ACIT, CHENNAI V. M/s. Charon Tec Private Ltd., CHENNAI

ITA 1375/CHNY/2008

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 64515 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 4 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-11-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 08-10-2012
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 23-06-2008
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Business income; Depreciation; Unabsorbed depreciation
• Section: 80HHC; 10B; 10

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, CHENNAI BEFORE DR. O.K.NARAYANAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.1375/MDS/2008 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-06) ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COMPANY CIRCLE-I(3), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, NEW BLOCK, 6 TH FLOOR, 121, M.G.ROAD, NUNGAMBAKKAM, CHENNAI-600 034. VS. M/S.CHARON TEC PVT. LTD., JALEEL MANSION, 69, ELDAMS ROAD, TEYNAMPET, CHENNAI-600 018. PAN:AABCC5129Q (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : MR. SHAJI P.JACOB, ADDL. CIT RESPONDENT BY : MR. VE PA KRISHNA, C.A. DATE OF HEARING : 8 TH OCTOBER, 2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 14 TH NOVEMBER, 2012 O R D E R PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM : THE APPEAL HAS BEEN PREFERRED BY THE REVENUE IMPUGNING THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A)-VIII, CHENNAI D ATED 20.03.2008. 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF ELECTRONIC PRINTING AND DATA PR OCESSING. THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 ON 28.10.2005 DISCLOSING N IL TAXABLE INCOME. THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS SELECT ED FOR ITA NO.1375/MD S/2008 2 SCRUTINY. NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE ON 16.10.206. THE ASSESSING OFFICER VIDE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 22.10.2007 MADE CERTAIN ADDITIONS/DISALLOWANCES IN THE INCOME RETURNED BY T HE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER INTER-ALIA MADE AD DITIONS ON ACCOUNT OF : (I) 50% OF INTERNET CHARGES AMOUNTING TO ` 1,88,638/- BY INCLUDING THEM IN THE TOTAL TURNOVE R BUT EXCLUDING FROM EXPORT TURNOVER; AND II) SET OFF OF BROUGHT FORWA RD LOSSES OF ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02 WHILE CALCULATING DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10B. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THAT BROUG HT FORWARD LOSSES SHOULD BE SET OFF BEFORE GRANT OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10B. AGGRIEVED AGAINST THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASSESS EE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). THE CIT(A) V IDE ORDER DATED 20.03.2008 ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE HOLDING THAT 50% OF INTERNET CHARGES ARE TO BE EXCLUDED FRO M TOTAL TURNOVER AS WELL. IN ORDER TO SUPPORT HIS FINDING S, THE CIT(A) RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO.3348/ MDS/2004 TITLED ACIT VS. M/S. SRA SYSTEMS LTD. DECIDED ON 15 .6.2007. ITA NO.1375/MD S/2008 3 THE CIT(A) FURTHER HELD THAT THE DEDUCTION UNDER SE CTION 10B IS TO BE COMPUTED WITHOUT SETTING OFF ANY CARRIED F ORWARD LOSSES OF EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS. IN DECIDING THE ISSUE, THE CIT(A) RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE C ASE OF M/S.INTIMATE FASHIONS (INDIA) PVT. LTD. IN ITA NO.2097/MDS/2006 DECIDED ON 27.11.2007. NOW, THE REVENUE HAS COME IN SECOND APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUN AL IMPUGNING THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). 3. SHRI SHAJI P.JACOB, APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT(A) HAS NOT TAKEN INTO CONSID ERATION THE FACT THAT IF THE ITEMS WHICH ARE SPECIFICALLY DIREC TED TO BE EXCLUDED FROM THE EXPORT TURNOVER ARE TO BE DEDUCTE D FROM THE TOTAL TURNOVER ALSO. THE VERY PURPOSE OF EXCLUS ION OF THESE ITEMS WOULD BE DEFEATED AND THE METHOD OF ALLOWING DEDUCTION AS PROPORTION OF EXPORT TURNOVER TO TOTAL TURNOVER WILL LOOSE ITS MEANING. THE D.R. STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND SUBMITTED THAT INTERNET C HARGES OUGHT NOT TO HAVE BEEN EXCLUDED FROM TOTAL TURNOVER . 4. THE D.R. ASSAILING THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) ON T HE SECOND ISSUE RELATING TO DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10 B ITA NO.1375/MD S/2008 4 SUBMITTED THAT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 LOS S HAS BEEN SET OFF AND THEREAFTER DEDUCTION UNDER SECTIO N 10B HAS BEEN ALLOWED TO THE ASSESSEE BY THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PREFERRED ANY APPEAL AGAINST THE SAID ORDER. THE D.R. IN ORDER TO SUPPORT HIS CONTENTION S HAS RELIED ON THE JUDGEMENT OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT OF IN DIA IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. DALMIA CEMENTS (BHARAT) LTD., REPORTED AS 216 ITR 79(SC), WHEREIN THE HONBLE APEX COURT H AS HELD THAT WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAVING FAILED TO APPEAL AGA INST THE INTIMATION OF ITO REFUSING TO TAKE COGNIZANCE OF LO SS RETURNS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSEE CANNOT CLAIM IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS RELATING TO SUBSEQUENT YEARS THAT THE LOSS IN THE EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS BE DETERM INED, CARRIED FORWARD AND SET OFF AGAINST THE PROFITS O F THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR OR YEARS, AS THE CASE MAY BE. THE DR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT PROFITS AND GAINS OF BUSINESS OF THE ELIGIBLE UNIT IS TO BE COMPUTED FIR ST AND THEREAFTER DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10B IS TO BE GI VEN. THE DEDUCTION IS NOT TO BE GIVEN FROM GROSS TOTAL INCOM E ENVISAGED UNDER CHAPTER VI-A. HE CONTENDED THAT TH OUGH ITA NO.1375/MD S/2008 5 SECTION 10B FALLS UNDER CHAPTER III, IT HAS BEEN ME NTIONED IN THE SECTION ITSELF THAT WHAT IS TO BE GIVEN IS ONLY A DEDUCTION AND NOT EXEMPTION. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE B USINESS LOSS OF THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS UNABSORBED DEPRECIA TION BROUGHT FORWARD BY THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF ELIGI BLE UNDERTAKING GOT ABSORBED BY THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 4-05, THEREAFTER, NOTHING IS LEFT TO BE ADJUSTED/SET OFF FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. BUT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT D EDUCT THE UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION WHILE COMPUTING THE BUS INESS PROFIT IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 AND 2004-05. NOW, THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ENTITLED TO CLAIM THE BENEFIT OF EA RLIER YEAR DEPRECIATION. TO BUTTRESS HIS SUBMISSIONS, THE DR R ELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE SPECIAL BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN T HE CASE OF M/S. SCIENTIFIC ATLANTA INDIA PVT.LTD., VS. ACIT RE PORTED AS 129 TTJ 273. THE D.R. FURTHER RELIED ON THE JUDGEMENT OF THE HONBLE KERALA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. PA TSPIN INDIA LTD., REPORTED AS 62 DTR (KER) 364 WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT BEFORE GRANTING EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 10B, L OSSES OF THE EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS HAVE TO BE SET OFF. ITA NO.1375/MD S/2008 6 5. PER CONTRA, SHRI VEPA KRISHNA APPEARING ON BEHAL F OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT(A) HAS PASSED A WELL REASONED AND DETAILED ORDER. THE A.R. STRONGLY SUPP ORTED THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND SUBMITTED THAT AS REGARDS E XCLUSION OF 50% INTERNET CHARGES FROM THE TOTAL TURNOVER AS WEL L AS EXPORT TURNOVER, THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IS SQUARELY COV ERED BY THE ORDER OF THE SPECIAL BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE C ASE OF M/S. SAK SOFT LTD., REPORTED AS 313 ITR 353. WITH RESPECT TO SECOND ISSUE OF METHOD DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10B, THE A.R. CONTROVERTING THE ARGUM ENT OF DR MADE A STATEMENT AT THE BAR THAT THE APPEAL WAS FIL ED AGAINST THE ORDER RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 A ND THE TRIBUNAL HAD SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A) AND HAS REMITTED THE FILE BACK TO THE ASSESS ING OFFICER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER AGAIN SET OFF THE LOSS AND TH E APPEAL IS NOW PENDING BEFORE THE CIT(A). ON MERITS THE AR SUBMITTED THAT SECTION 10B HAS BEEN PLACED IN CHAPTER III OF THE ACT WHICH DEALS WITH INCOMES WHICH DO NOT FORM PART OF TOTAL INCOME. HE CONTENDED THAT THE LEGISLATURE INTENDED TO GIVE A SPECIAL STATUS TO SECTION 10B, IF THE INTENTION OF THE LEGISLATURE ITA NO.1375/MD S/2008 7 WAS TO TREAT THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10B AT PAR WITH DEDUCTION UNDER CHAPTER VI-A, THEN THEY WOULD HAVE PLACED SECTION 10A & 10B IN CHAPTER VI A. THE AR SUBMITT ED THAT THE PROFIT OF 100% EXPORT ORIENTED UNDERTAKING HAS TO BE CALCULATED AS PER THE FORMULA GIVEN IN SECTION 10B( 4). THE PROFITS HAVE TO BE DEDUCTED FROM THE TOTAL INCOME O F THE UNDERTAKING AND THEREAFTER THE RESIDUE PROFITS, IF ANY SHALL BE USED FOR DEDUCTING CARRIED FORWARD LOSS AND UNABSOR BED DEPRECIATION. 6. IN ORDER TO SUPPORT HIS CONTENTIONS, THE AR RELI ED ON THE JUDGEMENT OF THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN TH E CASE OF CIT VS. YOKOGAWA INDIA LTD. & OTHERS REPORTED AS 246 ITR (KAR) 226 AND THE JUDGEMENT OF THE HONBLE BOMBAY H IGH COURT IN THE CASE OF HINDUSTAN UNILEVER LTD. VS. DC IT REPORTED AS 237 CTR (BOM) 287 AND THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO.2097/MDS/2006 IN THE CASE OF INTIMATE FAS HIONS INDIA PVT. LTD. DECIDED ON 27.11.2007. 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE RIVAL PARTIES AND HAVE ALSO PERUSED THE JUDGEMENTS/ORDERS REFERRED ITA NO.1375/MD S/2008 8 TO BY BOTH THE PARTIES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHIL E MAKING THE ASSESSMENT HAS EXCLUDED 50% OF THE INTERNET CHA RGES FROM EXPORT TURNOVER ONLY. ON APPEAL, THE CIT(A) HAS EXCLUDED THE SAID 50% INTERNET CHARGES FROM TOTAL TURNOVER AS WELL. WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED IN FOREIGN CURRENCY WHICH ARE EXCLUDED FROM EXPORT TUR NOVER SHOULD ALSO BE EXCLUDED FROM TOTAL TURNOVER IN ORDE R TO GRANT BENEFIT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE SECTION. SIMILAR I SSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED BY THE SPECIAL BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL I N THE CASE OF SAK SOFT LTD. (SUPRA). THE SPECIAL BENCH WHILE A DJUDICATING THE ISSUE HAS HELD THAT EXPENSES ON FREIGHT, TELECOMMUNICATION CHARGES, OR INSURANCE ATTRIBUTABL E TO THE DELIVERY OF THE ARTICLES OR THINGS OR COMPUTER SOFT WARE OUTSIDE INDIA OR EXPENSES INCURRED IN FOREIGN EXCHANGE IN P ROVIDING TECHNICAL SERVICES OUTSIDE INDIA, WHICH ARE REQUIRE D TO BE EXCLUDED FROM THE EXPORT TURNOVER AS DEFINED IN EXP LANATION 2(III) OF SECTION 10B SHOULD ALSO BE EXCLUDED FROM THE FIGURE OF TOTAL TURNOVER WHILE APPLYING THE FORMULA PRESCR IBED BY SUB- SECTION (4) OF SECTION 10B OF THE ACT. THE SPECIA L BENCH RELIED ON THE JUDGEMENT OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COUR T OF ITA NO.1375/MD S/2008 9 INDIA IN THE CASE OF LAKSHMI MACHINE WORKS REPORTED AS 290 ITR 667 WHEREIN THE PRINCIPLE OF PARITY BETWEEN THE EXPORT TURNOVER AND TOTAL TURNOVER FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECT ION 80HHC WAS ADJUDICATED. THE HONBLE APEX COURT HELD THAT A NY RECEIPT WHICH DOES NOT HAVE AN ELEMENT OF TURNOVER CANNOT FIND A PLACE EITHER IN THE EXPORT TURNOVER OR IN TH E TOTAL TURNOVER. WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE ISSUE IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE ORDER OF THE SPECIAL BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SAK SOFT LTD. (SUPRA) AND NO INTERFERENCE IS CALLED FOR IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT( A) ON THIS ISSUE. THEREFORE, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 8. THE SECOND ISSUE RAISED IN THE APPEAL IS WITH RE GARD TO DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10B. THE QUESTION FOR CONS IDERATION IS : WHETHER DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10B SHOULD BE COMPUTED AND ALLOWED IN RESPECT OF THE PROFITS OF T HE ELIGIBLE UNDERTAKING FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATI ON WITHOUT SETTING OFF BROUGHT FORWARD LOSSES AND UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION? ITA NO.1375/MD S/2008 10 DIVERGENT VIEWS HAVE BEEN TAKEN BY THE HIGH COURTS OF DIFFERENT JURISDICTION ON THIS ISSUE. THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS.YOKOGAWA INDIA LTD . (SUPRA) WHILE ADJUDICATING THIS ISSUE HAS OBSERVED IN PARA 15 AS UNDER:- AS RELIEF UNDER SECTION 10A IS IN THE NATURE OF EXEMPTION ALTHOUGH TERMED AS DEDUCTION AND THE SAID RELIEF IS IN RESPECT OF COMMERCIAL PROFITS, SU CH INCOME IS NEITHER SUBJECT TO CHARGE OF INCOME TAX NOR INCLUDIBLE IN THE TOTAL INCOME. THEREFORE, TH E TWIN PROVISIONS OF SECTION 14 ARE NOT EXISTING IN T HE CASE OF INCOME OF STP UNDERTAKING AND ACCORDINGLY SUCH INCOME IS NOT LIABLE TO BE COMPUTED UNDER CHAPTER IV. THEREFORE, THE CORRECT VIEW WOULD BE THAT THE RELIEF UNDER SECTION 10A WILL HAVE TO BE GIVEN BEFORE CHAPTER IV. THE DEDUCTION SHALL BE GIVEN FIRST AND PROCESS OF COMPUTATION OF PROFITS AND GAINS OF BUSINESS OR PROFESSION BEGINS THEREAFTER. THIS PROPOSITION IS IN LINE WITH THE FO RM OF RETURN. ALLOWING DEDUCTION AT THE EARLIEST STAGE OF BUSINESS INCOME COMPUTATION ALMOST BLURS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE COMMERCIAL PROFITS AND TAX PROFITS. ITA NO.1375/MD S/2008 11 SIMILAR VIEW HAS BEEN TAKEN BY THE HONBLE BOMBAY H IGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS.BLACK & VEATCH CONSULTI NG (P) LTD., REPORTED AS 251 CTR (BOM) 265. THE HONBLE B OMBAY HIGH COURT HAS HELD THAT SECTION 10A IS A PROVISION WHICH IS IN THE NATURE OF A DEDUCTION AND NOT AN EXEMPTION. THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10A HAS TO BE GIVEN EFFECT TO AT THE STAGE OF COMPUTING THE PROFITS AND GAINS OF BUSINES S. SINCE THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 10A ARE PARI MATERIAL WIT H THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 10B, THE SAME RATIO CAN BE AP PLIED IN THE CASES COVERED BY SECTION 10B. THEREFORE, FROM T HE AFORESAID JUDGEMENT OF THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH C OURT AND THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT INFERENCE CAN BE DRAWN THAT DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10A AND 10B HAS TO BE COMPUTED AND ALLOWED IN RESPECT OF PROFITS OF ELIGI BLE UNDERTAKING FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WITHOU T SETTING OFF BROUGHT FORWARD, UNABSORBED LOSSES AND DEPRECIA TION OF THE ELIGIBLE UNDERTAKING. 9. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE HONBLE KERALA HIGH COUR T IN THE CASE OF PATSPIN INDIA LTD. (SUPRA) HAS TAKEN A CON TRARY VIEW. ITA NO.1375/MD S/2008 12 THE HONBLE KERALA HIGH COURT HAS HELD DEDUCTION UN DER SECTION 10B HAS TO BE GRANTED WITH REFERENCE TO PRO FIT OF THE INDUSTRIAL UNIT COMPUTED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF TH E ACT WHICH INCLUDES SET OFF OF UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION CARRIED FORWARD FROM EARLIER YEARS. THE SPECIAL BENCH OF THE TRIBU NAL IN THE CASE OF SCIENTIFIC ATLANTA INDIA TECHNOLOGY PVT. LT D. VS. ACIT., REPORTED AS 129 TTJ 273 HAS CONCLUDED THAT PROFITS AND GAINS OF BUSINESS OF THE ELIGIBLE UNIT IS TO BE COMPUTED FIRST AND THEN DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10A IS TO BE GIVEN . IT IS NOT BE GIVEN FROM GROSS TOTAL INCOME ENVISAGED UND ER CHAPTER VI-A. 10. IT IS A WELL SETTLED LAW THAT WHEN TWO DIFFERE NT VIEWS OF DIFFERENT JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURTS ARE AVAILABLE, THE DECISION FAVOURABLE TO THE ASSESSEE IS TO BE FOLLOWED. THE H ONBLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. VEGET ABLE PRODUCTS LTD., REPORTED AS 88 ITR 192 HAS HELD THA T IF TWO REASONABLE CONSTRUCTIONS OF A TAXING PROVISIONS ARE POSSIBLE, THAT CONSTRUCTION WHICH FAVOURS THE ASSESSEE MUST BE ADOPTED. THIS IS A WELL-ACCEPTED RULE OF CONSTRUCT IONS ITA NO.1375/MD S/2008 13 RECOGNIZED BY THIS COURT IN SEVERAL OF ITS DECISION S. THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE TRIBUNAL HAS B EEN FOLLOWING THE JUDGEMENT OF THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HI GH COURT IN THE CASE OF YOKOGAWA INDIA LTD. (SUPRA) IN VARI OUS CASES HOLDING THAT EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 10B IS TO BE A LLOWED WITHOUT SETTING OFF BROUGHT FORWARD UNABSORBED LOSS AND DEPRECIATION FROM EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEAR OR CURREN T ASSESSMENT YEAR. SIMILAR VIEW HAS BEEN TAKEN BY THE TRIBUNAL IN FOLLOWING CASES AS WELL:- ITA NO. CASE TITLE 2222 & 2223/MDS/2008 ACIT VS. CHENGEPOND TECHNOLOGIES PVT.LTD. 2165/MDS/2010 DCIT VS. M/S.ORCHID CHEMICALS & PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. 2150/MDS/2010 ACIT VS. SRA SYSTEMS LTD. 11. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE HON BLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN M/S. YOKOGAWA INDIA LTD. (SUPRA) AND THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL, ITA NO.1375/MD S/2008 14 WE UPHOLD THE FINDINGS OF THE CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE AND DISMISS THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE. 12. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DIS MISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON WEDNESDAY, TH E 14 TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2012 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (DR. O.K.NARAYANAN) ( VIKAS AWASTHY ) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER CHENNAI, DATED THE 14 TH NOVEMBER, 2012. SOMU COPY TO: (1) APPELLANT (4) CIT( A) (2) RESPONDENT (5) D.R. (3) CIT (6) G.F.