DCIT, CHENNAI V. Amsteel Castings Pvt. Ltd., CHENNAI

ITA 1194/CHNY/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 68629 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-08-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 30-05-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: R M NARAYANAN
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice; Earning of tax free income; Revised return
• Section: 143(3); 234B; 14A; 139(5); 139

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH : CHENNAI [BEFORE SHRI N.S. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER] I.T.A.NO.967/MDS/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 M/S AMSTEEL CASTINGS P. LTD NO.1C, PRINCE APARTMENTS NO.59, ORMES ROAD CHENNAI 600 010 VS THE JT. CIT (OSD) COMPANY CIRCLE I(1) CHENNAI [PAN AAACA 5352 Q] (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) I.T.A.NO.1194/MDS/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 THE JT. CIT (OSD) COMPANY CIRCLE I(1) CHENNAI VS M/S AMSTEEL CASTINGS P. LTD NO.1C, PRINCE APARTMENTS NO.59, ORMES ROAD CHENNAI 600 010 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI R.M. NARAYANAN, CA DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI SHAJI P. JACOB, ADDL. CIT DATE OF HEARING : 22-07-2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 05-08-2013 O R D E R PER N.S. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THESE ARE THE CROSS APPEALS FILED B Y THE ASSESSEE AND THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A)-IX, CHE NNAI, DATED 19.2.2013. I.T.A.NO.967 & 1194/13 :- 2 -: 2. THE LD. A.R OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT IN THE ASSESSEES APPEAL ONLY TWO ISSUES ARE INVOLVED. THE FIRST ISS UE IS REGARDING THE DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION OF ` 26,49,816/- U/S 80IA AND THE SECOND ISSUE IS REGARDING THE CHARGING OF INTEREST U/S 23 4A, 234B AND 234C OF THE ACT. 3. THE LD. A.R OF THE ASSESSEE ARGUED THAT FOR THE ASS ESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ELECTRONICALLY ON 29.9.2009. THE COPY OF FORM NO.ITR-V WAS GENERA TED BY THE COMPUTE SHOWING ACKNOWLEDGEMENT NO.94943560290909. HE SUBMITTED THAT IN THAT ASSESSMENT YEAR AS THE SIGNA TURE FOR VERIFICATION OF THE RETURN COULD NOT BE DONE ELECTRONICALLY, THE REFORE, THIS FORM ITR-V WAS MANUALLY SIGNED BY THE ASSESSEE AND AS AT THAT POINT OF TIME AS PER THE NOTE APPENDED TO THE FORM NO.ITR-V ITSELF THE SIGNED FORM ITR-V WAS TO BE SENT BY ORDINARY POST ONLY, TH E ASSESSEE SENT THE SAME BY ORDINARY POST. THE ASSESSEE, THEREAFT ER WANTED TO FILE A REVISED RETURN BY CLAIMING DEDUCTION U/S 80IA OF T HE ACT WHICH IT HAS NOT CLAIMED IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN FILED, IT CAME T O KNOW THAT THE ITR-V SIGNED BY THE DIRECTOR OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH WAS S ENT BY THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT RECEIVED BY THE DEPARTMENT. THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, FILED THE REVISED RETURN ON 29.3.2011 UN DER I.T.A.NO.967 & 1194/13 :- 3 -: ACKNOWLEDGEMENT NO.206784891290311 AS AN ORIGINAL R ETURN BECAUSE THE COMPUTER WAS NOT ACCEPTING THE REVISED RETURN. IN THIS RETURN, THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S 80IA FOR ` 29,43,401/-. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER REJECTED THE O RIGINAL RETURN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT NO SIGNED COPY OF ITR-V WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND TREATED THE RETURN SUBSEQUENTL Y FILED ON 29.3.2011 AS THE ORIGINAL RETURN OF THE ASSESSEE. HE DISALLOWED THE CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80IA OF THE ACT TO THE AS SESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT AS PER SECTION 80AC OF THE ACT WHERE THE RETUR N WAS NOT FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WITHIN THE DUE DATE PRESCRIBED U/S 1 39(1) OF THE ACT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION U/S 80IA OF THE ACT. 4. ON APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(A) REJECTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE VERY SAME REASON. 5. THE LD. A.R OF THE ASSESSEE FIRST RELIED ON THE DEC ISION OF THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF M/S CRAWFO RD BAYLEY & CO. VS UOI, [2011] 16 TAXMANN.COM 323(BOM.) AND SUBMITT ED THAT THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT HAS HELD THAT THE COURT IS INFOR MED OF THE PROBLEM AS ARISEN IN THE PRESENT CASE SINCE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 ARRANGEMENTS WERE NOT MADE BY THE INCOME TAX DEPART MENT FOR VERIFICATION OF RETURNS UPLOADED ELECTRONICALLY BY DIGITAL SIGNATURE. I.T.A.NO.967 & 1194/13 :- 4 -: SUCH AN ARRANGEMENT WAS NOW BEEN MADE FROM ASSESSME NT YEAR 2011-12. THE HIGH COURT WENT ON TO OBSERVE THAT SE CTION 139(9) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 STIPULATES THAT WHERE THE ASSESSING OFFICER CONSIDERS THAT A RETURN OF INCOME FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DEFECTIVE, HE MAY INTIMATE THE DEFECT TO THE ASSES SEE AND FURNISH AN OPPORTUNITY TO RECTIFY THE DEFECT WITHIN A PERIOD O F FIFTEEN DAYS OR WITHIN SUCH FURTHER PERIOD WHICH, ON AN APPLICATION MADE IN THIS BEHALF, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAY ALLOW. THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT ALSO OBSERVED THAT TREATING A RETURN FILED BY THE ASSES SEE AS AN INVALID RETURN HAS SERIOUS CONSEQUENCES. PARLIAMENT HAS IN SUB-SECTION (9) OF SECTION 139 MADE ADEQUATE PROVISIONS FOR THE ASSESS ING OFFICER TO FURNISH IN THE FIRST INSTANCE A PERIOD OF FIFTEEN D AYS TO RECTIFY A DEFECT IN THE RETURN. THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OBSERVED THA T THOUGH THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT MADE A PROVISION FOR ELECTRON IC FILING OF RETURNS, IT APPEARS THAT THE ITR-V FORM CONTAINING THE DUE VERIFICATION OF THE RETURN OF THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO BE R EMITTED ONLY BY ORDINARY POST. THE INSTRUCTIONS WHICH WERE FURNISH ED TO ASSESSEE, A COPY OF WHICH HAS BEEN PLACED ON RECORD, SPECIFICAL LY STIPULATE THAT THE ITR-V FORM SHOULD NOT BE SENT EITHER BY REGISTERED POST OR BY SPEED POST OR COURIER. THEREFORE, THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT AND DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFI CER TO COMPLY I.T.A.NO.967 & 1194/13 :- 5 -: WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 139(9) BY PERMITTING THE ASSESSEE TO FILE VERIFICATION OF THE RETURN BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFF ICER WITHIN A PERIOD OF ONE WEEK FROM THE DATE OF THE ORDER. 6. THE LD. A.R OF THE ASSESSEE FURTHER RELIED ON THE D ECISION OF THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF PRIME SECURITIES LTD. VS ACIT [2009] 182 TAXMAN 221(BOM.) AND SUBMITTED THAT IN THAT CASE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT HAS HELD THAT A BARE READING OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 292B MAKES IT CLEAR THAT A RETURN OF INC OME SHALL NOT BE TREATED AS INVALID MERELY BY REASON OF ANY MISTAKE, DEFECT OR OMISSION IN SUCH RETURN OF INCOME, IF SUCH RETURN OF INCOME IS IN SUBSTANCE AND EFFECT IN CONFORMITY WITH OR ACCORDING TO THE INTEN T AND PURPOSE OF THE ACT. THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT ALSO OBSERVED THAT THE TEST TO BE APPLIED IS WHETHER ON THE DATE THE ORIGINAL RETURN WAS FILE D, THE RETURN WAS IN CONFORMITY WITH OR ACCORDING TO THE PURPOSE OF THE ACT. IT IS TRUE THAT THE RETURN WAS INVALID AS ORIGINALLY FILED BECAUSE OF DEFECT IN THE PERSON SIGNING THE RETURN, BUT BY VIRTUE OF SECTION 139(9) THAT DEFECT COULD BE CURED AND WAS, IN FACT, CURED. HE THUS SU BMITTED THAT THE DEFECT IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ALSO A CUR ABLE DEFECT. 7. HE FURTHER RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE HYDERABAD BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ITO VS S. VENKATAIAH, [ 2012] 22 I.T.A.NO.967 & 1194/13 :- 6 -: TAXMANN.COM 2 (HYD.) AND SUBMITTED THAT THE TRIBUNA L IN THAT CASE HAS HELD THAT WHERE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF JUS TICE WAS INVOLVED TECHNICALITIES SHOULD BE IGNORED. THE TRIBUNAL FUR THER OBSERVED THAT IT IS SETTLED POSITION OF LAW, AS CONSISTENTLY HELD BY VARIOUS BENCHES OF THIS TRIBUNAL AND AS HELD IN VARIOUS DECISIONS REFE RRED TO BY THE CIT(A) IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER, THAT THOUGH FILING OF AUDIT REPORT IN FORM 10CCB IS MANDATORY AND PREREQUISITE FOR DEDUCTION U NDER SECTION 80IB, NON-FILING OF THE SAME ALONGWITH THE RETURN OF INCO ME IS ONLY A CURABLE DEFECT, AND ASSESSEES CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION HAS TO BE CONSIDERED ON ITS MERITS AS AND WHEN THE DEFECT IS CURED BY FILING FO RM 10CCB. THE TRIBUNAL THEREFORE, OPINED THAT THE CLAIM OF THE A SSESSEE CANNOT BE DENIED ON TECHNICALITIES WHEN THE ASSESSEE IS LEG ALLY OTHERWISE ENTITLED FOR DEDUCTION. 8. THE LD. A.R FURTHER RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE H ON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF COLLECTOR LAND ACQUISI TION, ANANTNAG & ANR. VS MST. KATIJI & ORS, 1987 AIR 1353, AND SUBMI TTED THAT THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THAT CASE HAS HELD THAT WH EN SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE AND TECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS ARE PITTED AGA INST EACH OTHER, CAUSE OF SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE DESERVES TO BE PREFERR ED FOR THE OTHER SIDE CANNOT CLAIM TO HAVE VESTED RIGHT IN INJUSTICE BEIN G DONE BECAUSE OF A I.T.A.NO.967 & 1194/13 :- 7 -: NON-DELIBERATE DELAY. THERE IS NO PRESUMPTION THAT DELAY IS OCCASIONED DELIBERATELY, OR ON ACCOUNT OF CULPABLE NEGLIGENCE, OR ON ACCOUNT OF MALAFIDES. A LITIGANT DOES NOT STAND TO BENEFIT BY RESORTING TO DELAY. IN FACT HE RUNS A SERIOUS RISK. IT MUST BE GRASP ED THAT JUDICIARY IS RESPECTED NOT ON ACCOUNT OF ITS POWER TO LEGALIZE I NJUSTICE ON TECHNICAL GROUNDS BUT BECAUSE IT IS CAPABLE OF REMOVING INJUS TICE AND IS EXPECTED TO DO SO. 9. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR BY REFERRING TO COPY OF ITR-V, PLACED AT PAGE NO.9 OF THE PAPER BOOK FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, SUBMITTED THAT IT WILL BE SEEN THAT THE VERIFICATIO N HAS BEEN SIGNED BY AFFIXING RUBBER STAMP BY THE ASSESSEE AND THIS VE RIFICATION WAS NOT AVAILABLE WITH THE DEPARTMENT. HE SUBMITTED THAT W ITHOUT VERIFICATION, THE INCOME TAX RETURN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS NOT A VALID RETURN COGNIZANCE OF WHICH CAN BE TAKEN BY THE DEPARTMENT. THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS UPLOADED IT S RETURN ELECTRONICALLY BY COMPUTER AND THE SAME WAS IN THE DOMAIN OF THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT CANNOT BE ACCEPTED AS VALID. WITHOUT THE VERIFICATION RECEIVED FROM THE ASSESSEE THE RETURN IS NOT COMPLETE AND CANNOT BE ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT. HE SUBMITTED THAT ANY PERSON BY QUOTING THE PAN OF THE ASSESSEE CAN ELECTRONICA LLY UPLOAD VARIOUS I.T.A.NO.967 & 1194/13 :- 8 -: DATA OF INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE ON WHICH THE DEPART MENT CANNOT ACT UNTIL AND UNLESS IT HAS THE VERIFICATION OF THE AS SESSEE BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE WILL DENY THE CONTENTS OF SUCH RETURN HAVI NG BEEN FILED BY IT. 10. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH C OURT IN THE CASE OF M/S CRAWFORD BAYLEY (SUPRA) HAS STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED ADEQUATE MATERIAL BEFORE THE COURT I N SUPPORT OF ITS CONTENTION THAT HAVING FILED THE RETURN ELECTRONICA LLY AND IT HAD ALSO SUBMITTED ITR-V FORM BY ORDINARY POST. HE SUBMITTE D THAT IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED ANY EVIDE NCE TO SHOW THAT FORM ITR-V WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE DEPART MENT AS WILL BE OBSERVED FROM PARA 7 OF THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) WHEREIN THE LD. CIT(A) HAS OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS EXAMINED THIS ISSUE DURING SCRUTINY AT LENGTH AND HAS MADE A FINDING TH AT THE APPELLANT HAS FILED RETURN OF INCOME ONLY ON 29.3.2011. HE ARGUE D THAT EVEN BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PLACED ANY EVID ENCE OF FILING FORM ITR-V ON 29.9.2009 IN THE FORM OF DISPATCH REGISTER ETC. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT SECTION 292B WAS NOT HELPFUL TO THE ASSESSEE AS BECAUSE IN THE DECISIONS RELIED ON BY THE ASSESSEE THE FACTS WERE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME W HICH WAS SIGNED BY A PERSON OTHER THAN THE AUTHORIZED PERSON UNDER THE INCOME-TAX ACT, I.T.A.NO.967 & 1194/13 :- 9 -: 1961. ON THOSE FACTS, THE COURTS HAVE HELD THAT TH E DEFECT WAS CURABLE U/S 139(9) OF THE ACT. IN THE INSTANT CAS E, THE RETURN WAS NOT SIGNED AT ALL AND THEREFORE, THE DECISIONS RELIED O N BY THE ASSESSEE ARE NOT HELPFUL TO THE ASSESSEE. 11. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSED T HE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND MATERIALS AVAIL ABLE ON RECORD. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE ASSESSEE VIDE ITS RETURN OF INCOME FILED ON 29.3.2011 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 CLAIMED DEDUC TION U/S 80IA OF ` 26,49,816/- IN RESPECT OF INCOME DERIVED FROM WIND MILL OPERATION. THE SAID CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 80IA WAS DENIED TO THE ASSESSEE VIDE ORDER PASSED U/S 143(3) ON THE GROUND THAT THE RET URN OF INCOME FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 29.9.2009 WAS NOT U/S 139(1) A ND THEREFORE, DUE TO PROVISIONS OF SECTION 80AC, THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80IA OF THE ACT. THE CASE OF THE A SSESSEE IS THAT IT HAS FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 29.9.2009 WHICH WAS W ITHIN THE TIME ALLOWED U/S 139(1) OF THE ACT AND THEREFORE, THE R ETURN FILED ON 29.3.2011 WAS A REVISED RETURN U/S 139(5) OF THE A CT AND THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80IA O F THE ACT. 12. THE REVENUE ALSO NOT DISPUTED THE FACT THAT IF THE ASSESSEES RETURN FILED ON 29.9.2009 IS A VALID RET URN THEN THE I.T.A.NO.967 & 1194/13 :- 10 -: ASSESSEE IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80IA OF THE ACT. BUT THE CONTENTION OF THE DEPARTMENT IS THAT THE RETURN FIL ED ON 29.9.2009 WAS NOT A VALID RETURN AND CONSEQUENTLY, THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80IA OF THE ACT. ACCORDING TO THE A SSESSING OFFICER, A ITR-V (VERIFICATION FORM) OF THE RETURN FILED ON 29 .9.2009 WAS NOT RECEIVED BY THE CPC AND THEREFORE, THE SAID RETURN WAS NOT A VALID RETURN. ON THE ABOVE FACTS, THE LD. CIT(A) UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWING THE DEDUCTION U/S 80 IA OF THE ACT TO THE ASSESSEE. 13. BEFORE US, THE LD. A.R OF THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED TH AT IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS RETURN OF I NCOME ELECTRONICALLY ON 29.9.2009. THE ASSESSEE, AS PER THE DIRECTION OF THE DEPARTMENT SENT THE VERIFICATION FORM BY ORDINARY POST. NO NOTICE TO REMOVE THE DEFECT, IF ANY, IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN WAS SERVED UPON TH E ASSESSEE AND THEREFORE, THE DEPARTMENT WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN TREA TING THE RETURN FILED ON 29.9.2009 AS NO RETURN. FOR THE ABOVE CONTEN TION, HE PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF M/S CRAWFORD BAYLEY (SUPRA). HE FURTHER CONTEND ED THAT IN ANY VIEW OF THE MATTER, AS THE SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE W ITH THE PROVISIONS OF LAW WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE, THE DENIAL OF DED UCTION U/S 80IA I.T.A.NO.967 & 1194/13 :- 11 -: ON A VERY TECHNICAL GROUND WAS NOT JUSTIFIED FOR WH ICH HE PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COU RT IN THE CASE OF COLLECTOR LAND ACQUISITION, ANANTNAG & ANR. VS MST KATIJI & ORS (SUPRA). 14. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR CONTENDED THAT THE DE CISION IN THE CASE OF M/S CRAWFORD BAYLEY(SUPRA) IS NOT APPLI CABLE IN THE INSTANT CASE AS IN THE CASE BEFORE THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT THE ASSESSEE PRODUCED EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT VERIFICATIO N WAS DISPATCHED BY ORDINARY POST WHEREAS IN THE INSTANT CASE, NO SU CH EVIDENCE WAS PRODUCED. 15. IN THE REJOINDER, THE LD. A.R OF THE ASSESSEE POIN TED OUT THAT BEFORE SUBMITTING ITS RETURN OF INCOME ELECTRONICAL LY ON 29.9.2009 THE ASSESSEE PAID SELF-ASSESSMENT TAX OF ` 7,62,48,325/-. AS THE VERIFICATION FORM WAS SENT BY ORDINARY POST THERE C OULD NOT BE ANY POSITIVE EVIDENCE WITH THE ASSESSEE. MOREOVER, NO COMMUNICATION WAS SENT BY THE IT DEPARTMENT INFORMING THE ASSESS EE THAT ITS RETURN OF INCOME FILED ON 29.9.2009 ELECTRONICALLY SHALL B E TREATED AS AN INVALID RETURN IN THE ABSENCE OF RECEIPT OF VERIFIC ATION FORM ITR-V. 16. WE FIND THAT IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT NO DEFECT NO TICE U/S 139(9) WAS SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE AND NO OPPORTU NITY TO THE I.T.A.NO.967 & 1194/13 :- 12 -: ASSESSEE WAS ALLOWED BY THE DEPARTMENT BEFORE TREAT ING THE RETURN SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE ELECTRONICALLY ON 29.9.2 009 AS INVALID RETURN. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, IN VIEW OF THE DEC ISION OF THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF M/S CRAWFORD BAYLE Y(SUPRA) THE DEPARTMENT WAS NOT PERMITTED TO TREAT THE RETURN FI LED ELECTRONICALLY AS INVALID IN ABSENCE OF RECEIPT OF VERIFICATION FORM WHEN THE DEPARTMENT INSTRUCTED TO DISPATCH THE VERIFICATION FORM BY ORD INARY POST ONLY AND WHEN NO NOTICE OF DEFECT WAS SERVED UPON THE ASSES SEE OF ITS INTENTION TO TREAT SUCH RETURN AS INVALID IN ABSENC E OF RECEIPT OF VERIFICATION FORM. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE DIRE CT THE ASSESSEE TO SUBMIT A COPY OF SIGNED VERIFICATION FORM ITR-V TO THE JURISDICTIONAL ASSESSING OFFICER WITHIN A WEEK OF RECEIPT OF THIS ORDER AND ON SO FURNISHING OF THE VERIFICATION FORM, WE DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO TREAT THE RETURN FILED ON 29.9.2009 AS VALID RETURN AND CONSEQUENTLY, ALLOW DEDUCTION U/S 80IA TO THE ASSESSEE. THUS, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 17. REGARDING THE SECOND ISSUE BEING INTEREST CHARGED U/S 234A, 234B AND 234C OF THE ACT, THE LD. A.R OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT AS REGARDS CHARGING OF INTEREST U/S 234B AND 234C, THE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THERE WAS COMPUTATIONAL ER ROR AND THE SAME I.T.A.NO.967 & 1194/13 :- 13 -: HAS NOT BEEN RECTIFIED AND THEREFORE, SUITABLE DIRE CTION MAY BE GIVEN BY THE TRIBUNAL TO THAT EFFECT. 18. AS REGARDS CHARGING OF INTEREST U/S 234A OF THE AC T, HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE, BEFORE THE DUE DATE O F FILING OF RETURN OF INCOME HAD PAID SELF-ASSESSMENT TAX OF ` 7,62,48,855/- AND THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WHILE LEVYING INTEREST U/S 234A SHOULD HAVE REDUCED THIS AMOUNT FROM THE TAX DUE AND THEREAFTER CALCULATED THE INTEREST. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ARGUMENT OF THE A SSESSEE IS THAT AS THE RETURN WAS FILED IN TIME BY THE ASSESSEE AND A CKNOWLEDGEMENT FOR FILING OF THE RETURN WAS ALSO SENT BY ORDINARY POST AS PER INSTRUCTIONS OF THE DEPARTMENT, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT LI ABLE TO INTEREST U/S 234A OF THE ACT. 19. THE LD. A.R OF THE ASSESSEE RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS PRANOY ROY AND ANOTHER, [2009] 309 ITR 231(S.C) AND SUBMITTED THAT THE HON 'BLE SUPREME COURT HAS HELD THAT WHERE THE TAX ALREADY PAID BY T HE ASSESSEE WAS NOT LESS THAN THE TAX PAYABLE ON THE RETURNED INCOM E WHICH WAS ACCEPTED, THE QUESTION OF LEVY OF INTEREST U/S 234 A DID NOT ARISE. 20. HE FURTHER RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE DE LHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF DR. PRANNOY ROY VS CIT, [2002] 121 TAXMAN I.T.A.NO.967 & 1194/13 :- 14 -: 314(DELHI) WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT IN THE INSTANT CASE TAX HAS BEEN PAID ALTHOUGH NO RETURN HAD BEEN FILED. THE REVENU E, THEREFORE, HAD NOT SUFFERED ANY MONETARY LOSS. THEREFORE, IN THE INSTANT CAE, IF THE DOCTRINE OF PURPOSIVE CONSTRUCTION WAS NOT TAKEN RE COURSE TO, THE SAME WOULD BETRAY THE PURPORT AND OBJECT OF THE ACT. TH E HON'BLE HIGH COURT FURTHER HELD THAT IF THE AFOREMENTIONED CONST RUCTION WAS NOT RESORTED TO, ONE WOULD HAVE TO READ A PENAL PROVISI ON IN SECTION 234A, WHICH WAS NOT AND COULD NOT HAVE BEEN THE OBJECT OF THE LAW FOR THE REASONS STATED HEREINABOVE. THE COURT FURTHER OBSE RVED THAT IT IS FURTHER WELL KNOWN THAT IN CASE OF DOUBT OR DISPUTE , TAXATION STATUTE MUST BE LIBERALLY CONSTRUED. THE COURT WAS, THEREF ORE, NOT IN A POSITION TO ASSIGN STRINGENT MEANING TO THE WORDS ADVANCE TAX AS SUBMITTED BY THE REVENUE. THE COURT HELD THAT IF A PENAL PROVISION IS TO BE READ IN SECTION 234A, THE SAME MAY BORDER ON UNCONSTITUTIONALITY, AS THEREFOR THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE ARE NOT REQUIRED TO BE COMPLIED WITH. IT IS ALSO WELL SETT LED THAT WHEN TWO CONSTRUCTIONS ARE POSSIBLE, THE CONSTRUCTION, WHICH WOULD UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF A PROVISION, BE APPLIED. HAD THE LEGISLATURE MADE THE AMENDMENT ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF IMPOSITION OF A PENALTY, THERE WAS NO NECESSITY FOR ENACTING SECTION 271F LATER ON . I.T.A.NO.967 & 1194/13 :- 15 -: 21. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT LEVY O F INTEREST U/S 234A, 234B AND 234C IS CONSEQUENTIAL. 22. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSED T HE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND MATERIALS AVAIL ABLE ON RECORD. THE LD. A.R OF THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT FOR CHARGING OF INTEREST U/S 234A CREDIT FOR SELF-ASSESSMENT TAX PAID BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF FILING OF THE RETURN WAS NOT ALLOWED BY THE ASSESSING OFFI CER WHICH IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS PRANOY ROY AND ANOTHER. IN RESPECT OF C HARGING OF INTEREST U/S 234B AND 234C OF THE ACT, THE LD. A.R OF THE AS SESSEE CONTENDED THAT THERE WAS CALCULATION MISTAKE AND THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER BE DIRECTED TO RECALCULATE THE SAME AS PER LAW. 23. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT HE HA S NO OBJECTION ON ASSESSING OFFICER BEING DIRECTED TO CH ARGE INTEREST AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF LAW. 24. WE FIND THAT THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS PRANOY ROY AND ANOTHER(SUPRA) HAS HELD AS UNDER: HAVING HEARD COUNSEL ON BOTH SIDES, WE ENTIRELY A GREE WITH THE FINDING RECORDED BY THE HIGH COURT AS ALSO THE INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 234A OF THE ACT AS IT STO OD AT THE RELEVANT TIME. I.T.A.NO.967 & 1194/13 :- 16 -: SINCE THE TAX DUE HAD ALREADY BEEN PAID WHICH WAS NOT LESS THAN THE TAX PAYABLE ON THE RETURNED INCOME WH ICH WAS ACCEPTED THE QUESTION OF LEVY OF INTEREST DOES NOT ARISE. THUS, WE FIND NO MERIT IN THIS APPEAL AND THE SAME IS DISMISSED. 25. WE, THEREFORE, SET ASIDE THE ORDERS RELATING TO CHA RGING OF INTEREST U/S 234A, 234B & 234C AND RESTORE THE MA TTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH THE DIRECTION TO RECOMPUTE THE SAME KEEPING IN VIEW THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT EXTRACTED HEREINABOVE AND AS PER PROVISIONS OF LAW. THUS, TH E GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE S. 26. IN THE REVENUES APPEAL, THE ONLY ISSUE INVOLVED IS THAT THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A R.W. RULE 8D. 27. THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION THE ASSESSEE HAS EARNED DIVIDEND INC OME OF ` 1,96,15,132/- AND CLAIMED THE SAME AS EXEMPT U/S 1 0(34) OF THE ACT. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE, IN THE RETURN OF I NCOME, HAS DISALLOWED 2% OF THE DIVIDEND INCOME AMOUNTING TO ` 3,92,303/- AS EXPENDITURE INCURRED FOR EARNING OF THE DIVIDEND IN COME. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE EXPEND ITURE OF ` 3,92,303/- CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN INCURRED FOR EARNIN G OF DIVIDEND INCOME FOR THE REASON THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD INCURR ED EXPENDITURE OF ` I.T.A.NO.967 & 1194/13 :- 17 -: 65,93,430/- AS INTEREST ON ITS BORROWED CAPITAL DUR ING THE YEAR. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT THE BORROWED FUNDS WERE NOT U TILIZED FOR MAKING INVESTMENTS. BUT IT COULD NOT CLEARLY ESTABLISH TH E SAME. FUNDS FOR A COMPANY COME IN A COMMON KITTY AND IT COMPRISES OF BORROWED FUNDS, SHARE CAPITAL AND RETAINED EARNINGS. THEREFORE, TH E ASSESSING OFFICER WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE ARGUMENT OF THE ASSESSEE THAT NO PORTION OF INTEREST PAID RELATES TO INVESTMENT IS NOT VALID. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER OBSERVED THAT IT WAS LOGICAL TO CONCLUDE TH AT A PORTION OF THE ROUTINE EXPENDITURE TO MAINTAIN ITS ESTABLISHMENT A ND ADMINISTRATION CAN BE ATTRIBUTABLE TOWARDS THE ACTIVITY OF MAKING INVESTMENTS TO EARN DIVIDEND INCOME. FURTHER IT IS THE FACT THAT THE M ANAGERIAL STAFF AND THE DIRECTORS ARE INVOLVED IN MAKING DECISIONS ON I NVESTMENTS. HENCE, A PORTION OF THIS MANAGERIAL REMUNERATION AND DIREC TORS REMUNERATION DEFINITELY BE ATTRIBUTABLE TOWARDS EARNING SUCH EXE MPT INCOME. HE SUBMITTED THAT TO DETERMINE THE EXPENSES ATTRIBUTAB LE TO EARNING SUCH EXEMPT INCOME, THE FINANCE ACT, 2006 HAD BROUGHT IN THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 14A(2) WHICH REQUIRES THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DETERMINE THE EXPENSES ALREADY RELATING TO AN EXEMPT INCOME IN AC CORDANCE WITH RULE 8D. HE RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF GODREJ & BOYCE MFG. CO. LTD. VS DCIT , 328 ITR 81, I.T.A.NO.967 & 1194/13 :- 18 -: WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT THE DISALLOWANCE UNDER RU LE 8D R.W 14A WAS FAIR AND REASONABLE. 28. HE FURTHER RELIED ON THE DECISION THE CHENNAI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF M/S LAKSHMI RING TRAVELLER S VS ACIT, IN I.T.A.NO. 2083/MDS/2011, ORDER DATED 2.3.2012, WHE REIN IT WAS HELD THAT SEC.14A(2) PROVIDES FOR DETERMINING THE QUANTU M OF SUCH EXPENDITURE WHICH SHALL NOT BE ALLOWED AS A DEDUCTI ON. THAT IS THE MACHINERY PROVISION AS FAR AS SEC.14A IS CONCERNED. IN THAT PROVISION, IT HAS BEEN PROVIDED THAT IF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE CORRECTNESS OF THE COMPUTATIONS MADE BY AN ASSESSEE , HE SHALL COMPUTE THE QUANTUM IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE METHOD THAT MAY BE PRESCRIBED. FOR THIS MATTER, RULE 8D HAS ALREADY BEEN PRESCRIBE D. SUB-SEC.(3) FURTHER PROVIDES THAT EVEN IN A CASE WHERE AN ASSES SEE CLAIMS THAT NO EXPENDITURE WAS INCURRED, THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY H AS TO PRESUME THE INCURRING OF SUCH EXPENDITURE AS PROVIDED UNDER SUB -SEC.(2) READ WITH RULE PRESCRIBED. THEREFORE, IT BECOMES CLEAR THAT EVEN IN A CASE WHERE THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS THAT NO EXPENDITURE WAS SO INCU RRED, THE STATUTE HAS PROVIDED FOR A PRESUMPTIVE EXPENDITURE WHICH H AS TO BE DISALLOWED BY FORCE OF THE STATUTE. IN A DISTANT MANNER, LIT ERALLY SPEAKING, IT MAY EVEN BE CONSIDERED FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONVENIENCE A S A DEEMING I.T.A.NO.967 & 1194/13 :- 19 -: PROVISION. WHEN SUCH DEEMING PROVISION IS MADE ON THE BASIS OF STATUTORY PRESUMPTION, THE REQUIREMENT OF FACTUAL E VIDENCE IS REPLACED BY STATUTORY PRESUMPTION AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TO FOLLOW THE CONSEQUENCES STATED IN THE STATUTE. IT MEANS THAT EVEN IN A CASE WHERE NO EXPENDITURE IS STATED TO HAVE BEEN INCURRED, THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY HAS TO APPLY RULE 8D. AS THE STATUTORY PRESUMPTION SUBSTITUTES THE REQUIREMENT OF FACTUAL EVIDENCE, THE QUESTION OF EN QUIRY DOES NOT ARISE. THEREFORE, WE ARE UNABLE TO AGREE WITH THE ARGUMENT OF THE LEARNED CA. 29. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. A.R OF THE ASSESSEE RELI ED ON THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CA SE OF GODREJ & BOYCE MFG. CO. LTD (SUPRA) AND SUBMITTED THAT THE H ON'BLE HIGH COURT HAS HELD THAT THE SATISFACTION ENVISAGED IN SUB-SEC TION (2) OF SECTION 14A IS OBJECTIVE SATISFACTION THAT HAS TO BE ARRIVE D AT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAVING REGARD TO THE ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSES SEE. THE SAFEGUARD INTRODUCED BY SUB-SECTION(2) OF SECTION 14A FOR A F AIR AND REASONABLE EXERCISE OF POWER BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, CONDITI ONED AS IT IS BY THE REQUIREMENT OF AN OBJECTIVE SATISFACTION, MUST THER EFORE, BE SCRUPULOUSLY OBSERVED. HE SUBMITTED THAT THERE WA S NO SATISFACTION RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT NO EXPENDITURE OR EXPENDITURE MORE THAN ` 3,93,303/- WAS INCURRED I.T.A.NO.967 & 1194/13 :- 20 -: BY THE ASSESSEE FOR EARNING DIVIDEND INCOME WAS FALSE OR INCORRECT AND THEREFORE, HE COULD NOT PROCEED TO COMPUTE THE DISALLOWANCE BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 8D. HENCE, HE PRAY ED THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) SHOULD BE CONFIRMED AS THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT PROVED THE EXPENSES OF OR INTEREST EXPENDITURE TO E ARN THE EXEMPT DIVIDEND INCOME AND HAS ALSO NOT PROVED BEYOND DOUB T THAT THE INVESTMENTS MADE DURING THE YEAR WERE ONLY FROM INT EREST BEARING FUNDS. 30. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSED T HE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND MATERIALS AVAIL ABLE ON RECORD. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED ` 3,92,303/- AS EXPENDITURE INCURRED IN RELATION TO EXEMPT INCOME AND THEREFORE , DISALLOWED U/S 14A OF THE ACT IN ITS RETURN OF INCOME. THE ASSESS ING OFFICER STATED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD INCURRED AN AMOUNTOF ` 65,93,430/- AS INTEREST ON ITS BORROWED CAPITAL DURING THE YEA R. THOUGH THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT SUCH BORROWED FUNDS WERE NOT UTILIZED FOR MAKING INVESTMENTS, IT COULDN'T CLEARLY ESTABLISH THE SAME . FUNDS FOR A COMPANY COME IN A COMMON KITTY AND IT COMPRISES OF BORROWED FUNDS, SHARE CAPITAL AND RETAINED EARNINGS (RESERVES & SURPLUS). THEREFORE, THE ARGUMENT THAT NO PORTION OF THE INTEREST PAID RELATES TO INVESTMENT IS NOT VALID. IT IS LOGICAL TO I.T.A.NO.967 & 1194/13 :- 21 -: CONCLUDE THAT A PORTION OR THE ROUTINE EXPENDITURES TO MAINTAIN ITS ESTABLISHMENT AND ADMINISTRATION CAN BE ATTRIBUTABL E TOWARDS THE ACTIVITY OF MAKING INVESTMENTS TO EARN DIVIDEND. FURTHER, IT IS THE FACT THAT THE MANAGERIAL STAFF AND THE DIRECTORS ARE INVOLVED IN MAKING DECISIONS ON INVESTMENTS. HENCE, A PORTION OF THIS MANAGERIAL RE MUNERATION AND DIRECTORS REMUNERATION DEFINITELY BE ATTRIBUTABLE TOWARDS EAR NING SUCH EXEMPT INCOME. TO DETERMINE THE EXPENSES ATTRIBUTABLE TO EARNING S UCH EXEMPT INCOME, THE FINANCE ACT, 2006 HAD BROUGHT IN THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 14A(2) WHICH REQUIRES THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DETERMINE THE EXP ENSES ALREADY RELATING TO AN EXEMPT INCOME IN ACCORDANCE WITH RULE 8D. RELIANCE IS PLACED ON THE DECISION OF THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF GO DREJ & BOYCE VS. DCIT, WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT DISALLOWANCE UNDER RULE 8D R.W.S 14A(2) IS FAIR AND REASONABLE. THEREFORE, THE AS SESSING OFFICER DETERMINED ` 32,42,119/- AS DISALLOWABLE U/S 14A R.W. RULE 8D. 31. ON APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE ABOVE DISALLO WANCE ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS BROUGHT N O MATERIAL TO SHOW THAT INTEREST BEARING FUNDS WERE UTILIZED FOR MAKIN G INVESTMENT GIVING RISE TO EXEMPT INCOME. I.T.A.NO.967 & 1194/13 :- 22 -: 32. BEFORE US, THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSMENT YEAR INVOLVED IS 2009-10 AND THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING O FFICER WAS JUSTIFIED IN DETERMINING THE AMOUNT DISALLOWABLE U/S 14A AS PER RULE 8D. 33. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. A.R OF THE ASSESSEE RELI ED UPONT HE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF GODREJ & BOYCE MFG. CO. LTD(SUPRA) AND SUBMITTED THAT AS THE ASSESSING OFFICER COULDNOT POINT OUT ANY DEFECT IN THE AMOUNT OF ` 3,92,303/- CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE AS EXPENDITURE INCURRED IN RELATION T O EXEMPT INCOME, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 8D. HE FURTHER REFERRED TO THE CASH FLOW STA TEMENT WHICH WAS FILED ALONGWITH THE AUDITED ACCOUNTS BEFORE THE ASS ESSING OFFICER AND POINTED OUT THEREFROM THAT THE CASH FLOW FROM OPERA TING ACTIVITIES WAS TO THE TUNE OF ` 23,55,18,510/- AND THE INVESTMENT DURING THE YEAR WAS ` 9,98,10,557/- ONLY AND THEREFORE, IT CANNOT BE ASS UMED THAT ANY PART OF THE INTEREST BEARING FUNDS WAS UTILIZED FOR MAKING INVESTMENT GIVING RISE TO EXEMPT INCOME. WE FIND THAT THE HON 'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE ABOVE CITED CASE HAS HELD AS UNDER: THE SATISFACTION ENVISAGED IN SUB-SECTION (2) OF SECTION 14A IS OBJECTIVE SATISFACTION THAT HAS TO BE ARRIVED AT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAVING REGARD TO THE ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSES SEE. THE SAFEGUARD INTRODUCED BY SUB-SECTION(2) OF SECTION 1 4A FOR A FAIR AND REASONABLE EXERCISE OF POWER BY THE ASSESSING O FFICER, I.T.A.NO.967 & 1194/13 :- 23 -: CONDITIONED AS IT IS BY THE REQUIREMENT OF AN OBJEC TIVE SATISFACTION, MUST THEREFORE, BE SCRUPULOUSLY OBSER VED. 34. WE FIND THAT IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE ASSESSING OFF ICER, AFTER EXAMINING THE ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE HAS, APART FROM MAKING GENERAL OBSERVATIONS, COULD NOT POINT OUT ANY SPECI FIC DEFECT IN THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT ONLY ` 3,92,303/- WAS INCURRED IN RELATION TO EXEMPT INCOME. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, IN ABSENCE OF ANY SUCH OBJECTIVE SATISFACTION BEING RECORDED BY THE ASSESS ING OFFICER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD NO JURISDICTION TO INVOKE THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 8D CONSEQUENTLY, WE DO NOT FIND ANY GOOD REASON T O INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND THE GROUNDS OF APPE AL OF THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. 35. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES AND THAT OF THE REVENUE IS DIS MISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON MONDAY, THE 05 TH OF AUGUST, 2013, AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD) JUDICIAL MEMBER (N.S.SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 05 TH AUGUST, 2013 RD COPY TO: APPELLANT/RESPONDENT/CIT(A)/CIT/DR