M/s C & C Systems, Baddi V. ITO, Baddi

CO 28/CHANDI/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1911 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 4 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 18-01-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 14-08-2015
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 11-09-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: S K MITTAL
• Keywords: Tax effect
• Section: 147

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI H.L. KARWA, HONBLE VICE PRESIDENT AND MS. ANNAPURNA MEHROTRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 784/CHD/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-06 THE ITO VS. C & C SYSTEMS BADDI, (NOW KNOWS AS M/S SPRAY ENGINEERING DEVICES LTD.) INDL. AREA, HPSIDC, PLOT NO. 245-246 BADDI PAN NO. AACFC7146H CROSS OBJECTION NO. 28/CHD/2012 (IN ITA NO. 784/CHD/2012) C & C SYSTEMS VS. THE ITO (NOW KNOWS AS M/S SPRAY BADDI ENGINEERING DEVICES LTD.) INDL. AREA, HPSIDC, PLOT NO. 245-246 BADDI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SH. S.K. MITTAL RESPONDENT BY : SH. VINEET AGGARWAL DATE OF HEARING : 04/01/2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT :18/01/2016 ORDER PER ANNAPURNA MEHROTRA A.M. THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AND CROSS OBJECTIO N BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) SHIMLA DT. 14/05/20 12. 2. IN APPEAL THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING G ROUNDS: 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 30,34,947/- AND RS . 6,81,171/- ON ACCOUNT OF ERECTION AND COMMISSIONING CHARGES AND ANNUAL MAINT ENANCE CHARGES. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE LD. CIT( A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 9,643/- ON ACCOUNT OF CONSULTAN CY CHARGES. 2 3. BRIEF FACTS RELATING TO THE CASE ARE THAT THE AS SESSEE IS A MANUFACTURER OF SUGAR MACHINERIES I.E. ENERGY SAVING DEVICES, MULT IJET CONDENSERS, CONVEYER BELTS ETC. ON 08/11/2014, THE ASSESSEE FIRM WAS CON VERTED INTO A LIMITED COMPANY UNDER THE NAME AND STYLE OF SPRAY ENGINEERI NG DEVICE LTD. THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE A.Y. 20 05-06 ON 31/10/2005 DECLARING NIL INCOME AFTER CLAIMING DEDUCTION U/S 80IC OF THE ACT . SUBSEQUENTLY PROCEEDINGS U/S 147 OF THE ACT WERE INITIATED IN THE ASSESSEES CASE. DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING IT WAS NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD EARNE D INCOME AMOUNTING TO RS. 30,34,947/- ON ACCOUNT OF ERECTION & INSTALLATI ON CONTRACT, RS. 6,81,171/- ON ACCOUNT OF ANNUAL MAINTENANCE CONTRACT AND RS. 9,64 3/- ON ACCOUNT OF CONSULTANCY INCOME AND CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S 80IC T HEREON. THE AO HELD THAT THE AFORESAID INCOME FROM SERVICE CONTRACT CON STITUTED THE INCOME BEYOND THE FIRST DEGREE NEXUS BETWEEN THE PROFITS AND THE INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING AND RELYING ON THE DECISION LAID DOWN BY THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF LIBERTY INDIA LTD. VS. CIT 317 ITR 218, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HE LD THAT THE SAID INCOME WAS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IC OF THE AC T . HE THEREBY ADDED BACK THE SAME TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. DURING APP ELLATE PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE REGARDING ALLOWAN CE OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IC ON INCOME RELATING TO ERECTION AND COM MISSIONING CHARGES RECEIVED HAD BEEN DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE DECISION OF HONBLE HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT IN ITA NO. 39/2006 DT. 07/11/2009. AS REGARD ANNUAL MAINTENANCE CHARGES THE ASSESSEE ARGUED THAT THE ANNUAL MAINTENANCE CHARGES HAD BEEN UNDERTAKEN BY THE ASSE SSEE IN RESPECT OF PARTIES TO WHOM IT HAD MADE SALE OF MACHINERY AND W AS THUS AN INHERENT AND INEXTRICABLE PART OF THE SALES MADE BY THE APPELLAN T. THE ASSESSEE ARGUED THAT THE CUSTOMERS TO WHOM THE SALES HAD BEEN MADE HAD T O BE PROVIDED ANNUAL MAINTENANCE SERVICES FOR THE MACHINERY SUPPLIED TO THEM AND IN THE ABSENCE OF WHICH ITS SALES WOULD HAVE BEEN AFFECTED. THE AS SESSEE THEREFORE STATED THAT 3 INCOME ON ACCOUNT OF ANNUAL MAINTENANCE WAS DIRECTL Y LINKED TO THE INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING AND WAS THEREFORE ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTIO N UNDER SECTION 80IC OF THE ACT. WITH REGARD TO THE CONSULTANCY CHARGES RECEIVE D. THE ASSESSEE ARGUED THAT THEY WERE RECEIVED ON ACCOUNT OF ANNUAL MAINTENANCE CONTRACT ONLY AND AS PLEADED ABOVE HAD DIRECT NEXUS WITH INDUSTRIAL UNDE RTAKING AND WAS THEREFORE ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IC OF THE AC T. LD. CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE ASSESSEES SUBMISSION ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WITH RESPECT TO GRANT OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IC ON ERECTION A ND INSTALLATION CONTRACT BY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE HIMACHAL PRAD ESH HIGH COURT IN ITA NO. 39/2006, WHEREIN THE ERECTION COMMISSIONING CHARGES WERE HELD TO BE DERIVED FROM THE BUSINESS ITSELF AND THEREFORE ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IB. FOLLOWING THE REASONING GIVEN IN RESPECT OF ERECTIO N AND COMMISSIONING CHARGES LD. CIT(A) HELD THAT THE INCOME FROM ANNUAL MAINTEN ANCE CHARGES AND CONSULTANCY CHARGES WERE ALSO INTEGRAL PART OF THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE AND HENCE ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IC OF THE ACT. LD. CIT(A) HELD AT PARA 8 AND 8.1 OF ITS ORDER AS F OLLOWS : 8. THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS HAVE BEEN CAREFULLY CONSID ERED WITH REFERENCE TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE H.P. HIGH COURT SUPRA IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE. IT HAS BEEN HELD BY THE HONBL E HIGH COURT THAT ERECTION AND COMMISSIONING IS AN INTEGRAL PART OF ASSESSEES BUSINESS. WHEN A CUSTOMER BUYS PLANT AND MACHINERY, HE MAY ASK THE MANUFACTUR ER TO ERECT AND COMMISSION THE MACHINERY. WHEN THE MANUFACTURER ERE CTS AND INSTALLS THE MACHINERY AT THE REQUEST OF THE CUSTOMER, THE AMOUN T RECEIVED BY HIM IS DERIVED FROM THE BUSINESS. IT IS DIRECTLY RELATABLE TO THE BUSINESS AND THE SOURCE OF INCOME IS THE BUSINESS ITSELF. WHEN THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGE D IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURER, THE WORD MANUFACTURER CANNOT BE REA D SO NARROWLY SO AS TO LIMIT THE AMOUNT ONLY TO THE PRICE OF THE GOODS SOLD. IF THE MANUFACTURER IS REQUIRED BY THE CUSTOMER TO ERECGT AND COMMISSION THE MACHINERY THE AMOUNT RECEIVED BY IT ON THIS COUNT IS INCOME DERIVED FROM THE BUSINESS I TSELF AND THEREFORE ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IB. ON THE SAME REASONING AS GIVEN BY HONBLE HIGH COURT IN RESPECT OF ERECTION AND COMMISSIONING CHAR GES, THE INCOME FROM ANNUAL MAINTENANCE CHARGES IS ALSO FOUND TO BE AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE. IT IS NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ENG AGED SEPARATELY IN THE BUSINESS OF ANNUAL MAINTENANCE OF MACHINERY FOR INDEPENDENT PARTIES. WHATEVER RECEIPTS ARE THERE ON ACCOUNT OF ANNUAL MAINTENANCE CHARGES ARE FROM THE VERY SAME CUSTOMERS TO WHOM THE ASSESSEE HAS SOLD ITS OWN MAN UFACTURED MACHINERIES. THE SALE OF PATENTED MACHINERIES AT THE CUSTOMERS SITE WAS DONE WITH THE CONTRACT OF ANNUAL MAINTENANCE OF THE MACHINERIES. THE ANNUA L MAINTENANCE SERVICES ARE AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE ASSESSEES BUSINESS AS ITS CUSTOMERS REQUIRE THE SAID SERVICES TO MAINTAIN THE MACHINERIES PURCHASED BY THEM FROM THE ASSESSEE. THE MACHINERIES MANUFACTURED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE SPECIA LIZED MACHINERIES AND OBVIOUSLY THE ASSESSEE IS IN THE BEST POSITION TO T AKE CARE OF THEIR MAINTENANCE. THERE IS FOUND STRENGTH IN THE ASSESSEES ARGUMENT THAT THE ABSENCE OF SUCH A 4 FACILITY WOULD SERIOUSLY AFFECT ITS SALES, AS THE C USTOMERS DO NOT ONLY PURCHASE THE MACHINERIES BUT ALSO CONTINUOUSLY REQUIRE ITS UPKEE P AND MAINTENANCE. ACCORDINGLY IT IS HELD THAT THE INCOME IN THE FORM OF ANNUAL MAINTENANCE CHARGES IS THE INCOME GENERATED BY THE BUSINESS OF THE INDU STRIAL UNDERTAKING. THE SAID INCOME IS DERIVED FROM THE OPERATIONAL PROFITS OF T HE BUSINESS AND IS AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE BUSINESS OF THE UNDERTAKING. THERE DOES EXISTS A FIRST DEGREE NEXUS BETWEEN THE SAID INCOME AND THE BUSINESS OF INDUSTR IAL UNDERTAKING. ACCORDINGLY THE SAID INCOME IS HELD TO BE ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTIO N U/S 80IC OF THE ACT. 8.1 AS REGARDS THE INCOME OF RS. 9643/-, IT IS NOTE D THAT THE SAID INCOME WAS ALSO EARNED BY THE APPELLANT ON ACCOUNT OF THE ANNU AL MAINTENANCE CONTRACT. THE LD. A.O. HAS ALSO GIVEN THE SAME FINDING OF FAC T IN PARA 4 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THERE IS FORCE IN THE APPELLANTS ARGUMENT T HAT THE ANNUAL MAINTENANCE OF THE MACHINERY SOLD COULD NOT BE PROVIDED BY ANY OTH ER PERSON AS THE MACHINERIES WERE UNIQUE IN NATURE AND COULD BE REPA IRED ONLY UNDER THE OBSERVATION OF THEIR TRAINED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS . THEREFORE, FOR THE DETAILED REASONS GIVEN IN THE FOREGOING PARAGRAPHS, THE INCO ME ON ACCOUNT OF TECHNICAL SERVICES FROM ANNUAL MAINTENANCE CONTRACT IS HELD T O BE ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80IC OF THE ACT HAVING A DIRECT NEXUS WITH THE BUSINESS OF THE INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING. 4. AGGRIEVED BY THE SAME, THE REVENUE FILED THE PRE SENT APPEAL BEFORE US. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE ORDER OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AS ALSO THE DOCUMENTS PLACED BEFO RE US. 6. ON THE ISSUE OF DELETION OF DISALLOWANCE OF DEDU CTION U/S 80IC ON ERECTION AND COMMISSIONING CHARGES RECEIVED, LD. DR RELIED U PON THE ORDER OF THE AO AND FURTHER STATED THAT RELIANCE ON THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT IN SPRAY ENGINEERING DEVICES (SUPRA) IS INCORRECT, SIN CE NO SLP TO THE SUPREME COURT WAS PROPOSED BY THE DEPARTMENT AGAINST THE JU DGMENT IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE TAX EFFECT IN THAT CASE WAS LESS THAN RS. 10 LAKHS AND AS PER SECTION 268A, IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, THE ASSESSEE CANNOT CO NTEND THAT THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE COURT HAS BEEN ACCEPTED ON MERITS. LD. AR ON THE OTHER HAND CONTENDED THAT THE ISSUE WAS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF T HE ASSESSEE BY THE JUDGMENT OF THE HIGH COURT IN SPRAY ENGINEERING DEV ICES(SUPRA). ON THE ISSUE OF DELETION OF DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTI ON U/S 80IC ON ANNUAL MAINTENANCE CHARGES RECEIVED AND CONSULTANCY CHARGE S RECEIVED. LD. DR STATED THAT THE IMMEDIATE SOURCE OF THESE INCOMES W AS NOT THE BUSINESS OF THE INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING OF THE ASSESSEE AND IN THE A BSENCE OF FIRST DEGREE NEXUS 5 WITH THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE, THE INCOME COULD NOT BE SAID TO BE DERIVED FROM THE UNDERTAKING OF THE ASSESSEE. THUS LD. DR S TATED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAD WRONGLY DELETED THE DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION U/S 80IC MADE IN RESPECT OF BOTH THE INCOME. 7. LD. AR ON THE OTHER HAND RELIED UPON THE ORDER O F THE LD. CIT(A). 8. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSION AND PERUSED T HE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND ALSO THE DOCUMENTS PLACED BE FORE US. 9. THE ONLY ISSUE WHICH ARISES IN THE PRESENT APPEA L IS WHETHER INCOMES DERIVED FROM ERECTION AND COMMISSIONING CHARGES, AN NUAL MAINTENANCE CHARGES AND CONSULTANCY CHARGES CAN BE SAID TO BE D ERIVED FROM THE UNDERTAKING OF THE ASSESSEE, AND HENCE ENTITLE THE ASSESSEE TO CLAIM DEDUCTION U/S 80IC ON THE SAME. THE WORD DERIVED WAS INTERPRETED AT LENGTH BY THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN STERLING FOODS VS. CIT 150 ITR 292, WHICH WAS AFFIR MED BY THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. STERLING FOODS 237 ITR 579. THE KAR NATAKA HIGH COURT, HAD RELIED UPON THE INTERPRETATION GIVEN TO THE WORD DERIVED BY THE PRIVY COUNCIL IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. RAJA BAHADUR KAMAKHAYA NARAYAN SING H (1948) 16 ITR 325 AND HELD THAT DERIVED MEANS THE IMMEDIATE SOURCE AND TO DETERMINE THE SAME THE GENEALOGY OF THE ITEM SHOULD BE ENQUIRED INTO, WHIC H SHOULD STOP AS SOON AS THE EFFECTIVE SOURCE AS DISCOVERED. IT WAS FURTHER HELD THAT THE INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING MUST ITSELF BE THE SOURCE OF THAT PROFI T DIRECTLY YIELDING THE PROFIT. IN THE CASE OF LIBERTY INDIA VS. CIT (2009) 317 ITR 21 8 (SC), THE APEX COURT INTERPRETED THE WORDS DERIVED FROM TO MEAN, COVE RING SOURCES HAVING FIRST DEGREE NEXUS ONLY AND NOT BEYOND THAT. THE JUDICIAL INTERPRETATION OF THE WORDS DERIVED FROM IS THEREFORE SETTLED AND MEANS THE IMMEDIATE SOURCE ONLY. APPLYING THE ABOVE INTERPRETATION TO THE INCOMES IN THE PRESENT CASE WE FIND ON THE ISSUE OF ERECTION AND COMMISSIONING CHARGES THE HONBLE H.P. HIGH COURT IN 6 THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE HAS HELD THE SAME TO BE AN I NTEGRAL PART OF THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE HONBLE HIGH COURT AT PAGE 13 OF ITS ORDER HELD AS FOLLOWS : COMING TO THE QUESTION OF THE AMOUNT RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE AS ERECTION AND COMMISSIONING CHARGES, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THIS IS ALSO AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE BUSINESS. WHEN A CUSTOMER BUYS PLANT AND MACHIN ERY, HE MAY ASK THE MANUFACTURER TO ERECT AND COMMISSION THE MACHINERY. WHEN THE MANUFACTURER ERECTS AND INSTALLS THE MACHINERY AT THE REQUEST OF THE CUSTOMER THE AMOUNT RECEIVED BY HIM IS DERIVED FROM THE BUSINESS. IT IS DIRECTLY RELATABLE TO THE BUSINESS ND THE SOURCE OF INCOME IS THE BUSINESS ITSELF. WHE N THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURE, THE WORD MANUFACTURE CANNOT BE READ SO NARROWLY SO AS TO LIMIT THE AMOUNT ONLY TO THE PRIC E OF THE GOODS SOLD. IF THE MANUFACTURER IS REQUIRED BY THE CUSTOMER TO ERECT A ND COMMISSION THE MACHINERY THE AMOUNT RECEIVED BY IT ON THIS COUNT I S INCOME DERIVED FROM THE BUSINESS ITSELF AND THEREFORE ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTIO N UNDER SECTION 80-1B. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION ALL THE QUESTIONS A RE ANSWERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND AGAINST THE REVENUE. THE APPEAL IS ACC ORDINGLY ALLOWED WITH NO ORDER AS TO COST. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE O RDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) HOLDING THE INCOME FROM ERECTION AND COMMISSION CHARGES TO BE DERIVED FROM THE UNDERTAKING OF THE ASSESSSEE AND HENCE ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80IC. AS REGARDS THE INCOME FROM ANNUAL MAINTENANCE CHARG ES WE FIND THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GIVEN A FACTUAL FINDING THAT THE SAME WA S EARNED IN THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE. LD. CIT(A) HAS GIVEN A FINDING THAT T HE SALE OF PATENTED MACHINES AT THE CUSTOMERS SITE WAS DONE WITH THE CONTRACT OF ANNUAL MAINTENANCE OF THE MACHINES AND WAS DONE TO MAINTAIN THE HIGHLY SPECIA LIZED MACHINERIES PURCHASED FROM THE ASSESSEE. THIS FINDING HAS NOT B EEN REBUTTED BY THE REVENUE. THEREFORE WE AGREE WITH THE LD. CIT(A) THA T THE DIRECT SOURCE OF INCOME OF ANNUAL MAINTENANCE CHARGES, WAS THE BUSIN ESS OF THE ASSESSEE AND WAS THEREFORE DERIVED FROM IT. WE CONCUR WITH THE L D. CIT(A) THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS THEREFORE ELIGIBLE TO CLAIM DEDUCTION U/S 80IC ON THE SAME. WITH REGARDS TO THE INCOME EARNED OF RS. 9,643/- ON ACCOUNT OF CONSULTANCY CHARGES WE FIND THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GIVEN A FACTUAL FINDING THAT IT RELATED TO ANNUAL MAINTENANCE CONTR ACT AND THUS HAD DIRECT NEXUS WITH THE BUSINESS OF THE INDUSTRIAL UN DERTAKING. LD. CIT(A) AT PARA 8.1 OF HER ORDER HELD AS FOLLOWS: 7 8.1 AS REGARDS THE INCOME OF RS. 9643/-, IT IS NOTE D THAT THE SAID INCOME WAS ALSO EARNED BY THE APPELLANT ON ACCOUNT OF THE ANNU AL MAINTENANCE CONTRACT. THE LD. A.O. HAS ALSO GIVEN THE SAME FINDING OF FAC T IN PARA 4 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THERE IS FORCE IN THE APPELLANTS ARGUMENT T HAT THE ANNUAL MAINTENANCE OF THE MACHINERY SOLD COULD NOT BE PROVIDED BY ANY OTH ER PERSON AS THE MACHINERIES WERE UNIQUE IN NATURE AND COULD BE REPA IRED ONLY UNDER THE OBSERVATION OF THEIR TRAINED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS . THEREFORE, FOR THE DETAILED REASONS GIVEN IN THE FOREGOING PARAGRAPHS, THE INCO ME ON ACCOUNT OF TECHNICAL SERVICES FROM ANNUAL MAINTENANCE CONTRACT IS HELD T O BE ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80IC OF THE ACT HAVING A DIRECT NEXUS WITH THE BUSINESS OF THE INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING. THIS FINDING HAS NOT BEEN REBUTTED BY THE REVENUE. IN VIEW OF THE SAME WE CONCUR WITH THE LD. CIT(A) THAT THE IMPUGNED INC OME WAS DERIVED FROM THE BUSINESS OF THE UNDERTAKING AND WAS ELIGIB LE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80IC OF THE ACT. 10. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. 11. IN EFFECT THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISS ED. CROSS OBJECTION NO. 28/CHD/2012 12. THE ASSESSEE VIDE HIS APPLICATION DT. 04/01/201 6 HAS REQUESTED FOR WITHDRAWAL OF THE C.O., THE CONTENTS OF THE LETTER ARE AS UNDER : TO, 04/01/2016 THE HONBLE BENCH CHANDIGARH BENCHES, ITAT, CHANDIGARH SUB: WITHDRAWAL OF C.O. NO. 28/CHANDIGARH/2012 IN T HE CASE OF C&C SYSTEMS. SIR, WITH DUE RESPECT, I ON BEHALF OF THE M/S C&C SYSTEM S (NOW KNOWS AS M/S SPRAY ENGINEERING DEVICES LTD.) WITHDRAWS THE CROSS OBJECTION NO. 28/CHANDI/2012 FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. THANKING YOU, YOURS TRULY SD/- (CA VINEET AGGARWAL) A.R. FOR THE ASSESSEE 04 TH JAN, 2016 8 13. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE WRITTEN REQUEST OF THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE THE CO IS DISMISSED AS WITHDRAWN. 14. IN THE RESULT CROSS OBJECTION IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 18/01/2016. SD/- SD/- (H.L. KARWA) (ANNAPURNA MEHROTRA) VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 18/01/2016 AG COPY TO: THE APPELLANT, THE RESPONDENT, THE CIT, TH E CIT(A), THE DR