Deputy Commissioner of Income tax, Pune V. Shri Sameer B. Ladkar, Pune

ITA 1358/PUN/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 116 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6063 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 2 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-08-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 29-05-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SHRI
• Keywords: Business income; Depreciation; Unabsorbed depreciation; Set aside
• Section: 80IA

Judgement Text

] IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH B , PUNE BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM AND SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM . / ITA NOS.1358/PUN/2017 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2013-14 THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 7, PUNE. . / APPELLANT V/S SHRI SAMEER B. LADKAT, BODHI TOWER, 548/2B, SALISBURY PARK, GULTEKDI, PUNE 411037. PAN : AAGPL4129H. . / RESPONDENT . / ITA NOS.1360/PUN/2017 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2013-14 THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 7, PUNE. . / APPELLANT V/S SHRI GAUTAM B. LADKAT, BODHI TOWER, 548/2B, SALISBURY PARK, GULTEKDI, PUNE 411037. PAN : AAFPL4838C. . / RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI SHARAD SHAH. REVENUE BY : SHRI PANKAJ GARG. / ORDER PER ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM : 1. THESE TWO APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE ARE EMANATING O UT OF THE SEPARATE ORDERS OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), PUNE-5, PUNE DATED 13.01.2017 FOR A.Y. 2013-14. / DATE OF HEARING : 18.07.2019 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 01.08.2019 2 ITA NOS.1358 & 1360/PUN/2017 2. BEFORE US, AT THE OUTSET, BOTH THE PARTIES SUBMITTED T HAT THOUGH THE APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE ARE AGAINST THE SEPARATE O RDERS OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) 5, PUNE, FOR DIFFERENT ASSESSEES BUT THE ISSUES INVOLVED IN BOTH THE APPEALS ARE IDENTICAL EXCEPT FOR THE ASSESSEE AND THE AMOUNTS INVOLVED AND THEREFORE THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THEM WHILE ARGUING ONE APPEAL WOULD BE EQUALLY APPLICA BLE TO THE OTHER APPEAL ALSO AND THUS BOTH THE APPEALS CAN BE HEARD TO GETHER. IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES, WE, FOR THE S AKE OF CONVENIENCE, PROCEED TO DISPOSE OF BOTH THE APPEALS BY A CONSOLIDATED ORDER BUT HOWEVER, PROCEED WITH NARRATING THE FACTS IN ITA NO. 1358/PUN/2017 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14. 3. THE RELEVANT FACTS AS CULLED OUT FROM THE MATERIAL ON RE CORD ARE AS UNDER :- ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL WHO IS STATED TO BE ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF GENERATION OF ELECTRICITY THROUGH WINDMILLS AND TANKER B USINESS. ASSESSEE FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME ON 28.09.2014 FOR A.Y. 201 3-14 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.1,27,22,966/-. THE CASE WAS SE LECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND THEREAFTER ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED U/S 143(3 ) OF THE ACT VIDE ORDER DT.21.03.2016 AND THE TOTAL INCOME WAS DETERMINED A T RS.2,06,65,113/-. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF AO, ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE LD.CIT(A), WHO VIDE ORDER DT.13.01.2017 (IN AP PEAL NO.PN/CIT(A)-5/DY.CIT, CIR-7, PUNE/36/2016-17) GRANTED SU BSTANTIAL RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF LD.CI T(A), REVENUE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE US AND HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS : 3 ITA NOS.1358 & 1360/PUN/2017 1. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE AND IN LAW THE LEARNED CIT(A) JUSTIFIED IN ALLOWING THE ASSESSEES CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 80IA(4)(IV)(A) OF THE ACT TO THE EXTENT OF RS.90,14 ,578/-. 2. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW THE LEARNED CIT(A) JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING THAT PROFIT OF THE ELIG IBLE BUSINESS HAS TO BE COMPUTED WITHOUT DEDUCTING THEREFORM BROUGHT FORWAR D NOTIONAL LOSSES OR UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION PRIOR TO THE INITIAL YEAR O F CLAIM DE HORS THE PROVISION U/S 80IA(5) OF THE ACT ? 3. IT IS PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF I NCOME TAX (APPEALS) 5, PUNE BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF ASSESSING OFFICER BE RESTORED. 4. IDENTICAL GROUNDS HAVE BEEN RAISED BY REVENUE IN ITA NO.1360/PUN/2017 FOR A.Y. 2013-14. 5 . ALL THE GROUNDS BEING INTER-CONNECTED ARE CONSIDERED TOGETHER. 6. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, AO NOTICE D THAT ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED DEDUCTION OF RS.77,05,511/- U/S 80IA (4) IN RESPECT OF PROFIT FROM WIND POWER GENERATION. AO WAS OF THE VIEW THAT AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.80IA OF THE ACT, THE PROFIT IS TO BE COMPU TED AS IF THE ELIGIBLE BUSINESS IS THE ONLY SOURCE OF INCOME AND THE LOSSE S OF EARLIER YEARS OF THE ELIGIBLE BUSINESS HAVE TO BE SET OFF AGAINST THE INCOM E. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO SHOW CAUSE AS TO WHY THE CLAIM U/S 80IA(4 ) OF THE ACT NOT BE DISALLOWED. THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE THAT WERE MAD E WERE NOT FOUND ACCEPTABLE TO THE AO. AO ALSO NOTICED THAT A.Y. 2 012-13 WAS THE FIRST YEAR OF CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 80IA(4) OF THE ACT BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE CLAIM WAS DISALLOWED BY THE AO. HE NOTED THAT THE FA CTS IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION ARE SIMILAR TO THAT OF A.Y. 2012-13. HE ACCORDINGLY HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ELIGIBLE TO CLAIM DEDUCTION U/ S 80IA(4) OF THE ACT AND ACCORDINGLY DENIED THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION. AGGRIE VED BY THE ORDER OF AO, ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE LD.CIT(A), WHO FOLLO WING THE ORDER 4 ITA NOS.1358 & 1360/PUN/2017 OF HER PREDECESSOR FOR A.Y. 2012-13 DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FA VOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY OBSERVING AS UNDER : 4 .3 I HAVE PERUSED CAREFULLY THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AND CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT. THE APPELLANT HAS CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S 80LA ON WIND MILL 0.6 MWBML KARNATAKA, WIND MILL 0.8 MW KARNATAKA WIND MILL INSTALLATION DATE 27.03.2006, WIND MILL 0.23 MW RAJASTHAN INSTALLATION DATE 19.03.2003, WIND MILL 0.23 MW RAJASTHAN. I FIND THAT, THE MAIN ISSUE UNDER DISPUTE IS THE APPLICATION OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 80IA(5) WHICH THE AO HELD THAT PROFIT IS TO BE COMPUTED AS IF THE ELIGIBLE BUSINESS WAS THE ONL Y SOURCE OF INCOME AND THERE WAS NO QUESTION OF IGNORING THE LOSSES OF EAR LIER YEARS OF THE ELIGIBLE BUSINESS WHICH HAD BEEN SET OFF AGAINST THE INCOME FROM OTHER THAN ELIGIBLE BUSINESS. THE APPELLANT HAD CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S 8 0LA WITHOUT SETTING OF THE DEPRECIATION ON WIND MILL ADJUSTED AGAINST THE OTHER INCOME BEFORE THE YEAR FROM WHICH HE STARTED CLAIMING DEDUCTION U/S 8 0LA I.E. AY 12-13. THE APPELLANT CLAIMED THAT, THE MAIN REASON FOR NOT TAK ING THE EFFECT OF SUCH DEPRECIATION WAS THAT THE DEPRECIATION RELATED TO A PERIOD BEFORE THE 'INITIAL ASSESSMENT YEAR'. THE AO HAS ALSO IN DISALLOWING TH E DEDUCTION RELIED ON THE REASONING OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR AY 12- 13. 4.4 I FIND THAT ON THE SAME FACTS AND ISSUES IN APP ELLANT'S OWN CASE FOR AY 12-13 THE CIT(A)-4 HAS HELD AT PARA 5.3.2 AS UNDER: - 'I FIND THAT THIS ISSUE NOW IS SQUARELY COVERED BY CBDT'S CIRCULAR DT. 15.02.2016, CIRCULAR NO. 1/2016 & OTHER DECISIONS R ELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE AS ABOVE. SINCE THE RELEVANT PORTION OF TH E CBDT'S CIRCULAR HAS ALREADY BEEN QUOTED ABOVE WHILE DISCUSSING THE SUBM ISSION OF THE AR IN PARA 5.2 ABOVE, THE CONTENT OF THE SAID CIRCULAR IS NOT REPEATED HERE. IN VIEW OF ABOVE, I FIND THAT THE AO WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN D ENYING THE APPELLANT'S CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 80IA(4) OF THE ACT OF RS. 1,24,68, 454/-, MERELY ON THE FACT THAT THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE PUNE ITAT HAS BEEN APPEALED BEFORE THE HON'BLE MUMBAI HIGH COURT, WHEN THE RATIO OF A NUMB ER OF DECISIONS RELATING TO THE ISSUE OF DEDUCTION UNDER THE AFORESAID SECTI ONS WERE DECIDED BY THE JURISDICTIONAL MADRAS HIGH COURT AND CHENNAI ITAT I N TWO OTHER DECISIONS AS STATED ABOVE. ACCORDINGLY THE ADDITION SO MADE ON A CCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION U/S 80IA(4) OF THE ACT OF RS. 1,24,68, 454/- IS HEREBY DELETED. GROUND NO.1 RAISED BY THE APPELLANT IS ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED. ' AS THE FACTS ARE PARI MATERIA WITH THE EARLIER YEAR , FOLLOWING JUDICIAL DISCIPLINE, THE AO IS DIRECTED TO ALLOW THE DEDUCTI ON CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT U/S 80IA(4). THE APPELLANT SUCCEEDS IN THIS GROUND OF APPEAL WHICH IS ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF LD.CIT(A), REVENUE IS NOW BEFORE US. 7. BEFORE US, LD. D.R. SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF AO. LD.A.R. ON THE OTHER HAND, REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE AO AND LD.CI T(A) AND SUBMITTED THAT IDENTICAL ISSUE AROSE IN ASSESSEESS OWN C ASES IN A.Y. 2012- 13 AND THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ORDER DT.26.06.2019 IN ITA NOS.177 AND 178/PUN/2017 HAD DISMISSED THE APPEALS OF REVENUE. 5 ITA NOS.1358 & 1360/PUN/2017 HE PLACED ON RECORD THE COPY OF THE AFORESAID ORDER AND POINTED TO THE RELEVANT FINDINGS OF THE TRIBUNAL. HE SUBMITTED THAT SINCE T HE FACTS IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION ARE IDENTICAL TO THAT OF A.Y. 2012 -13, THE ORDER OF LD.CIT(A) BE UPHELD. 8. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE M ATERIAL ON RECORD. THE ISSUE IN THE PRESENT GROUNDS IS WITH RESPE CT TO DENIAL OF CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 80IA(4) OF THE ACT. WE FIND THAT AO WH ILE DENYING THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION HAD FOLLOWED THE ORDER OF HIS PREDECESSOR FOR A.Y. 2012- 13. WE FURTHER FIND THAT LD.CIT(A) WHILE ALLOWING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO FOLLOWED THE ORDER OF HER PREDECESSOR FOR A.Y. 201 2-13. WE FURTHER FIND THAT AGAINST THE RELIEF GRANTED BY LD.CIT(A) IN A.Y. 201 2-13, REVENUE HAD PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. THE TRIBUNAL V IDE ITA NO.177 & 178/PN/2017 ORDER DATED 26.06.2018 HAD DECIDED THE ISS UE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY OBSERVING AS UNDER : 8. WE HAVE PERUSED THE CASE RECORDS AND HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS. NOW BY FAR AND LARGE, IT IS A SETTLED LEGAL POSITION WI TH REGARD TO DEDUCTION U/S.80IA(4)(IV)(A) OF THE ACT WHEREIN THE ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE IN NUMBER OF CASES. THAT, IN THE DECIS ION OF THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL, PUNE IN ITA NO.1450/PUN/2009 (SUPRA.) WHEREIN ON THE SAME ISSUE, IT WAS OBSERVED AND HELD AS FOLLOWS : 14. WE HAVE PERUSED THE CASE RECORD AND HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS. IN ITA NO.937/PUN/2008 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06, ON THE SIMILAR ISSUE OF CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S.80IA OF THE ACT, IT WAS HELD AND OBSERVED BY THE PUNE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL AS UNDER : 38. WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE RAISED IN THE PRESENT AP PEAL IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE ORDER OF TRIBUNAL IN ACIT V S. M/S. RDS CONSTRUCTION CO. IN ITA NO.135/PUN/2016, RELATING T O ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12, ORDER DATED 09.04.2008, WH EREIN IT WAS HELD AS UNDER: 10. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSE D THE RECORD. THE ISSUE WHICH ARISES IN THE PRESENT A PPEAL IS THE ALLOWABILITY OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IA(4)(IV)(A) R.W.S. 80IA(5) OF THE ACT. THE ASSES SEE HAD SET UP FIRST WINDMILL IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 AN D THE SECOND WINDMILL IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-0B. IN THE INITIAL YEARS, THERE WERE LOSSES FROM WINDMILL ACTI VITY. THE ASSESSEE WAS SIMULTANEOUSLY CARRYING ON BUSINESS OF CIVIL CONSTRUCTION, FROM WHICH THE ASSESSEE WAS 6 ITA NOS.1358 & 1360/PUN/2017 MAKING PROFITS. THE SAID LOSSES WERE ADJUSTED AGAIN ST THE INCOME ARISING FROM OTHER BUSINESS: ACTIVITY OF THE ASSESSEE. FOR THE FIRST TIME, THE WINDMILL ACTIVITY HAD SHOWN PROFIT IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 AND THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IA(4) OF THE ACT. THE SAID YEAR I.E. ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 WAS THE INITIAL ASSESSMENT YEAR FOR CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDE R SECTION 80IA( 4) OF THE ACT. THE CIT(A) AT PAGE 22 HAS GIVEN A FINDING THAT THERE WERE NO BROUGHT FORWARD LOSSES IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE AND THE SAME WERE ADJUSTED UPTO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 HAD NOT ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION ON ACCOUNT OF WINDMILL ACTIVITY. HOWEVER, THE CIT(A) AND THE TRIBUNAL THEREAFTER, AL LOWED THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION. 11. THE ISSUE WHICH IS RAISED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS THE AFORESAID CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S.80IA(4)(IV)(A) OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF WINDMILL BUSINESS. THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEE'S OWN CASE (SUPRA) IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 - 11 HAD ALREADY ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE. THE C ASE OF REVENUE IS THAT THEN THE SAME HAVE TO BE ADJUSTE D AGAINST THE UNDERTAKING BEFORE ALLOWING DEDUCTION U NDER SECTION 80IA(4)(IV)(A) OF THE ACT. THE CIT(A) IN TH E PRESENT CASE HAS GIVEN A FINDING THAT THERE WERE NO BROUGHT TOWARD LOSSES IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE, WHICH IN AN Y CASE WERE ADJUSTED UPTO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. TH E SAID FINDINGS OF CIT(A) HAVE NOT BEEN CONTROVERTED BY LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE REVENUE EXCEPT TO STRESS THAT THE SAME NEEDS VERIFICATION. WE FIND NO MERIT IN THE PLEA OF LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE REVENUE IN THIS REGARD, ESPE CIALLY WHERE IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 WHICH WAS THE PRECEDING YEAR TO THE INSTANT ASSESSMENT YEAR. THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION HAS BEEN ALLOWED IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE. IT MAY ALSO BE POINTED OUT HEREIN ITSELF THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS RUNNING CIVIL CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY FR OM WHICH IT WAS SHOWING PROFITS FROM YEAR TO YEAR AND THE LOSSES ARISING FROM WINDMILL IN THE EARLIER YEARS H AVE ALREADY BEEN SET OFF AGAINST THE SAID INCOME AND TH E BALANCE INCOME HAD BEEN ASSESSED IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE. IT IS NOT CASE OF REVENUE THAT AFTER ADJU STMENT OF LOSSES IN THE RESPECTIVE YEARS THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN ANY LOSSES. THERE IS NO MERIT IN THE ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER IN HOLDING THAT DEEMED LOSSES HAV E TO BE ADJUSTED AGAINST PROFITS OF UNDERTAKING. IN VIEW THEREOF, WE HOLD THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ENTITLED TO THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IA(4)(IV)(A) OF THE ACT. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE REVENUE ARE THU S, DISMISSED.' 39. THE ISSUE RAISED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS IDENT ICAL TO THE ISSUE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. FURTHER, THE HON'BLE SUPREME C OURT DISMISSED THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION FILED IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. BEST CORPORATION LTD.(SUPRA.), WHEREIN THE HIGH COURT HELD THAT SINC E IT HAD CONSISTENTLY FOLLOWED DECISION IN THE CASE OF VELAYUDHASWAMY SPI NNING MILLS (P.) LTD. VS. ACIT (2012) 340 ITR 477 (MAD) AND ON THE B ASIS OF SAID DECISION CBDT HAD ISSUED CIRCULAR NO.1 OF 2016, DAT ED 15.02.2016 CLARIFYING TERM 'INITIAL ASSESSMENT YEAR' IN SECTIO N 80IA(5) OF THE ACT, ORDER OF TRIBUNAL HOLDING THAT ASSESSEE WAS ENTITLE D TO DEDUCTION 7 ITA NOS.1358 & 1360/PUN/2017 UNDER SECTION 80IA OF THE ACT WITHOUT SETTING OFF L OSSES/UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION PERTAINING TO WINDMILL, WHICH WERE SET OFF IN EARLIER YEAR AGAINST OTHER BUSINESS INCOME WAS DESERVED TO BE UP HELD. 40. THE CBDT VIDE CIRCULAR NO.1/2016, DATED 1502.20 16 HAS ALSO CLARIFIED SITUATION OF CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SEC TION 801A(4) OF THE ACT BY ANY CONCERN BY ADOPTING INITIAL ASSESSMENT Y EAR AS THE FIRST YEAR OF CLAIM, IRRESPECTIVE OF THE FACT THAT THE WI NDMILL WAS INSTALLED AND STARTED FUNCTIONING IN ANY OF THE EARLIER YEARS . FOLLOWING THE SAME PARITY OF REASONING, WE HOLD THAT THE ASSESSEE IS E NTITLED TO CLAIM DEDUCTION U/S.80IA(4) OF THE ACT. THE GROUND OF APP EAL NO.4 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS THUS, ALLOWED. 9. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING OUR EARLIER DECISION, IN VIEW OF CBDT CIRCULAR AS HEREINABOVE REFERRED TO AND ALSO DECISION OF THE HO NBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT, RELIEF PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE BY THE LD. COMMISSI ONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IS HEREBY SUSTAINED. 9. BEFORE US, REVENUE HAS NOT POINTED OUT ANY DISTINGUISHIN G FEATURE IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE AND THAT OF ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN A.Y. 2012- 13 IN ITA NO.178/PN/2014 (SUPRA) NOR HAS PLACED ANY MAT ERIAL ON RECORD TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THE DECISION OF PUNE TRIBUNAL IN ASSES SEES OWN CASE IN A.Y. 2012-13 HAS BEEN SET ASIDE / OVERTURNED OR STAYE D BY THE HIGHER JUDICIAL FORUM. IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID FACTS, WE FIND NO RE ASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF LD.CIT(A) AND THUS THE GROUNDS OF REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. 10. NOW, WE TAKE UP REVENUES APPEAL IN ITA NO.1360/PUN /2017 FOR A.Y. 2013-14. 10.1. AS FAR AS THE GROUNDS RAISED IN APPEAL IN ITA NO. 1360/PUN/2017 FOR A.Y. 2013-14 ARE CONCERNED, IN VIEW OF THE SUBMISSION OF BO TH THE PARTIES THAT THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN THE YEAR BEING IDENTICAL TO THE FACTS AN D ISSUE OF THE CASE IN ITA NO.1358/PUN/2017 FOR A.Y. 2013-14, WE T HEREFORE FOR THE REASONS STATED HEREIN WHILE DISPOSING OF THE APPEAL IN ITA NO.1358/PUN/2017 FOR A.Y. 2013-14 AND FOR SIMILAR REASONS DISMISS THE GROUNDS OF REVENUE. THUS, THE GROUNDS OF REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. 8 ITA NOS.1358 & 1360/PUN/2017 11. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF REVENUE IN ITA NO.1360 /PUN/2017 FOR A.Y. 2013-14 IS DISMISSED. 12. TO SUM UP, BOTH THE APPEALS OF REVENUE ARE DISMISSE D. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 1 ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2019. SD/- SD/- ( SUSHMA CHOWLA ) ( ANIL CHATURVEDI ) ! / JUDICIAL MEMBER '! / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PUNE; DATED : 1 ST AUGUST, 2019. YAMINI #$%&'('% / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT 3. 4. 5 6. CIT(A)-5, PUNE. PR. CIT 4, PUNE. '#$ %%&',) &', / DR, ITAT, B PUNE; $*+,/ GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER // TRUE COPY // -./%0&1 / SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY ) &', / ITAT, PUNE.