The ITO, Ward-7(4), Ahmedabad V. M/s. Avinashi Industries, Ahmedabad

ITA 1953/AHD/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6243 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 8 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-04-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 31-03-2017
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 18-07-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DR JAYANT JHAVERI
• Section: 32

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD A BENCH AHMEDABAD BEFORE, SHRI S. S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 1953/AHD/2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11) INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(4), AHMEDABAD APPEL LANT VS. M/S. AVINASHI INDUSTRIES L/5/5/134, SHASTRINAGAR, NR. POLICE LINE, ANKUR RANNAPARK ROAD, AHMEDABAD 380013 R ESPONDENT PAN: AAMFA6930F /BY REVENUE : DR. JAYANT JHAVERI, SR. D.R. /BY ASSESSEE : NONE /DATE OF HEARING : 31.03.2017 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 12.04.2017 ORDER PER S. S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS REVENUES APPEALS FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 ARISES AGAINST THE CIT(A)-XIV, AHMEDABADS ORDER DATED 09.05.2013 IN A PPEAL NO. CIT(A) XIV /WD. 7(4)/315/2012-13, REVERSING ASSESSING OFFI CERS ACTION IN DISALLOWING ASSESSEES SECTION 80IC DEDUCTION CLAIM OF RS.1,77,01,744/- AS MADE IN THE RE-ASSESSMENT IN QUESTION FRAMED ON 28. 02.2013, IN PROCEEDINGS U/S.143(3) R.W.S. 147 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961; IN SHORT THE ACT. ITA NO. 1953/AHD/2013 (ITO VS. M/S. AVINASHI INDUS TRIES) A.Y. 2010-11 - 2 - 2. THE REVENUES SOLE SUBSTANTIVE GROUND RAISED IN THE INSTANT APPEAL SEEKS TO REVIVE THE IMPUGNED DISALLOWANCE PERTAININ G TO ASSESSEES CLAIM OF SECTION 80IC DEDUCTION. THE ASSESSING OFFICER CONC LUDED IN HIS RE- ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT THE ASSESSEES ACTIVITY OF MI XING AND BLINDING OF REACTIVE DYES DOES NOT AMOUNT TO MANUFACTURING ACT IVITY SO AS TO BE HELD ENTITLED FOR THE ABOVE RELIEF. HE APPEARS TO HAVE FOLLOWED HIS REASONING PERTAINING TO THE VERY ISSUE IN PRECEDING ASSESSMEN T YEARS. THE CIT(A) HOWEVER DELETES THE IMPUGNED DISALLOWANCE BY FOLLOW ING HIS ORDERS DATED 10.05.2010 AND 08.08.2012 FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2007 -08 & 2009-10; RESPECTIVELY DECIDING THE VERY ISSUE IN ASSESSEES FAVOUR HOLDING THAT ITS ABOVE BUSINESS ACTIVITY AMOUNTS TO MANUFACTURING AS DEFINED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. THIS LEAVES THE REVENUE AGG RIEVED. 3. LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FIRST OF ALL HIG HLIGHTS THE FACT THAT THERE IS NO DISPUTE ABOUT SIMILARITY OF THE RELEVAN T CIRCUMSTANCES IN THE SAID TWO EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS VIS--VIS THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR SO FAR AS ASSESSEES CLAIM OF THE IMPUGNED SECTION 80IC DEDUC TION CLAIMS ARE CONCERNED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS THE CI T(A) ARE ALSO VERY CATEGORIC IN THEIR RESPECTIVE FINDINGS THAT THERE I S NO DISTINCTION ON FACTS. SHRI JHAVERI THEN FILES BEFORE US COPY OF THIS TRIBUNAL S ORDER IN ASSESSEES OWN CASES PERTAINING TO THE EARLIER TWO ASSESSMENT YEAR S ITA NOS. 2430/AHD/2010 & 2309/AHD/2012 RESPECTIVELY AS DECIDED ON 03.12.20 13 REMITTING THE VERY ISSUE OF SECTION 80IC DEDUCTION BACK TO THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER AS UNDER: 11. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSE D THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. IT IS AN UNDISPUTED FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE FIRM WAS FORMED IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND HAD UNDERTAKEN THE ACTIVITY OF BL ENDING AND MIXING DIFFERENT REACTIVE DYES WITH THE HELP OF TWO BALL MILLS AT IT S UNIT LOCATED IN SIKKIM AND THE PROFITS GENERATED OUT OF THE SALE OF SUCH PRODUCTS MANUFACTURED AT ITS UNIT AT SIKKIM, WAS CLAIMED AS DEDUCTION U/S 80IC. THE MAIN DISPUTE IN THE PRESENT CASE IS WHETHER THE ACTIVITY OF BLENDING AND MIXING OF REAC TIVE DYES CAN BE CONSIDERED TO BE MANUFACTURING OR PRODUCTION SO AS TO ENTITLE THE ASSESSEE TO DEDUCTION AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF U/S 80IC? AS PER THE ASSESSEE, TH E ACTIVITY UNDERTAKEN BY THE ITA NO. 1953/AHD/2013 (ITO VS. M/S. AVINASHI INDUS TRIES) A.Y. 2010-11 - 3 - ASSESSEE HAS BEEN CLASSIFIED AS BEING IN THE NATURE OF 'MANUFACTURING' BY EXCISE AUTHORITIES AND AS PER PROVISIONS OF 32 OF CENTRAL EXCISE TARIFF, CONVERSION OF UNSTANDARISED SYNTHETIC ORGANIC DYES BY ADDITION OF DISPERSING AGENTS OR DILUTENTS INTO STANDARDISED FORMS READY FOR USE IN THE PROCES S OF DYEING AMOUNTS TO 'MANUFACTURE'. ON THE OTHER HAND AS PER THE REVENUE , THE ACTIVITY OF ASSESSEE IS GRINDING AND MIXING OF DIFFERENT REACTIVE DYES WITH DIFFERENT SALTS AND THERE IS NO MATERIAL ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT THE NEW COMMODITY T HAT COMES INTO EXISTENCE HAS DIFFERENT CHEMICAL PROPERTIES AND AFTER THE MANUFAC TURING PROCESS, THE FINAL PRODUCT IS SUBSTANTIALLY DIFFERENT FROM THAT OF THE ORIGINAL INGREDIENTS. BEFORE US, THE LD.A.R HAS SUBMITTED THAT ONCE THE ACTIVITY OF ASSESSEE IS CONSIDERED TO BE A MANUFACTURING ACTIVITY BY THE EXCISE AUTHORITY, IT WOULD BE INCORRECT ON THE PART OF INCOME TAX TO CONSIDER THE ACTIVITY AS NOT MANUFACT URING AND THUS TAKE A DIFFERENT VIEW. 12. WE FIND THAT SECTION 2(29BA) WAS INSERTED BY FI NANCE (NO 2) ACT 2009 WITH EFFECT FROM 1.4.2009 WHICH DEFINES MANUFACTURE AS U NDER:- 'MANUFACTURE' WITH ITS GRAMMATICAL VARIATIONS, MEAN S A CHANGE IN A NON LIVING PHYSICAL OBJECT OR ARTICLE OR THING (A) RESULTING INTO TRANSFORMATION OF THE OBJECT OR ARTICLE OR THING INTO A NEW AND DISTINCT OBJECT OR ARTICLE OR THING INTO A NEW AND DISTINCT OBJECT O ARTICLE OR THING HAVING A DIFFERENT NAME, CHARACTER AND USE; OR (B) BRINGING INTO EXISTENCE OF A NEW AND DISTINCT O BJECT OR ARTICLE OR THING WITH A DIFFERENT CHEMICAL COMPOSITION OR INTEGRAL STRUCTUR ES' 13. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THOUGH THE ASSESSMENT YEAR INVOLVED IS 2007-08. WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE DEFINITION OF 'MANUFACTURE' AS DE FINED IN S. 2(29BA) THOUGH NOT APPLICABLE BUT CERTAINLY CAN BE USED AS A GUIDE AS PER CLAUSE (B) OF SECTION 2 (29BA) THE DEFINITION OF 'MANUFACTURE' MEANS 'BRING ING INTO EXISTENCE A NEW AND DISTINCT OBJECT OR ARTICLE OR THING WITH A DIFFEREN T CHEMICAL COMPOSITION OR INTEGRAL STRUCTURE'. BEFORE US, NOTHING HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THE CHEMICAL COMPOSITION OF THE RAW MATERIALS USED BY A SSESSEE HAS UNDERGONE A CHANGE OR THERE IS A SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE IN THE CHEM ICAL COMPOSITION OR INTEGRAL STRUCTURE OF THE RAW MATERIALS SO AS TO FORM A NEW PRODUCT AND THAT THE CHEMICAL COMPOSITION OF THE FINISHED PRODUCT IS DIFFERENT FR OM THAT OF THE ORIGINAL RAW MATERIAL. AS PER THE ASSESSEE THE NATURE OF ACTIVIT Y DONE BY THE ASSESSEE AT ITS UNIT IS TERMED AS' MANUFACTURE' BY EXCISE AUTHORITIES. W E ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THOUGH UNDER THE INCOME TAX ACT THERE IS NOTHING TO SUGGES T THAT IF A PARTICULAR PROCESS IS CONSIDERED AS MANUFACTURING PROCESS UNDER THE EXCIS E REGULATIONS THE SAME HAS TO BE TREATED AS MANUFACTURING FOR THE PURPOSES OF INC OME TAX ALSO. WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT FOR THE PURPOSE OF INCOME TAX IT NEEDS TO BE FOUND OUT AS TO WHETHER THE PROCESS UNDERTAKEN BY AN ASSESSEE MEETS THE TEST OF MANUFACTURING SO AS TO BECOME ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION FOR UNDERTAKING THE M ANUFACTURING ACTIVITY. FOR OUR AFORESAID VIEW WE ALSO GET SUPPORT FROM THE DECISIO N OF CO-ORDINATE BENCH IN THE CASE OF NEMAT ENTERPRISES (P) LTD VS ACIT (ITA NO 7 423 (MUM) OF 2010 ORDER DATED 23.10.2010) WHERE AT PARA 6.4, THE CO-ORDINAT E BENCH OF TRIBUNAL HAS NOTED AS UNDER:- ITA NO. 1953/AHD/2013 (ITO VS. M/S. AVINASHI INDUS TRIES) A.Y. 2010-11 - 4 - '...MERELY BECAUSE FOR THE PURPOSE OF EXCISE DUTY A TTAR HAS BEEN PLACED IN A SEPARATE CHAPTER IT CANNOT BE CONCLUDED THAT ATTARS IS DIFFERENT FROM THE ORIGINAL CONSTITUENTS PARTICULARLY WHEN THE ASSESSEE IS NOT PAYING ANY EXCISE DUTY ON THE PRODUCT IT IS POSSIBLE THAT CENTRAL EXCISE TARIFF A CT (CETA) DEEMS CERTAIN PROCESSES AS MANUFACTURING BY PLACING CERTAIN PRODU CTS IN A PARTICULAR CHAPTER FOR THE PURPOSE OF EXCISE DUTY EVEN IF THEY DO NOT FULF IL STRICT CRITERIA OF A MANUFACTURING PROCESS BUT FOR THE PURPOSE OF INCOME -TAX WE HAVE TO FIND OUT WHETHER THE PRODUCT MEETS THE TEST OF MANUFACTURING ACTIVITY PARTICULARLY IN A CASE LIKE THIS IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE IS NOT EVEN PAYING EXCISE DUTY...' 14. WE ALSO FIND THAT IN THE CASE OF AARTECH SOLONI CS LTD, VS. CIT (2013) 256 CTR (MP) 293, THE ISSUE BEFORE THE H'BLE HIGH COURT WAS WHETHER THE MANUFACTURING OF ADVANCED MICROPROCESSOR BASED FAST BUS TRANSFER SCH EME PANEL WAS A MANUFACTURING PROCESS OR ASSEMBLING PROCESS? THE HO N. HIGH COURT