PETROLEUM INDIA INTERNATIONAL, MUMBAI V. ACIT CIR 19(3), MUMBAI

CO 6/MUM/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 122 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7700 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 8 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 28-09-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: J
• Next Hearing Date: 18-09-2012
• Assessment Year: 2001-2002
• Appeal Filed On: 06-01-2009
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S D SRIVASTAVA
• Keywords: Business income; Period of limitation; Time period of passing order; Condonation of delay
• Section: 143(3); 90

Judgement Text

1 M/S. PETROLEUM INDIA INTERNATIONAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH J, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI H.L. KARW A, PRESIDENT AND SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, ACCOUNTAT MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 8086/M/2003 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2001-2002 THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX, CIRCLE-19(3), MUMBAI 400 012. VS. M/S. PETROLEUM INDIA INTERNATIONAL, 5-C, KESHWA, BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX, BANDRA (E), MUMBAI 400 051. PAN: AAAAP 0017 B (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) C.O. NO.6/M/2009 (ARISING OUT OF I.T.A. NO.8086/M/2003) ASSESSMENT YEAR:2001-2002 M/S. P ETROLEUM INDIA INTERNATIONAL, 5-C, KESHWA, BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX, BANDRA (E), MUMBAI 400 051. PAN: AAAAP 0017 B VS. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX, CIRCLE-19(3), MUMBAI 400 012. (CROSS OBJECTOR ) (APPELLANT IN APPEAL ) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI NIR AJ SHETH REVENUE BY : SHRI S.D. SRIVASTAVA, CIT - DR DATE OF HEARING:18.9.2012 DATE OF ORDER: 28.09.2012 O R D E R PER D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM: THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE ON 19.12.2003 IS DI RECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) DATED 16.10.2003 IN RELATION TO ASSESSM ENT YEAR 2001-2002. ASSESSEE FILED THE CO ON 6.1.2009. 2. GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE READ AS UNDER: 2 M/S. PETROLEUM INDIA INTERNATIONAL 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE CIT (A) ERRED IN DIRECTING TO ALLOW THE DEDUCTION OF RS. 4, 78,927/- U/S 80-O OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND I N LAW, THE CIT (A) ERRED IN DIRECTING TO ALLOW THE DEDUCTION OF RS. 10 ,70,75,199/- U/S 40(A)(III) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. 3. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND I N LAW, THE CIT (A) ERRED IN DIRECTING TO ALLOW RELIEF OF RS. 1,37,49,1 99/- U/S 91(1) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. 4. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND I N LAW, THE CIT (A) ERRED IN DIRECTING TO TAX THE INCOME OF RS. 1,06,80 ,410/- UNDER THE HEAD BUSINESS INCOME INSTEAD OF TAXING THE SAME U NDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. 3. BRIEFLY STATED THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT TH E ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS RELATING TO TECHNICAL CONSULTANCY AND OPER ATIONAL SERVICES AND FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME AT RS 17.17 CRORES AND THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT DETERMINING THE ASSESSED INCOME AT RS 28.16 CR (ROU NDED OFF) AFTER MAKING VARIOUS ADDITIONS AND SOME OF THEM ARE SUBJECT MATTER OF AP PEALS BEFORE US. IN THIS REGARD, AT THE OUTSET, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FI LED COPIES OF ORDERS OF THE TRIBUNAL IN VARIOUS APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE AND MENTIONED THAT THE GROUNDS OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL ARE ACTUALLY COVERED AND, THEREFORE, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS REQUIRED TO BE ALLOWED IN PART. GROUND-WISE ADJUDICATION IS GIVEN IN THE SUCCEEDING PARAGRAPHS. 4. GROUND NO.1 RELATES TO THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION OF RS. 4,78,927/- U/S 80-O OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. IN THIS REGARD LD COUNSEL MENTIONED THAT AN IDENTICAL ISSUE WAS DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN CONNECTION WITH ITA NO.6791/M/20 02 FOR AY 1999-2000 AS PER THE DISCUSSION GIVEN IN PARA 8 TO 12 OF THE ORDER DATED 16.4.2012. WE HAVE PERUSED THE SAID PARAGRAPHS WHICH READ AS UNDER: 8. AGAINST THE ALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION U/S. 80-O, T HE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL AND AGAINST THE QUANTUM OF DEDUCTION DETERMINED BY CIT(A) U/S. 80-O, 3 M/S. PETROLEUM INDIA INTERNATIONAL THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED A C.O. BOTH THE SIDES ARE B EFORE THE ITAT AND WE TAKE UP THE APPEAL BY THE DEPARTMENT AS WELL AS THE CO FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND ON THE FACTS EMERGING FROM THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES AND FOR THE CONVENIENCE, WE ARE PASSING A COMMON ORDER. 9. BEFORE US, THE DR REITERATED THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE AO AND PRAYED TO SUSTAIN THE DISALLOWANCE. ON THE OTHER HAND SENIOR AR SUBMITS THAT THE ISSUE OF ALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION HAS FIRST TO BE SEE N FROM THE OBSERVATION OF THE AO I.E. THE AO HAS BASED HIS DECISION ON THE DECISION ARRIVED AT BY THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 1993-94 TO 1997-98, WHEREIN THE CLAIM WAS DISALLOWED. THE AO IN THE CURRENT YE AR TAKES THOSE DECISIONS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES AS BASIS AND D ISALLOWS THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. THE SENIOR AR POINTED OUT THAT IF THE DEC ISION OF CIT(A) FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 1993-94 TO 1997-98 HAS TO BE TAKEN TO BE THE BASIS THEN THE CASE OF THE AO AND THE DR FALLS, BECAUSE T HE DECISION OF CIT(A) FOR THOSE YEARS WAS REVERSED BY THE DECISION OF THE ITAT WHEREIN THE ITAT HAD ACCEPTED THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S. 80-O MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. 10. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE SENIOR AR TOOK US THROUG H THE PAPER BOOK FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE OF DIS ALLOWANCE CANNOT ARISE BECAUSE EVEN IN THE AMENDED PROVISIONS OF SECTION 8 0-O WHICH ARE EFFECTIVE 6 PETROLEUM INDIA INTERNATIONAL FROM 199 8, THE EXISTENCE OF THE WORD DESIGN CONTINUES. HE, THEREFORE, SUBMITTED THAT WHEN THE CONTRACTS AS ENTERED BY PII ARE SEEN, THE HEADINGS OF THE CONTRACTS TALKS ABOUT SUPPLY OF CONSULTANCY FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF DESIGN DEVELOPMENT BY PETROLEUM INDIA INTERNATIONAL FOR SOLIMA REFINERY, TAMATAVE, MADAGASCAR. THE AR POINTED OUT THAT THE TERMS OF REFERENCE ALSO TALKED ABOUT DESIGN AND DELIVERABLES OF THE ASSIGNMENT A LSO PROVIDES THAT THE PROCESS DESIGN OF PII WILL BE CUSTOMIZED FOR IMPLEM ENTATION OF SOLIMA REFINERY. HE FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT RESPONSIBILI TIES OF PII FOR THE ASSIGNMENT HAS COMPREHENSIVE RESPONSIBILITIES, NOT JUST SUPPLY OF MANPOWER AS THE DR HAD POINTED OUT. 11. WE HAVE HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS FROM BOTH THE SID ES, ONE THING IS CLEAR THAT THE DR HAS NOT CHALLENGED THE ALLOWABILITY OF DEDUCTION U/S. 80-O, HE HAS SHOWN SERIOUS RESERVATIONS ON THE BASIS OF ALLO WABILITY, I.E. WHETHER THE DEDUCTION SHOULD BE ALLOWED ON NET AMOUNT OR ON GROSS AMOUNT. THE DR POINTED OUT THE DECISIONS OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS ASIAN CABLE CORPN. LTD. I.T. REFERENCE NO. 5 30 OF 1987, REPORTED IN 129 TAXMAN 590. THE DR HAS ALSO REFERRED TO THE DECISION OF HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS ABCON EN GG. & SYSTEMS (P) LTD. REPORTED IN 164 TAXMAN 600 ON THE ISSUE OF AL LOWABILITY ON EXPORT 4 M/S. PETROLEUM INDIA INTERNATIONAL PROCEEDS. BESIDES THIS, THE AR ALSO PLACED RELIANC E ON THE DECISION OF ITAT BANGALORE IN THE CASE OF ITO VS VIVEK PRABAKAR KUNTE, ITA NO. 79/BANGALORE/2001, REPORTED IN 92 ITD 71, WHEREIN I T WAS HELD THAT THE OBJECTIVE OF SEC. 80-O IS MAINLY THE SUPPLY OF TECH NICAL KNOW-HOW OR TECHNICAL SERVICES TO DEVELOPING COUNTRIES. 12. WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE OF DISALLOWANCE IN THE CURRENT APPEAL IS VIRTUALLY INFRUCTUOUS, FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN THE PRECEDING YEARS AND EVEN AFTER GOING THROUGH THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT IN PREAMENDMENT PERIOD AND PO ST AMENDMENT (RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSEE), WHEREIN WE FIND THE WOR D DESIGN STILL EXIST. WE CANNOT ACCEPT THE SUBMISSION OF THE DR THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS PRIMARILY SUPPLYING MAN POWER AND NOT COMPREHENSIVE TECHNICAL SERVICES. WE FIND AND HOLD THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS PETROLEUM IN DIA INTERNATIONAL SUPPLYING COMPREHENSIVE TECHNICAL SE RVICES FOR DESIGNING AND DEVELOPMENT OF SALIMA REFINERY, WHICH WOULD ALSO INCLUDE TO DEPUTE A COMPETENT TEAM OF PROFESSIONAL S AS ONE OF THE SERVICES BESIDES OTHER SERVICES AS MENTI ONED IN THE TERMS OF REFERENCE AND DELIVERABLES OF THE ASSIGNME NT. WE, THEREFORE, HOLD THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ELIGIBLE FOR C LAIMING DEDUCTION U/S. 80-O. THIS GROUND, THEREFORE, FILED BY THE REVENUE IS REJECTED. 