Chennai Petroleum Corpn Ltd., CHENNAI V. DCIT, CHENNAI

MA 256/CHNY/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4693 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 24-02-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 20-09-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A SUNDARARAJAN
• Keywords: Double taxation relief; Non-deduction of tax; TDS; Set aside
• Section: 40(a)(ia); 201(1); 195; 201

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH : CHENNAI . . . , , [BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ] M.P.NOS.255 & 256/CHNY/2019 ./I.T.A. NOS. 689/CHNY/2012 AND 495/CHNY/2014 ! / ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2009-10 & 2010-2011. M/S. CHENNAI PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED, 536, ANNA SALAI, TEYNAMPET, CHENNAI 600 018. VS. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LARGE TAX PAYER UNIT, CHENNAI 600 034. [PAN AAACM 4392C] ( / APPELLANT) ( /RESPONDENT) '# $ % / APPELLANT BY : SHRI. R. VIJAYARAGHAVAN, ADV &' '# $ % /RESPONDENT BY : SHRI. A. SUNDARARAJAN, ADDL. CIT. ( ) $ * /DATE OF HEARING : 21-02-2020 +,! $ * /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 24-02-2020 / O R D E R PER INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THE PRESENT MISCELLANEOUS PETITIONS ARE FILED BY TH E ASSESSEE COMPANY PRAYING THAT CONSOLIDATED ORDER PASSED BY THIS TRIBUNAL IN MP NOS.255 & 256/2019 :- 2 -: ITA NOS.689/CHNY/2012 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-2010 AND ITA NO.495/CHNY/2014 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-2011 DA TED 20.03.2019 MAY BE RECALLED, AS THE TRIBUNAL HAD FAI LED TO ADJUDICATE THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL AND ADDITIONAL GROU NDS OF APPEAL FILED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. ITA NO.689/CHNY/2012 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-2010 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), LTU ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.6 1,23,06 ,054/- U/S 40(A)(I) AS THE APPELLANT HAD NOT DEDUCTED TDS FROM THE PAYMENTS MADE TO HARDY EXPLORATION AND PRODUCTION I NDIA INC (HEPI) U/S 195. 3.1 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), LTU O UGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THAT PAYMENT MADE TO HEPI WAS F OR THE PURCHASE OF CRUDE OIL AND HENCE PAYMENT IS NOT SUBJ ECT TO TAX IN INDIA. 3.2 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), LTU O UGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THAT SECTION 195 REQUIRES THAT TAX IS TO BE DEDUCTED AT SOURCE FROM PAYMENT TO A NON-RESIDEN T ONLY IF THE AMOUNT IS CHARGEABLE TO TAX 3.3 THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN G.E.TECHNOLOGY CEN TER VS. CIT (327 ITR 256) HAS HELD THAT THAT IF THERE I S NO INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX IN INDIA THEN THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT FOR DEDUCTING TAX AT SOURCE UNDER THE I NCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 3.4 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), LTU O UGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THAT THE DISALLOWANCE U/S 40(A) (I) CAN BE MADE ONLY IN RESPECT OF AMOUNTS OUTSTANDING AND PAYABLE AS ON 3L MARCH AND NOT ON AMOUNTS WHICH HAV E BEEN PAID DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR. APPELLANT RELIE S ON THE DECISION OF SPECIAL BENCH IN THE CASE OF MERILYN SH IPPING AND TRANSPORTS V. ACIT, REPORTED IN 16 ITR (TRIB) I (VIS) (SB). MP NOS.255 & 256/2019 :- 3 -: 3.5 WITHOUT PREJUDICE, ONLY THE PROFIT ACCRUING TO MIS. HARDY EXPLORATION AND PRODUCTION INDIA INC ON SALE OF CRUDE TO THE APPELLANT WHICH IS TAXABLE