Professional Access Software Development Private Limited, Navi Mumbai V. DCIT, CHENNAI

ITA 3305/CHNY/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 130 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7929 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-02-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 31-01-2017
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 05-12-2016
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PATHALAVATH PEERYA
• Assessee Lawyers: SANDEEP S KARHAIL
• Keywords: Transfer pricing; International transaction; Extension of stay; Wholly owned subsidiary; Notional interest
• Section: 143(3); 234B

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH : CHENNAI , ! ' ! # . $ % &' BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY , JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A.NO.3305/MDS./2016 & S.P. NO.20/MDS./2017 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012-13 M/S.PROFESSIONAL ACCESS SOFTWAE DEVELOPMENT PVT LTD ., TOWER NO.5, 3 RD TO 6 TH FLOOR, INTERNATIONAL INFOTECH PARK, VASHI, NAVI MUMBAI 400 075. VS. THE DCIT, CIRCLE 5(2), CHENNAI. [PAN AACCP 6523 C] ( () / APPELLANT) ( *+() /RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : MR.SANDEEP S.KARHAIL, ADVOCATE /RESPONDENT BY : MR.PATHALAVATH PEERYA, CIT D.R / DATE OF HEARING : 31 - 01 - 201 7 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 09 - 02 - 2017 , / O R D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE DIRECTIONS OF OF THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION PANEL-2 (DRP), BANGALO RE, DATED 25.08.2016 U/S. 143(3) R.W.S.92CA R.W.S.144C OF THE ACT, WHICH WAS ITA NO.3305/16 S.P.NO.20/17 :- 2 -: PASSED IN CONSEQUENT TO THE DRAFT ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 04.03.2016 FOR A.Y 2012-13. THE ASSESSEE ALSO FILED STAY PETIT ION FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 SEEKING EXTENSION OF STAY FOR OUTSTAN DING DISPUTED DEMAND OF ` 4,37,34,260/- TILL THE DISPOSAL OF THE APPEAL. SIN CE ISSUES INVOLVED IN THIS APPEAL AND THE STAY PETITIONS ARE INTER LINKED, THIS APPEAL AND STAY PETITION ARE CLUBBED TOGETHER, HEAR D TOGETHER, DISPOSED OFF BY THIS COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF C ONVENIENCE. 2. THE FIRST ISSUE RAISED IN ITS APPEAL RELATING T O GROUND NOS. 2 TO 6 IS WITH REGARD TO TRANSFER PRICING (T.P) ADJUS TMENTS ON ACCOUNT OF NOTIONAL INTEREST ON RECEIVABLES FROM ASSOCIATED EN TERPRISES (A.E). 3. THE FACTS OF THE ISSUE RE THAT TRANSFER PRICING OFFICER (TPO) NOTED THAT AVERAGE CREDIT PERIOD ALLOWED BY THE ASS ESSEE TO THE AE ON THE RECEIVABLES IS VERY LONGER PERIOD AS COMPARED T O THAT OF THE COMPARABLE COMPANIES. THUS, THE TPO FOUND THAT TW O AES OF THE ASSESSEE IS GETTING BENEFIT OF MAKING THE LATE PAYM ENTS TO THE ASSESSEE AND THAT BENEFIT WAS GIVEN TO THE AE BY TH E ASSESSEE, WHICH RESULTED IN REDUCTION OF INCOME OF ASSESSEE, WHICH NECESSITATED THE T.P ADJUSTMENTS BY THE TPO. ACCORDINGLY, THE TPO ADOPT ING THE PRIME LENDING RATE (PLR) FOR THE RELEVANT PERIOD TO THE P REVIOUS YEAR AT 14.40%; THE ADJUSTMENTS WAS PROPOSED FOR THE ESTIMA TE PERIOD FOR ITA NO.3305/16 S.P.NO.20/17 :- 3 -: CREDIT BEYOND THE PAYMENT DULY, IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE, CONSIDERING THE AVERAGE CREDIT PERIOD ALLOWED IN T HE CASE OF COMPARABLE WORKED OUT AT AVERAGE 90 DAYS. HOWEVER, THE DRP GIVEN A DIRECTION TO COMPUTE THE NOTIONAL INTEREST ON REC EIVABLES TO THE AE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, WHICH IS O UTSTANDING BEYOND THE PERIOD OF 90 DAYS AS ON 31.03.2012 @ 12.75% PER ANNUM. AGAINST THIS, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 4. BEFORE US, THE LD.A.R SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE I S A WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDIARY OF M/S.3I INFOTECH LIMITED, INDIA. DURI NG AY 2012 -13 THE ASSESSEE PROVIDED SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES TO ITS FELLOW SUBSIDIARY PROFESSIONAL ACCESS LIMITED USA. BY FINAL ASSESSMEN T ORDER DATED 27 TH SEPTEMBER 2016 TRANSFER PRICING ADDITION OF RS. 2,5 9,77,241/- TO RETURNED INCOME. FURTHER, LD.A.R SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS MAINLY INVOLVED IN PROVISION OF SOFTWARE SERVICES. TRANSFER PRICING OF FICER HELD THAT OUTSTANDING RECEIVABLES AS A SEPARATE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION OF INTEREST-FREE ADVANCES TO AES AND THAT THE SAME CANNOT BE TREATED AS PART OF TRANSACTION OF SERVICES FOR BENCHMARKING PURPOSES. THUS EVEN WHILE NOT FIND ING ANY FAULT IN THE TP ANALYSIS AND BENCHMARKING OF INTERNATIONAL TRANSACT ION OF SERVICES IS CARRIED OUT BY ASSESSEE INCLUDING MAKING WORKING CAPITAL AD JUSTMENT, TPO ADOPTED PRIME LENDING RATE OF 14.4% AND PROPOSED AN ADJUSTM ENT OF RS 11.10 CRORES TO TOTAL INCOME. BEFORE THE DRP PROCEEDINGS, DETAIL ED OBJECTIONS WERE FILED BY APPELLANT CONTESTING APPROACH OF TREATING OUTSTA NDING RECEIVABLES OF THE ITA NO.3305/16 S.P.NO.20/17 :- 4 -: SEPARATE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION ALTHOUGH CLOSELY AND INEXTRICABLY LINKED TO THE MAIN TRANSACTION OF PROVISION OF SOFTWARE DEVE LOPMENT SERVICES WHICH ARE FOUND TO BE AT ARMS LENGTH AFTER MAKING NECESS ARY ADJUSTMENTS ON ACCOUNT OF WORKING CAPITAL. APPELLANT ALSO OBJECTED TO QUANTIFICATION OF INTEREST WELL BEYOND A PERIOD OF PREVIOUS YEAR UNDE R CONSIDERATION BY APPLICATION OF PRIME LENDING RATE. ACCORDING TO LD .A.R, APPLYING TNNM, THE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION OF PROVISION OF SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES HAS RESULTED IN MARGIN OF 33.92% AS AGAINST ADJUSTED MA RGIN OF 24.07% BY COMPARABLE COMPANIES. HE HAS ALSO INVITED OUR ATTEN TION TO PAGE 28 OF THE OBJECTIONS BEFORE DRP WHEREIN DETAILED EXPLANATION WAS OFFERED ON HOW THE INTEREST COSTS TOWARDS RECEIVABLES COULD BE EMBEDDE D IN THE PRICE OF MAIN TRANSACTION. FURTHER, LD.A.R PLACED RELIANCE IN THE DECISION OF THIS HONBLE TRIBUNAL IN FOXTEQ SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED I TA 174 OF 2016 (REPORTED IN 74 TAXMANN.COM 216) WHEREIN AT PARA 7 IT IS NOTE D WORKING CAPITAL IS ONE OF THE RELEVANT FACTORS FOR DETERMINING ARMS LENGT H PRICE. WITHOUT TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION WORKING CAPITAL, TRIBUNAL IS OF THE VIEW THAT NO TP ADJUSTMENT CAN BE MADE. THUS NOT ONLY THE RELEVANC E OF WORKING CAPITAL ADJUSTMENT BUT THE NECESSITY OF IT HAS BEEN RIGHTLY EMPHASISED. THE LD.A.R SUBMITTED THAT BEFORE DRP, THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THE CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH EVEN AES DID NOT CHARGE INTEREST FROM ULTIMA TE THIRD- PARTY CUSTOMERS-AT PAGE 44 REFERENCE WAS ALSO INVITED TO SUBMISSION MADE BEFORE TPO DATED 5TH OCTOBER 2015. A REFERENCE TO PAGE 45 OF THE DETAILED OBJECTIONS BEFORE DRP ALSO SHOWS THAT THE APPELLANT IS A ZERO DEBT COMPANY AND DOES NOT HAVE ANY BORROWINGS INVOLVING PAYMENT OF INTEREST. IN THIS ITA NO.3305/16 S.P.NO.20/17 :- 5 -: CONTEXT, LD.A.R RELIED IN DECISION OF HONBR TRIBU NAL TO DECISION OF HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF BECHTEL ITA NO 379 OF 2016 CONFIRMING THE PRINCIPLE LAID DOWN BY HONBLE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENC H IN ITA NO.1478/DEL/2015. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT BY ORDER DA TED 25 AUGUST 2016, DRP GRANTED PARTIAL RELIEF BY REDUCING THE RATE TO BE APPLIED FROM 14.4% TO 12.75% IN FURTHER DIRECTING TPO TO DELETE INTEREST BEYOND 31 MARCH 2012. IT WAS SUBMISSION OF ASSESSEE THAT ALL THE RELEVANT RE CORDS INCLUDING FINANCIAL STATEMENTS WERE SUBMITTED, CONSIDERED AND FINDINGS RECORDED BY TPO & DRP DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT. THIS IS FURTHER EV IDENCED BY ANNEXURE ATTACHED TO TPOS ORDER. ONLY DISPUTED ISSUE FOR CO NSIDERATION IN PRESENT APPEAL BEFORE HONBLE TRIBUNAL IS WHETHER TP ADJUST MENT ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST ON OUTSTANDING RECEIVABLES IS SUSTAINABLE IN CASE OF DEBT FREE ENTITY, MORE SO, WHEN WORKING CAPITAL ADJUSTMENT CLAIMED BY TAXPAYER HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY TPO? THIS ISSUE HAS BEEN PRINCIPALLY DE CIDED IN FAVOUR OF TAXPAYER BY HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN BECHTEL (SU PRA) AND THERE EXISTS NO ADVERSE CONTRARY DECISION OF ANY OTHER HIGH COURT, THEREFORE, APPELLANT RESPECTFULLY PRAYS FOR APPLICATION OF SIMILAR PRINC IPLES IN THIS CASE AND DELETION OF ADJUSTMENT MADE BY TPO. FURTHER, LD.A.R RELIED IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SMT..GODAVARI DEVI SARAJ, IN 113 TR 589(BOM.). 5. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD.D.R REFERRED THE AMENDMEN T IN EXPLANATION-2 OF THE ACT AND SUBMITTED THAT RECEIVABLES FALL UNDE R THE DEFINITION OF INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION. HE ALSO REFERRED THE ME MORANDUM OF FINANCE BILL, 2012 WHEREBY THE EXPLANATION TO SEC.92B HAS BEEN IN SERTED AND SUBMITTED ITA NO.3305/16 S.P.NO.20/17 :- 6 -: THAT THE DEFINITION OF TERM INTERNATIONAL TAXATION HAS BEEN EXPLAINED AND INCLUDES THE CAPITAL FINANCING, INCLUDING ANY TYPE OF LONG-TERM OR SHORT-TERM BORROWING, LENDING OR GUARANTEE, PURCHASE OR SALE O F MARKETABLE SECURITIES OR ANY TYPE OF ADVANCE, PAYMENTS OR DEFERRED PAYMEN T OR RECEIVABLE OR ANY OTHER DEBT ARISING DURING THE COURSE OF BUSINESS. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE DEFERRED PAYMENT OR RECEIVABLES OR DEBT ARISING DUR ING THE COURSE OF BUSINESS IS COVERED UNDER THE EXPRESSION INTERNATI ONAL TAXATION. AS PER CLAUSE (C) OF EXPLANATIONTO SEC.92B OF THE ACT. IN SUPPORT OF THAT HE RELIED ON THE JUDGEMENT OF BANGALORE BENCH IN THE CASE OF LOGIX MICRO SYSTEM LTD., VS. ACIT IN 42 SOT 525. LD.D.R SURHTER SUBM ITTED THAT AFTER INSERTION OF EXPLANATION TO SEC.92B OF THE ACT, THE DECISION RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE CASE OF NIMBUS COMMUNICATIONS LTD. BECOME IRRELEVANT. HE RELIED ON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS:- I) IN THE CASE OF TECHBOOKS INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD. , IN ITA NO.240/DEL./2015 FOR A.Y 2010-11 DATED 6 TH JULY, 2015 II) IN THE CASE OF AMERIPRISE INDIA PVT. LTD. IN I TA NOS. 2010 & 2575/DEL./2014 A.Y 2009-10 DATED 14.09.2015. 6. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. IN THIS CASE, HUGE AMOUNT OF RECEIVABLES WERE OUTST ANDING AT THE END OF THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR. THE RECEIVABLES DUE FROM A E WAS CONSIDERED BY THE TPO/AO AS INTERNATIONAL TAXATION. THE AO CONSIDERE D THAT THE AVERAGE PERIOD OF CREDIT COULD BE AT 90 DAYS AND THE RECEIV ABLES OUTSTANDING FOR MORE THAN 90 DAYS WAS CONSIDERED FOR CHARGING INTER EST ON WHICH THE DRP ITA NO.3305/16 S.P.NO.20/17 :- 7 -: CALCULATED THE INTEREST @ 12.75% PER ANNUM. THE MA IN CONTENTION OF THE LD.A.R IS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A ZERO DEBT COMPANY AND RUNNING ITS BUSINESS WITH HIS OWN FUND AND THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT AT ALL P AYING INTEREST IN INDIA FOR BORROWED FUNDS. FURTHER, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT PRO FIT MARGIN OF ASSESSEE COMPANY WAS HIGHER THAN THE COMPARABLE COMPANY. AS SUCH THERE CANNOT BE ANY TP ADJUSTMENTS TOWARDS NOTIONAL INTEREST ON RECEIVABLES. WE FIND THAT THE SAID EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEES COUN SEL IS RATHER LOGICAL THAN SUBSTANTIVE. THEREFORE, THE OBSERVATION OF THE LOW ER AUTHORITIES CANNOT BE IGNORED ONLY ON THE BASIS OF ABOVE ARGUMENT ADVANCE D BY THE LD.A.R. FURTHER, THE ARGUMENT WAS MADE BEFORE US THAT THE A SSESSEES AE ALSO GIVING LONGER CREDIT PERIOD TO ITS CUSTOMERS AND AE WAS NOT BENEFITED BY EXTENDING THE CREDIT PERIOD TO THE ASSESSEE AND THE AE IMMEDIATELY REMITTED THE AMOUNT TO THE ASSESSEE AS AND WHEN RECEIVED FRO M ITS CUSTOMERS. SINCE THE ASSESSEE IS NOT HAVING ANY DEALING WITH THE CUS TOMER OF THE AE, THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE A PARTY FOR THE DELAY PAYMENT BY AE CUSTOMERS. IT IS FOR THE AE TO SEE THAT ITS CUSTOMERS ARE PAYING IN TIME SO THAT IT CAN PAY THE ASSESSEE IN TIME. IF THE ASSESSEES CONTENTION IS ACCEPTED, IT WOULD ALSO MEAN THAT THE AE HAS NO WORKING CAPITAL OF ITS OWN TO PAY THE ASSESSEE IN TIME. IN OTHER WORDS, THE AE WAS DOING ITS BUSINESS USING THE CAPITAL OF THE ASSESSEE. THE AE COLLECTS MONEY FROM ITS CLIENTS EV EN BEYOND THE NORMAL PERIOD, WHICH SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS FINANCING ITS AE BY ACCOMMODATING THE DELAYED REMITTANCE. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE A SSESSEE PARKED A HUGE AMOUNT OF FUNDS FOR A LONGER PERIOD WITH ITS AE. I T WAS ONLY BECAUSE THE PRICING OF INTERNATIONAL TAXATION HAS BEEN ACCEPTED FOR ALP TEST, IT IS NOT ITA NO.3305/16 S.P.NO.20/17 :- 8 -: POSSIBLE TO HOLD THAT THE TPO SHOULD NOT GO INTO TH IS QUESTION OF PARKING OF HUGE FUNDS WITH ITS AE. IF THE FUNDS ARE REPATRIATE D TO INDIA, THE ASSESSEE WOULD HAVE BEEN IN A POSITION TO EARN BETTER PROFIT FROM APPROPRIATE INVESTMENT OF THOSE REPATRIATED FUNDS. THIS POTENTI AL LOSS IS DEFINITELY A FACTOR TO BE CONSIDERED WHILE EVALUATING THE FINANC IAL IMPACT OF THE INTERNATIONAL TAXATION CONCLUDED BY THE ASSESSEE W ITH ITS AE. THEREFORE, IN OUR OPINION, IT IS REQUIRED TO KEEP THE TP ADJUSTME NTS TOWARDS NOTIONAL INTEREST ON RECEIVABLES. THE PURPOSE OF TP ADJUSTME NTS IS IN THE LARGER CONTEXT OF ANTI-EVASION MEASURES. THE OUTSTANDING BALANCE OF THE RECEIVABLES FROM THE AE DID NOT GENERATE OUT OF DOM ESTIC TRANSACTIONS. THOSE RECEIVABLES DID GENERATE FROM INTERNATIONAL T RANSACTIONS CARRIED ON BY THE ASSESSEE WITH ITS AE OUTSIDE INDIA. THEREFORE, THERE IS NO BASIS FOR ARGUMENT THAT NO ADJUSTMENT COULD BE MADE TOWARDS N OTIONAL INTEREST OR RECEIVABLES FROM AE. THE OUTSTANDING RECEIVABLES F ROM AE IS FINANCIAL RESULT OF INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS CONCLUDED BY THE ASSE SSEE AND THEREFORE, THE INCOME EFFECT ARISING, IF ANY, TO THAT OUTSTANDING RECEIVABLES IS VERY MUCH RELEVANT ASPECT OF ALP. THEREFORE, THE TPO IS HAVIN G THE JURISDICTION TO EXAMINE THE ISSUE OF OUTSTANDING RECEIVABLES OR NON -CHARGING INTEREST THEREON. IN VIEW OF THIS, THE GROUNDS NOS. 1 TO 6 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE HAVE NO MERIT. 6.1 FURTHER BEFORE US, LD.A.R SUBMITTED THAT IN V IEW OF THE JUDGMENTS OF BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SMT..GODA VARI DEVI SARAJ, IN 113 TR 589(BOM.) AND SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF PARA S LAMINATES IN 4 SCC 453 AND DECISION OF CO-ORDINATE BENCH IN THE CASE O F FOXTEQ, BECHTEL SO AS ITA NO.3305/16 S.P.NO.20/17 :- 9 -: TO HOLD THAT THERE CAN BE NO SEPARATE TRANSFER PRI CING ADJUSTMENTS TOWARDS NOTIONAL INTEREST ON OUTSTANDING RECEIVABLES. IN OU R OPINION, THE CASES RELIED BY THE ASSESSEES COUNSEL IN THE DECISION OF DELHI BENCH IN ITA NO.1478/DEL./2015 IN THE CASE OF BECHTEL INDIA PV T LTD., CONFIRMED BY THE DELHI HIGH COURT IN ITA NO.379 OF 2016 DATED 21.07 .2016 WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE EXTENDED THE CREDIT PERIOD OF 60 DAYS TO I TS AE AND CHARGING NO INTEREST ON THE SAME. WE HAVE ALSO GONE THROUGH TH E OTHER JUDGEMENTS RELIED BY LD.A.R. HOWEVER, IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE CREDIT PERIOD EXTEND BY THE ASSESSEE TO ITS AE IS VERY LONGER PERIOD, SOMET IME IT IS MORE THAN ONE YEAR. HENCE, CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE THE RATIO LAID DOWN IN THE ABOVE CASE LAW CANNOT BE APPLIED. FURTHER, IF T HE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE SIMILAR, THE RATIO FOLLOWS WITH A LOGIC IN THE HIGH COURT DECISION, THEN DECISION OF THE HIGH COURT IS BINDING ON THE TRIBUNAL IN CIT VS. BAI SHIRINBAI K. KOOKA, BOMBAY [1956] 30 ITR 753 (BOM),. THIS GROUND IS REJECTED. 7. THE NEXT ISSUE IS WITH REGARD TO RE-CHACTERIZIN G THE OUTSTANDING RECEIVABLES AS A LOAN ADVANCED BY THE ASSESSEE TO I TS A.E.S. 8. IN VIEW OF OUR DISCUSSION IN EARLIER PARAS, IN OUR OPINION THIS GROUND DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY ADJUDICATION. HENCE, THIS GROU NDS STANDS DISMISSED. 9. THE LAST GROUND IS WITH REGARD TO LEVY OF INTER EST U/S.234B & 234 C OF THE ACT. AS REGARDS INTEREST U/S. 234B & 234C OF THE ACT IS CONSEQUENTIAL AND MANDATORY IN NATURE AND TO BE CHA RGED ACCORDINGLY. ITA NO.3305/16 S.P.NO.20/17 :- 10 - : 10. SINCE WE HAVE DISPOSED OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE STAY PETITION PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE BECOMES INF RUCTUOUS AND IS DISMISSED ACCORDINGLY. 11. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AS WELL ASSESSEE THE STAY PETITION IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 09 TH FEBRUARY, 2017, AT CHENNAI. SD/ - SD/ - ( ! ' ! # . $ ) ( DUVVURU RL REDDY ) ) % / JUDICIAL MEMBER ( ) (CHANDRA POOJARI) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER '# / CHENNAI $%& / DATED: 09 TH FEBRUARY, 2017. K S SUNDARAM '%( )* +* / COPY TO: 1 . / APPELLANT 3. ' ' , ( ) / CIT(A) 5. *-. / / DR 2. / RESPONDENT 4. ' ' , / CIT 6. .0 1 / GF