Perfect Stone Ltd Chennai v. Acitcorporate Circle 5 1 Chennai

In The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal A Bench Chennai Before Shri N R S Ganesan Judicial Member And Shri S Jayaraman Accountant Member I T A Nos 1610 1611 1612 1613 1614 1615 1616 Mds 2017 Assessment Years 2007 08 2008 09 2009 10 2010 11 2011 12 2012 13 2013 14 M S Perfect Stone Ltd No 7 Lvr Centre Seshadri Road Alwarpet Chennai 600 018 Pan Aaacp 1931 G Vs The Income Tax Officer Corporate Ward 5 1 121 Uthamar Gandhi Salai Chennai 600 034 Appellant Respondent I T A Nos 1430 1431 1432 1433 1434 Mds 2017 Assessment Years 2008 09 2009 10 2010 11 2011 12 2013 14 The Income Tax Officer Corporate Ward 5 1 121 Uthamar Gandhi Salai Chennai 600 034 Appellant Vs M S Perfect Stone Ltd No 7 Lvr Centre Seshadri Road Alwarpet Chennai 600 018 Pan Aaacp 1931 G Respondent Assessee By Shri R Vijayaraghavan Advocate Revenue By Shri S Bharath Cit Date Of Hearing 23 11 2017 Date Of Pronouncement 27 12 2017 2 I T A N 0 S 1610 1611 1612 1613 1614 1615 1616 1430 1431 1432 1433 1434 Mds 2017 O R D E R Per S Jayaraman Accountant Member The Assessee Filed The Appeals In I T A Nos 1610 1611 1612 1613 1614 1615 1616 Mds 2017 For The Assessment Year S 2007 08 To 2013 14 Against The Orders Of The Cit A 3 Chennai In Ita No 190 To 196 2015 16 Cit A 3 Dated 28 02 2017 2 M S Perfect Stone Ltd T He Assessee Is A Resident Domestic Company In Which Public Are Not Substantially Interested A Se Arch Seizure Action Was Carried Out In The Case Of Mr L S Vishnu Prasad A Nd Related Concern M S G Tech Stones Ltd On 11 05 2012 Assesseeis A Sister Concern Of M S G Tech Stones Ltd Further Mr L S Vishnu Prasad Is A Di Rector In Both The Companies Whose Nature Of Business Are Same Duri Ng The Search Seizure The Accounts Maintained In The Tally Belong To M S G Tech Stone Ltd M S Perfect Stone Ltd Tally Account Of M S Perfe Ct Stone Ltd Oil For The Period 01 04 2005 To 31 03 2009 And 01 04 2005 To 31 03 2010 01 04 2001 To 31 03 2012 Was Seized On Verification Of It It Was Found That The Assessee M S Perfect Stone Ltd Was In Receipt Of Cash On Various Dates From The Sister Company M S G Tech Stone Ltd Ab Out Which No Explanations Were Offered For The Said Cash Transactions At The Time Of Search And Seizure 3 I T A N 0 S 1610 1611 1612 1613 1614 1615 1616 1430 1431 1432 1433 1434 Mds 2017 Action The Seized Materials And Other Records Wer E Forwarded To The A O At The Time Of Assessments The Assessee Was Un Able To Provide Any Convincing Reply For The Said Receipts The A O Hel D That The Assessees Reply That The Said Transactions Have Been Disclosed In T He Hands Of G Tech Stone Ltd And Hence They Are Not To Be Taxed In The Han Ds Of The Assessee Lacks Merit There Is Every Reason To Believe That The Sa Id Cash Receipt Is The Assessees Own Un Disclosed Income And Hence Invok Ing The Provisions Of Section 68 The Said Cash Receipts Were Added By The Ao And Brought To Tax In The Respective Ays From Ay 2007 08 To Ay 2012 1 3 2 1 Further On Perusal Of The Cd Containing Seize D Tally The Ao Noticed That Several Accounts In The Creditors Name Were Recurring From 2001 To Till Date The Creditor For Expenses In The Name Of Mr Chittibabu At Rs 1 39 345 Has Been Found From 2001 02 Onwards Similarly In The Case Of M S Coromandal Agencies Rs 4 34 353 Shown As Outstanding For A Very Long Period Ie From 2004 Onwards The Assess Ee Could Not Provide Any Satisfactory Explanation In The Said Scenario The Ao Treated Them As Un Disclosed Income In The Hands Of The Assessee And Added Them In Ay 2008 09 4 I T A N 0 S 1610 1611 1612 1613 1614 1615 1616 1430 1431 1432 1433 1434 Mds 2017 2 2 Further On Perusal Of The Accounts The Ao Fo Und That The Assessee Had Purchased Jellyfish From M S Seagulagri Marine S Pvt Ltd By Paying Cash The Assessee Explained That The Payment Has B Een Made For Purchase Of Fish Products Which Is Exemptunder Rule 6 Dd The Ao Held That Rule 6 Dd E Iii Exempts Payments Made For The Purchase Of Fish Or Fish Products To The Producer Of Fish Or Fish Products The Impug Ned Purchase Has Not Been Made From The Fishermen Directly But From A Compan Y Registered Under The Trade Name Of M S Seagulagri Marines Pvt Ltd Violat Ing The Provisions Of Sec 40 A 3 And Hence Added 20 Of The Impugned Sum A S Income For Ays 2007 08 2008 09 2010 11 2 3 On Perusal Of The Records The Ao Found That T He Assessee Company Had Made Investments As Long Term Loans And Advance S At Rs 9 91 53 778 As On 31 03 2007 Which Stood At Rs 9 77 06 234 As On 31 03 2006 Further The Assessee Had Invested In Shares And W As Earning A Dividend Which Was Claimed To Be Exempt The Investments In Shares Was At Rs 29 19 363 As On 31 03 2007 Which Was At Rs 31 71 615 On 31 03 2006 The Assessee Explained That The Company Had Sufficient Funds As Reserves And That The Interest Paid On Loan Borrowe D For Regular Business May Not Be Disallowed The Ao Held That Though The Inte Rest Expenditure Of The Assessee Is For Business Purposes The Assessee Is Still Liable For Disallowance 5 I T A N 0 S 1610 1611 1612 1613 1614 1615 1616 1430 1431 1432 1433 1434 Mds 2017 U S 14 A Read With Rule 8 D And Accordingly Made Dis Allowance Under Sec 14 Ar W Rule 80 I Ii Iii For Ays 2007 08 To Ay 2011 12 2013 14 2 4 The A O Has Also Seen From The Details Furnished By The Assessee Tha T The Employees Contributions To Epf For The Year 0 6 07 Relevant To Assessment Year 2007 08 Has Been Remitted Into Th E Respective Accounts From M S G Tech Stones Ltd The Sister Concern A Nd Not From The Assessees Company The Ao Held That These Contributions Colle Cted From The Employees Constitute Income In The Hands Of The Assessee As An Employer U S 2 24 X Of The Act Since The Employees Contributions Was Not Remitted Into The Respective Account By The Assessee The A O Treate D It As Income U S 2 24 X Of The Act For Ays 2007 08 To 2011 12 2 5 In The Assessment Year 2010 11 The Assessee Cl Aimed Rs 2 46 692 Under Loss On Sale Of Fixed Assets The Ao Held That This Expenditure Being Capital In Nature Is Not Admissible And Hence Disal Lowed Similarly In The Assessment Year 2013 14 The Assessee Claimed Rs 6 8 137 Towards Loss On Sale Of Assets The Ao Disallowed This Claim As I Nadmissible Further The Ao Found That The Assessee Claimed Rs 5 89 480 T Owards Rent Paid To H P Horticultural Produce Marketing And Processing Corp Oration Limited A 6 I T A N 0 S 1610 1611 1612 1613 1614 1615 1616 1430 1431 1432 1433 1434 Mds 2017 Government Undertaking For Storing Jelly Fish With Out Deducting Tds Since The Payee Is Not The Government Or The Rbi Or A Cor Poration Established By Or Under A Central Act The Ao Disallowed Rs 5 89 480 U S 40 A Ia 3 Aggrieved The Assessee Filed Appeals Before The Cit A 3 Chennai And The Cit A In The Ordersita No 192 To 196 2015 16 Cit A 3 Dated 28 02 2017 Partly Allowed The Appeals The Operat Ive Portion Of The Order Is Extracted As Under 5 3 I Have Considered The Submissions Of The Ld Ar And The Findings Of The Ao In The Instant Case Search Seizure U S 132 Was Carried Out At The Residential Premises Of Its Director Namely Mr L S Vishnu Prasad And At The Business Premises Of Its Sister Concern M S G Tec H Stones Ltd During The Search Certain Incriminating Documents Were Found And Seized In The Appellants Case Tally Accounts For The Per Iod 01 04 2001 To 31 03 2012 Was Seized And Forwarded To The Ao Further The Of Ficer Who Has Forwarded The Information Has Categorically Stated That No Ex Planation Was Offered In Relation To Cash Transaction At The Time Of Search Further Ao Had Examined Seized Material And Provided An Opportunity To Expl Ain The Cash Receipt However Appellant Has Taken A Shelter Under The Si Ster Concerns