DCIT, CHENNAI v. Caruburettors Ltd., CHENNAI

ITA 640/CHNY/2016 | 2010-2011
Pronouncement Date: 28-09-2016

Appeal Details

RSA Number 64021714 RSA 2016
Assessee PAN AAACC1299E
Bench Chennai
Appeal Number ITA 640/CHNY/2016
Duration Of Justice 6 month(s) 10 day(s)
Appellant DCIT, CHENNAI
Respondent Caruburettors Ltd., CHENNAI
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 28-09-2016
Appeal Filed By Department
Bench Allotted A
Assessment Year 2010-2011
Appeal Filed On 18-03-2016
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH : CHENNAI . ! . # $ % & [ BEFORE SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI G. PAVAN KUMAR JUDICIAL MEMBER ] ./ I.T.A.NOS.640 & 641/MDS/2016 / ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2010-11 AND 2011-12 THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(2) CHENNAI VS. M/S CARBURETTORS LTD RAHEJA TOWERS 7 TH FLOOR SIGMA WING NO.177 ANNA SALAI CHENNAI 600 002 [PAN AAACC 1299 E ] ( '( / APPELLANT) ( )*'( /RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI SHIVA SRINIVAS JCIT /RESPONDENT BY : SHRI S. SRIDHAR ADVOCATE / DATE OF HEARING : 17 - 08 - 2016 ! / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 28 - 0 9 - 2016 + / O R D E R PER G. PAVAN KUMAR JUDICIAL MEMBER THESE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE ARE DIRECTED AGAINS T SEPARATE ORDERS OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS )-1 CHENNAI DATED 8.12.2015 IN I.T.A.NO.140/13-14/A-1 AND 523/1 3-14/A-1 FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2010-11 AND 2011-12 RESPECTIVELY P ASSED U/S 143(3) AND 250 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT 1961(IN SHORT THE ACT). SINCE ITA NS.640 & 641/16O. :- 2 -: COMMON ISSUE ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION IN BOTH THE A PPEALS FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE WE DISPOSE OF THE SAME BY THIS COMMON ORDER. 2. THE REVENUE HAS TAKEN THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS IN ASSE SSMENT YEAR 2011-12: 1. THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IS CONTRARY TO LAW FA CTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 2.1 THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN DIRECTING THE ASS ESSING OFFICER TO ELIMINATE THE INVESTMENTS MADE IN THE S UBSIDIARIES WHILE WORKING OUT THE AVERAGE INVESTMENT IN THE FOR MULA OF RULE 8D(2)(III). 2.2 THE LEARNED CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED T HE FACT THAT THE DECISION OF THE JURISDICTIONAL ITAT IN THE CASE OF EIH ASSOCIATED HOTELS IN I.T.A.NO.1503/MDS/2012 FOR A.Y 2008- 09 DATED 17.7.2013 HAS NOT BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT AND APPEAL U/S 260A HAS BEEN PREFERRED WHICH IS PENDING BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT. 3.FOR THESE AND OTHER GROUNDS THAT MAY BE ADDUCED A T THE OF HEARING IT IS PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF THE LEAR NED CIT(A) MAY BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER RESTORED. 3. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS I N THE BUSINESS OF PROMOTING COMPANIES AND FILED RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE IMPUGNED ON 29.9.2011 ADMITTING A LOSS OF ` 2 90 88 999/- AND THE RETURN WAS PROCESSED U/S 143(1) OF THE ACT. SUBSE QUENTLY THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY UNDER CASS AND NOTICES U /S 143(2) DATED 10.9.2012 AND 142(1) DATED 10.9.2012 WAS ISSUED ALO NGWITH A QUESTIONNAIRE. IN COMPLIANCE LD. AR OF THE ASSES SEE APPEARED FROM ITA NS.640 & 641/16O. :- 3 -: TIME TO TIME AND SUBMITTED THE DETAILS CALLED FOR. THE ASSESSEE FILED THE CLARIFICATIONS BY LETTER DATED 26.4.2013 ALONGW ITH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND ALSO EXPLAINED THAT THE ASSESSEE-COM PANY HAS OBTAINED LOANS FOR INVESTING IN SISTER CONCERNS BEI NG M/S UCAL FUEL SYSTEMS LTD. AND DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2010-11 THE ASSESSEE- COMPANY HAS RECEIVED DIVIDEND OF ` 1 08 20 089/- AND ALSO INTEREST INCOME FROM THE SISTER CONCERN OF ` 2 27 52 497/-. OUT OF THE SAID AMOUNT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE ADVANCES TO OTHER AS SOCIATE COMPANIES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON PERUSAL OF THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY HAS OBTA INED UNSECURED LOAN OF ` 35 CRORES FROM CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA AND INVESTED A SUM OF ` 23 01 44 989/- IN THE EQUITY SHARES OF M/S UCAL FUE L SYSTEMS LTD. AND THE REMAINING AMOUNT WAS ADVANCED TO THE ASSESSEE S SISTER CONCERNS. ALSO IN THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT THE A SSESSEE-COMPANY CLAIMED INTEREST EXPENDITURE OF ` 5 17 12 444/- ON THE LOAN. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS OF THE OPINION THAT THE ASSES SEE HAS AVAILED LOAN FROM THE BANK AND HAS MADE INVESTMENT IN EQUITY SH ARES OF THE SISTER CONCERN AND INTEREST EXPENDITURE IN RESPECT OF INVE STMENT IN SHARES SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED AS THE DIVIDEND INCOME IS EXE MPT FROM TAX. IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT THERE IS A NEXUS BETWEEN THE IN TEREST INCOME AND THE DIVIDEND INCOME INTEREST EXPENDITURE PAID AND DIVIDEND RECEIVED FROM THE SISTER CONCERN. IT WAS FURTHER EXPLAINED T HAT THE ASSESSEE ITA NS.640 & 641/16O. :- 4 -: HAS INVESTED IN EQUITY SHARES OUT OF THE BORROWED C APITAL AND INTEREST INCOME IS CLAIMED IN THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT. TH EREFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED SHOW CAUSE TO THE ASSESS EE WHY DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A SHOULD NOT BE MADE. THE CON TENTION OF THE LD. AR THAT THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY HAS MADE INVESTMENTS O N COMMERCIAL EXPEDIENCY AND THEREFORE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 14A CA NNOT BE APPLIED AND RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE CO-ORDINATE BENC H. THE ASSESSING OFFICER CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS JUDICIAL DECISI ONS AND THE PROVISIONS OF LAW AND WAS OF THE OPINION THAT THE I NTEREST EXPENDITURE IN RESPECT OF THE INVESTMENT MADE IN EQUITY SHARES OF THE SISTER CONCERN HAS TO BE DISALLOWED AND APPLYING THE MANDA TORY PROVISIONS OF SEC. 14A R.W RULE 8D(2) HAS WORKED OUT THE DISALLO WANCE U/S 8D(2)(I) 8D(2)(II) AND 8D(2)(III) AGGREGATING TO ` 3 47 07 123/- AS IT PERTAINS TO THE EXPENDITURE DIRECTLY ATTRIBUTABLE T O THE INVESTMENT IN SHARES. 4. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). IN THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS T HE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND ALSO EXPLAINED THE FACTS AND BUSINESS EXPEDIENC Y AND EXIGENCIES FOR INVESTMENT IN EQUITY SHARES OF SISTER CONCERN. THE LD. AR FURTHER EXPLAINED THAT THE INVESTMENT IN SISTER CONCERN WAS OUT OF THE BUSINESS ITA NS.640 & 641/16O. :- 5 -: FUNDS WITH THE OBJECTIVE OF EARNING PROFIT AND NOT DIVIDEND AND ALSO SUPPORTED WITH DECISIONS. THE CIT(A) HAS CONSIDERE D THE INVESTMENT PATTERN OF THE ASSESSEE MADE IN SISTER CONCERN M/ S UCAL FUEL SYSTEMS LTD. WHERE THE ASSESSEE IS A PROMOTER. THE LD. AR CONTENDED THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 14A DOES NOT APPLY AS THE INVEST MENT IN EQUITY SHARES OF M/S UCAL FUEL SYSTEMS LTD. WAS ON COMMERC IAL EXPEDIENCY AND ALSO CONSIDERING THE FUTURE PROSPECTS OF THIS C OMPANY. HE RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THIS BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN TH E CASE OF EIH HOTELS LTD VS THE DY. CIT IN I.T.A.NO. 1503 & 1624/MDS/201 2 DATED 17.7.2013 AND THE DY. CIT VS AMALGAMATIONS LTD IN I .T.A.NO. 811 & 1712/MDS/2015 DATED 16.9.2015 AND 29.9.2015. THE C IT(A) CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE WAS OF THE OPINION THAT THE INVESTMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY IN THE SUBSIDIARY WAS NOT FOR EARNING CAPITAL GAIN OR DIVIDEND INCOME BUT TO PROMOTE SUBSIDIARY COMPANY AND ALSO IT IS A BUSINESS INVEST MENT. THE DIVIDEND IS ONLY INCIDENTAL TO THE INVESTMENT IN SUBSIDIARY COMPANY. CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE ASSESSEE AND ALSO JUD ICIAL DECISIONS REFERRED THE CIT(A) WAS OF THE OPINION THAT THE INV ESTMENT MADE OUT OF THE BORROWED FUNDS WERE FOR STRATEGIC INVESTMENT S IN SUBSIDIARY COMPANY AND THE INTEREST ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE BORROW ING HAS TO BE KEPT OUTSIDE THE PURVIEW OF DISALLOWANCE UNDER RULE 8D. THEREFORE THE CIT(A) DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO REWORK THE DISALLOWANCE U/S ITA NS.640 & 641/16O. :- 6 -: 14A R.W. RULE 8D(2) EXCLUDING THE INTEREST ATTRIBUT ABLE AND PARTLY ALLOWED THE APPEAL. 5. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BE FORE THE TRIBUNAL. THE LD. DR ARGUED THAT THE CIT(A) HAS ER RED IN DIRECTING THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO EXCLUDE THE INTEREST ATTRIBUTA BLE TO STRATEGIC INVESTMENT FOR DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A R.W. RULE 8D. THE LD. DR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE DEPARTMENT HAS NOT ACCEPTED THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE IF EIH ASSOCIATED HOTELS LTD IN I.T.A.NO. 1503/MDS/2012 DATED 27.7.2013 AND AN APPEAL IS PEN DING BEFORE THE HON'BLE MADRAS HIGH COURT AND PRAYED FOR SETTING AS IDE THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). 6. CONTRA THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE RELIED ON THE O RDER OF THE CIT(A) AND JUDICIAL DECISIONS CITED SUPRA AND SUBMI TTED THAT THE INVESTMENT IN SUBSIDIARY COMPANY WAS NOT FOR EARNIN G DIVIDEND INCOME BUT WITH BUSINESS MOTIVE. IN SUPPORT HE RELIED ON THE DECISION OF EIH ASSOCIATED HOTELS (SUPRA) AND PRAYED FOR DISMISSING THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE. 7. WE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS PERUSED THE MATER IAL ON RECORD AND JUDICIAL DECISION CITED. THE SOLE CONTE NTION OF THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ON THE APPLICABILITY O F PROVISIONS OF SEC. 14A AND RULE 8D(2) ARE MANDATORY. THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ITA NS.640 & 641/16O. :- 7 -: RIGHTLY CALCULATED DISALLOWANCE BY APPLYING THE RU LE 8D(I)(II) AND (III) IRRESPECTIVE OF THE FACT OF NOT MAKING DISTINCTION BETWEEN INVESTMENTS. FURTHER THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS NOT MADE INVESTME NTS WITH A MOTIVE TO EARN EXEMPTED INCOME AND NO PROPORTIONATE DISALLOWANCE WAS MADE WHILE COMPUTING TOTAL INCOME IN RESPECT OF EXPENDITURE. IN THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) CONSIDERED THE STRATEGIC DECISIONS OF INV ESTMENT OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IN SISTER CONCERNS /SUBSIDIARY COM PANY WITH A MOTIVE TO EARN PROFITS AND PROMOTION OF BUSINESS AN D RELIED ON THE JUDICIAL DECISIONS AND DIRECTED THE LD. ASSESSING O FFICER IN CALCULATING DISALLOWANCE UNDER RULE 8D (I) AND (III) AND TO EXC LUDE INVESTMENTS MADE IN SUBSIDIARY COMPANIES. THE LD. AUTHORISED R EPRESENTATIVE SUPPORTED HIS ARGUMENTS WITH DECISION OF CO-ORDINA TE BENCH IN THE CASE OF EIH ASSOCIATED HOTELS LIMITED (SUPRA) OBSERVED AT PARA 6 PAGE 10 TO 12 AS UNDER:- 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE RIVA L PARTIES. WE HAVE ALSO EXAMINED THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND THE JUDGMENTS/ORDERS CITED BY THE REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH THE PARTIES. THE FIRST ISSU E IN THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE RELATES TO DIS-ALLOWANCE MAD E U/S. 14A R.W.R. 8D. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE DIS- ALLOWANCE TO THE TUNE OF RS. 4 32 66 500/-.THE CONT ENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS EARNED DIV IDEND INCOME OF 4.6 LAKHS WHICH IS FULLY EXEMPT U/S. 10(34) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE VOLUNTARILY DIS-ALLO WANCE OF 45 927/- U/S. 14A. THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE FRESH INVESTMENTS TO THE TUNE OF 9.4 CRORES DURING THE YEAR. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THAT THE INVESTMENTS HAV E BEEN ITA NS.640 & 641/16O. :- 8 -: MADE FROM THE FRESH SECURED LOANS OBTAINED DURING T HE YEAR BY THE ASSESSEE. THE CIT(APPEALS) AFTER GOING THROUGH THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE PARTIES HAS COM E TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE INVESTMEN TS FROM ITS OWN FUNDS EXCEPT FOR THE SHORT TERM INVEST MENTS MADE IN HDFC CASH MANAGEMENT FUND AND DSPML CASH PLUS FUND IN RESPECT OF WHICH THE AMOUNTS WERE INVESTED FROM INTEREST BEARING FUNDS BORROWED FROM HBSC. THE REVENUE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO CONTROVERT THE FIN DINGS OF CIT(APPEALS). WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE INVESTMEN TS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE SUBSIDIARY COMPANY ARE NOT ON ACCOUNT OF INVESTMENT FOR EARNING CAPITAL GAINS OR DIVIDEND INCOME. SUCH INVESTMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESSEE TO PROMOTE SUBSIDIARY COMPANY INTO THE HOTEL INDUSTRY. A PERUSAL OF THE ORDER OF THE CIT(APPEALS ) SHOWS THAT OUT OF TOTAL INVESTMENT OF 64 18 19 775/- 63 31 25 715/- IS INVESTED IN WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDIA RY. THIS FACT SUPPORTS THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ASS ESSEE IS NOT INTO THE BUSINESS OF INVESTMENT AND THE INVE STMENTS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ON ACCOUNT OF BUSINESS EXPEDIENCY. ANY DIVIDEND EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE FRO M INVESTMENT IN SUBSIDIARY COMPANY IS PURELY INCIDENT AL. THEREFORE THE INVESTMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN I TS SUBSIDIARY ARE NOT TO BE RECKONED FOR DIS-ALLOWANCE U/S. 14A R.W.R. 8D. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO RE- COMPUTE THE AVERAGE VALUE OF INVESTMENT UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 8D AFTER DELETING INVESTMENTS MA DE BY THE ASSESSEE IN SUBSIDIARY COMPANY. ACCORDINGLY TH IS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED AND THAT OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. THE FINDINGS OF THE CIT(APPEALS) ON THE ISSUE ARE ACCORDINGLY MODIFIED . 8. FURTHER THE CONTENTION OF THE REVENUE BEFORE US TH AT THE REVENUE HAS NOT ACCEPTED THE SAID DECISION OF THE T RIBUNAL AND APPEAL HAS ALREADY BEEN FILED BEFORE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH C OURT AND THE SAME IS PENDING. WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT MERE PENDENCY OF APPEAL CANNOT BE A REASON TO TAKE DIFFERENT VIEW. THE ORDER OF T HE TRIBUNAL IS BINDING ITA NS.640 & 641/16O. :- 9 -: ON ALL AUTHORITIES IN THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND P UDUCHERRY. CONSIDERING THE APPARENT FACTS MATERIAL EVIDENCE A ND JUDICIAL DECISIONS THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPE ALS) HAS DEALT ELABORATELY AND DISCUSSED JUDICIAL DECISIONS AND DI RECTED THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER TO EXCLUDE THE INVESTMENTS MADE I N SUBSIDIARY COMPANIES FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTATION OF DISALLO WANCE U/S.14A R.W.R. 8D(I) &(III) OF THE ACT AND ALSO WRITTEN SU BMISSIONS VIZ-A-VIZ THE EXPLANATIONS AND PARTLY ALLOWED THE APPEAL. WE ARE NOT INCLINED TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ON THE DIRECTION FOR RECOMPUTATION OF DISALLOWANCE U/S EC. 14A R.W.R8D (II) AND (III) AND WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSION ER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AND DISMISS THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE. TH E APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 9. COMING TO THE APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 W E FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY HAS NOT EARNED ANY DIVIDE ND INCOME AND THE CIT(A) RELYING ON THE DECISIONS OF THIS TRIBUNA L IN EIH HOTELS LTD (SUPRA) AND CHEMINVEST LTD VS CIT 378 ITR 33 WAS OF THE OPINION THAT THE INVESTMENTS ARE OUT OF BORROWED FUNDS AND CONSIDERING THE INVESTMENTS ARE IN SUBSIDIARY COMPANY M/S UCAL FUEL SYSTEMS LTD. THE INTEREST ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE BORROWED FUNDS SHOULD KEPT OUT OF THE DISALLOWANCE UNDER RULE 8D(2)(I) AND ALSO SINCE NO DIVIDEND WAS ITA NS.640 & 641/16O. :- 10 -: EARNED FROM THE INVESTMENT THEREFORE PROVISIONS O F SEC. 14A R.W. RULE 8D(II) WAS NOT ATTRACTED. ACCORDINGLY HE DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DELETE THE ADDITION. AGGRIEVED THE REV ENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 10. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE DISALLOWANCE UNDER SEC. 14A R.W RULE 8D(2 )(I) AND (III) ARE MANDATORY FROM ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. THE INVESTM ENTS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY IS ON BUSINESS EXPEDIENCY AND THEREFORE AS WE HAVE DECIDED IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 WE SET ASI DE THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO COMP UTE THE DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14A R.W. RULE 8D BY EXCL UDING THE INTEREST ATTRIBUTABLE IN RESPECT OF BORROWED FUNDS FOR INVES TMENT IN EQUITY SHARES OF SUBSIDIARY COMPANY AND ALSO TO EXCLUDE TH E VALUE OF INVESTMENT IN SUBSIDIARY COMPANIES WHILE CALCULATIN G THE DISALLOWANCE UNDER RULE 8D(2)(III). CONSIDERING THE APPARENT FA CTS WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND REMIT THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 11. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE FOR ASSESS MENT YEAR 2010-11 IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 12. TO SUMMARIZE I.T.A.NO.640/MDS/2016 IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES WHEREAS I.T.A.NO.641/MDS/2016 IS DISMISSED. ITA NS.640 & 641/16O. :- 11 -: 13. ORR PRONOUNCED ON WEDNESDAY 28 TH SEPTEMBER 2016 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( . ) (ABRAHAM P. GEORGE) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( . # ) (G. PAVAN KUMAR) $ / JUDICIAL MEMBER '# / CHENNAI $% / DATED: 28 TH SEPTEMBER 2016 RD %& '()( / COPY TO: 1 . / APPELLANT 4. * / CIT 2. / RESPONDENT 5. (+ - / DR 3. *./ / CIT(A) 6. 01 / GF