M/s. Sunays Properties Investment Co. Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi V. ITo, New Delhi

ITA 2970/DEL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 91028 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-05-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Next Hearing Date: 05-05-2015
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 13-05-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B R R KUMAR
• Keywords: Reopening of assessment; Business income; Period of limitation; Initiation of penalty proceedings; Accommodation entries; Assessment record; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 143(3); 14A; 115JB; 133(6); 147; 27; 148

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH G NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S.V. MEHROTRA : ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI C.M. GARG: JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NOS. 2970 & 2971/DEL2013 A.Y. 2004-05 & 2007-08 M/S SUNRAYS PROPERTIES & VS. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, INVESTMENT CO. PVT. LTD. WARD 9(3), NEW DELHI. 414/1, 4 TH FLOOR, DDA COMMERCIAL COMPLEX, JANAKPURI, NEW DELHI. PAN: AAACS 3655 C ITA NOS. 3278 & 3282/DEL2013 A.Y. 2004-05 & 2007-08 INCOME-TAX OFFICER, VS. M/S SUNRAYS PROPERTIES & WARD 9(3), NEW DELHI. INVESTMENT CO. PVT. LTD. 414/1, 4 TH FLOOR, DDA COMMERCIAL COMPLEX, JANAKPURI, NEW DELHI. ( APPELLANT ) ( RESPONDENT ) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI ANOOP SHARMA ADV. REVENUE BY : SHRI B.R.R. KUMAR SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 08-05-2015 DATE OF ORDER : 15-05-2015. O R D E R PER S.V. MEHROTRA, A.M:- THESE CROSS APPEALS, FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS THE REVENUE, ARE DIRECTED AGAINST SEPARATE ORDERS OF CIT(A) PERTAINING TO AY 2004-05 & 2007-08. ALL THESE 2 ITA 32783282,2970 & 2971/D/13 M/S SUNRAYS PROPERTIES & INVESTMENT APPEALS WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. AY 2004-05: 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE HA D FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING NIL INCOME, AFTER CLAIMING BROUGHT FORWAR D LOSS TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 2,70,76,818/-. TAX HAD BEEN PAID ON BOOK PROFIT U/S 115JB ON RS. 2,67,27,280/-. SUBSEQUENTLY, ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM INVESTIGATION WING OF THE DEPARTMENT THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAD RECEIVED ACCOMMODATION ENTRY FROM M/S GARG FINVEST (P) LTD. AMOUNTING TO RS. 3,00,315 /- EACH ON 23-8-2003 TOTAL AMOUNTING TO RS. 6,00,630/-, NOTICE U/S 148 WAS ISS UED AFTER DULY RECORDING REASONS AND PRIOR APPROVAL OF ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX, RANGE-9, NEW DELHI. 2.1. THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED OBJECTIONS AGAINST REOP ENING OF THE CASE AND FILED THE RETURN IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S 148. THE ASSESSEE VIDE LETTER DATED 6-9-2011 SUBMITTED THAT NO ENTRIES HAD BEEN RECEIVED FROM M/ S GARG FINVEST (P) LTD. THE AO ISSUED NOTICE U/S 133(6) TO STATE BANK OF BIKANE R AND JAIPUR IN WHICH ACCOUNT OF M/S GARG FINVEST (P) LTD. WAS EXISTING, FROM WHI CH THE ALLEGED AMOUNT HAD BEEN GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. THE BANK SENT T HE BANK STATEMENT OF M/S GARG FINVEST (P) LTD. FOR THE RELEVANT PERIOD AND CONFIR MED THAT TWO CHEQUES WERE ISSUED BY M/S GARG FINVEST (P) LTD. FOR MAKING THE DRAFT AND ONE CHEQUE DATED 777676 DATED 23-8-2003 FOR RS. 