PRAVEEN KUMAR OTMALJI (HUF), CHENNAI V. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 5(50, CHENNAI

ITA 3143/CHNY/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 112 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1516 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-12-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 16-11-2018
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R ANITAJCITD R
• Keywords: Share purchase agreement; Principle of natural justice; Wrong claim; Set aside; Capital Gains
• Section: 10

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH: CHENNAI , , $ BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN , JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S.JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO.3143/CHNY/2018 /ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 M/S.PRAVEEN KUMAR OTMALJI,(HUF) 119,AUDIAPPA NAICKEN STREET, SOWCARPET, CHENNAI 600 079 VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, NON-CORPORATE WARD 5(5), 16,GREAMS ROAD,CHENNAI-6. [ PAN: AAFHP 5927 A ] ( & /APPELLANT) ( '(& /RESPONDENT) & ) / APPELLANT BY : MR.I.DINESH,ADVOCATE '(& ) /RESPONDENT BY : MS.R.ANITA, JCIT,D.R ) /DATE OF HEARING : 02.12.2019 ) /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 11.12.2019 / O R D E R PER S.JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : THE ASSESSEE FILED THIS APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-5, CHENNAI IN ITA NO.143/CIT(A)-5/2017-18 DATED 10.08.2018 FOR THE AS SESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. ITA NO. 3143/CHNY/2018 :- 2 -: 2. M/S.PRAVEEN KUMAR OTMALJI,(HUF), THE ASSESSEE, HAD PURCHASED 3000 SHARES AT THE RATE OF RS.20 PER SHARE FROM M/S .DHANLAB MERCHANDISE LIMITED, WHICH LATER MERGED WITH M/S.BA KRA PRATHISHTHAN LIMITED AND CLAIMED LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN TO THE E XTENT OF RS. 9,92,868/-. BASED ON THE INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM THE DIRECTORATE OF INVESTIGATION, KOLKATA, THE ASSESSING OFFICER REOPE NED THE ASSESSMENT AND AFTER CONSIDERING THE ASSESSEES EXPLANATION, M ATERIAL ETC., ON THE BASIS OF INVESTIGATIONS DONE BY THE REVENUE AND AFT ER ANALYZING THESE TRANSACTIONS OBSERVED THAT THE SHARES OF M/S.BAKRA PRATHISHTHAN LIMITED IS A PENNY STOCK, ONE OF THE BROKERS HAS ADMITTED T HE SAME DURING THE INVESTIGATION DONE BY THE DIRECTORATE, THE ASSESSEE S NAME IS MENTIONED AS ONE OF THE BENEFICIARIES AND HENCE CONCLUDED, IN TER ALIA, THAT THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS BOOKED BY THE ASSESSEE IN HIS BO OKS ARE PRE-ARRANGED ONE, THE ASSESSEE HAS MANIPULATED THE SALE OF SHARES WITHIN A SHORT SPAN OF TIME IN COLLUSION WITH THE B ROKERS IN ORDER TO EARN TAX FREE EXEMPT LTCG. THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ABLE TO PROVE THAT THE IMPUGNED TRANSACTIONS WERE GENUINE AND IT HAD NOT A VAILED THE BENEFIT OF THE SCHEME TO CONVERT THE BLACK MONEY INTO WHITE. IN VIEW OF THAT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ADDED THE ENTIRE SALE PROCEEDS AT RS.10,57,500/- TO THE RETURNED INCOME. AGGRIEVED AGAINST THAT ORDER, THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). THE LD. CIT(A), INTER ALI A, RELYING ON THE ITA NO. 3143/CHNY/2018 :- 3 -: DECISIONS IN THE CASES OF ITO, 19(3) (4) MUMBAI VS SHAMIM M BHARWANI, REPORTED IN 69 TAXMANN.COM 65 (MUMBAI TRIB) AND S ANJAY BIMALCHAND JAIN V PCIT-1, NAGPUR REPORTED IN 89 TAXMANN.COM 19 6 (NAGPUR BENCHES OF BOMBAY HIGH COURT) ETC DISMISSED THE APP EAL OF THE ASSESSEE. AGGRIEVED AGAINST THAT ORDER, THE ASSESS EE FILED THIS APPEAL. 3. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY LD. AR THAT THE ISSUE IN T HIS APPEAL WAS AGAINST THE ACTION OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER IN TREATING THE PURCHASE AND SALE OF SHARES BY THE ASSESSEE, AS PENNY STOCK TRANSACTIONS. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED ON THE LINES OF GROUNDS OF APPEAL AND RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE MR SUNIL KUMAR LALWANI VS ITO & OTHERS, NON C ORPORATE CIRCLE 9(4), CHENNAI IN ITA NO 659 & 660/ CHNY/2018 DT. 0 9.01.2019. PER CONTRA, THE LD DR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS C LAIMED DEDUCTION U/S 10 (38) BUT HE HAS NOT PROVED THE GENUINENESS, THEREFORE, REITERATING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE FROM THE O RDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES, THE LD. DR SUPPORTED THOSE ORDERS AND PLEADED THAT THE APPEAL BE DECIDED ACCORDINGLY. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. IT IS NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN GIVEN A FAIR OPPORTUNITY TO P ROVE THE GENUINENESS BUT THE ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN MADE PRIMARILY, BASED O N THE EVIDENCES ITA NO. 3143/CHNY/2018 :- 4 -: COLLECTED BY THE REVENUE IN THE COURSE OF THE INVES TIGATION CONDUCTED BY THEM ON THE BROKERS / SHARE BROKING ENTITIES ETC. T HIS IS NOT PERMISSIBLE. THIS BEING SO, IN THE INTERESTS OF NATURAL JUSTICE, THE ISSUE OF THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS REQUIRE RE-ADJUDICA TION. SINCE, THE RIGHT TO EXEMPTION MUST BE ESTABLISHED BY THOSE WHO SEEK IT, THE ONUS THEREFORE LIES ON THE ASSESSEE. IN ORDER TO CLAIM THE EXEMPTION FROM PAYMENT OF INCOME TAX, THE ASSESSEE HAD TO PUT BEFO RE THE INCOME TAX AUTHORITIES PROPER MATERIALS WHICH WOULD ENABLE THE M TO COME TO A CONCLUSION. ( 35 ITR 312 (SC) ).THUS, THE AO MUST K EEP IN MIND THAT THE ONUS OF PROVING THE EXEMPTION RESTS ON THE ASSESSEE . IF THE AO DOES HAVE ANY EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY, IT IS TO BE PUT TO THE ASSESSEE FOR HIS REBUTTAL. THE INTERNAL COMMUNICATIONS OF THE REVENU E ARE EVIDENCES FOR DRAWING AN OPINION ON POSSIBLE WRONG CLAIMS BUT THE Y ARE NOT THE FINAL EVIDENCE. THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE ORDER OF THI S TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF MR. SUNIL KUMAR LALWANI VS ITO & OTHERS, NON CORP ORATE CIRCLE 9(4), CHENNAI IN ITA NO 659 & 660/ CHNY/2018 DT. 09.01.2 019 IS EXTRACTED AS UNDER: 5. PER CONTRA, ID. A.R SUBMITTED THAT THE HON 'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF PR.CIT VS. M/S.LAXMAN INDUSTRIAL RESOUR CES LTD., IN ITA N'O.169/2017, C.M.APPL.7385/2017 VIDE ORDER DATED 1 4.03.2017 HAS HELD THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ID. A.R AL SO PLACED BEFORE US THE DECISION OF THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SHRI ARAVIND NANDLAL. KHATRI VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, IN ITA NO.2035/CHNY/2038 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 VIDE ORDER DATED 03.12.2018 WHEREIN THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TR IBUNAL HAS HELD AS FOLLOWS:- ITA NO. 3143/CHNY/2018 :- 5 -: '5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EIT HER SIDE AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. ADMITTEDLY, THE A.O RECEIVED INFORMATION FROM INVESTIGATION WING OF THE DEPARTMENT AT KOLKATA WITH REGARD TO INVESTMENT OF THE ASSESSEE I N PENNY STOCK COMPANY, NAMELY, M/S. CONCRETE CREDIT LIMITED. THE ASSESSEE ALSO ADMITTEDLY SOLD THE SAID SHARES AND CLAIMED EXEMPTI ON UNDER SECTION 10(38) OF THE ACT DURING THE YEAR WIDER CONSIDERATI ON. THEREFORE,, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT DISPUTED THE SOURCE FOR I NVESTMENT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF EXEMPTION ON THE GROUND THAT THE INVESTMENT WAS IN A PENNY STOCK COMPANY. FROM T HE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD IT APPEARS THAT A COPY OF INFOR MATION SAID TO BE RECEIVED FROM THE INVESTIGATION WING OF THE DEPARTM ENT AT KOLKATA WAS NOT FURNISHED TO THE ASSESSEE. IT IS NOT BROUGHT ON RECORD THE RELATIONSHIP OF THE ASSESSEE WITH THE PROMOTERS OF M/S CONCRETE CREDIT LIMITED. IT IS ALSO NOT BROUGHT ON RECORD THE ROLE OF THE ASSESSEE IN PROMOTING THE COMPANY, NAMELY, M/S CONCRETE CREDIT LIMITED, ISSUE OF PUBLIC SHARES, INFLATION OF PRICE OF SHARES, ETC. I N THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE MATTER NEEDS TO BE RE- EXAMINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ACCORDINGLY, THE ORDERS OF BOTH THE AUTHORITIES BELOW ARE SET ASIDE AND THE ENTIRE ISSU E IS REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE A.O SHALL BR ING ON RECORD THE ROLE OF THE ASSESSEE IN PROMOTING THE COMPANY AND RELATI ONSHIP OF THE ASSESSEE WITH OTHER PROMOTERS, ROLE OF THE ASSESSEE IN INFLATING THE PRICE OF SHARES, ETC.. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL ALSO F URNISH A COPY OF THE REPORT SAID TO BE RECEIVED FROM THE INVESTIGATION W ING OF THE DEPARTMENT AT KOLKATA TO THE ASSESSEE AND THEREAFTER DECIDE TH E ISSUE AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, AFTER GIVING A REASONABLE OPPO RTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE.' 5. FURTHER, PERUSAL OF ASSESSEES CASE SHOWS THAT IT IS SIMILAR TO THE FACTS IN THE CASE OF SHRI HEERACHAND KANUNG A, A DECISION OF THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL MADE FOR ASS ESSMENT YEARS 2010- 11 & 2011-12 IN ITA NOS. 2786 & 2787/MDS/2017 DATED 03.05.2018 . THE RELEVANT PORTION FROM THAT ORDER IS EXTRACTED A S UNDER:- 9. A PERUSAL OF THE FACTS IN THE PRESENT CASE ADMI TTEDLY GIVEN ROOM FOR SUSPICION. HOWEVER, ASSESSMENTS ARE NOT TO BE DONE ON THE BASIS OF MERE SUSPICION. IT HAS TO BE SUPPORTED BY FACTS AND THE FACTS ARE UNFORTUNATELY NOT FORTHCOMING IN THE ASSESSMENT ORD ER, IN THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) NOR FROM THE SIDE OF THE ASSESSEE. THE MAIN ITA NO. 3143/CHNY/2018 :- 6 -: 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 KAYAN ALSO ALLEGEDLY SEEMS TO HAVE PROVIDED T HE ASSESSEES NAME AND PAN AS ONE OF THE BENEFICIARIES. HOWEVER, THIS STATEMENT GIVEN BY SHRI ASHOK KUMAR KAYAN CANNOT BE THE FOUND ATION 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 REMAINS MERE INFORMATION AND SUCH INFORMATION CANNOT BE FOUNDATI ON FOR ASSESSMENT. 10. ADMITTEDLY, THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED TO HAVE PU RCHASED 15000 SHARES FROM M/S.BPL @ RS.20/- PER SHARE TOTALING IN TO RS.3,00,000/-. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS TO HAVE PAID CASH FOR THE PURCH ASE OF THESE SHARES. THE PRIMARY QUESTION WOULD BE AS TO WHERE THE PURCHASE WAS DONE? IF THE PURCHASE HAS BEEN DONE IN KOLKATA, HOW WAS THE CASH TRANSFERRED? WHEN DID THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED TH E SHARE CERTIFICATES AND THE SHARE TRANSFER FORMS? HOW DID THE ASSESSEE OVERCOME THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.40A(3)? WAS THERE A DEQUATE CASH AVAILABILITY 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 ACCOU NT OF THE ASSESSEE? TO WHOM WERE THE SHARES SOLD DURING THE A SSESSMENT YEARS 2010-11 & 2011-12? WHEN WERE THE CHEQUES REC EIVED BY THE ASSESSEE? FROM WHOM DID THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED THE CHEQUES? WAS THERE ANY CASH DEPOSIT IMMEDIATELY PRIOR TO THE ISSUING OF THE CHEQUE FROM THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE PURCHASER OF TH E SHARES 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 H E HAS PURCHASED 15000 SHARES OF M/S.BPL FROM M/S.ABPL, KOLKATA. HO WEVER, IN PARA ITA NO. 3143/CHNY/2018 :- 7 -: NO.8.3, IT IS MENTIONED THAT THE ASSESSEE IN GOOD F AITH HAS PURCHASED 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 T HE ASSESSEE ACTUALLY PURCHASE THE SHARES? DID THE ASSESSEE TAK E POSSESSION OF THE SHARES IN ITS PHYSICAL FORM? IN PARA NO.8.1 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, IT IS MENTIONED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN INVE STOR AND HAS BEEN REGULARLY TRADING IN SHARES. IF THIS IS SO, DOES T HE DEMAT ACCOUNT SHOW SUCH TRANSACTIONS BEING DONE BY THE ASSESSEE OR IS THIS THE ONLY ONE OF TRANSACTION. THUS, CLEARLY THE FACTS REQUIRED F OR ADJUDICATING THE APPEALS ARE NOT FORTHCOMING. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER TO SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS HELD THE SHARES FOR MORE THAN 12 MONTHS. THIS IS BECAUSE ASSUMING THAT THE DEMAT HAS BEEN DO NE AND THE SHARES OF M/S.BPL HAS COME INTO THE ASSESSEES DEMA T ACCOUNT AND HAS IMMEDIATELY FLOWN OUT. THEN THE FACTUM OF THE POSSESSION OF THE SHARES FOR MORE THAN 12 MONTHS HAVE TO BE PROVED BY THE ASSESSEE. THIS IS ALSO NOT FORTHCOMING. IN REPLY TO A SPECIF IC 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 DIFFERENCE IN THE DATES OF DEMATING W HEN 15000 SHARES HAVE BEEN PURCHASED TOGETHER ON 24.04.2008. NO DET AILS IN RESPECT 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 PERIOD OF TWO YEARS. THIS WOULD CLEARLY BE A CASE WHERE THE SHARE VALUE OF THE COMPANY WAS HITTI NG THE CIRCUIT BREAKER OF THE STOCK EXCHANGE ON A DAILY BASIS AND OBVIOUSLY IT 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 ASSESSEE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE I SSUES IN THIS APPEAL MUST BE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR RE-ADJUD ICATION AFTER GRANTING THE ASSESSEE ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY TO SUBSTANTIATE I TS CASE AND WE DO SO. 12. THE STATEMENT RECORDED BY THE REVENUE FROM SHRI ASHOK KUMAR KAYAN CANNOT BE USED AS AN EVIDENCE AGAINST T HE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO. 3143/CHNY/2018 :- 8 -: SO FAR AS THE STATEMENT HAS NOT BEEN GIVEN TO THE A SSESSEE NOR HAS SHRI ASHOK KUMAR KAYAN BEEN PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSE E FOR CROSS- EXAMINATION. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE SHALL PROVE THE TRANSACTION OF THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS IN RESPECT OF WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED THE EXEMPTION U/S.10(38) BY PROVIDING ALL S UCH EVIDENCES AS REQUIRED BY THE AO TO SUBSTANTIATE THE CLAIM AS ALS O BY PRODUCING 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 TRAN SACTION HAS BEEN DONE, BEFORE THE AO FOR EXAMINATION. 13. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESS EE IN ITA NOS.2786 & 2787/CHNY/2017 ARE PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 6. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ABOVE ORDERS, ON THE FAC TS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE, WE DEEM IT FIT TO REMIT THE ISSUE OF EXEMPTION IN THIS APPEAL BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OF FICER FOR RE-ADJUDICATION ON THE LINES INDICATED ABOVE. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER SHALL REQUIRE THE ASSESSEE; TO ESTABLISH WHO, WITH WHOM, HOW AND IN WHAT CIRCUMSTANCES THE IMPUGNED TRANSACTIONS WERE CARRIE D OUT ETC., TO PROVE THAT THE IMPUGNED TRANSACTIONS ARE ACTUAL, GENUINE ETC. THE ASSESSEE SHALL COMPLY WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICERS REQUIREME NTS AS PER LAW. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS ALSO FREE TO CONDUCT APPROPRIA TE ENQUIRY AS DEEMED FIT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL ALSO BRING ON RECOR D THE ROLE OF THE ASSESSEE IN PROMOTING THE COMPANY AND RELATIONSHIP OF THE ASSESSEE WITH OTHER PROMOTERS, ROLE OF THE ASSESSEE IN INFLA TING THE PRICE OF SHARES, ETC. AS HAD BEEN HELD BY THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF T HIS TRIBUNAL IN THE ITA NO. 3143/CHNY/2018 :- 9 -: CASE OF KANHAIYALAL & SONS (HUF) V. ITO IN I.T.A. NO. 1849/CHNY/2018, DATED 06.02.2019 REFERRED TO SUPRA. THE ASSESSING OF FICER SHALL FURNISH ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE ON THE MATERIA L ETC TO BE USED AGAINST HIM AND ON APPRECIATION OF ALL THE ASPECTS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WOULD DECIDE THE MATTER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. THUS , THE ISSUE OF EXEMPTION CLAIM U/S 10(38) IS RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR RE-ADJUDICATION ON THE LINES INDICATED ABOVE. 7. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS TREA TED AS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THE 11 TH DECEMBER, 2019 IN CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( ) (GEORGE MATHAN) /JUDICIAL MEMBER ( ) (S. JAYARAMAN) /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /CHENNAI, 0 /DATED: 11 TH DECEMBER, 2019. K S SUNDARAM ) '12 32 /COPY TO: 1. & /APPELLANT 4. 4 /CIT 2. '(& /RESPONDENT 5. 2 ' /DR 3. 4 ( ) /CIT(A) 6. /GF