Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd., Baroda V. The DY.CIT., Cent.Circle-1, Baroda

ITA 1200/AHD/2006

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1181 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 year(s) 3 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-08-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 15-07-2015
• Assessment Year: 2001-2002
• Appeal Filed On: 11-05-2006
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SHANKARLAL MEENA
• Assessee Lawyers: S N SOPARKAR
• Keywords: Capital asset; Depreciation; Fair market value; Wrong claim; Difference of opinion; Reason to believe; Unabsorbed depreciation; Change of opinion; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 143(3); 80HHC; 147; 148; 28; 139

Judgement Text

ITA NO S . 1199, 1200, 1279 & 1280 /AHD/ 20 06 ASSESSMENT Y EARS : 200 0 - 01 & 2001 - 02 PAGE 1 OF 15 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD D BENCH , AHMEDABAD [CORAM: PRAMOD KUMAR AM AND KUL BHARAT JM ] ITA NO. 1 199 / AHD / 2 0 06 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 200 0 - 01 SUN PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES LTD. , ....... .. . ..... APPELLANT SPARC, TANDALJA, AKOTA , BARODA. [PAN: A A DCS 3124 K ] VS. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, .... ........ .... .. .. .. .... .. RESPONDENT CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1, BARODA . ITA NO. 1279/AHD/2006 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2000 - 01 JT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ....... .. . .....APPELLANT CE NTRAL CIRCLE - 1, BARODA. VS. SUN PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES LTD., .... .................. .... .. RESPONDENT SPARC CENTRE, TANDALJA, AKOTA, BARODA. [PAN: A ADCS 3124 K ] ITA NO. 1200/AHD/2006 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2001 - 02 SUN PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES LTD., ....... .. . .....APPELLANT SPARC, TANDALJA, AKOTA, BARODA. [PAN: A ADCS 3124 K ] VS. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, .... .................. .... .. RESPONDENT CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1, BARODA. ITA NO S . 1199, 1200, 1279 & 1280 /AHD/ 20 06 ASSESSMENT Y EARS : 200 0 - 01 & 2001 - 02 PAGE 2 OF 15 ITA NO. 12 80 /AHD/2006 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2000 - 01 JT. COMMIS SIONER OF INCOME TAX, ....... .. . .....APPELLANT CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1, BARODA. VS. SUN PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES LTD., .... .................. .... .. RESPONDENT SPARC CENTRE, TANDALJA, AKOTA, BARODA. [PAN: A ADCS 3124 K ] APPEARANCES BY: S.N. SOPARKAR , FOR THE A SSESSEE SHANKAR LAL MEENA , FOR THE REVENUE DATE OF CONCLUDING THE HEARING : JULY 1 5 , 201 5 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE ORDER : AUGUST 21 ST , 2015 O R D E R PER PRAMOD KUMAR AM : ITA NO.1199 AND 1279/AHD/2006 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2000 - 01 THESE TWO CROSS APPEALS ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE TWO SEPARATE ORDER S, BOTH DATED 28 TH FEBRUARY, 2006, PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN THE MATTER OF ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) READ WITH SECTION 147 OF THE INCOME TAX AC T, 1961 ( THE ACT HEREINAFTER) , FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR S 200 0 - 01 & 2001 - 02 . 2. LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT ONE OF THE ISSUES RAISED IN THE ASSESSEE S APPEAL S IS ASSESSEE S GRIEVANCE AGAINST LD. CIT(A) S UPHOLDING THE VALIDITY OF REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS , AND, THAT IN TH E EVENT OF THIS GRIEVANCE BEING UPHELD, ALL OTHER ISSUES RAISED IN THE CROSS APPEAL S WILL BE RENDERED INFRUCTUOUS . IT IS IN THIS BACKDROP THAT HE URGES US TO TAKE UP THIS ISSUE FIRST. ITA NO S . 1199, 1200, 1279 & 1280 /AHD/ 20 06 ASSESSMENT Y EARS : 200 0 - 01 & 2001 - 02 PAGE 3 OF 15 3. LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE DOES NOT OPPOSE THIS PRAYER, A ND LEAVES IT TO THE BENCH TO TAKE A CALL ON THIS PRAYER OF THE ASSESSEE. 4. WE DEEM IT FIT AND PROPER TO, IN THE BACKGROUND, TO BEGIN WITH OUR ADJUDICATION ON ASSESSEE S GRIEVANCE AGAINST LEARNED CIT(A) S UPHOLDING THE VALIDITY OF REASSESSMENT PROCEEDING S. GRIEVANCES OF THE ASSESSEE, SO FAR AS THIS ISSUE IS CONCERNED, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000 - 2001, ARE A S FOLLOWS : - 1. RE: REASSESSMENT U/S. 147 CARRIED OUT WITHOUT JURISDICTION. 1.1 ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LE ARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) [ HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE LEARNED CIT(A) ] ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE REASSESSMENT MADE U/S. 147 BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER A S THE REASSESSMENT WAS BASED ON A MERE CHANGE OF OPINION ON ISSUES WHICH HAD ALREADY BE EN CONSIDERED IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT FRAMED U/S. 143(3) . 1.2 THE LEARNED CIT(A ) ERRED NOT CONSIDERING THE JUDICIAL DECISIONS RELIED BY THE APPELLANT . 5. BRIEFLY STATED, THE RELEVANT MATERIAL FACTS ARE LIKE THIS. IN THIS CASE, ASSESSMENT UNDER S ECTIO N 143(3) OF THE ACT WAS COMPLETED ON 27.11.2002, AND, IN THE ASSESSMENT SO FRAMED, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID DISTURB THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80HHC OF THE ACT A S ALSO UNDER SECTION 80IA OF THE ACT. AS AGAINST A CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80HHC OF THE ACT MOUNTING TO RS.7,92,25,421/ - , THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALLOWED A DEDUCTION OF RS.5,74,92,190/ - ONLY. SIMILARLY, AS AGAINST A CLAIM OF DEDUCTION OF RS.29,31,19,312/ - UNDER SECTION 80IA, T HE ASSESSING OFFICER ALLOWED THE DEDUCTION OF RS.28,4 2,65,445/ - . THE MATTER WAS THEN CARRIED I N APPEAL BEFORE THE LD . CIT(A) WHO GAVE PARTIAL RELIEF IN THE MATTER, VIDE HIS ORDER DATED 17 TH JANUARY, 2003. ON 25 TH ITA NO S . 1199, 1200, 1279 & 1280 /AHD/ 20 06 ASSESSMENT Y EARS : 200 0 - 01 & 2001 - 02 PAGE 4 OF 15 FEBRUARY 2004, HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER REOPENED THE ASSESSMENT BY RECODING THE FOLLOWIN G REASONS : - I. THE SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT U/S. 143(3) WAS COMPLETED IN THIS CASE ON 27.11.02. WHILE SCRUTINISING THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR ASSESSMENT OF SUBSEQUENT YEARS, IT IS SE E N THAT THE ASSESSEE S CLAIMS ARE NOT PROPER . IT IS SEEN THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED VOLUMINOUS DETAILS ALONG WITH THE RETURN OF INCOME WHICH ARE NOT AT ALL REQUIRED TO BE FILED ALONG WITH THE RETURN OF INCOME. WHAT IS REQUIRED IS THE TAX AUDIT REPORT, PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT AND BALANCE SHEET, OTHER STATUTORY REPORTS PERTAININ G TO DEDUCTIONS U/S. 80HHC AND 80IA, COMPUTATION OF INC OME, PROOF OF PAYMENT OF ADVANCE TAX AND TDS CERTIFICATES . THE VARIOUS DETAILS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE VERY CONFUSING AND COMPLICATE THE MATTER PERTAINING TO THE ASSESSMENT. THE DETAILS FILED B Y THE ASSESSEE ARE SUCH AS FILING OF WHICH ARE NECESSITATED WITH THE OBJECT TO CREATE CONFUSION IN THE MATTER AND FRUSTRATE QUICK UNDERSTANDING. THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED THE BRANCHES DETAILS. THE STATEMENTS FURNISHED ARE NOT STRAIGHT FORWARD E.G. P LEAS E REFER TO THE PROFIT CALCULATION SHEET/STATEMENT U/S. 80 - IA (COPY ENCLOSED) FOR A PERIOD OF APRIL, 1999 TO MARCH, 2000. THOUGH THE NAME OF THE STATEMENT IS PROFIT CALCULATION U/S 80 - IA, BUT I DO NOT FIND ANYWHERE FIGURE OF THE PROFIT WHICH HAS BEEN DETER MINED FOR THE PURPOSE OF 80 - IA. THUS, THE ASSESSEE HAS DELIBERATELY PRESENTED THE FACTS IN SUCH A MANNER SO THAT IT IS NOT UNDERSTOOD BY THE TAX AUTHORITY EA S ILY. FOR EXAMPLE, AS PER THE TAX AUDIT REPORT, THE R&D EXPENSE ARE AS UNDER : - CAPITAL EXPENSES RS.10,10,65,598/ - REVENUE EXP. DEBITED INTO P&L ACCOUNT RS.8,69,39,482/ - TOTAL RS.18,80,05,080/ - THE SCHEDULE 17 OF THE ANNUAL ACCOUNT SHOWS R&D EXPENSES OF RS.292.38 LACS, WHEREAS IN THE TAX AUDIT REPORT, THE ASSESSEE HA S CLAIMED R&D EXPENSES OF RS.18,80,05,080/ - . THUS, IT IS NOT CLEAR WHICH FIGURE IS CORRECT. II. WHILE COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT IN THE CASE OF ADITYA MEDISALES LTD., A SISTER CONCERN OF THE SUN GROUP, IT WAS FOUND THAT THE PROFIT OF THE INDUSTRIAL UNIT OF SILVASA OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN INFLATED BECAUSE THE S AME IS EXEMPT U/S . 80IA, BY GIVING MORE INTEREST ON OVERDUE BILLS BY ADITYA MEDISALES LTD. ADITYA MEDI SALES LTD. HAS BEEN GIVEN THE TASK OF DISTRIBUTING THE FORMULATION DRUGS PRODUCED BY THE UNITS A T SILVASA AND VAPI OF SUN PHARMA INDUSTRIES LTD. I T PAY S THE INTEREST @ 21% TO THE LATTER ON THE OVERDUE BILLS WHICH IS MUCH MORE THAN THE PREVAILING MARKET RATE OF INTEREST IN THIS LINE OF BUSINESS WHICH VARIES FROM 15% TO 18%. BY ADOPTING THIS MODUS OP ERANDI, THE SUN GROUP HAS REDUCED THE TAXABLE PROFIT OF M/S ITA NO S . 1199, 1200, 1279 & 1280 /AHD/ 20 06 ASSESSMENT Y EARS : 200 0 - 01 & 2001 - 02 PAGE 5 OF 15 ADITYA MEDI S ALES LTD. A ND AT THE SAME TIME IT HAS INCREASED THE PROFIT OF SILVASA UNIT BECAUSE THE INTEREST INCOME IS DIRECTLY ADDED TO THE SALES FIGURE, ON WHICH THE DEDUCTION U/S . 80IA IS AVAILA BLE. THESE FACTS ARE NOT CLEAR FROM THE WORKING OF DEDUCTION U/S . 80IA GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE ALONG WITH THE RETURN OF THE INCOME. THIS IS NOT PERMISSIBLE AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 80IA(10) OF THE A C T AND THE RATE OF INTEREST PAYABLE TO SPIL HAS TO BE RESTRICTED @ 15% TO 18% WHICH WILL AUTOMATICALLY REDUCE THE PROFITS OF UNITS ENTITLED FOR 80IA DEDUCTION A ND CONSEQUENTLY THE DEDUCTION U/S. 80IA CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE WILL BE REDUCED. III. IN THE EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEAR 1999 - 2000, THE A.O. HAD ALLOC ATED 10% OF THE WEIGHTED DEDUCTION U/S.35(1) TO THE SILVASA UNITS (WHICH ARE ENGAGED IN THE MANUFACTURING OF FORMULATION PRODUCTS) WHILE W OKING OUT THE DEDUCTION U/S. 80IA. THIS ALLOCATION WAS ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE CIT(A). HOWEVER , IN A.Y. 2000 - 01 THE ASSESSEE HAS WRONGLY DEBITED ONLY 10% OF THE REVENUE EXPENSE SHOWN UNDER THE HEAD R&D TO ITS SILVASA UNIT . THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED WEIGHTED DEDUCTION U/S.35(1) OF RS.23,04,83,379/ - IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME. HENCE, AS PER THE ORDER OF CIT ( A ) IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE, 10% OF RS.23,04,83,379/ - AMOUNTING TO RS.2,30,48,338/ - SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOCATED AS EXPENSE TO THE SILVASA UNITS ON THE BASIS OF TURN OVER. THE TURN OVER OF SILVASA I UNIT A ND SILVA S A II UNIT I S IN THE RATIO OF 58.6% AND 41 .4% . H ENCE, THE ALLOCATION OF 10% OF WEIGHTED D E DUCTION U/S. 35(1) BETWEEN THE TWO UNITS SHOULD BE RS.1,35,06,326/ - AND RS.95,42,012/ - RESPECTIVELY. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE H A S ALLOCATED RS.18,72,973/ - AND RS.13,20,088/ - ONLY IN THE TWO UNITS RESPECTIVELY. HENCE, THE CORRECT WORKING OF 80IA DEDUCTION OF THE TWO UNITS IS AS UNDER : - SILVASA I UNIT NET PROFIT S CALCULATED BY THE ASSESSEE RS.28,51,48,292/ - AD D : R&D EXP. A LLOCATED BY THE ASSESSEE RS. 18,72,973/ - RS.2 8,70,21,265/ - LESS: R&D EXPENSES ACTUALLY ALLOCABLE RS. 1,35,06,326/ - PROFIT OF SILVA S A I UNIT RS.27,35,14,939/ - DEDUCTION U/S. 80IA ALLOWABLE @ 30% RS. 8,20, 54,482/ - THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S. 80IA IN THE COMPUTAT ION OF INCOME AT RS.8,55,84,487/ - . HENCE, THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED RS.8,55,84,487/ - - RS.8,20,54,482/ - = RS. 35,30,005/ - AS EXTRA DEDUCTION U/S. 80IA ON SILVASA UNIT I , WHICH IS NOT ALLOWABLE AND SHOULD BE ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. SILVASA II UN IT. NET PROFIT AS CALCULATED BY THE ASSESSEE RS.20,97,62,593/ - ADD: R&D EXP. ALLOCATED BY THE ASSESSEE RS. 13,20,088 / - RS.21,10,82,681/ - LESS: R&D EXPENSES ACTUALLY ALLOCABLE RS. 95,42,012 / - ITA NO S . 1199, 1200, 1279 & 1280 /AHD/ 20 06 ASSESSMENT Y EARS : 200 0 - 01 & 2001 - 02 PAGE 6 OF 15 PROFIT OF SI LVASA I UNIT RS.2 0,15,40,669/ - DEDUCTION U/S. 80IA ALLOWABLE @ 100% RS. 20,15,40,669 / - THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S 80IA IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME AT RS.20,97,62,593/ - . HENCE, THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED RS.20,97,6 2,593/ - ( - ) RS.20,15,40,669/ - = RS.82,21,924/ - AS EXTRA DEDUCTION U/S.80IA ON SILVASA UNIT II, WHICH IS NOT ALLOWABLE AND SHOULD BE ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. IT IS SEEN THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOCATING R&D EXPENSES ON ARBITRARY BASIS. THERE IS I NTERMIXING OF R&D EXPENSES OF ALL THE PRODUCTS, THEREFORE, THE BE S T WAY TO ALLOCATE THE EXPENSE UNDER THE S E CIRCUMSTANCES SHOULD BE ON THE BASIS OF PROFITABILITY RATIO OF VARIOUS UNIT. SINCE, T HE PROFITABILITY OF SILVASA UNITS I & II RE VERY HIGH, THE ALL OCATION OF R&D EXPENSE SHOULD BE MORE IN THE S E TWO UNITS BECAUSE THERE IS A DIRECT NEXUS BETWEEN THE PROFITABILITY OF A UNIT AND R&D EXPENSES ( BECAUSE ABETTER R&D MEANS MORE PROFIT MARGIN IN PHARMACEUTICAL LINE) RATHER THAN ALLOCATING ONLY 10% OF THE R&D E XPENSES. IV. I N THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED, THE A.O. HAD NOT ADDED THE FOLLOWING AMOUNTS. A) THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN EXPORT OF RS.35.46 LACS OUT THE GOODS PRODUCED FROM THE SILVASA I UNIT. THIS AMOUNT HAS BEEN CONSIDERED FOR WORKING OUT THE DEDUCTION U/S 80HHC. AGAIN, DEDUCTION U/S. 80IA HAS BEEN CLAIMED ON THIS AMOUNT. THIS MEANS THAT MORE THAN 100% DEDUCTION HAS BEEN CLAIMED ON THE EXPORT OF RS.35.46 LACS FROM THE SILVASA I UNIT, WHICH IS NOT CORRECT AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 80AB. B) WHILE WORK ING OUT THE DEDUCTION U/S. 80HHC OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN T HE TOT A L PROFIT OF THE BUSINESS AT RS.71,40,20,133/ - . HOWEVER, IT IS SEEN THAT THIS FIGURE HAS BEEN WRONGLY TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE BECAUSE IN THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR, THE ASSESSEE HA S AMALGAMATED GUJARAT LYK A ORGANICS LTD . WHICH HAD UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION LOSS OF RS.5,39,51,466/ - . AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 32, ANY UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION BECOMES THE PART OF THE CURRENT DEPRECIATION AND THE SAME HAS TO BE ALLOWED U/S.32. THER EFORE, FOR WORKING OUT THE PROFITS OF THE BUSINESS AS PER EXPLANATION BAA TO SECTION 80HHC, THE PROFIT OF THE BUSINESS HAS TO BE WORKED OUT AFTER REDUCING T HE UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION OF RS.5,39,51,466/ - OF M/S. GUJARAT LYKA ORGANIC S LTD. THI S WILL SUBSTAN TIALLY REDUCE THE DEDUCTION U/S. 80HHC. THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED THAT IT HAS TWO BUSINESS VIZ; PHARMACEUTICAL AND FINANCE. THE ASSESSEE HAS SET OFF INTEREST PAYMENT AGAINST THE GROSS INTEREST RECEIPT. THIS NETTING OFF IS NOT PROPER. THE DETAILS OF INTER EST PAID CLEARLY INDICATES THAT BORROWED FUNDS FOR WHICH INTEREST HAS BEEN PAID WERE UTILISED FOR THE PURPOSE OF PHARMACEUTICAL BUSINESS. THEREFORE, INTEREST PAID HAS TO BE CONSIDERED AGAINST THE RECEIPT FROM PHARMACEUTICAL BUSINESS AND GROSS INTEREST H A S TO BE TAXED UNDER THE HEAD ITA NO S . 1199, 1200, 1279 & 1280 /AHD/ 20 06 ASSESSMENT Y EARS : 200 0 - 01 & 2001 - 02 PAGE 7 OF 15 INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES . PLEASE REFER ACIT V. SOUGH INDIA PRODUCE CO. 262 ITR 20 (KER.); CIT VS. RAIN RATAN EXPORTS (P) LTD. 246 ITR 443 (BOM.) . IF GROSS INTEREST RECEIVED IS TAXABLE UNDER THE HEAD OF INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES, THE SAME HAS TO BE EXCLUDED FROM THE BUSINESS PROFIT FOR T HE PURPOSE OF 80HHC SOUTH INDI A PRODUCE CO. 262 ITR 20 (KER) & CIT VS. AS NIZAR AHMED & CO.259 ITR 244 (MADRAS). THUS, WHOLE GROSS INTEREST H A S TO BE EXCLUDED FROM THE PROFIT OF THE BUS INESS FOR THE PURPOSE OF 80HHC. PRINCIPLE OF NETTING OFF APPLIES ONLY WHEN THERE IS DIRECT NEXUS BETWEEN EARNING OF THE INTEREST INCOME AND INTEREST PAID. PLEASE REFER MADRAS HIGH COURT DECISION IN THE CASE OF SOUGH INDIA SHIPPING CORPORATION LTD. , 240 I TR 24 AND ALSO KERALA HIGH COURT DECISION IN THE CASE OF VAI KUNDAM RAO CO. 241 ITR 50 (KERALA). V. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, I HAVE REASON TO BELIEVE THAT THE ABOVE INCOMES CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAVE ESCAPED ASSESSMENTS. HENCE, NOTICE U/S. 148 OF THE ACT IS ISSU ED. 6. IN EFFECT THUS, THE REOPENING WA S DONE ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS : - (A) VOLUMINOUS DETAILS SUBMITTED AND THE SAME WERE NOT EASILY UNDERSTANDABLE BY TAX AUTHORITY. (B) RECEIPT OF HIGHER INTEREST FROM ADITYA MEDIASLES LIMITED AND CONSEQUENT HIGHER DE DUCTION U/S.80IA (C) RECEIPT OF HIGHER INTEREST FROM ADITYA MEDIASLES LIMITED AND CONSEQUENT HIGHER DEDUCTION U/S.80IA . (D) REDUCED ALLOCATION OF R&D EXPENSE TO NEW INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKINGS U/S. 80IA. (E) REDUCTION OF BROUGHT FORWARD DEPRECIATION OF GLOL MERGED WITH THE COMPANY FOR COMPUTING THE PROFITS U/S. 80HHC. (F) DOUBLE DEDUCTION ON EXPORTS OF NEW INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING U/S. 80HHC (G) NETTING OF INTEREST INCOME AND EXPENDITURE FOR COMPUTING THE PROFITS U/S. 80HHC AND INTEREST INCOME TO BE CONSIDERED AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES FOR COMPUTING THE PROFITS/DEDUCTION U/S. 80HHC. ITA NO S . 1199, 1200, 1279 & 1280 /AHD/ 20 06 ASSESSMENT Y EARS : 200 0 - 01 & 2001 - 02 PAGE 8 OF 15 7. THE ASSESSEE DID OBJECT TO THE REOPENING SO DONE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HOWEVER, THESE OBJECTIONS WERE REJECTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER VIDE HIS NOTE DATED 16.11.2004, W HICH, INTER ALIA, OBSERVED AS FOLLOWS : - 4.1 (B) THE APPELLANT HAD FILED OBJECTIONS TO THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS VIDE LETTER DATED 25.05.2004, WHICH WERE CONSIDERED BUT NOT ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, VIDE HIS NOTE DATED 16.11.2004. THE RELEVA NT PART OF THE SAID NOTE READS AS UNDER : THE ASSESSEE HAS OBJECTED TO THE ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S.148 ON THE GROUNDS THAT THE ALLEGATION IS MERELY A CHANGE OF OPINION ON EXITING FACTS, WHICH WERE FULLY WITHIN THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THIS I S NOT CORRECT BECAUSE THE ISSUE OF INFLATING THE DEDUCTION U/S.80IA , INCORRECT ALLOCATION OF R&D EXPENSES TO THE UNITS CLAIMING DEDUCTION US/. 80IA AND WRONG CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S.80HHC WAS NEVER EXAMINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN LIGHT OF THE FACTS NAR RATED IN THE REASONS RECORDED FOR ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S. 148 OF THE ACT. SO, THERE IS NOT CHANGE OF OPINION BY THE A.O. BUT CORRECT APPRECIATION OF FACTS IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. HENCE, THE BOARD S CIRCULAR CITED BY THE ASSESSEE IS NOT APPLICABLE HER E. IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING FACTS AND REASONS, I HOLD THAT THE ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN RIGHTLY REOPENED U/S. 147 R.W.S. 148 OF THE ACT. IT IS TO BE MENTIONED THAT THE DECISIONS HAVE BEEN CITED MECHANICALLY WITHOUT POINTING OUT WHICH DECISIONS OF THE HON BLE S .C/H.C. SUPPORTS THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. THE DECISION OF HON BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF RAYMOND WOOLLEN MILLS LTD., 236 34 IS MORE APPLICABLE IN THE C ASE OF THE ASSESSEE. HENCE, TH E OBJECTION TO THE NOTICE U/S. 148 FOR A.Y. 2000 - 01 IS REJECTED. 8. AGGRIEVED BY THE STAND SO TAKEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, ASSE SSE E CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPAL BEFORE THE LD . CIT(A) BUT WITHOUT ANY SUCCESS . LE A RN E D CIT (A) REJECTED T HE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND UPHELD THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, IN REOPENING THE ASSES SMENT, BY OBSERVING AS FOLLOWS; - 4.3 THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT IS DULY CONSIDERED. IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE SUBMISSION, THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER A ND THE APPELLATE ORDER P ASSED FOR T HE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION HAVE BEEN PERU SED BY ME AND NOTICED THAT BARING ONE OR TWO ISSUES, THE ISSUES WHICH HAVE BEEN T AKEN UP ITA NO S . 1199, 1200, 1279 & 1280 /AHD/ 20 06 ASSESSMENT Y EARS : 200 0 - 01 & 2001 - 02 PAGE 9 OF 15 IN THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WERE NOT DELIBERATED UPON BY THE A.O. IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT PROC E EDINGS, SO THE PLEA TH A T THE REOPENING IS BAD IN LAW IN VIEW OF M ERE CHANGE OF OPINION IS NOT VALID. 4.4 PROVISO TO SECTION 147 OF THE ACT SAYS THAT WHERE AN ASSESSMENT UNDER SUB - SECTION (3) OF SECTION 143 OR THIS SECTION HAS BEEN MADE FOR THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR, NO ACTION SHALL BE T AKEN UNDER THIS SECTION AFTE R THE EXPIRY OF FOUR YEARS FROM THE END OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR BY RE A SON OF THE FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO MAKE A RETURN UNDER SECTION 139 OR IN RESPONSE TO A NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SUB - SECTION (1) OF SECTION 142 OR SECTION 148 OR TO DISC LOSE FULLY AND TRULY ALL MATERIAL FACTS NECESSARY FOR HIS ASSESSMENT, FOR THAT ASSESSMENT YE A R . 4.5 IN CONNECTION WITH THE ABOVE, THE HON BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF PRAFUL CHUNILAL PATEL AND VASANT CHUNILAL PATEL V/S. ACIT [236 ITR 832] HAS OBS ERVED THAT : THE POWER TO MAKE ASSESSMENT OR REASSESSMENT WITHIN FOUR YEARS OF THE END OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR WOULD BE ATTRACTED EVEN IN CASES WHERE THERE HAS BEEN A COMPLETE DISCLOSURE OF ALL RELEVANT FACTS UPON WHICH A CORRECT ASSESSMENT MIGHT HAVE BEEN BASED IN THE FIRST INSTANCE, AND WHETHER IT IS AN ERROR OF FACT OR LAW THAT HAS BEEN DISCOVERED OR FOUND OUT JUSTIFYING THE BELIEF REQUIRED TO INITIATE THE PROCEEDINGS. IN OUR VIEW, THE WORDS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT WHERE THE RETURN IS FILED, ARE A PT TO COVER THE CASE OF DISCOVERY OF A MISTAKE IN THE ASSESSMENT CAUSED BY EITHER AN ERRONEOUS CONSTRUCTION OF THE TRANSACTION OR DUE TO ITS NON - CONSIDERATION, OR, CAUSED BY A MISTAKE OF LAW APPLICABLE TO SUCH TRANSFER OR TRANSACTION EVEN WHERE THERE HAS B EEN A COMPLETE DISCLOSURE OF ALL RELEVANT FACTS UPON WHICH A CORRECT ASSESSMENT COULD HAVE BEEN BASED. IN CASE WHERE THE A.O. HAD OVER - LOOKED SOMETHING AT THE FIRST ASSESSMENT, THERE CAN BE NO QUESTION OF ANY CHANGE OF OPINION, WHEN THE INCOME WHICH WAS CHARGEABLE TO TAX IS ACTUALLY T A XED AS IT OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN UNDER THE LAW, BUT W A S NOT, DUE TO AN ERROR COMMITTED T THE FIRST ASSESSMENT. THE WORD REASON IN THE PHRASE REASON TO BELIEVE WOULD MEAN CAUSE OR JUSTIFICATION . IF THE ASSESSING OFFICER HA S A CAUSE OR JUSTIFICATION TO THINK OR SUPPOSE THAT INCOME HAD ESCAPED ASSESSMENT , HE CAN BE SAID TO HAVE A REASON TO BELIEVE THAT SUCH INCOME HAD ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. THE WORDS REASON TO BELIEVE CANNOT MEAN THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHOULD HAVE FINALLY ASCERTAINED THE FACTS BY LEGAL EVIDENCE. UNLESS THE GROUND OR THE MATERIAL ON WHICH HIS BELIEF IS BASED, IS FOUND TO BE SO IRRATIONAL AS NOT TO BE WORTH OF BEING CALLED A REASON BY ANY HONEST MAN, HIS CONCLUSION THAT IT CONSTITUTES A SUFFICIENT REASON, CANNOT BE OVERRIDDEN . IF THE A.O. HONESTLY COMES TO CONCLUSION THAT A MISTAKE HAS BEEN MADE, IT MATTERS NOTHING SO FAR AS HIS JURISDICTION TO INITIATE ITA NO S . 1199, 1200, 1279 & 1280 /AHD/ 20 06 ASSESSMENT Y EARS : 200 0 - 01 & 2001 - 02 PAGE 10 OF 15 THE PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 147 IS CONCERNED, THAT HE MAY HAVE COME TO AN ERRONEOUS CONCLUSION WHETHE R ON LAW OR ON FACTS. THE COURT WILL NOT IN EXERCISE OF ITS EXTRAORDINARY JURISDICTION UNDER THE CONSTITUTION, EXAMINE THE SUFFICIENCY OF THE REASON WHICH LED THE A.O. TO BELIEVE THAT THE INCOME HAD ESCAPED ASSESSMENT . AND HAS BEEN HELD ACCORDINGLY THAT : THE A.O. WHILE MAKING THE ASSESSMENT FOR THE A.Y. 1993 - 94, FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE AND HIS THREE BROTHERS HAD DECIDED TO FORM A PARTNERSHIP FIRM WITH TWO OTHER PARTNERS; THAT THE ASSESSEE AND HIS OTHER CO - OWNERS HAD A BUNGALOW AND THAT THE SAID PROPERTY W AS CONVERTED BY THE SAID ASSESSEE AND OTHER CO - OWNERS ON AUGUST 15, 1990 , FROM A CAPITAL ASSET TO STOCK IN TRADE. THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE BUNGALOW WAS VALUED AT RS.56,00,000/ - BY THE REGISTERED VALUER AND THE CONVERTED PROPERTY WAS SOLD ON SEPTEMBER 19, 1990 TO THE FIRM. IT WAS FOUND THAT THE SAID TRANSFER ON SEPTEMBER 19, 1990, BY WHICH THE S TOCK - IN - TRADE WAS SOLD TO THE FIRM, REMAINED TO BE TAXED AS CAPITAL GAINS IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE A.Y. 1991 - 92 . THE ASSESSMENT OF THE ASSESSEE FOR T HE A . Y . 1991 - 92 WAS COMPLETED ON JANUARY 31, 1994, BUT THE CAPITAL GAIN ARISING FROM THE TRANSFER OF HIS SHARE IN THE IMMOVABLE PROPERTY TO THE PARTNERSHIP FIRM WAS NOT SUBJECTED TO TAX ALTHOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAD INFORMED THE INCOME TAX OFFICER BY HIS LETTE R DATED DECEMBER 29, 1993 ABOUT THE CONVERSION OF THE CAPITAL ASSET BEING HIS SHARE IN THE IMMOVABLE PROPERTY INTO STOCK - IN - TRADE AND ITS CONSEQUENTIAL EFFECT, IN VIEW OF THE QUERY RAISED BY THE A.O . THE A.O., THEREFORE, CLEARLY HAD A REASON TO BELIEVE TH AT THE INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX IN THE FORM OF CAPITAL G A INS IN RESPECT OF THE TRANSFER THAT TOOK PLACE ON SEPTEMBER 19, 1990, HAD ESCAPED ASSESSMENT IN THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR 1991 - 92 . THE INITIATION OF THE PROCEEDINGS U/S. 147 BY NOTICE DATED MARCH 29, 1996, COULD NOT, THEREFORE, BE ASSAILED ON THE GROUND THAT IT WAS WITHOUT JURISDICTION. THE FOLLOWING CASES HAVE BEEN REFERRED TO BY THE HON BLE COURT : BIRLA VXL LIMITED V/S. CIT (ASST.) [1996] 217 ITR 1 (GUJ.) CHIMANRAM MOTIL A L V/S. CIT [1943] 11 ITR 44 (BOM.) GARDEN SILK MILLS LTD. V/S. CIT (DEPUTY) (ASSESSMENT) (NO.1) [1996] 222 ITR 27 (GUJ) GARDEN SILK MILLS LTD. V/S. CIT (DEPUTY) (NO.2) [1996] 222 ITR 68 (GUJ) HUM B OLDT WEDAG INDIA LT D V/S. CIT (ASST.) [1999 ] 236 ITR 845 (CAL.) [1996] 220 ITR 1 94 (GUJ) MADAN MOHAN LAL V/S. CIT [1935] 3 ITR 438 (LAHORE) [FB] SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATIONS NOS.4201 AND 4203 OF 1996. ITA NO S . 1199, 1200, 1279 & 1280 /AHD/ 20 06 ASSESSMENT Y EARS : 200 0 - 01 & 2001 - 02 PAGE 11 OF 15 IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE CASES OF NON - ASSESSMENT OF AN ITEM OF INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX WOULD WARRANT FORMATION OF REQUISITE BELIEF TO INITIATE THE PROCEEDINGS WITHIN FOUR YEARS FROM THE END OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR, EVEN WHERE FULL DISCLOSURE WERE MADE AND YET AN INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAD ESCAPED FROM BEING INCLUDED IN THE FINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER, IN WHICH TAXABLE INCOME WAS WOR KED OUT. IN SUCH CASES, THE A.O. HAS IN F A CT, A DUTY TO EXERCISE HIS JURISDICTION UNDER THE MAIN SECTION 147. THE PRESENT PROCEEDINGS SINCE, INITIATED WITHIN FOUR YEAR FROM THE END OF RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR, ARE HELD TO BE VALID. THE ACTION OF THE A.O . IS JUSTIFIED. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS THUS REJECTED. 9. T HE ASSESSEE IS NOT SATISFIED BY THE STAND SO TAKEN BY THE LEARNED CIT ( A ) AND IS IN FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE US. 10. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS, PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AND DULY CO NSIDERED FACTS OF THE CASE IN THE LIGHT OF THE APPLICABLE LEGAL POSITION. 11. WE FIND THAT IN THE COURSE OF THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE CLAIM FOR DEDUCTIONS UNDER SECTION 80HHC AND 80IA OF THE ACT WERE DISCUSSED IN LENGTH A ND ON THOSE ISSUE THE MATTER WAS CARRIED IN APPEAL BEFORE T HE LD. CIT ( A ) WHO HAD PARTLY ALLOWED THE APPEAL. ON THESE FACTS, IN THE LIGHT OF THE LAW LAID DOWN BY HON BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF U NITED PHOSPHORUS LIMITED VS. ACIT [(2011) 56 DTR 193 (GUJ)], T HE ORDER OF THE A . O . STOOD MERGED WITH THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND HAD NO EXISTENCE OF IT S OWN, AND, AS SUCH, ASSESSMENT COULD NOT BE REOPENED IN RESPECT OF THE SAID ITEM . FOR THIS SHORT REASON ALONE, THE IMPUGNED REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS MUST STAND QUAS HED. WHEN IT WAS PUT TO THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE , HE DID NOT HAVE MUCH TO S AY EXCEPT TO PLACE RELIANCE ON THE STAND OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW ITA NO S . 1199, 1200, 1279 & 1280 /AHD/ 20 06 ASSESSMENT Y EARS : 200 0 - 01 & 2001 - 02 PAGE 12 OF 15 AND SUBMIT T HAT A PARTICULAR ASPECT OF THE DEDUCTION WAS NOT SPECIFICALLY CONSIDERED BY THE A.O. AN D THE LD. CIT(A). THAT ASPECT OF THE MATTER IS , HOWEVER , NOT REALLY RELEVANT BECAUSE ONCE WE COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT ORDER OF THE A . O . STOOD MERGED IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT ( A ) ON THE ISSUE OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IA AND 80HHC OF THE ACT , AS WE ARE OBLIGED TO HOLD IN THE LIGHT OF LAW LAID DOWN BY HON BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT, THESE A SPECT OF THE MATTER ARE WHOLLY ACADEMIC. 12. FOR THE REASONS SET OUT ABOVE, WE HOLD THAT THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WERE VITIATED IN LAW. THE IMPUGNED REASS ESSMENT ORDER STANDS QUASHED, ACCORDINGLY. 13. AS THE REASSESSMENT ORDER STANDS QUASHED FOR THE TECHNICAL REASONS SET OUT ABOVE, WE SEE NO NEED TO ADDRESS OURSELVES TO OTHER ERUDITE CONTENTIONS ADVANCED BEFORE US OR TO OTHER ISSUES RAISED IN THE CROSS AP PEALS . GIVEN OUR ABOVE CONCLUSIONS, ALL THESE THINGS ARE RENDERED INFRUCTUOUS AND ACADEMIC. 14. IN THE RE S ULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO.1199/AHD/2006 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000 - 01 IS ALLOWED AND APPEAL OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN ITA NO.1279/AHD/20 06 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000 - 01 IS DISMISSED A S INFRUCTUOUS . ITA NO.1200 AND 1280 /AHD/2006 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2001 - 02 ITA NO S . 1199, 1200, 1279 & 1280 /AHD/ 20 06 ASSESSMENT Y EARS : 200 0 - 01 & 2001 - 02 PAGE 13 OF 15 15. NOW WE WILL TAKE UP CROSS APPEALS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001 - 02 I.E. ITA NO.1200/AHD/2006 BY THE ASSESSEE AND ITA NO.1280/AHD/20 06 BY THE REVENUE. 16. LEARNED REPRESENTATIVE S FAIRLY AGREE THAT WHATEVER WE DECIDE I N CROSS APPEALS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000 - 01 IN ASSESSEE S OWN CASE (I.E. 1199/AHD/2006 & ITA NO.1279/AHD/2006 ) WHICH WERE HEARD ALONG WITH THESE APPEALS, WILL APPLY M UTATIS MUTANDIS TO THESE CROSS APPEALS AS WELL. IT WAS ALSO FAIRLY ACCEPTED THAT ALL THE MATERIAL FACTS OF THE CASE, BARRING THE DATES OF ORDER AND AMOUNTS, ARE EXACTLY THE SAME. 17. VIDE PARAGRAPH NOS. 11 TO 14 ABOVE, UPHOLDING THE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSE SSEE, WE HAVE OBSERVED AS FOLLOWS: - 11. WE FIND THAT IN THE COURSE OF THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE CLAIM FOR DEDUCTIONS UNDER SECTION 80HHC AND 80IA OF THE ACT WERE DISCUSSED IN LENGTH AND ON THOSE ISSUE THE MATTER WAS CARRIED IN APPEAL BEFOR E THE LD. CIT(A) WHO HAD PARTLY ALLOWED THE APPEAL. ON THESE FACTS, IN THE LIGHT OF THE LAW LAID DOWN BY HON BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF UNITED PHOSPHORUS LIMITED VS. ACIT [(2011) 56 DTR 193 (GUJ)], THE ORDER OF THE A.O. STOOD MERGED WITH THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND HAD NO EXISTENCE OF IT S OWN, AND, AS SUCH, ASSESSMENT COULD NOT BE REOPENED IN RESPECT OF THE SAID ITEM. FOR THIS SHORT REASON ALONE, THE IMPUGNED REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS MUST STAND QUASHED. WHEN IT WAS PUT TO THE LEARNED D EPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, HE DID NOT HAVE MUCH TO SAY EXCEPT TO PLACE RELIANCE ON THE STAND OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND SUBMIT THAT A PARTICULAR ASPECT OF THE DEDUCTION WAS NOT SPECIFICALLY CONSIDERED BY THE A.O. AND THE LD. CIT(A). THAT ASPECT OF THE MATTER IS, HOWEVER, NOT REALLY RELEVANT BECAUSE ONCE WE COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT ORDER OF THE A.O. STOOD MERGED IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) ON THE ISSUE OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IA AND 80HHC OF THE ACT, AS WE ARE OBLIGED TO HOLD IN THE LIGHT OF L AW LAID DOWN BY HON BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT, THESE ASPECT OF THE MATTER ARE WHOLLY ACADEMIC. ITA NO S . 1199, 1200, 1279 & 1280 /AHD/ 20 06 ASSESSMENT Y EARS : 200 0 - 01 & 2001 - 02 PAGE 14 OF 15 12. FOR THE REASONS SET OUT ABOVE, WE HOLD THAT THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WERE VITIATED IN LAW. THE IMPUGNED REASSESSMENT ORDER STANDS QUASHED, ACCORDIN GLY. 13. AS THE REASSESSMENT ORDER STANDS QUASHED FOR THE TECHNICAL REASONS SET OUT ABOVE, WE SEE NO NEED TO ADDRESS OURSELVES TO OTHER ERUDITE CONTENTIONS ADVANCED BEFORE US OR TO OTHER ISSUES RAISED IN THE CROSS APPEALS. GIVEN OUR ABOVE CONCLUSIONS, A LL THESE THINGS ARE RENDERED INFRUCTUOUS AND ACADEMIC. 14. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO.1199/AHD/2006 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000 - 01 IS ALLOWED AND APPEAL OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN ITA NO.1279/AHD/2006 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000 - 01 IS DISM ISSED AS INFRUCTUOUS. 18. WE SEE NO REASONS TO TAKE ANY OTHER VIEW OF THE MATTER THAN THE VIEW SO TAKEN BY US, ON ADMITTEDLY MATERIALLY SIMILAR FACTS OF THE CASE, IN ASSESSEE S OWN CASE. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE SAME, WE UPHOLD THE GRIEVANCE OF THE AS SESSEE AND QUASH THE IMPUGNED REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. 19. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO.1 200 /AHD/2006 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000 - 01 IS ALLOWED AND APPEAL OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN ITA NO.12 80 /AHD/2006 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000 - 01 IS DISM ISSED AS INFRUCTUOUS. 20. IN THE RESULT, WHILE BOTH THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED , BOTH THE APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. (ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 21 ST AUGUST, 2015 ) SD/ - SD/ - KUL BHAR A T PRAMOD KUMAR (JUDICIAL MEMBER) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AHMEDABAD , THE 21 ST DAY OF AUGUST, 201 5 PBN/* ITA NO S . 1199, 1200, 1279 & 1280 /AHD/ 20 06 ASSESSMENT Y EARS : 200 0 - 01 & 2001 - 02 PAGE 15 OF 15 COPIES TO: (1) THE APPELLANT (2) THE RESPONDENT (3) COMMISSIONER (4) CIT(A) (5) DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (6) GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCHES, AHMEDABAD