ITO, CHENNAI V. Shri Sayarmal Surana, CHENNAI

ITA 1876/CHNY/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 64645 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-12-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 22-11-2012
• Assessment Year: 1998-1999
• Appeal Filed On: 11-12-2009
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: P RAJASEKARAN
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Bonafide belief; Source of fund; Reasonable cause
• Section: 273B; 143(3); 147

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, CHENNAI BEFORE DR. O.K. NARAYANAN, VICE-PRESIDENT AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NOS.1875 & 1876/MDS/2009 & C.O.NOS. 2 & 3/MDS/2010 (IN ITA NO.1875 & 1876/MDS/2009) (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 1997-98 & 1998-99) INCOME TAX OFFICER, BUSINESS WARD-XII(3) 611, ANNA SALAI, KANNAMMAL BUILDING, 7 TH FLOOR, CHENNAI-600 006. VS. SHRI SAYARMAL SURANA, 75, NSC BOSE ROAD, CHENNAI-600 079. PAN:ADEPS4426R (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT/CROSS OBJECTOR) & ITA NOS.1897 & 1898/MDS/2009 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 1997-98 & 1998-99) SHRI SAYARMAL SURANA, 75, NSC BOSE ROAD, CHENNAI-600 079. PAN:ADEPS4426R VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BUSINESS WARD-XII(3) 611, ANNA SALAI, KANNAMMAL BUILDING, 7 TH FLOOR, CHENNAI-600 006. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY : MR. GURU BASHYAM, JCIT ASSESSEE BY : MR. P.RAJASEKARAN, FCA DATE OF HEARING : 22 ND NOVEMBER, 2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 14 TH DECEMBER, 2012 O R D E R PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM: ITA NOS. 1875 & 1876/MDS/2009 HAVE BEEN FILED BY T HE REVENUE IMPUGNING THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A)-IV, CHENN AI DATED 4.9.2009 VIDE WHICH THE CIT(A) HAS PARTLY ALL OWED THE ITA NO.1875 & 1876/MDS/2009 ITA NOS.1897 & 1898/2009 & CO NOS. 2 &3/MAD/2010 2 APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 271D OF THE I NCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT ) RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 1997-98 AND 1998-99, THE ASSES SEE HAS FILED CROSS OBJECTION NOS. 2 & 3/MDS/2010 FOR THE RESPECTIVE ASSESSMENT YEARS SUPPORTING THE ORDER O F THE CIT(A). THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO ASSAILED THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) DATED 4.9.2009 IN ITA NOS. 1897 & 1898/MDS/2 010 RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1997-98 AND 1998-99 RESPECTIVELY. SINCE COMMON ISSUE IS INVOLVED IN A LL THESE APPEALS AND CROSS OBJECTIONS, THEY ARE TAKEN UP TOG ETHER FOR ADJUDICATION. 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSE E IS AN INCOME-TAX PRACTITIONER AND IS ALSO ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF FINANCING. THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1997-98 ON 13.5.1998 ADMITTING TOTAL INCOME OF ` 45,430/-. THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 143(3) READ WITH SECTION 147 ON 18.3.2003 AND AN ADDITION OF ` 6,09,653/- WAS MADE UNDER SECTION 69A OF THE ACT. ITA NO.1875 & 1876/MDS/2009 ITA NOS.1897 & 1898/2009 & CO NOS. 2 &3/MAD/2010 3 AGGRIEVED AGAINST THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 18.3.2003, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). THE CIT(A) VIDE ORDER DATED 15.5.2008 REDUC ED THE ADDITION FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1997-98 TO ` 2,00,000/-. AFTER THE COMPLETION OF THE REVISION ORDER ON 14.7.2008 P ENALTY PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 271D WERE INITIATED FOR T HE DEFAULT UNDER SECTION 269SS OF THE ACT ON 19.9.2008. THE AD DL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-XII, CHENNAI VID E ORDER DATED 30.3.2009 LEVIED PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271D O F ` 6,00,000/- I.E. EQUAL TO THE AMOUNT OF LOAN OR DEPO SIT ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSEE. ON APPEAL, THE CIT(A) VI DE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 4.9.2009 REDUCED THE AMOUNT FR OM ` 6.00 LAKHS TO ` 2.00 LAKHS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1997-98. 3. SIMILARLY, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998-99 THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME ON 16.6.1998 ADMITT ING A TOTAL INCOME OF ` 48,150/-. THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) READ WITH SECTION 147 OF THE ACT WAS COMPLETED ON 1 8.3.2003 AND AN ADDITION OF ` 28,56,976/- WAS MADE UNDER SECTION 69A OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). THE CIT(A) PARTLY ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ITA NO.1875 & 1876/MDS/2009 ITA NOS.1897 & 1898/2009 & CO NOS. 2 &3/MAD/2010 4 AND SUSTAINED THE ADDITION OF ` 2,34,500/- ONLY. PENALTY PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 271D WERE ALSO INITIATED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE FOR DEFAULT UNDER SECTION 269SS OF TH E ACT ON 19.9.2008. THE ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RA NGE- XII, CHENNAI VIDE ORDER DATED 30.3.2009 UNDER SEC TION 271D LEVIED PENALTY OF ` 19.00 LAKHS I.E. EQUAL TO THE AMOUNT OF LOAN OR DEPOSIT ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE P REFERRED AN APPEAL IMPUGNING PENALTY ORDER UNDER SECTION 271 D. THE CIT(A) VIDE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 4.9.2009 PARTLY AL LOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AND REDUCED THE AMOUNT OF PE NALTY TO ` 2,34,500/- FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998-99. 4. AGAINST THIS COMMON ORDER OF THE CIT(A), THE REV ENUE HAS COME IN SECOND APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IMPUG NING REDUCTION IN THE AMOUNT OF PENALTY. ON THE OTHER HA ND, THE ASSESSEE HAS ASSAILED THE ORDER OF CIT(A) FOR CONF IRMING PENALTY OF ` 2,00,000/- FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1997-98 AND ` 2,34,500/- FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998-99. 5. SHRI GURU BASHYAM APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE REV ENUE SUBMITTED THAT THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS ON ACCOUNT O F UNEXPLAINED CASH TRANSACTIONS WERE INITIATED AGAINS T THE ITA NO.1875 & 1876/MDS/2009 ITA NOS.1897 & 1898/2009 & CO NOS. 2 &3/MAD/2010 5 ASSESSEE FOR THE VIOLATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF SEC TION 269SS OF THE ACT. THE D.R. SUBMITTED THAT FOR THE ASSESS MENT YEAR 1997-98 PENALTY OF ` 6,00,000/- WAS IMPOSED AND FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998-99 PENALTY OF ` 19,00,000/- WAS IMPOSED BY THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TA X, RANGE-XII. THE D.R. CONTENDED THAT UNDER THE PROVIS IONS OF SECTION 269SS OF THE ACT THERE IS NO SUCH CONDITION THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION WILL NOT APPLY TO THE GENUINE TRANSACTIONS. THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 269SS ARE V ERY STRINGENT AND HAS TO BE APPLIED WHERE THE LOANS OR DEPOSITS ARE ACCEPTED FROM ANY OTHER PERSON OTHERWISE BY AN ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUE OR DEMAND DRAFT IF THE AMOUNT OF SUCH LOAN OR DEPOSIT OR THE AGGREGATE AMOUNT OF SUCH LOAN AND DE POSIT IS ` 20,000/- OR MORE. THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO SHOW T HE BONAFIDE CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAD ADVANCED LOAN BY CASH IN EXCESS OF ` 20,000/-. THE LETTER, ON WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS RELIED , IS AN AFTERTHOUGHT AND HAS BEEN OBTAINED TO AVOID PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271D O F THE ACT. THE D.R. SUBMITTED THAT THE AMOUNT OF LOAN WAS ALLE GEDLY PAID IN CASH TO ONE CITY TOWER BENEFIT FUND WHICH IS ITA NO.1875 & 1876/MDS/2009 ITA NOS.1897 & 1898/2009 & CO NOS. 2 &3/MAD/2010 6 GOVERNED BY RULES AND REGULATIONS OF RESERVE BANK O F INDIA. IT CAN NEVER INSIST TO MAKE THE PAYMENT BY CASH AGAINS T THE RULES OF THE FUND. IN ORDER TO SUPPORT HIS CONTENTI ONS, THE DR RELIED ON THE JUDGEMENT OF THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH C OURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SAMORA HOTELS (P)LTD. REPORTED AS 1 9 TAXMANN.COM 285(DEL), THE JUDGEMENTS OF HONBLE MA DRAS HIGH COURT IN KASI CONSULTANT CORPORATION VS. DCIT REPORTED AS 311 ITR 419 (MAD) & P.BASKAR VS. CIT., REPORTED AS 340 ITR 560 (MAD) AND THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF MAHAK SINGH VS. ITO REPORTED AS 127 ITD 1(DEL). 6. ON THE OTHER HAND, SHRI P.RAJASEKARAN APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE ACCEPTED THE AMOUNT IN CASH UNDER COMPELLING CIRCUMSTANCES A S THE ASSESSEE WAS TO MAKE CASH PAYMENT OF LOAN TAKEN FRO M BENEFIT FUND. THE AR REFERRED TO THE LETTER WHICH T HE ASSESSEE RECEIVED FROM SHRI RAJIV PANDE TO WHOM THE ASSESSEE HAD EARLIER EXTENDED FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE. THE LETTER IS PLACED AT PAGE 14 & 15 OF THE PAPER BOOK WHEREIN SHRI RAJIV PANDE HAD REQUESTED THE ASSESSEE TO DISCHARGE HIS LOAN LIABILITY WHICH HE HAD TAKEN FROM THE BENEFIT FUND. IN THE ITA NO.1875 & 1876/MDS/2009 ITA NOS.1897 & 1898/2009 & CO NOS. 2 &3/MAD/2010 7 LETTER SHRI RAJIV PANDE HAD CATEGORICALLY STATED TH AT THE LOAN AMOUNT HAS TO BE PAID DIRECTLY AND IMMEDIATELY IN C ASH TO THE BENEFIT FUND. THE A.R. ALSO REFERRED TO THE ORDER D ATED 15.5.2008 OF THE CIT(A) WHICH IS AT PAGE 8 TO 13 OF THE PAPER BOOK TO SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ABLE TO EXPLAIN SOURCE OF FUNDS. THE A.R. CONTENDED THAT THE CIT(A) HAD ASKE D FOR REMAND REPORT FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSES SING OFFICER IN THE REMAND REPORT HAS CATEGORICALLY STAT ED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED IT PARTICULARS AND ALSO PRODUCED CERTAIN PARTIES IN PERSON TO SHOW GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSA CTIONS. THE AR RELIED ON THE JUDGEMENT OF THE HONBLE SUPRE ME COURT OF INDIA IN THE CASE OF ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INSPECTION (INVESTIGATION) VS. KUM. A.B.SHANTHI REPORTED AS 25 5 ITR 258 (SC). 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY BOTH THE PARTIES. WE HAVE ALSO PERUSED THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND THE JUDGEMENTS/ORDERS REFERR ED TO BY THE REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH THE PARTIES. IT IS AN ADMITTED FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PAID LOAN AMOUNT IN CASH TO T HE BORROWER. A PERUSAL OF THE EXTRACT OF THE REMAND R EPORT WHICH ITA NO.1875 & 1876/MDS/2009 ITA NOS.1897 & 1898/2009 & CO NOS. 2 &3/MAD/2010 8 HAS BEEN REPRODUCED BY THE CIT(A) IN PARA 6 OF HIS ORDER AT PAGE 8 TO 13 OF THE PAPER BOOK SHOWS THAT THE ASSE SSEE WAS ABLE TO FURNISH DOCUMENTS AND WAS ABLE TO SHOW GENU INENESS OF SOME OF THE CASH TRANSACTIONS. ON THE BASIS OF T HE REMAND REPORT, THE CIT(A) PASSED THE FOLLOWING ORDER:- IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, IT IS HELD THAT THE FACT UAL REPORT SENT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER (SUPRA) IS REASONABLE AND IS BASED ON VERIFICATION OF THE RELEVANT DOCUMENTS. THEREFORE, IT IS HELD THAT THE CREDITS EXCEPT THE CREDITS IN THE NAME OF SRI BODULAL NAHATHA ( ` 2,00,000) IN AY 1997-98 AND CREDIT IN THE NAME OF SMT. UGAM KANWAR BHANDARI ( ` 6,09,653/-) IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998-99 HAS NOT BEEN FULLY SUBSTANTIATED BY THE APPELLANT. THEREFORE, THESE TWO ARE TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDITS IN THESE TWO ASSESSMENT YEARS. CONSEQUENTLY, THE ADDITION OF ` 6,09,653/- IN A.Y.1997-98 IS REDUCED TO ` 2,00,000/- AND THE ADDITION OF ` 28,56,976/- IS REDUCED TO ` 2,34,500/- IN A.Y.1998-99. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED ACCORDINGLY. 8. WE UNDERSTAND THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) DATED 15.8.2008 HAS BECOME FINAL AS NONE OF THE PARTIES H AVE PREFERRED APPEAL AGAINST THE SAID ORDER. THE CIT(A) HAS DELETED THE ADDITION OF ` 4,09,653/- FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1997-98 AND REDUCED THE AMOUNT OF ` 6,09,653/- TO ITA NO.1875 & 1876/MDS/2009 ITA NOS.1897 & 1898/2009 & CO NOS. 2 &3/MAD/2010 9 ` 2,00,000/-. SIMILARLY, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998 -99 THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS REDUCED FROM ` 28,56,976/- TO ` 2,34,400/-. THE BALANCE AMOUNT WAS ADMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE AS UNEXPLAINED INCOME AND THE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN UNDERTAKING TO PAY THE TAX DUE T HEREON. THUS, UNEXPLAINED INCOME OF ` 2,00,000/- FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1997-98 AND ` 2,34,400/- FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998- 99 WERE ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF. IN OUR C ONSIDERED OPINION, ONCE THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE AN ADMISSION AN D HAS ACCEPTED THE AMOUNT AS UNEXPLAINED INCOME, THE ASSE SSEE CANNOT ASSAIL THE SAID ADDITION AND THE PENALTY PRO CEEDINGS ARISING THEREFROM. THE DOCTRINE OF ESTOPPEL WIL L COME INTO PLAY AND THE ASSESSEE IS ESTOPPED BY HIS OWN ADMIS SION FROM IMPUGNING THE ADDITIONS MADE AND PENALTY PROCE EDINGS. WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THE APPEALS OF THE ASSE SSEE. THEREFORE, BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE I.E., I TA NO.1897 & 1898/MDS/2009 RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 19 97-98 & 1998-99 RESPECTIVELY ARE DISMISSED BEING DEVOID O F MERIT. 9. THE REVENUE IN ITS BOTH THE APPEALS HAVE ASSAILE D THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) FOR RESTRICTING LEVY OF PENALTY UNDER SECTION ITA NO.1875 & 1876/MDS/2009 ITA NOS.1897 & 1898/2009 & CO NOS. 2 &3/MAD/2010 10 271D TO ` 2,00,000/- AS AGAINST ` 6,00,000/- FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1997-98 AND ` 2,34,500/- AS AGAINST ` 19,00,000/- FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998-99. THE D.R. HAS RELIED ON THE JUDGEMENTS IN THE CASES OF CIT VS. S AMORA HOTELS (P)LTD. (SUPRA), KASI CONSULTANT CORPORATION VS. DCIT (SUPRA), P.BASKAR VS. CIT AND THE ORDER OF THE DEL HI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF MAHAK SINGH VS. ITO (SU PRA) TO SUPPORT HIS CONTENTION THAT FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 269SS ATTRACTS PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271D. THE JUDGEMENT OF THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN SAMORA HOTELS (P) LTD.(SUPRA) AND THE ORDER OF THE DELHI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN MAHAK SINGH (SUPRA) PRIMAR ILY DEAL WITH THE SITUATION WHERE MENS REA OR BONAFIDE BELIEF THAT THE TRANSACTIONS ARE NOT COVERED UNDER SECTION 269SS WE RE PLEADED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE ARE ENTIRELY DIFFERENT FROM THE FACTS OF THE CASE DECID ED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN MAHAK SINGH AND THE HONBLE DELHI HIG H COURT IN SAMORA HOTELS P.LTD. THEREFORE, THE RATIO LAID D OWN BY THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE AFORESAID JUDGEMENT AND THE ORDER OF THE DELHI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL CANNOT BE APPLIED IN ITA NO.1875 & 1876/MDS/2009 ITA NOS.1897 & 1898/2009 & CO NOS. 2 &3/MAD/2010 11 THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT CASE. T HE D.R. HAS ALSO RELIED ON THE JUDGEMENTS OF JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF P.BASKAR (SUPRA) AND KASI CONSULTANT CORPORATION (SUPRA). IN THE AFORESAID CASES, THE AS SESSEE FAILED TO SHOW THE BONAFIDE AND GENUINE REASON FOR TRANSACTING IN CASH IN CONTRAVENTION TO THE PROVISI ONS OF SECTION 269SS. HOWEVER, IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE AS SESSEE WAS ABLE TO SHOW THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION S AND WAS ABLE TO ACCOUNT FOR THE AMOUNT RECEIVED FROM VA RIOUS PERSONS IN CASH. THE CIT(A) IN QUANTUM APPEAL VIDE ORDER DATED 15.5.2008 HAD COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT A P ERUSAL OF THE REMAND REPORT SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD VERIFIED THE DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE AN D THEREAFTER THE CIT(A) SUSTAINED THE ADDITION OF ` 2,00,000/- FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1997-98 AND ` 2,34,500/- FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998-99. THE REVENUE HAS NOT ASSAIL ED THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) DATED 15.5.2008 IN QUANTUM A PPEAL AND THEREFORE, THE SAME HAS ATTAINED FINALITY. IN THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS THE CIT(A) HAS SUSTAINED THE PENALTY TO THE EXTENT OF THE UNEXPLAINED CASH TRANSACTIONS IN THE RESPECTIVE ITA NO.1875 & 1876/MDS/2009 ITA NOS.1897 & 1898/2009 & CO NOS. 2 &3/MAD/2010 12 ASSESSMENT YEARS. SECTION 273B PROVIDES THAT NO PEN ALTY SHALL BE IMPOSABLE ON THE PERSON/ASSESSEE FOR ANY F AILURE, IF HE PROVES THAT THERE WAS REASONABLE CAUSE FOR THE S AID FAILURE. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE ASSESSEE WAS ABLE TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS/EVIDENCE TO SHOW GENUINENESS OF TRANSACTI ON AND THE REASONS FOR TRANSACTING IN CASH. WE DO NOT SEE ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER DATED 4.9.2009 PASSED BY THE CIT(A) AND THEREFORE UPHOLD THE SAME. BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED BEING DEVOID OF MERIT. 10. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED CROSS OBJECTIONS AGAINST THE APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE. SINCE BOTH THE APPEAL S OF THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED, THE CROSS OBJECTIONS FILED B Y THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED HAVING BECOME INFRUCTUOUS. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON FRIDAY, THE 14 TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2012 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( DR. O.K.NARAYANAN ) (VIKAS AWASTHY) VICE-PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER CHENNAI, DATED THE 14 TH DECEMBER, 2012. SOMU COPY TO: (1) APPELLANT (4) CIT(A) (2) RESPONDENT (5) D.R. (3) CIT (6) G.F.