S.V.N.Agro Refineries, CHENNAI V. DCIT, Tambaram

ITA 2257/CHNY/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 90584 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-06-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 21-05-2015
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 09-09-2014
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A V SREEKANTH
• Assessee Lawyers: T VASUDEVAN
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Income from undisclosed sources; Source of fund; Question of law; Agreed addition
• Section: 68

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, CHE NNAI , . ! ! ! ! , ' ' ' ' #$ #$ #$ #$ BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A.NO.2257/MDS/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 M/S. S.V.N. AGRO REFINERIES, 1/66, VENGAIVASAL MAIN ROAD, SANTHOSHAPURAM, CHENNAI 600 073. [PAN: AAQFS1323Q] VS. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BUSINESS CIRCLE I, TAMBARAM. ( %& %& %& %& /APPELLANT ) ( '(%& '(%& '(%& '(%& / RESPONDENT ) %& ) * / APPELLANT BY : SHRI T. VASUDEVAN, ADVOCATE '(%& ) * / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI A.V. SREEKANTH, JCIT ) + / DATE OF HEARING : 21.05.2015 ,-. ) + /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30.06.2015 / / / / / O R D E R PER V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAI NST THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) II, CHENNA I DATED 07.05.2014 RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE I S ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING AND SALE OF VANASPATHI AN D EDIBLE OILS. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFF ICER FOUND FROM THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THERE IS A C ASH LOAN RANGING BETWEEN I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. NO NONO NO. .. .2257 2257 2257 2257/M/ /M/ /M/ /M/14 1414 14 2 .19,000/- AND .19,500/- AGGREGATING TO A SUM OF .21,00,000/- DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2008-09. THE ABOVE LOANS ARE SHOWN I N THE NAMES OF M/S. OM MURUGA TRADER, M/S. VEL MURUGAGAN TRADERS AND M/S. RAJALAKSHMI TRADERS. WHEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO FU RNISH DETAILS INCLUDING CONFIRMATION LETTERS, ETC. THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER EXPLAINED THAT THE ABOVE AMOUNTS OF .21 LAKHS WAS ACTUALLY RECEIVED FROM THE PARTNERS O F THE ASSESSEE FIRM, BUT FOR THE PURPOSE OF ACCOUNTING, THEY ARE SHOWN A S LOANS FROM DIFFERENT PARTIES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT ACCEPT THE E XPLANATIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND TREATED THE SAME AS UNEXPLAINED CASH C REDITS UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. THEREAFTER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS INITIATED PENALTY PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. 3. DURING THE COURSE OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS, THE A SSESSEE HAS EXPLAINED THAT ON ACCOUNT OF MISTAKE COMMITTED BY TREATING TH E AMOUNTS GIVEN BY THE PARTNERS FOR USE OF FIRM AS LOANS FROM THE ABOVE TH REE CONCERNS AND MAKING WRONG ENTRIES. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE PARTN ERS HAD SUFFICIENT FUNDS BY WAY OF RENTAL INCOME TO ADVANCE AMOUNTS TO THE FIRM . THE PARTNERS WERE READY AT THAT TIME TO FILE AFFIDAVITS CONFIRMING TH E FACTS. THE MISTAKE COMMITTED BY THE ACCOUNTANT WAS COME TO ASSESSEES NOTICE ONLY AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. NO NONO NO. .. .2257 2257 2257 2257/M/ /M/ /M/ /M/14 1414 14 3 4. AFTER CONSIDERING THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESS EE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS OBSERVED THAT THERE IS 44AB AUDIT IN TH E CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. NEITHER IN THE AUDIT REPORT NOR DURING THE HEARING, THE DETAILS OF LOANS WERE DISCUSSED. THE ENTRIES OF LOANS FROM DIFFERENT PART IES CANNOT BE CLAIMED ACCOUNTING ERROR COMMITTED BY THE ACCOUNTANT OF THE ASSESSEES FIRM. IF THE RECEIPTS ARE FROM THE PARTNERS, IT MUST BE CREDITED IN THE NAMES OF THE PARTNERS IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND THERE IS NO CA USE TO BRING NEW NAMES UNDER WHICH CASH WAS BROUGHT INTO THE ACCOUNT. APAR T FROM THAT, IF THE PARTNERS HAVE PROVIDED THE CASH, THE FIRM SHOULD HA VE BROUGHT ON RECORD ANY CORRESPONDING ACCOUNT OF THE PARTNERS TO SHOW THAT THE CASH WAS REALLY COME FROM THE PARTNERS. IN THE ABSENCE OF SUCH EVID ENCES, THE GENUINENESS OF THE SOURCE OF RECEIPTS OF THESE LOANS IS NOT PRO VED. THEREFORE, THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE IS NOT BONAFIDE AND THUS THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. ACC ORDINGLY, IT ATTRACTS PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) AND PENALTY WAS LEV IED. 5. THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFOR E THE LD. CIT(A) AND THE LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: 4.2. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE ASSESSEE'S SUBMISSIONS CAREFULLY. AS MENTIONED ABOVE, THE ASSESSEE IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOU NT CLAIMED TO HAVE RECEIVED LOANS OF RS.21 LAKHS FROM THE ABOVE MENTIO NED 3 PERSONS. THE AMOUNTS WERE RECEIVED BY WAY OF CASH OF RS.19,000/- AND RS.19,500/-, EACH, ON VARIOUS DATES. THIS CLEARLY INDICATES THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD BEEN INTRODUCING THE CASH LOANS OF JUST BELOW RS.20 ,000/- EACH TO AVOID I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. NO NONO NO. .. .2257 2257 2257 2257/M/ /M/ /M/ /M/14 1414 14 4 THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.269SS OF THE ACT. THESE LOANS ARE ALSO SQUARED UP DURING THE YEAR. ONLY WHEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER CA LLED FOR THE DETAILS AND ASKED FOR THE CONFIRMATIONS, THE ASSESSEE CAME UP WITH THE ABOVE EXPLANATION OF RECEIVING THE AMOUNTS FROM THE PARTN ERS, BUT MISTAKENLY ACCOUNTED IN THE ABOVE THREE NAMES. 4.3. THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN DOING ITS BUSINESS REGUL ARLY AND ITS ACCOUNTS ARE SUBJECTED TO COMPULSORY AUDIT U/S.44AB OF THE ACT. NOWHERE IN THE BOOKS OR AUDIT REPORT THE ISSUE OF R ECEIVING THE LOANS FROM THE PARTNERS WAS MENTIONED. SECONDLY, IF THE A MOUNTS ARE REALLY RECEIVED FROM THE PARTNERS, HOW THE ACCOUNTANT WILL SHOW THE SOME OTHER NAMES IN THE BOOKS, THAT TOO, DELIBERATELY PU TTING THE AMOUNTS JUST BELOW THE LIMITS OF RS.20,000/- EACH, AIMED AT AVOI DING THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.269SS. FURTHER, THE AMOUNTS ARE NOT RECEIVED ON ONE DAY. THEY ARE SHOWN TO HAVE BEEN RECEIVED ON VARIOUS DATES. I N FACT, THE ASSESSEE ITSELF HAS ADMITTED THAT THE AMOUNTS HAVE BEEN RECE IVED WHENEVER THERE WAS A CASH CRUNCH IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. WHE N THE AMOUNTS ARE REQUIRED ON VARIOUS DATES, THE ASSESSEE KNOWS THAT IT HAS TO RECEIVE THE AMOUNT FROM SOMEBODY AND IN SUCH CASES, THERE WAS N O REASON OR JUSTIFICATION FOR NOT RECEIVING THE AMOUNT THROUGH BANKING CHANNELS, ESPECIALLY, IF THE AMOUNTS ARE FROM THE PARTNERS, W HO HAVE REGULAR BANK ACCOUNTS. 4.4. IT MAY BE TRUE THAT THE PARTNERS MAY BE HAVING RENTAL INCOMES IN THEIR HANDS, OR MAY BE WILLING TO FILE AFFIDAVITS I N SUPPORT OF THE ABOVE CLAIM. SUCH AFFIDAVITS CANNOT HAVE ANY EVIDENTIARY VALUE, EVEN IF FILED, AS THEY ARE ONLY SELF-SERVING DOCUMENTS. THE PRESEN CE OF RENTAL INCOMES IN THE HANDS OF THE PARTNERS MAY BE TRUE, BUT THERE ARE NO EVIDENCES, OF WHATSOEVER, TO PROVE OR INDICATE THAT THE SAID RENT AL INCOMES HAVE BEEN FLOWN INTO THE BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE. 4.5. ABOVE ALL, THE MANNER OF INTRODUCING THE AMOU NTS IN THE FORM OF CASH OF JUST RS.19,000/- OR RS.19,500/- (JUST BELOW THE THRESHOLD LIMITS OF RS.20,000/-) ON VARIOUS DATES FROM THE ABOVE THR EE PERSONS, THAT TOO, ON THE DATES ON WHICH THERE WILL OTHERWISE BE DEFIC IT CASH BALANCE, CLEARLY SHOWS THAT IT IS A TYPICAL CASE OF INTRODUC ING ASSESSEE'S OWN UNACCOUNTED MONEY FROM UNKNOWN SOURCES INTO THE BOO KS OF ACCOUNT. EVEN THE ASSESSEE'S ACCEPTANCE OF THE ADDITION IN T HE ASSESSMENT ORDER ALSO INDICATES THAT IT HAS NO GOOD CASE TO WIN IN T HE APPEALS. ALL THESE FACTS CLEARLY GOES TO PROVE THAT THE AMOUNT WHICH W AS SHOWN AS CASH LOANS FROM THE ABOVE PEOPLE IS NOTHING BUT THE ASSE SSEE'S OWN UNACCOUNTED INCOME. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. NO NONO NO. .. .2257 2257 2257 2257/M/ /M/ /M/ /M/14 1414 14 5 4.6. IT MAY BE TRUE THAT ALL AGREED ADDITIONS MAY NOT LEAD TO LEVY OF CONCEALMENT PENALTY U/S.271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. BUT, WHERE THE FACTS ARE CLEAR AND CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR FURNISHING OF IN ACCURATE PARTICULARS ARE DETECTED BY THE REVENUE, LEVY OF PE NALTY U/S.271(1)(C) CANNOT BE WAIVED ON THE MERE ASSESSEE'S ACCEPTANCE OF THE ADDITION. AS HELD BY THE APEX COURT IN A NUMBER OF CASES, THE ON CE THERE IS A CONCEALMENT /FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS, PEN ALTY CAN BE IMPOSED (165 ITR 14; 185 ITR 49; 205 ITR 244; 251 ITR 99). WHEREAS, IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAS DELIBERATELY AND WIL FULLY CONCEALED HIS INCOME PARTICULARS AND HENCE LIABLE FOR PENALTY U/S .271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. 4.7. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE REASONS AND THE JUDGMENT S OF VARIOUS COURTS INCLUDING THE HON'B1E SUPREME COURT, I AM OF THE OP INION THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER RIGHTLY CONCLUDED THAT THE ABOVE CASH CREDITS OF RS.21 LAKHS, BROUGHT TO TAX U/S.68, ARE THE ASSESSEE CONC EALED INCOME. THEREFORE, THE PENALTY OF RS.6,48,900/- LEVIED BY T HE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S.271(1)(C) OF THE ACT, IS JUSTIFIED AND CONFIRME D. THE ASSESSEE FAILS IN ITS APPEALS. 6. ON BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MA TTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AND SUBMITTED THAT THE SOURCE OF CASH RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS EXPLAINED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASS ESSING OFFICER HAS NOT PROVED THE CONCEALMENT OF INCOME. THE LD. COUNSEL F OR THE ASSESSEE HAS RELIED ON THE DECISIONS IN THE CASE OF CIT V. GEM G RANITES IN TCA NO.504 OF 2009 (MAD), CIT V. CHENNUPATI TYRE & RUBBER PRODUCT S IN I.T.T.A. NO. 190 OF 2003 (AP) AND CIT V. JAIN EXPORT PVT. LTD. ITA N O.194/2015 (DEL). 7. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR HAS RELIED ON THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF MAK DATA P. LTD. V. CIT 358 ITR 593 (SC) AND STRONG LY SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. NO NONO NO. .. .2257 2257 2257 2257/M/ /M/ /M/ /M/14 1414 14 6 8. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH SIDES, PERUSED THE MATERIALS ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT THE A SSESSEE HAS RECEIVED LOANS FROM THREE PARTIES NAMELY, M/S. OM MURUGA TRA DER, M/S. VEL MURUGAGAN TRADERS AND M/S. RAJALAKSHMI TRADERS. WHE N THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE SOURC E OF THE ABOVE AMOUNTS RECEIVED FROM THE THREE PARTIES, IT WAS SUBMITTED T HAT THE ABOVE AMOUNTS OF .21 LAKHS WERE ACTUALLY RECEIVED FROM THE PARTNERS OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT ONLY FOR ACCOUNTING PURPOSE; IT WAS SHOWN AS LOANS FROM DIFFERENT PARTIES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT AC CEPT THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE AND HE HAS TREATED THE LOANS RECEIVED FROM THE THREE PARTIES AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT . THEREAFTER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS INITIATED PENALTY PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT AND CALLED EXPLANATION FROM THE ASSESSEE . THE ASSESSEE HAS REITERATED THE SUBMISSION AS MADE BEFORE THE ASSESS ING OFFICER DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THAT THE AMOUNTS W ERE ACTUALLY RECEIVED FROM THE PARTNERS. HOWEVER, IT WAS SHOWN IN THREE D IFFERENT PARTIES FOR THE PURPOSE OF ACCOUNTING. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NO T BELIEVED THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE AND HE HELD THAT THE AS SESSEE HAS FAILED TO EXPLAIN THE GENUINENESS OF THE SOURCE OF RECEIPTS A ND THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE IS NOT BONAFIDE AND LEVIED PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. THE LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ORDER PASSED BY THE I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. NO NONO NO. .. .2257 2257 2257 2257/M/ /M/ /M/ /M/14 1414 14 7 ASSESSING OFFICER. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SH OWN IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT LOANS FROM THREE PARTIES. WHEN IT WAS FOUND BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE HAS CHANGED ITS STAND THAT TH ESE AMOUNTS WERE RECEIVED FROM THE PARTNERS. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE PR ODUCED NEITHER BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOR BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) OR EVEN BEFORE US THAT THESE AMOUNTS WERE RECEIVED FROM THE PARTNERS AND THE ASS ESSEE HAS NOT FILED ANY CONFIRMATION FROM THE PARTNERS BEFORE THE AUTHORITI ES BELOW. THAT PART, WE DO NOT FIND THE BONAFIDE IN THE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY T HE ASSESSEE THAT FOR THE PURPOSE OF ACCOUNTING THREE NAMES HAVE BEEN SHOWN I N THE BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE AND ACTUALLY AMOUNTS WERE RECEIVED FROM TH E PARTNERS. THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE IS UNBELIEVABLE AND BEYOND HUMAN PROBABILITIES. WE, THEREFORE, HOLD THAT THE ASSESSE E HAS FAILED TO EXPLAIN THE GENUINENESS OF SOURCE OF FUNDS AND EXPLANATION OFFE RED BY THE ASSESSEE IS NOT BONAFIDE AND IT CANNOT BE STAND FOR JUDICIAL SC RUTINY. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RIGHTLY LEVIED PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT, WHICH WAS CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A). ACCORDI NGLY, WE FIND NO REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A ). 9. SO FAR AS CASE LAW RELIED ON BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE IN THE CASE OF CIT V. GEM GRANITES (SUPRA), THE HONBLE MA DRAS HIGH COURT HAS OBSERVED THAT THE ONUS CAST UPON THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN DISCHARGED BY GIVING A COGENT AND RELIABLE EXPLANATION. THEREFORE , IF THE DEPARTMENT DID NOT I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. NO NONO NO. .. .2257 2257 2257 2257/M/ /M/ /M/ /M/14 1414 14 8 AGREE WITH THE EXPLANATIONS, THEN THE ONUS WAS ON T HE DEPARTMENT TO PROVE THAT THERE WAS CONCEALMENT OF PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. IN THE INSTANT CASE, SUCH ON US WHICH SHIFTED ON THE DEPARTMENT HAS NOT BEEN DISCHARGED. IN THE CIRCUMST ANCES, WE DO NOT FIND THAT THERE IS ANY GROUND FOR THIS COURT TO SUBSTITU TE OUR INTERFERENCE WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE TRIBUNAL ON THE ASPECT OF THE BONAF IDES OF THE CONDUCT OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAS NO T DISCHARGED ANY BURDEN. THE ASSESSEE NEITHER FILED CONFIRMATIONS FR OM THE PARTNERS NOR FILED ANY MATERIAL TO SHOW THAT THE FINDS RECEIVED ARE FR OM THE PARTNERS. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE CASE LAW RELIED ON BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS NO APPLICATION TO THE FACTS OF THE CAS E. 10. IN THE CASE OF CIT V. CHENNUPATI TYRE & RUBBER PRODUCTS (SUPRA), THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HAS OBSERVED THAT IN THIS CASE W E DO NOT FILE ANY INGREDIENTS OF CONCEALMENT AND PENALTY WAS DELETED. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSESSEE BY FILING INACCURATE PARTICULARS CONCE ALED THE INCOME. THEREFORE, THE ABOVE CASE LAW HAS NO APPLICATION TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE. 11. IN THE CASE OF CIT V. JAIN EXPORTS PVT. LTD. ( SUPRA), THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT HAS OBSERVED THAT LACK OF PROPER EXPLAN ATION UNDOUBTEDLY MIGHT HAVE JUSTIFIED THE ADDITION. THE DISALLOWANCE WAS U LTIMATELY DIRECTED AND UPHELD BY THE ITAT, HOWEVER, THE REASONING OF THE I TAT IN HOLDING THAT THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS REQUIRED SATISFACTION OF A HIGH ER THRESHOLD OF PROOF, I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. NO NONO NO. .. .2257 2257 2257 2257/M/ /M/ /M/ /M/14 1414 14 9 WHICH CONFIRMED THE BASIS FOR IT, ULTIMATELY, CANNO T BE FAULTED. NO QUESTION OF LAW ARISES IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. THE AP PEAL IS CONSEQUENTLY DISMISSED. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAS N OT ABLE TO PRODUCE ANY MATERIAL NEITHER BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOR B EFORE THE LD. CIT(A) OR EVEN BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL TO SHOW THAT THE FUNDS HAV E BEEN RECEIVED FROM THE PARTNERS. IT IS A CLEAR CASE OF FILING OF INACCURAT E PARTICULARS AND THEREBY CONCEALED THE INCOME. THEREFORE, THE ABOVE CASE LAW RELIED ON BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS NO APPLICATION. 12. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS DISMISSED. 13. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSE E IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON TUESDAY, THE 30 TH OF JUNE, 2015 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (CHANDRA POOJARI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (V. DURGA RAO) JUDICIAL MEMBER CHENNAI, DATED, THE 30.06.2015 VM/- / ) ''+01 21.+ /COPY TO: 1. %& / APPELLANT, 2. '(%& / RESPONDENT, 3. 3 ( ) /CIT(A), 4. 3 /CIT, 5. 14 ''+' /DR & 6. 5! 6 /GF.