M/s. Madras Gymkhana Club, CHENNAI V. DCIT, CHENNAI

ITA 747/CHNY/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 136 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4457 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-07-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 16-07-2010
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 19-05-2009
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: S SRIDHAR
• Section: 234B; 194C; 2

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENCH D CHENNAI BEFORE SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE,ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER .. I.T.A. NOS. 747/MDS/2009 ASSESSMENT YEAR :2005-06 M/S, MADRAS GYMKHANA CLUB , ISLAND, ANNA SALAI, CHENNAI-600 002. VS. THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BUSINESS WARD-VI, CHENNAI (PAN:AAATM7562R ) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI S. SRIDHAR RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SHAJI P. JACOB O R D E R PER GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST TH E ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS)-IX, CHENNAI IN APPEAL NO. INCOME TAX A CT NO. 279/0708 DATED 29-01-2009 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. I.T.A. NO.747/MDS/2009 2 2. SHRI S. SRIDHAR, ADVOCATE REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AND SHRI SHAJI P. JACOB, LEARNED SR. DR REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE. 3. IN THE ASSESSEES APPEAL THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THREE ISSUES, THE FIRST ONE BEING AGAINST THE ACTION OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN CONFIRM ING THE ACTION OF THE AO IN HOLDING THAT THE INTEREST INCOME RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE TO AN EXTENT OF RS. 28,29,845/- FROM THE INVESTMENTS MADE IN THE BANKS WHO WERE NOT OF THE M EMBERS OF THE ASSESSEE CLUB AS NOT BEING ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION ON ACCOUNT OF THE PRIN CIPLE OF MUTUALITY; THE SECOND BEING AGAINST THE ACTION OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN CONFIRM ING THE ACTION OF THE AO IN TREATING THE DONATIONS RECEIVED FOR SPORT TOURNAMENTS AS RECEIPT S FROM NON-MEMBERS ESPECIALLY WHEN THEY WERE VOLUNTARY RECEIPTS AND CONTRIBUTION BY TH E DONORS AND THE THIRD BEING AGAINST THE ACTION OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN CONFIRMING THE LEVY OF INTEREST U/S 234B OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 4. AT THE TIME OF HEARING IT WAS FAIRLY AGREED BY B OTH THE SIDES THAT THE ISSUE IN REGARD TO THE INTEREST INCOME FROM BANKS WAS SQUARELY COVE RED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE BY THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN TAX CASE (APPEAL) NOS. 397 TO 404 OF 2008 FOR THE ASSES SMENT YEARS 1996-97 TO 1998-99, REPORTED IN 226 CTR 176 (MAD), WHERE THE HON'BLE HI GH COURT HAS HELD AS FOLLOWS: 29. T HOUGH I N THE FIRST BLUSH SUCH AN ARGUMENT LOOKS ATTRACTIVE , WE ARE NOT ABLE TO COUNTENAN CE SUCH A N ARGUMENT AS IT WILL HAVE TO BE STATED THAT SUCH INVESTMENTS AND THE EARNING O F I N TEREST HAVE ABSO L UTELY NO NEXUS TO THE OBJECTS ENUMERATED UNDER THE RULES OF THE CLUB . IT WAS CONT EN D ED THAT M ERELY BECAUSE SUCH INVESTMENT OF SURPLUS FUNDS HAVE BEEN MADE AND THEREBY E NO RMOUS AMO UNT OF INTEREST ARE EARNED IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THAT WOULD ERASE THE MUTUAL I NTER E ST O F THE M E MBER S OF THE CLUB IN ITS OTHER ACTIVITIES. EVEN THOUGH EXISTENCE OF THE CLUB AND I TS ACT I VIT IES AND ! FACILITIES ARE FOR THE MUTUAL INTEREST OF ITS MEMBERS AND SUCH MUTUAL INTEREST IN RESP E CT O F ITS REGULA R AC TI V I TIES VIS-A-VIS ITS MEMBERS I.T.A. NO.747/MDS/2009 3 CONTINUE TO REMAIN , BASED ON THAT ALONE IT CANNOT B E HE L D THAT ITS O T HER ACTIVITIES SUCH AS ITS FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT OF DEPO SITING THE SURPLU S FUNDS I N V AR I O US BANKIN G I NST I TUT I ONS AND THEREBY EARNING SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT BY WAY OF INTEREST SHOULD ALSO BE H EL D TO HAV E EVERY NE X US TO THE REGULAR AND NORMAL ACTIVITIES OF THE CLUB VIS-A - VIS ITS MEMBERS. . 30 . IT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE CLUBS THAT THE FUND S WHICH WERE INVESTED IN THE FORM OF FI XE D \ D EPOSI TS OR SECURITIES WERE KEPT IN SUCH DEPOSIT WITH A DEFINITE IDEA OF USING THE SAME I N A NY SPE C IFI C P R O J ECT FOR THE FURTHER DEVELOPMENT OF THE INFRASTRUCTURAL FACI LIT I ES OF THE CLUB IN THE FOR M OF BUILDIN GS OR OTHER FACIL I TIES. ON THE OTHER HAND WHILE THE ASSESSEE CLUBS WERE ABLE TO G EN E R A TE SUBSTA NT I AL AMOUNT BY WAY OF CONTRIBUTION , DONATION ETC. , IT HAD NO CORRESPONDING PLANS OR S CH E M ES TO IMP ROVE ITS INFRASTRUCTURE FACILITIES OR THAT SUCH SURPLUS FUND S WERE EARMARKED FOR ANY PART I C ULAR D EVE LOPMENTAL ACTIVITY IN THE INTEREST OF ALL THE MEMBE RS OF THE ASSESSEE CLUBS AND THAT S I N CE I N C URR I NG OF THE EXPENSES FOR SUCH ACTIV I TIES CAN BE MADE IN A PHASED MANNER, THE AMOUNT S WE R E B EIN G K EPT I N SUCH A WAY THAT IT COULD BE DRAWN FOR SPENDING AS AND WHEN THE REQUIREM E NT F OR S UC H SPENDI NG IS NECESSITATED. 31. ON THE OT H ER H AND , THE S I MP L E STAND OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT COLLECT I ON OF THE CONTR I BUT I O NS , DONATI ONS ETC. , R ESULTED I N GENERATION OF SURPLUS FUNDS AND THAT THERE WAS NO REQUIR E MENT FOR S P E N DI NG S UCH AMOUNTS IN THE NEAR FUTURE AND IT HAD TO BE NECESSA R I LY KEPT I N SAFE D E POSIT O R SECUR I TI E S WIT H THE I R CORPORATE MEMBERS . BASED ON SUCH A CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE CLUBS I T C ANNO T B E I STRAIGH TAWA Y HE L D THAT SUCH INVESTMENTS WITH CORPORATE MEMBERS SHOULD BE EQUAT E D OR BROU G HT WITHIN THE CONCEPT OF MUTUALITY AND THE BENEFIT OF TAX EXEMPTION SHOULD B E EXTENDED EVEN IN RESPECT OF SUCH DEPOSITS IN RESPECT OF THE SURPLUS INCOME. 32 . THE V ARIOU S PRINCIPLES SET OUT ON THE CONCEPT OF MUTUAL I TY WH I CH HAVE B EE N S P ELT O UT I N THE D ECIS I O N O F THE HON ' BLE SUPREME COURT REPORTED IN CHELMSFORD CLUB VS . CIT (SUP R A ) AR E A S F OLLO W S : (1) THE IDENTITY OF THE CONTRIBUTORS TO THE FUND AN D THE RECIPIENTS FROM THE FUND, (2) THE TREATMENT OF THE COMPANY , THOUGH INCORPORATED AS A MERE ENT I TY FOR TH E CONVENI E NC E O F T HE ME M B ERS A ND PO LIC YHOLDE R S , IN OTHE R W ORDS, AS AN I NS T RUMEN T OBEDI E NT TO T HE I R MANDAT E, AN D (3) TH E IMPOSSIBI L I T Y T HA T CON T R I BUTOR S SHOULD DER I VE PROF I TS FROM CONTR I BUTIONS MADE BY T HEMSELVES TO A F U ND WHICH COU LD ONLY BE E X PENDED OR RETURNED TO THEMSELVES. ' SIMIL ARLY I N CIT VS. BAN KI PUR CLUB LTD . ( 1997 ) 140 CTR ( SC ) 102 ( 1997) 2 26 N R 9 7 (SC ) WHI L E SETTIN G OUT TH E B ENEFI T S BA S ED ON THE PR I NCIPLE OF MU T UALITY , THE HON ' BLE SUP RE M E CO U R T HEL D AS UNDER: I.T.A. NO.747/MDS/2009 4 ' UNDE R TH E N ACT, W HAT I S TAXED I S THE ' I NCOME , PROFITS OR GAINS ' EARNED OR ' AR ISI NG ', ' ACCRU IN G ' T O A ' PERSO N '. WHERE A N UMBER OF PERSONS COMBINE TOG E THER AND CONTRIBUTE TO A COMMON FUN D F O R THE FINANCI NG O F SOME V ENTURE O R OBJECT AND I N THIS RESPECT HAV E NO DEAL I NGS OR RELATION S W I T H ANY OUTSIDE BODY, T H E N A N Y SURPLUS RETURNED TO THOSE PERSONS CANNOT B E REGARD E D IN A NY SENS E A S P R OF I T. THERE MUST BE C OMPLETE I DENT I TY BETWEEN THE CONTR I BUTORS AND THE PART I C I PATOR S. IF T H ES E REQUIRE M E NTS A R E FULF I LL E D , I T I S IMMATER I A L WHAT PART I CULAR FORM THE ASSOC I ATION TAKE S . TR A D I N G BETWEE N PERS O NS A SS OCIAT I NG TOG E THE R IN THIS WAY DOES NOT G I V E RISE TO PROFITS W H I C H ARE C H ARG E A BL E TO TA X . WHERE T H E TRAD E OR ACTIV I TY I S MUTUAL, THE FACT THAT, AS REGARDS CERTAIN ACT IV I T I ES , C E RTAI N M E MBE RS ON L Y OF TH E A SS OCIAT I ON TAK E ADVANTAGE OF THE FAC IL IT I ES WH I CH IT OFFERS DO ES NOT A FFE C T T H E MUT U A LITY OF T H E E NTERPR IS E .' 3 3 . IN THE A BOV E CA SE TH E FACTS AS S ET OUT I N THE DEC I SION DISCLOSES THAT THE VARIOU S C LUB S VI Z . , B ANKI PU R CL UB L T D ., RANCHI CLUB LTD . , CR I CKET CLUB OF IND I A AND NORTHERN IN D I A N MO TIO N P I C T U RES AS S OC I ATION WERE IN R E CE I P T OF S URPLUS FUNDS ARISING FROM THE SALES OF DRINKS , R E FR ES HM E NT ETC . , O R AMOUNTS RECE IVED BY WAY OF RENT FOR LETTING OUT THE BUILDINGS A ND AMOUNT S R EC E I V E D B Y WAY OF ADMISSION FEES , PER I OD I CAL SUBSCR I PT I O N AND REC EI PTS OF S I M I LA R NATUR E F RO M ITS MEMBE R S . THE TRIBUNA L AS W ELL AS T H E H I GH COURT HAD FOUND THAT THE AMOUNTS RECEIVED BY TH E CLUB S W E R E FO R S U PPLY OF DR I NK S, RE FRE S HMENTS OR OTH E R GOOD S AS ALSO THE L E TT I NG OU T OF BU I LD I NG F OR R E N T OR BY W AY OF ADMIS S I ON FEES, PER I ODICAL SUBSC RI PT I ON , ETC . , FROM THE M E MB E RS OF T H E C L UB T O MEET THE CHARG ES FO R THE PR I VILE G ES , C O N VENIENCES AND AMENI TI E S PROVIDED TO THE MEMBERS WHICH THEY WER E E N T I T LE D T O AS PER THE R UL ES AND REGU L AT I ONS OF THE RESPECTIVE CLUBS. I T W A S ALSO FOUND THAT DIFF ERE N T C LU BS R EA LISE D V AR I O US SU M S ON THE ABOVE COUNTS ONLY TO AFFORD TO THEI R MEMBE RS, TH E USUAL PR I V I L E G E S , A D VANT A G E S , C O N VENI E NC E S AND ACCOMMODATION . IT WAS NOT DONE WITH PRIVATE MOT I VE S OR TAI NTE D WITH C OMMER C I AL I TY . THE F ACIL I T I ES WERE O F FERED ONLY AS A MATTER OF CONV E NIENCE F OR T HE US E OF THE MEMBE RS AND TH EI R FR I ENDS , I F ANY , AVA I LING OF THE FAC I LITIES OCCAS I ONALLY . 34 . A S F AR AS THE DIVIS I ON BENCH J UDGMEN T OF THE KARNATAKA H I GH COURT IN T H E CASE O F CN & A NR. VS. BAN GALORE CLU B ( SU PRA ) I S CONCERNED , THE FACTS ARE IDENTICAL AND TH E A SSE S S E E I N T H AT CA S E IS ALSO A C LU B H AV I NG I D E N TI CAL NATURE OF MEMBERSH I P AND ACT I VITIES. THE VARIOUS REASONING ADD U C ED I N THE S AI D J UDGM E NT SQUARELY APPL I E S TO THE FAC T S OF T H I S CASE AND THERE F O R E W E ADOPT TH E S A I D REASONIN G ALSO TO S UPPORT OUR CONCLUSIONS. 35 . AS F A R A S I N THE OTHER J UDGMENT OF T HE KARNA T A K A HIGH COURT V I Z. , CANARA BAN K G O L DEN J U B ILEE S TA F F WE L FA RE FUN D VS . DY . CN ( SUPRA ) T HE ASSESSEE I S A SOC I ETY FORMED BY THE EMPL OYEE S O F T H E BAN K AN D T HE OBJEC T OF THE SOCIETY VAR I ES I N VERY MANY RESPECTS WHEN COMPARED T O TH E O B J ECT S O F THE C LU B WH I CH I S OU T- AND - OUT MEANT F OR R ECREAT I ONAL PURPOSES. THE OB J EC T OF T H E S OC IETY WA S M A I N LY IN T EN D E D FO R FU L FI LLING VARIOUS WELFARE ACTIVIT I ES OF ITS MEMBERS I N CONTRADISTINCT I ON TO T HE CLUB W HERE TH E M A I N AC TIVI T IES ARE PURELY RECREA TI ONAL. THEREFORE, WHATEVER STATED I N THE S A I D JUDGMEN T W ILL H A VE T O B E CON S T R U E D TO HAVE BEEN STATED I N THE SPECIAL FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCE S O F THAT CAS E AND IT CANNO T H A VE UN I V ERS A L APPL I CAT I ON . WE A RE N OT THEREFORE I NCL I NED TO FOL L O W TH E I.T.A. NO.747/MDS/2009 5 S A I D JUDG MENT A S IN OUR CO NSI DERED OP I N I ON , THE SAME I S NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF TH I S CASE . 36 . T HE R E FOR E WHAT IS RELEVANT IS TO SEE AS TO HOW THE FUNDS GENE RATED BY WAY OF CONTRIBUT I ON , D ONATI O N ETC . , FR OM THE MEMBERS AS WELL AS THE OUTSIDERS ARE E X PENDED AND THAT UTI L I S ATION OF S U CH FUND S WE RE WITH A VI E W TO FULF I LL THE OBJECT OF PROVIDING VARIOUS RECREAT I ONAL AND O T HER F AC IL I TIES T O TH E MEM BERS AND T H EN ALONE I T CAN BE H E LD THAT THE PR I NC I PLE O F IDENT I TY B E T WEE N TH E CO N T R I B U T OR AND T HE PARTICIPATOR I S FULF I LLE D W H I C H I S TH E BAS I C R EQU I REMEN T I N THE CONCEPT O F MUTUAL I TY OF T HE ENT E RP R ISE . 3 7 . AT THE RIS K OF R E P E TITION , I T W I LL HA V E TO BE HELD T HAT I NVESTMENT OF SURPLUS F UND WITH S OME OF TH E M E MBER BANK S AN D OTHE R INSTITUT I ON S I N THE FORM OF FIXED DEPOS I TS AND S ECUR I T I E S W H I CH IN TUR N R ESULT I N E ARNING OF HUGE SURPLUS AMOUNTS BY WAY OF INTEREST CANNOT BE HELD T O S ATISFY T H E M U T UAL I TY C ONCE P T. A S H E LD I N THE DECISION OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT REPORTED IN CN V S. LT .L E MPLOY EES D EATH & SUP E R A NNUATION RE LIEF FUND ( SUPRA) THE PRINCIPLE OF MUTUAL I TY COULD B E C ONFIN E D IN R ES P EC T OF THE INCO M E E A R NED BY THE CLUB OUT OF THE CONTR I BUT I ON S RECE I VED BY TH E C L UB F RO M IT S M EMBE R S BUT I T W IL L H A VE NO A PP LI CATION IN RESPECT OF THE INTEREST E ARNED FROM TH E DEPO SITS OF S UR PLU S FUNDS IN TH E B ANKS BY WAY O F I NCOME . 38 . H AVIN G RE G AR D T O OUR ABO V E CO NC L U S I O N, TH E FI RST QUEST I ON O F L A W A S A NSWERE D B Y TH E TR I BU NA L WI L L HA V E T O B E UP H E LD EQUALL Y THE SECOND QUEST I ON OF LAW I S A L SO ANS W ERED AGA I N S T T HE A SS ES S EE . IN TH E R E S ULT , T H E A PP E ALS FA I L AND THE SAME ARE DISM I SSED. NO COSTS . 5. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION BY THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REP RESENTATIVE THAT THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT HAS DISMISSED THE SLP FILED BY THE RE VENUE AGAINST THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. CANARA BANK GOLDEN JUBILEE (320 ITR STATUTE 23). IT WAS THE SUBMISSI ON THAT THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESS EE ALSO REFERRED TO THE SAID DECISION BUT THEN HAD DISTINGUISHED THE SAID DECISI ON OF THE HON'BLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE DECISIO N IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE REQUIRED RE-CONSIDERATION. I.T.A. NO.747/MDS/2009 6 6. IN REPLY THE LEARNED D.R. SUBMITTED THAT WHEN TH ERE IS A DECISION OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE THAT DECISION IS TO BE APPLIED ESPECIALLY WHEN THERE IS NO CHANGE IN THE FACTS AND NO ERROR IN LAW HAS B EEN POINTED OUT. 7. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. IT IS AN ADMITTED FACT THAT THE BANKS FROM WHOM THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED INTEREST ARE NO T THE MEMBERS OF THE ASSESSEE CLUB. ONCE ANY INCOME IS RECEIVED FROM OR ANY CONTRIBUTIO N IS RECEIVED FROM ANY PERSON WHO IS NOT A MEMBER OF THE CLUB TO WHICH EXEMPTION IS CLAI MED ON ACCOUNT OF THE PRINCIPLE OF MUTUALITY, SUCH INCOME CANNOT BE GIVEN THE EXEMPTIO N BY APPLYING THE PRINCIPLE OF MUTUALITY. THE PRINCIPLE OF MUTUALITY SPECIFICALLY ENCOMPASSES THE PRINCIPLE THAT NO PERSON CAN PROFIT FROM HIMSELF. THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSE E HAS RECEIVED THE INTEREST FROM A PERSON WHO IS NOT A MEMBER SHOWS THAT THIS BASIC PRINCIPLE OF MUTUALITY HAS BEEN VIOLATED AND CONSEQUENTLY THIS INCOME CANNOT BE EXEMPTED BY APPL ICABILITY OF THE PRINCIPLE OF MUTUALITY. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DE CISION OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE, REFERRED TO SUPRA, THE FIN DING OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE STANDS CONFIRMED. 8. IN RESPECT OF THE ISSUE OF THE DONATIONS RECEIVE D FOR THE SPORTS TOURNAMENT IT IS NOTICED THAT THE DONATIONS ARE NOTHING BUT THE ADVE RTISEMENTS WHICH HAD BEEN RECEIVED FROM THE NON-MEMBERS. AGAIN ON THE SAME PRINCIPLE AS THAT OF THE INTEREST AS THE RECEIPTS ARE FROM THE NON-MEMBERS THE INCOME FROM THE SAID A DVERTISEMENT WOULD BE LIABLE TO TAX AND THE PRINCIPLE OF MUTUALITY WOULD NOT EXEMPT THE SAID INCOME. I.T.A. NO.747/MDS/2009 7 9. IN RESPECT OF THE INTEREST U/S. 234B IT WAS SUBM ITTED BY THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE THAT BOTH THE INTEREST INCOME AND TH E ADVERTISEMENT RECEIPTS WERE LIABLE TO TDS AND CONSEQUENTLY NO INTEREST U/S 234B WAS LEVIA BLE. IN REPLY, THE LEARNED D.R. VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE AO AND THE LD . CIT(A). 10. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. UNDI SPUTABLY, INTEREST INCOME FROM THE BANKS IS LIABLE FOR TDS U/S. 194A. SIMILARLY, THE ADVERTISEMENT RECEIPTS ALSO ARE LIABLE FOR TDS U/S. 194C AND ALSO THE TDS HAS BEEN DONE U/S. 1 94C. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, IN VIEW OF THE SPECIFIC PROVISIONS PROVIDED IN SECTION 234B EXPLANATION 1(1), THE INTEREST U/S. 234B IS NOT LEVIABLE ON THE INCOMES ON WHICH TDS IS LIAB LE TO BE MADE AND HAS BEEN MADE. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE AO IS DIRECTED TO DELETE THE LEVY OF INTEREST IN RESPECT OF THE INCOMES ON WHICH THE TDS HAS BEEN MADE. ACCORDINGL Y, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 11. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE STANDS PA RTLY ALLOWED. 12. THE ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 23-07- 2010. SD/- SD/- (ABRAHAM P. GEORGE) (GEORGE MATHAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER CHENNAI, DATED THE 23 RD JULY, 2010. H. COPY TO: ASSESSEE/AO/CIT (A)/CIT/D.R./GUARD FILE