Price Waterhouse & Co., CHENNAI V. ACIT, CHENNAI

ITA 229/CHNY/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6121 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-09-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 21-06-2017
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 25-01-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ASISH TRIPATHI IRS
• Keywords: Reopening of assessment; Tangible material; Difference of opinion; Change of opinion; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 143(3); 147; 148; 154

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH : CHENNAI . , ! ' # ' $ . %& , ( * + [ BEFORE SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY , JUDICIAL MEMBER ] ./ I.T.A.NOS.229, 230 & 734/MDS/2017 / ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2010-2011, 2012-2013 & 20 13-14 PRICE WATERHOUSE & CO 8 TH FLOOR, PRESTIGE PALLADIUM BAYAN, 129-140, GREAMS ROAD, CHENNAI 600 006. VS. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 3, CHENNAI 600 034 [PAN AAAFP 8828M ] ( ,- / APPELLANT) ( ./,- /RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI. SR IRAM SESHADRI, ADVOCATE /RESPONDENT BY : SHRI. ASISH TRIPATHI, IRS, JCIT. / DATE OF HEARING : 06 - 09 - 2017 ! / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 21 - 09 - 201 7 0 / O R D E R PER ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THESE ARE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE DIRECTED AGAINST ORDERS DATED 31.10.2016 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 20 10-11 AND 2012- 2013 AND ORDER DATED 20.01.2017 FOR ASSESSMENT YEA R 2013-14 PASSED BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEA LS)-4, CHENNAI. ITA NOS.229, 230 & 734/2017 :- 2 -: 2. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AT THE OUTSET SUBMITT ED THAT HE WAS WITHDRAWING APPEALS FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 201 2-13 AND 2013- 14 NUMBERED 230/MDS/2017 AND 734/MDS/2017. LETTERS WERE ALSO FILED IN THIS REGARD. ACCORDINGLY, APPEALS 230/MDS /2017 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-2013 AND 734/MDS/2017 FOR ASSE SSMENT YEAR 2013-14 ARE DISMISSED AS WITHDRAWN. 3. THIS LEAVES US WITH APPEAL NO.229/MDS/2017 FOR ASS ESSMENT YEAR 2010-2011. ASSESSEE HAS ALTOGETHER TAKEN THREE GROUNDS OF WHICH GROUND NO.3 ASSAILS LEVY OF INTEREST U/S.234B OF TH E INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT). THE SAID GROUND IS CON SEQUENTIAL IN NATURE NEEDING NO SPECIFIC ADJUDICATION. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT HE WAS LIMITING HIS ARGUMENTS ONLY TO THE REOPENING ISSUE ASSAILED THROUGH GROUND NO.1. 4. FACTS APROPOS ARE THAT ASSESSEE A CHARTERED ACCOUNT ANT FIRM HAD FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE IMPUGNED ASS ESSMENT YEAR DISCLOSING INCOME OF D1,09,01,953/-. THE ASSESSMENT WAS ORIGINALLY COMPLETED U/S. 143(3) OF THE ACT ON 30.03.2013 AC CEPTING THE INCOME RETURNED BY THE ASSESSEE. THEREAFTER NOTICE U/S. 148 OF THE ACT FOR REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT WAS ISSUED TO TH E ASSESSEE ON 26.02.2014. AS PER LD. ASSESSING OFFICER, ASSESSEE HAD ARRIVED AT A GROSS PROFIT AFTER DEDUCTING REMUNERATION OF D1,24, 80,000/- TO TWO OF ITA NOS.229, 230 & 734/2017 :- 3 -: ITS PARTNERS. LD. ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT AS PER PRINCIPAL PARTNERSHIP DEED DATED 15.05.2003 NONE OF THE PARTN ERS WERE ENTITLED TO ANY REMUNERATION OR SALARY. AS PER THE LD. ASSES SING OFFICER THERE WAS A SUPPLEMENTARY PARTNERSHIP DEED DATED 23.09.20 10 THROUGH WHICH TWO PARTNERS NAMELY MR. SAGAR DATTA AND MR. A MITESH DUTTA BECAME ENTITLED TO REMUNERATION OF D6,00,000/- AND D4,40,000/- PER MONTH WITH EFFECT FROM 01.04.2009. ACCORDING TO T HE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER SUCH SALARY COULD BE ALLOWED ONLY FROM THE DATE OF EXECUTION OF SUPPLEMENTARY DEED WHICH WAS 23.09.2010 AND COULD N OT BE GIVEN RETROSPECTIVE OPERATION FROM 01.04.2009. REASSESSM ENT WAS THEREAFTER COMPLETED BY MAKING AN ADDITION OF D1,24 ,80,000/- DENYING REMUNERATION CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE U/S. 40(B) (V) OF THE ACT. 5. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE MOVED IN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). ASSESSEE QUES TIONED THE REOPENING DONE FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR ON THE GROUND THAT SUCH REOPENING WAS BASED ON EXISTING MATERIALS WHIC H WERE ALREADY AVAILABLE ON RECORD BEFORE THE LD. ASSESSING OFFIC ER WHEN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S. 143(3) OF THE ACT. AS PER THE ASSESSEE THERE WAS NO NEW MATERIAL TO SHOW THAT ANY INCOME H AD ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. ASSESSEE ALSO POINTED OUT THAT THERE W AS A PROCEEDING U/S. 154 OF THE ACT INITIATED BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE VERY ITA NOS.229, 230 & 734/2017 :- 4 -: SAME ISSUE. THUS AS PER ASSESSEE REOPENING DONE WA S NOT ACCORDING TO LAW. 6. HOWEVER, LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) W AS NOT IMPRESSED BY THE ABOVE ARGUMENTS OF THE ASSESSEE. A CCORDING TO HIM, RECTIFICATION PROCEEDING INITIATED AGAINST THE ASS ESSEE U/S. 154 OF THE ACT FOR THE VERY SAME ISSUE STOOD DROPPED BY THE LD . ASSESSING OFFICER THROUGH HIS LETTER DATED 24.02.2014. FURTHER, AS PE R LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) RETURN FILED BY THE ASSESSE E FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY ONLY FOR EXAMINING TAXABILITY OF INTEREST INCOME AS APPEARI NG IN FORM NO.26AS. ACCORDING TO THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A PPEALS) IN NONE OF THE REPLIES GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE OR IGINAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THERE WAS ANY MENTION ON ISSUES PERTA INING TO PAYMENT OF REMUNERATION TO PARTNERS. AS PER LD. COMMISSIO NER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) FURNISHING OF THE COPIES OF PARTNERSHIP D EED TO THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER WOULD NOT MEAN THAT LD. ASSESSIN G OFFICER HAD VERIFIED SUCH PARTNERSHIP DEEDS OR REACHED AN OPINI ON REGARDING ALLOWABILITY OF THE REMUNERATION PAID TO PARTNERS. AS PER LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), INFORMATION F OR REOPENING THE CASE COULD BE DISCERNED EVEN FROM THE MATERIAL ALR EADY AVAILABLE ON RECORD. LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) A LSO OBSERVED THAT THERE WAS NO QUESTION OF ANY CHANGE OF OPINION SINC E LD. ASSESSING ITA NOS.229, 230 & 734/2017 :- 5 -: OFFICER HAD NEVER DISCUSSED THIS ISSUE IN THE ORIGI NAL ASSESSMENT ORDER. HE THUS HELD THE REOPENING VALID. 7. NOW BEFORE US, LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE STRONG LY ASSAILING THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES SUBM ITTED THAT REOPENING THOUGH IT WAS ATTEMPTED WITHIN FOUR YEARS FROM T HE END OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEARS, WAS STILL INVALID. AC CORDING TO HIM, ASSESSEE HAD VIDE LETTER FILED ON 22.03.2013 FURNIS HED A COPY OF SUPPLEMENTARY PARTNERSHIP DEED DATED 23.09.2010 PUR SUANT TO A REQUIREMENT SPECIFIED IN A NOTICE RECEIVED BY IT ON 13.09.2012. FURTHER, AS PER LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE ASSES SEE HAD ALSO FILED THE PRINCIPAL PARTNERSHIP DEED DATED 15.05.2003 AS WELL AS COMPUTATION OF SALARY PAYABLE TO ITS PARTNERS ALL OWABLE U/S. 40(B) OF THE ACT, ON 28.03.2013. THUS AS PER LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE, ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED ORIGINAL AS WELL AS SUPPLEME NTARY PARTNERSHIP DEED AND LD. ASSESSING OFFICER HAD COME TO A CONCLU SION THAT THE SALARY TO PARTNERS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS ALLO WABLE. FURTHER, AS PER LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE, THE RECTIFICATI ON PROCEEDINGS INITIATED U/S.154 OF THE ACT FOR THE VERY SAME REA SON STOOD DROPPED. IT WAS URGED BY THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE T HAT WITHOUT ANY NEW TANGIBLE MATERIAL, AN ASSESSMENT COMPLETED U/S. 143(3) OF THE ACT COULD NOT BE REOPENED. RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE J UDGMENT OF HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. USHA INTERNATIONAL LTD, ITA NOS.229, 230 & 734/2017 :- 6 -: 348 ITR 485 AND THAT OF HONBLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CA SE OF BERGER PAINTS INDIA LTD VS. ACIT, 322 ITR 369. 8. PER CONTRA, LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBMIT TED THAT REMUNERATION TO PARTNERS WERE ALLOWABLE ONLY AS PER THE TERMS OF THE PARTNERSHIP DEED AND SUCH TERMS IN SO FOR AS IT AU THORIZED ANY SUCH REMUNERATION PRIOR TO THE DATE OF ITS EXECUTION CO ULD NOT BE ALLOWED BY VIRTUE OF CLAUSE (III) OF SEC. 40(B) OF THE ACT. ACCORDING TO HIM, THE SUPPLEMENTARY DEED AUTHORIZING PAYMENT OF REMUNERAT ION TO PARTNERS WAS EXECUTED ONLY ON 23.09.2010 AND THEREFORE SUCH REMUNERATION FOR THE PERIOD FROM 1 ST APRIL, 2009 TO 23.09.2010 COULD NOT HAVE BEEN ALLOWED BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER. AS PER LD. D EPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT HAD NOT APPLIED HIS MIND TO THIS ISSUE AT ALL. WHEN NO OPIN ION WAS FORMED BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSME NT, AS PER LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE THERE WAS NO QUESTION OF ANY CHANGE OF OPINION. FURTHER, AS PER DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTAT IVE, INITIATING A RECTIFICATION PROCEEDINGS U/S. 154 OF THE ACT OR DR OPPING OF SUCH PROCEEDINGS WOULD NOT ACT AS A BAR AGAINST A REOP ENING U/S.147 OF THE ACT. THUS, ACCORDING TO HIM, THE REOPENING WAS VALIDLY DONE. 9. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSE D THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. FACTS WHICH ARE NO T DISPUTED ARE THAT ITA NOS.229, 230 & 734/2017 :- 7 -: REOPENING WAS ATTEMPTED WITHIN FOUR YEARS FROM THE END OF THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR AND ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED COPIES OF ITS PRINCIPAL PARTNERSHIP DEED DATED 15.05.2003 AS WELL AS SUPPLEMENTARY PARTNERSHIP DEED DATED 23.09.2010, DURING THE COURS E OF ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS BEFORE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER . ASSESSEE HAD ON 28 TH MARCH, 2013, ALSO FILED A COMPUTATION OF SALARY AL LOWABLE U/S.40(B) OF THE ACT. SAID COMPUTATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AS IT APPEARS AT PAPER BOOK PAGE 77 IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER:- PROFIT BEFORE PARTNERS SALARY LESS: INTEREST INCOME BOOK PROFIT 23,381,953 23,381,953 ON IST D3,00,000 OF BOOK PROFIT 60% ON BALANCE D 23,081,953 OF BOOK PROFIT PARTNERS SALARY TO THE EXTENT ALLOWABLE U/S. 40(B) (V) 270,000 13,849,172 14,119,172 PARTNERS SALARY CHARGED IN THE FINANCIALS 12,480,0 00 SECTION 40(B)OF THE ACT WHICH ENABLE A FIRM TO CLAI M PAYMENT OF REMUNERATION TO PARTNERS IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER:- (B) IN THE CASE OF ANY FIRM ASSESSABLE AS SUCH,-- (I) ANY PAYMENT OF SALARY, BONUS, COMMISSION OR REMUNERATION, BY WHATEVER NAME CALLED (HEREINAFTER ITA NOS.229, 230 & 734/2017 :- 8 -: REFERRED TO AS REMUNERATION) TO ANY PARTNER WHO IS NOT A WORKING PARTNER; OR (II) ANY PAYMENT OF REMUNERATION TO ANY PARTNER WHO IS A WORKING PARTNER, OR OF INTEREST TO ANY PARTNER , WHICH, IN EITHER CASE, IS NOT AUTHORISED BY, OR IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH, THE TERMS OF THE PARTNERSHIP DEED; OR (III) ANY PAYMENT OF REMUNERATION TO ANY PARTNER WH O IS A WORKING PARTNER, OR OF INTEREST TO ANY PARTNER , WHICH, IN EITHER CASE, IS AUTHORISED BY, AND IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH, THE TERMS OF THE PARTNERSHIP DEED, BUT WHICH RELATES TO ANY PERIOD (FALLING PRIOR TO T HE DATE OF SUCH PARTNERSHIP DEED) FOR WHICH SUCH PAYMENT WAS NOT AUTHORISED BY, OR IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH, ANY EARLIER PARTNERSHIP DEED, SO, HOWEVER, THAT THE PERIOD OF AUTHORISATION FOR SUCH PAYMENT BY ANY EARLIER PARTNERSHIP DEED DOES NOT COVER ANY PERIOD PRIOR TO THE DATE OF SUCH EARLIER PARTNERSHIP DEED; OR (IV) ANY PAYMENT OF INTEREST TO ANY PARTNER WHICH I S AUTHORISED BY, AND IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH, THE TERMS OF THE PARTNERSHIP DEED AND RELATES TO ANY PERIOD FALLING AFTER THE DATE OF SUCH PARTNERSHIP DEED IN SO FAR AS SUCH AMOUNT EXCEEDS THE AMOUNT CALCULATED AT THE RATE OF TWELVE PER CENT. SIMPLE INTEREST PER ANNUM; OR (V) ANY PAYMENT OF REMUNERATION TO ANY PARTNER WHO IS A WORKING PARTNER, WHICH IS AUTHORISED BY, AND I S IN ACCORDANCE WITH, THE TERMS OF THE PARTNERSHIP DEED AND RELATES TO ANY PERIOD FALLING AFTER THE DATE OF SUCH PARTNERSHIP DEED IN SO FAR AS THE AMOUNT OF SUCH PAYMENT TO ALL THE PARTNERS DURING THE PREVIOU S YEAR EXCEEDS THE AGGREGATE AMOUNT COMPUTED AS HEREUNDER:-- (A) ON THE FIRST RS. 3,00,000 OF THE BOOK-PROFIT OR IN CASE OF A LOSS RS. 1,50,000 OR AT THE RATE OF 90 PER CENT. OF THE BOOK PROFIT, WHICHEVER IS MORE ; ITA NOS.229, 230 & 734/2017 :- 9 -: (B) ON THE BALANCE OF THE BOOK PROFIT AT THE RATE OF 60 PER CENT. SUB CLAUSE (III) OF THE ABOVE SECTION IS CLEAR IN THAT ANY PROVISION CONTAINED IN A PARTNERSHIP DEED WHICH RATIFIED AN Y RETROSPECTIVE ENTITLEMENT OF REMUNERATION TO THE PARTNERS, CANNOT BE CONSIDERED WHILE CALCULATING SUCH REMUNERATION TO THE EXTENT SUCH CLAIM RELATES TO A PERIOD PRIOR TO THE DATE OF EXECUTION OF SUCH DEED. THUS ASSESSEE UNDER LAW WAS NOT ENTITLED TO CLAIM REMUNE RATION TO PARTNERS PRIOR TO 23.09.2010, WHEREAS IT HAD CLAIMED SUCH R EMUNERATION FROM 1 ST APRIL, 2009. 10. NOW THE QUESTION BEFORE US, IS WHETHER THE ABOVE ERROR COMMITTED BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER CAN BE A REA SON FOR REOPENING AN ASSESSMENT. LD. ASSESSING OFFICER WAS HAVING BE FORE HIM BOTH ORIGINAL PARTNERSHIP DEED AS WELL AS SUPPLEMENTARY PARTNERSHIP DEED. THUS, WE CANNOT SAY THAT LD. ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT AWARE OF THE PARTNERSHIP DEEDS AND THE CLAIM OF REMUNERATION. HOWEVER, OBVIOUSLY HE ALLOWED THE CLAIM OVERLOOKING CLAUSE (III) OF S EC. 40(B) OF THE ACT. OR IN OTHER WORDS, WE HAVE TO PRESUME THAT THE REMU NERATION WAS ITA NOS.229, 230 & 734/2017 :- 10 -: ALLOWED DESPITE A SPECIFIC BAR ON RESTROSPECTIVITY IN THE ACT. SUCH AN OPINION THAT CLAIM OF REMUNERATION WAS ALLOWABLE WAS A PATENTLY UNTENABLE VIEW, WHICH WAS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH C LAUSE (III) TO SECTION 40(B) OF THE ACT. IN OUR VIEW, LD. ASSESS ING OFFICER, IF HE HAD APPLIED HIS MIND, AS IS EXPECTED OF HIM, WOULD NEVE R HAVE REACHED AN OPINION WHICH WAS PATENTLY UNLAWFUL. AN OPINION W HICH IS PATENTLY AGAINST THE PROVISION OF LAW, IS IN OUR VIEW NO OPI NION AT ALL. IN OTHER WORDS, WE CANNOT SAY THAT THERE WAS ANY CHANGE OF OPINION WHEN REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WERE INITIATED FOR ALLOWIN G REMUNERATION BEYOND WHAT WAS ALLOWED UNDER LAW. 11. COMING TO THE QUESTION WHETHER ANY NEW TANGIBLE MA TERIAL WAS AVAILABLE WITH THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER FOR AT TEMPTING A REOPENING, NEW TANGIBLE MATERIAL CANNOT BE GIVEN, IN OUR OPIN ION A NARROW DEFINITION SO AS TO BRING WITHIN ITS AMBIT ONLY MAT ERIAL FROM EXTERNAL SOURCES. AS LONG AS ORIGINAL AND SUPPLEMENTARY PAR TNERSHIP DEED WERE NOT VERIFIED IN THE MANNER REQUIRED BY LAW, WE CAN DEFINITELY SAY THAT THERE WAS FRESH INFORMATION COMING OUT OF THE EXIST ING MATERIAL. 12. COMING TO THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE CALCUTTA HIGH CO URT IN THE CASE OF BERGER PAINTS INDIA LTD (SUPRA ) WHICH WAS RELIED ON BY THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE, NO DOUBT IT WAS HELD THAT WHERE RECOURSE OF SEC. 154 OF THE ACT WAS TAKEN FOR RECTI FICATION OF A MISTAKE ITA NOS.229, 230 & 734/2017 :- 11 -: APPARENT ON RECORD, THEN IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY OTHE R GROUND REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S. 147 OF THE ACT COULD NOT BE INITIATED AFTER CONCLUDING THAT THERE WAS NO APPARENT MISTA KE. HOWEVER, IN THE SAID CASE, LD. ASSESSING OFFICER WAS SATISFIED THAT THERE WAS NO APPARENT ERROR IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME BASED O N THE EXISTING RECORD. THIS WAS WHY RECTIFICATION PROCEEDINGS WER E DROPPED. HOWEVER, IN THE CASE BEFORE US, THE RECTIFICATION P ROCEEDINGS WERE DROPPED NOT BECAUSE THERE WAS NO ERROR IN COMPUTAT ION BUT BECAUSE SUCH ERROR WAS NOT EXIGIBLE TO A RECTIFICATION PROC EEDINGS, AND COULD BE ADDRESSED ONLY BY A REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT. CO MING TO THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE O F USHA INTERNATIONAL LTD (SUPRA) THERE WAS A DEEMED FORMATION OF OPINION INVOKING PRESUMPTION U/S. 114(E) OF EVIDENCE ACT. S UCH OPINION WAS A LAWFULLY POSSIBLE ONE. AS AGAINST THIS, IN THE CAS E BEFORE US, LD. ASSESSING OFFICER COULD NOT HAVE REACHED A VALID OR LAWFUL VIEW TO GIVE A BENEFIT TO THE ASSESSEE WHICH WAS SPECIFICALLY ME NTIONED AS NOT ALLOWABLE U/S. 40(B) (III) OF THE ACT. THUS, IN O UR OPINION BOTH THESE CASES ARE NOT APPLICABLE ON FACTS HERE. WE THUS U PHOLD THE REOPENING DONE FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR. 13. LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE DID NOT MAKE ANY ARGUME NTS ON ITA NOS.229, 230 & 734/2017 :- 12 -: THE MERITS OF THE DISALLOWANCE DONE BY THE LD. ASSE SSING OFFICER. 14. IN THE RESULT, APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE STAND DISMIS SED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THURSDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF SEPTE MBER, 2017, AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( ' # ' $ . %& ) ( DUVVURU RL REDDY ) ( / JUDICIAL MEMBER ( . ) (ABRAHAM P. GEORGE) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER '# / CHENNAI $% / DATED:21 ST SEPTEMBER, 2017 KV %& '()( / COPY TO: 1 . / APPELLANT 3. *+, / CIT(A) 5. (-. / / DR 2. / RESPONDENT 4. * / CIT 6. .01 / GF