5. IT IS A FACT THAT THE SUPPLY OF MAN POWER IS ONE OF THE SERVICES RENDERED BY THE ASSESSEE AND OTHERWISE, MAINLY THE ASSESSEE DOES TH E SUPPLY OF COMPREHENSIVE TECHNICAL SERVICES FOR DESIGNING AND DEVELOPMENT. C ONSIDERING THE COMMONALITY OF THE FACTS OF THE ISSUE, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO RELIEF AS GIVEN BY THE CIT (A), THEREFORE, GROUND RAISED BY THE REV ENUE IS REQUIRED TO BE DISMISSED. ACCORDINGLY, GROUND NO.1 IS DISMISSED . 6. GROUND NO.2 OF THE REVENUES APPEAL RELATES TO DEDUCTION U/S 40 (A)(III) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. IN THIS REGARD, THE LEARNED COUNSEL MENTIONED THAT THE SAID ISSUE IS ALSO COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR AYS 1989-90, 1990-91 AND 1991-92 VIDE PARAS 17 & 18 OF THE ORDER DATED 21.4.2008. 5 M/S. PETROLEUM INDIA INTERNATIONAL 17. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE ISSUE AND PERUSED THE R ECORD AND VARIOUS CASES REFERRED TO. IN OUR VIEW THE CIT (A) IS CORR ECT IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICE ON MERITS AS THERE IS NO EMPLOYEE-EMPLOYER RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE SECONDED PERSONS AND THE PII I.E. THE ASSESSEE. SECONDMENT IS A TERMS USED GENERALLY FOR DEPUTING EMPLOYEES OF ONE ORGANIZATION TO ANOTHER FOR A FIXE D PERIOD GENERALLY NOT MORE THAN ONE YEAR AS A PART OF CONTRACT / SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR RENDERING SPECIALIZED SERVICES. THIS TERM IS BROAD LY USED TO COVER A TEMPORARY MOVEMENT OR LOAN OF EMPLOYEE AND IT IS IN CREASINGLY RECOGNIZED AS A VALUABLE TOOL FOR DEVELOPMENT. SECONDMENT OF EMPLOYEE OFFER CAREER DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES AND GIVES FLEXIBILITY OF WORKING PATTERN IN EITHER SELECTED EMPLOYEES OR PLACING THEM AT THE REQUIRED POSITION OR PLACES WITHOUT HAVING TO TAKE THEM ON REGULAR EMPLOYMENT B ASIS. GENERALLY SECONDMENT LAST FOR NOT MORE THAN A YEAR UNLESS SPE CIFICALLY PROVIDED FOR AND THE ORGANIZATION THAT SUPPLY THE SECONDEES CONT INUE TO PAY THEIR SALARY AND ALLOWANCES DURING THE SECONDMENT PERIOD AND DURING THE PERIOD THIS COST IS GENERALLY REIMBURSED BY THE HOS T ORGANIZATION. THE SECONDMENT ALSO TAKEN PLACE WITHIN THE ORGANIZATION OR EXTERNALLY TO ANOTHER ORGANIZATION, I.E. FROM PUBLIC SECTOR TO PR IVATE SECTOR OR TO A VOLUNTARY ORGANIZATION. THIS IS EXTERNAL SECONDMEN T. ACCORDING TO THE OXFORD DICTIONARY THIS WORD HAS ARISEN IN EARLY 19 TH CENTURY FROM THE FRENCH WORD ENSECOND. IN THE SECONDMENT PROCESS, A S DEMONSTRATED BEFORE US, THE SECONDEE WILL CONTINUE TO BE ON THE PARENT ORGANIZATION AND CONTINUES TO DRAW ALL THE PAY AND ALLOWANCES AS APPLICABLE IN THE PARENT ORGANIZATION. 18. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE SECONDMENT UNDERTAKEN BY THE PII IS AN EXTERNAL SECONDMENT FROM A MEMBER ORGANIZATION TO A FOREIGN ORGANIZATION WITH WHOM THE ASSESSEE IS ENTERED INTO AGREEMENT. IN THIS PROCESS, AS SUBMITTED, THE ASSESSEE DO NOT TAKEN TH EM AS THEIR EMPLOYEES AND SECONDEE CONTINUES TO BE O THE ROLLS OF THE PAR ENT ORGANIZATION EVEN THOUGH THEIR SERVICES ARE TEMPORARILY PLACED WITH T HE OTHER ORGANIZATION, MAY BE PII OR THE FOREIGN ORGANIZATION. EVEN THOUGH THE LEARNED DR TRIED TO BRING IN THE EMPLOYEE-EMPLOYER RELATIONSHIP BY I DENTIFYING CERTAIN CLAUSES OF THE AGREEMENT WITH THE FOREIGN COMPANY T O STATE THAT THE CONTROL AND MANAGEMENT OVER THE PERSONNEL SECONDED IN VIEW OF VARIOUS TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE F OREIGN COMPANY AND THE ASSESSEE COMPANY FOR DEPUTING THE TECHNICAL PER SONNEL. THE SUPERVISORY CONTROL AND MANAGEMENT AND DISBURSEMENT OF AMOUNTS DOES NOT GIVE RISE TO ANY EMPLOYEE-EMPLOYER RELATIONSHIP . AS SEEN FROM THE PAPER BOOK FILED, PARTICULARLY WITH REFERENCE TO TH E SECONDMENT LETTER GIVEN IN THE CASE OF SHRI S.B. THAKUR (SUPRA) IT IS VERY CLEAR THAT SUCH SECONDED PERSONNEL CONTINUE TO BE EMPLOYEE OF THE I NDIAN OIL CORPORATION 6 M/S. PETROLEUM INDIA INTERNATIONAL AND THE SALARY AND EMOLUMENTS ARE GOVERNED BY THE R ULES OF THAT ORGANIZATION. IN FACT, THE DEPARTMENT ALSO ACCEPTE D THIS FACT AS FAR AS REIMBURSEMENT OF SALARY AND OTHER ALLOWANCES BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY TO THE MEMBER COMPANY IS CONCERNED. THEREFORE, IT CAN BE STATED THAT THE SECONDED PERSONNEL WERE NOT EMPLOYEES OF THE AS SESSEE COMPANY AND SO THE FOREIGN ALLOWANCE PAID TO THEM BY THE AS SESSEE COMPANY CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS PART OF SALARY AND SO PROVI SIONS OF SECTION 40(A)(III) ARE NOT APPLICABLE. SIMILAR SITUATION A ROSE IN THE CASE OF EMIL WEBBER (SUPRA), WHO IS DEPUTED BY A FOREIGN COMPANY TO AN INDIAN COMPANY AND THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE ABOVE SAID CASE HELD THAT OVERSEAS ALLOWANCES IS NOT CHARGEABLE UNDER THE HEA D SALARY. THEREFORE, SECTION 40(A)(III) DOES NOT APPLY. SIMI LAR VIEW IS ALSO ENDORSED BY THE HONBLE KERALA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. G. EROPPINO GIOVANNI 196 ITR 618. IN VIEW OF THIS, THE CIT (A) IS CORRECT IN HOLDING THAT THERE IS NO EMPLOYEE-EMPLOYER RELATIONSHIP SO AS TO CONSIDER THE DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 40(A)(III) OF THE ACT. 7. FROM THE ABOVE, IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE IMPUGNED PAYMENTS MADE CANNOT BE TAXED UNDER THE HEAD SALARIES IN VIEW OF THE JUDGMENT O F HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF EMIL WEBBER VS. CIT 200 ITR 483 (SC) ON THE REASO NING THAT THERE IS NO EMPLOYEE- EMPLOYER RELATIONSHIP SO AS TO BE CONSIDERED FOR TH E DISALLOWANCE U/S 40(A)(III) OF THE ACT. BY CONSIDERING THE COMMONALITY OF THE FACTS, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT GROUND NO.2 IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDI NGLY, GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED . 8. GROUND NO.3 RELATES TO GRANT OF RELIEF U/S 91(1) OF THE ACT. IN THIS REGARD ALSO LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FILED A COPY OF TH E ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1996-97 VIDE ITA NO.825/M/2002 AND OTHERS DATED 5.9.2008 IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE. FURTHER, HE MENTIONED THAT TH E ISSUE RELATING TO THE APPLICABILITY OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 91(1) OF THE ACT ARE DISCU SSED IN PARA 10, 11, AND 14 OF THE SAID ORDER DISMISSING THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE WHICH R EAD AS UNDER: 10. THE ONLY GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS AS UNDER: 7 M/S. PETROLEUM INDIA INTERNATIONAL IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE CIT (A) ERRED IN DIRECTING TO ALLOW A RELIEF OF RS. 31,94,792/- C LAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE U/S 91(1) OF THE ACT, ALTHOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PAID THE TAXES IN KUWAIT BEFORE THE END OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR, SINCE T HERE WAS NO AGREEMENT BETWEEN INDIA & KUWAIT GOVT. FOR DOUBLE TAXATION. 11. THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE WORD PAID IN SE C.91(1) OF THE ACT MEANS CONSTRUCTIVE PAYMENT OF TAX AND THE ONUS IS O N THE ASSESSEE TO LEAD EVIDENCE THAT THE TAXES HAD IN FACT BEING PAID IN ANY COUNTRY WITH WHICH THERE IS NO AGREEMENT U/S 90 FOR AVOIDANCE OF DOUBLE TAXATION. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEES SUBMISSION THAT IN AC CORDANCE WITH MERCANTILE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING, IT IS ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION OF TAXES NOT PAID DURING THE RELEVANT PERIOD IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN LAW. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE TAXES WERE ACTU ALLY PAID BY THE ASSESSEE IN SUBSEQUENT YEARS AND THIS HAS BEEN RECO RDED BY THE CIT (A) IN HIS APPELLATE ORDER. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE AS SESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE GROUND OF APPEAL OF REVENUE FOR THE RELEVANT YE AR IS THAT THE ONLY OBJECTION OF THE REVENUE IS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS N OT AID THE TAXES IN KUWAIT BEFORE THE END OF THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR . HE SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT (A) HAS RECORDED IN PARA-10 OF HIS ORDER TH AT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE ACTUAL PAYMENT OF TAXES IN KUWAIT IN FIVE INST ALLMENTS IN SUBSEQUENT PERIODS AND HAS FURNISHED BEFORE HIM THE ORIGINAL D OCUMENTS EVIDENCING THE PAYMENTS. 12. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS CAREFU LLY. WE FIND THAT THE LANGUAGE OF SEC.91(1) OF THE ACT IS UN-AMBIGUOU S ON THE ISSUE, WHICH PROVIDES THAT WHERE THE ASSESSEE PROVES THAT IN RES PECT OF HIS INCOME WHICH ACCRUED OR AROSE DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR OUT SIDE INDIA AND HE HAS PAID IN ANY COUNTRY WITH WHICH THERE IS NO AGREEMEN T U/S 90 FOR THE RELIEF OR AVOIDANCE OF DOUBLE TAXATION, HE SHALL BE ENTITL ED TO DEDUCTION FROM THE INDIAN INCOME TAX PAYABLE BY HIM OF A SUM CALCULATE D ON SUCH DOUBLY TAXED INCOME. WE FIND THAT NOWHERE IN THE PROVISIO N OF SEC. 91(1) OF THE ACT, IT IS PROVIDED THAT THE PAYMENT OF TAXES OUTSI DE INDIA SHALL BE DURING THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR ITSELF. THE PURPOSE OF THIS PROVISION OF SECTION 91(1) OF THE ACT IS TO PROVIDE RELIEF IN A CASE WHE RE THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID THE TAXES OUTSIDE THE COUNTRY, NOT TO SUBJECT SUCH ASSESSEE TO DOUBLE TAXATION ON THE SAME INCOME. IF THE INTERPRETATION PUT FORWARD BY THE LD. CIT DR IS ACCEPTED, IT SHALL RENDER THE PROVISION O F SEC. 91 (1) ITSELF AS REDUNDANT. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCHARGE S ITS ONUS OF PROVING THAT IT HAS IN FACT MADE THE PAYMENT OF TAXES IN KU WAIT IN SUBSEQUENT PERIODS. THE CIT (A) HAS RECORDED THE DATES AND AMO UNT OF PAYMENT OF TAXES IN KUWAIT BY THE ASSESSEE AND HAS RECORDED TH AT THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED BEFORE HIM THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS EVIDENC ING THESE PAYMENTS 8 M/S. PETROLEUM INDIA INTERNATIONAL AND THE SAME HAVE ALSO BEEN FURNISHED BEFORE THE AS SESSING OFFICER AND HAS BEEN VERIFIED BY HIM. THERE IS NO MATERIAL BEF ORE US TO CONTROVERT THESE FINDINGS OF THE CIT (A). IN THESE FACTS OF T HE CASE, WE HOLD THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO RELIEF U/S 91(1) OF THE ACT AND THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) IS CONFIRMED AND THE GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE RE VENUE IS DISMISSED. 9. FROM THE ABOVE, IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE ASSESSEE MADE THE PAYMENT OF TAXES IN KUWAIT AND THE DATES AND AMOUNTS OF THE SAID PAYMEN TS OF TAXES WERE MADE AVAILABLE BEFORE THE CIT (A). ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS WERE ALSO F ILED EVIDENCING THE SAME FOR RELIEF IN RESPECT OF THE SAID TAXES PAID IN KUWAIT U/S 91(1) OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO SAID RELIEF. ACCORDINGLY, GROUND NO.3 RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED . 10. GROUND NO.4 RELATES TO TAXABILITY OF INCOME OF RS. 1,06,80,410 /- IE GAIN IN FOREIGN EXCHANGE FLUCTUATION, UNDER THE HEAD BUSINESS INCOME INSTEAD OF TAXING THE SAME UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. I N THIS REGARD, LEARNED COUNSEL REFERRED TO A COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE VIDE ORDER DATED 16.4.2012 (SUPRA) AND MENTIONED THAT THE IDEN TICAL ISSUE WAS ADJUDICATED IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE VIDE PARA 13 TO 21 OF THE TRIB UNALS ORDER WHICH READ AS UNDER: 13. GROUND NO. 4 RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS AGAINS T THE CIT(A)S ORDER WHEREIN THE GAIN IN FOREIGN EXCHANGE FLUCTUATION HA S BEEN ALLOWED AS BUSINESS INCOME INSTEAD OF TREATING AND TAXING IT A S INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. 14. THE AO HAS MENTIONED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER T HAT THIS IS AN INCREMENT DUE TO EXCHANGE FLUCTUATION, WHICH HAS NO NEXUS WIT H THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE AND HENCE IS TAXABLE UNDER THE HEAD INCOM E FROM OTHER SOURCES. NOT SATISFIED WITH THE VIEW OF THE AO, T HE ASSESSEE CARRIED ITS GRIEVANCE BEFORE CIT(A). THE CIT(A) ACCEPTED THE CONTENTIONS AND VIEW PROPO UNDED BY THE ASSESSEE AND HELD THAT GAINS ARISING FROM FOREIGN E XCHANGE FLUCTUATIONS WERE CURRENT BUSINESS FUNDS FROM ROUTINE BUSINESS O PERATIONS AND ANY CHANGE IN THEIR VALUE DIRECTLY AFFECTS THE PROFITS OF THE BUSINESS. HE, THEREFORE, DIRECTED THE AO TO TREAT THESE GAINS AS INCOME FROM BUSINESS AND NOT INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. 15. THE REVENUE NOT SATISFIED WITH THE DECISION OF THE CIT(A), HAS CARRIED THE GRIEVANCE BEFORE THE ITAT. 16. BEFORE US, THE DR SUBMITTED THAT THE VIEW TAKE N BY THE AO WAS CORRECT AND IS NOW COVERED BY THE DECISION OF HONBLE BOMBA Y HIGH COURT IN THE 9 M/S. PETROLEUM INDIA INTERNATIONAL CASE OF CIT VS SHAH ORIGINALS, ITA NO. 431 OF 2008 REPORTED IN 327 ITR 19. 17. THE SENIOR AR, HOWEVER SUBMITTED THAT THE CASE OF SHAH ORIGINALS, PER SE, PERTAINED TO INTEREST EARNED IN THE FOREIGN CUR RENCY LYING IN EEFC ACCOUNT 8 PETROLEUM INDIA INTERNATIONAL AND IT CANN OT GO INTO THE GAIN OR LOSS ON ACCOUNT OF CURRENCY FLUCTUATION, WHICH IS D IRECTLY RELATED TO THE BUSINESS/EXPORT PROCEEDS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE I N FOREIGN CURRENCY. ON THIS GROUND, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE VI EW TAKEN BY THE CIT(A) WAS CORRECT. 18. THE SENIOR AR, SUBMITTED THAT IN THE CASE A T HAND, THE WHOLE ISSUE PERTAINS TO PROCEEDS RECEIVED IN FOREIGN EXCHANGE A ND IT WAS DURING THE COURSE OF BUSINESS THAT THERE WAS FLUCTUATION IN TH E CURRENCY, BECAUSE OF WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAD BOOKED A GAIN ON FLUCTUATION . 19. HAVING HEARD THE VIEWS OF EITHER SIDE, WE WENT INTO THE QUESTION THAT WAS REFERRED BEFORE THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN TH E CASE OF SHAH ORIGINALS. THE QUESTION REFERRED TO THE HONBLE BOM BAY HIGH COURT INCLUDED THE WORDS RECEIPTS ON ACCOUNT OF FOREIGN EXCHANGE FLUCTUATION ON EEFC ACCOUNT.. 20. THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT HAS HELD THAT GA INS ON EXCHANGE FLUCTUATION DOES NOT HAVE A NEXUS WHEN THE FUNDS AR E KEPT IN EEFC ACCOUNT AND THERE IS A VARIATION IN THE EXCHANGE RA TE. WE, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOW THE DECISION OF JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT, W HEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT THE GAIN ON ACCOUNT OF FLUCTUATION IN THE FORE IGN CURRENCY WHICH TAKES PLACE AFTER THE EXPORT PROCEEDS HAVE BEEN REA LIZED AND SUCH FUNDS OR PART THEREOF ARE PARKED IN THE EEFC ACCOUNT WOUL D BE TREATED AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. 21. ON GOING THROUGH THE ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE SID ES, WE DEEM IT FIT TO DIRECT THE AO TO VERIFY THE EXCHANGE FLUCTUATION AC COUNT, AS MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE, I.E. IF THE EXCHANGE FLUCTUATION I S ON THE EXPORT PROCEED STAGE ITSELF, THEN IT HAS TO BE TREATED AS GAIN IN BUSINESS AND IF THE GAINS ON EXCHANGE FLUCTUATION OCCURS ON THE FUNDS LYING P ARKED IN EEFC ACCOUNT, THEN IN THAT CASE, THE CASE OF SHAH ORIGIN ALS IS TO BE APPLIED AND TREAT THAT GAIN AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. FURTHER, HE MENTIONED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO RELIEF IN THIS REGARD BY VIRTUE OF JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF C IT VS. SHAH ORIGINALS, 327 ITR 19 WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT THE GAINS ON ACCOUNT OF FL UCTUATION IN FOREIGN CURRENCY WOULD BE TREATED AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. ON THE O THER HAND, LD DR FOR THE REVENUE RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF THE AO. ACCORDINGLY, WE DIRECT THE AO TO VERIFY THE EXCHANG E FLUCTUATION ACCOUNT. IF THE EXCHANGE FLUCTUATION IS ON THE EXPORT PROCEEDS ITSE LF, THEN IT HAS TO BE TREATED AS GAIN 10 M/S. PETROLEUM INDIA INTERNATIONAL IN BUSINESS AND IF THE GAINS ON EXCHANGE FLUCTUATIO N OCCURS ON THE FUNDS LYING PARKED IN EEFC ACCOUNT, THEN IN THAT CASE, THE CASE OF SHAH ORI GINALS IS TO BE APPLIED AND TREAT THAT GAIN AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. ACCORDINGLY , THE GROUND RAISED STANDS COVERED BY THE SAID DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE ASSESSE ES OWN CASE. ACCORDINGLY, GROUND NO.4 STANDS DISPOSED OFF. 11. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS ALLOWED IN PART . CO NO.6/M/2009 12. ASSESSEE FILED THE CORSS OBJECTION ON 6.1.2009 WITH DELAY OF 1529 DAYS. THE GROUNDS OF CROSS OBJECTION RELATING TO THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 80-O OF THE ACT, READ AS UNDER: 1. THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) ERRED IN REDUCING THE DEDUCTION U/S 80-O OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 TO RS. 4,78,927/- AS AGAIN ST RS. 28,02,900/- CLAIMED BY THE RESPONDENT. 2. HE FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD BY THE RESPONDENT WAS SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT THE RESPONDENT S CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80-O. 3. THE RESPONDENT PRAYS THAT IT BE ALLOWED THE DEDU CTION OF RS. 28,02,900/- U/S 80-O OF THE ACT AS CLAIMED BY IT. 13. BEFORE US, LD COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE MENTIONE D THAT THE SAID CO WAS FILED BELATEDLY AND BROUGHT TO OUR ATTENTION THE CONTENTS OF THE ACCOMPANYING APPLICATION AND THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. FROM THE S AID APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION, THE ASSESSEE READ OUT THE REASON FOR THE SAID DELAY AND THE SAME READ AS UNDER: HOWEVER, OVERSIGHT IN NOT HAVING FILED THE CROSS-OBJECTIONS WAS NOTIC ED BY US ONLY RECENTLY DURING THE CONFERENCE WITH OUR SENIOR COUNSEL, MR. S.E. DASTUR. FURTHER , REFERRING TO THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 16.1.2009 FILED B Y THE ASSESSEE, LD COUNSEL BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE THAT THE NECESSITY OF FILING THE CO WAS NOTICED ONLY DURING THE 11 M/S. PETROLEUM INDIA INTERNATIONAL ASSESSEES CONFERENCE WITH HIS COUNSELS AND HE READ OUT THE CONTENTS OF THE PARA 2 AND 3 OF THE SAID AFFIDAVIT. THE SAID PARAGRAPHS ARE EX TRACTED AS UNDER: 2. THAT WHILE PREPARING FOR THE SAID APPEAL ON 26 TH DECEMBER, 2008 IN THE CONFERENCE WITH THE COUNSELS, IT WAS NOTICED TH AT AGAINST CERTAIN ASPECTS DECIDED BY THE CIT (A), IT WAS NECESSARY TO FILE CORSS-OBJECTIONS. 3. THAT, THEREFORE, PETROLEUM INDIA INTERNATIONAL H AS FILED CROSS OBJECTIONS ON 06.01.2009 ALONG WITH THE APPLICATION FOR CONDON ATION OF DELAY. 14. THUS, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTE D THAT THE REASON OF OVERSIGHT AND THE REALIZATION OF THE NEED TO FILE CROSS OBJEC TION WAS NOTICED ONLY WHEN THEY HAD A CONFERENCE WITH HIS COUNSELS, CONSTITUTES REASONAB LE CAUSE AND PRAYED FOR CONDONATION OF SAID DELAY OF 1529 DAYS. 15. PER CONTRA , LEARNED DR VEHEMENTLY OPPOSED THE SAID PRAYER OF LD COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AND MENTIONED THAT THE OVERSIGHT MENTION ED SHOULD BE CONSTRUED AS ASSESSEES NEGLIGENCE IN FILING THE CO IN TIME AND THE SAME DOES NOT AMOUNT TO SUFFICIENT CAUSE WITHIN THE MEANING SECTION 253(5 ) OF THE ACT. FURTHER, HE ARGUED THAT IT IS NOT COMPREHENSIBLE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT CONSULTED THE ADVOCATES FOR NEARLY FOUR YEARS THREE MONTHS BEFORE THEY ARE ADVISED TO FILE CO FINALLY. FURTHER ALSO, LD DR HAS BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE THE FACT OF NON FURNISHIN G OF ANY AFFIDAVIT BY THE ADVOCATES, WHO HAD CONFERENCE WITH THE ASSESSEE AFFIRMING THE ASSERTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE. THUS, THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OR REASONABLE EXPLANATION IN S UPPORT OF THE REQUEST FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY. AS PER LEARNED DR, THE REQUE ST OF THE ASSESSEE FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY SHOULD BE REJECTED IN VIEW OF THE SPECIFIC PROVISIONS OF SECTION 253(5) OF THE ACT. 16. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES OF THE LITIGATIO N ON THE PRELIMINARY ISSUE OF CONDONATION OF DELAY OF 1529 DAYS AND PERUSED THE C ONTENTS OF THE SAID APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION AND THE AFFIDAVIT SUBMITTED BY THE ASSE SSEE. THERE IS NO DISPUTE ON THE FACT OF DELAY OF 1529 DAYS AS WELL AS ON NON FURNIS HING OF ANY AFFIDAVIT BY THE COUNSELS AFFIRMING THAT ASSESSEE HAD A CONFERENCE WITH THE C OUNSELS WHICH GIVE RAISE TO THE 12 M/S. PETROLEUM INDIA INTERNATIONAL NECESSITY OF FILING THE IMPUGNED CROSS OBJECTIONS. FURTHER, THERE IS NO EXPLANATION AS TO WHY AND UNDER WHAT CIRCUMSTANCES; THE ASSESSEE APPR OACHED THE COUNSELS ON 26.12.2008 ONLY AND NOT WITHIN 30 DAYS FROM THE REC EIPT OF THE NOTICE. THE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE, BOTH IN THE APPLICATION OF C ONDONATION AS WELL AS IN THE AFFIDAVIT OF THE ASSESSEE, ARE NOT EXPLAINED WITH SUPPORTIVE EVIDENCES. IN THIS REGARD, WE HAVE PERUSED THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF SUBSECTION (4) A ND (5) OF THE SECTION 253 OF THE ACT AND THE SAME ARE REPRODUCED HERE FOR READY REFERENC E AS UNDER: (4) THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR THE ASSESSEE, AS THE CASE MAY BE, ON RECEIPT OF NOTICE THAT AN APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE DEPU TY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) OR, AS THE CASE MAY BE, THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) OR T HE ASSESSING OFFICER IN PURSUANCE OF THE DIRECTIONS OF THE DISPUTE RESOLUTI ON PANEL HAS BEEN PREFERRED UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) OR SUB-SECTION (2) OR SUB-SEC TION (2A) BY THE OTHER PARTY, MAY, NOTWITHSTANDING THAT HE MAY NOT HAVE APPEALED AGAINST SUCH ORDER OR ANY PART THEREOF; WITHIN THIRTY DAYS OF THE RECEIPT OF THE NOTICE, FILE A MEMORANDUM OF CROSS-OBJECTIONS, VERIFIED IN THE PRESCRIBED MAN NER, AGAINST ANY PART OF THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER (IN PURSUANCE OF THE DIREC TIONS OF THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION PANEL) OR DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) OR, AS THE CASE MAY BE, THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), AND SUCH MEMORANDUM SHALL B E DISPOSED OF BY THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AS IF IT WERE AN APPEAL PRESENTE D WITHIN THE TIME SPECIFIED IN SUB-SECTION (3) OR SUB-SECTION (3A). (5) THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MAY ADMIT AN APPEAL OR PERM IT THE FILING OF A MEMORANDUM OF CROSS-OBJECTIONS AFTER THE EXPIRY OF THE RELEVANT PERIOD REFERRED TO IN SUB-SECTION (3) OR SUB-SECTION (4), IF IT IS SATISFIED THAT THERE WAS SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR NOT PRESENTING IT WITHIN THAT PERIOD. 17. SUB-SECTION (4) OF SECTION 253 OF THE ACT MANDA TES THAT THE ASSESSEE SHOULD FILE CROSS OBJECTIONS WITHIN THE 30 DAYS FROM THE DATE O F RECEIPT OF THE NOTICE. IN CASE OF FAILURE TO FILE IN THAT PERIOD, SUBSECTION (5) CONF ERS POWERS ON THE TRIBUNAL TO PERMIT THE FILING OF CO AFTER THE EXPIRY OF 30 DAYS AND THE SA ME SUBJECTED FULFILLMENT OF CERTAIN CONDITIONS BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAS THE DU TY OF SATISFYING THE TRIBUNAL ABOUT THE EXISTENCE OF CAUSE AND IT SHOULD BE SUFFICIEN T ENOUGH FOR NOT PRESENTING THE CO WITHIN 30 DAYS SPECIFIED IN SUBSECTION (4) OF SECTI ON 253 OF THE ACT. THUS, THE ONUS IS 13 M/S. PETROLEUM INDIA INTERNATIONAL ON THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN TO THE TRIBUNAL ABOUT TH E SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR THE DELAY AND THE TRIBUNAL SHOULD BE SATISFIED ABOUT THE SAID SUFFICIENT CAUSE. IT IS TRUE THAT THE WORDS SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR NOT FILING THE CO WITH IN THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION NO DOUBT IS TO BE APPLIED IN A REASONABLE MANNER BUT DEPENDING UPON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF EACH CASE. PARTY HAS TO GIVE SATISFACTORY EXPLAN ATION. IN ANY CASE, IT WAS THE DUTY OF CROSS OBJECTOR TO GIVE SATISFACTORY EXPLANATION TO THE TRIBUNAL ABOUT THE DELAY IN FILING THE CO. IN THE ABSENCE OF THE SAME, THE PRAYER FOR CONDONATION MUST NOT BE GRANTED. IT CANNOT BE OVERLOOKED THAT ON EXPIRY OF THE PERI OD OF LIMITATION PRESCRIBED FOR SEEKING LEGAL REMEDY, RIGHTS ACCRUE IN FAVOUR OF THE OTHER PARTY OF THE LITIGATION. 18. IN THE PRESENT CASE, ASSESSEE FAILED TO EXPLAIN THE CAUSE OF DELAY OF 1529 DAYS IN FILING THE CROSS OBJECTION. FURTHER, THE EXPLANATIO N OF THE ASSESSEE, WHICH REVOLVES AROUND THE OVERSIGHT AND ASSESSEES CONFERENCE WI TH HIS COUNSEL AFTER EXPIRY OF FOUR YEARS, IN OUR OPINION DOES NOT CONSTITUTE SUFFICIE NT CAUSE WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 253(5) OF THE ACT. IT IS NOT IN THE NORMAL COURSE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT MET HIS COUNSEL FOR ALL THESE FOUR YEARS. AS SUCH THERE IS NO CONFIRMATION FROM THE SAID COUNSEL BY WAY OF ANY AFFIDAVIT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD IMPUG NED CONFERENCE TO ADVISE FOR FILING THE IMPUGNED CO. IN OUR OPINION, THE DELAY SHOWS TH E INDIFFERENT ATTITUDE OF THE ASSESSEE TO THE MATTER. IN SUCH A FACTUAL SITUATIO N, THE SUFFICIENT CAUSE AS CONTEMPLATED U/S 253 (5) OF THE ACT DOES NOT EXIST. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THERE IS A NEGLIGENCE ON PART OF THE APPELLANT AND IT IS A CAS E OF ABSENCE OF DUE DILIGENCE. FURTHER ALSO, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DEMONSTRATED THAT IT WAS BEYOND HIS CONTROL THAT THE CROSS OBJECTION COULD NOT BE FILED BEFORE THE EXPIRY OF T HE LIMITATION PERIOD OF 30 DAYS SPECIFIED IN SECTION 253(4) OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, DELAY IN FILING THE CROSS OBJECTION REMAINS UNEXPLAINED. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE LEGAL AN D FACTUAL DISCUSSION, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THERE IS NO SUFFICIENT CAUS E FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY OF 1529 DAYS. CONSEQUENTLY, THE IMPUGNED APPLICATION FOR CO NDONATION OF DELAY BY THE CROSS OBJECTOR, RESPONDENT IS DISMISSED . 14 M/S. PETROLEUM INDIA INTERNATIONAL 19. IN THE RESULT, REVENUE APPEAL IS ALLOWED IN PART AND THE CROSS OBJECTION IS DISMISSED . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 28 TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2012. SD/- SD/- (H.L. KARW A) (D. KARUNAKARA RAO) PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATE: 28.9.2012 AT :MUMBAI OKK COPY TO : 1. M/S. PETROLEUM INDIA INTERNATIONAL, MUMBAI. 2. ACIT, CIR-19(3), MUMBAI. 3. THE CIT (A), CONCERNED. 4. THE CIT CONCERNED. 5. THE DR J, BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI. 6. GUARD FILE. // TRUE COPY// BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI 15 M/S. PETROLEUM INDIA INTERNATIONAL SR. NO. DETAILS DATE INITIALS DESIGNATION 1 DRAFT DICTATED ON 18 .9.2012 SR.PS/PS 2 DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 18 .9.2012 SR.PS/PS 3 DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER JM/AM 4 DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER JM/AM 5 APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS SR.PS/PS 6 KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON SR.PS/PS 7 FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK SR.PS/PS 8 DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 9 DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE AR 10 DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER