Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, V. K F Bioplant Private Ltd., Pune

ITA 1152/PUN/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9415 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 9 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-06-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 12-08-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: REENA JHA TRIPATHI
• Keywords: Depreciation

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH B, PUNE . . . . , , BEFORE SHRI D.KARUNAKARA RAO, AM AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM . / ITA NO. 1152/PUN/2015 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12 DCIT, CIRCLE - 14, PUNE . / APPELLANT V/S K.F. BIOPLANT PRIVATE LIMITED, 2413, KUMAR CAPITAL, EAST STREET, CAMP, PUNE 411001 PAN :AABCK4309E . / RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI RAJENDRA AGIWAL REVENUE BY : SMT. REENAJHA TRIPATHI / ORDER PER D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM : THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS AGAINST THE ORD ER OF CIT(A)-7, PUNE DATED 18-05-2015 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011 -12. 2. THERE ARE NUMBER OF GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENU E AS EVIDENT FROM THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. HOWEVER, AS NARRATED BY THE LD. COUNSELS, THE ISSUE THAT ARISES FROM THE SAID GROUNDS RELATE TO THE AGR ICULTURAL NATURE OF THE INCOME EARNED OUT OF THE SALE OF THE FLOWERING PLAN TS DEVELOPED OUT OF IMPORTED MOTHER PLANTS IN TISSUE CULTURE LABORATORY . ASSESSEE CLAIMS THAT THE SAID INCOME EARNED THEREOF CONSTITUTES AN EXEMP T INCOME U/S.10(1) OF THE ACT. / DATE OF HEARING :07.06.2017 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 09.06.2017 2 ITA NO.1152/PUN/2015 3. BRIEFLY STATED RELEVANT FACTS ARE THAT THE ASSES SEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF PLANT FLORICULTURE AND TISSUE CULTURE. HE FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.69.13 LAKHS (RO UNDED OFF). IN THE ASSESSMENT, AO DISALLOWED CLAIM OF EXEMPTION U/S.10 (1) AMOUNTING TO RS.7.35 CRORES (ROUNDED OFF). HE ALSO MADE DISALLO WANCE ON ACCOUNT OF DEPRECIATION ON GOODWILL. THE ASSESSED INCOME WAS DETERMINED AT RS.8,04,49,290/-. IN THE RETURN, ASSESSEE DISCLOSE D EXEMPT AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS.7,34,69,520/- EARNED ON ACCOUNT OF TIS SUE CULTURE PRODUCTS. ASSESSEE INVOKED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 10(1) RE LATING TO EXEMPT AGRICULTURAL INCOME. FURTHER, ASSESSEE RELIED ON T HE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 IN ITS OWN CASE. AO REJECT ED THE SAME AND PROCEEDED TO DENY THE SAID EXEMPTION. 4. DURING THE FIRST APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS ASSESSEE FILED WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS. ASSESSEE RELIED HEAVILY ON THE DECISI ON OF THE TRIBUNAL AS SEEN FROM THE CONTENTS OF PARA NO.3.6 OF HIS ORDER. REL YING ON THE SAID ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2004-05 AND 2 009-10 (ITA NO.2217/PN/2012 ORDER DATED 24-12-2013) AO WAS DIR ECTED TO GRANT RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE AND TREAT THE INCOME DERIVED FROM F LORICULTURE AND TISSUE CULTURES AS AGRICULTURAL INCOME U/S.10(1) OF THE AC T. 5. AGGRIEVED WITH THE SAME THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL WITH THE ABOVE REFERRED ISSUES RAISED IN GROUND NOS. 1 TO 7. 6. AT THE OUTSET, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FILE D A LETTER DATED 30-05-2017 ENCLOSING SAID ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO.146/PN/2008 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 DATED 26-03-2009 AND AN OTHER ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO.2265/PUN/2014 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 ORDER DATED 30-03-2017. HE BROUGHT OUR ATTENTION TO THE ISSUE ADJUDICATED BY THE 3 ITA NO.1152/PUN/2015 TRIBUNAL IN THE SAID ORDERS AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE STANDS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. LD. COUNSEL READ OUT THE R ELEVANT OPERATIONAL PARAS TO SUGGEST THE ISSUE NOW STANDS SETTLED AT THE LEVE L OF ITAT IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THE FACT THAT THE TRIBUNAL FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 WHILE ADJUDICATING THE SIMILAR ISSUE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 WAS ALSO DEMONSTRATED BY RE ADING OUT THE RELEVANT PARAGRAPHS (PARA 6 AND 7) OF THE ORDER DATED 30-03- 2017. 7. ON HEARING BOTH THE SIDES AND PERUSING THE SAME, WE FIND THE SAID OPERATIONAL PARAS OF THE TRIBUNAL ORDER DATED 30-03 -2017 ARE REQUIRED TO BE EXTRACTED AS UNDER : 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE ISSUE IN THE PRESENT CASE IS WHETHER T HE INCOME DERIVED FROM THE BUSINESS OF PLANT FLORICULTURE / TISSUE CULTURE IS EXEMPT U/S 10(1) OF THE ACT. WE FIND THAT IDENTICAL ISSUE AROSE IN ASSESSE ES OWN CASE IN EARLIER YEARS. WHILE DECIDING THE ISSUE IN A.Y. 2009-10, TH E CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL (VIDE ORDER DT.24.12.2013 IN ITA NO.22 17/PN/2012) AND FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR A.Y. 2007-08 (IN ITA NO.1110/PN/2011 DT.25. 09.2012) HAD DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE BY HOLDING AS UNDER : 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES. WE FIND THAT THIS IS SUE HAS ALREADY BEEN DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY T HE ITAT, B BENCH, PUNE BEING ITA NO. 146/PN/2008 ORDER DAT ED 26- 03-2009. THE SAID DECISION HAS BEEN FOLLOWED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE A.Y. 2007-08 IN ITA NO. 1110/PN/2011 ORDER DATED 25-09-2012. THE OPERATIVE PART OF THE SAID DECISION ON THIS ISSUE IS AS UNDER: 3. WE FIND THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS ALLOWED THE IDENTI CAL CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE IDENTICAL SET OF FACTS IN THE A .Y. 2004-05. THE SAID ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IS FOLLOWED IN THE O THER YEARS ALSO BEING A.YS. 2001-02, 2003-04 AND 2005-06 AND 20 06-07 BEING ITA NOS. 1274 TO 1278/PN/2010, COMMON ORDER D ATED 22.2.2012. THE OPERATIVE PART OF THE ORDER OF THE T RIBUNAL IN ITA NOS. 1274 TO 1278/PN/2010 DATED 22ND FEBRUARY 2 012 IS AS UNDER: 7. WE FIND THAT THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ASSESS EE FOR THE A.Y. 2004-05 HAS DISCUSSED AN IDENTICAL ISSUE IN DET AIL BEFORE DECIDING THE SAME IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THE TR IBUNAL WHILE DECIDING THE ISSUE HAS TAKEN STRENGTH FROM SE VERAL DECISIONS INCLUDING DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COU RT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. RAJA BENOY KUMAR SAHAS ROY (SUPRA), HONBLE MADRASH HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SOUNDARYA NURSERY, 241 ITR 530(MAD.) AND OF HONBLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COU RT IN THE 4 ITA NO.1152/PUN/2015 CASE OF JUGAL KISHORE ARORA VS. DCIT, 269 ITR 133 ( ALLHAD.). THE RELEVANT PARA NOS. 33 TO 40 OF THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE FOR A.Y. 2004-05 (SUPRA) ARE BEING REPRODUCED HEREUNDER FOR A READY REFERENCE : 33. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, THEREFORE, THE OPERATI ONS CARRIED OUT ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE BEFORE US ARE AGRICULT URAL OPERATIONS IN NATURE. THE OBJECTIONS TAKEN BY THE A UTHORITIES BELOW ARE DEVOID OF ANY LEGALLY SUSTAINABLE MERITS/ . APPLYING THE RATIO OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURTS JUDGMENT I N THE CASE OF RAJA BENOY KUMAR SAHAS ROY (SUPRA), THE INCOME F ROM THESE OPERATIONS HAS TO BE TREATED AS AGRICULTURAL INCOME. 34. WE WOULD ALSO LIKE TO DEAL WITH HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURTS JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SOUNDARYA N URSERY (SUPRA) AT THIS STAGE. AS FAR AS THE FACTS OF THE C ASE WERE CONCERNED, THEIR LORDSHIPS, INTER ALIA, NOTED AS FO LLOWS: THE TRIBUNAL, AFTER CONSIDERING ALL THE RELEVANT FA CTS, AS ALSO THE APPLICABLE LAW, CONCLUDED THAT THE ASSESSEES A CTIVITIES ARE TO PREPARE SEEDLINGS ON SCIENTIFIC LINES: THAT THE OTHER PLANTS ARE GROWN ON PREPARED BEDS ON LANDS OWNED BY IT AND THE PLANTS ARE THEN GRAFTED OR BUDDED ; THAT THE RESUL TING GRAFTS ARE TRANSPLANTED IN SUITABLE CONTAINERS AND ARE REA RED IN GREEN HOUSES OR IN SHADE AND AFTER THEY TAKE ROOT, THEY A RE TRANSMITTED TO LARGE CONTAINERS FILED WITH TOP SOIL AND MANURE, ETC, TILL THEY ESTABLISH THEMSELVES; AND THEREAFTER THOSE PLANTS ARE SOLD AND THAT THE PRIMARY SOURCE OF THE PLANT I S THE MOTHER PLANT, WHICH IS REARED ON EARTH AND FOR WHICH ACTIV ITIES, CERTAINLY CONTRIBUTION OF HUMAN LABOUR AND ENERGY A RE ESSENTIAL. 35. THEIR LORDSHIPS THUS CLEARLY NOTED THE PRIMARY SOURCE OF THE PLANT IN THE ASSESSEES ACTIVITIES WAS THE MOTH ER PLANT, WHICH IS REARED ON EARTH AND FOR WHICH CERTAINLY CO NTRIBUTION OF HUMAN LABOUR AND ENERGY WAS ESSENTIAL. THESE OBSER VATIONS EQUALLY APPLY TO ASSESSEES CASE AS WELL. 36. IN SOUNDARYA NURSERYS CASE, HONBLE MADRAS HIG H COURT, AFTER TAKING NOTE OF THE LAW LAID DOWN BY THE HONB LE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF RAJA BENOY KUMAR SAHAS ROY (SU PRA) AND THE FACTS OF THE CASE, OBSERVED AS FOLLOWS: ALL THE PRODUCTS OF THE LAND, WHICH HAVE SOME UTILI TY EITHER FOR CONSUMPTION OR FOR TRADE OR COMMERCE, IF THEY ARE B ASED ON LAND, WOULD BE AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS. HERE, IT IS N OT THE CASE OF THE REVENUE THAT WITHOUT PERFORMING THE BASIC OPERA TIONS, ONLY THE SUBSEQUENT OPERATIONS, AS DESCRIBED IN THE DECISION OF THE APEX COURT HAVE BEEN PERFORMED BY THE ASSESSEE. IF THE PLANTS SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE IN POTS WERE THE RESULT OF THE BASIC OPERATIONS ON THE LAND ON EXPENDING HUMAN SKILL AND LABOUR THEREON AND IT IS ONLY AFTER THE PERFORMANCE OF THE BASIC OPERATIONS ON THE LAND, THE RESULTANT PRODUCT GROWN OR SUCH PART THEREOF AS WAS SUITABLE FOR BEING NURTURED IN A POT, WAS SEPARATED AND PLACED IN A POT AND NURTURED WITH WAT ER AND BY PLACING THEM IN THE GREEN HOUSE OR IN SHADE AND AFT ER PERFORMING SEVERAL OPERATIONS, SUCH AS WEEDING, WAT ERING, MANURING, ETC., THEY ARE MADE READY FOR SALE AS PLA NTS ALL THESE QUESTIONS WOULD BE AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS ALL THIS INVOLVES HUMAN SKILL AND EFFORT. THUS, THE PLANTS S OLD BY THE 5 ITA NO.1152/PUN/2015 ASSESSEE IN POTS WERE THE RESULT OF PRIMARY AS WELL AS SUBSEQUENT OPERATIONS COMPREHENDED WITHIN THE TERM AGRICULTURE AND THEY ARE CLEARLY THE PRODUCTS OF AGRICULTURE. 37. WHEN WE APPLY THE ABOVE TESTS TO THE FACTS OF T HE PRESENT CASE, AND WE BEAR IN MIND OUR FINDINGS THAT BASIC O PERATIONS ARE CARRIED OUT IN THE PRESENT CASE, WHICH REQUIRE HUMAN SKILL AND LABOUR, AND SUBSEQUENT OPERATIONS, NO MATTER HO W SOPHISTICATED, IF THAT BE USED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE , ARE ONLY TO FOSTER THE GROWTH AND TO PROTECT THE PRODUCE, WE FI ND THAT THE INCOME FROM THESE OPERATIONS CAN ONLY BE SAID TO BE AGRICULTURAL INCOME. THEIR LORDSHIPS WERE ALSO DEAL ING WITH A SITUATION IN WHICH OPERATIONS WERE CARRIED ON IN A GREENHOUSE. THEREFORE, MERELY BECAUSE A GREENHOUSE IN INVOLVED, THE NATURE OF OPERATIONS WOULD NOT CHANGE. LEARNED CIT( A) HAS DISTINGUISHED THIS PRECEDENT ON THE GROUND THAT IN ASSESSEES CASE, BASIC OPERATIONS HAVE NOT BEEN CARRIED OUT ON LAND. THAT PREMISES ITSELF, FOR THE DETAILED REASONS SET OUT E ARLIER IN THIS ORDER, RESTS ON A UNSUSTAINABLE LEGAL FOUNDATION. T HE BASIC OPERATIONS HAVE BEEN, AND CAN ONLY BE, CARRIED OUT ON THE LAND. THE FACT THAT THIS LAND IS IN A GREENHOUSE DO ES NOT CHANGE THE CHARACTER OF OPERATIONS. THE DISTINCTION WAS THUS WRONGLY MADE OUT BY THE CIT(A), IN OUR CONSIDERED V IEW, THE PRINCIPLES LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COU RTS JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF SOUNDARAYA NURSERY (SUPRA) APPLY TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE BEFORE US AS WELL. 38. WE MAY ALSO REFER TO HONBLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COU RT JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF JUGAL KISHORE ARORA VS DCIT (269 ITR 133). IN THIS CASE, THEIR LORDSHIPS, AFTER TAKING N OTE OF AND ANALYZING THE LANDMARK SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT IN TH E CASE OF RAJA BENOY KUMAR SAHAS ROY (SUPRA), ALSO OBSERVED T HAT THE NATURE OF PRODUCE RAISED HAS NO RELEVANCE TO THE CH ARACTER THAT THE NATURE OF PRODUCE RAISED HAS NO RELEVANCE TO THE CHARACTER OF AGRICULTURAL OPERATION. IT WAS NOTED THAT CULTIVATION OF FLOWERS OF ARTISTIC AND DECORATIVE V ALUE WOULD ALSO BE INCLUDED IN THE SCOPE OF AGRICULTURAL OPERA TIONS. THIS OBSERVATION WILL ALSO APPLY TO THE FACTS OF THE PRE SENT CASE. 39. WE MAY MENTION THAT OUR ATTENTION WAS ALSO INVI TED TO EXPLANATION (3) TO SECTION 2(1A) OF THE ACT WHICH H AS BEEN INSERTED BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2008. THIS EXPLANATION PROVIDES THAT ANY INCOME DERIVED FROM SAPLINGS OR SEEDLINGS GROWN IN A NURSERY SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE AGRICULTURAL INCOME A ND, THEREFORE, IRRESPECTIVE OF WHETHER THE BASIC OPERAT IONS HAVE BEEN CARRIED OUT ON LAND, SUCH INCOME WILL BE TREAT ED AS AGRICULTURAL INCOME QUALIFYING FOR EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 10(1) OF THE ACT. LEARNED COUNSEL HAS CONTENDED THA T THIS EXPLANATION IS RETROSPECTIVE IN EFFECT INASMUCH AS IT IS MERELY CLARIFICATORY IN NATURE. WE ARE TAKEN THROUGH THE B UDGET SPEECH BY THE FINANCE MINISTER, EXPLANATORY MEMORAN DUM TO THE FINANCE BILL AND OTHER DOCUMENTS TO SUPPORT THE CONTENTION THAT THIS AMENDMENT IN LAW WAS MERELY CLARIFICATORY . OUR ATTENTION WAS THUS INVITED TO SEVERAL JUDICIAL PREC EDENTS IN WHICH IT IS NOTED THAT EVEN WHILE AN AMENDMENT IS S TATED TO BE PROSPECTIVE IN APPLICATION, BUT HELD TO BE RETROSPE CTIVE IN EFFECT. ON THE BASIS OF THESE ELABORATE ARGUMENTS, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT, IN ANY EVENT, BASED ON THIS CLARIFI CATORY AMENDMENT IN LAW, BASIC OPERATIONS HAVING BEEN CARR IED OUT ON LAND IS NO LONGER SINE QUA NON FOR TREATING INCO ME AS 6 ITA NO.1152/PUN/2015 AGRICULTURAL INCOME. THIS PLEA WAS CLEARLY AN ALTER NATIVE PLEA. SINCE WE HAVE ALLOWED THE BASIC PLEA OF THE ASSESSE E AND WE HAVE HELD THAT THE BASIC OPERATIONS WERE CARRIED OU T ON LAND, IT IS NOT REALLY NECESSARY TO DEAL WITH THIS ALTERNATI VE PLEA WHICH IS ONLY ACADEMIC IN THE PRESENT CONTENT. WE LEAVE I T AT THAT. 40. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSIONS, AND FOR THE R EASONS SET OUT ABOVE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE A UTHORITIES BELONG INDEED ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS OF THIS CAS E IN HOLDING THAT THE IMPUGNED INCOME IS NOT AGRICULTURAL INCOME . WE, THEREFORE, DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO TREAT TH E SAID INCOME AS AGRICULTURAL INCOME UNDER SECTION 2 (1A)(B)(I) O F THE ACT. AS A COROLLARY TO THIS DIRECTION, THE ASSESSING OFFICE R SHALL ALSO EXCLUDE THE SAID INCOME FROM THE TOTAL INCOME UNDER SECTION 10(1) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE GETS THE RELIEF ACCO RDINGLY. SINCE THE ISSUE RAISED IS FULLY COVERED BY THE DECI SION OF PUNE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE ITSEL F FOR THE A.Y. 2004-2005, UNDER SIMILAR SET OF FACTS, WE DO NOT FI ND INFIRMITY IN THE FIRST APPELLATE ORDER ON THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BASED ON THE SAID ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL UN DER SIMILAR FACTS DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATIO N. THE SAME IS UPHELD. THE GROUNDS INVOLVING THE ISSUE ARE THUS REJECTED. 4. AS THE ISSUE IS IDENTICAL IN THIS YEAR, WE FIND NO REASON TO TAKE DIFFERENT VIEW. WE, THEREFORE, FOLLOWING THE O RDERS OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE REFERRED (SUPRA), C ONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND DISMISS ALL THE GROUNDS TAKEN BY THE REVENUE. 5. WE, THEREFORE, FOLLOWING THE DECISIONS OF THIS T RIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE, CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE LD. C IT(A) ON THIS ISSUE. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED . PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 24-12-20 7. BEFORE US, REVENUE HAS NOT PLACED ANY MATERIAL O N RECORD TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THE AFORESAID DECISION OF THE CO-O RDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL HAS BEEN SET ASIDE BY HIGHER JUDICIAL AUTH ORITIES NOR HAS POINTED ANY DISTINGUISHING FEATURE IN THE FACTS OF THE CASE FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND THAT OF EARLIER YEARS. IN VIEW O F THE AFORESAID FACTS AND RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE CO-ORDIN ATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN A.Y. 2009-10 AND FOR SIMIL AR REASONS, WE FIND NO REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) AN D THUS, THE GROUNDS OF REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. 8. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT T HE MATTER NOW STANDS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AS EVIDENT FROM T HE ABOVE EXTRACT. AS SUCH, THE ISSUE IS NOW PENDING BEFORE THE HONBLE B OMBAY HIGH COURT AND ASSESSEE DEMONSTRATED BEFORE US THAT THE RELEVANT I SSUE IS ADMITTED BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT VIDE ITA NO.4362/2010 ORDER DATE D 13-04-2015. IN VIEW 7 ITA NO.1152/PUN/2015 OF THE ABOVE DEVELOPMENTS, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT QUESTION RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN ITS APPEAL HAVE TO BE DISMISSED CONSIDER ING THE PRINCIPLES OF CONSISTENCY. THUS, THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISM ISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 09 TH DAY OF JUNE, 2017. SD/- SD/- (VIKAS AWASTHY) (D. KARUNAKARA RAO) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PUNE; DATED : 09 TH JUNE, 2017. / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : / BY ORDER , // TRUE COPY // //TRUE COPY// /ASSISTANT REGISTRAR , / ITAT, PUNE 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A) - 7 , PUNE 4. CIT - 7 , PUNE 5. DR, ITAT, B BENCH PUNE; 6. / GUARD FILE.