ACIT, CHENNAI V. Smt. Gayathri Viswanathan, CHENNAI

ITA 261/CHNY/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2502 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-05-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 04-04-2013
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 07-02-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: DR ANITA SUMANTH
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Cost of acquisition; Fair market value
• Section: 50C; 37(1); 54

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, CHENNAI. BEFORE SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 1 0 9 /MDS/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2004-05 MS. GAYATHRI VISWANATHAN, L/H OF LATE M.E. DURAISWAMY, NO. 3D EAST PALM VINGATE GARDEN, NO. 4, SCHOOL ROAD, MANDAVELI, CHENNAI 600 028. [PAN: AABPD0230E] VS. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SALARY RANGE II, CHENNAI 600 034. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ITA NO. 261/MDS/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2004-05 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SALARY RANGE II, CHENNAI 600 034. VS. MS. GAYATHRI VISWANATHAN, L/H OF (LATE) M.E. DURAISWAMY, NO. 3-D EAST PALMS, VINGATE GARDEN, NO. 4, SCHOOL ROAD, MANDAVELI, CHENNAI 600 028. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : DR. ANITA SUMANTH, ADVOCATE DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI GURU BASHYAM, JCIT DATE OF HEARING : 04.04.2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 27.05.2013 O R D E R PER V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THESE CROSS APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE AND REVENUE; RE SPECTIVELY, ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF I NCOME TAX (APPEALS) IV, I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. NO NONO NOS SS S. .. .109 & 261 109 & 261 109 & 261 109 & 261/M/ /M/ /M/ /M/1 11 12 22 2 2 CHENNAI DATED 11.11.2011 RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05. 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE [ L/H OF M.E. DURAISWAMY] FILED RETURN OF INCOME BY DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF ` .22,94,696/-. THE ORIGINAL ASSESSEE SHRI M.E. DURAISWAMY HAD PASSED AWAY ON 03 .02.2004 AND AS PER COPY OF THE LEGAL HEIRSHIP, HIS DAUGHTER MS. GA YATHRI VISWANATHAN IS THE ONLY LEGAL HEIR. 3. THE PROPERTY IN DISPUTE WAS ORIGINALLY HELD BY SMT. SEETHALAKSHMI DURAISAMY, WIFE OF THE DECEASED ASSESSEE AND ON THE DEMISE OF SMT. SEETHALAKSHMI ON 31.05.2001, THE PROPERTY CAME TO T HE ABSOLUTE POSSESSION AND ENJOYMENT OF SHRI M.E. DURAISWAMY. SHRI DURAISW AMY HAD ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH SHRI A.T. KRISHNAKUMAR FOR A CONS IDERATION OF ` .1,03,00,000/- ON 26.10.2001 AND A STATEMENT IN FOR M 37-1 WAS SUBMITTED ON 01.11.2001 BEFORE THE APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY, INC OME TAX DEPARTMENT. THE APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY PASSED AN ORDER FOR PREEM PTIVE PURCHASE OF THE PROPERTY ON 27.02.2002 WHICH WERE CHALLENGED BY BOT H THE VENDOR AND VENDEE IN THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS. THE HON BLE MADRAS HIGH COURT DIRECTED THE APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY TO PASS A FRESH ORDER AND THEREAFTER, THE APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY, AFTER RECONSIDERING THE ISSUE, ISSUED A NO OBJECTION CERTIFICATE DATED 15.03.2003 FOR THE TRAN SFER OF THE PROPERTY FOR A CONSIDERATION OF ` .1,03,00,000/-. SUBSEQUENTLY, BY WAY OF DEED OF SAL E EXECUTED ON 22.10.2003 AND REGISTERED ON THE SAME D AY FOR A CONSIDERATION OF ` .1,03,00,000/-. THE SALE CONSIDERATION WAS PAID BY THE PURCHASER ON FOUR I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. NO NONO NOS SS S. .. .109 & 261 109 & 261 109 & 261 109 & 261/M/ /M/ /M/ /M/1 11 12 22 2 3 DIFFERENT DATES. 4. HOWEVER, THE DISTRICT REVENUE OFFICER [STAMPS], CHENNAI ADOPTED THE STAMP VALUE OF THE PROPERTY OF ` .1,24,10,015/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE VALUE ADOPTED BY THE STAMP VALUE AUTHORITY ` .1,24,10,015/-, BY INVOKING SECTION 50C OF THE ACT, ADOPTED THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AT ` .1,24,10,015/- AND ISSUED NOTICE TO THE L/H OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY HAD ACCEPTED THE SALE VALUE OF ` .1,03,00,000/- AND DUE TO CIRCUMSTANCES BEYOND CONTROL OF THE ASSESSEE, THE S ALE WAS REGISTERED ON 22.10.2003 EVEN THOUGH THE SALE AGREEMENT HAS BEEN ENTERED INTO ON 26.10.2001 AND ALSO SUBMITTED THAT SECTION 50C HAVE NO APPLICATION TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, AFTER CONSIDERING THE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE OBSERVED THAT THE IMPUGNED PROPERTY WA S TRANSFERRED FOR A SALE CONSIDERATION OF ` .1,03,00,000/- THROUGH SALE DEED EXECUTED AND REGISTERED ON 22.10.2003, THE PROPERTY WAS GIVEN PO SSESSION ON THE SAME DAY I.E. 22.10.2003. AS SUCH, THE DATE OF TRANSFER CANNOT BE ANY DATE OTHER THAN 22.10.2003. HENCE, THE STAMP DUTY VALUING AUTH ORITY AS ADOPTED THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AS ON 22.10.2003 OF ` .1,24,10,015/- STANDS ADOPTED. 5. ON BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE AP PEAL BEFORE THE CIT(APPEALS). 6. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) HAS OBSERVED THAT THE ASSE SSEE, ORIGINALLY HAD ENTERED INTO A TRANSACTION WITH THE VENDOR ON 01.11 .2001WHEN SECTION 50C I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. NO NONO NOS SS S. .. .109 & 261 109 & 261 109 & 261 109 & 261/M/ /M/ /M/ /M/1 11 12 22 2 4 WAS NOT INCORPORATED IN THE STATUTE. NO SECTION CAN BE INTERPRETED RETROSPECTIVELY UNLESS IT IS MENTIONED IN THE SECTI ON ITSELF. FURTHER HE HAS RELIED ON THE DECISIONS OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COUR T IN THE CASE OF ALEX GEORGE 271 ITR 290 AND M/S. VARAS INTERNATIONAL 283 ITR 484 AND HELD THAT THE VALUE ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BASED ON THE VALUE ADOPTED BY THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. ON BEING AGGRIEVED, THE REVENUE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 7. THE LD. DR HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT(APPEALS) WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF TRANSFER OF PROPERTY WITHIN T HE MEANING OF SECTION 2(47) OF THE ACT AND WRONGLY PROCEEDED THAT WHETHER SECTI ON 50C IS RETROSPECTIVE OR PROSPECTIVE. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IN THIS C ASE, THE TRANSFER HAS TAKEN PLACE ONLY ON 22.10.2003 AND THEREFORE, AS PER SECT ION 50C, THE VALUE ADOPTED BY THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY DEEMED TO BE THE FAIR MARKET VALUE AND ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS AD OPTED THE SAME. 8. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSE SSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY, INCOME TAX DEPARTME NT THEMSELVES ACCEPTED THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AS ` .1,03,00,000/- AND NO OBJECTION CERTIFICATE WAS GIVEN. ACTUALLY, THE ASSESSEE HAS ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT TO SELL THE PROPERTY ON 26.10.2001 AND DUE TO CIRCUMSTANCES BEY OND CONTROL, FINAL REGISTRATION WAS DONE ON 22.10.2003 AND THEREFORE, SECTION 50C HAVE NOT APPLICATION TO ASSESSEES CASE BECAUSE WHEN THE ASS ESSEE HAS ENTERED INTO THE TRANSACTION, SECTION 50C WAS NOT INCORPORATED I N THE STATUTE BOOK. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. NO NONO NOS SS S. .. .109 & 261 109 & 261 109 & 261 109 & 261/M/ /M/ /M/ /M/1 11 12 22 2 5 9. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH PARTIES, PERUSED THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW AND BRIEF PAPER BOOK FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. IN THIS CASE, TO SELL THE PROPERTY AT NO. 14, VISWESWARAPURAM STREET, ALWARPET, CHENNA I, THE ASSESSEE HAS ORIGINALLY ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH SHRI A.T. KRISHNAKUMAR FOR A CONSIDERATION OF ` .1,03,00,000/- ON 26.10.2001 AND A STATEMENT IN FOR M NO. 37(1) SUBMITTED BEFORE THE APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY, I NCOME TAX DEPARTMENT. THE APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY HAS PASSED AN ORDER FOR P REEMPTIVE PURCHASE OF THE PROPERTY ON 27.02.2002, WHICH WAS CHALLENGED BE FORE THE HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT AND THE COURT HAS DIRECTED THE AP PROPRIATE AUTHORITY TO RECONSIDER THE ISSUE AND PASS A FRESH ORDER. ACCORD INGLY, THE APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY ISSUED NO OBJECTION CERTIFICATE TO SELL THE PROPERTY. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE PROPERTY WAS REGISTERED IN THE NAME OF SHRI A.T . KRISHNAKUMAR BY WAY OF REGISTERED SALE DEED EXECUTED ON 22.10.2003. THE AS SESSEE HAS RECEIVED THE SALE CONSIDERATION ON DIFFERENT DATES. A SUM OF ` .26,70,000/- WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE REGISTRATION. O N THE DATE OF REGISTRATION, HE HAS RECEIVED ` .76,30,000/-. THE CASE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS THAT ON THE DATE OF TRANSFER OF THE PROPERTY I.E. ON 22.10. 2003, THE FAIR MARKET VALUE AS PER THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY OF STATE OF TA MIL NADU OF ` .1,24,10,015/- AND THE SAME WAS ADOPTED AS DEEMED S ALE CONSIDERATION OF THE PROPERTY. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT EVEN THROUGH THE SALE DEED WAS EXECUTED ON 22.10.2003, T HE ASSESSEE WAS ORIGINALLY ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH SHRI A.T. KRISHNAKUMAR FOR SALE I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. NO NONO NOS SS S. .. .109 & 261 109 & 261 109 & 261 109 & 261/M/ /M/ /M/ /M/1 11 12 22 2 6 CONSIDERATION OF ` .1,03,00,000/- ON 01.10.2001 HAS TO BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION FOR THE PURPOSE OF FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY FOR THE REASON THAT THE DELAY WAS BEYOND THE CONTROL OF THE ASSESSEE. IN APPEAL, THE CIT(APPEALS) CONSIDERED THE ISSUE WHETHER SECTION 5 0C IS PROSPECTIVE OR RETROSPECTIVE BY RELYING ON THE DECISIONS OF THE HO NBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF ALEX GEORGE (SUPRA) AND M/S. VARAS INTE RNATIONAL (SUPRA). IN THIS CASE, THE ACTUAL DISPUTE IS THE DATE OF TRANSFER OF THE PROPERTY FOR DETERMINATION OF FAIR MARKET VALUE. THE CIT(APPEALS ), WITHOUT CONSIDERING THIS IMPORTANT ASPECT, SIMPLY WENT ON WHETHER SECTI ON 50C OF THE ACT APPLIES PROSPECTIVE OR RETROSPECTIVE. WHETHER THE TRANSFER IS EFFECTED ON 26.10.2001 OR 22.10.2003 HAS TO BE SEEN IN THE LIGHT OF THE OR IGINAL AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO UPON THE ASSESSEE. THE CIT(APPEALS) HAS NOT CO NSIDERED THE AGREEMENT AND HE ALSO NOT CONSIDERED THE PAYMENT MA DE ABOUT ` .26,70,000/- BEFORE REGISTRATION. MOREOVER, WE FIND THAT NO COPY OF THE AGREEMENT /SALE DEED EXECUTED BY THE VENDOR AND VEN DEE HAS BEEN PLACED ON RECORD. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE SET ASIDE THE O RDER PASSED BY THE CIT(APPEALS) AND DIRECT THE CIT(APPEALS) TO RECONSI DER THE ISSUE AFTER EXAMINING THE SALE AGREEMENT AND OTHER RELEVANT ASP ECTS AND PASS FRESH ORDER AFTER ALLOWING SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY OF HEAR ING TO THE ASSESSEE. 10. THE NEXT ISSUE RELATING TO EXEMPTION UNDER SEC TION 54 OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 54 OF THE ACT TO THE EXTENT OF ` .27,49,809/-, BEING PURCHASE OF PROPERTY AT CHAMIER S ROAD, CHENNAI. THE I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. NO NONO NOS SS S. .. .109 & 261 109 & 261 109 & 261 109 & 261/M/ /M/ /M/ /M/1 11 12 22 2 7 ASSESSEE PURCHASED THE PROPERTY AT CHAMIERS ROAD, C HENNAI THROUGH A SALE DEED EXECUTED AND REGISTERED ON 15.07.2002 IN THE JOINT NAME OF THE ASSESSEE AND SMT. GAYATHRI VISWANATHAN FOR A SALE C ONSIDERATION OF ` .32,50,000/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS OBSERVED TH AT THE ASSESSEE WILL NOT BE ELIGIBLE FOR CLAIMING EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 54 OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF THE PROPERTY PURCHASED AT CHAMIERS ROAD SINCE IT WA S PURCHASED ON 15.07.2002, WHEREAS, THE SALE OF VISWESWARAPURAM PR OPERTY WAS TOOK PLACE ON 22.10.2003, AS SUCH THE DATE OF ACQUISITION OF N EW PROPERTY IS MORE THAN ONE YEAR PRIOR TO SALE OF VISWESWARAPURAM PROPERTY. WHEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN HOW THE ASSES SEE IS ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 54, IT WAS SUBMITTED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE ACTUAL DATE OF SALE IS 27.02.2002 WHEN IT HAS BEEN ACQUIRED BY THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT. HENCE, THE ALLOWANCE OF SECT ION 54 IS ALLOWABLE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, AFTER CONSIDERING THE EXPLAN ATION OF THE ASSESSEE, HAS OBSERVED THAT IT IS A SETTLED LAW THAT IN RESPE CT OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY CRUCIAL DATE OF TRANSFER ON WHICH SALE DEED WAS REG ISTERED UNLESS THE CASE FALLS UNDER SECTION 2(47)(V) OF THE ACT. IN THE PRE SENT CASE, THE DATE OF REGISTRATION AND HANDING OVER OF THE PROPERTY BEING 22.10.2003, THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEES REPRESENTATIVE TO ADOP T 27.02.2002 CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS THE DATE OF SALE AND THE ASSESSING OF FICER DENIED THE CLAIM MADE BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 54 OF THE ACT. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE THE CIT(APPEALS). I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. NO NONO NOS SS S. .. .109 & 261 109 & 261 109 & 261 109 & 261/M/ /M/ /M/ /M/1 11 12 22 2 8 11. THE CIT(APPEALS) ALLOWED THE GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE BY FOLLOWING CERTAIN DECISIONS WITHOUT DISCUSSING THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PURCHASED THE PROPER TY WITHIN 15 MONTHS, WHERE THERE WAS A STAY OF HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT AND IF THE LIMITATION IS EXCLUDED, IT CAN BE TREATED THE ASSESSEE HAS PURCHA SED THE PROPERTY WITHIN ONE YEAR. AGGRIEVED, THE REVENUE PREFERRED AN APPEA L BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 12. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH PARTIES AND PERUSED THE ORD ERS OF LOWER AUTHORITIES AND FIND THAT IN THIS CASE, THE ASSESSE E HAS CLAIMED EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 54 OF THE ACT TO THE EXTENT OF ` .27,49,809/-. THE ASSESSEE HAS SOLD THE VISWESWARAPURAM PROPERTY, WHICH IS IN DISP UTE FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINATION OF FAIR MARKET VALUE ON 22.10.2003. H E HAS PURCHASED THE PROPERTY AT CHAMIERS ROAD [CHAMIERS ROAD PROPERTY] AND SALE DEED WAS EXECUTED ON 15.07.2002 FOR A CONSIDERATION OF ` .32,50,000/-. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER THE ASSESSEE PURCHASED CHAMIE RS ROAD PROPERTY ON 15.07.2002 I.E. ONE YEAR PRIOR TO SALE OF VISWESWAR APURAM PROPERTY ON 22.10.2003 AND REJECTED THE CLAIM MADE BY THE ASSES SEE UNDER SECTION 54 OF THE ACT. WHEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER ASKED, THE A SSESSEE HAS EXPLAINED THAT THE DATE OF SALE HAS TO BE TAKEN AS ON THE DAT E ON 27.02.2002 AS THE DEPARTMENT HAS ACQUIRED THE PROPERTY ON THAT DATE. THE ARGUMENT OF THE COUNSEL CANNOT BE CONSIDERED FOR THE SIMPLE REASON THAT THE VERY SAME ACQUISITION WAS DISPUTED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT AND THE HONBLE HIGH COURT CANCELLED THE SAME AND DIRECTED THE I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. NO NONO NOS SS S. .. .109 & 261 109 & 261 109 & 261 109 & 261/M/ /M/ /M/ /M/1 11 12 22 2 9 APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY TO RECONSIDER THE SAME. THERE FORE, THAT DATE I.E. 27.02.2002 CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS THE DATE OF ACQU ISITION. THE CIT(APPEALS) WITHOUT EXAMINING THE FACTS IN CORRECT PROSPECTIVE, SIMPLY FOLLOWING SOME CASE LAW DECIDED THE ISSUE. EVEN THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT EXPLAINED AS TO HOW THE PROPERTY WAS PURCHASED PRIO R TO THE DATE OF SALE OF VISWESWARAPURAM PROPERTY IS ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 54. THE ISSUE REQUIRES RECONSIDERATION AFRESH. THEREFORE, W E SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(APPEALS) ON THIS ISSUE AND DIRECT THE CIT(APPEALS) TO EXAMINE AND RECONSIDER THE ISSUE KEEPING IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE OBSERVATIONS AFTER ALLOWING SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. 13. IN SO FAR AS THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS CONCERNED [I.T.A. NO. 109/MDS/2012], THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUB MITTED BEFORE US THAT THE CIT(APPEALS) ENHANCED THE INCOME WITHOUT ISSUIN G NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE, WHICH IS MANDATORY AS PER SECTION 251(2) OF THE ACT. 14. THE LD. DR COULD NOT CONTROVERT THE SUBMISSION S OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. 15. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH PARTIES AND PERUSED THE ORD ERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW AND FIND THAT THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) HAS ENHANC ED THE COST OF ACQUISITION WITHOUT ISSUING NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE. AS PER SECTION 251(2), BEFORE ENHANCING ANY INCOME, A PRIOR NOTICE SHOULD BE GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE. WE, THEREFORE, SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE CIT(APPEALS) AND DIRECT THE CIT(APPEALS) TO ISSUE NOTICE AND CONSIDER ASSES SEES OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. NO NONO NOS SS S. .. .109 & 261 109 & 261 109 & 261 109 & 261/M/ /M/ /M/ /M/1 11 12 22 2 10 AND THEREAFTER PASS A FRESH ORDER. 16. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS FILED BY THE A SSESSEE AND REVENUE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON MONDAY, THE 27 TH OF MAY, 2013 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (ABRAHAM P. GEORGE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (V. DURGA RAO) JUDICIAL MEMBER CHENNAI, DATED, THE 27.05.2013 VM/- TO: THE ASSESSEE//A.O./CIT(A)/CIT/D.R.