The ACIT, 1 (1), V. M/s Shubhalay,

ITA 244/IND/2008

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 136 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2703 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 2 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-07-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 27-07-2010
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 30-05-2008
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: APARNA KARAN
• Assessee Lawyers: S S DESH
• Section: 80IB

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH : INDORE BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.R.KAUSHIK, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PAN NO. : AAWFS9619P I.T.A.NO. 244/IND/2008 A.Y. : 2005-06 ACIT, M/S. SHUBHALAY, BHOPAL. VS E-8, 9/1, TRILANGA MAIN ROAD, ARERA COLONY, BHOPAL. APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SMT. APARNA KARAN, SR. DR RESPONDENT BY : SHRI S. S. DESHPANDE, C. A. O R D E R PER B. R. KAUSHIK, A.M. THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT AGAIN ST THE ORDER DATED 7 TH MARCH, 2008, OF THE LD.CIT(A). 2. GROUNDS OF APPEAL OF THE DEPARTMENT ARE REPRODUCED BELOW :- ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN 1. DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 53,41,170/- ON ACCOUNT OF REJECTION OF CLAIM U/S 80IB OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT,1 961. HOLDING THAT EVEN IF THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT OWN THE LAND THE - 2 - 2 BENEFIT OF DEDUCTION CLAIMED IN RESPECT OF THE PROF ITS DERIVED FROM SUCH HOUSING PROJECT CANNOT BE DENIED FOR THE ASSESSEE PARTICULARLY WHEN ASSESSEE IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR EXEM PTION AND IS MERELY ACTING AS A CONTRACTOR. 2. DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE VIRTUALLY IN A SUMMARY AN D NON- SPEAKING MANNER EVEN WHEN THE PRE-REQUISITE CONDITI ON OF SECTION 80IB(10) ARE NOT FULFILLED BY THE ASSESSEE. 3. ALLOWING THE DEDUCTION U/S 80IB IGNORING THE VERY I MPORTANT FACT THAT IN FACT THERE WAS NO HOUSING PROJECT ON A LAND MEASURING ATLEAST 1 ACRE AND NO APPROVAL HAD BEEN O BTAINED FOR ANY HOUSING PROJECT OF ONE ACRE OR MORE. 4. ALLOWING THE EXEMPTION U/S 80IB HOLDING THAT THE AS SESSEE IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION EVEN WHEN SOME OF THE UNITS CONSTRUCTED BY ASSESSEE ARE ADMITTEDLY OF BUILT UP AREA MORE THAN THE PRESCRIBED MAXIMUM SIZE OF 1500 SQ.FT. AND THERE IS GROSS VIOLATION OF THE CONDITIONS MENTIONED IN SECT ION 80IB. 5. ALLOWING THE DEDUCTION U/S 80IB EVEN WHEN THE ASSES SEE HAS NOT SOLD ANY CONSTRUCTED PROPERTY TO ITS CUSTOMERS AND ALL THE SUMS RECEIVED FROM CUSTOMERS ARE CREDITED AS CONSTR UCTION RECEIPTS AND THE REGISTRY FOR THE LAND ONLY IS MADE , AND THAT TOO, BY THE SOCIETY. - 3 - 3 6. DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 9,92,370/- ON ACCOUNT OF LAND REGISTRATION CHARGES RELYING ON THE MISLEADING SUBM ISSION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT ALLOWING ANY OPPORTUNI TIES TO AO IN VIOLATION OF RULE 46A OF INCOME-TAX ACT,1961. 7. DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 9,92,370/- ON ACCOUNT OF LAND REGISTRATION CHARGES PARTICULARLY WHEN THE REGISTRA TION CHARGES CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE PERTAINS TO THE PLO TS SLOD BY IT AND IS GROSSLY AGAINST THE ESTABLISHED MARKET PR ACTICE AS WELL AS LEGAL PROVISION FOR TRANSFER OF PROPERTY W HEREBY THE REGISTRATION CHARGES ARE IN VARIABLY GIVEN BY THE BUYER AND NOT THE SELLER. 3. GROUND NOS. 1 TO 5 OF THE APPEAL ARE AGAINST THE D ECISION OF THE LD.CIT(A) IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 53,41,170 /- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF REJECTION OF THE CL AIM OF THE ASSESSEE U/S 80IB OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT,1961. 4. THE FACTS, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED RE TURN OF INCOME AT A TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 7,44,168/- ON 31 ST OCTOBER, 2005, ALONGWITH AUDITED ACCOUNTS. THE AO FOR THE REASONS DISCUSSED IN DETAI L IN HIS ASSESSMENT ORDER AT PAGES 2 TO 6 HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NO T ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80IB(10) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT,1961. HE, THEREF ORE, REJECTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE U/S 80IB FOR AN AMOUNT OF RS. 53,41,170/-. THE - 4 - 4 LD.CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE REASONS GIVEN BY TH E ASSESSING OFFICER FOR REJECTING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AS DISCUSSE D AT PAGES 2 TO 4 AND THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AS DISCUSSED AT PARA 4 TO 10 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. THE RELEVA NT PARA OF THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) IS REPRODUCED BELOW :- I HAVE CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE ORDER OF THE AO AND ALSO PERUSED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. AR. I HAVE ALSO DEEPLY CONSIDERED THE FACTS AND REASONS RECORDED BY THE AS SESSING OFFICER IN HIS ORDER FOR REJECTING THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT U/S 80IB(10). I HAVE ALSO CONSIDERED THE PROVISIONS (AS AMENDED) OF THE SECTION 80IB(10) AND MY OBSERVATIO NS ARE AS UNDER :- THERE IS NO SPECIFIC PROVISION IN THE REFERRED SECT ION THAT THE APPELLANT SHOULD BE THE OWNER OF THE LAND ON WHICH HOUSING PROJECT IS APPROVED. IT MAY BE SEEN THAT THE APPELL ANT IS A BUILDER, DEVELOPER AND COLONIZER. IT IS ALSO TRUE T HAT DEVELOPER INCLUDES CONTRACTOR AND ALSO THE SECTION DOES NOT BAR DEDUCTION TO ANY SPECIFIC CATEGORY OF PERSONS L IKE BUILDER, DEVELOPER OR IT MAY BE A COLONIZER. THE WO RD UNDERTAKING HAS NOT BEEN DEFINED IN THE ACT. HENCE THE APPELLANT IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION UNDER THIS SECT ION INSPITE - 5 - 5 OF ITS STATUS. THE AGREEMENT EXECUTED BETWEEN THE S OCIETY AND THE APPELLANT BUILDER FIRM IS VERY CLEAR THAT T HE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSTRUCTION WORK IS TO BE COMPLETE D IN ALL RESPECTS BY THE BUILDER FIRM. I AM IN AGREEMENT WI TH THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. AR THAT THERE IS NO REQUIREM ENT IN THIS SECTION THAT THE APPROVAL SHOULD BE IN THE NAME OF THE APPELLANT IN QUESTION. IN FACT THE SECTION DOES NOT EVEN REQUIRE THAT THE APPELLANT SHOULD BE THE OWNER OF T HE LAND ON WHICH THE HOUSING PROJECT IS BEING CARRIED ON. THUS , EVEN IF THE APPELLANT DOES NOT OWN THE LAND THE BENEFIT OF DEDUCTION IN RESPECT OF THE PROFITS DERIVED FROM SUCH HOUSING PROJECTS CANNOT BE DENIED TO THE APPELLANT. IN THE CIRCUMSTA NCES, THE AO IS DIRECTED TO ALLOW THE DEDUCTION U/S 80IB(10) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT,1961, TO THE APPELLANT AND, THUS, TH E APPEAL ON THIS GROUND IS ALLOWED. 5. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL, THE LD. SENIOR D.R. SUPPORTED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. IN SHORT, HE SUBMIT TED THAT (I) DETAILED REASONS HAVE BEEN GIVEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR DISALLOWING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE U /S 80IB OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT,1961. - 6 - 6 (II) IT WAS VERY CLEAR FROM THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 80IB(10) OF THE ACT THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT UNDERTAKING DEVELOPMENT AND CONSTRUCTION OF HOUSING PROJECT, BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE WAS NEITHER OWNER NOR THE SELLER OF THE LAND ON WHICH THE PROJECT WAS UNDERTAKEN. (III) THE ASSESSEE WAS MERELY ACTING AS A CONTRACTOR ON BEHALF OF THE CUSTOMERS, TO WHOM THE LAND HAD BEEN SOLD. (IV) THE REGISTRY WAS ONLY MADE FOR LAND COMING TO THE SHARE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OWNER OF THE HOUSE AND CONSTRUCTION WORK WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THE PURCHASE PRICE OF THE PROPERTY BY THE OWNER FOR THE PURPOSE OF REGISTRATION OF THE HOUSES. (V) THE INVESTMENT WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE TO START TH E PROJECT AND THE INTENTION BEHIND THE DEDUCTION U/S 80IB TO PROMOTE INVESTMENT IN A PARTICULAR SECTOR, WAS NOT FULFILLED IN THE WORK UNDERTAKEN BY THE ASSESSE E FOR CONSTRUCTING THE RESPECTIVE HOUSES OF THE OWNER S TO WHOM THE LAND WAS SOLD. - 7 - 7 (VI) THE INDIVIDUAL RESIDENTIAL UNIT EXCEEDED MAXIMUM BUILT UP AREA OF 1500 SQ.FT. AND THE CONDITIONS U/S 80IB OF THE ACT WERE, THEREFORE, NOT FULFILLED. (VII) PROJECT WAS NOT APPROVED BY THE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AS A WHOLE AND PERMISSION WAS GIVEN FOR INDIVIDUAL RESIDENTIAL UNIT. 6. THE PERMISSION FOR THE PROJECT WAS GIVEN TO THE SOC IETY AND NOT TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT OBTAIN ANY AP PROVAL FOR THE AFORESTATED PROJECT AND THE ASSESSEE WAS, THEREFORE , NOT ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80IB OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT,1961. 7. THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUBM ISSIONS TAKEN BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. HE SUPPORTED THE ORDE R OF LD.CIT(A) AND SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS NO REQUIREMENTS IN SECTION 80IB THAT THE APPROVAL SHOULD BE IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE IN V IEW OF THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF RADHE DEVELOPERS VS. ITO, (2008) 23 SOT 420 (AHD), WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT FOR CLAIMING DEDUCTIO N U/S 80IB(10) OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSEE MUST DEVELOP AND BUILD HOUSING PR OJECT IRRESPECTIVE OF THE FACT THAT WHETHER IT WAS ACTING AS A CONTRACTOR FOR DEVELOPING AND BUILDING HOUSING PROJECT OR ACTING AS A OWNER OF LA ND AND THERE WAS NO REQUIREMENT OF OWNERSHIP FOR CLAIMING DEDUCTION U/S 80IB(10) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT,1961. ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, THE DEDUCTION U/S - 8 - 8 80IB(10) COULD NOT BE DENIED ONLY BECAUSE THE ASSES SEE DID NOT OWN THE LAND OR THE PERMISSION WAS OBTAINED BY THE SOCIETY IN ITS NAME AND NOT IN THE NAME OF THE BUILDERS. HE ALSO INVITED OUR ATTEN TION TO THE RELEVANT CLAUSES OF THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT PLACED AT PAGE S 89 TO 92 OF THE PAPER BOOK THAT THE AGREEMENT WAS FOR DEVELOPMENT O F THE LAND AND THE ENTIRE DEVELOPMENT WAS UNDERTAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. COUNSEL ALSO RELIED UPON DECISION IN THE CASE OF M/S. B. T. PATI L & SONS VS. ACIT, AS PER ORDER DATED 26 TH OCTOBER, 2009, IN I.T.A.NO. 1408 & 1409/PN/03 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01 AND 2001-02 OF THE I.T.A.T. MUMBAI LARGER BENCH. HE ALSO RELIED ON THE DECISIONS IN THE CASE OF DY. CIT VS. BRIGADE ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED, 119 TTJ 269 & SAROJ SA LES ORGANIZATION VS. ITO, 15 TTJ 485, AND SUBMITTED THAT THE CLAIM OF TH E ASSESSEE COULD NOT BE DENIED, BECAUSE IT WAS A DEVELOPER AND NOT A MER E CONTRACTOR FOR CONSTRUCTION. IT WAS ALSO CONTENDED THAT THE TOTAL AREA OF INDIVIDUAL FLAT WAS BELOW THE LIMIT PRESCRIBED U/S 80IB OF THE INCO ME-TAX ACT,1961, AND THE PROJECT WAS TO BE TAKEN AS A WHOLE. 8. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE ISSUE, IN VIEW OF THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW, MATERIALS PLACED ON RECORD A ND RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. IT WAS BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE THE LD. CIT DR AND THE L D. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE THAT ON SIMILAR FACTS, THIS BENCH OF THE I .T.A.T. IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS. M/S. FORTUNE BUILDERS AS PER ITS ORDER DAT ED 26 TH MARCH, 2010, - 9 - 9 IN I.T.A.NO. 248/IND/2008 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005- 06 HAS RESTORED THE ISSUE TO THE LD.CIT(A) WITH THE DIRECTION TO DECIDE THE ISSUE AFRESH AFTER GIVING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY. THE RELEVANT PORTION O F THE ORDER IS REPRODUCED BELOW :- 9. THE SHORT QUESTION INVOLVED IN THIS APPEAL IS R EGARDING THE STATUS OF THE ASSESSEE I.E. WHETHER IT HAS ACTE D AS A DEVELOPER OR HAS CARRIED OUT WORKS CONTRACT. THERE ARE DEVELOPMENTS SUBSEQUENT TO THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT( A) IN THIS REGARD IN THE FORM OF LEGISLATIVE AMENDMENT AS WELL AS THE AFORESAID DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL, WHICH MAY R EQUIRE CONSIDERATION TO DECIDE THE ISSUE CONCLUSIVELY. FUR THER INVESTIGATION INTO THE FACTS AS TO THE NATURE OF WO RK DONE BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE CAPACITY OF THE ASSESSEE IS AL SO REQUIRED. THEREFORE, WE RESTORE ALL THE ISSUES RAISED IN THES E GROUNDS TO THE FILE OF THE LD.CIT(A) TO DECIDE THE SAME AFR ESH AS PER LAW, AFTER TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION SUCH LEGISLATI VE CHANGES, AFORESAID DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL AND OUR OBSERVAT IONS MADE HEREINABOVE. IT IS NEEDLESS TO MENTION THAT THE LD. CIT(A) SHALL GRANT ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE WHICH SHALL BE AT LIBERTY TO FILE NECESSARY DETAILS /EVIDENCES TO - 10 - 10 SUBSTANTIATE ITS CLAIM. THUS, ALL THESE GROUNDS ST AND ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 9. IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE RE ASONS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR THE REJECTION OF THE CLAI M U/S 80IB, SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) ARE SIMILAR TO THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ORDER OF LD.CIT(A) AND GROUN DS OF APPEAL IN THE CASE OF M/S. FORTUNE BUILDERS (SUPRA). IT IS ALSO O BSERVED THAT THE DECISIONS CITED BY THE LD. COUNSEL HAVE ALSO BEEN PLACED ON RECORD AND DULY CONSIDERED IN THE CASE OF AFORESTATED M/S. FOR TUNE BUILDERS. WE, THEREFORE, SET ASIDE THE ISSUE IN THIS CASE ALSO TO THE FILE OF LD.CIT(A) WITH THE DIRECTION THAT HE SHOULD DECIDE THE ISSUE AFRES H AFTER CONSIDERING THE DIRECTIONS CONTAINED IN THE I.T.A.T. ORDER DATED 2 6.03.2010 IN THE CASE OF FORTUNE BUILDERS (SUPRA). 10. GROUNDS NO. 1 TO 5 OF THE DEPARTMENT ARE TREATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 11. GROUNDS NO. 6 & 7 OF THE APPEAL ARE AGAINST THE DE CISION OF THE LD.CIT(A) IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 9,92,370/ - ON ACCOUNT OF LAND REGISTRATION CHARGES. 12. IT HAS BEEN CONTENDED THAT THE DECISION OF THE LD.C IT(A) WAS BASED ON THE MISLEADING SUBMISSION MADE BY THE ASSE SSEE AND THE AO WAS NOT ALLOWED AN OPPORTUNITY UNDER RULE 46A OF TH E INCOME TAX RULES - 11 - 11 TO EXAMINE THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT REGISTRAT ION CHARGES DEBITED TO THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT WERE RECOVERED FROM THE PURCHASERS OF THE PLOTS. 13. THE AO OBSERVED THAT REGISTRATION CHARGES WERE TO B E PAID BY THE PURCHASER AND THE ASSESSEE HAS WRONGLY CLAIMED THE SAME AS EXPENDITURE. ACCORDING TO THE AO, IF THE REGISTRATI ON CHARGES WERE FOR THE LAND PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE THEN THE SAME SHOULD BE ADDED TO THE COST OF THE LAND AND INCREASE THE VALUE OF CLOSING STOCK . SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAD NEITHER SHOWN LAND AS STOCK NOR THE REGISTRATION CH ARGES HAD BEEN INCLUDED IN THE CLOSING STOCK, THE CLAIM OF EXPENDI TURE OF RS. 9,92,370/- FOR REGISTRATION CHARGES WAS DISALLOWED BY THE AO AND ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LD.CIT(A) ACCEPTED THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE AMOUNT ON ACCOUNT OF REGISTRY OF PLOTS IN FAVOUR OF THE CUSTOMERS WAS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE AS EXPENDITUR E AND WAS RECOVERED FROM THEM AS PART OF THE SALE PRICE AND DID NOT REL ATE TO THE LAND SHOWN AS STOCK OF THE ASSESSEE. HE, THEREFORE, DELETED THE A DDITION. 14. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE ISSUE, IN VIEW OF THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW, MATERIALS PLACED ON RECORD A ND RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. 15. SIMILAR EXPENDITURE OF RS. 1,48,556/- WAS ALLOWED B Y THIS BENCH IN THE CASE OF FORTUNE BUILDERS (SUPRA) AS PE R ITS ORDER DATED 26 TH MARCH, 2010, FOR THE REASON THAT LOOKING TO THE SMA LL AMOUNT OF TAX - 12 - 12 INVOLVED, IT WAS NOT CONSIDERED NECESSARY TO SET-AS IDE THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE LD.CIT(A) IN VIEW OF THE VIOLATION OF R ULE 46A OF THE INCOME TAX RULES. THE AMOUNT INVOLVED IN THIS CASE IS, HOW EVER, RS. 9,92,370/-. THE LD.CIT(A) HAS OBVIOUSLY DELETED THE ADDITION AF TER CONSIDERING THE FRESH CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE REGISTRATION C HARGES WERE FOR THE LAND TRANSFERRED TO THE PURCHASERS OF THE HOUSE AND THE AMOUNT HAS BEEN RECOVERED AS PART OF THE SALE PRICE OF THE ASSESSEE . THE LD.CIT(A) HAS NOT GIVEN ANY OPPORTUNITY TO THE AO FOR VERIFYING THE C LAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AND, THUS, THE OBJECTION OF THE REVENUE THAT THE CL AIM OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ALLOWED IN VIOLATION OF RULE 46A OF THE INCOME TAX RULES IS CONSIDERED CORRECT. SINCE THE AMOUNT OF TAX INVOLVED IS SUBSTA NTIAL, WITH DUE RESPECT TO THE ORDER DATED 26 TH MARCH, 2010, IN I.T.A.NO. 248/IND/2008 (SUPRA), WE RESTORE THIS ISSUE ALSO TO THE FILE OF THE LD.CI T(A) WITH THE DIRECTION THAT HE SHOULD DECIDE THE ISSUE AFRESH AFTER GIVING PROPER OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE AS ALSO THE REVENUE. GROUNDS NO. 6 & 7 ARE ALSO ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 16. AS A RESULT OF THE AFORESAID DISCUSSION, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. - 13 - 13 THIS ORDER HAS BEEN PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30 TH JULY, 2010. SD/- SD/- (JOGINDER SINGH) (B. R. KAUSHIK) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 30 TH JULY, 2010. CPU*