A.L.Logistics Pvt. Ltd., CHENNAI V. ITO, CHENNAI

ITA 469/CHNY/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6156 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-07-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 24-02-2014
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: HARI RAO
• Assessee Lawyers: K BALASUBR AMANIAN
• Section: 2

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH, CHE NNAI . . . , ! , ' # $ BEFORE DR. O.K. NARAYANAN, VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER . / I.T.A. NO. 469/MDS/2014 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 M/S.A.L.LOGISTICS PVT. LTD., NO.5, G.N.T.ROAD, MOOLAKADAI, CHENNAI 600 110. [PAN: AAECA 5279 L] ( !% /APPELLANT) VS INCOME TAX OFFICER, COMPANY WARD-I(1), CHENNAI -34 ( &'!% /RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : MR. K.BALASUBRAMANIAN, ADV. / RESPONDENT BY : MR. HARI RAO, JCIT / DATE OF HEARING : 12-05-2014 ! / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 14-07-2014 #( / O R D E R PER VIKAS AWASTHY, J.M: THE APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, APPEALS(CENTRAL) -I, CHENNAI DATED 18-12-2013 RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR (A Y) 2009-10. 2. THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE AY. 2009-10 ON 29-09-2009 DECLARING ITS TAXABLE INCOME AS ` 13,87,046/-. THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND NOTICE I.T.A. NO. 469/MDS/2014 2 U/S.143(2) WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE ON 25-08-2010 . THE ASSESSEE IS OWNING AND MAINTAINING A CONTAINER FREI GHT STATION [CFS] AT HALDIA, WEST BENGAL. IN THE RETURN OF INC OME, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S.80IA(4)(I) OF THE IN COME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREIN AFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT). THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS OBSERVED THAT TO BE E LIGIBLE FOR CLAIMING DEDUCTION U/S.80IA(4)(I), THE ASSESSEE SHO ULD CARRY ON THE BUSINESS OF DEVELOPING OR OPERATING AND MAINTAINING OR DEVELOPING, OPERATING AND MAINTAINING ANY INFRASTRU CTURE FACILITY. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE SHOULD HAVE ENTERED INTO AN A GREEMENT WITH THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT OR STATE GOVERNMENT OR A LOC AL AUTHORITY OR ANY STATUTORY BODY FOR DEVELOPING OR OPERATING A ND MAINTAINING OR DEVELOPING, OPERATING AND MAINTAINING AN INFRAST RUCTURE FACILITY. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO SHOW ANY SUCH AGR EEMENT WITH THE CENTRAL OR STATE GOVERNMENT OR ANY OTHER AUTHOR ITY AS PRESCRIBED UNDER THE ACT FOR CLAIMING BENEFIT OF SE CTION 80IA(4)(I). THE ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER HELD THAT THE FACILIT Y OF CFS DOES NOT CONSTITUTE INFRASTRUCTURE FACILITY AS DEFINED IN EX PLANATION TO SECTION 80IA(4)(I). ACCORDINGLY, THE DEDUCTION CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS DIS-ALLOWED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER VIDE ORDER DT.29-12-2011. I.T.A. NO. 469/MDS/2014 3 AGGRIEVED BY THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASSESSEE PR EFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(APPEALS). THE CIT(APPEALS ) UPHELD THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE AS SESSEE. NOW, THE ASSESSEE HAS COME IN SECOND APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL ASSAILING THE ORDER OF CIT(APPEALS). 3. SHRI K.BALASUBRAMANIAN, APPEARING ON BEHALF OF T HE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE ERRED IN COMING TO THE CONCLUSION THAT INFRASTRUCTURE FACILI TY AS DEFINED UNDER THE ACT DOES NOT INCLUDE CFS. CFS IS A PART AND PARCEL OF INLAND PORT. INLAND PORTS HAVE BEEN SPECIFICALLY I NCLUDED IN THE DEFINITION OF INFRASTRUCTURE FACILITY. THE LD.COUN SEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CONTAINER CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., VS. ACIT REPORTED AS 346 ITR 140 (DEL) HAS HELD THAT CFSS ARE INLAND PORTS. THE VIEW OF THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT HAS FURTHER BEEN FOLLOWED B Y THE SPECIAL BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ALL CARGO GLOBAL LOGISTICS LTD., VS. DCIT REPORTED AS 18 ITR (TRIB) 106 (MUM) (SB). ON THE ISSUE OF AGREEMENT WITH THE GOVERNMENT OR AN Y STATUTORY BODY FOR BEING ELIGIBLE TO CLAIM DEDUCTIO N U/S.80IA(4)(I), THE LD.COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT THE MINISTRY OF COMME RCE AND INDUSTRY VIDE LETTER DT.27-05-2003 APPROVED THE PRO POSAL OF THE I.T.A. NO. 469/MDS/2014 4 ASSESSEE FOR SETTING UP OF CFS AT HALDIA. ACCORDIN G TO THE APPROVAL LETTER, THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO EXECU TE NECESSARY BOND AND GUARANTEES TO CARRY OUT ITS SERVICES. THE ASSESSEE DULY COMPLIED WITH ALL THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS MENTIONE D IN THE SAID LETTER FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, INFRASTRUCT URE DIVISION, MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY. IT WAS THEREAFT ER, THE ASSESSEE WAS NOTIFIED VIDE PUBLIC NOTICE DT.10-11-2 003 AS CFS AND WAS ALLOWED TO PROVIDE SERVICES TO ALL IMPORTER S/EXPORTERS AND CLEARING AGENTS ETC., AS CUSTODIAN OF THE CONTAINER S AT HALDIA PORT. THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE PLACED ON RECORD A COPY OF LETTER DT.27-05-2003, AS WELL AS PUBLIC NOTICES DT.10-11-2 003. THE LD.COUNSEL FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THE ASSESSE E HAD ACCEPTED THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS NOTIFIED IN THE C OMMUNICATION FROM THE MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY AND HAD EXECUTED BOND AND GUARANTEES IN COMPLIANCE OF THE APPROVAL L ETTER, NO SEPARATE AGREEMENT WAS REQUIRED TO BE EXECUTED BY T HE ASSESSEE FOR PROVIDING CFS FACILITY. THE ASSESSEE IN ORDER TO SUPPORT HIS CONTENTIONS, PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF UNITED LINER AGENCIES OF INDIA (PRIVATE) LTD., VS. JOINT CIT (OSD) IN ITA NOS.273 & 275/MUM/2013 DECIDED ON 28-06-2013. I.T.A. NO. 469/MDS/2014 5 4. ON THE OTHER HAND, SHRI HARI RAO, APPEARING ON B EHALF OF THE REVENUE STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND S UBMITTED THAT AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 80IA(4)(I), T HE ASSESSEE HAS NEITHER DEVELOPED NOR MAINTAINING ANY INFRASTRUCTUR E FACILITY. MOREOVER, AS HAS BEEN POINTED OUT BY THE AUTHORITIE S BELOW, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT ENTERED INTO ANY AGREEMENT WITH TH E CENTRAL GOVERNMENT OR STATE GOVERNMENT OR LOCAL AUTHORITY O R ANY OTHER STATUTORY BODY FOR DEVELOPING, OPERATING AND MAINTA INING ANY INFRASTRUCTURE FACILITY. AN EXECUTION OF AGREEMENT IS ONE OF THE ESSENTIAL CONDITIONS FOR CLAIMING BENEFIT OF SECTIO N U/S.80IA(4)(I). THE LD.DR PRAYED FOR DISMISSAL OF THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 5. BOTH SIDES HEARD. WE HAVE ALSO PERUSED THE ORD ERS OF THE AUTHORITIES AND THE DECISIONS ON WHICH THE LD.COUNS EL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS PLACED RELIANCE. A CLOSE READING OF T HE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 80IA(4) MAKES IT CLEAR THAT, FOR CLAIMING D EDUCTION U/S.80IA(4)(I), FOLLOWING CONDITIONS HAVE TO BE SAT ISFIED: I. THE UNDERTAKING SHOULD CARRY ON THE BUSINESS OF (A) DEVELOPING OR (B) MAINTAINING AND OPERATING OR (C) DEVELOPING, MAINTAINING AND OPERATING ANY INFRASTRUCTURE FACILITY; I.T.A. NO. 469/MDS/2014 6 II. THE UNDERTAKING SHOULD BE OWNED BY AN INDIAN COMPANY; III. THERE SHOULD BE AN AGREEMENT WITH THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT; AND IV. THE UNDERTAKING SHOULD START OPERATIONS ON OR A FTER 1 ST APRIL, 1995; IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE BENEFIT OF SECTION 80IA(4) (I) HAS BEEN DENIED TO THE ASSESSEE ON TWO GROUNDS: A. THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT PROVIDING INFRASTRUCTUR E FACILITY AS ENVISAGED UNDER THE ACT; AND B. THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT ENTERED INTO AN AGREEM ENT WITH THE GOVERNMENT OR ANY STATUTORY AUTHORITY AS PROVIDED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 80IA(4)(I) (B); THE TERM INFRASTRUCTURE FACILITY HAS BEEN DEFINED IN EXPLANATION TO SECTION 80IA(4)(I) AS UNDER: EXPLANATION FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS CLAUSE INF RASTRUCTURE FACILITY MEANS (A) A ROAD INCLUDING TOLL ROAD, A BRIDGE OR A RAIL SYSTEM; (B) A HIGHWAY PROJECT INCLUDING HOUSING OR OTHER AC TIVITIES BEING AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE HIGHWAY PROJECT; I.T.A. NO. 469/MDS/2014 7 (C) A WATER SUPPLY PROJECT, WATER TREATMENT SYSTEM, IRRIGATION PROJECT, SANITATION AND SEWERAGE SYSTEM OR SOLID WA STE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM; (D) A PORT, AIRPORT, INLAND WATERWAY [INLAND PORT O R NAVIGATIONAL CHANNEL IN THE SEA]. 6. A PERUSAL OF EXPLANATION DEFINING INFRASTRUCTUR E FACILITY SHOWS THAT CLAUSE (D) INCLUDES INLAND PORT. THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CONTAINER CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., VS. ACIT (SUPRA) HAS HELD THAT AN INLAND CONTAINER DEPOT IS ACTUALLY AN INLAND PORT AND THE CFSS ARE PART OF THE PORT. THE HON'BLE HI GH COURT IN THE AFORESAID CASE ALSO REFERRED TO THE CO MMUNICATION FROM DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, CENTRAL BOARD OF EXCISE AND CUSTOMS, MINISTRY OF FINANCE WHEREIN CLARIFICATION REGARDING INLAND PORT WAS GIVEN. IT WAS CLARIFIED: CONTAINER FREIGHT STATIONS (CFSS) ARE CUSTOMS ARE A ATTACHED TO A PORT. THE WORK RELATED TO CUSTOMS IS PERFORMED AT THESE INLAND CONTAINER DEPOTS/CONTAINER FREIGHT STATIONS. ACCORDINGLY, INLAND CONTAINER DEPOTS AND CONTAINER FREIGHT STATIONS (I.E., CUSTOMS AREA PORT) ARE INLAND PORT S . ANOTHER LETTER REFERRED TO IN THE ORDER OF THE HON' BLE HIGH COURT IS FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, INFRASTRUCTURE DIV ISION, MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY. IN THE SAID LET TER THE STATUS OF CFS WAS CLARIFIED. THE RELEVANT EXTRACT IS REPRODU CED AS UNDER: I.T.A. NO. 469/MDS/2014 8 3. THE MATTER HAS BEEN EXAMINED IN THIS DEPARTMENT AND IT IS CLARIFIED THAT INLAND CONTAINER DEPOTS/CO NTAINER FREIGHT STATIONS ARE INLAND PORTS. THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DI RECT TAXES MAY ACCORDINGLY TAKE DECISION FOR THE PURPOSE OF EX EMPTION OF INLAND CONTAINER DEPOTS/CONTAINER FREIGHT STATIONS OF CONCOR OR A PRIVATE PARTY UNDER SECTION 80-IA OF INCOME-TAX A CT. THE VIEW OF THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT HAS BEEN FO LLOWED BY THE SPECIAL BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ALL CARGO GLOBAL LOGISTICS LTD., VS. DCIT (SUPRA). THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE ORDER OF THE SPECIAL BENCH IS RE-PRODUCED HEREIN BE LOW: 66. WE FIND THAT THE SOLITARY DECISION IN THIS CAS E BY ANY HIGH COURT IS IN THE CASE OF CONTAINER CORPORATION OF IN DIA LTD.. IN THIS CASE IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT AN ICD IS NOT A POR T BUT IT IS AN INLAND PORT. THE CASE OF CFS IS SIMILAR SITUATED I N THE SENSE THAT BOTH CARRY OUT SIMILAR FUNCTIONS, I.E., WARE H OUSING, CUSTOMS CLEARANCE, AND TRANSPORT OF GOODS FROM ITS LOCATION TO THE SEAPORTS AND VICE-VERSA BY RAILWAY OR BY TRUCKS IN CONTAINERS. THUS, THE ISSUE IS NO LONGER RES-INTEG RA. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THIS DECISION, IT IS HELD TH AT A CFS IS AN INLAND PORT WHOSE INCOME IS ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION U /S.80IA(4). QUESTION NO.2 IS ANSWERED ACCORDINGLY. THUS, IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DECISIONS OF THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT AND THE SPECIAL BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL, IT IS UNAMBIGUOUSLY CLEAR THAT CFS IS AN INFRASTRUCTURE FACILITY. HENC E, THE FIRST ISSUE IS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. I.T.A. NO. 469/MDS/2014 9 7. NOW, WE PROCEED TO THE NEXT ISSUE, WHETHER IN TH E ABSENCE OF SPECIFIC AGREEMENT WITH THE CENTRAL/STATE GOVERN MENT, LOCAL AUTHORITY OR STATUTORY BODY, THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITL ED TO CLAIM THE BENEFIT OF SECTION 80IA(4)(I)? THE ASSESSEE HAD MAD E AN APPLICATION FOR SETTING UP OF CFS AT HALDIA. IN RE SPONSE TO THE APPLICATION OF ASSESSEE, THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE , INFRASTRUCTURE DIVISION, MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND I NDUSTRY APPROVED THE PROPOSAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR SETTING U P OF CFS AT HALDIA FOR HANDLING IMPORT/EXPORT OF CARGO SUBJECT TO EXECUTION OF CERTAIN DOCUMENTS AND COMPLIANCE OF OTHER TERMS AND CONDITIONS AS STATED IN THE LETTER. THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE AS SESSEE HAS PLACED ON RECORD LETTER DT.27-05-2003 FROM THE MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY PERMITTING THE ASSESSEE TO SET UP CFS AT H ALDIA. THE CONTENTS OF THE LETTER ARE REPRODUCED HEREIN BELOW: NO.16/6/2003-INFRA-I GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF COMMERCE & INDUSTRY DEPTT.OF COMMERCE INFRASTRUCTURE DIVISION ****** UDYOGBHAWAN, NEW DELHI, DATED THE 27 TH MAY,2003. TO THE DIRECTOR, M/S A L LOGISTICS PVT. LTD., CHENNAI. SUBJECT: SETTING UP OF AN CFS AT HALDIA . I.T.A. NO. 469/MDS/2014 10 SIR, I AM DIRECTED TO REFER TO YOUR APPLICATION DATED 8.2.2003 ON THE ABOVE SUBJECT AND TO SAY THAT THE GOVERNMENT HAS AP PROVED YOUR PROPOSAL FOR SETTING UP OF AN CONTAINER FREIGHT STA TION AT HALDIA FOR HANDLING IMPORT AND EXPORT CARGO. THE APPROVAL IS SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING TERMS AND CONDITIONS:- A) THE LETTER OF INTENT HOLDER SHALL TAKE ADEQUATE STEPS TO CREATE PROPER INFRASTRUCTURE KEEPING IN VIEW THE IN DICATIVE NORMS GIVEN IN PARTS A& B OF THE GUIDELINES FOR SE TTING UP INLAND CONTAINER DEPOTS / CONTAINER FREIGHT STATIO NS (ICDS/CFS) WITHIN A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR FROM THE DA TE OF ISSUE OF THIS LETTER. B) NECESSARY BOND AND GUARANTEES, AS REQUIRED, WOUL D BE EXECUTED WITH THE CONCERNED COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS AND CENTRAL EXCISE . C) THE APPROVAL WOULD BE SUBJECT TO CANCELLATION IN THE EVENT OF VIOLATION OF THE CUSTOMS AND OTHER LAWS OF THE LAND AND RULES. D) A QUARTERLY PROGRESS REPORT OF THE IMPLEMENTATIO N SHALL BE SENT TO THE MINISTRY OF COMMERCE. E) THE WORKING OF THE CFS WILL BE OPEN TO REVIEW B Y THE INTER MINISTERIAL COMMITTEE. H) FORMALITIES IN RESPECT OF ACQUISITION/POSSESSION OF THE LAND SHALL BE COMPLETED WITHIN 60 DAYS AND INTIMATED TO THE M/O COMMERCE, FAILING WHICH THE APPROVAL GRANTED WOULD BE AUTOMATICALLY CANCELLED. 2. THE FACILITY TO BE SET UP SHALL BE FULL COMPUTER IZED, WITH EDI COMPATIBILITY AND A MINIMUM COMPLEMENT OF EQUIPMENT AND ACCESSORIES AS NECESSARY SHALL BE MADE AVAILABLE AT THE FACILIT Y. THE INDICATIVE LIST OF EQUIPMENT/ACCESSORIES CONSIDERED NECESSARY IS ANNEX ED. THE STATUS REGARDING CONFIRMATION OF THE INSTALLATION/ AVAILAB ILITY OF THE ITEMS SHALL BE FURNISHED TO THE APPROPRIATE AUTHORITIES TO FACILIT ATE ISSUE OF REQUISITE NOTIFICATION. 3. PLEASE ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF THIS LETTER. YOURS FAITHFULLY, SD/- (N.G.BISWAS) DIRECTOR I.T.A. NO. 469/MDS/2014 11 A PERUSAL OF CLAUSE B OF THE ABOVE LETTER SHOWS T HAT THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO EXECUTE NECESSARY BOND AND GUARANTE ES WITH THE CONCERNED COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS AND CENTRAL EXCIS E. IT WAS ONLY ON THE COMPLIANCE OF ALL THE TERMS AND CONDITI ONS MENTIONED IN THE AFORESAID LETTER THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ALLOW ED TO CARRY ON THE SERVICES OF CFS. THE ASSESSEE ON THE COMPLIANC E OF THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS AS MENTIONED IN THE LETTER, WA S NOTIFIED AS CFS COMPLEX FOR THE PURPOSE OF RECEIVING, STORING, IMPORT CONTAINERS, RECEIVING/CONSOLIDATING EXPORT CARGO ET C. VIDE PUBLIC NOTICE DT.10-11-2013. THE PUBLIC NOTICES WERE ISSU ED BY THE OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (PORT) KOLKAT TA. 8. THUS, IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE PROPOSAL OF THE ASS ESSEE WAS ACCEPTED BY THE GOVERNMENT ON CERTAIN CONDITIONS WH ICH WERE DULY COMPLIED WITH BY THE ASSESSEE. THERE MAY NOT BE ANY SPECIFIC AGREEMENT, BUT THE SEQUENCES OF EVENTS CLE ARLY SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEE IS PROVIDING CFS FACILITY IN ACCORDANC E WITH THE CONDITIONS LAID DOWN BY THE GOVERNMENT. IN SUCH CI RCUMSTANCES THERE IS NO NEED TO INSIST FOR THE SPECIFIC EXECUTI ON OF AGREEMENTS. THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE O F UNITED LINER AGENCIES OF INDIA (PRIVATE) LTD., VS. JOINT C IT (OSD) IN ITA NOS.273 & 275/MUM/2013 (SUPRA), HAS TAKEN A SIMILAR VIEW, I.T.A. NO. 469/MDS/2014 12 WHERE NO SPECIFIC AGREEMENT WITH THE STATE GOVERNME NT WAS ENTERED INTO BUT FROM THE APPROVALS GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE IT WAS INFERRED THAT ASSESSEE SHOULD BE DEEMED TO HAVE ENT ERED INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH THE STATE GOVERNMENT. THUS, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS COMPLIED WITH ALL THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 80IA(4)(I) AND IS ELIGIBLE TO CLAIM DEDUCTION UNDER THE SAID SECTION. THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS SET ASIDE. THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON MONDAY, THE 14 TH JULY, 2014 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( . . . ) ( ! ) (DR. O.K. NARAYANAN) (VIKAS AWAS THY) '#$ / VICE PRESIDENT % &' / JUDICIAL MEMBER (% /CHENNAI, )& /DATED: 14 TH JULY, 2014 TNMM &* +,-, /COPY TO: 1. /APPELLANT 2. /RESPONDENT 3. ./0 /CIT(A) 4. . /CIT 5. ,12 3 /DR 6. 245 /GF