Kumudam Publications Pvt Ltd., CHENNAI V. ACIT, CHENNAI

ITA 927/CHNY/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8051 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-11-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 05-10-2016
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 11-04-2016
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PATHLAVATA PEERYACIT
• Assessee Lawyers: P J RISHIKESH
• Keywords: Depreciation; Opportunity of being heard; Question of law; Fair market value; Revenue expenditure; Capital expenditure
• Section: 43B; 14A

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. 925, 926 & 927/MDS./16 / ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2005-06, 2008-09 & 2009-10 M/S.KUMUDAM PUBLICATIONS PVT. LTD., 306,PURASWALKAM HIGH ROAD, CHENNAI 600 010. VS. THE ACIT, COMPANY CIRCLE-II(4), ROOM NO.514,NEW BLOCK NO.121, CHENNAI 34. [PAN AAACK 2957 P ] ( #$ / APPELLANT) ( %&#$ /RESPONDENT) ./ I .T.A.NO.1011/MDS./2016 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-06 THE ACIT, COMPANY CIRCLE-II(4), ROOM NO.514,NEW BLOCK NO.121, CHENNAI 34. VS. M/S.KUMUDAM PUBLICATIONS PVT. LTD., 306,PURASWALKAM HIGH ROAD, CHENNAI 600 010. [PAN AAACK 2957 P ] ( #$ / APPELLANT) ( %&#$ /RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : MR.P.J.RISHIKESH,ADVOCATE REVENUE BY : MR.PATHLAVATA PEERYA,CIT, D.R / DATE OF HEARING : 05 - 1 0 - 201 6 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 24 - 11 - 2016 M/S.KUMUDAM PUBLICATIONS P LTD :- 2 -: ' / O R D E R PER BENCH ITA NOS.925 TO 927/MDS./2016 FOR A.YS. 2005-06, 2008-09 & 2009-10 FILED BY THE ASSESSEE & ITA NO.1011/MDS./20116 FO R A.Y 2005-06 FILED BY THE REVENUE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE DIFFERENT ORDERS OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-8, CHE NNAI. SINCE ISSUES INVOLVED IN ALL THESE APPEALS ARE COMMON IN NATURE, THESE APPEALS ARE CLUBBED TOGETHER, HEARD TOGETHER, DISPO SED OFF BY THIS COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. FIRST WE TAKE UP CROSS APPEALS (A.Y. 2005-06) 2. THE FIRST GROUND IN THIS CROSS APPEALS IS WITH REGARD TO DETERMINATION OF FMV OF THE PROPERTY AS ON 01.04.19 81. 3. THE FACTS OF THE ISSUE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE HA D SOLD A PROPERTY COMPRISING 56.15 GROUNDS OF VACANT LAND FOR CONSID ERATION OF ` 10.3 CRORES. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THE INDEXED COST OF A CQUISITION OF THE PROPERTY AT ` 9,69,84,076/- AND DECLARED CAPITAL GAINS AT ` 60,15,923/-. THE AO COMPUTED THE FMV OF THE PROPERTY AS ON 01.04 .1981 AT ` 22.46 LAKHS AND THE INDEX COST OF THE SAME AT ` 1,07,80,800/- AND COMPUTED THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS AT ` 9,22,19,200/- WHILE COMPUTING THE FMV THE AO COMPUTED THE GUIDELINES VALUE OF SUB-REGISTR AR AS ON 01.04.1981. FURTHER APPEAL TO LD.CIT(A), HE DIRECTE D THE AO TO ADOPT M/S.KUMUDAM PUBLICATIONS P LTD :- 3 -: THE VALUE OF COMPARABLE CASE I.E 1,59,620/- PER GRO UND EXCLUDING THE CLAIM OF PREMIUM AT 33% ON FMC AS ON 01.04.1981 AND TO RE-COMPUTE THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS. AGAINST THIS, THE REVE NUE AS WELL AS THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 4. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION TO CONSIDER THE P REMIUM OF 33% ON VALUE OF PROPERTY CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE BECAUSE O F LOCATIONAL ADVANTAGE. SIMILARLY, THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION TO FOLLOW THE GUIDELINES VALUE AS FMV VALUE OF THE SAID PROPERTY AS ON 01.04 .1981. IN OUR OPINION, IT IS APPROPRIATE TO BRING COMPARABLE CASE IN NEARBY LOCATION SO AS TO DETERMINE FMV OF THE SAID PROPERTY AS ON 0 1.04.1981. IF THE CLAIM OF PREMIUM IS SUPPORTED BY ANY COMPARABLE CAS ES AT NEARBY LOCATION, THE SAME IS TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE AO. I T NEEDLESS TO SAY THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AT LIBERTY TO PLACE NECESSARY EVIDENCE SO AS TO CLAIM PREMIUM ON ACCOUNT OF LOCATION ADVANTAGES. WI TH THIS OBSERVATION, WE REMIT THIS ISSUE TO THE FILE OF AO FOR FRESH CONSIDERATION AND AO HAS TO DECIDE THE ISSUE AFTER GIVING OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. THIS ISSUE PARTLY ALLOWED IN THE AP PEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS BY THE REVENUE. 5. THE NEXT GROUND IN ASSESSEES APPEAL IS WITH R EGARD TO DISALLOWANCE OF PROVIDENT FUND CONTRIBUTION OF EMPL OYEES BEYOND DUE DATE. M/S.KUMUDAM PUBLICATIONS P LTD :- 4 -: 5.1 THE FACTS OF THE ISSUE ARE THAT THE AO MADE AN ADDITION OF ` 4,05,300/- BEING THE AMOUNT RECEIVED BY WAY OF CONT RIBUTION TOWARDS PD FUND FROM THE MANAGING DIRECTOR OF THE COMPANY, BUT REMITTED BELATEDLY. THE AO NOTICED THAT THE DUE DATE OF MAK ING THE PAYMENT WAS 20.04.2005, BUT THE SAME WAS REMITTED ONLY ON 0 9.05.2005 BEYOND THE DUE DATE, THEN THE AO TREATED THE AMOUNT OF ` 4,05,300/- AS INCOME OF ASSESSEE BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF THE SECTION 2(24)(X) OF THE ACT. ON APPEAL, THE LD.CIT(A) HAS UPHELD THE DENIAL OF DEDUCTION U/S.43B OF THE ACT MADE BY THE AO. AGAINS T THIS, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 6. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. SIMILAR ISSUE CAME FOR CONSIDERATION BEFORE THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF IN THE CASE OF CIT V. MIS . INDUSTRIAL SECURITY & INTELLIGENCE INDIA PVT. LTD. IN TC(APPEAL) NOS.58 5 & 586 OF 2015 DATED 24.7.2015 AND HELD AS UNDER:- 5. WE FIND THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS RIGHTLY RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. ALOM EXTRUS IONS LTD. REPORTED IN 319 ITR 386, WHEREBY, THE SUPREME COURT HELD THAT OMISSION OF SECOND PROVISO TO SECTION 43B AND AMEND MENT TO FIRST PROVISO BY FINANCE ACT, 2003 ARE CURATIVE AND ARE EFFECTIVE RETROSPECTIVELY, I.E., WITH EFFECT FROM 1.4.1988 I. E., THE DATE OF INSERTION OF FIRST PROVISO. THE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. AMIL LTD. REPORTED IN 321 ITR 508 HELD THAT IF THE ASSESSEE HAD DEPOSITED EMPLOYEES CONTRIBUTION TOWA RDS PROVIDENT FUND AND ESI AFTER DUE AS PRESCRIBED UNDE R THE M/S.KUMUDAM PUBLICATIONS P LTD :- 5 -: RELEVANT ACT, BUT BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF FILING OF RETURN UNDER THE INCOME TAX ACT, NO DISALLOWANCE COULD BE MADE IN VI EW OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 43B AS AMENDED BY FINANCE ACT , 2003. 6. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAD REMITTED T HE EMPLOYEES CONTRIBUTION BEYOND THE DUE DATE FOR PAYM ENT, BUT WITHIN THE DUE DATE FOR FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME . HENCE, FOLLOWING THE ABOVE-SAID DECISIONS, WE FIND NO REAS ON TO DIFFER WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE TRIBUNAL. ACCORDINGLY, WE FIND NO QUESTION OF LAW MUCH LESS ANY SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION IN THESE APPEALS. ACCORDIN GLY, BOTH THE TAX CASE (APPEALS) STAND DISMISSED. NO COSTS. CONSEQUENTLY, M.P.NO. 1 OF 2015 IS ALSO DISMISSED. 6 .1 FURTHER THE SAME ISSUE CAME BEFORE THE KARNATAK A HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MAGUS CUSTOMERS DIALOG PVT LTD IN [2015] 371 ITR 242 (KAR.) WHEREIN HELD THAT THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN EMPLOYERS CONTRIBUTION AND EMPLOYEES CONTRIBUTION OF PROVIDEN T FUND AND PAYMENTS OF CONTRIBUTION BY THE EMPLOYER TO THE PRO VIDENT FUND UNDER THE SCHEME MEANS BOTH THE EMPLOYERS CONTRIBUTION AN D EMPLOYEES CONTRIBUTION. WHETHER THE EMPLOYER DEDUCTS THE EMP LOYEES CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THE SALARY OR NOT, IN LAW HE IS LIABLE TO PAY THE SAID AMOUNT PROVIDENT FUND. THEREFORE, SECTION 2(24)(X) OF THE ACT MAKES IT CLEAR THAT EMPLOYERS CONTRIBUTION / EMPLOYEES CO NTRIBUTION DEDUCTED FROM HIS SALARY BEFORE IT IS PAID INTO THE FUND, IS TREATED AS THE INCOME M/S.KUMUDAM PUBLICATIONS P LTD :- 6 -: OF THE EMPLOYER. THE PAYMENT MUST BE MADE WITHIN A DUE DATE PRESCRIBED U/S.139(1) OF THE ACT. THOUGH SUCH CONTR IBUTION WAS NOT PAID WITHIN THE TIME PRESCRIBED UNDER THE RELEVANT ACT, IF THOSE CONTRIBUTIONS ARE PAID BEFORE THE DUE DATE PRESCRIB ED U/S.139(1) OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED FOR THE DEDUCTION AS PROVIDED BY SEC.36(1) OF THE ACT. WHILE EXTENDING SUCH BENEFIT, THE PARLI AMENT HAS NOT MADE ANY DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE EMPLOYERS CONTRIBUTION AND EMPLOYEES CONTRIBUTION. SAME VIEW WAS TAKEN BY THE GUJARAT HI GH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. GUJARAT STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPOR ATION IN [2014]366 ITR 170(GUJARAT). IN OUR OPINION THE ABOVE JUDGMENT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IS CLEARLY APPLICABLE ON THE ISSUE, AS S UCH WE ARE INCLINED TO DECIDE THE ISSUE IN FAOVUR OF ASSESSEE BY FOLLOWING THE JUDGEMENT. 7. ANOTHER GROUND IN THE REVENUES APPEAL IS THAT THE CIT(A) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT 1/5 TH OF THE AMORTIZED EXPENSES BE ALLOWED TO THE ASSESSEE AND THEREBY RESTRICTING THE DISALLOWANCE M ADE U/S.35D(2)(A)(III) BY THE AO. 7.1 THE FACTS OF THE ISSUE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE HA S AMORTISED THE EXPENDITURE BASED ON ITS UTILITY PERIOD FOR THE PUR POSE OF THE BUSINESS AND IT WAS ON THIS BASIS THAT THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THE SUM OF ` 2,09,57,672/- AS EXPENDITURE ALLOWABLE IN THE COMPU TATION OF THE INCOME FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE AO NOT ED THAT THE EXPENDITURE HAS BEEN INCURRED FOR MARKETING OF ITS PRODUCTS AND M/S.KUMUDAM PUBLICATIONS P LTD :- 7 -: AMORTIZATION WAS ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSEE WITH A VIE W TO MAKE THE CLAIM REALISTIC. HENCE, THE AO DISALLOWED THE CLAIM MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD. THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE A PPEAL BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A). ON APPEAL, THE LD.CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT I N THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED THE B REAKUP OF THE DEFERRED REVENUE EXPENDITURE CLAIMED WHICH WAS AVAI LABLE AT PAGE-4-5 OF THE CIT(A)S ORDER. THE CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT AO HAS ALLOWED THE AMORTIZATION OF MAGAZINE LAUNCH EXPENSES EARLIER IN THE PRECEDING TWO ASSESSMENT YEARS WHERE THE ASSESSMENT WERE COMPLET ED U/S.143(3). THE ONLY ALTERATION IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION IS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS C HANGED THE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING BY WRITING OFF THE BALANCE OF MAGAZIN E LAUNCH EXPENSES AT ONE GO WHICH HAS NOT BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE AO. F URTHER, LD.CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY RATIONALE FOR W RITING OFF OF THE ENTIRE BALANCE OF THE DEFERRED REVENUE EXPENDITURE AT ONE STROKE, THE REASONS PUT FORTH BY THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ACCEPTABL E. ACCORDING TO LD.CIT(A), THE AO HAS ERRED IN COMPUTING 5% OF THE PRELIMINARY EXPENSES OF THE CAPITAL EMPLOYED AS AN ALLOWABLE E XPENDITURE DEVIATING FROM THE SELL-ESTABLISHED LINE FOLLOWED E ARLIER. FURTHER, LD.CIT(A) FOLLOWING THE JUDGEMENT OF CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF INDIA STEAMSHIP CO. LTD. VS. JCIT IN (2005) 275 ITR 0155 (CAL.),DIRECTED THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER TO FLOW T HE COMPUTATION OF M/S.KUMUDAM PUBLICATIONS P LTD :- 8 -: DEFERRED REVENUE EXPENDITURE AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSE SSEE AND ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT IN THE PRECEDING ASSESSM ENT YEARS AND RECOMPUTED THE DEFERRED REVENUE EXPENDITURE FOR THE CURRENT ASSESSMENT YEAR ACCORDINGLY. IN OTHER WORDS, THE RE LIEF TO THE ASSESSEE WILL BE RESTRICTED TO 1/5 TH OF THE AMORTIZED EXPENSES AS IT WAS ALLOWED IN THE PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEARS. AGAINST THIS, T HE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 7.2 WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. IN THIS CASE, THE CIT(A) FOLLOWING THE EARL IER ASSESSMENT ORDER, GRANTED RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE. IN OUR OPINION, TH ERE SHOULD A CONSISTENCY IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE AO C ANNOT TAKE ONE DECISION IN ONE ASSESSMENT YEAR AND ANOTHER DECISIO N IN OTHER ASSESSMENT YEAR. IN ASSESSEE'S OWN CASE ON SIMILAR FACTS, WHICH WAS IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE. IF THE DEDUCTION U/S.35DDA WAS QUANTIFIED IN EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEAR, IT CANNOT BE DISTURBED BY AO IN THIS ASSESSMENT YEAR. WE FIND FORCE IN THE ARGUMENT OF LD.A.R AND WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A) AND T HE SAME IS CONFIRMED. THIS GROUND RAISED BY REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 7.3 IN THE RESULT ITA NO.1011/MDS./16 BY REVENUE A ND ITA NO.925/MDS./2016 BY ASSESSEE ARE PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. M/S.KUMUDAM PUBLICATIONS P LTD :- 9 -: NEXT WE TAKE UP ASSESSEE S APPEAL IN ITA NO.926/16 (A.Y. 2008-09) 8. THE ONLY ISSUE IN THIS APPEAL IS WITH REGARD TO DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENDITURE OF ` 11.3 LAKHS UNDER THE HEAD REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE . 8.1 THE ASSESSEE INCURRED THE ABOVE AMOUNT TOWARDS FIXTURES IN THE TOILET AND DINING HALL AT ` 1.16 LAKHS AND ` 1.70 LAKHS TOWARDS LAYING OF NEW DRAINAGE LINE AND ` 8.44 LAKHS TOWARDS GAS LINE WAS CHANGED WITH NEW PIPE LINE TO COVER HARRIS AND GOSS AS WELL AS THE REPAIR OF DAMAGED CENTRALIZED AIR CONDITIONER DUCTS. THE REV ENUE AUTHORITIES IS TREATED AS CAPITAL EXPENDITURE AND ALLOWED DEPRECIA TION. THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE IS THAT IT IS ONLY REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE OF EXISTING ASSETS AND IT IS NOT BROUGHT IN ANY ENDURING BENEFIT. ON A PPEAL, THE LD.CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF LD. ASSESSING OFFICER. NOW, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 9. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. IN OUR OPINION, THE EXPENDITURE INVOLVED HEREIN CANNOT BE SAID THAT IT IS IN THE CAPITAL FIELD. THE ASSESSEE HAS INCURRED THIS EXPENDITURE FOR MAINTENANCE AND REPAIRS OF EXISTING ASSETS AND IT IS IN NORMAL COURSE OF BUSINESS OF ASSESSEE. THE REPAIRS OF EXISTING BUILDING AND STRUCTURE CANNOT BE SAID THAT IT IS IN CAPITAL FIELD SO AS TO CONSIDER M/S.KUMUDAM PUBLICATIONS P LTD :- 10 - : AS CAPITAL EXPENDITURE AND GRANT DEPRECIATION. ACC ORDINGLY, WE ARE INCLINED TO HOLD THAT THE EXPENDITURE WAS WHOLLY AN D EXCLUSIVELY LAID OUT FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS IN DAY TO DAY APPRE CIATION OF THE BUSINESS OF ASSESSEE AND IT IS IN A REVENUE FIELD. THE SAME TO BE ALLOWED AS DEDUCTION WHILE COMPUTING BUSINESS INCOM E OF ASSESSEE. THIS GROUND RAISED BY ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 10. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IN ITA N O.926/MDS./16 IS ALLOWED. NEXT WE TAKE UP ASSESSEE S APPEAL IN ITA NO.927/16 (A.Y. 2009-10) 8. THE ONLY ISSUE IN THIS APPEAL IS WITH REGARD TO DISALLOWANCE U/S.14A OF THE ACT. 9. THE FACTS OF THE ISSUE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS SAID TO BE INVESTED A SUM OF ` 7,00,81,393/- IN LOGANATHAN TRADING PVT LTD. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE, IT IS A SISTER CONCERN O F ASSESSEE AND IT IS A STRATEGIC INVESTMENT. HOWEVER, THE LOWER AUTHORITIE S OBSERVED THAT IN VIEW OF JUDGEMENT OF BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. HDFC LTD. IN 366 ITR 505(BOM.) AND DECISION OF ITAT MUMB AI IN THE CASE OF HDFC BANK LLTD. VS. DCIT REPORTED IN [2015] 61 TAX MANN.COM 361 (MUM. TRIB.), SECTION 14A IS APPLICABLE AND ACCORDI NGLY DISALLOWANCE U/S.14A IS SUSTAINED BY THE LD.CIT(A). AGAINST THIS , THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. M/S.KUMUDAM PUBLICATIONS P LTD :- 11 - : 10. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED TH E MATERIAL ON RECORD. SIMILAR ISSUE CAME FOR CONSIDERATION BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF EIH ACCOCIATED HOTELS LTD., VS. DCIT IN 2012-TIOL- 796-ITAT-MAD. ACCORDINGLY, IF LOGANATHAN TRADING PVT LTD., IS A SISTER CONCERN, O R SUBSIDIARY OF THE ASSESSEE, THEN INVESTMENT THEREIN CANNOT BE CONSIDERED WHILE CONSIDERING THE AVERAGE INVESTMEN TS IN FORMULA IN RULE 8D OF THE INCOME TAX RULES. ACCORDINGLY, WE DI RECT THE AO TO RE-DECIDE THE ISSUE AFTER GIVING OPPORTUNITY OF HEA RING TO THE ASSESSEE 11. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS IN ITA NO.1011/MDS ./16 BY REVENUE AND ITA NO.925/MDS./2016 BY ASSESSEE ARE PA RTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES, THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IN ITA NO.926/MDS./16 IS ALLOWED AND THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IN 927/MDS./2016 IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 24 TH NOVEMBER, 2016, AT CHENNAI. SD/ - SD/ - ( . ) ( G.PAVAN KUMAR ) / JUDICIAL MEMBER ( ) (CHANDRA POOJARI) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / CHENNAI ! / DATED: 24 TH NOVEMBER, 2016 K S SUNDARAM M/S.KUMUDAM PUBLICATIONS P LTD :- 12 - : !' $%& '& / COPY TO: 1 . () / APPELLANT 3. * ( ) / CIT(A) 5. &-. $/ / DR 2. $0 () / RESPONDENT 4. * / CIT 6. .1 2 / GF