DCIT, Coimbatore V. Lakshminarayanan Gaurishankar Enterprises P. Ltd., Coimbatore

ITA 1962/CHNY/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7867 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-02-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 27-01-2016
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 10-09-2015
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A B KOLI
• Assessee Lawyers: R VIJAYARAGHAVAN
• Keywords: Earning of tax free income; Question of law; Initiation of penalty proceedings
• Section: 143(3); 14A

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME - TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, CHENNAI , . , BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY , JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A.NO. 1 801 /MDS/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR :20 12 - 13 M/S. LAKSHMINARAYANAN GAU R ISHANKAR ENTERPRISES (P) LTD., 2201, BALAJI GARDENS, COIMBATORE 641 007. [PAN: A AAC L3739L ] VS. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CO MPANY CIRCLE I ( 3 ), CHEN NAI. ( / APPELLANT ) ( / RESPONDENT ) I.T.A.NO. 19 62 /MDS/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR :20 12 - 13 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COMPANY CIRCLE I(3), CHENNAI. VS. M/S. LAKSHMINARAYANAN GAU R ISHANKAR ENTERPRISES (P) LTD., 2201, BALAJI GARDENS, COIMBATORE 641 007. ( / APPELLANT ) ( / RESPONDENT ) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI R. VIJAYARAGHAVAN, ADVOCATE DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI A.B. KOLI , J CIT / DATE OF HEARING : 0 2 . 0 2 .201 6 / DATE OF P RONOUNCEMEN T : 24 . 0 2 .201 6 / O R D E R PER DUVVURU RL REDDY , JUDICIAL MEMBER : THESE CROSS APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE AND REVENUE; RESPECTIVELY, ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) I, COIMBATORE DATED 15.06.2015 RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012 - 13. THE I.T.A. NO S . 1 801 & 19 62 /M/ 15 2 ONLY ISSUE RAISED IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS WITH REGARD TO CONFIRMATION OF DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 [ ACT IN SHORT] R.W. RULE 8D. IN THE REVENUE S APPEAL, THE ONLY EF FECTIVE GROUND RAISED IS WITH REGARD TO DELETION OF DISALLOWANCE MADE UNDER SECTION 80IA OF THE ACT. 2. THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF YARN AND TEXTILE BROKERS AND POWER GENERATION ACTIVITY AND FILED ITS RETURN DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF .4,67,18,426/ - . THE RETURN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS PROCESSED UNDER SECTION 143(1) OF THE ACT AND SUBSEQUENTLY, NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF THE ACT WAS SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED ALL DETAILS REQUIRED BY THE A SSESSING OFFICER. AFTER CONSIDERING THE DETAILS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND ALSO CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE VARIOUS ADDITIONS AND COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT BY ASSESSING TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AT .6,09,62,960/ - UNDER NORMAL PROVISIONS. 3. THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, THE LD. CIT(A) PARTLY ALLOWED THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. 4. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL WITH REGARD TO THE CONFIRMATION OF DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14A R.W. RULE 8D. AND THE I.T.A. NO S . 1 801 & 19 62 /M/ 15 3 REVENUE HAS PREFERRED AN APPEAL WITH REGARD TO THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IA OF THE ACT. 5. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH SIDES, P ERUSED THE MATERIALS ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. WITH REGARD TO THE DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14A R.W. RULE 8D, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED DIVIDEND INCOME OF .1,23,240/ - AND CLAIMED IT AS EXEMPTED INCOME UNDER SECTION 10(34) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT ADMITTED ANY EXPENSES TO EARN THE ABOVE DIVIDEND. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, BY INVOKING SECTION 14A R.W. RULE 8D, MADE DISALLOWANCE OF .6,74,941/ - TO EARN TH E DIVIDEND INCOME OF .1,23,240/ - . THE LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. BEFORE US, T HE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS MORE THAN THE EXEMPT INCOME EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THEREFORE, SUBMITTED THAT THE DISALLOWANCE CANNOT BE MORE THAN THE EXEMPT INCOME IN VIEW OF THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF JOINT INVESTMENTS PVT. LTD. V. CIT 372 ITR 694 (DELHI) AND ALSO RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE COORDINATE BENCH OF TH E TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF RAYALLA CORPORATION (P) LTD. V. DCIT IN I.T.A. NO. 908/MDS/2015 DATED 16.10.2015 . WE FIND THAT O N SIMILAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL, BY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE HON BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN CASE OF JOINT INVESTMENTS PVT. I.T.A. NO S . 1 801 & 19 62 /M/ 15 4 LTD. V. CIT (SUPRA), DECIDED THE ISSUE BY REPRODUCING THE HEAD - NOTES IN THE ABOVE DECISION AND SAME READS AS UNDER: INCOME - EXPENDITURE INCURRED IN RELATION TO INCOME NOT INCLUDIBLE IN TOTAL INCOME - DISALLOWANCE - ASSESSEE WAS E NGAGED IN DIVERSE INVESTMENT ACTIVITIES AND IN THE COURSE OF ITS BUSINESS DERIVED INCOME FROM RENT, SALE OF INVESTMENTS, DIVIDEND AND INTEREST - FOR AY 2009 - 10, ASSESSEE HAD REPORTED A LOSS OF SPECIFIED AMOUNT - ASSESSEE DECLARED TAX EXEMPT INCOME IN THE FORM OF DIVIDEND TO THE TUNE OF RS.48,90,000 - ASSESSEE VOLUNTEERED RS.2,97,440 AS ATTRIBUTABLE U/S14A FOR THE PURPOSE OF DISALLOWANCE - AO ON THE BASIS OF HIS OWN UNDERSTANDING OF RULE 8D OF THE INCOME TAX RULES DISALLOWED THE SUM U/S 14A READ WITH RULE 8D - ASSESSE E CLAIMED THAT THE ENTIRE TAX EXEMPT INCOME OF RS.48,90,000 WAS LOWER THAN THE DISALLOWANCE - CIT(A) AND ITAT UPHELD AO'S ORDER - HELD, IN CASE OF CIT(A) V. TAIKISHA ENGINEERING INDIA LTD., IT WAS HELD BY PRESENT COURT THAT IN VIEW OF THE PECULIAR WORDING OF S ECTION 14A (2) THAT COMPUTATION OR DISALLOWANCE OF THE ASSESSEE, OR CLAIM THAT NO EXPENDITURE WAS INCURRED FOR EARNING EXEMPT INCOME SHOULD BE EXAMINED WITH REFERENCE TO THE ACCOUNTS AND ONLY IF THE ASSESSEE'S EXPLANATION WAS UNSATISFACTORY, CAN THE AO PRO CEED FURTHER - IN THE PRESENT CASE, FIRSTLY IT WAS NOT DISCLOSED BY THE AO THAT THE APPELLANT/ASSESSEE'S CLAIM FOR ATTRIBUTING RS.2,97,440 AS A DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A HAD TO BE REJECTED - SECONDLY, THERE APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN NO SCRUTINY OF THE ACCOUNTS BY THE AO AN ASPECT WHICH WAS COMPLETELY UNNOTICED BY THE CIT(A) AND THE ITAT - THIRDLY, AN IMPORTANT ANOMALY WHICH INSTANT COURT CANNOT BE UNMINDFUL OF WAS THAT WHEREAS THE ENTIRE TAX EXEMPT INCOME WAS RS.48,90,000, THE DISALLOWANCE ULTIMATELY DIRECTED WORKS OUT TO NEARLY 110 PERCENT OF THAT SUM, THAT IS RS.52,56,197 - BY NO STRETCH OF IMAGINATION CAN SECTION 14A OR RULE 8D BE INTERPRETED SO AS TO MEAN THAT THE ENTIRE TAX EXEMPT INCOME WAS TO BE DISALLOWED - THE WINDOW FOR DISALLOWANCE WAS INDICATED IN SECTION 14A, AND WAS ONLY TO THE EXTENT OF DISALLOWING EXPENDITURE 'INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE IN RELATION TO THE TAX EXEMPT INCOME' - THIS PROPORTION OR PORTION OF THE TAX EXEMPT INCOME SURELY CANNOT SWALLOW THE ENTIRE AMOUNT AS HAS HAPPENED IN THIS CASE - ITAT AS WELL AS THE A O AND CIT(A) HAD ESCAPED THE MANDATE OF SECTION 14A(2) - IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE ITAT WAS SET ASIDE - QUESTION OF LAW WAS ANSWERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE - ORDER OF THE AO WAS SET ASIDE - INITIATION OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS ALSO WAS SET ASIDE - MATTER WAS REMITTED T O THE AO FOR FRESH CONSIDERATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ABOVE DIRECTIONS ASSESSEE S APPEAL ALLOWED. 6. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAS EARNED DIVIDEND INCOME OF .1,23,240/ - . THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT ADMITTED ANY EXPENSES TO EARN THE ABOVE DIVIDEND INCOME. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED THE EXPENSES TO I.T.A. NO S . 1 801 & 19 62 /M/ 15 5 THE TUNE OF .6,74,941/ - BY INVOKING SECTION 14A R.W.R. 8D. BY TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT CASE AND KEEPING IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DECISION OF THE HON BLE D ELHI HIGH COURT, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN MAKING EXCESSIVE DISALLOWANCE. HENCE, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO RESTRICT THE DISALLOWANCE TO THE EXTENT OF EXEMPT INCOM E EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE AND ORDERED ACCORDINGLY. I.T.A. NO. 1962/MDS/2015 7. IN THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE, THE ONLY ISSUE RAISED IS WHETHER THE ASSESSEE IS ELIGIBLE FOR CLAIMING DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IA OF THE ACT O R NOT. THE ASSESSEE HAS CLA IMED 80IA DEDUCTION OF . 1,28,87,334/ - . THE ASSESSING OFFICER REJECTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT AGAINST THE DECISION OF THE HON BLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF VELAYUDHASAMY SPINNING MILLS P. LTD. V. ACIT 340 ITR 477, THE DEPARTME NT HAS FILED SLP AND THE DECISION IS PENDING BEFORE THE HON BLE SUPREME COURT. THE LD. CIT(A), BY FOLLOWING HIS OWN ORDER FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2010 - 11 & 2011 - 12 IN ASSESSEE S OWN CASE AND ALSO BY FOLLOWING THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF VELAYUDHASAMY SPIN NING MILLS P. LTD. V. ACIT (SUPRA), DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ALLOW THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 80IA OF THE ACT. WE FIND THAT THIS ISSUE HAS ALREADY BEEN DECIDED BY THE HON BLE J URISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF I.T.A. NO S . 1 801 & 19 62 /M/ 15 6 VELAYUDHASAMY SPIN NING MILLS P. LTD. V. ACIT (SUPRA). THE HON BLE HIGH COURT HAS HELD AS UNDER: - 13. SEC.80 - IA READS AS FOLLOWS: [(1) WHERE THE GROSS TOTAL INCOME OF AN ASSESSEE INCLUDES ANY PROFITS AND GAINS DERIVED BY AN UNDERTAKING OR AN ENTERPRISE FROM ANY BUSINESS R EFERRED TO IN SUB - SECTION (4) (SUCH BUSINESS BEING HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ELIGIBLE BUSINESS), THERE SHALL, IN ACCORDANCE WITH AND SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION, BE ALLOWED, IN COMPUTING THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE, A DEDUCTION OF A N AMOUNT EQUAL TO HUNDRED PER CENT OF THE PROFITS AND GAINS DERIVED FROM SUCH BUSINESS FOR TEN CONSECUTIVE ASSESSMENT YEARS.] (2) THE DEDUCTION SPECIFIED IN SUB - SECTION (1) MAY, AT THE OPTION OF THE ASSESSEE, BE CLAIMED BY HIM FOR ANY TEN CONSECUTIVE ASSE SSMENT YEARS OUT OF FIFTEEN YEARS BEGINNING FROM THE YEAR IN WHICH THE UNDERTAKING OR THE ENTERPRISE DEVELOPS AND BEGINS TO OPERATE ANY INFRASTRUCTURE FACILITY OR STARTS PROVIDING TELECOMMUNICATION SERVICE OR DEVELOPS AN INDUSTRIAL PARK [OR DEVELOPS A SPEC IAL ECONOMIC ZONE REFERRED TO IN CLAUSE (III) OF SUB - SECTION (4)] OR GENERATES POWER OR COMMENCES TRANSMISSION OR DISTRIBUTION OF POWER [OR UNDERTAKES SUBSTANTIAL RENOVATION AND MODERNISATION OF THE EXISTING TRANSMISSION OR DISTRIBUTION LINES ): (4) THIS SECTION APPLIES TO (I) ANY ENTERPRISE CARRYING ON THE BUSINESS [OF (I) DEVELOPING OR (II) OPERATING AND MAINTAINING OR (III) DEVELOPING, OPERATING AND MAINTAINING] ANY INFRASTRUCTURE FACILITY WHICH FULFILS ALL THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS, NAMELY : (A) IT IS OWNED BY A COMPANY REGISTERED IN INDIA OR BY A CONSORTIUM OF SUCH COMPANIES [OR BY AN AUTHORITY OR A BOARD OR A CORPORATION OR ANY OTHER BODY ESTABLISHED OR CONSTITUTED UNDER ANY CENTRAL OR STATE ACT;] (B) IT HAS ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH THE CENT RAL GOVERNMENT OR A STATE GOVERNMENT OR A LOCAL AUTHORITY OR ANY OTHER STATUTORY BODY FOR (I) DEVELOPING OR (II) OPERATING AND MAINTAINING OR (III) DEVELOPING, OPERATING AND MAINTAINING A NEW INFRASTRUCTURE FACILITY;] (C) IT HAS STARTED OR STARTS OPERATIN G AND MAINTAINING THE INFRASTRUCTURE FACILITY ON OR AFTER THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 1995: 5) NOTWITHSTANDING ANYTHING CONTAINED IN ANY OTHER PROVISION OF THIS ACT, THE PROFITS AND GAINS OF AN ELIGIBLE BUSINESS TO WHICH THE PROVISIONS OF SUB - I.T.A. NO S . 1 801 & 19 62 /M/ 15 7 SECTION (1) APPLY SHALL, FOR THE PURPOSES OF DETERMINING THE QUANTUM OF DEDUCTION UNDER THAT SUB - SECTION FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR IMMEDIATELY SUCCEEDING THE INITIAL ASSESSMENT YEAR OR ANY SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEAR, BE COMPUTED AS IF SUCH ELIGIBLE BUSINESS WERE THE ONLY SOUR CE OF INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO THE INITIAL ASSESSMENT YEAR AND TO EVERY SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEAR UP TO AND INCLUDING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR FOR WHICH THE DETERMINATION IS TO BE MADE. FROM READING OF SUB - S (1), IT IS CLEAR THAT IT PROVIDES THAT WHERE THE GROSS TOTAL INCOME OF AN ASSESSEE INCLUDES ANY PROFITS AND GAINS DERIVED BY AN UNDERTAKING FOR AN ENTERPRISE FROM ANY BUSINESS REFERRED TO IN SUB - S(4) I.E. REFERRED TO AS THE ELIGIBLE BUSINESS, THERE SHALL, IN ACCORDANCE WI TH AND SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE SECTION, BE ALLOWED, IN COMPUTING THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE, A DEDUCTION OF AN AMOUNT EQUAL TO 100 PERCENT OF THE PROFITS AND GAINS DERIVED FROM SUCH BUSINESS FOR TEN CONSECUTIVE ASSESSMENT YEARS. DEDUCTION I S GIVEN TO ELIGIBLE BUSINESS AND THE SAME IS DEFINED IN SUB - S (4). SUBS - S(2) PROVIDES OPTION TO THE ASSESSEE TO CHOOSE 10 CONSECUTIVE ASSESSMENT YEARS OUT OF 15 YEARS. OPTION HAS TO BE EXERCISED. IF IT IS NOT EXERCISED, THE ASSESSEE WILL NOT BE GETTING THE BENEFIT. FIFTEEN YEARS IS OUTER LIMIT AND THE SAME IS BEGINNING FROM THE YEAR IN WHICH THE UNDERTAKING OR THE ENTERPRISE DEVELOPS AND BEGINS TO OPERATE ANY INFRASTRUCTURE ACTIVITY ETC. SUB - S(5) DEALS WITH QUANTUM OF DEDUCTION FOR AN ELIGIBLE B USINESS. THE WORDS INITIAL ASSESSMENT YEAR ARE USED IN SUB - S(5) AND THE SAME IS NOT DEFINED UNDER THE PROVISIONS. IT IS TO NOTED THAT INITIAL ASSESSMENT YEAR EMPLOYED IN SUB - S(5) IS DIFFERENT FROM THE WORDS BEGINNING FROM THE YEAR REFERRED TO IN SUB - S(2) IMPORTANT FACTORS ARE TO BE NOTED IN SUB - S(5) AND THEY ARE AS UNDER: - (1) IT STARTS WITH NON OBSTANTE CLAUSE WHICH MEANS IT OVERRIDES ALL THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT AND OTHER PROVISIONS ARE TO BE IGNORED. (2) IT IS FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINING TH E QUANTUM OF DEDUCTION; (3) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR IMMEDIATELY SUCCEEDING THE INITIAL ASSESSMENT YEAR; (4) IT IS A DEEMING PROVISION; (5) FICTION CREATED THAT THE ELIGIBLE BUSINESS IS THE ONLY SOURCE OF INCOME; AND (6) DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT T O THE INITIAL ASSESSMENT YEAR AND EVERY SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEAR. FROM READING THE ABOVE, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE ELIGIBLE BUSINESS WERE THE ONLY SOURCE OF INCOME DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO INITIAL ASSESSMENT YEAR AND EVERY SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEARS. WHEN THE ASSESSEE EXERCISES THE OPTION, THE ONLY LOSSES OF THE YEARS BEGINNING FROM INITIAL ASSESSMENT YEAR ALONE ARE TO BE BROUGHT FORWARD AND NO LOSSES OF EARLIER YEARS WHICH WERE ALREADY SET OFF AGAINST THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. LOOKING FORW ARD TO A PERIOD OF TEN YEARS FROM THE INITIAL ASSESSMENT IS CONTEMPLATED. IT DOES NOT ALLOW THE REVENUE TO LOOK BACKWARD AND FIND OUT IF THERE IS ANY LOSS OF EARLIER YEARS AND BRING FORWARD NOTIONALLY EVEN THOUGH THE SAME WERE SET OFF AGAINST I.T.A. NO S . 1 801 & 19 62 /M/ 15 8 OTHER INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE SET OFF AGAINST THE CURRENT INCOME OF THE ELIGIBLE BUSINESS, ONCE THE SET OFF IS TAKEN PLACE IN EARLIER YEAR AGAINST THE OTHER INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE, THE REVENUE CANNOT REWORK THE SET OFF AMOUNT AND BRING IT NOTIONALLY. FICTION CR EATED IN SUB - SECTION DOES NOT CONTEMPLATE TO BRING SET OFF AMOUNT NOTIONALLY. FICTION IS CREATED ONLY FOR THE LIMITED PURPOSE AND THE SAME CANNOT BE EXTENDED BEYOND THE PURPOSE FOR WHICH IT IS CREATED. 8. BEFORE US, THE REVENUE COULD NOT FILE ANY HIGHE R COURT DECISION HAVING MODIFIED OR REVERSED THE ABOVE DECISION OF THE HON BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT. SINCE THE DECISION OF THE HON BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IS BINDING ON THE JURISDICTIONAL TRIBUNAL, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT T HE LD. CIT(A) HAS R IGHTLY FOLLOWED THE ABOVE JUDGEMENT AND WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A). ACCORDINGLY, T HE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 9 . IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES AND THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THE 24 TH FEBRUARY , 201 6 AT CHENNAI. SD/ - SD/ - ( CHANDRA POOJARI ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( DUVVURU RL REDDY ) JUDICIAL MEMBER CHENNAI, DATED, THE 24 . 0 2 .201 6 VM/ - / COPY TO: 1. / APPELLANT , 2. / RESPONDENT , 3. ( ) / CIT(A) , 4. / CIT , 5. / DR & 6. / GF.