HAS OBSERVED AS UNDER:- '5.IT APPEARS THAT BOTH AUTHORITIES HAVE NOT CONSID ERED THE PROCESS FOR MANUFACTURE OF THE PRODUCT. THE CIT (APPEAL) HAD CO NSIDERED THE MATTER IN A DIFFERENT ASPECT WHILE THE TRIBUNAL HAD LOOKED INTO THE EXPENDITURE ASPECT AND ALSO IN RESPECT OF THE EMPLOYMENT OF CERTAIN PERSONS. TH E TRIBUNAL WAS OF THE OPINION THAT WITHOUT ASSISTANCE OF THE TECHNICAL PERSONS, N O SUCH PRODUCT COULD HAVE BEEN MANUFACTURED, WHILE FINDING OF THE CIT (APPEAL) WAS BASED ENTIRELY ON A DIFFERENT FOOTING BUT THE FACT REMAINS THAT NONE OF THE AUTHO RITIES HAD CONSIDERED HOW PRODUCT NAMELY FAST BUS TRANSFER SCHEME PANEL IS MA NUFACTURED OR ASSEMBLED. UNTIL AND UNLESS SOME TECHNICAL EXPERT PERSON EXAMI NES THIS ASPECT, THE NATURE OF THE PRODUCT CANNOT BE ASCERTAINED WHETHER THIS IS A MANUFACTURING PROCESS OR IS AN ASSEMBLING PROCESS. THE APEX COURT IN ORACLE SOFTWA RE INDIA LTD. (SUPRA) CONSIDERING SIMILAR QUESTIONS HELD THAT IN EACH CAS E WHEN AN ISSUE OF THIS NATURE ARISES FOR DETERMINATION, THE DEPARTMENT HAS TO STU DY THE ACTUAL PROCESS UNDERTAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE. IF AN OPERATION/PROCESS RENDERED A COMMODITY FIT FOR USE FOR WHICH IT WOULD OTHERWISE NOT BE FIT, THE OP ERATION/PROCESS FELL WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE WORD 'MANUFACTURE'. THEREFORE, IN EA CH CASE, WHERE A ISSUE OF THIS NATURE ARISES FOR DETERMINATION, THE DEPARTMENT SHO ULD STUDY THE ACTUAL PROCESS UNDERTAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE. IN ERNPTEE POLY-YARN P. LTD (SUPRA), THE APEX COURT CONSIDERING THE SIMILAR ISSUE HELD THAT REPEATEDLY THE APEX COURT HAVE RECOMMENDED TO THE DEPARTMENT, BE IT UNDER EXCISE A CT, CUSTOMS ACT OR THE INCOME-TAX ACT, TO EXAMINE THE PROCESS APPLICABLE T O THE PRODUCT IN QUESTION AND NOT TO GO ONLY BY DICTIONARY MEANINGS. THIS RECOMME NDATION IS NOT BEING FOLLOWED OVER THE YEARS. EVEN WHEN THE ASSESSEE GIVES AN OPI NION ON A GIVEN PROCESS, THE DEPARTMENT DOES NOT SUBMIT ANY COUNTER OPINION WHER EVER SUCH COUNTER OPINION IS POSSIBLE. THE APEX COURT CONSIDERING THE ISSUE IN M ORINDA CO-OPERATIVE SUGAR MILLS LTD. (SUPRA) REITERATED THE LAW, HELD IN PARA 9 THUS:- 'THIS COURT HAS REPEATEDLY TOLD THE DEPARTMENT THAT , IN ALL SUCH CASES, THEY SHOULD HAVE A PANEL OF EXPERTS WHO MAY BE ENGAGED IN APPRO PRIATE CASES SO THAT THE CASES NEED NOT BE REMITTED. WE DO NOT EXPRESS ANY OPINION ON THE MERITS OF THE CASE. WE GIVE LIBERTY TO THE ADVOCATES ON BOTH SIDES TO CITE APPROPRIATE JUDGMENTS OF THIS COURT WHICH HAVE LAID DOWN THE TEST AS TO WHEN AN O PERATION BECOMES 'MANUFACTURE'. WE HAVE LAID DOWN THE TEST IN ONE OF THE CASES, NAMELY, ORACLE SOFTWARE INDIA LTD., (SUPRA),' ITA NO. 1953/AHD/2013 (ITO VS. M/S. AVINASHI INDUS TRIES) A.Y. 2010-11 - 5 - 6. IN THE LIGHT OF THE AFORESAID JUDGMENTS, IF WE L OOK INTO FACTUAL ASPECTS IN THE PRESENT MATTER, WE FIND THAT AS PER CASE OF THE APP ELLANT, IT WAS A HYPER TECHNICAL PROCESS OF MANUFACTURING WHICH WAS PLACED BEFORE TH E CIT (APPEAL). THE CIT (APPEAL) IN PARA 3.3 OF THE ORDER REFERRED THE PROC ESS FOR MANUFACTURING BUT HAD NOT EVALUATED/GOT EXAMINED AFORESAID PROCESS THROUG H A TECHNICAL PERSON. BEFORE IT, WHEN THE MATTER WAS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICE R, SUCH PROCESS WAS NOT FOLLOWED. EVEN BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, THOUGH SUCH ISS UE WAS RAISED BUT THE TRIBUNAL HAD CONSIDERED THE MATTER IN A DIFFERENT PERSPECTIV E AND TURNED DOWN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE MERELY ON THE GROUNDS THAT THERE WAS N O ADEQUATE EXPENDITURE IN THE PROCESS OF MANUFACTURING OF THE AFORESAID PRODUCT A ND THE PERSONS WHO WERE EMPLOYED WERE NOT TECHNICAL. THE TRIBUNAL HAD ONLY CONSIDERED THAT ON PERUSAL OF THE RECEIPTS, THE EXPENDITURE WAS VERY LOW AND THE PROFIT WAS HIGH. ON THESE GROUNDS, THE ORDER OF CIT (APPEAL) WAS TURNED DOWN BY THE TRIBUNAL. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, IN VIEW OF THE LAW LAID DOWN BY THE APEX COURT IN AFORESAID THREE JUDGMENTS, WE FIND IT APPROPRIATE THAT THE MA TTER OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN EXAMINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THROUGH THE ASS/S TANCE OF TECHNICAL PERSON OR A COMMITTEE OF TECHNICAL PERSONS, IF AVAILABLE IN THE DEPARTMENT, BUT IT APPEARS THAT SUCH PROCESS WAS NOT FOLLOWED AND THE PRODUCT OF TH E APPELLANT WAS NOT FOUND TO BE MANUFACTURED. THOUGH THE CIT (APPEAL) HAD FOUND THA T IT WAS A MANUFACTURING PROCESS, BUT THE TRIBUNAL HAS TURNED IT DOWN. IN VI EW OF AFORESAID, WE FIND IT APPROPRIATE TO REMAND THE MATTER TO THE ASSESSING O FFICER TO CALL AN OPINION OF THE EXPERT IN THE SUBJECT OR IF PANEL OF EXPERTS IS AVA ILABLE IN THE DEPARTMENT, TO TAKE ASSISTANCE OF SUCH PANEL AND AFTER GETTING AN OPINI ON OF THE EXPERTS, TO DECIDE THAT THE PRODUCT NAMELY 'MICROPROCESSOR BASED FAST BUS T RANSFER SCHEME PANEL' IS A PRODUCT BY MANUFACTURING OR ONLY AN ASSEMBLED ITEM AND THEREAFTER, TO DECIDE THE MATTER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.' 15. IN THE PRESENT CASE WE FIND THAT CIT(A) HAS NOT OBTAINED ANY REPORT FROM AN EXPERT TO CONCLUDE THAT THE NEW PRODUCT WHICH HAS C OME INTO EXISTENCE BY UNDERTAKING THE PROCESS OF MIXING AND GRINDING IS O N ACCOUNT OF MANUFACTURING PROCESS BUT HAS ACCEPTED THE CONTENTION OF ASSESSEE . CONSIDERING THE AFORESAID FACTS AND RELYING ON THE DECISIONS CITED HEREINABOV E, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT A DEFINITE FINDING IS REQUIRED TO DETERMINE AS TO WHE THER THE ACTIVITY OF THE ASSESSEE CAN BE TERMED AS MANUFACTURE IN THE LIGHT OF THE RE QUIREMENT OF THE ACT SO AS TO ENABLE THE ASSESSEE TO CLAIM DEDUCTION U/S. 80IC. W E ARE THEREFORE OF THE VIEW, THAT TO MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE, THE ABOVE MENTION ED ASPECTS NEEDS TO EXAMINED ONCE AGAIN BY CIT(A) IN THE LIGHT OF THE DECISIONS CITED ABOVE. WE ARE FURTHER OF THE VIEW THAT FOR DECIDING THE ISSUE AS TO WHETHER DUE TO THE ACTIVITY DONE BY THE ASSESSEE, ANY CHANGE IN CHEMICAL COMPOSITION ETC HA S TAKEN PLACE, CIT(A) MAY OBTAIN AN EXPERT OPINION ON THE COMPOSITION OF THE RAW MATERIAL J AND ITS TRANSFORMATION INTO FINISHED GOODS. 16. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THE REA SON FOR HAVING GROSS PROFIT IN EXCESS OF 70% TO BE ON ACCOUNT OF SAVING IN EXCISE DUTY, VAT, HIGHER PRICE CHARGED ON ACCOUNT OF LONGER CREDIT PERIOD AND LOWER ADMINI STRATIVE COST. WE FIND THAT HERE IS NO FINDING ON THE AFORESAID ASPECT BY CIT(A) AND HE HAS ACCEPTED THE CONTENTION OF ASSESSEE. SINCE THE MATTER IS REMITTED TO THE FI LE OF CIT(A), HE SHALL ALSO EXAMINE THESE ASPECTS AND AFTER RECORDING A DEFINITE FINDIN G DECIDE THE ISSUE, IN THE LIGHT OF THE DECISIONS CITED HEREIN ABOVE AND THEREAFTER DEC IDE THE ISSUE. NEEDLESS TO STATE, THAT HE SHALL GRANT ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO 'BOTH THE PARTIES. WE ARE ITA NO. 1953/AHD/2013 (ITO VS. M/S. AVINASHI INDUS TRIES) A.Y. 2010-11 - 6 - FURTHER OF THE VIEW THAT THE DECISIONS RELIED UPON BY ASSESSEE ARE DISTINGUISHABLE ON FACTS. IN THE RESULT, THIS GROUND OF REVENUE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 17. SINCE IT IS ADMITTED BY BOTH THE PARTIES THAT T HE FACTS OF THE CASE OF A.Y. 07-08 ARE SIMILAR TO THAT OF A.Y. 2009-10, WE FOR THE REA SONS GIVEN WHILE DECIDING APPEAL OF A.Y. 07-08 ALSO ALLOW THE GROUND OF REVENUE FOR A.Y. 2009-10 FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES 18. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE REVENU E IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVES CASE THEREFORE IS THAT THE INSTANT APPEAL MUST ALSO FOLLOW THE SUIT. WE THEN NOTICE T HAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED AN ADJOURNMENT LETTER DATED 28.03.2017 THAT ITS COUNSE L IS OUT OF INDIA DUE TO PROFESSIONAL COMMITMENTS. WE HOWEVER ARE OF THE OP INION IN PECULIAR FACTS OF THE INSTANT CASE THAT THE MAIN ISSUE IS SQUARELY COVERED IN VIEW OF ABOVE CO-ORDINATE BENCHS DECISION. THE ASSESSEES ADJOU RNMENT PETITION THEREFORE DOES NOT DESERVE TO BE ACCEPTED. IT IS ACCORDINGLY REJECTED. WE ALLOW THE REVENUES SOLE SUBSTANTIVE GROUND IN THE IMPUGNED A SSESSMENT YEAR AS WELL FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SH ALL ADJUDICATE THE SAID SOLE ISSUE IN LIGHT OF HIS FINDINGS IN EARLIER ASSESSMEN T YEARS AFTER AFFORDING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. HE SHALL FUR THER TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE RELEVANT AMENDMENTS INCORPORATED IN THE ACT; WHEREV ER NECESSARY. 4. THIS REVENUES APPEAL SUCCEEDS FOR STATISTICAL P URPOSES. [PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS THE 12 TH DAY OF APRIL, 2017.] SD/- SD/- ( AMARJIT SINGH ) (S. S. GODARA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD: DATED 12/04/2017 TRUE COPY S.K.SINHA / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- / REVENUE 2 / ASSESSEE ! / CONCERNED CIT ITA NO. 1953/AHD/2013 (ITO VS. M/S. AVINASHI INDUS TRIES) A.Y. 2010-11 - 7 - 4 !- / CIT (A) ( )*+ ,--. . /0 / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 1 +23 / GUARD FILE. BY ORDER / . // . /0