THE DCIT, 1(1), Indore V. M/s. Bridgestone India Pvt. Ltd., Dhar

ITA 1539/IND/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2341 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-01-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 28-12-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: K G GOYAL
• Keywords: Capital asset; Capital expenditure
• Section: 143(3); 145; 37

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.1311 & 1539/IND/2016 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2006-07 & 2011-12 DCIT - 1 (1) INDORE / VS. M/S. BRIDGESTONE INDIA PVT. LTD. PLOT NO.12, KHEDA GROWTH CENTRE, PITHAMPUR, DHAR INDORE ( REVENUE ) ( RESPONDENT ) P.A. NO. AABCB2304E APPELLANT BY SHRI K.G. GOYAL, SR. DR RESPONDENT BY SHRI MANOJ FADNIS, CA DATE OF HEARING: 18.01.2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 31.01.2018 / O R D E R PER KUL BHARAT, J.M: THESE TWO APPEALS BY THE REVENUE PERTAINING TO THE A.YS. 2006-07 & 2011-12 DIRECTED AGAINST DIFFERENT ORDERS OF LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-(APPEALS)-I, INDORE DATE D 16.08.2016 & 21.09.2016 RESPECTIVELY. BOTH THE APPEALS WERE TA KEN UP TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY WAY OF CONSOLIDATED OR DER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. B RIDGESTONE INDIA PVT. LTD. 2 FIRST WE TAKE ITA NO.1311/IND/2016 FOR A.Y. 2006-07 THE REVENUE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. WHETHER IN THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E CASE THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW BY ALLOWING THE APPEAL OF T HE ASSESSEE WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FINDING OF THE AO . 2. WHETHER IN THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E CASE THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.1,9 3,48,000/- AS TREATING THE PREMIUM PAID TO HEDGE AGAINST EXCHA NGE FLUCTUATION RISK AS SERVICE FEES, WHEN 2 . GROUND NOS. 1 & 3 ARE GENERAL IN NATURE NEEDS NO SEPARATE ADJUDICATION AND 3. GROUND NO.2 IS AGAINST THE DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.1,93,48,000/- AS TREATING THE PREMIUM PAID TO HE DGE AGAINST EXCHANGE FLUCTUATION RISK AS SERVICE FEES. 4. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS GIVING RISE TO THE PRESENT APPEAL ARE THAT THE ASSESSMENT WAS REOPENED AND ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) R .W.S. 147 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961(HEREINAFTER CALLED AS THE ACT) WAS FRAMED THEREBY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITION OF RS. 1,93,48,000/- IN RESPECT OF DISALLOWANCE OF THE EXPENDITURE CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE AS PREMIUM PAID ON SWAP PAID. 5. AGGRIEVED BY THIS ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFOR E THE LD. CIT(A) WHO AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS DELETED THE D ISALLOWANCE. NOW REVENUE IS IN APPEAL. THE ONLY EFFECTIVE GROUND IS AGAINST DELETION OF A DDITION OF RS.1,93,48,000/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENDITURE PREMIUM PAID FOR SWAP OF PREPAYMENT OF LOAN. B RIDGESTONE INDIA PVT. LTD. 3 6. LD. DR SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE AO AND LD. COU NSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) AND SUBM ITTED THAT THE ISSUE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. SIMILAR ADDITION WAS MADE IN EARLIER YEAR AND THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL WAS P LEASED TO DELETED THE SAME. 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DECIDED THIS ISSUE IN PA RA 5.1 TO 5.2 WHILE GIVING FINDING ON FACTS AS UNDER: 5.1 BRIEFLY STATED THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE APPELLANT HAD TAKEN ECB LOAN FROM BRIDGESTONE CORPORATION JAP AN OF JPY 1401660000 EQUIVALENT TO RS.60 CRORES IN JANUARY 20 04 WHICH WAS REPAYABLE IN ONE INSTALLMENT ON FINAL MATURITY IN JANUARY 2007. THE LOAN WAS TAKEN FOR GENERAL CORPORATE PURP OSES AND REFINANCE OF EXISTING LOANS AS EXPLAINED BY THE APP ELLANT IN ITS SUBMISSION. THE APPELLANT IN ORDER TO GUARD AGAINST EXCHANGE RATE FLUCTUATION ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH THE CITI BANK MUMBAI THAT THE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF THE ECB LOAN I. E. RS.59,89,99,401/- WILL BE PAID BACK TO BRIDGESTONE CORPORATION JAPAN ON THE MATURITY DATE I.E. JANUARY 2007 BY CIT I BANK AT THE PREVAILING RATE OF EXCHANGE AND FOR THIS THE PR EMIUM OF RS.1,93,48,000/- PERTAINING TO THE YEAR UNDER CONSI DERATION WAS PAID TO CITI BANK. THIS AMOUNT WAS CLAIMED AS A DEDUCTION BY THE APPELLANT UNDER THE HEAD INTEREST. IN THE AL TERNATIVE THE APPELLANT CONTENDED THAT THE AMOUNT WAS OTHERWISE A LLOWABLE U/S 37 OF THE ACT. THE AO DISALLOWED THE CLAIM HOLD ING THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS.1,93,48,000/- DID NOT CONSTITUTE INTER EST ALLOWABLE U/S 36(1)(III) AND WAS NOT ALLOWABLE U/S 37 AS IT WAS IN THE NATURE OF CAPITAL EXPENDITURE. THE APPELLANT HAS CONTENDED THAT THE AMOUNT WAS ALLOWABLE U/S 36(1)(I I) IN VIEW OF THE DEFINITION OF INTEREST U/S 2(28A) OF THE ACT AND WAS NOT COVERED BY THE PROVISO TO SECTION 36(1)(III) AS IT WAS NOT FOR ACQUISITION OF CAPITAL ASSET. AND OTHERWISE ALSO IT WAS CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT THAT THE AMOUNT WAS NOT CAPITAL IN NATURE AND HENCE WAS ALLOWABLE U/S 37 ALSO AS THE EXPENDITURE WAS INCURRED FOR THE PURPOSES OF BUSINESS. B RIDGESTONE INDIA PVT. LTD. 4 THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2(28A) OF THE ACT ARE REP RODUCED HEREUNDER: INTEREST MEANS INTEREST PAYABLE IN ANY MANNER IN R ESPECT OF ANY MONEY BORROWED OR DEBT INCURRED (INCLUDING A DE POSIT, CLAIM OR OTHER SIMILAR RIGHT OR OBLIGATION) AND INC LUDES ANY SERVICE FEE FOR OTHER CHARGE IN RESPECT OF THE MONE Y BORROWED OR DEBT INCURRED OR IN RESPECT OF ANY CREDIT FACILITY WHICH HAS NOT BEEN UTILIZED. 5.2 SEEN IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE DEFINITION THE A MOUNT OF RS.1,93,48,000/- WOULD AMOUNT TO INTEREST AS IT IS NOTHING BUT THE SERVICE FEE CHARGED BY CITI BANK ON TAKING OVER THE REPAYMENT OF LOAN TO BRIDGESTONE CORPORATION JAPAN ON THE AGREED DATE IN JPY ON PAYMENT OF RS.59,89,99,401/- BY THE APPELLANT TO CITI BANK. THE APPELLANT HAS DRAWN ATT ENTION TO THE FACT THAT THE SIMILAR AMOUNTS CLAIMED IN THE PRECED ING YEARS HAVE BEN ALLOWED AND HAS ALSO EXPLAINED IN DETAIL T HAT THE LOAN FROM BRIDGESTONE CORPORATION JAPAN WAS UTILIZED FOR WORKING CAPITAL NEEDS AND REPAYMENT OF EXISTING LOANS AND H ENCE HAS TO BE TREATED AS ON REVENUE ACCOUNT AND NOT ON CAPITAL ACCOUNT AND HENCE AS THE EXPENDITURE WAS INCURRED FOR THE P URPOSES OF BUSINESS IT WAS ALSO ALLOWABLE U/S 37 OF THE ACT. I N VIEW OF THE ABOVE THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT IS FOUND TO BE ELI GIBLE FOR ALLOWANCE IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THESE GR OUNDS OF THE APPELLANT ARE THEREFORE ALLOWED. THE ABOVE FINDING ON FACT IS NOT CONTROVERTED BY TH E REVENUE, WE, THEREFORE, DO NOT SEE ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE FINDING OF THE LD. CIT(A), SAME IS HEREBY AFFIRMED. THUS, GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. NOW COMING TO ITA NO.1539/IND/2016 PERTAINING TO A. Y. 2011- 12. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW IN DELETING THE ADDITIO N OF B RIDGESTONE INDIA PVT. LTD. 5 RS.2,50,79,009/- MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF UNDER VALUATION OF CLOSING STOCK. 2. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING I) THAT AS PER SECTION 145A, THE VALUATION OF CLOSI NG STOCK IS REQUIRED TO BE DONE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE METHOD O F ACCOUNTING REGULARLY EMPLOYED BY THE ASSESSEE AND F URTHER ADJUSTED TO INCLUDE IN IT ANY TAX, DUTY, CESS OR FE E ACTUALLY PAID OR INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE; II) THAT THE PROVISION OF SECTION 145A HAS OVERRIDI NG EFFECT ON SECTION 145; III) THAT WHATEVER MAY BE ACCOUNTING STANDARD, THE SAME CANNOT OVER RIDE THE STATUE. 8. GROUND NO.1 & 2 ARE INTERCONNECTED AND GROUND NO .3 IS GENERAL IN NATURE NEEDS NO SEPARATE ADJUDICATION. 9. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS ARE THAT THE CASE OF THE AS SESSEE WAS PICKED UP FOR SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT AND ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3 ) R.W.S. 144C OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER CALLED AS THE ACT) WAS FRAMED VIDE ORDER DATED 11.03.2015. THE ASSESSING O FFICER WHILE FRAMING THE ASSESSMENT MADE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF UNDER VALUATION OF CLOSING STOCK BY OBSERVING THAT TAKING INTO ACCOUNT OF THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEES METHOD OF VALUATION IN THE EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS ADOPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT ON THE B ASIS OF ENHANCING THE VALUE BY INCORPORATING OF THE EXCISE DUTY HENCE SAME METHOD IS ALSO BEING ADOPTED IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. 10. AGGRIEVED BY THIS THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APP EAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). THE LD. CIT(A) FOLLOWING THE DECISION O F THE TRIBUNAL IN EARLIER YEAR DIRECTED THE ASSESSEE TO ADOPT THE WOR KING AS PER B RIDGESTONE INDIA PVT. LTD. 6 DIRECTION GIVEN BY THE I.T.A.T. IN EARLIER YEARS. N OW REVENUE IS IN APPEAL. 11. THE LD. DR SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ON THE CONTRARY LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE IS COVERED IN F AVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. 12. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSAL MAT ERIAL ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE F OLLOWING EARLIER ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: GROUND NO.2 THIS GROUND OF THE APPELLANT IS DIRECT ED AGAINST THE ADDITION OF RS.25079009/- BEING UNDERVALUATION OF CLOSING STOCK BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 145 OF THE ACT. THE AO ADDED THE DIFFERENCE OF EXCISE DUTY ON THE CLOSI NG AND OPENING STOCK OF RAW MATERIAL CONSUMPTION. THE DETA ILS FACTS OF THE CASE AS PER THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ARE REPRODUCED AT PARA NO.2 ABOVE AND THE DETAILED SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPE LLANT ARE REPRODUCED AT PARA NO.3 ABOVE. THE CRUX OF THE APPELLANTS CONTENTION IS THAT THE ADJUSTMENTS ARE ONLY MADE TO THE OPENING AND CLOSING STOCK WHER EAS AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 145A OF THE ACT SUCH ADJU STMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALSO MADE TO THE PURCHASES AND CON SUMPTION. APPELLANT ALSO HIGHLIGHTED THE FACT THAT ADDITIONS MADE TO THE CLOSING STOCK ON IDENTICAL FACTS FOR THE EARLIER YE ARS WERE DELETED IN APPEAL BY CIT(A) AS WELL AS I.T.A.T. FOR THE A.Y . 2009-10 THE CIT(A)-1 INDORE IN HIS ORDER IN APPEAL NO.IT-74/13- 14/332 DATED 21.8.2014 HAS OBSERVED AS UNDER:- THE AO ADDED THE EXCISE COMPONENT IN CLOSING STOCK OF RAW MATERIAL & SPARES AND INCREASED THE CLOSING STOCK B Y RS.68,10,565/- BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIO N 145A I.T. ACT BY OBSERVING THAT SUCH PROVISIONS REQUIRED THAT THE CLOSING STOCK SHOULD BE WORKED OUT IN ACCORDANCE WITH METHO D OF ACCOUNTING REGULARLY EMPLOYED BY THE ASSESSEE AND F URTHER ADJUSTED TO INCLUDE THE AMOUNT OF ANY CESS, DUTY OR TAX ACTUALLY B RIDGESTONE INDIA PVT. LTD. 7 PAID OR INCURRED, AS ABOVE PROVISION HAS OVERRIDING IMPACT ON SECTION 145. THE APPELLANTS CONTENTION IS THAT IN ANNEXURE 5 OF TAX AUDIT REPORT CLAUSE 12(B) IN A.Y. 2008-09 IS THAT ASSESSE E ACCOUNTED ITS PURCHASES OF RAW MATERIAL & INCIDENTAL GOODS, O N WHICH CENVAT CREDIT IS AVAILABLE, NET OF INPUT DUTY AND A CCORDINGLY THAT VALUATION OF INVENTORY OF RAW MATERIAL AND INC IDENTAL GOODS DOES NOT INCLUDE EXCISE DUTY TO THE EXTENT IT IS RE FUNDABLE. THEREFORE, APPELLANT HAS ARGUED THAT IF EXCISE DUTY IS ADDED BACK IN CLOSING STOCK OF RAW MATERIAL & INCIDENTAL GOODS, THAN THAT WILL RESULT IN DISTORTED PICTURE OF PROFITS UN LESS SALES, PURCHASES AND OPENING STOCK ARE ALSO INCREASED BY C OMPONENT OF EXCISE DUTY. THE APPELLANTS CONTENTION IS FOUND CORRECT EVEN FO RM THE WORDINGS OF SECTION 145 OF THE I.T. ACT WHEREIN MET HOD OF VALUATION WILL BE APPLICABLE NOT ONLY ON CLOSING ST OCK BUT ON INVENTORY I.E. ON OPENING & CLOSING STOCK AS WELL AS ON BOTH PURCHASES & SALES. THEREFORE, AO WAS NOT CORRECT IN ADDING EXCISE DUTY ONLY IN THE CLOSING STOCK OF RAW MATERI AL & INCIDENTAL GOODS. AO IS DIRECTED TO REDRAW THE PROF IT & LOSS ACCOUNT BY ADDING CESS, DUTY OR TAX PAID OR INCURRE D IN PURCHASES, OPENING STOCK AND SALES, WHEREVER SUCH E XCISE DUTY IS NOT ALREADY ADDED BY THE APPELLANT. FOR DOING SO , THE APPELLANTS COMPUTATION SUBMITTED U/S 145A OF I.T. ACT SUBMITTED IN THIS OFFICE, AS WELL AS THEIR CONTENTI ON THAT SUCH ADJUSTMENT IN ALL THE CONSTITUENTS WILL NOT CHANGE THEIR PROFIT, MAY ALSO BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION. FOR ARRIVING AT THIS DECISION RELIANCE IS PLACED ON THE DECISIONS ON SAM E ISSUE IN THE CASES OF M/S MAHAVIR ALUMINUM LTD. (2008) 214 CTR(D EL.) 45, M/S. MAHALAXMI GLASS WORKS PVT. LTD. (2009) 318 ITR 116 (BOM), INDO NIPPON CHEMICALS CO. LTD. (2000) 164 CT R (BOM) 78 AND RAJRATAN GUSTAV WOLF LTD. (ITA NO.768/IN/2006) I.T.A.T., INDORE. AS A RESULT THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALLOWED IN PRI NCIPLE FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. THE DECISION OF THE CIT(A) ON THE ISSUE HAS BEEN UP HELD BY THE I.T.A.T. INDORE IN ITS ORDER IN APPEAL NOS. TPA NO. 615/IND/2010 (A.Y. 2006-07) & TPA NOS. 547,548 & 738/IN/2014 (A. YS. B RIDGESTONE INDIA PVT. LTD. 8 2005-06, 2008-09 & 2009-10). THE RELEVANT PARA(S) F ROM THE ORDER OF I.T.A.T. ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER:- WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF BOTH THE PAR TIES. THE ASSESSEES CONTENTION THAT REGARDING ADDITION OF VA LUE OF CLOSING STOCK IN RESPECT OF EXCISE DUTY, THE EXCISE COMPONE NT IN CLOSING STOCK OF RAW MATERIALS AND SPARES IN ACCORDANCE WIT H CLOSING STOCK BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 145A TH E ACT BY OBSERVING THAT SUCH PROVISIONS REQUIRE THAT CLOSING STOCK HAS BEEN WORKED OUT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE METHOD OF AC COUNTING REGULARLY EMPLOYED BY THE ASSESSEE AND FURTHER ADJU STED TO INCLUDE THE AMOUNT OF ANY CESS, DUTY OR TAX ACTUALL Y PAID OR INCURRED. THE ABOVE PROVISION HAS OVERRIDING EFFECT ON SECTION 145. THE ASSESSEES CONTENTION THAT AS PER THE AUDI T REPORT, THE ASSESSEE HAS ACCOUNTED THESE PURCHASES OF RAW MATER IALS AND INCIDENTAL GOODS NET OF EXCISE DUTY AS CENVET IS AV AILABLE. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT IF THE EXCIS E DUTY IS ADDED ONLY TO THE CLOSING STOCK OF RAW MATERIAL AND INCIDENTAL GOODS, THEN IT WILL RESULT TO DISTORTION OF PROFIT UNLESS PURCHASES AND OPENING STOCK ARE INCREASED BY COMPONENT OF EXC ISE DUTY. WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT AS PER SECTION 145A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, WHEREIN METHOD OF VALUATION WILL BE APPL ICABLE NOT ONLY IN CLOSING STOCK, BUT ON INVENTORY I.E. OPENIN G AND CLOSING STOCK AS WELL AS ON BOTH PURCHASES AND SALES. THERE FORE, THE AC IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN ADDING THE EXCISE DUTY IN CLOSI NG STOCK OF RAW MATERIALS AND INCIDENTAL GOODS. WE, THEREFORE, DIRE CT THE AO TO COMPUTE THE TOTAL INCOME BY ADDING CESS, DUTY OR TA X PAID INCURRED NOT ONLY IN CLOSING STOCK BUT ALSO IN PURC HASES, OPENING STOCK, SALES, WHEREVER SUCH EXCISE DUTY IS ALREADY ADDED. THE AO IS DIRECTED TO VERIFY THE WORKING GIVEN BY THE A SSESSEE ON PAGES 3,4,5,6,7,8,9 AND 10 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03 TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. THE AO IS DIRECTED TO VERI FY THE SAME AND PASS THE ORDER ACCORDINGLY. WE ALSO GET SUPPORT FROM THE DECISION OF HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MAHAVIR ALUMINIUM LIMITED, (2008) 297 0077--- AND C IT VS. MAHALAXMI GLASS WORKS (P.) LIMITED (2009) 318 ITR 0 116--- WE, RESPECTFULLY, FOLLOWING THE SAME, ALLOW THE APP EAL IN ITANO.615/IND/2010 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07.---- IN RESPECT OF ASSESSMENT YEARS 2005-06, 2008-09, AN D 2009- 10, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ALREADY ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE B RIDGESTONE INDIA PVT. LTD. 9 AS WE HAVE HELD ABOVE. THEREFORE, ON THE SAME REASO NING, DEPARTMENTAL APPEALS FOR ALL THE THREE YEARS ARE DI SMISSED. 6.1 IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE AND AS THE FACTS FOR THE Y EAR ARE IDENTICAL ABOVE GROUND OF THE APPELLANT IS ALLOWED AND THE ADDITION OF RS.25079009/- IS DIRECTED TO BE DELETED . THE AO IS DIRECTED TO ADOPT THE WORKING AS PER THE DIRECTIONS GIVEN BY THE I.T.A.T. IN EARLIER YEARS. 13. THE ABOVE FINDING OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS NOT REBU TTED BY THE REVENUE. AS IN EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEAR THE ISSUE HA S BEEN EXAMINED BY THE TRIBUNAL AND DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF T HE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, TAKING A CONSISTENT VIEW AS NO OTHER CON TRADICTORY BINDING PRECEDENT IS BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE, DO NOT SEE ANY REASON TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). 14 . IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE IN ITA NO.1311 & 1539/IN/2016 ARE DISMISSED. ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 31 .01 .2018. SD/- (MANISH BORAD) SD/- (KUL BHARAT) CCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIALMEMBER INDORE; DATED : 31/ 01/2018 CTX? P.S/. . . COPY TO: ASSESSEE/AO/PR. CIT/ CIT (A)/ITAT (DR)/GUA RD FILE. BY ORDER PRIVATE SECRETARY/DDO, INDORE