M/s Rohit Surfactants Pvt.Ltd., Kanpur V. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax-VI, Kanpur

ITA 147/LKW/2012

• Counselvise Citation: 14723714 RSA 2012
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 11 month(s) 30 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-03-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 24-02-2015
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 26-03-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PUNIT KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: P K KAPOOR
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Condonation of delay; Capital expenditure
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH A, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI. A. K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 147/LKW/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008 - 09 M/S ROHIT SURFACTANTS PVT. LTD. 109/366, R.K. NAGAR KANPUR V. DCIT - VI KANPUR T AN /PAN : AADCS7820A (APP ELL ANT) (RESPONDENT) ITA NO. 302, 424 & 622/LKW/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007 - 08, 2009 - 10 & 2010 - 11 ACIT - 6 KANPUR V. M/S ROHIT SURFACTANTS PVT. LTD. 109/366, R.K. NAGAR KANPUR T AN /PAN : AADCS78 20A (APP ELL ANT) (RESPONDENT) C.O. NO.70/LKW/2013 [IN ITA NO.302/LKW/2012] ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007 - 08 M/S ROHIT SURFACTANTS PVT. LTD. 109/366, R.K. NAGAR KANPUR V. DCIT - VI KANPUR T AN /PAN : AADCS7820A ( CROSS - OBJECTION ) (RESPONDENT) DEPARTMENT BY: SHRI. PUNIT KUMAR, D.R. ASSESSEE BY: SHRI. P. K. KAPOOR, C.A. DATE OF HEARING: 24 02 201 5 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 25 0 3 2015 O R D E R PER SUNIL KUMAR YADAV: THESE CROSS APPEALS BY THE REVENUE AS WELL AS THE ASSESSEE ARE PREFERRED AGAINST THE RESPECTIVE ORDERS OF THE LD. CIT(A). :-2-: 2. IN I.T.A. NO. 302/LKW/2012, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED CROSS OBJECTION LATE BY 533 DAYS. 3. SINCE THESE APPEALS WERE HEARD TOGETHER, THESE ARE BEING DISPOSED OF THROUGH THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER. WE, HOWEVER, PREF ER TO ADJUDICATE THEM ONE AFTER THE OTHER. I.T.A. NO. 302/LKW/2012: 4. IN THIS APPEAL, THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS ASSA ILED MAINLY ON TWO GROUNDS ONE IS WITH REGARD TO THE DEDUCTION OF CL AIM UNDER SECTION 80-IB OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER CALLED IN SHORT THE ACT') AND THE OTHER IS WITH REGARD TO THE DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS.10 LAKHS MADE UNDER THE HEAD REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE. 5. WITH REGARD TO THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80-IB OF THE ACT, THE FACTS BORNE OUT FROM THE RECORD ARE THAT THE AS SESSEE IS ENGAGED IN MANUFACTURING ACTIVITY OF DETERGENT CAKE, DETERGENT POWDER, ACID SLURRY, AOS, POLLY BAGS, LEATHER SHOES AND FOOTWEAR, ETC. A T ITS VARIOUS UNITS AND DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80-IB(3) OF THE ACT WAS CLA IMED ON VARIOUS UNITS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISTURBED THE DEDUCTIONS CLAI MED AND MADE PART DISALLOWANCES OUT OF THE DEDUCTIONS BY TREATING CER TAIN CREDITS IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT OF THE UNITS AS OTHER INCOME, ON WHICH THE CLAIM WAS NOT ALLOWED. THE DISALLOWANCES MADE BY THE ASSESSING O FFICER UNDER DIFFERENT UNITS ARE AS UNDER:- 1 SAHIBABAD UNIT RS.1,88,972/- 2 DHAR UNIT-1 RS.1,28,220/- 3 CHAUBEYPUR UNIT RS.37,83,078/- 4 ALWAR UNIT RS.63,990/- 5 BHOGNIPUR UNIT RS.18,000/- :-3-: 6. THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A) EXPLAINING ITS CLAIM RAISED UNDER SECTION 80-IB OF THE ACT AT DIFF ERENT UNITS. THE LD. CIT(A) EXAMINED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE RAISED UN DER SECTION 80-IB OF THE ACT UNIT-WISE AND IN THE CASE OF DHAR UNIT-1, O UT OF TOTAL INCOME OTHER INCOME OF RS.4,27,368/;, RENT OF RS.1,80,000/-; MI SCELLANEOUS RECEIPT OF RS.2,46,568/- AND INTEREST ON FDR OF RS.800/- WAS N OT CONSIDERED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS QUALIFYING FOR AS PART OF ELIG IBLE PROFIT FOR CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80-IB OF THE ACT AND ACCORD INGLY THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED A SUM OF RS.1,28,120/- OUT OF TH E DEDUCTION CLAIMED BEING 30% OF THE OTHER INCOME. 7. THE LD. CIT(A) RE-EXAMINED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSE E IN THE LIGHT OF ASSESSEES CONTENTIONS, WHICH ARE REPRODUCED IN PAR A 6.2.2 OF HIS ORDER AND WAS OF THE VIEW THAT WITH REGARD TO THE INTEREST ON FDRS, THE SAME CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS PART OF ELIGIBLE PROFITS IN VIEW O F THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF PANDIAN CHEMIC ALS, 262 ITR 278. 8. SO FAR AS THE RENT AND MISCELLANEOUS RECEIPTS ARE C ONSIDERED, THE LD. CIT(A) WAS CONVINCED WITH THE EXPLANATIONS OF THE A SSESSEE. WITH REGARD TO THE RENT OF RS.1.80 LAKHS, THE LD. CIT(A) WAS OF THE VIEW THAT IT WAS RECEIVED FROM IOC, WHICH IS THE MAJOR SUPPLIER OF L AB, WHICH IS A MAJOR COMPONENT OF RAW MATERIAL IN MANUFACTURING THE ASSE SSEES PRODUCT. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALLOWED IOC TO STORE LAB IN ITS FACTOR Y PREMISES TO ENSURE UNINTERRUPTED SUPPLY OF LAB FOR ITS MANUFACTURING A CTIVITY. IT WAS ALSO EXPLAINED THAT IOC WAS STORING GOODS ONLY TO MAKE S UPPLY TO THE ASSESSEE- COMPANY AND NOT TO ANY OTHER PERSON. THE ASSESSEE- COMPANY HAS ALSO RECEIVED A SUM OF RS.2,29,818/- FROM IOC AS ADMINIS TRATIVE CHARGES WHICH ARE MORE OR LESS REIMBURSEMENT EXPENSES INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE- COMPANY ON ACCOUNT OF LOADING AND UNLOADING OF THE MATERIAL, AS THE SAME WAS BEING HANDLED BY THE STAFF AND LABOUR OF THE AS SESSEE-COMPANY. THE LD. CIT(A) ACCORDINGLY HELD THAT THIS RENTAL ARRANG EMENT WAS HAVING A DIRECT :-4-: NEXUS WITH THE INDUSTRIAL ACTIVITY OF THE COMPANY, AS IT PROVIDED CONTINUITY AND REGULAR SUPPLY OF RAW MATERIAL IN CORRECT QUANT ITIES, WHICH SUPPORTED THE MANUFACTURING. THE LD. CIT(A) ACCORDINGLY DIRE CTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ALLOW DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80-IB OF T HE ACT ON RENTAL INCOME AND MISCELLANEOUS RECEIPTS AT RS.2,29,818/-. THE O THER MISCELLANEOUS RECEIPTS OF RS.20,260/- RELATING TO DHARAM KANTA RE CEIPTS (EARNED FOR WEIGHING OF RAW MATERIALS BEING CONSUMED), ACCORDIN G TO THE LD. CIT(A), HAS DIRECT NEXUS BY ITS NATURE ITSELF WITH THE MANU FACTURING ACTIVITY, AS THE RAW MATERIAL WEIGHED WAS BEING CONSUMED FOR MANUFAC TURING THE ASSESSEES PRODUCT AND THE LD. CIT(A) ACCORDINGLY D IRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ALLOW DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80-IB(3) O F THE ACT. 9. THE REVENUE HAS SIMPLY PLACED RELIANCE UPON THE ORD ER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH REGARD TO THE CLAIM OF DEDUC TION UNDER SECTION 80- IB(3) OF THE ACT WITH RESPECT TO DHAR UNIT-1 WHEREA S THE LD. CIT(A) HAS EXAMINED EACH AND EVERY RECEIPT IN THE LIGHT OF VAR IOUS JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS. SINCE NO INFIRMITY HAS BEEN POINTE D OUT IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), WE CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (A) IN THIS REGARD. 