Mr.john Baptist Lasrado v. Income Tax Settlement Commission,Additional Bench

Mr.John Baptist Lasrado ...Petitioner Vs. 1.Income Tax Settlement Commission,Additional Bench,No.640, Anna Salai, Nandanam,Chennai – 600 035. 2.Commissioner of Income Tax – VI,No.121, M.G.Road,Chennai – 600 034. 3.The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax,Business Ward – III,No.121, M.G.Road,Chennai – 600 034. ... Respondents Prayer : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamusto call for the records of the Petitioner on the file of thefirst respondent Settlement Commission in S.A.No.TN/CN6/06-06/36/IT dated 06.07.2009 and to quash the impugned Order dated06.07.2009rejectingtheMiscellaneousPetitionandconsequently, directing the first respondent SettlementCommission to delete the levy of interest under Section 234B ofthe Income Tax Act for the block period in question. For Petitioner:Mr.R.SivaramanFor Respondents:Mr.A.P.Srinivas****** The petitioner is an employee of a Multinational Companynamely, M/s.Columbia Sportswear (Inc) of USA, which has aLiaison Office at Chennai. The petitioner Heads the IndianOperations of the aforesaid Company and has been employed in thecompany since 1995-1996 onwards. Part of the salary paid tothe petitioner is received in India and the remaining part ofsalary received outside India. For the salary received in India,Tax was deducted at source by the employer. However, withregard to the salary received by the petitioner outside India,which represents larger portion, the employer did not deducttax at source. Similarly, the petitioner was granted Stockoption by his employer and these shares were listed in AmericanStock Exchange, which were sold by the petitioner on variousdates and after making payment, the Stock Broker had creditedthe net proceeds into his bank account, which was held outsideIndia. For the assessment years 1996-1997 to 2005-2006, thepetitioner had filed his Income Tax Returns disclosing only theamount, he had earned in India as his income which he earnedabroad, was not disclosed in the Income Tax Returns for the saidassessment years. The petitioner approached the firstrespondent viz., the Income Tax Settlement Commission and filedan application for the relevant years, wherein, he had offeredall income, which were earned abroad during the assessment years1996-1997 to 2005-2006, which includes the salary income and theincome through Employees Stock Option. According to thepetitioner, the aggregate income offered for various years worksout to Rs.9,45,27,328/-. The Settlement Commission admitted theapplication by order dated 16.06.2006 and ultimately, by orderdated 05.02.2008, the case was settled accepting theadditional income offered by the petitioner by passing an orderunder Section 245 D (4) of the Act and granting immunity frompenalty and prosecution. In the said order, the SettlementCommission charged interest under Section 234B on the excess ofthe tax assessed over the advance tax paid for all theassessment years. Being aggrieved by the charging of interest,the petitioner filed a miscellaneous petition on 31.12.2008,before the Settlement Commission contending that there was amistake apparent on the face of the record as the petitioner isnot liable for payment of interest under Section 234B of theAct. The said Miscellaneous Petition was rejected by orderdated 05.02.2008, which order is impugned in this Writ Petition. 2. Heard Mr.R.Sivaraman, learned counsel appearing for thepetitioner and Mr.A.P.Srinivas, learned counsel for therespondents. 3. The facts pertaining to the order passed by theSettlement Commission under Section 245 D (4) dated 05.02.2008,insofar as it admits the additional income offered and the tax paid by the petitioner, there is no dispute. The petitioner isaggrieved only with regard to the interest, which was ordered tobe paid under Section 234 B of the Act. 2. Heard Mr.R.Sivaraman, learned counsel appearing for thepetitioner and Mr.A.P.Srinivas, learned counsel for therespondents. 3. The facts pertaining to the order passed by theSettlement Commission under Section 245 D (4) dated 05.02.2008,insofar as it admits the additional income offered and the tax paid by the petitioner, there is no dispute. The petitioner isaggrieved only with regard to the interest, which was ordered tobe paid under Section 234 B of the Act. 4. The petitioner filed a Miscellaneous Petition before theSettlement Commission stating about his employment with theMultinational Company and what was the income earned by himoutside India and to what extent the petitioner offeredadditional income before the Settlement Commission and tax paidthereon. The petitioner further contended that interest underSection 234B is chargeable provided the assessee, is liable topay advance tax under Section 208. Thus, the pre-condition forlevy of interest under Section 234B is liability to pay advancetax under Section 208. Advance tax shall be payable where theamount of such advance payable as computed in accordance withthe provisions of Chapter-XVII is Rs.5000/- or more. It wasfurther submitted that under Section 209, the assessee is toestimate his current income and find out the tax payabletherein, as per sub-clause (1) of Section 209(1). UnderClause (d) of sub - section (1) of Section 209, the income taxcalculated under (a) is to be reduced by the amount of incometax, which would be deductible at source during the saidfinancial year. Therefore, it was stated that the petitionercan take credit of the tax deductible at source. Whether thetax is deductible is to be decided by the employer and not theemployee i.e., the petitioner. Since the employer did notdeduct tax on the said payments received by the petitioner, taxbecame payable by the petitioner. Therefore, the tax payable bythe petitioner cannot exceed the tax deductible at source and insuch a situation, the petitioner is not required to pay anyadvance tax. Therefore, the petitioner contended that interestunder Section 234 B is not chargeable as Section 191 onlyrequires that if the tax is not deducted at source, such incometax shall be payable by the assessee directly. Thus, theliability, which extends to the payment of tax under Section 191do not extend to payment of interest under Section 234 D. Insupport of his contention, the petitioner placed reliance uponthe two decisions of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal reportedin (79 ITD 481) Mitsui Engineering & Ship Building Company Ltd.,dated 28.11.2000 and SNC – Lavalin International Incorporated(2008-TIOL-576-ITAIT-Delhi) dated 29.08.2008. 5. The petitioner further stated that his employer viz.,M/s.Columbia Sportswear Company, abroad has paid the interestfor the default for not deducting TDS under Section 201(1A) tillthe tax payment of the assessee/ petitioner to the Office of theIncome Tax Officer, TDS Ward No.1 (1), Chennai and the charge ofthe interest under Section 234B will result in double taxation. 6. The revenue contended that the non-liability to payadvance tax and payment of interest under Section 201(1A) by theemployer were not raised before the Income Tax SettlementCommission in the proceedings under Section 245D(4) and hence,the petitioner should not be allowed to raise the same, by wayof Miscellaneous Petition as already final order has been passedby the Income Tax Settlement Commission and only mistakes can beamended. 6. The revenue contended that the non-liability to payadvance tax and payment of interest under Section 201(1A) by theemployer were not raised before the Income Tax SettlementCommission in the proceedings under Section 245D(4) and hence,the petitioner should not be allowed to raise the same, by wayof Miscellaneous Petition as already final order has been passedby the Income Tax Settlement Commission and only mistakes can beamended. 7. The Tribunal considered the objection, which appears tobe a preliminary objection raised by revenue regardingmaintainability of miscellaneous petition before the Tribunaland held that the petitioner cannot be prevented from raisingany issue of law apparent from facts before the Income TaxSettlement Commission, which was omitted to be considered by theCommission and in the facts of the case, the issue regardingcurrent income, TDS, assessed tax, liability to advance taxetc., ought to be decided. It further held that since, theliability to interest under Section 234B is based on thesubmission that the petitioner was not liable to advance tax.So far as this finding is concerned, the revenue has not laid achallenge to the same and therefore, before this Court, therevenue is precluded from raising such contention havingaccepted the fact and contested the matter before the SettlementCommission. 8. Therefore, in the absence of any challenge by the revenueindependently to the said finding, this Court cannot entertain achallenge at this stage. Therefore, in this petition this Courthas not examined the maintainability of the petition before theCommission after final order was passed under Section 245D(4)as a need to consider the same, does not arise in the facts andcircumstances of the case. 9.The Settlement Commission rejected the prayer soughtfor by the petitioner by holding that whether the personresponsible for paying salary in foreign currency was a non-citizen, non-resident and hence not amenable to be responsibleunder Section 192 of the Act and the petitioner should reducethe amounts deductible at source from such payments in thecomputation of advance tax, still the petitioner was liable topay advance tax under section 208 read with section 209 of theAct. This was because, the petitioner was in receipt ofsubstantial income from deposits abroad and these items were notliable for TDS and hence, the assessee could not have excludedtax on these, in working out the advance tax liability. 10. Further, with regard to the contention raised by thepetitioner that they have paid interest under Section 201(1A) ofthe Act on the defaulted TDS before the concerned Income TaxOfficer in charge of TDS matters and therefore, charging https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ interest under Section 234B on the shortfall in advance taxwould amount to subject to double levy, the Commission pointedout that the interest under Section 234(B) and interest underSection 201(1A) are two types of defaults and by differententities and the operation of these provisions are in twodifferent spheres and on different subjects and it cannot beheld that there is any double levy on the same subject for thesame default. Though, the petitioner referred to two decisionsof the Tribunal, the Commission did not consider the effect ofthose two decisions but observed that there are no such rulingsby the jurisdictional High Court or the Hon'ble Supreme Courtof India and accordingly, dismissed the miscellaneous petition. interest under Section 234B on the shortfall in advance taxwould amount to subject to double levy, the Commission pointedout that the interest under Section 234(B) and interest underSection 201(1A) are two types of defaults and by differententities and the operation of these provisions are in twodifferent spheres and on different subjects and it cannot beheld that there is any double levy on the same subject for thesame default. Though, the petitioner referred to two decisionsof the Tribunal, the Commission did not consider the effect ofthose two decisions but observed that there are no such rulingsby the jurisdictional High Court or the Hon'ble Supreme Courtof India and accordingly, dismissed the miscellaneous petition. 11.We need not labour much to find a solution to thecontroversy raised in this Writ Petition as we have the benefitof several decisions on the point and in particular, this Courtwould refer to, three decisions namely, in the case of (i)Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage (P) Ltd., Vs. Commissioner ofIncome Tax, reported in [(2007) 293 ITR 226 (SC)] (Delhi) dated16.08.2007, (ii) Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Emilio RuizBerdejo & Ors., [(2010) 320 ITR 0190] (Bombay) dated 15.10.2009;and (iii) Director of Income Tax Vs. Jacabs Civil Incorporated,[(2011) 330 ITR 0578 (Delhi) dated 30.08.2010. 12. In the case of Hindustan Coca Cola, the assessee isengaged in the manufacture and sale of soft drinks and enteredinto an agreement with M/s. Pradeep Oil Corporation for use oftheir premises for receipt, storage and dispatch of goodsbelonging to the assessee company. The warehousing charges werepaid to M/s. Pradeep Oil Corporation, on which, tax was deductedunder Section 194C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'theAct') at 2 per cent. The Assessing Officer held that theassessee to be an ''assessee in default'' for failure to deducttax at source in respect of warehousing charges and also leviedof interest under Section 201 (1A) of the Act on the amount oftax alleged to be short deducted. The assessee preferred anappeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (A) and thereafter,before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Income TaxAppellate Tribunal took a view that the assessee to be an''assessee in default'' in respect of the amount of shortdeduction of tax and also upheld the levy of interest underSection 201(1A) of the Act. 13. On further appeal filed by the assessee before the HighCourt was dismissed, thereafter, the assessee preferredmiscellaneous applications in the appeals, which were alreadydisposed of, seeking rectification of the order of the IncomeTax Appellate Tribunal. The grievance of the assessee was thatit is an alternative contention that where the warehouser hasbeen assessed on its income and the tax due has been recovered https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ from it by the Department and therefore, no further tax couldbe collected from the assessee has not been considered by theIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal. In its order dated 05.02.2008,the Tribunal on re-hearing the matter held that though theassessee was rightly held to be an 'assessee in default', therecould not be any recovery of the tax alleged to be in defaultonce again from the assessee considering that M/s.Pradeep OilCorporation had already been taxed on the amount received fromthe asssessee. The Department conceded before the Tribunal thatrecovery could not once again be made from the tax deductor,where the payee included the income on which the tax alleged tohave been short deducted in its taxable income and paid taxesthereon. 14.The High Court interfered with the order passed by theTribunal on the ground that on account of the earlier orderdated 12.07.2002, the Tribunal has attained finality and theorder got merged with the order of the High Court and theTribunal could not have re-opened the matter. 14.The High Court interfered with the order passed by theTribunal on the ground that on account of the earlier orderdated 12.07.2002, the Tribunal has attained finality and theorder got merged with the order of the High Court and theTribunal could not have re-opened the matter. 15.While examining the correctness of the said order, theHon'ble Supreme Court pointed out that the assessee had paidinterest under Section 201(1A) of the Act, and there is nodispute that the tax due had been paid by deductee M/s.PradeepOil Corporation and the Circular issued by the CBDT in CircularNo.275/201/95-IT(B), dated 29.01.1997 would be applicable to thefacts situation before it. 16.Thus, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the Tribunalcame to the right conclusion that the tax once again could notbe recovered from the deductor-assessee, since the tax hasalready been paid by the recipient of income. 17. By applying the above decisions to the facts of thecase, the correct conclusion that can be arrived is that thetaxes have been already paid by the deductor. In the instantcase, the employer abroad had paid the interest under Section201(1A) having already been remitted once again tax cannot berecovered from the petitioner/assessee. 18. In the case of “Emilio Ruiz Berdejo” the question oflaw, which arose for consideration was, whether the Tribunalerred in not appreciating that the assessee had failed to payadvance tax and hence, Sections 234B and 234C were rightlyinvoked? 19.The factual matrix of the said case is identical tothat of the case on hand where also the assessee, anindividual, an employee of a Multinational Company, deputed towork in India, did not disclose his original return incomereceived by him in abroad. After proceedings were initiated https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ under Section 148 of the Act, the assessee filed revised returnshowing total income making an addition on account of theaddition of the amount, which assessee had received fromoutside India, resulting in an order to the said effect withfurther order directing levy of interest under Sections 234(A),234(B) and 234(C) of the Act. The appeal filed by the assesseeagainst the assessment order was dismissed. On further appealto the Tribunal, the appeal was allowed holding that the issueregarding levy of interest under Sections 234B and 234C of theAct is covered by the Special Division Bench decision in thecase of Sumit Bhattacharya Vs. Asstt. CIT (2008) 300 ITR 347(Mumbai) (SB) (AT) and held that the interest under Sections234A, 234B and 234C of the Act was not permissible. The Revenuechallenging the said decision before the High Court, aftertaking note of the relevant statutory provisions namely,Sections 192, 209, 234A and 234B held as follows: The scheme of TDS, not only applies to theamount paid, such as salaries etc. but the saidprovisions also apply to gross sums, the wholeof which may not be income or profits in thehands of the recipient, such as payment tocontractors and sub-contractors. The purposeof the TDS provisions in Chapter XVIIB is tosee that the sum which is chargeable underSection 4 for levy and collection of incometax, the payer should deduct tax thereon at therates in force. The said TDS provisions aremeant for tentative deduction of income-taxsubject to regular assessment. 20. After rendering the above finding, the Court proceededto examine the consequences of failure to deduct advance tax inwhole or part and held as follows: The scheme of TDS, not only applies to theamount paid, such as salaries etc. but the saidprovisions also apply to gross sums, the wholeof which may not be income or profits in thehands of the recipient, such as payment tocontractors and sub-contractors. The purposeof the TDS provisions in Chapter XVIIB is tosee that the sum which is chargeable underSection 4 for levy and collection of incometax, the payer should deduct tax thereon at therates in force. The said TDS provisions aremeant for tentative deduction of income-taxsubject to regular assessment. 20. After rendering the above finding, the Court proceededto examine the consequences of failure to deduct advance tax inwhole or part and held as follows: “The said section 200 creates anobligation on the person deducting tax to paythe same within prescribed time to the creditof Central Government or as the Board maydirect. Sec.201 provides for consequences offailure to deduct or to pay tax, whereas sub-section (1A) of section 201 provides forliability to pay interest. Now, liabilitytopay interest as stated under Section 201 ison the person who fails to deduct advance tax.As against this, if one turns to the ChapterXVII of the Act, it provides for chargeabilityof interest in certain cases. Section 234Aprovides for payment of interest for defaultsin furnishing return of income, whereas section234B provides for payment of interest fordefaults in payment of advance tax and section234C provides for payment of interest for deferment of advance tax. All these threesections create liability on the assessee topay interest for the default committed by himin the circumstances mentioned in the saidsections”. 21. Further, it was pointed out that the interest chargedunder Section 234A of the Act is not by way of penalty but it islevied to compensate revenue in order to avoid from beingdeprived of payment of tax on the due date. It was held thatthe interest payable where the tax had not been deposited priorto the due date of filing of the IT return and in other words,it was held that where the tax already paid by the assessee wasnot less than the tax payable on the returned income which wasaccepted the question of levy of interest under Section 234Adoes not arise. 22.With regard to Section 234 B, it was pointed out thatwith regard to the interest charged under this Section, theCourt referred to the decision of the Uttaranchal High Court inthe case of CIT Vs. Sedco Forex International Drilling CompanyLtd., [(2003) 264 ITR 320 (Uttaranchal), wherein, the Courtheld that Section 234B which imposes interest is compensatory innature and not as a penalty and the very same view holds goodfor Section 234C of the Act. 22.With regard to Section 234 B, it was pointed out thatwith regard to the interest charged under this Section, theCourt referred to the decision of the Uttaranchal High Court inthe case of CIT Vs. Sedco Forex International Drilling CompanyLtd., [(2003) 264 ITR 320 (Uttaranchal), wherein, the Courtheld that Section 234B which imposes interest is compensatory innature and not as a penalty and the very same view holds goodfor Section 234C of the Act. 23.The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the caseof (Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage (P) Ltd., Vs. Commissioner ofPolice) (2007) 293 ITR 226(SC), was also referred to and it washeld that in the said case, deductee has already discharged thetax liability with interest payable under Section 201(1A) of theAct and as such no further interest can be claimed by therevenue from the assessee either under Sections 234A or 234B or234C of the Act. In the case of Jacabs Civil Incorporatedcited supra, it was held that the liability to deduct or collecttax at source is that of the Payer, therefore, for the purposesof Section 234B of the Act, the question would be as to whetherthe Payee i.e., the assessee had any role in deducting orcollecting the tax, it was held that once this is in thenegative and it was not the duty of the Payee/Assessee, thequestion of payment of any interest did not arise as it cannotbe said in such circumstances that the assessee is in defaultfor the purposes of Section 234B of the Act. In the said case,as contended by the revenue before the Settlement Commission,they took a stand that Section 234B of the Act is anindependentandstandaloneprovisionandonce theingredients/conditions contained in that section were satisfied,the liability to pay the interest would arise. This contentionwas negative on the following terms: We are not persuaded by this submission of Mr. Sabharwal. It is stated at the cost ofrepetition that the liability to deduct orcollect the tax at source is that of the payer.Therefore, for the purposes of Section 234B ofthe Act, the question would be as to whetherthe payee, i.e. The assessee in this case, hadany role in deducting or collecting the tax.Once that is in the negative, and it was notduty of the payee/assessee, the question ofpayment of any interest would not arise as itcnnot be said, in such circumstances, that theassessee is in default for the purposes ofSection 234B of the Act. No doubt, as per thejudgment in the case of Anjuum Ghaswala(supra), if there is a default in making thepayment of advance tax, the consequence whichis to follow is that the interest becomespayable under Section 234B of the Act. But inthe instant case, the provisions of Section234B of the Act would not be attracted at all. 24.The Division Bench of Delhi High Court went on toexamine the definition of the advance tax as defined underSection 2 (1) of the Act and under Section 209 of the Act andexamined the expressions “deductible or collectible at source”and held as follows: 24.The Division Bench of Delhi High Court went on toexamine the definition of the advance tax as defined underSection 2 (1) of the Act and under Section 209 of the Act andexamined the expressions “deductible or collectible at source”and held as follows: This clause categorically uses theexpression “deductible or collectible atsource” and it is this clause which isincorporated by the Uttaranchal High Court inthe said judgment (supra) in the manneralready pointed above. The scheme of the Actin respect of non-residents is clear. Section195 of the Act puts an obligation on thepayer, i.e. Any person responsible for payingto a non-resident, to deduct income-tax atsource at the rates in force from suchpayments excluding those incomes which arechargeable under the head 'Salaries'.Therefore, the entire tax is to be deducted atsource which is payable on such payments madeby the payer to the non-resident. Section 201of the Act lays down the consequences offailure to deduct or pay. These consequencesinclude not only the liability to pay theamount which such a person was required todeduct at source from the payments made to anon-resident but also penalties etc. Once itis found that the liability was that of thepayer and the said payer has defaulted indeducting the tax at source, the Department is not remedy less and therefore can take actionagainst the prayer under the provisions ofSection 201 of the IT Act and compute theamount accordingly. No doubt, if the person(payer) who had to make payments to the non-resident had defaulted in deducting the tax atsource from such payments, the non-resident isnot absolved from payment of taxes thereupon.However, in such a case, the non-resident isliable to pay tax and the question of paymentof advance tax would not arise. This would beclear from the reading of Section 191 of theAct along with Section 209 (1) (d) of the Act.For this reason, it would not be permissiblefor the Revenue to charge any interest underSection 234B of the Act”. 25. The decisions referred in preceding paragraphs wouldapply with full force to the case on hand. This is so because,for the purposes of Section 234B of the Act, the question wouldbe as to whether the assessee, who is the payee had any role indeducting or collecting the tax, if the answer to this questionis in negative and it was not the duty of the assessee, thequestion of payment of interest would not arise as the assesseecannot be treated to be an ''assessee in default''. 26. In the case of Emilio Ruiz Berdejo & Others, citedsupra, the High Court of Bombay examined Sections 200 and 201 ofthe Act, and pointed out that Section 200 creates an obligationon the person deducting tax to pay the same within theprescribed limit to the Central Government and Section 201provides for consequences of failure to deduct or to pay taxand sub-section 1(A) of Section 201 provides for liability topay interest and such liability is on the person, who fails todeduct advance tax. It was further pointed out that if oneturns to Chapter XVII of the Act, which provides forchargeability to succeed in certain cases. 27.Section 234(A) of the Act provides for payment ofinterest for defaults in furnishing return of income, Section234(B) for defaults in payment of advance tax and Section 234(C) for deferment of advance tax and all the three Sectionscreate liability on the assessee to pay interest for the defaultcommitted by him in the circumstances mentioned in the saidSection. It was further held that under Section 234(B) whichimposes interest is compensatory in nature and not as a penalty.When duty is cast upon the payer to pay the tax at source, onfailure, no interest can be imposed on the payee/assessee. 28.In the impugned proceedings, the Income Tax SettlementCommission proceeds to confirm the demand of interest under https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 27.Section 234(A) of the Act provides for payment ofinterest for defaults in furnishing return of income, Section234(B) for defaults in payment of advance tax and Section 234(C) for deferment of advance tax and all the three Sectionscreate liability on the assessee to pay interest for the defaultcommitted by him in the circumstances mentioned in the saidSection. It was further held that under Section 234(B) whichimposes interest is compensatory in nature and not as a penalty.When duty is cast upon the payer to pay the tax at source, onfailure, no interest can be imposed on the payee/assessee. 28.In the impugned proceedings, the Income Tax SettlementCommission proceeds to confirm the demand of interest under https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Section 234(B) of the Act, which has been held to be notsustainable in the afore mentioned decisions. Therefore, thelevy of interest is held to be not sustainable and accordinglythe question arising for consideration is answered in favour ofthe petitioner/assessee and against the revenue. 29. In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed and theimpugned order dated 06.07.2009 is set aside and it is held thatthe petitioner is not liable for payment of interest underSection 234(B) of the Act, in respect of the salary incomeearned by the petitioner outside India. In respect of any otherincome, it is open to the Assessing Officer to proceed to levyinterest in accordance with law. No costs. Consequently,connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS IV) //True Copy// Sub Assistant RegistrardnTo1.Income Tax Settlement CommissionAdditional Bench,No.640, Anna Salai, Nandanam,Chennai – 600 035.2.Commissioner of Income Tax – VI,No.121, M.G.Road,Chennai – 600 034. 3.The Assistant Commissioner of Income TaxBusiness Ward – III,No.121, M.G.Road,Chennai – 600 034. +1 cc to Mr.R.Srinivasan Advocate sr 84906+1 cc to Mr.A.P.Srinivas Advocate sr 84594 W.P.No.18472 of 2009 aa25/01/2018