Disclosure But Not Explained Cash Receipts Before The Ao In The C Ircumstances Ao Has Held That Appellants Own Cash May Have Been Routed Thro Ugh Its Sister Concerns As No Satisfactory Explanation Was Offered During The Appellate Proceedings Id Ar Has Taken Same Stand As Was Taken Before The Ao He Has Neither Filed An Explanation Nor Adduced An Evidence To Rebut The Fi Ndings Of The Ao 5 4 On Consideration Of The Facts Of The Case I Am Of The Opinion That Appellant Does Not Have Any Satisfactory Explanation To Subst Antiate Cash Receipts Further I Hold That The Collusive Nature Of Transa Ction Between The Two Group Concerns Cannot Be Rule Out In The Circumstances I Do Not See Anything Wrong 7 I T A N 0 S 1610 1611 1612 1613 1614 1615 1616 1430 1431 1432 1433 1434 Mds 2017 In The Action Of The Ao And Applying Sec 68 In The Light Of The Above Discussions I Confirm The Addition Made By The Ao On Account Unexplained Cash Credits U S 68 In Respect Of A Ys 2007 08 To 2 013 14 The Grounds Taken On This Issue Are Dismissed 6 Disallowance U S 14 A 6 1 Ao Has Made An Addition U S 14 A After Verifying Investments Made In Shares And Earning Dividend Income Which Was Claime D As Exempt Income Before Me The Id Ar Has Argued That If 0 5 Is Ta Ken On Average Investment In Shares Then The Disallowance Would Become Much Lesser Than The Amount Of Addition Made By The Ao Secondly It Is Argued Tha T Ao Has Failed To Identify Exact Expenditure Corresponding To The Exempt Incom E From The Investments Thirdly Id Ar Has Placed Reliance In The Case Of Redington India Ltd Vs Addl Cit Chennai 77 Taxmann Com 215 Wherein The Honble Hc Has Held That Disallowance Should Be Restricted To The Extent Of Exempt Income And No Disallowance Can Be Made In Relation To Notional Or Anticipated Income 6 2 I Have Considered The Submissions Of The Ld Ar And The Findings Of The Ao I Agree With The Arguments Of Ld Ar That Disallowa Nce Should Be Restricted To The Extent Of Exempt Income However Ld Ar Has Wo Rked Out Disallowance On The Basis Of Rule 8 D And Requested To Modify The Di Sallowance Made By The Ao He Has Further Given Details In Each A Y As To How Much Disallowance Can Be Made 0 5 On Average Investments In Shares He Has Taken Average Investments For The F Y Ending 31 03 2007 At Rs 29 19 366 And F Y Ending 31 03 2006 At Rs 31 71 615 Ao Is Directed To Re Work The Disallowance On The Basis Of Average Investments Given By The Id A R In Respect Of A Ys 2007 08 To 2013 14 Under Appeal The Grounds Taken On T His Issue Are Partly Allowed 7 In The Result The Appeals For A Ys 2007 08 To 2013 14 Are Partly Allowed 4 Aggrieved Against The Above Orders The Assesse E Filed These Appeals Almost With Similar Grounds The Grounds Related T O Ay 2007 08 Are Extracted As Under 8 I T A N 0 S 1610 1611 1612 1613 1614 1615 1616 1430 1431 1432 1433 1434 Mds 2017 1 The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax Ap Peals Is Contrary To Law Facts And In The Circumstances Of The Case 2 The Commissioner Of Income Tax Appeals Erred I N Confirming The Undisclosed Income U S 68 Amounting To Rs 33 00 000 Received From G Tech Stones Ltd 2 1 The Commissioner Of Income Tax Appeals Ought To Have Appreciated That Amounts Received From A Sister Concern For Business Needs Which Is As Per The Books Of Account Maintained By Both The Companies A Nd Also The Deposit Is Not From Any Undisclosed Source And Hence The Addition U S 68 Is Not Warranted 3 The Commissioner Of Income Tax Appeals Erred I N Confirming That The Undisclosed Income Amounting To Rs 5 73 698 Was O Utstanding For A Long Period 3 1 The Commissioner Of Income Tax Appeals Ought To Have Appreciated That These Credits Due To The Parties Were Pending Payme Nt For Various Reasons And Hence The Addition Was Not Warranted 4 The Commissioner Of Income Tax Appeals Erred I N Confirming The Disallowance Amounting To Rs 4 62 000 U S 40 A 3 Being 20 Of Rs 23 10 000 Being Payments Made For Purchase Fis H Products 4 1 The Commissioner Of Income Tax Appeals Ought To Have Appreciated That Section 40 A 3 Would Not Be Applicable For Payments Made For Purchase Of Fish Products 5 The Commissioner Of Income Tax Appeals Erred I N Confirming The Disallowance Of Employees Contributions To Epf Amou Nting To Rs 28 634 U S 36 1 Va 5 1 The Commissioner Of Income Tax Appeals Ought To Have Appreciated That By Virtue Of The Taxation Laws Amendment Act W E F 01 04 2003 The Second Proviso Was Omitted Thereby Any Amount Remit Ted Within The Due Date For Filing Of The Return Would Be Allowable As Dedu Ction 5 2 The Appellant Relied On The Decision In The Cas E Of Alom Extrusions 319 Itr 306 Sc And Decision Of Delhi Tribunal In The Case Of M S Seagram Distilleries Ltd V Dcit Reported In 2009 Tiol 331 Del 5 3 The Commissioner Of Income Tax Appeals Ought To Have Appreciated That These Payments Were Remitted Before The Due Da Te Of Filing The Return And Hence Disallowance Is Unwarranted Cit Vs Sabari Enterprises 298 Itr 141 9 I T A N 0 S 1610 1611 1612 1613 1614 1615 1616 1430 1431 1432 1433 1434 Mds 2017 Slp Dismissed In 328 Itr St 10 Cit Vs Aimil 32 1 Itr 508 Del And The Chennai Tribunal Decision In The Case Of Acit Vs M S S M Apparels P Ltd Ita No 2119 2011 Ay 2003 04 4 1 The Ar Submitted That The Issues Under The Asse Ssment Orders Are Not Based On The Seized Material Since The Regular As Sessment Proceedings Are Completed U S 143 3 There Would Be No Abatement Of Proceedings There Is No Jurisdiction To The Ao To Review The Completed A Ssessments Therefore The Scope Of Assessment U S 153 A 153 C Should Be Restric Ted To Incriminating Materials Found During The Search Proceedings In T His Case There Are No Incriminating Material Found During The Search Whic H Has A Bearing On The Assessment Orders Therefore Assessment Orders Are Liable To Be Quashed He Further Submitted That The Returns Were Filed By Assessee Intimations U S 143 1 Were Also Received And The Time Limit For Issue Of Notices U S 143 2 Have Expired Therefore The Returns Should Have B Een Treated As Having Been Accepted And Attained Finality There Is No J Urisdiction To The Ao To Verify Returns Since Noassessment Proceedings Ar E Pending There Would Be No Abatement Of Any Proceedings Therefore The Sco Pe Of Assessments U S 153 A 153 C Should Be Restricted To Incriminating Mat Erial Found During The Search Proceedings In This Case There Are No Inc Riminating Material Found During The Search Which Has A Bearing On The Assess Ment Orders Therefore Assessment Orders Are Liable To Be Quashed The Ar Continued His Submission To Say That There Is No Satisfaction Note That The Seized Materials Belong To The 10 I T A N 0 S 1610 1611 1612 1613 1614 1615 1616 1430 1431 1432 1433 1434 Mds 2017 Searched Assessee Therefore Assuming Jurisdiction U S 153 C Is Invalid And The Assessment Orders Are Liable To Be Quashed On The Impugned Cash Transactions The Ar Submitted That They Represent Ed The Amounts Received From A Sister Concern For Business Needs Which Is As Per The Books Of Account Maintained By Both The Companies And Also The Depos It Is Not From Any Undisclosed Sources And Hence The Additions Made U S 68 Is Invalid In As Much There Is No Undisclosed Income Also The Ao I N The Assessment Orders Discussed The Provisions Of Sec 269 Ss And Finally S Aid That He Has Reason To Believe That The Said Cash Is Assessees Own Undisc Losed Income Whereas The Fact Is That Transactions Are Duly Included In The Audited Books Of Account Which Were Finalised Well Before The Date Of Search During May 2012 Inviting Our Attention To The Confirmation Letter Issued By G Tech Stone Ltd Dated 22 11 2017 He Submitted That The Cash Credit Addit Ions Made U S 68 From The Ays 2007 08 To Ay 2012 13 Flown From G Tech Ston Es Ltd Accounts And These Transactions Are Reflected In Their Balance S Heet Etc From The Letters Issued By Seagulimpex Seagulagrri Marine Pvt Ltd Dated 22 11 2017 The Ar Submitted That The Cash Payments Were Collected By Them From The Assessee And Paid To The Fishermen The Genuinenes S Of These Transactions Have Not Been Examined Properly The Cit A Just D Isposed The Orders Of Various Ays On A Consolidated Manner On The Bas Is Of Assessment Order 2007 08 Alone Without Considering Various Pleas Ra Ised By The Assessee In 11 I T A N 0 S 1610 1611 1612 1613 1614 1615 1616 1430 1431 1432 1433 1434 Mds 2017 The Ays 2010 11 2013 14 Per Contra The Dr Suppor Ted The Orders Of The Cit A 5 We Have Considered The Rival Submissions The A Ssessees Submissions With Regard To The Issue On The Assumption Of The J Urisdiction Lacks Merit As The Assessments Were Made On The Basis Of Incrimina Ting Materials Seized Questioned And Forwarded To The Ao However We F Ind That The Assessees Various Plea Before The Cit A On The Impugned Issu Es Have Not Been Properly Examined In The Facts And Circumstances We Deem It Fit To Set Aside These Orders And Remit All These Issues Back To The Ao For A Re Examination Afresh The Ao Shall Afford Adequate Opportunity To The Assessee And The Assessee Shall Place The Relevant Materials As Required Under The Law For The Early Disposal After Afford Ing Adequate Opportunity To The Assessee The Ao Shall Pass A Speaking Order S In The Facts And Circumstances The Assessees Appeals Are Treated A S Allowed For Statistical Purposes 6 In The Results The Assessees Appeals In It A Nos 1610 1611 1612 1613 1614 1615 1616 Mds 2017 Are Treated As Allowed For Statistical Purposes 12 I T A N 0 S 1610 1611 1612 1613 1614 1615 1616 1430 1431 1432 1433 1434 Mds 2017 Revenues Appeal In Ita Nos 1430 1431 1432 1433 1434 Mds 2017 For Ays 2008 09 To 2011 12 2013 14 7 In Respect Of The Disallowances Made By The Ao U S 14 A In The Assessment Orders Of Ays 2008 09 To 2011 12 2013 14 The Cit A Agreed With The Arguments Of The Assessee That Disallowanc Es Should Be Restricted To The Extent Of Exempt Income The Assessee Has Work Ed Out Disallowances On The Basis Of Rule 8 D And Requested To Him To Modify The Disallowances Made By The Ao It Has Further Given Details In Each A Y As To How Much Disallowance Can Be Made 0 5 On Average Investme Nts In Shares Based On Which The Cit A Directed The Ao To Re Work T He Disallowances On The Basis Of Average Investments Given By The Assessee In Respect Of Ays 2007 08 To 2013 14 Aggrieved Against Such Orders Of Th E Cit A In Appeal No 191 To 194 196 2015 16 Cit A 3 Dated 28 02 2017 The Revenue Filedthe Above Appeals With The Following Common Grounds The Order Of The Ld Cit A Is Contrary To Law And Facts And Circumstances Of The Case 2 1 The Ld Cit A Erred In Directing The Ao To Rewo Rk The Disallowance U S 14 A R W R 8 D Done By The Ao On The Basis Of 0 5 Of Av Erage Investments Given By The Assessee In All The Above Assessment Years 2 2 The Ld Ought To Have Noted That From Ay 2008 09 Onwards Application Of The Provisions Of Sec 14 A R W R 8 D Is Mandated By T He Legislature With A View To Disallow Any Expenditure Attributable To Any Income Which Is Not Included In The Total Income And Accordingly The Ao Has Invoked The Provisions Of Sec 14 A R W R 8 D 13 I T A N 0 S 1610 1611 1612 1613 1614 1615 1616 1430 1431 1432 1433 1434 Mds 2017 2 3 The Id Cit A Failed To Note That There Is No C Hoice For The Ao But To Invoke The Provisions Of Sec 14 A R W R 8 D From Ay 2008 09 To Disallow Expenditure Attributable To Exempt Income If The A Ssessee Is Round To Have Made Investments In Shares And Claimed Exempt Incom E 3 1 The Id Cit A Erred In Relying On The Decision Of The Honble Jurisdictional High Court In The Case Of M S Redington India Limi Ted Tga No 520 Of 2016 Dt 23 12 2016 For Ay 2007 08 Holding That The Disall Owance Should Be Restricted To The Extent Of Exempt Income And No Disallowance Can Be Made In Relation To Notional Or Anticipated Income 3 2 The Ld Cit A Failed To Note That The Case Rel Ied Upon Is Distinguishable On Facts To The Present Case In The Relied Upon Case The Assessee Had No Exempt Income During The Year But In The Present Case Th E Assessee Has Claimed Exempt Income 3 3 The Id Cit A Ought To Have Noted That In The R Elied Upon Case The Honble High Court Relied All The Decision Of The Honble A Pex Court In The Case Of Madras Industrial Corporation Limited Vs Cit 225 I Tr 802 And Held That By Application Of Matching Concept In A Year Where Th Ere Is No Exempt Income There Cannot Be A Disallowance Of Expenditure In Re Lation To Such Assumed Income Thus The Honble Court Held That The Provi Sions Of Sec 14 A R W R 8 D Cannot Be Made Applicable In The Absence Of Exempt Income And Allowed The Appeal Of The Assessee Whereas In The Present Case The Situation Is Different And The Assessee Has Claimed Exempt Income 4 For These And Other Grounds That May Be Adduced At The Time Of Hearing It Is Prayed That The Order Of The Learned Cit A May Be Set Aside And That Of The Assessing Officer Restored 8 The Dr Argued That The A O Has Made The Impugned Additions Correctly U S 14 A After Verifying The Investments M Ade In Shares And Earning Of Dividend Income Which Was Claimed As Exempt Inco Me However The Cit A Erred In Deleting Them He Supported The Ao S Orders On The Lines Of The Above Grounds Per Contra The Ar Submitted Tha T The Ao Failed To Identify 14 I T A N 0 S 1610 1611 1612 1613 1614 1615 1616 1430 1431 1432 1433 1434 Mds 2017 Exact Expenditure Corresponding To The Exempt Incom E From The Investments The Ar Furnished The Following Particulars And Ple Aded That The A O Failed To Note That The Assessee Had Sufficient Funds As Rese Rves And Capital To Meet The Exempt Income Producing Investments And Hence T Here Is No Need To Make Any Interest Disallowance At All Further H E Submitted That The Additions Made By The Ao Was On Wrong As Per The Fo Llowing Facts And Figures Fy Ay Exempt Income Producing Investments Equity Capital Reserves And Surplus Net Profit Before Tax Actual Dividend Income Recd 01 St April 31 St March As On 01 St April 2006 07 2007 08 3 171 615 2 919 36 6 652 000 17 742 180 894 991 5 697 2007 08 2008 09 2 919 366 2 150 059 6 652 000 18 091 263 2 671 742 2008 09 2009 10 2 150 059 938 882 6 652 000 19 834 498 1 264 235 2009 10 2010 11 938 882 6 652 000 20 582 690 921 596 2010 11 2011 12 9 935 000 21 304 395 632 718 2011 12 2012 13 9 935 000 21 728 586 253 795 2012 13 2013 14 9 935 000 21 995 088 968 631 9 We Heard The Rival Submissions And Gone Through The Relevant Material It Appears From The Above Details That This Issue Requires To Be Re Examined Afresh And Hence We Deem It Fit To Set Aside The Se Issues And Remit Them Back To The Ao For A Re Examination Afresh The A O Shall Afford Adequate 15 I T A N 0 S 1610 1611 1612 1613 1614 1615 1616 1430 1431 1432 1433 1434 Mds 2017 Opportunity To The Assessee And The Assessee Sh All Place The Relevant Materials As Required Under The Law For The Early D Isposal Of These Appeals After Affording Adequate Opportunity To The Assesse E The Ao Shall Pass A Speaking Order S In The Facts And Circumstances The Revenues Appeals Are Treated As Allowed For Statistical Purposes 10 In The Results The Revenues Appeals In Ita Nos 1430 1431 1432 1433 1434 Mds 2017 For Ays 2008 09 To 2011 12 2 013 14 Are Treated As Allowed For Statistical Purposes Order Pronounced On Wednesday The 27 Th Day Of December 2017 At Chennai Sd N R S Ganesan Judicial Member Sd S Jayaraman Accountant Member Chennai Dated 27 Th December 2017 Jpv Copy To 1 Appellant 2 Respondent 3 Cit A 4 Cit 5 Dr 6 Gf