10. WITH REGARD TO THE SAHIBABAD UNIT, THE JOB WORK CHA RGES AMOUNTING TO RS.6,29,908/- WAS CREDITED IN THE PROFIT AND LOS S ACCOUNT OF THE UNIT, WHICH WAS NOT CONSIDERED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER A S PART OF ELIGIBLE PROFIT FOR CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80-IB OF THE A CT. 11. THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A) WITH THE SUBMISSION THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS DOING JOB WORK IN ITS INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING BY UTILIZING THE VERY SAME MACHINERY AN D LABOUR, THEREFORE, THE CONVERSION CHARGES HAVE A DIRECT NEXUS WITH THE MAN UFACTURING ACTIVITY OF THE ASSESSEE. BEING CONVINCED WITH THE EXPLANATION S OF THE ASSESSEE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO AL LOW DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80-IB(3) OF THE ACT ON JOB WORK RECEIPTS OF RS.6,29,908/-. :-5-: 12. AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), THE REVENUE HA S PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, BUT HAS SIMPLY PLACED R ELIANCE UPON THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDE R OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS POINTED OUT BY THE LD. D.R.; WHEREAS ON A PERUSAL O F THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), WE FIND THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ALLOWED REL IEF TO THE ASSESSEE IN THE LIGHT OF VARIOUS JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS, IN WHICH IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80-IB OF THE ACT IS ALLOWAB LE IN RESPECT OF RECEIPTS FROM JOB WORK. SINCE WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE, WE CONFIRM THE SAME. 13. WITH REGARD TO THE ALWAR UNIT, THE OTHER INCOME O F RS.2,13,301/- COMPRISED OF RENT OF RS.1,05,000/-; HANDLING CHARGE S OF RS.89,842/- AND INTEREST ON FDR OF RS.18,459/-, WHICH WAS NOT CONSI DERED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS PART OF ELIGIBLE PROFIT FOR CLAIM OF DED UCTION UNDER SECTION 80-IB OF THE ACT AND ACCORDINGLY DISALLOWED A SUM OF RS.63,9 90/- OUT OF DEDUCTION CLAIMED BEING 30% OF THE OTHER INCOME. 14. THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A) AND RAISED ARGUMENTS AS RAISED IN THE CASE OF DHAR UNIT-1 AND THE LD. CIT(A), FOR THE SAME REASONS AS GIVEN IN THE CASE OF DHAR UNIT-1, H AS DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ALLOW DEDUCTION OF RENT OF RS. 1.05 LAKHS AND HANDING CHARGES OF RS.89,842/-. 15. SO FAR AS THE INTEREST ON FDR OF RS.18,459/- IS CON CERNED, DEDUCTION WAS NOT ALLOWED. 16. WE HAVE ALREADY ADJUDICATED THE NATURE OF RECEIPTS WHILE DEALING WITH THE RECEIPTS IN THE CASE OF DHAR UNIT-1 IN WHI CH WE HAVE CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). SINCE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ALSO FOLLOWED HIS FINDINGS TAKEN IN THE CASE OF DHAR UNIT-1, WE FIND NO INFIRM ITY IN HIS ORDER ON THIS ISSUE AND ACCORDINGLY WE CONFIRM THE SAME. :-6-: 17. WITH RESPECT TO OTHER UNITS, DISALLOWANCES MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WERE CONFIRMED, AS THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF HAS WITHDRAWN ITS CLAIM BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). 18. THE FACTS IN BRIEF BORNE OUT WITH REGARD TO THE OTH ER GROUND RELATING TO DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS.10 LAKHS UNDER THE HE AD REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE, ARE THAT OUT OF EXPENSES INCURRED ON REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE AN AD H OC DISALLOWANCE OF RS.10 LAKHS HAVING NOTED CERTAIN ANOMALIES IN THE M AINTENANCE OF ACCOUNTS. 19. THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A) WITH THE SUBMISSION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MAINTAINED COMPLET E RECORDS INCLUDING LEDGER ACCOUNTS, BILLS, VOUCHERS AND ALL OTHER SUPP ORTING EVIDENCE WERE PRODUCED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR VERIFICAT ION. WITHOUT POINTING OUT ANY DEFECT IN THE MAINTENANCE OF THE BOOKS OF ACCOU NT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS DISALLOWED RS.10 LAKHS ON AD HOC BASIS. THE LD. CIT(A) RE- EXAMINED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE LIGHT OF THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND HAS DELETED THE