Ganga Textiles Ltd., Coimbatore V. ACIT, Coimbatore

ITA 1305/CHNY/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 64286 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-09-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 10-09-2012
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 14-06-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DR S MOHARANA
• Assessee Lawyers: V S JAYAKUMAR
• Keywords: Reopening of assessment; Depreciation; Period of limitation; Cost of acquisition; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 43B; 143(3); 147; 148; 263; 28

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, CHENNAI. BEFORE SHRI N.S. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI S.S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO.1305/MDS/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2004-05 GANGA TEXTILE LTD., 1547-A, AVINASHI ROAD, PEELAMEDU, COIMBATORE 641 004. [PAN:AABCG1029P] VS. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COMPANY CIRCLE IV(1), RACE COURSE, COIMBATORE 641 018. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) A PPELLANT BY : SHRI V.S. JAYAKUMAR, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY : DR. S. MOHARANA, CIT DR DATE OF HEARING : 10.09.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 18.09.2012 ORDER PER S.S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER IN THIS APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED CORREC TNESS OF CIT II, COIMBATORES IS ORDER DATED 30.03.2012 IN C.NO. 220 (2)/REV. 263/CIT- II/CBE/2011-12 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 IN PROCEEDING UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 [ IN SHORT ACT]. 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE INSTANT CASE ARE THAT THE AS SESSEE IS A COMPANY INVOLVED IN TEXTILE BUSINESS. REGARDING ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05, IT FILED ITS RETURN ON 01.11.2004 DECLARING LOSS OF ` .1,81,35,170/-. ON 31.03.2005, THE RETURN WAS PROCESSED UNDER SECTION 143(1) OF THE A CT. AFTER SCRUTINY, THE I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. NO. NO. NO. NO.1305 1305 1305 1305/M/ /M/ /M/ /M/12 1212 12 2 ASSESSING OFFICER FINALIZED THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SE CTION 143(3) OF THE ACT COMPUTING LOSS OF ` .3,48,90,287/-. REGARDING PRIOR YEARS DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 43AB, WHICH STOOD PAID AND SETTLED WRITTEN OFF, THE ASSESSING OFFICER COMPUTED BROUGHT FORWARD LOSSES ` .16,43,73,626/- INCLUDING AN AMOUNT OF ` .6,11,59,823/- I.E., INTEREST ON GLOBAL TRUST BANK TERM LOAN AND INTEREST ON IDBI TERM LOAN AMOUNTING TO ` .5,74,63,278/-. IN THIS MANNER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT. 3. THEREAFTER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED NOTICE TO ASSESSEE FOR REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT FINALIZED, UNDER SECTION 14 8 OF THE ACT ON 08.07.2008 QUA COMPUTATION OF CAPITAL GAINS REGARDI NG ASSESSEES SALE OF ITS LAND AND BUILDING. IN REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER FINALIZED THE PROCEEDINGS VIDE ORDER DATED 30.12.20 09 BY RECALCULATING ASSESSEES LONG TERM AND SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAINS. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER FINALIZED LOSS THEREOF ` .3,48,90,287/- (SUPRA) TO ` .2,44,70,338/-. IT ALSO EMERGES FROM THE RECORD THA T THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL AGAINST THE REASSESSMENT ORDER , WHEREIN, THE CIT(A) WHILST ACCEPTING ASSESSEES ARGUMENTS, VIDE ORDER D ATED 09.02.2011 DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS FOLLOWS: 6. I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE APPELLANT AND ALSO ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. AS PER SEC. 50 OF THE IT ACT, THE METHOD FOR ARRIVING AT SHORT-TERM CAPITAL GAINS IN, THE CASE OF DEPRECIABLE ASSET IS FULL VALUE OF CONSIDERATION RECEIVED FROM SALE - LESS (1) EXPENDITURE INCURRED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY IN CONN ECTION WITH SUCH I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. NO. NO. NO. NO.1305 1305 1305 1305/M/ /M/ /M/ /M/12 1212 12 3 TRANSFER, (2) THE WDV OF THE BLOCK OF ASSETS AT THE BEGINNING OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR (3) THE ACTUAL COST OF ANY ASSET FALL ING WITHIN THE BLOCK OF ASSET ACQUIRED DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR. 7. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ARRIVED AT THE SHORT- TERM CAPITAL GAIN OF ` .1,01,18,602/- BY ADDING THE COST OF THE LAND TO TH E ORIGINAL COST OF CONSTRUCTION OF THE BUILDING AND REDUCE THE OPENING WDV OF THE VALUE OF THE ASSET. THE METHOD ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFI CER FOR ARRIVING AT THE SALE VALUE IS NOT AS PER LAW. HENCE, ASSESSING OFFI CER IS DIRECTED TO ADOPT THE ACTUAL SALE VALUE REALIZED OR SALE VALUE ADOPTE D BY THE BUYER AT ` .25,16,6701/- AND REDUCE THE WDV FOR THE BUILDING T O ARRIVE AT THE SHORT TERM CAPITAL LOSS. 8. REGARDING THE LONG-TERM CAPITAL GAIN ON THE SAL E OF LAND AND BUILDING AT NARANAPURAM, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS CONSIDERED THE SALE VALUE OF BUILDING AMOUNTING TO ` .25,16,6701/- IN THE SALE VALUE OF LAND AND BUILDING TO M/S.AVNISH SPINNERS, THE SALE VALUE OF THE BUILDING HAVING BEEN ASSESSED ONCE CANNOT BE ASSESSED AGAIN. HENCE, THE SALE VALUE OF BUILDING AMOUNTING TO ` . 25,16,6701/- SHOULD BE EXCLUDED WHILE ARRIVING AT THE LONG-TERM CAPITAL GAINS. HENCE, THE SALE VAL UE OF LAND, SOLD TO M/S. AVNISH SPINNERS IS ` .5,01,090/- AND SALE VALUE OF LAND SOLD TO SMT. D. SEETHALAKSHMI AMOUNTS TO ` .1,25,4401/-. HENCE, THE TOTAL SALE VALUE OF LAND IS ` .6,26,5301- AND THE INDEXED COST OF ACQUISITION AS ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS ` .28,41,853/- WHICH RESULTS IN LONG-TERM CAPITAL LOS S OF ` .22,15,323/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO ADOPT THE ABOVE MENTIONED WORKING WHILE ARRIVING AT THE SHORT-TERM AND LONG-TERM CAPITAL GAINS. WE ALSO NOTICE THAT THE MATTER WAS NOT FURTHER PU RSUED BY THE REVENUE. IN THIS MANNER THE ASSESSMENT ATTAINED FIN ALITY. 4. ON 06.01.2012, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX I SSUED NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE PROPOSING REVISION UNDER SECTION 263 OF TH E ACT FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: ON A PERUSAL OF THE 23 RD ANNUAL REPORT FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2003-04 OF THE COMPANY, IT IS SEEN THAT THE BUSINES S ACTIVITIES OF THE COMPANY HAD BEEN STOPPED. NO BUSINESS TRANSACTIONS OR ACTIVITIES HAD BEEN CARRIED OUT DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2003-04. IT IS FOUND FROM THE I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. NO. NO. NO. NO.1305 1305 1305 1305/M/ /M/ /M/ /M/12 1212 12 4 SUMMARY OF TOTAL INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UND ER CONSIDERATION THAT A SUM OF ` .6,11,59,823/- AND ` .5,74,63,278/- HAS BEEN CLAIMED TOWARDS PRIOR YEARS DISALLOWANCE U/S.43B NOW PAID AND SETTL ED WRITTEN OFF. AS EVIDENT FROM THE ANNUAL REPORT OF THE COMPANY THAT NO BUSINESS ACTIVITIES WERE CARRIED OUT DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATIO N. THEREFORE, THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION OF ` .11,86,23,101/- ( ` .6,11,59,823/- + ` .5,74,63,278/-) IS NOT CORRECT AND REQUIRES TO BE DISALLOWED. THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCO4NTFOR THE YEAR ENDED 31/03 /2004 OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY SHOWS THAT CERTAIN EXPENDITURES SU CH AS INTEREST & FINANCE CHARGES, RENT, RATE & TAXES AND DEPRECIATIO N OF ` .61,00,110/-, ` . 4,75,906/- AND ` .3,37,187/- WERE CLAIMED AND THE SAME WERE ALLOWED IN THE ASSESSMENT. AS ALREADY STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAD NOT FUNCTIONED, THE ABOVE MENTIONED EXPENDITURES ARE NO T ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSIONS, THE ASSESSMENT OR DER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE. 5. THE ASSESSEE, AFTER RECEIVING THE NOTICE, CHOSE TO FILE A DETAILED REPLY ON 12.03.2012 DEFENDING THE ASSESSMENT FINALIZED AN D CONTESTED THE EXIGIBILITY OF 263 JURISDICTION INVOKED BY THE COMM ISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. HOWEVER, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX HAS REJECTE D THE ASSESSEES SUBMISSION AS HEREIN BELOW: IT IS SEEN FROM THE PRINTED ANNUAL REPORT FOR THE YEAR ENDED 31/03/2004, THAT THERE WAS NO PRODUCTION ACTIVITY A S PER DIRECTOR REPORT AND THE AUDITOR'S REPORT ALSO STATES THAT THE COMPA NY HAS CEASED ALL ITS OPERATIONS AND DISPOSING ITS ASSETS TO CLEAR THE LI ABILITIES. HENCE, IT IS CLEAR THAT THERE IS NO BUSINESS ACTIVITY DURING THI S YEAR AND THERE IS NO INTENTION TO CONTINUE THE BUSINESS. ALL THE MACHINE RIES HAVE BEEN SOLD IN THE EARLIER YEARS AND THE EMPLOYEES HAVE BEEN SETTL ED IN THE EARLIER YEARS. THE ONLY INCOME OF THE COMPANY DURING THIS YEAR IS FROM CAPITAL GAINS ON SALE OF LAND AT AVANASHI ROAD, COIMBATORE. SINCE TH ERE IS NO INCOME TO BE COMPUTED UNDER THE HEAD BUSINESS UNDER THE PROVISIO NS OF SEC.28 TO 44 CANNOT BE APPLIED, WHILE COMPUTING THE TOTAL INCOME . THERE ARE NO TWO VIEWS ON APPLICABILITY OF SEC.43B AS DISCUSSED ABOV E. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. NO. NO. NO. NO.1305 1305 1305 1305/M/ /M/ /M/ /M/12 1212 12 5 SO, THE ASSESSMENT COMPLETED BY THE AO U/S.143(3) R .W.S.147 DATED 30/1212009 IS ERRONEOUS SINCE THE BUSINESS LOSS CLA IMED BY THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN SET OFF AGAINST THE CAPITAL GAINS WHEN THE RE WAS NO BUSINESS DURING THIS YEAR. THE ASSESSEE'S CONTENTION THAT DE DUCTION U/S 43B HAS TO BE ALLOWED ON PAYMENT BASIS EVEN THOUGH THERE WAS N O BUSINESS ACTIVITY CANNOT BE ACCEPTED. SINCE SEC.43B STATES AS UNDER: ' ... SHALL BE ALLOWED (IRRESPECTIVE OF THE PREVIOU S YEAR IN WHICH THE LIABILITY TO PAY SUCH SUM WAS INCURRED BY THE ASSES SEE ACCORDING TO THE METHOD OF ACCOUNTING REGULARLY EMPLOYED BY HIM) ONLY IN COMPUTING THE INCOME REFERRED TO IN SECTION 28 OF T HAT PREVIOUS YEAR IN WHICH SUCH SUM IS ACTUALLY PAID BY HIM '. IT IS CLEAR THAT ONLY INCOME COMPUTED UNDER THE HEA D BUSINESS; THE DEDUCTION U/S.43B IS ALLOWABLE. THE ASSESSMENT COMP LETED ON 31/1212009 ALLOWING THE BUSINESS LOSS CLAIM IS ERRONEOUS AND P REJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE IN AS MUCH AS THE ENTIRE CA PITAL GAINS ARISING AND ADMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE AMOUNTING TO ` .6,83,26,8821- SHOULD HAVE BEEN ASSESSED TO TAX INSTEAD OF THE BUSINESS LOSS QUANTI FIED TO ` .2,44,70,338/-. HENCE, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED ON 30/12/2009 IS CANCELLED AND THE AO IS DIRECTED TO MAKE A FRESH ASSESSMENT TO BRINGI NG TO TAX THE CAPITAL GAINS ON SALE OF LAND WITHOUT SETTING OFF ANY LOSS UNDER THE HEAD BUSINESS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL. 6. THE AR REPRESENTING THE ASSESSEE HAS REITERATED VARIOUS PLEAS RAISED IN THE APPEAL REGARDING JURISDICTION UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT. ON MERITS, QUA DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 43B AS WELL AS INTER EST, FINANCE CHARGES, RENT, RATES & DEPRECIATION, HE SUBMITTED THAT THE C OMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX HAS WRONGLY REVISED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. PARTI CULARLY, QUA LEGALITY OF THE REVISION PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT, IT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED THAT THE SAME IS TIME BARRED AS IT WAS ON LY IN THE FINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT DATED 31.08 .2006 (SUPRA) THAT THE I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. NO. NO. NO. NO.1305 1305 1305 1305/M/ /M/ /M/ /M/12 1212 12 6 ASSESSING OFFICER HAD CONSIDERED PROVISIONS CONTAIN ED IN SECTION 43B OF THE ACT AND OTHER ISSUES. THEREFORE, PER AR, THE JURI SDICTION EXERCISED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX IS HOPELESSLY TIME BARRE D. IN SUPPORT OF THE PLEA, THE AR HAS CITED CASE LAW OF [2012] 343 ITR 7 4 HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. ICICI BANK, [2011] 12 T AXMANN 73 (AHD.) OF IN THE CASE OF ARVIND LAXMIDAS KABRAWALA (HUF) V. ACIT AND [2011] 330 ITR 568 (MAD) IN THE CASE OF CIT V. SHRIRAM ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD. IN THIS MANNER, HE HAS PRAYED FOR ACCEPTANCE OF THE AP PEAL. 7. ON THE OTHER HAND, ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE, TH E DR HAS STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME T AX PASSED UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT AS WELL AS REASONS CONTAIN ED THEREIN AND PRAYED FOR REJECTION OF THE APPEAL. 8. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH PARTIES AT LENGTH AND ALSO G ONE THROUGH THE RELEVANT FINDINGS AS WELL AS CASE LAW CITED. THE MO OT ISSUE BEFORE US IN THE INSTANT APPEAL IS WHETHER THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOM E TAX HAS RIGHTLY ASSUMED JURISDICTION UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT BY REVISING THE ASSESSMENT FINALIZED ON 30.12.2009 UNDER SECTION 14 3(3) READ WITH SECTION 147 OF THE ACT? 9. AFTER GOING THROUGH THE RELEVANT PAPER BOOK, IT TRANSPIRES THAT IT WAS ONLY THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS FINALIZED UNDER SEC TION 143(3) OF THE ACT ON 31.08.2006 THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD CONSID ERED THE ISSUE UNDER I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. NO. NO. NO. NO.1305 1305 1305 1305/M/ /M/ /M/ /M/12 1212 12 7 SECTION 43B OF THE ACT(SUPRA). IT IS ALSO FOUND T HAT THE SAID ASSESSMENT WAS REOPENED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ONLY QUA COMPUTAT ION OF LONG AND SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAINS PERTAINING TO ASSESSEES SALE DE ED EXECUTED QUA IS LAND AND BUILDING. WE ALSO NOTICE THAT IN THE REOPENING (SUPRA), THERE WAS NO ISSUE OF SECTION 43B AT ALL. IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, IN OUR OPINION, THE LIMITATION OF 2 YEARS FROM THE END OF RELEVANT FINA NCIAL YEAR STOOD ENSHRINED UNDER SECTION 263(2) OF THE ACT HAS TO BE CONSIDE RED FROM THE DATE OF ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER UNDER SECTION 143(3) DATE D 31.08.2006. IN THE CASE LAW CITED BY THE ASSESSEE, TITLED CIT V. ICICI BANK LTD. (SUPRA), THEIR LORDSHIPS OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT HAVE BEEN PL EASED TO HOLD AS UNDER: SUB-SECTION (2) OF SECTION 263 STIPULATES A PERIOD OF LIMITATION OF TWO YEARS WITHIN WHICH AN ORDER UNDER SUBSECTION (1) HA S TO BE PASSED. UNDER SUBSECTION (2) NO ORDER UNDER SECTION 263 (1) CAN B E MADE AFTER THE EXPIRY OF TWO YEARS FROM THE END OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR IN WHICH THE ORDER SOUGHT TO BE REVISED WAS PASSED. THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT U NDER SECTION 143(3) IN THE PRESENT CASE ALLOWED THE DEDUCTION WHICH WAS CL AIMED UNDER SECTION 36(1)(VII), SECTION 36(1) (VIIA) AND IN RESPECT OF FOREIGN EXCHANGE RATE DIFFERENCE. NEITHER IN THE FIRST ORDER OF REASSESSM ENT DATED 22 FEBRUARY 2000 NOR IN THE SECOND ORDER OF REASSESSMENT DATED 26 MARCH 2002 WERE THESE ASPECTS DETERMINED. IN OTHER WORDS ON THE AFO RESAID THREE ISSUES, THE ORIGINAL ORDER OF ASSESSMENT DATED 10 MARCH 1999 PA SSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) CONTINUED TO HOLD THE FIELD. ONCE THAT IS TH E POSITION, THEN CLEARLY THE DOCTRINE OF MERGER WOULD NOT APPLY. THE ORDER U NDER SECTION 143(3) PASSED ON 10 MARCH 1999 CANNOT STAND MERGED WITH TH E ORDERS OF REASSESSMENT IN RESPECT OF THOSE ISSUES WHICH DID N OT FORM THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE REASSESSMENT. CONSEQUENTLY EXPLANATIO N 3 TO SECTION 147 WILL NOT ALTER THAT POSITION. EXPLANATION 3 ONLY EN ABLES THE ASSESSING OFFICER, ONCE AN ASSESSMENT IS REOPENED, TO ASSESS OR REASSESS THE INCOME IN RESPECT OF ANY ISSUE, EVEN AN ISSUE IN RESPECT O F WHICH NO REASONS WERE INDICATED IN THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148(2). THIS, HOWEVER, WILL NOT OBVIATE THE BAR OF LIMITATION UNDER SECTION 263(2). WHERE THE JURISDICTION I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. NO. NO. NO. NO.1305 1305 1305 1305/M/ /M/ /M/ /M/12 1212 12 8 UNDER SECTION 263(1) IS SOUGHT TO BE EXERCISED WITH REFERENCE TO AN ISSUE WHICH IS COVERED BY THE ORIGINAL ORDER OF ASSESSMEN T UNDER SECTION 143(3) AND WHICH DOES NOT FORM THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE R EASSESSMENT, AS IN THE PRESENT CASE, LIMITATION MUST NECESSARILY BEGIN TO RUN FROM THE ORDER UNDER SECTION 143(3). BEFORE CONCLUDING WE MAY ALSO TAKE NOTICE OF THE FACT THAT THE SECOND ORDER OF REASSESSMENT DATED 26 MARCH 2002 HAS BEEN SET ASIDE BY THE TRIBUNAL ON 27 AUGUST 2010. AN APP EAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IS PENDING BEFORE THIS COURT FOR AD MISSION. HOWEVER, WE HAVE CONSIDERED THIS APPEAL INDEPENDENTLY AND HAVE COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE INVOCATION OF THE JURISDICTION UNDER SECTION 263 WAS BARRED BY LIMITATION. 10. FURTHER, WE ALSO FIND THAT THE ITAT AHMEDABAD BENCH AS WELL AS THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT (SUPRA) HAVE ALSO REITERATED ABOVE SAID LEGAL POSITION. TAKING CUE FROM THE SAME, WE HOLD T HAT THE REVISION OF ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT BY THE CO MMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ON 06.01.2012 IS HOPELESSLY TIME BARRED AND NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS ENSHRINED IN THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. C ONSEQUENTLY, THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX REVISING THE ASSE SSMENT CANNOT ALSO HELD TO BE AS PER LAW. ACCORDINGLY, WE ACCEPT THE INSTANT APPEAL. 11. ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON TUESDAY , THE 18 TH OF SEPTEMBER, 2012 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (N.S. SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (S.S. GODARA) JUDICIAL MEMBER CHENNAI, DATED, THE 18.09.2012 VM/- TO: THE ASSESSEE//A.O./CIT(A)/CIT/D.R.