Gokul Pipes, CHENNAI v. ACIT, CHENNAI

ITA 978/CHNY/2013 | 2009-2010
Pronouncement Date: 21-10-2016 | Result: Partly Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 97821714 RSA 2013
Assessee PAN AAHFG9834D
Bench Chennai
Appeal Number ITA 978/CHNY/2013
Duration Of Justice 3 year(s) 5 month(s) 8 day(s)
Appellant Gokul Pipes, CHENNAI
Respondent ACIT, CHENNAI
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 21-10-2016
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Partly Allowed
Bench Allotted D
Tribunal Order Date 21-10-2016
Date Of Final Hearing 19-10-2016
Next Hearing Date 19-10-2016
Assessment Year 2009-2010
Appeal Filed On 13-05-2013
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH CHENNAI ! ' . # $ %& BEFORE SHRI SANJAY ARORA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ ITA NO. 978/MDS/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 M/S GOKUL PIPES NO.30/21 DEV APARTMENTS FIRST MAIN ROAD GANDHI NAGAR ADYAR CHENNAI - 600 020. PAN : AAHFG 9834 D V. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX BUSINESS CIRCLE III CHENNAI - 600 034. ( '( /APPELLANT) ( )*'( /RESPONDENT) '( + /APPELLANT BY : SHRI K. MEENAKSHISUNDARAM ITP )*'( + /RESPONDENT BY : SHRI M. MURUGABOOPATHY ADDL. CIT + - /DATE OF HEARING : 19.10.2016 ./ + - /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 21.10.2016 /O R D E R PER SANJAY ARORA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-VIII CHENNAI ( CIT(A) FOR SHORT) DATED 27.03.2013 DISMISSING THE ASSESSEES APPEAL CONTESTING ITS ASSESSMENT 2 I.T.A. NO.978/MDS/13 UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT 1961 (' THE ACT' FOR SHORT) DATED 26.12.2011 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR (AY) 2009-10. 2. THE SOLE ISSUE ARISING IN THIS APPEAL IS THE MAIN TAINABILITY OR OTHERWISE IN LAW OF THE ASSESSEES CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION IN RES PECT OF SALES-TAX CLAIMED AT RS. 34 03 566/-. THE ASSESSEE A FIRM IN THE BUSIN ESS OF MANUFACTURING OF SEWAGE PIPES FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE YE AR ON 01.10.2009 ADMITTING AN INCOME OF RS.37 93 259/- (PAPER-BOOK PAGES 5 7-9 ). THIS WAS LATER CLAIMED TO BE REVISED (VIDE RETURN FILED ON 09.11.2 009) TO RS.14 93 259/- BY CLAIMING A SUM OF RS.23 LAKHS ON ACCOUNT OF SALES-T AX ARREARS PAID DURING THE YEAR FILING ALONG WITH A REVISED BALANCE-SHEET AND PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT - WHICH BORE EXPENDITURE ON ACCOUNT OF SALES TAX PAID AT RS.34 03 566/- (PB PGS. 59 109). THE SAME IT WAS EXPLAINED IN THE ASS ESSMENT PROCEEDING WAS IN RESPECT OF SALES-TAX LIABILITY OF A COMPANY M/S. J OSHI STONE WARES PVT. LTD. WHOSE MANUFACTURING UNIT HAD BEEN PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY. THE SALES-TAX LIABILITY AGAINST THE SAID COMPANY BEING PURSUED BY THE SALES TAX DEPARTMENT WAS DISCHARGED BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER TH E SALES TAX AMNESTY SCHEME OF THE GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU. IN THE VIEW OF THE REVENUE IT WAS THE LIABILITY OF THE SAID COMPANY AND NOT THAT OF T HE ASSESSEE. THE SAME COULD THUS ONLY BE TREATED AS PAID FOR AND ON ITS BEHALF. THE CLAIM WAS ACCORDINGLY DISALLOWED AND CONFIRMED IN APPEAL FOR SAME REASON. 3. BEFORE US THE ASSESSEES PLEA WAS THAT THE ASSE SSING OFFICER (A.O.) BY PROCEEDING AGAINST THE ORIGINAL RETURN HAD COMMI TTED AN ERROR IN-AS-MUCH AS HE HAD NOT TAKEN COGNIZANCE OF THE REVISED RETUR N A VALID RETURN U/S.139(5) OF THE ACT IN-AS-MUCH AS THE ORIGINAL RETURN WAS FI LED WITHIN THE TIME ALLOWED U/S.139(1) I.E. BY 31.10.2009. HE WAS HOWEVER U NABLE TO ANSWER AS TO WHERE IF THE SALES-TAX PAYMENT OF RS.23 LAKHS WAS MADE DURING THE RELEVANT YEAR WAS THE SAME REFLECTED IN THE BALANCE-SHEET F ILED ALONG WITH THE ORIGINAL RETURN (PB PG. 11). THEN AGAIN WHAT WERE THE TERM S OF THE TAKE-OVER 3 I.T.A. NO.978/MDS/13 AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE PARTIES ETC. HE SOUGHT TIME TO ANSWER THOSE QUERIES. THE LIABILITY OF RS.11.04 LAKHS AS ORIGINALLY CLAIM ED HOWEVER HE FURTHER SUBMITTED IS FOR THE CURRENT YEAR AND HAD WRONGLY BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE REVENUE AS PART OF THE SALES-TAX ARREARS (OF THE TR ANSFEROR-COMPANY). THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (DR) ON THE OTHER HAND SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEES PLEA IS NOT MAINTAINABLE THE PAYMENT IN FACT BEING ONLY TO PROTECT THE ERSTWHILE PROPERTY OF THE TRANSFEROR-COMPANY S INCE TAKEN OVER BY THE ASSESSEE FROM BEING REALIZED (THROUGH AUCTION) FOR THE DISCHARGE OF THE DUES OF THE SAID COMPANY THERETO BY THE SALES-TAX DEPART MENT. AT ANY RATE IF THE CLAIM IN RESPECT OF THE SALES-TAX PAID OF THE TRANS FEROR-COMPANY IS ACCEPTED THE LIABILITY TO THE DEPARTMENT BEING ADMITTEDLY TO THE TUNE OF RS.75 LAKHS SO THAT THERE HAS BEEN REMISSION TO THE EXTENT OF THE DIFFERENCE WOULD BE REQUIRED TO BE ADDED TO THE ASSESSEES INCOME U/S.41(1) OF T HE ACT. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES AND PERUSED MATERIAL A VAILABLE ON RECORD. WE SHALL TAKE UP THE ASSESSEES PRELIMINARY OBJECTI ON FIRST BEFORE PROCEEDING TO DISCUSS THE ISSUE ON MERITS. THE PRELIMINARY OBJECTION 4.1 THE OBJECTION OF THE A.O. HAVING PROCEEDED AGAIN ST THE ORIGINAL RETURN IN-AS-MUCH AS HE ADOPTS THE PROFIT FIGURE OF THE ORIGINAL PROFIT AND LOSS A/C (PB PGS. 7 13) I.E. AS AGAINST THE REVISED PROFIT OF RS.14 83 259/- IS CLEARLY MISCONCEIVED. THE REVISED RETURN SUBSTITUTES THE OR IGINAL RETURN IN-SO-FAR AS THE CLAIMS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE (PER THE ORIGINAL R ETURN) ARE CONCERNED WITHOUT IN ANY MANNER DETRACTING FROM THE STATUS OF EARLIER RETURN AS THE ORIGINAL RETURN. IT IS ONLY BECAUSE THE SAME IS A V ALID RETURN IN LAW THAT IT COULD BE REVISED. IT IS THIS RETURN A VALID RETURN IN LA W WHICH WAS SUBJECT TO THE VERIFICATION PROCEDURE UNDER THE ACT AND THEREFORE THERE IS NO ERROR BY THE A.O. IN PROCEEDING THERE-AGAINST. THE ASSESSEE HAVI NG HOWEVER REVISED THE SAME THE A.O. IS BOUND TO CONSIDER THE CLAIMS PREF ERRED THEREBY BEING A 4 I.T.A. NO.978/MDS/13 VOLUNTARY REVISION LIABLE TO BE REGARDED AS MADE BONA FIDE . AND FURTHER NO PREJUDICE COULD BE CAUSED TO THE ASSESSEE WHICH IS THE CASE IN THE INSTANT CASE IN-AS-MUCH AS THE A.O. HAS CONSIDERED THE ENTIRE CL AIM QUA SALES-TAX PAID WHICH CLAIM ALONE WAS REVISED BY THE ASSESSEE. PROC EEDING HOWEVER FROM THE FIGURE OF NET PROFIT AS PER THE P & L ACCOUNT (ORIGI NAL) HE DISALLOWED ONLY THE AMOUNT DEBITED THERETO I.E. RS.11.04 LAKHS. THE IMP UGNED ORDER IN WHICH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER MERGES ALSO CONSIDERS THE ENTIRE CLAIM OF SALES TAX I.E. FOR RS.34.04 LAKHS. THE PRELIMINARY OBJECTION FAILS. THE RESPECTIVE CASES 4.2 THE ASSESSEES CASE IS THAT IT HAVING PAID SALES -TAX (PERTAINING TO THE EARLIER YEARS) OF M/S. JOSHI STONE WARES PVT. LTD. AS ITS SUCCESSOR THE SAME IS ONLY A REVENUE EXPENDITURE ON ACCOUNT OF A TRADING LIABILITY AND THUS ALLOWABLE IN VIEW OF S.43B OF THE ACT ON PAYMENT I.E. IRRESPECTIVE OF THE YEAR TO WHICH THE LIABILITY PERTAINS. THE PAYMENT F OR RS.11.04 LAKHS IS IN ANY CASE FOR THE CURRENT YEAR. THE REVENUES CASE IS TH AT THE LIABILITY IS ONLY OF THE TRANSFEROR-COMPANY AND ITS DISCHARGE BY THE ASSES SEE-FIRM IS ONLY FOR AND ON BEHALF OF THE SAID COMPANY WHICH IT MAY HAVE BEEN CALLED UPON TO OR MAY HAVE OTHERWISE DISCHARGED IN PURSUANCE TO THE DIREC TIVE BY THE SALES-TAX AUTHORITIES TO PROTECT THE ERSTWHILE PROPERTY OF TH E COMPANY SINCE TAKEN-OVER. IN FACT AS CONTENDED IT IS THE PROPERTY OF THE AS SESSEE-FIRM WHICH WAS LIABLE TO BE AUCTIONED IN CASE OF NON-PAYMENT THE SAME (P AYMENT) IS ONLY TO REMOVE AN ENCUMBRANCE THEREON SO THAT IT IS TOWARD A CAPI TAL ASSET. FURTHER STILL THE SALES-TAX LIABILITY TAKEN OVER IS ADMITTEDLY TO THE TUNE OF RS.75 LAKHS SO THAT THERE IS REMISSION FOR THE BALANCE (~ RS.52 LAKHS) WHICH IS LIABLE TO BE TREATED AS ASSESSEES INCOME U/S. 41(1) OF THE ACT I.E. W HERE THE ASSESSEES CLAIM FOR RS.23 LAKHS IS CONSIDERED AS VALID. 5 I.T.A. NO.978/MDS/13 DISCUSSION 4.3 OUR FIRST OBSERVATION IN THE MATTER IS THAT THE ASSESSEES CLAIM QUA THE TAKE-OVER OF THE LIABILITY TO WHATEVER EXTENT AND ITS DISCHARGE UNDER THE AMNESTY SCHEME IS WHOLLY UNSUBSTANTIATED. TWO THE AMOUNT OF RS.23 LAKHS FINDS REFLECTION AS LOANS & ADVANCES IN THE ORIGI NAL BALANCE- SHEET AS ON 31.03.2009 (PB PG.107) WHICH HAS BEEN COMPARED BY US WITH REVISED BALANCE-SHEET TO FIND REDUCTION IN THE SAID PORTFOL IO LOANS & ADVANCES (UNDER THE ACCOUNT HEAD ADVANCE & DEPOSITS). THIS CONFIRMS THE PAYMENT OF RS. 23 LAKHS WHICH THOUGH COULD BE IN A PRECEDING YEAR. THE ASSESSEES CLAIM OF THIS PAYMENT BEING A SUCCESSOR FIRM BEING UNSUBSTANTIATED WE YET PROCEED ON THIS PREMISE IN-AS-MUCH AS THE REVENUE H AS NOT DISPUTED THE SAME. IN THE EVENT OF OUR HOLDING THE SUM AS ALLOWABLE T HE AO SHALL VERIFY IF THE PAYMENT IS TOWARD SALES-TAX AND FURTHER DURING TH E RELEVANT YEAR. IN PEMBRIL ENGINEERING (P.) LTD. V. CIT (DY.) [2015] 155 ITD 72 (MUM) TO WHICH DECISION REFERENCE WAS ALSO MADE BY THE BENCH DURING HEARING THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY TRANSFERRED ITS BUSINESS AS A GOIN G CONCERN ON AS IS WHERE IS BASIS. THE TRANSFER CONSIDERATION WAS DETERMINED BY REDUCING THE OUTSTANDING STATUTORY LIABILITIES IN RESPECT OF BONUS GRATUITY AND LEAVE ENCASHMENT AND ON THAT BASIS IT WAS CLAIMED THAT THE CONDITION OF THE IR PAYMENT (PER SECTION 43B) STANDS MET. THE SAME DID NOT FIND ACCEPTANCE BY THE REVENUE. THE TRIBUNAL HELD THAT IT CONTINUES TO BE THE STATUTORY LIABILIT Y OF THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY DESPITE THE TRANSFER OF THE BUSINESS BY IT. ALL TH AT THE TRANSFEREE HAD UNDERTAKEN WAS TO SETTLE ALL SUCH LIABILITIES AS OUTSTANDING O N THE TRANSFER DATE WITH IN FACT THE TRANSFER AGREEMENT - TO WHICH REFERENCE WAS ALS O MADE BY THE TRIBUNAL BEING EXPLICIT IN THE MATTER. REDUCING THE VALUE OF THE LIABILITIES FROM THE ASSETS TAKEN-OVER FOR ARRIVING AT THE TRANSFER CONSIDERAT ION ONLY AMOUNTED TO KEEPING ASIDE MONEYS FOR PAYMENT UNDERTAKEN TO BE DISCHARGE D FOR AND ON BEHALF OF THE TRANSFEROR. HOW COULD IT WONDERED A STATUTORY LIABILITY BE CO NTRACTUALLY TRANSFERRED ? THERE WAS NOTHING TO SHOW THAT THE PAYMENT HAD AC TUALLY BEEN MADE DURING THE YEAR WHICH ONLY WAS RELEVANT WITH THERE NOT BEING EVEN AS 6 I.T.A. NO.978/MDS/13 MUCH AS A CONTENTION IN RESPECT OF THE PAYMENT OF T HE IMPUGNED LIABILITIES. THE DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 43B WHICH COMES INTO PL AY ONLY ON SPECIFIED LIABILITIES BEING OTHERWISE ALLOWABLE UNDER THE ACT STIPULATING AN ADDITIONAL CONDITION OF ACTUAL PAYMENT WAS ACCORDINGLY CONFIR MED. 4.4 COMING TO THE FACTS IT IS UNDISPUTED THAT THE PAYMENT OF RS.23 LAKHS IS TOWARDS SALES TAX ARREARS OF THE TRANSFEROR-COMP ANY. THE TRANSFER BY IT OF ITS UNIT WOULD NOT RESULT IN THE TRANSFER OF A STATUTOR Y LIABILITY WHICH IS OF THE COMPANY AND NOT OF THE UNIT PER SE TO THE ASSESSEE-FIRM. EVEN IF CONTRACTED FOR BEING PAID BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH THOUGH REMAIN S UNSUBSTANTIATED IT CONTINUES TO BE THE LIABILITY OF THE COMPANY AND N OT OF THE FORMER. THEN AGAIN HOW WOULD IT BE HELD ITS TRADING LIABILITY? SALES-TAX IS A LEVY ON SALES AND ACCORDINGLY FORMS PART OF THE SELLERS TRADIN G RECEIPT I.E. OF THE TRANSFEROR-COMPANY. THE CORRESPONDING SALES TAX LIAB ILITY IS A CONCOMITANT TRADING LIABILITY WHICH WOULD THEREFORE BE ALLOWAB LE ON ACCRUAL BASIS. SECTION 43B OF THE ACT HOWEVER IMPOSES THE RESTRICTION OF ACTUAL PAYMENT. THE CHARACTER OF THE LIABILITY IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSE SSEE-FIRM ASSUMING SO IS ON CAPITAL ACCOUNT IN-AS-MUCH AS THE UNIT ACQUIRED BY IT IS ONLY A CAPITAL ASSET. THE SAME MAY THEREFORE GO TO DETERMINE ITS COST. E VEN IF NOT RECKONED WHILE DETERMINING THE TRANSFER CONSIDERATION IN WHICH C ASE IT IS A DISCHARGE OF A LIABILITY ASSUMED ON CAPITAL ACCOUNT THE SAME IS A T THE BEST AN ENCUMBRANCE TO WHICH THE PROPERTY WAS SUBJECT EVEN AS ARGUED BY T HE LD. D.R. WHETHER THE SAME SHALL IN SUCH A CASE GO TO INCREASE THE COST OF THE PROPERTY (TO THE ASSESSEE) IS ARGUABLE; THE PROPERTY ONLY SECURITIZI NG THE LIABILITY. IN SUM EVEN IF CONTRACTED TO PAY OF WHICH THERE IS THOUGH NO C LAIM IT IS NOT THE ASSESSEES LIABILITY . THE PAYMENT THEREOF BY THE ASSESSEE IS IN LAW ONLY FOR AND ON BEHALF OF THE TRANSFEROR COMPANY. FURTHER THE DISCHARGE B Y THE ASSESSEE IS ADMITTEDLY TO RELEASE THE ATTACHED PROPERTY OF THE SAID COMPAN Y AND THUS A PAYMENT IN THE CAPITAL FIELD. REFERENCE IN THIS REGARD MAY BE MADE TO THE SUBMISSIONS BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY REPRODUCED AT PARA 3 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER 7 I.T.A. NO.978/MDS/13 (ALSO REFER GROUND 3 BEFORE US). THE ASSESSEES CLA IMS FOR RS.23 LAKHS PREFERRED PER THE REVISED RETURN STANDS RIGHTLY DI SALLOWED BY THE REVENUE WHICH IS ACCORDINGLY UPHELD. COMING TO THE BALANCE PAYMENT OF RS.11.04 LAKHS TH E ASSESSEES CONTENTION BEFORE US IS OF THE SAME NOT BEING SALES -TAX ARREARS AS CONSIDERED BY THE REVENUE BUT THE SALES TAX LIABILITY FOR THE CURRENT YEAR I.E. FINANCIAL YEAR 2008-09. WE HAVE ALREADY CLARIFIED THAT SALES TAX BEING A LIABILITY SPECIFIED IN S.43B ITS DEDUCTION IN THE COMPUTATIO N OF BUSINESS INCOME SHALL BE GOVERNED BY THE SAID NON OBSTANTE PROVISION AND THE YEAR TO WHICH THE LIABILITY PERTAINS BECOMES IRRELEVANT. SO HOWEVER IT IS CLAIMED BEFORE US THAT THE UNIT WAS ACQUIRED IN THE YEAR 2005 IN WHI CH CASE IT MAY WELL BE THE SALES-TAX LIABILITY OF THE ASSESSEES BUSINESS EVE N IF QUA THE SAID UNIT SINCE TAKEN OVER I.E. POST ACQUISITION. THAT IS COULD BE THE ASSESSEES LIABILITY . THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES HAVE PROCEEDED BY TREATING T HE SAID PAYMENT ON THE SAME FOOTING AS RS.23 LAKHS TO SUPPORT WHICH CONCL USION WE FIND NO BASIS. WE ACCORDINGLY CONSIDER IT PROPER TO RESTORE THE MA TTER TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(A) TO EXAMINE THIS ASPECT OF THE MATTER AND DEC IDE THE ISSUE OF ITS DEDUCTIBILITY AFTER HEARING THE PARTIES BY ISSUING DEFINITE FINDING OF FACT. NEEDLESS TO ADD HE SHALL HAVE REGARD TO OUR OBSERV ATIONS/FINDINGS IN THIS ORDER. THE BURDEN TO PROVE ITS CLAIMS WE MAY THOU GH CLARIFY IS ONLY ON THE ASSESSEE. 4.5 THE ASSESSEE HAS PER ITS GROUNDS OF APPEAL CITED SEVERAL DECISIONS WHICH WERE NOT REFERRED TO DURING HEARING AND ACCO RDINGLY NOT RESPONDED TO BY THE OTHER SIDE. WE HAVE THOUGH PERUSED THE SAME TO FIND THAT NONE OF THEM ARE IN RELATION TO THE QUESTION THAT ARISES FOR BEI NG ANSWERED IN THE PRESENT CASE I.E. WHETHER THE IMPUGNED LIABILITY IS THE A SSESSEES LIABILITY A PRE- REQUISITE FOR CLAIMING DEDUCTION IN ITS RESPECT. THE RE IS ACCORDINGLY NO ISSUE OF THE TRANSFER OF A STATUTORY LIABILITY OR CONSEQUEN TIALLY ITS CHARACTER AS A TRADING LIABILITY IN THE HANDS OF THE TRANSFEREE I.E. ASP ECTS WHICH HAVE ALSO BEEN 8 I.T.A. NO.978/MDS/13 ADDITIONALLY CONSIDERED BY US. THE LIABILITY UNDER REFERENCE IS COVERED BY S. 43B SO THAT IT IS ONLY THE YEAR OF PAYMENT THAT IS RELEVANT. BEFORE PARTING WE MAY ALSO ADD THAT WE HAVING HELD THAT THE LIABILITY QUA SALES TAX ARREARS IS THE LIABILITY OF THE TRANSFER OR-COMPANY THE QUESTION OF ANY REMISSION TO THE ASSESSEE ON AVAILING TAX AM NESTY SCHEME DOES NOT ARISE. IN FACT SECTION 41(1) OF THE ACT SHALL APP LY ONLY WHERE ANY DEDUCTION ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST AND PENALTY THE OTHER COMPO NENTS OF THE DEMAND RAISED BY THE SALES TAX AUTHORITIES (RS.70.37 LACS) HAD BEEN CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE FIRST PLACE OF WHICH THERE IS NO C LAIM. THE ARGUMENT OF THE LD. D.R. IN THIS RESPECT IS WHOLLY MISCONCEIVED. WE MAY ALSO CLARIFY THAT THIS APPEAL WAS EARLIER DISMISSED FOR NON-PROSECUTION. ABUNDANT OPPORTUNITY HAS BEEN GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE ON ITS RESTORATION UNDER SECTION 254(2) OF THE ACT. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES IT WAS CONSIDERED PROPER TO HEAR THIS APPEAL AND DECIDE THE SAME. WE HAVE ACCORDINGLY PROCEEDED TO D O SO ON MERITS ON THE BASIS OF ADMITTED UNDISPUTED FACTS WHILE RESTORIN G FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION WHERE THE FACTS WERE DISPUTED AND NOT PROVED ONE WA Y OR OTHER SO AS TO ALLOW THE ASSESSEE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE FUR THER OPPORTUNITY. 4.6 WE DECIDE ACCORDINGLY. 5. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON OCTOBER 21 2016 AT CHENNAI . SD/- S D/- ( ! ' . # ) ( ) (DUVVURU RL REDDY) (SANJAY ARORA) $ /JUDICIAL MEMBER /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /CHENNAI 0 /DATED THE 21 ST . OCTOBER 2016. KRI. 9 I.T.A. NO.978/MDS/13 2 + )$-34 54/- /COPY TO: 1. '( /APPELLANT 2. )*'( /RESPONDENT 3. 6- ( )/CIT(A)-VIII CHENNAI 4. 6- /CIT-VI CHENNAI-34 5. 478 )$-$ /DR 6. 8 9 : /GF.