ITO, Kumbakonam V. Shri K.Parthasarathy, Kumbakonam

ITA 1068/CHNY/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 90510 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-06-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 09-06-2015
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 10-06-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A V SREEKANTH
• Keywords: Capital asset; Depreciation

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , C B ENCH, CHENNAI . , . # , $ & BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI V.DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ I.T.A.NO . 1068/MDS/2011 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2005-06) INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-I(1), 31, KRISHNASAMY ROAD, GANDHI NAGAR KUMBAKONAM. VS SHRI K.PARTHASARATHY, 18A, NAGESWARAN NORTH STREET, KUMBAKONAM. PAN:AAFPP2117E ( /APPELLANT) ( /RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : MR. A.V.SREEKANTH, JCIT /RESPONDENT BY : MR. RAGHAV MENON, ADVOCATE /DATE OF HEARING : 9 TH JUNE, 2015 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 19 TH JUNE, 2015 / O R D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, AM: THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), TIRUCHIRAPALLI DATED 14.03.2011. 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT ASSESSEE PURCHA SED A PROPERTY AT NAGESWARAM NORTH STREET, KUMBAKONAM IN 1970 MEASURING 1323 SQ.FT FOR A CONSIDERATION OF ` 5,000/- BESIDES STAMP AND REGISTRATION CHARGES OF ` 516/- BY DOCUMENT NO.2263/1970 ON 28.12.1970 WITH SUB-REGIST RAR, 2 ITA NO.1068 /MDS/2011 KUMBAKONAM. THIS PROPERTY WAS GIVEN TO M/S. KANNIAH PHOTO STUDIO, A REGISTERED FIRM BY THE ASSESSEE OF WHICH THE ASSESSEE WAS A PARTNER ALONG WITH HIS FATHER. IN TH E SAID PROPERTY, THE FIRM HAD PUT UP A PUCCA RCC TERRACED SUPER STRUCTURE FOR WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED A COPY O F MUNICIPAL APPROVED PLAN DATED 22.02.1984. THE ASSESSEE ALSO F ILED COPY OF FIRMS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE YEAR ENDED 31.3.1983 AND 31.3.1984. THE ASSESSEE HAD POINTED OUT IN THE ABOVE RETURNS OF INCOME THAT CONSTRUCTION COST IN THE BA LANCE SHEET OF THE FIRM FOR 31.3.1983 AND CONSTRUCTION HAVING B EEN COMPLETED DURING THE YEAR ENDING 31.3.1984 WHEREIN THE FIRM HAD CAPITALIZED THE CONSTRUCTION COST AND HAD CLAIM ED DEPRECIATION ON THE SAME. THE ASSESSMENT ORDER OF T HE FIRM FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1983-84 AND 1984-85 WERE A LSO FILED IN THE PAPER BOOK. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED TH AT FOR THE PURPOSE OF RAISING LOAN FROM BANK FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE SUPERSTRUCTURE, THE ASSESSEE HAD GIVEN THE PROPERTY DOCUMENT AS COLLATERAL SECURITY TO THE LENDER BANK. THE SAME GOT CARRIED ON ULTIMATELY UP TO 2002 AND LASTLY WIT H CITY UNION BANK, KUMBAKONAM AND DUE TO INABILITY OF THE FIRM T O REPAY THE LOAN, THE BANK HAD APPROACHED THE DEBT RECOVERY 3 ITA NO.1068 /MDS/2011 TRIBUNAL FOR ATTACHMENT OF ALL THE PROPERTIES GIVEN AS COLLATERAL INCLUDING ASSESSEES PROPERTY IN 2003. H OWEVER, THIS PROPERTY WAS SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE FOR A CONSID ERATION OF ` 40.00 LAKHS. HOWEVER, ON SURVEY IT WAS FOUND THAT A CTUAL CONSIDERATION FOR SALE OF PROPERTY IN HIS SWORN STA TEMENT FOR THE LAND ALONE WAS ARRIVED AT ` 48,23,000/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER OPINED THAT ASSESSEE IS LIABLE FOR CAPITAL GAINS ON SALE OF THIS PROPERTY. CONTRARY TO THIS ASSESSEE STATED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT PROPERTY WAS MORTGAGED TO BA NK AND THE POSSESSION OF PROPERTY ALTHOUGH WAS GIVEN TO TH E ASSESSEE FIRM BEFORE MORTGAGING THE PROPERTY AND TH E PROPERTY USED BY THE FIRM THOUGH IT WAS BELONGED TO THE ASSESSEE AND SALE OF PROPERTY CANNOT BE TREATED AS TRANSFER BY ASSESSEE HIMSELF. CONTRARY TO THIS, ASSESSING O FFICER OBSERVED THAT LANDED PROPERTY HAS BEEN SHOWN AS PER SONAL ASSET OF THE ASSESSEE IN HIS RETURN OF INCOME IN EA RLIER YEARS AND ONLY THE BUILDING WAS BELONGED TO THE FIRM M/S. KANNIAH PHOTO STUDIO AND LAND IS ACTUALLY BELONGED TO THE A SSESSEE, AS SUCH, THERE WAS A TRANSFER OF SALE OF PROPERTY I N THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE AND BROUGHT TO TAX AS CAPITAL GAINS. A GGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED ON APPEAL TO COMMISSIONER OF I NCOME 4 ITA NO.1068 /MDS/2011 TAX (APPEALS). THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPE ALS) OBSERVED THAT THERE IS NO TRANSFER OF CAPITAL ASSET DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESS EE IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2(47)(VI) OF THE ACT AND THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) FOLLOWED THE JUDGEMENT OF GUWAHATI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF B.C .GUPTA & SONS LTD. VS. CIT (221 ITR 53) AND THE JUDGEMENT OF MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SU BODH KUMAR JAIN (221 ITR 802) AND CANCELLED THE ASSESSME NT AGAINST WHICH THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 3. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE APPEARI NG ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE SUBMITTED THAT THE PROVISI ONS OF SECTION 2(47)(VI) OF THE ACT ARE NOT APPLICABLE IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE AS THE ASSESSEE HAD ONLY GIVEN HIS PRO PERTY (I.E. THE LAND) FOR MORTGAGE TO THE BANK AS A COLL ATERAL SECURITY FOR GETTING LOAN SANCTIONED FOR CONSTRUCTI ON OF SUPER STRUCTURE BY THE FIRM ON THE LAND HELD BY THE ASSES SEE. HE SUBMITTED THAT ON THE LOAN TAKEN BY THE FIRM THE BE NEFIT OF SECTION 48(I) IS NOT ADMISSIBLE. IN ORDER TO SUPPOR T HIS CONTENTIONS, HE RELIED ON THE JUDGEMENT OF THE HON BLE 5 ITA NO.1068 /MDS/2011 BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. ROSHANBABU MOHAMMED HUSSEIN MERCHANT REPORTED AS 275 ITR 231(BOM) AND THE JUDGEMENT OF THE HONBLE KERALA HI GH COURT IN THE CASE OF SALAY MOHAMAD IBRAHIM SAIT VS. ITO REPORTED AS 210 ITR 700. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN FOLLOWING THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE H ONBLE GUWAHATI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF B.C.GUPTA & SONS LTD. VS. CIT., REPORTED AS 221 ITR 53 AND BY THE HONBL E MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SUBODH KU MAR JAIN, REPORTED AS 221 ITR 802. THE SAID CASES PERTA IN TO TRANSFER ON ACCOUNT OF COMPULSORY LAND ACQUISITION BY THE GOVERNMENT AUTHORITIES. THEREFORE, THE RATIO OF THE ABOVE SAID JUDGEMENTS ARE NOT APPLICABLE IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT CASE. 4. ON THE OTHER HAND, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSES SEE IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTIONS RELIED ON THE FOLLOWING JUDGEMENTS:- I) KARTIKEYA V.SARABHAI VS. CIT (228 ITR 163) (SC) , WHEREIN THE SUPREME COURT HELD AS UNDER:- 6 ITA NO.1068 /MDS/2011 WHILE, IT IS NO DOUBT TRUE THAT THE APPELLANT CONTINUES TO REMAIN A SHAREHOLDER OF THE COMPANY EVEN WITH THE REDUCTION OF A SHARE CAPITAL BUT IT I S NOT POSSIBLE TO ACCEPT THE CONTENTION THAT THERE HAS BEEN NO EXTINGUISHMENT OF ANY PART OF HIS RIGHT AS A SHAREHOLDER QUA THE COMPANY. IT IS NOT NECESSARY THAT FOR A CAPITAL GAIN TO ARISE THAT THE RE MUST BE A SALE OF A CAPITAL ASSET. SALE IS ONLY ONE OF THE MODES OF TRANSFER ENVISAGED BY S. 2(47). RELINQUISHMENT OF THE ASSET OR THE EXTINGUISHMENT OF ANY RIGHT IN IT, WHICH MAY NOT AMOUNT TO SALE, ALSO BE CONSIDERED AS A TRANSFER AND ANY PROFIT OR GAIN WHICH ARISES FROM THE TRANSF ER OF A CAPITAL ASSET IS LIABLE TO BE TAXED UNDER S. 45. WHEN AS A RESULT OF THE REDUCING OF THE FACE VALUE OF THE SHARE, THE SHARE CAPITAL IS REDUCED, THE RIGHT OF THE PREFERENCE SHARE HOLDER TO THE DIVIDEND OR HIS SHARE CAPITAL AND THE RIGHT TO SHAR E IN THE DISTRIBUTION OF THE NET ASSETS UPON LIQUIDAT ION IS EXTINGUISHED PROPORTIONATELY TO THE EXTENT OF REDUCTION IN THE CAPITAL. WHEREAS THE APPELLANT HAD A RIGHT TO DIVIDEND ON A CAPITAL OF RS. 500 PER SHARE THAT STOOD REDUCED TO HIS RECEIVING DIVIDEND ON RS. 50 PER SHARE. SIMILARLY, IF THE LIQUIDATION WAS TO TAKE PLACE WHEREAS HE ORIGINALLY HAD A RIGHT TO RS. 500 PER SHARE, NOW HIS RIGHT STOOD REDUCED TO RECEIVING RS. 50 PER SHARE ONLY. EVEN THOUGH THE APPELLANT CONTINUES TO REMAIN A SHARE HOLDER HIS RIGHT AS A HOLDER OF THOSE SHARES CLEARLY STANDS REDUCED WITH THE REDUCTION IN THE SH ARE CAPITAL. THE LIABILITY OF THE COMPANY IN RESPECT OF THE PREFERENCE SHARE WHICH WAS PREVIOUSLY TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 500 NOW STOOD REDUCED TO RS. 50 PER SHARE. THE RIGHT AS A PREFERENCE SHAREHOLDER OF THE APPELLANT STANDS REDUCED FROM RS. 500 TO RS. 50 PER SHARE. A SUM OF RS. 450 PER SHARE HAS BEEN PAID BY THE COMPANY TO THE APPELLANT ON ACCOUN T OF THE EXTINGUISHMENT OF HIS RIGHT TO THE AFORESAID EXTENT. FURTHER, WITH THE REDUCTION IN TH E FACE VALUE OF THE SHARE FROM RS. 500 PER SHARE TO RS. 50 PER SHARE, THE VALUE OF THE VOTE OF THE APPELLANT IN THE EVENT OF THERE BEING A POLL WOULD STAND CONSIDERABLY REDUCED. SUCH REDUCTION OF THE RIGHT IN THE CAPITAL ASSET WOULD CLEARLY AMOUNT TO A TRANSFER WITHIN THE MEANING OF THAT EXPRESSION IN S. 2(47). THE HIGH COURT WAS RIGHT IN COMING TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE APPELLANT WAS LIABLE TO PAY 7 ITA NO.1068 /MDS/2011 CAPITAL GAINS TAX ON THE CAPITAL GAIN OF RS. 28,710 AS A RESULT OF REDUCTION IN THE PREFERENCE SHARE. II) CIT VS.SUBODH KUMAR JAIN (221 ITR 802)(MP), WHEREIN THE HIGH COURT HELD AS UNDER:- IN THE PRESENT CASE THE ACTUAL POSSESSION WAS TAKE N OVER ON 4TH JAN., 1975. IF THIS BE THE CRUCIAL DATE, THEN AUTOMATICALLY THE ASSESSMENT YEAR FOR TH E CAPITAL GAIN SHALL BE 1975-76 AND THE PREVIOUS ASSESSMENT YEAR RELEVANT WILL BE 1974-75. THIS IS SO BECAUSE THE ACTUAL DATE OF TAKING OVER POSSESSION HAS BEEN BROUGHT IN EVIDENCE. ACCORDING TO S. 17(1) ALSO, THE GOVERNMENT CAN TAKE POSSESSION OF THE LAND PRIOR TO THE PASSING OF THE AWARD. THEREFORE, THE CRUCIAL QUESTION IS TAKING OVER THE POSSESSION OF THE LAND. IN THE INST ANT CASE, IT IS 4TH JAN., 1975. THE TRIBUNAL WAS THEREFORE CORRECT IN LAW IN HOLDING THAT THE CAPITA L GAINS ARISING FROM THE COMPULSORY ACQUISITION OF THE PROPERTY AROSE IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR CORRESPONDING TO THE ASST. YR. 1975-76 AND BECAME TAXABLE IN THAT ASSESSMENT YEAR III) B.C.GUPTA & SONS LTD. VS. CIT (221 ITR 53)(GA U), WHEREIN THE HIGH COURT OBSERVED AS UNDER:- IF POSSESSION OF THE LAND HAS BEEN TAKEN OVER AND HANDED OVER IN CASE OF URGENCY, AS REQUIRED UNDER S. 17 OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT IN RESPECT OF ANY WASTE OR ARABLE LAND, SUCH LAND SHALL THEREUPON VEST ABSOLUTELY IN THE GOVERNMENT, EVEN THOUGH THE AWARD HAS BEEN MADE SUBSEQUENTLY AFTER THE POSSESSION OF THE LAND IS TAKEN. IT IS AL SO EVIDENT FROM THE RECORDS THAT THE GOVERNMENT TOOK POSSESSION OF THE LAND IN QUESTION ON 7TH FEB. , 1973, AND THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF TRANSFER OF THE TITLE IN THE LAND WOULD BE 7TH FEB., 1973, AND HENC E, THE CAPITAL GAINS WAS ASSESSABLE DURING THE ACCOUNTING YEAR RELEVANT TO THE ASST. YR. 1974-75. THE TRIBUNAL ALSO OBSERVED THAT SO LONG AS THE 8 ITA NO.1068 /MDS/2011 ORDER OF THE COLLECTOR ACQUIRING THE LAND OF THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY UNDER S. 17(1) EVEN BAD IN LAW AS ALLEGED BY THE ASSESSEE'S COUNSEL, IS IN SUBSISTENCE AND NOT QUASHED OR IN ANY MANNER MODIFIED, THE ACQUISITION OF LAND UNDER S. 17 OF TH E LAND ACQUISITION ACT IS TO BE CONSIDERED A VALID ON E. UNDOUBTEDLY, THE TRIBUNAL HAS NO JURISDICTION TO GO INTO THE MERITS OF THE LAND ACQUISITION PROCEEDINGS. 5. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS ON RECORD. IN THIS CASE ASSESSEE PURCHAS ED LANDED PROPERTY IN THE YEAR 1971. IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1984-85, THE FIRM M/S. KANNIAH PHOTO STUDIO IN WHICH THE AS SESSEE IS ONE OF THE PARTNERS CONSTRUCTED BUILDING ON THE AFO RESAID LAND BELONGED TO THE ASSESSEE FIRM AND HAD CLAIMED DEP RECIATION ON THE BUILDING CONSTRUCTED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME . HOWEVER THE LAND HAD BEEN SHOWN AS PERSONAL ASSET IN THE RE TURN OF THE ASSESSEE IN EARLIER YEARS. THE ASSESSEE SOLD TH E PROPERTY FOR A CONSIDERATION OF ` 75.00 LAKHS, THOUGH IT WAS STATED IN THE REGISTERED SALE DEED AT ` 40.00 LAKHS. THE ASSESSEE HAD ADMITTED RECEIPT OF CONSIDERATION FOR SALE OF PROPE RTY IN HIS SWORN STATEMENT RECORDED DURING THE SURVEY ON 27.07.2005 AND ALSO ADMITTED THAT ASSESSEE SOLD PRO PERTY IN HIS INDIVIDUAL STATUS AND THERE IS NO HUF STATUS. CONTRARY TO 9 ITA NO.1068 /MDS/2011 THIS, THE ASSESSEE FILED LETTER DATED 20.11.2007 FI LED ON 3.12.2007 STATING AS FOLLOWS:- 1. WHILE CALCULATING THE CAPITAL GAIN ON TRANSFER OF SITE AT NAGESWARAN NORTH STREET, KUMBAKONAM, MY AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE HAS INADVERTENTLY CALCULATED THE CAP ITAL GAIN. 2. THE FIRMS HAVE PLEDGED CERTAIN PROPERTIES TO BAN K AND REQUESTED TO PLEDGE MY SITE ALSO. THIS WAS DONE IN THE PAST. WHILE MORTGAGING/PLEDGING THE PROPERTY WI TH THE BANK, I HAVE ALSO GIVEN POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY. 3. DURING THIS YEAR THERE WAS NO TRANSFER AND I WAS DIRECTED TO SIGN THE DOCUMENT BY THE BANK WHO HAD T AKEN THE PROPERTY LONG TIME BACK. ACCORDING TO ME, THERE IS NO TRANSFER DURING THIS YEAR. ALL THE PROCEEDS WERE TA KEN OVER BY THE BANK TOWARDS THE LOAN LIABILITY OF THIR D PARTIES. 4. HENCE, IT IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED THAT THERE B EING NO TRANSFER DURING THE YEAR UNDER REVIEW AND THAT N O CONSIDERATION HAS BEEN RECEIVED BY ME THE INCOME UN DER THE HEAD CAPITAL GAIN MAY KINDLY BE TREATED AS NIL AND JUSTICE RENDERED. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER REJECTED THE CLAIM O F THE ASSESSEE AND ASSESSED CAPITAL GAINS ON THE TRANSFER OF IMPUGNED LAND. 6. AS PER SECTION 45(1) OF THE ACT, THE FOLLOWING C ONDITIONS ARE TO BE FULFILLED FOR CHARGING OF CAPITAL GAINS:- I) THERE SHOULD BE A CAPITAL ASSET II) THAT CAPITAL ASSET SHOULD HAVE BEEN HELD OR OWNED BY THE ASSESSEE; 10 ITA NO.1068 /MDS/2011 III) TRANSFER OF THAT CAPITAL ASSET SHOULD HAVE B EEN EFFECTED. IV) SUCH TRANSFER SHOULD HAVE BEEN EFFECTED IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO THE PARTICULAR ASSESSMENT YEAR. V) CAPITAL GAINS SHOULD HAVE BEEN ARISEN FROM TRANSFER . IF ALL THESE CONDITIONS ARE SATISFIED, THEN PROFITS AND GAINS IN QUESTION ARE CHARGEABLE TO TAX UNDER THE HEAD CAPI TAL GAINS AND WOULD BE DEEMED TO BE INCOME OF THE YEAR UNDER WHICH TRANSFER TOOK PLACE. IN OTHER WORDS, IN ORDER TO AT TRACT TAX ON CAPITAL GAINS, THE SUBJECT MATTER OF TRANSFER SHOUL D BE A CAPITAL ASSET. THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE HERE IN IS THAT ASSESSEE IS NOT THE OWNER OF THE IMPUGNED PROPERTY AND THE PROPERTY HAS ALREADY BEEN HANDED OVER TO M/S. KANNI AH PHOTO STUDIO, KUMBAKONAM BUT THE FACTS SHOW THAT ASSESSEE EXECUTED SALE DEED TO THE PURCHASER AND ON LY BUILDING CONSTRUCTED ON THE LANDED PROPERTY WAS BY THE FIRM M/S. KANNIAH PHOTO STUDIO ON WHICH THEY HAVE CLAIME D DEPRECIATION. HOWEVER, THERE IS NO IOTA OF EVIDENCE TO SUGGEST THAT THE IMPUGNED LANDED PROPERTY WAS OWNED BY 11 ITA NO.1068 /MDS/2011 M/S. KANNIAH PHOTO STUDIO. IT IS ALSO BROUGHT ON RE CORD BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT LANDED PROPERTY HAS BEEN SHO WN BY THE ASSESSEE IN HIS EARLIER RETURN OF INCOME AS OWN ED BY THE INDIVIDUAL. EVEN OTHERWISE THE MORTGAGE OF PROPERTY TO BANK CANNOT BE SAID TO BE EXTINGUISHMENT OF RIGHT OF ASS ESSEE OVER THE PROPERTY AS DECIDED BY THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS.ROSHANBABU MOHAMMED HUSSEIN MERCHANT (275 ITR 231) AND KERALA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SALAY MOHAMAD IBRAHIM SAID VS. ITO (210 ITR 700). 7. CONTRARY TO THIS, COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS GIVEN A FINDING THAT ASSESSEE IS NO L ONGER OWNER OF THE PROPERTY. THEREFORE WE ARE UNABLE TO U PHOLD THE FINDINGS OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS ) ON THE SIMPLE REASON THAT LANDED PROPERTY WAS ALWAYS REMAI NED AS OWNED BY THE ASSESSEE AND CONTINUED TO BE REMAINED WITH HIM TILL HE SOLD THE PROPERTY AND HE HIMSELF EXECUT ED THE SALE DEED IN HIS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY. BEING SO, IN OUR O PINION, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RIGHTLY BROUGHT THE CAPITAL G AINS ARISING OUT OF TRANSFER OF LANDED PROPERTY TO TAX IN THE NA ME OF THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, WE REVERSE THE ORDER OF THE 12 ITA NO.1068 /MDS/2011 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ON THIS ISSUE AND RESTORE THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 8. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IN ITA NO.1068/MDS/2011 IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 19 TH JUNE, 2015 SD/- SD/- ( . ) ( % ) ( V.DURGA RAO ) ( CHANDRA POOJARI ) ( ) / JUDICIAL MEMBER ) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( /CHENNAI, + /DATED 19 TH JUNE, 2015 SOMU -. /. /COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. 0 () /CIT(A) 4. 0 /CIT 5. . 4 /DR 6. /GF .