Bothra Shipping Services., Kolkata V. A.C.I.T Cir - 34,kolkata.,

CO 25/KOL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0165 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 9 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 19-12-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 22-02-2013
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MADHU MALATI GHOSH
• Keywords: Depreciation; Rectification of order; Reasonable cause; Difference of opinion; Assessment record; Change of opinion
• Section: 143(3); 2(14); 32; 147; 148; 56; 263; 154

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH: KOLKATA [BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM & SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA AM ] I.T.A NOS.58 - 61/KOL/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR S : 2004 - 05 TO 2007 - 08 A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 34, VS. M/S.BOTHRA SHIPPING SERVICES KOLKATA KOLKA TA (APPELLANT) ( RESPONDENT) (PAN: AADFB 8479 P) C.O.NOS.25&26/KOL/2013 I.T.A NOS.58 & 59/KOL/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR S : 2004 - 05 & 2005 - 06 M/S. BOTHRA SHIPPING SERVICES . VS. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 34, KOLKATA KOLKATA ( CROSS OBJECTOR) ( RES PONDENT) (PAN: AADFB 8479 P) FOR THE DEPARTMENT : SMT.MADHU MALATI GHOSH, JCIT FOR THE ASSESSEE : SHRI SOMNATH GHOSH, ADVOCATE DATE OF HEARING : 16.12 .2014 . DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 19.12.2014. ORDER PER SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, AM : THESE APP EAL S BY THE REVENUE AND CROSS OBJECTIONS BY THE ASSESSEE EMANATE OUT OF THE RESPECTIVE ORDER S OF CIT(A) - XX, KOLKATA FOR THE CONCERNED ASSESSMENT YEARS. SINCE THE ISSUES ARE COMMON AND CONNECTED THESE ARE BEING CONSOLIDATED AND DISPOSED OF BY THIS COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. REVENUE S APPEALS : 2. AT THE THRESHOLD IT IS NOTED THAT THE REVENUE S APPEALS ARE DELAYED BY 68 DAYS. THE REASONABLE CAUSE HAS BEEN ATTRIBUTED TO VARIOUS FACTORS INCLUDING THE ISSUE THAT THERE WAS TRANSFER OF JURISDICTI ON WHICH LED TO THE SUBSTANTIAL PART OF APPEAL. THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESEE SUBMITTED THAT HE SHALL NOT HAVE ANY OBJECTION TO THE TRIBUNAL ITA NOS.58 - 61/K/2013 & CO.25&26/K/2013 M/S.BOTHRA SHIPPING SERVICES A.YRS.2004 - 05 TO 2007 - 08 2 CONDONING THE DELAY. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER WE CONDONE THE DELAY AND ADMIT THE APPEALS. 3. THE COMMON ISSUE R AISED IN THESE APPEALS IS THAT THE LD.CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE EQUIPMENT I.E. PAYLOADERS, JCBS AND 400V LOADERS CAN BE CLASSIFIED AS PLANT AND MACHINERY FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEPRECIATION AND NOT AS MOTOR BUS, MOTOR LORRY OR ANY TRA NSPORT/GOODS VEHICLE. AS SUCH THE REVENUE IS AGGRIEVED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN ALLOWING THE DEPRECIATION @40% IN A.YR.2004 - 05 AND 2005 - 06 AND 30% FOR A.YR.2006 - 07 AND 2007 - 08 AS AGAINST DEPRECIATION ALLOWED BY THE AO. ON MERITS IT IS ALSO URGED BY THE REVENUE THAT ITAT KOLKATA BENCH, ORDER WHICH IS THE BASIS FOR LD.CIT(A) ORDER HAS BEEN APPEALED AGAINST IN THE HON BLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT BY THE DEPARTMENT. 4. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE COUNSEL AND PERUSED THE RECORDS. WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE IS SQUAREL Y COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE DECI SION OF ITAT, KOLKATA BENCH IN ASSESSEE S OWN CASE FOR A.YR.2006 - 07 VIDE ORDER DATED 16 TH JULY, 2010 . THE TRIBUNAL HAD HELD AS UNDER : - 5. AFTER A CAREFUL ANALYSIS OF THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY BOTH THE PARTIE S AND ON PERUSAL OF THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD IN LIGHT OF THE CASE LAWS CITED BY THE LD.COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE FIRM IS CARRYING ON A BUSINESS OF, INTER ALIA, LEASING OUT EARTH MOVING VEHICLES. IN THE RETURN FILED THE ASS ESSEE CLAIMED DEPRECIATION, AT PAGE NO.78 OF THE PAPER BOOK, ON TATA LOADERS IN THE SUM OF R S.20,41,096, ON JCB LOADERS AMOUNTING TO RS.39,50,070 AND ON DAEWOO 400V WHEEL LOADER S OF R S.18,14,095 AGGREGATING TO RS.78,05,261 APPLYING THE RATE OF 30 PER CENT AVAILABLE IN CASE OF MO TOR LORRIES UNDER ENTRY NO.III( 3) (II) OF PART A OF APPENDIX I OF THE INCOME - TAX RULES, 1962. WE ALSO FIND FROM THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT, AT PAGE 95 OF THE PAPER BOOK, THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCLOSED INCOME FROM COMMERCIAL VEHI CLES/OTHER EQUIPMENTS/AUTO BAGGING & STANDARDISATION WORK IN THE SUM OF RS.3,51,43,929 WHICH WAS DULY CONSIDERED IN THE NET PROFIT OF RS.6,72, 14,954 DISCLOSED IN THE RETURN. THEREFORE THE OBSERVATION OF THE LD. CIT ON THIS ACCOUNT THAT THESE WHEEL LOADER S MAY BE USED IN THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE BUT THESE ARE HOT HIRED OUT TO OTHERS HAS NO LEGS TO STAND ON. WE FIND FORCE IN THE ARGUMENTS OF THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO DEPRECIATION AT THE RATE OF 30 PER CENT ON THE DUMPERS/EXCAVATORS, CRANE MOUNTED VEHICLES, VEHICLES FITTED WITH CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENTS AND OTHER TATA, JCB AND 400V WHEEL LOADERS WHICH ARE REGISTERED AS HEAVY OR MEDIUM MOTOR VEHICLES BY THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER AND THEREFORE CLEARLY FALLS WITHIN THE AMBIT OF THE EXPRESSION MOTOR LORRIES APPEARING IN ENTRY NO.III(3)(II) OF PART A OF APPENDIX I OF THE INCOME - TAX RULES, 1962 SINCE THEY ARE USED IN THE BUSINESS OF HIRING THEM OUT TO OTHERS. THEY ARE FITTED WITH DIESEL ENGINES, HYDRAULIC ITA NOS.58 - 61/K/2013 & CO.25&26/K/2013 M/S.BOTHRA SHIPPING SERVICES A.YRS.2004 - 05 TO 2007 - 08 3 BRAKES AND P NEUMATIC TYRES. THESE ARE FOUR WHEELED MULTI - UTILITY VEHICLES USED FOR EXCAVATION OF EARTH AND MOVEMENT OF THE SAME IS LIMITED WITHIN SHORT DISTANCES. THESE ARE NOT USED AS TRANSPORT VEHICLES BUT THEY ARE USED IN EXCAVATION OF EARTH AND MOVEMENT OF THE SAM E, THOUGH FOR LIMITED DISTANCE AND THE MACHINE IS ALSO USED TO LEVEL AND SHAPE THE LAND. WE ALSO FIND THAT THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF BOSE ABRAHAM (SUPRA) HAS HELD THAT THE EXCAVATORS AND ROAD ROLLERS ARE MOTOR VEHICLES WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 2(2 8) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 AND ARE EXIGIBLE TO TAX UNDER ENTRY TAX ACT. WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT A PAY LOADER IS AKIN TO A MOTOR VEHICLE AND IS REGISTERED WITH THE RTO AS A HEAVY OR MEDIUM MOTOR VEHICLES AND THEREFORE, THEY SQUARELY FA LL WITHIN THE MEANING OF MOTOR VEHICLES AS PRESCRIBED IN THE PROVISION OF SECTION 2(28) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT 1988. THEREFORE THE APPROACH OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS CORRECT IN LAW IN ALLOWING DEPRECIATION AT THE RATE OF 30 PER CENT ON THESE PAY LO ADERS. THE MOBILE CRANE AND EXCAVATORS WHICH WERE REGISTERED AS HEAVY OR MEDIUM MOTOR VEHICLES CLEARLY FELL WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE EXPRESSION OF MOTOR LORRIES . THEREFORE, IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, THE IMPUGNED DIRECTION OF THE LD. CIT THAT THE TATA, JCB, 400V WHEEL LOADERS ARE ENTITLED TO DEPRECIATION AT THE RATE OF 15 PER CENT IS BASED ENTIRELY ON WRONG PREMISES AND ASSUMPTIONS. WE FIND THAT THE ONLY AUTHORITY EMPOWERED TO REGISTER SUCH VEHICLES IS THE RTO AND THE VEHICLES WERE REGISTERED AS HEAVY OR MEDI UM MOTOR VEHICLES WITHIN THE MEANING OF MOTOR VEHICLE AS ASSIGNED IN SECTION 2(28) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT 1988. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE TATA, JCB 400V WHEEL LOADERS ARE USED IN THE BUSINESS OF GIVING THEM ON HIRE WHICH ARE REGISTERED AS HEAVY OR MEDI UM MOTOR VEHICLES WITH THE RTO AND AS SUCH ARE ENTITLED TO SPECIAL DEPRECIATION AS PROVIDED FOR MOTOR LORRIES APPEARING IN ENTRY NO.III(3) (II) OF PART A OF APPENDIX I OF THE INCOME - TAX RULES, 1962. THIS VIEW OF OURS IS FORTIFIED WITH THE DECISION OF THE HON BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF GUJCO CARRIERS (SUPRA) WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT A MOBILE CRANE WHICH IS REGISTERED AS A HEAVY MOTOR VEHICLE WITH THE RTO WOULD CLEARLY FALL WITHIN THE EXPRESSION MOTOR LORRIES IN ENTRY IIIE(1A) OF TABLE IN APPEND IX I UNDER RULE 5 OF THE INCOME - TAX RULES, 1962 SINCE IT IS USED IN THE BUSINESS OF RUNNING THE CRANE ON HIRE AND AS SUCH ENTITLED TO DEPRECIATION AT THE RATE OF 40%. SIMILARLY, IN THE CASE OF GAYLORD CONSTRUCTIONS (SUPRA) IT WAS HELD THAT THE EARTH MOVING EQUIPMENT, JCB, WHICH ARE USED ON HIRE FOR EXCAVATION OF SOIL ARE UTILIZED EQUALLY FOR TRANSPORT OF THE EXCAVATED SOIL OR OTHER LOADS FOR A LIMITED DISTANCE AND THEREFORE IT SERVES AS A TRANSPORT EQUIPMENT AS WELL AND SO LONG AS IT IS REGISTERED AS A MOT OR VEHICLE WITH THE RTO IT IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEPRECIATION AT THE RATE OF 40 PER CENT. THEREFORE IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE TATA, JCB AND 400V WHEEL LOADERS ARE COVERED WITHIN THE EXPRESSION MOTOR LORRIES WHICH ARE USED IN BUSINESS OF RUNNING THEM ON HIRE AN D THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD CORRECTLY ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION UNDER SECTION 32 IN THE SUM OF RS.78,05,251 APPLYING THE RATE OF 30 PER CENT ASSIGNED TO ENTRY NO.III(3)(II) OF PART A OF APPENDIX I OF THE INCOME - TAX RULES, 1962 APPLICABLE FOR AS M OTOR BUSES, MOTOR LORRIES AND MOTOR TAXIS USED IN A BUSINESS OF RUNNING THEM ON HIRE AND THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY LD. CIT IS UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW BEING IN CONTRAVENTION OF THE SETTLED LEGAL POSITION IN THIS RESPECT, IS HEREBY QUASHED. THE APPEAL OF T HE ASSESSEE IS, THEREFORE, ALLOWED. 4.1. FROM THE ABOVE IT IS APPARENT THAT THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEE S OWN CASE HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE IN ASSESSEE S FAVOUR AND THE DEPARTMENT IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE HON BLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER WE HAVE TO UPHOLD THE ORDER ITA NOS.58 - 61/K/2013 & CO.25&26/K/2013 M/S.BOTHRA SHIPPING SERVICES A.YRS.2004 - 05 TO 2007 - 08 4 OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND DECIDE THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THIS REGARD WE NOTE THAT THE DECISION OF THE HON BLE RAJAS THAN HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS SARDAR STONES 215 ITR 350 AND IN THE CASE OF CIT VS MANJEET STO NE CO. 190 ITR 183 WHICH HAD BEEN REFERRED BY THE REVENUE. AS AGAINST THIS I N THIS REGARD WE NOTE THAT THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE HAS POINTED OUT THAT THE ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE HON BLE KERALA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE O F CASE OF CIT VS GAYLORD CONSTRUCTIONS 190 TAXMAN 406 (KER) AND BY THE HONB LE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF GUJCO CARRIERS VS CIT 122 TAXMAN 206 (GUJ). WE FIND THAT THE HON BLE KERALA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS GAYLORD CONSTRUCTIONS (SUPRA) HAS HELD AS UNDER : - THE QUESTION RAISED IN THE APPEAL FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT IS WHETHER THE TRIBUNAL WAS JUSTIFIED IN UPHOLDING THE ASSESSEE S CLAIM FOR DEPRECIATION OF EARTH MOVING EQUIPMENT, NAMELY, JCB AT THE RATE OF 40 PERCENT WHICH RATE IS PROVIDED FOR MOTOR BUSES, MOTOR LORRIES, MOTOR TAXIS USED IN THE BUSINESS OF RUNNING THEM ON HIRE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER TOOK THE VIEW THAT EARTH MOVING EQUIPMENT, POPULARLY KNOWN AS JCB, IS NOT MOTOR BUSES, OR MOTOR LORRIES OR MOTOR TAXIS, ELIGIBLE FOR DEPRECIATION AT THE HIGHER RATE OF 40 PER CENT. THEREFORE, HE GRANTED DEPRECIATION TO THE ASSESSEE AT 25 PER CENT. 2. SENIOR STANDING COUNSEL APPEARING FOR THE APPELLANT SUPPORTED THE CASE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND CONTENDED THAT THE ITEMS COVERED BY THE ABOVE E NTRY ARE ONLY MOTOR VEHICLES USED FOR CARRIAGE OF GOODS OR PASSENGERS AND SINCE JCB IS ONLY AN EXCAVATOR - CUM - EARTH MOVING EQUIPMENT, IT DOES NOT ANSWER THE DESCRIPTION OF ANY OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES REFERRED TO IN THE ABOVE ENTRY. WE NOTICE FROM THE TRIBUNAL S ORDER THAT THE TRIBUNAL ALLOWED THE CLAIM RELYING ON THE DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT IN BOSE ABRAHAM V. STATE OF KERALA AIR 2001 SC 835 AND THAT OF THE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN GUJCO CARRIERS V. CIT [2002] 122 TAXMAN 206 WHEREIN THE GUJARAT HIGH COURT HE LD THAT MOBILE CRANE WHICH IS REGISTERED AS A HEAVY MOTOR VEHICLE FALLS WITHIN THE EXPRESSION MOTOR LORRIES AND IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEPRECIATION AT HIGHER RATE OF 40 PER CENT UNDER THE ABOVE ENTRY. 3. ADMITTEDLY JCB WHICH IS USED ON ROAD IS REGISTERED AS A MOTOR VEHICLE. THOUGH IT IS NOT USED AS A TRANSPORT VEHICLE, JCB IS A FOUR - WHEELED EXCAVATOR - CUM - TRANSPORT VEHICLE USED FOR EXCAVATION OF EARTH AND MOVEMENT OF THE SAME, THOUGH FOR LIMITED DISTANCES. EVEN THOUGH THE PURPOSE OF MOTOR LORRY WHICH IS A HEA VY MOTOR VEHICLE USED FOR TRANSPORT OF GOODS FROM PLACE TO PLACE, CANNOT BE SERVED BY A JCB, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE EXPRESSION MOTOR LORRY COVERED BY THE ABOVE ENTRY OF THE INCOME - TAX RULES PROVIDING FOR HIGHER RATE OF DEPRECIATION, HAS A WIDE MEANI NG. JCB THOUGH BASICALLY IS USED FOR EXCAVATION OF SOIL, IT IS A HEAVY VEHICLE ALSO USED FOR TRANSPORT OF EXCAVATED SOIL, SAND OR OTHER GOODS, FOR A LIMITED DISTANCE AND THE MACHINE IS ALSO USED TO LEVEL AND SHAPE THE LAND. THEREFORE, IT SERVES AS A TRANS PORT EQUIPMENT AS WELL AND SO LONG AS IT IS REGISTERED UNDER THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, IT IS A MOTOR VEHICLE WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE SAID TERM AS HELD BY THE SUPREME COURT IN THE DECISION ABOVE REFERRED. WE THEREFORE FEEL THAT IN A LARGER SENSE JCB ANSWERS THE DESCRIPTION OF MOTOR LORRY WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE ENTRY REFERRED ABOVE CONTAINED IN THE INCOME - TAX RULES. THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT THE ITEM IS NOT LET ON HIRE BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH IS ONE OF THE ITEMS OF BUSINESS CARRIED ON BY THEM. THE ARGUMENT OF SENIOR STANDING COUNSEL THAT THE CASE ITA NOS.58 - 61/K/2013 & CO.25&26/K/2013 M/S.BOTHRA SHIPPING SERVICES A.YRS.2004 - 05 TO 2007 - 08 5 DECIDED BY THE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IS ON DIFFERENT FACTS, APPEARS TO BE TRUE BECAUSE THEIR THE CRANE IN THAT CASE IS MOUNTED ON THE TRUCK AND THE TRUCK IS ADMITTEDLY ENTITLED TO DEPRECIATION AT 40 PER CENT. WHEN THE CR ANE MOUNTED ON THE TRUCK, THE CRANE BECOMES MOBILE AND WHEN BOTH ARE LET OUT ON HIRE AS A MOBILE CRANE, THE VALUE OF THE CRANE ALSO BECOMES PART OF THE MOTOR LORRY ENTITLING FOR DEPRECIATION ON THE COMBINED VALUE. EVEN THOUGH THE FACTS IN THE GUJARAT DECIS ION ARE DIFFERENT, WE STILL FEEL THE PRINCIPLE APPLIED BY THE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IS APPLICABLE IN THIS CASE ALSO, BECAUSE IN THIS CASE JCB ITSELF IS FUNCTIONALLY AND OPERATIONALLY USED AS MOTOR VEHICLE FOR TRANSPORT OF GOODS WITHIN LIMITED DISTANCES. WE TH EREFORE UPHOLD THE VIEW OF THE TRIBUNAL THAT JCB IS ENTITLED TO HIGHER RATE OF DEPRECIATION CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 4.2. WE FURTHER FIND THAT HON BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF GUJCO CARRIERS VS CIT SUPRA HAS HELD AS UNDER : - HEAD NOTES LORRY OR TRUCK WOULD MEAN NOT ONLY ANY MOTOR VEHICLE DESIGNED TO CARRY FREIGHT OR GOODS BUT ALSO TO PERFORM SPECIAL SERVICES LIKE FIRE FIGHTING. FIRE ENGINE, ALSO CALLED FIRE - TRUCK, IS A SELF - PROPELLED MOBILE PIEC E OF EQUIPMENT USED IN FIRE FIGHTING. THERE CAN BE OTHER SPECIAL SERVICES TO BE PERFORMED BY MOTOR VEHICLES DESIGNED FOR SUCH SERVICES. THUS, A LORRY I.E., TRUCK ADAPTED OR DESIGNED TO CARRY A CRANE, IS MEANT FOR SPECIAL SERVICES OF LIFTING LOAD, MOVING IT SIDE BY SIDE, ROTATING IT OR MOVING IT HORIZONATALLY. MOST INDUSTRIAL TRUCKS PERMIT MECHANIZED PICK - UP AND DEPOSIT OF THE LOADS, ELIMINATING MANUAL WORK IN LIFTING AS WELL AS TRANSPORTING. THE CRANE TRUCK IS A PORTABLE BOOM CRANE MOUNTED ON AN INDUSTRIAL TRUCK. IT MAY BE USED WITH HOOKS, GRABS AND SLINGS FOR BUNDLED OR COILED MATERIAL. INDUSTRIAL TRUCKS WHICH WOULD ALSO COME WITHIN THE EXPRESSION MOTOR LORRIES ARE DESCRIBED IN THE ENCYCLOPAEDIA BRITANNICA. IT WILL, THUS, BE CLEAR THAT MOTOR VEHICLES LIKE FIRE TRUCKS, FORK - LIFT TRUCKS AND CRANE TRUCKS WHICH ARE DESIGNED FOR SPECIAL SERVICES, FALL WITHIN THE CATEGORY OF MOTOR TRUCKS (ALSO CALLED MOTOR LORRIES ). THE WORD CRANE WHEN USED FOR AN INANIMATE OBJECT MEANS A MACHINE FOR MOVING HEAVY OBJECTS USUALLY BY SUSPENDING THEM FROM A PROJECTING ARM OR BEAM. CRANE IS ANY OF A DIVERSE GROUP OF MACHINES THAT NOT ONLY LIFE HEAVY OBJECTS BUT ALSO SHIFT THEM HORIZONTALLY. MOVABLE CRANES ARE MOUNTED ON RAILWAY CARS, MOTOR TRUCKS OR CHASSIS EQUIPPED WITH CATE RPILLAR TREADS AND THE HOISTING MACHINERY IS MOUNTED SO AS TO COUNTERPOISE PART OF THE LOAD ON THE BOOM AND THEREBY PREVENTING THE ENTIRE CRANE FROM OVERTURNING WHILE CARRYING THE LOAD. THE FORK - LIFT TRUCK, WIDELY USED FOR MOVING GOODS BETWEEN WAREHOUSE ST ORAG ES AND SHIPPING VEHICLE S, IS A HIGHLY MANEUVERABLE CRANE ADAPTABLE TO HANDLING DRUMS, CRATES, OR LOADED SKIDS OR PALLETS. ENCYCLOPAEDIA BRITANNICA UNDER THE HEADING CRANE . THUS, A FORK - LIFT TRUCK IS ALSO A TYPE OF CRANE. THE EXPRESSION TRUCK CRANE IS WELL - KNOWN IN THE TRUCK INDUSTRY. THE TRUCK CRANE IS A UNIT CONSISTING OF A CRANE HOUSE AND BOOM MOUNTED ON A TRUCK CHASIS, ..ORIGINALLY ASSEMBLED BY CONTRACTORS FROM CRAWLER CRANES AND TRUCK PARTS, THE TRUCK CRANE FOR YEARS HAS BEEN MANUFACTUR ED AND SOLD AS A UNIT. ALTHOUGH THE TRUCK CRANE IS DIFFICULT TO MOVE ON SOFT OR SLIPPERY GROUND, IT IS HIGHLY MOBILE ON A FIRM FOOTING AND IS EASILY MOVED OVER ROADS AND HIGHWAYS - RANE HOIST - MCGRAW HILL ENCYCLOPAEDIA OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY . A CRANE IS USUALLY TYPED ACCORDING TO ITS UNDERCARRIAGE. SOME OF THE CRANES IN WHICH UNDERCARRIAGE IS NOT A TRUCK ARE, CRAWLER CRANES MOUNTED ON CONTINUOUS TRACKS, THE RAIL OR LOCOMOTIVE CRANE ON SPECIAL CHASSIS WITH FLANGED WHEELS FOR USE ON RAILWAY ITA NOS.58 - 61/K/2013 & CO.25&26/K/2013 M/S.BOTHRA SHIPPING SERVICES A.YRS.2004 - 05 TO 2007 - 08 6 TRA CKS AND FLOATING CRANE ON A BARGE OR SCOW. THEREFORE, SEARCH FOR THE ITEM CRANES IN THE ENTRIES IN APPENDIX I WITHOUT KEEPING IN MIND THE NATURE OF EQUIPMENT, WAS BASED ON AN ERRONEOUS PREMISE. A CRANE MOUNTED ON A TRUCK IS A TRUCK CRANE WHICH IS A WEL L - KNOWN MACHINERY WHICH CAN EASILY MOVE OVER ROADS AND HIGHWAYS AND IS NOT A STATIONERY EQUIPMENT. TRUCK CRANE IS DESCRIBED UNDER THE HEADING CRANE IN ENCYCLOPAEDIA BRITANNICA. THUS, A MO BILE CRANE MOUNTED ON A TRUCK CONSTITUTES A SINGLE UNIT KNOWN AS A TRUCK CRANE WHICH IS ADAPTED FOR USE UPON ROADS FOR SPECIAL SERVICES. THE TRUCK ON WHICH THE CRANE IS MOUNTED IS CONSTRUCTED AND ADAPTED SPECIALLY TO CARRY THE CRANE. GOODS CARRIAGE AS DEFINED IN SECTION 2(14) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 MEANS ANY MOTOR VEHICLE CONSTRUCTED OR ADAPTED FOR USE SOLELY FOR THE CARRIAGE OF GOODS, OR ANY MOTOR VEHICLE NOT SO CONSTRUCTED OR ADAPTED WHEN USED FOR THE CARRIAGE OF GOODS. THIS DEFINITION IS NOT CONFINED ONLY TO CARRIAGE OF FREIGHT WHICH IS NARROWER THAN THE EX PRESSION CARRIAGE OF GOODS . IN THE INSTANT CASE, TRUCK WAS ADAPTED FOR USE SOLELY FOR CARRIAGE OF THE CRANE MOUNTED ON IT. THE MOUNTED CRANE WAS ATTACHED TO THE TRUCK WHICH CARRIED IT. THE TEST OF CARRYING GOODS SUCH AS POTATOES AND TOMATOES THAT REQUIRE S LOADING AND UNLOADING IN CONTEXT OF CARRIAGE OF FREIGHT WHEN TRANSPORTED, AS WAS SUGGESTED ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE, WOULD NOT BE DECISIVE. UNLOADING, IN THE CONTEXT OF TRUCK CRANE WHERE THE CRANE REMAINS MOUNTED AND ATTACHED TO THE TRUCK WHEN CARRIED AN D EVEN AT THE DESTINATION WHERE IT IS PUT TO USE IS NOT A RELEVANT FACTOR AT ALL. THOUGH NOT REQUIRED TO BE LOADED OR UNLOADED LIKE OTHER GOODS TRANSPORTED IN CARRIAGE OF FREIGHT, THE CRANE REMAINS FIXED, MOUNTED ON THE TRUCK WHICH HAS BEEN ADAPTED FOR USE SOLELY FOR ITS CARRIAGE AND SUCH TRUCK CRANE IS USED FOR SPECIAL SERVICE OF LIFTING AND MOVING HEAVY OBJECTS. THAT IS WHY SUCH MOBILE CRANE IS REGISTERED AS A HEAVY MOTOR VEHICLE WHICH IS A HEAVY GOODS VEHICLE AS DEFINED IN SECTION 2(16) OF THE MOTOR VEHI CLES ACT. THE APPROACH OF THE TRIBUNAL AND THE AUTHORITIES BELO W IS THAT CRANES ARE NOT MENTIONED SPECIFICALLY AS AN INDEPENDENT ITEM FALLING IN THE CATEGORIES FOR WHICH HIGHER DEPRECIATION ALLOWANCE AT THE RATE OF 40 PER CENT WHEN USED FOR HIRE AND AT 30 PER CENT WHEN NOT SO USED HAD BEEN PROVIDED AS AGAINST 10 PER CENT OF MACHINERY IN GENERAL AND, THEREFORE, THEY SHOULD BE TREATED AS FALLING IN THE GENERAL CATEGORY OF MACHINERY, WAS AN OVERSIMPLIFICATION OF THE MATTER. THE APPROACH OF THE TRIBUNAL THAT TH E PLEA TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE THAT CRANE WAS AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE ON WHICH IT WAS MOUNTED REQUIRED ASCERTAINMENT OF FACTS AND FRESH INVESTIGATION, AMOUNTED TO IMPOSING A BURDEN ON A PERSON TO PROVE SOMETHING OF WHICH THE COURT OR THE TRIBUN AL COULD TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE. LACK OF EFFORT AND KNOWLEDGE SUFFICIENT FOR TAKING SUCH JUDICIAL NOTICE SHOULD NOT BE A BURDEN ON THE CITIZENS IN JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS. AS PROVIDED BY SECTION 56 OF THE EVIDENCE ACT, NO FACT OF WHICH THE COURT WILL TAKE JUDI CIAL NOTICE , NEED BE PROVED. THAT EQUALLY APPLIES TO THE TRIBUNALS WHICH ARE NOT, IN FACT, STRICTLY BOUND BY THE RULES OF EVIDENCE. THE MOBILE CRANE OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH ADMITTEDLY WAS REGISTERED AS A HEAVY MOTOR VEHICLE, FOR THE ABOVE REASONS, CLEARLY FA LL WITHIN THE EXPRESSION MOTOR LORRIES (WHICH MEANS MOTOR TRUCKS) IN HEADING III E (1A) OF THE TABLE IN APPENDIX 1 UNDER RULE 5 SINCE IT WAS USED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS BUSINESS OF RUNNING THE CRANE ON HIRE. THEREFORE, THE TRIBUNAL WAS WRONG IN HOLDING T HAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO DEPRECIATION AT 40 PER CENT ON CRANE MOUNTED ON MOTOR TRUCK. 4.3. WE FIND THAT THE ABOVE CASE LAWS OF HON BLE KERALA HIGH COURT AND GUJARAT HIGH COURT FULLY SUPPORT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. ADMITTEDLY THERE IS NO JUR ISDICTION AL ITA NOS.58 - 61/K/2013 & CO.25&26/K/2013 M/S.BOTHRA SHIPPING SERVICES A.YRS.2004 - 05 TO 2007 - 08 7 HIGH COURT DECISION ON THIS ISSUE. HOWEVER, THE TRIBUNAL S DECISION IN ASSESSEE S OWN CASE IS IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. FURTHERMORE, THERE ARE TWO OTHER HON BLE HIGH COURT DECISIONS WHICH ARE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. HENCE IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION THE ISSUE IS TO BE DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE LEGAL PRECEDENT. AS REGARDS THE CITATION FROM THE HON BLE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT REFERRED BY THE REVENUE WE FIND THAT THESE ARE NOT APPLICABLE ON THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. FURTHERMORE, WE FIND THAT THE HON BLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS VEGETABLE PRODUCTS REPORTED IN 88 ITR 192 HAS HELD THAT IF THE COURT FINDS THAT THE LANGUAGE OF A TAXING PROVISION IS AMBIGUOUS OR CAPABLE OF MORE MEANINGS THAN ONE, THEN THE COURT HA S TO ADOPT THAT INTERPRETATION WHICH FAVOURS THE ASSESSEE, MORE PARTICULARLY SO WHERE THE PROVISION RELATES TO THE IMPOSITION OF A PENALTY . IN THE BACKGROUND OF THE AFORESAID DISCUSSION AND PRECEDENT WE HOLD THAT THE LD. CIT(A) S ORDER IN THIS CASE ARE T O BE UPHELD AND THE ISSUE IS DECIDED ON MERITS IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. 4.4. WE FURTHER NOTE THAT IN THE A.YR. 2006 - 07 THE ASSESSE HAS MADE THE FOLLOWING PLEAS ALSO : RETURN FILED ON 31.10.2006 DISCLOSING INCOME OF RS.6,78,01,954/ - . DEPRECIATION ON COM MERCIAL TRANSPORT VEHICLE CLAIMED AT @30% SINCE THE SAME IS FALLING WITHIN THE SCOPE OF ENTRY NO.III(3)(II) OF PART A OF NEW APPENDIX 1. ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT ACCEPTING SUCH DEPRECIATION. NOTICE U/S 263(1) DATED 05 - 10 - 2009 FOR REVISION, IN TER ALIA, CONTAINING THE ISSUE OF DEPRECIATION. ORDER U/S 263 PASSED BY THE C.I.T. DIRECTING THE AO TO ALLOW DEPRECIATION @15% VIS - - VIS 30% CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. AO FRAMED ORDER U/S 143(3)/263 ALLOWING DEPRECIATION @15%. HON BLE ITAT KOLKATA C BENCH QUASHED THE ORDER OF THE CIT. THE APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER U/S 143(3)/263 WAS ALLOWED SINCE HON BLE I.T.A.T., KOLKATA QUASHED THE ORDER OF THE CIT. THE INSTANT APPEAL IS LIABLE TO DISMISSED IN LIMINE. 4.5. WE FIND THAT THE ABOVE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE IS QUITE GERMANE AND SINCE THE ORDER U/S 263 OF THE ACT PASSED BY THE LD. CIT HAS BEEN QUASHED BY ITAT. THIS ORDER PASSED PURSUANT TO THE ORDER U/S 263 OF THE ACT BY THE AO IS LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED AND AS SUCH THE PRESENT APPEAL LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED IN LIM INE AND IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED AS SUCH. ITA NOS.58 - 61/K/2013 & CO.25&26/K/2013 M/S.BOTHRA SHIPPING SERVICES A.YRS.2004 - 05 TO 2007 - 08 8 C.O.NO.25 /KOL/2013 A.YR.2004 - 05 5. IN THE CROSS OBJECTION ASSESSEE S GRIEVANCE IS THAT AO HAS ERRED IN ASSUMING JURI SDICTION U/S 154 OF THE ACT. WE FIND TH AT THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THIS ISSUE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A ) WHO DID NOT ADJUDICATE UPON THESE ISSUES. WE NOTE THAT FOR THIS A.YR.2004 - 05 RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED ON 18.10.2004 DISCLOSING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.36,47,870/ - . THE DEPRECIATION ON THE LOADERS @40% WAS ACCEPTED IN ORDER PASSED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT . THE REFORE AO INVOKED SECTION 154 WHEREBY AO RESTRICTED THE DEPRECIATION @15%. NOW WE FIND THAT SECTION 154 OF THE ACT MANDATES RECTIFICATION OF MISTAKE WHICH ARE APPARENT FROM RECORD. AS DISCUSSED BY US IN THE PRECEDING APPEALS BY THE REVENUE THE ISSUE IS CO VERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND THERE ARE HON BLE HIGH COURT DECISIONS ON THE ISSUE WHICH ARE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THERE WAS APPARENT MISTAKE LIABLE FOR RECTIFICATION. IT IS A SETTLED LAW THAT ON DEBATABLE MATERS RECOURSE TO SECTION 154 CANNOT BE MADE AND IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER ALSO ORDER OF THE AO IS LIABLE TO BE QUASHED. SIMILARLY THE ISSUE AS TO RECOURSE TO SECTION 154 IN SUCH CASES IS COVERED BY THE DECISION OF THE HON BLE CALCUTTA HIGH COU RT IN THE CASE OF HARBANS LAL MALHOTRA & SONS (P )LTD VS ITO 83 ITR 848 (CAL). T HE HON BLE HIGH COURT HAD HELD THAT PROCEEDINGS TAKEN U/S 154 WERE WITHOUT JURISDICTION. HEAD NOTES OF THE SAID DECISIONS ARE AS UNDER : - SECTION 154 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1 961 RECTIFICATION OF MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD ASSESSMENT YEAR 1963 - 64 ITO ISSUED NOTICE UNDER SECTION 154/155 PROPOSING RECTIFICATION OF ASSESSMENT ORDER WHEREIN ASSESSEE WAS WRONGLY ALLOWED DEPRECIATION OF 10 PERCENT INSTEAD OF 7 PERCENT ON MAC HINERY USED IN MANUFACTURE OF SAFETY RAZOR BLADES FROM STEEL STRIPS WHETHER MISTAKE PROPOSED TO BE RECTIFIED WAS DEPENDENT ON QUESTION AS TO WHETHER MACHINERY USED FOR PRODUCTION OF SAFETY RAZOR BLADES COULD BE SAID TO BE PAR T OF IRON & STEEL INDUSTRY AND COULD COME WITHIN CATEGORY (B) OF ITEM III (II) IN PART I OF APPENDIX I OF INCOME - TAX RULES, 1962 WHICH WAS A QUESTION WHICH REQUIRED, FIRSTLY AN INTERPRETATION OF EXPRESSION OTHER MACHINERY AND PLANT AND, SECONDLY, NATURE MACHINERY AND PLANT USE D BY ASSESSEE HELD, YES WHETHER SINCE THAT WOULD REQUIRE INVESTIGATION BOTH OF FACTS AS WELL AS INTERPRETATION OF LAW, IT COULD NOT BE SAID THAT IT WAS AN OBVIOUS AND APPARENT MISTAKE WHICH WAS SELF - EVIDENT AND DID NOT REQUIRE EITHER A PROCESS OF ARGUM ENT OR INVESTIGATION HELD, YES WHETHER, THEREFORE, PROCEEDINGS TAKEN UNDER SECTION 154 WERE WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND FURTHER PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT TO IMPUGNED NOTICE HAD TO BE QUASHED HELD, YES. 5.1. IN THE BACKGROUND OF AFORESAID DISCUSSION IT IS CLEAR THAT THE ISSUE COULD NOT HAVE BEEN TAKEN BY THE AO U/S 154 OF THE ACT IN AS MUCH AS THE ISS UE WAS DEBATABLE AND IT REQUIRED INVESTIGATION BOTH ON FACTS AS WELL AS APPLICABILITY OF LAW. IN THIS VIEW ITA NOS.58 - 61/K/2013 & CO.25&26/K/2013 M/S.BOTHRA SHIPPING SERVICES A.YRS.2004 - 05 TO 2007 - 08 9 OF THE MATTER ASSESSEE S CROSS OBJECTION IS LIABL E TO SUCCEED. ACCORDINGLY CROSS OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE STANDS ALLOWED. C.O.NO.26/KOL/2013 (A.YR.2005 - 06) : 6. IN THIS CROSS OBJECTION THE ASSESSEE HAS AGITATED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT AO HAS ERRED IN ASSUMING JURISDICTION U/S 147 OF THE I.T.ACT. THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE IN A NUTSHELL IN THIS REGARD ARE AS UNDER : - RETURN FILED ON 27 - 10 - 2005 DISCLOSING INCOME OF RS.2,65,03,973/ - . DEPRECIATION ON COMMERCIAL TRANSPORT VEHICLE CLAIMED AT @ 40% SINCE THE SAME IS FALLING WITHIN THE SCOPE OF ENTRY NO.III ( 3 ) (II) OF PART A OF OLD APPENDIX I. ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT ACCEPTING SUCH DEPRECIATION. NOTICE U/S 263(1) DATED 06 - 01 - 2009 FOR REVISION, INTER ALIA, CONTAINING THE ISSUE OF DEPRECIATION. ORDER U/S 263 BY THE C.I.T. BY DROPPING THE PROCEEDINGS AFTER ACCEPTING THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE. NOTICE U/S 148 DATED 19 - 06 - 2009 ISSUED AFTER SCRUTINY OF ASSESSMENT RECORD AND TA X AUDIT REPORT DEPRECIATION ON T ATA & JCB LOADERS @ 40% ARE EXCESSIVE W HEREAS @25% IS ALLOWABLE. CHANGE OF OPINION SINCE ALL SUCH DETAILS WERE FILED IN COURSE OF ASSESSMENT [CIT VS - KELVINATOR INDIA LTD. (2010) 320 ITR 561 (SC)] ONCE ISSUE DEALT BY CIT, NO ACTION LIES WITH AO U/S 147 [CIT VS INDIRA EXPORTS (P) LTD. (2014) 226 TAXMAN 103. 6.1. WE HAVE HEARD B OTH THE COUNSEL AND PERUSED THE RECORDS. WE FIND THAT IN THIS CASE THE LD.CIT HAD ISSUED NOTICE U/S 263 OF THE ACT ON THE ISSUE OF DEPRECIATION SHOWN IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE ASSESSEE DULY EXPLAINED BY LETTER DATED 17.9.2009 THE ENTIRE FACETS OF THE CL AIM OF DEPRECIATION. THEREAFTER CONSIDERING THE ASSESSEE S SUBMISSIONS THE LD. CIT PASSED ORDER U/S 263 OF THE IT ACT DATED 17.9.2009. AFTER CONSIDERING THE ASSESSEE S SUBMISSIONS THE LD. CIT CONCLUDED THAT AFTER CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE WRITTEN SUBMI SSIONS, THE DETAILS OF EVIDENCE ENCLOSED THEREWITH, AS THE ISSUE FOR WHICH THIS PROCEEDING WAS INITIATED IS NOW BEING EXPLAINED , PROCEEDING U/S 263 OF THE ACT IS DROPPED . FROM THE ABOVE IT IS APPARENT THAT AFTER DUE EXAMINATION OF THE ISSUE OF CLAIM OF DE PRECIATION ALLOWED IN ASSESSMENT ORDER THE LD. CIT WAS SATISFIED WITH THE EXPLANATION OF THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE REGARDING THE VERACITY OF THE DEPRECIATION CLAIMED AND ALLOWED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. NOW THE ISSUE HAS ARISEN AS TO WHETHER IF THE I SSUE HAS BEEN EXAMINED AND DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE LD. CIT U/S 263 OF THE ACT WHETHER IT IS OPEN FOR AN AO, WHO IS JUNIOR TO THE LD. CIT IN THE HIERARCHY TO RE CONSIDER AND REOPEN THE ISSUE U /S 147 OF THE ITA NOS.58 - 61/K/2013 & CO.25&26/K/2013 M/S.BOTHRA SHIPPING SERVICES A.YRS.2004 - 05 TO 2007 - 08 10 ACT. T HIS ISSUE AROSE BEFORE THE H ON BLE MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS INDIRA EXPORTS PVT. LTD. 226 TAXMAN .COM 103 (IT APPEAL NO.24 OF 2012) ORDER DATED SEPTEMBER, 26, 2013. THE HON BLE HIGH COURT AFFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL WHEREBY IT WAS HELD THAT ONCE THE ISSUE HAS ALREADY BEEN EXAMINED AND HELD IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE U/S 263 OF THE ACT THE SAME CANNOT BE THE SUBJECT MATTER OF REOPENING BY THE AO. ACCORDINGLY FOLLOWING THE ABOVE PRECEDENT WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT ON THIS GROUND ITSELF ASSUMPTION O F JURISDICTION BY THE AO IS NOT SUSTAINABLE. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER WE HOLD THAT THE ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION BY THE AO IN THIS CASE WAS BAD IN LAW AND ACCORDINGLY WE SET ASIDE THE REOPENING AND DECIDE THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. 7. IN THE RESULT THE CROSS OBJECTION BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS ALLOWED. 8 . IN THE RESULT THE APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE STAND DISMISSED AND THE CROSS OBJECTIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STAND ALLOWED. ORDE R PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 19.12.2014. SD/ - SD/ - [ MAHAVIR SINGH ] [SHAMIM YAHYA] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUN TANT MEMBER DATE: 19.12.2014. R.G.(.P.S.) COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1 . M/S.BOTHRA SHIPPING SERVICES, 2, CLIVE GHAT STREET 2 ND FLOOR, ROOM NO.10, KOLKATA - 700001. 2 A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 34, KOLKATA 3 . CIT(A ) - XX, KOLKATA 4. CIT - KOLKATA. 5. CIT - DR, KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA TRUE COPY, BY ORDER, DEPUTY /ASST. REGISTRAR , ITAT, KOLKATA BENCHES ITA NOS.58 - 61/K/2013 & CO.25&26/K/2013 M/S.BOTHRA SHIPPING SERVICES A.YRS.2004 - 05 TO 2007 - 08 11