P.Senthil Kumar, CHENNAI V. ITO, CHENNAI

ITA 3398/CHNY/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 130 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7707 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-02-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 14-02-2017
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 19-12-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DURAI
• Assessee Lawyers: T VASUDEVAN
• Keywords: Reasonable cause; Non compliance
• Section: 44AD; 40A(3); 273B

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH : CHENNAI . . . , !' . #$#% , & '' ( [BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ] ./I.T.A. NOS.3397 & 3398/MDS/2016 / ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2012-13. SHRI. P. SENTHIL KUMAR, P-2, HIG ADYAR APARTMENTS, KOTTUR GARDENS, CIRCULAR ROAD, KOTTURPURAM, CHENNAI 600 086. VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, NON CORPORATE WARD 3(3) CHENNAI. [PAN ABBPS 1019H] ( )* / APPELLANT) ( +,)* /RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI. T. VASUDEVAN, ADVOCATE /RESPONDENT BY : SHRI. DURAI PANDIAN, SR. A.R /DATE OF HEARING : 14-02-2017 ! /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 28-02-2017 / O R D E R PER ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THESE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST ORDERS DATED 20.10.2016 OF LD. COMMISSIONER OF IN COME-TAX (APPEALS)-4, CHENNAI FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YE AR. ITA NOS.3397 & 3398/MDS/16 :- 2 -: 2. FIRST APPEAL IS AGAINST DISALLOWANCE OF A38,44,069/ - U/S.40A(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT) WHICH WAS CONFIRMED BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (AP PEALS) WHEREAS SECOND APPEAL IS AGAINST LEVY OF PENALTY U/S.271B O F THE ACT WHICH WAS ALSO CONFIRMED BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TA X (APPEALS). 3. FACTS APROPOS IN ITA NO.3397/MDS/2016 ARE THAT ASSE SSEE ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF GRANITE BLOCKS HAD FILED RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR DISCLOSING INCOME OF A13,20,370/-. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, ASSESS EE PRODUCED BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WHICH WERE VERIFIED BY THE LD. A SSESSING OFFICER. AS PER LD. ASSESSING OFFICER ASSESSEE HAD WITHDRAWN CA SH OF A1,65,79,931/- THROUGH SELF CHEQUES FROM HIS ACCOUN T IN PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK, MYLAPORE BRANCH. THERE WERE ALSO CA SH WITHDRAWAL FROM TWO OTHER BANK ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH CAME A8,21,200/- AND A4,79,645/- RESPECTIVELY. LD ASSE SSING OFFICER THEREAFTER MADE ANALYSIS OF THE EXPENDITURE INCURRE D BY THE ASSESSEE THROUGH BANK. ACCORDING TO HIM, SUCH EXPENDITURE A GGREGATED TO A2,13,52,886/-. THEREAFTER HE MADE AN ANALYSIS TO F IND OUT PURCHASES MADE BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS Y EAR IN CASH AS UNDER:- ITA NOS.3397 & 3398/MDS/16 :- 3 -: A A TOTAL WITHDRAWALS IN CASH FROM BANK ACCOUNTS 1,78,80,776 TOTAL EXPENDITURE OTHER THAN PURCHASES 2,57,95,106 EXPENDITURE INCURRED THROUGH BANKING CHANNELS 2,13,52,886 LESS:EXPENDITURE INCURRED IN CASH 44,42,220 LESS: CASH PAYMENTS PERTAINING TO PURCHASES MADE IN FY 2010-2011 80,00,000 LESS: CASH DEBITED TO THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT 15,94,487 PURCHASES FOR WHICH PAYMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE IN CASH 38,44,069 AS PER LD. ASSESSING OFFICER ASSESSEE HAD VIOLATED SEC. 40A(3) OF THE ACT IN MAKING CASH PAYMENTS OF A38,44,069/-. HE MA DE AN ADDITION OF THE SAID AMOUNT AND COMPLETED ASSESSMENT. 4. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE MOVED IN APPEAL BEFORE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). THOUGH NOBODY APPEARED FOR THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IT SEEMS ASSESSEE MADE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS WHEREIN IT WAS ARGUED THAT BONAFIDE AND GENUINE EXPENDITURE COULD NOT BE DISAL LOWED U/S.40A(3) OF THE ACT. AS PER ASSESSEE SITUATIONS COVERED BY OF RULE 6DD OF INCOME TAX RULES WAS ONLY ILLUSTRATIVE AND NOT EX HAUSTIVE. RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE JUDGMENT OF SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF ATTAR SINGH GURMUKH SINGH VS. ITO, 191 ITR 667 AND THAT OF HONBLE DELHI ITA NOS.3397 & 3398/MDS/16 :- 4 -: HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF BASU DISTRIBUTOR VS. ITO 292 ITR 29. LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) DISPOSED OF TH E APPEAL CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND TOO K A VIEW THAT ASSESSEES CASE DID NOT FIT IN ANY OF THE CLAUSES O F RULE 6DD OF THE INCOME TAX RULES. AACCORDING TO HIM, JUDGMENT OF A PEX COURT IN THE CASE OF ATTAR SINGH GURMUKH SINGH (SUPRA) WAS IN FAVOUR OF REVENUE. LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) NOTED THAT HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF BASU DISTRIBUTOR (SUPRA) HAD HIGHLIGHTED THE ONUS PLACED ON THE ASSESSEE FOR SUBSTANTIATING ITS CLAIM OF EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES, WHICH WOULD ABSOLVE IT FROM APPLICA TION OF SEC. 40A(3) OF THE ACT. HE THUS UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE LD. AS SESSING OFFICER. 5. NOW BEFORE US, LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE SUBMIT TED THAT ASSESSEE HAD PRODUCED BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS BUT LD. AS SESSING OFFICER HAD PROCEEDED ON AN INVERSE MANNER FOR COMPUTING T HE CASH PAYMENTS. ACCORDING TO HIM, ACTUAL EXPENDITURE IN C ASH CAME WAS MUCH LESS AND NONE OF IT WERE RELATED TO PURCHASES . ACCORDING TO HIM, SEC. 40A(3) OF THE ACT COULD NOT BE APPLIED. 6. PER CONTRA, LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE STRONG LY SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 7. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSE D THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE METHODOLOGY AD OPTED BY THE LD. ITA NOS.3397 & 3398/MDS/16 :- 5 -: ASSESSING OFFICER FOR COMPUTING CASH EXPENDITURE O F THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN PRODUCED BY US IN PARA 3 ABOVE. SECTION 40A (3) OF THE ACT WHICH HAS BEEN APPLIED IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER:- WHERE THE ASSESSEE INCURS ANY EXPENDITURE IN RESPECT OF WHICH A PAYMENT OR AGGREGATE OF PAYMENTS MADE TO A PERSON IN A DAY, OTHERWISE THAN BY AN ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUE DRAWN ON A BANK OR ACCOUNT PAYEE BANK DRAFT, EXCEEDS TWENTY THOUSAND RUPEES, NO DEDUCTION SHALL BE ALLOWED IN RESPECT OF SUCH EXPENDITURE. IT IS NOT DISPUTED THAT ASSESSEE HAS PRODUCED BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS BEFORE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER. IN FACT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER SPECIFICALLY STATES SO. RIGOURS OF SEC. 40A(3) OF THE ACT IS ATTRACTED ONLY WHERE PAYMENTS IN RELATION TO EXPENDITURE EXCEEDED A 20,000/- IN A DAY TO A PERSON. IN OUR OPINION, METHODOLOGY ADOPTED BY THE LD. ASSE SSING OFFICER WAS INCORRECT AND LD. ASSESSING OFFICER OUGHT HAVE COMP ILED THE INSTANCES OF CASH PAYMENTS IF ANY IN EXCESS OF THE LIMITS, FR OM THE CASH BOOK MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE. THEREAFTER HE SHOULD HA VE CALLED FOR EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE, IN EACH CASE FOR WHICH THERE WAS EXCESS CASH PAYMENT. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E CASE, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE ISSUE REQUIRES A FRESH LOOK BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER. WE SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHO RITIES AND REMIT THE QUESTION REGARDING DISALLOWANCE IF ANY, WHICH IS NE EDED U/S.40A(3) OF ITA NOS.3397 & 3398/MDS/16 :- 6 -: THE ACT BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LD. ASSESSING OFFIC ER FOR CONSIDERATION AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. 8. NOW, WE TAKE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO.3398/MDS/2016. 9. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT LEVY OF PENALTY U/S.271B OF THE ACT WAS NOT WARRANTED UNDER THE FAC TS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. ACCORDING TO HIM, ASSES SEE HAD FILED RETURN OF INCOME ELECTRONICALLY ON 31.03.2013 ALONGWITH A UDIT REPORTS IN FORM 3CB AND 3CD AS MANDATED U/S.44AB OF THE ACT. CONTEN TION OF THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE WAS THAT AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT SUCH AUDIT REPORTS WERE AVAILABLE WITH THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER. LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT ACCOUNTANT OF THE COMPANY HAD RESIGNED IN THE MONTH OF AUGUST, 2012 AND ASSES SEE HAD TO ENGAGE A NEW ACCOUNTANT. AS PER LD. AUTHORISED REPR ESENTATIVE THE BOOKS AND ACCOUNTING PAPERS WERE IN DISARRAY AND IT TOOK LOT OF TIME TO PREPARE THE ACCOUNTS. THUS, ACCORDING TO HIM, THER E WAS NO INTENTION NOR ANY DELIBERATE ATTEMPT TO DELAY THE AUDIT. CO NTENTION OF THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE WAS THAT THERE WERE REASO NABLE CAUSE FOR NOT GETTING THE AUDIT COMPLETED IN TIME AND THEREFO RE LEVY OF PENALTY U/S.271B OF THE ACT WAS NOT WARRANTED. ITA NOS.3397 & 3398/MDS/16 :- 7 -: 10. CONTRA, LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE WAS HABITUALLY LATE IN FILING TAX AUDIT RE PORT. EVEN FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-2012, ASSESSEE HAD FILED AUDIT REPORT BEYOND THE STIPULATED TIME. FURTHER, ACCORDING TO LD. DEP ARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, RESIGNATION OF AN EMPLOYEE FROM AN ORGANIZATION COULD HARDLY BE CITED AS A REASON FOR DELAY IN AUDIT C ONDUCTED. THUS, ACCORDING TO HIM, LEVY OF PENALTY WAS RIGHTLY DONE BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER. 11. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSE D THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. IT IS NOT DISPUTE D THAT ASSESSEE HAD FILED AUDIT REPORT U/S. 44AB OF THE ACT ALONGWITH R ETURN OF INCOME ON 31.03.2013. THE REASON CITED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR D ELAY IN CONDUCTING THE AUDIT WAS AS UNDER:- MY ACCOUNTANT HAD SUDDENLY RESIGNED AND LEFT WIT HOUT NOTICE DURING THE MONTH OF AUGUST, 2012 (FINANCIAL YEAR 11-12/ASST. YEAR 12-13). I HAD TO ENGAGE A NEW ACC OUNT AND COMPILE THE ALL ACCOUNTING DATA WITH ENORMOUS EFFORT. MANY FILES AND ACCOUNTING PAPERS WERE IN DISARRAY A ND IT TOOK LOTS OF TIME TO PREPARE THE ACCOUNTS AND FILE THE RETURNS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 . SECTION 44AB OF THE ACT IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER:- ITA NOS.3397 & 3398/MDS/16 :- 8 -: EVERY PERSON, (A) CARRYING ON BUSINESS SHALL, IF HIS TOTAL SALES, TURNOVER OR GROSS RECEIPTS, AS THE CASE MAY BE, IN BUSINESS EXC EED OR EXCEEDS ONE CRORE RUPEES IN ANY PREVIOUS YEAR ; OR (B) CARRYING ON PROFESSION SHALL, IF HIS GROSS RECE IPTS IN PROFESSION EXCEED TWENTY-FIVE LAKH RUPEES IN ANY PR EVIOUS YEAR, OR (C) CARRYING ON THE BUSINESS SHALL, IF THE PROFITS AND GAINS FROM THE BUSINESS ARE DEEMED TO BE THE PROFITS AND GAINS OF SUCH PERSON UNDER SECTION 44AE OR SECTION 44BB O R SECTION 44BBB, AS THE CASE MAY BE, AND HE HAS CLAIM ED HIS INCOME TO BE LOWER THAN THE PROFITS OR GAINS SO DEE MED TO BE THE PROFITS AND GAINS OF HIS BUSINESS, AS THE CA SE MAY BE, IN ANY PREVIOUS YEAR ; OR, (D) CARRYING ON THE BUSINESS SHALL, IF THE PROFITS AND GAINS FROM THE BUSINESS ARE DEEMED TO BE THE PROFITS AND GAINS OF SUCH PERSON UNDER SECTION 44AD AND HE HAS CLAIME D SUCH INCOME TO BE LOWER THAN THE PROFITS AND GAINS SO DEEMED TO BE THE PROFITS AND GAINS OF HIS BUSINESS AND HIS INCOME EXCEEDS THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT WHICH IS NOT CHARGEABLE TO INCOME-TAX IN ANY PREVIOUS YEAR, GET HIS ACCOUNTS OF SUCH PREVIOUS YEAR AUDITED BY A N ACCOUNTANT BEFORE THE SPECIFIED DATE AND FURNISH BY THAT DATE THE REPORT OF SUCH AUDIT IN THE PRESCRIBED FOR M DULY SIGNED AND VERIFIED BY SUCH ACCOUNTANT AND SETTING FORTH SUCH PARTICULARS AS MAY BE PRESCRIBED : GET HIS ACCOUNTS OF SUCH PREVIOUS YEAR AUDITED BY A N ACCOUNTANT BEFORE THE SPECIFIED DATE AND FURNISH BY THAT DATE THE REPORT OF SUCH AUDIT IN THE PRESCRIBED FOR M DULY SIGNED AND VERIFIED BY SUCH ACCOUNTANT AND SETTING FORTH SUCH PARTICULARS AS MAY BE PRESCRIBED : PROVIDED THAT THIS SECTION SHALL NOT APPLY TO THE P ERSON, WHO DERIVES INCOME OF THE NATURE REFERRED TO IN SEC TION 44B OR SECTION 44BBA, ON AND FROM THE 1ST DAY OF AP RIL, 1985, OR, AS THE CASE MAY BE, THE DATE ON WHICH THE RELEVANT SECTION CAME INTO FORCE, WHICHEVER IS LATE R : ITA NOS.3397 & 3398/MDS/16 :- 9 -: PROVIDED FURTHER THAT IN A CASE WHERE SUCH PERSON I S REQUIRED BY OR UNDER ANY OTHER LAW TO GET HIS ACCOU NTS AUDITED, IT SHALL BE SUFFICIENT COMPLIANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION IF SUCH PERSON GETS THE ACCOUNTS OF SUCH BUSINESS OR PROFESSION AUDITED UNDER SUCH L AW BEFORE THE SPECIFIED DATE AND 4FURNISHES BY THAT DA TE THE REPORT OF THE AUDIT AS REQUIRED UNDER SUCH OTHER LA W AND A FURTHER REPORT BY AN ACCOUNTANT IN THE FORM PRESCRI BED UNDER THIS SECTION. EXPLANATION FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION, (I) ACCOUNTANT SHALL HAVE THE SAME MEANING AS IN THE EXPLANATION BELOW SUB-SECTION (2) OF SECTION 288 ; (II) SPECIFIED DATE, IN RELATION TO THE ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO AN ASSESS MENT YEAR, MEANS THE DUE DATE FOR FURNISHING THE RETURN OF INCOME UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 139. DEFINITION OF SPECIFIED DATE CLEARLY REQUIRES AN AS SESSEE TO FILE THE AUDIT REPORT BEFORE THE DUE DATE FOR FURNISHING THE RETURN OF INCOME U/S.139(1) OF THE ACT. IT IS NOT DISPUTED THAT ASS ESSEE HAD NOT FILED SUCH AUDIT REPORT BEFORE THE SAID DATE. AN ASSESSE E CAN VERY WELL FILE THE AUDIT REPORT, SEPARATELY. FILING OF SUCH AUDIT REPORT AND FILING OF THE RETURN OF INCOME ARE INDEPENDENT REQUIREMENTS . SEC. 271B OF THE ACT IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER:- IF ANY PERSON FAILS, TO GET HIS ACCOUNTS AUDITED IN RESPECT OF ANY PREVIOUS YEAR OR YEARS RELEVANT TO AN ASSESS MENT YEAR OR FURNISH A REPORT OF SUCH AUDIT AS REQUIRED UNDER SECTION 44AB, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAY DIRECT THAT SUCH PERSON SHALL PAY, BY WAY OF PENALTY, A SUM EQUAL TO ONE- HALF PER CENT. OF THE TOTAL SALES, TURNOVER OR GROS S RECEIPTS, AS THE CASE MAY BE, IN BUSINESS, OR OF THE GROSS RE CEIPTS IN PROFESSION, IN SUCH PREVIOUS YEAR OR YEARS OR A SUM OF ONE ITA NOS.3397 & 3398/MDS/16 :- 10 -: HUNDRED FIFTY THOUSAND RUPEES, WHICHEVER IS LESS. ALLEVIATING SEC. 273B IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER:- NOTWITHSTANDING ANYTHING CONTAINED IN THE PROVISI ONS OF CLAUSE (B) OF SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 271, SECTI ON 271A, SECTION 271AA, SECTION 271B, SECTION 271BA, SECTION 271BB, SECTION 271C, SECTION 271CA, SECTION 271D, SECTION 271E, SECTION 271F, SECTION 271FA, SECTION 271FB, SECTION 271G, SECTION 271H, SECTION 271-I, CLAUSE (C) OR CLAUSE ( D) OF SUB- SECTION (1) OR SUB-SECTION (2) OF SECTION 272A, SUB -SECTION (1) OF SECTION 272AA OR SECTION 272B OR SUB-SECTION (1) OR SUB-SECTION 1A) OF SECTION 272BB OR SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 272BBB OR CLAUSE (B) OF SUB-SECTION (1) OR CLAUSE (B) OR CLAUSE (C) OF SUB-SECTION (2) OF SECTION 273 , NO PENALTY SHALL BE IMPOSABLE ON THE PERSON OR THE ASS ESSEE, AS THE CASE MAY BE, FOR ANY FAILURE REFERRED TO IN THE SAID PROVISIONS IF HE PROVES THAT THERE WAS REASONABLE C AUSE FOR THE SAID FAILURE. THUS TO GET OUT OF THE RIGOURS OF SEC. 271B OF THE ACT, IT IS REQUIRED FOR AN ASSESSEE TO SHOW THAT THERE WERE REASONABLE CAUSE FOR THE FAILURE TO CONDUCT THE AUDIT UNDER SECTION 44AB OF THE ACT AND TO FURNISH THE REPORTS. THE QUESTION THAT HAS TO BE AN SWERED BY US, WHETHER THE REASON SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH HAS BEEN REPRODUCED BY US ABOVE IS A REASONABLE ONE. IT IS NOT SUFFICIENT THAT AN EXPLANATION IS GIVEN. SUCH EXPLANATION HAS TO BE PROVED AND SUBSTANTIATED. NOTHING HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE ASSESSEE TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS ARGUMENT THAT ITS ACCOUNTANT HAD R ESIGNED OR TO SHOW THAT NON COMPLIANCE WITH THE STATUTORY PROVISIONS WAS DUE TO ITA NOS.3397 & 3398/MDS/16 :- 11 -: DIFFICULTIES BEYOND THE CONTROL. ASSESSEE WAS IN TH E BUSINESS SINCE MANY YEARS. FOR THE PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR ALS O ASSESSEE HAD FILED ITS TAX AUDIT REPORT BELATEDLY. WE ARE THUS OF THE OPINION THAT ASSESSEE COULD NOT BRING OUT ANY REASON WHICH COULD BE TERMED AS REASONABLE. IN OUR OPINION, LEVY OF PENALTY U/S.27 1B OF THE ACT WAS JUSTIFIED. WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. 12. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO.3397/MDS/2016 IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE WHEREAS ITS APPEAL IN ITA NO.3398/MDS/2016 IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON TUESDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF FEB RUARY 2017, AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( . . . ' ) (N.R.S. GANESAN) / JUDICIAL MEMBER ( !' . #$#% ) (ABRAHAM P. GEORGE) & / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER #$ / CHENNAI %& / DATED: 28TH FEBRUARY, 2017 KV &' ()*) / COPY TO: 1 . / APPELLANT 3. +,' / CIT(A) 5. )-. / / DR 2. / RESPONDENT 4. + / CIT 6. .01 / GF