3,00,315/- HAD BEEN USED TO MAKE THE DRAFT FOR RS. 3 LACS IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AND ANOTHE R CHEQUE NO. 759399 DATED 30- 5-2003 FOR RS. 3,00,315/- HAD BEEN USED TO MAKE DR AFT OF RS. 3 LACS IN FAVOUR OF M/S DELTA LEASING AND FINANCE LTD. COPY OF CHEQUE I SSUED BY M/S GARG FINVEST (P) LTD. WAS ALSO SUBMITTED. THE BANK CONFIRMED THA T BANKER CHEUQE NO. 538184 HAD BEEN ISSUED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. THIS INFORMATION WAS 3 ITA 32783282,2970 & 2971/D/13 M/S SUNRAYS PROPERTIES & INVESTMENT CONFRONTED TO THE ASSESSEE COMPANY TO WHICH ASSESSE E COMPANY SUBMITTED THAT THE AMOUNT REFERRED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF RS. 3 LACS WAS THE SALE PROCEEDS OF THE TRANSACTIONS OF SALE OF SHARES AND NOT THE INCOME O F THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY SUBMITTED THAT IT HAD DISCLOSED SA LE THROUGH ITS PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT AND, THEREFORE, THERE WAS NO INCOME WHICH H AD ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. 2.2. THE AO, HOWEVER, DID NOT ACCEPT THE ASSESSEES CONTENTION FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: (A) NO DETAILS REGARDING SALE OF SHARES OF M/S GARG FIN VEST (P) LTD. WERE FURNISHED; (B) GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE PARTIES WAS NOT ESTABLISHED. (C) THE ASSESSEE WAS TAKING THE PLEA ALMOST THROUGHOUT THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THAT NO PAYMENT HAD BEEN RECEIVED FROM M/S GARG FINVEST (P) LTD. (D) NO COPIES OF THE CONTRACT NOTES, NAME AND ADDRESS O F THE BROKER, COPIES OF THE TRANSFER CERTIFICATES/ DEEDS, PROOF OF DELIVERY OF SHARES ETC. WERE FILED EVEN AFTER ACCEPTING THE RECEIPT OF RS. 3 LACS FROM M/S GARG FINVEST (P) LTD. (E) THE PURCHASER HAD NOT PRODUCED COPIES OF SHARE CERT IFICATES, SHARE TRANSFER DEEDS/ CERTIFICATES SO THAT THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS AND AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS IN ITS OWN CAPACITY COULD BE EXAMINED. (F) M/S GARG FINVEST (P) LTD. HAD BEEN SUBJECTED TO CE RTAIN INQUIRIES AND INVESTIGATION BY THE INVESTIGATION WIND, WHEREIN IT WAS FOUND THAT THEY WERE NOT CARRYING ON ANY ACTIVE BUSINESS AND ONLY P ROVIDING ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES. 2.3. HE, ACCORDINGLY, MADE ADDITION OF RS. 3 LACS. 4 ITA 32783282,2970 & 2971/D/13 M/S SUNRAYS PROPERTIES & INVESTMENT 2.4. THE AO ALSO MADE ADDITION OF RS. 7500/- ON ACC OUNT OF COMMISSION BEING PAID BY ASSESSEE FOR OBTAINING THE ACCOMMODAT ION ENTRIES. 2.5. THE AO FURTHER NOTED THAT ASSESSEE HAD EARNED DIVIDEND INCOME. HE FURTHER OBSERVED THAT NO DISALLOWANCE HAD BEEN MADE U/S 14A. BEFORE AO THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT IN CASE ANY DISALLOWA NCE IS TO BE MADE, THEN THE SAME MAY BE TO THE EXTENT OF 10% OF THE EXEMPT INCO ME. IN SUPPORT OF THIS CONTENTION, THE ASSESSEE HAD RELIED ON THE ORDER OF INDORE BENCH OF THE ITAT IN THE CASE OF SUNIL SATLANI VS. ACIT 17 TTJ 67. 2.6. THE AO, HOWEVER, DID NOT ACCEPT THE ASSESSEES CONTENTION AND MADE DISALLOWANCE BY APPLYING RULE 8D AND COMPUTED THE T OTAL DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A AT RS. 1,64,38,217/-. 2.7. LD. CIT(A) PARTLY ALLOWED THE ASSESSEES APPEA L. 2.8. BEING AGGRIEVED WITH THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A), BOTH THE ASSESSEE AND THE REVENUE ARE IN CROSS APPEAL BEFORE US. 3. FIRST WE TAKE UP THE ASSESSEES APPEAL, BEING IT A NO. 2970/DEL/2013. FOLLOWING GROUNDS ARE TAKEN: 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND IN LAW, THE ID. CIT ( A) ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THA T THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 143(3) OF THE I NCOME TAX ACT,1961 IS WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND BAD IN LAW AS THE JURISDICTION U/S 147 IS VITIATED, THE ASSESSING OFF ICER CEASING TO HAVE JURISDICTION OVER REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ONC E THE INCOME ALLEGED TO HAVE ESCAPED ASSESSMENT RECORDED IN THE REASONS WAS NOT FOUND CORRECT AND NO ADDITION WAS M ADE ON THAT ACCOUNT IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. 5 ITA 32783282,2970 & 2971/D/13 M/S SUNRAYS PROPERTIES & INVESTMENT 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND IN LAW, THE ID. CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS OF TH E CASE IN UPHOLDING THE REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT IN TERMS OF T HE PROVISIONS OF SECTION ~THE INCOME- TAX ACT, 1961, I GNORING THE FACT THAT NO ADDITION WAS MADE ON THE BASIS OF REAS ONS RECORDED BY THE AO AND THEREFORE ,ASSESSMENT WAS LIABLE TO B E QUASHED ON THAT GROUND ALONE. 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND IN LAW, THE ID. CIT(A) ERRED IN DISBELIEVING THE SALE OF SHARES BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AND THEREBY FURTHER ERRED IN M AKING ADDITION OF RS.3 LACS & RS. 7,500J-UJS 68 OF THE IN COME TAX ACT,1961 ON ACCOUNT OF SALE OF SHARES REFLECTED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. 4. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW, THE ID. CIT ( A) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE DISALL OWANCE OF RS. 33,16,436/- U/S 14A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT,1961 5. ON THE FACTS & IN LAW, THE LD. CIT (A) GROSSLY E RRED IN CONFIRMING INITIATION OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 27 1(1) (C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 BY THE LD. A.O. 6. THAT THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE WITHOUT PRE JUDICE TO EACH OTHER. THE APPELLANT COMPANY RESERVES THE RIGH T TO ADD, ALTER, AMEND OR DELETE ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL. 4. APROPOS GROUND NO. 1, THE ASSESSEES PLEA BEFORE LD. CIT(A) WAS THAT REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT U/S 147 WAS BAD IN LAW, SIN CE THE NOTICE U/S 148 HAD BEEN ISSUED BEYOND THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION LAID DO WN U/S 149(1) OF THE I.T. ACT. THE ASSESSEE HAD GIVEN DETAILED SUBMISSIONS, I NTER ALIA, POINTING OUT THAT SINCE THE NOTICE U/S 148 DATED 28-3-2011 HAD B EEN SERVED ON THE 6 ITA 32783282,2970 & 2971/D/13 M/S SUNRAYS PROPERTIES & INVESTMENT ASSESSEE COMPANY ON 30-3-2011 I.E. BEYOND THE PERIO D OF LIMITATION OF 4 YEARS LAID DOWN U/S 149(1)(A). THEREFORE, IT WAS BA RRED BY LIMITATION. 4.1. LD. CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE ASSESSEES SU BMISSIONS UPHELD THE REOPENING OBSERVING THAT THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT OR DER WAS PASSED U/S 143(1) AND NOW THE CASE HAD BEEN REOPENED ON THE BA SIS OF INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM INVESTIGATION WING. SHE DID NOT ACCEP T THE ASSESSEES CONTENTION THAT THE ASSESSEES CASE DID NOT FALL WI THIN THE AMBIT OF SECTION 194(1)(B) AS SHE HAD UPHELD THE ADDITION OF RS. 3 L ACS AND ALSO OF COMMISSION OF RS. 7500/-. 4.2. BEFORE US THE ASSESSEE HAS ASSAILED THE INVOCA TION OF JURISDICTION U/S 147, MAINLY ON THE GROUND THAT ONCE THE INCOME ALL EGED TO HAVE ESCAPED ASSESSMENT RECORDED IN THE REASONS, WAS NOT FOUND C ORRECT AND NO ADDITION WAS MADE ON THIS COUNT IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASSESSMENT WAS LIABLE TO BE QUASHED. 4.3. WE FIND THAT NOTICE U/S 148 HAD BEEN ISSUED PR IMARILY ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM INVESTIGATION WING OF DEP ARTMENT REGARDING ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES RECEIVED FROM M/S GARG FINVES T (P) LTD. AMOUNTING TO RS. 3,00,315/-. THEREFORE, IT IS NOT CORRECT TO SAY THAT NO ADDITION HAD BEEN MADE IN RESPECT OF THE AMOUNTS ON WHICH NOTICE U/S 148 HAD BEEN ISSUED. WE, ACCORDINGLY, DISMISS GROUND NOS. 1 & 2 RAISED B Y ASSESSEE. 5. GROUND NO. 3 IS IN REGARD TO ADDITION OF RS. 3 L ACS RECEIVED FROM M/S GARG FINVEST (P) LTD. AND COMMISSION ALLEGEDLY PAID FOR OBTAINING THE SAID ACCOMMODATION ENTRY. WE HAVE DISCUSSED IN DETAIL TH E FINDINGS OF AO ON THIS COUNT, WHICH HAVE BEEN CONFIRMED BY LD. CIT(A) . NOTHING HAS BEEN 7 ITA 32783282,2970 & 2971/D/13 M/S SUNRAYS PROPERTIES & INVESTMENT BROUGHT ON RECORD TO CONTROVERT THE FINDINGS OF LD. CIT(A) THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO ESTABLISH THE GENUINENESS OF THE T RANSACTIONS AND KEEPING IN VIEW THE CONTRARY STAND TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE DURI NG ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND AFTER THE DETAILS OF THE INQUIRES W ERE CONFRONTED TO ASSESSEE, WE FIND NO REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF LO WER REVENUE AUTHORITIES ON THIS COUNT. ACCORDINGLY, GROUND NO. 3 IS DISMISSED. 6. APROPOS GROUND NO. 4, WE FIND THAT AO HAD MADE D ISALLOWANCE OF RS. 1,64,38,217/- U/S 14A BY APPLYING RULE 8D. HOWEVER, LD. CIT(A) DID NOT APPLY RULE 8D BY OBSERVING THAT THE SAID RULE WAS A PPLICABLE W.E.F. ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09, AS LAID DOWN BY THE HONBL E BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF GODREJ & BOYCE MFG. CO. LTD. VS. DCI T 328 ITR 81. SHE RELIED ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE KERALA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT TRICHUR VS. CATHOLIC SYRIAN BANK LTD., TRICHUR BY O BSERVING AS UNDER: THE HONBLE KERALA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT TRICHUR VS. CATHOLIC SYRIAN BANK LTD., TRICHUR, VIDE ITS JUDGMENT HAS SU GGESTED A FORMULA FOR COMPUTING DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A IN CASES PRIOR TO AY 2008-09 WHERE THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 8D OF IT RULES ARE NOT APPLICABL E. THE FORMULA SUGGESTED BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT IS AS UNDER: TOTAL INTEREST LIABILITY ___________________X 1,26,61,025= RS. 33,16,436/- 7,62,03,737 KEEPING IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS, I AM OF THE VIE W THAT THE DISALLOWANCES MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 14A READ WITH RULE 8D ARE NOT APPLICABLE IN THIS YEAR. HENCE THE ADDITION IS RESTRICTED ONLY TO RS. 33,16,436/- INSTEAD OF RS. 1,64,38,217/-. 6.1. THE ASSESSEE HAD GIVEN FOLLOWING MODE FOR COMP UTING THE DISALLOWANCE: 8 ITA 32783282,2970 & 2971/D/13 M/S SUNRAYS PROPERTIES & INVESTMENT DIVIDEND INCOME = RS. 1,26,61,025/- BUSINESS INCOME = RS. 7,62,03,737/- 1,26,61,025 RATIO OF DIVIDEND INCOME TO BUSINESS INCOME: ----- -----------X 100=16.61% 7,62,03,737 DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A: 12661025*16.61%=21,02,996/-. 6.2. HAVING HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES, WE FIND THAT SI NCE THE DISALLOWANCE HAS BEEN COMPUTED BY LD. CIT(A) BY APPLYING THE METHODO LOGY LAID DOWN BY HONBLE KERALA HIGH COURT, THEREFORE, NO INTERFEREN CE IS CALLED FOR IN THE SAME. WE, ACCORDINGLY, CONFIRM L. CIT(A)S FINDING ON THE ISSUE IN QUESTION. 7. GROUND NO. 5 IS PREMATURE AND GROUND NO. 6 IS GE NERAL IN NATURE, REQUIRING NO ADJUDICATION. 8. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. REVENUES APPEAL (ITA 3278/DEL/2013 AY 2004-05) : 9. SOLE EFFECTIVE GROUND RAISED IS AS UNDER: THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN RESTRI CTING THE DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A OF THE ACT. 10. WHILE ADJUDICATING ASSESSEES APPEAL, WE HAVE CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN UPHOLDING THE ADDITION OF RS. 33,16,436/- ON THE ISSUE IN QUESTION. ACCORDINGLY, REVENUES GROUND, CHALLEN GING THE ACTION OF LD. CIT(A) ON THE ISSUE IN QUESTION, IS REJECTED. 9 ITA 32783282,2970 & 2971/D/13 M/S SUNRAYS PROPERTIES & INVESTMENT 11. IN THE RESULT, REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 12. IN AY 2007-08 THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS THE REVEN UE HAVE CHALLENGED THE WORKING OF LD. CIT(A) FOR DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A OF THE ACT. IN ITS APPEAL THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND IN LAW, THE ID. CIT ( A) ERRED IN IGNORING THE DIRECTIONS OF THE ITAT IN THEIR ORDER DATED 20.9.20 10 IN ITA NO. 3479/DEL/J2010 AND THEREBY FURTHER HOLDING THAT THE DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT,1961 IS RESTRICTED TO RS. 1,96,73,087/- AS AGAINST RS. 1,84,36,012/- MADE BY THE AO . 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND IN LAW, THE ID. CIT(A) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT,1961 TO THE EXTENT OF RS.1,96,73,087/-. 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND IN LAW, THE ID. CIT(A) DID NOT HAVE ANY JURISDI CTION TO ENHANCE THE DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A ACT ORIGINALLY MAD E BY THE AO. 13. ON THE OTHER HAND THE SOLE EFFECTIVE GROUND TAK EN BY THE REVENUE IN AY 2007-08 IS AS UNDER: THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN RESTRI CTING THE DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A OF THE ACT. 10 ITA 32783282,2970 & 2971/D/13 M/S SUNRAYS PROPERTIES & INVESTMENT 14. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE ENTIRE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE LD. CIT(A)S WORKING FOR D ISALLOWANCE U/S 14A IS BASED ON THE RATIO OF DECISION OF HONBLE KERALA H IGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CATHOLIC SYRIAN BANK LTD. (SUPRA). UNDISPUTEDLY, TH E FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, ON THE ISSUE IN QUESTION, ARE IDENTICAL TO A Y 2004-05, ABOVE, WHEREIN WE HAVE UPHELD IDENTICAL WORKING OF LD. CIT(A) FOR DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A. IN VIEW OF ABOVE, WE SEE NO REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) ON THE ISSUE IN QUESTION AND THE SAME IS UPHELD. 15. ACCORDINGLY, CROSS APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSE E AS WELL AS THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. 16. IN THE RESULT ALL THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASS ESSEE AS WELL AS THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 15-05-2015. SD/- SD/- (C.M. GARG ) ( S.V. MEHROTRA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 15-05-2015. MP: C OPY TO : 1. ASSESSEE 2. AO 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR