ACIT, Trichy V. Smt. J.Selvarekha, Dindigul

ITA 20/CHNY/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5901 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 year(s) 9 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-10-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 29-06-2017
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 07-01-2011
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S RAJESH STANDING COUNCIL
• Assessee Lawyers: R VENKATESH
• Keywords: Gift; Income from undisclosed sources; Document seized; Principle of natural justice; Cost of acquisition; Documents seized
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

, .. , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , SMC D BENCH, CHENNAI . , ! BEFORE SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ I.T.A.NO.20/MDS/2011 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07) THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, TIRUCHIRAPPALLI. VS SMT. J. SELVAREKHA, W/O. SHRI R. JEYARAJ, NO.1/12A, MIDDLE STREET, ULUPPAKUDI POST, PUNNAPATTI, NATHAM TALUK, DINDIGUL DISTRICT PAN: BBRPS0565B ( /APPELLANT) ( /RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI S. RAJESH, STANDING COUNCIL /RESPONDENT BY : SHRI R. VENKATESH, FCA /DATE OF HEARING : 07.09.2017 ! /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 26.10.2017 / O R D E R THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEA LS), TIRUCHIRAPALLI DATED 22.10.2010 IN ITA NO.280/08-09 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 PASSED U/S.250(6) R.W.S.153 C & 143(3) OF THE ACT. 2. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED EIGHT GROUNDS IN ITS APP EAL HOWEVER THEY ARE BRIEFLY STATED HEREIN BELOW FOR AD JUDICATION:- 2 ITA NO.20/MDS/2011 (I) THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITIO N MADE BY THE LD.AO AMOUNTING TO RS.2 LAKHS TOWARDS TRADE ADV ANCE BY RELYING ON THE DOCUMENTS PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSE E WITHOUT ANY VERIFICATION. (II) THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDIT ION MADE BY THE LD.AO BEING THE AMOUNT RECOVERED AGAINST ADVANC E PAID FOR ACQUIRING AGRICULTURAL LAND AMOUNTING TO R S.9 LAKHS BY RELYING ON THE DOCUMENTS PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSE E WITHOUT ANY VERIFICATION. (III) THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDIT ION MADE BY THE LD.AO BEING THE GIFT RECEIVED FROM ASSESSEES H USBAND AMOUNTING TO RS.1.5 LAKHS BY RELYING ON THE CASH FL OW STATEMENT WITHOUT ANY OTHER EVIDENCE. (IV) THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITI ON MADE BY THE LD.AO BEING THE ADVANCE RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSE E FOR SALE OF LAND AMOUNTING TO RS.3 LAKHS . (V) THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITIO N MADE BY THE LD.AO BEING THE GIFTS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF GRAHAPRAVESAM AMOUNTING TO RS.1,49,201/-, W HICH IS NOT GENUINE. (VI) THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN GRANTING RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE TOWARDS CONSTRUCTION EXPENSES AMOUNTING TO RS.8,35, 000/- (VII) THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN GRANTING RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE AMOUNTING TO RS.1,45,000/- BEING INVESTMENT IN LORR Y. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSE E IS AN INDIVIDUAL ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF TRADING IN TA MARIND. 3 ITA NO.20/MDS/2011 CONSEQUENT TO SEARCH OPERATION U/S.132 OF THE ACT, IN THE CASE OF SHRI R. VISWANATHAN, EX-MINISTER, GOVT. OF TAMILNAD U, SEARCH WAS ALSO CONDUCTED IN THE HOUSE OF THE ASSESSEE U/S.132 OF THE ACT. THEREAFTER REPEATED NOTICE WERE SENT TO THE ASSESSE E FOR FILING HER RETURN OF INCOME FOLLOWED BY PENALTY NOTICES U/S.27 1(1)(B) OF THE ACT. FINALLY THE ASSESSEE FILED HER RETURN OF INCOM E FOR THE PERIOD 2001-02 TO 2007-08 INCLUDING FOR THE RELEVANT ASSES SMENT YEAR 2006-07, WHEREIN VARIOUS ADDITIONS WERE MADE. 4. GROUND NO. 2(I) : DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.2 LAK HS TOWARDS TRADE ADVANCE:- THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED THAT SHE HAD RECEIVED RS .2 LAKHS DURING THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR AGAINST T HE ADVANCES GIVEN TO THE SUPPLIERS DURING THE PERIOD 2004-05. SHE HAD ALSO PRODUCED THE SALE AGREEMENTS TO JUSTIFY HER CLAIM. HOWEVER, THE LD.AO OPINED THAT ASSESSEE COULD NOT ESTABLISH THE BONAFIDE OF HER CLAIM, HENCE HE MADE THE ADDITION OF RS.2 LAKHS IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. ON APPEAL, THE LD.CIT(A) GRANTED RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE HAD SUBMITTED THE SAL E AGREEMENTS BEFORE THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES AND THE L D.AO HAD NOT DISCHARGED HIS BURDEN OF DISPROVING THE SAME. AT THE OUTSET I FIND MERIT IN THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) BECAUSE WH EN THE ASSESSEE HAD PRODUCED CERTAIN DOCUMENTS BEFORE THE REVENUE IN ORDER TO ESTABLISH HER CLAIM, IT IS THE PRIMARY DUT Y OF THE REVENUE TO INVESTIGATE THE BONAFIDE OF THOSE DOCUMENTS AND THEREAFTER COME TO A LOGICAL CONCLUSION. IN THE CASE OF THE A SSESSEE, THE LD.AO HAD NOT DISCHARGED HIS BURDEN AS POINTED OUT BY THE 4 ITA NO.20/MDS/2011 LD.CIT(A). THEREFORE I UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE. 5. GROUND NO. 2(II) : DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.9 LA KHS TOWARDS RECOVERED ADVANCES:- THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED THAT SHE HAS GIVEN AGRIC ULTURAL ADVANCE DURING THE PERIOD 1994-95 AS DETAILED HEREI N BELOW:- 1. MR. ADAIKAN, S/O. POOSARI, ULUPPAKUDI POST, VELAYUTHAMPATTI, PANNAPATTI VILLAGE, NATHAM RS.4,00,000/- 2. SHRI V. MANIKANDAN, S/O. VEERAN POOSARI, ULUPPAKUDI POST, VELAYUTHAMPATTI, PANNAPATTI VILLAGE, NATHAM RS.6,00,000/- TOTAL RS.10,00,000/- THE ASSESSEE ALSO PRODUCED THE ABOVE MENTIONED PE RSONS BEFORE THE LD.A.O. BOTH MR. ADAIKAN & MR. MANIKANDA N AFFIRMED THE SUBMISSION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE AND IN THEIR SW ORN STATEMENT THEY DISCLOSED THEIR SOURCE OF INCOME FOR REPAYING THE ADVANCE AS FOLLOWS:- 1. MR. ADAIKAN SOURCE OF REPAYMENT, BEING SALE OF 50 COWS AND SALE OF 40 GOATS RS.4,00,000/- 2. MR. MANIKANDAN 5 ITA NO.20/MDS/2011 SOURCE OF REPAYMENT, BEING SALE OF 70 COWS AND 90 GOATS SALE OF LAND REPAYMENT OF HAND LOAN FROM HIS NEPHEW RS.2,00,000/- RS.2,00,000/- RS.2,00,000/- IN ORDER TO VERIFY THE VERACITY OF THE CLAIM OF TH E ASSESSEE, THE LD.AO DEPUTED INSPECTORS TO EXAMINE THE FINANCIAL S TATUS OF MR. ADAIKAN AND MR. MANIKANDAN. FROM THE INSPECTIO N REPORT, IT WAS REVEALED THAT BOTH MR. ADAIKAN AND MR. MAINKAND AN WERE LIVING IN A SMALL THATCHED HUT AND WERE NOT FINANCI ALLY SOUND TO OWN SUCH RESOURCES. THEREFORE, THE LD.AO MADE ADDI TION OF RS.9 LAKHS IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE BY REJECTING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE TO BE BOGUS. ON APPEAL, THE LD.CIT(A) HEL D THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BECAUSE THE LD.AO HAD NOT FU RNISHED THE OUTCOME OF THE ENQUIRY MADE BY THE INSPECTOR OF INC OME TAX DEPARTMENT TO THE APPELLANT AND THUS THE APPELLANT WAS DENIED THE OPPORTUNITY TO REBUT THE INFORMATION RELIED BY THE LD.AO WHICH IS AGAINST THE PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE. THE LD .CIT(A) FURTHER OBSERVED THAT BOTH MR. ADAIKAN AND MR. MANIKANDAN H AD CONFIRMED THE TRANSACTION AND THEREFORE THERE WAS M ERIT IN THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE. 5.2 AT THE OUTSET, I DO NOT AGREE WITH THE VIEW EXP RESSED BY THE LD.CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE. IT IS NOT COMMON FOR ANY P ERSON TO 6 ITA NO.20/MDS/2011 POSSESS SUCH HUGE CATTLE STOCK, MORE SO WHEN THE IN DIVIDUALS ARE NOT FINANCIALLY SOUND. THE REPORT OF THE INSPECTOR THAT MR. ADAIKAN AND MR. MANIKANDAN WERE LIVING IN THATCHED HUT WITH NO SOUND FINANCIAL RESOURCES CANNOT BE SIMPLY BRUSHED ASIDE. FROM THE FACTS OF THE CASE, IM OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSE E HAS NOT ESTABLISHED THE SOURCE OF RS.9 LAKHS WITH ANY CONVI NCING EVIDENCE. THEREFORE, I HEREBY SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE AND FURTHER UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE L D.AO. ACCORDINGLY THE ADDITION OF RS.9 LAKHS IS HEREBY SU STAINED. 6. GROUND NO. 2(III) : DELETING ADVANCE OF RS.1,50,000 /- BEING GIFT RECEIVED FROM ASSESSEES HUSBAND:- THE ASSESSEE HAD CONTENDED BEFORE THE LD.AO THAT SHE HAD RECEIVED RS.1,50,000/- FROM HER HUSBAND. HOWEVE R THE LD.AO HAD REJECTED THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE B ECAUSE THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE TO ESTABLISH THE SAME. HOWEVE R THE LD.CIT(A) ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE HAD JUSTIFIED THE SOURCE OF RS. 1,50,000/- FROM THE CASH FLOW STATEMENT OF HER HUSBAND SHRI R. JEYARAJ. ON THIS ISSUE, I FIND MERIT IN THE FINDING OF THE LD.CIT(A) BECAUSE IT IS QUITE NORMAL FOR ANY PERSON TO GIFT AN AMOUNT OF RS.1,50,000/- T O HIS / HER SPOUSE, WHEN THE PERSON IS RESOURCEFUL WHICH IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IS ESTABLISHED FROM THE CASH FLOW STATEMEN T. THEREFORE, I HEREBY UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE. 7. GROUND NO. 2(IV) : DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.3 LA KHS BEING ADVANCES RECEIVED FOR SALE OF LAND:- 7 ITA NO.20/MDS/2011 THE ASSESSEE HAD EXPLAINED THAT SHE HAS RECEIVED AN AMOUNT OF RS.2 LAKHS FROM ADVOCATE SHRI S.P. DHARMA RAJ, THE COUNSEL FOR THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT AND RS.1 LAKH FR OM SHRI V. SUBBIAH TOWARDS ADVANCES FOR SALE OF LAND WHICH WAS UTILIZED FOR CONSTRUCTION OF HER HOUSE. THE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO FI LED CONFIRMATION LETTER FROM BOTH SHRI S.P. DHARMARAJ A ND SHRI V. SUBBIAH. HOWEVER THE LD.AO REJECTED THE CLAIM OF T HE ASSESSEE BECAUSE THE CONFIRMATION LETTER DID NOT MENTION THE MODE OF PAYMENT AND IT APPEARED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEI VED THE ADVANCE IN CASH AND FURTHER THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE T O SUGGEST THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS SELLING HER LAND. ON APPEAL, THE LD.CIT(A) HELD THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY OBSERVI NG AS UNDER:- I HAVE CONSIDERED CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT IT IS FOUND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TREATED THE ADVANCES OF R S. 3 LAKHS FOR TWO REASONS (I) THE APPELLANT COULD NOT EXPLAIN THE LAND PROPOSED TO BE SOLD AND THE CONFIRMATION LETTER DO NOT INDICATE THE MODE OF RECEIPT. AS FOR THE FIRST REASON I FEE L THAT IT DO NOT HAVE ANY BEARING FOR DECIDING THE ISSUE. (II) THE I SSUE FOR DECISION IS WHETHER OR NOT THE APPELLANT RECEIVED T HE AMOUNTS FROM THE PERSONS CONCERNED, IT IS NOT DISPUTED THAT THE PERSONS WHO GAVE THE AMOUNTS HAVE OWNED UP THE PAYMENT THRO UGH THEIR CONFIRMATIONS. THEIR CAPACITY IS NOT IN DISP UTE. AS RIGHTLY CONTENDED BY THE APPELLANT VIDE HER LETTER DT. 11.12.2008 FILED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER INDIC ATES THE MODE OF RECEIPT. FURTHER THE DECISIONS RELIED ON B Y THE APPELLANT SUPPORT HER CASE. SO, I FIND THAT THERE IS NO GROUND FOR CONSIDERING THE ADVANCES OF RS.3 LAKHS AS UNEXP LAINED 8 ITA NO.20/MDS/2011 INVESTMENT IN HOUSE CONSTRUCTION. THEREFORE, THE A DDITION OF RS.3 LAKHS IS LIABLE DELETED AND ACCORDINGLY IT IS DELETED. 7.2 I DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF TH E LD.CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE BECAUSE BOTH MR. S.P. DHARMARAJ AND SHRI V. SUBBIAH HAD CONFIRMED THE TRANSACTION FOR EXTENDING THE ADV ANCE. FURTHER CONSIDERING THE PROFESSION AND SOCIAL STATUS OF THE INDIVIDUALS IT CAN BE SAFELY PRESUMED THAT THEY HAVE SUFFICIENT RE SOURCE TO JUSTIFY THE SOURCE FOR THE ADVANCE. HENCE, I HEREB Y SUSTAIN THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE. 8. GROUND NO. 2(V) : DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.1,49, 201/- BEING GIFT RECEIVED AT THE TIME OF GRAHAPRAVESAM:- THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED TO HAVE RECEIVED RS.1,49 ,201/- DURING HER HOUSE WARMING CEREMONY. THE LD.AO REJECT ED HER CLAIM BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT ACCOUNTED THE DE TAILS OF THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED ON THE HOUSE WARMING CEREMONY. ON APPEAL, THE LD.CIT(A) HELD THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSES SEE BECAUSE THERE WAS NO MATERIAL BEFORE THE LD.AO TO DISBELIEV E THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE. ON THIS ISSUE ALSO I RESTRAIN FROM INTERFERING WITH THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) BE CAUSE DURING THE OCCASION OF HOUSE WARMING CEREMONY, RECEIPT OF SUCH NOMINAL GIFTS IS COMMON PRACTICE CONSIDERING THE FINANCIAL STATUS OF THE ASSESSEE. HENCE, I HEREBY SUSTAIN THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE. 9 ITA NO.20/MDS/2011 9. GROUND NO. 2(VI) : GRANTING RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE FOR RS.8,35,000/- TOWARDS CONSTRUCTION COST:- DURING THE COURSE OF SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT, IT WAS OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DISCLOSED TO HAVE SPENT RS.30 ,15,500/- TOWARDS CONSTRUCTION OF HER RESIDENTIAL HOUSE DURIN G THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR AND AN AMOUNT OF RS.8,35,000/- IN T HE SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. HOWEVER IT WAS OPINED BY THE LD.AO THAT THE ASSESSEE WOULD HAVE SPENT THE EN TIRE AMOUNT OF RS.30,15,500/- AND RS.8,35,000/- DURING THE RELE VANT ASSESSMENT YEAR BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE HAD OCCUPIED T HE HOUSE DURING THE MONTH OF JANUARY 2006. SINCE THE VALUAT ION REPORT OF THE DEPARTMENT DATED 19.12.2006 ALSO REVEALED THE C OST OF CONSTRUCTION IS RS.39,71,700/-, THE LD.AO CONCLUDED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAVE SPENT THE AMOUNT OF RS.8,35,000/- FRO M HER UNACCOUNTED INCOME DURING THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT Y EAR. ON APPEAL, THE LD.CIT(A) OPINED THAT THE LD.AO HAD NO T SET OUT ANY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONCLUSION THAT THE CONS TRUCTION WAS COMPLETED DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. FURTH ER THE LD.CIT(A)S FINDING WAS THAT THE HOUSE WAS OCCUPIED BY THE ASSESSEE AFTER THE HOUSE WARMING CEREMONY, WHICH WA S PERFORMED ON 16.02.2006. FURTHER THERE WAS NO EVIDE NCE TO SUGGEST THAT THERE WAS NO CONSTRUCTION AFTER 31.03. 2006 AND THE HOUSE WAS CONSTRUCTED BEFORE 31.03.2006. FOR THE A BOVE STATED REASONS THE LD.CIT(A) CAME TO A CONCLUSION THAT THE LD.AOS DECISION WAS BASED ON PRESUMPTION. THEREFORE THE LD .CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION OF RS.8,35,000/- MADE TOWARDS CONSTRUCTION OF HOUSE. 10 ITA NO.20/MDS/2011 9.1 THE LD.DR ARGUED IN SUPPORT OF THE ORDER OF THE LD.AO. WHILE AS ON THE OTHER HAND THE LD.AR REITERATED THE SUBMISSION MADE BEFORE THE LD.REVENUE AUTHORITIES AND ARGUED B Y STATING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SPENT ONLY RS.30,15,500/- DUR ING THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR AND THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS.8,35,000/- WAS SPENT DURING THE SUBSEQUENT ASSES SMENT YEAR. HENCE IT WAS PLEADED THAT THE DECISION OF THE LD.CI T(A) MAY BE UPHELD. 9.2 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSION AND CAREFULL Y PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. ON EXAMINING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCE ON THE CASE, WE FIND MERIT IN THE ORDER OF THE LD.C IT(A). IT IS APPARENT THAT THE LD.AO HAD ARRIVED AT HIS DECISION BASED ON PRESUMPTIONS AND ASSUMPTION AND NOT BY ANY CONSTRUC TIVE EVIDENCE. THEREFORE WE DO NOT FIND IT NECESSARY TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE. 10. GROUND NO. 2(VII) : DELETING ADDITION OF RS.1,45,00 0/- TOWARDS INVESTMENT IN LORRY:- DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH IN THE RESIDENCE OF MR. R. JEYARAJ, HUSBAND OF THE ASSESSEE, IT WAS REV EALED FROM THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS WHICH IS ELABORATED IN THE ORDER O F THE LD.AO THAT THE PURCHASE COST OF LORRY WAS UNDERSTATED BY RS.3,70,000/-. SINCE THE ASSESSEE IN HER RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 HAD DISCLOSED THE PURCHASE OF LORRY AND ADMITTED INCOME FROM LORRY, THE LD.AO ADDED THE AMO UNT OF 11 ITA NO.20/MDS/2011 RS.3,70,000/- AS UNEXPLAINED INCOME IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. ON APPEAL, THE LD.CIT(A) EXAMINED THE MAT ERIALS ON RECORD AND THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS MAINTAINED BY BOTH THE ASSESSEE AND HER HUSBAND AND FROM THE OTHER RELEVAN T PARTICULARS PRESENTED BEFORE HIM CAME TO A CONCLUSION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT UNDERSTATED THE PURCHASE COST OF LORRY. SINCE THE LD.CIT(A) HAD MADE A CLEAR CUT FINDING ON THIS ISSUE BASED ON THE RECORDS AVAILABLE BEFORE HIM, I DO NOT FIND IT NECESSARY TO INTERFERE IN HIS ORDER ON THIS ISSUE. 10. TO CONCLUDE, THE ADDITION WITH RESPECT TO RECOV ERY OF ADVANCE AMOUNTING TO RS.9 LAKHS [GROUND NO.(II)] IS SUSTAINED AND ALL OTHER ADDITIONS ARE DELETED. 11. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS P ARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 26 TH OCTOBER, 2017 AT CHENNAI. SD/- ( . ) (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER '# /CHENNAI, $% /DATED 26 TH OCTOBER, 2017 RSR % '( )( /COPY TO: 1. /APPELLANT 2. /RESPONDENT 3. , ( )/CIT(A) 4. , /CIT 5. (-. / /DR 6. .0 /GF