The Mula Pravara Electric Co. Op. Society Ltd., Ahmednagar V. DCIT, Ahmednagar Circle, Ahmednagar

ITA 1309/PUN/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9695 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 10 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-09-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 17-07-2012
• Assessment Year: 2002-2003
• Appeal Filed On: 25-10-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S K SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: S N DOSHI
• Keywords: Cost of acquisition; Revised return
• Section: 154

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH B , PUNE BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI R.S. PADVEKAR JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 1309/PN/2010 (ASSTT. YEAR : 2002-03) THE MULA PRAVARA ELECTRIC CO-OP.SOCIETY LTD.,.. APPELLANT BELAPUR ROAD, SHRIRAMPUR, TAL. SHRIRAMPUR, DIST. AHMEDNAGAR PAN : AAAAT3309A V. DCIT, AHMEDNAGAR CIRCLE RESPONDENT AHMEDNAGAR APPELLANT BY : SHRI S.N. DOSHI RESPONDENT BY : SHRI S.K. SINGH DATE OF HEARING : 17/07/12 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 17- 9-12 ORDER PER R.S. PADVEKAR, JM IN THIS APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE IM PUGNED ORDER OF THE LD CIT(A) -I, PUNE, DATED 29.7.2010 FOR THE A. Y. 2002-03 AND THIS APPEAL IS ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE A. O. U/S. 154 OF THE ACT. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN THE FOLLOWING EFFECTIVE G ROUND : 1) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN NOT CARRYING OUT THE RECTIFICATION OF REDU CING THE TOTAL WAIVER OF RS. 5,41,80,37,753/- GRANTED BY MSEB IN THE TARIFF BY RS. 36,89,91,983/- WHICH WAIVER IS ALREADY CONSIDERED IN THE A.Y.2000- 01 3. THE FACTS REVEAL FROM THE RECORD ARE AS UNDER. THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY RECEIVED ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION LICENSE F ROM THE GOVT. OF MAHARASHTRA IN MARCH, 1971. THE RETURN OF INCOME F OR THE A.Y. 2002-03 WAS FILED DECLARING A LOSS OF RS.59,61,16,520/-. IT WAS NOTICED BY THE A.O THAT DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002- 03, THE ASSESSEE HAD OBTAINED BENEFIT IN RESPECT O F THE LIABILITY OWED TO MAHARASHTRA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD (MSEB) BY WAY OF REMISSION OF POWER TARIFF ARREARS TO THE EXTENT OF RS.541.80 CRORES WHICH WERE PERTAINING TO 2 ITA NO.1309/PN/2010 THE MULA PRAVARA ELECTRIC CO-OP. SOCIETY LTD. A.Y. 2002-03 THE PERIOD FROM APRIL 1977 TO APRIL 2000. CONSEQUEN CET TO WHICH, THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED REVISED RETURNS FOR THE ASSESSM ENT YEARS 1995-96 TO 2001-02. THE A.O MADE THE ADDITION IN A.Y. 2002-03 EVOKING SEC. 41(1) TO THE EXTENT OF RS.541,80,37,753/- TOWARDS THE BE NEFIT OF THE REMISSION OF THE LIABILITY BY THE MSEB. THE SAID ADDITION IS THE SUBJECT MATTER OF LITIGATION AND NOW PENDING BEFORE THE ITAT, PUNE. SO FAR AS THE PRESENT APPEAL IS CONCERNED, THE ONLY LIMITED PLEA OF THE A SSESSEE IS THAT TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 36,89,91,983/- OUT OF THE TOTAL AMOUN T WAIVED BY THE MSEB WAS ALREADY BROUGHT TO TAX IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01 AND HENCE, THE SAID PART OF THAT WAIVER AMOUNT SHOULD BE EXCLU DED FROM THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF WAIVER OF RS.541,80,37,753/- WHICH ADDITI ON IS MADE IN A.Y. 2002-03. 