ACIT, CHENNAI V. M/s. Saipem Aban Drilling Co. Pvt. Ltd., CHENNAI

ITA 2151/CHNY/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 57784 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-01-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 05-01-2012
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 22-12-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: K E B RANGARAJAN JUNIOR
• Assessee Lawyers: T BANUSEK
• Keywords: Depreciation; Difference of opinion; Change of opinion; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 143(3); 244A; 115JB; 147; 148

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, CHENNAI BEFORE SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 2151/MDS/2010 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2003-04) THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COMPANY CIRCLE VI(1), CHENNAI 600 034. (APPELLANT) V. M/S SAIPEM ABAN DRILLING CO. PVT. LTD., JANPRIYA CREST, NO.96, PANTHEON ROAD, EGMORE, CHENNAI 600 008. PAN : AAECS5065L (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI K.E.B. RANGARAJAN, JUNIOR STANDING COUNSEL RESPONDENT BY : SHRI T. BANUSEK AR, CA DATE OF HEARING : 05.01.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 05.01.2012 O R D E R PER ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : IN THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE, IT ASSAILS TH E ORDER DATED 5.10.2010 OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-V , CHENNAI, IN WHICH HE HELD THAT REOPENING DONE FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR TO BE INVALID, AND DELETED THE ADJUSTMENT DONE BY THE ASSESSING I.T.A. NO. 2151/MDS/10 2 OFFICER BY REWORKING THE BOOK PROFIT, SETTING OFF BROUGHT FORWARD DEPRECIATION/LOSS. 2. SHORT FACTS APROPOS ARE THAT ASSESSEE ENGAGED IN OIL DRILLING, HAD FILED RETURN OF INCOME WHICH WAS PROCESSED UNDE R SECTION 143(1) OF INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT). THER EAFTER, THE RETURN WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND THE ASSESSMENT COMPLE TED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT ON 3.3.2006. ON 25.3.200 8, A NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED FOR A REASON THAT THERE WAS ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME ON ACCOUNT OF WRONG ADJUSTMENT OF CARRIED FORWARD BUSINESS LOSS/DEPRECIATION, WHICHEVER WAS L OWER, FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTATION OF BOOK PROFIT UNDER SECTION 115JB OF THE ACT. IN THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE EARLIER COMPUTATION OF BOOK PROFIT WAS CORRECT AND REITERAT ED THE CORRECTNESS OF SUCH COMPUTATION. NEVERTHELESS, THE ASSESSING O FFICER WAS OF THE OPINION THAT COMPUTATION OF BOOK PROFIT UNDER SECTI ON 115JB OF THE ACT WAS INCORRECTLY DONE BY THE ASSESSEE AND ACCORD ING TO HIM, AGAINST BROUGHT FORWARD LOSS OF ` 12,24,86,294/- CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR SETTING OFF AGAINST THE BOOK PROFIT, W HAT WAS ACTUALLY ALLOWABLE IN ACCORDANCE WITH CLAUSE (III) OF EXPLAN ATION 1 TO SECTION 115JB OF THE ACT WAS ONLY ` 4,30,97,010/-. I.T.A. NO. 2151/MDS/10 3 3. ASSESSEE, AGGRIEVED BY THE REOPENING DONE FOR TH E IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR AS WELL AS RE-COMPUTATION OF BOOK P ROFIT, FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE LD. CIT(APPEALS). ARGUMENT OF THE AS SESSEE BEFORE LD. CIT(APPEALS) WAS THAT ALONG WITH ITS COMPUTATION, I T HAD FILED DETAILED WORKING OF THE BOOK PROFIT UNDER SECTION 115JB AND AUDIT REPORT IN FORM 29B FROM STATUTORY AUDITORS. ONCE, ACCORDING TO ASSESSEE, THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BASED ON SUCH WORKING OF THE BOOK PROFIT, THE REOPENING N OW DONE WAS ONLY ON A CHANGE OF OPINION. AS PER THE ASSESSEE, ALL THE FACTS RELEVANT TO THE COMPUTATION WERE AVAILABLE BEFORE ASSESSING OFF ICER AND ASSESSING OFFICER HAVING PASSED A SPEAKING ORDER W ITHOUT ANY FRESH MATERIAL ON RECORD, INVOKING SECTION 147 OF THE ACT WAS UNCALLED FOR. RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE DECISION OF HON'BLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. KELVINATOR OF INDIA LTD. (320 ITR 56 1) WHICH, ACCORDING TO HIM, UPHELD THE DECISION OF FULL BENCH OF DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. KELVINATOR OF INDIA LTD. (256 ITR 1) . LD. CIT(APPEALS) WAS APPRECIATIVE OF THESE CONTENTIONS. ACCORDING T O HIM, ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE DOING ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) ORIGINALLY, WAS HAVING ALL THE MATERIAL WITH REGARD TO COMPUTATION OF BOOK PROFIT UNDER SECTION 115JB OF THE ACT AND BY REOPENING, HE WAS O NLY ATTEMPTING TO I.T.A. NO. 2151/MDS/10 4 DO A REVIEW OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. LD. CIT(APPEA LS) HELD THAT A REOPENING COULD NOT BE DONE ON CHANGE OF MIND, WHE N THE PRIMARY FACTS WERE ALREADY BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. I T WAS ALSO HELD BY LD. CIT(APPEALS) THAT THE ADJUSTMENT SPECIFIED IN C LAUSE (III) OF EXPLANATION 1 TO SECTION 115JB WAS CORRECTLY DONE B Y THE ASSESSEE IN SO FAR AS SETTING OFF OF CARRIED BUSINESS LOSS/D EPRECIATION WAS CONCERNED. ACCORDING TO HIM, THE POSITION AS ON A PARTICULAR DATE COULD NOT BE ASSUMED TO BE STATIC AND NO METHODOLOG Y OR MODE OF ADJUSTMENT, THAT WAS TO BE FOLLOWED WAS PRESCRIBED FOR CALCULATING THE UNADJUSTED CARRIED FORWARD LOSSES/DEPRECIATION REMA INING, AFTER SET- OFF PERTAINING TO YEARS PRIOR TO THAT. ACCORDING TO HIM, THE METHOD OF ADJUSTMENT DONE BY THE ASSESSEE WHILE COMPUTING THE BOOK PROFIT TO ABSORB EARLIER BUSINESS LOSS/DEPRECIATION COULD NOT BE BRUSHED ASIDE, WITHOUT POINTING OUT ANY SPECIFIC MISTAKE THEREIN. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD REWORKED THE BROUGHT FORWARD LOSS/DEPRE CIATION FOR ADJUSTMENT WITHOUT SHOWING WHERE THE ASSESSEE WENT WRONG IN THE METHODOLOGY ADOPTED BY IT. HE, THEREFORE, HELD THA T ON MERITS ALSO ASSESSEE WAS TO SUCCEED. 4. NOW BEFORE US, LEARNED D.R., STRONGLY ASSAILING THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(APPEALS), SUBMITTED THAT WHEN ORIGINAL ASSESSME NT WAS DONE BY I.T.A. NO. 2151/MDS/10 5 THE ASSESSING OFFICER, HE HAD NOT APPLIED HIS MIND TO THE COMPUTATION OF BOOK PROFIT UNDER SECTION 115JB OF THE ACT. ACC ORDING TO HIM, ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT PLACED AT PAPER-BOOK PAGES 18 T O 23 CLEARLY SHOWED THAT THIS ISSUE WAS NOT AT ALL CONSIDERED. ACCORDING TO THE LEARNED D.R., ASSESSEE HAD NOT PRODUCED ANY EVIDENC E TO INDICATE THAT THE ISSUE REGARDING CALCULATION OF BOOK PROFIT UNDER SECTION 115JB MAT WAS EVER CONSIDERED IN THE ORIGINAL ASSES SMENT PROCEEDINGS. WHEN THERE WAS NO DISCUSSION ON THE I SSUE IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND WHEN NO DETAILS WERE CALLED FO R BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE COURSE OF ORIGINAL ASS ESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THERE WAS NO OPINION EVER FORMED AND H ENCE, THERE COULD BE NO QUESTION OF CHANGE OF OPINION. AS PER T HE D.R., THERE WAS NO OPINION FORMED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE F IRST PLACE AND THEREFORE, DECISIONS RELIED ON BY LD. CIT(APPEALS) FOR HOLDING THAT REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WERE INITIATED SIMPLY ON C HANGE OF OPINION, WAS INCORRECT. ACCORDING TO LEARNED D.R., CLAUSE (III) OF EXPLANATION 1 TO SECTION 115JB OF THE ACT WAS NOT C ORRECTLY APPLIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT . ASSESSEE HAD IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01 ITSELF ADJUSTED SUBSTANTIAL PART OF ITS BOOK LOSSES EXCLUDING DEPRECIATION AND LATER IN ASSESSME NT YEAR 2002-03 I.T.A. NO. 2151/MDS/10 6 ALSO SUBSTANTIAL PART OF BOOK LOSSES WERE ADJUSTED AGAINST THE BOOK PROFITS. THE RESULT, THEREFORE WAS, THAT THERE WAS A SUBSTANTIAL DEDUCTION IN BOOK LOSS WITHOUT CONSIDERING DEPRECIA TION AND FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR, SUCH CARRIED FORWARD BOOK LOSS WAS MUCH LESSER THAN THE CARRIED FORWARD DEPRECIATION. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT COMPLETED IGNORE D THIS ASPECT AND ACCEPTED WHATEVER WAS COMPUTED BY THE ASSESSEE IN I TS COMPUTATION OF INCOME, AND THIS CLEARLY DEMONSTRATED NON-APPLIA NCE OF MIND. 5. AD LIBITUM REPLY OF THE LEARNED A.R. WAS THAT TH E ISSUE WAS COVERED BY THE DECISION OF HON'BLE APEX COURT IN TH E CASE OF KELVINATOR OF INDIA LTD. (SUPRA). ACCORDING TO HIM , THE ASSESSING OFFICER CLEARLY GAVE THE COMPUTATION OF BOOK PROFIT UNDER SECTION 115JB OF THE ACT IN THE ASSESSMENT DONE UNDER SECTI ON 143(3) OF THE ACT AND IT WOULD BE NAVE TO ARGUE THAT THERE WAS N O APPLICATION OF MIND. ESPECIALLY SO, WHEN ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN THE WORKING OF BOOK PROFIT IN ITS ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME AS WELL AS IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME ALONG WITH AUDIT REPORTS CERTIFIED BY THE ST ATUTORY AUDITORS. 6. IN HIS REJOINDER, LEARNED D.R. ONCE AGAIN SUBMIT TED THAT THE REOPENING WAS VALID. RELYING ON THE DECISION OF A C O-ORDINATE BENCH I.T.A. NO. 2151/MDS/10 7 OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF LAKSHMI MACHINE WOR KS LTD. V. ACIT (126 ITD 343), HE ARGUED THAT INCORRECT COMPUTATION OF BROUGHT FORWARD LOSS/DEPRECIATION FOR APPLICATION OF CLAUSE (III) OF EXPLANATION 1 TO SECTION 115JB WAS A RELEVANT REASON FOR REOPEN ING OF THE ASSESSMENT WITHIN FOUR YEARS FROM THE END OF THE AS SESSMENT YEAR AND HERE, IN THIS CASE, THE REOPENING WAS WELL WITH IN THE TIME-FRAME OF FOUR YEARS. RELIANCE WAS ALSO PLACED ON THE FOL LOWING DECISIONS:- 1. KALYANJI MAVJI & CO. V. CIT (SC) 102 ITR 287 2. ESS KAY ENGINEERING CO. (P) LTD. V. CIT (SC) 247 IT R 818 3. REVATHY C.P. EQUIPMENT S LTD. V. DCIT & ORS. (MAD) 241 ITR 856 4. A.L.A. FIRM V. CIT (MAD) 102 I TR 622 5. ITO V. PURUSHOTTAM DAS BANGUR & ANR. (SC) 224 ITR 3 62 6. FAMILY OF V.A.M. SANKARALINGA NADAR V. CIT (MAD) 48 ITR 314 7. INDO - ADEN SALT MFG.& TRADING CO. P. LTD. V. CIT (SC) 159 ITR 624 8. ACIT V. MAHINDRA HOLIDAYS & RESORTS (INDIA) LTD. (I TAT , SB - CHENNAI) 3 ITR (TRIB) 600 7. ISSUE ON MERITS WILL BECOME RELEVANT ONLY AFTER DEALING WITH THE DISPUTE REGARDING JURISDICTIONAL ASPECT OF THE REOP ENING. THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT THE REOPENING WAS WITHIN FOUR YEARS AN D THEREFORE, FIRST PROVISO TO SECTION 147 HAD NO APPLICATION. THE ARG UMENT OF THE REVENUE IS THAT IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDI NGS, THERE WAS NO APPLICATION OF MIND WHATSOEVER BY THE ASSESSING OFF ICER WITH REGARD TO COMPUTATION OF BOOK PROFIT FOR THE PURPOSE OF MA T LEVY AND THEREFORE, NO QUESTION OF ANY CHANGE OF OPINION AT ALL. IN OUR OPINION, I.T.A. NO. 2151/MDS/10 8 IF IT CAN BE ESTABLISHED THAT A REOPENING WAS DONE ON THE BASIS OF A CHANGE OF OPINION, WITH REFERENCE TO THE ORIGINAL A SSESSMENT DONE BY THE A.O. UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT, EVEN IF S UCH REOPENING WAS DONE WITHIN FOUR YEARS, IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF HON'BLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF KELVINATOR OF INDIA LTD. (SUPRA), IT CAN NOT BE UPHELD. IN THAT CASE ALSO A REOPENING WAS RESORTED TO WITHIN 4 YEARS AND THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT WAS DONE U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT. NO DOUBT, IT WAS HELD BY CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE C ASE OF LAKSHMI MACHINE WORKS LTD. (SUPRA) THAT A WRONG COMPUTATION OF CARRIED FORWARD BUSINESS LOSS/DEPRECIATION UNDER CLAUSE (II I) OF EXPLANATION 1 TO SECTION 115JB WAS A RELEVANT REASON FOR REOPENIN G OF ASSESSMENT AT THAT POINT OF TIME. WHEN THE TRIBUNAL WAS DECID ING THE CASE OF LAKSHMI MACHINE WORKS LTD. (SUPRA), THE DECISION OF HON'BLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF KELVINATOR OF INDIA LTD. (SUPR A) WAS NOT AVAILABLE. THE DECISION OF HON'BLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF K ELVINATOR OF INDIA LTD. (SUPRA) WAS DATED 18 TH JANUARY, 2010, WHEREAS, THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL GAVE ITS DECISION IN THE CAS E OF LAKSHMI MACHINE WORKS LTD. (SUPRA) ON 27 TH MARCH, 2009. SO, ONCE HON'BLE APEX COURT AFFIRMED THE DECISION OF FULL BENCH OF D ELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF KELVINATOR OF INDIA LTD. (SUPRA), WE HA VE TO DECIDE THE I.T.A. NO. 2151/MDS/10 9 ISSUE BASED ON THE LAW LAID DOWN BY THE FULL BENCH OF DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF KELVINATOR OF INDIA LTD. (SUPR A). NOW, COMING TO THE FACTS RELEVANT TO THE CASE IN HAND, UNDISPUTEDL Y, ASSESSEE HAD IN ITS COMPUTATION OF INCOME GIVEN THE WORK-OUT OF BOO K PROFIT UNDER SECTION 115JB OF THE ACT AND A COPY OF THIS, WHICH IS PLACED DEPARTMENTS PAPER-BOOK PAGE NO.12 CLEARLY DEMONSTR ATES THAT THE CLAIM OF SET OFF BOOK LOSS ` 122,486,294/- WAS ARRIVED AT BASED ON A BREAK-UP FOR VARIOUS YEARS PRIOR TO THAT, IN WHICH ASSESSEE HAD CONSIDERED BOOK LOSS BEFORE DEPRECIATION AND AFTER DEPRECIATION. IT WAS ALSO STATED IN SUCH COMPUTATION THAT IT WAS DON E IN LINE WITH GUIDANCE NOTE ON SECTION 115JB ISSUED BY INSTITUTE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS OF INDIA. IT IS ALSO NOT DISPUTED THAT ASSESSEE HAD FILED AUDIT REPORT IN FORM NO.29B IN SUPPORT OF SUCH COM PUTATION. NOW, IF WE HAVE A LOOK AT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 3.3.20 06, IN THE LAST PAGE OF THE ORDER, UNDER THE SIGNATURE OF THE ASSES SING OFFICER, A COMPUTATION AS PER SECTION 115JB HAS BEEN GIVEN AN D THIS IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER FOR BREVITY:- I.T.A. NO. 2151/MDS/10 10 COMPUTATION AS PER SECTION 115JB BOOK PROFIT 3,35,61,594 TAX @ 7.5% OF THE ABOVE S.C 25,17,120 __1,25,856 26,42,976 TDS A.T 4,71,677 58,00,000 62,71,677 INTEREST U/S 234C CHARGEABLE 36,28,701 __48,855 ADD: INT. U/S 244A 35,79,846 _2,49,154 38,29,000 LESS: REFUND DETERMINED AS PER ORDER U/S 143(1) DT 16/03/04 38,29,000 NIL 8. ASSESSEE HAVING FILED THE DETAILS OF THE COMPUTA TION OF BOOK PROFIT U/S.115JB AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAVING H IMSELF PREPARED A COMPUTATION AND MADE IT A PART OF ASSESSMENT ORDER, IT WILL NOT BE POSSIBLE TO SAY THAT THERE WAS NO APPLICATION OF MI ND BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE REASON WHY WE CAN SAY SO IS CLEAR FROM THE DECISION OF HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN KELVINATOR OF INDIA LTD.S CASE. IT IS CLEARLY MENTIONED THEREIN THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER CAN BE PRESUMED TO HAVE APPLIED HIS MIND AND FORMED AN OPI NION, AS PER SECTION 114(E) OF EVIDENCE ACT, EVEN WHERE NO SPECI FIC REFERENCE TO THE POINT OF ENQUIRY WAS THERE IN THE ASSESSMENT OR DER. IT IS ALSO OBSERVED BY THEIR LORDSHIPS THAT NO REASON WAS NECE SSARY TO SPECIFY WHY A PARTICULAR AMOUNT WAS ALLOWED. ASSESSING OFF ICER HAVING I.T.A. NO. 2151/MDS/10 11 HIMSELF SET OUT THE COMPUTATION U/S.115JB IN HIS A SSESSMENT ORDER, AND ASSESSEE HAVING GIVEN BREAK-UP OF CARRIED FORWA RD LOSSES/DEPRECIATION, ALONG WITH ITS RETURN, AND THA T TOO ALONG WITH AN AUDIT REPORT, IN OUR OPINION, APPLICATION OF MIND B Y THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS PREGNANT. JUST BECAUSE THERE WAS NO DI SCUSSION ON SUCH COMPUTATION IN THE BODY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER, WE CAN NOT COME TO A CONCLUSION THAT THERE WAS NO APPLICATION OF MIND BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. VARIOUS DECISIONS RELIED ON BY THE LEARNED D.R. IN THIS REGARD PALE INTO INSIGNIFICANCE IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF HON'BLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF KELVINATOR OF INDIA LTD. (SUPRA), WH ICH AFFIRMED THE FULL BENCH DECISION OF HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT DECISION IN THE SAME CASE. 9. AS ALREADY MENTIONED BY US, SO FAR AS DECISION O F LAKSHMI MACHINE WORKS LTD. (SUPRA) OF CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL RELIED ON BY LEARNED D.R. IS CONCERNED, IT WAS GIVE N PRIOR TO THE DATE ON WHICH THE APEX COURT RENDERED THEIR DECISION IN THE CASE OF KELVINATOR OF INDIA LTD. (SUPRA). NOTHING HAS BEEN BROUGHT BEFORE US TO SHOW THAT ANY NEW MATERIAL CAME INTO THE POSSESS ION OR ANY TANGIBLE EVIDENCE WAS AVAILABLE WITH ASSESSING OFFI CER WHICH WAS NOT AVAILABLE AT THE TIME OF ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS THAT COULD THROW LIGHT ON I.T.A. NO. 2151/MDS/10 12 ANY ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMEN T YEAR. THEREFORE, IN OUR OPINION, LD. CIT(APPEALS) WAS COR RECT IN HOLDING THAT REOPENING DONE WAS INVALID. SINCE WE HAVE AFFIRMED THE DECISION OF LD.C.I.T.(A) WITH REGARD TO JURISDICTIONAL ASPECT, THE MERITS OF THE ADJUSTMENT WHICH ALSO HAS BEEN DECIDED BY LD. CIT(A PPEALS) IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE, IS NOT ADJUDICATED. 10. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE STAN DS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT AFTER CONCLUSION OF HEARING ON 5 TH JANUARY, 2012. SD/- SD/- (GEORGE MATHAN) (ABRAHAM P. GEORGE) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER CHENNAI, DATED THE 5 TH JANUARY, 2012. KRI. COPY TO: (1) APPELLANT (2) RESPONDENT (3) CIT(A)-V, CHENNAI-34 (4) CIT, CHENNAI-III, CHENNAI (5) D.R. (6) GUARD FILE