M/s. Prithvi Softech Limited, CHENNAI V. ACIT, CHENNAI

ITA 797/CHNY/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 134 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4623 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-07-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 21-07-2011
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 24-05-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ANIRUDH RAI
• Assessee Lawyers: D ANAND
• Keywords: Business income; Depreciation; Scheme of amalgamation; Unabsorbed depreciation; Set aside
• Section: 143(3); 115JB; 195; 32; 263; 11

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENCH D CHENNAI BEFORE SHRI N.S. SAINI, AM AND SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, J.M. .. I.T.A. NO. 797/MDS/2010 [ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06] M/S PRITHVI SOFTECH LIMITED 33, MONTIETH ROAD EGMORE, CHENNAI 603 103. PAN : AAACO 1097 L VS THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX OFFICER - III CHENNAI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI D. ANAND, ADVOCATE DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI ANIRUDH RAI, CIT, DR O R D E R PER N.S. SAINI, A.M :- THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAIN ST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT, CHENNAI-III DATED 12.03.2010 U/S 263 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 [IN SHORT, THE ACT] FOR ASSESS MENT YEAR 2005- 06. PAGE 2 OF 14 I.T.A. NO. 797/MDS/2010 2. THE SOLE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THIS APPEAL IS THAT T HE LD. CIT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THERE WAS NO CARRY FORWARD BUSINESS LOSS SHOWN IN THE BALANCE SHEET OF ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 WARRANTING A SET OFF AGAINST BUSINESS INCOME OF RS. 1,17,38,472/- FOR T HE PURPOSES OF LEVY OF MINIMUM ALTERNATE TAX. 3. THE LD. CIT INVOKED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 26 3 OF THE ACT BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: THE ASSESSEE COMPANY FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE A. Y. 2005-06 ON 31.10.2005 ADMITTING A TOTAL INCOME OF RS. NIL. THE PROFIT AS PET PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT (LESS DIVIDEND RECEIPTS) WAS RS.1,17,38,472 /- AGAINST WHICH CARRIED FORWARD BUSINESS OR UNABSORBED LOSSES WHICHEVER IS LESS OF RS.1,17,38,472/- WAS ADJUSTED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE TOTAL INCOME WAS STRUCK AT RS. NIL. WHILE COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD SET OFF LOSS TO THE TUNE OF RS.1,13,01,457/- AGAINS T THE GROSS TOTAL INCOME OF THE LIKE FIGURE AND PAGE 3 OF 14 I.T.A. NO. 797/MDS/2010 DETERMINED THE TOTAL INCOME AT NIL. IN REGARD TO TH E APPLICABILITY OF SEC.1151B THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE SAID ORDER STATED AS FOLLOWS: 'THE ASSESSEE'S NET PROFIT IS RS.1,17,38,472/. THIS HAS BEEN FULLY SET OFF AGAINST THE BOOK PROFIT. HENCE THERE IS NO INCOME U/S 115JB'. THUS NO TAX U/S 115JB WAS LEVIED IN THE SAID ORDER. HOWEVER, IT IS SEEN FROM THE BALANCE SHEET AS AT 31.3.2005 FORMING PART OF PRINTED ACCOUNTS ANNEXED TO THE RETURN OF INCOME THAT THERE WAS NO BUSINESS LOSS/DEPRECIATION AS PER THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. FURT HER IT IS SEEN FROM THE P&L A/C FOR THE YEAR ENDED 31.3.20 05 THAT THERE WAS ONLY A PROFIT OF RS.1,31,66,579/- (INCLUDING A SUM OF RS.22,96,427/-BEING THE PROFIT BROUGHT FORWARD) WHICH WAS TAKEN TO THE SCHEDULE II 'RESERVES AND SURPLUS' BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. IN AS MUCH AS, THERE WAS NO BROUGHT FORWARD LOSS/UNABSORB ED PAGE 4 OF 14 I.T.A. NO. 797/MDS/2010 DEPRECIATION AS PER THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, NO ADJUST MENT TO THE BOOK PROFIT AS PER CLAUSE III OF EXPLANATION TO SEC. 115JB IS CALLED FOR AND CONSEQUENTLY THE ENTIRE BOO K PROFIT OF RS.1,17,38,472/- REQUIRES TO BE CONSIDERE D FOR TAXATION U/S 115JB. SINCE THE AO HAD NOT CONSIDERED THE ABOVE ASPECT, T HE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS RENDERED LIABLE FOR BEING REVIS ED U/S 263 AS THE TWIN CONDITIONS OF THAT SECTION ARE SATI SFIED.' 4. IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTE D AS UNDER: 'THE ASSESSEE FILED 'RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASST. YEAR 2005-06 ON 31.10.2005 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. NIL. THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY. WE SUBMITTED TH E DETAILS REQUIRED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FROM TIME TO TIME. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESS ING OFFICER ASKED ABOUT THE APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 11 51B. WE HAD GIVEN THE DETAILS AND EXPLANATION. AFTER CONSIDERING THE DETAILS AND EXPLANATION, THE ASSESS ING PAGE 5 OF 14 I.T.A. NO. 797/MDS/2010 OFFICER COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT WITHOUT MAKING ANY ADDITION. YOU HAVE MENTIONED IN YOUR NOTICE THAT IT IS SEEN F ROM THE BALANCE SHEET AS AT 31.03.2005 FORMING PART OF PRINTED ACCOUNTS ANNEXED TO THE RETURN OF INCOME TH AT THERE WAS NO BUSINESS LOSS/DEPRECIATION AS PER THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS' AND ACCORDINGLY THE COMPANY HAS TO PAY MINIMUM ALTERNATE TAX U/S 115 J B. IN THIS REGARD WE WOULD LIKE TO SUBMIT AS FOLLOWS: 1. THE COMPANY HAD INCURRED BUSINESS LOSS AND DEPRECIATION LOSS BETWEEN FINANCIAL YEAR 2000-2001 & 2002-03 AS PER THE DETAILS GIVEN BELOW : F.Y. BUSINESS LOSS UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION TOTAL 2000-01 6,516,294 5,038,745 11,555,039 2001-02 8,616,502 4,568,920 13,185,422 2002-03 8,300,582 4,658,373 12,958,955 2003-04 2,971,925 2,971,925 PAGE 6 OF 14 I.T.A. NO. 797/MDS/2010 THE COMPANY HAD INCURRED BUSINESS LOSS AND DEPRECIA TION LOSS BETWEEN FINANCIAL YEAR 2000-2001 & 2002-03 WHICH WAS NOT SET OFF TILL THE ASST. YEAR 2005-06 AND HEN CE COMPANY IS ELIGIBLE TO SET OFF THE LOSSES AGAINST B OOK PROFIT. 3. AS PER THE SCHEME OF AMALGAMATION APPROVED BY TH E SHAREHOLDERS & THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS, THE COMPANY REDUCED THE PAID UP CAPITAL WHICH IS NOT REPRESENTED BY THE ASSETS, BECAUSE THE COMPANY HAD INCURRED LOSSES IN EARLIER YEARS. ACCORDINGLY, THE COMPANY HAS TRANSFERRED THE ENTIRE BALANCE OF PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT AMOUNTING TO RS.3,58,75,731/- TO PAID UP EQUITY CAP ITAL ACCOUNT. THE AMOUNT CREDITED PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT IS NOT INCOME FOR THE FOR ANY YEAR BUT ONLY REPRESENTS RED UCTION OF PAID UP CAPITAL. WE REQUEST YOUR KIND AUTHORITY TO CONSIDER THE ABOV E FACTS AND ALLOW THE COMPANY TO SET OFF BUSINESS LOSSES AN D UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION AGAINST THE BOOK PROFIT PAGE 7 OF 14 I.T.A. NO. 797/MDS/2010 5. THE LD. CIT(A), AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSION S OF THE LD. A.R., HELD AT PARA 3 OF HIS ORDER AS UNDER: I HAVE CAREFULLY EXAMINED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AN D CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE I SSUES INVOLVED IN THE PRESENT PROCEEDINGS. IT IS AN ADMIT TED FACT THAT THERE ARE NO BROUGHT FORWARD DEPRECIATION/BUSI NESS LOSS AS PER THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE F OR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. AS HELD BY THE HON'BLE SU PREME COURT IN THE CASE OF M/S APOLLO TYRES LTD. V. CIT, 255 ITR 273 (SC), BOOK PROFITS ARE REQUIRED TO BE COMPUTED ON THE BASIS OF THE BOOKS OF THE ACCOUNTS PREPARED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAS PREPARED ITS FINAL A CCOUNTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 AND AS P ER THE SAID ACCOUNTS THERE ARE NO BROUGHT FORWARD BUSINESS LOSS/DEPRECIATION WHICH COULD BE CONSIDERED FOR SET OFF AGAINST THE BOOK PROFITS OF THE CURRENT YEAR. THERE FORE, I DO NOT FIND ANY FORCE IN THE CONTENTIONS OF THE LEA RNED A.R. THAT THE EARLIER BROUGHT FORWARD BUSINESS LOSS / PAGE 8 OF 14 I.T.A. NO. 797/MDS/2010 DEPRECIATION SHOULD BE SET OFF AGAINST THE BOOK PRO FITS OF THE CURRENT YEAR. IT IS NOT MATERIAL AT THIS STAGE TO DISCUSS THE MANNER AND THE PURPOSE IN WHICH THE SAID EARLIE R BUSINESS LOSS/DEPRECIATION HAD BEEN ADJUSTED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE EARLIER YEARS AGAINST ITS CAPITAL A SSET. WHAT IMPORTANT HERE AT THIS POINT IS THAT AS PER ASSESSE E'S AUDITED BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, THERE ARE NO BROUGHT FOR WARD BUSINESS LOSSES/DEPRECIATION OF EARLIER YEARS WHICH COULD HAVE BEEN ADJUSTED WHILE COMPUTING THE BOOK PROFITS OF THE CURRENT YEAR. THE LAW DOES NOT PERMIT ADJUSTMEN T OF THE BOOK PROFITS UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCE EXCEPT UNDE R THE EXCEPTIONS GIVEN U/S 115 JB OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. THEREFORE, ALL THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE HEREBY REJECTED. 4. KEEPING IN VIEW THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, IT IS HERB Y HELD THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFF ICER WITH RESPECT TO DETERMINATION OF BOOK PROFIT U/S 11 5 JB AFTER ADJUSTMENT OF BROUGHT FORWARD DEPRECIATION/LO SSES TO BE NIL WAS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTE REST OF PAGE 9 OF 14 I.T.A. NO. 797/MDS/2010 REVENUE. THE NET PROFIT OF THE ASSESSEE FOR CURRENT YEAR WAS ADMITTEDLY RS. 1,17,38,47/-. THERE IS NO BROUGH T FORWARD BUSINESS LOSS/DEPRECIATION AVAILABLE WITH T HE ASSESSEE TO SET OFF AGAINST THE SAID BOOK PROFITS. THEREFORE, THE SAID ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS HEREBY SET ASIDE U/S 263 OF THE ACT AND THE ASSESSING OFFI CER IS HEREBY DIRECTED TO ADOPT THE BOOK PROFITS OF THE AS SESSEE FOR THE CURRENT YEAR TO BE RS. 1,17,38,472/- AND C OMPUTE THE TAX AND INTEREST LIABILITY OF THE ASSESSEE AND ISSUE NECESSARY DEMAND NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE ACCORDINGLY . 6. THE LD. A.R. REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEF ORE THE LD. CIT(A), WHEREAS THE LD. D.R. SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT. 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT W AS COMPLETED U/S 143(3) ON 28.12.2007 WHEREIN BOOK PROFIT U/S 115JB WAS COMPUTED AT NIL AFTER ALLOWING SET OFF OF BROUGHT FORWARD LO SS OR DEPRECIATION OF RS. 1,13,01,457/-. THE SAID ORDER OF ASSESSMEN T WAS REVISED BY PAGE 10 OF 14 I.T.A. NO. 797/MDS/2010 THE LD. CIT VIDE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED U/S 263 OF T HE ACT. THE LD. CIT WAS OF THE OPINION THAT THERE WAS NO AMOUNT WHI CH COULD BE ALLOWED AS DEDUCTION UNDER CLAUSE (III) OF EXPLANAT ION TO SECTION 115JB(2) OF THE ACT AS THERE WAS NO LOSS BALANCE IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE IN THE INSTANT CASE THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY SUFFERED LOSS CONTINUOUSLY SINCE F .Y. 2000-01 TILL THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING PREVIOUS YEAR. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE ADJUSTED THE FIGURE OF ACCUMULATED LOSS OF RS. 3,5 8,75,731/- WITH THE PAID UP CAPITAL AND BALANCE IN PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT WAS NOT REFLECTING ANY LOSS. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED YEAR-W ISE POSITION AS UNDER BEFORE THE LD. CIT WHICH WAS NOT CONTROVERTED BY THE LD. CIT OR BY THE LD. D.R: F.Y. BUSINESS LOSS UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION TOTAL 2000-01 6,516,294 5,038,745 11,555,039 2001-02 8,616,502 4,568,920 13,185,422 2002-03 8,300,582 4,658,373 12,958,955 2003-04 2,971,925 2,971,925 8. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE ABOVE FIGURES ARE AS PER AUDITED BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE IMMEDIATEL Y PRECEDING FOUR YEARS. FROM THE ABOVE, IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE ASS ESSEE HAS PAGE 11 OF 14 I.T.A. NO. 797/MDS/2010 CONTINUOUSLY SUFFERED LOSS AS PER ITS BOOKS FOR THE LAST FOUR YEARS AND OUT OF WHICH IN THE FIRST YEAR THE ENTIRE LOSS WAS ON ACCOUNT OF DEPRECIATION, AND IN THE REMAINING THREE YEARS, THE RE WAS ALSO LOSS MORE THAN DEPRECIATION, I.E., CASH LOSS. IN SPITE OF THE ABOVE, TO SAY THAT THERE WAS NO BROUGHT FORWARD LOSS OR UNABSORBE D DEPRECIATION AS PER BOOKS IN THE CURRENT YEAR IS, IN OUR CONSIDE RED OPINION, AN ABSURDITY. IT SEEMS THAT THE LD. CIT IS OF THE OPI NION THAT UNLESS THERE IS A DEBIT BALANCE IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACC OUNT, THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE ALLOWED THE BENEFIT OF CLAUSE (III) EXPL ANATION TO SECTION 115JB(2). IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, THE PHRASE LOSS BROUGHT FORWARD AND PHRASE DEBIT BALANCE IN PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUN T ARE TWO DIFFERENT AND DOES NOT CONVEY THE SAME MEANING. TH E ABOVE POSITION BECOMES EVIDENT WHEN ONE LOOKS INTO THE EX AMPLE GIVEN BY THE CBDT IN ITS CIRCULAR NO. 495 DATED 22.9.1987. A READING OF PARA 36.3 AND 36.5 THEREOF SHOWS THAT BY VIRTUE OF THE S AID CLAUSE, BROUGHT FORWARD LOSSES OR UNABSORBED DEPRECIATIO N, WHICHEVER IS LESS, COULD BE REDUCED IN ARRIVING AT BOOKS PROF ITS. IT REQUIRES WORKING OUT SEPARATE AMOUNT OF LOSSES AND UNABSORBE D DEPRECIATION IN EACH YEAR FROM THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND THEIR SE T OFF, IF ANY, AGAINST SUBSEQUENT YEARS BOOK PROFIT FOR DETERMINI NG THE AMOUNT TO PAGE 12 OF 14 I.T.A. NO. 797/MDS/2010 BE CARRIED FORWARD OR THE AMOUNT REMAINING UNABSORB ED. THE LOSS OR UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION IS TO BE DETERMINED WITH REFERENCE TO BOOKS OF ACCOUNT IN CONTRA-DISTINCTION TO THE LOSS OF UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION ARRIVED AT FROM NORMAL COMPUTATION OF TOTAL INCOME UNDER SECTIONS 72 TO 74A OF THE ACT OR U/S 32 OF TH E ACT. HEREIN, IT MAY BE NOTED THAT PHRASE USED IS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND NOT PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT OR BALANCE SHEET. PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT, BALANCE SHEET AND BOOKS OF ACCOUNT ARE DIFFERENT A ND DISTINCT TERMS AND IN A GIVEN CIRCUMSTANCE, MAY NOT CARRY THE SAME MEANING. THOUGH PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT AND BALANCE SHEET ARE NORMALLY DRAWN UP FROM THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND THE AMOUNT R EFLECTED THEREIN AGREE WITH THE BALANCE SHEET AS PER BOOKS O F ACCOUNT, BUT BOOKS OF ACCOUNT ALSO CONTAIN MANY DETAILS AND BREA K UP OF BALANCES WHICH ARE DISCLOSED IN A SUMMARIZED MANNER IN THE P ROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT AND BALANCE SHEET AND HENCE, A FIGURE WHICH MAY BE AVAILABLE AS PER BOOKS OF ACCOUNT MAY NOT ALWAYS BE NECESSARILY APPARENTLY VISIBLE FROM EITHER THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT OR BALANCE SHEET. THE SAID CLAUSE (III) CANNOT BE READ TO MEA N THAT IF THE LOSS SUFFERED IN A YEAR AND UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION OF T HAT YEAR ARE NOT KEPT SEPARATELY AND SHOWN DISTINCTLY IN THE BALANCE SHEET, THEN NO PAGE 13 OF 14 I.T.A. NO. 797/MDS/2010 DEDUCTION FOR THE SAID LOSS OR DEPRECIATION CAN BE ALLOWED IN THE SUCCEEDING YEARS IN COMPUTING THE BOOK PROFIT. THE RE IS NO SUCH FURTHER LEGAL REQUIREMENT THAT THE LOSS SHOULD APPE AR IN THE BALANCE SHEET OF THE SUCCEEDING YEAR ALSO AND HENCE SUCH RE QUIREMENT CANNOT BE IMPOSED BY ANY AUTHORITY. IN OUR CONSIDE RED OPINION, THE LOSS OR UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION OF ONE YEAR CAN BE SET OFF AGAINST THE PROFIT OF THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR ONLY AND TILL SUC H SET OFF, THE AMOUNTS ARE CARRIED FORWARD TO THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR, OR IN OTHER WORDS, ARE BROUGHT FORWARD IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR F ROM EARLIER YEAR AND ARE AVAILABLE FOR SET OFF AS PER PROVISIONS OF CLAUSE (III) OF SECTION 115JB(2) OF THE ACT. IN THE INSTANT CASE, IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SUFFERED LOSS CONTINUOUSLY IN THE LAST FOUR YEARS. NO MATERIAL HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD THAT SUCH LOSS WAS SET OFF AGAINST ANY PROFIT OF THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR IN DETERM INING THE BOOK PROFIT OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AFTER THE YEAR IN WH ICH SUCH LOSS WAS SUFFERED. THUS IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, SUCH LOS S WAS AVAILABLE FOR SET OFF DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION FOR DET ERMINING THE BOOK PROFIT AS PER PROVISIONS OF CLAUSE (III) OF SECTION 115JB(2) OF THE ACT. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, TH ERE WAS NO ERROR IN THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSMENT AS PASSED BY THE ASS ESSING OFFICER IN PAGE 14 OF 14 I.T.A. NO. 797/MDS/2010 SO FAR AS IT ALLOWED DEDUCTION OF RS. 1,13,01,457/- AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 115JB(2) OF THE ACT IN DETER MINING THE BOOK PROFIT OF THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. OUR ABOVE VIEW ALSO FINDS SUPPORT FROM THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SUMI MOTHERSON INNOVATIVE ENGINEERING LT D. [2010] 195 TAXMAN 353 [DEL]. 9. WE, THEREFORE, SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASS ED U/S 263 OF THE ACT AND ALLOW THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 10. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 28 TH JULY 2011. SD/- SD/- ((GEORGE MATHAN ) (N.S. SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER CHENNAI, DATED THE 28 TH JULY, 2011. VL COPY TO: ASSESSEE/AO/CIT (A)/CIT/D.R./GUARD FILE