Sri Matha Spinning Mills Pvt Ltd., Tiruppur V. DCIT, Coimbatore

ITA 1845/CHNY/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 64518 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-11-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 09-10-2012
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 14-11-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: T BANUSEKAR

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.1845/MDS/2011 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08) SRI MATHA SPINNING MILLS PVT.LTD., 207, MANGALAM ROAD, KARUVAMPALAYAM, TIRUPUR. PAN:AAECS1881G VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COMPANY CIRCLE, TIRUPUR. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : MR. T.BANUSEKAR, C.A RESPONDENT BY : MR. S HAJI P.JACOB, ADDL. CIT DATE OF HEARING : 9 TH OCTOBER, 2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 14 TH NOVEMBER, 2012 O R D E R PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM : THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IMPUGNING THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A)-II, COIMBATORE D ATED 10.8.2011. 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSE E IS A COMPANY ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURE OF Y ARN AND ELECTRICITY GENERATION. THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS RETU RN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 ON 30.10.2007 ADMIT TING TOTAL INCOME OF ` 1,70,20,240/- UNDER NORMAL COMPUTATION AND ITA NO.1845/MD S/2011 2 ` 4,72,52,760/- UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 115J B. THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE ON 8.9.2008. THE ASSESSING OFFICER VIDE ASSESSMENT ORD ER DATED 24.12.2009 MADE CERTAIN ADDITIONS IN THE INCOME RET URNED BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 115JB. AGGRIEVED AGAINST THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASSESS EE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). THE CIT(A) V IDE IMPUGNED ORDER PARTLY ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASS ESSEE. HOWEVER, THE CIT(A) UPHELD THE FINDINGS OF THE ASSE SSING OFFICER WITH REGARD TO MARKET VALUE OF POWER CONSUM ED AT THE RATE AT WHICH THE TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD (HER EINAFTER REFERRED TO AS TNEB) PURCHASED FROM IT IN RESPEC T OF THE UNITS OF THE POWER GENERATED BY THE UNDERTAKING AN D CONSUMED CAPTIVELY. AGGRIEVED AGAINST THIS FINDING OF THE CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE HAS COME IN SECOND APPEAL BEFO RE THE TRIBUNAL. 3. THE ASSESSEE HAS ASSAILED THE ORDER OF THE CIT( A) ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- ITA NO.1845/MD S/2011 3 1. THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IS CONTRARY TO LAW, FAC TS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND AT ANY RATE IS OPPOSED TO THE PRINCIPLES OF EQUITY, NATURAL JUSTIC E AND FAIR PLAY. 2. THE CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS WITHOUT JURISDICTION. 3. THE CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE PROFITS OF THE ELIGIBLE UNDERTAKING IS TO BE DETERMINED ON THE BASIS OF THE ACTUAL CONSUMPTION PRICE (LANDED COST) OF ELECTRICITY PURCHASED BY TH E CAPTIVE UNIT FROM TNEB. 4. THE CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE APPELLANT HAS ADOPTED THE SALE VALUE OF POWER CONSUMED AT THE RATE AT WHICH IT PURCHASED POWER FROM TNEB IN RESPECT OF THE QUANTITY OF POWER GENERATED BY THE UNDERTAKING AND CONSUMED. 5. THE CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE MARKET RATE IS NOT APPLICABLE WHEN THE RATES ARE REGULATED BY AUTHORITIES LIKE ELECTRICITY BOARD. 6. THE CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE COST OF SAVING OF POWER IS PROFIT DERIVED BY THE WINDMIL L UNDERTAKING. 7. THE CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE TRANSACTIONS BETWEEN THE WINDMILL UNDERTAKING AND THE TEXTILE UNDERTAKING WHICH ARE TWO DISTINCT UNDERTAKINGS ARE AT ARMS LENGTH. 4. SHRI T.BANUSEKAR , APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE AS SESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ELECTRICITY GENERATED BY THE ASS ESSEE CAN BE SOLD EITHER TO TNEB @ ` 2.70 PER UNIT OR IT CAN BE CAPTIVELY CONSUMED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE A.R. POINTED OUT THAT THE ITA NO.1845/MD S/2011 4 ELECTRICITY SOLD TO THE TNEB IS FURTHER SOLD TO THE INDUSTRIAL CONSUMERS @ ` 3.50 PER UNIT. IN CASE THE ELECTRICITY IS CONSUMED CAPTIVELY, THE TNEB GIVES CREDIT TO THE NU MBER OF UNITS PRODUCED/GENERATED AND CONSUMED BY THE ASSES SEE. FOR THE UNITS OVER AND ABOVE THE UNITS GENERATED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE TNEB CHARGES ` 3.50 PER UNIT FROM THE ASSESSEE. THUS, FOR ALL INTEND AND PURPOSES THE M ARKET RATE OF THE ELECTRICITY IS ` 3.50 PER UNIT. THE A.R. IN ORDER TO SUPPORT HIS SUBMISSIONS RELIED ON THE EARLIER ORDERS OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO.850/MDS/2011 TITLED SRI VELAYUDHASWAMY SPINN ING MILLS (P)LTD. VS. DCIT DECIDED ON 13 TH JULY, 2011, ITA NO.569/MDS/2011 TITLED ARUN TEXTILES VS. DCIT DECID ED ON 11 TH AUGUST, 2011 AND ITA NO.1570/MDS/2011 VIKING TEXT ILES P.LTD., VS. DCIT DECIDED ON 30.11.2011 AND VARIOUS OTHER ORDERS OF THE TRIBUNAL DECIDED ON SIMILAR ISSUE. T HE A.R. SUBMITTED THAT IN ALL THE AFORESAID CASES, THE ELEC TRICITY WAS GENERATED BY THE RESPECTIVE ASSESSEES AND SUPPLIED TO THE STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD @ ` 2.70 PER UNIT AND SUBSEQUENTLY THE ELECTRICITY BOARD SUPPLIED THE SAME TO INDUSTRIAL CONSUMERS @ ` 3.50 PER UNIT. THE TRIBUNAL IN THE AFORESAID CASES HAD ITA NO.1845/MD S/2011 5 HELD THAT THE CONSIDERATION FOR TRANSFER OF POWER FOR CAPTIVE CONSUMPTION @ ` 3.50 PER UNIT CORRESPONDING TO THE MARKET VALUE OF SUCH POWER. 5. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE D.R. DEFENDING THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE CAN SELL ELECTRI CITY TO THE TNEB @ ` 2.70 PER UNIT. THERE CAN BE NO OTHER PRICE OR HIGHER PRICE AT WHICH THE ASSESSEE CAN SELL ELECTRI CITY TO ANY OTHER THIRD PARTY AT A HIGHER PRICE. THE DR SUBMI TTED THAT THE TRIBUNAL NEED NOT FOLLOW ITS EARLIER ORDER AS THE S AME DID NOT LAY DOWN PROPER PRINCIPLE OF LAW. TO SUPPORT HIS SU BMISSIONS, THE DR RELIED ON THE JUDGEMENT OF THE HONBLE MADRA S HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. HI TECH ARAI LTD., REP ORTED AS 321 ITR 477 AND THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SUN ENGINEERING WORKS P.LTD., REPOR TED AS 198 ITR 297 AND IN THE CASE OF DISTRIBUTORS (BAROD A) P.LTD., VS. UNION OF INDIA REPORTED AS 155 ITR 120. THE D.R SUBMITTED THAT THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COUR T IN THE CASE OF HI TECH ARAI LTD., (SUPRA) HAS HELD THAT ME RELY BECAUSE A CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL HAD EAR LIER TAKEN A DIFFERENT VIEW, THE TRIBUNAL NEED NOT BLINDLY FOL LOW THE EARLIER ITA NO.1845/MD S/2011 6 DECISION EVEN IF THE EARLIER DECISION DID NOT REFLE CT THE CORRECT POSITION OF LAW. THE DR RELYING ON THE JUDGEMENT O F THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA EMPHASIZES THAT OVER RULING EARLIER DECISION IS JUSTIFIED WHEN NECESSITATED BY PUBLIC INTEREST OR WHEN PREVIOUS DECISION IS MANIFESTLY WR ONG. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY BOTH THE PARTIES AND HAVE GONE THROUGH THE JUDGMENTS/ORDERS REFERRED TO BY THE RESPECTIVE PARTIES. WE OBSERVE THAT THE A SSESSEE CAN EITHER CAPTIVELY CONSUME THE ELECTRICITY GENERA TED OR CAN SELL THE SAME TO THE TNEB @ ` 2.70 PER UNIT. THE ASSESSEE IS REFRAINED FROM DIRECTLY SELLING GENERATED ELECTRICI TY TO THE CONSUMERS. THE ASSESSEE HAS NO OTHER OPTION BUT TO SELL THE ELECTRICITY GENERATED TO TNEB AT THE PREDETERMINED RATES. THE ASSESSEE CANNOT CHARGE HIGHER RATE FROM TNEB. ON TH E CONTRARY, THE TNEB SELLS THE ELECTRICITY PROCURED F ROM THE ASSESSEE AND SIMILARLY SITUATED POWER GENERATING UN ITS @ ` 3.50 PER UNIT TO THE INDUSTRIAL CONSUMERS. THE MAR KET RATE OF ELECTRICITY IS NOT DETERMINED BY THE FORCES OF DEMA ND AND SUPPLY, RATHER THE SAME IS REGULATED BY THE GOVERNM ENT. TNEB WHICH IS A STATE GOVERNMENT UNDERTAKING IS SEL LING THE ITA NO.1845/MD S/2011 7 ELECTRICITY TO THE ULTIMATE CONSUMERS, THEREFORE, T HE RATE AT WHICH THE CONSUMERS GET ELECTRICITY IS THE MARKET R ATE. THUS, IT CAN BE SAFELY CONCLUDED THAT MARKET RATE OF THE ELE CTRICITY IS ` 3.50 PER UNIT. OUR VIEW IS FURTHER FORTIFIED BY THE ORDER OF THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE FOLLOWING CASES:- S.NO. ITA NO. NAME OF ASSESSEE DATE OF ORDER 1. 850/MDS/2011 SRI VELAYUDHASWAMY SPINNING MILLS (P)LTD. VS. DCIT 13.07.2011 2. 569/MDS/2011 ARUN TEXTILES VS. DCIT 11.08.2011 3. 1570/MDS/2011 VIKING TEXTILES P.LTD. VS. DCIT 30.11.2011 4. 1571/MDS/2011 EVEREADY SPINNING MILLS PVT . LTD.VS. ACIT 30.11.2011 5. 1790/MDS/2011 EXCEL COTSPIN (I) PVT.LTD. VS.DCIT 13.01.2012 7. THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO.850/MDS/2011 HAS HELD AS UNDER:- 8. THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY HAS ADOPTED THE PRICE O F POWER AT ` 2.70 PER UNIT IN THE LIGHT OF THE PROVISIONS OF LAW STATED IN SECTION 80IA(8). SUB-SECTION(8) OF SECTION 80IA PROVIDES THAT WHERE ANY GOODS ARE TRANSFERRED TO ANY OTHER BUSINESS CARRIED ON BY THE ASSESSEE OR ANY GOODS ARE TRANSFERRED TO THE ELIGIB LE BUSINESS, IN EITHER CASE THE CONSIDERATION FOR THE TRANSFER RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS IF NOT CORRESPONDS TO THE MARKET VALUE OF SUCH GOODS, THE ITA NO.1845/MD S/2011 8 ASSESSING AUTHORITY SHALL COMPUTE THE ELIGIBLE PROF IT ON THE BASIS OF THE MARKET VALUE OF SUCH GOODS. IT MEA NS THAT SUB-SECTION(8) OF SECTION 80IA DOES NOT ALLOW AN ASSESSEE TO INFLATE THE PROFIT OF ITS ELIGIBLE UNIT BY OVER INVOICING THE GOODS TRANSFERRED OR UNDERINVOICING O F GOODS BOUGHT IN. IT IS A SAFEGUARD AGAINST MISUSE O F THE EXISTING PROVISION. THE ASSESSING OFFICER TOOK THE MARKET VALUE OF THE POWER GENERATED BY THE ASSESSEE AT ` 2.70 PER UNIT AND NOT ` 3.50 PER UNIT AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THEREBY THE ASSESSEE HAS OVERSTATED THE PRICE OF THE GOODS SOLD BY IT SO AS TO BOOST THE PROFIT OF ITS ELIGIBLE UNIT, WHICH IN THI S CASE IS WINDMILL UNIT. 9. THE RULE APPLICABLE IN DETERMINING THE MARKET VALUE IN A SIMILAR CONTEXT HAS BEEN DISCUSSED BY TH E HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MADURAI VS. THIAGARAJAR MILLS LTD., KAPPALUR, MADURAI. WHILE DELIVERING THE JUDGMENT IN TAX CASE(APPEAL) NOS.68 TO 70 OF 2010 DATED 7-6-2010 THEIR LORDSHIPS HAVE HELD AS UNDER:- 9. THEREFORE, THERE IS NO DIFFICULTY IN HOLDING THAT CAPTIVE CONSUMPTION OF THE POWER GENERATED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM ITS OWN POWER PLANT WOULD ENABLE THE RESPONDENT/ASSESSEE TO DERIVE PROFIT AND GAINS BY WORKING OUT THE COST OF SUCH CONSUMPTION OF POWER INASMUCH AS THE ASSESSEE IS ABLE TO SAVE TO THAT EXTENT WHICH WOULD CERTAINLY BE COVERED BY SECTION 80IA(1). WHEN SUCH WILL BE THE OUTCOME OUT OF OWN CONSUMPTION OF THE POWER GENERATED AND GAINED BY THE ASSESSEE BY SETTING UP ITS OWN POWER PLANT, WE DO NOT FIND ANY LACK OF MERIT IN THE CLAIM OF THE RESPONDENT/ASSESSEE WHEN IT ITA NO.1845/MD S/2011 9 CLAIMED BY RELYING UPON SECTION 80IA(1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT BY WAY OF DEDUCTION OF THE VALUE OF SUCH UNITS OF POWER CONSUMED BY ITS OWN PLANT BY WAY OF PROFIT AND GAINS FOR THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEARS. 10. A CAREFUL READING OF THE ABOVE PARAGRAPH BRINGS HOME THE POINT THAT THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HAS LOOK ED INTO THE POINT OF SAVINGS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE BY USING ITS OWN POWER AND THE VALUATION OF THAT SAVIN GS MADE ON THE BASIS OF THE PRICE OTHERWISE THE ASSESS EE SHOULD HAVE PAID. THE RATIO IS VERY CLEAR. THE VALU E OF THE POWER GENERATED AND CONSUMED BY THE ASSESSEE WILL BE THAT VALUE THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN PAID BY TH E ASSESSEE IF THE POWER WAS BOUGHT FROM OPEN MARKET. WHEN THE ABOVE CASE IS APPLIED TO THE PRESENT CASE, THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE HAS TO BE ACCEPTED THAT TH E MARKET VALUE SHOULD BE TREATED AS ` 3.50 PER UNIT OF ELECTRICITY. 11. EXACTLY THIS ISSUE WAS CONSIDERED BY THE DELHI BENCH-I OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VS. JINDAL STEEL & POWER LTD., 16 SOT 509. IN THAT CASE ALSO ONE OF THE ISSU ES RAISED WAS VALUATION OF THE POWER GENERATED BY THE ELIGIBLE UNIT. IN THAT CASE THE POWER GENERATED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS USED BY IT FOR OWN CONSUMPTION AS WELL AS FOR SALE TO THE STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD. THE TRI BUNAL HELD THAT THE RATE AT WHICH THE STATE ELECTRICITY B OARD SUPPLIES POWER TO ITS CONSUMERS IS TO BE CONSIDERED TO BE THE MARKET VALUE FOR TRANSFER OF POWER BY THE ASSESSEES ELECTRICITY GENERATING UNDERTAKING FOR CAPTIVE CONSUMPTION FOR THE PURPOSES OF SECTION 80IA(8) AND NOT THE PRICE AT WHICH POWER IS SUPPLIE D BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE BOARD. ITA NO.1845/MD S/2011 10 12. FURTHER, AS FAR AS CAPTIVE CONSUMPTION OF POWER IS CONCERNED, THE ASSESSEE IS NEITHER SELLING NOR BUYI NG ELECTRICITY. THE QUANTUM OF POWER CONTRIBUTED BY TH E ASSESSEE TO THE TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD CAN BE AVAILED AS SUCH BY TH E ASSESSEE FOR WHICH NO ADDITIONAL PAYMENT IS TO BE MADE. IF THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED ` 2.70 PER UNIT, THE ASSESSEE HAS TO PAY ONLY ` 2.70 PER UNIT. IT IS A KIND OF COMMODITY BANKING, OR IN ECONOMIC TERM, BARTER EXCHANGE OF SAME GOOD. THEREFORE, DEFACTO SPEAKING, THERE IS NO SALE AND PURCHASE. IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES THERE IS NO MARKET PRICE AT ALL. 13. MARKET PRICE COMES INTO PLAY ONLY WHEN THE ASSESSEE IS BUYING POWER FROM THE TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD JUST LIKE ANY OTHER CONSUMER. TAM IL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD IS THE SUPPLIER AND THE ASSESSEE IS THE CONSUMER AND THERE IS NO QUESTION O F COMMODITY BANKING OR BARTER EXCHANGE. TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD SELLS POWER TO THE ASSESSEE IN TH E USUAL COURSE OF ITS BUSINESS AND THE ASSESSEE BUYS THE POWER LIKE ANY OTHER CONSUMER IN THE MARKET. IT IS IN THAT CONTEXT THAT THE QUESTION OF MARKET PRICE ARISES. IN SUCH A SCENARIO WHAT IS THE PRICE COLLECTED BY THE TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD ? THE PRICE IS ` 3.50 PER UNIT. THEREFORE IT IS OBVIOUS THAT THE MARKET PRICE OF THE POWER GENERATED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ` 3.50 PER UNIT. THE EXPRESSION USED IN SECTION 80IA(8) IS MARKET VALUE. MARKET VALUE MEA NS THE VALUE DETERMINED BY MARKET FORCES. IN THE CAPTI VE CONSUMPTION OF POWER GENERATED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY NO MARKET FORCE IS OPERATING. MARKET FORCES COME INTO PICTURE ONLY WHEN THE ASSESSEE BUYS POWER FROM TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD LIKE ANY OTHER CONSUMER. THE VALUE PAID FOR SUCH CONSUMPTION IS TH E ITA NO.1845/MD S/2011 11 MARKET VALUE. IN THE PRESENT CASE THAT IS ` 3.50 PER UNIT. 14. THEREFORE WE ACCEPT THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE AND SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES ON THIS ISSUE. THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY IS DIRECTED TO RECOMPUTE THE PROFIT AND GAINS OF THE ELIGIBLE UNIT FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECTION 80IA ON TH E BASIS OF THE UNIT PRICE OF ELECTRICITY GENERATED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AT ` 3.50 PER UNIT. 8. THE LEARNED D.R. HAS RELIED ON THE JUDGEMENT OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF M/ S. HI TECH ARAI LTD.,(SUPRA) AND THE JUDGEMENT OF THE HONBLE APEX COURT IN M/S. SUN ENGINEERING WORKS LTD.(SUPRA) TO SUGGES T THAT EARLIER ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL NEED NOT BE FOLLOWED. HOWEVER, THE LEARNED D.R. HAS FAILED TO HIGHLIGHT THE ERROR/ MISTAKE IN THE EARLIER ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL OR THE PUBLIC INTERES T WHICH WOULD NECESSITATE US TO TAKE A DIFFERENT VIEW. THEREFORE, THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE JUDGEMENTS CITED BY THE LEARNED D. R. CANNOT BE APPLIED IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PR ESENT CASE. 9. THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE ISSUE WHICH HAS ALREADY BEEN DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNA L. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE EARLIER ORDER OF THE TRI BUNAL, WE ITA NO.1845/MD S/2011 12 ALLOW THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AND DIRECT THE AS SESSING OFFICER TO RECOMPUTE THE PROFIT AND GAINS OF THE EL IGIBLE UNIT FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECTION 80IA ON THE BASIS OF THE UNI T PRICE OF ELECTRICITY GENERATED BY THE ASSESSEE AT ` 3.50 PER UNIT. 10. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS AL LOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON WEDNESDAY, T HE 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.