ITO, Coimbatore V. Coimbatore Multipurpose social Service Society, Coimbatore

ITA 2222/CHNY/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 95924 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-08-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 03-07-2015
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 05-09-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P RADHAKRISHNAN
• Assessee Lawyers: A S SRIRAMAN
• Keywords: Capital asset; Depreciation; Charitable institution; Cost of acquisition
• Section: 32; 27; 28; 11; 12A

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL S M C BENCH, CHENNAI ... , BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ ITA NO.1965/MDS/2014 ! '#! / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11 M/S COIMBATORE MULTIPURPOSE SOCIAL SERVICE SOCIETY, P.B. NO.6, BIG BAZAAR STREET, COIMBATORE 641 001. PAN : AAATC 3287 H V. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, COMPANY WARD I, 1 ST FLOOR, 63, RACE COURSE ROAD, COIMBATORE 641 018. (%&/ APPELLANT) ('(%&/ RESPONDENT) ./ ITA NO.2222/MDS/2014 ! '#! / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, COMPANY WARD I, 1 ST FLOOR, 63, RACE COURSE ROAD, COIMBATORE 641 018. V. M/S COIMBATORE MULTIPURPOSE SOCIAL SERVICE SOCIETY, P.B. NO.6, BIG BAZAAR STREET, COIMBATORE 641 001. (%&/ APPELLANT) ('(%&/ RESPONDENT) !)* /ASSESSEE BY : SH. A.S. SRIRAMAN, ADVOCATE +' /REVENUE BY : SH. P. RADHAKRISHNAN, JCIT , ' - *. / DATE OF HEARING : 03.07.2015 /0# - *. / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 21.08.2015 2 I.T.A. NO.1965/MDS/14 I.T.A. NO.2222/MDS/14 / O R D E R BOTH, THE ASSESSEE AND THE REVENUE FILED THE APPE ALS AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-I, COIMBATORE, DATED 10.06.2014 AND PERTAINS TO ASSESS MENT YEAR 2010-11. LETS FIRST TAKE THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IN I.T.A. NO.1965/MDS/2014. 2. THE ONLY ISSUE ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION IS WITH REGARD TO DISALLOWANCE OF INCOME GENERATED IN THE RUNNING OF WORKING WOMEN HOSTEL WHILE COMPUTING THE TAXABLE INCOME. 3. SH. A.S. SRIRAMAN, THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESS EE, SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE-SOCIETY IS REGISTERED A S CHARITABLE INSTITUTION UNDER SECTION 12A OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT , 1961 (IN SHORT 'THE ACT'). ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, THE PRIM ARY OBJECT OF THE ASSESSEE IS EDUCATION. IN ORDER TO CARRY ON THE PR EDOMINANT OBJECT, THE ASSESSEE WAS RUNNING A WORKING WOMEN HOSTEL AND THE INCOME WAS, IN FACT, APPLIED FOR THE PURPOSE OF CAR RYING OUT THE OBJECT OF THE INSTITUTION. THEREFORE, ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, THE ASSESSEE IS ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 11 OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF THE INCOME GENERATED ON RUNNING THE WORK ING WOMEN 3 I.T.A. NO.1965/MDS/14 I.T.A. NO.2222/MDS/14 HOSTEL. ON AN ENQUIRY FROM THE BENCH, WHETHER THE ASSESSEE- SOCIETY HAS ESTABLISHED ANY EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION , THE LD.COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT ESTABLISHED ANY EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION, HOWEVER, IT HAS CREATED FUND FOR HELPI NG THE NEEDY STUDENTS. 4. ON THE CONTRARY, SH. P. RADHAKRISHNAN, THE LD. D EPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, SUBMITTED THAT THOUGH THE PREDOMINA NT OBJECT OF THE ASSESSEE IS EDUCATION, IT IS NOT KNOWN HOW THE FUN DS OF THE SOCIETY WAS APPLIED FOR CHARITABLE PURPOSE. IT IS NOT CLEA R FROM THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES WHETHER THE ASSESSEE IS RUNNI NG ANY EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION OR NOT. IT IS ALSO NOT CLE AR FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHETHER ANY FUNDS WERE ADVANCED TO THE STUDENTS FOR CARRYING OUT THE EDUCATIONAL ACTIVITIE S BY THE RECOGNISED INSTITUTIONS. MOREOVER, ESTABLISHING AND RUNNING A WORKING WOMEN HOSTEL HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH EDUCATION. ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R., ONLY THE ACTIVITY, WHICH IS INCIDENTAL TO THE MAIN ACTIVITY, COULD BE TREATED AS CHARITABLE ACTIVITY. IN THIS CASE, THE MAIN ACTIVITY IS EDUCATION, THEREFORE, ESTABLISHING AND RUNNING A WO RKING WOMEN HOSTEL CANNOT BE TREATED AS AN ACTIVITY INCIDENTAL TO THE MAIN ACTIVITY. 4 I.T.A. NO.1965/MDS/14 I.T.A. NO.2222/MDS/14 5. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EITHE R SIDE AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT AS PER THE MEMORANDUM, THE PREDOMINANT OBJECT OF THE A SSESSEE- SOCIETY IS EDUCATION. IT IS NOT CLEAR FROM THE ORD ERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES WHETHER THE ASSESSEE WAS RUNNING ANY ED UCATIONAL INSTITUTION. EVEN THOUGH THE LD.COUNSEL CLAIMS THA T THE ASSESSEE IS PROVIDING FUNDS TO THE STUDENTS, IT IS NOT CLEAR FR OM THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES WHETHER SUCH FUNDS ARE PROVIDED B Y WAY OF OR SCHOLARSHIP OR ANY OTHER FORM OF ASSISTANCE. THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE ACTIVITY OF THE ASSESSE E-SOCIETY HAS TO BE EXAMINED IN THE LIGHT OF THE MEMORANDUM OF THE A SSESSEE- SOCIETY BEFORE EXAMINING THE CLAIM UNDER SECTION 11 OF THE ACT. IT ALSO NEEDS TO BE EXAMINED WHETHER THE ESTABLISHMENT OF WORKING WOMEN HOSTEL WOULD FALL UNDER THE HEAD PUBLIC UTIL ITY SERVICE UNDER SECTION 2(15) OF THE ACT. SINCE THESE ASPECT S WERE NOT EXAMINED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND THE FACTS ARE NOT CLEAR FROM THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES WITH REGARD TO ACTIVITY OF THE ASSESSEE, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINIO N THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TO RE-EXAMINE THE ISSUE AND H E HAS TO BRING OUT THE ENTIRE FACTS WITH REGARD TO OBJECT AND ACTI VITY OF THE ASSESSEE-SOCIETY ON RECORD. 5 I.T.A. NO.1965/MDS/14 I.T.A. NO.2222/MDS/14 6. ACCORDINGLY, THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES ARE SET ASIDE AND THE ENTIRE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 11 OF THE ACT IS REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL RE-EXAMINE THE ISSUE AFRESH IN THE LI GHT OF THE MEMORANDUM OF THE ASSESSEE-SOCIETY AND THE ACTIVITY WHICH IS ACTUALLY CARRIED ON BY THE ASSESSEE AND THEREAFTER DECIDE THE ISSUE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER GIVING REASONABLE OPPO RTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. 7. NOW COMING TO THE REVENUES APPEAL IN I.T.A. NO.2222/MDS/2014, THE ONLY ISSUE ARISES FOR CONSIDE RATION IS WITH REGARD TO THE CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION ON THE ASSET ON WHICH THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 11 AS APPL ICATION OF INCOME. 8. SH. P. RADHAKRISHNAN, THE LD. D.R., SUBMITTED TH AT THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED DEPRECIATION UNDER SECTION 32 OF T HE ACT. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER REJECTED THE CLAIM O F THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT THE INVESTMENT MADE BY THE ASSES SEE FOR ACQUIRING CAPITAL ASSET WAS ALREADY ALLOWED UNDER S ECTION 11 AS APPLICATION. THEREFORE, THE COST OF ASSET BECOMES NIL. THE LD. D.R. FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE DEPRECIATION HAS TO BE COMPUTED ONLY ON THE WRITTEN DOWN VALUE OF THE CAPITAL ASSET . SINCE THE 6 I.T.A. NO.1965/MDS/14 I.T.A. NO.2222/MDS/14 WRITTEN DOWN VALUE IS NIL, ON ALLOWING THE ENTIRE C OST AS APPLICATION OF INCOME UNDER SECTION 11 OF THE ACT, THE COMPUTAT ION ITSELF FAILS. THE LD. D.R. HAS PLACED RELIANCE ON THE JUDGMENT OF THE APEX COURT IN J.K. SYNTHETICS LTD. V. UNION OF INDIA (1993) 19 9 ITR 43 AND ALSO THE JUDGMENT OF KERALA HIGH COURT IN LISSIE MEDICAL INSTITUTIONS V. CIT (2012) TO TAXMANN.COM 9. 9. ON THE CONTRARY, SH. A.S. SRIRAMAN, THE LD.COUNS EL FOR THE ASSESSEE, SUBMITTED THAT THE TAXABLE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE HAS TO BE COMPUTED IN A COMMERCIAL FORM AFTER ALLOWING ALL PERMISSIBLE DEDUCTIONS UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF INCOME-TAX ACT. ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, DEPRECIATION UNDER SECTION 32 OF T HE ACT IS AN ALLOWANCE THAT HAS TO BE DEDUCTED FOR ARRIVING AT T AXABLE INCOME. IF ANYTHING REMAINS AFTER ALLOWING DEPRECIATION, THE S AME HAS TO BE ALLOWED UNDER SECTION 11 OF THE ACT AS APPLICATION OF INCOME. REFERRING TO THE DECISION OF THIS BENCH OF THE TRIB UNAL IN ITO V. KGISL LTD. IN I.T.A. NO.1813/MDS/2012 DATED 3.6.201 3, THE LD.COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT ON IDENTICAL CIRCUMSTANCE S, THIS TRIBUNAL FOUND THAT THERE ARE DIVERGENT JUDICIAL OPINIONS BY THE VARIOUS HIGH COURTS, THEREFORE, BY FOLLOWING THE JUDGMENT OF APE X COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. VEGETABLE PRODUCTS LTD. (1973) 88 I TR 192, ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. 7 I.T.A. NO.1965/MDS/14 I.T.A. NO.2222/MDS/14 10. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EITH ER SIDE AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE COST OF ACQUISITION OF CAPITAL ASSET WAS ALLOWED UN DER SECTION 11 OF THE ACT AS APPLICATION OF INCOME. THEREFORE, IN TH E BOOKS, THE COST OF CAPITAL ASSET ON WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED DEPRECIATION HAS TO BE TAKEN AS NIL. SECTION 11 OF THE ACT, ON WHICH THE ASSESSEE EARLIER CLAIMED DEDUCTION ON THE COST OF A SSET AS APPLICATION OF INCOME, FALLS IN CHAPTER III OF THE ACT. IN FACT, CHAPTER III OF THE ACT DEALS WITH INCOME WHICH DOES NOT FOR M PART OF THE TOTAL INCOME. THEREFORE, WHEN A CHARITABLE INSTITUTION A PPLIES ITS INCOME FOR ACQUISITION OF CAPITAL ASSET, THE SAME CANNOT F ORM PART OF THE TOTAL INCOME SINCE SECTION 11 PROVIDES FOR EXEMPTIO N AS APPLICATION OF INCOME. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THE COST OF THE ASSET AS APPLICATION OF INCOME UNDER SECTION 11 OF THE ACT. 11. WHEREAS, SECTION 32 OF THE ACT, WHICH PROVIDES FOR DEPRECIATION ON CAPITAL ASSET FALLS UNDER CHAPTER I V (D) OF THE ACT. IN FACT, CHAPTER IV OF THE ACT PROVIDES FOR COMPUTA TION OF TOTAL INCOME. THEREFORE, FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTATION OF TOTAL INCOME, THE EXPENDITURES PROVIDED IN SECTIONS 28 TO 44DB OF THE ACT HAVE TO BE ALLOWED DEPENDING UPON THE ACTIVITY OF THE ASSES SEE. SECTION 32 OF THE ACT WHICH PROVIDES FOR DEPRECIATION IS ALSO FALLING IN CHAPTER 8 I.T.A. NO.1965/MDS/14 I.T.A. NO.2222/MDS/14 IV (D) OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, FOR THE PURPOSE OF C OMPUTATION OF TOTAL INCOME, DEPRECIATION HAS ALSO TO BE ALLOWED ON THE CAPITAL ASSET. IN FACT, DEPRECIATION HAS TO BE ALLOWED ON THE VALUE O F THE CAPITAL ASSET. THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT CHAPTER III OF THE ACT DEALS WITH AN INCOME WHICH DOES NOT FORM PA RT OF TOTAL INCOME, WHILE CHAPTER IV DEALS WITH SITUATION FOR C OMPUTATION OF TOTAL INCOME. HENCE, AN INCOME WHICH DOES NOT FORM PART OF TOTAL INCOME AS THE SAME WAS EXEMPTED UNDER SECTION 11 AS APPLICATION OF INCOME, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINI ON THAT THE ASSESSEE CANNOT CLAIM DEPRECIATION UNDER SECTION 32 OF THE ACT. IN OTHER WORDS, SECTION 11 WHICH FALLS IN CHAPTER III OVERRIDES SECTION 32 WHICH FALLS IN CHAPTER IV(D) OF THE ACT. THEREF ORE, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE ASSESSEE CANNOT CLAIM DEPRECIATION, ESPECIALLY WHEN THE COST OF ASSET WAS ALLOWED AS APPLICATION OF INCOME UNDER SECTION 11 OF THE ACT. IN FACT, THE APEX COURT IN J.K. SYNTHETICS LTD.(SUPRA) HAD EXAMINED T HE ISSUE AND OBSERVED AS FOLLOWS AT PARA 11:- FOR THE REASONS DISCUSSED ABOVE WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT, EVEN BEFORE THE 1980-AMENDMENT, THE ACT DID NOT PERM IT A DEDUCTION FOR DEPRECIATION IN RESPECT OF THE COST O F A CAPITAL ASSET ACQUIRED FOR PURPOSES OF SCIENTIFIC R ESEARCH TO THE EXTENT SUCH COST HAS BEEN WRITTEN OFF UNDER SECT ION 10(2)(XIV)/35(1) AND (2). PRIOR TO 1968, SUCH ASSETS QUALIFI ED FOR AN ALLOWANCE OF ONE-FIFTH OF THE COST OF THE AS SET IN FIVE 9 I.T.A. NO.1965/MDS/14 I.T.A. NO.2222/MDS/14 PREVIOUS YEARS STARTING WITH THAT OF ITS ACQUISITIO N AND DURING THESE YEARS THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT GET ANY DEPRECIATION IN RELATION THERETO. IN RESPECT OF ASS ETS ACQUIRED IN PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMEN T YEAR 1968-69 AND THEREAFTER, THEIR COST WAS WRITTEN OFF IN T HE PREVIOUS YEAR OF ACQUISITION AND NO DEPRECIATION CO ULD BE ALLOWED IN THAT YEAR. THIS IS CLEAR FROM THE STATUT E. EQUALLY, IT IS NOT ENVISAGED, AND INDEED, IT WOULD BE MEANIN GLESS TO SAY, THAT DEPRECIATION COULD BE ALLOWED ON THEM THE REAFTER WITH A FURTHER ABSURDITY THAT IT COULD BE ALLOWED S TARTING WITH THE ORIGINAL COST OF THE ASSET DESPITE ITS USE R FOR SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH AND THE ALLOWANCES MADE UNDER T HE 'SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH' CLAUSE. IN OUR VIEW, THERE WA S NO DIFFICULTY AT ALL IN THE INTERPRETATION OF THE PROV ISIONS. THE MERE FACT THAT A BASELESS CLAIM WAS RAISED BY SOME OVER- ENTHUSIASTIC ASSESSEES WHO SOUGHT A DOUBLE ALLOWANC E OR THAT SUCH CLAIM MAY PERHAPS HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED BY S OME AUTHORITIES IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO ATTRIBUTE ANY AMBI GUITY OR DOUBT AS TO THE TRUE SCOPE OF THE PROVISIONS AS THE Y STOOD EARLIER. WE ARE, FOR THE REASONS DISCUSSED ABOVE, U NABLE TO APPROVE OF THE CRYPTIC VIEW EXPRESSED BY THE KARNATA KA HIGH COURT IN INDIAN TELEPHONE INDUSTRIES LTD. 'S C ASE (SUPRA) OR THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT I N CIT V. MICO PRODUCTS (P.) LTD. [1991] 187 ITR 517 . A DIVISION BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL HAD AN OCCASION T O CONSIDER THIS ISSUE IN THE ANJUMAN-E-HIMAYATH-E-ISLAM V. ADIT IN I.T.A.NO. 2271/MDS/2014 DATED 02.06.2015 AND CONSIDERED THIS ASPECT ELABORATELY AND OBSERVED AS FOLLOWS:- 6.3 WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND CAREFULLY PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. CHAPTER -III REFERS TO INCOME WHICH DOES NOT FORM PART OF TOTAL INCOME . SECTION-11 OF THE ACT PLACED UNDER CHAPTER-III DEALS WITH INCOME FROM PROPERTY HELD FOR CHARITABL E OR RELIGIOUS PURPOSE. SECTION-11(1)(A) PROVIDES THAT INCOME DERIVED FROM THE PROPERTY HELD UNDER TRUST WHOLLY FOR 10 I.T.A. NO.1965/MDS/14 I.T.A. NO.2222/MDS/14 CHARITABLE OR RELIGIOUS PURPOSE, TO THE EXTENT TO W HICH SUCH INCOME IS APPLIED, SHALL NOT BE INCLUDED IN ITS TOT AL INCOME. THE ACT ALSO PROVIDES THAT UPTO 15% OF THE GROSS INC OME RECEIVED IS ACCUMULATED AND THEN THE SAME SHALL ALS O BE EXEMPT FROM THE INCOME OF THE TRUST. FROM THE ABOVE IT IS CLEAR THAT PROVISION OF THE ACT IN CHAPTER-III DEAL S WITH THE MANNER IN WHICH THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE TRUST HAS TO BE APPLIED IN ORDER TO EXEMPT SUCH INCOME FROM THE T OTAL INCOME. IT IS NOT A CASE OF COMPUTATION OF INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX AS PER THE PROVISIONS CHAPTER IV U NDER THE HEAD C-INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY. THEREFORE WHILE DETERMINING THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE TRUST AND ITS APPLICATION OF INCOME FOR THE PURPOSE OF CLAIMING EXEMPTION U/S.11(1)(A) OF THE ACT, THE PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER-IV - SECTIONS 22 TO 27 OF THE ACT WHICH IS APPLICABLE FOR COMPUTING THE INCOME CHARGEABLE TO T AX UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY WILL NOT BE A TTRACTED. HOWEVER, PROVISIONS OF SECTION 22 TO 27 OF THE ACT WILL COME INTO PLAY WHEN THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ENTITLED TO THE BENEFIT OF SECTION-11(1)(A) OF THE ACT AND WHEN SUCH INCOME OF THE TRUST IS CHARGEABLE TO TAX UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FR OM HOUSE PROPERTY. IT IS PERTINENT TO MENTION HERE TH AT HONBLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT SUPRA HAS HELD THAT INC OME CONTEMPLATED BY THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 11 IS THE REAL INCOME AND NOT THE INCOME AS ASSESSED OR ASSESSABLE . ACCORDINGLY, WHILE ARRIVING AT THE RENTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE-TRUST ANY EXPENDITURE INCURRED WHATSOEVER R ELATED TO THE RENTAL INCOME HAS TO BE ALLOWED AS DEDUCTION AND THE NET INCOME WHICH IS THE REAL INCOME, WILL BE TREATE D AS THE INCOME OF THE TRUST. FROM OUR ABOVE DISCUSSION THE GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THIS ISSUE WILL NOT SURVI VE AND THEREFORE, THE ORDER OF THE REVENUE IS UPHELD. 12. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE DECISION OF THIS TRIB UNAL IN KGISL TRUST MAY NOT BE APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE CAS E. ACCORDINGLY, THE ORDER OF THE CIT(APPEALS) IS SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS RESTORED. A SIMILAR VIEW WAS TAKEN BY C OCHIN BENCH OF 11 I.T.A. NO.1965/MDS/14 I.T.A. NO.2222/MDS/14 THIS TRIBUNAL IN SHRI THOMAS GEORGE MUTHOOT V. ACIT IN I.T.A. NO.63 & 64/COCH/2014 DATED 28.08.2014. 13. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN I. T.A. NO.1965/MDS/2014 IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE S AND THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IN I.T.A. NO.2222/MDS/2014 IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 21 ST AUGUST, 2015 AT CHENNAI. SD/- ( ... ) (N.R.S. GANESAN) /JUDICIAL MEMBER /CHENNAI, 2 /DATED, THE 21 ST AUGUST, 2015. KRI. - '*34 54#* /COPY TO: 1. ASSESSEE 2. ASSESSING OFFICER 3. , 6* () /CIT(A)-I, COIMBATORE 4. , 6* /CIT-I, COIMBATORE 5. 4'7 '* /DR 6. 8! 9 /GF.