ACIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 2, COIMBATORE V. SHIVAMANI AND COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED, COIMBATORE

ITA 2925/CHNY/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4058 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-02-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 17-10-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Value adopted by valuation officer; Capital asset; Fair market value
• Section: 37; 50C

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH : CHENNAI [BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ] ./I.T.A. NO.2925/CHNY/2018 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2013-2014 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE 2, COIMBATORE VS. M/S. SHIVAMANI AND COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED, 187, METTUPALAYAM ROAD, KAVUNDAMPALAYAM, COIMBATORE 641 030. [PAN AAECS 6369R ] ( / APPELLANT) ( /RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI. AR.V. SREENIVASAN, JCIT. /RESPONDENT BY : SHRI. SAROJ KUMAR PARIDA, ADV. /DATE OF HEARING : 30 - 0 1 - 201 9 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 07 - 0 2 - 201 9 / O R D E R PER ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IN THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE, WHICH IS D IRECTED AGAINST AN ORDER DATED 01.08.2018 OF LD. COMMISSIO NER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-1, COIMBATORE, IT IS AGGRIEVED ON THE DI RECTIONS OF THE LD. CIT(A) TO ACCEPT CAPITAL GAINS SHOWN BY THE ASSESS EE IN ITS RETURN OF INCOME, THEREBY DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE L D. AO. 2. FACTS APROPOS ARE THAT ASSESSEE A TRADER IN FOUNDR Y RAW MATERIALS, BRICKS, COKE, ETC HAD FILED ITS RETURN O F INCOME FOR THE ITA NO.2925/CHNY/2018. :- 2 -: IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR DISCLOSING INCOME OF RS.10 ,02,41,010/-. IN SUCH RETURN OF INCOME, ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS OF RS.11,30,28,839/-. THE SAID LONG TERM CAPITAL GAI NS WAS COMPUTED AFTER ADJUSTING A LONG TERM CAPITAL LOSS OF RS.5,32 ,459/-. BOTH THE CAPITAL GAIN AS WELL LOSS AROSE ON SALE OF A LAND AND BUILDING OWNED BY THE ASSESEE. LD. AO, FINDING THAT GUIDELINE VAL UE AS ON THE DATE OF SALE FOR THE LAND WAS RS.13,42,97,000/- AND FOR T HE BUILDING RS.60,98,044/- ENDEAVORED TO APPLY SECTION 50C OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT). AS PER THE LD. A O, BY VIRTUE OF THE ABOVE SECTION, VALUE ADOPTED BY THE STAMP VALUATIO N AUTHORITIES, HAD TO BE DEEMED AS FULL VALUE OF CONSIDERATION, FOR TH E PURPOSE OF COMPUTING CAPITAL GAINS. ASSESSEE WAS PUT ON NOT ICE AS TO WHY THE SUM OF RS.14,03,95,044/- SHOULD NOT BE SUBSTITUTED FOR THE SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS.12,00,00,000/- SHOWN BY IT, I N COMPUTING THE CAPITAL GAINS. REPLY OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT LAND AND BUILDING WHICH WAS SOLD WAS MORTGAGED TO M/S. AXIS BANK, FROM WHIC H IT HAD TAKEN A LOAN OF RS.7,50,00,000/-. AS PER THE ASSESSEE, THO UGH THE SALE DEED WAS EXECUTED ON 27.03.2013, THE AGREEMENT FOR SALE WITH THE PARTY WAS ENTERED ON 02.01.2013. CONTENTION WAS THAT, IT HAD HANDED OVER THE POSSESSION ON 02.01.2013 TO THE PURCHASER. AS PER THE ASSESSEE THE TRANSFER STOOD COMPLETE ON 02.01.2013 BY VIRTUE OF SECTION 2(47) (V) OF THE ACT AND THEREFORE SECTION 50C OF THE ACT COULD NOT BE APPLIED. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE CONTENTION , ASSESSEE ALSO ITA NO.2925/CHNY/2018. :- 3 -: REQUESTED THE LD. AO, TO REFER THE VALUATION TO TH E VALUATION OFFICER IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROCEDURE LAID DOWN IN SUB SECT ION (2) OF SECTION 50C OF THE ACT. 3. LD. AO AFTER GOING THROUGH THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE WAS OF THE OPINION THAT THE AGREEMENT FOR SALE DATE D 02.01.2013, ON WHICH RELIANCE WAS PLACED BY THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED SINCE THE BOARD RESOLUTION FOR SELLING OF THE PR OPERTY WAS PASSED ONLY ON 27.03.2013. AS PER THE LD. AO, ASSESSEE CO ULD NOT HAVE HANDED OVER THE POSSESSION TO THE PURCHASER ON 02. 01.2013 WITHOUT BOARD PERMISSION. HE THUS, REJECTED THE CLAIM OF T HE ASSESSEE THAT THE TRANSFER HAD HAPPENED ON 02.01.2013. HOWEVER, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE, THE LD. AO MADE A REFERENCE TO THE VALUATION OFFICER. NEVERTHELESS, SINCE SUCH VALUAT ION REPORT WAS NOT FORTHCOMING, LD. AO PROCEEDED TO COMPLETE THE ASS ESSMENT, SUBSTITUTING THE SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS.14,03,9 5,044/- ADOPTED BY STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY OFFICER ON THE DATE OF SALE DEED VIZ. 27.03.2013 AGAINST THE SUM OF RS.12,00,00,000/- SHO WN BY THE ASSESSEE. THE RESULTANT ADDITION CAME TO RS.2,00, 42,285/-. 4. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE MOVED IN APPEAL BEFORE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). LD. CIT(A) W AS OF THE OPINION THAT THERE WAS A DRASTIC REVISION IN GUIDELINE VALU E FROM RS.3,000/- TO ITA NO.2925/CHNY/2018. :- 4 -: RS.4,000/- PER SQ.FT ON 08.02.2013. AS PER THE LD . CIT(A) SUCH GUIDELINE VALUE COULD NOT BE ADOPTED, SINCE ASSESSE ES PROPERTY WAS LOCATED 228 FEET INSIDE OF METUPALAYAM ROAD AND IT ONLY HAD A PATHWAY WHICH WAS 10 FT WIDE. FURTHER, ACCORDING T O HIM, THE PROPERTY STOOD MORTGAGED AND ASSESSEE WAS FORCED T O MAKE A DISTRESS SALE. AS PER THE LD. CIT(A) ACTUAL CONSIDERATION O F RS.12,00,00,000/- RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE, TRANSLATED TO RS.3,150/- PER SQ.FT WHICH WAS ABOVE THE GUIDELINE VALUE OF RS.3,000/- RELEVA NT UPTO 08.02.2013. ACCORDING TO HIM, THE GUIDELINE VALUE OF RS.4,000/- WAS NOT AN APPROPRIATE ONE. HE HELD THAT LD. AO FEL L IN ERROR IN BLINDLY ADOPTING THE GUIDELINE VALUE. FURTHER, ACCORDING T O HIM, ASSESSEE HAD GIVEN THE CORRECT VALUE FOR WORKING OUT THE CAPITAL GAINS. THE ADDITION WAS DELETED. 5. NOW BEFORE US, GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE ARE REPRODUCED HEREUNDER. 1. THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-I, COIMBATORE IS AGAINST FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E CASE. 2. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E CASE THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-I, COIMBATORE HAS ERRED IN ALLOWING THE ASSESSEE'S CLAIM TO ADOPT THE GUIDELIN E VALUE AS PER AGREEMENT EXECUTED DURING JANUARY,2013. 3. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E CASE THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)- I, COIMBATORE HAS ERRED IN CONCLUDING RS.3,150/- PER SQ.FT AS REASONABLE, WHEN THE DRO(STAMPS), COIMBATORE HAS RE- FIXED THE RATE AS RS.3,600/- IN THE PLACE OF RS.4,OOO/- ON APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE. 4. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E CASE THE CIT (A) OUGHT TO HAVE SEEN THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID THE D IFFERENCE AMOUNT OF REGISTRATION CHARGES AND STAMP DUTY CHARGES AS FIXE D BY THE ORDER OF THE ITA NO.2925/CHNY/2018. :- 5 -: DRO (STAMPS), COIMBATORE DURING OCTOBER,2013 THROUG H WHICH IT IS APPARENT THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WAS NOT IN AGREE MENT WITH THE RATE OF RS.4,OOO/-- ONLY BUT HAS ACCEPTED THE RATE OF RS .3,600/- AS FIXED BY THE DRO(STAMPS). 5. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LEARNED CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE NOTED THE FACT THAT THE ASSESS EE HAD FILED RETURN OF INCOME BY ADOPTING THE RATE OF RS.3,150/-- IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE RATE OF RS.4,OOO/- SUGGESTED BY THE SRO, VADAVALLI WAS C HALLENGED BEFORE DRO(STAMPS) BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY ITSELF AND CONS EQUENTLY REVISED RATE HAD BEEN FIXED BY DRO(STAMPS) AT RS.3,600/-- W HICH WAS ALSO ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY, WELL BEFORE THE R ETURN OF INCOME FILED. 6. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE NOTED THE FACT THAT DURING APPELL ATE PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSEE COMPANY CONTESTED FOR THE RATE OF RS. 4000/- PER SQ.FT IGNORING THE REVISED RATE FIXED BY DRO(STAMPS ). 7. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED TO NOTE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFI CER IN HIS ASSESSMENT ORDER HAS ADOPTED RS.14,03,95,044/-(RS.3,600/-PE R SQ.FT) THE RATE AS FIXED BY THE DRO(STAMPS) ONLY AND NOT THE RATE AT RS.4 ,OOO/- PER SQ.FT AS CONTESTED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY BEFORE THE CIT(A). 8.THE HON'BLE ITAT IS REQUESTED TO CANCEL THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) AND UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 9.THE HON'BLE ITAT IS REQUESTED LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND OR MODIFY THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL, IF NECESSARY, IN FUTURE. 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS CAREFULLY AND ALSO PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE M AIN CRUX OF THE DEPARTMENT GROUNDS IS THAT THE DRO (STAMPS) HAD REF IXED THE CIRCLE RATE AT RS.3,600/- PER SQ.FT AND THEREFORE ADOPTION OF RS.3,150/- PER SQ. FT BY THE ASSESSEE FOR WORKING OUT THE CAPITAL GAINS WAS NOT REASONABLE. ONE OTHER ARGUMENT TAKEN BY THE LD. DR IS THAT ASSESSEE COULD NOT TAKE REFUGE UNDER FIRST PROVISO TO SECTI ON 50C OF THE ACT, SINCE ON THE DATE OF THE AGREEMENT VIZ. 02.01.2013, THERE WAS NO PAYMENT OF ANY CONSIDERATION AT ALL. THUS, AS PER THE LD. DR, THE CLAIM ITA NO.2925/CHNY/2018. :- 6 -: OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE GUIDELINE VALUE AS ON 02. 01.2013 HAD TO BE ADOPTED COULD NOT BE ACCEPTED. AS AGAINST THIS, C ONTENTION OF THE LD. AR IS THAT LD. CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN CONSIDERING THE LOCATION DEFICIENCIES OF THE PROPERTY AND ACCEPTING CAPITAL GAINS SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE. BE THAT AS IT MAY BE, AS ALREADY NOTED BY US ASSESSEE HAD REQUIRED A REFERENCE TO VALUATION OFFICER IN ACCORD ANCE WITH SUB SECTION (2) TO SECTION 50C OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY , LD. AO HAD MADE A REFERENCE. HOWEVER THE REPORT OF THE VALUATION OFFI CER WAS NOT RECEIVED BY THE LD. AO AND HE PROCEEDED TO COMPLETE THE ASSESSMENT TAKING THE GUIDELINE VALUE AS ON 22.03.2013 AS THE FULL VALUE OF THE CONSIDERATION. THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) SPECI FICALLY STATES THAT REPORT OF THE VALUATION OFFICER WAS NOT RECEIVED. SECTION 50C OF THE ACT WHICH IS APPOSITE HERE IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER: - 50C. (1) WHERE THE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED OR ACCRUING AS A RESULT OF THE TRANSFER BY AN ASSESSEE OF A CAPITAL ASSET, BEI NG LAND OR BUILDING OR BOTH, IS LESS THAN THE VALUE ADOPTED OR ASSESSED OR ASSESSABLE BY ANY AUTHORITY OF A STATE GOVERNMENT (HEREAFTER IN T HIS SECTION REFERRED TO AS THE 'STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY') FOR THE PURP OSE OF PAYMENT OF STAMP DUTY IN RESPECT OF SUCH TRANSFER, THE VALUE S O ADOPTED OR ASSESSED OR ASSESSABLE SHALL, FOR THE PURPOSES OF S ECTION 48 , BE DEEMED TO BE THE FULL VALUE OF THE CONSIDERATION RE CEIVED OR ACCRUING AS A RESULT OF SUCH TRANSFER : 84 [ PROVIDED THAT WHERE THE DATE OF THE AGREEMENT FIXING THE AM OUNT OF CONSIDERATION AND THE DATE OF REGISTRATION FOR THE TRANSFER OF THE CAPITAL ASSET ARE NOT THE SAME, THE VALUE ADOPTED OR ASSESS ED OR ASSESSABLE BY THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY ON THE DATE OF AGR EEMENT MAY BE TAKEN FOR THE PURPOSES OF COMPUTING FULL VALUE OF C ONSIDERATION FOR SUCH TRANSFER: PROVIDED FURTHER THAT THE FIRST PROVISO SHALL APPLY ONLY IN A CASE WHERE THE AMOUNT OF CONSIDERATION, OR A PART THEREO F, HAS BEEN RECEIVED BY WAY OF AN ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUE OR ACCOU NT PAYEE BANK ITA NO.2925/CHNY/2018. :- 7 -: DRAFT OR BY USE OF ELECTRONIC CLEARING SYSTEM THROU GH A BANK ACCOUNT, ON OR BEFORE THE DATE OF THE AGREEMENT FOR TRANSFER .] FOLLOWING THIRD PROVISO SHALL BE INSERTED AFTER THE SECOND PROVISO TO SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 50C BY THE FINANCE AC T, 2018, W.E.F. 1-4-2019 : PROVIDED ALSO THAT WHERE THE VALUE ADOPTED OR ASSESSED OR ASSESSABLE BY THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY DOES NO T EXCEED ONE HUNDRED AND FIVE PER CENT OF THE CONSIDERATION RECE IVED OR ACCRUING AS A RESULT OF THE TRANSFER, THE CONSIDERATION SO RECE IVED OR ACCRUING AS A RESULT OF THE TRANSFER SHALL, FOR THE PURPOSES OF S ECTION 48 , BE DEEMED TO BE THE FULL VALUE OF THE CONSIDERATION. (2) WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE PROVISIONS OF SUB-SECT ION (1), WHERE (A) THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS BEFORE ANY ASSESSING OFFIC ER THAT THE VALUE ADOPTED OR ASSESSED OR ASSESSABLE BY THE STAMP VALU ATION AUTHORITY UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) EXCEEDS THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AS ON THE DATE OF TRANSFER; (B) THE VALUE SO ADOPTED OR ASSESSED OR ASSESSABLE BY THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) HAS NOT B EEN DISPUTED IN ANY APPEAL OR REVISION OR NO REFERENCE HAS BEEN MAD E BEFORE ANY OTHER AUTHORITY, COURT OR THE HIGH COURT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAY REFER THE VALUATION OF TH E CAPITAL ASSET TO A VALUATION OFFICER AND WHERE ANY SUCH REFERENCE IS M ADE, THE PROVISIONS OF SUB-SECTIONS (2), (3), (4), (5) AND ( 6) OF SECTION 16A, CLAUSE (I) OF SUB-SECTION (1) AND SUB-SECTIONS (6) AND (7) OF SECTION 23A, SUB-SECTION (5) OF SECTION 24, SECTION 34AA, S ECTION 35 AND SECTION 37 OF THE WEALTH-TAX ACT, 1957 (27 OF 1957) , SHALL, WITH NECESSARY MODIFICATIONS, APPLY IN RELATION TO SUCH REFERENCE AS THEY APPLY IN RELATION TO A REFERENCE MADE BY THE ASSESS ING OFFICER UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 16A OF THAT ACT. EXPLANATION 1.FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION, 'V ALUATION OFFICER' SHALL HAVE THE SAME MEANING AS IN CLAUSE (R) OF SEC TION 2 OF THE WEALTH-TAX ACT, 1957 (27 OF 1957). EXPLANATION 2.FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION, TH E EXPRESSION 'ASSESSABLE' MEANS THE PRICE WHICH THE STAMP VALUAT ION AUTHORITY WOULD HAVE, NOTWITHSTANDING ANYTHING TO THE CONTRAR Y CONTAINED IN ANY OTHER LAW FOR THE TIME BEING IN FORCE, ADOPTED OR A SSESSED, IF IT WERE REFERRED TO SUCH AUTHORITY FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE PAYMENT OF STAMP DUTY. ITA NO.2925/CHNY/2018. :- 8 -: (3) SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN SUB-SECT ION (2), WHERE THE VALUE ASCERTAINED UNDER SUB-SECTION (2) EXCEEDS THE VALUE ADOPTED OR ASSESSED OR ASSESSABLE BY THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHO RITY REFERRED TO IN SUB-SECTION (1), THE VALUE SO ADOPTED OR ASSESSED O R ASSESSABLE BY SUCH AUTHORITY SHALL BE TAKEN AS THE FULL VALUE OF THE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED OR ACCRUING AS A RESULT OF THE TRANSFER. IN OUR OPINION, ONCE SUB SECTION (2) IS INVOKED AN D A REFERENCE MADE TO THE VALUATION OFFICER, THEN THERE CAN BE NO MOR E AUTOMATIC APPLICATION OF SUB SECTION (1). ONCE THE LD. AO MA DE A REFERENCE TO THE VALUATION OFFICER, IT IS CLEAR FROM THE CLAUSE (B) SUB SECTION (2), THAT SUB SECTIONS 2, 3, 4, 5 AND 6 OF SECTION 16A OF WEALTH TAX ACT, 1957 APPLIED WITH NECESSARY MODIFICATION. SUB SECTI ON (6) OF SECTION 16A OF WEALTH TAX ACT, 1957 IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER :- (6) ON RECEIPT OF THE ORDER UNDER SUB-SECTION (3) OR SUB-SECTION (5) FROM THE VALUATION OFFICER, THE [ASSESSING OFFICER] SHALL, SO FAR AS THE VALUATION OF THE ASSET IN QUESTION IS CONCERNED, PR OCEED TO COMPLETE THE ASSESSMENT IN CONFORMITY WITH THE ESTIMATE OF T HE VALUATION OFFICER.] THUS, IT IS CLEAR THAT LD. AO IS BOUND BY THE VALUA TION GIVEN BY THE VALUATION OFFICER, EXCEPT WHERE SUB SECTION (3) COM ES INTO PLAY. LD. AO HAD NO POWERS TO GO BY THE VALUATION GIVEN BY THE VALUATION AUTHORITY AS SET OUT IN SUB SECTION (1) OF SECTION 50C OF THE ACT, ONCE A REFERENCE TO VALUATION OFFICER WAS MADE UNDER SUB SECTION (2) OF THE ACT. THERE IS NO GROUND TAKEN BY THE REVENUE THAT LD. CIT(A) HAD IGNORED THE VALUATION GIVEN BY THE VALUATION OFFICE R WHILE DECIDING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. IN FACT THERE IS NO GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE THAT THE VALUATION FIXED BY THE VALUATION O FFICER HAD TO BE CONSIDERED. THAT APART, LD. CIT(A) HAD POINTED OUT CERTAIN DRAWBACKS ITA NO.2925/CHNY/2018. :- 9 -: IN THE PROPERTY ACCESS AND THE UNREASONABLE REVISIO N OF CIRCLE RATES FROM RS.3,150/- PER SQ.FT TO RS.4,000/- PER SQ.FT O N 08.02.2013. LATTER RATE WAS SUBSEQUENTLY ON 09.06.2017 REDUCED TO RS.2 ,680/- PER SQ.FT. INDICATING THE ERROR IN FIXING THE GUIDELINE VALUE DURING THE INTERVENING PERIOD. IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE OF THE OPINIO N THAT LD. CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN DIRECTING THE LD. AO TO ACCEPT THE CAPITAL GAINS RETURNED BY THE ASSESSEE AND DELETING THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE LD. AO. WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE STANDS DI SMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THURSDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF FEBR UARY 2019, AT CHENNAI. SD/- (N.R.S. GANESAN) / JUDICIAL MEMBER SD/- (ABRAHAM P. GEORGE) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / CHENNAI / DATED:7TH FEBRUARY, 2019. KV / COPY TO: 1 . / APPELLANT 3. ( ) / CIT(A) 5. / DR 2. / RESPONDENT 4. / CIT 6. / GF