ACIT, Central Circle 1(4), Chennai V. RR Industries Ltd, Chennai

ITA 271/CHNY/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 116 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6669 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 6 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-07-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 22-01-2018
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SAILENDRA MAMIDIPCIT
• Assessee Lawyers: R VENKATESH
• Keywords: Earning of tax free income; Benefit of exemption

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH: CHENNAI , , ' BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NOS.271 & 272 TO 273/CHNY/2018 & ITA NOS.3189 TO 3191/CHNY/2017 /ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2008-09 & 2012-13 TO 2013-14 & ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10 TO 2011-12 & CROSS-OBJECTION NOS.66 & 67 TO 68/CHNY/2018 [IN ITA NOS.271 & 272 TO 273/CHNY/2018] & CROSS-OBJECTION NOS.44 TO 46/CHNY/2018 [ITA NOS.3189 TO 3191/CHNY/2017] /ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2008-09 & 2012-13 TO 2013-14 & ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10 TO 2011-12 THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF- INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), CHENNAI. VS. M/S.R.R. INDUSTRIES LTD., RR TOWER-III, THIRU VI KA INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, GUINDY, CHENNAI-600 032. [PA N: AAACR 3594 H ] ( ) /APPELLANT) ( *+) /RESPONDENT / CROSS OBJECTOR) DEPARTMENT BY : MR. SAILENDRA MAMIDI, PCIT ASSESSEE BY : MR. R.VENKATESH, FCA - /DATE OF HEARING : 30.07.2019 - /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30.07.2019 ITA NOS.271-273/CHNY/2018 ITA NOS.3189-3191/CHNY/2017 CO NOS.66-68/CHNY/2018 & CO NOS.44-46/CHNY/2018 :- 2 -: / O R D E R PER BENCH: ITA NOS.271 & 272 TO 273/CHNY/2018 ARE THE APPEAL S FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDERS OF THE COMMISSIONER OF I NCOME TAX (APPEALS)-18, CHENNAI, IN ITA NO.224/15-16 DATED 03 .10.2017 FOR THE AY 2008-09 AND IN ITA NOS.220 & 219/15-16 DATED 23.10. 2017 FOR THE AYS 2012-13 TO 2013-14 RESPECTIVELY. ITA NOS.3189 & 31 90 TO 3191/CHNY/2017 ARE THE APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDERS OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-18, CHE NNAI, IN ITA NO.223/15-16 DATED 27.09.2017 FOR THE AY 2009-10 AN D IN ITA NOS.222 & 221/15-16 DATED 27.09.2017 FOR THE AYS 2010-11 TO 2 011-12 RESPECTIVELY. CO NOS.66 & 67 TO 68/CHNY/2018 ARE TH E CROSS-OBJECTIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NOS.271 & 272 TO 273/C HNY/2018 FOR THE AYS 2008-09 & 2012-13 TO 2013-14 RESPECTIVELY. CO NOS. 44 TO 46/CHNY/2018 ARE THE CROSS-OBJECTIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN I TA NOS.3189 TO 3191/CHNY/2017 FOR THE AYS 2009-10 TO 2011-12 RESPE CTIVELY. 2. SHRI SAILENDRA MAMIDI, PCIT, REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE AND SHRI R.VENKATESH, CA, REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. 3. THE CROSS-OBJECTIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN CO N OS.44 TO 46/CHNY/2018 FOR THE AYS 2009-10 TO 2011-12 ARE BEL ATED BY 06 DAYS, FOR WHICH, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED ANY PETITION NOR AFFIDAVIT FOR ITA NOS.271-273/CHNY/2018 ITA NOS.3189-3191/CHNY/2017 CO NOS.66-68/CHNY/2018 & CO NOS.44-46/CHNY/2018 :- 3 -: CONDONATION OF DELAY. CONSEQUENTLY, THE CROSS-OBJE CTIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN CO NOS.44 TO 46/CHNY/2018 ARE DISMISSED ON ACCOUNT OF DELAY. IN RESPECT OF CROSS-OBJECTION NOS.66 TO 68/ CHNY/2018, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE CROSS-OBJECTIONS WERE IN SUPPORT OF THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A). 4. IN RESPECT OF REVENUE APPEALS, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD.DR THAT THERE ARE TWO ISSUES INVOLVED IN THESE APPEALS. IN RESPECT OF AYS 2008-09 & 2009-10 TO 2011-12 BEING IN ITA NOS.271/CHNY/2018 & ITA NOS.3189 TO 3191/CHNY/2017, THE ISSUE WAS AGAINST THE ACTION OF THE LD.CIT(A) IN DELETING THE ADDITIONS MADE ON ACCOUNT OF THE EXEMP TION CLAIMED U/S.10A ON THE GROUND THAT THERE WAS NO INCRIMINATING MATER IAL FOUND IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE SECOND ISSUE RELATED TO THE AYS 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 REPRESENTED BY ITA NOS.3190 & 3191/CHNY/2017 & ITA NOS.272 & 273/CHNY/2018 RESPE CTIVELY. IT WAS A SUBMISSION THAT THE ISSUE WAS AGAINST THE ACTION OF THE LD.CIT(A) IN RESTRICTING THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO U/S.14A R.W.R.8D TO THE EXTENT OF EXEMPT INCOME EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD.DR THAT IN RESPECT OF THE FIRST ISSUE BEING THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S.10A, IT WAS A SUBMISSION THAT THERE WAS A SEARC H ON THE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE ON 11.10.2012, NOTICE U/S.153A WAS ISS UED ON THE ASSESSEE ON 30.01.2015 AND THE ASSESSMENT CAME TO BE COMPLET ED U/S.153A & 153C R.W.S.143(3) ON 31.03.2015. IT WAS A SUBMISSI ON THAT IN THE COURSE ITA NOS.271-273/CHNY/2018 ITA NOS.3189-3191/CHNY/2017 CO NOS.66-68/CHNY/2018 & CO NOS.44-46/CHNY/2018 :- 4 -: OF SEARCH, IT WAS NOTICED THAT THE DATA PROCESSING WAS NOT CARRIED ON FROM THE OFFICE PREMISES, FOR WHICH, THE APPROVAL WAS GR ANTED BY THE MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND THE EXPENSES INCURRED FOR THE PURPOSE OF DOING THE SO CALLED DATA PROCESSING WORK ALSO SUGGESTED THAT THE SE HAVE NOT BEEN EXPENDED FOR THE PURPOSE OF SOFTWARE BUSINESS ACTIV ITY UNDERTAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS A SUBMISSION THAT CONSEQUENTLY, T HE AO HAD REJECTED THE ASSESSEES CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S.10A. IN THE COUR SE OF ASSESSMENT FOR THE AYS 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12, THE AS SESSEE WAS ASKED TO PRODUCE THE SPECIFIC DETAILS OF INPUTS RECEIVED FROM M/S.SINDIA SOFTWARE CO., FOR PROCESSING AND OUTPUT PRODUCED FROM THE AS SESSEES SIDE. IT WAS A SUBMISSION THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PRODUCE ANY SUBSTANTIAL PROOF FOR THE PROCESSING WORK AND THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED TH AT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WAS PREVENTED BY THE CONFIDENTIALITY CLAUSE OF THE AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO WITH M/S.SINDIA SOFTWARE CO. IT WAS A SUBMISSION THAT THE AO HAD ALSO IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT ASKED FOR T HE EVIDENCE IN THE FORM OF THE APPROVAL FROM THE COMPETENT BOARD FOR T HE ELIGIBILITY U/S.10A WHICH WAS ALSO NOT PRODUCED. THE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO NOT PRODUCED NOR DISCLOSED THE NATURE OF THE SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT AC TIVITY DONE BY THE ASSESSEE. CONSEQUENTLY, THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF NON-P RODUCTION OF ANY DETAILS TO COUNTER THE EVIDENCE FOUND IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH THAT THE DATA PROCESSING WAS NOT CARRIED ON FROM THE OFFICE PREMI SES, FOR WHICH, THE APPROVAL WAS GRANTED BY THE MINISTRY OF COMMERCE, D ENIED THE BENEFIT OF EXEMPTION U/S.10A AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. IT W AS SUBMITTED BY THE ITA NOS.271-273/CHNY/2018 ITA NOS.3189-3191/CHNY/2017 CO NOS.66-68/CHNY/2018 & CO NOS.44-46/CHNY/2018 :- 5 -: LD.DR THAT THE LD.CIT(A) HAD HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ENTITLED TO THE DEDUCTION U/S.10A ON THE GROUND THAT FOR ALL THE EA RLIER ASSESSMENTS INCLUDING THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT IN RESPECT OF THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR HAD BEEN COMPLETED ACCEPTING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE MADE U/S.10A AS ALSO ON THE GROUND THAT NO INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS HAVE BEEN UNEARTHED AT THE TIME OF SEARCH. CONSEQUENTLY, THE LD.CIT(A) DIRECTED THE AO TO DELETE THE ADDITIONS MADE ON ACCOUNT OF THE E XEMPTION CLAIMED U/S.10A. IT WAS A SUBMISSION THAT THE LD.CIT(A) FA ILED TO APPRECIATE THAT IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH, IT HAD COME TO LIGHT THAT THE DATA PROCESSING WAS NOT CARRIED ON FROM THE OFFICE PREMISES, FOR WHICH, THE APPROVAL WAS GRANTED BY THE MINISTRY OF COMMERCE. THIS WAS THE I NCRIMINATING MATERIAL WHICH HAD LEAD TO THE DENIAL OF THE DEDUCTION U/S.1 0A OF THE ACT. IT WAS A SUBMISSION THAT NO EVIDENCE HAD BEEN PRODUCED BEFOR E THE AO NOR BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A) TO COUNTER THE FACT THAT THE DATA PRO CESSING WAS NOT CARRIED ON FROM THE OFFICE PREMISES, FOR WHICH, THE APPROVA L WAS GRANTED BY THE MINISTRY OF COMMERCE, WHICH BECAME EVIDENT ON ACCOU NT OF SEARCH CONDUCTED ON 11.10.2012. IT WAS A SUBMISSION THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) WAS LIABLE TO BE REVERSED. 5. IN REPLY, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD.AR THAT THERE WAS NO SEIZED MATERIAL, WHICH IS INCRIMINATING, WHICH HAS BEEN FO UND IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH. IT WAS A SUBMISSION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD IN FACT PRODUCED THE SOFTEXT FORM WHICH SHOWED THE EXPORT OF THE SOFTWAR E, THE ANNUAL REPORT ITA NOS.271-273/CHNY/2018 ITA NOS.3189-3191/CHNY/2017 CO NOS.66-68/CHNY/2018 & CO NOS.44-46/CHNY/2018 :- 6 -: OF THE STPI AND THE BALANCE SHEET CLEARLY SHOWS THA T THE ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED THE FOREIGN EXCHANGE ON ACCOUNT OF THE EXP ORT OF THE SOFTWARE. IT IS AN ADMITTED FACT THAT THERE HAS BEEN A MANUFACTU RE AND EXPORT OF THE SOFTWARE WHICH CLEARLY SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ENTITLED TO THE DEDUCTION U/S.10A AS CLAIMED. IT WAS A SUBMISSION THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIAL HAVING BEEN FOUND IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH, NO ADDITION WAS LIABLE TO BE MADE BY DISALLOWING THE C LAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S.10A OF THE ACT. 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. 7. AT THE OUTSET, IT WAS SPECIFICALLY ASKED AS TO WHE THER THERE WAS ANY STATEMENTS RECORDED IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH, TO WHI CH, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD.AR THAT THE STATEMENTS HAD BEEN RECORDED BUT IT WAS NOT RELEVANT AND CONSEQUENTLY, THE SAME HAVE NOT BEEN PRODUCED. A PERUSAL OF THE PARA NO.7.4 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER CLEARLY SHOWS T HAT THE AO HAS CATEGORICALLY RECORDED THAT IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH PROCEEDINGS CONDUCTED ON 11.10.2012, IT IS REVEALED THAT THE DATA PROCESS ING WAS NOT CARRIED ON FROM THE OFFICE PREMISES, FOR WHICH, THE APPROVAL W AS GRANTED BY THE MINISTRY OF COMMERCE. WHEN SUCH SPECIFIC FINDINGS IS THERE IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND WHEN THE AO HAS ALSO CATEGORIC ALLY ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE THE SPECIFIC DETAILS OF THE INP UTS RECEIVED FROM M/S.SINDIA SOFTWARE CO., THE ASSESSEE TRIES TO HIDE BEHIND THE PROTECTION ITA NOS.271-273/CHNY/2018 ITA NOS.3189-3191/CHNY/2017 CO NOS.66-68/CHNY/2018 & CO NOS.44-46/CHNY/2018 :- 7 -: OF THE CONFIDENTIALITY CLAUSE OF THE AGREEMENT ENTE RED INTO WITH M/S.SINDIA SOFTWARE CO. WHAT IS THE SO CALLED CONFIDENTIALITY THAT WOULD BE VIOLATED BY PRODUCTION BEFORE THE TAX AUTHORITIES, THE AGREE MENTS HAVE ALSO NOT BEEN EXPLAINED. WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN ASKED TO PRODUCE THE APPROVAL GRANTED BY THE DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER AN D SUCH APPROVAL RATIFIED BY THE BOARD OF APPROVAL FOR EOU SCHEME, S UCH EVIDENCES ARE ALSO NOT PRODUCED. THUS, CLEARLY THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT B EEN ABLE TO DISLODGE THE CATEGORICAL FINDINGS GIVEN BY THE AO IN HIS ASS ESSMENT ORDER THAT THE SEARCH PROCEEDINGS HAS REVEALED THAT THE DATA PROCE SSING WAS NOT CARRIED ON FROM THE OFFICE PREMISES, FOR WHICH, THE APPROVA L WAS GRANTED BY THE MINISTRY OF COMMERCE. WHAT MORE IS THE INCRIMINATI NG MATERIAL THAT IS REQUIRED? THE INCRIMINATING MATERIAL HAS BEEN FOUN D IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH AND WHEN FURTHER EVIDENCES TO SUPPORT THE CL AIM OF THE ASSESSEE IS CALLED FOR, THE ASSESSEE HIDES BEHIND VARIOUS SMOKE SCREENS AND TRIES TO RAISE THE ISSUE THAT THERE IS NO INCRIMINATING MATE RIAL. WHEN SUCH A FINDING IS CATEGORICALLY THERE IN THE ASSESSMENT OR DER AND SUCH FINDING HAS NOT BEEN DISPROVED OR DISLODGED, CLEARLY, THE FINDI NGS OF THE LD.CIT(A) THAT THERE WAS NO INCRIMINATING MATERIAL FOUND/UNEARTHED AT THE TIME OF SEARCH IS UNSUSTAINABLE. THE PRODUCTION OF THE SOFTEXT FO RM ONLY SHOWS THE EXPORT OF THE SOFTWARE SO ALSO THE ANNUAL REPORT AN D THE BALANCE SHEET SHOWS THE RECEIPT OF THE MONEY BUT THE PRIMARY COND ITION FOR THE DENIAL OF THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S.10A IS THAT THE DATA PRO CESSING WAS NOT CARRIED ON FROM THE OFFICE PREMISES, FOR WHICH, THE APPROVA L WAS GRANTED BY THE ITA NOS.271-273/CHNY/2018 ITA NOS.3189-3191/CHNY/2017 CO NOS.66-68/CHNY/2018 & CO NOS.44-46/CHNY/2018 :- 8 -: MINISTRY OF COMMERCE. THE ASSESSEE COULD VERY WELL HAVE GOT DONE THE JOB ELSEWHERE AND EXPORTED THE PRODUCTS AND OBTAINE D THE SOFTEXT FORM. THAT WOULD NOT ENTITLE THE BENEFIT OF DEDUCTION U/S .10A OF THE ACT. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE HAVING BEEN PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE TO REBUT THE FINDINGS OF THE FACT AS ARRIVED AT BY THE AO IN HIS ASSESSMENT ORDER AS ALSO ON THE ACCOUNT OF THE FACT THE ASSESSEE HAS NO T PRODUCED ANY EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT ITS CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S.10A, ESPECIALLY WHEN THE SEARCH PROCEEDINGS HAD REVEALED THAT THE DATA PROCE SSING WAS NOT CARRIED ON FROM THE OFFICE PREMISES, FOR WHICH, THE APPROVA L WAS GRANTED BY THE MINISTRY OF COMMERCE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE O RDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) DIRECTING THE AO TO GRANT THE DEDUCTION U/S.10A IS UNSUSTAINABLE AND IS LIABLE TO BE REVERSED AND WE DO SO. 8. IN PARA NO.9.4 OF THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A), THE LD.CIT(A) HAS TAKEN A STAND THAT FOR ALL THE EARLIER ASSESSMENTS INCLUDING THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT IN RESPECT OF THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YE AR HAD BEEN COMPLETED ACCEPTING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE MADE U/S.10A OF THE ACT. THIS WOULD BE IN NO WAY HELPFUL IN SO FAR AS IN RES PECT OF ALL THE EARLIER ASSESSMENTS INCLUDING THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT IN TH E IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR, THE PAPER WORK WOULD HAVE BEEN PER FECT BUT THE SEARCH CONDUCTED ON 11.10.2012 HAS REVEALED THAT THE PRIMA RY CONDITION FOR ALLOWANCE OF THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S.10A HAD BEE N VIOLATED. IN THESE ITA NOS.271-273/CHNY/2018 ITA NOS.3189-3191/CHNY/2017 CO NOS.66-68/CHNY/2018 & CO NOS.44-46/CHNY/2018 :- 9 -: CIRCUMSTANCES, THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) GRANTING THE ASSESSEE THE BENEFIT OF EXEMPTION U/S.10A STANDS REVERSED AND TH AT OF THE AO RESTORED. 9. IN RESPECT OF THE ADDITION WHICH HAS BEEN DELETED BY THE LD.CIT(A) IN RESPECT OF THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.14A R.W.R.8D B Y RESTRICTING THE DISALLOWANCE TO THE QUANTUM OF THE EXEMPT INCOME RE CEIVED, IT WAS FAIRLY AGREED BY BOTH THE SIDES THAT THE ISSUE WAS NOW SQU ARELY COVERED BY THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CAS E OF M/S.JOINT INVESTMENTS PVT. LTD. VS. CIT REPORTED IN 372 ITR 6 94 (DELHI), WHEREIN, IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT THE DISALLOWANCE U/S.14A R.W.R.8 D SHOULD BE RESTRICTED TO THE EXTENT OF EXEMPT INCOME EARNED. IN THESE CI RCUMSTANCES, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE PRINCIPLES LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF M/S.JOINT INVESTMENTS PVT. LTD . VS. CIT, REFERRED TO SUPRA, THE FINDINGS OF THE LD.CIT(A) STANDS CONFIRM ED. 10. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE IN ITA NOS.271/CHNY/2018 FOR THE AY 2008-09 & ITA NO.3189/ CHNY/2017 FOR THE AY 2009-10 ARE ALLOWED AND IN ITA NOS.3190 & 3191/C HNY/2017 FOR THE AYS 2010-11 & 2011-12 ARE PARTLY ALLOWED AND IN ITA NOS.272 & 273/CHNY/2018 FOR THE AYS 2012-13 & 2013-14 ARE DIS MISSED. THE CROSS- OBJECTIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN CO NOS.44 TO 46 /CHNY/2018 FOR THE AYS 2009-10 TO 2011-12 ARE DISMISSED ON ACCOUNT OF DELAY. THE CROSS- OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN CO NO.66/CHNY/20 18 FOR THE AY 2008- ITA NOS.271-273/CHNY/2018 ITA NOS.3189-3191/CHNY/2017 CO NOS.66-68/CHNY/2018 & CO NOS.44-46/CHNY/2018 :- 10 -: 09 IS IN SUPPORT OF THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A). AS WE HAVE ALREADY REVERSED THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) IN ITA NO.271/C HNY/2018, THE CROSS- OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN CO NO.66/CHNY/20 18 STANDS DISMISSED. THE CROSS-OBJECTIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN CO NO S.67 & 68/CHNY/2018 FOR THE AYS 2012-13 & 2013-14 ARE IN SUPPORT OF THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A). AS WE HAVE ALREADY UPHELD THE ORDER OF T HE LD.CIT(A) IN ITA NOS.272 & 273/CHNY/2018 FOR THE AYS 2012-13 & 2013- 14, THE CROSS- OBJECTIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN CO NOS.67 & 68/ CHNY/2018 FOR THE AYS 2012-13 & 2013-14 ARE DISMISSED AS INFRUCTUOUS. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THE 30 TH JULY, 2019 IN CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( ) ( INTURI RAMA RAO ) /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( ) (GEORGE MATHAN) /JUDICIAL MEMBER /CHENNAI, 2 /DATED: 30 TH JULY, 2019. TLN - *34 54 /COPY TO: 1. ) /APPELLANT 4. 6 /CIT 2. *+) /RESPONDENT 5. 4 * /DR 3. 6 ( ) /CIT(A) 6. /GF