M/s. Sical Infra Assets Limited, CHENNAI V. ACIT, CHENNAI

ITA 2088/CHNY/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 64581 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-11-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 16-10-2012
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 20-12-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DR S MOHARANA
• Assessee Lawyers: S SATYANARAYANAN
• Keywords: Business income; Earning of tax free income; Revenue expenditure
• Section: 14A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, CHENNAI BEFORE DR. O.K. NARAYANAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 2088/MDS/2011 ASST. YEAR : 2008-09 M/S. SICAL INFRA ASSETS LTD, SOUTH INDIA HOUSE, 73, ARMENIAN STREET, CHENNAI 600 001. PAN : AAKCS8356A. (APPELLANT) V. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COMPANY CIRCLE-VI(3), CHENNAI. (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI S.SATYANARAYANAN , ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY : DR. S. MOHARANA, CIT(DR) DATE OF HEARING : 16 OCT 2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 22 NOV 2012 O R D E R PER CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST T HE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-V, CHENNAI DATED 30.9.2011 UNDER SEC.143(3) OF THE I.T. ACT IN APPEAL NO.CIT(A )-V/IT ITA 2088MDS/11 2 NO.335/2010-11. THE ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION BEFOR E US IN THIS APPEAL ARE :- I) WHETHER THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IS JUSTIFIED IN UPHOLDING THE VIEW OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT CARRIED OUT ANY BUSINESS ACTIVITY DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO THE ASST. YEAR 2008-09. II) WHETHER THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IS JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWAN CE OF E.62,50,330/- UNDER SEC.14A OF THE I.T. ACT. 2. THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A REGISTERED COMPANY ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF DEVELOPING, IMPL EMENTING AND OPERATING INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS. THE ASSESSEE F ILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 30.9.2008 ADMITTING TOTAL INCOME OF E.1 ,86,158/-, AFTER CLAIMING AN EXPENDITURE OF E.1,47,25,550/- FROM OUT OF E.2,33,68,550/- OFFERED AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCE S. THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER DET ERMINED THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AT E. 2,28,73,781/-. THE A SSESSING OFFICER, ITA 2088MDS/11 3 WHILE COMPLETING THE ASSESSEE, DENIED THE SET OFF O F BUSINESS LOSS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE FOLLOWING THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF TUTICORIN ALKALI CHEMICALS & F ERTILIZERS LTD V. CIT 227 ITR 172) HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT CARR Y OUT ANY BUSINESS ACTIVITY DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATI ON AND THAT THE INTEREST INCOME IS TAXABLE. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSE E WENT IN APPEAL BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). T HE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AFTER HEARING THE A.R. OF THE ASSESSE, CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER SINCE ACCORDING TO THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), THE A SSESSEE EXCEPT REITERATING THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE ASSESSING O FFICER, IT COULD NOT ADDUCE ANY TANGIBLE EVIDENCE OR DETAILS TO SUPP ORT THAT IT HAD COMMENCED ITS BUSINESS ACTIVITIES DURING THE PREVI OUS YEAR RELEVANT TO THE ASST. YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. FURTHER AGG RIEVED, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 3. THE COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS INCORPORATED ON 09.5.2007 WITH THE OBJECT OF BI DDING AND DEVELOPING INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS AS EVIDENT FROM OBJECTS CLAUSE OF MEMORANDUM OF ASSOCIATION. THE ASSESSEE OBTAINED I TS CERTIFICATE OF ITA 2088MDS/11 4 COMMENCEMENT OF BUSINESS FROM THE MINISTRY OF CORP ORATE AFFAIRS ON 14.5.2007. THE COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REFERRING TO PAGE 29 OF THE PAPER BOOK FILED SUBMITS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A HOLDING-CUM- OPERATING COMPANY AS APPROVED BY FOREIGN INVESTMENT PROMOTION BOARD (FIPB) UNIT OF GOVT. OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF F INANCE (DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC AFFAIRS). THE COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSE E REFERRING TO THE APPLICATION MADE TO FIPB AT PAGE 60 OF THE PAPER BO OK SUBMITS THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY BEING A HOLDING COMPANY HAD MA DE INVESTMENTS IN PROJECTS/COMPANIES AT SICAL DISTRIPA RKS LTD., SICAL MULTIMODAL AND RAIL TRANSPORT CO. LTD., SICAL IRON ORE TERMINALS LTD., ETC. THE COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REFERRING TO PA GE 51 OF PAPER BOOK WHICH IS INVESTMENT SCHEDULE IN THE BALANCE S HEET AS ON 31.3.2008 OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY, SUBMITS THAT TH E ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS, IN FACT, GIVEN EFFECT TO THE OBJECTS O F BEING THE HOLDING COMPANY BY ACQUIRING SHARES OF SICAL DISTRIPARKS LT D., DURING THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR 2007-08 RELEVANT TO THE ASST . YEAR 2008-09. REFERRING TO PAGE 68 OF THE PAPER BOOK TO THE APPRO VAL LETTER ISSUED BY THE MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS , THE COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT LICENSE TO OPERATE CONTAINER TRAINS HAVE BEEN TRANSFERRED FROM ITA 2088MDS/11 5 SICAL LOGISTICS TO SICAL MULTIMODAL AND RAIL TRANSP ORT CO. LTD. THUS, THE COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT THE ASSE SSEE COMPANY HAS CARRIED OUT ITS ACTIVITIES DURING THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR 2007- 08 AND HAS SET UP ITS BUSINESS BY VIRTUE OF INVESTI NG IN INFRASTRUCTURE ASSETS AND THAT IT HAS BECOME THE HOLDING COMPANY A S ENVISAGED IN ITS OBJECT CLAUSE OF MEMORANDUM OF ASSOCIATION. 4. THE COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITS T HAT THE OBJECTS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IN ADDITION TO BEIN G A HOLDING COMPANY HAS ALSO TO BID AND INVOLVE ITSELF IN THE D EVELOPMENT AND OPERATION OF INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS. INFRASTRUCTU RE PROJECTS CAN BE OWNED AND OPERATED BY SPECIAL PURPOSE VEHICLES AS T HESE PROJECTS ARE BID ON A REVENUE SHARING BASIS WITH THE GOVERNM ENT. THE COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAD MADE AN APPLICATION (BID) ALONG WITH MCQUARIE FOR S ETTING UP OF CONTAINER TERMINAL BY THE PORT OF ENNORE DURING THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR AND THIS IS EVIDENT FROM THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE ENNORE PORT LTD, WHICH IS PLACED AT PAGE 73 OF THE PAPER BOOK. THE COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT THIS FACT WAS ALSO BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS VID E PARA 5 OF LETTER ITA 2088MDS/11 6 DATED 15.11.2010, WHICH IS PLACED AT PAGE 26 OF TH E PAPER BOOK. THE COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT BY BIDDIN G TO AN INFRASTRUCTURE PORT PROJECT BY MAKING NECESSARY APP LICATION MONEY AND BID BOND CLEARLY SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPAN Y HAD SET UP ITS BUSINESS OF BEING AN OPERATING COMPANY. THE COUNS EL FOR THE ASSESSEE PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. HUGHES ESCORTS COMMUNICATIONS LTD. (311 ITR 253). THE COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT T HE DELHI HIGH COURT HELD THAT THE EXPENSES INCURRED IN THE PREVIO US YEAR PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF BUSINESS, BUT AFTER SETTING UP OF I TS BUSINESS WHICH TWO DATES NEED NOT BE THE SAME, WOULD BE DEDUCTIBLE AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE. THE COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMIT S THAT IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS AND LEGAL PROPOSITION THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS SET UP ITS BUSINESS AND HENCE ELIGIBLE TO CLAIM THE EXP ENSES AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE IN COMPUTING THE BUSINESS INCOME UNDER SEC.28 OF THE I.T. ACT. 5. THE COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITS TH AT THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE MISPLACED THEIR RELIANCE ON THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF TUTICORIN ALKA LI CHEMICALS & ITA 2088MDS/11 7 FERTILIZERS LTD V. CIT (SUPRA) WHILE REJECTING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. THE COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUB MITS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED THE DETAILS OF HAVING BID/SU BMISSION OF TENDER BEFORE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND, THEREFORE, NOT JUSTIF IED IN OBSERVING THAT NO EVIDENCE WAS FILED IN SUPPORT OF THE ASSESSEES CONTENTION. THE COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE PLEADED THAT THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) MAY BE REVERSED. 6. THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, ON THE OTHER H AND, STRONGLY SUPPORTS THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BEL OW AND SUBMITS THAT SINCE THE DEPARTMENTAL AUTHORITIES HAVE DECIDE D THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE FOLLOWING THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE SUPR EME COURT, WHICH IS DIRECTLY ON THE ISSUE AGITATED BY THE ASSE SSEE, NO INTERFERENCE IN THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF IN COME TAX (APPEALS) IS CALLED FOR. 7. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH SIDES, PERUSED THE MATERIAL PLACED BEFORE US AND ALSO THE CASE LAW RELIED ON BY THE PA RTIES. AT THE OUTSET, WE OBSERVE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED A PA PER BOOK CONTAINING 103 PAGES IN SUPPORT OF ITS CONTENTIONS. BUT NONE OF THESE DOCUMENTS APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN EXAMINED BY THE ASSE SSING OFFICER ITA 2088MDS/11 8 AS THE ASSESSING OFFICER SEEMS TO HAVE DECIDED THE MATTER AND ASSESSED THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE RELYING ON THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT . EVEN THE COMMISSIONER OF I NCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS NOT COMMENTED ANYTHING ON ANY MATERIA L FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE PAPER BOOK THOUGH THE ASSESSEE S COUNSEL SUBMITS THAT DETAILS OF HAVING BID/SUBMISSION OF TE NDER HAVE BEEN FURNISHED. IN FACT, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IN PARA 6.1.1 OF HIS ORDER OBSERVED THAT NO EVIDENCE W AS PRODUCED EITHER BEFORE A.O. OR BEFORE HIM IN SUPPORT OF THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT IT HAD SET UP AND COMMENCED THE BUSIN ESS. HE ALSO OBSERVED THAT NO DETAILS OF EVIDENCE OF HAVING BID FOR ANY TENDER FOR ANY WORK HAS BEEN FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE. WE HA VE ALSO GONE THROUGH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND FIND THAT NONE OF THESE DOCUMENTS WERE EITHER REFERRED OR EXAMINED BY THE A SSESSING OFFICER IN HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT COMMENCED BUSI NESS DURING THE ASST. YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. IN THE CIRCUMSTA NCES, WE FEEL THAT THE MATTER SHOULD GO BACK TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FRESH INVESTIGATION AND REDOING THE ASSESSMENT AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER EXAMINING THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE IN THE P APER BOOK. THE ITA 2088MDS/11 9 ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED TO PRODUCE ALL THE NECESSARY DOCUMENTS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 8. THE FACTS LEADING TO DISALLOWANCE MADE UNDER SE C.14A READ WITH RULE 8D OF I.T. RULES ARE THAT THE ASSESS EE CLAIMED E.69.31 LAKHS AS DIVIDEND INCOME EXEMPT UNDER SEC.10 OF THE I.T. ACT AND NO EXPENSES WERE ATTRIBUTED FOR EARNING THIS DIVIDEND INCOME. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WHILE COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT, DISALLOWED AN AMOUNT OF E.62,50,330/- AS EXPENDITURE ATTRIBUTABL E TO EARNING THIS DIVIDEND INCOME FOR THE REASON THAT THE MAJOR ACTIV ITY OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY CONSTITUTES INVESTMENT AND HENCE S UBSTANTIAL MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATIVE COST REQUIRES TO BE A PPORTIONED TOWARDS THAT ACTIVITY. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE WEN T IN APPEAL BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), WHO CONFI RMED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THIS ISSUE MAINLY PLACI NG RELIANCE ON THE SPECIAL BENCH DECISION OF THE ITAT DELHI BENCH IN T HE CASE OF CHEMINVEST LTD. V. ITO (124 TTJ 577) (DEL)(SB). TH E ASSESSEE IS AGITATED AND IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. ITA 2088MDS/11 10 9. THE COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE CONTENDS THAT IT H AD NOT INCURRED ANY EXPENDITURE AND, THEREFORE, THERE IS N O JUSTIFICATION FOR MAKING ANY DISALLOWANCE AND THE CASE LAW RELIED ON BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NO RELEVANCE TO THE FACTS OF THIS CASE AS IN THIS CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT INCURRED ANY EXPEND ITURE IN EARNING THE DIVIDEND INCOME. 10. THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. HE SUBMITS THAT THE CASE LA W RELIED ON BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) SUPPORTS THE A CTION OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IN SUSTAINING THE DISALLOWANCE. 11. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH SIDES, PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AND THE CASE LAW RELIED UPON. RECENTLY, THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF MAXOPP INVESTMENT LTD. V. CIT (347 ITR 272) HELD AS UNDER:- SUB-SECTION (2) OF SECTION 14A OF THE ACT PROVIDE S THE MANNER IN WHICH THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS TO DETERMI NE THE AMOUNT OF EXPENDITURE INCURRED IN RELATION ~O INCOME WHICH DOES NOT FORM PART OF THE TOTAL INCOME. THE REQUIREMENT OF THE A SSESSING OFFICER EMBARKING UPON A DETERMINATION OF THE AMOUNT OF EXP ENDITURE ITA 2088MDS/11 11 INCURRED IN RELATION TO EXEMPT INCOME WOULD BE TRIG GERED ONLY IF THE ASSESSING OFFICER RETURNS A FINDING THAT HE IS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE CORRECTNESS OF THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF SUCH EXPENDITURE. THEREFORE, THE CONDITION PRECEDENT FOR THE ASSESSING OFFICER ENTERING UPON A DETERMINATION OF THE AMOUNT OF THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED IN RELATION TO EXEMPT INCOME I S THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICEF'7'LUSTRECORD THAT HE IS NOT 5ATIS FIED WITH THE CORRECTNESS OF THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF SUCH EXPENDITURE. SUB-SECTION (3) IS NOTHING BUT AN OFFSHOOT OF SUB- SECTION (2) OF SECTION 14A. SUB-SECTION (3) APPLIES TO CASES W HERE THE. ASSESSEE CLAIMS THAT NO EXPENDITURE HAS BEEN INCURR ED IN RELATION TO INCOME WHICH DOES NOT FORM PART OF THE TOTAL INC OME UNDER THE ACT. IN OTHER WORDS SUB-SECTION (2) DEALS WITH CASE S WHERE THE ASSESSEE SPECIFIES A POSITIVE AMOUNT OF EXPENDITURE IN RELATION TO INCOME WHICH DOES NOT FORM PART OF THE TOTAL INCOME UNDER THE ACT AND SUB-SECTION (3) APPLIES TO CASES WHERE THE ASSE SSEE ASSERTS THAT NO EXPENDITURE HAD BEEN INCURRED IN RELATION TO EXEMPT INCOME: IN BOTH CASES, THE ASSESSING OFFICER, IF SATISFIED WITH THE CORRECTNESS OF THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF SUCH EXPENDITURE OR NO EXPENDITURE, AS THE CASE MAY BE, CANNOT EMBARK UPON A DETERMINATION OF THE AMOUNT OF EXPEND ITURE IN ACCORDANCE WITH ANY PRESCRIBED METHOD, AS MENTIONED IN SUB- SECTION (2) OF SECTION 14A OF THE ACT. IT IS ONLY I F THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE CORRECTNESS OF TH E CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE, IN BOTH CASES, THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER GETS JURISDICTION TO DETERMINE THE AMOUNT OF EXPENDITURE INCURRED IN RELATION TO SUCH INCOME WHICH DOES NOT FORM PART OF THE TOTAL INCOME UNDER THE ACT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PRESCRI BED METHOD. THE PRESCRIBED METHOD IS THE METHOD STIPULATED IN R ULE 8D OF THE RULES. WHILE REJECTING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WI TH REGARD TO THE ITA 2088MDS/11 12 EXPENDITURE OR NO EXPENDITURE, AS THE CASE MAY BE, IN RELATION TO EXEMPT INCOME, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WOULD HAVE TO INDICATE COGENT REASONS FOR THE SAME. IT IS, THEREFORE, CLEA R THAT DETERMINATION OF THE AMOUNT OF EXPENDITURE IN RELAT ION TO EXEMPT INCOME UNDER RULE 8D WOULD ONLY COME INTO PLAY WHEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER REJECTS THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD. ON A READING OF THE ABOVE DECISION IT IS CLEAR THAT FOR INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.14A(II) & (III), THE ASSESSING OF FICER HAS TO GIVE A FINDING THAT HE IS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE CORRECTNE SS OF THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT NO EXPENDITURE WAS INCURRED IN THE BU SINESS. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY SUCH FINDINGS AND COGENT REASONS FOR NOT AGREEING WITH THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT NO EXPEND ITURE WAS INCURRED FOR EARNING THE INCOME, THE ASSESSING OFFICER CANN OT INVOKE THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.14A READ WITH RULE 8D OF IT RULES . IN THIS CASE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT RECORDED ANY FINDING AS T O THE CORRECTNESS OF THE CLAIM. THEREFORE, WE REMIT THE ISSUE BACK T O THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DECIDE THE ISSUE IN THE LIGHT OF THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF MAXOPP INVE STMENT LTD. V. CIT (SUPRA), AFTER PROVIDING THE ASSESSEE OPPORTUNI TY OF HEARING IN THE MATTER. ITA 2088MDS/11 13 12. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATI STICAL PURPOSE. 13. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THURSDAY, THE 22 ND DAY OF NOVEMBER 2012 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( DR. O.K. NARAYANAN) (CHALLA NAGENDR A PRASAD) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBE R CHENNAI, DATED : 22 NOVEMBER 2012. JLS. COPY TO:- (1) APPELLANT (2) RESPONDENT (3) CIT-V, CHENNAI (4) C.I.T., CHENNAI (5) D.R. (6) GUARD FILE.