ACIT, Madurai v. Sri S.P.Sanjai, Madurai

ITSSA 43/CHNY/2007 | misc
Pronouncement Date: 03-01-2011 | Result: Partly Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 4321716 RSA 2007
Assessee PAN ADWPS5151K
Bench Chennai
Appeal Number ITSSA 43/CHNY/2007
Duration Of Justice 3 year(s) 9 month(s) 28 day(s)
Appellant ACIT, Madurai
Respondent Sri S.P.Sanjai, Madurai
Appeal Type Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
Pronouncement Date 03-01-2011
Appeal Filed By Department
Order Result Partly Allowed
Bench Allotted B
Tribunal Order Date 03-01-2011
Date Of Final Hearing 08-12-2010
Next Hearing Date 08-12-2010
Assessment Year misc
Appeal Filed On 06-03-2007
Judgment Text
INCOMETAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL: B- BENCH:CHENNAI (BEFORE SHRI U.B.S.BEDI JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE. ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) IT(SS)A NO.43 / MDS/07 BLOCK ASST. YEARS 1991-92 TO 2000-01 & 2001-02 (PAR T) THE ACIT CENTRAL.CIR.II(4) MADURAI VS SHRI S.P SANJAI NO.5 MANJANKARA ST. MADURAI 625001 PAN ADWPS5151K (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: RESPONDENT BY: SHRI P.B.SEKARAN CIT-DR SHRI T.N.SEETHARAMAN ORDER PER ABRAHAM P.GEORGE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ON A MISC. PETITION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE THIS TR IBUNAL HAD HELD ON 04-12-2009 THAT WHILE DISPOSING OF THIS APPEAL ORI GINALLY TRIBUNAL HAD INADVERTENTLY FAILED TO CONSIDER FACTS ON AN ISSUE REGARDING ADDITION MADE FOR UNEXPLAINED JEWELLERY. PURSUANT TO THIS ORDER THIS APPEAL WAS POSTED FOR HEARING TODAY FOR THE LIMITED PURPOSE OF HEARIN G THE ISSUE RELATING TO THIS ADDITION. WHEN THE APPEAL WAS TAKEN UP FOR LD. D R SUBMITTED THAT WHAT WAS LEFT OUT FOR ADJUDICATION BY THE TRIBUNAL WAS G ROUND NO.3 RELATING TO AN ITA(SS)NO 43/MDS/07 2 ADDITION MADE TOWARDS UN EXPLAINED JEWELLERY WHICH WAS RESTRICTED BY THE CIT(A) TO ` 1 03 378/-. 2. SHORT FACTS APROPOS ARE THAT THERE WAS A SEARCH PROCEEDINGS CONDUCTED IN THE PREMISES OF ONE SHRI R.V.DESHMUKH ALONGWITH THAT OF THE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE AND HIS BROTHER SHRI S.P.K ARTHIK ON THE BASIS OF THE WARRANT DATED 17-11-20200. SUBSEQUENT TO THE SE ARCH BLOCK ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WERE INITIATED AGAINST THE A SSESSEE. RETURN FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE DECLARIN G UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF ` 80 240/-. DURING THE SEARCH IT SEEMS GOLD JEWELLERY WEIGHING 3139.900 GRAMS WERE FOUND ALONGWITH CERTAIN OTHER RECORDS IN THE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE. AS PER THE PANCHNAMA THE JEWELLERY BELONG ED TO THE FOLLOWING PERSONS IN QUANTITY MENTIONED AGAINST THEIR RESPECT IVE NAMES: SMT.KALADEVI -WIFE OF THE ASSESSEE. 1769.10 GMS . SMT. S.P.GEETHA MOTHER OF THE ASSESSEE 1219.00 SMT.PADMASINI- MOTHER OF SMT. S.P.GEETHA 52.00 SMT.PRAHARSHITA W/O SRI HIRALAL- SISTER-IN-LAW O F SMT. S.P.GEETHA 109.80 HOWEVER ON ACTUAL WEIGHMENT AS PER THE AO THE JE WELLERY BELONGING TO ASSESSEES WIFE SMT. KALADEVI CAME TO 1751.95 GRAMS ONLY. IT SEEMS 35.05 CARETS OF DIAMOND JEWELLERY WERE ALSO AS PER THE AO EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE AS BELONGING TO HIS WIFE. ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE FOR ACQUIRING 1751.95 GRAMS OF GOLD JEWE LLERY AND 35.05 CARETS ITA(SS)NO 43/MDS/07 3 OF DIAMOND BELONGING TO HIS WIFE SMT. KALADEVI. ASS ESSEE GAVE EXPLANATION FOR THE SOURCE FOR THE SOURCE OF 2053.1 00 GMS. OF GOLD JEWELLERY FOR ACCORDING TO HIM 284 GMS. OF SUCH JEWELLERY EARLIER STATED TO BE A PART OF THE HOLDING BELONGING TO HIS MOTHER SMT.S.P. GEETHA WAS ACTUALLY THAT OF HIS WIFE SMT.S.S.KALADEVI. OUT OF THIS 2053 100 GMS. EXPLANATION GIVEN FOR 1260 GM. WAS AS FOLLOWS: RECEIVED FROM WHOM (1) OCCASION OF RECEIPT (2) REFERENCE (3) JEWELLERY (4) GOLD DIAMOND (GMS) (CARETS) PARENTS-IN-LAW S.P SANJAYS MARRIAGE AS PER Q.NO.2 OF SWORN STATEMENT DT. 27-02-2001 400 10 PARENTS-IN-LAW TWO SONS BIRTHDAYS AS PER Q.NO.2 OF SWORN STATEMENT DT. 27-02-2001 80 1 PARENTS-IN-LAW WIFES VALAIKAPPU AS PER Q.NO.2 OF SWORN STATEMENT DT. 27-02-200 32 .. PARENTS S.P.SANJAIS MARRIAGE AS PER Q.NO.3 OF SWORN STATEMENT DT.27-02-2001 320 12 FRIENDS AND RELATIVES S.P.SANJAIS MARRIAGE AS PER Q.NO. 4 OF SWORN STATEMENT DT. 27-02-2001 40 .. MOTHER TWO SONS BIRTHDAYS AS PER Q.NO.5 OF SWORN STATEMENT DT. 27-02-2001 48 .. .. PURCHASES DURING 1998-99 AS PER Q.NO. 8 OF SWORN STATEMENT DT. 27-02-2001 40 .. .. PURCHASES FROM 7/2000 TO 5-01- 2001 AS PER Q.NO.8 OF SWORN STATEMENT DT. 27-02-2001 300 .. TOTAL 1260 23 3. VIS--VIS THE ABOVE EXPLANATION AO WAS OF THE O PINION THAT PURCHASES OF 300 GMS. STATED TO HAVE BEEN MADE DUR ING THE PERIOD 07-02- ITA(SS)NO 43/MDS/07 4 2000 TO 05-01-2001 WAS NOT PROVED. OR IN OTHER WORD S THE AO ACCEPTED THE SOURCE FOR 960 GMS. OF GOLD JEWLLERY AND 23 CAR ETS OF DIAMOND GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE. AO THEREFORE CONSIDERED THAT OUT OF 1 751.95 GMS. EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE AS BELONGING TO HIS WIFE AT THE T IME OF SEARCH 960 GMS. WAS SUBSTANTIATED LEAVING A BALANCE OF 791.95 GMS. OF GOLD JEWELLERY. FROM THIS 791.95 GRMS AO FURTHER DEDUCTED 40 GMS. O F GOLD JEWELLERY ADMITTED AS PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE STATE MENT FILED ALONGWITH HIS BLOCK ASSESSMENT RETURN AND FINALLY CONCLUDED T HAT THE ASSESSEE WAS UNABLE TO EXPLAIN 751.95 GMS. OF GOLD. SIMILARLY AG AINST 35.05 CARETS OF DIAMOND JEWELLERY AO ACCEPTED EXPLANATION FOR 23 C ARETS LEAVING A BALANCE OF 12.05 CARETS. THESE WERE CONSIDERED AS U NDISCLOSED INVESTMENT VALUED AT ` 5 86 145/- AND ADDITION MADE. 4. IN HIS APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) ARGUMENT OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT HE WAS REQUIRED TO EXPLAIN POSSESSION OF TOTAL 2053 .100 GMS. OF GOLD JEWELLERY AND 39.05 CARETS OF DIAMOND JEWELLERY AGA INST 1751.95 GRMS GOLD AND 35.05 CARETS OF DIAMOND JEWELLERY CONSIDERED BY THE AO. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE THE DIFFERENCE WAS ON ACCOUNT OF MIST AKEN IDENTIFICATION OF JEWELLERY BELONGING TO ASSESSEES WIFE AS THAT OF H IS MOTHER SMT.S P.GEETHA. AS PER THE ASSESSEE SOME PART OF T HE GOLD AND DIAMOND JEWELLERY EARLIR STATED AS BELONGING TO HIS MOTHER SMT. S.P.GEETHA ACTUALLY BELONGED TO HIS WIFE. IT WAS EXPLAINED BY THE ASSES SEE THAT HE WAS HAVING ITA(SS)NO 43/MDS/07 5 POSSESSION OF ANCESTRAL JEWELLERY RECEIVED FROM HIS GRAND PARENTS NAMELY SRI M.K.RAJAGOPALIAR SMT.S.R.THANGAMANI AMMAL. FUR THER ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE SUCH GOLD JEWELLERY POSSESSED BY HIS F OREFATHERS WERE SHOWN IN THE ESTATE DUTY AND WEALTH-TAX ASSESSMENTS OF THE RESPECTIVE PERSON. ASSESSEES ARGUMENT WAS THAT 2432.40 GMS. OF GOLD AND 40.75 CT. OF DIAMOND JEWELLERY WERE RECEIVED FROM FOREFATHERS . IT WAS BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF CIT(A) THAT A LETTER WAS FILED BEFORE AO ALONGWITH EVIDENCE FOR POSSESSION OF SUCH JEWELLERY BY LATE S.R.THANGAMANI AMMAL LATE M.K.RAJAGOPALIAR AND LATE S.S.RANGACHARI FOREFATHE RS OF THE ASSESSEE. LD. CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE EXPLANATION OF TH E ASSESSEE WAS OF THE OPINION THAT ASSESSEE WAS ACTUALLY REQUIRED TO EXPL AIN 1035.95 GMS. OF GOLD AND 17.05 CT. OF DIAMOND JEWELLERY. THESE FIGU RES WERE ARRIVED BY HIM BASED ON THE QUANTUM OF GOLD JEWELLERY COMING TO 75 1.95 GMS. CONSIDERED BY THE AO AS UNEXPLAINED AND AGGREGATING IT WITH 28 4 GMS. OF GOLD JEWELLERY WHICH EARLIER ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED TO BEL ONG TO HIS MOTHER SMT.S.P GEETHA. SIMILARLY FOR DIAMOND JEWELLERY AL SO ACCORDING TO THE LD.CIT(A) ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO EXPLAIN L7.05 CT . AGAINST 12.05 CT. CONSIDERED BY THE AO THE DIFFERENCE BEING 5 CT. EA RLIER EXPLAINED TO BE THAT OF SMT. S.P. GEETHA BUT LATER STATED BY THE ASSESSE E AS BELONGING TO HIS WIFE. LL. CIT(A) WAS OF THE OPINION THAT ASSESSEE A ND HIS BROTHER SHRI S.P. KARTHIK WERE LEGAL HEIRS OF SRI M.K.RAJAGOPALIAR S MT.S.R.THANGAMANI AMMAL AND SRI PREMMOHAN AND THEREFORE THERE WAS NO NECESSITY OF ANY ITA(SS)NO 43/MDS/07 6 CLINCHING EVIDENCE FOR PROVING THE RECEIPT OF JEWE LLERY FROM FOREFATHERS IN VIEW OF THE ESTATE DUTY AND WEALTH-TAX RETURNS FILE D BY SUCH PERSONS . HOWEVER ACCORDING TO HIM ASSESSEE COULD NOT CLAIM THAT ALL THE JEWELLERY OF HIS FOREFATHERS WERE RECEIVED BY HIM SINCE A PA RT OF IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN HELD BY THE SPOUSES OF THE RESPECTIVE PERSONS AND G IVEN OFF TO OTHER PERSONS. HE THEREFORE DIRECTED THE AO TO ACCEPT 6 00 GMS. OF GOLD JEWELLERY OUT OF CLAIMED 2432.40 GMS. AND 15 CT. OF DIAMOND JEWELLERY OUT OF 40.75 CT. AS RECEIVED FROM THE FOREFATHERS. FOR THE 300 GMS. CONSIDERED BY THE AO AS PURCHASES FOR WHICH NO EVIDENCE WAS F ILED LD.CIT(A) WAS OF THE OPINION THAT THESE WERE EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESS EE AS TO HAVE BEEN MADE OUT OF ADVANCE MONEY OF ` .50 LAKHS RECEIVED BY HIM FOR SALE OF A PROPERTY. IN THE RESULT AGAINST THE GOLD JEWELLERY OF 1035.900 GMS. AND DIAMONDS OF 17.05 CARETS 900 GMS. AND 15 CARETS RE SPECTIVELY WERE CONSIDERED AS EXPLAINED BY THE LD. CIT(A) LEAVING A BALANCE OF 135.90 GRAMS OF GOLD JEWELLERY AND 2.05 CARETS OF DIAMON D JEWELLERY. RESULT WAS THAT ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF 135.900 GRAMS OF U NEXPLAINED GOLD JEWELLERY AND 2.05 CT. OF DIAMOND JEWELLERY WERE SUSTAINED BY THE LD. CIT(A). CONSEQUENTLY THE ADDITION TOWARDS UNEXPLAINED JEWEL LERY WAS WHITTLED DOWN TO ` 1 03 378/- AGAINST ` 5 86 145/- ORIGINALLY MADE BY THE AO. 5. NOW BEFORE US THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT NO EVID ENCE WHATSOEVER WAS BROUGHT OUT BY THE ASSESSEE FOR PURCHASE OF 300 GMS. OF GOLD ITA(SS)NO 43/MDS/07 7 JEWELLERY DURING THE PERIOD FEBRUARY 2000 TO JANUAR Y 2001. ACCORDING TO HIM CIT(A) HAS JUST TAKEN A PRESUMPTION THAT ASSES SEE WAS LEFT WITH SUFFICIENT MONEY OF THE SUM OF ` 50 LAKHS RECEIVED BY HIM AS ADVANCE FOR SALE OF LAND. VIS--VIS THE ANCESTRAL JEWELLERY CON SIDERED BY THE CIT(A) LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE THAT SUCH A NCESTRAL JEWELLERY WAS RETAINED IN CUSTODY BY THE SAID PERSONS FOR GIVING IT TO THE ASSESSEE ACCORDING TO HIM THERE WAS NO CLINCHING EVIDENCE I N THIS REGARD AND EVEN IN THE SWORN STATEMENT GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE NOTHIN G WAS STATED ABOUT ANCESTRAL JEWELLERY. 6. PER CONTRA LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE POSSESSIO N OF ANCESTRAL JEWELLERY WAS PROVED BY THE ESTATE DUTY AND WEALTH- TAX RETURN FILED BY THE FOREFATHERS AND ASSESSEE WAS THE SOLE HEIR FOR SUCH ANCESTRAL JEWELLERY. ACCORDING TO HIM CIT(A) AGAINST CLAIM OF 2432 .40 GM. OF GOLD AND 40.75 CT. OF DIAMOND JEWELLERY HAD ACCEPTED ONLY 600 GMS . GOLD AND 15 CT. DIAMOND JEWELLERY AS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE. LD. AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS A CLEAR FINDING BY THE CIT(A) THAT O UT OF ` 50 LAKHS ADVANCE MONEY RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR SALE OF PROPERTY SUFFICIENT AMOUNTS WERE AVAILABLE WITH HIM FOR EXPLAINING PURCHASE OF 300 GRMS. GOLD JEWELLERY. IN OTHER WORDS ACCORDING TO HIM CIT(A) WAS WELL JUSTIFIED IN RESTRICTING THE ADDITION TOWARDS UNEXPLAINED GOLD JEWELLERY OF 135.90 GMS. AND UNEXPLAINED DIAMOND JEWELLERY OF 2.05 CARET. ITA(SS)NO 43/MDS/07 8 7. WE HAVE PERUSED THE ORDERS AND HEARD THE RIVAL S UBMISSIONS. AO AFTER EXAMINING ASSESSEES EXPLANATION FOR 1751.95 GRMS OF GOLD JEWELLERY AND 35.05 CT. OF DIAMOND JEWELLERY AS BELONGING TO HIS WIFE SMT.KALADEVI HAD ACCEPTED SUCH EXPLANATION TO THE EXTENT OF 100 0 GMS AND 23 CT. RESPECTIVELY LEAVING A BALANCE OF 751.95 GRMS. OF GOLD AND 12.05 CT. OF DIAMOND JEWELLERY. AS PER THE CIT(A) THE QUANTUM O F JEWELLERY TO BE EXPLAINED WAS 1035.95 GMS OF GOLD AND 17.05 CARETS OF DIAMOND AGAINST 751.95 GMS. AND 12.05 CARETS RESPECTIVELY CONSIDER ED BY THE AO. FOR THIS HE AGGREGATED 284 GMS. GOLD JEWELLERY AND 5 CARETS OF DIAMOND JEWELLERY EARLIER CLAIMED TO BE THAT OF ASSESSEES MOTHER SMT .S.P. GEETHA BUT LATER CONSIDERED AS PART OF THE JEWELLERY BELONGING TO TH E ASSESSEE. THE AO MADE THE ADDITION FOR A REASON THAT THERE WAS NO CL INCHING EVIDENCE REGARDING JEWELLERY RECEIVED FROM VARIOUS PERSONS M ENTIONED BY THE ASSESSEE. FURTHER ACCORDING TO HIM FOR THE PURCHAS E OF 300 GMS. THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER. THERE IS NO DISPUTE THA T THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED BEFORE THE AO ESTATE DUTY ASSESSMENT OF SRI M.K.RAJAGOPALIAR AND WEATLH-TAX ASSESSMENT OF SMT.S.R.THANGAMANI AMMAL. THE LINEAGE OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH HAS NOT BEEN DISPUTED BY THE REV ENUE RUNS AS UNDER: M.K.RAJAGOPALIAR (HUSBAND) M.K.R.J.THUASIAMMAL( WIFE) ITA(SS)NO 43/MDS/07 9 S.R. THANGAMANI AMMAL (WIFE) SHRI S.S.RANGACHARI (HUSBAND) SHRI PREM MOHAN SMT. S.P. GEETHA (W/O PREM MOHAN ) SONS- SHRI S.P.SANJAI AND SHRI S.P.KARTHIK. CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT 2432.46 GRAMS OF GOL D JEWELLERY AND 40.75 CARETS OF DIAMOND JEWELLERY WERE RECEIVED FROM THE ABOVE PERSONS LD. CIT(A) ACCEPTED 600 GMS. OF GOLD JEWELLERY AND 15 C T. OF DIAMOND JEWELLERY THEREFROM. THE QUESTION IS WHETHER ESTATE DUTY ASSE SSMENT OF M.K.RAJAGOPALIAR AND WEALTH-TAX ASSESSMENT OF S.R.T HANGAMANI AMMAL WERE SUFFICIENT TO COME TO A CONCLUSION THAT JEWELL ERY OWNED BY THEM WERE ALL RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE. GOLD JEWELLERY OF 243 2.46 GMS. DIAMOND JEWELLERY OF 40.75 CARETS WERE REFLECTED IN THE EST ATE DUTY AND WEALTH-TAX ASSESSMENTS OF THE MENTIONED PERSONS WHICH POSITIO N IS MENTIONED BY THE CIT(A) AT PAGE 24 OF HIS ORDER AND NOT REBUTTED BY THE REVENUE. HOWEVER IN OUR OPINION JUST BECAUSE THE FOREFATHERS OF THE ASSESSEE WERE HAVING JEWELLERY IN THEIR CUSTODY IT COULD NOT MEAN THAT ALL SUCH JEWELLERY WOULD HAVE BEEN RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE AND HIS BROTHER. ASSESSEE ALONGWITH HIS BROTHER COULD HAVE IN ALL PROBABILITY RECEIVED SOME PART THEREOF BUT TO PRESUME THAT THE WHOLE OF IT WOULD HAVE COME TO THE M IS FALLACIOUS. EVEN IF WE PRESUME THAT THE FOREFATHERS ALL ALONG HELD ALL THE JEWELLERY AND GAVE IT ITA(SS)NO 43/MDS/07 10 AWAY TO THE ASSESSEE AND HIS BROTHER THEY COULD HA VE RECEIVED IS 1216.23 GRAMS GOLD JEWELERY AND 20.375 CT. OF DIAMOND EACH. IN OUR OPINION CIT(A) HAD CONSIDERED ALMOST 50% OF THE ABOVE AS RE CEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE. TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE LAPSE OF TIME IN BETWEEN THE VARIOUS GENERATIONS INVOLVED WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT P ROBABLE DISPOSAL OF JEWELLERY BY THE FOREFATHERS OF THE ASSESSEE COULD NEVER BE RULED OUT. AT THE BEST THE ASSESSEE WOULD HAVE RECEIVED 1/4TH OF THE TOTAL POSSIBLE QUANTITY OF 1215.20 GMS. OF GOLD JEWELLERY AND 20.3 75 CT. OF DIAMOND JEWELLERY. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE ANCESTRAL GOLD JEWELLERY WHICH ASSESSEE COULD HAVE RECEIVED COULD BE ESTIMATED AT 300 GMS OF GOLD JEWELLERY AND 10 CT. O F DIAMOND JEWELLERY. 8. VIS--VIS THE PURCHASE OF JEWELLERY OF 300 GMS. CLAIMED TO BE MADE OUT OF BALANCE MONEY WITH THE ASSESSEE FROM ADVANCE OF ` 50 LAKHS RECEIVED EARLIER BY HIM FROM THE PROPOSED SALE OF P ROPERTY WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE FOR THE PURCHASE. NEVERTHELESS IN OUR OPINION IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE WE CAN CONSIDER THAT 150 GRMS. OF GOLD JEWELLERY TO HAVE BEEN PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE OUT OF THE BALANCES AVAILABLE WITH HIM. TH US OUT OF THE TOTAL GOLD JEWELLERY OF 1035.95 GMS. WE CAN CONSIDER 450 GMS. TO HAVE BEEN EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE LEAVING A BALANCE OF 585 .95 GMS. AS UNEXPLAINED. SIMILARLY AGAINST 12.05 CT. OF DIAMOND JEWELLERY WE CAN ITA(SS)NO 43/MDS/07 11 CONSIDER 10 CT. AS EXPLAINED LEAVING A BALANCE OF 2.05 CARETS AS UNEXPLAINED. AO IS DIRECTED TO MAKE ADDITIONS ON T HESE LINES BASED ON THE SAME METHOD OF VALUATIONS AS DONE EARLIER. ORDERED ACCORDINGLY. GROUND NO.3 OF THE REVENUE IS ALLOWED TO THE EXTENT CITED ABOVE. 9. IN THE RESULT APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS PARTLY A LLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 03 -01-2011. SD/- SD/- ( U.B.S.BEDI) (ABRAHAM P. GEORGE) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER CHENNAI: 3 RD JANUARY 2011. NBR CC: ASSESSEE/ ASSESSING OFFICER/ CIT(A)/ CIT/ D .R/ GUARD FILE. ITA(SS)NO 43/MDS/07 12