Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Pune V. Pharande Promoters & Builders, Pune

ITA 1279/PUN/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7665 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 7 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-04-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 12-04-2018
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 16-09-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: S C BATHI A
• Keywords: Business expenditure; Opportunity of being heard; Revenue expenditure

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH A, PUNE . , , BEFORE SHRI D.KARUNAKARA RAO, AM AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM . / ITA NO.1161/PUN/2015 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11 M/S. PHARANDE PROMOTERS AND BUILDERS, 98/2, GURUVIHAR, TARANGAN APARTMENTS, PUNE NASHIK ROAD, BHOSARI, PUNE 411 039 PAN : AAHFP9748F . /APPELLANT VS. ADDL.CIT, RANGE-8, PUNE . / RESPONDENT . / ITA NO.1279/PUN/2015 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11 DCIT, CIRCLE-8, PUNE . /APPELLANT VS. M/S. PHARANDE PROMOTERS AND BUILDERS, 98/2, GURUVIHAR, TARANGAN APARTMENTS, PUNE NASHIK ROAD, BHOSARI, PUNE 411 039 PAN : AAHFP9748F . / RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI KISHOR PHADKE & SHRI S.C. BATHI A REVENUE BY : SHRI ACHAL SHARMA / DATE OF HEARING : 12.04.2018 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 18.04.2018 / ORDER PER D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM : THESE ARE THE CROSS APPEALS FILED BY THE PARTIES AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A)-6, PUNE, DATED 12-06-2015 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2 010-11. 2 2. BRIEFLY STATED RELEVANT FACTS ARE THAT ASSESSEE IS A BUILDER AND DEVELOPER AND DEVELOPED TWO PROJECTS NAMED CULTURE CR EST AND WOODSVILLE. THE CULTURE CREST HAS TWO UNITS AND PROFIT S OF ONE UNIT IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S.80IB(10) OF THE ACT. THE OTHER PART IS A NON-80IB(10) UNIT. DURING THE SCRUTINY PROCEEDINGS, AO EXA MINED THE FACTS RELATING TO THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S.80IB(10) OF THE A CT AND THE CONTENTS OF PARA NO.5 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ARE RELEV ANT. RELEVANT FACTS INCLUDE THAT THERE ARE 3 ADJACENT PLOTS AND ALL OF THEM ARE PART AND PARCEL OF THE PROJECT. THE HOUSING PROJECT INCLUDES THE MERGER OF THE SAID 3 ADJACENT PLOTS OF LAND AND DEVELOPED ROW HOUS ES IN IT. ON ONE OF THE 3 PLOTS, SRI DEVIDAS MANE DEVELOPED A BUNGALOW MARKED BUILDING C WITH BUILT UP AREA OF 199.63 SQ. MTRS. ON FINDIN G THAT THE SAID BUNGALOWS BUILT UP EXCEEDED THE PERMITTED AREA OF 1500 SQ.FTS., AO DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S.80IB(10) OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF THE ENTIRE PROFITS OF RS.45,61,566/-. AO FAILED TO APPRECIA TE THAT THE PROFITS ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE SAID BUNGLOW WERE NEVER CONSID ERED FOR CLAIM OF DEDUCTION. FURTHER, AO MADE OTHER DISALLOWANCES INVOLVING ADVERTISEMENT CHARGES AMOUNTING TO RS.1,48,55,493/-. EVEN TUALLY, WITH OTHER ADDITIONS, ASSESSED INCOME IS DETERMINED AT RS.3,47,47,252/-. 3. IN THE FIRST APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, ASSESSEE DEMONSTR ATED THE FACT THAT THE SAID BUILDING C IS NOT INTEGRAL PART OF THE HOUS ING PROJECT AND THE RELEVANT PROFITS ARE NOT CONSIDERED AND THEREFORE, TH E CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S.80IB(10) SHOULD NOT BE DISALLOWED ON THE EN TIRE PROJECTS OF THE HOUSING PROJECT. CIT(A) CONSIDERED THE SAME AND GRANTED RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE. FURTHER, ON THE ISSUE OF ADVERTISEMENT EX PENSES, THE CIT(A) HELD THAT THE ADVERTISEMENT EXPENSES ARE NOT TO BE ALLOWED FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. ACCORDINGLY, HE NOT ONLY APPROVED THE 3 ADDITION OF RS.1,48,55,493/- AS DISALLOWED BY THE AO BUT ALSO ENHANCED THE DISALLOWANCE BY A SUM OF RS.3,35,57,953/-. THIS WAS ACT UALLY TAKEN INTO THE BALANCE SHEET BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE BO OKS OF ACCOUNT. RELEVANT DISCUSSION IS GIVEN IN PARA NOS. 4 TO 10 OF THE O RDER OF CIT(A). ACCORDINGLY, THE CIT(A) PARTLY ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE A SSESSEE. AGGRIEVED WITH THE ABOVE ORDER OF CIT(A) BOTH THE REVENU E AND THE ASSESSEE FILED THE GROUNDS BEFORE US. WE SHALL TAKE UP THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE FIRST. ITA NO.1279/PUN/2015 BY REVENUE A.Y. 2010-11 4. GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE ARE AS UNDER : '1. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN L AW THE L D. CIT(A) WAS CORRECT IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON . THE ASSESSEE ' S CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 801B(10) THE INCOME TAX ACT . ' ? 2. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN GRANTING THE ASSESSEE ' S CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 80IB(10) OF THE I.T . ACT, 1961 BY CONSIDERING THE BUNGALOW 'C ' A R EA S I TUATED ON THE PLOT AS SEPARATE AND DISTINCT FROM 80 LB PROJECT . ' ? 3. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE , THE LD. CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN GRANTING THE ASSESSEE'S CLA IM OF DEDUCT I ON U/S 801B(10) OF THE I.T . ACT, 1961 BY EXCLUDING THE AREA OF BUNGALOW 'C ' , WHEN THE SAME I S PART OF THE APPROVED PLAN IN RESPECT OF PROJECT C ALLED ' CULTURE CREST' ? 4. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN GRANTING THE ASSESSEE'S CLA I M OF DEDUCTION U/S 80IB(10) OF THE I.T . ACT 1961 WHEN LAW RELATING TO BENEFIT TO BE GIVEN U /S 801B(10) CLEARLY SAYS THAT THE PROJECT AS A WHOLE I S TO BE CONSIDERED FOR FULFILMENT OF VARIOUS CONDITIONS PRESCRIBED THEREIN ' ? 5. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE GROUND, WHETHER O N THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD . CIT(A) WAS JUST I FIED IN GRANTING THE ASSESSEE'S CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S . 80IB(10) OF THE ACT WITHOUT GIVING OPPORTUNITY TO THE AO TO VERIFY THE FACT THAT, IF T HE BUNGLOW I S EXCLUDED FROM THE PROJECT AREA, WHETHER THE AREA OF THE PROJ ECT FULFILLS THE COND I TIONS LAID DOWN U/S. 80IB(10) OF THE ACT? 6. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND OR ALTE R ANY OF THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL . THE ONLY ISSUE RAISED IN THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE RELAT ES TO THE DECISION OF CIT(A) WHO DIRECTED THE AO TO GRANT THE CLAIM O F DEDUCTION 4 U/S.80IB(10) OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF CULTURE CREST WHICH INVOLVES THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDING C. 5. RELEVANT FACTS AS WELL AS ASSESSEES SUBMISSION IN THIS REGARD WERE PROVIDED IN PARA NO.13 OF THE ORDER OF CIT(A). AS PER THE CONTENTS OF OPERATIONAL PARA NO.15 OF THE ORDER, THE CIT(A) CONSIDERE D THE FACT THAT THE SAID BUILDING C IS PART OF THE HOUSING PROJEC T AND IT WAS CONSTRUCTED BY SHRI DEVIDAS MANE, WHO IS A CONSENTING PA RTY AND FURTHER, THE PROFITS ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE SAID BUILDING WAS N EVER CLAIMED AS A PART OF THE ELIGIBLE PROFITS. ACCORDINGLY, THE CIT(A) DIR ECTED THE AO TO GRANT THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION IN RESPECT OF THE SAID PRO FITS OF RS.45,61,566/-. CIT(A) HELD THAT THE OTHER CONDITIONS RELATIN G TO ONE ACRE STAND FULFILLED EVEN WITHOUT INCLUDING THE AREA MEANT FOR BUNGLOW C IN QUESTION. 6. ON HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES ON THIS LIMITED ISSUE, WE FIN D THE ASSESSEE NEVER CLAIMED DEDUCTION ON THE PROFITS RELATED T O THE SAID BUILDING C. THE CONTENTS OF PARA NO.15 OF THE ORDER OF CIT(A) WHICH ARE EXTRACTED HERE AS UNDER : 15. I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE C ASE AS WELL AS REPLY OF THE APPELLANT. THE APPELLANT HAS CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S.80IB(10) OF INCOME-TAX ACT IN RESPECT OF PROJECT CALLED CULTURE CREST CONSISTING OF 3 ADJACENT PLOTS AND THE DISPUTE PERTAINS TO BUNGLOW MARKED AS C OF THE APPROVAL PLAN, AREA OF WHICH WAS MORE THAN 1500 SQ. FT. THIS PLOT WAS GIVEN TO SHRI DEVIDAS S. MANE, THE CONSENTING PARTY WHEN THE PLOT NO.1 WAS PURCHASED FROM LAXMAN D. SASTE AND OTHERS ON 15 -03-2004. THE APPELLANT CLAIMS THAT THOUGH BUNGLOW C IS PART OF THE LAYOUT, THE SAME WAS CONSTRUCTED BY SHRI MANE ON HIS OWN AND THE APPELLANT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH CONSTRUCTION OF THIS BUNGLOW. THIS BEING SO, THE STAND OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT BUNGLOW IS PART OF THE PROJECT IS TOO TECHNICAL AND DEVOID OF PRACTICAL REALITY. FURTHER, EVEN IF AREA OF BUNGLOW C IS EXCLUDED, THE AREA OF THE PL OT ON WHICH THE PROJECT NAMED AS CULTURE CREST IS CONSTRUCTED IS MORE THA N ONE ACRE. THEREFORE, CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF FACTS, IT IS HELD THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DENYING DEDUCTION U/S. 80IB(10) OF INCOME-TAX ACT ON THIS GROUND. ACCORDINGLY, HE IS DIRECTED TO DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS.45,61,566/-. THUS, THE GROUND IS ALLOWED. 5 7. FROM THE ABOVE, IT IS UNDISPUTED FACT THAT BUNGLOW C IS OWNED BY SHRI DEVIDAS MANE, A CONSENTING PARTY AND THE PROFITS ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE SAME ARE NOT CLAIMED AS DEDUCTIBLE FOR THE PURPOSE O F SECTION 80IB(10) OF THE ACT. THE CONDITIONS SPECIFIED IN THE SAID SEC TION ARE FULFILLED EVEN WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE AREA MEANT FOR THE SAI D BUNGLOW C. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE UNDISPUTED FACTS, WE ARE OF TH E OPINION THAT THE ORDER OF CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE IS FAIR AND REASONABLE AN D DOES NOT CALL FOR ANY INTERFERENCE. ACCORDINGLY, THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. 8. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ITA NO.1161/PUN/2015 BY ASSESSEE A.Y.2010-11 9. GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE AS UNDER : 1. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN L AW, WHILE DEALING WITH THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT ASSESSEE RE GARDING THE ADVERTISEMENT EXPENSES, THE LD.CIT(A) HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THERE IS NO ESTOPPELS IN TAXATION AND THE ACCOUNTING ENTR IES ARE NOT RELEVANT FOR COMPUTATION OF INCOME WHICH IS TO BE COMPUTED AS PE R PROVISIONS OF LAW. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES THE LD.CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE AL LOWED THE ENTIRE ADVERTISEMENT EXPENSES OF RS.3,35,57,954.00 PERTAINING TO WOODSVILLE PROJECT. THE SAID CLAIM MAY PLEASE BE ALLOWED. 2. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND I N LAW, IT MAY PLEASE BE HELD THAT THE TRAVELLING EXPENSES AMOUNTING TO RS.36,314.00 INCURRED BY THE APPELLANT ON ACCOUNT OF TRAVEL OF A CCOMPANYING LADY MEMBERS OF PHARANDE FAMILY TO GOA WITH SENIOR PARTN ER MR. RAJENDRA J. PHARANDE TO TAKE CARE OF HIS ILL HEALTH DURING HIS BUSINESS TOUR TO GOA IS AN ALLOWABLE BUSINESS EXPENDITURE HAVING NO INSTINC T OF PERSONAL ELEMENT AND HENCE THE SAME MAY PLEASE BE ALLOWED. 3. THE APPELLANT CRAVES THE PERMISSION TO ADD, AMEN D, MODIFY, ALTER, REVISE, SUBSTITUTE, DELETE ANY OR ALL GROUNDS OF AP PEAL. IF DEEMED NECESSARY AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL. ASSESSEE FILED THE ABOVE 3 GROUNDS RAISING COUPLE OF ISSUES NAMELY, THE ALLOWABILITY OF ADVERTISEMENT EXPENSES AND ALLOW ABILITY OF TRAVELLING EXPENSES. 6 10. SUBSEQUENTLY, ASSESSEE FILED THE FOLLOWING REVISED GROUN DS AND THE SAME ARE EXTRACTED HERE AS UNDER : 1. THE LEARNED CLT(A)-1, PUNE ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACT S, IN NOT ALLOWING DEDUCTION OF ADVERTISEMENT EXPENDITURE OF RS. 3,35,57,954 PERTAINING TO WOODSVILLE PROJECT, ON THE ANALOGY TH AT, 'NO SALES HAVE BEEN SHOWN IN THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL. ' 2. THE LEARNED CIT(A)-1, PUNE ERRED IN LAW AND ON F ACTS IN SUSTAINING THE LEARNED AO'S DISALLOWANCE OF ADVERTISEMENT EXPE NDITURE OF RS. 1,48,55,493 DEBITED TO P&L & CLAIMED AS EXPENDITURE (OUT OF TOTAL CLAIM OF RS. 3,35,57,954) PERTAINING TO THE WOODSVILLE PR OJECT ON THE ANALOGY THAT, 'NO REVENUE OF THE SAID PROJECT IS AC CRUED DURING THE YEAR' . 3. THE LEARNED CIT(A)-1, PUNE ERRED IN LAW AND ON F ACTS IS NOT ALLOWING DEDUCTION OF ADVERTISEMENT EXPENDITURE OF RS. 1,87,02,011 AS A REVENUE EXPENDITURE, THOUGH INADVERTENTLY CAPITALIZ ED & GROUPED UNDER PROJECT-WIP IN THE RETURN OF INCOME' (OUT OF TOTAL CLAIM OF RS. 3,35,57,954) PERTAINING TO THE WOODSVILLE PROJECT ON THE ANALOGY THAT, 'NO REVENUE OF THE SAID PROJECT IS ACCRUED DURING THE YEAR' . 4. THE LEARNED I-T AUTHORITIES ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN NOT APPRECIATING THAT, ADVERTISEMENT EXPENDITURE IS A P ART OF SELLING COST / INDIRECT COST, AND AS SUCH, THE SAME OUGHT NOT TO B E TREATED AS A PROJECT WIP, CONSIDERING THAT THE APPELLANT'S REALTY BUSINE SS IS AN ONGOING FOR MANY YEARS IN PAST. 5. THE LEARNED CITAA) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN RAISING DOUBT ABOUT GENUINENESS OF ADVERTISEMENT EXPENSES, DESPIT E FURNISHING OF DETAILS BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) AND DESPITE THE F ACT THAT, THE LEARNED AO WAS SATISFIED ABOUT THE GENUINENESS OF THE SAME. 6. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ABOVE GROUNDS, THE LEARNED CIT(A)-1, PUNE ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN NOT PERMITTING CAPITAL IZATION OF THE ADVERTISEMENT EXPENSES ON THE WOODSVILLE PROJECT WI P. 7. APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD / DELETE / ALTER / MODIFY ALL / ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. IT IS EVIDENT FROM THE ABOVE THAT THE GROUND NO.2 RELATING TO TRAVELLING EXPENSES RAISED IN ORIGINAL GROUNDS WAS NOT PRESSED IN THE REVISED GROUNDS AND THEREFORE, THE ORIGINAL GROUND NO.2 IS DISMISSED . THUS, THE REVISED GROUNDS RELATING TO GROUND NO.1 OF TH E ORIGINAL GROUND NOS. 1 TO 6 AND THEY ARE BEING ADJUDICAT ED COMPOSITELY IN THE FOLLOWING PARAGRAPHS. 7 11. ADVERTISEMENT EXPENSES : BRIEFLY STATED RELEVANT FACTS OF THIS ISSUE INCLUDE THAT THE ASSESSEE INCURRED TOTAL EXPENDIT URE OF RS.3,35,57,954/- ON ACCOUNT OF ADVERTISEMENT EXPENSES. TH ESE EXPENSES RELATE TO THE WOODSVILLE PROJECT. THE SALE TRAN SACTIONS OF THESE PROJECTS ARE YET TO BEGIN AND THE SAME IS EVIDENT FROM THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE NEITHER EFFECTED ANY SALES NOR RECOGNISED ANY IN COME RELATING TO IT. ON PROPORTIONATE BASIS, ASSESSEE DEBITED IN THE PR OFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT, FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ADVERTISEM ENT EXPENSES TO THE EXTENT OF RS.1,48,55,493/-. THE BALANCE OF RS.1,87,02,0 11/- WAS TAKEN TO THE BALANCE SHEET FOR CAPITALISATION IN THE SUBSE QUENT PERIODS. AO RESTRICTED THE DISALLOWANCE TO THE EXTENT OF RS.1,48,55,4 93/- CLAIMED IN PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT. HOWEVER, IN THE FIRST AP PELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE CIT(A) DISALLOWED THE ENTIRE SUM OF RS.3,35,5 7,954/- ENHANCING THE ASSESSMENT. AGGRIEVED WITH THE SAME, ASSE SSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US WITH THE GROUNDS/REVISED GROUNDS. 12. AT THE OUTSET, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THIS ISSUE NEEDS TO REVISIT THE FILE OF CIT(A) FOR FRESH ADJUDICATIO N IN THE LIGHT OF THE LEGAL GROUNDS RAISED IN THE REVISED GROUNDS OF APPE AL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. HE SUBMITTED THAT ADJUDICATION BY THE CIT(A) IN THE FIRST ROUND WAS NOT SPECIFIC TO THE SAID REVISED GROUNDS RAISE D BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. FAIRLY REFERRING TO THE REVISED GROUNDS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, LD. COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS ABSENCE OF SPECIFIC ADJ UDICATION BY THE CIT TO THE ISSUES SPECIFICALLY RAISED IN THE SAID REVISE D GROUNDS. AS PER THE LD. COUNSEL, DESPITE FILING OF VOLUMINOUS PAPERS/SUBMIS SIONS BEFORE THE CIT(A), THERE IS NO SPECIFIC ADJUDICATION REFERRING TO THE PLETHORA OF DECISIONS IN EXISTENCE AND ALSO HAVING REGARD T O THE ACCOUNTING STANDARDS AND GUIDANCE NOTES FOR THE PROJEC TS RELATING TO THE REAL ESTATE. FURTHER, HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ADVERT ISEMENT 8 EXPENDITURE CAN NEVER BE CAPITALIZED AS PER THE ACCOUNT ING WISDOM REFLECTED IN AS-2, AS-7 AND GUIDANCE NOTES OF ICAI RELATING TO THE REAL ESTATE BUSINESS. THERE IS A REQUIREMENT OF CLAIM OF ENTIRE ADVERTISEMENT EXPENDITURE OF RS.3.35 CRORES (ROUNDED OFF) IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND THEREFORE, THE CIT ERRED IN DENY ING CLAIM OF ADVERTISEMENT EXPENSES IN ITS ENTIRETY WITHOUT REGARDING ACCOUNTING STANDARDS IN QUESTION AS WELL AS THE SUPREME COURT JUD GMENT IN THE CASE OF KEDARNATH JUTE MFG. CO LTD. V. CIT 82 ITR 363. FURTHER, LD. COUNSEL FILED DETAILED SUBMISSIONS AGAINST EACH OF THE REVISED GROUNDS RAISED BEFORE US AND RELIED ON VARIOUS DECISIONS. HE ALSO N ARRATED THE ACCOUNTING STANDARDS-5 AND 7 AND OTHER GUIDANCE NOTES . ASSESSEE ALSO REFERRED TO THE METHODS OF ACCOUNTING TO BE GRANTED BY THE CIT(A) IN THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS. FINALLY, ASSESSEE MADE THE FOLLOWING PR AYER IN WRITING BEFORE US : PRAYER CONSIDERING THE ABOVE FACT, APPELLANT PRA YS THAT, PRINCIPLE ISSUE OF YEAR OF DEDUCTION, I.E. AY 2010-11 BE DECIDED BY THE HONOURABLE ITAT BENCH, WITH SUITABLE DIRECTION TO ENSURE THAT, NO D OUBLE DEDUCTION TAKES PLACE AND NECESSARY VERIFICATION/QUANTIFICATION BE CARRIED OUT BY THE LD. AO/CIT(A). IF THE APPEAL GETS SO DECIDED, APPELLAN T WILL BE HIGHLY OBLIGED AND GRATEFUL TO THE HONOURABLE ITAT BENCH. 13. ON HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES, WE FIND THE ASSERTIONS MA DE BY THE ASSESSEES COUNSEL IN THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS REQUIRES THE ATTENTION OF THE CIT(A) IN THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS. ACCORDINGLY, AFTER HEARING THE LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE, WE PROCEED TO REMAND THE ENTIRE GROUND NO.1 ALONG WITH REVISED GROUNDS 1 TO 6 FILED BY THE ASSESSEE B EFORE US. AO SHALL GRANT REASONABLY OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, THE REVISED GROUNDS/ORIGINAL GROUNDS RAISED B Y THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 14. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR ST ATISTICAL PURPOSES. 9 15. TO SUM UP, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED AND APPE AL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 18 TH DAY OF APRIL, 2018. SD/- SD/- (VIKAS AWASTHY) (D. KARUNAKARA RAO) /JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PUNE; DATED : 18 TH APRIL, 2018 / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : / BY ORDER, //TRUE COPY// //TRUE COPY// SENIOR PRI VATE SECRETARY , / ITAT, PUNE 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A)-6, PUNE 4. CIT-6, PUNE 5. , , A BENCH PUNE; 6. / GUARD FILE.