Neyveli Lignite Corporation Limited, Neyveli V. DCIT, CHENNAI

ITA 483/CHNY/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6486 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-06-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 22-06-2011
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 16-04-2010
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P B SEKARAN
• Assessee Lawyers: R VIJAYARAGHAVANR
• Keywords: Business income; Depreciation; Capital receipt; Revenue expenditure

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENCH B CHENNAI BEFORE SHRI ABRAHAM P.GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER .. ITA NO.482/MDS./10 ASSESSME NT YEAR:2006-07 ITA NO.483/MDS./10 ASSESSME NT YEAR:2007-08 NEYVELI LIGNITE CORPORATION LIMITED, NEYVELI 607 801. VS. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , LARGE TAX PAYER UNIT, CHENNAI 600 101. PAN AACN 1121 C (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI R.VIJAYARAGHAVANR DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI P.B.SEKARAN O R D E R PER ABRAHAM P.GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : THESE ARE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGA INST THE ORDERS DT.24.02.10 OF CIT (LARGE TAXPAYER UNIT -AP PEALS), CHENNAI FOR THE RESPECTIVE ASSESSMENT YEARS. 2. APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 IS TAKEN UP FIRST FOR DISPOSAL. SOLE ISSUE IN THIS APPEAL IS THE TREATM ENT OF SALES PROCEEDS OF GEOLOGICAL DATA. AS PER ASSESSEE, SUCH GEOLOGICAL DATA WAS CLASSIFIABLE AS BOOKS AND WOULD COME UNDER THE DEFINITION OF PLANT GIVEN U/S.43(3) OF IN COME TAX ACT, PAGE OF 12 ITA. 482/483/MDS/10 2 1961 ( IN SHORT THE ACT ). ARGUMENTS OF THE ASSE SSEE WAS THAT IT HAD NEITHER CLAIMED DEPRECIATION U/S.32 NOR CLAI MED THE EXPENSES AS REVENUE OUTGOES, BUT HAD CARRIED IT A S A PART OF ITS MISCELLANEOUS EXPENDITURE IN THE BALANCE SHEE T. AGAIN AS PER ASSESSEE, DECISION OF APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. ELECON ENGINEERING C O. LTD. 166 ITR 66 AND SCIENTIFIC ENGINEERING HOUSE (P) LTD . VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 157 ITR 86 WERE APPLICAB LE ON FACTS. 3. SHORT FACTS, APROPOS ARE THAT ASSESSEE, ENGAGED IN THE BUSIENSS OF LIGNITE MINING, HAD INCURRED EXPENDITUR E FOR COLLECTING GEOLOGICAL DATA PERTAINING TO VARIOUS PR OJECTS AT BAHUR, JAMMU & KASHMIR. AS PER ASSESSEE, IT WAS AC TING AS A NODAL AGENT APPOINTED BY GOVERNMENT OF INDIA FOR TH E PURPOSE OF COLLECTING GEOLOGICAL DATA ON LIGNITE DE POSITS AND COORDINATING EFFORTS TO LOCATE AREAS PROFICIENT IN LIGNITE DEPOSITS. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE, SUCH EXPLORA TION AND COLLECTION OF GEOLOGICAL DATA WAS DONE ON BEHALF O F CENTRAL GOVERNMENT AND THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED BEING RECO VERABLE FROM OTHER AGENCIES UNDER THE GOVERNMENT, WHICH WER E GIVEN THE RESPONSIBILITY TO DO LIGNITE MINING, IT H AD CARRIED SUCH EXPENSES AS PART OF ITS MISCELLANEOUS EXPENDIT URE ON THE ASSETS SIDE OF ITS BALANCE SHEET. IN OTHER WORDS, A CCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE, THESE WERE EXPENDITURE OF CAPITAL NAT URE AND RECOVERIES ON SALE OF GEOLOGICAL DATA WERE CAPITAL RECEIPTS. HOWEVER, IN THE OPINION OF THE LD.ASSESSING OFFICER ASSESSEE COULD NOT TAKE DIFFERENT VIEWS WITH REGARD TO ACCOU NTING OF OF EXPENSES AND WITH REGARD TO ACCOUNTING OF REALIS ATIONS PAGE OF 12 ITA. 482/483/MDS/10 3 FROM SALE OF GEOLOGICAL DATA. LD. ASSESSING OFFICE R CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT ASSESSEE CONDUCTED EXPLORATION AT VARIOUS PLACES AND COLLECTED GEOLOGICAL DATA OF WHICH SOME WERE SOLD, AND SOMEWHERE EXPLOITED BY THE ASSESSEE ITSEL F. HE WAS THEREFORE OF THE OPINION THAT EXPENSES INCURRED FOR COLLECTING GEOLOGICAL DATA COULD AT THE BEST BE TRE ATED AS EXPENSES INCURRED FOR ACQUISITION OF BUSINESS BLOCK . THEREFORE, PROFIT ON SALE OF SUCH STOCK COULD BE CO NSIDERED AS BUSINESS PROFIT ONLY. HENCE, HE MADE AN ADDITION O F RS.9,39,70,450/- AS BUSINESS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE , BEING THE SALE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED ON SALE OF GEOLOGIC AL DATA AFTER DEDUCTING THE EXPENSES INCURRED. 4. IN ITS APPEAL BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(A), ARGUMENT OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT THE GEOLOGICAL DATA WAS NEVER TREATED AS CLOSING STOCK BY IT. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE, THESE WERE BOOKS AND CAME UNDER THE DEF INITION OF PLANT U/S.43(3) OF THE ACT. LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(A) SOUGHT A REMAND REPORT FROM THE ASSESSING OF FICER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN SUCH REMAND REPORT REITER ATED HIS EARLIER VIEWS. LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(A) AF TER GOING THROUGH THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE AND REMAND R EPORT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD AS UNDER AT PARA 4.3 OF HIS ORDER:- 4.3. I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE APPELLANT INCLUDING THE DEC ISIONS RELIED ON BY IT. THE APPELLANT IS THE NODAL AGENCY FOR COLLECTION OF GEOLOGICAL DATA AND IS BOUND BY THE DIRECTIVES O F THE GOVERNMENT. THE GEOLOGICAL DATA COLLECTED CAN BE FOR SALE OR PAGE OF 12 ITA. 482/483/MDS/10 4 FOR OWN USE. IT IS CLEAR FROM THE FACTS THAT THE A PPELLANT SELLS GEOLOGICAL DATA ONLY AS PER THE DIRECTIVES AN D TO THE PARTY NOMINATED BY GOVERNMENT. THE COLLECTION OF GEOLOGICAL DATA IS DONE IN THE COURSE OF ITS OPERAT ION AS NODAL AGENCY. THUS THE RECEIPTS ARISE IN THE COURSE OF T HE BUSINESS OPERATION OF APPELLANT. IT IS ALSO OBSERVED THAT E XPENDITURE IN RESPECT OF ABANDONED PROJECTS IS CHARGED TO PROF IT AND LOSS ACCOUNT. HENCE, THE CONVERSE ALSO HOLDS GOOD. THE I NCOME ARISING OUT OF THE SALE OF SUCH GEOLOGICAL DATA IS ALSO TO BE CREDITED TO PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT. THE RELIANCE PLACED BY THE LD. AR ON THE DECISIONS OF ELECON ENGG. CO LTD (SUPRA) AND SCIENTIFIC ENGG. HOUSE P. LTD (SUPRA) ARE DISTI NGUISHABLE ON FACTS. THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT BOOKS CONSTITUT E PLANTS. BUT THE LD. AR HAS NOT EXPLAINED AS TO HOW THIS FUR THERS THE CAUSE OF THE APPELLANT. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX U/S.263 FOR A.Y.2001-01 HELD THAT THE GEOLOGICAL DA TA AVAILABLE WITH THE APPELLANT CONSTITUTED CLOSING ST OCK. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, IN THE REMAND REPORT HAS ALSO RI GHTLY ARGUED THAT THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED ON GEOLOGICAL DATA ARE AKIN TO THOSE INCURRED FOR ACQUISITION OF BUSINESS STOCK AND PROFIT ON SALE OF SUCH STOCK ARE TO BE TREATED AS B USINESS PROFIT. FURTHER, THE HONBLE ITAT DELHI HAS ALSO HE LD IN THE CASE OF M/S.ONGC VIDESH LTD. VS. D COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 127 TTJ 497 THAT THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY TH E ASSESSEE ON SEISMIC DATA COLLECTED BY IT IS REVENUE IN NATURE. THERE IS NO REASON AS TO WHY COMMERCIAL EXPLOITATIO N OF SUCH DATA WOULD NOT CONSTITUTE BUSINESS RECEIPTS. BASED ON THE ABOVE FACTS, I AM OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT TH E GEOLOGICAL DATA COLLECTED BY APPELLANT IS REVENUE I N NATURE. PAGE OF 12 ITA. 482/483/MDS/10 5 ACCORDINGLY, THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THIS ISSUE IS SUSTAINED. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL ON THIS ISSUE I S DISMISSED. 5. NOW BEFORE US LD. AR ASSAILING THE ORDER OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW, SUBMITTED THAT SURVEY WORK AND C OLLECTION OF GEOLOGICAL DATA WAS DONE ON THE DIRECTION OF THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT. ACCORDING TO HIM, ASSESSEE HAD AT NO P OINT OF TIME TREATED THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED FOR COLLECTIN G GEOLOGICAL DATA AS A PART OF ITS REVENUE OUTGOES. REFERRING TO PAPER BOOK AT PAGE-4, LD. COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT TH E GEOLOGICAL REPORTS OBTAINED WERE GIVEN TO ONE MARU DHAR POWER PRIVATE LIMITED. REFERRING AT PAGE-7 OF PAPE R BOOK BY LD.AR SUBMITTED THAT GEOLOGICAL REPORT WAS ALSO REC EIVED BY RAJASTHAN STATE MINES & MINERALS LTD. SUCH GEOLOGI CAL REPORTS WERE NOTHING BUT PLANT AND HENCE SALE THER EOF WOULD BE EXIGIBLE TO CAPITAL GAINS ONLY AND NOT AS BUSINE SS PROFITS. PER CONTRA LD. DR SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE AUTHOR ITIES BELOW. 6. WE HAVE PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES B ELOW CAREFULLY AND HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS. THOUGHT THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE EXPENSES INCURRED FOR COLLEC TION GEOLOGICAL DATA WAS BEING CARRIED IN ITS BALANCE SH EET AS A PART OF MISCELLANEOUS EXPENDITURE, NOTHING HAS BE EN BROUGHT ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT IN THE MISCELLANEOUS EXPENDITURE, CARRIED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS BALANCE SHEET, ANY PART COMPRISED OF EXPENSES RELATABLE TO COLLECTION OF GEOLOGICAL DATA. WITHOUT DOUBT GEOLOGICAL DATA WA S FOR THE PAGE OF 12 ITA. 482/483/MDS/10 6 PURPOSE OF ENABLING LIGNITE MINING. ASSESSEES BUS INESS WAS IN LIGNITE MINING AND THIS ALSO CAN NOT BE CONTROVE RTED. THIS BEING THE CASE COLLECTION OF GEOLOGICAL DATA, WHIC H WOULD HELP THE ASSESSEE IN IDENTIFYING THE AREAS GOOD FOR LIGNITE MINING, CANNOT BE TAKEN AS SOMETHING, WHICH IS NOT A PART OF THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE. MAY BE THAT SUCH DAT A WAS COLLECTED ON THE DIRECTIONS OF THE CENTRAL GOVERNME NT FOR THE PURPOSE OF BENEFITING OTHER LIGNITE MANUFACTURERS. BUT NEVERTHELESS IT WOULD STILL REMAIN A PART OF THE B USINESS OF THE ASSESSEE ONLY. IF THE DATA COLLECTED FELL WITH IN THE TERM BOOKS AND CONSEQUENTLY A PLANT AS DEFINED U/S.43(5 ) OF THE ACT, ASSESSEE WOULD HAVE DEFINITELY TREATED IT SO I N ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND NOT AS A PART OF ITS MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES IN ITS BALANCE SHEET. NOTABLY, WE FIND THAT MISCEL LANEOUS EXPENDITURE WAS BEING WRITTEN OFF IN A GRADED MANNE R OVER THE YEARS. HENCE ASSESSEES CLAIM THAT THE EXPENDIT URE INCURRED WERE OF CAPITAL NATURE AND REALIZATION THE REFROM ON SALE, WERE CAPITAL RECEIPTS ARE WITHOUT ANY FOUNDAT ION. AS FOR THE RELIANCE PLACED ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF ELECON ENGINEERING C. LTD.(SUPRA), WHA T WAS HELD BY THEIR LORDSHIPS WAS THAT PLANT INCLUDED DRAWING S ACQUIRED FROM FOREIGN COLLABORATORS FOR MANUFACTURING GEARS AND FOR COMING TO THIS CONCLUSION, HONBLE APEX COURT RELIE D ON ITS OWN DECISION IN THE CASE OF SCIENTIFIC ENGINEERING HOUSE PVT LTD.,(SUPRA). IN THE LATTER CASE, ASSESSEE HAD EN TERED INTO TECHNICAL COLLABORATION AGREEMENT WITH A FOREIGN CO MPANY FOR MANUFACTURING CERTAIN SCIENTIFIC INSTRUMENTS. T HE SAID FOREIGN COLLABORATOR HAD ALSO RENDERED DOCUMENTATIO N SERVICES WITH REGARD TO SUCH SCIENTIFIC INSTRUMENT S PAGE OF 12 ITA. 482/483/MDS/10 7 COMPRISING OF DRAWINGS, DESIGNS, CHARTS, PLANS AND OTHER LITERATURES. IT WAS IN THIS CONTEXT THAT HONBLE A PEX COURT HELD SUCH DRAWING, DESIGNS, CHARTS AND PLANTS TO B E BOOKS FALLING WITHIN THE DEFINITION OF PLANT. HERE ON THE OTHER HAND, ASSESSEE WAS SELLING GEOLOGICAL DATA NOT AS A PART OF ANY COLLABORATION AGREEMENT FOR MINING LIGNITE OR AS A PART OF A TURNKEY PROJECT. THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE OPINION LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN CONF IRMING THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TREATING THE SA LE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED ON SALE OF GEOLOGICAL DATA A S BUSINESS INCOME. APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE STANDS DISMISSED. 7. NOW WE TAKE AN APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. TWO ISSUES HAVE BEEN RAISE D BY THE ASSESSEE IN THIS APPEAL. FIRST ISSUE APPEARING IN ITS GROUND NOS.2 & 3 ARE AGAINST THE TREATMENT OF SALE PROCEED S OF GEOLOGICAL DATA AS BUSINESS RECEIPTS. WE HAVE ALRE ADY DEALT WITH THIS ISSUE IN ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR ASSESSMEN T YEAR 2006-07 AT PARA-6 ABOVE. THEREFORE, GROUND NOS. 2 & 3 ARE DISMISSED. 8. SURVIVING GROUND NO.4 ASSAILS THE ORDERS OF TH E AUTHORITIES BELOW DISALLOWING EXPENSES OF RS.2,31,5 2,085/- ON INSURANCE PREMIUM PAID IN THE MONTH OF MARCH, 2007. AS PER ASSESSEE, THE PAYMENT MADE IN MARCH, 2007 WAS TO BE TREATED AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE THOUGH SHOWN AS PRE-PAID. 9. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, AS SESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO EXPLAIN WHY THE INSURANCE PREMIUM P AID PAGE OF 12 ITA. 482/483/MDS/10 8 SHOULD NOT BE DISALLOWED AS IT DID NOT PERTAIN TO T HE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR. REPLY OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT THE UNEXPIRED PERIOD IN THE INSURANCE PLANS, WAS MATERIALLY INSI GNIFICANT, CONSIDERING THE NATURE AND SIZE OF ITS BUSINESS. A S PER ASSESSEE EVEN IF ACCRUAL BASIS OF ACCOUNTING, IT WO ULD BE ENTITLED TO CLAIM SUCH EXPENSES. ASSESSEE ALSO POI NTED OUT THAT THIS METHOD WAS BEING CONSISTENTLY FOLLOWED BY IT SINCE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005- 05. HOWEVER, ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT IMPRESSED. ACCOR DING TO HIM, EACH ASSESSMENT YEAR WAS TO BE SEPARATELY CON SIDERED FOR INCOME TAX PURPOSES. HE THEREFORE MADE A DISALL OWANCE OF RS.2,31,52,085/-. 10. IN ITS APPEAL BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCO ME TAX(A), ARGUMENT OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT AGAINST THE TOTAL EXPENDITURE OF RS.1874 CRORES, THE AMOUNT OF RS.2.3 1 CRORES WAS NEGLIGIBLE AND NOT MATERIAL. IN ANY CASE AS PER THE ASSESSEE, EVEN UNDER THE CONCEPT OF ACCRUAL METHO D OF ACCOUNTING, MATERIALITY HAD TO BE CONSIDERED. LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(A) WAS NOT APPRECIATIVE OF THIS CONTENTION. ACCORDING TO HIM, EXPENDITURE PERTAIN ED TO SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 AND ALLOWANCE CO ULD NOT BE GIVEN ON THE BASIS OF MATERIALITY. NOTING TH AT ASSESSEE WAS FOLLOWING MERCANTILE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING, LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(A) SUSTAINED THE DISALLO WANCE. PAGE OF 12 ITA. 482/483/MDS/10 9 11. NOW BEFORE US, LD. AR ARGUED THAT ACCRUAL BASI S OF ACCOUNTING DID NOT IMPLY PREPARATION OF DETAILED CA LCULATION, EVEN FOR SMALL AND IMMATERIAL AMOUNTS . ACCORDING TO HIM THE INSURANCE PREMIUM WAS PAID BY THE ASSESSEE AND HENC E IT WAS ALLOWABLE EXPENDITURE. PER CONTRA LD. DR SUPPOR TED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. 12. WE HAVE PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW CAREFULLY AND HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS. THE DISALLO WANCE WAS MADE FOR A REASON THAT INSURANCE PREMIUM PAID COVER ED PERIODS SUBSEQUENT TO THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR. NEVERTHELESS THE PAYMENT OF INSURANCE PREMIUM HAS N OT BEEN DISPUTED. PAYMENT OF PREMIUM IS NOT AN EXPENSES CO MING UNDER THE PURVIEW OF ACCRUAL SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING A ND ALSO CANNOT BE REGARDED AS PERIOD COST. THERE IS NO ACCR UAL OF LIABILITY FOR SUCH PAYMENTS AND ASSESSEE BY PAYING INSURANCE PREMIUM IS COVERING ITS RISKS FOR FUTURE. THE RISK COVERED COULD BE FOR A YEAR OR FOR A TENURE OF A PROJECT. THE PER IOD WOULD IN ALMOST ALL CASE RUN BEYOND THE END OF A PREVIOUS YE AR. NEVERTHELESS, THE MOMENT PREMIUM IS PAID, THE INSUR ANCE COMPANY IS OBLIGED TO RENDER SERVICES. IT IS NOT D ISPUTED THAT THE PREMIUM WAS PAID FOR THE BUSINESS PURPOSE OF TH E ASSESSEE. THE PAYMENT HERE WAS ONLY 0.12% OF THE T OTAL EXPENDITURE OF ASSESSEE AS, MENTIONED BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(A) AT PARA-4 OF HIS OR DER. THIS IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER FOR BREVITY. PAGE OF 12 ITA. 482/483/MDS/10 10 4. THE AMOUNT OF RS.2.31 CRORES OUT OF TOTAL EXPENDITU RE RS.1874 CRORES ARE NOT MATERIAL. IT IS ONLY 0.12% OF TOTAL EXPENDITURE. WHEN CONSIDERED INDIVIDUALLY IT WORKS TO EVEN LOWER PERCENTAGES. THE BREAK UP IS GIVEN BELOW: SL. NO. UNIT AMOUNT % OF TOTAL EXPENDI TURE 1 MINE I 29,00,972/- 0.02% 2 MINE IA 9,74,632/- 0.01% 3 THERMAL I 97,44,994/- 0.05% 4 THERMAL I EXPANSION 88,99,141/- 0.05% 5 OTHERS 6,32,346/- 0.00% TOTAL 2,31,52,085/- 0.12% 13. IN ANY CASE, CLAUSE(I) OF SECTION 30 OF THE AC T ALLOW AN ASSESSEE TO CLAIM EXPENSES INCURRED FOR INSURANCE P REMIUM FOR PREMISES AND CLAUSE(II) OF SECTION 31 ALLOW IT TO CLAIM SUCH PREMIUM EXPENSES ON MACHINES, PLANT OR FURNITURE, A LL ON PAYMENT BASIS. SECTIONS DO NOT SAY THAT SUCH PREMIU M IS ALLOWABLE ONLY FOR THE PERIOD COVERED IN A GIVEN PR EVIOUS YEAR. THUS, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THE EXPENDITURE COULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISALLOWED. THE DISALLOWANCE THEREFORE, STAND S DELETED. GROUND NO.4 OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. IN THE RES ULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-09 IS PART LY ALLOWED. PAGE OF 12 ITA. 482/483/MDS/10 11 14. TO SUMMARISE THE RESULTS, APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 IS DISMISSED, WHEEREAS APPEAL FOR ASSESSMEN T YEAR 2007-08 IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 30 TH JUNE, 2011. SD/- SD/- ( GEORGE MATHAN ) ( ABRAHAM P. GEORGE ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER CHENNAI, DATED THE 30 TH JUNE, 2011. K S SUNDARAM COPY TO: ASSESSEE/AO/CIT (A)/CIT/D.R./GUARD FILE PAGE OF 12 ITA. 482/483/MDS/10 12 DATE INITIALS 1. DRAFT DICTATED ON 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHORITY 3. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER 4. DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO P.S. 6. KEEP FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK 8. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE 9. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER