N.Ellappan, Tiruppur V. ITO, Tiruppur

ITA 47/CHNY/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6187 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-09-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 17-08-2017
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 09-01-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: MRS SUMATHY VENKATRAMAN
• Keywords: Tax effect
• Section: 154

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENCH B, CHENNAI , ! ' #! ' $ . %& , ' () * BEFORE SHRI SANJAY ARORA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ITA NOS.362 & 363/MDS/2017 & CO NOS.46 & 47/MDS/2017 (IN ITA NOS.362 & 363/MDS/2017) ' + !,+ / ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2008-09 & 2010-11 INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 5, NAMAKKAL. VS. TIRUCHENGODE AGRICULTURAL PRODUCERS CO-OPERATIVE MARKETING SOCIETY LTD., NO.9, KATCHERY STREET, VELUR ROAD, TIRUCHANGODE, NAMAKKAL DISTRICT. [PAN: AAAAT 2058C] ( /APPELLANT ) ( / RESPONDENT/CROSS OBJECTOR ) -. 0 1 / APPELLANT BY : MRS. SUMATHY VENKATRAMAN, CIT 23-. 0 1 / RESPONDENT BY : NONE ' ! 0 4 / DATE OF HEARING : 02.08.2017 5, 0 4 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 22.09.2017 /ORDER PER SANJAY ARORA, AM : THIS IS A SET OF TWO APPEALS BY THE REVENUE AND TH E CROSS OBJECTIONS BY THE ASSESSEE AGITATING THE SEPARATE ORDERS BY THE C OMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), SALEM (CIT(A) FOR SHORT) DATED 30.11.2 016 ALLOWING THE ASSESSEES APPEALS CONTESTING THE ORDERS DATED 17/12/2014 GIVI NG APPEAL EFFECT TO THE 2 ITA NOS. 362 & 363/MDS/2017 & COS. 46 & 47/MDS/2017 (AYS 200 8-09 & 2010-11) IT O V. TIRUCHENGODE AGRICULTURAL PRODUCERS CO-OPERATI VE MARKETING SOCIETY LTD. APPELLATE ORDER IN RESPECT OF ITS REGULAR ASSESSME NTS UNDER THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT HEREINAFTER) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEA RS (AYS) 2008-09 & 2010-11, VIDE SEPARATE ORDERS DATED 27.03.2013. 2. THE SOLE ISSUE ARISING IN THESE APPEALS BY THE A SSESSEE IS WHETHER THE ASSESSING OFFICER (AO) HAS CORRECTLY GIVEN THE APPE AL EFFECT FOR THE TWO YEARS UNDER REFERENCE TO THE ORDER BY THE TRIBUNAL, WHICH IS A COMMON ORDER DATED 17.04.2015 FOR AYS. 2006-07 TO 2008-09, AND 2010-11 (IN ITA NOS. 27 TO 30/ MDS/2015). THE TRIBUNAL PER ITS SAID ORDER HAD CONF IRMED THAT BY THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, ALLOWING THE ASSESSEE ITS CLAI M FOR DEDUCTION U/S. 80P(2)(A)(I) ON INTEREST INCOME ON JEWEL LOANS, DIS ALLOWED BY THE AO. THE ORDER BY THE TRIBUNAL HAS IN FACT BEEN UPHELD BY THE HON' BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN TAX CASE APPEAL (TCA) NOS.484 TO 487 & 490 OF 20 16 DATED 02.08.2016. IN OTHER WORDS, HAS THE AO CORRECTLY ALLOWED THE DEDUC TION U/S. 80P(2)(A)(II) ON INTEREST INCOME ON JEWEL LOANS TO MEMBERS. THE SAME HAD BEEN DISALLOWED BY THE AO ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE, A CO-OPERAT IVE BANK, WAS NEITHER A PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL CREDIT SOCIETY NOR PRIMARY CO- OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK, SO AS TO BE SAVED BY THE EX CLUSION CLAUSE OF S. 80P(4) AND, TWO, THE ASSOCIATE (CLASS B) MEMBERS, TO WHOM THE BULK OF THE JEWEL LOANS HAD BEEN EXTENDED, DID NOT QUALIFY TO BE MEMBERS, F OR THE ASSESSEE TO BE ELIGIBLE FOR THE DEDUCTION U/S. 80P(1) IN RESPECT OF INTERES T ON JEWEL LOANS, CLAIMED U/S. 80P(2)(A)(I), WHICH READS AS UNDER: DEDUCTION IN RESPECT OF INCOME OF CO-OPERATIVE SOC IETIES. 80P. (1) WHERE, IN THE CASE OF AN ASSESSEE BEING A CO-O PERATIVE SOCIETY. (2) THE SUMS REFERRED TO IN SUB-SECTION (1) SHALL B E THE FOLLOWING, NAMELY: ( A ) IN THE CASE OF A CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY ENGAGED IN ( I ) CARRYING ON THE BUSINESS OF BANKING OR PROVIDING CREDIT FACILITIES TO ITS MEMBERS, OR (II) . (III) THE MARKETING OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE GROWN B Y ITS 3 ITA NOS. 362 & 363/MDS/2017 & COS. 46 & 47/MDS/2017 (AYS 200 8-09 & 2010-11) IT O V. TIRUCHENGODE AGRICULTURAL PRODUCERS CO-OPERATI VE MARKETING SOCIETY LTD. MEMBERS, OR (IV) TO (VII) , THE WHOLE OF THE AMOUNT OF PROFITS AND GAINS OF BUS INESS ATTRIBUTABLE TO ANY ONE OR MORE OF SUCH ACTIVITIES: THE TRIBUNAL, IN ALLOWING THE ASSESSEES APPEALS, MET BOTH THE OBJECTIONS RAISED BY THE REVENUE. THE HON'BLE COURT, IN FURTHE R APPEAL, CITED SEVERAL DECISIONS BY THE TRIBUNAL, EXTRACTING THERE-FROM, A S WELL AS FROM ITS EARLIER DECISION IN VEERAKERALAN PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL CO-OPERATIVE CRED IT SOCIETY (IN TCA NOS.735, 755 OF 2014 AND 460 OF 2015 DATED 05.0 7.2016), BY WHICH JUDGMENT, IN ITS VIEW, THE ISSUE/S RAISED BEFORE IT BY THE REVENUE WAS SQUARELY COVERED AGAINST IT. 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES, AND PERUSED THE MATER IAL ON RECORD, GIVING OUR CAREFUL CONSIDERATION TO THE MATTER. WE ARE COMPLETELY UNABLE TO UNDERSTAND AS TO WHAT THE CONTROVERSY IS ABOUT. THE AO, AS HE IS BOUND TO, HAS GIVEN EFFECT TO THE APPELLATE ORDER BY THE TRIBUNAL ALLOWING DEDUCTION U/S. 80P(2)(A)(I) ON TH E INTEREST INCOME ON JEWEL AND OTHER LOANS TO THEIR MEMBERS AT . 96,10,351/- AND . 1,35,97,524/- FOR AYS 2008-09 AND 2010-11 RESPECTIVELY. IF, IN THE VIEW O F THE ASSESSEE, IT IS ENTITLED TO THE SAID DEDUCTION IN A LARGER SUM/S, IT OUGHT TO H AVE FURNISHED ITS CALCULATION/S TO THE AO IN ITS RESPECT. NORMALLY SUCH CALCULATION S ARE EXCHANGED SO AS TO AVOID OMISSION OR MIS-CALCULATION, PARTICULARLY WHE RE A NUMBER OF FIGURES/VARIABLES ARE INVOLVED. THE ISSUE IN PRINCI PLE, I.E., THE ASSESSEES ENTITLEMENT TO DEDUCTION