IN INDIA CA N BE DISALLOWED U/S 40(A)(I) AND NOT THE ENTIRE PAYMENT. FURTHER THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONAL GROUNDS WERE FILED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL 1. THE CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING DISALLOWANCE U/S. 40(A)(I) OF THE ACT, FOR NON-DEDUCTION OF TAX UNDER SECTION 195(1) OF THE ACT, THE TOTAL GROSS PAYMENTS MADE FOR PURCHASE OF CRUDE OIL FROM THE INDIAN PE OF THE NON-RESIDENT M/ S.HARDY EXPLORATION AND PRODUCTION INDIA INC (HEPI) AND NOT THE PROFIT CHARGEABLE TO TAX. 2. THE CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 7 OF THE DTAA BETWEEN INDIA A ND USA, THE RATIO OF THE DECISION OF THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF G.E.TECHNOLOGY CENTRE P LTD V CIT 327 ITR 456 AN D THE CLARIFICATION ISSUED BY THE CBDT VIDE INSTRUCTION NO.02/2014 DATED 26.02.2014 READ WITH CBDT CIRCULAR NO.3/2015 DT 12.02.2015 THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS T O FIRST DETERMINE THE INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX UNDER THE IN DIAN INCOME TAX ACT 1961 ON WHICH TAX HAS TO BE DEDUCTED AND THEN COMPUTE THE AMOUNT TO BE DISALLOWED, IF ANY, U /S 40(A)(I). AS THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT DONE SO, EVEN THOUGH THE ASSESSMENT OF THE RECIPIENT WAS AVAILABL E, THE CIT(A) SHOULD HAVE SET ASIDE THE DISALLOWANCE U/S 4 0(A)(I). 3. THE CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE HELD THAT, WHEN THE REC IPIENT M/S. HARDY EXPLORATION AND PRODUCTION INDIA INC HAS PAID THE REQUISITE TAX TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE AMOUNT RE CEIVED FROM THE APPELLANT, FURTHER DISALLOWANCE OF THE SAM E AMOUNT IN THE HANDS OF THE APPELLANT WOULD AMOUNT T O DOUBLE TAXATION OF THAT AMOUNT AND HENCE THE DISALL OWANCE SHOULD BE DELETED. 4. THE CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THAT THAT A S PER PROVISIONS OF SEC 191, ONCE THE PAYEE HAS PAID THE TAX, THE TDS CANNOT BE RECOVERED FROM THE ASSESSEE PAYER AND HENCE THE AMOUNT CANNOT BE DISALLOWED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE U/S 40(A)(I). 5. THE CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW IN NOT APPLYING THE PROV ISIONS OF NON DISCRIMINATION AS PER ARTICLE 26 (3) OF THE DTA A MP NOS.255 & 256/2019 :- 4 -: BETWEEN INDIA AND USA, WHEREBY, THE PAYMENT BY AN I NDIAN RESIDENT TO A RESIDENT OF USA SHOULD BE ALLOWED IN COMPUTING THE TAXABLE INCOME OF THE INDIAN PAYER AS IF SUCH PAYMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE TO AN INDIAN RESIDENT. AS PAYMENTS TO AN INDIAN RESIDENT FOR PURCHASE OF OIL DOES NOT REQUIRE DEDUCTION OF TAX, PAYMENT TO HEPI CANNOT BE DISALLOWED FOR NON DEDUCTION OF TAX AS PER ARTICLE 26(3) OF THE DTAA. 6. THE CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THAT AS PER ARTICLE 26 (3) OF THE DTAA BETWEEN INDIA AND USA WHICH PROV IDES THAT ALLOWABILITY, IN THE HANDS OF THE RESIDENT PAY ER, OF THE AMOUNT PAID TO A RESIDENT USA SHOULD BE ON THE SAME CONDITIONS AS IF THE PAYMENT WAS MADE TO AN INDIAN RESIDENT. CONSEQUENTLY THE CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE HEL D THAT AS PER PROVISO TO SECTION 40 (A) (A) READ WITH PRO VISO TO SEC 201 (1) AND IN THE LIGHT OF THE DECISION OF THE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS ANSAL LAND MARK TOWNSHIP PVT LTD READ WITH ARTICLE 26(3) OF THE DTA A BETWEEN INDIA AND USA, NO DISALLOWANCE CAN BE MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE PAYER AS THE RECIPIENT HAS PAID TH E TAX. 7. IN ANY EVENT, THE TRIBUNAL ERRED IN LAW IN NOT D IRECTED THAT DISALLOWANCE U/S.40(A) (I) SHOULD BE RESTRICTE D TO THE AMOUNT OF INCOME WHICH IS FOUND TO BE CHARGEABLE TO TAX IN THE HANDS OF THE RECIPIENT. ITA NO.495/CHNY/2014 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-2011 5. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), LTU ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.24 ,71 ,39,263/- U/S 40(A)(I)FOR NON-DEDUCTION TDS FROM THE PAYMENTS MAD E TO HARDY EXPLORATION AND PRODUCTION INDIA INC (HEPI) U/S 195 . 5.1 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), LTU O UGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THAT PAYMENT MADE TO HEPI WAS FOR THE P URCHASE OF CRUDE OIL AND HENCE PAYMENT IS NOT SUBJECT TO TAX I N INDIA. 5.2 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), LTU O UGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THAT SECTION 195 REQUIRES THAT TAX IS T O BE DEDUCTED AT SOURCE FROM PAYMENT TO A NON-RESIDENT ONLY IF THE A MOUNT IS CHARGEABLE TO TAX MP NOS.255 & 256/2019 :- 5 -: 5.3 THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN G.E.TECHNOLOGY CEN TER VS. CIT (327 ITR 256) HAS HELD THAT THAT ONLY THAT PORTION OF THE PAYMENT TO THE NON RESIDENT CHARGEABLE TO TAX IN INDIA TAX HAS TO BE DEDUCTED AT SOURCE UNDER THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 5.4 WITHOUT PREJUDICE, UNDER THE DTAA BETWEEN UK AN D INDIA ONLY THE PROFIT ACCRUING TO M/S. HARDY EXPLORATION AND P RODUCTION INDIA INC ON PRODUCTION AND SALE OF CRUDE TO THE AP PELLANT IS TAXABLE IN INDIA. HENCE THE ENTIRE PAYMENT CAN NOT BE DISALLOWED U/S 40(A)(I). 5.5 WITHOUT PREJUDICE DISALLOWANCE U/S 40(A)(IA) CA N BE MADE ONLY IN RESPECT OF AMOUNTS OUTSTANDING AND PAYABLE AS ON 3 L MARCH AND NOT THE AMOUNTS WHICH HAVE BEEN PAID DURING THE PRE VIOUS YEAR. MERILYN SHIPPING AND TRANSPORTS V. ACIT, REPORTED I N 16 ITR (TRIB) I (VIS)(SB). VECTOR SHIPPING 85 CCH 201 (ALL . H.C). 6. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), LTU ER RED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 15,83,20,443/- U /S 40(A)(I) FOR NON-DEDUCTION OF TDS FROM THE PAYMENT MADE TO M/S N IKO (NECO) LTD. 6.1THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) OUGHT T O HAVE APPRECIATED THAT PAYMENT MADE TO M/S. NIKO (NECO) L TD WAS FOR THE PURCHASE OF CRUDE OIL AND HENCE PAYMENT IS NOT SUBJECT TO TAX IN INDIA. 6.2 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), LTU O UGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THAT SECTION 195 REQUIRES THAT TAX IS T O BE DEDUCTED AT SOURCE FROM PAYMENT TO A NON-RESIDENT ONLY IF THE A MOUNT IS CHARGEABLE TO TAX. 6.3 THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN G.E.TECHNOLOGY CEN TER VS. CIT (327 ITR 256) HAS HELD THAT THAT IF THERE IS NO INC OME CHARGEABLE TO TAX IN INDIA THEN THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT FOR DEDUC TING TAX AT SOURCE UNDER THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 6.4 WITHOUT PREJUDICE, UNDER THE DTAA BETWEEN JAPAN AND INDIA ONLY THE PROFIT ACCRUING TO MIS. NIKO (NECO) LTD ON PRODUCTION AND SALE OF CRUDE TO THE APPELLANT IS TAXABLE IN IN DIA. HENCE THE ENTIRE PAYMENT CANNOT BE DISALLOWED U/S 40(A)(I). 6.5 WITHOUT PREJUDICE DISALLOWANCE U/S 40(A)(I) CAN BE MADE ONLY IN RESPECT OF AMOUNTS OUTSTANDING AND PAYABLE AS ON MARCH AND MP NOS.255 & 256/2019 :- 6 -: NOT THE AMOUNTS WHICH HAVE BEEN PAID DURING THE PRE VIOUS YEAR. MERLYN SHIPPING AND TRANSPORTS V. ACIT, REPORTED IN 16 ITR (TRIB) I (VIS)(SB). VECTOR SHIPPING 85 CCH 201 (ALL . H.C) 7.0 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), LTU E RRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF THE PROVISION OF RS. 17,00,05,000/- MADE FOR RETIREMENT BENEFITS OF SUPERVISORY AND NON -SUPERVISORY EMPLOYEES AS PER DPE GUIDELINES AS BEING CONTINGENT LIABILITY AND ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE APPELLANT. 7.1 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), LTU O UGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THAT AS PER THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC EN TERPRISES ( DPE) GUIDELINE DATED 26TH NOV 2008, ALL CENTRAL PUB LIC SECTOR ENTERPRISES ARE REQUIRED TO CONTRIBUTE 30% OF BASIC PAY AS SUPERANNUATION BENEFIT WHICH MAY INCLUDE CONTRIBUTI ON TO PROVIDENT FUND (CPF),GRATUITY , PENSION AND POST SU PERANNUATION MEDICAL BENEFITS. 7.2 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), LTU O UGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THAT IN LINE WITH THE ABOVE GUIDELINE, THE APPELLANT HAS MADE ADDITIONAL PROVISION TOWARDS RETIREMENT BENEFI T TO THE EXTENT OF 8.62% OF THE BASIC PAY AS SUPERANNUATION BENEFIT FOR THE EMPLOYEES AS THE REMAINING 2 1.38% HAS BEEN MET THR OUGH CONTRIBUTION TO PROVIDENT FUND (CPF), GRATUITY AND OTHER RETIREMENT BENEFITS. 7.3 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), LTU O UGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THAT THE ABOVE PROVISIONS ARE BUSINESS LIABILITY HAS ARISEN IN THE ACCOUNTING YEAR THAT ARE TO BE DISCHA RGED AT A FUTURE DATE. THE APPELLANT IS CERTAIN OF INCURRENCE OF THE LIABILITY AND THE ESTIMATION MADE WITH REASONABLE CERTAINTY. HAVING M ET THESE REQUIREMENTS, THE PROVISION CREATED BY THE APPELLAN T SHOULD BE ALLOWED AS ASCERTAINED LIABILITY. FURTHER THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONAL GROUNDS WERE FIL ED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL 1. THE CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING DISALLOWANCE U/S. 40(A)(I) OF THE ACT, FOR NON-DEDUCTION OF TAX UNDER SECTION 195(1) OF THE ACT, THE TOTAL GROSS PAYMENTS MADE FOR PURCHASE OF CRUDE OIL FROM THE INDIAN PE OF THE NON-RESIDENT MIS.HARDY EXPLORATION AND PRODUCTION INDIA INC (HEPI) AND NOT THE PROFIT CHAR GEABLE TO TAX. 2. THE CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE7 OF THE DTAA BETWEEN INDIA AND USA, THE RAT IO OF THE MP NOS.255 & 256/2019 :- 7 -: DECISION OF THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF G.E.TECHN OLOGY CENTRE P LTD V CIT 327 ITR 456 AND THE CLARIFICATION ISSUED BY THE CBDT VIDE INSTRUCTION NO.02/20 14 DATED 26.02.20 14 READ WITH CBDT CIRCULAR NO.3/2015 DT 12.02.2015 THE ASSESSING OFFI CER HAS TO FIRST DETERMINE THE INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX UNDER THE IN DIAN INCOME TAX ACT 1961 ON WHICH TAX HAS TO BE DEDUCTED AND TH EN COMPUTE THE AMOUNT TO BE DISALLOWED, IF ANY, U/S 40(A). AS THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT DONE SO, EVEN THOUGH THE ASSESSMENT OF THE RECIPIENT WAS AVAILABLE, THE CIT(A) SHOULD HAVE SET ASIDE THE DISALLOWANCE U/S 40(A)(I). 3. THE CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE HELD THAT, WHEN THE REC IPIENT M/S. HARDY EXPLORATION AND PRODUCTION INDIA INC HAS PAID THE REQUISITE TAX TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE AMOUNT RECEIVED FROM TH E APPELLANT, FURTHER DISALLOWANCE OF THE SAME AMOUNT IN THE HAND S OF THE APPELLANT WOULD AMOUNT TO DOUBLE TAXATION OF THAT A MOUNT AND HENCE THE DISALLOWANCE SHOULD BE DELETED. 4. THE CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THAT THAT A S PER PROVISIONS OF SEC 191, ONCE THE PAYEE HAS PAID THE TAX, THE TD S CANNOT BE RECOVERED FROM THE ASSESSEE PAYER AND HENCE THE AMO UNT CANNOT BE DISALLOWED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE U/S 40(A)(I ). 5. THE CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW IN NOT APPLYING THE PROV ISIONS OF NON DISCRIMINATION AS PER ARTICLE 26 (3) OF THE DTAA BE TWEEN INDIA AND USA, WHEREBY, THE PAYMENT BY AN INDIAN RESIDENT TO A RESIDENT OF USA SHOULD BE ALLOWED IN COMPUTING THE TAXABLE I NCOME OF THE INDIAN PAYER AS IF SUCH PAYMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE TO AN INDIAN RESIDENT. AS PAYMENTS TO AN INDIAN RESIDENT FOR PUR CHASE OF OIL DOES NOT REQUIRE DEDUCTION OF TAX, PAYMENT TO HEPI CANNOT BE DISALLOWED FOR NON DEDUCTION OF TAX AS PER ARTICLE 26(3) OF THE DTAA. 6. THE CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THAT AS PER ARTICLE 26 (3) OF THE DTAA BETWEEN INDIA AND USA WHICH PROVIDES TH AT ALLOWABILITY, IN THE HANDS OF THE RESIDENT PAYER, O F THE AMOUNT PAID TO A RESIDENT USA SHOULD BE ON THE SAME CONDITIONS AS IF THE PAYMENT WAS MADE TO AN INDIAN RESIDENT. CONSEQUENTL Y THE CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE HELD THAT AS PER PROVISO TO SECTION 4 0 (A) (IA) READ WITH PROVISO TO SEC 201(1) AND IN THE LIGHT OF THE DECISION OF THE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS ANSAL LAND M ARK TOWNSHIP PVT LTD READ WITH ARTICLE 26(3) OF THE DTAA BETWEEN INDIA AND USA, NO DISALLOWANCE CAN BE MADE IN THE HANDS OF TH E PAYER AS THE RECIPIENT HAS PAID THE TAX. MP NOS.255 & 256/2019 :- 8 -: 7. IN ANY EVENT THE TRIBUNAL ERRED IN LAW IN NOT DI RECTING THAT DISALLOWANCE U/S 40(A) (I) SHOULD BE RESTRICTED TO THE AMOUNT OF INCOME WHICH IS FOUND TO BE CHARGEABLE TO TAX IN TH E HANDS OF THE RECIPIENT. 2. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE HAS NOT OPPOSED THE SUBMISSION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. 3. WE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSED THE MISCELL ANEOUS PETITION AND THE IMPUGNED ORDER. ON PERUSAL OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER, IT IS CLEAR THAT ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL AND ADDITIO NAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL FILED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL WERE NOT ADJUDIC ATED BY THIS TRIBUNAL. IT IS SETTLED PROPOSITION OF LAW THAT NON ADJUDICATION OF GROUNDS OF APPEAL AND ADDITIONAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL FILED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL CONSTITUTE MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE RECO RDS CAPABLE OF BEING RECTIFIED IN EXERCISE OF THE POWERS VESTED W ITH TRIBUNAL U/S.254 (2) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE AC T). THUS, WE RECALL THE APPEALS FOR LIMITED PURPOSE FOR ADJUDICATING T HE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL AND ADDITIONAL GROUNDS IN ITA NO.689/CHNY/2 012 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 AND ITA NO.495/CHNY/2014 FO R ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-2011 AND THE APPEALS ARE POSTED FOR HEARI NG ON 20.04.2020 FOR WHICH NO SEPARATE NOTICE OF HEARING IS REQUIRED TO BE DISPATCHED, AS THE DATE OF HEARING OF APPEALS WERE PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. MP NOS.255 & 256/2019 :- 9 -: 4. IN THE RESULT, THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITION NOS.255 AND 256/CHNY/2019 FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2009-10 AND 2010 -2011 FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED ON ABOVE LINES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 24TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 20 20, AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( . . . ) (N.R.S. GANESAN) /JUDICIAL MEMBER ( ) (INTURI RAMA RAO) /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER - ) / CHENNAI . / DATED:24 TH FEBRUARY, 2020 KV $ &*01 21!* / COPY TO: 1 . '# / APPELLANT 3. ( 3* () / CIT(A) 5. 16 &*7 / DR 2. &' '# / RESPONDENT 4. ( 3* / CIT 6. 8 9) / GF