Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chennai
S.P.Mani And Mohan Dairy, Erode vs Acit Circle 1, Erode on 5 November, 2019
आयकर अपील य अ धकरण, 'डी' यायपीठ, चे नई।
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
'D' BENCH: CHENNAI
ी एन.आर.एस. गणेशन, या यक सद य एवं
ी र"मत कोचर, लेखा सद य के सम'
BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND
SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.1321/Chny/2018
नधा(रण वष( /Assessment Year: 2014-15
M/s.S.P.Mani and Mohan Dairy, v. The Asst. Commissioner-
84, Jeevanantham Street, of Income Tax,
Kollampalayam, Circle-1, Erode.
Erode-638 002.
[PAN: AAKFS5133J]
(अपीलाथ+/Appellant) (,-यथ+/Respondent)
आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.1403/Chny/2018
नधा(रण वष( /Assessment Year: 2014-15
The Dy. Commissioner of- v. M/s.S.P.Mani and Mohan
Income Tax, Dairy,
Circle-1, No.15, Gandhiji Road, 84, Jeevanantham Street,
Erode - 638 001. Kollampalayam,
Erode-638 002.
[PAN: AAKFS5133J]
(अपीलाथ+/Appellant) (,-यथ+/Respondent)
Assessee by : Mrs.G.Vardini Karthik, CA
Department by : Ms.R.Anitha, JCIT
सुनवाई क/ तार ख/Date of Hearing : 10.09.2019
घोषणा क/ तार ख /Date of Pronouncement : 05.11.2019
ITA Nos.1321 & 1403/Chny/2018
:- 2 -:
आदे श / O R D E R
PER RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
These cross appeals filed by assessee and Revenue are directed against appellate order dated 14.02.2018 passed by learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-3, Coimbatore, (Hereinafter called "the CIT (A)") in Appeal No. 293/16-17 for assessment year(ay) 2014-15, the appellate proceedings had arisen before learned CIT(A) from assessment order dated 30.12.2016 passed by learned Assessing Officer (hereinafter called " the AO") u/s. 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called " the Act") for ay: 2014-15. Both these appeals were heard together and are disposed off by this common order.
2. The grounds of appeal raised by assessee in memo of appeal filed with the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai (hereinafter called "the tribunal") in ITA No. 1321/Chny/2018 for ay: 2014-15, read as under:-
"01. The order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is against law, facts, and equity.
02. The order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in upholding the additions made on creditors, in respect of the details found at the time of survey to arrive at a conclusion that, the payments has to be made within 7 days as per his calculations and the creditors standing beyond 7 days were to be considered as the liability ceased. As the cessation of liability is the matter of the Assessee's policy and prudence and they are the better judges to take a decision on cessation of Liabilities, the addition made U/s 41(1)(a) on this account needs to be deleted.
03. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought to have appreciated the fact in respect of the all the additions made U/s 41(1) it is relied on the decision of the Honorable Delhi High court in the case of " CIT Vs. Hotline Electronics ltd" (2012) 205 Taxmann 245 (Delhi), where in it is held that unpaid liabilities cannot be added as the Assessee's income under Section 41(1) merely because they remained unpaid for a sufficiently long time and that it is required of the revenue authorities to show that the liability to pay the creditors has ceased or has been remitted by the creditors". In fact, without confirming from the creditors, the cessation of liability will not be possible.
ITA Nos.1321 & 1403/Chny/2018 :- 3 -:
04. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought to have appreciated the fact that a statement given at the time of survey U/s 133A cannot be a basis for making an addition as held by the Honorable Madras High court in the case of "CIT Vs. Kadar Khan son", which was affirmed by the Honorable Supreme Court.
05. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought to have understood that the both Chilling units were put in to commercial use during the course of the year and the disallowance of depreciation relating to one of the unit for want of evidence is not in order and hence the claim of both the units needs to be restored.
06. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought to have understood that the Chilling units were put in to commercial use during the course of the year and without considering the same, stating that the construction of the units were not completed during the year and hence the Interest on Loans taken for the same cannot be claimed and is to be capitalized is in error. The disallowance of interest on Loans relating to these units to the tune of Rs. 60, 82,257/-needs to be deleted.
07. For these and such other reasons that may be adduced at the time of hearing your appellant prays that the assessment may kindly be quashed and justice rendered."
2.2 The grounds of appeal raised by Revenue in memo of appeal filed with the tribunal in ITA No. 1403/Chny/2018 for ay: 2014-15, read as under:-
"1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the learned C1T(A) erred by granting relief of Rs.2.63 crores without appreciating the fact that the addition under section 41(1)(a) was made after properly analysing the milk creditor accounts.
2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the learned CIT(A) granted the relief of Rs.2.63 crores on assumption basis and without rejecting or rebutting the findings mentioned in the assessment order.
3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the learned CIT(A) erred by deleting the addition made of Rs,29,97,542/- under section 68 without verify as to how in the audited books of accounts assessee gave effect to the deficit cash noticed during the course of survey.
4. The Hon'ble ITAT is requested to cancel the order of the learned CIT(A)-3 Coimbatore and uphold the order of the Assessing office on the above issues.
5. The Hon'ble ITAT is requested leave to add, amend or modify the grounds o appeal, if necessary, in future."
3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in the business of Milk Dairy. A survey action u/s.133A of the 1961 Act was carried out by Revenue in the premises of assessee on 06.11.2013. During the course of survey operations conducted by Revenue u/s 133A of ITA Nos.1321 & 1403/Chny/2018 :- 4 -:
the 1961 Act, the assessee had declared additional income of Rs.2,05,98,000/- on account of waiver of milk creditors. The assessee in its return of income filed with Revenue, however, declared an additional income of Rs.2 Crores. The case was selected by Revenue for framing of scrutiny assessment u/s 143(3) of the 1961 Act and statutory notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the 1961 Act were issued to the assessee by the AO. The AO during the course of assessment proceedings observed that sundry creditors on account of milk supplies were claimed by assessee to be Rs.13,71,68,433/- as on 31.03.2014, as against opening balance of Rs.10,05,12,485/- at the beginning of the year. The AO observed that despite surrender of Rs.2 Crores on account of waiver of milk creditors, there was an increase in the closing balance. During the course of survey operations, it was noticed by Revenue that the assessee was not reporting actual state of its financial affairs. The AO observed that purchase figures were inflated and since these inflated purchases were not paid by the assessee, it led to accumulation into large outstanding under the head 'sundry creditors' for milk purchases. The AO observed that despite huge opening balance of sundry creditors for milk purchases to the tune of ` 10,05,12,485/- , the assessee had declared Rs.2 Crores as income from waiver of the milk creditors. On being asked as to how this figure of ` 2 crores is arrived at, the assessee came out with an explanation , as under:
"The waiver of sundry creditors to the extent of Rs.2,00,00,000/- during the year and declared as income. The said creditors list are enclosed herewith. The waiver of creditors are considered only on the basis of transaction with the assesses; for the past period and current year. We cannot waiver all the creditors in this dairy business. Sometimes like seasonal business at that time no. of suppliers are more sometimes (summer season) they are reducing number because milk input may reduce. So it is varying every year. There is no regular contract. Sometimes later date waiver customer may come to supply the milk ITA Nos.1321 & 1403/Chny/2018 :- 5 -:
voluntarily. This is nature prevailing this dairy industry so we cannot predict all the persons do not turn for the supply the milk. So selectively depending on the supplier, the assessee waived their payment. It is totally depends on the customer to customer."
3.2 The AO was not satisfied with the aforesaid generalized reply submitted by assessee and was of the view that assessee could not explain as to how it has arrived at a figure of ` 2 crores for write off despite other creditors which were outstanding for payment for a long time and thus, the AO was of the view that this write off of ` 2 crores towards sundry creditors is not a correct/reasonable amount. The AO observed that the assessee has around 1000 milk center creditors. The AO examined ledger accounts of these milk creditors and observed that in many cases, the sundry creditors outstanding for payment represent opening balance and continues to remain outstanding for payment throughout the year and the same were not written back as waived by creditors, by the assessee. The AO observed that total of such creditors are to the tune of ` 32,70,589/- for which list was annexed by the AO along with the assessment order. The AO observed that the assessee has not given proper explanation for non inclusion of these sundry creditors for waiver/declaration of income. The AO observed that these milk suppliers were poor villagers who cannot wait for more than a year to receive their payments and hence AO was of the view that it is difficult to accept version of the assessee and AO was of the view that either the assessee had paid these sundry creditors out of unaccounted funds or else the liability has extinguished which attracts provisions of Section 41(1)(a) ITA Nos.1321 & 1403/Chny/2018 :- 6 -:
of the 1961 Act. This led AO to make additions to the tune of Rs.32,70,589/- as income of the assessee by invoking provisions of Sec.41(1)(a) of the 1961 Act, vide assessment order dated 30.12.2016 passed by the AO u/s. 143(3) of the 1961 Act.
3.3 Similarly, the AO also observed from list of outstanding milk creditors, wherein last purchases were more than a month old or payments for last few purchases were made back to back , that there is no previous balances of sundry creditors are still outstanding to be paid. The AO made additions to the tune of Rs.1,04,62,889/- as income of the assessee for this category which was detailed vide annexure enclosed by the AO along with assessment order. The employee of the assessee Shri Ramaswamy in his statement recorded during the course of survey proceedings conducted by Revenue u/s 133A of the 1961 Act , on 20.11.2013 stated in reply to question number 6 and 7 that payment for milk purchases are made within a week's time by the assessee to the suppliers. The AO observed that in view of above, there is no possibility that payments for milk will remain outstanding for a long period and in the opinion of the AO, these payments remaining outstanding to be paid are either inflated purchase cost's or the assessee had cleared these payments out of unaccounted funds which is not reflected in books of accounts. The AO observed that no reasons are furnished by the assessee for amounts remaining outstanding for a long period of time . The AO also observed that if these accounts are carefully analyzed , then it could be observed that the assessee has made back to back payments for last few purchases ITA Nos.1321 & 1403/Chny/2018 :- 7 -:
within a week time , while the old balances of milk suppliers are still outstanding for payments, implying that the previous balances have been cleared off out of undisclosed sources of income, which led AO to make addition to the income of the assessee to the tune of Rs.1,04,62,889/- by invoking provisions of Section 41(1)(1) of the 1961 Act , vide assessment order dated 30.12.2016 passed by the AO u/s. 143(3) of the 1961 Act. . 3.4 The AO observed that third category of milk creditors are those who still have regular transactions with assessee and each of these purchases were regularly paid by assessee within a week's time and hence except for last purchases remaining unpaid , old balances of sundry creditors shown to be outstanding for payment are incorrect and non-existing. . The AO extracted ledger account for the month of March 2014 of top thirty creditors from whom assessee had purchased milk , in its assessment order dated 30.12.2016 passed u/s 143(3) of the 1961 Act and added to the income of the assessee a sum of ` 9,61,80,915/-in the hands of the assessee by invoking provisions of Section 41(1)(a) of the 1961 Act. 3.5 The AO also observed that department has already made an addition to the income of the assessee for ay:2013-14 to the tune of Rs.5,06,56,197/- u/s. 68 of the Act in respect of unexplained sundry creditors outstanding as on 31.03.2013. It was observed by AO that Ld.CIT(A) has already deleted the aforesaid addition for ay: 2013-14 vide appellate order dated 30.08.2016 and matter is now pending for disposal before tribunal at the behest of Revenue . The AO observed that since matter for ay: 2013-14 has not reached finality, out of additions to the ITA Nos.1321 & 1403/Chny/2018 :- 8 -:
tune of ` 10,99,14,393/- now being made on account of waiver of sundry creditors, an amount of ` 5,06,56,197/- is being added on protective basis and if additions for ay:2013-14 are not sustained by appellate authorities , then in that situation, the entire additions to the tune of ` 10,99,14,393/- will stood confirmed as income in the hands of the assessee on substantive basis for impugned ay under consideration.
4. The AO also observed that assessee had claimed depreciation on assets in respect of two new Chilling Plants set up at Aayilpatti and Karur, it was observed by AO that as per information submitted by assessee dated 14.10.2016, these two plants were commissioned for commercial production in the previous year 2014-15 which mentions the conditions under which these plants will be operated. The AO was of the view that it proves that the assets were not put to use during the previous year under consideration. The AO observed that the assessee has claimed depreciation as detailed below w.r.t. assets connected with these two new chilling units as under:
Depreciation on Aayilpatty CC Building Rs.
22,79,755/-
Depreciation on Karuu CC Building Rs.
19,41,701/-
Plant & Machinery Aayilpatty Rs.
26,23,623/-
Plant & Machiner Karuu Rs.
23,52,815/-
--------------
Rs. 91,97,894/-
--------------
The AO observed that since these two units have not commenced operations during the previous year under consideration , the assessee is not eligible to claim depreciation to the tune of ` 91,97,894/- on these two chilling plants located at Aayilpatti and Karur , which stood disallowed by ITA Nos.1321 & 1403/Chny/2018 :- 9 -:
AO, vide assessment order dated 30.12.2016 passed by AO u/s 143(3) of the 1961 Act.
5. With respect to additional depreciation claimed by assessee to the tune of Rs.66,35,246/- on Plant and Machinery installed in these two Chilling Plants newly set up , which as per AO has not commenced operations during the previous year under consideration,, the AO observed that assessee is only collecting milk and processing and packing it for sale and there is no manufacturing or production of any article or thing carried on by the assessee . Thus, the AO observed that the assessee is not entitled to claim additional depreciation . The AO further observed that since these 2 chilling units located at Aayilpati and Karur have not commenced operations during the previous year under consideration, therefore even otherwise depreciation is not allowable during the year under consideration, and hence claim of the assessee for additional depreciation to the tune of ` 66,35,246/- u/s 32(1)(iia) of the 1961 Act stood disallowed by AO and added to the income of the assessee, vide assessment order dated 30.12.2016 passed by AO u/s 143(3) of the 1961 Act
6. The AO also observed that assessee has availed term loans for setting up these two new chilling plants at Aayilpatty and Karur and interest on term loans to the tune of ` 60,82,257/- was incurred by assessee for the year under consideration and since these two units have not commenced operations till the end of previous year relevant to impugned ay , which led AO to refer to provisions of Section 36(1)(iii) of the 1961 Act to ITA Nos.1321 & 1403/Chny/2018 :- 10 -:
disallow these interest expenses which stood added to the income of the asssseee by the AO, vide assessment order dated 30.12.2016 passed by the AO u/s 143(3) of the 1961 Act.
7. The AO further observed that during the course of survey operations conducted by Revenue against the assessee on 06.11.2013 u/s 133A of the 1961 Act, the cash to the tune of Rs.26,35,769/- was physically found but however cash balance as per auditor's statement now filed with department as on the date of the survey was Rs.56,33,311/-, which led to excess cash to the tune of Rs.29,97,542/- reflected in books of accounts of the assessee, which led AO to conclude that assessee has introduced its unaccounted funds to the tune of ` 29,97,542/- in its books of accounts and since assessee has not explained sources of cash , the said cash differential to the tune of Rs.29,97,542/- was added by the AO as income of the assessee u/s 68 of the 1961 Act , vide assessment order dated 30.12.2016 passed by the AO u/s 143(3) of the 1961 Act .
8. Aggrieved by an assessment framed by AO vide assessment order dated 30.12.2016 u/s 143(3) of the 1961 Act , the assessee filed first appeal with Ld.CIT(A) and made detailed contentions before Ld.CIT(A). Regarding first issue of waiver of sundry creditors u/s 41(1) , the Ld.CIT(A) observed that assessee was surveyed u/s.133A of the Act on 06.11.2013 which indicated inflation of purchases and corresponding accumulation in sundry creditors for milk purchases. The learned CIT(A) observed that assessee has surrendered additional income by waiving certain sundry creditors and for impugned year under consideration , the ITA Nos.1321 & 1403/Chny/2018 :- 11 -:
assessee surrendered additional income of Rs.2 Crores by way of waiver of certain sundry creditors . The ld CIT(A) observed that this disclosure by the assessee of additional income of ` 2 crores was an adhoc one without having any basis. The Ld.CIT(A) observed that AO has brought out in his assessment order, the reasoning for making additions in respect of each category of sundry creditors. The learned CIT(A) observed that first category of the creditors is those where balance outstanding is more than one year old and such balance were not declared by assessee as its income of its own on account of waiver of Creditors. The ld CIT(A) observed that second category of sundry creditor is those where last purchase is more than one month old and payment for last purchases were made back to back, the learned CIT(A) observed that last category is of the creditors where the assessee had purchased till the last date of the financial year , but payments were made back to back implying no actual outstanding. The Ld.CIT(A) observed that assessee made statement during course of survey operations u/s.133A wherein assessee made admission and disclosed its modus operandi which led to surrender of additional income of ` 2 crores by the assessee for impugned ay under consideration which is not retracted by the assessee. The learned CIT(A) observed that assessee has admitted to have inflated purchases and overstated sundry creditors in its books of accounts. The learned CIT(A) observed that genuineness of sundry creditors balances is also in question. The assessee relied on judgment in the case of CIT v. Hotline Electronics Limited(2012) 205 taxman 245(Delhi) , while Ld.CIT(A) ITA Nos.1321 & 1403/Chny/2018 :- 12 -:
distinguished the aforesaid decision relied upon by the assessee and held that the assessee cannot take benefit of the said judgment which is distinguishable on facts and not applicable to the case of the assessee. 8.2 The Ld.CIT(A) also observed that assessee is in the business of collection, processing and distribution of milk . The learned CIT(A) observed that assessee procured milk from farmers through its collection centers/agents. The Ld.CIT(A) observed that on perusal of ledger accounts of milk collection centers/agents will reveal that the payments for milk purchases were made at weekly intervals which follows a particular pattern of back to back settlement leaving no credit balances.
The Ld.CIT(A) also observed that these farmers/procuring agents cannot afford to extend credit period of more than one or two weeks. The learned CIT(A) also observed that assessee has also not brought on record any differences in payments made to these farmers/procuring agents owing to spoilage, quality , quantity etc.. The Ld.CIT(A) observed that total milk purchased during the year under consideration was Rs.137 Crs. wherein average weekly purchase comes to Rs.2.63 Crs., the milk supply creditor balance of ` 13,71,68,433/- translates to 5.21 weeks purchases not settled. The learned CIT(A) observed that this defies the pattern of settlement in assessee's case and shows huge abnormality of sundry creditors carried in the Balance Sheet. The Ld.CIT(A) observed that AO has given allowance for one week purchases of milk amounting to Rs.2.54 Crs. while balance amount was added to the income of the assessee u/s.41(1)(a) of the Act , to the tune of Rs.10,99,14,393/-. The Ld.CIT(A) ITA Nos.1321 & 1403/Chny/2018 :- 13 -:
after considering totality of facts , creditor settlement trend in the business and also to cover other price variations and settlement disputes which are common in business gave further allowance for one week average purchases to the tune of Rs.2.63 Crs. ,while the balance amount was ordered to be added on account of cessation of liability i.e. the sundry creditors for milk purchase u/s.41(1)(a) of the Act, vide appellate order dated 14.02.2018 passed by learned CIT(A).
8.3 With respect to next issue relating to the disallowance of depreciation on Buildings and Plant & Machinery as well additional depreciation on the two new chilling plants claimed by the assessee to be commissioned at Aayilpatti and Karur. The Ld.CIT(A) observed that AO did not allowed depreciation as well as additional depreciation in the absence of evidence of the commissioning of Plant & Machinery and there were no evidence on record to prove that these assets were put to use during the previous year relevant to impugned assessment year. The learned CIT(A) observed that assessee had filed before Ld.CIT(A) copies of certificate from Department of Commerce & Industries, Tamil Nadu, Certificate from Pollution Control Board and EB Bill etc. in respect of the chilling plant at Navalpatty village, Namakkal District, which showed that the said chilling plants was commissioned on 12.07.2013 . The learned CIT(A) observed that , however, no evidence is furnished by assessee in support of commissioning of Karur Unit. The Ld.CIT(A) directed AO to allow depreciation on unit located at Navalpatty village. The Ld.CIT(A) also observed that AO vide letter dated 09.06.2017 stated that the assessee ITA Nos.1321 & 1403/Chny/2018 :- 14 -:
had received Rs.50 lakhs as capital subsidy for set up of the new chilling plants which was not reduced from 'actual cost' of the chilling plants while working out depreciation. The learned CIT(A) held that since depreciation has been allowed by him with respect to chilling plant located at Navalpatty village, the capital subsidy received in respect of that plant shall be considered in arriving the depreciation.
8.4 With respect to additional depreciation of Rs.66,35,246/- disallowed by AO u/s.32(1)(iia) of the 1961 Act with respect to both the chilling plants claimed to be newly commissioned during the impugned ay under consideration , the Ld.CIT(A) observed that the assessee is only collecting milk and processing & packaging it for sale and there is no manufacturing or production activity of any article or thing carried on by assessee to become eligible for additional depreciation within the provisions of Section 32(1)(iia) of the 1961 Act. The Ld.CIT(A) observed that chilling plant is used for pasteurization and standardization of milk for consumption which do not change the character of milk processed and there is no activity of production or manufacturing carried out by assessee and the assessee is not entitled for additional depreciation. The Ld.CIT(A) relied on the decision of the Hyderabad-tribunal in the case of Creamline Dairy Products Ltd. v. DCIT (2012) 27 taxmann.com 237(Hyd-trib.) and also decision of Special Bench -Pune tribunal in the case of BG Chitale v. DCIT reported in (2008) 115 ITD 97(Pune-SB) to hold that the assessee is not entitled for additional depreciation u/s 32(1)(iia) of the 1961 Act, vide appellate order dated 14.02.2018 passed by learned CIT(A).
ITA Nos.1321 & 1403/Chny/2018 :- 15 -:
8.5 The learned CIT(A) directed AO to allow interest expenses claimed by the assessee with respect to term loans borrowed for chilling plant located at Navalpatty Village in accordance with provisions of Section 36(1)(iii) of the 1961 Act, as the learned CIT(A) had already accepted that new chilling plant at Navalpatty Village has commenced operations during the previous year relevant to impugned assessment year, based on certificate issued by Department of Industries & Commerce. However, the learned CIT(A) confirmed disallowance of interest expenses claimed by assessee on term loans borrowed for setting up of chilling plant located at Karur on the ground that there is no evidence on record to prove that this chilling plant located at Karur has commenced operations during the year under consideration, vide appellate order dated 14.02.2018 passed by learned CIT(A).
8.6 With respect to the next issue of Rs.29,97,542/- as unexplained cash which was added by AO u/s. 68 of the 1961 Act owing to difference between physical cash found during the course of survey proceedings and the cash in hand as is recorded in audited books of accounts maintained by the assessee as produced before the AO during the course of assessment proceedings ,the Ld.CIT(A) observed that there appears to be shortage of cash in hand on the date of survey conducted by Revenue on 06.11.2013 u/s 133A of the 1961 Act which could be for various reasons but sources of cash in its books stood explained by assessee in his audited books of accounts maintained in regular course of business and nothing incriminating is brought on record by the AO , thus the learned CIT(A) ITA Nos.1321 & 1403/Chny/2018 :- 16 -:
accepted the contentions of the assessee and held that this shortfall of cash cannot be brought to tax as unexplained in the hands of the assessee. Thus, this addition stood deleted by Ld.CIT(A), vide appellate order dated 14.02.2018 passed by learned CIT(A).
9. Aggrieved by appellate order dated 14.02.2018 passed by learned CIT(A), both assessee and Revenue has come in appeal before the tribunal. The Revenue is aggrieved by deletion of addition to the tune of Rs.2.63 Crs. by allowing further allowance of credit of one week for milk purchases by Ld.CIT(A), wherein, the earlier additions were made by AO towards waiver of sundry creditors u/s 41(1)(1) of the 1961 Act for period of outstanding for milk purchases beyond one week. Secondly , the Revenue is aggrieved by deletion of addition by learned CIT(A) of Rs.29,97,542/- which was added earlier by the AO as the income of the assessee as an unexplained cash u/s.68 of the Act. The assessee on the other hand is aggrieved by confirmation by learned CIT(A) of the additions made by AO u/s.41(1)(a) of the Act towards waiver of sundry creditors except relief of Rs.2.63 Crs. granted by learned CIT(A) being credit of one more week of average purchases of milk. The assessee is also aggrieved by disallowance of depreciation on chilling plant located at Karur by Ld.CIT(A). The assessee is also aggrieved by confirmation of disallowance of interest expenses by Ld.CIT(A) on the ground that new chilling plant at Karur has not commenced its operations during the previous year relevant to impugned ay, which was earlier disallowed by the AO while framing assessment u/s 143(3) of the 1961 Act .
ITA Nos.1321 & 1403/Chny/2018 :- 17 -:
9.2 The Ld.Counsel for the assessee opened arguments before us and submitted that assessee is trader in milk . It was submitted that the assessee has given credit for purchase of milk to the suppliers , which stood added to the income of the assessee to the tune of Rs.10.99 Crs.
by AO on account of waiver of liability by invoking provisions of Section 41(1)(a) of the Act. Our attention was drawn to Para No.8 of assessment order and it was submitted that additions were made in ay: 2013-14 to the tune of Rs.5,06,56,197/- by invoking provisions of Sec.68 of the Act which was mainly due to difference in figures of sundry creditors in the hard disc found at the time of survey wherein there was a differential of the aforesaid amount of ` 5,06,56,197/- in balance recorded in hard disk as at 31.03.2013 and 01.04.2013 of the amounts payable to milk suppliers/creditors. It was submitted by learned counsel for the assessee that additions are again made by AO which is duplication to this extent. However, it is fairly submitted that the additions to the tune of ` 5,06,56,197/- was added by the AO on protective basis, as the same was earlier added as income of the assessee for ay: 2013-14. It was also brought to our notice that now tribunal has confirmed additions for ay:
2013-14 by estimating income by applying average GP ratio for three years. Our attention was drawn to tribunal order in assessee's own case in ITA No.1810/Mds/2016 for ay:2012-13, order dated 05.08.2016 and also in ITA No.3053/Mds/2016 for ay:2013-14 , order dated 26.07.2017. It was submitted that tribunal in assesee's own case for ay: 2012-13 and ITA Nos.1321 & 1403/Chny/2018 :- 18 -:
2013-14 has confirmed additions by estimating income of the assessee by considering average G.P. rate of three years, thus the aforesaid additions made by the AO to the income of the assessee for ay: 2013-14 due to differential in figures of milk creditors as aon 31.03.2013 and 01.04.2013 has become irrelevant.
9.3 The learned DR on the other hand submitted that it is a case where there is admittedly an inflation of purchases by the assessee. It was submitted by learned DR that survey was conducted by Revenue in the case of the assessee u/s.133A on 06.11.2013 and it was found that assessee is inflating its purchases of milk. It was submitted that there was a decline in GP ratio over the year's. Our attention was drawn to ITAT order for ay: 2012-13 and 2013-14 in assessee's own case, wherein the GP ratio for last several years is stated. Thus, learned DR prayed that assessment order passed by AO be confirmed/upheld on this issue of additions being made on account of waiver of sundry creditors. The learned DR submitted that there was a statement recorded of Partner during the course of survey operations on 06.11.2013 conducted by Revenue and in reply to question number 32 , the partner has admitted that there is an inflation of purchases. It was submitted by learned DR that Ld.CIT(A) erred in granting relief of Rs.2.63 Crs. to assessee on account of waiver of sundry creditors by way of extended credit period of one week.
9.4 The Ld.Counsel for the assessee in rejoinder relied upon decision of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Debi Prasad Malviya v. CIT ITA Nos.1321 & 1403/Chny/2018 :- 19 -:
reported in (1952)22 ITR 539(All HC) and submitted that now it is not open for authorities to take any other view in this year and only additions can be made by estimating income by taking average of GP of last three years.
9.5 The learned counsel for assessee submitted that assessee has been denied depreciation on new chilling plant at Karur on the grounds that the said unit has not commenced commercial operations as it was not put to use during the previous year relevant to impugned assessment year. The learned counsel for assessee submitted that it is bringing on record Certificate from Department of Town and Country Planning , dated 22.05.2012 and Certificate dated 21.08.2015 from Directorate of Industrial Safety and Health to prove that Karur chilling plant commenced its business operations during the year under consideration . These are admittedly an additional evidences filed by assessee for the first time before the tribunal. It was submitted by learned counsel for the assessee that additional depreciation claimed by assessee for both the new chilling plants has been denied to the assessee on the ground that assessee is undertaking pasteurization and standardization of milk . It is submitted that the assessee is engaged in the business of processing and manufacturing of cow milk. The learned counsel for the assessee relied on decision of the tribunal in assessee's own case in ITA No.1810/Mds/2016 for ay: 2012-13 and also in ITA No.3053/Mds/2016 for ay: 2013-14 . Our attention was drawn by learned counsel for the asssssee to orders of authorities below. The learned counsel for the assessee submitted that ITA Nos.1321 & 1403/Chny/2018 :- 20 -:
standardization and pasteurization of milk is infact manufacturing and hence assessee is entitled for additional depreciation u/s 32(1)(ia) of the 1961 Act.
9.6 The Ld.DR, on the other hand, submitted that assessee has not raised this issue of denial of deduction on account of additional depreciation u/s 32(1)(iia) in grounds of appeal filed with the tribunal and in the absence there of , now at this stage it is not open for the assessee to argue this issue before the Bench.
9.7 The learned counsel for the assessee fairly admitted that assessee did not raise ground of appeal with respect to disallowance of additional depreciation u/s 32(1)(iia) but it was submitted that general ground of appeal is raised by assessee in memo of appeal filed with the tribunal with respect to disallowance of depreciation.
9.8 The Ld.DR submitted that there is a difference of Rs.29,97,542/- in the audited cash book which was produced by assessee during the course of assessment proceedings and the physical cash found during the course of survey, the Ld.CIT(A) had deleted this addition without any basis as cash was found short during the course of survey while higher amount of cash is reflected on the date of survey in the audited books of accounts produced by assessee before the authorities during the course of assessment proceedings . It was submitted by learned DR that Ld.CIT(A) wrongly granted benefit of Rs.2.63 Crs. to assessee u/s.41(1)(a) of the Act by extending period of credit by further 7 days without any basis. The learned DR would submit that assessee has not provided list of sundry ITA Nos.1321 & 1403/Chny/2018 :- 21 -:
creditors. It was submitted by learned DR that detailed assessment order is passed by AO, our attention was drawn to Page Nos. 2 & 3 of the assessment order and it was submitted that sundry creditors were outstanding for more than one year . Reliance was placed by learned DR on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shri Pradeep Kumar Biyani v. ITO reported in (2019) 260 Taxman 298(SC). It was submitted that statement of Shri S.P. Loganathan , partner in assessee firm was recorded on 24.01.2014. It was submitted that statement recorded during the course of survey operations u/s.133A is admissible and liability to tax can be fastened based on the said statement. 10 We have considered rival contentions and perused the material on record including cited case laws. We have observed that assessee is in the business of milk diary and is doing standardization and pasteurization of milk. A survey action u/s. 133A of the 1961 Act was carried out by Revenue in the premises of assessee on 06.11.2013. During course of survey operations conducted by Revenue u/s 133A of the 1961 Act, the assessee had voluntarily declared additional income of Rs.2,05,98,000/-
on account of waiver of milk creditors. The assessee in its return of income filed with Revenue, however, declared an additional income of Rs.2 Crores on account of waiver of milk creditors. The case was selected by Revenue for framing of scrutiny assessment u/s 143(3) of the 1961 Act , and statutory notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the 1961 Act were issued by AO to the assessee. It is observed that assessee has more than 1000 milk center creditors and total milk purchases made by the assessee were ITA Nos.1321 & 1403/Chny/2018 :- 22 -:
to the tune of ` 137 crores during the year under consideration. The first addition was made on account of waiver of sundry creditors by invoking provisions of Section 41(1)(a) of the 1961 Act mainly on the allegation that the assessee has inflated purchases in its books of accounts wherein bogus purchases were introduced by assessee in its books of accounts or else payments were made to creditors for milk supplies out of undisclosed income of the assessee which did not get routed through books of accounts and led to the existence of these large creditors / milk suppliers in books of accounts , while infact these creditors in realty do not exist at all . Both Revenue as well assessee are aggrieved by decision of learned CIT(A), as part relief was granted by learned CIT(A). The AO had added all milk supplier creditors which were existing in books of accounts of the assessee as at the end of previous year which were outstanding for payment for more than one week , while learned CIT(A) gave part relief by accepting milk supplier creditors which were outstanding for payment for one more week beyond that what was allowed by the AO. The assessee was surveyed by Revenue u/s 133A on 06.11.2013. The partner of the assessee Mr. S.P. Loganathan in his statement recorded during the course of survey operations on 06.11.2013, in reply of question number 32 has itself admitted that the assessee is boosting its purchases in its books of accounts and fictitious purchases are introduced in the books of accounts of the assessee. The employee of the assessee Shri Ramaswamy in his statement recorded during the course of survey proceedings conducted by Revenue u/s 133A of the 1961 Act , on 20.11.2013 stated ITA Nos.1321 & 1403/Chny/2018 :- 23 -:
in reply to question number 6 and 7 that payment for milk purchases are made within a week's time by assessee to milk suppliers. The assessee had of his own voluntarily surrendered ` 2.06 crores during course of survey operations u/s 133A on 06.11.2013, towards waiver of sundry creditors on account of inflated purchases. While filing return of income with Revenue , the assessee itself has voluntarily offered for taxation ` 2 crores on account of waiver of milk creditors in the return of income filed with the Revenue. Incidentally , as is observed from material placed on record, large number of payments against purchases for milk were made by assessee to milk suppliers in cash and the same were not paid through banking channels. These purchases for milk are made by assessee and claimed as an expenditure/ deduction while computing income chargeable to tax and hence onus is on the assessee to prove that these purchases for milk are genuine. No doubt in earlier years viz. ay: 2012-13 and 2013- 14, the tribunal was pleased to estimate income of the assessee by applying average GP rate of three years but that does not absolve assessee from its liability dehors Section 41(1)(a) of the 1961 Act which creates a deeming fiction to bring to tax income in the hands of tax-payer in case of remission or cessation of liability as stipulated in said Section in the statute. By estimating income by applying average GP rate of three years, the tribunal has directed to bring to tax for ay: 2012-13 and 2013- 14, sale revenue in excess of the purchase price and other admissible expenses but that does not absolve assessee from its liability u/s 41(1)(a) of the 1961 Act in case of cessation or remission of trading liabilities.
ITA Nos.1321 & 1403/Chny/2018 :- 24 -:
These milk creditors are infact trading liabilities of the assessee for which assessee has already claimed deduction as an business expenditure/deduction while computing income chargeable to tax of the assessee for impugned ay or earlier ay's , and if now these trading liabilities ceases or remitted as is contemplated u/s 41(1)(a) of the 1961 Act , then the assessee can be fastened with tax liability in accordance with said provision. These amount are brought to tax by AO by invoking deeming fiction u/s 41(1)(a) of the 1961 Act on account of cessation or remission of liability of milk creditors as are existing in the books of accounts of assessee as outstanding for payment and primary onus is on Revenue to bring on record incriminating material to prove that these liabilities shown to be outstanding in books of account to be payable by the assessee are infact non-existent liabilities and the assessee is hit by provisions of Section 41(1)(a) of the 1961 Act. The 1961 Act is a taxing statute which is governed by preponderance of probabilities and strict rule of evidence may not be applicable. The normal conduct of business in regular course as is applicable to a particular business activities shall also be having an important bearing for fastening of tax liabilities if proper explanation for variations in normal conduct of business could not be explained/forthcoming from the tax-payer. Coming back to appeal in hand, the Revenue in order to discharge its primary burden as is cast u/s 41(1)(a) of the 1961 Act had brought on record following incriminating evidences/material against assessee to discharge their onus while invoking provisions of Section 41(1)(a) of the 1961 Act:-
ITA Nos.1321 & 1403/Chny/2018 :- 25 -:
a) Statement Recorded of Partner of the assessee firm , Mr. S.P.Loganathan during the course of survey operations admitting inflation of purchases.
b) Statement of employee Mr. Ramaswamy recorded during course of survey wherein he stated that payments for milk are made by assessee within a week's time, while books of accounts are showing large balances of old amounts purported to be payable to milk creditors which defy the said statement of employee of the assessee.
c) Surrender of ` 2.06 crores as income by the assessee during the course of survey operations owing to waiver of milk creditors /boosting of purchases.
d) Offer for taxation , aforesaid surrender of income to the tune of ` 2 crores , in return of income filed voluntarily by assessee with Revenue.
e) The existent of large amounts of old creditors on account of milk supplies in books of accounts of the assessee to be payable as on the last dated of previous year, which defy normal business transaction of the assessee as it is against its own normal conduct of assessee of making payments to milk creditors within a week time.
f) There was a difference in the balances of sundry creditors outstanding to be payable for milk supplies as on 31.03.2013 and 01.04.2013 , to the tune of more than ` 5,06,56,197/-, in ITA Nos.1321 & 1403/Chny/2018 :- 26 -:
the hard disk impounded by Revenue in the course of survey operations conducted by Revenue u/s 133A on 06.11.2013 , which led to additions of the said amount as income of the assessee for ay: 2013-14 by AO by invoking provisions of Section 68 of the 1961 Act.
Thus, the Revenue has discharged its initial burden that lay on it u/s 41(1)(a) of the 1961 Act to prove that state of affairs presented by assessee to Revenue as is reflected in its audited books of accounts for the relevant period is not true and correct and the amounts of sundry creditors are non-existent. The onus now get shifted to the assessee and it is now open for the assessee to have rebutted the findings of Revenue to prove that its sundry creditors as are existing in its books of accounts to be payable as at the end of the previous year, are genuine and assessee is liable to pay the said amount to milk creditors and the assessee is not hit by the provisions of Section 41(1)(a) of the 1961 Act, by bringing on record cogent material to rebut the incriminating material brought on record by Revenue. In a recent decision rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. S.Ajit Kumar reported in (2018) 404 ITR 526(SC) has in context of held that evidences found or collected during survey simultaneously made at a premises of connected person can be used for fastening liability against the tax-payer while framing its Block Assessment, wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
ITA Nos.1321 & 1403/Chny/2018 :- 27 -:
"15. The power of survey has been provided under Section 133A of the IT Act.
Therefore, any material or evidence found/collected in a Survey which has been simultaneously made at the premises of a connected person can be utilized while making the Block Assessment in respect of an assessee under Section 158BB read with Section 158 BH of the IT Act. The same would fall under the words "and such other materials or information as are available with the Assessing Officer and relatable to such evidence" occurring in Section158 BB of the Act. In the present case, the Assessing Officer was justified in taking the adverse material collected or found during the survey or any other method while making the Block Assessment."
It is not that the Revenue is solely relying on the statement recorded during course of survey operations rather Revenue is also relying on the difference in sundry creditors as on 31.03.2013 and 01.04.2013 as recorded in the hard disk impounded during survey operations and also on preponderance of probabilities to fasten tax liability on assessee on the grounds of waiver of sundry creditors . As is seen from ledger accounts of milk suppliers reproduced by the AO in his assessment order, that assessee is making payments for current invoices/supplies of milk to the vendors back to back against supplies of milk , while old payables for milk supplies purported to be made earlier during the year or in the preceding years are still pending/outstanding for payment in books of accounts of the assessee which led authorities below to draw adverse inference against assessee. The statement recorded during survey could be used to corroborate the evidences/material found/collected during survey and also for deviation against normal conduct of business in regular course of milk diary. The onus has not only now shifted to the assessee but is also heavy on assessee to properly explain all these deviation in the milk creditors outstanding for payment at the year end. It is incomprehensible and unbelievable that large number of milk suppliers will just supply milk ITA Nos.1321 & 1403/Chny/2018 :- 28 -:
to the assessee and shall not come forward or remains silent when it comes to claiming their payments against milk supplies made by them. The AO has categorized these purchases into three categories and made additions towards waiver of sundry creditors on the allegation that either these are inflated bogus purchases introduced in books of accounts or these purchases are paid in cash out of the undisclosed income of the assessee which are not recorded in books of accounts of the assessee. The AO had observed that in some cases old purchases are outstanding for more than a year and there are no transactions by assessee with these milk suppliers during the entire year under consideration . The AO has also categorized wherein payments against current purchases are made by assessee back to back, while old purchases for milk supplies remains unpaid. These are against normal conduct of business in regular course of business activities conducted by any tax-payer in the field of milk diary . The learned AO has made additions for all milk purchases which are outstanding for payment for more than one week , while learned CIT(A) gave part relief by accepting the purchases which were outstanding for payment for one more week and entire purchases outstanding for payment more than two weeks stood added to the income of the assessee by learned CIT(A). However, there could be some cases wherein genuinely the assessee had not made payments to these milk suppliers creditors and the assessee continued to be liable to these milk supplies vendor , albeit is payment is pending for more than one/two weeks. This requires enquiry and verifications of these milk supplies creditors . The authorities below ITA Nos.1321 & 1403/Chny/2018 :- 29 -:
have however made no enquiry with milk supplies creditors. No summons u/s 131 or notices u/s 133(6) were issued by AO/learned CIT(A) to these milk supplies creditors to verify about their genuineness and bonafide rather the entire sum wherein the payments were outstanding for more than one week stood added by the AO while learned CIT(A) gave part relief to the assessee by accepting creditors which were outstanding upto two weeks. The assessee has also to rebut said presumption by bringing on record complete details of each of these milk suppliers creditors such as name, address, PAN, reasons for non payments, any dispute with these milk suppliers, communication with these milk suppliers, claims filed by these milk suppliers with any court etc. . In our considered view based on facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of substantial justice to both the parties, the assessee deserves one more opportunity and the matter needs to be set aside and restored to the file of the AO for framing fresh assessment denovo on merits in accordance with law. We have already explained the onus which lay on both the parties. The assessee is directed to produce complete details of milk suppliers to the AO in set aside proceedings for making necessary enquiries and verifications, if deem fit by the AO in set aside proceedings . The AO is directed to provide proper and adequate opportunity of being heard to assessee in accordance with principles of natural justice in accordance with law. The AO shall admit evidences/explanations filed by the assessee in its defense in set aside denovo assessment proceedings in the interest of justice and then adjudicater on merits in accordance with ITA Nos.1321 & 1403/Chny/2018 :- 30 -:
law . Thus appeal filed by both the parties on this issue stand allowed for statistical purposes. We order accordingly.
11. The next issue in Revenue's appeal concerns itself with difference in physical cash found during the course of survey operations conducted by Revenue u/s 133A of the 1961 Act on 06.11.2013 which was physically found to the tune of ` 26,35,769/-, but while filing its return of income with Revenue, the assessee has shown cash in hand balance in its audited cash book to be the tune of ` 56,33,311/- as on 06.11.2013. The AO did not accepted this differential and made additions to the income of the assessee to the tune of ` 29,97,542/- u/s 68 of the 1961 Act while framing assessmen , while learned CIT(A) simply accepted the said differential without brining on record reconciliation statements explaining said differential in cash balance while adjudicating first appeal based on the amount certified by the auditors . In our considered view, the cash in hand was physically found to be ` 26,35,769/- during the course of survey operations conducted by Revenue on 06.11.2013 u/s 133A of the 1961 Act and it is the assessee's Managing Partner Mr. S.P.Loganthan in his statement recorded u/s 133A on 06.11.2013 in reply to question number 28 stated that cash book maintained by assessee is tallying with physical cash found during the course of survey operations on 06.11.2013 , except difference of ` 684/- which was explained to be difference in petty cash.
Now, the assessee is claiming cash balance in its books of accounts to be ` 56,33,311/- as on 06.11.2013 as against physical cash found during survey operations u/s 133A on 06.11.2013 of ` 26,35,769/- and hence ITA Nos.1321 & 1403/Chny/2018 :- 31 -:
onus is on assessee to bring out reconciliation statement before the authorities to reconcile justly the variation of ` 29,97,542/- and to explain that income component , if any arising due to aforesaid variation under the provisions of the 1961 Act has been offered to tax and due taxes paid to Revenue. In our considered view based on facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of substantial justice to both the parties, the matter needs to be set aside and restored to the file of the AO for framing fresh assessment denovo on merits in accordance with law. The assessee is directed to produce reconciliation statement reconciling aforesaid differential in cash before the AO in set aside proceedings and justification for said differential . The AO is directed to provide proper and adequate opportunity of being heard to assessee in accordance with principles of natural justice in accordance with law. The AO shall admit evidences/explanations filed by the assessee in its defense in set aside denovo assessment proceedings in the interest of justice and then adjudicate on merits in accordance with law. Thus , appeal filed by Revenue on this issue stand allowed for statistical purposes. We order accordingly.
12. The assessee in its appeal filed with tribunal has raised an ground of appeal being aggrieved by denial of depreciation on Buildings and Plant & Machinery with respect to its Karur Chilling Plant. The depreciation was disallowed by learned CIT(A) mainly on the grounds that Karur Chilling Plant has not commenced commercial operations until the end of previous year relevant to impugned assessment year as the assessee did not filed ITA Nos.1321 & 1403/Chny/2018 :- 32 -:
any evidence to substantiate the same. The assessee in course of appeal before tribunal has filed evidences by way of Certificate from Department of Town and Country Planning , dated 22.05.012 and Certificate from Directorate of Industrial Safety and Health , dated 21.08.2015. These are additional evidences filed by the assessee for the first time before the tribunal. We admit these additional evidences in the interest of justice . The authorities below , however, did not get an opportunity to verify these documents nor any enquiries could be made by authorities below in the context of these additional evidences to arrive at conclusion whether the new Karur Chilling Plant commenced operations until the end of previous year or not and hence accordingly, whether the assessee would be entitled to get depreciation on Building and Plant & Machinery for the year under consideration In all fairness to both the parties and in the interest of justice, we set aside and restore this matter to the file of the AO for framing fresh assessment denovo on merits in accordance with law. The assessee is directed to produce these additional evidences before the AO in set aside proceedings for making necessary enquiries and verifications, if deem fit by the AO in set aside proceedings . The AO is directed to provide proper and adequate opportunity of being heard to assessee in accordance with principles of natural justice in accordance with law. The AO shall admit evidences/explanations filed by the assessee in its defense in set aside denovo assessment proceedings in the interest of justice and then adjudicate the same on merits in accordance with law . Thus appeal ITA Nos.1321 & 1403/Chny/2018 :- 33 -:
filed by assessee on this issue stand allowed for statistical purposes. We order accordingly.
13. The connected matter with the aforesaid allowability of depreciation with respect to Karur Chilling Plant as discussed by us in para 12 above in this order , is the allowability of interest on term loans borrowed for incurring capital expenditure for installing said Karur Chilling Plant . The disallowance of interest on term loans borrowed for incurring capital expenditure for installing Karur Chilling Plant was on the grounds that the said Karur Chilling Plant had not commenced commercial operations and the assets thereof were not put to use. The decision by the AO as to whether the assessee did commence commercial production and put to use assets before the end of previous year relevant to impugned ay or not as per our decision in preceding para 12 was set aside to the AO and the decision of the AO in set aside denovo proceedings shall have direct bearing on the allowability of interest on term loans availed for incurring capital expenditure for installing Karur Chilling Plat. Thus, this matter is also remitted back to the file of the AO for framing denovo assessment and our observations and directions in para 12 above of this order will also equally apply as to allowability or disallowability of interest expenditure incurred during the year on term loans borrowed for incurring capital expenditure by way of Building, Plant & Machinery etc. for installing Karur Chilling Plant. We order accordingly.
14. The next issue raised by learned counsel for the assessee is regarding allowability of additional depreciation u/s 32(1)(iia) on both the new ITA Nos.1321 & 1403/Chny/2018 :- 34 -:
plants at Aaiyilapatti and Karur. No grounds of appeal are raised by assessee in context thereof with respect to denial of claim of additional depreciation u/s 32(1)(iia) by learned CIT(A) and hence we are afraid that in the absence thereof, we cannot entertain this issue at this stage. We can only decide the issue which are specifically raised before us and we cannot venture into an unchartered territory to do fishing expeditions. This plea raised by assessee is not accepted and stand rejected.
15. In the result, both the appeals filed by assessee and revenue are allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on this 05th November, 2019, at Chennai.
Sd/- Sd/-
(एन.आर.एस. गणेशन) (र"मत कोचर)
(N.R.S. GANESAN) (RAMIT KOCHAR)
या यक सद य/JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखा सद य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
चे नई/Chennai,
1दनांक/Dated: 05th November, 2019.
TLN
आदे श क/ , त"ल2प अ3े2षत/Copy to:
1. अपीलाथ+/Appellant 4. आयकर आयु4त/CIT
2. ,-यथ+/Respondent 5. 2वभागीय , त न ध/DR
3. आयकर आयु4त (अपील)/CIT(A) 6. गाड( फाईल/GF