Chettinad Quartz Products Pvt.Ltd., (now merged with, Kancheepuram V. ITO, CHENNAI

ITA 1180/CHNY/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 61359 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-07-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 29-05-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DR S MOHARANA
• Assessee Lawyers: K B MURALIDHARAN
• Keywords: Business income; Depreciation; Question of law; Unabsorbed depreciation
• Section: 80C; 143(3); 260A; 115JB; 10B; 263

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, CHENNAI. BEFORE DR. O.K. NARAYANAN, VICE-PRESIDENT & SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 1180/MDS/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007- 08 CHETTINAD QUARTZ PRODUCTS PVT. LTD. [NOW MERGED WITH CHETTINAD MORIMURA SEMICONDUCTOR MATERIAL PVT. LTD.] NO.37, OLD MAHABALIPURAM ROAD, KHAZHIPATTUR VILLAGE, PADUR, KANCHEEPURAM DT. 603103. [PAN:AAACC2461Q] VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, COMPANY WARD I (1) CHENNAI 34. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI K.B. MURALIDHARAN, C.A. RESPONDENT BY : DR. S. MOHARANA, CIT DR DATE OF HEARING : 23.07.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 23.07.2012 ORDER PER CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI I, CHENNAI DA TED 27.03.2012 PASSED UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. SHRI K.B. MURALIDHARAN, C.A. REPRESENTED O N BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AND DR. S. MOHARANA, CIT DR REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. NO. NO. NO. NO.11 1111 1180 8080 80/M/ /M/ /M/ /M/1 11 12 22 2 2 2. FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING AND DEALING IN HI-PURITY FUSED SILICA STONE, QUARTZ GRITZ AND GENERATION OF WIND ENERGY. FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007- 08, THE ASSESSEE FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME DECLARI NG INCOME AT NIL IN THE NORMAL PROVISIONS OF ACT AFTER CLAIMING DEDUCTION U NDER SECTION 10B AND ` .67,68,121/- UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 115JB OF THE ACT. 3. THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 143( 3) OF THE ACT ACCEPTING THE INCOME DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE. WHIL E COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALLOWED EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 10B BEFORE SET OFF OF UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION FOR THE A SSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03 AFTER EXAMINING THE NECESSARY EVIDENCE FILED FOR CL AIMING THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10B OF THE ACT. LATER, THE COMMISSION ER OF INCOME TAX PASSED ORDER UNDER SECTION 263 SETTING ASIDE THE AS SESSMENT MADE UNDER SECTION 143(3) WITH A DIRECTION TO EXAMINE THE CLAI M FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10B AFRESH AFTER HEARING THE ASSESSEE. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX IN HIS ORDER HELD THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PAS SED UNDER SECTION 143(3) IS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REV ENUE IN SO FAR AS ALLOWING DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10B BEFORE SET OFF OF UNABS ORBED DEPRECIATION FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04. THE COMMISSIONER OF IN COME TAX IS OF THE VIEW THAT THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10B SHOULD BE ALLOWED AFTER SET OFF OF UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION OR BUSINESS LOSS IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF THE I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. NO. NO. NO. NO.11 1111 1180 8080 80/M/ /M/ /M/ /M/1 11 12 22 2 3 HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF HIMATASINGIKE SEIDE LTD. V. ACIT [ 286 ITR 255] AND CIT VS. I.G. PETRO CHEMICALS LTD. DATED 04.01.2011 IN ITA NO. 771 OF 2006. AGAINST THIS ORDER OF THE COMMISSI ONER OF INCOME TAX, THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE US. 4. THE COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN PASSING ORDER UNDER SECTION 263 DIRECTING THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO EXAMINE THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10B IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT & ANR. VS. YOKOGAWA INDIA LTD. & ORS. [246 CTR (KAR ) 226], WHICH SUPPORT THE CLAIM OF ADJUSTMENT OF UNABSORBED DEPRCAITION U NDERTAKEN IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE COM PUTING THE RELIEF ALLOWABLE UNDER SECTION 10B OF THE ACT. THE COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE OF ALLOWABILITY OF DEDUCTI ON UNDER SECTION 10B BEFORE SET OFF OF CARRY FORWARD LOSSES OR DEPRECIATION HAS BEEN DEALT WITH BY THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF YOKOGAW A INDIA LTD. (SUPRA) IN A DETAILED MANNER AND HOLDING THAT SUCH DEDUCTION S HOULD BE ALLOWED BEFORE SET OFF OF CARRIED FORWARD LOSSES OR UNABSORBED DEP RECIATION. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT SIMILAR ISSUE WAS DEALT WITH BY THE CHENNAI SPECIAL BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SCIENTIFIC ATLANTA VS. ACIT [129 TTJ 273]. THE COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT WHEN TWO VI EWS ARE POSSIBLE, THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER CANNOT BE TERME D AS ERRONEOUS AND I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. NO. NO. NO. NO.11 1111 1180 8080 80/M/ /M/ /M/ /M/1 11 12 22 2 4 PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE AND PLACED R ELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF MALABAR IN DUSTRIAL CO. LTD. [243 ITR 83]. THE COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THA T THERE IS NEITHER ERRONEOUS NOR PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENU E IN PASSING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ALLOWING DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 1 0B BEFORE SETTING OFF OF UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 3-04. THEREFORE, HE PRAYED FOR SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CO MMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT. 5. THE COUNSEL FOR THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND SUBMITTED THAT THE D EDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10B SHOULD BE ALLOWED AFTER SET OFF OF UNAB SORBED DEPRECIATION FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03. HE RELIED ON THE DECIS ION OF HONBLE KERALA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. PATSPIN INDIA LTD, . [245 CTR (KER.) 97]. 6. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH SIDES, PERUSED THE ORDERS OF LOWER AUTHORITIES AND DECISIONS RELIED BY THE COUNSELS. IN THE PRESENT CA SE, THE ISSUE IS WITH REGARD TO ADJUSTMENT OF UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION OF THE ASS ESSMENT YEAR 2002-03 WITHIN THE UNIT ITSELF. THE ISSUE OF ALLOWABILITY O F DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10A/10B BEFORE SET OFF OF CARRIED FORWARD LOSSES/UN ABSORBED DEPRECIATION HAS BEEN ELABORATELY DEALT WITH BY THE HONBLE KARN ATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. YOKAGAWA INDIA LTD. & ORS. (SUPRA). THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HELD THAT THE INCOME OF 10A UNIT HAS TO BE EXCLUDED AT SOURCE ITSELF BEFORE I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. NO. NO. NO. NO.11 1111 1180 8080 80/M/ /M/ /M/ /M/1 11 12 22 2 5 ARRIVING AT THE GROSS TOTAL INCOME AND THE LOSSES O F NON 10A UNIT CANNOT BE SET OFF AGAINST THE INCOME OF 10A UNIT UNDER SECTIO N 72. THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HAS HELD AS UNDER: 31. AS THE INCOME OF 10A UNIT HAS TO BE EXCLUDED A T SOURCE ITSELF BEFORE ARRIVING AT THE GROSS TOTAL INCOME, THE LOSS OF NON 10A UNIT CANNOT BE SET OFF AGAINST THE INCOME OF 10A UNIT UNDER S. 72. THE LOS S INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER THE HEAD PROFITS AND GAINS OF BUSINE SS OR PROFESSION HAS TO BE SET OFF AGAINST THE PROFITS AND GAINS IF ANY, OF ANY BUSINESS OR PROFESSION CARRIED ON BY SUCH ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, AS THE PROF ITS AND GAINS UNDER S. 10A ARE NOT TO BE INCLUDED IN THE INCOME OF THE ASS ESSEE AT ALL, THE QUESTION OF SETTING OFF THE LOSS OF THE ASSESSEE OF ANY PROF ITS AND GAINS OF BUSINESS AGAINST SUCH PROFITS AND GAINS OF THE UNDERTAKING W OULD NOT ARISE. SIMILARLY, AS PER S. 72(2), UNABSORBED BUSINESS LOSS IS TO BE FIRST SET OFF AND THEREAFTER UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION TREATED AS CURRENT YEAR'S D EPRECIATION UNDER S. 32(2) IS TO BE SET OFF. AS DEDUCTION UNDER S. 10A H AS TO BE EXCLUDED FROM THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE, THE QUESTION OF UNABS ORBED BUSINESS LOSS BEING SET OFF AGAINST SUCH PROFITS AND GAINS OF THE UNDER TAKING WOULD NOT ARISE. IN THAT VIEW OF THE MATTER, THE APPROACH OF THE ASSESS ING AUTHORITY WAS QUITE CONTRARY TO THE AFORESAID STATUTORY PROVISIONS AND THE CIT(A) AS WELL AS THE TRIBUNAL WERE FULLY JUSTIFIED IN SETTING ASIDE THE SAID ASSESSMENT ORDER AND GRANTING THE BENEFIT OF S. 10A TO THE ASSESSEE. HEN CE, THE MAIN SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW IS ANSWERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESS EES AND AGAINST THE REVENUE. 7. THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT AFTER CONSIDERING THE DECISION OF THE CHENNAI SPECIAL BENCH OF ITAT IN THE CASE OF SCIENT IFIC ATLANTA [129 TTJ 273] DECIDED THIS ISSUE IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. BLAC K & VEATCH CONSULTING PVT. LTD. IN INCOME TAX APPEAL LODGING NO. 1237 OF 2011 DATED 09.04.2012, WHEREIN THEIR LORDSHIPS HELD AS UNDER: 1. THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE UNDER SECTION 260A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ARISES FROM A DECISION OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DATED 20 APRIL 2011. THE ASSESSMENT YEAR TO WHICH T HE APPEAL RELATES IS AY 2006-07. THE FOLLOWING QUESTION OF LAW HAS BEEN RAISED BY THE REVENUE: '(A) WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND LAW, THE ITAT WAS CORRECT IN HOLDING THAT THE BROUGHT FORWAR D UNABSORBED I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. NO. NO. NO. NO.11 1111 1180 8080 80/M/ /M/ /M/ /M/1 11 12 22 2 6 DEPRECIATION AND LOSSES OF THE UNIT THE INCOME WHIC H IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10A OF THE ACT CANNOT B E SET OFF AGAINST THE CURRENT PROFIT OF THE ELIGIBLE UNIT FOR COMPUTI NG THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10A OF THE IT ACT.' 2. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, DURING THE COURSE OF THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) OBSERVED AS FOLLOWS: 'UNDER THE SCHEME OF THE ACT, THE PROFITS OF THE UN IT ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10A OF THE ACT, WOULD FORM PART OF THE INCOME COMPUTED UNDER THE HEAD 'PROFITS AND GAINS O F BUSINESS AND PROFESSION'. HOWEVER, IN ORDER THE SAME DOES NOT SU FFER TAX, DEDUCTION WILL HAVE TO BE MADE IN RESPECT THEREOF W HILE COMPUTING THE INCOME UNDER THE HEAD 'PROFITS AND GAINS OF BUS INESS AND PROFESSION'. IN OTHER WORDS, THE DEDUCTION IN RESPE CT OF THE PROFITS ELIGIBLE UNDER SECTION 10A OF THE ACT IS REQUIRED T O BE MADE AT THE STAGE OF COMPUTING THE INCOME UNDER THE HEAD 'PROFI TS AND GAINS OF BUSINESS OR PROFESSION' .' NONETHELESS, WHILE COMPUTING THE TOTAL INCOME OF TH E ASSESSEE THE ASSESSING OFFICER TOOK THE NET PROFIT AS PER THE PR OFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT AND AFTER, INTER ALIA, MAKING CERTAIN DISALLOWANCES AND ALLOWANCES, ARRIVED AT THE TOTAL BUSINESS INCOME AT ` .86.07 LAKHS. A SET OFF WAS EFFECTED OF THE BROUGHT FORWARD BUSINESS LOSS OF AY 2003-04 AND AY 2004-05 UPON WHICH THE ASSESSING OFFICER CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT T HERE WAS NIL INCOME WHICH WOULD QUALIFY FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10A . THE CIT (A) HELD THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS JUSTIFIED IN ADJUSTI NG THE BROUGHT FORWARD LOSSES OF EARLIER YEARS BEFORE ARRIVING AT THE GROS S TOTAL INCOME, FOR ALLOWING A DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10B. IN APPEAL, THE TRIBUNAL HAS RELIED UPON A DECISION OF ITS SPECIAL BENCH IN THE CASE OF SCIENTIFIC ATLANTA VS. ACIT 1 IN WHICH IT HAS BEEN EMPHASISED THAT THE PROVISION CONTAINED IN SECTION 10A IS NOT AN EXEMPTION BUT A DEDUCTION UND ER CHAPTER III. FOLLOWING THAT DECISION, THE TRIBUNAL HELD THAT THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10A IN RESPECT OF THE ALLOWABLE UNIT UNDER SECTION 10A HAS TO BE ALLOWED BEFORE SETTING OFF BROUGHT FORWARDED LOSSES OF A NO N 10A UNIT. 3. SECTION 10A IS A PROVISION WHICH IS IN THE NATU RE OF A DEDUCTION AND NOT AN EXEMPTION. THIS WAS EMPHASISED IN A JUDGMENT OF A DIVISION BENCH OF THIS COURT WHILE CONSTRUING THE PROVISIONS OF SE CTION 10B IN HINDUSTAN UNILEVER LTD V S. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2 THE SUBMISSION OF THE REVENUE PLACED ITS RELIANCE ON THE LITERAL READ ING OF SECTION 10A UNDER WHICH A DEDUCTION OF SUCH PROFITS AND GAINS AS ARE DERIVED BY AN UNDERTAKING FROM THE EXPORT OF ARTICLES OR THINGS O R COMPUTER SOFTWARE FOR A PERIOD OF TEN CONSECUTIVE ASSESSMENT YEARS IS TO BE ALLOWED FROM THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10A, IN OUR VIEW, HAS I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. NO. NO. NO. NO.11 1111 1180 8080 80/M/ /M/ /M/ /M/1 11 12 22 2 7 TO BE GIVEN EFFECT TO AT THE STAGE OF COMPUTING THE PROFITS AND GAINS OF BUSINESS. THIS IS ANTERIOR TO THE APPLICATION OF TH E PROVISIONS OF SECTION 72 WHICH DEALS WITH THE CARRY FORWARD AND SET OFF OF B USINESS LOSSES. A DISTINCTION HAS BEEN MADE BY THE LEGISLATURE WHILE INCORPORATING THE PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER VI-A. SECTION 80A(1) STIPULATES THAT IN COMPUTING THE TOTAL INCOME OF AN ASSESSEE, THERE SHALL BE ALLOWED FROM HIS GROSS TOTAL INCOME, IN ACCORDANCE WITH AND SUBJECT TO THE PROVI SIONS OF THE CHAPTER, THE DEDUCTIONS SPECIFIED IN SECTIONS 80C TO 80U. SECTION 80B(5) DEFINES FOR THE PURPOSES OF CHAPTER VI-A 'GROSS TOTAL INCOME' T O MEAN THE TOTAL INCOME COMPUTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS O F THE ACT, BEFORE MAKING ANY DEDUCTION UNDER THE CHAPTER . WHAT THE REVENUE IN ESSENCE SEEKS TO ATTAIN IS TO TELESCOPE THE PROVISIONS OF C HAPTER VI - A IN THE CONTEXT OF THE DEDUCTION WHICH IS ALLOWABLE UNDER SECTION 1 0A, WHICH WOULD NOT BE PERMISSIBLE UNLESS A SPECIFIC STATUTORY PROVISION TO THAT EFFECT WERE TO BE MADE. IN THE ABSENCE THEREOF, SUCH AN APPROACH CANN OT BE ACCEPTED. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL WOULD H AVE TO BE AFFIRMED SINCE IT IS PLAIN AND EVIDENT THAT THE DEDUCTION UNDER SE CTION 10A HAS TO BE GIVEN AT THE STAGE WHEN THE PROFITS AND GAINS OF BUSINESS ARE COMPUTED IN THE FIRST INSTANCE. SO CONSTRUED, THE APPEAL BY THE REVENUE W OULD NOT GIVE RISE TO ANY SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW AND SHALL ACCORDING LY STAND DISMISSED. THERE SHALL BE NO ORDER AS TO COSTS. _________ 1. 129 TTJ 273 2. (2010) 325 ITR 102 AT PARA 24 8. THEREFORE, AS COULD BE SEEN FROM THE ABOVE DECI SIONS, THE ISSUE IN APPEAL IS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT & ANR. VS. YOKOGAWA INDIA LTD. & ORS. (SUPRA) AND THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS . BLACK & VEATCH CONSULTING PVT. LTD. (SUPRA). HOWEVER, THERE IS A C ONTRARY VIEW EXPRESSED BY THE HONBLE KERALA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. PASTSPIN INDIA LTD. (SUPRA), WHEREIN THEIR LORDSHIPS HELD THAT ALLOWABI LITY OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10B HAS TO BE DETERMINED WITH REFERENCE TO EXPORT TURNOVER OF EACH UNIT AND THAT HAS TO BE DONE AFTER COMPUTING THE BU SINESS PROFIT FROM THE INDUSTRIAL UNITS, WHICH NECESSARILY HAS TO BE DONE AFTER SETTING OFF OF I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. NO. NO. NO. NO.11 1111 1180 8080 80/M/ /M/ /M/ /M/1 11 12 22 2 8 UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION CARRIED FORWARD FROM PREVIO US YEARS. DIVERGENT VIEWS WERE EXPRESSED BY THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT, HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT AND HONBLE KERALA HIGH COURT. TH E HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF MALABAR INDUSTRIAL CO. LTD. [2 43 ITR 83] HELD THAT WHEN TWO VIEWS ARE POSSIBLE AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER HA S TAKEN ONE VIEW WITH WHICH THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DOES NOT AGREE , IT CANNOT BE TREATED AS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REV ENUE UNLESS THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW. IN THIS CASE ONE OF THE POSSIBLE VIEW WAS TAKEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICE R IN ALLOWING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 10B OF THE ACT. THEREFOR E, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX PASSED UNDE R SECTION 263. 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS AL LOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT AT THE TIME OF H EARING ON MONDAY, THE 23 RD JULY, 2012 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (DR. O.K. NARAYANAN) VICE-PRESIDENT (CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD) JUDICIAL MEMBER CHENNAI, DATED, THE 23.07.2012 VM/- TO: THE ASSESSEE//A.O./CIT(A)/CIT/D.R.