The Commissioner Of Income Tax,Trichy v. M/S.kmc Speciality Hospitals India Ltd.,(Formerly Sea Horse Hospitals P. Ltd.,)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATE: 06.07.2021 THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMYAND THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE R.HEMALATHA The Commissioner of Income Tax,Trichy. ... Appellant/Respondent Vs. M/s.KMC Speciality Hospitals India Ltd.,(Formerly Sea Horse Hospitals P. Ltd.,)No.6, Royal Road, Trichy. ... Respondent/Appellant Appeal preferred under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act,1961, against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal,Madras, "C" Bench, dated 05.05.2014 in I.T.A.No.458/Mds/2014 forthe Assessment Year 2007-08, preferred against the order of theCommissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) Tiruchirapalli dated30.12.2013 made in ITA No.306/2011-12 CIT(A)/TRY filed againstthe Assessment order of the Assistant Commissioner of Income TaxCircle I(1), Tiruchirapalli dated 29/12/2011 for the AssessmentYear 2007-2008. For Respondent : Mr.K.Ravi JUDGMENT (Judgment was delivered by M.DURAISWAMY, J.) Challenging the order passed in I.TA.No.458/Mds/2014 inrespect of the Assessment Year 2007-08 on the file of the IncomeTax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, "C" Bench, the Revenue hasfiled the above appeal. 2.It is the case of the assessee that for the AssessmentYear 2007-08, the return of income was filed on 26.10.2007, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ admitting business loss of Rs.65,22,677/- and carried forwardloss of Rs.18,39,06,826/-, which included depreciation allowanceof Rs.17,73,84,149/-. The case was selected for scrutiny andnotice under Section 143(2) was issued on 18.09.2008 and afterdue process of hearing, the assessment order under Section 143(3) was issued on 22.12.2009, accepting the loss return ofRs.65,22,677/- and determining the losses carried forward forset off against future profits as Rs.18,39,06,826/-. TheAssessing Officer, thereafter, on 01.02.2011, proposed towithdraw under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act, thedepreciation allowance of Rs.13,71,60,209/-, as according tohim, the depreciation relating to the Assessment Year 1997-98and 1998-99 are required to be withdrawn. The assessee, by theirletter dated 22.03.2011, has objected to the proposedrectification under Section 154 as the same was not a matter of“mistake apparent on the face of the record”. Based on theobjection, the Assessing Officer has dropped the proceedingsunder Section 154. Thereafter, notice under Section 148 for theAssessment Year 2007-08 was issued on 23.03.2011, which wasserved on the assessee on 28.03.2011 citing the same reason asin the proposal under Section 154 of the Act. The assesseethereafter contested the said notice and the re-opening of theassessment. However, the Assessing Officer completed theassessment on 29.12.2011, withdrawing the carry forward ofunabsorbeddepreciationallowancetoan extentofRs.13,71,60,209/- and determined the total income/(loss) asRs.4,67,46,621/- for the Assessment Year 2007-08. Challengingthe order of assessment, the assessee preferred an appeal beforethe Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Commissioner ofIncome Tax (Appeals) dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved over thesame, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Income TaxAppellate Tribunal and the Tribunal allowed the appeal.Challenging the order passed by the Income Tax AppellateTribunal, the Revenue has filed the above appeal. 3.The above appeal was admitted on the following substantialquestion of law: 3.The above appeal was admitted on the following substantialquestion of law: “Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, the Tribunal was rightin holding that the assessee is entitled to carryforwardtheunabsorbeddepreciationofRs.13,71,60,209/- pertaining to AY 1997-1998 and1998-99 and set off against the income ofAssessment Year 2007-08 which is beyond theperiod of eight assessment years, in the light ofamendment w.e.f AY 1997-98 putting a cap of eightyears for carry forward of depreciation and theamendment w.e.f. 2002-03 removing the said cap ofeight years for carry forward?” 4.When the appeal is taken up for hearing, Mr.M.Swaminathan,learned senior standing counsel appearing for the appellant–Revenue fairly submitted the substantial question of law thatarose for consideration in the above appeal has already beendecided against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee in thefollowing judgments: (i)[2021] 127 taxmann.com 805 (Madras) [Harvey HeartHospitals Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax] whereinthe Division Bench held as follows: “... 5.Aggrieved over the same, the appellant has filedthe above Tax Case Appeal raising the followingsubstantial questions of law: " (i)Whether the Tribunal was right in law inholding that the assessment made u/s. 153C r/w Sec.143(3) is valid especially when there are noincriminating materials seized warranting such anassessment on the appellant? (ii)Whether the Tribunal is right in notconfirming the view of the Assessing Officer that thebusiness income arising out of sale of fixed assetsis to be treated only as short term capital gainsunder section 50 of the Income-tax Act even thoughthe depreciable assets were sold? (iii)Whether the Tribunal was right in law inholding that the unabsorbed depreciation relating toAssessment Year 1997-98 to 2000-2001 is not eligiblefor set off against any income of the appellant forthe Assessment Year 2005-06?" 6.1.Mr. R. Sivaraman, learned counsel appearingfor the appellant submitted that he is not making anysubmission with regard to questions of law Nos. 1 and 2and therefore, this court need not give any findingwith regard to the same in this Tax Case. The learnedcounsel made his submission only with regard to 3rdquestion of law i.e. with regard to unabsorbeddepreciation relating to assessment year 1997-98 to2000-2001 is not eligible for set off against anyincome of the appellant for the Assessment Year 2005-06. 6.2.The learned counsel further submitted that theHon'ble Division Bench of this court, in identicalcircumstances, in the Judgment reported in CIT v. S & SPower Switchgear Ltd. 2009 (318) 187 (Mad.) held thatin view of the amended provisions of section 32(2),with effect from 1-4-1997, the deeming fiction oftreating the earlier years' unabsorbed depreciation ascurrent year depreciation was removed and the period available for absorbing the unabsorbed depreciationagainst the profit of the succeeding years was limitedto eight years. Further, the Division Bench held thatthe clarification of the Finance Minister in theParliament was also to the effect that the cumulatedunabsorbed depreciation brought forward as on 1-4-1997could still be set off against the taxable businessprofit or income under any other head for theassessment year 1997-98 and seven subsequent years. Inview of the said position, the Division Bench held thatthe assessee was entitled to the unabsorbeddepreciation brought forward as on 1-4-1997 and couldset it off against short-term capital gains. 6.3.On the same lines, the Hon'ble Division Benchin an unreported Judgment dated 14-9-2020 made in CITv. Sanmar Speciality Chemicals Ltd., [2020] 122taxmann.com 212/428 ITR 237 (Mad.), held that theassessee is entitled to carry forward the loss withoutany restriction on the time limit. 6.3.On the same lines, the Hon'ble Division Benchin an unreported Judgment dated 14-9-2020 made in CITv. Sanmar Speciality Chemicals Ltd., [2020] 122taxmann.com 212/428 ITR 237 (Mad.), held that theassessee is entitled to carry forward the loss withoutany restriction on the time limit. 6.4.The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the Judgmentreported in CIT v. Bajaj Hindustan Ltd. [2019] 103taxmann.com 32/261 Taxman 558 held that unabsorbeddepreciation pertaining to the assessment year 1997-98to 2001-02 can be carry forward and adjusted after thelapse of eight assessment years in view of the section32(2) as amended by the Finance Act, 2001. 6.5.The learned counsel for the appellant alsosubmitted that the 3rd questions of law raised in thepresent Tax Case Appeal is covered by the abovedecisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court and the DivisionBenches of this court, hence, the Tax Case Appealshould be allowed. 7.Ms. K.G. Usha Rani, learned counsel for Mr. T.R.Senthil Kumar, learned Standing Counsel appearing forthe respondent submitted that the issue involved in theabove Tax Case Appeal is covered by the decisions ofthe Hon'ble Apex Court and the Division Benches of thiscourt. 8.Since the learned counsel appearing for theappellant has not made any submission with regard tothe questions of law Nos. 1 and 2, we are not advertingto any finding with regard to the same. In view of thesubmissions made by the learned counsel on either side,following the Judgments passed by the Hon'ble ApexCourt and the Division Benches of this court, citedsupra, the order passed by the Income-tax AppellateTribunal is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the same is set aside. The 3rd question of law is decidedin favour of the appellant. The Tax Case Appeal standsallowed. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.” (ii)[2020] 122 taxmann.com 212 (Madras) [Commissioner ofIncome Tax, Chennai Vs. Sanmar Speciality Chemicals Ltd.]wherein the Division Bench held as follows: “... 3.The appeal was admitted on 2-12-2019 on thefollowing substantial question of law : "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances ofthe case, the Tribunal was right in holding that theassessee is entitled for carry forward of thedepreciation loss pertaining to the assessment year1997-98 to the present assessment year 2006-07,which is beyond the eight year period mandated underthe provisions of section 32 of the Act?" 4.The short issue, which falls for consideration,is as to whether, in the facts and circumstances of thecase, the Tribunal was right in permitting the assesseeto carry forward the depreciation loss pertaining tothe assessment year 1997-98 to the present assessmentyear namely 2006-07, which is beyond the eight yearperiod mandated under the provisions of section 32 ofthe Act. 5.The revenue is before us by referring to thedecision of the High Court of Calcutta in the case ofPeerless General Finance & Investment Co. Ltd. v. CIT[2016] 73 taxmann.com 257/242 Taxman 209 and submittingthat an identical issue was considered by the CalcuttaHigh Court wherein the assessee was not granted relief.It is further submitted that the said decision of theCalcutta High Court was tested for its correctness bythe Hon'ble Supreme Court and the special leavepetition filed against the judgment of the CalcuttaHigh Court was dismissed in the decision in PeerlessGeneral Finance & Investment Co. Ltd. v. CIT [2016] 73taxmann.com 258/242 Taxman 173/380 ITR 165 (SC). 5.The revenue is before us by referring to thedecision of the High Court of Calcutta in the case ofPeerless General Finance & Investment Co. Ltd. v. CIT[2016] 73 taxmann.com 257/242 Taxman 209 and submittingthat an identical issue was considered by the CalcuttaHigh Court wherein the assessee was not granted relief.It is further submitted that the said decision of theCalcutta High Court was tested for its correctness bythe Hon'ble Supreme Court and the special leavepetition filed against the judgment of the CalcuttaHigh Court was dismissed in the decision in PeerlessGeneral Finance & Investment Co. Ltd. v. CIT [2016] 73taxmann.com 258/242 Taxman 173/380 ITR 165 (SC). 6.After elaborately hearing the learned SeniorStanding Counsel appearing for the appellant-Revenue,we are of the considered opinion that the relianceplaced on the decision in the case of Peerless GeneralFinance & Investment Co. Ltd. (supra), would, in nomanner, assist the case of the Revenue. We say so afterreferring to Circular No. 14/2001 dated 22-11-2002issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, which areExplanatory Notes on Provisions relating to DirectTaxes. Paragraph 30 of the said circular deals with modification of provisions relating to depreciation.7.For better appreciation, we quote paragraphs30.1 to 30.5 of the said circular as hereunder :"30.1 Under the existing provisions of section 32 ofthe Income-tax Act, carry forward and set-off ofunabsorbed depreciation is allowed for 8 assessment years. 30.2 With a view to enable the industry to conservesufficient funds to replace plant and machinery,specially in an era where obsolescence takes placeso often, the Act has dispensed with the restrictionof 8 years for carry forward and set-off ofunabsorbed depreciation. The Act has also clarifiedthat in computing the profits and gains of businessor profession for any previous year, deduction ofdepreciation under section 32 shall be mandatory. 30.3 Under the existing provisions, no deduction fordepreciation is allowed on any motor carmanufactured outside India unless it is used (i) inthe business of running it on hire for tourists, or(ii) outside India in the assessee's business orprofession in another country. 30.4 The Act has allowed depreciation allowance onall imported motor cars acquired on or after 1stApril, 2001. 30.5 These amendments will take effect from the 1stApril, 2002, and will, accordingly apply in relationto the assessment year 2002-2003 and subsequentyears." 8. From paragraph 30.2 of the above circular, itis clear that the restriction of 8 years for carryforward and set-off of unabsorbed depreciation wasdispensed with, with a view to enable the industries toconserve sufficient funds to replace plant andmachinery.9. The learned Senior Standing Counsel appearingfor the Revenue would point out that those amendmentstook place with effect from 1-4-2002 and wouldaccordingly apply in relation to the assessment year2002-03 and the subsequent years whereas in theassessee's case, the depreciation loss, which theysought to carry forward is for the assessment year1997-98. 10. The proper manner, in which, the modificationhas to be understood, is to the effect that from theassessment year 2002-03, if the eight years' period wasnot lapsed, then the assessee would be entitled tocarry forward the loss without any restriction on thetime limit. This aspect has been dealt with elaboratelyin the decision of the Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court in the case of General Motors India (P.)Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2012] 25 taxmann.com 364/210 Taxman20/[2013] 354 ITR 244 wherein the relevant portions areas follows : 10. The proper manner, in which, the modificationhas to be understood, is to the effect that from theassessment year 2002-03, if the eight years' period wasnot lapsed, then the assessee would be entitled tocarry forward the loss without any restriction on thetime limit. This aspect has been dealt with elaboratelyin the decision of the Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court in the case of General Motors India (P.)Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2012] 25 taxmann.com 364/210 Taxman20/[2013] 354 ITR 244 wherein the relevant portions areas follows : "37.The CBDT Circular clarifies the intent of theamendment that it is for enabling theindustry to conserve sufficient funds to replaceplant and machinery and accordingly the amendmentdispenses with the restriction of 8 years for carryforward and set-off of unabsorbed depreciation. Theamendment is applicable from assessment year 2002-03and subsequent years. This means that any unabsorbeddepreciation available to an assessee on 1[st] day ofApril, 2002 (A.Y. 2002-03) will be dealt with inaccordance with the provisions of section 32(2) asamended by Finance Act, 2001 and not by theprovisions of section 32(2) as it stood before thesaid amendment. Had the intention of the Legislaturebeen to allow the unabsorbed depreciation allowanceworked out in A.Y. 1997-98 only for eight subsequentassessment years even after the amendment of section32(2) by Finance Act, 2001 it would haveincorporated a provision to that effect. However, itdoes not contain any such provision. Hence keepingin view the purpose of amendment of section 32(2) ofthe Act, a purposive and harmonious interpretationhas to be taken. While construing taxing statutes,rule of strict interpretation has to be applied,giving fair and reasonable construction to thelanguage of the section without leaning to the sideof assessee or the revenue. But if the legislaturefails to express clearly and the assessee becomesentitled for a benefit within the ambit of thesection by the clear words used in the section, thebenefit accruing to the assessee cannot be denied.However, Circular No. 14 of 2001 had clarified thatunder section 32(2), in computing the profits andgains of business or profession for any previousyear, deduction of depreciation under section 32shall be mandatory. Therefore, the provisions ofsection 32(2) as amended by Finance Act, 2001 wouldallow the unabsorbed depreciation allowanceavailable in the A.Ys. 1997-98, 1999-2000, 2000-01and 2001-02 to be carried forward to the succeedingyears, and if any unabsorbed depreciation or partthereof could not be set off till the A.Ys. 2002-03then it would be carried forward till the time it isset-off against the profits and gains of subsequentyears. 38.Therefore, it can be said that, currentdepreciation is deductible in the first place fromthe income of the business to which it relates. Ifsuch depreciation amount is larger than the amountof the profits of that business, then such excesscomes for absorption from the profits and gains fromany other business or business, if any, carried onby the assessee. If a balance is left eventhereafter, that becomes deductible from out ofincome from any source under any of the other headsof income during that year. In case there is a stillbalance left over, it is to be treated as unabsorbeddepreciation and it is taken to the next succeedingyear. Where there is current depreciation for suchsucceeding year the unabsorbed depreciation is addedto the current depreciation for such succeeding yearand is deemed as part thereof. If, however, there isno current depreciation for such succeeding year,the unabsorbed depreciation becomes the depreciationallowance for such succeeding year. We are of theconsidered opinion that any unabsorbed depreciationavailable to an assessee on 1st day of April 2002(A.Y. 2002-03) will be dealt with in accordance withthe provisions of section 32(2) as amended byFinance Act, 2001. And once the Circular No. 14 of2001 clarified that the restriction of 8 years forcarry forward and set-off of unabsorbed depreciationhad been dispensed with, the unabsorbed depreciationfrom A.Y.1997-98 upto the A.Y. 2001-02 got carriedforward to the assessment year 2002-03 and becamepart thereof, it came to be governed by theprovisions of section 32 (2) as amended by FinanceAct, 2001 and were available for carry forward andset-off againstthe profits and gains of subsequent years, withoutany limit whatsoever." 11. A similar issue was considered by a DivisionBench of the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v.Bajaj Hindustan Ltd. [IT Appeal Nos. 134 to 136 and140, 141 and 148 of 2018, dated 13-6- 2018] followingthe decision in the case of CIT v. Hindustan UnileverLtd. [2016] 72 taxmann.com 325/[2017] 394 ITR 73(Bom.). The special leave petition filed by the Revenueagainst the above decision was dismissed by the Hon'bleSupreme Court in the decision in Pr. CIT v. BajajHindustan Ltd. [SLP (C) Diary No. 48020 of 2018, dated25-1-2019]. 12. In the decision of the Punjab & Haryana HighCourt in the case of CIT v. G.T.M. Synthetics Ltd.[2013] 30 taxmann.com 83/[2012] 347 ITR 458], anidentical issue was considered in the following terms :'8. The effect of omission of the aforesaid provisowas enumerated by the Central Board of Direct Taxes,vide Circular No. 794 dated 9-8-2000 [(2000) 245 ITR(Statute)] 21 that the unabsorbed depreciationallowance could be set-off against the income underany other head even where the business was notcarried on.Clause 22 of the said circular which is relevant isas under: "22. Requirement of continuance of same business forset-off of unabsorbed depreciation dispensed with:22.1 Under the existing provisions of sub-section(2) of section 32 of the Income-tax Act, carriedforward unabsorbed depreciation is allowed to beset-off against profits and gains of business orprofession of the subsequent year, subject to thecondition that the business or profession for whichdepreciation allowance was originally computedcontinued to be carried on in that year. A similarcondition in section 72 for the purpose of carryforward and set-off of unabsorbed business loss wasremoved last year. "22. Requirement of continuance of same business forset-off of unabsorbed depreciation dispensed with:22.1 Under the existing provisions of sub-section(2) of section 32 of the Income-tax Act, carriedforward unabsorbed depreciation is allowed to beset-off against profits and gains of business orprofession of the subsequent year, subject to thecondition that the business or profession for whichdepreciation allowance was originally computedcontinued to be carried on in that year. A similarcondition in section 72 for the purpose of carryforward and set-off of unabsorbed business loss wasremoved last year. 22.2 With a view to harmonise the provisionsrelating carry forward and set-off of unabsorbeddepreciation and unabsorbed loss, the Act hasdispensed with the condition of continuance of samebusiness for the purpose of carry forward and set-off of unabsorbed depreciation.22.3 This amendment will take effect from 1st April,2001, and will, accordingly, apply in relation tothe assessment year 2001-2002 and subsequent years."9. The CIT(A) and the Tribunal, thus, rightlyallowed unabsorbed depreciation relevant to theassessment year 1996-97 to be set-off against theincome from long term capital gains and income fromother sources for the assessment year 2001-2002.' 13. Recently, in the decision of a Division Benchof the Bombay High Court in the case of Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax v. Gunnebo India (P.) Ltd.[2019] 104 CCH 227, the issue was considered in favourof the assessee after referring to the decision of theDivision Bench of the Gujarat High Court in the case ofGeneral Motors India (P.) Ltd., wherein the relevantportions read thus : "3. The Revenue carried the matter in appeal. TheAppellate Tribunal dismissed the appeal of theRevenue making the following observations- "16. Wehave observed that the current year's depreciationis allowed to be set-off against the income frombusiness as well as against the other heads ofincome and unabsorbed depreciation in carry forwardand become part of the depreciation of thesubsequent year and the total depreciation becomescurrent year's depreciation as per section 32(1) ofthe Act, which is allowed to be set-off against theincome under any head of income. As per theprovisions of section 32(2) of the Act r.w.s. 70, 71and 72 of the Act, it becomes very clear that thetotal depreciation comprising of the depreciation ofthe relevant assessment year along with theunabsorbed depreciation of the earlier years becomesthe total current year's depreciation which isallowed to be set off against income under any headof income including long term capital gain.Accordingly, we find no reason to interfere with theorder of CIT(A) qua this issue and the same ishereby upheld. We also hold that as per provisionsof section 72 of the Act, the unabsorbed businessloss (other than speculative loss) of earlier yearsshall be allowed to be set-off only against theprofits and gains from business carried on by theassessee of the current year and so on. We orderaccordingly. However, our above decision withrespect to ground nos. (i) and (ii) raised in memoof appeal filed by Revenue should be read inconjunction with and subject to our findings withrespect to ground nos. (iii) and (iv) which aredecided by us in the preceding para's of this orderand the computation shall be made accordingly." 4. Having heard the learned counsel for parties andhaving perused the documents on record, we do notfind any error in the order of the AppellateTribunal. Gujarat High Court in the case of GeneralMotors India (P.) Ltd. (supra) had consideredsomewhat similar issue, of course in the backdrop ofthe assessee's challenge to a notice of reopening ofthe assessment. The Gujarat High Court had held andobserved as under -"38 Therefore, it can be said that, currentdepreciation is deductible in the first place fromthe income of the business to which it relates. Ifsuch depreciation amount is larger than the amount of the profits of that business, then such excesscomes for absorption from the profits and gains fromany other business or business, if any, carried onby the assessee. If a balance is left eventhereafter, that becomes deductible from out ofincome from any source under any of the other headsof income during that year. In case there is a stillbalance left over, it is to be treated as unabsorbeddepreciation and it is taken to the next succeedingyear. Where there is current depreciation for suchsucceeding year the unabsorbed depreciation is addedto the current depreciation for such succeeding yearand is deemed as part thereof. If, however, there isno current depreciation for such succeeding year,the unabsorbed depreciation becomes the depreciationallowance for such succeeding year. We are of theconsidered opinion that any unabsorbed depreciationavailable to an assessee on 1st April, 2002 (asst.yr. 2002-03) will be dealt with in accordance withthe provisions of section 32(2) as amended byFinance Act, 2001. And once the Circular No. 14 of2001 clarified that the restriction of 8 years forcarry forward and set-off of unabsorbed depreciationhad been dispensed with, the unabsorbed depreciationfrom asst. yr. 1997-98 up to the asst. yr. 2001- 02got carried forward to the asst. yr. 2002-03 andbecame part thereof, it came to be governed by theprovisions of section 32(2) as amended by FinanceAct, 2001 and were available for carry forward andset-off against the profits and gains of subsequentyears, without any limit whatsoever." 14. In our considered view, the above decisionswill clearly enure to the benefit of the respondent -assessee.15. Accordingly, the above tax case appeal isdismissed and the substantial question of law isanswered against the Revenue. No costs.” 5.Mr.K.Ravi, learned counsel appearing for the respondentsubmitted that in view of the ratio laid down by the Hon'bleDivision Bench of this Court in the judgments in [2021] 127taxmann.com 805 (Madras) and [2020] 122 taxmann.com 212 (Madras), cited supra, the above appeal may be dismissed. 6.Having regard to the submissions made by the learnedcounsel on either side, following the ratio laid down in [2021] 127 taxmann.com 805 (Madras) [Harvey Heart Hospitals Ltd. Vs.Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax] and [2020] 122 taxmann.com212 (Madras) [Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai Vs. SanmarSpeciality Chemicals Ltd.], the question of law is decidedagainst the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. Accordingly,the Tax Case Appeal is dismissed. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS V) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar va To 1.The Assistant Registrar, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, "C" Bench. 2.The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Tiruchirapalli. 3.The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle I(1), Tiruchirappalli. +1cc to Mr.M.Swaminathan, Advocate Sr.32211 T.C.A.No.62 of 2015 rsi[co]srg 27/07/2021