Simpson & General Finance Co Ltd., CHENNAI V. ACIT, CHENNAI

ITA 2843/CHNY/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 90591 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-06-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 20-05-2015
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 18-11-2014
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A V SREEKANTH
• Keywords: Reopening of assessment; Earning of tax free income; Difference of opinion; Change of opinion; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 143(3); 14A; 147; 148

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.NOS.2843 AND 2844/MDS/2014 ASSESSMENT YEARS :2008-09 AND 2010-2011 M/S. SIMPSON & GENERAL FINANCE CO. LTD., NO. 861/862, ANNA SALAI, CHENNAI 600 002. [PAN: AABCS1868A] VS. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COMPANY CIRCLE VI(3), CHENNAI. ( %& %& %& %& /APPELLANT ) ( '(%& '(%& '(%& '(%& / RESPONDENT ) %& ) * / APPELLANT BY : SHRI SAROJ KUMAR PARIDA, 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 : BOTH THE APPEALS FILED BY THE SAME ASSESSEE ARE DI RECTED AGAINST THE DIFFERENT ORDERS OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) VI, CHENNAI BOTH DATED 30.09.2014 RELEVANT TO THE ASSES SMENT YEARS 2008-09 AND 2010-11. 2. THE FIRST GROUND RAISED IN THE APPEAL OF THE AS SESSEE IS RELATING TO REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 147 OF THE AC T. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. NO NONO NOS SS S. .. .2843 & 2844 2843 & 2844 2843 & 2844 2843 & 2844/M/ /M/ /M/ /M/14 1414 14 2 3. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE H AS FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 ON 30.09.200 8 ADMITTING TOTAL INCOME OF .1,02,59,730/-. THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS SELECT ED FOR SCRUTINY AND AFTER DUE PROCESS, THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT ON 28.10.2010. THE ASSESS ING OFFICER HAS OBSERVED THAT ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED DIVIDEND INCOME OF .3,32,275/- AND CLAIMED EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 10(34) OF THE ACT A ND THE ASSESSEE IN ITS RETURN OF INCOME HAS DISALLOWED AN EXPENDITURE OF .3,687/- TOWARDS EXEMPT INCOME. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED AN EXPEND ITURE OF .26,45,753/- AS INTEREST ON UNSECURED LOAN FOR THE YEAR ENDING 3 1.03.2008. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS COMPUTED THE EXPENDITURE BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 14A R.W.S. RULE 8D AND COMPLE TED THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT DATED 28.10.2010 BY ASSESSING TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE OF .1,48,38,278/-. SUBSEQUENTLY, A NOTICE UNDER SECTIO N 148 OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED ON 29.03.2013 ON THE GROU ND THAT THERE IS AN ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME AND CALLED REPLY FROM THE ASSE SSEE AND COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) R.W.S. 147 OF T HE ACT ON 31.12.2013 ASSESSING INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AT .1,51,23,146/-. 4. THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE REOPENING BEFOR E THE LD. CIT(A) AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSMENT ALREADY COMPLETED UND ER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT CANNOT BE REOPENED ON THE GROUND THAT IT IS AMOUNTING TO CHANGE OF I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. NO NONO NOS SS S. .. .2843 & 2844 2843 & 2844 2843 & 2844 2843 & 2844/M/ /M/ /M/ /M/14 1414 14 3 OPINION. HOWEVER, THE LD. CIT(A), AFTER CONSIDERING THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE, HAS OBSERVED THAT IT IS PERTINENT TO MENT ION THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS REOPENED THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 1 47 OF THE ACT WITHIN FOUR YEARS FROM THE END OF RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR . THE ASSESSING OFFICER CAME TO A CONCLUSION THAT THE INCOME HAS ESCAPED AS SESSMENT TO THE EXTENT OF THE CORRECT DISALLOWABLE AMOUNT UNDER SECTION 14 A R.W.RULE 8D. IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE MISTAKE HAD OCCURRED IN THE COMPUTATION OF THE TOTAL VALUE OF THE ASSETS AS PER BALANCE SHEET UNDER RULE 8D. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE BONAFIDE MISTA KE CREPT IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS SOUGHT TO BE RECTIFIED BY REOP ENING THE ASSESSMENT BY TAKING THE CORRECT VALUE OF THE AVERAGE TOTAL VA LUE OF ASSETS AT .2,25,87,366/- [ .22769840 + .22404892) / 2] INSTEAD OF THE AVERAGE TOTAL VALUE OF .97213312/- [( .91741179 + 102685444) / 2] TAKEN IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT WHICH RESULTED INTO ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME . THERE IS NO CHANGE OF OPINION BY THE AO WHILE REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT . ON PERUSAL OF THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS FOUND THAT THE AO HAS NOT OPINED ON THE VALUE OF THE AVERAGE VALUE OF THE TOT AL ASSETS AND IT WAS A SIMPLE MISTAKE COMMITTED BY THE AO IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER WHICH WAS SOUGHT TO BE RECTIFIED WITHIN PERMISSIBLE YEAR OF 4 YEARS BY REOPENING ASSESSMENT. THEREFORE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS UPHELD TH E STAND OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. NO NONO NOS SS S. .. .2843 & 2844 2843 & 2844 2843 & 2844 2843 & 2844/M/ /M/ /M/ /M/14 1414 14 4 5. ON BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MA TTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FI LED ALL THE MATERIALS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE ORIGINAL AS SESSMENT PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFI CER, AFTER ACCEPTING THE DETAILS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPLETED THE ASS ESSMENT AND THEREAFTER FORMED OPINION AND REOPENED THE ASSESSMENT. THE CHA NGE OF OPINION IS THEREFORE, NOT PERMISSIBLE UNDER LAW AND HE RELIED ON THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF CIT V. KELVINATOR INDIA LTD. 320 ITR 239 (S C). 6. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR STRONGLY SUPPORTE D THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 7. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH SIDES, PERUSED THE MATERIALS ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE ASSESS EE FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME AND THE RETURN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS CON SIDERED AND ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF TH E ACT. SUBSEQUENTLY, A NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED ON T HE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT CONSIDERED THE AVERAGE VA LUE OF THE TOTAL ASSETS AND TO RECTIFY THE MISTAKE REOPENING WAS DONE AND A SSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 143(3) R.W.S. 147 OF THE AC T. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS COMMITTED A MISTAKE AND TO RE CTIFY THE MISTAKE, HE HAS ISSUED NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT. IN THIS CASE, THE ISSUE OF REOPENING WAS DONE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER S ECTION 148 OF THE ACT IS I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. NO NONO NOS SS S. .. .2843 & 2844 2843 & 2844 2843 & 2844 2843 & 2844/M/ /M/ /M/ /M/14 1414 14 5 JUSTIFIED FOR THE REASON THAT AS PER EXPLANATION 2 (C) TO SECTION 148, WHERE THE INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX ARE UNDER ASSESSED, IT SHALL BE DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAS BEEN ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. THEREFORE, IN OUR OPINION, THE ASSESSING OFFICER, W HILE PASSING THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER UNDER SECTION 143(3) HAS NOT EXPRE SSED ANY OPINION AS HE HAS ONLY CONSIDERED THE DETAILS FILED BY THE ASSESS EE. THEREFORE, THE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 148 TO RECTIFY THE MISTAKE ON WHICH HE HAS NOT GIVEN ANY OPINION. THUS, IT IS NOT AMOUNTING TO ANY CHANG E OF OPINION. ACCORDINGLY, THE CASE LAW RELIED ON BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE A SSESSEE IN THE CASE OF CIT V. KELVINATOR INDIA LTD. (SUPRA) HAS NO APPLICATION . IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 8. SO FAR AS MERITS OF THE CASE IS CONCERNED WITH REGARD TO COMPUTATION OF DISALLOWANCE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS OBSERVED AS UND ER: ................REGARDING THE COMPUTATION OF DISAL LOWANCE UNDER RULE 8D(II), THE AO HAS ALREADY TAKEN THE FIGURE OF INTE REST EXPENDITURE OF .26,45,753/- IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE PUR POSE OF COMPUTATION OF DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST PORTION AT .85,537/-. THE APPELLANT WENT ON APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE AO DATED 28.10.2010 IN RESPECT OF DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES UNDER RULE 8D WHICH WAS CO NFIRMED IN THE APPELLATE ORDERS OF MY PREDECESSOR DATED 29.11.2011 . IT WAS STATED BY THE AR OF THE APPELLANT THAT THE DISALLOWANCE OF EX PENSES MADE U/S 14A IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT WAS CONFIRMED IN THE ITA T ALSO. THEREFORE, THE PLEA OF THE APPELLANT TO CONSIDER THE ISSUE OF DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST EXPENSES FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTATION OF DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A IN THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IS NOT LEGALLY CORRECT. THE INCOME ESCAPED WITH RESPECT TO DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENDITURE U/S 14A TO THE EXTENT OF THE ARITHMETIC MISTAKE COMMITTED IN THE O RIGINAL ASSESSMENT WAS CORRECTLY DONE BY THE AO AS PER THE LAW. HENCE, THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL FILED BY THE APPELLANT ON THIS ISSUE IS REJE CTED. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. NO NONO NOS SS S. .. .2843 & 2844 2843 & 2844 2843 & 2844 2843 & 2844/M/ /M/ /M/ /M/14 1414 14 6 9. AFTER CAREFULLY CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND FINDI NGS OF THE LD. CIT(A), WE FIND THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY HELD THAT THE DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST EXPENSES FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTATION OF DISALLOW ANCE UNDER SECTION 14A IN THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IS NOT LEGALLY CORR ECT SINCE THE INCOME ESCAPED WITH RESPECT TO DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENDITURE UNDER SECTION 14A TO THE EXTENT OF THE ARITHMETIC MISTAKE COMMITTED IN T HE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT WAS CORRECTLY DONE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS PER THE LAW. THEREFORE, WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CI T(A) AND ACCORDINGLY, THE GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. I.T.A. NO. 2844/MDS/2014 10. IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11, THE ISSUE INV OLVED IS RELATING TO LEASE RENTAL INCOME. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE LD . COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE OF LEASE RENTAL INCOME IS SQUARELY COVERED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE BY THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN T.C.(A) NOS. 124 TO 130 O F 2014 VIDE ORDER DATED 21.03.2014. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE JUDGEMENT OF THE H ONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE, THE GROUND RAISE D BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 11. THE NEXT GROUND RAISED IN THE APPEAL OF THE AS SESSEE IS WITH REGARD TO DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES OF .1,65,280/-. THE LD. CIT(A), AFTER CONSIDERING I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. NO NONO NOS SS S. .. .2843 & 2844 2843 & 2844 2843 & 2844 2843 & 2844/M/ /M/ /M/ /M/14 1414 14 7 THE FACTS AND SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, CONFIRME D THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY OBSERVING AS UNDER : 5.3 THE THIRD GROUND OF APPEAL WITH SUB GROUNDS 3. 1 TO 3.3 FILED BY THE APPELLANT ARE AGAINST THE ACTION OF THE AO IN M AKING DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES OF RS.1,65,280/- U/S 14A READ WITH 80 O F THE IT RULES. THIS ISSUE WAS ELABORATELY DISCUSSED BY THE AO FROM PARA 8 TO PARA 8.5 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. IT WAS NOTICED BY THE AO THAT THE APPELLANT HAD ADMITTED INCOME FROM DIVIDEND TO THE EXTENT OF RS.5 ,38,000/- AND HAS CLAIMED ENTIRE DIVIDEND INCOME AS EXEMPT INCOME U/S 10(34) R.W.S. 115O OF THE IT ACT. THE AO HAD GIVEN ADEQUATE OPPOR TUNITY TO THE APPELLANT AS TO WHY PROPORTIONATE EXPENDITURE SHALL NOT BE DISALLOWED U/S 14A OF THE IT ACT R.W. 8D OF THE IT RULES. THE AO ALSO FOUND THAT THE APPELLANT HAS INCURRED HUGE INTEREST EXPENDITUR E OF RS.44,35,498/- APART FROM OTHER GENERAL EXPENSES WHICH ARE INCURRE D FOR EARNING EXEMPT INCOME AS WELL' AS NON EXEMPT INCOME. NO SEP ARATE ACCOUNTS WERE MAINTAINED BY THE APPELLANT FOR EARNING EXEMPT INCOME AND NON EXEMPT INCOME. UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE AO HAS COMPUTED THE DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES UNDER RULE 8D OF THE IT RU LES. DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE AR OF THE APPE LLANT SIMPLY RELIED ON THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL WITHOUT SUBSTANTIATING THE DETAILS OF THE CAPITAL AND RESERVES WHICH WERE APPLIED FOR MAKING INVESTMENTS IN RELATION TO THE EXEMPT INCOME. THE AR OF THE APPELL ANT DID NOT MAKE A CASE SUBMITTING THE EVIDENCES IN SUPPORT OF ITS ARG UMENTS AND GROUNDS OF APPEAL EXCEPT RELYING ON THE CASE LAWS CITED IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. HOWEVER, I FIND FROM THE DETAILS AVAILABLE IN THE RECORD THAT THE APPELLANT HAS INCURRED HUGE EXPENDITURE IN THE FORM OF INTEREST EXPENSE AND ALSO OTHER EXPENSES FOR MAKING OR MAINTAINING T HE INVESTMENTS IN RELATION TO EXEMPT INCOME. NO SEPARATE ACCOUNTS WER E KEPT BY THE APPELLANT FOR MAKING INVESTMENTS, OR MAINTAINING TH E INVESTMENTS IN RELATION TO EXEMPT INCOME AND ALSO NON EXEMPT INCOM E. THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE ARE DISTINGUISHABLE FROM THE FACTS OF THE CASE LAWS CITED BY THE AR OF THE APPELLANT IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. T HE AO HAS CORRECTLY RELIED UPON THE RATIO OF THE APEX COURT DECISION IN THE CASE OF WALFORT STOCK & SHARE INVESTMENT REPORTED IN 41 OTR 233. TH E HON'BLE ITAT, CHENNAI IN THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF SIVA INDUSTR IES & HOLDING LTD. VS. ACIT REPORTED IN 54 SOT 49 CHENNAI (2012) HELD THAT EVEN IN A YEAR WHERE NO EXEMPT INCOME WAS EARNED OR RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A CAN BE MADE. THE HON'BLE I TAT CHENNAI WHILE DELIVERING THE JUDGEMENT, FOLLOWED THE JUDGEM ENT OF THE DELHI SPECIAL BENCH REPORTED IN 121 ITD 318 IN THE CASE O F CHEM INVEST LTD. VS. ITO WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT DISALLOWANCE U/S 1 4A CAN BE MADE I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. NO NONO NOS SS S. .. .2843 & 2844 2843 & 2844 2843 & 2844 2843 & 2844/M/ /M/ /M/ /M/14 1414 14 8 EVEN IN THE YEAR WHERE NO EXEMPT INCOME HAS BEEN EA RNED OR RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES INDIRE CTLY INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE IN RELATION TO INCOME WHICH DOES NOT FORM TOTAL INCOME WAS ALSO VERY HIGH. THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY IN THE CASE OF M/S GODREJ & BOYCE. MFG. CO. LTD. VS. CIT REPORTED IN 3 28 ITR 81 HELD THAT THE AO IS DUTY BOUND TO DETERMINE THE EXPENDITURE W HICH HAD BEEN INCURRED IN RELATION TO INCOME WHICH DID NOT FORM P ART OF THE TOTAL INCOME. IT IS FURTHER HELD BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COUR T OF BOMBAY THAT THE AO HAD TO ENFORCE THE PROVISIONS OF SUB SECTION(L) OF SEC.14A EVEN PRIOR TO A.Y. 2008-09. LOOKING INTO THE FACTS OF TH E CASE AND LEGAL POSITION, THE QUANTUM OF THE DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A W ORKED OUT BY THE AO IS LEGALLY TENABLE. THEREFORE, RESPECTFULLY FOLL OWING THE RATIO OF THE JUDGEMENTS OF DELHI SPECIAL BENCH IN THE CASE OF M/ S CHEM INVEST LTD.(SUPRA) AND ITAT CHENNAI IN THE CASE OF M/S SIV A INDUSTRIES & HOLDING LTD.(SUPRA), HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY IN THE CA SE OF M/S GODREJ & BOYCE. MFG. CO. LTD. VS. CIT REPORTED IN 328 ITR 81, WALFORT STOCK & SHARE INVESTMENT REPORTED IN 41 DTR 233. I HOLD T HAT THE AO IS CORRECT IN MAKING THE DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A OF THE I T ACT. 12. BEFORE US, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HA S NOT ABLE TO SUBSTANTIATE WITH ANY MATERIAL TO SHOW THAT THE ORD ER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IS NOT CORRECT. IN VIEW OF THE SPECIFIC FIND INGS GIVEN BY THE LD. CIT(A) THAT NO SPECIFIC BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WERE MAINTAINED FOR THE INVESTMENT IN RELATION TO EXEMPT INCOME AND ALSO NON EXEMPT INCOM E. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE AND ACCORDINGLY, THE GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 13. SO FAR AS THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF ESTATE EXPENSES OF .7,88,123/- IS CONCERNED, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT ABLE TO PRODUCE ANY DETAILS I.E. BILLS AND VOUCHERS, ETC. NEITHER BEFORE THE AS SESSING OFFICER NOR BEFORE I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. NO NONO NOS SS S. .. .2843 & 2844 2843 & 2844 2843 & 2844 2843 & 2844/M/ /M/ /M/ /M/14 1414 14 9 THE LD. CIT(A) OR EVEN BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 14. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS FILED BY THE A SSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON TUESDAY, THE 30 TH OF JUNE, 2015 AT CHENNAI. SD/ - SD/ - (CHANDRA POOJARI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (V. DURGA RAO) JUD ICIAL 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.