M.Mastanamma, CHENNAI V. ACIT, CHENNAI

ITSSA 218/CHNY/1997

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8559 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 13 year(s) 5 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-03-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 08-03-2011
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 26-09-1997
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P B SEKARAN
• Assessee Lawyers: DR MRS ANITA SUMANTH
• Keywords: Share purchase agreement; Period of limitation; Block assessment; Time period of passing order

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENCH B CHENNAI BEFORE SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AN D SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER .. I.T.(SS) A. NO. 218/MDS/1997 BLOCK ASSESSMENT YEARS : 1986-87 TO 1996-97 MRS. M. MASTANAMMA, NO.6, PORUR SOMASUNDARAM STREET, T. NAGAR, CHENNAI-600 017. V. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-II(1), CHENNAI. (PAN/GIR NO. 718-M ) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : DR. (MRS.) ANITA SUMANTH RESPONDENT BY : SHRI P.B. SEKARAN O R D E R PER GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST TH E BLOCK ASSESSMENT ORDER OPASSED UNDER SECTION 158BD READ WITH SECTION 143(3 ) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 DATED 27-08-1997 FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD 1986-87 TO 1996-97. 2. DR. (MRS.) ANITA SUMANTH, ADVOCATE REPRESENTED O N BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AND SHRI P.B.SEKARAN, LEARNED CIT-DR REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE. 3. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRE SENTATIVE THAT ORIGINALLY THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL HAD DISPOSED OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IN IT(SS)A NO. 218/MDS/1997 VIDE ORDER DATED 28-12-199 6. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION I.T.(SS) A. NO. 218/MDS/1997 2 THAT IN THE SAID ORDER THE TRIBUNAL HAD NOT DISPOSE D OF GROUNDS VI(1) TO (9) AND CONSEQUENTLY THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITION HAD BEEN FI LED BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THIS TRIBUNAL VIDE ITS ORDE R IN MA NO. 246/MDS/2007 DATED 07-05-2010 HAD RECALLED ITS ORDER IN IT(SS) A NO. 218/MDS/1997 DATED 28- 12-2006 FOR THE PURPOSE OF ADJUDICATION OF ONLY GRO UNDS NO. VI(1) TO (9) AS RAISED IN THE ASSESSEES APPEAL. IT WAS THE SUBMIS SION THAT CONSEQUENTLY THE GROUNDS NO. VI(1) TO (9) COULD BE ARGUED. 4. THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE DREW OUR A TTENTION TO GROUNDS VI(1) TO (9) WHICH ARE AS FOLLOWS: VI. (1) IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E THE LEARNED OFFICER SHOULD HAVE BEEN PLEASED TO ACCEPT THE DATES OF SALE AND THE QUANTUM OF SALE PROCEEDS RELATING TO S HARES IN M/S. BALAJI STEELS LTD. FURNISHED BY APPELLANT AND HE ER RED IN COMPUTING THE CAPITAL GAINS AT ` 85,87,408/- IN THE HANDS OF THE APPELLANT AND HER HUSBAND. (2) THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER SHOULD HAVE BEE N PLEASED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE STATEMENT OF SALES A ND PURCHASES GIVEN BY M. MATANAMMA VOLUNTARILY AT THE TIME OF SE ARCH IS VINDICATED BY THE EVIDENCE GATHERED BY THE DEPARTME NT IN ALL MATERIAL ASPECTS. (3) THE LEARNED OFFICER SHOULD HAVE BEEN PLEASED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE STATEMENT OF M. MASTANAMMA TO T HE EFFECT THAT SHE HAD SOLD ALL THE SHARES EXCEPT 600 SHARES IN BALAJI STEELS BY 11 TH AUGUST 1994 REMAINS UNCHALLENGED AND STANDS I.T.(SS) A. NO. 218/MDS/1997 3 CORROBORATED BY THE RECORDS OF MAHENDRA SHAW AND TH E NAMES OF SEVERAL SUB BROKERS NOTICED IN THE TRANSFER DOCU MENTS. (4) THE LEARNED OFFICER HAVING BEEN CONVINCED THA T BETWEEN APPELLANT AND ULTIMATE BUYER THERE ARE SEVE RAL INTERMEDIARY BUYERS AND SELLERS INVOLVING CONSIDERA BLE TIME LAG BETWEEN TWO BLANK TRANSFER, SHOULD NOT HAVE TAKEN T HE DATE OF TRANSFER IN THE REGISTER OF THE COMPANY AS THE DATE OF TRANSFER BY THE APPELLANT. (5) THE LEARNED OFFICER SHOULD HAVE BEEN PLEASED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE DATE OF TRANSFER BETWEEN A SELL ER AND PURCHASER IS NOT THE DATE OF TRANSFER AS FOUND IN T HE SHARE REGISTER OF THE COMPANY, WHOSE SHARES ARE THE SUBJE CT MATTER OF TRANSFER, BUT THE DATE OF DELIVERY OF SCRIPS AS HAS BEEN HELD BY THE SUPREMEMCOURT IN SHELAT VS. THAKAR 45 COMPAN Y CASES 43 S C AND FOLLOWED BY THE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. M. RAMASWAMY 151 ITR 122. (6) THE LEARNED OFFICER SHOULD HAVE BEEN PLEASED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE STATEMENT OF APPELLANT THAT SHE HAD NOT SOLD ANY SHARES AFTER 1108-1994 IS BOUND TO BE AT VARIAN CE AS ADMITTEDLY MAHENDRA SHAW WAS DEALING WITH HER IMMED IATE SUB BROKER WHO WAS ONE OF THE LINKS IN THE CHAIN OF SER IES OF BLANK TRANSFERS. (7) THE LEARNED OFFICER SHOULD HAVE BEEN PLEASED TO APPRECIATE THAT WHEN SHARES ARE SOLD THROUGH REGULA R BROKERS CONSIDERATION IS RECEIVED ONLY AFTER 15 DAYS AND TH AT TOO LESS BROKERS COMMISSION AND THAT THEREFORE IN SPOT CASH TRANSACTIONS THE PRICES FETCHED WILL BE ALWAYS LESS THAN QUOTED PRICES AND PARTICULARLY IN THE ADMITTED POSITION TH AT THE BUYERS I.T.(SS) A. NO. 218/MDS/1997 4 CONFIDENCE WILL BE MORE, FETCHING HIGHER PRICES IF THE SHARE IS ACQUIRED THROUGH A REGISTERED BROKER. (8) THE LEARNED OFFICER SHOULD HAVE BEEN PLEASED TO ACCEPT THE APPELLANTS SALES DATES AND FIGURES ESPE CIALLY IN VIEW OF THE CONDUCT OF THE APPELLANT IN MAKING FULL DISC LOSURE OF SHARE TRANSACTIONS WHICH ARE NOT IN THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE DEPARTMENT, THE VINDICATION OF APPELLANTS STAND IN RESPECT OF THE TRANSACTION WITH M/S. CLASSWIN SECURITIES PVT. LTD. AND THE TOT AL AND SIGNIFICANT ABSENCE OF SEIZURE OF ANY UNACCOUNTED A SSET OR CASH AT THE TIME OF SWIFT AND SURPRISE SEARCH OPERATIONS BY THE DEPARTMENT. (9) THE LEARNED OFFICER HAVING ACCEPTED THE CASH FLOW STATEMENT WHICH INCLUDED THE SALE PROCEEDS OF THE SHARES SHOULD HAVE ACCEPTED THE APPELLANTS CASE REGARDING THE QUANTUM OF CAPITAL GAINS ARISING ON SALE OF SHARES. 5. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THERE WAS SEARCH ON T HE ASSESSEES PREMISES AND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH 600 SHARES OF M/S. BALAJI STEELS LTD WERE FOUND. IN THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IT WAS NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PURCHASED A TOTAL OF 161,500 SHARES OF M/S. BAL AJIO STEELS LTD. BETWEEN 29- 01-1994 AND D29-01-1995. OUT OF THE SAID 161,500 S HARES THE ASSESSEE HAD SOLD 160,900 SHARES BETWEEN 29-01-21994 AND 29-01-1 996. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DISCLOSED AN AMOUN T OF ` 19,50,000/- AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME EARNED FROM THE SAID TRANSACTION . IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE QUANTITY OF SHARES PURCHASED AND THE QUANTITY O F SHARES SOLD WERE NOT IN I.T.(SS) A. NO. 218/MDS/1997 5 DISPUTE. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT IT WAS THE RAT E OF SALE AND THE DATE OF SALE WHICH WAS DISPUTED. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE LAST SALE CONFIRMED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS OF 29-01-2006. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD HELD THAT THE SHARES HAD BEEN SOLD ON 22.11.1995. IT WAS THE SUB MISSION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD MAINTAINED ALL THE RECORDS IN REGARD TO THE PUR CHASE AND SALE OF SHARES. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE PURCHASE AND SALE OF SH ARES OF M/S. BALAJI STEELS LTD. WAS BY PHYSICAL DELIVERY. IT WAS THE SUBMISSI ON THAT OUT OF 160,900 SHARES SOLD 12,300 SHARES WERE THROUGH STOCK BROKERS AND 1 ,48,600 SHARES WERE SOLD THROUGH PHYSICAL DELIVERY IN THE OPEN MARKET. IT W AS THE SUBMISSION THAT BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THE ASSESSEE HAD PRODUCED ALL THE DETAILS IN RESPECT OF THE PURCHASE AND SALE OF THE SHARES. HOWEVER, THE ASSE SSING OFFICER HAD VERIFIED AND OBTAINED THE DETAILS OF THE REGISTERING OF THE SHARES WITH M/S. BALAJI STEELS LTD. BY THE ULTIMATE PURCHASERS OF THE SHARES. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD TAKEN THE DATE OF REGISTRATIO N BY M/S. BALAJI STEELS LTD. OF THE RESPECTIVE SHARES AS THE DATE OF SALE OF THE SH ARES. IT WAS THE FURTHER SUBMISSION THAT THE RATE OF THE SALE AND THE DATE O N WHICH THE SHARES WERE SUBMITTED TO THE COMPANY FOR REGISTRATION WAS TREAT ED AS THE DATE OF SALE BY THE ASSESSEE. THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE FU RTHER DREW OUR ATTENTION TO THE COPIES OF THE SHARE CERTIFICATES AND THE SHARE TRANSFER FORMS WHICH WERE SHOWN FROM PAGES 25 TO 775 OF THE PAPER BOOK. IT W AS THE SUBMISSION THAT ALL THE SHARE TRANSFER FORMS CONTAINED MULTIPLE SEALS O F VARIOUS SHARE BROKERS WHICH I.T.(SS) A. NO. 218/MDS/1997 6 CLEARLY PROVED THE ASSESSEES STAND THAT AFTER THE ASSESSEE HAD SOLD THE SHARES IN THE OPEN MARKET, THE SHARES HAD CHANGED HANDS ON VA RIOUS DATES TO VARIOUS PERSONS. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT NO EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY TO WHAT HAS BEEN DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE HAD BEEN FOUND IN TH E COURSE OF THE SEARCH. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE SEARCH IN THE ASSESSEE S HUSBANDS CASE WAS ON 23.11.1995 AND THE DATE OF REGISTRATION OF THE SHAR ES BY M/S. BALAJI STEELS LTD. SHOWED REGISTRATION OF THE SHARES EVEN AS ON 29.1.1 996. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD TREATED THE REGISTRA TION OF THE SHARES AS ON 29.1.1996 ALSO AS SALE ON 22.11.1995 I.E. A DAY PRE VIOUS TO THE DATE OF THE SEARCH. IT WAS THUS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE ASSESS EE HAD GIVEN THE DETAILS OF BROKERS THROUGH WHOM THE ASSESSEE HAD PURCHASED THE SHARES AS ALSO THE DETAILS OF THE PURCHASE AND SALE OF SHARES AND THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER HAD DISCARDED ALL THESE EVIDENCES AND HAD TAKEN THE DATE OF REGISTRAT ION OF THE SHARES BY M/S. BALAJI STEELS LTD. TO BE THE DATE OF SALE IN MOST C ASES WHERE THE REGISTRATION WAS BEFORE THE DATE OF SEARCH AND WHERE THE REGISTRATIO N WAS AFTER THE DATE OF SEARCH THE ASSESSING OFFICER ADOPTED THE DATE OF SALE AS A DATE BEFORE THE DATE OF SEARCH. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE SHARE TRANS FER FORM ITSELF STOOD EVIDENCE IN REGARD TO THE SALE OF THE SHARES AS DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE AND WITHOUT ANY REASON THIS EVIDENCE WAS DISCARDED FOR THE PURPOSE OF MAKING AN ADDITION. 6 IN REPLY, THE LEARNED DR VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IT WAS THE FURTHER SUBMISSION THAT IT WAS THE DATE ON WHICH THE I.T.(SS) A. NO. 218/MDS/1997 7 REGISTRATION OF THE SHARES IN THE SHARE REGISTER OF THE COMPANY WHICH WAS TO BE CONSIDERED AS THE DATE OF SALE OF THE SHARES. 7. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. AT TH E OUTSET WHAT IS NOTICED IS THAT THIS IS A CASE WHERE THE SHARES ARE TRANSFE RRED IN PHYSICAL FORM AND NOT IN THE DEMAT FORM. THE SHARE TRANSFER FORM HAS THE VAL IDITY OF 6 MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF ITS ISSUE. A PERUSAL OF ALL THE SHARE TRAN SFER FORMS CLEARLY SHOWS THAT THE LAST TRANSACTION IN ALL THE SHARE TRANSFER FORMS IS WITHIN THE SAID LIMITATION PERIOD OF 6 MONTHS. FURTHER A PERUSAL OF THE SHARE TRANSF ER FORMS CLEARLY SHOWS THAT MULTIPLE TRANSACTIONS HAVE GONE THROUGH ON THE SAME SHARE TRANSFER FORMS. THE DATE OF PURCHASE OF THE SHARES BY THE ASSESSEE IS N OT DISPUTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IT IS ALSO NOTICED FROM THE SHARE TRANSFE R FORMS THAT A NUMBER OF SHARE BROKERS HAVE TRANSACTED WITH THE SAID SHARE TRANSFE R FORMS AND CONSEQUENTLY THE RESPECTIVE SHARES AS MENTIONED IN THOSE SHARE TRANS FER FORMS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS VERIFIED WITH M/S. BALAJI STEELS LTD. I N REGARD TO THE DATE OF REGISTRATION OF THE FORMS. A PERUSAL OF THE SHARE TRANSFER FORMS ALSO CLEARLY SHOWS THAT THE SAME HAVE BEEN SENT FOR REGISTRATION AFTER MORE THAN ONE WEEK FROM THE LAST TRANSACTION, THAT IS TO SAY, THAT IF THE TRANSACTION IS RECORDED IN THE SHARE TRANSFER FORM AS 23.6.1994, IT HAS BEEN SENT FOR REGISTRATION ONLY ON 1.7.1994. THIS IS IN REGARD TO THE SHARE APPLICATI ON FORM DATED 10-12-1993. SIMILARLY, IN REGARD TO A SHARE APPLICATION FORM DA TED 27.1.1994 THE LAST TRANSACTION IS OF 30.5.1994 AND IT HAS BEEN SENT FO R REGISTRATION ON 13.6.1994. I.T.(SS) A. NO. 218/MDS/1997 8 SIMILARLY, IN THE CASES WHERE THE SHARE BROKER HAS ALSO BEEN IDENTIFIED AS DAMERLA & CO. AFTER THE SAID TRANSACTION THROUGH DA MERLA & CO. TWO OTHER TRANSACTIONS HAVE ALSO BEEN TAKEN PLACE AS EVIDENT FROM THE SHARE APPLICATION FORM. ALL THESE CLEARLY CONFIRM THE STAND OF THE A SSESSEE THAT AFTER THE SALE BY THE ASSESSEE OTHER TRANSACTIONS HAVE TAKEN PLACE. A PERUSAL OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AT PAGE 11 ALSO SHOWS THAT IN REGARD TO THE 4 500 SHARES INFORMATION WAS NOT AVAILABLE FROM THE SHARE REGISTER OF M/S. BALAJ I STEELS LTD. AND CONSEQUENTLY THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS DEEMED THAT THE SALE TOOK PLACE BEFORE THE DATE OF SEARCH. THESE CLEARLY SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS G IVEN THE DETAILS OF THE PURCHASE AND SALE OF THE SHARES FOR THE PURPOSE OF DECLARING AN INCOME OF ` 19,50,000/-. HOWEVER, THE EVIDENCES AS PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE HAVE BEEN DISCARDED AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ADOPTED THE METHOD OF TAKING THE DATE OF SALE AS THE DATE OF REGISTRATION OF THE SHARES B Y M/S. BALAJI STEELS LTD. OBVIOUSLY, THE DATE OF REGISTRATION OF THE SHARES B Y M/S. BALAJI STEELS LTD. CANNOT BE THE DATE OF SALE BY THE ASSESSEE INSOFAR AS THE DATE ON WHICH THESE SHARE TRANSFER FORMS HAVE BEEN SENT FOR REGISTRATION ITSE LF IS MUCH AFTER THE LAST DATE OF THE TRANSACTION AS SHOWN IN THE SHARE TRANSFER FORM S. HERE WE MAY ALSO MENTION THAT OTHER THAN THE DISCLOSURE BY THE ASSESSEE OF H AVING TRANSACTED IN THESE SHARES EXCEPT IN A FEW CASES THERE IS NO EVIDENCE O F THE ASSESSEE HAVING PURCHASED THE SHARES NOR IS THERE ASSESSEES NAME A VAILABLE IN THE SHARE REGISTER OF M/S. BALAJI STEELS LTD. IT WOULD WELL HAVE BEEN IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEES I.T.(SS) A. NO. 218/MDS/1997 9 TO CLAIM THAT THE TRANSACTION ITSELF HAD NOT BEEN D ONE. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE HAS COME FORWARD AND HAS DISCLOSED THE TRANSACTION OF THE PURCHASE AND SALE OF THE SHARES. THE DETAILS OF THE SALE OF SHARES HAVE NOT BEEN DISPROVED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOR HAS IT BEEN FOUND TO BE FALSE . IN THE ABSENCE OF ANYTHING TO THE CONTRARY FOUND IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH OR IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT, THE DETAILS AS DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE DISC ARDED ONLY BECAUSE AN ALTERNATE IS POSSIBLE WHICH COULD LEAD TO A HIGHER ADDITION. IN FACT, THE METHOD ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS FALLACIOUS INSO FAR AS THE DATE OF REGISTRATION IN NO WAY CAN BE TREATED AS THE DATE OF SALE BY THE AS SESSEE IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE SHARE TRANSFER FORMS HAVE BEEN LODGED FOR REGIS TRATION MUCH AFTER THE LAST TRANSACTION AS RECORDED IN THE SHARE TRANSFER FORMS AS ALSO ON ACCOUNT OF THE FACT THAT MULTIPLE TRANSACTIONS HAVE BEEN DONE ON THE SA ME SHARE TRANSFER FORMS AND THE SUBSEQUENTLY TRANSACTIONS HAVE NOT BEEN VERIFIE D BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BUT HAS JUST BEEN DISCARDED. ASSUMING THAT THE METHOD AS ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS TO BE ACCEPTED AS CORRECT, THEN OBVIOUSL Y IT WOULD HAVE TO BE ASSUMED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS ADOPTING THE LAST TRA NSACTION IN THE SHARE TRANSFER FORMS AS THE TRANSACTION BY WHICH THE ASSESSEE SOLD THE SAID SHARES. IF THIS IS SO, THE TRANSACTION IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING THE LAST TRANSACTION WOULD HAVE TO BE ASSUMED TO BE THE TRANSACTION THROUGH WHICH THE ASS ESSEE PURCHASED THE SHARES. IN SUCH AN EVENT, THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN T HE PURCHASE PRICE AND THE SALE PRICE CAN ONLY BE CONSIDERED IN REGARD TO THE LAST TWO TRANSACTIONS. THIS I.T.(SS) A. NO. 218/MDS/1997 10 WOULD OBVIOUSLY BE TO THE ADVANTAGE OF THE ASSESSEE . WE MAY MENTION HERE THAT IN MOST CASES TIME GAP BETWEEN THE LAST TWO TR ANSACTIONS IS JUST TWO OR THREE DAYS. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN REGARD TO THE TRANSACTI ON INVOLVING PURCHASE AND SALE OF SHARES OF M/S. BALAJI STEELS LTD. AS ESTIMATED B Y THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY ADOPTING THE DATE OF REGISTRATION OF THE SHARES IN THE SHARE REGISTER OF M/S. BALAJI STEELS LTD. IS NOT ON RIGHT FOOTING AND THE SAME IS DELETED. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO ADOPT THE UNDI SCLOSED INCOME OF ` 19,50,000/- IN CONNECTION WITH THE SAID TRANSACTION S AS DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE ADDITION AS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER O N THE SAID GROUND STANDS DELETED. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, GROUNDS VI(1) TO (9) OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL STAND ALLOWED. 8. THE ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 11/03/2 011. SD/- SD/- (ABRAHAM P. GEORGE) (GEORGE MATHAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER CHENNAI, DATED THE 11 TH MARCH, 2011. H. COPY TO: ASSESSEE/AO/CIT (A)/CIT/D.R./GUARD FILE