DCIT, CHENNAI V. Capricorn Food Products India Ltd., CHENNAI

ITA 2160/CHNY/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9266 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-05-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 23-05-2016
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 17-11-2015
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ARUN C BHARATCIT D R
• Assessee Lawyers: J PRABHAKARC A
• Keywords: Business income; Speculation loss
• Section: 43(5)

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH : CHENNAI , ! ' ! # . $% & '( BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY , JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ I.T.A.NO.2179/MDS/2015 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 M/S. CAPRICORN FOOD PRODUCTS INDIA LTD., NEW NO.AH-11/OLD NO.AH-216, 2 ND STREET, 8 TH MAIN ROAD, SHANTHI COLONY, ANNA NAGAR,CHENNAI 600 040. VS. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COMPANY CIRCLE I(3), CHENNAI. [PAN AABCC 1550 B ] ( )* / APPELLANT) ( +,)* /RESPONDENT) ./ I.T.A.NO.2160/MDS/2015 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COMPANY CIRCLE I(3), CHENNAI. VS. M/S. CAPRICORN FOOD PRODUCTS INDIA LTD., NEW NO.AH-11/OLD NO.AH-216, 2 ND STREET, 8 TH MAIN ROAD, SHANTHI COLONY, ANNA NAGAR,CHENNAI 600 040. [PAN AABCC 1550 B ] ( )* / APPELLANT) ( +,)* /RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : MR.J.PRABHAKAR,C.A REVENUE BY : MR.ARUN C.BHARAT,CIT,D.R / DATE OF HEARING : 23 - 05 - 201 6 ITA NOS.2179 &2160/MDS./15 :- 2 -: / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 27 - 05 - 2016 - / O R D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THESE CROSS APPEALS ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORD ER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-I, CHENNAI DAT ED 03.08.2015 PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. 2. IN ASSESSEES APPEAL, THE MAIN GRIEVANCE OF ASS ESSEE IS WITH REGARD TO DISALLOWING THE CLAIM OF EXCHANGE LOSS ON FORWARD CONTRACTS. 3. IN REVENUES APPEAL, THE MAIN GRIEVANCE OF REVE NUE IS WITH REGARD TO FINDINGS OF THE LD.CIT(A) THAT ORDER PASS ED U/S.144 IS NOT TENABLE. 4. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESS EE IS A DOMESTIC COMPANY, ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING A ND EXPORT OF FRUIT PULPS. THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS E-RETURN ON 30.09.20 09 ADMITTING NIL INCOME UNDER THE NORMAL PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. THE LIABILITY TO TAX U/S.115JB AS PER THIS RETURN WAS 93,47,952/-. SUBS EQENTLY, THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND THE ASSESSMENT U/S.1 43(30 R.W.S.144 OF THE ACT WAS COMPLETED ON 15.02.2011 AFTER MAKING C ERTAIN DISALLOWANCES. WHILE PASSING THE ORDER, THE AO MENT IONED THAT HE HAS FRAMED THE ASSESSMENT U/S.144 OF THE ACT AS EXPART E. HOWEVER, BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE PLEADED THAT THE ASSESSEE PRODUCED THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS:- ITA NOS.2179 &2160/MDS./15 :- 3 -: A) SEPARATE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS ARE MAINTAINED FOR TH E EOU AND DOMESTIC TARIFF AREA (DTA) B) THAT THE CONSUMPTION OF POWER TARIFF WITH REGARD TO EOU AND DTA ARE GROSSLY AT VARIANCE, PROJECTS A PICTURE THAT PR OPER BOOKS ARE NOT MAINTAINED. C) TRADING TRANSACTIONS HAVE BEEN DIVERTED STRATEGI CALLY TO DTA SURPRISINGLY THIS YEAR, WHICH WAS RUN IN THE EARLIE R YEAR UNDER EOU. D) BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS ARE REJECTED AND THE ASSESSMEN T IS MADE IN TERMS OF SEC.144 ESTIMATING THE GROSS PROFIT ON THE NATURE OF INPUTES AND OUTPUTS. SINCE THE AO PASSED ASSESSMENT ORDER AFTER CONSIDER ING THE ABOVE RECORDS, THE CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT SINCE THE ASSESSE E HAD COMPLIED U/S.142(1) OF THE ACT AND PRODUCED RELEVANT MATERIA L FOR THE PURPOSE OF ASSESSMENT , THE ORDER CANNOT BE SAID TO BE PASS ED U/S.144 OF THE ACT. HENCE, CIT(A) SAID THAT THE ORDER U/S.144 OF THE ACT IS NOT TENABLE. NOW, THE CONTENTION OF THE DEPARTMENTAL R EPRESENTATIVE IS THAT NO OPPORTUNITY WAS GIVEN TO THE AO TO COMMENT ON THE SUBMISSION OF LD.A.R BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A). 5. IN OUR OPINION, THE GRIEVANCE WITH THE DEPARTME NT IS JUSTIFIED. WHEN CIT(A) TAKES DECISION AGAINST THE D EPARTMENT, HE SHOULD HAVE CALLED FOR A REMAND REPORT FROM THE AO FOR WHICH HE FAILS ITA NOS.2179 &2160/MDS./15 :- 4 -: TO DO SO. ACCORDINGLY, WE VACATE THE FINDINGS OF T HE CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE. THUS, THIS ISSUE WOULD GO BACK TO THE FILE OF AO FOR FRESH CONSIDERATION AFTER GIVING DUE OPPORTUNITY TO THE A SSESSEE. 6. HENCE, THE APPEAL OF REVENUE IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 7. COMING TO THE ASSESSEES APPEAL, THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED FOREX FLUCTUATION LOSS. THE AO OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD HEDGED THE EXPORT RECEIVABLES BY E NTERING INTO FORWARD CONTRACTS WITH SBI AND ICCI BANK THE LOSS O N SUCH ACCOUNT WAS RS.93,30,000/-, FURTHER THREE TRANSACTIONS NOTE D ON 28.02.2009 AND 28.02.2009 BY WHICH CONTRACTS HAVE BEEN EVENTUA LLY SETTLED WITH SBI AND THE LOSS WAS RS.1,94,07,300/-. FURTHER, AO OBSERVED THAT APART FROM THESE, FORWARD CONTRACTS ENTERED INTO BY THE ASSESSEE IN SBI AND ICICI BANKS HAVE NOT BEEN SETTLED THROUGH A CTUAL DELIVERY AND HE PORTION OF TURNOVER INVOLVED IN THE FORWARD CONT RACTS WHICH HAVE BEEN SETTLED BY WAY OF ACTUAL DELIVERY IS RS.8,31,8 8,500/-. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE HAS HEDGED THE EXPORT PROCEEDS RECEIVABLE MUCH MORE THAN WHAT IS AVAILABLE IN STOCK AS RECEIVABLES THEREFORE , FALLING WITHIN THE AMBIT OF SPECULATIVE TRANSACTIONS. THE CIT(A) CONFI RMED THAT THE ORDER OF AO ON THIS ISSUE. AGAINST THIS, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 8. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. IN OUR OPINION, THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE WAS CO NSIDERED BY THIS ITA NOS.2179 &2160/MDS./15 :- 5 -: TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF M/S. AISHWARYA & CO. P. LTD ., IN ITA NO.860/MDS/2014 VIDE ORDER DATED 29.05.2015 WHEREIN THE FOLLOWED THE DECISION OF CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF M/S. BALJIT SECURITIES PVT. LTD. (88 CCH 313) AND HELD AS UNDER:- CLAUSE (D) OF SECTION 43(5) BECAME EFFECTIVE WITH EFFECT FROM 1ST APRIL, 2006. THEREFORE, PRIOR TO 1ST APRIL , 2006 ANY TRANSACTION IN WHICH A CONTRACT FOR THE PURCHAS E OR SALE OF ANY COMMODITY INCLUDING STOCKS AND SHARES W AS PERIODICALLY OR ULTIMATELY SETTLED OTHERWISE THAN B Y THE ACTUAL DELIVERY OR TRANSFER OF THE COMMODITY OR SCR IP WAS A SPECULATIVE TRANSACTION. SUB-SECTION 1 OF SECTION 73 PROVIDES AS FOLLOWS: (1) ANY LOSS, COMPUTED IN RESPECT OF A SPECULATIO N BUSINESS CARRIED ON BY THE ASSESSEE, SHALL NOT BE S ET OFF EXCEPT AGAINST PROFITS AND GAINS, IF ANY, OF ANOTHE R SPECULATION BUSINESS. THE RESULTANT EFFECT WAS THAT ANY LOSS ARISING OUT OF SPECULATIVE TRANSACTION COULD ONLY HAVE BEEN SET OF F AGAINST PROFITS ARISING OUT OF SPECULATIVE TRANSACT ION. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSESSEE, AS ALREADY INDICATE D, HAS BEEN DEALING IN SHARES WHERE DELIVERY WAS IN FACT T AKEN AND ALSO IN SHARES WHERE DELIVERY WAS NOT ULTIMATEL Y TAKEN. IN OTHER WORDS, THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN DEALIN G IN ACTUAL SELLING AND BUYING OF SHARES AS ALSO DEALING IN SHARES ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF SETTLING THE TRANSAC TION OTHERWISE THAN BY ACTUAL DELIVERY. THE QUESTION ARI SE WHETHER THE LOSSES ARISING OUT OF THE DEALINGS AND TRANSACTION IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE DID NOT ULTIMATEL Y TAKE DELIVERY OF THE SHARES OR GIVE DELIVERY OF THE SHAR ES COULD BE SET OFF AGAINST THE INCOME ARISING OUT OF THE DE ALINGS AND TRANSACTIONS IN ACTUAL BUYING AND SELLING OF SH ARES. AN ANSWER TO THIS QUESTION IS TO BE FOUND IN THE EXPLANATION APPENDED TO SECTION 73 WHICH READS AS FOLLOWS: EXPLANATION: WHERE ANY PART OF THE BUSINESS OF A COMPANY OTHER THAN A COMPANY WHOSE GROSS TOTAL ITA NOS.2179 &2160/MDS./15 :- 6 -: INCOME CONSISTS MAINLY OF INCOME WHICH IS CHARGEABL E UNDER THE HEADS INTEREST ON SECURITIES, OR A COMP ANY THE PRINCIPAL BUSINESS OF WHICH IS THE BU9SINESS OF BANKING OR THE GRANTING OF LOANS AND ADVANCES) CONSISTS IN THE PURCHASE AND SALE OF SHARES OF OTHE R COMPANIES, SUCH COMPANY SHALL, FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION, BE DEEMED TO BE CARRYING ON A SPECULATION BUSINESS TO THE EXTENT TO WHICH THE BUSINESS CONSISTS OF THE PURCHASE. IN ORDER TO RES OLVE THE ISSUE BEFORE US, THE SECTION HAS TO BE READ IN THE MANNER AS FOLLOWS: EXPLANATION : WHERE ANY PART OF THE BUSINESS OF A COMPANY ( . . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. . ) CONSIST IN THE PURCHASE AND SALE OF SHARE S OF OTHER COMPANIES, SUCH COMPANY SHALL, FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION, BE DEEMED TO BE CARRYING ON A SPECULATION BUSINESS TO THE EXTENT TO WHICH THE BUSINESS CONSISTS OF THE PURCHASE AND SALE OF SUCH SHARES. IT WOULD, THUS, APPEAR THAT WHERE AN ASSESSEE, BEIN G THE COMPANY, BESIDES DEALING IN OTHER THINGS ALSO DEALS IN PURCHASE AND SALE OF SHARES OF OTHER COMPANIES, THE ASSESSEE SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE CARRYING ON A SPECUL ATION BUSINESS. THE ASSESSEE, IN THE PRESENT CASE, PRINCI PALLY IS A SHARE BROKER, AS ALREADY INDICATED. THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO IN THE BUSINESS OF BUYING AND SELLING OF SHARES FOR SE LF WHERE ACTUAL DELIVERY IS TAKEN AND GIVEN AND ALSO IN BUYI NG AND SELLING OF SHARES WHERE ACTUAL DELIVERY WAS NOT INT ENDED TO BE TAKEN OR GIVEN. THEREFORE, THE ENTIRE TRANSACTIO N CARRIED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE, INDICATED ABOVE, WAS WITHIN TH E UMBRELLA OF SPECULATIVE TRANSACTION. THERE WAS, AS SUCH, NO BAR IN SETTING OFF THE LOSS ARISING OUT OF DERIVATI VES FROM THE INCOME ARISING OUT OF BUYING AND SELLING OF SHARES. THIS IS WHAT THE LEARNED TRIBUNAL HAS DONE. 9. FROM THE ABOVE DECISION OF THE CALCUTTA HIGH COU RT IN THE CASE OF BALJIT SECURITIES PVT. LTD. CITED SUPRA, TH E ISSUE STANDS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, WE MAKE IT CLEAR THAT TOTAL TRANSACTION CONSIDERED FOR ITA NOS.2179 &2160/MDS./15 :- 7 -: DETERMINING THIS BUSINESS LOSS FROM DERIVATIVE TRAN SACTIONS CANNOT BE MORE THAN THE TOTAL EXPORT TURNOVER OF TH E ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATIO N AND IF THE DERIVATIVE TRANSACTION IS IN EXCESS OF EXPORT T URNOVER, THEN THAT LOSS SUFFERED IN RESPECT OF THAT PORTION OF EXCESS TRANSACTIONS TO BE CONSIDERED AS SPECULATIVE LOSS O NLY AS THAT EXCESS DERIVATIVE TRANSACTION HAS NO PROXIMITY WITH EXPORT TURNOVER AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO C OMPUTE ACCORDINGLY. THIS GROUND IS ALLOWED AS INDICATED AB OVE. 5. FURTHER, THE MUMBAI BENCH OF ITAT IN THE CASE OF ARASKA DIAMOND P. LTD VS ACIT, 152 ITD 203, HAS HE LD AS UNDER: TOTAL SALES DURING THE YEAR AMOUNTED TO ` 27.78 C RORES, THAT THE AO AND THE FAA HAD HELD SUCH TRANSACTION WERE S PECULATIVE IN NATURE AND HAD DISALLOWED THE CLAIM MADE BY THE ASSESSEE, THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS OF THE OPINION THAT TRANSACT IONS ENTERED INTO BY IT WERE NOT SPECULATIVE TRANSACTIONS. ITAT FOUND THAT THE AMOUNT INVOLVED IN THE FORWARD CONTRACT (FC) WAS MORE THAN 100% OF THE TURNOVER OF THE ASSESSEE, THAT FC WERE NOT RELATABLE TO SPECIFIC BILLS, THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT RELATED ANY SINGLE BILL TO ANY OF THE CONTRACT AND HAD NOT PROVIDED ANY PURCHASE ORDER DURING THE ASSESSMENT O R APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. ITAT FOUND THAT IN THE CASE UNDER CONSIDERATION ASSESSEE WAS NOT DEALING IN FOREIGN EXCHANGE, THEREFORE TRANSACTIONS ENTERED INTO BY IT IN FOREIGN EXCHANGE CANNOT BE HELD TO BE HEDGING TRANSACTIONS. AS THE ASSESSEE WAS DEALING IN DIAMON DS AND FC ENTERED INTO ONLY FOR DIAMONDS WOULD HAVE BE EN COVERED BY THE PROVISO (A) TO THE SECTION 43(5)OF T HE ACT. AS HELD BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA IN TH E MATTER OF GOUREPORE CO. LTD ,ONUS WAS ON THE ASSESS EE TO PROVE THAT THE TRANSACTIONS IN QUESTION WERE NOT OF A SPECULATIVE NATURE. ITAT WAS OF THE OPINION THAT IT HAD FAILED TO DISCHARGE THE ONUS CAST UPON HIM BY THE S TATUTE. IT WAS ALSO NOT ABLE TO CONTRADICT THE FINDING OF F ACT THAT BOOKING AND CANCELLATION OF FC OF FOREIGN EXCHANGE WERE NOT IN RESPECT OF SPECIFIED EXPORT OR IMPORT. BESID ES, FINDING OF FACT GIVEN BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES RE MAINED UN-CONTRAVENED THAT LOSS IN QUESTION, SHOWN BY IT PERTAINED TO THOSE FC TRANSACTIONS, AGAINST WHICH N O ACTUAL DELIVERY OF FOREIGN EXCHANGE WAS MADE. ON APPRECIATION OF THE FACTS SURROUNDING THE TRANSACTI ON ITAT HAD REACHED AT THE CONCLUSION THAT TRANSACTIONS ENT ERED IN TO BY THE ASSESSEE WERE SPECULATIVE IN NATURE AN D THE ITA NOS.2179 &2160/MDS./15 :- 8 -: CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT COVERED BY PROVISO(A) O F THE SECTION 43(5) OF THE ACT. DISPUTED TRANSACTIONS WERE SPECULATIVE AND NOT HEDGING TRANSACTION,THAT THE AS SESSEE COULD NOT RELATE ANY SINGLE BILL TO ANY OF THE CONT RACT AND IT HAD NOT PROVIDED DETAIL OF ANY PURCHASE ORDER RE LATABLE TO SPECIFIC TRANSACTION, DURING THE ASSESSMENT OR APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. THUS, THE TRANSACTIONS UNDER TAKEN BY IT HAVE TO BE TAKEN AS TRANSACTIONS RELATABLE TO FOREIGN EXCHANGE. ITAT WAS OF THE OPINION THAT THE ORDER OF THE FAA DOES NOT SUFFER FROM ANY LEGAL OR FACTUAL INFIR MITY. THEREFORE, CONSIDERING THE PECULIAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, ITAT CONFIRMED HIS ORDER FAA AND DECIDE EFFECTIVE GROUND AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. 6. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE ORDERS OF THE TRIBUNAL, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TO CONSIDER THE FOREIGN EXCHANGE DERIVATIVE IN PROPORT ION TO EXPORT TURNOVER AS REGULAR BUSINESS TRANSACTION OF THE ASSESSEE. IF THE DERIVATIVE TRANSACTION UNDERTA KEN BY THE ASSESSEE IS IN EXCESS OF EXPORT TURNOVER TH EN THAT LOSS SUFFERED IN RESPECT OF THAT PORTION OF EX CESS TRANSACTION HAS TO BE CONSIDERED AS SPECULATIVE LOS S ONLY AND THAT EXCESS DERIVATIVE TRANSACTION HAS NO PROXIMITY WITH EXPORT TURNOVER AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO COMPUTE ACCORDINGLY. FURTHE R, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TO SEE WHETHER THERE IS ANY PREMATURE CANCELLATION OF FORWARD CONTRACT OF FOREI GN EXCHANGE AND THAT TRANSACTION SHOULD BE TAKEN OUT F OR THE PURPOSE OF CONSIDERING THE BUSINESS LOSS AND ON LY THE TRANSACTIONS WHICH ARE COMPLETED TO BE CONSIDER ED FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINING THE BUSINESS LOSS F ROM THESE FOREIGN EXCHANGE FORWARD CONTRACT. WITH THIS OBSERVATION, WE REMAND THIS ISSUE TO THE FILE OF TH E ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FRESH CONSIDERATION . 7. BEFORE US, THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE RELIED ON THE JUDGMENT OF GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN CIT VS FRIENDS AN D FRIENDS SHIPPING P. LTD, [2013] 217 TAXMAN 267, FOR THE PROPOSITION THAT IF THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO TAKE DELIVERY WITHIN THE PERIOD INDICATED IN CONTRACT AND THE AS SESSEE HAD GIVEN INSTRUCTIONS TO BANK FOR CANCELLATION OF CONTRACT ON PAYMENT OF AGREED CHARGES TO THE BANK THESE TRANSACTIONS CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS SPECULATIVE TRANSACTION. HOWEVER, THERE IS NO FINDING IN THIS JUDGMENT TOWARDS THIS EFFECT AND THE RELIANCE PLACE D BY THE ASSESSEE IS MISPLACED. MORE SO, THIS ISSUE WAS CONSIDERED BY THE MUMBAI TRIBUNAL WHILE DELIVERING THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF ARASKA DIAMOND P. LTD, 152 ITD 203, AND AFTER FOLLOWING THE JUDGMENTS OF CALCUTTA HIGH ITA NOS.2179 &2160/MDS./15 :- 9 -: COURT IN THE CASE OF BENGAL & ASSAM CO. LTD VS CIT 227 CTR 399, AND BOMBAY HIGH COURT JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS BADRIDAS GAURIDU P. LTD 261 ITR 256, THE TRIBUNAL CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE TRANSACTIO NS, WHICH WERE PREMATURELY CANCELLED, CANNOT BE CONSIDE RED AS BUSINESS TRANSACTION AND IT IS TO BE CONSIDERED AS SPECULATIVE TRANSACTION. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE ARE INCLINED TO REMIT THE ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FRESH CONSIDERATION. IN VIEW OF THIS, WE ARE REMITTING THE ISSUE IN DISP UTE TO THE FILE OF AO ON SIMILAR DIRECTION. HENCE, THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 9. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE AND THE ASSESSEE ARE PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE S. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 27 TH MAY, 2016, AT CHENNAI. SD/ - SD/ - ( . ! ) ( DUVVURU RL REDDY ) ) & / JUDICIAL MEMBER ( ) (CHANDRA POOJARI) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER #$ / CHENNAI %& / DATED: 27 TH MAY, 2016 K S SUNDARAM &' ) *+ ,+ / COPY TO: 1 . -. / APPELLANT 4. / / CIT 2. )0-. / RESPONDENT 5. +12 ) 3 / DR 3. / () / CIT(A) 6. 2! 4 / GF