M/s. Shriram Tower Tech Ltd., CHENNAI V. ACIT, CHENNAI

CO 157/CHNY/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 122 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8454 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 29-04-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 16-04-2013
• Assessment Year: 2002-2003
• Appeal Filed On: 04-11-2011
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R SIVARAMAN
• Keywords: Bogus purchase; Revenue expenditure
• Section: 143(3); 37; 6; 144

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, CHENNAI. BEFORE DR. O.K. NARAYANAN, VICE-PRESIDENT & SHRI S.S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NOS. 1394, 1395 AND 1396/MDS/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2002-03, 2003-04 AND 2004-05 & C.O. NO. 157AND 156/MDS/2011 [IN I.T.A. NOS. 1394 A ND 1395/MDS/2011] THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COMPANY CIRCLE VI(2), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, NEW BLOCK, M.G. ROAD, 7 TH FLOOR, CHENNAI 600 034. VS. M/S. SHRIRAM TOWERTECH LTD., NO. 18/3, SIGAPPIACHI BUILDING, 1 ST FLOOR, RUKMANI LAKSHMIPATHY ROAD, EGMORE, CHENNAI 600 008. [PAN: AAACS7051E] (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT/ CROSS OBJECTOR) APPELLANT BY : SHRI SHAJI P. JACOB, ADDL. CIT RESPONDENT BY : SHRI R. SIVARAMAN, ADVOCATE DATE OF HEARING : 16.04.2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 29.04.2013 ORDER PER S.S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER THESE THREE REVENUES APPEALS PERTAIN TO ASSESSMEN T YEARS 2002-03, 2003-04 AND 2004-05. THE ASSESSEES CROSS OBJECTION S ARE IN ASSESSMENT YEARS 2003-04 AND 2002-03 ONLY. THE APPEALS AND OBJ ECTIONS EMANATE FROM SEPARATE ORDERS OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ( APPEALS) V, CHENNAI; I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. NO NONO NOS SS S. .. .1394 1394 1394 1394- -- -1396 1396 1396 1396/M/ /M/ /M/ /M/1 11 11 11 1 & && & C.O. C.O. C.O. C.O. NO NONO NOS SS S. .. .15 1515 157 & 7 & 7 & 7 & 15 1515 156 66 6/M/11 /M/11 /M/11 /M/11 2 ALL DATED 05.05.2011 PASSED IN ITA NO. 240/2005-06, ITA NO. 162/06-07 AND 508/2006-07; RESPECTIVELY. THE RELEVANT PROCEEDINGS ARE UNDER SECTION 144 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 [IN SHORT THE ACT] FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03; AND FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2003-04 AND 2004-05, T HEY ARE UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT. I.T.A. NO. 1394/MDS/2011 AND C.O. NO. 157/MDS/2011 2. THE CONTENTIONS OF THE REVENUE AND THE ASSESSEE RESPECTIVELY; ARE THAT THE CIT(APPEALS) HAS WRONGLY CONFIRMED THE ADD ITION OF ` .23,03,594/- BY MODIFYING THAT MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO THE TUNE OF ` .1,15,17,967/-. AS PER REVENUE, THE CIT(APPEALS) SHOULD HAVE CONFIR MED THE ENTIRE ADDITION WHICH HAS BEEN WRONGLY MODIFIED BY INVOKING SECTION 40(A)(3) OF THE ACT. 3. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE ASSESSEE IMPUGNS THE ADD ITION TO THE EXTENT IT STANDS SUSTAINED BY THE CIT(APPEALS) BY INVOKING SE CTION 40(A)(3). IN THE COURSE OF HEARING AS WELL, BOTH PARTIES STI CK TO THE RESPECTIVE STANDS IN PLEADINGS. 