Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax,Circle-2, Nagpur V. M/s Mineral Exploration Corporation ,Ltd, Nagpur

ITA 118/NAG/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1901 (ITAT-NAGPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 8 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-03-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 05-07-2011
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: M MANI
• Keywords: Depreciation; Unabsorbed depreciation
• Section: 32

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR E-BENCH, NAGPUR (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE AT MUMBAI) . . , . / , . . BEFORE SHRI R.K. GUPTA, JUDICIAL MEMBER /AND SHRI RAJENDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER . / ITA NO. 17/NAG/2008 / ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 . / ITA NO. 41/NAG/2012 / ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 . / ITA NO. 42/NAG/2012 / ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 MINERAL EXPLORATION CORPORATION LTD., DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR BHAWAN, HIGH LAND DRIVE ROAD, SEMINARY HILLS, NAGPUR. PAN: AABCM 9165 C VS. A.C.I.T. CIRCLE 2, NAGPUR. ( / APPELLANT ) ( / RESPONDENT ) . / ITA NO. 117/NAG/2011 / ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 . / ITA NO. 118/NAG/2011 / ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 . / ITA NO. 52/NAG/2012 / ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 A.C.I.T. CIRCLE 2, NAGPUR. VS. MINERAL EXPLORATION CORPORATION LTD., DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR BHAWAN, HIGH LAND DRIVE ROAD, SEMINARY HILLS, NAGPUR. PAN: AABCM 9165 C ( / APPELLANT ) ( / RESPONDENT ) REVENUE BY: SHRI PRAKASH MANE ASSESSEE BY : SHRI M. MANI DATE OF HEARING : 01-02-2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 13-03-2013 MINERAL EXPLORATION CORP. LTD., 2 ! / O R D E R PER RAJENDRA, AM ASSESSING OFFICER (AO) AND THE ASSESSEE-COMPAN Y HAVE FILED APPEALS AGAINST THE ORDERS OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY (FAA) FOR V ARIOUS YEARS. GROUNDS OF APPEALS FILED BY THE AO READ AS UNDER: ITA/117/NAG/2011-AY.2006-07 I) .ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LE ARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN ALLOWING 100% DEPRECIATION ON MINING AND DRILLING ACCESSORIES AS AGAINST 15% ALLOWED BY THE A.O. II). ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE CIT (A) ERRED IN EQUATING MINING AND DRILLING ACCESSORIES WITH SAND STOWING PIPES AND AL LOWING 100% DEPRECIATION. III.) ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE CIT (A) ERRED IN FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF HER PREDECESSOR FOR A.Y.2002-2003, IGNORING THE FAC T THAT IN A.V.2003-04 SAME WAS REVERSED BY THE CIT(A). ITA/118/NAG/2011-AY.2007-08 I). ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LEA RNED CIT(A) ERRED IN ALLOWING 100% DEPRECIATION ON MINING AND DRILLING ACCESSORIES AS AGAINST 15% ALLOWED BY THE A.O. II.) ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE CIT (A) ERRED IN EQUATING MINING AND DRILLING ACCESSORIES WITH SAND STOWING PIPES AND AL LOWING 100% DEPRECIATION. III). ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE CIT (A) ERRED IN FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF HER PREDECESSOR FOR A.Y.2002-2003, IGNORING THE FAC T THAT IN A.Y.2003-04 SAME WAS REVERSED BY THE CIT(A). IV). ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, CIT(A) ERRED IN ALLOWING UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION OF RS. 21,66,16,015/-. V). ANY OTHER GROUND OF APPEAL MAY BE URGED AT THE TIME OF HEARING. ITA/52/NAG/2012-AY.2008-09 I). ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LEA RNED CIT(A) ERRED IN ALLOWING 100% DEPRECIATION ON MINING AND DRILLING ACCESSORIES AS AGAINST 15% ALLOWED BY THE A.O. II). ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE CIT (A) ERRED IN EQUATING MINING AND DRILLING ACCESSORIES WITH SAND STOWING PIPES AND AL LOWING 100% DEPRECIATION. III). ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE CIT (A) ERRED IN FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF HER PREDECESSOR FOR A.Y.2002-2003, IGNORING THE FAC T THAT IN A.Y.2003-04 SAME WAS REVERSED BY THE CIT(A). IV.) ANY OTHER GROUND OF APPEAL MAY BE URGED AT THE TIME OF HEARING. FOLLOWING THREE APPEALS HAVE BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE RAISING THE UNDER- MENTIONED GROUNDS OF APPEALS : ITA/17/NAG/2008-AY.2003-04 1. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-I, NAGPUR HAS ERRED IN DISALLOWING APPELLANTS CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION @100% AMOUNTING T O RS.1,14,628/-ON STEEL AND TEMPORARY STRUCTURE (UNDER BUILDING).THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-I HAS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT RULE 5 OF APPENDIX-I IS APPLICABLE ONL Y FOR THE A. Y. 1988-89 TO 2002-03. THE MINERAL EXPLORATION CORP. LTD., 3 LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-I OUGH T TO HAVE ALLOWED 100% DEPRECIATION ON THE BASIS OF RULE 5 OF APPENDIX-I APPLICABLE TO A. Y. 2003-04 TO 2005-06 WHICH IS IDENTICAL TO OLD APPENDIX-I APPLICABLE TO A. Y. 1988-89 TO 20 02-03. 2. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-I, NAGPUR HAS ERRED IN DISALLOWING APPELLANTS CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION 100% AMOUNTING T O RS. 55,32,125/-ON DRILLING & MINING ACCESSORIES (UNDER PLANT & MACHINERY).THE LEARNED C OMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)- I HAS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT RULE 5 OF APPENDIX-I IS APPLICABLE ONLY FOR THE A. Y. 1988-89 TO 2002-03. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (AP PEALS)-I OUGHT TO HAVE ALLOWED 100% DEPRECIATION ON THE BASIS OF RULE 5 OF APPENDIX-I A PPLICABLE TO A. Y. 2003-04 TO 2005-06 WHICH IS IDENTICAL TO OLD APPENDIXI APPLICABLE TO A. V. 1988-89 TO 2002-03. 3. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO RAISE ANY OTHER GROUN D OF APPEAL RELEVANT TO THE ABOVE SAID MAIN GROUND. ITA/41/NAG/2012-AY.2007-08 1. THE LEARNED CIT(A)-I HAS ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE A. O.S ACTION OF NOT ALLOWING DEPRECIATION ON OFFICE APPLIANCES @ 15% CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AFTER HOLDING THE ITEMS OF OFFICE APPLIANCES AS OFFICE FURNITURE AND ALLOWED DEPRECIA TION @ 10% INSTEAD. 2. THE LEARNED CIT(A)-I HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ST AND OF A.O. FOR NOT TREATING OFFICE APPLIANCES AS PLANT. 3. THE LEARNED CIT(A)-I OUGHT TO HAVE ALLOWED 15% DEPR ECIATION OFFICE APPLIANCES INSTEAD OF 10%. ITA/42/NAG/2012-AY.2008-09 1. THE LEARNED CIT(A)- HAS ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE A.O S ACTION OF NOT ALLOWING DEPRECIATION ON OFFICE APPLIANCES @ 15% CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AFTER HOLDING THE ITEMS OF OFFICE APPLIANCES AS OFFICE FURNITURE AND ALLOWED DEPRECIA TION @ 10% INSTEAD. THE LEARNED CIT(A)-I HAS ERRED IN CONFINING THE STA ND OF A.O. FOR NOT TREATING OFFICE APPLIANCES AS PLANT. THE LEARNED CIT(A)-I OUGHT T O HAVE ALLOWED 15% DEPRECIATION ON OFFICE APPLIANCES INSTEAD OF 10%. 2. THE LEARNED CIT(A)1 HAS ERRED IN UPHOLDING A.OS ST AND OF DISALLOWANCE OF PRIOR PERIOD EXPENDITURE OF RS.3,65,000/ CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT. THE 1EARNED CIT(A)-I HAS ERRED IN CONCLUDING THAT THE A SSESSEE BY ACCOUNTING PRIOR PERIOD EXPENSES IN THE IMPUGNED YEAR PERTAINING TO THE EAR LIER YEAR HAS NOT ADHERED TO THE PRINCIPLES OF THE MERCANTILE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING AND THE CLAI M OF SUCH EXPENDITURE WOULD RESULT IN DISTORTING THE PROFIT OF YEARS. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND THE SUBMISSION OFFERED DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE PRIOR PERIOD EXPENDITURE OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN ALLOWED. ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN EXPLORATORY ACTIVITIES RELATING TO MINING. DETAILS OF DATES OF FILING OF RETURNS OF INCOME, INCOME SHOWN BY THE ASSESSES, DATES OF ASSESSMENT ORDERS, ASSESSED INCOMES BY THE AOS, FOR THE AYS. U NDER CONSIDERATION CAN BE SUMMARISED AS UNDER: ITA NO. & AY RETURN FILED ON RETURNED INCOME DATE OF ASST. ORDER ASSESSED INCOME 17/NAG/08,2003-04 28-10-2003 (-) 19,37,76,958 28-11-2005 NIL 117/NAG/11,2006-07 25-11-2006 NIL 19-12-2008 NIL 41/NAG/12,2007-08 30-10-2007 15,61,26,460 31-12-2010 41,67,15,669 42/NAG/12,2008-09 26-09-2008 13,28,05,156 31-12-2010 14,49,10,558 MINERAL EXPLORATION CORP. LTD., 4 ITA NO. 17/NAG/08-AY. 2003-04 2. FIRST WE WOULD LIKE TO DEAL WITH THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY. 2.1. GROUND OF APPEAL NO.1, FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, IS AB OUT DISALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION CLAIMED BY IT. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, AO FOUND THAT ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED DEPRECIATION OF RS. 1.14 LAKH S ON A STEEL STRUCTURE@100%.AS PER THE AO DEPRECIATION ON STEEL STRUCTURE WAS ALLO WABLE @ 10% ONLY. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD, HE HELD THAT, EXPENDITURE WAS INCURRED ON ERECTION OF STEEL STRUCTURE, THAT D EPRECIATION @ 100% WAS AVAILABLE TO TEMPORARY STRUCTURES I.E., WOODEN STRUCTURES, THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ERECTED STEEL STRUCTURE WAS EVIDENCED BY THE VOUCHERS AND DOCUMEN TS PRODUCED BY IT, THAT IN EARLIER AY. SIMILAR EXPENDITURE WAS TREATED AS CAPITAL EXP ENDITURE. FINALLY, HE ALLOWED DEPRECIATION @ 10% AND MADE AN ADDITION OF RS. 1.06 LAKHS TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 3. NEXT GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALSO ABOUT DEPRECIATION DI SALLOWANCE. ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED 100% DEPRECIATION ON DRILLING AND MINING AC CESSORIES AND TENTAGES AS UNDER: DRILLING AND MINING ACCESSORIES RS. 55,32,125/- TENTAGES RS. 17,040/- --------------------- RS. 55,49,165/- --------------------- AO DIRECTED THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN AS HOW IT WAS E LIGIBLE FOR DEPRECIATION @ 100% ON ABOVE REFERRED TWO ITEMS. AFTER CONSIDERIN G THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, AO HELD THAT WORK CARRIED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE WAS P REPARATORY FOR MINING ACTIVITIES, THAT THERE WAS A SPECIFIC ITEM, -SAND STOWING PIPES -UNDER SUB-HEADING MINES AND QUARRIES UNDER THE HEAD PLANT AND MACHINERY THAT CARRIED 100% DEPRECIATION, THAT OTHER ITEMS WERE NOT ENTITLED FOR 100% DEPRECIATION . FINALLY, HE ALLOWED DEPRECIATION @ 25% ON ACCESSORIES RELATED WITH THE MINING AND DR ILLING AND ADDITION OF RS. 41.61 LAKHS WAS MADE. ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFOR E THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY (FAA). 4. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, ORDER OF THE AO AND THE ORDER OF HIS PREDECESSORS FOR THE AY 2002-03, FAA H ELD THAT IN THE EARLIER YEAR, APPELLANTS CLAIM WITH REGARD TO 100% DEPRECIATION WAS ALLOWED ON THE BASIS OF RULE- 5 OF OLD APPENDIX-I, THAT THE SAME WAS APPLICABLE O NLY UPTO AY. 2002-03,THAT THE OLD APPENDIX WAS NOT APPLICABLE FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONS IDERATION, THAT THE APPELLANT HAD FAILED TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS CLAIM WITH REGARD TO 100 % DEPRECIATION ON DRILLING AND MINING ACCESSORIES, THAT THE AO HAD RIGHTLY DISALLO WED CLAIM MADE UNDER THE HEAD DEPRECIATION HOLDING THAT THE SAID ITEMS WERE INCLU DED IN PLANT & MACHINERY, THAT DEPRECIATION ALLOWED @ 25% WAS AS PER THE PROVISION S OF THE ACT. FINALLY, FAA UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE AO AND RESTRICTED THE DEPRE CIATION OF AFORESAID ITEMS TO 25%. 4.1. SIMILAR VIEW WAS TAKEN BY THE FAA WITH REGARD TO ST RUCTURE MADE OF STEEL. FAA HELD THAT HER PREDECESSOR HAD ALLOWED THE APPEL LANTS CLAIM @ 100% ON THE BASIS OF RULE-5 OF OLD APPENDIX-I, THAT SAID APPEND IX WAS APPLICABLE UP TO THE AY MINERAL EXPLORATION CORP. LTD., 5 2002-03 ONLY. IT WAS FURTHER HELD BY THE FAA THAT STRUCTURE UNDER CONSIDERATION WAS NOT MADE OF WOOD, THAT 100% DEPRECIATION WAS AVAILA BLE ONLY TEMPORARY STRUCTURES. 5. BEFORE US, AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE (AR) SUBMITTED THAT ACCESSORIES INCLUDED DRILL RODS PIPE- CASINGS ETC., THAT RODS WERE LOWERED INTO THE HOLES ALMOST UP TO THE DEPTH OF 800 TO 1200 MTRS., THAT BELOW THE E ARTH RODS AND CASINGS BECAME UN- USABLE WITHIN A SHORT SPAN OF TIME, THAT THEY HAD T O BE REPLACED FREQUENTLY, THAT SUCH ITEMS WERE NOT PART OF PLANT & MACHINERY. DEPARTME NTAL REPRESENTATIVE (DR) SUBMITTED THAT IN THE APPENDIX, SAND STOWING PIPES HAVE ALREADY BEEN INCLUDED UNDER THE SUB-HEAD MINES AND QUARRIES, THAT DRILL RODS AND PIPE CASING WERE NOT PART OF APPENDIX. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL REFERRED TO. IT IS FOUND THAT APPENDIX-I TO SCHEDULE GOVERNS THE QUEST ION TO BE ANSWERED. THE BASIC ISSUE TO BE DECIDED IN THE APPEAL UNDER CONSIDERATI ON IS WHETHER THE DRILL RODS AND PIPE CASINGS WOULD CONSTITUTE ACCESSORIES OR NOT? WE FI ND THAT THE SAID QUESTION HAS NOT BEEN DEALT WITH BY THE FAA. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, WE WANT TO RESTORE BACK THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE FAA T O DECIDE THE ISSUE AFRESH AFTER AFFORDING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. 6.1. AS FAR AS DEPRECIATION ON STEEL FRAME IS CONCERNED, AFTER DELIBERATING UPON THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE STRUCTURE MADE OF WOOD AND MADE OF STEEL. GENERALL Y, WOODEN STRUCTURES DO NOT LOST AS LONG AS THE STEEL STRUCTURES LAST. THEREFORE, W E ARE OF THE OPINION THAT DEPRECIATION ALLOWED BY THE AO @ 25% AND CONFIRMED BY THE FAA DO ES NOT NEED ANY INTERFERENCE FROM OUR SIDE. PART OF THE GROUND NO.1 IS DECIDED AGAINST THE ASSE SSEE. AS A RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE A Y 2003-04 STANDS PARTLY ALLOWED. ITA NO. 41/NAG/2012-AY. 2007-08 7. THE EFFECTIVE GROUND OF APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSE E IS ABOUT DISALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION ON OFFICE APPLIANCES @ 15%.DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, AO FOUND THAT ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED DEPRECIATION ON OFF ICE EQUIPMENTS @ 15% AS AGAINST 10%. HE DIRECTED THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY TO JUSTIFY TH E CLAIM MADE BY IT @ 15%. AFTER CONSIDERING THE REPLY OF THE ASSESSEE, AO HELD THAT DESERT COOLER, AIR CONDITIONER, WATER COOLER, AQUA GUARD AND WALL CLOCK COULD NOT B E CATEGORISED UNDER THE HEAD PLAT AND MACHINERY, THAT DEPRECIATION @ 15% WAS A LLOWABLE ONLY FOR THE OFFICE APPLIANCES, THAT THESE ITEMS WERE SIMILAR TO THE FU RNITURE AND FIXTURES, THAT ASSESSEE WAS ENTITLED TO CLAIM DEPRECIATION @ 10% ONLY. AS A RESULT, AN ADDITION AMOUNTING TO RS. 1.95 LAKHS WAS MADE TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESS EE. ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE FAA. 7.1. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, FAA HELD THAT IN THE DEPRECIATION SCHEDULE AVAILABLE IN THE INCOME TAX R ULES, 1962 THERE WERE SEPARATE HEADS ON WHICH DEPRECIATION WAS ALLOWABLE DEPENDING ON THE NATURE OF THE PLANT & MACHINERY, THAT AO HAD ALLOWED THE DEPRECIATION AS PER APPENDIX-I R.W.S. 5, THAT MINERAL EXPLORATION CORP. LTD., 6 ITEMS LIKE AIR CONDITIONS ETC., WERE PART OF FURNIT URE AND FIXTURES, THAT THAT IN THE CASE UNDER CONSIDERATION SAME WERE INSTALLED IN THE OFFI CE PREMISES.FINALLY,FAA UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE AO. 7.2. BEFORE US, AR SUBMITTED THAT DEPRECIATION SHOULD BE ALLOWED @ 15%,THAT ITEMS IN QUESTION WERE PART OF PLANT & MACHINERY. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE ITEMS IN DISPUTE COULD NOT BE TREATED AS PART OF PLANT & MAC HINERY, THAT SAME WERE TO BE TREATED AS FURNITURE AND FIXTURES, THAT AO/FAA HA D RIGHTLY ALLOWED/CONFIRMED THE DEPRECIATION @ 10%. 7.3. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. IN OUR OPINIO N, THOUGH THE DEFINITION OF PLANT & MACHINERY IS EXHAUSTIVE, YET ONLY THOSE ITE MS, WHICH ARE DIRECTLY RELATED WITH THE MANUFACTURING/PROCESSING ACTIVITIES, FORM PART OF PLANT & MACHINERY. IN OTHER WORDS EACH AND EVERY ITEM USED BY ASSESSEE CANNOT B E TREATED AS A PART OF PLANT & MACHINERY. IN THE CASE OF TARUN COMMERCIAL MILLS L TD.(151ITR75) HONBLE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT HAS HELD AS UNDER: THE WORD 'PLANT' INCLUDES APPARATUS OR INSTRUMENTS USED BY A BUSINESSMAN IN CARRYING ON HIS BUSINESS. THE INTENTION OF THE LEGISLATURE WAS TO GIVE A WIDE MEANING TO THE TERM 'PLANT' AS IT INCLUDED ARTICLES LIKE BOOKS AND SURGICAL INS TRUMENTS WITHIN THE TERM. IN DETERMINING WHETHER AN ARTICLE IS A 'PLANT', THE ENQUIRY MUST B E AS TO WHAT OPERATION IT PERFORMS IN THE ASSESSEE'S BUSINESS AND WHETHER IT FULFILS THE FUNC TION OF A PLANT.AIR CONDITIONERS OR ELECTRIC FANS ARE INSTRUMENTS WHICH WOULD ADVANCE THE PERFOR MANCE OF BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE. THEY ARE ENTITLED TO BE INCLUDED WITHIN THE TERM 'PLANT' . THE PART OF THE STRUCTURAL PREMISES WHERE THE BUSINESS IS CARRIED ON IS EXCLUDED FROM THE PUR VIEW OF THE 'PLANT'. OFFICE PREMISES ARE NO DOUBT PART OF THE PREMISES WHERE THE BUSINESS IS CA RRIED ON. BUT ALL THE FIXTURES AND FITTINGS IN THE OFFICE PREMISES CANNOT BE SAID TO BE PART OF TH E PREMISES IN WHICH THE BUSINESS IS CARRIED ON. FIXTURES LIKE AIR CONDITIONERS OR FANS CANNOT B E SAID TO BE PART OF THE PREMISES IN WHICH THE BUSINESS IS CARRIED ON. THEY CANNOT ALSO BE CON SIDERED TO BE 'OFFICE APPLIANCES'. THE WORD 'APPLIANCE' IS QUALIFIED BY THE WORD 'OFFICE' AND, THEREFORE, SOME MEANING MUST BE GIVEN TO THE WORD 'OFFICE' AND UNLESS AN APPLIANCE IS CAPABLE OF BEING PRIMARILY USED IN THE OFFICE, IT CANNOT BE TERMED AS 'OFFICE APPLIANCE'. IT MUST BE, THEREFORE, AN APPLIANCE WHICH IS GENERALLY USED IN OFFICE AS AN AID OR FACILITY FOR THE PROPER FUNCTIONING OF THE OFFICE. IT IS DIFFICULT TO LAY DOWN ANY FORMULA FOR DETERMINING W HAT ARE OFFICE APPLIANCES', BUT THE INITIAL TEST FOR DETERMINING THE NATURE OF THE ARTICLE IS W HAT IS KNOWN AS THE TEST OF COMMON OR POPULAR PARLANCE AS UNDERSTOOD BY A PERSON DEALING WITH THOSE ARTICLES. THE SECOND TEST WOULD BE THE PRINCIPAL AND PRIMARY USE FOR WHICH TH E GOODS ARE REQUIRED AND FOR WHICH THE SAME ARE CAPABLE OF BEING USED. THE THIRD TEST IS W HAT IS KNOWN AS THE COMMERCIAL TEST IN SEEING HOW THE ARTICLES OR GOODS ARE KNOWN IN THE W ORLD OF 'TRADE AND COMMERCE'. ON APPLICATION OF ANY OF THESE TESTS IT IS DIFFICULT T O AGREE THAT THE ELECTRICAL FANS AND AIR- CONDITIONERS WOULD BE OFFICE APPLIANCES. BY NO STRE TCH OF IMAGINATION IN 'TRADE AND COMMERCE' OR IN POPULAR PARLANCE CAN THEY BE SAID T O BE OFFICE APPLIANCES OR EQUIPMENTS. MERELY BECAUSE THESE APPLIANCES ARE FIXED IN OFFICE PREMISES THEY DO NOT BECOME, BY THAT FACT, OFFICE APPLIANCES. THEY ARE CAPABLE OF BEING ADOPTE D FOR THE PURPOSES FOR WHICH THEY ARE MEANT, NAMELY, FOR MAINTAINING A PARTICULAR BEARABL E CLIMATIC TEMPERATURE IN LABORATORIES, WORKSHOPS, SURGICAL AND NURSING HOMES AND EVEN IN P RIVATE RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS. 7.4. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT, BEFORE THE AO OR THE FAA, PRODUCED ANY EVIDENCE TO PROVE THAT ITEMS IN QUESTION WERE DIREC TLY LINK WITH PRODUCTION/PROCESSING AND HENCE COULD BE TREATED AS PLANT AND MACHINERY. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT ORDER OF THE FAA DOES NOT SUFFER F ROM ANY LEGAL INFIRMITY. MINERAL EXPLORATION CORP. LTD., 7 AS A RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE A Y 2007-08 STANDS DISMISSED. ITA NO. 42/NAG /2012-AY.2008-09 8. THE FIRST GROUND OF APPEAL IS ABOUT DIS-ALLOWANCE O F DEPRECIATION ON OFFICE APPLIANCES @ 15%. WHILE DECIDING THE SAME, ISSUE FO R THE EARLIER AY, WE HAVE UPHELD THAT ORDER OF THE FAA. FOLLOWING THE SAME, GROUND NO.1 IS DECIDED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. 9. GROUND NO.2 IS ABOUT DISALLOWANCE OF PRIOR PERIOD E XPENDITURE AMOUNTING TO RS. 3.65 LAKHS. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, AO FOUND THAT ASSESSEE WAS FOLLOWING MERCANTILE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING AND HAD D EBITED RS.3,65,000/- AS PRIOR PERIOD EXPENSES IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. HE DIREC TED THE ASSESSEE TO JUSTIFY THE ABOVE EXPENSES SHOWN IN THE P&L A/C. AFTER CONSIDE RING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, AO HELD THAT EXPENSES ACCRUED DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WERE ALLOWABLE, THAT AS PER THE MATCHING PRINCIPLES OF A CCOUNTING PRIOR PERIOD EXPENSES COULD NOT BE ALLOWED WHILE COMPUTING THE INCOME FOR THE AY 2008-09. HE ADDED RS. 3.56 LAKHS TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 9.1. ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE FIRST APPEL LATE AUTHORITY (FAA).AFTER CONSIDERING THE REPLY OF THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY, FAA HELD THAT ISSUE OF THE CLAIM OF EXPENDITURE UNDER THE MERCANTILE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTI NG WAS CONSIDERED BY THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF TAPARIA TO OLS LTD., (260 ITR 102), THAT THE CLAIM FOR EXPENSES OF PARTICULAR YEAR SHOULD BE MAD E AGAINST THE INCOME OF THE SAME PERIOD, THAT THE ASSESSEE BY ACCOUNTING PRIOR PERIO D EXPENSES PERTAINING TO AN EARLIER YEAR HAD NOT ADHERED TO THE PRINCIPLES OF MERCANTIL E SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING, THAT CLAIM OF THIS NATURE RESULTED IN DISTORTING THE PROFIT OF THE YEAR. FINALLY, FOLLOWING THE PRINCIPLES LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COU RT IN THE CASE OF TAPARIA TOOLS LTD., (SUPRA), FAA DISMISSED THE APPEAL FILED BY TH E ASSESSEE. 10. BEFORE US, AR SUBMITTED THAT PRIOR PERIOD ADJUSTMEN TS WERE MADE IN SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES ONLY, THAT THE EXPENDITURE OR INCOME OF THE EARLIER YEAR, THOUGH ACCRUED IN THAT YEAR, FINALLY, GOT CRYSTALISED DURING A PAR TICULAR YEAR, ADJUSTMENTS WERE MADE, THAT SUCH METHOD OF ACCOUNTING WAS REGULARLY FOLLOW ED BY THE ASSESSEE SINCE INCEPTION AND WAS ALLOWED BY THE AO IN THE EARLIER AYS. HE RELIED UPON THE ORDERS OF JAGATJIT INDUSTRIES LTD., (194 TAXMAN 158) AND TOYO ENGG. IN DIA LTD., [(5 SOT 616 (MUMBAI TRIBUNAL)]. DR SUBMITTED THAT TREATMENT GIVE BY THE ASSESSEE FOR PRIOR PERIOD EXPENSES WAS NOT AS PER THE MATCHING NUMBER. 11. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. THERE IS NO DO UBT THAT ASSESSEES, FOLLOWING THE MERCANTILE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING SHOUL D TAKE CARE OF ALL EXPENSES OF THAT PARTICULAR AY WHILE PREPARING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE RELEVANT PERIOD. BUT THERE ARE CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE THE LIABILITI ES/EXPENSES CRYSTALISE AFTER THE 31 ST MARCH OF THAT PARTICULAR YEAR. PRIOR PERIOD EXPENS ES ARE NOT A NEW PHENOMENON IN THE FILED OF ACCOUNTING OR TAXATION LAWS. COURTS ARE O F THE VIEW THAT IF THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED IN PARTICULAR YEAR ARE CRYSTALISED IN A SU BSEQUENT YEAR BECAUSE OF CERTAIN REASONS, SAME CANNOT BE DIS-ALLOWED ONLY ON THE GRO UND THAT ASSESSEE IS FOLLOWING MERCANTILE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING. IF ASSESSEE IS FO LLOWING A PARTICULAR SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING AND IT IS NOT DISTORTING INCOME, TREATME NT OF PRIOR PERIOD EXPENSES LOSES ITS MINERAL EXPLORATION CORP. LTD., 8 IMPORTANCE. IN THE CASE UNDER CONSIDERATION, ASSES SEE WAS FOLLOWING THE SAME SYSTEM FOR THE LAST SO MANY YEARS AND THE AO WAS ALLOWING THE PRIOR PERIOD EXPENSES FOR THE RELEVANT YEARS. AO/FAA HAS NOT CHALLENGED THE CLAI M MADE BY THE ASSESSEE THAT IT WAS FOLLOWING THIS PRACTICE CONSISTENTLY. THEY HAV E ALSO NOT HELD THAT BECAUSE OF PRIOR PERIOD EXPENSES, THE TAXABLE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE REMAINED UN-TAXED. THE ISSUE CAN BE SEEN FROM ANOTHER ANGLE EXPENDITURE INCURRED B Y THE ASSESSEE IS NOT IN DOUBT. IT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES THAT EXP ENDITURE WAS NEVER INCURRED. THE ALLOWABILITY OF SUCH EXPENDITURE IN A PARTICULAR YE AR HAS TO BE DECIDED IN PRAGMATIC MANNER. WE HAVE PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURTS OF DELHI, GUJARAT AND ORDER OF THE MUMBAI TRIBUNAL IN THE CASES OF JA GATJIT INDUSTRIES LTD., (SUPRA), SAURASHTRA CEMENT & CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES LTD., AND T OYO ENGG. INDIA LTD., (SUPRA) RESPECTIVELY. IN THE CASE OF JAGATJIT INDUSTRIES LTD., THE HONBL E DELHI HIGH COURT HAS HELD AS UNDER: AS ASSESSEE WAS FOLLOWING CONSISTENTLY THE SAME ACC OUNTING METHOD AND SUCH EXPENSES WERE ALLOWED IN PAST AND IN THE VARIOUS YE ARS AND THERE WAS NO MATERIAL TO SHOW DISTORTION OF PROFITS OR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, THE PRIO R PERIOD EXPENSES WAS THEREFORE, ALLOWABLE TO THE ASSESSEE. IN THE CASE OF SAURASHTRA CEMENT & CHEMICAL INDUSTR IES LTD., THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT HAS HELD AS UNDER: MERELY BECAUSE AN EXPENSE RELATES TO A TRANSACTION OF AN EARLIER YEAR IT DOES NOT BECOME A LIABILITY PAYABLE IN THE EARLIER YEAR UNLE SS IT CAN BE SAID THAT THE LIABILITY WAS DETERMINED AND CRYSTALLIZED IN THE YEAR IN QUESTION ON THE BASIS OF MAINTAINING ACCOUNTS ON THE MERCANTILE BASIS. IN EACH CASE WHERE THE ACCOU NTS ARE MAINTAINED ON THE MERCANTILE BASIS IT HAS TO BE FOUND IN RESPECT OF ANY CLAIM, WHETHER SUCH LIABILITY WAS CRYSTALLIZED AND QUANTIFIED DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR SO AS TO BE REQ UIRED TO BE ADJUSTED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THAT PREVIOUS YEAR. IF ANY LIABILITY, THOUGH RE LATING TO THE EARLIER YEAR, DEPENDS UPON MAKING A DEMAND AND ITS ACCEPTANCE BY THE ASSESSEE AND SUCH LIABILITY HAS BEEN ACTUALLY CLAIMED AND PAID IN THE LATER PREVIOUS YEARS IT CAN NOT BE DISALLOWED AS DEDUCTION MERELY ON THE BASIS OF THE ACCOUNTS ARE MAINTAINED ON MERCANT ILE BASIS AND THAT IT RELATED TO A TRANSACTION OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR. THE TRUE PROFITS AND GAIN OF A PREVIOUS YEAR ARE REQUIRED TO BE COMPUTED FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINING TAX ALIA BILITY. THE BASIS OF TAXING INCOME IS ACCRUAL OF INCOME AS WELL AS ACTUAL RECEIPT. IF FOR WANT OF NECESSARY MATERIAL CRYSTALLIZING THE EXPENDITURE IS NOT IN EXISTENCE IN RESPECT OF WHICH SUCH INCOME OR EXPENSES RELATE, THE MERCANTILE SYSTEM DOES NOT CALL FOR ADJUSTMENT IN T HE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT ON ESTIMATE BASIS. IT IS ACTUALLY KNOWN INCOME OR EXPENSES, THE RIGHT TO REC EIVE OR THE LIABILITY TO PAY WHICH HAS COME TO BE CRYASTALLIZED, WHICH IS TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCO UNT UNDER THE MERCANTILE SYSTEM OF MAINTAINING BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. AN ESTIMATED INCOME OR LIABILITY, WHICH IS YET TO BE CRYSTALLIZED, CAN ONLY BE ADJUSTED AS A CONTINGENCY ITEM BUT NOT AS AN ACCRUED INCOME OR LIABILITY OF THAT YEAR. TO ILLUSTRATE, WE FIND FRO M THE DETAILS OF THE EXPENSES THAT CERTAIN EXPENSES RELATED TO THE FEES PAID TO THE EXPERTS, O UT OF POCKET EXPENSES INCURRED BY THE CONSULTATION FIRM AND DISCHARGE OF LIABILITY ON ACC OUNT OF DEMURRAGE CLAIMED BY THE PORT AUTHORITIES. SUCH ITEMS WITHOUT INVESTIGATION INTO THE FACTS ABOUT THE CRYSTALLIZATION OF SUCH DUES CANNOT BE DISALLOWED MERELY ON THE GROUND THAT THEY RELATE TO TRANSACTIONS PERTAINING TO AN EARLIER ACCOUNTING YEAR. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ABOVE DECISIONS, WE DECI DED GROUND NO.4 IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. AS A RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE AY 2008-09 STANDS PARTLY ALLOWED. MINERAL EXPLORATION CORP. LTD., 9 ITA NOS. 117/NAG/2011, 118/NAG/2011 & 52/NAG/2012 12. NOW WE WOULD DEAL WITH THE APPEALS FIELD BY THE AO FOR AYS.2006-07, 2007- 08, 2008-09. THOUGH THERE ARE MULTIPLE GROUNDS OF APPEAL IN ALL THE THREE APPEALS, BUT THE COMMON ISSUE IN ALL THESE APPEALS PERTAINS TO THE ALLOWABILITY OF DEPRECIATION ON MINING AND DRILLING ACCESSORIES. FOR THE AY.200 7-08 AO HAS RAISED ONE MORE GROUND AND SAME IS ABOUT UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION. 12.1 . IN PARAGRAPHS 2-6 OF OUR ORDER, WHILE DECIDING TH E APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE AY 2003-04, WE HAVE DISCUSSED THE ISSUE OF DEPRECIATION ON MINING AND DRILLING ACCESSORIES. WHILE DECIDING THE ISSUE FOR THAT AY FAA HAD HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO 100% DEPRECIATION, BUT IN THE APPEALS FOR THE ABOVE THREE AYS.FAA DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE . AS A RESULT, AO HAS AGITATED THE ISSUE IN SECOND APPEAL. 12.2. BEFORE US, DR SUBMITTED THAT FAA WHILE DISPOSING TH E APPEAL FOR THE AY 2003-04,HAD GIVEN A CATEGORICAL FINDING THAT SCHEDU LE CONTAINED ONLY SAND STOWING PIPES AND NOT OTHER ITEMS, THAT ASSESSEE WAS NOT EN TITLED TO 100% DEPRECIATION ON THESE ITEMS. AR SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE FAA AND SUBMITTED THAT THESE WERE THE PIPES AND OTHER ITEMS WERE USED IN DRILLING, THAT T HEY WERE OF THE SAME NATURE OF SAND STOWING PIPES. 12.3. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS WE FIND THAT FO R ALL THE THREE AYS. UNDER CONSIDERATION, FAA HAS TAKEN A DIFFERENT VIEW FROM THE FAA WHO HAD PASSED THE ORDER FOR AY 2003-04.WHILE DECIDING THE APPEAL FOR THAT AY, WE HAD RESTORED BACK THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE FAA, FOR DECIDING THE ISSUE AS WHETHER ITEMS USED BY THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY WERE SAME AS MENTIONED IN THE APPE NDIX-I, RULE-5.FOLLOWING THE SAME ORDER, WE RESTORE THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE FAA. GROUNDS NOS. 1 TO 3 FILED BY THE AO FOR AYS. 2005-0 6, 2006-07, 2008-09 STAND PARTLY ALLOWED. 13 . AS STATED EARLIER, THERE IS ONE MORE EFFECTIVE GR OUND OF APPEAL IN THE APPEAL FILED BY THE AO FOR THE AY 2007-08 AND THE ISSUE TO BE DECIDED IS ABOUT UN-ABSORBED DEPRECIATION AMOUNTING TO RS. 21.66 CRORES. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, AO FOUND THAT ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED BROUGHT FORWARD LOS SES AND UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION AMOUNTING TO RS. 49.57 CRORES. AO FOUND THAT THE UN ABSORBED DEPRECIATION RELEVANT TO AY 1997-98 WAS OF RS. 1.71 CRORES. AO HELD THAT CAR RY FORWARD AT UN-ABSORBED DEPRECIATION COULD BE ALLOWED UP TO 8 YEARS ONLY. HE FURTHER HELD THAT ON 1 ST DAY OF AY 2007-08, UN-ABSORBED DEPRECIATION FOR THE AY 199 7-98 WAS NOT AVAILABLE TO BE SET-OFF AS 8 YEARS HAD ALREADY LAPSED, THAT AMENDED PROVISIONS OF SECTION 32 W.E.F. 2002-03 HAD NO RELEVANCE FOR THE AY 1997-98. 13.1. ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE FAA. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE AND ASSESSMENT ORDER, FA A HELD THAT PRIOR TO 01-04-1997, UN-ABSORBED DEPRECIATION OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR USED TO BE CLAIMED AS CURRENT DEPRECIATION AND WOULD BE ALLOWED TO BE SET-OFF AGA INST INCOME FROM ANY OTHER HEAD, THAT AN AMENDMENT WAS MADE TO THE PROVISIONS OF SEC TION 32(2) OF THE ACT, W.E.F. 01- 04-1997, THAT BECAUSE OF THE AMENDMENT TREATMENT OF UN-ABSORBED DEPRECIATION UNDERWENT A CHANGE, THAT AS PER THE AMENDED PROVISI ONS UN-ABSORBED DEPRECIATION WAS MINERAL EXPLORATION CORP. LTD., 10 NO LONGER DEEMED TO BE PART OF CURRENT DEPRECIATION , THAT THE PERIOD AVAILABLE FOR SET- OFF OF SUCH UN-ABSORBED DEPRECIATION FROM PROFITS O F SUBSEQUENT YEARS WAS RESTRICTED TO 8 YEARS, THAT DURING EARLIER PERIOD NO SUCH TIME LIMIT WAS PRESCRIBED, THAT VIDE FINANCE ACT, 2001 THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 32(2) W ERE ONCE AGAIN AMENDED, THAT THE POSITION AS IT EXISTED PRIOR TO 01-04-1997 WAS REST ORED BACK. FAA FURTHER HELD THAT AMENDMENTS TO FINANCE ACT, 2001 MADE IT CLEAR THAT LEGISLATIVE INTENT WAS TO ALLOW UN-ABSORBED DEPRECIATION TO BE CARRIED FORWARD BEYO ND PERIOD OF 8 YEARS, THAT FOR THE AY UNDER CONSIDERATION, CORRECT LAW APPLICABLE WAS THE LAW THAT PREVAILED AS ON THE FIRST DAY OF APRIL OF THAT AY, THAT ACTION OF THE A O IN NOT ALLOWING THE SET-OFF OF PROVISIONS OF UN-ABSORBED DEPRECIATION WAS NOT SUST AINABLE.AO WAS DIRECTED TO RE- WORK THE UN-ABSORBED DEPRECATION AS PER THE PROVISI ONS OF LAW AND TO ALLOW SET-OFF THE SAME. 13.2. BEFORE US, DR RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE AO.AR SU BMITTED THAT AMENDED PROVISIONS CLEARLY ALLOWED UN-ABSORBED DEPRECIATION TO BE CARRIED FORWARD BEYOND 8 YEARS. AR RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE M ADRAS HIGH COURT DELIVERED IN THE CASE OF CRAIGMORE PLANATIONS INDIA LTD., (253 ITR 4 47). 13.3. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. IT APPEARS THA T WHILE DECIDING THE ISSUE OF UN-ABSORBED DEPRECIATION, AO HAS NOT CONSIDERED THE AMENDED PROVISIONS OF THE SECTION 32(2) OF THE ACT IN RIGHT PERSPECTIVE. WE A RE OF THE OPINION THAT FAA HAS ANALYSED THE PROVISIONS WITH REGARD TO UN-ABSORBED DEPRECIATION AT LENGTH AND HAS ARRIVED AT A LOGICAL CONCLUSION. DURING THE ASSESSM ENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, AMENDED PROVISIONS (W.E.F. 01-04-1997) WERE APPLICA BLE AND AO WAS SUPPOSED TO CALCULATE THE UN-ABSORBED DEPRECIATION AS REQUIRED BY THE ACT. IN OUR OPINION, THERE WAS NO BAR TO ALLOW THE UN-ABSORBED DEPRECIATION OF THE EARLIER YEARS IN THE AY 2007- 08.THEREFORE,UPHOLDING THE ORDER OF THE FAA, WE DEC IDE GROUND NO.4 AGAINST THE AO. AS A RESULT, APPEALS FILED BY THE AO STAND PARTLY A LLOWED. APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE AY 2003-04 STANDS PARTLY ALLOW ED, WHEREAS APPEAL FILED FOR THE AY 2007-08 STANDS DISMISSED AND APPEAL FOR THE AY 2 008-09 STANDS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED BY E-COURT AT MUMBAI ON THIS 13 TH OF MARCH, 2013 '#$ %&' $ - () + 13 TH MARCH, 2013 ( ! ,(-' . . SD/- SD/- ( . . / R.K. GUPTA ) ( / RAJENDRA ) & / JUDICIAL MEMBER / & / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER '#$ MUMBAI, . DATE: 13 TH MARCH, 2013 TNMM MINERAL EXPLORATION CORP. LTD., 11 COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. THE CONCERNED CIT (A) 4. THE CONCERNED CIT 5. DR, ITAT, NAGPUR 6. GUARD F ILE -' ' //TRUE COPY// BY ORDER, ASST. REGISTRAR, ITAT