Pallava Resorts Pvt. Ltd., CHENNAI V. DCIT, CHENNAI

ITA 794/CHNY/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 64452 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-10-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 01-10-2012
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 29-04-2011
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DR S MOHARANA IRS
• Assessee Lawyers: G NARAYANASWAMY; G SITAR AMAN CAS
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Valuation report; Deemed dividend
• Section: 50C; 2(14)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, CHENNAI BEFORE DR. O.K.NARAYANAN, VICE-PRESIDENT AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.794(MDS)/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09 M/S.PALLAVA RESORTS P.LTD., RAIN TREE PLACE,GROUND FLR. MCNICHOLS RD., CHETPUT, CHENNAI-600 031. PAN AADCP7095C. VS. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, COMPANY CIRCLE V(1), CHENNAI. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) AND ITA NO.1261(MDS)/201 1 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-0 9 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER M/S.PALLAVA R ESORTS P.LTD., OF INCOME-TAX, VS. RAI N TREE PLACE, COMPANY CIRCLE V(1), MCNICH OLS RD., CHETPUT, CHENNAI. CHENNAI. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : S/SHRI G.NARAYANASWAMY & G.SITAR AMAN, CAS DEPARTMENT BY : DR. S.MOHARANA, IRS, CIT DATE OF HEARING : 1 ST OCTOBER, 2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 11 TH OCTOBER, 2012 - - ITA 794 & 1261 OF 2011 2 O R D E R PER DR.O.K.NARAYANAN, VICE PRESIDENT THESE ARE CROSS APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE REVENUE. THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR IS 2008-09. THE APPEALS ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMI SSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS)-V AT CHENNAI, DATED 11-4-2011 A ND ARISE OUT OF THE ASSESSMENT COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 143(3 ) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAD PURCHASED AND SOLD 43.76 ACRES OF LAND IN MAMALLAPURAM VILLAGE. AS PER THE SALE D EED, THE SALE VALUE WAS ` 40,75,07,918/-. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY COMPUTED THE CAPITAL GAINS ON SALE OF THE LAND AT ` 24,45,26,891/-. BUT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT THE GUIDELINE VALUE, A S PER THE REGISTRATION DEPARTMENT OF THE STATE GOVERNMENT, WA S ` 66,74,25,518/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER PROPOSED TO ADOPT THE SAID GUIDELINE VALUE FOR COMPUTING THE CAPITAL GAIN S. MEANWHILE, THE VALUATION WAS REFERRED TO THE DEPARTMENTAL VALU ATION OFFICER (DVO) UNDER SECTION 50C OF THE ACT. THE DVO HAS DE TERMINED THE VALUE OF THE LAND AT ` 44,15,21,200/-. THE SAID REPORT OF THE DVO WAS NOT AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY BY THE TIME - - ITA 794 & 1261 OF 2011 3 THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED AND, THEREFORE, HE COM PLETED THE ASSESSMENT ON THE BASIS OF THE GUIDELINE VALUE OF ` 66,74,25,518/-. IN THAT WAY HE MADE AN ADDITION OF ` 25,99,17,600/- TOWARDS SALE CONSIDERATION. THE CAP ITAL GAIN WAS DETERMINED AT ` 50,44,44,491/-, AS AGAINST ` 24,45,26,891/- DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE. 3. THE ASSESSEE ALSO PLEADED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT INSPITE OF THE QUANTUM OF THE CAPITAL GAINS, THE ASSET SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE WAS AGRICULTURAL LAND AND, THE REFORE, IT WOULD NOT COME UNDER THE DEFINITION OF A CAPITAL AS SET UNDER SECTION 2(14) OF THE ACT AND, THEREFORE, THE SURPLU S WOULD NOT BE TAXABLE AS SHORT-TERM CAPITAL GAINS. THIS CONTENTI ON OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ALSO REJECTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER . 4. THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY HAS ALSO MADE AN ADDITI ON OF ` 23,78,19,479/- AS THE DEEMED DIVIDEND UNDER SECTIO N 2(22)(E) OF THE ACT. 5. ALL THESE ADDITIONS WERE TAKEN IN FIRST APPEAL. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS) HELD THAT THE A SSESSING OFFICER WAS BOUND TO ACCEPT THE VALUATION REPORTED BY THE DVO. ACCORDINGLY, HE DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO C OMPUTE THE - - ITA 794 & 1261 OF 2011 4 CAPITAL GAINS ON THE BASIS OF THE VALUATION OF THE DVO AT ` 44,15,21,200/-. IN THAT MANNER THE COMMISSIONER O F INCOME- TAX(APPEALS) HAS GRANTED QUANTUM RELIEF TO THE ASSE SSEE IN COMPUTING THE SHORT-TERM CAPITAL GAINS. 6. BUT, AS FAR AS THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE T HAT THE LAND IS AN AGRICULTURAL LAND, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX(APPEALS) DID NOT ACCEPT THE SAME. THE COMMISSI ONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS) HELD THAT THE PROPERTY IS NON A GRICULTURAL LAND AND, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE IS LIABLE FOR SHO RT-TERM CAPITAL GAINS TAXATION. 7. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO CLAIMED AN EXPENDITURE OF ` 80 LAKHS AS DEDUCTION IN COMPUTING THE LONG-TERM C APITAL GAINS. THIS WAS ALLOWED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX( APPEALS). THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS) ALSO ALLOWE D A DEDUCTION OF ` 60,65,732/- CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE AS PRE- OPERATIVE EXPENSES. 8. REGARDING THE ADDITION OF DEEMED DIVIDEND UNDER SECTION 2(22)(E) OF THE ACT, THE COMMISSIONER OF IN COME- TAX(APPEALS) HAS MODIFIED THE ADDITION TO ` 5,61,87,557/-. - - ITA 794 & 1261 OF 2011 5 9. AS FAR AS THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS CONCERNED, IT HAS RAISED ONLY ONE ISSUE. THE SAID ISSUE RELATES TO THE PRE-OPERATIVE EXPENSES OF ` 60,65,732/-. ACCORDING TO THE REVENUE, THIS EXPENDITURE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ALLO WED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS) AS A DEDUCTION. 10. WE HEARD S/SHRI G.NARAYANASWAMY AND G.SITARAMAN, THE LEARNED CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS APPE ARING FOR THE ASSESSEE AND DR. S.MOHARANA, THE LEARNED COMMIS SIONER OF INCOME-TAX APPEARING FOR THE REVENUE. 11. FIRST WE WILL CONSIDER THE ISSUE OF THE NATURE OF THE PROPERTY SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE PREVIOUS Y EAR RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL. THE ASSESSEE HAS CONTENDED THAT THE PROPERTY WAS AGRICULTURAL LAND. THE ASSESSEE HAS PRODUCED BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES BOTH PURC HASE AND SALE DEEDS, WHEREIN RECITALS ARE PROVIDED THAT THE LAND PURCHASED AND SOLD WAS AGRICULTURAL LAND. THE ASSE SSEE HAS FURTHER PRODUCED A CERTIFICATE FROM THE VILLAGE ADM INISTRATIVE OFFICER CERTIFYING THAT THE LAND WAS AGRICULTURAL P UNJA LAND AND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PLANTED CASUARINA TREES THERE IN. THE ASSESSEE HAS FURTHER PRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE LA ND TO - - ITA 794 & 1261 OF 2011 6 CONFIRM THE CULTIVATION OF CASUARINA TREES. THE AS SESSEE HAS ALSO POINTED OUT BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS SHOWN AN INCOME OF ` 2,08,350/- FOR THE EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. THE ASSESSEE HAS FURTHER STATED THAT THE LAND IS SITUATED IN A SPECIFIED TOWN PANCHAYAT, NAMELY, MAMALLAPURAM, WHICH IS NEITHER A MUNICIPALITY NOR A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION. 12. IT IS ON THE ABOVE EVIDENCES AND DETAILS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED THAT THE PROPERTY SOLD WAS AGR ICULTURAL LAND AND, THEREFORE, THERE CANNOT BE ANY LEVY OF TA X UNDER THE INCOME-TAX ACT. 13. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO RELIED ON THE JUDGMENTS OF THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS . SMT. DEBBIE ALEMAO, 331 ITR 59 AND IN THE CASE OF CIT VS . MINGUEL CHANDRA PAIS AND ANOTHER, 282 ITR 618. 14. IN THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE LEARNED CHARTERE D ACCOUNTANTS HAVE PLACED RELIANCE ON THE FOLLOWING J UDGMENTS:- 1. DEV KUMAR JAIN VS ITO, 309 ITR 240 2. CIT VS. SIDDARTH J DESAI, 139 ITR 628 3. ITO VS. CHANDAR (HUF), 47 SOT 17. - - ITA 794 & 1261 OF 2011 7 15. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, ON THE OTHER HAND, CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A SUBSID IARY COMPANY OF M/S.QUESTNET INDIA PVT. LTD., ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF ESTABLISHING HOLIDAY HOMES AND RESORTS. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAD PURCHASED THE LAND ABUTTING TH E SEASIDE FOR DEVELOPING A RESORT AS PART OF ITS COMMERCIAL B USINESS AND IT WAS NEVER THE INTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY TO CARRY ON AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS. IT IS ALSO THE CASE OF TH E REVENUE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PURCHASED THE LAND AT A VERY PRIME TOURISM AND ENTERTAINMENT CORRIDOR IN CHENNAI, I.E. ON EAST COAST ROAD (ECR) ON THE BEACH FRONT. BY ITS NATURE, THE LAND IS NOT AGRICULTURAL. IT IS THE CASE OF THE REVENUE THAT O NLY FOR THE REASON THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PLANTED CASUARINA TREE S IN THE LAND, IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO HOLD THAT THE LAND WAS AGRICULTURAL IN NATURE. THE REVENUE HAS ALSO RELIED ON THE JUDGMEN T OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF SARIFABIBI MOH MED IBRAHIM AND OTHERS VS CIT, 204 ITR 631, IN SUPPORT OF ITS CONTENTION THAT THE SAID PROPERTY CANNOT BE TREATED AS AGRICULTURAL IN NATURE. - - ITA 794 & 1261 OF 2011 8 16. WE HEARD BOTH SIDES IN DETAIL AND CONSIDERED T HE MATERIAL AVAILABLE BEFORE US. 17. THE ASSESSEE IS A COMPANY FORMED WITH THE PRINCIPAL OBJECTIVE OF CARRYING ON THE BUSINESS OF HOLIDAY HOMES AND RESORTS. THE PARENT COMPANY OF THE ASSESSEE IS RUNNING A NUMBER OF SUCH RESORTS IN DIFFERENT PARTS OF THAILA ND. THEREFORE, IT IS CRYSTAL CLEAR THAT THE OBJECTIVE OF THE PURCH ASE OF THE PROPERTY BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WAS PURELY COMMERC IAL. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT THE ASS ESSEE WAS INTERESTED IN CARRYING ON ANY AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITI ES IN THE SAID PROPERTY. 18. THEREFORE, WE HAVE TO COME TO A FINDING OF FAC T THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PURCHASED THE PROPERTY FOR THE PURPOSE OF GENERATING INCOME BY WAY OF AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS . 19. NEXT TO SEE, THE PROPERTY IS NOT SITUATED IN A NY AGRICULTURAL AREA. IT IS A SEASIDE LAND. THE ENTI RE AREA IS DEVELOPED AS A TOURISM INDUSTRY CORRIDOR. A LOT OF RESORTS ARE SITUATED AROUND THE PROPERTY PURCHASED AND SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE. - - ITA 794 & 1261 OF 2011 9 20. THEREFORE, IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO HOLD A VIEW T HAT THE PARTICULAR PROPERTY OF THE ASSESSEE ALONE WAS AN AG RICULTURAL PROPERTY SITUATED AMIDST OF THROBBING COMMERCIAL AC TIVITIES. 21. THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF SARIFABIBI MOHMED IBRAHIM AND OTHERS VS. CIT, 204 I TR 631, HAS LAID DOWN VARIOUS TESTS FOR DETERMINING THE NAT URE OF A LAND. ONE OF THE TESTS LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE SUPREME C OURT IS WHETHER THE LAND WAS ACTUALLY OR ORDINARILY USED FO R AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES AT OR ABOUT THE RELEVANT TIME. IT IS VERY CLEAR THAT THE SUBJECT LAND WAS NOT ORDINARILY USED FOR AGRICULTUR AL PURPOSES. CULTIVATION OF CASUARINA TREES WAS ONLY INCIDENTAL. THIS FACT IS MORE RELEVANT IN THE LIGHT OF THE FACT THAT THE ASS ESSEE COMPANY NEVER HAD THE INTENTION TO TREAT THE PROPERTY AS AN ASSET, GENERATING AGRICULTURAL INCOME. IT IS TO BE SEEN F ROM THE CONCURRENT OBSERVATION MADE BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT THAT WHETHER THE INCOME DERIVED FROM AGRICULTURAL OPERAT IONS CARRIED ON IN THE LAND BORE ANY RATIONAL PROPORTION TO THE INVESTMENT MADE IN PURCHASING THE LAND. IN THE PRESENT CASE T HE AGRICULTURAL INCOME RETURNED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007- - - ITA 794 & 1261 OF 2011 10 08 WAS A MEAGRE SUM OF ` 2,08,350/- AGAINST THE PURCHASE OF LAND FOR CRORES OF RUPEES. 22. CULTIVATING CASUARINA PLANTS FOR A SHORT PERI OD OF TIME DOES NOT ALTER THE BASIC CHARACTER OF THE LAND . THE LAND PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT USEFUL FOR CARRYI NG ON ANY NORMAL AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES. ONLY PLANTS LIKE C ASUARINA CAN BE GROWN THEREIN. FOR EARNING INCOME BY GROWING CASUA RINA PLANTS, THE ASSESSEE NEED NOT PURCHASE LAND BY INVESTING CR ORES OF RUPEES. INVESTMENT AND RETURN DO NOT HAVE ANY COMP ARISON . 23. THE NATURE OF A GIVEN LAND DEPENDS UPON ALL TH E SURROUNDING FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THAT PARTICU LAR CASE. FOR EXAMPLE, A FACTORY HAVING 200 ACRES OF ESTATE IN IT S CUSTODY MIGHT BE GROWING COCONUT TREES, MANGO TREES, ETC. I N SOME PATCHES OF ITS LAND; STILL IN FACT, IT IS RUNNING A FACTORY IN THE SAID LAND. ONLY FOR THE REASON THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ALS O GROWING CERTAIN VEGETATION IN THE VAST ESTATE HELD BY IT, I T IS NOT POSSIBLE TO HOLD THAT THE PROPERTY HELD BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGRI CULTURAL IN NATURE. THE INCIDENTAL PLANTING OF TREES IN THE FA CTORY ESTATE DOES NOT CHANGE THE CHARACTER OF THE LAND. - - ITA 794 & 1261 OF 2011 11 24. LIKEWISE, IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSESSEE HA S INVESTED CRORES OF RUPEES IN PURCHASING THE SEASIDE LAND AT ECR AT CHENNAI FOR ITS COMMERCIAL OBJECTIVE OF RUNNING HOLIDAY HOMES AND RESORTS. SEASONAL PLANTING OF CASUARINA TREES WAS ONLY INCIDENTAL. PLANTING CASUARINA TREES FOR SOME TIME AND EARNING A NOMINAL INCOME THEREFROM IS NOT GOING TO CHANGE THE COMMERCIAL CHARACTER OF THE PROPERTY TO THAT OF AGRICULTURAL P ROPERTY. 25. IN ALL THE CASES RELIED ON BY THE ASSESSEE, TH E FACTS ARE DIFFERENT AND HENCE THOSE DECISIONS CANNOT BE A PPLIED TO THE PRESENT CASE PLACED BEFORE US. 26. IN THE COURSE OF HEARING, IT HAS COME TO OUR N OTICE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PURCHASED THE PROPERTY WITH T HE INTENTION OF SETTING UP OF A TOURIST DESTINATION, BUT COULD N OT DO SO WITHIN THE STIPULATED TIME, AS THE NECESSARY STATUTORY PER MISSIONS WERE NOT OBTAINED FROM THE COMPETENT AUTHORITIES. THERE FORE, THE PROPERTY WAS SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE. THE PROPERTY WA S HELD BY THE ASSESSEE ONLY FOR A SHORT PERIOD. THAT IS WHY THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY HAS TREATED THE GAINS AS SHORT-TERM CAPIT AL GAINS. 27. WHEN ALL THESE FACTS ARE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERAT ION AS A WHOLE, WE FIND THAT THE PROPERTY PURCHASED AND SO LD BY THE - - ITA 794 & 1261 OF 2011 12 ASSESSEE WAS COMMERCIAL PROPERTY, NON AGRICULTURAL IN NATURE. THE PROPERTY CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS AN AGRICULTURA L PROPERTY ONLY FOR THE REASON THAT THERE WAS A CASUAL PLANTAT ION OF CASUARINA TREES. THE CERTIFICATES ISSUES BY THE CO NCERNED REVENUE AUTHORITIES ARE OF NO USE IN THE PRESENT CA SE. 28. THEREFORE, WE CONFIRM THE FINDINGS OF THE LOWE R AUTHORITIES ON THIS POINT AND HOLD THAT THE PROPERT Y SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE WAS NON AGRICULTURAL PROPERTY. SHORT-TERM CAPITAL GAINS TAX HAS BEEN LEVIED IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. 29. THIS ISSUE IS ACCORDINGLY DECIDED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. 30. NOW, REGARDING THE ADDITION OF ` 5,61,87,557/-, CONFIRMED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS ) AS DEEMED DIVIDEND UNDER SECTION 2(22)(E), THE ISSUE I S COVERED BY THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, D-BENCH, CHENNAI, IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE, THROUGH T HEIR ORDER DATED 24-5-2011 IN ITA NO.2219(MDS)/2010, HAS HELD THAT THE ADDITION TOWARDS DEEMED DIVIDEND WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN ASSESSEES CASE. THE CIRCUMSTANCES BEING SIMILAR, WE FOLLOW - - ITA 794 & 1261 OF 2011 13 THE SAID ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL AND HOLD THAT THE AD DITION SUSTAINED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS ) IS NOT JUSTIFIED. ACCORDINGLY, THE ADDITION OF ` 5,61,87,557/- IS DELETED. 31. THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY SUCCESSFUL IN ITS APPEA L FILED BEFORE US. 32. NEXT WE WILL CONSIDER THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE. 33. THE CASE OF THE REVENUE IS THAT THE COMMISSION ER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT PR E OPERATIVE EXPENSES OF ` 60,65,732/- CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF SALARY TO STAFF, RENT, ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES, LEGAL CHARGES, ETC. ARE ALLOWABLE AS DEDUCTION WHILE COMPUTING THE CAPITAL GAINS ON SALE OF LAND. IT IS THE CASE OF THE REVENUE THA T THOSE EXPENSES DO NOT HAVE ANY CONNECTION WITH THE TRANSF ER AND SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISALLOWED AS SUCH. 34. WE CONSIDERED THIS ISSUE. EVEN THOUGH THOSE EXPENSES CANNOT BE TECHNICALLY CONSIDERED AS EXPENS ES INCURRED IN CONNECTION WITH THE TRANSFER OF THE PRO PERTY, THOSE EXPENSES WERE IN THE NATURE OF EXPENSES INCURRED IN DEVELOPING AND MAINTAINING THE PROPERTY. THEREFORE, SUCH EXPE NDITURE GOES - - ITA 794 & 1261 OF 2011 14 TO INCREASE THE COST OF THE LAND. DEVELOPMENT COST IS AN ALLOWABLE EXPENDITURE IN COMPUTING THE CAPITAL GAIN S. THEREFORE, WE FIND THAT THERE IS NO HARD REASON FOR US TO INTE RFERE IN THE SAID ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS). THE REVENUE FAILS IN ITS APPEAL. 35. IN RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED AND THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISM ISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THURSDAY, THE 11 TH OF OCTOBER, 2012 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (VIKAS AWASTHY) (DR. O.K.NARAYANAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE-PRESIDENT CHENNAI, DATED, THE 11 TH OCTOBER, 2012. V.A.P. COPY TO: 1. ASSESSEE 2. DEPARTMENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR 6. GF.