ACIT, CHENNAI V. M/s. Tulsyan NEC Ltd., CHENNAI

ITA 1422/CHNY/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 135 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8082 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-10-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 13-10-2010
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 09-09-2009
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P B SEKARAN
• Assessee Lawyers: B RAMAKRISHNAN
• Keywords: Bogus purchase; Rejection of books of accounts; Capital asset; Revenue expenditure
• Section: 37

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENCH B CHENNAI BEFORE SHRI K.K. GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER .. I.T.A. NO. 1292/MDS/2009 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-06 M/S. TULSYAN NEC LTD., 3, APEX PLAZA, M.G. ROAD, NUNGAMBAKKAM, CHENNAI-600 034. V. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-IV(3), CHENNAI. (PAN: AABCT3720E ) A N D ITA NOS. 1418 TO 1422/MDS/2009 ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2001-02 TO 2005-06 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER V. M/S. TULS YAN NEC LTD., CENTRAL CIRCLE-IV(3), CHEN NAI-600 034. CHENNAI. (APPELLANTS) (RESPONDENTS) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI B. RAMAKRISHNAN DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI P.B. SEKARAN O R D E R PER BENCH: ITA NO. 1292/MDS/2009 IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE A SSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS)-I, CHENNAI IN APPEAL NO.323/08-09 DATED I.T.A. NOS. 1292 & 1418 TO 1422/MDS/09 2 01-06-2009 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 AND ITA NOS. 1418 TO 1422/MDS/2009 ARE APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAI NST THE ORDERS OF THE LEARNED CIT(A)-I, CHENNAI IN APPEAL NOS. 319 TO 323 /08-09 DATED 01-06-2009 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2001-02, 2002-03, 2003-04, 200 4-05 AND 2005-06 RESPECTIVELY. AS COMMON ISSUES ARE INVOLVED IN ALL THESE APPEALS AND ALL THE APPEALS RELATED TO THE SAME ASSESSEE, ALL THESE APP EALS ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY THIS COMMON ORDER. 2. SHRI B. RAMAKRISHNAN, CA REPRESENTED ON BEHALF O F THE ASSESSEE AND SHRI P.B. SEKARAN, LEARNED CIT-DR REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE. 3. IN THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IN ITA NO. 1292/MDS/09 THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE ACTION OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN CONF IRMING THE ESTIMATED ADDITION OF GROSS PROFIT ON EXPORTS. IN THE REVENUES APPEA LS, THREE ISSUES HAVE BEEN RAISED BEING : I) ALLOWANCE OF 5% OF PURCHASES AS BOGUS PURCHASES RELATING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2001-02, 200203, 2 003-04 AND 2004-05. II) ACTION OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN DELETING THE A DDITION REPRESENTING CAPITALIZATION OF INTEREST ON LOAN REL ATING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04. III) ACTION OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN DELETING THE COMMISSION DISALLOWED ON EXPORT RELATING TO THE ASS ESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. I.T.A. NOS. 1292 & 1418 TO 1422/MDS/09 3 EACH OF THE ISSUES IS DISCUSSED IN SERIATIM. 4. IN REGARD TO THE FIRST ISSUE BEING AGAINST THE A CTION OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCEOF 5% OF THE PURCHASES AS BOGUS, IT IS SUBMITTED BY THE LEARNED DR THAT THERE WAS A SEARCH IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE ON 27-03- 207. AS A CONSEQUENCE AND EVIDENCES FOUND IN THE CO URSE OF THAT SEARCH, A SEARCH WAS CONDUCTED ON THE PREMISES OF THE SHRI MA HENDRA KUMAR JAIN ON 27- 03-2007. IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH IT WAS NOTICED TH AT THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE TRANSACTIONS OF TRADING IN STEEL WITH THREE CONCERN S CONTROLLED AND MANAGED BY SHRI MAHENDRA KUMAR JAIN. SHRI MAHENDRA KUMAR JAIN WAS QUESTIONED IN REGARD TO THE TRANSACTIONS WITH THE ASSESSEE AND THE COURS E OF STATEMENT RECORDED, SHRI MAHENDRA KUMAR JAIN STATED THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUN T IN REGARD TO THE TRANSACTIONS WERE DESTROYED IN A FIRE. HOWEVER, CE RTAIN INVOICES AND DELIVERY CHALLANS HAD BEEN FOUND AT THE PREMISES OF THE ASSE SSEE COMPANY. ON THE BASIS OF THE INVOICES AND DELIVERY CHALLANS FOUND, THE AS SESSING OFFICER HAD MADE INVESTIGATION IN REGARD TO THE VEHICLES MENTIONED I N THE SAID INVOICES AND IT WAS FOUND THAT THE VEHICLES CLAIMED TO HAVE TRANSPORTED STEEL WHICH WERE MENTIONED IN THE INVOICES WERE SCOOTERS AND CARS. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT CONSEQUENTLY THE TRANSACTION IN THE PURCHASE AND SALE OF STEEL W AS DOUBTED AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD DISALLOWED 5% OF THE PURCHASES HOLDING THE SAME TO BE BOGUS. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT IN APPEAL THE LEARNED CIT(A ) HAD DELETED THE ADDITION ON THE GROUND THAT THE TRANSACTIONS HAD RESULTED IN A PROFIT AND NO DISCREPANCY I.T.A. NOS. 1292 & 1418 TO 1422/MDS/09 4 HAD BEEN FOUND WITH REFERENCE TO THE DETAILS AND DO CUMENTS PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE ADDITION AS DELETED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) WAS LIABLE TO BE REVERSED. 5. IN REPLY, THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD EARNED PROFITS IN THE TRANSACTIONS AND THIS PROFIT HAD ALSO BEEN OFFERED TO TAX AND ACCEPTED BY THE REVENUE. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT EVEN ASSUMING THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD FOUND THAT THE VEHICLES AS MENTIONED IN THE INVOICES WERE SCOOTERS AND CARS THE ASSESSEE CO ULD NOT BE BLAMED FOR THE SAME BECAUSE THE INVOICES WERE RAISED BY SHRI MAHEN DRA KUMAR JAIN. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD ALSO ACCE PTED THE PROFITS DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE OUT OF THE ABOVE TRANSACTIONS AND ONCE THE PROFITS ARE ACCEPTED IT WOULD MEAN THAT THE PURCHASES AND SALES ARE ALSO AC CEPTED. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT ANY TINKERING TO THE PURCHASES WOU LD AFFECT THE PROFITS DECLARED. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) IS LIABLE TO BE UPHELD. 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. A PER USAL OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ITSELF SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCLOSED THE TRANSACTIONS WITH THE CONCERNS UNDER THE CONTROL AND MANAGEMENT OF SHRI M AHENDRA KUMAR JAIN TO AN EXTENT OF ` 32.62 CRORES FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02, ` 25.84 CRORES FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03, ` 36.97 CRORES FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 AND ` 85.08 CRORES FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05, TOT ALLING NEARLY ` 103.94 CRORES. IT IS NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO D ISCLOSED PROFITS FROM THE I.T.A. NOS. 1292 & 1418 TO 1422/MDS/09 5 PURCHASES AND SALE WITH THE CONCERNS WHICH ARE UNDE R THE CONTROL OF SHRI MAHENDRA KUMAR JAIN. THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRES ENTATIVE HAS DRAWN OUR ATTENTION TO PAGES 33 TO 36 OF THE PAPER BOOK WHIC H ARE COPIES OF THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT DRAWN IN RESPECT OF THE TRANSACTIONS. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02 THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN PROF ITS OF ` 10.82 CRORES, FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03 PROFITS OF ` .9.47 CRORES, FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 ` 15.32 CRORES AND FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 PROFIT S OF ` 7.88 CRORES. A PERUSAL OF THE DISALLOWANCE OF 5% OF PURCHASES SHOWS THAT T HE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS DISALLOWED ` 1.63 CRORES FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02, ` 1.29 CRORES FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03, ` 1.84 CRORES FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 AND ` 42 LAKHS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05. OBVIOUSL Y ANY TINKERING TO THE PURCHASE ACCOUNT WOULD INCREASE THE PROFITS BY THE EQUAL AMOUNT. IT WOULD NATURALLY PUSH UP THE GROSS PROFIT AND NET PROFIT R ATES WHEREBY THE RATE WOULD BECOME AN IMPRACTICABLE RATE. FURTHER EVEN AFTER F INDING THAT THE VEHICLES WERE TWO WHEELERS AND CARS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NO T REJECT THE TRANSACTIONS AS A WHOLE AND ESTIMATE THE PROFITS. WE ALSO NOTICED TH AT ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT REJECTED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. OBVIOUSLY, WITHOUT REJECTING THE BOOKS, A PORTION OF THE PURCHASE CANNOT BE DISBELIEVED ON ES TIMATE BASIS. IF AT ALL DISALLOWANCE IS CALLED FOR, A SPECIFIC ITEM-WISE DI SALLOWANCE COULD BE MADE WHICH IS NOT DONE IN THE PRESENT CASE. IN THE CIRCUMSTAN CES, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE FINDING OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN DELETING THE D ISALLOWANCE OF 5% PURCHASES IS I.T.A. NOS. 1292 & 1418 TO 1422/MDS/09 6 ON A RIGHT FOOTING AND DOES NOT CALL FOR ANY INTERF ERENCE. IT IS FURTHER NOTICED THAT SHRI MAHENDRA KUMAR JAIN HAS ALSO APPROACHED T HE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION AND HAS DISCLOSED THE TRANSACTION BEFORE THE SETTLE MENT COMMISSION AND EVEN THERE THE TRANSACTION HAS BEEN ACCEPTED AND THE SET TLEMENT ACCEPTED. ANY TINKERING NOW WOULD AFFECT EVEN THE SETTLEMENT COMM ISSION FINDINGS IN THE ORDER INSOFAR AS THE SALES DISCLOSED BY SHRI MAHENDRA KUM AR JAIN WHICH IS THE PURCHASE OF THE ASSESSEE WOULD ALSO HAVE TO BE RE-DONE. THI S WOULD NOT BE POSSIBLE IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION ORD ER HAS BECOME FINAL. EVEN ON THIS GROUND ALSO WE FIND THAT THE ORDER OF THE L EARNED CIT(A) IS ON THE RIGHT FOOTING AND DOES NOT CALL FOR ANY INTERFERENCE. 7. IN REGARD TO THE ACTION OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN DELETING THE CAPITALIZATION OF INTEREST ON LOAN, AT THE TIME OF HEARING BOTH TH E PARTIES AGREED THAT THIS ISSUE IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE DECISION OF THE CO-ORDIN ATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 3-04 IN ITA NO. 1658/MDS/2007 DATED 16-05-2008 WHEREIN THE CO-ORDIN ATE BENCH HAS HELD AS FOLLOWS: 3.1 THE ISSUE RAISED IS THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAVING HELD THAT THE INTEREST EXPENSES OF ` 47,13,216/- HAVE BEEN INCURRED IN CONNECTION WITH T HE EXPANSION OF THE EXISTING BUSINESS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE EXPENDITURE RESULTS IN AN ENDURING BENEFIT AND HENC E CANNOT BEALLOWED AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE. I.T.A. NOS. 1292 & 1418 TO 1422/MDS/09 7 3.2 WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE COUNSELS AND PERUSED TH E RELEVANT RECORDS. IT TRANSPIRES THAT THE ISSUE IS COVERED I N FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF DCIT V. CORE HEALTH CARE LTD. (2008) 298 ITR 194 (SC.). IN THIS CASE, THE HON'BLE APEX COURT HELD AS UNDER: SECTION 36(1)(III) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, H AS TO BE READ ON ITS OWN TERMS : IT IS A CODE BY ITSELF. IT MAKE S NO DISTINCTION BETWEEN MONEY BORROWED TO ACQUIRE A CAPITAL ASSET O R A REVENUE ASSET. ALL THAT THE SECTION REQUIRES IS TH AT THE ASSESSEE MUST BORROW CAPITAL AND THE PURPOSE OF THE BORROWIN G MUST BE FOR BUSINESS WHICH IS CARRIED ON BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE YEAR OF ACCOUNT. UNLIKE SECTION 37 WHICH EXPRESSLY EXCLUDE S AN EXPENSE OF A CAPITAL NATURE, SECTION 36(1)(III) EMP HASIZES THE USER OF THE CAPITAL AND NOT THE USER OF THE ASSET W HICH COMES INTO EXISTENCE AS A RESULT OF THE BORROWED CAPITAL. THE LEGISLATURE HAS, THEREFORE, MADE NO DISTINCTION IN SECTION 36(1)(III) BETWEEN CAPITAL BORROWED FOR A REVENUE PURPOSE AND CAPITAL BORROWED FOR A CAPITAL PURPOSE. AN ASSES SEE IS ENTITLED TO CLAIM INTEREST PAID ON BORROWED CAPITAL PROVIDED THAT THE CAPITAL IS USED FOR BUSINESS PURPOSE IRRESPECTIVE O F WHAT MAY BE THE RESULT OF USING THE CAPITAL WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS BORROWED. ACTUAL COST OF AN ASSET HAS NO RELEVANCY IN RELAT ION TO SECTIN 36(1)(III). THE PROVISO INSERTED IN SECTION 36(1)(III) BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2003, WITH EFFECT FROM APRIL 1, 2004, WILL OPERATE PROSPECTIVELY. I.T.A. NOS. 1292 & 1418 TO 1422/MDS/09 8 3.3 IN VIEW OF HON'BLE APEX COURT DECISION AS ABOV E, WE HOLD THAT ASSESSEES CLAIM IS ALLOWABLE U/S 36(1)(III). AS WE NOTICE THAT THE ISSUE IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE DECISION OF THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE I N RESPECT OF THE APPEAL, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE SAID DECISION IN THE ASS ESSEES OWN CASE, THE FINDING OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE STANDS CONFIRMED. 8. AGAINST THE ACTION OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN DELE TING THE COMMISSION WHICH IS ALSO LINKED AND CONNECTED WITH THE ISSUE OF THE CONFIRMATION OF THE GROSS PROFIT AS RAISED IN THE ASSESSEES APPEAL, IT WAS SUBMITTE D BY THE LEARNED DR THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE A CLAIM OF ` 4,86,30,357/- AS COMMISSION ON EXPORT SALES. AS THE ASSESSEE HAD BEEN UNABLE TO FURNISH THE DETA ILS OF THE COMMISSION PAYMENTS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD DISALLOWED THE COMMISSION PAYMENTS IN FULL. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAD D ELETED THE DISALLOWANCE HOLDING THAT THE EXPORT INCOME ITSELF HAD BEEN ESTI MATED. IT WAS THE FURTHER SUBMISSION THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAD UPHELD THE A CTION OF THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER IN ESTIMATING THE GROSS PROFIT ON THE EXPORT PROFITS AT 8% OF THE EXPORT TURNOVER AND ON THIS ISSUE THE ASSESSEE WAS IN APPEAL. IT WAS THE FURTHER SUBMISSION THAT ONLY ON ACCOUNT OF THE FINDING THAT THE GROSS PROFIT ON THE EXPORT TURNOVER WAS ESTIMATED THE DISALLOWANCE OF THE EXPE NSES HAD BEEN DELETED. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CI T(A) IS LIABLE TO BE REVERSED. I.T.A. NOS. 1292 & 1418 TO 1422/MDS/09 9 IT WAS THE FURTHER SUBMISSION THAT IN RESPECT OF TH E 8% GROSS PROFIT FIXED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND AS CONFIRMED BY THE LEARNED C IT(A) THE FINDING OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) SHOULD BE UPHELD. 9. IN REPLY, THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT THE ESTIMATION OF THE GROSS PROFIT AT 8% WAS ON HIGHER SIDE AND THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT HAD NOT BEEN REJECTED. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE GROSS PROFIT AS DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE AT 7.5% IS LIABLE TO BE ACCEPTED. IT WAS THE FURTHER SUBMISSION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DISCLOSED A GROSS PROFIT OF ` . 3.38 CRORES ON A TURNOVER OF ` 51.9 CRORES AND OBVIOUSLY FOR ATTAINING SUCH HIGH P ROFIT MARGIN THE ASSESSEE HAD TO INCUR EXPENDITURE IN THE FORM OF COMMISSION. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE COMMISSION WAS RECORDED IN THE INVOICE ITSELF AND T HE COMMISSION WAS ALSO PAID BY THE PURCHASERS AND IN FACT THE AMOUNT DID NOT RE ACH THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS THE FURTHER SUBMISSION BY THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRES ENTATIVE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED THE DETAILS IN RESPECT OF THE COMMISS ION PAYMENTS ALONG WITH PARTY-WISE DETAILS VIDE LETTER DATED 7-1-2009 TO TH E ASSESSING OFFICER. HE DREW OUR ATTENTION TO PAGES 86 TO 250 OF THE PAPER BOOK WHICH CONTAINED COPY OF THE INVOICES AND CONFIRMATION LETTERS AND THE BANK CLEA RANCES IN RESPECT OF THE PAYMENTS RECEIVED, INVOICES RAISED AND THE COMMISSI ON PAID AND CONFIRMED. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD N OT VERIFIED THE SAME AND CONSEQUENTLY NO DISALLOWANCE COULD BE MADE. I.T.A. NOS. 1292 & 1418 TO 1422/MDS/09 10 10. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. A PE RUSAL OF THE PAPER BOOK FROM PAGES 86 TO 250 IT IS NOTICED THAT THE DETAILS HAVE BEEN PRODUCED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE RECTIFICATION PROCEEDI NGS AND NOT IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. A PERUSAL OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER SHO WS THAT THE INTENTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER ITSELF WAS TO REJECT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS IN RESPECT OF THE EXPORT TURNOVER AS THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FURNISH THE DETAILS. TRUE THE ASSESSEE MIGHT HAVE THE DETAILS BUT DURING THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE SAME WERE NOT PRODUCED AND THEREFORE THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN ESTIMATING THE GROSS PROFIT FROM THE EXPORTS IS FOU ND TO BE ON A RIGHT FOOTING. IT IS ALSO NOTICED THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS APPRECI ATED THIS FACT AND CONSEQUENTLY HAS CONFIRMED THE ESTIMATION OF THE GR OSS PROFIT AS DONE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ESTIMATION OF THE GROSS PROFIT AS DONE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICE R AND AS CONFIRMED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) IS FOUND TO BE ON RIGHT FOOTING AND DOES NOT CALL FOR ANY INTERFERENCE. AS WE HAVE HELD THAT THE ESTIMATION OF THE GROSS PROFIT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND CONFIRMATION OF THE SAME BY T HE LEARNED CIT(A) IS ON THE RIGHT FOOTING, NO FURTHER DISALLOWANCE OUT OF THE S AID EXPENSES IN RELATION TO THE EARNING OF THE EXPORT PROFITS CAN BE MADE. CONSEQU ENTLY, THE ACTION OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF THE COMMISSION PAID IN RELATION TO THE EXPORTS IS ALSO FOUND TO BE ON RIGHT FOOTING AN D DOES NOT CALL FOR ANY I.T.A. NOS. 1292 & 1418 TO 1422/MDS/09 11 INTERFERENCE. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE AND THE ARE DISMISSED. 11. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS REVENUE AND THE AP PEAL OF THE ASSESSEE STAND DISMISSED. 12. THE ORDER WAS DICTATED AND PRONOUNCED IN THE OP EN COURT ON 13-10-2010. SD/- SD/- (K.K. GUPTA) (GEORGE MATHAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER CHENNAI, DATED THE 13 TH OCTOBER, 2010. COPY TO: ASSESSEE/AO/CIT (A)/CIT/D.R./GUARD FILE