DCIT, CHENNAI V. Amalgamations Ltd., CHENNAI

ITA 811/CHNY/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 96041 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-09-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 01-09-2015
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 13-04-2015
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A V SREEKANTH
• Assessee Lawyers: R VIJAYARAGHAVAN
• Section: 14A

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, CHENNAI . , ! , ' #$ % , & ' BEFORE SHRI A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ I.T.A.NO. 811 /MDS./2015 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR :2010-11) DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI 600 034. VS. M/S.AMALGAMATIONS LTD., 861,SIMPSONS BULDING, ANNA SALAI, CHENNAI 600 002. PAN AAACA 2922 N ( () / APPELLANT ) ( %*() / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY : MR.A.V.SREEKANTH, JCIT, D.R / RESPONDENT BY : MR.R.VIJAYARAGHAVAN,ADVOCATE / DATE OF HEARING : 01.09.2015 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 16.09.2015 + / O R D E R PER A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE REVENUE, AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(A)-I, CHENNA I DATED ITA NO.811 /MDS/2015 2 26.12.2014 IN ITA NO.178/CIT(A)-1/2013-14 PASSED UN DER SEC.143(3) READ WITH SECTION SEC. 250 OF THE ACT. 2. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED FOUR ELABORATE GROUNDS I N ITS APPEAL; HOWEVER THE CRUXES OF THE ISSUES ARE THAT:- 1. THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN DIRECTING THE AO TO DELETE THE DISALLOWANCE MADE INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIO N 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT FOR NOT DEDUCTING TAX ON THE PAYMENT OF ` 1,13,51,946/- MADE TO THE SECONDED EMPLOYEES FROM T HE ASSESSEES SUBSIDIARY COMPANY WHICH IS TO BE REIMBU RSED BY THE ASSESSEES SUBSIDIARY COMPANY. 2. THE LD. CIT (A) HAD ERRED IN DIRECTING THE A.O T O REWORK THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY APPLYING THE LIMB (III) OF RUL E 8D(2) AFTER REDUCING THE INVESTMENTS MADE IN SUBSIDIARY COMPANI ES. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESS EE COMPANY IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF CONSULTANCY IN EXPORT AG ENCY SERVICES, INVESTMENTS, MARKETING SERVICES, BILLS DISCOUNTING ETC., FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 28.09.2010 ADMITTING ITS INCOME AS ` 6,00,20,407/- FOR ITA NO.811 /MDS/2015 3 THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE CASE WAS TAKEN UP FOR SCRUTINY AND THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S.1 43(3) OF THE ACT ON 15.03.2013 WHEREIN THE LD. A.O MADE DISALLOWANCE S BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT AND SECTION 14A READ WITH RULE 8D OF THE RULES. 4.1. GROUND NO.1:- DISALLOWANCE OF ` `` ` 1,13,51,946/- BEING THE AMOUNT PAID TO SECONDED EMPLOYEES ON WHICH TAX IS NOT DEDUCTED AT SOURCE. DURING THE COURSE OF SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT PROCEEDI NGS, IT WAS OBSERVED BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE ASSE SSEE HAD NOT DEDUCTED TAX ON THE REMUNERATION PAID TO THE SECOND ED EMPLOYEES FROM THE ASSESSEES SUBSIDIARY COMPANY. ON QUERY B Y THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER AS TO WHY TAX IS NOT DEDUCTED AT SOURCE?, THE ASSESSEE HAD EXPLAINED THAT THE REMUNERATION PAID T O THE SECONDED EMPLOYEES BY THE ASSESSEE IS TO BE REIMBURSED BY TH E ASSESSEES SUBSIDIARY COMPANY AND THE ASSESSEES SUBSIDIARY CO MPANY IN TURN HAS DEDUCTED TAX AT SOURCE AGAINST THE REMUNERATION PAID BY THE ASSESSEE TO ITS SECONDED EMPLOYEES. IT WAS THEREFOR E SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT BOUND TO DEDUCT TAX FOR THE PA YMENT MADE TO ITA NO.811 /MDS/2015 4 THE SECONDED EMPLOYEES. HOWEVER, THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER REJECTED THE ARGUMENT OF THE ASSESSEE AND INVOKED T HE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT FOR NON-DEDUCTION OF T AX AT SOURCE AGAINST THE REMUNERATION PAID TO THE ASSESSEES SECONDED EM PLOYEES BECAUSE OF THE FOLLOWING REASONS:- I. THERE EXIST A SEPARATE AGREEMENT TO RENDER SERV ICES TO THE ASSESSEE COMPANY BY THE OTHER PARTY I.E. M/S.SIMPSON & C. LT D. II. BEING BOTH THE PARTIES ARE DIFFERENT LEGAL ENTI TIES AND ONE PARTY RENDERED SERVICES TO OTHER PARTY, THE PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER XVII-B IS ATTRACTED. III. NONE OF THE EMPLOYEES OR MAN POWER WHICH RENDE RED THE SERVICES UNDER THIS HEAD OF EXPENSES ARE IN THE ROLL OF THE ASSESS EE COMPANY AND IN FACT THEY ARE ALL EMPLOYEES OF THE OTHER PARTY I.E. M/S. SIMPSON & CO. LTD. WHICH RENDERED THE SERVICES. IV. THE ARRANGEMENT OR AGREEMENTS ARE BETWEEN TWO L EGAL ENTITIES AND NOT BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND THE EMPLOYEES. EVEN IN THE LATTER CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAS TO DEDUCT THE TDS AS PER LAW BUT FAILE D TO COMPLY WITH THE PROVISIONS. V. IT IS EVIDENT FROM THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE CO MPANY HAD ACCOUNTED THIS EXPENSE TOWARD THE SERVICES RENDERED BY ANOTHER LEG AL ENTITY AND SUCH PAYMENTS NEED TO BE SUBJECTED TO TDS. VI. IN GENERAL, MEN AND MATERIALS ARE MAJOR INPUTS EITHER DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY FOR ANY BUSINESS ACTIVITY. THE ASSESSEES EXPLANATI ON THAT THERE IS NO INCOME OR BENEFIT ACCRUED OUT OF SUCH SERVICES REND ERED BY M/S. SIMPSON CO. LTD, WILL VITIATE THE ENTIRE CLAIM OF SUCH EXPE NSES UNDER THE BUSINESS HEAD SINCE IT WAS NOT INCURRED FOR THE PURPOSE OF B USINESS. HENCE SUCH EXPENSES WITHOUT ANY CORRESPONDING INCOME NEEDS DIS ALLOWANCE PER-SE ITA NO.811 /MDS/2015 5 AS THERE IS NO MATCHING CONCEPT BETWEEN THE INCOME AND THE EXPENDITURE CLAIM. 4.2 WHEN THE MATTER CROPPED UP BEFORE THE LD. CIT ( A), HE DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE LD. A.O FOLLOWING THE ORDE R OF HIS PREDECESSOR IN THE APPELLANTS OWN CASE FOR THE ASS ESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 IN ITA NO.165/2012-13/A-VI DATED 25.01.2013 WHEREIN IT WAS HELD AS FOLLOWS:- IT IS HELD THAT THE MONIES PAID TO SCL ARE ONLY TH E REIMBURSEMENTS OF THE EXPENDITURE BUT NOT THE PAYMENTS FOR SERVICES RENDE RED, THE LATTER INVOLVING AND INCLUDING A PROFIT ELEMENT WHILE THE FORMER DOES NO T. ACCORDINGLY AND ALSO FOLLOWING THE RATIOS RELIED UPON BY THE A.R, THE AS SESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO DELETE THE ADDITION . 4.2 BEFORE US, THE LD. A.R SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSU E IS SQUARELY COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE DECISION OF THE DELHI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE UNITED HOTELS LTD VS. I TO IN ITA NO.1600/DEL./2001 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998-99 V IDE ORDER DT 11.11.2004 REPORTED IN 93 TTJ (DEL) 822. THE LD. D. R ON THE OTHER HAND ARGUED IN SUPPORT OF THE ORDER OF THE LD. ASSE SSING OFFICER. ITA NO.811 /MDS/2015 6 4.3 WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND CAREFULLY PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE CLAIM OF THE AS SESSEE IS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ONLY MAKING PAYMENT TO ITS SECONDED EMP LOYEES FROM THE ASSESSEES SUBSIDIARY COMPANY ON BEHALF OF ITS SUBSIDIARY COMPANY WHICH IS TO BE REIMBURSED TO THE ASSESSEE C OMPANY BY THE ASSESSEES SUBSIDIARY COMPANY. THE TAX IS DEDUCTED AT SOURCE DIRECTLY BY THE ASSESSEES SUBSIDIARY COMPANY FOR T HE PAYMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY TO THE SECONDED EMPLOYEES F ROM THE ASSESSEES SUBSIDIARY COMPANY. IT WAS THEREFORE AR GUED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT BOUND TO DEDUCT TAX ON SUCH ADVANCE S MADE BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEES SUBSID IARY COMPANY WHICH IS REIMBURSABLE. WE FIND MERIT IN THE CONTEN TION OF THE ASSESSEE. IF TAX IS ALREADY DEDUCTED AT SOURCE ON THE SALARY PAID TO THE SECONDED EMPLOYEES BY THE ASSESSEES SUBSIDIARY COMPANY, THEN ONCE AGAIN DEDUCTION OF TAX ON SUCH SALARY PAY MENT WOULD AMOUNT TO DOUBLE DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE. IT IS APPARENT FROM THE FACTS OF THE CASE THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS OBTA INING SOME SERVICE FROM ITS SUBSIDIARY COMPANY FOR WHICH THE A SSESSEE COMPANY PAYS SERVICE CHARGES TO ITS SUBSIDIARY COMPANY. LD . A.R. SUBMITTED ITA NO.811 /MDS/2015 7 BEFORE US THAT THE AMOUNT PAID TO THE SECONDED EMPL OYEES FROM THE ASSESSEES SUBSIDIARY COMPANY IS NOT THE ADDITIONAL REMUNERATION PAID TO THE ASSESSEES SUBSIDIARY COMPANY BUT ONLY A PAYMENT IN THE NATURE OF ADVANCE WHICH IS TO BE REIMBURSED BY THE ASSESSEES SUBSIDIARY COMPANY. IF THAT IS SO, THEN SUCH PAYMENTS WOULD NOT ATTRACT THE PROVISIONS OF TAX DEDUCTED AT SOURCE. HOWEVER, THESE ASPECTS ARE NOT CLEARLY BROUGHT OUT IN THE ORDERS O F THE REVENUE. THE LD. A.R. HAS RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE DELH I BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL STATED SUPRA, THE GIST OF WHICH IS REPRODU CED HEREIN BELOW FOR REFERENCE:- HELD : IT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE REVENUE THAT THE PERSONS DEPUTED IN THE ASSESSEES HOTEL WERE CARRYING ON ANY PROFESSION. I F AN ACCOUNTS EXECUTIVE WAS DEPUTED, HE WAS DOING THE DUTY AS WAS ASSIGNED TO HIM BY HIS EMPLOYER. IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT HE WAS CARRYING ON THE PROFESSION OF ACCOUNTANCY AND THAT WHAT HE RECEIVED WERE FEES IN THE COURSE OF CARRYING ON SUCH PROFESSION. IN FACT, WHAT HE RECEIVED WAS M ERELY SALARY FROM THE EMPLOYER FOR DOING THE DUTY ASSIGNED TO HIM BY THE EMPLOYER. SIMILARLY, IF AN ENGINEER WAS DEPUTED, THE ENGINEER WAS NOT RENDERIN G ANY TECHNICAL CONSULTANCY TO THE ASSESSEE. HE WAS MERELY DOING HI S DUTY AS AN EMPLOYEE. THE MEANING ASSIGNED TO THE EXPRESSION F EES FOR TECHNICAL SERVICES IS THE SAME AS IS GIVEN IN EXPLN 2 TO S. 9(L)(VII). THE CASE OF THE REVENUE IS THAT THE PERSONS WHO WERE DEPUTED WERE T ECHNICALLY QUALIFIED TO DO THE JOB THEY WERE PERFORMING AND HENCE THE AMOUN T WHICH WAS REIMBURSED TO IHC WAS NOTHING BUT FEES FOR TECHNICA L SERVICES. FOR A ITA NO.811 /MDS/2015 8 MOMENT, IF THIS ARGUMENT OF THE REVENUE IS ACCEPTED , EVEN THEN IT CANNOT FAIL WITHIN THE SCOPE OF FEES FOR TECHNICAL SERVIC ES. THIS IS BECAUSE EXPLN. 2 CLEARLY EXCLUDES CONSIDERATION WHICH WOULD BE INC OME OF THE RECIPIENT CHARGEABLE UNDER THE HEAD SALARIES. IN THE PRESEN T CASE, IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT WHAT IS REIMBURSED BY THE ASSESSEE IS THE ACTUAL SALARY OF THE DEPUTED PERSONNEL. UNDOUBTEDLY, FAR EACH DEPUTED PE RSON, THE AMOUNT RECEIVED BY HIM IS INCOME CHARGEABLE UNDER THE HEAD SALARY AND THEREFORE, IT CANNOT BE TERMED AS FEES FOR TECHNIC AL SERVICES WHAT S. 194J ENVISAGES IS THAT WHAT THE RECIPIENT RECEIVES MUST NOT BE SALARYWHETHER PROFESSIONAL SERVICES ARE RENDERED OR WHETHER TECHN ICAL SERVICES ARE RENDERED. SO FAR AS PROFESSIONAL SERVICES ARE CONCE RNED, THE AMOUNT MUST HAVE BEEN RECEIVED IN THE COURSE OF CARRYING ON THE SPECIFIED PROFESSION. SO THERE IS NO QUESTION OF DEDUCTING TAX AT SOURCE UNDER S. 194J FROM THE SALARY PAID TO AN ACCOUNTS EXECUTIVE, LEGAL OFFICER , ETC. OF THE COMPANY. LIKEWISE, AMOUNT RECEIVED BY A TECHNICAL PERSONNEL MUST NOT BE CHARGEABLE TO TAX UNDER THE HEAD SALARIES, IN THE- PRESENT C ASE, WHAT HAS BEEN PAID TO THE DEPUTED PERSONNEL IS A SALARY AND HENCE THE ASS ESSEE WAS NOT LIABLE TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE FROM THE PAYMENT OF RS. 39,55, 161 MADE BY IT TO IHC AS REIMBURSEMENT OF SALARIES IN RESPECT OF VARIOUS PERSONNEL DEPUTED TO THE HOTEL OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ALTERNATIVE CONTENTION O F THE COUNSEL ALSO HAS TO BE ACCEPTED IN VIEW OF THE CLEAR PROVISIONS OF THE EXPLANATION TO S. 191. ASSUMING, WITHOUT ADMITTING, THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS LIABLE TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE UNDER S. 194J, STILL NO DEMAND FOR NON-DEDUC TION OF TAX COULD HAVE BEEN RAISED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. THIS IS BECAUSE T HE DEDUCTOR WILL BE LIABLE ONLY IF THE RECIPIENT HAS NOT PAID THE TAX O N THE AMOUNT RECEIVED BY HIM. IN THE INSTANT CASE, IT IS NOT DISPUTED THAT T HE DEPUTED PERSONS, WHEREVER LIABLE, HAVE PAID THE TAX ON THE SALARIES RECEIVED BY THEM AND HENCE NO FURTHER TAX CAN BE COLLECTED FROM THE ASSE SSEE. THE ORDER PASSED UNDER SS. 201, AND 201(1A) IS BAD IN LAW AND THE CI T(A) HAD ALSO ERRED IN ITA NO.811 /MDS/2015 9 CONFIRMING THE SAME. NEEDLESS TO ADD, SINCE THE ASS ESSEE WAS NOT LIABLE TO DEDUCT TAX UNDER S. 194J, THERE IS NO QUESTION OF L EVYING ANY INTEREST ALSO UNDER S. 201(1A). SINCE THE BOTH THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES HAS NOT EXAM INED THE FOLLOWING ASPECTS AND HELD THE ISSUE AGAINST AND IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE; I.E., WHETHER THE TAX HAS BEEN DULY DEDUC TED AT SOURCE BY THE ASSESSEES SUBSIDIARY COMPANY ON THE PAYMENT MA DE BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE SECONDED EMPLOYEES FROM THE ASSESSE ES SUBSIDIARY COMPANY, WHETHER THE PAYMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE C OMPANY TO THE SECONDED EMPLOYEES FROM THE ASSESSEES SUBSIDIA RY COMPANY AMOUNTS TO ADVANCE PAYMENT TO THE ASSESSEES SUBSID IARY COMPANY WHICH IS REIMBURSABLE AND DOES NOT AMOUNT TO ADDIT IONAL SERVICE CHARGES PAYABLE BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY TO THE ASSE SSEES SUBSIDIARY COMPANY AND ALSO THE DECISIONS CITED BY THE ASSESSEE HEREINABOVE, WE HEREBY REMIT BACK THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER TO CONSIDER ALL THESE ASPECTS DIS CUSSED HEREINABOVE AND PASS APPROPRIATE ORDER AS PER MERIT S AND LAW. WE FURTHER DIRECT THE ASSESSEE TO CO-OPERATE WITH THE REVENUE IN ITS ITA NO.811 /MDS/2015 10 PROCEEDINGS TO EXPEDITE THEIR ORDERS. THIS GROUND IS ACCORDINGLY DISPOSED OFF. 5.1. GROUND NO.1 DISALLOWANCE OF U/S.14A OF THE ACT READ WITH RULE 8D OF THE RULES. THE ASSESSEE HAD DECLARED AN AMOUNT OF RS.14,65, 99,331/- AS DIVIDEND FROM ITS INVESTMENTS DURING THE RELEVANT P REVIOUS YEAR AND CLAIMED EXEMPTION U/S.10(34) OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER INVOKED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION -14A READ WITH RULE 8D AND MADE ADDITIONS. ON APPEAL THE LD. CIT (A) HELD THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY FOLLOWING THE DE CISION OF THIS BENCH OF TRIBUNAL BY OBSERVING AS UNDER:- 5.2 I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE C ASE AND THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. A.R. SIMILAR ISSUE HAS COME UP FOR DISCUSSION BEFORE ME IN THE APPELLANTS OWN CASE FOR A.Y 08-09 WHEREIN THE GROUND WAS PARTLY ALLOWED VIDE ITA NO.340/10-11/A-I (NEW I TA 124/CIT(A)-1/2010- 11) DATED 26.12.2014 WITH A DIRECTION TOT EH A.O TO REWORK THE DISALLOWANCE UNDER LIMB (III) OF RULE 8D(2) AND DISALLOW THE AMO UNT, IF ANY, AFTER REDUCING THE INVESTMENTS MADE IN SUBSIDIARY COMPANIES BY REL YING ON THE DECISION OF THE JURISDICTIONAL ITAT IN THE CASE OF EIH ASSOCIAT ED HOTELS LTD. VS. CIT (2013-TIOL-796-ITAT-MAD-A.Y 08-09 DT.17.7.2013. SI NCE THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT ASSESSMENT YEAR BEING SAME, I HEREBY DIRECT THE A.O TO REDUCE THE INVESTMENTS MADE IN SUBSIDIAR Y COMPANIES AND ITA NO.811 /MDS/2015 11 REWORK DISALLOWANCE UNDER LIMB (III) OF RULE 8D(2). THE GROUND IS PARTLY ALLOWED. BEFORE US, THE LD. D.R COULD NOT CONTROVERT TO THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT (A) THAT THIS ISSUE IS NOT COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE ORDER OF THE CHENNAI BENCHES OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE EIH ASSOCIATES HOTELS VS. CIT REPORTED IN 2013-TIOL-796 -ITAT-MAD- A.Y2008-09 DATED 17.02.2013. MOREOVER THE LD. A.R F URNISHED THE COPY OF THE ABOVE MENTIONED ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL W HEREIN IT WAS HELD AS FOLLOWS:- --- THE INVESTMENTS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE S UBSIDIARY COMPANY ARE NOT ON ACCOUNT OF INVESTMENT FOR EARNING CAPITAL GAINS OR DIVIDEND INCOME. SUCH INVESTMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESSEE TO PROMO TE SUBSIDIARY COMPANY INTO THE HOTEL INDUSTRY. THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTO THE BUSINESS OF INVESTMENT AND THE INVESTMENTS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ON ACCOUNT OF BUSINESS EXPEDIENCY. ANY DIVIDEND EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM INVESTMENT IN SUBSIDIARY COMPANY IS PURELY INCIDENTAL. THEREFORE THE INVESTMENTS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS SUBSIDIARY ARE NOT TO BE RECKONED FOR DISALLOWANCE U/S.14A R.W.R. 8D. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO RE-COMPUTE THE AVE RAGE VALUE OF INVESTMENT UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 8D AFTER DELETING INVE STMENTS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN SUBSIDIARY COMPANY IT IS APPARENT FROM THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL THAT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IS COVERED BY THE ABOVE REFERRED DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL. ITA NO.811 /MDS/2015 12 THEREFORE, WE DO NOT FIND IT NECESSARY TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (A) WHO HAS ONLY FOLLOWED THE ORDER OF THIS BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL CITED SUPRA. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF REVENUE IS PARTLY A LLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 16 TH SEPTEMBER, 2015 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( ' #$ % ) ((CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD) ( . ) (A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER CHENNAI, DATED THE 16 TH SEPTEMBER, 2015. K S SUNDARAM. !'## $%#&% /COPY TO: # 1. /APPELLANT 2. /RESPONDENT 3. # '#() /CIT(A) 4. # ' /CIT 5. %*+# , /DR 6. +-#. /GF