4. IN THE ORDER PASSED U/S. 154 DATED 17.5.2010, T HE A.O. REJECTED THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT TO THE EXTENT O F RS.36,89,91,983/- OUT OF RS. 541,80,37,753/- HAVE BEEN OFFERED FOR TA X IN THE A.Y. 2000-01. THE A.O HAS OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE CANNOT PASS AN ENTRY IN HIS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT PRIOR TO THE RECEIPT OF COMMUNICAT ION. HE HAS FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT ESTABLISHED THAT RS. 36,89,91,983/- WAS A PART OF THE TOTAL AMOUNT WAIVED. HE HAS ALSO OBSERVED THAT THE ISSUE-WISE BREAK-UP OF SETTLEMENT ARREARS FILED IN THE FORM OF CHART, THERE IS ADJUSTMENT OF RS.9,68,24,406/- FOR 2000-01 AND R S. 6,89,10,976/- FOR 1999-2000 AND THE SAID FIGURES DOES NOT MATCH WITH THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. HE ALSO REJECTED THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSE E BY OBSERVING THAT THE ASSESSEES CLAIM CANNOT BE SAID TO BE MISTAKE A PPARENT FROM RECORD. 5. THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE ISSUE BEFORE THE LD CIT (A), BUT WITHOUT SUCCESS, AS THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE A.O WAS CONFIRMED . THE FINDINGS OF THE LD CIT(A) ARE AS UNDER : 4.2 THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT IS CAREFULLY CONSID ERED WITH REFERENCE TO THE DETAILS FURNISHED DURING THE ASSESSMENT AS WELL AS APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. AS PER THE CHART APPENDED TO THE ASSE SSMENT ORDER FURNISHING YEAR-WISE BREAK-UP OF THE WAIVER OF ARRE ARS, AN AMOUNT OF RS. 30,90,13,889/- FOR F.Y. 1998-1999 AND AN AMOUNT OF RS. (-) 6,89,10,976/- FOR F.Y. 1999-2000 WAS SETTLED BY THE MSEB. THIS CHART WAS DULY SIGNED BY THE OFFICIALS OF THE SOCIETY AND FURNISHED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS . THE APPELLANT NOW MAKES A CLAIM THAT ACTUAL AMOUNT OF ARREARS FOR THE F.Y. 1998-99 IS RS. 3 ITA NO.1309/PN/2010 THE MULA PRAVARA ELECTRIC CO-OP. SOCIETY LTD. A.Y. 2002-03 36,53,65,906/- AS ADMITTED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01 AND RS. 35,90,646/- FOR THE PERIOD FRO M APRIL 1999 TO JULY 1999 AS REDUCED FROM ELECTRICITY EXPENSES IN P&L A/ C. DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE APPELLANT WAS ASKED TO R ECONCILE THESE FIGURES AND IN RESPONSE TO THAT, THE APPELLANT FILED A LETT ER DT. 13/07/2010 STATING THAT THE CHART PREPARED AND FILED AT THE TIME OF A SSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IS NOT THE CORRECT BASIS OF CALCULATION OF WAIVER A ND THE YEAR-WISE BREAK- UP WAS NEITHER GIVEN BY THE MSEB NOR COULD PROPERLY BE PREPARED BY THE APPELLANT. THE APPELLANT ALSO FILED AN AFFIDAVIT C LAIMING THAT THE CHART ENCLOSED TO THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PREPARED BY TH E SOCIETY AS A DRAFT TO RECONCILE THE TOTAL WAIVER GRANTED BY THE MSEB. BUT THE APPELLANT IS NOT ABLE TO FURNISH THE CORRECT YEAR-WISE BREAK-UP OF WAIVER EVEN DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS ON THE GROUND THAT NO YEA R-WISE DETAILS WERE EVER FURNISHED BY THE MSEB AS IT WAS A POLICY MATTE R OF THE GOVERNMENT. BUT THE CHART PREPARED BY THE APPELLANT SOCIETY A ND FILED DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WAS SIGNED BY THE THREE OFFI CIALS OF THE SOCIETY AND IT CANNOT BE SIMPLY BRUSHED ASIDE STATING THAT IT IS ONLY A DRAFT AND HAS NO BASIS. IN FACT, ON PERUSAL OF THE CHART, IT IS FOUND THAT THE REVISED ARREARS SHOWN IN THE CHART ARE TALLYING WITH THE AM OUNTS MENTIONED IN THE PROFORMA D ENCLOSED TO THE LETTER OF MSEB DATED 2 3.05.2001. THEREFORE, IT IS NOT CORRECT TO SAY THAT THE CHART PREPARED BY THE APPELLANT AND FILED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER INDICATING YEAR-WISE A RREARS HAS NO BASIS AND TO BE IGNORED NOW. EVEN PRESUMING THAT IT IS A DRA FT AS CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT, THE APPELLANT IS NOT ABLE TO FURNISH THE CORRECT YEAR-WISE BREAK- UP EVEN NOW TO SUBSTANTIATE THAT THE FIGURES FURNIS HED IN THE CHART FOR THE F.Y. 1998-99 AND F.Y. 1999-2000 ARE NOT THE CORRECT FIGURES. 4.2.1. AS REGARDS THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE APPELL ANT, IT IS ONLY SELF-SERVING AFFIDAVIT AND NO CREDENCE CAN BE GIVEN TO SUCH SELF SERVING AFFIDAVITS IN THE ABSENCE OF NECESSARY YEAR-WISE RECONCILIATION O F THE AMOUNTS WAIVED BY MSEB AND OTHER EVIDENCES TO SUBSTANTIATE THE C LAIM MADE IN THE AFFIDAVIT. IN THIS CONNECTION, IT MAY BE RELEVANT TO REFER TO THE DECISION OF ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SRI KRISHNA VS CIT REPORTED IN 142 ITR 618, WHEREIN IT IS OBSERVED AS UNDER : IT IS NEITHER A RULE OF PRUDENCE NOR A RULE OF LA W THAT THE STATEMENTS MADE IN AN AFFIDAVIT WHICH REMAINS UNCON TROVERTED MUST INVARIABLY BE ACCEPTED AS TRUE AND RELIABLE. ORDINARILY, IN THE ABSENCE OF DENIAL, THE STATEMENTS MAY BE ACCEPTED A S TRUE BUT IF THERE ARE CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH SUGGEST THAT STATEME NTS ON AFFIDAVIT SHOULD NOT BE ACCEPTED AS TRUE, THE ABSENCE OF DENI AL BY OTHER SIDE, WOULD NOT BY ITSELF BE SUFFICIENT TO CLOTHE THE STA TEMENTS WITH TRUTHFULNESS AND RELIABILITY. 4 ITA NO.1309/PN/2010 THE MULA PRAVARA ELECTRIC CO-OP. SOCIETY LTD. A.Y. 2002-03 4.2.2.REFERENCE CAN ALSO BE MADE TO THE DECISION OF THE ITAT CHANDIGARH IN THE CASE OF ITO VS. JAGAN NATH REPORTED IN 97 TT J 265 WHEREIN THE ITAT HELD THAT IT IS NOT THE LAW THAT EVERY AFFIDAV IT IS TO BE ACCEPTED ON ITS FACE VALUE. AFFIDAVITS COLOUR SHOULD MATCH WITH O THER MATERIALS ON RECORD AND SHOULD FIT INTO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. ONLY THEN THE AFFIDAVIT HAS EVIDENTIARY VALUE. THEREFORE, THE AFF IDAVIT FILED BY THE APPELLANT HAS NO EVIDENTIARY VALUE AND CANNOT BE RE LIED UPON IN THE ABSENCE OF NECESSARY CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE. 4.2.3 THUS, IN THE ABSENCE OF PROPER RECONCILIATION OF THE FIGURES SUBMITTED IN VARIOUS DOCUMENTS FURNISHED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS JUSTIFIED IN REJECTING TH E CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT MADE IN THE APPLICATION FILED U/S. 154 OF THE I.T. ACT AS THERE IS NO MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE RECORDS. AS ALREADY MEN TIONED, EVEN DURING THE PRESENT APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE APPELLANT HA S NOT BEEN ABLE TO FURNISH THE CORRECT DETAILS OF YEAR-WISE WAIVER OF ARREARS AND SUBSTANTIATE ITS CLAIM THAT THE ACTUAL AMOUNT OF WAIVER FOR THE F.Y. 1998-99 AND F.Y. 1999-2000 (APRIL 99 TO JULY 1999) IS RS.36,89,56,55 2/-. EVEN OTHERWISE, SINCE IT IS HELD THAT THE REMISSION OR CESSATION OF LIABILITY HAD TAKEN PLACE IN MAY 2001 PURSUANT TO THE LETTER OF THE MSEB DAT ED 23/05/2001, THE WAIVER OF ARREARS FOR F.Y. 1998-99 AND F.Y. 1999-20 00 WAS CORRECTLY BROUGHT TO TAX FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALONG WITH ARREARS FOR OTHER YEARS. FURTHER, THE R ETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01 WAS ACCEPTED U/S. 143(1) AN D NO ASSESSMENT WAS MADE FOR THAT YEAR NOR WAS ANY APPEAL PENDING F OR THE SAID YEAR SO AS TO CONSIDER THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT FOR APPRO PRIATE RELIEF FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01 EVEN IF THE AMOUNT WAIVED F OR THE PERIOD APRIL 1998 TO JULY 1999 WAS ALREADY ADMITTED IN THE RETUR N FILED FOR A.Y. 2000- 01 AS CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT. IN THESE CIRCUMSTA NCES AND AS THE APPELLANT FAILED TO SUBSTANTIATE THE CLAIM WITH PRO PER YEAR-WISE RECONCILIATION OF THE ARREARS WAIVED BY THE MSEB AN D ALSO CONSIDERING THE LEGAL POSITION AS DISCUSSED HEREINABOVE THAT THE E NTIRE AMOUNT WRITTEN OFF BY MSEB IS TAXABLE FOR THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL UNDER SEC. 41(1), I AM INCLINED TO ENDORSE THE FINDINGS OF THE ASSESSING O FFICER IN THE ORDER PASSED U/S. 154 READ WITH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASS ED IN RESPECT OF THIS CLAIM. ACCORDINGLY, THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE AP PELLANT IN THIS REGARD IN THE APPEAL FILED AGAINST THE ASSESSM ENT ORDER AND AGAINST THE ORDER UNDER SEC. 154 ARE REJECTED. NOW THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 5 ITA NO.1309/PN/2010 THE MULA PRAVARA ELECTRIC CO-OP. SOCIETY LTD. A.Y. 2002-03 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTI ES AND PERUSED THE RECORD. THE LD COUNSEL HAS FILED WRITTEN NOTE ON THE REASON ASSIGNED BY THE A.O AND THE LD CIT(A) FOR REJECTING THE CLAIM O F THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAD RAISED THE DISPUTE WITH THE MSEB IN R ESPECT OF THE RATE CHARGED TO THE POWER SUPPLY MADE TO THE ASSESSEE SO CIETY. THE ASSESSEE IS PURCHASING THE POWER ACCORDING TO THE RATE FOR THE UNITS PURCHASED BY IT FROM THE MSEB, BUT, IN RESPECT OF THE UNITS SOLD BY THE SOCIETY, THE CHARGE WAS TO BE MADE NOT ON UNITS CONSUMED BASIS B UT ON HP (HORSE POWER BASIS). SUCH CHARGE WAS FIXED PER MONTH BASE D ON THE H.P. CAPACITY OF THE CONSUMER. THE CHARGE WOULD REMAIN SAME FROM MONTH TO MONTH, VERY LAW IRRESPECTIVE OF NUMBER OF UNITS CON SUMED BY ITS CONSUMER. THE ASSESSEE PROTESTED THE RATE CHARGED BY THE MSEB BEFORE THE GOVERNMENT OF MAHARASHTRA FOR RATIONALIZATION O F IT ITS ELECTRICITY PURCHASE RATE FROM MSEB. THE GOVERNMENT WAIVED TH E LIABILITY TARIFF T THE EXTENT OF RS. 541.80 CRORES. NOW THE TAXABILI TY OF THAT AMOUNT IS PENDING ADJUDICATION IN THE MAIN APPEAL FILED BY TH E ASSESSEE. SO FAR AS THE ISSUE OF THE TOTAL TAXABILITY OF THE AMOUNT OF RS. 36,53,65,906/- IS CONCERNED, WE FIND THAT WHILE FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE A.Y. 2000-01, THE ASSESSEE MADE THE ADJUSTMENT OF THE N ET LOSS AS PER THE PROFIT LOSS ACCOUNT BY REDUCING THE SUM OF RS. 36 ,53,65,906/- (PAGES 35 & 36 OF THE PAPER BOOK II). WE FURTHER FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE COPY OF TAX AUDIT REPORT IN FORM NO. 3CA AND 3CD. IN FORM NO. 3CD, IN COLUMN 22(B), THE AUDITORS HAVE MADE A REMA RK I.E. RATE DIFFERENCE OF RS. 36,53,65,906/- IS CREDITED DIREC TLY TO THE PROFIT & LOSS A/C. IT IS STATED THAT ANOTHER AMOUNT OF RS. 35, 90,646/- REPRESENT THE RATE DIFFERENCE FOR THE PERIOD APRIL 99 TO JULY 99 IS DIRECTLY REDUCED FROM THE PURCHASE COST OF THE ELECTRICITY IN THE PROFIT & LOSS A/C. FOR THE A.Y. 2000-01. THE LD COUNSEL SUBMITS THAT THERE IS A DI FFERENCE IN THE QUANTUM OF THE AMOUNT CLAIMED AND AMOUNT WRITTEN OF F BUT THE FACTS REMAINS THAT THE AMOUNT OFFERED FOR TAX IN THE COMP UTATION STATEMENT IS ONLY IN RESPECT OF THE PART OF RATE DIFFERENCE WHIC H WAS SUBJECTED FOR WAIVER OF THE AMOUNT OF RS. 541.80 CRORES. THE LD . COUNSEL HAS REFERRED PAGE NO. 33 OF THE PAPER BOOK, IN WHICH THE DETAILS OF THE JOURNAL ENTRY PASSED ON 31.3.2000 EXPLAINING THE SAID AMOUNT RE PRESENTING DIFFERENCE OF MSEB BILL ARREARS FOR THE PERIOD APRIL 1998 TO M ARCH 1999 IS GIVEN. 7. WE FIND THAT SURPRISINGLY THE A.O. DECLINED TO A CCEPT THE AUDITORS REMARKS AS WELL AS THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT T HE AMOUNT OF RS. 6 ITA NO.1309/PN/2010 THE MULA PRAVARA ELECTRIC CO-OP. SOCIETY LTD. A.Y. 2002-03 36,89,91,983/- IS A PART OF THE WAIVER, MORE PARTIC ULARLY IN RESPECT OF THE RATE DIFFERENCE WHICH WAS OFFERED TO TAX. AS PER T HE COMPUTATION STATEMENT ATTACHED WITH THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR TH E A.Y. 2000-01, THE ASSESSEE HAS CLEARLY MENTIONED THAT THE SAID AMOUNT IS IN RESPECT OF THE DIFFERENCE IN THE RATES. THE ASSESSEE ALSO FILED T HE AFFIDAVIT, WHICH WAS ALSO REJECTED BY THE A.O. IN OUR OPINION, AS PER T HE EVIDENCE AND DOCUMENTS OF RECORD, THE ASSESSEES CLAIM CAN NOT B E DENIED THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS. 36,89,91,983/- IS A PART OF THE AMOUN T WAIVED TOWARDS RATE DIFFERENCE GIVING TOTAL BENEFIT OF RS. 541.80 CRORES TO THE ASSESSEE. WE, ACCORDINGLY, HOLD THAT THE SAID AMOUNT IS TOWAR DS RATE DIFFERENCE AND PART OF TOTAL BENEFITS OF RS. 541.80 CRORES. 8. THE NEXT ISSUE BEFORE US IS THAT CAN IT BE SAID THAT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IS A DEBATABLE ONE AND NOT A MISTAKE APPAR ENT FROM THE RECORD. IN OUR OPINION, THE REASONS GIVEN BY BOTH THE AUTHO RITIES BELOW ARE MISPLACED. AS PER THE COMPUTATION STATEMENT FILED ALONG WITH THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE A.Y. 2000-01, WHILE REDUCING THE LOSS TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 36,89,91,983/-, IN A VERY SPECIFIC DESCRIPTION, THE SAID AMOUNT IS STATED AS RATE DIFFERENCE AS PER FORM 3CD. IN THE FORM 3CD, THE AUDITORS HAVE MADE A REMARK THAT THE RATE DIFFERENCE OF RS.3 6,53,65,906/- IS DIRECTLY CREDITED TO THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT. IN OUR OPINION, THE ISSUE IS NOT DEBATABLE BUT CLEARLY IS THE PATENT MISTAKE APP ARENT ON THE FACE OF THE RECORD. THERE IS A DIFFERENCE IN THE AMOUNT OF THE CLAIM, BUT IT IS STATED THAT SUM OF RS. 35,90,646/- REPRESENTING THE RATE DIFFERENCE FOR THE APRIL 1999 TO JULY 1999 HAS DIRECTLY REDUCED FR OM THE PURCHASE COST OF THE ELECTRICITY IN THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT FOR THE A.Y. 2000-01 . WE, THEREFORE, HOLD THAT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IS A RISING OUT OF THE TOTAL MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD. AT THE SAME TIME , WE FIND THAT THERE IS A DIFFERENCE IN THE AMOUNT TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 36,53,65,905/-. WE DIRECT THE A.O TO REDUCE SAID AMOUNT FROM THE TOTAL ADDITION OF RS. 541,80,37,753/- I.E. THE ADDITION MADE U/S. 41(1) O F THE ACT. SO FAR AS THE BALANCE CLAIM OF RS. 35,90,646/- IS CONCERNED, WE RESTORE THE SAID ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE A.O FOR THE LIMITED PURPOS E OF VERIFICATION WHETHER THE SAID AMOUNT WOULD REPRESENT THE RATE DIFFERENC E FOR THE APRIL 1999 TO JULY 1999 AND HAS BEEN DIRECTLY REDUCED FROM THE PU RCHASE COST OF ELECTRICITY IN THE PROFIT & LOSS A/C. FOR THE FINAN CIAL YEAR 1999-2000. THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED TO PRODUCE THE RELEVANT RECORD FOR THE VERIFICATION OF ITS CLAIM TO THE EXTENT OF RS.35,90,646/- BEFORE TH E A.O. SO FAR AS THE 7 ITA NO.1309/PN/2010 THE MULA PRAVARA ELECTRIC CO-OP. SOCIETY LTD. A.Y. 2002-03 MAIN ISSUE OF THE TAXABILITY OF THE AMOUNT OF REMI SION IS CONCERNED, THAT WILL BE DECIDED IN THE MAIN APPEAL. 9. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED PRO- TANTO. THE ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 17 TH SEPTEMBER 2012. SD/- SD/- (G.S. PANNU) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (R.S.PADVEKAR ) JUDICIAL MEMBER PUNE, DATED THE 17TH SEPTEMBER, 2012 US COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT- I,PUNE 4. THE CIT(A)-I,PUNE 5. THE D.R. B BENCH, PUNE 6. GUARD FILE /- TRUE COPY-/ BY ORDER SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE