Myung Sung India Precision Pvt Limited, Kancheepuram V. ACIT, CHENNAI

ITA 428/CHNY/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9428 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-04-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 26-02-2016
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P RADHAKRISHNANJCIT
• Assessee Lawyers: N S RAGHUNATHAN
• Keywords: Transfer pricing; International transaction; Bonafide belief; Reasonable cause
• Section: 273B; 143(3); 92E; 11; 92

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, CHENNAI ... , , , BEFORE SHRI N.R.S.GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ I.T.A.NOS.427 TO 430 /MDS./2016 ( / ASSESSMENT YEARS :2007-08 TO 2010-11) M/S. MYUNG SUNG INDIA PRECISION PVT LTD ., 101/55,THANDALAM VILLAGE, SRIPERUMBUDUR TALUK, KANCHIPURAM DISTT 602 117. VS. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COMPANY CIRCLE-IV(3), NUNGAMBAKKAM HIGH ROAD, CHENNAI-34. PAN AAECM 7514 J ( / APPELLANT ) ( / RESPONDENT ) !' # $ / APPELLANT BY : MR.N.S.RAGHUNATHAN ADVOCATE %&!' # $ / RESPONDENT BY : MR.P.RADHAKRISHNAN,JCIT, D.R ' ( # )* / DATE OF HEARING : 19.04.2016 +, # )* /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 29.04.2016 / O R D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: ALL THESE FOUR APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECT ED AGAINST THE COMMON ORDER OF THE CIT(A)-8, CHENNAI, DATED 02.11. 2015 FOR ITA NOS.427 TO 430/MDS/2016 2 ASSESSMENT YEARS 2007-08 TO 2010-11 . SINCE COMMON ISSUES ARISE IN ALL THESE APPEALS, THESE WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY THIS COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CO NVENIENCE. 2. THE ONLY GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IN THESE AP PEALS IS WITH REGARD TO CONFIRMING THE PENALTY LEVIED U/S.271BA O F THE ACT BY THE CIT(A) FOR FAILURE OF FURNISH A REPORT FROM ACCOUNT ANT AS REQUIRED BY SEC.92E OF THE ACT AT ` 1 LAKH FOR EACH ASSESSMENT YEARS. 3. THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN ALL THESE APPEALS ARE S IMILAR THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME RELEVANT IN THE ASS ESSMENT YEARS 2007-08 TO 2010-11. SHOW CAUSE NOTICES WERE ISSUED ON 04.07.2012 AS TO WHY PENALTY U/S.271BA SHOULD NOT BE LEVIED IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE FOR BELATED FILING OF FORM NO.3CEB FOR ALL THESE ASSESSMENT YEARS. IN RESPONSE, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED TO THE A O THAT THE FORM NO.3CEB WAS OBTAINED WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED DUE DATE BUT DID NOT FURNISH THE SAME TO THE ITO UNDER A BONA FIDE BELIE F THAT THE ELECTRONIC FILING OF THE RELEVANT INFORMATION IN TH E TAX TETURN IS SUFFICIENT. THE AO REJECTED THE ASSESSEES EXPLANA TION AS NOT ACCEPTABLE AND PASSED ORDERS U/S.271BA LEVYING PENA LTY OF ITA NOS.427 TO 430/MDS/2016 3 ` 1,00,000/- EACH FOR ALL THESE ASSESSMENT YEARS UNDE R CONSIDERATION. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE WAS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD .CIT(A). ON APPEAL, THE LD.CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE LEVY OF PENALTY BY PLACING RELIANCE ON THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE O F M/S.NECTAR LIFESCIENCES LTD. VS. DCIT REPORTED IN 55 SOT 93 (U RO) (NEW DELHI) WHEREIN HELD THAT NON-FILING OF AUDIT REPORT IN FOR M NO.3CEB IN RESPECT OF INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS CERTIFYING CL AIM OF ASSESSEE, ON OR BEFORE DUE DATE FOR FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME JUSTIFIES LEVY OF PENALTY U/S.271BA OF THE ACT. AGAINST THIS, THE AS SESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 4. THE LD.A.R SUBMITTED THAT LEVY OF PENALTY U/S.2 71BA IS NOT AN AUTOMATIC AND IT SHOULD BE GOVERNED BY THE PROVISIO NS OF THE SECTION 273 OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY, LD.A.R SUBMITTED THAT FORM NO.3CEB WAS OBTAINED WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED DUE DATE, BUT DI D NOT FURNISH THE SAME TO THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT UNDER A BONA FID E BELIEF THAT THE ELECTRONIC FILING OF RELEVANT INFORMATION IN TH E TAX RETURN IS SUFFICIENT. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE SIMILAR ISSUE WAS CONSIDERED BY THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS.M/S .NIPPO BATTERIES COL. LTD., IN ITA NO.1137 & 1138/MDS./201 0 FOR ASSESSMENT ITA NOS.427 TO 430/MDS/2016 4 YEAR 2005-06 VIDE ORDER DATED 18.09.2012 WHEREIN HE LD THAT PENALTY LEVIED U/S.271G AND U/S.271AA OF THE ACT FOLLOWING THE EARLIER DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEE'S OWN CASE IN ITA NOS.1180 & 1181/MDS/2011 DATED 09.03.2012 OBSERVING AS FOLLOWS :- 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. A PE RUSAL OF THE ORDER OF THE TPO IN THE PRESENT CASE PASSED U/S 92 OF THE ACT DATED 20.09.2009 CLEARLY SHOWS THAT NO ADJUSTMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE. A PERUSAL OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICES LEVIED U/ S 271AA AND 271G SHOWS THAT THERE IS NO SPECIFIC INDICATION AS TO THE DOCUMENTS WHICH WERE NOT FURNISHED. IN FACT, THE OR DER OF THE TPO SHOWS THAT THE DETAILS WERE CALLED FOR AND THE ASSE SSEE HAD SUBMITTED THE DETAILS. FURTHER PERUSAL OF THE ORDER OF THE TPO SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD BEEN ASKED TO PROVIDE T HE DETAILS IN 30 DAYS. HOWEVER, THE DETAILS HAD BEEN PRODUCED WIT H DELAY OF SIX MONTHS. A PERUSAL OF THE ORDER OF THE ID. CIT(A) CL EARLY SHOWS THAT THE REASON FOR DELAY IN PRODUCING THE DOCUMENTS WAS THE RESIGNATION OF THE SECRETARY AND THIS CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN FOUND TO BE FALSE. THE ASSESSEE ADMITTEDLY IS A CORPORATE ENTITY. THE ASSESSEE CAN FUNCTION ONLY THROUGH ITS EMPLOYEES. IF AN EMPLOYEE LEAVES THE SERVICES OF THE ASSESSEE COMPAN Y GETTING ANOTHER EMPLOYEE TO TAKE OVER THE JOB AND GET ACCLI MATIZED AND FAMILIAR TO THE FUNCTIONS ORIGINALLY DONE BY THE EA RLIER EMPLOYEE WOULD TAKE TIME. THIS WOULD BE A REASONABLE CAUSE. IT IS NOTICED THAT THE ID. CIT(A) HAS ALSO ACCEPTED THIS AS REASO NABLE CAUSE. THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO NOT BEEN FOUND T O BE FALSE. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ID . CIT(A) WAS RIGHT IN DELETING BOTH THE PENALTIES U/S 271AA AND 271G OF THE ACT. OUR VIEW IS ALSO SUPPORTED BY THE DECISION OF THE C O-ORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SSLTTK LTD REF ERRED TO SUPRA. ITA NOS.427 TO 430/MDS/2016 5 IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE REVEN UE ARE DISMISSED. FURTHER, THE LD.A.R RELIED ON THE ORDER OF DELHI TR IBUNAL IN THE CASE OF M/S.OPEN TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PVT. LTD. VS. DCIT IN I TA NO.1688/DEL./2010 VIDE ORDER DATED 15.06.2010 WHERE IN PENALTY LEVIED U/S.271B WAS HELD BY OBSERVING AS FOLLOWS:- 6.2 WE CAN GAINFULLY REFER TO THE PROVISION OF SEC TIONS 92E AND 271BA WHICH READ AS UNDER: 92E. EVERY PERSON WHO HAS ENTERED INTO AN INTERN ATIONAL TRANSACTION DURING A PREVIOUS YEAR SHALL OBTAIN A REPORT FROM A N ACCOUNTANT AND FURNISH SUCH REPORT ON OR BEFORE THE SPECIFIED DATE IN THE PRESCRIBED FORM DULY SIGNED AND VERIFIED IN THE PRESCRIBED MAN NER BY SUCH ACCOUNTANT AND SETTING FORTH SUCH PARTICULARS AS MA Y BE PRESCRIBED. 271BA IF ANY PERSON FAILS TO FURNISH A REPORT FRO M AN ACCOUNTANT AS REQUIRED BY SECTION 92E, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAY DIRECT THAT SUCH PERSON SHALL PAY, BY WAY OF PENALTY, A SUM OF ONE H UNDRED THOUSAND RUPEES. 7. FROM THE ABOVE IT IS CLEAR THAT AS PER THE MANDA TE OF SECTION 92E, THE ASSESSEE IN THIS CASE WAS TO OBTAIN THE AUDIT REPOR T AND FILE IT BEFORE THE DUE DATE FOR FILING RETURN. SECTION 271BA PROVIDES FOR A PENALTY OF RS.1,00,000/- FOR FAILURE TO FOLLOW THE MANDATE OF SECTION 92E. WE ALSO NOTE THAT SECTION 273B PROVIDES THAT NO PENALTY INTER-AL IA U/S 271BA WILL BE LEVIABLE, IF THERE IS REASONABLE CAUSE FOR THE FAIL URE OF THE ASSESSEE TO COMPLY WITH THE PROVISIONS MENTIONED THEREIN. 8. NOW IN THE PRESENT CASE, WE FIND THAT ASSESSEE H AS CLAIMED THAT THE SAID AUDIT REPORT WAS OBTAINED MUCH EARLIER THAN THE DUE DATE FOR FILING THE RETURN. THE SAME COULD NOT BE FILED ALONG WITH THE RETURN A S THE RETURN WAS FILED ELECTRONICALLY AND THE ASSESSEE WAS UNDER THE BELIE F THAT ANY ANNEXURES ITA NOS.427 TO 430/MDS/2016 6 ETC. WERE NOT TO BE FILED ALONG WITH THE RETURN. AF FIDAVIT FROM DIRECTOR AND CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT IS ALSO ON RECORD THAT THE REP ORT IN FORM NO. 3CEB WAS OBTAINED ON 1.9.2006 I.E. BEFORE THE DUE DATE F OR FILING THE RETURN. THE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO PROVIDED THE SAID REPORT TO THE A SSESSING OFFICER BEFORE THE COMPLETION OF THE ASSESSMENT. UNDER THE ABOVE S AID CIRCUMSTANCES, IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THERE WAS REASONABLE CAUSE FOR THE ASSESSEE IN NOT FILING THE REPORT IN FORM NO. 3CEB ALONG WITH THE R ETURN OF INCOME. HENCE IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, SECTION 273B IN THIS CASE C OMES TO THE RESCUE OF THE ASSESSEE FROM THE RIGORS OF PENALTY U/S 271BA. THE CASE LAWS REFERRED BY THE REVENUE ARE NOT APPLICABLE IN THIS CASE ON T HE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE IN AS MUCH AS IN THIS CASE WE HAVE FOUND THAT THERE WAS REASONABLE CAUSE FOR THE FAILURE OF THE ASSESSEE TO COMPLY WIT H THE PROVISION OF THE ACT. 9. IN THIS REGARD WE PLACE RELIANCE FROM THE APEX C OURT DECISION RENDERED BY A LARGER BENCH COMPRISING OF THREE OF THEIR LORDSHI PS IN THE CASE OF HINDUSTAN STEEL VS. STATE OF ORISSA IN 83 ITR 26 WH EREIN IT WAS HELD THAT: AN ORDER IMPOSING PENALTY FOR FAILURE TO CARRY OU T A STATUTORY OBLIGATION IS THE RESULT OF A QUASI-CRIMINAL PROCEE DINGS, AND PENALTY WILL NOT ORDINARILY BE IMPOSED UNLESS THE P ARTY OBLIGED EITHER ACTED DELIBERATELY IN DEFIANCE OF LAW OR WAS GUILTY OF CONDUCT CONTUMACIOUS OR DISHONEST, OR ACTED IN CONS CIOUS DISREGARD OF ITS OBLIGATION. PENALTY WILL NOT ALSO BE IMPOSED MERELY BECAUSE IT IS LAWFUL TO DO SO. WHETHER PENAL TY SHOULD BE IMPOSED OR FAILURE TO PERFORM A STATUTORY OBLIGATIO N IS A MATTER OF DISCRETION OF THE AUTHORITY TO BE EXERCISED JUDICIA LLY AND ON A CONSIDERATION OF ALL THE RELEVANT CIRCUMSTANCES. EV EN IF A MINIMUM PENALTY IS PRESCRIBED, THE AUTHORITY COMPET ENT TO IMPOSE THE PENALTY WILL BE JUSTIFIED IN REFUSING TO IMPOSE PENALTY, WHEN THERE IS A TECHNICAL OR VENIAL BREACH OF THE P ROVISIONS OF THE ACT, OR WHERE THE BREACH FLOWS FROM A BONAFIDE BELIEF THAT THE OFFENDER IS NOT LIABLE TO ACT IN THE MANNER PRE SCRIBED BY THE STATUTE. ITA NOS.427 TO 430/MDS/2016 7 10. IN THE BACKGROUND OF THE AFORESAID DISCUSSION AND PRECEDENT, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND D ELETE THE LEVY OF PENALTY OF RS.1,00,000/- 5. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD.D.R RELIED ON THE ORD ER OF LD.CIT(A) AS WELL THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF M/S.NECTAR LIFESCIENCES LTD. VS.DCIT CITED SUPRA. 6.1 WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. IN THIS CASE, THE ASSESSEE SAID TO BE OBTAI NED AUDIT REPORT FOR THESE ASSESSMENT YEARS AS FOLLOWS:- ASSESSMENT YEAR DATE OF OBTAINING AUDIT REPORT DATE OF SUBMISSION BEFORE THE AO 2007-08 31.10.2007 26.06.2012 2008-09 30.09.2008 26.06.2012 2009-10 30.09.2009 26.06.2012 2010-11 30.09.2010 26.06.2012 AS PER SEC.271BA READS AS FOLLOWS: 271BA IF ANY PERSON FAILS TO FURNISH A REPORT FRO M AN ACCOUNTANT AS REQUIRED BY SECTION 92E, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAY DIRECT THAT SUCH PERSON SHALL PAY, BY WAY OF PENALTY, A SUM OF ONE H UNDRED THOUSAND RUPEES. AS PER CEC.92E READS AS FOLLOWS:- 92E. EVERY PERSON WHO HAS ENTERED INTO AN INTERN ATIONAL TRANSACTION DURING A PREVIOUS YEAR SHALL OBTAIN A REPORT FROM A N ACCOUNTANT AND FURNISH SUCH REPORT ON OR BEFORE THE SPECIFIED DATE IN THE PRESCRIBED FORM DULY SIGNED AND VERIFIED IN THE PRESCRIBED MAN NER BY SUCH ACCOUNTANT AND SETTING FORTH SUCH PARTICULARS AS MA Y BE PRESCRIBED. ITA NOS.427 TO 430/MDS/2016 8 6.2 ADMITTEDLY IN THIS CASE THE ASSESSEE DID NOT C OMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ABOVE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 92E . THE MAIN CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE'S COUNSEL HEREIN IS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS HAVING REASONABLE CAUSES FOR NOT FILING THE AUDIT R EPORT AS PRESCRIBED BY SECTION 92E OF THE ACT ON THE REASON THAT IT HAS A BONA FIDE BELIEF THAT ELECTRONIC FILING OF THE RELEVANT INFORMATION IN THE TAX RETURN IS SUFFICIENT COMPLIANCE OF SECTION 92E OF THE ACT. AS SUCH, THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT FILED THE FORM NO.3CEB, THOUGH IT WAS OBTAINED WITHIN THE SPECIFIED DATE. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ABLE TO SUBSTANTIATE BEFORE US WHAT IS THE REASON FOR SUCH KIND OF BELIEF TO COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT ELECTRONIC FILING OF TH E RELEVANT INFORMATION IN THE TAX RETURN IS SUFFICIENT COMPLIA NCE OF SECTION 92E OF THE ACT. WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME AFTER DULY AUDITED BY THE CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT, WHAT PREVENTED THE ASSESSEE TO PREPARE THE AUDIT REPORT UNDER SECTION 92E IS ALSO NOT CLEAR FROM THE ARGUMENT OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN ASS ISTED BY COMPETENT LEGAL PROFESSIONALS AND CHARTERED ACCOUNT ANTS AND WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON AS TO HOW THE ASSESSEE WAS PREV ENTED BY SUFFICIENT CAUSE TO PREPARE THE AUDIT REPORT FROM C HARTERED ACCOUNTANT ITA NOS.427 TO 430/MDS/2016 9 AND FURNISH THE SAME TO THE AUTHORITIES AS STIPULAT ED UNDER SECTION 92E. THE REASON GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE HEREIN IS TOO GENERAL IN NATURE AND THE FAILURE TO FURNISH THE AUDIT REPORT AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 92E IS TOTALLY ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE GROSS NEGLIGENCE OF THE ASSESSEE AND THERE IS NO GOOD AND SUFFICIENT REASON IN NOT FILING THE AUDIT REPORT WITHIN THE STIPULATED TIME. THE ASSESS EE HEREIN COULD NOT SHOW ANY REASONABLE CAUSE IN NOT FILING OF THE AUDI T REPORT IN TIME. 6.3 THE REASON EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE HEREIN AB OVE COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED AS REASONABLE CAUSE IN TERMS OF SECTI ON 273 B OF THE ACT NOT IN FILING THE AUDIT REPORT IN TIME. THE SA ME VIEW IS TAKEN BY CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF HYDERABAD TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF M/S.GI SYSTEMS ORG. (INDIA) (P) LTD. V. ITO REPORTED IN 68 DTR 149 (A.T) (HYD.) WHEREIN OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT F ILED THE REPORT UNDER SECTION 92E BEFORE THE AO ON OR BEFORE THE CO MPLETION OF ASSESSMENT UNDER S. 143(3) OR PROCESSING THE RETURN UNDER S. 143(1) OF THE ACT AND SIMPLY ATTRIBUTED DEFAULT ON SOME CL ERICAL ERROR WITHOUT CLARIFYING NATURE OF SAID ERROR; NO REASONABLE CAUS E IS MADE OUT FOR THE DEFAULT IN FILING THE AUDIT REPORT, AND THEREFO RE,, PENALTY U/S.271BA WAS SUSTAINABLE. ITA NOS.427 TO 430/MDS/2016 10 6.4 BEFORE US, THE ASSESSEE PLACED RELIANCE ON THE ORDER OF DELHI BENCH OF TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF M/S.OPEN TECHNOLOG IES INDIA PVT. LTD. CITED SUPRA FOR THE PROPOSITION THAT THE UNDER BELIEF THAT WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED RETURN OF INCOME ELECTRONICALLY, ANY ANNEXURE WERE NOT TO BE FILED ALONG WITH THE RETURN. IN THA T CASE, THE ASSESSEE FILED AFFIDAVIT FROM THE DIRECTOR, AND C.A TO SHOW THAT THE REPORT IN FORM 3CEB WAS OBTAINED BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF FILIN G THE RETURN. THE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO PROVIDED SAID REPORT TO THE A O BEFORE THE COMPLETION OF THE ASSESSMENTS. UNDER SAID CIRCUMST ANCES, THE TRIBUNAL CAME TO CONCLUSION THAT THERE EXISTS REASO NABLE CAUSE FOR THE ASSESSEE IN NOT FILING THE APPEAL IN FORM 3CEB ALONG WITH THE RETURN OF INCOME. AS SUCH THE TRIBUNAL APPLIED THE PROVISIONS OF THE SECTION 273B TO DELETE THE PENALTY LEVIED U/S.271BA OF THE ACT. 6.5 HOWEVER, IN THE PRESENT CASE, THERE IS NO AFFI DAVIT FROM THE DIRECTOR OR BY CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT TO SHOW THAT RE PORT IN FORM NO.3CEB WAS OBTAINED BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF FILING OF THE RETURN OR THE SAID AUDIT REPORT WAS MADE AVAILABLE TO THE AO EITHER BEFORE PROCESSING THE RETURN U/S.143(1) OR COMPLETION OF A SSESSMENT ORDER ITA NOS.427 TO 430/MDS/2016 11 U/S.143(3) OF THE ACT. BEING SO, THE RATIO LAID DO WN IN THE ABOVE ORDER CANNOT APPLY. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF M/S.NECTAR LIFESCIENCES LTD.(SUPRA) AND THE ORDER OF HYDERABAD BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF M/S. GI SYSTEMS ORG. (INDIA) (P) LTD. V. ITO IS SQUARELY APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE. ACCORDINGLY, WE CONFIRM THE LEVY OF PENALTY U/S.271 B OF THE ACT. 7. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE FOUR APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2007-08 TO 2010-11 ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON FRIDAY, THE 29 TH OF APRIL,2016 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( ' . . '# . $ ) ( N.R.S.GANESAN ) ( ) (CHANDRA POOJARI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER CHENNAI, DATED THE 29 TH APRIL, 2016 . K S SUNDARAM. # %)-. / . ) /COPY TO: 1. !' /APPELLANT 2. %&!' /RESPONDENT 3. ' 0) () /CIT(A) 4. ' 0) /CIT 5. .3 %)4 /DR 6. 5 6( /GF