DCIT, CHENNAI V. M/s. Shriram SEPL Composites Pvt. Ltd., Sriperambudur

ITA 2894/CHNY/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4667 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-05-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 07-10-2016
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SHIVA SRINIVAS
• Assessee Lawyers: R SIVARAMAN
• Keywords: Earning of tax free income; Question of law; Commercial expediency
• Section: 143(3); 142(1); 14A

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, CHENNAI . , . , ' # BEFORE SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI G. PAVAN KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ I.T.A. NO. 2894/MDS/2016 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2013-14 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE - 6(1), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, NEW BLOCK, 121, M.G. ROAD, 7 TH FLOOR, CHENNAI 600 034. VS. M/S. SHRIRAM SEPL COMPOSITES PVT. LTD., PLOT NO. 74, PERIYAR NAGAR, THIRUKATCHOOR VILALGE, SRIPERUMBUDUR ROAD, SINGAPERUMAL KOIL 600 204. [PAN: AALCS 8044E] ( / APPELLANT) ( / RESPONDENT) % & / APPELLANT BY : SHRI SHIVA SRINIVAS, JCIT )*% & / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI R. SIVARAMAN , ADVOCATE & /DATE OF HEARING : 16.03.2017 & /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 01.05.2017 /O R D E R PER G. PAVAN KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THE REVENUE HAS FILED AN APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-15, CHENNAI IN ITA NO. 336/CIT(A)- 15/15-16 DATED 19.07.2016 PASSED U/S. 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. :-2-: I.T.A. N0. 2894/MDS/2016 2. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 2) THE LD CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION U/S 14A FOR RS 2,50,000/- OVERLOOKING THE COMPUTATION PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN RULE 8D. 2.1) LD CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE NOTED THAT SEC 14A AND RULE 80 DOES NOT PUT ANY RESTRICTION ON THE QUANTUM OF DISALLOWANCE TO BE MADE VIS A VIS EXEMPT INCOME REC EIVED DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR. 2.2 THE LD CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION U/ S 36(1) (III) FOR RS. 81,53,048/-. 2.3 CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE FACT IN THE CAS E LAW OF CIT VS ABHISHEK INDUSTRIES LTD (286 ITR 1) W HERE IN IT WAS HELD THAT IF THE ASSESSSEE HAD BORROWED CERT AIN FUNDS ON WHICH LIABILITY TO PAY INTEREST IS BEING INCURRE D AND ON THE OTHER HAND CERTAIN AMOUNT HAS BEEN ADVANCED TO OTHERS WITHOUT CARRYING ANY INTEREST AND WITHOUT AN Y BUSINESS PURPOSE, INTEREST TO THE EXTENT THAT THE A DVANCE HAS BEEN MADE WITHOUT CARRYING ANY INTEREST IS TO B E DISALLOWED U/S 36(1) (II) AND SAME FACT WAS HELD IN THE CASE OF CIT VS BABY & CO 254 ITR 248 ALSO. 2.4 THE LD CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT DISALLOWANCE MADE U/S 36(I) (III) WHEN ASSESSEE FAI LED TO SUBSTANTIATE THE COMMERCIAL EXPEDIENCY IN ADVANCING INTEREST FREE LOAN TO SISTER CONCERN. 2.5. THE LD CIT (A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE ADDITION U/S 36(I) (III) WHEN DEPARTMENT ESTABLISHE D DIVERSION OF INTEREST BEARING FUNDS AS INTEREST FRE E LOAN TO SUBSIDIARY AND WHETHER SUCH DECISION IS CONTRARY TO THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN K. :-3-: I.T.A. N0. 2894/MDS/2016 SOMASUNDARAM & BROTHERS VS CIT (238 ITR 939) AND A.MURALI & CO PVT LTD VS DCLT (357 ITR 580.) 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSE E COMPANY IS IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING COMPOSITES AND FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14 ON 27.09.2013 WITH TOTAL LO SS OF RS. 10,55,22,387/-. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY UN DER CASS AND NOTICE U/S. 143(2) AND 142(1) OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED. IN COMPLI ANCE TO THE NOTICE, THE LD. AR APPEARED FROM TIME TO TIME AND FILED THE DETAILS . THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON PERUSAL OF THE BALANCE SHEET FOUND THAT THE ASSESSE E HAS MADE INVESTMENT OF RS. 5 CRORES IN GROUP COMPANIES AND HAS NOT DISALLO WED ANY EXPENDITURE INCURRED ON MAKING SUCH INVESTMENTS. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THERE WAS NO EXEMPTED INCOME, THEREFORE NO DISALLOW ANCE IS ATTRIBUTABLE UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 14A OF THE ACT. TH E ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS NOT INCURRED ANY EXPENDITURE IN MAKING SUCH INVESTM ENTS AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER CONSIDERED THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 1 4A R.W.R. 8D(II) OF THE IT RULES ARE MANDATORILY APPLICABLE AND RELIED ON THE CBDT CIRCULAR AND IS OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE MUST HAVE INCURRED INDIRECT MANAGEMENT EXPENSES FOR MAINTAINING THESE INVESTMENTS AND CALCULATED THE DI SALLOWANCE U/S. 14A R.W.R. 8D(II) RS. 2,50,000/-. FURTHER, THE ASSESSING OFFI CER FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS BORROWED FUNDS FROM RELATED CONCERN M/S . SHRIRAM EPC LTD. AND PAYING INTEREST OF RS. 2,50,77,429/- AND WHEREAS TH E ASSESSEE HAS ADVANCED :-4-: I.T.A. N0. 2894/MDS/2016 INTEREST FREE LOAN TO M/S. SHRIRAM COMPOSITES LIMIT ED AND M/S. STRATEGIC ENGINEERING PVT. LTD AND THESE LOANS HAVE BEEN ADVA NCED TO RELATED PARTIES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE IS PA YING INTEREST TO ITS RELATED CONCERNS AND PROVIDING INTEREST FREE LOANS AND PROP OSED FOR THE DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY FILED A LETTER D ATED 29.02.2016 REFERRED AT PARA 3.2 OF THE ORDER. WHEREAS, THE LD. AO FOUND T HAT THE INTEREST PAYMENTS CANNOT BE ALLOWED AS DEDUCTION U/S. 36(1)(III) OF T HE ACT AND RELIED ON THE JUDICIAL DECISIONS AND MADE PROPORTIONATE DISALLOWA NCE U/S. 36(1)(III) OF THE ACT AS REFERRED AT PAGE 7 OF THE ORDER WHICH WORKED OUT TO RS. 81,53,048/- AND WITH OTHER ADDITIONS, THE LD. AO PASSED ORDER U /S. 143(3) OF THE ACT AND DETERMINED LOSS OF 9,70,53,700/- IN ORDER U/S. 143( 3) DATED 02.03.2016 4. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED A N APPEAL WITH THE CIT(A). IN THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE LD. AR O F THE ASSESSEE ARGUED THE GROUNDS. THE LD. CIT(A) CONSIDERED THE GROUNDS, FI NDINGS AND JUDICIAL DECISIONS AND FACTS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT RECEI VED ANY DIVIDEND INCOME AND THERE IS NO FRESH INVESTMENTS MADE AND THE ASSE SSEE HAD MADE INVESTMENTS WITH THE SUBSIDIARY COMPANIES TO PROMOT E THE BUSINESS WITH SUBSIDIARY COMPANIES AND EARNED PROFITS. WITH THES E OBSERVATIONS, THE LD. CIT(A) DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DELETE THE ADDITION AND IN THE CASE OF DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST U/S. 36(1)(III) OF THE ACT , THE LD. CIT(A) REFERRED TO THE JUDICIAL DECISIONS AND CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIO NS A THE DISALLOWANCE OF :-5-: I.T.A. N0. 2894/MDS/2016 INTEREST WHICH IS NOT APPLICABLE IN RESPECT OF ADV ANCES MADE TO THE SUBSIDIARY COMPANIES AND RELATED CONCERN AND LD. CIT(A) DISTIN GUISHED THE DECISIONS OF THE AO AND OBSERVED THAT IN THE ASSESSEE CASE FOR T HE EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13, WHERE THE DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST RELATIN G TO THE INTEREST FREE ADVANCES TO M/S SHRIRAM COMPOSITE LTD. THE LD. CIT( A) OBSERVED THAT THIS ADVANCES ARE MADE FOR BUSINESS PROPOSITION AND OF C OMMERCIAL EXPEDIENCY AND THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER TO DELETE THE ADDITION AND ALLOWED THE APPEAL. 5. AGGRIEVED BY THE CIT(A) ORDER, THE REVENUE HAS F ILED AN APPEAL WITH THE TRIBUNAL. BEFORE US, THE LD. DR ARGUED THE GRO UNDS AND REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS AND FINDINGS OF ASSESSING OFFICER IN TH E ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ON THE DISPUTED ISSUE OF DISALLOWANCE U/S. 14A R.W. R. 8D. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION U/S. 14A OF THE ACT OVERLOOKING THE FACTS AND THE PROVISIONS WHERE THE INVESTMENTS ARE MADE IN THE SU BSIDIARY COMPANIES WHETHER OUT OF BORROWED CAPITAL OR OWN FUNDS AND PR AYED FOR SET ASIDE OF THE ORDER OF CIT(A) APPEAL AND RESTORE THE AO ORDER. C ONTRA, THE LD. AR RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF THE CIT(A) AND THE JUDICIAL DECISI ONS. 6. WE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSED THE MATE RIAL ON RECORD AND JUDICIAL DECISIONS. THE LD. DRS CONTENTION THAT T HE LD.CIT(A) WAS NOT CORRECT IN DIRECTING THE LD. AO TO DELETE THE INVESTMENT IN THE SUBSIDIARY COMPANIES :-6-: I.T.A. N0. 2894/MDS/2016 AND SISTER CONCERNS, WHILE CALCULATING DISALLOWANCE U/S. 14A OF THE ACT UNDER RULE 8D(III) OF INCOME TAX RULES AND RESTRICTING SU CH DISALLOWANCE TO THE EXTENT OF EXEMPTED INCOME. WE FOUND THESE INVESTME NTS ARE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY FOR THE PURPOSE OF YIELDING BUSINE SS INCOME THOUGH THEY ARE TERMED AS STRATEGIC INVESTMENTS. THE INVESTMEN TS ARE MADE FOR BUSINESS PARTICIPATION AND WITH PROFIT MOTIVE. BUT NOT FOR E ARNING DIVIDEND INCOME. THE FACT REMAINS THESE INVESTMENTS ARE TO BE MADE OUT O F ITS OWN FUNDS AND NOT INTEREST BEARING BORROWED FUNDS. THE LD. AR SUBMIT TED THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS ADEQUATE OWN FUNDS OVER A PERIOD OF TIM E. WHEREAS, THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE INVESTMENTS ARE MADE TO OBTAI N CONTROLLING INTEREST IN THE COMPANY. WE FIND SIMILAR ISSUE DECIDED BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA IN M/S. UNITED BREWERIES LTD. V. DCIT [20 16] 72 TAXMANN.COM 102, HELD AT PARA 8 & 9 WHICH READ AS UNDER: 8. SO FAR AS SECOND QUESTION OF APPLICABILITY OF SEC. 14A OF THE ACT TO THE EXPENSES INCURRED BY THE APPELLANT TOWAR DS INTEREST AND OTHERS ON THE LOAN BORROWED IS CONCERNED, THE F INDING OF THE TRIBUNAL IS AT PARAGRAPH11 WHICH READS AS UNDER : '11. THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL AND WE HAVE CONSIDERE D THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS. IN OUR VIEW, THE RECENT JUDG MENT OF THE SPECIAL BENCH IN BOMBAY IN ITO V. DAGA CAPITAL MANAGEMENT PVT. LTD. (2009) 312 ITR (AT) 1, IS APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. IN THI S ORDER, IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT SECTION 14A IS APPLICABLE EVE N WHERE THE MOTIVE IN ACQUIRING THE SHARES WAS TO OBT AIN CONTROLLING INTEREST IN THE COMPANIES. THE FINDING OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) CANNOT, THEREF ORE, BE UPHELD AS IT IS CONTRARY TO THE DECISION OF THE SPECIAL BENCH. WE, ACCORDINGLY, UPHOLD IN PRINCIPLE THE :-7-: I.T.A. N0. 2894/MDS/2016 APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 14A. HOWEVER, IT IS FOR TH E ASSESSING OFFICER TO ASCERTAIN FROM THE FACTS OF TH E CASE AS TO HOW MUCH INTEREST BEARING BORROWINGS WAS UTIL IZED TO ACQUIRE SHARES IN THE COMPANIES. IT IS ALSO NECE SSARY TO SEE AS TO WHETHER ANY INTEREST BEARING BORROWED FUNDS WERE USED IN MAKING THE ADVANCES AND EXPENDITURE IN THE CASE OF CASTLE BREWERIES. THIS FACTUAL EXERCISE HAS TO BE CARRIED OUT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER GIVIN G DUE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESS OF BEING HEARD. THE ASSES SING OFFICER MAY MAKE THE DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST U/S.1 4A ONLY IF IT IS FOUND THAT INTEREST BEARING BORROWED FUNDS WERE USED TO ACQUIRE SHARES IN THE COMPANIES OR FOR MAKING ADVANCES TO CASTLE BREWERIES. WE, THEREFORE, RESTORE THIS ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFF ICER WITH THE ABOVE DIRECTIONS. THE GROUND IS TREATED AS PART LY ALLOWED.' 9. THE AFORESAID SHOWS THAT THE TRIBUNAL AFTER HOLDIN G IN PRINCIPLE THE APPLICABILITY OF SEC. 14A, HAS FURTHE R DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ASCERTAIN FROM THE FACTS OF TH E CASE AS TO HOW MUCH INTEREST BEARING BORROWINGS WAS UTILIZED T O ACQUIRE SHARES IN THE COMPANIES AND THE MATTER IS RELEGATED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER. AS PER THE LANGUAGE IN SEC.14A, THE ENQUIRY HAS TO BE UNDERTAKEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHICH HAS BEEN SO ORDERED BY THE TRIBUNAL. HENCE, IT CAN BE SAID T HAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS EXERCISED THE DISCRETION WHERE RIGHTS OF BOTH SIDES ARE KEPT OPEN FOR ADMISSIBLE DEDUCTION UNDER SEC.14 A. WHEN SUCH A DISCRETION IS EXERCISED AND THE RIGHTS OF TH E APPELLANT- ASSESSEE IS ALSO KEPT OPEN TO SATISFY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT ANY SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LA W WOULD ARISE FOR CONSIDERATION, AS SOUGHT TO BE CANVASSED. IN OU R VIEW, AT THE STAGE OF ENQUIRY UNDER SEC.14A, IT IS OPEN TO T HE ASSESSING OFFICER TO INDEPENDENTLY CONSIDER THE MATTER FOR AD MISSIBILITY OF THE INTEREST ON BORROWINGS AND IF YES TO WHAT EXTEN T. HENCE, WHEN THE QUESTION AT LARGE IS FURTHER TO BE CONSIDE RED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WE DO NOT FIND THAT ANY FURTHER OBSERVATIONS ARE REQUIRED TO BE MADE IN THIS REGARD. IN ANY CASE , THE QUESTION OF LAW AS SOUGHT TO BE CANVASSED WOULD NOT ARISE FOR :-8-: I.T.A. N0. 2894/MDS/2016 CONSIDERATION AT THIS STAGE ON THE SAID ASPECTS AS SOUGHT TO BE CANVASSED. WE RELY ON THE JUDICIAL DECISIONS AND IN THE INTERE ST OF JUSTICE, WE REMIT THE DISPUTED ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE LD. AO FOR VERIFI CATION OF INVESTMENTS OF THE ASSESSEE IN SUBSIDIARY COMPANIES/SISTER CONCERNS WI TH OWN FUNDS OR BORROWED FUNDS FOR THE PURPOSE OF DISALLOWANCE U/S.14A OF TH E ACT AND THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE PROVIDED ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING BEFORE PASSING THE ORDER ON MERITS. ACCORDINGLY WE REMIT THE DISPUTED ISSUE FOR LIMITED PURPOSE TO THE FILE OF AO AND ALLOW THE GROUND OF THE REVENUE FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. 