T.Shibu, Gudalur V. ITO, Ooty

CO 59/CHNY/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 122 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8654 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 31-07-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 25-07-2013
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 04-04-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: G BASKAR
• Assessee Lawyers: S DASGUPTA
• Keywords: Bonafide belief
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, CHENNAI. BEFORE SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 18 0/MDS/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 & C.O. NO. 59/MDS/2013 [IN ITA NO.180/MDS/2013] THE INCOME TAX, INCOME TAX OFFICE, WARD I(1), IIND FLOOR, CHRISTO BUILDING, OOTY 643 001. VS. SHRI T. SHIBU, 129A/13, EMERALD DIVISION, ROCKWOOD ESTATE, NELLAIKOTAI, GUDALUR 643 225, THE NILGIRIS. [PAN:CQGPS9896C] (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT/ CROSS OBJECTOR) APPELLANT BY : SHRI S. DAS GUPTA, JCIT RESPONDENT BY : SHRI G. BASKAR, ADVOCATE DATE OF HEARING : 25.07.2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 31.07.2013 O R D E R PER V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE AND CROSS OBJECTION FILE D BY THE ASSESSEE, EMANATE FROM THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONE R OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) I, COIMBATORE DATED 30.11.2012 RELEVANT T O THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. 2. FACTS IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDU AL FILED RETURN DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF ` .60,000/- ON 24.02.2011 FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. INITIALLY, THE RETURN AS PROCESSED U NDER SECTION 143(1) OF THE I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. NO. NO. NO. NO.1 11 18 88 80/MDS/13 0/MDS/13 0/MDS/13 0/MDS/13 & & & & C.O. NO. C.O. NO. C.O. NO. C.O. NO. 59/MDS/13 59/MDS/13 59/MDS/13 59/MDS/13 2 ACT AND SUBSEQUENTLY, ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED UNDE R SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT. 3. IN THIS CASE, AN ENQUIRY UNDER SECTION 131(1A) OF THE ACT WAS CONDUCTED BY THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INV ESTIGATION), UNIT II, COIMBATORE ON 16.02.2010. THE ENQUIRY WAS CONDUCTED CONSEQUENT ON THE INFORMATION PASSED ON TO HIM BY THE ADDL. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INV.), KOCHI BASED ON FIU. THE INFORMATION PASSED ON THE A DDL. DIT (INV.), COIMBATORE WAS THAT ONE MR. RISHIKESH AND SHRI RAJM OHAN INTRODUCED SHRI T. SHIBU OF GUDALUR, THE NILGIRIS DISTRICT TO SHRI ABDUL RASHID. SHRI T. SHIBU PROMISED HIM TO SUPPLY GOLD BELOW MARKET RATE AND G OLD WAS SUPPLIED TO HIM AT ` .4/- TO ` .5/- BELOW THE MARKET RATE. BASED ON THE ABOVE INFO RMATION THE DDIT(INV.), UNIT II, COIMBATORE ON 16.02.2010 RECOR DED A STATEMENT FROM SHRI T. SHIBU DURING THE COURSE OF PROCEEDINGS UNDE R SECTION 131(1A) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. 4. THE ASSESSEE, SHRI T. SHIBU, S/O SHRI THULASIDH ARAN NAIR IS AGED 25 YEARS AND A B.TECH GRADUATE. AFTER GRADUATION HE WA S WORKING AS A CUSTOMER CARE EXECUTIVE IN A COMPANY NAMED M/S LECO NSIERGES, BANGALORE. AFTER THAT HE JOINED SHRI ARUN (ALSO CAL LED AS SHRI RISHIKESH) OF M/S BRUK CONSORT (INDIA) PVT. LTD, OPERATING AT THR ISSUR, KERALA STATE. HE JOINED THIS COMPANY DURING JANUARY 2008. THE HEAD O FFICE OF THE COMPANY WAS AT BANGALORE. HE WAS OFFERED A MONTHLY SALARY OF RS.15000/- IN THE I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. NO. NO. NO. NO.1 11 18 88 80/MDS/13 0/MDS/13 0/MDS/13 0/MDS/13 & & & & C.O. NO. C.O. NO. C.O. NO. C.O. NO. 59/MDS/13 59/MDS/13 59/MDS/13 59/MDS/13 3 BEGINNING. BUT HE WAS PAID A SALARY OF RS.15000 ONL Y FOR THE FIRST FOUR MONTHS. HE DID NOT GET ANY SALARY FROM THE COMPANY SUBSEQUENTLY. HE WAS ASSURED OF ARREARS OF PAY ALONG WITH INCENTIVE AFTE R 5 TO 6 MONTHS WHICH ALSO DID NOT MATERIALISE. CONSEQUENTLY, SHRI SHIBU QUIT THE JOB IN FEBRUARY 2009. DURING THIS PERIOD HUGE AMOUNTS OF MONEY WAS FOUND TRANSACTED THROUGH THE ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE MAINTAINED WITH ICICI BANK , MANJERI BRANCH. AS REGARDS THE TRANSACTIONS REFLECTED IN THE ICICI BAN K STATEMENT IT WAS EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT HE WAS ONLY AN EMPLO YEE OF M/S BRUK CONSORT (INDIA) PVT. LTD AND THE AMOUNTS FOUND REFL ECTED IN THE SAID ACCOUNT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH HIS INCOME. THE TRANSACTIONS IN QUESTION WERE ON BEHALF OF M/S BRUK CONSORT (INDIA) PVT. LTD, BANGAL ORE. THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED A COPY OF THE DECLARATION GIVEN TO HIM BY MR. ARUN ALIAS RISHIKESH, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER M/S BRUK CONSORT (INDIA) PV T. LTD TO PROVE HIS STAND. THE ASSESSEE WAS WORKING UNDER SHRI RISHIKESH AS CM PO (CHIEF MATERIAL PROCUREMENT OFFICER). AS PER THE DECLARATION DATED 23.01.2008 SHRI T. SHIBU WAS TO OPEN A SAVINGS BANK ACCOUNT WITH ICICI BANK, MANJERI BRANCH IN HIS OWN NAME AND THAT SHALL BE OPERATED BY HIM ONLY FOR AND ON BEHALF OF THE COMPANY M/S BRUK CONSORT (INDIA) PVT. LTD. THE DECL ARATION ALSO STATED THAT ALL FUTURE LIABILITIES IN CONNECTION WITH TAXES, DU TIES AND OTHER LEVIES ON SUCH BANK ACCOUNT SHALL BE DISCHARGED BY THE COMPANY ITS ELF AND NO RESPONSIBILITY SHALL BE ASSIGNED TO MR. SHIBU. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS A ND CASES IF ANY, IN CONNECTION WITH THE OPERATIONS AND TRANSACTION ON S UCH BANK ACCOUNT SHALL I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. NO. NO. NO. NO.1 11 18 88 80/MDS/13 0/MDS/13 0/MDS/13 0/MDS/13 & & & & C.O. NO. C.O. NO. C.O. NO. C.O. NO. 59/MDS/13 59/MDS/13 59/MDS/13 59/MDS/13 4 BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE COMPANY AND ANY LOSS C AUSED IN THIS CONNECTION TO MR. SHIBU SHALL BE INDEMNIFIED BY THE COMPANY IN FULL. 5. LATER ON THE ASSESSEE CAME TO KNOW THAT SHRI. V .A. RISHIKESH HAD NO CONNECTION WITH M/S BRUK CONSORT (INDIA) PVT. LTD. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE, SHRI. V.A.RISHIKESH WAS PURCHASING GOLD F ROM BANKS AND SELLING THE SAME IN RETAIL SHOPS IN MANJERI AND KOZHIKODE T HROUGH THE ASSESSEE. WHILE ENTERING INTO THESE TRANSACTIONS THE ASSESSEE WAS UNDER THE BONA FIDE BELIEF THAT SHRI V.A.RISHIKESH WAS THE CEO OF M/S B RUK CONSORT (INDIA) PVT. LTD. THE REAL PICTURE HAD COME OUT ONLY WHEN SHRI V .A. RISHIKESH WAS ARRESTED ON A CASE FILED AGAINST HIM BY M/S CHEMMAN NUR JEWELLERS, KOZHIKODE. THE FAILURE TO SUPPLY 2 KGS OF GOLD TO M /S CHEMMANNUR JEWELLERS AFTER RECEIVING THE MONEY IN ADVANCE, IT WAS SUBMITTED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT HE HAD NO CONNECTION WITH TH E CASH DEPOSIT IN HIS SAVING BANK ACCOUNT AND IN NO WAY, THE DEPOSITS FOR M PART OF INCOME. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE, THE SOURCE FOR THE CASH DEPOSIT WAS FROM THE SALE PROCEEDS OF GOLD IN THE RETAIL SHOPS OR BROUGH T BY MR.RISHIKESH FROM HIS CUSTOMERS TO PURCHASE GOLD COINS WHICH HE HAD UNDER TOOK IN THE CAPACITY OF CEO OF M/S BRUK CONSORT (INDIA) PVT. LTD. THE ASSES SEE HAS DISPUTED THE OWNERSHIP OF THE INCOME WITH EVIDENCES ACCORDING T O THE ASSESSEE THE OWNERSHIP OF THE INCOME AND ACCORDING TO ASSESSEE, THE OWNER OF THE INCOME WAS VESTED WITH SHRI.V.A. RISHIKESH ONLY AND NOT EVEN M/S BRUK I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. NO. NO. NO. NO.1 11 18 88 80/MDS/13 0/MDS/13 0/MDS/13 0/MDS/13 & & & & C.O. NO. C.O. NO. C.O. NO. C.O. NO. 59/MDS/13 59/MDS/13 59/MDS/13 59/MDS/13 5 CONSORT (INDIA) PVT. LTD AS HE WAS NEITHER THE CEO NOR EVEN GENUINELY EMPLOYED WITH M/S BRUK CONSORT (INDIA) PVT. LTD. AC CORDING TO SHRI T.SHIBU, POLICE CASES WERE FILED AGAINST SHRI V.A.RISHIKESH ON CHARGES OF CHEATING AND FORGERY, WHICH IS STILL PENDING. 6. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, AFTER CONSIDERING THE EX PLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE, HAS OBSERVED THAT IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, I T CANNOT BE SAID THAT WITH CERTAINTY THAT THE DEPOSITS REFLECTED IN THE SAID B ANK ACCOUNT BELONGING TO THE ASSESSEE AND THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, IN THE BEST OF INTEREST OF THE REVENUE, THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED ON A P ROTECTIVE BASIS TREATING THE ENTIRE DEPOSIT AS INCOME OF THE ASSESS EE AND ACCORDINGLY, ADDITION WAS MADE. 7. IT WAS SUBMITTED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) TH AT THE ASSESSEE HAD JOINED IN A COMPANY M/S. BRUK CONSORT (INDIA) PVT. LTD. OPERATING AT THRISSUR, KERALA FOR A MONTHLY SALARY OF ` .15,000/- FOR A MONTH. SUBSEQUENTLY, IT CAME TO THE NOTICE OF THE ASSESSEE, WHEN SHRI V.A. RISIK ESH WAS ARRESTED BY THE POLICE, THAT SHRI RISIKESH WAS NOT AN EMPLOYEE OF M /S. BRUK CONSORT (INDIA) PVT. LTD. AND THE SAVING BANK ACCOUNT, WHICH WAS OP ENED IN ICICI BANK, MANJERI BRANCH IN HIS NAME AND SHALL BE OPERATED BY THE COMPANY M/S. BRUK CONSORT (INDIA) PVT. LTD. FURTHER, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT WHATEVER TRANSACTIONS TAKEN PLACE I.E. ON BEHALF OF THE GROUP CONCERN, TH E ASSESSEE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THAT AND ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE DEPOSITS A ND WITHDRAWALS IN THE I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. NO. NO. NO. NO.1 11 18 88 80/MDS/13 0/MDS/13 0/MDS/13 0/MDS/13 & & & & C.O. NO. C.O. NO. C.O. NO. C.O. NO. 59/MDS/13 59/MDS/13 59/MDS/13 59/MDS/13 6 BANK ACCOUNT IS NOT BELONGING TO THE ASSESSEE AND B ELONGS TO SHRI RISIKESH. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) AFTER CONSIDERING THE EXPLANAT ION OF THE ASSESSEE HAS OBSERVED AS UNDER: 7. I HAD ALSO REQUESTED THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, W ARD-I(L), OOTY TO FURNISH ALL THE DETAILS REGARDING THE ENQUIRY REPOR T FROM THE DOIT (INV.), UNIT-II, COIMBATORE. AS SEEN FROM THE ENQUI RY REPORT, THE ASSESSEE WAS ONLY USED AS AN INSTRUMENT BY RISIKESH TO DO HIS BUSINESS. SHRI RISIKESH WAS ALSO ARRESTED BY THE POLICE AND S ENT TO REMAND. THE APPELLANT HAS FILED EVIDENCE IN THE FORM OF DECLARA TION GIVEN BY SHRI ARUN ALIAS RISIKESH WHICH CLEARLY PROVE THAT THE AP PELLANT WAS NOT RELATED WITH THE OPERATION OF THE BANK ACCOUNT. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO DELETE THE ADDITION MADE ON PROTECTIVE BASIS. THESE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE ALLOW ED. 8. AGGRIEVED, THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 9. THE LD. DR SUPPORTED THE ORDER PASSED BY THE AS SESSING OFFICER. 10. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASS ESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ONLY AN EMPLOYEE OF M/S BRUK CONSORT (INDIA) PVT. LTD. AND ULTIMATELY, HE CAME TO KNOW THAT SHRI V.A. RISIKESH HAS DOPED HIM THAT HE IS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF THE COMPANY A ND THE REAL PICTURE CAME TO KNOW HIM WHEN SHRI RISIKESH WAS ARRESTED. THE AS SESSEE HAS OPERATED THE ACCOUNT IN ICICI BANK ON BEHALF OF M/S. BRUK CO NSORT (INDIA) PVT. LTD. HOWEVER, THAT AMOUNT BELONGS TO SHRI V.A. RISIKESH AND NOT THE ASSESSEE. 11. WHEN THE BENCH SPECIFICALLY ASKED THE LD. DR W ITH REGARD TO SHRI V.A. RISIKESH ANY PROCEEDINGS HAS BEEN INITIATED AGAINST HIM, THE LD. DR HAS I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. NO. NO. NO. NO.1 11 18 88 80/MDS/13 0/MDS/13 0/MDS/13 0/MDS/13 & & & & C.O. NO. C.O. NO. C.O. NO. C.O. NO. 59/MDS/13 59/MDS/13 59/MDS/13 59/MDS/13 7 INFORMED THAT NO PROCEEDINGS HAS BEEN INITIATED AGA INST HIM AND NO INFORMATION IS AVAILABLE WITH HIM. 12. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH SIDES, PERUSED THE MATERIAL S ON RECORD AND HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. T HE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS JOINED WITH M/S. BRUK CONS ORT (INDIA) PVT. LTD. OPERATING AT THRISSUR, KERALA STATE. HE JOINED THIS COMPANY DURING JANUARY, 2008 AND THE HEAD OFFICE OF THE COMPANY WAS AT BANG ALORE. HE WAS OFFERED A MONTHLY SALARY OF RS.15000/- AND WAS PAID ONLY FO R THE FIRST FOUR MONTHS. THEREAFTER, HE WAS NOT PAID ANY SALARY FROM THE COM PANY. HE WORKED WITH MR. ARUN ALIAS RISHIKESH, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER M /S BRUK CONSORT (INDIA) PVT. LTD. ACCORDING TO HIS INSTRUCTION, THE ASSESSE E HAD OPENED A BANK ACCOUNT IN ICICI BANK, MANJERI BRANCH IN HIS OWN NA ME AND THAT SHALL BE OPERATED BY HIM ONLY FOR AND ON BEHALF OF THE COMPA NY M/S BRUK CONSORT (INDIA) PVT. LTD. ACCORDING TO HIM, ALL FUTURE LIAB ILITIES IN CONNECTION WITH TAXES, DUTIES AND OTHER LEVIES ON SUCH BANK ACCOUNT SHALL BE DISCHARGED BY THE COMPANY ITSELF AND NO RESPONSIBILITY SHALL BE A SSIGNED TO MR. SHIBU. BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER, HE HAS SUBMITTED THE AMOUNT STANDS CREDITED IN HIS ACCOUNT WAS NOT BELONGED TO HIM AND BELONGIN G TO SHRI RISIKESH. ON THE BASIS OF THE STATEMENT GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE, T HE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE A PROTECTIVE ASSESSMENT. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. NO. NO. NO. NO.1 11 18 88 80/MDS/13 0/MDS/13 0/MDS/13 0/MDS/13 & & & & C.O. NO. C.O. NO. C.O. NO. C.O. NO. 59/MDS/13 59/MDS/13 59/MDS/13 59/MDS/13 8 13. ON APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) DELETED THE PR OTECTIVE ASSESSMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 14. AFTER CAREFULLY GOING THROUGH THE ORDERS PASSE D BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS FAILE D TO EXAMINED CERTAIN MATERIAL FACTS, WHICH ARE NECESSARY TO DECIDE THIS CASE, VIZ., WHEN THE ASSESSEE WAS APPOINTED IN M/S. BRUK CONSORT (INDIA) PVT. LTD.; THERE WAS NOTHING ON THE RECORD THAT WHO GAVE APPOINTMENT AND WHAT ARE THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE APPOINTMENT; AS PER ASSESSEE, HE RECEIVED SALARY ONLY FOR FOUR MONTHS. IT IS ALSO NOT CLEAR FROM THE RECO RD THAT WHETHER THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED HIS SALARY FROM THE HEAD OFFI CE OR FROM THE BRANCH OFFICE. IT IS NOT CLEAR WHEN THE ASSESSEE SAYS THAT HE WAS UNDER THE BONAFIDE BELIEF THAT HE WAS AN EMPLOYEE OF M/S. BRU K CONSORT (INDIA) PVT. LTD. AND IF IT IS SO, WHETHER THE ASSESSEE HAD EVER TRANSACTED WITH THE HEAD OFFICE AND IF SO, WHAT TYPE OF TRANSACTION/CONTACT HE HAD WITH HEAD OFFICE. IT IS ALSO NOT CLEAR WHEN HE WAS WORKING ON BEHALF OF M/S. BRUK CONSORT (INDIA) PVT. LTD., WHAT IS THE NECESSITY TO OPEN AN ACCOUNT IN HIS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY FOR THE COMPANY. BEFORE OPENING SUCH AN ACCOUNT, WH ETHER HE MADE ANY ENQUIRY WITH HEAD OFFICE, IF SO, WHAT ARE THE MATER IAL AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE, ARE REQUIRED TO BE EXAMINED. IT IS ALSO I MPORTANT TO KNOW THAT WHEN THE ASSESSEE CAME TO KNOW THAT SHRI RISIKESH H AD NOT CONNECTION WITH M/S. BRUK CONSORT (INDIA) PVT. LTD., WHETHER HE HAS CONSULTED WITH HEAD I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. NO. NO. NO. NO.1 11 18 88 80/MDS/13 0/MDS/13 0/MDS/13 0/MDS/13 & & & & C.O. NO. C.O. NO. C.O. NO. C.O. NO. 59/MDS/13 59/MDS/13 59/MDS/13 59/MDS/13 9 OFFICE AND GOT ANY DETAILS FROM THEM. IT APPEARS FR OM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO REMANDED FOR 14 DAYS AND SUBSEQUENTLY HE CAME OUT ON BAIL AND WHAT ARE THE ALLEGATION MADE A GAINST HIM AND ULTIMATELY, WHAT HAD HAPPENED TO THE CHARGES. IT IS ALSO IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT WHETHER SHRI RISIKESH HAS ACCEPTED THE AMOUNT LYING IN THE BANK ACCOUNT BELONGING TO HIM OR NOT. THERE IS NO MATERI AL AVAILABLE ON RECORD THAT WHETHER ANY PROCEEDINGS UNDER INCOME TAX ACT H AS BEEN INITIATED AGAINST SHRI RISIKESH OR NOT. IT IS ALSO NECESSARY THAT ULTIMATELY WHAT HAPPENED TO THAT MONEY LYING IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. A LL THE ABOVE MATERIAL ASPECTS NEED TO BE VERIFIED BEFORE COMING TO A CONC LUSION THAT THE MONEY LYING IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT BE LONGING TO HIM. WE, THEREFORE, SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CI T(APPEALS) AND REMITTED THE MATTER BACK TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND DIRECT HIM TO EXAMINE THE CASE IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE OBSERVATION AND DECIDE THE ISS UE AFRESH AFTER GIVING SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. C.O. NO. 59/MDS/2013 15. THE CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS O NLY TO SUPPORT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS). IN VIEW OF OUR DECISION IN THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IN I.T.A. NO. 180/MDS/2013 ABO VE, THE CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS DISMISSED. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. NO. NO. NO. NO.1 11 18 88 80/MDS/13 0/MDS/13 0/MDS/13 0/MDS/13 & & & & C.O. NO. C.O. NO. C.O. NO. C.O. NO. 59/MDS/13 59/MDS/13 59/MDS/13 59/MDS/13 10 16. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE AND THE CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESS EE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON WEDNESDAY, THE 31 ST OF JULY, 2013 AT CHENNAI. SD/ - SD/ - (ABRAHAM P. GEORGE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (V. DURGA RAO) JUDICIAL MEMBER CHENNAI, DATED, THE 31.07.2013 VM/- TO: THE ASSESSEE//A.O./CIT(A)/CIT/D.R.