S.K.Sabapathy, Vellore V. ACIT, Vellore

ITA 304/CHNY/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9182 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-06-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 11-04-2016
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 15-02-2016
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P RADHAKRISHNAN
• Assessee Lawyers: NANDITHA SIVARAMAKRISHNAN
• Keywords: Depreciation; Earning of tax free income; Wholly owned subsidiary
• Section: 143(3); 14A; 6

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , A B ENCH, CHENNAI . . . , . , % BEFORE SHRI N.R.S.GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ I.T.A.NO.304/MDS/2016 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12) MR. S.K.SABAPATHY, 1703, PHASE-II, SATHUVACHARI, VELLORE-632 009. VS THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-I, VELLORE. PAN:AFUPK0929B ( /APPELLANT) ( /RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : MS.NANDITHA SIVARAMAKRISHNAN, C.A /RESPONDENT BY : MR. P.RADHAKRISHNAN, JCIT /DATE OF HEARING : 11 TH APRIL, 2016 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 15 TH JUNE, 2016 / O R D E R PER A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, AM:- THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A PPEALS)- 13, CHENNAI DATED 04.12.2015 IN ITA NO.220/2011- 12/CIT(A)-13 PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) R.W.S.250 (6) OF THE ACT . 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED SEVERAL GROUNDS IN HIS A PPEAL HOWEVER, THE CRUXES OF THE ISSUES ARE AS FOLLOWS:- I) THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER WHO HAD 2 ITA NO.304 /MDS/2016 DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION OF `1,92,102/- ON THE MINING RIGHTS OBTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE. II) THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER WHO HAD DISALLOWED THE LOAN PROCESSING CHARGES INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR `4,40,825/-. III) THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER WHO HAD MADE DISALLOWANCE INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 14A R.W.R.8D OF THE RULES FOR RS.71,43,366/-. 3. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL HAVING INCOME FROM HIS PARTNERSHIP FIRM WHICH DEALS IN LEATHER CHEMICALS, DYE AND ALSO EARNS COMM ISSION INCOME, FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSME NT YEAR 2011-12 ON 29.08.2011 WHICH WAS INITIALLY PROCESSED UNDER SECTION 143(1) OF THE ACT. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLE TED VIDE ORDER DATED 28.03.2014 WHEREIN THE LEARNED ASSESSIN G OFFICER MADE ADDITIONS TOWARDS I) DISALLOWANCE OF C APITAL EXPENDITURE `4,40,825/-, II) DISALLOWANCE OF DEPREC IATION ON MINING RIGHTS`1,92,102/- AND III) DISALLOWANCE UNDE R SECTION 14A AMOUNTING TO `71,43,366/-. THE LEARNED C.I.T.(A ) 3 ITA NO.304 /MDS/2016 CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED A.O ARRIVED BY W HICH THE ASSESSEE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE US. GROUND NO.1 DISALLOWANCE OF THE CLAIM OF DEPRECIA TION AMOUNTING TO `1,92,102/-: 4. IT WAS OBSERVED BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER TH AT THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED DEPRECIATION OF `1,92,102/ - TOWARDS MINING RIGHTS OWNED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE LEARNED AS SESSING OFFICER OPINED THAT THERE ARE NO PROVISIONS FOR CLA IMING DEPRECIATION ON THE MINING RIGHTS AND THEREFORE DIS ALLOWED THE SAME AS ALLOWABLE DEDUCTION. THE LEARNED AUTHORIZE D REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED BEFORE US THAT THE ASSESSE E HAS RECEIVED THE MINING RIGHTS FOR A PARTICULAR PERIOD ON PAYMENT OF AN UPFRONT AMOUNT AND THEREFORE THE VALUE OF THE MINING RIGHTS DEPLETES OVER THE PERIOD OF TIME DUE TO WHIC H THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED DEPRECIATION. WE FIND MERIT IN THE SUBMISSION OF THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE . THE MINING RIGHT IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE APPEARS TO BE FOR A SPECIFIC PERIOD FOR WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID AN UPFRONT AMOUNT. SINCE THE BENEFIT OF THIS PAYMENT EXTENDS T O A PARTICULAR PERIOD OF TIME THE SAME SHOULD BE WRITTE N OFF OVER THAT PERIOD KEEPING IN VIEW OF THE MATCHING PRINCIP LES. 4 ITA NO.304 /MDS/2016 THEREFORE, WE HEREBY DIRECT THE LEARNED ASSESSING O FFICER TO GRANT DEDUCTION TO THE ASSESSEE ON THE EXPENSE INCU RRED BY THE ASSESSEE TOWARDS MINING RIGHTS PROPORTIONATELY IN ALL THE ASSESSMENT YEARS TILL THE MINING RIGHTS EXIST OR IN A PERIOD OF TEN YEARS AS SPECIFIED IN THE ACCOUNTING STANDARDS WHICHEVER PERIOD OF MINING RIGHT IS LESS. IT IS ORDERED ACCOR DINGLY. GROUND NO.2. DISALLOWANCE OF LOAN PROCESSING CHARGE `4,40,825/-: 5. IT WAS OBSERVED BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD WRITTEN OFF AN AMOUNT OF `4,40,825 /- IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT BEING LOAN PROCESSING CHAR GES. ON QUERY, IT WAS EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT HE HAD TAKEN FRESH LOAN FROM RELIANCE CAPITAL AND SOME OUTSTANDI NG LOANS HAVE ALSO BEEN TAKEN OVER BY RELIANCE CAPITAL FOR W HICH HE HAD INCURRED THE ABOVE SAID AMOUNT AS EXPENDITURE T OWARDS PROCESSING CHARGES. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT MAD E ANY FURTHER EXPLANATION, THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED THE EXPENSES OF `4,40,825/- IN THE HANDS OF THE ASS ESSEE. ON APPEAL, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APP EALS) CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICE R BECAUSE 5 ITA NO.304 /MDS/2016 THERE WAS NO FURTHER EXPLANATION. EVEN BEFORE US, A T THIS STAGE, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED THE DETAILS O F THE LOANS OBTAINED AND ITS APPLICATION. HOWEVER, IN THE INTER EST OF JUSTICE, WE HEREBY REMIT BACK THE MATTER TO THE FIL E OF THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FRESH CONSIDERATION A ND ALSO DIRECT THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH ALL THE REQUISITE DE TAILS TO ESTABLISH HIS CLAIM. GROUND NO.3 - DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14A R.W.R 8D: 6. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, IT WAS NOTICED BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE A SSESSEE HAD INCURRED INTEREST EXPENDITURE OF `1,09,19,567/- . THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE THE FOLLOWING INVESTMENTS: DETAILS OF INVESTMENT AS ON 31.03.2010 ` AS ON 31.03.2011 ` INVESTMENT IN SHARES 3,40,55,894 4,05,11,941 INVESTMENT IN LAND 1,21,28,790 87,26,494 INVESTMENT IN BUILDING 2,49,22,804 2,91,21,012 INVESTMENT IN DEPOSITS 6,81,37,719 7,90,65,480 TOTAL 13,92,45,207 15,74,24,927 FROM THE ABOVE, THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER OPINE D THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD INCURRED EXPENDITURE FOR EARNING E XEMPT INCOME AND THEREFORE INVOKED THE PROVISIONS OF SECT ION 14A 6 ITA NO.304 /MDS/2016 R.W.R AND 8D OF THE RULES. ON APPEAL, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ALSO CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER RELYING ON V ARIOUS DECISIONS. 7. HOWEVER, ON PERUSING THE MATERIALS ON RECORDS AN D THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE, WE FIND THAT THE ENTIRE FACT S HAVE NOT BEEN ANALYZED BY THE REVENUE. FROM THE FACTS OF THE CASE IT APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE INVESTMENTS EITH ER IN HIS OWN COMPANY OR IN HIS SISTER CONCERNS SUCH AS S ABHA SOLES PVT. LTD., SABARI MOULDS PVT.LTD., ESSEGI MO ULD INDIA PVT.LTD., AGGREGATING TO `4,04,83,431/- . FURTHER, THE DETAILS OF THE LOAN OBTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE AND HOW IT IS APP LIED ARE ALSO NOT COMING OUT FROM THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE OR FROM THE RECORDS AVAILABLE BEFORE US. THE CO-RELATION O R THE NON- CO-RELATION OF THE INTEREST EXPENSE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE TOWARDS THE INCOME EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO N OT COMING OUT FROM THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE OR THE MA TERIALS ON RECORD. FURTHE ON THE EARLIER OCCASION, IN THE CASE OF RANE HOLDINGS LTD. VS. ACIT IN ITA NO.115/MDS/2015 VIDE ORDER DATED 06.01.2016, EXTRACTED HEREIN BELOW, WE HAVE 7 ITA NO.304 /MDS/2016 HELD THAT WHERE INVESTMENTS ARE MADE IN SISTER CONC ERNS FOR STRATEGIC REASONS, NO EXPENSES CAN BE INFERRED TO H AVE BEEN INCURRED IF SUCH INVESTMENTS ARE MADE OUT OF NON-IN TEREST BEARING FUNDS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE GIST OF THE RELE VANT ORDER IN ITA NO.115/MDS/2015 DATED 06.01.2016 OF THIS TRI BUNAL IS REPRODUCED HEREIN BELOW FOR REFERENCE:- 5. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND CAREFULLY PE RUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. ON THE IDENTICAL ISSUE AS POIN TED OUT BY THE LD. A.R. THE CHENNAI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO.156/MDS /2013 VIDE ORDER DATED 20/08/13 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 HAS REMITTED BACK THE MATTER TO THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER TO DECIDE THE M ATTER ONCE AGAIN AFRESH BASED ON THE FINDINGS WHETHER THE ASSESSEE H AD ACTUALLY INCURRED ANY EXPENDITURE IN EARNING THE DIVIDEND INCOME. THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE ORDER IS EXTRACTED HEREIN BELOW FOR REFERENCE:- FURTHER, ON THE IDENTICAL ISSUE VARIOUS BENCHES OF THE TRIBUNAL AND THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT HAVE HELD AS FOLLOWS:- I) GARWARE WALL ROPES LTD., VS. ACIT REPORTED IN (2 014) 65 SOT 086 (MUM.) HELD AS FOLLOWS:- II) WHEN ASSESSEE HAS PRIMA FACIE BROUGHT OUT CASE THA T NO EXPENDITURE HAS BEEN INCURRED FOR EARNING INCOME, W HICH DOES NOT FORM PART OF TOTAL INCOME, THEN IN ABSENCE OF A NY FINDING THAT EXPENDITURE HAS BEEN INCURRED FOR EARNING EXEMPT IN COME PROVISIONS 14A CANNOT BE APPLIED.. III) INTEGLOBE ENTERPRISES LTD., VS. DCIT REPORTED IN (2014) 40 CCH 0022(DEL. TRIB.) HELD AS FOLLOWS:- NO DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST IS REQUIRED TO BE MADE UNDER RULE 8D(I) & 8D(II) WHERE NO DIRECT OR INDIRECT INT EREST EXPENDITURE WAS INCURRED FOR MAKING INVESTMENTS.WHE RE THE ASSESSEE HAD UTILIZED INTEREST FREE FUNDS FOR M AKING FRESH INVESTMENTS AND THAT TOO INTO ITS SUBSIDIARIE S, WHICH WAS NOT FOR THE PURPOSE OF EARNING EXEMPT INCOME AN D WHICH WAS FOR STRATEGIC PURPOSES ONLY, NO DISALLOWA NCE OF INTEREST WAS REQUIRED TO BE MADE UNDER RULE 8D(I) & 8D(II) AND STRATEGIC INVESTMENT HAS TO BE EXCLUDED FOR PUR POSE OF ARRIVING AT DISALLOWANCE UNDER RULE 8D(III). 8 ITA NO.304 /MDS/2016 IV) M/S.JM FINANCIAL LTD., VS. ACIT REPORTED IN 201 4- TIOL-202-ITAT-MUM HELD AS FOLLOWS: THE DEPARTMENT HAS NOT DISPUTED THIS FACT OUT OF THE TOTAL INVESTMENT ABOUT 98% OF THE INVESTMENT ARE IN SUBSI DIARY COMPANIES OF THE ASSESSEE AND, THEREFORE, THE PURPO SE OF INVESTMENT IS NOT FOR EARNING THE DIVIDEND INCOME B UT HAVING CONTROL AND BUSINESS PURPOSE AND CONSIDERATION. THE ASSESSEE HAS BROUGHT OUT A CASE TO SHOW THAT NO EXPENDITURE HAS BEEN INCURRED FOR MAINTAINING THE 98% OF THE INVESTMENT MADE IN T HE SUBSIDIARY COMPANIES, THEREFORE, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY FINDING THAT ANY EXPENDITURE HAS BEEN INCURRED FOR EARNING THE EXEMP T INCOME, THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT J USTIFIED, ACCORDINGLY THE SAME IS DELETED. (IV) CIT VS. BHARTI TELEVENTURE LTD. REPORTED IN (2 011) 331 ITR 0502. WHERE THE ASSESSEE WAS FOUND TO BE HAVING ADEQUATE NON- INTEREST BEARING FUND BY WAY OF SHARE CAPITAL AND R ESERVES AND THERE WAS NO NEXUS BETWEEN THE BORROWALS OF ASSESSE E AND THE ADVANCES GIVEN, NO DISALLOWANCE FOR INTEREST WAS CA LLED FOR . (V) CIT VS. RELIANCE UTILITIES & POWER LTD., REPORT ED IN (2009) 313 ITR 0340(BOM.) HAS HELD AS FOLLOWS:- TRIBUNAL HAVING RECORDED A CLEAR FINDING THAT THE ASSESSEE POSSESSED SUFFICIENT INTEREST-FREE FUNDS OF ITS OWN WHICH WERE GENERATED IN THE COURSE OF THE RELEVANT FINANCIAL Y EAR, APART FROM SUBSTANTIAL SHAREHOLDERS FUND, PRESUMPTION STANDS E STABLISHED THAT THE INVESTMENTS IN SISTER CONCERNS WERE MADE B Y THE ASSESSEE OUT OF INTEREST FREE FUNDS AND THEREFORE NO PART OF INTEREST ON BORROWINGS CAN BE DISALLOWED ON THE BASIS THAT THE INVESTMENTS WERE MADE OUT OF INTEREST BEARING FUNDS. (VI) EIH ASSOCIATED HOTELS LTD VS. DCIT REPORTED IN 2013- TIOL-796-ITAT-MAD . THE INVESTMENTS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE SUB SIDIARY COMPANY ARE NOT ON ACCOUNT OF INVESTMENT FOR EARNIN G CAPITAL GAINS OR DIVIDEND INCOME. SUCH INVESTMENTS HAVE BEE N MADE BY THE ASSESSEE TO PROMOTE SUBSIDIARY COMPANY INTO THE HOTEL INDUSTRY. THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTOTHE BUSINESS OF I NVESTMENT AND THE INVESTMENTS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ON ACCOUNT OF BUSINESS EXPEDIENCY. ANY DIVIDEND EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE FRO M INVESTMENT IN SUBSIDIARY COMPANY IS PURELY INCIDENTAL. THEREFO RE THE INVESTMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS SUBSIDIARY I S NOT TO BE RECKONED FOR DISALLOWANCE U/S.14A R.W.R.8D. THE ASS ESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO RE-COMPUTE THE AVERAGE VALUE OF INVESTMENT UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 8D AFTER DELETING INVE STMENTS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN SUBSIDIARY COMPANY. TAKING NOTE OF THE ABOVE DECISIONS AND THE DECISION OF THE CHENNAI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO.156/MDS/13 CITED SUPRA, WE HEREBY REMIT THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF LD. 9 ITA NO.304 /MDS/2016 ASSESSING OFFICER TO EXAMINE THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THIS CASE AFRESH AND PASS APPROPRIATE ORDER AS PER LAW AND ME RITS AND IN THE LIGHT OF THE DECISIONS CITED HEREIN ABOV E. WHILE DOING SO, WE ALSO DIRECT THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER TO CONSIDER THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE M /S AGILE ELECTRIC SUB ASSEMBLY PVT. LTD. CITED SUPRA WHEREIN IT WAS HELD AS FOLLOWS:- 7.2 IN REGARD TO APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 14A OF THE ACT READ WITH RULE 8D ALSO; THE ABOVE VIEW WILL BE APPLICABL E. MOREOVER IN THE CASE EIH ASSOCIATED HOTELS LTD V. D CIT REPORTED IN 2013 (9) TMI 604 IN ITA NO.1503, 1624/MDS/2012 DATED 17 TH JULY, 2013, IT HAS BEEN HELD BY THE CHENNAI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL AS FOLLOWS:- DISALLOWANCE U/S. 14A RW RULE 8D CIT UPHELD DISAL LOWANCE HELD THAT INVESTMENTS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN T HE SUBSIDIARY COMPANY ARE NOT ON ACCOUNT OF INVESTMENT FOR EARNING CAPITAL GAINS OR DIVIDEND INCOME. SUCH INVE STMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESSEE TO PROMOTE SUBSIDIAR Y COMPANY INTO THE HOTEL INDUSTRY. A PERUSAL OF THE ORDER OF THE CIT(APPEALS) SHOWS THAT OUT OF TOTAL INVESTMENT OF RS.64,18,19,775/-, RS.63,31,25,715/- IS INVESTED IN WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDIARY. THIS FACT SUPPORTS THE CASE OF TH E ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTO THE BUSINESS OF INVES TMENT AND THE INVESTMENTS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ON ACCOUNT OF BUSINESS EXPEDIENCY. ANY DIVIDEND EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE FRO M INVESTMENT IN SUBSIDIARY COMPANY IS PURELY INCIDENT AL. THEREFORE, THE INVESTMENTS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS SUBSIDIARY ARE NOT TO BE RECKONED FOR DISALLOWANCE U/S. 14A R.W.R. 8D. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO RE- COMPUTE THE AVERAGE VALUE OF INVESTMENT UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 8D AFTER DELETING INVESTMENTS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN SUBSIDIARY COMPANY DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE. FOR THE ABOVE SAID REASONS, WE HEREBY HOLD THAT IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 14A READ WITH RU LE 8D WILL NOT BE APPLICABLE IN REGARD TO INVESTMENTS MADE FOR ACQUIR ING THE SHARES OF THE ASSESSEES SISTER CONCERNS. ACCORDINGLY WE REST RAIN OURSELVES FROM INTERFERING WITH THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) ON THIS REGARD. THEREFORE, FOLLOWING THE AFORESAID DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL, WE HEREBY DIRECT THE LEARNED ASSESSING OF FICER TO DELETE THE ADDITION MADE BY INVOKING THE PROVISI ONS OF SECTION 14A R.W. RULE 8D OF THE ACT, SUBJECT TO VERIFICATION THAT INVESTMENTS ARE MADE BY THE ASSES SEE IN ITS SISTER CONCERNS ONLY AND FROM ITS INTEREST F REE FUNDS. 10 ITA NO.304 /MDS/2016 8. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE DO NOT HAVE ANY OTHER OPTION BUT TO REMIT BACK THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FRESH CONSIDERATION AND TO PA SS APPROPRIATE ORDERS AS PER LAW AND MERIT TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION OF OUR ABOVE MENTIONED OBSERVATIONS. IT IS ORDERED ACCORDINGLY. 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PAR TLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE 15 TH JUNE, 2016 SD/- SD/- ( . . . ) ( . ) (N.R.S.GANESAN) ( A.M OHAN ALANKAMONY ) # % / JUDICIAL MEMBER % / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER # /CHENNAI, ( /DATED 15 TH JUNE, 2016 SOMU *+ ,+ /COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. - () /CIT(A) 4. - /CIT 5. + 1 /DR 6. /GF