U/S. 80P(2)(A)(I) ON JEWEL LOANS EXTENDED TO MEMBERS HAVING BEEN SETTLED, I.E., IN ASSESSEES FAVOUR, TH E MATTER REDUCES TO ESSENTIALLY ONE OF CALCULATION. EITHER PER AN APPLICATION U/S. 154 OR AN APPEAL, IT WAS INCUMBENT ON THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH AN ALTERNATE C ALCULATION, I.E., TO THAT PROVIDED BY THE AO PER THE APPEAL GIVING EFFECT ORD ER OR, IN THE LEAST, SPECIFY THE MISTAKE/S OR THE OMISSION/S INFLICTING THE AOS WORKING. THE SAME HAS NOT 4 ITA NOS. 362 & 363/MDS/2017 & COS. 46 & 47/MDS/2017 (AYS 200 8-09 & 2010-11) IT O V. TIRUCHENGODE AGRICULTURAL PRODUCERS CO-OPERATI VE MARKETING SOCIETY LTD. BEEN DONE EITHER BEFORE THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES OR EVEN BEFORE US. MERELY STATING THAT THE AO HAS, IN DOING SO, COMPUTED DEDU CTION U/S. 80P(2)(A)(I) TO THE DISADVANTAGE OF THE ASSESSEE , AS DOES THE LD. CIT(A), IS NEITHER HERE NOR THERE , I.E., IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY FLAW IN THE AOS WORKIN G BEING POINTED OUT. THE ENDORSEMENT THEREOF BY THE LD. CIT(A) IS THUS COMPL ETELY MISPLACED. HIS FURTHER STATING THAT THE SAME DEFEATS THE OUTCOME OF THE APPELLATE ORDER FAILS TO APPRECIATE THAT IT IS THIS OUTCOME WHICH IS ITSEL F IN DISPUTE. AS AFORE-NOTED, IT IS NOT THE AO AS STATED BY THE LD. CIT(A), BUT THE A SSESSEE WHO HAS TO, IN CASE OF DIFFERENCE/S, INITIATE ACTION OR TAKE RECOURSE TO R ECTIFICATION/CORRECTION, POINTING OUT THE MISTAKE/ERROR/S ATTENDING THE REVENUES CAL CULATION. IN THE PRESENT CASE WE ARE AT LOSS TO UNDERSTAND AS TO WHAT THAT MISTAK E/ERROR IS, AND WHICH EXPLAINS OUR OBSERVATION TO THAT EFFECT EARLIER. THE IMPUGNE D ORDER/S, WHICH IS IDENTICAL IN BOTH THE CASES, IS THEREFORE UNSUSTAINABLE. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, SHRI S.SRIDHAR, ADVOCATE, WHO APPEARED ON 26.07.2017, AL SO DID PRECIOUS LITTLE OTHER THAN BY WAY OF FURNISHING SOME LOOSE, UNATTESTED SH EETS, WHICH APPEAR TO BE EXTRACTS FROM THE ASSESSEES FINAL ACCOUNTS. NOW, I T IS NOBODYS CASE THAT THE FIGURES DRAWN BY THE AO ARE NOT FROM THE ASSESSEES FINAL ACCOUNTS. AS AFORE- NOTED, IT IS ONLY WHERE THE ERROR/S ATTENDING THE A OS WORKING ARE POINTED OUT, PREFERABLY BY FURNISHING AN ALTERNATIVE WORKING, TH AT AN ADJUDICATING AUTHORITY WOULD BE INFORMED OF ALL THE DIFFERENCES AND APPREC IATE THE REASONS FOR THE SAME, AND DECIDE AS TO WHICH OF THE TWO IS CORRECT IN WHOLE OR IN PART. THIS IS PRECISELY WHAT THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE DONE, R ATHER THAN INFERRING THE AO TO HAVE EXCEEDED HIS JURISDICTION. WE, NEXT, PERUSE THE ASSESSEES WORKING TO EXAMINE THE BASIS OF THE DIFFERENCE. THE ASSESSEES CLAIM U/S. 80-P(2)(A)(I) ARE BOTH THE YEARS IS AS UNDER: PARTICULARS / ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 ( .) 2010-11 ( .) JEWEL LOAN 2,09,70,911 3,62,60,807 OTHER LOAN 61,87,994 -- ----------------- ---------------- 5 ITA NOS. 362 & 363/MDS/2017 & COS. 46 & 47/MDS/2017 (AYS 200 8-09 & 2010-11) IT O V. TIRUCHENGODE AGRICULTURAL PRODUCERS CO-OPERATI VE MARKETING SOCIETY LTD. TOTAL 2,71,58,905 3,62,60,807 ----------------- --------------- LESS: INTEREST RELATING TO OTHER (MARKETING) DIVISION 58,27,616 ---------------- 66,42,295 --------------- INTEREST INCOME CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S. 80-P(2)(A)(I) 2,13,31,289 --------------- 2,96,18,512 --------------- THE AO HAS, WHILE ALLOWING DEDUCTION UNDER U/S. 80P (2)(A)(I) PROCEEDED ON THE BASIS OF THESE FIGURES (WHICH MATCH WITH THE ACCOUN TS), REDUCING THERE-FROM THE FOLLOWING: LESS: INTEREST EXPENDITURE 33,71,236 1,01,28,985 PROPORTIONATE GENERAL EXPENDITURE 83,49,702 --------------- 1,17,20,938 --------------- 58,92,003 --------------- 1,60,20,988 --------------- 96,10,351 --------------- 1,35,97,524 --------------- WHILE INTEREST EXPENDITURE IS ON THE BASIS OF ACTU ALS, THE GENERAL EXPENSES (WHICH FIGURES ALSO MATCH WITH THE ACCOUNTS) ARE AP PORTIONED ON THE BASIS OF GROSS INCOME, I.E., COMPRISING GROSS INTEREST INCOM E AND OTHER INCOME, BOTH PRIOR TO THE GENERAL EXPENSES. WHAT, THEN, ONE MAY ASK, IS WRONG WITH THE SAME A AMISS THEREIN? THE EXPENDITURE, BE IT ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST ON BORROWED CAPITAL TOWARD THE RELEVANT ADVANCES, OR THE ESTABL ISHMENT COSTS AS ALLOCABLE TO THE RELEVANT ACTIVITY (BEING APPORTIONED ON GROSS I NCOME BASIS), HAS TO BE DEDUCTED TO ARRIVE AT THE INCOME EARNED ON THE RELE VANT ADVANCES. INCOME, AFTER ALL, IS ONLY NET OF EXPENSES ( CIT V. WALFORT SHARE & STOCK BROKERS (P.) LTD. [2010] 326 ITR 1 (SC); GODREJ & BOYCE MFG. CO. LTD. V. DY. CIT [2010] 328 ITR 81 (BOM)) AND IT IS ONLY THE INCOME AS INCLUDE D IN THE GROSS TOTAL INCOME (GTI) ON WHICH DEDUCTION UNDER CHAPTER VI-A IS ALLO WABLE (S. 80AB), AND TOWARD WHICH THE REVENUE RELIES ON THE DECISION IN SABARKANTHA ZILLA KHARID VENCHAN SANGH LTD. V. CIT [1993] 203 ITR 1027 (SC), A PRINCIPLE REITERATED BY IT AGAIN RECENTLY IN THE CITIZEN CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. V. ASST. CIT [2017] 6 ITA NOS. 362 & 363/MDS/2017 & COS. 46 & 47/MDS/2017 (AYS 200 8-09 & 2010-11) IT O V. TIRUCHENGODE AGRICULTURAL PRODUCERS CO-OPERATI VE MARKETING SOCIETY LTD. 397 ITR 1 (SC) (AT PARA 3/PG.4 OF THE JUDGMENT). TH E LAW IN THE MATTER IS WELL SETTLED. REFERENCE IN THIS REGARD MAY ALSO BE MADE TO DECISIONS, INTER ALIA , IN IPCA LABORATORY LTD. V. DY. CIT [2004] 266 ITR 521 (SC) AND CIT V. KOTAGIRI INDUSTRIAL TEA FACTORY LTD. [1997] 224 ITR 604 (SC). THE ASSESSEE HAS IN FACT NOT RAISED ANY DISPUTE IN THIS REGARD AT ANY STAGE. RATHER, ON ACCOUNT OF CLAIMING DEDUCTION ON GROSS INCOME, I.E., WITHOUT DEDUCTING EXPENSES, ITS CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION U/S. 80P EXCEEDS THE GTI, BEING AT . 410.28 LACS AND . 598.54 LACS AS AGAINST THE GTI AT . 209.20 LACS AND . 343.69 LACS FOR THE TWO SUCCESSIVE YEARS RESPECTIVELY (PB PG. 59/AY 2008-09 AND PG. 57 /AY 2010-11). IN OTHER WORDS, THE CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION (OF INCOME FROM THE ACTIVITIES SPECIFIED IN S. 80P(2)) EXCEEDS THE INCOME ITSELF. AS IT, THEREFORE , TRANSPIRES, THE ASSESSEE, IN THE GARB OF CLAIMING DEDUCTION U/S. 80P(2)(A)(I), I S SEEKING DEDUCTION QUA OTHER, NON-ELIGIBLE INCOME, SINCE ALREADY ASSESSED AND BRO UGHT TO TAX. TRUE, THE AO HAS, WHILE GIVING APPEAL AFFECT, APPORTIONED THE GE NERAL EXPENSES ON ONLY INTEREST INCOME UNDER REFERENCE, I.E., ON JEWEL AND OTHER LOANS FALLING U/S. 80P(2)(A)(I). THAT, HOWEVER, WOULD MAKE NO DIFFEREN CE TO THE NET ASSESSABLE (OR TOTAL) INCOME UNDER THE ACT AS INTEREST INCOME ON T HE OTHER (MARKETING) DIVISION HAS ALREADY BEEN ALLOWED DEDUCTION U/S. 80P(2)(A)(I II) ON GROSS INCOME BASIS. IN FACT, THIS IS ITSELF DEBATABLE AS THE SAID INTEREST (FOR MARKETING THE PRODUCTS) WOULD EQUALLY BE DEDUCTIBLE U/S. 80P(2)(A)(I) WHI CH HE ALLOWS FOR THE FIRST TIME, AS THE PROVISION MAKES NO DISTINCTION WITH RE FERENCE TO THE PURPOSE FOR WHICH THE LOAN/CREDIT IS EXTENDED BY A COOPERATIVE SOCIETY TO ITS MEMBER. IN OTHER WORDS, WE OBSERVE NO INFIRMITY, BOTH IN PRINC IPLE AND IN EFFECT, IN THE AOS WORKING FOR THE TWO YEARS UNDER REFERENCE. THE ASSESSEE, PER ITS COS, CHALLENGES THE AOS IMP UGNED ORDERS ON THE GROUND THAT NO APPEAL HAD, SIMILARLY, BEEN FILED BY THE AO AGAINST THE ORDERS BY THE LD. CIT(A) FOR AYS. 2006-07 AND 2007-08. THE CO S WERE, FIRSTLY, NOT PRESSED DURING HEARING AND, THEREFORE, NOT RESPONDE D TO BY THE REVENUE. TWO, 7 ITA NOS. 362 & 363/MDS/2017 & COS. 46 & 47/MDS/2017 (AYS 200 8-09 & 2010-11) IT O V. TIRUCHENGODE AGRICULTURAL PRODUCERS CO-OPERATI VE MARKETING SOCIETY LTD. THE WORKING BY THE AO AND THE ORDER BY THE LD. CIT( A) FOR THESE TWO YEARS IS NOT BEFORE US TO BE ABLE TO MAKE ANY COMMENT ON THE ASS ESSEES CHARGE, INCLUDING ON THE TAX EFFECT OF THE APPEALS FOR THOSE YEARS. T HE SAME IS EVEN OTHERWISE MISPLACED AS EACH YEAR IS A SEPARATE AND INDEPENDEN T UNIT OF ASSESSMENT. THE AO, IN WORKING THE DEDUCTION U/S. 80P(2)(A)(I) ON T HE (NET) INCOME FROM ELIGIBLE/SPECIFIED ACTIVITIES, HAS APPLIED THE CORR ECT PRINCIPLE OF LAW. THERE IS NEITHER AN ESTOPPLE AGAINST LAW NOR ANY VESTED RIGH T AGAINST A STATUTE. THE ASSESSEES COS ARE, THEREFORE, WITHOUT MERIT. IN SUM, THE AO, IN THE FIRST INSTANCE, HAD REJECTE D THE ASSESSEES CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION U/S. 80P(2)(A)(I) AT THE THRESHOLD, I.E., ON THE GROUND OF IT BEING IN- ELIGIBLE. THAT IS, REGARDED IT AS NOT QUALIFYING FO R DEDUCTION. THE QUESTION OF THE QUANTUM OF DEDUCTION OR ITS DETERMINATION DID NOT A RISE FOR CONSIDERATION. THE CLAIM BEING HELD VALID, HE HAS ALLOWED THE SAME ON THE BASIS OF THE UNDERLYING FACTS AND FIGURES. IT IS ONLY AT THIS STAGE THAT HE WAS CALLED UPON TO, AND HAS, ACCORDINGLY, ALLOWED DEDUCTION, WHICH IS TO BE AT T HE CORRECT AMOUNT. WE HAVE EXAMINED THE ALGORITHM OF THE ASSESSEES WORKING TO FIND IT TO BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE OF ONLY THE NET INCO ME BEING ASSESSABLE AND, FURTHER, OF ONLY THE RELEVANT INCOME AS INCLUDED IN THE GTI BEING ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION. MERELY BECAUSE THE SAME WORKS TO A FIGUR E LOWER THAN THAT CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE, IS, BY ITSELF, NO GROUND FOR REGAR DING THE SAME AS ERRONEOUS. THE ASSESSEES WORKING, AFTER ALL, CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS SACROSANCT. DEDUCTION COULD ONLY BE OF THE INCOME INCLUDED IN THE GTI, SO THAT THE ASSESSEES CLAIM, MADE ON THE BASIS OF GROSS INTEREST INCOME, IS WITH OUT BASIS IN LAW AS WELL AS ON FACTS. THIS HAS LED TO ITS CLAIM U/S. 80P(1) EXCEED ING THE GTI. FURTHER, NO INFIRMITY OR FALLACY IN THE AOS WORKING HAS EITHER BEEN FOUND BY US OR POINTED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE AT ANY STAGE. THE AO HAS NOT EX CEEDED HIS JURISDICTION. WHY, THE APEX COURT IN THE CITIZEN CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. (SUPRA) ALSO MADE LIGHT OF THE INCLUSION OF ASSOCIATE MEMBERS, W HICH ASPECT/S THOUGH CANNOT 8 ITA NOS. 362 & 363/MDS/2017 & COS. 46 & 47/MDS/2017 (AYS 200 8-09 & 2010-11) IT O V. TIRUCHENGODE AGRICULTURAL PRODUCERS CO-OPERATI VE MARKETING SOCIETY LTD. BE CONSIDERED IN APPEAL GIVING EFFECT PROCEEDINGS O R THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS ARISING THERE-FROM. THE AOS WORKING IS ACCORDINGLY CONFIRMED. THE ASSESSEE, AS IT TRANSPIRES, BY NOT TAKING THE PROPORTIONATE E XPENSES INTO ACCOUNT, IS SEEKING TO CLAIM DEDUCTION U/S. 80P ON OTHER, ASSESSABLE IN COME. AS REGARDS THE ASSESSEES COS, THE SAME WERE NOT PRESSED AND, BESI DES, THERE IS NO ESTOPPEL AGAINST LAW (ALSO REFER: C.K.GANGADHARAN & ANR. V. CIT [2008] 304 ITR 61 (SC)). WE, ACCORDINGLY, HAVE NO HESITATION IN, SETT ING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER, RESTORING THAT OF THE AO. WE DECIDE ACCORDINGLY. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE REVENUES APPEALS ARE ALLOWED AND THE ASSESSEES COS, DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON SEPTEMBER22, 2017 AT CHENNAI . SD/- SD/- ( ' #! ' $ . %& ) (DUVVURU RL REDDY) ' /JUDICIAL MEMBER ( ) (SANJAY ARORA) /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /CHENNAI, 6 /DATED, SEPTEMBER 22, 2017 EDN 7 0 2'489 :9,4 /COPY TO: 1. -. /APPELLANT 2. 23-. /RESPONDENT 3. ' ;4 ( )/CIT(A) 4. ' ;4 /CIT 5. 9!<= 2'4' /DR 6. =&+ > /GF