ITO, CHENNAI V. Vijayaraghavan Charumathi, CHENNAI

ITA 3417/CHNY/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4541 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-05-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 20-12-2016
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SHIVA SRINIVAS
• Assessee Lawyers: SUNDARRAMAN
• Keywords: Capital asset; Gift; Salary income; Cost of acquisition
• Section: 143(3); 54

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME - TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, CHENNAI , . , BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ I T.A. NO. 3417 /MDS/201 6 / ASSESSMENT YEAR :20 1 3 - 1 4 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER , NON - CORPORATE WARD 16 ( 2 ) , CHENNAI 600 034. VS. SMT. VIJAYARAG H AVAN CHARUMATHI, PLOT NO. 986, TVS COLONY, ANNA NAGAR WEST EXTENSION, ANNA NAGAR CHENNAI 600 1 0 1 . [PAN: A GRPC3820B ] ( / APPELLANT ) ( / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI SHIVA SRINIVAS, JCIT / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SUNDAR RAMAN , C.A. / DATE O F HEARING : 0 2 . 0 3 .201 7 / DATE OF P RONOUNCEMENT : 26 . 0 5 .201 7 / O R D E R PER DUVVURU RL REDDY , JUDICIAL MEMBER : THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) 6 , C HENNAI DATED 1 3 . 0 7 .201 6 RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 1 2 - 1 3 . THE REVENUE HAS RAISED T HE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE COST OF ACQUISITION OF THE ASSET BE DETERMINED BY ADOPTING THE COST INFLATION INDEX OF THE Y EAR IN WHICH THE ASSET WAS ACQUIRED BY THE PREVIOUS OWNER AS AGAINST THE PROVISION OF CLAUSE (III) TO EXPLANATION TO SECTION 48. I.T.A. NO . 3417 /M/ 16 2 2. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING THE PROVISION OF SECTION 48 (EXPLANATION III) WHEREIN THE 'INDEXED COST OF ACQ UISITION' IS DEFINED THAT THE 'COST INFLATION INDEX' IS TO BE ADOPTED FOR THE FIRST YEAR IN WHICH IT WAS HELD BY THE ASSESSEE. 3. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN ALLOWING DEDUCTION U T S, 54EC OF RS.1.00 CRORE, WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 54EC WHICH STIPULATES THAT THE SAID DEDUCTION CANNOT EXCEED RS.50 LAKHS IN ANY FINANCIAL YEAR. 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT T HE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL AND FILE HER RETURN OF INCOME ON 27.07.2013 ADMITTING TOTAL INCOME OF .2,48,410/ - , WHICH CONSISTS OF INCOME FROM SALARY, HOUSE PROPERTY, CAPITAL GAINS AND OTHER SOURCES. THE RETURN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS PROCESSED UNDER SECTION 143(1) OF THE ACT. THEREAFTER, THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS TAKEN UP FOR SCRUTINY AND NOTICE U NDER SECTION 143(2) OF THE ACT DATED 02.09.2014 WAS SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE ON 05.09.2014. IN RESPONSE THERETO, THE ASSESSEE FILED ALL DETAILS AND AFTER VERIFICATION OF THE DETAILS AS WELL AS SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT DATED 28.01.2016 WAS COMPLETED BY ASSESSING TOTAL TAXABLE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AT .59,84,718 / - AFTER MAKING VARIOUS DISALLOWANCES. 3. THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND CASE LAW RELIED ON, THE LD. CIT(A) PARTLY ALLOWED THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSE E. 4. ON BEING AGGRIEVED, THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 5. WITH REG ARD TO THE FIRST ISSUE, THE ASS E SS EE BE CAME OWNER OF THE LAND AND BUILDING AT V - I. HIG III, LOOP STREET , KO T URPURAM , CHENNAI THROUGH THE I.T.A. NO . 3417 /M/ 16 3 S ETTLEMENT DEED DATED 22.01.2003 REGISTERED AS DOCUMENT N O . 88 /03 WITH SRO , ADYAR. THIS LAND WAS SOLD ON 13.03.2013 VIDE DOCUMENT NO.667/2013, REGISTERED WITH SRO, ADYAR FOR A TOTAL CONSIDERATION OF . 1,1 0,00,000/ - . THIS PROPERTY WAS ORIGINALLY ALLOTTED T O ONE LATE SHRI. T . GOVINDARAJAN BY TAMILNADU HOUSING BOARD ON 24.09.1982. LATE R, AS PER THE WILL OF LAT E SHRI T. GOVINDARAJAN, THE PROPERTY WAS INHERITED BY HIS WIFE SMT. JAYA GOVINDARAJAN, THE MOTHE R O F THE ASSE SS EE , WHO HAS SETTLED THE ABOVE PROPERTY TO THE ASSESSEE, ON 22.01.2003. THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED INDEXED COST OF ACQUISITION OF THE PROPERTY TAKING THE INDEX OF PREVIOUS OWNERS. 6. THE ASSESSEE'S REPRESENTATIVE WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN AS TO WH Y THE COST INFLATION INDEX SHOULD NOT BE TAKEN AS THAT OF FINANCIAL YEAR 2003 - 04 @ 447 , INSTEAD OF THE ONE CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSE E IN HER RETURN OF INCOME AS PER EXPLANATION (III) TO S EC TION 48 OF THE ACT, THE REPRESENTATIVE HAS RELIED ON THE JUDGMENT OF T HE HON'BLE MUMBAI HIGH COURT'S DECISION IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MANJULA J. SHAH AND ARUN SHUNGLOO TRUST , NEW DELHI VS. CIT AND ANOTHER. SINCE T HE HIGH C OURT OF BOMBAY'S DECISION IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MANJULA J, SHAH HAS NOT BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT AND SLP FILED IN SLP(C) NO.1992 4 OF 2012 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER, AS PER EXPLANATION (III) TO SECTION 48 OF THE ACT WORKED OUT INDEXED I.T.A. NO . 3417 /M/ 16 4 COST OF ACQUISITION FOR THE FIRST YEAR IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE WAS FIRST HELD THE PROPERTY AND DETERMINED THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS. 7. ON APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS OBSERVED AS UNDER: 6. REGARDING THE FIRST ISSUE OR THE INDEXED COST OF ACQUISITION OF THE PROPERTY, IT IS AN UNDISPUTED FACT THAT THE PROPERTY I.E., THE LAND AND THE BUILDING AT \ / - 1, HIG III LOOP STREET, KOTURPURAM, CHENNAI WAS RECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT BY WAY OF SETTLEMENT DEED DATED 21/01/2003 REGISTERED AS DOCUMENT. NO 88/03 WITH SRO, ADYAR. THIS PROPERTY WAS ORIGINALLY ALLOTTED TO ONE LATE SH. T. GONVINDARAJAN BY TAMILNAD U HOUSING BOARD ON 24/09/1982. LATER, AS PER THE WILL OF LATE SHRI T. GOVINDARAJAN, THE PROPERTY WAS INHERITED BY HIS WIFE SMT. JAYA GOVINDARAJAN, THE MOTHER OF THE ASSESSEE, WHO HAS SETTLED THE ABOVE PROPERTY TO THE APPELLANT ON 22.01.2003. ACCORDINGLY, T HE APPELLANT HAS CLAIMED INDEXED COST OF ACQUISITION OF THE PROPERTY TAKING THE INDEX IN THE HANDS OF THE PREVIOUS OWNER, I.E., HER MOTHER, FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 1982 - 83 @ 109. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE AO DID NOT ACCEPT THIS CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT AND BY IN TERPRETING THE PROVISIONS OF EXPLANATION (III) OF SECTION 48 APPLIED THE COST INFLATION INDEX OF FINANCIAL YEAR 2003 - 04 @ 447 DURING WHICH THE PROPERTY WAS SETTLED IN FAVOUR OF THE APPELLANT. 7. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND THE CASE LAWS REFERRED TO BY THE APPELLANT TO SUBSTANTIATE HER CLAIM. WHILE INTERPRETING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 48 OF THE ACT THE AO HAS PLACED MUCH EMPHASIS ON EXPLANATION (III) OF SECTION 48 WHICH STATES THAT FOR DETERMINING THE COST OF ACQUISITION OF CAPITAL ASSET TRANSFERRED, THE INDEXATION HAS TO BE WORKED OUT FOR THE FIRST YEAR IN WHICH THE ASSET WAS FIRST HELD BY THE ASSESSEE. THIS CONTENTION OF THE AO CANNOT BE CONSIDERED BY IGNORING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2 OF THE ACT WHICH EXPRESSLY PROVIDE THAT UNLESS TH E CONTEXT OTHERWISE REQUIRES, THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT HAD TO BE CONSTRUED AS PROVIDED UNDER SECTION 2 OF THE ACT. IN SECTION 48 OF THE ACT, THE EXPRESSION 'ASSET HELD BY THE ASSESSEE' IS NOT DEFINED AND, THEREFORE, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY INTENTION TO THE CONTRARY, THE EXPRESSION 'ASSET HELD BY THE ASSESSEE' IN CLAUSE (III) OF EXPLANATION TO SECTION 48' HAS TO BE CONSTRUED IN CONSONANCE WITH THE MEANING GIVEN IN SECTION 2(42A) OF THE ACT. IF THE MEANING GIVEN IN SECTION 2(42A) IS NOT ADOPTEE IN CONSTRUING T HE WORDS USED IN SECTION 48 OF THE ACT, THEN THE GAINS ARISING ON TRANSFER OF A CAPITAL ASSET ACQUIRED UNDER A GIFT OR WILL BE OUTSIDE THE PURVIEW OF THE CAPITAL GAINS TAX WHICH WAS NOT INTENDED BY THE LEGISLATURE. THEREFORE, THE ARGUMENT OF THE AO WHICH R UNS CONTRARY TO THE LEGISLATIVE INTENT, CANNOT BE ACCEPTED. 8. APART FROM THE ABOVE, SECTION 55(1)(B)(2)(II) OF THE ACT PROVIDES THAT WHERE THE CAPITAL ASSET BECAME THE PROPERTY OF THE ASSESSEE BY WAY OF THE I.T.A. NO . 3417 /M/ 16 5 MODES SPECIFIED IN SECTION 49(1), NOT ONLY TH E COST OF IMPROVEMENT IS COVERED BY THE ASSESSEE BUT ALSO THE COST OF IMPROVEMENT BY THE PREVIOUS OWNER SHALL BE DEDUCTED FROM THE TOTAL CONSIDERATION RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE WHILE COMPUTING THE CAPITAL GAINS UNDER SECTION 48 OF THE ACT. THE QUESTION OF D EDUCTING THE COST OF IMPROVEMENT BY THE PREVIOUS OWNERS IN THE CASE OF AN ASSESSEE COVERED UNDER SECTION 49 (1) WOULD ARISE ONLY IF THE PERIOD OR WHICH THE ASSET WAS HELD BY THE PREVIOUS OWNER IS INCLUDED IN DETERMINING THE PERIOD OR WHICH THE ASSET WAS HE LD BY THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, IT IS REASONABLE TO HOLD THAT IN THE CASE OF AN ASSESSEE COVERED UNDER SECTION 49(1), THE CAPITAL GAINS LIABILITY HAS TO BE COMPUTED BY CONSIDERING THAT THE ASSESSEE HELD THE SAID ASSET FROM THE DATE IT WAS HELD BY THE PREVIO US OWNER AND THE SAME ANALOGY HAS ALSO TO BE APPLIED IN DETERMINING THE INDEXED COST OF ACQUISITION. 9. THE SIMILAR VIEWPOINT HAS BEEN EXPRESSED BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY IN THE CASE OF CIT V. MANJULA J. SHAH IN 355 ITR 474 WHICH HAS BEEN RELI ED UPON BY THE APPELLANT AS WELL. THE HON'BLE ITAT, CHENNAI HAS ALSO FOLLOWED THE RATIO OF THIS JUDGEMENT IN ITS RECENT JUDGEMENTS. THEREFORE, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE JUDGEMENT OF THE HON'BLE COURTS, I CONFIRM THE CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT THAT THE A SSESSEE MUST BE TREATED TO HAVE HELD THE ASSET FROM 24/09/1982 AND ACCORDINGLY THE COST INFLATION INDEX FOR THE YEAR 1982 - 83 @109 BE ADOPTED IN CALCULATING THE LONG - TERM CAPITAL GAINS. 8. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH SIDES, PERUSED THE MATERIALS ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. WITH REGARD TO ADOPTION OF INDEXED COST OF ACQUISITION, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS OBSERVED THAT THE IMMOVABLE PROPERTY WHICH WAS SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN ACQUIRED BY WAY OF SETTLEMENT ON 22.01.2003 FROM HER MO THER, WHO INHERITED THROUGH A WILL OF LATE T. GOVINDARAJAN, WHO WAS ORIGINALLY GET ALLOTTED THE ABOVE PROPERTY FROM THE TNHB ON 24.09.1982. T HE ASSESSEE HAS ADOPTED THE INDEX NUMBER 109 APPLICABLE FOR THE YEAR 198 2 - 8 3. HOWEVER, IN VIEW OF THE EXPLANATION ( III) TO SECTION 48 OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS HELD THAT ONLY THE INDEX NUMBER 447 RELEVANT TO THE YEAR 200 3 - 04 , IN YEAR IN WHICH THE PREVIOUS OWNER I.E. ASSESSEE S MOTHER GIVEN THE PROPERTY THROUGH SETTLEMENT TO THE I.T.A. NO . 3417 /M/ 16 6 ASSESSEE SHOULD BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT FOR COMPUTING THE INDEXED COST OF ACQUISITION. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TAKEN THE COST INFLATION INDEX OF THE YEAR BY TAKING THE INDEX NUMBER 447 AND WORKED THE INDEXED COST OF ACQUISITION. B Y TAKING CUE FROM THE JUDGEMENT OF THE HON BLE MUMBAI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. MANJULA J. SHAH (SUPRA) , WHEREIN, AFTER ANALYZING THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND POSITION, IN LAW, LAID DOWN AN IMPORTANT LEGAL PREPOSITION THAT WHILE COMPUTING CAPITAL GAINS ARISING ON TRANSFER OF A CAPITAL ASSET AC QUIRED BY AN ASSESSEE UNDER A GIFT, INDEX COST OF ACQUISITION HAS TO BE COMPUTED WITH REFERENCE TO YEAR IN WHICH PREVIOUS OWNER FIRST HELD THE ASSET, AND NOT FROM THE YEAR IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE BECAME OWNER OF THAT ASSET, BY FOLLOWING THE ABOVE DECISION OF THE HON BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT, THE LD. CIT(A) HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE MUST BE TREATED TO HAVE HELD THE ASSET FROM 24.09.1982 AND ACCORDINGLY THE COST INFLATION INDEX FOR THE YEAR 1982 - 83 @109 BE ADOPTED IN CALCULATING THE LONG - TERM CAPITAL GAINS. 9. BEFOR E US, THE ONLY CONTENTION ADVANCED BY THE LD. DR IS THAT THE DEPARTMENT HAS NOT ACCEPTED THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF CIT V. MANJULA J. SHAH (SUPRA) AND PREFERRED SLP IN SLP(C) NO. 19924 OF 2012 BEFORE THE HON BLE SUPREME COURT CANNOT BE A GROUND TO TAKE A DIFFERENT VIEW UNTIL AND UNLESS THE DECISION OF THE HON BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IS MODIFIED OR REVERSED. THE ABOVE DECISION OF THE HON BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT WAS FURTHER CONCURRED BY THE HON BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ARUN SHUNGLOO I.T.A. NO . 3417 /M/ 16 7 TRUST V. CIT [2012 ] 205 TAXMAN 456 (DELHI). MOREOVER, T HE COORDINATE BENCHES OF THE TRIBUNAL HAS ALSO FOLLOWED THE ABOVE DECISION OF THE HIGH COURTS IN VARIOUS CASES AS QUOTED BY THE ASSESSEE IN HER PAPER BOOK. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE FIND NO REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE O RDERS OF THE LD. CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE AND THUS, THE GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 10 . THE NEXT GROUND RAISED IN THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN ALLOWING DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 54EC OF THE ACT OF .1 CRORE, WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 54EC OF THE ACT, WHICH STIPULATES THAT THE SAID DEDUCTION CANNOT EXCEED .50 LAKHS IN ANY FINANCIAL YEAR. 11 . THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 54EC OF THE ACT FOR THE INVESTMENT MAD E IN REC BONDS ON 19.03.2013 AND INVESTMENT IN NHAI BONDS ON 10.04.2013 EACH .50.00 LAKHS TOTALLING TO .1 CRORE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ELIGIBLE TO CLAIM EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 54EC OF THE ACT FOR .50 LAKHS ONLY. ON APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS OBSERVED FROM THE PERUSAL OF THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF SECTION 54 EC(1) AND PROVISO THERETO THAT, IT IS CLEAR THAT PRIOR TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2015 - 16, THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO CLAIM DEDUCTION OF MAXIMUM OF . 50 LAKHS EACH IN THE FINA NCIAL YEAR IN WHICH THE TRANSFER OF THE CAPITAL ASSET TOOK PLACE AND THE SUBSEQUENT FINANCIAL YEAR PROVIDED THE INVESTMENT IS MADE WITHIN SIX MONTHS I.T.A. NO . 3417 /M/ 16 8 FROM THE DATE OF TRANSFER OF THE CAPITAL ASSET. IN THE PRESENT CASE OF THE ASSESSEE, SHE HAS INVESTED .50 LAKHS IN REC BONDS ON 19.03.2013 AND . 50 LAKHS IN NHAI BONDS ON 10.04.2013. BOTH THE INVESTMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE WITHIN SIX MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF TRANSFER OF THE CAPITAL ASSET WHICH TOOK PLACE ON 13.03.2013. THEREFORE, BY FOLLOWING THE JUDGEMENT OF THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF C. JAICHANDER V. CIT IN TCA NO. 533 OF 2014, THE LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION. 12 . ON BEING AGGRIEVED, THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AND THE LD. DR HAS STRONGLY CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSE E IS ELIGIBLE TO CLAIM DEDUCTION .50 LAKHS AS PROVIDED UNDER SECTION 54EC OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, THE LD. CIT(A) WENT IN WRONG TO GRANT DEDUCTION OF .1 CRORE UNDER SECTION 54EC OF THE ACT. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) AND RELIED ON THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF C. JAICHANDER V. CIT (SUPRA). 13 . WE HAVE CONSIDER ED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS . T HE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 54EC OF THE ACT ARE VERY CLEAR THAT IN ONE FINANCIAL YEAR THE ASS ESSEE IS ELIGIBLE TO CLAIM DEDUCTION OF INVESTMENTS. IN THE PRESENT CASE, IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR 201 2 - 1 3 THE ASSESSEE HAS INVESTED .50 LAKHS IN REC BONDS ON 19.03.2013 AND CLAIMED DEDUCTION. SIMILARLY, IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2013 - 14, THE ASSESSEE HAS INVEST ED .50 LAKHS IN NHAI BONDS ON 10.04.2013 AND CLAIMED DEDUCTION. BOTH THE INVESTMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE WITHIN SIX MONTHS I.T.A. NO . 3417 /M/ 16 9 FROM THE DATE OF TRANSFER OF THE CAPITAL ASSET, WHICH TOOK PLACE ON 13.03.2013. IN THE CASE OF C. JAICHANDER V. CIT (SUPRA), THE HON BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT HAS HELD THAT AS PER FIRST PROVISO TO SECTION 54EC(1) OF THE ACT, THE TIME LIMIT FOR INVESTMENT IS SIX MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF TRANSFER AND EVEN IF SUCH INVESTMENTS FALLS UNDER TWO FINANCIAL YEARS, THE BENEFIT CLAIMED BY THE ASSES SEE CANNOT BE DENIED. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE JUDGEMENT OF THE HON BLE HIGH COURT, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION AND DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THUS, WE FIND NO REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDERS OF THE LD . CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE AND ACCORDINGLY, THE GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 14 . IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THE 26 TH MAY , 201 7 AT CHENNAI. SD/ - SD/ - (CHANDRA POOJARI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( DUVVURU RL REDDY ) JUDICIAL MEMBER CHENNAI, DATED, THE 26 . 0 5 .201 7 VM/ - / COPY TO: 1. / APPELLANT , 2. / RESPONDENT , 3. ( ) / CIT(A) , 4. / CIT , 5. / DR & 6. / GF .