M/s. Tamil Nadu Small Industries Development Corporation Limited, CHENNAI V. ITO (OSD), CHENNAI

ITA 1660/CHNY/2008

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 61070 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 8 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-04-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 25-04-2012
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 04-08-2008
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: S SRIDHAR

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, CHENNAI (BEFORE SHRI N.S.SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ) .. I.T.A. NO. 1660/MDS/2008 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2004-05 M/S. TAMIL NADU SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED, GUINDY INDUSTRIAL ESTATE,SIDCO ELECTRONIC COMPLEX, GUINDY, CHENNAI 600 032. PAN : AABCT 0297 L (PETITIONER) V. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (OSD), CIRCLE III(1), CHENNAI 600 034. (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI S.SRIDHAR ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SHAJI P. JACOB DATE OF HEARING : 25.04.12 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30.04.12 O R D E R PER N.S.SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST T HE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(A)-VIII, CHENNAI DATED 1 2.05.2008. ITA NO. 1660/MDS/08 2 THE GROUND NO.1 OF THE APPEAL IS DIRECTED AGAINST T HE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(A) CONFIRMING THE DISALL OWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF PRIOR PERIOD EXPENSES DEBITED IN THE P&L ACCOUNT OF ` 1,64,47,348/-. 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESS ING OFFICER OBSERVED FROM THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY THE ASS ESSEE THAT THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED PRIOR PERIOD EXPENSES AS PER NOTE 7(III) OF THE NOTES TO THE FINAL ACCOUNTS SUBMITTED ALONG WITH THE RETU RN OF INCOME. THE ASSESSING OFFICER PROPOSED TO DISALLOW PRIOR PERIOD EXPENDITURE AND THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT THE GOVERNEMTN OF TAMIL NADU VIDE GO MS NO.877 DATED 01.07.1982 FIXED THE AMOUNT DUE TO THE CORPORATION AT 4% OF THE CAPITAL COST FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF IN DUSTRIAL ESTATES AND DEVELOPMENT OF PLOTS. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSEE DE BITED THE EXPENDITURE OVER AND ABOVE THE PERMISSIBLE LEVEL OF 4% TO PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT IN THE EARLIER YEARS. HOWEVER, IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2002- 03, BASED ON THE DECISION OF THE BOARD, THE EXPENDI TURE WAS BOOKED AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT ACCOUNT ON ACTUAL BASIS AND THUS THE EXPENDITURE IN EXCESS OF 4% AMOUNTING TO ` 1,64,47,348/- WAS NOT ITA NO. 1660/MDS/08 3 DEBITED TO PROFT AND LOSS ACCOUNT. SUBSEQUENTLY AS THE GOVERNMENT DID NOT ACCEPT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSES SEE DEBITED THE EXPENDITURE OVER 4% IN THIS YEAR INCLUDING THE AMOU NT OF ` 1,64,47,348/-, WHICH WAS NOT CLAIMED IN THE EARLIER YEAR. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE EXPENDIT URE DID NOT ACCRUE DURING THIS YEAR DUE TO ANY GOVERNMENT ORDER AND TH E LIABILITY AROSE IN THE EARLIER YEAR ITSELF. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSES SEE COMPANY CHOSE TO DEBIT THE PRIOR PERIOD EXPENSES DURING THIS YEAR AS PER ITS OWN DECISION AND, THEREFORE, THE SAME CANNOT BE ALLOWED . 3. IN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(A), THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT COMPANY WAS UNDER THE BONA FIDE BELIEF THAT THE GOVERNMENT WOULD REIMBURSE THE EXPENDITURE AND THEREFORE, DID NOT CLAIM IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT IN THE EARLIER YEAR. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT DURING THE YEAR, THE ASSESSEE CAME TO KNOW THAT IT WAS NOT POSSIBLE TO RECOVER THE AMOUNT FROM THE GOV ERNMENT AND THEREFORE, IT WAS DECIDED TO CLAIM THE EXPENDITURE. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE DECISION WAS TAKEN BY THE BOARD TO CLAIM T HE ENTIRE AMOUNT FROM THE GOVERNMENT IN THE LAST YEAR AND THE SAME W AS NOT DEBITED ITA NO. 1660/MDS/08 4 TO PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT. A COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING DT.10.04.03 IN WHICH IT WAS DECIDED TO CLAIM THE EX PENDITURE FROM THE GOVERNMENT, ASSESSEE ALSO SUBMITTED A COPY OF MINUT ES OF BOARD MEETING DATED 07.09.2004 WHEREIN IT WAS DECIDED, IN THE ABSENCE OF FAVOURABLE ORDERS FROM THE GOVERNMENT TO DEBIT THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT ON ACTUAL EXPENDITURE BASIS. HE ALSO SUB MITTED THAT THE GENUINENESS AND CORRECTNESS OF CLAIM OF EXPENDITURE WAS NOT DISPUTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND IT REPRESENTS EXPENDITURE SUCH AS SALARY, PROVIDENT FUND, ELECTRICITY, ESTATE MAIN TENANCE AND THEREFORE, THE SAME IS TO ALLOWED AS DEDUCTION. 4. LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(A) AFTER CONSIDE RING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE HELD THAT IF THE CONTEN TION OF THE ASSESSEE IS ACCEPTED THAT IN ABSENCE OF FAVOURABLE ORDERS, IT WAS DECIDED TO DEBIT THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT, THE S AME TOOK PLACE ONLY IN THE NEXT YEAR WHEN THE DECISION WAS TAKEN BY THE BOARD IN ITS MEETING HELD ON 07.09.04. THUS, THERE WAS NO JUSTI FICATION FOR CLAIMING THE EXPENDITURE DURING THE YEAR. THE COMM ISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(A) ALSO OBSERVED THAT HE CANNOT DIRECT T HE ASSESSING ITA NO. 1660/MDS/08 5 OFFICER TO ALLOW THE DEDUCTION OF THE EXPENDITURE I N THE EARLIER YEAR OR FIN THE NEXT YEAR AS ONLY THE PROCEEDINGS FOR THE R ELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR WAS PENDING BEFORE HIM. HENCE, HE CONFIRMED T HE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 5. LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE EXPEN DITURE WAS NOT DEBITED IN THE YEAR 2002-03 BASED ON THE DECISION O F THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF SIDCO IN ANTICIPATION OF APPROVAL OF T HE GOVERNMENT AND THE SAME WAS DEBITED IN THE YEAR 2004-05 AS THE GOV T. FIXED 4% OF THE CAPITAL COST OF ` 9.99 CRORES AS ALLOWABLE EXPENDITURE UNDER AGENCY TERMED LAID DOWN VIDE G.O M.S. NO.877, INDUS TRIES ACT, 1.7.82. ACCORDINGLY THE EXCESS EXPENDITURE INCURRE D WAS ABSORBED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF SIDCO UNDER THE RESPECT IVE HEAD OF EXPENDITURE. THE FACT WAS DISCLOSED IN THE NOTES O F ACTION CLEARLY MENTIONING THAT THE GOVT. ORDER DOES NOT PERMIT THE ASSESSEE TO DEBIT THE STATE CO. IN EXCESS OF 4% OF THE CAPITAL COST A ND HENCE, THE ASSESSEE HAS TO ABSORB THE EXPENDITURE IN THE ASSES SMENT YEAR 2004-05 OR ALTERNATIVELY, THE EXPENDITURE SHOULD BE ALLOWED IN THE ITA NO. 1660/MDS/08 6 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 THE YEAR IN WHICH THE EXPEN DITURE WAS INCURRED. 6. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DR ARGUED THAT THE HON BLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF MADRAS FERTILIZER LTD. VS . C.I.T [1994] 209 ITR 174(MDS.) HAS HELD THAT EXPENSES INCURRED BEFOR E THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE RELEVANT ACCOUNTING YEAR IN WHI CH THE ASSESSEE HAS ACTUALLY STARTED ITS MANUFACTURING BUS INESS ARE NOT ALLOWABLE. HE ALSO RELIED ON THE DECISION OF HONBL E SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF ITO VS. MURLIDHAR BHAGWAN DAS HUNGER FORD INVESTMENT TRUST LTD. IN 52 ITR 335 AND SUBMITTED T HAT HONBLE SUPREME COURT HAS HELD THAT JURISDICTION OF AAC WAS RESTRICTED TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR IN THE YEAR IN APPEAL AND THAT HE H AD NO JURISDICTION TO MADE ORDER OR ISSUE DIRECTION FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR NOT IN APPEAL BEFORE HIM. HE ALSO RELIED ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. MANICK SONS IN 74 ITR 1 (SC) WHERE IT WAS HELD THAT IT WAS BEYOND THE JURISDICTION OF THE TRIBUNAL TO REOPEN THE CONC LUDED ASSESSMENT FOR ANOTHER ASSESSMENT YEAR AND TO DIRECT THAT INCO ME SHOULD BE REVISED IN THAT YEAR. HENCE HE SUBMITTED THAT THE A LTERNATE PLEA F THE ITA NO. 1660/MDS/08 7 ASSESSEE WAS THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THA T IF THE DEDUCTION FOR PRIOR PERIOD EXPENDITURE WAS NOT ALLOWED DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THEN THE SAME SHOULD BE ALLOWED IN T HE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 WHEN THE EXPENDIT URE WAS INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE ENTERTAINED BY T HE TRIBUNAL. 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RE CORD. THE UNDISPUTED FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE INCURRED EXPENDITURE OF ` 1,64,47,348/- IN THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT DEBI T THIS EXPENDITURE IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT AS IT WA S DOING IN THE EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS BECAUSE THE BOARD OF DIREC TORS OF THE COMPANY TOOK THE DECISION TO BOOK THE EXPENDITURE A GAINST THE GOVERNMENT ACCOUNT ON ACTUAL BASIS FOR THE EXPENDIT URE IN EXCESS OF 4% OF THE CAPITAL COST FOR MAINTENANCE OF INDUSTRIA L ESTATE AND DEVELOPMENT OF PLOTS. SINCE THE GOVERNMENT DID NOT ACCEPT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF THE EXPENDITUR E OF PRIOR PERIOD EXPENDITURE WAS DEBITED IN THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL AN D DEDUCTION WAS ITA NO. 1660/MDS/08 8 CLAIMED FOR THE SAME. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLO WED THE DEDUCTION ON THE GROUND THAT THE EXPENDITURE DID NOT ACCRUE D URING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND THEREFORE, WAS NOT ALLOWABL E DEDUCTION TO THE ASSESSEE IN VIEW OF THE MERCANTILE SYSTEM OF ACCOUN TING FOLLOWED BY ASSESSEE. ON APPEAL LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY OBSERVING TH AT THE DECISION TO DEBIT THE EXPENDITURE TO THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUN T ON THE GROUND THE DECISION OF THE ASSESSEE TO DEBIT THE EXPENDITURE I N THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT IN THE ABSENCE OF FAVOURABLE ORDERS FR OM THE GOVT. WAS TAKEN AT THE BOARD MEETING OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY DATED 07.09.04 AS PER THE COPIES OF THE MINUTES FILED BEFORE HI M AND THEREFORE, THE EXPENDITURE SHOULD HAVE BEEN DEBITED IN THE SUBSEQU ENT ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 AND NOT IN THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL. 8. THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. AR IS THAT THE GENUIN ENESS OF EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE IS NOT QUESTIO NED BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. HE SUBMITTED THAT IN VIEW OF CONSIDER ED DECISION OF THE ASSESSEE TO CLAIM THE EXPENDITURE AS A REIMBURSEMEN T FROM THE GOVERNMENT OF TAMILNADU, THE EXPENDITURE WAS NOT CL AIMED IN THE ITA NO. 1660/MDS/08 9 EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEAR WHEN IT WAS INCURRED, BUT W AS CLAIMED IN THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR WHEN NO FAVOURABLE DECISIO N WAS RECEIVED FROM THE GOVERNMENT OF TAMILNADU. HE THER EFORE, SUBMITTED THAT THE EXPENDITURE WAS CRYSTALLIZED DURING THE YE AR UNDER CONSIDERATION. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT FILE ANY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF ITS CONTENTION BY FILING THE ORDER OF TAMILNADU GOVERNMENT REFUSING THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE. ON THE OTHER HAND, IT IS OBSERVED FROM THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME T AX(A) THAT COPY OF MINUTES DT.10.04.03 WERE FILED BEFORE HIM WHEREI N IT WAS DECIDED TO NOT TO DEBIT THE EXPENDITURE IN THE PROFIT AND L OSS ACCOUNT, BUT TO DEBIT THE SAME TO THE GOVERNMENT ACCOUNT FOR CLAIMI NG IT AS THE REIMBURSEMENT FROM THE GOVERNMENT. THIS, THIS MEET ING WAS HELD IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO THE PRESENT ASSESSMEN T YEAR 2004-05. FURTHER FROM THE COPY OF MINUTES DT.07.09.04 OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WHEREIN IT WAS DECIDED THAT SINCE FAVOURABLE ORDER WAS NOT RECEIVED FROM THE GOVERNME NT, THEREFORE, THE EXPENDITURE SHOULD BE DEBITED IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT. IT IS FOUND THAT THIS MEETING WAS HELD IN THE PREVIOUS YE AR RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06, WHICH IS THE SUBSEQUENT AS SESSMENT ITA NO. 1660/MDS/08 10 YEAR. THUS, IF THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS T HAT THE EXPENDITURE CRYSTALLIZED WHEN THE BOARD TOOK THE DECISION THAT THE GOVERNMENT IS NOT GOING TO GIVE FAVOURABLE ORDER TO THE ASSESSEE, THEN THAT DECISION WAS TAKEN IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO THE ASSE SSMENT YEAR 2005-06 AND NOT THE PRESENT ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 . STILL FURTHER, THE CLAIM FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENDITURE WAS ALSO MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05. THEREFORE, THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT THE EXPENDITURE CRYSTALLIZED DURI NG THE YEAR CANNOT BE ACCEPTED. HENCE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY GOOD AND JU STIFIABLE REASONS TO INTERFERED WITH THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(A). THE ALTERNATIVE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT IF THE DEDUCTION IS REFUSED FOR THE EXPENDITURE DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDER ATION, THEN THE SAME MAY BE ALLOWED TO THE ASSESSEE IN THE ASSESSME NT YEAR 2003- 04. WE FIND THAT THE APPEAL BEFORE US RELATES TO T HE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 AND THERE IS NO APPEAL PENDING BEFORE US FO R ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04, THEREFORE, WE ARE UNABLE TO ACCEPT TH E CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE BECAUSE THE JURISDICTION OF THE TRIBUN AL IS RELATED TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR FOR WHICH THE APPEAL IS PENDING BEF ORE THE TRIBUNAL. HENCE, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIS MISSED. ITA NO. 1660/MDS/08 11 9. THE GROUND NO.2 OF THE APPEAL IS DIRECTED AGAIN ST THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(A) IN CONFIRMING THE ORD ER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWING AN AMOUNT OF ` 14,500/- AS EXPENDITURE U/S.14A OF THE ACT. LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE DID NOT MAKE ANY ARGUMENTS ON THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THE SAME IS DISMISSED. MOREOVER, IT IS OBSERVED THAT TH E ASSESSEE DID NOT PRESS THIS GROUND OF APPEAL BEFORE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(A) AND THEREFORE, THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOM E TAX(A) HAD DISMISSED THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF ASSESSEE BY TREA TING IT AS WITHDRAWN. THEREFORE, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF AS SESSEE IS DISMISSED. 10. GROUND NO.3 OF THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS DIREC TED AGAINST THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(A) CONFIRMING T HE ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER IN CHARGING OF INTEREST U/S.234D OF THE ACT AT ` 1,94,228/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER CHARGED INTEREST U/S.234D AT ` 1,94,228/-. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED BEFORE THE COMM ISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(A) THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WRONGLY A PPLIED THE SEC.234D WHEN REFUND WAS ISSUED U/S.143(1) IN THE N ORMAL CORUSE. ITA NO. 1660/MDS/08 12 LD.CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS HELD T HAT ONLY WHEN REFUND IS GRANTED U/S.143(1) AND THE SAME IS FOUND TO BE RETURNED BACK TO THE GOVERNMENT ON COMPLETION OF ASSESSMENT U/S.143(3), THE INTEREST U/S.234D IS CHARGEABLE. 11. LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUBMISSI ONS MADE BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(A). 12. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DR RELIED ON THE DECISI ON OF HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF C.I.T. VS. INFRAST RUCTURE DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CO. LTD. [2012] 340 ITR 580 (MD S.) WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT WHEN ONCE THE REGULAR ASSESSMENT IS C OMPLETED AFTER AMENDING THE PROVISIONS OF LAW, I.E. SEC.234D CAME INTO OPERATION, THE ASSESSEE IS LIABLE TO PAY INTEREST ON REFUNDED AMOUNT, AS CONTEMPLATED U/S.234D IT IS NOT THE YEAR OF ASSESSM ENT THAT FALLS FOR CONSIDERATION. IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, THE DATE ON WHICH THE REGULAR ASSESSMENT ORDER HAS BEEN PASSED SINCE REGULAR ASSE SSMENT ORDER HAS BEEN COMPLETED ONLY ON 30 TH MARCH, 2004 AND THE AMENDED PROVISIONS OF LAW I.E. SEC.234D CAME INTO OPERATION ON AND FROM FIRST ITA NO. 1660/MDS/08 13 JUNE, 2003, WHICH IS WELL PRIOR COMPLETION OF REGUL AR ASSESSMENT. CERTAINLY, THE ASSESSEE IS LIABLE TO PAY INTEREST O N THE EXCESS REFUND AMOUNT RECEIVED AND ENJOYED BY HIM ALL THESE YEARS AS CONTEMPLATED U/S.234D OF THE ACT. 13. IN THE INSTANT CASE, WE FIND THAT THE REGULAR ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S.143(3) WAS PASSED ON 01.11.08 AND THE RETURN WA S PROCESSED U/S.143(1) ON 29.03.06 AND REFUND OF ` 55,56,969/- WAS GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE. THUS WE FIND THAT THE ORDER OF LD. COMMI SSIONER OF INCOME TAX(A) IS SUPPORTED BY THE DECISION OF THE H ONBLE JURISDICTIONAL MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF COM MISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT FINANCE C O. LTD. (SUPRA). THEREFORE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY GOOD AND JUSTIFIABLE REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(A) , WHICH IS CONFIRMED AND THE GROUND OF APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS D ISMISSED. ITA NO. 1660/MDS/08 14 13. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS DISMIS SED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 30 TH APRIL, 2012 SD/- SD/- (VIKAS AWASTHY) (N.S.SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER CHENNAI, DATED THE 30 TH APRIL , 2012. K S SUNDARAM. COPY TO: ASSESSEE/AO/CIT (A)/CIT/D.R./GUARD FILE