The Commissioner Of Income Taxcoimbatore v. M/S.sakthi Finance Limited

DATED: 12.02.2013 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE R.BANUMATHIAND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAVICHANDRA BAABUT.C.(A) NOS.282 AND 283 OF 2007 The Commissioner of Income TaxCoimbatore .... Appellant in both TCAS Vs. M/s.Sakthi Finance Limited,475, Dr.Nanjappa Road,Coimbatore – 18. .... Respondent in both TCAS Prayer: T.C.(A) No.282 &283 of 2007 are filed under Section 260Aof the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the Order dated 15.09.2006 madein INT.T.A.Nos.4/Mds/2006 and 5/Mds/2006 respectively against theorder of the commissioner of Interest Tax (Appeals)-1,Coimbatoredated 9.1.06. and made in Int.Appeal Nos.51 and 53/05-06.respectively,against the assessment order of the year 1999-2000 and 2000-01.respectively dated 15/03/05.and 16/03/05. respectively on the file ofthe Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax, Company Circle-I(i),Coimbatore.For Appellant : Mr.N.V.Balaji For Respondent: Mr.Vikram Vijayaraghavan https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ R.BANUMATHI.J. The question pertains to whether the accrued interest on non-performing assets (NPA) is assessable to *interest-tax. The Revenuehas preferred these appeals as against the Orders dated 15.09.2006made in INT.T.A.Nos.4/Mds/2006 and 5/Mds/2006 respectively in respectof the assessment years 1999-2000 and 2000-2001. The appeals wereadmitted on the following substantial questions of law: "1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances ofthe case, the Income Tax Tribunal is right in law indeleting the interest accrued on non performing assets fromthe computation of the taxable income for the assessmentyear 1999-2000 and 2000-2001? 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case,the Tribunal was right in law in not considering the accruedinterest on non performing assets under the Interest Tax Act1999-2000 and 2000-2001? 2. The assessee-Sakthi Finance Limited is a Non-BankingFinancial Company. For the assessment years 1999-2000 and 2000-2001,the Assessing Officer has added accrued interest on NPA accounting toRs.1,80,34,379/- and Rs.56,09,260/ for the two years. The assesseepreferred appeals before C.I.T. (Appeals). In the case ofCommissioner of Income-tax Vs. Elgi Finance Limited, (2007) 293 ITR357, the Madras High Court has held no interest could be said tohave accrued on loans doubtful of recovery which were classified asNPA. Following the said decision in Elgi Finance, (2007) 293 ITR357, CIT (Appeals) allowed the appeals holding that the accruedinterest on NPA is not assessable to *interest-tax. In the appealpreferred by the revenue before the Tribunal, following its owndecision in Elgi Finance, Ltd. Vs. Additional Commissioner of IncomeTax, Special Range I, Coimbatore in I.T.A.No.358, 359, 360 and 361(Mds)/2002, Tribunal held that no addition could be made in the handsof the assessee – Non-Banking Financial Company (NBFC) in respect ofunrealised accrued interest when the loan was classified as NPA. 3. Learned counsel for the revenue placing reliance upon thedecision of the Supreme Court in Southern Technologies Ltd. Vs. JointCommissioner of Income Tax, (2010) 320 ITR 577, submitted thatinsofar as liability of *interest-tax is concerned, the same wasgoverned by the *interest-tax Act and merely because for accountingpurpose, the respondent/assessee was to follow RBI guidelines itwould not mean that the assessee was not liable to show the accruedinterest income when it had accrued to the assessee under themercantile system and exigible to tax under the Act. Drawing ourattention to the assessment orders in which the method of accounting 3. Learned counsel for the revenue placing reliance upon thedecision of the Supreme Court in Southern Technologies Ltd. Vs. JointCommissioner of Income Tax, (2010) 320 ITR 577, submitted thatinsofar as liability of *interest-tax is concerned, the same wasgoverned by the *interest-tax Act and merely because for accountingpurpose, the respondent/assessee was to follow RBI guidelines itwould not mean that the assessee was not liable to show the accruedinterest income when it had accrued to the assessee under themercantile system and exigible to tax under the Act. Drawing ourattention to the assessment orders in which the method of accounting of the assessee is stated as "Mercantile", Mr.Balaji, the learnedcounsel for revenue submitted that when the assessee was following'mercantile method' of accounting, the case of the assessee was to bedealt with for the purpose of taxability as per the provisions of theAct and not the RBI Act, which was the accounting method, which theassessee – NBFC was required to follow. 