Shaji Purushothaman, CHENNAI V. ACIT, CHENNAI

ITA 841/CHNY/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5040 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 9 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-01-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 23-05-2017
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 04-04-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: M PALANICHAMY
• Assessee Lawyers: A S SRIRAMAN
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Peak credit
• Section: 69

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, CHENNAI . , BEFORE SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY , JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /. I.T.A. NO. 841/MDS/2016 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12 SHRI. SHAJI PURUSHOTHAMAN, NO. 346 A, PANTHEON ROAD, EGMORE, CHENNAI 600 008. [PAN: AAIPS 8327E] VS. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BUSINESS CIRCLE VII/NCC-9, CHENNAI. ( / APPELLANT) ( / RESPONDENT) () / APPELLANT BY : SHRI. A.S. SRIRAMAN, ADVOCATE ,-() / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI. M. PALANICHAMY, JCIT ) /DATE OF HEARING : 06.10.2017 ) /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 04.01.2018 / O R D E R PER S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THE ASSESSEE FILED THIS APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-10, CHENNAI IN NEW ITA NO. 28/2014-15/CIT(A)-10 DATED 25.02.2016 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12. :-2-: ITA NO. 841/MDS/2016 2. SHRI SHAJI PURUSHOTHAMAN , THE ASSESSEE, A PARTNER IN EMPEE PACKAGING INDUSTRIES, RECEIVED SALARY FROM EMPEE DISTILLARIES , ADMITTED RENTAL AND INTEREST INCOME . THE AO RECEIVED INFORMATION THR OUGH AIR THAT THERE WERE HUGE CASH DEPOSITS IN THE ASSESSEES SB ACCOUNT AT ANDHRA BANK , EGMORE BRANCH . AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT FOR AY 2011-12, THE AO NOTICED THAT THIS ACCOUNT DID NOT INDICATE HIS REGULAR RECEIPTS OF SA LARY, RENT ETC WHICH HAS BEEN OFFERED AS INCOME. THE AO AFTER ANALYZING THE PATTE RN OF THE CASH WITHDRAWALS AND THE CASH DEPOSITS, DID NOT ACCEPT THE ASSESSEE 'S EXPLANATION THAT THE EARLIER CASH WITHDRAWALS MADE FROM THE BANK IS THE SOURCE FOR THE SUBSEQUENT CASH DEPOSITS IN THE BANK AND HENCE BRO UGHT TO TAX THE ENTIRE CASH DEPOSITS MADE ON VARIOUS DATES AT RS.45,56,604 /- AS AN UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT U/S.69. THE CIT(A) DISMISSED THE APPEAL. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE FILED THIS APPEAL CONTENDING THAT THE CIT (APPEALS) ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF RS.45,63,708/- , REPRESE NTING CASH DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT , U/S 69 . THE SOURCES FOR THE CASH DEPOSITS WAS FULLY EXPLAINED BUT THE CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE DETAILED AN ALYSIS OF THE BANK STATEMENT, HE HAS NOT PROPERLY LOOKED INTO IT AND H ENCE HIS DECISION IS VITIATED. THE CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE HIS ALT ERNATE CONTENTION FOR QUANTIFYING THE ADDITION BASED ON PEAK CREDIT METHO D, HENCE HIS DECISION IS VITIATED COMPLETELY AND THE DECISIONS RELIED ON HI M HAVE NO APPLICATION TO THE FACTS OF THIS CASE ETC. :-3-: ITA NO. 841/MDS/2016 3. WE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND GONE THROUGH RELEVANT MATERIAL. FOR CLARITY SAKE, THE DETAILS OF THE CASH DEPOSITS & CA SH WITHDRAWALS SPECIFIED IN A CHART IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS EXTRACTED AS UNDER : DATE CASH DEPOSIT CASH DRAWINGS OPENING BALANCE AS ON 01/04/2010 96,50,313 23/04/2010 55,00,000 (CHEQUE ISSUED) 11/05/2010 10,000 18/05/2010 30,000 29/05/2010 3,000 01/06/2010 24,000 02/06/2010 50,000 05/06/2010 81,500 07/06/2010 1,00,000 15/06/2010 20,00,000 16/06/2010 30,000 12/06/2010 10,000 19/06/2010 25,000 03/07/2010 70,000 05/07/2010 68,000 06/07/2010 18,000 13/07/2010 1,20,000 15/07/2010 18,20,000 19/07/2010 50,100 03/08/2010 50,000 04/08/2010 75,000 04/08/2010 50,000 05/08/2010 1,00,000 06/08/2010 1,00,000 03/09/2010 10,000 06/09/2010 1,00,000 08/09/2010 23,000 14/09/2010 23,000 24/09/2010 1,00,000 26/09/2010 2,00,000 27/09/2010 15,000 :-4-: ITA NO. 841/MDS/2016 27/09/2010 8,000 40,000 15/10/2010 30,000 15/1012010 6,00,000 18/01/2011 3,000 24/01/2011 6,000 07/02/2011 70,000 21/02/2011 5,00,000 25/02/2011 1,95,000 02/03/2011 20,000 02/03/2011 50,000 05/03/2011 15,000 17/03/2011 22,000 4. BEFORE THE AO, THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE CASH DEPOSITS ARE FROM THE WITHDRAWALS ALREADY MADE FROM THE SAME BAN K ACCOUNT. THE AO ANALYSED THE CASH WITHDRAWAL & DEPOSITS, RECORDED HIS OBSERVATIONS AND FINDINGS IN THE ORDER. LET US EXAMINE THEM AS UNDER : A) THE BALANCE IN THE BANK ACCOUNT AS ON 01/04/20 10 IS RS. 96,50,313/-. DURING APRIL, THERE ARE NO CASH WITHD RAWALS FROM THE BANK STATEMENT AS WELL AS FROM THE DAY BOOK . THE ASSESS EE HAS STATED THAT RS 55 1AKHS IS WITHDRAWN BY CASH. HOWEVER, THE E NTRY IN THE BANK STATEMENT IS 'T.R. BHASKARAN 765027 55,00,000.' 765027 WHICH IS THE CHEQUE NUMBER. THEREFORE, IT IS CLEAR THAT THIS DOES NOT PERTAIN TO A CASH WITHDRAWAL. B) FROM 11/05/2010 TO 15/06/2010, CASH DEPOS ITS TOTALING TO RS. 22,98,500/- IS MADE. THE CASH DEPOSIT MADE ON 15/6/ 2010 ALONE IS :-5-: ITA NO. 841/MDS/2016 RS.20,00,000/-. THERE IS NO CASH WITHDRAWAL FROM 1 ST APRIL TILL 15/06/2010. SINCE, THERE ARE NO SOURCES FOR THE CAS H DEPOSITS IN THE DAY BOOK , THE ASSESSEE'S EXPLANATION OF CASH WITHD RAWALS BEING THE SOURCE FOR CASH DEPOSITS FROM 11/05/201 TO 15/06/2 010 OF RS. 22,98,500/- IS WITHOUT ANY BASIS AND NOT ACCEPTABLE . C) ON 16/06/2010, 17/06/2010 & 19/06/2010, THERE AR E CASH WITHDRAWALS OF RS.65,000/-. AFTER THIS WITHDRAWAL, THERE IS A CASH DEPOSIT OF RS. 70,000 ON 3/7/2010 WHICH CAN BE EXPL AINED BY THE WITHDRAWAL OF RS, 65,000/-, PARTLY, AND THE BALANCE RS. 5000 IS NOT EXPLAINED. SUBSEQUENT TO THIS DATE, THERE ARE CASH DEPOSITS OF RS. 68,000 (05/07/2010), RS. 18,000 (06/07/2010). RS.1. 20,000 (13/07/2010) FOR WHICH SOURCES ARE NOT EXPLAINED. T HEREFORE, DURING THIS PERIOD IE FROM 3/7/2010 TO 13/7/2010, THE TOTA L CASH DEPOSITS MADE AT RS. 2,01,000 ARE NOT EXPLAINED. D) THERE IS A CASH WITHDRAWAL OF RS. 18,20,000/- ON 15/7/2010. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT THIS CASH WITHDRAWAL WAS MA DE FOR THE PURPOSE OF INVESTMENT IN AGRICULTURAL LAND, WHICH DID NOT M ATERIALIZE AND OUT OF THE UNUTILIZED CASH WITHDRAWAL HE MADE CASH DEPOSIT S OF RS. 3,25,000/- FROM 19/07/2010 TO 05/08/2010 LEAVING APPROX RS. 1 5 LAKHS IN THE ASSESSEES HAND. THE AO HELD THAT THIS EXPLANATION IS HIGHLY IMPROBABLE AND WITHOUT ANY LOGIC FOR THE REASON THAT THE CASH WITHDRAWAL MADE ON 15/7/2010 AT RS. 18,20,000/- FOR THE INVESTMENT IN AGRICULTURAL LAND DID :-6-: ITA NO. 841/MDS/2016 NOT MATERIALIZE, THEN, IT DOES NOT EXPLAIN WHY HE S HOULD REDEPOSIT SMALL SUMS OF RS. 50,100/-, 50,000/-, 75,000/-, 50,000/-& 1,00,000/- ETC ON DIFFERENT DATES. THE LOGICAL THING WOULD BE TO RE- DEPOSIT THE WHOLE SUM ON A SINGLE DAY. NO CONVINCING REASON HAS BEEN GIV EN FOR THE VARYING AMOUNTS OF CASH WITHDRAWAL. SOMETIMES HUGE AMOUNTS LIKE RS. 18,20,000/- WERE WITHDRAWN AND SOMETIMES CASH WITHD RAWALS WERE MADE FOR SMALL SUMS LIKE RS. 10,000/- & 15,000. TH IS CLEARLY SHOWS THAT THERE IS NO NEXUS BETWEEN THE CASH WITHDRAWAL & THE DEPOSITS. FURTHER, THE SUBSEQUENT CASH WITHDRAWALS AND DEPOSI TS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT ARE AS UNDER: DATE WITHDRAWAL DEPOSIT 06/08/2010 1,00,000 03/09/2010 10,000 03/09/2010 10,000 06/09/2010 1,00,000 08/09/2010 23,000 14/09/2010 23,000 24/09/2010 1,00,000 26/09/2010 2,00,000 27/09/2010 15,000 27/09/2010 8,000 40,000 E) THE AO CONSIDERED THAT THERE IS AN IMPROBABILI TY IN THE ABOVE EXPLANATION THAT IF THE ASSESSEES CLAIM THAT HE H AD A BALANCE CASH OF APPROX RS 15 LAKHS WITH HIM, EVEN THEN , THE ASSESS EE FINDS IT NECESSARY TO WITHDRAW SMALLER AMOUNTS LIKE RS. 1,00 ,000- ON 6/8/2010, :-7-: ITA NO. 841/MDS/2016 RS 20,000/- (RS 10000/-, EACH) ON 3/9/2010, RS. 1 L AKH ON 24/09/2010, RS.2 LAKHS ON 26/09/2010, RS. 8,000/- ON 27/09/2010 ETC. THIS MAKES IT CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT HAVE ANY CASH WITH HIM AS ON 03/09/2010 (SIC) AND OTHER DATES OUT OF THE EARLIE R CASH WITHDRAWALS . WITH REFERENCE TO THE REMAINING WITHDRAWALS AND CAS H DEPOSITS IN THE ABOVE CHART THE AO OBSERVES THAT THE WITHDRAWALS MADE FROM 24/09/2010 TO 27/09/2010 ARE AT RS. 3,63,000/-ONLY. THIS DOES NOT EXPLAIN THE SOURCES OF TOTAL DEPOSITS AT RS. 15,11, 000/-MADE FROM 15/10/2010 TO 17/03/2011, NOR DOES IT EXPLAIN WHY T HESE DEPOSITS WERE MADE OVER A PERIOD OF 5 MONTHS FROM OCTOBER 2010 TO MARCH 2011.THUS, THE AO , INTER ALIA, HELD THAT THE ONL Y EVIDENCE FOR THE SOURCES OF THE CASH DEPOSITS IS THE WITHDRAWALS FRO M THE SAME BANK ACCOUNT AND THE PATTERN OF WITHDRAWALS AND THE CASH DEPOSITS HAS BEEN JUDGED. THE ONUS IS ON THE ASSESSEE TO PROVIDE PROO F FOR THE CLAIM MADE BY HIM AND THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO DISCHARG E THE ONUS . FROM THE ABOVE FACTS, THE AO HELD THAT IT IS CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN UNABLE TO CONVINCINGLY EXPLAIN THE SOURCES OF CASH DEPOSITS IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT AND THE EXPLANATION OFFERED IS ONLY A MAKE BELIEVE STATEMENT, AN AFTERTHOUGHT WHEN FACED WITH THE QUESTION OF HOW TO EXPLAIN THE CASH DEPOSITS. THE EXPLANATION IS TOTALLY UNCONVINC ING, WITHOUT LOGIC OR REASON AND NOT ACCEPTABLE. THE AO ALSO RELIED ON TH E RATIO OF THE APEX :-8-: ITA NO. 841/MDS/2016 COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS DURGA PRASAD MORE REPOR TED IN 82 ITR 540(SC) AND MADE THE IMPUGNED ADDITION. 5. ON THE ASSESSEES APPEAL, THE CIT(A) UPHELD THE AOS ACTION. THE RELEVANT PORTION OF HIS ORDER IS EXTRACTED AS UNDER : 4.3.3 I HAVE PERUSED THE BANK ACCOUNT STATEMENT C ONSIDERED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IN ADDITION TO THE CASH DEPOSIT AND WITHDR AWAL, THERE ARE SEVERAL CHEQUE AND RTGS TRANSACTIONS IN THE SAID ACCOUNT. I T IS NOT A BANK ACCOUNT WHEREIN THERE ARE ONLY CASH DEPOSITS AND CASH WITHD RAWALS WHEREIN THE APPELLANT CAN MAKE A CLAIM OF WORKING OUT THE PEAK CREDIT. THE APPELLANT'S AR DURING THE APPEARANCE ON 03-02-2016 WAS SPECIFICALL Y GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY (RECORDED IN THE ORDER SHEET) TO FURNISH ADDITIONAL SUBMISSION TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSIT ON OR BEFORE 15-02-2016. TIL L THE DATE OF PASSING OF THIS APPEAL ORDER, THE APPELLANT NEITHER SUBMITTED THE D ETAILS EXPLAINING THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSITS IN THE APPELLANT'S BANK ACCOUNT NO R GAVE THE WORKING OF PEAK CREDIT SUBSTANTIATED BY ACCOUNT ENTRIES. 4.3.4 I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, WHE REIN THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS DEALT WITH EACH AND EVERY CASH DEPOSIT AND REBU TTED THE APPELLANT'S EXPLANATION FOR THE SOURCE. FOR THE ELABORATE REASO NS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN PARA 6 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE APPE LLANT'S EXPLANATION WITH REGARD TO THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSITS IS NOT ACCEPT ABLE. 5.1 RELYING THE CASES OF BHAIYALAL SHYAM BEHARI V C IT(A) (2005) 276 ITR 38 (ALL.), ITO VS MURLIDHARAN G PILLAI, THE HONBLE ITAT BENCH A, AHMEDABAD IN ITA NO. 225/AHD/2010 CO NO. 258/AHD/2010&CIT VS VIJAY AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRIES (2007) 294 ITR 610 (ALL.) , THE CIT(A) R EFUSED TO CONSIDER THE ASSESSEES ALTERNATE PLEA OF MAKING THE ADDITION O N PEAK CREDIT METHOD. :-9-: ITA NO. 841/MDS/2016 6. BEFORE US ALSO, THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THE SAM E PLEAS TAKEN BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. PER CONTRA, THE DR SUPPORTE D THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THEM. ON THE ABOVE FACTS, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT HAVE ANY EXPLANATION FOR THE SOUR CES OF CASH DEPOSITS MADE FROM 11/05/201 TO 15/06/2010 AT RS. 22,98,500/- A ND HENCE THE ADDITION MADE TO THIS EXTENT IS CONFIRMED. THE AOS OBSERVAT IONS THAT ARE CASH WITHDRAWALS OF RS.65,000/-MADE ON 16/06/2010, 17/06 /2010 & 19/06/2010 . THEREAFTER, THERE IS A CASH DEPOSIT OF RS. 70,000 O N 3/7/2010 WHICH CAN BE EXPLAINED BY THE WITHDRAWAL OF RS. 65,000/-, PARTLY , AND THE BALANCE RS. 5000 IS NOT EXPLAINED IS HELD AS JUSTIFIED. THE AOS DEC ISION THAT THE SUBSEQUENT CASH DEPOSITS OF RS. 68,000/- (05/07/2010), RS. 18, 000/- (06/07/2010) & RS.1.20,000/- (13/07/2010) FOR WHICH SOURCES ARE NO T EXPLAINED ARE ALSO JUSTIFIED ON THE ABOVE FACTS. HOWEVER, THERE IS ER ROR IN HIS DECISION WHEN HE COMPUTED THE TOTAL UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSITS DURING THAT PERIOD AT RS. 2,01,000/-. THIS SHOULD HAVE BEEN AT RS.2,06,000/- ONLY (RS. 68,000 +RS. 18,000 +RS.1.20,000). HENCE, ALL THE ABOVE 3 ADDITI ONS AT RS 25,04,500/- (RS. 22,98,500/-+RS. 5000 +RS. 2,01,000/-) ARE HELD AS W ARRANTED AND JUSTIFIED ON THE ABOVE FACTS. :-10-: ITA NO. 841/MDS/2016 6.1 HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE PLEADS THAT HE HAS WI THDRAWN CASH OF RS. 18,20,000/- ON 15/7/2010 FOR THE PURPOSE OF INVESTM ENT IN AGRICULTURAL LAND, WHICH DID NOT MATERIALIZE AND OUT OF THE UNUTILIZ ED CASH WITHDRAWALS, HE MADE THE SUBSEQUENT CASH DEPOSITS. FURTHER DEPOSIT S WERE MADE OUT OF THE SUBSEQUENT WITHDRAWALS. ALTERNATELY, HE PLEADS THA T THE ADDITION BE QUANTIFIED BASED ON THE PEAK CREDIT METHOD. THE A O , THOUGH ACCEPTED SUCH PLEA TILL THE PERIOD 03.7.2010, REFUSED TO CONSIDER SUCH PLEA FOR THE LATER PERIOD FOR THE ABOVE STATED REASONS . THE CIT(A) R EFUSED MAINLY FOR THE REASON THAT TILL THE DATE OF PASSING HIS APPEAL ORD ER, THE ASSESSEE NEITHER SUBMITTED THE DETAILS EXPLAINING THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSITS IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT NOR GAVE THE WORKING OF PEAK CREDIT SUBSTAN TIATED BY ACCOUNT ENTRIES. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS AND GONE THROUGH THE RELEVANT MATERIAL. WHERE A SINGLE CREDIT OR NUMBER OF CREDITS APPEAR I N THE BOOKS IN THE ACCOUNT OF ANY PARTICULAR PERSON SIDE BY SIDE WITH A NUMBER OF DEBITS IS THAT THEY SHOULD ALL BE ARRANGED IN SERIAL ORDER, THAT A CRED IT FOLLOWING A DEBIT ENTRY SHOULD BE TREATED AS REFERABLE TO THE LATTER TO THE EXTENT POSSIBLE AND THAT, NOT THE AGGREGATE BUT ONLY THE 'PEAK' OF THE CREDIT SHOULD TREATED AS OWN UNEXPLAINED. THIS PLEA IS GENERALLY ACCEPTED AS IT IS LOGICAL AND ACCEPTABLE (WHETHER THE CREDITOR IS A GENUINE PARTY OR NOT), P ROVIDED THAT THERE IS NOTHING IN THE MATERIAL ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT A PARTICULAR WITHDRAWAL/REPAYMENT COULD NOT HAVE BEEN AVAILABLE ON THE DATE OF THE SU BSEQUENT CREDIT. IN THE ASSESSEES CASE , THE CASH WITHDRAWAL OF RS. 18,2 0,000/- MADE ON 15/7/2010 :-11-: ITA NO. 841/MDS/2016 IS NOT DISPUTED. THE ASSESSEE PLEADS THAT OUT OF TH E UNUTILIZED CASH WITHDRAWALS, HE HAS MADE THE SUBSEQUENT CASH DEPOS ITS ETC. THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE NOT BROUGHT ANY MATERIAL TO ESTABL ISH THAT THE CASH WITHDRAWN BY THE ASSESSEE ON AND AFTER 15.07.2010 WAS NOT AVAILABLE . NEITHER THEY HELD THAT SUCH CASH WAS EITHER USED OR EXPENDED BY THE ASSESSEE OR INVESTED BY HIM ETC SO THAT SUCH CASH COULD NOT HAVE BEEN A SOURCE FOR THE SUBSEQUENT DEPOSITS. WHEN THERE IS NO MATERIAL ON RECORD TO INDICATE SUCH A FINDING , THE CASH WITHDRAWN BY TH E ASSESSEE ON 15.7.2010 AND ON THE SUBSEQUENT DATES HAVE TO HELD THAT THEY WERE AVAILABLE WITH HIM FOR MAKING THE SUBSEQUENT CREDITS OR DEPOSITS. MORE SO, WHEN THE IMPUGNED CASH IS WITHDRAWN FROM THE UNEXPLAINED INCOME DETER MINED , ASSESSED AND SUSTAINED UP TO THIS LEVEL. THE ASSESSEE WILL BE EN TITLED TO SET OFF OF SUCH CREDITS WHEN HE IS SEEKING SUCH CREDITS BASED ON THE PEAK OF CREDIT. SINCE THE ASSESSEE IS SEEKING THE RELIEF BASED ON THE PE AK OF CREDIT, THE AO IS DIRECTED TO DETERMINE THE PEAK OF CREDIT FROM THE P ERIOD 15.7.2010 TO 17.03.2011 AND ASSESS SUCH SUM AS UNEXPLAINED CRED IT . THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED TO THAT EXTENT. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED. :-12-: ITA NO. 841/MDS/2016 ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THURSDAY, THE 04 TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2018 AT CHENNAI. SD/- ( . ' ) (DUVVURU RL REDDY) $% /JUDICIAL MEMBER SD/- ( ) (S. JAYARAMAN) % /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /CHENNAI, 2 /DATED: 04 TH JANUARY, 2018 JPV ),4565 /COPY TO: 1. (/ APPELLANT 2. ,-( /RESPONDENT 3. 7 ) (/CIT(A) 4. 7 /CIT 5. 5, /DR 6. : /GF