The Deputy Director of Income Tax, CHENNAI V. M/s. Chennai Kammavar Trust, CHENNAI

ITA 2271/CHNY/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4644 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 4 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-05-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 30-03-2017
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 26-12-2013
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A V SREEKANTH
• Assessee Lawyers: K R RAMAN
• Keywords: Business income; Charitable institution
• Section: 11

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, CHENNAI , . ! ' , # '$ BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI G. PAVAN KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER . /ITA NO. 2271/MDS/2013 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (EXEMPTIONS)-II, CHENNAI. ( /APPELLANT) V. M/S. CHENNAI KAMMAVAR TRUST, NO.56, GANGADEESWAR KOIL STREET, PURASWALKAM, CHENNAI 600 084. PAN AAATC0139Q RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI A.V.SREEKANTH, JCIT / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI K.R. RAMAN, FCA ! / DATE OF HEARING : 30.03.2017 '# ! / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 11.05.2017 % / O R D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST T HE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS)-VII, CHE NNAI DATED 03.09.3013. - - ITA 2271/13 2 2. THE GRIEVANCE OF THE REVENUE IN THIS APPEAL IS W ITH REGARD TO GRANTING EXEMPTION U/S.11 OF THE ACT BY T HE CIT(APPEALS), THOUGH THE ASSESSEE WAS EARNING INCOM E FROM LETTING OUT OF KALAYANA MANDAPAM FOR MARRIAGE AND O THER FUNCTIONS, WHICH ARE BUSINESS ACTIVITIES AND HIT BY THE AMENDMENT OF SEC.2(15) OF THE ACT. 3. THE ASSESSEE, HEREIN IS A REGISTERED CHARITABLE TRUST U/S.12AA OF THE ACT, WHICH IS RUNNING SCHOOLS AND A LSO RUNNING A COMMUNITY HALL IN CHENNAI IN THE NAME AND STYLE CAL LED CHENNAI KAMAWAR KALYANA MAHAL. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED EXEMP TION U/S.11 OF THE ACT. THE SAME WAS DENIED BY THE AO, AS THE ASSESSEE WAS HIT BY THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.2(15) OF THE ACT. AGAINST THIS, THE ASSESSEE WENT IN APPEAL BEFORE TH E CIT(APPEALS), WHO GRANTED EXEMPTION U/S.11 OF THE A CT BY OBSERVED THAT RENT RECEIPT FROM THE MARRIAGE HALL W AS ONLY 4,70,000/- AS AGAINST THE TOTAL RECEIPT OF RS. 1,92 ,98,410/-. AGGRIEVED, THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 4. THE LD. DR RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY. - - ITA 2271/13 3 5. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE OBJECTS OF THE ASSESSEE TRUST ARE TO PROMOTE EDUCATION AND TO CARRY ON ACTIVITIES OF GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITY. THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO LETTING OUT A HALL FOR MARRIAGE AND OTHER FUNCTIONS. ACCORDING TO THE LD. AR, LETTING OF HALL WAS TO EARN INCOME AND APPLY THE SA ME TO THE MAIN OBJECTS. FURTHER, THE LD. AR, SUBMITTED THAT THE I NCOME DERIVED FROM THE HALL WAS NOT BUSINESS INCOME BUT PROPERTY INCOME AND PROVISIONS OF SEC.13(1)(BB) ARE NOT APPLICABLE AND, THEREFORE, EXEMPTION U/S. 11OF THE ACT CANNOT BE DENIED. TO SU PPORT HIS PROPOSITION, HE RELIED ON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS : I) CIT VS. SAMYUKTHA GOWDA SARASWATHA SABAH [245 IT R 242(MAD)] II) DIT(EXEMPTION) VS. SAMYUKTHA GOWDA SARASWATHA S ABA [339 ITR 456 (MAD)] III) CIT VS. SRI RAO BAHADUR ADK DHARMARAJA EDUCATI ONAL CHARITY TRUST [300 ITR 365 (MAD)] 5.1 THE LD. AR, FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT WHEN THE MAI N OBJECT OF THE TRUST AND THE PURPOSE OF THE TRUST IS TO RUN EDUCAT IONAL INSTITUTION, IT WILL CONSTITUTE CHARITABLE PURPOSE EVEN IF IT INC IDENTALLY INVOLVES CARRYING ON THE COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY. ACCORDING TO THE LD. AR, FAIR - - ITA 2271/13 4 READING OF SEC.2(15) OF THE ACT READ WITH CIRCULAR NO.11/2008 DATED 19.12.2008, THE ASSESSEES CASE FALLS WITHIN THE FI RST THREE LIMBS OF SEC.2(15), NAMELY, RELIEF TO THE POOR, EDUCATION OR MEDICAL RELIEF AND FALL WITHIN CHARITABLE PURPOSE AND THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE IS NOT HIT BY THE PROVISION 13(1)(BB) OF THE ACT. THE LD. AR PLACED RELIANCE ON THE JUDGMENT OF THE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF DIT V. AHMADABAD MGT. ASSOCIATION, 366 ITR 85 (GUJ) AND TH E JUDGMENT OF THE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ICAI V. DGIT (E XEMPTION), 260 CTR 001 (DEL) AND DIT(EXEMPTION) VS. SABARMATI ASHR AM GAUSHALA TRUST [362 ITR 539 (GUJ.)] TO SUPPORT HIS VIEW. 6. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE M ATERIAL ON RECORD. THE ISSUE BEFORE US IS WHETHER, ON THE FACT S AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND HAVING REGARD TO THE TERMS OF THE TRUST DEED, IT CAN BE SAID THAT THE ACTIVITIES CARRIED ON BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE FORM OF RUNNING OF COMMUNITY HALL, VIZ 'CHENNAI KAMAWAR KALYANA MAHAL WAS ITSELF HELD UNDER THE TRUST. FOR THIS PURPOSE IT IS PROPER TO GO THROUGH THE OBJECTS FOR WHICH ASSESSEE -TRUST IS FORMED. THE OBJECTS FOR WHICH THE TRUST ESTABLISHED ARE ENU MERATED IN TRUST DEED IN CLAUSE 3 WHICH READS AS UNDER:- - - ITA 2271/13 5 3. THE OBJECTS OF THE TRUST ARE:- A. TO ESTABLISH AND MAINTAIN EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIO NS. B. TO GRANT SCHOLARSHIPS, DONATIONS AND OTHER INCEN TIVES TO BENEFIT STUDENTS AND OTHERS IN THEIR EDUCATION PERSUITS. C. TO ESTABLISH, MAINTAIN AND CONDUCT ORPHANAGES. D. TO ESTABLISH AND MAINTAIN HOSPITAL AND DISPENSAR IES. E. TO ESTABLISH AND MAINTAIN HOMES AND INSTITUTION S FOR THE POOR AND DISABLED AND PHYSICALLY AND MENTALLY HANDICAPPED PE RSONS. F. TO AID AND IMPROVE MUSIC, DANCE, DRAMA AND OTHER FINE ARTS AND OTHER POPULAR ARTS. G. TO CONSTRUCT A COMMUNITY HALL FOR LETTING OUT TO ALL PEOPLES IRRESPECTIVE OF CASTS, CREED OR RELIGION FOR A NOMI NAL RENT WITHOUT MAKING ANY POINT. H. TO ENCOURAGE AND IMPROVE HANDICRAFTS. I. TO RENDER FINANCIAL HELP TO ALREADY EXISTING I NSTITUTIONS WITH OBJECTS SIMILAR TO THOSE OF THIS TRUST. 7. IT IS TO BE NOTED THAT SECTION 11(1) OF THE ACT GRANTS EXEMPTION TO THE INCOME DERIVED FROM PROPERTY HELD UNDER TRUST WHOLLY FOR CHARITABLE OR RELIGIOUS PURPOSES, TO THE EXTENT TO WHICH SUCH INCOME IS APPLIED TO SUCH PURPOSES IN INDIA. T HERE IS NO EXHAUSTIVE DEFINITION OF THE WORDS PROPERTY HELD U NDER TRUST IN THE ACT; HOWEVER, SUB-SECTION (4) SAYS THAT FOR THE PURPOSES OF SECTION 11, THE WORDS PROPERTY HELD UNDER TRUST INCLUDES A BUSINESS UNDERTAKING SO HELD. SUBSECTION (4A) AS I T STANDS - - ITA 2271/13 6 AMENDED BY THE FINANCE (NO. 2) ACT, 1991, WITH EFFE CT FROM APRIL 1, 1992, IS IN THE FOLLOWING TERMS: (4A) SUB-SECTION (1) OR SUB-SECTION (2) OR SUBSECT ION (3) OR SUB-SECTION (3A) SHALL NOT APPLY IN RELATION TO ANY INCOME OF A TRUST OR AN INSTITUTION, BEING PROFITS AND GAI NS OF BUSINESS, UNLESS THE BUSINESS IS INCIDENTAL TO THE ATTAINMENT OF THE OBJECTIVES OF THE TRUST OR, AS THE CASE MAY BE, INSTITUTION, AND SEPARATE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT ARE MAIN TAINED BY SUCH TRUST OR INSTITUTION IN RESPECT OF SUCH BUS INESS. 8. THUS, IF A PROPERTY IS HELD UNDER TRUST, AND SU CH PROPERTY IS A BUSINESS, THE CASE WOULD FALL U/S. 11(4) AND N OT U/S. 11(4A) OF THE ACT. SECTION 11(4A) OF THE ACT WOULD APPLY O NLY TO A CASE WHERE THE BUSINESS IS NOT HELD UNDER TRUST. THUS, T HERE IS DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PROPERTY OR BUSINESS HELD UNDER TRUST AND BUSINESS CARRIED ON BY OR ON BEHALF OF THE TRUST. 9. THIS DISTINCTION WAS RECOGNIZED BY THE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF ADDL. CIT VS. SURAT ART SILK CLOTH MANU FACTURERS ASSOCIATION (1980) 121 ITR 1 WHEREIN IT WAS OBSERVE D THAT IF A BUSINESS UNDERTAKING IS HELD UNDER TRUST FOR A CHAR ITABLE PURPOSE, THE INCOME THERE FROM WOULD BE ENTITLED TO THE EXEM PTION U/S. 11(1) OF THE ACT. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE FINDING OF THE CIT(A) IS THAT RUNNING OF COMMUNITY HALL WAS INCIDENTAL TO THE OBJECT OF - - ITA 2271/13 7 THE TRUST, IT WAS NOT BUSINESS COMMENCED/CARRIED ON BY THE ASSESSEE. THOUGH THE BUSINESS WAS COMMENCED BY THE TRUST AND IT WAS CARRIED ON BY THE TRUST AFTER ITS FORMAT ION, IT CANNOT BE SAID TO CONSTITUTE PROPERTY HELD UNDER TRUST. U/S. 11(4), IT IS ONLY THE BUSINESS WHICH IS HELD UNDER THE TRUST THAT WOU LD ENJOY EXEMPTION IN RESPECT OF ITS INCOME U/S. 11(1) OF TH E I.T. ACT AND THERE IS A DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE OBJECTS OF A TRU ST AND THE POWERS GIVEN TO THE TRUSTEES TO EFFECTUATE THE PURP OSE OF THE TRUST. THOUGH THE OBJECTS OF THE TRUST WERE CHARITA BLE, THEY WERE MERE POWERS CONFERRED UPON THE TRUSTEES TO CARRY ON THE BUSINESS AND THE PROFITS FROM SUCH BUSINESS WOULD B ENEFIT THE CHARITABLE OBJECTS. THE EXEMPTION U/S. 11 CANNOT BE GRANTED ON THE REASON THAT THE BUSINESS ITSELF WAS NOT IN EXIS TENCE AT THE TIME OF FORMATION OF THE TRUST AND THE PROPERTY HEL D UNDER TRUST AT THE TIME OF FORMATION OF THE TRUST WAS NOT SPELT OU T IN THE TRUST DEED OF THE ASSESSEE. THE RUNNING OF ' COMMUNITY H ALL' WAS NOT AT ALL IN EXISTENCE AT THE TIME OF FORMATION OF THE TRUST SO AS TO SAY THAT THE BUSINESS IS PROPERTY HELD UNDER TRUST. THUS, THE ACTIVITIES RELATING TO RUNNING OF 'COMMUNITY HALL' WAS NOT EVEN IN THE CONTEMPLATION OF THE TRUST DEED ON THE BASIS OF WHICH THE - - ITA 2271/13 8 SOCIETY IS FORMED AND, THEREFORE, COULD NOT HAVE BE EN SETTLED UPON TRUST. THE BUSINESS CARRIED ON BEHALF OF A TRU ST RATHER INDICATES A BUSINESS WHICH IS NOT HELD IN TRUST, TH AN A BUSINESS OF THE TRUST RUN BY THE ASSESSEE. IN THIS CASE, THE AC TIVITIES VIZ., RUNNING OF COMMUNITY HALL, WAS CARRIED ON BY THE AS SESSEE FOR AND ON BEHALF OF THE TRUST AND IT WAS NOT BUSINESS HELD UNDER TRUST. SECTION 11(1) OF THE ACT CONFERS EXEMPTION F ROM TAX ONLY WHERE THE PROPERTY IS ITSELF HELD UNDER TRUST OR OT HER LEGAL OBLIGATION; IT DOES NOT APPLY TO CASES WHERE A TRUS T OR LEGAL OBLIGATION IS NOT CREATED ON ANY PROPERTY BUT ONLY THE INCOME DERIVED FOR A CHARITABLE OR RELIGIOUS PURPOSE. SURP LUS FUNDS OF A TRUST, WHICH WAS CLAIMED TO BE EXEMPT ON THE FOOTIN G THAT IT WAS PROPERTY HELD UNDER TRUST WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC . 11(1) OF THE ACT, WAS NOT PROPERTY HELD UNDER TRUST SINCE THE PR OPERTY FROM WHICH THE SURPLUS WAS GENERATED WAS ITSELF NOT HELD UNDER TRUST. IN OTHER WORDS, MERELY CARRYING ON BUSINESS FOR AND ON BEHALF OF THE TRUST AND APPLYING THE PROFITS OF THE SAME FOR THE OBJECT OF THE TRUST DOES NOT ENTITLE FOR EXEMPTION U/S. 11(4) OF THE ACT UNLESS THE BUSINESS IS INCIDENTAL TO THE ATTAINMENT OF THE OBJECTS OF THE TRUST. - - ITA 2271/13 9 10. WE NOW PROCEED TO CONSIDER THE QUESTION WHETHE R THE SAID ACTIVITIES CARRIED ON BY THE ASSESSEE WERE INC IDENTAL TO THE ATTAINMENT OF THE OBJECTS OF THE TRUST. WE FAIL TO SEE ANY CONNECTION BETWEEN THE ACTIVITIES RELATING TO RUNNI NG OF 'COMMUNITY HALL' WAS CARRIED ON AND THE ATTAINMENT OF THE OBJECTS OF THE TRUST. THE MERE FACT THAT WHOLE OR S OME PART OF THE INCOME FROM RUNNING OF COMMUNITY HALL' IS USED F OR CHARITABLE PURPOSES WOULD NOT RENDER THE BUSINESS ITSELF BEING CONSIDERED AS INCIDENTAL TO THE ATTAINMENT OF THE OBJECTS. WE ARE IN AGREEMENT WITH THE DEPARTMENT THAT THE APPLICATION OF INCOME GENERATED BY THE BUSINESS IS NOT RELEVANT CONSIDERA TION AND WHAT IS RELEVANT IS WHETHER THE ACTIVITY IS SO INEXTRICA BLY CONNECTED OR LINKED WITH THE OBJECTS OF THE TRUST THAT IT COULD BE CONSIDERED AS INCIDENTAL TO THOSE OBJECTIVES. 11. IT WAS CONTENDED BY THE LD. AR THAT THE SURPLU S FUNDS GENERATED FROM THE RUNNING OF 'COMMUNITY HALL' WAS SPENT TOWARDS CHARITABLE ACTIVITIES AND THEREFORE, THE AS SESSEE IS ENTITLED FOR EXEMPTION U/S. 11(4) OF THE I.T. ACT. WE ARE UNABLE TO ACCEPT THIS CONTENTION. INITIALLY, THE ASSESSEE CAR RIED ON THE BUSINESS ITSELF WHICH IS NOT AT ALL PROPERTY HELD U NDER TRUST. THIS - - ITA 2271/13 10 ACTIVITY IS A BUSINESS ACTIVITY AND THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 11(4A) OF THE ACT IS APPLICABLE. 12. IT WAS CONTENDED THAT IF THE PROFITS OF THE BU SINESS CARRIED ON BY THE TRUST ARE UTILIZED BY THE TRUST FOR THE P URPOSES OF ACHIEVING THE OBJECTIVES OF THE TRUST, THEN THE BUS INESS SHOULD BE CONSIDERED TO BE INCIDENTAL TO THE ATTAINMENT OF TH E OBJECTS OF THE TRUST AS OBSERVED BY THE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS. THANTHI TRUST (2001) 247 ITR 785 WHICH IS AS UNDER: AS IT STANDS, ALL THAT IT REQUIRES FOR THE BUSINES S INCOME OF A TRUST OR INSTITUTION TO BE EXEMPT IS THAT THE BUSIN ESS SHOULD BE INCIDENTAL TO THE ATTAINMENT OF OBJECTIVES OF THE T RUST OR INSTITUTION. A BUSINESS WHOSE INCOME IS UTILIZED BY THE TRUST OR THE INSTITUTION FOR THE PURPOSES OF ACHIEVING THE O BJECTIVES OF THE TRUST ..IN ANY EVENT, IF THERE BE ANY AMBIGU ITY IN THE LANGUAGE EMPLOYED, THE PROVISION MUST BE CONSTRUED IN A MANNER THAT BENEFITS THE ASSESSEE. 13. PRIMA FACIE THE ABOVE OBSERVATION WOULD APPEAR TO SUPPORT THE ASSESSEES CASE IN THE SENSE THAT EVEN IF RUNNING OF 'COMMUNITY HALL' IS HELD NOT TO CONSTITUTE A BUSIN ESS HELD UNDER TRUST, BUT ONLY AS A BUSINESS CARRIED ON BY OR ON B EHALF OF THE TRUST, SO LONG AS THE PROFITS GENERATED BY IT ARE A PPLIED FOR THE CHARITABLE OBJECTS OF THE TRUST, THE CONDITION IMPO SED U/S. 11(4A) - - ITA 2271/13 11 OF THE ACT SHOULD BE HELD TO BE SATISFIED, ENTITLIN G THE TRUST TO THE TAX EXEMPTION. 14. IN OUR OPINION, THESE OBSERVATIONS HAVE TO BE UNDERSTOOD IN THE LIGHT OF THE FACTS BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF THANTHI TRUST (SUPRA), WHEREIN THE TRUST CARRIED ON THE BUSINESS OF A NEWSPAPER AND THAT BUSINESS ITSELF WAS HELD UN DER TRUST. THE CHARITABLE OBJECT OF THE TRUST WAS THE IMPARTIN G OF EDUCATION WHICH FALLS U/S. 2(15) OF THE ACT. THE NEWSPAPER BU SINESS WAS INCIDENTAL TO THE ATTAINMENT OF THE OBJECT OF THE T RUST, NAMELY THAT OF IMPARTING EDUCATION AND THE PROFITS OF THE NEWSP APER BUSINESS ARE UTILIZED BY THE TRUST FOR ACHIEVING THE OBJECT OF IMPARTING EDUCATION. IN THIS CASE, THERE IS NO SUCH NEXUS BET WEEN THE ACTIVITIES CARRIED ON AND THE OBJECTS OF THE ASSESS EE THAT CAN CONSTITUTE AN ACTIVITY INCIDENTAL TO THE ATTAINMENT OF THE OBJECTS, NAMELY, TO PROMOTE CAUSE OF CHARITY, MISSION ACTIVI TIES, WELFARE, EMPLOYMENT, DIFFUSION OF USEFUL KNOWLEDGE, UPLIFTME NT AND EDUCATION AND TO CREATE AN AWARENESS OF SELF-RELIAN CE AMONG THE MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC ETC. WE ARE THEREFORE, OF THE OPINION THAT THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT MUST BE UNDER STOOD AND APPRECIATED IN THE BACKGROUND OF THE FACT IN THAT C ASE AND SHOULD - - ITA 2271/13 12 NOT BE EXTENDED INDISCRIMINATELY TO ALL CASES. BEIN G SO, WE ARE INCLINED TO HOLD THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ENTITLED FOR ANY EXEMPTION U/S. 11 OF THE I.T. ACT. 15. IN THIS CASE, IT IS BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE AO THAT THE ASSESSEE COLLECTED RS.11,28,000/- AS CORPUS DONATIO N FROM 93 PERSONS WHO PERFORMED FUNCTIONS AT CHENNAI KAMAWAR KALYANA MAHAL. IN ADDITION TO THIS, RS.4,70,000/- WAS RENT FOR UTILIZING THE FACILITIES OF CHENNAI KAMAWAR KALYA NA MAHAL BY 53 PERSONS, TOTALING IS RS.15,98,000/-. AS AGAINS T THIS, IN GUISE OF CORPUS DONATION COLLECTED RS.11,28,000/- FROM THE P ERSONS, WHO HAVE PERFORMED THE FUNCTIONS IN THE CHENNAI KAMAWAR KALYANA MAHAL. THAT AMOUNT OF RS.11,28,000/- CANN OT BE CONSIDERED AS CORPUS DONATION INSTEAD IT SHOULD BE A RENTAL INCOME. ON ENQUIRY BY ASSESSING OFFICER, IT WAS PRO VED THAT THE PERSONS WHO PAID RENT OF COMMUNITY HALL AND WHO PAI D THE CORPUS DONATION WERE SAME. THIS IS AN ACT OF QUID P RO FOR HIRING THE HALL AND NO QUESTION OF VOLUNTARY CONTRIBUTION IN THIS PAYMENT. IT IS ALSO TO BE NOTED THAT THE DATES EXHI BITED IN BOTH CASES WERE SAME. BEING SO, THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.2(15) OF THE ACT IS SQUARELY APPLICABLE AS TOTAL RECEIPTS OF RENT F ROM COMMUNITY - - ITA 2271/13 13 HALL EXCEEDS RS.10 LAKHS, AND WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF AO IN REJECTING THE CLAIM OF EXEMPTION U/S .11 OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY, THE ORDER OF LD.CIT(A) IS REVERSED AND THE ORDER OF AO IS RESTORED. 16. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF REVENUE IS ALLOWE D. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 11 TH MAY, 2017 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( $% & ) ( ' ( ) $ ) *%+,-,./01,2345,.62,+778,293 : ;< /JUDICIAL MEMBER ! ;<=>>70.?,.?@A1BA2 ': /CHENNAI, C; /DATED, THE 11 TH MAY, 2017. K S SUNDARAM ;D EFGF /COPY TO: 1. /APPELLANT 2. /RESPONDENT 3. H3 /CIT(A) 4. H /CIT 5. FIJ K /DR 6. JLM /GF.