ACIT, CHENNAI V. M/s. Maharaja Seafoods India P Ltd., CHENNAI

ITA 1018/CHNY/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1138 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 9 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-03-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 27-02-2013
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 06-06-2011
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: T N BETGIRI
• Assessee Lawyers: S SRIDHAR
• Keywords: Capital asset; Business income; Depreciation; Business expenditure; Question of law; Cost of acquisition; Fair market value

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, CHENNAI BEFORE SHRI ABRAHAM P.GEORGE , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.1017 & 1018/MDS/2011 (ASSESSMENT YEAR :2004-05 & 2005-06) ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COMPANY CIRCLE-VI(1), AAYAKAR BHAVAN IV FLOOR, 121, M.G.ROAD, CHENNAI-600 034. VS. M/S. MAHARAJA SEAFOODS INDIA P. LTD. 1, 5 TH STREET, DR.RADHAKRISHNA SALAI, CHENNAI-600 004. PAN: AABCM4787G (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : MR. T.N.BETGIRI, JCIT RESPONDENT BY : MR. S.SRIDHAR, ADVOCATE DATE OF HEARING : 27 TH FEBRUARY, 2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 20 TH MARCH, 2013 O R D E R PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM: THE PRESENT SET OF APPEALS HAVE BEEN FILED BY THE REVENUE IMPUGNING THE ORDERS OF THE CIT(A)-V, CHENN AI DATED 10.03.2011 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 AN D 2005- 06. SINCE THE ISSUES INVOLVES IN BOTH THE APPEALS A RE IDENTICAL, THEY ARE TAKEN UP TOGETHER FOR ADJUDICAT ION. 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSE E IS A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 AN D IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF EXPORT OF SEAFOOD PRODUC TS AFTER ITA NO.1017 & 1018/MDS/2011 2 PROCESSING. FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05, THE AS SESSEE FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 12.10.2004 RETURNING LOSS OF ` 66,42,819/-. FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 31.10.2005 RETURNING LOSS OF ` 26,43,751/-. THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) DATED 12.01.2005 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 WAS SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAD RENTED OUT ITS LAND AND BUILDINGS WITH ELECTRICAL INSTALLATIONS TO M/S. FARM SUZANNE PVT. LTD. IN LIEU THEREOF, THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED A SUM OF ` 12,00,000/- AS STORAGE CHARGES. THE ASSESSEE TREATED THE SAID INCO ME AS BUSINESS INCOME. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED SEVERAL EXP ENSES VIZ. REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE, MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSE S, RENT, RATES & TAXES, INTEREST , BANK CHARGES, AUDIT FEES , DEPRECIATION ETC. FROM THE BUSINESS INCOME. THE ASS ESSING OFFICER HELD THAT THE INCOME FROM LETTING OUT OF BU ILDING AMOUNTS TO INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY AND ONLY DE DUCTION ALLOWABLE IS AS PER SECTION 24 OF THE ACT. SINCE TH E INCOME FROM LETTING OF LAND AND BUILDINGS IS NOT A BUSINES S INCOME, ITA NO.1017 & 1018/MDS/2011 3 THE EXPENSES CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE NOT ALLOWA BLE EXPENSES. 3. THE SECOND ISSUE DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDIN GS WHICH CROPPED UP RELATES TO CAPITAL GAINS. THE ASSE SSEE HAD SOLD LAND MEASURING 26,087SQ.FT OF LAND AT MARAKAYA R NAGAR, NEELANKARAI VILLAGE. THE ASSESSEE ADOPTED THE GUIDE LINE VALUE OF ` 521/- PER SQ.FT FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINING SAL E CONSIDERATION FOR CAPITAL GAIN. FOR DETERMINING TH E COST OF ACQUISITION, THE ASSESSEE ADOPTED MARKET VALUE OF ` 120/- PER SQ.FT AS ON 1.4.1981. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ASCERT AINED THE MARKET VALUE FROM THE OFFICE OF SUB-REGISTRAR, ADYA R, CHENNAI TO DETERMINE THE COST OF ACQUISITION AS ON 1.4.1981 . THE SUB- REGISTRAR CERTIFIED THAT AS ON 1.4.1981 THE VALUE O F SURVEY NO.92/2/A I.E. PROPERTY IN QUESTION WAS ` 3500/- PER GROUND OR ` 1.46 PER SQ.FT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER REJECTED T HE ACQUISITION VALUE RELIED ON BY THE ASSESSEE AND PRO CEEDED ON TO DETERMINING LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS ON THE BASIS OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE SUB-REGISTRAR. 4. AGGRIEVED AGAINST THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 29.12.2006 THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE ITA NO.1017 & 1018/MDS/2011 4 CIT(A). THE CIT(A) VIDE HIS ORDER DATED 10.03.2011 HELD THAT THE INCOME EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE BY LETTING OUT OF BUILDING IS TO BE ASSESSED UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM BUSIN ESS . AS REGARDS THE ISSUE OF VALUE OF PROPERTY AS ON 1.4.1 981, THE CIT(A) NEITHER ACCEPTED THE VERSION OF THE ASSESSEE NOR THE GUIDELINE VALUE ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BU T MADE HIS OWN ESTIMATION ADOPTING MEAN VALUE @ ` 60/- PER SQ.FT. AGGRIEVED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), THE REV ENUE HAS COME IN SECOND APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 5. SIMILARLY, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06, THE ISSUE BEFORE THE CIT(A) WAS WITH REGARD TO ASSESSMENT OF INCOME RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM THE RENTING OUT OF TH E BUILDING AND DETERMINATION OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS BY SA LE OF THE PROPERTY AFOREMENTIONED. THE CIT(A) FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 FOLLOWED HIS ORDER PASSED IN THE ASSESSMEN T YEAR 2004-05. 6. THE DR APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE WITH RESPECT TO ISSUE NO.1 SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE H AD NO INTENTION TO CONTINUE IN HIS BUSINESS. THE ASSESSEE HAD ALREADY SOLD IMMOVABLE ASSETS OF THE COMPANY. THE D R ITA NO.1017 & 1018/MDS/2011 5 REFERRED TO PAGE 3 OF THE PAPER BOOK, WHEREIN IN AN NEXURE TO THE AUDITORS REPORT FOR THE PERIOD ENDED ON 31.3. 2005, THE AUDITORS HAVE POINTED OUT THAT THE COMPANY HAS ALRE ADY DISPOSED OF ALL THE PLANT AND MACHINERY, FURNITURE, VEHICLES AND MISCELLANEOUS ASSETS IN THE PREVIOUS FINANCIAL YEAR. THE DR SUBMITTED THAT THE STAND TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE B EFORE THE CIT(A) THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD RENTED OUT THE BUILDIN G ON ACCOUNT OF LULL IN THE BUSINESS IS NOT TENABLE IN V IEW OF THE REMARKS MADE IN THE AUDITORS REPORT. THE DR CONTE NDED THAT IN THE PRESENT CASE STORAGE CHARGES RECEIVED B Y THE ASSESSEE ARE LIABLE TO BE ASSESSED UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY AND AS SUCH THE ASSESSEE IS N OT ENTITLED FOR CLAIMING ANY BUSINESS EXPENSES. THE ONLY BENEF IT WHICH THE ASSESSEE CAN CLAIM IS, AS ADMISSIBLE UNDER SECT ION 24 OF THE ACT. IN ORDER TO SUPPORT HIS SUBMISSIONS, THE DR RELIED ON THE JUDGEMENT OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA IN THE CASE OF UNIVERSAL PLAST LTD. VS. CIT REPORTED AS 2 37 ITR 454(SC) TO SAY, LEASE AFTER THE ASSESSEE HAS STOPPE D HIS BUSINESS WITH NO INTENTION OF REVIVING IT, THE INCO ME FROM LEASE ITA NO.1017 & 1018/MDS/2011 6 IS NOT ASSESSABLE AS BUSINESS INCOME BUT IT SHOUL D BE TREATED AS INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY. 7. AS REGARDS GROUND NO.2 RELATING TO DETERMINATION OF CAPITAL GAINS, THE DR SUBMITTED THAT THE LAND IN QU ESTION IS SITUATED IN NEELANGARAI VILLAGE WHEREAS THE VALUE T AKEN BY THE CIT(A) RELATES TO THIRUVANMIYUR WHICH IS PART OF CHENNAI. THEREFORE, THE VALUE ADOPTED BY THE CIT(A) IS NOT A PPLICABLE IN THE PRESENT CASE. THE LAND WAS PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE WAY BACK IN THE YEAR 1973. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HA D ASCERTAINED THE VALUE FROM THE OFFICE OF THE SUB-RE GISTRAR, ADYAR, CHENNAI. ACCORDING TO WHICH THE GUIDELINE VA LUE IS ` 3500 /- PER GROUND OR ` 1.46 PER SQ.FT. SINCE THE GUIDELINE VALUE AS PER SUB-REGISTRARS OFFICE IS FAR LESS THA N THE ONE CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE COST OF ACQUISITION HA S TO BE DETERMINED AS PER GUIDELINE VALUE. THE DR SUBMITTED THAT NEITHER BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOR BEFORE THE CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN ABLE TO DEMONSTRATE AS TO HOW THE VALUE OF ` 120/- PER SQ.FT. HAS BEEN ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE DR IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTIONS, RELIED ON THE JUDGEMENT ITA NO.1017 & 1018/MDS/2011 7 OF THE HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. J.V.K. RAO, REPORTED AS 258 ITR 90(MAD). 8. ON THE OTHER HAND, SHRI S.SRIDHAR APPEARING ON B EHALF OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT ONLY A PART OF PLANT AND MACHINERY HAS BEEN SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE. THE REMAIN ING PART OF LAND AND MACHINERY, WHEREIN PROCESSING UNIT HAS BEEN SET UP HAS BEEN LEASED OUT. THE ASSESSEE WAS FORC ED TO SHUT DOWN ITS BUSINESS ON ACCOUNT OF LULL IN THE BU SINESS. IT WAS A TEMPORARY PHASE WHEN THE ASSESSEE DECIDED TO LEASE OUT ITS LAND AND BUILDING ALONG WITH ELECTRICAL INS TALLMENTS TO EARN INCOME OUT OF THE COMMERCIAL ASSETS. THE COUNS EL SUBMITTED THAT IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSE E HAD CLOSED DOWN ITS BUSINESS TEMPORARILY THE INCOME REC EIVED AS STORAGE CHARGES IS LIABLE TO BE ASSESSED UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM BUSINESS AND NOT UNDER THE HEAD INCO ME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY. SINCE THE INCOME IS LIABLE TO BE A SSESSED AS INCOME FROM BUSINESS, THE EXPENSES CLAIMED BY TH E ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWABLE AS BUSINESS EXPENSES. THE SALE OF CERTAIN ASSETS BY NO STRETCH OF IMAGINATION CAN LEA D TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLOSED DOWN ITS BU SINESS. ITA NO.1017 & 1018/MDS/2011 8 9. WITH REGARD TO SECOND GROUND OF APPEAL, THE COUN SEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE LAND IN QUESTION IS SITUATED ON EAST COAST ROAD AND IS AT A PRIME LOCATION. PROX IMITY OF MAHABALIPURAM, AN INTERNATIONAL TOURIST PLACE HAS E SCALATED THE VALUE OF LAND MANIFOLD, THEREFORE, FAIR MARKET VALUE HAS TO BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION AND NOT THE GUIDELINE VALUE. THE COUNSEL CONTENDED THAT THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. JVK RAO (S UPRA) IS NOT APPLICABLE IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E PRESENT CASE. SUPPORTING THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), THE COUN SEL FOR THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT THE CIT(A) HAS FAIRLY EST IMATED THE VALUE BY ADOPTING MEAN VALUE. IN ORDER TO SUPPORT HIS CONTENTIONS, THE COUNSEL RELIED ON THE JUDGEMENT OF THE HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. J.CHELLADURAI REPORTED AS 204 TAXMAN 258(MAD), WH EREIN THE HONBLE HIGH COURT ACCEPTED AVERAGE VALUE OF T HE LAND AS ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSEE AND AS DETERMINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 10. WE HAVE HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY BOTH THE PARTIES AND HAVE PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORIT IES BELOW. ITA NO.1017 & 1018/MDS/2011 9 WE HAVE ALSO PERUSED THE JUDGEMENTS/ORDERS REFERRED TO BY BOTH THE PARTIES. 11. THE ISSUE NO.1 IN THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE RE LATES TO THE HEAD UNDER WHICH THE INCOME RECEIVED BY THE ASS ESSEE AS STORAGE CHARGES IS TO BE DETERMINED. THE ASS ESSEE IS CLAIMING THE INCOME TO BE ASSESSED UNDER THE HEAD BUSINESS INCOME WHEREAS THE REVENUE INTENDS TO ASSESS THE I NCOME UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY. IT IS AN ADMITTED FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RENTED OUT ITS LAND AND BUILDING TO EARN INCOME FROM THE ASSETS OF THE COMP ANY. THE STAND OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT DUE TO LULL IN THE BU SINESS OF SEAFOOD EXPORTS, THE ASSESSEE HAD EXTENDED THE FACI LITY OF STORAGE TO OTHER EXPORTERS TO STORE THEIR PRODUC TS RESULTING IN EARNING THE INCOME UNDER CONSIDERATION. THEREFO RE, LEASING OUT OF THE STORAGE FACILITY HAS TO BE ASSES SED AS BUSINESS INCOME AND ALL THE EXPENSES RELATING TH ERETO ARE TO BE ALLOWED. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE MAY HAVE STOP PED ITS BUSINESS ACTIVITIES OF EXPORTING SEA FOODS ON ACCOU NT OF LULL IN THE BUSINESS, BUT ITS ACT AND CONDUCT CLEARLY SHOW S THAT IT HAD NO INTENTION TO REVIVE ITS BUSINESS AS IT HAD ALREA DY DISPOSED ITA NO.1017 & 1018/MDS/2011 10 OF ITS PLANT AND MACHINERY, FURNITURE, VEHICLES, MI SCELLANEOUS ASSETS ETC. THIS FACT IS EVIDENT FROM THE ANNEXURE TO THE AUDITORS REPORT FOR THE PERIOD ENDED ON 31.3.2005. IN SUCH LIKE CIRCUMSTANCES, WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAS NO INTEN TION TO REVIVE ITS BUSINESS AND HAS LEASED OUT ITS COMMERCI AL ASSETS VIZ. LAND AND BUILDING FOR EARNING INCOME, THE INCO ME HAS TO BE ASSESSED UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROP ERTY. OUR VIEW IS FURTHER FORTIFIED BY THE DECISION OF TH E HONBLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA IN THE CASE OF UNIVERSAL PLA ST LTD. VS. CIT (SUPRA). THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA A FTER EXAMINING VARIOUS JUDGEMENTS ON THE ISSUE CONCLUDED AS UNDER:- IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, THE PROPOSIT IONS MAY BE SUMMARISED AS FOLLOWS: (1) NO PRECISE TEST CAN BE LAID DOWN TO ASCERTAIN WHETHER INCOME (REFERRED TO BY WHATEVER NOMENCLATUR E, LEASE, AMOUNT, RENTS, LICENCE FEE) RECEIVED BY AN ASSESSEE FROM LEASING OR LETTING OUT OF ASSETS WOUL D FALL UNDER THE HEAD PROFITS AND GAINS OF BUSINESS OR PROFESSION; (2) IT IS A MIXED QUESTION OF LAW AND FACT AND HAS TO BE DETERMINED FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF A BUSINESSMAN IN THAT BUSINESS ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF EACH CASE, INCLUDING TRUE INTERPRETATION OF THE AGR EEMENT UNDER WHICH THE ASSETS ARE LET OUT ; (3) WHERE ALL THE ASSETS OF THE BUSINESS ARE LET OU T, THE PERIOD FOR WHICH THE ASSETS ARE LET OUT IS A RELEVA NT ITA NO.1017 & 1018/MDS/2011 11 FACTOR TO FIND OUT WHETHER THE INTENTION OF THE ASS ESSEE IS TO GO OUT OF BUSINESS ALTOGETHER OR TO COME BACK AND RESTART THE SAME ; (4) IF ONLY A FEW OF THE BUSINESS ASSETS ARE LET OU T TEMPORARILY, WHILE THE ASSESSEE IS CARRYING OUT HIS OTHER BUSINESS