Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chennai
Shanmugasundaram ... vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 4, ... on 27 April, 2026
आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, 'ए' न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
'A' BENCH, CHENNAI
श्री एस एस विश्वनेत्र रवि, न्याविक सदस्य एिं श्री एस. आर. रघुनाथा, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष
BEFORE SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND
SHRI S. R. RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
आयकर अपीलसं./ITA Nos.2056/CHNY/2024
(ननिाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year:2017-18)
Shri Shanmmugasundaram The Income Tax Officer,
Venkatachalapathy, vs. Ward-4,
C/o.DURV and Associates LLP, Tirunelveli.
No.10/80, AVM Avenue 3rd Street,
Virugambakkam,
Chennai- 600 092.
[PAN:ACAPV-3414-B]
(अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent)
अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant by : Mr. S.Dwarkesh, CA
प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent by : Ms. T. Mythili, JCIT
सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 02.02.2026
घोर्णा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 27.04.2026
आदे श / O R D E R
PER S.R.RAGHUNATHA, AM:
The present appeal is filed by the assessee against the order dated 07.11.2023 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "ld.CIT(A)"), dismissing the appeal filed by the assessee against the assessment order dated 30.03.2022 passed u/s.147 r.w.s.144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 :-2-: ITA Nos. 2056/Chny/2024 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), pertaining to Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2017-
18.
2. At the threshold, we observe that there is a delay of 209 days in the filing of the appeal against the assessment order by the assessee. The assessee has furnished an affidavit explaining that the assessee was not aware of the impugned orders passed by the ld.CIT(A) during the relevant period. Upon perusal of the affidavit and after affording due opportunity of hearing from both parties, we are satisfied that the assessee has demonstrated sufficient and reasonable cause for not presenting the appeals within the statutory period prescribed under law. Accordingly, in the interest of justice, the delay in filing the appeals is hereby condoned, and the appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits.
3. The assessee raised the following grounds of appeal:
"The grounds of appeal listed below are without prejudice to each other.
1. The orders of the learned Assessing Officer, National Faceless Assessment Centre ('Learned AO') and Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, New Delhi ['CIT(A)'] are erroneous & bad in law and contrary to the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') to the extent it is prejudicial to the interest of the Appellant.
Ground 2 to 8 Treatment of cash deposit of Rs.69,56,295/- as unexplained investment under section 69 of the Act
2. That the Learned CIT(A) has erred in upholding the action of the Learned AO by treating the sum of Rs.69,56,295/- as unexplained investment under section 69 of the Act.
3. That the Learned CIT(A) has erred in upholding the order of the Learned AO in treating the sum of Rs.69,56,295/- as unexplained investment without appreciating the fact that the Appellant has made such investments out of his drawings, retained earnings and gifts from relatives.
4. That the Learned CIT(A) has erred in upholding the order of the Learned AO without appreciating the fact that a sum of Rs.29,68,909/- has been :-3-: ITA Nos. 2056/Chny/2024 deposited out of the retained earnings and cash balance available with the Appellant.
5. That the Learned CIT(A) has erred in upholding the order of the Learned AO without appreciating the fact that a sum of Rs.16,95,000/- has been deposited out of the contribution received from his spouse out of her income and retained earnings.
6. That the Learned CIT(A) has erred in upholding the order of the Learned AO without appreciating the fact that a sum of Rs.19,22,500/- has been deposited out of the gifts from relatives as defined in section 56(2)(vii) of the Act.
7. That the Learned CIT(A) has erred in upholding the order of the Learned AO without appreciating the fact that a sum of Rs.3,69,886/- has been deposited out of the contribution received from his spouse out of her retained earnings.
8. Without prejudice to the above grounds, the Learned AO has erred in computing tax liability by adding a sum of Rs.85,96,295/- as unexplained investment under section 69 of the Act read with section 115BBE whereas the amount of addition as per the assessment order amounts to Rs.69,56,295/-.
Ground 9 - Addition of Rs.2,20,722/- to the income of the Appellant
9. That the Learned CIT(A) has erred in upholding the order of the Learned AO by treating the sum of Rs.220,722/- as income of the Appellant without appreciating the fact that the said amount has already been included in the turnover/ gross receipts of the Appellant reported in the return of income.
Ground 10 - Erred in upholding the additions made by the Learned AO without providing an opportunity of being heard
10. That the Learned CIT(A) has erred in passing an order under section 250 of the Act without providing an opportunity of being heard by way of a virtual hearing/ video conference.
Ground No. 5- Levy of interest under section 234A, 234B, 234C and 234D of the Act
9. The learned AO has erred in levying interest under section 234A, 234B, 234C and 234D of the Act which is consequential.
The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, vary, omit, substitute or amend the above grounds of appeal, before commencement of during proceedings before the Hon'ble Tribunal."
:-4-: ITA Nos. 2056/Chny/2024
4. The brief facts of the case emanating from the records are that the assessee is a medical professional, employed with the Government of Tamilnadu and stationed in Ambasamudram, a rural area in Tirunelveli District, Tamilnadu. The assessee filed his return of income u/s.139(1) of the Act, on
04.08.2017 thereby reporting a total income of Rs.21,80,960/-. The assessee reported the salary income and offered income from profession u/s.44ADA of the Act.
5. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 4 ['Jurisdictional AO'], Tirunelveli issued a notice u/s.148 of the Act dated 30.04.2021 thereby directing the assessee to file a return of income. The Jurisdictional AO initiated re-assessment proceedings u/s.148 of the Act citing that the assessee has not disclosed a sum of Rs.2.21 lakhs in the return of income which reflects in Form 26AS. In response, the assessee filed a return of income u/s.148 of the Act on 30.04.2021. The JAO issued notice u/s.143(2) of the Act dated 06.05.2021 for verification of the following:
Particulars Addition
proposed (Rs.)
Cash deposit made in LIC policy proposed to be treated as 85,96,295/-
unexplained investment under section 69 of the Act (Refer Note 1 for details of the insurance policy) Gross amount reported in form 26AS 2,20,722/-
6. The assessee furnished the details sought by the AO and considering the details the AO passed an order u/s.147 of the Act dated 30.03.2022 by making the following additions:
Particulars Addition Made (Rs.)
Returned income 21,80,960
Additions as per the assessment order:
Cash deposit - LIC policy (treated as unexplained 69,56,295
investment u/s.69 of the Act)
Gross amount reported in form 26AS - treated as 2,20,722
unaccounted professional fees
Total Income 93,57,977
:-5-: ITA Nos. 2056/Chny/2024
7. The assessee has furnished the following details of source of funds for investing in the policy:
S No Particulars SCN Assessment
order
1 Drawings for the AY 2016-17 (FY 2015-16) 10,63,630 10,63,630
2 Drawings for the earlier years (till 31.03.2015) 10,00,000 10,00,000
3 Cash balance in the books as on 31.03.2016 9,05,279 9,05,279
Cash available out of the clinic income for the FY 4 3,75,000 -
2016-17 My own drawings for the FY 2016-17 upto 5 4,00,000 -
December 2016 Contribution from Mrs. Tamilselvi (out of her 6 19,10,000 16,95,000 retained earnings till 31.03.2016) Cash available out of clinic income for FY 2016- 7 6,50,000 -
17 (Mrs. Tamilselvi) 8 Gift given by Mr. Ramalingam 7,22,000 7,22,500 9 Gift given by Mrs.Mayadevi 5,00,000 5,00,000 10 Gift given by Mother 5,00,000 5,00,000 11 Gift given by Sister 2,00,000 2,00,000 12 Other savings of the family used for deposit 3,69,886 3,69,886 Total 85,95,795 69,56,295 Addition in relation to income reported in form 26AS - Rs. 2,20,722/-:
8. The assessee has claimed TDS credit of Rs.2,89,217/- which includes TDS on income reported in form 26AS representing professional fees and duly reported the same in his ITR. In addition to salary income, the assessee has offered his professional income on presumptive basis under section 44ADA of the Act; gross income of Rs.16,52,000/- has been reported. A net profit of Rs.8,26,000/- has been offered to tax u/s.44ADA of the Act which represents 50% of the gross receipts. The assessee submitted that the gross amount of Rs.16,52,000/- reported in ITR includes the amount reported in form 26AS (i.e. Rs. 2,20,722/-).
:-6-: ITA Nos. 2056/Chny/2024
9. The AO discarded the claim of the assessee and added the same to the total income of the assessee by treating the same as unexplained investment and applied the tax rates u/s.115BBE of the Act.
10. Aggrieved by the order of the AO the assessee filed an appeal before the ld.CIT(A) and the order of the AO was confirmed by the ld.CIT(A) by passing an order dated 07.11.2023. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee filed the present appeal before us.
11. The ld.AR for the assessee submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in upholding the order of the AO by treating the sum of Rs.220,722/- as income of the assessee without appreciating the fact that the said amount has already been included in the turnover/ gross receipts of the Appellant reported in the return of income. The ld.AR stated that the assessee reported a sum of Rs.16,52,000/ towards gross receipts for the purpose of section 44ADA of the Act and reported a sum of Rs.8,76,000/- towards presumptive income u/s.44ADA of the Act. The ld.AR submitted that the assessee has duly claimed TDS credit reflecting in form 26AS as tabulated below:
Amount Paid TAN of Name of Deductor Section / Credited TDS (Rs.) Deductor (Rs.) Salary income Treasury Officer MRIT00680B 192 13,09,758 2,59,713 Interest income State Bank of India MRIS01652A 194A 37,160 7,432 Professional income Corona Remedies Private AHMC03816B 194J 15,000 1,500 Limited Intas Pharmaceuticals Limited AHMI00350A 194J 21,111 2,111 Sanofi India Limited CHEH00396E 194J 8,250 825 Hansa Vision India Private CHET00788E 194J 10,000 1,000 Limited Lupin Limited MUML04496C 194J 38,111 3,811 :-7-: ITA Nos. 2056/Chny/2024 Sanofi-Synthelabo (India) MUMS35209 194J 8,250 825 private Limited G USV Private Limited MUMU00007A 194J 85,000 8,500 MUMU00030 Unichem Laboratories Ltd 194J 35,000 3,500 C Sub-Total - 194J 2,20,722 22,072 Total 15,67,640 2,89,217
12. The above details evidence that the assessee has duly reported the professional income and claimed the TDS credit including the TDS credit on professional income amounting to Rs.22,072/- in the income tax return. (Page 129 and 130 of Paperbook Volume 1 for the relevant extracts of ITR.)
13. Further, the ld.AR provided a summary of bank statement for the financial year 2016-17 (Page 496 of Paperbook Volume 2) which evidences that the amount reported as gross receipts by the assessee amounting to Rs.16,52,000/- is substantially higher than the amount as per form 26AS and bank receipts. The ld.AR therefore submits that no addition is warranted based on the allegation that gross amount as per form 26AS has not been offered to tax by the assessee.
14. In respect of the other addition of Rs.69,56,295/- which is towards investment in LIC policy pertaining to Mr.Karthik (assessee's son) the ld.AR submitted that all the records including the LIC policy document, policy receipt etc, the PAN of the assessee's son has been mentioned. In para 5.1 of the assessment order, the AO has endorsed the fact that the insurance policy(s) are in the name of the assessee's son. It is pertinent to note that the assessee's son is not a minor when the transaction was undertaken. It is an undisputed fact that the date of birth of the assessee's son (Mr.Karthik) is 09.12.1998; the policy was taken on 15.12.2016. Therefore, when the policy was taken, the assessee's son had already ceased to be a minor. Given that the PAN of the assessee's son is reported in the policy document which was available with the AO at the time of the assessment proceedings. Further, PAN is a public document and therefore :-8-: ITA Nos. 2056/Chny/2024 inspite of being aware of the facts, the AO treated the entire sum as unexplained investment/ income in the hands of the assessee.
15. The assessee's son made investment out of proceeds in the form of gifts from his parents, grand parents (explained in detail in the chart submitted). The assessee's son received gifts from close family members out of love and affection. The persons who gifted sums during the year have adequate source of income (copy of ITRs of the persons gifted are provided in Paperbook Volume
2). Further, the person gifted the sums have provided an affidavit confirming the facts. In view of the above, the ld.AR contended that the addition made by the AO in the hands of the assessee is unsustainable in law and needs to be deleted. In support of the above claim the ld.AR relied on the following judicial precedents:
A. Income-tax Officer vs. Ch. Atchaiah [1996] [218 ITR 239] (SC) - (Page 300 to 306 of Caselaw Paperbook) "In our opinion, the contention urged by Dr.Gauri Shanker merits acceptance. We are of the opinion that under the present Act, the ITO has no option like the one he had under the 1922 Act. He can, and he must, tax the right person and the right person alone. By 'right person', we mean the person who is liable to be taxed, according to law, with respect to a particular income. The expression 'wrong person' is obviously used as the opposite of the expression 'right person'. Merely because a wrong person is taxed with respect to a particular income, the Assessing Officer is not precluded from taxing the right person with respect to that income. This is so irrespective of the fact which course is more beneficial to the revenue. In our opinion, the language of the relevant provisions of the present Act is quite clear and unambiguous. Section 183 of the Act shows that where the Parliament intended to provide an option, it provided so expressly. Where a person is taxed wrongfully, he is, no doubt, entitled to be relieved of it in accordance with law* but that is a different matter altogether."
B. Shri Om Prakash Jakhotia vs ACIT [ITA No. 968/ 2021] (Delhi ITAT) -
Page 307 of Case law Paperbook :-9-: ITA Nos. 2056/Chny/2024 The ld.AR submitted that the source for investment in the policy by the assessee's son was contributed by the assessee and relatives in respect of cash deposit made in insurance policy(s) as detailed below:
Nature of deposit - LIC Policy in the name of Mr.V.Karthik (Son) Relationship Relationship Addition as per S from policy from the Particulars assessment No holder Appellant's order perspective perspective Contribution made by the 1 Assessee Cash balance in the books as on 1.1 31.03.2016 9,05,279 1.2 Drawings for the AY 2016-17 Father Self 10,63,630 1.3 Drawings for the earlier years 10,00,000 Total contribution made by the assessee (A) 29,68,909 Contribution made by others 2 Contribution from Mrs. Tamilselvi Mother Spouse 16,95,000 Maternal Father in 3 Gift given by Mr.Ramalingam Grandfather law 7,22,500 Maternal Mother in 4 Gift given by Mrs.Mayadevi Grand mother law 5,00,000 Paternal 5 Gift given by Ms.Ulaganayagi Mother Grand mother 5,00,000 6 Gift given by Ms.Shenbagavalli Aunt Sister 2,00,000 Other savings of the family used 7 for deposit 3,69,886 Total contribution made by Others (B) 39,87,386 Total (A)+(B) 69,56,295
16. Without prejudice on the validity of the subject re-assessment proceedings, the ld.AR submitted that the assessee can be directed to explain the source of funds only to the extent of contribution made by him and not in :-10-: ITA Nos. 2056/Chny/2024 respect of the entire amount of investment. Given that the assessee's son was a not a minor when the transaction took place, the AO ought not to have questioned the assessee in respect of investment belonging to his son.
17. The ld.AR provided the source for his contribution aggregating to Rs.29,68,909/- (Rs.905,279/- as his opening cash balance as on 01.04.2016 (ITR 6 - Paper book II - page No.332) , Drawings for the AY 2016-17 (i.e. during FY 2015-16 - Paper book II - page No.396) of Rs.10,63,630/- and drawings of earlier years Rs.10,00,000/- (Paper book II - page No.318-330).
18. The ld.AR submitted that the assessee has furnished the proof in respect of the source of funds representing contribution to his son's insurance policy payment. The AO and Ld.CIT(A), without even appreciating the facts and evidence, treated the said sum as unexplained investment/ income u/s.69 of the Act.
19. Without prejudice to the above, the ld.AR submitted that the tax rate of 60 percent u/s.115BBE cannot be applied to AY 2017-18 as held in the case of SMILE Microfinance Limited vs ACIT [WP (MD) No. 2078 of 2020] (Madras HC) by the Hon'ble Madras High Court and Chennai Tribunal in the case of Jagathesh vs ACIT [ITA No. 1565/Chny/2025] (Chennai ITAT).
20. Per contra the ld.DR supported the orders of the authorities and prayed for confirming the same.
21. We have heard the rival submissions, perused the assessment order, the order of the Ld.CIT(A), and the material placed on record along with the paper book and case laws relied on. The issues arising for adjudication are: (i) addition :-11-: ITA Nos. 2056/Chny/2024 of Rs.2,20,722/- on the basis of Form 26AS and (ii) addition of Rs.69,56,295/- u/s.69 of the Act in respect of cash deposits made in LIC policy.
22. The first grievance of the assessee is against the confirmation of addition of Rs.2,20,722/- treated as unaccounted professional receipts. The case of the assessee is that the said amount was already included in the gross professional receipts of Rs.16,52,000/- disclosed in the return and offered under the presumptive scheme of section 44ADA. The assessee has also pointed out that the TDS relatable to such receipts, namely Rs.22,072/-, was claimed in return as part of total TDS credit of Rs.2,89,217/-.
23. From the record, we find that the assessee had disclosed professional income on presumptive basis and had reported gross receipts substantially in excess of the amount appearing in Form 26AS. The bank statement summary referred to in the paper book is also stated to support the claim that the total gross receipts disclosed were more than the receipts reflected in Form 26AS. Once the assessee demonstrates that the amount appearing in Form 26AS forms part of the professional turnover already disclosed, there remains no justification for once again treating the same figure as undisclosed income. A receipt which has already entered the computation of presumptive professional income cannot be separately taxed merely because it is visible in Form 26AS. The authorities below have proceeded only on the basis that the amount is reflected in Form 26AS, but there is no finding brought on record to show that such receipt stood outside the aggregate professional receipts of Rs.16,52,000/- offered by the assessee. In our considered view, this approach is legally unsustainable, as it leads to duplication of the same receipt. In a case governed by section 44ADA, the correct inquiry is whether the impugned receipt is already subsumed in the gross professional turnover declared by the assessee. On the facts recorded before us, the answer is clearly in the affirmative. Accordingly, :-12-: ITA Nos. 2056/Chny/2024 we hold that the addition of Rs.2,20,722/- is not warranted and the same deserves to be deleted.
24. The next issue in the appeal relates to the addition of Rs.69,56,295/- sustained u/s.69 of the Act. The foundation of the assessee's challenge is that the LIC policy was not in his own name but in the name of his son, Mr.V.Karthik, whose PAN is stated to have been mentioned in the policy documents. It is also specifically pointed out that the date of birth of the assessee's son is 09.12.1998, whereas the policy was taken on 15.12.2016. Thus, on the date of investment, the son was admittedly a major. The assessment order itself, as referred to in the extracted facts, acknowledges that the insurance policy was in the name of the son.
25. Once these facts are accepted, the first legal question is whether the entire investment in such policy could at all be assessed as unexplained investment in the hands of the assessee. In our opinion, the answer has to be in the negative. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the decision Income-tax Officer vs. Ch. Atchaiah [1996] reported in 218 ITR 239, has laid down in clear terms that the AO "must tax the right person and the right person alone." The proposition flowing from the said judgment is that tax liability must attach to the legally correct person in respect of a given income or investment, and the Revenue cannot, for convenience, sustain assessment in the hands of a wrong person. The extracted portion of that judgment, placed before us, makes it clear that merely because one person has been brought to tax, the correct legal incidence does not shift away from the person who is truly liable.
26. Applying the above principle to the facts of the present case, when the policy admittedly stands in the name of the assessee's major son and bears his PAN, the entire investment in such policy cannot be presumed to be the :-13-: ITA Nos. 2056/Chny/2024 unexplained investment of the assessee. At the highest, the assessee could be called upon to explain his own contribution, if any, towards the policy amount. But the contribution of the mother, grandparents, aunt, and other family savings, all stated to have gone into the policy of the son, cannot be telescoped into the assessee's hands unless the Revenue first disproves the independent identity of the policyholder and the contributors. No such exercise is seen from the orders of the authorities below.
27. The Delhi Bench decision in Shri Om Prakash Jakhotia vs. ACIT, relied upon by the assessee, has also been referred to, particularly paragraphs 61 and 62 of that decision. Though the full text of those paragraphs is not reproduced in the extracted record, the placement of reliance clearly indicates that the assessee invoked the said authority on the principle that the addition must be made in the hands of the legally correct person and that the Revenue cannot disregard the true ownership or legal character of the transaction. That proposition fortifies the ratio of the Supreme Court decision and supports the assessee's plea that the entire investment in the son's policy could not have been straightaway assessed in the assessee's hands.
28. That apart, even on facts, the assessee has furnished an explanation regarding the source of the amounts deposited. The break-up extracted in the record shows that the assessee's own contribution is stated to comprise opening cash balance of Rs.9,05,279/-, drawings for A.Y. 2016-17 of Rs.10,63,630/-, and drawings of earlier years of Rs.10,00,000/-, aggregating to Rs.29,68,909/-. The balance amount is stated to have been contributed by the assessee's spouse, father-in-law, mother-in-law, mother, sister, and family savings, with supporting affidavits and copies of returns of income placed in the paper book. The assessment order, however, appears to have discarded the explanation in a summary manner and brought the entire amount of Rs.69,56,295/- to tax in the hands of the assessee u/s.69 of the Act.
:-14-: ITA Nos. 2056/Chny/2024
29. In our considered view, such an approach is not in accordance with law. Section 69 postulates a finding that the assessee has made investments which are not recorded in his books and for which he offers no satisfactory explanation about the nature and source. In the present case, the very assumption that the whole investment belonged to the assessee is contrary to the admitted factual position that the policy stood in the name of the assessee's major son. Once that central fact is borne in mind, the scope of inquiry in the assessee's hands, if at all, gets confined only to the portion specifically attributable to him. The lower authorities have failed to maintain this distinction and, in doing so, have effectively assessed the investment of another identifiable taxable person in the hands of the assessee. Such an approach is directly contrary to the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 218 ITR 239.
30. Even otherwise, the explanation furnished by the assessee in respect of his own contribution has not been shown to be false or inherently untenable. The paper book references noted in the extracted record indicate that opening cash balance, drawings of the earlier year, and prior years' drawings were all specifically placed before the authorities. There is no discussion in the impugned orders pointing out any contradiction in those records. Similarly, the contributions from family members are stated to be supported by affidavits and income-tax records. In the absence of any adverse material dislodging such evidence, the explanation cannot be rejected on mere suspicion. An addition u/s.69 of the Act cannot be sustained merely because the deposits were in cash, when the assessee has furnished a structured explanation with supporting documents and when the asset itself belongs to another identifiable person.
31. Therefore, on a combined consideration of the admitted ownership of the policy, the majority of the son at the relevant time, the documentary explanation of sources, and the binding ratio that the correct person alone can be taxed, we :-15-: ITA Nos. 2056/Chny/2024 hold that the addition of Rs.69,56,295/- in the hands of the assessee is unsustainable. The same is accordingly deleted.
32. Since, we have already held that both the additions are liable to be deleted, the issue relating to the rate of tax u/s.115BBE of the Act becomes only academic and hence not adjudicated.
33. In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 27th April, 2026 at Chennai.
Sd/- Sd/-
(एस एस विश्वनेत्र रवि) (एस. आर. रघुनाथा)
(S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI) (S. R. RAGHUNATHA)
न्याविक सदस्य/Judicial Member लेखा सदस्य/Accountant Member
चेन्नई/Chennai,
वदनां क/Dated, the 27th April, 2026
Devadas
आदे श की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy to:
1. अपीलाथी/Appellant
2. प्रत्यथी/Respondent
3.आिकर आिुक्त/CIT- Chennai/Coimbatore/Madurai/Salem
4. विभागीि प्रविवनवि/DR
5. गार्ड फाईल/GF