7. ON THE SECOND DISPUTED ISSUE THAT THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING INTEREST U/S. 36(1)(II) OF THE ACT RS. 81,53,048/- AND THE LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT APPRECIATED THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS BROUGHT CERTAIN BORROWED FUNDS AND LIABLE TO PAY INTEREST . WHEREAS, THE AS SESSEE IS PROVIDING INTEREST FREE LOANS TO ITS SISTER CONCERNS AND THE ASSESSEE SUBSTANTIATED THE CLAIM ON COMMERCIAL EXPEDIENCY AND THE LD. CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DIVERTED THE INTEREST BEARING FUNDS AS INTEREST FREE LOANS TO SUBSIDIARIES, WHICH IS CONTRARY TO THE BUSINESS EXP EDIENCY AND PRAYED FOR SET ASIDE OF THE ORDER. CONTRA, THE LD AR RELIED ON TH E ORDERS OF THE CIT(A). 8. WE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED MATER IAL ON RECORD. THE MAIN GRIEVANCE OF THE REVENUE BEING THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN GRANTING THE :-9-: I.T.A. N0. 2894/MDS/2016 RELIEF OF DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE INSPITE OF THE CONTRADI CTING FACTS THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT ESTABLISH WHETHER THE BORROWED F UNDS ARE UTILIZED FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS ACTIVITIES. THE LD. AR EXPLAIN ED THAT THE LOANS WERE OBTAINED IN THE NORMAL COURSE OF BUSINESS AND THE I NTEREST HAS BEEN CHARGED BY THE RELATED CONCERN M/S. SHRIRAM EPIC LTD. WE O N PERUSAL OF THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND T HAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT ESTABLISH WITH EVIDENCE OF BORROWED FUNDS FROM M/S. SHRIRAM EPIC LTD USED FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS BUT PROVIDED INTEREST F REE LOAN TO TWO SISTER CONCERNS. FURTHER THERE IS AMBIGUITY WHETHER FUNDS ARE GENUINELY UTILIZED FOR THE BUSINESS FOR ALLOWING THE CLAIM OF INTEREST. W E SUPPORT OUR VIEW RELYING ON THE JUDICIAL DECISIONS OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS ABHISHEK INDUSTRIES, (286 ITR001) (P&H) WHERE THE HON'BLE HI GH COURT HAS DEALT ON THE PROVISIONS OF 36(1)(III) OF THE ACT IN A SITUAT ION WHERE THE INTEREST FREE LOANS WERE PROVIDED TO THE SISTER CONCERNS AND THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT ESTABLISH THAT THE OWN FUNDS WERE DIVERTED TO RELAT ED CONCERNS. CONSIDERING THE APPARENT FACTS AND JUDICIAL DECISIONS WE SET AS IDE THE ORDER OF CIT(A) ON THIS DISPUTED ISSUE AND REMIT THE MATTER FOR LIMITE D PURPOSE TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER TO VERIFY THE UTILISATION OF BORR OWED FUNDS BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS AND OWN FUNDS ARE UTILI SED FOR PROVIDING LOANS TO SISTER CONCERNS AND IF FOUND THAT THE INTEREST BEIN G BORROWED FUNDS ARE UTILISED FOR PROVIDING LOANS TO SISTER CONCERNS THA N THE AO SHALL ADJUDICATE ON :-10-: I.T.A. N0. 2894/MDS/2016 MERITS AND THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE PROVIDED ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING BEFORE PASSING THE ORDER. ACCORDINGLY, THE GROUNDS OF REVENUE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE 9. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS ALLOW ED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. IN THE RESULT, THE REVENUE APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWE D. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON MONDAY, THE 1 ST DAY OF MAY, 2017 AT CHENNAI. SD/ - ( . ) ( A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY ) # / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SD/ - ( . ) (G. PAVAN KUMAR) ) # /JUDICIAL MEMBER /CHENNAI, 0 /DATED: 1 ST MAY, 2017 JPV & )'23 43 /COPY TO: 1. %/ APPELLANT 2. )*% /RESPONDENT 3. 5 ( )/CIT(A) 4. 5 /CIT 5. 3 )'' /DR 6. 9 /GF