Appeal details
Counselvise Citation
[2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2011 (ITAT-PUNE)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
Duration Of Justice
6 year(s) 4 month(s) 17 day(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date
07-04-2016
Appeal Filed By
Assessee
Order Result
Allowed
Bench Allotted
B
Next Hearing Date
10-11-2015
Assessment Year
2005-2006
Appeal Filed On
20-11-2009
Judgement Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, PUN E , , !'#'' $ , % & BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, AM AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM / ITA NO. 1326/PN/2009 %' ( ')( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-06 PERSISTENT SYSTEMS PVT. LTD., BHAGEERATH, 402, SENAPATI BAPAT ROAD, PUNE 411016 PAN : AABCP1209Q ....... / APPELLANT ' / V/S. JT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 4, PUNE / RESPONDENT / ITA NO. 1344/PN/2011 %' ( ')( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-06 ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 4, PUNE ....... / APPELLANT ' / V/S. M/S. PERSISTENT SYSTEMS PVT. LTD., BHAGEERATH, 402, SENAPATI BAPAT ROAD, PUNE 411016 PAN : AABCP1209Q / RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI NIRAJ SHETH REVENUE BY : SHRI HITENDRA NINAWE / DATE OF HEARING : 08-02-2016 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 07-04-2016 2 ITA NOS. 1326/PN/2009 & 1344/PN/2011, A.Y. 2005-06 * / ORDER PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM : THESE CROSS APPEALS HAVE BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AN D THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-II, PUNE DATED 24-09-2009 PASSED U/S. 143(3) OF THE INCOME T AX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 05-06. 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE AS EMANATING FROM THE RE CORDS ARE: THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF DEVELOPIN G AND EXPORTING COMPUTER SOFTWARE. THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS RETUR N OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 ON 30-10-2005 DECLARIN G TOTAL TAXABLE INCOME AS NIL. THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND ACCORDINGLY NOTICE U/S. 143(2) WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE ON 22-06-2006. DURING THE COURSE OF SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT P ROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S. 10A AMOUNTING TO ` 33,39,66,494/-. THE ASSESSEE IS HAVING THREE UNITS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S. 10A. THE UNIT WISE DETAILS OF DEDUCTION CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE U/S. 10A ARE AS UNDER: I. UNIT 1 (BHAGEERATH) ` 30,86,55,129/- II. UNIT 2 ` 2,53,11,365/- III. NAGPUR UNIT NIL (LOSS ` 59,56,882/-) 2.1 THE ASSESSEE HAD SET UP A STP UNIT DURING THE PER IOD RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02 IN A BUILDING NAME BHAGEER ATH. THE ASSESSEE HAD OLD UNIT LOCATED AT PANINI. BOTH THESE U NITS WERE FUNCTIONING SIMULTANEOUSLY AND INDEPENDENTLY FOR THE PERIOD RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2001-02 AND 2002-03. THE PROFITS OF NEW UNIT 3 ITA NOS. 1326/PN/2009 & 1344/PN/2011, A.Y. 2005-06 WERE ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S. 10A, WHEREAS, THE PROFITS OF T HE OLD UNIT WERE SUBJECTED TO TAX AFTER ALLOWING DEDUCTION U/S. 80HHE . DURING THE PERIOD RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04, THE AS SESSEE CLOSED THE OLD UNIT AFTER TAKING NECESSARY PERMISSION FROM THE DI RECTOR, STPI PUNE, AND EXECUTED CERTAIN SOFTWARE EXPORT CONTRACTS FR OM THE NEW UNIT AND CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S. 10 A. THE DEPARTMENT DID NOT ACCEPT THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE WITH RESPECT TO PROFITS FROM CONTRACTS WHICH WERE ENTERED PRIOR TO THE FORMATION OF NEW UNIT. ACCORDIN GLY, THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WAS REDUCED U/S. 10A FOR THOSE CONTRA CTS IN PRO RATA MANNER AND DEDUCTION U/S. 80HHE WAS ALLOWED FOR THE PRIOR CONTRACTS FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2003-04 AND 2004-05. FOR THE A SSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION ON THE SAME LINES THE ASSESSING OFFICER REJECTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF THE DEDUCTION CLAIM ED U/S. 10A IN RESPECT OF CONTRACTS EXECUTED PRIOR TO FORMATION OF U NIT 1. ACCORDINGLY, THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S. 10A TO THE TUNE O F ` 1,73,67,109/- IN RESPECT OF UNIT 1 WAS REJECTED. 2.2 FURTHER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THAT WHILE COMPUTING DEDUCTION U/S. 10A, THE LOSS OF NAGPUR UNIT NEEDS TO BE SET OFF FROM PROFITS OF OTHER UNITS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S. 10A. THE A SSESSEE HAD COMPUTED PROFITS AND GAINS FROM BUSINESS AFTER SETTING OFF L OSS OF THE NAGPUR UNIT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER REJECTED THE COMPUTAT ION OF DEDUCTION U/S. 10A OF THE ACT MADE BY ASSESSEE. THE AS SESSING OFFICER RESTRICTED DEDUCTION U/S. 10A TO ` 32,75,94,722/-. AGGRIEVED BY THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 30-12-2008, T HE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF I NCOME TAX (APPEALS). THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) VIDE IMPU GNED ORDER REJECTED BOTH THE CLAIMS OF THE ASSESSEE AND UPH ELD THE FINDINGS 4 ITA NOS. 1326/PN/2009 & 1344/PN/2011, A.Y. 2005-06 OF ASSESSING OFFICER. NOW, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). 3. ITA NO. 1326/PN/2009 HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ASSAILING THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) BY RAISING FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ER RED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER IN DENY ING THE CLAIM UNDER SECTION 10 A IN RESPECT OF REVENUES OF RS.1,73,67,1 09/- ON THE GROUND THAT THE CONTRACTS WITH THE CUSTOMERS FROM WHOM THE SE REVENUES WERE EARNED WERE ENTERED IN TO PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE NEW UNIT. 2. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) FA ILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE CONTRACTS ENTERED INTO WERE ONLY MASTER SE RVICES AGREEMENTS CONTAINING THE BROAD TERMS OF ENGAGEMENT, AND THE A CTUAL WORK FROM WHICH THE REVENUE OF RS.1,73,67,109/- WAS EARNED WA S EXECUTED FROM THE NEW UNIT. 3. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ER RED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER BY NOT ALLOWING DEDUCTION U/S. 10 A FOR PUNE UNIT WITHOUT SETTING OFF THE LOSS OF RS.59,56,882/- OF NAGPUR UNIT. 4. SHRI NIRAJ SHETH APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE RELATING TO ALLOWABILITY OF DEDUCTION U/S. 10A ON THE REVENUE FROM THE CONTRACTS PRIOR TO THE FORMATION OF UNIT 1 IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 HAS BEEN ADJUDICATED BY THE TRIBUNAL. THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NOS. 33 AND 290/PN/2009 FOR THE ASSESSME NT YEAR 2003-04 DECIDED ON 12-03-2012 ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF ASSESS EE. THE LD. AR PLACED ON RECORD A COPY OF THE ORDER OF TRIBUNAL IN ITA NOS. 33 AND 290/PN/2009 ALONG WITH THE ORDER OF TRIBUNAL IN MA NOS. 37 AND 38/PN/2013 IN ITA NO. 33 & 290/PN/2009 DECIDED ON 10-0 2-2014. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE REVENUE CARRIED THE MATE R IN APPEAL TO THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT. THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT V IDE ORDER 5 ITA NOS. 1326/PN/2009 & 1344/PN/2011, A.Y. 2005-06 DATED 06-02-2013 IN INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO. 1209 OF 2 012 DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE AND UPHELD THE FINDINGS OF TRIBUN AL. THE LD. AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NOS. 1343 A ND 1325/PN/2009 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 DECIDED ON 12-04-2012 BY FOLLOWING ITS OWN ORDER IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 ACCEPTED THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE. THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIG H COURT VIDE ORDER DATED 07-02-2013 IN INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 246 OF 2013 HAS UPHELD THE ORDER OF TRIBUNAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 , AS WELL. THE LD. AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME T AX (APPEALS) IN SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEARS I.E. ASSESSMENT Y EARS 2006- 07, 2007-08 AND 2008-09 BY FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF TRIBUNA L HAS GRANTED RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. AR FURTHER PLACED ON RECORD CONSOLIDATED COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE COMMISSION ER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-IT/TP, PUNE DATED 15-02-2013 FOR ASSESSME NT YEARS 2006-07, 2007-08 AND 2008-09. 4.1 IN RESPECT OF THE ALLOWABILITY OF DEDUCTION U/S. 10A ON T HE NAGPUR UNIT WITHOUT SETTING OFF OF THE LOSSES. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE ERRED IN SETTING OFF OF LOSSES OF NAG PUR UNIT WHICH IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION WITH THE PROFITS OF PUNE UNIT BE FORE GRANTING DEDUCTION U/S. 10A OF THE ACT. THE LD. AR SUBMITT ED THAT THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF I NCOME TAX VS. BLACK & VEATCH CONSULTING PVT. LTD. REPORTED AS 20 TA XMANN.COM 727 (BOM) : 348 ITR 72 (BOM) HAS HELD THAT DEDUCTION U/S. 1 0A IN RESPECT OF ELIGIBLE UNIT HAS TO BE ALLOWED BEFORE SETTING OFF B ROUGHT FORWARD DEPRECIATION AND LOSSES OF A UNIT NOT ELIGIBLE FOR DE DUCTION U/S. 10A OF THE ACT. THE LD. AR IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTIONS PLACED RELIANCE ON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS : 6 ITA NOS. 1326/PN/2009 & 1344/PN/2011, A.Y. 2005-06 I. HINDUSTAN UNILEVER LTD. VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME T AX & ANR., 325 ITR 102; II. F.C.I. TECHNOLOGY SERVICES LTD. VS. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, 43 SOT 460 (COCH); III. BEHR INDIA LIMITED VS. ACIT IN ITA NOS. 1375 AND 1013/PN/2010 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2004-05 AND 2005-06 DECIDED ON 06- 05-2013; IV. M/S. VISHAY COMPONENTS INDIA PVT. LTD. VS. THE ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX IN ITA NO. 551/PN/2014 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 DECIDED ON 08-10-2015. 5. SHRI HITENDRA NINAWE REPRESENTING THE DEPARTMENT VEH EMENTLY DEFENDED THE FINDINGS OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IN REJECTING THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE U/S. 10A IN RESPECT OF UNIT 1, AS WELL AS DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION U/S. 10A IN RESPECT OF NAGPUR UNIT . THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE DELHI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE C ASE OF TECNOVATE ESOLUTION (P.) LTD. VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER REPORTED AS 59 TAXMANN.COM 77 (DEHI-TRIB.) HAS HELD THAT BROUGHT FORWARD LOSSES OF ELIGIBLE UNIT FOR PRECEDING YEAR SHOULD BE REDUCED FROM THE PROFITS OF BUSINESS FOR CURRENT YEAR BEFORE ALLOWING DEDUCTION U/S. 10A OF THE ACT. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE REPRESEN TATIVES OF RIVAL SIDES AND HAVE PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIE S BELOW. WE HAVE ALSO CONSIDERED THE DECISIONS ON WHICH THE REPRESEN TATIVES OF RIVAL SIDES HAVE PLACED RELIANCE IN SUPPORT OF THEIR RESPECTIVE C ONTENTIONS. THE GROUND NOS. 1 AND 2 RAISED IN THE APPEAL OF ASSESSE E RELATES TO THE DENIAL OF DEDUCTION U/S. 10A IN RESPECT OF REVENUE FROM THE CONTRACTS WITH THE CUSTOMERS OF OLD UNIT PRIOR TO THE FORMATION OF UN IT 1. IT HAS BEEN CONTENDED THAT THE OLD UNIT WAS CLOSED DOWN DURING THE PERIOD 7 ITA NOS. 1326/PN/2009 & 1344/PN/2011, A.Y. 2005-06 RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 AND AFTER TAK ING PERMISSION FROM THE DIRECTOR, STPI PUNE THE WORK WAS EXECUTED FROM THE NEW UNIT 1 AND DEDUCTION WAS CLAIMED U/S. 10A OF THE ACT. THE LD. A R OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE THAT THIS ISSUE HAS ALREADY BEEN ADJUDICATED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR T HE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2003-04 AND 2004-05. THE TRIBUNAL HAS HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ELIGIBLE TO CLAIM DEDUCTION U/S. 10A ON THE TURNOVER OF TH E WORK EXECUTED BY THE NEW UNIT. THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE FINDINGS OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO. 290/PN/2009 (SUPRA) ARE REPRODUCED HE RE-IN- UNDER: 6. THE ASSESSEE FILED AN INTIMATION TO STPI STATIN G THAT IT WAS CLOSING ITS FIRST UNIT VIDE LETTER DATED 26.3.2002 TO CLAIM THAT THE ENTIRE INCOME FOR THE F.Y. 2002-03 WAS ONLY INCOME FROM THE SECOND UN IT OPERATING FROM BHAGEERATHI BUILDING AS EXEMPT U/S. 10A OF THE ACT. THE LD. A.R. REFERRED PARA NO. 11.2 TO 11.5 OF THE ASSESSMENT OR DER WITH THIS SUBMISSION THAT THE A.O HAS REDUCED THE CLAIMED DED UCTION ON THE BASIS THAT ASSESSEE HAS ARRANGED ITS AFFAIRS IN A MANNER TO EXTEND THE EXEMPTION U/S. 10A OF THE ACT AS SIGNIFICANT PART O F THE INCOME CLAIMED AS PART OF THE NEW UNIT AT BHAGEERATH IS NOTHING BU T THE INCOME FROM SAME CUSTOMERS THAT ARE IN THE SAME DOMAIN OF WORK THAT WAS BEING CARRIED OUT AT PANINI. HE WORKED OUT A SALES OF RS. 9.87 CRORES AS IN RESPECT OF THE EARLIER UNIT AND THE EARLIER BUSINES S. HE HAS ACCORDINGLY DISALLOWED CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S. 10A OF THE ACT ON THE SALES OF RS.9,87,88,632/-. THE LD CIT(A) HAS RESTRICTED THE DISALLOWANCE OF THE DEDUCTION UPTO SALES TURNOVER OF RS.4,62,95,445/-. WHILE DOING SO, THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAD FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT FOR CONSIDERATION OF DEDUCTION U/S. 10A OF THE ACT, THE TEST WAS AS TO W HICH UNIT HAD EXECUTED THE WORK UNDER THE CONTRACT. HE SUBMITTED THAT CONTRACT IS RECEIVED BY ASSESSEE AND NOT BY UNIT-1 OR UNIT-2 AS THE CUSTOMER DOES NOT KNOW UNIT-1 OR UNIT-2. THE EXECUTION OF WORK BY THE ELIGIBLE UNIT IS IMPORTANT IGNORING THE OLD CONTRACT/OLD CUSTOMERS. THE LD. A.R. ASSERTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S. 10 A ON THE WORK EXECUTED BY OLD UNIT AS NOT ELIGIBLE DUE TO LAPSE O F TIME. IN THE A.Y. 2003- 04, ONLY UNIT NO.2 WAS IN EXISTENCE. 7. HAVING GONE THROUGH THE CONTENTS OF PROVISIONS L AID DOWN U/S. 10A, WE FIND SUBSTANCE IN THE ABOVE CONTENTION OF LD. A. R. THAT DEDUCTION U/S. 10A IS AVAILABLE ON THE PROFITS AND GAINS DERIVED B Y AN UNDERTAKING FROM 8 ITA NOS. 1326/PN/2009 & 1344/PN/2011, A.Y. 2005-06 THE EXPORT OF ARTICLES OR THINGS OR COMPUTER SOFTWA RE FOR A PERIOD OF 10 CONSECUTIVE ASSESSMENT YEARS. FOR A READY REFERENCE , THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF SECTION 10A(1) OF THE ACT IS BEING REPRO DUCED HEREUNDER : 10A.(1)SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION, A DEDUCTION OF SUCH PROFITS AND GAINS AS ARE DERIVED BY AN UNDERTAKING FROM THE EXPORT OF ARTICLES OR THINGS OR COMPUTER SOFTWARE FOR A PERIO D OF TEN CONSECUTIVE ASSESSMENT YEARS BEGINNING WITH THE ASSESSMENT YEAR RELEVANT TO THE PREVIOUS YEAR IN WHICH THE UNDERTAKING BEGINS TO MA NUFACTURE OR PRODUCE SUCH ARTICLES OR THINGS OR COMPUTER SOFTWAR E, AS THE CASE MAY BE, SHALL BE ALLOWED FROM THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE A SSESSEE: IN THE COURSE OF BUSINESS, CONTRACT IS ALWAYS RECEI VED BY AN ASSESSEE AND NOT BY ITS UNIT-1 OR UNIT-2, AS CUSTOMER IS NOT AWARE ABOUT THE UNIT-1 OR UNIT-2 OF THE ASSESSEE AND THIER ONLY CONCERN IS THAT ASSESSEE PERFORMS ITS PART OF THE CONTRACT. THE WORDINGS DE RIVED BY AN UNDERTAKING FROM THE EXPORT .. USED IN TH E PROVISIONS LAID DOWN U/S. 10A MAKES IT CLEAR THAT FOR ALLOWING DEDUCTION U/S. 10A THE IMMEDIATE SOURCE OF PROFIT BY SUCH UNDERTAKING IS TO BE SEEN. THUS, WE CONCUR WITH THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD. A.R. THAT THE TEST FOR ALLOWING DEDUCTION U/S. 10A ON THE CLAIMED PROFIT IS TO VERI FY AS TO WHETHER THAT PROFIT IS RESULT OF EXECUTION OF WORK OF GOODS EXPO RTED BY THE UNDERTAKING. THE ONLY REASON FOR DISALLOWANCE OF THE CLAIMED DED UCTION OR REDUCING THE SAME UPTO THE SALES TURNOVER BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW WAS BASED UPON THE CONTRACT OF WORK RECEIVED BY OLD UNIT OR C USTOMERS OF THE OLD UNIT. THEY DID NOT CONSIDER THE CLAIMED DEDUCTION O N THE BASIS OF WORK EXECUTED BY THE NEW UNIT. IT IS ALSO NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S. 10A BY THE ASSESSEE WAS BASED UPON T HE WORK EXECUTED BY THE NEW UNIT I.E. UNIT NO. 2. THE ONLY OBJECTION OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW, FOR INTERFERING WITH THE CLAIMED DEDUCTION R EMAINED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ENTITLED TO THE CLAIMED DEDUCTION O N THE SALES WHICH WERE BASED UPON THE CONTRACT RECEIVED BY THE OLD UNIT OR THE CUSTOMERS OF THE OLD UNIT. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE WHILE SETTI NG ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW, DIRECT THE A.O TO ALLOW THE CLAIMED DEDUCTION ON THE TURNOVER OF SALES OF THE GOODS/WORKS EXECUTED B Y THE NEW UNIT. THE ISSUE IS THUS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. GR OUND NOS. 1 & 2 OF THE APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE REVENUE ARE THUS REJECTED A ND THUS GROUND NOS. 1 & 2 OF THE APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE A LLOWED. SIMILAR VIEW HAS BEEN TAKEN BY THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES APPEAL IN ITA NO. 1325/PN/2009 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05. T HE HON'BLE HIGH COURT IN INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO. 1209 OF 2012 FOR AS SESSMENT 9 ITA NOS. 1326/PN/2009 & 1344/PN/2011, A.Y. 2005-06 YEAR 2003-04 HAS UPHELD THE FINDINGS OF TRIBUNAL AND DISMISS ED THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE. SIMILARLY, THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT HAS DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE DEPARTMENT FOR THE ASSES SMENT YEAR 2004-05. 7. FURTHER, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ALLOWED DEDUCTION U/S. 10A TO THE ASSESSEE ON THE PROFITS OF UN IT 1 FOR THE SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEAR. THE LD. AR HAS PLACED ON R ECORD A COPY OF THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-IT/TP , PUNE DATED 15-02-2013 COMMON FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 200 6-07, 2007-08 AND 2008-09 GRANTING RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. AR H AS ALSO PLACED ON RECORD THE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IN ASSESSM ENT YEAR 2009-10 WHEREIN THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF UNIT 1 HA S BEEN ALLOWED. THUS, IN VIEW OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE, DOCUMENTS ON RECO RD AND THE DECISIONS OF THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL WHICH HA S BEEN UPHELD BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REAS ON TO TAKE A DIFFERENT VIEW. ACCORDINGLY, GROUND NOS. 1 AND 2 RAISED IN THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED. 8. IN GROUND NO. 3, THE ASSESSEE HAS ASSAILED THE FINDINGS OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IN ALLOWING DEDUCTION U/S . 10A FOR PUNE UNIT AFTER SETTING OFF OF LOSS OF NAGPUR UNIT. THE H ON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF HINDUSTAN UNILEVER LTD. V S. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ANR. (SUPRA) HAS HELD THAT TH E ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO A DEDUCTION IN RESPECT OF THE PROFITS OF ELIGIBLE UNITS WHILE THE LOSSES SUSTAINED BY ANOTHER UNIT COULD BE SET OFF AGA INST THE NORMAL BUSINESS INCOME. THESE OBSERVATIONS WERE MADE BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT IN RESPECT OF THE LOSSES INCURRED BY THE ELIGIBLE UNIT U/S. 10B OF 10 ITA NOS. 1326/PN/2009 & 1344/PN/2011, A.Y. 2005-06 THE ACT. THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 10B ARE IN PARI MATE RIA WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 10A OF THE ACT. 9. THE HON'BLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF COMM ISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. YOKOGAWA INDIA LTD. REPORTED AS 341 I TR 385 (KAR) AFTER PLACING RELIANCE ON THE DECISION RENDERED IN THE CASE OF HINDUSTAN UNILEVER LTD. VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ANR. (SUPRA) HAS HELD THAT WHERE THE ASSESSEE IS HAVING MORE THAN ONE UNDERTAKING FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECTION 10A, IT IS THE PROFIT DERIVED FROM EXPORT OF ARTICLES OR THINGS OR COMPUTER SOFTWARE FROM THE BUSINES S OF THE UNDERTAKING ALONE THAT HAS TO BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATIO N AND SUCH PROFIT IS NOT TO BE INCLUDED IN THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSE SSEE. IN THE SAID CASE THE ASSESSEE WAS IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTUR E AND TRADING OF PROCESS CONTROL INSTRUMENTS. THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME ON OCTOBER 31, 2002, DECLARING A TOTAL LOSS OF RS. 5,07,03,098. TH E ASSESSEE CLAIMED EXEMPTION OF ` 3,95,99,100 UNDER SECTION 10A FOR ITS STP UNIT. THE EXEMPTION WAS CLAIMED BEFORE SET OFF OF BROUGH T FORWARD LOSSES AND DEPRECIATION. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSING AUTHO RITY, THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10A HAD TO BE ALLOWED FROM THE T OTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ARRIV ED AT AS PER SECTION 80B(5). THEREFORE, THE EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 10A HAD TO BE GIVEN AFTER SETTING OFF ALL BROUGHT FORWARD LOSSES WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF SECTION 32(1) READ WITH SECTION 72(2) OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGL Y, THE SECTION 10A BENEFIT WAS RECOMPUTED. AFTER SUCH RECOMPUTATION AND , AFTER ADJUSTING THE ASSESSEE WAS HELD TO BE NOT ENTITLED FOR E XEMPTION UNDER SECTION 10A AND HENCE A SUM OF ` 36,575 WAS TREATED AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) AND THE TRIBUNAL HELD THAT THE INCOME OF THE SECTION 10A UNIT HAD TO BE 11 ITA NOS. 1326/PN/2009 & 1344/PN/2011, A.Y. 2005-06 EXCLUDED BEFORE ARRIVING AT THE GROSS TOTAL INCOME. ON A PPEAL BY THE DEPARTMENT, THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT HELD : 33. AS THE INCOME OF THE SECTION10A UNIT HAS TO BE EXCLUDED AT SOURCE ITSELF BEFORE ARRIVING AT THE GROSS TOTAL INCOME, T HE LOSS OF THE NON-SECTION 10A UNIT CANNOT BE SET OFF AGAINST THE INCOME OF TH E SECTION 10A UNIT UNDER SEC-TION 72. THE LOSS INCURRED BY THE ASSESSE E UNDER THE HEAD 'PROFITS AND GAINS OF BUSINESS OR PROFESSION' HAS T O BE SET OFF AGAINST THE PROFITS AND GAINS, IF ANY, OF ANY BUSINESS OR PROFE SSION CARRIED ON BY SUCH ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, AS THE PROFITS AND GAINS UNDER SECTION 10A IS NOT BE INCLUDED IN THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AT AL L, THE QUESTION OF SETTING OFF THE LOSS OF THE ASSESSEE OF ANY PROFITS AND GAINS OF BUSINESS AGAINST SUCH PROFITS AND GAINS OF THE UNDERTAKING W OULD NOT ARISE. SIMILARLY, AS PER SECTION 72(2), UNABSORBED BUSINESS LOSS IS TO BE FIRST SET OFF AND THEREAFTER UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION TREATED AS CURRENT YEAR'S DEPRECIATION UNDER SECTION 32(2) IS TO BE SET OFF. AS DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10A HAS TO BE EXCLUDED FROM THE TOTAL INCOM E OF THE ASSESSEE THE QUESTION OF UNABSORBED BUSINESS LOSS BEING SET OFF AGAINST SUCH PROFIT AND GAINS OF THE UNDERTAKING WOULD NOT ARISE. IN TH AT VIEW OF THE MATTER, THE APPROACH OF THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY WAS QUITE C ONTRARY TO THE AFORESAID STATUTORY PROVISIONS AND THE APPELLATE CO MMISSIONER AS WELL AS THE TRIBUNAL WERE FULLY JUSTIFIED IN SETTING ASI DE THE SAID ASSESSMENT ORDER AND GRANTING THE BENEFIT OF SECTION 10A TO TH E ASSESSEE HENCE, THE MAIN SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW IS ANSWERED IN FAV OUR OF THE ASSESSEES AND AGAINST THE REVENUE. 10. SIMILAR VIEW HAS BEEN TAKEN BY THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIG H COURT IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. BLACK & VEA TCH CONSULTING PVT. LTD. (SUPRA). THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE ORDER OF HON'BLE HIGH COURT READS AS UNDER: 3. SECTION 10A IS A PROVISION WHICH IS IN THE NATU RE OF A DEDUCTION AND NOT AN EXEMPTION. THIS WAS EMPHASIZED IN A JUDGMENT OF A DIVISION BENCH OF THIS COURT WHILE CONSTRUING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 10B IN HINDUSTAN UNILEVER LTD VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF IN COME TAX [2010] 325 ITR 102/191 TAXMAN 119 (BOM.). THE SUBMISSION OF THE REVENUE PLACED ITS RELIANCE ON THE LITERAL READING OF SECTI ON 10A UNDER WHICH A DEDUCTION OF SUCH PROFITS AND GAINS AS ARE DERIVED BY AN UNDERTAKING FROM THE EXPORT OF ARTICLES OR THINGS OR COMPUTER S OFTWARE FOR A PERIOD OF TEN CONSECUTIVE ASSESSMENT YEARS IS TO BE ALLOWED F ROM THE TOTAL INCOME 12 ITA NOS. 1326/PN/2009 & 1344/PN/2011, A.Y. 2005-06 OF THE ASSESSEE. THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10A, I N OUR VIEW, HAS TO BE GIVEN EFFECT TO AT THE STAGE OF COMPUTING THE PROFI TS AND GAINS OF BUSINESS. THIS IS ANTERIOR TO THE APPLICATION OF TH E PROVISIONS OF SECTION 72 WHICH DEALS WITH THE CARRY FORWARD AND SET OFF O F BUSINESS LOSSES. A DISTINCTION HAS BEEN MADE BY THE LEGISLATURE WHILE INCORPORATING THE PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER VI-A. SECTION 80A(1) STIPULAT ES THAT IN COMPUTING THE TOTAL INCOME OF AN ASSESSEE, THERE SHALL BE ALL OWED FROM HIS GROSS TOTAL INCOME, IN ACCORDANCE WITH AND SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE CHAPTER, THE DEDUCTIONS SPECIFIED IN SECTIONS 80C T O 80U. SECTION 80B(5) DEFINES FOR THE PURPOSES OF CHAPTER VI-A 'GR OSS TOTAL INCOME' TO MEAN THE TOTAL INCOME COMPUTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH T HE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT, BEFORE MAKING ANY DEDUCTION UNDER THE CHAPTER. WHAT THE REVENUE IN ESSENCE SEEKS TO ATTAIN IS TO TELESCOPE THE PROV ISIONS OF CHAPTER VI-A IN THE CONTEXT OF THE DEDUCTION WHICH IS ALLOWABLE UND ER SECTION 10A, WHICH WOULD NOT BE PERMISSIBLE UNLESS A SPECIFIC ST ATUTORY PROVISION TO THAT EFFECT WERE TO BE MADE. IN THE ABSENCE THEREOF , SUCH AN APPROACH CANNOT BE ACCEPTED. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE DECIS ION OF THE TRIBUNAL WOULD HAVE TO BE AFFIRMED SINCE IT IS PLAIN AND EVI DENT THAT THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10A HAS TO BE GIVEN AT THE STAGE WHEN THE PROFITS AND GAINS OF BUSINESS ARE COMPUTED IN THE FIRST INSTANC E. SO CONSTRUED, THE APPEAL BY THE REVENUE WOULD NOT GIVE RISE TO ANY SU BSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW AND SHALL ACCORDINGLY STAND DISMISSED. THERE SH ALL BE NO ORDER AS TO COSTS. 11. THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASES OF F.C.I. TECHNOLOGY SERVICES LTD. VS. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (SUPRA), BEHR INDIA LIM ITED VS. ACIT (SUPRA) AND M/S. VISHAY COMPONENTS INDIA PVT. LTD. V S. THE ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (SUPRA) HAVE TAKEN CONSISTENT VIEW BY FOLLOWING THE ABOVE JUDGMENTS RENDERED BY THE HON'BLE BO MBAY HIGH COURT AND HON'BLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT. 12. THUS, IN VIEW OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND THE JUDGME NTS DISCUSSED ABOVE, WE HOLD THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ELIGIBLE TO C LAIM DEDUCTION U/S. 10A, BEFORE ADJUSTING LOSSES OF NAGPUR UN IT. IN OTHER WORDS, THE INCOME OF SECTION 10A UNIT HAS TO BE EXCLUDED AT SOURCE 13 ITA NOS. 1326/PN/2009 & 1344/PN/2011, A.Y. 2005-06 ITSELF BEFORE ARRIVING AT THE GROSS TOTAL INCOME. ACCORDINGL Y, GROUND NO. 3 RAISED IN THE APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 13. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED A ND THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS SET ASIDE. ITA NO. 1344/PN/2011 (BY THE REVENUE) 14. THE REVENUE HAS FILED APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF COM MISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) PRIMARILY ON THE GROUND THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE ASSE SSEES NEW UNIT IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S. 10A, WITHOUT APPRECIATING TH AT THE NEW UNIT HAS BEEN FORMED BY THE RECONSTRUCTION OF A BU SINESS ALREADY IN EXISTENCE IN VIOLATION OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 10A(2)(II) OF THE ACT. 15. THE REVENUE HAS FILED APPEAL WITH THE DELAY OF 696 DA YS. THE APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY HAS BEEN FILED. THE SAME READS AS UNDER: SUB: FILING OF APPEAL BEFORE THE ITAT IN THE CASE OF PERSISTENT SYSTEMS P. LTD. FOR A.Y. 2004-05 AND 2005-06 REG. REF: LETTER NO. PN/CIT-II/JUDL/ITAT ORDER/2011-12/2 342 DT. 25.8.2011 RECEIVED FROM CIT-II, PUNE AND DCIT, ITAT, PUNES L ETTER NO. PN/CIT/ITAT/2011-12/330 DT. 24.8.2011. 02. WITH REFERENCE TO THE ABOVE SUBJECT, IT IS HEREBY H UMBLY SUBMITTED THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) WAS RECEIVED IN THE OFFICE OF THE CIT-II, PUNE ON 6/10/2009. ACCORDING LY THE STATUTORY TIME LIMIT FOR FILING APPEAL BEFORE THE I TAT HAS EXPIRED. HOWEVER, IT HAS BEEN NOTICED THAT AN APPE AL OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN FILED FOR BOTH THE A.Y.2004-05 AND 2005-0 6 ON THE SIMILAR GROUNDS AS THAT OF A.Y.2003-04 IN THE SUBJE CT ASSESSEE'S CASE. THE CIT(A) HAD DISMISSED THE ASSES SEE'S APPEAL FOR A.Y.2004-05 AND 2005-06. THEREFORE, PRIM AFACIE, THERE WAS NO CASE FOR FURTHER APPEAL. HOWEVER, ON DEEPER ANALYSIS, IT IS CLEAR THAT AN APPEAL HAD TO BE PREF ERRED ON THE 14 ITA NOS. 1326/PN/2009 & 1344/PN/2011, A.Y. 2005-06 LINES SIMILAR TO THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL FOR A.Y. 200 3-04. 03. THERE WAS INADVERTENT DELAY BEING MISLEAD BY TH E APPARENT FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE'S APPEAL WAS DISMIS SED FOR A.Y.2004-05 AND 2005-06. NON FILING OF APPEAL ON TH E GROUNDS SIMILAR TO A.Y.2003-04 CAUSES GREAT INJUSTICE AND L OSS TO THE REVENUE. THEREFORE, IN THE INTEREST OF REVENUE AND KEEPING IN VIEW THE INADVERTENT DELAY, IT IS HEREBY HUMBLY PRA YED FOR ADMISSION OF APPEAL FOR A.Y.2004-05 AND 2005-06. 16. A PERUSAL OF REASONS GIVEN FOR DELAY BY THE DEPARTMEN T DOES NOT EXPLAIN THE INORDINATE DELAY OF 696 DAYS IN FILING OF THE APPEA L. THE DELAY CANNOT BE CONDONED IN A CASUAL MANNER OR FOR THE REASONS THAT THE DELAY HAS BEEN CAUSED DUE TO DELAY IN SEEKING APPRO VAL OR THERE WAS CHANGE OF OPINION REGARDING FILING OF APPEAL. THE DELAY OF EACH AND EVERY DAY IN FILING OF APPEAL HAS TO BE EXPLAINED. 17. THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA IN THE CASE OF OFFICE OF THE CHIEF POST MASTER GENERAL AND OTHERS VS. LIVING MEDIA INDI A LTD. AND ANOTHER REPORTED AS 348 ITR 7 (SC) HAS DEPRECIATED THE PRACTICE O F FILING APPEALS BY THE GOVT. DEPARTMENTS WITH UNWARRANTED DELA Y. THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE APEX COURT IS REPRODUCED HERE-IN-UNDER: 12. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE PERSON(S) CONCER NED WERE WELL AWARE OR CONVERSANT WITH THE ISSUES INVOLVED INCLUDING THE P RESCRIBED PERIOD OF LIMITATION FOR TAKING UP THE MATTER BY WAY OF FILING A SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION IN THIS COURT. THEY CANNOT CLAIM THAT THEY HAVE A S EPARATE PERIOD OF LIMITATION WHEN THE DEPARTMENT WAS POSSESSED WITH CO MPETENT PERSONS FAMILIAR WITH COURT PROCEEDINGS. IN THE ABSENCE OF PLAUSIBLE AND ACCEPTABLE EXPLANATION, WE ARE POSING A QUESTION WH Y THE DELAY IS TO BE CONDONED MECHANICALLY MERELY BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT OR A WING OF THE GOVERNMENT IS A PARTY BEFORE US. THOUGH WE ARE CONS CIOUS OF THE FACT THAT IN A MATTER OF CONDONATION OF DELAY WHEN THERE WAS NO GROSS NEGLIGENCE OR DELIBERATE INACTION OR LACK OF BONAFI DE, A LIBERAL CONCESSION HAS TO BE ADOPTED TO ADVANCE SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE, W E ARE OF THE VIEW THAT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, THE DEPARTMENT CANN OT TAKE ADVANTAGE OF 15 ITA NOS. 1326/PN/2009 & 1344/PN/2011, A.Y. 2005-06 VARIOUS EARLIER DECISIONS. THE CLAIM ON ACCOUNT OF IMPERSONAL MACHINERY AND INHERITED BUREAUCRATIC METHODOLOGY OF MAKING SE VERAL NOTES CANNOT BE ACCEPTED IN VIEW OF THE MODERN TECHNOLOGIES BEIN G USED AND AVAILABLE. THE LAW OF LIMITATION UNDOUBTEDLY BINDS E VERYBODY INCLUDING THE GOVERNMENT. 13. IN OUR VIEW, IT IS THE RIGHT TIME TO INFORM ALL THE GOVERNMENT BODIES, THEIR AGENCIES AND INSTRUMENTALITIES THAT UNLESS TH EY HAVE REASONABLE AND ACCEPTABLE EXPLANATION FOR THE DELAY AND THERE WAS BONAFIDE EFFORT, THERE IS NO NEED TO ACCEPT THE USUAL EXPLANATION TH AT THE FILE WAS KEPT PENDING FOR SEVERAL MONTHS/YEARS DUE TO CONSIDERABL E DEGREE OF PROCEDURAL RED-TAPE IN THE PROCESS. THE GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS ARE UNDER A SPECIAL OBLIGATION TO ENSURE THAT THEY PERF ORM THEIR DUTIES WITH DILIGENCE AND COMMITMENT. CONDONATION OF DELAY IS A N EXCEPTION AND SHOULD NOT BE USED AS AN ANTICIPATED BENEFIT FOR GO VERNMENT DEPARTMENTS. THE LAW SHELTERS EVERYONE UNDER THE SA ME LIGHT AND SHOULD NOT BE SWIRLED FOR THE BENEFIT OF A FEW. CONSIDERIN G THE FACT THAT THERE WAS NO PROPER EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE DEPARTMENT FOR THE DELAY EXCEPT MENTIONING OF VARIOUS DATES, ACCORDING TO US , THE DEPARTMENT HAS MISERABLY FAILED TO GIVE ANY ACCEPTABLE AND COGENT REASONS SUFFICIENT TO CONDONE SUCH A HUGE DELAY. 14. ACCORDINGLY, THE APPEALS ARE LIABLE TO BE DISMI SSED ON THE GROUND OF DELAY. 18. THUS, IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE INORDINATE DELAY OF 6 96 DAYS HAS NOT BEEN EXPLAINED BY THE DEPARTMENT, WE FIND NO REASON TO CONDONE THE DELAY. HERE, WE WOULD LIKE TO MENTION THAT WE ARE CON SCIOUS OF THE WELL SETTLED LAW THAT CONDONATION OF DELAY SHOULD BE A RULE AND REFUSAL AN EXCEPTION. HOWEVER, IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO CONDONE DELAY OF 696 DAYS AND ARE CONST RAINED TO TAKE EXCEPTIONAL VIEW IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL OF DEPARTMENT BEING BARRED BY LIMITATION. 19. THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS FURTHER POINTED OUT T HAT THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS NOT MAINTAINABLE AS THE COMMISSIONER OF I NCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAD REJECTED THE FIRST APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN TOTO. NO RELIEF 16 ITA NOS. 1326/PN/2009 & 1344/PN/2011, A.Y. 2005-06 HAS BEEN GRANTED BY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) TO THE ASSESSEE. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE DEPARTMENT IN APP EAL ARE NOT EMANATING FROM THE ISSUES DECIDED IN ASSESSMENT ORDER OR RAISED BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. THE LD. DR HAS NOT BEEN A BLE TO CONTROVERT THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE. 20. THUS, IN VIEW OF THE UNREBUTTED STATEMENT MADE BY T HE LD. AR, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO ENTERTAIN THE APPEAL OF THE DE PARTMENT. ACCORDINGLY, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED BEING TIME BARRED . 21. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED A ND THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THURSDAY, THE 07 TH DAY OF APRIL, 2016. SD/- SD/- ( . . / R.K. PANDA) ( ! ' / VIKAS AWASTHY) #' / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER $ % #' / JUDICIAL MEMBER / PUNE; &# / DATED : 07 TH APRIL, 2016 RK *+,%-.#/#)- / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT. 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ' () / THE CIT(A)-II, PUNE 4. ' / THE CIT-II, PUNE 5. !*+ %%,- , ,- , . ./0 , / DR, ITAT, B BENCH, PUNE. 6. + 1 23 / GUARD FILE. // ! % // TRUE COPY// #4 / BY ORDER, %5 ,0 / PRIVATE SECRETARY, ,- , / ITAT, PUNE
