ITO, Salem V. S-681 Chinnathirupathi PACCS Ltd., Salem

ITA 2341/CHNY/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2677 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-03-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 29-12-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S SRIDHAR
• Assessee Lawyers: MDS; A V SREEKANTH IRS JCIT ITA NOS
• Keywords: Assessment record

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, CHENNAI . , . , BEFORE SHRI A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBE R AND SHRI. G. PAVAN KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ I.T.A. NO. 2342/MDS/2015 / ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2012-13 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(4) SALEM VS. M/S. S. 9787 K. KONDAPPANAIKENPATTY PACCS LTD, YERCAUD MAIN ROAD, KANNANKURICHI POST, SALEM 636 008. [PAN AAEAS 5865N ] ./ I.T.A. NO. 2341/MDS/2015 / ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2012-13 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(4) SALEM VS. M/S. S.681CHINNATHIRUPATHI PACCS LTD, CHINNATHIRUPATHI, SALEM 636 008. [PAN AAATT 5833A ] ( / APPELLANT) ( /RESPONDENT) !' # $ / APPELLANT BY : SHRI. S. SRIDHAR, ADVOCATE %&!' # $ /RESPONDENT BY : SHRI. A.V.SREEKANTH, IRS, JCIT. ITA NOS.2341 & 2342/MDS/2015 :- 2 -: ' # ( ) / DATE OF HEARING : 24-02-2016 * # ( ) / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 16-03-2016 / O R D E R PER G. PAVAN KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THESE TWO APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST DIFFERENT ASSESSEES AGAINST DIFFERENT ORDER S OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), SALEM DATED 27.10.2015 FOR T HE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-2013. SINCE THE ISSUE IN THESE TWO APPEAL S IS COMMON IN NATURE, HENCE THESE APPEALS ARE COMBINED, HEARD TOG ETHER, AND DISPOSED OF BY A COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVE NIENCE. 2. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE REVENUE ARE UN DER:- 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) OUGHT TO HAVE CONSIDERED THAT THE HON'BLE ITAT, PANAJI BENCH IN SHRI CHANDRAPRABHU URBAN CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIET Y LTD. (2014)(45 TAXMANN 14) CLEARLY BROUGHT OUT THE DEFINITION OF 'BANKING BUSINESS' . 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) OUGHT TO HAVE CONSIDERED THAT IN THE TAMIL NADU CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT, 1983 THE TERM 'MEMBER' IS DEALT IN SECTIONS 4, 5, 6, 8, 13, 14, 15, 20, 21, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 38, 40, 41, 42, 44, 46, 51, 66, 69, 72, 81 AND 85. IN ALL THESE SECTION THE TERM 'MEMBER' MEANS ONL Y SHARE HOLDER - MEMBER. HENCE THE INTENTION OF THE LEGISLATURE IS THAT ASSOCIATE MEMB ER WILL NOT BE TREATED AS MEMBER. 4. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) OUGHT TO ITA NOS.2341 & 2342/MDS/2015 :- 3 -: HAVE CONSIDERED THAT THE STATUTORY AUDITOR FOR CO- OPERATIVE SOCIETY, IN HIS REPORT, DISCLOSES ONLY SH ARE HOLDER - MEMBERS AS MEMBERS AND DID NOT INCLUDE THE ASSOCIATE MEMBER IN THE REPORT. 5. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) OUGHT TO H AVE CONSIDERED THAT THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY IS NOT ELIGIBL E FOR CLAIMING THE DEDUCTION U/S 80P(2)(A)(I) AND THAT TH E ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RIGHTLY DISALLOWED THE SAME. 6. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS), SALEM OUGH T TO HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACT THAT DEDUCTION U/S 80P( 2)( D) IS ALLOWABLE ONLY ON NET RECEIPTS AFTER DEDUCTING T HE EXPENSES FROM THE GROSS RECEIPTS OF INTEREST AND TH AT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RIGHTLY DISALLOWED THE DEDUCT ION U/S 80P(2)(D) ON PRO-RATA BASIS. 7. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) OUGHT T O HAVE CONSIDERED THAT THE ORDERS OF THE HONBLE ITAT, CHE NNAI IN THE CASES OF M/S. SL(SPL) 151 KARKUDALPATTY PACCS L TD, M/S. THE SALEM AGRICULTURAL PRODUCERS CO-OPERATIVE MARKE TING SOCIETY LTD AND M/S. S-1308 AMMAPET PRIMARY AGRICUL TURAL CO-OP BANK LTD, WHICH HAVE BEEN RELIED UPON BY HIM, HAVE NOT BECOME FINAL AS APPEALS HAVE BEEN FILED U/S.260 A BEFORE THE HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT. 3. SINCE THE ISSUE IS COMMON IN BOTH APPEALS, WE CONSI DER THE FACTS AS NARRATED IN ITA NO.2342/MDS/2015, ASSESSM ENT YEAR 2012-13 FOR ADJUDICATION 4. THE ASSESSEE IS A CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY IS IN THE B USINESS OF BANKING AND TRADING AND FILED RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 ON 21.09.2012 ADMITTED NIL INCOME AFTER C LAIM OF DEDUCTION OF U/S.80P OF THE ACT. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND NOTICE U/S.143(2) WAS SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE. IN COMPLIANCE TO NOTICE, THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE AS SESSEE APPEARED ON ITA NOS.2341 & 2342/MDS/2015 :- 4 -: VARIOUS DATES FILED DETAILS AND PRODUCED BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS FOR EXAMINATION. A REVISED STATEMENT OF TOTAL INCOME B ASED ON AUDITED ACCOUNTS WAS FILED IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS A S ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME FILED U/S.139 (1) OF THE ACT WAS BASED ON PRE AUDIT ACCOUNTS AND ALSO THE ACCOUNTS OF THE SOCIETY ARE C OVERED UNDER PROVISION OF TAX AUDIT U/S.44AB OF THE ACT. THE A SSESSEE CLAIMED DEDUCTIONS U/S.80P (2)(A)(I) OF THE ACT G60,66,657/ - U/S.80P(2)(C), G50,000/- AND U/S.80P(2)(D) G13,96,945/-. THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER VERIFIED BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND CONSIDERED THE STAT EMENTS FOR ALLOWING DEDUCTION. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON EXAMINATION F OUND THAT THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S.80P(2)(A)(I) OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF BUSINESS OF BANKING AND PROVIDING CRED IT FACILITIES TO ITS MEMBERS AND COMPLIED STIPULATED CONDITIONS. THE SO CIETY IS PROVIDING CREDIT FACILITIES TO CLASS A MEMBERS AND CLASS B M EMBERS. THE CLASS A MEMBERS ARE HAVING THE VOTING RIGHTS AND ELIGIBLE T O BE APPOINTMENT IN ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE AND LD. AO VERIFIED MEMBE RSHIP DETAILS AND BY LAWS AND CLAUSES; THE CLASS B MEMBERS ARE WHO DO NOT HAVE VOTING RIGHTS AND THEY ARE LIKE CUSTOMERS WITH N ORMAL MEMBERSHIP AND CONSIDERED AS ASSOCIATED MEMBERS FOR THE PURPO SE OF SEC.80P(2)(A)(I) OF THE ACT. THE LD. ASSESSING OFF ICER OBSERVED THE ITA NOS.2341 & 2342/MDS/2015 :- 5 -: ENTIRE BUSINESS ACTIVITIES OF SOCIETY AS PROVIDING CREDIT FACILITIES AND TRADING FOR BOTH MEMBERS AND NONMEMBERS AND REJECTE D THE DEDUCTION. THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER VERIFIED THE C LAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S.80P(2)(D) OF THE ACT, WERE THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY RECEIVED INCOME FROM INVESTMENTS IN SALEM DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OPERA TIVE BANK AND OTHERS CO-OPERATIVE INSTITUTIONS REFERRED AT PAGE 3 OF ORDER AS UNDER:- SL.NO INTEREST ON 1 SDCCB SB A/C. NO.1 G13,506/ - 2 SDCCB SB A/C. NO.3 G25 3 SDCCB SB A/C. NO.5 G38 4 SDCCB SB A/C. NO.8 G6,455 5 SPL SAVING DEPOSIT G1,66,352 6 SPL CURRENT A/C. DEPOSIT G5,862 7 RESERVE FUND DEPOSIT G2,81,031 8 RECAPITALIZATION INTEREST G1,35,063 9 LIQUIDITY COVER DEPOSIT INTEREST G7,37,914 10 VSP FINE G26 11 GOVT 2% INTEREST G6,470 12 INSURANCE EXCESS COLLECTION G1,093 13 GOVT. 9% INTEREST G42,550 DIVIDEND ON SHARE CAPITAL IFFCO SALEM CO-OP PRESS G490 G70 THE ASSESSING OFFICER PERUSED THE PROVISIONS U/S.8 0P(2) (D) OF THE ACT AND RELIED ON DECISIONS OF THE VARIOUS HIGH COURTS AND CONCLUDED THAT DEDUCTION U/S.80P(2)(D) OF THE ACT IS EXCESSIVE AND SHALL BE ALLOWED ONLY ON NET RECEIPTS AFTER DEDUCTING EXPENSES FROM GROSS RECEIPTS OF INTEREST AND DIVIDEND INCOME AND CALCULATED PROPORT IONATE EXPENSES ITA NOS.2341 & 2342/MDS/2015 :- 6 -: AND ALLOWED PROPORTIONATE DEDUCTION AND COMPLETED T HE ASSESSMENT WITH ASSESSED INCOME AT G73,16,391/-. AGGRIEVED, T HE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (AP PEALS). 5. IN THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS OF ASSE SSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (AP PEALS) ON PERUSAL OF GROUNDS AND ARGUMENTS, THE ASSESSEE SOC IETY IS WORKING ON THE CONCEPTS OF MUTUALITY, PRINCIPLE BUT THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER HAS REJECTED SOCIETY, CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER PROVIS IONS OF SEC. 80P OF THE ACT BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY HAS NOT RESTR ICTED ACTIVITIES TO ITS MEMBERS AND ALSO PROVIDED SERVICES ON PAR WITH COM MERCIAL BANKING. THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE FILED WRITTEN SUB MISSIONS REFERRED PAGE 3 OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ORD ER AS UNDER: I. THE APPEAL RELATES TO DISALLOWANCE OF CLAIMUIS.80P(2)(A)(I) AND 80 P(2)(D) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. II. THE APPELLANT RELIES ON THE DECISION OF THE ITA T IN THE CASE OF M/S. SL(SPL) 151, KARKUDALPATTY PRIMARY AGR ICULTURE CO-OP CREDIT SOCIETY LTD, KAMARAJ NAGAR POST, RASIP URAM ITAN 292/MDS/2014 DATED 17.03.2014, WHEREIN THE CLA IM U/S ALLOWED THE CLAIM U!S.80P(2)(A)(I) OF THE INCOM E TAX AD HAS BEEN ALLOWED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. III. THE APPELLANT RELIES ON THE DECISION OF THE I T AT IN THE ITA NOS.2341 & 2342/MDS/2015 :- 7 -: CASE OF M/S. THE SALEM AGRICULTURE PRODUCERS CO-OP ERATLVE MARKETING SOCI.ETY LTD IT AN 730, 731 AND 732/MDS/2 014 DATED 30.06.2014, WHEREIN THE CLAIM U/S.80P(2)(D) O F THE INCOME TAX ACT HAS BEEN ALLOWED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. IV. DISALLOWANCE CANNOT BE MADE AS THE PROVISIONS O F SECTION 80P(2)(D) VERY DEARLY ALLOW DEDUCTION OF T HE WHOLE OF SUCH INCOME, THE PROVISIONS OF THE SECTION ARE A S BELOW 80P(2)(D) 'IN RESPECT OF ANY INCOME BY WAY OF INTEREST OR DIVIDENDS DERIVED BY THE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY FROM ITS INVESTMENTS WITH ANY OTHER CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY TH E WHOLE OF SUCH INCOME'; V, THE SOCIETY WAS ABLE .O MAKE PROFIT OF ONLY BY BORROWING FUNDS FROM THE SALEM DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OP BANK BE ING THE CENTRAL BANK OR THE APEX BANK FOR ALL CO- OPERATIVE SOCIETIES REGISTERED IN AND AROUND SALEM AND IN TUR N ADVANCED (LENT) THE SO BORROWED MONEY TO ITS MEMBER S AND WAS ABLE TO MAKE PROFITS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FUR THER FAILED TO UNDERSTAND THAT A SOCIETY CANNOT FUNCTION ONLY WITH ITS OWN FUNDS FROM MEMBERS AND IT HAS RELAY ON CENTRAL BANK TO FUND THE SAME. VI. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS FAILED TO CONSIDER THAT T HE INCOME FROM BANKING BUSINESS OF A CO-OPERATIVE SOC IETY IS FULLY EXEMPTED AND THE DISALLOWANCE U/S. 80P(2),(D) WOULD OTHERWISE BE ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION D/S. 80P(2)(A)( D) BEING INCOME FROM BANKING ACTIVITY, AS THE SOCIETY HAS CA RRIED OUT ONLY ONE MAIN ACTIVITY I.E., BANKING BUSINESS FOR I TS MEMBERS AND OTHER ANCILLARY ACTIVITY OF INVESTING I N THE CENTRAL BANK AS REQUIRED BY THE STATUTE. HENCE IT IS PRAYED THAT THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S. 80P(2)(A)(I) AND U/S. 80P(2)( D) TO BE ALLOWED AS C LAIMED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME AS COVERED IN THE ABOVE CASES AND AFTER CONSIDERING THE ABOVE WRITTEN SUBMISSION. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ON EXAMINA TION OF THE ASSESSMENT RECORDS AND MATERIAL RELIED ON THE RECE NT CO-ORDIANTE ITA NOS.2341 & 2342/MDS/2015 :- 8 -: BENCH DECISION OF TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF M/S. S-13 08, AMMAPET PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD IN ITA N O.825/MDS/2015, DATED 23.09.2015 ALLOWED THE ASSESSEE APPEAL. AGGR IEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), THE REVENUE HAS ASSAILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 6. BEFORE US, THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE REI TERATED HIS SUBMISSIONS ON THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL AND CONTE STED THE JUDICIAL DECISIONS RELIED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TA X (APPEALS) WERE THE DEPARTMENT HAS FILED AN APPEAL IN JURISDICTIONA L HONBLE HIGH COURT AGAINST ITAT ORDER AND PRAYED FOR SET ASIDE OF THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). 7. CONTRA, THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE RELIED ON THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AND JUDICIA L DECISIONS AND OPPOSED TO THE GROUNDS OF THE REVENUE. 8. WE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE M ATERIAL ON RECORD AND JUDICIAL DECISIONS. THE LD. DEPARTM ENTAL REPRESENTATIVE CONTENTION THAT DECISION RELIED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS NOT REACHED FINALITY AND APPEAL HAS B EEN FILED BEFORE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT AND IS PENDING AND ALSO U RGED THAT ON DEFINITION OF THE MEMBER RELYING ON THE AUDIT REPO RT WERE THE ITA NOS.2341 & 2342/MDS/2015 :- 9 -: MEMBER MEANS SHARE HOLDER AND DOES NOT INCLUDE ASS OCIATE MEMBER. THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF PRO VIDING CREDIT FACILITIES TO ITS MEMBERS AND ACTIVITIES OF PRIMARY AGRICULTURE CO- OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY ARE NOT AT PAR WITH CO-OPE RATIVE BANKS AND RELY ON CO-ORDINATE BENCH DECISION OF TRIBUNAL IN ITO VS VEERAKERALAM PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY I N ITA NO.197/MDS/2013 , DATED 11.02.2014 AND IN THE CASE OF ITO VS. S- 1308, AMMAPET PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL CO-OPERATIVE BAN K LTD IN ITA 825/MDS/20 15 WHERE THE TRIBUNAL OBSERVED IN PARA 6 OF THE ORD ER AT PAGE 5 AS UNDER:- 7. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH PARTIES AND GONE THROUGH THE CASE FILE. AS STATED IN THE PRECEDING PARAGRAPHS, THE CI T(A) HAS PROCEEDED TO ENHANCE THE ASSESSMENT(SUPRA) ONLY ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEES CREDIT AND VARIOUS OTHER LOAN FACILITIES HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO BE AVAILED BY B C LASS NOMINAL MEMBERS WHOSE LIABILITY IS LIMITED, AT TH E BEST; TO THE EXTENT OF LOAN REPAYABLE INSTEAD OF A CLASS M EMBERS WHO HAVE VOTING RIGHTS AND DIVIDEND CLAIM, AND ALSO THAT THE LATTER MEMBERS ARE JOINTLY AND SEVERELY LIABLE. IN THIS BACKDROP, WHEN WE PERUSE THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF THE STATE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT, 1983, GOVERNING T HE ASSESSEE-SOCIETY, IT IS EVIDENT FROM THE DEFINITION OF MEMBER U/S 2(16) THAT THE SAME INCLUDES AN ASSOC IATE MEMBER U/S 2(6) APPENDED THEREIN. IN OTHER WORDS, THE NOMINAL MEMBERS ALSO ENJOY STATUTORY RECOGNITION AS PER THE ACT. THE NET RESULT IS THAT ONCE THE NOMINAL MEMBERS OR NON-VOTING MEMBERS ARE THEMSELVES INCLUDED IN TH E DEFINITION OF MEMBERS, THEY SATISFY THE RELEVANT CONDITION IMPOSED BY THE LEGISLATURE U/S 80P(2)(A)(I). WE MAK E IT CLEAR THAT WE ARE DEALING WITH A DEDUCTION PROVISIO N TO BE INTERPRETED LIBERALLY. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, T HE OBJECTIONS OF THE REVENUE THAT THE MEMBERS DEFINE D IN ITA NOS.2341 & 2342/MDS/2015 :- 10 -: SUB-CLAUSE(I) OF SECTION 80P(2) SHOULD ONLY INCLUDE VOTING MEMBERS WOULD AMOUNT TO A CLASSIFICATION WITHIN CLASSIFICATION WHICH IS BEYOND THE PURVIEW OF TAX S TATUTE; UNLESS PROVIDED SPECIFICALLY BY THE LEGISLATURE. MO REOVER, WE FIND THAT THE CASE LAW OF HON'BLE PUNJAB & HARYA NA HIGH COURT (SUPRA) ALSO SUPPORTS THE ASSESSEES CAS E WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD UNDER THE VERY PROVISION T HAT FOR THE PURPOSE OF IMPUGNED DEDUCTION, IT IS IRRELEVANT SO FAR AS CLASSIFICATION OF THE MEMBERS IN A OR B CATEGOR Y IS CONCERNED. WE FOLLOW THE SAME AND ACCEPT CONTENTION S OF THE ASSESSEE. 7. SIMILAR ISSUE HAD COME UP BEFORE THE HONBLE PUN JAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. PUNJAB ST ATE COOPERATIVE BANK LTD., REPORTED AS 300 ITR 24, WHER EIN THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HAD DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAV OUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LD.DR HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO CONTRO VERT THE CONTENTIONS OF THE AR. 8. THE ISSUE IN APPEAL IS SIMILAR TO THE ONE ADJUDI CATED BY THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH IN THE CASE OF M/S.SL(SPL) 15 1, KARKUDALPATTY PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL CO-OPERATIVE CRE DIT SOCIETY LTD., VS. ITO (SUPRA). ACCORDINGLY, WE HOLD THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO CLAIM BENEFIT. 9. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH DECISI ON, WE ARE NOT INCLINED TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF COM MISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) WHO HAS EXAMINED THE DISPUTED ISSUE A ND ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, WE UPHELD THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AND DISMISSES THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE. 10. CONSEQUENTLY, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IN ITA NO.2341/MDS/2015 IS ALSO DISMISSED. ITA NOS.2341 & 2342/MDS/2015 :- 11 -: 11. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE ARE DISM ISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF MARC H, 2016 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( . ) (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) # $% / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( & . ' ( ) (G. PAVAN KUMAR) ) $% / JUDICIAL MEMBER +' / CHENNAI , / DATED:16TH MARCH, 2016. KV - # %(./ 0/ ( / COPY TO: 1 . !' / APPELLANT 2. %&!' / RESPONDENT 3. 1( () / CIT(A) 4. 1( / CIT 5. /4 5 %(6 / DR 6. 5 7 8 ' / GF