A.Rajendran, Salem V. ITO, Tiruppur

ITA 789/CHNY/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 61209 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-06-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 12-04-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VIKRAMADITYA JT
• Assessee Lawyers: T S LAKSHMIVENKATARAMAN
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit
• Section: 234B; 68; 69

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH : CHENNAI [BEFORE SHRI N.S. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER] I.T.A.NO.788/MDS/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08 SHRI R.THANGAMANI C/O T.S.LAKSHMI VENKATARAMAN CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT NO.55/135 BALAJI ROAD SALEM 636007 [PAN: ADGPT 7278 N] VS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD I(4) TIRUPUR (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) I.T.A.NO.789/MDS/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08 SHRI A.RAJENDRAN C/O T.S.LAKSHMI VENKATARAMAN CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT NO.55/135 BALAJI ROAD SALEM 636007 [PAN AGPPR 2475 M] VS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD I(4) TIRUPUR (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI T.S.LAKSHMIVENKATARAMAN, CA RESPONDENT BY : SHRI VIKRAMADITYA, JT. CIT DATE OF HEARING : 18-06-2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 22-06-2012 O R D E R PER N.S. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THESE ARE THE APPEALS FILED BY THE AS SESSES AGAINST SEPARATE ORDERS OF THE CIT(A)-II, COIMBATORE, DATED 10.01. 2012. I.T.A.NOS.788 & 789/12 :- 2 -: 2. THE A.R OF THE ASSESSEE, DURING THE COURSE OF HE ARING, SUBMITTED THAT IN BOTH THESE APPEALS, THE FACTS AND ISSUES INVOLVED ARE SIMILAR AND THEREFORE, HE IS MAKING COMMON SUBMISSI ONS IN RESPECT OF BOTH THESE APPEALS. 3. SINCE BOTH THESE APPEALS WERE ARGUED TOGETHER, THEY ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY A COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 4. THE FIRST COMMON GROUND OF APPEAL TAKEN IN BOTH THE APPEALS IS THAT THE CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN UPHOLDING TH E ADDITION OF ` 16,49,728/- IN THE CASE OF SHRI R.THANGAMANI AND ` 22,99,052/- IN THE CASE OF SHRI A.RAJENDRAN, MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFF ICER AS UNEXPLAINED CREDITORS. 5. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT IN THE CASE OF SHRI R.THANGAMANI, THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WHILE COMPLETI NG THE ASSESSMENT, MADE ADDITION OF THE FOLLOWING CREDITOR S FOR NON-FILING OF CONFIRMATIONS BY THE ASSESSEE: I) M/S CENTURY CORPORATION ` 10,23,865/- II) M/S ASIAN NEEDLE AGENCY ` 2,15,450/- III) M/S J.M. TRADERS ` 4,10,413/- ` 16,49,728/- I.T.A.NOS.788 & 789/12 :- 3 -: 6. SIMILARLY IN THE CASE OF SHRI A.RAJENDRAN, THE ASSE SSING OFFICER, WHILE COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT, MADE ADDI TION OF THE FOLLOWING CREDITORS FOR NON-FILING OF CONFIRMATIONS BY THE ASSESSEE: I) M/S CENTURY CORPORATION ` 18,49,137/- II) M/S ASIAN NEEDLE AGENCY ` 2,61,570/- III) M/S J.M. TRADERS ` 1,88,345/- ` 22,99,052/- 7. ON APPEAL, IN BOTH THE CASES, THE CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: THE APPELLANT COULD NOT PRODUCE CONFIRMATION LETTE RS FROM ANY OF THESE PERSONS BUT PRODUCED ONLY ACCOUNT COPIES O F THESE CREDITORS APPEARING IN THE APPELLANTS BOOKS. THE REASON CITED BY THE APPELLANT THAT SOME OF THE CREDITS ARE OF EA RLIER YEARS OR THE APPELLANT IS IN DISPUTE WITH THE CREDITORS IS N OT SUFFICIENT TO PROVE THE CREDITS. THE APPELLANT HAS NOT GIVEN ANY VALID REASON FOR NON-PRODUCTION OF CONFIRMATIONS FROM THE CREDITORS WHICH IS HIS PRIMARY DUTY. IF A DISPUTE WITH THE C REDITOR IS ACCEPTED AS A VALID REASON, THEN ALL THE ASSESSES WHO FAIL TO PRODUCE CONFIRMATION LETTERS FROM SUNDRY CREDITORS WILL USE THIS ARGUMENT TO GET AWAY FROM BOGUS CREDITS INTRODUCED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. FURTHER, EVEN FOR ARGUMENT SAKE ONE CONSIDERS THAT CONFIRMATIONS ARE NOT FILED BECAUSE OF CERTAIN DISPUTES WITH THE CREDITOR THERE EXISTS SCOPE OF AD DITION OF CREDITS IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF REMISSION OF LIABILITY. 8. THE A.R OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT IN THE CASE OF SHRI R.THANGAMANI, THE ADDITION OF ` 10,23,865/- REPRESENTS OPENING BALANCE AS ON 1.4.2006. THE ENTIRE ADDITION DOES N OT PERTAIN TO THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL AND HENCE, THE SAME SHOULD BE DEL ETED. AS REGARDS I.T.A.NOS.788 & 789/12 :- 4 -: M/S ASIAN NEEDLE AGENCY, THE A.R SUBMITTED THAT TOT AL PURCHASES MADE DURING THE YEAR WERE ` 4,45,460/- AND PAYMENTS MADE DURING THE YEAR WAS ` 2,30,000/- LEAVING A CLOSING BALANCE AS ON 31.3.20 07 OF ` 2,15,460/-. THIS BALANCE AMOUNT WAS PAID IN THE S UBSEQUENT YEARS ENDING 31.3.2008 AND 31.3.2009, ACCOUNT COPIES OF W HICH ARE PLACED IN THE PAPER BOOK. REGARDING M/S J.M. TRADERS, THE A.R SUBMITTED THAT TOTAL PURCHASES DURING THE YEAR WERE ` 4,10,413/-. NO PAYMENT WAS MADE DURING THE YEAR. HOWEVER, THE PAYMENT WAS CLE ARED IN THE YEAR ENDED 31.3.2008, ACCOUNT COPIES OF WHICH ARE PLACED IN THE PAPER BOOK. 9. SIMILARLY, IN THE CASE OF A.RAJENDRAN, THE A.R OF T HE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT REGARDING M/S CENTURY CORPO RATION, ` 18,49,137/- REPRESENTS OPENING BALANCE AS ON 1.4.20 06. NO PURCHASES WERE MADE DURING THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL AND ONLY PAY MENT OF ` 4,44,007/- WAS MADE DURING THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL. COPIES OF ACCOUNTS ARE PLACED IN THE PAPER BOOK. AS THE ENTI RE ADDITION DOES NOT PERTAIN TO THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL, THE SAME SHOULD B E DELETED. AS REGARDS M/S ASIAN NEEDLE AGENCY, THE A.R SUBMITTED THAT TOTAL PURCHASES MADE IN THE YEAR WERE ` 4,61,570/- AND PAYMENTS MADE DURING THE YEAR WAS ` 2 LAKHS, THEREBY LEAVING A CLOSING BALANCE AS ON 31.3.2007 OF ` 2,61,570/-. THIS AMOUNT WAS CLEARED IN THE YEAR E NDED ON 31.3.2008 AND ACCOUNT COPIES OF THE SAME ARE PLA CED IN THE PAPER I.T.A.NOS.788 & 789/12 :- 5 -: BOOK. FURTHER, REGARDING M/S J.M.TRADERS, THE A.R SUBMITTED THAT TOTAL PURCHASES IN THE YEAR WERE OF ` 3,88,345AND PAYMENT MADE DURING THE YEAR WAS ` 2,00,000/-, THEREBY LEAVING A CLOSING BALANCE AS O N 31.3.2007 OF ` 1,88,345/-. THIS BALANCE AMOUNT WAS CLEARED IN TH E YEAR ENDED ON 31.3.2008, ACCOUNT COPY OF WHICH IS A LSO PLACED IN THE PAPER BOOK. 10. THE A.R FURTHER RELIED ON THE DECISION OF AGRA THIR D MEMBER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ITO VS MAYURA AGARW AL, [2011]128 ITD 55(AGRA) (TM) AND SUBMITTED THAT THE THIRD MEMBER, IN THAT CASE, HAS HELD THAT WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN COMPLETE AD DRESSES OF CREDITORS AND WHEN THE SUMMONS WERE DULY SERVED ON THE PARTIES THE IDENTITIES OF THE PARTIES WERE DULY PROVED. HE SUB MITTED THAT IN BOTH THE CASES, IN RESPECT OF M/S CENTURY CORPORATION AN D M/S J.M.TRADERS, LETTERS SENT BY THE DEPARTMENT WERE SERVED ON THEM BUT NO REPLY WAS RECEIVED FROM THEM. THEREFORE, IT WAS HIS SUBMISSI ON THAT HIS CASE WAS SUPPORTED BY THE SAID DECISION. HE ALSO RELIE D ON THE DECISION OF VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF PRIYADARSHINI EDUCATION ACADEMY VS ACIT,[2010] 125 ITD 141 (VISAK HAPATNAM), AND SUBMITTED THAT IT WAS HELD IN THAT CASE THAT THE AD DITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOLLOWING THE FAILURE OF THE ASS ESSEE TO PRODUCE ALL THE CREDITORS AND WITHOUT MAKING FURTHER ENQUIRIES AND WITHOUT FURNISHING DETAILS OF SPECIFIC CASH CREDITS FOR WHI CH THE ASSESSING I.T.A.NOS.788 & 789/12 :- 6 -: OFFICER WANTED TO MAKE ENQUIRIES CANNOT BE SUSTAINE D. HE FURTHER PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF CIT VS WINSTRAL PETRO CHEMICALS (P) LTD, 330 ITR 603(DEL), AND SUBMITTED THAT IN THAT CASE, THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT HAS HELD THAT THE INITIAL BU RDEN ON THE ASSESSEE IS TO PROVE IDENTIFY OF CREDITORS AND THER EAFTER THE BURDEN SHIFTS TO REVENUE TO PROVE CASH CREDITS WERE NOT GE NUINE. IDENTITY OF APPLICANTS FOR SHARES AND THEIR PAN NOS. FURNISHED INABILITY TO FIND A FEW APPLICANTS NOT SUFFICIENT TO INVOKE SECTION 6 8. HE SUBMITTED THAT IN ALL THE THREE CREDITORS CASE, COMPLETE POSTAL AD DRESS WHICH ARE SUBJECT MATTER OF ADDITION WAS FURNISHED BY THE AS SESSEE AND THEREFORE, THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS COVERED BY THE SAID DECISION. 11. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR VEHEMENTLY ARGUED AND SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND S PECIALLY RELIED ON PAGE 3 PARA 5.2 OF THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) WHEREIN THE CIT(A) HAS HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT GIVEN ANY VALID REASON F OR NON-PRODUCTION OF CONFIRMATION FROM THE CREDITORS WHICH IS HIS PRIMAR Y DUTY. 12. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE, SHRI R.THANGAMANI, COULD NOT FILE CONFIRMATIONS OF THE FOLLOWING THREE SUNDRY CREDITORS: I.T.A.NOS.788 & 789/12 :- 7 -: I) M/S CENTURY CORPORATION ` 10,23,865/- II) M/S ASIAN NEEDLE AGENCY ` 2,15,450/- III) M/S J.M. TRADERS ` 4,10,413/- ` 16,49,728/- 13. HE ALSO OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE, SHRI A.RAJENDR AN, COULD NOT FILE CONFIRMATIONS OF THE FOLLOWING THREE SUNDR Y CREDITORS: I) M/S CENTURY CORPORATION ` 18,49,137/- II) M/S ASIAN NEEDLE AGENCY ` 2,61,570/- III) M/S J.M. TRADERS ` 1,88,345/- ` 22,99,052/- 14. FOR WANT OF CONFIRMATIONS FROM THE SUNDRY CREDITO RS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ADDED ` 16,49,728/- IN THE CASE OF SHRI R.THANGAMANI AND ` 22,99,052/- IN THE CASE OF SHRI A.RAJENDRAN TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEES. 15. ON APPEAL, THE CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE A SSESSING OFFICER. 16. WE FIND THAT THE LEDGER ACCOUNT OF M/S CENTURY CORP ORATION IN THE CASE OF SHRI R. THANGAMANI IS PLACED AT PAGE 3 OF THE PAPER BOOK FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE LEDGER ACCOUNT OF THE SAID CREDITOR IN THE CASE OF SHRI A.RAJENDRAN IS ALSO PLACED AT P AGE 3 OF THE PAPER I.T.A.NOS.788 & 789/12 :- 8 -: BOOK FILED BY THE ASSESSE. A PERUSAL OF THE SAME SHOW THAT THE OPENING BALANCE AND CLOSING BALANCE ARE THE SAME FI GURE AND NO TRANSACTION WAS MADE DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDER ATION. IT IS ALSO OBSERVED THAT THE ADDRESS OF THE SUNDRY CREDITOR WA S FURNISHED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ADM ITTED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT THE LETTER WRITTEN TO THE AFO RESAID CREDITOR WAS DELIVERED. IN THE ABOVE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE FIND THA T THERE IS NO MATERIAL ON THE RECORD ON THE BASIS OF WHICH THE AF ORESAID AMOUNT OF ` 10,23,865/- IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE, SHRI R. T HANGAMANI AND ` 18,49,137/- IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE, SHRI A.RA JENDRAN, COULD BE TREATED AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEES DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. NEITHER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 6 8 NOR THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 69 COULD BE INVOKED IN THIS CASE. FURTH ER, NO MATERIAL COULD BE BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE REVENUE TO SHOW THAT TH E AFORESAID AMOUNTS CEASED TO EXIST AS LIABILITY OF THE ASSESS EES DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. IN THE ABOVE CIRCUMSTANCES, I N OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THE ADDITION OF ` 10,23,865/- IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE, SHRI R.THANGAMANI AND ` 18,49,137/- IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE, SHRI A.RAJENDRAN WAS WITHOUT ANY AUTHORITY OF LAW AND UN SUSTAINABLE. 17. IN RESPECT OF M/S ASIAN NEEDLE AGENCY, WE FIND THAT THE COPY OF THE LEDGER ACCOUNT AS APPEARING IN THE BOOK S OF THE ASSESSEES FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION IN THE CASE OF THE SHRI I.T.A.NOS.788 & 789/12 :- 9 -: A.RAJENDRAN IS PLACED AT PAGE 4 OF THE PAPER BOOK A ND IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE, SHRI A.RAJENDRAN IS ALSO PLACED AT P AGE 4 OF THE PAPER BOOK AND FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 IS PLACED AT PAGE 5 OF THE PAPER BOOK IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE, SHRI R.THA NGAMANI AND IS ALSO PLACED AT PAGE 5 OF THE PAPER BOOK IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE SHRI A.RAJENDRAN. A PERUSAL OF THE LEDGER ACCOUNT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSEE, SHRI R.THANGAMANI PURCHASED NEEDLES OF ` 4,45,460/- AND THE ASSESSEE, SHRI A RAJENDRAN PURCHASED NEEDLES OF ` 4,61,570/- AND THE ASSESSEE, SHRI R.THANGAMANI PAID ` 2,30,000/- AND THE ASSESSEE, SHRI A.RAJENDRAN PAID ` 2,00,000/- BY CHEQUE DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDE RATION AND ` 2,15,460/- REMAINED PAYABLE IN THE CASE OF THE ASS ESSEE, SHRI R.THANGAMANI AND ` 2,61,570/- REMAINED PAYABLE IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE, SHRI A.RAJENDRAN AS ON 31.3.2007. WE FIN D THAT THE GENUINENESS OF THE PURCHASE WAS NOT DOUBTED BY THE REVENUE AND THE SAME WAS DULY ALLOWED AS DEDUCTION TO THE ASSESSEE . IT IS FURTHER OBSERVED FROM THE LEDGER ACCOUNT OF THE SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEAR THAT OUT OF ` 2,15,460/- IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE, SHRI R.THANGAMANI ` 1,00,000/- WAS PAID BY CHEQUE ON 9.6.2006 AND IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE, SHRI A.RAJENDRAN, ` 2,00,000/- WERE PAID BY CHEQUE ON 18.4.2007 AND 9.1.2008 AND THE BALANCE AM OUNT OF ` 61,570/- WAS PAID IN CASH ON DIFFERENT DATES. NO M ATERIAL HAD BEEN I.T.A.NOS.788 & 789/12 :- 10 -: BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE REVENUE TO SHOW THAT PURCH ASE OF ` 2,15,460/- OUT OF THE TOTAL PURCHASES OF ` 4,45,460/- FROM THE AFORESAID PARTY IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE, SHRI R.THANGAMANI AND PURCHASES OF ` 2,61,570/- OUT OF THE TOTAL PURCHASES OF ` 4,61,570/- IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE, SHRI A.RAJENDRAN FROM TH E AFORESAID PARTY WERE NOT GENUINE OR IN FACT, THE ASSESSEE, SHRI R. THANGAMANI PAID ANY AMOUNT MORE THAN ` 2,30,000/- AND THE ASSESSEE SHRI A.RAJENDRAN PAID MORE THAN ` 2,00,000/- IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION TO THE SAID PARTY. IN THE ABOV E CIRCUMSTANCES, IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, ADDITION MADE FOR WANT OF C ONFIRMATION WAS NOT WARRANTED WHEN THE PURCHASES WERE DULY SUPPORTE D BY BILLS AND SUBSTANTIAL SUBSEQUENT PAYMENT WAS MADE THROUGH BAN KING CHANNEL. 18. IN RESPECT OF THE THIRD PARTY, M/S J.M.TRADERS, THE COPY OF THE LEDGER ACCOUNT IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE, SH RI R.THANGAMANI IS PLACED AT PAGE 6 OF THE PAPER BOOK AND IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE, SHRI A.RAJENDRAN IS ALSO PLACED AT PAGE 6 OF THE PA PER BOOK FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE, SHRI R.T HANGAMANI IS PLACED AT PAGE 7 OF THE PAPER BOOK FILED BY THE AS SESSEE AND IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE, SHRI A.RAJENDRAN IS ALSO PL ACED AT PAGE 7 OF THE PAPER BOOK FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. A PERUSAL OF TH E SAME SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSEE SHRI R.THANGAMANI PURCHASED NEEDLES O F ` 4,10,413/- I.T.A.NOS.788 & 789/12 :- 11 -: AND THAT THE ASSESSEE SHRI A.RAJENDRAN PURCHASED N EEDLES OF ` 3,88,345/-. FURTHER IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE PURCHA SES WERE SUPPORTED BY BILLS AND MOST OF THE PAYMENTS WERE MADE THROUGH BANKING CHANNELS. IN THE ABOVE CIRCUMSTANCES, IN OUR CONSI DERED OPINION, THE REVENUE WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN MAKING THE ADDITION BE ING UNPAID PURCHASE PRICE AS AT THE YEAREND ONLY FOR WANT OF C ONFIRMATION WITHOUT BRINGING ON RECORD ANY MATERIAL TO SHOW THAT THE EN TRIES MADE IN THE REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WERE NOT CORRECT. THUS, I N OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THE ENTIRE ADDITION OF ` 16,49,728/- IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE, SHRI R.THANGAMANI AND ` 22,99,052/- IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE, SHRI A.RAJENDRAN, IS UNSUSTAINABLE. WE, THEREFORE, DELETE THE ADDITION OF ` 16,49,728/- IN THE CASE OF SHRI R.THANGAMANI AND ` 22,99,052/- IN THE CASE OF SHRI A.RAJENDRAN AND ALL OW THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL OF BOTH THE ASSESSES. 19. THE SECOND COMMON ISSUE INVOLVED IN THESE APPEALS IS THAT THE CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE LEVY OF INTEREST U/S 234B OF THE ACT. 20. AS WE HAVE DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSES SING OFFICER IN OUR DECISION ABOVE IN RESPECT OF THE FIR ST ISSUE IN THESE APPEALS, WE DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO GRANT C ONSEQUENTIAL RELIEF TO I.T.A.NOS.788 & 789/12 :- 12 -: BOTH THE ASSESSES FOR INTEREST UNDER SECTION 234B OF THE ACT. THUS, THE GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALLOWED IN BOTH THE CASES. 21. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS ARE ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON FRIDAY, THE 22 ND OF JUNE, 2012, AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD) JUDICIAL MEMBER (N.S.SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 22 ND JUNE, 2012 RD COPY TO: APPELLANT/RESPONDENT/CIT(A)/CIT/DR