M/s. The Pondicherry State Co-operative Housing Federation Ltd., CHENNAI V. ITO, Pondicherry

CO 162/CHNY/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 122 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8316 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 14-02-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 11-02-2013
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 24-09-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: S SRIDHAR

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH CHENN AI BEFORE SHRI N.S.SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER .. ITA NO.958/MDS./2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2005-06 THE ITO, WARD I (2), D P THOTTAM, MUTHIALPET, PUDUCHERRY 605 003. VS. M/S.THE PONDICHERRY STATE CO-OP. HOUSING FEDERATION LTD., 7 TH CROSS, THANTHAI PERIYAR NAGAR, PONDICHERRY 606 005. PAN AAAAT 0235 H (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) C.O. NO.162/MDS./2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2005-06 M/S.THE PONDICHERRY STATE CO-OP. HOUSING FEDERATION LTD., 7 TH CROSS, THANTHAI PERIYAR NAGAR, PONDICHERRY 606 005. VS. THE ITO, WARD I (2), D P THOTTAM, MUTHIALPET, PUDUCHERRY 605 003. (CROSS OBJECTOR ) (RESPONDENT) DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI SHAJI P. JACOB, ADDL. CIT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI S.SRIDHAR, ADVOCATE DATE OF HEARING : 11.02.13 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 14 .0 2.13 ITA. 958 /MDS/12 CO NO.162/MDS./12 2 O R D E R PER N.S.SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AND CROSS OBJEC TION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) XII, CHENNAI DATED 23.01.2012. 2. IN THE REVENUES APPEAL, THE SOLE ISSUE INVOLVE D IS THAT THE CIT(A) ERRED IN DIRECTING THE A.O. TO ALLOW DEDUCTI ON UNDER SECTION 80 P(2)(D) IN RESPECT OF INTEREST INCOME AS THE SAM E IS NOT EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM INVESTMENTS MADE BY IT WITH OT HER CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES AND THAT LOANS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE CATEGORIZED AS INVESTMENTS MADE BY THE AS SESSEE SO AS TO QUALIFY FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80P(2)(D) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 3. WHEREAS IN THE CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASS ESSEE, THE ISSUE INVOLVED IS THAT THE CIT(A) ERRED IN SUSTAIN ING THE DISALLOWANCE OF CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80 P(2)(A)(I) OF THE ACT. ITA. 958 /MDS/12 CO NO.162/MDS./12 3 4. AS THE FACTS AND ISSUE INVOLVED ARE COMMON, BOT H THE ISSUES ARE CONSIDERED AND DECIDED AS UNDER. 5. THE BRIEF FACTS ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS IN THE BUSINESS OF GIVING HOUSING LOAN TO MEMBER SOCIETIES. DURING TH E YEAR UNDER APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME SHOWING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.69,35,083/- BEFORE CLAIMING DEDUCTION UNDER S ECTION 80P. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED DEDUCTION 80 P(2)(A)(I) FOR RS .56,77,108/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A STATE CO- OPERATIVE SOCIETY HAVING PRIMARY CO-OPERATIVE SOCIE TIES AS ITS MEMBERS. SINCE IT DOES NOT HAVE INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS , THEREFORE, THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80P(2)(A)(I) IS NOT ALL OWABLE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION O F THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF U.P. CO-OPERATIVE CANE UNION F EDERATION LTD. VS. CIT [1999] 237 ITR 574 (SC) WHERE IT WAS HELD THAT EXEMPTION IS EXTENDED TO CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES DIR ECTLY EXTENDING CREDIT FACILITIES TO ITS MEMBERS. THEREF ORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION OF RS.57,96,435/- UNDER SECTION 80P OF THE ACT TO THE ASSESSEE. ITA. 958 /MDS/12 CO NO.162/MDS./12 4 6. THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) . THE CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE GROUND THAT DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80P(2)(A)(I) CANNOT BE ALLOWED TO THE ASSESSEE IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREM E COURT IN THE CASE OF U.P. CO-OP. CANE UNION FEDERATION LTD.( SUPRA). FURTHER, HE HELD THAT SEC. 80P(2)(D) OF THE ACT P ROVIDES THAT DEDUCTION IN RESPECT OF INCOME BY WAY OF INTEREST O R DIVIDEND DERIVED BY THE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY FROM ITS INVEST MENT WITH ANY OTHER CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY WAS ALLOWABLE DEDUCTION TO THE ASSESSEE. IN OTHER WORDS, THE TRANSACTIONS BETWEEN THE APEX CO- OPERATIVE SOCIETY AND THE PRIMARY CO-OPERATIVE SOCI ETY ARE GOVERNED BY THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.80P(2)(D) OF THE ACT, WHICH PROVIDE FROM EXEMPTION OF INCOME EARNED BY WAY OF I NTEREST OR DIVIDENDS FROM THE OTHER CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY. HE , THEREFORE, DIRECTED THE AO TO SEGREGATE THE INTEREST INCOME EA RNED FROM THE PRIMARY CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY AND THE SAME SHOULD BE CONSIDERED AND ALLOWED AS DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80P(2)(A) OF THE ACT AND ADDITION SHOULD BE RESTRICTED TO THE INTEREST INCOM E FROM THE FIXED DEPOSITS MADE WITH OTHER CO-OPERATIVE BANKS/SOCIETI ES. ITA. 958 /MDS/12 CO NO.162/MDS./12 5 7. THE DR VEHEMENTLY ARGUED AND SUBMITTED THAT THE DEDUCTION WAS WRONGLY HELD BY THE CIT(A) TO BE ALLO WABLE TO THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION SEC.80P(2)(D) OF THE ACT BEC AUSE THE LANGUAGE USED IN SEC.80P(2)(D) WAS THAT INTEREST O R DIVIDEND EARNED BY THE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY FROM ITS INVESTM ENTS WITH ANY OTHER CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY. IN THE INSTANT CASE, T HE INTEREST INCOME EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE-CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY WAS FROM LOAN GIVEN TO THE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES AND NOT ON INVESTMENTS GIVEN TO THE OTHER CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES. THEREFO RE, THE CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN ALLOWING DEDUCTION TO THE ASSE SSEE. 8. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE A.R OF ASSESSEE VEHEMEN TLY ARGUED AND SUBMITTED THAT HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CA SE OF KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE MARKETING FEDERATION LTD. & OTHE RS ETC. VS. CIT [1998] 231 ITR 814, WHICH IS A THREE JUDGES ORD ER HELD THAT SECTION 80 P ADMITS A WIDER EXEMPTION, THERE IS NO REASON TO CUT DOWN THE SCOPE OF THE PROVISION. THE LANGUAGE ADOP TED IN SEC.80P (2)(A)(III) WILL ADMIT THE INTERPRETATION T HE SOCIETY ENGAGED IN THE MARKETING OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE OF ITS MEMBERS AS BELONGING TO ITS MEMBERS WHICH IS NOT NECESSA RILY RAISED BY SUCH MEMBER. THE SOCIETY ENGAGED IN THE MARKETING OF ITA. 958 /MDS/12 CO NO.162/MDS./12 6 AGRICULTURE PRODUCTS OF ITS MEMBERS WOULD MEAN NOT ONLY SUCH SOCIETIES WHICH DEAL WITH THE PRODUCE RAISED BY TH E MEMBERS WHO ARE INDIVIDUALS BUT ALSO THE DEALING WITH SOCI ETIES WHICH ARE MEMBERS THEREOF WHO MAY HAVE PURCHASED SUCH GOODS FROM THE AGRICULTURISTS. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE DECISION REL IED ON BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE CIT(A) OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF U.P. CO-OP. CANE UNION FEDERATION LTD. VS. CIT (SUPRA) WAS A TWO JUDGES DECISION AND WAS PASSED PR IOR TO THE DECISION OF THE THREE MEMBER JUDGES IN THE CASE OF KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE MARKETING FEDERATION LTD. VS. CIT (SUP RA) AND THAT THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF U.P. CO-OP. CANE UNION FEDERATION LTD. VS. CIT (SUPRA) WAS DATED 30 TH JANUARY, 1997 WHEREAS THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE M ARKETING FEDERATION LTD. VS. CIT (SUPRA) DATED 13 TH MAY, 1998. HE SUBMITTED THAT THEREFORE, THIS DECISION SHOULD BE F OLLOWED AND THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE ALLOWED. 9. IN REPLY, THE DR SUBMITTED THAT IN KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE MARKETING FEDERATION LTD. VS. CIT (SUPRA), THE HON BLE SUPREME COURT WAS CONSIDERING THE PROVISIONS OF SEC 80P(2)( A)(III) OF THE ACT AND NOT PROVISIONS OF SEC 80P(2)(A)(I) OF THE A CT AND ITA. 958 /MDS/12 CO NO.162/MDS./12 7 THEREFORE, THE SAID DECISION WAS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE ASSESSEE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY CASE. 10. IN REPLY TO THIS, THE A.R SUBMITTED THAT THE P ROVISIONS OF SEC.80P(2)(A)(I) ARE PARA MATERIA TO THE PROVISION S OF SEC.80P(2)(A)(III) OF THE ACT. AS THE LANGUAGE USED IN BOTH THE SECTIONS IS SAME THEREFORE, THE DECISION IN THE CAS E OF KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE MARKETING FEDERATION LTD. VS. CI T (SUPRA) WAS APPLICABLE IN THE ASSESSEES CASE. 11. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PER USED THE ORDERS OF LOWER AUTHORITIES AND MATERIALS AVAILAB LE ON RECORD. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE ASSESSEE IS AN APEX CO-OPERAT IVE SOCIETY IN THE STATE OF PONDICHERRY, AND THE PRIMARY CO-OPERA TIVE SOCIETIES IN THE STATE OF PONDICHERRY ARE THE MEMBERS OF ASSE SSEE SOCIETY. THE PRIME OBJECTIVE IS TO SUPPORT THE PRIMARY CO-OP ERATIVE SOCIETIES IN THE STATE OF PONDICHERRY. THE ASSES SEE CLAIMED DEDUCTION OF ` 56,77,108/- U/S 80P(2)(A)(I) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT AS THE ASSESSEE HAS NO INDIVIDUALS AS ITS MEMBERS AND HENCE THE LOANS/ADVA NCES OR THE FUNDS PROVIDED TO THE PRIMARY CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY WILL NOT ITA. 958 /MDS/12 CO NO.162/MDS./12 8 TANTAMOUNT TO CARRYING ON THE BUSINESS OF BANKING OR PROVIDING CREDIT FACILITIES TO ITS MEMBER, FOR THE PURPOSE O F CLAIMING EXEMPTION OF INCOME UNDER SECTION 80P(2)(A)(I) OF T HE ACT. FOR THIS, HE PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF U.P. CO-OP. CANE UNION FEDERATION LT D. VS. CIT (SUPRA). HENCE, HE DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTIO N U/S 80P(2)(A)(I) OF THE ACT. 12. ON APPEAL, THE CIT(A) ALSO HELD THAT THE A SSESSEE IS NOT ENTITLED FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80P(2)(A)(I) OF THE ACT ON THE GROUND THAT ONLY PRIMARY CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ARE ELIGIB LE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80P(2)(A)(I) OF THE ACT AND THE APEX CO-OPERATI VE SOCIETIES OR FEDERATION CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ARE NOT ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80P(2)(A)(I) OF THE ACT. HOWEVER, HE AGREED W ITH THE ALTERNATIVE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE THAT FEDERATION C O-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ARE ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION UNDER DIFFER ENT PROVISIONS NAMELY, SECTION 80P(2)(D) OF THE ACT. ACCORDING LY, HE DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ALLOW INTEREST INCOME EARN ED FROM THE MEMBER CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES UNDER SECTION 80P(2 )(D) OF THE ACT, IN ADDITION TO THE INTEREST INCOME EARNED FROM THE FIXED DEPOSITS MADE WITH THE OTHER CO-OPERATIVE BANKS/ S OCIETY ONLY. ITA. 958 /MDS/12 CO NO.162/MDS./12 9 13. BEING AGGRIEVED, THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL A GAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) DIRECTING THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ALLOW DEDUCTION OF INTEREST INCOME EARNED FROM CO-OPERAT IVE SOCIETY OR CO-OPERATIVE BANK UNDER SECTION 80-P(2)(D) OF THE A CT TO THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED CROSS OBJECTIO N BEFORE US FOR DENYING THE DEDUCTION UNDER SEC.80P(2)(A)(I) O F THE ACT. 14. WE FIND THAT THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF U.P. CO-OP. CANE UNION FEDERATION LTD. VS. CIT (SU PRA) HAS HELD THAT IN ORDER TO AVAIL THE BENEFITS OF UNDER SEC.80 P(2)(A)(I) OF THE ACT, THE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY MUST ITSELF ENGAGE IN THE BUSINESS OF BANKING OR PROVIDING CREDIT FACILITIES TO ITS MEMBE RS AND THAT THE WORD MEMBER CANNOT BE EXTENDED TO THE MEMBERS OF MEMBERS. IN OTHER WORDS, HONBLE SUPREME COURT HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION ON INTEREST INCOME EARNED FROM THE BUSINESS OF BANKING OR PROVIDING CREDIT FACILITIES TO ITS MEMBERS ONLY, WHO MAY BE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, BUT THE AS SESSEE WILL NOT BE ENTITLED TO CLAIM DEDUCTION OF INTEREST INCOME O N MONIES ADVANCED TO THE MEMBERS OF THE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETI ES, WHO ARE ITS MEMBERS. THUS, THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN TH E SAID DECISION HAS NOT HELD THAT IF THE CO-OPERATIVE SOCI ETY WAS PROVIDING CREDIT FACILITIES TO ITS MEMBERS CO-OPERA TIVE SOCIETIES, ITA. 958 /MDS/12 CO NO.162/MDS./12 10 THEN IT SHALL NOT BE ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION UNDER SE C.80P(2)(A)(I) OF THE ACT AS THEY ARE NOT INDIVIDUALS. THEREFORE, TH E ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DISALLOWING THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION TO THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT THE CREDIT FACILITI ES WERE PROVIDED BY THE ASSESSEE TO MEMBER CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, W HO ARE NOT INDIVIDUALS. WE ALSO OBSERVE THAT THE CIT(A) HAS H ELD THAT THE ASSESSEE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY IS A FEDERATION OF OT HER CO- OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, AND THEREFORE, ITS INCOME WOUL D BE EXEMPT UNDER SECTION 80P(2)(D) OF THE ACT AND NOT UNDER SE C.80P(2)(A)(I) OF THE ACT. WE FIND THAT THIS FINDING OF THE CIT( A) IS ALSO NOT CORRECT AS THE DEDUCTIONS ALLOWABLE TO THE CO-OPERA TIVE SOCIETY UNDER SEC.80P(2)(A)(I) AND UNDER SECTION 80P(2)(D) OF THE ACT ARE NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE. DEDUCTION UNDER SEC.80P(2) (A)(I) IS ALLOWABLE TO THE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY ON INTEREST I NCOME EARNED FROM BUSINESS OF BANKING OR PROVIDING CREDIT FACILI TIES TO ITS MEMBERS WHEREAS DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80P(2)(D) I S ALLOWED IN RESPECT OF INTEREST OR DIVIDEND INCOME DERIVED B Y THE CO- OPERATIVE SOCIETY FROM ITS INVESTMENTS WITH ANY OTH ER CO- OPERATIVE SOCIETY. FURTHER, HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF U.P. CO-OP. CANE UNION FEDERATION LTD. VS. CIT (SUPRA) HAS ALSO OBSERVED THAT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY HAS TO BE E STABLISHED ITA. 958 /MDS/12 CO NO.162/MDS./12 11 UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE LAW MADE BY THE STATE L EGISLATURE IN THAT REGARD, AND THAT THE DIFFERENT STATES HAVE DIF FERENT LAWS FOR ESTABLISHING A CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY. IT WAS ALSO O BSERVED THAT THE EXPRESSION MEMBERS UNDER SEC.80P(2)(A)(I) OF THE ACT HAS TO BE CONSTRUED IN THE CONTEXT OF THE PROVISIONS OF LAW E NACTED BY THE STATE GOVERNMENT UNDER WHICH THE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIE TY CLAIMING EXEMPTION HAS BEEN FORMED. WE FIND THAT NONE OF T HE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE EXAMINED THE ISSUE IN THE LIGHT OF THE SAID OBSERVATION MADE BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN TH E CASE OF U.P. CO-OP. CANE UNION FEDERATION LTD. VS. CIT (SU PRA). IN THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, IN OUR C ONSIDERED OPINION, IT SHALL BE JUST AND FAIR TO REMAND THE MA TTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR ADJUDICATING THE ISSUE AFRESH AFTER PROPER VERIFICATION IN THE LIGHT OF THE OBSERVATI ON MADE HEREIN ABOVE. WE ORDER ACCORDINGLY. IT IS NEEDLESS TO MEN TION THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL ALLOW REASONABLE AND PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE BEFORE ADJUDICATING THE ISSUE AFRESH. 15. IN THE RESULT, CROSS OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ITA. 958 /MDS/12 CO NO.162/MDS./12 12 16. THE GRIEVANCE OF THE REVENUE IN ITS APPEAL IS REGARDING THE DIRECTION GIVEN BY THE CIT(A) TO ALLOW DEDUCTION OF INTEREST INCOME EARNED FROM OTHER CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES U/S 80P(2 )(A)(I) OF THE ACT. ACCORDING TO THE DR, DEDUCTION U/S 80P(2)(D) IS AVAILABLE ONLY IN RESPECT OF INVESTMENTS MADE IN OTHER CO-OP ERATIVE SOCIETIES AND NOT IN RESPECT OF INTEREST EARNED ON LOAN GIVEN TO THE OTHER CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES THOUGH THE DR COUL D NOT POINT OUT WHY THE LOAN GIVEN TO OTHER CO-OPERATIVE SOCIET IES IS NOT THE INVESTMENT OF THE ASSESSEE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY. HOWEVER, WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE OF ALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION U/S 80P(2)(D) IN THE INSTANT CASE ARISES ONLY WHEN IT IS HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ENTITLED FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80P(2)(A)(I) OF THE ACT . AS THE ISSUE OF ALLOWABILITY OF DEDUCTION TO THE ASSESSEE CO-OPERA TIVE SOCIETY U/S 80P(2)(A)(I) IS BEING RESTORED TO THE FILE OF T HE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR ADJUDICATION AFRESH AND THEREFORE, THIS ISSUE IS ALSO RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR ADJUDICATING AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH ITS DECISION IN RESPECT O F ALLOWABILITY OF DEDUCTION OR OTHERWISE U/S 80P(2)(A)(I) OF THE ACT . THEREFORE, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS ALSO TREATED AS ALLOWED F OR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ITA. 958 /MDS/12 CO NO.162/MDS./12 13 15. IN THE RESULT, BOTH, THE APPEAL OF THE REV ENUE AND THE CROSS OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE, ARE ALLOWED FOR S TATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THURSDAY, THE 14 TH FEBRUARY, 2013 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (VIKAS AWASTHY) (N.S.SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER CHENNAI, DATED 14 TH FEBRUARY, 2013. K S SUNDARAM/RD COPY TO: ASSESSEE/AO/CIT (A)/CIT/D.R./GUARD FILE