DCIT, CHENNAI V. Suthanther Assumtha, CHENNAI

ITA 203/CHNY/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8545 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-09-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 23-08-2016
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 04-02-2016
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A V SREEKANTH
• Assessee Lawyers: S P PALANIAP
• Keywords: Depreciation

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH : CHENNAI . . . , ! . '#'$ , % !& ' [ BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ] ./ I.T.A.NO. 203/MDS/2016 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11 THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX NON-CORPORATE CIRCLE 2 CHENNAI VS. SHRI SUTHANTHER ASSUMTHA 1, MUTHUPANDIAN AVENUE SANTHOME CHENNAI 600 004 [PAN ACYPA 8672 L ] ( () / APPELLANT) ( *+() /RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI A.V. SREEKANTH, JCIT /RESPONDENT BY : SHRI S.P. PALANIAPPAN, CA / DATE OF HEARING : 23 - 0 8 - 2016 ! / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 09 - 0 9 - 2016 / O R D E R PER ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THIS APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-2, CHENNA I, DATED 30.10.2015 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. 2. ITS GRIEVANCE IS THAT THE CIT(A) EXTENDED THE BENEF IT OF HIGHER DEPRECIATION FOR PAY LOADERS, DOZERS AND WAT ER TANKERS USED BY THE ASSESSEE . ITA NO.203/16 :- 2 -: 3. FACTS APROPOS ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE, ENGAGED IN TH E BUSINESS OF TRANSPORT, HAD FILED HIS RETURN FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR DECLARING INCOME OF ` 35,79,790/-. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, IT WAS NOTED BY THE ASSE SSING OFFICER THAT ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED HIGHER RATE OF DEPRECIATION @ 30% ON PAY LOADERS, DOZERS AND WATER TANKERS. AS PER THE ASSE SSING OFFICER, HIGHER RATE OF DEPRECIATION WAS AVAILABLE ONLY FOR BUSES, LORRIES AND TAXIES USED IN THE BUSINESS OF RUNNING ON HIRE. E XPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS SOUGHT AS TO HOW IT COULD CLAIM HIGHER DEPRECIATION. IN REPLY IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT MAIN P ART OF HIS TRANSPORTATION BUSINESS WAS DONE FOR M/S ANAND TRA NSPORT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER STUDIED THE AGREEMENT ENTERED BY THE ASSESSEE WITH M/S ANAND TRANSPORT AND FOUND THAT ASSESSEE HAD TO SUPPLY PAY LOADERS FOR HATCH WORK, LOADING MATERIAL INTO TRUCK S FROM WHARF, TRANSPORTING TO DESIGNATED STOCK YARD BY TRUCKS, ST ACKING AT STOCK YARD, LOADING FROM STOCK YARD INTO TRUCKS, CARTING FROM STOCK YARD TO RAILWAY SIDING. AS PER THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THERE WAS A FURTHER CLAUSE IN THE SAID CONTRACT WHICH STIPULATED THAT VEHICLES IN THE NATURE OF PAY LOADERS, DOZERS AND WATER TANKERS WERE TO BE TRANSF ERRED BACK TO THE ASSESSEE ON COMPLETION OF THE CONTRACT PERIOD OR ON COMPLETION OF SHIPPING OF 36 LAKHS TONNES MATERIALS FOR A SMALL RESIDUAL VALUE. THOUGH THE ASSESSEE ARGUED THAT ITS MAIN BUSINESS WAS TO TRANSPORT ITA NO.203/16 :- 3 -: GOODS AND BY VIRTUE OF CIRCULAR NO.652 DATED 14.6.1 993 OF CBDT, HIGHER RATE OF DEPRECIATION WAS AVAILABLE EVEN WHEN MOTOR LORRIES/BUSES WERE USED BY AN ASSESSEE FOR ITS OWN BUSINESS OF TRANSPORTATION, HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT IMPRESSED. ACCORDING TO HIM, ASSESSEE WAS ONLY A CONTRACTOR F OR MOVING GOODS FROM ONE PLACE TO ANOTHER AND THE PAYMENT TO THE A SSESSEE WAS BASED ON TONNAGE GOODS. AS PER THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER, ASSESSEE WAS NOT ONLY USING ITS OWN LORRIES BUT WERE ALSO USING VEHICLES WHICH WERE PROVIDED BY M/S ANAND TRANSPORT AND PAY LOADERS WER E LIKE CRANES USED FOR MOVING GOODS FROM ONE PLACE TO ANOTHER. A S PER THE ASSESSING OFFICER, NEITHER THE CRANES NOR PAY LOAD ERS WERE USED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS OWN BUSINESS OF HIRING. ACCO RDING TO HIM, EARTH MOVING MACHINES AND TIPPER WERE NOT ROAD TRANSPORT VEHICLES. FOR THIS, RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE JUDGMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS PROGRESSIVE ENGINEERING CO. 230 ITR 729. FINALLY, HE HELD THAT ASSESSEE WAS ELIGIBLE FOR ON LY 15% DEPRECIATION AVAILABLE FOR GENERAL CATEGORY OF MACHINERY FOR THE LORRIES, BUSES AND PAY LOADERS AND LIKE ITEMS USED BY IT. AGAINST TH E CLAIM OF ` 92,97,876/- THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALLOWED ONLY ` 46,48,939/- THEREBY MAKING A DISALLOWANCE OF ` 46 ,48,937/-. ITA NO.203/16 :- 4 -: 4. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE MOVED IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). ARGUMENT OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE CIT(A) WAS THA T THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD FAILED TO CONSIDER CBDT CIRCULAR NO. 65 2(SUPRA) IN ITS PROPER SENSE. AS PER THE ASSESSEE, MEANING OF THE TERM HIRING WAS SOMETHING WHICH WAS TEMPORARILY GIVEN FOR USE FOR A N AGREED PAYMENT. ASSESSEE ALSO CONTENDED THAT PAY LOADER S WERE SIMILAR TO LORRIES WITH TROLLEYS AKIN TO LORRIES WITH LONG B ODY. IN SUPPORT OF ITS CONTENTION THAT IT WAS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF H IRING, ASSESSEE FURNISHED ITS PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT WHICH INTER ALI A REFLECTED INCOME OF ` 10.55 CRORES FROM BUSINESS. ASSESSEE ALSO FURNIS HED PARTYWISE HIRE CHARGES RECEIVED. AS PER THE ASSESSEE, OUT O F THE TOTAL 10.55 CRORES HIRE CHARGES RECEIVED, ` 9.39 CRORES WAS FROM M/S ANAND TRANSPORT. RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE JUDGMENT OF BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS M/S SC THAKUR & BROS, 3 22 ITR 463 AND THAT OF GAUHATI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ABC INDIA LTD VS CIT, 226 ITR 914. ASSESSEE ALSO DISTINGUISHED THE JUDGMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS PROGRESSIV E ENGINEERING CO (SUPRA) RELIED ON BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. AS PER THE ASSESSEE, IN THE SAID CASE THE QUESTION WAS WHETHER TRIPPERS COULD BE CONSIDERED AS ROAD TRANSPORT VEHICLES FOR GIVING INVESTMENT ALLOW ANCE. THE CIT(A) WAS APPRECIATIVE OF THE ABOVE CONTENTIONS OF THE A SSESSEE. ACCORDING TO HIM, THERE WAS AN ELEMENT OF HIRING IN THE ACTIV ITIES OF THE ITA NO.203/16 :- 5 -: ASSESSEE. RELYING ON THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE AND AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO BY THE ASSESSEE WITH M/S AN AND TRANSPORT AND ALSO TRANSPORT BILLS OF M/S ANAND TRANSPORT, SO UTHERN AGRIFURANE INDUSTRIES (P) LTD AND SEAPOL LOGISTICS PVT. LTD., CIT(A) CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT ASSESSEES BUSINESS OF TRANSPORT I NCLUDED AN ELEMENT OF HIRING. HE WAS OF THE OPINION THAT CASE OF TH E ASSESSEE WAS SUPPORTED BY CIRCULAR NO.652 (SUPRA). PLACING RELI ANCE ON THE JUDGMENT OF BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF M/S S .C THAKUR & BROS AND GAUHATI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ABC INDIA LT D (SUPRA), HE DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ALLOW DEPRECIATIO N @ 30%. 5. NOW BEFORE US, THE LD. DR, STRONGLY ASSAILING THE O RDER OF THE CIT(A) SUBMITTED THAT DEPRECIATION @ 30% GIVEN IN A PPENDIX 1 TO INCOME TAX RULES 1962 AT II(3)(II) CLEARLY MENTIONS VEHICLES WHICH ARE USED IN THE BUSINESS OF RUNNING THEM ON HIRE. AS P ER THE LD. DR, ASSESSEE WAS USING HIS OWN VEHICLES FOR HIS OWN BUS INESS AND THERE WAS NO HIRING WHATSOEVER OF THE VEHICLES TO M/S ANA ND TRANSPORT OR ANY OTHER CONCERN. ACCORDING TO THE LD. DR, THE CI T(A) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ELIGIBLE FOR HIGHER RATE OF DEPRECIATION. 6. PER CONTRA, THE LD. AR, RELYING ON THE AGREEMENT EN TERED INTO WITH M/S ANAND TRANSPORT, SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE S DUTY WAS TO TRANSPORT COAL/IRON ORE FOR M/S ANAND TRANSPORT. A S PER THE LD. AR, IT ITA NO.203/16 :- 6 -: WAS A CONTRACT FOR COAL HANDLING AT PORT AND THE TE RM HANDLING MEANT MANUAL OR MECHANICAL METHOD OR PROCESS BY WHICH SOM ETHING WAS MOVED, CARRIED, TRANSPORTED ETC. LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT PAY LOADERS WERE MOTOR VEHICLES AKIN TO LORRIES. ACCORDING T O HIM, THE DECISION OF THE CIT(A) WAS ALSO SUPPORTED BY THE ORDER OF THE KOLKATA BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ASHIRBAD REAL ESTATE & TRANSPORT IN I.T.A.NO. 1591/KOL/2011 DATED 18.9.2015 AND IN THE CASE OF M/S AVANIASH TRANSPORT VS JCIT IN I.T.A.NO. 1909/KOL/20 12 DATED 13.8.2015. 7. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND THE OR DERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT TH E ASSESSEE WAS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF TRANSPORTATION OF COAL A ND IRON ORE. NO DOUBT, A READING OF THE AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO BY T HE ASSESSEE WITH M/S ANAND TRANSPORT CLEARLY BRINGS OUT THAT ASSESS EE WAS TO SUPPLY PAY LOADER FOR HATCH WORK, LOADING MATERIALS INTO T RUCKS FROM WHARF AND TRANSPORTING THE MATERIAL FROM STOCKYARD TO CHE NNAI PORT TRUST, CARRYING GOODS FROM STOCKYARD TO RAILWAY SIDING AN D LOADING OF GOODS INTO RAILWAY WAGON. THE SAID CONTRACT DATED 3.7.20 06 CLEARLY MENTIONS THAT ASSESSEE COULD USE PAY LOADERS, DOZERS, WATER TANKERS, TIPPERS GIVEN BY M/S ANAND TRANSPORT IN ADDITION TO WHAT WE RE USED BY IT. THE CONSIDERATION AGREED WAS @ ` .35/- PER METRIC TON. WHAT THE ITA NO.203/16 :- 7 -: ASSESSEE WAS DOING FOR M/S ANAND TRANSPORT IS GIVEN UNDER THE TERMS OF PAYMENT APPEARING IN CLAUSE 4 OF THE AGREEMENT E NTERED WITH M/S ANAND TRANSPORT AND IT IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER: 4. PAYMENT: SUPPLY OF PAY LOADER FOR HATCH WORK, LOADING COAL F ROM WHARF USING PAY LOADERS, TRANSPORTING TO STOCK YARD WITHIN CHENNAI PORT, HI-STACKING AT STOCK YARD, LOADING IN TO TRUCKS AT STOCK YARD BY PAY LOADER, TRANSPORTING TO RAILWA Y SIDING BY TRUCK IF NECESSARY, LOADING IN TO RAILWAY WAGON, RAILWAY LINE CLEANING, ROAD CLEANING, WHARF CLEANING AND OT HER CONNECTED WORKS. 8. A READING OF THE ABOVE WOULD SHOW THAT THE ASSESSE E WAS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF TRANSPORTATION AND THE W ORK OF CLEANING AND LOADING WERE INCIDENTAL TO THIS. NOW, WE NEED TO HAVE A LOOK AT CIRCULAR NO.652 DATED 14.6.1993 WHICH IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER: 243. WHETHER FOR DERIVING BENEFIT OF HIGHER EP, M OTOR LORRIES MUST BE HIRED OUT TO SOME OTHER PERSON OR W HETHER USER OF SAME IN ASSESSEES BUSINESS OF TRANSPORTAT ION OF GOODS ON HIRE WOULD SUFFICE 1. UNDER SUB-ITEM 2(II) OF ITEM-III OF APPENDIX I TO THE INCOME-TAX RULES, 1962, HIGHER RATE OF DEPRECIATION IS ADMISSIBLE ON MOTOR BUSES, MOTOR LORRIES AND MOTOR TAXIS USED IN A BUSINESS OF RUNNING THEM ON HIRE. A QUES TION HAS BEEN RAISED AS TO WHETHER, FOR DERIVING THE BENEFIT OF HIGHER DEPRECIATION, MOTOR LORRIES MUST BE HIRED OUT TO SO ME OTHER PERSON OR WHETHER THE USER OF THE SAME IN THE ASSE SSEES BUSINESS OF TRANSPORTATION OF GOODS ON IRE WOULD SU FFICE. 2. IN BOARDS CIRCULAR NO.609 DATED 29.7.1991(SL. NO.2344) IT WAS CLARIFIED THAT WHERE A TOUR OPERATOR OR TRAV EL AGENT USES MOTOR BUSES OR MOTOR TAXIS OWNED BY HIM IN PRO VIDING ITA NO.203/16 :- 8 -: TRANSPORTATION SERVICES TO TOURISTS, HIGHER RATE OF DEPRECIATION WOULD BE ALLOWED ON SUCH VEHICLES. IT IS FURTHER C LARIFIED THAT HIGHER DEPRECIATION WILL ALSO BE ADMISSIBLE ON MOTO R LORRIES USED IN THE ASSESSEES BUSINESS OF TRANSPORTATION OF GOODS ON HIRE. THE HIGHER RATE OF DEPRECIATION, HOWEVER, WILL NOT APPLY IF THE MOTOR BUSES, MOTOR LORRIES, ETC ARE US ED IN SOME OTHER NON-HIRING BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE. 9. IT IS CLEAR FROM THE ABOVE CLARIFICATION THAT MOTOR LORRIES USED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE BUSINESS OF TRANSPORTATION OF GOODS ON HIRE WOULD BE ELIGIBLE FOR HIGHER RATE OF DEPRECIATION. IN OTHER WORDS, BY VIRTUE OF THIS CIRCULAR, HIGHER RATE OF DEPRECIATIO N @ 30% MENTIONED IN PART II(3)(II) OF APPENDIX TO THE INCOME TAX RULES WOULD GET AN EXTENDED MEANING THAN WHAT LITERALLY FOLLOWS ON THE IR READING. THE SAID CLAUSE IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER: II MACHINERY AND PLANT. 3(II) MOTOR BUSES, MOTOR LORRIES AND MOTOR TAXIS US ED IN A BUSINESS OF RUNNING HEM ON HIRE 30% THE EXTENDED MEANING WOULD BRING INTO ITS FOLD USE OF MOTOR VEHICLES IN A BUSINESS OF TRANSPORTATION OF GOODS ON HIRE. IN OUR OPINION, THE AGREEMENT ENTERED BY THE ASSESSEE WITH M/S ANAND T RANSPORT CLEARLY SHOWS THAT ITS DUTY WAS TO TRANSPORT THE GOODS PROV IDED BY M/S ANAND TRANSPORT FROM ONE PLACE TO ANOTHER. WE CANNOT SAY THAT ELEMENT OF HIRING WAS ABSENT. THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS M/S SC THAKUR & BROS HAS CLEARLY HELD THAT CIRCULAR NO .652(SUPRA) WAS ADMISSIBLE WHEN THE MOTOR LORRIES WERE USED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS ITA NO.203/16 :- 9 -: OWN BUSINESS OF TRANSPORTING OF GOODS ON HIRE. IN THE SAID CASE, ASSESSEE WAS A CIVIL CONTRACTOR WHICH WAS REQUIRED TO TRANSPORT EARTH FROM ONE PLACE TO ANOTHER AS PART OF ITS CONTRACT W ORK. THE KOLKATA BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ASHIRBAD REAL ESTATE & TRANSPORT PVT. LTD (SUPRA) HAD HELD THAT DUMPERS AND PAY LOAD ERS USED FOR TRANSPORTATION OF GOODS OF OTHER PERSONS WOULD BE E LIGIBLE FOR HIGHER RATE OF DEPRECIATION BY VIRTUE OF CBDT CIRCULAR NO. 652 MENTIONED (SUPRA). PARA 4.3 OF THE SAID ORDER IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER: 4.3. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSE D THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT THE LEARNED DR DI D NOT REFUTE THE FINDINGS GIVEN BY THE LEARNED CITA WITH REGARD TO T HE NATURE OF BUSINESS CARRIED ON BY THE ASSESSEE AND INCOME DISC LOSED THEREON. IT IS SEEN THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCLOSED INCOME FROM TRANSPORTATION BY DUMPERS AND PAY LOADERS IN ITS PROFIT AND LOSS ACCO UNT AND THEREFORE WE HOLD THAT THE ASSESSEE IS USING THESE VEHICLES F OR TRANSPORTATION OF GOODS OF OTHER PERSONS. IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE THA T CBDT CIRCULAR NO. 652 DATED 14.6.1993 ON THIS SUBJECT STATES THAT ASS ESSEE IS ENTITLED TO HIGHER RATE OF DEPRECIATION WHEN THE VEHICLES ARE U SED BY THE ASSESSEE IN HIS OWN BUSINESS OF TRANSPORTATION OF G OODS ON HIRE. WE ALSO FIND THAT THIS ISSUE IS COVERED BY THE DECI SION OF THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF JC IT VS AVINASH TRANSPORT IN ITA NO. 1909/KOL/2012 DATED 13.8.2015 IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE, WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT :- THE ASSESSING OFFICER CONCLUDED THAT WHEN THE DUMP ERS ARE GIVEN ON HIRE, THE ASSESSEE WOULD BE ENTITLED FOR DEPRECIATION AT THE RATE OF 30% . HOWEVER, THAT IS NOT THE CORRECT INTERPRETATION OF LAW, BECAUSE IF T HE ASSESSEE IS TRANSPORTING THE GOODS OF OTHER PERSONS , THEN ALSO THE DUMPER IS GI VEN ON HIRE AND UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, IN VIEW OF THEDECISION OF THE HONBL E MADHYAPRADESH HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ANUP CHAND & CO. REPORTED IN 2 39 ITR 466 THE ASSESSEE WAS ENTITLED FOR HIGHER RATE OF DEPRECIATION AS THE VEHICLES ARE TO BE CONSIDERED AS BEING GIVEN ON HIRE FOR TRANSPORTATION OF GOODS OF OTHER PERSONS. THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT TRANSPORTING ITS OWN GOODS BUT THE GOODS OF OTHER PERSONS AND DERIVING HIRE CHARGES. BY CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF THE FA CTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF LD.CIT(APPEA LS) ON THIS COUNT. RESULTANTLY, GROUND NO. 1 OF REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. ITA NO.203/16 :- 10 -: IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AN D RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE COORDINATE BENCH DECISION IN THE CASE OF AVINASH TRANSPORT AS CITED SUPRA, WE HOLD THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED FOR DEPRECIATION ON DUMPERS AND PAY LOADERS AT THE HIGH ER RATE AND ACCORDINGLY WE ARE NOT INCLINED TO INTERFERE WITH T HE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CITA ON THIS ISSUE. THE GROUND NO.1 RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 10. SIMILAR VIEW WAS AGAIN TAKEN BY THE SAME BENCH IN T HE CASE OF M/S AVINASH TRANSPORT (SUPRA). IN THESE CIRCUMS TANCES, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE CIT(A) HAD TAKEN A JUSTIFIABLE VIEW THAT ASSESSEE WOULD BE ELIGIBLE FOR HIGHER RATE OF DEPRECIATION O N THE VEHICLES USED BY IT FOR TRANSPORTATION OF GOODS IN ITS BUSINESS O F TRANSPORTATION OF GOODS ON HIRE. WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERF ERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). 11. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE STANDS D ISMISSED ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 09 TH SEPTEMBER, 2016, AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( . . . ' ) (N.R.S. GANESAN) / JUDICIAL MEMBER ( ! . '#'$ ) (ABRAHAM P. GEORGE) % / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER #$ / CHENNAI %& / DATED: 9 TH SEPTEMBER, 2016 RD &' ()*) / COPY TO: 1 . / APPELLANT 4. + / CIT 2. / RESPONDENT 5. ),- . / DR 3. +/' / CIT(A) 6. -01 / GF