N.S.P. Knitting Mills, Tiruppur V. ACIT, Tiruppur

ITA 1890/CHNY/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0955 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-01-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2002-2003
• Appeal Filed On: 25-10-2012
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: T N BETGIRI
• Assessee Lawyers: K NAVANEETAN
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 143(3); 80HHC; 234B

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, CHENNAI BEFORE SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 1890/MDS/2012 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2002-03) M/S N.S.P. KNITTING MILLS, 9-A, MGR NAGAR, P.N. ROAD, TIRUPUR 641 602. PAN : AACFN 3729 M (APPELLANT) V. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE I, TIRUPUR 641 602. (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY :SHRI K. NAVANEETAN, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY :SHRI T.N. BETGIRI, JCIT DATE OF HEARING : 22.01.2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 22.01.2013 O R D E R PER ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : IN THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, AGAINST AN ORDER DATED 28.8.2012 OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-I I, COIMBATORE, IT HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- THE APPELLATE ORDER DATED 28-08-2012 OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-II, COIMBATORE IN ITA NO.58-C/2007-08 IS OPPOSED TO LAW AND FACTS OBTAINE D IN THE APPELLANTS CASE. I.T.A. NO. 1890/MDS/12 2 2. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS )-II, COIMBATORE ERRED IN NOT DEALING WITH THE EACH AND E VERY CASE LAWS CITED BY THE APPELLANT IN THEIR WRITTEN SUBMIS SION DATED 24-07-2012. 3. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS )-II, COIMBATORE ERRED IN NOT DEALING WITH EACH AND EVERY REASONABLE AND VALID GROUNDS RAISED BY THE APPELLANT IN THEIR ADDITIONAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL DATED 07.09.2009. 4. FOR THESE AND OTHER GROUNDS THAT MAY BE ADDUCED AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE APPELLANT REQUEST THAT THE APP EAL MAY KINDLY BE ALLOWED BY QUASHING THE AB-INITIO-VOID ASSESSMEN T OF THE LEARNED ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-I, TIRUPUR AND THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)- II, COIMBATORE AND RENDER JUSTICE THEREBY 2. FACTS APROPOS ARE THAT ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT OF TH E ASSESSEE FOR IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR WAS COMPLETED ON 24.3.2005 COMPUTING AN INCOME OF ` 58,34,270/-. IN SUCH ASSESSMENT, BANK INTEREST OF ` 31,92,032/- RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE, WAS CONSIDERE D AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. ASSESSEE MOVED IN APPEAL BEFOR E CIT(APPEALS) AND THEREAFTER BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL, WHERE ONE OF T HE GROUNDS TAKEN WAS THAT NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT 'THE ACT') WAS NOT ISSUED BEFORE COMPLETING T HE ASSESSMENT. THIS TRIBUNAL IN ITS ORDER DATED 30.11.2006 IN I.T. A. NO. 1381 TO 1383(MDS)/2006, HAS HELD AT PARAS 2 TO 7 OF ITS ORD ER, WITH RESPECT TO I.T.A. NO. 1890/MDS/12 3 NON-ISSUE OF 143(2) NOTICE AS WELL AS THE ISSUE REG ARDING INTEREST BEING TREATED AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES, AS UNDE R:- 2. THE FIRST COMMON GROUND RAISED IN I.T.A. NOS. 13 81 AND 1383(MDS)/2006 IS THAT THE CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRM ING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THOUGH NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2 ) WAS NOT ISSUED WITHIN ONE YEAR FROM THE END OF THE MONTH I N WHICH THE RETURN WAS FILED. 3. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, BOTH THE PARTIES HAVE C ONCEDED THAT THERE IS NO PROPER SECTION 143(2) NOTICE TO TH E ASSESSEE IN THESE CASES. HENCE, WE SET ASIDE THIS ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH A DIRECTION TO ISSUE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF THE I.T. ACT BEFORE FINALIZING THE ASSESS MENT. FOR THIS PURPOSE, WE DRAW SUPPORT FROM THE JUDGMENT OF THE H ON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF AREVA & D INDIA LTD., CHENNAI IN TC NO. 2278 OF 2006 DATED 8.11.2006 WHER EIN IT WAS HELD AS UNDER:- SINCE WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THESE ARE ONLY IRREGULARITIES COMMITTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ( I.E.) NOT CONSIDERING THE OBJECTIONS AS WELL AS NOT ISSUING N OTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF THE ACT, BEFORE COMPLETING THE REASSESSMENT, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNA L AS WELL AS THE LOWER AUTHORITIES WITH A DIRECTION TO T HE ASSESSING OFFICER TO CONSIDER THE MATTER AFRESH, PARTICULARLY THE OBJECTIONS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE F OR REOPENING AND ISSUE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF THE ACT, AFTER GIVING OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO RA ISE ALL CONTENTIONS RELATING TO THE REOPENING OF THE ASSESS MENT AS WELL AS THE MERITS AND EVIDENCE, IF ANY, AND PASS O RDERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, AS EXPEDITIOUSLY AS POSSIBLE. AS THE MATTER IS REMANDED IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO ANSWER TH E ABOVE QUESTIONS OF LAW, AS THE SAME IS LIKELY TO ADVERSEL Y AFFECT THE RIGHTS OF EITHER PARTIES. I.T.A. NO. 1890/MDS/12 4 3. THE GROUND RAISED IN I.T.A. NO. 1382(MDS)/2006 IS THAT THE CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ASSESSMENT ORDE R THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS TIME BARRED SINCE IT IS SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE AFTER EXPIRY OF TWO YEARS FROM THE END OF THE ASSESSMENT YEAR IN WHICH THE INCOME WAS FIRS ASSES SABLE. 4. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. AS HELD IN THE CASE OF RMPR V ISWANATHAN CHETTIAR V. CIT IN 25 ITR 79, COMMUNICATION OF THE ORDER IS NOT RELEVANT FOR LIMITATION PURPOSE. WHAT IS RELEVANT IS THE COMPLETION OF THE ASSESSMENT BEFORE THE TIME BARRIN G DATE. THE SAME FINDING HAS BEEN GIVEN BY HONBLE CALCUTTA HIG H COURT IN THE CASE OF BADRI PROSAD BAJORIA V. CIT (64 ITR 362) AN D ALSO BY THE THEN HONBLE MYSORE HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ESTHU RI ASWATHAIAH V. CIT (56 ITR 764). HENCE, IN OUR OPIN ION, THIS ASSESSMENT IS VALID. IN I.T.A. NO. 1381(MDS)/2006, THE ASSESSEE RAISED SIMILAR GROUND. WE REFRAIN FROM ADJUDICATIN G THIS ISSUE SINCE WE HAVE ALREADY SET ASIDE THE ASSESSMENT FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION. 5. THE NEXT COMMON GROUND RAISED FOR ALL THE THREE ASSESSMENT YEARS IS THAT THE CIT(A) HAS FAILED TO T AKE NOTE OF THE BANKS LETTER DATED 29.3.2005 WHICH DETAILS THE MODE OF DEDUCTION AND RETENTION OF PART OF EXPORT SALE RECE IPTS AND ALLOW RELIEF UNDER SECTION 80HHC AS MANDATED BY MADRAS HI GH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. N.S.C. SHOES (2002) (258 ITR 749). 6. AFTER HEARING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, WE OBSERVE FROM THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW THAT THERE IS NO DI SCUSSION IN THEIR ORDERS, THE CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH THE DEP OSIT WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. IF THE FIXED DEPOSIT WAS MAD E BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE PRE-CONDITION BY THE SANCTIONING AU THORITY OF THE CREDIT FACILITIES, THEN THE DEPOSIT HAS DIRECT NEXU S WITH THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE. IN SUCH A CIRCUMSTANCE, IT SHOULD BE CONSIDERED AS INCOME DERIVED FROM BUSINESS ONLY AND THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80H HC APPLYING THE RATIO OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE JURISDICTI ONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. V. CHINNAPANDI (2006) 2 82 ITR 389. I.T.A. NO. 1890/MDS/12 5 7. ON THE OTHER HAND, IF THE ENTIRE INTEREST SHALL BE ASSESSABLE UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCE S, THEN THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION UNDER SEC.80H HC AS HELD BY THE TRIBUNAL CHENNAI BENCH IN THE CASE OF DOLLAR APPARELS V. CIT IN 95 TTJ 615. THEREFORE, WE SET ASIDE THIS IS SUE ALSO TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH A DIRECTION TO VERIFY WHETHER THE DEPOSIT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE WAS MADE I N PURSUANT TO ANY CONDITION IMPOSED BY THE BANK AT THE TIME OF SANCTIONING OF THE FACILITIES FOR BUSINESS PURPOSE WITH REFEREN CE TO THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS LAID DOWN BY THE BANK FOR SANC TIONING THE LOAN/FACILITIES, AND DECIDE THE ISSUE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER AFFORDING THE REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, THE MATTER WAS TAKEN UP ONCE AGAIN BY THE A.O. NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) WAS ISSUED ON 6.6.2007. IN TH E FRESH ASSESSMENT ALSO, ASSESSING OFFICER REFUSED TO ACCEP T THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT DEPOSITS MADE IN BANK WERE FOR SANCTI ONING OF CREDIT FACILITIES. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, HE CONSIDE RED THE INTEREST RECEIPTS ONCE AGAIN AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. 3. THE MATTER WAS ONCE AGAIN CARRIED BEFORE CIT(APP EALS). ONE OF THE GROUNDS TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT THE N OTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2), WHICH WAS ISSUED IN THE COURSE OF F RESH PROCEEDING ON 6.6.2007, WAS BEYOND TIME LIMIT OF TWELVE MONTHS PERIOD PRESCRIBED UNDER THE ACT AND THEREFORE, INVALID. H OWEVER, CIT(APPEALS) WAS NOT APPRECIATIVE OF THESE CONTENTI ONS. ACCORDING TO HIM, NOTICE ISSUED ON 6.6.2007 WAS IN THE COURSE OF FRESH I.T.A. NO. 1890/MDS/12 6 PROCEEDING INITIATED IN PURSUANCE OF THE TRIBUNALS DIRECTION. THEREFORE, ACCORDING TO HIM, VIDE SECTION 153(3), T HE TIME LIMIT AUTOMATICALLY GOT EXTENDED. IN ANY CASE, ACCORDING TO CIT(APPEALS), TRIBUNAL HAD ALREADY HELD THAT NON-ISSUE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) WAS AT THE BEST A PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENT WHI CH COULD BE RECTIFIED. CIT(APPEALS) ALSO NOTED THAT ASSESSEE H AD NOT FILED ANY APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF TRIBUNAL. ASSESSEE ALS O RAISED A GROUND THAT THE BANK INTEREST HAD A NEXUS WITH EXPORT LOAN . THIS WAS NOT ACCEPTED BY THE CIT(APPEALS). ACCORDING TO HIM, ME RE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE BANKER, WAS NOT A CONCLUSIVE ONE. 4. BEFORE US, LEARNED A.R. SUBMITTED THAT CIT(APPEA LS) HAD NOT DEALT WITH EACH AND EVERY CASE LAW CITED BY THE ASS ESSEE AND HAD ALSO NOT CONSIDERED THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDING TO HIM, IT WAS NECESSARY THAT EVERY GROUN D RAISED WAS DEALT WITH. ACCORDING TO HIM, ASSESSMENT DONE HAD TO BE CONSIDERED AS VOID. 5. PER CONTRA, LEARNED D.R. SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF CIT(APPEALS). 6. WE HAVE PERUSED THE ORDERS AND HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. GROUNDS TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE CIT(APPEALS), WERE AS UNDER:- I.T.A. NO. 1890/MDS/12 7 1. THE LEARNED ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CI RCLE I, TIRUPUR ORDER DATED 17.12.2007 U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 25 0 IS OPPOSED TO LAW AND FACTS OBTAINED IN THE APPELLANTS CASE. 2. THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE APPELLANT AS ALSO T HE EVIDENCE TENDERED BY APPELLANT IN THEIR LETTERS DAT ED 20.11.2007 AND 04.02.2007 MAY KINDLY BE READ AS FORMING PART OF TH IS GROUND OF APPEAL SINCE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TOTALLY AND UNJUSTLY IGNORED THEM. 3. THE LEARNED ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX HAS NOT ONLY COMMITTED JUDICIAL IMPROPRIETY BUT ALSO ER RED IN LAW IN REFUSING TO FOLLOW THE DECISION OF THE SUPREME COUR T REPORTED IN (2001) 250 ITR 193(SC) IN THE CASE OF ITO VS. K.L. SRIHARI HUF WHEREIN IT IS HELD THAT: THAT ON REOPENING OF THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ORD ER AND MAKING A FRESH ORDER OF ASSESSMENT OF THE ENTIRE IN COME OF THE ASSESSEE, THE EARLIER ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS EFFACED BY THE SUBSEQUENT ORDER. 4. THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 17.12.2007 IS NON- EST IN LAW. WHILE SETTING ASIDE THE ASSESSMENTS FO R THE ASST. YEARS 1998-99, 2001-02 AND 2002-03 IN ITA NOS. 1381, 1382 AND 1383, THE HONBLE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HAS RULED THA T THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN CONFI RMING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IN THE ABSENCE OF ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S 143(2) WITHIN ONE YEAR FROM THE END OF THE MONTH IN WHICH THE RET URN WAS FILED. SEC. 143(2) SETS OUT THE TIME LIMIT FOR ISSUE OF HE ARING NOTICE VIZ. 12 MONTHS FROM THE END OF THE MONTH OF FILING THE RETU RN. NO RELAXATION IS PERMISSIBLE SINCE THERE IS NO SPECIFI C PROVISION FOR EXTENDING THE TIME LIMIT IN SUCH CASES. THUS THE A SSESSMENT FINALIZED WITHOUT INVOKING SEC. 143(2) IS NOT MAINT AINABLE VIDE THE CATENA OF DECISIONS CULMINATING IN: (2007) 289 ITR 28 (GAUHATI) SMT. BANDANA GOGI VS. C IT (2007) 108 TTJ 998(ASR) ACIT VS. CHOWDHARY MOTOR AGENCY (1005) 198 CTR 490 (MDS) CIT VS. M. CHELLAPPAN I.T.A. NO. 1890/MDS/12 8 5. THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT WAS MADE U/S 143(3) AFTE R ISSUING THE NOTICE U/S. 143(2). HOWEVER, SECOND N OTICE U/S. 143(2) DATED 6.6.2007 IS BEYOND STATUTORY PERIOD NOT PERMI SSIBLE IN THE EYE OF LAW. MORE STRINGENT IS SEC.153 WHICH LAYS DOWN TIME LIMITS FOR COMPLETION OF THE ASSESSMENT U/S. 143(3) VIZ. 2 YEA RS FROM THE END OF THE RELEVANT ACCOUNTING YEAR WHICH IS INFLEXIBLE SU BJECT TO SPECIFIED MODIFICATIONS AUTHORIZED BY THE I.T. ACT. THUS IM PUGNED ASSESSMENT COMPLETED AFTER A LAG OF 31 MONTHS IS NON-EST IN L AW. 6. THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER ERRED IN IGNORIN G, WITHOUT ASSIGNING REASONS, THE SPECIFIC CERTIFICATE BY THE BANK AS TO THE NEXUS BETWEEN THE INTEREST EARNING DEPOSIT AND THE EXPORT LOAN AS ALSO THE DETAILS OF DEPOSITS AND RELEVANT EXPORTS. THE LEARNING ASSESSING OFFICER ERRED IN OVERLOOKI NG THE CRUCIAL FACT THAT THE APPELLANT HAS COMPREHENSIVELY COMPLIE D WITH THE HONBLE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNALS MANDATE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ERRED IN NOT GIVING DUE WEI GHT TO THE BANK AFFIRMATION THAT: YOU HAVE TO MAINTAIN EQUAL AMOUNT DEPOSIT IN ANY OF OUR TERM DEPOSIT SCHEME WITH ANY OF OUR BRANCHES. THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER FAILED TO NOTE THE FACT THAT THE DEPOSITS MATCH THE EXPORTS IN THE MANNER REQUIRED B Y THE HONBLE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL. ASST. YEAR DEPOSITS AS PER BANK CERTIFICATION EXPORT LOAN OBTAINED AS PER BANK CERTIFICATE 2002 - 03 ` 2,54,67,444 ` 2,75,00 ,000 THE ASSESSING OFFICER ERRED IN IGNORING FACTUAL EVI DENCE AND REJECTING THE CERTIFICATE OF BANK WITHOUT ASSIGNIN G REASON AND ON FALSE GROUNDS. 4.1 ADDITIONAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL WERE FILED ON 7. 9.2009 BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH ARE AS UNDER: I.T.A. NO. 1890/MDS/12 9 THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER ERRED IN CHARGING INTEREST U/S.234B,C AND D WITHOUT AFFORDING AN OPP ORTUNITY TO THE APPELLANT VIDE ITA NO.2227/MDS/2007 ASST.YEAR 2003-04 IN THE CASE OF N.S.P. KNITTING MILLS, TIRUPUR DATE D 19.12.2008 PHOTOSTAT COPY ENCLOSED. 2. THE ASSESSED INCOME OF ` 58,34,269 INCLUDES A SUM OF ` 31,92,032 REPRESENTING BANK INTEREST WHICH IS SUBJE CT TO DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE AND HENCE, OUTSIDE THE PURVIEW OF SEC .210. ON THE BALANCE OF ` 26,42,237/- ONLY ( ` 58,34,269 ` 31,92,032) ADVANCE TAX IS PAYABLE. THE APPELLANT HOWEVER PAID ` 2,75,400 AS ADVANCE TAX AND ` 7,74,758/- ON 1.3.2004. TAX ON ` 26,42,237 IS ` 9,43,279 FOR WHICH TAX PAID WAS ` 10,49,758 ( ` 2,75,400 + ` 7,74,758) AND HENCE NO INTEREST IS EXIGIBLE U/S. 234B, C OR D. THE APPELL ANTS GROUNDS OF APPEAL HAS BEEN APPROVED BY THE TERRITORIAL INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHENNAI IN ITA NO.1384/MDS/2006 DATED 20. 11.2008 IN THE CASE OF N.S.P. TEX, TIRUPUR (SISTER CONCERN) PHOT OSTAT COPY ENCLOSED FOR READY REFERENCE. FOR THE ABOVE REASONS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, IT IS RE QUESTED THAT THE INTEREST CHARGES U/S. 234B OF ` 8,43,224/-, 234C ` 37,131 AND 234D ` 6,364/- MAY KINDLY BE DELETED AND RENDER JUSTICE T HEREBY. THOUGH THE CIT(APPEALS) HELD THAT THE TIME FOR COMP LETING THE ASSESSMENT GOT AUTOMATICALLY EXTENDED BY VIRTUE OF SECTION 153(3) OF THE ACT, IN OUR OPINION, VARIOUS GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT BEEN DEALT WITH IN FULL. ASSESSEE HAD RELIED O N MANY DECISIONS OF HON'BLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF ITO V. K.L. SRIHA RI HUF (250 ITR 193), HONBLE GAUHATI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SMT . BANDANA GOGOI V. CIT (289 ITR 28), HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN T HE CASE OF CIT V. M. CHELLAPPAN (198 CTR 490), ETC. SINCE THE ISSUES ARE NOT DEALT I.T.A. NO. 1890/MDS/12 10 WITH BY CIT(APPEALS), WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT TH E MATTER REQUIRES A FRESH LOOK BY THE CIT(APPEALS). WE, THEREFORE, SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW AND REMIT THE APPEAL BACK TO THE FILE OF CIT(APPEALS) FOR CONSIDERATION AFRESH, IN ACCORDANC E WITH LAW. 7. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS A LLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. THE ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON TUESDAY, T HE 22 ND OF JANUARY, 2013, AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD) (ABRAHAM P. GEORGE) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER CHENNAI, DATED THE 22 ND JANUARY, 2013. KRI. COPY TO: (1) APPELLANT (2) RESPONDENT (3) CIT(A)-II, COIMBATORE (4) CIT-III, COIMBATORE (5) D.R. (6) GUARD FILE