M/s. Allianz Biosciences Pvt. Ltd., CHENNAI V. DCIT, CHENNAI

CO 156/CHNY/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 122 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5231 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 19-11-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 16-11-2010
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 05-10-2009
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: K E B RENGARAJAN JR
• Assessee Lawyers: T BANUSEKARAN
• Keywords: Retrospective amendment
• Section: 80IB

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHENNAI BENCH D : CHENNAI [BEFORE DR. O.K. NARAYANAN, VICE-PRESIDENT AND SHRI HARI OM MARATHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER] I.T.A NOS. 1365 & 1366/MDS/09 ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2005-06 & 2006-07 THE DY. CIT COMPANY CIRCLE I(1) CHENNAI VS M/S ALLIANZ BIOSCIENCES PVT. LTD 656, T.H ROAD, TONDIARPET CHENNAI 600 081 [PAN AABCH2431G] (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) C.O. NOS. 156 & 157/MDS/09 ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2005-06 & 2006-07 M/S ALLIANZ BIOSCIENCES PVT. LTD 656, T.H ROAD, TONDIARPET CHENNAI 600 081 VS THE DY. CIT COMPANY CIRCLE I(1) CHENNAI (CROSS OBJECTOR) (RESPONDENT) DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI K.E.B RENGARAJAN, JR. STANDING COUNSEL ASSESSEE BY : SHRI T. BANUSEKARAN O R D E R PER HARI OM MARATHA, JM: THIS IS A BUNCH OF FOUR MATTERS TWO APPEALS B Y THE REVENUE FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2005-06 AND 2006-07 AND THE CO RRESPONDING CROSS OBJECTIONS BY THE ASSESSEE. IN THE APPEALS O F THE REVENUE, ITA 1365 & 1366/09 CO 156 & 157/09 :- 2 -: ALMOST IDENTICAL ISSUE IS INVOLVED WHEREAS THE CROS S OBJECTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE SUPPORTIVE IN NATURE, THEREFORE, FOR T HE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE AND BREVITY, WE ARE DECIDING ALL OF THE M BY A COMMON ORDER. IT WOULD BE BENEFICIAL TO NARRATE THE FACT S OF ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 AS THE APPELLATE ORDER DATED 19.5.2009 GIVE S DETAILED FACT FINDING. 2. THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY IS ENGAGED IN THE MANUFACTURI NG OF DRUGS AND PHARMACEUTICAL FORMULATIONS. FOR ASSESSM ENT YEAR 2005-06, IT HAD CLAIMED A DEDUCTION U/S 80IB OF THE INCOME-T AX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS 'THE ACT' FOR SHORT) TO THE EXTENT OF ` 93,96,992/- BEING PROFITS IN FULL DERIVED FROM THE ASSESSEES INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING SITUATED AT PONDICHERRY. THE ASSESSME NT YEAR 2005-06 IS THE INITIAL YEAR IN WHICH THIS CLAIM HAS BEEN MADE. ACTUALLY, THE ASSESSEE MANUFACTURES DRUGS AND PHARMACEUTICAL FORM ULATIONS FOR M/S TABLETS (INDIA) LTD BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT P OSSESS A LICENCE TO MANUFACTURE DRUGS IN ITS OWN NAME. SO, IT DOES MAN UFACTURING ON A LOANED LICENCE TAKEN FROM M/S TABLETS (INDIA) LTD . THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ARRIVED AT A CONCLUSION THAT THE ASSESS EE-COMPANY ISENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF CONTRACT-MANUFACTURING OF DRUGS AND PHARMACEUTICAL FORMULATIONS FOR M/S TABLETS (INDIA) LTD. THE CONCLUSION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS BASED ON TH E FOLLOWING REASONS: ITA 1365 & 1366/09 CO 156 & 157/09 :- 3 -: (A) THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT POSSESS A LICENCE TO MANUFACTURE DRUGS IN ITS OWN NAME. (B) THE ASSESSEE IS MANUFACTURING ON A LOAN LICENCE TAKEN FROM M/S TABLETS (INDIA) LTD. (C) THE TECHNICAL KNOWHOW ON PRODUCTION OPERAT ION INCLUDING PROCESSING, MIXING, DRYING, COMPOUNDING, FILLING, FINISHING, LABELING, PACKAGING, STORAGE AND TESTING IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PHARMACOPOEIAL STANDARDS AND QUALITY SPECIFICATIONS ARE PRESCRIBED BY THE PRINCIPAL MANUFACTURER NAMELY, M/S TABLETS (INDIA) LTD FROM TIME TO TIME. (D) THE PRODUCTS MANUFACTURED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY ARE EXAMINED, INSPECTED AND TESTED FOR QUALITY CHECKS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE INSTRUCTIONS AND TESTING PROCEDURES PRESCRIBED BY THE PRINCIPAL MANUFACTURER AND REPORTS IN THIS REGARD ARE SUBMITTED TO THE PRINCIPAL MANUFACTURER. (E) THE MATERIALS ARE SUPPLIED DIRECTLY BY THE PRINCIPAL MANUFACTURER NAMELY, M/S TABLETS (INDIA) LTD. IN OTHER WORDS, THE RAW MATERIALS ARE NOT PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. (F) THE ASSESSEE IS IN RECEIPT OF ONLY CONVERSI ON CHARGES FOR THE WORK DONE BY IT ON BEHALF OF M/S TABLETS (INDIA) LTD. 3. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS OF THE OPINION THAT WHE N THE PRINCIPAL- MANUFACTURER MANUFACTURES GOODS IN OUTSIDERS PREMI SES (JOB-WORKERS PREMISES) UNDER HIS DIRECT SUPERVISION AND CONTROL, DEDUCTION U/S 80IB CAN BE GIVEN TO THE PRINCIPAL-MANUFACTURER AND NOT TO CONTRACT- MANUFACTURER. BEING NOT CERTAIN AS THERE ARE CONT RADICTORY JUDICIAL ITA 1365 & 1366/09 CO 156 & 157/09 :- 4 -: PRONOUNCEMENTS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER SOUGHT DIRECT IONS U/S 144A OF THE ACT FROM THE ADDL. CIT ON THIS ISSUE. AFTER HE ARING THE ASSESSEE, THE ADDL. CIT PASSED AN ORDER U/S 144A TO THE EFF ECT THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION U/S 80IB FO R JOB WORK CONTRACT. FOLLOWING THE DIRECTION OF THE ADDL. CIT, THE ASSE SSING OFFICER DISALLOWED THE IMPUGNED CLAIM. AGAINST THIS FINDIN G OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE WENT BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) , WHO HAS SET ASIDE THE ASSESSING OFFICERS FINDING AND HAS ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80IB. NOW THE REVENUE IS AGGRIEVED AND HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX (APPEALS) IS CONTRARY TO THE LAW AND FACTS OF THE C ASE. 2. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) HAS FAILED TO NOTE THAT THE EXCISE DUTY IS PAID BY M/S TABLETS INDIA PVT. LTD ONLY AND NOT BY THE ASSESS EE COMPANY. FURTHER, THE SALES TAX RETURN ALSO SHOWS SALES OF ` 45,283/- ONLY. THESE FACTS ALREADY MENTIONED IN THE ORDER U/S 144A DATED 13.11.2007 HAVE NOT BEEN TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) WHILE ALLOWING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 3. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) HAS ALSO ERRED IN IGNORING THE RECITALS OF THE JOB WORK CONTRACT REPRODUCED IN PARA NO.11 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHICH CLEARLY SHOWS THAT DIRECT SUPERVISION A ND CONTROL OVER THE MANUFACTURING PROCESS WAS EXERCISED BY M/S TABLETS INDIA PVT. LTD. 4. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN FOLLOWING THE DECISIONS IN THE CASE OF CIT VS NEOPHARMA PVT. LTD (137 ITR 879) AND CIT VS ANGLOR FRENCH DRUG COMPANY LTD (191 ITR 92), THE LD. CIT OUGHT TO HAVE HELD THAT THE DEDUCTION U/S 8 0IB ITA 1365 & 1366/09 CO 156 & 157/09 :- 5 -: IS TO BE ALLOWED ONLY IN THE HANDS OF M/S TABLETS (INDIA) LTD AND NOT TO THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY CANNOT ABROGATE ONTO ITSELF, THE BENEFIT OF DEDUCTION CONFERRED UPON A DIFFERENT PERSON BY THE LEGISLATURE. 5. FOR THESE AND OTHER GROUNDS THAT MAY BE ADDUCED AT THE TIME OF HEARING, IT IS PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF THE V BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND HAVE C AREFULLY PERUSED THE ENTIRE RECORD. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF LD.DR IN THE LIGHT OF THE GROUNDS AND THE REASONING GIVEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE GIST OF REVENUES CASE IS T HAT THE ASSESSEE BEING JOB-WORK-CONTRACTOR IS NOT ENTITLED TO DEDUC TION U/S 80IB OF THE ACT WHICH BENEFIT CAN BE DERIVED ONLY BY M/S TABLET S (INDIA) LTD. WE HAVE ALSO GIVEN OUR THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION TO THE REASONINGS GIVEN IN THE APPELLATE ORDER WHICH HAVE BEEN FURTHER SUBSTAN TIATED BY THE LD.AR WITH REFERENCE TO THE DEFINITION OF A LOAN LICENC EE. RELIANCE HAS BEEN PLACED ON THE DECISION OF HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL H IGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS TAJ FIRE WORKS INDUSTRIES, 288 ITR 92, AN D THAT OF CIT VS IMPEL FORGE AND ALLIED INDUSTRIES LTD, 326 ITR 27 ( P&H), INTER ALIA. THE UNDENIABLE FACTS OF THIS CASE ARE THAT THE ASSE SSEE IS NOT A LICENCE HOLDER FOR THE MANUFACTURER OF DRUGS AND PHARMACEUT ICAL FORMULATIONS. THE LICENCE IS GIVEN IN THE NAME OF M/S TABLETS (IN DIA) LTD WHICH HAS BEEN LOANED TO THIS ASSESSEE WHO HAS DONE MANUFA CTURING ACTIVITIES ITA 1365 & 1366/09 CO 156 & 157/09 :- 6 -: AS STATED ABOVE. THE CASE OF THE REVENUE IS THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE IS A WORKS CONTRACTOR AND AS PER EXPLANATION TO SE CTION 80IA INSERTED BY FINANCE ACT, 2007 WITH RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT FROM 1.4.2000, THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR CLAIMING DEDUCTION U/S 80IB. ON THE CONTRARY, THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE AS PUT FOR TH THROUGH ITS REPRESENTATIVE IS THAT THE EXPLANATION INSERTED BEL OW SECTION 80IA IS NOT RELEVANT FOR THE DEDUCTION U/S 80IB BECAUSE SEC TION 80IB OPERATES IN DIFFERENT DOMAIN AND SECTION 80IA OPERATES IN AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT DOMAIN AND THAT THE ASSESSEE FULFILLS ALL THE CONDI TIONS LAID DOWN IN SECTION 80IB, HENCE, IT IS ENTITLED TO THE IMPUGNED DEDUCTION. 5. WE FIND FORCE IN THE ARGUMENT OF THE LD.AR WHEN HE STATES THAT SECTION 80IB(13) REFERS TO SUB-SECTIONS(5), (7) TO (12) OF SECTION 80IA WHICH DEAL WITH THE ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA LIKE, COMP UTATION OF PROFITS/CALCULATION OF DEDUCTION/PROCEDURE FOR CLAI M OF DEDUCTION APPLICABLE TO AN ELIGIBLE INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING, M EANING THEREBY, WHATEVER ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA AS LAID DOWN UNDER SE CTION 80IB HAS TO BE READ AS COMPLETE IN ITSELF AND NO MEANING CAN BE IM PORTED FROM SECTION 80IA FOR THIS DEDUCTION. WHEN THE ELIGIBIL ITY CRITERIA IS CLEARLY LAID DOWN UNDER SECTION 80IB ITSELF, THE EXPLANATIO N OF SECTION 80IA CANNOT OVERRIDE THE ELIGIBILITY OF AN INDUSTRIAL UN DERTAKING EITHER U/S 80IA OR 80IB OR VICE VERSA. THESE ARE TO DIFFERENT PROVISIONS OF LAW ITA 1365 & 1366/09 CO 156 & 157/09 :- 7 -: AND CANNOT BE MIXED OR SUBSTITUTED EACH OTHER, VICE VERSA. IN OUR OPINION, THE CONTENTION OF THE LD.DR THAT EXPLANATI ON BELOW SECTION 80IA WILL ALSO APPLY TO ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR DE DUCTION U/S 80IB IS SIMPLISTIC AND DIDACTIC AND CARRIES NO SUBSTANCE TH EREIN. SECTION 80IA DEALS WITH DEDUCTION IN RESPECT OF PROFITS AND GAI NS FROM INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKINGS OR ENTERPRISES ENGAGED IN INFRASTRUCTU RE DEVELOPMENT LIKE INDUSTRIAL PARK, SOCIO ECONOMIC ZONE, GENERATION OF POWER OR SUBSTANTIAL RENOVATION AND MODERNIZATION OF EXISTIN G TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION LINES OR LAYING AND OPERATION OF CROSS COUNTRY INDUSTRIAL GAS DISTRIBUTION NETWORK WHEREAS SECTION 80IB RELATES T O AN INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING OTHER THAN INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT U NDERTAKINGS. IN CASE WE ACCEPT THE CONTENTION OF THE LD.DR, THE HAR MONY BETWEEN THESE TWO SECTIONS WOULD BECOME EXTINCT WHICH IS NO T PERMISSIBLE IN FISCAL LAW. THE DRUGS COSMETICS ACT, 1940 VIDE SEC TION 69A SPEAKS OF GRANT OF LOAN LICENCE TO MANUFACTURE FOR SALE OR FO R DISTRIBUTION OF DRUGS OTHER THAN THOSE SPECIFIED IN SCHEDULE C. THE DECISION OF HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT (SUPRA) ALSO SUPP ORTS OUR FINDING. THERE IS NO DOUBT ABOUT THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN SYSTEMATIC AND ORGANIZED ACTIVITY OF PRODUCTION BY ENGAGING LABOURERS TO PRODUCE THE END PRODUCT. THE HON'BLE P&H HIGH C OURT IN THE CASE CITED SUPRA HAS GONE TO THE EXTENT IN HOLDING THAT ONCE IT IS FOUND THAT ITA 1365 & 1366/09 CO 156 & 157/09 :- 8 -: THE ASSESSEE IS DERIVING INCOME FROM ELIGIBLE BUSIN ESS COVERED BY SECTION 80IB APART FROM OTHER CONDITIONS, THE ASSES SEE HAS LIBERTY TO DO MANUFACTURING ACTIVITY NOT ONLY FOR HIMSELF BUT ALSO FOR OTHERS AND CONSEQUENTLY PROFIT DERIVED FROM JOB WORK DONE FOR OTHERS ALSO QUALIFIES FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80IB OF THE ACT. WE HAVE SEEN THE COPY OF THE LOAN LICENCE ENCLOSED IN THE PAPER BOOK AND A COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY M/S TABLETS (INDIA) LTD AND S O ALSO THE ASSESSMENT ORDER OF THE SAME YEAR IN THE CASE OF M/ S TABLETS (INDIA) LTD. ALTHOUGH THESE EVIDENCES MAY BE SELF-SERVING EVIDENCES YET, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY DISPUTE WITH REGARD TO THE FACTS MENTIONED ABOVE, THESE FACTORS HELP THE ASSESSEE TO A GREATER EXTENT TO BRING ITS CLAIM U/S 80IB. SO, IT IS CLEARLY SEEN THAT U/S 80IB(4) SUB-CONTRACT IS NOT PROHIBITED. UNDISPUTEDLY, THE ASSESSEE HAS GOT ITS FACTORY AT PONDICHERRY FROM WHERE IT CARRIES ON MANUFACTURING ACTIVITIES. THIS COMPANY HOLDS A LICENCE IN FORM NO. 24 AND FORM NO. 28 TO MANUFACTURE DRUGS AND FORMULATIONS UNDER THE LICEN CE OBTAINED IN FORM NO.25A AND FORM 28A OBTAINED BY M/S TABLETS (I NDIA) LTD. A LOAN LICENCE HAS BEEN ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE WHO DO ES NOT HAVE HIS OWN ARRANGEMENT FOR MANUFACTURE AND WHO INTENDS TO AVAIL FACILITIES FROM OTHER MANUFACTURERS. HENCE, THE ENTIRE ACTIVI TIES ARE DONE BY THE ASSESSEE ON BEHALF OF THE LOAN-LICENCEE I.E M/S TAB LETS (INDIA) LTD. ITA 1365 & 1366/09 CO 156 & 157/09 :- 9 -: THE MANUFACTURING ACTIVITIES ARE DONE UNDER THE DIR ECTION AND SUPERVISION OF TECHNICAL STAFF WHO ARE THE EMPLOYEE S OF THE ASSESSEE- COMPANY. THERE IS A WRITTEN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE TWO COMPANIES WHICH PROVIDES AND PRESCRIBES THE METHODOLOGY OF T HE ROLE OF M/S TABLETS (INDIA) LTD IN INSPECTION AND SUPERVISION OF DRUGS MANUFACTURED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ORDER TO EXERCISE Q UALITY CONTROL BY TEST CHECKING WHICH IS A MUST IN THE FIELD OF DRUGS INDUSTRY. THE DRUGS AND OTHER FORMULATIONS ARE SOLD BY M/S TABLETS (IN DIA) LTD UNDER THEIR NAME. SO, IN A WAY THE CONTRACTUAL AGREEMENT IS WI TH REGARD TO SUPERVISION OF THE PROCESS BY M/S TABLETS (INDIA) L TD WHEREAS THE ENTIRE MANUFACTURING PROCESS IS BEING DONE BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER HIS STATUTORY OBLIGATION AND AS PER LAW AND AS PER THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS PROVIDED IN THE LOAN LICENCE. THE CAPAC ITY AND INFRASTRUCTURE REGARDING PRODUCTION OF THESE MEDICI NES FORMULATIONS AND PHARMACEUTICAL FORMULATIONS IS NOT DOUBTED BY T HE DEPARTMENT. TO MANUFACTURE DRUGS EITHER FOR SELF OR FOR OTHERS ON A LOAN LICENCE BASIS, GETTING A LOAN LICENCE FROM THE AUTHORITIES IS A CONDITION PRECEDENT. IN THE LOAN LICENCE THE PREMISES WHERE THE MANUFACTURING ACTIVITY IS TO BE CARRIED ON HAS TO BE MENTIONED AN D IN THIS CASE, IT IS THE FACTORY OF THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY. THE DRUG CONT ROL DEPARTMENT OFFICIALS FREQUENTLY VISIT AND SUPERVISE/VERIFY WIT H REGARD TO THE ITA 1365 & 1366/09 CO 156 & 157/09 :- 10 - : PRESCRIBED STANDARDS REGARDING HYGIENE STRATEGIES A ND CLEANLINESS FAILING WHICH THE LICENCE CAN BE WITHDRAWN. IN THI S CASE, UNDOUBTEDLY THE ASSESSEE HAS USED ITS OWN PLANT AND MACHINERY, INFRASTRUCTURE AND SKILLED WORKERS FOR THE PURPOSE OF MANUFACTURE. IT HAS MANUFACTURED GOODS IN ITS PREMISES AND HAS INCURRED SUBSTANTIAL EXPENDITURE ON INFRASTRUCTURE, CONSUMABLES, MANPOWER, ETC. THE G OODS MANUFACTURED HAVE SUFFERED EXCISE DUTY UNDER THE CA TEGORY DRUGS AND FORMULATIONS. THESE PRODUCTS ARE CLEARED THROU GH CENTRAL EXCISE INVOICES TO M/S TABLETS (INDIA) LTD AFTER PAYING TH E RELEVANT CENTRAL EXCISE DUTY. THE ASSESSEE HAS CONVERTED THE RAW MA TERIALS RECEIVED FROM M/S TABLETS (INDIA) LTD INTO DRUGS AND OTHER P HARMACEUTICAL FORMULATIONS. WHEREAS M/S TABLETS (INDIA) LTD DOES NOT HAVE A MANUFACTURING UNIT AND HENCE, IT CANNOT CLAIM DEDUC TION U/S 80IB. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ALSO ASCERTAINED FROM THE ASSESS ING OFFICER THROUGH A REMAND REPORT DATED 25.3.2009 THOUGH M/S TABLETS (INDIA) LTD M/S TABLETS (INDIA) LTD HAS NOT CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S 8 0IB BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT ENTITLED TO DO SO. THE CASE BEFORE US IS T HAT AS TO WHETHER THE PERSON TO WHOM THE WORK HAS BEEN OUTSOURCED BY ANOT HER HAS TO BE TREATED AS MANUFACTURER OR NOT. THIS ISSUE IS DIRE CTLY COVERED BY THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF CIT VS TAJ FIRE WORKS INDUS TRIES (SUPRA) WHICH GOES IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THESE CIRCUMSTA NCES, WE DO NOT FIND ITA 1365 & 1366/09 CO 156 & 157/09 :- 11 - : ANY VALID REASON(S) TO INTERFERE IN THE IMPUGNED FI NDING, HENCE, WE CONFIRM THE SAME. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 STANDS DISMISSED. 7. THE APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) DATED 29.5.2008. THE FACTS AND ISSUE INVOLVED IN THIS APPEAL ARE IDENTICAL TO THAT OF THE ASSESS MENT YEAR 2005-06 AND THEREFORE, BY FOLLOWING THE SAME REASONING, WE DISMISS THE APPEAL FOR THIS YEAR FILED BY THE REVENUE AS WELL. 8. THE CROSS OBJECTIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE SIMP LY IN SUPPORT OF THE APPELLATE FINDINGS, HENCE, THEY ALSO STAND D ISMISSED. 9. IN THE RESULT BOTH, THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE AS W ELL AS THE CROSS OBJECTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE STAND DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 19 .11.10. SD/- SD/- (DR. O.K. NARAYANAN) VICE-PRESIDENT (HARI OM MARATHA) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 19 TH NOVEMBER, 10 RD : COPY TO: APPELLANT/RESPONDENT/CIT(A)/CIT/DR