ITO, Tiruppur v. Shri N. Easwaran, Tiruppur

ITA 2117/CHNY/2016 | 2012-2013
Pronouncement Date: 26-10-2016

Appeal Details

RSA Number 211721714 RSA 2016
Assessee PAN AAGPE4276L
Bench Chennai
Appeal Number ITA 2117/CHNY/2016
Duration Of Justice 3 month(s) 13 day(s)
Appellant ITO, Tiruppur
Respondent Shri N. Easwaran, Tiruppur
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 26-10-2016
Appeal Filed By Department
Bench Allotted A
Assessment Year 2012-2013
Appeal Filed On 13-07-2016
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH : CHENNAI . . . . . ' #$ % &' ( [ BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI D. S. SUNDER SINGH ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ] ./ I.T.A.NO.2117/MDS/2016 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012-13 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(2) TIRUPUR VS. SHRI N. EASWARAN NO.400/1A CHETTIPALAYAM ROAD GANAPATHY NAGAR PALLADAM TIRUPUR 641 664 [PAN AAGPE 4276 L] ( )* / APPELLANT) ( + )* /RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI SHIVA SRINIVAS JCIT /RESPONDENT BY : SHRI R. KUMAR ADVOCATE / DATE OF HEARING : 28 - 0 9 - 2016 ! / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 26 - 10 - 2016 / O R D E R PER D.S. SUNDER SINGH ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THIS APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-3 COIMBA TORE DATED 29.4.2016 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13. 2. ALL THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE RELATED TO THE ESTIMA TION OF INCOME MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON UNACCOUNTED TURNOVER. ITA NO. 2117/16 :- 2 -: 3. THE ASSESSEE IS DOING THE BUSINESS OF TEXTILES IN THE NAME OF SELVA GANAPATHY TEXTILES A PROPRIETARY CONCERN AND FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME ADMITTING TOTAL INCOME OF ` 8 27 990/-. A SURVEY U/S 133A OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT) WAS C ONDUCTED IN THE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE ON 20.9.2013. DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY IT WAS FOUND BY THE DEPARTMENT THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ALSO DOING BUSINESS IN THE NAME OF SRI GANESH MILLS WHICH WA S NOT DISCLOSED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. THE ASSESSEE MADE TURNOVE R OF ` 71 01 51 520/- FOR THE PERIOD FROM 1.4.2008 TO 31.3 .2014 AS PER THE TRANSACTIONS RECORDED IN THE CURRENT ACCOUNT OF IDB I AND THE ENTIRE TURNOVER WAS NOT DISCLOSED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. AT THE TIME OF SURVEY THE ASSESSEE HAS ADMITTED THE ADDITIONAL I NCOME OF ` 3 76 40 205/- FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2009-10 TO 2 014-15 IN A STATEMENT RECORDED ON 20.9.2013 AS PER THE BREAK-UP GIVEN BELOW: SR. NO. ASSESSMENT YEAR TURNOVER RATE INCOME ESTIMATED 1. 2009 - 10 10 13 887 3.47 3 51 818 2. 2010 - 11 4 09 42 972 3.73 15 27 172 3. 2011 - 12 11 46 18 000 4.37 50 08 806 4. 2012 - 13 17 66 37 879 4.67 82 48 989 5. 2013 - 14 27 23 40 075 5.97 1 62 58 698 6. 2014 - 15 10 45 98 707 5.97 62 44 542 TOTAL 71 01 51 520 3 76 40 025 ITA NO. 2117/16 :- 3 -: 4. FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION THE ASSESSEE HAS ADMITTED AN ADDITIONAL INCOME OF ` 82 48 989/- ON UNACCOUNTED TURNOVER OF ` 17 66 37 879/- DURING THE SURVEY. THE ASSESSING OF FICER ISSUED NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT AND THE ASSESSEE FILED REVISED RETURN ADMITTING TOTAL INCOME OF ` 47 06 170/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT MAKING THE ADDITION OF ` 82 48 989/- WHICH WAS ADMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY AS PER THE STATEMENT RECORDED. 5. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TH E ASSESSEE WENT ON APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) AND THE LD CIT(A) REDUCED THE ESTIMATION OF INCOME TO 2.5% AS AGAINST 2.35% OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE. 6. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) THE DEPART MENT IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 7. THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE SURVEY U/S 133A OF T HE ACT WAS CONDUCTED IN THE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE AND DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY IT WAS FOUND BY THE DEPARTMENT THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS DOING UNACCOUNTED BUSINESS IN THE NAME OF SRI GANE SH MILLS AND FOR THE PERIOD FROM 1.4.2008 TO 31.3.2013 MADE UNACCOU NTED TURNOVER OF ` 71 01 51 520/-. FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 T HE UNACCOUNTED TURNOVER WAS ` 17.66 CRORES AND THE ASSESSEE HAS ADMITTED THE ITA NO. 2117/16 :- 4 -: INCOME OF ` 82 48 989/- @4.67% ON UNACCOUNTED TURNOVER. THE L D. DR SUBMITTED THAT UNACCOUNTED TURNOVER CANNOT BE EQ UATED WITH THE TURNOVER ACCOUNTED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THE EV IDENCE COLLECTED DURING THE SURVEY WAS NOT DISPUTED BY THE ASSESSEE . THE ASSESSEE HAS ADMITTED THE INCOME OF ` 82 48 989/- DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY AND THE LD. DR CONTENDED THAT THE STATEMENT RECORDE D BY THE ASSESSEE IS A GOOD PIECE OF EVIDENCE WHICH CANNOT B E DISPENSED WITH UNLESS IT IS REBUTTED BY THE TANGIBLE EVIDENCE. FU RTHER THE LD. DR ARGUED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED ANY EVI DENCE FOR THE EXPENDITURE IN CONNECTION WITH THE UNACCOUNTED SALE S AND TO PROVE THAT THE INCOME IS LESSER THAN THE INCOME ADMITTED AT THE TIME OF SURVEY. NO EVIDENCE WAS ALSO PRODUCED FOR ANY OTHE R EXPENSES AND HENCE THE LD. DR ARGUED THAT ESTIMATION OF INCOME AT ` 82 48 989/- ADMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF SURVEY IS FAIR AND REASONABLE WHICH REQUIRED TO BE CONFIRMED. 8. ON THE OTHER HAND THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT ESTIMA TION OF INCOME BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER @ 4.67% IS VERY HI GH AND UNREASONABLE. THE NORMAL PROFIT IN THIS LINE OF BU SINESS IS ONLY 1.5%. FURTHER THE LD. AR HAS SUBMITTED THE DETAILS OF AS SESSMENT YEAR WISE GROSS PROFIT AND NET PROFIT AS UNDER: ITA NO. 2117/16 :- 5 -: ASSESSMENT YEAR T.O REPORTED GROSS PROFIT NET PROFIT G.P. N.P 2009-10 31107669 1821268 462931 5.85 1.49 2010-11 48669160 2369150 620338 4.87 1.27 2011-12 51903714 2787697 791024 5.37 1.52 2012-13 59039011 3345206 939378 5.67 1.59 2013-14 NO AUDIT DONE A.O ADOPTED PREVIOUS YEAR RATIOS 5.67 1.59 AVE RAGE 1.49 9. THE LD. AR ARGUED THAT THE INCOME DISCLOSED BY TE ASSESSEE IS 2.35% OF UNDISCLOSED TURNOVER AND THE ESTIMATION OF INCOME BY THE CIT(A) IS REASONABLE. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT TH ERE IS NO CASE FOR DISTURBING THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND RELIED ON T HE DECISION OF MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS M/S KHADER KHAN SON 300 ITR 157. 10. WE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATE RIAL PLACED BEFORE US. IT IS AN ADMITTED FACT THAT THE DEPARTMENT HAS CONDUCTED SURVEY U/S 133A OF THE ACT IN THE PREMIS ES OF THE ASSESSEE AND FOUND UNACCOUNTED TURNOVER OF ` 71 01 51 520/- FOR THE PERIOD FROM 1.4.2008 TO 31.3.2014 AND THE UNACCOUNTED TURN OVER ATTRIBUTABLE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 WAS ` 17 66 37 879/-. THE ASSESSEE HAS ADMITTED INCOME OF ` 82 48 989/- @ 4.67% AT THE TIME OF SURVEY. SUBSEQUENTLY THE ASSESSEE HAD RETRACTED THE STATE MENT RECORDED U/S 133A AND FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME ADMITTING TOTAL INCOME OF ` ITA NO. 2117/16 :- 6 -: 47 06 170/-. AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT THE ASSESS EE HAS NOT FURNISHED THE DETAILS OF EXPENDITURE TO ARRIVE AT THE CORRECT INCOME OF THE UNACCOUNTED TURNOVER AND HENCE THE ASSESSING OF FICER ASSESSED THE INCOME AS ADMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE STATE MENT RECORDED DURING THE SURVEY. BEFORE THE CIT(A) ALSO THE AS SESSEE HAS NOT PRODUCED THE COMPLETE DETAILS OF THE PURCHASES AND THE RELEVANT EXPENSES AND URGED TO ESTIMATE THE NET PROFIT ON T HE BASIS OF ORAL EXPLANATIONS AND GENERAL STATEMENTS AND THE LD.CIT( A) ESTIMATED THE NET PROFIT @2.50% BUT NO BASIS WAS GIVEN FOR ESTIMA TION. 11. BEFORE US ALSO THE ASSESSEE A.R HAS NOT FURNISHE D ANY DETAILS OF EXPENSES EXCEPT THE GENERAL INFORMATION AND THE ANALYSIS OF ACCOUNTED TRADING RESULTS WHICH WAS DISCUSSED IN EA RLIER PARAGRAPHS. THE ASSESSEE IS MAINTAINING REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOU NTS FOR THE ACCOUNTED BUSINESS AND THE EXPENSES ARE COMPLETELY ACCOUNTED IN THE REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND THE NET PROFIT WAS ARR IVED AFTER DULY ACCOUNTING THE ENTIRE EXPENDITURE . THE ASSESSEE HA S NOT BROUGHT ON RECORD THE NATURE AND THE AMOUNT OF EXPENSES REMAI NED UNACCOUNTED RELATING TO THE UNACCOUNTED SALES. THE PROFIT OF U NACCOUNTED SALES CANNOT BE EQUATED WITH THE PROFIT OF ACCOUNTED TURN OVER SINCE THE SALES TAX/EXCISE DUTIES LOCAL TAXES AND THE INCOME TAX ARE PAID FROM THE ACCOUNTED TURNOVER AND WHEREAS IN THE CASE OF U NACCOUNTED TURNOVER NO SUCH TAXES ARE PAID BY THE ASSESSEE. B OTH THE ASSESSEE ITA NO. 2117/16 :- 7 -: AND THE SUPPLIER EVADE ALL THE TAXES INCLUDING THE INCOME TAX ON UNACCOUNTED TURNOVER. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT SUCH TAXES I.E COMMERCIAL TAX EXCISE DUT Y ARE PAID ON UNACCOUNTED TURNOVER IN RESPECT OF PURCHASES AND SA LES MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE RELIED ON THE DECISION REPOR TED IN 300 ITR157 AND AS PER THE DECISION OF HON'BLE APEX COURT THE STATEMENT RECORDED ON OATH DURING THE SURVEY IS INVALID. SUBSEQUENTLY HONBLE COURTS HELD THAT THOUGH THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT PERMITTED TO RECORD STATEMENT ON OATH DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY MERELY BECAUSE THE STATEMENT WAS RECORDED ON OATH THE FACTS FOUND DURING THE CO URSE OF SURVEY CANNOT BE BRUSHED ASIDE AND THE STATEMENT RECORDED DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY CANNOT BE COMPLETELY IGNORED. THIS ISSUE HAS BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF DR. DINESH JAIN V. INCOME TAX OFFIICER-11(2) -2 [2014] 45 TAXMANN.CO M 442 (BOMBAY) MUMBAI AND HELD THAT STATEMENT UNDER S ECTION 133A DOES NOT LOSE ITS EVIDENTIARY VALUE MERELY BECAUSE IT IS MADE ON OATH. IN THE CITED CASE HONBLE HIGH COURT HELD AS UNDER : 4. WE SHALL NOW CONSIDER THE QUESTIONS AS PROPOSED FOR THE APPEAL RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 2006-07 FOR OUR CONSIDERATION. (A) REGARDING QUESTION NO.A: (I) THE GRIEVANCE OF THE APPELLANT BEFORE US IS THAT NO RELIANCE CAN BE PLACED UPON THE STATEMENT MADE BY THE APPELLANT DUR ING THE SURVEY PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 133A OF THE ACT FOR THE REASON THAT IT WAS ITA NO. 2117/16 :- 8 -: RECORDED ON OATH. IT IS UNDISPUTED THAT EVEN UNDER SECTION 133A OF THE ACT DEALING WITH SURVEY PROCEEDINGS THE REVENU E AUTHORITIES ARE ENTITLED TO RECORD THE STATEMENT OF ANY PERSON WHIC H MAY BE USEFUL OR RELEVANT TO PROCEEDINGS UN DER THE ACT. THE POWER TO RECORD A STATEMENT DURING SURVEY PROCEEDINGS IS FOUND IN SEC TION 133A (3) OF THE ACT. THE RELEVANT PORTION OF WHICH READS AS UND ER: 'POWER OF SURVEY SECTION 133A (1) TO (2) (3) AN INCOME TAX AUTHORITY ACTING UNDER THIS SECTI ON MAY: (I) & (II)** ** ** (III ) RECORD THE STATEMENT OF ANY PERSON WHICH MAY BE U SEFUL FOR OR RELEVANT TO ANY PROCEEDING UNDER THIS ACT.' THE REQUIREMENT OF RECORDING A STATEMENT ON OATH IS FOUND IN SECTION 132 OF THE ACT I.E. DURIN G SEARCH AND SEIZURE PROCEEDING AND SUCH A REQUIREMENT IS NOT FOUND IN SECTION 133A OF THE ACT . NEVERTHELESS A STATEMENT UNDER SECTION 133A OF THE ACT DOES NOT LO OSE ITS EVIDENTARY VALUE MERELY BECAUSE IT IS MADE ON OATH. BESIDES T HE STATEMENT IN THIS CA SE IS ONE OF THE EVIDENCES BEING RELIED UPON AND NO T THE SOLE EVIDENCE. THE TRIBUNAL IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER HAS RE CORDED THAT THE ADDITION OF INCOME IS BASED NOT ONLY ON THE STATEME NT OF THE APPELLANT-ASSESSEE BUT ALSO BASED ON 'PAGE NO.17'. THE CASE LAW RELIED UPON BY THE APPELLANT IN THE MA TTER OF CIT V. S. KHADER KHAN SON [2013] 352 ITR 480/[2012] 210 TAXMAN 248/25 TAXMANN.COM 413 (SC) ARISING FROM THE DECISION OF MADR AS HIGH COURT IN CIT V. S. KHADER KHAN SON [2008] 300 ITR 157 PROCEEDED ON THE FACT THAT THE AUTHORITIES DID NOT ACCEPT THE RETRACTION MADE BY A DEPONENT OF A STATEMENT MAD E ON OATH DURING SURVEY PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 133A OF THE ACT. THIS WAS ON THE GROU ND THAT STATEMENT WAS MADE ON OATH. BESIDES THE SOLE EVIDEN CE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE IN THAT CASE WAS THE STATEMENT MADE ON OAT H DURING THE SURVEY PROCEEDINGS WHICH IS NOT THE CASE IN THE PRESENT FACTS. FURTHER IN THIS CASE THE APPELLANT- ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO SHOW THAT THE STATEMENT MADE IS NOT CORRECT AND/OR UNBELIEVABLE. THEREFORE THE CASE LAW RELIED UPON BY THE APPELLAN T- ASSESSEE IS COMPLETELY DISTINGUISHABLE AND NOT APPLICABLE TO TH E PRESENT FACTS. FURTHER HONBLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SANJEEV AGRAWAL V. INCOME TAX SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER ALLAHABAD [201 5] 56 TAXMANN.COM 214 HELD THAT THE STATEMENT GIVEN DURIN G THE SURVEY IS A ITA NO. 2117/16 :- 9 -: VALID PIECE OF EVIDENCE AND CANNOT BE RETRACTED AT THE WHIMS AND FANCIES OF THE ASSESSEE. WE REPRODUCE HEREUNDER TH E RELEVANT PARAGRAPH OF THE JUDGEMENT OF THE HONBLE HIGH COUR T: 10. IN PULLANGODE RUBBER PRODUCE CO. LTD. V. STATE OF KERALA [1973] 91 ITR 18 (SC) THE SUPREME COURT HELD THAT AN ADMISSION IS A PIEC E OF EVIDENCE THOUGH IT IS NOT CONCLUSIVE. CONSEQUENTLY A STATEM ENT MADE VOLUNTARY UNDER SECTION 133A OF THE ACT CANNOT BE RETRACTED UNLESS THE ASSESSEE FILES EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT THE ADMISSION MADE IN THE STATEMENT AT THE TIME OF SURVEY WAS WRONG AND AGAINST THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE MERE FACT THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX IN HIS REPORT HAS HELD T HAT THE STATEMENT GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER WAS ON OATH AND THEREFORE IT CAN NOT BE RETRACTED IS IMMATERIAL IN THE CONTEXT OF WHAT WE HAVE SAID AFOR ESAID. 11. NO DOUBT SECTIONS 132(4) AND 133A OF THE ACT ARE DISTINCT AND DIFFERENT. UNDER SECTION 133A OF THE ACT THERE IS NO PROVISIO N TO ADMINISTER OATH AND TO TAKE A SWORN STATEMENT WHEREAS UNDER SECTION 132 (4) OF THE ACT THERE IS NO PROVISION TO EXAMINE A PERSON ON OATH. BUT IT DOES NOT MEAN THAT A STATEMENT UNDER SECTION 133A OF THE ACT CAN BE RETRACTED AT T HE WHIM AND FANCY OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THE LIGHT OF THE AFORESAID THE ASSERT IONS MADE BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER CANNOT BE ACCEPTED. 12. IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IT IS AN ADMITTED FAC T THAT THE ASSESSEE MADE UNACCOUNTED TURNOVER OF ` 17.66 CRORES. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FURNISH ANY EVIDENCE BEFORE US IN THE FORM OF PURCHASE AND SALE VOUCHERS. IN THE ABSENCE OF COMPLETE DETAILS O F PURCHASES AND SALES THE ENTIRE CREDITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT REQUIR ED TO BE BROUGHT TO TAX AS PER SECTION 69 OF THE ACT. HOWEVER THE ASSE SSEE ADMITTED IT AS UNACCOUNTED TURNOVER AND PROFIT OF ` 82 48 989/- ON UNACCOUNTED TURNOVER OF ` 17 66 37 879/- @ 4.67% AS INCOME WHICH WAS ACCEPTE D BY THE DEPARTMENT. THE LD. AR DID NOT FURNISH ANY EVIDENCE TO PROVE THAT THE PROFIT IS LESS THAN THE AMOUNT ADMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE WITH ITA NO. 2117/16 :- 10 -: THE DETAILS OF PURCHASES AND OTHER RELATED EXPENDI TURE VOUCHERS ETC. AS PER THE ASSESSEE OWN ADMISSION THE GROSS PROFIT ON ACCOUNTED TURNOVER WAS 5.37 % OF SALES FOR THE YEAR UNDER CON SIDERATION IN THE REGULAR TURNOVER AND THE ASSESSEE COULD FURNISH ANY EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT SOME AMOUNT OF EXPENDITURE RELATING TO UNACCOU NTED TURNOVER WAS REMAINED FOR CONSIDERATION. IN THE ABSENCE OF A NY EVIDENCE IT IS LOGICALLY INFERRED THAT THE ENTIRE EXPENSES RELATIN G TO BOTH ACCOUNTED AND UNACCOUNTED TURNOVER WAS BOOKED AND NOTHING REM AINED FOR CONSIDERATION. AGAINST THE GROSS PROFIT OF 5.37% TH E ASSESSEE ADMITTED THE NET PROFIT @4.67% WHICH MEANS WHILE ADMITTING THE ASSESSEE HAS CONSIDERED THE ENTIRE UNACCOUNTED EXPENDITURE ALSO. SUCH A FRACTION OF PERCENTAGE OF INCOME CANNOT BE ADMITTED BY ANY ORDI NARY BUSINESS MAN UNLESS HE IS SO CONFIDENT OF THE PROFIT HE EARN ED. THE ASSESSEE IS AN EXPERIENCED BUSINESS MAN BOTH IN ACCOUNTED AND U NACCOUNTED BUSINESS AND ADMITTED THE NET PROFIT 4.67% AGAINST THE GROSS PROFIT OF 5.37% ON REGULAR SALES AND TAKEN DUE CREDIT FOR THE EXPENSES ALSO FROM THE GROSS PROFIT. NO EVIDENCE IS BROUGHT ON R ECORD TO SHOW THAT THE PROFIT IS LESS THAN 4.67% BY THE ASSESSEE. THER EFORE WE ARE UNABLE TO ACCEPT THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. AR THAT THE PROFIT WAS LESS THAN 4.67% AND ACCORDINGLY WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER O F THE CIT(A) AND SUSTAIN THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ITA NO. 2117/16 :- 11 -: 13. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE STANDS AL LOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 26 TH OCTOBER 2016 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( . . . ' ) (N.R.S. GANESAN) / JUDICIAL MEMBER ( . . ' #$ ) (D.S. SUNDER SINGH) % / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER #$ / CHENNAI %& / DATED: 26 TH OCTOBER 2016 RD &' ()*) / COPY TO: 1 . / APPELLANT 4. + / CIT 2. / RESPONDENT 5. ) - . / DR 3. +/' / CIT(A) 6. -01 / GF