DCIT, CHENNAI V. Saravana Selvarathinam Trdg and Mfg. (P) Ltd., CHENNAI

ITA 358/CHNY/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8755 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-08-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 21-06-2016
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 16-02-2016
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SUPRIYO PAL
• Assessee Lawyers: K M MOHANDASS
• Keywords: Gross profit estimation

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH : CHENNAI . . . , . !' , # $ % [ BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ] ./ I.T.A.NO.2202/MDS/2015 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012-13 M/S SARAVANA SELVARATHNAM TRADING & MANUFACTURING P. LTD NO.14, RANGANATHAN STREET T. NAGAR, CHENNAI 600 017 VS. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE IV(2) CHENNAI [PAN AAGCS 3757 J] ( &' / APPELLANT) ( ()&' /RESPONDENT) ./ I.T.A.NO.358/MDS/2016 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012-13 THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAXCENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2) CHENNAI VS. M/S SARAVANA SELVARATHNAM TRADING & MANUFACTURING P. LTD NO.14, RANGANATHAN STREET T. NAGAR, CHENNAI 600 017 ( &' / APPELLANT) ( ()&' /RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI K.M.MOHANDASS, CA DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI SUPRIYO PAL, JCIT / DATE OF HEARING : 2 - 0 6 - 2016 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 11 - 08 - 2016 / O R D E R PER N.R.S.GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER BOTH THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE REVENUE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE SAME ORDER OF THE COMMISSION ER OF INCOME-TAX ITA NO.2202/15 & 358/16 :- 2 -: (APPEALS-18, CHENNAI, DATED 23.9.2015 FOR ASSESSMEN T YEAR 2012-13. THEREFORE, WE HEARD THEM TOGETHER AND DISPOSE OF BY THIS COMMON ORDER. 2. THE ONLY ISSUE ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION IN THE ASS ESSEES APPEAL IS DISALLOWANCE OF ` 1,86,24,839/- BEING THE LOSS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF EMBEZZLEMENT OF CASH BY AN E MPLOYEE. 3. SHRI K.M.MOHANDASS, LD. REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASS ESSEE SUBMITTED THAT A SUM OF ` 1,86,24,839/- WAS DEBITED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT AS BAD DEBT. THE AS SESSEE EXPLAINED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT ONE SHRI ARUMUGAM SWAMY, A FORMER EMPLOYEE OF THE ASSESSEE HAD EMBEZZLED CASH TO THE EXTENT OF ` 1,86,24,839/- DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 WH ICH WAS NOT WRITTEN OFF DURING THAT ASSESSMENT YEAR, THEREFORE, IT WAS WRITTEN OFF DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE SAID SHRI ARUMUGAMSW AMY WAS ALSO ONE OF THE DIRECTOR OF THE COMPANY REPRESENTING THE EMP LOYEES AND HE WAS MANAGING THE DAY-TO-DAY AFFAIRS. SHRI ARUMUGAMS WAMY HAS SYSTEMATICALLY EMBEZZLED THE CASH ON DAY-TO-DAY BAS IS TO THE EXTENT OF 240 LAKHS. THIS EMBEZZLEMENT OF CASH BY SHRI ARUM UGAMSWAMY WAS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF INTERNAL AUDIT CHECK. CONSEQUENTLY, THE ABOVESAID SHRI ARUMUGAMSWAMY WAS REMOVED FROM THE D IRECTORSHIP ITA NO.2202/15 & 358/16 :- 3 -: ON 21.2.2007. THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE FURTHER SUBMI TTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED CIVIL SUIT AGAINST SHRI ARUMUGAM SWAMY TO RECOVER THE MONEY AND ALSO FILED A CRIMINAL COMPLAINT BEFOR E THE METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE FOR EMBEZZLEMENT OF CASH. SINCE THE ASS ESSEE-COMPANY COULD NOT RECOVERED THE EMBEZZLED AMOUNT INSPITE OF CIVIL AND CRIMINAL PROSECUTION INITIATED AGAINST SHRI ARUMUGAMSWAMY, T HE NET EMBEZZLED AMOUNT OF ` 1,86,24,839/- WAS WRITTEN OFF IN THE BOOKS OF ACCO UNT AS BAD DEBT. ACCORDING TO THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE, THE SAID AMOUNT OF ` 1,86,24,839/- WAS TAKEN AS INCOME IN THE EARLIER AS SESSMENT YEARS. MERELY BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE USED THE NOMENCLATURE AS BAD DEBT, IT WOULD NOT LOSE THE CHARACTER AS BUSINESS LOSS. ACCORDING TO THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE, THE AMOUNT OF EMBEZZLED CASH BY THE EMPLOYEE IN THE COURSE OF BUSINESS ACTIVITY OF THE ASSESSEE HAS TO BE ALLOWED AS BUSINESS LOSS. THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASS ESSEE INVITED THE ATTENTION OF THE BENCH TO THE CRIMINAL COMPLAINT FI LED BEFORE THE XVII METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, CHENNAI. THE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT IS AVAILABLE IN THE PAPER BOOK. 4. ON THE CONTRARY, SHRI SUPRIYO PAL, LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THE SAID AMOUNT EMBEZZLED BY THE EMPLOYEE AS BAD DEBT. REFERRING T O SEC. 36 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961, THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE CONDITIONS FOR ITA NO.2202/15 & 358/16 :- 4 -: CLAIMING THE BAD DEBT WERE NOT COMPLIED WITH, THERE FORE, THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE ALLOWED AS BAD DEBT. HENCE , THE CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY CONFIRMED THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSE SSING OFFICER. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EITHER SIDE AND ALSO PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. DURI NG THE COURSE OF INTERNAL AUDIT CHECK, THE ASSESSEE FOUND THAT ONE OF THE EMPLOYEE DIRECTOR EMBEZZLED AN AMOUNT OF ` 240 LAKHS. IMMEDIATELY THE SAID EMPLOYEE WAS REMOVED FROM DIRECTORSHIP AND STEPS WE RE TAKEN TO RECOVER THE AMOUNT BY WAY OF CIVIL AND CRIMINAL PRO CEEDINGS. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED A CRIMINAL COMPLAINT BEFORE THE XVII METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, CHENNAI. THE PROSECUTION IS STILL PEND ING BEFORE THE METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE. THE QUESTION ARISES FOR C ONSIDERATION IS WHEN THERE WAS AN EMBEZZLEMENT OF CASH BY THE EMPLOYEE O F THE ASSESSEE IN THE COURSE OF THE BUSINESS ACTIVITY WHETHER IT C OULD BE ALLOWED AS A BAD DEBT OR NOT? FOR THE PURPOSE OF CLAIMING A DEB T AS BAD, THE CONDITIONS PRESCRIBED U/S 36(2) OF THE ACT HAVE TO BE COMPLIED WITH. IN THE CASE BEFORE US, THE CONDITIONS PRESCRIBED U/ S 36(2) OF THE ACT WERE NOT COMPLIED WITH, THEREFORE, THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE ALLOWED AS BAD DEBT. HOWEVER, IT IS A LOSS SUFFERE D IN THE COURSE OF BUSINESS ACTIVITY AND IT IS INEVITABLE LOSS IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. WHEN THE ASSESSEE TRUSTED SHRI ARUMUGAMSWAMY AND A LLOWED HIM TO ITA NO.2202/15 & 358/16 :- 5 -: MANAGE THE DAY-TO-DAY AFFAIRS, EMBEZZLED THE CASH T O THE EXTENT OF ` 240 LAKHS. THE NET EMBEZZLED AMOUNT COMES TO ` 1,86,24,839/-. THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE EMBEZZLED CASH BY SHRI ARUMUGAMSWAMY IN THE COURSE OF BUSINESS ACTIVI TY HAS TO BE ALLOWED AS BUSINESS LOSS. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, TH IS TRIBUNAL IS UNABLE TO UPHOLD THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. ACC ORDINGLY, THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES ARE SET ASIDE AND THE ASSE SSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO ALLOW THE EMBEZZLED CASH OF ` 1,86,24,839/- BY SHRI ARUMUGAMSWAMY AS BUSINESS LOSS. 6. NOW COMING TO THE REVENUES APPEAL, THE FIRST ISSUE ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION IS ADDITION OF ` 88,76,731/- TOWARDS EXCESS STOCK. 7. SHRI SUPRIYO PAL, THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASS ESSING OFFICER FOUND EXCESS STOCK OF ` 59,78,471/- DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OPERATION. IN FACT, THE SUPERVISOR OF THE SHOWROOM, SHRI SIV AKUMAR ACCEPTED THE STOCK DIFFERENCE IN HIS SWORN STATEMEN T RECORDED ON 18.8.2011. SHRI SARAVANAN ARUL HAS ALSO ACCEPTED T HE STOCK DIFFERENCE OF ` 59,78,471/- IN HIS SWORN STATEMENT RECORDED ON 18. 8.2011. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS THAT THE COST OF THE AVAILABLE STOCK ON THE DATE OF SEARCH WAS TAKEN ON THE BASIS OF THE TAG PRICE WITHOUT REDUCING THE PROFIT RATIO. ACCORDINGLY, THE COST PR ICE OF THE PHYSICAL STOCK WAS WORKED OUT TO ` 7,52,66,952/- BY REDUCING THE AVERAGE ITA NO.2202/15 & 358/16 :- 6 -: GROSS PROFIT FROM THE VALUE OF PHYSICAL STOCK. ACC ORDINGLY, THE DEFICIENT STOCK WAS WORKED OUT TO ` 62,74,289/-. AFTER CONSIDERING THE CLOSING STOCK AS PER THE TALLY ACCOUNT, THE STOCK FOUND AT THE TIME OF SEARCH OPERATION WAS TO THE EXTENT OF ` 7,52,66,952/-. HOWEVER, THE CLOSING STOCK AS PER THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WAS ONLY TO THE E XTENT OF ` 4,27,50,479/-. THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES FOUND EXCES S STOCK OF ` 3,25,16,473/- AND AFTER CONSIDERING THE ALLOWANCES THE EXCESS STOCK WAS ULTIMATELY QUANTIFIED AT ` 2,36,39,741/-. THIS WAS IN FACT ADMITTED BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR OF THE COMPANY SHRI SARAVA NAN ARUL. THEREFORE, THE CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 8. ON THE CONTRARY, SHRI K.M.MOHANDASS, LD. REPRESENTA TIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAG ED IN THE BUSINESS OF TRADING IN TEXTILES, READYMADE APPARELS AND CONS UMER GOODS. THE ASSESSEE VALUED THE CLOSING STOCK AT THE END OF EVE RY FINANCIAL YEAR AFTER REDUCING GROSS PROFIT. ACCORDING TO THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE, THE CLOSING STOCK WAS VALUED BY REDUCING THE GROSS PROF IT MARGIN FROM THE MRP VALUE OF THE STOCK AVAILABLE AT THE END OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR. THE AGGREGATE TAG PRICE OF THE STOCK ON THE DATE OF SEA RCH WAS COMPUTED AT ` 8,75,19,712/- AND THE COST PRICE OF THE PHYSICAL S TOCK WAS ` 7,52,66,952/- AFTER REDUCING THE MARGIN OF 14% ON T HE TAG PRICE. THE ITA NO.2202/15 & 358/16 :- 7 -: LD. REPRESENTATIVE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSES SEE-COMPANY IS MAINTAINING ACCOUNT IN TALLY SOFTWARE AND SALES WER E RECORDED THROUGH A SEPARATE SYSTEM AND UPDATED IN THE TALLY SOFTWARE ON PERIODICAL BASIS. THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE FURTHER SUBMITTED TH AT THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO TAKEN 14% GROSS PROFIT RATIO FOR COMPU TING THE PHYSICAL STOCK WHILE ARRIVING AT THE EXACT STOCK. THE ASSES SING OFFICER HAS ADOPTED 20% AS GROSS PROFIT RATIO WHICH RESULTED I N THE EXCESS STOCK OF ` 3,25,16,473/- AS AGAINST THE ACTUAL FIGURE OF ` 1,48,54,638/-. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS ALREADY OFFERED A SUM OF ` 2,36,39,742/- TOWARDS EXCESS STOCK, THERE CANNOT BE ANY FURTHER A DDITION. THEREFORE, THE CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 9. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EITHER SIDE AND ALSO PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. DUR ING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OPERATIONO, THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES FOUND EX CESS STOCK IN THE SHOWROOM OF THE ASSESSEE. BOTH THE ASSESSEE AND THE REVENUE VALUED THE EXCESS STOCK BY REDUCING THE GROSS PROFI T MARGIN FROM MRP VALUE OF THE STOCK AVAILABLE AT THE END OF THE FINA NCIAL YEAR. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALSO TAKEN 14% AS GROSS PROFI T ON THE TAG PRICE FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING THE VALUE OF THE STOCK . AS RIGHTLY SUBMITTED BY THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESS EE, WHILE ARRIVING AT ITA NO.2202/15 & 358/16 :- 8 -: THE EXCESS STOCK, THE ASSESSING OFFICER INSTEAD OF 14% HAS ADOPTED 20% AS GROSS PROFIT RATIO WHICH RESULTED IN THE EXC ESS STOCK OF ` 3,25,16,473/-. THEREFORE, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE ADDITION OF ` 88,76,731/- IS UNWARRANTED. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDER ED OPINION THAT THE CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY DELETED THE ADDITION. THEREFORE , THIS TRIBUNAL DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND ACCORDINGLY, THE SAME IS CONFIRMED. 10. THE NEXT ISSUE IS WITH REGARD TO ADDITION OF ` 1,48,54,638/- ON ACCOUNT OF FALL IN GROSS PROFIT RATE. 11. SHRI SUPRIYO PAL, LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER FOUND SUBSTANTIAL REDUCTION IN THE GROSS PROFIT DUR ING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. REFERRING TO THE GROSS PROFIT RATIO SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE FROM ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07, THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER FOUND THAT THE GROSS PROFIT RATE SHOWN FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION IS CONSIDERABLY LESS WHEN COMPARED TO EARLIER ASSESSME NT YEARS. ACCORDING TO THE LD. DR, IT IS A NORMAL TRADE PRACT ICE TO DETERMINE THE CLOSING STOCK AT THE END OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR. WH EN THE ASSESSEE IS VALUING THE CLOSING STOCK BASED UPON THE GROSS PROF IT RATE, ACCORDING TO THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE, THE ASSESSEE CANNOT GO BEY OND CERTAIN LIMIT WHICH WAS ADMITTED IN THE EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS. THE LD. DR ITA NO.2202/15 & 358/16 :- 9 -: FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT VALUE OF CLOSING STOCK IS TH E BASIS FOR DETERMINATION OF GROSS PROFIT IN ANY TRADE. IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE, IT IS IN THE REVERSED TREND. THEREFORE, REDUCTION IN THE GROSS PROFIT RATIO FOR THE CURRENT YEAR GIVES SUSPICION. ACCORDING TO THE LD. DR, IN ORDER TO CIRCUMVENT THE DISCLOSURE OF EXCESS STOCK FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OPERATION, THE ASSESSEE WAS D ISCLOSING LOWER GROSS PROFIT THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS R IGHTLY MADE ADDITION OF ` 1,48,54,638/-. 12. THE LD. DR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT(A) HAVING ACCEPTED THE ASSESSEES WORKING AS PER THE GROSS P ROFIT RATE SHOWN AT 21%, FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE AMOUNT OF ` 2,36,742/- WHICH WAS OFFERED AS EXCESS STOCK INCLUDED IN THE CLOSING STO CK AS WELL AS GROSS PROFIT. THE LD. DR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT( A) HAS NOT EXAMINED THE FACT OF ADDITION TO GROSS PROFIT AND CLOSING ST OCK WHILE DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. AS PER THE CALCULATION MADE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE GROSS PROFIT RATE WORKED TO 17.15%, HOWEVER, AS PER THE CALCULATION SUBMITTED BY THE A SSESSEE BEFORE THE CIT(A), IT WORKS OUT TO 21%. THEREFORE, THE CIT(A) OUGHT NOT TO HAVE DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 13. ON THE CONTRARY, SHRI K..MOHANDASS, LD. REPRESENTAT IVE FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE DECLARED THE GROSS PROFIT OF ITA NO.2202/15 & 358/16 :- 10 -: 12.92% WHICH WAS FOUND TO BE LESS THAN THE AVERAGE GROSS PROFIT MARGIN SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE EARLIER ASSES SMENT YEARS. ACCORDING TO THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE, WHILE COMPARI NG THE GROSS PROFIT MARGIN OF THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT CONS IDERED THE EXCESS STOCK FOUND AND OFFERED FOR TAXATION DURING THE YEA R UNDER CONSIDERATION. ACCORDING TO THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE , THE EXCESS STOCK OFFERED FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION TO THE EXT ENT OF ` 2,36,39,742/- WAS NOT CONSIDERED BY THE ASSESSING O FFICER. IF THE EXCESS STOCK DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS TAKEN IN TO CONSIDERATION, THE PROFIT MARGIN WOULD BE 21% AND NOT 12.92%. THE REFORE, THE CIT(A) FOUND THAT IF THE EXCESS STOCK OF ` 2,36,39,742/- WAS CONSIDERED, THE PROFIT MARGIN OF THE ASSESSEE WOUL D BE 21% WHICH IS MORE THAN THE AVERAGE GROSS PROFIT RATIO OF 18% DEC LARED BY THE ASSE IN THE EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS. ACCORDING TO THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE, THE CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 14. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EITHER SIDE AND ALSO PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS OFFERED EXCESS STOCK OF ` 2,36,39,742/- FOR TAXATION. THIS EXCESS STOCK IS NOTHING BUT PROFIT OF THE ASS ESSEE. THEREFORE, THIS EXCESS STOCK HAS TO BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION WHI LE ESTIMATING THE ITA NO.2202/15 & 358/16 :- 11 -: GROSS PROFIT. AS RIGHTLY SUBMITTED BY THE LD. REPR ESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE IF THE EXCESS STOCK OF ` 2,36,39,742/- WAS TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION, THE GROSS PROFIT MARGIN OF THE ASSE SSEE WOULD COME TO 21% WHICH IS ADMITTEDLY MORE THAN THE AVERAGE GROSS PROFIT RATIO SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE @ 18% FOR THE EARLIER ASSESS MENT YEARS. THEREFORE, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPIN ION THAT THE CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESS ING OFFICER. THIS TRIBUNAL DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH T HE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND ACCORDINGLY, THE SAME IS CONFIRMED. 15. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLO WED AND THAT OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 11 TH AUGUST, 2016, AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( . !' ) (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) # / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( . . . ) ) (N.R.S. GANESAN) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / CHENNAI ! / DATED: 11 TH AUGUST, 2016 RD !' # $% &% / COPY TO: 1 . '( / APPELLANT 4. ) / CIT 2. #*'( / RESPONDENT 5. %+, # - / DR 3. ) () / CIT(A) 6. ,/ 0 / GF ITA NO.2202/15 & 358/16 :- 12 -: