Lalitha Kumari Prakash Chand, CHENNAI V. ACIT Non Corp. Ward 10(1), CHENNAI

ITA 841/CHNY/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 106 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5480 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 3 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-07-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: PartlyAllowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 27-03-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Cost of acquisition; Set aside; Capital Gains
• Section: 50C; 54F; 48; 20

Judgement Text

आयकर अपील य अ धकरण, ‘बी’ यायपीठ, चे नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI ी वी . द ु गा राव, या यक सद य एवं ी जी. मंज ु नाथ, लेखा सद य के सम$ BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./I .T. A. No. 8 4 1/ Chn y/ 2 0 1 9 ( नधा रणवष / A ss e ss m en t Ye ar : 2 015 - 16) Smt. Lalitha Kumari Prakash Chand 13/11, Sunderlal Nahata Avenue Kilpauk, Chennai-600 010. V s The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Non-Corporate Ward-10(1), Chennai. PAN: AAAPL 6427A (अपीलाथ /Appellant) ( यथ /Respondent) अपीलाथ क ओरसे/ Appellant by : Mr. R.Venkata Raman, C.A यथ क ओरसे/Respondent by : Mr. Guru Bashyam, CIT स ु नवाई क तार ख/D a t e o f h e a r i n g : 19.05.2022 घोषणा क तार ख /D a t e o f P r o n o u n c e m e n t : 20.07.2022 आदेश / O R D E R PER G. MANJUNATHA, AM: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Chennai, dated 28.01.2019 and pertains to assessment year 2015-16. 2. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:- “Conversion of limited scrutiny to complete scrutiny 1. For that the Ld.CIT(A) is not justified in upholding the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer in spite of the fact that the case of the appellant being selected for 2 ITA No.841/Chny/2019 limited scrutiny was converted into complete scrutiny without the prior approval of PCIT. 2. For that the Ld.CIT(A) erred in confirming the additions and disallowances made by the Assessing Officer in completing the assessment even though the said additions and disallowances were beyond the issues selected for limited scrutiny. Order of assessment barred by limitation 3. For that without prejudice to Ground Numbers 1 and 2, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in not holding that the order of assessment dated 31.12.2017 passed u/s.143(3) of the Act is barred by limitation. Without prejudice to the above legal grounds, on merits the following grounds are raised No sufficient opportunity given by the Assessing Officer 4. For that the Ld.CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the Assessing Officer has not given sufficient opportunity to the appellant to explain the case on merits. Capital gains arising from JDA 5. For that the Ld.CIT(A) is not justified in holding that Rs.3,64,32,706/- is taxable as short term capital gains instead of long term capital gains. 6. For that without prejudice to Ground Number 4, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the cost of acquisition to be allowed is more than Rs.1,25,02,755/-. 7. For that without prejudice to Ground Numbers 4 and 5, the Ld.CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that actual 3 ITA No.841/Chny/2019 constructed area sold during the impugned assessment year was only 1835.19 sq ft and not 16670.34 sq ft as taken by the Assessing Officer and consequently full value of consideration to be adopted for computing capital gains will be Rs.60, 17,104/- and not Rs.4,89,35,461- as taken by the Assessing Officer (Ground not before the Ld.CIT(A)). Capital Gains on sale of shares of M/s. Akshaya JMB Properties Private Limited 8. For that the Ld.CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in making an addition of Rs. 12,70,51,132/- under the head long term capital gains. 9. For that the Ld.CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the actual consideration received by the appellant for the shares transferred was only Rs.4,46,69,825/- and not Rs.13,63,10,512/- as adopted by the Assessing Officer. 10. For that the Ld.CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that there is no provision in the Income Tax Act to enable the Assessing Officer to substitute the full value of consideration arising from the sale of unquoted shares with any other value other than the actual consideration received. 11. For that without prejudice to Ground Numbers 8, 9 and 10, the Ld.CIT(A) failed to appreciate that even going on the basis of the latest value as stated in the assessment order, the value can at best be Rs.419.40 per share as against Rs.3298.50 per share taken by the Assessing Officer. 4 ITA No.841/Chny/2019 12. For that the Ld.CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the Assessing Officer in computing long term capital gains, has erred in computing the cost of acquisition at Rs.10/- per share as against the actual cost of Rs.53.87/- per share. Addition uls.56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) 13. For that the Ld.CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in making an addition of Rs.40,50,100/- u/s.56(2)(vii)(b)(ii). 14. For that the Ld.CIT(A) failed to appreciate that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the value adopted or assessed for stamp duty purposes exceeds the fair market value of the property as on the date of transfer. 15. For that the Ld.CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition made by the Assessing Officer without reference to the District Valuation Officer. Addition u/s.50C 16. For that the Ld.CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in making an addition of Rs.6,74,527/- u/s.50C. 17. For that the Ld.CIT(A) failed to appreciate that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the value adopted or assessed for stamp duty purposes exceeds the fair market value of the property as on the date of transfer. 18. For that the Ld.CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition made by the Assessing Officer without reference to the District Valuation Officer. Disallowance of exemption claimed u/s.54 5 ITA No.841/Chny/2019 19. For that the Ld.CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in disallowing the exemption of Rs.4,07,52,117- claimed by the appellant u/s.54 of the Act. Disallowance of exemption claimed u/s.54F 20. For that the Ld.CIT(A) is not justified in upholding the action of the Assessing Officer in restricting the exemption u/s.54F to Rs.59,97,000/- as against an amount of Rs.3,16,75,164/-.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual filed her return of income for the assessment year 2015-16 on 31.08.2015 declaring total income of Rs.98,67,300/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny assessment under CASS and accordingly, notice u/s.143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated 21.09.2016 was issued. During the course of assessment proceedings, it was noticed that during the year under consideration, the assessee had entered into joint development agreement with M/s. Siddharth Foundations & Housing Ltd., under which the assessee was entitled to 27% constructed area in exchange for transfer of 73% of undivided share belonging to her in the land admeasuring 33,677 sq.ft (1/3 rd share of 2 acres and 56 cents). The capital gain in respect of sale of assessee’s share 6 ITA No.841/Chny/2019 of undivided share of 73% was offered to tax in the year of entering into joint development agreement i.e. assessment year 2012-13. During the year under consideration, constructed flats belonging to the assessee was sold. The sale of such constructed flats have also been duly declared for tax after claiming exemption u/s.54F of the Act in respect of one residential house purchased in Metropolis. During the year under consideration, the assessee had also sold 41,325 shares held by her in M/s.Akshaya JMB Properties Pvt.Ltd. for consideration of Rs.4,46,69,825/- and sale consideration was invested in one residential house by virtue of which exemption u/s.54F of the Act was claimed. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee has declared capital gain from sale of flats till date for the year under consideration on the ground that possession of constructed flats was handed over by the builder only during financial year relevant to the assessment year 2015-16. Therefore, the Assessing Officer opined that since capital asset sold by the assessee was held for less than specified period, the assessee is not entitled for indexed cost of acquisition and thus, re-computed long term capital gains by 7 ITA No.841/Chny/2019 taking into account sale consideration of Rs.4,89,35,461/- and allowed cost of acquisition without indexation @ 750/- per sq. on total constructed area sold for whole period, including previous financial years and determined short term capital gain of Rs.3,64,32,706/-. 4. The learned A.R for the assessee submitted that the learned CIT(A) erred in sustaining additions made by the Assessing Officer towards computation of capital gain on transfer of 27% share in constructed flats for the assessment year 2015-16, even though, flats have been sold for assessment year 2012-13 to 2014-15. It is an admitted fact that builder started selling constructed area from the assessment year 2012-13 onwards. Accordingly, the assessee had received consideration pertaining to built up area of 27% right from assessment year 2012-13. Therefore, same needs to be taxed as and when the assessee has sold flats. Although, the assessee had admitted capital gain in respect of all flats sold during the current year, but in fact, what was required to be taxed for year under consideration is actual consideration received for 1/3 rd share of flats sold during the assessment year 2015-16 amounting to Rs.60,17,104/-. 8 ITA No.841/Chny/2019 5. The learned DR, on the other hand, supporting order of the learned CIT(A) submitted that there is no merit in the arguments of the assessee that only consideration received towards flats sold during the assessment year 2015-16 needs to be taxed for the impugned assessment year, because the assessee herself has admitted short term capital gain for sale of flats upto assessment year 2015-16 by way of letter dated 06.12.2017, as per which, sale proceeds from construction have been recognized from assessment year 2015-16, and later, because final payments have been received during the course of the year from flat owners and possession was handed by the builder during the financial year relevant to assessment year 2015-16. The learned DR further submitted that the assessee has not raised this issue either before the Assessing Officer or learned CIT(A), however, for the first time, issue has been raised before the Tribunal. Therefore, the learned DR submitted that the assessee cannot be permitted to change her stand when the issues were not raised before lower authorities. In this regard, he relied upon certain judicial precedents, including decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of M/s. Southern Foundation Vs ACIT 324 ITR 76. 9 ITA No.841/Chny/2019 6. We have heard both the parties, perused material available on record and gone through orders of the authorities below. There is no dispute with regard to fact that the assessee had entered into joint development agreement with the builder M/s.Siddharth Finance & Housing Ltd. on 19.08.2011 and admitted capital gain on transfer of 73% undivided share of the land in exchange of 27% built up area for the assessment year 2012-13. It is also an admitted fact that the assessee had declared capital gain on transfer of 27% built up area for the assessment year 2015-16, even though, sale of flats took place right from assessment year 2012-13 to 2015-16. The Assessing Officer claims that the assessee herself has offered capital gain on total consideration received for sale of built up area aggregating 16,670.34 sq.ft. for the assessment year 2015-16 on the ground that final payments have been received for the impugned assessment year and further, possession of the building was handed over by the builder for the impugned assessment year. Except this, the Assessing Officer has never disputed fact that the assessee has sold flats right from the assessment year 2012-13 upto 2015-16. In fact, the assessee 10 ITA No.841/Chny/2019 has filed details of sales made in each assessment year, as per which majority of flats have been sold upto assessment year 2014-15. Further, for the assessment year 2015-16, the assessee has sold 1835 sq.ft of super built up area for Rs.60,17,104/-. Therefore, in our considered view, what is taxable for the impugned assessment year is consideration received for transfer of 1835 sq.ft of built up area for Rs.60,17,104/-, but not on total consideration received by the assessee for sale of 16,670 sq.ft of built up area, because sale made during earlier assessment years cannot be brought to tax for the current assessment year, even though the assessee makes admission in the return of income filed for relevant assessment year, because right amount of tax to be collected for the right assessment year. It is well established principles of law by decisions of various courts that unless authority of law, no taxes can be collected from the assessee . Further, income should be taxed in a particular assessment year, when the income is accrued or arises to the assessee. In this case, there is no doubt with regard to fact that for the impugned assessment year only a sum of Rs.60,17,104/- is received by the assessee from sale of flats. Therefore, we are of the 11 ITA No.841/Chny/2019 considered view that the Assessing Officer ought to have taxed consideration received during the assessment year 2015-16 only instead of taxing entire consideration received by the assessee, including consideration received for earlier financial years. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the Assessing Officer as well as learned CIT(A) were erred in taxing total consideration received by the assessee amounting to Rs.4,89,35,461/- for the assessment year 2015-16 on the basis of admission of the assessee. Hence, we direct the Assessing Officer to consider amount received for the assessment year 2015-16 alone and compute capital gain from transfer and determine whether it is short term or long term depending upon period of holding of asset by the assessee. 7. Insofar as, capital gain on sale of shares of M/s.Akshaya JMB Properties Pvt.Ltd., the assessee has sold 41,325 shares for consideration of Rs.4,46,69,825/-. The Assessing Officer noted that value of these shares have been decided by way of MoU dated 10.05.2014 between the assessee, existing shareholder, M/s.Akshaya JMB Properties Pvt.Ltd., rest of the shareholders and purchasing 12 ITA No.841/Chny/2019 shareholders. As per said MOU, one tranche of sale of 26,850 shares has been sold for consideration of Rs.2.95 crores and price per share works out to Rs.1098.70 per share. Another tranche consists of 1800 shares was sold for consideration of Rs.59,37,234/- and rate works out to Rs.3,298.5 per share. The third tranche of remaining 12,675 shares has been sold for consideration of Rs.53,15,464/- and rate works out to Rs.419.4 per share. The Assessing Officer, after considering relevant facts and also taken note of various clauses in MoU opined that agreement between parties is tool for avoidance of payment of taxes and thus, adopted Rs . 3298.50 per equity share as consideration received for transfer of 41,325 shares and determined total sale consideration of Rs.13,63,10,512/- and computed long term capital gain of Rs.13,54,59,060/-, after allowing cost of acquisition. 8. The learned A.R. for the assessee submitted that the Assessing Officer as well as the learned CIT(A) erred in considering full value of consideration for transfer of unquoted equity shares by replacing actual consideration received by the assessee for transfer of shares, without appreciating fact that there is no provision in the Income Tax Act to substitute full 13 ITA No.841/Chny/2019 value of consideration arising from sale of unquoted shares with any value except actual consideration received. The learned A.R. further referring to provisions of section 48 r.w.s. 50C and 50D submitted that as per section 48 of the Act, full value of consideration means actual consideration received accruing as a result of transfer which cannot be substituted with fair market value or nominal value, except as provided u/s50C & 50D of the Act. In this case, there is no dispute with regard to application of section 50C & 50D of the Act, because what was transferred is unquoted equity shares by a company. The assessee has transferred shares as per MoU dated 10.05.2014 and such shares have been transferred in three tranches for different prices. The assessee has received consideration by cheque and the purchasers have confirmed transactions. The Assessing Officer, disregarding all evidences has arrived at hypothetical value at Rs. 3298.50 per share, on the basis of amount received by the assessee from buyers and presumed that the assessee has transferred shares for consideration of Rs . 3298.50 per share and received excess consideration in cash, ignoring fact that these shares have been transferred to different persons. 14 ITA No.841/Chny/2019 9. The learned D.R., on the other hand, supporting order of the learned CIT(A) submitted that the assessee has transferred equity shares of unregistered private limited company to related party and undervalued share price and this fact has been brought out in the assessment order in light of asset value of private limited company. The Assessing Officer has arrived at share price on the basis amount retained by the assessee for pending consideration and if you consider said consideration to the percentage of share held by the assessee in the company, then share price works to Rs.3298.50 per equity share. Since, the assessee has transferred shares at lesser price, the Assessing Officer has rightly worked out price to be received by the assessee for transfer of shares and computed long term capital gain. 10. We have heard both the parties, perused material available on record and gone through orders of the authorities below. There is no dispute with regard to fact that the assessee has transferred 41,325 equity shares of M/s.Akshaya JMB Properties Pvt.Ltd. for consideration of Rs.4,46,69,825/-. The assessee has sold first tranche of 26,850 equity shares on 03.07.2014 @ Rs.685/- per share and received consideration 15 ITA No.841/Chny/2019 of Rs.1,83,92,250/-. The said consideration has been received through bank. The second tranche of 13,475 equity shares has been transferred @ Rs.1,797 per equity share on 13.11.2014 and received consideration of Rs.2,42,14,575/- and said consideration is received through bank. The assessee has transferred final tranche of 1000 shares@ Rs.2,063 per share on 31.03.2015 and received consideration of Rs.20,63,000/- through bank. These facts are not disputed by the Assessing Officer. However, the Assessing Officer has determined full value of consideration received for transfer of shares on the basis of MoU dated 10.05.2014 and worked out different rates of transfer by wrongly interpreting terms & conditions of MoU on the ground that MoU between the parties is tax avoidance arrangement. 11. We have gone through MoU between the assessee and shareholders dated 10.05.2014 and we find that MoU does not deal with valuation of equity shares of M/s.Akshaya JMB Properties Pvt.Ltd., but it only deals with modalities and rights of respective parties and what is existing shareholders should do with dividends. Therefore, we are of the considered view that share price arrived at by the Assessing Officer @ Rs.3298.50 16 ITA No.841/Chny/2019 per share is erroneous, which is not based on any evidences to suggest that the assessee has received consideration over and above what was stated in share transfer forms. We further noted that the Assessing Officer has calculated Rs.3258.50 per share on the basis of amount paid to the assessee for sale of 26,850 equity shares and argued that the assessee has received a sum of Rs.2,95,00,000/- for sale of Rs. 25,850/- per equity share. We find that once again, the Assessing Officer has wrongly interpreted extracted part of MoU and came to wrong conclusion that share price in first tranche works out to Rs.1098.70/- per equity shares. However, fact remains that extracted part of MoU implies that dividend of Rs.2.95 crores declared by the company and proceeds of dividend will be used by purchasing shareholders to buy 26,850 shares from the assessee, but nowhere in the MoU, it is stated that 26,850 shares will be purchased @ Rs.1098.70 per share. As a matter of fact, first tranche of sale made on 03.07.2014, the assessee has received only an amount of Rs.1,83,92,250/- and not Rs.2,95,00,000/-. Therefore, working arrived at by the Assessing Officer is completely wrong and without any basis. The Assessing Officer has worked out second tranche of 1800 17 ITA No.841/Chny/2019 shares sold by the assessee for Rs.59,37,234/- and arrived at share price of Rs.3298.50 per share. The Assessing Officer, once again, erred in coming to the conclusion without understanding terms of MoU between the parties. First of all, the assessee never sold 1800 shares, which is evident from number of shares sold to different shareholders. Therefore, calculation arrived at by the Assessing Officer is completely wrong. In fact, the assessee has sold 26,850 shares on 03.07.2014, 13,475 shares on 13.11.2014 and finally, 1000 shares was sold on 31.03.2015. Therefore, observations of the Assessing Officer that another tranche consists of 1800 shares was sold at Rs.59,37,234/- is completely false and baseless. Therefore the price worked out by the Assessing Officer on the basis of assumption of sale of 1800 shares and share price of Rs.3298.50 per share is illogical and incorrect. Therefore, we are of the considered view that sale consideration adopted by the Assessing Officer on the basis of hypothetical working of equity share price of Rs.3298.50 and adopting said rate to total number of 41,325 equity shares sold by the assessee is totally baseless and incorrect. On the other hand, evidences placed by the assessee clearly shows that the assessee has transferred 18 ITA No.841/Chny/2019 41,325 equity shares on three dates to different persons and different rates and also received consideration through cheque. The evidences filed by the assessee further strengthened fact that entire consideration has been received through cheque and purchasers have confirmed transactions. The parties have entered into MoU to set out terms & conditions of sale of shares, but nowhere specified manner in which share price is to be determined. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the Assessing Officer has completely erred in replacing full value of consideration of Rs.13,63,10,512/- as against actual consideration received by the assessee at Rs.4,46,69,825/- and computed long term capital gain and hence, we direct the Assessing Officer to adopt consideration as received by the assessee for transfer of 41,325 equity shares of M/s.Akshaya JMB Properties Pvt.Ltd. for consideration of Rs.,4,46,69,825/- and compute long term capital gain in accordance with law. 12. The next issue that came up for our consideration from ground of the assessee is cost of acquisition of equity shares of M/s.Akshaya JMB Properties Pvt.Ltd . The learned A.R. for the assessee submitted that the Assessing Officer has adopted Rs.10/- per share as against actual cost of Rs.53.87 per share. 19 ITA No.841/Chny/2019 According to the assessee, actual cost of equity shares acquired by the assessee works out to Rs.53.87/- per share, whereas the Assessing Officer has adopted face value of equity shares @ Rs.10/- per share. The matter needs further examination from the Assessing Officer. Hence, we set aside the issue to file of the Assessing Officer and direct the A.O to reconsider the issue after considering relevant materials and decide correct amount of cost of acquisition of shares sold by the assessee. 13. The next issue that came up for our consideration from grounds no.13 to 15 of the assessee appeal is addition u/s.56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of the Act. The Assessing Officer has made addition of Rs.40,50,100/- towards difference in sale consideration for transfer of UDS in 11 flats devolved to the share of assessee as per MOU and observed that there is difference between sale price and market value of flats. It was explanation of the assessee that the Assessing Officer has made addition without affording reasonable opportunity of hearing being heard to the assessee Further, before invoking provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of the Act, the Assessing Officer should have referred valuation to the valuation cell. 20 ITA No.841/Chny/2019 Therefore, pleaded that the matter may be set aside to the file of the Assessing Officer for further verification. 14. Having heard both the sides and considered relevant materials on record, we are of the considered view that issue of application of section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of the Act, needs to go back to the file of the Assessing Officer to give one more opportunity of hearing to the assessee to ascertain correct facts with regard to market value of flats sold by the assessee and sale consideration received for transfer of property and thus, we set aside issue to the file of the Assessing Officer and direct the Assessing Officer to re-examine claim of the assessee in accordance with law. 15. The next issue that came up for our consideration from ground no.16 to 18 of the assessee appeal is addition u/s.50C of the Act. The Assessing Officer has made addition a sum of Rs.6,74,527/- u/s.50C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, towards UDS involved in flats sold by the assessee. According to the Assessing Officer, the assessee has registered 440 sq.ft of UDS for consideration of Rs.3,30,000/-, whereas guideline value of 440 sq.ft was at Rs.6,60,000/-. The Assessing Officer 21 ITA No.841/Chny/2019 further noted the assessee has registered UDS @ Rs.750/- per sq.ft and guideline value was at Rs.1,500/- per sq.ft and thus, difference amount has been added u/s.50C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 16. We have heard both the parties and considered relevant material available on record. The learned A.R for the assessee pleaded for one more opportunity of being heard before the Assessing Officer to justify her case with reference to guideline value of the property and consideration for transfer of UDS. Hence, we set aside the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer and direct the Assessing Officer to reconsider the issue in accordance with law. 17. The next issue that came up for our consideration from ground no.19 & 20 of the assessee appeal is disallowance of exemption claimed u/s.54 & 54F of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer has disallowed exemption claimed u/s.54 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on the ground that the assessee does not qualify for exemption u/s.54 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, however, allowed deduction for only one flat. 22 ITA No.841/Chny/2019 18. We have heard both the parties and considered relevant material available on record. The learned A.R for the assessee pleaded for one more opportunity of being heard before the Assessing Officer to justify her case to verify eligibility of the assessee for claim of exemption u/s.54 & 54F of the Act. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the issue needs to go back to the file of the Assessing Officer for further examination of claim of the assessee. Hence, we set aside the issue to file of the Assessing Officer and direct the A.O. to re- examine claim of the assessee in accordance with law and decide the issue. 19. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 20 th July, 2022 Sd/- Sd/- ( वी.द ु गा राव) (जी.मंज ु नाथ) (V.Durga Rao) (G.Manjunatha) #या यक सद%य /Judicial Member लेखा सद%य / Accountant Member चे#नई/Chennai, (दनांक/Dated 20 th July, 2022 DS आदेश क त*ल+प अ,े+षत/Copy to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. आयकर आय ु -त (अपील)/CIT(A) 4. आयकर आय ु -त/CIT 5. +वभागीय त न2ध/DR 6. गाड फाईल/GF.