MIL Industries Limited, CHENNAI v. ACIT, CHENNAI

CO 13/CHNY/2011 | 2003-2004
Pronouncement Date: 29-07-2011 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 1321723 RSA 2011
Assessee PAN AAACM4380Q
Bench Chennai
Appeal Number CO 13/CHNY/2011
Duration Of Justice 6 month(s) 18 day(s)
Appellant MIL Industries Limited, CHENNAI
Respondent ACIT, CHENNAI
Appeal Type Cross Objection
Pronouncement Date 29-07-2011
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted B
Tribunal Order Date 29-07-2011
Date Of Final Hearing 20-07-2011
Next Hearing Date 20-07-2011
Assessment Year 2003-2004
Appeal Filed On 11-01-2011
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHENNAI B BENCH CHENNAI. BEFORE SHRI.U.B.S. BEDI J.M. & SHRI. ABRAHAM P. GE ORGE A.M. W.T.A. NOS.42 43 AND 44/MDS/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2003-04 04-05 AND 05-06 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX COMPANY CIRCLE IV(3) AAYAKAR BHAVAN MAIN BUILDING IV FLOOR 121 M.G. ROAD NUNGAMBAKKAM CHENNAI 600 034 VS. M/S. MIL INDUSTRIES LTD. 25-A INDUSTRIAL ESTATE AMBATTUR CHENNAI 600 098. [PAN:AAACM4380Q] (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) C.O.NOS. 13 14 AND 15/MDS/2011 [IN W.T.A. NOS.42 43 AND 44/MDS/2010] ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2003-04 04-05 AND 05-06 M/S. MIL INDUSTRIES LTD. 25-A INDUSTRIAL ESTATE AMBATTUR CHENNAI 600 098. VS. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX COMPANY CIRCLE IV(3) CHENNAI 600 034 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY : SHRI P.B. SEKARAN CIT DR ASSESSEE BY : SHRI S. NAGARAJAN CA ORDER PER BENCH THESE 6 MATTERS COMPRISES OF 3 APPEALS OF THE DEPA RTMENT AND SAME NUMBER OF CROSS OBJECTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE FILED AG AINST THE CONSOLIDATED ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) V CHENNAI DATED 27. 09.2010 RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2003-04 04-05 AND 05-06 RESPECTIV ELY. 2. THESE MATTERS INVOLVE COMMON FACTS SIMILAR ISS UES AND RELATES TO SAME ASSESSEE THEREFORE BEING DISPOSED OFF BY THIS SING LE ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. W WW W.T.A. NO .T.A. NO .T.A. NO .T.A. NOS SS S. .. .42 4242 42- -- -44 4444 44/ // /MDS/ MDS/ MDS/ MDS/1 11 10 00 0 & && & C.O.NOS. 13 C.O.NOS. 13 C.O.NOS. 13 C.O.NOS. 13- -- -15/MDS/11 15/MDS/11 15/MDS/11 15/MDS/11 2 3. AT THE VERY OUTSET THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASS ESSEE SUBMITTED HE DOES NOT INTENT TO PRESS THE COS AS INSTRUCTED BY THE A SSESSEE-APPELLANT FOR ALL THE 3 YEARS AND BY MAKING SEPARATE ENDORSEMENT AS NOT PR ESSED AT THE BOTTOM OF MEMORANDUM OF COS IN EACH OF THE CASES HE PLEADED FOR DISMISSAL OF THE COS BEING NOT PRESSED AND TO THIS MOVE OF THE LD. COUNS EL FOR THE ASSESSEE THE LD. DR DID NOT OBJECT. AS SUCH THE COS FOR ALL THE 3 Y EARS ARE DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. 4. FACTS INDICATE THAT DURING THE COURSE OF THE PR EVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 AND 2006-07 THE ASSESSEE H AS SOLD CERTAIN LANDS BELONGING TO THE ASSESSEE SITUATED AT AMBATTUR IN O RDER TO MEET THE FINANCIAL COMMITMENTS TO THE BANKS AND FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS . THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS OF THE VIEW THAT SINCE THE LANDS WERE SOLD BY T HE ASSESSEE THEY ARE TO BE TREATED AS URBAN LAND AND SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAD NO T FILED THE RETURN OF WEALTH FOR THE ABOVE ASSESSMENT YEARS THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER REOPENED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER BY ISSUING A NOTICE UNDER SECTION 17 FOR THE ABOVE ASSESSMENT YEARS. 4.1 IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 17 THE ASSESSEE FILED A RETURN OF WEALTH FOR THE ABOVE ASSESSMENT YEARS RE TURNING THE VALUE OF MOTOR CARS WHICH WERE THE ONLY ASSETS WHICH IN THE OPINI ON WHICH FELL WITHIN THE DEFINITION OF ASSETS AS DEFINED IN THE WEALTH TAX A CT 1957 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS LITHE ACT). THE ASSESSEE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE LANDS SOLD WERE PART OF THE FACTORY THAT WAS BEING USED FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE AND HENCE CANNOT BE SAID TO BE URBAN LAND. THE ASSESSEE ALSO W WW W.T.A. NO .T.A. NO .T.A. NO .T.A. NOS SS S. .. .42 4242 42- -- -44 4444 44/ // /MDS/ MDS/ MDS/ MDS/1 11 10 00 0 & && & C.O.NOS. 13 C.O.NOS. 13 C.O.NOS. 13 C.O.NOS. 13- -- -15/MDS/11 15/MDS/11 15/MDS/11 15/MDS/11 3 SOUGHT A COPY OF THE REASONS RECORDED FOR REOPENING THE ASSESSMENTS. 4.2 THE COPY OF THE REASONS RECORDED FOR REOPENING THE ASSESSMENTS WERE FURNISHED TO THE ASSESSEE AND IN RESPONSE TO THE SA ME THE ASSESSEE FILED DETAILED OBJECTIONS AGAINST THE REOPENING. IN SUPPO RT OF THE ASSESSEE'S CLAIM THAT THE LANDS SOLD WERE BEING USED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE PURPOSE OF ITS BUSINESS THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED A COPY OF THE PLAN APPROVED BY THE CENTRAL EXC.ISE DEPARTMENT WHICH CLEARLY SPECIFIED THE NATU RE OF THE USE TO WHICH THE LANDS SOLD WERE BEING PUT TO PRIOR TO THEIR BEING S OLD. 3.4. THE OBJECTIONS WERE REJECTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER HOLDING THAT THE PLAN CANNOT BE SAID TO BE USAGE OF THE LAND FOR THE PURPOSES AS STATED THEREIN AND HE HAS LEVIED WEALTH TAX ON THE ENTIRE PORTION OF THE LAND HELD BY THE ASSESSEE INCLUDING THE LAND ON WHICH THE FACTORY AN D THE ADMINISTRATIVE AND RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT BLOCK OF THE ASSESSEE IS S ITUATED. 4. AGAINST IMPOSING WEALTH TAX FOR ALL THE 3 ASSES SMENT YEARS THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHOR ITY. THE ASSESSEE BESIDES CHALLENGING REOPENING HAS ALSO CHALLENGED LEVY OF W EALTH TAX RAISING VARIOUS GROUNDS AND THE LD. CIT(A) WHILE HOLDING THAT THE A SSESSMENT FOR ALL THE YEARS HAVE BEEN VALIDLY REOPENED AND REJECTED THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ON THIS GROUND HAS AFTER OBTAINING THE REMAND REPORT OF TH E ASSESSING OFFICER ASSESSEES REPLY TO SUCH REMAND REPORT AND OTHER AR GUMENTS ADVANCED AND DISCUSSING VARIOUS PROVISIONS OF WEALTH TAX ACT AND FACTS OF THE CASE HAS CONCLUDED BY ALLOWING THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE A S PER PARA 20 TO 24. 5. AGAINST SUCH CONCLUSION OF THE LD. CIT(A) ON ME RITS OF THE CASE THE W WW W.T.A. NO .T.A. NO .T.A. NO .T.A. NOS SS S. .. .42 4242 42- -- -44 4444 44/ // /MDS/ MDS/ MDS/ MDS/1 11 10 00 0 & && & C.O.NOS. 13 C.O.NOS. 13 C.O.NOS. 13 C.O.NOS. 13- -- -15/MDS/11 15/MDS/11 15/MDS/11 15/MDS/11 4 DEPARTMENT HAS COME UP IN APPEAL FOR ALL THE 3 YEAR S AND RAISED FOLLOWING EFFECTIVE GROUNDS FROM 2.1 TO 2.8 AS UNDER: 2.1 THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DIRECTING THE ASSE SSING OFFICER TO EXCLUDE THE VALUE OF THE LAND AT AMBATTUR WHILE COM PUTING THE NET WEALTH OF THE ASSESSEE. 2.2 THE LEARNED CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT TH E SALE DEED DESCRIBES THE PROPERTY AS VACANT LAND ONLY. 2.3 IT IS SUBMITTED THAT NO EVIDENCE HAS BEEN FURN ISHED BEFORE THE CIT(A) TO COME TO A CONCLUSION THAT THE LAND SOLD W AS NOT VACANT LAND. 2.4 THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN COMING TO A CO NCLUSION MERELY BASED ON COPIES OF PLANS THAT THE LAND FELL IN THE EXCLUSION CATEGORY OF THE PROVISO TO SECTION 2(EA) OF THE WEALTH TAX ACT. 2.5 IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN HIS REMAND REPORT HAD POINTED OUT THAT THE ASSESSEE'S STAND WAS THAT THE LANDS SOLD CONTAINED ROADS FABRICATION YARDS HYDRAULIC TESTING BAY ETC AND ALSO HAD A BORE WELL WHEREAS THE SALE DEED DESCRIBED THE LAND SOLD AS VACANT LAND. THE LEARNED CIT(A) FAILED TO GIVE A FINDING ON THIS ISS UE AND HAS ACCEPTED THE ASSESSEE'S CONTENTION THAT THEY WERE MOVED TO OTHER PORTIONS OF THE LAND WITHOUT FINDING OUT WHETHER IT WAS ACTUALLY DONE. 2.6 THE LEARNED CIT(A) WHILE STATING THAT IN ANY L AND THE OWNER HAS TO LEAVE A CERTAIN PORTION OF THE IN ACCORDANCE WITH T HE REGULATIONS GOVERNING THE CONSTRUCTION AT THE PLACE OUGHT TO HA VE GIVEN A FINDING BASED ON SUCH REGULATIONS AS TO WHAT EXTENT THE ASS ESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO LEAVE AS VACANT LAND OR SHOULD HAVE AT LEAST DIR ECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO MAKE SUCH VERIFICATIONS. . 2.7 THE LEARNED CIT(A) WHILE STATING THAT THE OWNE R HAS TO PROVIDE PARKING SPACE FOR THE EXECUTIVES VISITORS AND EXEC UTIVES FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE RATIO OF OPEN LAND TO CONSTRUCT ED AREA IN THIS CASE IS 14 TIMES WHICH IS HIGHLY DISPROPORTIONATE. 2.8 IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE DECISION RELIED UPON B Y THE CIT(A) IN THE CASE OF CWT V DCM LTD. (290 ITR 615) (DELHI) WAS RE NDERED IN A DIFFERENT SET OF FACTS IN AS MUCH AS IT DEALT WITH THE CASE WHERE CONSTRUCTION OF A BUILDING WAS NO PERMISSIBLE. 5.1 THE LD. DR WHILE REITERATING THE SUBMISSIONS A S MADE IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL HAS RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING O FFICER AND DISCUSSING W WW W.T.A. NO .T.A. NO .T.A. NO .T.A. NOS SS S. .. .42 4242 42- -- -44 4444 44/ // /MDS/ MDS/ MDS/ MDS/1 11 10 00 0 & && & C.O.NOS. 13 C.O.NOS. 13 C.O.NOS. 13 C.O.NOS. 13- -- -15/MDS/11 15/MDS/11 15/MDS/11 15/MDS/11 5 VARIOUS PROVISIONS OF WEALTH TAX ACT HAS PLEADED T HAT EXCLUSION OF THE PROPERTY PARTICULARLY PROVISO TO SECTION 2(EA) TO C ONTEND THAT LAND IN QUESTION DID NOT FALL IN THE EXCLUSION CATEGORY OF PROVISO T O SECTION 2(EA) OF THE WEALTH TAX ACT. THEREFORE THE LD. CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN ALLOWING RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE BECAUSE THE CONSTRUCTED AREA WAS VERY LESS AS COMPARED TO THE TOTAL AREA OF THE LAND WHICH IS HIGHLY DISPROPORTI ONATE BEING 14 TIMES OF THE CONSTRUCTED AREA. SO FAR AS LAND APPURTENANT TO THE BUILDING IS CONCERNED THIS CANNOT BE SAID TO BE SO BECAUSE AGAINST THE CONSTRU CTED AREA OF BUILDING TO THE EXTENT OF 31100 AND THE TOTAL AREA OF THE LAND IS 4 35 593.75 SQ.FT. SO RELYING UPON THE DECISION AS MENTIONED IN THE GROUN DS OF APPEAL IT WAS PLEADED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS VERY MUCH JU STIFIED IN LEVYING THE WEALTH TAX WHEREAS THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT LEGALLY CORRECT TO EXCLUDE THE LAND INVOLVED AS PER PROVISO TO SECTION 2(EA) OF WEALTH TAX ACT. THEREFORE THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) SHOULD BE SET ASIDE AND THA T OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHOULD BE RESTORED. 6. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE WHILE RELYING UPON THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) HAS PLEADED FOR CONFIRMATION OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER WITH RESPECT TO ALL THE YEARS. HE HAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESS EE IS RUNNING A FACTORY AND PART OF THE FACTORY BUILDING CONSTITUTED VARIOUS BU ILDING AND BY FILING APPROVED SITE FROM SUPERINTENDENT OF CENTRAL EXCISE MADRAS IN WHICH CLEAR DEMARCATION ABOUT THE LAND SOLD HAS BEEN MADE TO SH OW THAT EVERY PART OF THE SUCH SOLD LAND COMPRISE OF BUILDING IN AS MUCH AS E NTRY POINT MARKED IN GREEN AND AT THE STARTING POINT THERE IS SECURITY OFFICE GATE VISITORS CAR PARKING CYCLE W WW W.T.A. NO .T.A. NO .T.A. NO .T.A. NOS SS S. .. .42 4242 42- -- -44 4444 44/ // /MDS/ MDS/ MDS/ MDS/1 11 10 00 0 & && & C.O.NOS. 13 C.O.NOS. 13 C.O.NOS. 13 C.O.NOS. 13- -- -15/MDS/11 15/MDS/11 15/MDS/11 15/MDS/11 6 STAND AND EXECUTIVE CAR PARKING WAS JUST ADJOINING THE OUTER WALL OF THE ROAD AND OTHER BUILDING COMPRISE OF HYDRAULIC TESTING BA Y FABRICATION FINISHING MATERIAL STOCK YARD STEEL PLATES MARKING AND CUTTI NG YARD FABRICATION YARD GANTRY FAB. YARD ETC. BESIDES OFFICE BLOCK AND OTH ER RELATED BUILDINGS. SO THE GROUND OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT IT IS NOT PART OF THE BUILDING OF THE FACTORY IS NOT PROPER AND THE LD. CIT(A) WHILE CONSIDERING ALL THESE FACTS AND MATERIALS ON RECORD HAS COME TO THE CORRECT CONCLUSION TO TRE AT THE LAND SOLD FALLS IN EXCLUSION CLAUSE OF PROVISO TO SECTION 2(EA). THERE FORE THE IMPUGNED ORDER NEEDS CONFIRMATION IT WAS THUS PLEADED FOR CONFIRM ATION OF THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). 7. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES CONSIDERED THE MA TERIAL ON RECORD AND ALSO GONE THROUGH THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF LAW AS WELL AS APPROVED SITE MAP FILED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND COPY PLACED BEFORE US AND FIND THAT THE LD. CIT(A) WHILE CONSIDERING THE PLEA OF THE ASSES SEE IN THE LIGHT OF REMAND REPORT OBTAINED FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND OBJE CTIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE HAS CONCLUDED TO EXCLUDE SUCH LAND FROM TH E DEFINITION OF ASSET AS PER PROVISO TO SECTION 2(EA) OF THE WEALTH TAX ACT. THE RELEVANT PARA FROM 20 TO 24 REPRODUCED AS UNDER: 20. I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE ARGUMENTS OF THE LD AR AND THE REMAND REPORT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND ALSO THE RECORDS AND THE DOCUMENTS BEFORE ME. I FIND THAT THE ARGUMENT OF TH E APPELLANT THAT THE LANDS SOLD DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2005-06 AND 2006-07 CANNOT BE TREATED AS URBAN LAND OR UNUSED LAND HAS SOME FORCE . AS CAN BE SEEN FROM THE PLAN SUBMITTED BEFORE ME AND THE ASSESSING OFFI CER THE LAND WAS PURCHASED BY THE APPELLANT FOR THE PURPOSE OF PUTTI NG UP A FACTORY AT AMBATTUR AND IN FACT THE APPELLANT HAS PUT UP THE F ACTORY AS CAN BE SEEN FROM THE PLAN SUBMITTED. THE PLAN SUBMITTED BY THE APPELLANT CLEARLY INDICATES THE VARIOUS CONSTRUCTION ON THE LAND AT A MBATTUR AS WELL AS THE W WW W.T.A. NO .T.A. NO .T.A. NO .T.A. NOS SS S. .. .42 4242 42- -- -44 4444 44/ // /MDS/ MDS/ MDS/ MDS/1 11 10 00 0 & && & C.O.NOS. 13 C.O.NOS. 13 C.O.NOS. 13 C.O.NOS. 13- -- -15/MDS/11 15/MDS/11 15/MDS/11 15/MDS/11 7 PURPOSE FOR WHICH THE OTHER PORTION OF THE LAND HAV E BEEN EARMARKED INCLUDING THE LANDS SOLD DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 AND 2006-07. 21. I FIND THAT THE ARGUMENT OF THE ASSESSING OFFI CER THAT ONLY 31100 SQ.FT. OF LAND CAN BE SAID TO BE COVERED BY BUILDIN G CONSTRUCTED WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE CONCERNED AUTHORITIES AND THAT THE BALANCE LAND IS TO BE TREATED AS VACANT UNUSED LAND IS MISCONCEIVED. IN A NY LAND THE OWNER HAS TO LEAVE A CERTAIN PORTION OF THE LAND IN ACCORDANC E WITH THE REGULATIONS GOVERNING THE CONSTRUCTION AT THE PLACE WHERE THE L AND SITUATED. IT IS ALSO NECESSARY THAT THE OWNER HAS TO PROVIDE FOR PARKING SPACE FOR THE EXECUTIVES VISITORS AND ALSO FOR THE EMPLOYEES WHI CH IS TRUE IN ALL THE BUILDINGS CONSTRUCTED. 22. EVERY BUILDING HAS TO HA.VE OPEN SPACE FOR THE PROPER ENJOYMENT OF THE BUILDINGS CONSTRUCTED ON THE LAND. IN THIS SENS E THE ARGUMENT OF THE LD AR HAS FORCE THAT ONCE A BUILDING IS CONSTRUCTED ON THE LAND THEN IT CEASES TO BE VACANT LAND AND BECOMES LAND AND BUILD ING. A READING OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2(EA) WOULD MAKE IT CLEAR THA T THE TERM 'URBAN LAND' DOES NOT INCLUDE LAND ON WHICH ANY BUILDING IS CONSTRUCTED. 23. IN THIS CONNECTION IT MAY BE APPROPRIATE TO R EFER TO THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CWT VS. D.C.M.LTD (290 ITR 615) WHEREIN AT PAGE 621 THE SAID HIGH CO URT HAS HELD AS UNDER: 'IN THE MAXIM GENERALIA VERBA SUNT GENERALITER IN TELLIGENDA - IT WOULD BE HELPFUL PRECEPT TO INTERPRETATION OF THE P ROVISIONS WHICH USES THE WORDS OF GENERAL NATURE AND DESPITE THE FA CT THAT IT RELATES TO THE LAW OF REVENUE WOULD HAVE TO BE CONSTRUED GE NERALLY. THE INTENTION OF THE LEGISLATURE APPEARS TO BE THAT LAN D WHICH FALLS WITHIN THE EXCEPTION AFOREREFERRED WOULD HAVE TO BE EXCLUDED FORM THE AMBIT AND SCOPE OF THE EXPRESSION 'URBAN LAND'. ONCE THE LAND OR ANY BUILDING THEREUPON MAKING IT A COMBINATION O F LAND AND BUILDING IS NOT URBAN LAND THEN IT COULD NOT BE AN ASSET AS DEFINED UNDER SECTION 2(EA) OF THE ACT.' 24. IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING PROVISIONS OF LAW AND HAVING REGARD TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE I HOLD THAT TH E ASSESSING OFFICER ERRED IN TREATING THE ENTIRE LAND AS WELL AS THE LA NDS SOLD DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2005-06 AND 2006-07 AS URBAN LAND AND INCLUDING THE SAME IN THE NET WEALTH OF THE APPELLANT. THE ASSESS ING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO EXCLUDE THE VALUE OF THE LAND AT AMBATTUR WHILE COMPUTING THE NET WEALTH OF THE APPELLANT. W WW W.T.A. NO .T.A. NO .T.A. NO .T.A. NOS SS S. .. .42 4242 42- -- -44 4444 44/ // /MDS/ MDS/ MDS/ MDS/1 11 10 00 0 & && & C.O.NOS. 13 C.O.NOS. 13 C.O.NOS. 13 C.O.NOS. 13- -- -15/MDS/11 15/MDS/11 15/MDS/11 15/MDS/11 8 8. FROM THE PERUSAL OF THE CONCLUSION OF THE LD. C IT(A) AS REPRODUCED ABOVE IT IS SEEN THAT HE HAS PASSED A WELL REASONE D ORDER BY CONSIDERING EACH AND EVERY ASPECT OF THE MATTER IN THE LIGHT OF FACT UAL ASPECT WHICH HAS ALSO BEEN PROPERLY DEMONSTRATED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR T HE ASSESSEE BEFORE US WHILE REFERRING TO THE APPROVED SITE MAP OF SUPERIN TENDENT OF CENTRAL EXCISE. NO INFIRMITY OR FLAW HAS BEEN POINTED OUT BY THE LD . DR OR NOTICED BY US IN THE CONCLUSION AS DRAWN BY THE LD. CIT(A). THEREFORE I N VIEW OF THE FACTS CIRCUMSTANCES AND MATERIAL ON RECORD WE CONCUR WIT H THE FINDING AND CONCLUSION OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND UPHOLD HIS ACTION WHILE DISMISSING THE APPEALS OF THE DEPARTMENT BEING DEVOID OF ANY MERITS. 9. AS A RESULT ALL THE THREE APPEALS OF THE DEPAR TMENT ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 29.07.2011. SD/- SD/- (ABRAHAM P. GEORGE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (U.B.S. BEDI) JUDICIAL MEMBER CHENNAI DATED THE 29.07.2011 VM/- TO:THE ASSESSEE//A.O./CIT(A)/CIT/D.R.