Fathima Thanga Maaligai, Karaikal V. ITO, Nagapattinam

ITA 1995/CHNY/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 57982 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-02-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 15-02-2012
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 23-11-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ANIRUDH RAI
• Keywords: Retrospective amendment; Block assessment
• Section: 143(3); 147; 148; 139

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH, CHENNAI BEFORE SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 1995/MDS/2010 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08) M/S FATHIMA THANGA MAALIGAI, 141/1, BHARATHIAR ROAD, KARAIKAL 609 602. PAN : AABFF6602J (APPELLANT) V. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD I(1), NAGAPATTINAM. (RESPONDENT) I.T.A. NO. 21/MDS/2011 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08) THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD I(1), NAGAPATTINAM. (APPELLANT) V. M/S FATHIMA THANGA MAALIGAI, 141/1, BHARATHIAR ROAD, KARAIKAL 609 602. (RESPONDENT) C.O. NO. 24/MDS/2011 (IN I.T.A. NO. 21/MDS/2011) ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08 M/S FATHIMA THANGA MAALIGAI, 141/1, BHARATHIAR ROAD, KARAIKAL 609 602. (CROSS OBJECTOR) V. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD I(1), NAGAPATTINAM. (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SH. C.K.N. RAVISHANKARA PRABHU, CA REVENUE BY : SH. ANIRUDH RAI, CIT -DR DATE OF HEARING : 15.02.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 24.02.2012 I.T.A. NO. 1995/MDS/10 I.T.A. NO. 21/MDS/11 C.O. NO. 24/MDS/11 2 O R D E R PER ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : THE FIRST TWO ARE CROSS APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE A ND REVENUE, WHEREAS, THE THIRD ONE IS A CROSS-OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE, ALL PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. 2. ASSESSEES APPEAL IS TAKEN UP FIRST FOR DISPOSAL . 3. MAIN GROUND TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS APPEAL IS REGARDING THE JURISDICTION OF THE A.O. IN MAKING AN ASSESSMEN T FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR SINCE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) O F INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT 'THE ACT') WAS SERVED MUCH AFT ER THE TIME LIMIT SPECIFIED UNDER THE ACT. 4. SHORT FACTS APROPOS ARE THAT ASSESSEE ENGAGED IN JEWELLERY BUSINESS, WAS SUBJECTED TO A SURVEY UNDER SECTION 1 33A OF THE ACT ON 9.11.2006. A NOTICE DATED 16.12.2008 UNDER SECT ION 148 OF THE ACT, SUBSEQUENT TO SURVEY, WAS SERVED ON THE ASSESS EE ON 17.12.2008. ASSESSEE FILED A RETURN IN PURSUANCE O F SUCH NOTICE ON 31.12.2008. SUCH RETURN WAS INITIALLY PROCESSED UN DER SECTION 143(1) OF THE ACT. THEREAFTER, NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2 ) OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEEON 20.11.2009 POSTING THE CAS E FOR HEARING ON I.T.A. NO. 1995/MDS/10 I.T.A. NO. 21/MDS/11 C.O. NO. 24/MDS/11 3 30.11.2009. ASSESSEE WAS REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNE R SHRI M.A. KHAJA MOHIDEEN ON 17.12.2009 AND THEREAFTER, AN ASS ESSMENT WAS FRAMED UNDER SECTION 143(3) READ WITH SECTION 147 O F THE ACT ON 31.12.2009 WHEREIN, AGAINST ADMITTED INCOME OF ` 1,14,523/-, AN INCOME OF ` 1,23,02,682/- WAS ASSESSED. 5. QUESTIONING THE ASSESSMENT FOR WANT OF PROPER NO TICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) AND ALSO ASSAILING THE VARIOUS ADDIT IONS MADE BY THE A.O., ASSESSEE MOVED IN APPEAL BEFORE LD. CIT(APPEA LS). ARGUMENT OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) WAS THA T NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF THE ACT DATED 20.11.2009 WAS BARR ED BY TIME SINCE IT WAS BEYOND SIX MONTHS PERIOD FROM THE END OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR IN WHICH RETURN FOR IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR WAS FILE D. AS PER THE ASSESSEE, SECTION 292BB OF THE ACT ALSO WOULD NOT V ALIDATE SUCH A NOTICE SINCE ASSESSEE HAD, VIDE ITS LETTER DATED 16 .12.2009, POINTED OUT TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) WAS BARRED BY TIME AND ALSO REQUESTED THE A.O. TO DROP THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THEREFORE, ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE, IT HAD OBJECTED TO THE ASSESSMENT AT THE EARLIEST POSSIBLE INSTANCE ITSELF AND DESPITE SUCH OBJECTION, ASSESSING OFFICER PROCEEDED TO COMP LETE THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) READ WITH SECTION 1 47 OF THE ACT. I.T.A. NO. 1995/MDS/10 I.T.A. NO. 21/MDS/11 C.O. NO. 24/MDS/11 4 ASSESSEE ALSO MADE VARIOUS SUBMISSIONS AGAINST THE ADDITIONS DONE BY THE A.O. LD. CIT(APPEALS) DISPOSED OF THE APPE AL OF THE ASSESSEE, PARTLY ALLOWING IT, BY DELETING SOME OF T HE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE A.O. HOWEVER, LD. CIT(APPEALS) DESPITE NOT ING THE ARGUMENTS OF THE ASSESSEE WITH RESPECT TO ITS OBJECTIONS REGA RDING VALIDITY OF NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF THE ACT, GAVE NO DECISION WHATSOEVER ON THAT ISSUE. 6. NOW BEFORE US, LEARNED A.R. SUBMITTED THAT A REA DING OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WOULD CLEARLY SHOW THAT NOTICE UND ER SECTION 143(2) OF THE ACT WAS SERVED ONLY ON 20.11.2009. A SSESSEE HAVING FILED ITS RETURN FOR IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR ON 31 .12.2008, THE LAST DATE FOR ISSUE OF A NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF THE ACT WAS 30 TH SEPTEMBER, 2009. AS PER THE LEARNED A.R., SUB-SECT ION (1) OF SECTION 148 CLEARLY MENTIONED THAT EVEN WITH RESPECT TO A R ETURN FILED IN PURSUANCE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT, P ROVISIONS OF THE ACT APPLIED AS THOUGH THE SAID RETURN WAS A RETURN REQUIRED TO BE FURNISHED UNDER SECTION 139 OF THE ACT. ACCORDING TO HIM, THE PROVISO TO SECTION 148(1) INSERTED BY FINANCE ACT, 2006 WIT H RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT FROM 1.10.1991 WOULD NOT VALIDATE A DELAYED NOTICE SINCE THE EXPLANATION TO THE SAID PROVISO CLEARLY MENTIONED T HAT IT WOULD NOT I.T.A. NO. 1995/MDS/10 I.T.A. NO. 21/MDS/11 C.O. NO. 24/MDS/11 5 APPLY TO A RETURN WHICH WAS FILED ON OR AFTER FIRST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2005. VIS--VIS SECTION 292BB OF THE ACT WHICH CURED ANY DEFECT IN SERVICE OR NON-SERVICE OF NOTICE, LEARNED A.R. SUBMITTED TH AT THE ASSESSEE HAD CLEARLY OBJECTED TO THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER ITSELF AND POINTED OUT THE DELAY IN SERVICE OF NOTI CE UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF THE ACT. FOR HIS ARGUMENT THAT A NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF THE ACT WAS MANDATORY EVEN UNDER PROCEEDI NGS OF REOPENING RESORTED TO UNDER SECTION 147 OF THE ACT, LEARNED A.R. RELIED ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF ACIT V. HOTEL BLUE MOON (321 ITR 362). 7. PER CONTRA, LEARNED D.R. SUBMITTED THAT APPLICAT ION OF THE PROVISIONS THAT ARE RELEVANT FOR NORMAL RETURNS ARE NOT ALWAYS RELEVANT IN RESPECT OF A RETURN FILED IN PURSUANCE OF A NOTI CE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT. ACCORDING TO HIM, SUB-SECTION (1) OF S ECTION 148 OF THE ACT CLEARLY MENTIONED THAT THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT AP PLIED TO A RETURN FILED UNDER THE SAID SECTION, ONLY IN SO FAR AS O R TO THE EXTENT IT COULD BE APPLIED FOR A RETURN FILED UNDER SECTION 139 OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, ACCORDING TO HIM, SERVICE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 1 43(2) WITHIN THE TIME PERIOD MENTIONED IN PROVISO TO SUB-SECTION (2) OF SECTION 143 WAS NOT MANDATORY. I.T.A. NO. 1995/MDS/10 I.T.A. NO. 21/MDS/11 C.O. NO. 24/MDS/11 6 8. WE HAVE PERUSED RELEVANT ORDERS AND HEARD THE R IVAL SUBMISSIONS CAREFULLY. SINCE THIS ISSUE GOES TO TH E ROOT OF THE MATTER, IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE TO DECIDE IT FIRST. FACTS ARE NOT IN DISPUTE. ASSESSING OFFICER HIMSELF HAS CULLED IT OUT AT PARA 6 OF HIS ORDER THE RELEVANT DATES. NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE AC T WAS DATED 16.12.2008, AND THE RETURN WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSE E ON 31.12.2008. IF THE TIME PERIOD MENTIONED UNDER THE PROVISO TO S UB-SECTION (2) OF SECTION 143 OF THE ACT IS APPLICABLE, THEN THE NOTI CE UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF THE ACT HAS TO BE SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE EXPIRY OF SIX MONTHS FROM THE END OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR IN WHICH THE RETURN WAS FILED. THE FINANCIAL YEAR IN WHICH THE RETURN WAS FILED ENDED ON 31.3.2009. THE SIX MONTHS PERIOD EXPIRED ON 30.9.2 009. THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF THE ACT WAS ADMITTEDLY ISSU ED ON 20.11.2009. IF A NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF THE ACT IS MAND ATORY IN A PROCEEDING UNDER SECTION 147/148 OF THE ACT, THEN S UCH A NOTICE HAS BEEN ISSUED HERE BEYOND THE TIME LIMIT MENTIONED. THE QUESTION THAT REMAINS IS WHETHER IT IS MANDATORY TO ISSUE A NOTIC E UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF THE ACT IN A PROCEEDING UNDER SECTION 147 /148 OF THE ACT. ANSWER TO THIS QUESTION IS GIVEN IN SECTION 148 OF THE ACT ITSELF. SECTION 148 OF THE ACT IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER:- I.T.A. NO. 1995/MDS/10 I.T.A. NO. 21/MDS/11 C.O. NO. 24/MDS/11 7 148. [(1)] BEFORE MAKING THE ASSESSMENT, REASSESSMENT OR RECOMPUTATION UNDER SECTION 147, THE ASSESSING OFFI CER SHALL SERVE ON THE ASSESSEE A NOTICE REQUIRING HIM TO FUR NISH WITHIN SUCH PERIOD, [* * *] AS MAY BE SPECIFIED IN THE NOTICE, A RETURN OF HIS INCOME OR THE INCOME OF ANY OTHER PERSON IN RESPECT OF WHICH HE IS ASSESSABLE UNDER THIS ACT DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR CORRESPONDING TO THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR, IN THE PRESCRIBED FORM AND VERIFIED IN THE PRESCRIBED MANNER AND SETTING FORTH SUCH OTHER PARTICULARS AS MAY BE PRESCRIBED; AND THE PROVISION S OF THIS ACT SHALL, SO FAR AS MAY BE, APPLY ACCORDINGLY AS IF SU CH RETURN WERE A RETURN REQUIRED TO BE FURNISHED UNDER SECTION 139 : ] [ PROVIDED THAT IN A CASE ( A ) WHERE A RETURN HAS BEEN FURNISHED DURING THE PERI OD COMMENCING ON THE 1ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 1991 AND ENDI NG ON THE 30TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2005 IN RESPONSE TO A NOTICE SERVED UNDER THIS SECTION, AND ( B ) SUBSEQUENTLY A NOTICE HAS BEEN SERVED UNDER SUB-S ECTION (2) OF SECTION 143 AFTER THE EXPIRY OF TWELVE MONTHS SPECI FIED IN THE PROVISO TO SUB-SECTION (2) OF SECTION 143, AS IT ST OOD IMMEDIATELY BEFORE THE AMENDMENT OF SAID SUB-SECTION BY THE FIN ANCE ACT, 2002 (20 OF 2002) BUT BEFORE THE EXPIRY OF THE TIME LIMIT FOR MAKING THE ASSESSMENT, RE-ASSESSMENT OR RECOMPUTATI ON AS SPECIFIED IN SUB-SECTION (2) OF SECTION 153, EVERY SUCH NOTICE REFERRED TO IN THIS CLAUSE SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE A VALID NOTICE: PROVIDED FURTHER THAT IN A CASE ( A ) WHERE A RETURN HAS BEEN FURNISHED DURING THE PERI OD COMMENCING ON THE 1ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 1991 AND ENDI NG ON THE 30TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2005, IN RESPONSE TO A NOTIC E SERVED UNDER THIS SECTION, AND ( B ) SUBSEQUENTLY A NOTICE HAS BEEN SERVED UNDER CLAUS E ( II ) OF SUB- SECTION (2) OF SECTION 143 AFTER THE EXPIRY OF TWEL VE MONTHS SPECIFIED IN THE PROVISO TO CLAUSE ( II ) OF SUB-SECTION (2) OF SECTION 143, BUT BEFORE THE EXPIRY OF THE TIME LIMIT FOR MA KING THE ASSESSMENT, REASSESSMENT OR RECOMPUTATION AS SPECIF IED IN SUB- SECTION (2) OF SECTION 153, EVERY SUCH NOTICE REFER RED TO IN THIS CLAUSE SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE A VALID NOTICE.] I.T.A. NO. 1995/MDS/10 I.T.A. NO. 21/MDS/11 C.O. NO. 24/MDS/11 8 [ EXPLANATION. FOR THE REMOVAL OF DOUBTS, IT IS HEREBY DECLARED THAT NOTHING CONTAINED IN THE FIRST PROVISO OR THE SECOND PROVISO SHALL APPLY TO ANY RETURN WHICH HAS BEEN FURNISHED ON OR AFTER THE 1ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2005 IN RESPONSE TO A NOTICE SE RVED UNDER THIS SECTION.] [(2) THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL, BEFORE ISSUING A NY NOTICE UNDER THIS SECTION, RECORD HIS REASONS FOR DOING SO.] 9. THE TWO PROVISOS INSERTED BY FINANCE ACT, 2006 W ITH RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT FROM 1.10.1991 WOULD CLEARLY S HOW THAT A NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) WAS ALWAYS CONTEMPLATED BY THE LEGISLATURE EVEN IN A PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 147/148 OF THE ACT. OTHERWISE, IT WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN REQUIRED TO INTRODUCE SUCH P ROVISOS TO SECTION 148(1) OF THE ACT. NO DOUBT, SUB-SECTION (1) OF SE CTION 148 CLEARLY SAY THAT THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT, WOULD APPLY SO FAR AS MAY BE AS THOUGH RETURN FILED UNDER THE SAID SECTION IS RETUR N FILED IN PURSUANCE OF SECTION 139. WHAT IT MEANS BY THE TERM SO FAR AS MAY BE HAS BEEN CLEARLY LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF HOTEL BLUE MOON (SUPRA). THE SAID CASE INVOLVED A BLOCK ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 158BC OF THE ACT AND THE QUESTION WAS WHETHER A NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF THE ACT WAS NECESSAR Y IN RESPECT OF A BLOCK ASSESSMENT. ARGUMENT OF THE DEPARTMENT WAS T HAT IN SECTION 153BC(B) CONTAINED THE EXPRESSION SO FAR AS MAY BE , AND THE ISSUE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) WAS NOT MANDATORY BU T OPTIONAL, AND I.T.A. NO. 1995/MDS/10 I.T.A. NO. 21/MDS/11 C.O. NO. 24/MDS/11 9 HAD TO BE APPLIED TO THE EXTENT PRACTICAL. HONBLE APEX COURT REJECTING SUCH CONTENTION, HELD THAT IN EVERY CASE WHERE THE RETURN OF AN ASSESSEE WAS NOT ACCEPTED, IT WAS REQUIRED FOR T HE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ISSUE A NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF T HE ACT. HONBLE APEX COURT CLEARLY HELD THAT THE EXPRESSION SO FAR AS MAY BE WAS NOT A REASON TO RESTRICT THE SCOPE OF APPLICATION O F OTHER PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. THE ABOVE DECISION THOUGH GIVEN IN RELATI ON TO A BLOCK ASSESSMENT, WILL IN OUR OPINION, HAVE EQUAL FORCE I N A PROCEEDING INITIATED BY ISSUE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF T HE ACT ALSO. WITHOUT DOUBT, THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF THE ACT W AS ISSUED AFTER 1 ST OCTOBER, 2005 AND THEREFORE, THE PROVISO TO SECTION 148(1) OF THE ACT WILL NOT HELP THE CASE OF THE REVENUE. 10. NOW COMING TO SECTION 292BB OF THE ACT, WHICH H AS BEEN RELIED ON BY THE REVENUE, IT READS AS UNDER:- 292BB. WHERE AN ASSESSEE HAS APPEARED IN ANY PROCEEDING OR CO- OPERATED IN ANY INQUIRY RELATING TO AN ASSESSMENT O R REASSESSMENT, IT SHALL BE DEEMED THAT ANY NOTICE UN DER ANY PROVISION OF THIS ACT, WHICH IS REQUIRED TO BE SERV ED UPON HIM, HAS BEEN DULY SERVED UPON HIM IN TIME IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT AND SUCH ASSESSEE SHALL BE P RECLUDED FROM TAKING ANY OBJECTION IN ANY PROCEEDING OR INQUIRY U NDER THIS ACT THAT THE NOTICE WAS ( A ) NOT SERVED UPON HIM; OR ( B ) NOT SERVED UPON HIM IN TIME; OR ( C ) SERVED UPON HIM IN AN IMPROPER MANNER: I.T.A. NO. 1995/MDS/10 I.T.A. NO. 21/MDS/11 C.O. NO. 24/MDS/11 10 PROVIDED THAT NOTHING CONTAINED IN THIS SECTION SHALL APPLY WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED SUCH OBJECTION BEFORE THE C OMPLETION OF SUCH ASSESSMENT OR REASSESSMENT.] THE PROVISO TO ABOVE SECTION CLEARLY MENTIONS THAT THE SECTION WOULD NOT APPLY TO A CASE WHERE AN ASSESSEE HAD RAISED OB JECTION BEFORE COMPLETION OF ASSESSMENT OR RE-ASSESSMENT. ADMITTE DLY, HERE ASSESSEE HAD BY HIS LETTER DATED 16.12.2009 FILED O N 24.12.2009, AS ALSO LETTER DATED 21.12.2009, POINTED OUT THAT THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF THE ACT WAS BELATED. THEREFORE, SECTION 292BB ALSO WILL NOT AID THE CASE OF THE REVENUE. AS FOR THE ARGUMENT OF THE LEARNED D.R. THAT THE MATTER HAS TO GO BACK TO THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) SINCE HE HAD NOT ADJUDICATED ON THIS PARTICULAR GRO UND OF THE ASSESSEE, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE FACTS BEIN G NOT DISPUTED AND ON RECORD, NO PURPOSE WOULD BE SERVED BY SENDING BA CK IT TO LD. CIT(APPEALS). MORE IMPORTANTLY, LD. CIT(APPEALS) H AD NOTED THE ARGUMENT OF THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD, BUT DESPIT E NOTING SUCH ARGUMENT, HAD NOT GIVEN ANY OPINION OF HIM. THIS B Y IMPLICATION WOULD ALSO MEAN THAT HE HAD REJECTED THE GROUND TAK EN BY THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD. WE ARE THUS OF THE OPIN ION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS TO SUCCEED IN ITS APPEAL. ASSESSMENT FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR STANDS QUASHED. I.T.A. NO. 1995/MDS/10 I.T.A. NO. 21/MDS/11 C.O. NO. 24/MDS/11 11 11. SINCE ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN QUASHED ON ASSESSEES APPEAL, DEPARTMENTS APPEAL IN I.T.A. NO. 21/MDS/2011 AS AL SO THE CROSS- OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE IN C.O. NO. 24/MDS/2011 H AVE BECOME INFRUCTUOUS. 12. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWE D, WHEREAS, APPEAL OF THE DEPARTMENT AS WELL AS CROSS-OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED AS INFRUCTUOUS. THE ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 24 TH FEBRUARY, 2012. SD/- SD/- (GEORGE MATHAN) (ABRAHAM P. GEORGE) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER CHENNAI, DATED THE 24 TH FEBRUARY, 2012. KRI. COPY TO: (1) ASSESSEE (2) ASSESSING OFFICER (3) CIT(A), TIRUCHIRAPALLI (4) CIT II, TIRUCHIRAPALLI (5) D.R. (6) GUARD FILE