Essorpe Holdings Pvt. Ltd., Coimbatore v. DCIT, Coimbatore

CO 108/CHNY/2013 | 2009-2010
Pronouncement Date: 11-07-2013 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 10821723 RSA 2013
Assessee PAN AAACE4783D
Bench Chennai
Appeal Number CO 108/CHNY/2013
Duration Of Justice 2 day(s)
Appellant Essorpe Holdings Pvt. Ltd., Coimbatore
Respondent DCIT, Coimbatore
Appeal Type Cross Objection
Pronouncement Date 11-07-2013
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted A
Tribunal Order Date 11-07-2013
Assessment Year 2009-2010
Appeal Filed On 09-07-2013
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH CHENNAI BEFORE DR. O.K. NARAYANAN VICE-PRESIDENT AND SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. ASSTT. YEAR APPELLANT RESPONDE NT 2256/MDS/2012 2009-10 M/S.ESSORPE MILLS LTD. 37/54 7 TH CROSS BHARATHI PARK ROAD COIMBATORE-641 043. PAN:AAACE4783D DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX COM.CIRCLE-I(3) COIMBATORE. 76/MDS/ 2013 2009-10 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX COM.CIRCLE-I(2) COIMBATORE M/S.ESSORPE MILLS LTD. 37/54 7 TH CROSS BHARATHI PARK ROAD COIMBATORE-641 043. PAN:AAACE4783D 79/MDS/201 3 2009-10 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX COM.CIRCLE-I(2) COIMBATORE M/S.ESSORPE HOLDINGS PVT. LTD. 37/54 7 TH CROSS BHARATHI PARK ROAD COIMBATORE-641 043. C.O.NO.108/MDS/ 2013 (IN ITA NO. 79/MDS/2013) 2009-10 M/S.ESSORPE HOLDINGS PVT. LTD. 37/54 7 TH CROSS BHARATHI PARK ROAD COIMBATORE-641 043. PAN:AAACE9372R DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX COM.CIRCLE-I(2) COIMBATORE ASSESSEE BY : MR. T.BANUSEKAR C.A . DEPARTMENT BY : MR. SHAJI P.JACOB ADDL. CIT DATE OF HEARING : 11 TH JULY 2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 11 TH JULY 2013 O R D E R PER CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD JM: ITA NOS. 2256/MDS/2012 AND 76/MDS/2013 ARE CROSS APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE REVENUE RESPE CTIVELY FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. ITA NO.79/MDS/2013 IS FILED ITA NO.2256 /MDS/2012 ITA NO.76 & 7 9/MDS/2013 & CO.NO.108/MDS/2013 2 BY THE REVENUE IN RESPECT OF A SISTER CONCERN OF T HE ASSESSEE I.E. M/S. ESSORPE HOLDINGS PVT.LTD. WHICH HAS FILED CROSS OBJECTION NO.108/MDS/2013 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. SINCE COMMON ISSUE IS INVOLVED IN ALL THES E APPEALS & CROSS OBJECTION THEY ARE HEARD TOGETHER AND D ISPOSED OFF BY THIS COMMON ORDER. 2. ITA NO.76/MDS/2013 OF THE REVENUE AND C.O.NO.108/MDS/2013 OF THE ASSESSEE ARE FIELD WITH DELAY OF 11 DAYS & 129 DAYS RESPECTIVELY. THE DEPARTMENT AS WELL AS THE ASSESSEE FILED PETITION/AFFIDAVIT FOR CONDONATI ON OF DELAY EXPLAINING THE REASONS FOR THE DELAY. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE PETITION/AFFIDAVIT AND FIND THAT THERE IS A RE ASONABLE CAUSE IN FILING OF THE APPEAL AS WELL AS CROSS OBJECTION BELATEDLY. THEREFORE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE THE DELAY IS CONDONED AND THE APPEAL AND CROSS OBJECTION ARE ADMITTED FOR DI SPOSAL. ITA NO.2256/MDS/2012 (ASSESSEES APPEAL): 3. THE ASSESSEE M/S. ESSORPE MILLS LTD. HAS FILED THE APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INC OME TAX ITA NO.2256 /MDS/2012 ITA NO.76 & 7 9/MDS/2013 & CO.NO.108/MDS/2013 3 (APPEALS)-I COIMBATORE DATED 1.10.2012 FOR THE ASSE SSMENT YEAR 2009-10 RAISING THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- 1. FOR THAT TH E O R DER OF THE COMMISS I ONER OF INCOME TA X ( APPEALS ) I S CONT R AR Y TO LAW FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND AT ANY RATE I S OPPOSED TO THE PRINCIPLES OF EQUITY NATURAL JUSTICE AND FAIR PLAY . 2. FOR THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TA X ( APPEALS ) FA I LED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFF I CE R I S W ITHOUT JURISDICTION . 3. FOR T HAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TA X ( APPEALS ) OUG H T TO HAV E APP R EC I ATED THAT THERE WAS NO TRANSFER UNDER SECTION 2 ( 47 ) OF INCOME TA X A C T 1961 . 4. FOR THAT T HE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TA X ( APPEALS ) OUG H T TO HAV E APPRECIATED THAT POA ALONE CANNOT BE CONS I DERED AS A P ROOF FO R SA L E T R ANSACT I ON . 5. FOR THAT TH E COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TA X ( APPEALS ) FAILED TO APPRECIAT E THAT WHILE E X ECUTING MOA IPOA THE COMPANY AND THE IMPUGNED LAND WAS UNDER VARIOUS CHARGES UPON VARIOUS LIABILITIES AND PROVIS I ONS OF LAW . 6. FOR THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF IN C OME TA X ( APPEALS ) FAILED TO APP R ECIAT E THAT THE APPELLANT WAS A GUARANTOR I N THE LOAN TRANSACTION AND THEREFORE THE PROPE R TY W A S SUBJECTED TO A CHARGE. THUS WH I LE ASSESS I NG I NCOME AMOUNT T O THE E X TENT OF BORROWINGS WOULD HAVE TO BE REDUCED F R OM THE TOTA L CONSIDERATION . 7. FOR THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TA X ( APPEALS ) FAILED TO APPRECIAT E THAT THE IMPUGNED PROPERTY GOT VESTED IN ESSORPE HOLD I NGS P LTD BY THE ORDE R OF DEME R GER BY MAD R AS HIGH COURT AS ON THE APPOINTED DATE OF 01 . 01 . 0 9 8. FOR THAT W I THOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE THE COMMISS I ONER OF INCOME TA X ( APPE A LS ) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE INCOME FROM TRANSFER OF THE PRO PERT Y HAS TO BE CALCU L ATED AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 45 ( 2 ) OF INCOME TA X ACT . 9. FOR THAT THE COMM I SSIONER OF INCOME TA X ( APPEALS ) ITA NO.2256 /MDS/2012 ITA NO.76 & 7 9/MDS/2013 & CO.NO.108/MDS/2013 4 FAIL E D T O APP REC I AT E THA T TH E ASSESS I NG OFF I CER ERRED I N NOT APPLYING TH E P RO V IS I ONS OF SE C T I ON 5 0 W H ILE ARRIVING AT TH E GAIN ON SALE OF BUILD I NG . 4. IN THIS APPEAL THE ASSESSEE CONTENDS THAT THERE IS NO TRANSFER UNDER SECTION 2(47) OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF THE PROPERTY GIVEN AS GUARANTEE IN A TRANSACTION WITH I TS SISTER CONCERN. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WHICH WAS A SICK COMP ANY ENTERED INTO A MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT WITH M/S. G LOBUSE REALTORS PVT.LTD. (GRPL) FOR PROVIDING SECURITY OF LAND AND BUILDING POSSESSED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE AMOUNTS ADVANCED BY GRPL TO M/S. ESSORPE HOLDINGS PVT. LTD. (EHPL) SISTER CONCERN OF THE ASSESSEE AND ALSO EXE CUTED A POWER OF ATTORNEY IN FAVOUR OF MR. V.SIVAKUMAR REPR ESENTING GRPL FOR 5.057 ACRES OF LAND. THE PHYSICAL POSSESS ION OF THIS LAND WAS HANDED OVER TO GRPL. THE ASSESSING O FFICER WHILE COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT HELD THAT THERE IS TRANSFER OF PROPERTY AND CALCULATED CAPITAL GAINS IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE M/S. ESSORPE MILLS LTD. (EML). SIMILARLY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT I N THE CASE OF EHPL ASSESSED THE CONSIDERATION IN RESPECT OF THIS ITA NO.2256 /MDS/2012 ITA NO.76 & 7 9/MDS/2013 & CO.NO.108/MDS/2013 5 TRANSFERRED PROPERTY AS BUSINESS INCOME ON PROTECTI VE BASIS. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IN THE ASSESSMENT OF ASSESSEE (EML) HELD THAT THERE IS A T RANSFER WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 2(47) OF THE ACT AND HELD THAT SALE CONSIDERATION OF SUCH PROPERTY HAS TO BE ASSES SED IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. HOWEVER THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HELD THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE H AS CONVERTED ITS CAPITAL ASSET INTO STOCK-IN-TRADE TH E SALE CONSIDERATION TO THE EXTENT OF ` 17 62 50 000/- SHALL BE ASSESSED AS BUSINESS INCOME OUT OF ` 35 25 00 000/-. THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL AGAINST THIS ORDER OF THE COM MISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) CONTENDING THAT THERE WAS N O TRANSFER UNDER SECTION 2(47) OF THE ACT AND THERE I S NO INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. 5. THE ASSESSEE IN THE ALTERNATIVE SUBMITS THAT IN CASE THE SALE CONSIDERATION HAS TO BE ASSESSED UNDER THE HEA D INCOME FROM BUSINESS AS THE ASSESSEE HAS CONVERTE D THE CAPITAL ASSET INTO STOCK-IN-TRADE THE GAIN UP TO THE DATE OF ITA NO.2256 /MDS/2012 ITA NO.76 & 7 9/MDS/2013 & CO.NO.108/MDS/2013 6 CONVERSION HAS TO BE ASSESSED UNDER THE HEAD LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS AND THE ASSET WHICH WAS CONVERTED I NTO STOCK- IN-TRADE HAS TO BE ASSESSED AS BUSINESS INCOME GRAN TING BENEFITS OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 45(2) OF THE ACT. 6. THE COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES IN RE SPECT OF HIS CONTENTION THAT THERE IS NO TRANSFER AND THUS T HERE IS NO INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESS EE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. IN THE ALTERNATIVE THE CO UNSEL SUBMITS THAT IN CASE THE INCOME IS ASSESSED UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM BUSINESS THE BENEFITS ARISING OUT OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 45(2) OF THE ACT BE GIVEN. 7. THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUPPORTS THE OR DER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND SUBMITS THAT INCOME DOES ACCRUE IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 AS THERE IS A TRANSFER AND THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE RIGHTLY ASSESSED THE INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. ITA NO.2256 /MDS/2012 ITA NO.76 & 7 9/MDS/2013 & CO.NO.108/MDS/2013 7 8. HEARD BOTH SIDES. PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWE R AUTHORITIES AND RECORDS. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IN HIS ELABORATE ORDER CONSIDERED THE SUB MISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSES SING OFFICER AND ARRIVED AT A CONCLUSION THAT THERE IS A TRANSFER WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 2(47) OF THE ACT IN R ESPECT OF THE PROPERTY AND INCOME HAD ARISEN DURING THE ASSESSME NT YEAR 2009-10. HOWEVER SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS CONVERTED THE CAPITAL ASSET INTO STOCK-IN-TRADE HE HAS DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO CALCULATE THE BUSINESS INCOME ON THE SALE OF 5.075 ACRES OF LAND BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. HOWEVER HE DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO TAKE 50% OF ` 35 25 00 000/- AS SALE CONSIDERATION IN RESPECT OF TOTAL PROPERTY OF 10.15 ACRES OF LAND FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 AS BUSINESS I NCOME ON ACCOUNT OF TRANSFER OF PROPERTY. THE COUNSEL FO R THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT SUBSTANTIATE HIS CLAIM THAT THE RE IS NO TRANSFER AND NO INCOME HAD ARISEN DURING THE ASSESS MENT YEAR 2009-10 AND AT THE SAME TIME HAS NO SERIOUS O BJECTION IN ASSESSING GAIN AS BUSINESS INCOME AS PER THE PR OVISIONS ITA NO.2256 /MDS/2012 ITA NO.76 & 7 9/MDS/2013 & CO.NO.108/MDS/2013 8 OF SECTION 45(2) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT SERIOUSLY OBJECTED FOR CONSIDERING THE SALE CONSIDERATION FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 AT ` 20 25 00 000/- AS AGAINST THE DIRECTION GIVEN BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ( APPEALS) TO ADOPT AT ` 17 62 50 000/-. THE COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAD IN FACT FILED WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS IN RESPECT O F THE APPLICATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 45(2) AS U NDER:- W I THOUT PREJUDICE TO THE CLAIM THAT THERE IS NO INCOM E CHARGEABLE TO TAX IN THE HANDS OF E SSORPE MILLS LTD OR ESSORPE HOLDINGS PVT LTD IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 9-10 IT I S S UBMITTED AS FOL L OWS : 7. THE FAIR MARKET VALUE ON THE DATE OF CONVERSION OF LAND AND BUILDING INTO STOCK-IN- TRADE IS TAKEN AS THE F ULL VALUE OF CONSIDERATION FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINI NG THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS AND THE SAID AMOUNT IS REDUCED FROM THE SALE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED ON THE SALE OF STOCK-IN-TRADE TO ARRIVE AT THE BUSINESS PROFITS IN THE YEAR OF SALE . 8. IN THE INSTANT CASE THE LAND AND BUILDING WHICH WAS HELD AS INVESTMENT WAS CONVERTED INTO STOCK-IN-TRADE IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2007-08 AND SUBSEQUENTLY PART OF THE STOCK IN TRADE WAS SOLD BY THE POA HOLDER IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2008-09. 9. THE COST INFLATION INDEX OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2007 -08 IS 551 AND THE COST INFLATION I NDEX OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2008-09 IS 582 . IT MAY BE NOTED THAT THERE IS ONLY 5 . 6% INCREASE IN THE COST INFLATION INDEX FOR THE FINANC IAL YEAR 2007-08 AND 2008 - 09. ITA NO.2256 /MDS/2012 ITA NO.76 & 7 9/MDS/2013 & CO.NO.108/MDS/2013 9 10.THE LAND AND BUILDING WHICH WAS SOLD BY THE POA HOLDER IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2 008-09 HAS FETCHED A SUM OF RS . 20 25 00 000/- . THEREFORE IT IS MOST HUMBLY PRAYED THAT THE FAIR MARKET VALUE AS ON THE DATE OF CONVERSION OF LAND AND BUILDING INTO STOCK-IN-TRADE I . E . IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2007-08 MAY BE TAKEN AT A VAL UE 5% LESS THAN THE FAIR MARKET VALUE (I . E . THE SALE CONSIDERATION) IN THE F I NANCIAL YEAR 2008-09 I . E. [RS.20 25 00 000 - 5% OF RS.20 25 00 000 = RS . 19 23 75 000] . 11.FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING THE LONG TERM CAPIT AL GAINS ON CONVERSION OF LAND INTO STOCK IN TRADE TH E FULL VALUE OF CONSIDERATION WILL HAVE TO BE ARRIVED AT B Y REDUCING THE VALUE OF BUILDING FROM THE FAIR MARKET VALUE AS ON THE DATE OF CONVERSION OF LAND I . E . RS . 19 23 75 000 (-) RS.71 51 725 = RS . 18 52 23 275/- AND THE SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAINS ON CONVERSION OF BUILDING INTO STOCK IN TRADE WOULD BE AS DETERMINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHICH IS RS . 69 26 825/- I.E . RS . 71 51 725 (-) RS . 2 24 900/- (WDV OF BUILDING) 12. T HIS PRAYER IS MADE SINCE THE COST INFLATION INDEX H AS INCREASED ONLY BY 5 . 6% F ROM THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2007-08 TO FINANCIAL YEAR 2008 - 09. 9. THEREFORE WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSION ER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AS FAR AS ASSESSING THE INCOME IN RESPECT OF TRANSFER OF PROPERTY OF THE ASSESSEE AS BUSINESS INCOME. HOWEVER THE GAIN ON TRANSFER OF PROPERTY U P TO THE DATE OF CONVERSION INTO STOCK-IN-TRADE HAS TO BE AS SESSED UNDER THE HEAD CAPITAL GAINS AND THE GAIN IN RESP ECT OF ITA NO.2256 /MDS/2012 ITA NO.76 & 7 9/MDS/2013 & CO.NO.108/MDS/2013 10 PROPERTY I.E. AFTER THE DATE OF CONVERSION INTO STO CK-IN-TRADE HAS TO BE ASSESSED AS BUSINESS INCOME. AS THE ASSE SSING OFFICER COMPUTED THE ENTIRE SALE CONSIDERATION UNDE R THE HEAD LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS HE DID NOT APPLY THE PROVI SIONS OF SECTION 45(2) OF THE ACT. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES WE DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO COMPUTE THE BUSINESS INCOME IN RESPECT OF STOCK-IN-TRADE OF THE PROPERTY TAKING INTO CONSI DERATION THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 45(2) OF THE ACT IN ACCORDAN CE WITH LAW AFTER GIVING AN ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE IN THE LIGHT OF THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY TH E ASSESSEE BEFORE US. GROUND NO.8 OF GROUNDS OF APPEA L IS ALLOWED WITH THE ABOVE OBSERVATIONS. 10. ALL OTHER GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSES SEE EXCEPT GROUND NO.8 ARE DISMISSED. ITA NO.76/MDS/2013 (REVENUE APPEAL):- 11. IN THIS APPEAL THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLL OWING GROUNDS:- 1. THE ORDER OF THE CIT (APPEALS)-I COIMBATORE IS AGAINST THE LAW AND FACTS OF THE CASE. ITA NO.2256 /MDS/2012 ITA NO.76 & 7 9/MDS/2013 & CO.NO.108/MDS/2013 11 2. THE CIT (APPEALS)-I COIMBATORE HAS ERRED IN DIRECTING THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO RESTRICT THE LEV Y OF BUSINESS INCOME TO THE EXTENT OF ` 17 62 50 000/- WHEN THE PROPERTY WAS SOLD AND REGISTERED TO THE TUNE OF ` 20 25 00 000/-. 3. FOR THESE AND OTHER GROUNDS THAT MAY BE ADDUCED AT THE TIME OF HEARING THE ORDER OF THE CI T (APPEALS)-I MAY BE CANCELLED AND THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BE RESTORED. 12. IN RESPECT OF THESE GROUNDS THE COUNSEL FOR TH E ASSESSEE FAIRLY CONCEDES THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NO SERIOUS OBJECTION IN ALLOWING THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE AS THE SALE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 WAS ` 20 25 00 000/-. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES WE ALLOW THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE. ITA NO.79/MDS/2013 & C.O.NO.108/MDS/2013:- 13. IN THIS APPEAL THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDI TION IN RESPECT OF TRANSFER OF PROPERTY UNDER THE HEAD BUSI NESS INCOME PROTECTIVELY. AS WE HAVE SUSTAINED THE ADDIT ION IN THE CASE OF M/S. ESSORPE MILLS LTD. WHERE SUBSTANTIAL A DDITION WAS ITA NO.2256 /MDS/2012 ITA NO.76 & 7 9/MDS/2013 & CO.NO.108/MDS/2013 12 MADE WE DISMISS THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE AS WELL AS THE CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. 14. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO.2256/MDS/2012 IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IN ITA NO.76/MDS/2013 IS ALLOWED WHEREAS THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IN ITA NO.79/MDS/ 2013 AND CROSS OBJECTION NO.108/MDS/2013 OF THE ASSESSE E ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THURSDAY TH E 11 TH DAY OF JULY 2013 CHENNAI. SD/- S D/- (DR. O.K.NARAYANAN) (CHALLA NAG ENDRA PRASAD) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER CHENNAI DATED THE 11 TH JULY 2013. SOMU COPY TO: (1) ASSESSEE (4) CIT(A) (2) A.O. (5) D.R. (3) CIT (6) G.F.