TOPS SECUIRTY LTD, MUMBAI V. DCIT 8(3), MUMBAI

CO 105/MUM/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0066 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 14-11-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: E
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 16-05-2014
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AND ONE CROSS OBJ ECTION
• Keywords: Earning of tax free income; Period of limitation; Reasonable cause; Condonation of delay
• Section: 43B; 14A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL E BENCH, MUMBAI JH FOT; IKY JKO] U;KF;D LNL; JH FOT; IKY JKO] U;KF;D LNL; JH FOT; IKY JKO] U;KF;D LNL; JH FOT; IKY JKO] U;KF;D LNL; ,OA ,OA ,OA ,OA JH CH JH CH JH CH JH CH- -- - VKJ VKJVKJ VKJ- -- - CKLDJ.K] YS[KK LNL; CKLDJ.K] YS[KK LNL; CKLDJ.K] YS[KK LNL; CKLDJ.K] YS[KK LNL; DS LE{K DS LE{K DS LE{K DS LE{K BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. A.Y. APPELLANT RESPONDENT 120/MUM/2011 2006-07 THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 8(3), ROOM NO. 217, AAYKAR BHAVAN, M.K. MARG, MUMBAI 400 020. TOPS SECURITY LIMITED, 5, SUJATA BUILDING, JUHU TARA ROAD, JUHU, MUMBAI 400 049. 121/MUM/2011 2007-08 5661/MUM/2012 2009-10 ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 8(3), ROOM NO. 217, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M.K. MARG, MUMBAI - 400 020. TOPS SECURITY LTD, 5, ROYAL PALMS GOLF AND COUNTRY CLUB, AAREY MILK COLONY CLUB GOREGAON (E), MUMBAI 400 065. CO NO. 105/MUM2014 ARISING OUT OF ITA NO. 5661/MUM/2012 2009-10 TOPS SECURITY LTD, 5, ROYAL PALMS GOLF AND COUNTRY CLUB, AAREY MILK COLONY CLUB GOREGAON (E), MUMBAI 400 065 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 8(3), ROOM NO. 217, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M.K. MARG, MUMBAI - 400 020. ORDER PER VIJAY PAL RAO, JM THESE THREE APPEALS BY THE REVENUE AND ONE CROSS OBJ ECTION BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE THREE SEPARATE ORDER S OF CIT(A) FOR THE A.Y. 2006- REVENUE BY SHRI MANJUNATH SWAMY ASSESSEE BY SHRI SANJEEV LALAN DATE OF HEARING 11.11.2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 14 -11-2014 TOPS SECURITY LIMITED, 2 | P A G E 07, 2007-08 AND 2009-10 RESPECTIVELY. FOR THE A.Y. 2 006-07 AND 2007-08, THE REVENUE HAS RAISED COMMON GROUNDS AS UNDER:- 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW, THE CIT(A) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT SERVICE TAX THOUGH DEBITED TO THE PROF IT & LOSS ACCOUNT BUT NOT CREDITED TO THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT, CANNOT BE DISAL LOWED U/S.43B OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND IN LAW, THE CIT(A) ERRED IN FOLLOWING THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL, CHE NNAI BENCH IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS. REAL IMAGE MEDIA TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [ (2008) ITD 573 (CHENNAI)}, WHEREAS THE FACTS OF THE ASSESSEE'S CASE ARE DISTIN GUISHABLE FROM THE FACTS OF THE AFORESAID CASE.' 2. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. DR AS WELL AS LD. AR AND CONSI DERED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. FOR A.Y. 2006-07, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS DISALLOWED SERVICE TAX OF RS. 95,94,128/- WHICH WAS NOT PAID BY THE AS SESSEE EVEN ON THE DATE OF FILING OF RETURN OF INCOME. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESS ING OFFICER INVOKED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 43B OF THE INCOME TAX ACT., A ND ADDED THE SAID AMOUNT TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THERE WAS ANOTHER AMOUN T OF RS. 5,12,22,734/- WHICH REPRESENTS THE SERVICE TAX WHICH WAS COLLECTABLE BU T NOT COLLECTED AND NOT PAID. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED THE SAID AMOUNT OF RS . 5,12,22,734/- AND ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE CONTROVE RSY BEFORE US IS LIMITED TO THIS DISALLOWANCE. 2.1 THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED BEFORE THE CIT(A) THAT TH OUGHT THE SERVICE TAX INCLUDED IN THE BILL BUT IT WAS NOT ACTUALLY COLLECTE D FROM THE CUSTOMERS. HE REFERRED RULE 6 OF THE SERVICE TAX ACT AND SUBMITT ED THAT TAX BECOME PAYABLE ONLY WHEN IT IS COLLECTED FROM THE CUSTOMERS. THE CI T(A) ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE AND DELETED THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY ASSESSI NG OFFICER BY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. REA L IMAGE MEDIA TECHNOLOGIES (114 ITD 573). WE FURTHER NOTE THAT AN IDENTICAL ISS UE WAS CONSIDERED AND TOPS SECURITY LIMITED, 3 | P A G E DECIDED BY THIS TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR A .Y. 2005-06, VIDE DECISION DATED 30.06.2010, IN ITA NO. 5393/MUM/2008 IN PARA 1 4 AS UNDER:- 14. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PE RUSING THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD IT IS SEEN THAT A SUM OF RS.2,74,26,695 REPR ESENTS THE AMOUNT WHICH WAS DEBITED TO THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT BUT NOT PAID TO THE GOVERNMENT AS IT WAS NOT COLLECTED. THE REMAINING AMOUNT OF RS.45 LAKHS AND ODD REPRESENTS THE AMOUNT WHICH WAS COLLECTED BY THE ASSESSEE AND IN TURN PAI D TO THE GOVERNMENT IN THIS YEAR. THE CONTENTION OF THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESEN TATIVE THAT THE SAID SUM OF RS.3.19 CRORE WHICH WAS CLAIMED AS DEDUCTION SHOULD BE DISALLOWED U/S.43B AS IT WAS NOT PAID TO THE GOVERNMENT, DOES NOT MERIT ACCE PTANCE IN VIEW OF A DIRECT ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL PASSED BY THE CHENNAI BENCH IN ACIT VS. REAL IMAGE MEDIA TECHNOLOGIES (P.) LTD. [(2008) 114 ITD 573 (CHENNAI )]. IN THIS CASE IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT SERVICE TAX THOUGH BILLED BUT NOT RECEIVED NOT HAVING BEEN CREDITED TO THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT BY VIRTUE OF FINANCE ACT, 1994 R EAD WITH RULE 6 OF SERVICE TAX RULES, 1994, CAN NOT BE DISALLOWED U/S.43B. NO CONT RARY JUDGEMENT HAS BEEN BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE BY THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL R EPRESENTATIVE. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE PRECEDENT, WE UPHOLD THE VIEW TAKEN B Y THE LEARNED CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE. THIS GROUND IS NOT ALLOWED. 2.2 THE ISSUE BEFORE US, IS REGARDING DISALLOWANCE OF SERVICE TAX WHICH WAS NOT COLLECTED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM THE CUSTOMERS TO THE TUNE OF RS. 5,12,22,734/-. SINCE AN IDENTICAL ISSUE WAS DECIDED BY THIS TRIBUNAL I N ASSESSEES OWN CASE (SUPRA), ACCORDINGLY, FOLLOWING THE EARLIER ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL, WE DO NOT FIND ANY ERROR OR ILLEGALITY IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF CIT( A) QUA THIS ISSUE. 3. FOR A.Y. 2009-10, THE REVENUE HAS RAISED FOLLOWI NG GROUNDS:- 'ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE COMPUTED BY THE AO AS P ER RULE 8D(2)(II) BY DIRECTING THE AO TO EXCLUDE INTEREST OF RS.998.88 L AKHS ON THE GROUNDS THAT SUCH INTEREST PERTAINED TO BUSINESS PURPOSES WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT UNDER RULE 8D(2)(II) ONLY INTEREST DIRECTLY ATTRIBUTABLE TO ANY PARTICULAR INCOME OR RECEIPT IS ELIGIBLE FOR EXCLUSION CONTRARY TO THE V IEW OF THE CIT(A) REGARDING INTEREST PERTAINING TO BUSINESS PURPOSES SINCE BUSI NESS PURPOSES IMPLIES INVESTMENTS/EXPENDITURE AND NOT INCOME/RECEIPT.' 'ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE CIT(A) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT SERVICE TAX THOUGH DEBITED TO THE P ROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT BUT TOPS SECURITY LIMITED, 4 | P A G E NOT CREDITED TO THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT, CANNOT BE D ISALLOWED U/S.43B OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961.' 'ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE CIT(A) ERRED IN FOLLOWING THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL, C HENNAI BENCH IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS. REAL IMAGE MEDIA TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE L IMITED (2008) 114 ITD 573(CHENNAI), WHEREAS THE FACTS OF THE ASSESSEE'S CA SE ARE DISTINGUISHABLE FROM THE FACTS OF THE AFORESAID CASE.' 3.1 GROUND NO. 1 IS REGARDING DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A BY APPLYING RULE 8D. 3.2 DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSEE EARNED DIVIDEND INCOME OF RS. 12,000/- WHICH IS CLAIMED TO BE EXEMPT. IN TH E RETURN OF INCOME, THE ASSESSEE HAS DISALLOWED A SUM OF RS. 5,00,000/- U/S 1 4A. IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN AS TO WHY THE DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A SHOULD NOT BE MADE IN AC CORDANCE WITH RULE 8D OF THE INCOME TAX ACT,1962. IN RESPONSE THE ASSESSEE S UBMITTED THAT DURING THE YEAR UNDER REFERENCE, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT INCURRED ANY P ROXIMATE EXPENSES IN RELATION TO EXEMPT INCOME EARNED. IT WAS FURTHER SUB MITTED THAT THE INVESTMENT WERE MADE OUT OF OWN SURPLUS AND CAPITAL AND NOT OUT OF BORROWED FUND, THEREFORE, NO DISALLOWANCE WAS CLAIMED TO BE MADE AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 14A. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT ACCEPT TH E CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE AND WORKED OUT THE DISALLOWANCE AS PER RULE 8D OF INCO ME TAX RULES AT RS. 40,13,674/- OVER AND ABOVE THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 5, 00,000/-MADE BY THE ASSESSEE ON ITS OWN. 3.3 ON APPEAL, THE CIT(A) HAS PARTIALLY DELETED THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY ASSESSING OFFICER BY CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE A SSESSEES OWN FUND WAS SUFFICIENT FOR MAKING THE INVESTMENT IN QUESTION. I T WAS ALSO NOTED BY THE CIT(A) THAT THE INTEREST PAYMENT DURING THE YEAR WAS RELATE D TO THE BORROWINGS TAKEN FOR BUSINESS PURPOSE. THEREFORE, TO THE EXTENT OF DISALL OWANCE MADE BY ASSESSING TOPS SECURITY LIMITED, 5 | P A G E OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST EXPENDITURE, THE CIT( A)HAS DELETED THE SAID ADDITION BY ACCEPTING THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT ASSESSEES OWN FUND WAS UTILIZED FOR MAKING THE INVESTMENT AND NOT BORROWED FUND. AS REGARDS THE DISALLOWANCE OF ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES, WORKED OUT U NDER RULE 8D(III) OF RS. 8,24,815/-, THE CIT(A) HAS CONFIRMED THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY ASSESSING OFFICER. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF CIT(A) BOTH ASSESSEE AND R EVENUE HAVE CHALLENGED THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE. 4 THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE CROSS OBJECTION AND RAIS ED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- 1. (A) THE ID. CIT(A) ERRED IN APPRECIATING THAT TH E DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 5,00,000/- MADE BY THE ASSESSEE VOLUNTARILY WAS ADEQ UATE AND THAT APPLICATION OF RULE 8D IS WITHOUT ASSIGNING ANY REAS ONS FOR THE INADEQUACY OF SUCH DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE APPELLANT AND HENCE T HE DISALLOWANCE SUSTAINED IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 14A. (B) THE ID. CIT(APPEALS) ERRED IN FACTS AND LAW IN N OT EXCLUDING THE STRATEGIC INVESTMENTS MADE IN SUBSIDIARY COMPANIES WHILE SUSTA INING THE DISALLOWANCE U/S. 14A IN ACCORDANCE WITH RULE 8D(III). 2. YOUR APPELLANT PRAYS THAT- (I) DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 3,24,815/ SUSTAINED U/S. 14A OV ER AND ABOVE RS. 5,00,000/- BE DELETED. (II) ANY OTHER RELIEF AS DEEMED FIT IN THE MATTER BE GRA NTED. (III) DELAY IN FILING THE CROSS OBJECTIONS BE CONDONED. 5 THE REVENUE IS AGGRIEVED BY THE DELETION OF DISALLOW ANCE MADE U/S 14A ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST EXPENDITURE WHEREAS THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED TO THE EXTENT OF DISALLOWANCE SUSTAINED BY THE CIT(A) ON ACCOUNT OF A DMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES. 6 WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. AR AS WELL AS LD. DR AND CONSIDE RED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATI VE HAS POINTED OUT THAT THE TOPS SECURITY LIMITED, 6 | P A G E ASSESSEES OWN FUND WAS SUFFICIENT FOR MAKING THE I NVESTMENT IN QUESTION AND, THEREFORE, THE CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY DELETED THE ADDITIO N TO THE EXTENT OF DISALLOWANCE ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST EXPENDITURE. HE H AS ALSO REFERRED THE DETAILS OF OWN FUND OF THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS THE BORROWED F UND USED FOR SPECIFIC ACTIVITIES AS THE LOAN WAS TAKEN FOR THE SPECIFIC P URPOSES AND, THEREFORE, NO INTEREST EXPENDITURE WAS INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF THE INVESTMENT MADE IN THE SHARES AND SECURITIES RESULTING TAX FREE DIVIDEND INCOME. THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE HAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT OUT OF THE TOTAL INVESTMENT OF RS. 30.56 CRORES, 98% INVESTMENT IS IN THE SUBS IDIARIES OF THE ASSESSEE AND, THEREFORE, NO DISALLOWANCE IS CALLED FOR U/S 14A TO THE INVESTMENT MADE IN THE SUBSIDIARIES. IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION HE HAS R ELIED UPON THE DECISION OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF GARWARE WALL ROPES LTD. DATED 15.01.2014 IN ITA NO. 5408/MUM/2012. THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE HAS FURTHER CONTEN DED THAT THE ASSESSEE ITSELF HAS DISALLOWED A SUM OF RS. 5,0 0,000/- U/S 14A WHICH IS SUFFICIENT WHEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT GIVEN A FINDING THAT THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY ASSESSEE IS NOT CORRECT. 6.1 ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR HAS SUBMITTED THAT RULE 8D IS APPLICABLE FOR THE A.Y. UNDER CONSIDERATION AS HELD BY THE HON'BLE J URISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF GODREJ & BOYCE MFG. CO. LTD. ( 328 ITR 81). THEREFORE, THE COMPUTATION OF DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A SHALL BE AS PER FORMULA PROVIDED UNDER RULE 8D. HE HAS RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF ASSESSING OF FICER. 6.2 HAVING CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSION AS WELL AS RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD, WE NOTE THAT AS REGARDS THE DISALLOWANCE U/S 1 4A ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST EXPENDITURE, THE CIT(A) HAS GIVEN A FINDING THAT THE ASSESSEES OWN FUND WAS SUFFICIENT FOR MAKING THE INVESTMENT AND FURTHER IT WAS ALSO HELD BY THE CIT(A) THAT THE TOTAL INTEREST OF RS. 9.98 CRORES IS WHOLL Y AND EXCLUSIVE FOR THE PURPOSE OF TOPS SECURITY LIMITED, 7 | P A G E BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE AND NO DISALLOWANCE COULD BE MADE U/S 14A AND UNDER RULE 8D(II). THE CIT(A) HAS GIVEN THE DETAILS OF THE INTEREST EXPENDITURE IN PARA 1.6 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND FOUND THAT AS PER THE SCH EDULE 15 OF THE AUDIT ACCOUNT SHOW THAT THE INTEREST WAS WHOLLY FOR THE P URPOSE OF BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE MAINLY TO FINANCE/COVER THE RECEIVABLES/DEB TORS. THE WORKING CAPITAL LOAN WERE TAKEN AGAINST THE HYPOTHECATION OF ENTIRE BOOK DEBTS, EQUITABLE MORTGAGE OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY, PARI PASSU CHARGE ON CURRENT ASSETS AND PERSONAL GUARANTEE OF THE DIRECTORS. NOTHING HAS B EEN BROUGHT BEFORE US TO CONTROVERT THE FINDING OF FACT GIVEN BY THE CIT(A) R EGARDING THE BORROWED FUNDS UTILIZED FOR SPECIFIC PURPOSE OF BUSINESS/WORKING CA PITAL LOAN, THEREFORE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY ERROR OR ILLEGALITY IN THE ORDER OF CIT (A) TO THE EXTENT OF DELETION OF ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST EXPENDITURE U/S 14A. 7. THE CROSS OBJECTIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE B ELATED BY 207 DAYS. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED AN APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY SUPPORTED BY AN AFFIDAVIT OF THE MANAGING DIRECTOR OF THE ASSESSEE C OMPANY. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. AR AS WELL AS LD. DR ON THE CONDONATION OF DELAY A ND CAREFULLY PERUSED THE AVERMENTS MADE IN THE APPLICATION AS WELL AS IN THE AFFIDAVITS. THE REASONS FOR DELAY HAS BEEN EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT EARLIE R THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FILE THE CROSS OBJECTION DUE TO THE SMALLNESS OF AMOUNT BUT S UBSEQUENTLY, THE TRIBUNAL HELD THAT NO DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A CAN BE MADE WHERE TH E ASSESSEE HAS MADE INVESTMENT IN ITS SUBSIDIARIES FOR ACQUIRING THE CO NTROLLING INTEREST. THUS THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT DISCLOSE ANY REA SONABLE CAUSE WHICH HAS PREVENTED THE ASSESSEE FOR NOT FILING THE CO WITHIN THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION. IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT THE OBJECT OF PROVISION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY PROVIDED IN THE ACT IS TO PREVENT THE DENIAL OF JUSTICE IN THE C ASE WHERE A PARTY COULD NOT APPROACH THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY WITHIN THE PRESCRI BED PERIOD OF LIMITATION DUE TO REASONABLE CAUSE. IT DOES NOT FACILITATE OR GIVE A RIGHT TO THE PARTY TO WAIT FOR AN TOPS SECURITY LIMITED, 8 | P A G E INDEFINITE PERIOD OF TIME FOR A FAVOURABLE DECISION IN ITS FAVOUR AND THEN CHALLENGE THE IMPUGNED ORDER BEFORE THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY. E VEN IN A CASE WHERE AN ISSUE IS SETTLED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE BY THE DECISION OF TH IS TRIBUNAL BUT THE SAID DECISION IS ALWAYS SUBJECT TO THE FURTHER APPEAL AND , THEREFORE, IT WAS NOT FINALITY OF THE DECISION ON THE ISSUE. ONCE THE ASSESSEE ACC EPTED THE ORDER OF CIT(A) ON THE ISSUE OF DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A, THEN THE SUBSEQU ENT DECISIONS OF THIS TRIBUNAL OR HIGHER COURTS IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE SAME ISSUE DOES NOT EXTEND THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION FOR CHALLENGING THE ADDITION. ACC ORDINGLY, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO EXPLAIN THE REASONABLE CAUSE FOR NOT FILING THE CROSS OBJECTION WITHIN THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION. THE CROSS OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS BARRED BY LIMITATION AND ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. 8. GROUND NO. 2 OF THE REVENUES APPEAL IS REGARDIN G DISALLOWANCE U/S 43B OF THE INCOME TAX ACT., FOR SERVICE TAX NOT COLLECT ED BY THE ASSESSEE. 8.1 THIS GROUND IS COMMON TO THE GROUND RAISED FOR A.Y. 2006-07 AND 2007- 08, THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF OUR FINDING FOR THE A.Y. 2006-07AND 2007-08, THIS GROUND OF REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 9. IN THE RESULT APPEALS OF THE REVENUE AND CROSS OBJ ECTION OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 14 TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2014 SD/- SD/- ( B.R.BASKARAN ) (VIJAY PAL RAO) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER/ YS[KK LNL; YS[KK LNL; YS[KK LNL; YS[KK LNL; ) (JUDICIAL MEMBER/ U;KF;D LNL; U;KF;D LNL; U;KF;D LNL; U;KF;D LNL; ) MUMBAI DATED 14-11 -2014 SKS SR. P.S, TOPS SECURITY LIMITED, 9 | P A G E COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CONCERNED CIT(A) 4. THE CONCERNED CIT 5. THE DR, E BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI