Santhosh Textile Process, Coimbatore V. ACIT, Tiruppur

ITA 756/CHNY/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 61240 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-06-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 11-04-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: RAMACHANDRAN
• Keywords: Business income; Depreciation; Revenue expenditure; Capital expenditure

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH : CHENNAI [BEFORE SHRI N.S. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER] I.T.A.NO.756/MDS/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08 M/S SANTHOSH TEXTILE PROCESS C/O S. RAMACHANDRAN, CA SETHURAM NO.15, SUNDARESA IYER LAYOUT TRICHY ROAD COIMBATORE 641 018 VS THE ACIT CIRCLE I TIRUPUR [PAN AALFS1491G] (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI RAMACHANDRAN, CA RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SHAJI P. JACOB, ADDL. CIT DATE OF HEARING : 26-06-2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 29-06-2012 O R D E R PER N.S. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE A SSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A)-II, COIMBATORE, DATED 28.11.2011. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APP EAL: 1) THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-I, COIMBATORE , [CIT(A)], IS UNSUSTAINABLE BOTH IN LAW AND ON FACTS OF THE CASE. I.T.A.NO. 756/12 :- 2 -: 2) THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITI ON OF RS.13,60,000 / - PAID TO TNEB, TOWARDS CHARGES FOR SHIFTING OF THE WINDMILL, THAT WAS CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT AS A REVENUE EXPENDITURE. 3) THE LEARNED CIT(A) FAILED TO NOTE THAT THE APPELLAN T HAD NOT CLAIMED ANY DISMANTLING / TRANSPORT / RE-ERECTION EXPENSES BUT ONLY THE PAYMENT MADE BY IT TNEB WHICH ONLY ENABLES THE APPELLANT TO CONDUCT ITS BUSINESS AND THAT THIS CASE FALLS SQUARELY WITHIN THE DECISION OF CIT VS. DART MANUFACTURING INDIA (PRIVATE) LIMITED. [(2008) 175 TAXMAN 6 (DEL) DECIDED ON 12 TH AUGUST 2008] . . 4) WITHOUT CONCEDING THE CLAIM THAT THE SAID EXPENDITU RE IS TOTALLY REVENUE IN NATURE , THE LEARNED CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE AT-LEAST ALLOWED DEPRECIATION ( @ 80%) IF THE SAID EXPENDITURE OFRS.13,60,000 / - WAS TO BE TREATED AS CAPITAL EXPENDITURE. 5) THE LEARNED CIT(A) FAILED TO NOTE THAT THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN ' SITALPUR SUGAR WORKS LTD' ARE DISTINGUISHABLE WITH THAT OF THE APPELLANT AND HENCE THE RULING TH ERE ON IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE APPELLANT . 6) IN AS MUCH AS THE APPELLANT WAS FORCED TO SHIFT THE LOCATION FOR MERE SURVIVAL , IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE DECISION OF THE HONOURABLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. LOYAL SUPER FABRICS (2008) 304 ITR 78 SQUARELY APPLIES TO THE CASE OF THE APPELLAN T . 7) FOR THESE AND OTHER GROUNDS OF APPEAL THAT MAY BE ADDUCED AT THE TIME OF HEARING, IT IS HUMBLY PRAYED THAT THE ADDITION OF RS.13,60 , 000 / - , INCURRED TOWARDS FEES / CHARGES PAID TO TNEB FOR SHIFTING OF THE WINDMILL PLANT, MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BE DELETED. 3. THE A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE, AT THE TIME OF THE HEARI NG, SUBMITTED THAT THE ONLY ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE APPEA L WAS THAT THE CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF ` 13,60,000/- PAID TO TNEB TOWARDS CHARGES FOR SHIFTING OF THE WINDMILL WHICH WAS CLAIMED BY THE I.T.A.NO. 756/12 :- 3 -: ASSESSEE AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED EXPENDITURE OF ` 13,60,000/- AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE WHICH WAS INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE ON SHIFTING OF THE WIN DMILL AND WHICH WAS PAID TO TNEB FOR SHIFTING OF THE WINDMILL. THI S EXPENDITURE WAS TREATED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS CAPITAL EXPENDI TURE AND DISALLOWED DEDUCTION TO THE ASSESSE. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE NA TURE OF THE EXPENDITURE WAS A FEE PAID TO TNEB TOWARDS INFRASTR UCTURE CHARGES. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT POINT NO.12 OF THE TNEB SANCTION ORDER STATES THAT THE INTERFACING LINES WILL BECOME THE B OARDS PROPERTY ON COMMISSIONING AND THAT THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT BECOME THE OWNER OF ANY PROPERTY ON PAYMENT OF THIS FEE. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE PAYMENT DOES NOT CREATE ANY NEW ASSET AND THAT IT ONLY REST ORES THE FUNCTIONAL EFFICIENCY OF THE EXISTING ASSET BY REMOVING THE DE FECT IN THE ORIGINAL LOCATION WHERE THE REQUIRED/EXPECTED WIND VELOCITY WAS NOT AVAILABLE. HE RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF DART MANUFACTURING INDIA (P) LTD (2008) 175 TAXMAN 6(DEL) AND SUBMITTED THAT IT HAS BEEN HELD IN THAT CASE BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT THAT PAYMENT TO THE STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD FOR INS TALLING TRANSFORMER AND LT LINES FOR SUPPLY OF ELECTRICITY WAS HELD TO BE REVENUE EXPENDITURE. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE HONBLE DELHI H IGH COURT IN THAT DECISION HAS RELIED ON ITS EARLIER DECISION IN THE CASE OF SAW PIPES LTD , 300 ITR 35, WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT BENEFIT ACCRUI NG OUT OF SUCH PAYMENT WAS OF COMMERCIAL NATURE AND OF A BUSINESS ADVANTAGE AND I.T.A.NO. 756/12 :- 4 -: CONSEQUENTLY IT SHOULD BE TREATED AS REVENUE EXPEND ITURE. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT(A) HAS OBSERVED THAT THE FAC TS OF THE ASSESSEES CASE WAS DISTINGUISHABLE AS THERE WAS SH IFTING OF EXISTING MACHINERY. THE CIT(A) HAS FURTHER HELD THAT WINDMI LL WAS A SEPARATE UNIT BY ITSELF CAPABLE OF GENERATING ELECTRICITY. IT WAS NOT A PART AND PARCEL OF ANOTHER PLANT OR MACHINERY BUT A SEPARATE UNDERTAKING. THEREFORE, SHIFTING A WINDMILL WAS SHIFTING AN ENTI RE FACTORY. THE CIT(A), THEREFORE, HELD THAT WHEN SUCH SHIFTING IS EFFECTED, THE EXPENDITURE ON RELOCATION HAS TO BE TREATED AS CAPI TAL EXPENDITURE AND PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF SITALPUR SUGAR WORKS LTD, 49 ITR 160. THE CIT(A) HA S OBSERVED THAT IN THAT CASE THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT FOUND THAT T HE ASSESSEE HAD A FACTORY IN SITALPUR DISTRICT FOR MANUFACTURING SUGA R BUT THE PLACE WAS DISADVANTAGEOUS FOR PRODUCTION AND CONSEQUENTLY THE ASSESSEE SUFFERED LOSS. THE ASSESSEE RELOCATED THE FACTORY TO GARAUL AND CLAIMED THE EXPENDITURE AS A REVENUE ITEM WHICH WAS DISALLOWED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY TREATING THE SAME AS CAPIT AL EXPENDITURE WHICH WAS UPHELD BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT. THE CIT(A) HAS OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD EARLIER INSTALLED TH E WINDMILL IN VEDALAI VILLAGE, RAMNAD DISTRICT AND LATER SHIFTED TO ELAVA NTHI VILLAGE, COIMBATORE DISTRICT AS THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT GENERAT ING THE EXPECTED POWER AND THE VENTURE WAS A FAILURE. THEREFORE, HE HELD THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS RIGHT IN TREATING THE SHIFTIN G EXPENDITURE WAS I.T.A.NO. 756/12 :- 5 -: CAPITAL EXPENDITURE. THE A.R ALSO RELIED ON THE DE CISION OF THE HON'BLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS LOYAL SUPER FABRICS, [2008] 304 ITR 78 (MAD) AND SUBMITTED THAT THE HON'BLE HIG H COURT HAS HELD THAT WHERE THE SURVIVAL OF THE FACTORY IN THE EXIST ING PREMISES IS AT STAKE THEN THE TEST OF ENDURING ADVANTAGE COULD NOT BE APPLIED. HE SUBMITTED THAT IT HAS BEEN HELD BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT THAT A TEST OF ENDURING BENEFIT IS NOT A CERTAIN AND CONCLUSIVE TEST AND IT CANNOT BE APPLIED BLINDLY AND MECHANICALLY WITHOUT REGARD TO THE PARTICULAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF A GIVEN CASE AS OBSERV ED IN ARTHERTONS CASE. 4. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE D.R SUBMITTED THAT THE DECIS ION OF THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF DART MA NUFACTURING INDIA (P) LTD (SUPRA) IS DISTINGUISHABLE ON FACTS AS IN T HAT CASE THE TRANSFORMER WHICH WAS OWNED BY THE STATE ELECTRICIT Y BOARD WAS INSTALLED AND THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED ON SUCH INS TALLATION WAS HELD TO BE A REVENUE EXPENDITURE. THE D.R SUBMITTED THAT I N THE PRESENT CASE, THE WINDMILL WHICH IS OWNED BY THE ASSESSEE I S SHIFTED AND THEREFORE, THE EXPENDITURE WAS CAPITAL IN NATURE. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IN THE FIRST INSTANCE WHEN THE WINDMILL WAS IN STALLED AND THE CHARGES ON INSTALLATION INCURRED BY THE ASSESSE, TH E ASSESSEE ITSELF HAS TREATED THE SAME AS CAPITAL EXPENDITURE. WHEN THE VENTURE WAS NOT I.T.A.NO. 756/12 :- 6 -: SUCCESSFUL DUE TO LESS WIND VELOCITY, THE ASSESSEE SHIFTED THE SAME TO A NEW LOCATION AND THEREFORE, THE EXPENDITURE CANNOT BE SAID TO BE OF REVENUE NATURE. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE EXPENDITURE WAS INCURRED ON IMPROVING OF THE ASSET AND HENCE, WAS A CAPITAL EXP ENDITURE. HE RELIED ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF INDIA PISTONS REPCO LTD VS CIT, 143 ITR 424(MAD) AND SUBM ITTED THAT THE HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT, AFTER CONSIDERING THE DE CISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF SITALPUR SUGA R WORKS LTD. VS CIT(SUPRA) HELD THAT THE TRIBUNAL WAS JUSTIFIED IN DISALLOWING THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE IN DISMANTLING AND SHIFTING ITS FACTORY AS CAPITAL IN NATURE. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSE D THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND MATERIALS AVAIL ABLE ON RECORD. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE UNDISPUTED FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD INSTALLED WINDMILLS AT VEDALAI VILLAGE, RAMNAD DISTRICT AND LATER SHIFTED TO ELAVANTHI VILLAGE, COIMBATORE DISTRICT A S THEY WERE NOT GENERATING THE EXPECTED POWER AND THE VENTURE WAS A FAILURE. THE ASSESSEE INCURRED EXPENDITURE OF ` 13,60,000/- BY WAY OF FEE TO TNEB TOWARDS INFRASTRUCTURE CHARGES. THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED THIS EXPENDITURE OF ` 13,60,000/- AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE BUT THE SAME WAS DISALLOWED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER CONSIDERING IT TO BE A CAPITAL EXPENDITURE BY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE HONBL E SUPREME COURT IN I.T.A.NO. 756/12 :- 7 -: THE CASE OF SITALPUR SUGAR WORKS LTD VS CIT (SUPRA) WHERE IT WAS HELD THAT EXPENDITURE ON RELOCATION OF FACTORY LOCATED IN SITALPUR DISTRICT FOR MANUFACTURE OF SUGAR BECAUSE THE PLACE WAS DISADVAN TAGEOUS FOR PRODUCTION AND ASSESSEE HAD SUFFERED LOSS WAS A CA PITAL EXPENDITURE. 6. THE D.R, BEFORE US, HAS ALSO RELIED ON THE DECISIO N OF HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF INDIA PIST ONS REPCO LTD VS CIT (SUPRA) AND HAS SUBMITTED THAT IN THAT DECISION , THE HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT, AFTER CONSIDERING THE DECISION O F HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF SITALPUR SUGAR WORKS LTD VS CI T(SUPRA), HAS UPHELD THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN DISALLOWING THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE IN DISMANTLING AND SHIFTIN G ITS FACTORY AS CAPITAL IN NATURE. 7. ON THE OTHER HAND, WE FIND THAT THE A.R. OF THE ASS ESSEE HAS RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE MADRAS HIGH C OURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS LOYAL SUPER FABRICS, (2008) 304 ITR 78(MAD) AND HAS SUBMITTED THAT IN THAT CASE THE HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT HAS HELD THE EXPENDITURE ON SHIFTING OF FACTORY FROM ONE PLACE T O ANOTHER AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE AFTER CONSIDERING THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS SITALPUR SUGAR WORKS LT D (SUPRA) AND THE DECISION OF HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE O F INDIA PISTONS REPCO LTD VS CIT(SUPRA). I.T.A.NO. 756/12 :- 8 -: 8. WE FIND THAT THE HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE C ASE OF CIT VS LOYAL SUPER FABRICS(SUPRA) HAS OBSERVED THAT IN ATHERTONS CASE (1925) 10 TAX CASES 155(HL) IT WAS HELD AS UND ER: . WHEN AN EXPENDITURE IS MADE, NOT ONLY ONCE AND FOR ALL, BUT W ITH A V I EW T O BRINGING INTO EXISTENCE AN AS S ET OR AN ADVANTAGE FOR THE ENDURING B E N E FIT O F A TRAD E , I THINK THERE IS V ER Y GOOD REASON (IN THE ABSENCE OF SPECIAL CIRCUM S T A NC ES L E ADING TO AN OPPOSITE CON C LUSION) FOR TREATIN G SUCH AN E XPENDITURE A S PROP ERLY A TTR I BUTABLE NOT TO RE V ENUE BUT TO CAPIT A L . 9. THE HONBLE HIGH COURT FURTHER WENT ON TO HOLD IN P ARA 7.3 TO 9 OF THE ABOVE DECISION AS UNDER: 7.3 WE ARE ALSO OF THE STRONG OPINION THAT THE EXPRESSION 'ENDURING ADVANTAGE' AVAILED BY THE RESPONDENT/ASSESSEE BY SHIFTING THE FACTORY FROM KO VILPATTI TO CUDDALORE, IS A RELATIVE TERM WITH REFERENCE TO THE SURVIVAL OF THE FACTORY IN THE EXISTING PREMISES. O NLY IF AND WHEN THE SURVIVAL IN THE EXISTENCE PLACE, BUT FOR T HE SHIFTING IS SATISFIED, THE TEST OF ENDURING ADVANTAGE COULD BE APPLIED. IF THE VERY SURVIVAL OF THE ASSESSEE FACTO RY IN THE EXISTING PLACE ITSELF IS AT STAKE, THE QUESTION OF APPLYING THE TEST OF ENDURING BENEFIT DOES NOT ARISE, BECAUSE CA PITAL EXPENDITURE AND REVENUE EXPENDITURE, BEING NOT ETER AL VERITIES-A TRUE PRINCIPLE OR BELIEF ESPECIALLY ONE OF FUNDAMENTAL IMPORTANCE, MUST NEED BE FLEXIBLE SO AS TO RESPOND TO THE CHANGING ECONOMIC REALITIES OF THE B USINESS AS WELL AS THE SURVIVAL OF THE BUSINESS ITSELF. THE REFORE, THE TEST OF ENDURING BENEFIT IS NOT A CERTAIN AND CONCL USIVE TEST AND IT CANNOT BE APPLIED BLINDLY AND MECHANICALLY W ITHOUT REGARD TO THE ARTHERTON'S CASE (SUPER). 8. THAT APART, THIS COURT IN CIT V. MADURA COAT S LTD . , HELD THAT MERE IMPROVEMENT IN CONVENIENCE AND INCREASE I N EFFICIENCY DOES NOT MEAN A PERMANENT ADVANTAGE WHIC H HAS TO BE REGARDED AS FALLING WITHIN THE CAPITAL FI ELD AND THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED FOR SHIFTING OF THE ADMINISTRA TIVE OFFICE WAS ALLOWABLE AS A REVENUE EXPENDITURE IN THE COMPU TATION OF BUSINESS INCOME. I.T.A.NO. 756/12 :- 9 -: 9 . FOR THE REASONS WELL EXPLAINED ABOVE, THE EXPENDITU RE WHICH HAS BEEN INCURRED BY SHIFTING THE FACTORY FRO M KOVILPATTI, TO CUDDALORE IS NOT MERELY FOR ENDURING ADVANTAGE, BUT FOR THE REASON OF ITS MAGNITUDE, VIZ . , FOR THE VERY SURVIVAL OF THE FACTORY AND SUCH AN EXPENDITUR E IS TO BE HELD AS A REVENUE EXPENDITURE, ACCORDINGLY, WE HOLD THAT THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE RESPONDENT/ASSESSEE BY SHIFTING THE FACTORY FROM KOVILPATTI TO CUDDALORE, AS RIGHTLY HELD BY THE TRIBUNAL, IS REVENUE EXPENDITURE. 10. THUS, WE FIND THAT THE HON'BLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN ITS RECENT DECISION IN THE CASE OF CIT VS LOYAL SUPER F ABRICS (SUPRA) HAS POINTED OUT THAT WHEN SHIFTING OF UNIT IS DONE FOR SECURING AND ENDURING ADVANTAGE THEN THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED FO R SHIFTING WILL BE CAPITAL EXPENDITURE, BUT WHEN SHIFTING BECAME NECES SARY FOR THE VERY SURVIVAL OF THE UNDERTAKING ITSELF THEN THE SHIFTIN G EXPENDITURE WILL BE REVENUE IN NATURE. WE FIND THAT ALL THE ABOVE CITE D DECISIONS RELATE TO EXPENDITURE INCURRED ON DISMANTLING OF PLANT AND MA CHINERY AND REASSEMBLING OF THE PLANT AND MACHINERY AT A NEW PL ACE. WHEREAS IN THE INSTANT CASE, IT IS AN ADMITTED POSITION THAT T HE EXPENDITURE IN QUESTION RELATES TO PAYMENT OF FEE TO TNEB. THUS, WE FIND THAT THE EXPENDITURE UNDER DISPUTE IS NOT OF THE SAME NATURE WHICH WAS CONSIDERED IN THE AFORESAID THREE DECISIONS. WE FI ND THAT THE CONTENTION OF THE A.R OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT ONLY FEE PAID TO TNEB WAS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE AND NO SHIFTING EXPENSES WAS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE AS REVENUE EXP ENDITURE. WE FURTHER OBSERVE THAT THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE CIT(A) I.T.A.NO. 756/12 :- 10 -: WAS THAT THE AMOUNT OF ` 13,60,000/- WAS PAID TO TNEB FOR INFRASTRUCTURE CHARGES AND BY VIRTUE OF CLAUSE 12 O F THE AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO WITH TNEB, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT BECOME THE OWNER OF THE INFRASTRUCTURE INSTALLED BY THE TNEB AND TNEB REMAI NS THE OWNER OF THE INFRASTRUCTURE. WE FIND THAT BOTH THE PARTIES BEFORE US HAVE NOT BROUGHT BEFORE US THE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT ENTERE D INTO BY THE ASSESSEE WITH TNEB. WE FIND THAT THE LOWER AUTHORI TIES HAVE NOT LOOKED INTO THE PURPOSE FOR WHICH THE EXPENDITURE I N QUESTION WAS INCURRED AND HAS NOT BROUGHT RELEVANT MATERIALS ON RECORD. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, IF THE PAYMENT IS MADE AS A FEE FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE BUSINESS AND ON PAYMENT OF SUCH FEE NO ASSET IS ACQUIRED BY THE ASSESSEE THEN THE SAME SHOULD BE HELD AS REVENU E IN NATURE. AS THE COMPLETE MATERIALS REQUIRED TO ADJUDICATE THE I SSUE HAVE NOT BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD, IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, IT SH ALL BE JUST AND FAIR TO RESTORE THIS ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER FOR PROPER VERIFICATION. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO READJUDICATE THE ISSUE AFRESH IN THE LIGHT OF THE DISCUSSION MADE HEREIN A BOVE AFTER PROPER VERIFICATION AND BY PASSING A SPEAKING ORDER. NEED LESS TO MENTION THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL ALLOW REASONABLE OPPORT UNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE BEFORE ADJUDICATING THE ISSUE AFRESH. THUS, THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTIC AL PURPOSES. I.T.A.NO. 756/12 :- 11 -: 11. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS AL LOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES.. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON FRIDAY, THE 29 TH OF JUNE, 2012, AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (V. DURGA RAO) JUDICIAL MEMBER (N.S.SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 29 TH JUNE, 2012 RD COPY TO: APPELLANT/RESPONDENT/CIT(A)/CIT/DR