DY.C.I.T. 1, BHILAI(CG) V. M/S BAFNA ARTH MOVERSLTD.,

ITA 192/BIL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9096 (ITAT-RAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 8 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-05-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 22-08-2014
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: GEETESH KUMAR
• Keywords: Depreciation
• Section: 32

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR BEFORE S/SHRI N.S SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND GEORGE GEORGE K, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 192 TO 197 /RPR /201 4 ASSESSMENT YEAR S : 2006 - 07 TO 2011 - 12 DCIT - 1, 32/32, BUNGLOWS, BHILAI VS. M/S BAFNA EARTH MOVERS LTD. S.B. GOLD LINK, OPP JAGESWAR FARM HOUSE, KARHIDH , POST JEVR A SIRASA, DISTT. DURG (C.G.) - 491 001 PAN/GIR NO. AACCB 2220 L (APPELLANT ) .. ( RESPONDENT ) ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY : SHRI GEETESH KUMAR, DR DATE OF HEARING : 9 /05 / 2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 11 /05 / 2017 O R D E R PER N.S.SAINI, AM THESE ARE APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE AGA INST A COMMON ORDER OF CIT(A) - RAIPUR , DATED 12.6.2014 , FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR S 2006 - 07, 2007 - 08, 2008 - 09, 2009 - 10 & 2011 - 12 AND ORDER DATED 26.5.2014 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 - 2011. 2 ITA NO. 192 TO 197/RPR/2014 ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2006 - 07 TO 2011 - 12 2. IN ALL THESE APPEALS, THE COMMON ISSUE TAKEN IN GROUND NOS.1 & 2 IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF EXCESS CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF RS.38,11,975/ - , FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 - 07, RS.70,27,066/ - FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 08, RS. 123,12,850/ - FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 09, RS.1,10,24,270/ - FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10, RS.44,53,227/ - , FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 - 11 AND R S.67,57,274/ - FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011 - 1 2 , RESPECTIVELY. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED DEPRECIATION @ 40% ON MACHINERIES OF EARTH MOVING EQUIPMENTS. THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED THAT IT IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF ROAD CONSTRUCTION UNDER VARIOUS GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT LIKE RES, PWD, ETC AND TO EXECUTE THE WORK, A LOT OF COMMERCIAL VEHICLES LIK E TRUCKS, TIPPERS, TANKERS, ETC., WERE HIRED FOR EXECUTING THE WORK ALONGWITH SELF OWNED VEHICLES. IT WAS SUBMITTED TH A T THE ASSESSEE WAS USING TRANSPORT VEHICLES FOR TRANSPORTING THE GOODS FOR ITS BUSINESS AND WAS ENTITLED FOR HIGHER RATE OF DEPRECIATION. THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT CARRYING ON BUSINE SS OF TRANSPORTATION OF PASSENGER OR GOODS FOR WHICH DEPRECIATION @ 40% IS APPLICABLE IN RESPECT OF SPECIFIED PLANT AND MACHINERY. THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF CONSTRUCTION OF ROADS AND FOR WHICH THE PRESCRIBED RATE OF DEPRECIATION IS @ 15 % ON PLANT 3 ITA NO. 192 TO 197/RPR/2014 ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2006 - 07 TO 2011 - 12 AND MACHINERIES OF THE BUSINESS. THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT IT PUTS LOTS OF COMMERCIAL VEHICLES, LIKE TRUCKS AND TIPPERS, TANKERS, ETC BY WAY OF HIRING WILL NOT BE ANY HELP FOR THE REASON THAT THE ASSESSEE CANNOT CLAIM DEPRECIATION ON HIRED VEHICLES. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF HIGHER DEPRECIATION AND ADDED RS.38,11,975/ - , FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 - 07, RS.70,27,066/ - FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 08, RS. 123,12,850/ - FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 09, R S.1,10,24,270/ - FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10, RS.44,53,227/ - , FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 - 11 AND RS.67,57,274/ - FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011 - 12. 4. ON APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE ARGUED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF ROAD CONSTRUCTION OF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS LIKE RES, PWD ETC., AND IN ORDER TO COMPLETE THE WORKS IN TIME, LOT OF COMMERCIAL VEHICLES LIKE TRUCKS, TIPPERS, TANKERS, ETC., WERE EITHER HIRED OR SELF OWNED VEHICLES WERE ENGAGED. SINCE THE TRANSPORT VEHICLES W ERE USED FOR EXECUTING WORKS OF OTHERS, THE DEPRECIATION WAS CORRECTLY CLAIMED @ 40%. FOR THIS, HE RELIED ON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS: I) CIT VS SHARMA MOTOR SERVICE, 148 CTR (MP) 75 II) CIT VS. BANSAL CREDITS LTD., 126 TAXMAN 149 (DEL) /256 ITR 69 (DEL) I II) M/S. BOTHRA SHIPPING SERVICES VS CIT, (ITA NOS.58 - 61/KOL/13). 4 ITA NO. 192 TO 197/RPR/2014 ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2006 - 07 TO 2011 - 12 5. THE CIT( A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS USING HEAVY VEHICLES SUCH AS TRUCKS, TIPPERS, TANKERS, MOBILE CRANE, SOIL COMPACTORS AND LOADERS OWNED BY HIM FOR EXECUTION OF CONTRACT WORKS OF OTHERS. THE ASSESSEE HAD H IRED THE VEHICLES FOR OTHERS BUSINESS, HENCE, DISALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION AT HIGHER RATE ONLY ON THE GROUND THAT THE VEHICLES WERE NOT HIRED OUT SEEMS TO BE HYPER TECHNICAL. THE CRITERIA FOR ALLOWING HIGHER DEPRECIATION ARE THE NATURE OF USE OF THE VEHI CLES. HE OBSERVED THAT THE VEHICLES USED IN THE CONSTRUCTION BUSINESS ARE EXPOSED TO MORE WEAR AND TEAR AND, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE WAS ENTITLED FOR DEPRECIATION @ 30% AS AGAINST 40% CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. HE, ACCORDINGLY, DIRECTED TO ALLOW DEPRECIATI ON @ 30% AND PARTLY ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 6. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE SAID ORDER OF THE CIT(A), THE REVENUE HAS FILED APPEALS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 7. IN THIS CASE, NOTICE OF HEARING DATED 6.4.2017 SENT TO THE ASSESSEE BY RPAD FIXING THE HEARING ON 9.5.2017 WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 13.4.2017, AS EVIDENCED BY ACKNOWLEDGEMENT CARD OF THE POSTAL AUTHORITIES. HOWEVER, WHEN THE MATTER WAS CALLED FOR HEARING, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE NOR ANY APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT WAS FILED. THEREFORE, WE PROCEED TO DISPOSE OF THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE EXPARTE QUA - THE 5 ITA NO. 192 TO 197/RPR/2014 ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2006 - 07 TO 2011 - 12 RESPONDENT - ASSESSEE AFTER HEARING LD D.R. AND CONSIDERING THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. 8. LD D.R. RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE AS SESSING OFFICER. 9. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD D.R, PERUSED THE ORDERS OF LOWER AUTHORITIES AND MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE UNDISPUTED FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF ROADS FOR GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT. THE ASSESSEE USED COMMERCIAL VEHICLES LIKE TRUCK, TIPPERS, TANKERS, ETC EITHER HIRED OR SELF - OWNED FOR EXECUTING THE WORK. THE ASSE SSEE HAS CLAIMED DEPRECIATION @ 40%. THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF TRANSPORTATION OF PASSENGERS AND GOODS, FOR HIRE , IT WAS ENTITLED TO HIGHER DEPRECIATION AND, THEREFORE, DISALLOWED DEPRECIATION CLAIMED AT 40% BY THE ASSESSEE AND ALLOWED DEPRECIATION @ 15% ON PLANT AND MACHINERY. 10. ON APPEAL, THE CIT(A) HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS USED VEHICLES FOR EXECUTING THE WORKS OF OTHERS AND THAT IN THE BUSINESS OF ROAD CONSTRUCTION. THE VEHICLES ARE E XPOSED TO MORE WEAR AND TEAR AND, THEREFORE, ENTITLED TO HIGHER RATE OF DEPRECIATION @ 30% AND ACCORDINGLY, THE CIT(A) DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ALLOW 30% DEPRECIATION TO THE ASSESSEE. 11. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE RELIED ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE M.P. HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SHARMA MOTORS SERVICE (SUPRA), WHEREIN, IT WAS HELD 6 ITA NO. 192 TO 197/RPR/2014 ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2006 - 07 TO 2011 - 12 THAT THE VEHICLES USED FOR TRANSPORTING PASSENGERS/GOODS AS A REGULAR BUSINESS ARE ENTITLED TO HIGHER RATE OF DEPRECIATION. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER RELIED ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF BANSAL CREDITS LTD (SUPRA), WHEREIN, IT WAS HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS IN LEASED OUT VEHICLES WAS ENTITLED TO DEPRECIATION @ 40% OR 50% IN RESPECT OF COMMERCIAL VEHICLES OWNED BY HIM TO LEASE OUT TO THIRD PARTY SUBJECT TO VERIFICATION WHETHER LEASED OUT VEHICLES HAD BEEN USED BY THE LESSEE IN THE BUSINESS ON HIRE. HE ALSO RELIED ON THE DECISION OF KOLKATA BEN CHES OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF BOTHRA SHIPPING SERVICES (SUPRA) ORDER DATED 19.12.2014 , WHEREIN, IT WAS HELD THAT THE MOBILE CRANE USED BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH ADMITTEDLY WAS REGISTERED AS A HEAVY MOTOR VEHICLE, WAS ENTITLED TO HIGHER RATE OF DEPRECIAT ION @ 40% SINCE IT WAS USED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS BUSINESS OF RUNNING THE CRANE ON HIRE. 12. A PERUSAL OF THE ABOVE ORDERS OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURTS AND THE TRIBUNAL, WE FIND THAT WHERE T HE ASSESSEE HAS USED VEHICLES IN THE BUSINESS OF HIRE FOR THE PURP OSE OF TRANSPORTING PASSENGERS OR GOODS, IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ENTITLED TO HIGHER RATE OF DEPRECIATION OF 40% OR 50%. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE FACTS ARE NOT THE SAME. THE ASSESSEE HAS USED VEHICLES IN ITS OWN BUSINESS OF CONSTRUCTION OF ROADS FOR GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS. THEREFORE, IT IS ENTITLED TO NORMAL DEPRECIATION @ 15%. HENCE, IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, THE CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DIRECTING THE 7 ITA NO. 192 TO 197/RPR/2014 ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2006 - 07 TO 2011 - 12 ASSESSING OFFICER TO ALLOW DEPRECIATION TO THE ASSESSEE AT A HIGHER RATE OF 30%. HENC E, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND RESTORE BACK THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THIS GROUND S OF APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IN ALL THESE APPEALS IS ALLOWED. 13. IN GROUND NO.3 OF THE APPEAL FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 - 2011, THE GRIEVANCE OF THE R EVENUE IS THAT THE CIT(A) ERRED IN ALLOWING THE CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION OF RS.13,21,000/ - ON ASSETS NOT OWNED BY THE ASSESSEE. 14. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED DEPRECIATION OF AN AMOUNT OF RS.13,21,000/ - ON FIXED ASSETS NOT OWNED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE IN HIS WRITTEN SUBMISSION DATED 26.2.2013 HAS SUBMITTED THAT AS PER AUDITORS REPORT, THE EXCESS DEPRECIATION OF RS.13,21,000/ - MAY BE ADDED BACK. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THEREFORE, D ISALLOWED THE CLAIM AND ADDED THE SAME TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 15. BEFORE THE CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE FIXED ASSETS WERE REGISTERED IN THE NAME OF ITS SUBSIDIARY COMPANY NAMELY, M/S. ARD CONSULTANT PVT LTD., IT WAS USED BY THE ASSESSE E FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES ON THE STRENGTH OF POWER OF ATTORNEY GIVEN IN ASSESSEES FAVOUR TO USE/SALE THE PROPERTY. NO DEPRECI A TION WAS CLAIMED ON THESE ASSETS BY ARD CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD., THE ASSESSEE HAS RIGHTLY CLAIMED DEPRECIATION OF RS.13,21,000/ - ON 8 ITA NO. 192 TO 197/RPR/2014 ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2006 - 07 TO 2011 - 12 THE ASSETS AND ACCEPTANCE DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WAS STATED AS MADE UNDER MISTAKEN BELIEF OF FACTS AND IT WAS PULLED BACK BY FILING APPEAL. 16. THE CIT(A) HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS BENEFICIAL OWNER OF THE ASSETS. REGISTRATION OF THE ASSET IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT NECESSARY FOR CLAIMING DEPRECIATION ALLOWANCE. SINCE THE ASSETS WERE USED FOR THE BUSINESS PURPOSES, THE ASSESSEE WAS ENTITLED TO DEPRECIATION ON THE SAID ASSETS AND DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ALLOW DEPRECIATION OF R S.13,21,000/ - . 17. THE LD D.R RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 18. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD D.R, PERUSED THE ORDERS OF LOWER AUTHORITIES AND MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE UNDISPUTED FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSEE USED FIXED ASSETS OF ITS SUBSIDIARY M/S. ARD CONSULTANTS PVT LTD., ON THE STRENGTH OF POWER OF ATTORNEY GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED DEPRECIATION OF THOSE ASSETS AMOUNTING TO RS.13,21,000/ - . THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED THE SAME ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT OWNER OF THE ASSETS. THE CIT(A) ALLOWED THE CLA IM OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE IS THE BENEFICIAL OWNER OF THE ASSETS AND THE ASSETS WERE USED FOR THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE. WE FIND THAT AS PER SECTION 32 OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO DEPRECIATION OF ASSETS OWNED WHOLLY OR PARTLY BY THE ASSESSEE AND 9 ITA NO. 192 TO 197/RPR/2014 ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2006 - 07 TO 2011 - 12 USED FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS OR PROFESSION. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT THE OWNER OF THE ASSETS AND THE ASSETS OF THE SUBSIDIARY COMPANY M/S. ARD CONSULTANTS PVT LTD. WERE USED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE S TRENGTH OF POWER OF ATTORNEY GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, THE CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN ALLOWING DEPRECIATION OF RS.13,21,000/ - TO THE ASSESSEE ON THOSE ASSETS USED FOR THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE . WE, THEREFORE, SET ASID E THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND RESTORE BACK THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND ALLOW THIS GR OUND OF APPEAL OF THE REVENUE. 19.IN GROUND NO.4 OF THE APPEAL FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 - 2011, THE GRIEVANCE OF THE REVENUE IS THAT THE CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT U PHOLDING THE DISALLOWANCE U/S.40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT OF RS.12,73,605/ - MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR NON - DEDUCTION OF TDS UNDER SECTION 194J OF THE ACT. 20. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT AS PER ITEM NO.17(F) OF TAX AUDIT REPORT DATED 28.8.2010, SALARIES OF RS.12,73,605/ - WERE PAID WITHOUT DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE U/S.192 AND HENCE, AS PER AUDITORS CLARIFICATION, THE CLAIM IS NOT ALLOWABLE UNDER SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT. 21. BEFORE THE CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE ARGUED THAT PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO SALARIES AND HENCE, THE DISALLOWANCE IS NOT 10 ITA NO. 192 TO 197/RPR/2014 ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2006 - 07 TO 2011 - 12 CORRECT. THE CIT(A) ACCEPTED THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE AND DELETED THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.12,73,605/ - . 22. LD D.R. RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 23. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD D.R, PERUSED THE ORDERS OF LOWER AUTHORITIES AND MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE UNDISPUTED FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID SALARY OF RS.12,72,605/ - W ITHOUT DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE U/S.192 OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED DEDUCTION FOR RS.12,73,605/ - BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT. 24. ON APPEAL, THE CIT(A) DELETED THE DISALLOWANCE ON THE GROUND THA T PROVISIONS OF SECTION 192 ARE NOT COVERED BY THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT. WE FIND THAT SECTION 40(A)(IA) AT THE RELEVANT POINT OF TIME READ AS UNDER: 40. NOTWITHSTANDING ANYTHING TO THE CONTRARY IN SECTIONS 30 TO 38, THE FOLLOWING AM OUNTS SHALL NOT BE DEDUCTED IN COMPUTING THE INCOME CHARGEABLE UNDER THE HEAD PROFITS AND GAINS OF BUSINESS OR PROFESSION (A) IN THE CASE OF ANY ASSESSEE (I).. (IA ) ANY INTEREST, COMMISSION OR BROKERAGE, RENT, ROYALTY, FEES FOR PROCESSIONAL SERVICES OR FEES FOR TECHNICAL SERVICES PAYABLE TO A RESIDENT, OR AMOUNTS PAYABLE TO A CONTRACTOR OR SUB - CONTRACTOR, BEING RESIDENT, FOR CARRYING OUT ANY WORK )INCLUDING SUPPLY O F LABOUR FOR CARRYING OUT ANY WORK) ON WHICH TAX IS DEDUCTIBLE AT SOURCE UNDER 11 ITA NO. 192 TO 197/RPR/2014 ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2006 - 07 TO 2011 - 12 CHAPTER XVII - B AND SUCH TAX HAS NOT BEEN DEDUCTED OR AFTER DEDUCTION HAS NOT BEEN PAID ON OR BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF SPECIFIED IN SUB - SECTION(1) OF SECTION 139. 25. THUS, IT IS SEEN THAT SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT DID NOT INCLUDE THE PAYMENT OF SALARY ON WHICH TDS WAS DEDUCTIBLE UNDER SECTION 192 OF THE ACT. HENCE, THE CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION BY OBSERVING THAT SECTION 192 IS NOT COVERED BY PROVISIONS OF S ECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, WE CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND DISMISS THIS GROUND OF REVENUE. 26. IN THE RESULT, APPEALS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2006 - 07, 2007 - 08, 2008 - 09, 2009 - 10, & 2011 - 12 ARE ALLOWED AND APPEAL FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 - 2011 IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCE D IN THE OPEN COURT ON 11 /05 /2017 IN THE PRESENCE OF PARTIES. SD/ - SD/ - (GEORGE GEORGE K ) ( N.S SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER A CCOUNTANT MEMBER RAIPUR ; DATED 11 /05 /2017 B.K.PARIDA, SPS 12 ITA NO. 192 TO 197/RPR/2014 ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2006 - 07 TO 2011 - 12 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : BY ORDER, SR.PRIVATE SECRETARY 1. THE APPELLANT : DCIT - 1, 32/32, BUNGLOWS, BHILA 2. THE RESPONDENT. /S BAFNA EARTH MOVERS LTD. S.B. GOLD LINK, OPP JAGESWAR FARM HOUSE, KARHIDH, POST JEVRA SIRASA, DISTT. DURG (C.G.) - 491 001 3. THE CIT(A) RAIPUR 4. PR.CIT , RAIPUR 5. DR, ITAT, RAIPUR 6. GUARD FILE. //TRUE COPY//