TO THE ASSESSEE INSPITE OF WRITTEN REQUEST FURNISHED IN TH E APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. SO, CONSIDERING THE APPARENT FACTS C IRCUMSTANCES AND VALUATION RATES ADOPTED BY SUB-REGISTRAR AND THE AS SESSEE, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT ASSESSEE SHOULD BE PROVIDED WITH ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY BASED ON THE GUIDELINE VALUE, VALUATION REPORT AND VALUATION UNDER WEALTH TAX ACT AND TO CONSIDER T HE CONTENTS OF CD AS REQUESTED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ADJUDICATING THE AP PEAL. THEREFORE, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TA X (APPEALS) AND REMIT THE ENTIRE DISPUTED ISSUE TO THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ITA NO.1899/MDS/2015 :- 10 -: (APPEALS) TO PASS THE ORDER AFRESH BASED ON THE AB OVE FINDINGS AND PROVIDE ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTL Y ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON TUESDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF A PRIL, 2016, AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( ) (CHANDRA POOJARI) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( . ! ) (G. PAVAN KUMAR) /JUDICIAL MEMBER / CHENNAI 0 / DATED:19.04.2016 KV 1 ( *',23 43%, / COPY TO: 1 . &' / APPELLANT 3. 5, () / CIT(A) 5. 389 *',' / DR 2. *+&' / RESPONDENT 4. 5, / CIT 6. 9:$ ; / GF