M/s. AVM Film Studios, CHENNAI V. ITO, CHENNAI

ITA 2000/CHNY/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 90621 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 8 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-07-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 12-05-2015
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 05-11-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DR NISCHAL
• Assessee Lawyers: V S JAYAKUMAR
• Keywords: Cost of acquisition
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , B B ENCH, CHENNAI . , ' $ , % ' BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ I.T.A.NO . 2000/MDS/2012 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09) M/S. AVM FILM STUDIOS 38, ARCOT ROAD, VADAPALANI CHENNAI-600 026. VS INCOME TAX OFFICER, MEDIA WARD-1, CHENNAI-600 034. PAN:AALFA3945K ( /APPELLANT) ( /RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : MR. V.S.JAYAKUMAR, ADVOCATE. /RESPONDENT BY : DR.NISCHAL, JCIT /DATE OF HEARING : 12 TH MAY, 2015 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 8 TH JULY, 2015 / O R D E R PER CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JM: THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE OR DER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-VI, CHENNA I DATED 25.07.2012 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. 2. THE ASSESSEE RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF AP PEAL:- IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE CIT(A) ON MERITS SHOULD HAVE ACCEPTED THE APPELLANTS CONTENTION THAT THE RECEIPT OF MONEY TREATED ON ACCRUAL BASIS, BASED ALSO ON THE NORMAL PRACTICE, IN THE RETURN OF INCOME DOES NOT CALL FOR ANY INTERFERENCE ESPECIALLY IN VIEW OF THE PECULIAR LANGUAGE EMPLOYED IN THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 2 ITA NO.2000/MDS/2012 THE CASE LAW CITED BY THE CIT(A) IS OPPOSITE TO THE FACTS OF THE APPELLANTS CASE. 3. THE ASSESSEE ALSO RAISED ADDITIONAL GROUNDS AS U NDER:- 1. THE LOWER AUTHORITIES ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE COST OF ACQUISITION OF THE FILMS RIGHTS IN QUESTION WAS NIL . 2. THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVING NOTICED THAT THE F ILM RIGHTS WERE OWNED BY ERSTWHILE HINDU UNDIVIDED FAMI LY MEMBERS AND WHICH FILMS HAVE BEEN ASSIGNED TO AVM FILM STUDIOS ON THE DISSOLUTION OF THE EARLIER FIRM , OUGHT TO HAVE ADOPTED THE VALUE AS ON DATE OF DISSOLUTION AS THE COST OF ACQUISITION AS HELD BY VARIOUS COURTS R EFER KALOOMAL GOVINDRAM VS. CIT 57 ITR 335(SC) AND VARIOUS OTHER CASE LAWS IN SUPPORT OF THE SAME. 4. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, ADDITIONAL GROUNDS WERE NOT PRESSED BY THE COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMI SSED AS NOT PRESSED. 5. THE ONLY ISSUE IN THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT WHETHER THE AMOUNTS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE LEASE RIGHTS OF DISTRIBUTION, EXECUTION OF PICTURES, ASSI GNMENT OF VIDEO, COPY RIGHTS OF HOME VIDEO OF VARIOUS FILMS A RE LIABLE FOR TAX IN THE YEAR OF ENTERING INTO AGREEMENT OR WHETH ER SUCH 3 ITA NO.2000/MDS/2012 AMOUNTS CAN BE SPREAD OVER DURING THE LEASE PERIOD AS WAS DONE BY THE ASSESSEE. 6. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT ASSESSEE WHICH IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF PRODUCTION OF FEATURE FI LMS, SERIALS, RUNNING AND MAINTAINING FILM STUDIOS FILE D ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 ON 30.09.200 8 DECLARING INCOME OF ` 8,72,117/-. THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT ON 31.12. 2010 DETERMINING INCOME AT ` 2,74,00,650/-. WHILE COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ASSESSED ` 2,65,28,535/- TO TAX BEING THE AMOUNTS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE ON TRANSFER OF LEASE RIGHTS AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THIS ASSESSMENT YEAR. THE ASSESSEE HAS SPREAD OVER THE LEASE INCOME DURING THE LEASE PERIOD THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED THE ENTIRE AMOUNT DURING THE ASSESSMENT YE AR 2008- 09. THE ASSESSING OFFICER REJECTED THE CONTENTION O F THE ASSESSEE THAT THE AMOUNTS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 SHOULD BE SPREAD OVER D URING THE LEASE PERIOD FOR THE REASON THAT THERE IS NO SP ECIFIC CONDITION AS TO FORFEITURE OF AGREEMENT OR REFUND OF LEASE 4 ITA NO.2000/MDS/2012 AMOUNT BY THE ASSESSEE IN FUTURE. ONCE THE RIGHTS A RE SOLD FOR EXPLOITATION, IT IS NOT TERMINATED UNLESS THERE IS ANY DISPUTE. NO SUCH CLAUSE IN THE AGREEMENT EXISTS. TH ERE IS NO CLAUSE IN AGREEMENT FOR RETAINING THE AMOUNT IN THE LIABILITY OF THE BALANCE SHEET. THE AMOUNT ONCE RECEIVED WILL NO T BE RETURNED TO THE ASSIGNEE. THERE IS NO COST OF ACQU ISITION OF RIGHTS DEBITED TO PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT AS THESE ARE OLD MOVIES AND COST HAS BEEN WRITTEN OFF LONG BACK. THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER TO THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPE ALS) SUSTAINED THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN BR INGING TO TAX THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF ` 2,65,28,535/- DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE PREFER RED THIS APPEAL. 7. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT WHAT WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS ONLY AN ADVANCE FOR AS SIGNING THE RIGHTS FOR DISTRIBUTION AND EXECUTION OF FILMS ASSIGNMENT OF VIDEO, COPY RIGHTS HOME VIDEO COPY RIGHTS ETC. AND LEASE AGREEMENTS WERE ENTERED INTO FOR VARIOUS LEASE PER IODS. SOME OF THE AGREEMENTS ARE ENTERED INTO FOR A PERI OD OF 5 5 ITA NO.2000/MDS/2012 YEARS AND SOME FOR 10 YEARS AND 20 YEARS ETC. THER EFORE, THE ASSESSEE HAS SPREAD OVER THE INCOME DURING THE LEASE PERIOD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN FOLLOWING MERCANTILE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING, THE ADVANCE RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE CA NNOT BE CONSIDERED AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 AND IT HAS TO BE SPREAD OVER. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUB MITS THAT THE REASON FOR OFFERING INCOME PROPORTIONATELY BY T HE ASSESSEE IS ON ACCOUNT OF MERCANTILE SYSTEM OF ACCO UNTING FOLLOWED WHEREIN THE AMOUNT RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSE E TOWARDS ASSIGNMENT OF RIGHTS FOR A PARTICULAR PERIO DS IS AMOUNT OF INCOME THAT PARTICULAR FILM WOULD FETCH OVER THAT PERIOD AND THEREFORE THE ENTIRE RECEIPTS CANNOT BE OFFERED IN ONE YEAR MERELY BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED T HE ENTIRE AMOUNT DURING THIS ASSESSMENT YEAR. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REFERRING TO PAGE 1 OF THE PAPER BOOK, WHI CH IS AGREEMENT FOR LEASE RIGHTS OF DISTRIBUTION, EXECUTI ON OF PICTURE MURATTU KALAI, PARTICULARLY CLAUSE 6 OF THE AGRE EMENT, SUBMITS THAT ON EXPIRY OF LEASE PERIOD, THE LESSEE SHALL RETURN ALL THE PRINTS OF THE SAID PICTURE SUPPLIED UNDER T HIS AGREEMENT. IF THERE IS ANY DELAY IN RETURNING THE P RINTS 6 ITA NO.2000/MDS/2012 DETENTION CHARGES OF ` 500/- PER EACH DAY SHALL BE PAID AS DEFAULT CHARGES. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT ASSESSEE IS NOT SELLING PRINTS BUT ONLY GIVING ON L EASE DISTRIBUTION RIGHTS OF FILMS. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSES SEE PLACING RELIANCE ON THE ORDER OF MUMBAI BENCH OF THIS TRIB UNAL IN THE CASE OF B.R. FILMS VS. ACIT IN ITA NO.3632/MUM/2012 DATED 14.01.2015 AND SUBMITS THAT THE ADVANCES RECE IVED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE NOT ALLOWABLE FOR TAX IN THE VERY FIRST YEARS BUT HAVE TO BE SPREAD OVER DURING THE LEASE PERIOD. HE ALSO PLACES RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF JURISDICTIONAL H IGH COURT IN THE CASE OF MODERN THEATRES LTD. VS.CIT ( 55 ITR 68 3). 8. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTS THE ORDERS OF LOWER AUTHORITIES. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENT ATIVE PARTICULARLY PLACES RELIANCE ON THE CO-ORDINATE BEN CH DECISION IN THE CASE OF DCIT VS. G.KRISHNAMMAL (66 ITD 83) A ND SUBMITS THAT ON IDENTICAL FACTS, THE TRIBUNAL HELD THAT AMOUNT RECEIVED FOR GRANT OF RIGHTS OF EXPLOITATION, DISTR IBUTION AND EXECUTION OF FILMS IS ASSESSEES INCOME WHICH ACC RUED DURING THAT PARTICULAR ASSESSMENT YEAR ITSELF AND I T CANNOT BE SPREAD OVER DURING THE LEASE PERIOD. 7 ITA NO.2000/MDS/2012 9. HEARD BOTH SIDES. PERUSED ORDERS OF LOWER AUTHOR ITIES AND THE DECISIONS RELIED ON. THE ASSESSING OFFICER BROUGHT TO TAX THE ENTIRE AMOUNT RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE BEIN G LEASE AMOUNTS RECEIVED FOR GRANT OF RIGHTS OF EXPLOITATIO N, DISTRIBUTION AND EXECUTION OF FILMS, VIDEO COPY RIG HTS AND HOME VIDEO COPY RIGHTS ETC. DURING THIS ASSESSMENT YEAR HOLDING THAT THESE AMOUNTS ACCRUED TO THE ASSESSEE DURING THIS ASSESSMENT YEAR ONLY AND IT CANNOT BE SPREAD OVER DURING THE LEASE PERIOD. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) SUSTAINED THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFF ICER HOLDING THAT RECEIPT PARTAKES THE CHARACTER OF ACCR UED AND RECEIVED DURING THE YEAR AND THEREFORE LIABLE TO BE TAXED IN THE YEAR OF RECEIPT. WHILE COMING TO SUCH CONCLUSIO N, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HELD AS UNDER: - 8. I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIO N OF THE AR. THE LOGIC: ADDUCED BY THE AR THAT THE TAX RATE FOR THE RELEVANT YEAR AND THE FUTURE YEARS IS THE SAME AND HENCE SPREAD OVER OF RECEIPT OF RS.2,65,28,535/- IS IN MY OPINION NOT A VALID ARGUMENT FOR THE REASON THAT IF A RECEIPT FALLS WITHIN THE AMBIT OF INCOME THE SAME I S REQUIRED TO BE TAXED IN THE YEAR OF RECEIPT. THE HO N'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS G.R. KARTHIKEYAN (201 ITR 866) HAS HELD THAT EVEN IF RECEIPT DOES NOT FALL WITHIN THE AMBIT OF ANY OF THE SUB-CLAUSES IN SECTI ON 2(24) IT MAY STILL BE INCOME IF IT PARTAKES THE NA TURE OF THE INCOME. FURTHER, HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF EMIL WEBBER VS CIT (200 ITR 433) HELD THAT ANYTHING WHICH CAN BE PROPERLY DESCRIBED AS INCOME IS TAXABLE UNDER THE ACT UNLESS IT IS EXEMPTED UNDER ONE OR 8 ITA NO.2000/MDS/2012 OTHER PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. THE SUM RECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT IS NEITHER ADVANCE NOR DEPOSIT BUT ONLY A CONSIDERATION FOR TRANSFER OF MOVIE RIGHTS WHICH HA S ACCRUED AND RECEIVED DURING THE RELEVANT FINANCIAL YEAR. THEREFORE THE RECEIPT PARTAKE THE CHARACTER OF INCOME ACCRUED AND RECEIVED DURING THE YEAR AND HENCE LIABLE TO BE TAXED IN THE YEAR OF RECEIPT. TH E NOMENCLATURE USED BY THE APPELLANT THAT THE RECEIPT IS 'PRE-RECEIVED' IS NOT BACKED BY ANY MATERIAL EVIDEN CE AS THE APPELLANT HAS SOLD THE ENTIRE MOVIE RIGHT BELON GING TO THE UNDIVIDED FAMILY MEMBERS WHICH HAS BEEN ASSIGNED TO THE APPELLANT AND DISSOLUTION OF THE EA RLIER FIRM. THE ARGUMENT OF THE AR THAT THE APPELLANT IS FOLLOWING MERCANTILE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING AND HENCE THERE IS JUSTIFICATION FOR SPREAD OVER OF INCOME TO FUTURE YEARS IS DEVOID OF MERIT AS THE APPELLANT HAS PERFO RMED HIS PART OF THE CONTRACT OF SALE AND CONSIDERATION IS ALSO RECEIVED IN FULL AND HENCE THERE IS NO CASE FOR SPR EADING OF INCOME TO FUTURE YEARS. THE RELIANCE PLACED BY T HE APPELLANT ON VARIOUS JUDGEMENTS IS ALSO MISPLACED SINCE THE APPELLANT ON SALE OF MOVIE RIGHTS HAS FUL LY RENDERED SERVICES AND HENCE ACCOUNTING OF INCOME PROPORTIONATELY IS NOT JUSTIFIABLE. THEREFORE I HOL D THAT THE AO IS CORRECT IN BRINGING TO TAX AN AMOUNT OF ` 2,65,28,535/- AS INCOME AND I CONFIRM THE ADDITION. THEREFORE, GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE DISMISSED. 10. IN ONE OF THE AGREEMENTS ENTERED INTO BY THE AS SESSEE FOR ASSIGNING COPY RIGHTS OF VARIOUS FILMS WITH MOZ ER BEAR INDIA LTD. ON 8.9.2007 THE CLAUSE WITH RESPECT TO GRANT AND PERIOD OF ASSIGNMENT READS AS UNDER:- A) THE ASSIGNORS (COPYRIGHT HOLDER) HEREBY ASSIGNS, TRANSFERS AND SELLS TO THE ASSIGNEE THE VIDEO COPYRIGHTS AND HOME VIDEO COPYRIGHTS OF 73 TAMIL FILMS AS MENTIONED IN SCHEDULE 1 ABSOLUTELY, IRREVOCABLY AND FREE FROM ANY ENCUMBRANCES / OBSTRUCTION FROM ANY PERSON/S, PARTY/S, COMPANY/S OR ORGANIZATION WHATSOEVER, FOR THE TERRITORY OF INDIA FOR A PERPETUAL AND PERMANENT PERIOD. 9 ITA NO.2000/MDS/2012 B) THE ASSIGNEE SHALL BE ENTITLED TO RE-ASSIGN LICENSE AND/OR EXERCISE IN ANY OTHER MANNER, EITHER BY ITSELF OR THROUGH ANY THIRD PARTY OF ITS CHOICE, THE RIGHTS ASSIGNED HEREUNDER, WITHOUT ANY FURTHER REFERENCE TO THE ASSIGNOR (COPYRIGHT HOLDER). 11. ON ENTERING INTO THIS AGREEMENT, ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED ` 2,00,00,000/- DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. AS COULD BE SEEN FROM THE ABOVE CLAU SE, IT IS NOT FROM THE LEASE OF COPY RIGHTS BUT CLAUSE VERY SPECIFICALLY REFERS TO ASSIGNMENT, TRANSFER AND SALE OF HOME VI DEO COPY RIGHTS OF 73 TAMIL FILMS AS MENTIONED IN THE SCHEDU LE ABSOLUTELY AND IRREVOCABLY FOR THE TERRITORY OF IN DIA FOR PERPETUAL AND PERMANENT PERIOD. WE ALSO FIND THAT C O- ORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL HAS CONSIDERED A SI MILAR SITUATION IN THE CASE OF SMT. G.KRISHNAMMAL VS. DCI T (SUPRA) WHEREIN IT WAS HELD AS UNDER:- THE ENTIRE AMOUNT RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS NEITHER REFUNDABLE BY THE ASSESSEE NOR COULD BE CLA IMED BY THE LESSEES FROM THE ASSESSEE UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES. AS PER AGREEMENT, IN THE EVENT OF TH E LESSEES VIOLATING ANY PART OF THE AGREEMENT BY DISTRIBUTING OR EXPLOITING THE RIGHTS OF THE FILM OUTSIDE THE TERRITORIES FOR WHICH THE RIGHTS WERE G RANTED, THE LESSORS WOULD BE AT LIBERTY TO CANCEL THE AGREE MENT AND REPOSSESS THE PRINTS AND FORFEIT ALL AMOUNTS PA ID BY THE LESSES AND TO CLAIM FURTHER DAMAGES AS THE CASE MAY 10 ITA NO.2000/MDS/2012 BE. THE SAID AMOUNT WAS NEITHER ADVANCE NOR A DEPOS IT BUT WAS A PRICE PAID BY THE LESSEES TOWARDS THE COS T OF EXPLOITATION, DISTRIBUTION AND EXHIBITION RIGHTS OF THE FILM FOR FIVE YEARS. BY VIRTUE OF THE AGREEMENT WITH THE LESSEES THE ASSESSEE ACQUIRED THE RIGHT TO RECEIVE AND HAD ACTUALLY RECEIVED THE SUM OF RS. 2.10 LAKHS DURING THE RELEVANT YEAR. THE BIFURCATION OF THIS AMOUNT FOR DIFFERENT PERIODS AS MENTIONED IN THE AGREEMENT HAD NO MEANI NG EXCEPT A CRUDE UNTENABLE DEVICE TO AVOID TAX, BECAU SE SUCH A DEVICE HAD NO FOUNDATION AT ALL. SINCE THE A MOUNT WAS NEITHER REFUNDABLE BY THE ASSESSEE NOR THE ASSESSEE WAS BOUND TO PAY ANY INTEREST ON THAT SUM TO THE LESSEES AND THE AMOUNT WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR GRANT OF THE RIGHTS OF EXPLOITATION, DISTRIBUTION AND EXHIBITION OF THE PICTURE, THE SAI D SUM WAS THE ASSESSEE 5 INCOME WHICH HAD ACCRUED TO HER AND WHICH HAD BEEN RECEIVED BY HER AND WAS CORRECT LY INCLUDIBLE IN HER TOTAL INCOME. IN VIEW OF SECTIO N 5(1), THE AMOUNT WAS CHARGEABLE TO TAX UNDER SECTION 4, APPORTIONMENT OF THE SAID SUM FOR FIVE YEARS HAD NO MEANING BECAUSE THE TERMS OF THE AGREEMENT COULD N OT OVERRIDE THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE. THE ASSESSEE WAS THUS BIFURCATING THE TRADING RECEIPTS OF ONE YEAR INTO FIVE YEARS, THEREBY SHI FTING THE PROFITS OF ONE YEAR INTO FIVE YEARS WHICH WAS NOT A CORRECT METHOD OF COMPUTING THE PROFITS AND GAINS OF BUSINE SS. WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAD DEBITED THE ENTIRE COST OF ACQUISITION OF RIGHTS OF DISTRIBUTION, EXPLOITATION AND EXHIBITION OF THE FILMS TO THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCO UNT, THERE WAS NO REASON WHY THE ENTIRE AMOUNT RECEIVED BY HE R FROM THE LESSEES ON ACCOUNT OF SALE OF LEASE RIGH TS OF THE FILMS SHOULD NOT BE CREDITED TO THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT IN ONE YEAR. THERE WAS NO ETOPPEL IN THESE MATTERS AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT BOUND BY THE INCORRECT METHOD OF ACCOUNTING FOLLOWED BY THE ASSE SSEE OR EVEN ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT IN EARLIER YEARS . THE ASSESSING OFFICER THEREFORE CORRECTLY MADE ADDITION BECAUSE THE WHOLE AMOUNT HAD ACCRUED TO THE ASSESSE E AND RECEIVED BY HER IN ALL THE ACCOUNTING YEARS. 11 ITA NO.2000/MDS/2012 12. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE SAID DECISION, WE UP HOLD THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) I N SUSTAINING THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN B RINGING TO TAX THE ENTIRE RECEIPTS DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. THE CASE LAWS RELIED ON BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DISTING UISHABLE ON FACTS. THUS, THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE REJECTED. 13. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMIS SED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 8 TH JULY, 2015. SD/- SD/- ( # ) ( & (# ) ( CHANDRA POOJARI ) ( CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD ) * / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( * / JUDICIAL MEMBER ( /CHENNAI, , /DATED 8 TH JULY, 2015 SOMU ./ 0/ /COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. 1 () /CIT(A) 4. 1 /CIT 5. / 5 /DR 6. /GF .