DCIT, CHENNAI V. M/s. Rathna Stores P Ltd., CHENNAI

ITA 1901/CHNY/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 134 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5252 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-04-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 12-04-2011
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 11-11-2010
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: TAPAS KUMAR DUTTA
• Assessee Lawyers: ANIL NAIR
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Depreciation; Onus to prove

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHENNAI BENCH C BEFORE DR. O.K.NARAYANAN, VICE-PRESIDENT AND SHRI HARI OM MARATHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NOS. 1901 & 1902/MDS/2010 ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2006-07 & 2007-08 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COMPANY CIRCLE V (3), CHENNAI-600 034. VS. M/S. RATHNA STORES P. LTD.,, 79, USMAN ROAD, CHENNAI-600 017. PAN : AACCR 7287 F (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI TAPAS KUMAR DUTTA RESPONDENT BY : SHRI ANIL NAIR O R D E R PER DR. O.K.NARAYANAN, VICE PRESIDENT THESE TWO APPEALS ARE FILED BY THE REVENUE. THE RE LEVANT ASSESSMENT YEARS ARE 2006-07 AND 2007-08. THESE AP PEALS ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDERS OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-V, AT CHENNAI DATED 17.08.2010 AND 11.08. 2010. THE ITA 1901 & 1902/10 :- 2 -: APPEAL FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 ARISES OUT O F THE ASSESSMENT COMPLETED UNDER SEC.143[3] AND THE APPEA L FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 ARISES OUT OF THE ORDER PAS SED UNDER SEC.154 OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. 2. FIRST, WE WILL CONSIDER THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. 3. THE FIRST GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN D ELETING THE ADDITION OF ` 96,50,000/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY AS UN- EXPLAINED CREDITS. IT IS ALSO THE GROUND OF REVENU E THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN D ELETING CONSEQUENTIAL INTEREST ADDITION OF ` 11,58,000/-. 4. IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESS ING OFFICER HAS FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS TAK EN VARIOUS UNSECURED LOANS TOTALING TO ` 96,50,000/- DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL. THES E LOANS WERE AVAILED FROM 87 PARTIES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBS ERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED ONLY CONFIRMATION LETTERS IN SUP PORT OF THOSE CREDITS AND NOTHING MORE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FU RTHER OBSERVED ITA 1901 & 1902/10 :- 3 -: THAT MERE FILING OF CONFIRMATIONS OF LOAN BALANCES WOULD NOT BE SUFFICIENT TO DISCHARGE THE ONUS CAST ON THE ASSESS EE. HE FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS BOUND TO PROVE THE I DENTITY, GENUINENESS AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE CREDITORS. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DIRECTED THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE ALL THE LOAN CREDITORS IN PERSON ALONG WITH THEIR BANK STATEMENT S, PAN CARDS AND DETAILS OF THE RETURNS FILED BY THOSE PERSONS E TC. THE ASSESSEE WAS GIVEN TIME TO COMPLY WITH THE ABOVE DI RECTIONS. BUT LATER ON THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED BEFORE THE HE C OMMISSIONER INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT IN A POSITION TO BRING THE LOAN CREDITORS IN PERSON. AS FURTHER DE TAILS WERE NOT COMING FORWARD, THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY TREATED THE UNSECURED LOANS OF ` 96,50,000/- AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDITS FALLING UN DER SEC.68 OF THE I.T. ACT. ACCORDINGLY, THE SAID AMOU NT WAS ADDED AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO C LAIMED DEDUCTION BY WAY OF INTEREST PAID ON THE ABOVE CASH CREDITS. AS THE CASH CREDITS THEMSELVES HAVE BEEN DISALLOWED, T HE INTEREST EXPENDITURE WAS ALSO DISALLOWED BY THE ASSESSING AU THORITY AMOUNTING TO ` 11,58,000/- ITA 1901 & 1902/10 :- 4 -: 5. WHEN THESE TWO ADDITIONS WERE TAKEN BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS), HE FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED CONFIRMATION LETTERS FROM 74 LOA N CREDITORS AND ALSO HAD FILED THE NAMES, ADDRESSES AND PAN DETAILS OF THOSE LOAN CREDITORS. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (A PPEALS) OBSERVED THAT THE PARTICULARS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE -COMPANY ARE SUFFICIENT TO DISCHARGE THE ONUS CAST ON IT TO PROV E THE BONA FIDES OF THE LOAN CREDITORS. HE OBSERVED THAT THE FAILU RE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY TO PRODUCE THE LOAN CREDITORS IN PERSON BEFORE THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY CANNOT BE TREATED AS A GROUND TO MAKE AN ADDITION AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. THE COMMISS IONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) OBSERVED THAT ONCE THE ASSESS EE HAS DISCHARGED ITS INITIAL BURDEN OF PROOF, IT WAS THE DUTY OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO MAKE ENQUIRIES AND IF HE WANTS , HE SHOULD HAVE SUMMONED THE CREDITORS AND MADE ENQUIRIES WITH THEM BEFORE COMING TO A CONCLUSION. IN SHORT, THE COMM ISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) ACCEPTED THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE- COMPANY THAT INITIAL BURDEN OF PROOF WAS DISCHARGED BY THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY. ACCORDINGLY, HE DELETED THE CASH CREDIT ADDITION OF ` 96,50,000/-. CONSEQUENTLY, HE ALSO DELETED THE INTEREST OF ` 11,58,000/-. ITA 1901 & 1902/10 :- 5 -: 6. SHRI TAPAS KUMAR DUTTA, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX APPEARING FOR THE REVENUE CONTENDED THAT AS AGAINST 87 LOAN CREDITORS, EVEN ACCORDING TO THE COMMISSION ER OF INCOME- TAX (APPEALS), THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY, HAD FURNISHED CONFIRMATION LETTERS FROM 74 PERSONS ALONE. THE ASSESSEE HAS N OT PRODUCED THE LOAN CREDITORS BEFORE THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED THE INCOME-TAX ASSESSMENT DETAILS OF THE CREDITORS. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT SUBSTANTIATED THE CREDIT- WORTHINESS OF THE CREDITORS, SO THAT IT WOULD HAVE BEEN PROVED WHETHER THE CREDITORS HAD THE NECESSARY RESOURCES T O MAKE LOANS TO THE ASSESSEE OR NOT. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER SUBMITTED THAT IT IS NOT ENOUGH THAT THE ASSESSEE FURNISHES T HE NAMES AND ADDRESS OF THE CREDITORS AND FILES CONFIRMATION LET TERS FROM THEM. IT IS NECESSARY FOR THE ASSESSEE TO GO BEYOND AND P ROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS BY ESTABLISHING THE CREDIT WORTHINESS OF THE CREDITORS. THE COMMISSIONER OF I NCOME-TAX (APPEALS) HAS TAKEN A CASUAL VIEW ON THE ISSUE AND HAS ERRED IN COMING TO A FINDING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCHARGE D THE BURDEN OF PROOF CAST ON IT. THEREFORE, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX SUBMITTED THAT THE ORDER MAY BE SET ASIDE. ITA 1901 & 1902/10 :- 6 -: 7. SHRI ANIL NAIR, THE LEARNED COUNSEL APPEARING FOR THE RESPONDENT-ASSESSEE ON THE OTHER HAND, EXPLAINED TH AT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) WAS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF ` 96,50,000/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS UN-EXPLAINED CREDITS. HE EXPLAINED THAT THE NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF ALL THE CREDITORS WERE FURNISHED TO TH E ASSESSING AUTHORITY. THE ASSESSEE HAS PRODUCED CONFIRMATION LETTERS FROM THE CREDITORS. THE PERMANENT ACCOUNT NUMBERS WERE ALSO FURNISHED. HE FURTHER EXPLAINED THAT SINCE ALL TH ESE PARTICULARS WERE FURNISHED BEFORE THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY, THE ONUS OF PROOF IS DISCHARGED BY THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY AND IT WAS FO R THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO MAKE ENQUIRIES OF HIS OWN, IF HE WANTED TO PROCEED FURTHER AND DISCREDIT THE ARGUMENTS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT MADE ANY SUCH FURTHER ENQUIRIES. THEREFORE, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) WAS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION. 8. WE HEARD BOTH SIDES AND CONSIDERED THE MATTER. WHE THER A LOAN CREDIT IS GENUINE OR NOT IS BASICALLY A QUESTI ON OF FACT. A FACT MUST EITHER SPEAK FOR ITSELF OR A FACT MUST BE ESTA BLISHED BY ACCEPTABLE EVIDENCE. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSE SSEE- ITA 1901 & 1902/10 :- 7 -: COMPANY HAS COLLECTED HUGE SUM OF MONEY BY WAY OF U NSECURED LOANS FROM VARIOUS CREDITORS. THE ASSESSEE HAS COL LECTED A SUM OF ` 96,50,000 FROM 87 PARTIES. WHEN THE ASSESSEE-COMPA NY HAS ACCEPTED SUCH HUGE CREDITS AS PERSONAL LOANS, IT IS INCUMBENT UPON THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY TO PROVE WITH REASONABLE DEGREE THAT THE TRANSACTIONS WERE GENUINE AND THE CREDITOR S WERE GENUINE. 9. NOW, WHAT HAPPENED IN THE PRESENT CASE ? THE ASSES SEE HAS FURNISHED THE NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF 74 CREDITO RS. IN RESPECT OF 13 CREDITORS NO PARTICULARS WERE FURNISH ED. THE ASSESSEE SAYS THAT THE PERMANENT ACCOUNT NUMBERS OF THOSE CREDITORS WERE ALSO FURNISHED BEFORE THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY. BUT THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY HAS NOT FURNISHED THE INCOME-T AX ASSESSMENT DETAILS OF THOSE CREDITORS, IF THEY ARE ASSESSED TO INCOME-TAX. THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY HAS ALSO NOT FURN ISHED ANY DETAILS REGARDING THE RESOURCEFULNESS OF THE CREDIT ORS TO ESTABLISH THAT THE CREDITORS WERE ACTUALLY IN A POSITION TO A DVANCE LOANS TO THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY TO THE EXTENT OF THE AMOUNTS R ECORDED AGAINST THEIR NAMES. CONFIRMATION LETTERS DO NOT P ROVIDE ANY DETAILS OTHER THAN A MECHANICAL STATEMENT CONFIRMIN G THE ITA 1901 & 1902/10 :- 8 -: ADVANCEMENT OF LOANS. THE FACTUM OF LOAN HAS TO B E SUPPORTED BY PROBABILITY OF EVIDENCE. IT IS FOR THAT PURPOSE , IT IS OFF AND ON REITERATED THAT CREDIT WORTHINESS OF THE LOAN CREDI TORS NEED TO BE ESTABLISHED BY AN ASSESSEE. IN THE PRESENT CASE, T HE ASSESSEE HAS NOT WHISPERED ANYTHING REGARDING THE CREDIT WOR THINESS OF A SINGLE CREDITOR AGAINST TOTAL OF 87 CREDITORS. WH EN THERE IS NOTHING AVAILABLE ON RECORD TO SUPPORT THE AVAILABI LITY OF FUNDS IN THE HANDS OF THE CREDITORS TO ADVANCE LOANS TO THE ASSESSEE- COMPANY, THE WHOLE EDIFICE OF THE ARGUMENTS OF THE ASSESSEE- COMPANY CRUMBLES DOWN. 10. AS NO DETAILS ARE AVAILABLE ON THE QUESTION OF CRED IT WORTHINESS OF THE CREDITORS FROM THE DETAILS FURNIS HED BY THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY, IT BECAME NECESSARY FOR THE ASSES SING OFFICER TO EXAMINE THE CREDITORS SO THAT HE COULD A SSESS THE RESOURCEFULNESS OF THOSE PERSONS. THAT IS WHY THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO PRODUCE THEM. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PRODUC E EVEN A SINGLE CREDITOR BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-T AX (APPEALS). IT IS ACCEPTABLE THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODUC E ALL THE 87 CREDITORS BUT IT IS NOT ACCEPTABLE THAT THE ASSESSE E-COMPANY COULD NOT PRODUCE EVEN A SINGLE SOUL. THE COMMISSIONER O F INCOME-TAX ITA 1901 & 1902/10 :- 9 -: (APPEALS) MAKES AN OBSERVATION THAT THE ASSESSING O FFICER SHOULD HAVE MADE FURTHER ENQUIRIES AFTER ISSUING SUMMONS. THE QUESTION OF ISSUING SUMMONS IN AN ASSESSMENT PROCE EDINGS INVOLVES AN ELEMENT OF JUDGMENT. WHERE THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER REASONABLY APPREHENDS THAT THE WHOLE EXERCISE WOULD BE OF NO USE, HE MAY NOT ISSUE SUMMONS. IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO INSIST THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHOULD ALWAYS ISSUE SUMMONS T O MAKE ENQUIRIES. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT EXPLAINED TO THE S ATISFACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT WHY THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT IN A POSITION TO PRODUCE EVEN A SINGLE CREDITOR BEFORE HIM. THE ASSESSEE- COMPANY HAS NOT EXPLAINED ANY CONVINCING REASON EIT HER BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES OR BEFORE US WHY IT WAS NOT P OSSIBLE FOR THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY TO PRODUCE EVEN A SINGLE CREDITOR BEFORE THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY. 11. THEREFORE, IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PROVED THE GENUINENE SS OF THE CREDITS EITHER BY DEED OR BY WORD. WE DO NOT FIND THAT THE FINDING OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) REGARDI NG THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ACCEPTABLE IN THIS CASE. ONCE W E FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO ESTABLISH THE GENUINENESS OF THE CREDITS, ITA 1901 & 1902/10 :- 10 - : WE HAVE TO UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING AUTHOR ITY ON THIS POINT. ACCORDINGLY, THE TWO ADDITIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY ARE RESTORED AND THE ORDER OF THE COMMISS IONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) ON THESE ADDITIONS IS SET ASID E. 12. THE REVENUE SUCCEEDS IN ITS APPEAL FOR THE ASSESSME NT YEAR 2006-07. 13. NEXT WE WILL CONSIDER THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVEN UE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. 14. IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, IT WAS FO UND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PAID A SUM OF ` 2,12,01,732/- TO THE CREDIT OF THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT EVEN THOUGH CORRESPONDING RECOVERIES WERE MADE UNDER TDS. THEREFORE, THIS AMOUNT OF ` 2,12,01,732/- WAS ADDED BACK TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 15. THE INCOME RETURNED BY THE ASSESSEE AS PER THE REVI SED STATEMENT WAS ` 54,79,580/-. THE ADDITIONAL INCOME OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS FOR ` 43,50,000/-. THE ADDITION OF ` 2,12,01,732/- WAS MADE TOWARDS NON DEDUCTION OF TDS . THUS, THE TOTAL INCOME WAS DETERMINED AT ` 3,10,31,312/-. ITA 1901 & 1902/10 :- 11 - : 16. THEREAFTER THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY FILED RECTIFICATION PETITION UNDER SEC.154. THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE PETITIO N FILED UNDER SEC.154 IS REPRODUCED AS FOLLOWS : WE SUBMIT THAT THE TAXABLE INCOME AS PER THE REVISED MEMO WAS ` ` ` ` 61,03,423/- AND NOT ` ` ` ` 54,79,580/-, AS STATED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. IT IS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE TAXABLE INCOME OF ` ` ` ` .61,03,423/- WAS AFTER DISALLOWING A SUM OF ` ` ` ` .2,12,01,732/- U/S.40(A)(IA) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT , 1961. HOWEVER, IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE SAID SUM OF ` ` ` ` .2,12,01,732/- HAS BEEN ADDED TO THE TAXABLE INCOME AGAIN WHICH AMOUNTS TO DOUBLE DISALLOWANCE OF THE SAME AMOUNT. THIS IS AN ERROR APPARENT FROM THE RECORD WHICH MAY PLEASE BE RECTIFIED U/S.154 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 17. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISMISSED THE RECTIFICATION P ETITION STATING THAT THE POINTS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE-COMP ANY ARE NOT IN THE NATURE OF MISTAKES APPARENT FROM THE RECORDS. ITA 1901 & 1902/10 :- 12 - : 18. THE MATTER WAS TAKEN IN FIRST APPEAL. THE CONTENTI ON OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APP EALS) WAS THAT ADDING A SUM OF ` 2,12,01,732/- BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WOULD AMOUNT TO DOUBLE ADDITION AS THE RELEVANT DIS ALLOWANCE HAS ALREADY BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY IN ITS CO MPUTATION OF INCOME IN OBEDIENCE OF SEC.40(A)(IA). IN SUPPOR T OF THE ABOVE CONTENTION, THE COMPUTATION OF TOTAL INCOME MADE BY THE ASSESSEE WAS EXAMINED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX (APPEALS) IN PAGE 3 OF HIS ORDER AS BELOW : COMPUTATION OF TOTAL INCOME INCOME FROM BUSINESS/PROFESSION ` ` ` NET PROFIT AS PER PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT 5,443 ,570 ADD : INADMISSIBLES/INCOMES CONSIDERED SEPARATELY: DISALLOWANCE U/S 40(A)(IA) 84,709 DISALLOWANCE U/S 40(A)(IA)-ADVERTISEMENT 21,117,0 23 ADVERTISEMENT EXPENSES DEBITED TO PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT 28,582,342 DEPRECIATION AS PER COMPANIES ACT 4,473,995 54,258,069 LESS : ADMISSIBLES/INCOMES CONSIDERED SEPARATELY: DEPRECIATION AS PER INCOME TAX RULES 4,351, 726 ADVT. EXPS. INCURRED DURING THE YEAR 49,075,5 22 EXPENSES DISALLOWED ON ACCOUNT OF NON DEDUCTION OF TDS ALLOWED DURING THE CURRENT YEAR 280,969 53,708,217 TAXABLE PROFIT 6,103,423 ITA 1901 & 1902/10 :- 13 - : 19. AS SEEN FROM THE ABOVE COMPUTATION, THE COMMISS IONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ALR EADY ADDED BACK A SUM OF ` 2,12,01,732/-. HE HELD THAT IT IS A MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD AND DELETED THE ADDITION O F ` 2,12,01,732/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 20. THE REVENUE IS AGGRIEVED ON THE ABOVE POINT AND THEREFORE, THE SECOND APPEAL BEFORE US. 21. ON GOING THROUGH THE COMPUTATION OF TOTAL INCOM E, WE FIND THAT THE NET PROFIT AS PER THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCO UNT OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE ADJUSTMENT UNDER SEC.40(A)(IA) WAS ` 54,43,570/-. THE ASSESSEE HAS ADDED BACK DISALLOWA NCE UNDER SEC.40(A)(IA) TOTALING TO ` 2,12,01,732/- AMONG OTHER ITEMS. IT IS CLEAR FROM THE ABOVE, THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ALREADY DEDUCTED CERTAIN ITEMS AND ARRIVED AT A TAXABLE PROFIT OF ` 61,03,423/-. THE ARGUMENT OF THE ASSESSEE SEEMS TO BE CORRECT. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) HAS RIGHTLY HE LD THAT THE ADDITION OF ` 2,12,01,732/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY HAS RESULTED IN DUPLICATION OF ADDITION. SINCE THESE A RE OF MATTERS OF SIMPLE ARITHMETIC, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX ( APPEALS) IS JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING THEM AS RECTIFIABLE MISTAKES. IN THE FACTS AND ITA 1901 & 1902/10 :- 14 - : CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF T HE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS). 22. THE REVENUE FAILS IN THIS APPEAL FOR THE ASSESS MENT YEAR 2007-08. 23. IN RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 IS ALLOWED AND THE APPEAL F ILED FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT AT THE TIME OF H EARING ON TUESDAY, THE 12 TH DAY OF APRIL, 2011 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (HARI OM MARATHA) JUDICIAL MEMBER (DR. O.K.NARAYANAN) VICE-PRESIDENT CHENNAI, DATED : 12 TH APRIL, 2011 MPO* COPY TO: APPELLANT/RESPONDENT/ CIT(A)/CIT/DR