M/s Anchal Hotel Pvt. Ltd, Dehradun V. ACIT, Dehradun

ITA 1801/DEL/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 52806 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-10-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 29-09-2011
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 20-04-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ANUSHA KHURANA

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH A DELHI BEFORE SHRI I.P. BANSAL AND SHRI K.G. BANSAL ITA NOS. 1800 & 1801(DEL)/2010 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2005-06 & 2006-07 & ITA NO. 3637(DEL)/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 M/S ANCHAL HOTELS (P) LTD., AS STT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME 54, HARIDWAR ROAD, VS. TAX, CIRCLE-2, DEHRADUN. DEHRADUN. (APPELLANT) (RESPON DENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI GAUTAM JAIN, C.A RESPONDENT BY: SMT. ANUSHA KHURANA, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 29.09.2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 07.10.2011. ORDER PER K.G. BANSAL : AM ALL THESE APPEALS HAVE BEEN ARGUED IN A CONSOLIDA TED MANNER BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AND THE LD. SENIOR D R AS IDENTICAL GROUNDS HAVE BEEN RAISED. THEREFORE, WE THINK IT FIT T O PASS A CONSOLIDATED ORDER. 1.1 ALTHOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN UP FIVE GRO UNDS IN EACH APPEAL, THE REAL GRIEVANCE IS PROJECTED IN GROUND NO. 1 T HAT THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) GROSSLY ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN UPHOLDING THE DISALLOWANCE OF THE ITA NOS. 1800 & 1801(DEL)/2010 & ITA NO. 3637(DEL)/2011 2 CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 80-IC OF THE INCOME-TAX A CT, 1961 (THE ACT FOR SHORT) ON MISCONSTRUCTION OF STATUTORY PROVISION S CONTAINED IN THE ACT. THE OTHER GROUNDS ARE NARRATIVE OR ARGUMENTATIVE IN NATURE. 1.2 THE APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 IS LA TE BY SEVEN DAYS. IN THIS CONNECTION, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED A LETTER DATED 26.09.2011 AND AN AFFIDAVIT FROM SHRI CHANDRA SHEKHAR, C.A., SWORN ON 24.09.2011. IT IS DEPOSED THAT THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY RECEIVED THE A PPELLATE ORDER ON 19.05.2011 AND, THEREFORE, THE APPEAL HAD TO BE FIL ED ON OR BEFORE 19.07.2011. THE ASSESSEE SIGNED THE APPEAL DOCU MENTS ON 15.07.2011 AND SENT THEM TO HIS OFFICE. THE STAFF MEMBER LOOK ING AFTER THE CASE AND IN POSSESSION OF THESE DOCUMENTS BECAME ILL AND, TH EREFORE, HE WAS NOT AVAILABLE TILL 23.07.2011. ON RECEIPT OF THE DOCU MENTS FROM HIM, THE PAPERS WERE SENT TO THE COUNSEL FOR FILING THE A PPEAL. THE APPEAL WAS ACTUALLY FILED ON 26.07.2011. ON THE BASIS OF TH ESE FACTS, IT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS NO MALA FIDE INTENTION, NEGLIGENCE OR LATCHES ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY. ACCORDINGLY, IT WAS PRAYED THAT THE DELAY MAY BE CONDONED. THE LD. DR LEFT THE MATTER TO THE BENCH FOR DECISION. HAVING CONSIDERED THE FACTS, IT IS S EEN THAT NO BENEFIT WHATSOEVER COULD ACCRUE TO THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOU NT OF DELAYING THE ITA NOS. 1800 & 1801(DEL)/2010 & ITA NO. 3637(DEL)/2011 3 APPEAL. THE FACTS REGARDING THE DELAY HAVE BEEN EXPLAINED IN THE AFFIDAVIT OF SHRI CHANDRA SHEKHAR. ON PERUSAL THEREOF, WE FI ND THAT THE DELAY WAS ON ACCOUNT OF THE ILLNESS OF THE STAFF MEMBER OF THE CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT, WHO FELL ILL. THUS, THE REQUISITE PAPERS COULD NOT BE FORWARDED TO THE COUNSEL WITHIN THE REQUIRED TIME. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES , THE DELAY IS CONDONED. 2. AS MENTIONED EARLIER, ALL THE APPEALS INVOLVE IDENTICAL GROUNDS. THE DIFFERENCE IS ONLY IN RESPECT OF THE AMOUNT OF DEDUCTION CLAIMED IN VARIOUS YEARS. THEREFORE, THE FACTS FOR ASSESSME NT YEAR 2005-06 ARE TAKEN AS ILLUSTRATIVE FACTS FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETAILED DISCUSSION IN THIS ORDER. 3. BRIEFLY, THE FACTS ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED ITS RETURN ON 29.10.2005 DECLARING NIL INCOME. THIS RETURN W AS PROCESSED U/S 143(1) ON 23.01.2006. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE RETURN WAS TAKE N UP FOR SCRUTINY BY ISSUING NOTICE U/S 143(2) ON 23.01.2006. IT WAS FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF A HOTEL. IN T HE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSEE MADE ADDITIONS T O PLANT AND MACHINERY OF THE VALUE OF RS. 20,71,243/-. IT ALSO PURCHASED A GENERATOR OF THE VALUE OF RS. 7,61,618/-. THE BOOK VALUE OF THE PLANT AND M ACHINERY AS ON 01.04.2004 AMOUNTED TO RS. 77,158/-. CLAUSE (IX) OF SUB-SECTION (8) OF ITA NOS. 1800 & 1801(DEL)/2010 & ITA NO. 3637(DEL)/2011 4 SECTION 80IC DEFINES THE EXPRESSION SUBSTANTIA L EXPANSION TO MEAN INCREASE IN INVESTMENT IN PLANT AND MACHINERY BY AT LEAST 50% OF THE BOOK VALUE OF PLANT AND MACHINERY (BEFORE TAKING DEP RECIATION IN ANY YEAR), AS ON THE FIRST DAY OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR IN WHICH SU BSTANTIAL EXPANSION IS UNDERTAKEN. THE ADMITTED POSITION IN THIS RESPE CT IS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN UP SUBSTANTIAL EXPANSION. FURTHER, THE D EDUCTION U/S 80IC IS ADMISSIBLE TO AN ASSESSEE WHERE HIS GROSS TOTAL INCOME INCLUDES ANY PROFIT AND GAIN DERIVED BY AN UNDERTAKING OR AN ENTERPR ISE, WHICH INTER-ALIA COMMENCES ANY OPERATION SPECIFIED IN FOURTEENTH SCHEDULE IN THE PERIOD STARTING ON 07.01.2003 AND ENDING BEFORE 01.04.20 12. THIS DEDUCTION IS ALSO ADMISSIBLE IN CASE OF SUBSTANTIAL EXPANSION O F THE UNDERTAKING OR THE ENTERPRISE IF IT TAKES PLACE WITHIN THE DATES S PECIFIED ABOVE. COMING TO THE FOURTEENTH SCHEDULE, THE ASSESSEE HAS RELIED ON PART-C, ITEM NO. 15, WHICH READS ECO-TOURISM INCLUDING HOTELS, RESORTS, SPAS, ENTERTAINMENT/AMUSEMENT PARKS AND ROPEWAYS. 3.1 THE CASE OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES IS THAT THE DEFINITION IS INCLUSIVE IN NATURE AND MAINTENANCE OF ECOLOGICAL BALANCE IS ESSENTIAL FOR GETTING THE DEDUCTION. THE ASSESSEE RUNS A HOTEL WHICH HAS NOT TAKEN UP ANY STEPS FOR MAINTAINING ECOLOGICAL BALANCE. THE HOTEL P ER SE IS NOT THE ITA NOS. 1800 & 1801(DEL)/2010 & ITA NO. 3637(DEL)/2011 5 UNDERTAKING OR ENTERPRISE COVERED IN THIS ENTRY. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT TAKEN ANY STEP WHATSOEVER FOR MAINTAINING ECOLOGIC AL BALANCE IT IS NOT ENTITLED TO GET THE DEDUCTION. FOR THE SAKE OF R EADY REFERENCE, THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS), CONTA INED IN PARAGRAPH NO. 6.13, IS REPRODUCED BELOW:- 6.13 FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, IT IS QUITE EV IDENT THAT THE AO DEPUTED THE INSPECTOR TO EXAMINE AS TO WHETHE R THE HOTEL HAS ADOPTED ANY MEASURE WHICH WOULD REDUCE THE AD VERSE IMPACT ON ENVIRONMENT. HOWEVER, IT IS EVIDENT FR OM THE INSPECTORS REPORT THAT THE APPELLANT HAS NOT FULF ILLED THE CRITERIA OF INDULGING IN ANY ACTIVITY OF ECO-T OURISM. THE HOTEL HAS USED GENERATOR WHICH SPOILS THE ENVIR ONMENT BY WAY OF QUITE EMISSION OF GREEN HOUSE GASES. TH E HOTEL HAS NOT ADOPTED ANY MEASURE FOR CONSERVATION OF ENE RGY SOURCES. IT HAS NOT UTILIZED ANY KNOWN FUNDAMENTAL SOURCE S OF ENERGY LIKE SOLAR ENERGY TO MEET THE NEEDS OF RUNNING TH E HOTEL ACTIVITY. THE RAIN HARVESTING HAS NOT BEEN ADOPTE D TO CONSERVE THE WATER RESOURCES. THE HOTEL HAS NOT ADOPTED ANY SYSTEM OF SEGREGATION OF WASTE IN BIO-DEGRADABLE AND NON-BI O- DEGRADABLE CATEGORIES AND THEN RECYCLE SUCH WA STE. EVEN THOUGH THE COUNSEL OF THE APPELLANT HAS STATED THAT THE APPELLANT HOTEL HAS NOT DISTURBED THE ECOLOGY BUT HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO SUBSTANTIATE SUCH CLAIM WITH DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE. THE EMPLOYMENT APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN PROVIDED TO L OCAL POPULATION BUT NO WELFARE SCHEME IN THE FORM OF EMPLOYEE PROVIDENT FUND HAS BEEN AWARDED TO THEM. FUNDA MENTALLY, ECO-TOURISM MEANS MAKING AS LITTLE ENVIRONMENT I MPACT AS POSSIBLE AND HELPING TO SUSTAIN THE INDIGENOUS PEO PLE THEREBY ENCOURAGING THE PRESERVING OF WILD LIFE AND HABITA T WHILE VISITING A PLACE. THE COUNSEL OF THE APPELLANT COULD NOT FURNISH THE ENVIRONMENT IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT AS DESIRED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WHICH PROVES THE POINT THAT THE APPELLANT WAS NOT PURSUING THE CAUSE OF PROTECTI ON OF ENVIRONMENT THROUGH ECO-TOURISM. ECO-TOURISM IS ONE OF THE ITA NOS. 1800 & 1801(DEL)/2010 & ITA NO. 3637(DEL)/2011 6 TOOLS SUSTAINABLE ECOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT WHEREIN NATURAL RESOURCES ARE HELD AS USUFRUCT TO EXPLOIT SUCH RESOURCES WITH MINIMUM DAMAGE TO THE ENVIRONMENT AND SUSTAIN SUC H RESOURCES FOR THE FUTURE GENERATIONS SO THAT IN TER-GENERATIONAL EQUITY IS PRESERVED AND PROTECTED. THE APPELLANT HOTEL IS NOT FOUND TO CARRY OUT ANY SUCH ACTIVITY WHICH COULD LEAD TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE ECOLOGICAL DAMAGE TO THE AREA HAS BEEN DONE TO THE MINIMUM POSSIBLE EXTENT AND EXTRA INVESTMENTS AND EFFORTS HAVE BEEN MADE TO PROMOTE SUSTAINABLE ECOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE AREA IN WHICH THE HOTEL ACTIV ITIES ARE BEING CARRIED OUT. UNDER THESE FACTS AND CIRCUMS TANCES OF THE CASE AND HAVING REGARD TO THE AFORESAID INTERPRE TATION OF THE WORD HOTEL SUCCEEDING ECO-TOURISM IN CLAUSE 15 OF PART-C OF SCHEDULE XIV, I AM OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE ACTION OF THE AO IS QUITE RIGHT IN REJECTING THE C LAIM OF DEDUCTION OF APPELLANT U/S 80IC OF THE I.T. ACT, 1 961 AND ACCORDINGLY THE ASSESSMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY REJECTING SUCH CLAIM U/S 80IC OF I.T. ACT IS HERE BY UPHELD. 3.2 THE FIRST QUESTION, WHICH CAME UP FOR DISCUS SION BEFORE US IS- WHETHER, THE DEDUCTION IN RESPECT OF AN EXISTING HOTEL IS AVAILABLE IF SUBSTANTIAL EXPANSION THEREOF TAKES PLACE WITHIN T HE DATES PRESCRIBED IN THE STATUTE? THE CASE OF THE LD. COUNSEL IS THAT THE DEDUCTION IS ADMISSIBLE IF (A) THE UNDERTAKING COMMENCES ANY OPERATION SPE CIFIED IN FOURTEENTH SCHEDULE OR (B) COMMENCES ANY OPERATION SPECIFIED IN THE SCHEDULE AND UNDERTAKES SUBSTANTIAL EXPANSION DURING THE PRES CRIBED PERIOD. THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IS SQUARELY COVERED IN THE ALTERNATI VE (B). AGAINST THE AFORESAID, THE CASE OF THE LD. DR IS THAT UNDER TH E AFORESAID (B) TWO CONDITIONS ARE REQUIRED TO BE SATISFIED, I.E., (I) COMMENCES ANY OPERATION ITA NOS. 1800 & 1801(DEL)/2010 & ITA NO. 3637(DEL)/2011 7 SPECIFIED IN THE SCHEDULE; AND (II) UNDERTAKES EXP ANSION DURING THE PERIOD PRESCRIBED IN THE STATUTE. IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE, ONLY CONDITION MENTIONED IN (II) IS SATISFIED AS THE OPERATION OF THE HOTEL HAD STARTED MUCH EARLIER. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE PROVISION IN SO FAR A S IT IS APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE. IN TERMS OF SECTION 80-IC(2 )(B), THE DEDUCTION IS ADMISSIBLE IF THE HOTEL COMMENCES THE OPERATION W ITHIN THE PERIOD MENTIONED IN THE STATUTE. IT IS ALSO ADMISSIBLE IF THE HOTEL COMMENCES ANY OPERATION AND UNDERTAKES SUBSTANTIAL EXPANSI ON DURING THE PERIOD MENTIONED IN THE STATUTE. IT DOES APPEAR TO US T HAT THE WORDS COMMENCES ANY OPERATION ARE RATHER REDUNDANT FOR THE REASO N THAT THE DEDUCTION IN SUCH A CASE IS ADMISSIBLE ON THE BASIS OF LANGU AGE EARLIER EMPLOYED IN THIS PROVISION. THEREFORE, IN THE CASE OF AN EXI STING HOTEL, THE DEDUCTION WILL BE ADMISSIBLE IF THE SUBSTANTIAL EXPANSION TAKES PLACE WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED PERIOD. THE INTERPRETATION SOUGHT TO BE PLACED BY THE LD. DR ON THIS PROVISION WILL LEAD TO A SITUATION WHERE T HE DEDUCTION UNDER THE SECOND PART OF THE PROVISION WOULD BE ADMISSIBLE ONLY IF COMMENCEMENT OF OPERATION AND SUBSTANTIAL EXPANSION TAKES PLAC E WITHIN THE STATUTORY PERIOD. THE DEDUCTION WHERE THE HOTEL COMMENCES ANY OPERATION WITHIN ITA NOS. 1800 & 1801(DEL)/2010 & ITA NO. 3637(DEL)/2011 8 THE STATUTORY PERIOD IS ADMISSIBLE IN ANY CASE O N THE BASIS OF THE LANGUAGE IN THE EARLIER PART, THEREFORE, THE SECOND PART CAN ONLY BE A CASE WHERE SUBSTANTIAL EXPANSION TAKES PLACE DURING THE ST ATUTORY PERIOD. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HELD THAT THE CONDITION MENTIONE D IN THE AFORESAID PROVISION STANDS SATISFIED IN THIS CASE. 4.1 THE SECOND QUESTION IS-WHETHER THE DEDUCTION IS AVAILABLE IN CASE OF A HOTEL WHICH DOES NOT TAKE STEPS TOWARDS ECO LOGICAL BALANCE? THE ISSUE STANDS COVERED BY THE DECISION OF A BENCH OF D ELHI TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SHRI BIDHI CHAND SINGHAL VS. ITO IN ITA NO. 3419 (DEL)/2009 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07, DATED 04.11.2010, A COP Y OF WHICH HAS BEEN PLACED ON RECORD AND WHICH IS AUTHORED BY MY LEA RNED BROTHER. THE ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THER EFORE, FOLLOWING THIS DECISION, IT IS HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLE D TO DEDUCTION U/S 80-IC OF THE ACT. FOR THE SAKE OF READY REFERENCE, PARAGRA PH NOS. 5 AND 6 OF THE AFORESAID DECISION ARE REPRODUCED BELOW:- 5. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES, GONE THROUGH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND ORDER OF CIT(A) AND RELEVAN T PROVISIONS WHICH HAVE BEEN REFERRED BY THE AO AND CIT(A). THE PROVISIONS AS CONTAINED IN SECTION 80IC AND AS RELEVANT TO THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE ARE AS UNDER:- ITA NOS. 1800 & 1801(DEL)/2010 & ITA NO. 3637(DEL)/2011 9 80-IC. (1) WHERE THE GROSS TOTAL INCOME OF AN ASSESSEE INCLUDES ANY PROFITS AND GAINS DERIVED BY AN UNDERTAKING OR AN ENTERPRISE FROM ANY BUSINESS REFERRED TO IN SUB-SECTION (2), THERE SHALL, IN A CCORDANCE WITH AND SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTIO N, BE ALLOWED, IN COMPUTING THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASS ESSEE, A DEDUCTION FROM SUCH PROFITS AND GAINS, AS SPE CIFIED IN SUB-SECTION (3). (2) THIS SECTION APPLIES TO ANY UNDERTAKING OR ENTERPRISE,- (A) (B) WHICH HAS BEGUN OR BEGINS TO MANUFACTURE OR PRODUCE ANY ARTICLE OR THING, SPECIFIED IN THE FOURTEENTH SCHEDULE OR COMMENCES ANY OPERATION SPECIFIED IN THAT SCHEDULE, OR WHICH MANUFACTURES OR PRODUCES ANY ARTICLE OR THING, SPECIFIED IN THE FOURTEENTH SCHEDULE OR COMMENCES ANY OPERATION SPECIFIED IN THAT SCHEDULE AND UNDERTAKES SUBSTANT IAL EXPANSION DURING THE PERIOD BEGINNING- (I). (II) ON THE 7 TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2003 AND ENDING BEFORE THE 1 ST DAY OF APRIL, 2012 IN THE STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH OR THE STATE OF UTTARANCHAL; OR (III). ITEM NO. 15 OF PART C OF THE FOURTEENTH SCHEDULE RE ADS AS UNDER:- 15. ECO-TOURISM INCLUDING HOTELS, RESORTS, SPA, ENTERTAINMENT/AMUSEMENT PARKS AND ROPEWAYS. ITA NOS. 1800 & 1801(DEL)/2010 & ITA NO. 3637(DEL)/2011 10 6. FROM THE ABOVE SECTION AND ITEM NO. 15 OF P ART-C OF THE FOURTEENTH SCHEDULE, IT CAN BE OBSERVED THAT WHA T IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION IS ECO-TOURISM WHICH INCLUDE INTER-A LIA HOTELS. IT HAS BEEN THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT HIS HOTEL IS APPROVED BY THE GOVERNMENT. THE HOTEL CANNOT BE AP PROVED BY THE GOVERNMENT WITHOUT OBTAINING NO OBJECTION FRO M THE POLLUTION DEPARTMENT. THERE IS NO MATERIAL ON REC ORD TO SHOW THAT POLLUTION DEPARTMENT OF THE GOVERNMENT HAS NO T GIVEN NO OBJECTION TO THE ASSESSEE. IF IT IS SO, THEN, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE ASSESSEE IS RUNNING A HOTEL WHICH IS OUTSIDE THE NORMS PRESCRIBED BY THE POLLUTION DEPARTMENT. IF A PLAIN READING IS GIVEN TO ITEM NO. 15 REPRODUCED ABOVE, THE, ECO- TOURISM INTER-ALIA INCLUDE HOTELS. NO MATERIAL HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT ECO-TOURISM STATUS HAS BEEN GRANTED TO ANY OTHER HOTEL AND WHICH STATUS ASSES SEE DOES NOT HAVE. IF THE LOGIC APPLIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFI CER AND CIT(A) IS MADE APPLICABLE, THEN, THE HOTELS WHICH ARE NOT HAVING THE ALLEGED ECO-TOURISM STATUS CANNOT B E HELD TO BE ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION U/S 80-IC. IF NONE OF THE HOTELS CAN BE GRANTED DEDUCTION U/S 80-IC, THE ITEM NO. 15 OF P ART C OF THE FOURTEENTH SCHEDULE WILL BE REDUNDANT. THEREFORE, IN OUR OPINION, IN THE ABSENCE OF DEFINITION OF ECO-TOU RISM THE HOTEL AS ADDED INTO THE ITEM NO. 15 OF PART C IS TO BE CONSTRUED TO BE HOTEL SITUATED IN THE STATE OF HI MACHAL PRADESH OR THE STATE OF UTTARANCHAL HAVING A VALID LICE NCE ON THE BASIS OF NO OBJECTION FROM POLLUTION DEPARTMENT WHICH C AN BE TREATED TO BE A HOTEL ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80-IC AS PER PROVISIONS OF SECTION 80IC. THEREFORE, WE ALLOW THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 80-IC TO THE ASSESSEE AND THE APPEA L OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 4.2 THE RESULT OF AFORESAID DISCUSSION IS THAT T HE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ITA NOS. 1800 & 1801(DEL)/2010 & ITA NO. 3637(DEL)/2011 11 5. ADMITTEDLY, THE FACTS OF ASSESSMENT YEARS 20 06-07 AND 2007-08 ARE IDENTICAL WITH THE FACTS OF ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 5-06. THEREFORE, THE ORDER FOR THAT YEAR IS ALSO MADE APPLICABLE TO THESE YEARS. 6. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE THREE APPEALS OF THE AS SESSEE ARE ALLOWED. SD/- SD/- (I.P. BANSAL) (K.G.BANSAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SP SATIA COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO:- M/S ANCHAL HOTELS (P)LTD., DEHRADUN. ACIT, CIRCLE-2, DEHRADUN. CIT(A) CIT THE DR, ITAT, NEW DELHI. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR.