Chella Software Pvt Ltd., Madurai V. ACIT, Madurai

ITA 2081/CHNY/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7877 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-03-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 12-01-2016
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 27-10-2015
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B LAKSHMINARAYANAN IRS
• Assessee Lawyers: G BASKAR
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Reasonable cause; Condonation of delay; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 80IB; 10B; 148

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, CHENNAI , ! . ! ' # , $ #% BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI G. PAVAN KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ I.T.A. NO. 2081/MDS/2015 $ & !'& / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12 CHELLA SOFTWARE PVT. LTD, PLOT NO.62, K.K.NAGAR, MADURAI 625 020. VS. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 1(2) MADURAI. [PAN AABCC 4984D ] ( / APPELLANT) ( /RESPONDENT) () * + / APPELLANT BY : SHRI. G. BASKAR, ADVOCATE ,-() * + /RESPONDENT BY : SHRI. B. LAKSHMINARAYANAN, IRS, JCIT. ' ! * . / DATE OF HEARING : 12-01-2016 /0' * . / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 03-03-2016 / O R D E R PER G. PAVAN KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AG AINST ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-1, MADU RAI IN ITA NO.0006/2014-15, DATED 19.08.2015 FOR THE ASSESSMEN T YEAR 2011- 2012 PASSED U/S.143(3)AND 250 OF THE INCOME TAX AC T, 1961 (HEREIN AFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT). ITA NO.2081/MDS/2015. :- 2 -: 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED SOLE SUBSTANTIVE GROUND THA T COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN CONFI RMING THE FINDINGS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN DENYING DEDUCT ION U/S.10A OF THE ACT ON PRESUMPTION THAT RETURN OF INCOME HAS TO BE FILED WITHIN DUE DATE U/S.139(1) OF THE ACT AND ALSO ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING THE DETAILED SUBMISSIONS AND RELIED ONLY ON TRIBUNAL S PECIAL BENCH DECISION. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE, THE ASSESSEE IS IN TH E BUSINESS OF SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT AND FILED RETURN OF INCOME ON 29.12.2011 ADMITTING TOTAL INCOME OF <1,23,25,727/- AND THE RE TURN WAS PROCESSED U/S.143(1) OF THE ACT AND THE CASE WAS SELECTED FO R SCRUTINY UNDER CASS AND NOTICE U/S.143(2) OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE APPEARED ON VARIOUS D ATES AND CASE WAS DISCUSSED. IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSE SSING OFFICER FOUND THAT DUE DATE OF FILING OF RETURN FOR THE ASSESSMEN T YEAR 2011-12 IS 30.09.2011. BUT THE RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED BEL ATEDLY AFTER A DELAY OF THREE MONTHS ON 29.12.2011 AND AS PER THE PROV ISIONS OF SEC. 10A OF THE ACT NO DEDUCTION SHALL BE ALLOWED TO AN ASSE SSEE WHO HAD NOT FURNISHED RETURN OF INCOME ON OR BEFORE DUE DATE U/ S.139(1) OF THE ACT WHEREAS THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED EXEMPTION U/S.10A OF THE ACT <62,65,766/- AND FURTHER SUBSTANTIATED THE DELAY W ITH THE JUDICIAL DECISIONS REFERRED AT PAGE NO. 2 OF ASSESSING OFFI CER ORDER. ITA NO.2081/MDS/2015. :- 3 -: 'THE RETURN FILING TIME-LIMIT RESTRICTION U/S.10A IS VERY MUCH AKING TO THAT OF U/S.10B OF THE INCOMETAX ACT. IN THE FOLLOWING CASES, THE MADRAS BENCH OF THE ITAT H AS HELD THAT THE 139(1) TIME- LIMIT RESTRICTION U/S.10B IS ONLY DIRECTORY IN NATURE AND NOT MANDATORY. ALSO HE LD THAT, WHERE THE GENUINE REASON FOR DELAY HAS BEEN SUFFICIENTLY EXPLAINED, NO DISALLOWANCE NEED BE MAD E U/S 10B ON THIS GROUND. (I) PLOYHOSE INDIA PVT. LDT., CHENNIA VS. DEPT. INCOME TAX (ITA NO.122/MDS/2011)- CHENNAI D BENCH. (II) BNAZRUM AGRO EXPORTS (P) LTD VS. CIT (ITA NO.774/MDS/2012) CHENNAI B BENCH. FOLLOWING DECISIONS IN THE AFORESAID CASES IN FAVOU R OF THE ASSESSEE, AND THE GENUINE HARDSHIP FACED IN FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME, IT IS REQUESTED TO KINDLY CONSIDE R THE BONAFIDE NATURE OF OUR CLAIM AND MAINTAIN ALLOWABIL ITY OF EXEMPTION U/S.10A. THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER HAS THE KNOWLEDGE OF DEL AY IN FILING DUE TO DIFFICULTIES IN E-FILING OF THE RETURN WHICH COULD NOT BE UPLOADED TO INCOME TAX WEBSITE ON NONPAYMENT OF SELF ASSESSMEN T TAX AS IT IS SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR NOT FILING THE RETURN WITHIN T HE SPECIFIED DATE. FURTHER, THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER DISTINGUISHED TH E DECISIONS RELIED BY THE ASSESSEE AND SUO-MOTU HELD THAT ASSESSING OFFIC ER DOES NOT HAVE POWER TO CONDONE THE DELAY AND RELIEF CAN BE OBTAIN ED ONLY FROM THE CBDT U/S.119 OF THE ACT. CONSIDERING THE FINDINGS A ND SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER DENIED DEDU CTION U/S.10A OF THE ACT AND PASSED ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S.143(3) OF T HE ACT ON ITA NO.2081/MDS/2015. :- 4 -: 03.03.2014. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER, THE ASSESSEE FI LED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). 4. IN THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE REITERATED HIS SUBMISSIONS MADE IN A SSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WITH JUDICIAL DECISIONS AND EXPLAINED T HE CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH RETURN COULD NOT SUBMITTED WITHIN DUE DATE AS THE RETURN SHOULD BE ACCOMPANIED BY BANK DETAILS OF SELF ASSESSMENT TAX PAID BUT DUE TO FINANCIAL DIFFICULTIES THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT P AY THE TAX WITHIN DUE DATE U/S.139(1) OF THE ACT BUT ULTIMATELY PAID ON 14.12.2011 AND UPLOAD RETURN ON 29.12.2011. THE LD. AUTHORISED RE PRESENTATIVE RELIED ON THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH DECISIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF M/S. POLYHOSE INDIA PRIVATE LTD (SUPRA) AND M/S. BNAZRUM AFRO EXPORTS PVT. LTD (SUPRA) WERE IT WAS HELD THAT FILING OF RETURN OF INCOME WITHIN DUE DATE U/S.139(1) OF THE ACT IS ONLY DIRECTORY A ND NOT MANDATORY. BUT THE LD.ASSESSING OFFICER IGNORED THE SUBMISSIO NS AND GENUINE HARDSHIP FACED BY THE ASSESSEE IN NOT FILING THE RE TURN WITHIN DUE DATE U/S.139(1) OF THE ACT AND DENIED DEDUCTION U/S.10A OF THE ACT. THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE EXPRESSED INABILITY OF T HE COMPANY AS IT IS PASSING THROUGH FINANCIAL CRISIS AND THE AVAILABILI TY OF CASH RESOURCES ARE VERY MERGE AND WITH GREAT DIFFICULTY SELF ASSES SMENT TAX WAS PAID AND SUPPORTED HIS SUBMISSIONS WITH THE COPY OF PROF IT AND LOSS ACCOUNT AND THE BANK BALANCE STATEMENT AND THE DELAY IN FIL ING THE RETURN OF ITA NO.2081/MDS/2015. :- 5 -: INCOME WAS NOT WANTON BUT CIRCUMSTANCES BEYOND THE CONTROL. THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) CONSIDERED THE JUDICIAL DECISIONS AND EVIDENCE BUT OVERLOOKED THE CO-ORDINA TE BENCH DECISION AND RELIED ON THE SPECIAL BENCH DECISION OF RAJKOT BENCH IN CASE OF SAFFIRE GARMENTS VS. ITO 151 TTJ 114 WHERE HELD THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 10A(1A) OF THE ACT IN THE CASE OF DEDUCTION IS MANDATORY AND NOT DIRECTORY BY OVERRULING THE DECISIONS OF CHENN AI AND DELHI TRIBUNALS AND CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN DENYING DEDUCTION U/S.10A OF THE ACT AND DISMISSED THE APPE AL OF THE ASSESSEE. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOM E TAX (APPEALS) THE ASSESSEE ASSAILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNA L. 5. BEFORE US, THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE REITER ATED HIS SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE ASSESSING OFFICER AND APPE LLATE PROCEEDINGS. THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) RELIED ON THE SPECIAL BENCH DECISION AND NOT CONSIDERED SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR NOT FILING RETURN OF INCOME U/S.139(1) OF THE ACT AS THE ASSESSEE COM PANY HAS TO PAY SELF ASSESSMENT TAX AND FILED THE RETURN BELATEDLY U/S.139(4) OF THE ACT. THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) RELIED ONLY ON SPECIAL BENCH DECISION OF SAFFIRE GARMENTS (SUPRA) AND DISTINGUISHED THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH DECISIONS APPLICABLE TO THE A SSESSEE THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE RELIED ON THE TRIBUNAL D ECISION OF HYDERABAD IN THE CASE OF ITO VS. S. VENKATAIAH IN ITA ITA NO.2081/MDS/2015. :- 6 -: NO.984/HYD/2011, DATED 31.05.2012 WHERE THE HONBLE MEMBERS CONSIDERED THE TECHNICALITIES AND THE ASSESSEE IS LEGALLY ENTITLED FOR DEDUCTION OBSERVED AT PAGE NO.13 OF ORDER. 13. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED TH E MATERIAL ON RECORD. IN THIS CASE ADMITTEDLY, THE AS SESSEE FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME ON 23.12.2008. THE DUE D ATE FOR FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME U/S. 139(1) OF THE ACT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IS 31.10.2008. AS SUCH THE RETURN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS BELATED. IN THIS THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S. 80IC OF THE ACT WHICH WAS DISALLOWED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS THE RETURN OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT FILED WITHIN THE TIME AS PRESCRIBED U/S. 139(1) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN REASONS FOR DELAY IN FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS PREPARING IT S ACCOUNTS THROUGH COMPUTER AND THE COMPUTER GOT CORRUPTED DUE TO VIRUSES AND IN SPITE OF CONTINUOUS EFFORTS BY THE COMPUTER TECHNICAL PERSONNEL TO RETRIEVE THE DATA IN TIME FOR FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME, PROBLEM PERSI STED IN THE SYSTEM. BY TRYING TO RETRIEVE THE DATA FOR 4 DAYS T HE REQUIRED DATA COULD NOT BE RETRIEVED AND THE BACKED UP DATA WERE AVAILABLE ONLY UP TO 31ST JANUARY, 2008 I N THE CD AND THE ENTIRE DATA FOR THE TWO MONTHS PERIOD, FEBRUARY AND MARCH, 2008, HAD TO BE RE-ENTERED INTO THE COMPUTER SYSTEM AGAIN. ON PREPARATION OF THE FINAL ACCOUNTS AND FINALISING OF STATUTORY AUDIT IT TOOK A LITTLE EXTRA TIME THAT RESULTED IN BELATED FILING OF RETURN OF I NCOME. THUS THERE WAS A DELAY OF 74 DAYS IN FILING THE RETURN O F INCOME WHICH IS BEYOND THE CONTROL OF ASSESSEE. THIS WAS A LSO CONFIRMED BY THE STATUTORY AUDITOR VIDE HIS LETTER DATED 20.3.2011. BEING SO, IN OUR OPINION THERE IS A REAS ONABLE CAUSE FOR FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME BELATEDLY AND THIS IS BEYOND THE CONTROL OF THE ASSESSEE. WHEN THE SUBSTA NTIAL QUESTION OF JUSTICE INVOLVED TECHNICALITIES SHOULD BE IGNORED. FURTHER, WE ARE SUPPORTED BY THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NOS. 1231 & 1199/HYD/2010 IN THE CA SE OF DCIT VS. M/SVEGA CONVEYORS & AUTOMATION LTD. ORDER DATED 31ST DECEMBER, 2010 WHEREIN IN PARA 5 OF THE ORDER THE TRIBUNAL HELD AS FOLLOWS: ITA NO.2081/MDS/2015. :- 7 -: '5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES, AND OT HER MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD, INCLUDING THE CASE-LA W RELIED UPON BY THE PARTIES. IT IS AN UNDISPUTED FAC T THAT THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT CASE HAS FILED THE AUDI T REPORT IN FORM LOCCB DURING THE COURSE OF REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE ISSUE THAT ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION IS WHETHER THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS JUSTIFIED IN DISALLOWING THE ASSESSEE'S CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION UNDER S. 80IB ON THE GROUND THAT THE AUDI T REPORT IN FORM 10CCB WAS NOT FILED ALONG WITH THE RETURN OF INCOME; OR WHETHER THE CIT(A) WAS CORRECT IN PROCEEDING ON THE BASIS OF FORM 10CCB FILED DURING THE COURSE OF RE-ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND DIRECTI NG THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ALLOW THE CLAIM OF THE ASS ESSEE FOR DEDUCTION UNDER S. 80IB OF THE ACT. IT IS SETTL ED POSITION OF LAW, AS CONSISTENTLY HELD BY VARIOUS BE NCHES OF THIS TRIBUNAL AND AS HELD IN VARIOUS DECISIONS REFERRED TO BY THE CIT(A) IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER, TH AT THOUGH FILING OF AUDIT REPORT IN FORM 10CCB IS MANDATORY AND PREREQUISITE FOR DEDUCTION UNDER S. 80IB, NON-FILING OF THE SAME ALONG WITH THE RETURN OF INCOME IS ONLY A CURABLE DEFECT, AND ASSESSEE'S CLA IM FOR DEDUCTION HAS TO BE CONSIDERED ON ITS MERITS AS AND WHEN THE DEFECT IS CURED BY FILING FORM 10CCB. WE A RE FORTIFIED IN THIS BEHALF BY THE DECISION OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF HEMSONS INDUSTRIES (SUPRA), RELIED UPON BY THE LEARNED COUN SEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. IT IS CONTENDED BY THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE THAT THE ASSESSEE'S CLA IM FOR DEDUCTION UNDER S. 80IB CAN BE ENTERTAINED AND EXAMINED ON MERITS, WHEN THE AUDIT REPORT IS FILED BEFORE THE COMPLETION OF ASSESSMENT, WHICH HAS NOT BEEN DONE IN THE PRESENT CASE, SINCE THE AUDIT REPO RT WAS FILED ONLY DURING THE COURSE OF REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS INITIATED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WHI CH CANNOT END UP GIVING ADDITIONAL DEDUCTIONS/BENEFITS TO THE ASSESSEE. WE DO NOT FIND MERIT EVEN IN THIS CONTENTION OF THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATI VE. IN THE CASE OF HEMSONS INDUSTRIES (SUPRA), BEFORE T HE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT, FOR ONE OF THE YEARS UND ER APPEAL BEFORE HONBLE HIGH COURT, VIZ., ASSESSMENT YEAR 1979-80, AUDIT REPORT WAS FILED DURING THE COU RSE OF RE-ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND IN RESPONSE TO THE SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE UNDER S. 148 ISSUED BY THE ASSESS ING OFFICER. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH C OURT CITED ABOVE, AMONG OTHERS, WE FIND NO JUSTIFICATION TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). WE ACCORDIN GLY ITA NO.2081/MDS/2015. :- 8 -: UPHOLD THE SAME AND REJECT THE GROUNDS OF THE REVEN UE IN THIS APPEAL. THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE ALSO RELIED ON TH E DECISION OF HYDERABAD BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF G. LAXMI DEVI VS. ACIT IN ITA NO.294/HYD/2012 AND THE REVENUE HAS FILED AN APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF S. VENKATAIAH (SUPRA ) WITH THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND THE LORDSHIP HAVE CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN I.T..T.A. NO.114 OF 2013 AND OBSERVED A S UNDER:- THE LEARNED TRIBUNAL ON FACT-FINDING HELD THAT TH ERE IS A REASONABLE CAUSE FOR FILING THE RETURN ON INCOME BELATEDLY AND THIS IS BEYOND THE CONTROL OF THE ASS ESSEE. ON THIS FACT-FINDING THE LEARNED TRIBUNAL HAS DISMI SSED THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE. THERE IS NO ELEME NT OF LAW INVOLVED IN THE APPEAL AND THE FACT-FINDING CAN NOT BE APPRECIATED BY THIS COURT. MOREOVER, THE TRIBUNAL HAS FOLLOWED ITS EARLIER ORDER IN ITA NO.1231 & 1199/HYD/2010 DATED 31.12.2010 IN THE CASE OF DCIT VS M/S. VEGA CONVEYORS & AUTOMATION LIMITED . FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE COMPANY TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS B ONAFIDE AS PER THE DIRECTIONS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER REFERRED IN ASS ESSMENT ORDER MADE AN APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING RETURN OF INCOME BEFORE CBDT U/S.119(2)(A) OF THE ACT ON 04.12.20 14 AND PRAYED FOR ALLOWING THE DEDUCTION U/S.10A OF THE ACT. 6. CONTRA, THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE RELIED ON THE DECISION OF LOWER AUTHORITIES AND MADE A DISTINCTIO N OF DECISION OF HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND SPECIAL BENCH TRI BUNAL DECISION ITA NO.2081/MDS/2015. :- 9 -: AND RELIED ON THE DECISION OF BOMBAY HIGH COURT CIT VS. SMT. GODAVARIDEVI SARAF 113 ITR 589 AND ARGUED THAT 10A PARAMETERS ARE DIFFERENT AND VEHEMENTLY OPPOSED TO THE GROUND OF A SSESSEE. 7. WE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATE RIAL ON RECORD, JUDICIAL DECISIONS CITED. THE LD. AUTHORIS ED REPRESENTATIVE EMPHASIZED THAT RETURN COULD NOT FILED WITHIN DUE D ATE AND FILED SUBMISSIONS IN ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS RELYING ON THE DECISION OF CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL. BUT THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) WITHOUT GO ING INTO THE MERITS, CONSIDERED THE DECISION OF SPECIAL BENCH IN THE CASE SAFFIRE GARMENTS(SUPRA) AND OVER RULED THE ASSESSEES OBJECTIONS AND OBSERVED FILING RETURN OF INCOME U/S.139(1) OF THE ACT IS MANDATORY. THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE DREW ATTENTION TO THE DECISION OF HYDERABAD BENCH, TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF S. VENKATAIAH (SUPRA) WHERE SIMILAR ISSUE WAS DEALT AND DELAY WAS CONDONED DUE TO TECHNICALITIES. SUBSEQUENTLY, ON APPEAL BY REVENUE U/S.260A OF THE ACT THE HONBLE ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT HAS CONFIRMED THE ORDER O F THE TRIBUNAL IN I.T.T.A NO.114 OF 2013, DATED 26.06.2013. THE ANDH RA PRADESH HIGH COURT CONSIDERED THE TECHNICALITIES AND CIRCUMSTANC ES WERE THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT FILE THE RETURN. THE ASSESSEE CO MPANY HAS MADE A APPLICATION WITH CBDT FOR CONDONOTION OF DELAY BY L ETTER DATED 4.12.2014. THE ASSESSEE DEMONSTRATED THE SUBMISSIO NS MADE TO ITA NO.2081/MDS/2015. :- 10 -: CBDT. WE CONSIDERING THE FACTUAL ASPECTS, EVIDENCES , PROVISIONS OF LAWS AND DECISION OF HIGH COURTS AND TRIBUNAL RELIE D BY THE ASSESSEE, ARE INCLINED TO REMIT THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE TO THE F ILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER AS THE APPLICATION FILED IS PENDING WITH THE CBDT U/S.119(2)(A) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TO PASS THE ORDER BASED ON THE SATISFACTORY DIRECTIONS FROM CBDT AFTER PROVIDING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THURSDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF MAR CH, 2016, AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( ) (CHANDRA POOJARI) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( . ! ' # ) (G. PAVAN KUMAR) /JUDICIAL MEMBER / CHENNAI 1 / DATED: 03.03.2016 KV 2 * ,$.34 54'. / COPY TO: 1 . () / APPELLANT 3. ' 6. () / CIT(A) 5. 4!9: ,$.$ / DR 2. ,-() / RESPONDENT 4. ' 6. / CIT 6. :;& < / GF