Enviro Infrastructure Co.Ltd., Baroda V. The Income tax Officer,Ward-1(4), Baroda

ITA 1253/AHD/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0313 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 9 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-01-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 29-10-2012
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 21-04-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: T SHANKAR
• Assessee Lawyers: M K PATEL

Judgement Text

, , , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH, AHMEDABAD , ! '#, $% $ & BEFORE SHRI MUKUL KR.SHRAWAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER 1. ./ I.T.A.NO.1253/AHD/2010 - ! ) ! ) ! ) ! )/ // / A.Y. 2005-06 2. ./ I.T.A.NO.1254/AHD/2010 - ! ) ! ) ! ) ! )/ // / A.Y. 2006-07 ENVIRO INFRASTRUCTURE CO.LTD. ABS TOWER OLD PADRA ROAD BARODA ! ! ! ! / VS. ITO WARD-1(4) BARODA * $% ./+, ./ PAN/GIR NO. : AAACE 4021 C ( *- / // / APPELLANT ) .. ( ./*- / RESPONDENT ) *- 0 $ / APPELLANT BY : SHRI M.K.PATEL, A.R. ./*- 1 0 $ / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI T.SHANKAR, SR.D.R. !2 1 % / / / / DATE OF HEARING : 29.10.2012 34) 1 % / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 21.01.2013 $5 / O R D E R PER SHRI MUKUL KR. SHRAWAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THESE TWO APPEALS HAVE BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER OF LD.CIT(A)-I, BARODA FOR A.YS. 2005-0 6 & 2006-07, RESPECTIVELY BOTH DATED 12.1.2010. FOR BOTH THE Y EARS IDENTICAL ISSUES HAVE BEEN RAISED AS PER THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL, REPR ODUCED FROM A.Y. 2005-06. 1. AS REGARDS CAPITAL CONTRIBUTION RECEIVED FROM N EW MEMBERS RS.14,62,500 (FOR A.Y. 06-07 RS.22,42,500/-): AS AGAINST THE ONE-THIRD CAPITAL CONTRIBUTION OF RS .5,69,999/- (FOR A.Y. 06-07 RS.7,47,500/-) OFFERED TO TAX, THE LEARN ED CIT(A) HAS ITA NOS.1253 & 1254/AHD/2 010 ENVIRO INFRASTRUCTURE CO.LTD. VS. ITO ASST.YEARS 2005-06 & 2006-07 - 2 - BROUGHT TO TAX THE ENTIRE CAPITAL CONTRIBUTION OF R S.14,62,500/- (14,62,500/- BEING RECEIVED FROM NEW MEMBERS & RS.2 9,75,003 BEING 1/3 RD OF CURRENT AND PREVIOUS YEAR CAPITAL CONTRIBUTION OFFERED FOR TAX) [ FOR A.Y. 22,42,500/- (22,42,500/ - BEING RECEIVED FROM NEW MEMBERS RS.16,07,501 BEING 1/3 RD OF CURRENT AND PREVIOUS YEAR CAPITAL CONTRIBUTION OFFERED FOR TAX ]RECEIVED DURING THE YEAR. THE CIT(A), BARODA HAS GRIEVOUSLY ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.8,92,501 (RS.14,62,50 0 5,69,999) [FOR A.Y. 06-07 RS.6,35,000/- (RS.22,42,500 16075 01) BEING THE CAPITAL CONTRIBUTION RECEIVED TREATED AS REVENUE IN COME IN THE YEAR OF RECEIPT ITSELF. IT MAY BE FURTHER ARGUED THAT THE DEPARTMENT ITSELF IN PASSING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 U/ S.143(3) HAS ACCE3PTED THIS CONCEPT OF DEFERRING THE CAPITAL CON TRIBUTION AND HAS INCLUDING ONLY 1/3 OF THE CAPITAL CONTRIBUTION OF THAT YEAR. IT IS ARGUED THAT HOW CAN THE DEPARTMENT FOLLOW TWO STANDARD ONE ACCEPTING THE CONCEPT OF DEFERRING THE INCOME & AGA IN UNSETTING THIS CONCEPT BY CHARGING THE ENTIRE CAPITAL CONTRIB UTION IN ONE YEAR. THIS IS DONE BY THE DEPARTMENT TO SUIT ITS O WN INTEREST AND HAS JEOPARDIZED THE INTEREST OF THE ASSESSEE. 2. AT THE OUTSET, WE HAVE BEEN INFORMED THAT ON IDE NTICAL FACTS ITAT AHMEDABAD D BENCH IN THE CASES OF M/S.EFFLUENT C HANNEL PROJECT VS. ASST.CIT [ITA NO.4280/AHD/2007 FOR A.Y. 2001-02 BY ASSESSEE & 374/AHD/2009 FOR A.Y. 2001-02 BY REVENUE] AND [IT A NO.2682/AHD/2009 FOR A.Y. 2004-05 BY ASSESSEE & I TA NO.3625/AHD/2008 FOR A.Y. 2005-06 ASSESSEE] VID E AN ORDER DATED 15.10.2010 HAVE DECIDED THIS VERY ISSUE IN FAVOUR O F THE ASSESSEE. TO EXAMINE THE FACTS OF THE APPEALS IN HAND, WE HAVE P ERUSED THE CORRESPONDING ASSESSMENT ORDERS RESPECTIVELY DATED 12.12.2008 & ITA NOS.1253 & 1254/AHD/2 010 ENVIRO INFRASTRUCTURE CO.LTD. VS. ITO ASST.YEARS 2005-06 & 2006-07 - 3 - 10.11.2008 AND NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY IS P ROMOTED BY GROUP OF 27 INDUSTRIES SITUATED IN PADRA AND JAMBUSAR TALUKA . THE MAIN OBJECTIVE OF THE COMPANY IS TO COLLECT, TREAT AND DISPOSE OF THE EFFLUENT IN THE SYSTEM BELONGING TO ECPL WHICH IS A COMPANY PROMOTE D BY FIVE PUBLIC SECTOR UNDERTAKINGS NAMELY IOCL, IPCL, GSFC, GACK A ND GIDC. ECPL IS A 55 KM LONG CONVEYANCE SYSTEM COLLECTING W ASTEWATER FROM MEMBER INDUSTRIES AND DISPOSING THE SAME AT THE DIS POSAL POINT IN THE SEA. THE AO HAS OBSERVED THAT OUT OF THE TOTAL MEMBERSHI P DUE FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION THE ASSESSEE HAD OFFERED MEMBER SHIP FEES FOR TAX PURPOSES ONLY TO THE EXTENT OF 33.3%. THE NATURE OF BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE IS COLLECTION OF EFFLUENT FROM ITS MEMBER UNITS AND TO TREAT THE EFFLUENT, THEREAFTER DISPOSE OF THE TREATED EFFLUEN T. THE ASSESSEE HAS CHARGED FEES FROM ITS MEMBERS. AS PER AO, THE SAME WAS TO BE TAXED AS TRADING RECEIPT IN THE YEAR OF ACCRUAL AND NOT TO B E SPREAD OVER FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF CIT VS. BAZPUR COOPERATIVE SUGAR FA CTORY LTD. 172 ITR 321 (SC). M THE AO HAS ALSO QUOTED CIT VS. GAJAPAT HY NAIDU (A) (1964) 53 ITR 114(SC) FOR THE LEGAL PROPOSITION THA T CONSIDERING THE METHOD OF ACCOUNTING, I.E. MERCANTILE SYSTEM, T HE ASSESSEE HAD RIGHTLY RECEIVED THE INCOME WHICH HAD ACCRUED DURING THE YE AR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THEREFORE SUBJECT TO TAX IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. 2.1) FOR BOTH THE YEARS, MATTER WAS CARRIED BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, WHO HAS OPINED AS UNDER:- 5. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD.AR AND THE FACTS OF THE CASE. THE ASSESSEE HAS ITSELF TREATED THE C ONTRIBUTION RECOVERED FROM THE CLIENTS AS DEFERRED REVENUE INCO ME SPREAD OUT OVER THREE YEARS. THE PORTION PERTAINING TO THE CU RRENT YEAR HAS BEEN SUO MOTU OFFERED FOR TAXATION BY THE ASSESSEE AS REVENUE ITA NOS.1253 & 1254/AHD/2 010 ENVIRO INFRASTRUCTURE CO.LTD. VS. ITO ASST.YEARS 2005-06 & 2006-07 - 4 - RECEIPT. THE BALANCE PORTION HAS ALSO BEEN OFFERED FOR TAXATION IN THE FOLLOWING TWO YEARS AS REVENUE RECEIPTS. IT IS ONLY AT THE APPELLATE STAGE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED THE R ECEIPT TO BE CAPITAL IN NATURE. THIS CONTENTION IS NOT BORNE OU T BY ANY EVIDENCE. ON THE CONTRARY, THE FACTS POINT TO THE RECEIPT BEING PURELY A REVENUE RECEIPT. THE ASSESSEE ENTERED INT O AGREEMENT WITH ITS CLIENTS FOR PROVISION OF WASTE MANAGEMENT SERVICES INCLUDING TRANSPORTATION, TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL. AS PER THE USERS AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO WITH VARIOUS CLIENTS, THE CH ARGES ARE LEVIED DEPENDING ON THE NUMBER OF TANKERS OF WASTE DISPOSE D OFF. MOREOVER, FROM CLAUSE 17 OF THE SAID AGREEMENT, IT IS SEEN THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS COLLECTED INTEREST-FREE DEPOSI T FROM ITS CLIENTS. IT IS THIS DEPOSIT WHICH IS THE SUBJECT M ATTER OF DISPUTE. ALTHOUGH IT IS CALLED AS DEPOSIT, THE ASSESSEE HAS ITSELF TREATED THE SAME AS REVENUE RECEIPT SPREAD OVER THREE YEARS. T HERE WAS NO INTENTION OF RETURNING THE SO CALLED DEPOSIT. NO REFERENCE HAS BEEN MADE ANYWHERE IN THE AGREEMENT TO THE FACT THA T THE SO CALLED CAPITAL CONTRIBUTION WOULD BE EARMARKED FOR THE PUR CHASE OF CAPITAL GOODS. HAD THAT BEEN SO, IT WOULD PROBABLY HAVE BEEN A CASE OF LOAN OR BORROWING IMPLICITLY. IN THAT EVE NT THE BORROWING OR DEPOSIT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN WRITTEN INTO THE BO OKS AS REVENUE RECEIPT BY THE ASSESSEE. LOOKING TO THE ABOVE FACT S, I AM OF THE OPINION THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RIGHTLY TREA TED THE ENTIRE AMOUNT S REVENUE RECEIPT OF THE YEAR, THIS BEING TH E YEAR OF ACTUAL RECEIPT OF SUCH AMOUNT. ACCORDINGLY, THE ADDITION OF RS.8,92,501/- IS CONFIRMED. 3. IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, WE HAVE E XAMINED THE FACTS OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL CITED SUPRA, WHEREIN IT W AS NOTED AS UNDER:- BY MAKING ONE TIME PAYMENT TO THE ASSESSEE COMPANY THE MEMBERS CAN AVAIL THE FACILITIES OF EFFLUENT DISCHA RGE. SUCH RECEIPT BY ECPL IS SHOWN AS REVENUE RECEIPT BUT ONLY 1/5 TH THEREOF IS OFFERED FOR TAX IN ONE YEAR. IN OTHER WORDS ENTIRE ONE TIME CONTRIBUTION RECEIVED FROM THE MEMBERS AT THE TIME OF THEIR JOINING ITA NOS.1253 & 1254/AHD/2 010 ENVIRO INFRASTRUCTURE CO.LTD. VS. ITO ASST.YEARS 2005-06 & 2006-07 - 5 - IS OFFERED FOR TAX IN FIVE YEARS BEGINNING FROM THE YEAR THEN JOIN THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY TH E ASSESSEE, DECLARING LOSS OF RS.23,23,940/- FOR ASST.YEAR 2001 -02 WAS ACCEPTED UNDER SECTION 143(1). SUBSEQUENTLY THIS A SSESSMENT WAS REOPENED UNDER SECTION 147/148(1) FOR TAXING ENTIRE CAPITAL CONTRIBUTION MADE BY NEW MEMBERS JOINING THE ASSESS EE COMPANY IN THE YEAR OF RECEIPT. IT WAS NOTED BY THE AO TH AT DURING THIS YEAR TWO INDUSTRIES HAD JOINED ASSESSEE COMPANY AS MEMBE RS. 3.1. THE RESPECTED CO-ORDINATE BENCH HAS CITED FOLL OWING DECISIONS:- (I) TREASURE ISLAND RESORTS (P) LTD. VS. DCIT (200 4) 84 TTJ (HYD) 820 (II)T.K. INTERNATIONAL LTD. VS. ACIT (2004) 91 ITD 481 (CUTTAK) (III) ACIT VS. MAHINDRA HOLIDAYS & RESORTS (INDI) LTD. (2010) 131 TTJ (CHENNAI) (SB) 3.2. AFTER DETAILED DISCUSSION, THE FINDINGS WERE A S UNDER, RELEVANT PORTION IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER:- 10. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND P ERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. SO FAR AS THE FACTS ARE CONCER NED THERE IS NO DISPUTE. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS ENTIRELY SET UP F OR ENABLING MEMBER INDUSTRIES TO DISCHARGE THEIR EFFLUENTS IN T HE GULF OF CAMBAY. ON THE BASIS OF QUANTITY OF ANNUAL EFFLUEN T EMISSION, A MEMBER PAYS CAPITAL CONTRIBUTION TO THE ASSESSEE CO MPANY WHICH IS TREATED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AS REVENUE RECEI PT BUT IT DEFERRED FOR BEING TAXED OVER A PERIOD OF FIVE YEAR S AND THUS OFFERING FOR TAX ONLY 1/5 TH THEREOF AND REST 4/5 TH IN ENSUING FOUR YEARS. THE REVENUE INTENDS TO TAX THE ENTIRE RECEI PT IN THE YEAR OF RECEIPT ON THE GROUND THAT CONCEPT OF DEFERRING REV ENUE RECEIPT IS ALIEN TO INCOME-TAX ACT AND SECTIONS 4,5 & 9 DO NOT PROVIDE FOR SUCH DEFERMENT. HOW3EVER, THE SPECIAL BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL, CHENNAI IN ACIT VS. MAHINDRA HOLIDAYS & RESORTS (IN DIA) LTD. ITA NOS.1253 & 1254/AHD/2 010 ENVIRO INFRASTRUCTURE CO.LTD. VS. ITO ASST.YEARS 2005-06 & 2006-07 - 6 - (SUPRA) HAS CONSIDERED THE ISSUE IN GREAT LENGTH. IN THAT CASE ADMISSION SHARE MEMBERSHIP FEES WAS RECEIVABLE FROM THE NEW MEMBERS AT THE TIME OF THEIR ENTRY OR ENROLMENT. T HE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAD OFFERED 40% OF SUCH RECEIPTS IN THREE I NITIAL YEARS AND 60% IN REMAINING YEARS OUT OF THE LIFE TIME OF MEMBERSHIP. GENERAL MEMBERSHIP WAS FOR 33 YEARS BUT IN THAT CAS E IT WAS REDUCED TO 25 YEARS AND THEREFORE, 60% OF MEMBERSHI P FEES WAS SOUGHT TO BE OFFERED FOR TAX IN LAST 22 YEARS WHERE AS 40% WAS OFFERED TO BE TAXED IN FIRST THREE YEARS. REVENUE SOUGHT TO TAX ENTIRE RECEIPT IN THE YEAR OF RECEIPT. HON.SPECIAL BENCH REFERRED TO THE DECISION OF HON.SUPREME COURT IN E.D. SASSOON & CO.LTD. VS. CIT (1954) 26 ITR 27 (SC) AND REFERRED TO OBSERVATI ON OF THEIR LORDSHIPS ON PAGE 52 OF 26 ITR, WHEREIN THE HON.APE X COURT OBSERVED THAT UNLESS AND UNTIL MANAGING AGENTS COMP LETE THEIR PERFORMANCE. VIZ., THE COMPLETION OF THE DEFINITE PERIOD OF SERVICE OF A YEAR WHICH WAS A CONDITION PRECEDENT TO THEIR BEING ENTITLED TO RECEIVE THE REMUNERATION OR COMMISSION STIPULATED T HEREUNDER, NO DEBT PAYABLE BY THE COMPANIES WAS CREATED IN THEIR FAVOUR AND THEY HAD NO RIGHT TO RECEIVE ANY PAYMENT FROM THE C OMPANIES. THUS NO REMUNERATION OR COMMISSION COULD THEREFORE BE SAID TO HAVE ACCRUED T THEM AT THE DATES OF THE RESPECTIVE TRANSFERS. THUS UNLESS AND UNTIL THE AGENTS EARN THEIR COMMISSION I T WILL NOT ACCRUE TO THEM. . . ANOTHER POINT WHICH WAS MADE OUT BY THE SPECI AL BENCH WAS THAT THE INCOME DOES NOT ACCRUE MERELY ON SIGNI NG OF THE AGREEMENT FOR ENROLLING AS A MEMBER. THERE IS A CO NTINUING LIABILITY ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE NOT ONLY TO P ROVIDE ACCOMMODATION BUT ALSO TO PROVIDE OTHER INCIDENTAL SERVICES ATTACHED WITH THE ACCOMMODATION. HON.SPECIAL BENCH THEN REFERRED TO THE DECISION OF HON.SUPREME COURT IN TH E CASE OF ROTORK CONTROLS INDIA (P) LTD. VS. CIT 314 ITR 62 ( SC) WHEREIN IT IS OBSERVED THAT LIABILITY IS DEFINED AS A PRESENT OBLIGATION ARISING FROM PAST EVENTS, THE SETTLEMENT OF WHICH IS EXPECT ED TO RESULT IN AN OUTFLOW FROM THE ENTERPRISE OF RESOURCES EMBODYING ECONOMIC BENEFITS. IT WAS FURTHER OBSERVED THAT A PAST EVEN T THAT LEADS TO A PRESENT OBLIGATIONS CALLED AS AN OBLIGATING EVENT. THE OBLIGATING EVENT IS AN EVENT THAT CREATES AN OBLIGATION WHICH RESULTS IN AN OUTFLOW OF RESOURCES. IT ALSO OBSERVED THAT FOR A LIABILITY TO QUALIFY FOR RECOGNITION THERE MUST BE NOT ONLY PRESENT OBLI GATION BUT ALSO THE PROBABILITY OF AN OUTFLOW OF RESOURCES TO SETTL E THAT OBLIGATION. ITA NOS.1253 & 1254/AHD/2 010 ENVIRO INFRASTRUCTURE CO.LTD. VS. ITO ASST.YEARS 2005-06 & 2006-07 - 7 - FROM THIS OBSERVATION OF APEX COURT IT WAS OBSERVED THAT THERE IS A DEFINITE LIABILITY CAST ON THE ASSESSEE TO FULFIL L ITS PROMISE I.E. TO CONTINUE TO PROVIDE FACILITIES TO MEMBERS AND, THER EFORE, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT ENTIRE FEE RECEIVED FROM THE NEW ENROL LED MEMBERS HAD ACCRUED AS INCOME IN THE YEAR OF RECEIPT.. .. THUS A CLEAR RIGHT IS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE CO MPANY TO THE MEMBERS TO UTILIZE ITS CAPITAL FACILITIES FOR A PER IOD OF 99 YEARS FOR DISCHARGE OF AGREE QUANTITIES OF EFFLUENT. IN OTHE R WORDS, ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS TO PERFORM ITS PART OF OBLIGATION FOR N EXT 99 YEARS AND TO KEEP THE CAPITAL SET UP INTACT AND ALLOW THE USE THEREOF BY THE MEMBERS. THIS IS AKIN TO HIRING THE CAPITAL ST RUCTURE OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY FOR THE NEXT 99 YEARS BY MAKING ON E TIME HIRING CHARGES. SINCE THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS TO ENSURE USE OF CAPITAL STRUCTURE BY THE MEMBERS DURING THE TERM OF AGREEME NT, IT IS BOUND TO DISCHARGE ITS OBLIGATION IN FUTURE. THUS ONE TI ME MEMBERSHIP FEE IS NOT IN FACT IN RETURN FOR ANY OBLIGATION OR SERVICES RENDERED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ONE YEAR. IT IS A RECEIPT IN AD VANCE FOR AN OBLIGATION TO BE RENDERED IN FUTURE. THUS IT CANNO T BE SAID THAT INCOME HAS ACTUALLY ACCRUED TO THE ASSESSEE IN ONE YEAR EVEN THOUGH IT MIGHT HAVE RECEIVED IT IN ONE YEAR. MERE LY RECEIPT DOES NOT ENSURE ACCRUAL UNLESS EQUIVALENT PART OF AGREED SERVICES BY THE RECEIVER IS RENDERED. IN FACT BY PAYING ONE TIME F EES A PART OF DEBT IS CREATED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE WHICH HAS TO BE DIS CHARGED BY MEETING EQUIVALENT OBLIGATION IN THE FORM OF CONTIN UING TO PROVIDE USE OF THE CAPITAL STRUCTURE FOR EFFICIENT DISCHARG E OF EFFLUENT EMITTED BY MEMBER-INDUSTRIES. EVEN ACCOUNTING STAN DARD-9 PROVIDES SUCH DEFERRING OF REVENUE FOR TAXATION. A CCOUNTING STANDARD 9 HAS BEEN REFERRED ABOVE AND PARA 6 THERE OF IT S RELEVANT. 13. FOLLOWING THE ABOVE DECISION OF SPECIAL BENCH IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS. MAHINDRA HOLIDAYS & RESORTS (INDIA) LTD . (SUPRA) WE HOLD THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS JUSTIFIED IN DEFERRING T HE REVENUE FOR TAXATION FOR FOUR YEARS. ACCORDINGLY THIS GROUND O F ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 4. ONCE ON IDENTICAL FACTS, I.E. RECEIPTS COLLECTE D FROM MEMBERS, WHO ARE RUNNING INDUSTRIES HENCE GENERATING EFFLUENT AN D FOR TREATMENT OF THE ITA NOS.1253 & 1254/AHD/2 010 ENVIRO INFRASTRUCTURE CO.LTD. VS. ITO ASST.YEARS 2005-06 & 2006-07 - 8 - EFFLUENT FEES IS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE, THEN THE FEES COLLECTED OR ACCRUED TO BE DEFERRED FOR TAXATION PURPOSE ON THE LEGAL GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO DISCHARGE ITS OBLIGATION O F TREATMENT OF EFFLUENT IN FUTURE. HENCE RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISI ONS CITED HEREINABOVE, WE HEREBY REVERSE THE FINDINGS OF THE AUTHORITIES B ELOW AND DIRECT TO ALLOW THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN BOTH THE APPEALS ARE HEREBY ALLOWED. 5. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED. SD/- SD/- ( ! '# ) ( ) $% ( ANIL CHATURVEDI ) ( MUKU L KR. SHRAWAT ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 21/ 01 /2013 6..!, .!../ T.C. NAIR, SR. PS $5 1 .7 8$7) $5 1 .7 8$7) $5 1 .7 8$7) $5 1 .7 8$7)/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. *- / THE APPELLANT 2. ./*- / THE RESPONDENT. 3. 9 / CONCERNED CIT 4. 9() / THE CIT(A)-I, BARODA 5. 7<= .! , , / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. = >2 / GUARD FILE. $5! $5! $5! $5! / BY ORDER, /7 . //TRUE COPY// ? ?? ?/ // / + + + + ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , , , , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD