Dy Commissioner of income Tax, Yamunanagar V. M/s Yamuna Power & Infrastructure Ltd., Jagadhari

ITA 1375/CHANDI/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6994 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-08-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Next Hearing Date: 15-02-2017
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 14-12-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANJEET SINGH
• Keywords: Business income
• Section: 14A; 6

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, CHANDIGARH BEFORE MS. DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MS. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.1375/CHD/2016 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14) THE D.C.I.T., VS. M/S YAMUNA POWER & YAMUNA NAGAR CIRCLE, INFRASTRUCTURE LTD., YAMUNA NAGAR. SARDANA NAGAR, AMBALA ROAD, JAGADHRI. PAN: AAACY0554A (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI MANJEET SINGH. SR.DR RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SUDHIR SEHGAL, ADV. DATE OF HEARING : 03.08.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 11.08.2017 O R D E R PER ANNAPURNA GUPTA, A.M. : THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD.CIT (APPEALS), PANCHKULA DAT ED 28.10.2016. 2. GROUND NO.1(I) RAISED BY THE REVENUE READS AS UN DER: I) WHETHER THE CIT(A), PANCHKULA WAS RIGHT IN DELETIN G THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO BY DISALLOWING DEDUCTIO N U/S 80IA OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE BY RELYING UPON ITS OWN DECISION AS WELL A S THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE ITAT, CHANDIGARH IN THE CAS E OF SAME ASSESSEE FOR THE A.Y.2012-13, WHEREIN IT WAS H ELD THAT THE INITIAL ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 WAS INADVERTENTLY MENTIONED IN FORM 10CCB, SINCE IN ALL THE AUDIT REPORTS FOR A.Y. 2004-05, 2009-10, 2010-11 A ND 2011-12, THE INITIAL YEAR HAS BEEN MENTIONED A.Y.20 04-05 ONLY. 3. THE ISSUE IN THE ABOVE GROUND PERTAINS TO DELETI ON OF DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION CLAIMED U/S 80IA OF THE I NCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT)BY THE ASSESSEE. 2 4. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE CO MPANY HAD ESTABLISHED TWO WIND MILLS IN THE DISTRICT JAIS ALMER, RAJASTHAN, A 20 MW WIND FARM AT VILLAGE GORERA AND 25 MW WIND FARM AT VILLAGE SODA MADA ON 30.3.2004 AND 24. 1.2004 RESPECTIVELY. THE ASSESSEE WAS ELIGIBLE TO CLAIM D EDUCTION U/S 80IA OF THE ACT ON ACCOUNT OF PROFITS DERIVED F ROM THE SAME. FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2004-05 TO 2006-07 THE ASSESSEE COMPANY INCURRED LOSSES ON THESE WIND POWE R PLANTS AND SET OFF THE SAME AGAINST INCOME DERIVED FROM ITS BUSINESS OF CABLE JOINTING, ETC., WHICH DID NOT QUA LIFY FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80IA OF THE ACT. FROM ASSESSMENT YEA R 2007- 08 ONWARDS THE ASSESSEE EARNED PROFITS ON THE WIND POWER PLANTS AND CLAIMED DEDUCTION ON THE SAME U/S 80IA O F THE ACT. FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR I.E. 2013-14, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THE AFORESAID DEDUCTION U/S 80IA O F RS.86,99,014/- @ 100% OF THE INCOME EARNED FROM THE SAID BUSINESS OF WIND POWER PROJECT. THE ASSESSING OFFI CER DENIED THE SAID DEDUCTION TO THE ASSESSEE HOLDING T HAT AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 80IA(5) OF THE ACT, T HE BROUGHT FORWARD LOSSES OF THE SAID ELIGIBLE BUSINESS WERE FIRST REQUIRED TO BE SET OFF AGAINST THE INCOME OF THE EL IGIBLE BUSINESS EVEN IF THEY WERE SET OFF AGAINST THE NON- ELIGIBLE BUSINESS IN THE RESPECTIVE YEARS. THE ASSESSING OF FICER HELD THAT THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN GIVEN AN OPT ION TO CHOOSE A BLOCK OF 10 CONSECUTIVE ASSESSMENT YEARS O UT OF A BLOCK OF 15 YEARS FOR CLAIMING DEDUCTION UNDER THE SAID SECTION, THE INITIAL YEAR WOULD STILL REFER TO THE FIRST YEAR OF COMMENCEMENT OF BUSINESS AND NOT THE FIRST YEAR OF THE 3 BLOCK OF 10 YEARS AND, THEREFORE, AS PER THE PROVIS IONS OF SECTION 80IA(5) OF THE ACT THE LOSSES BEGINNING FRO M THE INITIAL ASSESSMENT YEAR WOULD HAVE TO BE SET OFF FR OM THE PROFITS IN THE LATTER YEARS FOR DETERMINING THE QUA NTUM OF DEDUCTION AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER NOTED THAT IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE AFTER SE TTING OF THE LOSSES FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2004-05 TO 2006 -07 AGAINST THE INCOME FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2007-08 TO THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR I.E. ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013- 14, THERE WAS STILL BROUGHT FORWARD LOSSES OF RS.303.37 LACS REMAINING, THUS RENDERING INCOME FROM THE ELIGIBLE BUSINESS IN THE IMPUGNED YEAR AT NIL. THE ASSESSING OFFICER , THEREFORE, FOR THE SAID REASONS DENIED EXEMPTION CL AIMED BY THE ASSESSEE AT RS.86,99,014/-. 5. THE MATTER WAS CARRIED IN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD.CIT(APPEALS) WHO ALLOWED THE ASSESSEES APPEAL F OLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE ITAT CHANDIGARH BENCH IN THE CA SE OF THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13. 6. BEFORE US THE LD. DR FAIRLY ADMITTED THAT THE IS SUE HAD BEEN DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE IN ASSESSMEN T YEAR 2012-13 AND ALSO IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. 7. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE RELIED UPON THE ORD ER OF THE LD.CIT(APPEALS). 8. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES. THE ONLY CONTRO VERSY TO BE DECIDED IN THE PRESENT CASE IS WHETHER FOR CL AIMING DEDUCTION U/S 80IA OF THE ACT THE LOSSES WHICH WERE 4 INCURRED BY THE ELIGIBLE BUSINESS IN THE PERIOD EAR LIER TO THE INITIAL YEAR OPTED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE TO BE NOTION ALLY CARRIED FORWARD TO THE INITIAL ASSESSMENT YEAR AND ADJUSTED BEFORE CLAIMING DEDUCTION U/S 80IA OF THE ACT. 9. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ORDER OF THE I.T.A.T. I N THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE PRECEDING ASSESSMENT Y EAR I.E. ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 AND WE FIND THAT IDENTICAL ISSUE WAS ADJUDICATED UPON BY THE I.T.A.T. IN FAVOUR OF T HE ASSESSEE FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE MADR AS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF VELAYUDHASWAMY SPINNING MILLS PVT. LTD. VS. ACIT, 340 ITR 477 AND THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. ANIL H LAD (2014) 102 DTR 241. FOLLOWING THE SAID TWO DECISIO NS THE I.T.A.T. HELD THAT THE OPTION OF CHOOSING 10 YEARS OUT OF A BLOCK OF 15 YEARS FOR CLAIMING DEDUCTION U/S 80IA R ESTED WITH THE ASSESSEE AND ONCE THE OPTION WAS EXERCISED ,THE INITIAL YEAR WOULD BE THE FIRST YEAR IN THE BLOCK A ND ANY PROFIT OR LOSS PERTAINING TO PRIOR YEARS WOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED FOR THE PURPOSE OF CALCULATING THE PROFI TS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION AS PER SECTION 80IA(5).IN SHORT IT WA S HELD THAT THERE WAS NO NEED TO NOTIONALLY CARRIED FORWAR D THE LOSSES PRIOR TO THE INITIAL ASSESSMENT YEAR AND WR ITE OFF THE SAME OUT OF THE PROFITS OUT OF THE ELIGIBLE BUSINES S SUBSEQUENTLY. 10. THE LD.CIT(APPEALS) HAVING FOLLOWED THE AFORESA ID DECISION OF THE I.T.A.T. IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSE E FOR THE PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEARS AND WITH NO DISTINGUISHI NG 5 FACTS HAVING BEEN BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE BY THE LD. DR, WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(APPEAL S). MOREOVER, IT IS PERTINENT TO POINT OUT THAT SLP FIL ED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF VELAYUDHASWAMY SPINNING MILLS PVT. LTD. (SUPRA) HAS BEEN DISMISSED BY THE HON'BLE SUPR EME COURT VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 05-09-2016 IN SPECIAL LE AVE TO APPEAL (C) NO. 33475/2012. FURTHER IT IS ALSO PERT INENT TO POINT OUT THAT THE CBDT HAS ISSUED A CIRCULAR WHICH IS IN CONSONANCE WITH THE DECISION RENDERED BY THE HON'BL E MADRAS HIGH COURT AND HON'BLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT REFERRED TO ABOVE, CLARIFYING THAT THE INITIAL ASSE SSMENT YEAR FOR THE PURPOSE OF CLAIMING DEDUCTION U/S 80 IA SHA LL BE THE FIRST YEAR OPTED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE BLOCK OF 10 YEARS OUT OF 15 YEARS BEGINNING WITH THE YEAR IN WHICH THE EL IGIBLE ACTIVITY IS COMMENCED, AND LOSSES INCURRED PRIOR TO THAT ARE NOT TO BE SET OFF FROM THE PROFITS EARNED. THE CIRC ULAR IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER : CIRCULAR NO. 1 /2016 GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF FINANCE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI, THE 15 TH FEBRUARY, 2016 SUBJECT: CLARIFICATION OF THE TERM 'INITIAL ASSESSM ENT YEAR' IN SECTION SOIA (5) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. SECTION 8OIA OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 ('ACT'), A S SUBSTITUTED BY THE FINANCE ACT, 1999 WITH EFFECT FROM 01.04,2000, PROV IDES FOR DEDUCTION OF AN AMOUNT EQUAL TO 100 % OF THE PROFITS AND GAINS D ERIVED BY AN UNDERTAKING OR ENTERPRISE FROM AN ELIGIBLE BUSINESS (AS REFERRED TO IN SUB- SECTION (4) OF THAT SECTION) IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PRESCRIBED PROVISIONS. SUB-SECTION (2) OF SECTION 8OIA FURTHER PROVIDES TH AT THE AFORESAID DEDUCTION CAN BE CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSES, AT HIS OP TION, FOR ANY TEN CONSECUTIVE ASSESSMENT YEARS OUT OF FIFTEEN YEARS ( TWENTY YEARS IN CERTAIN CASES) BEGINNING FROM THE YEAR IN WHICH THE UNDERTAKING COMMENCES OPERATION, BEGINS DEVELOPMENT OR STARTS P ROVIDING SERVICES ETC. AS STIPULATED THEREIN. SUB-SECTION (5) OF SECT ION 8OIA FURTHER PROVIDES AS UNDER - 'NOTWITHSTANDING ANYTHING CONTAINED IN ANY OTHER PR OVISION OF THIS ACT, THE PROFITS AND GAINS OF ON ELIGIBLE BUSINESS TO WHICH THE PROVISIONS 6 OF SUB-SECTION (1) APPLY SHALL, FOR THE PURPOSES OF DETERMINING THE QUANTUM OF DEDUCTION UNDER THAT SUB-SECTION FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR IMMEDIATELY SUCCEEDING THE INITIAL ASSESSMENT YEAR OR ANY SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEAR, HE COMPUTED AS IF SUCH ELIGIBLE BU SINESS WERE THE ONLY SOURCE OF INCOME OF THE ASSESSES DURING THE PREVIOU S YEAR RELEVANT TO THE INITIAL ASSESSMENT YEAR AND TO EVERY SUBSEQUENT ASS ESSMENT YEAR UP TO AND INCLUDING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR FOR WHICH THE DET ERMINATION IS TO BE MADE'. IN THE ABOVE SUB-SECTION, WHICH PRESCRIBES SHE MANN ER OF DETERMINING THE QUANTUM OF DEDUCTION, A REFERENCE H AS BEEN MADE TO THE TERM 'INITIAL ASSESSMENT YEAR'. IT HAS BEEN REPRESE NTED THAT SOME ASSESSING OFFICERS ARE INTERPRETING THE TERM 'INITI AL ASSESSMENT YEAR' AS THE YEAR IN WHICH THE ELIGIBLE BUSINESS/ MANUFACTUR ING ACTIVITY HAD COMMENCED AND ARE CONSIDERING SUCH FIRST YEAR OF COMMENCEMENT/OPERATION ETC. ITSELF AS THE FIRST YEA R FOR GRANTING DEDUCTION, IGNORING THE CLEAR MANDATE PROVIDED UNDE R SUB-SECTION (2) WHICH ALLOWS A CHOICE TO THE ASSESSEE FOR DECIDING THE YEAR FROM WHICH IT DESIRES TO CLAIM DEDUCTION OUT OF THE APPLICABLE SL AB OF FIFTEEN (OR TWENTY) YEARS. THE MATTER HAS BEEN EXAMINED BY THE BOARD. IT IS AB UNDANTLY CLEAR FROM SUB-SECTION (2) THAT AN ASSESSEE WHO IS ELIGIB LE TO CLAIM DEDUCTION U/S 80W HAS THE OPTION TO CHOOSE THE INITIAL/ FIRST YEAR FROM WHICH IT MAY DESIRE THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION FOR TEN CONSECUTIVE Y EARS, OUT OF A SLAB OF FIFTEEN F OR TWENTY) YEARS, AS PRESCRIBED UNDER THA T SUB-SECTION. IT IS HEREBY CLARIFIED THAT ONCE SUCH INITIAL ASSESSMENT YEAR HAS BEEN OPTED FOR BY THE ASSESSEE, HE SHALL BE ENTITLED TO CLAIM DEDUCTION U/S SOIA FOR TEN CONSECUTIVE YEARS BEGINNING FROM THE YEAR IN RE SPECT OF WHICH HE HAS EXERCISED SUCH OPTION SUBJECT TO THE FULFILLMENT OF CONDITIONS PRESCRIBED IN THE SECTION. HENCE, THE TERM 'INITIAL ASSESSMENT YE AR' WOULD MEAN THE FIRST YEAR OPTED FOR BY THE ASSESSEE FOR CLAIMING D EDUCTION U/S 80IA. HOWEVER, THE TOTAL NUMBER OF YEARS FOR CLAIMING DEDU CTION SHOULD NOT TRANSGRESS THE PRESCRIBED SLAB OF FIFTEEN OR TWENTY YEARS, AS THE CASE MAY BE AND THE PERIOD OF CLAIM SHOULD BE AVAILED IN CONTINUITY. THE ASSESSING OFFICERS ARE, THEREFORE, DIRECTED TO ALLOW DEDUCTION U/S 80IA IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS CLARIFIC ATION AND AFTER BEING SATISFIED THAT ALL THE PRESCRIBED CONDITIONS APPLICABLE IN A PARTICULAR CASE ARE DULY SATISFIED. PENDING LITIGAT ION ON ALLOWABILITY OF DEDUCTION U/S 80 IA SHALL ALSO NOT BE PURSUED TO TH E EXTENT IT RELATES TO INTERPRETING 'INITIAL ASSESSMENT YEAR' AS MENTIO NED IN SUBSECTION (5) OF THAT SECTION FOR WHICH THE STANDING COUNSELS/D.R .S BE SUITABLY INSTRUCTED. THE ABOVE BE BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF ALL ASSESSING OFFICERS CONCERNED. (DEEPSHJKHA SHARMA) DIRECTOR TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA (F.NO. 200/31/2015-ITA-L) COPY TO: 1. CHAIRMAN AND ALL MEMBERS OF CBDT 2. PS/OSD TO SECRETARY (REVENUE) 3. O/O PR. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF INCOME TAXJSYSTEMS) WIT H REQUEST FOR UPLOADING ON OFFICIAL WEBSITE IN PUBLIC DOMAIN 4. ALL PR. CHIEF-COMMISSIONERS/DIRECTORS-GENERAL OF INC OME-TAX 5. ALL OFFICERS AND TECHNICAL SECTIONS OF CBDT 6. ITCC DIVISION OF CBDT (3 COPIES) 7. ADDL./JT. CIT DATABASE CELL FOR UPLOADING ON IRS OF FICERS WEBSITE 8. ADG(PR,PP & 01) WITH REQUEST TO POST A TWEET ON OFF ICIAL HANDLE OF THE DEPARTMENT 9. GUARD FILE (DEEPSHIKHA SHARMA) DIRECTORTO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA 11. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE IN THE PRESENT GROUND HAS ATTAINED FINALITY IN FAVOUR OF T HE 7 ASSESSEE AND, THEREFORE, THE GROUND RAISED BY THE R EVENUE DOES NOT SURVIVE. THE GROUND NO.1 RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS, THEREFORE , DISMISSED. 12. GROUND NO.(II) RAISED BY THE REVENUE READS AS U NDER II) WHETHER THE CIT(A), PANCHKULA WAS RIGHT IN DIRE CTING THE A.O. TO RECOMPUTE THE DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A R.W. RULE 8D IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE COMPUTATION MADE IN APPELLAN TS OWN CASE IN A.Y.2012-13. 13. BRIEF FACTS RELEVANT TO THE ISSUE ARE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAD MADE INVESTMENTS OF RS.1,44,06,704/- IN SHARE CAPITAL WI TH THE NGM YAMUNA POWER LTD. KENYA AND HAD ALSO SHOWN DIVIDEND INCOME OF RS.2,97,021 IN THE P&L ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSEE WAS CONFRONTED AS TO WHY PROPORTIONATE EXPENDITURE INCURRED FOR MAKING INVESTMENT IN SHARE CAPITAL WITH THE COMPANY, MAY NOT BE DISALLOWED. THE ASSESS EE FILED ITS REPLY WHICH IS REPRODUCED IN PARA 4.1 OF THE AS SESSMENT ORDER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER CONCLUDED THAT THE ASS ESSEE COULD NOT DEMONSTRATE THAT THE INVESTMENTS WERE MAD E ONLY OUT OF ITS OWN FUNDS WHICH DO NOT FORM PART OF THE TOTAL INCOME IN VIEW OF PROVISION OF SECTION 14A OF THE A CT. FURTHER, THE AO HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD INCURRED EXPENDITURE FROM THE COMMON POOL OF MIXED FUNDS AND THE COMMON FUNDS WERE UTILIZED FOR EARNING NONTAXABLE I NCOME ALSO. THUS, THE PROPORTIONATE EXPENDITURE AS COMPUT ED UNDER RULE 8D(2)(II) & 8D(2)(III), AMOUNTING IN AL L TO RS.8,27,611/- WAS DISALLOWED AND ADDED TO THE INCOM E. 8 14. DURING APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE COUNSEL FOR T HE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT ALL THE INVESTMENTS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE WERE OLD ONES AND NO PART OF THE BORROWED FUNDS OF THE ASSESSEE WERE UTILIZED FOR THE ACQUISITION OF T HE INVESTMENTS DURING THE YEAR. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE AO HAD NOT BEEN ABLE TO ESTABLISH NEXUS OF FUND S BETWEEN THE INVESTMENTS MADE AND BORROWED FUNDS. TH E ASSESSEE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.8,27,611/- ON ACCOUNT OF EARNING A MEAGER AMOUNT OF DIVIDEND OF RS.2,97,021/- DEFIED ALL LOGIC. THE ASS ESSEE RELIED ON VARIOUS COURT JUDGMENTS IN ITS WRITTEN SU BMISSION. 15. THE LD.CIT(APPEALS) AFTER CONSIDERING THE ASSES SEES SUBMISSIONS, HELD THAT IDENTICAL ISSUE HAD BEEN ADJ UDICATED IN APPEAL IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRECED ING YEAR I.E. A,Y 2012-13 ALSO IN WHICH THE APPLICABILITY O F SECTION 14A WAS UPHELD BY THE LD.CIT(A) AND DISALLOWANCE W AS DIRECTED TO BE COMPUTED BY INVOKING RULE 8D AFTER M AKING ALLOWANCE FOR INTEREST EXPENSES INCURRED FOR EARNIN G BUSINESS INCOME. FOLLOWING THE SAME LD. CIT(A) DIRE CTED THE AO TO RECOMPUTED THE DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A IN THE IMPUGNED YEAR. 16. BEFORE US, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(APPEALS) IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 ON THIS GROUND HAD NOT BEEN CHALLENGED BEFO RE THE I.T.A.T. AND HAD THUS ATTAINED FINALITY. THE LD. C OUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT THE REVENUE HAD ACCEPTED THE DECISION OF THE CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE IN THE PRECEDI NG 9 ASSESSMENT YEAR AND SINCE THE LD.CIT(APPEALS) HAD F OLLOWED HIS DECISION IN THE PRESENT APPEAL, THE REVENUE WAS IN NO POSITION TO CONTEST THE SAME. 17. THE LD. DR DID NOT CONTROVERT THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE. 18. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES. UNDENIABLY, TH E LD.CIT(APPEALS) HAS ADJUDICATED THE PRESENT ISSUE F OLLOWING HIS DECISION IN THE PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR I.E. 2012-13 . THE LD. DR HAS NOT BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE ANY DISTINGUISHING FACTS. ALSO IT IS A MATTER OF RECOR D THAT THE LD.CIT(APPEALS)S DECISION IN THE PRECEDING WAS NOT CHALLENGED BEFORE THE I.T.A.T. IN VIEW OF THE SAME , THE REVENUE HAVING ACCEPTED THE LD.CIT(APPEALS) ORDER I N THE PRECEDING YEAR, CANNOT NOW CHALLENGE THE SAME IN TH E IMPUGNED YEAR. THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) ON THIS I SSUE IS THEREFORE UPHELD. GROUND OF APPEAL NO.(II) RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 19. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DIS MISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- SD/- (DIVA SINGH) (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 11 TH AUGUST, 2017 *RATI* COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A) 4. THE CIT 5. THE DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH