Mahindra World City Developers Ltd., CHENNAI V. ACIT, CHENNAI

ITA 2084/CHNY/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5052 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 11 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-06-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 19-06-2017
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 11-07-2016
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MRS RU GEORGE
• Assessee Lawyers: M VISWANATHAN
• Keywords: Depreciation; Earning of tax free income; Revenue expenditure
• Section: 14A; 37(1); 145

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, CHENNAI . . . , , # BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /.I.T.A. NOS. 2084, 2085 & 2086/CHNY/2016 /ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2010-11 TO 2012-13 SHRI MAHINDRA WORLD CITY DEVELOPERS LTD., MANDINDRA TOWERS, GROUND FLOOR, 17/18 PATTULOUS ROAD, ANNA SALAI, CHENNAI 600 002. [PAN: AAACM 6904A] VS. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COMPANY CIRCLE IV(1), CHENNAI 600 034. ( /APPELLANT) ( /RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI. M. VISWANATHAN, CA REVENUE BY : MRS. RUBY GEORGE, CIT % /DATE OF HEARING : 19.04.2018 % /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 27.06.2018 / O R D E R PER S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THE ASSESSEE FILED THESE APPEALS AGAINST THE ORDERS OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)- 8 ,CHENNAI, IN ITA NOS. 451OF 2013- 14 ,65 OF 2014-15 & 77 OF 15-16 DATED 30.03. 2016 FOR THE AYS 2010- 11,2011-12 & 2012-13, RESPECTIVELY . :-2-: ITA NOS. 2084, 2085 & 2086/CHNY/2016 2. M/S MAHINDRA WORLD CITY DEVELOPERS LTD., THE ASS ESSEE, IS IN THE BUSINESS OF DEVELOPMENT OF LANDS FOR VARIOUS INDUST RIES WHICH ARE IN THE SPECIAL ECONOMIC AS WELL AS IN NON-SPECIAL ECONOMIC ZONES. WHILE MAKING THE ASSESSMENTS FOR THE AYS 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13, THE AO FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ADDED THE INTEREST EXPENDITURE INCURRE D ON THE LOAN RAISED AND UTILIZED TOWARDS PURCHASE OF LAND IN NH5 & PHASE V PROJECTS IN THE VALUE OF CLOSING STOCK / WORK IN PROGRESS AND CAPITALIZED IT IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. HOWEVER, IN THE COMPUTATION MEMO, THE ASSESSEE CLAI MED SUCH INTEREST AS AN EXPENDITURE. ON DUE EXAMINATION OF THE ASSESSEE S SUBMISSIONS ETC, THE AO FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE IS STILL IN THE PROCESS OF ACQUIRING AND DEVELOPING THE LAND, IT IS VERY CORRECT TO CAPITALIZE THE COST OF INTEREST EXCLUSIVELY INCURRED FOR THE PURCHASE AND DEVELOPMENT OF INVENTORY, WHER E IN NO SALES HAVE BEEN EXECUTED DURING THE IMPUGNED A YS AND HENCE, HELD T HAT THE METHOD FOLLOWED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT IS CORRECT AND NEEDS NO ADJUSTMENT AS IT IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH PRINCIPLES OF ACCOUNTAN CY. THUS, HE DID NOT ALLOW THE INTEREST EXPENDITURE CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE COMPUTATION MEMO, SEPARATELY, FOR THESE A YS. FURTHER, IN THE ASSESSM ENT MADE FOR AY 2011-12, THE AO FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD INVESTED RS. 13 CRORES IN MAHINDRA INTEGRATED TOWNSHIP LTD WHICH IS ITS SUBSIDIARY. ON DUE EXAMINATION, THE AO HELD THAT THE RETURN ON SUCH INVESTMENTS CAN ONLY B E DIVIDENDS WHICH ARE NOT TAXABLE AND THEREFORE HE ARRIVED THE EXPENSES PERTA INING TO SUCH INVESTMENTS U/S 14A RW R 8D (III) AT RS.6,56,750/- AND ADDED TO THE RETURNED INCOME. :-3-: ITA NOS. 2084, 2085 & 2086/CHNY/2016 3. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEALS BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A) AGAINST THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS OF AYS 2010-11,2011-12 & 2012-13. THE LEARNED CIT(A), ON THE INTEREST EXPENDITURE CLAIM HELD , INTER ALIA , THAT THE ASSESSEE CANNOT CAPITALIZE THE INTEREST EXPENDITURE ON ONE HAND AND CLAIM THE SAME AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE ON THE OTHER HAND FOR TAXATION PURPOSES AND UPHELD THE DECISION OF THE AO. ON THE ADDITION MADE U/S 14A RW R 8D (III), LEARNED CIT(A), FOLLOWING THE DECISIONS OF THE HONBLE HIG H COURT OF BOMBAY IN THE CASE OF GODREJ & BOYCE MFG. CO. LTD (328 ITR 81 BOM ) AND THE JURISDICTIONAL BENCH OF THE HONBLE ITAT IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS. S UN TV NETWORKS LIMITED (IN ITA NOS 1515 TO 1520/ MDS/2013 DT 31.10.2013), CONFIRMED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSE SSEE FILED THESE APPEALS. SINCE THE SUBSTANTIAL ISSUES ARE COMMON, THEY ARE H EARD AND DISPOSED TOGETHER FOR CONVENIENCE SAKE. 4. THE ASSESSEE FILED COMMON GROUNDS OF APPEAL AND HENCE THE GROUNDS RELATED TO AY 2012-13 , AS A MODEL , ARE EXTRACTED AS UNDER : THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT APPEALS IS AGAINST LA W, FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST EXPENDITURE OF RS. 23,34,5 0,882 INCURRED ON THE LOAN RAISED AND UTILIZED FOR THE PURPOSE OF PURCHASE OF STOCK I N TRADE. 1) THE WORK IN PROGRESS INCLUDING THE INTEREST COST CAPITALIZED IS OFFERED AS INCOME IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. 2) SUBSEQUENTLY IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME, SAID INTEREST COST IS CLAIMED AS DEDUCTION IN THE YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION AS IT RE LATES TO BUSINESS OPERATIONS. :-4-: ITA NOS. 2084, 2085 & 2086/CHNY/2016 3) IN THE YEAR IN WHICH THE SAID PORTION OF LAND IS SOLD, THE INTEREST COST WILL BE REDUCED FROM THE COST OF SALES OF THE SAID LAND.( I E) THE INTEREST COST WILL BE OFFERED AS INCOME. 4) IN ESSENCE, THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN CONSISTENTLY C LAIMING THE INTEREST COST INCLUDED IN THE WORK IN PROGRESS IN THE YEAR WHICH THE INTER EST IS PAID AND WILL OFFER THE INTEREST EXPENDITURE (CLAIMED AS DEDUCTION IN PREVI OUS YEARS) AS INCOME IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR IN WHICH THE SAID PORTION OF LAND I S SOLD BY REDUCING FROM THE COST OF SALES. 5) THERE IS NO REVENUE LOSS TO THE DEPARTMENT BY VI RTUE OF THE SAID TREATMENT THE METHOD OF ACCOUNTING EMPLOYED BY THE ASSESSEE I N THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, VIZ. THE INTEREST COMPONENT ADDED TO THE COST OF CLOSING STOCK/WORK-IN-PROGRESS OF INVENTORIES, DOES NOT PREVENT THE ASSESSEE FROM CLA IMING THE INTEREST AS AN ALLOWABLE EXPENDITURE UNDER INCOME TAX PROVISIONS. THE ASSESSEE HAS OFFERED RS. 85,08,080 (REVERSAL OF INTEREST CLAIMED AS DEDUCTION IN THE PREVIOUS YEARS -AY 2010-11, AY 2011-12) IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME. WE ALSO WISH TO BRING TO YOUR ATTENTION THAT THE ASSESSEE H AS SOLD THE LAND (IN WHICH THE INTEREST CLAIMED IN THE PREVIOUS YEARS WERE INVENTO RISED) DURING FY 2015-16 AND BY VIRTUE OF THE SAID SALES, THE ASSESSEE IS OFFERING DURING FY 2015-16, THE REVERSAL OF RS. 67.78 CRORES OF INTEREST CLAIMED AS DEDUCTION I N THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME IN THE PREVIOUS YEARS. MOREOVER, INTEREST BEING PERIOD COST HAS TO BE CLAI MED UNDER SECTION 37(1) IN THE YEAR IN WHICH THE SAME IS INCURRED AND ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE OPERATIONS / BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY AND FURTHER THAT THE SAME EXPENDITURE I S WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY LAID OUT FOR THE YEARS OPERATIONS AND HENCE RIGHTFULLY CLAI MED. BASED ON THE SUBMISSION THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT AP PEAL BE ALLOWED. 5. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE BUSINESS OF TH E ASSESSEE PRIMARILY INVOLVES DEVELOPMENT OF LAND THAT WOULD NORMALLY TA KE SUBSTANTIAL PERIOD OF TIME TO MAKE IT READY FOR SALE/LEASE. THEREFORE, TH E INTEREST CHARGES ON BANK BORROWINGS HAVE BEEN INCLUDED IN THE COST OF LAND, BEING STOCK-IN-TRADE, AS PER THE ACCOUNTING STANDARDS. THE METHOD OF ACCOUNT ING EMPLOYED BY THE :-5-: ITA NOS. 2084, 2085 & 2086/CHNY/2016 ASSESSEE IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, VIZ. THE INTEREST COMPONENT ADDED TO THE COST OF CLOSING STOCK/WORK-IN-PROGRESS OF INVENTORI ES, DOES NOT PREVENT THE ASSESSEE FROM CLAIMING THE INTEREST AS AN ALLOWABLE EXPENDITURE UNDER INCOME TAX PROVISIONS. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE INTEREST INVENTORISED HAS BEEN REVERSED AND OFFERED AS INCOME IN THE SUBSEQUENT A SSESSMENT YEARS VIZ IN AY 2012-13 AT RS. 85,08,080/-, THE YEAR IN WHICH SALE OF LAND HAS TAKEN PLACE ETC . THUS, THERE IS NO REVENUE LOSS TO THE D EPARTMENT BY VIRTUE OF THE SAID TREATMENT. MOREOVER, THE INTEREST BEING PERIOD COST IT HAS TO BE CLAIMED UNDER SECTION 37(1) IN THE YEAR IN WHICH THE SAME I S INCURRED AND ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE OPERATIONS / BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY AND FUR THER THAT THE SAME EXPENDITURE IS WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY LAID OUT FOR THE YEARS OPERATIONS AND HENCE RIGHTFULLY CLAIMED AND HENCE PLEADED TO ALLOW THE APPEALS. 6. PER CONTRA, THE LD. DR , INVITING OUR ATTENTION TO THE RELEVANT PORTIONS OF THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSE SSEE CLAIMS THAT INTEREST COMPONENT HAS BEEN ADDED TO THE STOCK IN TRADE IN C ONSONANCE WITH ACCOUNTING STANDARD 2 (VALUATION OF INVENTORIES) AN D ACCOUNTING STANDARD 16 (BORROWING COST).ACCOUNTING STANDARD 16 EXPLAINS HO W BORROWING COSTS ARE RECOGNIZED IN THE CASE OF A QUALIFYING ASSET AS UND ER : 6. BORROWING COSTS THAT ARE DIRECTLY ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE ACQUISITION, CONSTRUCTION OR PRODUCTION OF A QUALIFYING ASSET SHOULD BE CAPIT ALISED AS PART OF THE COST OF THAT ASSET. THE AMOUNT OF BORROWING COSTS ELIGIBLE FOR CAPITALISATION SHOULD BE DETERMINED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS STANDARD. OTHER BORROWING COSTS SHOULD BE RECOGNISED AS AN EXPENSE IN THE PERIOD IN WHICH THE Y ARE INCURRED. :-6-: ITA NOS. 2084, 2085 & 2086/CHNY/2016 6.1 THUS, ACCOUNTING STANDARD AS 16 CLEARLY STATES THAT ONLY THOSE BORROWING COSTS THAT ARE NOT CAPITALIZED SHALL ONLY BE RECOGNISED AS AN EXPENSE FOR THE PERIOD IN WHICH THEY ARE INCURRED. THUS, THE ASSESSEE HAS CAPITALIZED THE INTEREST EXPENDITURE IN ACCORDANCE THE ACCOUNTING STANDARDS AND ARRIVED ITS TRUE INCOME IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT . HOWEVER, IN THE MEMO OF COMPUTATION OF INCOME, IT HAS GONE TOTALLY AGAINST THE LETTER AND SPIRIT OF THE ACCOUNTING STANDARD 16. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEES C LAIM IS NEITHER IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ACCOUNTING STANDARDS NOR WITH T HE STATUTORY PROVISIONS OF THE INCOME TAX ACT AND HENCE , THE DR PLEADED THAT THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES BE UPHELD . 7. WE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND GONE THROUGH RELEVANT MATERIAL. THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE NOTES TO THE ACCOUNTS FOR THE YEAR ENDED , 31 ST MARCH, 2007&31 ST MARCH, 2010 ARE EXTRACTED AS UNDER : SCHEDULE 13 NAME TO THE ACCOUNTS FOR THE YEAR ENDED 31 ST MARCH, 2007 SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES (A) BASIS OF ACCOUNTING THE ACCOUNTS HAVE BEEN PREPARED TO COMPLY IN ALL MA TERIAL ASPECTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH APPLICABLE ACCOUNTING PRINCIPLES IN INDIA, THE ACCOUNTING STANDARDS ISSUED BY THE INSTITUTE OF CHARTERED ACCO UNTANTS OF INDIA AND RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF THE INDIAN COMPANIES ACT, 19 56. (B) REVENUE RECOGNITION :-7-: ITA NOS. 2084, 2085 & 2086/CHNY/2016 A. LAND LEASE PREMIUM IS RECOGNISED AS INCOME UPON CREATION OF LEASEHOLD RIGHTS IN FAVOUR OF THE LESSEE OR UPON AN AGREEMENT TO CREATE LEASEHOLD RIGHTS WITH HANDING OVER POSSESSION. B. INCOME FROM OPERATION & MAINTENANCE CHARGES AND WATER CHARGES ARE RECOGNISED ON AN ACCRUAL BASIS AS PER TERMS OF THE AGREEMENT WITH THE LESSEES .. .. (F) INVENTORIES INVENTORIES ARE VALUED AT LOWER OF COST AND NET REA LISABLE VALUE. COST REPRESENTS COST OF LAND AND ALL EXPENDITURE INCURRE D IN CONNECTION WITH, OR ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE PROJECT, AND, BEING A LONG-TERM PROJECT, INCLUDES INTEREST. . 7. THE COST OF LAND AND RELATED DEVELOPMENT EXPENDI TURE IS DISCLOSED AS WORK-IN-PROGRESS AS THE COMPANY EXPECTS TO INCUR FU RTHER COSTS ON LAND AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT. 8. THE COMPANY IS IN THE BUSINESS OF LAND DEVELOPME NT FOR INDUSTRIAL, COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL USE. THE COMPANY ACQUIRE S LAND AND INCURS EXPENDITURE ON ITS DEVELOPMENT AND RELATED INFRASTR UCTURE FACILITIES FOR LEASE/SALE. SCHEDULE 14 NOTES TO THE ACCOUNTS FOR THE YEAR ENDED MARCH 31, 2010 1. SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES (A) BASIS OF ACCOUNTING THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS HAVE BEEN PREPARED UNDER T HE HISTORICAL COST CONVENTION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ACCOUNTING PRINCI PLES GENERALLY ACCEPTED IN INDIA AND COMPLY WITH THE MANDATORY ACCOUNTING STAN DARDS NOTIFIED BY THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT OF INDIA UNDER THE COMPANIES (ACCOUNTING STANDARDS) RULES, 2006 AND WITH THE REL EVANT PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956. (B) REVENUE RECOGNITION :-8-: ITA NOS. 2084, 2085 & 2086/CHNY/2016 A. LAND LEASE PREMIUM IS RECOGNISED AS INCOME UPON CREATION OF LEASEHOLD RIGHTS IN FAVOUR OF THE LESSEE OR UPON AN AGREEMENT TO CREATE LEASEHOLD RIGHTS WITH HANDING OVER OF POSSESSION. B. PROPERTY LEASE RENTALS, INCOME FROM OPERATION & MAINTENANCE CHARGES AND WATER CHARGES ARE RECOGNISED ON AN ACCRUAL BASIS AS PER TERMS OF THE AGREEMENT WITH THE LESSEES. .. (G) INVENTORIES INVENTORIES ARE VALUED AT LOWER OF COST AND NET REA LISABLE VALUE. COST REPRESENTS COST OF LAND AND ALL EXPENDITURE INCURRE D IN CONNECTION WITH, OR ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE PROJECT, AND, BEING A LONG-TERM PROJECT, INCLUDES INTEREST. 7. THE COST OF LAND AND RELATED DEVELOPMENT EXPENDI TURE IS DISCLOSED AS WORK-IN-PROGRESS AS THE COMPANY EXPECTS TO INCUR FU RTHER COSTS ON LAND AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT. 8. THE COMPANY IS IN THE BUSINESS OF LAND DEVELOPME NT FOR INDUSTRIAL, COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL USE. THE COMPANY ACQUIRE S LAND AND INCURS EXPENDITURE ON ITS DEVELOPMENT AND RELATED INFRASTR UCTURE FACILITIES FOR LEASE/SALE. THE COMPANY ALSO MAINTAINS THE INDUSTRI AL PARK FOR WHICH IT COLLECTS CREATION AND MAINTENANCE CHARGES FROM THE LESSEES. DURING THE YEAR, THE COMPANY HAS LEASED 16.082 (PREVIOUS YEAR 91.140) AC RES OF LAND ON LONG TERM BASIS. .. 7.1 SIMILAR NOTES ARE THERE FOR THE OTHER ASSESSME NT YEARS ALSO. FOR THE PERIODS RELEVANT TO A YS 2007-08, 2011-12 & 2012-13 , A .F . FERGUSON & CO , CAS HAVE CERTIFIED THAT THE BALANCE SHEET , PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT AND CASH FLOW STATEMENT DEALT WITH BY THEIR REPORTS GIVE A TRUE AND FAIR VIEW IN CONFORMITY WITH THE APPLICABLE ACCOUNTING PRINCIPLE S IN INDIA, THE ACCOUNTING STANDARDS ISSUED BY THE INSTITUTE OF CHARTERED ACCO UNTANTS OF INDIA AND :-9-: ITA NOS. 2084, 2085 & 2086/CHNY/2016 RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF THE INDIAN COMPANIES ACT, 19 56 .FOR THE PERIOD RELEVANT TO A Y 2010-11, DELOITTE HASKINS & SELLS, CAS HAVE CERTIFIED SIMILARLY. 7.2 FROM THE ABOVE, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE IS IN THE BUSINESS OF LAND DEVELOPMENT FOR INDUSTRIAL, COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENT IAL USE. IT ACQUIRED LAND AND INCURS EXPENDITURE ON ITS DEVELOPMENT AND RELAT ED INFRASTRUCTURE FACILITIES FOR LEASE. THE COST OF LAND AND RELATED DEVELOPMENT EXPENDITURE IS DISCLOSED AS WORK-IN-PROGRESS AS THE COMPANY EXPECTS TO INCUR FURTHER COSTS ON LAND AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT. THUS, THE ASSESSEE CAPITALIZED THE INTEREST EXPENDITURE INCURRED ON THE LOAN RAISED AND UTILIZE D TOWARDS PURCHASE OF LAND IN NH5 & PHASE V PROJECTS, BEING LONG TERM PROJECT S, FROM THE PERIOD RELEVANT TO A Y 2007-08 ONWARDS IT IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT IN ACCORDANCE WITH APPLICABLE ACCOUNTING PRINCIPLES IN INDIA, THE ACCO UNTING STANDARDS ISSUED BY THE INSTITUTE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS OF INDIA AND RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF THE INDIAN COMPANIES ACT, 1956 AS IT HAS NOT RECEIVED ANY INCOME FROM THESE PROJECTS DURING THE IMPUGNED A YS. THE MOST IMPORT ANT ASPECT IS THAT THE IMPUGNED PROJECT IS STILL IN PROJECT STAGE DURING T HE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEARS AND HENCE THIS BUSINESS IS YET TO COMMENCE IT S OPERATIONS. FURTHER, IT HAS NOT CLAIMED SUCH INTEREST AS AN EXPENDITURE IN A YS 2007-08 & 2008- 09. HOWEVER, FOR A YS 2010-11ONWARDS, IT IS CLAIMIN G SUCH INTEREST EXPENDITURE THAT TOO, IN THE COMPUTATION MEMO, IE OUTSIDE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THE LOWER AUTHORITIES REJECTED THE AS SESSEES CLAIM, AS IT IS NEITHER IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ACCOUNTING STANDARDS NOR WITH THE STATUTORY :-10-: ITA NOS. 2084, 2085 & 2086/CHNY/2016 PROVISIONS OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. THE ASSESSEE CHA LLENGES IT. LET US EXAMINE THIS CLAIM AS UNDER 7.3 THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT DECISION IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX - IV, NEW DELHI. VS INSILCO LIMITED. 320 ITR 322 (DEL) IS EXTRACTED AS UNDER: 16.5 IT IS TO BE NOTED THAT THESE ACCOUNTING STAND ARDS ARE MANDATORY IN NATURE AND APPLIED TO ACCOUNTS PREPARED AFTER 1-4-1999. IN THAT SENSE THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE HAS TO BE ACCEPTED THAT THE CHANGE IN THE ACCOUNTING POLICY HAD BEEN BROUGHT ABOUT BY VIRTUE OF THE ISSUANCE OF THE REVISED ACCOUNTING STANDARDS ISSUED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE ICAI, WHICH WAS, APPLI CABLE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. FURTHERMORE, THE PROVISIONS OF SUB-SECTIONS (3A), (3B) AND (3C) OF SECTION 211 OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956, CLE ARLY PROVIDE THAT EVERY PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT AND BALANCE SHEET OF A COMPANY SHA LL COMPLY WITH THE ACCOUNTING STANDARDS PRESCRIBED. WHERE THE ACCOUNTS OF THE COMPANY DO NOT COMPLY WITH THE ACCOUNTING STANDARDS IT IS REQUIRED TO DISCLOSE IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT AND THE BALANCE SHEET: (A) THE DEVIATI ON FROM THE ACCOUNTING STANDARDS; (B) THE REASONS FOR SUCH DEVIATION; AND (C) THE FINANCIAL EFFECT, IF ANY, ARISING, DUE TO SUCH DEVIATION. WHAT IS IMPORTANT I S THAT; SUB-SECTION (3) OF SECTION 211 PROVIDES THAT UNTIL THE CENTRAL GOVERNM ENT PRESCRIBES AN ACCOUNTING STANDARD IN CONSULTATION WITH THE NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE AS SET UP UNDER SECTION 210A OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 PURSUANT TO A RECOMMENDATION OF THE ICAI; THE ACCOUNTING STANDARD ISSUED BY THE ICAI SH ALL PREVAIL. THEREFORE, WE HAVE NO DIFFICULTY IN ACCEPTING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT IT WAS OBLIGED TO CAPITALIZE THE ENTI RE COST OF SPARES IN CONSONANCE WITH THE MANDATORY PROVISIONS OF ACCOUNTING STANDAR DS (AS) 2 AND (AS) 10. 16.6 IT IS NOT DISPUTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS MAINTA INING THE ACCOUNTS BASED ON A MERCANTILE SYSTEM. UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 145 OF THE ACT THE ASSESSEE'S INCOME WHICH IS CHARGEABLE UNDER THE HEAD 'PROFITS AND GAINS OF BUSINESS OR PROFESSION' IS REQUIRED TO BE COMPUTED IN ACCORDANC E WITH EITHER CASH OR MERCANTILE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING REGULARLY EMPLOYED BY THE ASSESSEE. :-11-: ITA NOS. 2084, 2085 & 2086/CHNY/2016 16.7 AS INDICATED ABOVE THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN MAINT AINING A MERCANTILE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING, THEREFORE, THE TREATMENT OF EMERGENC Y SPARES IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REVISED ACCOUNTING STANDARDS (AS) 2 AND (AS) 10 WOULD BE IN CONSONANCE WITH THE MERCANTILE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING WHICH UNDE R THE ACT THE REVENUE IS REQUIRED TO LOOK AT FOR COMPUTING INCOME OF THE ASS ESSEE-CHARGEABLE UNDER THE HEAD 'PROFITS AND GAINS' FROM BUSINESS. THE SUBMISS ION OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE REVENUE THAT THE ACCOUNTING TREATMENT TO BE METED OUT TO A TRANSACTION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ACCOUNTING STANDARD HAS NO R ELEVANCE FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 IS A SUBMISSION WHICH DOES NOT COMMEND TO US. 16.8 IN THE PAST, COURTS HAVE APPLIED RULES AND PRI NCIPLES OF ACCOUNTANCY WHERE WORDS AND EXPRESSIONS USED IN THE ACT HAVE NOT BEEN GIVEN A DEFINITIVE MEANING. THE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CHALLAPALLI SUGARS LTD. V. CIT [1975] 98 ITR 167 WAS CALLED UPON TO INTERPRET THE MEANING OF THE EXPRESSION 'ACTUAL COST' FOR THE PURPOSES OF DETERMINING THE JUSTIFIABILITY OF T HE ASSESSEE'S CLAIM FOR DEPRECIATION AND DEVELOPMENT REBATE UNDER THE INDIA N INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. THE ASSESSEE SOUGHT TO INCLUDE IN THE COST OF ASSET THE INTEREST PAID BY IT FOR THE PERIOD PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF BUSINESS ON BORROWI NGS TAKEN UP BY IT. THE SUPREME COURT IN COMING TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE ASSESSEE'S STAND WAS CORRECT RESORTED TO THE RULES OF ACCOUNTANCY PREVAILING IN THE INDUSTRY. IN THIS CONTEXT THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT BEING A PPOSITE ARE EXTRACTED BELOW:- 'IN FINDING THE ANSWER TO THE QUESTION MENTIONED AB OVE, WE HAVE TO BEAR IN MIND THAT IT ARISES IN THE CONTEXT OF PROFITS OR GA INS OF BUSINESS AND THE PERMISSIBLE DEDUCTIONS ON ACCOUNT OF DEPRECIATION A ND DEVELOPMENT REBATE RELATING TO THE MACHINERY AND PLANT OF THE ASSESSEE . AS THE EXPRESSION 'ACTUAL COST' HAS NOT BEEN DEFINED, IT SHOULD, IN OUR OPINI ON, BE CONSTRUED IN THE SENSE WHICH NO COMMERCIAL MAN WOULD MISUNDERSTAND. FOR TH IS PURPOSE, IT WOULD BE NECESSARY TO ASCERTAIN THE CONNOTATION OF THE ABOVE EXPRESSION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE NORMAL RULES OF ACCOUNTANCY PREVAILING IN COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY.... IT WOULD APPEAR FROM THE ABOVE THAT THE ACCEPTED AC COUNTANCY RULE FOR DETERMINING THE COST OF FIXED ASSETS IS TO INCLUDE ALL EXPENDITURE NECESSARY TO BRING SUCH ASSETS INTO EXISTENCE AND TO PUT THEM IN WORKING CONDITION. IN CASE MONEY IS BORROWED BY NEWLY STARTED COMPANY WHICH IS IN THE PROCESS OF CONSTRUCTING AND ERECTING ITS PLANT, THE INTEREST I NCURRED BEFORE THE COMMENCEMENT OF PRODUCTION ON SUCH BORROWED MONEY C AN BE CAPITALIZED AND :-12-: ITA NOS. 2084, 2085 & 2086/CHNY/2016 ADDED TO THE COST OF THE FIXED ASSETS WHICH HAVE BE EN CREATED AS A RESULT OF SUCH EXPENDITURE. THE ABOVE RULE OF ACCOUNTANCY SHOULD, IN OUR VIEW, BE ADOPTED FOR DETERMINING THE ACTUAL COST OF THE ASSETS IN THE AB SENCE OF ANY STATUTORY DEFINITION OR OTHER INDICATION TO THE CONTRARY.' 16.9 THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE REVENUE RELIED UPO N THE JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF TUTICORIN ALKALI CHEMI CALS & FERTILIZERS LTD. V. CIT [1997] 227 ITR 172 TO BUTTRESS HER SUBMISSION THAT ACCOUNTANCY PRINCIPLES CANNOT OVERRIDE THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. THIS PRO POSITION IS UNASSAILABLE. ONE CANNOT TAKE RESORT TO A PRINCIPLE OR RULE OF AC COUNTANCY WHEN THE ACT PROVIDES SPECIFICALLY FOR THE SITUATION AT HAND. BU T WHEN THE SITUATION IS ONE WHERE THERE IS NO DEFINITIVE PROVISION, A COURT CAN TAKE RESORT TO WELL ACCEPTED ACCOUNTANCY RULES AND PRINCIPLES. THE SUPREME COURT IN TUTICORIN ALKALI CHEMICALS & FERTILIZERS LTD.'S CASE HAS NOT DEROGAT ED FROM THIS PRINCIPLE ENUNCIATED IN CHALLAPALLI SUGARS LTD.'S CASE. SEE O BSERVATION IN TUTICORIN ALKALI CHEMICALS & FERTILIZERS LTD.'S CASE AT PAGES 183-18 6, IN PARTICULAR, OBSERVATIONS AT PAGE 185(H) TO PAGE 186(D). 16.10 THE APPLICABILITY OF THE PRINCIPLES OF ACCOUN TANCY BY THE COURTS HAS ALSO FOUND FAVOUR IN THE JUDGMENTS OF THE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASES OF CIT V. INDO NIPPON CHEMICALS CO. LTD. [2003] 261 ITR 275 AT PAG E 277 (D-E) & CIT V. U.P STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPN. [1997] 225 ITR 703 AND ALSO THE JUDGMENT OF A DIVISION BENCH OF THIS COURT IN CIT V. WOODWAR D GOVERNOR INDIA (P) LTD. [2007] 294 ITR 451 AT PAGES 463-464. THE OBSERVATIO NS OF UPSIDC BEING APPOSITE ARE EXTRACTED HEREINBELOW:- 'IN OUR OPINION, THIS CONTENTION IS DEVOID OF FORCE . THE ACCOUNTING PRACTICE FOLLOWED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE INSTANT CASE WAS IN CONSONANCE WITH THE GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF ACCOUNTANCY GOVERNING UNDERWRITING AC COUNTS. IT IS A WELLACCEPTED PROPOSITION THAT FOR THE PURPOSES OF ASCERTAINING P ROFITS AND GAINS THE ORDINARY PRINCIPLES OF COMMERCIAL ACCOUNTING SHOULD BE APPLI ED, SO LONG AS THEY DO NOT CONFLICT WITH ANY EXPRESS PROVISION OF THE RELEVANT STATUTES. [WHIMSTER & CO. V. COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE [1925] 12 TC 813 (C. SESS); COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE V. COCK RUSELL & CO. LTD [1949] 29 T C 387 (KB). THIS PROPOSITION HAS BEEN AFFIRMED BY THIS COURT IN P.M. MOHAMED MEE RAKHAN V. CIT [1969] 73 ITR735. IN THE SAID CASE IT HAS BEEN OBSERVED: 'FOR THAT PURPOSE IT WAS THE DUTY OF THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER TO FIND OUT WHAT PROFIT THE BUSINESS HAS MADE ACCORDING TO THE TRUE ACCOUNT ANCY PRACTICE.'' :-13-: ITA NOS. 2084, 2085 & 2086/CHNY/2016 7.4. IF WE APPLY THE ABOVE RATIOS TO THE FACTS OF T HIS CASE, AS DISCUSSED , SUPRA, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE ACCOUNTING PRACTICE FO LLOWED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT , ARE IN CONSONANCE WITH THE GE NERAL PRINCIPLES OF ACCOUNTANCY AS CERTIFIED BY THEIR AUDITORS AND TH E BOOK RESULTS WERE ALSO CERTIFIED TO GIVE A TRUE AND FAIR VIEW IN CONFORMIT Y WITH THE APPLICABLE ACCOUNTING PRINCIPLES IN INDIA, THE ACCOUNTING STAN DARDS ISSUED BY THE INSTITUTE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS OF INDIA AND REL EVANT PROVISIONS OF THE INDIAN COMPANIES ACT, 1956. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT MADE OUT A CASE. THE LOWER AUTHORITIES ARE CORRECT IN NOT DIST URBING THE BOOK RESULTS AND IN REJECTING THE ASSESSEES CLAIM THROUGH THE INC OME COMPUTATION MEMO FOR THE PURPOSES OF TAX PAYMENT. THUS, THE CORRESPONDIN G GROUNDS OF THE ASSESSEE FAIL. 7.5 THE ABOVE ISSUE CAN BE EXAMINED FROM ANOTHER AN GLE ALSO. THE ASSESSEE IS NOT CLEAR AS TO WHETHER THE IMP UGNED PROJECTS WOULD BE LEASED OR SOLD. IN THE EXISTING BUSINESS, T HE ASSESSEE IS ADMITTING INCOME FROM LEASE OF LAND AND PROPERTIES CONSTRUCTE D THEREON ONLY. IT IS SEEN FROM THE MATERIALS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT IT HAS EARNED INCOME FROM A SINGLE SEGMENT, NAMELY, LEASE OF LAND AND PROPERTIES CONSTRUCTED THEREON TILL THE END OF A Y 2015-16. FROM THIS IE FROM TH E ASSESSEES CONDUCT , IT IS CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS TREATED SUCH EXPENDITURE AS CAPITAL :-14-: ITA NOS. 2084, 2085 & 2086/CHNY/2016 IN NATURE AND TREATED ACCORDINGLY IN ITS BOOKS OF A CCOUNT WHICH ARE CONSONANCE WITH THE GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF ACCOUNTAN CY AS CERTIFIED BY THEIR AUDITORS AND THE BOOK RESULTS WERE ALSO CERTIFIED TO GIVE A TRUE AND FAIR VIEW IN CONFORMITY WITH THE APPLICABLE ACCOUNTING PRINCI PLES IN INDIA, THE ACCOUNTING STANDARDS ISSUED BY THE INSTITUTE OF CHA RTERED ACCOUNTANTS OF INDIA AND RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF THE INDIAN COMPANI ES ACT, 1956. THE ASSESSEE HAS CAPITALIZED THE INTEREST PORTION RELA TED TO THE IMPUGNED PROJECTS DURING THE PERIOD IN AYS 2008-09 & 2009-2010 IN ITS BOOKS BUT DID NOT CLAIM SUCH INTEREST IN THE INCOME COMPUTED FOR THE PURPOS ES OF TAX PAYMENT FOR THESE ASSESSMENT YEARS. FOR PERIOD RELEVANT TO ASSE SSMENT YEARS 2010-11 TO 2012-13, THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS CAPITALIZED THE INTEREST PORTION RELATED TO THE IMPUGNED PROJECTS IN ITS BOOKS, IT CLAIMED THEM AS AN EXPENDITURE THROUGH THE INCOME COMPUTATION MEMO FOR THE PURPOSES OF TAX PAYMENT. DURING THE PERIOD RELEVANT TO AY 2012-13, IT REVERSED INTEREST OF RS.85,08,080/- ALSO IN THE INCOME COMPUTATION MEMO FOR THE PURPOSES OF TAX PAYMENT. WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS EARNED INCOME FROM A SINGLE SEG MENT, NAMELY, LEASE OF LAND AND PROPERTIES CONSTRUCTED THEREON TILL THE END OF A Y 2015-16, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE IMPUGNED INVESTMENTS ARE STILL IN PR OJECT STAGE. THEREFORE, IT IS NOT KNOWN AS TO ON WHAT BASIS THE ASSESSEE HAS UNDERTAKEN ALL THESE CHANGES IN THESE ASSESSMENT YEARS THAT TOO IN THE INCOME COMPUTATION MEMO FOR THE PURPOSES OF TAX PAYMENT WHICH IS OUTSI DE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. THUS, WHEN THE ENTIRE FACTS AND CIRCUMST ANCES OF THIS CASE ARE :-15-: ITA NOS. 2084, 2085 & 2086/CHNY/2016 CONSIDERED IN ITS TOTALITY, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE IM PUGNED EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE IS IN CAPITAL IN NATURE. THE ACCOUNTIN G PRACTICE FOLLOWED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, ARE IN CONSONANCE WITH THE GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF ACCOUNTANCY AS CERTIFIED BY THEIR AUDITORS AN D THE BOOK RESULTS WERE ALSO CERTIFIED TO GIVE A TRUE AND FAIR VIEW IN CONFORMIT Y WITH THE APPLICABLE ACCOUNTING PRINCIPLES IN INDIA, THE ACCOUNTING STAN DARDS ISSUED BY THE INSTITUTE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS OF INDIA AND REL EVANT PROVISIONS OF THE INDIAN COMPANIES ACT, 1956 ARE ALSO IN ACCORDANCE WITH PROVISIONS OF ACT READ WITH SECTION 36 (1) (III). THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT MADE OUT A CASE IN THESE APPEALS . HENCE, THE LOWER AUTHORITIES ARE CORRECT IN THEIR DECISIONS THAT THE ASSESSEE S CLAIM THROUGH THE INCOME COMPUTATION MEMO, IS NEITHER IN ACCORDANCE WITH TH E ACCOUNTING STANDARDS NOR WITH THE STATUTORY PROVISIONS OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. THEREFORE, THE CORRESPONDING GROUNDS OF THE ASSESSEE FAIL FO R ALL THESE ASSESSMENT YEARS. 7.6 SINCE, THE ASSESSEES CLAIM IS REJECTED FOR TH ESE A YS, THE INCOME, IF ANY, ADMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THESE ASSESSM ENT YEARS OR IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEARS ON REVERSAL OF INTEREST CLAIMED AS DEDUCTION IN THE IMPUGNED YEARS IN THE MEMO OF COMPUTATION OF INCOME , ON DUE VERIFICATION, BE NOT CHARGED TO TAX. :-16-: ITA NOS. 2084, 2085 & 2086/CHNY/2016 8. THE NEXT ISSUE IS , IN THE ASSESSMENT MADE FOR A Y 2011-12, THE AO FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD INVESTED RS. 13 CRORES IN MAHINDRA INTEGRATED TOWNSHIP LTD WHICH IS ITS SUBSIDIARY. ON DUE EXAMIN ATION, THE AO HELD THAT THE RETURN ON SUCH INVESTMENTS CAN ONLY BE DIVIDEND S WHICH ARE NOT TAXABLE AND THEREFORE HE ARRIVED THE EXPENSES PERTAINING TO SUCH INVESTMENTS U/S 14A RW R 8D (III) AT RS.6,56,750/- AND ADDED TO THE R ETURNED INCOME. ON APPEAL, THE LD. CIT (A), FOLLOWING THE DECISIONS OF THE HON BLE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY IN THE CASE OF GODREJ & BOYCE MFG. CO. LTD (328 ITR 81 BOM) AND THE JURISDICTIONAL BENCH OF THE HONBLE ITAT IN THE CAS E OF ACIT VS. SUN TV NETWORKS LIMITED (IN ITA NOS 1515 TO 1520/ MDS/2013 DT 31.10.2013), CONFIRMED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICE R. 8.1 IN THIS REGARD, THE LD AR SUBMITTED THAT DURING AY 2011-12, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT MADE ANY FRESH INVESTMENTS THROUGH WHICH EXEMPT INCOME MAY BE EARNED. THE INVESTMENTS WERE BALANCES CARRIE D FORWARD FROM PREVIOUS YEARS. THE SAID INVESTMENTS WERE MADE DURING THE FY 2006-07 TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 12,98,70,000 AND RS. 27,30,000 IN PREVIOUS Y EARS. THE PREVIOUS YEARS IN WHICH THE INVESTMENTS WERE MADE THROUGH OWN FUND S AS IT IS EVIDENT FROM THE BALANCE SHEET OF THE CONCERNED YEAR THAT THE AS SESSEE HAD ONLY RS.1 CRORE LOANS VIS A VIS THE INVESTMENTS OF RS.12.99 CRORES MADE DURING THE FY 2006- 07. THE INVESTMENTS WERE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IT ITS RELATED NAMELY MAHINDRA INTEGRATED TOWNSHIP LTD., WHICH IS ALSO LO CATED INSIDE MAHINDRA :-17-: ITA NOS. 2084, 2085 & 2086/CHNY/2016 WORLD CITY. THE PRIMARY OBJECT OF INVESTMENT IS HO LDING CONTROLLING STAKE IN THE GROUP CONCERN AND NOT EARNING ANY INCOME OUT OF INVESTMENT. THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY INCURRED AN Y EXPENDITURE TO EARN EXEMPT INCOME. WHEN INVESTMENTS ITSELF IS NOT MADE IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, NO EXPENDITURE CAN BE DISALLOWED UND ER SECTION 14A. APPLICATION OF RULE 8D IS NOT WARRANTED WHEN SECTIO N 14A IS NOT APPLICABLE. PER CONTRA, THE LD. DR SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. 9. WE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. IN SUPPORT OF I TS CLAIM, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED A CASH FLOW STATEMENT FOR FY 2006-07 WHIC H WAS NOT FILED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). FURTHER, SOME OF THE PLEA TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US, LIKE THE INVESTMENT MADE WAS FOR CONTROLLING INTERE ST ETC., WAS NOT TAKEN BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. IN THE FACTS AND CIR CUMSTANCES, WE DEEM IT FIT TO REMIT THIS ISSUES BACK TO THE AO FOR A FRESH EXAMIN ATION. THE ASSESSEE SHALL PLACE ALL THE MATERIALS IN ITS SUPPORT BEFORE THE A O AND COMPLY TO THE AOS REQUIREMENTS AS PER LAW. THE A O IS FREE TO CONDUCT APPROPRIATE ENQUIRY AS DEEMED FIT, BUT HE SHALL FURNISH ADEQUATE OPPORTU NITY TO THE ASSESSSEE ON THE MATERIAL ETC TO BE USED AGAINST IT AND DECIDE THE MATTER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. IN THE RESULT, THE CORRESPONDING GROUNDS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE TREATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. :-18-: ITA NOS. 2084, 2085 & 2086/CHNY/2016 10. IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEES APPEALS FOR AYS 2 010-11 & 2012-13 ARE DISMISSED. THE APPEAL RELATED TO AY 2011-12 IS TRE ATED AS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON WEDNESDAY, THE 27 TH DAY OF JUNE, 2018 AT CHENNAI. SD/- ( . . . ) (N.R.S. GANESAN) /JUDICIAL MEMBER SD/- ( ) (S. JAYARAMAN) /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /CHENNAI, * /DATED: 27 TH JUNE , 2018 JPV %+,-.- /COPY TO: 1. 0 /APPELLANT 2. +10 /RESPONDENT 3. 2 ) (/CIT(A) 4. 2 /CIT 5. -+ /DR 6. 5 /GF