Sirish Kumar Bafna, CHENNAI V. ACIT, CHENNAI

MA 330/CHNY/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6195 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 16-02-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 14-11-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R V AROON PRASAD
• Keywords: Rectification of order
• Section: 154

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME - TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, CHENNAI . , . , BEFORE SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY , JUDICIAL MEMBER M .P.NO . 33 0 / CHNY /2017 [IN I.T. A. NO. 1 0 34 / CHNY /20 1 6 ] ASSESSMENT YEAR : 20 10 - 11 SHRI SIRISH KUMAR BAFNA, NO. 6, MULLA LANE, SOWCARPET, CHENNAI 600 079. [PAN: AAEPB1644B] VS. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BUSINESS C IRCLE XII, CHENNAI 600 006. ( / APPELLANT ) ( / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY : NONE / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI R.V. AROON PRASAD , J CIT / DATE OF HEARING : 1 6 .0 2 .2018 / DATE OF P RONOUNCEME NT : 16 . 0 2 .201 8 / O R D E R PER DUVVURU RL REDDY , JUDICIAL MEMBER : BY MEANS OF PRESENT MISCELLANEOUS PETITION , THE ASSESSEE SEEKS TO REC ALL THE ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN I.T.A. NO. 1034 /MDS/20 1 6 DATED 2 8 .0 7 .2017 RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 1 0 - 11 . IN THE PETITION, THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED AS UNDER: THE TERM DEPOSITS ENVISAGED THE RIGHT TO RECEIVE THE INTEREST ON THE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT ONLY AT THE TIME OF THE MATURITY/EXPIRY OF THE TERM. M .P. NO . 33 0 / CHNY/201 7 2 THE CONCEPT OF RECKONING INCOME BOTH IN CASH SY STEM OF ACCOUNTING AND ACCRUAL SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING SHOULD BE NOTED AS DIFFERENT FROM THE LIABILITY TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE. THE LIABILITY TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE SHOULD BE CREATED STATUTORILY AT THE TIME OF MAKING THE PAYMENT OF INTEREST OR CREDITING TH E ACCOUNT OF THE RECIPIENT INCLUDING THE SUSPENSE ACCOUNT AS PER SECTION 194A OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY, THE BANKERS DEDUCTED THE TAX AT SOURCE IN THE PETITIONER/APPELLANT'S CASE AND DULY REFLECTED IN FORM NO.26AS. HOWEVER, THE RIGHT TO RECEIVE THE INTERES T WOULD ARISE ONLY AT THE EXPIRY/TERMINATION OF THE DEPOSIT PERIOD AND HENCE THE RIGHT TO RECEIVE SUCH INTEREST FOR THE PURPOSE OF RECKONING INCOME IS WRONGLY INFERRED IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER. THE PETITIONER/APPELLANT OFFERED THE TDS DEDUCTED AS INCOME IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELATING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND CLAIMED THE TDS PAID AS TAX PAID ON HIS BEHALF. HOWEVER, IN THE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING REGULARLY MAINTAINED BY THE PETITIONER/APPELLANT NAMELY, CASH SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING THE INTEREST U NDER DISPUTE EVEN THOUGH CREDITED TO HIS ACCOUNT/THE SUSPENSE ACCOUNT BY THE BANKERS, THE RECKONING OF INCOME IS WRONGLY CONFIRMED OVERLOOKING THE TERMS OF THE TERM DEPOSITS. ADMITTEDLY, THE RIGHT TO RECEIVE INTEREST WOULD GET CRYSTALLIZED AT THE EXPIRY OF THE TERM OF THE DEPOSITS AND EVEN IN THE ACCRUAL SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING THERE IS NO RIGHT TO RECEIVE SUCH INTEREST INASMUCH AS JUST BECAUSE THE INTEREST AMOUNT IS CREDITED TO THE ACCOUNT OF THE PETITIONER/APPELLANT/THE SUSPENSE ACCOUNT, THERE IS NO RIGHT TO WITHDRAW SUCH AMOUNT DURING THE TERM/PERIOD OF THE DEPOSITS. THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT THE CREDITING OF THE INTEREST IN THE ACCOUNT OF THE PETITIONER/APPELLANT OR THE SUSPENSE ACCOUNT COULD BE EQUATED TO CONSTRUCTIVE RECEIPT AND SUCH CONSTRUCTIVE RECEIPT T HEORY SHOULD BE PRESUMED ONLY BASED ON THE TERMS OF THE TIME DEPOSITS. IN THE EVENT OF THE RIGHT TO RECEIVE/WITHDRAW THE AMOUNTS AT THE END OF THE TERM AS PER THE CONTRACTED TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE TERM DEPOSITS, THE RIGHT TO RECEIVE THE INTEREST WOULD GET POSTPONED TO THE DATE OF MATURITY. IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, THE RECKONING OF INCOME BOTH UNDER CASH SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING AND ACCRUAL SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING SHOULD ACCORDINGLY GET POSTPONED TO THE DATE OF THE MATURITY. ADMITTEDLY AS PER THE TERMS AND CON DITIONS OF THE TERM DEPOSITS UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE RIGHT TO RECEIVE THE INTEREST AND THE PRINCIPAL WOULD GET CRYSTALLIZED AT THE END OF THE TERM OF THE RESPECTIVE DEPOSITS. M .P. NO . 33 0 / CHNY/201 7 3 INCIDENTALLY, THE PETITIONER/APPELLANT OFFERED THE INTEREST INCOME OF THE RESPEC TIVE DEPOSITS ON THE MATURITY/END OF THE TERM OF SUCH DEPOSITS WHICH HAPPENED TO BE THE SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEARS. THE INTEREST FOR THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELATING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS RECEIVED OR ACCRUED IN VIE W OF THE SUBSISTENCE OF THE TERM OF THE DEPOSITS AND THE CREDITING OF SUCH INTEREST EITHER IN HIS ACCOUNT OR THE SUSPENSE ACCOUNT WOULD BE RELEVANT FOR THE TDS LIABILITY OF THE BANKERS INASMUCH AS THE TDS LIABILITY CANNOT BE MIXED UP WITH THE CONCEPT OF RE CKONING OF INCOME IN THE HANDS OF THE RECIPIENT. THE BOARD CIRCULAR DATED 2.3.2010 WAS RELIED UPON TO SUBSTANTIATE THE INCLUSION OF DIFFERENTIAL INTEREST BASED ON THE TDS CERTIFICATES AND THE RELIANCE ON THE BOARD'S CIRCULAR IS MISPLACED INASMUCH AS EVEN IN THE BOARD'S CIRCULAR, THE TERMS OF THE DEPOSIT IS NOTICED AS EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES. IN THE EVENT OF ANY ASSESSEE IS PREFERRING TO CLAIM DEDUCTION U/S 80L OF THE ACT, THE BOARD PERMITTED TO RECKON INCOME ON ANNUAL BASIS AND HOWEVER THAT RECKONING OF INCOME ON ANNUAL BASIS EVEN ACCORDING TO THE BOARD SHOULD BE BASED ON THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE DEPOSITS. THEREFORE, THERE IS COMPLETE MISREADING OF THE BOARD'S CIRCULAR WHILE CONFIRMING THE ASSESSMENT OF INTEREST INCOME BASED ON FORM NO.26AS. WIT H THE ABOVE SUBMISSIONS, THE ASSESSEE PRAYED FOR RECALLING THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 28.07.2017. 2. DESPITE SERVICE OF NOTICE, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. HENCE, WE PROCEEDED TO DECIDE THE MP ON MERITS AFTER HEARING THE LD. DR. 3. THE LD. DR HAS SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT OFFERED THE INTEREST INCOME FOR TAXATION, BY CONSIDERING THE DIRECTIONS OF THE CBDT CIRCULAR, THE TRIBUNAL HAS PASSED WELL REASONED ORDER AND THERE IS NO MISTAKE APPARENT ON THE FACE OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL WARRANTING RECALLING THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. I N CASE THE POINT RAISED IN THE PETITION OF THE M .P. NO . 33 0 / CHNY/201 7 4 ASSESSEE IS ACCEPTED, IT WOULD TANTAMOUNT TO REVIEW OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL, WHICH IS NOT PERMISSIBLE. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. DR, PERUSED THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 28.07.2017 AND ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. IN THIS CASE THE ASSESSEE INVESTED IN KISAN VIKAS PATRA, IRFC TAX FREE DEPOSITS, POST OFFICE DEPOSITS, NABARD DEPOSITS, FIXED DEPOSITS IN DENA BANK, SBI, RBI DEPOSIT, NATIONAL HOUS ING BANK SUVIDHA DEPOSITS. AS PER PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT AND THE CREDIT AVAILABLE IN AS26, THE TOTAL INTEREST RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM VARIOUS BANKS WAS .11,97,092/ - , BUT THE INTEREST ADMITTED IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT WAS ONLY .3,69,252/ - A ND AN AMOUNT OF INTEREST RECEIPT AT .8,27,840/ - WAS NOT ACCEPTED IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT HE HAS BEEN REGULARLY FOLLOWING CASH SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING AND THEREFORE, THE INTEREST INCOME ACCRUED, BUT NOT PAID TO THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT DECLARED ON YEAR TO YEAR BASIS BUT ONLY ON MATURITY OF THE DEPOSIT. HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT AS THE TAX DEDUCTED AT SOURCE IS MADE ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE, THE SAME WAS OFFERED AS INCOME. AS ENVISAGED IN THE CBDT CIRCULAR NO. 03/201 0 DATED 02.03.2010, THE INTEREST RECEIPT IS LIABLE FOR TAXATION AND SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT ADMITTED THE SAME IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT, THE SAME WAS BROUGHT TO TAX, WHICH WAS CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A) AS WELL AS TRIBUNAL VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 28. 07.2017. AFTER CONSIDERING THE ENTIRE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE TRIBUNAL M .P. NO . 33 0 / CHNY/201 7 5 SUSTAINED THE ADDITION. MOREOVER, T HE SCOPE OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 254(2) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT HAS BEEN EXAMINED BY THE HON BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT AND GAVE ITS FINDINGS ELABORA TELY IN THE CASE OF EXPRESS NEWSPAPERS LIMITED V. DCIT [2010] (320 ITR 12 MAD) AND RELEVANT PORTION OF THE DECISION IS EXTRACTED AS UNDER: THE SCOPE AND AMPLITUDE OF SECTION 254(2) FIND THE ANALOGOUS PROVISION 12 OF SECTION 154 OF THE ACT HAVE BEEN CONSID ERED BY A CATENA OF DECISIONS OF THE APEX COURT AND OTHER HIGH COURTS. THE UNIFORM OPINION OF THE COURTS OF SUPERIOR JURISDICTION IS THAT A PATENT, MANIFEST AND SELF - EVIDENT ERROR WHICH DOES NOT REQUIRE ELABORATE DISCUSSION OF EVIDENCE OR ARGUMENT TO ESTAB LISH IT, CAN BE SAID TO BE AN ERROR APPARENT ON THE FACE OF THE RECORD AND CAN BE CORRECTED UNDER SECTION 254(2). AN ERROR CANNOT BE SAID TO BE APPARENT ON THE FACE OF THE RECORD IF ONE HAS TO TRAVEL BEYOND THE RECORD TO SEE WHETHER THE JUDGMENT IS CORRECT OR NOT. AN ERROR APPARENT ON THE RECORD MEANS AN ERROR WHICH STRIKES ONE ON MERE LOOKING AND DOES NOT NEED A LONG DRAWN OUT PROCESS OF REASONING ON POINTS ON WHICH THERE MAY BE CONCEIVABLY TWO OPINIONS. THE ERROR SHOULD NOT REQUIRE ANY EXTRANEOUS MATTER T O SHOW ITS INCORRECTNESS. TO PUT IT DIFFERENTLY, IT SHOULD BE SO MANIFEST AND CLEAR THAT NO COURT WOULD PERMIT IT TO REMAIN ON RECORD. IF THE VIEW ACCEPTED BY THE COURT IN THE ORIGINAL JUDGMENT IS ONE OF POSSIBLE VIEWS, THE CASE CANNOT BE SAID TO BE COVERE D BY AN ERROR APPARENT ON THE FACE OF THE RECORD. SECTION 254(2) SPECIFICALLY EMPOWERS THE TRIBUNAL TO AMEND AT ANY TIME WITHIN FOUR YEARS FROM THE DATE OF AN ORDER, ANY ORDER PASSED BY IT UNDER SECTION 254(1) WITH A VIEW TO RECTIFY ANY MISTAKE APPARENT FR OM THE RECORD EITHER SUO MOTU OR ON AN APPLICATION. IN ORDER TO ATTRACT THE APPLICATION OF SECTION 254(2), THE MISTAKE MUST EXIST AND THE SAME MUST BE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD. THE EXPRESSION 'MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD' CONTAINED IN SECTIONS 154 AND 254(2) HAS WIDER CONTENT THAN THE EXPRESSION 'ERROR APPARENT ON THE FACE OF THE RECORD OCCURRING IN ORDER 47, RULE 1 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. THE RESTRICTIONS ON THE POWER OF REVIEW UNDER ORDER 47, RULE 1 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE DO NOT HOLD GOOD IN THE CASES OF SECTIONS 254(2) AND 154 OF THE ACT. SECTION 254(2) DOES NOT CONFER POWER ON THE TRIBUNAL TO REVIEW ITS EARLIER ORDER. UNDER THE GARB OF RECTIFICATION OF MISTAKE IT IS NOT POSSIBLE FOR A PARTY TO TAKE FURTHER CHANCE OF REARGUING THE AP PEAL ALREADY DECIDED. WHAT CAN BE RECTIFIED UNDER SECTION 254(2) IS A MISTAKE WHICH IS APPARENT AND PATENT. THE MISTAKE HAS TO BE SUCH FOR WHICH NO ELABORATE REASONS OR ENQUIRY IS NECESSARY. WHERE TWO OPINIONS ARE POSSIBLE THEN IT CANNOT BE SAID TO BE A MI STAKE APPARENT ON THE RECORD. WHEN PREJUDICE RESULTING FROM AN ORDER IS ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE TRIBUNAL'S MISTAKE, ERROR OR OMISSION, IT IS ITS BOUNDEN DUTY TO SET IT RIGHT. THE PURPOSE BEHIND THE ENACTMENT OF SECTION 254(2) OF THE ACT TO AMEND ANY ORDER PASS ED UNDER SUB - SECTION (1), IF ANY MISTAKE APPARENT M .P. NO . 33 0 / CHNY/201 7 6 FROM THE RECORD IS BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE TRIBUNAL, IS BASED ON THE FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE THAT NO PARTY APPEARING BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, BE IT AN ASSESSEE OR THE DEPARTMENT, SHOULD SUFFER ON ACCOUNT OF ANY MISTAKE COMMITTED BY THE TRIBUNAL. THIS FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE INHERENT POWER OF THE TRIBUNAL. IF PREJUDICE HAS RESULTED TO THE PARTY, WHICH PRE JUDICE IS ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE TRIBUNAL S MISTAKE, ERROR OR OMISSION AND WHICH ERR OR IS A MANIFEST ERROR, THEN THE TRIBUNAL WOULD BE JUSTIFIED IN RECTIFYING ITS MISTAKE. RECTIFICATION CAN BE MADE ONLY WHEN A GLARING MISTAKE OF FACT OR LAW COMMITTED BY THE OFFICER PASSING THE ORDER BECOMES APPARENT FROM THE RECORD. THE RECTIFICATION IS N OT POSSIBLE IF THE QUESTION IS DEBATABLE. A POINT WHICH WAS NOT EXAMINED ON FACTS OR IN LAW CANNOT BE DEALT WITH AS A MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD. NO ERROR CAN BE SAID TO BE APPARENT ON THE FACE OF THE RECORD IF IT IS NOT MANIFEST OR SELF - EVIDENT AND REQUIRES AN EXAMINATION OR ARGUMENT TO ESTABLISH IT. WHERE WITHOUT ANY ELABORATE ARGUMENT ONE COULD POINT TO THE ERROR AND SAY HERE IS A SUBSTANTIAL POINT OF LAW WHICH STARES ONE IN THE FACE, AND THERE COULD REASONABLY BE NO TWO OPINIONS ENTERTAINED ABOUT IT, IS A CLEAR CASE OF ERROR APPARENT ON THE FACE OF THE RECORD. VIDE ASST. CIT V. SAURASHTRA KUTCH STOCK EXCHANGE LTD. [2008] 305 ITR 227 (SC), HONDA SIEL POWER PRODUCTS LTD. V. CIT [2007] 295 ITR 466 (SC), HARI VISHNU KAMATH V. AHMAD ISHAQUE, AIR 1955 SC 233; [1955] 1 SCR 1104, CIT V. KESHRI METAL PVT. LTD. (1999] 237 ITR 165 (SC), DEVA METAL POWDERS P. LTD. V. COMMISSIONER, TRADE TAX [2007] 10 VST 751 (SC) ; [2008] 2 SCC439, CIT V. HERO CYCLES PVT. LTD. [1997] 228 ITR 463 (SC), SATYANARAYAN LAXMINARAYAN HEGDE V. MALLIKARJUN BHAVANAPPA. TIRU MALE, AIR 1960 SC 137; [1960] 1 SCR 890, THUNGABHADRA INDUSTRIES LTD. V. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH REP. BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, AIR 1964 SC: 1372, BATUK K. VIYAS V. SURAT BOROUGH MUNICIPALITY , ILR 1953 BORN 191,MRS. K. T. M. S. UMMA SALMA V.CIT [1983] 144 ITR 890 (MAD), KIL KOTAGIRI TEA AND COFFEE ESTATES CO. LTD. V. ITAT [1988]174 ITR 579 (KER), CITV. R. CHELLADURAI [1979] 118 ITR 108 (MAD), STATE OF TAMIL NADU V. THAKOREBHAI AND BROTHERS[198 3] 52 STC 104 (MAD); JAINARAIN JEEVRAJ V. CIT [L980] 121 ITR 358 (RAJ), CIT V. VARDHMAN SPINNING [1997] 226 ITR 296 (P&H), BATA INDIA LTD. V. DEPUTY CIT(L996] 217 ITR 871 (CAL) AND CIT V PRAHLAD RAI TODI [2001] 251 ITR 833 (GAU - HATI). FROM THE VARIOUS JUD GMENTS OF THE SUPREME COURT ABOVE REFERRED TO AND OTHER HIGH COURTS, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE TRIBUNAL'S POWER UNDER SECTION 254(2) IS NOT TO REVIEW ITS EARLIER ORDER BUT ONLY TO AMEND IT WITH A VIEW TO RECTIFY ANY MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD. WHAT CAN BE TERMED AS 'MISTAKE APPARENT ? MISTAKE IN GENERAL MEANS TO TAKE OR UNDERSTAND WRONGLY OR INACCURATELY; TO MAKE AN ERROR IN INTERPRETING; IT IS AN ERROR; A FAULT, A MISUNDERSTANDING, A MISCONCEPTION. MISTAKE IN TAXATION LAWS HAS A SPECIAL SIGNIFICANCE. I T IS MOSTLY SUBJECTIVE AND THE DIVIDING LINE IS THIN AND INDISCERNIBLE. APPARENT MEANS VISIBLE, CAPABLE OF BEING SEEN, EASILY SEEN, OBVIOUS PLAIN, OPEN TO VIEW, EVIDENT, APPEARS, APP4ARING AS REAL AND TRUE, M .P. NO . 33 0 / CHNY/201 7 7 CONSPICUOUS, MANIFEST, SEEMING. THE PLAN MEANIN G OF THE WORD APPARENT IS THAT IT MUST BE SOMETHING WHICH APPEARS TO BE EX FACIE AND INCAPABLE OF ARGUMENT AND DEBATE. IF SUCH A MIST AKE APPARENT ON THE FACE OF RECORD IS BROUGHT O THE NOTICE, SECTION 254(2) EMPOWERS THE TRIBUNAL TO AMEND THE ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 254(1). AMENDMENT OF AN ORDER DOES NOT MEAN OBLITERATION OF THE ORDER ORIGINALLY PASSED AND ITS SUBSTITUTION BY A NEW ORDER. WHAT IS MISTAKE APPARENT ON THE FACE OF THE RECORD OR WHERE DOES A MISTAKE CEASE TO BE MERE MISTAKE, AND BECOME MISTAKE APPARENT ON THE FACE OF THE RECORD IS RATHER DIFFICULT TO DEFINE PRECISELY, SCIENTIFICALLY AND WITH CERTAINTY. AN ELEMENT OF INDE FINITENESS INHERENT IN ITS VERY NATURE AND IT MUST BE DISCERNIBLE FROM THE FACTS OF EACH CASE BY JUDICIOUSLY TRAINED MIND. MERE EXISTENCE OF A MISTAKE OR ERROR WOULD NOT PER SE RENDER THE ORDER AMENABLE FOR RECTIFICATION, BUT SUCH A MISTAKE MUST BE ONE WHI CH MUST BE MANIFEST ON THE FACE OF THE RECORD. I N VIEW OF THE RATIO OF THE DECISION AS CITED AND EXTRACTED ABOVE, WE FIND THAT THERE IS NO MISTAKE APPARENT ON RECORD TO REVISE THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 28.07.2017 AND ACCORDINGLY, THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 5 . IN THE RESULT, THE M.P. FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE 16 TH FEBRUARY, 201 8 AT CHENNAI. SD/ - SD/ - ( ABRAHAM P. GEORGE ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( DUVVURU RL REDDY ) JUD ICIAL MEMBER CHENNAI, DATED, THE 16 .0 2 . 201 8 VM/ - / COPY TO: 1. / APPELLANT , 2. / RESPONDENT , 3. ( ) / CIT(A) , 4. / CIT , 5. / DR & 6. / GF.