DCIT, CHENNAI V. TVS Electronics Ltd., CHENNAI

ITA 2006/CHNY/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8699 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-08-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 04-08-2016
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 01-07-2016
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A V SREEKANTH
• Assessee Lawyers: R VIJAYARAGHAVAN
• Keywords: Depreciation
• Section: 234B; 14A; 32; 6

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH : CHENNAI . . . , ! . '#'$ , % !& ' [ BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ] ./ I.T.A.NO.1405/MDS/2016 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012-13 M/S TVS ELECTRONICS LTD JAYALAKSHMI ESTATE 29, OLD NO.8, HADDOWS ROAD CHENNAI 600 006 VS. THE ASST T. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CORPORATE CIRCLE 3(1) CHENNAI [PAN AAACI 0886 K] ( () / APPELLANT) ( *+() /RESPONDENT) ./ I.T.A.NO.2006/MDS/2016 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012-13 THE DY. COMMIS SIONER OF INCOME-TAX CORPORATE CIRCLE 3(1) CHENNAI VS. M/S TVS ELECTRONICS LTD JAYALAKSHMI ESTATE 29, OLD NO.8, HADDOWS ROAD CHENNAI 600 006 ( () / APPELLANT) ( *+() /RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI R. VIJAYARAGHAVAN, ADVOCATE DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI A.V SREEKANTH, JCIT / DATE OF HEARING : 04 - 0 8 - 2016 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 24 - 0 8 - 2016 / O R D E R PER ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THESE CROSS APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE REVE NUE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-11, CHENNAI, DATED 30.3.2016 FOR ASSESSME NT YEAR 2012-13. ITA NO. 1405 & 2006/16 :- 2 -: 2. APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS TAKEN UP FIRST FOR DISPO SAL. GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IN ITS APPEAL APART FROM ASSAILING LEVY OF INTEREST U/S 234B AND 234D OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961(THE ACT IN SHORT), IS THAT AMORTIZATION OF BUSINESS RIGHTS OF ` 8,16,38,966/- WAS DISALLOWED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THIS WAS CO NFIRMED BY THE CIT(A). 3. FACTS APROPOS ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE, A MANUFACTURE R AND TRADER OF COMPUTER PERIPHERALS AND ELECTRONIC EQUIP MENTS, HAD DURING THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR ACQUIRED A CUSTOMER SUPP ORT DIVISION OF M/S TVS-E SERVICETEC LTD ON A SLUMP SALE. THERE WA S A BUSINESS TRANSFER AGREEMENT DATED 15.12.2011, PURSUANT TO WH ICH THE ASSETS AND LIABILITIES PERTAINING TO THE CUSTOMERS SUPPORT SERVICE BUSINESS OF M/S TVS-E SERVICETEC LTD WAS ACQUIRED BY THE ASSES SEE FOR A CONSIDERATION OF ` 37.32 CRORES. OUT OF THE ABOVE AMOUNT, ASSESSEE HAD ACCOUNTED ` 32.62,90,864/- AS BUSINESS RIGHTS. IT SEEMS ASSESSEE CLAIMED THE SAID AMOUNT AS TECHNICAL KNOWH OW AND MADE A DEPRECIATION CLAIM OF 25%. ASSESSEE, VIDE LETTER DATED 26.3.2015 ADDRESSED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER MENTIONED THAT IT WAS AMORTIZATION OF THE BUSINESS RIGHTS VALUED AT ` 32,62,90,864/-. THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE REPLY OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN REPR ODUCED BY THE ITA NO. 1405 & 2006/16 :- 3 -: ASSESSING OFFICER AT PARAGRAPH 4.2 OF HIS ORDER AND IT IS ONCE AGAIN REPRODUCED BELOW FOR BREVITY: THE BUSINESS TRANSFER INCLUDES TRANSFER OF INTELL ECTUAL PROPERTY INCLUDING ALL RIGHTS, PRIVILEGES AND BENEFITS OF US E AND EXPLOITATION OF ALL INTANGIBLE ASSETS AND/OR INTELLECTUAL PROPER TY RIGHTS PERTAINING TO OR FORMING PART OF THE CSS BUSINESS I NCLUDING HE TRADE MARK, DOMAIN NAME, PATENTS, COPY RIGHTS, TECH NICAL KNOWHOW, TRADE SECRETS, CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION IN RELATION TO THE CSS BUSINESS. 4. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER, ON VERIFICATION OF THE ACCOUNTS, FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CARRIED TO ITS FIXED ASSETS A SUM OF ` 4,50,34,774/- AND TO ITS NET CURRENT ASSETS A SUM OF ` 28,74,360/- AND THE BALANCE FIGURE OF ` 32,62,90,865/- WAS CONSIDERED AS TECHNICAL KNOWHOW VALUE. AS PER THE ASSESSING O FFICER, IN THE CASE OF SLUMP SALE, THERE COULD BE NO SEPARATE VALUATION OF FIXED ASSETS AND LIABILITIES THAT WERE TO BE TRANSFERRED. THOUGH TH E ASSESSEE HAD RELIED ON THE MANDATORY STATUTORY AUDIT REPORT IN FORM 3CE A, ASSESSING OFFICER WAS OF THE OPINION THAT SUCH VALUATION WAS ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF WORKING OUT THE NET WORTH AND NOT FOR THE PURPOS E OF ARRIVING AT INDIVIDUAL VALUE OF THE ASSETS AND LIABILITIES. TH E ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THAT THE CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION ON TECHNICAL KN OWHOW MADE BY THE ASSESSEE WAS VAGUE AND ARBITRARY. HE DISALLOWED A SUM OF ` 8,16,38,966/-. ITA NO. 1405 & 2006/16 :- 4 -: 5. IN ITS APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A), ARGUMENT OF THE A SSESSEE WAS THAT BUSINESS TRANSFER CONSISTED OF TRANSFER OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY INCLUDING ALL RIGHTS, PRIVILEGES AND BENEFITS OF US E AND EXPLOITATION OF ALL INTANGIBLE ASSETS AND/OR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGH T PERTAINING TO OR FORMING PART OF THE CSS BUSINESS. AS PER THE ASSE SSEE, IT INCLUDED TRADE MARK, DOMAIN NAME, PATENTS, COPYRIGHTS, TECHN ICAL KNOWHOW, TRADE SECRETS, CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION IN RELATION TO THE CSS BUSINESS OF M/S TVS-E SERVICETEC LTD. RELYING ON EXPLANATIO N 3 OF SEC. 32, ASSESSEE STATED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT T ECHNICAL KNOWHOW, PATENTS, COPYRIGHTS, TRADEMARKS, LICENCES, FRANCHIS ES OR ANY OTHER BUSINESS OR COMMERCIAL RIGHTS FELL WITHIN THE MEANI NG OF INTANGIBLE ASSETS. INSOFAR AS THE ASSETS AND LIABILITIES TAK EN TO ITS BALANCE SHEET, THE ASSESSEE RELIED ON SEC. 43(6)(C)(I)(C) OF THE ACT AND SUBMITTED THAT WDV OF THE ASSETS ALONE WERE CONSIDERED. SPEC IFIC RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE JUDGMENT OF THE APEX COURT IN THE CAS E OF CIT VS SMIFS SECURITIES LTD, 348 ITR 302. THE CIT(A) WAS HOWEVE R, NOT APPRECIATIVE OF THE ABOVE CONTENTIONS. AS PER THE CIT(A), JUDGMENT OF THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF SMIFS SECURITIES L TD (SUPRA) DID NOT INVOLVE A SLUMP SALE AND COULD NOT BE FACTUALLY COM PARED WITH THAT OF THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDING TO HIM, ASSESSEES CASE COULD BE MORE FAVOURABLY COMPARED WITH THE FACTS IN THE CASE OF M /S SAIPEM TRIUNE ENGINEERING P. LTD VS DCIT IN I.T.A.NO.5239/DEL/20 12, DECIDED BY THE ITA NO. 1405 & 2006/16 :- 5 -: DELHI BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL. HE WAS OF THE OPINIO N THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS JUSTIFIED IN DISALLOWING THE CLAIM OF D EPRECIATION. 6. NOW BEFORE US, THE LD. AR STRONGLY ASSAILING THE OR DERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES, SUBMITTED THAT THE DIFFERENCE BE TWEEN THE TOTAL PURCHASE VALUE OF THE UNDERTAKING AND THE AMOUNT P AID COULD ONLY BE CONSIDERED AS GOODWILL. ONCE AGAIN RELYING ON THE JUDGMENT OF THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF SMIFS SECURITIES LTD(SUPR A), THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ELIGIBLE FOR CLAIMI NG DEDUCTION UNDER CLAUSE(II) OF SEC. 32(1) OF THE ACT. SPECIFIC RELIA NCE WAS PLACED ON THE DECISION OF CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN T HE CASE OF M/S HINDUJA FOUNDRIES LTD IN I.T.A.NOS.1590 TO 1593/MDS /2015, DATED 19.2.2016. AS PER THE LD. AR, IN THE SAID CASE ALSO SIMILAR SITUATION WAS THERE AND IT WAS HELD BY THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH THAT DEPRECIATION HAD TO BE ALLOWED ON GOODWILL. 7. PER CONTRA, THE LD. DR SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 8. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSE D THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS THAT EXCESS PAID BY IT OVER T HE NET WORTH OF THE BUSINESS ACQUIRED WAS SOME KIND OF INTELLECTUAL PR OPERTY INCLUDING TRADE MARK, DOMAIN NAME, PATENT, COPY RIGHTS, TECHN ICAL KNOWHOW, ITA NO. 1405 & 2006/16 :- 6 -: TRADE SECRETS, CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION ETC. DEPRE CIATION WAS HOWEVER CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE CONSIDERING THE EXCESS AMO UNT OVER THE WDV OF THE ASSETS TAKEN OVER, AS TECHNICAL KNOWHOW. AT NO POINT OF TIME, ASSESSEE HAD MENTIONED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION WAS ON GOODWILL. THE APEX COURT IN TH E CASE OF SMIFS SECURITIES LTD (SUPRA) HAS HELD THAT GOODWILL IS A DEPRECIABLE ASSET AND ELIGIBLE FOR DEPRECIATION ALLOWABLE U/S 32(1)(II) OF THE ACT. SIMILAR VIEW WAS TAKEN BY THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH IN THE CASE OF H INJUJA FOUNDRIES LTD. (SUPRA) ALSO. IT MAY ALSO BE TRUE THAT ON T ECHNICAL KNOWHOW OR VALUE OF COPY RIGHTS/VALUE OF PATENTS/VALUE OF TRAD EMARKS, ALSO ASSESSEE WOULD BE ELIGIBLE FOR DEPRECIATION U/S 32 (1)(II) OF THE ACT. HOWEVER, IT IS REQUIRED FOR THE ASSESSEE TO POINT OUT WHAT EXACTLY WAS THE TYPE OF INTANGIBLE ASSET WHICH IT ACQUIRED BY P AYMENT OF CONSIDERATION OF ` 32,62,90,865/-. JUST BECAUSE THE DEPRECIATION WAS ALLOWABLE ON VARIOUS CLASSES OF ITEMS MENTIONED IN SEC. 32(1)(II) OF THE ACT MAY NOT BE SUFFICIENT REASON TO SAY THAT A DEMARCATION BETWEEN THE VARIOUS ITEMS MENTIONED THEREIN WAS NOT NECESSARY. THIS IS FOR THE SIMPLE REASON THAT AT A SUBSEQUENT POINT OF TIME LEGISLATURE MAY CHOOSE TO DIFFERENTIATE THE DEPRECIATION RATE I N BETWEEN THE VARIOUS ITEMS IN THE VERY SAME CLAUSE(II) OF SEC. 3 2(1). IN OUR OPINION, IT IS ESSENTIAL TO FIND OUT AS TO WHAT WAS THE EXAC T NATURE OF THE SURPLUS AMOUNT PAID BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE ALLOWING DEPREC IATION CLAIMED BY ITA NO. 1405 & 2006/16 :- 7 -: IT. NONE OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE GONE INTO T HIS PARTICULAR ASPECT. WE ARE, THEREFORE, OF THE OPINION THAT THE ISSUE NE EDS FRESH LOOK BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ACCORDINGLY, THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES ARE SET ASIDE AND THE ISSUE IS REMITTED BACK TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR CONSIDERATION AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. 9. AS REGARDS LEVY OF INTEREST U/S 234B AND 234D OF T HE ACT, SUCH LEVY, NO DOUBT, IS MANDATORY AND CONSEQUENTIA L. HOWEVER, WE HAVE SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW ON THE ISSUE OF AMORTIZATION OF BUSINESS RIGHTS AND HENCE THE ASSES SING OFFICER SHALL REWORK THE INTEREST ALSO. 10. COMING TO THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE, IT HAS A LTOGETHER TAKEN FOUR GROUNDS OF WHICH GROUND NOS.1 AND 4 ARE GENERAL IN NATURE REQUIRING NO SPECIFIC ADJUDICATION. 11. IN GROUND NO.2, GRIEVANCE RAISED IS ON DIRECTION GI VEN TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO RECALCULATE THE DISALLOWANCE M ADE U/S 14A OF THE ACT. 12. FACTS APROPOS ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD AN INVESTM ENT PORTFOLIO OF ` 8,11,23,000/- AS ON 31.3.2012. THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT MADE ANY DISALLOWANCE BY ITSELF U/S 14A. ASSESSI NG OFFICER WAS OF THE OPINION THAT ASSESSEE WOULD HAVE INCURRED EXPE NDITURE TOWARDS ITA NO. 1405 & 2006/16 :- 8 -: ADMINISTRATIVE/MANAGERIAL AS WELL AS INTEREST AMOUN T IN RELATION TO THE INVESTMENT PORTFOLIO. HE APPLIED SEC. 14A R.W.RULE 8D FOR ARRIVING AT THE DISALLOWANCE OF ` 90,58,212/-. WHILE DOING SO, NO DISALLOWANCE WAS MADE BY HIM UNDER RULE 8D(2)(I) BUT ONLY UNDER RULE 8D(2)(II) AND 8D(2)(III). 13. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE MOVED IN APPEAL BEFORE TH E CIT(A). ARGUMENT OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE CIT( A) WAS THAT OUT OF THE TOTAL INVESTMENT OF ` 8,11,23,000/- A SUM OF ` 7,11,50,000/- REPRESENTED INVESTMENT IN THE UNITS OF TVS SHRIRAM GROWTH FUND. AS PER THE ASSESSEE, THE SAID GROWTH FUND WAS REGISTE RED WITH SEBI AS VENTURE CAPITAL FUND AND INCOME THEREFROM WAS OFFE RED TO TAX U/S 115U OF THE ACT. ARGUMENT OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THA T DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A OF THE ACT COULD NOT BE MADE FOR SUCH INVES TMENTS. ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT A SUM OF ` 1,00,72,550/- REPRESENTED INVESTMENT IN ENTITIES WHEREIN IT HAD CONTROLLING POWERS. THE SE ENTITLES WERE M/S TUMKUR PROPERTY HOLDINGS LTD, PRIME PROPERTY HOLDIN GS LTD AND ASSOCIATE COMPANY M/S MODULAR INFOTECH PV. LTD. RE LIANCE WAS PLACED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE DECISION OF THIS TRIBUNAL I N THE CASE OF EIH ASSOCIATED HOTELS LTD IN I.T.A.NO. 1503/MDS/2012, D ATED 17.7.2013 AND THE DECISION OF THE CIT(A) IN ASSESSEES OWN C ASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12. THE CIT(A), AFTER GOING THROUGH THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ITA NO. 1405 & 2006/16 :- 9 -: ASSESSEE, WAS OF THE OPINION THAT THE ASSESSING OFF ICER HAD MECHANICALLY APPLIED RULE 8D WITHOUT CONSIDERING TH E APPLICABILITY OF DIFFERENT LIMBS OF SUCH RULE TO ASSESSEES CASE. AS PER THE CIT(A), ASSESSEE HAD SUFFICIENT OWN FUNDS FOR MAKING ABOVE INVESTMENTS AND HENCE, DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST WAS NOT NECESSARY. THEREFORE, ACCORDING TO HIM, RULE 8D(2)((II) DID NOT APPLY AT ALL. FURTHER, AS PER THE CIT(A), ASSESSEE ITSELF HAD WORKED OUT THE DIS ALLOWANCE THAT COULD BE MADE UNDER RULE 8D AND PEGGED IT AT ` 50,363/-. HE THEREFORE, DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO VERIFY THE FIGURE S FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE AND IF FOUND CORRECT, TO RESTRICT THE DISA LLOWANCE U/S 14A TO ` 50,363/- IN PLACE OF ` 90,58,212/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 14. NOW, BEFORE US, THE LD. DR STRONGLY ASSAILING THE O RDER OF THE CIT(A), SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT BROUGH T ON RECORD ANYTHING TO SHOW THAT THE INVESTMENT IN PORTFOLIO W AS MADE OUT OF OWN FUNDS. AS PER THE LD. DR, THE CIT(A) HAD SIMPLY AC CEPTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ONUS WAS ON THE ASSESSEE TO SHOW THAT NO BORROWED FUNDS WERE USED F OR MAKING INVESTMENT. FURTHER, AS PER THE LD. DR, THE ASSE SSEE HAD NEVER MADE ANY SUO MOTU DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A. ACCORDING TO HIM, IT WOULD BE HARD TO IMAGINE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT INCUR RED ANY EXPENDITURE FOR MAINTAINING SUCH A HUGE INVESTMENT PORTFOLIO. ITA NO. 1405 & 2006/16 :- 10 -: 15. PER CONTRA, THE LD. AR STRONGLY SUPPORTING THE ORDE RS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW, SUBMITTED THAT BY VIRTUE OF DECI SION OF BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS RELIANCE UTILITIES AND POWER LTD., 313 ITR 340, AND THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS HOTEL SAVERA, 239 ITR 795, WHEN BOTH INTEREST-FREE AND IN TEREST BEARING FUNDS WERE AVAILABLE, THEN THE PRESUMPTION SHOULD GO IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. AS PER THE LD. AR IN SUCH A SITUATION, P RESUMPTION WOULD BE THAT OWN FUNDS WERE UTILIZED FOR MAKING INVESTMENT RATHER THE BORROWED FUNDS. THUS, ACCORDING TO HIM, DISALLOWAN CE UNDER RULE 8D(2)(II) WAS NOT AT ALL WARRANTED. IN THIS SCENAR IO, AS PER THE LD. AR, THE CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN RESTRICTING THE DISALLO WANCE. 16. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSE D THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE FIND THAT NOTHI NG IS AVAILABLE ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT INVESTMENTS WERE MADE OUT OF O WN FUNDS OF THE ASSESSEE AND NOT FROM THE BORROWED FUNDS OF THE AS SESSEE. THE CIT(A) HAD TAKEN A PRESUMPTION THAT ASSESSEE HAD U TILIZED OWN FUNDS FOR MAKING INVESTMENT. IT MAY BE TRUE THAT A PART OF THE INVESTMENT WOULD COME WITHIN THE AMBIT OF SEC. 115U OF THE ACT . THE QUESTION WHETHER APPLICABILITY OF SEC. 115U BY ITSELF WOULD RENDER THE DIVIDEND RECEIVED ON SUCH INVESTMENT AT PAR WITH A TAXABLE R ECEIPT HAS ALSO NOT BEEN VERIFIED BY ANY OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. IN OUR OPINION, IN THE ITA NO. 1405 & 2006/16 :- 11 -: INTEREST OF JUSTICE, THE MATTER REQUIRES A FRESH LO OK BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. WE SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIE S BELOW AND REMIT THE ISSUE OF DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A TO THE FILE OF THE A SSESSING OFFICER FOR DECIDING AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. GROUND NO. 2 OF THE REVENUES APPEAL STANDS ALLOWED. 17. IN GROUND NO.3, GRIEVANCE OF THE REVENUE IS THAT TH E CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF U NEXPIRED VALUE OF ANNUAL MAINTENANCE CONTRACT RECEIPTS RECEIVED DURIN G THE YEAR RELYING ON THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 IN I.T.A.NO.811/MDS/2010 DATED 25.5.2 012 AND CIT(A)S ORDER FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 DATED 27.10.2015. 18. INSOFAR AS ADDITION OF ` 31,54,000/- TOWARDS AMC CHARGES THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT AMC WAS SPREAD OVER TWO YEARS AND THEREFORE, BASED ON MATCHING PRINCIPLES EARNING S IN THE FUTURE PERIOD BEYOND THE END OF THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR COULD NOT BE ASSESSED WAS NOT ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS OF THE OPINION THAT AMC COLLECTED WOULD BE INCOME OF THE YEAR OF COLLECTION, IN FULL. 19. ASSESSEE WENT IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). CIT(A ) FOLLOWED THE DECISION OF THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE ITA NO. 1405 & 2006/16 :- 12 -: FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 IN I.T.A.NO. 811/MDS/20 10, DATED 25.5.2012 AND HIS OWN ORDER FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 201 1-12 IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE, WHILE ALLOWING THE CLAIM OF TH E ASSESSEE. 20. WE FIND THAT THERE BEING NO DIFFERENCE IN FACTUAL S ITUATION IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WITH THAT OF THE EARLI ER YEARS, CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSE SSING OFFICER RELYING ON THE ABOVEMENTIONED ORDERS. GROUND NO.3 OF THE R EVENUE STANDS DISMISSED. 21. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLO WED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES AND THAT OF THE REVENUE IS PAR TLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 24 TH AUGUST, 2016, AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( . . . ) ) (N.R.S. GANESAN) / JUDICIAL MEMBER ( ! . '#'$ ) (ABRAHAM P. GEORGE) % / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / CHENNAI ! / DATED: 24 TH AUGUST, 2016 RD !' # $% &% / COPY TO: 1 . '( / APPELLANT 4. ) / CIT 2. #*'( / RESPONDENT 5. %+, # - / DR 3. ) () / CIT(A) 6. ,/ 0 / GF