Arjun Parthasarathy, CHENNAI V. CIT, CHENNAI

ITA 902/CHNY/2013

• Counselvise Citation: 90221714 RSA 2013
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-08-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 06-05-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: K ARUMUGAM
• Assessee Lawyers: T N SEETHARAMAN
• Keywords: Date of conversion
• Section: 143(3); 2(14); 263; 63

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH : CHENNAI [BEFORE SHRI. ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBE R AND SHRI S.S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER] I.T.A.NO.902/MDS/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-2010 SHRI. ARJUN PARTHASARATHY, C/O. SHRI. T.N. SEETHARAMAN, ADVOCATE, NO.384 (OLD NO.196), LLOYDS ROAD, CHENNAI 600 086. VS THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI III, CHENNAI. [PAN : AKNPA 6985J ] (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI. T.N. SEETHARAMAN, ADV RESPONDENT BY : SHRI. K. ARUMUGAM, CIT, DR DATE OF HEARING : 31-07-2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 13-08-2013 O R D E R PER S.S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS ASSESSEES APPEAL ARI SES FROM THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -III, CHENNAI DATED 31-0 3-2013 PASSED IN C.NO.3033(01)/CIT-III/2012-2013, FOR ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2009-2010, IN PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 [IN SHORT THE ACT]. I.T.A.NO.902/MDS/2013 :- 2 -: 2. IN THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE ASSESSEE VEHEMENTLY ARGUES THAT CIT HAS WRONGLY REVISED THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT UND ER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT BY TERMING IT AS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUD ICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. RELIANCE HAS BEEN PLACED ON THE CAS E LAWS I.E. (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC) MALABAR INVESTMENTS VS. CIT, (2007 ) 295 ITR 282 (SC) CIT VS MAX INDIA LTD, (1993) 203 ITR 108(BOM) CIT VS GABRIEL INDIA LTD. AND (2013) 354 ITR 35 (AP) SPECTRA SHARE S AND SCRIPS PVT. LTD VS. CIT ON JURISDICTIONAL ASPECT OF THE CASE. ON MERITS, THE ASSESSEE QUOTES LAW CASE (2007) 292 ITR 481 (MAD), M.S. SRINIVASA NAICKER AND OTHERS VS. IT O AND THAT OF CHENNAI TRIBUNAL DECISION IN ACIT VS. SHRI. S HERIT DYAN DATED 24 TH JUNE, 2011 IN ITA NO.2088/MDS/2010 TO SUBMIT THAT THE LAND SOLD IN QUESTION HAD BEEN RIGHTLY TREATED AS AGRICULTURAL BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WHEREAS THE CIT HAS HELD OTHERWISE. IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE SAID SUBMISSIONS, THE ASS ESSEE PRAYS FOR ACCEPTANCE OF THE APPEAL. 3. THE REVENUE STRONGLY JUSTIFIES THE IMPUGNED REVISI ON ORDER OF CIT AFTER HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD WR ONGLY TREATED THE LAND AS AGRICULTURAL AND PRAYS FOR UPHOLDING THE SAME. I.T.A.NO.902/MDS/2013 :- 3 -: 4. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL. ALONGWITH HIS PARENTS AND BROTHER, HE CO-OWNED LAN D MEASURING 46.88 ACRES (19.7 HECTARES) IN NO.76, THACHOOR I, MADURA MADHAVARAM VILLAGE IN PONNERI TALUK, TIRUVALLUR DISTRICT. ON 03.12.2008, ALL OF THEM EXECUTED A SALE DEED IN FAVOUR OF THE VENDEE M/S. A GILITY LOGISTICS P. LTD (MUMBAI). THE ASSESSEES SHARE WAS 20.46 ACRES WHICH FETCHED AN AMOUNT OF H.22,50,60,000/-. 5. COMING TO THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR, THE ASSESSE E HAD FILED HIS RETURN ON 20.10.2009 DECLARING INCOME O F H 13,13,370/-. HIS RECEIPTS IN THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT COMPRISED OF SA LARY INCOME, BUSINESS OR PROFESSIONAL INCOME, SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAINS, INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES AND OTHER AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF H3, 50,000/- H8,04,000/-, H1,12,264/-, H52,569/- AND H1,20,000/- ; RESPECTIVELY. ON 19.12.2011, THE ASSESSING OFFICER FINALIZED REGULA R ASSESSMENT COMPUTING THE ASSESSEES TOTAL INCOME AS H14,33,370 /- VIDE ORDER DATED 19.12.2011. 6. IT IS TO BE SEEN FROM THE CASE FILE THAT ON 18.7. 2012, THE CIT ISSUED NOTICE UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT ON THE G ROUND THAT THE ASSESSMENT FINALIZED IN ASSESSEES CASE WAS ERRONEO US CAUSING PREJUDICE TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE ON THE FOL LOWING GROUNDS:- I.T.A.NO.902/MDS/2013 :- 4 -: THE ASSESSEE, SHRI ARJUN PARTHASARATHY FILED THE R ETURN OF INCOME FOR A.Y. 2009-10 ON 20.10.2009 DECLARING A T OTAL INCOME OF H13,3,370/-. THE RETURN WAS PROCESSED U/S. 143(1) O N 16.08.2010. THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND THE ASSESSME NT WAS COMPLETED U/S. 143(3) ON 19.12.2011 ACCEPTING THE I NCOME RETURNED. 2. FROM THE PERUSAL OF RECORDS, IT IS SEEN THAT DUR ING THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR, THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED S ALE CONSIDERATION OF H22,50,60,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF SALE OF LAND SITUA TED IN MADHAVARAM AND THACHOOR VILLAGE, PONNERI TALUK AND HAD CLAIMED EXEMPTION STATING THAT THE LAND IS AN AGRICULTURAL LAND AND HENCE NOT LIABLE FOR LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN. 3. FURTHER, ON PERUSAL OF SALE DEED DATED 03.12.200 8, IT IS FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE ALONG WITH OTHER CO-OWNERS HAD ALREADY OBTAINED THE APPROVAL FROM THE JOINT DIRECTOR, DTCP FOR THE CONVERSION OF THE ABOVE LAND FOR NON-AGRICULTURAL U SE BY ORDER DATED 23.08.2008. HENCE, AS ON THE DATE OF SALE, THE ABO VE LAND WAS NO LONGER AN AGRICULTURAL LAND AND HENCE NOT ELIGIBLE FOR CLAIMING EXEMPTION FROM THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN. THE APE X COURT ORDER IN THE CASE OF SAFIRA BIBI MOHAMMED IBRAHIM & OTHERS R EPORTED IN 204 ITR 631(SC) IS CLEARLY APPLICABLE TO THE ABOVE CASE . 4. THE SRO, PONNERI WHILE REGISTERING THE ABOVE SAL E DEED HAS STATED THAT THE STAMP DUTY LEVIED AT THE RATE OF H2 52.29 PER SQ.FT ON ACCOUNT OF THE FACT THAT THE ABOVE LAND HAS ALREADY BEEN CONVERTED INTO NON-AGRICULTURAL PURPOSE AND ALSO INCREASED TH E VALUE OF LAND BY H15,68,000/- FOR THE PURPOSE OF LEVYING THE STAM P DUTY. 5. FURTHER, DURING THE SCRUTINY PROCEEDINGS, THE AS SESSEE VIDE LETTER DATED 19.10.2011 TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS CLAIM H AS SUBMITTED A COPY OF VAO CERTIFICATE DATED 01.12.2008 STATING TH AT THE LAND SOLD ARE ONLY AGRICULTURAL LAND. SINCE, THE JOINT DIREC TOR, DTCP HAS ALREADY GIVEN APPROVAL ON 23.08.2008 FOR CONVERSIO N OF THE ABOVE LAND INTO NON-AGRICULTURAL, THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE VAO ON 01.12.2008 COULD NOT BE TAKEN AS THE CORRECT REPRES ENTATION OF THE CONTEMPORANEOUS NATURE OF THE SAID LAND. 6. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS, IT IS EVIDENT THAT O N THE DATE OF SALE, THE LAND HAS BEEN CONVERTED FOR NON-AGRICULTU RAL PURPOSE THEREBY FALLING WITHIN THE DEFINITION OF CAPITAL AS SET U/S2(14) AND LIABLE FOR CAPITAL GAINS TAX U/S. 2(14) R.W.S.45 AN D 48. 7. HENCE, THE ORDER U/S. 143(3) DATED 19.12.2011 PA SSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER APPEARS TO BE ERRONEOUS AND P REJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE. I.T.A.NO.902/MDS/2013 :- 5 -: 8. YOU ARE, THEREFORE, REQUESTED TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE ASSESSMENT U/S. 143(3) OF THE ACT SHOULD NOT BE SET ASIDE AS IT IS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENU E. IN THIS CONNECTION, YOU ARE REQUESTED TO APPEAR BEFORE THE UNDERSIGNED ON 27.07.2012 AT 11.30 AM AT MY OFFICE IN THE ABOVE ME NTIONED ADDRESS EITHER IN PERSON OR THROUGH A DULY AUTHORIZ ED REPRESENTATIVE ALONGWITH THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS, IF AN, IN THE AB OVE MATTER. 7. IN RESPONSE, THE ASSESSEE SOUGHT TO JUSTIFY T HE ASSESSMENT IN QUESTION. IN PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE CIT, HE CLAIMS TO HAVE SUBMITTED WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ALONGWITH NECESSARY ANNEXURES A TO D. HIS PLEAS REVOLVED AROUND THE STAND THAT THE LAND WAS A GRICULTURAL. HOWEVER, VIDE IMPUGNED ORDER, THE CIT HAS DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO REVISE THE ASSESSMENT AND TO TREAT THE L AND SOLD AS NON- AGRICULTURAL LAND IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT ASSESSEE HAD OBTAINED APPROVAL ON 23.8.2008 FOR ITS CONVERSION TO NON-AGR ICULTURAL USE WELL BEFORE SALE DEED DATED 03.12.2008. THE CIT ALSO HO LDS THAT AS PER THE RELEVANT LAW, ONE OF THE CONDITIONS FOR CONVERTING AGRICULTURAL LAND TO NON-AGRICULTURAL LAND IS THAT NO AGRICULTURAL ACTIV ITIES SHOULD HAVE BEEN CARRIED OUT FOR A PERIOD OF THREE YEARS PRIOR TO TH E DATE OF CONVERSION. HE ALSO TOOK NOTICE OF THE FACT THAT THE VENDEE USE D THE LAND FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A CARGO CUM TRUCK TERMINAL WHICH HA D BEEN STATED IN THE SALE DEED ITSELF. IN THIS MANNER, THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER HAS BEEN DIRECTED TO REFINALISE THE ASSESSMENT. I.T.A.NO.902/MDS/2013 :- 6 -: THIS MAKES THE ASSESSEE AGGRIEVED. 8. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED T HE CASE FILE. THE FACTS OF THE CASE STAND NARRATED HEREIN ABOVE. THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE THAT WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FILED IN REPLY TO SECTION 263 PROCEEDING HAVE NO WHERE BEEN DISCUSSED IN THE CIT S ORDER AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD RIGHTLY TREATED THE LAND TO B E AGRICULTURAL. WITHOUT GOING INTO THE TECHNICAL ASPECT AS TO WHETH ER THE ASSESSEE HAD IN FACT FILED THE PAPER BOOK BEFORE THE CIT OR NOT, WE TAKE ON RECORD THE SAME IN THE LARGER INTEREST OF JUSTICE A ND PROCEED TO DECIDE THE CASE. 9. COMING TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE APPARENT DI SPUTE BETWEEN THE PARTIES IS THAT AS PER THE ASSESSEE, THE CIT HA S WRONGLY REVISED THE ASSESSMENT BY INVOKING JURISDICTION UNDER SECTION 2 63 OF THE ACT AFTER HOLDING THAT THE LAND IN QUESTION HAD ALREADY BEEN CONVERTED TO NON- AGRICULTURAL USE. THE REVENUE CONTESTS THIS. IN THI S REGARD, THE FACTUAL POSITION THAT EMANATES FROM THE CASE FILE IS NOT DI SPUTED BY THE ASSESSEE. ON 23.08.2008, THE LAND IN QUESTION HAD BEEN APPROVED FOR CONVERSION FROM AGRICULTURE TO NON-AGRICULTURAL USE . ON 3.12.2008, THE ASSESSEE EXECUTED THE SALE DEED IN QUESTION. HE FIL ED RETURN ON 20.10.2009. THE FACT REMAINS THAT THE LAND IN QUEST ION HAD ALREADY BEEN APPROVED FOR NON-AGRICULTURAL USE. THE ASSESSE E PLEADS TO HAVE I.T.A.NO.902/MDS/2013 :- 7 -: BEEN SENDING REPRESENTATIONS TO THE DEPARTMENTAL A UTHORITIES THAT THE LAND WAS AGRICULTURE IN NATURE. THE SAME APPEAR TO BE WELL BEFORE THE FILING OF THE RETURN. IN OUR VIEW, PROVISIONS OF T HE ACT COME INTO PLAY IN THE INSTANT CASE ONLY FROM THE DATE OF FILING OF IMPUGNED RETURN AND NOT IN THE ASSESSEES ACT OF SENDING LETTERS TO THE AUTHORITIES. ADMITTEDLY, NEITHER THE CONVERSION OF THE LAND HAD BEEN DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, NOR ANY ENQUIRY WAS CONDUCTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER QUA NATURE OF TH E LAND. IN THIS BACK GROUND OF FACTS, WE FIND THAT THE CASE LAW SPE CTRA SHARES AND SCRIPTS P. LTD (SUPRA) HAS CONSIDERED THE OTHER JU DGEMENTS QUOTED BY THE ASSESSEE ON JURISDICTIONAL ASPECT AND EXPLAINS NATURE AND AMBIT OF SEC 263 JURISDICTION AS FOLLOWS:- FROM THE ABOVE DECISIONS, THE FOLLOWING PRINCIPLES AS TO EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION BY THE COMMISSIONER UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT CAN BE CULLED OUT:- (A) THE COMMISSIONER HAS TO BE SATISFIED OF TWIN C ONDITIONS NAMELY, (I) THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER SOUG HT TO BE REVISED IS ERRONEOUS; AND (II) IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERE STS OF THE REVENUE. IF ONE OF THEM IS ABSENT- IF THE ORDER OF THE INCOME-T AX OFFICER IS ERRONEOUS BUT IS NOT PREJUDICIAL TO THE REVENUE OR IF IT IS NOT ERRONEOUS BUT IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE REVENUE-RECO URSE CANNOT BE HAD TO SECTION 263(1) OF THE ACT. (B) EVERY LOSS OF REVENUE AS A CONSEQUENCE OF AN ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER CANNOT BE TREATED AS PREJUDIC IAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE. FOR EXAMPLE, WHEN AN INCOME-TAX O FFICER ADOPTED ONE OF THE COURSES PERMISSIBLE IN LAW AND IT HAS RE SULTED IN LOSS OF REVENUE: OR WHERE TWO VIEWS COMMISSIONER DOES NOT A GREE, IT CANNOT BE TREATED AS AN ERRONEOUS ORDER PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS I.T.A.NO.902/MDS/2013 :- 8 -: OF THE REVENUE, UNLESS THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE INCOME TAX OFFICER IS UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW. TO INVOKE THE SUO MOTU REVISIONAL POWERS TO REO PEN A CONCLUDED ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 263, THE COMMISS IONER MUST GIVE REASONS; THAT A BARE REITERATION BY HIM THAT T HE ORDER OF THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER IS ERRONEOUS IN SO FAR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE, WILL NOT SUFFICE; THAT TH E REASONS MUST BE SUCH AS TO SHOW THAT THE ENHANCEMENT OR MODIFICATIO N OF THE ASSESSMENT OR CANCELLATION OF THE ASSESSMENT OR DIR ECTIONS ISSUED FOR A FRESH ASSESSMENT WERE CALLED FOR, AND MUST IRRESI STIBLY LEAD TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE ORDER OF THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER WAS NOT ONLY ERRONEOUS BUT WAS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF T HE REVENUE. THUS, WHILE THE INCOME TAX OFFICER IS NOT CALLED UPON TO WRITE AN ELABORATE JUDGMENT GIVING DETAILED REASONS IN RESPECT OF EACH AND EVERY DISALLOWANCE, DEDUCTION ETC., IT IS INCUMBENT UPON THE COMMISSIONER NOT TO EXERCISE HIS SUO MOTU REVISIONAL POWERS UNLE SS SUPPORTED BY ADEQUATE REASONS FOR DOING SO; THAT IF A QUERY IS R AISED DURING THE COURSE OF THE SCRUTINY BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WH ICH WAS ANSWERED TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, BUT E THER THE QUERY NOR THE ANSWER WERE REFLECTED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THIS WOULD NOT BY ITSELF LEAD TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER CALLED FOR INTERFERENCE AND REVISION, (D) THE COMMISSIONER CANNOT INITIATE PROCEEDING W ITH A VIEW TO START FISHING AN ROVING INQUIRES IN MATTERS OR O RDERS WHICH ARE ALREADY CONCLUDED; THAT THE DEPARTMENT CANNOT BE PE RMITTED TO BEGIN FRESH LITIGATION BECAUSE OF NEW VIEWS THEY EN TERTAIN ON FACTS OR NEW VERSIONS WHICH THEY PRESENT AS TO WHAT SHOULD BE THE INFERENCE EITHER OF THE FACTS DISCLOSED OR THE WEIGHT OF THE CIRCUMSTANCE; THAT IF THIS IS PERMITTED, LITIGATION WOULD HAVE NO END EXC EPT WHEN LEGAL INGENUITY IS EXHAUSTED. (E) WHETHER THERE WAS APPLICATION OF MIND BEFORE ALLOWING THE EXPENDITURE IN QUESTION HAS TO BE SEEN; THAT IF THERE WAS AN INQUIRY, EVEN INADEQUATE THAT WOULD NOT BY ITSELF G IVE OCCASION TO THE COMMISSIONER TO PASS ORDERS UNDER SECTION 263 MEREL Y BECAUSE HE HAS A DIFFERENT OPINION IN THE MATTER; THAT IT IS ONLY IN CASES OF LACK OF INQUIRY THAT SUCH A COURSE OF ACTION WOULD BE OPEN ; THAT AN ASSESSMENT ORDER MADE BY THE INCOME-TAX OFF ICER CANNOT BE BRANDED AS ERRONEOUS BY THE COMMISSIONER SIMPLY BEC AUSE, ACCORDING TO HIM, THE ORDER SHOULD HAVE BEEN WRITTE N MORE ELABORATELY; THEE MUST BE SOME PRIMA FACIE MATERIAL ON RECORDED TO SHOW THAT THE TAX WHICH WAS LAWFULLY EXIGIBLE HAS N OT BEEN IMPOSED OR THAT THE APPLICATION OF THE RELEVANT STATUTE ON AN INCORRECT OR INCOMPLETE INTERPRETATION, A LESSER TAX THAN WHAT W AS JUST, HAS BEEN IMPOSED. I.T.A.NO.902/MDS/2013 :- 9 -: (F) THE POWER OF THE COMMISSIONER UNDER SECTION 2 63(1) IS NOT LIMITED ONLY TO THE MATERIAL WHICH WAS AVAILABL E BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND, IN ORDER TO PROTECT THE INTE RESTS OF THE REVENUE, THE COMMISSIONER IS ENTITLED TO EXAMINE AN Y OTHER RECORDS WHICH ARE AVAILABLE AT THE TIME OF EXAMINATION BY H IM AND TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION EVEN THOSE EVENTS WHICH AROSE SU BSEQUENT TO THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT. IN VIEW THEREOF, THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HAS HELD T HAT A CASE OF LACK OF ENQUIRY BY ASSESSING OFFICER IN SCRUTINY TO BE A FIT INSTANCE TO INVOKE REVISION PROCEEDINGS. AS STATED HEREINABOVE , SINCE THE INSTANT IS ALSO A CASE OF NO ENQUIRY QUA THE NATURE OF THE LAND SOLD BEFORE FINALIZATION OF THE REGULAR ASSESSMENT, WE HOLD T HAT THE CIT HAS RIGHTLY INVOKED JURISDICTION U/S 263 OF THE ACT FO R REVISING THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT. 10. SO, FAR AS THE ASSESSEES ARGUMENT THAT THE LAND SOLD IS AGRICULTURE IN VIEW OF THE CASE LAW M.S. SRINIVAS A NAICKER AND SHERIT DYAN (SUPRA) IS CONCERNED, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESS EES THEREIN HAD NOT OBTAINED APPROVAL FOR CONVERSION OF AGRICULTURAL LA ND TO NON-AGRICULTURAL USE. THEREFORE, THEY ARE DISTINGUISHABLE ON FACTS AND HARDLY HELP THE CAUSE OF THE ASSESSEE. SO, WE HOLD THAT CIT HAS RIG HTLY EXERCISED HIS JURISDICTION UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT. 11. THEREFORE, THE APPEAL STANDS DISMISSED. I.T.A.NO.902/MDS/2013 :- 10 -: ORDER PRONOUNCED ON TUESDAY, THE 13TH OF AUG UST, 2013, AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (ABRAHAM P. GEORGE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (S.S. GODARA) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 13 TH AUGUST, 2013. K.V COPY TO: APPELLANT/RESPONDENT/CIT(A)/CIT/DR