ACTIVITIES, THEN IT IS A CASE OF EXPLOITIN G THE BUSINESS ASSETS OTHERWISE THAN EMPLOYING THEM FOR H IS OWN USE FOR MAKING PROFIT FOR THAT BUSINESS; BUT IF THE BUSINESS NEVER STARTED OR HAS STARTED BUT CEASED WI TH NO INTENTION TO BE RESUMED, THE ASSETS ALSO WILL CE ASE TO BE BUSINESS ASSETS AND THE TRANSACTION WILL ONLY BE EXPLOITATION OF PROPERTY BY AN OWNER THEREOF, BUT N OT EXPLOITATION OF BUSINESS ASSETS. IF THE AFORESAID PRINCIPLES RELATING TO INCOME FROM LEASING OUT THE ASSETS OF THE BUSINESS ARE APPLIED IN THE INSTA NT CASE, WE CAN CONCLUDE THAT THE INCOME EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM LETTING OF BUILDINGS AND LAND IS NOT BUSINESS INCOM E AND HENCE THE BUSINESS EXPENDITURES CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE A RE NOT ALLOWABLE. ACCORDINGLY, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF TH E REVENUE IS ALLOWED. 12. THE SECOND GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE REVENUE RELA TES TO DETERMINATION OF THE COST OF ACQUISITION OF THE ASS ET. THE ASSESSEE HAS ADOPTED THE VALUE AS PER THE VALUE DET ERMINED BY THE REGISTERED VALUER. THE GUIDELINE VALUE ADOPT ED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS AT RS.1.46 PER SQ.FT IS BASED ON THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY SUB-REGISTRAR, ADYAR, CHENNAI . THERE IS ITA NO.1017 & 1018/MDS/2011 12 A WIDE VARIATION IN THE VALUE ADOPTED BY THE ASSESS EE I.E. RS.120 PER SQ.FT. AND THE GUIDELINE VALUE ADOPTED B Y THE ASSESSING OFFICER I.E. RS.1.46 PER SQ.FT. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE LAND IN QUESTION IS SITUATED AT A PRIME LOCATIO N ON EAST COAST ROAD. THE CIT(A) HAS DETERMINED THE VALUE OF THE LAND @ RS.60/- PER SQ.FT. BY ADOPTING MEAN VALUE. 13. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, WHERE THERE IS A WID E VARIATION IN THE FAIR MARKET VALUE AND THE GUIDELIN E VALUE, IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE IF AN AVERAGE VALUE IS ADOPTED . THIS METHOD OF VALUATION HAS BEEN APPROVED BY THE HONBL E JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. J. CHELLADURAI (SUPRA). IN THE SAID CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAD RELIED ON THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY SUB-REGISTRAR WHERE THE VALUE WAS DETERMINED AT RS.500/- PER CENT. THE SAID CERTIFICA TE WAS LATER ON FOUND TO BE FORGED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DETER MINED THE VALUE AT RS.100 PER CENT . IN SUCH LIKE CIRCUMSTANC ES, THE HONBLE HIGH COURT FOR COMPUTING CAPITAL GAINS ADOP TED AVERAGE OF THE VALUE AS ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSEE AND AS DETERMINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IN THE PRESEN T CASE ALSO THE CIT(A) HAS ADOPTED MEAN VALUE @ RS.60/- PER SQ .FT. IN ITA NO.1017 & 1018/MDS/2011 13 VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE, IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE THAT MEAN VALUE ADOPTED BY THE CIT(A) TO DETERMINE THE VALUE OF CAPITAL ASSETS BE APPROVE D. 14. IN VIEW OF OUR ABOVE FINDINGS, THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE IS UPHELD AND THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF T HE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 15. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE ARE PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON WEDNESDAY , THE 20 TH DAY OF MARCH, 2013 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (ABRAHAM P.GEORGE ) (VIKAS AWASTHY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER CHENNAI, DATED THE 20 TH MARCH, 2013. SOMU COPY TO: (1) APPELLANT (4) CIT(A) (2) RESPONDENT (5) D.R. (3) CIT (6) G.F.