ACIT, CHENNAI V. M/s. Doshi Housing P Ltd., CHENNAI

ITA 1389/CHNY/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6989 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 30 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-11-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 02-11-2011
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 05-08-2011
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: G BASKAR
• Keywords: Earning of tax free income

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENCH A CHENNAI BEFORE SHRI HARI OM MARATHA J.M. AND SHRI N.S. SAI NI, A.M. .. I.T.A. NO. 1389/MDS/2011 [ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09] ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,COMPANY CIRCLE I (4), CHENNAI 600 034. VS M/S.DOSHI HOUSING P. LTD., 3H, 560 CENTURY PLAZA, ANNA SALAI, TEYNAMPET, CHENNAI 18. PAN : AAACD 1187 G (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI G.BASKAR, ADVOCATE DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI SHAJI P. JACOB, CIT, DR DATE OF HEARING : 02.11.2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 04.11.2011 O R D E R PER N.S. SAINI, A.M :- THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE REVEUE AGAINST THE O RDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A)-III,CHENNAI DATED 30.05.2011 FOR A.Y.200 8-09. 2. THE GROUND NO.1 OF THE APPEAL IS GENERL IN NATUR E AND REQUIRES NO ADJUDICATION. 3. IN GROUND NO.2 OF THE APPEAL HAS CHALLENGED THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) DELETING THE DISALLOWNCE OF INTEREST U/S.36( 1)(III) AMOUNTING TO RS.27.60 LAKHS. 4. THE BRIEF FACTS ARE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFFICE R IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER HAS OBERVED THAT ON EXAMINATION OF THE SCHEDU LES OF PROFITS AND LOSS ACCOUNT AND THE BALNCE SHEET OF THE ASSESSEE C OMPANY, IT IS SEEN THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED SECURED LOANS FROM B ANKS AND UNSECURED LOANS FROM DIRECTORS/ SHARE HOLDERS, RELATIVES AND OTHERS, WHICH HAS INCREASED FROM RS.12,29,33,724/- AS ON 31.03.2007 T O RS.15,59,95,515/- AS ON 31.03.2008. THE ASSESSEE H AS PAID INTEREST OF RS.27,60,542/- DURING THE YEAR. IT IS ALSO OBSERVE D THAT UNDER THE HEAD LOANS AND ADVANCES, SCHEDULE-17 OF BALANCE SHEET OU T OF TOTAL LOANS AND ADVANCES AMOUNTING OF RS.22.13 CRORES A SUM OF RS.6.65 CRORES PERTAINS TO ADVANCES GIVEN TO DIRECTORS /SHARE HOLD ERS AND RELATED PARTIES FROM WHOM NO INTEREST WAS RECEIVED. WHEN T HE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN WHY EXPENDITURE CLAIMED FOR INTERE ST ON FUNDS DIVERTED TO DIRECTORS AND GORUP COMPANIES SHOULD NO T BE DISALLOWED, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT IN THE EARLIER ASSESSME NT YEARS THE DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST WAS DELETED IN APPEAL IN I TA NOS.1555/MDS/08, ITA NO.932/MDS/2009 AND ITA NO.105 7 & 1058/MDS/09 FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2004-05 TO 2006-07 . THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT SICNE THE DEPARTMENT HAS FILE D APPEALS BEFORE THE HIGH COURT ON THIS ISSUE, IN ORDER TO KEEP THE ISSUE ALIVE THE INTEREST CLAIM ON SECURED AND UNSECURED LOANS OF RS .27,60,542/- IS DISALLOWED FOR THE SAME REASONS GIVEN IN THE ASSESS MENT RODERS FOR THE EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS 2004-05 TO 2006-07 AND ADD ED THE SAME TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 5. IN APPEAL, THE CIT(A) FOLOWING THE ORDERS OF T HE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEE'S OWN CASE IN THE EARLIER YEARS IN ITA NO .1057 & 1058/MDS/2009 DATED 4.2.2010 AND THE ORDER OF THE C IT(A) IN ITA NO.156/08-09/A-III DATED 31.3.2009 VACATED THE DISA LLOWANCE OF RS.27,60,642/- U/S.36(1)(III). 6. THE LD. DR RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE AO. 7. THE LD. AR SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). 8. AFTER HEARING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSIN G THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RE CORD, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED INTEREST PAYMENT O F RS.27,60,642/- CALIMED U/S.36(1)(III) OF THE ACT FOR THE SAME REAS ONS FOR WHICH DISALLOWANCE WAS MADE IN THE EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEA RS 2004-05 TO 2006-07. HE STATED IN THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT THAT THOUGH THE TRIBUNAL HAS DELETED THE DISALLWOANCE OF INTEREST MADE IN TH E ASSESSMENT YEARS 2004-05 TO 2006-07, BUT AS THE DEPARTMENT HAS PREFE RRED AN APPEAL THERE AGAINST BEFORE THE HIGH COURT AND THEREFORE, FOR THE SAME REASONS FOR WHICH DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST WAS MADE IN EARLIER YEARS, HE IS MAKING DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST IN THIS YEAR ALSO. WE FIND THAT IT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE REVENUE THAT THERE WAS ANY D ISTINGUISHABLE FACT DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION FROM THE FACTS WHICH WERE THERE IN EARLIER YEARS. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE ASSESSSING O FFICER HAS CATEGORICALLY STATED THAT HE HAD MADE THE DISALLOWA NCE OF INTEREST FOR THE SAME REASONS FOR WHICH DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST WAS MADE IN EARLIER YEARS. THE LD. DR COULD NOT BRING ANY MATE RIAL ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2004-05 TO 2006-07 WAS REVERSED IN APPEAL BY THE HON'BLE MADRA S HIGH COURT NOR COULD HE FILE ANY MATERIAL TO SHOW THAT THE HON'BLE MADRAS HIGH COURT HAS STAYED THE OPERATION OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBFU NAL PASSED IN THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2004-05 TO 2006-07. THEREFORE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). IT IS CONFIRMED. THE GROUND OF APPEAL OF REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 9. THE GROUND NO.3 OF THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) DIRECTING THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO EXCLUDE THE PORTION OF INVESTMENT IN SISTER'S CONCERN FOR COMPU TING THE DISALLWOANCE U/S.14A READ WITH RULE 8D. 10. THE BREIF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT FROM SHE DULE OF OTHER INCOME IN THE STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSSESSEE HAS RECEIVED A SUM OF RS.1,06,33 ,076/- ON ACCOUNT OF DIVIDEND CLAIMED EXEMPT U/S.10(34) FROM INVESTME NTS MADE IN VARIOUS SCHEMES OF MUTUAL FUNDS WHICH INCREASED FRO M RS.1.82 CRORES AS AT END OF THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEEDING PREVIOUS YE AR TO RS.16.77 CRORES IN THE CURRENT PREVIOUS YEAR. IN RESPONSE T O THE QUERY BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHY INTEREST EXPENDITURE SHOULD N OT BE DISALLOWED ON EXEMPTED INCOME BY INVOKING THE SEC.14A OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSEE EXPALINED THAT THE INVESTMENT IN MUTUAL FUNDS WERE OUT OF ITS NON- INTEREST BEARING FUNDS AND THAT NO EXPENDITURE WAS INCURRED FOR MUTUAL FUND INVESTMENTS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVING THAT ALTHOUGH NO EXPENDITURE HAVE CLAIMED TO BE INCURRED DIRECTLY FO R EARNING THE EXEMPT INCOME, BUT CERTAIN AMOUNTS OF EXPENSES IN T HE NATURE OF HIDDEN COST LIKE, STAFF SALARY, OFFICE ESTABLISHMEN T COST, OPPORTUNITY COST, TIME SPENT BY THE DIRECTORS IN TAKING INVESTM ENT DECISIONS ETC. ARE DEFINITELY ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE DIVIDEND INCOME EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE ON ITS INVESTMENTS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER THEREFORE APPLYING RULE 8D MADE A DISALLWOANCE OF RS.8,72,035/-. 11. IN APPEAL, BEFORE THE CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE RELIE D ON THE DICEISION OF HON'BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF HERO CYCLES 323 ITR 518 WHERE IT WAS HELD THAT DISALLOWANCE U/S.14A REQUIRED FINDING OF INCURRING OF EXPENDITURE AND WHERE IT IS FOUND T HAT FOR EARNING EXEMPTED INCOME NO EXPENDITURE HAS BEEN INCURRED ON THE EARNING OF EXEMPTED INCOME DISALLWOANCE U/S.14A CANNOT BE MAD E. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO RELEID ON THE DECISION OF THE DEL HI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS. JINDAL SAW PIPES ( 2008) 118 TTJ 228 (DELHI) WHERE IT WAS HELD THAT EVEN UNDER RULE 8D O NUS WAS ON AO TO SHOW THE NEXUS BETWEEN EXPENDITURE AND TAX FREE INC OME. IT WAS FURHTER STATED THAT WHILE CALCULATING THE DISALLWOA NCE BY APPLYING RULE 8D(2) THE ASSESSING OFFICER INCLUDED THE INVESTMENT IN SISTER'S CONCERN IN ADDITION TO THE INVESTMENT IN MUTUAL FUNDS. 12. THE LD. CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSI ON OF THE ASSESSEE HELD THAT AS THE INVESTMENTS IN MUTUAL FUNDS INCREA SED FROM RS.1.82 CRORES IN THE PRECEEDING YEAR TO RS.16.77 CRORES DU RING THE CURRENT YEAR. THEREFORE, THE ASSUMPTION OF THE ASSESSING O FFICER THAT ASSESSEE HAS INCURRED SOME EXPENDITURE ON STAFF SALARY, OFFI CE ESTABLISHMENT, COST OF TIME DEVOTED BY DIRECTORS FOR TAKING INVEST MENT DECISIONS ETC. CANNOT BE CONSIDERED UNREASONABLE. HENCE FOLLOWING THE DEICISON OF THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF GODREJ BOYCE MFG. CO. LTD. REPROTED IN 328 ITR 81 (BOM.) THE LD. CIT(A) U PHELD THE FINDING OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HOWEVER, THE LD. CIT(A) OBS ERVED THAT CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD.AR REGARDING I NCLUSION OF INVESTMENT IN SISTER'S CONCERN FOR CALCULATING THE DISALLOWANCE UNDER RULE 8D , HE WAS IN AGREEMENT WITH THE LD. AR AND T HEREFORE HE DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO EXCLUDE THE SAME AND RESTRICT THE DISALLWOANCE UNDER RULE 8D ONLY WITH REGARD TO INVE STMENT IN MUTUAL FUNDS ALONE. 13. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE FINDING OF THE LD. CIT( A) FOR EXCLUDING THE INVESTMENT IN SISTER'S CONCERNS FOR CALCULATING THE DISALLOWANCE UNDER RULE 8D, THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 14. AFTER PERUSING THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE CIT(A) IN HIS ORDER HAS NOT STATED WHAT WERE THE SU BMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE HIM FOR EXCLUSION OF THE IVNESTMENT IN SISTERS' CONCERN FOR CALCUALING THE DISALLOWANCE UNDER RULE 8D AND H OW HE WAS CONVINCED THAT THE SAME WAS TO BE EXCLUDED FOR THE PURPOSES OF CALCULATING THE DISALLWOANCE UNDER RULE 8D. THUS, WE FIND THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IS A NON-SPEAKING ORDER. IN OU R CONSIDERED OPINION, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE THE MATTER SHOULD BE REM ANDED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A) FOR ADJUDICATING THE ISSUE AFRES H AS PER LAW AFTER BRINGING ALL THE MATERIALS ON RECORD AFTER ALLOWING PROPER OPPORUTINITY OF HEARING TO BOTH THE PARTIES. WE ORDER ACCORDING LY. THUS, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS ALLOWED FOR STAT ISTICAL PURPOSES. 15. THE GROUND NO.4 OF THE APEPAL IS AGAINST THE O RDER OF THE CIT(A) DELETING THE WITHDRAWAL OF DEDUCTION U/S.80-IB(10) TO THE EXTENT OF RS.70.97 LAKHS. 16. THE BRIEF FACTS AS STATED IN THE ASSESSMENT OR DER ARE THAT FROM THE DETAILS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT VENGALVASAL PROJECT COMPRISED OF FLAT PROMOTIO N WHLICH WAS SPLIT INTO (1) SALE OF UNDIVIDED SHARE AND (2) EXECUTION OF WORK CONTRACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE LAN D ON WHICH THE PROJECT WAS CARRIED ON WAS ACQUIRED IN THE NAME OF DIRECTOR SHRI HARSHAD V. JOSHI AND UNDIVIDED SHARE IN THE LAND WA S SOLD TO THE VARIOUS FLAT BUYERS BY THE SAID DIRECTOR. THE CONS TRUCTION OF THE FLAT WAS GOVERNED BY A SEPREATE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE AS SESSEE COMPANY AND THE FLAT ALLOTTEES. THE ASSESSEE RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE CHENNAI 'A' BENCH OF THE TRIBUANL ACIT VS. SMT.C. RAJINI IT A NO.1239/MDS.2008 AND ITA NO.1666/MDS/2007 DATED 10.12.2010 IN SUPPOR T OF ITS CASE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SP LIT THE ACITIVITY OF FLAT PROMOTION INTO SALE OF UNDIVIDED SHARE OF LAND AND EXECUTION OF WORKS CONTRACT IN RESPECT OF CONSTRUCTION OF FLATS. HE FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE PURPOSE BEHIND SUCH SPLITTING MAY BE NECES SITATED BY BUSINESS CONTINGENCIES AS OBSERVED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE AS SESSMENT YEAR 2006- 07. BUT AS THE DEPARTMENT HAS CONTESTED THE SAID O RDER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT, THEREFORE, HE DID NO T FOLLOW THE SAME. HENCE, RELYING ON THE EXPLANTION TO SEC.80-IB(10) I NSERTED BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2010 HE DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF DEDUCT ION OF RS.17,97,797/- TO THE ASSESSEE. 17. ON APPEAL THE CIT(A) FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF TH E TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS. SMT. C RAJINI (SUPRA) HELD THAT TH E MERE FACT THAT THE LEGAL LAND OWNER AND THE ASSESSEE DEVELOPING AND BU ILDING HOUSING PROJECT ARE TWO DIFFERENT ENTITITIES WOULD NOT MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE. THE DECUCTION U/S 80-IB WOULD BE AVIALABLE TO THE P ERSON DEVLOPING AND BULDING THE HOUDING PROJECT AND NOT TO THE DE J URE OWNER OF THE LAND. THE LD. CIT(A) FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE EXP LANATORY MEMORANDUM REGARDING THE INSERTION OF EXPLANATION T O SEC.80-IB(10) STATES AS FOLLOWS:' THE OBJECTIVE OF THIS TAX CONCESSION IS TO PROVIDE TAX BENEFIT TO THE PERSON UNDERTAKING THE INVESTMENT RI SK, I.E. THE ACTUAL DEVELOPER. HOWEVER, ANY PERSON WORKING AS PURE CON RTRACT RISK IS NOT ENTITLED TO THE TAX BENEFIT.' AS HELD BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF C.RAJNI (SUPRA), THE APPELLANT IS THE DE FACTO/BENE FICIAL OWNER OF THE LAND. FURTHER, IT HAS TAKEN ALL THE BUSINESS RISK ASSOCIATED WITH THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE REAL ESTATE. THE DECISION OF TH E HON'BLE ITAT (CUTTACK) INT HE CASE OF KZK DEVELOPERS V. CIT, 130 TTJ 57 (CUTTACK), M/S.RADHA DEVELOPERS V. ITO IN ITA NO.2482/2006 DAT ED 29.06.2007 (ITAT, AHD.), ACIT V.SASHWATH CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LT D., IN ITA NO.1069/MDS/2008 FOR A.Y.2005-06 DATED 25.02.2009 ( ITA,CHENNAI) ALSO SUPPORT THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS AND RESPECFULLY FOLLOWING THE ABOVE DECISIONS, IT IS HE LD THAT THE APPELLANT IS NOT ONLY A BUILDER BUT ALSO IS A DEVELOPER OF TH E PROPERTY IN QUESTION AND IT HAS FULFILLED ALL THE CONDITIONS LAID DOWN I N SECTION 80-IB(10) OF THE ACT. HENCE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO ALLOW THE DEDUCTION CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT IN RESPECT OF TH E VENGALVASAL PROJECT. 18. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSE D THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE O N RECORD. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE ASSESSEE CALIMED DEDUCTIONU/S.80- IB(10) IN RESPECT OF PROFIT DERIVED FROM THE VENGALVASAL PROJECT. ACCO RDING TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE RELEVANT LAND WAS OWNED BY S HRI HARSHAD V. JOSHI WHO IS ALSO A DIRECTOR IN THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. TH E SAID SHRI HARSHAD V. JOSHI SOLD UNDIVIDED RIGHTS IN THE LAND TO VARIO US PERSONS AND THE ASSESSEE UNDERTOOK CONSTRUCTION OF HOUSING PROJECT AS THE CONTRACTOR ON BEHALF OF THOSE VARIOUS PERSONS. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S.80-IB OF THE ACT. 19. ON APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE ABOVE DI SALLOWANCE AND OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT A MERE BUILDER B UT WAS THE DEVELOPER OF THE SAID PROJECT. WE FIND THAT IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT A PERSON WHO IS MERELY A CONTRACTOR IS NOT ENTITLED F OR DEDUCTION U/S.80- IB(10) OF THE ACT. 20. DEDUCTION UNDER THAT SECTION CAN BE ALLOWED O NLY TO A PERSON WHO UNDERTAKES THE INVESTMENT RISK. 21. WE FIND THAT BOTH THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE T AKEN TWO CONTRIDICTORY VIEWS WITHOUT BRINGING ANY RELVANT MA TERIAL ON REOCRD. FROM THE REOCRDS AVAILABLE BEFORE US, IT IS NOT CLE AR AS TO WHEN THE UNDIVIDED RIGHTS IN THE LAND WAS SOLD BY SHRI HARSH AD V. JOSHI TO VARIOUS PERSONS. FURTHER, IT IS ALSO NOT CLEAR FRO M THE RECORDS AS TO WHEN THE VENGALVASAL PROJECT WAS COMMENCED AND WHO TOOK PERMISSION FROM THE AUTHORITIES TO UNDERTAKE THE DE VELOPMENT OF THE PROJECT. FURTHER, IT IS ALSO NOT CLEAR WHEN THE AS SESSEE ENTERED INTO AGREEMENTS WITH THE VARIOUS PERSONS AND WHAT WERE T HE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE AGREEMENTS. BOTH THE PARITES BEF ORE US HAVE ALSO NOT BROUGHT ANY MATERIAL BEFORE US ON THE BASIS OF WHI CH IT CAN BE DETERMINED THAT WHETHER THE ASSESSEE WAS ONLY A CON TRACTOR OR THE ASSESSEE WAS A DEVELOPER WHO UNDERTOOK THE INVESTME NT RISK OF THE HOUSING PROJECT UNDER CONSIDERATION. 22. IN THE ABVOE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE NOT IN A PO SITION TO ADJUDICATE THE ISSUE COMPLETELY AND THEREFORE, IN O UR CONSIDERED OPINION, IT SHALL BE IN THE INTEREST OF THE JUSTICE TO RESTORE THE ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR MAKIN G NECESSARY VERIFICATION IN THE LIGHT OF THE OBSERVATIONS MADE HEREINABOVE AND THEREAFTER ADJUDICATE THE ISSUE AFRESH BY PASSING A SPEAKING ORDER AS PER LAW AFTER ALLOWING PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF HEARIN G TO THE ASESSEE. HENCE, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS ALLO WED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 23. IN THE RESULT, THIS APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS PA RTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 4TH NOVEMBER, 2011. SD/- SD/- ((HARI OM MARATHA ) (N.S. SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER CHENNAI, DATED THE 4TH NOVEMBER, 2011. KS SUNDARAM COPY TO: ASSESSEE/AO/CIT (A)/CIT/D.R./GUARD FILE