SCM Microsystems (India) Pvt Limited, CHENNAI V. ACIT, CHENNAI

ITA 2156/CHNY/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 58007 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-03-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 08-03-2012
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 23-12-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A C JOSEPH JT
• Keywords: Transfer pricing; Opportunity of being heard; International transaction; Competent authority
• Section: 92C; 10B

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH : CHENNAI [BEFORE SHRI N.S. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER] I.T.A.NO.2156/MDS/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07 M/S SCM MICROSYSTEMS (INDIA) PVT. LTD BHAWAN IT PARK 4 TH FLOOR, EAST WING NO.148, RAJIV GANDHI SALAI (OMR) OKKIYAM THORAIPAKKAM CHENNAI 600 097 [PAN AABCS 3064 Q] VS THE ACIT COMPANY CIRCLE VI(1) CHENNAI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI S.P.CHIDAMBARAM RESPONDENT BY : SHRI A.C.JOSEPH, JT. CIT DATE OF HEARING : 08-03-2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 08-03-2012 O R D E R PER N.S. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSES SEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF DISPUTE RESOLUTION PANEL (DRP) CHENNAI, DATED 17.9. 2010. 2. IN GROUND NOS. 1 TO 5 OF THE APPEAL, THE ASSES SEE HAS CHALLENGED THE DIRECTION OF THE DRP FOR ADDING A SU M OF ` 30,03,273/- TO THE TOTAL INCOME BASED ON THE TRANSFER PRICING O FFICERS (TPO)ORDER. I.T.A.NO.2156/10 :- 2 -: 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSES SEE HAS ADOPTED TRANSACTIONAL NET MARGIN METHOD (TNMM) TO DETERMINE THE ARMS LENGTH PRICE (ALP). ON EXAMINATION OF THE SERVICE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND THE AE, M/S SCM MICRO SYSTEM (ASI A) PTE. LTD., SINGAPORE, THE TPO WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESS EES SERVICE INCOME SHOULD BE RECEIVED AT ` 11,52,60,199/- IN PLACE OF ` 11,22,56,926/-. THE ASSESSEE ARGUED BEFORE THE TP O THAT THE MARK UP ON COST OF THE COMPANY IS MORE THAN THAT OF THE COMPARABLE COMPANIES, THE TRANSACTIONS ENTERED INTO BY THE COM PANY WITH THE AE IS AT ARMS LENGTH AND THEREFORE, NO ADJUSTMENT WAS REQUIRED. ACCORDING TO THE TPO, WHEN THE ASSESSEE IS ABLE TO ULTIMATELY COLLECT REVENUE WITH REASONABLE CERTAINTY, THERE IS NO NEED TO POSTPONE THE RECOGNITION OF REVENUE. THE TPO WAS ALSO OF THE VI EW THAT THERE WAS NO RISK TO REVENUE RECOGNITION, THEREFORE, THE ASS ESSEES NOT RECOGNIZING THE REVENUE DURING THE RELEVANT FINANCI AL YEAR WAS NOT ACCEPTABLE. ACCORDING TO THE TPO, THE JUSTIFICATIO N OF THE ASSESSEE IN ADOPTING TNMM AS THE MAM FOR ARRIVING AT ALP WAS NO T CORRECT. WHEN THERE WAS A SPECIFIC COST PLUS AGREEMENT WITH AE, T HE ASSESSEE WAS DUTY BOUND TO COMPLY WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE AGR EEMENT TO ARRIVE AT THE VALUE OF INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS BEFORE DETE RMINING THE ALP OF SUCH TRANSACTIONS. ACCORDINGLY, THE TPO RECOMMENDE D AN UPWARD ADJUSTMENT OF ` 30,03,272/-. THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE I.T.A.NO.2156/10 :- 3 -: ADJUSTMENT RECOMMENDED BY THE TPO BEFORE THE DRP BY FILING WRITTEN SUBMISSION VIDE LETTER DATED 21.7.2010. THE DRP, T HEREAFTER, ADJUDICATED THE ISSUE BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: 4 . 4 WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND ARGUMENTS MADE ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. IN T HIS CASE THE ASSESSEE HAS ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT WIT H THE AE IN WHICH THERE IS A SPECIFIC COST PLUS CLAUSE TH EREFORE, THE ASSESSEE'S INSISTING ON ADOPTING TNMM AS THE MAM IS NOT PROPER. THERE IS NO MER I T IN THE ARGUMENT MADE ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE SERVICE AGREEMENT CANNOT BE RELIED ON TO ARRIVE AT THE MOST APPROPRIATE METHOD (MAM) . 4 . 5 AS PER SECTION 92C THE ALP HAS TO BE DETERMINED B Y USING ANY OF THE FIVE METHODS AS THE MAM. THE ASSES SEE HAS ADOPTED TNMM AS THE MAM IN SPITE OF THE SPECIFI C COST PLUS AGREEMENT WITH A AE . SUCH METHOD IS NOT ACCEPTABLE IN THE TP REGULATION IN INDIA. THEREFORE , THERE IS NO FAULT I N THE REASONING OF THE TPO IN ADOPTING THE COST PLUS METHOD (CPM) AS THE MAM. IN THIS BACKGROUND AN D IN VIEW OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE WE ARE OF THE CONSIDE RED VIEW THAT THE CPM IS T HE MAM AS ADOPTED BY THE TPO FOR ARRIVING AT THE VALUE OF INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS AND THE ALP AND INTERFERENCE IN HER ACTION I S REQUIRED BY THE PANEL . CONSEQUENTLY, WE UPHOLD THE UPWARD ADJUSTMENT OF ` 30,03,273/ - AS PROPOSED BY THE TPO IN THE ORDER DATED 03/07/2009 WHICH WAS ADOPTED BY THE A . O . IN THE DRAFT ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE ADDITION OF ` 30,03,273/- IS THEREFORE CONFIRMED. THESE GROUNDS OF DISPUTE ARE THEREFORE, REJECTED. 4. IN GROUND NOS.6 TO 11, THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLEN GED THAT THE DRP AND THE ACIT ERRED IN RESTRICTING THE CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION U/S 10B OF THE ACT BY EXCLUDING THE TELECOMMUNICATION CHAR GES FROM THE EXPORT TURNOVER WHILE COMPUTING DEDUCTION U/S 10B OF THE ACT WHEN THE SAME HAD NOT BEEN SEPARATELY CHARGED IN THE INV OICE AND AS SUCH, I.T.A.NO.2156/10 :- 4 -: THE SAME SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN EXCLUDED FROM THE EXP ORT TURNOVER WHILE COMPUTING THE DEDUCTION U/S 10B OF THE ACT. 5. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT INTERNET CHARGES OF ` 13,93,753/- WAS REQUIRED TO BE REDUCED FROM THE ETO FOR THE PURPOSES OF DEDUCTION U/S 10B OF THE ACT FOR THE REASON THAT THE ISSUE REGARDING DEDUCT ION OF EXPENSES FROM ETO HAD NOT REACHED A FINALITY THE AFORESAID A MOUNT OF ` 13,93,753/- BEING INTERNET CHARGES WAS REQUIRED TO BE REDUCED FROM THE ETO AND DEDUCTION U/S 10B WAS RECALCULATED. 6. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE SAID ORDER, THE ASSESSEE FI LED APPEAL BEFORE THE DRP. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE A SSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT APPRECIATED THAT TELECOMMUNICATION/INTERNET CHARGES WERE NOT INCLUDED AS PART OF ETO AND AS SUCH,T HE SAME CANNO T BE EXCLUDED FROM THE ETO WHILE COMPUTING THE DEDUCTION U/S 10B OF THE ACT. THE DRP DECIDED THE ISSUE BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: 5.3 WE ARE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND THE POSITION OF LAW ON THIS ISSUE. AS PER SECTION 10B INTERNET CHARGES ARE REQUIRED TO BE REDUCED FROM TH E ETO FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEDUCTION U/S 10B. THIS IS WHA T PRECISELY THE A.O HAS DONE AND HIS ACTION IS AS PER THE LAW, ACCORDINGLY, THE DISALLOWANCE AS PROPOSED BY THE A. O IN RE- WORKING THE DEDUCTION U/S 10B IS CONFIRMED. THIS GROUND OF DISPUTE IS THEREFORE, REJECTED. I.T.A.NO.2156/10 :- 5 -: 7. ON A CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE DRP, WE FIND THAT THOUGH THE DRP HAS STATED THAT A WRITT EN SUBMISSION OBJECTING THE ORDER OF THE TPO WAS FILED BY THE AS SESSEE, BUT WE FIND THAT THE CONTENTS AND VARIOUS OBJECTIONS OF TH E ASSESSEE HAVE NOT BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE DRP. THE DRP HAS NOT DEALT WITH EACH OF THE OBJECTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE BY PASSING A SPE AKING ORDER THEREAGAINST AND BY ASCRIBING COGENT REASONS FOR NO T ACCEPTING THE OBJECTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE. 8. IN THE SIMILAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE TH E DRP HAS PASSED A NON-SPEAKING ORDER, THE DELHI H BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF EVALUESERVE COM (P) LTD VS ITO, WARD 11(2), IN I.T.A.NO. 5149/DEL/2010 & S.P.NO.110/DEL/2011, ORDER DATED 3. 11.2011,HAS HELD AS UNDER: 10 . WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSION S. THE ORDER PASSED BY THE DRP HAS ALREADY BEEN REPROD UCED IN THE ABOVE PART OF THIS ORDER. THE MATTER WAS REFERR ED TO THE DRP U/S 144C OF THE IT ACT. UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) O F SECTION 144C, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS UNDER AN OBLIGATION TO FORWARD A DRAFT OF THE PROPOSED ORDER OF ASSESSMENT TO THE ASSESSEE IF HE PROPOSES TO MAKE ON OR AFTER THE FIRST DAY OF OC TOBER, 2009, ANY VARIATION IN THE INCOME OR LOSS RETURNED WHICH IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF SUCH ASSESSEE. UNDER SUB-SECTION (2) OF SECTION 144, THE ASSESSEE WITHIN 30 DAYS OF THE RECEIPT OF SUCH DRAFT ORDER CAN ACCEPT THE VARIATION MADE B Y THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR HE CAN FILE OBJECTIONS EITHER TO DISPUTE RESOLUTION PANEL OR TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED HIS OBJECTIONS WITH DRP, THEN, U NDER SUB- SECTION (5) THE DRP, UPON RECEIPT OF OBJECTION IS U NDER OBLIGATION TO ISSUE DIRECTIONS AS IT THINKS FIT FOR THE GUIDANCE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ENABLE HIM TO COMPLETE THE ASSESSMENT AND UNDER SUB-SECTION (6) SUCH DIRECTION S WHICH I.T.A.NO.2156/10 :- 6 -: ARE PUT UP UNDER SUB-SECTION (5) WOULD BE FURTHER C ONSIDERING THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS: (A) DRAFT ORDER; (B) THE O BJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE; (C) THE EVIDENCE FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE; (D) REPORT, IF ANY, OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, VALUA TION OFFICER, OR TPO OR ANY OTHER AUTHORITY; (E) RECORDS RELATING TO THE DRAFT ORDER; (F) EVIDENCE COLLECTED BY, OR CAUSED TO BE C OLLETED BY, IT; AND (G) RESULT OF ANY INQUIRY MADE BY, OR CAUSED TO BE MADE BY, IT. UNDER SUB-SECTION (7), DRP IS ALSO AUTHORIZ ED BEFORE ISSUING OF DIRECTION UNDER SUB-SECTION (5) TO MAKE SUCH FURTHER INQUIRY, AS IT THINK FIT OR CAUSE ANY FURTHER INQUI RY TO BE MADE BY ANY INCOME-TAX AUTHORITY AND REPORT THE RESULT O F THE SAME TO IT. UNDER SUB-SECTION (8) THE DRP HAS POWER TO C ONFIRM, REDUCE OR ENHANCE THE VARIATIONS PROPOSED IN THE DR AFT ORDER SO, HOWEVER, THAT IT SHALL NOT SET ASIDE ANY PROPOS ED VARIATION OR ISSUE ANY DIRECTION UNDER SUB-SECTION (5) FOR FU RTHER INQUIRY AND PASSING OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. UNDER SUB-SECT ION (11) NO DIRECTION U/S SUBSECTION (5) SHALL BE ISSUED UNL ESS AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD IS GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON SUCH DIRECTIONS WHICH ARE PREJ UDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE ASSESSEE OR THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE RESPECTIVELY. UNDER SUB-SECTION (12) DIRECTIONS UND ER SUB- SECTION (5) CANNOT BE PASSED AFTER NINE MONTHS FROM THE END OF THE MONTH IN WHICH DRAFT ORDER IS FORWARDED TO T HE ELIGIBLE ASSESSEE. UNDER SUB-SECTION (13), ON RECEIPT OF DIR ECTIONS ISSUED UNDER SUBSECTION (5), THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TO PASS THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IN CONFORMITY WITH THE DIRECTI ONS WITHOUT PROVIDING ANY FURTHER OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE WITHIN ONE MONTH FROM THE END OF THE MONTH IN WHICH SUCH DIRECTIONS ARE RECEIVED. 11. THE DIRECTIONS PASSED BY DRP U/S 144C (5), AS IT CAN BE SEEN IN THE PRESENT CASE, ARE NOT SPEAKING ABOUT WHAT OBJECTIONS WERE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE AND HOW THEY HAVE BEEN FOUND TO BE NOT ACCEPTABLE. LD. DRP HAS SIMPLY OBSERVED THAT ALL THE QUESTIONS RAISED BY THE ASSES SEE HAVE BEEN ANSWERED IN DETAIL BY THE TPO AND BY THE ASSES SING OFFICER IN THE DRAFT ORDER. THE REJECTION OF COMPAR ABLES ARE BASED ON DETAILED REASONING AND AFTER APPLYING REAS ONABLE FILTERS. THE DENIAL OF WORKING CAPITAL ADJUSTMENT A S ALSO CAPACITY ADJUSTMENT IS BASED ON COGENT REASONING, U SE OF CURRENT DATA HAS BEEN FOUND MORE APPROPRIATE AND FR ESH SEARCH HAS BEEN REJECTED AS THERE IS NO VALID REASO N. SIMILARLY, THE DRP HAS REJECTED THE OTHER GROUNDS. THEREFORE, THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. DRP IS A NON-SPEAKING O RDER NOT STATING THE OBJECTIONS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE AND T HE REASONS HAVE ALSO NOT BEEN GIVEN AS SIMPLY THE ORDER OF TPO AND ASSESSING OFFICER ARE REFERRED. WE FIND THAT SIMILA R ISSUE WAS CONSIDERED BY THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE I.T.A.NO.2156/10 :- 7 -: AFOREMENTIONED CASE OF VODAFONE ESSAR LTD . ( SUPRA ) AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE DRP-II AND ORS. AND THE SAID WR IT PETITION HAS BEEN DECIDED BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT VIDE THE IR ORDER DATED 2ND DECEMBER, 2010. THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED A WRIT OF CERTIORARI SEEKING THE QUASHING THE ORDER OF DRP AN D THE REVENUE CONTENDED BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT THA T THE ORDER IN QUESTION DESERVE TO BE QUASHED AND THE MAT TER WAS REMANDED FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION. THE SAID ORDER OF THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IS REPRODUCED BELOW:- 'JUDGMENT HEARD MR. SYALI, LD. SR. COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER AND MR. SANJEEV SABHARWAL, LD. STANDING COUNSEL FOR THE REV ENUE. BY THIS WRIT PETITION, THE PETITIONER HAS PRAYED FO R ISSUE OF A WRIT OF CERTIORARI FOR QUASHMENT OF THE ORDER DATED 30TH SEPTEMBER, 2010 PASSED BY THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION PANEL-II, THE FIRST RESPONDENT HEREIN. WHAT COULD HAVE BEEN A MATTER OF DEBATE WAS PUT TO REST BY MR. SANJEEV SABHARWAL, LD. COUNS EL FOR THE REVENUE BY STATING THAT THE ORDER PASSED ON 30TH SE PTEMBER, 2010, CONTAINED IN ANNEXURE-P1, DESERVES TO BE QUAS HED AND THE MATTER BE REMANDED TO THE SAID AUTHORITY FOR FR ESH ADJUDICATION. IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID FAIR CONCESSION, THE ORDER DATED 30TH SEPTEMBER, 2010 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO. 1 IS Q UASHED AND THE MATTER IS REMANDED TO THE SAID RESPONDENT T O ADJUDICATE AFRESH. BE IT NOTED, WHEN A QUASI-JUDICI AL AUTHORITY DEALS WITH A LIST, IT IS OBLIGATORY ON ITS PART TO ASCRIBE COGENT AND GERMANE REASONS AS THE SAME IS THE HEART AND SO UL OF THE MATTER AND FURTHER, THE SAME ALSO FACILITATES APPRE CIATION WHEN THE ORDER IS CALLED IN QUESTION BEFORE THE SUPERIOR FORUM. NEEDLESS TO SAY THAT THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY, WHILE PASSING THE ORDER, SHALL KEEP IN MIND THE ORDER DATED 29TH NOVEMBER, 2010 WHEREIN WE HAD DIRECTED THAT THE PERIOD FROM T HE DATE OF FILING THE WRITE PETITION AND FOUR WEEKS AFTER ITS DISPOSAL SHALL STAND EXCLUDED, WHILE COMPUTING THE LIMITATION FOR THE DEPARTMENT TO PASS AN ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE WRIT PETITION IS ALLOWED TO THE EXTENT INDICATE D ABOVE WITHOUT ANY ORDER AS TO COSTS. ORDER DASTI UNDER THE SIGNATURES OF THE COURT MASTE R.' [WPO (C) 7028/2010] 12. THIS TRIBUNAL IN MANY OF SUCH CASES HAS RESTOR ED THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF DRP FOR PASSING A SPEAKING ORD ER ON EACH OF THE OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE RAISED BEFORE IT. THEREFORE, WE I.T.A.NO.2156/10 :- 8 -: FIND THAT IT IS A FIT CASE WHERE THE ENTIRE MATTER SHOULD BE RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF DRP TO PASS A DETAILED ORDER STATING ALL THE OBJECTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND DISP OSING THEM BY GIVING A COGENT AND GERMANE REASONS FOR ADJUDICA TION OF THE OBJECTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE. WE DIRECT ACCORDING LY. AFTER RECEIVING THE ORDER FROM DRP, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WILL AGAIN PASS ORDER U/S 144C(13) AND THE PRESENT ASSESSMENT PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS SET ASIDE AS THE DRP IS DIRECTED TO RE-ADJUDICATE THE OBJECTIONS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE AS PER DIRECTIONS GIVE ABOVE. WE DIRECT ACCORDINGLY. 13 . IN THE RESULT, FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES, THE APPEA L FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS TREATED AS ALLOWED. 9. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ABOVE CITED ORDER, W E SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND RESTORE THE MAT TER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE DRP TO PASS A SPEAKING ORDER STATING ALL THE OBJECTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND DISPOSING THEM BY GIVING COGENT REASON S FOR ADJUDICATION OF THE OBJECTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE. NEEDLESS TO ME NTION THAT THE DRP, BEFORE ADJUDICATING THE ISSUES UPON, SHALL ALLOW RE ASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. AFTER RECEIVING THE OR DER OF THE DRP, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WILL AGAIN PASS ORDER U/S 144C(1 3) OF THE ACT. 10. IN THE RESULT, GROUND NOS.1 TO 11 OF THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 11. GROUND NOS. 12 & 13 OF THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE READ AS UNDER: 12. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX ERRED IN RECKONING ADVANCE TAX OF ` 9,50,000/- AS AGAINST ACTUAL ADVANCE TAX PAYMENT OF ` 10,50,000/-. I.T.A.NO.2156/10 :- 9 -: 13. CONSEQUENTLY, THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX ERRED IN NOT APPROPRIATELY COMPUTING THE EXCESS INTEREST UNDER SECTION 234B, 234C AND 234D O F THE ACT. 12. AT THE TIME OF THE HEARING, NO ARGUMENTS WERE MADE BY THE LD. A.R OF THE ASSESSEE AND THEREFORE, THESE GROUNDS A RE DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION. 13. GROUND NOS. 14 & 15 ARE GENERAL IN NATURE AND HENCE , REQUIRES NO ADJUDICATION BY US. 14. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PA RTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 8 TH MARCH, 2012. SD/- SD/- (GEORGE MATHAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER (N.S.SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 8 TH MARCH, 2012 RD COPY TO: APPELLANT/RESPONDENT/CIT(A)/CIT/DR