M/S.madura Coats Pvt. Ltd.,New Jail Road,Madurai 625 001 v. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,Circle I,Madurai

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 14.09.2020 CORAM THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARIANDTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY Tax Case (Appeal) No.739 OF 2017 M/s.Madura Coats Pvt. Ltd.,New Jail Road,Madurai 625 001...Appellant Vs The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax,Circle I,Madurai...Respondent Tax Case Appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income TaxAct, 1961 against the order of the Income Tax AppellateTribunal, Chennai Madras D Bench dated 16/11/2016 inITA.No.770/Mds/2014, against the order of the Deputycommissioner of income Tax Department o/o the DeputyCommissioner of Income Tax- Circle I(1) No.2 V.P.RathnasamyNadar Road, Bibikulam, madurai 625 002 dated 28/01/2014 PANAABCM8279K, for Assessment Year 2009-10, circle I(1) Maduraistatus (company) and against the order of the Joint Commissionerof Income Tax Transfer presiding officer II, 3[rd] floor mainbulding Aayakar bhavan 121, Mahathma Gandhi Road chennai-6000034, dated 03/11/2011 PAN for the Assessment Year2009-2010 and against the order of the Assistant Commissioner ofIncome Tax Circle 1, Madurai dated 21/12/2012 ITA 2207,2212 &2213/MDS/2007 and ITA No.1982032 MDS/2011 PAN for theAssessment Year 2002-03 to 2004-05 and 2006-07 and 2007-08Respectively. For respondent : Mr.M.Swaminathan, Senior Standing counsel JUDGMENT (Delivered by DR.VINEET KOTHARI, J.) The Assessee, M/s.Madura Coats Pvt. Ltd., has filed thisappeal u/s 260A of the Income Tax Act, aggrieved by the orderdated 16 November 2016, of the learned Income Tax AppellateTribunal, Chennai, for AY 2009-10 2. The following purported substantial questions of law areraised in this appeal: 1.Whether the finding of the DRP andthe Tribunal that the decision of theTribunal in the appellants' own case for theearlier years has held that CUP method wasappropriately used in preference to TNMM isperverse? 2. Whether the Tribunal was right inholding that transactional net margin methodshould not be applied for benchmarking/computing arms length price in respect of0.88% of a transaction when 99.12% of theinternational transaction forming part ofsameclasshavebeensubjecttotransactional net margin method under Rule10B(1)(e) read with Rule 10C? 3. Whether the application of CUPmethod under Rule 10B(1)(a) is correct whenthe comparative data in relation to theprice for exports to AE as against a hon-AEis very different because of the market,mode of delivery, geography location andvolume of sale? 4. Whether the TPO can arrive at NILarms length price without even rejecting thearms length price arrived by the Appellantand without even mandatorily applying theprovisions of Section 92 and 92C wherein theTPO is bound compute the arms length priceas per the methods prescribed under Rule 10B?5. Whether the TPO has the jurisdictionto question the commercial expediency inrelation to expenditure incurred by theAppellant for its business purpose? 6. Whether the TPO has the jurisdictionto decide how the assessee should conductits business and regarding the necessity orotherwise of incurring the expenditure inthe interests of its business? 7. Whether the TPO, DRP and Tribunalerred in not appreciating that the TheCentral Agency (‘TCA’) renders variousservices to the Appellant such as demand andsupply management, forecasting of monthly /quarterly/annualdemand,rollingforecasts, raising of the purchase orders,acting as a central coordination agent inconnection with the supply chain?8. Whether the TPO, DRP and Tribunalwere correct in disallowing the commissionexpenditure incurred by the Appellantcontending that such expenditure has notresulted in any benefit to the Assesseeinstead of computing Arms Length Price underSections 92 and 92C read with Rule 10B? 7. Whether the TPO, DRP and Tribunalerred in not appreciating that the TheCentral Agency (‘TCA’) renders variousservices to the Appellant such as demand andsupply management, forecasting of monthly /quarterly/annualdemand,rollingforecasts, raising of the purchase orders,acting as a central coordination agent inconnection with the supply chain?8. Whether the TPO, DRP and Tribunalwere correct in disallowing the commissionexpenditure incurred by the Appellantcontending that such expenditure has notresulted in any benefit to the Assesseeinstead of computing Arms Length Price underSections 92 and 92C read with Rule 10B? 3. The learned Tribunal, in the case of the Assessee, whichis a manufacturer of various kinds of threads, has held inparagraph 12 of its order, referring to the order for theprevious Assessment years, wherein it had clearly decided thatfor international transactions, CUP method (ComparableUncontrolled Price Method) was appropriately used for makingTransfer Pricing Adjustment (for short, TP Adjustment) underSection 92C of the Income Tax Act, in comparison to TNM Method(Transactional Net Margin Method) under the said provision, andfor recalculating TP adjustment for the present AY 2009-10, thematter was remitted back to the learned Transfer Pricing Officer. Paragraph 12 of the order of the learned Tribunal dated16 November 2016, is quoted below for ready reference. “12. In our opinion, the decision of theTribunal is clear in that CUP method wasappropriately used in preference to TNMmethod. The only modification suggested bythe Tribunal was to consider the externalcomparables also and this direction wasgiven noting, the submissions of theassessee that external comparables could beplaced on record for determining the ArmsLength Price under CUP method, if it wasgiven an opportunity. The above decision wasavailable with the DRP when it was dealingwith the matter for the impugned assessmentyear. That assessee could not furnish anyexternal comparable has been specificallynoted by the ld. DRP at para 2.7 of itsorder. Hence, in our opinion assessee cannotsay that ld. DRP had not taken propercognizance of the Tribunal order for the earlier years. Apart from this, what we findis that there were forty nine number ofitems in which internal comparables whichwere totally uncontrolled were readilyavailable. No doubt, it is true that Punebench in the case of Amphenol InterconnectIndia P. Ltd (supra) held that CUP methodwas not appropriate for evaluating part ofthe exports. But the reasons for taking thesaid view was on account of difficulties incarrying out the adjustments for differencesbetween the transactions with AssociatedEnterprise and Non Associated Enterprise,which is not the case here. 13. Coming to the contention of the ld.Authorised Representative that Sec. 92C oftheActmandatesadjustmentanddetermination of Arms Length Price on aclass of transactions, it is necessary tohave a look of Sec. 92C(1) of the Act, whichis reproduced hereunder:- ‘1) The arm’s length price in relationto an international transaction or specifieddomestic transaction shall be determined byany of the following methods, being the mostappropriate method, having regard to thenature of transaction or class oftransaction or class of associated personsor functions performed by such persons orsuch other relevant factors as the Board mayprescribe, namely : (a) comparable uncontrolled price method; (CUP) (b) resale price method ; (RPM) (c) cost plus method ; (CPM) (d) profit split method ; (PSM) (e) transactional net margin method ;(TNMM) (f) such other method as may beprescribed by the Board’’. ‘1) The arm’s length price in relationto an international transaction or specifieddomestic transaction shall be determined byany of the following methods, being the mostappropriate method, having regard to thenature of transaction or class oftransaction or class of associated personsor functions performed by such persons orsuch other relevant factors as the Board mayprescribe, namely : (a) comparable uncontrolled price method; (CUP) (b) resale price method ; (RPM) (c) cost plus method ; (CPM) (d) profit split method ; (PSM) (e) transactional net margin method ;(TNMM) (f) such other method as may beprescribed by the Board’’. A reading of the above, clearly indicatethat the most appropriate method has to beselected having regard to the nature oftransactions or class of transactions. Inour opinion, when uncontrolled comparablesare available internally on some of theitems which was sold to AssociatedEnterprise then such comparables would forma separate class of its own. TPO had considered forty nine thread types for whichtherewereinternaluncontrolledtransactions available for comparison. TPOhad not made an adjustment for any of theother varieties of thread sales made by theassessee to its Associated Enterprise.Nevertheless, we do find that at least foreight items among these forty nine threadtypes, mentioned at Sl.No.27, 28, 30, 35,37, 38, 39 & 44, there was negativedifferences adjustment which were ignored bythe TPO, in the work out at annexure A ofits order. When a class of items areconsidered for adjustment, the negativeeffect of some of the items therein cannotbe ignored. As for contention of theassessee is that there were geographicaldifference between supplies made toAssociated Enterprise and Non AssociatedEnterprise, there is a clear finding by theld. DRP that assessee was catering to Asiancountries and Associated Enterprise werelocated in Sri Lanka, Mauritius, Pakistanand Egypt and Non Associated Enterpriseswere located in Srilanka, Bangladesh, Malawietc with not much of a geographicaldifference.Viz-a-vizvolumediscountmentionedbytheld.AuthorisedRepresentative, ld. DRP had given a clearfinding that there were substantial sales inalteast in five items falling in the tableappearing in para 2.10 of its order.Considering all these, we are the opinionthat lower authorities were justified inselecting CUP method over TNM method.However, as mentioned by us, computation ofthe Arms Length Price adjustment required onforty nine number of items mentioned in theorder of TPO requires to be reworked, sothat negative amounts are also consideredfor aggregation and for working out the ArmsLength Price adjustment that is required.For this limited purpose of recalculation,we remit the issue back to the file of theAssessing Officer/TPO. 4. The second issue raised before us, arising from the sameorder of the learned Tribunal, is with regard to some commissionpaid to M/s.The Central Agency, appointed by the Assessee under https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the Supplemental Agreement dated 24 March 2005, to avail itsservices for finding market for the said threads and procuringthe purchase orders from all over the world. The learnedTribunal disallowed the said expenditure in the form ofcommission paid to M/s.The Central Agency on the ground thatthere is no evidence for actual agency services availed by theAssessee being produced before the learned Tribunal and merelyraising of invoices does not give rise to any presumption ofrendering the actual service and therefore, the payment of suchcommission to M/s.The Central Agency was not an allowableexpenditure. The relevant portion of the order of the learnedTribunal in the impugned order in this regard are also quotedbelow for ready reference :- the Supplemental Agreement dated 24 March 2005, to avail itsservices for finding market for the said threads and procuringthe purchase orders from all over the world. The learnedTribunal disallowed the said expenditure in the form ofcommission paid to M/s.The Central Agency on the ground thatthere is no evidence for actual agency services availed by theAssessee being produced before the learned Tribunal and merelyraising of invoices does not give rise to any presumption ofrendering the actual service and therefore, the payment of suchcommission to M/s.The Central Agency was not an allowableexpenditure. The relevant portion of the order of the learnedTribunal in the impugned order in this regard are also quotedbelow for ready reference :- “What the assessee was bound to pay wascommission based on net invoice value. Whatthe agent was supposed to do was promote thesale of the assessee. Finding of the ld. TPOis that no such services were rendered bythe TCA to the assessee. It is not disputedthat invoices were raised by the TCA on theassessee, based on the net value of theorder. It is also not disputed that supplieswere made by the assessee only to its groupconcerns. The question that is to beaddressed is whether TCA had procured theorders for the assessee as its agent. Ld.Assessing Officer had given a clear findingthat no services in the nature ofprocurement of any orders were discernablefrom the e-mail correspondence between theassessee and M/s. TCA. Argument of theassessee before ld. TPO and ld. DRP was thatprimary role of M/s. TCA was to indentifythe requirements of the assessee and getorders. However, no evidence whatsoever wasproduced by the assessee in support of thiscontention. It was for the assessee to showthe services it had received from M/s. TCA.When the supplies were all to groupconcerns, we cannot fathom what marketingservices could have been done by M/s. TCA.No doubt, Hon’ble Delhi High Court in thecase of M/s. EKL Appliances Ltd (supra) hadheld that legitimate business needs of theassessee should be understood from the pointof a prudent businessman and it was not forthe Assessing Officer to dictate what thebusiness needs. There can be no quarrel on this view taken by the Hon’ble Delhi HighCourt. Nor can there be any quarrel on theview taken by the same Court that ld. TPOshould not question how to conduct thebusiness. These judgments cannot in ouropinion be extra-polated to mean that thererested no onus on the assessee, to show thebusiness purpose for which payments wereeffected by it. Commercial necessity of apayment is something which is well withinthe power of an assessee to decideconsidering its business interest. However,it cannot say that such commercial necessityor expediency has to be presumed. Assesseewas bound to show the agency servicesrendered by M/s. TCA which it failed to do.Mere raising of bills cannot give rise topresumption of rendering any services. Asalready noted by us the orders on whichcommission was paid was only on items soldto group concerns and not to any thirdparties. There is much strength in theargumentoftheld.DepartmentalRepresentative that in such a situation onusof the assessee was much more than in ascenario where orders on which commissionwas received were on supplies to thirdparties. Assessee had failed to dischargethis. Consolidation of fragmented orderscould have been done by the assessee itselfand did not require services of anAssociated Enterprise or knowledge of anysublims stalls. When assessee was unable tobring on record anything to show for whatreason agency commission was paid, in ouropiniontherearoseanexceptionalcircumstance where by Arms Length Pricecould be taken as Nil. As for decision ofthe Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the caseM/s. McCann Erickson India (P) Ltd (supra)strongly relied by the ld. AuthorisedRepresentative, assessee therein was able todemonstratethetypeofservices,description of service and benefits receivedby the it from its Associated Enterprise.Further, the payment was not agencycommission but management commission fees.In the host of other judicial decisionsrelied by the ld. Authorised Representativealso the question dealt was on the management fees and not on agencycommission. In these circumstances, we donot find any reason to interfere with theorders of the lower authorities. Ground No.3stands dismissed. 5. The learned counsel for the Assessee Mr.Sandeep Bagmar,drew our attention to the previous order of the learned Tribunaldated 21 December 2012, by which the learned Tribunal decidedthe appeals for preceding years viz., ITA Nos.2207, 2212 and2213/Mds/2007 [AY 2002-03 to 2004-05] (Asst. Commissioner ofIncome Tax vs. M/s.Madura Coats Pvt. Ltd.) as well as ITA Nos.19& 2032/MDS/2011 (AY 2006-07 and AY 2007-08) (M/s.Madura CoatsPvt. Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax). 6. Paragraph 12 of the previous order passed by the learnedTribunal on 21 December 2012 is quoted below for ready reference: 12. In view of the above, we are of theconsidered opinion that the matter requiresfresh adjudication. The order passed by theDRP is in subsequent years to the order ofCIT(A), the orders passed by CIT(A) inassessment year 2002-03 to 2005-06 will havebearing in later years. We therefore, remitthe matter back to the CIT (A) for theassessment years 2006-07 and 2007-08 fordeciding the matter afresh by passing adetailed and speaking order. The CIT(A)/DRPwhile adjudicating the matter afresh shallinteralia take into account externalcomparableswhiledeterminingtheinternational pricing. The counsel for theAssessee has made a statement at the Barthat the Assessee would provide details ofinternational comparables. The CIT(A)/DRPshall also take into consideration thedifferent market conditions. The marketconditions does not mean geographicalcondition alone but also includes the sizeof the market, demand and other relevantfactors influencing the market conditions asa whole. 13. For the Assessment Year 2003-04 and2004-05 the Revenue has raised additionalground of export incentive provide to theAssessee under Section 80HHC. The D.R. Hasfairly conceded that now this issue is squarely covered in favour of the Assesseeby the judgment of the Hon'ble Hon'bleSupreme Court of India in the case of TopmanExports vs. CIT, reported as 342 ITR 49(SC).Accordingly, we dismiss this ground ofappeal of the Revenue.” 7. The learned counsel for the Assessee, Mr.Sandeep Bagmar,therefore, submitted that there was no clear finding of thelearned Tribunal in the previous order dated 31 December 2012,for the previous assessment years, that only CUP Method shouldbe adopted for TP adjustment and not TNM Method, which theAssessee wanted to adopt, looking at the nature of business. TheAssessee also undertook before the learned Tribunal that itwould supply the data relating to other external comparables inthe market available, so that appropriate TP adjustments couldbe made. But, however, misconstruing the same, the Tribunal hasmade a remand with specific direction for this AY 2009-10, thatCUP Method was the most appropriate method to be adopted underSection 92C of the Act for the Assessee, the learned Tribunalhas bound down the lower authorities to adopt the CUP Method andmake TP Adjustments accordingly and only for re-computation ofthe TP Adjustments according to CUP Method, the matter has beenremitted back to the lower authorities. He, therefore, submittedthat the present remand by the learned Tribunal for AY 2009-10shall also be held to be only an open remand, leaving it freefor the learned TPO to decide once again as to which is the mostappropriate method to be adopted in the facts and circumstancesof the case, for TP Adjustment, whether CUP method or TNM Methodand then make T.P. Adjustments, if any. 8. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the RevenueMr.Swaminathan, also submitted that in pursuance of the previousremand order of the learned Tribunal dated 21 December 2012, forthe previous assessment years, as stated above, for some of theassessment years, orders have been passed by the TPO/DRP below,and again the Assessee has preferred appeals before the learnedTribunal itself which are also pending there. He submitted thatfor such previous years, since CUP Method was again adopted bythe learned authorities like CIT (Appeals) or Dispute ResolutionPanel, the Assessee being dissatisfied with the same, has againpreferred appeals before the learned Tribunal and even thoseappeals are pending before the learned Tribunal. 9. Mr.Swaminathan, learned Counsel for the Revenue, fairlysubmitted that for previous years also, though there was nospecific and categoric finding by the learned Tribunal that CUPMethod is the most appropriate method for the authorities toadopt in the case of the Assessee, but the Tribunal has observedso in paragraph 12 of the impugned order, for the present Assessment Year 2009-10, as quoted above. 10. On the second issue regarding allowing commission paidto M/s.The Central Agency, Mr.Sandeep Bagmar, learned counselfor the Assessee, argued that for all the previous years, suchexpenditure or commission paid the same to M/s.The CentralAgency was allowed as 'Business Expenditure', on the basis ofsimilar evidence produced before the authorities below, but thelearned Tribunal, for the first time, for the AY 2009-10, hasdisallowed the same on its own wrong assumption that no suchevidence of actual agency services was available on record. Hetherefore submitted that even this issue deserves to be remandedback to the learned Tribunal for deciding the same on the basisof available materials and evidence on record, as the Assesseehad incurred those expenditure actually and there was commercialexpediency for incurring the same and such a decision aboutcommercial expediency lies only with the Assessee and not withthe Assessing Authority. 11. On the said issue, Mr.Swaminathan submitted that theTribunal may be permitted to look into the past history of theAssessee and depending on the materials and evidence on record,the Tribunal may decide the issue afresh, in accordance with law. 12. We have heard the learned counsel on both sides andperused the materials on record. 13. While we make it clear that in our opinion, which methodwill be most appropriate to be adopted for TP Adjustment by theAuthorities of the Department, is to be decided by fact findingbodies only, as section 92C does not give any guidelines, as towhich method whether CUP Method or TNM Method is appropriate tobe applied in the facts and circumstances of a particularAssessee, looking to the nature of business. Though there arerules framed under the said provision in the Income Tax Rules,1962, but it always depends on the facts and circumstances ofeach case, as to which method has to be adopted and which methodis the most appropriate method to be adopted. In our opinion, itis not even a question of law, to be considered by the HighCourt. 14. Be that as it may, in our opinion, the only observationwhich we, in the present appeal, intend to make is that there isobviously a misreading of the previous order dated 21 December2012, passed by the learned Tribunal for the previous AssessmentYears, while deciding the present appeal for AY 2009-10. Whilethe earlier order made an open remand to the authorities belowto decide as to which is most appropriate method to be adopted,CUP Method or TNM Method, the learned Tribunal, by the impugnedorder dated 16 November 2016 for AY 2009-10 has apparently,fallen into error, in holding that the CUP Method as theappropriate method and that this issue was already decided byTribunal, which was not the correct reading of the previous order dated 21.12.2012. 15. A bare reading of paragraph 12 of the order passed bythe learned Tribunal for the previous years dated 21.12.2012would also show that it was an open remand and no specificmethod was finalized by the Tribunal in the previous order ofthe appeal for previous assessment years. This misreading of theprevious order by the learned Tribunal while passing the presentimpugned order on 16.11.2016 has resulted in multiplicity of thelitigation and after remand also, as stated by the learnedcounsel for the Department before us, a second round of appealshas again come up before the learned Tribunal itself, whichappeals are said to be pending before the learned Tribunal as ofnow. 16. We are therefore constrained to observe that theTribunal, being the final fact finding body, ought to havefinalized the said exercise of final fact finding at its ownlevel, instead of remanding cases again and again, which in ouropinion defeats the very purpose of expeditious disposal of TPadjustments in the case of international transactions u/s 92C ofthe Act, read with relevant Rules framed under the provisions ofthe Act, as such huge delays upon remand/ reassessment orreadjudication, and then again, second round of appeal beforethe Tribunal, unnecessarily projects a very bad image of delaysby the Revenue Department on the international scenario, wherethe expectations of the Revenue Department in India is ofexpeditious adjudication and not a remand and readjudication andthen second round of appeals, as if it was a shuttle gamebetween the Assessee and the Revenue Authorities. With theRevenue Authorities as well as the final fact finding AppellateForum, are two places where the issues like this are expected toachieve a finality. 17. We do not want to make any kind of adverse comments inthis regard, having high respect for a final fact finding bodylike the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, under the Income TaxAct, but we leave it for the learned Tribunal, with a request todecide the issue on merits, on the issues of TP Adjustments,giving a finality on the basis of materials and evidence beforeit. It is needless to say that the learned Tribunal itselfenjoys the power of a Civil Court to summon the relevantevidence and material before itself. As given in the presentcase, if the data relating to external comparables were notavailable before it, the learned Tribunal could have very welldirected both the sides, viz., the Revenue Authorities below andthe Assessee, to adduce relevant evidence before itself. TheAssessee in the present case had undertaken to produce therelevant data relating to external comparable before the learnedTribunal. Therefore, it was only matter of some time to begranted by the Tribunal to direct both the sides to adduce suchevidence from the public domain available for comparison, to decide as to which is the most appropriate method to be adoptedlooking to the nature of business etc. as in Section 92C of theAct. Of course, the mathematical computation work could havebeen left to the Adjudicating Authorities below, or done by theTribunal itself with the assistance of Counsels/Assessees etc.As far as the appropriateness of the method to be adopted for TPadjustments was required to be done, in our considered opinion,the Tribunal should not have remanded the matter back to theauthorities below and that too to the two different authorities,viz., Dispute Resolution Panel and Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals), in previous order, and that too by committing amistake of misreading of the previous order dated 21.12.2012 andholding that CUP Method was already decided to be the onlyappropriate method, whereas the Assessee has been contendingotherwise throughout, and is aggrieved by the adoption of theCUP method and was pressing of TNM Method. In the facts andcircumstances of the case, and Assessee is again in the secondround of appeals before the learned Tribunal against the orderspassed by the authorities below on the remand made by theprevious order dated 21.12.2012. 18. Like we are seeing in the present case, it was expectedof the learned Tribunal also to realize the consequences of anopen remand made or a remand made to the authorities below onlyfor re-computation with the appropriateness of the methoddecided finally at its own end. The multiplicity of thelitigation and rounds of appeal, what we have described as ashuttle game, should have been seen by the learned Tribunal andtherefore, we expect at least from now on, the learned Tribunalwill decide on the issue of the appropriateness of the methodfor TP adjustments, while deciding all the pending appealsbefore it, as far as this Assessee is concerned and also otherAssessees by recording its own reasons and taking into accountthe relevant evidence and materials on record, and if necessary,by calling additional evidence before it, with regard to theexternal comparables, from both the sides. We do not expect afurther open remand by the learned Tribunal on the said issueany more because such decision of the learned Tribunal is likelyto affect not only the years under consideration before thelearned Tribunal but also the future assessment years, as theAssessee continues to remain in the same business for suchfuture years also. 19. As far as the second question is concerned aboutallowing of the commission paid to M/s.The Central Agency as'Business Expenditure', we leave it free for the Tribunal tolook into the past history of the Assessee about theallowability of the said expenditure, and as such expenditurefor the previous years has been consistently allowed by theRevenue Authority below, and there was no contrary finding bythe learned Tribunal for the previous years. We do not find the reasons given by Tribunal in its impugned order dated16.11.2016, sufficient enough to distinguish the judgment ofDelhi High Court in the case of M/s. EKL Appliances Ltd. Thelearned Tribunal may re-decide the said issue also fairly andobjectively in the light of the materials available before itfor the present AY 2009-10 also. 20. With these observations, without answering the questionsof law raised before us, we set aside the order of the learnedTribunal dated 16 November 2016 for AY 2009-10, with a requestto decide both the issues appropriately, as noted above, aftergiving opportunity of hearing to both sides and if necessary, toallow them to adduce relevant evidence also before it. In viewof the matters having already taken long so far to be decidedright from AY 2002-03 to AY 2009-10, after which about 10-11years have now passed by, we request the learned Tribunal todecide the appeals now within a period of six months from today. 21. With these observations, the appeal of Assessee isdisposed of. There is no order as to costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar //True Copy// tar To1.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'D' Bench, Chennai. 2.The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax , II floor main bulding ,Aayekar bhavan 121, Mahathma Gandhi Road, Chennai 600 0034. 3.The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Department,o/o the Deputy Commissioner of Income tax circle I(1)No.2 V.P.Rathnasamy Nadar Road, Bibikulam , Madurai. 4.The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle, Madurai. +1 cc to M/s.M.Swaminathan, Advocate Sr.No. 29960 T.C.A.No.739 OF 2017 AD(CO)RMP(21/10/2020)