Nishank Sakaria, CHENNAI V. ACIT, CHENNAI

ITA 776/CHNY/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9185 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-06-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 29-03-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P RADHAKRISHNAN IRS
• Assessee Lawyers: DR ANITHA SUMANTH
• Keywords: Recovery proceedings; Principle of natural justice; Reason to believe; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 143(3); 2(14); 142(1); 148

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, CHENNAI , . ! ' , #'$ BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI G. PAVAN KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ I.T.A. NOS.776, 777 & 778/MDS/2016. # % &% / ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2008-09, 2009-2010 & 2010-2 011 SHRI. NISHANK SAKARIA, NO.16, KESAVA IYER STREET, PARK TOWN, CHENNAI 600 003. [PAN AEFPN 8248A] VS. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NON CORPORATE CIRCLE -5 (ERSTWHILE BUSINESS CIRCLE XI) CHENNAI 600 006. ( / APPELLANT) ( /RESPONDENT) '( ) * / APPELLANT BY : DR. ANITHA SUMANTH, ADVOCATE +,'( ) * /RESPONDENT BY : SHRI. P. RADHAKRISHNAN, IRS, JCIT ! ) - / DATE OF HEARING : 31-05-2016 ./& ) - / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 09-06-2016 / O R D E R PER G. PAVAN KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST DIFFERENT ORDERS OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-5, CHENNAI FOR THE ABOVE ASSESSMENT YEARS PASSED U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 263 AND 250 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 DATED 29.01.20 16 (HEREIN AFTER ITA NO.776 TO778/MDS/2016 :- 2 -: REFERRED TO AS THE ACT). SINCE THE ISSUE IN THES E THREE APPEALS ARE COMMON IN NATURE, HENCE THESE APPEALS ARE COMBINED, HEARD TOGETHER, AND DISPOSED OF BY A COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF C ONVENIENCE, WE CONSIDER THE FACTS AS NARRATED IN ITA NO.776/MDS/2 016 OF ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 FOR ADJUDICATION. 2. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE UNDER:- (I) THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) ERR ED IN PASSING ORDERS DATED 29.1.2016 CONFIRMING THE ADDITIONS/DISALLOWANCES EFFECTED BY THE ASSESSING O FFICER. THE GROUNDS RAISED AND SUBMISSIONS HAVE BEEN OMITTED TO BE CONSIDERED AND THE APPEAL LIABLE TO BE ALLOWED IN F ULL. (II) THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 29.1.2016 IS IN GROS S VIOLATION OF THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE AS IT HAD BEEN PASSED WHILE THE APPEAL HAD BEEN POSTED FOR FURTHER HEARING ON A LAT ER DATE, BEFORE THE APPELLANT HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO CONCLUDE THE SUBMISSIONS. (III) THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) ERR ED IN PASSING THE IMPUGNED ORDER WITHOUT FURNISHING TO TH E APPELLANT, ALL MATERIALS RELIED UPON IN FRAMING OF ORDER OF AS SESSMENT, ALLEGEDLY COLLECTED WHILE THE INVESTIGATIONS WERE C ONDUCTED, PARTICULARLY WHEN ADVERSE INFERENCE IS TAKEN ON THE BASIS OF THE DOCUMENTS. (IV) THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ( APPEALS) IS IN GROSS VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUST ICE, CONSIDERING THAT, AT THE HEARING ON 27.1.16 THE MATTER WAS HEAR D IN PART AND POSTED AND ADJOURNED TO 4.2.16 FOR FILING EVIDENCES AND WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS. IT HAD BEEN SPECIFICALLY NOTED THAT TH E PERIOD OF TWELVE WEEKS GRANTED BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT I N W.P. NO. 34092 OF 2015 VIDE ORDER DATED 27.10.2015 FOR DISPO SAL OF THE APPEALS EXTENDED TILL THE FIRST WEEK OF MARCH, 2016 . NOTWITHSTANDING THE AFORESAID POSITION, THE COMMISS IONER (APPEALS) PASSES THE IMPUGNED ORDER IN HASTE, WITHO UT APPLICATION OF MINDAND IN VIOLATION OF THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS THUS FACTUALLY AND LEGALLY ERRONEOUS AND LIABLE TO CANCELLED IN FULL. ITA NO.776 TO778/MDS/2016 :- 3 -: (V) THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN NOT ADJUDICATING AND ACCEPTING THE PLEA OF THE APPELLAN T RELATING TO ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION U/S 148 OF THE ACT. THE PROCEEDINGS ARE WHOLLY CONTRARY TO LAW AND IN VIOLATION OF THE PRINCIPLES AND PROCEDURE LAID DOWN BY THE SUPREME COURT IN THE MAT TER OF GKN DRIVESHAFTS. (VI) THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF AN AMOUNT OF RS. 2,66,2 4,500/- ALLEGEDLY REPRESENTING PROFITS DERIVED ON SALE OF L AND AT MADHURANTAKAM. THE ADDITION IS WHOLLY ERRONEOUS AND LIABLE TO BE CANCELLED IN FULL. (VII) THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) ERRE D IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF AN AMOUNT OF RS. 14,40, 000/- STATED TO BE THE PROFITS ON SALE OF LAND AT THIRUKKAZHUKUNDRA M. IN FACT, THE ADDITION INCLUDES SALE PROCEEDS OF LAND THAT BELONG S TO THIRD PARTIES AND THUS THE ADDITION HAS THUS BEEN MADE AR BITRARILY AND WITHOUT APPLICATION OF MIND. (VIII) THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) OUG HT TO HAVE NOTED THAT THE APPELLANT WAS NEVER ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF PURCHASE AND SALE OF LAND AND THE ORDER OF ASSESSME NT MAKES UNSUBSTANTIATED ASSUMPTIONS AND PRESUMPTIONS IN THI S REGARD. THE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED RELATES TO THE SALE OF A GRICULTURAL LAND THAT IS WHOLLY EXEMPT U/S 2(14) OF THE ACT FROM THE LEVY OF TAX. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE IS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS IN THE BUSINESS OF MONEY LENDING AND FILED RETURN OF INCOM E ON 28.07.208 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF ?70,77,380/-. THE ASSESS EE ALONGWITH OTHERS HAVE PURCHASED AGRICULTURAL LANDS AND SOLD TO A ASS OCIATE COMPANY AND CLAIMED EXEMPTION OF CAPITAL GAINS. THE LD. ASSESSI NG OFFICER CONSIDERED THE FACTS, LAND RECORDS AND SALE TRANSAC TION OF LAND HAS A REASON TO BELIEVE THAT THERE IS A ESCAPEMENT OF INC OME AND ISSUED NOTICE U/S.148 OF THE ACT AND THE ASSESSEE FILED LE TTER TO TREAT THE ORIGINAL RETURN FILED IN COMPLIANCE TO RE-ASSESSMEN T NOTICE. FURTHER ITA NO.776 TO778/MDS/2016 :- 4 -: NOTICE U/S.143(2) OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED. DUE TO CH ANGE OF JURISDICTION OF THE CASE THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED NOTICE S U/S.143(2) AND 142(1) OF THE ACT. THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIV E OF ASSESSEE APPEARED FROM TIME TO TIME AND SUBMITTED DETAILS/DO CUMENTS IN THE RE-ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICE R CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS, EVIDENCE AND ENCUMBRANCE CERTIFICATES (EC) AND DISCUSSED ELABORATELY IN ASSESSMENT ORDER AND OBSE RVED THE PROFIT ON SALE OF LAND IS TAXABLE AND RELIED ON THE STATEMENT S RECORDED AND VOLUMINOUS MATERIALS AND COMPLETED ASSESSMENT U/S.1 43(3) R.W.S 147 OF THE ACT ON 27.03.2015 WITH UNDISCLOSED PROFIT OF ?2,66,24,500/- ON SALE OF LAND LOCATED AT MADHURANTAKKAM, AND ?14,40 ,000/- PROFIT ON SALE OF LAND AT THIRUKUZHIKUNDRAM. AGGRIEVED BY THE ADDITION, THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE COMMISSIONER OF INC OME TAX (APPEALS). 4. IN THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE CHALLENGED THE REOPENING OF ASSESSM ENT AND ADDITIONS OF PROFIT ON SALE OF LAND. THE LD. ASSES SING OFFICER HAS ALSO TAXED INCOME IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE IN RESPEC T OF SURVEY NOS WHICH DOES NOT BELONG TO HIM AND THE ASSESSEE WAS N EVER ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF PURCHASE AND SALE OF LAND OR DEVE LOPMENT OF HOUSING PLOTS. THE LD COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ON THE DATE OF ITA NO.776 TO778/MDS/2016 :- 5 -: HEARING ON 21.01.2016 CONSIDERED THE STATEMENT AND SUBMISSIONS OF LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE THAT ASSESSEE NEVER ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF REAL ESTATE AND PRIME FACIE NO MATERIA L WITH LD. ASSESSING OFFICER FOR REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. FURTHER THE LANDS SOLD ARE AGRICULTURAL LANDS AS PER RELEVANT RECORDS. THE L D. ASSESSING OFFICER NOT PROVIDED OPPORTUNITY TO EXAMINE THE CORRECTNESS OF EVIDENCE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE REQUESTED THREE WEEKS TIME. TH E LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) MENTIONED THAT THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS DISPOSED OFF THE WRIT PETITION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STATING THAT THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY IS DIRECTED TO DISPOSE OFF THE APPEALS FOR THE ABOVE SAID ASSESSMENT YEARS WIT HIN A PERIOD OF TWELVE WEEKS FROM THE DATE OF RECEIPT OF A COPY OF THIS ORDER. THE PETITIONER IS ALSO DIRECTED TO PARTICIPATE IN THE A PPEAL PROCEEDINGS WITHOUT SEEKING FOR UNNECESSARY ADJOURNMENTS AN D POSTED THE CASE FOR HEARING ON 27.01.2016. ON THE DATE OF HEARING, THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE REQUESTED TIME UPTO 04.02.2016 TO FI LE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS. THE REQUEST FOR ADJOURNMENT WAS NOT G RANTED TO THE ASSESSEE AS THE APPEAL HAS TO BE DISPOSED OF WITHI N STIPULATED PERIOD FIXED BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT. THE LD. COMMISSIO NER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) RELIED ON THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL, WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS, FINDINGS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND MATERIAL ON R ECORDS AND ITA NO.776 TO778/MDS/2016 :- 6 -: DISCUSSED EXHAUSTIVELY ON FACTS AT PAGE 5 TO 18 O F HIS ORDER AND DISMISSED THE APPEAL. AGGRIEVED BY THE COMMISSIONE R OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ORDER, THE ASSESSEE ASSAILED AN APPEAL BE FORE TRIBUNAL. 5. BEFORE US, THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE ARGUED ON THE VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE BY LD. C OMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IN NOT PROVIDING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING AND PASSING THE ORDER WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE REALISTIC FACTUAL INFORMATION. THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT DU RING THE PENDENCY OF APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE APPROACHED HONBLE HIGH CO URT OF MADRAS CHALLENGING THE RECOVERY PROCEEDINGS OF DEMAND BY I NCOME TAX AUTHORITY BY FILING WRIT PETITION AND HONBLE HIG H COURT OF MADRAS STAYED THE RECOVERY OF DISPUTED DEMAND AND DIRECTED THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) TO DISPOSE OFF THE APPEAL WITHIN A PERIOD OF TWELVE WEEKS FROM THE DATE OF RE CEIPT OF ORDER PASSED ON 27.10.2015. THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCO ME TAX (APPEALS) AS PER DIRECTIONS OF COURT, CLUBBED THE APPEALS OF THREE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2008-09, 2009-2010 AND 2010-2011 AND POSTED T HE CASE FOR HEARING ON 21.01.2016 AND AGAIN CASE WAS POSTED ON 27.01.2016 AS PER REQUEST OF LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE. ON S AID DATE THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE REQUESTED TIME FOR FILING EVIDENCES, WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS AND PLEADED TO POST THE CASE ON ITA NO.776 TO778/MDS/2016 :- 7 -: 04.02.2016 BUT LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPE ALS) HAS NOT CONSIDERED THE REQUEST AND DISMISSED THE APPEALS O F THE ASSESSEE VIDE ORDER DATED 29.01.2016. IMMEDIATELY, THE LD. A R FILED A LETTER ADDRESSED TO LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL S) ON 03.02.2016 BY SPEED POST EXPRESSING GROSS VIOLATION OF PRINCI PLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND THE ASSESSEE WAS DEPRIVED ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING. THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) REPLIED T HROUGH LETTER DATED 05.02.2016 THAT ORDER WAS PASSED AS PER THE D IRECTIONS OF HONBLE HIGH COURT TO DISPOSE OFF THE APPEAL WITHIN A PERIOD OF 12 WEEKS FROM THE DATE OF RECEIPT OF HIGH COURT ORDER. THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE EMPHASIZED THAT THE SUBMISSIONS OF T HE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ARE FACTUALLY INCORRECT AND TWELVE WEEKS TIME PERIOD EXTENDS TILL THE IST WEEK OF MARCH, 2016 WE REAS THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS HURRIEDLY PASSED IMPUGNED ORDER ON 29.01.2016 AND THE ASSESSEE WAS D EPRIVED TO SUBMIT THE MATERIAL, EVIDENCE AND REPLY TO THE CORR OBORATIVE MATERIAL AGAINST THE ASSESSEE RELIED BY THE LD. ASSESSING O FFICER FOR ASSESSMENT. THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. COMMISSIO NER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IS IN GROSS VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE, WHICH IIS ERRONEOUS AND BAD IN LAW. THE LD. AUTHORI SED REPRESENTATIVE TO SUBSTANTIATE THE CLAIM HAS FILED TYPED SET CONT AINING DOCUMENTS OF ITA NO.776 TO778/MDS/2016 :- 8 -: LAND, AGREEMENTS, SALE DEEDS AND OTHER OWNERSHIP DE TAILS I.E. PATTA, CHITTA AND ADANGAL ETC ALONGWITH CORRESPONDENCE LET TERS OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AND PRAYED THE TRIBUNAL TO DECIDE THE APPEAL ON MERITS. 6. CONTRA, LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF THE CIT(A) AND OBJECTED TO THE LETTERS FILED AFT ER PASSING OF ORDER BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AND V EHEMENTLY OPPOSED TO THE GROUNDS. 7. WE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSED THE MATERIA L ON RECORD AND TYPED SET, DOCUMENTS AND CONSIDER THE SU BMISSIONS, GROUNDS AND RESTRICT TO THE SUBMISSIONS ON DEPREVI NG OF ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING BEFORE COMMISSIONER OF INCOM E TAX (APPEALS). THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE REITERATED THE SU BMISSIONS IN ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND DREW OUR ATTENTION TO TH E PAGE NO.127 OF TYPED SET WERE THE LETTER DATED 03.02.2016 ADDRESSE D TO THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-5, CHENNAI EXP LAINING THE GENUINE REASONS AND VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLES OF NA TURAL JUSTICE WERE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER HAS CONDUCTED INVESTIGATION AND COLLECTED THE INFORMATION WHICH WAS USED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE IN ASSESSMENT AND THE SAME WAS NOT FURNISHED TO THE ASSESSEE FOR EXAM INATION OR OPPORTUNITY WAS GRANTED TO RESPOND TO THE MATERIALS . FURTHER, FILED ITA NO.776 TO778/MDS/2016 :- 9 -: ANOTHER LETTER DATED 04.02.2016 WITH PRELIMINARY WR ITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND FURNISHING OF VALID REPLY ON MATERIALS RELIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR AD JUDICATE WHICH WAS NOT SUPPLIED/PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE IN THE ASSESS MENT PROCEEDINGS. THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ISSUE D LETTER DATED 05.02.2016 EXPLAINING THE CASE AND POSTED FOR HEAR ING ON 21.01.2016 AS PER DIRECTION OF HONBLE HIGH COURT, THE APPEAL HAS TO BE DISPOSED OFF WITHIN A PERIOD OF TWELVE WEEKS FROM THE DATE O F RECEIPT OF ORDER AND APPEAL WAS DISPOSED OFF ON 29.01.2006 RELYING ON THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL AND SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. AU THORISED REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT THE PERIOD OF TWELVE WEEKS FROM THE DATE OF RECEIPT OF ORDER FROM HIGH COURT IS EXTENDE D UPTO 1 ST WEEK OF MARCH, 2016 BUT THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS PASSED THE ORDER WITHOUT CONSIDERING ADJOURNMENT R EQUEST UPTO 4.02.2016 WERE THE ASSESSEE WANTS TO SUBSTANTIATE T HE CASE IN FILING REPLY ON EVIDENCE COLLECTED BY THE LD. ASSESSING OF FICER AND WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS. THE ASSESSEE SUBSEQUENTLY FILED EXPLAN ATIONS AND WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON 03.02.2016 & 04.02.2016. THE PRINCIP LE OF NATURAL JUSTICE IS A CONCEPT OF COMMON LAW AND REPRESENTS H IGHER PROCEDURAL PRINCIPLES DEVELOPED BY THE COURTS, WHICH EVERY JUD ICIAL, QUASI-JUDICIAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY MUST FOLLOW WHILE TAKING ANY DECISION ITA NO.776 TO778/MDS/2016 :- 10 -: ADVERSELY AFFECTING THE RIGHTS OF THE ASSESSEE AND IMPLIES FAIRNESS, EQUITY AND EQUALITY AND ASSESSEE HAS LEGAL RIGHT TO INSPECT AND TAKE COPIES OF ALL RELEVANT DOCUMENTS, AND IT IS A ELEME NTARY PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE IN THE LAW OF TAXATION IS THAT THE ASSESSEE SHOULD HAVE KNOWLEDGE OF THE MATERIAL WHICH IS BEING USED AGAINST HIM WHICH ASSESSEE CAN DEFEND HIS CASE. THE DEPARTMENT CANNO T RELY ON DATA COLLECTED BEYOND THE BACK OF THE ASSESSEE AND WITHO UT GIVING AN OPPORTUNITY TO REBUT THE FACTS. CONSIDERING THE APP ARENT FACTS, PROVISIONS OF LAW AND PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE , MATERIAL EVIDENCES AND ORDER OF HONBLE HIGH COURT, WE ARE OF THE OPIN ION THAT ASSESSEE SHOULD NOT BE DEPRIVED TO PRESENT THE CASE WITH COM PLETE MATERIAL EVIDENCE AND PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING SHOULD B E PROVIDED BEFORE DECIDING THE CASE AND WE REMIT ENTIRE FILE TO THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) TO ADJUDICATE THE CASE ON MER ITS AFTER PROVIDING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING FOR SUBMISSIONS B EFORE PASSING THE ORDER. THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO DIRECTED NOT SEEK UNNE CESSARY ADJOURNMENTS WITHOUT GENUINE REASONS. THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. 8. CONSEQUENTLY, THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE IN ITA N OS.777 & 778/MDS/2016 FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2009-2010 AND 20 10-2011 ARE ITA NO.776 TO778/MDS/2016 :- 11 -: ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NOS. 776, 777 & 778/MDS/2016 ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURP OSE. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THURSDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF JUN E, 2016, AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( ) (CHANDRA POOJARI) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( . ! ' ) (G. PAVAN KUMAR) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / CHENNAI 1 / DATED:09.06.2016 KV 2 ) +#-34 54&- / COPY TO: 1 . '( / APPELLANT 3. ! 6- () / CIT(A) 5. 4 9: +#-# / DR 2. +,'( / RESPONDENT 4. ! 6- / CIT 6. :;% < / GF