4. In paragraph No.27 of the Southern Technologies Ltd., (2010)320 ITR 577, the Hon'ble Supreme Court elaborated upon the threedeviations between RBI Directions 1998 and Companies Act. Relyingupon the decision of Southern Technologies Ltd., (2010) 320 ITR 577and the deviations pointed out by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, thelearned counsel for the revenue submitted that the Hon'ble SupremeCourt emphasised that the RBI Directions 1998 has nothing to do withthe accounting treatment or taxability of income under the Income-taxAct and the two viz., the Income-tax Act and RBI Directions 1988operate in different fields. He would further submit that as per thedecision in Southern Technologies, so far as the liability of*interest-tax is concerned, the same was governed by *interest-taxAct and RBI Directions 1998 has nothing to do with the computationor taxability of the provisions for "accrued interest" for NPA underthe *interest-tax Act. 5. Per contra, Mr.Vikram Vijayaraghavan, learned counsel forassessee submitted that in the case of Southern Technologies Limited,(2010) 320 ITR 577, the Hon'ble Supreme Court clearly recognised thetheory of "real income" and held that notwithstanding that theassessee may be following the mercantile system of accounting and theassessee could only be taxed on "real income" and not on accruedinterest, which is a hypothetical income. 6. Learned counsel for the assessee submitted that referring tothe decision of the Supreme Court in Southern Technologies Limited,(2010) 320 ITR 577, the Delhi High Court in COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX VS. VASISTH CHAY VYAPAR LTD., (2011) 330 ITR 440 held that wherethe interest was not received on NPA, the same could not be treatedto have accrued in favour of the assessee or the real income in thehands of the assessee. 7. The controversy arising for consideration is, whether non-recognition of "interest income" on NPAs by the assessee followingRBI guidelines would by itself constitute a valid ground for notrecognising the said income on the basis of its non-accrual, theadopted method of accounting, being admittedly “mercantile.” 8. In the present case, the assessee Company is Non-Banking https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 7. The controversy arising for consideration is, whether non-recognition of "interest income" on NPAs by the assessee followingRBI guidelines would by itself constitute a valid ground for notrecognising the said income on the basis of its non-accrual, theadopted method of accounting, being admittedly “mercantile.” 8. In the present case, the assessee Company is Non-Banking https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Financial Company. The assessee objected to the inclusion of intereston NPA that it is not assessable to income. The assessee pleaded thatin the earlier assessment years they got a relief on the same issuebased on the judgment of the Tribunal in the case of Elgi Finance,Ltd. Vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range I,Coimbatore in I.T.A.No.358, 359, 360 and 361(Mds)/2002, and in viewof the Judgment it was argued that the additions are not proper.Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) held that the accrued intereston NPA is not assessable to income-tax and following the judgment ofthe Tribunal allowed the appeals for the assessment years 1999-2000and 2000-2001. 9. In Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Elgi Finance Limited,(2007) 293 ITR 357, almost identical controversy was considered. TheAssessing Officer proposed to bring the accrued interest as income ofassessee relating to the assessment year. The assessee explained thatas it was a NBFC, those assets were to be treated as NPAs in terms ofthe guidelines issued by RBI and the income pertaining thereto wasnot to be considered as income. The Assessing Officer held that sincethe Assessee Company was following the mercantile system ofaccounting, the Assessing Officer held that both income as well asexpenditure had to be accounted on accrual basis. The appeal of theassessee was dismissed by Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). Onfurther appeal by the assessee, the Tribunal was of the view that thelower authorities erred in treating the interest on NPAs as income ofassessee Company for the relevant assessment year and ordered todelete the said interest from the computation of the taxable incomeand allowed the appeals filed by the assessee. On those facts, thisCourt held that no interest could be said to have accrued on loansdoubtful of recovery, which were classified as NPAs. This Courtfurther held that the interest from such NPAs would be taxed in theappropriate assessment year on the basis of “actual receipt”. 10. The decision in Elgi Finance is prior to SouthernTechnologies Limited. In the case of Southern Technologies Limited,(2010) 320 ITR 577, constitutional validity of Section 43D wasquestioned by Non Banking Financial Institutions, who are notentitled to deductions on account of Non Performing Assets thoughthey are also engaged in the same activity of lending moneys and theHon'ble Supreme Court held that Section 43D is constitutionallyvalid. In the case of Southern Technologies Limited, (2010) 320 ITR577, the Hon'ble Apex Court was seized with the issue of provisionfor bad and doubtful debts in respect of NPA accounts and the disputebefore the Apex Court centered around the deductibility of provisionfor Non Performing Assets. 11. Elaborating upon the deviations between RBI Directions 1998and Companies Act, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SouthernTechnologies Limited, (2010) 320 ITR 577, held as under: "Deviations between the RBI Directions, 1998 and theCompanies Act 27. Broadly, there are three deviations: (i) in the matter of presentation of financial statementsunder Schedule VI to the Companies Act; (ii) in not recognising the “income” under the mercantilesystem of accounting and its insistence to follow cash systemwith respect to assets classified as NPA as per its norms; 11. Elaborating upon the deviations between RBI Directions 1998and Companies Act, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SouthernTechnologies Limited, (2010) 320 ITR 577, held as under: "Deviations between the RBI Directions, 1998 and theCompanies Act 27. Broadly, there are three deviations: (i) in the matter of presentation of financial statementsunder Schedule VI to the Companies Act; (ii) in not recognising the “income” under the mercantilesystem of accounting and its insistence to follow cash systemwith respect to assets classified as NPA as per its norms; (iii) in creating a provision for all NPAs summarily asagainst creating a provision only when the debt is doubtfulof recovery under the norms of the accounting standardsissued by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India. 28. These deviations prevail over certain provisions ofthe Companies Act, 1956 to protect the depositors in thecontext of income recognition and presentation of the assetsand provisions created against them. 29. Thus, the P&L account prepared by NBFC in terms ofthe RBI Directions, 1998 does not recognise “income from NPA”and, therefore, directs a provision to be made in that regardand hence an “add back”. It is important to note that “addback” is there only in the case of provisions. 30. As stated above, the Companies Act allows an NBFC toadjust a provision for possible diminution in the value ofassets or provision for doubtful debts against the assets andonly the net figure is allowed to be shown in the balancesheet, as a matter of disclosure. However, the said RBIDirections, 1998 mandate all NBFCs to show the saidprovisions separately on the liability side of balance sheeti.e. under the head “current liabilities and provisions”. Thepurpose of the said deviation is to inform the user of thebalance sheet the particulars concerning quantum and qualityof the diminution in the value of investment and particularsof doubtful and sub-standard assets. Similarly, the 1998Directions do not recognise the “income” under the mercantilesystem and insist that NBFCs should follow cash system inregard to such incomes. 31. Before concluding on this point, we need to emphasise that the 1998 Directions have nothing to do withthe accounting treatment or taxability of “income” under theIT Act. The two viz. the IT Act and the 1998 Directionsoperate in different fields." 12. In COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. VASISTH CHAY VYAPAR LTD.,(2011) 330 ITR 440, the Delhi High Court considered the case ofSouthern Technologies Limited, (2010) 320 ITR 577 and held thatSupreme Court made a distinction with regard to "income recognition"and that the Supreme Court approved the "real income" theory which isengrained in the Prudential Norms for recognition of revenue by NBFC.The Delhi High Court held as under: ".... After analyzing the provisions of the RBI Act,their Lordships of the apex court observed that in so faras the permissible deductions or exclusions under the Actare concerned, the same are admissible only if suchdeductions/exclusions satisfy the relevant conditionsstipulated therefor under the Act. To that extent, it wasobserved that the Prudential Norms do not override theprovisions of the Act. However, the apex court made adistinction with regard to "income recognition" and heldthat income had to be recognized in terms of thePrudential Norms, even though the same deviated from themercantile system of accounting and/or section 145 of theIncome-tax Act. It can be said, therefore, that the apexcourt approved the real income theory which is engrainedin the Prudential Norms for recognition of revenue byNBFC." 13. The Delhi High Court considered the decision of SupremeCourt in Southern Technologies Limited, (2010) 320 ITR 577 and heldthat the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of SouthernTechnologies Limited, (2010) 320 ITR 577, apply only to provisioningnorms “against NPA accounts”. The Delhi High Court held that SouthernTechnologies Limited did not apply to the income recognition normsprovided by RBI but only to the prudential norms (against accounts). 14. True, as observed in the case of COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXVS. VASISTH CHAY VYAPAR LTD., (2011) 330 ITR 440, the Hon'ble ApexCourt was seized with the issue of provision for bad and doubtfuldebts in respect of NPA accounts and not income not brought on bookson the basis of non-accrual. But the Delhi High Court had taken theview that Southern Technologies Limited, (2010) 320 ITR 577 did notapply to the income recognition norms provided by RBI. We are of theview that by a careful reading of the decision of SouthernTechnologies Limited, (2010) 320 ITR 577, the Hon'ble Supreme Court https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ also dealt with the aspect i.e., income recognition norms as speltout by the RBI as well. 15. In case of Southern Technologies Limited, (2010) 320 ITR577, the Hon'ble Supreme Court dealt with the income recognitionnorms as spelt out by the RBI as well and observed that the RBI'sDirections and the Income-tax Act operate in different fields. We maydemonstrate this by extracting the relevant paragraphs from thedecision of Southern Technologies Limited, (2010) 320 ITR 577, whichread as under: "31. Before concluding on this point, we need toemphasise that the 1998 Directions have nothing to do withthe accounting treatment or taxability of “income” under theIncome-tax Act. The two viz. the Income-tax Act and the 1998Directions operate in different fields. As stated above,under the mercantile system of accounting, interest/hirecharges income accrues with time. In such cases, interest ischarged and debited to the account of the borrower as“income” is recognised under the accrual system. However, itis not so recognised under the 1998 Directions and,therefore, in the matter of its presentation under the saidDirections, there would be an add back but not under theIncome-tax Act necessarily. It is important to note thatcollectibility is different from accrual. Hence, in eachcase, the assessee has to prove, as has happened in thiscase with regard to the sum of Rs. 20,34,605, thatinterest is not recognised or taken into account due touncertainty in collection of the income. It is for theAssessing Officer to accept the claim of the assessee underthe Income-tax Act or not to accept it in which case therewill be add back even under real income theory as explainedhereinbelow. .... 33. Prior to the RBI Directions, 1998, advances werestated net of provisions for NPAs/bad and doubtful debts.They were shown at net figure (advances less provisions forNPAs) and the amount of provision for NPA was shown in thenotes to the accounts only. Such presentation of NPAprovision warranted disclosure. Therefore, Paragraph 9(1)of the RBI Directions, 1998 stipulates that every NBFCshall separately disclose in its balance-sheet theprovision for NPAs without netting them from the income oragainst the value of assets. That, the provision for NPAshould be shown separately on the “liabilities side” of thebalance-sheet under the head “current liabilities andprovisions” and not as a deduction from “sundrydebtors/advances”. Therefore, the RBI has taken a positionas a matter of disclosure, with which we agree, that if an NBFC deducts a provision for NPA from “sundry debtors/loansand advances”, it would amount to netting from the value ofassets which would constitute breach of Paragraph 9 of theRBI Directions, 1998. Consequently, NPA provisions shouldbe presented on the “liabilities side” of the balance sheetunder the head “current liabilities and provisions” as adisclosure norm and not as accounting or computation ofincome norm under the Income-tax Act. At this stage, we mayclarify that the entire thrust of the RBI Directions, 1998is on presentation of NPA provision in the balance-sheet ofan NBFC. Presentation/disclosure is different fromcomputation/taxability of the provision for NPA. The natureof expenditure under the Income-tax Act cannot beconclusively determined by the manner in which accounts arepresented in terms of the 1998 Directions. There are caseswhere on the facts courts have taken the view that the so-called provision is in effect a write-off. Therefore, inour view, the RBI Directions, 1998, though deviate from theaccounting practice as provided in the Companies Act, donot override the provisions of the Income-tax Act. Somecompanies, for example, treat write-offs or expenses orliabilities as contingent liabilities. For example, thereare companies which do not recognise mark-to-market loss onits derivative contracts either by creating reserve assuggested by ICAI or by charging the same to the profit andloss account in terms of Accounting Standards.Consequently, their profits and reserves and surplus of theyear are projected on the higher side. Consequently, suchlosses are not accounted in the books, at the highest, theyare merely disclosed as contingent liability in the notesto accounts. The point which we would like to make iswhether such losses are contingent or actual cannot bedecided only on the basis of presentation. Suchpresentation will not bind the authority under the Income-tax Act. Ultimately, the nature of transaction has to beexamined. In each case, the authority has to examine thenature of expense/loss. Such examination and findingthereon will not depend upon presentation of expense/lossin the financial statements of the NBFC in terms of the1998 Directions. Therefore, in our view, the RBIDirections, 1998 and the Income-tax Act operate indifferent fields.34. The question still remains as to what is thenature of “provision for NPA” in terms of the RBIDirections, 1998. In our view, provision for NPA in termsof the RBI Directions, 1998 does not constitute expense onthe basis of which deduction could be claimed by NBFC underSection 36(1)(vii). Provision for NPAs is an expense for presentation under the 1998 Directions and in that sense itis notional. For claiming deduction under the Income-taxAct, one has to go by the facts of the case (including thenature of transaction), as stated above. One must keep inmind another aspect. Reduction in NPA takes place in twoways, namely, by recoveries and by write-off. However, bymaking a provision for NPA, there will be no reduction inNPA. Similarly, a write-off is also of two types, namely, aregular write-off and a prudential write-off. (See AdvancedAccounts by Shukla, Grewal and Gupta, Ch. 26, p. 26.50.) Ifone keeps these concepts in mind, it is very clear that theRBI Directions, 1998 are merely prudential norms. They canalso be called disclosure norms or norms regardingpresentation of NPA provisions in the balance-sheet. Theydo not touch upon the nature of the expense to be decidedby the Assessing Officer in the assessment proceedings. .......Applicability of Section 145 40. At the outset, we may state that in essence theRBI Directions, 1998 are prudential/provisioning normsissued by RBI under Chapter III-B of the RBI Act, 1934.These norms deal essentially with income recognition. Theyforce the NBFCs to disclose the amount of NPA in theirfinancial accounts. They force the NBFCs to reflect “trueand correct” profits. By virtue of Section 45-Q, anoverriding effect is given to the Directions, 1998 vis-à-vis “income recognition” principles in the Companies Act,1956. These Directions constitute a code by itself.However, these Directions, 1998 and the Income-tax Actoperate in different areas. These Directions, 1998 havenothing to do with computation of taxable income. TheseDirections cannot overrule the “permissible deductions” or“their exclusion” under the Income-taxAct. Theinconsistency between these Directions and the CompaniesAct is only in the matter of income recognition andpresentation of financial statements. The accountingpolicies adopted by an NBFC cannot determine the taxableincome. It is well settled that the accounting policiesfollowed by a company can be changed unless the AssessingOfficer comes to the conclusion that such change wouldresult in understatement of profits. However, here is thecase where the Assessing Officer has to follow the RBIDirections, 1998 in view of Section 45-Q of the RBI Act.Hence, as far as income recognition is concerned, Section145 of the Income-tax Act has no role to play in thepresent dispute." 16. In Paragraphs 31 and 34, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in nouncertain terms held that the collectibility of interest isdifferent from accrual and in each and every case, the assessee hasto prove that the income interest is not recognised or not taken intoaccount due to uncertainty in collection of the income. It is for theAssessing Officer to accept the claim of the assessee under the*interest-tax Act or not to accept. In case of Southern TechnologiesLimited, (2010) 320 ITR 577, the Assessing Officer accepted theassessee's case towards non-recognition of interest for Rs.20.34lakhs as would be apparent from a reading of Paragraph No.31 of theJudgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of SouthernTechnologies Limited, (2010) 320 ITR 577. By a careful reading of thecase of Southern Technologies Limited, (2010) 320 ITR 577, we are ofthe view that the assessee has to prove in each case that interestnot recognised or not taken into account was in fact due touncertainty in collection of interest and it is for the AssessingOfficer to examine facts of each individual case. 17. No doubt, the learned counsel for the assessee also reliedon an unreported decision of this Court made in T.C.(A) Nos.282 to286 of 2005 dated 6.7.2012 in support of his submission that interestaccrued on non-performing assets is not chargeable to tax. In thatcase, the Hon'ble Division Bench rejected the case of the Revenuetherein only by following the decision of Elgi Finance Limited aswell as Harita Finance Limited. In fact, the subsequent decision ofthe Hon'ble Supreme Court made in the case of Southern TechnologiesLimited was not placed before the Division Bench. Moreover, in thesaid judgment, it was pointed out that the Revenue had not placed thematerial to show the nature of the transaction as one not being aHire Purchase transaction. Therefore, the said decision of theDivision Bench based on the factual findings so rendered, cannot berelied on by the assessee, more particularly, when the decision ofthe Hon'ble Supreme Court made in the case of Southern TechnologiesLimited was not at all placed before it. At any event, it is alsopointed out that in the *said decision that the interest from suchnon-performing assets would be taxed in the appropriate assessmentyears on the basis of actual receipt and the issue of interest onnon-performing assets could not be included in the assessment of theassessee till such accrual arose. Therefore, the said decision isalso distinguishable and cannot be relied on by the assessee, in thelight of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case ofSouthern Technologies Limited. 18. Mere characterisation of an account as a NPA would not byitself be sufficient to say that there is uncertainty as regardsrealizability of income or interest income thereon. Accrual ofinterest is a matter of fact to be decided separately for each caseon the basis of examination of the facts and circumstances. The same https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ would require an assessment of the relevant facts and circumstancesof each case. Only by assessment of facts and circumstances, theAuthority could arrive at a decision whether there is uncertainity ofthe interest accrued on NPA. Only when there is uncertainity ofrealizability of income or interest income then it is not chargeableto tax. The system of accounting followed only recognises itbringing the income to books. The adopted accounting policy i.e.,recognising income on NPA accounts only subject to realisation doesnot serve as a standard category. 19. In the present case, Assessing Officer has not recordedfindings whether there is any uncertainty in collection of income.There is nothing to indicate that the "interest income" is non-recoverable. Individual ledger accounts of the borrower are to beexamined. We are of the view that the Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals) and the Tribunal had not considered the matter in the lightof the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SouthernTechnologies Limited, (2010) 320 ITR 577. We are of the view that thematter has to be considered in the light of the observations in caseof Southern Technologies Limited, (2010) 320 ITR 577. 20. For the fore-going reasons, the Orders of the Tribunal areset aside and the matters are remitted back to the Assessing Officerfor consideration of the matter afresh in the light of law laid downby the Supreme Court in Southern Technologies and above observationand pass orders. Sd/-Asst.Registrar 19.2.2013 *Corrected as per the order of this Court dated 28.2.2013Sd/- Deputy Registrar 8.3.2013 //True Copy// Copy to:corrected order 1. The Asst.Registrar, to substituted to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, the order already Rajaji Bhavan,despatched on 20. For the fore-going reasons, the Orders of the Tribunal areset aside and the matters are remitted back to the Assessing Officerfor consideration of the matter afresh in the light of law laid downby the Supreme Court in Southern Technologies and above observationand pass orders. Sd/-Asst.Registrar 19.2.2013 *Corrected as per the order of this Court dated 28.2.2013Sd/- Deputy Registrar 8.3.2013 //True Copy// Copy to:corrected order 1. The Asst.Registrar, to substituted to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, the order already Rajaji Bhavan,despatched on 2. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Chennai 'D' Bench.Chennai3. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-I, Coimbatore.4. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Company Circle-I(1), Coimbatore.+1 cc to Mr.N.V.Balaji,Advocate in Sr No.12335.+1 cc to Mr.Vikram vijayaraghavan,Advocate in sr No.12473.ksj(co)rd 19.2.13.pmk.8.3.2013T.C.(A) Nos.282 and 283of 2007