Appeal details
Counselvise Citation
[2017] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5548 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
Duration Of Justice
6 month(s) 18 day(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Miscellaneous Application
Pronouncement Date
05-05-2017
Appeal Filed By
Assessee
Bench Allotted
A
Next Hearing Date
17-03-2017
Assessment Year
2008-2009
Appeal Filed On
18-10-2016
Judgement Text
, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, CHENNAI , . ! ' , # '$ BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI G. PAVAN KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER M.A.NOS. 270 & 271/MDS/2016 (IN ITA NOS. 1289/MDS/2011 & 1822/MDS/2010) / ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2008-09 & 2007-08 SRINAR COMMUNICATION PVT. LTD., 96, CHENGALPAT ROAD, SRIKUNDRAM VILLAGE, THIRUPORUR 603 108. PAN AAFCS5215H (APPLICANT) V. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, COMPANY CIRCLE-VI(4), CHENNAI 34. RESPONDENT) APPLICANT BY : SHRI G. BASKAR, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI A.V.SREEKANTH, JCIT / DATE OF HEARING : 17.03.2017 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 05.05.2017 % / O R D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER BY THESE MISC. APPLICATIONS, THE ASSESSEE SEEKS RECTIFICATION OF THE TRIBUNAL ORDER DATED 27.4.2016 IN ITA NOS. 1289/MDS/2011 & 1822/MDS/2010. 2. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THESE APPEALS WERE FIL ED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(APPEALS) DATED 16.8.2010 - - MA 270 & 271/16 2 AND 8.4.2011 RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2007- 08 AND 2008-09, WHO HELD THAT THERE IS NO TRANSFER OF ANY PROPERTY GIVING RAISE TO LEVY OF CAPITAL GAINS. REGARDING M.A.NO.2 71/MDS./16, THE LD.A.R SUBMITTED THAT THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ITS ORD ER DATED 16 TH JUNE, 2016 HAS ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE DEPARTMENT . IN PARA 2.5 OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL HAS HELD :- 2.5. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED T HE MATERIAL ON RECORD. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSES SEE ENTERED INTO MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT ON 02.02.2007 WITH M/S.VISHRANTHI SABARI CONSTRUCTIONS DATED 02.02.200 7, ALSO EXECUTED IRRECOVERABLE POWER OF ATTORNEY IN FAVOUR OF THE SECOND PARTY WITH AN AGREEMENT THAT THE SECOND PART Y SHOULD CONSTRUCT THE RESIDENTIAL APARTMENT BUILDING COMPLE X ON THE SAID LAND BELONGING TO THE ASSESSEE AFTER DEMOLISHING TH E SUPER CONSTRUCTION THEREON. THEY ALSO ENTERED INTO A JOIN T DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT ON 01.06.2006, WHICH WAS CANC ELLED LATER. AFTER THAT MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING DATED 02.02.2007 CITED SUPRA ENTERED. AS PER THIS AGREEM ENT, THE VACANT PORTION OF THE SCHEDULED PROPERTY WAS HANDED OVER TO THE SECOND PARTY BY THE ASSESSEE ON 01.03.2007. A CCORDING TO THE EARLIER JOINT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT ON 01.06.20 06, THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED ` 6 CRORES. FURTHER, A SUM OF ` 3.5 CRORES WAS GIVEN WITHIN 90 DAYS OF THE SIGNING OF M EMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT, AS A PART OF PERFORMANCE OF SECURITY DEPOSIT. IN ADDITION TO THE ABOVE PAYMENT, THE SECOND PARTY SHA LL GIVE AN AMOUNT OF ` 2.5 CRORES. THUS TOTALING OF ` 12 CRORES CONSIDERATION - - MA 270 & 271/16 3 IS TO BE PAYABLE TO THE ASSESSEE. THUS, AS PER CLA USE-8 OF THE MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT, THE ASSESSEE HAS TO BE REC EIVED ` 22 CRORES. IN ADDITION TO THIS, THE ASSESSEE EXECUT ED ANOTHER MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT ON 10.08.2007 WITH THE SAME BUILDER. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE, THE MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT DATED 02.02.2007 WAS NOR SURVIVING IN VIE W OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 10.08.2007 AND ACCORDING TO THE ASS ESSEE, IT IS EXECUTING THE PROJECT SOLELY. HOWEVER, THE COND ITIONS SHOW THAT IT IS A JOINT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, FOR CLARI TY CERTAIN IMPORTANT CLAUSES OF AGREEMENT ARE PRODUCED AS FOLL OWS:- CLAUSE 15 : TITLE DEED THE FIRST PARTY AGREES TO HAND OVER THE ORIGINAL TI TLE DEEDS PERTAINING TO THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY TO THE SECOND P ARTY WITHIN 30 DAYS FROM THIS DATE THE FIRST PARTY AGREES TO PR ODUCE ANY OTHER DOCUMENT/ INFORMATION AS REQUIRED BY THE SECO ND PARTY TO ESTABLISH CLEAR TITLE OF THE FIRST PARTY TO THE SCH EDULE PROPERTY IMMEDIATELY ON REQUEST BY THE SECOND PARTY TO THE F IRST PARTY FOR SUCH ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/INFORMATION, WITHOUT FAIL. THE SECOND PARTY SHALL HAND OVER THE ORIGINAL TITLE DEE DS TO THE FIRST PARTY OR TO THE ASSOCIATION TO BE FORMED BY THE CO- OWNERS OF THE LAND IN THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY, ON COMPLETION OF THE PROJECT CLAUSE 17 : FIRST PARTYS OBLIGATIONS A) THE FIRST PARTY AGREE TO EXTEND FUU COOPERATION TO THE SECOND PARTY BY SIGNING NECESSARY PAPERS LIKE THE A PPLICATIONS, BUILDING PLANS, AFFIDAVITS, INDEMNITY, DECLARATION, ETC., FOR THE PURPOSE OF GETTING SANCTION FOR (A) PLAN FOR DEMOLI SHING BUILDINGS, (B) PLANS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF NEW BUILDI NG/S. (C) WATER AND SEWERAGE CONNECTIONS, (D) ELECTRICITY SERVICE C ONNECTIONS FOR THE PROPOSED APARTMENTS BUILDINGS AND (E) TEMPO RARY - - MA 270 & 271/16 4 ELECTRICITY SUPPLY FOR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSE, ETC. T HE EXPENSES IN THIS CONNECTION SHALL BE TO THE COST OF THE PROJECT B) THE FIRST PARTY SHALL NOT CREATE ANY MORTGAGE, C HARGE OR ENCUMBRANCE OVER THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY OR DI ANY AC T OR DEED OF WHATSOEVER NATURE, WHICH WILL BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE SECOND PARTY, DURING THE SUBSISTENCE OR THIS AG REEMENT, TO RAISE A MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF RS.12,00,00,000/- (RUPEES TWELVE CRORES ONLY) TO MEET COST OF CONSTRUCTION OF THE PR OPOSED RESIDENTIAL BUILDING COMPLEX. C) SO LONG AS THE SECOND PARTY PROCEEDS AS PER THE TERMS OF THIS AGREEMENT AND ALSO THE PLAN AGREED TO BETWEEN THE PARTIES., THE FIRST PARTY OR ANYBODY CLAIMING THROU GH THE FIRST PARTY SHALL NOT DISTURB OR HINDER THE CONSTRUCTION WORK IN ANY MANNER WHATSOEVER. THE FIRST PARTY SHALL BE ENTITLE D TO INSPECT THE WORKSITE TO KNOW THE PROGRESS OF CONSTRUCTION A T ALL REASONABLE TIME WITHOUT IN ANY WAY OBSTRUCTING THE PROGRESS OF CONSTRUCTION OR GETTING HURT IN THE PROCESS OF INSP ECTION DUE TO FALLING OF ANY BUILDING MATERIAL OR THE TOOLS BEING USED IN CONSTRUCTION. D) IN CASE THE ALLOTTEE/S REQUEST/S FOR ANY ADDITIO N OR ALTERATIONS TO THE APARTMENT/S EARMARKED FOR THE ALLOTTEE/S, TH E SAME SHALL BE DULY CARRIED OUT SUBJECT TO TECHNICAL FEASIBILIT Y, AT EXTRA COST TO THE ACCOUNT OF THE PURCHASERS, HOWEVER, THE SECO ND PARTY RESERVES THEIR RIGHT TO REJECT SUCH REQUEST WITHOUT ASSIGNING ANY REASONS. E) THE ALLOTTEES SHALL USE THE APARTMENTS ALLOTTED TO THEM ONLY FOR RESIDENTIAL PURPOSE. F) THE FIRST PARTY DO HEREBY GRANT PERMISSION TO TH E SECOND PARTY TO CARRY ON THE PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION WOR KS SUCH AS SOIL TEST, WATER TEST, SURVEY OF THE LAND, ETC., AT ANY TIME HEREAFTER AFTER INTIMATION TO THE FIRST PARTY. - - MA 270 & 271/16 5 G) THE FIRST PARTY OR ANYONE CLAIMING THROUGH/UNDE R THE FIRST PARTY SHALL NOT INTERFERE WITH THE POSSESSION AND E NJOYMENT OF THE APARTMENTS IN THE RESIDENTIAL BUILDING COMPLEX TO BE CONSTRUCTED BY THE SECOND PARTY FOR THE ALLOTTEES. CLAUSE 18(F) THE SECOND PARTY SHALL DISPLAY ITS NAME BOARD WITH TELEPHONE NUMBERS IN THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY AFTER TAKING DELIV ERY OF THE POSSESSION OF SCHEDULE PROPERTY AND TO ADVERTISE TH E SALE OF APARTMENTS, TO NEGOTIATE FOR SALE, TO ENTER INTO AG REEMENTS FOR SALE OF THE UNDIVIDED SHARE IN THE LAND DESCRIBED I N THE SCHEDULE POPERTY AND ALSO CONSTRUCTION AGREEMENT/S FOR CONSTRUCTION OF APARTMENTS WITH ITS NOMINEES. CLAUSE 25 : NAME OF THE BUILDING THE NAME OF THE PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL BUILDING COMPL EX IS ARANYA. THE SAID NAME OF THE RESIDENTIAL BUILDIN G COMPLEX SHALL ALWAYS REMAIN THE SAME AND THE LOGO OF THE SE COND PARTY SHALL BE DISPLAYED AT ANY PROMINENT PLACE/S ON THE PROPOSED BUILDING COMPLEX. THE SAME SHALL NOT BE DISMANTLED OR REMOVED BY ANYONE UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES. 2.1 FURTHER, THE TRIBUNAL PROCEEDED ON THE AFORESAI D FACTS TO CONCLUDE THAT : GOING THROUGH THE ABOVE CLAUSES OF AGREEMENT CLEAR LY SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN THE POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY AND ALSO RECEIVED A PART OF CONSIDERATION AS DISCUSSED EARLIER AND IT IS A TRANSFER IN TERMS OF SEC.2(47)(V) OF THE ACT. - - MA 270 & 271/16 6 2.2 THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE FACTS FOUND ARE N OT CORRECT BY PRESENTING THE FOLLOWING POINTS FOR OUR CONSIDER ATION. A. THE AGREEMENT WITH M/S. VISHRANTHI SABARI CONSTR UCTIONS IS DATED 02.02.2007 AND HENCE POSSESSION COULD NOT HAV E BEEN HANDED OVER ON 1.3.2007. IT WAS ONLY INTENDED TO BE HANDED OVER ON 1.3.2007 BUT WAS NEVER PERFORMED. B. IT HAD BEEN FURTHER HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE EXECU TED ANOTHER MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT ON 10.08.2007 WITH THE SAME BUILDER; WHICH IS ALSO FACTUALLY INCORRECT. THE SE COND AGREEMENT WAS WITH M/S. VISHRANTHI SABARI, A DIFFER ENT PARTNERSHIP FIRM. C. SIMILARLY, THE TRIBUNAL IN PARA 2.5 OF THE ORDER HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE EXECUTED AN IRREVOCABLE POWER OF ATTORNEY PURSUANT TO THE AGREEMENT DATED 2.2.2007 WITH VISHR ANTHI SABARI CONSTRUCTIONS. IT IS A MATTER OF RECORD THA T NO POWER OF ATTORNEY WAS EXECUTED PURSUANT TO THE SAID AGREEMENT; BUT WAS EXECUTED ONLY PURSUANT TO AND ALONGSIDE THE AGREEMENT DATED 10.8.2007 WITH VISHRA NTHI SABARI. - - MA 270 & 271/16 7 D. THE TRIBUNAL PROCEEDED TO HOLD THAT THE CONDITI ONS SHOW THAT IT IS A JOINT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. THIS AGR EEMENT WAS NEVER ACTED UPON AND REPLACED BY A TRI-PARTITE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE, M/S. VISHRANTHI SAB ARI CONSTRUCTIONS AND M/S. VISHRANTHI SABARI. AN AGREE MENT WHICH WAS CANCELLED CAN NO LONGER BE A JOINT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. 2.3 THEREFORE, ACCORDING TO THE LD. AR, THE TRIBUN AL PROCEEDED ON WRONG PREMISE. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT T HE BASIC FACTS FOUND BY THE TRIBUNAL ARE INCORRECT. HENCE, THE LD . AR, SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS MISTAKE APPARENT ON RECORD AND THE OR DER OF THE TRIBUNAL MAY BE RECALLED. 3. THE LD. DR RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. 4. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE M ATERIAL ON RECORD. THE MAIN CONTENTION OF THE LD.A.R IS THA T THE MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT ON 10.08.2007 WAS NOT WITH M/S.VISHRANTHI SABARI CONSTRUCTIONS, BUT ENTERED WI TH M/S. VISHRANTHI SABARI, WHICH IS A SEPARATE PARTNERSHIP FIRM AND THE TRIBUNAL COMMITTED AN ERROR BY MENTIONING THAT BOTH ARE SAME. THIS POINT WAS EXTRACTED BY THE TRIBUNAL FROM PARA 2.1 OF - - MA 270 & 271/16 8 ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 DATED 16.12.2009, WHICH READS AS FOLLOWS:- 2. LONG-TERM CAPITAL GAINS - RS.19,13,69,718/- 2.1 THE ASSESSEE IS A COMPANY ENGAGED IN THE BUSINE SS OF MANUFACTURE OF RF COAXIAL CONNECTORS & MICROWAVE CO MPONENTS ANTENNAS. DURING THE YEAR UNDER SCRUTINY, IT WAS FOUND FROM THE BALANCE SHEET THAT IT HAS RECEIVED AN ADVANCE F ROM SALE OF PROPERTY TO THE TUNE OF RS.5,96,75,000. ON VERIFICA TION OF THE DETAILS FURNISHED, IT IS FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HA S TRANSFERRED ITS PROPERTY MEASURING 2.86 ACRES OF LAND SITUATED AT S HOLINGANALLUR VILLAGE ACQUIRED BY WAY OF SLUMP SALE FROM ITS HOLD ING COMPANY M/S. SRINAR ELECTRCNICS PVT. LTD. ON 23.11.2001 FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS.2,35,00,000/- BY A MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT DA TED 02.02.2007 TO ONE M/S.VISHRANTHI SABARI CONSTRUCTIO NS, A REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM BY EXECUTING AND REGIST ERING AN IRREVOCABLE GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY IN FAVOUR OF THE SECOND PARTY, WITH AN AGREEMENT THAT THE SECOND PARTY SHOU LD CONSTRUCT A RESIDENTIAL APARTMENT BUILDING COMPLEX UNDER FLAT SYSTEM OVER THE LAND BELONGING TO THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AFTER DE MOLISHIING THE SUPERSTRUCTURE THEREON. BEFORE ENTERING INTO TH IS AGREEMENT, THE PARTIES T THE TRANSACTION HAVE ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT FOR JOINT DEVELOPMENT ON 01.0 .2006 (COPY OF WHICH IS N OT PRODUCED) WHICH WAS WITHDRAWN AND CANCELLED FOR THE REASON BE ST KNOWN TO THE ASSESSEE AND FRESH AGREEMENT WAS ENTERED INTO O N 02.2.2007. AS PER THIS AGREEMENT, VACANT POSSESSION OF THE SCHEDULED PROPERTY WAS HANDED OVER TO THE SECOND PA RTY BY TH ASSESSEE ON 01.03.2007. ACCORDING TO THE ARLIER AGR EEMENT DATED 01.06.2006, A SUM OF RS.6 CRORES WAS TO BE GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE IN 01.06.2006 AND A FURTHER SUM OF RS.3.5 CRORES WA S GIVEN - - MA 270 & 271/16 9 WITHIN 90 DAYS OF SIGNING THE MOA AS A PART OF PERF ORMANCE SECURITY DEPOSIT. IN ADDITION TO THE ABOVE PAYMENTS , THE TRANSFEREE SHOULD ALSO GIVE AN AMOUNT OF RS2.5 CROR ES THUS AGGREGATING TO A TOTAL CONSIDERATION OF RS.12 CRORE S. IT IS UNDERSTOOD FROM CL.8 OF THE AGREEMENT THAT THE FULL VALUE OF CONSIDERATION FOR WHICH TH TRANSACTION WAS ACCEPTED TO BE CARRIED ON BETWEEN BOTH THE PARTIES IS RS.22 CRORS. IN ADDI TION TO THE ABOVE, THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO EXECUTED ANOTHER MEMOR ANDUM BUILDER M/S. VISHRANTHI SABARI. THE REASON BEHIND S IGNING THIS AGREEMENT AGAIN IS NOT KNOWN. IN ADDITION TO ABOVE, THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO EXECUTE D ANOTHER MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT ON 10.08.2007 WITH THE SAME M/S. VISHRANTHI SABARI. THE REASON BEHIND SIG NING THIS AGREEMENT AGAIN IS NOT KNOWN. 4.1 BEING SO, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE TRIBUNAL COMMITTED AN ERROR AND THE TRIBUNAL EXTRACTS THE FACTS FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ITSELF IN PARA 2.1 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER UN LESS THE ASSESSEE SHOWS THE FACTS RECORDED BY THE AO IS WRON G, WE ARE NOT IN A POSITION TO CHANGE IT. HENCE, THIS ARGUMEN T OF THE ASSESSEE IS REJECTED. 5. THE NEXT CONTENTION OF THE LD.A.R IS THAT POWER OF ATTORNEY EXECUTED NOT IN RELATION TO AGREEMENT BETW EEN THE - - MA 270 & 271/16 10 ASSESSEE AND M/S.VISHRANTHI SABARI CONSTRUCTIONS DA TED 02.02.2007 AND ON THE OTHER HAND, IT WAS RELATING T O AGAREEMENT BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND M/S. VISHRANTHI SABARI DAT ED 10.08.2007. IN OUR OPINION, MENTIONING THAT POWER OF ATTORNEY WAS EXECUTED PURSUANT TO THE AGREEMENT DATED 02.02. 2007 BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND M/S.VISHRANTHI SABARI CON STRUCTIONS, DOES NOT VITIATE THE FINDINGS OF THE TRIBUNAL. THE TRIBUNAL HAS CONCLUDED THE FINDINGS ON THE BASIS OF AGREEMENT BE TWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND M/S.VISHRANTHI SABARI CONSTRUCTIONS DA TED 02.02.2007. BEING SO, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE TR IBUNAL DEVIATED FROM PROVISIONS OF THE SECTION 2(47)(V) OF THE ACT. 5.1 FURTHER, IT IS TO BE NOTED THAT DECISION OF TH E ORDER OF TRIBUNAL HAS NOT TO BE SCRUTINIZED SENTENCE BY SE NTENCE MERELY TO FIND OUT WHETHER ALL FACTS HAVE BEEN SET OUT IN HIS ORDER OR WHETHER SOME INCIDENTAL FACT WHICH APPEARS ON THE R ECORD HAS NOT BEEN NOTICED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN ITS ORDER. I F THE COURT, ON A FAIR READING OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL, FINDS T HAT IT HAS TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT ALL RELEVANT MATERIAL AND HAS NOT TAKE N INTO ACCOUNT ANY IRRELEVANT MATERIAL IN BASING HIS CONCLUSIONS, THE DECISION OF - - MA 270 & 271/16 11 THE TRIBUNAL IS NOT LIABLE TO BE INTERFERED WITH, U NLESS, OF COURSE, THE CONCLUSIONS ARRIVED AT BY THE TRIBUNAL ARE PER VERSE. IT IS NOT NECESSARY FOR THE TRIBUNAL TO STATE IN HIS ORDER S PECIFICALLY OR IN EXPRESS WORDS THAT HE HAS TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT THE C UMULATIVE EFFECT OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES OR HAS CONSIDERED THE T OTALITY OF THE FACTS, AS IF THAT WERE A MAGIC FORMULA; IF THE ORD ER OF THE TRIBUNAL SHOWS THAT IT HAS, IN FACT, DONE SO, THERE IS NO RE ASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL. 5.2 BEING SO, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF TRIBUNAL TO AS TO RECALL OR RECTIFY THE ORDER OF T RIBUNAL. HENCE, THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSE E STANDS DISMISSED. M.A. NO.270/MDS./2016 6. AS THIS IS A CONSEQUENTIAL MISCELLANEOUS APPLIC ATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WITH REFERENCE TO THE ORDER OF TRIB UNAL IN ITA NO.1289/MDS./2011. SINCE WE HAVE ALREADY HELD THAT FINDING SOF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 DOES NO T WANT INTERFERENCE, AS SUCH THE TRIBUNAL NOT COMMITTED AN Y ERROR IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL OF REVENUE FOR ASSESSMENT YE AR 2008-09. - - MA 270 & 271/16 12 ACCORDINGLY, THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION IN MA NO.270/MDS./16 FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS DISMIS SED. 7. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE MISC. APPLICATIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 05 TH MAY, 2017 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( ) ( !'# $ ) %&'(')*+,'-./0')1-'&223'-4. 567 /JUDICIAL MEMBER 89 67:;;2+)<')<=>,?>- !95 /CHENNAI, @6' /DATED, THE 05 TH MAY, 2017. K S SUNDARAM A69B C8DEF9D /COPY TO: 1. E8 /APPELLANT 2. /RESPONDENT 3. AA G E8. /CIT(A) 4. AA G /CIT 5. DHI J /DR 6. IKL8 /GF
Mehul