SAME. 20. NOW THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, B UT DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE LD. D.R. COULD NOT POINT OUT ANY SPECIFIC EXPENDITURE WHICH SHOULD HAVE BEEN BOOKED AS CAPITAL EXPENDITUR E. WE, HOWEVER, HAVE CAREFULLY EXAMINED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORIT IES AND WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE AD HOC DISALLOWANCE WHIC H IS NOT PERMISSIBLE UNDER THE LAW. IF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT CON VINCED WITH A PARTICULAR EXPENDITURE, HE SHOULD HAVE MADE SPECIFIC DISALLOWA NCE AFTER TREATING IT TO BE CAPITAL EXPENDITURE OR ESTABLISHING IT TO BE BOG US ONE. BUT WITHOUT POINTING OUT ANY SPECIFIC IRREGULARITY IN THE MAINT ENANCE OF ACCOUNTS OR A PARTICULAR EXPENDITURE, AD HOC DISALLOWANCE IS NOT PERMISSIBLE. THEREFORE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD . CIT(A) WHO HAS PROPERLY ADJUDICATED THE ISSUE. :-7-: C.O. NO.70/LKW/2013: 21. CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN I.T.A. NO. 302/LKW/2012 IS LATE BY 532 DAYS. THROUGH THIS CROSS OBJECTION, TH E ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- 1. BECAUSE THE ASSESSMENT MADE ON 20.03.2009 VIDE INTI MATION UNDER SECTION 143(1) HAD ALL THE ATTRIBUTES OF AN A SSESSMENT AND DURING THE SUBSISTENCE OF THE ASSESSMENT SO MADE, O THER ASSESSMENT CAPTIONED AS ASSESSMENT 'UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF TH E INCOME TAX ACT 1961' DATED 14.05.2009 COULD NOT HAVE BEEN MADE . 2. BECAUSE THE CIT(A) ON A DUE CONSIDERATION OF THE CH RONOLOGY OF RELEVANT DATES AND EVENTS AS GIVEN HEREIN BELOW: - SI. DATE EVENTS NO. (I) 30.10.2007 'RETURN' E - FILED UNDER SECTION 139(1) (II) 30.07.2008 NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) ISSUED AND DATE FIXED FOR COMPLIANCE WAS 27.10.2008. (III) 20.03.2009 'RETURN' E - F ILED ON 30.10.2007 WAS PROCESSED AND ACCEPTED UNDER SECTION 143(1) ON THIS DATE. SHOULD HAVE HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE/RESPONDENT GOT ASSESSED AND ENTIRE 'VARIATION' BETWEEN THE 'INCOME RETURNE D' AND VIDE THE OTHER ORDER DATED 14.05.2009 PASSED UNDER SECTION 1 43(3) WAS WHOLLY UNCALLED FOR AND ILLEGAL. 22. ALONG WITH THE CROSS OBJECTION, THE ASSESSEE HAS NO T MOVED ANY APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY EXPLAINING THE REASON FOR NOT FILING THE CROSS OBJECTION IN TIME. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EXP LANATION FOR DELAY IN FILING OF THE CROSS OBJECTION, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE DELAY OF 533 DAYS CANNOT BE CONDONED. MOREOVER, THE APPEAL IN I.T.A. NO. 30 2/LKW/2012 FOR :-8-: ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 WAS FILED ON 28.5.2012 AND THE ASSESSEE HAD BEEN APPEARING THROUGH HIS COUNSEL SINCE 4.9.2012 A ND THE CROSS OBJECTION WAS FILED ON 13.12.2013. THEREFORE, THE CROSS OBJE CTION IS TIME BARRED AND CANNOT BE ADMITTED FOR HEARING. ACCORDINGLY, WE DI SMISS THE SAME. I.T.A. NO. 147/LKW/2012: 23. THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE OR DER OF THE LD. CIT(A) ON VARIOUS GROUNDS. 24. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL, OUR ATT ENTION WAS INVITED TO THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) WITH THE SUBMISSION THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DISPOSED OF THE APPEAL WITHOUT AFFORDING PROPER OPP ORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUS TICE, THE MATTER MAY BE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(A) FOR ADJUDICA TION OF THE APPEAL ON MERIT BY PASSING A REASONED ORDER. 25. THE LD. D.R. DID NOT DISPUTE THE FACTUAL ASPECT OF THE MATTER. 26. HAVING CAREFULLY EXAMINED THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT( A) IN THE LIGHT OF THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, WE FIND THAT IN PARA 2.1 OF HIS ORDER, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DISCUSSED ABOUT ISSUANCE OF NOTICES TO THE ASSE SSEE WHEREFROM IT IS NOTICED THAT ON DIFFERENT DATES NONE APPEARED ON BE HALF OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), BUT ULTIMATELY ON 18.1.2012 ASSESSEE SOUGHT ADJOURNMENT WHICH WAS REJECTED BY THE LD. CIT(A) AN D THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO APPEAR ON 19.1.2012, BUT ON ACCOUNT OF NON -APPEARANCE OF THE ASSESSEE ON 19.1.2012, THE LD. CIT(A) DISPOSED OF T HE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE EX-PARTE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. HAVING CAR EFULLY EXAMINED THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT PR OPER OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING WAS NOT AFFORDED TO THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE , IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, THE MATTER SHOULD BE SENT BACK TO THE LD. CIT(A) FOR ADJUDICATION OF THE APPEAL AFRESH AFTER AFFORDING AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF T HE LD. CIT(A) AND RESTORE :-9-: THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(A) WITH A DIR ECTION TO ADJUDICATE THE GROUNDS RAISED BEFORE HIM ON MERIT BY PASSING A SPE AKING ORDER. I.T.A. NO. 424/LKW /2012: 27. IN THIS APPEAL, THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS ASSA ILED MAINLY ON TWO GROUNDS ONE IS WITH REGARD TO THE DELETION OF ADD ITION OF RS.9,13,613/- UNDER SECTION 80-IB OF THE ACT AND THE OTHER IS WIT H REGARD TO THE AD HOC DISALLOWANCE OF RS.10 LAKHS MADE UNDER THE HEAD RE PAIR AND MAINTENANCE. 28. BOTH THESE GROUNDS HAVE BEEN ADJUDICATED BY US IN I .T.A. NO. 302/LKW/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 IN THE FOREGOI NG PARAS. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ADJUDICATED THE SAME FOLLOWING HIS ORDER FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. SINCE WE HAVE CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08, WE FIND NO JUSTIFICATION T O TAKE A CONTRARY VIEW IN THIS APPEAL. WE, THEREFORE, FOLLOWING THE VIEW TAK EN IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08, CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). ACCO RDINGLY, THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS CONFIRMED. I.T.A. NO. 622/LKW/2012: 29. IN THIS APPEAL, THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS ASSA ILED MAINLY ON TWO GROUNDS ONE IS WITH REGARD TO THE DELETION OF ADD ITION OF RS.9,13,613/- UNDER SECTION 80-IB OF THE ACT AND THE OTHER IS WIT H REGARD TO THE AD HOC DISALLOWANCE OF RS.22 LAKHS (WRONGLY MENTIONED AS R S.20 LAKHS BY THE REVENUE) MADE UNDER THE HEAD REPAIR AND MAINTENANC E. 30. BOTH THESE GROUNDS HAVE BEEN ADJUDICATED BY US IN I .T.A. NO. 302/LKW/2012 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 IN THE FOR EGOING PARAS. SINCE WE HAVE CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) FOR A SSESSMENT YEAR 2007- 08, WE FIND NO JUSTIFICATION TO TAKE A CONTRARY VIE W IN THIS APPEAL. WE, THEREFORE, FOLLOWING THE VIEW TAKEN IN ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2007-08, CONFIRM :-10- : THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). ACCORDINGLY, THE ORDE R OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS CONFIRMED. 31. IN THE RESULT, APPEALS OF THE REVENUE IN I.T.A. NOS . 302, 424 AND 622/LKW/2012 ARE DISMISSED AND APPEAL OF THE ASSESS EE IN I.T.A. NO.147/LKW/2012 IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES AND THE CROSS OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE 70/LKW/2013 IN I.T.A. NO. 302/LKW/2 012 IS DISMISSED. ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DAT E MENTIONED ON THE CAPTIONED PAGE. SD/ - SD/ - [ A. K. GARODIA ] [ S UNIL KUMAR Y ADAV ] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED:25 TH MARCH, 2015 JJ:13-1703 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR