T V Sundram Iyengar & Sons Limited, Madurai V. Addl.CIT, Madurai

ITA 835/CHNY/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 68658 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-08-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 28-08-2013
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 16-04-2012
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: T N BETGERI
• Assessee Lawyers: SA BALASUBRAMANIAN
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Business income; Depreciation; Business expenditure; Earning of tax free income

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENCH C CHENNAI BEFORE DR. O.K. NARAYANAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI S.S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NOS.833 TO 836/MDS/2012 ASST. YEARS : 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2008-09 TVS SUNDARAM IYENGAR & SONS LIMITED, 7-B, WEST VEI STREET, MADURAI 625 001. PAN : AABCT0159K. (APPELLANT ) V. THE JOINT/ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE I, CHENNAI. (RESPONDENT) DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI T.N. BETGERI, JCIT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI SA BALASUBRAMANIAN, ADVOCATE DATE OF HEARING : 28 AUG 2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 28 AUG 2013 O R D E R PER S.S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THESE FOUR ARE ASSESSEES APPEALS. THEY HAVE ARISEN FROM DIFFERENT ORDERS OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-I, MADURAI DATED 31.1.2012 IN ITA NO.0127 /07-08 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06, FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 200 6-07, ITA 833 TO 836/MDS/2012 2 2007-08 AND 2008-09, THE ORDERS UNDER CHALLENGE A RE ALL DATED 29.1.2012 IN ITA NO.125/2008-09, 0116/09-10 AND 01 32/10-1. THE RELEVANT PROCEEDINGS ARE UNDER SEC.143(3) OF TH E INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT, THE ACT). 2. A COMMON PERUSAL OF THE GROUNDS RAISED IN THE APPEALS MAKES IT APPARENT THAT THE ASSESSEES GRIEV ANCE IN ALL THE CASES IS COMMON AS FAR AS DISALLOWANCE UNDER SE C.14A R.W.RULE 8D OF THE I.T. RULES AND THAT OF DEPRECIA TION IN RESPECT OF UPS AND VOLTAGE STABILIZER IS CONCERNED. IN ADDITI ON TO THIS, IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06, IT HAS RAISED ONE MORE GRO UND REGARDING DISALLOWANCE OF TAX WRONGLY REMITTED MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND CONFIRMED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS); WHEREAS IN ITA NO.834/MDS/12 BEFORE US, IT IMPUGNES DISALLOWANCE/ADDITION UNDER SEC.50C OF THE ACT MADE AFTER ADOPTING HIGHER VALUE OF SALE CONSIDERATION F OR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS. ITA 833 TO 836/MDS/2012 3 2. IN THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE ASSESSEE VEHEMENT LY REITERATES THE PLEADINGS AND ARGUES THAT THE COMM ISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN PARTLY CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SEC.14A READ WI TH RULE 8D OF INCOME TAX RULES IN ALL CASES. IT HAS ALSO BEE N SUBMITTED THAT EVEN THE DISALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION, TAX WRONGLY REMITTED AND UNDER SEC.50C HAVE BEEN WRONGLY AFFIRMED BY THE COM MISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). IN THE LIGHT THEREOF, IT PRAYS FOR ACCEPTANCE OF ALL APPEALS AFTER QUOTING IN SUPPORT CASE LAW OF GODREJ & BOYCE MANUFACTURING CO.- 328 ITR 81 (MUM); MAXOPP INVESTMENT LTD. V. CIT [2012] 347 ITR 272 (DEL.) A ND THAT OF CHENNAI TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO.1609/MDS/2012 TITLED AS TVS INVESTMENTS VS. ACIT.. 3. IN REPLY, THE REVENUE PLACES STRONG RELIANCE ON THE ORDERS UNDER CHALLENGE PASSED BY COMMISSIONER OF IN COME TAX (APPEALS) IN ALL CASES AND PRESSES FOR UPHOLDING TH E SAME. ITA 833 TO 836/MDS/2012 4 5. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH PARTIES IN DETAIL AND GONE THROUGH THE CASE FILES AS WELL AS THE JUDICIAL PREC EDENTS CITED HEREIN ABOVE. KEEPING IN MIND THE FACT THAT THE IS SUES SOUGHT TO BE RAISED ARE ALMOST COMMON IN ALL CASES AS CLARIFI ED IN THE PRECEDING PARAGRAPHS, WE PROCEED TO ADJUDICATE COMM ON ISSUES AT THE FIRST INSTANCE. 6. THE FIRST GROUND COMMON IN ALL THE CASES IS OF DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SE C.14A OF THE ACT. THE RELEVANT FACTS ARE THAT IN ALL ASSES SMENT YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSEE; A COMPANY ENGAGE D IN THE BUSINESS OF SALES AND SERVICE OF AUTOMOBILES ALLIE D PRODUCTS AND SPARE PARTS, HAD DECLARED DIVIDEND INCOME OF ` 29 CRORES FROM MUTUAL FUND IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06; ` .27 CRORES IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07; ` .46,97,09,281/- FROM COMPANIES AND ` .1,72,52,841/- FROM MUTUAL FUNDS IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 AS WELL AS DIVIDEND INCOME OF ` .16,08,21,575/- COUPLED WITH THAT FROM MUTUAL FUND OF ` .2,30,57,736/- IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. ON BEING PUT UP TO NOTICE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ABOUT THE EXPENSES INCURRED IN EARNING THE SAME, ITS PLEA WAS THAT IT HAD ITA 833 TO 836/MDS/2012 5 NOT INCURRED ANY EXPENDITURE. IT WOULD EXPLAIN BEF ORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER, INTER ALIA, THAT SINCE THE CHE QUES AND DIVIDEND WARRANTS HAD BEEN DEPOSITED BY THE INVEST EE COMPANIES IN ITS ACCOUNTS UNDER CORE BANKING SYSTEM AND ALSO THAT PROCEEDS WERE TRANSFERRED AT PAR TO ITS ACCOUN TS, NO EXPENDITURE HAD ARISEN. IT ALSO DENIED TO HAVE PAI D ANY SERVICE CHARGE. WE NOTICE FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS 31.1 2.2009 AND 30.12.2010 (FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2005-06 AND 2006-0 7) THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT ACCEPT THE ASSESSEES CON TENTIONS. HE WAS OF THE VIEW THAT 5% OF THE EXPENSES SUCH AS PRI NTING, STATIONERY, POSTAGE, TELEGRAM AND BANK CHARGES OF ` . 42,54,976/- AND ` .43,04,800/- HAD TO BE DISALLOWED/ADDED IN THE ASSE SSEES INCOME. IN RESPECT OF ASSESSMENT YEARS 2007-08 AND 2008-09, HE APPLIED RULE 8D(2)(III) OF IT RULES IN COMPUTIN G DISALLOWANCE/ADDITION AT THE RATE OF 0.5% OF THE AV ERAGE OF THE INVESTMENTS AS ON THE CLOSING DATE OF THE PRECEDING AND RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR. IN THIS MANNER, FOR THE ABOVE CAP TIONED TWO ASSESSMENT YEARS, HE COMPUTED DISALLOWANCE/ADDITION OF ` .22,83,500/- AND ` .29,97,170/- ; RESPECTIVELY. ITA 833 TO 836/MDS/2012 6 7. IN ASSESSEES APPEALS IN ALL CASES, THE COMMISS IONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS APPLIED RULE 8D(2)(III) OF I.T. RULES.. AS A RESULT, THE ASSESSEE HAS GOT PART RELIEF IN AS SESSMENT YEARS2005-06 AND 2006-07 TO THE EXTENT STATED IN TH E GROUNDS; WHEREAS IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 AND 2008-09, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS UPHELD THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THEREFORE, THE COMMON GROUNDS ABOVE STATED HAVE ARISEN IN ALL APPEALS. 8. AFTER GIVING OUR THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION TO TH E AFORESAID FACTS, WE FIND THAT THERE IS NO DISPUTE O N FACTUAL POSITION NARRATED ABOVE. IN OTHER WORDS, THE ASSES SING OFFICER TOOK 5% OF THE POSTAL AND STATIONERY CHARGES ETC IN MAKING THE DISALLOWANCE UNDER SEC.14A OF THE ACT REGARDING ASS ESSMENT YEARS2005-06 AND 2006-07. IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007- 08 AND 2008-09, HE FOLLOWED RULE 8D(2)(III) IN COMPUTING T HE DISALLOWANCE. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPE ALS) IN ALL CASES HAS FOLLOWED RULE 8D(2)(III) IN RESTRICTING T HE SAME. IN THIS ITA 833 TO 836/MDS/2012 7 BACKDROP OF FACTS, WE FIND THAT THE AUTHORITIES BEL OW HAVE NOT PROCEEDED ON CORRECT FACTUAL AND LEGAL POSITION REG ARDING DISALLOWANCE PERTAINING TO EXEMPT INCOME IN QUESTIO N UNDER SEC.14A BY INVOKING RULE 8D(2)(III) AS IT HAS THROU GHOUT BEEN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT IT HAD NOT INCURRED ANY E XPENSES IN EARNING THE DIVIDEND INCOME. AS STIPULATED UNDER S EC.14A OF THE ACT, THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE NOWHERE RECORDED SA TISFACTION ABOUT THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ACCOUNTS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE. NOT ONLY THIS, IN THE CASE LAW OF GODREJ & BOYCE (SUPRA), THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT HAS HELD THA T RULE 8D COMES INTO EFFECT FROM THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 . THEREAFTER, THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT HAS FURTHE R CLARIFIED THAT EVEN WITH REGARD TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09, RULE 8 D WOULD APPLY ONLY FOR THE PERIOD FROM THE DATE OF ITS NOTI FICATION IE. 24.3.2008 TO 31.3.2008 AND NOT FROM 1.4.2007 TO 23. 3.2008. THE TRIBUNAL (SUPRA) HAS ALSO FOLLOWED THE CASE LAW O F MAXOPP INVESTMENTS LTD V. CIT AFORESAID. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, WE HOLD THAT THE IMPUGNED DISALLOWANCE IN ALL THE ASSE SSMENT YEARS HAS BEEN WRONGLY RESTRICTED/AFFIRMED BY THE COMMISS IONER OF ITA 833 TO 836/MDS/2012 8 INCOME TAX (APPEALS). AT THE SAME TIME, WE ALSO RE ITERATE THE LEGAL POSITION EMANATING FROM THE AFORESAID CASE LA W THAT IN A CASE OF EXEMPT INCOME NOT COVERED BY RULE 8D, TH E DISALLOWANCE UNDER SEC.14A OF THE ACT HAS TO BE MAD E BY FOLLOWING REASONABLE METHOD. HENCE, INSTEAD OF REMITTING BACK THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO R E-EXAMINE THE ASSESSEES CASES AFRESH, WE DEEM IT APPROPRIATE THA T IT WOULD BE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE THAT THE DISALLOWANCE/AD DITION IN QUESTION IN ALL ASSESSMENT YEARS OF ` .18,72,495/-; ` .22,16,682/-; ` .22,83,500/- AND ` .29,97,170/- IS FURTHER RESTRICTED TO 50%. WE ORDER ACCORDINGLY AND GRANT PART RELIEF TO THE ASS ESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, WE ORDER THAT THE CORRESPONDING GROUND S IN ALL THE APPEALS STAND PARTLY ALLOWED. 9. THE NEXT COMMON GROUND IN ALL ASSESSMENT YEARS PERTAINS TO DISALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION IN RESPECT OF UPS AND VOLTAGE STABILIZER. THE PARTIES HAVE CLARIFIED BE FORE US IN THE COURSE OF HEARING THAT UNLIKE THE FIRST ISSUE DECID ED HEREINABOVE, THE FACTS IN ALL ASSESSMENT YEARS QUA THE ISSUES AR E IDENTICAL. ITA 833 TO 836/MDS/2012 9 THEREFORE, WE TAKE THE FACTS OF ITA NO.833/MDS/2012 AS LEAD ONE AND FIND THAT IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT, THE ASSESSEE RAISED A CLAIM OF 80% OF DEPRECIATION ON THE AFORES AID ITEMS. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER RELIED ON THE CASE LAW OF NESTL INDIA LTD V. DCIT DATED 30.4.2007, R EPORTED AS 111 TTJ 498 (DEL) , AND HELD THAT THE SAME DID NO T FORM INTEGRAL PART OF THE COMPUTER ENTITLING IT FOR THE HIGHER RA TE OF DEPRECIATION AT THE RATE OF 80%. ACCORDINGLY, HE DISALLOWED A S UM OF ` .25,44,465/- IN ASSESSEES CASE AFTER RESTRICTING T HE CLAIM TO 25% ONLY. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ALSO UPHELD THE SAME BY PLACING RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE ASSESSME NT YEAR 2001- 02. 10. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE ASSESSEES ARGUMENTS AN D PERUSED THE RELEVANT FINDINGS OF THE AUTHORITIES BE LOW. THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT DISPUTE THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS CONFIRMED THE DISALLOWANCE BY PLACING RELIANCE ON ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02. I T HAS ITA 833 TO 836/MDS/2012 10 NEITHER POINTED OUT ANY DISTINGUISHING FEATURES NOR REBUTTED THE FINDINGS IN QUESTION. THEREFORE, WE DO NOT SEE AN Y REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) UNDER CHALLENGE QUA THE ISSUE OF DEPRECIA TION PERTAINING TO UPS AND VOLTAGE STABILIZERS. CONSEQU ENTLY, THE RELEVANT GROUNDS IN ALL APPEALS STAND DECIDED AGAIN ST THE ASSESSEE. 11. NOW, WE COME TO ITA NO.833/MDS/2012 RAISING GROUND OF TAX CREDIT. FACTS PERTAINING TO THIS GRO UND ARE THAT IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED TO H AVE PAID AN AMOUNT OF ` .13,09,41,000/- AS FEES FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES RENDERED BY A SWEDISH ENTITY BY THE NAME M/S. BLK INTERNATIONAL AB SWEDEN. AS PER THE ASSESSEE, THOU GH IT HAD DEDUCTED TDS OF ` .1,47,126/-, AND REMITTED THE SAME IN FAVOUR OF GOVERNMENT, DESPITE THE FACT THE SERVICES RENDERED BY THE ASSESSEE WERE NOT IN INDIA, THE PAYMENT WAS NOT LIA BLE TO TDS PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN THE ACT. THE SAID PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE AS SESSMENT ORDER, WHO WAS OF THE VIEW THAT SINCE IT HAD PAID T HE TAX IN ITA 833 TO 836/MDS/2012 11 COMPUTING THE BUSINESS INCOME, THE SAME COULD NOT B E ACCEPTED AS BUSINESS EXPENDITURE. ACCORDINGLY, HE DISALLOWE D/ADDED BACK THE AMOUNT OF ` .1,47,126/-. IN APPEAL BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), THE ASSESSEES ARGUMENT W AS ONCE AGAIN ON LEGALITY BASIS IE. SINCE THE PAYEE IN QUES TION HAD NOT RENDERED ANY SERVICE IN INDIA BECAUSE OF THE FACT T HAT THE CONSULTANCY PERTAINED TO SOURCING OF AUTO COMPONENT S OF TWO WHEELERS TO AND FROM OTHER EUROPEAN CONTRIES, IT WA S NOT COVERED BY THE TDS PROVISIONS. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS REJECTED THE SAID CONTENTION FOR W ANT OF RELEVANT DETAILS REGARDING RECEIPT AND PAYMENT, NATURE OF SE RVICES RENDERED, COPY OF AGREEMENT ETC. THEREFORE, THE IN STANT GROUND HAS BEEN RAISED BEFORE US. 12. WE HAVE EXAMINED THE ISSUE AND GONE THROUGH TH E FINDINGS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS COMMIS SIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). IT IS EVIDENT TO US FROM THE RELEVANT FINDINGS THAT THE LEGAL ISSUE OF TAXABILITY OF THE PAYMENT IN THE HANDS OF THE PAYEE AFORESAID HAS NOWHERE BEEN EXAMI NED EITHER BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ITA 833 TO 836/MDS/2012 12 (APPEALS) IN DETAIL. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TA X (APPEALS) MERELY OBSERVES THAT THE RELEVANT DETAILS WERE NOT FILED. THERE IS NO CLARITY IN THE ORDER AS TO WHEN THE ASSESSEE WAS CALLED UPON TO PRODUCE THE RELEVANT DETAILS THE PARTICULARS. FACED WITH THIS SITUATION, WE DEEM IT APPROPRIATE THAT THE PRESENT ISSUE DESERVES TO BE RE-DECIDED AFTER TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION AL L THE RELEVANT PARTICULARS TO BE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. HENCE, WE REMIT THE MATTER TO BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHO SHALL PROCEED AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER GRANTIN G ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. 14. NOW, WE COME TO THE ISSUE OF DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND CONFIRMED BY THE COMMISSI ONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AFTER ADOPTING NOTIONAL HIGHE R VALUE OF SALE CONSIDERATION UNDER SEC.50C OF THE ACT TO COMP UTE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. 15. IN THE SCRUTINY PROCEEDINGS OF ASSESSMENT YE AR 2006-07, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT THE ASS ESSEE HAD SOLD ITS PROPERTIES SITUATED AT TIRUCHIRAPALLY SHOW ING THE VALUE OF THE LAND AS ` .2,00,94,900/- AND BUILDING OF ` .15,000/-; WHEREAS ITA 833 TO 836/MDS/2012 13 THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY HAS TAKEN THE SAME AT ` .2,58,51,300/-. IN VIEW THEREOF, HE INVOKED SEC.50 C OF THE ACT AND ISSUED NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE. IN REPLY, THE A SSESSEE REITERATED THE AFORESAID CONSIDERATION AND ASSERTED THAT ONLY THE ACTUAL VALUE HAD TO BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION FO R THE PURPOSE OF SEC.50C OF THE ACT. THIS FAILED TO CONVINCE THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHO ADOPTED THE SALE VALUE AS DETERMINED BY THE STAMP AUTHORITIES AND COMPUTED CAPITAL GAINS ACCORDINGLY BY MAKING ADDITION IN THE ASSESSEES TOTAL INCOME OF ` .57,41,400/-. 16. IN APPEAL AS WELL, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS AFFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 17. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH PARTIES AND ALSO GONE THROU GH THE RELEVANT FINDINGS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS W ELL AS THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). THE ACTUAL V ALUE SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS THAT TAKEN BY THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITIES ARE NOT IN DISPUTE. THE ASSESSING OFFI CER HAS TREATED THE STAMP VALUE AS ACTUAL CONSIDERATION FOR THE PUR POSE OF COMPUTING CAPITAL GAINS. IT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT ITA 833 TO 836/MDS/2012 14 BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER, IT HAD ARGUED FOR MA KING A REFERENCE TO THE VALUATION OFFICER AS PRESCRIBED IN THE RELEVANT PROVISION. THAT BEING THE CASE, WE HOLD THAT ONCE THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PRESS FOR MAKING REFERENCE AS STIPULATED IN THE ACT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RIGHTLY TREATED THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AS DETERMINED BY THE STAMP AUTHORITIES. THEREFORE, TH E ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND CONFIRMED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IS UPHELD. 18. AS A SEQUEL TO OUR ABOVE DISCUSSION, ALL THE APPEALS ARE PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THURSDAY, T HE 28 TH DAY OF AUGUST 2013, AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( DR. O.K. NARAYANAN ) ( S.S. GODARA ) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER CHENNAI, DATED : 28 TH AUGUST 2013 JLS. ITA 833 TO 836/MDS/2012 15 COPY TO:- (1) APPELLANT (2) RESPONDENT (3) CIT(A) CHENNAI (4) CIT, CHENNAI (5) D.R. (6) GUARD FILE.