Kochar Realtors (P) Ltd., CHENNAI v. ITO, CHENNAI

ITA 51/CHNY/2011 | 2006-2007
Pronouncement Date: 24-10-2013 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 5121714 RSA 2011
Assessee PAN AACCK0354Q
Bench Chennai
Appeal Number ITA 51/CHNY/2011
Duration Of Justice 2 year(s) 9 month(s) 12 day(s)
Appellant Kochar Realtors (P) Ltd., CHENNAI
Respondent ITO, CHENNAI
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 24-10-2013
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted C
Tribunal Order Date 24-10-2013
Date Of Final Hearing 09-10-2013
Next Hearing Date 09-10-2013
Assessment Year 2006-2007
Appeal Filed On 12-01-2011
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH : CHENNAI [BEFORE DR. O.K. NARAYANAN VICE-PRESIDENT AND SHRI S. S. GODARA JUDICIAL MEMBER] I.T.A.NO.51/MDS/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07 M/S KOCHAR REALTORS PVT. LTD 18/21 COATS ROAD T. NAGAR CHENNAI 600 017 VS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER COMPANY CIRCLE II(4) CHENNAI [PAN AACCK 0354Q ] (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI T. BANUSEKAR CA RESPONDENT BY : SMT. ALKA RAJVASHI JAIN CIT DATE OF HEARING : 09-10-2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 28-10-2013 O R D E R PER S.S.GODARA JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSM ENT YEAR 2006-07 IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMI SSIONER OF INCOME- TAX CHENNAI-I DATED 27.102010 PASSED IN C.NO.218 (35)/CIT- I/263/2010-11 IN PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT). I.T.A.NO.51/11 :- 2 -: 2. AT THE OUTSET THE ASSESSEE INVITES OUR ATTENTION TO ITS CONDONATION PETITION IN THE SHAPE OF AFFIDAVIT AND SUBMITS THAT THE INSTANT APPEAL IS TIME BARRED BY DELAY OF 13 DAYS I N FILING. AS PER THE ASSESSEE DELAY IN QUESTION IS NEITHER INTENTIONAL OR DELIBERATE BUT BECAUSE OF DELAY IN COLLECTING DOCUMENTS ETC. THE REVENUE HAS NOT VERY SERIOUSLY OPPOSED THE CONTENTS OF THE AFFIDAVI T. ACCORDINGLY THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL OF 13 DAYS STANDS CONDON ED. 3. COMING TO MERITS IT HAS BEEN VEHEMENTLY ARGUED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE CIT HAS ERRED IN REVISING THE REGULAR ASSESSMENT FINALIZED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER VIDE ORDER UNDER CHALLENGE. IT SUBMITS THAT THE CIT HAS TRAVERSED BEYOND THE REAS ONS SPECIFIED IN SECTION 263 SHOW CAUSE NOTICE. THE ASSESSEE HAS A LSO STATED THAT THE ORDER IN QUESTION PASSED BY THE CIT REVISING THE A SSESSMENT IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN THE EYES OF LAW. TO BUTTRESS THE AF ORESAID CONTENTIONS PAPER BOOKS COMPILATION OF CASE LAW ETC. HAVE BEE N FILED (WHICH WOULD BE DEALT WITH IN THE SUCCEEDING PARAGRAPHS). 4. IN REPLY THE CONTENTION OF THE REVENUE IS THAT THE CIT HAS RIGHTLY REVISED THE REGULAR ASSESSMENT IN QUESTIO N FRAMED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER SINCE THE SAME WAS ERRONEOUS CAU SING PREJUDICE TO I.T.A.NO.51/11 :- 3 -: THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. IN SUPPORT IT CITES CASE LAW OF S. MANICKAVASAGAM VS. ITO [2010] 3 ITR (TRIB) 304(CHEN NAI) AND [1991] 192 ITR 365(CAL) CIT VS ARVIND INVESTMENTS LTD. IN LIGHT THEREOF REJECTION OF THE APPEAL HAS BEEN PRAYED FOR. 5. THE ASSESSEE IS A COMPANY ENGAGED IN REAL ESTATE BUSINESS. FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR IT HAD FILED ITS RETURN ON 20.11.2006 DECLARING INCOME OF ` 1 52 60 223/-. THE SAME COMPRISED OF SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAINS FROM SHARES/EQUITIES AM OUNTING TO ` 1 32 09 415/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FINALIZED RE GULAR ASSESSMENT VIDE ORDER DATED 10.11.2008 TREATING THE ASSESSEE S EARNING FROM EQUITIES AFORESAID AS INVESTMENT AND COMPUTED GRO SS TOTAL INCOME AT ` 1 53 10 891/-. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PREFER ANY A PPEAL AGAINST THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER THEREAFTER ISSUED RECTIFICATION NOTICE DATED 8.2.2010 U/S 154 OF THE ACT FOR THE REASON THAT THE AFORESAID SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAINS DECLARE D BY THE ASSESSEE WERE LIABLE TO BE TAXED @ 30% AS AGAINST 10% BEING IN THE NATURE OF BUSINESS INCOME. IN RESPONSE THE ASSESSEE FILE D REPLY DATED 15.2.2010 CONTESTING THE PROPOSAL OF RECTIFICATION BY EMPHASIZING THAT THE INCOME IN QUESTION IN THE NATURE OF SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAINS COULD NOT HAVE BEEN TREATED UNDER THE HEAD BUSINESS INCO ME. ON THE OTHER I.T.A.NO.51/11 :- 4 -: PROPOSAL QUA TREATMENT OF SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAINS AS SPECULATIVE TRANSACTIONS THE ASSESSEES PLEA WAS THAT SECTIO N 43(5) OF THE ACT DID NOT APPLY TO ITS CASE AT ALL. IT IS TO BE SEEN FR OM THE CASE FILE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER THEREAFTER NEITHER EXPRESSLY AC CEPTED OR REJECTED THE REPLY SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE. 6. COMING TO THE IMPUGNED PROCEEDINGS THE CIT ON 28. 9.2010 ISSUED IMPUGNED NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE PROPOSING T O INVOKE REVISIONARY JURISDICTION FOR THE REASONS STATED AS UNDER: SUB: INCOME-TAX ASSESSMENT ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-0 7 YOUR OWN PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 263 REG ARDING .. THE ASSESSMENT IN YOUR CASE FOR THE CAPTIONED ASSES SMENT YEAR WAS COMPLETED ON 10.11.2008 U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT 1961 ASSESSING THE INCOME AT ` 1 53 10 891/-. YOU HAD OFFERED AN INCOME OF ` 1 32 09 415/- BEING THE SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN ON SALE OF SHARES. THIS NEEDS TO BE TAXED AT 30% AS AGAINST 10% TAX WORKED OUT BY YOU AS YOU ARE EN GAGED IN BUSINESS OF REAL ESTATE AND ONLY IN THE CURRENT YEA R YOU HAD ENTERED INTO TRANSACTIONS OF EQUITIES. PROFIT EARNED BY YO U NEEDS TO BE TREATED AS SPECULATIVE BUSINESS. YOU ARE THEREFORE REQUESTED TO SHOW CAUSE AS TO W HY THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 263 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT 19 61 SHOULD NOT BE INVOKED IN RESPECT OF THE ASSESSMENT COMPLETED BY T HE AO. A HEARING IN THE MATTER IS FIXED ON 11.10.2010 AT 11. 30 AM IN MY OFFICE. YOU MAY FURNISH YOUR WRITTEN REPLY ON OR BEFORE THE SAID DATE IN WRITING OR YOU MAY ALSO APPEAR THROUGH A DULY AUTHORIZED RE PRESENTATIVE ON THE SAID DATE OF HEARING. I.T.A.NO.51/11 :- 5 -: THIS TIME AS WELL THE ASSESSEE CONTESTED THE REVI SION PROPOSAL BY THE CIT JUSTIFYING THE ASSESSMENT FINALIZED BY THE ASSE SSING OFFICER TREATING THE RETURNS FROM EQUITIES AS SHORT TERM CA PITAL GAINS. WE NOTICE FROM THE ORDER UNDER CHALLENGE THAT THE CIT HAS REJECTED THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE. SINCE THE FIRST AND FOREMOST PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE CIT HAS TRAVERSED BEYOND THE R EASONS STATED IN THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE WE DEEM IT APPROPRIATE TO R EPRODUCE BELOW THE OPERATIVE PART OF THE ORDER UNDER CHALLENGE: I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE. I AM OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE'S REP LY CANNOT BE ACCEPTED. AS PER THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT FOR TH E YEAR ENDED 31.3.2006 THE ASSESSEE HAD OFFERED THE FOLLOWING I NCOME. PROFIT ON SALE OF INVESTMENTS ` 1 32 96 988 INTEREST INCOME ` 26 97 366 DIVIDEND INCOME ` 13 300 THE BALANCE SHEET FOR THE YEAR ENDED 31.3.0 5 AND 31.3.06 SHOWED ` .1 66 670 AND ` 12 54 840 RESPECTIVELY AS INVESTMENTS IN EQUITY SHARES. THE ASESSEE DURING THE CURRENT Y EAR HAD MADE A PROFIT OF ` 1 32 96 988. THE ASSESSEES MAIN LINE OF BUSINESS IS DEALING IN REAL ESTATE DEALS. ASSESSEE IN HIS LETTER DT 7.11.08 IN POINT NO.12 STATED AS FOLLOWS: 'THE COMPANY HAS EQUITY CAPITAL WHICH IS IDEAL FUND FOR THE TIME BEING WHICH IT DEPLOYS IN AN AREA WHERE TH EY ARE SURE OF MAKING SOME PROFITS (WITHOUT ANY RISK TO CAPITAL AND AT ASSURED RATE OF RETURNS) THE PROFIT SO MADE WILL HELP THE COMPANY TO MEET ITS REGULAR MINIMUM EXPENDITURE THERE BY REDUCING THE BUSINESS LOSSES TO AN EXTENT' . I.T.A.NO.51/11 :- 6 -: IN BOARD'S CIRCULAR NO. 4 OF 2007 DATED 15.6.2007 THE CBDT HAVE CULLED OUT THE FOLLOWING PRINCIPLES TO BRING O UT THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE SHARES HELD AS STOCK IN TRADE AND SHARE S HELD AS INVESTMENT. I) WHERE A COMPANY PURCHASES AND SELLS SHARES IT M UST BE SHOWN THAT THEY WERE HELD AS STOCK-IN-TRADE AND THA T EXISTENCE OF THE POWER TO PURCHASE AND SELL SHARES IN THE MEMORANDUM OF ASSOCIATION IS NOT DECISIVE OF THE NA TURE OF TRANSACTION; (II) THE SUBSTANTIAL NATURE OF TRANSACTIONS THE MA NNER OF MAINTAINING BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS THE MAGNITUDE OF PUR CHASES AND SALES AND THE RATIO BETWEEN PURCHASES AND SALES AND THE HOLDING WOULD FURNISH A GOOD GUIDE TO DETERMINE THE NATURE OF TRANSACTIONS; (III) ORDINARILY THE PURCHASE AND SALE OF SHARES WI TH THE MOTIVE OF EARNING A PROFIT WOULD RESULT IN THE TRA NSACTION BEING IN THE NATURE OF TRADE/ADVENTURE IN THE NATUR E OF TRADE; BUT WHERE THE OBJECT OF THE INVESTMENT IN SHARES OF A COMPANY IS TO DERIVE INCOME BY WAY OF DIVIDEND ETC. THEN THE PROFITS ACCRUING BY CHANGE IN SUCH INVESTMENT ( BY SALE OF SHARES) WILL YIELD CAPITAL GAIN AND NOT REVENUE RECEIPT. TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE ABOVE PRINCIPLES IT IS CLEAR THAT THE PURCHASE OF SHARES MADE BY THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT WITH THE INTENTION OF HOLDING THE SHARES TO EARN THE DIVIDEN D INCOME BUT TO EARN PROFIT BY TRADING IN SHARES. THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE A PROFIT OF THE ORDER OF ` 1.33 CRORES AND THE TURN OVER SHOULD HAVE BEEN OBVIOUSLY VERY HIGH. EVEN TAKING THAT THERE IS 10% APPRECIATION IN THE VALUE OF SHARES THE ASSESSEE SHOULD HAVE BOUGH T SHARES WORTH ` 30 CRORES WHICH INDICATES THE SUBSTANTIAL VALUE OF TRANSACTION. THE BALANCE SHEET FOR THE YEAR ENDED 3 1.3.2006 SHOWS THAT THE INVESTMENT (HOLDINGS) WAS AT ` 12 54 840/- WHICH IS A MEAGRE PERCENTAGE COMPARED TO THE VOLUME OF PU RCHASE AND SALE. THUS THE TEST OF RATIO BETWEEN PURCHASE AND S ALES AND THE HOLDINGS IS ALSO SATISFIED IN THIS CASE TO COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PURCHASED A SHARE FOR EARNING PROFIT BY TRADING IN SHARES AND NOT TO HOLD THE SHARES TO EAR N DIVIDEND INCOME. THE BOARD'S CIRCULAR BEING BINDING ON THE A SSESSING OFFICER THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE ABOVE ASPECTS OF THE MATTER ENUNCIA TED IN THE I.T.A.NO.51/11 :- 7 -: BOARD'S CIRCULAR IS CLEARLY ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICI AL TO THE INTERESTS OF REVENUE. IN ADDITION TO THE ABOVE EXPLANATION TO SEC.73 READS AS UNDER :- 'WHERE ANY PART OF THE BUSINESS OF A COMPANY (OTHER THAN A COMPANY WHOSE GROSS TOTAL INCOME CONS ISTS MAINLY WHICH IS CHARGEABLE UNDER THE HEADS 'INTERES T ON SECURITIES' 'INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY 'CAPITAL GAINS' AND 'INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES' OR A COMPANY THE PRINCIPAL BUSINESS OF WHICH IS THE BUSINESS OF BANKING OR THE GRANTING OF LOANS AND ADVANCES) CONSISTS IN THE PURCHASE AND SALE OF SHARES OF OTHER COMPANIES SUC H COMPANY SHALL FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION BE DEEMED TO BE CARRYING ON A SPECULATION BUSINESS TO THE EXTENT TO WHICH THE BUSINESS CONSISTS OF THE PURCHA SE AND SALE OF SUCH SHARES'. THE ASSESSEE IN THIS CASE IS ENGAGED IN TH E BUSINESS OF REAL ESTATES AND ONLY IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATI ON HAD ENTERED INTO TRANSACTION IN EQUITIES AND ALL THE SH ARES WHICH HAVE BEEN BOUGHT HAVE BEEN SOLD IN THE CURRENT YEAR ITSELF. SINCE THE ASSESSEE'S MAIN LINE OF BUSINESS IS DEALI NG IN REAL ESTATES THE AMOUNT EARNED IN THE TRADING OF SHARES SHOULD BE TREATED AS SPECULATIVE BUSINESS. THIS ASPECT OF THE MATTER HAS ALSO BEEN NOT CONSIDERED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER W HILE PASSING HIS ORDER DATED 10.11.2008. THUS INTERFERENCE U/S.263 IS WARRANTED TO THE EXTENT THE ASSESSING OFFICER H AS FAILED TO CONSIDER THE PROVISIONS OF EXPLANATION TO SEC.73 IN THE ASSESSEES CASE. ACCORDINGLY I WOULD SET ASIDE THE ASSESS MENT ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON 10.11.2008 BY IN VOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 263 AND DIRECT HIM TO PASS A FRE SH ORDER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW KEEPING THE ABOVE POINTS IN HIS MIND BEFORE COMPLETING THE FRESH ORDER. NEEDLESS TO EMPHASIZE THAT THE ASSESSEE SHALL BE GI VEN SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY BEFORE COMPLETING THE FRESH ASSESSMENT. THIS LEAVES THE ASSESSEE AGGRIEVED. I.T.A.NO.51/11 :- 8 -: 7. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH PARTIES AND PERUSED THE CASE LAW . THE CASE LAW COMPILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THAT CITED BY THE REVENUE HAS ALSO BEEN GONE THROUGH. FIRST OF ALL COMING TO THE NOT ICE ISSUED BY THE CIT U/S 263 OF THE ACT CONTENTS OF WHICH HAVE BEEN REP RODUCED HEREINABOVE WE FIND THAT THE FIRST GROUND TAKEN TH EREIN IS THAT ONLY IN THE CURRENT ASSESSMENT YEAR THE ASSESSEE HAD ENTE RED INTO TRANSACTIONS OF EQUITIES. IN THIS REGARD WE NOTIC E FROM THE PAPER BOOK FILED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT PAGES 2 & 3 CONTAI N ASSESSEES RETURN OF INCOME AND ITS COMPUTATION FOR PRECEDING ASSESS MENT YEAR I.E 2005-06. A PERUSAL OF PAGE 3 SPECIFICALLY DEMONSTR ATES THAT IN THE SAID ASSESSMENT YEAR ALSO THE ASSESSEE HAD DECLAR ED SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAINS ON SALE OF SHARES AMOUNTING TO ` 73 07 954/- ROUNDED OFF TO ` 73 07 950/-. THEN COMING TO THE IMPUGNED ASSESSME NT YEAR THE ASSESSEE DECLARED SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAINS OF ` 1 32 09 450/-. IN THE SAME TUNE IN SUCCEEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR AS WELL [A T PAGE 17 OF THE PAPER BOOK] THE ASSESSEE HAD AGAIN DECLARED SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAINS OF ` 16 36 740/-. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER WE HOLD THAT THE FIRST REASON RELIED UPON BY THE CIT THAT ONLY IN THE CURR ENT YEAR THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE INVESTMENT IN EQUITIES GOES CONT RARY TO THE RECORD. WE MAKE IT CLEAR THAT IN THE PRESENT CASE INVOLVES SECTION 263 I.T.A.NO.51/11 :- 9 -: PROCEEDINGS WHEREIN THE LEGALITY THEREOF HAS TO BE DECIDED STRICTLY ON THE BASIS OF REASONS STATED IN THE SHOW CAUSE NOTIC E ONLY. HENCE WE HOLD THAT SINCE THE FIRST REASONING ADOPTED DOES N OT CONFORM TO THE RECORD AVAILABLE IN THE CASE FILE THE JURISDICTION ASSUMED BY THE CIT IS NOT LIABLE TO BE CONCURRED WITH. 8. NOW WE COME TO THE SECOND REASON GIVEN BY THE C IT THAT THE ASSESSEES INCOME FROM SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAINS IS SPECULATIVE BUSINESS. WE NOTICE FROM THE ORDER UNDER CHALLENG E THAT THE ASSESSEES CLARIFICATIONS IN REPLY TO SECTION 263 N OTICE WAS THAT THE RELEVANT STATUTORY PROVISION I.E SECTION 43(5) OF T HE ACT IS NOT APPLICABLE IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE IN STANT CASE SINCE THE SAME APPLIES ONLY IN A CASE NOT INVOLVING ACTUAL D ELIVERY OR TRANSFER OF THE COMMODITY OR SCRIP. UNDISPUTEDLY IN THE INSTA NT CASE THE SHARES IN QUESTION SUBJECT MATTER OF SHORT TERM CAPITAL GA INS INVOLVE ACTUAL DELIVERY AND TRANSFER. THE REVENUE HAS ALSO NOT DI SPUTED THIS FACTUAL POSITION. IT IS REVEALED FROM THE ORDER UNDER CHAL LENGE WHOSE CONTENTS HAVE BEEN REPRODUCED HEREINABOVE THAT THEREAFTER T HE CIT REFERS TO SECTION 73 I.E LOSSES IN SPECULATION BUSINESS. HER EIN ALSO IT IS MADE CLEAR THAT THE SAID ISSUE IS NOWHERE PART OF THE S HOW CAUSE NOTICE. QUOTING CASE LAW RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE OF CI T VS. L.F.DSILVA I.T.A.NO.51/11 :- 10 -: [1991] 192 ITR 547(KAR) WE OBSERVE THAT SINCE THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DID NOT CONTAIN THIS ISSUE RAISED BY THE CIT IN THE ORDER UNDER CHALLENGE THE FINDINGS DO NOT DESERVE TO BE CONFIR MED. SO FAR AS THE CASE LAW CITED BY THE REVENUE IS CONCERNED (SUPRA) WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE BEFORE THE HON'BLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT HAD N OT ARISEN IN SECTION 263 PROCEEDINGS. SIMILARLY IN THE CASE OF S.MANIC KAVASAGAM (SUPRA) THOUGH THE PROCEEDINGS WERE UNDER SECTION 263 THE ISSUE AS TO WHETHER THE SAME DULY FORMED PART OF THE SHOW CAUS E NOTICE DID NOT ARISE UNLIKE IN THE INSTANT CASE. THEREFORE THE S AID JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS DO NOT HELP CAUSE OF THE REVENUE. 9. ONE MORE THING WE NOTICE IN THE INSTANT CASE. THE CONTENTS OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE REPRODUCED HEREINABOVE ON LY DEMONSTRATE THAT THE CIT HAD SOUGHT FOR EXPLANATION OF THE ASS ESSEE AS TO WHY SECTION 263 BE NOT INVOKED. IN OUR VIEW THE SAME DOES NOT CONTAIN THE SATISFACTION OF THE CIT THAT THE ASSESSMENT FIN ALIZED IN ASSESSEES CASE IS ERRONEOUS CAUSING PREJUDICE TO THE INTERES T OF THE REVENUE. WE REITERATE THAT IN SECTION 263 PROCEEDINGS A SH OW CAUSE NOTICE CANNOT BE ISSUED IN A CASUAL FASHION BUT STRICTLY ACCORDING TO LAW AND THAT TOO AFTER DUE APPLICATION OF MIND. IN ADDITI ON TO WHAT IS STATED HEREINABOVE WE ALSO HOLD THAT SINCE THE SHOW CAUS E NOTICE NOWHERE I.T.A.NO.51/11 :- 11 -: MENTIONS ANY ERROR CAUSING PREJUDICE TO THE INTERE ST OF THE REVENUE IT IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN THE EYES OF LAW. 10. THE APPEAL STANDS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON MONDAY THE 28 TH OF OCTOBER 2013 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (DR. O.K. NARAYANAN) VICE-PRESIDENT (S. S. GODARA) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 28 TH OCTOBER 2013 RD COPY TO: APPELLANT/RESPONDENT/CIT(A)/CIT/DR