ITO, Chengalput V. Sunil Balasubramaniam Shankar, CHENNAI

ITA 1327/CHNY/2013

• Counselvise Citation: 132721714 RSA 2013
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-11-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 26-11-2013
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 11-06-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: M GOVINDARAJA
• Keywords: Unexplained expenditure; Salary income; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 143(3); 69

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH : CHENNAI [BEFORE SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMB ER AND SHRI S. S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER] I.T.A.NO.1327/MDS/2013 & C.O.138/MDS/2013 [IN I.T.A.NO. 1327/MDS/2013] ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER SALARY WARD VI(3) CHENNAI VS SHRI SUNIL BALASUBRAMANIAM SHANKAR NO.645, 4 TH STREET AVVAI THRU NAGAR KOYAMBEDU CHENNAI 600 017 [PAN BBFPS 4197B ] (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT/CROSS OBJECTOR) DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI SHAJI P. JACOB, ADDL. CIT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI M. GOVINDARAJA, CA DATE OF HEARING : 26-11-2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 27-11-2013 O R D E R PER S.S.GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AND CROSS OBJECT IONS BY ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10, ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-VI, CHE NNAI, DATED 20.12.2012, PASSED IN APPEAL NO.319/11-12, IN PROCE EDINGS UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHOR T THE ACT). I.T.A.NO.1327/13 & C.O 138/13 :- 2 -: 2. AT THE OUTSET, THE LD. DR REPRESENTING REVENUE, SUB MITS THAT THE INSTANT APPEAL IS TIME BARRED BY A DAYS DELAY IN FILING. HE INVITES OUR ATTENTION TO THE CONDONATION PETITION DATED 11. 6.2013 IN THE SHAPE OF AFFIDAVIT STATING THEREIN THAT SINCE THE APPROVA L PAPERS IN FILING THE PRESENT APPEAL WERE RECEIVED ON 10.6.2013 AT 5:45PM I.E LAST DATE FOR FILING THE APPEAL, IT COULD BE INITIATED ON THE NEX T DAY I.E 11.6.2013 LEADING TO DELAY OF ONE DAY IN FILING. THE ASSESS EE HAS BEEN FAIR ENOUGH NOT TO OPPOSE THE AFORESAID CONDONATION PLEA . ACCORDINGLY, THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL OF ONE DAY STANDS CO NDONED. 3. COMING TO MERITS, THE SOLE AND SUBSTANTIVE GRIEVANC E OF THE REVENUE IS THAT THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DIRECTING T HE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DELETE ADDITION OF ` 34,86,141/- U/S 69 OF THE ACT IN THE SHAPE OF UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE. THE REVENUE VEHEMENTLY AR GUES THAT BEFORE ACCEPTING THE CONTENTIONS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE LOWER APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE CIT(A) DID NOT PROVIDE ANY OPPORTU NITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILST ADMITTING ALTOGETHER N EW PLEAS AND ADDITIONAL DETAILS. ACCORDINGLY, ACCEPTANCE OF APP EAL HAS BEEN PRAYED FOR. I.T.A.NO.1327/13 & C.O 138/13 :- 3 -: 4. IN REPLY, THE ASSESSEE STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE ORDE R UNDER CHALLENGE PASSED BY THE CIT(A). HE REITERATES THE PLEADINGS IN THE CROSS OBJECTIONS AND PRAYS FOR UPHOLDING THE ORDER UNDER CHALLENGE. 5. THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL, HAVING SALARY INC OME OF ` 7,28,691/- IN PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO THE IMPUGNE D ASSESSMENT YEAR. ON 15.7.2009, HE HAD FILED HIS RETURN DISCLOSING IN COME OF ` 4,98,980/- WHICH WAS SUMMARILY PROCESSED. 6. THROUGH AIR INFORMATION, THE DEPARTMENT CAME TO KNO W ABOUT CREDIT CARD PAYMENTS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE AM OUNTING TO ` 37,77,552/-. THIS LED TO A SCRUTINY NOTICE ISSUE D TO THE ASSESSEE. IN CONSEQUENCE THEREOF, THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THE ASSESSEE POSSESSING FIVE CREDIT CARDS FROM BARCLAYS BANK, KO TAK MAHINDRA BANK, ICICI BANK, AXIS BANK AND DEUTSCHE BANK. IN PREVI OUS YEAR RELEVANT TO THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR, THE ASSESSEE HAD SWIPED THE AFORESAID CREDIT CARDS TO THE TUNE OF ` 6,08,643/-, ` 4,61,511/-, ` 5,21,707/-, ` 8,10,456/- AND ` 13,75,235/-, RESPECTIVELY. WE FIND FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 28.12.2011 THAT HE COULD NOT EXPLAIN HE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSITS AND PAYMENTS OF CREDIT CARD S TO THE EXTENT OF ` 34,86,141/- BY GIVING NAMES OF PAYEES ALONGWITH OTH ER NECESSARY DETAILS. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ADDED THE SAID SUM IN I.T.A.NO.1327/13 & C.O 138/13 :- 4 -: ASSESSEES INCOME U/S 69 OF THE ACT IN THE NATURE OF UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE. 7. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE TH E CIT(A). IN THE LOWER APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, GIST OF HIS ARG UMENTS WAS THAT ONE OF HIS FRIEND NAMELY SHRI NEELAMEGAN HAD USED HIS CREDIT CARDS AND PAID BACK THE SUMS WITHDRAWN IN THE ACCOUNTS. WE F IND THAT THE CIT(A) HAS ACCEPTED THE ASSESSEES CONTENTIONS BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: 3. SRI. M. GOVINDARAJAN, CA HAS APPEARED IN RESPO NSE TO THE NOTICES. HE HAS FILED WRITTEN SUBMISSION, AFFIDAVIT , ALL CREDIT CARDS' ACCOUNT STATEMENTS ETC. AND ARGUED THE CASE WITH TH E HELP OF THESE STATEMENTS. THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION IS EXTRACT ED HERE, AS THAT WOULD GIVE THE FACTS OF THE CASE FOR A LUCID U NDERSTANDING: 'FACTS OF THE CASE: SHRI.SUNIL BALASUBRAMANIAM SHANKAR ASSESSEE HAD CRE DIT CARDS FROM BARCLAYS BANK, KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK, ICIC I BANK, AXIS BANK, DEUTSCHE BANK AND HE FILED INCOME TAX RE TURN FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF S .498,980/- ON 15/07/2009 AS SOURCE OF INCOME FROM SALARY. ASSESSEE USED CREDIT CARDS FOR HIS PERSONAL USES RS .2,91,411/- THE SAME IS ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ASSESSEE FRIENDS USED ASSESSEE CREDIT CARDS FOR RS.34,86,141/- IN VARIOUS STORES. THIS AMOUNT IS DISALLOWED AS UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE UND ER SEC.69 OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 AND DEMANDED A TAX LIABILIT Y OF RS.15,83,330/- SUBMISSION TO BE CONSIDERED: 1. SHRI. SUNIL BALASUBRAMANIAM SHANKAR, ASSESSEE WORKE D DURING THE YEAR AS LEGAL MANGER IN HDFC STANDARD LI FE I.T.A.NO.1327/13 & C.O 138/13 :- 5 -: INSURANCE CO. 2. HE HAD THE FOLLOWING CREDIT CARDS WITH THE CREDIT L IMIT AS MENTIONED: S.NO BANK NAME CREDIT CARD NO CREDIT CARD LIMIT 1 BARCLAYCARD 4339481167473343 RS.213,000 2 ICICI BANK CREDIT CARD 4629864162737003 RS.243,000 3 AXIS BANK CREDIT CARD 4718610000515495 RS.225,000 4 DEUTSCHE CREDIT CARD 5268610004168003 RS.194, 000 5 KOTAK CREDIT CARDS 4166461300060908 RS.150,00 0 3. DURING THE YEAR THE ABOVE CREDIT CARDS ARE USED BY HIM FOR HIS PERSONAL USE AND BY MR.NEELAMEGAN, A EX COLLEAG UE WHO WAS WORKING ALONG WITH HIM IN SAME COMPANY AND THE SAID MR.NEELAMEGAN USED HIS CREDIT CARD IN THE STO RES OF SAI AKASH DECORS, ARUNA PHARMACY, JAYA MEDICALS AND CR AGENCIES. 4. MR.NEELAMEGAN HAS MOSTLY USED THE ASSESSEE CREDIT CARD AND ENJOYED THE CREDIT LIMIT OF ASSESSEE LIKE SHORT TERM LOANS. 5. MR.NEELAMEGAN ONLY USED THE CREDIT CARD IN FOLLOWIN G STORES SAI AKASH DECORS, ARUNA PHARMACY AND JAYA MEDICALS, CR AGENCIES AND THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT USED THE CREDIT CARDS IN THE ABOVE STORES AND THE ASSESS EE HAS NOT ENTERED ANY TRANSACTION WITH THE ABOVE STORES F OR ANY OF HIS PURPOSE. 6. MR.NEELAMEGAN USED THE CREDIT CARDS AND REPAID THE AMOUNT TO MR.SUNIL BALASUBRAMANIAM SHANKAR THROUGH FUND TRANSFER/ DIRECT DEPOSIT IN ASSESSEE BANK ACCO UNT. CHEQUE AND CASH MODES JUST BEFORE THE CREDIT CARD D UE DATES. 7. ASSESSEE REPAID THE AMOUNT OF CREDIT CARD DUES BAS ED ON THE AMOUNT RECEIVED FROM MR.NEELAMEGAN (THROUGH CASH, CHEQUE, AND FUND TRANSFER/ DIRECT DEPOSIT) AS HE USED THE CREDIT CARDS IN VARIOUS STORES. 8. THE TRANSACTION MENTIONED IN ASSESSMENT ORDER DO NE BY MR.NEELAMEGAN BY USING THE ASSESSEE CREDIT CARD AND THE ASSESSEE HAS NO CONNECTION WITH THE TRANSACTION S. 9. SIMILARLY THE SOURCE FOR THE CREDIT CARD REPAYMENT FOR THOSE TRANSACTIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THOSE C REDIT CARDS USED BY THE SAID MR.NEELAMEGAN WERE ON THE AMOUNT RECEIVED FROM MR.NEELAMEGAN AND HIS FRIENDS BEING THE STORES IN WHICH FOR THE CREDIT CARDS WERE USED. I.T.A.NO.1327/13 & C.O 138/13 :- 6 -: 10. THE REPAYMENT WERE MADE BY MR.NEELAMEGAN THROUGH FUND TRANSFER / DIRECT DEPOSIT IN ASSESSEE BANK ACC OUNT, CHEQUE FROM HIS BANK ACCOUNT AND HIS FRIENDS AND RELATIVES. 11. THE SOURCE FOR TRANSACTION ARE FROM MR.NEELAMEGAN A ND ALSO THE TRANSACTION ALSO DONE BY MR.NEELAMEGAN BY USING ASSESSEE CREDIT CARDS. 12. THE AMOUNT OF RS.34,86,141 TREATED BY ASSESSING OFF ICER AS UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE WERE BECAUSE THE ASSESSE E'S CREDIT CARDS ISSUED BY CONCERN BANK WERE SWIPED. 13. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ONLY CONSIDERED THE CREDIT CA RD REPAYMENT AND COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT BY ADDING RS.34,86,141/- AS UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE. HOWEVER THESE AMOUNT WERE GIVEN BY MR.NEELAMEGAN FOR THE USAGE BY HIM THROUGH CHEQUE, CASH AND FUND TRANSFER /DIRECT DEPOSIT. 14. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEDURE THE ASSESSEE GIVEN THE DETAILS OF AMOUNT RECEIVED AND THE DETAILS OF REPAY MENT OF CREDIT CARDS AND BANK STATEMENTS. 15. THE ASSESSING OFFICER CONSIDER ONLY THE PAYMENT AND NOT CONSIDER THE AMOUNT CREDITED AS ABOVE IN THE ASSESS EE BANK ACCOUNT WHEN ANALYSING THE BANK STATEMENTS PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE. 16. THE ASSESSING OFFICER CONSIDERED THE CREDIT CARD DU ES PAID ONLY THROUGH BANK MODES WHEN ANALYSING THE BANK STATEMENT FOR CREDIT CARD PAYMENTS BUT DID NOT CONS IDERED THE AMOUNT OF RECEIPTS. 17. THE BANK STATEMENT IS THE CLEAN EVIDENCE FOR MR.NEELMEGAN HAVING BEEN REPAID AMOUNTS FOR THE CRE DIT CARD SWIPED. 18. MR.NEELAMEGAN HAS USED THE ASSESSEE CREDIT CARDS IN VARIOUS STORES AND REPAID THE AMOUNT UTILISED BY US ING SUCH CREDIT CARD BEFORE THE DUE DATES AND THE ASSES SEE REPAID THE CREDIT CARDS DUES ON THE DUE DATES. 19. WE HAVE FILED THE DETAILS OF CREDIT CARD PAYMEN T AND SOURCES OF CREDIT CARDS PAYMENT IN ANNEXURE ALONG W ITH THE CREDIT CARD / BANK STATEMENT IN PAGE-3,10,17,26 ,41 OF GROUNDS OF APPEAL. I.T.A.NO.1327/13 & C.O 138/13 :- 7 -: 20. THE SOURCE OF REPAYMENT FOR CREDIT CARD ARE FROM MR.NEELAMEGAN AND HE HAS REPAID IT THROUGH BANK ACCOUNT DIRECTLY, CHEQUES AND WE PRODUCE THE BANK STATEMENT AS EVIDENCE FOR THE SAME. 21. MR.NEELAMEGAN PAN NO. AJBPM9737C. 22. WE ARE ALSO ENCLOSING THE AFFIDAVIT OF ASSESSEE IN ANNEXURE-1. 23. THE ASSESSEE PRODUCED THE CREDIT CARD STATEMENT S AND BANK STATEMENTS FOR THE EVIDENCE OF CREDIT CARD PAY MENT AND SOURCES FOR SUCH CREDIT CARD PAYMENTS DURING ASSESSMENT, BUT THE ASSESSING OFFICER CONSIDER ONLY THE CREDIT CARD STATEMENTS NOT CONSIDERING THE AMOUNT R ECEIVE FROM MR.NEELAMEGAN CREDITED IN SUCH BANK STATEMENTS . WE ARE ALSO RELYING ON CASE LAW OF ADDL CIT VS BAHR I BROS(P) LTD [1985] 154 ITR 244 (PAT) IN THAT CASE THE 'IDENTITY OF CREDITORS IS NOT RELEVANT FOR CHEQUE TRANSACTIONS' CONSIDERING THE ABOVE IN OUR CASE MR.NEELAMEGAN HAS REPAID THE MOST OF THE AMOUNT BY DIRECT DEPOSIT INTO BANK ACCOUNT THROUGH CHEQUE AND THE REPAYMENT OF CREDIT CARD SWI PED ARE THE ONLY SOURCE FOR PAYMENT OF CREDIT CARD DUES . ASSESSING OFFICE TREATED THE CREDIT CARD PAYMENT AS UNEXPLAINED EXPENSES AND NOT CONSIDERED THE AMOUNT CREDITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. WE MAKE THE REQUEST TO CONSIDER BOTH THE PAYMENT AN D DEPOSIT (I.E DEBIT AND CREDIT) AS SHOWN IN BANK STATEMENT, THE DEBIT ARE THE PAYMENT FOR THE CREDIT CARDS AND CREDIT ARE THE ONLY SOURCE FOR THE PAYMENT OF SUCH CREDIT CARD DUES. WE REQUEST YOU TO CONSIDER BOTH DEPOSIT AND PAYMENT OF CREDIT CARD SWIPED. FOR THE ABOVE GROUNDS AND SUCH OTHER GROUNDS AS MAY BE RAISED AT THE TIME OF PERSONAL HEARING, THE ASSESSEE PLEAD S THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHOULD BE SET ASIDE.' 4. FROM THE ABOVE, IT IS APPARENT THAT THE CREDIT C ARDS OF THE APPELLANT WERE ALLOWED TO BE USED BY ONE MR. NEELAM EGAM (NM) FOR WITHDRAWING CASH REPEATEDLY IN LARGE, ROUND SUM S AND THE DUES I.T.A.NO.1327/13 & C.O 138/13 :- 8 -: ARISING TO THE CREDIT CARDS WERE PAID BY NM EITHER THROUGH CHEQUE DEPOSIT, FUND TRANSFER OR DIRECT CASH PAYMENTS. THE TOTAL OF SUCH TRANSACTIONS COME TO RS.34,86,141/- THE POINT OF CO NTENTION IN THE APPEAL. IT IS THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT BEFOR E THE AO AS WELL AS BEFORE ME THAT THESE CARD WITHDRAWALS WERE MADE BY NM AND THE SAME WERE MADE GOOD BY HIM, AS CAN BE SEEN FROM THE ELABORATE DOCUMENTS, STATEMENTS FILED AND RELIED UPON BY HIM. IT IS ALSO ARGUED THAT THESE WITHDRAWALS WERE LIKE TEMPORARY L OANS FROM THE CREDIT CARDS AND WERE MADE GOOD BY CHEQUES, FUND TR ANSFERS AND DIRECT CASH DEPOSITS (ALBEIT BY NM) AND HENCE, THEY CANNOT BE TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED E U/S 69. THIS AVERMENT IS N OT ACCEPTED BY THE AO, SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO FURNISH THE IDENTI TY DETAILS OF THE PAYEES AND HENCE, ADDED BACK THE AMOUNT. 5. ON EXAMINATION, ONE CAN NOTICE THAT THESE MONIES WERE WITHDRAWN BY SWIPING CARDS IN A FEW SELECT SHOPS O NLY, AND ALWAYS IN ROUND SUMS. THUS, IT CAN BE INFERRED THAT THESE MONIES WERE AVAILABLE TO THE APPELLANT, FOR SUBSTANTIATING SOUR CE FOR REPAYMENTS TO CREDIT CARDS ACCOUNTS, IF THE ANGLE OF NM IS KEP T ASIDE OR NOT BELIEVED. EVEN OTHERWISE, THERE IS EVIDENCE GALORE OF TRANSFER OF MONIES FROM THE ACCOUNTS OF NM INTO APPELLANT'S BAN K ACCOUNT AND THE SAME GOING INTO CREDIT CARD REPAYMENTS. THU S, EVIDENCE IS STARING FROM THE RECORD AND BALANCED ON BOTH THE SIDES - WITHDRAWAL AND REPAYMENTS. IN THIS BACKGROUND, THER E IS NO NEED TO BRING IN THE RIGORS OF THE SECTION 69 SINCE BOTH WITHDRAWALS AND REPAYMENTS ARE EXPLAINED. THUS, THE ADDITION OF RS. 34,86,141/- UNDER SECTION 69 BY TREATING THE WITHDRAWALS ALONE AND IGNORING THE SOURCES FOR THE REPAYMENT, DOES NOT STAND ON A SINGLE LEG ALSO. THE AO IS DIRECTED TO DELETE THE ADDITION. 6. APPEAL IS ALLOWED. THEREFORE, THE REVENUE HAS FILED THE INSTANT APPEAL . 8. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH PARTIES AT LENGTH AND PERUSED TH E CASE FILE. THE QUESTION SOUGHT TO BE RAISED BY THE PARTI ES IS AS TO WHETHER THE CIT(A) HAS WRONGLY DELETED THE ADDITION OF ` 34,86,141/- OR NOT. IN THIS BACKDROP IT IS EVIDENT TO US THAT IN THE COURS E OF SCRUTINY, THE I.T.A.NO.1327/13 & C.O 138/13 :- 9 -: ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO PROVIDE THE DETAILS OF THE E XPENSES, USAGE OF CREDIT CARDS BY HIS FRIEND SHRI NEELAMEGAN AND PAYM ENTS THEREOF. EVEN IN THE LOWER APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, IT WAS NOT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD NOT TAKEN I NTO CONSIDERATION ANY EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY HIM. AS REPRODUCED HEREI NABOVE, IN THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE HAS SUB MITTED AN EXPLANATION THAT HIS AFORESAID FRIEND HAD USED CRE DIT CARDS AND MADE PAYMENTS, WHICH STANDS ACCEPTED. WE FIND THAT BEFO RE AGREEING WITH THE ASSESSEES SUBMISSIONS AND DIRECTING THE ASSES SING OFFICER TO DELETE THE ADDITION, HE DID NOT SEEK THE REPORT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO VERIFY IF AT ALL THE SAID PERSON HAD USED THE ASSESSEES CREDIT CARDS AND MADE PAYMENTS OR NOT. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE OBSERVE THAT THE FINDINGS UNDER CHALLENGE ARRIVED AT BY THE CIT( A) SUFFER FROM VIOLATION OF THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. HE NCE, WE DEEM IT APPROPRIATE THAT THE MATTER BE RE-EXAMINED AFRESH B Y THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS PER LAW AFTER GRANTING ADEQUATE OPPORTUN ITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE, WHO WOULD BE AT LIBERTY TO PRODUCE C OGENT EVIDENCE, IF ANY, IN SUPPORT OF THE CLAIM. THE REVENUES APPEA L STANDS ACCEPTED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. I.T.A.NO.1327/13 & C.O 138/13 :- 10 -: 9. SINCE THERE IS ONLY ONCE ISSUE RAISED IN APPEAL BY THE REVENUE AND ASSESSEES CROSS OBJECTIONS SUPPORT TH E ORDER UNDER CHALLENGE PASSED BY THE CIT(A), THE SAME ALSO STAND ACCEPTED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 10. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE AS WELL AS THE CROSS OBJECTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON WEDNESDAY, THE 27 TH OF NOVEMBER, 2013, AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (S. S. GODARA) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 27 TH NOVEMBER, 2013 RD COPY TO: APPELLANT/RESPONDENT/CIT(A)/CIT/DR