M/s. Padanilam Welfare Trust, Kanyakumari V. ACIT, CHENNAI

ITA 451/CHNY/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 134 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5105 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-05-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 04-05-2011
• Assessment Year: 2002-2003
• Appeal Filed On: 08-03-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: TAPAS KUMAR DUTTA
• Assessee Lawyers: G BASKAR
• Keywords: Capital expenditure
• Section: 12AA; 263; 12; 11

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENCH C CHENNAI BEFORE SHRI HARI OM MARATHA, J.M. AND SHRI N.S. SAINI, AM .. I.T.A. NOS. 451 TO 457/MDS/2011 ASSESSMENT YEARS 2002-03 TO 2008-09 M/S PADANILAM WELFARE TRUST, VELAYUDHA PILLAI MEMORIAL HOSPITAL COMPLEX, PADANILAM KULASEKHARAM K.K. DISTRICT 629 161 (PAN NO. AAATP 1496 R) VS. THE A.C.I.T CENTRAL CIRCLE II (5) CHENNAI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI G. BASKAR DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI TAPAS KUMAR DUTTA O R D E R PER BENCH : THESE ARE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE DIRECTED AG AINST THE SEPARATE ORDERS U/S 263 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 [IN SHORT, THE ACT] PASSED BY THE LD. CIT, CENTRAL-II, CHENNAI ALL DATE D 28.12.2010 FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2002-03 TO 2008-09 RESPECTIVELY. SINCE THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN ALL THESE APPEALS IS SAME, WE ARE DISPO SING THEM OFF BY THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF BREVITY AND CONV ENIENCE. 2. IN ALL THESE APPEALS, THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN SIX GROUNDS OF APPEAL. HOWEVER, THE SOLE ISSUE INVOLVED IN ALL THESE APPEA LS FOR ALL ASSESSMENT YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION IS THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX WAS WRONG IN ENTERTAINING JURISDICTION U/S 263 OF THE A CT BY SETTING ASIDE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND DIRECTING THE ASSESSING OFFICE R TO REFRAME THE ORDERS DE NOVO, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, AS HE HAD P ASSED ORDER U/S 12AA(3) ON 16.3.2010 WITHDRAWING REGISTRATION GRANT ED U/S 12AA FROM ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02 ONWARDS. 3. AT THE VERY OUTSET, THE LD. A.R. OF THE ASSESSE E SHRI G. BASKAR SUBMITTED THAT THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN ITA NO. 444/MDS/2010 VIDE ORDER DATED 24.12.2010 VACATED TH E ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX DATED 16.3.2010 PASSED U /S 12AA OF THE ACT CANCELLING REGISTRATION OF THE ASSESSEE-TRUST AND D IRECTING HIM TO RESTORE THE REGISTRATION GRANTED U/S 12AA OF THE ACT. HE, THEREFORE, PRAYED THAT THE PRESENT APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE TO BE ALLOW ED. 4. THE LD. D.R. SHRI TAPAS KUMAR DUTTA ALSO CONCURR ED WITH THE ABOVE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS ON RECORD. IN THE INSTANT CASE REGISTRATION GRANTED T O THE ASSESSEE TRUST U/S.12AA WAS WITHDRAWN BY THE LEARNED CIT VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 16.03.2010. CONSEQUENCE TO THE SAID ORDER LD. CIT TREATED THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS PASSED BY THE A.O. FOR THE ASSESS MENT YEARS 2002-03 TO 2008-09 IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESEE ALLOWING BENE FIT OF APPLICATION FOR CHARITABLE PRUPOSES AND PERMISSIBLE ACCUMULATION AS PER THE PROVIIONS OF SEC.11 & 12 WERE TREATED IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER AS E RRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. THE LD . CIT THEREFORE SET ASIDE THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ORDERS AS PASSED BY THE AO BY OBSERVING AS UNDER:- 'I HAVE CONSIDERED THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH HAS BEEN REPRODUCED ABOVE AND FIND THAT THIS REPLY IS SAME AS FURNISHED BEFORE ME WHILE CONSIDERING ISSUE OF WITH DRAWAL OF REGISTRATION U/S.12AA(3). I HAVE ALREADY PASSED THE ORDER OF WITHDRAWAL OF REGISTRATION U/S.12AA(3). HENCE, IT I S NOT REQUIRED TO BE REPEATED AGAIN. INFACT, THE ASSESSEE HAS EMPHAS IZED ONLY WHY 12AA(3) ORDER IS NOT PROPER. IT HAS NOT SOUGHT TO COUNTER AS TO HOW IN VIEW OF WITHDRAWAL OF REGISTRATION, THE ASSESSME NT ORDER IS STILLNOT ERRONEOUS AND RPEJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENU E. THE RELEVANT FACT IS TO CONSIDER WHETHER THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE OR NOT D UE TO THE WITHDRAWAL OF REGISTRATION U/S.12AA(3). AFTER CONSIDERATION OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND REPLIES OF THE ASSESEE I HAVE COME TO THE CONCLUSIO N THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO TH E INTEREST OF THE REVENUE FOR THE FOLLOWIGN REASONS:- (I) AS PER SECTION 12 OF THE I.T.ACT, 1961, PROVI SIONS OF SECTION 11 AND SECTION 12 SHALL NOT APPLY IN RELATION TO TH E INCOME OF ANY TRUST OR INSTITUTION IF THERE IS NO APPLICATION BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE PURPOSE OF REGISTRATION AND THE TRUST OR INSTITUTIO N ARE NTO REGISTERED U/S.12AA. SO WHEN THE REGISTRATION U/S.12AA(3) IS W ITHDRAWN, ANY APPLICATION OF SECTION 11 AND SECTION 12 IN RELATIO N TOT EH INCOME OF ANY TRUST OR INSTITUTUION WILL BE ERRONEOUS AND PRE JUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE BECUASE, IF THESE SECTIONS 11 A ND 12 ARE NOT APPLIED, THE ASSESSMENT WILL YIELD LARGER REVENUE A ND HENCE IN SUCH A SITUATION, THE COMMISSIONER CAN EXERCISE HIS REVI SIONARY POWERS U/S.263 OF THE I.T.ACT AND PASS APPROPRIATE ORDER A CCORDINGLY. RELIANCE IS PLACED ONTHE ORDER OF THE MADRAS HIGH C OURT INT HE CASE OF CIT VS. SWAMY (C.R.K.)(2002) 254 ITR 158 (MAD.). FOR EXAMPLE, WHICH COMPLETIGN THE ASSESSMENT U/S.1 53A OF THE I.T.ACT, THE AO HAD ALLOWED ACCUMULATION OF INCOME AT 25% OF RS.4,04,39,633/- (RS.1,03,34,958) AND DID NOT TAKE IT INTO ACCOUNT AS INCOME AS PER PROVISIONS OF SEC.11(1)(A), ALTHOUGH SINCE THE TRUST DOES NOT ENJOY THE REGISTRATION U/S.12AA, THIS ACCU MULATED PORTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN BROUGHT TO TAX. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE TRUST HAS CLAIMED CAPITAL E XPENDITURE OF RS.2,04,90,078/- TOWARDS INVESTMENT IN FIXED ASSETS AND REPAYMENT OF LOANS ETC. THE AO HAS RESTRICTED THE CLAIM OF EX PENDITURE TO 50% IN THE ABSENCE OF BILLS, VOUCHERS, ETC. HOWEVER, I NVESTMENT IN FIXED ASETS OR ANY OTHER CAPITAL EXPENDITURE CAN BE CONSI DERED UTILISATION OF INCOME U/S.11 ONLY IF THE REGISTRATION U/S.12AA IS AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSEE. HENCE, UTILIZATION OF THE RECEIPTS IN SU CH FIXED ASSETS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ALLOWED AS A DEDUCTION EVEN TO THE EXTENT OF 50% WHICH MAKES THE ORDER ERRONEOUS AS WELL AS PREJ UDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE BECAUSE, IF CONSEQUENTIAL BENEF IT U/S.11 IS TO BE WITHDRAWN BECAUSE OF THE WITHDRAWAL OF THE REGISTRA TION, THE ASSESSMENT WOULD BRING IN LARGER REVENUE. HENCE, AFTER A CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE ORDER OF CANCELLATION U/S.12AA, THE A SSESSMENT ORDER AND THE REPLIES OF THE ASSESSEE, I SET ASIDE THE AS SESSMENT ORDER WITH THE DIRECTION TOT HE TO TO REFRAME THE ORDER D E NOVO IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER GIVING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNI TY TOT HE ASSESSEE TO BE HEARD ANDAFTER FPROPER VERIFICATION OF THE FACTS AND EVIDENCES AND MAKING FULL ENQUIRY ON ANY ISSUE RELE VANT TO THE CASE.' 6. WE FIND THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT DT.16.03. 2010 WITHDRAWING REGISTRATION GRANTED TO THE ASSESSE TRUST CAME BEFO RE TRIBUNAL WHO VIDE ORDER DATED 24.12.2010 IN ITA NO.444/MDS.10 HELD AS UNDER:- ' 17. WE HEARD BOTH SIDES IN DETAILS AND CONSIDERED T HE ISSUE. 18. IN THE LIGHT OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX (EXEMPTIONS) & ANOTHER VS. SRI BELIMATHA MAHASAMSTH ANA SOCIO CULTURAL & EDUCATIONAL TRUST (46 DTR (KAR.) 290 AND THE DECISION OF THE I.T.A.T., PUNE A BENCH IN THE CASE OF MAHARAS HTRA ACADEMY OF ENGINEERING & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH (MAEER) V. CO MMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, WE FIND THAT THE FIRST GROUND POINTE D OUT BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX TO CANCEL THE REGISTRATI ON GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE UNDER SEC.12A ON THE GROUND OF ACCEPTI NG CAPITATION FEES IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN LAW. AS EXTENSIVELY DIS CUSSED IN THE DECISION RENDERED BY THE I.T.A.T., PUNE BENCH, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX IS NOT TO CONDUCT INVESTIGATION INTO THE SOURCES OF DONATIONS RECEIVED BY IT. REGARDING THE GENESIS A ND CHARACTER OF THE MONEY AVAILABLE IN THE HANDS OF DONORS TO PAY C APITATION FEE HAVE TO BE EXAMINED IN THE HANDS OF THOSE DONORS. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE LEGALITY OR ILLEGALITY O F THE SOURCES IN THE HANDS OF THOSE DONORS. THE CAPITATION FEE COULD BE UNEXPLAINED IN THE HANDS OF THE PERSONS MAKING THE DONATIONS. TH E COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX COULD DIRECT HIS INVESTI GATIONS TO THE SOURCES OF THOSE PERSONS WHO HAVE GIVEN BIG AMOUNTS BY WAY OF DONATIONS PRESUMABLY FOR ALLOTMENT OF SEATS IN PROF ESSIONAL INSTITUTIONS. AS FAR AS, THE ASSESSEE-TRUST IS CON CERNED, THE VIOLATION IS THAT OF ANTI CAPITATION FEES ACT WHICH IS NOT A VIOLATION UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE I.T. ACT. THEREFORE ENQUIRIES SH OULD BE MADE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE THROUGH A PROCESS PERMITTED UN DER TAMILNADU PROHIBITION OF CAPITATION FEES ACT. THE INCOME-TAX ACT CANNOT BE PUNITIVE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE ON THAT GROUND. 19. AS ARGUED BY THE ASSESSEE-TRUST, THERE IS NO AP PARENT DISTINCTION BETWEEN LEGAL AND ILLEGAL INCOME UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE I.T. ACT. IF THE INCOME IS TAXABLE, IT SHOULD BE TAXED. IF THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT APPLIED THE CAPITATION FEES COLLEC TED EVEN IN VIOLATION OF THE PROHIBITION ACT FOR THE PURPOSES F OR WHICH THE TRUST WAS ESTABLISHED, THERE IS A CASE FOR REVENUE. IF TH E ASSESSEE HAS APPLIED ITS ENTIRE INCOME INCLUDING CAPITATION FEES EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSES FOR WHICH IT IS ESTABLISHED, THE REVENUE H AS NO CASE. THIS IS THE SUM AND SUBSTANCE OF THE ABOVE TWO DECISIONS RELIED ON BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL APPEARING FOR THE ASSESSEE. 20. AS FAR AS APPLICATION OF FUNDS IS CONCERNED, TH ERE IS NO CASE MADE OUT BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. AS P ER THE DETAILS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE-TRUST, THE ASSESSEE HAS S PENT ITS ENTIRE RECEIPTS FOR THE PURPOSES OF CREATING INFRASTRUCTUR E FACILITIES TO RUN ITS EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALMOST SPENT ITS ENTIRE COLLECTION OF DONATIONS TO CONSTRUCT BUILDINGS AND OTHER FACILITIES. SUCH EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE-TRUST HAV E EXCEEDED THE COLLECTIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE-TRUST BY WAY O F THE ALLEGED CAPITATION FEES, DONATIONS, CORPUS DONATIONS AND AL SO FEES COLLECTED FROM THE STUDENTS. THEREFORE, THERE IS NO DE FACTO CASE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE THAT THE INCOME HAS NOT BEEN APPLIED FOR E DUCATIONAL ACTIVITIES. 21. NOW THE CASE IS THAT OF DIVERSION OF FUNDS. RE GARDING SEIZURE OF CASH IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH AT THE REGI STERED OFFICE OF THE ASSESSEE-TRUST, WE FIND THE REPLY FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE-TRUST IS CONVINCING THAT THE TOTAL CASH AS ON THE DAY OF SEA RCH WAS MORE THAN ` 90 LAKHS; ` 10 LAKHS AND ABOVE ALONE WERE FO UND IN THE OFFICE OF THE REGISTERED TRUST. THE REGISTERED OFFICE OF THE TRUST IS THE RESIDENCE OF THE TRUSTEES. THEREFORE, IT IS VERY P REMATURE TO HOLD THAT THE CASH FOUND IN THE REGISTERED OFFICE/RESIDE NTIAL HOUSES AMOUNTED TO DIVERSION OF FUNDS. IT IS ONLY A HOLDI NG OF FUNDS AND NOT APPLICATION OR DIVERSION OF FUNDS. ALL THE BALANCE CASH REMAINED WITH DIFFERENT EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS. THEREFORE , THE CASH FOUND AND SEIZED IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH IS NOT A GROUND TO MAKE AN ALLEGATION THAT THE TRUSTEES HAVE DIVERTED THE FUND S OF THE ASSESSEE- TRUST FOR ACTIVITIES OTHER THAN CHARITABLE ACTIVITI ES. 22. THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED THE DETAILS OF PAYME NTS MADE BY DR. C.K.VELAYUTHAN NAIR TOWARDS CAPITATION FEE F OR OBTAINING A MEDICAL SEAT FOR HIS DAUGHTER AS REFLECTED IN THE A CCOUNT MAINTAINED WITH TAMILNADU MERCANTILE BANK. IT IS ESTABLISHED THAT THOSE FUNDS HAVE NOT BEEN FLOWN OUT OF THE FUNDS OF THE ASSESSE E-TRUST. THE PAYMENTS WERE MADE BY DR.VELAYUTHAN NAIR PERSONALLY . IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, THERE IS NO FORCE IN THE ARGUMENT OF THE REVENUE THAT THE AMOUNT OF ` 30 LAKHS PAID BY DR.VELAYUTHAN NAIR FOR HIS DAUGHTERS MEDICAL SEAT, WAS FROM THE FUNDS OF THE TRUST. 23. THE THIRD POINT REGARDING DIVERSION OF FUNDS RA ISE BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX IS THAT THE TRUST HAS PA ID HUGE AMOUNT OF DEPOSITS TO DR. VELAYUTHAN NAIR FOR TAKING OUT H IS HOSPITAL PROPERTY ON LEASE. IT IS TO BE SEEN THAT THE ASSES SEE-TRUST ENJOYED SUCH PROPERTIES FOR CONDUCTING ITS EDUCATIONAL ACTI VITIES AND THE DEPOSITS NOT NON-REFUNDABLE. THEREFORE, REGARDING THE FUNCTIONAL AND LEGAL CHARACTER OF THE DEPOSITS, THERE IS NO C ASE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. THE CASE COULD ONLY BE IN RESPECT OF QUA NTUM OF DEPOSITS WHICH ACCORDING TO THE COMMISSIONER OF INC OME-TAX IS HIGHLY DISPROPORTIONATE TO THE ANNUAL RENT PAID BY THE ASSESSEE- TRUST. IN THIS CONTEXT, IT IS TO BE SEEN THAT THE TOTAL AMOUNT SPENT BY THE TRUST FOR CONSTRUCTING BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES WERE ABOUT ` 90 CRORES MUCH MORE THAN THE DONATIONS AND FEES COLLEC TED BY IT. IT SHOWS THAT EVEN THE LEASE DEPOSITS MADE BY THE ASSE SSEE-TRUST IN THE HANDS OF DR. VELAYUTHAN HAS BEEN DE FACTO APPLI ED FOR IMPROVING THE INFRASTRUCTURE FACILITIES OF THE ASSE SSEE-TRUST. THEREFORE, IT BECOMES APPLICATION OF FUNDS FOR EDUC ATIONAL PURPOSES IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE-TRUST THROUGH THE MEDI UM OF THE TRUSTEE. ANYHOW, THERE IS NO ILLEGALITY IN THESE M ATTERS. ALL THESE TRANSACTIONS ARE REFLECTED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THE CASE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX WOULD HAVE BEEN BETTER I F THERE IS NOTHING ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT HUGE AMOUNT ON LEASE DEPOSITS RECEIVED BY DR. VELAYUTHAN NAIR WERE USED FOR THE P ERSONAL BENEFIT OF DR. VELAYUTHAN NAIR OR HIS FAMILY MEMBERS OR REL ATIVES. REVENUE HAS ALSO NO CASE THAT MR. PRASAD HAD USED MONEY FO R HIS PERSONAL PURPOSES. 24. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN THE LIGHT OF THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX (EXEMPTIONS) & ANOTHER VS. S RI BELIMATHA MAHASAMSTHANA SOCIO CULTURAL & EDUCATIONAL TRUST (4 6 DTR (KAR.) 290 AND THE DECISION OF THE I.T.A.T. , PUNE A BEN CH IN THE CASE OF MAHARASHTRA ACADEMY OF ENGINEERING & EDUCATIONAL RE SEARCH (MAEER) V. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, WE FIND THAT THE ACTION OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX IN WITHDRAWING THE R EGISTRATION GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE UNDER SEC.12AA IS NOT SUSTA INABLE IN LAW. 25. REGARDING THE OTHER CONTENTION OF THE LEARNED C OUNSEL APPEARING FOR THE ASSESSEE IN THE LIGHT OF THE DECI SION OF THE I.T.A.T., LUCKNOW BENCH IN THE CASE OF KAPOOR EDUCA TIONAL SOCIETY V. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX THAT THE WITHDRAWAL O F EXEMPTION COULD BE ONLY PROSPECTIVE, WE DO NOT COMMENT ANYTHI NG. THAT CONTENTION IS LEFT OPEN AS SUCH. 26. ACCORDINGLY, WE DIRECT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCO ME-TAX TO VACATE HIS ORDER CANCELING THE REGISTRATION OF THE ASSESSEE-TRUST AND RESTORE THE REGISTRATION GRANTED UNDER SEC.12AA.' 7. THUS WE FIND THAT THE REGISTRATION U/S.12AA WAS RESTORED TO THE ASSESSEE FIRST BY THE TRIBUNAL VIDE AFFORESAID ORDE R. THEREFORE, THE VERY REASON FOR WHICH THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS AS PASSED BY THE A.O. FOR THE YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION WERE TREATED AS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE BY THE LD. CIT HAS BECOME N ON-EXISTENT. THE REVENUE COULD NOT POINT OUT ANY ERROR IN THE ORDERS AS PASSED BY THE A.O. AFTER GRANT OF REGISTRATION U/S.12AA TO THE ASSEEE TRUST BY THE TRIBUNAL. THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE AFFORESAID ORDER OF THE T RIBUNAL THE ORDERS OF ASSESSMENT FOR THE YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATIONS CANNO T BE TREATED AS ERRONEOUS OR PREJDUCIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVE NUE FOR THE REASON MENTIONED IN THE ORDERS PASSED U/S.263 BY THE LD. C IT. WE THEREFORE, SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE LD. CIT AND ALLOW THE APPEA LS OF THE ASSESSEEE. 8. ORDER SIGNED, DATED AND PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 23 RD MAY,2011 SD/- SD/- ((HARI OM MARATHA ) (N.S. SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER CHENNAI, DATED THE 23 RD MAY, 2011. VL COPY TO: ASSESSEE/AO/CIT (A)/CIT/D.R./GUARD FILE