Asst. CIT, Panvel Circle, Raigad V. JWC Logistics Park Pvt. Ltd., Raigad

ITA 1121/PUN/2013

• Counselvise Citation: 112124514 RSA 2013
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-08-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 18-08-2014
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 23-05-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH A, PUNE BEFORE SHRI SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOS. 1121 AND 1122/PN/2013 (ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2008-09 AND 2009-10) ACIT, PANVEL CIRCLE, PANVEL, DIST : RAIGAD .. APPELLANT VS. JWC LOGISTICS PARK PVT. LTD., PLOT NO.69/91, NATIONAL HIGHWAY NO.4, VILLAGE PALASPE, PANVEL, DIST : RAIGAD PAN NO. AABCJ4231E .. RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI SATISH R. MODY REVENUE BY : SHRI RAJESH DAMOR DATE OF HEARING : 18-08-2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 21-08-2014 ORDER PER R.K. PANDA, AM : THE ABOVE 2 APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE ARE DIRECT ED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 17-01-2013 OF THE CIT(A)-I, THANE RELAT ING TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 2008-09 AND 2009-10 RESPECTIVELY. SINCE IDEN TICAL GROUNDS HAVE BEEN TAKEN BY THE REVENUE IN BOTH THE APPEALS, THER EFORE, FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE, THESE WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEIN G DISPOSED OF BY THIS COMMON ORDER. ITA NO.1121/PN/2013 (A.Y. 2008-09) : 2. THE ONLY EFFECTIVE GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE READS AS UNDER : WHETHER THE CIT(A)-I, THANE IS RIGHT IN LAW IN HOLD ING THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION U/S.80IA OF THE INCOME TAX A CT, 1961 EVEN THOUGH ACTIVITIES UNDERTAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE DO NOT FALL WITHIN CLAUSE (D) OF THE EXPLANATION TO 80IA(4) DEFINING THE TERM INF RASTRUCTURE FACILITIES? 2 2.1 FACTS OF THE CASE, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT THE ASSES SEE IS A COMPANY INCORPORATED IN THE YEAR 2004 AND IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF RUNNING CONTAINER YARD, INLAND CONTAINER DEPOT (ICD), CONTA INER FREIGHT STATION (CFS), BONDED WAREHOUSE ETC. THE ABOVE PROJECT OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS SPREAD OVER 14 ACRES OF LAND AND HANDLES THE STOCK AND STORAGE OF CONTAINERS AND EQUIPPED TO OPERATE, MOVE, STUFFE D AND DESTUFFED LOADED AND EMPTY CONTAINERS AND CONNECTED TO JAWAHAR LAL N EHRU PORT TRUST (JNPT) ONLINE. THE OPERATIONS OF THE ICD/CFS OF TH E ASSESSEE COMPANY INCLUDE BROADLY THE CLEARANCE OF GOODS FOR HOME USE , WAREHOUSING, TEMPORARY ADMISSIONS, RE-EXPORT, TEMPORARY STORAGE FOR INWARD TRANSIT/OUTRIGHT EXPORT, TRANSHIPMENTS ETC. THE IC D/CFS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY STARTED ITS OPERATIONS IN YEAR 2004. 2.2 THE ASSESSEE FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR ON 30-09-2008 DECLARING NIL INCOME. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID TOTAL TAX LIABILITY OF RS.44,63,3 33/- U/S.115JB. IN THE AUDIT REPORT FILED IN FORM 10CCB IT WAS STATED THAT THE INLAND CONTAINER DEPOT OPERATED BY THE COMPANY IS A INLAND PORT WH ICH IS ONE OF THE INFRASTRUCTURE FACILITY FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECTION 80IA OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 AND THEREFORE THE COMPANY IS ELIGIBLE FOR TAX HOLID AY U/S.80IA(4)(I) OF THE I.T. ACT. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDI NGS THE ASSESSING OFFICER ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO JUSTIFY ITS CLAIM OF DEDUCTION. HOWEVER, HE REJECTED THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROU ND THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FULFIL THE REQUIRED CONDITIONS AS PRESCRIBED FO R CLAIMING DEDUCTION U/S.80IA(4) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. ACCORDING TO TH E ASSESSING OFFICER IN ORDER TO FULFILMENT OF THE CONDITION OF SECTION 80I A(4)(I)(B) THE ASSESSEE 3 HAS TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH THE CENTRAL GOV ERNMENT OR A STATE GOVERNMENT OR A LOCAL AUTHORITY OR ANY OTHER STATUT ORY BODY FOR (I) DEVELOPING OR (II) DEVELOPING, OPERATING AND MAINTA INING A NEW INFRASTRUCTURE FACILITY. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT ENTERED INTO ANY AGREEMENT WITH THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT/STATE GOVERNM ENT/LOCAL AUTHORITY ETC. THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 HAS INCLUD ED INLAND PORTS AS PORTS ON RIVERS OR CANALS IN THE DEFINITION OF INLA ND PORT AND NOT THE INLAND CONTAINER DEPOT/CONTAINER FREIGHT STATION. HENCE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT QUALIFY FOR THE DED UCTION U/S.80IA(4) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. HE ACCORDINGLY DISALLOWED THE CLAI M OF DEDUCTION OF RS.3,12,60,532/- CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE U/S.80IA(4 ) OF THE I.T. ACT. 3. IN APPEAL THE LD.CIT(A) FOLLOWING THE DECISION O F THE MUMBAI SPECIAL BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF M/S. A LL CARGO GLOBAL LOGISTICS LTD. VS. DCIT VIDE ITA NOS. 5018 TO 5022 AND 5059 FOR A.YRS. 2004-05 TO 2009-10 ORDER DATED 06-07-2012 AND THE D ECISION OF THE MUMBAI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF CONTINE NTAL WAREHOUSING CORPORATION (NHAVA SHEVA) VS. ACIT VIDE ITA NO.7055 /MUM/2011 ORDER DATED 31-08-2012 FOR A.Y. 2008-09 ALLOWED TH E CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. WHILE DOING SO, HE HELD THAT THE ASSESSE E, A CFS, IS AN INLAND PORT WHOSE INCOME IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S.80I A(4) OF THE I.T. ACT. THE RELEVANT OBSERVATIONS OF THE CIT(A) READS AS UN DER : 6.1. I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE AO AND HAVE ALSO CONSIDERED THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS MADE IN THE MATTER DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. 6.2. THE AR OF THE APPELLANT, IN ADDITION TO THE WR ITTEN SUBMISSIONS FILED HAS VEHEMENTLY ARGUED THAT THE ISSUE IS NOW FULLY COVER ED IN THEIR FAVOUR BY THE JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENT OF HIGH COURT OF DELH I IN THE CASE OF 4 CONTAINER CORPORATION OF INDIA VS ACIT IN ITA NO.141 1/2009, 967/2011 AND 968/2011 VIDE ORDER DATED 11/05/2012. 6.3. THE AR OF THE APPELLANT HAS ALSO RELIED ON THE D ECISION OF ITAT SPECIAL BENCH, MUMBAI IN THE CASE OF M/S. ALL CARGO G LOBAL LOGISTICS LTD. VS DCIT, ITA NO. 5018 TO 5022 & 5059, FOR THE A.Y.'S 2004-05 TO 2009-10 RENDERED VIDE ORDER DATED: 06/07/2012. 6.4. THE AR OF THE APPELLANT FURTHER RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE ITAT MUMBAI BENCH 'C', MUMBAI IN THE CASE OF CONTINENTAL WAREHOUSING CORPORATION (NHAVA SEVA) VS ACIT, ITA NO. 7055/MUM/2 011 DATED: 31/08/2012 FOR THE A.Y. 2008-09. 6.5. THE AR OF THE APPELLANT HAS CONTENDED THAT IN V IEW OF THE ABOVE DECISIONS OF HIGH COURT OF DELHI, ITAT, SPECIAL BENCH , MUMBAI AND ITAT, MUMBAI BENCH 'C', THE CFS'S HAVE BEEN CATEGORIZED AS INLAND PORT AND AN INFRASTRUCTURE FACILITY ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION AS PE R PROVISIONS OF SECTION 80IA(4). IN VIEW OF THE SAME, THE AR CONTENDED THAT THE ISSUE STANDS FULLY COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE APPELLANT AND THE BENEFIT OF DEDUCTION U/S. 80IA(4) SHOULD BE GRANTED TO THE CONTAINER FREIGHT S TATION BEING OPERATED AS INFRASTRUCTURE FACILITY BY APPELLANT FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. 6.6. THE ABOVE ARGUMENTS OF THE APPELLANT COMPANY HA VE BEEN CONSIDERED. THE FACTS OF THE JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENT I N THE CASE OF CONTAINER CORPORATION OF INDIA VS ACIT (SUPRA) ARE NO T IDENTICAL TO THE FACTS OF THE APPELLANT'S CASE AND THIS JUDGMENT IS THERE FORE DISTINGUISHABLE ON FACTS WHEN APPLIED TO THE FACTS OF T HE APPELLANT'S CASE. THE ABOVE JUDGMENT HAS BEEN RENDERED BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI IN THE CASE OF AN ASSESSEE WHO IS OPERATING INLAND CONTAINER DEPOT (ICD), WHICH HAS BEEN CATEGORIZED AS THE 'INLAND POR T' AND THEREFORE THE INFRASTRUCTURE FACILITY AS DEFINED IN SECTION'80IA(4) OF THE IT. ACT, 1961. BUT IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE APPELLANT IS OPERATING C ONTAINER FREIGHT STATION, WHICH HAS NOT BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT. THUS, THE RATIO OF THE ABOVE JUDGMENT CANNOT BE APPLIED T O THE FACTS OF THE INSTANT CASE. 6.7. BUT AS FAR AS THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT T HAT THEIR CASE NOW STANDS COVERED AFTER THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF M/S. A LL CARGO GLOBAL LOGISTICS LTD. VS DC!T, ITA NO. 5018 TO 5022 & 5059, F OR THE A.Y.'S 2004-05 TO 2009-10, APPEARS TO BE CORRECT. IN ITS DEC ISION IN THE CASE OF M/S. ALL CARGO GLOBAL LOGISTICS LTD. VS DCIT, (SUPRA), THE ITAT SPECIAL BENCH MUMBAI, WHILE DEALING WITH AN IDENTICAL ISSUE, VIDE THEIR DECISION DATED: 06/07/2012 HAS HELD THAT - ' WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASES AND SUBMISSION S MADE BEFORE US. IT MAY BE MENTIONED THAT ONE OF THE ARGUMENTS ADV ANCED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE CASE OF CONTAINER CO RPORATION OF INDIA IS NOT BASED ON ANY OF THE CIRCULARS ISSUED BY THE PORT AUTHORITIES, HOWEVER, THE CFS THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN GRANTED SUCH CERTI FICATE. THE CERTIFICATE MENTIONS THAT THE CFS CARRIES ON PORT RE LATED ACTIVITIES, AND IT MAY BE CONSIDERED AS AN EXTENDABLE ACTIVITY OF THE PO RT RELATED ACTIVITIES. IT IS CLARIFIED THAT THE CFS HAS NOT BEEN BUILT ON B OT OR BOLT SCHEME AND THAT IT IS SITUATED ON LAND WHICH DOES NOT BELONG TO THE PORT. THE LETTERS WRITTEN BY PORT TRUST TO THE ASSESSEE ALSO STATE THAT THE MATTER HAS BEEN REFERRED TO THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT. THE DEPARTME NT HAS CLARIFIED THAT AN /CD / CFS DOES NOT CONSTITUTE AN INLAND PORT . IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. ABG HEAVY INDUSTRIES LTD., 189 TAXMAN 54, THE HON' BLE COURT HAS HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION U/S. 80IA . HOWEVER THERE 5 IS A VERY SALIENT DIFFERENCE IN FACTS THAT STRUCTURES WE RE LOCATED AT PORT AND SUCH STRUCTURES HAD TO BE HANDED OVER TO THE PORT TRUST ON EXPIRY OF THE PERIOD OF AGREEMENT. IN THE CASE AT HAND IT IS CL EAR THAT THE ASSETS OF THE CFS ARE NOT TO BE HANDED OVER TO THE PORT TRUST AT ANY POINT OF TIME AS IT IS NOT BUILT ON BOT & BOLT SCHEME. THE CFS IS AL SO NOT LOCATED AT THE PORT. AS AGAINST THE AFORESAID, THE LD. STANDING C OUNSEL HAS SUBMITTED THAT CLARIFICATIONS ISSUED BY OTHER AUTHORITIES INCLUDI NG CENTRAL BOARD OF EXCISE AND CUSTOMS UNDER THE RELEVANT ACTS DO NOT LAY G UIDELINES UNDER THE INCOME TAX ACT AND THAT THE MATTER HAS TO BE DEC IDED UNDER THE INCOME TAX ACT INDEPENDENTLY. FOR DOING SO, INITIALL Y A STRICT INTERPRETATION HAS TO BE PLACED ON THE WORDS 'INLAND PORT' TO EXAMINE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO THE DEDUCTION. CBDT HAS FURNISHED OPINION THAT /CDS AND CFSS ARE NOT ENTITLED TO SUCH DE DUCTION AS THEY DO NOT CONSTITUTE INLAND PORTS. OTHER ACTS AS WELL AS STUDY REPORT LEAD TO THE CONCLUSION THAT A PORT CAN BE SAID TO BE AN INLAND PO RT ONLY IF IT HAS AN ACCESS TO THE SEA VIA A WATER-WAY. WE FIND THAT THE SOLITARY DECISION IN THIS CASE BY ANY HIGH COURT IS IN THE CASE OF CONTAINER CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD. IN THIS C ASE IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT AN /CD IS NOT A PORT BUT IT IS AN INLAND PORT. T HE CASE OF CFS IS SIMILAR SITUATED IN THE SENSE THAT BOTH CARRY OUT SIMILAR FUNCT IONS, I.E. WARE HOUSING, CUSTOMS CLEARANCE AND TRANSPORT OF GOODS FROM I TS LOCATION TO THE SEAPORTS AND VICE-VERSA BY RAILWAY OR BY TRUCKS IN CONTAINERS. THUS, THE ISSUE IS NO LONGER RES-INTEGRA. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOW ING THIS DECISION, IT IS HELD THAT A CFS IS AN INLAND PORT WHOSE INCOME IS EN TITLED TO DEDUCTION U/S. 801 A(4). QUESTION NO. 2 IS ANSWERED ACCORDINGLY.' 6.8. FOLLOWING THE ABOVE DECISION OF THE ITAT, SPECI AL BENCH MUMBAI, THE ITAT MUMBAI BENCH 'C' MUMBAI IN THE CASE OF CONTINEN TAL WAREHOUSING CORPORATION (NHAVA SEVA) LTD. VS ACIT, ITA NO. 7055/ MUM/2011 DATED: 31/08/2012 FOR THE A.Y. 2008-09, WHILE RELYING IN T HE SPECIAL BENCH DECISION IN THE CASE OF M/S. ALL CARGO GLOBAL LOGISTICS LTD. VS DCIT (SUPRA) IT HAS BEEN HELD BY THE ITAT AS UNDER :- 'IN THIS VIEW OF THE SITUATION, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE AFOREMENTIONED DECISION OF SPECIAL BENCH WE ALLOW THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND IT IS HELD THAT ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO GET DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IA(4) OF THE ACT.' 6.9. IT HAS BEEN FURTHER CONTENDED BY THE AR OF THE APPELLANT THAT THE ABOVE DECISIONS OF THE ITAT SPECIAL BENCH AS WELL IN T HE CASE OF THE APPELLANT FOR THE A.Y. 2008-09 BY THE HON'BLE ITAT HAVE BEEN RENDERED AFTER HAVING DULY CONSIDERED THE FACTS RELATING TO TH E WITHDRAWAL OF CERTIFICATE BY THE JNPT AND THE CLARIFICATION ISSUED BY THE CBDT DATED: 06.01.2011 REGARDING THE CONTAINER FREIGHT STATIONS. THESE FACTS HAVE BEEN DULY CONSIDERED BEFORE RENDERING THE ABOVE DECI SIONS BY THE SPECIAL BENCH IN THE CASE OF M/S. ALL CARGO GLOBAL LO GISTICS LTD. VS DCIT (SUPRA) AS WELL AS THE ITAT BENCH 'C' MUMBAI IN THE CA SE OF CONTINENTAL WAREHOUSING CORPORATION (NHAVA SEVA) LTD VS ACIT, ITA NO. 7055/MUM/2011 DATED 31/08/2012 FOR THE A.Y. 2008-09 . ACCORDING TO THE AR, IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DECISIONS, THE APPELLAN T IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION AS PROVIDED UNDER SECTION 80IA(4) ON THE CO NTAINER FREIGHT STATIONS BEING OPERATED BY IT AND COVERED UNDER THE DEFINITION OF INLAND PORT AS DECIDED IN THE CASES MENTIONED ABOVE. 6.10. AFTER THE CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE FACTS AS EXPLAINED ABOVE AS WELL AS THE JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS CITED SUPRA, I INT END TO AGREE WITH THE ABOVE ARGUMENTS OF THE APPELLANT. THE ISSUE AS ON D ATE STANDS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE APPELLANT BY THE SPECIAL B ENCH, MUMBAI IN THE 6 CASE OF M/S. ALL CARGO GLOBAL LOGISTICS LTD. VS DCIT (SUP RA) AND IN THE CASE OF CONTINENTAL WAREHOUSING CORPORATION (NHAVA SE VA) LTD. VS ACIT, ITA NO. 7055/MUM/2011 DATED 31/08/2012 BY THE JURISD ICTIONAL ITAT BENCH 'C' MUMBAI (SUPRA) FOR THE A.Y. 2008-09. RESPEC TFULLY FOLLOWING THE ABOVE DECISIONS OF THE JURISDICTIONAL ITAT, SPECIA L BENCH, MUMBAI AND THE ITAT BENCH 'C' MUMBAI, THE APPEAL OF THE AP PELLANT IS ALLOWED. THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF DEDU CTION AMOUNTING TO RS. 3,12,60,532/- FOR THE A.Y. 2008-09 AND DEDUCTION AMOUNTING TO RS.2,12,70,097/- FOR THE A.Y. 2009-10 IS HEREBY DELET ED. 3.1 AGGRIEVED WITH SUCH ORDER OF THE CIT(A) THE REV ENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL ARGUMENTS MADE BY B OTH THE SIDES, PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE CIT(A) AND THE PAPER BOOK FILED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. WE HAVE ALSO CONSIDERED THE VARIOUS DECISIONS CITED BEFORE US. FROM THE STATEM ENT OF FACTS FILED BY THE REVENUE, WE FIND THE ONLY GRIEVANCE OF THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IS THAT THE ORDER RELIED ON BY THE CIT(A ) IN THE CASE OF CONTINENTAL WAREHOUSING CORPORATION (NHAVE SHEVA) L TD. (SUPRA) HAS BEEN CHALLENGED BY THE REVENUE BEFORE THE HONBLE H IGH COURT AND THE SAME IS PENDING. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATI VE FAIRLY CONCEDED THAT THE ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE AS SESSEE BY THE DECISION OF THE MUMBAI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL AND TO KEEP THE MA TTER ALIVE THE REVENUE HAS FILED THIS APPEAL SINCE THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF CONTINENTAL WAREHOUSING CORPORATION (NHAVE SHEVA ) LTD. (SUPRA) HAS BEEN CHALLENGED BY THE REVENUE BEFORE THE HONBLE H IGH COURT. 4.1 THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FILED THE DECI SION OF THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CONTAINER CORPORATI ON OF INDIA LTD. VS. ACIT REPORTED IN 346 ITR 140 AND SUBMITTED THAT THE HONBLE HIGH COURT IN THE ABOVE DECISION HAS HELD THAT THE INCOME OF I CDS IS ELIGIBLE FOR 7 DEDUCTION U/S.80IA(4)(I) OF THE I.T. ACT. HE ALSO RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE MUMBAI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF UNI TED LINER AGENCIES OF INDIA (PVT.) LTD. VS. JCIT AND VICE VERSA ORDER DAT ED 28-06-2013 FOR A.YRS 2006-07 AND 2009-10 RESPECTIVELY. HE SUBMITTE D THAT SINCE THE ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY VARIOUS DECISIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL AND THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT, THER EFORE, THE GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE SHOULD BE DISMISSED. SINCE T HE LD.CIT(A) WHILE ALLOWING THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S.80IA(4) HAS FOL LOWED THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL, THEREFORE, MERELY BECAUSE THE REVENUE HAS CHALLENGED THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL BEFORE THE HONBLE HIGH CO URT, THE SAME IN OUR OPINION CANNOT BE A GROUND TO TAKE A CONTRARY DECIS ION THAN THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE TRIBUNAL CITED (SUPRA). IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND THE GROUND RAISED BY THE RE VENUE IS DISMISSED. 5. IDENTICAL GROUNDS HAVE BEEN TAKEN BY THE REVENUE IN ITA NO.1122/PN/2013 FOR A.Y. 2009-10. FOLLOWING OUR RE ASONINGS GIVEN ABOVE, THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE ARE DISMIS SED. 6. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS FILED BY THE REV ENUE ARE DISMISSED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 21-08-2014. SD/- SD/- (SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV) (R.K. PANDA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PUNE DATED: 21 ST AUGUST, 2014 SATISH 8 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. ASSESSEE 2. DEPARTMENT 3. THE CIT(A)-I, THANE 4. THE CIT-I, THANE 5. THE D.R, A PUNE BENCH 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER // TRUE COPY // SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY ITAT, PUNE BENCHES, PUNE