ACIT, Salem V. M.Pranuthi, Salem

ITA 1121/CHNY/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 135 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0934 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-03-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 09-07-2010
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: S SRIDHAR
• Keywords: Search and seizure; Set aside
• Section: 143(3); 143(1); 208

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHENNAI BENCH A : CHENNAI [BEFORE SHRI HARI OM MARATHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ABRAHAM P GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER] I.T.A.NOS.1120 TO 1125/MDS/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAS : 2003-04 TO 2008-09 THE ACIT CIRCLE I SALEM VS M. PRANUTHI C/O R.P.SARATHY 21, GANDHI ROAD SALEM 636 007 [PAN AGMPP9169P] (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI SHAJI P. JACOB RESPONDENT BY : SHRI S.SRIDHAR O R D E R PER BENCH: THIS IS A BUNCH OF SIX APPEALS FILED B Y THE REVENUE PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 2003-04 TO 2008-09, INVOLVING I DENTICAL ISSUE REGARDING ASSESSMENT OF MINORS INCOME IN THE HANDS OF A GRANDFATHER IN THE CAPACITY OF REPRESENTATIVE ASSESSEE U/S 160(1)(II) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS 'T HE ACT' FOR SHORT) OR UNDER ANY PROVISION OF THE ACT FOR THAT PURPOSE. F OR BETTER APPRECIATION OF FACTS AND TO BE BRIEF AT THE SAME T IME, WE PROCEED TO DECIDE THEM BY A COMMON ORDER. ITA 1120 TO 1125/10 :- 2 -: 2. THE UNDISPUTED FACTS IN RELATION TO ALL THESE APPE ALS ARE THAT M.PRANUTHI, WHO WAS ADMITTEDLY, A MINOR DURING THE RELEVANT YEARS, WAS BORN ON 14.12.1990. ON 28.6.1993, SHE WAS TRAV ELING IN A CAR ALONGWITH HER PARENTS AND PATERNAL GRANDMOTHER. TH E CAR MET AN ACCIDENT IN WHICH SHE ONLY SURVIVED. SHE WAS SEPAR ATELY ASSESSED TO INCOME-TAX FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1992-93. AFTER INSERTION OF SECTION 64(IA) WITH EFFECT FROM THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1993-94 , HER INCOME FROM RENT AND INTEREST RELATING TO THE PERIOD FROM 1.4.1 990 TO 5.7.1993 WAS CLUBBED WITH HER FATHERS INCOME TILL HIS DEATH ON 5.7.1993. IT MAY BE MENTIONED THAT AS A RESULT OF INJURIES SUSTAINED BY HER FATHER ON 28.6.1993, HE DIED ON 5.7.1993 BUT OTHERS HAD DIED ON THE SPOT. AFTER THE DEATH OF HER FATHER, HER PATERNAL GRANDFATHER, SHRI R.P.SARATHY, WHO IS ADMITTEDLY HER NEXT FRIEND, FILED RETURN OF HER INCOME VOLUNTARILY YEAR AFTER YEAR. THESE RETURNS WERE, HOWEVER, FILE D WITH A RIDER THAT ALTHOUGH SHE HAD TAXABLE INCOME, BUT SHE BEING A MI NOR, WAS NOT TAXABLE AT ALL, IN THE GIVEN FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCE S OF THE CASE AND SINCE HER PARENTS HAD ALREADY DIED AND U/S 64(IA) H ER INCOME CAN ONLY BE CLUBBED IN THE HANDS OF EITHER OF HER PARENTS. NEVERTHELESS, ENTIRE TAX LEVIED WERE PAID BUT SIMULTANEOUSLY REFUND OF E NTIRE TAX PAID WAS CLAIMED. THUS, IN A WAY, RETURNS FILED ADMITTED NIL INCOME. IT IS ALSO A FACT THAT SHE DID NOT EARNED INCOME BY ANY M ANUAL WORK DONE ITA 1120 TO 1125/10 :- 3 -: BY HER OR ACTIVITY INVOLVING APPLICATION OF HER SKI LL, TALENT, SPECIALIZED KNOWLEDGE AND EXPERIENCE AS HAS BEEN ENVISAGED IN P ROVISO TO SECTION 64(IA). FOR THE PERIOD FROM 5.7.2003 TO 31.3.2004 SHE HAS DECLARED NIL INCOME, BUT THE INCOME DISCLOSED IN THE ENCLO SED STATEMENT WAS ADDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS A PRIMA-FACIE ADD ITION U/S 143(1) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1994-95 THROUGH AN INTIMATION D ATED 26.4.1995. AS PER THIS INTIMATION, THE ASSESSEE WAS CONVEYED T HAT IT WAS BEING ISSUED U/S 143(1) R.W.S 160(1)(II) AS PER THE PROVI SIONS RELATING TO REPRESENTATIVE ASSESSEE. BUT THIS ACTION WAS NO T UPHELD AND RATHER SET ASIDE/CANCELLED BY THE ITAT, CHENNAI BENCHES, B EING A DEBATABLE MATTER OUTSIDE THE PURVIEW OF SECTION 143(1). THER EAFTER, NO ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) WAS MADE AT ALL FOR ASSESSME NT YEAR 1994-95. THE TRIBUNAL IN ITS ORDER DATED 2.9.2005, PASSED FO R ASSESSMENT YEARS 1995-96 TO 1999-2000 REPORTED IN (2005) 97 TTJ (CHE NNAI) 801, IN THE CASE OF R.P.SARATHY FOR MINOR M.PRANUTHI VS JCIT, A FTER CONSIDERING THE CBDT CIRCULAR NO.754 DATED 10.6.1997, 226 ITR (STAT UTE) 9, ISSUED IN CONNECTION WITH VDIS, 1997, HAS CATEGORICALLY HELD THAT THERE IS NO PROVISION IN THE ACT TO ASSESS THE INCOME OF THE MI NOR IN THE HANDS OF EITHER MINOR OR IN THE HANDS OF HER GRANDPARENTS OR ANY OF THEIR RELATIVE, BUT CAN BE ASSESSED IN THE HANDS OF EITHE R OF HER PARENTS. SUCH AN INCOME CANNOT BE ASSESSED AT ALL IN THE HAN DS OF ANY ONE WHO ITA 1120 TO 1125/10 :- 4 -: MAINTAINS THE MINOR. IN THE GIVEN CASE, THE PARENT S OF THE MINOR HAVE ALREADY DIED HENCE, THE TRIBUNAL HAS HELD THAT THE INCOME OF THE MINOR CANNOT BE CLUBBED IN THE HANDS OF HER GRANDFATHER. SUBSEQUENTLY, FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2000-01 TO 2002-03 THE TRIBUNAL HA S BEEN TAKEN SAME VIEW ALTHOUGH THE REVENUE HAS TAKEN A GROUND U/S.160(1)(II) OF THE ACT. IN THE ORDER DATED 5.10.2007 AND IT HAS INCORPORATED THE ENTIRE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE INCLUDING THE APPLICATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 160(1)(II) OF THE ACT. IT WA S HELD THAT IF BOTH PARENTS OF A MINOR ARE NOT ALIVE, MINORS INCOME CA NNOT BE ASSESSED IN THE HANDS OF HER GRANDPARENT OR ANY OTHER RELATIVE( S) WHO MAINTAINS THE CHILD. THE ONLY WAY OF ASSESSMENT OF MINORS I NCOME IS BY WAY OF CLUBBING THE INCOME WITH THE INCOME OF EITHER OF TH E PARENTS SUBJECT TO THE EXCEPTION CONTAINED IN SECTION 64(IA). IT HAS BEEN CATEGORICALLY HELD BY THE TRIBUNAL THAT THERE IS NO PROVISION IN THE ACT TO ASSESS MINORS INCOME INDEPENDENTLY, IN THE HANDS. IN CAS E BOTH THE PARENTS ARE NOT ALIVE, HER INCOME CANNOT BE ASSESSED IN THE HANDS OF HER GRANDPARENTS OR IN THE HANDS OF HER RELATIVES. SO IT WAS FOUND THAT THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THESE APPEALS IS EXACTLY IDENTICA L IN THESE YEARS AS WELL AND HENCE STANDS COVERED BY THE TRIBUNAL ORDER S (SUPRA) IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE. THE LD. DR TRIED TO DIFFERENT IATE THE FACTS BY SUBMITTING THAT IN THOSE TRIBUNAL ORDERS, THE PROVI SIONS OF SECTION ITA 1120 TO 1125/10 :- 5 -: 160(1)(II) HAVE NOT BEEN CONSIDERED ON THEIR MERIT S ALTHOUGH ADMITTEDLY IN THE ORDER DATED 5.10.2007 PASSED FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2000-01 TO 2002-03 IN I.T.A. NOS. 2844, 2777 & 2778 /MDS/2005, IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE, THE QUESTION OF REPRESENTATIV E ASSESSEE U/S 160(1)(II) WAS RAISED VIDE GROUND NO.4 WHICH HAS BE EN INCORPORATED AT PAGE 2 OF THE TRIBUNAL ORDER BUT THE TRIBUNAL HAS F OLLOWED ITS OWN ORDER IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE DATED 2.9.2005 RENDERE D IN I.T.A.NO. 833 TO 839/MDS/2001 IN WHICH THIS SECTION I.E 160(1)(II ) WAS NOT AT ALL CONSIDERED. THE LD.DR, FURTHER ARGUED THE MATTER W ITH REFERENCE TO SECTIONS 4, 2(3), 2(7) AND SECTION 161(2)(III) OF T HE ACT. HE HAS ALSO CONTENDED THAT IN EARLIER YEARS, THE QUESTION WAS E NTIRELY DIFFERENT BECAUSE MINORS INCOME WAS CLUBBED IN THE HANDS OF THE GRANDFATHER. IT WAS ARGUED THAT IN THE GIVEN CASES INSTEAD OF CL UBBING THE MINORS INCOME IN THE HANDS OF HER GRANDFATHER, HER GRANDFA THER HAS BEEN MADE A REPRESENTATIVE ASSESSEE U/S 160(1)(II) OF THE ACT, THEREFORE, THE EARLIER TRIBUNAL ORDERS WILL NOT APPLY TO THE A SSESSMENT YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION. 3. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH ALL THE PROVISIONS INCLUDING T HE PRECEDENTS RELIED UPON BY BOTH THE PARTIES. THE SC HEME OF THE ACT IS THAT AFTER ASSESSMENT YEAR 1992-93, A NEWLY INSERTE D PROVISION 64(IA) WAS MADE OPERATIVE WHICH CAME INTO EFFECT ONLY AFTE R ASSESSMENT YEAR ITA 1120 TO 1125/10 :- 6 -: 1992-93. UPTO ASSESSMENT YEAR 1992-93, MINOR WAS A SSESSABLE TO TAX IN HIS OWN HANDS BUT AFTER SECTION 64(1A) WAS BROUG HT ON STATUTE, MINOR IS NO LONGER ASSESSABLE TO TAX IN HER INDIVID UAL CAPACITY. THERE IS NO OTHER CHARGING PROVISION IN THE ACT IN THIS R EGARD. IT IS TRUE THAT IN EARLIER YEARS, WHEN TRIBUNAL ORDER WAS RENDERED, THE INCOME OF THE MINOR WAS CLUBBED WITH THE INCOME OF GRANDFATHER. THE GRANDFATHER IS NOT INCLUDED IN THE DEFINITION OF PARENT IN SO FA R AS INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 IS CONCERNED. IN THIS WAY, IT WAS ARGUED THAT WHEN THE TRIBUNAL HAS NOT REALLY CONSIDERED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 160(1)(II) WHILE RENDERING THE ABOVE MENTIONED DECISIONS, IT WOULD N OT BE TREATED AS A DECISION ON THIS SUBJECT TO BE A PRECEDENT OF THE C O-ORDINATE BENCH ON THE ISSUE, ON THE BASIS OF THE HON'BLE MADRAS HIGH COURTS DECISION RENDERED IN THE CASE OF CIT VS HI TECH ARAI LTD, 3 21 ITR 477. WE ARE IN AGREEMENT WITH THE LD.DR TO THAT EXTENT. THE ONLY GRUDGE OF THE DEPARTMENT IS THAT ACCORDING TO IT, THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 160(1)(II) WERE NOT CONSIDERED IN ITS CORRECT PERSPECTIVE AND THESE ARE RELEVANT IN THE YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE PROVISIONS OF S ECTION 160(1)OF THE ACT ARE BEING EXTRACTED HEREIN BELOW FOR READY REFE RENCE: REPRESENTATIVE ASSESSEE. 28 160. (1) FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS ACT, REPRESENTATIVE ASSESSEE MEANS ( I ) IN RESPECT OF THE INCOME OF A NON-RESIDENT SPECIF IED IN 29 [***] SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 9, THE AGENT OF THE NON- RESIDENT, ITA 1120 TO 1125/10 :- 7 -: INCLUDING A PERSON WHO IS TREATED AS AN AGENT UNDER SECTION 163 ; ( II ) IN RESPECT OF THE INCOME OF A MINOR, LUNATIC OR I DIOT, THE GUARDIAN OR MANAGER WHO IS ENTITLED TO RECEIVE OR I S IN RECEIPT OF SUCH INCOME ON BEHALF OF SUCH MINOR, LUNATIC OR IDIOT; ( III ) IN RESPECT OF INCOME WHICH THE COURT OF WARDS, TH E ADMINISTRATOR- GENERAL, THE OFFICIAL TRUSTEE OR ANY RECEIVER OR MANAGER (INCLUDING ANY PERSON, WHATEVER HIS DESIGNA TION, WHO IN FACT MANAGES PROPERTY ON BEHALF OF ANOTHER) APPOINTED BY OR UNDER ANY ORDER OF A COURT, RECEIVES OR IS EN TITLED TO RECEIVE, ON BEHALF OR FOR THE BENEFIT OF ANY PERSO N, SUCH COURT OF WARDS, ADMINISTRATOR-GENERAL, OFFICIAL TRUSTEE, RECEIVER OR MANAGER; ( IV ) IN RESPECT OF INCOME WHICH A TRUSTEE 30 APPOINTED UNDER A TRUST DECLARED BY A DULY EXECUTED INSTRUMENT IN WRITING W HETHER TESTAMENTARY OR OTHERWISE [INCLUDING ANY WAKF 30 DEED WHICH IS VALID UNDER THE MUSSALMAN WAKF VALIDATING ACT, 1913 (6 OF 1913),] RECEIVES OR IS ENTITLED TO RECEIVE ON BEHAL F OR FOR THE BENEFIT OF ANY PERSON, SUCH TRUSTEE OR TRUSTEES; 31 [( V ) IN RESPECT OF INCOME WHICH A TRUSTEE APPOINTED UN DER AN ORAL TRUST RECEIVES OR IS ENTITLED TO RECEIVE ON BEHALF OR FOR THE BENEFIT OF ANY PERSON, SUCH TRUSTEE OR TRUSTEES. 4. A PLAIN READING OF THE ABOVE PROVISION, CLEARLY EVI NCES THAT THEY RELATE TO REPRESENTATIVE ASSESSEE. SECTION 160 D EFINES AS TO WHO IS A REPRESENTATIVE ASSESSEE. AS PER LD.DR THIS CASE M AY FALL UNDER SECTION.160(1)(II) WHEREUNDER A REPRESENTATIVE ASS ESSEE IN RESPECT OF THE INCOME OF A MINOR AND OTHER, THE GUARDIANS OR MANAGER, WHO IS ENTITLED TO RECEIVE OR IS IN RECEIPT OF SUCH INCOME ON BEHALF OF SUCH MINOR ETC. THE OTHER INCLUSIVE DEFINITION OF REPR ESENTATIVE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN GIVEN IN SUB CLAUSE(III) OF SUB-SECTION (1 ) OF SECTION 160 IN RESPECT OF INCOME WHICH THE COURT OF WARDS, THE ADMINISTRATOR GENERAL, THE OFFICIAL TRUSTEE ARE ANY RECEIVER OR M ANAGER INCLUDING ANY PERSON, WHATEVER HIS DESIGNATION, WHO IN FACT MANAGES PROPERTY ON ITA 1120 TO 1125/10 :- 8 -: BEHALF OF ANOTHER APPOINTED BY OR UNDER ANY ORDER OF A COURT , RECEIVES OR IS ENTITLED TO RECEIVE, ON BEHALF OR FO R THE BENEFIT OF ANY PERSON, SUCH COURT OF WARDS, ADMINISTRATOR GENERAL, OFFICIAL TRUSTEE, RECEIVER OR MANAGER, IS A REPRESENTATIVE ASSESSEE . PER CONTRA, THE LD. AR HAS VEHEMENTLY REFUTED THE ABOVE CONTENTIONS OF LD. DR. HE HAS STATED THAT NEITHER SUB-CLAUSE (II) NOR (III) OF SE C.160(1) WOULD APPLY BECAUSE THE GRANDFATHER OF THE MINOR DOES NOT FIT IN THE DEFINITION OF REPRESENTATIVE-ASSESSEE GIVEN THEREIN. WE HAVE GIVE N OUR ANXIOUS AND THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION TO THE ENTIRE GAMUT OF FAC TS IN THE LIGHT OF THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS AND THE PRECEDENTS. WE HAVE AL SO TREADED THROUGH THE ALLIED ENACTMENTS LIKE THE GENERAL CLAUSES ACT, THE INDIAN CONTRACT ACT AND THE GUARDIANSHIP AND WARDS ACT. BUT WE ARE UNABLE TO ACCEPT THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. DR. THE REASONS FOR OUR ABOVE EPILOGUE IS THAT NO COURT GUARDIAN, ADMINISTRATOR GENERAL OR OF FICIAL TRUSTEE OR ANY RECEIVER OR MANAGER HAS BEEN APPOINTED BY OR UN DER ANY ORDER OF A COURT TO RECEIVE INCOME OR IS ENTITLED TO RECEIVE INCOME ON BEHALF, OR FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE MINOR IN QUESTION. A COPY O F SUCCESSION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY A CIVIL COURT HAS BEEN FILED IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION BY LD. DR. BUT WE ARE AFRAID THAT THIS DOCUMENT WOULD FRUCTIFY IN SUPPORT RATHER IT WOULD GO AGAINST THE LINE TAKEN BY THE REVENUE. IN THE PETITION FILED BY THE MINOR TO GET A SUCCESSION ITA 1120 TO 1125/10 :- 9 -: CERTIFICATE HER GRANDFATHER HAS BEEN MADE ONLY A NEXT FRIEND TO FILE THE PETITION. IN FACT, AFTER THE DEATH OF HER PAREN TS AND GRANDMOTHER, IT BECAME IMPERATIVE TO DECIDE AS TO WHO WOULD SUCCEED THE ESTATE OF THE DECEASED PERSONS WHO HAD DIED INTESTATE. UNDER CIVIL LAW A MINOR IS PROHIBITED FROM FILING A SUIT DIRECTLY BUT HE CA N DO SO THROUGH HIS/HER NATURAL GUARDIAN OR NEXT FRIEND. SINCE GRANDFA THER WAS NOT CONSIDERED AS NATURAL GUARDIAN, HE HAS PURSUED THE SUIT AS MINORS REPRESENTATIVE BEING HER NEXT FRIEND. AS PER THE C OPIE(S) OF SUCCESSION CERTIFICATE PRODUCED BEFORE US, SHRI R .P.SARATHY HAS NEITHER RECEIVED NOR IS ENTITLED TO RECEIVE ANY PRO PERTY/INCOME ON BEHALF OF THE MINOR M.PRANUTHI ALIAS M.MAHALAKSHMI AND WHATEVER HAS BEEN RECEIVED BY THE MINOR IN HER OWN CAPACITY AND WHATEVER HAS BEEN RECEIVED IN SUCCESSION FROM THE ESTATE OF THE DECEASED HAS BEEN RECEIVED BY THE MINOR IN HER OWN CAPACITY. THUS, I T CANNOT BE SAID THAT SHRI R.P.SARATHY IS EITHER THE GUARDIAN AS HAS BEEN STIPULATED IN THE PROVISIONS STATED ABOVE NOR HE IS MANAGER OR AD MINISTRATIVE GENERAL AS THE CASE MAY BE AND HENCE THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 160(1)(II) OR (III) WILL NOT AT ALL APPLY. WE CAN UNDERSTAND THE CONCERN OF THE LD.DR THAT IT SOUNDS STRANGE WHEN ANY INCOME GOES UNTAXED. WE ALSO SHARE THE CONCERN OF LD. D.R. BUT WE ARE B OUND BY THE EXPLICIT PROVISIONS OF THE FISCAL LAW WHEREIN WE CANNOT SUPP LY IMPLICIT ITA 1120 TO 1125/10 :- 10 - : MEANINGS TO AN EXPRESS PROVISION. WE CANNOT ADD TO OR SUBTRACT FROM ANY PROVISION IN THE ACT AND THE STATUTE HAS TO BE CONSIDERED IN ITS PLAIN AND ORDINARY MEANING. AS FAR AS THE DECISIO NS OF THE HON'BLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASES OF G.K.RAVI VS CIT, 235 ITR 208 AND CIT VS HI TECH ARAI LTD, 325 ITR 477, ON WHICH THE LD.DR HAS RELIED ARE CONCERNED, THEY WERE RENDERED PRIOR TO AMENDMEN T AND RELATE TO PROVISIONS WHEN MINOR WAS ASSESSABLE IN HER INDIVID UAL CAPACITY I.E PRIOR TO INSERTION OF SECTION 160(1)(II) OF THE ACT ON THE STATUTE BOOK. WE CANNOT AGREE WITH THE LD.DR THAT THESE DECISIONS LAID DOWN ANY GENERAL PRINCIPLE AND WOULD ALSO APPLY TO AMENDED P ROVISIONS. THE SIMPLE REASON FOR THAT BEING THAT WHEN NO LONGER TH ERE IS ANY PROVISION TO ASSESS A MINOR IN HIS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY, THE E NTIRE HEART AND SOUL OF THE PROVISION HAS CHANGED AND THE PRINCIPLE, IF ANY, LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE COURT IN RELATION TO REPEALED SECTIONS THER EIN WOULD NOT BE RELEVANT FOR THE PRESENT SCENARIO. HENCE, WE HOLD THAT THE INCOME OF THIS MINOR CANNOT BE ASSESSED IN THE HANDS OF ALLEG ED REPRESENTATIVE- ASSESSEE, AT ALL, UNDER THE EXISTING LAW, AS CON DITIONS LAID IN SECTION 160(1)(II) & (III) ARE NOT SATISFIED. ACCORDINGLY, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS IN QUESTION AS WELL AS IN VIEW OF OUR FOREGOING OBSERVATION ON THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 160(1)(II) /(III) OF THE ACT, WE ITA 1120 TO 1125/10 :- 11 - : CANNOT ALLOW THESE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE. ACCORDI NGLY, ALL THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE STAND DISMISSED. 5. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE STAND DISMISSED. THE ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 25.3.2011 SD/- SD/- (ABRAHAM P GEORGE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( HARI OM MARATHA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 25 TH MARCH, 2011 RD COPY TO: APPELLANT /RESPONDENT/CIT(A)/CIT/DR