Raja Fertilizers, Trichy V. ITO, Trichy

ITA 292/CHNY/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0928 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 9 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-01-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 07-01-2013
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 11-03-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: T N BETGERI IRS
• Assessee Lawyers: V D GOPAL
• Section: 143(3); 54F

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, CHENNAI BEFORE DR. O.K.NARAYANAN, VICE-PRESIDENT AND SHRI S.S.GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.292(MDS)/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07 M/S.RAJA FERTILIZERS, 13-B, TANJORE ROAD, TIRUCHIRAPALLI-620 008. PAN AAAFR7631J. VS. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD IV(1), TIRUCHIRAPALLI. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI V.D.GOPAL, AD VOCATE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI T.N.BETGERI, IRS, JCIT DATE OF HEARING : 7 TH JANUARY, 2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 7 TH JANUARY, 2013 O R D E R PER DR.O.K.NARAYANAN, VICE-PRESIDENT THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE RELATES TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. THE APPEAL IS DIRECTED AG AINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS) AT TIRUCHIRAPALLI, DATED 10-2-2010. THE APPEAL ARISES OUT OF THE - - ITA 292 OF 2010 2 ASSESSMENT COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE IN COME-TAX ACT, 1961. 2. THE ASSESSEE IS A FIRM ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF TRADING IN FERTILIZERS. ON 17-6-1999, MR.IRUDAYARA J, ONE OF THE PARTNERS OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM, HAD PURCHASED A PIEC E OF LAND. THE PROPERTY WAS PURCHASED AT A COST OF ` 1,71,030/-. THE PURCHASE DEED WAS REGISTERED IN THE NAME OF MR. IRU DAYARAJ IN HIS PERSONAL NAME. MR. IRUDAYARAJ HAD ALSO WITHDRA WN MONEY FROM THE ASSESSEE-FIRM TO FINANCE THE PURCHASE OF T HE ABOVE STATED PROPERTY. IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE AS SESSEE FIRM THE PURCHASE OF THE LAND WAS SHOWN AS AN ASSET. AS PER THE ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE-FIRM, IT IS SEEN THAT THE PROPERTY WAS PURCHASED BY THE FIRM. ACCORDINGLY, THIS LANDED PR OPERTY WAS REFLECTED IN THE BALANCE-SHEET OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM . MR.IRUDAYARAJ SOLD THIS PROPERTY ON 17-6-2005 TO A THIRD PERSON. THE SALE DOCUMENT WAS EXECUTED BY MR. IRUDAYARAJ IN HIS PERSONAL CAPACITY. MR. IRUDAYARAJ ALSO PURCHASED A NOTHER PROPERTY ENTITLED FOR CLAIMING DEDUCTION UNDER SECT ION 54F OF THE - - ITA 292 OF 2010 3 ACT IN RESPECT OF THE CAPITAL GAINS ARISING OUT OF THE SALE OF THE PROPERTY, WHICH WAS PURCHASED ON 17-6-1999. 3. IN THE ABOVE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE ASSESSEE FIRM D ID NOT DISCLOSE ANY CAPITAL GAINS ARISING IN ITS HANDS . ON THE OTHER HAND, MR.IRUDAYARAJ OFFERED THE LONG-TERM CAPITAL G AINS IN HIS PERSONAL ASSESSMENT ALOGWITH HIS CLAIM. 4. BUT, THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY DID NOT ACCEPT THE POSITION AS EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE-FIRM. THE AS SESSEE-FIRM HAD EXPLAINED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE PROPERTY WAS IN FACT PURCHASED AND SOLD BY MR. IRUDAYARAJ IN HIS PERSONAL CAPACITY AND THE FIRM HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THOSE TRANSACTIONS. IT WAS THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE-FIRM THAT BR INGING THE LANDED PROPERTY INTO THE ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE-F IRM WAS A MISTAKE MADE BY ITS ACCOUNTANT. THE ASSESSING OFFI CER HELD THAT THE FUNDS NECESSARY FOR PURCHASING THE PROPERTY WER E WITHDRAWN BY ONE OF THE PARTNERS OF THE ASSESSEE-FIRM FROM TH E PARTNERSHIP FUND AND ON SALE OF THE PROPERTY ALSO THE FUNDS WER E BROUGHT BACK TO THE ASSESSEE FIRM AND DURING ALL THE RELEVA NT PERIOD, THE - - ITA 292 OF 2010 4 PROPERTY WAS SHOWN IN THE BALANCE-SHEET OF THE ASSE SSEE-FIRM AS ITS OWN PROPERTY AND IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES IT WAS N OT POSSIBLE TO HOLD THAT THE PROPERTY BELONGED TO MR. IRUDAYARAJ I N HIS PERSONAL CAPACITY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THAT THE PROP ERTY WAS OWNED BY THE ASSESSEE FIRM AND ACCORDINGLY HE BROUG HT THE LONG-TERM CAPITAL GAINS TO TAXATION IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE- FIRM. 5. THIS MATTER WAS TAKEN IN FIRST APPEAL BEFORE TH E COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS). THE COMMISSIO NER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS) CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE ASSE SSING OFFICER ON THIS POINT. THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED A ND, THEREFORE, THE SECOND APPEAL BEFORE US. 6. THE ONLY ISSUE RAISED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS WHETHER THE ASSESSEE IS LIABLE FOR LONG-TERM CAPITA L GAINS TAXATION ON SALE OF LAND ON 17-6-2005, WHICH WAS PU RCHASED ON 17-6-1999. - - ITA 292 OF 2010 5 7. WE HEARD SHRI V.D.GOPAL, THE LEARNED COUNSEL APPEARING FOR THE ASSESSEE. THE LEARNED COUNSEL RE LIED ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. S.RAJAMANI AND THANGARAJAN INDUSTRIES, 2 41 ITR 668. HE EXPLAINED THAT THE FACTS RELATING TO THE ABOVE C ASE ARE EXACTLY SIMILAR TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE AND AS SUC H THE SAID DECISION OF THE HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IS APPLIC ABLE TO THE ASSESSEES CASE AND ACCORDINGLY THE FIRM SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ASSESSED TO LONG-TERM CAPITAL GAINS. THE LEARNED CO UNSEL ALSO RELIED ON THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE MADRAS HIGH C OURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. DADHA AND COMPANY, 142 ITR 792, TO BRING HOME THE POINT THAT IN ORDER TO HOLD AND ENJOY AN IMMOVABLE PROPERTY, THERE MUST BE A REGISTERED DEED OF CONVEYANCE. THE LEARNED COUNSEL EXPLAINED THAT WHA TEVER MAY BE THE ENTRIES MADE IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT MAINTAI NED IN THE COURSE OF THE BUSINESS, THE OWNERSHIP OF THE IMMOVA BLE PROPERTY CANNOT BE ASSIGNED TO THE FIRM ONLY ON THE BASIS OF THOSE ACCOUNTING ENTRIES, BUT, ON THE OTHER HAND, IT IS M ANDATORY TO HAVE A REGISTERED DOCUMENT OF CONVEYANCE TRANSFERRI NG THE PROPERTY TO THE FIRM. THE LEARNED COUNSEL EXPLAINE D THAT IN THE - - ITA 292 OF 2010 6 PRESENT CASE, EVEN THOUGH THE PROPERTY WAS SHOWN AS THE ASSET OF THE ASSESSEE-FIRM IN ITS BALANCE-SHEET, THE DOCU MENT WAS NEVER EXECUTED IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE-FIRM. T HE PROPERTY ALWAYS REMAINED IN THE NAME OF MR.IRUDAYARAJ, ONE O F THE PARTNERS OF THE ASSESSEE-FIRM. THE OWNERSHIP OF TH E IMMOVABLE PROPERTY IS ALWAYS RECKONED WITH THE REGISTERED DEE D OF CONVEYANCE AND AS SUCH IN THE PRESENT CASE THE OWNE RSHIP OF THE LAND CANNOT BE ASSIGNED TO THE ASSESSEE-FIRM. THE LEARNED COUNSEL THEREFORE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSMENT OF LONG-TERM CAPITAL GAINS MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE-FIR M MAY BE DELETED. 8. SHRI T.N.BETGERI, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX APPEARING FOR THE REVENUE, ON THE OTHER HAND, CONTENDED THAT THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE CLEARL Y ESTABLISHED THAT THE PROPERTY WAS PURCHASED BY USING THE FUNDS OF THE ASSESSEE-FIRM AND THE SALE PROCEEDS OF THE PROPERTY WAS AGAIN BROUGHT BACK TO THE ASSESSEE-FIRM AND THE PROPERTY WAS ALWAYS SHOWN AS ONE OF THE ASSETS OF THE ASSESSEE-FIRM AND , THEREFORE, IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES THE FACTS SPEAK FOR THEMSELVE S AND THERE - - ITA 292 OF 2010 7 IS NO BASIS FOR MR.IRUDAYARAJ IN CLAIMING THE PROPE RTY AS HIS INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF I NCOME-TAX EXPLAINED THAT THE DECISIONS CITED BY THE LEARNED C OUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ARE DELIVERED ON DIFFERENT SET OF FACTS AN D CIRCUMSTANCES AND IN THE PRESENT CASE IT IS A CLEAR CASE OF PURCHASE AND SALE OF PROPERTY BY THE ASSESSEE-FIRM AND THEREFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RIGHTLY ASSESSE D THE LONG- TERM CAPITAL GAINS IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE FIR M. 9. WE HEARD BOTH SIDES IN DETAIL. REGARDING THE FACTS OF THE CASE, ABSOLUTELY THERE IS NO DISPUTE. THE P ROPERTY WAS PURCHASED IN THE PERSONAL NAME OF MR.IRUDAYARAJ, WH O IS ONE OF THE PARTNERS OF THE ASSESSEE-FIRM. THE PURCHASE DO CUMENT WAS EXECUTED IN HIS PERSONAL NAME. NO MENTION IS AVAIL ABLE IN THE DEED OF PURCHASE THAT THE PROPERTY WAS PURCHASED FO R AND ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE-FIRM. IT IS TRUE THAT THE P ROPERTY WAS SHOWN AS THE PROPERTY OF THE ASSESSEE-FIRM IN THE B OOKS OF ACCOUNT AND THE PROPERTY WAS BEING REFLECTED IN THE BALANCE- SHEET OF THE ASSESSEE-FIRM. AGAIN, IT IS TRUE THAT THE PROPERTY WAS SOLD BY WAY OF SALE DEED EXECUTED BY SHRI IRUDAYARA J IN HIS - - ITA 292 OF 2010 8 PERSONAL CAPACITY WITHOUT ANY MENTION OF THE PARTNE RSHIP FIRM. IT IS ALSO TRUE THAT THE SALE PROCEEDS WERE BROUGHT BA CK TO THE ASSESSEE-FIRM. THERE IS NO DISPUTE REGARDING THESE BASIC FACTS. 10. BUT THE DISPUTE IS REGARDING THE CONCLUSION TH AT SHOULD COME OUT OF THE ABOVE STATED FACTS. THE HON BLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. DADHA AND COMPANY , 142 ITR 792, HAS EXAMINED A SIMILAR QUESTION AS TO WHETHER THE ENTRIES MADE IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT MAINTAINED BY A FIRM W OULD BE SUFFICIENT TO HOLD THAT AN IMMOVABLE PROPERTY IS OW NED BY THE FIRM OR NOT. IN THAT CASE THE ASSESSEE-FIRM WAS A REGIS TERED FIRM CARRYING ON BUSINESS IN PHARMACEUTICALS, CHEMICALS, DRUGS AND MONEY-LENDING. FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1971-72, CORRESPONDING TO THE PREVIOUS YEAR ENDED ON OCTOBER 30, 1970, THE FIRM FILED A RETURN SHOWING AN INCOME OF ` 1,22,180/-. WHILE GOING THROUGH THE ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE, THE ASS ESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT OF THE PARTN ERS SHOWED A CREDIT OF 1/3 RD SHARE OF SALE PROCEEDS OF THE HOUSE PROPERTY NOS.161 AND 162, NYNIAPPA NAICKEN STREET, MADRAS. THOSE PROPERTIES WERE PURCHASED ON JUNE 14, 1948 AND FEBR UARY 1, - - ITA 292 OF 2010 9 1950 BY THE FIRM AND THE INCOME FROM THE PROPERTIES WERE BEING ASSESSED IN THE HANDS OF THE FIRM UNTIL THE ASSESSM ENT YEAR 1964-65. DURING THE ACCOUNTING YEAR ENDED NOVEMBER 4, 1964, ENTRIES HAD BEEN MADE IN THE BOOKS OF THE FIRM REMO VING THESE PROPERTIES FROM THE PARTNERSHIP ASSETS AND SHOWING THEM AS THE INDIVIDUAL PROPERTIES OF THE PARTNERS. THEREAFTER THE INCOME FROM THE PROPERTIES WAS SHOWN BY THE PARTNERS IN THEIR I NDIVIDUAL RETURNS. THIS WAS ACCEPTED BY THE REVENUE FOR SOME YEARS. THE PROPERTIES WERE SOLD TO A THIRD PARTY FOR ` 2 LAKHS ON OCTOBER 15, 1970. THE SALE DEED WAS EXECUTED BY TWO OF THE PARTNERS OF THE FIRM AND THE LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE OF ANOTHER DE CEASED PARTNER. THE PURCHASE PRICE AS WELL AS THE INTERES T RECEIVED FROM THE PURCHASER WERE CREDITED TO THE ACCOUNTS OF THE TWO PARTNERS AND THE LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE DECEASED PARTNE R. ON THESE FACTS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THOUGH THE SALE DEED WAS EXECUTED BY THE INDIVIDUALS, IT S HOULD BE TREATED AS A SALE ON BEHALF OF THE FIRM AND IF SO T REATED, THE CAPITAL GAINS ARISING OUT OF THE TRANSACTION AS WEL L AS THE INCOME FROM THE PROPERTY AND THE INTEREST ON UNPAID PURCHA SE PRICE WERE ALL TO BE ASSESSED IN THE HANDS OF THE FIRM. THE A SSESSING - - ITA 292 OF 2010 10 OFFICER ALSO COMPUTED THE CAPITAL GAINS TO BE ` 1,80,500/- AND ADDED THE SAME ALONG WITH THE INCOME OF ` 9,500/- AND THE INTEREST OF ` 4,390/- TO THE PROFIT UNDER SECTION 41(2) AND ULTIMATELY DETERMINED THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE YEAR AT ` 1,97,260/-. 11. AFTER EXAMINING THE CASE, THE COURT HELD THAT THE PROPERTIES WERE ORIGINALLY OWNED BY A FIRM OF THREE PARTNERS. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE PROPERTIES WERE DIVIDED IN SEVERA LTY BY MEANS OF BOOK ENTRIES. SECTION 17(B) OF THE INDIAN REGIS TRATION ACT, 1908 PROVIDES THAT ANY NON-TESTAMENTARY INSTRUMENT, WHICH PURPORT OR OPERATE TO CREATE, DECLARE, ASSIGN, LIMI T OR EXTINGUISH ANY RIGHT, TITLE OR INTEREST IN THE IMMOVABLE PROPE RTY OF THE VALUE OF ` 100/- AND UPWARDS SHALL BE REGISTERED. EVEN IF TH E TRANSACTION BY WHICH THE COMMON PROPERTY BECOMES TH E SEPARATE PROPERTY OF EACH OF THE PARTNERS IN SEVERA LTY, IT CLEARLY AMOUNTS TO A RELEASE AND COUNTER RELEASE OF THEIR R ESPECTIVE INTEREST IN THE COMMON PROPERTY. EVEN ON THAT BASI S THE TRANSFER SHOULD BE BY A RELEASE DEED. THE COURT HELD THAT T HE BOOK ENTRIES MADE SHOWING THE COMMON PROPERTIES OF THE P ARTNERS AS - - ITA 292 OF 2010 11 THE SEPARATE PROPERTIES OF EACH OF THE PARTNERS CAN NOT HAVE ANY EFFECT WITHOUT THERE BEING ANY INSTRUMENT EVIDENCIN G THE SAID TRANSFER OF A COMMON INTEREST INTO A SEPARATE AND I NDIVIDUAL INTEREST. THE COURT HELD THAT WITHOUT A REGISTERED DEED OF CONVEYANCE, THE IMMOVABLE PROPERTIES CANNOT BE TRAN SFERRED FROM THE FIRM TO ITS PARTNERS. 12. THE ABOVE JUDGMENT HAS BEEN RELIED UPON BY THE HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT WHILE DELIVERING THE JUDG MENT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. S.RAJAMANI AND THANGARAJAN INDUSTRI ES, 241 ITR 668. IN THAT CASE ALSO THE HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COU RT HELD THAT THERE CANNOT BE A TRANSFER OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY WI THOUT THERE BEING A REGISTERED INSTRUMENT OF CONVEYANCE. 13. WHEN WE EXAMINE THE PRESENT CASE IN THE LIGHT OF THE LEGAL PRINCIPLES EXPLAINED BY THE HONBLE MADRA S HIGH COURT IN THE ABOVE MENTIONED CASES, WE FIND THAT THE CAPI TAL GAINS CANNOT BE ASSESSED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE-FIR M. THIS IS BECAUSE THE PURCHASE DOCUMENT WAS REGISTERED IN THE NAME OF SHRI IRUDAYARAJ, ONE OF THE PARTNERS OF THE FIRM. THE DOCUMENT - - ITA 292 OF 2010 12 WAS EXECUTED IN HIS PERSONAL CAPACITY AND IN HIS IN DIVIDUAL NAME. THERE IS NO RECITAL IN THE PURCHASE DEED THA T THE PROPERTY WAS BEING PURCHASED FOR AND ON BEHALF OF THE FIRM. LIKEWISE, THE PROPERTY WAS SOLD BY A SALE DEED EXECUTED BY SHRI I RUDAYARAJ INDIVIDUALLY AND IN HIS INDEPENDENT CAPACITY AS THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY. THERE IS ALSO NO MENTION THAT THE PROPER TY BELONGED TO THE ASSESSEE-FIRM AND THE FIRM WAS ACTUALLY SELLING THE PROPERTY. EVEN THOUGH THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE-FI RM CONTAINED ENTRIES REGARDING THE PURCHASE AND SALE O F THE PROPERTY AND THE BALANCE-SHEET OF THE ASSESSEE-FIRM SHOWED FOR SOME TIME THE PROPERTY AS ITS OWN ASSET, SUCH THING S CANNOT CHANGE THE LEGAL CHARACTER OF THE TRANSACTIONS. TH E ACCOUNTING ENTRIES REFLECTED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE AS SESSEE-FIRM CANNOT UNDO THE RULE OF LAW OR THE LAW OF LAND. IN ORDER TO BRING THE PROPERTY INTO THE OWNERSHIP OF THE ASSESSEE-FIR M, IT WAS NECESSARY TO HAVE A CONVEYANCE DEED REGISTERED IN T HE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE-FIRM. AS NO SUCH DOCUMENT IS AVAILABL E, NO SUCH CONVEYANCE CAN BE PRESUMED AND AS SUCH IT IS NOT PO SSIBLE TO HOLD THAT THE PROPERTY WAS EVER OWNED BY THE ASSESS EE-FIRM. THE CONSEQUENCE IS THAT THE FIRM CANNOT BE IMPLICAT ED IN THE SALE - - ITA 292 OF 2010 13 OF THE PROPERTY AS WELL. THIS IS BECAUSE, THE PROP ERTY WAS NEVER OWNED BY THE ASSESSEE FIRM. THE OWNERSHIP OF THE P ROPERTY CANNOT BE ASSIGNED TO THE ASSESSEE-FIRM ONLY ON THE BASIS OF THE ACCOUNTING ENTRIES AND ENTRIES IN THE BALANCE-SHEET . MATTERS RELATING TO ACQUIRING RIGHT IN IMMOVABLE PROPERTIES AND RELEASING RIGHT IN IMMOVABLE PROPERTIES, ETC. NEED TO BE STRI CTLY CONSTRUED IN THE LIGHT OF INDIAN REGISTRATION ACT AND THE TRA NSFER OF PROPERTY ACT. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE REGISTERED DEED ALWA YS SHOWED THAT THE PROPERTY WAS PURCHASED, HELD AND SOLD BY S HRI IRUDAYARAJ AS THE SOLE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY. 14. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, FO LLOWING THE JUDGMENTS OF THE HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT REFE RRED TO ABOVE, WE HOLD THAT THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE ERRE D IN ASSESSING THE LONG-TERM CAPITAL GAINS IN THE HANDS OF THE ASS ESSEE-FIRM. WE, THEREFORE, DELETE THE ADDITION OF LONG-TERM CAP ITAL GAINS MADE BY THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY IN THE INCOME COMPU TATION OF THE ASSESSEE-FIRM. THE ASSESSEE IS SUCCESSFUL IN I TS APPEAL. - - ITA 292 OF 2010 14 15. AS A CONSEQUENCE, IT IS SHRI IRUDAYARAJ, ONE O F THE PARTNERS OF THE ASSESSEE-FIRM, WHO IS BOUND TO ACCO UNT FOR THE LONG-TERM CAPITAL GAINS ARISING FROM THE IMPUGNED T RANSACTION. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAY PROCESS THE RE TURN OF INCOME FILED BY HIM IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. 16. IN RESULT, THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE I S ALLOWED. ORDERS PRONOUNCED ON MONDAY, THE 7 TH OF JANUARY, 2013 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (S.S.GODARA) (DR. O.K.NARAYANAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE-PRESIDENT CHENNAI, DATED, THE 7 TH JANUARY, 2013. V.A.P. COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR 6. GF.