TATA MOTORS LTD., MUMBAI V. A.C.I.T. CIR.2(1), MUMBAI

ITA 1484/MUM/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0421 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 year(s) 3 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-06-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Next Hearing Date: 06-04-2015
• Assessment Year: 1994-1995
• Appeal Filed On: 02-03-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: DINESH VYAS
• Keywords: Depreciation; Rule of consistency; Wholly owned subsidiary
• Section: 143(3); 234B; 154; 32

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENCH E, MU MBAI BEFORE SHRI P.K. BANSAL, VICE-PRESIDENT AND SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 1484/MUM/2012 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-1994-95) ITA NO. 1485/MUM/2012 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-1995-96) ITA NO. 1486/MUM/2012 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-1996-97) ITA NO. 1487/MUM/2012 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-1997-98) M/S TATA MOTORS LTD. (SUCCESSOR TO TATA FINANCE LTD.), BOMBAY HOUSE, 24, HOMI MODY STREET, HUTATMA CHOWK, MUMBAI-400001 PAN: AAACT1629F VS. ACIT CIRCLE 2(1), MUMBAI. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ITA NO. 7166/MUM/2010 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-1994-95) ITA NO. 7167/MUM/2010 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-1995-96) ITA NO. 7168/MUM/2010 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-1996-97) M/S TATA MOTORS LTD. (SUCCESSOR TO TATA FINANCE LTD.), BOMBAY HOUSE, 24, HOMI MODY STREET, HUTATMA CHOWK, MUMBAI-400001 PAN: AAACT1629F VS. ACIT CIRCLE 2(1), MUMBAI. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI DINESH VYAS (AR) REVENUE BY : SHRI ANAND MOHAN (CIT- DR) DATE OF HEARING : 12.06.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 12.06.2017 ORDER UNDER SECTION 254(1) OF INCOME TAX ACT PER BENCH: ITA NO.7166 TO 7168/M/10 & 1484 TO 1487/M/2012 - M/S TATA MOTORS LTD. 2 1. THIS COMMON ORDER WILL DISPOSE OFF A BATCH OF SEVEN APPEALS U/S 253 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT (THE ACT). ALL APPEALS WERE HEARD TO GETHER AS ALL THE APPEALS ARE BASED ON IDENTICAL FACTS AND COMMON GROUNDS OF APPE AL FOR DIFFERENT ASSESSMENT YEARS (AYS). ITA NO. 1484/MUM/2012 FOR AY-1994-95 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF AP PEAL: 1. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THAT THE TRANSACT IONS OF LEASE OF VARIOUS ASSETS WERE MERE FINANCING TRANSACTIONS AND THE APP ELLANT WAS THEREFORE NOT ENTITLED TO DEPRECIATION ALLOWANCE OF RS. 3,74, 64,977/- U/S 32 OF THE ACT. [GROUND NO. 1(A) TO 1(E)]. 2. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING LEVY OF INTEREST U/S 234B OF THE ACT. [GROUND NO. 2(A) TO 2(B)]. 3. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN LEVY OF INTEREST U/S 220(2) OF THE ACT. 3. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE AS EMANATING FROM THE RECOR D OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED NIL RETURN OF INCOME. THE ASSESSME NT COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF ON 31.03.1997, DETERMINING THE TOTAL INCO ME OF ASSESSEE AT RS.1,63,88,736/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED DEPRECIATION ON LEASED ASSETS. AGGRIEVED BY THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THE ASSESSEE FILE D APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WHEREIN THE ACTION OF ASSESSING OFFICER (AO) WAS SU STAINED. FURTHER, AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ORDER DATED 22.12.2005 IN ITA NO(S) 2937,2959 ,& 2960/M/2001, RESTORED BACK THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF AO WITH REGARD TO DI SALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION OF LEASED ASSETS. THE AO WAS DIRECTED TO EXAMINE THE I SSUE OF DISALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION OF LEASED ASSETS DENOVO IN THE LIGHT OF VARIOUS JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS BY WAY OF SPEAKING ORDER. THE AO IN SET-ASIDE PROCEEDI NG AGAIN DISALLOWED THE DEPRECIATION IN THE ORDER PASSED U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 254 OF THE ACT. AGGRIEVED BY THE ITA NO.7166 TO 7168/M/10 & 1484 TO 1487/M/2012 - M/S TATA MOTORS LTD. 3 ORDER AO, THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). THE LD. CIT(A) VIDE ORDER DATED 30.12.2011 AGAIN SUSTAINED THE ORDER OF AO. THUS, FURTHER AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) DATED 30.12.2011, THE A SSESSEE HAS FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL BEFORE US. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE (AR ) OF THE ASSESSEE AND LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (DR) FOR THE REVENUE AN D PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. GROUND NO.1 RELATES TO DISALLO WANCE OF DEPRECIATION OF LEASED ASSET. THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE ARGUED THAT THE S IMILAR DISALLOWANCE WAS MADE BY AO AND SUSTAINED BY LD. CIT(A) FOR AY 1997-98 AND 1 998-99 AND THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ITA NO. 6214/ MUM/2003 FOR AY 1997-98 AND IN ITA NO. 7148/MUM/2004 FOR AY 1998-99. THE TR IBUNAL ALLOWED THE SIMILAR DISALLOWANCES IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE VIDE O RDER DATED 06.01.2017 IN ITA NO. 6214/MUM/2003 FOR AY 1997-98 AND IN ITA NO. 714 8/MUM/2004 FOR AY 1998-99. THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE FURTHER RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDIARY COMPANY IN S HEBA PROPERTIES LTD. V/S DCIT FOR AY 1998-99, AY 2006-07 AND AY 2008-09 IN I TA NO.2229/M/2003, 1424/M/2003, 1954/M/20003 AND 8386/M/2010DATED 25.0 6.2014. IT WAS FURTHER ARGUED THAT THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN CASE OF ACIT V/S GUJARAT LEASE FINANCE LTD.[2008]174 TAXMAN 28 (AHMEDABAD)(MAG) A LLOWED THE SIMILAR DISALLOWANCES. THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE ALSO RELI ED UPON THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN CASE OF ICDS LTD. V/S CIT (2013) 3 50 ITR 527, THE COPIES OF ALL THE DECISIONS ARE FILED IN THE FORM OF LEGAL PAPER BOOK. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. ITA NO.7166 TO 7168/M/10 & 1484 TO 1487/M/2012 - M/S TATA MOTORS LTD. 4 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSION OF THE PART IES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD CAREFULLY. BESIDES THE YEAR UND ER CONSIDERATION, THE LD. CIT(A) SUSTAINED THE SIMILAR DISALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION OF LEASED ASSET FOR AYS 1995- 96, 1996-97, 1997-98 AND 1998-99. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE ITAT VIDE ITA NO. 6214/MUM/2003 FOR AY 1997-98 AND ITA N O. 7148/MUM/2004 FOR AY 1998-99 AND THE TRIBUNAL PASSED THE FOLLOWING O RDER: 18.15.WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERU SED THE MATERIAL BEFORE US. WE FIND THAT IMPUGNED ASSETS UNDERLYING LEASE AGREE MENTS WERE VERY MUCH IN EXISTENCE, THAT PURCHASE CONSIDERATION OF ASSETS WA S DISCHARGED BY THE ASSESSEE THROUGH BANKING CHANNELS, THAT COPIES OF THE CHEQUE S WERE ALSO PRODUCED, THAT THE LEASE TRANSACTIONS WERE COMPLETED AS PER ALL LE GALLY PRESCRIBED PROCEDURES, THAT IT WAS A RIGHTFUL OWNER OF LEASED ASSETS THAT THE LESSEES HAD CONFIRMED THE OWNERSHIP OF ASSETS, THAT THEY HAD NOT CLAIMED DEPR ECIATION IN THEIR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT FOR PURCHASE AND LEASE OF ASSETS, THAT LEAS E RENTALS EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS OFFERED TO TAX AND SAME WAS ASSETS BY THE AO.S IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AS WELL AS IN THE SUBSEQUENT AY.S. HE RE, WE WOULD LIKE TO DISCUSS THE MATTER OF I.C.D.S LTD.(SUPRA).IN THAT CASE THE HONBLE APEX COURT HAS HELD AS UNDER: THE PROVISION ON DEPRECIATION IN THE INCOME-TAX AC T, 1961, READS THAT THE ASSET MUST BE OWNED, WHOLLY OR PARTLY, BY THE ASSE SSEE AND USED FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE BUSINESS. THEREFORE, IT IMPOSES A TWIN REQUIREMENT OF OWNERS HIP AND USAGE FOR BUSINESS FOR A SUCCESSFUL CLAIM UNDER SECTION 32 O F THE ACT. THE SECTION REQUIRES THAT THE ASSESSEE MUST USE THE ASSET FOR T HE PURPOSES OF BUSINESS. IT DOES NOT MANDATE USAGE OF THE ASSET BY THE ASSESSEE ITSELF. AS LONG AS THE ASSET IS UTILIZED FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS OF THE ASSE SSEE, THE REQUIREMENT OF SECTION 32 WILL STAND SATISFIED, NOTWITHSTANDING NO N-USAGE OF THE ASSET ITSELF BY THE ASSESSEE. THE DEFINITIONS OF OWNERSHIP ESSENTIALLY MAKE OWN ERSHIP A FUNCTION OF LEGAL RIGHT OR TITLE AGAINST THE REST OF THE WORLD. HOWEV ER, IT IS NOMEN GENERALISSIMUM, AND ITS MEANING IS TO BE GATHERED FROM THE CONNECTION IN WHICH IT IS USED, AND FROM THE SUBJECT-MATTER TO WH ICH IT IS APPLIED. AS LONG AS THE ASSESSEE HAS A RIGHT TO RETAIN THE LEGAL TITLE AGAINST THE REST OF THE WORLD, IT WOULD BE THE OWNER OF THE ASSET IN THE EYES OF LAW. AS THE ASSESSEE WAS THE OWNER OF THE ASSETS LEASED OUT TO DIFFERENT PARTIES, SO, IT WAS ENTITLED TO CLAIM DEPRECIATION. THE FAA HAD GON E THROUGH THE LEASE AGREEMENTS, CONFIRMATION LETTERS AND OTHER RELEVANT MATERIAL. AS THE EXISTENCE OF ASSETS AND THEIR USE IS IN DOUBT, SO, THE AO, IN OUR OPINION WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DENYING THE CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION MADE BY ASSESS EE. WE ALSO FIND THAT FAA HAD ALLOWED DEPRECIATION @50%, AS THE ASSETS WERE U SED FOR LESS THEN 180 DAYS ITA NO.7166 TO 7168/M/10 & 1484 TO 1487/M/2012 - M/S TATA MOTORS LTD. 5 DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. IT IS ALSO A F ACT THAT TWO OF THE LESSEES ARE STATE ELECTRICITY BOARDS I.E. APSEB AND RSEB. BOTH OF THEM HAVE CONFIRMED THE LEASE TRANSACTION AND INSTALLATION OF MACHINERY / ASSETS. THE FAA HAD OBSERVED THAT IT COULD NOT BE ALLEGED THAT GOVT. UN DERTAKINGS HAD COLLUDED WITH THE ASSESSEE TO MISLEAD AND DEFRAUD THE GOVT. OF IT S REVENUE BY GIVING WRONG CONFIRMATIONS. SO, WE DO NOT SEE ANY INFIRMITY IN T HE ORDER OF THE FAA. CONFIRMING HIS ORDER, WE DECIDE THE GROUND NO.11 AG AINST THE AO. 6. THUS, CONSIDERING THE DECISION OF TRIBUNAL IN ASSES SEES OWN CASE ON IDENTICAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL, WHICH WAS DECIDED ON THE IDENTIC AL FACT, WE FIND THAT THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE A ND AGAINST THE REVENUE. THE COORDINATE BENCH DECIDED THE IDENTICAL GROUND OF AP PEAL ON THE BASIS OF DECISION OF APEX COURT IN CASE OF ICDS LTD (SUPRA). THUS, RESPE CTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF TRIBUNAL THE GROUND NO.1 OF APPEAL RAISED BY ASS ESSEE IS ALLOWED. 7. GROUND NO.2 RELATES TO INTEREST CHARGE U/S 234( B ) OF THE ACT. THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE ARGUED THAT INTEREST U/S 234B IS CHARGEABL E ONLY UP TO DATE OF REGULAR ASSESSMENT ORDER AND NOT UP TO THE DATE OF ORDER PA SSED IN PURSUANT TO THE DIRECTION OF TRIBUNAL. IT WAS FURTHER ARGUED THAT SUB-SECTION 4 OF SECTION 234B DEALS ONLY WITH THE DECREASE OR INCREASE OF AMOUNT ON WHICH IN TEREST IS TO BE CHARGED AND NOT THE PERIOD. THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE IN SUPPORT O F HIS SUBMISSIONS RELIED UPON THE DECISIONS OF TRIBUNAL IN FREIGHTSHIP CONSULTANT S (P) LTD. V. ITO (110 ITD 377) (DEL), ACIT V. SALLAUDDIN M. KADRI (ITA NO. 2426/AH D/2009) (ITAT AHMEDABAD), MODI INDUSTRIES LTD. V. CIT, [1995] 216 ITR 759 (C) AND DECISION OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN CYANAMID INDIA LTD. V. K.N. ANANTHARAMA AYYAR (203 ITR 561) (BOM.). ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. ITA NO.7166 TO 7168/M/10 & 1484 TO 1487/M/2012 - M/S TATA MOTORS LTD. 6 8. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSION OF THE PART IES AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDER OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. CONSIDERING THE DECISION OF D ELHI TRIBUNAL IN FREIGHTSHIP CONSULTANTS (P) LTD.(SUPRA) AND DECISION OF HONBLE APEX COURT IN MODI INDUSTRIES VS CIT [1995]216 ITR 759 (SC), WE DIREC T THE AO TO RE-COMPUTE THE INTEREST IN ACCORDANCE WITH SUB-SECTION 4 OF SECTIO N 234B OF THE ACT UP TO THE DATE OF ORIGINAL ORDER OF ASSESSMENT PASSED BY HIM AND NOT UP TO THE DATE OF REASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED IN PURSUANCE TO THE DIRE CTION OF THE TRIBUNAL. HENCE, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED BY ASSESSEE IS ALSO AL LOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE . 9. GROUND NO.3 RELATES TO INTEREST CHARGE U/S 220(2) O F THE ACT. AS WE HAVE ALREADY ALLOWED THE GROUND NO.1 RAISED BY ASSESSEE, THIS GR OUND OF APPEAL IS CONSEQUENTIAL TO THE GROUND NO.1. HENCE, THIS GROUN D OF APPEAL DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY SPECIFIC ADJUDICATION BEING CONSEQUENTIAL IN NA TURE. 10. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ITA NO. 1485/MUM/2012 FOR AY 1995-96 11. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED IDENTICAL GROUND OF APPEAL AS RAISED IN ITA NO. 1484/MUM/2012. AS WE ALREADY ALLOWED THE IDENTICAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE FOR AY 1994-95, THE FACTS OF THE APPEAL UNDER CONSIDERATION ARE ALSO IDENTICAL. THUS, KEEPING IN VIEW THE PRINCIPLE OF C ONSISTENCY, ALL GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS ALSO AL LOWED IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE. 12. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ITA NO. 1486/MUM/2012 FOR AY 1996-97 13. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED IDENTICAL GROUND OF APPEAL AS RAISED IN ITA NO. 1484/MUM/2012. AS WE ALREADY ALLOWED THE IDENTICAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL IN FAVOUR ITA NO.7166 TO 7168/M/10 & 1484 TO 1487/M/2012 - M/S TATA MOTORS LTD. 7 OF ASSESSEE FOR AY 1994-95, THE FACTS OF THE APPEAL UNDER CONSIDERATION ARE ALSO IDENTICAL. THUS, KEEPING IN VIEW THE PRINCIPLE OF C ONSISTENCY, ALL GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS ALSO AL LOWED IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE. 14. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ITA NO. 1487/MUM/2012 FOR AY 1997-98 15. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED IDENTICAL GROUND OF APPEAL AS RAISED IN ITA NO. 1484/MUM/2012. AS WE ALREADY ALLOWED THE IDENTICAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE FOR AY 1994-95, THE FACTS OF THE APPEAL UNDER CONSIDERATION ARE ALSO IDENTICAL. THUS, KEEPING IN VIEW THE PRINCIPLE OF C ONSISTENCY, ALL GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS ALSO AL LOWED IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE. 16. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ITA NO. 7166/MUM/2010 FOR AY 1994-95 17. THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED AS MANY AS THREE GRO UNDS OF APPEAL. HOWEVER, AS PER OUR CONSIDERED VIEW THE SOLITARY GROUND OF APPE AL IS THAT IF THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE LEVY OF INTEREST UNDER SECTION 22 0(2) OF THE ACT. 18. BRIEF FACTS LEADING TO RAISING THIS GROUND OF APPEA L ARE THAT THE AO WHILE PASSING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER UNDER SECTION 143(3) R.W.S. 25 4 OF THE ACT DATED 12.12.2006 CHARGE INTEREST U/S 220(2) OF THE ACT OF RS. 3,16,7 16/-. THE ASSESSEE FILED APPLICATION U/S 154 DATED 22.01.2007 FOR SEEKING TH E RECTIFICATION OF THE ERROR THAT INTEREST HAS BEEN ERRONEOUSLY CHARGED U/S 220(2) OF THE ACT. IN THE APPLICATION THE ASSESSEE REQUESTED THAT THE INTEREST SHOULD BE CHAR GED TILL THE PASSING OF ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 31.03.1997 (I.E. FROM 01.04. 1994 TO 31.03.1997). THE APPLICATION OF ASSESSEE WAS REJECTED BY ASSESSING O FFICER VIDE ORDER DATED ITA NO.7166 TO 7168/M/10 & 1484 TO 1487/M/2012 - M/S TATA MOTORS LTD. 8 15.03.2007. AGGRIEVED, BY THE ORDER OF AO, THE ASSE SSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) BUT WITHOUT ANY SUCCESS. THUS, FURTHER AGGRI EVED BY THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) DATED 12.08.2010, THE PRESENT APPEAL IS FILE D BEFORE US. 19. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE LD . DR FOR THE REVENUE AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE LD. A R OF THE ASSESSEE RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF CIT V/S RAJESH KUMAR DINESH KUMAR ( 2010) 325 ITR 346 (RAJ.), SMT. B. INDIRA RANI V/S CIT [2004] 271 ITR 0570 AND THE DECISION OF HONBLE APEX COURT IN VIKRANT TYRES LTD. V/S FIRST INCOME-T AX OFFICER 247 ITR 821 (SC). ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. 20. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSION OF THE PART IES AND HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ORDER OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE ASSESSEE IN APPEAL ITA NO. 1484/MUM/2012 HAS CHALLENGED THE DISALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION ON LEAS ED ASSETS OF RS. 3,74,64,977/-. AS WE HAVE ALREADY ALLOWED THE DEPRECIATION OF DISA LLOWANCE IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE IN ITA NO. 1484/MUM/2012. THIS ISSUE IS CONSEQUENTI AL TO THE DISALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION OF LEASED ASSETS. THE ASSESSING OFFICE R REJECTED THE SAME WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS IN ITS CORRECT PERSPECTIVE D ESPITE THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE RELIED ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE APEX COURT IN MOD I INDUSTRIES VS CIT 216 ITR 759. HENCE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 154 OF THE ACT DESERVES TO BE ALLOWED . THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE IS NOT LIABLE TO PAY FURTHER INTEREST AFTER 31.03.1997. I N THE RESULT THE GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 21. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWE D. ITA NO.7166 TO 7168/M/10 & 1484 TO 1487/M/2012 - M/S TATA MOTORS LTD. 9 ITA NO. 7167/MUM/2010 FOR AY 1995-96 22. IN THE PRESENT APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED IDEN TICAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL AS RAISED IN ITA NO. 7166/MUM/2010 FOR AY 1994-95. THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT APPEAL ARE IDENTICAL AND THE IDENTICAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISE D BY ASSESSEE. AS WE HAVE ALREADY ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ON IDENT ICAL FACT FOR AY 1994-95, THE FACTS OF THE APPEAL UNDER CONSIDERATION ARE ALSO ID ENTICAL. THUS, KEEPING IN VIEW THE PRINCIPLE OF CONSISTENCY, THE GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS ALSO ALLOWED WITH SIMILAR DIRECTION. ITA NO. 7168/MUM/2010 FOR AY 1996-97 23. IN THE PRESENT APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED IDEN TICAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL AS RAISED IN ITA NO. 7166/MUM/2010 FOR AY 1994-95. THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT APPEAL ARE IDENTICAL AND THE IDENTICAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISE D BY ASSESSEE. AS WE HAVE ALREADY ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ON IDENT ICAL FACT FOR AY 1994-95., THE FACTS OF THE APPEAL UNDER CONSIDERATION ARE ALSO ID ENTICAL. THUS, KEEPING IN VIEW THE PRINCIPLE OF CONSISTENCY, THE GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS ALSO ALLOWED WITH SIMILAR DIRECTION. 24. IN THE RESULT ALL THE SEVEN APPEALS FILED BY THE AS SESSEE ARE ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 12 TH DAY OF JUNE 2017, WHILE HEARING THE APPEALS. SD/ SD/- (P.K. BANSAL) (PAWAN SINGH) (VICE-PRESIDENT) JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI; DATED 12/06/2017 S.K.PS COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT ITA NO.7166 TO 7168/M/10 & 1484 TO 1487/M/2012 - M/S TATA MOTORS LTD. 10 BY ORDER, (ASSTT.REGISTRAR) ITAT, MUMBAI 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT(A), MUMBAI. 4. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. GUARD FILE. //TRUE COPY/