Appeal details
Counselvise Citation
[2010] 135 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7855 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
Duration Of Justice
5 month(s) 21 day(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date
25-11-2010
Appeal Filed By
Department
Order Result
Dismissed
Bench Allotted
C
Next Hearing Date
28-01-2014
Assessment Year
2002-2003
Appeal Filed On
04-06-2010
Judgement Text
, , IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, CHENNAI. . . . , . ! '# ! '# ! '# ! '# , $ $ $ $ % % % % & & & & BEFORE DR. O.K. NARAYANAN, VICE-PRESIDENT & SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER . / I.T.A.NO.879/MDS/2010 $ # '# / ASSESSMENT YEARS :2002-03 INDIAN BANK, HEAD OFFICE, 66, RAJAJI SALAI, CHENNAI 600 001. [PAN :AAACI1607G] VS. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COMPANY RANGE II, CHENNAI 600 034. ( () () () () / APPELLANT ) ( *+() *+() *+() *+() / RESPONDENT ) . / I.T.A.NO.886/MDS/2010 $ # '# / ASSESSMENT YEARS :2002-03 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COMPANY CIRCLE II(2), CHENNAI 600 034. VS. INDIAN BANK, HEAD OFFICE, 66, RAJAJI SALAI, CHENNAI 600 001. ( () () () () / APPELLANT ) ( *+() *+() *+() *+() / RESPONDENT ) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI C. NARESH, C.A. DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI HARI RAO, JCIT ! , -. / DATE OF HEARING : 28.01.2014 /0' , -. /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 17.02.2014 1 1 1 1 / O R D E R PER V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THESE CROSS APPEALS ONE BY THE ASSESSEE AND OTHER B Y THE REVENUE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMI SSIONER OF INCOME I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. NO NONO NOS SS S. .. .886 & 879 886 & 879 886 & 879 886 & 879/M/ /M/ /M/ /M/10 1010 10 2 TAX(APPEALS) III, CHENNAI DATED 25.03.2010 RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03. I.T.A. NO.879/MDS/2010 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE H AD FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 29.10.2002 ADMITTING A TOTAL LOSS OF ` .256,09,26,436/-. THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF TH E INCOME TAX ACT ON 31.03.2005 BY DETERMINING TOTAL INCOME AT NI L AND BOOK PROFIT UNDER SECTION 115JB OF ` .171,77,15,332/-. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE ASSESSMENT WAS REOPENED UNDER SECTION 147 BY ISSUIN G NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 DATED 26.03.2007. THEREAFTER, THE ASSES SMENT WAS COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 143(3) READ WITH SECTION 14 7 OF THE ACT. 3. THE FIRST GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE RELA TES TO REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) HAS CONSIDERED THE REOPENING AND OBSERVED THAT IN THIS CASE, THE REASSESSMENT WAS DO NE BY REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT WITHIN A PERIOD OF FOUR YEARS FROM T HE END OF THE ASSESSMENT YEAR AND WAS NOT REOPENED BASED ON ANY C HANGE OF OPINION. IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT EXCESS RELIEF W AS GRANTED WHILE DEDUCTING UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION AT A FIGURE OF ` .131,46,76,000/- WITHOUT ADJUSTING AGAINST IT AN AMOUNT OF ` .14,26,07,000/- BEING THE PROFIT OF ASSESSMENT YEAR 1995-96. THUS, THERE WAS UNDER ASSESSMENT I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. NO NONO NOS SS S. .. .886 & 879 886 & 879 886 & 879 886 & 879/M/ /M/ /M/ /M/10 1010 10 3 OF INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSM ENT AND WITH THAT ABOVE OBSERVATION, THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) HAS UPHELD THE REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 147 OF THE ACT. 4. BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE AS SESSEE HAS RELIED ON THE GROUND RAISED IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 5. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR HAS SUBMITTED THA T EVEN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 143 (3) OF THE ACT, THERE WAS UNDER ASSESSMENT OF INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT. THEREFORE, THERE IS NO CHANGE OF OPINION AND REOPENING WAS VALID. 6. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH SIDES, PERUSED THE MATERIALS ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE FI ND FROM THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) THAT THE ASSESSMENT WAS REOPEN ED WITHIN FOUR YEARS AND THERE IS SPECIFIC FINDINGS THAT THERE WAS UNDER ASSESSMENT OF INCOME IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. THIS IS NOTHING ON RECORD TO SUGGEST THAT THE REOPENING WAS DUE TO CHANGE OF OPI NION. THEREFORE, WE CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) ON THI S ISSUE AND THE GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. NO NONO NOS SS S. .. .886 & 879 886 & 879 886 & 879 886 & 879/M/ /M/ /M/ /M/10 1010 10 4 7. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING ADDITIONAL GR OUNDS OF APPEAL AS UNDER: THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE HONOURABLE TRIBUNAL B E PLEASED TO ADMIT THE FOLLOWING AS AN ADDITIONAL GROUND: 1. IN AS MUCH AS THE APPELLANT IS NOT A COMPANY AS PER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 115JB IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE APPELLANT BASED ON THE DECISIONS IN THE CASE OF ITAT MUMBAI IN THE CASE OF KRUNG THAI BANK LIMITED (ITA NO.3390/MUM/09) ITAT CHENNAI IN THE APPELLANTS OWN CASE (ITA NO.469/MDS/2010) AND HENCE NO TAX CAN BE LEVIE D BASED ON THE BOOK PROFITS. 2. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE CONTENTION, THE BOOK PROFITS CAN ONLY BE COMPUTED BASED ON PART II AND III OF SCHEDU LE VI OF COMPANIES ACT AND THEREFORE THE AO HAD ERRED IN ADO PTING THE PROFITS AS COMPUTED UNDER SCHEDULE III OF BANKING R EGULATION ACT WHILE COMPUTING SUCH BOOK PROFITS U/S 115JB. 8. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FILED AN AFFIDAVIT AND SU BMITTED AS UNDER: 1. I AM THE CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR OF THE AP PELLANT BANK IN-CHARGE, INTER-ALIA, OF ITS INCOME TAX MATTERS AN D AS SUCH FULLY FAMILIAR WITH THE FACTS OF THE CASE, BESIDES BEING AUTHORISE D TO SWEAR TO THIS AFFIDAVIT. 2. THE APPELLANT BANK HAS FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE T HIS HON'BLE TRIBUNAL IN RESPECT OF ITS INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT FO R 2002-03 WHICH IS REGISTERED AS ITA NO.879/CHNY/2010. ONE OF THE ISSU ES IN THE APPEAL PERTAINS TO COMPUTATION OF BOOK PROFITS FOR PURPOSE S OF SECTION 115.1B OF THE ACT IN DIFFERENT DIMENSIONS. 3. THE APPELLANT BANK HAS JUST NOTICED THAT THERE HAVE BEEN JUDGMENTS BY THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUM BAI IN THE CASE OF KRUNG THAI BANK AND THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRI BUNAL, CHENNAI IN APPELLANT'S OWN CASE HOLDING THAT THOSE BANKS AR E NOT LIABLE TO MINIMUM ALTERNATE TAX UNDER SECTION 115 JB OF THE I NCOME TAX ACT, 1961. HENCE, THE APPELLANT BANK DESIRES TO CONTEND THAT FOR THIS ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03 ALSO, THE BANK IS NOT SUBJE CT TO MINIMUM I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. NO NONO NOS SS S. .. .886 & 879 886 & 879 886 & 879 886 & 879/M/ /M/ /M/ /M/10 1010 10 5 ALTERNATE TAX. IN ORDER TO SO CONTEND, THE APPELLAN T BANK NEEDS TO SEEK LEAVE OF THIS HON'BLE TRIBUNAL TO URGE AN ADDITIONA L GROUND. 4. BY AN APPLICATION ACCOMPANYING THIS AFFIDAVIT T HE APPELLANT BANK IS SEEKING LEAVE OF THIS HON'BLE TRIBUNAL TO U RGE SUCH ADDITIONAL GROUND. IF SUCH LEAVE IS NOT GRANTED, THE APPELLANT BANK WOULD BE PUT TO UNDUE HARDSHIP. 9. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS ADMITTED THAT THE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS RAISED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL WAS NOT RAISED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(APPEALS). NEVERTHELESS, A CCORDING TO HIM, IT IS PURE QUESTION OF LAW, THE TRIBUNAL HAS TO BE ADMITT ED THOUGH IT WAS NOT RAISED BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITY. HE HAS ALSO SUBM ITTED THAT THE VERY SIMILAR ISSUE HAS BEEN RAISED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL F OR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 TO 2006-07 AND THE SAME WAS ADMITTED. 10. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR DID NOT OBJECT O N THE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE. 11. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH SIDES. WE FIND FROM THE CON SOLIDATED ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN I.T.A. NO S. 470 TO 472/MDS/2010 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2004-05 TO 20 06-07 VIDE ORDER DATED 11.06.2012, WHEREIN THE TRIBUNAL HAS CONSIDER ED ADDITIONAL GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE AND ADMITTED THE SAME . KEEPING IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF THE COORDINATE BENCH IN ASS ESSEES OWN CASE I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. NO NONO NOS SS S. .. .886 & 879 886 & 879 886 & 879 886 & 879/M/ /M/ /M/ /M/10 1010 10 6 FOR EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS, THIS ADDITIONAL GROUN D OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03 IS ADM ITTED BEING PURE QUESTION OF LAW. 12. IN SO FAR AS MERITS WITH REGARD TO APPLICATION PROVISIONS OF SECTION 115JB AND LEVY OF MINIMUM ALTERNATE TAX, AT THE TIM E OF HEARING, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ISS UE INVOLVED IN THIS APPEAL IS COVERED BY THE CONSOLIDATED ORDER DATED 1 1.06.2012 OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN I.T.A. NO. 08/MD S/2007 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04. 13. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR RELIED ON THE OR DER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 14. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH SIDES AND PERUSED THE MATER IALS ON RECORD. THE ISSUE RELATING TO APPLICATION OF SECTION 115JB AND COMPUTATION OF MINIMUM ALTERNATE TAX HAS BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE TR IBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 AND THE TRIBUNAL HAS OBSERVED THAT THE ISSUE STANDS ALREADY DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE VIDE PARA 20 OF ITS ORDER, WHICH IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER: I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. NO NONO NOS SS S. .. .886 & 879 886 & 879 886 & 879 886 & 879/M/ /M/ /M/ /M/10 1010 10 7 20. WE HAVE PERUSED THE ORDERS OF LOWER AUTHORITIE S AND HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS. WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE REGARDING APPLICABILITY OF SEC.115JB ON A BANK GOVERNED BY BANK REGULATION ACT HAD COMING UP BEFOE A CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN ASSES SEES OWN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01. IT WAS HELD BY THE CO-ORDI NATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN ITS ORDER DATED 3RD APRIL, 2011 AS UNDE R:- 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSE D THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE ONLY DISPUTE RAISED BY THE AS SESSEE IS THAT SINCE IT IS A BANK AND IS REQUIRED TO PREPARE ITS A CCOUNTS ACCORDING TO BANKING REGULATION ACT, 1949 AND NOT A CCORDING TO SCHEDULE VI PART II AND III OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 1 956, THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 115JB ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO I T WHILE COMPUTING THE INCOME UNDER MAT. WE FIND THAT RECENT LY THE MUMBAI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF IN THE CASE OF KRUNG THAI BANK PCL VS. JOINT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TA X [INTERNATIONAL TAXATION] [2010] 45 DTR 218 HAS HELD HAS UNDER: 7. THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE IS INDEED WELL TAKEN, AND IT MEETS OUR APPROVAL. THE PROVISIONS OF S. 115JB CAN ONLY COME INTO PLAY WHEN THE ASSESSEE IS REQUIRED TO PRE PARE ITS P&L A/C IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF PA RTS II AND III OF SCH. VI TO THE COMPANIES ACT. THE STARTI NG POINT OF COMPUTATION OF MAT UNDER S. 115JB IS THE R ESULT SHOWN BY SUCH A P&L A/C. IN THE CASE OF BANKING COMPANIES, HOWEVER, THE PROVISIONS OF SCH. VI ARE N OT APPLICABLE IN VIEW OF EXEMPTION SET OUT UNDER PROVI SO TO S. 211(2) OF THE COMPANIES ACT. THE FINAL ACCOUNTS OF THE BANKING COMPANIES ARE REQUIRED TO BE PREPARED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE BANKING REGUL ATION ACT. THE PROVISIONS OF S. 115JB CANNOT THUS BE APPL IED TO THE CASE OF A BANKING COMPANY. 8. FURTHER, IT MAY BE NOTED THAT THE AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING IN THE CASE OF THE TIMKEN COMPANY, IN RE [2010-TII- 25-ARA- INTL AND PRAXAIR PACIFIC LTD IN RE [2010-TII-25-ARA -INTL] HAS HELD THAT MAT PROVISIONS ARE APPLICABLE TO A FO REIGN COMPANY THAT DOES NOT HAVE A PHYSICAL PRESENCE IN I NDIA, AS SUCH, COMPANIES ARE NOT REQUIRED TO PREPARE ITS ACC OUNTS AS PER COMPANIES ACT. THEREFORE, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING TH E ABOVE CITED DECISIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. NO NONO NOS SS S. .. .886 & 879 886 & 879 886 & 879 886 & 879/M/ /M/ /M/ /M/10 1010 10 8 AUTHORITIES AND ALLOW THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT THE BANK IS NOT REQUIRED TO PREPARE ITS PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF PART I I AND PART III OF SCHEDULE VI TO THE COMPANIES ACT AND THEREFORE, THE PROVISIONS OF MAT IN SECTION 115JB IS NOT APPLICABL E TO THE ASSESSEE. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE CO-ORDIN ATE BENCH, WE HOLD THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.115JB COULD NOT BE APPLI ED ON THE ASSESSEE. IN THE RESULT, THIS ISSUE STANDS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE. 15. RESPECTFULLY, FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE CO ORDINATE BENCH IN I.T.A. NO. 08/MDS/2007 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003 -04, THE GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 16. GROUND NOS. 3 AND 4 ARE MERE ACADEMIC AND ARE DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. 17. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSE E IS PARTLY ALLOWED. I.T.A. NO. 886/MDS/2010 18. THE ONLY EFFECTIVE GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENU E IS WITH REGARD TO INTEREST ON SECURITIES. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE IS SQUARELY C OVERED BY ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE ASSESSM ENT YEAR 2001-02 IN I.T.A. NO. 239/MDS/2011 VIDE ORDER DATED 12.10.2 011. 19. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR FAIRLY ACCEPTED THAT ISSUE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. NO NONO NOS SS S. .. .886 & 879 886 & 879 886 & 879 886 & 879/M/ /M/ /M/ /M/10 1010 10 9 20. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH SIDES AND PERUSED THE MATER IALS ON RECORD. THE ONLY ISSUE RAISED IN THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS WHETHER THE INTEREST ON SECURITIES ARE TO BE TAXED ON DUE BASIS OR ON ACCRUAL BASIS. THE TRIBUNAL HAS CONSIDERED THE VERY SAME ISSUE IN I.T.A. NO. 239/MDS/2011 IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE AND OBSERVED TH AT THE INTEREST COULD BE RECOGNIZED ONLY ON DUE BASIS AND RELEVANT PORTION OF THE ORDER IS EXTRACTED AS UNDER: 5. THE SECOND ISSUE RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT T HE INTEREST ON SECURITIES HAS TO BE TAXED ON DUE BASIS. THE REVENU E HAS TAXED IT ON ACCRUAL BASIS. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPE ALS) HELD THAT THE ISSUE IS COVERED BY THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE MAD RAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASES OF TAMILNADU MERCANTILE BANK LIMITED (291 ITR 137) AND CITY UNION BANK LIMITED (291 ITR 144). THE COMMISSI ONER OF INCOME- TAX (APPEALS) FURTHER HELD THAT THE INTEREST ON SEC URITIES CAN BE TAXED ONLY ON DUE BASIS. 6. AS PER THE TERMS OF SECURITIES ISSUED BY THE GO VERNMENT, THE PROCEEDS AT MATURITY ALONG WITH INTEREST SHALL BE P AID TO THE PERSONS WHO ARE HOLDING THE SECURITIES ON THE DATE OF REDEM PTION. THE HOLDER OF THE SECURITY CANNOT ENCASH THE SECURITY PREMATURELY BEFORE THE DATE OF REDEMPTION LIKE BANK DEPOSITS. A FIXED BANK DEPOSIT CAN BE REDEEMED EVEN BEFORE THE MATURITY DATE AND THE DEPOSITOR MAY GET A PORTION OF THE INTEREST ACCRUED ON THE DEPOSIT TILL THE DATE OF SU RRENDER. IN SUCH CASES, THE INTEREST IS GENERATED ON ACCRUAL BASIS. BUT IN THE CASE OF A GOVERNMENT SECURITY, IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO ENCASH I T PRIOR TO THE DUE DATE. A HOLDER OF THE SECURITY MAY BE ABLE TO SELL IT TO ANOTHER PERSON; BUT THERE IS NO PROVISION FOR PREMATURE ENCASHMENT. ENCASHMENT CAN BE MADE ONLY ON THE DUE DATE. WHEN THE PRINCIPAL AM OUNT INVOLVED IN THE INSTRUMENT ITSELF IS REDEEMABLE ONLY ON DUE DAT E, THERE IS NO REASON TO HOLD THAT THE INTEREST ELEMENT WOULD BE GENERATE D ON ACCRUAL BASIS. THE INTEREST ALSO GOES ALONG WITH THE PRINCIPAL AMO UNT IN THE CASE OF SECURITIES. THE FALL OUT OF THE ABOVE POSITION IS T HAT IN THE CASE OF A GOVERNMENT SECURITY, THE INTEREST COULD BE RECOGNIZ ED ONLY ON DUE DATE I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. NO NONO NOS SS S. .. .886 & 879 886 & 879 886 & 879 886 & 879/M/ /M/ /M/ /M/10 1010 10 10 AND NOT ON ACCRUAL BASIS. THIS FUNDAMENTAL CHARACTE R OF A GOVERNMENT INSTRUMENT ITSELF IS SUFFICIENT TO JUSTIFY THE METH OD OF INTEREST INCOME RECOGNITION BY THE ASSESSEE-BANK. WE FIND THAT THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) IS JUST AND PR OPER IN LAW. THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE FAILS. 21. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ABOVE DECISION OF T HE COORDINATE BENCH, THE GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE STANDS DISM ISSED. 22. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DIS MISSED. 23. TO SUM UP, I.T.A. NO. 879/MDS/2010 FILED BY TH E ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED AND I.T.A. NO. 886/MDS/2010 FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON MONDAY, THE 17 TH OF FEBRUARY, 2014 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (DR. O.K. NARAYANAN) VICE-PRESIDENT (V. DURGA RAO) JUDICIAL MEMBER CHENNAI, DATED, THE 17.02.2014 VM/- TO: THE ASSESSEE/A.O./CIT(A)/CIT/D.R.