4. COMING TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE ASSESSEE I S A FIRM ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING-CUM-TRADING OF COOLIN G TOWERS MADE UP OF STEEL. IN THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR, IT HAD RET URNED LOSS OF ` .1,07,55,527/-. IN THE COURSE OF SCRUTINY, THE AS SESSING OFFICER SOUGHT FOR I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. NO NONO NOS SS S. .. .1394 1394 1394 1394- -- -1396 1396 1396 1396/M/ /M/ /M/ /M/1 11 11 11 1 & && & C.O. C.O. C.O. C.O. NO NONO NOS SS S. .. .15 1515 157 & 7 & 7 & 7 & 15 1515 156 66 6/M/11 /M/11 /M/11 /M/11 3 DETAILS FROM THE ASSESSEE QUA STEEL PURCHASES OF ` .1,15,17,967/- IN ITS PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT. ON BEING PUT UP TO NOTICE FOR VER IFICATION BY WAY OF NECESSARY DETAILS SUCH AS DELIVERY CHALLAN(S), QUAN TITY DETAILS, GATE PASS ETC., IT FAILED TO PRODUCE ANY DETAILS DESPITE BEIN G GRANTED OPPORTUNITIES. THIS PROMPTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO TAKE RECOURSE TO THE BEST JUDGMENT ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 144 OF THE ACT. IN COURSE THEREOF, THE ASSESSING OFFICER CAME ACR OSS STATEMENT OF ONE SHRI ABHAY KUMAR, PROPRIETOR OF M/S. SAMBHAV STEEL DISTRIBUTORS & M/S. SMBHAV TRADERS. THE ASSESSEES STEEL PURCHASES PERT AINED TO THESE ENTITIES. IN A SURVEY CONDUCTED UNDER SECTION 133 A OF THE ACT IN ASSESSEES PREMISES ON 09.12.2003, THE DEPARTMENT H AD COME ACROSS INCRIMINATING MATERIAL IS ACCOMMODATION BILLS ISS UED BY SHRI ABHAY KUMAR. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO LEAD ANY COGENT EV IDENCE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 31.03.2005 PL ACED RELIANCE ON THE AFORESAID STATEMENT AND DISALLOWED THE STEEL PURCH ASES OF ` .1,15,17,967/-. 5. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL. IT IS FOUND FROM THE ORDER UNDER CHALLENGE PASSED BY THE CIT(APPEALS) THAT IN LOWER APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEES MAIN CONTENTION WAS THA T SINCE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD ACCEPTED ITS SALE TRANSACTIONS, THE PUR CHASE TRANSACTION COULD NOT BE DISALLOWED, WHICH STANDS ACCEPTED BY THE CIT (APPEALS). AT THE SAME TIME, BY TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE BLACK MARKET IN STEEL PURCHASES, HE I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. NO NONO NOS SS S. .. .1394 1394 1394 1394- -- -1396 1396 1396 1396/M/ /M/ /M/ /M/1 11 11 11 1 & && & C.O. C.O. C.O. C.O. NO NONO NOS SS S. .. .15 1515 157 & 7 & 7 & 7 & 15 1515 156 66 6/M/11 /M/11 /M/11 /M/11 4 HAS ALSO CONCLUDED THAT THE ASSESSEE MIGHT HAVE USE D CASH TO PURCHASE THE STEEL FROM OPEN MARKET. HENCE, BY APPLYING THE MATC HING CONCEPT, THE CIT(APPEALS), WITHOUT ANY SUCH ISSUE, HAS INVOKED S ECTION 40(A)(3) OF THE ACT AND DISALLOWED AN AMOUNT OF ` .23,03,594/- AT THE RATE OF 20% OUT OF THE TOTAL DISALLOWANCE OF ` .1,15,17,967/-. THIS LEAVES BOTH PARTIES AGGRIEVED (SUPRA). 6. WE HAVE HEARD PARTIES AND PERUSED THE CASE FIL E. THE ONLY QUESTION SOUGHT TO BE RAISED BY BOTH OF THEM IS AS TO WHETHE R SECTION 40(A)(3) HAS BEEN WRONGLY ACTED UPON BY THE CIT(APPEALS) IN MODI FYING THE ADDITION. WE FIND FORCE IN THE COMMON CONTENTIONS THAT THERE WAS NO ISSUE OF DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 40(A)(3) EITHER BEFORE T HE ASSESSING OFFICER OR BEFORE THE CIT(APPEALS). THE QUESTION IS WHETHER TH E PURCHASE OF STEEL WORTH OF ` .1,15,17,967/- WAS TO BE ACCEPTED OR NOT. THE CIT(A PPEALS) HAS HELD THAT THE PURCHASE CANNOT BE REJECTED AS SUCH B ECAUSE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ACCEPTED THE CORRESPONDING SALES OUT OF WHICH INCOME IS GENERATED IN HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THE LIGHT OF QUANTITATIVE DETAILS AVAILABLE ON RECORD, IT WAS NOT POSSIBLE FOR THE AS SESSEE TO ACHIEVE THE REPORTED SALES TURNOVER WITHOUT CORRESPONDING PURCH ASE WHICH ALSO INCLUDED THE DISPUTED FIGURE OF ` .1,15,17,967/-. WHEN THIS IS THE QUESTION, SECTION 40(A)(3) DOES NOT COME IN THE PICTURE. ON THE OTHER HAND, WE HAVE TO SEE THAT THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF DISPUTED PURCHASE CANNOT TAKE THE FORM OF TAXABLE I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. NO NONO NOS SS S. .. .1394 1394 1394 1394- -- -1396 1396 1396 1396/M/ /M/ /M/ /M/1 11 11 11 1 & && & C.O. C.O. C.O. C.O. NO NONO NOS SS S. .. .15 1515 157 & 7 & 7 & 7 & 15 1515 156 66 6/M/11 /M/11 /M/11 /M/11 5 INCOME IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. IN OUR VIEW, I N SUCH A CASE, IT IS DESIRABLE AND FAIR TO ESTIMATE A REASONABLE AMOUNT OF GROSS PROFIT AGAINST SUCH DISPUTED PURCHASE AMOUNTING TO ` .1,15,17,967/-. WE HAVE ALREADY STATED THAT THE PURCHASE CANNOT BE IGNORED AS CORRE SPONDING SALES ARE MADE OUT OF THE PURCHASE WHICH ALSO INCLUDES THIS D ISPUTED AMOUNT. IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, THE ONLY FAIR WAY IS TO ESTIMATE THE GROSS PROFIT ON THE DISPUTED AMOUNT OF PURCHASE. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION OF THE NATURE OF THE TRADE CARRIED ON BY THE ASSESS EE AND OTHER RELEVANT ASPECTS, WE DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO WORK OU T THE GROSS PROFIT ON THE DISPUTED PURCHASE OF ` .1,15,17,967/- AT THE RATE OF 6% THEREOF AND ADD TH E SAME TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. IN LIEU OF THE ABOVE, WE DELETE THE ADDITION MADE BY THE CIT(APPEALS) UNDER SECTION 40( A)(3). THE 6% GROSS PROFIT ADDITION ON THE DISPUTED AMOUNT OF PURCHASE ALONE WILL STAND. 7. THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED AN D THE CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. I.T.A. NO. 1395/MDS/2011 & C.O. NO. 156/MDS/2011 8. IN THIS APPEAL, THE REVENUES GRIEVANCE IS TWOF OLD. ITS FIRST PLEA IS THAT REGARDING BOGUS PURCHASES, THE CIT(APPEALS) HAS WRO NGLY INVOKED SECTION 40(A)(3) OF THE ACT AND MODIFIED THE DISALLOWANCE . THE ASSESSEE IN ITS CROSS OBJECTIONS ALSO RAISED THE SAME VERY PLEAS RE GARDING INVOKABILITY OF I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. NO NONO NOS SS S. .. .1394 1394 1394 1394- -- -1396 1396 1396 1396/M/ /M/ /M/ /M/1 11 11 11 1 & && & C.O. C.O. C.O. C.O. NO NONO NOS SS S. .. .15 1515 157 & 7 & 7 & 7 & 15 1515 156 66 6/M/11 /M/11 /M/11 /M/11 6 SECTION 40(A)(3) AND PARTIAL CONFIRMATION OF THE DI SALLOWANCE. BEFORE US, THE PARTIES SUBMIT THAT THE ISSUE IS COVERED BY OUR FIN DINGS HEREINABOVE IN I.T.A. NO. 1394/MDS/2011. IN VIEW OF THE FAIR STAND ADOPTE D BY BOTH PARTIES THAT THE RELEVANT GROUND IN APPEAL AS WELL AS CROSS OBJECTIO NS RAISED STAND ADJUDICATED IN I.T.A. NO. 1394/MDS/2011, WE HOLD TH AT OUR FINDINGS HEREINABOVE WOULD ALSO COVER THE GROUND IN HAND. AC CORDINGLY, WE PASS THE SAME ORDER AS IN I.T.A. NO. 1394/MDS/2011 FOR THE A SSESSMENT YEAR 2002- 03. 9. NOW, WE COME TO THE GROUND OF THE REVENUE THAT THE CIT(APPEALS) HAS WRONGLY DELETED THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AS SESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 35D OF ` . 3, 69,110/-. IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE A SSESSEE HAD CLAIMED THE AMOUNT AS DEFERRED REVENUE EXPENDI TURE OF ASSESSMENT YEAR 1996-97 WHICH WAS WRITTEN OFF EVERY YEAR FOR I NCOME TAX PURPOSE. IT WAS STATED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE EXPEND ITURE HAD BEEN INCURRED FOR FOREIGN TRAVEL EXPENSES OF TECHNICAL EXECUTIVES AND EXHIBITION ETC. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 30. 03.2006 HAD DISALLOWED THE CLAIM BY HOLDING THAT IN THE ACT, THERE WAS N O CONCEPT OF DEFERRED REVENUE EXPENDITURE, WHICH PERTAINED TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 1996-97 AND CLAIMED IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04. 10. IN THE FIRST APPEAL, THE CIT(APPEALS) HAS ACC EPTED ASSESSEES CONTENTION BY TREATING IT AS ALLOWABLE UNDER SECTIO N 37 AS REVENUE I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. NO NONO NOS SS S. .. .1394 1394 1394 1394- -- -1396 1396 1396 1396/M/ /M/ /M/ /M/1 11 11 11 1 & && & C.O. C.O. C.O. C.O. NO NONO NOS SS S. .. .15 1515 157 & 7 & 7 & 7 & 15 1515 156 66 6/M/11 /M/11 /M/11 /M/11 7 EXPENDITURE. IN OUR VIEW, THE CIT(APPEALS) HAS NOT PROCEEDED ON A CORRECT POSITION OF LAW. THE EXPENDITURE CLAIMED BY THE ASS ESSEE PERTAINS TO THE EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEAR 1996-97. IN ITS BOOKS OF AC COUNT, THE ASSESSEE HAS TREATED THE EXPENDITURE AS DEFERRED ONE AND HAS BEE N WRITING OFF A PORTION OF EXPENDITURE YEAR AFTER YEAR. THAT MAY BE GOOD IN AC COUNTANCY; BUT NOT IN TAXATION LAW. THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED FOR THE ASSE SSMENT YEAR 1996-97 CANNOT BE ALLOWED AS A DEDUCTION IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 EITHER WHOLLY OR PARTLY. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSESSEE IS CLAIMING THE DEDUCTION PARTLY ON THE GROUND THAT THE EXPENDITURE WAS TREAT ED AS DEFERRED REVENUE EXPENDITURE. SUCH A CLAIM CANNOT BE ACCEPTED. IF A DEDUCTION IS TO BE ALLOWED FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 BY WAY OF E XPENDITURE EITHER WHOLLY OR PARTLY, THE EXPENDITURE SHOULD BE INCURRE D IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 ITSELF OR AT LEAST THE EXPENDITURE SHOULD B E ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04. IT IS NOT POSSIBL E TO ALLOW THE EXPENDITURE PARTLY IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR DIFFERENT FROM THE ASSESSMENT YEAR FOR WHICH EXPENDITURE WAS INCURRED ONLY ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS STATED THE EXPENDITURE AS DEFERRED RE VENUE EXPENDITURE. ACCORDINGLY, THE GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS AL LOWED AND THE ORDER OF THE CIT(APPEALS) ON THIS POINT IS SET ASIDE. THE DI SALLOWANCE IS RESTORED. 11. ACCORDINGLY, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AN D CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE PARTLY ALLOWED. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. NO NONO NOS SS S. .. .1394 1394 1394 1394- -- -1396 1396 1396 1396/M/ /M/ /M/ /M/1 11 11 11 1 & && & C.O. C.O. C.O. C.O. NO NONO NOS SS S. .. .15 1515 157 & 7 & 7 & 7 & 15 1515 156 66 6/M/11 /M/11 /M/11 /M/11 8 I.T.A. NO. 1396/MDS/2011 12. IN THE PRESENT APPEAL, WE FIND THAT THE GRIEVA NCE OF THE REVENUE TO BE TWOFOLD. THE FIRST GROUND IS THAT THE ASSESSING OFF ICER HAD RIGHTLY DISALLOWED AN AMOUNT OF ` .1,35,33,035/- AT THE RATE OF 60% OF TOTAL CLAIM OF ` .2,25,55,059/- BY TERMING IT AS EXCESSIVE WHICH HAS BEEN WRONGLY DELETED BY THE CIT(APPEALS). 13. FACTS PERTAINING TO THIS GROUND ARE THAT IN TH E IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR, THE ASSESSEE HAD SUBMITTED CLAIM OF COMMUNICA TION EXPENSES, TRAVELLING AND CONVEYANCE, SALES PROMOTION, CONSULT ANCY CHARGES AND SUNDRY EXPENSES TOTALLING TO ` .2,25,55,059/-. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 18.12.2006, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER DREW A COMPARATIVE CHART OF EXPENSES VIS-A-VIS THE PREVIOUS ASSESSMENT YEAR AND HELD THAT THOUGH THE INCREASE IN THE INCOME WAS ONLY 9%, THE EXPENDITURE CLAIMED SWELLED DISPROPORTIONATELY. ACCORDINGLY, HE MADE DISALLOWAN CE/ADDITION AT THE RATE OF 60% OF THE CLAIMED AMOUNT TO THE TUNE OF ` .1,35,33,035/-. 14. IN THE FIRST APPEAL, THE ADDITION STANDS DELET ED BY THE CIT(APPEALS). THEREFORE, THE REVENUE IS AGGRIEVED. 15. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH PARTIES AND ALSO PERUSED TH E FINDINGS OF THE I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. NO NONO NOS SS S. .. .1394 1394 1394 1394- -- -1396 1396 1396 1396/M/ /M/ /M/ /M/1 11 11 11 1 & && & C.O. C.O. C.O. C.O. NO NONO NOS SS S. .. .15 1515 157 & 7 & 7 & 7 & 15 1515 156 66 6/M/11 /M/11 /M/11 /M/11 9 ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS CIT(APPEALS). A PERUSA L THEREOF CLARIFIES THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD SIMPLY DISALLOWED THE CLA IM AT THE RATE OF 60% BY DRAWING COMPARISONS. THERE ARE NO FINDINGS IN THE A SSESSMENT ORDER DISPUTING THE FACTUM OF THE PAYMENT, HEADS OF THE P AYMENT OR THE NATURE OF THE EXPENSES ETC. THAT BEING SO, WE SEE NO REASON T O AGREE WITH THE BLANKET DISALLOWANCE AT THE RATE OF 60% MADE BY THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY FINDINGS BASED ON RELEVANT MATERIAL TO THE CONTRARY, WE ARE UNABLE TO AGREE WITH THE VEHEMENT CONTENTIONS OF TH E REVENUE THAT THE EXPENDITURE SHOULD BE COMPARED WITH THAT INCURRED I N THE PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR AND THEREAFTER, THE SAME HAS TO BE DISALLOWED. ACCORDINGLY, WE CONFIRM THE FINDINGS OF THE CIT(APP EALS). 16. NEXT GROUND RAISED IN THE APPEAL PERTAINS TO DEFERRED REVENUE EXPENDITURE. THE LD. REPRESENTATIVES BEFORE US CON CEDE THAT THE ISSUE IS COVERED BY OUR FINDING IN I.T.A. NO. 1395/MDS/2011. AFTER PERUSING THE CASE FILE, WE FIND THAT THE STAND ADOPTED BY BOTH REPRES ENTATIVES TO BE CORRECT. ACCORDINGLY, IN THE LIGHT OF OUR ABOVE DISCUSSIONS ON THE RELEVANT ISSUE IN I.T.A. NO. 1395/MDS/2011 DECIDED HEREINABOVE, WE AC CEPT THE GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE. 17. THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 18. CONSEQUENTLY, I.T.A. NO. 1394/MDS/2011 FILED B Y THE REVENUE IS I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. NO NONO NOS SS S. .. .1394 1394 1394 1394- -- -1396 1396 1396 1396/M/ /M/ /M/ /M/1 11 11 11 1 & && & C.O. C.O. C.O. C.O. NO NONO NOS SS S. .. .15 1515 157 & 7 & 7 & 7 & 15 1515 156 66 6/M/11 /M/11 /M/11 /M/11 10 DISMISSED AND I.T.A. NOS. 1395 & 1396/MDS/2011 AS W ELL AS CROSS OBJECTIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2003-04 AND 2002-03 ARE PARTLY ACCEPTED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON MONDAY, THE 29 TH OF APRIL, 2013 AT CHENNAI. SD/ - SD/ - (DR. O.K. NARAYANAN) VICE - PRESIDENT (S.S. GODARA) JUDICIAL MEMBER CHENNAI, DATED, THE 29.04.2013 VM/- TO: THE ASSESSEE//A.O./CIT(A)/CIT/D.R.