DDIT, CHENNAI V. Bhaktavatsalam Memorial Trust, CHENNAI

ITA 971/CHNY/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4944 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 8 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-01-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 08-01-2018
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 17-04-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: N MADHAVAN ACIT
• Assessee Lawyers: S SRIDHAR
• Keywords: Depreciation; Charitable institution; Benefit of exemption
• Section: 12A; 12AA

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH: CHENNAI . , ! , $ % BEFORE SHRI ABRAHAM P.GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ ITA NO.971/MDS/2014 & ITA NO.684/MDS/2015 $! ! /ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2010-11 & 2011-12 THE DY. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS)-II / THE ITO (EXEMPTIONS), WARD-2, AYAKAR BHAVAN, ANNEXE BUILDING, III FLOOR, 121, M.G.ROAD, NUNGAMBAKKAM, CHENNAI 600 034. VS. M/S.BHAKTHAVATSALAM MEMORIAL TRUST, PLOT NO.14, 31 ST STREET, PERIYAR NAGAR, KORATTUR, CHENNAI-600 080. [PAN: AAATB 2624 D ] ( ' /APPELLANT) ( ()' /RESPONDENT) DEPARTMENT BY : MR.N.MADHAVAN, ACIT ASSESSEE BY : MR.S.SRIDHAR, ADV. 3 /DATE OF HEARING : 11.01.2018 3 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 11.01.2018 / O R D E R PER GEORGE MATHAN , JUDICIAL MEMBER : ITA NO.971/MDS/2014 IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE REVE NUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-V II, CHENNAI, IN ITA NO.215/12-13 DATED 31.12.2013 FOR THE AY 2010-11 & ITA NO.684/MDS/2015 IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE A GAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-17, CHENNA I, IN ITA NO.92/14- 15 DATED 24.12.2014 FOR THE AY 2011-12. ITA NO.971/MDS/2014 & ITA NO.684/MDS/2015 :- 2 -: 2.0 AS BOTH THE APPEALS ARE RELATED TO THE SAME ASS ESSEE AND INVOLVES IDENTICAL ISSUES, THE APPEALS ARE BEING DISPOSED OF F BY THIS COMMON ORDER. 3.0 SHRI N.MADHAVAN, ACIT, REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE AND SHRI S.SRIDHAR, ADV., REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. ITA NO.971/MDS/2014 FOR THE AY 2010-11 : 4.0 GROUND NOS.1 & 5 ARE GENERAL IN NATURE. 4.1 IN REGARD TO GROUND NOS.2 & 4, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD.DR THAT THE ISSUE WAS AGAINST THE ACTION OF THE LD.CIT(A) I N HOLDING THAT THERE WAS NO VIOLATION U/S.13(1)(B) AND 13(1)(D) OF THE ACT. IT WAS A SUBMISSION THAT IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT, THE AO HAD HELD T HAT THE ASSESSEE IS A PUBLIC CHARITABLE SOCIETY, HAD GIVEN AN ADVANCE OF RS.2.00 CR. TO M/S.KHADER GHANI CHARITABLE AND EDUCATIONAL TRUST, CHENNAI, AND THE SAME WAS SHOWN AS OUTSTANDING ADVANCE AS ON 31.03.2 010. SINCE THE LOANS HAVE BEEN GIVEN TO ANOTHER SOCIETY WHICH WAS NOT HAVING SIMILAR OBJECTS, THE AO HAD DENIED THE ASSESSEE THE BENEFIT OF EXEMPTION U/S.11 OF THE ACT. IT WAS A SUBMISSION THAT GROUND NOS.2 & 4 WERE INTERCONNECTED IN SO FAR AS CONSEQUENT TO THE DENIA L OF THE BENEFIT OF EXEMPTION U/S.11 ON ACCOUNT OF THE LOAN GIVEN TO M/ S.KHADER GHANI CHARITABLE AND EDUCATIONAL TRUST, THE CORPUS DONATI ON OF RS.1.66 CR. RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS BROUGHT TO TAX. IT WA S A SUBMISSION THAT ON APPEAL, THE LD.CIT(A) HAD DELETED THE ADDITION BY F OLLOWING THE DECISION OF ITA NO.971/MDS/2014 & ITA NO.684/MDS/2015 :- 3 -: THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE ASSES SEES OWN CASE IN ITA NO.1796/MDS/2012 & ITA NO.1819/MDS/2012 DATED 20.1 2.2013. IT WAS A SUBMISSION THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) WAS LIAB LE TO BE REVERSED. 4.2 IN REPLY, THE LD.DR DREW OUR ATTENTION TO THE D ECISION OF THE CO- ORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE ASSESSEES O WN CASE FOR THE AY 2009-10 REFERRED TO SUPRA WHEREIN PARA NO.7 OF THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL HAS HELD AS FOLLOWS: 7. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ABOVE DECISION, WE HO LD THAT ADVANCEMENT OF INTEREST FREE LOANS TO OTHER CHARITABLE INSTITUTIONS REGISTERED U NDER SECTION 12A OF THE ACT HAVING SIMILAR OBJECTS ARE NOT IN VIOLATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF S ECTION 13(1)(D) READ WITH SECTION 11(5) OF THE ACT. IN THIS CASE, ADMITTEDLY THE OTHER CHARITA BLE INSTITUTIONS TO WHOM INTEREST FREE LOANS WERE GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE ARE REGISTERED UND ER SECTION 12A / 12AA OF THE ACT HAVING SIMILAR OBJECTS. IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, THERE IS NO VIOLATION OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 13(1)(D) READ WITH SECTION 11(5) OF THE ACT IN THE CAS E OF THE ASSESSEE BY ADVANCEMENT OF SUCH INTEREST FREE LOANS TO SUCH CHARITABLE INSTITU TIONS, WE SUSTAIN THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ON THIS ISSUE. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. 4.3 AS IT IS NOTICED THAT THE ISSUES ARE SQUARELY C OVERED BY THE DECISION OF THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE , THE ISSUE IS HELD IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. CONSEQUENTLY, GROUND NOS.2 & 4 OF THE REVENUES APPEAL STANDS DISMISSED. 5.0 IN REGARD TO GROUND NO.3, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY T HE LD.DR THAT THE ISSUE WAS AGAINST THE ACTION OF THE LD.CIT(A) IN DE LETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF THE CLAIM OF THE DEPRECIATION. HE VEHEMENTLY SU PPORTED THE ORDER OF THE AO AND THE LD.CIT(A). ITA NO.971/MDS/2014 & ITA NO.684/MDS/2015 :- 4 -: 5.1 IN REPLY, THE LD.AR DREW OUR ATTENTION TO THE D ECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF RAJASTHAN GUJARATI CHA RITABLE FOUNDATION, POONA, IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.7186 OF 2014 WHEREIN IT H AS BEEN HELD AS FOLLOWS: AFTER HEARING LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE AFORESAID VIEW TAKEN BY THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT CORRE CTLY STATES THE PRINCIPLES OF LAW AND THERE IS NO NEED TO INTERFERE WITH THE SAME. IT MAY BE MENTIONED THAT MOST OF THE HIGH COURTS H AVE TAKEN THE AFORESAID VIEW WITH ONLY EXCEPTION THERETO BY THE HIGH COURT OF KE RALA WHICH HAS TAKEN A CONTRARY VIEW IN 'LISSIE MEDICAL INSTITUTIONS V. COMMISSIONER OF INC OME TAX'. IT MAY ALSO BE MENTIONED AT THIS STAGE THAT THE LE GISLATURE, REALIZING THAT THERE WAS NO SPECIFIC PROVISION IN THIS BEHALF IN THE INCOME TAX ACT, HAS MADE AMENDMENT IN SECTION 11(6) OF THE ACT VIDE FINANCE ACT NO. 2/2014 WHICH BE CAME EFFECTIVE FROM THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2015-2016. THE DELHI HIGH COURT HAS TAKEN THE VIEW AND RIGHTLY SO, THAT THE SAID AMENDMENT IS PROSPECTIVE IN NATURE. IT ALSO FOLLOWS THAT ONCE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED DEPR ECIATION, HE SHALL BE ENTITLED TO CARRY FORWARD THE DEPRECIATION AS WELL. 5.2 IT WAS A SUBMISSION THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD.CI T(A) WAS LIABLE TO BE SUSTAINED. 5.3 WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. A PE RUSAL OF THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF RAJASTH AN GUJARATI CHARITABLE FOUNDATION REFERRED TO SUPRA SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSE E IS ENTITLED TO THE CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION EVEN THOUGH IT IS REGISTERED U/S.12A OF THE ACT. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DEC ISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF RAJASTHAN GUJARATI CHA RITABLE FOUNDATION REFERRED TO SUPRA, THE FINDINGS OF THE LD.CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE STANDS CONFIRMED. CONSEQUENTLY, GROUND NO.3 OF THE REVENUE S APPEAL STANDS DISMISSED. ITA NO.971/MDS/2014 & ITA NO.684/MDS/2015 :- 5 -: 6.0 IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IN ITA NO.971/MDS/2014 STANDS DISMISSED. ITA NO.684/MDS/2015 FOR THE AY 2011-12 : 7.0 GROUND NO.1 IS GENERAL IN NATURE. 7.1 IN REGARD TO GROUND NO.2, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY T HE LD.DR THAT THE ISSUE WAS AGAINST THE ACTION OF THE LD.CIT(A) IN HO LDING THAT THE CORPUS DONATION RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSE IS SQUARELY COVERE D U/S.11(1)(D) R.W.S.12 OF THE ACT. IT WAS A SUBMISSION THAT THE LD.CIT(A) HAD FOLLOWED THE DECISION OF THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBU NAL IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN ITA NO.1796/MDS/2012 & ITA NO.1819/MD S/2012 DATED 20.12.2013 FOR THE AY 2009-10. IT WAS A SUBMISSION THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) WAS LIABLE TO BE REVERSED. 7.2 IN REPLY, LD.AR DREW OUR ATTENTION TO PARA NOS. 16 & 17 OF THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD AS FOLLOWS: 16. HEARD BOTH SIDES. PERUSED THE ORDERS OF LOWER A UTHORITIES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEI VED CORPUS DONATION OF RS.1,70,70,000/- AND THIS WAS ADDED TO CAPITAL FUND DIRECTLY WITHOUT CONSIDERING AS INCOME, THEREFORE HE TREATED THIS SUM AS INCOME OF THE ASSE SSEE. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IN HIS ORDER COMPUTED THE INCOME FOR THE A SSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL AND WHILE DOING SO, HE HAS CONSIDERED RS.95,00,000/- ON LY AS CORPUS DONATIONS FOR THE REASON THAT RS.95,00,000/- WAS DONATED FOR SPECIFIC PURPOS E OF CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDING BY M/S. RVS EDUCATIONAL TRUST, PONDICHERRY. THE COMMISSIONE R OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) DID NOT CONSIDER RS.82,70,000/- AS CORPUS DONATIONS OBSERVI NG THAT THESE CORPUS DONATIONS ARE NOT FOR SPECIFIC DIRECTIONS/PURPOSE AND THEREFORE INCLU DED RS.82,70,000/- AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 17. ON A PLAIN READING OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 11(1)(D) OF THE ACT, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE INCOME IN THE FORM OF VOLUNTARY CONTRIBUTIONS MADE WITH A SPECIFIC DIRECTION THAT THEY SHALL FORM PART OF THE CORPUS OF THE TRUST OR INSTITUTION , SHALL NOT BE INCLUDED IN THE TOTAL INCOME ITA NO.971/MDS/2014 & ITA NO.684/MDS/2015 :- 6 -: OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR. ON READING OF THE ASSESSMENT O RDER AS WELL AS THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), THERE APPEARS TO BE NO DISPUTE THAT THE DONATIONS RECEIVED ARE NOT CORPUS DONATIONS. HOWEVER, THE COM MISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) WAS OF THE VIEW THAT SINCE RS.82,70,000/- OUT OF CO RPUS DONATIONS THERE IS NO SPECIFIC DIRECTIONS/PURPOSES FOR WHICH IT HAS TO BE USED HE HAS CONSTRUED THAT IT SHOULD FORM PART OF INCOME THOUGH THEY ARE CORPUS DONATIONS. THIS FINDI NG OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) APPEARS TO BE NOT CORRECT. SECTION 11(1)(D) STIPULATES THAT VOLUNTARY CONTRIBUTIONS MADE WITH A SPECIFIC DIRECTION THAT I T SHALL FORM PART OF CORPUS OF TRUST SHOULD NOT BE TREATED AS INCOME OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR. THE PROVISION DID NOT SAY THAT THE PURPOSE FOR WHICH SUCH DONATION IS GIVEN SHOULD BE SPECIFIE D. THE REQUIREMENT OF THE SECTION WILL BE SATISFIED ONCE THE DONATION IS SPECIFIC FOR CORPUS FUND. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE HOLD THAT THE ENTIRE CORPUS DONATIONS OF RS.1,77,70,000/- REC EIVED BY THE ASSESSEE SHALL NOT FORM PART OF INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AS THEY ARE GIVEN FO R CORPUS FUND. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THIS ISSUE ARE ALLOWED. 7.3 IT WAS A SUBMISSION THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD.CI T(A) WAS LIABLE TO BE SUSTAINED. 7.4 WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. AS I T IS NOTICED THAT THE ISSUE IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE DECISION OF THE CO -ORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE REFERRED TO SUP RA, THE FINDINGS OF THE LD.CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE STANDS CONFIRMED. CONSEQUEN TLY, GROUND NO.2 STANDS DISMISSED. 8.0 IN REGARD TO GROUND NO.3, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY T HE LD.DR THAT THE ISSUE WAS AGAINST THE ACTION OF THE LD.CIT(A) IN DE LETING THE ADDITION REPRESENTING THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME RECEIVED BY TH E ASSESSEE BUT TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED INCOME BY THE AO. IT WAS A SUBMISSI ON THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) WAS LIABLE TO BE REVERSED. IT WAS A SUBMISSION THAT THE LD.CIT(A) HAD ADMITTED FRESH EVIDENCE. ITA NO.971/MDS/2014 & ITA NO.684/MDS/2015 :- 7 -: 8.1 IN REPLY, LD.AR SUBMITTED THAT NO FURTHER EVIDE NCE HAS BEEN PRODUCED. IT WAS ALSO A SUBMISSION THAT THE ASSESS EE WAS RUNNING AN AGRICULTURAL COLLEGE AND THE ASSESSEE HAD NEARLY 34 0 ACRES OF LAND ON WHICH AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS WERE CARRIED ON FOR M ORE THAN 15 YEARS. IT WAS ALSO A SUBMISSION THAT THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS AND THE SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEARS HAVE ALSO BEEN ACCEPTED. THE LD.AR VEHEMENTLY SUPP ORTED THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A). THE LD.AR DREW OUR ATTENTION TO PAR A NO.4.5 & 4.6 OF THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A). IT WAS A SUBMISSION THAT N O FRESH EVIDENCE HAD BEEN PRODUCED BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A). 8.2 WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. AT T HE OUTSET, IT MAY BE MENTIONED HERE THAT THE REVENUE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE T O POINT OUT AS TO WHAT IS THE FRESH EVIDENCE PRODUCED BEFORE THE LD.C IT(A). IT IS AN UNDISPUTED FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE IS HAVING AGRICUL TURAL LAND OF MORE THAN 340 ACRES AND THE DETAILS OF THE VARIOUS CROPS IS A LSO AVAILABLE IN THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) AT PAGE NO.6 PARA NO.4.5. ADMITTE DLY, THIS HAS NOT BEEN DISPUTED BY THE REVENUE. THE REVENUES ALLEGATION IS THAT THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE OF SALE OF THE AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE. A PE RUSAL OF THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) CLEARLY SHOWS THAT BEFORE THE AO THE DETA ILS HAD BEEN PRODUCED. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, AS IT IS NOTICED THAT THE A O HAS NOT DONE ANY VERIFICATION BUT HAS BLINDLY DISBELIEVED THE CLAIM OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME, THE SAME IS NOT SUSTAINABLE. IT IS ALSO NOTICED TH AT THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCLOSED AGRICULTURAL INCOME IN THE EARLIER ASSESS MENT YEARS AND THE ITA NO.971/MDS/2014 & ITA NO.684/MDS/2015 :- 8 -: SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEARS AND NO DISPUTE HAS BEEN RAISED REGARDING THOSE. THIS BEING SO, WE FIND NO ERROR IN THE FIND INGS OF THE LD.CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE AND THE SAME STANDS CONFIRMED. CONSEQUE NTLY, GROUND NO.3 OF THE REVENUES APPEAL STANDS DISMISSED. 9.0 IN REGARD TO GROUND NO.4, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY T HE LD.DR THAT THE ISSUE WAS AGAINST THE ACTION OF THE LD.CIT(A) IN HO LDING THAT THE REMUNERATION OF RS.12.00 LAKHS PAID TO A TRUSTEE, W AS NOT A VIOLATION OF SEC.11(1)(A) R.W.S. 13(2)(C) OF THE ACT. IT WAS A SUBMISSION THAT THE SALARY OF RS.12.00 LAKHS HAVING BEEN PAID TO THE TR USTEE, THERE IS A VIOLATION OF SEC.11(1)(A) R.W.S. 13(2)(C) OF THE AC T. IT WAS A PRAYER THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) WAS LIABLE TO BE REVERSE D. 9.1 IN REPLY, LD.AR SUBMITTED THAT THE SALARY OF RS .12.00 LAKHS WAS PAID IN THE EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS AND THE SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEARS ALSO AND THERE WAS NO DISALLOWANCE NOR THERE WAS A CLAIM OF VIOLATION OF SEC. 11(1)(A) R.W.S. 13(2)(C) OF THE ACT. IT WAS A SUB MISSION THAT IF THE AO WANTED TO SHOW THAT THE PAYMENT WAS UNREASONABLE EV EN THAT HAS NOT BEEN DONE IN SO FAR AS NO COMPARATIVE CASE HAS ALSO BEEN SHOWN. 9.2 WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. AS I T IS NOTICED THAT THE SALARY HAS BEEN PAID TO THE TRUSTEE IN THE EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS AND THE SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEARS AND THERE IS NO CLA IM OF VIOLATION OF SEC.11(1)(A) R.W.S. 13(2)(C) OF THE ACT IN THE EARL IER ASSESSMENT YEARS AND ITA NO.971/MDS/2014 & ITA NO.684/MDS/2015 :- 9 -: THE SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEARS AND AS THE AO HAS N OT BEEN ABLE TO SHOW HOW THE PAYMENT IS UNREASONABLE. WE HAVE UPHE LD THE FINDINGS OF THE LD.CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE. CONSEQUENTLY, GROUND NO.4 OF THE REVENUES APPEAL STANDS DISMISSED. 10.0 IN REGARD TO GROUND NO.5, THE ISSUE WAS AGAINS T THE ACTION OF THE LD.CIT(A) IN ALLOWING THE DEPRECIATION. THIS IS ID ENTICAL TO GROUND NO.3 OF THE REVENUES APPEAL IN ITA NO.971/MDS/2014 FOR THE AY 2010-11. WE HAVE ALREADY HELD THAT THE DEPRECIATION IS ELIGIBLE IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF RAJASTHAN GUJARATI CHARITABLE FOUNDATION IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.7186 OF 2014 DATED 13 .12.2017. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT, THE FINDINGS OF THE LD.CIT(A) IN GRANTING THE DEPRECIAT ION TO THE ASSESSEE STANDS UPHELD. CONSEQUENTLY, GROUND NO.5 OF THE RE VENUES APPEAL STANDS DISMISSED. 11. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IN ITA NO.684/MDS/2017 STANDS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON JANUARY 11, 2018, AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( . ) ( ABRAHAM P.GEORGE ) /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( ! ) (GEORGE MATHAN) $ /JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.971/MDS/2014 & ITA NO.684/MDS/2015 :- 10 -: /CHENNAI, 8 /DATED: JANUARY 11, 2018. TLN 3 ($9: ;: /COPY TO: 1. ' /APPELLANT 4. < /CIT 2. ()' /RESPONDENT 5. : ($$ /DR 3. < ( ) /CIT(A) 6. ! /GF