Deepak Dhawan, CHENNAI V. ACIT Non Corporate Circle 3, CHENNAI

ITA 3142/CHNY/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 125 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2295 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-09-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 22-12-2017
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: N VIJAYAKUMAR
• Keywords: Search and seizure; Share purchase agreement; Principle of natural justice; Wrong claim
• Section: 2

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, C BENCH : CHENNAI . , ! ' # ' $ . %& , ( * + [BEFORE SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBE R AND SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY , JUDICIAL MEMBER ] ./I.T.A. NO.3142/CHNY/2017. / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2014-2015. DEEPAK DHAWAN, FLAT NO.1C, DOOR NO.13, 6 TH STREET, GOPALAPURAM, CHENNAI 600 086. VS. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 3, CHENNAI. [PAN AAFPD 1335G] ( ,- / APPELLANT) ( ./,- /RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI. N. VIJAYAKUMAR, C.A. /RESPONDENT BY : SHRI. CLEMENT RAMESH KUMAR, ADDL. CIT. /DATE OF HEARING : 28-08-2018 ! /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 03-09-2018 0 / O R D E R PER ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IN THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, WHICH IS DIRECTED AGAINST AN ORDER DATED 27.09.2017 OF LD. COMMISSION ER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-4, CHENNAI, IT IS AGGRIEVED ON DENIAL O F EXEMPTION OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS OF C18,15,000/-, ARISING ON TRAN SFER OF SHARES ITA NO.3142 /2017 :- 2 -: CLAIMED U/S.10(38) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT) AND TREATING SUCH SUM AS UNEXPLAINED INCOME U/S.68 OF THE ACT. 2. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSE E HAD SOLD 50,000 SHARES OF ONE M/S. KAILASH AUTO FINANCE LTD AND LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS OF C18,15,000/- ARISING FROM SUCH SAL E WAS CLAIMED AS EXEMPT U/S.10(38) OF THE ACT. AS PER THE LD. AUTHOR ISED REPRESENTATIVE, THE LOWER AUTHORITIES DISBELIEVED T HE SALE OF THE SHARES, RELYING ON REPORTS OF DIRECTORATE OF INCOME TAX (INVESTIGATION) KOLKATA AND DELHI, WHICH MENTIONED THAT M/S. KAILA SH AUTO FINANCE LTD WAS A PENNY STOCK COMPANY. AS PER THE LD. AUTH ORISED REPRESENTATIVE, ASSESSEE HAD INITIALLY PURCHASED 50 ,000 SHARES OF M/S. PANCHSHUL MARKETING LIMITED WHICH WAS LATER MERGE D WITH M/S. KAILASH AUTO FINANCE LTD. FURTHER, AS PER THE LD. A UTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE, ASSESSEE WAS ALLOTTED EQUAL NUMBER OF SHARES IN THE LATTER COMPANY ON SUCH MERGER, WHICH WAS UNDER A SC HEME APPROVED BY HONBLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT. CONTENTION OF THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE WAS THAT PURCHASE OF THE SHARES OF M/S. PANCHSHUL MARKETING LIMITED WAS GENUINE THOUGH IT WAS DONE OFF MARKET. THE SALE OF THE SHARES OF M/S. KAILASH AUTO FINANCE LTD . AS PER THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE, WAS MADE THROUGH RECOGNI ZED STOCK EXCHANGE AND OUGHT NOT HAVE BEEN DISBELIEVED. CON TENTION OF THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE WAS THAT STATEMENTS RECOR DED FROM VARIOUS ITA NO.3142 /2017 :- 3 -: PERSONS WERE RELIED ON BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES FOR DISBELIEVING THE TRANSACTIONS AND COMING TO A CONCLUSION THAT PRICE S OF M/S. KAILASH AUTO FINANCE LTD WERE JACKED UP ARTIFICIALLY AND AS SESSEE HAD MADE CLAIM A BOGUS CLAIM OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS. LD . AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT THESE STATEMENTS, NOR THE REPORTS OF THE INVESTIGATION WING OF THE DEPARTMENT WERE PUT TO T HE ASSESSEE. RELYING ON THE DECISION OF CO-ORDINATE BENCH IN THE CASES OF VIMALCHAND GULABCHAND VS. ITO, PRAVEEN CHAND VS. IT O, GATRAJ JAIN & SONS (HUF) VS. ITO AND MAHENDRA KUMAR BHANDARI VS. ITO (ITA NOS.2003/17, 1721/2017, 2293/17 AND 2748/2017 DATED 06.04.2018), LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT IN SI MILAR CASES WHERE THERE WAS A CLAIM FOR EXEMPTION OF LONG TERM CAPITA L GAINS ON SALE OF EQUITY SHARES OF M/S. KAILASH AUTO FINANCE LTD, THE TRIBUNAL HAD GIVEN DIRECTIONS TO THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER FOR RECONSI DERING THE ISSUE ADHERING TO THE RULES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. 3. PER CONTRA, LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE STRONGL Y SUPPORTING THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW SUBM ITTED THAT THERE WERE SUFFICIENT AND MORE REASONS FOR LOWER AUTHOR ITIES TO DISBELIEVE THE TRANSACTIONS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE EQU ITY SHARES OF M/S. KAILASH AUTO FINANCE LTD. AS PER THE LD. DEPARTMEN TAL REPRESENTATIVE, ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE TO SHOW HOW HE INDENTIFIED THE SHARES OF M/S. PANCHSHUL MARKETING LIMITED FOR MAKING AN OFF ITA NO.3142 /2017 :- 4 -: MARKET PURCHASE. LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE A LSO PLACED RELIANCE ON A DECISION OF CO-ORDINATE BENCH IN THE CASE OF SHRI HEERACHAND KANUNGA VS. ITO (ITA NOS.2786 & 2787/CHNY/2017, DATD 03.05.2018). 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUS ED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. IT IS NOT DISPUTED THAT LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE AS EXEMPT U/S.10(38) OF THE ACT AROSE ON ACCOUNT OF SALE OF EQUITY SHARES OF M/S. KAILAS H AUTO FINANCE LTD. IT IS ALSO NOT DISPUTED THAT WHAT THE ASSESSEE HAD INITIALLY ACQUIRED THE SHARES OF ONE OF M/S. PANCHSHUL MARKETING LIMITED, WHICH WAS LATER MERGED WITH M/S. KAILASH AUTO FINANCE LTD. IN SIMIL AR CASES OF VIMALCHAND GULABCHAND, PRAVEEN CHAND, GATRAJ JAIN & SONS (HUF) AND MAHENDRA KUMAR BHANDARI (SUPRA) WHERE ALSO ASSESSEES HAD CLAIMED EXEMPTION U/S.10(38) OF THE ACT ON SALE OF SHARES OF M/S. KAILASH AUTO FINANCE LTD, THIS TRIBUNAL HAD HELD AS UNDER AT PARA 13 TO 16 OF ITS ORDER DATED 6.04.2018. 13. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PE RUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE LD. ASSESS ING OFFICER AS WELL AS LD.CIT(A) HAD RELIED ON SEBI ORD ER DATED 29.03.2016, IN THE CASE OF M/S.KAILASH AUTO FINANCE LTD.. IT IS TRUE THAT IN THE ABOVE ORDER, THERE IS A DETA ILED ANALYSIS OF MODUS OPERANDI ADOPTED BY ABOUT ELEVEN NUMBERS OF COMPANIES, INTER ALIA INCLUDING M/S.KAIL ASH AUTO FINANCE LTD. IT ALSO MENTIONS HOW M/S.KAILASH AUTO FINANCE LTD., HAD BUILT UP A HUGE SHARE PREMIUM WIT HIN A SHORT TIME OF ITS INCORPORATION. SEBI HAD ALSO ANA LYSED THE FINANCIALS OF M/S.CPAN AND M/S.PML, WHICH WERE MERG ED ITA NO.3142 /2017 :- 5 -: WITH M/S.KAILASH AUTO FINANCE LTD.,AND FOUND THAT T HERE WAS DISPROPORTIONATE ISSUE OF BONUS SHARES BY THESE TWO COMPANIES. APART FROM THE SEBI REPORT, LOWER AUTHOR ITIES HAD ALSO RELIED ON A STATEMENT OBTAINED FROM MR.SUN IL DOKANIA ON 12.06.2015 AND THE REPORT OF INVESTIGAT ION WING OF THE DEPARTMENT. WHAT I CAN DISCERN FROM THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES IS THAT THE STATEME NT GIVEN BY MR.SUNIL DOKANIA, NOR THE REPORT OF THE INVESTIG ATION WING RELIED ON BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WAS MADE AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSEE, DURING THE COURSE OF ASS ESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. SINCE THESE WENT AGAINST THE ASSESSEE, RULES OF NATURAL JUSTICE REQUIRE THAT ASSESSEE IS GIVEN A N OPPORTUNITY TO EXPLAIN WHAT WAS MENTIONED IN SUCH STATEMENT AND IF NECESSARY, AN OPPORTUNITY TO EXAMI NE MR.SUNIL DOKANIA. I ALSO FIND THAT THE AO HAD NOT ENQUIRED HOW THE ASSESSEE HAD BECOME AWARE OF THE AVAILABILI TY OF THE EQUITY SHARES OF M/S.PANCHSHUL MARKETING LTD., WHEN THE SAID COMPANY WAS NOT LISTED AND ENTITLED. THE F INDING OF THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE FINANCIALS O F M/S.KAILASH AUTO FINANCE LTD., WERE NOT STRONG ENOU GH FOR JUSTIFYING THE HIGH VALUE OF ITS SHARE IS ALSO NOT SUPPORTED BY SUFFICIENT EMPIRICAL DATA. 14. NOW, COMING TO THE ARGUMENT OF THE LD.A.R THAT ASSESSMENT HAVING BEEN DONE PURSUANT TO A SEARCH, OUGHT HAVE BEEN U/S.153A TO 153D OF THE ACT AND NOT U/S.143(3), I AM AFRAID I CANNOT TOE THIS LINE OF R EASONING. RELEVANT PARA IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER RELIED BY THE LD.A.R, FOR BUTTRESSING THIS ARGUMENT REPRODUCED AT PARA EL EVEN ABOVE, HARDLY SUGGEST THAT THE ASSESSMENT DONE ON T HE ASSESSEE WAS PURSUANT TO A SEARCH. JUST BECAUSE AN INVESTIGATION WAS DONE BY THE INVESTIGATION DEPARTM ENT OF THE DEPARTMENT, BASED ON SOME LEADS THEY MIGHT HAVE HAD, REPORTS OF WHICH WERE USED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE, WO ULD NOT IPSO FACTO MEAN THAT THE ASSESSMENT WAS PURSUANT T O ANY SEARCH. THERE IS NOTHING WHATSOEVER ON RECORD TO S UGGEST THAT THE ASSESSMENT WAS BASED ON MATERIALS UNEARTHED DU RING A SEARCH. 15. HOWEVER, AS ALREADY MENTIONED BY ME, RULES OF JUSTICE DO REQUIRE THAT THE REPORTS OF INVESTIGATION WING, REL IED ON BYTHE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER, AS WELL AS THE STATEMENT REC ORDED FROM MR.SUNIL DOKANIA ARE PUT TO THE ASSESSEE AND ITS EXPLANATION SOUGHT, BEFORE DECIDING WHETHER THESE ARE RELEVANT IN THE ASSESSMENT OF THE ASSESSEE. I ALSO FIND THE SEBI T HROUGH ITS ITA NO.3142 /2017 :- 6 -: ORDER DATED 21.09.2017(SUPRA) DID VACATE ITS INTERI M EXPARTE ORDER DATED 29 TH MARCH, 2016 RESTRAINING 244 ENTITIES, INTER ALIA INCLUDING M/S.KAILASH AUTO FINANCE LTD., FROM BUYING, SELLING OR DEALING IN SECURITIES. 16. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, I A M OF THE OPINION THAT THE QUESTION WHETHER THE TRANSACTIONS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE, AS GIVING RISE TO THE LONG TERM CA PITAL GAINS EXEMPT FROM TAX U/S.10(38) OF THE ACT, WERE R EAL OR SHAM, REQUIRES A RE-VISIT BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFI CER. I SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND REMIT THE ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER FOR CONSIDERATION AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH. 5. IN THE CASE OF HEERACHAND KANUNGA (SUPRA ) RELIED ON BY THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, CO-ORDINATE BENCH HAD HELD AS UNDER:- 9. A PERUSAL OF THE FACTS IN THE PRESENT CASE ADMIT TEDLY GIVEN ROOM FOR SUSPICION. HOWEVER, ASSESSMENTS ARE NOT TO BE DONE ON THE BASIS OF MERE SUSPICION. IT H AS TO BE SUPPORTED BY FACTS AND THE FACTS ARE UNFORTUNATE LY NOT FORTHCOMING IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, IN THE ORDER O F THE LD.CIT(A) NOR FROM THE SIDE OF THE ASSESSEE. THE M AIN FOUNDATION OF THE ASSESSMENT IN THE PRESENT CASE IS THE STATEMENT OF ONE SHRI ASHOK KUMAR KAYAN WHO HAS ADMITTED TO HAVE PROVIDED BOGUS LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS TO HIS CLIENTS. THE SAID SHRI ASHOK KUMAR KA YAN ALSO ALLEGEDLY SEEMS TO HAVE PROVIDED THE ASSESSEE S NAME AND PAN AS ONE OF THE BENEFICIARIES. HOWEVER, THIS STATEMENT GIVEN BY SHRI ASHOK KUMAR KAYAN CANN OT BE THE FOUNDATION FOR THE PURPOSE OF ASSESSMENT IN SO FAR AS SHRI ASHOK KUMAR KAYAN HAS NOT BEEN PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE FOR CROSS-EXAMINATION. IN THE ABSENCE OF OPPORTUNITY OF CROSS-EXAMINATION, THE STATEMENT REM AINS MERE INFORMATION AND SUCH INFORMATION CANNOT BE FOUNDATION FOR ASSESSMENT. 10. ADMITTEDLY, THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED TO HAVE PURCHASED 15000 SHARES FROM M/S.BPL @ RS.20/- PER SHARE TOTALING INTO RS.3,00,000/-. THE ASSESSEE CLA IMS TO HAVE PAID CASH FOR THE PURCHASE OF THESE SHARES. T HE PRIMARY QUESTION WOULD BE AS TO WHERE THE PURCHASE WAS DONE? IF THE PURCHASE HAS BEEN DONE IN KOLKATA, HOW ITA NO.3142 /2017 :- 7 -: WAS THE CASH TRANSFERRED? WHEN DID THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED THE SHARE CERTIFICATES AND THE SHARE TRANS FER FORMS? HOW DID THE ASSESSEE OVERCOME THE PROVISION S OF SEC.40A(3)? WAS THERE ADEQUATE CASH AVAILABILIT Y IN THE BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE ON 24.04.2008? DID THE ASSESSEE TRAVELLED TO KOLKATA? HOW WAS THE TRANSAC TION DONE? WHO APPLIED FOR THE DEMATING OF THE SHARES? WHEN WERE THEY DEMATED? WHEN WERE THE SHARES TRANSFERRED TO THE DEMAT ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE? T O WHOM WERE THE SHARES SOLD DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2010-11 & 2011-12? WHEN WERE THE CHEQUES RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE? FROM WHOM DID THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED THE CHEQUES? WAS THERE ANY CASH DEPOSIT IMMEDIATELY PRIOR TO THE ISSUING OF THE CHE QUE FROM THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE PURCHASER OF THE SHARE S OF THE ASSESSEE? 11. A PERUSAL OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AT PARA NO.7. 1 SHOWS THAT IN THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS, THE ASSESSEE STATES THAT HE HAS PURCHASED 15000 SHARES OF M/S.BP L FROM M/S.ABPL, KOLKATA. HOWEVER, IN PARA NO.8.3, I T IS MENTIONED THAT THE ASSESSEE IN GOOD FAITH HAS PURCH ASED THE SHARES OF M/S.BPL FROM A SUB-BROKER IN HIS FRIE NDS CIRCLE. WHAT IS THE TRUE NATURE OF THE TRANSACTION ? FROM WHOM DID THE ASSESSEE ACTUALLY PURCHASE THE SHARES? DID THE ASSESSEE TAKE POSSESSION OF THE SHARES IN I TS PHYSICAL FORM? IN PARA NO.8.1 OF THE ASSESSMENT OR DER, IT IS MENTIONED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN INVESTOR AN D HAS BEEN REGULARLY TRADING IN SHARES. IF THIS IS SO, D OES THE DEMAT ACCOUNT SHOW SUCH TRANSACTIONS BEING DONE BY THE ASSESSEE OR IS THIS THE ONLY ONE OF TRANSACTION . THUS, CLEARLY THE FACTS REQUIRED FOR ADJUDICATING THE APP EALS ARE NOT FORTHCOMING. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER T O SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS HELD THE SHARES FOR MORE THAN 12 MONTHS. THIS IS BECAUSE ASSUMING THAT THE DEMAT HAS BEEN DONE AND THE SHARES OF M/S.BPL HAS COME INTO THE ASSESSEES DEMAT ACCOUNT AND HAS IMMEDIATELY FLOWN OUT. THEN THE FACTUM OF THE POSSESSION OF THE SHARES FOR MORE THAN 12 MONTHS HA VE TO BE PROVED BY THE ASSESSEE. THIS IS ALSO NOT FORTHCOMING. IN REPLY TO A SPECIFIC QUERY, AS THE DATE OF THE DEMAT OF SHARES, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD.AR THAT THE DEMAT WAS DONE ON VARIOUS DATES. THEN THE QUESTION RISES AS TO WHY THERE IS SO MUCH OF DIFFER ENCE IN THE DATES OF DEMATING WHEN 15000 SHARES HAVE BEEN PURCHASED TOGETHER ON 24.04.2008. NO DETAILS IN RE SPECT OF M/S.BPL COMPANY IS KNOWN, WHAT IS THE PRODUCT OF THE COMPANY WHICH HAD LEAD TO THE SHARE VALUE OF THE COMPANY TO GO UP FROM RS.20/- TO RS.352/- IN A PERI OD OF ITA NO.3142 /2017 :- 8 -: TWO YEARS. THIS WOULD CLEARLY BE A CASE WHERE THE S HARE VALUE OF THE COMPANY WAS HITTING THE CIRCUIT BREAKE R OF THE STOCK EXCHANGE ON A DAILY BASIS AND OBVIOUSLY I T WOULD HAVE DRAWN ATTENTION. THIS BEING SO, AS THE FACTS ARE NOT COMING OUT OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER NOR THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) NOR FROM THE SIDE OF THE ASS ESSEE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ISSUES IN THIS APPEAL M UST BE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR RE-ADJUDICATION AFTER GRANTING THE ASSESSEE ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS CASE AND WE DO SO. 12. THE STATEMENT RECORDED BY THE REVENUE FROM SHRI ASHOK KUMAR KAYAN CANNOT BE USED AS AN EVIDENCE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE IN SO FAR AS THE STATEMENT HAS NOT BEEN GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE NOR HAS SHRI ASHOK KUMAR KAYAN BEEN PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE FOR CROSS- EXAMINATION. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE SHALL PROVE THE TRANSACTION OF THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS IN RESPE CT OF WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED THE EXEMPTION U/S.10(38) BY PROVIDING ALL SUCH EVIDENCES AS REQUI RED BY THE AO TO SUBSTANTIATE THE CLAIM AS ALSO BY PRODUCI NG THE PERSONS THROUGH WHOM THE ASSESSEE HAS UNDERTAKEN TH E TRANSACTION OF THE PURCHASE AND SALE OF THE SHARES WHICH WOULD INCLUDE THE SUB-BROKER, FRIEND AND THE BROKER THROUGH WHOM THE TRANSACTION HAS BEEN DONE, BEFORE THE AO FOR EXAMINATION. 6. THE FACT SITUATION HERE, IS SIMILAR TO THE ABOVE TW O CASES DECIDED BY THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH. WE ARE THEREFORE OF THE OPINION THAT THE TRANSACTIONS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE WHET HER REAL OR SHAM, REQUIRES A REVISIT BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER. SI MILAR DIRECTIONS AS GIVEN IN THE CASES OF VIMALCHAND GULABCHAND, PRAVEEN CHAND, GATRAJ JAIN & SONS (HUF) AND MAHENDRA KUMAR BHANDARI (SU PRA), READ ALONGWITH THE DIRECTIONS GIVEN IN THE CASE OF HEERA CHAND KANUNGA (SUPRA) ARE GIVEN HEREALSO. WE THEREFORE SET ASIDE THE ORDE RS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND REMIT THE ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LD. ITA NO.3142 /2017 :- 9 -: ASSESSING OFFICER FOR CONSIDERATION AFRESH IN ACCOR DANCE WITH DIRECTIONS IN THE ABOVE TWO CASES. 7. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY AL LOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON MONDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF SEPTEMB ER, 2018, AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( ' # ' $ . %& ) ( DUVVURU RL REDDY ) ( / JUDICIAL MEMBER ( . ) (ABRAHAM P. GEORGE) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER '# / CHENNAI $% / DATED:3RD SEPTEMBER, 2018. KV %& '()( / COPY TO: 1 . / APPELLANT 3. *+, / CIT(A) 5. (-. / / DR 2. / RESPONDENT 4. * / CIT 6. .01 / GF