Sanjay Kumar, CHENNAI V. ACIT, CHENNAI

ITA 2042/CHNY/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 86274 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-01-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 24-12-2014
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 30-07-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P RADHAKRISHNAN
• Assessee Lawyers: T BANUSEKAR
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Source of fund
• Section: 133(6); 131; 68

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , A B ENCH, CHENNAI . , ! # $ , % & BEFORE SHRI A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./I.T.A.NO. 2042/MDS/2014 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10) MR. SANJAY KUMAR, OLD NO.47, NEW NO.27, AVVOUR MUTHIA STREET, NEW WASHERMENPET, CHENNAI - 600 081. VS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BUSINESS CIRCLE-VII, CHENNAI. PAN:AMCPS6903L ( /APPELLANT) ( /RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : MR. T.BANUSEKAR, C.A. /RESPONDENT BY : MR. P.RADHAKRISHNAN, JCIT /DATE OF HEARING : 24 TH DECEMBER, 2014 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30 TH JANUARY, 2015 / O R D E R PER CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JM: THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE O RDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-II, CH ENNAI DATED 22.04.2014 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. THE ONLY GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IN ITS APPEAL IS THA T COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN UPHOL DING THE ADDITION OF UNSECURED LOAN OF ` 17,00,000/- AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT . 2 ITA NO.2042/MDS/2014 2. BRIEF FACTS ARE THAT ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE CO URSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS NOTICED THAT ASSESSEE HAS RE CEIVED LOAN OF ` 7,00,000/- FROM MRS. SADHANA SHARMA AND ` 10,00,000/- FROM MRS. MANGALA. THE ASSESSING OFFICE R REQUIRED THE ASSESSEE TO PROVIDE DETAILS ABOUT THES E TWO CREDITORS. THE ASSESSEE PROVIDED NAME & ADDRESSES O F THE LOAN CREDITORS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER CALLED FOR I NFORMATION UNDER SECTION 133(6) FROM THESE LOAN CREDITORS. TH E LETTERS CALLING FOR INFORMATION RETURNED BACK UNSERVED. TH E ASSESSING OFFICER AGAIN ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO FURNI SH TRUE & CORRECT ADDRESSES OF LOAN CREDITORS. THE ASSESSEE P ROVIDED DIFFERENT ADDRESSES. THE ASSESSEE ALSO PROVIDED BAN K STATEMENTS AND COPIES OF RETURNS OF LOAN CREDITORS. ON ANALYZING THESE BANK STATEMENTS, THE ASSESSING OFF ICER NOTICED THAT THE LOAN CREDITORS HAVE DEPOSITED CASH IN THEIR BANK ACCOUNTS ON THE SAME DAY WHEN CHEQUES WERE ISS UED TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO NOTICED THAT BY THE YEAR ENDED 31.3.2008 BOTH THE LOAN CREDITORS WE RE NOT HAVING SUFFICIENT CASH BALANCES. FOR VERIFYING THE SOURCES, SUMMONS UNDER SECTION 131 WERE ISSUED TO THE LOAN CREDITORS. LOAN CREDITORS HAVE NOT RESPONDED TO THE 3 ITA NO.2042/MDS/2014 SUMMONS. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO PRODUCE THE CRED ITORS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR CROSS VERIFICATION . THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PRODUCE THE LOAN CREDITORS FOR CROSS VERIFICATION. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED IN HIS REPLY T HAT HE IS PROVIDING BANK STATEMENTS, BALANCE SHEETS, ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS FOR FILING OF RETURNS BY THE CREDI TORS AND THE CREDITORS HAVE GIVEN LOAN FROM OPENING CAPITAL AND INCOME GENERATED DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 , THEREFORE HE HAS DISCHARGED HIS LIABILITY TO SHOW T HE GENUINENESS OF TRANSACTIONS APPEARING IN HIS BOOKS AND THUS CANNOT BE ADDED AS HIS INCOME. THE ASSESSING OFFICE R REJECTED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND ADDED ` 17,00,000/- RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM THE CREDI TORS AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT HOLDING THAT IDENTITY OF THE LOAN CREDITORS COULD NOT BE VE RIFIED BEYOND DOUBT AS THE LETTERS AND SUMMONS ISSUED TO THE LOAN CREDITORS WERE RETURNED UNSERVED. THE CREDIT WORTHINESS OF T HE LOAN CREDITORS COULD NOT BE VERIFIABLE BEYOND DOUBT SINC E CASH HAS BEEN DEPOSITED IN THE LOAN CREDITORS BANK ACCOUNT O N THE SAME DAY ON WHICH LOAN HAS BEEN GIVEN TO THE ASSESS EE THROUGH CHEQUE AND THE LOAN CREDITORS HAVE NO SUFFI CIENT CASH 4 ITA NO.2042/MDS/2014 BALANCES IN THEIR BALANCE SHEET. THE LOAN CREDITORS HAVE NOT RESPONDED TO THE LETTERS AND SUMMONS AND THE ASSESS EE COULD NOT PRODUCE THE LOAN CREDITORS FOR CROSS VERI FICATION, THEREFORE GENUINENESS OF TRANSACTIONS COULD NOT BE VERIFIABLE BEYOND DOUBT. THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER TO T HE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ASSESSEE REITE RATED HIS SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE ALSO PRODUCED AFFIDAVITS FROM THE LOAN CREDITORS STATING THAT THEY HAVE ADVANCED LOANS TO THE ASSESS EE, THEY HAVE PROVIDED ADDRESSES, PAN AND COPIES OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF RETURNS HAVING FILED FOR THE ASS ESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) THOUGH ACCEPTED THE IDENTITY OF THE CREDITORS, HE H AS SUSTAINED THE ADDITION ON THE GROUND THAT GENUINENE SS OF THE TRANSACTIONS AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE CREDITORS WERE NOT PROVED. 3. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT OBSERVATIO NS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT ONE OF THE LOAN CREDITOR S HAS NOT RESPONDED TO THE LETTERS IS NOT CORRECT. REFERRING TO PAGE 10 OF 5 ITA NO.2042/MDS/2014 THE PAPER BOOK FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, COUNSEL SUBMI TS THAT ONE OF THE CREDITORS MRS. SADHANA SHARMA RESPONDED TO THE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 133(6) AND FILED REPLY ON 11.11.2011 BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER STATING TH AT SHE IS ASSESSED TO TAX AND SHE HAS FILED INCOME TAX RETURN FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 AND COPY OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FOR FILING RETURN WAS ALSO ENCLOSED ALONG WITH THAT LET TER. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THEREFORE SUBMITS THAT OBSERVATI ONS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES THAT LOAN CREDITORS COULD NOT R ESPOND TO THE LETTERS IS NOT CORRECT. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT BOTH THE CREDITORS HAVE IN FACT FILED AFFIDAVITS BE FORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) STATING THAT L OANS WERE GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE. COUNSEL SUBMITS THAT IN FACT CREDITS WERE REPAID SUBSEQUENTLY BY WAY OF BANKING CHANNELS, THEREFORE GENUINENESS OF THE LOAN TRANSAC TIONS WERE PROVED. COUNSEL SUBMITS THAT ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED ONLY PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF THE LOAN BUT AL LOWED INTEREST ON SUCH LOANS. THEREFORE, COUNSEL PLEADS F OR DELETION OF ADDITION. 6 ITA NO.2042/MDS/2014 4. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE REFERRING TO PAGE 2 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER SUBMITS THAT CREDITORS HAVE NOT RE SPONDED TO THE NOTICES ISSUED UNDER SECTION 133(6) NOR SUM MONS ISSUED UNDER SECTION 133(1) OF THE ACT. THE IDENTIT Y OF THE CREDITORS IS NOT PROVED. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIV E SUBMITS THAT CREDITORS HAVE GIVEN NOTARIZED AFFIDAVITS BEFO RE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) WHICH SHOWS TH AT CREDITORS APPEARED BEFORE THE NOTARY BUT CHOSE NOT TO APPEAR BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESEN TATIVE REFERRING TO PAGE 10 OF THE PAPER BOOK SUBMITS THAT CREDITORS HAVE NOT GIVEN ANY ADDRESS IN REPLY SAID TO HAVE BE EN GIVEN IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 133( 6), THEREFORE HE SUBMITS THAT IDENTITY OF THE CREDITORS HAVE NOT BEEN PROVED. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FURTHER SU BMITS THAT SINCE LOAN WAS GIVEN ON THE SAME DAY WHEN THE CASH WAS DEPOSITED INTO THE BANK ACCOUNTS OF THE CREDITO RS AND CREDITORS HAVE NOT CROSS VERIFIED, THEY WERE NOT PR ODUCED, THE GENUINENESS OF THE LOANS AND CREDIT WORTHINESS OF T HE CREDITORS HAVE NOT BEEN PROVED AND THEREFORE HE SUP PORTS THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES IN MAKING ADDITION UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT. 7 ITA NO.2042/MDS/2014 5. HEARD BOTH SIDES. ON READING OF BOTH THE ORDERS OF LOWER AUTHORITIES AND MATERIALS PLACED BEFORE US, W E FIND THAT IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ASSESSING O FFICER ISSUED NOTICES UNDER SECTION 133(6) OF THE ACT TO T HE LOAN CREDITORS AND IT APPEARS THAT ONLY ONE OF THE LOAN CREDITORS HAS RESPONDED TO THE LETTER ISSUED. SUBSEQUENTLY, W HEN THE SUMMONS WERE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 133(1) OF THE ACT TO CROSS VERIFY BOTH THE CREDITORS SEEMS TO HAVE NOT R ESPONDED AT ALL. THE ASSESSEE APPEARS TO HAVE FILED CORRECT ADDRESSES IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE CREDIT ORS ALSO HAVE FILED AFFIDAVITS BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF IN COME TAX (APPEALS) STATING THAT THEY HAVE LENT LOANS TO THE ASSESSEE. CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE COMMISS IONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ACCEPTED THAT IDENTITY OF T HE CREDITORS ARE PROVED. HOWEVER, HE HAS SUSTAINED THE ADDITION STATING THAT GENUINENESS OF THE LOANS AND CREDIT WO RTHINESS OF THE CREDITORS ARE NOT PROVED OBSERVING AS UNDER:- 4.6. THE NEXT INGREDIENT TO BE FULFILLED IS THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION. HERE THE LOANS ARE CLAIMED TO 'HAVE BEEN RECEIVED BY CHEQUES. HOWEVER, THE BANK EXTRACTS OF THE CREDITORS CLEARLY SHOWED THAT THE ONLY SOURCE FOR THE ADVANCE IS THE CASH DEPOSITED ON THE SAME DAY OF ISSUING CHEQUES. BARRING THE SAID CASH DEPOSIT FOLLOWED BY ISSUING CHEQUES TO THE ASSESSEE, THERE WERE NO SUBSTANTIAL / MAJOR TRANSACTIONS IN THESE BANK 8 ITA NO.2042/MDS/2014 ACCOUNTS OF THE CREDITORS. FURTHER, JUST BEFORE ADVANCING THE LOANS TO THE ASSESSEE, CASH WAS DEPOSITED AND ON THE SAME DAY CHEQUES WERE ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO TREAT THAT THE LOAN TRANSACTIONS ARE GENUINE. HENCE THE ASSESSEE'S CLAIM OF LOANS RECEIVED FROM THE ABOVE TWO PERSONS AMOUNTING TO RS.17,00,000/-, CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS GENUINE LOANS. 4.7. THE THIRD INGREDIENT TO BE FULFILLED IS THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE LENDERS. IN THE PRESENT CASE, NEITHER THE CREDITORS RESPONDED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER'S NOTICES U/S. 133(6) AND SUMMONS U/S.131 OF THE ACT, NOR THE ASSESSEE PRODUCED THE CREDITORS FOR EXAMINATION AND TO PROVE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION AND THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE CREDITORS. THOUGH THE CREDITORS HAVE FILED THE RETURNS, THEIR ANNUAL INCOME SHOWN IN THE RETURNS WAS LESS THAN (OR ALMOST EQUAL TO) THE BASIC EXEMPTION (FROM TAX) LIMITS SHOWING THAT THEY ARE NOT CAPABLE OF LENDING SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNTS. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE EXPRESSED HIS INABILITY TO PRODUCE THE LENDERS, EITHER BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR BEFORE THE UNDERSIGNED, FOR EXAMINATION, CONTENDING THAT HE HAS NO CONTROL OVER THE CRED I TORS. HENCE THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE LENDERS IS NOT PROVED. 4.8. THUS, THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION AS WELL AS THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE LENDERS. HENCE THE CASH CREDITS/LOANS CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS GENUINE LOANS AND AMOUNT TO UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDITS/LOANS, ATTRACTING THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 68 OF THE ACT. 4.9. THE CASE LAWS RELIED ON THE BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ON DIFFERENT FACTS AND HENCE NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE . THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE CASE . OF NEMI CHAND KOTHARI V. CIT (2001)(264 ITR 254}(GUJ) IS THE 'SOURCE OF SOURCE' OF INCOME . SAME IS THE CASE WITH S. HASTIMAL VS . CIT (1963) (49 ITR 273) (MAD). THE COURT HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS TO PROVE GENUINENESS OF TRANSACTIONS AS WELL AS CREDITWORTHINESS OF CREDITS BETWEEN ASSESSEE AND CREDITOR. THE ASSESSEE IS NOT EXPECTED TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF 9 ITA NO.2042/MDS/2014 TRANSACTIONS BETWEEN HIS CREDITOR AND SUB-CREDITORS NOR TO PROVE THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE SUB- CREDITOR WHO HAVE ADVANCED CASH CREDITS TO ASSESSEE'S CREDITOR . THE GIST OF THE JUDGMENT OF NEMI CHAND KOTHARI V. CIT (2001)(264 ITR 254)(GUJ) IS AS UNDER: SECTION 68 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT , 1961, READ WITH SECTION 106 OF THE INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 - CASH CREDITS - ASSESSMENT YEAR 1992-93 - WHETHE R BURDEN OF ASSESSEE TO PROVE GENUINENESS OF TRANSACTIONS AS WELL AS CREDITWORTHINESS OF CREDITOR MUST REMAIN CONFINED TO TRANSACTIONS, WHICH HAVE TAKEN PLACE BETWEEN ASSESSEE AND CREDITOR AND IT IS NOT BURDEN OF ASSESSEE TO PROVE GENUINENESS OF TRANSACTIONS BETWEEN HIS CREDITOR AND SUB - CREDITORS NOR IS IT BURDEN OF ASSESSEE TO PROVE THAT SUB - CREDITOR HAD CREDITWORTHINESS TO ADVANCE CASH CREDIT TO CREDITOR FROM WHOM CASH CREDIT HAS BEEN; EVENTUALLY, RECEIVED BY ASSESSEE - HELD, YES - WHETHER SINCE IT IS NOT BUSINESS OF ASSESSEE TO . FIND OUT SOURCE(S) FROM WHERE CREDITOR HAS ACCUMULATED AMOUN T, WHICH HE HAS ADVANCED IN FORM OF LOAN TO ASSESSEE, SECTION 68 CANNOT BE READ TO SHOW THAT IN CASE OF FAILURE OF SUB - CREDITORS TO PROVE THEIR CREDITWORTHINESS, AMOUNT ADVANCED AS LOAN TO ASSESSEE BY CREDITOR SHALL HAVE TO BE TREATED, AS A COROLLARY, AS INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCE OF ASSESSEE HIMSELF - HELD, YES THUS THE ABOVE CASE LAW I.E. NEMICHAND KOTHARI V. CIT (2001}(264 ITR 254){GUJ), RELIED ON BY THE ASSESSEE IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE . ON THE OTHER HAND, IT INDIRECTLY SUPPORTS THE VIEW OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS TO PROVE THE CREDIT WORTHINESS OF HIS CREDITORS. 4.10. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD , IN THE CASE OF BANSARI PRASAD V. CIT (2008) (304 ITR 239)(ALL), HAS HELD THAT IT IS RESPONSIBILITY OF THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE AND ESTABLISH THAT THE CREDITORS HAVE THE CAPACITY TO ADVANCE THE MONIES TO THE ASSESSEE. IN THIS CASE, THE HIGH COURT CLEARLY HELD THA T THE CREDIT WORTHINESS OF THE CREDITORS HAS TO BE PROVED. THE GIST OF THE DECISION IS AS UNDER: SECTION 68 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 - CASH CREDITS - ASSESSMENT YEAR 1987-88 - W HETHER WHEN CASH CREDITS WERE RECEIVED BY ASSESSEE FROM CLOSE RELATIVES LIKE 10 ITA NO.2042/MDS/2014 HIS NON - EARNING WIFE AND MINOR SON EXPLANATION TO BE FURNISHED UNDER SECTION 68 IN ORDER TO QUALIFY AS SATISFACTORY' WOULD REQUIRE HIM TO DISCLOSE SOURCE OF DEPOSITORS FOR ESTABLISHING CAPACITY' OF CREDITOR - HELD, YES IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSIONS, THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY WAY OF UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT S OF ` 17,00,000/- U/S.68 OF THE ACT IS JUSTIFIED AND CO NFIRMED. THE ASSESSEE FAILS IN HIS APPEAL. 6. ON GOING THROUGH THE FINDINGS OF THE COMMISSION ER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), WE FIND THAT CREDITORS HAVE DEPOSITED CASH INTO THEIR BANK ACCOUNTS ON THE SAME DAY WHEN THE LOAN WAS GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE. WE ALSO FIND THAT THERE WERE NO SUBSTANTIAL / MAJOR TRANSACTIONS IN THESE BANK ACCO UNTS OF THE CREDITORS TO PROVIDE LOAN TO THE ASSESSEE. IN THES E CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ACCEPT THE CONCLUSION OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) THAT THE LOAN TRANSACTIONS ARE NOT GENUINE. SIMILARLY WE ALSO NO TICE THAT CREDITORS DID NOT APPEAR BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER IN SPITE OF SUMMONS ISSUED UNDER SECTION 131 TO EXAMINE THE LOAN CREDITORS NOR THE ASSESSEE PRODUCED THE LOAN CREDIT ORS FOR EXAMINATION AND TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE CREDITORS. WE NOTICE THAT THE CREDITORS ARE NOT DOING ANY BUSINESS AND T HEIR SOURCES OF INCOME ARE INTEREST AND OTHER INCOME. IT IS THE 11 ITA NO.2042/MDS/2014 FINDING OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) THAT THOUGH CREDITORS HAVE FILED RETURNS THEIR ANNUAL IN COME SHOWN IN THE RETURNS WAS LESS THAN OR ALMOST EQUAL TO BA SIC EXEMPTION TAX LIMITS WHICH SHOWS THAT THEY ARE NOT CAPABLE OF LENDING SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT. THEREFORE THE CREDITWOR THINESS OF THE LENDERS WAS NOT PROVED. THE CASE LAWS RELIED ON BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DISTINGUISHABLE ON FACTS AND OF NO HEL P TO THE ASSESSEE. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE SUSTAIN THE ORD ER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT. 7. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISS ED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON FRIDAY, THE 3 0 TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2015 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( . ) ( ( *+ ) ( A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY ) ( CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD ) - / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER * - / JUDICIAL MEMBER * /CHENNAI, / /DATED 30 TH JANUARY, 2015 SOMU 12 32 /COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. 4 () /CIT(A) 4. 4 /CIT 5. 2 7 /DR 6. /GF .